CONFERENCE PAPER

No. 101 (2002)

Durability Prediction for Coastal

Reinforced Concrete Structures −
Matching Reality and Theory

D.H. Chisholm and N.P. Lee

Presented at the New Zealand Concrete Society Conference,

Taupo, 13-15 October 2000.

Funding for the work reported here was provided by the Building Research Levy and the Public Good
Science Fund of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology.

ISSN: 0111-7505

1 2
Senior Concrete Engineer. Materials Scientist
Building Research Association of New Zealand _
BRANZ
 DURABILITY PREDICTION FOR COASTAL REINFORCED CONCRETE
STRUCTURES – MATCHING REALITY AND THEORY

DH Chisholm1 and NP Lee2

SYNOPSIS

This paper describes the establishment of an exposure site programme, in which a comparison is
made between the ingress of marine chlorides in concretes made with ordinary Portland and
blended cements. Exposure sites were established in both the splash zone and the windblown
marine zone and analysis includes determination of actual and effective chloride diffusion
coefficients up to 18 months of age. Interpretation of the progression of surface chloride profiles
has a significant bearing on prediction of service life, and this is discussed in the light of findings
of other researchers.

KEYWORDS

Concrete, Durability, Marine, Chlorides, in performance. Flyash is not currently imported

Corrosion, Design Life. for use in concrete in New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION In 1992 the New Zealand Building Code (NZBC)

In the last decade the use of supplementary
cementitious materials (SCM’s) in New Zealand
has become widely accepted for situations
where there are special durability demands on
the concrete. Such situations include coastal
reinforced concrete structures subject to marine
chloride ingress, and applications where there is
potential for attack of concrete from sewage or
industrial processing, or from food processing.
Overseas SCM’s have a much longer history of
use driven by the need to utilise industrial waste
byproducts that pose a threat to the
environment.
The porosity of concrete containing SCM’s is
reduced, as a result of the second stage
reaction with the Ca OH2 formed in ordinary
Portland cement (OPC) hydration. Today the
vast majority of concrete produced worldwide
contains SCM’s, (often referred to as blended
cements). The resulting volume reduction in the
manufacture of OPC also reduces the amount of
3
CO2 exhausted into the atmosphere for each m
of concrete produced, which contributes to
reductions in global CO2 emissions.
Four types of SCM’s are currently available for
use in New Zealand. The only locally sourced
product is ‘Microsilica 600’, a silica rich
hydrothermal product mined near Rotorua.
Imported products include silica fume as
‘Micropoz’, blast furnace slag as ‘Duracem’ and
metakaolin as ‘Metamax’. Flyash from Huntly
Power Station has been available intermittently,
however as Huntly is not a base load
powerstation like its coal-fired counterparts
overseas, the flyash has suffered from variability
1 2
Senior Concrete Engineer. Materials Scientist
Building Research Association of New Zealand _
BRANZ
[1] introduced for the first time the concept of a
minimum design life: five years for coatings; 15
years for internal linings; and 50 years for all
structural items unless a shorter lifetime is
specifically nominated.
Concrete is renowned for it potential longevity,
indeed it is not the concrete itself which
threatens the durability of reinforced concrete,
but the corrosion of the reinforcement which will
eventually cause spalling and has the potential
to degrade the structural integrity. The revision
of the concrete construction Standard NZS
3101:1995 [2], subsequent to the introduction of
the NZ Building Code, included for the first time
a chapter dedicated to providing designers with
guidelines on durability design.
The principal durability issue for reinforced
concrete structures in New Zealand is from the
predominantly maritime situation of the majority
of our cities and related infrastructure. Marine
chlorides, whether they are from salt splash, salt
spray, or from airborne chlorides, penetrate
exposed concrete and, if present in sufficient
concentration at the reinforcement depth, will
depassivate the reinforcement to allow corrosion
to commence. The duration over which this can
occur depends on the environment, the quality
of the cover concrete (covercrete), and the
cover depth.
NZS 3101 Table 5.5 gives details of required
cover depths for different combinations of
concrete quality, in this case specified concrete
strength, and environment to meet a 50-year
design life. Details on the derivation of this
information are given in reference [3]. These
cover/strength combinations are based on the
use of General Purpose (GP) cement which is
95% OPC. The Standard recognised the
potential durability enhancement possible when
using blended cements, however information
was not available at the time (1995) to quantify
their performance. The onus is on the designer
using blended cements to prove ‘equivalence’
with the specified combinations using GP
cement, but there are few guidelines to show
how equivalence can be proven. In response to
this, commercial suppliers of blended cements
have introduced computer-based models for
predicting design life using their products.
A shortcoming of the NZS 3101 approach to
marine durability is that Table 5.5 is deemed an
‘Acceptable Solution’ to NZBC clause B2, but no
performance-based criteria are given. BRANZ
has been carrying out research into marine
durability for a number of years. Our current
research programme, which is the subject of this
paper, is targeted towards providing information
for the next revision of NZS 3101 to allow
appropriate performance-based evaluation of
blended cement concrete against GP cement
concrete for mitigating marine-based
reinforcement corrosion.
DURABILITY PREDICTION ISSUES
There are a number of issues related to marine-
based service life prediction, which despite
worldwide research, are uncertain and
assumptions made can have a significant
influence on the predicted life. Some of these
issues are complex and researchers cannot yet
agree on the theory. These are covered in detail
elsewhere [4,5] but are covered in brief below.
Service Life
The rationale behind NZS 3101 Table 5.5 is
based on the ‘initiation period’, the time for
chlorides to reach the reinforcement in sufficient
concentration for corrosion to commence. This
concentration is termed the ‘corrosion
C( x ,t ) = Ci + (Cs − Ci )1 − erf 
threshold’. Other models include a period of
active corrosion in consideration of the high
resistivity of blended cement concretes giving
low corrosion rates in comparison to GP cement
concretes. Under the NZBC definition of service
life, ‘without reconstruction or major renovation’,
the onset of cracking and spalling from
reinforcement corrosion is a reasonable
interpretation of reinforced concrete service life.
For ‘standard’ concretes the time between onset
of corrosion and spalling is a matter of a few
years, however for blended cements with high
resistivity the interval can be considerably
longer.
Reinforcement Corrosion Threshold
The most common reinforcement corrosion
threshold level used is 0.4% total chloride by
weight of cementitious content, although the
range derived from research varies from 0.2% to
1%. The rate of corrosion once it commences is
highly dependent on the moisture level inside
the concrete. This wide range in corrosion
thresholds possibly results from the difficulty in
pinpointing the precise time at which corrosion
commences, particularly for concretes with high
resistivity resulting in low corrosion rates.
Where concrete is carbonated in combination
with chloride ingress, the corrosion threshold at
the level of the reinforcement is reduced. Also
some research has shown [5] that blended
cements have a lower capacity to buffer local
reductions in pore solution pH, which could
reduce the capacity of cement hydrates to
passivate reinforcing steel in the presence of
chloride ions. Effectively this would lower the
chloride threshold for blended cement
concretes.
Chloride binding is another consideration where
some cement types have an enhanced capacity
to bind some of the chloride so that it will not
depassivate the reinforcement. Corrosion
threshold is usually measured based on total
chloride, but the water soluble chloride of the
pore solution may be more relevant in some
cases.
nd
Fick’s 2 Law of Diffusion
It is generally regarded that the ingress of
chloride ions into concrete from marine and
coastal environments, or into a test specimen in
a concentrated chloride solution, can be
modelled using Crank’s solution to Fick’s 2nd
Law of Diffusion [6]:
  x 
 
  2 Dt 
(1)
where
-
C(x,t) is the Cl concentration at depth x and time
t
Cs is the chloride concentration at the boundary
surface
-
Ci is the initial Cl concentration in the concrete
D is the chloride diffusion coefficient, and
erf is the Gaussian error function
Two types of diffusion coefficient are referred to
in this paper. For clarity these are defined as
follows:
Chloride diffusion as a material characteristic of
concrete is termed Dac, the ‘Actual Diffusion
Coefficient.’ This is determined in the laboratory
as the resistance to pure diffusion of chloride
ions through a saturated sample, in response to
a chloride concentration gradient. The diffusion
coefficient is calculated from the shape of the
resulting chloride concentration vs. depth profile
using Fick’s 2nd Law.
‘Effective Diffusion Coefficient (Deff)’ can be
calculated from Fick’s 2nd Law if chloride
profiles are available for an existing structure
(from a condition survey for example). Deff is
not a true diffusion coefficient because structural
concrete is unlikely to be completely saturated
so combinations of transport mechanisms
including absorption are at play. However, it is
useful as a record of the past performance of
the concrete and an indication of likely future
life. Deff is sometimes referred to as a ‘bundled’
parameter, meaning it is the derived coefficient
from a chloride profile that in fact has not
developed through pure diffusion in a
concentrated solution. There are a number of
other things influencing the profile like changing
environmental conditions and material
properties. All these changes and uncertainties
are ‘bundled’ into one as Deff.
It must be emphasised that Deff and Dac are
two inherently different parameters that are
principally related by the fact that Fick’s 2nd
Law is used to calculate them both. Strictly, only
Deff can be used to calculate design life. Dac is
only completely analogous to real life in a
situation where concrete is submerged in
seawater. In this instance there is not a
corrosion durability concern owing to the lack of
oxygen available to allow corrosion to proceed.
Also concrete which has been immersed in
seawater for a long period will develop
precipitated salts on the surface which affects
the ingress of chloride [7].
Having said the diffusion coefficients are
different, it would be very useful if a relationship
between Deff and Dac could be derived as the
actual diffusion coefficient is a material
characteristic which can be measured under
laboratory conditions as a material parameter at
the time of construction. Furthermore Deff can
only be determined ‘after the fact’ from field
measurements on a concrete. Historical
information on the chloride durability
performance of a particular concrete may not be
available at the design stage.
Diffusion of chloride into concrete at depth is
concentration driven and typically there is a
reduction of chloride concentration with depth of
concrete. Near the surface however, the
chloride movement is thought to be controlled
by absorption [8]. The highest chloride
concentration occurs at some small depth,
typically less than 10mm, as the chloride at
shallower depths fluctuates in and out of the
concrete depending on the ambient
environmental exposure conditions.
One of the key objectives of the BRANZ
research programme is directed to comparing
the chloride ingress of various concretes with
and without blended cements in different marine
and coastal environments over time. Throughout
the programme the two diffusion coefficients
Dac and Deff as defined above are being
determined. Other researchers [9] have found a
reduction in Deff with age of concrete, which
has a significant influence on chloride ingress.
BRANZ EXPOSURE SITE PROGRAMME
In late 1998, thirty-six 1.0 m x 0.75 m x 0.35 m
blocks of structural concrete were cast at
BRANZ Judgeford laboratory. A local ready-mix
plant produced the concrete under the
supervision of BRANZ personnel. Four series of
mixes were produced, consisting of a control
series containing only type GP cement and
three further series in which a quantity of the
cement was replaced with three common SCM’s
then available on the New Zealand market
(Table One). Each series included mixes at
three different levels of total cementitious
3 3 3
material; 280 kg/m , 325 kg/m and 400 kg/m .
In this paper each mix is identified by a mix
code consisting of the cementitious content
followed by the two-letter abbreviation from
Table One, e.g. 325GP. Thirteen mix types were
used in all.
The concrete was made with Belmont crushed
19mm greywacke coarse aggregate and a
natural river sand from the Manawatu
(Puketapu). Target water / (cement + binder)
ratios were kept constant at each cement level
between the various mix types. Superplasticiser
was used to adjust the mixes to a similar
workability, with a target slump of 100 mm. Mix
details including fresh concrete properties are
shown in Table Two.
Each block was stripped, turned over and wet -
cured for seven days using soaker hoses. The
blocks were then stored outside prior to being
placed at one of three exposure sites, chosen to
be representative of the range of hazardous
marine environments as classified in NZS 3101
Table 5. The blocks were placed on site
approximately one month after casting and
orientated such that the 1.0 m x 0.75 m formed
face was exposed to chloride ingress. The sites
shown are described below.
Weka Bay (C zone): Weka Bay is located within
the confines of the Wellington urban area in the
southwest of the city’s harbour. The blocks are
placed above high tide level, however the bay is
exposed to the predominant northerly winds and
the fetch across the harbour means the blocks
are regularly splashed with salt water on breezy
days. The resultant periodic wetting and drying
is generally regarded as being among the most
extreme conditions for risk of chloride ingress.
The blocks are lying on their flat with the formed
face uppermost (Figure One).
Oteranga Bay (B2 zone): Oteranga Bay is
situated on Wellington’s windswept southern
coast. The blocks are placed approximately 100
m from the shore, standing on their end with the
formed face facing the open sea. The blocks are
never directly splashed by wave action, but
rates of salt deposition due to wind-blown
aerosols are extremely high. The site is
considered a severe example of the B2 coastal
frontage zone and is used by BRANZ for studies
of marine-based metallic corrosion.
Judgeford (B1 zone): Located 20 km north of
Wellington harbour at the BRANZ research
station, this site is five km across flat farmland
from the nearest salt-water (a tidal estuary) and
further protected from the open sea by gently
rolling hills. The NZS 3101 exposure
classification maps place the Judgeford site in
the B1 coastal perimeter zone.
The blocks were distributed across the exposure
sites according to the severity of exposure and
the cement content (which correlates with the
w/c ratio) as shown in Table Three. Thus, the
3
400 kg/m mixes were restricted to the C zone
3
site (Weka Bay), while 325 kg/m were placed at
both C and B2 (Oteranga Bay) sites. This was
intended to reflect the likely use of these
concretes in construction. For the same reason,
no mixes containing SCM’s were placed on the
less exposed Judgeford site because it seemed
that these materials would not be specified for
use in a B1 environment.
An additional set of blocks were placed on an
internal site free of chlorides, with NZS 3101
exposure classification A2 should they be
required.
Mix Characterisation and Test Methods
At the same time as the blocks were cast, sets
of standard test cylinders and shrinkage beams
were cast to characterise the quality of the
concrete produced. The tests chosen were
compressive strength, sorptivity, actual chloride
diffusion coefficient, ‘rapid chloride’ and drying
shrinkage. The test methods employed are
shown in Table Four, and the results
summarised in Table Five. Figure Two
demonstrates how the specimens were cut from
each test cylinder. Detail on the test methods is
described below:
Sorptivity
Sorptivity [12] is a well-defined and highly
reproducible hydraulic property, and is preferred
to other tests for characterising the water-
absorption of concrete because it is not
empirical and is independent of sample
geometry.
A cut crossection of concrete cylinder,
conditioned by drying to constant weight at
50°C, is immersed in shallow water. The change
in mass of the sample is monitored at 20-minute
intervals over two hours. Assuming that the
water ingress can be modelled as simple one-
dimensional absorption into a porous solid, the
volume of water per unit area of absorbed
surface, i, is related to the elapsed time, t, by
½
i = St
where S is the sorptivity of the concrete
1/2
expressed in units of mm/min .
Sorptivity is probably related to the near surface
transport of chlorides as described earlier.
Chloride Diffusion Testing
For determination of the Actual Chloride
Diffusion Coefficient, Dac, a thoroughly water-
saturated concrete specimen is exposed on a
single cut face to water comprising artificial
seawater. After a specified period of time, t
(here 35 days), thin layers of concrete are
ground off parallel to the exposed face and the
total chloride content of each layer determined
by X-Ray Fluorescent Spectroscopy (XRF). The
original (background level) chloride content of
the concrete is measured at a suitable depth
below the exposed surface. The actual chloride
ion diffusion coefficient, Dac, and the boundary
condition of the chloride profile at the exposed
surface, Cs, are then calculated. This is
achieved by modelling the chloride
concentration vs. depth profile with Crank’s
nd
solution to Fick’s 2 law of diffusion as
described previously.
Rapid Chloride Testing
The ‘rapid chloride’ test to ASTM C1202 [13]
essentially measures the electrical conductivity
of concrete. It reflects not only pore tortuosity
and connectivity, which are the important
components for durability, but also the
concentration of the pore solution electrolytes.
As such, it may give misleading results for
SCM’s that react with sodium and potassium
ions. Although it is not a scientifically rigorous
test, it is included because its relative
convenience means it is often used as a
specifying / quality control test. Thus the results
as such would be a useful reference.
Exposure Block Testing
As development of surface chloride profiles is
expected to take some time, particularly for the
blended cement concretes, enough blocks were
made to enable a pair of identical blocks to be
placed at each site. This should cover sampling
needs well into the future. There is also the
opportunity for proprietary coatings to be applied
to the blocks to provide comparative
performance, however this has not been
initiated yet.
The programme shown in Table Six was
developed for carrying out a range of tests on
specimens cut from cores taken from the
exposure blocks. 100 mm diameter cores drilled
at right angles to the exposed face are taken
from the blocks periodically. Figure Three
demonstrates how the specimens are cut from
the cores.
The specimens taken from the interior of the
blocks for compressive strength, sorptivity and
actual chloride diffusion were used to determine
any changes of these properties with age. Any
refinement of the pore structure from ongoing
hydration for instance, would be expected to
have an effect on material properties.
Chloride profiles ground off from the exposed
surface layer of the cores were taken in a similar
manner to that used for the actual chloride
diffusion testing. By a curve-fitting exercise
applying Fick’s 2nd Law, the surface chloride
concentration Cs and the effective chloride
diffusion coefficient, Deff can be determined.
The results of the exposure block testing to date
are given in the next section. These are mainly
shown graphically to allow evaluation of results
with concrete age.
Exposure Block Results
To date test results are available up to 18
months exposure.
Change in Material Properties
The changes to material properties from
characterisation specimens to specimens cut
from the interior of the three, six and, in some
cases, 18-month cores are given in Figures 4a
to 4c for compressive strength, sorptivity and
actual diffusion coefficient Dac. The first result
given in every case is from the 56-day old
characterisation cylinders. Dac was calculated
from the average of three results and the range
of results is given in Figure 4c to give an
indication of the variability within test.
There is some variability in results over time for
particular mixes, which is probably related to
test variability and the fact that the cylinders and
core samples were produced differently. The
cylinders were wet cured for 56 days compared
to seven days water curing for the blocks. If self
desiccation is an issue with the 400 cement
mixes, this would have a greater effect on the
cored samples. The microcracking caused
through the coring process itself is known to
effect compressive strength, and could also
have an effect on other properties.
However, to date there appears to be no overall
trend for change in compressive strength,
sorptivity or actual diffusion coefficient over
time. This would suggest that ongoing hydration
is not a significant issue.
Surface Chloride Profiles
Figure 5 gives the surface chloride profiles for
all the blocks on the C zone site. Comparing the
four 400-series mixes, the blended cement
mixes have established their profile at six
months and the profile, particularly at depth, has
not changed significantly thereafter, which
contrasts with the 400GP mix. This effect is not
as apparent for the 325 series mixes.
There is some correlation when comparing the
relativity of the six month profiles and that of the
sorptivity for the 400-series mixes. Other
researchers have concluded that early chloride
ingress is absorption controlled, and in the
longer term is diffusion controlled [8].
The surface profiles on the other two sites have
not developed sufficiently to allow any analysis
to date.
Surface Chloride Levels
The surface chloride level and effective diffusion
coefficient are the two environmental and
material-related factors respectively which can
be applied to Fick’s 2nd Law for predicting
design life. The surface chloride level at the
concrete surface is determined by projecting the
chloride profile based on Fick’s 2nd Law back to
the concrete surface.
Figure 6 gives the surface chloride levels
determined from cores taken at 6, 12 and 18
months at the C zone site. As can be seen, the
surface chloride level has been established in
the first six months with little consistent change
with time after that. The surface chloride levels
of the blended cement concretes are generally
higher than the corresponding GP concretes,
which is consistent with other research [14].
The surface chloride levels at the B2 zone site
after six and 18 months are shown in Figure 7.
The surface chloride levels are significantly
lower than those from the C zone. However,
based on the relative increase from 6 to 18
months, the surface chloride levels are likely to
increase further with time.
Effective Diffusion Coefficient Deff
The effective chloride diffusion determined from
the surface chloride profiles from cores taken at
three ages from the C zone site is shown in
Figure 8. Apart from the 325 GP and 400 GP
results, both of which have increased, the
effective diffusion coefficients have not changed
significantly over a 10-month period.
This can be explained by the fact that the
absorption characteristics of GP cement
concretes and the blended cement concretes
are of similar order (Figure 4b), while the
chloride diffusion of the blended cement
concretes is significantly lower than the
corresponding GP cement concretes (Figure
4c). Early chloride ingress is absorption
controlled and in the longer term is diffusion
controlled [8]. Thus the relative ingress of
chloride into the GP cement concretes after the
initial absorption stage is higher than the
blended cement concretes.
The actual diffusion coefficient from the
characterisation cylinders has been included in
the graphs for comparison. In all cases the
effective diffusion coefficient Deff based on the
exposure block surface profiles is lower,
sometimes significantly so, than the actual
diffusion coefficient Dac determined by
laboratory test. As previously indicated, the
derivation of Deff and Dac is inherently different.
Thus the use of Dac for determining life will
underestimate the potential life which should be
based on Deff. This is illustrated in Table Seven
where the potential life of the 400 series mixes
is compared based on 50 mm cover and 0.4%
corrosion threshold. There is some uncertainty
in assuming these particular values of Deff
however, as discussed in the following section.
LIFE PREDICTION FROM RESULTS TO DATE
Based on the determination of the surface
chloride concentration Cs and the effective
diffusion coefficient Deff, as outlined above,
theoretically Fick’s 2nd Law can be used to
determine future chloride ingress and time to
corrosion based on an assumed cover and
chloride threshold level. In doing so however, it
needs to be assumed that the development in
the surface profiles to date, which have
determined Deff, will continue in the same
manner in the future. This cannot be justified
considering the change in chloride ingress from
being absorption controlled to diffusion
controlled, as discussed above.
Based on the short duration of the monitoring
period compared to the design lifetime of 50
years, we consider it is not appropriate to make
any comparative life predictions between
individual mix types. However, we can conclude
that based on the early profiles, the buildup of
chlorides at depth in the blended cement mixes
appears to have stabilised in comparison with
the GP cement mixes where the profiles are still
progressing.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Monitoring of chloride ingress in exposure
blocks placed in marine conditions has shown
that blended cement concretes have improved
resistance to chloride ingress compared to GP
cement concrete.
In the splash zone (C zone), peak surface
chloride levels were developed six months after
exposure. Typical values for GP concretes were
2% chloride content by weight on cementitious
content and 2.5% – 3% for blended cement
concretes. In the windblown salt zone (B2 zone)
levels are 1% chloride content by weight on
cementitious content after 18 months and may
increase further.
Therefore calculation of design life using a
constant surface chloride level is appropriate for
the splash zone, but not for the windblown salt
zone where the there is a slower buildup of
surface chloride.
nd
When using Fick’s 2 law to estimate chloride
diffusion coefficients and design life, Dac based
on the non-steady state immersion test, has to
be adjusted otherwise life will be
underestimated [15]. The adjustment factors
that need to be applied are dependent on the
cementitious type used in the concrete. Further
monitoring of the effective diffusion coefficient
Deff will enable evaluation of these factors.
Analysis to date has been based on total
chloride levels determined by XRF. Analysis
using water soluble chloride may give different
results. The next analysis at age 30 months will
be carried out using both methods.
Other researchers have found a reduction of
diffusion coefficients with time, resulting from
prolonged immersion of samples under the non-
steady state immersion test. However, for the 18
months of this research programme there was
no reduction in effective diffusion coefficient with
time. Nor was there any significant change in
the actual diffusion coefficient of the concrete
based on the 35-day non-steady state
immersion test.
It is considered that as the conditions under
which chloride is penetrating the concrete are
different, the reduction in the prolonged
immersed chloride ingress cannot be directly
applied to a splash zone environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Building Research Levy and the Public
Good Science Fund of the ‘New Zealand
Foundation for Research, Science and
Technology’ funded the research on which this
paper is based.
REFERENCES
[1] ‘The New Zealand Building Code
Handbook and Approved Documents’, Building
Industry Authority, Wellington, 1992.
[2] NZS 3101: 1995, ‘Concrete Structures
Standard’, Standards Association of New
Zealand,
Wellington, 1995.
[3] Chisholm D.H., ‘Factors Influencing
Reinforced Concrete Durability Design in New
th
Zealand’s Marine Environment’ 4
CANMET/ACI International Conference on
Concrete Durability, Sydney, Australia, August
1997
[4] Lee, N. P. and Chisholm, D.H. 1999.
Thoughts on a durability prediction methodology for
concrete in the marine environment. Journal of the
Australasian Ceramic Society 35(1-2): 69
[5] Freitag S. ‘Supplementary Cementitious
Materials’ Central Laboratories Report: 00 –
524159.00, Opus International Consultants,
August 2000.
[6] Crank J., ‘The Mathematics of
nd
Diffusion’, 2 Edition, Clarendon, Oxford, 1975.
[7] Buenfeld N.R. Newman J.B. ‘The
Permeability of Concrete in a Marine
Environment’ Magazine of Concrete Research,
June 1984, 36, no. 127, pp 67 - 80
[8] Bamforth P.B., ‘Minimising the Risk of
Chloride Induced Corrosion by Selection of
rd
Concreting Materials’ 3 International
Symposium on Corrosion of Reinforcement in
Concrete Construction, Wishaw, UK, May 1990
[9] Takewaka K., Mastumoto S., ‘Quality
and Cover Thickness of Concrete Based on the
Estimation of Chloride Penetration in Marine
Environment’, ACI SP 109, Detroit, USA.
[10] NZS 3112:1986 ‘Methods of Test For
Concrete – Part 2 Determination of the Strength
of Concrete’ Standards Association of New
Zealand,
Wellington, 1986.
[11] AS 1012.13 ‘Methods of Testing
Concrete, Part 13 Determination of Drying
Shrinkage of Concrete’, Standards Australia,
1992.
[12] Hall C., ‘Water sorptivity of mortars and
concretes: a review’, University of Manchester,
Magazine of Concrete Research June 1989,
No. 147 , pp 51-61.
[13] ASTM C1202 – 97 ‘Standards Method
for Electrical indication of Concrete’s Ability to
Resist Chloride Ion Penetration’, American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1997.
[14] Bamforth P.B., ‘Concrete Classifications
for R.C. Structures Exposed to Marine and
Other Salt-Laden Environments’, Structural
Faults and Repair 93 Symposium, Edinburgh
UK, June 1993.
[15] Cao H.T., Moorehead D., Potter R.J.,
‘Prediction of Service Life of Reinforced
Concrete Structures in a Marine Environment
and AS 3600’, Concrete 99: Our Concrete
Environment Conference, Sydney, Australia,
May 1999.
 Tables

Table One: Mix types

Replacement Level
Mix Code Product Name Product Type (% total
cementious)

GP Golden Bay GP GP cement 100

DC Duracem Blast-furnace slag 65 #

MP Micropoz Silica fume 8

MS Microsilica 600 Naturally occuring silica 8

# 3
50% for 280 kg/m mix
Table 2: Mix Proportions and Fresh Concrete Properties

3
Mix (1 m ) 250GP 280GP 325GP 400GP 280MP 325MP 400MP 280MS 325MS 400MS 280DC 325DC 400DC

19mm (kg) Belmont Chip 762 762 763 761 765 764 764 765 761 763 764 765 759

13mm (kg) Belmont Chip 316 316 326 320 323 325 318 317 320 317 316 319 322

Sand (kg) Puketapu 913 886 844 778 893 846 781 890 842 803 872 832 749

Cement GB (kg) Golden Bay* 260 280 326 399 276 302 370 269 306 373 93 45 50

Duracem (kg) * * * * * * * * * * 186 279 350

Microsilica (kg) * * * * * * * 14 26 32 * * *

Micropoz (kg) * * * * 14 26 32 * * * * * *

Total Cementitious (kg) 260 280 326 399 290 328 402 283 332 405 279 324 400

Water Reducer (l) Sika BV40 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.0

Super Plasticizer. (l) Sika 1000N * * * * 1.3 2.7 3 1.3 0.6 2.5 2.3 1.6 0.6

Air Content (%) 1.9 1.4 1.8 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.5 2.0 2.50 1.5 1.2 2.2 1.7

Measured Yield 1.003 0.996 1.003 1.000 0.998 1.002 1.017 0.997 1.01 0.995 0.994 0.986 0.994
3
Fresh Density (kg/m ) 2395 2411 2403 2421 2405 2419 2406 2418 2403 2434 2435 2442 2442

W/C ratio 0.62 0.57 0.49 0.40 0.55 0.51 0.45 0.57 0.51 0.39 0.63 0.49 0.44

* Mixes with Duracem used Milburn GP

 Table Three: Distribution of mixes on exposure sites

Site

Mix Type Weka Oteranga Judgeford

blend cement Bay Bay
280 * *
GP 325 * * *
400 *
280 * *
Slag 325 * *
400 *
280 *
Micropoz 325 * *
400 *
280 *
Microsilica 325 * *
400 *

Table Four: Methodologies for characterisation testing

Sample Curing
Property Test Method
(days)

Compressive Strength & Density NZS 3112:Part 2:1986[10] 7, 28, 56

Drying Shrinkage AS 1012.13-1992[11] 7

Sorptivity Hall (1989)[12] 56

Actual chloride diffusion (Dac) BRANZ in-house test 56

Chloride ion penetration(rapid chloride) ASTM C1202-97[13] 56

Table Five: Summary of Characterisation Hardened Concrete properties

Property 250GP 280GP 325GP 400GP 280MP 325MP 400MP 280MS 325MS 400MS 280DC 325DC 400DC

56-day Compression (MPa) 42.0 46.0 58.0 65.0 47.5 65.0 71.5 42.0 56.0 66.0 42.5 44.0 49.5

3
SSD Density (kg/m ) 2430 2440 2440 2460 2440 2460 2430 2430 2430 2450 2440 2440 2450

56-day Shrinkage (microstrain) 580 570 570 600 650 630 650 630 660 620 680 630 630

1/2
Sorptivity Index (mm/min ) 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.10

Rapid Chloride (Coulombs) 3860 3061 2906 2265 1473 541 576 1515 915 529 1300 792 788

Actual Chloride Diffusion

Coefficient Dac 27.2 24.7 13.7 10.6 9.0 3.0 2.4 10.1 4.5 2.1 5.2 2.5 2.3
-12 2
(10 m /s)
Table Six: Exposure block test programme

Property Test Method Sampling Age

Compressive Strength & Density NZS 3112:Part 2:1986[9] 3,6 months

Sorptivity Hall (1989)[11] 3,6 months

Actual chloride diffusion (Dac) BRANZ in-house test 3,6,18 months

Effective chloride diffusion(Deff) BRANZ in-house test 3,6,12,18 months

Table Seven: 400 Series - C zone life prediction

50 mm cover, 0.4% Corrosion Threshold

Based on
Mix
Characterisation Dac Effective Deff @ 1.5 yrs

400GP 1.8 yrs 10.2 yrs

400DC 7.6 yrs 22.3 yrs

400MP 8.1 yrs 27.3 yrs

400MS 7.5 yrs 64.9 yrs

 Figures

Figure 1: BRANZ C-Zone Exposure Site

Figure 2 Characterisation Cylinder Figure 3 Exposure Block Cores

Top as cast Formed Face

(indicates (indicates
0-50 mm test face) 0-50 mm test face)
(i) Rapid Chloride (i) Chloride Profile

50-100mm (ii) Sorptivity 50-100mm (ii) Sorptivity

100-150 mm (iii) Chloride Diffusion 100-150 mm (iii) Chloride Diffusion

150-200 mm (iv) Not Used 150-350 mm (iv) Compressive

Strength
Bottom

Bottom
Figure 4A: Compressive Strength vs Age

80

70

60

50
56 day
Strength (MPa)

cylinders
3 month
40
cores
6 month
cores
30

20

10

0
250 GP 280 GP 325 GP 400 GP 280 MP 325 MP 400 MP 280 MS 325 MS 400 MS 280 DC 325 DC 400 DC
Mix Type

Figure 4B: Sorptivity vs Age

0.14

0.12

0.10
Mean Sorptivity (mm/min )
1/2

56 day
cylinders
0.08
3 month
cores
6 month
0.06 cores

0.04

0.02

0.00
250 GP 280 GP 325 GP 400 GP 280 MP 325 MP 400 MP 280 MS 325 MS 400 MS 280 DC 325 DC 400 DC
Mix Type
Figure 4C: Actual Diffusion Coefficients

400 MP
400 GP

10
20
9
18
8
16

Chloride Dac (10- 12 m 2/s)

Chloride Dac (10- 12 m 2/s)

7
14
6
12
5
10
4 max
8
max 3 mean
6 2 min
mean
4 min 1
2 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Age (years)
Age (years)

400 MS 400 DC

10 10

9 9

8 8
Chloride Dac (10 -12 m2/s)

Chloride Dac (10-12 m 2/s)

max
7 7
mean
6 6
min
5 5

4 4 max

3 3 mean

2 min
2

1 1

0 0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Age (years)
Age (years)

Figure 5: C-Zone Averaged Chloride Profiles

325 GP 325 MP
0.6
0.6
4
4 Eighteen Months
0.5 Eighteen Months 0.5
Twelve Months Twelve Months
% Cl on Cement

Six Months
% Cl on Concrete

% Cl on Concrete

Six Months
% Cl on Cement

0.4 3 0.4 3

0.3 0.3
2 2

0.2 0.2

1 1
0.1 0.1

0.0 0 0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)
Figure 5: C-Zone Averaged Chloride Profiles (continued)

325 DC
325 MS
0.6
0.6
4 Eighteen Months 4
Eighteen Months 0.5
0.5 Twelve Months Twelve Months
% Cl on Concrete

% Cl on Concrete
Six Months

% Cl on Cement
Six Months

% Cl on Cement
3 0.4 3
0.4

0.3
0.3 2
2
0.2
0.2
1
1 0.1
0.1

0.0 0
0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)

400 GP 400 MP
0.6 0.6

0.5 Eighteen Months 0.5 Eighteen Months 3

3
Twelve Months Twelve Months
% Cl on Concrete

% Cl on Cement
% Cl on Concrete

% Cl on Cement

0.4 Six Months 0.4 Six Months

2 2
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
1 1

0.1 0.1

0.0 0 0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)

400 MS 400 DC
0.6 0.6

Eighteen Months Eighteen Months

0.5 3 0.5 Twelve Months 3
Twelve Months
Six Months
% Cl on Concrete
% Cl on Concrete

Six Months
% Cl on Cement

0.4 0.4
% Cl on Cement

2 2
0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2
1 1
0.1 0.1

0.0 0 0.0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
nominal depth (mm) nominal depth (mm)
Figure 6 - C Zone Surface Chloride vs Age

6.0
Surface Chlorides (mass % on cement)

5.0

4.0

6 months
3.0 12 months
18 months

2.0

1.0

0.0
280 DC 325 DC 325 GP 325 MP 325 MS 400 DC 400 GP 400 MP 400 MS
Mix Type

Figure 7- B2 Zone Surface Chloride vs Age

6.0
Surface Chlorides (mass % on cement)

5.0

4.0

6 months
3.0
18 months

2.0

1.0

0.0
280 DC 325 DC 280 GP 325 GP 280 MP 325 MP 280 MS 325 MS
Mix Type
Figure 8: Effective Diffusion - C Zone

400 GP
Dac
max
20
18
mean
Chloride Deff (10- 1 2 m2/s)
16
14
min
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Exposure Time (years)

400 MP
Dac
max
5 mean
m /s)

4
min
2
-12
Chloride Deff (10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Exposure Time (years)

400 MS
Dac
5
max
m /s)

4
mean
2
-12
Chloride Deff (10

3
min
2

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Exposure Time (years)

400 DC
Dac
5
max
4
m /s)

mean
2
-12

min
Chloride Deff (10

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Exposure Time (years)