See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233813679

Service life of RC structures: Chloride induced corrosion: Prescriptive versus

performance-based methodologies

Article  in  Materials and Structures · January 2012

DOI: 10.1617/s11527-011-9765-2

CITATIONS READS

23 879

3 authors:

Pedro Faustino Antonio Costa

WSP Technical University of Lisbon
41 PUBLICATIONS   432 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   601 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Francesca Lanata
Ecole Supérieure du Bois
53 PUBLICATIONS   350 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pedro Faustino on 03 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Materials and Structures
DOI 10.1617/s11527-011-9765-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Service life of RC structures: chloride induced corrosion:
prescriptive versus performance-based methodologies
Pedro F. Marques • António Costa •
Francesca Lanata
Received: 25 September 2010 / Accepted: 27 July 2011
Ó RILEM 2011
Abstract Reinforced concrete (RC) structures sub-
jected to aggressive environmental exposure condi-
tions are traditionally designed to satisfy safety,
serviceability, durability and aesthetics requirements
throughout their operational design service life. This
is usually established using time-dependent mathe-
matical models, developed through performance-
based methodologies in guidelines and European and
national standards. However, at present, in most cases,
prescriptive methodologies are used. The objective of
this paper is to compare, as regards chloride induced
corrosion, defined target periods of service life
according to a prescriptive methodology with service
life results of a performance-based methodology. In
the laboratory concrete specimens were manufactured
having compositions according to a prescriptive
specification. These specimens were tested in order
to determine their performance properties (strength,
chloride diffusion and capillary absorption). Test
results were included in the mathematical models of
P. F. Marques (&)  A. Costa
IST—Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais,
1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
e-mail: faustino3@gmail.com
A. Costa
e-mail: acosta@civil.ist.utl.pt
F. Lanata
GeM—University of Nantes, 2 rue de la Houssinière,
BP 92208, 44322 Nantes Cedex 3, France
e-mail: Francesca.Lanata@univ-nantes.fr
the performance-based specifications. The classic
safety factor and recent probabilistic approaches have
been used to estimate the service life of each
composition being compared to the target periods
defined in the prescriptive specification. Numerical
calculations show that the results of the Partial Safety
Factor and a full probabilistic approach are distinctly
different and consequently their convergence still
needs to be improved, due to the complexity of the
process of chloride penetration into the concrete, not
only the model but also the input values. When
compared to performance-based approaches it would
be expected that the prescriptive methodology would
be more conservative due to its less quantified
information on concrete and environment properties,
though in this study this was not always true.
Keywords Chloride corrosion  Durability 
Performance-based methodology  Service life
1 Introduction
Over the past years, relevant research has been carried
out regarding durability of reinforced concrete (RC)
structures. Apart from the European standards EN
1990 [1] and EN 1992-1-1 [2] and the research
contribution of international associations [3, 4–6]
that have been dealing with this topic for the last
30 years, there is a large number of publications
dedicated to the durability of concrete structures

[7, 8]. Besides, there are continuously workshops and
conferences on the topic [9, 10]. The literature shows
that deterioration occurring long before the estimated
design limits of RC structures is of great concern
nowadays. In Portugal, a significant number of
structures that were designed and built in the 1980s
and 1990s for a working life of 50 years are now close
to their serviceability limits or have even passed
beyond these and mainly because of steel reinforce-
ment corrosion [11, 12].
In Portugal, construction of reinforced concrete
buildings started to become more widespread in the
1950s. Only for socioeconomic important structures,
such as bridges and hospitals, special design concerns
as regards durability were established, since Portu-
guese codes at the time considered chemical attack on
concrete as the governing action when compared to
corrosion of steel bars. In fact, Portuguese codes used
to define cover thickness of 10 mm for protected RC
elements and 20 mm for non-protected elements—
[13]—and few years later 30–40 mm depending on
the chemical aggressiveness of the environment and
the concrete compressive strength—[14].
Many structures, initially supposed to be rehabil-
itated or retrofitted after more than 50 years of usage,
are now in need of significant intervention, even
though they are still far from their original design
service life. This will require an important econom-
ical effort that in future could be reduced or even
avoided by using durable concrete materials and life-
cycle evaluation of concrete structures in design and
retrofit phases.
Depending on the environmental aggressiveness,
the constituents of the concrete may vary when its mix
composition is designed. As far as durability con-
cerns, the most relevant properties of the concrete are
associated with its composition in terms of cement
content, cement type—regarding different addi-
tions—w/c ratio and also concrete cover to steel
reinforcement in the structural members. Anyway,
research is being done not only to study materials that
are sufficiently durable but also to estimate, in a more
accurate way, the lifetime cycle of structures facing
the aggressiveness of different environments. As a
matter of fact, the current codes provide only qual-
itative definitions of exposure and they fail to define
the design life in relation to durability, i.e. achieving
an acceptable level of reliability of the structure
performance in its exposure environment as a whole.
Materials and Structures
However, this approach is empirical and needs to be
calibrated by physical models considering the vari-
ability of the environmental and materials parameters.
For this reason, several papers have developed
mathematical models for service life prediction [15].
This is particularly important when concrete struc-
tures are exposed to aggressive environments [16].
Thus, marine environments are the most aggressive
ones considering the high levels of chlorides and
relative humidity. Coastal reinforced concrete struc-
tures are significantly affected and have to be
conceived taking into account these aspects [17].
This work analyses and compares two alternative
specifications of the Portuguese National Annex to the
NP EN 206-1 [18]—LNEC E464 [19] and LNEC
E465 [20]—for the definition of concrete composition
and the corresponding design lifetime estimations:
(a) Prescriptive method. The concrete composition
is defined on pre-established standard limits in
view of its anticipated environmental expo-
sure—LNEC E464;
(b) Performance-based method. The compositions
are defined according to specific tests and
mathematical models for the determination of
the design lifetime in view of the anticipated
environmental exposure. Two approaches are
herein implemented:
I. Partial safety factor approach—strictly fol-
lows LNEC E465.
II. Probabilistic approach—the mathematical
models, parameters and assumptions for
the computation of lifetime are based on
LNEC E465. The probabilistic estimation
of the design lifetime is carried out by the
Monte Carlo method.
The study will be carried out considering marine
environment and its corresponding classes, according
to definitions currently given by the European
standards—EN 1990 and EN 1992-1-1—and the
Portuguese National Annex Specifications of the NP
EN 206-1. In the following, the environmental
exposure class XS (corrosion induced by chlorides
from sea water) will be considered. Three subclasses
are distinguished: XS1, areas exposed to airborne salt
but not in direct contact with sea water; XS2,
permanently submerged areas; and XS3, tidal, splash
and spray zones.
Materials and Structures
Fig. 1 Tuutti’s model for deterioration of structures
2 The corrosion process of steel in concrete
in marine environment
At present Tuutti’s model [21] is widely accepted as
the conceptual model for the deterioration of struc-
tures (Fig. 1). As a function of time, this model
clearly distinguishes an initiation time followed by a
propagation time. The initiation time refers to the
penetration of the aggressive agents into the concrete
cover, while the propagation time is related to the
evolution of different forms of deterioration after
corrosion has been initiated.
The sum of initiation and propagation results in the
service life period of the structure. The extent of both
these periods depends on the environmental exposure
condition of the structure or its members. For
example, the initiation period is related to chloride
content; the critical chloride content causing the
dissolution of the passive layer is highly related to the
electrical potential difference of reinforcing steel
along with the presence of moisture and oxygen.
In marine environment in particular, when reinforced
concrete members are exposed to aerial (XS1), tidal, or
even splash zones (XS3), the effects of continuous
wetting and drying cycles involve severe conditions,
such as a high concrete surface chloride content,
diffusion but also convection penetration during immer-
sion cycle and oxygen availability during drying
periods. In these zones, the penetration of chloride ions
(initiation period) is relatively slow, but as soon as they
reach the reinforcing steel, corrosion can develop with
considerable intensity because there is a sufficient
amount of moisture and oxygen (propagation period)
[22, 23]. As a consequence, the propagation period is
usually discarded for the estimation of the service life.
Fig. 2 Typical chloride profile for a concrete structure in
marine environment (available data on Atlantic Ocean with
high tides)
In contrast, when concrete members are com-
pletely submerged in water, or saturated, for example
under the sea level (XS2), even if the chloride content
on the concrete surface is high, the presence of
oxygen near the reinforcing steel will be quite
reduced, which leads to a very low corrosion intensity
(velocity) according to some authors [24].
Figure 2 gives an impression of the chloride
content at different depths in function of the exposure
classes XS1, XS2 and XS3 [25].
3 Design service life—reliability criteria
The estimation of the design service life of reinforced
concrete structures is based on reliability criteria set
by the European standard [1]. In this standard, three
different reliability classes are specified—RC1, RC2
and RC3—concerning the importance of a certain
structure evaluated in terms of consequences after
failure (risk analysis). Each of these classes is
represented by a maximum probability of failure Pf
and the corresponding minimum reliability index b,
which takes into account the statistical variability in
action effects and the uncertainties in resistances and
model assumption.
Even though corrosion effects on reinforced con-
crete structures may vary widely, from the point of
view of the consequence levels, the performance-
 Materials and Structures

based specification given in LNEC E465 considers
only the serviceability limit states. However, Euro-
code 0 [1] accounts for these limit states solely for the
reliability class RC2.
Table 1 gives the minimum reliability index b
associated with reliability classes recommended by
the Eurocode 0 and the LNEC E465 for the ultimate
and serviceability limit states. The corresponding
maximum probability of failure Pf is also given.
4 Prescriptive definition of concrete
characteristics
4.1 Concrete composition
The prescriptive methodology LNEC E464 sets the
limits of the concrete constituents (maximum w/c
ratio, minimum cement dosage and cement type), the
minimum compressive strength and the concrete
cover thickness for a design working life of 50 years
(target period) under the environmental exposures in
issue, considering the structural class S4 (EN
1992-1-1).
The same prescribed limits of the concrete com-
position and 10 mm added to the 50 years concrete
cover permit, according to this specification, a design
working life of 100 years—structural class S6 (EN
1992-1-1).
The specification LNEC E465, following the
guidelines of Eurocode 2 (EN 1992-1-1), classifies
the minimum concrete cover—cmin,dur (Sect. 4.2)—
for reinforced concrete structures according to struc-
tural classes with which structures’ design working
life and type are associated.
The defined limits according to the Portuguese
specification (LNEC E464) are presented in Table 2.
These can only be reduced in view of additional
measures (increase of strength class, use of stainless
steel, protective coatings on concrete and/or protec-
tive epoxy coating on reinforcing steel).
4.2 Concrete cover
The cover of reinforced concrete structural members
is set by the EN 1992-1-1—Eurocode 2. The
uncertainty of this variable in relation to its execu-
tion is also taken into account in accordance with the
NP ENV 13670-1 [26]. Thus, besides the minimum
cover cmin,dur (mm), Eurocode 2 defines the nominal
cover cnom (mm). In order to take into account any
expected deviation, cnom is the value that should be
considered for the construction project drawings and
specifications:

Table 1 Recommended
Reliability class ULSa SLSb
minimum values of b/
maximum values of Pf for Eurocode 0 LNEC E465 Eurocode 0 LNEC E465
each reliability class
RC3 4.3/0.001% – – 2.0/2.3%
a
RC2 3.8/0.007% – 1.5/6.7% 1.5/6.7%
Ultimate limit state
b
RC1 3.3/0.048% – – 1.2/11.5%
Serviceability limit state

Table 2 Limits for a working life of 50 years defined by LNEC E464

Cement type CEM IV/A (reference); CEM IV/B; CEM III/A; CEM III/B; CEM CEM I; CEM II/A
V; CEM II/B; CEM II/A-D
XS1 XS2 XS3 XS1 XS2 XS3

Minimum nominal 45 50 55 45 50 55
cover (mm)
Maximum (w/c) 0.55 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.40
Minimum cement 320 320 340 360 360 380
dosage (kg/m3)
Minimum strength class C30/37 C30/37 C35/45 C40/50 C40/50 C40/50
LC30/37 LC30/37 LC35/38 LC40/44 LC40/44 LC40/44
Materials and Structures

cnom ¼ cmin;dur þ Dcdev ð1Þ clear understanding of in-service durability perfor-

where Dcdev (mm) is the expected deviation which
depends on the quality control, and in the Portuguese
case (NP ENV 13670-1) 10 mm is the required value,
regardless of the level of quality control.
The minimum concrete cover cmin,dur may be
interpreted as a 5% fractile characteristic value [5]
and NP ENV 13670-1), where Dcdev = 1.645s being
s the standard deviation of a concrete cover having a
normal distribution. In this case the standard devia-
tion of the cover would correspond to 6 mm. The
nominal cover cnom is assumed to represent the mean
value.
The Portuguese prescriptive specification LNEC
E464 is included in the National Annex of the
Portuguese standard NP EN 206-1. Hence, this
document determines the requisites of the composi-
tion of reinforced concrete members, and specifies
the nominal cover which includes the minimum cover
cmin,dur and its deviation, Dcdev.
Table 3 gives the minimum concrete cover cmin,dur
recommended by the Eurocode 2 for the prescribed
structural classes. The structural classes considered
herein and adopted by the Portuguese specification
LNEC E464 are: class S4—as the basis for a target
period of 50 years—and class S6—as the basis for a
target period of 100 years.
5 Performance-based definition of design service
life
The prescriptive nature of the LNEC E464 results in a
lack of insight into their consequences and this means
that, at the structural design stage, there is lack of
Table 3 Minimum cover (mm)—cmin,dur according to EN
1992-1-1
Structural class Reinforced concrete Pre-stressed concrete
XS1 XS2 XS3 XS1 XS2
mance of a structure. As a consequence, specification
LNEC E465 has introduced a performance-based
approach requiring a careful and realistic assessment
of the interrelation between design, durability along
with future maintenance and repair. The conceptual
basis of such an approach is to ensure that the
required performance is maintained throughout the
intended life of the structure along with the optimi-
zation of the incurred lifetime costs [27]. According
to these specifications, the design of concrete com-
positions can be carried out through performance-
based indicators as an alternative to the definition of
the quantities of its constituents. Indeed, there are no
limits whatsoever for the constituents’ type and
quantity because each composition has to be tested
and its results analysed. Furthermore, some of the
results have to be included in mathematical models in
order to perform a lifetime estimation regarding the
type of action—chlorides [28] or carbonation [29]. In
the following, the existing service-life predictive
models based on durability indicators for chloride-
induced corrosion will be presented.
5.1 Modelling of the initiation period
The defined serviceability limit state is reached when
a certain amount of chlorides—commonly referred to
as the critical chloride content—penetrates into the
concrete cover at the level of the reinforcing steel
level; at this depth, there is then a high probability of
depassivation. This chloride content, called CR in the
performance-based method (LNEC E465), is consid-
ered equivalent to the threshold value of a determined
composition in an exposure time equal to the
initiation period and a depth penetration equal to
cover depth.
The specification LNEC E 465 defines the CR
values in a general way according to each exposure
class and the w/c ratio. The recommended values are
given in Table 4.
XS3

S1 20 25 30 30 35 40 Table 4 Chloride content by weight of cement—CR

S2 25 30 35 35 40 45
Water/cement XS1; XS2 XS3
S3 30 35 40 40 45 50
S4 35 40 45 45 50 55 w/c B 0.30 0.6% 0.5%
S5 40 45 50 50 55 60 0.30 \ w/c B 0.40 0.5% 0.4%
S6 45 50 55 55 60 65 w/c [ 0.40 0.4% 0.3%
 Materials and Structures

Even though chloride penetration into concrete Table 6 Values of khor

Distance to coast khor
occurs through different processes—permeation, as a function of the dis-
tance of the concrete 0 1.0
absorption and diffusion—depending on the exposure surface to the coast
conditions, the models currently used for the estima- 1 km 0.6
tion of the initiation period under chloride attack are
based on diffusion only.
Table 7 Values of ktemp as a function of the temperature of the
Thus, the modelling equations compute the pen- concrete surface
etration depth considering diffusion through the cover
Temperature 0°C 10°C 15°C 20°C 25°C 30°C 35°C
by means of Fick’s second law [30], though taking
into account that the diffusion coefficient diminishes ktemp 2.2 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6
with the exposure time [11]:
 
Cðx; tÞ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi t n
0
x ¼ 2erf 1 1  Dapp ðtÞt ð2Þ Dapp ðtÞ ¼ kD;c kD;RH kD;T D0 ! Dapp ðtÞ
CS t n t
0
¼ kD0 ð4Þ
where x is the penetration depth (m) corresponding to t
a chloride content of C(x, t); Dapp(t) is the diffusion where D0 is the potential coefficient of diffusion
coefficient of chlorides in concrete, as a function of (migration) obtained from laboratory tests according
exposure time (m2/s); C(x, t) is the chloride content to NT Build 492 [31] at the concrete’s reference age
in percentage by weight of cement (%), at the depth of t0 = 28 days (m2/s), kD,c is the factor that accounts
x (m) after an exposure time t (s); CS is the chloride for the influences of curing (Table 8), kD,RH considers
content in percentage by weight of cement (%) at the the influence of the relative humidity RH (Table 9),
external concrete surface (x = 0), assumed to be kD,T accounts for the temperature influence
constant over time; erf-1 is the inverse of the error (Table 10) and n is the concrete’s ageing factor as
function. regards the chloride’s penetration in time (Table 11).
The following equations allow the determination Once the potential coefficient of apparent diffusion
of CS and Dapp(t) (LNEC E465): D0 and the concrete cover have been evaluated, by
CS ¼ Cb 2:5ðw=cÞkvert khor ktemp ð3Þ developing Eqs. 2 and 4 and knowing that, at the
limit, C(x, t) will be represented by the critical
where Cb is the surface chloride content that accounts chloride content CR, the initiation period ti, which
for the salinity of the seawater at the Portuguese coast substitutes t, may be obtained by the following:
(21 g/l) with a temperature of (16 ± 2)°C and is
defined as 3% for the classes XS2 and XS3 and 2%
for the class XS1, w/c is the water/cement ratio, kvert
and khor are coefficients related to environmental
Table 8 Values of kD,c as a function of curing days
exposure considering the concrete location to sea
level and distance to sea coast respectively (Tables 5, Number of curing days kD,c
6). ktemp is the coefficient that accounts for the
Normal 2.4
concrete temperature (Table 7).
Permanent contact with water 0.75
Formwork with controlled 1.0
permeability and 3 days
of wet curing

Table 5 Values of
Exposure kvert
kvert as a function of
class
exposure classes Table 9 Values of kD,RH
(height relative to Exposure class kD,RH
XS1 0.7 as a function of exposure
mean tide level) classes
XS2 1.0 for 1 m depth XS1 0.4
1.4 for 25 m depth XS2 1.0
XS3 1.0 XS3 1.0
Materials and Structures

Table 10 Values of kD,T

Temperature (°C) kD,T
The following equations and definitions are pro-
as a function of concrete posed by the specification LNEC E465 of the
temperature 30 1.5 National Annex of the NP EN 206-1:
25 1.2
20 1.0 5.2.1 Faraday’s law
15 0.8
10 0.75 x ¼ 0:0115Icorr tp ð6Þ
0 0.4
[33] where x (mm) is the reduction of the radius of the
ordinary steel reinforcement, Icorr (lA/cm2) is the
corrosion rate, and tp (years) is the propagation period.
Table 11 Values of n as a function of exposure classes and
cement type 5.2.2 Empirical equation for the estimate
Exposure class n of the radius reduction causing first surface
cracking
CEM I/II CEM III/IV
 
XS1 0.55 0.65 1 c
x¼ 74:5 þ 7:3  17:4ftd ð7Þ
XS2 0.45 0.55 1000 /0
XS3 0.55 0.65
[34] where ftd (MPa) is the concrete tensile strength
(obtained from the Brazilian test), with values of 3
"  2 #1n
1 and 4 MPa which can be considered in view of the
2 1 CR  Ci 1 compressive strength class (EN 1992-1-1) of each
ti ¼ erf 1 ð5Þ
c CS  Ci kD0 t0n proposed concrete composition. Cover depth is
represented by c (mm) and /0 (mm) is the initial
With c (m) being the concrete cover depth and Ci the diameter of ordinary reinforcement bar.
initial chloride content, by weight of cement, in the
concrete composition. 5.2.3 Influence of the corrosion type on steel section
reduction
5.2 Modelling of the propagation period
/0  / ¼ ax ð8Þ
The propagation period corresponds to the onset of being a B 10 for localized (pitting) corrosion (asso-
corrosion of steel reinforcement within the concrete. ciated with chlorides).
This causes the loss of steel bars section as well as the Considering y (%) as the relative reduction of the
volume increase of the corrosion product. The first steel reinforcement radius calculated from:
results into loss of strength of the steel reinforcement
itself while the latter causes internal stresses against /0  / y
¼ / ð9Þ
the surrounding concrete and loss of bond between 2 100 0
concrete and steel [32]. In either case cracks may The final equations resulting from the previous
easily develop. Furthermore, cracking might allow considerations are as follows:
easier access of oxygen and moisture to the steel
y/0
reinforcement, which may well increase the corrosion tp ¼ ð10Þ
1:15aIcorr
rate.
The estimate of the propagation period depends on where y (%) is obtained as follows:
the definition of different levels of corrosion, estab-  
c 0:2
lished as limits, depending, in its turn, on crack y ¼ 74:5 þ 7:3  17:4ftd ð11Þ
/0 /0
width. Although the modelling of the propagation is
somehow difficult due to the complexity of the The Icorr values used to obtain the propagation period
factors involved, it can be simplified by the quanti- depend on the different corrosion levels (Table 12)
fication of the corrosion rate. and on the exposure classes (Table 13).
 Materials and Structures

5.3 Partial safety factor approach Table 14 Safety factor c

The partial safety factor approach employs Eq. 5 for
the modelling of the initiation period as presented in
the performance-based specification (LNEC E465).
The method is based on a deterministic computation
using calibrated reduction factors (safety factors) in
order to introduce the probabilistic nature of the
problem (semi-probabilistic approach). The definition
of the safety factors by the referred specification is
based on the assumption that the lifetime of a
structure is represented by a lognormal statistical
distribution [6] with a coefficient of variation (COV)
of 0.5 [6].
For the majority of the variables in the modelling
equation mean values are used, however, for the
concrete cover the deterministic calculus considers a
characteristic value cmin,dur (see Sect. 28) [5]. The
initiation period obtained by a deterministic calcula-
tion is then divided by a safety factor c associated
with a required reliability level (see Sect. 3;
Table 14) and added to the predefined minimum
propagation periods (LNEC E465).
In view of the referred definitions, the specification
LNEC E465 specifies different minimum propagation
periods—tp—for each exposure class and different
minimum required target periods—tg—(Table 15).
Considering that the requirement for service life
design is tL [ tg, it is finally possible to calculate the
design service life tL as:
Table 12 Corrosion levels as a function of corrosion rate
(LNEC E465)
Corrosion rate Section loss (lm/year) Corrosion level
(lA/cm2)
\0.1 1.15 Negligible
0.1–0.5 1.15–5.75 Low
0.5–1.0 5.75–11.5 Moderate
[1.0 [11.5 High
Reliability LNEC E465
values for each reliability
class Serviceability
class
Limit State
RC3 2.8
RC2 2.3
RC1 2.0
ti
tL ¼ þ tp ð12Þ
c
where ti is the initiation period obtained from Eq. 5, c
is the safety factor according to Table 14 and tp is the
propagation period given in Table 15.
The estimation of the service life period using the
performance-based methodology (safety factor
approach) has been carried out for the target periods
tg of 50 and 100 years, considering the exposure
classes XS1, XS2 and XS3. As previously mentioned,
the used concrete cover values, following the limits
of the prescriptive specification, are those associated
with the following structural classes: S4 for a 50 year
target life and S6 for a 100 year target life [1].
5.4 Probabilistic approach
The limit state function with respect to chloride
ingress is defined by Eq. 13. The probabilistic
analysis of lifetime distribution is carried out using
the statistical parameters of the involved variables
(mean and standard deviation). The mean values of
each variable are based on the experimental pro-
gramme and LNEC E465, while the values adopted
for the standard deviation are based on fib [5] and Val
and Trapper [35].
The implementation of the probabilistic calculus
for the design lifetime has been carried out by means
of the Monte Carlo method. The random variables of
the limit state function have been considered with
their probability distribution according to various
reference documents [36–38].

Table 15 Minimum propagation periods of corrosion until

first surface cracking (marine environment)

Table 13 Exposure classes and corrosion levels of steel Service life tp estimated (years)
reinforcement (LNEC E465) (target) period—tg
XS1 XS2 XS3
XS1 XS2 XS3
50 years 0 40 0
Moderate Negligible High 100 years 0 80 0
Materials and Structures

As for the partial safety factor analysis, the
concrete cover specified for a target period tg of
100 years is obtained from the one specified for
50 years plus 10 mm.
Equation 13 expresses the limit state function used
for the implementation of the Monte Carlo method
where k represents the model uncertainty:
gð xÞ ¼ tL  tg
("  2 #1n
1
marine environment—XS1, XS2 and XS3, the con-
crete compositions were made in order to respect
demanding limits with respect to water/cement ratio,
cement dosage, and cement type.
The performance of these compositions was ana-
lysed considering the testing results, as regards
mechanical strength [39], capillary absorption [40]
and non-steady chloride migration [31], even though
only the latter was included in the mathematical

2 1 CR  Ci 1 models of the performance-based specification LNEC

¼k erf 1 E465 to estimate the lifetime of concrete elements.
c CS  Ci kD0 t0n
)
y/0 6.2 Concrete composition
þ  tg ð13Þ
1:15aIcorr
The concrete compositions were mixed using
Thus, the probability of failure may be expressed as cements that follow the NP EN 197-1 [41]. This
the probability that the limit state function is standard establishes the cement type according to the
negative: proportion of clinker and other constituents (lime
Pf ¼ P½gð xÞ\0 ð14Þ filler, silica fume, fly ashes, pozzolans, blast furnace
slag, etc.). Table 16 shows the cement types used in
the four concrete compositions under study, as well
6 Experimental program as the cement dosage and the w/c ratio.

6.1 Introduction 6.3 Results

As mentioned before, the objective of this experi-
mental work is to evaluate the properties of different
concrete compositions, concerning their durability as
a corrosion protection to steel reinforcement.
From the requisites of the prescriptive specifica-
tion LNEC E464, based on the exposure classes for
The determination of the compressive strength at the
age of 28 days was carried out following the standard
NP EN 12390-3 (Table 17). Regarding chlorides, the
experimental procedure for the determination of the
coefficient of migration followed NT Build 492,
which included cylindrical specimens with 100 mm

Table 16 Concrete
Type of cement Constituents XS1; XS2 XS3
compositions respecting the
limits of LNEC E464 and Dosage w/c Dosage w/c
NP EN 197-1 (kg/m3) (kg/m3)

CEM II/A-D 8% silica fume 320 0.55 340 0.45

[87% clinker
CEM III/A 60% blast furnace slag 340 0.55 340 0.45
[35% clinker
CEM IV/A 20% fly ash 340 0.55 340 0.45
10% silica fume
[65% clinker
CEM IV/B–V 40% fly ash 340 0.55 340 0.45
[55% clinker
CEM V/A 25% blast furnace slag 340 0.55 340 0.45
25% fly ash
Exposure classes XS1, XS2 [45% clinker
and XS3
 Materials and Structures

Table 17 Concrete experimental cubic compressive strength: Table 19 Concrete coefficient of capillary absorption: tests
test results results
Concrete XS1; XS2 XS3 Concrete XS1; XS2 XS3
composition Compressive Compressive composition Coefficient Coefficient
strength (fcka) strength (fcka) of absorption of absorption
(MPa) (MPa) (kg/(m2 Hh)) (kg/(m2 Hh))

CEM II/A-D 55.7 68.9 CEM II/A–D 0.146 0.176

CEM III/A 46.4 50.8
CEM IV/A 48.9 54.5
CEM IV/B–V 48.8 54.4
CEM V/A 37.5 47.1
s Standard deviation, fcm mean value of compressive strength
a
fck = fcm—1.645s, being
of diameter and 50 mm of thickness. Before being in
a low pressure hermetic recipient and immersed in a
solution of calcium hydroxide (Table 18), even
though not specified by NT Build 492, the specimens
were subjected to 14 days of drying at 20°C and 50%
of RH. As regards capillary absorption, the test
procedure respected the Portuguese specification
LNEC E393 in which cylindrical specimens with
150 mm of diameter and 50 mm of thickness were
used. The conditioning consisted of 14 days of drying
at 20°C and 50% of RH before the test (Table 19).
Concerning the compression strength results
(Table 17), it is possible to verify that the concrete
composition with silica fume—CEM II/A-D—pre-
sents not only the highest values but also a significant
difference when compared to the other compositions.
On the other hand, composition CEM V/A, with blast
furnace slag and fly ashes, presents the lowest values
of all compositions and a little margin when compared
to the established limits in the prescriptive specifica-
tion LNEC E464. In this document the compressive
strength classes must be at least C30/37 for exposure
CEM III/A 0.154 0.402
CEM IV/A 0.278 0.176
CEM IV/B–V 0.214 0.205
CEM V/A 0.550 0.226
classes X1 and X2 and at least C35/45 for the
exposure class XS3 (Table 2).
Regarding chloride migration (Fig. 3), Table 18
shows that for the compositions designed for expo-
sure classes XS1 and XS2, the compositions with
silica fume (CEM II/A-D) and blast furnace slag (III/
A) present the lowest values with, 4.5 9 10-12 and
3.9 9 10-12 m2/s, respectively. The worst result
(highest) corresponds to the composition CEM IV/
B–V (40% of fly ash) with 12.7 9 10-12 m2/s.
Regarding the compositions designed for exposure
class XS3, the diffusion values are significantly lower
than those of the compositions designed for classes
XS1 and XS2. However, the compositions showing a
lower migration coefficient are still II/A-D and III/A
with 1.8 9 10-12 and 2.0 9 10-12 m2/s, respectively,
while the worst performance (higher migration coef-
ficient: 6.9 9 10-12 m2/s) is obtained for the compo-
sition with blast furnace slag and fly ash (CEM V/A).
Although with a lesser amount of fly ash, concrete
composition CEM IV/A shows a lower migration
coefficient than CEM IV/B–V. With more fly ash a
better performance is to be expected for CEM IV/B–
V. However, this type of cement (binder) was
supplied as a pre-mixed, while the first one was

Table 18 Concrete
Concrete composition XS1; XS2 XS3
migration coefficient D0:
tests results Age (t0) Migration Age (t0) Migration
coefficient (D0) coefficient (D0)
(days) (910-12 m2/s) (days) (910-12 m2/s)

CEM II/A-D 36 4.5 36 1.8

CEM III/A 40 3.9 36 2.0
CEM IV/A 28 6.8 35 4.2
CEM IV/B–V 35 12.7 36 5.4
CEM V/A 41 8.9 40 6.9
Materials and Structures
Fig. 3 Visible chloride penetration front (NT Build 492 test
procedure). Cross section of a cylindrical specimen
obtained from simply mixing CEM I with fly ashes
along with aggregates, water and plasticizer.
Globally, the values of the coefficient of capillary
respect the upper limit defined by the most recent
reference documents [42]—0.5 kg/(m2 Hh). The
only concrete composition that surpassed this value
was CEM V/A, designed for XS1 and XS2 classes.
For exposure class XS3, CEM III/A (blast furnace
slag) was the concrete composition closest to the
referred limit, with 0.402 kg/(m2 Hh). The remaining
results are far from the prescribed limit, with values
between 0.146 and 0.278 kg/(m2 Hh).
In view of the distinct w/c ratios between compo-
sitions designed for XS1/XS2 (w/c = 0.55) and XS3
(w/c = 0.45), the differences among all absorption
values are considered to be insignificant.
7 Results of service life analysis
Service life design for exposure to chlorides was
carried out in order to respect the requisites of the
exposure classes XS1, XS2 and XS3, for the target
periods of 50 and 100 years and the RC2 reliability
class, which means a maximum failure probability of
6.7% or a minimum reliability index of 1.5 (Table 1).
This means that for the partial safety factor approach,
the initiation period is divided by c = 2.3 (Table 14).
In the present analysis, in addition to the inherent
conditions of each exposure class, a mean temperature
value of 15°C (Tables 7, 10), normal curing of the
reinforced concrete elements (Table 8) and a distance
to shore of 0 km (Table 6) were considered. For the
class XS2—submerged elements—a depth of 25 m
was considered (Table 5) (LNEC E465). Further-
more, the propagation period was only considered for
the exposure class XS2 following the premises of the
performance-based specification (LNEC E465).
7.1 Partial safety factor approach
Tables 20, 21, and 22 show the obtained values of the
design lifetime for reinforced concrete structures
based on the semi-probabilistic calculus using a
safety factor c = 2.3 (Eq. 12), according to in
Table 14. As mentioned, the initiation period was
calculated using a characteristic value—cmin,dur—for
the concrete cover.
According to the established parameters of LNEC
E465, for exposure class XS1 only the composition
based on CEM IV/B–V did not achieve the target
period of 50 years (Table 20). For the 100 years
target period, all the compositions surpassed the
target life value. In both cases the concrete mix with
blast furnace slag presented the highest values of
design lifetime (CEM III/A).
Regarding exposure class XS2 only the composi-
tions with cement IV/A and IIIA reached both target
periods (Table 21). Despite the minor difference
concrete with CEM II/A-D (8% silica fume) did not
reach the target period of 50 years (tL = 49 years) but
it managed to achieve the target period of 100 years.
The compositions CEM IV/B–V (40% fly ash) and
CEM V/A (25% fly ash; 25% slag) did not get to both
target periods although for a slight difference.
For the most aggressive exposure class—XS3—
compositions CEM IV/B–V and CEM V/A did not
reach both target periods. In the particular case of
CEM V/A the design lifetimes were less than half of
the required ones—11 years for tg = 50 years and
36 years for tg = 100 years (Table 22).
7.2 Probabilistic approach
Like the safety factor approach, the probabilistic
approach is based on the modelling equations and
parameters defined in the performance-based specifi-
cation LNEC E465. Yet, the lifetime results tL are
calculated by considering the required probability of
failure (Table 1). This means that the summation of ti
 Materials and Structures

Table 20 Semi-probabilistic calculus of the design lifetime for class XS1

Composition D0a (10-12 m2/s) nb (-) Target period: 50 years cmin,dur = 35 mm Target period: 100 years cmin,dur = 45 mm
tpc (years) d
ti (years) e
tL (years) tpc (years) tid (years) tLe (years)

CEM II/A-D 4.5 0.55 0 183 79 0 558 243

CEM III/A 3.9 0.65 0 1931 839 0 8117 3529
CEM IV/A 6.8 0.65 0 806 351 0 3389 1474
CEM IV/B–V 12.7 0.65 0 88 38 0 372 162
CEM V/A 8.9 0.65 0 181 79 0 761 331
a
Coefficient of diffusion (Table 18)
b
Concrete’s ageing factor (Table 11)
c
Propagation period (Table 15)
d
Initiation period obtained from Eq. 5
e
Design service life obtained from Eq. 12

Table 21 Semi-probabilistic calculus of the design lifetime for class XS2

Composition D0 (10-12 m2/s) n (-) Target period: 50 years cmin,dur = 40 mm Target period: 100 years cmin,dur = 50 mm
tp (years) ti (years) tL (years) tp (years) ti (years) tL (years)

CEM II/A-D 4.5 0.45 40 22 49 80 49 101

CEM III/A 3.9 0.55 40 87 78 80 233 181
CEM IV/A 6.8 0.55 40 41 58 80 109 128
CEM IV/B–V 12.7 0.55 40 8 43 80 21 89
CEM V/A 8.9 0.55 40 14 46 80 37 96

Table 22 Semi-probabilistic calculus of the design lifetime for class XS3

Composition D0 (10-12 m2/s) n (-) Target period: 50 years cmin,dur = 45 mm Target period: 100 years cmin,dur = 55 mm
tp (years) ti (years) tL (years) tp (years) ti (years) tL (years)

CEM II/A-D 1.8 0.55 0 165 72 0 402 175

CEM III/A 2.0 0.65 0 1167 507 0 3672 1597
CEM IV/A 4.2 0.65 0 142 62 0 447 194
CEM IV/B–V 5.4 0.65 0 64 28 0 201 87
CEM V/A 6.9 0.65 0 26 11 0 82 36

(initiation) ? tp (propagation) \ tg (target period) are
allowed only below a certain percentage corresponding
to the probability of failure (Eq. 14), Pf = 6.7%
(b = 1.5).
The determination of lifetime results was carried
out using the Monte Carlo simulation. Hence, the
modelling equations were outlined in a limit state
function (Eq. 13) according to LNEC E465, Val and
Trapper [35] and DuraCrete [4] and the variables
were defined in function of their statistical nature and
related parameters presented in Tables 23, 24, and
25. Exposure classes XS1 and XS3 do not account for
the variables of the propagation period since their
corresponding corrosion rates (Table 12) calculate
minor results for the propagation period (0–2 years
according to Eq. 10).
Materials and Structures

Table 23 Probabilistic
Variable Mean value—l Standard deviation—r Distribution
calculus of the design
lifetime for class XS1 Cover (cnom) 45 mm (55 mm—100 years) 8 mm Log-Normal
D0 Table 18 0.20 l Normal
CR 0.4% by cement weight (Table 4) 0.12 l Normal
Cs 2.31% by cement weight (Eq. 3) 0.10 l Normal
kvert = 0.7; khor = 1.0
n Table 11 0.05 Normal
t0 Table 18 – Deterministic
kD,T 0.8 (Table 10) 0.20 l Normal
kD,RH 0.4 (Table 9) – Deterministic
kD,c 2.4 (Table 8) – Deterministic
Model uncertainty k 1.0 0.15 l Normal

Table 24 Probabilistic
Variable Mean value—l Standard Distribution
calculus of the design
deviation—r
lifetime for class XS2
Cover (cnom) 50 mm (60 mm—100 years) 8 mm Log-normal
D0 Table 18 0.20 l Normal
CR 0.4% by cement weight (Table 4) 0.12 l Normal
Cs 6.93% by cement weight (Eq. 3) 0.10 l Normal
kvert = 1.4; khor = 1.0
n Table 11 0.05 Normal
t0 Table 18 – Deterministic
kD,T 0.8 (Table 10) 0.20 l Normal
kD,RH 1.0 (Table 9) – Deterministic
kD,c 1.0 (Table 8) – Deterministic
ftd 4 MPa 0.20 l Normal
/0 8 mm – Deterministic
a 10 – Deterministic
Icorr 0.01 lA/cm2 0.20 l Normal
Model uncertainty k 1.0 0.15 l Normal

Table 25 Probabilistic
Variable Mean value—l Standard Distribution
calculus of the design
deviation—r
lifetime for class XS3
Cover (cnom) 55 mm (65 mm—100 years) 8 mm Log-normal
D0 Table 18 0.20 l Normal
CR 0.3% by cement weight (Table 4) 0.12 l Normal
Cs 4.05% by cement weight (Eq. 3) 0.10 l Normal
kvert = 1.0; khor = 1.0
n Table 11 0.05 Normal
t0 Table 18 – Deterministic
kD,T 0.8 (Table 10) 0.20 l Normal
kD,RH 1.0 (Table 9) – Deterministic
kD,c 2.4 (Table 8) – Deterministic
Model uncertainty k 1.0 0.15 l Normal
 Materials and Structures

Unlike the safety factor approach, in the probabi-
listic approach the input data of the variable c
representing the concrete cover were: (i) its mean
(nominal) value, and (ii) the associated distribution
law with a standard deviation of 8 mm assigned
according to Lindvall [38], Ferreira [36], fib [37] and
DuraCrete [4]. The mean values of the migration
coefficient D0 were obtained from the experimental
program (Table 18) and the related COV assigned
according to Lindvall [38], Ferreira [36], fib [37] and
DuraCrete [4].
Since in this approach the propagation period was
also modelled for class XS2 (Eq. 10), the assigned
diameter of the steel reinforcement is /0 = 8 mm, ftd
represent the concrete splitting tensile strength and
Icorr represent the corrosion current density. For these
variables the mean values and the COV were based
on LNEC E465. Due to the lack of data, COV for the
model uncertainty k was simply assumed.
The results of the probabilistic calculus are
presented in Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 and Tables 26,
27, and 28 considering both target periods of 50 and
100 years. Figure 4 shows the results of design
lifetime, in years, considering the Portuguese standard
limit for the probability of failure (Pf = 6.7%).
Additionally, Fig. 5 presents Pf values of each cement
type for the design working life periods most
commonly required for reinforced concrete structures.
For exposure class XS1 (aerial zone), Figs. 4 and 5
show that CEM IV/B–V had the lowest predicted

Fig. 4 Design lifetime in (a) Minimum required: (b) Minimum required:

years for each composition 50 years 100 years
VA
VA
and each exposure class for XS IVB-V X IVB-V
a probability of failure of 3 IVA S3
IVA
6.7% (limit defined by NP IIIA IIIA
EN 206-1): a tg = 50 years XS IIA-D X IIA-D
and b tg = 100 years 2 S2

XS X
1 S1

1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000

Design Lifetime -years Design Lifetime -years

Fig. 5 Probability failure (a) 100.0% IIA-D (b) 100.0%

Maximumallowed: Maximumallowed:
for chosen lifetime values IIA-D
for 100 years of Lifetime

6.7 % 6.7 %
for 50 years of Lifetime

IIIA
Probability of Failure
Probability of Failure

IIIA
of: a 50 years, b 100 years IVA
10.0% 10.0% IVA
IVB-V IVB-V
VA VA
1.0% 1.0%

0.1% 0.1%

0.0% 0.0%
XS1 XS2 XS3 XS1 XS2 XS3

Fig. 6 Probability of (a)14% (b) 14%

XS1 IIA-D XS1 IIA-D
failure versus time for
Probability of Failure
Probability of Failure

12% XS1 IIIA 12% XS1 IIIA

exposure class XS1: XS1 IVA XS1 IVA
a tg = 50 years and 10% XS1 IVB 10% XS1 IVB
XS1 VA XS1 VA
b tg = 100 years 8% 8%
6% 6%
4% 4%

2% 2%

0% 0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time -years Time -years
Materials and Structures

Fig. 7 Probability of (a) 14% (b) 14%

failure versus time for XS2 IIA-D XS2 IIA-D

Probability of Failure
Probability of Failure
12% XS2 IIIA 12% XS2 IIIA
exposure class XS2: XS2 IVA XS2 IVA
10% 10% XS2 IVB
a tg = 50 years, XS2 IVB
XS2 VA
b tg = 100 years 8% XS2 VA 8%
6% 6%
4% 4%
2% 2%
0% 0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time - years Time - years

Fig. 8 Probability of (a) 14% (b) 14%

XS3 IIA-D XS3 IIA-D
failure versus time for

Probability of Failure
XS3 IIIA XS3 IIIA
Probability of Failure

exposure class XS3: 12% 12%

XS3 IVA XS3 IVA
a tg = 50 years and 10% XS3 IVB 10% XS3 IVB
b tg = 100 years XS3 VA 8% XS3 VA
8%
6% 6%
4% 4%
2% 2%
0% 0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time - years Time - years

Table 26 Design lifetime tL

Composition Target period: 50 years Target period: 100 years
S. factor (years) Probab. (years) Ratio prob./SF S. factor (years) Probab. (years) Ratio prob./SF

CEM II/A-D 79 86 1.09 243 223 0.92

CEM III/A 839 590 0.70 3529 1729 0.49
CEM IV/A 351 252 0.72 1474 809 0.55
CEM IV/B–V 38 36 0.95 162 120 0.74
CEM V/A 79 70 0.89 331 227 0.69
Exposure class XS1. Partial safety factor versus probabilistic

Table 27 Design lifetime tL

Composition Target period: 50 years Target period: 100 years
S. factor (years) Probab. (years) Ratio prob./SF S. factor (years) Probab. (years) Ratio prob./SF

CEM II/A-D 49 70 1.43 101 103 1.02

CEM III/A 78 111 1.42 181 189 1.04
CEM IV/A 58 83 1.43 128 131 1.02
CEM IV/B–V 43 58 1.35 89 86 0.97
CEM V/A 46 70 1.52 96 106 1.10
Exposure class XS2. Partial safety factor versus probabilistic

performance amongst all compositions and did not compositions fulfilled the limit. The composition
reach the target period of 50 years with Pf \ 6.7% with blast furnace slag—CEM III/A—presented by
(Pf = 10.6). For a target period of 100 years all far the best probabilistic results.
 Materials and Structures

Table 28 Design lifetime tL

Composition Target period: 50 years Target period: 100 years
S. factor (years) Probab. (years) Ratio prob./SF S. factor (years) Probab. (years) Ratio prob./SF

CEM II/A-D 72 76 1.06 175 162 0.93

CEM III/A 507 351 0.69 1597 888 0.56
CEM IV/A 62 48 0.77 194 124 0.64
CEM IV/B–V 28 25 0.89 87 66 0.76
CEM V/A 11 14 1.27 36 35 0.97
Exposure class XS3. Partial safety factor versus probabilistic

For exposure class XS2 (submerged concrete 1.0 tg: 50 yrs

elements) the design lifetime results of all composi- 0.9 tg: 100 yrs

/ tL for class XS2

tions complied with the requirements for both target 0.8
periods, except CEM IV/B–V for a target period of 0.7
100 years (Pf = 11.9%). Once more, the results 0.6
based on probabilistic calculations show that the 0.5
concrete mix with slag has the best results of 0.4
predicted performance.
Ratio tp
0.3
As to exposure class XS3 (tidal and splash zones), 0.2
Figs. 4 and 5, and Table 28, show that only concrete 0.1
mixes with slag (CEM III/A) and silica fume (CEM 0.0
II/A-D), in this order, reached and surpassed the IIA-D IIIA IVA IVB-V VA

target period of 50 years, though CEM IV/A is not far

(tL = 48 years). For a target period of 100 years this
value was not achieved or surpassed by the compo-
sitions CEM IV/B and CEM VA.
Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the probability of failure
through time for all compositions and exposure
classes XS1, XS2 and XS3. It can be verified that,
at this level of probability of failure (until Pf = 15%)
the relation between Pf and time is nearly linear for
exposure classes XS1 and XS3, while for class XS2
the evolution is similar to an exponential curve. This
means that, at an early stage of service life, for
classes XS1 and XS3 the limits of accepted perfor-
mance—i.e. Pf—are reached sooner than for class
XS2, which can be explained by the influence of the
propagation period on the entire lifetime of the
structure, where the rising of the probability of failure
is higher.
Considering that for class XS2, in view of LNEC
E465, the propagation period has an important role on
the total lifetime of reinforced concrete elements,
Fig. 9 represents the proportion of tp in relation with
tL. Since tp does not account for the influence of the
cement type, differences between compositions are
due to their performance during the initiation period ti.
Fig. 9 Proportion of the propagation period tp on total
structures lifetime for exposure class XS2
Compared to prescriptive methods, the perfor-
mance-based methods allow the consideration of
different variables although, in fact, some of these are
very difficult to quantify. In the modelling equations
of the initiation period, beside environmental param-
eters, the chloride threshold CR and the ageing factor
n are still roughly quantified and the Portuguese
specification E465 chose to adopt the values pre-
sented in Tables 4 and 11 which, at some point, differ
from reference documents [4, 5]. The modelling
equation of initiation is particularly sensitive to the
variation of the mean values of these variables [36].
As regards chloride threshold LNEC E465 [20]
defines 0.3–0.6% by weight of cement for all
exposure classes and w/c ratios (Table 4), while
according to Glass and Buenfeld [43] this variable
might have a wider range from 0.2 to 2.5%. Despite
being generally assumed to be in the range of
0.4–1.0% by weight of cement, it may change
depending on the environment exposure. In sub-
merged elements in marine environment this value is
Materials and Structures
significantly increased due to low oxygen content and
low values of steel electrochemical potential [44].
In view of this, results of predicted lifetime for
exposure class XS2 (submerged elements) could be
considerably increased with higher input values of CR
for the initiation period.
As to the ageing factor n, Duracrete [4] and fib [5]
recommend values that vary from 0.30 to 0.80
regarding types of cement and exposure classes and
despite slight differences when using these values, in
some cases, results change considerably due to the
sensitiveness of the modelling equation to this
parameter. This can considerably affect results for
all exposure classes.
7.3 Partial safety factor versus probabilistic
approaches
Taking into account that the performance-based
method has been carried out using two different
approaches, it is useful to analyse the convergence of
their results. The lifetime results of both perfor-
mance-based approaches are analysed and compared
in Tables 26, 27, and 28.
It is however important to outline that in both
approaches some results are far beyond what it can be
called as realistic. Concerning durability Portuguese
codes consider the possibility of designing structures
for working lives of 50 or 100 years. It is therefore
acceptable not only to try to achieve such expected
lifetimes without major interventions as to have
modelled results in the same order of magnitude. This
is why some of the results obtained may be consid-
ered as unrealistic (let us say [150 years), in view of
what structures show in situ concerning corrosion.
In order to perform a sensible comparison, it is
important to outline some of the differences associ-
ated with the statistical nature of these two
approaches. Even though the safety factor approach
uses a deterministic calculus taking into account a
probabilistic translation through the introduction of a
certain safety factor, it considers cmin,dur as the input
cover value in Eq. 12, which is a characteristic value,
not a mean one, interpreted as obtained from a 6 mm
standard deviation of a normal distribution (Sect.
4.2). On the opposite, the probabilistic approach
considers the cover mean value (nominal cover cnom)
with and an 8 mm standard deviation which is
adopted by different references [4, 36].
Moreover, two important differences should be
outlined: the safety factor approach (Sect. 1, b-I)) of
the performance-based specification LNEC E465
(i) does not account for the model uncertainty and
(ii) sets the minimum propagation period values; on
the other hand in the probabilistic calculus (Sect. 1,
b-II) (i) the model uncertainty is considered through
the coefficient k and (ii) the mathematical expression
of the propagation period is implemented (Eq. 12).
For class XS1, Table 26 presents the results of
predicted design lifetime for both approaches and
their ratio—probabilistic approach/safety factor.
There is a better convergence of results for the target
period of 50 years whose ratios vary from 0.70 to
1.09, while for 100 years the values vary from 0.49 to
0.92. In both cases the least convergence is obtained
for CEM III/A and CEM IV/A, which happens to
have the highest predicted design lifetime.
For the most aggressive exposure class—XS3—
the analysis is similar with ratios between 0.69–1.27
for tg = 50 years and 0.61–0.97 for tg = 100 years
(Table 28). For these exposure classes—XS1 and
XS3—the majority of the ratios are under 1.0 which
means that generally the safety factor approach gives
higher lifetime values than the probabilistic approach.
As regards the exposure class XS2 (Table 27), the
ratios vary from 1.35 to 1.52 for 50 years of target
lifetime and from 0.97 to 1.10 for a target period of
100 years. Unlike classes XS1 and XS3, for class
XS2 all cases, except one, present ratios above 1.0.
This means that for this exposure class the probabi-
listic approach led to higher results than the safety
factor approach.
In general, the differences between the perfor-
mance-based approaches may be explained by the
following considerations: (i) all safety factor values
are obtained by using a log-normal distribution for
the lifetime of structures and considering a pre-set
coefficient of variation (COV) of 0.50; (ii) the
probabilistic approach considers uncertainties associ-
ated to the models while the safety factor approach
doesn’t reflect it on the safety factor values; (iii) the
safety factor approach uses a characteristic value—
cmin,dur—of the concrete cover for the deterministic
calculus of the design lifetime while the probabilistic
approach uses a mean value (nominal—cnom).
In the particular case of exposure class XS2,
besides the aspects previously outlined, the propaga-
tion period is pre-established in the safety factor

approach (40 years for tg = 50 years and 80 years
for tg = 100 years) while in the probabilistic
approach it is modelled according to Eq. 10 presented
in the performance-based specification LNEC E465.
8 Concluding remarks
The present study has performed the analysis of the
convergence of two distinct methods for the evalu-
ation of structures’ service life in marine environ-
ment—chlorides action—using the experimental
results of concrete compositions with different
cement types. The compared methodologies are the
prescriptive method and the performance-based
method. Moreover, the performance-based method
has been carried out through two alternative
approaches: the partial safety factor approach and
the probabilistic approach.
With respect to chlorides migration the experi-
mental results have shown that the concrete compo-
sition with blast furnace slag cement (CEM III/A) had
the best performance (lowest results) followed by the
composition with cement type CEM II/A-D (with
silica fume), while the compositions CEM IV/A,
CEM IV/B–V and CEM V/A presented higher
diffusion values. The compressive and capillary
absorption results did not follow the same tendency
as the chlorides migration test.
After the input of the experimental results into the
mathematical models for the service life evaluation,
for exposure classes XS1 and XS2 and both target
periods of 50 and 100 years the composition with
blast furnace slag (CEM III/A) presented by far the
higher predicted design service life values, followed
by the composition with fly ashes and silica fume
(CEM IV/A). For class XS3, CEM III/A was again
the composition showing the best predicted perfor-
mance and surpassing largely both target values,
while compositions CEM IV/B–V (fly ash) and CEM
V/A (fly ash and slag) have shown to have the lowest
predicted performances and to be far from the
minimum required target periods of 50 and
100 years.
As to the convergence between the two perfor-
mance-based approaches, classes XS1 and XS3 have
generally shown a better convergence for the target
period of 50 years, while class XS2 has reached
better agreement between the two approaches for the
Materials and Structures
target life of 100 years. Furthermore, classes XS1 and
XS3 show better convergence for compositions with
lower service life results as the opposite happens to
XS2, where better convergence is verified for com-
positions with higher values. The different computa-
tion of the propagation period tp for class XS2 in the
two approaches could have had a significant influence
on the results so to partially explain the differences
previously pointed out.
From the results analysis and due to the complex-
ity of the chlorides’ penetration process into the
concrete, there is a need to carry out in-depth studies
to allow a better understanding of the chloride
transport process. In fact, in order to have these
performance-based methods useful for practice, some
of the involved parameters still need to be discussed,
to some extent, as regards their relation with the
environment. Taking into account the reduction of
chloride rate ingress into concrete in time and the
difficulty of its quantification, more field and labo-
ratory tests should be carried out. An improved
quantification of the ageing factor n and/or of the
quantification of the migration coefficient at ages
over 28 days, might be relevant to account for the
hydration properties of types of cement as those with
fly ash and slag and whose results were far from
expected (CEM V/B–V and CEM V/A) [5, 17, 45].
As to the performance-based approaches for
chloride action, the statistical distribution of the
service life should be analysed considering a calibra-
tion of safety factors so that both approaches—
probabilistic and safety factor—could converge.
References
1. EN 1990—Eurocode 0 (2002) Bases of structural design.
CEN, Brussels
2. EN 1992-1-1—Eurocode 2 (2004) Design of concrete
structures. Part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings.
CEN, Brussels
3. CEB-FIP (1993) Model Code 1990. T. Thelford, London
4. DuraCrete (2000) Probabilistic performance based dura-
bility design of concrete structures. The European Union—
Brite EuRam III, DuraCrete, Final Technical Report of
DuraCrete project, Document BE95-1347/R17, CUR,
Gouda, Nederland
5. fib (2006) Bulletin 34. Model code for service life design.
Lausanne, Switzerland
6. RILEM (1996) Report 14—durability design of concrete
structures. E&FN Spon Press, London
Materials and Structures
7. Folić R (2009) Durability design of concrete structures—
part 1: analysis fundamentals. Sci J Facta Univ Ser Arch
Civ Eng 7(1):1–18. doi:10.2298/FUACE0901001F
8. Mays G (2001) Durability of concrete structures: investi-
gation repair protection. E&FN Spon Press, London
9. ICDCS (2008) Advances in concrete structural durability
proc int conf on durability of concrete structures. Zhejiang
University Press, Hangzhou, China November 2008
10. RILEM (2009) Concrete durability and service life plan-
ning. In: Kovler (ed) Proceedings of 2nd international
RILEM workshop concrete life’09, Haifa, Israel, Septem-
ber 2009
11. Costa A, Appleton J (2002) Case studies of concrete
deterioration in a marine environment in Portugal. Cem
Concr Comp 24(1):169–179
12. Costa A, Appleton J (1998) Inspecção e Reabilitação de 4
Pontes Cais. Jornadas Portuguesas de Engenharia de
Estruturas, LNEC, Lisboa
13. REBA (1967) Regulamento de Estruturas de Betão Arm-
ado. Decreto no 47723 de 20 de Maio
14. REBAP (1983) Regulamento de Estruturas de Betão
Armado e Pré-esforçado. Decreto-Lei no 349-C/83 de 30
de Julho
15. Mitchell D, Frohnsdorff G (2004) Service-life modelling
and design of concrete structures for durability. Concr Int
26(12):57–63
16. Maekawa K, Ishida T, Chijiwa N (2007) Computational
life-cycle assessment of structural concrete subjected to
coupled severe environment and mechanistic actions. In:
Proc CONSEC’07, Tours, France, June 2007, 3–18
17. Gjorv OE (2009) Durability design of concrete structures
in severe environments. E&FN Spon Press, London
18. NP EN 206-1 (2005) Concrete—part 1: specification,
performance, production and conformity. IPQ, Lisbon
19. LNEC E464 (2007) Concrete. Prescriptive methodology
for a design working life of 50 and 100 years. LNEC,
Lisbon
20. LNEC E465 (2007) Concrete. Methodology for estimating
the concrete performance properties allowing to comply
with the design working life of the reinforced or pre-
stressed concrete structures under environmental exposures
XC and XS. LNEC, Lisbon
21. Tuutti K (1982) Corrosion of steel in concrete. CBI
research report no 4.82. Swedish Cement and Concrete
Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
22. Andrade C, Alonso C, Molina FJ (1993) Cover cracking as
a function of bar corrosion: part 1–experimental test. Mater
Struct 26:453–464. doi:10.1007/BF02472805
23. Costa AJS (1997) Durabilidade de Estruturas de Betão
Armado em Ambiente Marı́timo. PhD Thesis, Techni-
cal University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico,
Lisbon
24. Coppola L, Fratesi R, Monosi S, Zaffaroni P, Collepardi M
(1996) Corrosion of reinforced concrete in sea water sub-
merged structures. In: Proceedings of 3rd international
conference on performances of concrete in marine envi-
ronment, New Brunswick, Canada, August 1996,
pp 127–160
25. Nürnberger U, Sawade G, Isecke B (2007) Degradation of
pre-stressed concrete. In: Page CL&MM (ed) Durability of
Concrete and Cement Composites, Woodhead Publishing,
Abington Hall, pp 187–246
26. NP ENV 13670-1 (2007) Execution of concrete structures.
Part 1: general rules. IPQ, Lisbon
27. Narasimhan H, Chew MYL (2009) Integration of durabil-
ity with structural design: an optimal life cycle cost based
design procedure for reinforced concrete structures. Constr
Build Mater 23(2):918–929. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.
2008.04.016
28. Baroghel-Bouny V, Nguyen TQ, Dangla P (2009)
Assessment and prediction of RC structure service life by
means of durability indicators and physical/chemical
models. Cem Concr Comp 31:522–534. doi:10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2009.01.009
29. Thiery M, Villain G, Baroghel-Bouny V, Dangla P (2006)
Modelling of concrete carbonation based on coupled mass
transport and chemical reactions. In: Proceedings interna-
tional RILEM workshop on performance-based evaluation
and indicators for concrete durability, Madrid, Spain,
March 2006
30. Aı̈t Mokhtar K, Loche J-M, Friedmann H, Amiri O, Am-
mar A (2007) Steel corrosion in reinforced concrete. In:
Report no. 2-2—concrete in marine environment. ME-
DACHS—Interreg IIIB Atlantic Space—Project no 197.
Marine environment damage to Atlantic coast historical
and transport works or structures: methods of diagnosis,
repair and of maintenance
31. NT Build 492 (1999) Concrete, mortar and cement based
repair materials: chloride migration from non-steady state
migration experiments. Nordtest, Espoo
32. Bentur A, Berke N, Diamond S (1998) Steel corrosion in
concrete: fundamentals and civil engineering practice.
E&FN Spon Press, London
33. Rodriguez J, Andrade C (1990) Load bearing capacity loss
in corroding structures. In: Proceedings of ACI convention,
Toronto
34. Andrade C, Alonso C, Rodriguez J, Casal J, Diez JM
(1995) Relation between corrosion and cracking. Internal
report of Brite/Euram project BE-4062. DG XII. C.E.C
35. Val DV, Trapper PA (2008) Probabilistic evaluation of
initiation time of chloride-induced corrosion. Reliab Eng
Syst Saf 93:364–372. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2006.12.010
36. Ferreira RM (2004) probability based durability analysis of
concrete structures in marine environment. PhD Thesis,
University of Minho, School of Engineering, Guimarães,
Portugal
37. fib (2010) Bulletins 55 and 56. Model code 2010—first
complete draft, vol 1 and 2. Lausanne, Switzerland
38. Lindvall A (2003) Environmental actions on concrete
exposed to marine and road environments and its response.
PhD Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göte-
borg, Sweden
39. NP EN 12390-3 (2003) Testing hardened concrete—parte
3: compressive strength test. IPQ, Lisbon
40. LNEC E393 (1993) Concrete. Capillary absorption of
water. LNEC, Lisbon
41. NP EN 197-1 (2005) Cement. Composition, specification
and conformity criteria. IPQ, Lisbon
42. NP EN 1504-3 (2006) Products and systems for the pro-
tection and repair of concrete structures. Definitions,

requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity.
Structural and non-structural repair. IPQ, Lisbon
43. Glass and Buenfeld (1997) The presentation of the chloride
threshold level for corrosion of steel in concrete. Corros
Sci 39(5):1001–1013
View publication stats
Materials and Structures
44. Manera M (2008) Chloride threshold for rebar corrosion in
concrete with addition of silica fume. Corros Sci
50(2):554–560
45. Bijen J (2003) Durability of engineering structures.
Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge