Durability Design – The Indian

Scenario

Manu Santhanam
Department of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras

1-day Workshop on “Achieving Durable Concrete Construction Through Performance Testing

 Durability of concrete
• Primary issues
- Corrosion of rebars
- Chemical attack
- ASR / DEF
• Multiple transport mechanisms involved
• Typically countered by choice of material and
mix design
• Rarely checked in the specimens / structure
 Conventional durability design
• Durability = fn (Compressive Strength)
• Cement type, binder content and w/c
prescribed for durable concrete
• Cover specified for service environment
(seldom actually checked on site!)

But research / field experience shows this does

not necessarily work!
Example: Prescriptive requirements on
materials in IS 456 : 2000
 DURABILITY

THE CONCRETE AGGRESSIVENESS

SYSTEM OF THE
ENVIRONMENT

MATERIALS PROCESS PHYSICAL CHEMICAL

•Binder type •Mixing •Abrasion •Dissolution
•Binder content •Transporting •Erosion •Leaching
•Aggregates •Compaction •Cavitation •Expansion
•Admixture •Curing •Freeze-thaw •Alteration
•Mix design •Temperature
•Workmanship
Specification issues! Ballim, 2008
 Approaches for durability design

Prescriptive Approach Performance Approach

Avoidance of Deemed-to-satisfy Based on Through modelling

deterioration Approach performance
based tests and • Design of service
indicators life of structure
• Use of non- • Prescriptive by means of
reactive requirements • Tests are analytical and
materials on materials generally numerical
such as accelerated methods
stainless steel • Followed by • Needs test
or protection present codes • Used to rank methods to verify
systems such concrete the fulfillment of
as coatings qualities the characteristic
values
• Models can be
simple or
complex
International developments on durability design

Cement content and w/c specified to

All-encompassing Prescriptive
achieve a particular strength was believed
Approach to be adequate for durability

Able to link durability and

The National Durability Grade
impermeability
Concept, U.K, 1980’s

The environmental exposure Considers the mechanisms leading to

classification system (EN 206) deterioration of concrete

Deterioration Specific Prescriptive Durability is specified by putting

Approach limiting values of concrete composition

Involves consideration of relevant

Durability design method and
deterioration mechanisms and estimation
Performance Testing of expected service life of the structure
(Richardson, 2002)
Indian codes and specifications for concrete
design

– IS 456-2000 code of practice for concrete construction

in India
– Indian Railway Standard IRS 1997
– Code of practice for concrete road bridges IRC 112-2011
– MOST or MoRTH (Ministry of Surface Transport or
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) specification
– Guidelines for the use of HPC in bridges
– Metro rail specification of Chennai, Hyderabad and
Kolkata
– Four laning and two laning projects of national highways

Dhanya and Santhanam, 2013

 IS-456
• 5 general exposure environments – Mild, Moderate, Severe, Very
Severe and Extreme
• Limits on minimum cement content, maximum water cement ratio
and minimum grade of concrete for different exposures
• Limits of chloride and sulphate content of concrete
• Nominal cover to concrete based on exposure condition
• Specific durability issues addressed : Abrasive action, freezing and
thawing, exposure to sulphate attack, ASR, presence of chlorides
and sulphates, concreting in seawater and aggressive soils
• Inspection and testing: Compressive strength test
• NDT to assess properties of concrete in structures: Ultrasonic Pulse
Velocity, Rebound hammer, Probe penetration, Pull out and
Maturity tests
No mention of conducting durability tests to
ascertain quality…
Acceptance criteria also strength based
 IRC-112
• Same ‘deemed to satisfy’ approach, but exposure classes modified
• Additional provision for specific mechanism of deterioration such as
corrosion of reinforcement, sulphate attack, alkali-silica reaction and frost
attack
• Anticipated service life of 100 years is specified
• No
For abasis provided
design life for
of 50 years or less,limiting
the minimum values
cover canof
be RCPT
reduced by
5 mm
RCPT may favour only mixes with silica fume /
• Regarding the tests, the code says “there is no specified test method for
high quantities
durability of fly ash
which can be completed / aslag
within (which
reasonably short may
time”
• For HPC, Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (ASTM C 1202) and Water
not evenTest
Permeability be(DINallowed
1048 partin the
5) or project!)
Initial Surface Absorption Test (BS
1881 part 1) can be specified
• Upper limits for total charge passed in RCPT for the exposure conditions
such as severe (1500 Coulombs), very severe (1200 Coulombs) and
extreme (800 Coulombs) conditions are provided.
 Metro specifications
• Codes referred to : relevant IS Code /
MOST/MORTH Specifications
• Automatic weigh batching or RMC
• Again, issueTest
Mandatory is with respect
- Cube to the basis
compressive for
strength
test
providing certain limiting values – what is the
Additional
• link to actualTestperformance?
- Permeability test for Concrete as
per IS: 3085-1965, Section 1716.5 of MOST
Specification and DIN 1048
• Limiting value of water penetration depth when
tested as per DIN is less than 25 mm
 Critical evaluation of clauses regarding durability
in Indian codes and specifications
• Clauses regarding durability in codes are varied and mostly
unrelated to measurable durability parameters
• Specification
- gives reference to different standards
- do not provide information regarding age of testing
and design life
- lack of clarity on limiting values of durability parameters
• Tests specified : Compressive strength test, Water permeability
test (IS: 3085-1965, Section 1716.5 of MOST Specification and DIN
1048), Rapid chloride permeability test, Initial surface absorption
test
• Present exposure classifications do not adequately address the
relevant durability issues Dhanya and Santhanam, 2013
 Lessons learnt

There is clearly a need to have guidelines and

model specification for construction projects
in India regarding concrete durability

Exposure classes need to be made more

relevant – so that deterioration mechanisms
may be identified, and suitable tests used
 Exposure classes – international
developments
• EN206-1:2000
- first to link exposure conditions to deterioration
mechanisms
• BS 8500-1:2006
- prescriptions for 50 and 100 year design life
• ACI 318: 2008
- prescriptive requirements, not as much depth as EN
• AS 3600: 2009
- Good division of coastal environments, as well as
above / below ground

Indian inputs: Kulkarni (2009) and IRC 112

 Examples
EN 206-1 2000
No risk of corrosion or attack: X0
Corrosion induced by carbonation: XC1,
XC2, XC3 and XC4
Corrosion induced by chlorides other than
from sea water: XD1, XD2 and XD3.
Corrosion induced by chlorides from sea
water: XS1, XS2 and XS3.
Freeze / thaw attack with or without de-
icing agents: XF1, XF2, XF3 and XF4.
Chemical attack: XA1, XA2 and XA3.
BS 8500-2006 (50 years design life)
No risk of corrosion or attack: X0
Corrosion induced by carbonation:
XC1, XC2, XC3 and XC4
Corrosion induced by chlorides other
than from sea water: XD1, XD2 and
XD3.
Corrosion induced by chlorides from
sea water: XS1, XS2 and XS3.
Freeze / thaw attack with or without
de-icing agents: XF1, XF2, XF3 and
XF4.
Chemical attack: XA1, XA2 and XA3.
Proposal of a new classification system
for India
• Work done by Saravanan (2011)
• Basis:
- Review of international developments
- Adoption of best practices in Indian
specifications
- Comparative evaluation of international
proposals vis a vis live projects in India
- Prescribe limiting values for different exposure
classes
 Air-borne chloride exposure class
Min. Min.
Min. grade
Distance Exposure Cementitious Max. clear
of Remarks
from coast Classification Content w/cm cover
concrete
(kg/m3) (mm)
Based on CPWD
Up to 10 Specifications
km from D1 M 40 360 0.40 50 (Distance up to 10
coast km to be treated
as coast)
Beyond 10
km and up D2 M 30 320 0.45 40
to 50 km
Based on AS3600
Beyond 50
(Distance beyond
km D3 M 25 300 0.50 30
50 km to be
(Inland)
treated as inland)
 Sea water exposure class
SW1: Concrete completely immersed in sea water
SW2: Concrete in spray / tidal zone

Min.
Exposure Min. grade Cementitious Max. Min. clear
classification of concrete Content w/cm cover (mm)
(kg/m3)
SW1 M 40 360 0.40 50
SW2 M 50 400 0.40 75
 Sulphate exposure class
S0: No risk: SO3<0.2% (soil), <300 ppm (water)
S1: Moderate risk: SO3: 0.2% to 1.0% (soil), 300 to 2500 ppm (water)
S2: Severe risk: SO3>1% (soil), >2500 ppm (water)
S3: Severe risk with magnesium sulphate SO3>1% (soil), >2500 ppm (water)
Min.
Exposure Min. grade Cementitious Max. Min. clear Type of
classification of concrete Content w/cm cover (mm) cement
(kg/m3)
S0 M 25 300 0.50 30 OPC
SRC, PPC,
S1 M 35 340 0.45 40 OPC with slag
or silica fume.
SRC, PPC,
S2 M 50 400 0.40 50 OPC with slag
or silica fume.
S3 M 50 400 0.40 50 SRC, PPC
 Carbonation class
CO: No risk of carbonation (i.e.) concrete which will remain dry during its service life
or concrete permanently submerged in water.
C1: Moderate to high humidity (i.e.) concrete inside buildings with moderate to high
humidity, exposed concrete sheltered from rain.
C2: Cyclic wet and dry (i.e.) concrete exposed to rain and not sheltered.

Min.
Exposure Min. grade Cementitious Min. clear
Max. w/cm
classification of concrete Content cover (mm)
(kg/m3)
C0 M 25 300 0.50 30
C1 M 30 320 0.45 40
C2 M 35 340 0.40 40
 Note about presciptions
• Strength grade – minimum M25
• Binder content inclusive of mineral admixtures
• Cover may be modified: (a) for thin sections,
slabs, fins, (b) when higher grades of concrete
are used, (c) min 50 mm to be maintained in
foundation
• For the future – specify only strength, along
with w/c: requirement on cementitious
content must go!
Thank you…
Overview of research projects at
IIT Madras
Study 1 – 2010-2011

Santhosh George Cheriyan

M Tech project
 Result matrix – Study 1
Replacement Level Compressive RCPT Charge Chloride Sorptivity Oxygen gas
(%) Strength (MPa) Passed Conductivity (mm/√hr) Permeability Index
(Coulombs) (mS/cm)

Control Mix
All mixes 0 44 3210 1.9 11 10.09
Class F Fly ash Mixes
designed with 15 37 2620 1.22 9.75 10.3
310 kg/m3 30 39 1725 1.19 8.42 10.5
50 24 1200 1.17 8.5 10.52
binder and Class C Fly ash Mixes
0.50 w/c; 60 : 15 43 3400 1.81 10.33 10.12
30 41 2650 0.8 8.2 10.3
40 coarse to Class C and Class F Fly ash Mix
fine aggregate 40 (20+20) 37 1700 1.08 8.51 10.42
ratio
Slag A Mixes
15 44 3000 1.2 9.15 10.4
30 46 2580 0.96 8.5 10.66
50 46 780 0.34 8.13 10.73
Slag A and Class F Fly ash Mix
40 (20+20) 36 2090 0.65 9 10.44

Slag A and Class C Fly ash Mix

40 (20+20) 47 1075 0.27 7.97 10.48

Slag B Mix
11 46 3680 1.29 9.83 10.47
 RCPT

As the replacement level increases, the charge passed in RCPT decreases.

For the Class F fly ash the drop in charge passed is significant even at lower
dosages.

Class F fly ash mixes show low charge passed at all replacement levels.
 Chloride Conductivity

Slag A mixes have least chloride conductivity at all replacement levels.

All combination mixes performed well with Slag A and Class C fly ash mix having
the lowest chloride conductivity.

This indicates that a Slag A and Class C fly ash may be a more economical and
durable option in marine condition compared to the use of Slag A alone.
 Oxygen Permeability

Class C and Class F combination mix would be the most economical and durable
combination in chimneys were gaseous permeation is likely to occur.

Also, it will be suitable for regions were carbonation induced corrosion is

prevalent.
 Water Sorptivity

Sorptivity decreases as replacement level increases

No significant difference between the different mineral admixtures at 28th

day.

Fly ash F performs best at 90 days

 How to choose the right blend?

• Ternary combinations not only make the mix

economical but also more environment-
friendly  because fly ash is used
• 40 MPa concrete is more economical with 30%
Class F fly ash rather than with Class C fly ash;
further, it would also possess superior
durability characteristics which will again
decrease the cost by having longer service life.
• Evaluate the benefit to cost ratio!
 Study 2 – 2011-2013

B S Dhanya
PhD Scholar – Currently working
• 2 categories of mixtures
• Commonly used design mixes
– Four groups based on the total binder content
and water binder ratio (280, 0.65; 340, 0.55;
310,0.5 and 310,0.6)
• Design mixes having limiting prescriptive
values
– Concrete mixtures recommended in the IS
456:2000 for different exposure conditions
– Concrete mixtures recommended in the proposal
by Saravanan and Santhanam (2012)
 Sl. No. Mix ID w/b Binder content (kg/m3) Mineral Admixture content

1 LFM2 0.65 280 0

2 LFM9 0.65 280 30% slag A
3 LFM17 0.65 280 30% slag B
4 LFM29 0.65 280 30% Fly ash F
5 LFM4 0.55 340 0
6 LFM12 0.55 340 15% slag A
7 LFM21 0.55 340 15% slag B
8 LFM32 0.55 340 15% Fly ash F
9 LFM42 0.55 340 15% Fly ash C
10 LFM5 0.50 310 0

Category 1: 11 LFM13 0.50 310 15% slag A

12 LFM22 0.50 310 15% slag B
Commonly used 13 LFM23 0.50 310 30% slag B

design mixes 14 LFM24 0.50 310 50% slag B

15 LFM28 0.50 310 20% slag B + 20% fly ash F
16 LFM33 0.50 310 15% Fly ash F
17 LFM34 0.50 310 30% Fly ash F
18 LFM35 0.50 310 50% Fly ash F
19 LFM39 0.50 310 20% slag B + 20% fly ash C
20 LFM40 0.50 310 20% fly ash F + 20% fly ash C
21 LFM43 0.50 310 15% fly ash C
22 LFM44 0.50 310 30% fly ash C
23 LFM46 0.6 310 0
24 LFM10 0.6 310 15% slag A
25 LFM19 0.6 310 15% slag B
26 LFM30 0.6 310 15% Fly ash F
27 LFM41 0.6 310 15% fly ash C
Category 2:
Design mixes having limiting prescriptive values

Sl.No Mix ID w/b Cement

content
(kg/m3)
1 MA1 0.5 300
2 MA2 0.55 300
3 MA3 0.45 320
4 MA4 0.45 340
5 MA5 0.4 340
6 MA6 0.4 360
7 MA7 0.4 400
 Effect of mineral admixtures on concrete
resistivity

120

110
28 days Good • Mineral admixture
mixes have higher
90 days
100

resistivity than OPC

Wenner resistivity (k cm)

90

80 Normal

70
mixes
• Slag with 50%
60

50

40

30
Poor
replacement shows
20 greatest resistivity
10

0
Very poor • Performance of Class C
fly ash is close to OPC
C

C
B

B
PC

F
h

h
ag

ag

ag

h
O

as

as

as

as

as
sl

sl

sl

y
%

Fl

Fl

Fl

Fl

Fl
15

30

50

%
15

30

50

15

30

Wenner resistivity test results on mixes with total binder content of 310 kg/m3
and w/b 0.5
 Effect of curing duration on concrete resistivity
60
• The enhancement of
resistivity is more for mixes
Enhancement of Wenner resistivity

50

with mineral admixtures

from 28 to 90 days (k cm)

compared to OPC
40

30 • Mixes with Fly ash F shows

better enhancement of
20
resistivity as curing increases
10
from 28 to 90 days, followed
by ternary blends with fly
0 ash
A

fly B
50 g B

C
15 PC

C
F
ag

ag

ag

h
h

sh

h
O

as

as

as
as
a

as

as

as
sl

sl

sl
sl

a
%

y
y

F+ fly

fly

fly

fly
%

Fl

Fl
Fl
15

0%

%
30

%
%
20

20
30

50

15

30
15

+2
B+

B
ag

ag

h
as
sl

sl
%

fly
20

20

%
20

Wenner resistivity test results on mixes with total binder content of 310 kg/m3
and w/b 0.5
Effect of mineral admixtures on chloride ion penetrability

• Mineral admixture mixes are

showing low total charge
passed than OPC mixes
• Slag with 50% replacement
shows lowest charge
passed, better chloride
resistance
• Fly ash C perform similar to
OPC at 28 days ; but improves
at 90 days

RCPT results on mixes with total binder content of 310 kg/m3 and w/b 0.5
Effect of mineral admixtures on chloride ion migration

• Mineral admixture mixes

are showing low total
charge passed than OPC
mixes
• Slag with 50%
replacement shows
lowest non-steady state
migration coefficient
• Fly ash C perform similar
to OPC at 28 days ; but
improves at 90 days

ACMT results on mixes with total binder content of 310 kg/m3 and w/b 0.5
 How to use this data?
• Explore correlations between tests
• Use combinations of test parameters for
assessing concrete quality in a specific
environment
- e.g. Concrete submerged in seawater: (i)
Resistivity and (ii) Chloride diffusion
• Strength grade classification – concrete with
mineral admixtures can produce durable
concrete even at low grades
Correlation between Wenner resistivity test and
RCPT
140
130 28 days, no scm
90 days, no scms
120
28 days, class F
110 90 days, class F
Wenner resistivity (k cm)

100
28 days, class C
90 90 days, class C
80
28 days, slag
70 90 days, slag
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Total charge passed (Coulombs)

Similar correlation was seen between Resistivity and ACMT

 Correlation between Wenner resistivity test and
ACMT
ACMT Vs Wenner
140
130
28 days, no scms
120 90 days, no scms
110 28 days, class F
wenner resistivity, k ohm cm

90 days, class F
100
90 28 days, class C
90 days, class C
80
70 28 days, slag
90 days, slag
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 5.0e-12 1.0e-11 1.5e-11 2.0e-11 2.5e-11 3.0e-11 3.5e-11

Non steady state migration coefficient, m2/s

• Wenner indicator of surface resistivity, good indicator of the cover concrete

quality, non-destructive test
• The results points to the fact that Wenner resistivity can be recommended as a good
field test to check durability
Proposal for combined classification criteria
120 28 days
90 days
EXCELLENT

wenner resistivity, k ohm cm

100

80

60

GOOD
40
MODERATE
20

POOR
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Total charge passed, Coulombs

Resistivity Non-steady state
Total charge passed
[from Wenner migration coefficient [from
Category [from RCPT]
Resistivity test] ACMT]
(Coulombs)
(kΩ.cm) (x 10 -12 m2/s)
Excellent > 50 <1000 <8
Good 10-50 1000-2000 8-16
Moderate 10-50 2000-4000 16-24
Poor <10 >4000 >24
 Durability matrix for Wenner Resistivity
Durability class
Strength binder content and replacement
Concrete Values
class Risk of %
resistivity
corrosion
(kΩcm)
<10 high 100%OPC 8.9
moderate
20-30 10-50 30%slag, 30%flyashF, 50%fly ashF 18,32,10.1,47
50-100 low
>100 negligible
<10 high 100%OPC, 15%flyashC 9,11
15%slag,15%flyashF, 30%flyashF,
moderate
31-40 10-50 30%flyashC 12, 16-12,23,13
50-100 low 30%flyash F 69
>100 negligible 50%fly ash F >100
<10 high 100%OPC, 15%flyashC 8-9,11,9
15%slag, 30%slag, 15%flyashF, 15,21,20-26,33, 17,28-
moderate
41-50 10-50 15%flyashC 37,11,17-14
50-100 low 50%slag 85
>100 negligible
<10 high
10-50 moderate 100%OPC, 30%slag 16,39
51-60
50-100 low
>100 negligible 50%slag >100
Reliability of tests
Stage 1: Specimens stored in ideal lab conditions and
tested

Stage 2: Specimens stored in site conditions and tested

in the lab

Stage 3: Mock up beams / panels cast alongside

structure on site; testing on panel, as well as on cores
removed from panel

Stage 4: Tests on the actual site concrete!

 Summary
• Durability design – a real necessity
• Many challenges – what tests to use, how to
use them, what are the implications for
service life
• How do mineral admixtures affect the results

• Long way to go, lot of scope for research!