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

net/publication/308016422

fib bulletin 34: Model Code for Service Life Design

Book · February 2006

CITATIONS READS

10 5,592

12 authors, including:

Michael Havbro Faber Christoph Gehlen

Aalborg University Technische Universität München
234 PUBLICATIONS   4,160 CITATIONS    393 PUBLICATIONS   2,595 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Steinar Helland Tetsuya Ishida

S Helland Konsult The University of Tokyo
29 PUBLICATIONS   408 CITATIONS    200 PUBLICATIONS   3,411 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Risk and Value of Information View project

ANDROID View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steinar Helland on 09 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 fib Symposium „Structural Concrete and Time“, La Plata 2005

MODEL CODE FOR SERVICE LIFE DESIGN (MC-SLD)

Peter Schiessl1), Steinar Helland2), Christoph Gehlen3), Lars-Olof Nilsson4) and Steen
Rostam5)
1) Technical University and Consultancy Prof. Schiessl, Munich, Germany, schiessl@cbm.bv.tum.de
2) Skanska, Oslo, Norway, steinar.helland@skanska.no
3) Consultancy Prof. Schiessl, Munich, Germany, gehlen@ib-schiessl.de
4) Lund University, Lund, Sweden, lars-olof.nilsson@byggtek.lth.se
5) COWI A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark, sro@cowi.dk

SUMMARY

Since approximately one decade, performance based design approaches are applied
in order to design reinforced concrete structures for durability. Starting with deter-
ministic performance approaches, the nowadays applied performance approaches
are mainly probabilistic based, which is automatically linked to a corresponding
reliability concept. Encouraged by successfully performed pilot projects, where such
durability designs were applied, the time is now ripe to work on harmonization and
standardization of durability design in a quantified format expressed in the form of a
service life design. Standardization will cover items for example, which principles one
have to follow, which approaches are validated and how to perform/verify the service
life design (SLD). In doing this, fib Task Group 5.6 was established to develop a
Model Code for Service Life Design (MC-SLD). This paper reports the outcome of fib
Task Group 5.6, illustrating the outline of the MC-SLD. One design example is given.

RESUMEN

Desde aproximadamente una década, las aplicaciones o tolerancias de diseño

estándares en la vida útil, se aplican para diseñar la durabilidad de las estructuras de
concreto reforzado. De acuerdo a estos estándares determinados, hoy en día estos
métodos de diseño están principalmente basados en las probabilidades automática-
mente ligadas a los conceptos de seguridad correspondiente. Alentados por los
exitosos proyectos piloto, en los que dichos diseños de durabilidad fueron aplicados,
llegó el momento ideal para trabajar en la armonización y estandarización del diseño
de durabilidad. La estandarización cubrirá aspectos tales como: ¿Cuáles son los
principios a seguir?, ¿qué aplicaciones son válidas? y ¿cómo ejecutar/verificar el
diseño de durabilidad? Haciendo ésto, el fib Task Group 5.5 estableció elaborar un
modelo estándar de diseño para la vida de servicio de una estructura. (Model Code
for Service Life Design: MC-SLD). Este documento reportará el trabajo de Task
Group 5.6 ilustrando a grandes razgos el MC-SLD. Anexamos un ejemplo de diseño.

1. INTRODUCTION

Within the federation fib, a Task Group was established (TG 5.6: Model Code for
Service Life Design, MC-SLD). The objective was to identify agreed durability related
models and to prepare the framework for standardization of performance based
design approaches.

The model code is divided into five chapters:

1. Introduction/General
2. Basis of Design
3. Verification of Service Life Design
4. Execution and Quality Control
5. Maintenance and Condition Control

The flow chart in Fig 1 illustrates the flow of decisions and the design activities
needed in a rational service life design process with a chosen level of reliability. Four
different levels of sophistications have been adopted.

Fig. 1: Flow chart of MC-SLD and the related chapters 1-5. Chapter 3 identifies the
four different levels of sophistication adopted in the MC-SLD

2. DESIGN PRINCIPALS

When designing for durability the design service life must be defined. In the MC-SLD
the following definition is given:
The design service life is the assumed period for which a structure or part of it is to
be used for its intended purpose with anticipated maintenance but without major
repair being necessary.

The design service life is defined by:

2
§ A definition of the relevant limit state
§ A number of years
§ A level of reliability for not passing the limit state during this period

Durability of the structure in its environment shall be such that it remains fit for use
during its design service life. This requirement can be considered in one of the
following ways:
§ By designing protective and mitigating systems
§ By using materials that, if well maintained, will not degenerate during the design
service life
§ By giving such dimensions that deterioration during the design service life is
compensated
§ By choosing a shorter lifetime for structural elements, which may be replaced one
or more times during the design life

All the above approaches are possible in combination with appropriate inspection at
fixed or condition dependant intervals and appropriate maintenance activities.

In verifying the service life in a fully probabilistic mode, the following principles shall
be followed.
1. The probabilistic models shall be applied that are sufficiently validated to give
realistic and representative results.
2. The parameters of the models applied and their associated uncertainty shall be
quantifiable by means of tests, observations and/or experience.
3. Reproducible and relevant test methods shall be available to assess the action-
and material-parameters
4. Uncertainties associated with models and test methods shall be considered

3. VERIFICATION OF SERVICE LIFE DESIGN

3.1 General

To illustrate the design verification, a relatively simple and well understood

deterioration mechanism is treated: Carbonation induced reinforcement corrosion.
The deterioration process itself can be subdivided into two processes: The initiation
period and the propagation period. In the presented case depassivation of the
surface reinforcement has been chosen as the unwanted condition of the structure.
Depassivation has been chosen as a relevant limit state. As the depassivation itself
does not lead to severe consequences (harm of human life,…) the limit state can be
allocated as a serviceability limit state (SLS). Within a limit state the variable
describing the resistance is being compared with the variable describing the load,
hereby also considering the statistical spread of these variables. By considering the
depassivation of the reinforcement due to carbonation, the concrete cover is defined
as the resistance and the carbonation depth as the load. As the carbonation depth is
increasing with time, this load variable has to be defined as time dependent. The
corresponding limit state equation describing the probability that depassivation takes
place is given in Equation (1). In the verification process it has to be demonstrated
that a required reliability level of not passing the limit state, for example βSLS,50 = 1.3
(equals a probability of 10-1) is fulfilled during a specified number of years (target
service life, tSL).

3
p{SLS − failure} = p f = p {a − x c (t SL ) < 0} (1)
pf : probability that depassivation of rebars occurs [%]
a: concrete cover [mm]
xc (tSL): carbonation depth at the time tSL [mm]
tSL: target service life [years]

The variable xc(tSL) is representing the following subfunction:

x c (tSL ) = x c,0 (t SL ) + ε xc (2)

εxc : errorterm considering the non-uniform carbonation process in space [mm]

The variable xc,0(t) is representing the following subfunction:

1
x c,0 (t) = 2 ⋅ k e ⋅ k c ⋅ (k t ⋅ R −ACC,0 + ε t ) ⋅ CS ⋅ t ⋅ W (t ) (3)

with ke, CS and W(t), taking the environmental conditions into account such as
relative humidity, CO2-concentration of the ambient air and the probability of driving
rain (rewetting), kc taking the quality of curing into account, RACC,0-1 taking the
material compliance into account and kt and εt taking the model uncertainty into
account. Some of these variables (ke, kc and W(t)) are again representing
subfunctions. For design calculations the parameter t (time) is substituted by a fixed
parameter tSL (target service life).

3.2 Full probabilistic design

To describe the process of carbonation and the concrete cover with its variability,
statistical information is required to perform a full-probabilistic service life design. In
Tab. 1 a quantified set of variables is exemplified.

An illustrative result of such a calculation is given in Figure 2. With increasing time of

exposure, the probability of depassivation (here defined as failure) will increase as
the carbon dioxide continuously can penetrate into the structure and sustain
carbonation. Further, the higher the probability of depassivated surface
reinforcement, pf, the lower the reliability index β.

In this case, at time t = tSL = 50 years a reliability of approximately β(tSL) = 1.7 was
calculated. This is in the recommended range of ISO 2394 (serviceability limit state,
irreversible, β0 = 1.5). The calculated reliability of β(tSL) corresponds to a probability
that depassivation may occur within the design life of 50 years of around pf = 5 %.

4
Tab. 1: List of stochastic variables influencing the duration of the initiation period
(carbonation induced corrosion).
Background
Mean Standard information and
Variable Unit Distribution
Value Deviation quantification
according to
ε xc mm normal 0 2.0 DARTS (2003)
m = 78; s = 15; a = 40,
RHreal,WS % beta
b = 100
ke RHref % constant 65 -
ge - constant 2.5 -
fe - constant 5.0 - DuraCrete (1999)
bc - normal -0.567 0.024 DuraCrete (2000)
kc Gehlen (2000),
tc d constant 1 -
DARTS (2003)
kt - normal 1.25 0.35
-1 2 3
RACC,0 (mm /a)/(kgCO2/m ) normal 4300 1700
2 3
εt (mm /a)/(kgCO2/m ) normal 315.5 48
3 -4 -4
CS kgCO2/m normal 6.2⋅10 1.0⋅10
tSL a constant 50 - client requirement
ToW - constant 0.2 -
bw - normal 0.446 0.163 DuraCrete (2000)
W
pSR - constant 0.1 - Gehlen (2000),
t0 a constant 0.0767 - DARTS (2003)
a mm normal ? 8

βSLS [-] pf [-]

0.05

reliability failure
probability

1.7

t [a]
50

Fig. 2: Reliability index, β, failure probability, pf. SLS: depassivation of surface

oriented reinforcement

3.3 Partial factor design

The second design option that the MC-SLD will offer is the partial safety factor
approach.

5
To quantify the partial safety factors the sensitivity of each variable was determined
from a huge set of examples. It turned out, that the concrete cover, a, the material
resistance, RACC,0-1 and the relative humidity, RHIST, of the ambient air (variable of the
sub-function ke) are the most decisive and sensitive variables. For these three
variables partial safety factors (for the concrete cover a safety margin) were derived
based on the boundary, that the reliability at the end of service life should be at
minimum β(tSL) = 1.3 (pf = 10-1).

The design is made by comparing the calculated design values for the concrete
cover and the carbonation depth:

1
ad − 2 ⋅ k e,d ⋅ kc,d ⋅ (kt,d ⋅ R−ACC,0,d + ε t,d ) ⋅ CS,d ⋅ t SL ⋅ W (t SL )≥ 0 (4)

Except for the design values ad, ke,d and RACC,0,d-1 all other design values are equal to
the characteristic values. For simplicity reasons for these variables the mean values
were taken as characteristic values The design values ad, ke,d and RACC,0,d-1 are
calculated as follows:

ad = amin +Δa
ad : design value of the concrete cover (nominal cover) in [mm]
amin: characteristic value of the concrete cover (minimum cover) [mm]
Δa: margin of the concrete cover [mm], Δa = 15 mm
ge
⎛ ⎛ RH fe ⎞
⎜ 1 − ⎜ real,c ⎞ ⎟
⎟
⎜ ⎜ γ ⋅100 ⎟ ⎟
k e,d = ⎜ ⎝ 1 ⎠ ⎟ (5)
⎜ ⎛ RHref ⎞ fe ⎟
⎜⎜ 1 − ⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎟
100 ⎠
⎝ ⎝ ⎠
with RHreal,c is the average relative humidity of the ambient air, the other variables are
constants: RHref = 65, fe = 5, ge = 2.5. The partial safety factor γ1 was calculated to
γ1 = 1.3.

RACC,0,d-1 = RACC,0,c-1 ⋅ γ2 (6)

with RACC,0,c-1 is the average inverse carbonation resistance of the concrete,
determined according to DuraCrete (1999), the partial safety factor γ2 was calculated
to γ2 = 1.5.

3.4 Deem to satisfy design

The deem-to-satisfy design is the classical code-adopted method of specifying a set

of rules for dimensioning, material and product selection and execution procedures.
In the MC-SLD the deem-to-satisfy design ensures that the target reliability of not
passing the relevant limit state during the design service life is not exceeded when
the concrete structure or component is exposed to the design environment. The
specific requirements for design, materials selection and execution for the deem-to-
satisfy design shall be determined in either of two ways:·
§ On the basis of statistical evaluation of experimental data and field observations
according to requirements of clause “Verification by full probabilistic method”·
§ On the basis of calibration to a long term experience of building tradition

6
The limitations to the validity of the provisions, e.g. the range of cement types
covered by the calibration, the national climatic conditions, shall be clearly stated.

3.5 Avoidance of deterioration

This design is the most robust solution. It represents the simple examples of applying
air entrainment to avoid freeze-thaw damage, of adopting sulphate resistant blended
cement to avoid sulphate attack, non-reinforced concrete or stainless steel
reinforcement to avoid reinforcement corrosion. Interestingly, this last mentioned
approach has a 65 years long track record as illustrated in Figure 3.

Fig. 3: In the background the 65 year old Pier into the Gulf of Mexico at Progreso,
reinforced with stainless steel reinforcement and in problem-free operation
today. In the foreground the "new" pier build in 1972 and demolished in
1983 due to extensive reinforcement corrosion of the black steel
reinforcement.

3.6 Maintenance and condition control

The term “maintenance” is used on activities that are planned to take place during
the service life of the structure in order to ensure the fulfilment of the assumptions in
the SLD. A maintenance plan shall state type and frequency of the foreseen
activities. The maintenance plan might comprise activities like general cleaning,
drainage, addition of sealants, replacement of components etc. Condition control is
mainly made to verify the design assumption

The information that will be provided by inspection and/or monitoring is: How deep
the depassivation front develops with time. This information will be used to update
the fully probabilistic durability calculation at regular intervals, cp. Fig. 4.

If the measured depth of the depassivation front at time tinsp. is lower than expected
a-priori or as soon as the expected depth at time tinsp. will be confirmed by corrosion
sensor readings, the reliability of the structure is increased. On the other hand, if the
environmental load is underestimated (a-priori) the recalculated reliability of the
structure will be reduced compared to the original a-priori calculation. The same
relationships apply to the updated probability that depassivation occurs. One
consequence of the updating procedure, a higher reliability compared to the a-priori
calculation, is formally indicated in Fig. 4. However, with the help of the regularly

7
updated and consequently regularly improved information about the present state of
the structure, the optimal point in time, if necessary, for protective measures can be
determined.

βSLS [-]
pf [-]
reliability β
a-priori calculation
a-posterior calculation

failure probability pf
a-priori calculation
a-posterior calculation

t [a]
Fig. 4: Reliability index, β, failure probability, pf. SLS: depassivation of surface
oriented reinforcement, a-priori and a-posterior calculation

From the regularly updated condition control (information from monitoring and
inspection) the risk of having depassivation of the reinforcement can be determined
more and more precisely. From this information, if necessary, an optimal point in time
can be determined when to introduce preventive measures, for example a preventive
coating or a cathodic protection.

2. CONCLUSIONS

Agreed methods for quantified service life design, as presented in this paper, are
urgently needed. The reason is that today clients/authorities representing large new
constructions specify designs to fulfill a specific design life of typically 100, 120 and
even 200-300 years, and demands a documentation. As no generally agreed
procedures are available internationally yet, confusion and lack of rationale prevail on
the international construction market. The fib MC-SLD seeks to contribute to
resolving this confusion. For the time being, the MC-SLD will have the potential to
guide the industry when working outside the scope of currently applied standards
(e.g. length of service life and ‚trading‘ between curing, concrete quality and cover).
It will also form the basis for calibrating the traditional deemed-to-satisfy criteria in
operative standards in a transparent way. An example of such a calibration of
provisions for carbonation-exposed structures is given in Maage et Smeplass (2001).

Currently fib is working on a full revision of the CEB/FIP Model Code 1990. The draft
is expected to be presented at the fib congress in Naples in June 2006. The 1990
Model Code is mainly dealing with structural design of concrete structures.
The present work aims at including aspects of execution, materials and conservation
in a consistent manner, as well as service life design as summarized in this paper.

The document prepared by TG 5.6 on Service Life Design will both be published as a
separate fib bulletin and serve as input to the full fib New Model Code concerning
service life aspects.

8
 REFERENCES

DuraCrete (1999) “Compliance testing for probabilistic design purposes”, Brite Euram
Project, Contract BRPR-CT95-0132, Report 8, 1999

DuraCrete (2000) “Statistical quantification of the variables in the limit state

functions”, Brite Euram Project, Contract BRPR-CT95-0132, Report 9, 2000

Gehlen (2000) “Probability-based service life design of reinforced concrete structures

– Reliability studies for prevention of reinforcement corrosion“, DAfStb, Heft 510,
Berlin, Beuth-Verlag, 2000 (in German)

Maage and Smeplass (2001) “Carbonation - A probabilistic approach to derive

provisions for EN 206-1”
http://www.duranetwork.com/tromsoreport02/carbonation.doc

DARTS (2003) “Data”, European research project (GROWTH 2000), Contract G1RD-
CT-2000-00467, Task Group 2 Report, Technical Report 2, 2003

View publication stats