Performance Based Specifications

for Durable Concrete Structures

Manu Santhanam
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Madras

KHRI Webinar, April 17, 2020

 Background

• Concrete is an inherently durable material

• Reinforced concrete structures are expected to be
maintenance-free during their service lives
However:
• Evidence of premature deterioration of modern
structures
• Resultant costs to the economy reaching 3 - 5% of
GNP in some countries (and up to 50% of
construction budgets)
• Existing knowledge not adequately applied
 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!
 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
 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
 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

 Durability tests in Indian codes and
specs
• Mainly, RCPT (ASTM C1202), Water
Penetration (DIN 1048) or Initial Surface
Absorption (BS 1881)
• Several documents give limiting values,
without providing basis for service life, or for
the materials selection
• No mention of acceptance criteria – as a
result, single target value is used in specs –
difficult to achieve on site!
 Approaches for durability design
Avoidance of deterioration
• Inert materials or coatings
Prescriptive Approach
Deemed-to-satisfy Approach
• Prescriptive requirements on materials
• Present codes

Performance based tests and indicators

• Accelerated Tests
• Concrete quality ranking

Performance Approach Through modelling

• Service life modelling
• Verification using field data
Performance vs Prescriptive Specifications

Performance: Prescriptive:
• Compressive or • Curing duration and
tensile strength method
• Cover depth • Minimum cement
• Max. shrinkage content
• Permeability • Binder type
• Max. w/c ratio
These have to be checked in
the actual structure or on
specimens during pre-
qualification
 Example from North America
Project / specification Test specified Limits prescribed
New Brunswick draft RCPT < 1000 C without corrosion inhibitor
specification for bridges < 1500 C with corrosion inhibitor
Shrinkage < 0.04% at 7 days (superstructure)
< 0.05% at 7 days (substructure)
Calgary city (for high RCPT < 600 C
performance concrete) (values of 601-1200 C acceptable with
$40/m3 penalty)
Port Authority of New York RCPT For pre-qualification < 1000 C
and New Jersey Production concrete < 1500 C in 80% of
the tests

Bickley et al. 2006

Challenges in durability design of concrete
• Understanding of
- deterioration mechanisms
For a particular service
- transport mechanisms environment
• Development of suitable environmental classification
system
• Identification of durability parameters and test methods
• Assessment of suitability of durability parameters in service
life prediction through modelling
• Understanding the role of Supplementary Cementitious
Materials in this process
Challenges specific to India

But maybe, anywhere!

 Major challenge – Concrete quality

• Unskilled workers, low levels of mechanization,

lack of knowledge about concrete  perfect
recipe for poor quality of concrete
• Concrete given the least importance during
construction – but 90% or more of construction
failures relate to concrete and its quality
• Numerous examples – poor cover, poor
compaction, insufficient curing, improper mix
design for a given situation, improper repair
strategies etc. – the list is endless…
 Construction workers

• Unorganized sector – 2nd largest

employer in India (after agriculture) –
about 50 million workers
• Poor skill levels, and mostly no education
(just experience..)
 poor pay also
• Constantly changing workforce
• Most jobsites have no mechanization;
safety norms very poor – difficult
conditions for the workers...
• Providing education, training and skills
 empowering the workforce
 An example of total neglect of durability,
and improper choice of repair

• Ammonium chloride handling building – highly corrosive environment

• Poor concrete selected > 0.55 w/c
• Poor maintenance – lot of salt spills
• 1991 – corrosion led to delamination, so ‘repair’ was carried out – layer of fresh
mortar was simply applied on the surface to cover up the corrosion
 of course, delamination happened again!!
 Concrete problems on the rise
• Plastic shrinkage – primarily due to insufficient
knowledge about handling special concrete 
need for early curing
• Thermal effects – choice of high cement contents
• Over-designed concrete because of prescriptive
specifications
• Cement – admixture incompatibility leading to
poor setting characteristics, low slump retention,
and poor early strength gain

…to name a few!

 Way forward for durability design?

Guidelines and model specification for

construction projects in India regarding
concrete durability are needed
Exposure classes need to be made more
relevant – so that deterioration mechanisms
may be identified, and suitable tests used
Database of durability parameters with local
materials necessary, to arrive at appropriate
limiting values
Lafarge – IITM Research Project

‘Anticipating Durability Standards’

(ADS)
 Mixture designs
• 41 concrete mix proportions (Strength range – 20 to 60 MPa)
• 2 categories of mixes
– Commonly used design mixes
• 4 total binder contents – 280, 310,340 and 380 kg/m3
• 5 water-binder ratios - 0.4, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65
• 4 Supplementary Cementitious Materials - 2 Slags, Class C fly ash
and Class F fly ash
• 3 replacement levels - 15, 30 and 50 %
• 2 curing durations – 28 and 90 days
– Mixes having limiting prescriptive values
• Concrete mixtures recommended in the IS 456:2000 and in a new
proposal by Saravanan and Santhanam (2012)
• Binder contents – 300,320,340,360 and 400 kg/m3
• Water-binder ratios – 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55
• No SCM replacement
Test methods to assess chloride penetrability

Specimen fixed in the anolyte chamber

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test Rapid Migration Test (NT BUILD 492)
RMT set up
(ASTM C 1202)
Filling 0.3 M NaOH in the anolyte
chamber

Chloride Conductivity Test Bulk diffusion Test

(SA DI Manual) (ASTM C 1556)
 Test methods to assess gas penetrability

Oxygen permeability index test

SA DI Manual

Torrent air permeability test

Accelerated carbonation test
(SIA 262)
 Test methods to assess water penetrability

Water Sorptivity Test

(SA DI Manual)

Water Permeability
(DIN 1048 part 5)
Test method to assess concrete resistivity

Wenner four probe resistivity test

 Assessment of influence of
mineral additives
(Supplementary Cementitious Materials)
 Influence of SCMs on Surface Resistivity

OPC, 28 days
140 Slag, 28 days
Surface resistivity (k .cm)

28 days Class F fly ash, 28 days

120 90 days Class C fly ash, 28 days
100 140 OPC, 90 days

Surface resistivity (k .cm)

80 120 Slag, 90 days
Class F fly ash, 90 days
60 Very High 100 Class C fly ash, 90 days
40 80
20 High
Moderate 60
0 Low
h h h h Concrete 40
PC ag A ag B ag B ag B as as as ash as Quality
O Sl Sl Sl Sl ly ly ly ly ly
F F F F F 20
% 5 % 0 % 0 % F F F C C
15 1 3 5 ass ass ass ss ss
l l 0
C Cl C Cla Cla
% % % 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
15 30 50 15% 30%
SCM replacement level (%)

Test results for mixes having a total Test results across the entire range of
binder content of 310 kg/m3 and w/b 0.5 binder content and w/b
Influence of SCMs on charge passed (from RCPT)

28 days High OPC, 28 days

Total charge passed (Coulombs)

4000 90 days Slag, 28 days

5000

Charge passed (Coulombs)

Class F fly ash ,28 days
3000 Moderate Class C fly ash, 28 days
4000
OPC, 90 days
Slag, 90 days
2000 3000 Class F fly ash, 90 days
Low Class C fly ash, 90 days
2000
1000
Very low
1000
0 Negligible
h h h h
PC g A g B g B g B as as as as
h
as Chloride ion 0
O la la la la ly ly ly y ly
S S S S F F F Fl F penetrability
% 5% 0% 0% F F F C C
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
15 1 3 5 s s s
la
s s s ss ass
C la Cla la l SCM replacement level (%)
C C C
5 % % 0 % % %
1 30 5 15 30

Test results for mixes having a total binder Test results across the entire range of
content of 310 kg/m3 and w/b 0.5 binder content and w/b

Similar trend for RMT and CCT results

Influence of SCMs on water sorptivity
Sorptivity index Slope of the between mass gain and square
root of time

16
Very Poor
28 days
14 90 days Poor
Sorptivity Index (mm/hr 1/2)

12

10
Good
8

4 Very Good

0
PC ag ag ag F F F
O sl Sl Sl a sh a sh a sh
% % % y y y
15 30 50 Fl Fl Fl
% % %
15 30 50

• Better water sorptivity test performance by SCM mixes

• Slag performance close to very good range

Sorptivity test results for mixes having a total binder content of 380 kg/m3 and w/b 0.4
Influence of SCMs on water sorptivity
OPC, 28 days
Slag, 28 days
Class F fly ash, 28 days
16 Class C fly ash, 28 days
OPC, 90 days
Sorptivity Index (mm/hr0.5) 14 Slag, 90 days
12 Class F fly ash, 90 days
Class C fly ash, 90 days
10

2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SCM replacement level (%)

SCM mixes perform better than OPC mixes, more obvious

at 90 days- indicates importance of extended curing

Test results across the entire range of binder content and w/b
 SCMs on
Influence of SCMs on Oxygen
OxygenPermeability
PermeabilityIndex
Indextest
test
12.0 28 days
Oxygen Permeability Index

11.5 90 days
11.0
Very Good
10.5
10.0
Good
9.5
Poor
9.0
8.5 Very Poor
8.0
1.0

0.0
Concrete
% 5 0 Sl B
30 Cl % ag B
5 0 C la F F g B
C

% las Fl sh

la F sh
% ss l h

h
Quality
Fl h
30 Cla s F as

as
% OP

C as
% g

C C ya
30 Sla

a
% s ly

y
% as Sl

ss ly
F
15 C F
15

s
s
15

• Not so clear influence of SCMs observed

• All the concrete fall into good or very good durability
category
Oxygen Permeability Index test results for mixes having a total binder content of
310 kg/m3 and w/b 0.5
 Influence of SCMs on accelerated carbonation test
Depth of carbonation
28 days of exposure
• In general, depth of carbonation
18
56 days of exposure
70 days of exposure
is more for SCM mixes
• At lower replacement level, the
112 days of exposure
16
Depth of carbonation (mm)

14 difference is not much

12
significant at 112 days for slag
10
and Class C fly ash
8

6 • Fly ash mixes show greater

4 depth of carbonation, whereas
2 slag mixes show relatively less
0 depth of penetration
A

% gB

Fl g B
C

Fl h C

C
Fl h F

Fl h F

30 ly a F
B
15 OP

h
15 ag

h
50 lag

% as
a

s
as
30 y a

50 y a
Sl

Sl

Sl
S

15 y

y
%

F
30

%
15

Depth of Carbonation Data (1% CO2, 65% RH, 25oC)

Mixes with total binder content 310 kg/m3; w/b 0.5
Carbonation depths at low replacement levels
acc carb 154 days.QPC

18

16

14

12

10

8 At 15% replacement level,

there is no significant
6
difference in the depth of
4 carbonation for the two
different w/b
2

Depth of Carbonation data (exposure period 112 days; 1% CO2, 65% RH, 25 oC)
Influence of SCMs on accelerated carbonation test
Calculation of carbonation resistance
R carb - Carbonation resistance (year.(kg/m3) /mm2)
𝑋𝑐 1 C - CO2 concentration in the accelerated
= 2𝐶
𝑡 𝑅𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏 carbonation test = 1%*1.184 kg/m3
Xc/√t - Carbonation rate ie., Slope of the graph

between depth of penetration and root time

(from the accelerated carbonation test)

7
R2 = 0.9179
6
Depth of Carbonation (mm)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Square root age (days 1/2) Duracrete model

 Carbonation rate and resistance

carbonation resistance (year.(kg/m 3) /mm2)

1.4 0.00025
Carbonation rate (mm/sqrt (days)

1.2
0.00020

1.0
0.00015
0.8

0.6 0.00010

0.4
0.00005
0.2
0.00000
0.0

PC

30 lag

ag

F
F

C
ag

h
h

h
g ag F F F

sl
PC sla g C C

sl
s

as

as
as

as

as
la sl

15 0%
h h h h h

%
O s s s s s s

15

y
y

fly

fly
a a a a a

Fl

Fl
5

Fl
% %
15 30% 50 y y y
fly fly

%
Fl Fl Fl

%
%
30

50

15

30
% % % 5% %
15 30 50 1 30
Carbonation resistance
Carbonation rate
• Carbonation resistance of SCM mixes are lower than that of OPC mixes
at replacement levels
• Pozzolanic reaction
• Decalcification of CSH
• Dense product formed, increases the porosity, accelerates further reaction

Literature agreement with Andrade et al., (2013), Bijen et al. (1996), Papadakis (2000)
 Qualitative Ranking of concrete with
different binders based on their
performance in different durability tests
 Scale 1 2 3 4
28 days
Concrete resistance Binder type
against OPC Slag Class F Fly ash Class C Fly ash
15% 30% 50% 15% 30% 50% 15% 30%
Chloride ion 4 3 2 1 2 2 1 4 3
penetration
Water Sorptivity 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 2
Gas permeability 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CO2 penetration 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 3 4
90 days

Concrete resistance Binder type

against
OPC Slag Class F Fly ash Class C Fly ash
15% 30% 50% 15% 30% 50% 15% 30%
Chloride ion 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 2
penetration
Water Sorptivity 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
Gas permeability 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
 Strength Vs Durability parameters
90
28 days
90 days
80
Compressive strength (MPa)

70

60

50

40

30

No correlation between strength and durability parameters

20

10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Surface resistivity (k cm)

 Guide to material selection

Making better sense of limiting values of

durability parameters...
Combined classification criteria
– for more stringent material selection guidelines
Category Surface Non-steady state Chloride conductivity
Resistivity Charge passed migration coefficient (mS/cm)
(kΩ.cm) (Coulombs) (× 10-12 m2/s)
AND OR OR
Excellent >20 <1000 <8 <0.75
Very Good >20 1000-2000 8-16 0.75 - 1
Good 10-20 1000 – 2000 8-16 0.75 - 1
Moderate 10-20 2000-4000 16 - 24 1 – 1.5
Poor <10 >4000 >24 > 1.5

140
Excellent
Surface resistivity (k .cm)

OPC, 28 days
120 OPC, 90 days Very Good
Slag, 28 days Good
100 Slag, 90 days Moderate
80 Class F fly ash, 28 days Poor
Class F fly ash, 90 days
60 Class C fly ash, 28 days
Class C fly ash, 90 days
40
20
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Charge passed (Coulombs)
 An attempt to link deterioration mechanisms to transport
mechanisms – Chloride laden environment
BS 8500 Part 1

• Recommendation for combination of test methods in each service conditions

• Limiting values for the durability parameters taken from existing classification
criteria
• Surface Resistivity – ACI 220
• Total charge passed – ASTM C 1202
• Sorptivity index – Alexander et al., 2001
• Water penetration depth – Concrete society specification
 Proposal for combined classification system in a chloride laden
environment

Service Transport Strength Durability Parameters

conditi Mechanisms (MPa)
on Surface Total charge Sorptivity Depth
Resistivity passed index of
(kΩ.cm) (Coulombs) (mm/√hr) water
penetr
OR ation
(mm)
XS1 Diffusion, Sorption, 40 >20 <2000 6-10 ---
Physical degradation
XS2 Diffusion, Permeation 35 >20 <2000 --- <30
XS3 Diffusion, Sorption, 50 >50 <1000 <6 <30
Wick action,
Permeation, Physical
degradation
Mix selection example
Service Requirement Details of the qualified mixtures
condition (Total binder content, w/b, SCM content)
XS1 Mean strength > 48.25 MPa; 310, 0.5, 15% slag ;
SR >20 or TC<2000; 310; 0.5, 50% slag;
SI – 6-10 380,0.4, 15% Class F fly ash;
380, 0.4, 15% ,30% and 50% slag
XS2 Mean strength 43.5 MPa; 310,0.5, 15%, 30%, 50%slag;
SR >20 or TC<2000; 310,0.5,15% Class F fly ash;
DoP <30 380,0.4, 15% Class F fly ash;
380, 0.4, 15% ,30% and 50% slag;
380, 0.4, OPC*
XS3 Mean strength 58.25 MPa; 380,0.4, 30%, 50% slag*
SR >50 or TC<1000; SI < 6 ;
DoP <30
* Qualified by considering both sorptivity index and slope of the best fit line together
An attempt to link deterioration mechanisms to transport
mechanisms – Carbonation induced corrosion
BS 8500 Part 1 (2006)
Combined classification criteria – carbonation induced
corrosion

Limiting values for the durability parameters taken from

existing classification criteria
Oxygen Permeability Index – Alexander et al., 1999
Carbonation rate – based on Duracrete model
Sorptivity index – Alexander et al., 1999
Combined qualitative classification criteria for service
conditions subjected to carbonation induced corrosion
Durability Parameters
Service condition

Strength (MPa)
Mechanisms
Description

Transport

Carbonation

(mm/√(days)

(mm/√hr)
Sorptivity
index
rate
OPI
OR
XC1 Dry or --- 20 >9.5 --- ---
permanently
wet
XC2 Wet, rarely dry --- 25 >9.5 <0.7 ---
XC3 Moderate Gaseous 30 >10 <0.5 <6
humidity or Diffusion,
cyclic wet and Sorption, Wick
dry action, Physical
degradation
Quality framework for concrete construction
Structural requirement Exposure environment

Strength Durability

Mixture design Preliminary mixture design based on the

criteria evolved from the study
not
satisfied Pre-qualification Strength test and combination of durability
tests tests based on the combined classification
criteria
satisfied
Work execution

Test(s) on panels/ in structure to assess as-built concrete quality

(depending on the importance of project)

Acceptance
satisfied criteria not satisfied
Specific job contract has to address
Payment the conditional acceptance criteria
Recommendations for acceptance criteria
• Limiting values from client should be considered as
‘performance criteria’ and can be used for pre-
qualification
• Acceptance criteria (or limits) should be defined to
allow for variability at the site (and within the test!)
• Sampling criteria for durability tests, as well as the
specified testing age also need to be examined closely
 Summary

• India is going through major infrastructure

development
• Durability design can help in creating valuable long
term assets
• The way forward is difficult, and needs a major
change in mindset
– Indian Concrete Institute Technical Committee is about
to release a durability handbook
Thank you…