Comparison of Full Probabilistic Modelling and Deemed to Satisfy
Requirements for Concrete Carbonation Induced Corrosion
Herman Jong1, Inam Khan2 and Frank Papworth3
1Principal Durability Engineer, BCRC
2Technical Director, BCRC
3Managing Consultant, BCRC
Abstract: CIA Z7/03, Deemed to Comply Requirement, is the final of seven documents in the CIA Concrete
Durability Series reviewing durability design. It is to include requirements based on exposures given in
Z7/02, Exposure Classifications, and a review based on modelling as detailed in Z7/05, Durability Modelling
Reinforcement Corrosion in Concrete Structures. Testing requirements are set out in Z7/07, Performance
Tests to Assess Concrete Durability, and reliability based design as proposed in Z7/01, Durability Planning.
This paper focuses on concrete carbonation based design giving comparisons between code DtS and full
probabilistic modelling. It includes a review of different cement systems and 50 and 100 year design lives.
Keywords: carbonation, full probabilistic model, Australian Standards, concrete structures, reliability.
1. Introduction
The current system in Australian Standards for specifying and ensuring the durability of new structures is
prescriptive. In prescriptive specifications, adequate durability is assumed to be guaranteed indirectly by
ensuring compliance with limiting values for concrete characteristics and construction details. However,
there is a significant move for durability design to follow structural design and incorporate reliability based
principles. This requires a comprehensive reliability and engineering analysis of durability (CREAD).
In BCRC’s CREAD utilized in this study, AS 5100.5:2017 Deemed to Satisfy (DtS) requirements are
reviewed using fully probabilistic analysis (FPA) based on the fib Bulletin 34 carbonation model. In AS
5100.5:2017 Section 4, the concrete characteristics to be limited are minimum characteristic strength,
minimum cement content, maximum water/cement ratio, cement type and maximum chemical content in
concrete. The construction details to be limited are minimum initial curing requirement and nominal concrete
cover required. The limited values are designed to ensure the durability of new concrete structures exposed
to the specific exposure class based on past experience.
FPA carbonation model as recommended in fib Bulletin 34 is used to review the prescriptive specifications
described in AS 5100.5:2017. The minimum reliability of 1.3 is selected for Serviceability Limit State as
recommended by CIA Z7/01 and Z7/05. This applies to the limit state of depassivation which is considered
in this paper. The reliability of 1.3 provides the probability of failure of 10%.
The following sections of this paper will describe some key parameters which dependent on concrete
characteristics limited in AS 5100.5:2017.
2. Inverse Carbonation Resistance RACC,0-1
For reliability analyses, the mean values for inverse effective carbonation resistance are to be determined
by accelerated carbonation tests (ACC-test method) as described in Section B1.2.5.2 of fib Bulletin 34. If
no test data is available, the data from Table B1-2 of fib Bulletin 34 can be used as indicative values. The
standard deviation can be estimated from the mean value in accordance with Figure B1.2-3 of fib Bulletin
34. The mean values for inverse carbonation resistance are dependent on the type of cement and the
water/cement ratio. The relationship between inverse carbonation resistance and water/cement ratio for
various types of cement are presented on Figure 1. Note that for concrete with fly ash or silica fume,
equivalent water/cement ratio is used as described in Table B1-2 of fib Bulletin 34. The data are obtained
from fib Bulletin 34 and BCRC consultation works. The data will be used in the reliability analyses to review
of deemed-to-satisfy provisions in AS 5100.5:2017. However, the data only represent indicative values. For
design in an individual case, the inverse carbonation resistance of the concrete mix being considered can
be measured if it is significant, for example if the reliability shown by calculation is well in excess of that
required for a conservative assumption of the concrete performance project tests would not be required.
This is a consistent extension of the Levels of Approximation approach whereby more sophisticated analysis
is only undertaken when a more accurate assessment is required.
(a) 100% GP Cement (b) 20 – 30% Fly Ash
(c) 5 – 10% Silica Fume (d) GGBFS
Figure 1. Effect of water/cement ratio on inverse carbonation resistance of concrete with various
cement types
For the purpose of reviewing of deemed-to satisfy provisions in Australian Standards, in particular AS
5100.5:2017, the inverse carbonation resistance presented in Table 1 are used.
Table 1. Inverse carbonation resistance used for various water/cement ratios
Mean and Std. Deviation
Water/Cement
Cement Type Normal Dist. ( / )
Ratio
[10-11 (m2/s)/(kg/m3)]
0.56 10.5 / 4.3
0.50 7.0 / 3.1
100% GP
0.45 4.9 / 2.4
0.40 3.2 / 1.7
0.56 22.8 / 7.9
0.50 9.4 / 4.0
70% GP & 30% FA
0.45 4.0 / 2.0
0.40 1.6 / 1.0
0.56 12.7 / 5.0
0.50 8.3 / 3.6
90% GP & 10% SF
0.45 6.0 / 2.8
0.40 4.0 / 2.0
0.56 24.7 / 8.4
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 0.50 10.6 / 4.4
0.45 4.8 / 2.3
0.40 2.0 / 1.2
0.50 28.1 / 9.3
35% GP & 65% GGBFS 0.45 15.9 / 6.0
0.40 8.4 / 3.6
3. CO2 Concentration of the Atmosphere CS
The average CO2 concentration is assumed to be 627 ppm (0.00102 kg/m3). It is based on a current 440
ppm and 840 ppm at the next 100 years. Note that the effect of climate change on the CO2 concentration
have been taken into account based on the scenario A1B described in “CSIRO Analysis of Climate Change
Impacts on the Deterioration of Concrete Infrastructure Part 1 to 3, 2010”. A1 scenarios indicate very rapid
economic growth, a global population that peaks in mid-century and declines thereafter, and the rapid
introduction of new and more efficient technologies, as well as substantial reduction in regional differences
in per capita income. Sub-categories of A1 scenario include A1FI, A1T and A1B, which represent the energy
in terms of fossil intensive, non-fossil energy and a balance across all sources, respectively. In this study,
scenario A1B is adopted and the development of CO2 concentration from 2023 to 2123 is presented in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Development of CO2 concentration with two emission scenarios of climate change
4. Relative Humidity, Time of Wetness and Probability of Driving Rain
In this study, relative humidity (RH) and time of wetness (ToW) are obtained from statistical weather data
for Perth Metro area. The following values are used in FPA carbonation model.
RH = 55%
ToW = 0.16
Probability of driving rain (PSR) is taken as 0 as it is the worst-case scenario.
5. Initial Curing Period
The initial curing period (tc) is adopted from minimum initial curing requirement stated in Table 4.4.1(A) of
AS 5100.5:2017.
6. Other Parameters Required for Full Probabilistic Model of Carbonation in Concrete
The other parameters used in full probabilistic carbonation model are presented in Table 2. The values
are adopted from fib Bulletin 34 and AS 5100.5:2017.
Table 2. Other Parameters used in Full Probabilistic Model
Distribution
Parameter Unit Mean Std. Dev. Source / Note
Type
(m2/s)/(kg/m3) x
Error Term, t Normal 1.0 0.15 fib Bulletin 34
10-11
Regression
(-) Normal 1.25 0.35 fib Bulletin 34
Parameter, kt
Age of Samples
(years) Constant 0.0767 fib Bulletin 34
at Test, t0
Design Life, t (years) Constant 100 AS 5100.5:2017
Reference
Relative Humidity (%) Constant 65 fib Bulletin 34
RHref
Exponent, fe (-) Constant 5 fib Bulletin 34
Exponent, ge (-) Constant 2.5 fib Bulletin 34
Exponent of
(-) Normal -0.567 0.024 fib Bulletin 34
Regression, bc
Exponent of
(-) Normal 0.446 0.163 fib Bulletin 34
Regression, bw
Dependent on Table 4.14.3.3
Nominal
exposure class and Section
Concrete Cover, (mm) Normal 3
and characteristic 17.7.3 of AS
Cnom
strength 5100.5:2017
3. Results – AS 5100.5:2017
From full probabilistic carbonation model results, the prescriptive specifications described in AS
5100.5:2017 give reliability index ≥ 1.3 for 100 year design life except the following.
(a) For exposure class A, 3 day curing period is not sufficient to give reliability index ≥ 1.3 for all cement
types. Increased cover and minimum 7 day curing period are required to give reliability index ≥ 1.3
for 100 year design life.
(b) For exposure class B1 and concrete grade of 32 MPa, blended cements of 30% Fly Ash and 40%
GGBFS require nominal concrete cover of 45mm to give reliability index ≥ 1.3 for 100 year design
life.
Table 3. Reliability Index of 100 Year Design Life for Exposure Class A
Mean Required
Concrete Concrete Cover
Concrete
Cover (mm) Reliability (mm) to Achieve
Grade Cement Type
[curing Index, ≥ 1.3
(MPa)
period [curing period
(days)] (days)]
100% GP 0.48 45 [7]
45 70% GP & 30% FA -0.82 60 [7]
25
[3 day curing] 90% GP & 10% SF 0.13 50 [7]
60% GP & 40% GGBFS -0.95 65 [7]
100% GP 0.21 40 [7]
35 70% GP & 30% FA -0.24 45 [7]
32
[3 day curing] 90% GP & 10% SF -0.06 40 [7]
60% GP & 40% GGBFS -0.43 45 [7]
100% GP 0.21 35 [7]
30 70% GP & 30% FA 0.53 30 [7]
40
[3 day curing] 90% GP & 10% SF -0.08 35 [7]
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 0.25 35 [7]
Table 4. Reliability Index of 100 Year Design Life for Exposure Class B1
Mean Required
Concrete Concrete Cover
Concrete
Cover (mm) Reliability (mm) to Achieve
Grade Cement Type
[curing Index, ≥ 1.3
(MPa)
period [curing period
(days)] (days)]
100% GP 1.82 -
40 70% GP & 30% FA 1.19 45 [7]
32
[7 day curing] 90% GP & 10% SF 1.44 -
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 0.96 45 [7]
100% GP 1.85 -
35 70% GP & 30% FA 2.27 -
40
[7 day curing] 90% GP & 10% SF 1.44 -
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 1.91 -
100% GP 1.90 -
30 70% GP & 30% FA 3.14 -
50
[7 day curing] 90% GP & 10% SF 1.50 -
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 2.71 -
Table 5. Reliability Index of 100 Year Design Life for Exposure Class B2
Mean Required
Concrete Concrete Cover
Concrete
Cover (mm) Reliability (mm) to Achieve
Grade Cement Type
[curing Index, ≥ 1.3
(MPa)
period [curing period
(days)] (days)]
100% GP 4.01 -
50 70% GP & 30% FA 4.26 -
40
[7 day curing] 90% GP & 10% SF 3.51 -
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 4.01 -
4. Results – AS 3600:2018
Required concrete covers specified in AS 3600:2018 for 50 year design life for exposure classes B1 and B2
were also reviewed. The exposure classes A1 and A2 with 3 day curing period is not sufficient to give
reliability index ≥ 1.3 for all cement types. Therefore, it is not reviewed here.
From full probabilistic carbonation model results, the prescriptive specifications described in AS 3600:2018
for exposure classes B1 and B2 give reliability index ≥ 1.3 for 50 year design life except the following.
(a) Concretes with 65% GGBFS require increased concrete cover to achieve 50 year design life.
(b) Few cases in exposure class B1 require minor increased concrete cover (i.e. 32 MPa concrete with
40% GGBFS and 50 MPa concrete with 10% SF).
Table 6. Reliability Index of 50 Year Design Life for Exposure Class B1
Mean Required
Concrete Concrete Cover
Concrete
Cover (mm) Reliability (mm) to Achieve
Grade Cement Type
[curing Index, ≥ 1.3
(MPa)
period [curing period
(days)] (days)]
100% GP 1.97 -
70% GP & 30% FA 1.44 -
30
32 90% GP & 10% SF 1.57 -
[7 day curing]
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 1.16 35 [7]
35% GP & 65% GGBFS -0.57 50 [7]
100% GP 1.74 -
70% GP & 30% FA 2.13 -
25
40 90% GP & 10% SF 1.41 -
[7 day curing]
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 1.81 -
35% GP & 65% GGBFS -0.24 40 [7]
100% GP 1.45 -
70% GP & 30% FA 2.42 -
20
50 90% GP & 10% SF 1.12 25 [7]
[7 day curing]
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 2.11 -
35% GP & 65% GGBFS 0.01 30 [7]
Table 7. Reliability Index of 50 Year Design Life for Exposure Class B2
Mean Required
Concrete Concrete Cover
Concrete
Cover (mm) Reliability (mm) to Achieve
Grade Cement Type
[curing Index, ≥ 1.3
(MPa)
period [curing period
(days)] (days)]
100% GP 3.57 -
70% GP & 30% FA 4.11 -
35
40 90% GP & 10% SF 3.2 -
[7 day curing]
60% GP & 40% GGBFS 3.65 -
35% GP & 65% GGBFS 1.05 40 [7]
5. Conclusions
Full probabilistic analysis for carbonation model has been done to review the prescriptive specifications
described in AS 5100.5:2017 and AS 3600:2018. The following conclusions and recommendations can be
drawn.
(a) For exposure class A (A1 and A2), 3 day curing period is not sufficient to give reliability index ≥ 1.3
for all cement types. Increased cover and minimum 7 day curing period are required to give reliability
index ≥ 1.3 for 50 and 100 year design life.
(b) 32 MPa concretes with GGBFS 40% and above require detailed assessment (full probabilistic
carbonation model) as specified concrete cover in AS 3600:2018 and AS 5100.5:2017 may not be
sufficient to achieve 50 and 100 year design life respectively.
(c) It is recommended to measure inverse carbonation resistance of concretes with GGBFS to provide
more data base to review the sufficiency of specified concrete cover.
6. Acknowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge the work of all Members of fib who are furthering the work in durability
design and whose efforts and contributions have been used extensively in this paper.
7. References
1. fib Bulletin 34, “Model Code for Service Life Design”, fib Task Group 5.6, February 2006.
2. CIA Recommended Practice Z7/01 Durability Planning, May 2014.
3. CIA Recommended Practice Z7/02 Durability Exposure Classifications, September 2018.
4. CIA Recommended Practice Z7/05 Durability Modelling Reinforcement Corrosion in Concrete
Structures, May 2014.
5. Papworth, F., “Matching fib Model Code 2020 – Condition Limit States and Target Reliabilities for
Durability Design”, Concrete Institute Australia, Concrete 2021 Conference, September 2021.
6. Jong, H. and Papworth, F., “Review of Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions in Australian Standards by
Using Fully Probabilistic Model: Durability of Reinforced Concrete structures Exposed to Chlorides”,
Concrete Institute Australia, Concrete 2021 Conference, September 2021.
7. ISO 16204 “Durability – Service life design of concrete structures”, International Standards,
Switzerland, 2012.
8. CSIRO, “Analysis of Climate change Impacts on the Deterioration of Concrete Infrastructure Parts
1 to 3”, 2010.
