Alexander I Brac On Presentation

Performance-based durability design and specifications for concrete 54th CBC Ibracon Conference, Maceio, Oct 2012
Performance-based durability design and specifications for concrete structures

Mark G. Alexander
Concrete Materials and Structural Integrity Research Unit University of Cape Town
Presented at 54th CBC Brazilian Conference on Concrete Maceio, October 2012
Outline

Introduction - nature of the problem Frameworks: Durability studies; Performance-based durability design & specification Premises of Durability Index (DI) approach Review of test methods and service life models Examples of implementation Current SA Code developments Closure
Introduction
Durability of R.C. structures a problem for owners/managers Corrosion resistance: relates to resistance of cover layer to
external aggressive agents Thus: quality plus thickness of the cover needs to be quantified, measured, and specified Cover quality: should relate to measured transport properties, e.g. permeability, diffusion Present specifications
Prescriptive generally ineffective for durability issues New approaches must incorporate performance-based design and
specification: to encourage innovation to improve quality of as-built structures
5
Examples of marine concrete deterioration Cape Town

6
Frameworks for:
Performance-based durability design and specification
Prescriptive vs. performance-based approaches
Prescriptive specifications recipe type, giving limits on

mix parameters, etc.

Represent most current specifications Restrictive and not able to accommodate modern developments Ineffective in many cases when it comes to durability
Performance-based specifications rely on measured

parameters from the actual structure which correspond to deterioration mechanisms

Linked with Service Life Models Permit innovation and new approaches to achieving desired performance
Prescriptive vs. performance-based approaches

Major consequences of the prescriptive approach: it cannot assess actual as-built quality of the concrete it simplistically assumes as-built quality to be what is specified
Aim - provide a framework
for the designer/owner to establish the required level of performanceand within which
the material producer and constructor can produce a structure of desired quality the owner can be assured that the quality desired is actually achieved
10
The ultimate objective is to produce a performance-based set of durability design and specification protocols These need to be framed in a fully probabilistic approach, leading to measures of Reliability
11
Framework for performance-based durability design & specification. Current SA Developments

STEPS FOR DEVELOPMENT (1 TO 4)
Durability design
Adopt EN 206 exposure classification
Durability specification
1. Define exposure classes related to the mechanism(s) of deterioration
2. Derive a quantitative design methodology, incl. definition of end of design life
Predictive service life (Initiation) models DI characterisation tests; input parameters to the service life models Currently: Deemed-to satisfy values; alt. rigorous approach
Account for required design life of structure, for no corrosion Specs. require DI values to meet criteria in 2. above Deemed-to-satisfy values: both material supplier and constructor
12
3. Develop test methods that relate to the input parameters of the design method
4. Produce provisional conformity criteria and calibrate against traditional solutions
Framework for Performance-based design & specification

STEPS FOR DEVELOPMENT (5 to 7)
Durability design
5. Establish limitations of test applicability DI tests: moderate to high-grade concretes; not valid for very HSC, special concretes. Differentiate between quality assupplied (manufacturers responsibility) & as-built (constructors responsibility).
Durability specification
Specs. cover typical normal construction
6. Ensure production control and acceptance testing Two-level requirement :as-supplied vs. as-built DI s. (Owner requires final as-built values only)
7. Conduct full-scale trials and long-term monitoring to confirm conformity requirements Studies required to give confidence in use of the approach and to calibrate the test results for local materials. Introduce the approach incrementally, build up a database of DI values to inform later improvements.
13
South African Framework Durability Index Approach

MATERIAL INDEXING
Characterization of concrete (surface layer) using easily measured physical properties, such as permeability and sorptivity QUALITY CONTROL
Correlations
DIRECT DURABILITY TESTING

Suite of accelerated tests (lab) Long-term tests (lab or ----Correlations---- site-based)
E N V I R O N M E N T
STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
Correlations Evaluation of structural performance; Consequences of deterioration; Management of economic strategies PREDICTION
FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISTIC STUDIES
Aggressiveness of micro- and macroenvironment
14
SA Durability index approach - Premises
The durability of RC structures depends on the ability of the cover to protect the reinforcing steel, i.e. the quality and thickness of the concrete cover Improved durability can be assured if relevant durability parameters reflecting the quality of the cover layer can be measured In South Africa, we have developed such durability parameters and tests so-called Durability Indexes
15
SA Durability index approach - Premises
A Durability Index (DI) is thus a quantifiable engineering parameter that characterises concrete durability (quality) sensitive to material, processing, and environmental factors based on measurement of transport properties of the cover layer - lab or in-situ concrete
DIs are linked with transport mechanisms that relate to deterioration DIs are also incorporated into Service Life Models that permit rational Durability Design
16
Review of:
DI Tests Service Life Models

(Developed in the SA Durability Programme)
17
Oxygen Permeability Index (OPI) Test

Used to control carbonation resistance
Perforated cover plate Concrete sample Rubber O-ring Pressure gauge Gas outlet
Plastic pipe section and PVC spacer Silicon rubber ring Gas inlet
OPI = -log10k Common values OPI: 8.5 - 10.8

Specimens: 70 mm dia. x 30 mm discs, pre-conditioned
18
Chloride Conductivity Index (CCI) Test

Used to control chloride resistance
DC power source A V
Steel cathode
5M NaCl
5M NaCl
Carbon anode
Plastic tubes
Concrete sample Silicone rubber ring
i t = VA
19
Common values CCI: 0.5 2.5 mS/cm
Service life models
Initiation models:
SLM for carbonation resistance, using 28-day OPI as

a parameter SLM for chloride resistance, using 28-day CCI as input to a Fickian model
Account for material type and environment Integrated approach: DI parameters are used
In design, via the SLMs In specification min. required values For quality control on site checks on as-built values
20
Service Life Models using Durability Indexes

Carbonation depth (mm)
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 8 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5
60% 80% 90%
Carbonation Predictions (50 years)
Oxygen permeability index

100
Time to corrosion (years)
80 60 40 20 0 0.3
PC SF FA SL
Chloride predictions: Time to corrosion Very severe exposure
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Water/binder ratio
21
Criteria for establishing performance criteria
1. A Robust Quality Control Test
Routine, easily-carried out, reliable measure of resistance (e.g. to chloride ingress) Relates performance to the quality control test (e.g. in terms of limiting material parameters)
2. A Service Life Model
3. A means to account for differences (i.e. Margins)

between Material Potential and As-Built values
In order to differentiate between areas of responsibility (e.g. material supplier & constructor) dealt with later
22
Examples of Implementation: Performance-based durability design
23
Design methodology

Related to Service Life Prediction Models Concerned with carbonation- and chloride-induced corrosion (initiation) Requirements:

Notional design life of structure Exposure Class(es) (EN 206) Concrete quality represented by durability index parameters measured on actual concrete Cover quantity represented by cover thickness also measured in situ
Items in red are the Owners decisions

24
Design methodology can be applied to two conditions:

1. Deemed to Satisfy approach (based on standard sets of design conditions) 2. Rigorous approach only briefly touched on here
25
Reinforcement Cover

Too little not enough protection Too large cracking can occur Typical Range: 25 - 75 mm Deemed to Satisfy: standard cover selected for

Carbonation: 30 mm Seawater: 50 mm
Cover checked by covermeter surveys post-construction
26
Design life (after EN1990)

Design Life Indicative Design Category Working Life
1 2 3 4 10 years 10 to 25 years 15 to 30 years 50 years
Examples of Structures
Temporary Replaceable Structural Parts Agricultural and Similar Structures Buildings and Other Common Structures Monumental Building Structures, & Civil Engineering Structures
100 years
27
Carbonation
Environmental Categories (after EN 206) Designation Description XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4 Permanently Wet or Permanently Dry Wet, Rarely Dry Moderate Humidity (60-80 %) Cyclic Wet and Dry
Categories refer to the moisture state at the level of the steel.

28
Seawater (marine structures)

Environmental Categories (after EN 206)
Designation Description
XS1 XS2a XS2b XS3a XS3b Exposed to airborne salt, < 5 km from sea east <15 km from sea west of Cape Agulhas Permanently Submerged XS2a + exposed to abrasion Tidal, splash and wetted spray zones XS3a + exposed to abrasion
29
Carbonation Deemed to Satisfy

For structures in environment XC3/4, an OPI requirement is necessary
Common Structures Service Life Minimum Cover Minimum OPI 50 years 30 mm 9.70 Monumental Monumental Structures (1) Structures (2) 100 years 30 mm 9.90 100 years 40 mm 9.70
Min. OPI is value that must be achieved in as-built structure at 28 d

30
Seawater Environment - Deemed to Satisfy

A chloride conductivity value is used Minimum cover of 50 mm

Common Structures 50 year life Monumental Structures 100 year life
31
Chloride Ingress Monumental Structures

Max. Chlor. Cond. Values (mS/cm) (100y life)
ENV Class XS1 XS2a XS2b, XS3a XS3b
70:30 CEMI:FA
2.50 2.15
50:50 CEMI:GGBS
2.80 2.30
50:50 CEMI:GGCS
3.50 2.90
90:10 CEM I:CSF

0.80 0.50
1.10 0.90
1.35 1.05
1.60 1.30
0.35 0.25
Maximum w/b of 0.55 These are max. CC values that should not be exceeded in the as-built structure at 28 d 32
Examples of Implementation: Rigorous Approach

Marine Struct. 50-y design life
Max. chloride conductivity (mS/cm) for various binder types
30% fly ash 50% Corex slag
Exposure class Cover 100% CEM I (based on EN 206) (mm)

XS3b: Tidal, splash and wetted spray zones, exposed to abrasion XS0b: Airborne salt in an exposed nearshore marine location 40 60 80 40 60 80 Legend 0.45 0.95 1.30 1.00 1.85 2.50
0.75 1.35 1.80 1.85 2.95 3.75
1.05 1.95 2.60 2.50 3.90 4.80
Note trade-off between matl. quality and cover
Impractical mixes; concrete grade > 60 MPa Not recomm.: < 30 MPa, and/or w/b > 0.55 Acceptable: Grades from 30 to 60 MPa
33
Example of Implementation: Site construction & DIs
UShaka pier - Durban
34
Example of Implementation: Site construction & DIs
Aggressive marine conditions in Durban

Sub-tropical, high temps. and RH, strong salt-laden onshore winds
Procedure:
Develop concrete mix in lab first to provide required level of
performance (DI testing) Take DI samples from structure during construction and test
Requirements for these less stringent than lab values
Sampling more frequent at start of construction, to assist

contractors to achieve required performance
Example follows of Pier Construction: CC values

35
UShaka pier
1.60 1.50 1.40
Chloride Conductivity Results Marine Pier
Site Acceptance w ith Penalties
Individual Disc Results Arithmetic Mean Adjusted Mean
1.20
1.00
Full Site Acceptance Limit
0.80 0.75 0.60
Laboratory Limit
0.40
0.20
0.00
A B C D Ave Adj Ave
A B C D Ave Adj Ave
A B C D Ave Adj Ave
A B C D Ave Adj Ave

October Element 2
August Cube 1
August Cube 2
August Element 1
August Element 2
A B Ave Adj Ave
September Element 1
September Element 2
October Element 1
A B C D Ave Adj Ave

October 36 3 Element
A B Ave Adj Ave
A B Ave Adj Ave
A B Ave Adj Ave
Performance-based durability specifications and site quality control
37
Material Potential vs. As-Built Construction Quality
Specifications are concerned with as-built quality

BUT
Concrete production process cannot be ignored
Two stages in addressing concrete of desired

quality: material production & supply material potential concrete placing and finishing as-built quality
o Deficiencies can arise in both stages
Therefore, we need a two level quality control

process to distinguish between material potential & as-built quality
38
Material Potential vs As-Built Values

In Situ Characteristic Potential Char. Potential Target
These values need to be established by testing of both laboratory specimens and samples from the structure.
Test Value: Increasing Quality

39
Assumption: same averages for Material Potential and As-Built Values

In Situ Characteristic Potential Characteristic Potential Target Equal Average Quality, Different Variability

40
As-built vs. Material potential

In Situ Characteristic Potential Characteristic Potential Target Material Potential Values
Use test COVs to calculate
Equal Average Quality, Different Variability

41
Potential target vs. characteristic

In Situ Characteristic Potential Characteristic Potential Target Equal Average Quality, Different Variability Based on between batch variability

42
Developing margins
Characteristic value is defined in a manner similar to that for strength a given probability that the average of three consecutive tests will be worse than this value Serviceability criteria, not Ultimate 1:10 vs. 1:100 Based on measured COVs
43
COVs of test values from Site Experience
Based on studies of laboratory and in situ concrete performance Found that:
Average values inconsistent may be greater or less than

potential
Increased variability of as-built results vs. laboratory concrete
Laboratory As-Built
COV Chloride Conductivity 5% 14 %
OPI 1% 2%
44
Material potential results
Evaluated from cubes cured in a standard manner Requires a higher level of performance
OPIMatl OPISpecified+ 0.10 CCMatl 0.90CCSpecified

45
As-built results

Evaluate the as-built final product Tested on cores taken from the structure (or test panels) at 28 days Must achieve the minimum values determined by owner
OPIAs Built OPIspecified CCAs Built CCSpecified

46
Target vs. Characteristic values

As is done with strength Not as stringent criteria (1:10 vs. 1:100) OPI:
OPITarget = OPIchar + 0.22
Chloride conductivity:
CCTarget = 0.90 CCcharacteristic CCTarget = 0.82 CCchar + 0.20

47
Example
Owners/Designers Decisions Environment: Tidal, Splash, Spray Zone, Not Exposed to Abrasion: XS3a ? Service Life: 50 years Nominal Cover: 50 mm Use Deemed to Satisfy Approach Common Structure
?
48
Example: Chloride Conductivity (mS/cm)

As-built values vs. Potential Target Values
(hypothetical case) Level 50:50 50:50 90:10 70:30 CEMI:FA CEMI:GGBS CEMI:GGCS CEM I:CSF
XS3a
x 0.90
1.35
1.60
1.95
0.45
x 0.90 or x 0.82+0.20
Potl Char. Potl Target
1.22
1.44
1.76
0.41
1.09
1.30
1.58
0.37
49
Based on the preceding table, concrete mix is designed (also for strength etc.) Mix tested for the production quality (Material Potential) As-built values also tested to check conformity with specification
50
Current limitations in application
More work required on test/sample variability: between batch variability, and in-situ variability This will give more confidence in relationships between target and characteristic material value Very little information on magnitude of reduction in values between lab standard cured samples and in-situ achievements Need information on actual as-built values, to confirm validity of approach
51
Developments in re-drafting SA concrete codes
Moving towards performance-based approaches to durability:

Aim at limiting the environmental consequences on structure to acceptable targets during the service life Advocate use of service life prediction models Quantify environmental deterioration and provide output in terms of the expected material quality
Designer makes choices of selecting a suitable material (conventional, new or marginal) that will meet the requirements within the predefined acceptable level Specified material quality then verified on site using durability tests that characterise that quality
52
Current proposal (for durability)

Based on Eurocodes (historical BS codes as basis) Adopt EN 206 and EN 13670 (Execution of concrete structures)
Redraft SA Code:
Define exposure class and nominal design life Work within a reliability framework
durability provisions drafted, varying from simple approaches (e.g. avoid deterioration by coatings) to full probab. approach incrementally improve the code as knowledge develops Provide a National Annex type document to elaborate EN 206 interpretive document for practical guidance to the engineer
E.g. In the UK, Complementary standard to EN 206 is BS 8500 - specifies constituent materials, etc
53
Proposal
Initially, code to comprise only deemed to satisfy provisions covering two alternatives:
Guidance on material and structural parameters (i.e. max w/c, min cement content, strength class, cover)

account for generic binder type and environment set limiting values (necessarily conservative) - justifiable in terms of a service life approach calibrated as far as possible against existing SA service life models recognition of design life
Limiting DI values (linked to service life models) for carbonation and chlorides should require on-site evaluation for achieving as-built durability
Plus: linkage with structural class

54
Closure
Presentation has described the development of the
Durability Index approach in SA, for improving quality of R. C. construction Approach relies on site-applicable DI tests and linked Service Life Models Performance-based Design and Specification methods flow from this approach Approach can be used to optimize balance between concrete quality and cover thickness Work is required to correlate DI values and actual as-built performance Work is advancing on completely re-drafting the SA Concrete Code based on the EN codes but incorporating local practice
55
Thank You! and good luck with preparations for

World Cup 2014!
and of course, preparations for the more important event RILEM Week 2014 in Brazil!
56
57

Alexander I Brac On Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alexander I Brac On Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alexander I Brac On Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance-based durability design and specifications for concrete 54th CBC Ibracon Conference, Maceio, Oct 2012

Performance-based durability design and specifications for concrete structures

Examples of marine concrete deterioration Cape Town

Performance-based durability design and specification

Prescriptive vs. performance-based approaches

Prescriptive specifications recipe type, giving limits on

Performance-based specifications rely on measured

Prescriptive vs. performance-based approaches

Aim - provide a framework

Framework for performance-based durability design & specification. Current SA Developments

1. Define exposure classes related to the mechanism(s) of deterioration

2. Derive a quantitative design methodology, incl. definition of end of design life

4. Produce provisional conformity criteria and calibrate against traditional solutions

Framework for Performance-based design & specification

South African Framework Durability Index Approach

DIRECT DURABILITY TESTING

FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISTIC STUDIES

Aggressiveness of micro- and macroenvironment

SA Durability index approach - Premises

SA Durability index approach - Premises

DI Tests Service Life Models

Oxygen Permeability Index (OPI) Test

OPI = -log10k Common values OPI: 8.5 - 10.8

Chloride Conductivity Index (CCI) Test

Concrete sample Silicone rubber ring

Common values CCI: 0.5 2.5 mS/cm

Service life models

SLM for carbonation resistance, using 28-day OPI as

Service Life Models using Durability Indexes

Carbonation Predictions (50 years)

Oxygen permeability index

Time to corrosion (years)

Chloride predictions: Time to corrosion Very severe exposure

Criteria for establishing performance criteria

1. A Robust Quality Control Test

2. A Service Life Model

3. A means to account for differences (i.e. Margins)

Examples of Implementation: Performance-based durability design

Items in red are the Owners decisions

Design methodology can be applied to two conditions:

Cover checked by covermeter surveys post-construction

Design life (after EN1990)

Categories refer to the moisture state at the level of the steel.

Seawater (marine structures)

Carbonation Deemed to Satisfy

Min. OPI is value that must be achieved in as-built structure at 28 d

Seawater Environment - Deemed to Satisfy

A chloride conductivity value is used Minimum cover of 50 mm

Chloride Ingress Monumental Structures

ENV Class XS1 XS2a XS2b, XS3a XS3b

90:10 CEM I:CSF

Examples of Implementation: Rigorous Approach

Exposure class Cover 100% CEM I (based on EN 206) (mm)

0.75 1.35 1.80 1.85 2.95 3.75

1.05 1.95 2.60 2.50 3.90 4.80

Note trade-off between matl. quality and cover

Example of Implementation: Site construction & DIs

UShaka pier - Durban