Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://cipremier.com/100032012
Thisarticleisbroughttoyouwiththesupportof
SingaporeConcreteInstitute
www.scinst.org.sg
AllRightsreservedforCIPremierPTELTD
YouarenotAllowedtoredistributeorresalethearticleinanyformatwithoutwrittenapprovalof
CIPremierPTELTD
VisitOurWebsiteformoreinformation
www.cipremier.com
32nd Conference on OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE & STRUCTURES: 28 29 August 2007, Singapore
Abstract
The severity of the Arabian Gulf environment demands certain provisions for a
design code that would cater to local challenges in concreting. With this view in
mind, an apparent climatic divide was identified for the Arabian Peninsula viz. Hot-
Dry and Hot-Humid zones which were further classified into an order of exposures,
detailing the potential dangers to concrete durability. Moreover, suggestions are
included based on both research and experience in the Gulf, to practice essential
quantitative and qualitative checks on concrete mix design parameters. It is
intended that this contribution would help formulate a design code for concrete
durability in this part of the world.
Keywords: carbonation, chloride, code, durability, sulfate.
1. Introduction
The Arabian Gulf environment has adverse impact on concrete structures. The combination of high
ambient temperature, low relative humidity, salt-contaminated dust, sea water and underground salts
makes up for the destructive elements that exacerbate concrete deterioration in the region. Typically,
one of the reasons speculated for such poor performance of concrete has been the use of
1 2 3
international building codes of concrete practice such as ACI-318 , AS 3600 , EuroCode and
likewise. These codes catered more to their own countries of origin. But when they are followed for
the Gulf; their provisions fail to account for the harsh environmental conditions. Hence the
development of a regional code of practice would help deal with the challenges of hot weather and
various exposures.
With durability taking the foreground these days, such a code must duly incorporate all factors
that ensure the same viz. type and amount of cement, aggregates, methods of curing and its duration,
cover, water-cement ratio, chloride and sulfate limits and minimum compressive strength required for
different kinds of exposure. These provisions are vital in maintaining the structural integrity of
concrete.
Upholding this concept, the authors have highlighted significant exposure conditions for the
Arabian Gulf in order to suggest appropriate measures of concrete practice for long-term durability.
These recommendations are designed to help draft a concrete code to benefit construction practice in
the region.
Figure [2]: Surface chloride build-up Figure [3]: Surface chloride build-up
7 7
near the coast further inland
Likewise, the chloride content, sulfate content and carbonation depths in structures of the same
age vary with distance from the sea. The chloride profile (Figure 4) has a declining slope indicating
7
the decreasing severity of sea exposure with distance . The sulfate profile (Figure 5) records high
7
values both near the coast and further inland since soils and groundwater here are rich in sulfates .
The carbonation profile (Figure 6) has high values (12 14 mm) near the coast due to high heat and
relative humidity; decreases with decreasing humidity as it approaches inland and rises further inland.
8
Haque and Al-Khaiat have speculated this rise in areas inland, possibly due to the vast drop in
temperature during the night. All this implies that structures located near the coast have a greater risk
of concrete deterioration such as reinforcement corrosion while structures inland face other
challenges arising from climate and soil conditions. Hence Table 2 presents a possible classification
of the Arabian Gulf into GM (Gulf Marine), GC (Gulf Coastal), GI (Gulf Inland) and GL (Gulf Low-Risk)
exposures along with their effects on concrete structures.
Surface-Chloride profile with distance from the Surface - Sulfate profile with distance from the
sea sea
8
0.7
Sulfates (% wt. of
7
Chloride (% wt. of
0.6 Actual
6
0.5
cement)
Linear (Actual)
cement)
5
0.4 4
0.3 3 Actual
0.2 2 Linear (Actual)
0.1 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
7
Figure [4]: Chloride-distance profile Figure [5]: Sulfate-distance
7
16
Depth of carbonation (mm)
14 Actual
12
Poly. (Actual)
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20
Distance from sea (km)
8
Figure [6]: Carbonation depth-distance profile
Table [2]: Classification based on distance from the sea
Distance
Exposure Subdivision Description of attach
from sea
GM1 Spray Active corrosion due to aerosols
and salts.
Acute chloride-induced corrosion
0-100 m GM2 Splash/tidal due to sea waves and current
Gulf Marine
GM within the abrasion.
Zone
shore
Minimum corrosion risk.
GM3 Submerged Chloride and sulfate decomposition.
Biological attack.
Dampness on structures attracting
salts and fungal growth.
100 m Chloride build-up from salt spray,
Gulf
from the soils and ground water.
Coastal GC --
Zone
shore up Carbonation due to high relative
to 5 km humidity (55-75%).
Sulfate-rich coastal soils induce
sulfate attack.
Within
capillary- Attack due to sulfates and chlorides
present in soil and groundwater
rise zone
GIA from either natural or industrial
(i.e., 3 m or
Gulf Inland sources.
GI 5-50 km less above
Zone
water table)
Above Deterioration due to salt-
GIB capillary-rise weathering/carbonation and/or dry
zone winds carrying aggressive salts.
50 km
Gulf Low-
GL and -- Occurrence of contamination or
Risk Zone attack is low.
above
The hot-dry and hot-humid climates are better understood in the order of predominance of
specific Gulf exposures as shown in Table 3. Also, these exposures can be attributed a degree of
severity thereby creating a link between the two classes of exposure (Figure 7). It is to be noted that
GIB exposure has been grouped under 3 different categories such that when it involves salt
weathering, the danger can be highly moderate to severe. Where carbonation is more likely, it would
be of moderate threat whereas with dry winds laden with salts, it would only have a mild to moderate
degree of threat.
GI GM
GL GC
Severity of Exposures
GM1,GM2
GIB,GIA,GC
GIB
GIB,GM3
GL
re
ev e ve re te
S s e e ra ate d
r il
e- d e
at Mo od M
der - M
M
o i ld
M
3.1. Cement
Along with other factors, the amount of Portland cement used in concrete is hugely responsible for the
ill-effects of cracking due to plastic shrinkage and thermal gradients resulting from cement hydration in
9
the region . Furthermore, lime, a product of cement hydration is susceptible to chemical attack.
Hence, an injudicious use of cement content would only do more harm than good. Also the quality of
cement used greatly controls the permeability of the hydrated paste. The authors suggest that an
3
amount of Portland cement maintained at 350 to 410 kg/m of concrete with water-cement ratios not
greater than 0.45 or 0.5, should be sufficient to obtain concrete of adequate strength, density and
durability for the Gulf.
3.2. Cover
The cover to reinforcement is the breastplate of concrete in aggressive exposure. Apparently, the
rate of progress of carbonation and chlorides in concrete could be predicted as a function of the
10
square root of time as shown in equation (1) wheret is the time of measurement in years.
Depth = kt (1)
1/2
On study, it is observed that k has a value of 4.5 mm/yr and above for chloride penetration in
1/2
hot-humid exposures whereas it is below 4 mm/yr in hot-dry exposures for concrete of compressive
strength 20 - 30 MPa. At the same time, carbonation penetrates at a rate k equivalent to 10 times
11
B, where B is a constant depending on the strength of concrete and storage conditions . Haque
and Al-Khaiat have investigated the values of B in a survey conducted on various structures in
8
Kuwait. Its value was approximated as 0.3 for concrete of compressive strength 30 to 50 MPa .
These values of penetration rates are thought to be instrumental in determining proper covers for
concrete structures exposed to different environments. A minimum cover thickness of 40 mm is an
agreeable specification for the region. Table 4 specifies concrete covers for various exposures.
Table [4]: Recommended mix design parameters for reinforced ordinary Portland cement concrete*
Minimum 28-day
Minimum Cover Maximum water-
Type of Exposure compressive strength
(mm) cement ratio
(MPa)
**
GM (Gulf Marine) 60-80 0.35-0.4 35-45
**
GC (Gulf Coastal) 60-70 0.4 35-40
GI (Gulf Inland) 50-60 0.45 30-45
GL (Gulf Low-risk) 25-40 0.5 30
* Quantities in the table are provided in ranges since above exposures vary in their degree of threat
from mild to severe.
** 70-80 mm cover should only be adopted in the event that other measures of reinforcement
protection are not feasible or ineffective.
3.3. Curing
This might be considered a low-key and tedious operation but its negligence, especially in the Gulf,
could highly impair the concrete, calling upon huge costs in terms of repair of cracks and
reconstruction. Curing can be done both by external wetting and membranes. But for Gulf conditions,
membrane curing should not be counted as a sole alternative to wet curing. Rather both should go
12
hand in hand such that the membranes (hessian) are kept wet permanently. Haque further brought
out that a mandatory initial curing period of 7 days is satisfactory for achieving good quality concrete.
A more general rule of thumb is to continue curing until concrete has attained nearly 70% of its design
strength. Moreover, sea water should never be used for curing.
Table [5]: Maximum limits for chlorides in concrete at the time of placing
Max. total chlorides
Type of exposure
(% weight of cement)
Mild 0.4
Moderate 0.3
Severe 0.15 - 0.2
4. Conclusions
(1) The Arabian Gulf is not influenced by a single climatic pattern but is a combination of extreme
humid conditions near the coast and lesser humid conditions, inland. Also, the various exposures
are grouped according to their severity and proximity to the sea.
3
(2) Cement content of 350 - 410 kg/m of concrete is satisfactory for high strength and durability.
(3) Maximum water-cement ratios in the range of 0.35 to 0.5 are recommended for ordinary
Portland cement concrete.
(4) Concrete structures perform better in severe conditions with minimum compressive strength
specified in the range of 30 to 45 MPa.
(5) Curing should take place uninterruptedly during the first one week of placing.
(6) Concrete covers for each exposure must be strictly followed to prevent external attack.
(7) Abidance of limits set for both chlorides and sulfates in concrete enable high performance of
structures.
5. References
[1] ACI 318M-95 & 02, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
[2] Standards Australia, Concrete Structures, AS 3600, Sydney, Australia, 1994.
[3] European Standard, Concrete Specification, Performance, Production and Conformity, BS EN
206-1, 2001.
[4] P. Fookes, Concrete in Hot, Dry and Salty Environments, Concrete, Jan/Feb 1995, pp. 34-39.
[5] British Standard Institution, The Structural Use of Concrete, BS 8110: Part 1:1985.
[6] Indian Standard, Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, IS: 456 1994, Bureau of
Indian Standards, pp. 28-29.
[7] M.N. Haque and H. Al-Khaiat, Durable Concrete Structures in a Chloride-Sulfate Rich
Environment, Concrete International, 21(9), September 1999, pp. 49-52.
[8] M.N. Haque and H. Al-Khaiat, Carbonation of Concrete Structures in Hot Dry Coastal
Regions, Cement and Concrete Composites, 19, 1997, pp. 123-129.
[9] A. Neville, Good Reinforced Concrete in the Arabian Gulf, Materials and Structures, 33(234),
December 2000, pp. 655-664.
[10] Walker, M., Guide to evaluation and repair of concrete structures in the Arabian Peninsula,
Concrete Society Special Publication CS 137, 2002, pp. 31-35.
[11] I. Sims, The Assessment of Concrete for Carbonation, Concrete, 28(6), 1994, pp. 33-38.
[12] M.N. Haque, Give it a Week: Seven days initial curing, Concrete International, 20(9), 1998, pp.
45-48.
[13] H. Al-Khaiat, and M.N. Haque, Carbonation of some Coastal Concrete Structures in Kuwait,
ACI Materials Journal, 94, 1997, pp. 602-607.
[14] Aitcin, P.C., Durable Concrete Current Practice and Future Trends, Concrete Technology
Past, Present and Future, Conference Proceedings of V. Mohan Malhotra Symposium, SP-144,
1994, pp. 85-104.
[15] Walker, M. and Ted, Guide to Construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian Peninsula,
CIRIA Publication C 577, Concrete Society Special Publication CS 136, 2002.