DR P Bamforth - Durability Study of A Diaphragm Wall - CONCRETE CRACKING JL

Al Sowwah Island Durability of the diaphragm wall
Dr P B Bamforth 1 V.1 20 July 2009

AL SOWWAH ISLAND
Durability study for the diaphragm wall and facia

Dr P B Bamforth

Executive Summary
A durability assessment has been carried out for the diaphragm wall and in situ facia for
Al Sowwah Island. Concrete mixes are proposed based on the requirements of CS163
and the exposure conditions unique to the site. With the use of blended cements
(PC/ggbs/ms) which exhibit both sulfate resistance and a high resistance to chloride
penetration it has been estimated that a 70-year life will be achieved using C50 concrete
with 70% ggbs, 2-5% microsilica and 80mm cover in the retaining wall, and C60
concrete with 60% ggbs, 5-10% microsilica and 70mm cover in the facia. Specific mix
proportions must be derived through mix trials. The higher ggbs content in the diaphragm
wall is required to minimise temperature rise in the thicker section.

Options for reducing cover included;

a) An integral corrosion inhibitor to increase the threshold level of chloride at which
corrosion commences. If used this may lead to a reduction in cover to about
50mm in both the diaphragm wall and the facia, depending on the dosage.
b) Stainless steel or stainless steel clad reinforcement. In this case the cover will be
determined primarily by the structural requirements.

The principal risk to durability is from cracking. It is recommended that in the extreme
splash zone exposure condition, crack widths are no greater than 0.2mm, the level at
which it is generally accepted that some degree of self healing will occur in a humid
environment. In the aggressive and moderately aggressive zones cracks widths up to
0.3mm may be permitted. To avoid the risk of corrosion in the facia an option is to use
stainless steel.

As corrosion of reinforcement presents the more serious risk to achieving a 70-year life,
testing should focus on the chloride levels in the constituent to minimise the background
level and on the chloride resistance of the concrete. Nordtest NT 443 is recommended as
this provides a value of effective diffusion coefficient than may be used to validate the
estimates used in the predictive model.

As it has been estimated that a service life of 70-years will be achieved, extensive
maintenance should not be necessary. However, visual inspections are recommended at 5
year intervals for the first 20 years and at 10 year interval thereafter. A warning of
potential problems may be obtained through the use of embedded corrosion monitors, or
by periodically taking drilled samples to determine the extent of chloride ingress. The
latter would be included as part of the visual surveys

Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................. 4
2. The diaphragm wall .................................................................................................... 4
3. Exposure conditions.................................................................................................... 5
3.1 General conditions .............................................................................................. 5
3.2 Exposure to sulfate.............................................................................................. 5
3.3 Exposure to chlorides.......................................................................................... 5
3.4 Exposure to combined sulfate and chloride........................................................ 8
4 Estimating service life using CSTR61........................................................................ 9
4.1 The model ....................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Assumptions.................................................................................................... 9
4.3 Estimating service life................................................................................... 11
4.3.1 The facia - splash zone.............................................................................. 11
4.3.2 Back of the wall in dredged granular fill .................................................. 12
5. Delayed ettringite formation..................................................................................... 12
6 Recommendations for concrete and cover for 70-year life....................................... 13
7 Cracking.................................................................................................................... 14
7.1 The effect of cracking on corrosion of reinforcement ...................................... 14
7.2 Other effects of cracking................................................................................... 15
8 Measures to minimise corrosion at cracks................................................................ 15
8.2 Use of stainless steel reinforcement or stainless steel cad reinforcement. ....... 15
8.2 The use of a corrosion inhibitor ........................................................................ 16
9 Construction of the facia........................................................................................... 17
9.1 Early thermal effects in pours 1 and 3 .............................................................. 17
9.2 Shrinkage of pour 2........................................................................................... 19
10 Testing and quality control ................................................................................... 21
10.1 Background chloride content ............................................................................ 21
10.2 Testing for resistance to chloride penetration................................................... 22
10.3 Batching plant trials .......................................................................................... 23
10.4 Full scale trial.................................................................................................... 23
11. Monitoring, Maintenance and inspection in service............................................. 23
12 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 24
References......................................................................................................................... 25

1. Introduction
A project specific durability study has been undertaken for a typical diaphragm wall
cross-section and given design conditions. According to Concrete Society Report CS163
[1], the diaphragm wall falls into the category of a special structure because of the
requirement for a design life is significantly greater than 30 years. As stated in CS163,
the durability study must therefore lead to a project specific durability plan which
includes;

consideration of the micro exposure conditions which apply to the major
and/or critical elements
recommendations of measures in the design to provide durability, including
recommendations for the concrete specification, cover requirements and any
additional corrosion protection measures required to achieve the specified
design life of 70 years
specify testing and quality control during construction
specify monitoring, inspection and maintenance in service, developed as a
project maintenance plan

To ensure a long design life, attention must be given to the design, the construction
process and subsequent maintenance. In particular it is important that the concrete is
properly compacted and cured. For the purposes of this durability assessment it will be
assumed that current best practice will be used in the construction process as described in
CIRIA C577 [2].
2. The diaphragm wall
The diaphragm wall has a uniform thickness of 1200mm. A reinforced concrete facia is
to be cast in situ to a level from 3m above Abu Dhabi Datum 1m to 2m belowAbu Dhabi
Datum. This may include polypropylene fibre as additional protection against scaling.
The profile of the facia has been designed to match other sections of the wall constructed
using blocks.

The durability of reinforced concrete is determined by the inherent durability of the
concrete and the ability of the concrete, through the combination of quality and cover
depth, to prevent corrosion of the reinforcement.

In Abu Dhabi, deterioration of the concrete may occur as a result of either aggressive
agents in the environment or as a result of the internal degradation as shown below.

External attack Internal attack
Sulfate attack Alkali silica reaction
Salt weathering Delayed ettringite formation

Reinforcement is protected in newly cast concrete by virtue of the high pH (>12.5).
However, the protection may be lost under one of two conditions;

Mechanism Effect on steel passivation
Carbonation Reaction of CO2 in the air the calcium hydroxide in the hydrated cement
leads to the production of calcium carbonate with a much lower pH and
the passivation of reinforcement is lost
Chloride penetration
to the steel
Chlorides, at a sufficient (threshold) level at the steel surface, interrupt the
continuing formation of the passivating layer and again protection is lost

As the concrete is either immersed or regularly wetted, carbonation is not considered to
be a major issue, with the predominant risk of reinforcement corrosion resulting from
chlorides.
3. Exposure conditions
3.1 General conditions
Abu Dhabi is a hot, arid climate (i.e. one in which evaporation exceeds precipitation).
Summer shade temperatures exceeding 40
o
C with very high humidity near the coast.
Other particular features of the climate include;

High (day-to-night) temperature changes
Strong drying winds
High change in relative humidity with condensation at night
High solar radiation

The diaphragm wall will be exposed at various locations to seawater and to sulfate and
chloride bearing groundwater. CS163 provides guidance on exposure classes for
concrete in the Arabian Peninsula, recognising that the use of other National codes may
not be sufficiently robust to deal with significantly more aggressive exposure.
3.2 Exposure to sulfate
Test results from the soil [3] have shown that sulfate levels are in the range from 300 to
2400 mg/l (as SO4 by 2:1 water extraction) and the pH is 8.0-8.7. Under these conditions
with mobile groundwater, Table 6 of CS163 classifies the sulfate exposure as S-3.
However, CS163 also states that all concrete below ground level must have effective and
durable tanking. Where this is not practical CS163 recommends that the next higher
aggressive ground class should be used, in this case the highest class S-4. Mix
requirements to meet both S-3 and S-4 conditions are given in Table 1.
3.3 Exposure to chlorides
The exposure class for chloride varies from the permanently submerged part of the
retaining wall to the exposed area in the splash zone. CS193 exposure conditions are
described in Table 2.

Table 1 Requirements of CS163 for S-3 and S-4 exposure to sulfate
Sulfate
exposure
class
Minimum
strength
class
Maximum free
w/c or
combination
content
Minimum
cement or
combination
content for
20mm aggregate
Recommended cement and combination
group
S-3 C50 0.40 380 E
55-70% PC
35-25% fly ash
10-5% ms
30-45% PC
60-60 % ggbs
1

10-5% ms
B Sulfate resisting
C
65-75% PC
35-25% fly ash
40-50% PC
60-50% ggbs
1
C50 0.40 400
D
60-74% PC
40-36% fly ash
25-34% PC
75-66% ggbs
1

S-4
C60 0.35 400 E As above As above
1
When the cement or combination is specified for sulfate resistance there is an additional requirement that
if the alumina content of the slag exceeds 14%, the tricalcium aluminate content of the Portland cement
component shall not exceed 10%.

Table 2 Chloride exposure classes according to CS163
Exposure
class
Examples
Moderately
aggressive

(Permanently submerged). Surface of under-sea structures which are permanently at
least 5m below low tide level
Aggressive
(Wet, rarely
dry)
(i) Surfaces underground in areas with saline groundwater including the capillary rise
zone (but see also sulfate exposure classes)
(ii) Surfaces of structures containing saline water which are in permanent contact with
the water
(iii) Surfaces between high tide level and 5m below sea level
Severe
(Moderate
humidity)
External surfaces which are not affected by condensation, condensation run-off,
irrigation or leakage and which are more than 3m above ground level of structures
which are
a) in geographical locations with high saline water table, salinas or sabkhas, or
b) between 50m and 1km from the sea
Extreme
(Cyclic wet
and dry)
(i) External surfaces in geographical locations which are between 50m and 1km from
the sea or with high saline groundwater, salinas or sabkhas, which are
a) less than 3m above ground level or within the capillary rise zone, or
b) affected by condensation, condensation run-off, irrigation or leakage
(ii) Surface of water retaining structures where the contained water is saline and
which are
a) affected by fluctuating water levels, spray or splash
b) on the opposite side of the member from the contained water and could be
affected by leakage
(iii) Internal surfaces of water excluding structures such as tunnels and basements
where the excluded water is saline
(iv) Splash zone external surfaces of structures from high tide level to 50m inland

On the seaward face the retaining wall is part exposed in the splash zone, part
permanently immersed in sea water and part buried in the seabed. On the landward face
the wall is part exposed (permanently) to saline water in the dredged granular fill and part
buried in the seabed. The range of exposure classes is illustrated in Figure 1.

D
i
a
p
h
r
a
g
m

w
a
l
l
Dredged
granular fill
MHHW
(+0.76mNADD)
MLLW
(-1.075mNADD)
Rap layer
(-3.6mNADD)
E
X
T
R
E
M
E
A
G
G
R
E
S
S
I
V
E
Bed level (-8.0mNADD)
A
G
G
R
E
S
S
I
V
E
Capping/facing beam
M
O
D
E
R
A
T
E
L
Y

A
G
G
R
E
S
S
I
V
E
M
O
D
E
R
A
T
E
L
Y

A
G
G
R
E
S
S
I
V
E
E
X
T
R
E
M
E
Transition
depends
on water table

Figure 1 Exposure classes according to CS163

In the worst case the exposure is defined as extreme for the upper part of the wall. On
the seaward face the exposure conforms to Extreme (iv) splash zone and on the
landward face the exposure conforms to Extreme (ii) - Surface of water retaining
structures where the contained water is saline and which are a) affected by fluctuating
water levels, spray or splash.

From high tide level down to 5m below sea level, where the concrete is wet, rarely dry
the exposure class is defined as aggressive on both faces. The transition on the
landward face will depend on the level of the water table.

From 5m below sea level the exposure is defined as moderately aggressive.
The requirements for concrete to meet the relevant CS163 chloride exposure classes are
given in Table 3 for an intended life of 30 years. The diaphragm wall has an intended life
of 70 years and the requirements provided in Table 3 have been checked using the
chloride migration model of Concrete Society 61 to establish the requirements for the
much longer life.
Table 3 Concrete requirements (strength class, maximum w/c ratio, minimum cement
content) and cover for an intended 30 year life
Strength class, maximum w/c and minimum cement content (kg/m
3
) for
cover (mm) of;
Exposure
class
35+ c 50 + c 55 + c 60 + c 65 + c 70 + c 75 + c
Cement
type (see
Table 1)
Moderately
aggressive
C50
0.40
380
A, B
C40
0.45
360
C,D,E
Aggressive C60
0.35
400

C50
0.40
380
C40
0.45
360
C
C50
0.40
380
C40
0.45
360
D
C50
0.40
380
C40
0.45
360
E
Extreme C60
0.35
400
C50
0.40
380
C40
0.45
360
C
C60
0.35
400
C50
0.4
380
C40
0.45
360
D
C60
0.35
400
C50
0.40
380
C40
0.45
360
E
3.4 Exposure to combined sulfate and chloride
Structures on or close to the coast will be exposed to both sulfate and chloride. In such
circumstances the aluminates in the cement tend to react preferentially with the chlorides
(hence the improved chloride resistance of high C
3
A cements which have enhanced
chloride binding capacity [4]). While not dealing specifically with sea water exposure,
BRE SD1, Concrete in aggressive ground [5], acknowledges that indeed, they
[chlorides] may be beneficial since there is considerable evidence, from seawater
studies, that the presence of chloride generally reduces sulfate attack. This is taken into
account for brackish water in brownfield sites. Furthermore, BS8500-1:2006 [6] states
that Where concrete is to be in contact with seawater, it needs to be of sufficient quality
to resist seawater attack. The recommendations to resist reinforcement corrosion induced
by seawater provide concretes with adequate resistance to the chemical attack on
concrete by the seawater.

Taking into account the high levels of chloride reported in the groundwater (0.98
4.00%) the requirement to increase the sulfate class from S-3 to S-4 may therefore be
unnecessarily onerous.
4 Estimating service life using CSTR61
4.1 The model
The rate of chloride ingress is determined by the level of chloride in the environment, the
depth of cover and the ability of the concrete to resist chloride migration (defined as the
apparent chloride diffusion coefficient. The level of background chloride in the concrete
(derived for the mix constituents) must also be taken into account.

For this durability assessment the model of CSTR 61 [7] is used. The CSTR61 model
estimates the time to the onset of reinforcement corrosion and the time to cracking. As
there is greater uncertainty attached to the prediction of the time between onset of
corrosion and cracking, the service life is conservatively estimated on the basis of the
time to onset of corrosion, i.e. when the chloride content at rebar depth exceeds the
threshold level.

The error function equation is used to predict the rate of chloride ingress using equation 1

+ =
t
t
t
D 2
x
erf 1 ) C (C C C
n
m
ca(tm)
b sn b x
(1)

where,
C
x
is the chloride content at depth x after time t
C
sn
is the notional surface chloride level
C
b
is the level of background chloride (e.g. from the aggregate and sand)
D
ca(tm)
is the apparent diffusion coefficient, D
ca
derived from a measurement at time t
m

n is the age factor
4.2 Assumptions
In making the service life predictions the following assumptions have been made.

(Notional) surface chloride level, C
sn
Based on a review of measurements from
structures [7, 8] a characteristic (95 percentile) value of 0.9% by weight of concrete
(about 5.4% by weight of cement) is used assuming splash zone conditions.

Background chloride level, C
b
- The chloride content of the fresh concrete must be
limited by either the selection of non-contaminated aggregate or by washing. CIRIA
C577 [2] recommends chloride limits, following acid extraction to BS12: Part 117, as
follows;

Coarse aggregate 0.03%
Fine aggregate/sand 0.06%

Assuming a typical 2:1 ratio of coarse to fine aggregate this is equivalent to 0.04% by
weight of combined aggregate, this being the limit in the Employers specification. With
these limits the contribution of chloride to the concrete from the aggregate would be
expected not to exceed about 0.7 kg/m
3
. This is about 0.03% weight of the concrete.
With a cement content exceeding 400kg/m
3
the maximum chloride expressed as percent
of cement is therefore limited to less than 0.18 % wt of cement.

Chloride threshold level, C
t
This is the level at the surface of the steel at which it is
assumed that corrosion may commence. In temperate climates, the threshold level of
chloride for corrosion activation is generally assumed to be 0.4% wt of cement.
However, the threshold level is lower at elevated temperature [7, 9]. The threshold level
may also be reduced by the use of microsilica and ggbs. At an assumed mean
temperature of 30
o
C and with 60%ggbs the threshold level is assumed to be 0.21%.
It should be noted that this threshold level is only marginally higher than the level of
background chloride permitted and it is important therefore that if the background
chloride level is close to the maximum permissible, no further chloride should be able to
penetrate to the depth of the reinforcement

Apparent chloride diffusion coefficient D
ca
- The diffusion coefficient is dependent on
the mix constituents (in particular the cement type) and the mix proportions. The model
of CSTR 61 uses algorithms to estimate D
ca
based on the cement content, the cement type
and the w/c ratio. The age factor, acknowledging the increasing resistance to chloride
ingress with age, is also estimated from the mix parameters. Estimated values for C40,
C50 and C60 mixes using 60% ggbs are given in Table 4. [NB The model does not
generate diffusion coefficients for triple blend mixes and in this analysis the additional
benefit from microsilica has been ignored providing a margin of safety]. D
ca
is assumed
to vary with temperature and the assumed mean temperature is 30
o
C.

Table 4 Estimated values of D
ca
used in the CSTR61 chloride diffusion model [Assumes
60% ggbs by weight of cementitious material]

Apparent diffusion coefficient,
D
ca
(m
2
/s)
Strength
class
w/c
28 days 20 years
C40 0.45 9.39 x 10
-12
0.150 x 10
-12

C50 0.40 11.1 x 10
-12
0.176 x 10
-12

C60 0.35 12.8 x 10
-12
0.207 x 10
-12

4.3 Estimating service life
4.3.1 The facia - splash zone
Using the above assumptions the relationship between cover and time to corrosion has
been estimated and the results are shown in Figure 2 for the three strength classes. From
these curves the cover requirements for 30-year and 70-year have been estimated and the
results are given in Table 5.

0
20
40
60
80
100
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cover (mm)
T
I
m
e

t
o

c
o
r
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
y
r
s
)
C60 C40 C50

Figure 2 The relationship between the estimated time to corrosion and cover

Table 5 Estimated cover requirements compared with the requirements of CS163 using
type E cement combination with 60% ggbs.

Cover requirements (mm) Strength
class
CSTR61 30yrs CS163 30yrs CSRT61 70yrs
C40 75 65 89
C50 66 60 77
C60 58 55 68

Cover requirements based on the CSRT61 model are marginally more conservative than
the requirements of CS163 (possibly because additional benefits from the microsilica
have been ignored) but are in the same order, indicating that the assumptions behind the
mode are consistent with those of CS163. With C60 the estimated cover for 30 years life
is 58mm and this increases by only 10mm, to 68mm, to give a 70-year life. The
relatively small increase in cover to achieve 40 years additional life is due to the ageing
effect associated with ggbs concrete and with microsilica concrete at low w/c.

Hence the use of C60 concrete with type E cement combination with cover of 70 mm on
seaward faces would be expected to provide protection from corrosion of reinforcement
for 70 years.

Using the C50 concrete the cover with the same cement combination would require
77mm cover to achieve a 70-year life.

The proposed minimum cover is 100mm and hence this would provide a significant
margin of safety with regard to protection of reinforcement using either C50 or C60
concrete.

Note that tolerances, c, should be added to the estimated cover requirements (see Table
3) to account for variations that can occur during placement and concreting
4.3.2 Back of the wall in granular fill
While the back of the wall at the upper level is in conditions that define it as extreme
i.e. Surface of water retaining structures where the contained water is saline and which
are, a) affected by fluctuating water levels, spray or splash, the build up of chloride on
the surface is likely to be less severe. However, the effect of reducing the surface
chloride level to 0.5% has been estimated to permit a reduction in cover of only about
5mm.

It would be appropriate therefore to use the same cover on each face, 70mm for C60 and
80mm for C50, rather than 100mm on the seaward face and 50mm on the landward face.
This would achieve about the same distance between inner and outer reinforcement.
5. Delayed ettringite formation
Delayed ettringite formation is a form of internal sulfate attack. Ettringite is normally
formed during cement hydration, resulting in a volume increase in the fresh, plastic
concrete. However, due to the concretes plastic condition, the expansion is harmless and
unnoticed. However in some concretes which have been exposed to temperatures over
about 70C, the high temperature decomposes any initial ettringite formed and holds the
sulfate and alumina tightly in the calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel of the cement
paste. The normal formation of ettringite is thus impeded but in the presence of moisture,
ettringite may form after months or years in confined locations within the hardened
concrete. Since the concrete is rigid the ettringite volume increase leads to expansion and
cracking.

BRE IP11/01 [10] states that initial research has shown that fly ash at levels > 20% or
ggbs at levels > 40% will prevent DEF-induced expansion in concrete subject to peak
temperatures of up to 100
o
C but states that further work is needed to ensure that DEF is
not merely delayed. For this reason BRE IP11/01 categorises concretes using ggbs as
low risk (rather than no risk). Furthermore, Concrete Society Report No.30 [11] states
that the alkali contribution from ggbs may be ignored when the ggbs content exceeds
40%; hence the effective Na
2
0equ (for the CEMI/fly ash combination) is likely to be well
below 0.85%, permitting the 75
o
C limit to be used. This is the limit recommended by
CS163 for concrete using blended cement.

As the wall is 1200mm thick there is a risk of very high temperature rise during early
hydration and to minimise the risk of delayed ettringite formation, a mix using cement
with low heat of hydration and the lowest practical cement content should be used. This
will be achieved with the triple blend mix including ggbs and microsilica, the former
slowing the rate of heat output during hydration and the latter, which has a cementing
efficiency of at least 2 times that of Portland cement, enabling the total cement content to
be reduced.

Estimates of the peak temperature have been made using the model of CIRIA C660 [12]
for C50 and C60 concrete with varying levels of ggbs. The placing temperature of the
concrete is assumed to be 32
o
C and the ground temperature 30
o
C. The results are given in
Table 6.

Table 6 Estimated peak temperature in the 1200mm diaphragm wall
Peak temperature (
o
C) with ggbs
proportions of:
Strength
class
Cement
content
(kg/m
3
)
60% ggbs 65% ggbs 70% ggbs
C50 380 77 75 72
C60 400 79 77 75

Using a higher proportion of ggbs enable the peak temperature to be reduced and will
also increase resistance to sulfate attack and chloride ingress.
6 Recommendations for concrete and cover for 70-year life

Mix
requirement
Diaphragm
wall
Facia
Strength class C50 C60
Min cement
content (kg/m
3
)
380 400
PC 25-28% 35-30%%
Ggbs 70% 60%
microsilica 5-2% 5-10%
Cover (mm) 80 + c 70 + c

Based on the assessment using CSTR61 no additional protective measures are required to
protect the reinforcement for 70 years.

7 Cracking
7.1 The effect of cracking on corrosion of reinforcement
Reinforced concrete is designed to crack and an inherent part of the design is the control
of crack widths. However, the impact of cracking and the specific influence of crack
width is still not easily quantifiable in relation to corrosion of reinforcement despite much
research in this area.

In 1972, a study by the University of Texas at Austin [13] led to the following
conclusion ... Although flexural cracking of concrete was found to promote corrosion
of reinforcement at the crack location, the severity of the long term corrosion damage
to the bars was primarily dependent on the depth of concrete cover. Large cracks,
usually found in conjunction with large cover, promoted early corrosion at the crack
locations but further development of the corrosion, as well as longitudinal cracking of
the cover over the bars, were inhibited for the larger covers.

In a more recent study, Arya and Ofori-Darko [14] reached a similar conclusion
and suggested that ...an effective measure against corrosion may be to limit the
frequency of intersecting cracking by increasing the depth of cover to the
reinforcement, rather than by controlling surface crack widths.

Ohno et al [15] also reported reduced corrosion with increasing cover, but were
surprised by these findings, suggesting that, for a given load, increased cover should
lead to wider cracks. Effects of crack widths and w/c ratio were also investigated and
it was concluded that the most significant factor was w/c ratio.

Francois and Arliguie [16] reported that in cracked beams with low cover (10mm), the
secondary cracks resulting from steel corrosion seemed to be randomly located and
without any correlation with the presence of service cracking (for cracks up to
0.25mm). In beams with greater cover (40mm), the extent of cracking was generally
less than in the low cover beams, despite the crack width being greater (up to
0.5mm) supporting an argument that the quality of the cover is more influential
than the crack width in determining the extent of steel corrosion.

The research evidence suggests, therefore, that the use of high cover with low
water/cement ratio concrete (as proposed) will minimise the influence of cracking, by
stifling any initial corrosion that may be initiated at the core of the crack, and that it is
more appropriate to limit the frequency of cracks than to limit crack widths

Nevertheless codes of practice still aim to limit the crack width. For example EN1992-1-
1 [17] permits surface crack widths up to 0.3mm for splash zone conditions in more
moderate climates. Where there is a requirement for water retention (as described in
EN1992-3 [18]), the allowable crack width is reduced to 0.2mm for a hydraulic gradient
up to 5 and reducing linearly as the hydraulic gradient increases to 35. This is because
there is evidence that at crack widths of 0.2mm or less some degree of self-healing can
occur. Swedish and Danish Standards (SS13701 [19] and DS411 [20] also limit crack
widths to 0.2mm in extra aggressive environments. Furthermore, recognizing the more
aggressive nature of the Arabian Peninsular some authorities demand more stringent
limits, e.g. 0.15mm in the Dubai Municipality for concrete in the ground.

In view of the very aggressive environment in the extreme splash zone condition it
would be appropriate to design for a crack that is likely to have some self-healing
capacity and on this basis an allowable value of 0.2mm would be appropriate.

In the less severe exposure conditions wider cracks may be tolerated. This is especially
so in those part of the diaphragm wall that are permanently immersed. In these
conditions, even if chlorides penetrate to the steel, corrosion will be inhibited by the lack
of oxygen. In these conditions a crack width of 0.3mm will be acceptable, this being the
magnitude of crack width generally accepted as being adequate in marine structures [21]

In selecting an appropriate crack width it has to be recognized that increasing cover to
enhance durability will also increase the surface crack width and therefore increase the
amount of reinforcement required. One way to overcome this is to design for a crack
width at the design cover, rather than that determined by durability requirements [1]. The
argument for this is that the limiting crack widths developed over the years have
generally been associated with more typical cover depths up to about 50 mm. As the
concern is the potential to protect the reinforcement and hence the potential for self-
healing, this could be achieved by ensuring that the crack width, within the cover
required for structural purposes, is 0.2mm or less.
7.2 Other effects of cracking
In addition to acting as potential corrosion sites, cracks may also be unacceptable visually
if they are too wide or if they lead to rust staining. As discussed in Section 7.1, corrosion
may initiate at the root of cracks but may then be stifled if the concrete quality and cover
is adequate. However, even a small amount of corrosion may lead to rust staining. It
may be prudent therefore to adopt additional measures to prevent corrosion at cracks. If
the cracks are sufficiently narrow to be self-healing then the measures to prevent
corrosion may only need to be effective for a limited period.
8 Measures to minimise corrosion at cracks
Additional measures to minimize or prevent corrosion, particularly at the location of
cracks, are as follow
8.1 Use of stainless steel reinforcement or stainless steel clad
reinforcement.
One obvious way to avoid corrosion of the reinforcement is to use steel that is resistant to
corrosion. Stainless steel (SS) is such a material and may provide a simple solution in
areas that are particularly vulnerable. There are various grades of SS but the two most
commonly used for reinforcement are designations 1.4301 (304 S31) and 1.4436 (316
S33): both are austenitic SS. 316 S33 offers the highest corrosion resistance and is
generally recommended when used in coastal or marine applications.

A particular benefit of SS is that the cover may be reduced, permitting less steel to
achieve the same surface crack width. In addition, the design crack width could itself be
relaxed to level that is visually acceptable, further reducing the amount of the SS
required. Hence some of the additional cost associated with SS may be offset by a
reduction in the amount of reinforcement required. Consider the difference between the
steel required to control crack widths to 0.2mm at 70mm cover with that required to
achieve, say, 0.3mm cracks with 50mm cover.

Stainless steel clad carbon steel is also available (e.g. Nouvinox). This comprises carbon
steel with a skin of 316 S33 of 1-2mm (depending on diameter) and provides the same
corrosion resistance as solid SS of the same grade, but is about half the price of solid
stainless steel reinforcement.

If SS is used it would only be necessary in the facia which is exposed to splash zone
conditions, i.e. above high tide level (see Table 2). Based on a review of extensive
research, Concrete Society Report 51[21] recommends that no particular precautions are
necessary when coupling SS and carbon steel, but that it may be prudent to use the higher
quality molybdenum-bearing alloy (316 S33 or better) to keep the risk to a minimum
8.2 The use of a corrosion inhibitor
Calcium nitrite, the most commonly used corrosion inhibitor, is widely available
commercially as a 30% solution. It is normally added to the concrete as a separate
material at the mixer at a rate between 10 and 30 litres per cubic meter of concrete,
depending on the amount of chlorides predicted to accumulate in the vicinity of the
reinforcing steel during the intended design life of the structure.
Extensive laboratory research and numerous field studies have established the
effectiveness of calcium nitrite in reducing the risk of corrosion in chloride contaminated
concrete. The inclusion of calcium nitrite in concrete appears (from limited research
studies) to have no significant effect on the rate of ingress of chloride towards the
reinforcing steel, it has, when added in sufficient quantities, been found to have a
considerable effect in two respects: i) it delays the onset of corrosion (by raising the
chloride threshold level), and ii) after corrosion starts, it reduces the corrosion rate.
Evidence emerging from existing structures, which have been in exposure for up to 20
years, confirms satisfactory performance.

Within the model of CSTR61, calcium nitrate is assumed to increase the chloride
threshold level according to the equation

t
t tI
f
I
0.06 C C + = (2)

where
C
tI
is the inhibitor modified chloride threshold level
C
t
is the chloride threshold level with no inhibitor
I is the inhibitor dose in l/m
3

f
t
is a safety factor (applied by the user)

With a dose of 20 l/m
3
and a safety factor of 3 (i.e. assuming the inhibitor is only 1/3 as
effective as claimed) the threshold level would increase by 0.4 (from 0.32 to 0.72) at
20
o
C, reducing to 0.48 at 30
o
C. Estimates of the cover requirements using increasing
levels of corrosion inhibitor in the C50 and C60 concretes are as follows:

0 10 l/m
3
20 l/m
3
30 l/m
3

C50 80mm 60mm 55mm 50mm
C60 70mm 55mm 50mm 45mm

As demonstrated this would also provide the opportunity to reduce cover and achieve
better control of crack widths with less steel.
8.3 Epoxy-coated reinforcement
The contractor has allowed for the use of fusion-bonded epoxy coated reinforcement
(FBECR) as an additional protective measure. Over the years, and particularly in the US,
there have been many instances of failures using epoxy coated steel and its reputation has
understandably suffered. The risk in using FBECR is that its performance requires

a) that it is manufactured well, with no inherent defects, and
b) that no defects are introduced during the process of cutting, bending and fixing or
during the concreting process. This is practically very difficult to achieve and to
guarantee, particularly if the facia is to be cast as a single deep lift.

Where defects occur, corrosion may be accelerated as it is concentrated locally, leading
to significant loss of section.

An added consideration is the reduced bond achieved using FBECR, which nay be
assumed to be about 80% of that of uncoated steel [1]. This may lead to the requirement
for an increase in the area of reinforcement to achieve the limiting crack widths and for
increased lap lengths

In view of the track record of FBECR and the uncertainties associated with its use, it
would be difficult to guarantee a 70-year life if it is used and its use is not recommended.
9 Construction of the facia
The facia is to be cast in situ. It is has a complex profile (Figure 3) and trials are being
undertaken to demonstrate that it may be completed as a single pour.
9.1 Early thermal effects
The lower and upper sections of the facia (1 and 3) are relatively thick, up to about
1000mm, while the middle section 2 may be as thin as 400mm. It was originally
proposed that the wall be cast against a scabbled surface of the wall to provide good
bond. In this case there would be a significant a risk of early-age cracking due to early
thermal effects and/or shrinkage with the diaphragm wall offering considerable restraint
to shrinkage.

1000mm
1200mm
400mm
1805mm
125mm
1350mm
500mm
1000mm
1
2
3

Figure 3 Section through the diaphragm wall and facia including the location of
construction joints.

Estimates of the early age temperature rise have been made using the model of CIRIA
C660 for walls. In each case a notional section thickness has been estimated from the
expression; 2 x cross sectional area/perimeter. Potential crack widths arising from
restraint to early-age thermal strains have been estimated and the results are given in
Table 7.

The calculation assumes that the crack width w
k
= S
r,max
cr
where S
r,max
is the
characteristic crack spacing and

cr
is the crack inducing strain. According to EN1992-1-
1 [21] for under reinforced concrete the natural crack spacing for a wall is 1.3 x height.
In this case the height is replaced with the thickness of the respective elements of the
facia. The crack inducing strain is the restrained strain (thermal and shrinkage) less the
mean residual strain in the concrete after cracking, assumed to be 50% of the tensile
strain capacity of the concrete (see CIRIA C660 [12] for further details of the method of
calculation of crack width).

Estimated crack widths are 0.11mm, 0.06 and 0.15mm for pours 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
Hence, with no reinforcement and provide a good bond is achieved between the wall and
the facia, crack widths will be acceptably small. Any longitudinal reinforcement will act
to reduce crack widths further.

Table 7 Estimate of the natural crack spacing and crack width due to early-age thermal
contraction
Pour 1 Pour 2 Pour 3
Thickness (mm) 650 400 1000
Notional thickness (mm) 520 400 600
Estimated peak temperature (
o
C) 66 62 68
Temperature drop to mean ambient of 30
o
C - T
1
(
o
C) 36 32 38
Coefficient of thermal expansion -
c
(microstrain/
o
C) 10
Free thermal contraction - T
1

c
(microstrain) 360 320 380
Autogenous shrinkage -
ca
29
Estimated restraint - R 0.75 0.8 0.65
Creep coefficient - K 0.65
Restrained strain
r
= R K ( T
1

c +

ca
) (microstrain) 190 181 173
Tensile strain capacity of C50/60 concrete
ctu
122
Crack-inducing strain
cr
=
r
0.5
ctu
129 120 117
Natural crack spacing S
r,max
(=1.3 x thickness) 845 520 1300
Estimated crack width (ignoring effect of
reinforcement)
w
k
= S
r,max
cr
(mm)
0.11 0.06 0.15

To minimise the risk of thermal cracking, it has been proposed that the facia be separated
from the diaphragm wall using polythene sheet and there will be no continuity of
reinforcement. Full scale trials are proceeding on this basis. In this case the facia will
simply be supported by the wall but the latter will offer very little restraint to movement
of the facia. In this case the only risk of thermal cracking will be as a result of the
temperature differentials between the different elements of the facia due to the differing
thickness. During the early thermal cycle the thicker sections 1 and 3 will expand and
contract to a greater extent than section 2. During cool-down section 1 and 3 will
contract to a greater extent than section 2 and may therefore lead to modest compression
in section 2 in the horizontal direction.
9.2 Shrinkage of pour 2
Pour 2 may be as narrow as 400mm and the thicker sections 1 and 3, will offer restraint
to the more rapid drying shrinkage in the thinner section. This could potentially lead to
cracking in the longer term. An estimate of the relative drying shrinkage has been made
using the method of EN1992-1-1 (also described in CS163). The following conservative
assumptions have been made;

Sections 1 & 3 have a thickness of 800 mm
Section 2 has a thickness of 400mm
Drying is from one face only
Relative humidity = 60%
Restraint = 0.9
Creep factor = 0.65 (ref CIRIA C660)

The results are shown in Figure 4. In the worst case, after about 3 years, the tensile strain
capacity is more than double the differential restraint strain (even without taking account
the beneficial effect of creep).

0
50
100
150
200
250
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Age (days)
M
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n
Sections 1 & 3
Section 2
Differential shrinkage
Tensile strain
capacity

Figure 4 Drying shrinkage estimated using the method of EN1992-1-1 and the resulting
differential strains between section 1 & 3 and section 2 of the facia.

Provided the facia is prevented from rapid drying during its early life, significant
cracking arising from drying shrinkage is not expected.

Based on the above assessment there is no reason why the facia cannot be cast to full
depth provided it can be demonstrated that the concrete can be properly placed and fully
compacted without disturbing the reinforcement and jeopardising the cover and without
damaging the polythene sheet used to ensure that the facia does not bond to the wall.
9.3 Appropriate selection of reinforcement
Reinforcement is required primarily to carry tensile stress after cracking. Hence,
whatever form of reinforcement is used, it must be sufficiently strong to prevent yielding
when a crack occurs and transfers the load previous carried by the concrete into the
reinforcement.

It has been suggested that polypropylene fibres may be used for the facia concrete. In
general, polypropylene fibres offer the greatest benefit when the concrete is in its plastic
and hardening state by minimising the extent of plastic cracking and are most useful in
slabs. In this case they have been proposed to provide resistance to scaling as a result of
salt crystallization. In concrete with an already very low w/c = 0.35 the additional benefit
from the fibres is questionable. Furthermore, when the concrete has achieved its
structural capacity, polypropylene fibres would not be expected to be effective in
controlling cracking. If polypropylene fibres are to be used they would therefore be as
an addition to, rather than a replacement for, conventional steel reinforcement.
10 Testing and quality control
As the principal deterioration mechanism is likely to be corrosion of the reinforcement
the testing and quality control should focus on ensuring that the level of chloride at the
depth of the reinforcement remains below the threshold level, estimated to be 0.21% at a
mean temperature of 30
o
C. This involves ensuring that,

a) the background level of chloride in the fresh concrete is controlled to an
acceptably low level
b) that the concrete has sufficient resistance to chloride penetration to prevent the
chloride level increasing at reinforcement depth from the background level to the
threshold level
10.1 Background chloride content
Background chlorides derive mainly for the aggregate. For the durability assessment it
has been assumed that the maximum levels recommended by CIRIA C577 [8], i.e. coarse
aggregate 0.03%, sand 0.06%. This will result in chlorides of about 0.03% wt of
concrete and about 0.18% wt of cement. As the threshold level may be as low as 0.21%
an upward deviation of 15% of the total chloride content may lead to intermittent
premature corrosion and a reduction in service life.

Conversely, if the background chloride can be maintained at a level below that
permissible, then either the life may be extended (providing an additional factor of safety)
or the cover requirements may be reduced as shown in Figure 4 for C50 and C60
concrete.

0
20
40
60
80
100
0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030
Background chl ori de content (% wt concrete)
T
I
m
e

t
o

c
o
r
r
o
s
i
o
n

a
c
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
y
r
s
)
60mm
75mm 70mm 65mm 80mm
55mm
70mm 65mm 60mm
C50
C60

Figure 3 The estimated time to corrosion as affected by the background chloride content

Testing of the chloride content of the aggregates should be a normal part of the material
selection and the quality control process.
10.2 Testing for resistance to chloride penetration
Appendix E of CS163 describes several tests that are used to measure permeability of
chloride diffusion but states that,
None of the permeability test methods which are commonly used in the region has
sufficient precision or reliability for use as a routine quality control test during concrete
production. The best approach, if they are to be used, is to use them at mix development
stage. Once a mix has been developed which meets the necessary requirements, its
performance can be monitored during production by strength tests and by checking the
ingredients and their quantities from the batching plant records. The ASTM rapid
chloride permeability test could be used as a coarse screen during production, for
example as a check that silica fume has been included in a mix, but not as
part of the overall compliance requirement

Of the available tests, the Nordtest NT Build 443 accelerated chloride penetration test is
the most useful for mix development as it provides both a chloride transport parameter
and a surface chloride level which can be used in durability models.

The principle of this test is that a saturated concrete specimen is exposed to a chloride
solution for at least 35 days. After exposure, samples are taken from the exposed face at
successive depths by grinding and the chloride results are analysed by curve fitting to
give an effective diffusion coefficient or a penetration parameter. NT Build 443
recommends a test temperature of 23 2
o
C. For application in Abu Dhabi, the test
temperature should be increased to 30 2
o
C to provide a representative value for this
exposure condition. In addition, if time is available prior to start of construction, samples
should be exposed for increasing periods to establish the effect of ageing, e.g. 28, 90 and
180 days with further specimens maintained for longer term testing.

IMPORTANT NOTE; To determine the effect of ageing, all specimens should be
exposed to chloride at 28 days, with the period of exposure being extended to the age at
test. This is because the exposure to chloride itself affects the ageing process. A
different result may be achieves if concrete is cured conventionally for a longer period
and then tested after the same relatively short period of exposure. This is one of the
limitations of the other rapid tests in which more mature specimens may be tested at late
age, but which have not had long term exposure to chloride prior to testing

If time is limited a more rapid test may be used in accordance with Nordtest NT 492 -
chloride migration from non-steady-state migration test, APPENDIX E of CS163
describes this as follows,
The concrete sample is exposed to sodium chloride solution on one side and to calcium
hydroxide solution on the other. An initial voltage of 30V is applied across the specimen.
This voltage is adjusted according to the initial current passed. The test duration varies
between 6 and 96 hours depending on the initial current. At the completion of this part of
the test, the specimen is split open and the depth of chloride penetration is determined by
spraying the fractured face with silver nitrate. The non-steady-state migration coefficient
is calculated from the applied voltage and the average chloride penetration depth.
This again gives an indication of the effective diffusion coefficient but with less
reliability than the BT443 test.
10.3 Batching plant trials
Having selected the materials and mix proportions for the C50 (diaphragm wall) and C60
(facia) concretes, batching plant trials should be undertaken. This will involve casting
three separate batches of each concrete with no two batches of the same strength class
produced within the same shift. Sampling and testing for fresh and hardened concrete
properties shall follow the general recommendations of CIRIA C577. In addition,
100mm cylinders shall be cast for the provision of specimens for testing to NT443 and
NT492. Three 100mm cylindrical samples shall be obtained from each batch for each
strength class. From each of these sets of 3 specimens, testing shall be as follows;

Cylinder Test Age
1 NT443 & NT492 28-days
2 NT443 & NT492 28-days
3 NT443 Later age to be agreed with the Engineer
to assess the age factor

10.4 Full scale trial
The facia has a complex profile and the Contractor has undertaken a full scale trial to
demonstrate the practicality of a full height pour and to demonstrate the surface finish
that can be achieved. Ideally this would employ the same materials and plant (and ideally
the same operatives) as planned for the construction but at this stage the mix design has
not yet been finalized. As the facia is to be separated from the wall by polythene sheet to
prevent bonding, the wall onto which the facia is cast need not be the same strength class
as the diaphragm wall.

When the mix has been finalised, it would be appropriate to repeat the full scale trial to
ensure that any differences between the mix used in the first trial (details not known) and
the selected mix do not impact on either the procedure or the surface finish. Furthermore,
having constructed the trial facia using the agreed mix, 3 x 100mm cores should be
extracted from each level (1, 2 and 3), spread over its length, and tested in accordance
with NT443 exposure and at a later age to be agreed with the Engineer (but the later the
better to highlight the effect of ageing).
11. Monitoring, Maintenance and inspection in service
Based on the durability assessment and application of current best practice during
construction (according to the recommendations of CIRIA C577), the selection of
appropriate concrete mixes using blends of Portland cement with ggbs (for C50 for the
diaphragm wall) and Portland cement with ggbs and microsilica (for the C60 facia
concrete) together with adequate cover would be expected to ensure that the
reinforcement is protected for 70-years. Furthermore, the cement combinations will
provide resistance to the reported levels of sulphate (S-3) and recognising that sulfate
resistance is improved in the presence of chlorides would also be expected to achieve
resistance for 70 year.

Furthermore, only the facia concrete will be visible and easily accessible for inspection.
However, this is in the most severe exposure condition and would be expected therefore
to be the first location to exhibit any sign of problems.

To be able to address problems of reinforcement corrosion before they are exhibited as
cracking and spalling over corroded steel, corrosion monitors may be embedded in the
cover zone to detect high levels of chloride before they reach the reinforcement.
Alternatively, incremental dust drillings may be obtained periodically to measure
chloride profiles directly, to determine the rate of chloride ingress and hence to forecast
potential onset of corrosion. This would enable early intervention, for example by the
application of hydrophobic surface treatment to reduce the moisture content of the
concrete and the associated rate of chloride penetration.

Recognising that there may be areas where a combination of construction events and
exposure levels might lead to local problems a regular visual inspection should be
undertaken. These should be initially at 5 year intervals, for the first 20 years and then at
10 year intervals.
12 Conclusions
Concrete mixes are proposed for the diaphragm wall and the facia based on the
requirements of CS163 and the exposure conditions unique to the site. With the use of
blended cements (PC/ggbs/ms) which exhibit both sulfate resistance and a high resistance
to chloride penetration it has been estimated that a 70-year life will be achieved using
C50 concrete with 80mm cover in the retaining wall, and C60 concrete with 70mm cover
in the facia. Details are as follows;

Mix requirement Diaphragm
wall
Facia
Strength class C50 C60
Min cement content (kg/m
3
) 380 400
PC 25-28% 35-30%%
Ggbs 70% 60%
microsilica 5-2% 5-10%
Cover (mm) 80 + c 70 + c

The higher ggbs content in concrete for the diaphragm wall is required to minimise
temperature rise and the risk of delayed ettringite formation. Specific mix proportions
must be derived through mix trials.

Options for reducing cover included;

c) An integral corrosion inhibitor to increase the threshold level of chloride at which
corrosion commences. If used this may lead to a reduction in cover to about
50mm in both the diaphragm wall and the facia, depending on the dosage.
d) Stainless steel or stainless steel clad reinforcement. In this case the cover will be
determined primarily by the structural requirements.

The use of epoxy coated steel is not recommended because of its variable track record
and the practical difficulties in ensuring that the epoxy coating is not damage during
handling, fixing and concreting.

The principal risk to durability is from cracking. It is recommended that in the extreme
splash zone exposure condition, crack widths are no greater than 0.2mm, the level at
which it is generally accepted that some degree of self healing will occur in a humid
environment. In the aggressive and moderately aggressive zones cracks widths up to
0.3mm may be permitted. To avoid the risk of corrosion in the facia an option is to use
stainless steel.

As corrosion of reinforcement presents the more serious risk to achieving a 70-year life,
testing should focus on the chloride levels in the constituent to minimise the background
level and on the chloride resistance of the concrete. Nordtest NT 443 is recommended as
this provides a value of effective diffusion coefficient than may be used to validate the
estimates used in the predictive model. When a mix has been approved, normal quality
control measures and monitoring of the batching plant should be used to ensure that the
materials and mix proportions remain within specification and tolerances.

As it has been estimated that a service life of 70-years will be achieved, extensive
maintenance should not be necessary. However, visual inspections are recommended at 5
year intervals for the first 20 years and at 10 year interval thereafter.
A warning of potential problems may be obtained through the use of embedded corrosion
monitors, or by periodically taking drilled samples to determine the extent of chloride
ingress. The latter would be included as part of the visual surveys
References

1 CONCRETE SOCIETY, Guide to the design of concrete structures in the
Arabian Peninsular, Report of a Concrete Society Working Party, CS163,
Camberley, Surrey, October 2008, ISBN978-1-904482-47-5
2 CIRIA, Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsular, CIRIA report C577, ed M Walker, London, 2002, ISBN 0
966691 93 4
3 Soil/groundwater analysis
4 BAMFORTH, P B, PRICE, W F and EMERSON, M, AN international
review of chloride ingress into structural concrete, Transport Research
Laboratory, Scotland, Contractor Report 359, 1997, ISSN0266-7045
5 BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, Concrete in aggressive
ground, BRE Bookshop, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX Third edition
2005, ISBN 1 86081 754 8
6 BS 8500-1:2006, Concrete Complementary British Standard to BS
EN206-1, Part 1: Method of specifying and guidance for the specifier,
ISBN 0 580 48251 0
7 BAMFORTH, P B, Enhancing reinforced concrete durability, Guidance
on selecting measures for minimising the risk of corrosion of
reinforcement in concrete, Concrete Society Technical Report No 61,
Camberley, Surrey, 2004, ISBN 1 904482 11 2.
8 BAMFORTH, P B, Definition of exposure classes and concrete mix
requirements for chloride contaminated environments, in Corrosion of
Reinforcement in Concrete Construction (ed Page, Bamforth & Figg), SCI
Special Publication 183, 1996, pp 176-190, ISBN 0-85404-731-X
9 BENJAMIN, S E and SYKES, J M, Chloride induced pitting corrosion of
Swedish iron in ordinary Portland cement mortars and alkaline solutions:
the effect of temperature, 3
rd
International Symposium on Corrosion of
Reinforcement in Concrete, (ed Page, Treadaway & Bamforth), Published
for SCI by Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, Essex, 1990, pp 59-64, ISBN
1-85166-487-4
10 BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT, Delayed Ettringite
Formation: In situ concrete, Information Paper IP 11/01, June 2001
11 CONCRETE SOCIETY, Alkali-silica reaction: minimising the risk of
damage to concrete, Report of a Concrete Society Working Party,
Technical Report No 30, 1999
12 BAMFORTH, P B, Early age thermal crack control in concrete, CIRIA
Report C660, London, 2007, ISBN 978-8-86107-660-2
13 HOUSTON, J T, ATIMTAY, E AND FERGUSON, P M. Corrosion of
reinforcing steel embedded in structural concrete. Research Report 112-
1F, Project 3-5-68-112, Centre for Highway Research, The University of
Texas of Austin, March 1972.
14 ARYA, C AND OFORI-DARKO, F K. Influence of crack frequency on
reinforcement corrosion in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol.
26, No. 3, 1996, pp345-353.
15 OHNO, Y, PRAPARNTANATORN, S AND SUZUKI, K. Influence of
cracking and water cement ratio on macrocell corrosion of steel in
concrete, Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete Construction, Ed Page,
Bamforth, Page, SCI, 1996 pp24-36
16 FRANCOIS, R and ARLIGUIE G, The influence of service cracking on
the corrosion of reinforcement, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
February1998, pp 14-19.
17 EN1992-1-1 Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures Part 1-1, General
rules and rules for buildings.
18 EN1992-3:2006, Eurocode 2, Design of concrete structures Part 3:
Liquid retaining and containment structures.
19 Swedish Standard, SS 137010 Concrete structures Concrete cover
20 Danish Standard, DS 411 Code of practice for the Structural use of
Concrete
21 CONCRETE SOCIETY, Guidance on the use of stainless steel
reinforcement, Report of a Concrete Society Working Party, Report No
51, Camberley, Surrey, UK, 1998

DR P Bamforth - Durability Study of A Diaphragm Wall - CONCRETE CRACKING JL

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DR P Bamforth - Durability Study of A Diaphragm Wall - CONCRETE CRACKING JL

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Al Sowwah Island Durability of the diaphragm wall

Dr P B Bamforth 1 V.1 20 July 2009

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi