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

net/publication/317722817

Self-Terminated Carbonation Model as an Useful Support for Durable

Concrete Structure Designing

Conference Paper · September 2016

CITATION READS

1 22,713

2 authors:

Piotr Woyciechowski Joanna J. Sokołowska

Warsaw University of Technology Warsaw University of Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS 525 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 287 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joanna J. Sokołowska on 21 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Self-Terminated Carbonation Model as an Useful Support for Durable
Concrete Structure Designing

* Piotr P. Woyciechowski1) and Joanna J. Sokołowska2)

1), 2)
Department of Building Materials Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology,
Warsaw, Poland
1)
p.woyciechowski@il.pw.edu.pl

ABSTRACT

The paper concerns concrete carbonation, the phenomena that occurs in every
type of climate, especially in urban-industrial areas. In European Standards, including
Eurocode (EC) for concrete structures the demanded durability of construction located
in the conditions of the carbonation threat is assured by the selection of suitable
thickness of reinforcement cover. According to EC0 and EC2 the thickness of the cover
in the particular class of exposure depends only on the structure category and concrete
strength class – it is not differentiated for various cements, nor additives, nor
technological types of concrete. As a consequence the selected thickness of concrete
cover is in fact a far estimation – sometimes too exaggerated (too safe or too risky).
The paper presents the elaborated “self-terminated carbonation model” that
includes abovementioned factors and enables to indicate the maximal possible depth of
carbonation. This is possible because presented model is a hyperbolic function of
carbonation depth in time (the other models published in the literature use the parabolic
function that theoretically assume the infinite increase of carbonation depth value). The
paper discusses the presented model in comparison to other models published in the
literature, moreover it contains the algorithm of concrete cover design with use of the
model as well as an example of calculation of the cover thickness

1. INTRODUCTION

The durability is one of the important determinants of building material

sustainability as well as sustainability of the structure. Sustainable development of civil
engineering demands from science taking up the new challenges in terms of the theory,
methods and tools that enable to create not only environmentally friendly and energy
efficient but also durable design and material-technological solutions. The durability of

1)
Professor
2)
Assistant Professor
reinforced concrete structures exposed to environment depends on the ability of both -
concrete and reinforcement - to resist the environmental factors. The most common
cause of the reinforced concrete damage is the corrosion of steel resulting from not
providing the efficient protection by the concrete cover. The protective abilities of
concrete cover deteriorate with time due to the synergistic action of a number of
physical and chemical factors. One of the most destructive factors apart from climatic
phenomena (including frost or chemical aggression of e.g. chlorides or other
aggressive agents causing corrosion of steel or concrete) is decreasing of pH value
due to the activity of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Providing the durability of reinforced
concrete structure working under certain environment conditions depends on providing
proper (1) durability of concrete, (2) proper thickness of the concrete cover, as well
as taking into consideration (during designing) serviceability limit states in terms of
cracks, namely (3) calculating crack width which would not exceed the Eurocodes
limits (EN 1991 Eurocode: Basis of structural design – “EC0” and EN 1992 Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures – “EC2”). Concrete elements and concrete structures
should meet the design requirements established for the expected service life without
significantly reducing the serviceability or incurring excessive and unforeseen
maintenance costs.

2. SHAPING THE DURABILITY ACCORDING TO STANDARD REQUIREMENTS

Principles of material shaping of concrete durability adopted in Europe, given

in general European standard EN 206 (EN 206: Concrete. Specification, performance,
production and conformity) and in the National Complements in relation to the local
operating conditions of the structure (eg. in Polish Complement PN-B-06265:2004).
From the point of view of the carbonation threat, principles and requirements are
different for the four classes of concrete exposure (XC1 ÷ XC4). The criterion of
assigning to the particular exposure class is concrete cover humidity (see Table 1).

Table 1 Environmental conditions corresponding with carbonation exposure classes

according to EN 206
Exposure class Environment
Dry or permanently wet, eg. the interior of buildings or concrete
XC1
permanently under water
XC2 Wet, rarely dry, eg. foundation
Medium moist, eg. the interior of high RH or exterior surfaces sheltered
XC3
from the rain
Cyclic wet and dry eg. the zone of water flow in the natural water areas
XC4
or fluctuations in water level in reservoirs

For each exposure class there are formulated requirements in terms of water-
cement ratio, concrete class and minimal content of cement (Table 2). According to
standard EN 206 fulfilling these requirements ensures the durability of concrete for 50
years. Moreover, in Polish National Complements are given recommendations for the
use of particular cements in the conditions of carbonation exposure class (Table 3).
Table 2 Requirements for concrete by carbonation exposure class acc. to EN 206
Exposure class
Requirement
XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4
Maximal value of w/c 0,65 0,60 0,60 0,50
Minimal concrete class C16/20 C16/20 C20/25 C25/30
3
Minimal cement content, kg/m 260 280 280 300

Table 3 Recommendations for the use of cement by carbonation exposure class acc.to
Polish National Complements to EN 206 (“+”–recommended, “NR”–not recommended)
Exposure class Prestressed
Cement
XC1 XC2 XC3 XC4 concrete
CEM I + + + + +
A/B S + + + + +
A D + + + + +
A/B P/Q + + + + NR
A/B V + + + + +
A + + + + NR
W
B + + NR NR NR
A + + + + +
CEM L
B + + NR NR NR
II
A + + + + +
LL
B + + NR NR +
S-D;S-LL;D-LL, S-P;S-V;D-P;
A + + + + +
D-V; P-V;P-L;V-LL
M S-D, S-V;D-V;P-V + + + + +
B S-P;D-P + + + + NR
S-LL;D-LL;P-LL;V-LL + + + NR +
CEM A/B + + + + +
III C + + NR NR NR
CEM A + + + + NR
IV B + + NR NR NR
CEM A + + + + NR
V B + + NR NR NR

The requirements in terms of the minimal thickness of the concrete cover due
to durability formulated in Eurocode 2 (EC2) are different in case of reinforced concrete
structures and prestressed concrete structures; also they are different for each type
(category) of the structure defined in Eurocode 0 (EC0) and exposure class defined in
the standard EN 206.
Due to EC0 and EC2 recommendations, when determining the structural class the
exposure class XC specifics is taken into account. The structural class recommended
by EC2 for the "common" structures designed for service life of 50 years is S4. If the
service life of the structure is 100 years, then structural class is to be increased by 2,
while in case of concrete strength class higher than C30/37 or in case of the slab
elements or in situation where the “concrete special quality control” is required –
structural class may be reduced by 1.
The analysis of the EC0 and EC2 indicates a certain inconsistency in records
concerning the structural class. In EC0 there are defined 5 categories of structure,
while in EC2 there are specified 6 classes. The record in EC2 about the need to
increase the structural class S4 by 2 in case of assumption of a 100-year period of use
leads to structural class S6 that refers to the 100 years of use. However, the same
period of use is given in EC0 in relation to the category S5. It seems logical to assume
that the record about the need to increase structural class S4 by 2 (i.e. to S6), should
apply only to the case of the structure of the required service life of over 100 years,
although this is not the case described in EC0.
Knowing the structural class determined according to Eurocodes EC0 and EC2
(Table 4) and specific requirements for concrete exposure class XC given in standard
EN 206 (Table 2), it is possible to determine the minimal thickness of concrete cover
(cmin,dur, mm) required in case of reinforced concretes located in the environment
corresponding to the exposure class XC (Table 5).

Table 4 Determining the structural class according to Eurocode EC0 and EC2 and the
specific requirements for concrete exposure class XC given in standard EN 206
Service Example of structure Structural
time, class Correction of structural class S4
years (category)* according to:
< 10 Temporary structures S1 Special Service
Exposure Concrete Slab
10 ÷ 25 Removable part of quality life >100
S2 class class elements
structures control years
15 ÷ 30 Agricultural If ≥ C30/37
structures, etc. S3 XC1 then
S4 - 1 = S3
50 Buildings and other If ≥ C35/45
XC2
common structures S4 then S4 - 1 = S3 S4 - 1 = S3 S4 + 2 = S6
XC3 S4 - 1 = S3
100 Monumental build., If ≥ C40/50
bridges and other XC4 then
S5 S4 - 1 = S3
eng. structures
> 100 Special structures S6
*) basis for determining minimal concrete cover thickness (see Table 5)

Table 5 The minimal thickness of concrete cover (cmin,dur, mm) required in case of
reinforced concretes threatened by carbonation
Minimal concrete cover thickness cmin,dur
for the exposure class, mm
Structural class XC1 XC2 and XC3 XC4
Type of the structure
reinforced prestressed reinforced prestressed reinforced prestressed
S1 10 15 10 20 15 25
S2 10 15 15 25 20 30
S3 10 20 20 30 25 35
S4 15 25 25 35 30 40
S5 20 30 30 40 35 45
S6 25 35 35 45 40 50

The limit value of crack width (wmax, mm) calculated according to Eurocode EC2
due to the durability of reinforcement of concrete threatened by carbonation depends
on the type of reinforcement as well as the conditions of the occurrence of the variable
actions (Table 6).
Table 6 Recommended limit value of crack width (wmax, mm) in case of reinforced
concretes threatened by carbonation according to Eurocode EC2
Type of reinforcement and the conditions of occurrence of wmax, mm for exposure class
the actions XC1 XC2, XC3, XC4
Elements prestressed by tendons with bond
0,2 0,2*
Frequent combination of actions
Reinforced concrete elements, elements prestressed by
tendons without bond 0,4 0,3
Quasi-permanent combination of actions
*) provided that they meet the requirements of decompression (ie. each tendon is covered by a layer of
compressed concrete of thickness of at least 25 mm)

Taking into consideration above it can be concluded that according to Eurocodes

EC0 and EC2 the thickness of the cover in the particular exposure class depends only
on the structural class/category and concrete strength class – it is not differentiated for
various cements, nor additives, nor technological types of concrete. As a consequence,
the selected thickness of concrete cover is in fact a far estimation – sometimes too
exaggerated (too safe or too risky).

2. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

This paper contains author’s own (Woyciechowski 2013, Czarnecki and

Woyciechowski 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016) mathematical model of carbonation. The
model defines the carbonation as the process of limited possible range into the
concrete and is described by hyperbolic function of time. In the following paragraphs
one will find the proposal of use of the model as a tool for determining the minimal
thickness of the concrete cover, ensuring the durability of reinforced concrete structure
due to the risk of carbonation. There is also given a practical algorithm of elaborating of
the model and using it to determine the minimum cover due to carbonation.
The presented model of carbonation progress is different from the traditional
models described by parabolic functions that were published worldwide so far (for
details see paragraph 3), but it was verified in a wide range of material variables,
technological variables as well as environmental variables published in the earlier
works of the authors. Meanwhile the given algorithm enables optimal choice of the
concrete cover thickness, which minimizes the uncertainty occurring during designing
the reinforced concrete structures according to the simplified approach discussed in the
first part of this paper.

3. CARBONATION MODELS

3.1 Traditional approach to mathematical model of carbonation

Research on the development of universal models of carbonation, describing its

changes in time and taking into account different material and technological variables,
has been conducted for many years in various research centers (Bary and Sellier 2004,
Burkan et al. 2004, Hossain et al. 2005, Ishida, Maekawa and Soltani 2004, Maekawa
and Ishida 2002, Loo et al. 1994, Masuda and Tanano 1991, Ming Te Liang et al. 2002,
Monteiro et al. 2012, Steffens et al. 2002, Papadakis 1991, Muntean 2009). In
mathematical modeling of carbonation a key issue is to determine the intensity of
carbon dioxide flow through concrete. The starting point is the first Fick's law, which
allows to describe the diffusion process under a constant density of the diffusion flux.
Final result of carbonation modeling is power function of carbonation depth in time,
expressed in the form:
√ √ (1)

where: x – depth of carbonation; D – diffusion coefficient; – external concentration

of CO2; t – time of carbonation; a – coefficient determining the amount of CO2 bound in
the way of carbonation by unit volume of concrete in kg/m 3, calculated acc. to the CEB
Bulletin 238 (1997) as: a=0,75∙C∙[CaO]∙αH∙(MCO2/MCaO) (C – content of cement in
concrete, kg/m3; [CaO] – CaO content in the cement composition; αH – degree of
hydration of cement; MCO2, MCaO – molar masses).
In practice, the most widely used model is greatly simplified. It relates to an average
constant RH and carbon dioxide concentration in the environment and can be
expressed in the form:
(2)

where A is a constant depending on the diffusion coefficient, the ability of concrete to

bind CO2 and CO2 concentration in the air, whereas B is an empirical factor accounting
the initiation period of carbonation. This model is used by most researchers, for
example Bary and Sellier (2004), Burkan et al. (2004), Hossain et al. (2005), Ishida,
Maekawa and Soltani (2004), Maekawa and Ishida (2002), Loo et al. (1994), Masuda
and Tanano (1991), Ming Te Liang et al. (2002), Monteiro et al. (2012), Steffens et al.
(2002), Papadakis (1991) or Muntean (2009) as a basic model that determines the
depth of carbonation, x after the time of exposure, t.

3.2 Model of carbonation as the finite process

The abovementioned models treat the phenomenon of carbonation as process

occurring due to the exposure in environment containing carbon dioxide unlimited in
concrete space and unlimited in time. It is assumed that the end of carbonation is
related only to the exhaustion of reagents available in the system, including mainly
Ca(OH)2 and in the further horizon other hydrates. However, an important issue is the
accessibility of CO2 into the system, especially, in the deeper layers of concrete.
Diffusion of CO2 resulting from the concentration difference in the way from the surface
into the concrete depends not only on the concentration gradient but also on the
concrete microstructure. The described models based on the first Fick`s law assume
that the medium in which diffusion takes place will not change over time, which allows
the reception of a constant diffusion flux in the equation (1). This is a significant
simplification of carbonation process description, which does not take into account a
number of additional factors, such as changes in diffusivity as a function of humidity,
changes in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in climatic year, participation in the
carbonation of CSH phase and residuals of non-hydrated cement, qualitative and
quantitative characteristics of the material composition of concrete (w/c, type of cement,
additives, admixtures, aggregates size and content), technological and environmental
factors (curing, temperature, state of stress) and, first of all, diffusivity changes resulting
from changes in time of the concrete microstructure. The latter effect, resulting from the
saturation of the pores with carbonation products, limits the possibility of a direct
description of a process based on Fick's law. The result of carbonation is a decrease in
porosity, in particular capillarity that takes place in addition to the occurrence of
carbonation shrinkage, thus reducing the permeability of the concrete and therefore the
possibility of diffusion of gases in concrete. This nature of the phenomenon was
mentioned for the first time by Bakker in 1988, (Bakker 1988) and later by Hergenröder
(1992), Nilsson (1996) and Fagerlund (1997). Such approach to the carbonation
phenomenon was further developed in the Department of Building Materials
Engineering on Warsaw University of Technology under the guidance of Czarnecki and
results were widely published (Czarnecki and Więcławski 2003, Woyciechowski 2013,
Czarnacki and Woyciechowski 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2012, Czarnecki and
Sokołowska 2015).
Abovementioned works conclude that concrete carbonation in urban-industrial
conditions can be described with a hyperbolic function of carbonation depth in time
(reciprocal square root of time), which has asymptotic value parallel to time axis. This
asymptote is a limit of carbonation depth. Traditional and hyperbolic models of
carbonation are shown on Fig. 1.

h = A (t)1/2 + B 1
Depth of carbonation, h

Asympthotic limit value, hmax

2
h = a(w/c) + b(cp) + c(t - 0,5)

Time, t
Fig. 1 “Traditional” power (1) and hyperbolic (2) models of carbonation phenomena

The hyperbolic carbonation model is expressed in the form:

( ) ( ) ( ) (3)
where: h – depth of carbonation, mm, w/c – water-cement ratio, tec – early curing time,
days, t – time of exposition, years, a, b, c – coefficients describing relevance of
influence of w/c ratio, early curing and exposition time on depth of carbonation. It was
stated that parameters (a, b, c) mainly depend on binder properties, presence of
mineral additives and, especially, on CO2 concentration. Similar models were
elaborated for different types of concrete, particularly with use of Portland cement and
cement incorporating slag and fly ash. SEM analysis shows different density of
concrete structure in carbonated and non-carbonated zones. It was stated that all
results are in accordance with hyperbolic model expressed in the form:
( ) (4)
regardless of binder composition, but various function characteristic coefficients were
obtained for various cements. Determination of carbonation hyperbolic model allows to
specify a maximum depth of carbonation and compare it with the thickness of
reinforcement cover in the analyzed element. This allows to assume if there is a risk of
corrosion due to the carbonation and to estimate the time when the carbonation front
will reach the reinforcement, which can be considered as a time of corrosion initiation.

4. DESIGN OF REINFORCMENT CONCRETE COVER THICKNESS USING

HYPERBOLIC CARBONATION MODEL

4.1 Assumptions

Determination of the proper thickness of concrete cover due to the durability of

construction located in the conditions of the carbonation threat includes determination
of the XC exposure class (XC1 ÷ XC4) according to EN 206 that describes the moisture
condition of concrete in the environment with CO2 and minimal concrete cover
thickness according to rules given in Eurocode EC2 (EN 1992-1-1). The minimal values
of concrete cover thickness given in the Eurocode, apart from exposure class, take into
account only structural class (S1 ÷ S6) and type of the reinforcement steel (mild steel,
prestressing steel). The approach of using the carbonation model designated in the
way of research for a particular type of concrete designed for use in structure, enables
to design the thickness of the concrete cover for the individual case on the basis of the
actual protective abilities of particular concrete. The design should take into account the
fact that if the process of carbonation is finite, adopting thickness of the reinforcement
concrete cover greater than the maximum possible depth of carbonation of concrete (in
the hyperbolic model the value of asymptote hmax) assures that the initiation of
reinforcement corrosion does not arise in the structure (Fig. 2).

YES NO

Corrosion
initiation
hmax hmax
h h
cnom
cnom
hmax ≤ cnom hmax > cnom
Fig. 2 Thickness of the reinforced concrete cover (cnom) greater than maximal possible
concrete carbonation depth (hmax) – no risk of reinforcement corrosion initiation (left),
smaller than maximal carbonation depth (hmax) – conditions for reinforcement corrosion
initiation (right)
 4.2 Algorithm of determining the thickness of reinforcement concrete cover with
option of hyperbolic carbonation model use

When designing the reinforced concrete element, on the stage of determination

the concrete cover thickness due to durability as an alternative for the algorithm based
on rules given in EC2 and EC0 (see paragraph 2), one can also apply an experimental-
computational method for determining the minimum concrete cover thickness using the
hyperbolic carbonation model (Fig. 3). The value of cmin,dur designated in the alternative
way (“right path” of the diagram on Fig. 3) should be multiplied by a safety margin due
to the uncertainty of estimation proceeded by this method. According to the authors a
safety coefficient of 1,3 is sufficient.

Fig. 3 Algorithm of determination concrete cover thickness of the reinforcement with an

option of hyperbolic carbonation model use
 Elaborating of the hyperbolic carbonation model that can be used in the algorithm
the presented on the Fig. 3 requires the adoption of the initial basic assumptions
determining both the forecasting methodology and its results. These assumptions relate
to procedure in respect of:
- determination the critical level of pH initiating reinforcement corrosion,
- choice of the method of determining a maximum depth of carbonation.
Practically possible variants of the procedure are compared in the Table 7.

Table 7 Basic assumptions for determining carbonation model

st
1 Assumption: critical level of pH initiating reinforcement corrosion
Analysis
pH value (type of used indicator)
Advantages and possibilities Disadvantages and risk
 Test procedure described in  the value is much lower than
standard EN 14630, the real critical level of
 low coefficient of variance in corrosion initialization
1 8,3 (phenolphthalein)
test results  the value is a bit lower than
the real critical lever of
corrosion initialization
 lower coefficient of variance  the value is a bit lower than
2 9,6 (tymol- phenolphthalein) in test results than in case of the real critical level of
“phenolphthalein test (1)” corrosion initialization
 the value is close to the real  high coefficient of variance
3 10,5 (thymolphthalein) critical lever of corrosion in test results
initialization
 possibility of testing few  difficulties during indicating
levels of pH during one test the limits between particular
4 Wide range („Rainbow test”) colors corresponding with
particular pH levels – test is
not precise
nd
2 Assumption: Method of determining time when carbonation reaches the reinforcement
Analysis
Method
Advantages and possibilities Disadvantages and risk
Elaborating of model based on  good estimation of  requires preparation of the
results obtained for molded carbonation depth, concrete specimens of
1 specimens of particular  test time: minimum 3 composition as in the tested
concrete in accelerated months concrete structure
laboratory tests
Elaborating of model based on  good estimation of  unknown influence of
results obtained for specimens carbonation depth, carbonation rate change on
2
taken from the structure in  test time: minimum 2 the final result of test
accelerated laboratory tests months
Adopting the average  testing not required, which  average carbonation rate
carbonation rate on the basis of significantly reduces test value adopted from
3
concrete composition and time literature data can be
characteristics erroneous
 Test “in situ” enables taking  calculations assume
into account the actual linearity of carbonation
Measurements of carbonation
condition of the structure changes in time, which is
depth in the structure and
4 when assessing carbonation erroneous; the shorter the
calculation of carbonation rate
rate time of carbonation
on the basis of construction age
occurring in concrete, the
higher error value
In practice, depending on the availability of data in a particular case, authors usually
use variant “1” and assumptions set “I” or variant “1” or “3” and assumptions set “II.

5. EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION OF THE COVER THICKNESS FOR REINFORCED

CONCRETE ELEMENT

5.1 Subject of the calculation: reinforced concrete column – composition and

characteristics of concrete

The presented below example of the calculation of concrete cover thickness was
done for the reinforced concrete column of service life designed for at least 50 years in
the following exposure environmental atmospheric conditions:
- relative humidity RH: up to 90%,
- ambient temperature: +3 ºC ÷ +40ºC,
- natural CO2 concentration: c.a. 400 ppm.
The above environmental conditions according to standard EN 206 are adequate
to carbonation exposure class XC4 (see Table 1).

The control conditions of production and concrete works on site for the structure
are set up as normal conditions.

The qualitative material composition of the concrete mix used to produce the
analyzed reinforced column is as following:
- cement binder: Portland siliceous fly ash cement of class 32,5 and high early
strength: CEM II/A-V 32,5 R,
- aggregate: natural aggregate (gravel) of fraction 0/16 mm, including river sand,
- water: tap water fulfilling the requirements of standard EN 1008,
- admixture: superplasticizer
The quantitative material composition of the concrete mix used to produce the
analyzed reinforced column expressed per 1 m3 is as following:
- cement – 365 kg,
- aggregate – 1927 kg,
- water – 155 dm3,
- superplasticizer – 1,3% of cement mass (i.e. 4,75 kg).
Above gives the water-cement ratio of value 0,42. According to Bolomey equation
the above composition enables to obtain concrete of compressive strength class
C25/30. The correctness of this composition was confirmed by laboratory tests
performed on concrete specimens (cubes of size 15 cm) cured under suitable moisture
conditions for 28 days: the average compressive strength of concrete (fcm) was 39,1
MPa, while the lowest, minimal registered value of compressive strength (f c,min) was
35,3 MPa, which confirmed conformity with class C25/30 requirements according to
the standard EN 206.
 5.2 Designing of cover thickness: Variant I - according to Eurocodes

The designing process presented in this variant (done on the basis of Eurocodes
EC0 and EC2) is proceeded according to “left path” of the algorithm of determining the
thickness of reinforcement concrete cover presented on Fig. 3. This procedure depends
only on the structural class/category and concrete strength class (it is not differentiated
for various cements, nor additives, nor technological types of concrete).
The first step of algorithm requires determination of the expected service life of
structure i.e. analyzed element and the adequate structural class.
The second step is the analysis of the exploitation environment characteristics,
including the carbonation threat, the shape of the reinforced element and quality control
conditions and potential correction of the structural class in accordance to above-
mentioned criteria.
The third step is determination of the type of reinforcement (whether the element
is reinforced or prestressed) and on this basis – according to EC2 – determination of
the minimal thickness of concrete cover (cmin,dur, mm) required in case of reinforced
concrete elements located in the environment corresponding to the particular exposure
class XC.

In analyzed case:
1. The service life of structure is designed for at least 50 years, which according to the
Eurocodes (see Table 4) indicates the structural class S4.
2. According to the specific requirements for shape element, quality control conditions
and concrete exposure class XC given in standard EN 206 (see Table 4) there is
no need of additional correction of the structural class:
2.1. Since the analyzed reinforced concrete element is in the shape of column
(not the slab) there is no need to make any correction of the structural
class according to this criterion. The structural class remains S4.
2.2. Since the control conditions are set up as normal condition (no special
quality control provided) there is no need to make any correction of the
structural class according to this criterion. The structural class remains S4.
2.3. Since the carbonation exposure class is XC4 and compressive class of
the concrete is C25/30 (i.e. lower than C40/50) there is no need to make
any correction of the structural class according to this criterion. The
structural class remains S4.
Conclusion: the structural class is S4.
3. According to requirements for the type of reinforcement and carbonation exposure
class (see Table 5) as the minimal concrete cover of reinforcement in the analyzed
reinforced (not prestressed) concrete column of structural class S4 exposed to
carbonation exposure class XC4 is indicated thickness cmin,dur of 30 mm.
Final result: according to rules and requirements formulated in Eurocodes EC0 and
EC2 and European standard EN 206 the minimal concrete cover thickness of
analyzed reinforced column is 30 mm.
 5.3 Calculation of cover thickness: Variant II - calculation with use of hyperbolic
carbonation model

The calculation presented in this variant (done on the basis of hyperbolic

carbonation model) is proceeded according to “right path” of the algorithm of
determining the thickness of reinforcement concrete cover presented on Fig. 3. This
procedure depends on the material composition of concrete and the self-terminated
carbonation model elaborated on the basis of the results of laboratory tests of
carbonation of concrete performed in the accelerated conditions.
The first step of algorithm requires determination of the material composition of
the concrete for the particular class (see paragraph 5.1.).
The second step is preparation of the specimens for testing the compressive
strength class of concrete (and determining that class) and for carbonation tests, the
exposure of concrete specimens to the particular carbon dioxide concentration for the
required time and in the meantime the measurements of carbonation depth after
particular times of exposure (results of measurements are data for calculating the
carbonation model). When testing in accordance with standard methods there are two
accelerated testing procedures (EN 13295 – recommends 1% concentration of CO2;
draft of EN 12390-12 – 4% of CO2) and testing period of respectively 90 or 70 days is
sufficient for obtaining asymptote value considered as reliable.
The third step is calculation of the mathematical model describing the relation
between the time of exposure to CO2 and concrete carbonation depth according to the
Eq. 4. and indicating the value of the model asymptote, which is a limit of carbonation
depth (hmax). This value is actually 10-15% higher than value obtained for the same
concrete after many years of exposure to natural atmospheric conditions (400 ppm of
CO2). It means that hmax is a little bit excessive, however on a safe side.
The fourth step is determining the minimal concrete cover of reinforcement in the
analyzed reinforced concrete element (cmin,dur) – the value must be higher than the
possible concrete carbonation depth (hmax) determined from the carbonation model.
The value should be multiplied by the a safety coefficient of 1,3 and adjusted to the
accuracy of stabilization of reinforcement in the formwork.

In analyzed case:
1. The material composition of the concrete mix used to produce the analyzed
reinforced column expressed per 1 m3 is as following: cement – 365 kg, aggregate
– 1927 kg, water – 155 dm3, super plasticizer – 1,3% of cement mass.
2. The average compressive strength of concrete (fcm) was 39,1 MPa, while the lowest,
minimal registered value of compressive strength (f c,min) was 35,3 MPa, which
according to the standard En 206 met requirements of class C25/30. The concrete
specimens were exposed to CO2 of concentration 1% (RH 60%, T = 20oC) for 90
days (accelerated carbonation conditions).
3. Based on the measurements of carbonation depth after subsequent times of
exposure to CO2 of concentration 1% the carbonation hyperbolic model was
calculated in the form as follows:
( ) (5)
 According to above model, the asymptote of the function and at the same time the
maximal depth of carbonation hmax is 13,6 mm.
4. The maximal depth of carbonation (hmax) multiplied by the a safety coefficient of 1,3
gives the value of minimal concrete cover thickness, cmin,dur = 17,7 mm. Taking into
consideration that the accuracy of stabilization of reinforcement in the formwork,
the minimal concrete cover thickness in analyzed reinforcement concrete element
is 1,3·cmin,dur = 20 mm.
Final result: according to self-terminated hyperbolic carbonation model elaborated
for the particular concrete on the basis of concrete material composition (cements,
additives, technological types of concrete) and technical properties the minimal
concrete cover thickness of analyzed reinforced column is 20 mm. This is 10 mm
less than in case of variant I, where according to Eurocodes EC0 and EC2 and
European standard EN 206 the minimal concrete cover thickness was indicated as 30
mm.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Presented example of designing the concrete cover thickness in reinforced

element in two ways confirms that elaborating the precise and accurate mathematical
models of concrete carbonation describing the increase of the carbonation depth in the
concrete in time and application of such models for designing the reinforced structures
in terms of ensuring the required durability is useful and reasonable. The example
clearly showed that estimating of minimal concrete cover thickness in terms of
carbonation threat on the basis of the Eurocodes EC0 and EC2 and European standard
206 is an overestimation and significantly increases the cost of whole structure.
However one should be sure about the correctness of the elaborated model. Authors
hope that presented analysis of the “traditional” carbonation models in the context of
their deficiencies in describing the phenomenon of carbonation, which actually is
terminated phenomenon, will encourage others to use more correct models described
by hyperbolic functions, as in case of given example.

REFERENCES

EN 1991 Eurocode 0 : Basis of structural design.

EN 1992 Eurocode 2 : Design of concrete structures.
EN 206 : Concrete. Specification, performance, production and conformity.
Woyciechowski, P. (2013), “Model of concrete carbonation”, Scientific works. Buildings,
Politechnika Warszawska, 157 (in Polish).
Czarnecki, L., Woyciechowski, P. (2012), “Concrete carbonation as a limited process
and its relevance to concrete cover thickness”, ACI Materials Journal-American
Concrete Institute, 109(3), 275-282.
Czarnecki, L., Woyciechowski, P. (2013), “Prediction of the reinforced concrete
structure durability under the risk of carbonation and chloride aggression”, Bulletin of
the Polish Academy of Sciences: Technical Sciences, 61(1), 173-181.
Czarnecki, L., Woyciechowski, P. (2015), “Modelling of concrete carbonation; is it a
process unlimited in time and restricted in space?”, Bulletin of the Polish Academy of
Sciences: Technical Sciences, 63(1), 43-54.
Czarnecki, L., Woyciechowski, P. (2016), “Evaluation of concrete structures durability
under risk of carbonation and chloride corrosion”, Proc. 4th International Conference
on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting (ICCRRR-4), CRC Press, 10.
Bary, B., Sellier, A. (2004)“Coupled moisture-carbon dioxidecalcium transfer model for
carbonation of concrete”, Cement and Concrete Research, 34 (12), 1859-1872.
Burkan Isgor, O., Ghani Razaqpur, A. (2004), “Finite elements modeling of coupled
heat transfer, moisture transport and carbonation processes in concrete structures”,
Cement and Concrete Composites, 26, 57-73.
Hossain, K.M.A., Lachemi, M. (2005), “Development of model for the prediction of
carbonation in pozzolanic concrete”, Proc. Third Int. Conf. on Construction Materials:
Performance, Innovations and Structural Implications, Vancouver, Canada.
Ishida, T., Maekawa, K., Soltani, M. (2004), “Theoretically identified strong coupling of
carbonation rate and thermodynamic moisture states in micropores of concrete”,
Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 2(2), 213-222.
Maekawa, K., Ishida, T. (2002), “Modeling of structural performances under coupled
environmental and weather action”, Materials and Structures, 35, 591-602.
Loo, Y.H., Chin, M.S., Tam, C.T., Ong, K.C.G. (1994), “A Carbonation prediction model
for accelerated carbonation testing of concrete”, Magazine of Concrete Research,
46, 191-200.
Masuda, Y., Tanano, H. (1991), “Mathematical model on process of carbonation of
concrete”, Concrete Research and Technology, 2(1), 125-34.
Ming Te Liang, Wen Jun Qu, Chih-Hsin Liang, (2002), “Mathematical modeling and
prediction method of concrete carbonation and its applications”, Journal of Marine
Science and Technology, 10(2), 128-135.
Monteiro, I., Branco, F.A., de Brito, J., Neves, R. (2012), “Statistical analysis of the
carbonation coefficient in open air concrete structures”, Construction and Building
Materials, 29, 263-269.
Steffens, A., Dinkler, D., Ahrens, A. (2002), “Modeling carbonation for corrosion risk
prediction of concrete structures”, Cement and Concrete Research, 32, 935-941.
Papadakis, V.G., Vayenas, C.G. and Fardis, M.N. (1991), “Fundamental Modeling and
Engineering Investigation of Concrete Carbonation”, ACI Material Journal, 88, 363-
373.
Muntean, A. (2009), “On the interplay between fast reaction and slow diffusion in the
concrete carbonation process: a matched-asymptotics approach”, Meccanica, 44(1),
35-46.
CEB Bulletin 238, “New Approach to Durability Design. An example for carbonation
induced corrosion”, Comitée Euro-International du Béton CEB 238 (1997).
Bakker, R.F.M. (1988), Initiation period, in P. Schiessl (Ed), Corrosion of steel in
concrete: Report of the Technical Committee 60 – CSC RILEM, Chapman and Hall,
London, 22-54.
 Hergenröder, M. (1992), “Zur statistichen Instandhaltungsplanung für bestehende
Betonbauwerke bei Karbonatisierung des Betons und möglicher der Bewerhung”,
Technische Universität München (in German).
Nilsson, L-O. (1997), “Interaction between microclimate and concrete – a perquisite for
deterioration”, Construction and Building Materials, 10(5), 301-308.
Fagerlund, G. (1997), „Trwałość konstrukcji betonowych”, Arkady, Warszawa (in
Polish).
Czarnecki, L. Więcławski, R. (2003), “Concrete carbonation as limited process”, Proc.
MATBUD`2003, Kraków (in Polish).
Czarnecki, L., Woyciechowski, P. (2012), “Durability of concrete according to the
European Standard EN 206-1”, Proc. International Congress on Concrete Durability,
Trond-heim, June 2012, article A13-1.
Czarnecki, L., Sokołowska, J.J. (2015), “Material model and revealing the truth”,
Bulletin Of The Polish Academy Of Sciences: Technical Sciences, 63(1), 7-14.

View publication stats