Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Funding for the work reported here was provided by the Building Research Levy and the Public Good
Science Fund of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology.
ISSN: 0111-7505
1 2
Senior Concrete Engineer. Materials Scientist
Building Research Association of New Zealand _
BRANZ
DURABILITY PREDICTION FOR COASTAL REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURES – MATCHING REALITY AND THEORY
This paper describes the establishment of an exposure site programme, in which a comparison is
made between the ingress of marine chlorides in concretes made with ordinary Portland and
blended cements. Exposure sites were established in both the splash zone and the windblown
marine zone and analysis includes determination of actual and effective chloride diffusion
coefficients up to 18 months of age. Interpretation of the progression of surface chloride profiles
has a significant bearing on prediction of service life, and this is discussed in the light of findings
of other researchers.
KEYWORDS
The blocks were distributed across the exposure Chloride Diffusion Testing
sites according to the severity of exposure and
the cement content (which correlates with the For determination of the Actual Chloride
w/c ratio) as shown in Table Three. Thus, the Diffusion Coefficient, Dac, a thoroughly water-
3
400 kg/m mixes were restricted to the C zone saturated concrete specimen is exposed on a
3
site (Weka Bay), while 325 kg/m were placed at single cut face to water comprising artificial
both C and B2 (Oteranga Bay) sites. This was seawater. After a specified period of time, t
intended to reflect the likely use of these (here 35 days), thin layers of concrete are
concretes in construction. For the same reason, ground off parallel to the exposed face and the
no mixes containing SCM’s were placed on the total chloride content of each layer determined
less exposed Judgeford site because it seemed by X-Ray Fluorescent Spectroscopy (XRF). The
that these materials would not be specified for original (background level) chloride content of
use in a B1 environment. the concrete is measured at a suitable depth
below the exposed surface. The actual chloride
An additional set of blocks were placed on an ion diffusion coefficient, Dac, and the boundary
internal site free of chlorides, with NZS 3101 condition of the chloride profile at the exposed
exposure classification A2 should they be surface, Cs, are then calculated. This is
required. achieved by modelling the chloride
concentration vs. depth profile with Crank’s
nd
Mix Characterisation and Test Methods solution to Fick’s 2 law of diffusion as
described previously.
At the same time as the blocks were cast, sets
of standard test cylinders and shrinkage beams
Rapid Chloride Testing Exposure Block Results
The ‘rapid chloride’ test to ASTM C1202 [13] To date test results are available up to 18
essentially measures the electrical conductivity months exposure.
of concrete. It reflects not only pore tortuosity
and connectivity, which are the important Change in Material Properties
components for durability, but also the
concentration of the pore solution electrolytes. The changes to material properties from
As such, it may give misleading results for characterisation specimens to specimens cut
SCM’s that react with sodium and potassium from the interior of the three, six and, in some
ions. Although it is not a scientifically rigorous cases, 18-month cores are given in Figures 4a
test, it is included because its relative to 4c for compressive strength, sorptivity and
convenience means it is often used as a actual diffusion coefficient Dac. The first result
specifying / quality control test. Thus the results given in every case is from the 56-day old
as such would be a useful reference. characterisation cylinders. Dac was calculated
from the average of three results and the range
Exposure Block Testing of results is given in Figure 4c to give an
indication of the variability within test.
As development of surface chloride profiles is
expected to take some time, particularly for the There is some variability in results over time for
blended cement concretes, enough blocks were particular mixes, which is probably related to
made to enable a pair of identical blocks to be test variability and the fact that the cylinders and
placed at each site. This should cover sampling core samples were produced differently. The
needs well into the future. There is also the cylinders were wet cured for 56 days compared
opportunity for proprietary coatings to be applied to seven days water curing for the blocks. If self
to the blocks to provide comparative desiccation is an issue with the 400 cement
performance, however this has not been mixes, this would have a greater effect on the
initiated yet. cored samples. The microcracking caused
through the coring process itself is known to
The programme shown in Table Six was effect compressive strength, and could also
developed for carrying out a range of tests on have an effect on other properties.
specimens cut from cores taken from the
exposure blocks. 100 mm diameter cores drilled However, to date there appears to be no overall
at right angles to the exposed face are taken trend for change in compressive strength,
from the blocks periodically. Figure Three sorptivity or actual diffusion coefficient over
demonstrates how the specimens are cut from time. This would suggest that ongoing hydration
the cores. is not a significant issue.
The specimens taken from the interior of the Surface Chloride Profiles
blocks for compressive strength, sorptivity and
actual chloride diffusion were used to determine Figure 5 gives the surface chloride profiles for
any changes of these properties with age. Any all the blocks on the C zone site. Comparing the
refinement of the pore structure from ongoing four 400-series mixes, the blended cement
hydration for instance, would be expected to mixes have established their profile at six
have an effect on material properties. months and the profile, particularly at depth, has
not changed significantly thereafter, which
Chloride profiles ground off from the exposed contrasts with the 400GP mix. This effect is not
surface layer of the cores were taken in a similar as apparent for the 325 series mixes.
manner to that used for the actual chloride
diffusion testing. By a curve-fitting exercise There is some correlation when comparing the
applying Fick’s 2nd Law, the surface chloride relativity of the six month profiles and that of the
concentration Cs and the effective chloride sorptivity for the 400-series mixes. Other
diffusion coefficient, Deff can be determined. researchers have concluded that early chloride
ingress is absorption controlled, and in the
longer term is diffusion controlled [8].
The results of the exposure block testing to date
are given in the next section. These are mainly The surface profiles on the other two sites have
shown graphically to allow evaluation of results not developed sufficiently to allow any analysis
with concrete age. to date.
Surface Chloride Levels laboratory test. As previously indicated, the
derivation of Deff and Dac is inherently different.
The surface chloride level and effective diffusion
coefficient are the two environmental and Thus the use of Dac for determining life will
material-related factors respectively which can underestimate the potential life which should be
be applied to Fick’s 2nd Law for predicting based on Deff. This is illustrated in Table Seven
design life. The surface chloride level at the where the potential life of the 400 series mixes
concrete surface is determined by projecting the is compared based on 50 mm cover and 0.4%
chloride profile based on Fick’s 2nd Law back to corrosion threshold. There is some uncertainty
the concrete surface. in assuming these particular values of Deff
however, as discussed in the following section.
Figure 6 gives the surface chloride levels
determined from cores taken at 6, 12 and 18 LIFE PREDICTION FROM RESULTS TO DATE
months at the C zone site. As can be seen, the
surface chloride level has been established in Based on the determination of the surface
the first six months with little consistent change chloride concentration Cs and the effective
with time after that. The surface chloride levels diffusion coefficient Deff, as outlined above,
of the blended cement concretes are generally theoretically Fick’s 2nd Law can be used to
higher than the corresponding GP concretes, determine future chloride ingress and time to
which is consistent with other research [14]. corrosion based on an assumed cover and
chloride threshold level. In doing so however, it
The surface chloride levels at the B2 zone site needs to be assumed that the development in
after six and 18 months are shown in Figure 7. the surface profiles to date, which have
The surface chloride levels are significantly determined Deff, will continue in the same
lower than those from the C zone. However, manner in the future. This cannot be justified
based on the relative increase from 6 to 18 considering the change in chloride ingress from
months, the surface chloride levels are likely to being absorption controlled to diffusion
increase further with time. controlled, as discussed above.
Effective Diffusion Coefficient Deff Based on the short duration of the monitoring
period compared to the design lifetime of 50
The effective chloride diffusion determined from years, we consider it is not appropriate to make
the surface chloride profiles from cores taken at any comparative life predictions between
three ages from the C zone site is shown in individual mix types. However, we can conclude
Figure 8. Apart from the 325 GP and 400 GP that based on the early profiles, the buildup of
results, both of which have increased, the chlorides at depth in the blended cement mixes
effective diffusion coefficients have not changed appears to have stabilised in comparison with
significantly over a 10-month period. the GP cement mixes where the profiles are still
progressing.
This can be explained by the fact that the
absorption characteristics of GP cement SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
concretes and the blended cement concretes
are of similar order (Figure 4b), while the Monitoring of chloride ingress in exposure
chloride diffusion of the blended cement blocks placed in marine conditions has shown
concretes is significantly lower than the that blended cement concretes have improved
corresponding GP cement concretes (Figure resistance to chloride ingress compared to GP
4c). Early chloride ingress is absorption cement concrete.
controlled and in the longer term is diffusion
controlled [8]. Thus the relative ingress of In the splash zone (C zone), peak surface
chloride into the GP cement concretes after the chloride levels were developed six months after
initial absorption stage is higher than the exposure. Typical values for GP concretes were
blended cement concretes. 2% chloride content by weight on cementitious
content and 2.5% – 3% for blended cement
concretes. In the windblown salt zone (B2 zone)
The actual diffusion coefficient from the levels are 1% chloride content by weight on
characterisation cylinders has been included in cementitious content after 18 months and may
the graphs for comparison. In all cases the increase further.
effective diffusion coefficient Deff based on the
exposure block surface profiles is lower, Therefore calculation of design life using a
sometimes significantly so, than the actual constant surface chloride level is appropriate for
diffusion coefficient Dac determined by the splash zone, but not for the windblown salt
zone where the there is a slower buildup of [4] Lee, N. P. and Chisholm, D.H. 1999.
surface chloride. Thoughts on a durability prediction methodology for
concrete in the marine environment. Journal of the
nd
When using Fick’s 2 law to estimate chloride Australasian Ceramic Society 35(1-2): 69
diffusion coefficients and design life, Dac based [5] Freitag S. ‘Supplementary Cementitious
on the non-steady state immersion test, has to Materials’ Central Laboratories Report: 00 –
be adjusted otherwise life will be 524159.00, Opus International Consultants,
underestimated [15]. The adjustment factors August 2000.
that need to be applied are dependent on the [6] Crank J., ‘The Mathematics of
nd
cementitious type used in the concrete. Further Diffusion’, 2 Edition, Clarendon, Oxford, 1975.
monitoring of the effective diffusion coefficient [7] Buenfeld N.R. Newman J.B. ‘The
Deff will enable evaluation of these factors. Permeability of Concrete in a Marine
Analysis to date has been based on total Environment’ Magazine of Concrete Research,
chloride levels determined by XRF. Analysis June 1984, 36, no. 127, pp 67 - 80
using water soluble chloride may give different [8] Bamforth P.B., ‘Minimising the Risk of
results. The next analysis at age 30 months will Chloride Induced Corrosion by Selection of
rd
be carried out using both methods. Concreting Materials’ 3 International
Symposium on Corrosion of Reinforcement in
Other researchers have found a reduction of Concrete Construction, Wishaw, UK, May 1990
diffusion coefficients with time, resulting from [9] Takewaka K., Mastumoto S., ‘Quality
prolonged immersion of samples under the non- and Cover Thickness of Concrete Based on the
steady state immersion test. However, for the 18 Estimation of Chloride Penetration in Marine
months of this research programme there was Environment’, ACI SP 109, Detroit, USA.
no reduction in effective diffusion coefficient with [10] NZS 3112:1986 ‘Methods of Test For
time. Nor was there any significant change in Concrete – Part 2 Determination of the Strength
the actual diffusion coefficient of the concrete of Concrete’ Standards Association of New
based on the 35-day non-steady state Zealand,
immersion test. Wellington, 1986.
[11] AS 1012.13 ‘Methods of Testing
It is considered that as the conditions under Concrete, Part 13 Determination of Drying
which chloride is penetrating the concrete are Shrinkage of Concrete’, Standards Australia,
different, the reduction in the prolonged 1992.
immersed chloride ingress cannot be directly [12] Hall C., ‘Water sorptivity of mortars and
applied to a splash zone environment. concretes: a review’, University of Manchester,
Magazine of Concrete Research June 1989,
No. 147 , pp 51-61.
[13] ASTM C1202 – 97 ‘Standards Method
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT for Electrical indication of Concrete’s Ability to
Resist Chloride Ion Penetration’, American
The Building Research Levy and the Public Society for Testing and Materials, 1997.
Good Science Fund of the ‘New Zealand [14] Bamforth P.B., ‘Concrete Classifications
Foundation for Research, Science and for R.C. Structures Exposed to Marine and
Technology’ funded the research on which this Other Salt-Laden Environments’, Structural
paper is based. Faults and Repair 93 Symposium, Edinburgh
UK, June 1993.
REFERENCES [15] Cao H.T., Moorehead D., Potter R.J.,
‘Prediction of Service Life of Reinforced
Concrete Structures in a Marine Environment
[1] ‘The New Zealand Building Code and AS 3600’, Concrete 99: Our Concrete
Handbook and Approved Documents’, Building Environment Conference, Sydney, Australia,
Industry Authority, Wellington, 1992. May 1999.
[2] NZS 3101: 1995, ‘Concrete Structures
Standard’, Standards Association of New
Zealand,
Wellington, 1995.
[3] Chisholm D.H., ‘Factors Influencing
Reinforced Concrete Durability Design in New
th
Zealand’s Marine Environment’ 4
CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Concrete Durability, Sydney, Australia, August
1997
Tables
Replacement Level
Mix Code Product Name Product Type (% total
cementious)
# 3
50% for 280 kg/m mix
Table 2: Mix Proportions and Fresh Concrete Properties
3
Mix (1 m ) 250GP 280GP 325GP 400GP 280MP 325MP 400MP 280MS 325MS 400MS 280DC 325DC 400DC
19mm (kg) Belmont Chip 762 762 763 761 765 764 764 765 761 763 764 765 759
13mm (kg) Belmont Chip 316 316 326 320 323 325 318 317 320 317 316 319 322
Sand (kg) Puketapu 913 886 844 778 893 846 781 890 842 803 872 832 749
Cement GB (kg) Golden Bay* 260 280 326 399 276 302 370 269 306 373 93 45 50
Microsilica (kg) * * * * * * * 14 26 32 * * *
Micropoz (kg) * * * * 14 26 32 * * * * * *
Total Cementitious (kg) 260 280 326 399 290 328 402 283 332 405 279 324 400
Water Reducer (l) Sika BV40 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.0
Super Plasticizer. (l) Sika 1000N * * * * 1.3 2.7 3 1.3 0.6 2.5 2.3 1.6 0.6
Air Content (%) 1.9 1.4 1.8 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.50 1.5 1.2 2.2 1.7
Measured Yield 1.003 0.996 1.003 1.000 0.998 1.002 1.017 0.997 1.01 0.995 0.994 0.986 0.994
3
Fresh Density (kg/m ) 2395 2411 2403 2421 2405 2419 2406 2418 2403 2434 2435 2442 2442
W/C ratio 0.62 0.57 0.49 0.40 0.55 0.51 0.45 0.57 0.51 0.39 0.63 0.49 0.44
Site
Sample Curing
Property Test Method
(days)
Property 250GP 280GP 325GP 400GP 280MP 325MP 400MP 280MS 325MS 400MS 280DC 325DC 400DC
56-day Compression (MPa) 42.0 46.0 58.0 65.0 47.5 65.0 71.5 42.0 56.0 66.0 42.5 44.0 49.5
3
SSD Density (kg/m ) 2430 2440 2440 2460 2440 2460 2430 2430 2430 2450 2440 2440 2450
56-day Shrinkage (microstrain) 580 570 570 600 650 630 650 630 660 620 680 630 630
1/2
Sorptivity Index (mm/min ) 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.10
Rapid Chloride (Coulombs) 3860 3061 2906 2265 1473 541 576 1515 915 529 1300 792 788
Bottom
Figure 4A: Compressive Strength vs Age
80
70
60
50
56 day
Strength (MPa)
cylinders
3 month
40
cores
6 month
cores
30
20
10
0
250 GP 280 GP 325 GP 400 GP 280 MP 325 MP 400 MP 280 MS 325 MS 400 MS 280 DC 325 DC 400 DC
Mix Type
0.14
0.12
0.10
Mean Sorptivity (mm/min )
1/2
56 day
cylinders
0.08
3 month
cores
6 month
0.06 cores
0.04
0.02
0.00
250 GP 280 GP 325 GP 400 GP 280 MP 325 MP 400 MP 280 MS 325 MS 400 MS 280 DC 325 DC 400 DC
Mix Type
Figure 4C: Actual Diffusion Coefficients
400 MP
400 GP
10
20
9
18
8
16
7
14
6
12
5
10
4 max
8
max 3 mean
6 2 min
mean
4 min 1
2 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Age (years)
Age (years)
400 MS 400 DC
10 10
9 9
8 8
Chloride Dac (10 -12 m2/s)
max
7 7
mean
6 6
min
5 5
4 4 max
3 3 mean
2 min
2
1 1
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Age (years)
Age (years)
325 GP 325 MP
0.6
0.6
4
4 Eighteen Months
0.5 Eighteen Months 0.5
Twelve Months Twelve Months
% Cl on Cement
Six Months
% Cl on Concrete
% Cl on Concrete
Six Months
% Cl on Cement
0.4 3 0.4 3
0.3 0.3
2 2
0.2 0.2
1 1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0 0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)
Figure 5: C-Zone Averaged Chloride Profiles (continued)
325 DC
325 MS
0.6
0.6
4 Eighteen Months 4
Eighteen Months 0.5
0.5 Twelve Months Twelve Months
% Cl on Concrete
% Cl on Concrete
Six Months
% Cl on Cement
Six Months
% Cl on Cement
3 0.4 3
0.4
0.3
0.3 2
2
0.2
0.2
1
1 0.1
0.1
0.0 0
0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)
400 GP 400 MP
0.6 0.6
% Cl on Cement
% Cl on Concrete
% Cl on Cement
2 2
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
1 1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0 0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)
400 MS 400 DC
0.6 0.6
Six Months
% Cl on Cement
0.4 0.4
% Cl on Cement
2 2
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
1 1
0.1 0.1
0.0 0 0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)
Figure 6 - C Zone Surface Chloride vs Age
6.0
Surface Chlorides (mass % on cement)
5.0
4.0
6 months
3.0 12 months
18 months
2.0
1.0
0.0
280 DC 325 DC 325 GP 325 MP 325 MS 400 DC 400 GP 400 MP 400 MS
Mix Type
6.0
Surface Chlorides (mass % on cement)
5.0
4.0
6 months
3.0
18 months
2.0
1.0
0.0
280 DC 325 DC 280 GP 325 GP 280 MP 325 MP 280 MS 325 MS
Mix Type
Figure 8: Effective Diffusion - C Zone
400 GP
Dac
max
20
18
mean
Chloride Deff (10- 1 2 m2/s)
16
14
min
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Exposure Time (years)
400 MP
Dac
max
5 mean
m /s)
4
min
2
-12
Chloride Deff (10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Exposure Time (years)
400 MS
Dac
5
max
m /s)
4
mean
2
-12
Chloride Deff (10
3
min
2
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Exposure Time (years)
400 DC
Dac
5
max
4
m /s)
mean
2
-12
min
Chloride Deff (10
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Exposure Time (years)