ACI Durability Standards and its impact in Latin America Summary The recommendations stated in ACI-318 have been

for many years the base for the standarization in most of the Latin American countries. In particular, many structural design codes have adopted the recommendations of this important document. By doing so, they have adopted, without a deep analysis of its convenience, the durability recommendations presented in the northamerican document, where some of the phenomena are specific for countries with marked seasons. This has two inmediate effects: ACIs recommendations have no application in the tropics, and secondly, common phenomena in the tropics do not get covered in the recommendations, which makes the document meaningless. It is a must that when adopting foreign standards, material engineers be invited to the discussion to establish any necessary actualization of the local standards with the aim of adapting them to the specific conditions of the point of use. Chapter 4 of the ACI-318-08 In several latin american countries the latest update of the referenced north american code was been expected inpatiantly, as based on it the local codes would be updated (for example the NSR10 in Colombia). Even for the material engineers, who considered that chapter 4 Durability requirements from ACI-318-05 was quite poor when applied its recommendations to tropical environments, the changes greatly announced, predicted a new way of confronting the durability specifications of structures in Latinamerica. The surprise was major as when analyzing the new material the only thing that was found was a different way of saying the same thing, and with the exception of a few valuable contributions, which will be mentioned later, instead of a progress in durability specifications actually the contrary was presented. Enough to just mention the introduction of the 17.5 MPa strength for some environments and exposure conditions, which does not make sense when the intention is to specify durability. To point out that in Europe, a vulnerable concrete presents strengths between 10 and 20 MPa, as shown in tables 1 and 2.
Carbonation damage Strength Level % of pozz. addition 10% pozzolan, Silica Fume or slag % of pozz. addition Chlorides Damage

Concrete Class

Durable

50 MPa

Resistant Normal Attackable

35-45 MPa 25-30 MPa 10-20 MPa

10% pozzolan or Silica Fume or slag 65% slag 10% pozzolan, Silica 10% pozzolan or Fume Silica Fume <15% slag 35% slag No restriction No restriction No restriction No restriction

Table 1. Classification of concrete with regard to risk of reinforcement corrosion

Damage caused by expansion Concrete Class Durable Strength Level C3A in anhydrous Cement 5% Pozzolans (%)

Damage caused by leakage Pozzolans (%)

50 MPa

Resistant Normal Attackable

35-45 MPa 25-30 MPa 10-20 MPa

5% 8% No restriction

20% pozzolan or 20% pozzolan or Silica Fume or slag Silica Fume or slag 65% slag 65% slag 10% pozzolan or 10% pozzolan or Silica Fume Silica Fume 35% slag 35% slag No restriction No restriction No restriction No restriction

Table 2. Classification of concretes with regard to the risk of deterioration due to expansion or lixiviation. On the other hand, being rigorous, it is necessary to clarify that the durability specifications by the ACI consider Northamerican conditions, with special climatic conditions and for the most common and serious structural attacks in that country, and not for other climatic conditions or other type of attacks more common in other countries. It cannot be expected that the ACI legislates for us. The problem lays with whoever adopts a foreign standard without the adequate analysis done by experts in materials and durability, where the need of a possible aclimatization or adaptation of a chapter gets defined, before putting it in use. It is also important to mention that in some countries these standards become local law, which makes its application mandatory and hence the importance that they are adequate for the local conditions, that they are applicable. It seems that in all latitudes there exists a division within the engineering between the experts in structural design and the experts in materials. Both have the same desire: to obtain resistant and durable structures. But there is nobody working to unite their efforts for a common target, and it is actualy rare that the structural experts invite the materials experts when discussing durability and when minimum requirements are being established to face the different types of exposition. Attacks suffered by reinforced concrete Let us observe in a graphical way the main internationally recognized attacks undergone by reinforced concrete structures:
Type of Attack
Chlorides Electrochemical

Carbonation
Sulfates pH (water, soil)
Chemicals Permeability (Humidity)

CO2,Ammonia, Magnesium ASR

Dry Residue
Freezing and Thawing

Physical

Abrasion

Figure 1: Main attacks undergone by reinforced concrete structures As can be seen, attacks can be group in those of electrochemical nature that lead to the well-known phenomena of corrosion, which has chemical and electrical components, those of net chemical origin and those of physical origin. Reviewing the types of exposition presented in chapter 4 of the ACI-318-08 standard and adjusting the previous outline, some coincide while others do not; let us see:

Figure 2: Types of exposure as from chapter 4 from the ACI-318-08 standard

A brief evaluation of this diagram immediately shows some differences. First, the ACI standard does not mention the effect of the attack by carbon dioxide, worldwide recognized as causing carbonation and responsible of the depassivation of the reinforcement in environments where the corrosion is not originated by salts. This includes all inland cities away from shores, industrial centers, and in any place where no deicing salts are used, like in our tropics.. When analyzing the type of exposure C from chapter 4 of the ACI-318-08 standard (Reinforced and prestressed concrete exposed to conditions that require special protection against corrosion), we realize that it only covers the attack by chlorides as shown in table 3. Excluding the attack due to carbonation, because it is less severe, would be like excluding shear stresses and consider only flexural ones. A second important difference is with regard to moisture. In many of the phenomena that cause deterioration of reinforced concrete structures, water is the vehicle that transports the ions (case of chlorides and sulfates), or it is an element without which the phenomena does not occur (corrosion, reactivity alkali-aggregate, expansion by sulfates, and even deterioration due to freeze-thaw). In figure 1, moisture appears covering all the common attacks, like a participating factor, and also as an essential element in some of them. And the goal of showing it as such is to make it clear that in order to produce structures resistant to many of these attacks, watertight or low-permeability structures are the first factor in order to obtain the required or specified service life. The same does not happen with the ACI-318-08 standard, where a separate category (P) of structures that would require to we watertight or not, which would lead a inexperienced specifier to

the conclusion that the other exposure conditions (freeze-thaw, chlorides, and sulfates for example) do not require a concrete resistant to the transport of water (in other words, impermeable). Now, reviewing the minimum requirements of the concrete for the type (P) exposure, the only specifications are the water/cement ratio and the strength, ignoring other factors not less important when producing a watertight concrete, like the use of reactive pozzolans (fly ash, slag and microsilica), and the air entrainment of the mix. Something similar happens with the type of exposure (C). Even though the use of pozzolanic additions is recommended, minimum addition levels are not specified, wasting this way the enormous power of these materials in the elaboration of concretes of low permeability to chlorides, and only water/cement and strengths are specified. Here it is important to remember that a series of mixes with the same water/cement ratio, and the same strength, but with different type of binder systems can produce very different results with respect to the passage of chloride ions, for example in the RCPT test (Rapid Chloride Permeability Test), governed by the ASTM C-1202-97 standard, and which measures the permeability towards chloride ions as a function of the charge in coulombs that passes through the specimen, as can be seen in Figure 3.

Charge passed (Coulomubs)

Water/cementious material

Figure 3. Results obtained with the RCPT for different mix designs with and without pozzolanic additions (2). Graph 3 shows not only the beneficial influence of pozzolanic additions when aiming for a concrete with lower chloride permeability, but also differences in performance between the available additions, and even that a ternary mix (cement + addition 1 + addition 2) can perform even better. This is the case of mixes, for example with a blend of cement, microsilica, and slag used as binder. It is important to clarify that a low permeability to chlorides is obtained when the passing charge is less than 2000 coulombs. This situation shows once again, the urgent need to start specifying performance when discussing durability of structures. Unfortunately, while the ACI does not take the initiative, and as in Europe, the specifiers of large projects stop including mix designs (which with the variety of cements and the usual moderate strength values of many projects, may or may not work) and start including performance values of

the concrete mixes that pretend to classify for a given project, not much will change. A decision of this type would be beneficial for both sides, as it would not only force the concrete producer to evaluate the performance of their products against common aggressors, but it would allow to extend the service life of infrastructure projects, which in many of our countries are already being subjected to rehabilitation processes even before 20 years of service, situation which is further negatively impacted due to the non-existence of project service-life requirements in the majority of important infrastructure projects in developing countries, like ours. Current situation of latin american countries with regard to durability standardization Those countries that follow literally the recommendations of chapter 4 of the ACI-318-08 standard will have an curious situation when trying to specify the durability requirements of structures away from marine environments, in particular when trying to extend the durability by stopping corrosion processes. A quick look to the types of exposure for an important structure located inland, in the tropics (for example a building with exposed concrete) would give the results shown in table 3.

Cate

S
Exposure Categorie Description Corrosion Sulfates Freezing + Thawing Permeability Exposure Class C0, C1 S0 F0 P0 Severity N/A, Moderate N/A N/A N/A

C S F P

Table 3: Types of exposure applicable as by ACI-318-08 for a structure with exposed concrete in inland regions. It is at least disturbing that the majority of the inland cities in many of our tropical countries, and even some beyond where winter is moderate and where there is no freezing, would have, based on the classification given in chapter 4 of the ACI-318-08 standard with a exposure class cero or maximum one, when analyzed based on exposure class (C) that judges the risk of corrosion. The result can be anticipated: the minimum requirements applicable to the concrete are really minimal. Minimal strength of 17.5 Mpa, any water/cement ratio (NA), additional requirements: none! It is important to remember that a concrete with a compressive strength of 17.5 Mpa has a water/cement ratio of the order of 0.8, which is a real sieve. Its porosity can easily reach 25%. And we ask ourselves, how can then, a structure with such requirements be durable, if we are practicly giving the contractor the freedom to do whatever he wants? What we expected to see in chapter 4 of the ACI-318-08 standard Some thoughts have been entertaining researchers in structural durability, which they would like to see reflected in a next, not update but rework of the chapter 4 of the ACI-318-08 standard. To redefine the calculation of the water/binder ratio. It is not possible to keep adding cement plus additions in the denominator (see 4.1.1 of the ACI Code), unless we are convinced that 1 kg of fly ash or slag is equivalent to 1 kg of Portland cement. The europeans calculate the water/binder ratio as: w/cm = water/ (cement+ kslag* slag weight + k fly Ash* Fly Ash weight)

Where K is the equivalency factor. While the k of the Fly ash and the slag vary between 0.4 and 0.7, the k of microsilica is of the order of 2. Prohibit once and for all the use of chloride containing admixtures. All admixture manufacturers already have accelerators innocuous to the reinforcing steel of the structures. Europe prohibited the use of chlorides over 20 years ago. To include carbonation as an depassivating element of the reinforcing steel and to generate minimum requirements to face it, which could start by limiting the use of reactive pozzolanic additions to 10% in concretes where the expected critical aggressor is carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Bridges, silos, large structures with exposed concrete, etc., located in large cities or in industrial sites can be typical examples of this clase of exposure. To promote the use of larger cement quantities requiring larger strengths. The large majority of the concretes placed in structures in our latin american countries correspond to the 21 Mpa class. Currently they are manufactured with binder contents of 240 kg (cement + additions), based on the desire of the manufacturers to obtain one MPa of strength for each 10 kg of binder. A mix without cement is an anemic mix, with reference to durability, even when it complies with the required strengths level. Let us give the cement back to the concrete as it really benefits it.

Contribution of chapter C.4 of the ACI-318-08 standard Next, some progress of the new chapter 4 of theACI-318-08 standard that have to be recognized: Due to the unavailability of type V cement in some markets, the use of pozzolanic additions is stipulated to make a concrete resistant to sulfates, which uses them in certain dosages, besides a low water/cement ratio and high strengths. Typically levels of microsilica between 7 and 10%, or fly ash or slag around 30% are specified. It is important to note that the nature of the slag can result determining of a good or bad result in the control of expansion by sulfates. On the other hand, the recommendation of controlling the attack of sulfates by using reactive pozzolans results positive as it also controls the expansion caused by the Thaumasite, which can not be controlled by managing the C3A content of the cement. The inclusion of the table that relates the maximum expansions and the ages at which the expansions are evaluated when pozzolanic additions are used instead of using low C3A cements to control the expansion by sulfates, is quite useful.

Table 4. Expansion limits when puzzolanicadditions are used to control the attack by sulfates

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Helene, Paulo Roberto Do Lago, Proyectar para la durabilidad, publicacin del ACI, Captulo Colombia, 2001. 2. Howland, Juan Jos, Tecnologa de Hormigonado y Durabilidad, La Habana, 2005. 3. ACI 318-08 Cap 4 Durability Requirements

Author Carlos Arcila Lpez Civil Engineer from the National University of Colombia. Specialization courses in Rehabilitation and Structural Pathology in Instituto Eduardo Torroja (Spain). 25 years of experience in the field of concrete, particularly in the area of concrete structures durability. Member of the Colombian Concrete and Mortar Standardization Committee. Cathedra Professor at the Civil Engineering Department of Universidad Javeriana. He has work as consultant in the survey of more than 300 structures in Colombia and Caribbean countries. His principal research activities involve high performance concrete, durability specifications and the concrete corrosion and its control.

arcilacarlos@yahoo.es