I Concrete cover for

durable RC structures
ACC 1.119.
m 8 C DIRECTORATE
THANE-

1 5 MAY ' 00 7
N. Subramanian and K. Geetha LIBRARY Et INFORMATION

Sufficient cover is required for the reinforcement in concrete
structures for protection against corrosion. Though several
codes of practices have specified minimum cover for various
climatic conditions, it is often not maintained in practice. In
this paper, the authors contend that the Indian Codal provisions
relating to concrete cover have to be revised as they do not
account for many factors related to minimum concrete cover.
Also, some devices and methods to increase the quality of cover
are discussed. The authors also stress that just an increase in
concrete cover does not ensure durable structures.
For durable concrete structures, it is imperative that the steel
embedded in concrete is protected adequately against corro-
sion. It is also necessary that concrete should be dense, uni-
form and free from deleterious components. For this, adequate
cover to the steel should be provided on all faces of the con-
crete element.
Concrete protects steel in two ways : one, by providing a
barrier against the ingress of moisture and air and two, by
forming a passive protective film on the steel surface'. The
protective film remains effective so long as concrete is strongly
alkaline (pH value > 12). However, the external atmospheric
gases like carbondioxide when combined with atmospheric
moisture starts carbonation of concrete at the surface. This
carbonation makes the concrete less alkaline and may render
the embedded steel susceptible to corrosion, when the depth
of carbonation is large. Table 1 relates carbonation time (years)
to the water-cement ratio for various depths of cover(mm) 3 .
This table applies to Ordinary Portland Cement (no additive)
with sand and gravel aggregate.
Thus with a water-cement ratio of 0.55 and 10mm cover,
the carbonated zone will penetrate the cover in 12 years. This
table should be considered as indicative only as the
emphasise the significance of cover to the reinforcement and
the water-cement ratio.
The depth of carbonation in concrete subjected to 15 years
of normal indoor exposure in Tokyo is approximately equal
to 5mm 3 . Further, the corrosion may occur due to chloride
attack, once the threshold chloride levels are exceeded. The
corrosion due to chloride attack is more severe, and difficult
to control.
Though a minimum cover is specified by the codes of prac-
tice, this is often not maintained in practice. Moreover, the
devices used to ensure specified concrete cover are themselves
not of adequate quality. These aspects and the methods to be
adopted to ensure quality cover are discussed in this paper.
Sometimes increasing the concrete cover may lead to
higher transverse tension in the concrete of the compression
zone, for example in frame corners subjected to positive mo-
ments and in beams subjected to shear and bending. These
effects are also discussed.
Codal specifications for minimum cover
Minimum cover should be related to the exposure conditions,
concrete strength, water-cement ratio, nominal maximum size
of aggregate depending upon the method of compaction of
concrete, degree of grading of coarse aggregate, congestion
of steel and likely exposure to fire.
Concrete cover and tolerances specified by various codes
of practice vary over a fairly wide range'. For example, the
Indian code specifications are summarised in Table 1 and those
Table 1 Carbonation time (years) for various depth of cover and
water-cement ratios'
.Waier-cement
ratio
Cover, nun

environmental conditions are not defined. However, it does 5 10 IS 20 25 30

0.45 19 75 100+ 100+ 100+ 100+

0.50 6 ' 25 50 99 100+ 100+
Dr. N. Subramanian, Chief Executive, Computer Design Consultants, 191, North 0.55 3 12 27 49 76 100+
Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. 0.60 1.8 7 16 .29 45 65
0.65 1.5 6 13 23 36 52
K. Geetha, Technical Officer, Computer Design Consultants, 191, North Usman 0.70 12 5 11 19 30 43
Road, T. Naga Chennai - 600 017.

April 1997 * The Indian Concrete Journal 197

Table 2a : Concrete cover requirements as per IS:456 - 1978 Table 3a : Nominal cover to all reinforcements (including links) to
Sr

Founda - At each end
meet durability requirements as per BS:8110
Beam Column Walls. Slab

and Lions
No. of
other Conditions of exposure Nominal Cover
reinforcing
members bar
mm mm mm mm

I. Normal >25mm or >40mm or > 15 mm 50 mm - 75 >25mm or

conditions or mm (not Mild 25 20 15* 15* 15*
diameter of diameter of dia of
bar bar diameter specified in Moderate 35 30 25 20
of bar IS code but bar * 2
for columns Severe 40 30 25
in SP:34)
of size less Very Severe 50+ 40+ 30
than 20Xlinin. Extreme 60+ 50

25mm if bar Maximum free water-cement 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45
ratio
diameter =
275 300 325 350 400
12mm Minimum cement content,
(kg/tn')
2 . Members as specified in
Minimum concrete grade M30 M35 M40 M45 M50
immersed in item I above
sea water + 40mm
* Increased to 20mm if maximum aggregate size exceeds 15 mm
For concrete
grade M25 + Grade of concrete suitable only if air-entrained mix is used
and above as
in I + 20mm Table 3h : Nominal cover to all reinforcements (including links) to
meet specified periods of fire resistance as per BS:81 II)
3• Periodically as specified in
immersed in item I above
sea water
Fire Nominal cover in mm for normal weight aggregate
+ 50mm
period
For concrete
grade M25 Hours Beams Floors Ribs Columns
and above as
in I + 25mm Simply Continuous Simply Continuous SimPIY Continu-
sup- supported supported ous
as specified in
ported
4. Other
chemical item I above
environments + l5 to 50mm 0.5 20 20 15 15 15 15 20
I 30 20 20 20 25 20 25

Note The IS code specifies a tolerance of ± 5 mm for the specified cover

1.5 40 35 25 20 35 25 30
2 50 50 35 25 45 35 35
Table 2b : Concrete cover requirements as per draft IS:456 - 1978 3 70 60 45 35 55 45 35

Exposure Concrete cover, nun 4 80 70 55 45 65 55 35

Mild
Moderate
Severe
Very severe
Extreme
Note : (i) For main reinforcement upto 12mm diameter bar and for mild exposures
the nominal cover may be reduced by 5mm.
(ii) However for column the specification as given in Table 1(a) col (3) is to
be maintained
of the British code in Table 35. 6 . It can be seen that the Indian
code does not take into account factors such as concrete quality,
water-cement ratio and fire rating of the structure. Compared
to IS : 456 the recommendations of IRC 21 are more
conservative, probably because those recommendations are
applicable to bridge structures'. It has become imperative to
revise the relevant provisions pertaining to concrete cover in
both the IS and IRC specifications.
The requirements of cover as per ACI 318-95 are given in
Table 4 7 . There are other categories and special conditions
relating to concrete cover in ACI 318-95 that are not discussed
here. However it is emphasised that ACI 318-95 requires that
the amount of concrete protection shall be suitably increased
for concrete in corrosive environments or other severe
exposure conditions and the denseness and low permeability
of protecting concrete shall be considered, or other protection
25
30
45 shall be provided. However, ACI 318 does not consider water-
50 cement ratio which is equally, if not more, important.
75
The minimum concrete cover required to be specified as
per Australian Standard Specifications for purposes of
corrosion protection is as per Table 5 8 .
Fig 1 shows the largest minimum covers specified for
reinforced concrete in the design codes of 14 countries 9 . These
apply to members exposed to severe climatic conditions. The
very wide range of permissible covers as seen from this figure
suggest an arbitrary element in their selection.
Devices to ensure specified concrete
cover
Site surveys reported from several countries indicate that the
cover specified is not maintained within the tolerance limits'.
The situation in India is more serious, considering the high
percentage of semi-skilled or unskilled labour ' 5 . It should be
noted that the surveys reported refer only to pre-pour situa-
tions, which do not consider the possibility of bars getting
displaced during the concreting operations." ". It is also to
be noted that too large covers will result in the reduction of
effective depths and too little cover may lead to deterioration
of concrete due to corrosion.

198 The Indian Concrete Journal * April 1997

 Table 4 : Minimum cover for reinforcement in concrete not exposed Table 5 : Minimum reinforcement cover for the protection of
to weather or not in contact with ground (as per AC1 318-95) reinforcement, tendons or ducts from corrosion (as per AS 3600-1988)
Cast-in-place Precast Prestressed Exposure classification Minimum carer to relevant steel. nun
(non-prestressed). (manufactured (but not precast).
nun under plant Mitt Bar, tendon, or duct size. nun
control).
nun < 13 'tun 13 to 20 mm > 20 nun

Slab, walls & joists : Fully enclosed within a building except for a 15 20 25
45mm diameter and 40 (50)* 30 30 brief period of exposure during construction*
55mm diameter bars
Exposed to average humidity < 50 percent 20 25 30

up to 35 mm 20 (40)* 15 20 and annual rainfall < 500 min*
diameter bars
Exposed to average humidity 50 pecent to 20 25 30
Beams, columns :
80 percent and rainfall < 1000 me*
Primary 40 (50)* 40 41)
reinforcement Exposed to average humidity 65 percent to 25 30 40

Ties, stirrups 40 (50)* 10 30 100 percent annual average maximum daily
spirals temperature > 25°C and annual average
rainfall > 1200 mm
* exposed to weather or in contact with ground
Very severe conditions*** 30 40 50

It is essential that proper guidelines are made available to site
engineers and supervisors. BS 8110 : Part 1 : 1985, section
seven has given a thought to this problem and has recom-
mended certain specifications, chief amongst which are the
" wing :
(i) spacers, chairs and other supports should be used
to maintain the specified nominal cover to
reinforcement
(ii) spacers or chairs should be placed at a maxi-
mum spacing of lm
(iii) material for spacers should be durable, and it
should neither lead to corrosion of reinforcement
nor cause spalling of concrete cover
(iv) mix used for spacer blocks should be comparable
in strength, durability, porosity and appearance
to the surrounding concrete
* For slabs subjected to this type of exposure, the cover may he reduced by 5mm for
M32 grade concrete or higher.
** For slabs subjected to this type of exposure, the cover may be reduced by 5mm for
M40 grade concrete or higher.
*** Minimum values in some circumstances may be even higher.
as the starting points of corrosion. Blue metal jelly or broken
mosaic tiles are also used as cover blocks. Most often, they
are not placed in regular intervals and are of non-uniform size
and shape. In countries like USA, Germany and Japan, cover
blocks made of cement mortar, asbestos cement, metal or plas-
tic manufactured in factory and available readymade are
used' 4 . Hence, these cover blocks are uniform and their quality
is also of the required standard. As shown in Figs 3 and 4,
they are either tied to the reinforcement bars or placed just
between the bars and the shuttering. According to the required
Maximum
cover _ mm
O
0 0

(v) nominal cover should be checked before and ACI 318 - 95

during concreting Austria

(vi) the position of reinforcement in hardened Belgium

concrete should also be checked with the help of CEBI F IP model code
a cover meter.
The British Cement Association has brought out a
Denmark
Ii
France
publication which gives recommendations to the number and
position of spacers and ties required to provide active cover W. Germany

to reinforcement in the most common RC members, which Netherlands

could serve as a reference to site supervisors to readily check
compliance' 3 . Fig 2 shows an illustration from the above Nor way

mentioned reference for slab reinforcement. Sweden

At several construction sites, stone chips are used as bar Switzer land

► supports which may get dislodged during concreting opera- U

tions and the bars may rest directly on the shuttering leaving
little or no cover to the bars. Many times small cover blocks USSR

made of cement mortar are cast before concreting and are India 1S:456 -1978
placed below the reinforcing bars. They are usually of poor
quality compared to that of the concrete placed in the mem- Fig 1 Minimum covers for worst exposure conditions in
ber. Hence, instead of protecting the reinforcement, they act various national codes'

April 1997 * The Indian Concrete Journal 199


Side view of SpaClT Plan view of stmcer
Front elevation
• cover region, thus providing effective, long-term protection
Si:racer:at 5(10mrno.c.or lessinboth
horizoritüttnections
Plan
Fig 2 Spacers for a slab reinforced with welded fabric with no
edge reinforcement
thickness of cover, the size of the cover blocks may be chosen.
In RC slabs, when reinforcement is provided at top and bottom,
chairs should be provided, so that they are kept at the required
distance. If these chairs are not provided, the reinforcement
bars may be bent or distorted due to the movement of men
during concreting. These chairs also maintain the top cover
for the top reinforcement. They should be placed at sufficient
intervals. In India, such chairs are very rarely provided,
leading to reduced strength of reinforced concrete elements
(especially when the rods are cranked).
Enhancing quality of cover
Attempts have been made in the past to reduce the water-
cement ratio of the surface layers of low/medium strength
concrete in order to improve the protective properties. This is
similar to case hardening of steel. The process of vacuum
dewatering of concrete was thus developed. In this process,
some of the excess water not required for hydration of the
cement is withdrawn by means of a vacuum, subsequent to
placement of the concrete, thus reducing the water-cement
ratio in the region. The system requires a filtering mat to draw
off the excess water without the fine aggregates from the
concrete and a vacuum pump. However, the vacuum process
200 The Indian Concrete Journal April 1997
(a)
(c)
(a) Mortarblmks
(b) Asbesicts cement blcdc
(c) Plastic ring spacer
(d) Plastic clipfor single bor
Fig 3 Devices to ensure good concrete cover
has been found to be more practicable and effective for large
horizontal surfaces such as floor slabs, deck slabs, etc.
Another method has been developed and used in Japan
since 1985 to improve the quality of concrete in the cover re-
gion. The idea is based on reducing the water-cement ratio of
concrete in the cover region. This is realised by development
and use of permeable formwork in which the normal
formwork sheeting is lined with double-woven synthetic fab-
ric on the inner face in contact with concrete. When concrete
is placed and vibrated, the excess water is drained off through
the fabric's . This results in a higher impermeability in the
to the reinforcement.
The quality of cover also needs to be enhanced by increas-
ing the cement content, reduced water-cement ratio and using
higher grade of concrete for the entire volume of concrete in
the structure. It has to be noted that the draft Indian code has
increased the minimum grade of concrete to M20 for reinforced
concrete, whereas other developed countries do not use less
than M30 concrete in reinforced concrete structures, Table 2.
Super cover concrete
Researchers at the South Bank University, U.1( have proposed
a radical new and patented technique caiitd "Super cover
12 to 20
mm 0
(b)
(a) For light teinfocxxxnait
( b ) Heavy chairthr large spicing
Fig 4 Metal chairs

a crete cover, sufficient experimental research should be done
Steel rebor
-r Spacer
Cover to mom Glass.Fibre Reinforced
steel 100mm
Plastic (GRP) rebar
Cover to GRP rebor 40mm
Fig 5 Schematic diagram of the Supercover concrete system"
concrete". This aims to combine the advantages of steel and
Fibre Composite Reinforcements (FCR) 16 .
This technique involves using traditional steel
reinforcement together with concrete covers in excess of
100 , —xi thus providing a lifetime barrier to carbondioxide and
chioride attack - with a limited amount of FCR at a nominal
depth of, say 40mm, to control cracking in the cover as shown
in Fig 5. This additional reinforcement is attached to the main
steel and offset with spacers.
Preliminary results from tests on super cover concrete
suggests that the structural behaviour is not impaired and that
the surface crack widths are within the BS 8110 limit of 0.3
mm'". Though the cost may increase due to the extra cover
and FCR, it was found to be cheaper than cathodic protection.
4 Australia, Sydney, 1988.
Effect of increased cover thickness
Recent work has shown the critical role a 50 to 70 mm con-
crete cover plays in protecting the reinforcement against cor-
rosion in an aggressive environment". It was also shown that
high concentration of chloride ions reside in thin covers up to
40 mm.
However, it is seen that using a thick cover of 50 to70 mm
will lead to increased crack widths that exceed the maximum
limits permitted by the codes. If the spacing of the wide cracks
are less than twice the cover thickness (S < 2C), which may be
the case for a thick cover, then there will be a reduction in the
effectiveness of the thick cover in protecting the steel bars
against corrosion. Hence both the requirements (crack width
and cover) are to be coupled for meeting durability require-
ments ' 8 .
Streit and others have shown the negative influence of an
increased concrete cover (specified for durability considera-
tion) upon the resistance of reinforced concrete 19. They exam-
ined the influence of an increased concrete cover on the
transverse tensile stress in the case of a cover (with and without
inclined reinforcement) subjected to positive bending
moments and showed that a thick cover leads to substantial
increase of the transverse tensile stresses in concrete and
subsequent decrease of the failure moment, compared to
members with smaller concrete cover.
April 1997 S The Indian Concrete Journal 201
Hence, instead of simply increasing the thickness of con-
to study the influence of these increased covers on the behav-
iour of reinforced concrete elements.
Conclusions
Adequate concrete cover is very important for durable RC
structures. This aspect has been re-emphasised in this paper.
Certain methods and devices which could improve the quality
of the cover have been included. It is also found that just an
increase in the concrete cover does not ensure durable
structures; on the contrary, it can have a negative result on
some of the desirable properties.
References
1. NEVILLE, A., Corrosion of reinforcement, Concrete, V.17, N.6, June 1983,
pp•48-50
2. PRAKASH RAO, D.S., Design Principles and Detailing of Concrete Structures,
Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, 1995.
3. TADAO NISHI, Outline of the studies in Japan regarding the neutralisation
of alkali (or carbonation) of concrete, RILEM International Symposium on
Testing of Concrete, Prague, 1982.
4. MORGAN, P.R., SMITH, N.M.H. and ZYHAJLO E., Slab reinforcement
location versus code specifications, Civil Engineering Transactions, The
Institution of Engineers (Australia). V. CE28, N.3, 1986, pp 147-152
5. IS : 456 -1978, Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
6. BS 8110: Part I - 1985, Structural use of concrete : Code of Practice for
special circumstances, British Standards Institution, London.
7 ACI Committe 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete
MCI 318-95)a nd ionnnentary (AC1318 R-95), American Concrete Institute,
Detroit, 1995.
8. AS 3600-1988, Concrete Structures, Standards Association of
9. BEEBY, A.W., Cracking, cover and corrosion of reinforcement, Concrete
International, February 1983, pp.35-40.
10. RANGASWAMY, N.S., and others„ Corrosion survey of bridges, The Indian
Concrete Journal, V.61, N.6, June 1987, pp.158-160
11. SCHLAICH, J., and SCHAEFER, K., Konstruieren im stahlbetonbau, Beton-
Kalender, Part II, Wilhelm Ernst Sr Sohn, Berlin-Munich, 1984, pp 787-1005
12. PRAKASH RAO, D.S.,ANURADHA, V and MENZES, N., Codes of Practice
and construction practice - A correlation, The Indian Concrete Journal, V.65,
N.12, Dec.1991, pp.607-613
13. Achieving concrete cover to reinforcement on site, BCA Bulletin,
June 1988, No.2, p.3
14. LOt !MEYER, G., Stahlbetonbau - Bemessung, Konstruktion, Ausfuehrung, B.G.
Teubner, Stuttgart, Germany, 1983.
15. REDDI S.A., Permeable form work for impermeable concrete, The Indian
Concrete Journal, V66, N.1, January 1992, pp.31-35.
16. ARYA, C., Super Cover Concrete, Concrete, July/August 1994, pp. 30-31.
17. SWAMY R N, Durability of reinforcement in concrete, Durability of Concrete,
CP - 131, American Concrete Institute, Detroit 1992, p 67.
18. MAKHLOUF, H.M. and MALHAS, PA., The effect of thick concrete cover
on the maximum flexural crack width under service load, AC! Structural
Journal, V.93, N.3, May-June 1996, pp.257-265
19. STREIT, W., FED( J., KUPFER, H., Transverse tension decisive for compression
resistance of concrete cover, Proceedings of IABSE colloquium on structural
concrete, Stuttgart, April 1991, pp 761-766.
•••