Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5

2 SERVICE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE ..................................................................... 7

3 EXPOSURE/ENVIRONENTAL CONDITIONS ................................................................... 10

3.1 Indian Railway Standard – Concrete Bridge Code ........................................... 14
3.2 Indian Standard IS 456:2002 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete –
Code of Practice .............................................................................................. 15
3.3 British Standard BS EN 206:2013 and BS 8500-1:2015 .................................. 17

4. COVER TO REINFORCEMENT ..................................................................................... 25

4.1 Indian Standard – IS 456:2000 ........................................................................ 25
4.2 Indian Railway Standards – Concrete Bridge Code ......................................... 26
4.3 British Standard BS – 8500:2015 and BS EN 1992 Part1 ................................ 26
4.4 Outline Design Specifications .......................................................................... 33

5 CEMENT CONTENT IN CONCRETE ............................................................................... 37

5.1 Indian Standard 456:2000 ............................................................................... 37
5.2 Indian Railway Standard : Concrete Bridge Code ............................................ 38
5.3 British Standards: BS 8500-1:2015, BS EN 206:2013, BS EN
1538:2013& BS EN 197-1-2011 ...................................................................... 39

6 PERMEABILITY OF CONCRETE ................................................................................... 47

7 FIRE RESISTANCE OF MEMBERS ................................................................................ 49

8 STRAY CURRENT EXPOSURE .................................................................................... 52

8.1 General ........................................................................................................... 52
8.2 Stray Current from Metro System .................................................................... 52
8.3 Stray Current Corrosion................................................................................... 52
8.4 Mitigation of Stray Current ............................................................................... 53

9 ALKALI-SILICA REACTION (ASR) ................................................................................ 55

9.1 Alkali-aggregate Reactions .............................................................................. 55

10 REINFORCEMENT CORROSION .................................................................................. 55

11 CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION, FAILURE MECHANISM,

MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING ............................................................................... 56
11.1 Construction Method ................................................................................... 56
11.2 Failure Mechanism...................................................................................... 56
11.3 Significance of the Failure ........................................................................... 56
11.4 Maintenance and Monitoring ....................................................................... 57
11.5 Necessity of providing additional protection. ............................................... 61

12 CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT WATERPROOFING PROTECTION AND

SEALING DETAILS ................................................................................................ 61

Page 1
Annexure -1 : Test Results ……………………………………...……………………..…64

Annexure – 2: Concrete Mix design report for Diaphragm wall (M50)………………165

Annexure – 3 : Concrete Mix design report for other elements (M40)……………...169

Annexure – 4 : Concrete Mix design report for Base slab with crystalline (M40)…..174

Annexure – 5 : Concrete Mix design report for Roof Slab (M50)…………………….178

Page 2
 List of Figures
Figure 2.1 – Durability Requirements as per IS 456:2000
Figure 2.2 – Service Life of structures as per IRS CBC
Figure 2.3 – Service life of Structures as per BS EN 1990:2002
Figure 2.4 – Service life of Structures as per EN 1990:2002
Fig. 3.1.1 Permissible limits of Solids in water used for Concreting & Allied activities
Figure 3.1.2 Exposure Conditions as per IRS CBC
Fig. 3.2.1 Permissible limits of Solids in water used for Concreting & Allied activities
Figure 3.2.2 Limiting Value of Sulphates – IS 456:2000
Figure 3.2.3 Limits of Chlorides in Concrete – IS 456:2000
Figure 3.2.4 Exposure Classes as per IS 456:2000
Figure 3.3.1 – Exposure Classes as per Table 1 of BS EN:206:2013
Figure 3.3.1 – Exposure Classes as per Table 1 of BS EN:206:2013
Figure 3.3.2 – Limiting values for exposure classes - Table 2 of BS EN:206:2013
Figure 3.3.3 – Exposure classes - Table A.1 of BS 8500:2015
Figure 3.3.3 – Exposure classes - Table A.1 of BS 8500:2015
Figure 3.3.3 – Exposure classes - Table A.1 of BS 8500:2015
Figure 3.3.4 – Clauses A2.2 and A2.4 of BS 8500:2015 (Chemical Attack & Corrosion of Rein-
forcement)
Figure 3.3.4 – Clauses A2.2 and A2.4 of BS 8500:2015 (Chemical Attack & Corrosion of Rein-
forcement)
Figure 3.3.5 – Aggressive chemical Environment for concrete (ACEC) exposure classes
Figure 3.3.5 – Aggressive chemical Environment for concrete (ACEC) exposure classes (BS 8500-
1:2015)
Figure 4.1.1 Nominal Cover to Reinforcement – IS 456:2000
Figure 4.1.2 Exposure Based on the nominal Cover as a criteria
Figure 4.2.1 – Cover to reinforcement for different Exposure classes
Figure 4.3.1 Environmens related to Corrosion of Reinforcement
Figure 4.3.2 Minimum cover requiremnets as EN 1992 Part 1
Figure 4.3.3 Minimum cover requiremnets – Bond criteria EN 1992 Part 1
Figure 4.3.4 Recommended Structural classifcation BS EN 1992 Part 1
Figure 4.3.5 Minimum cover for Structural classifcation – Durability Criteria
Figure 4.3.6 – Allowances for Deviation Cl.4.4.1 EN 1992 Part 1
Figure 4.3.7 – British National Annex for ∆Cdev Discussion for EN 1992 Part 1
Figure 4.3.8 – Minimum cover to diaphragm Wall – BS EN 1538
Figure 4.3.9 – Durability recommendations for an Indicative service Life of atleast 100 years
Figure 4.3.10 – Durability recommendations for an Indicative service Life of atleast 100 years
Figure 5.1.1 Min. Cement content, Max. w/c ratio and Min. Grade of concrete
Figure 5.2.1 Min. Cement Content, Max. w/c ratio and and min. grade of concrete
Figure 5.3.1 – Design Chemical Class for different Aggressive Chemical Environment for concrete
Figure 5.3.2 – Additional Portection Measures Required
Figure 5.3.3 – Limiting values of composition and Properties for concrete of Design Chemical
Class
Figure 5.3.4 – Cement and combination Types
Figure 5.3.5 – Cement and combination -Definition
Figure 5.3.6 – Cement and other Specifications – Diaphragm Walls (BS EN 1538:2013)
Figure 5.3.7 – Cement Content – Diaphragm Walls (BS EN 206:2013)
Figure 5.3.8 – Minimum Cement Content with Aggregate size & W/Cement Ratio
Figure 5.3.9 – Cement Type and its constituents

Page 3
Figure 6.1 – Permeability as per IRS CBC
Figure 6.2 – Permeability Test Results on Concrete Specimens
Figure 6.3 – RCPT Test Results
Figure 6.4 – Classification of Chlorides Penetration – ASTM C1202
Figure 7.1 – Fire Resistance – IS 456:2000
Figure 7.2 – Member Thickness for Different Fire Loadings – IS 456:2000
Figure 7.3 – Member Thickness for Different Fire Loadings – IS 456:2000
Figure 8.1 – Scheme for possible reinforcement protection against stray currents in station struc-
tures
Figure 8.2 – Scheme for possible reinforcement protection against stray currents in station struc-
tures
Figure 11.1 – Schematic drawing of half-cell apparatus
Figure 11.2 – Shape of Life Cycle for a Structure
Figure 12.1 – Waterproofing membrane PVC (poly-vinyl-chloride)
Figure 12.2 – Felt’s Characteristics
Figure 12.3 – Cross section with waterproofing layer of bottom slab

List of Tables
Table 2.1 – Service Life of the Structure
Table 3.1 Kankaria Station - Chemcial Test Result of Water Samples
Table 3.2 Kalupur Station - Chemcial Test Result of Water Samples
Table 3.3 Launching Shaft - Chemcial Test Result of Water Samples
Table 3.4 Kankaria Station - Chemcial Test Result of Soil Samples
Table 3.5 Kalupur Station - Chemcial Test Result of Soil Samples
Table 3.6 Launch shaft - Chemcial Test Result of Soil Samples
Table 3.3.1 Summary of Attacking Agents
Table 2.2 Cover and Crack Width Criteria
Table 4.1 – Cover to reinforcement – Diaphragm walls
Table 4.2 – Cover to reinforcement – Base slab
Table 4.3 – Cover to reinforcement – Roof slab
Table 4.4 – Cover to reinforcement – Concourse slab
Table 4.5 – Cover to reinforcement – Columns
Table 4.6 – Cover to reinforcement – Beams
Table 5 – Summary of Cement Content and Water cement Ratio
Table 2.1 – Minimum Element Sizes for 4-hour Fire Protection
Table 2.1 – Minimum Element Sizes for 4-hour Fire Protection
Table 11.1 –Phases of reinforcement corrosion by Half-cell potential measure

Page 4
1 INTRODUCTION
The modern engineering strucures are required to serve a necessary functional life with mini-
mal maintenance and maximum serviceability. The functional life (popularly termed as Ser-
vice life) of an Engineered structures is decided based operational requirements from the sys-
tem and performance level of the system during the service life. One of the major parameters
of the service life is endurance of the system during the self-life. The term coined for the en-
durance during the self life is the “Durability” during the service life. The durability of the
structure can be attained and sustained with an approach that defines set of parameters which
affect the strength, serviceability and serviceability sustainance of the structure during the
service life of the structure. A rationale assesement of the paramters and their transient nature
must be envisaged to the best of efforts apriori to execution and design. Further, the Cl 2.4.2
of the“Outline Design Specification” necessitates a Durability Apporach and Assessment Re-
port illustrating the approach in design, construction and selection of materials so as to
achieve 120 years service life. This report illustrates the Appraoch and assessment of various
aspects to be covered to ensure the durability of the system throughout the service life.

As per the Outline Design specification Part2, Sec. VI, Div. G2 for Cut & Cover Structures
“A Durability Approach and Assessment Report (DAAR) shall be prepared by the Contractor
for all the Permanent Works under the Contract to demonstrate his approach in design, con-
struction and selection of materials so as to achieve 120 years design life and submitted to
the Engineer for obtaining a Notice of No Objection. It is brought to the notice of the Con-
tractor that the Specifications, Requirements and Conditions as stipulated in the Contract
are the minimum standards/parameters to be adopted for the Works under the Contract.
However, as part of Contractor’s DAAR, the Contractor shall be required to review all these
Contract stipulations and justify their adoption or otherwise propose more stringent stand-
ards/parameters for the Works to achieve the stipulated design life and the durability re-
quirements of the Works under the Contract.The DAAR shall include,but not be limited to:
a) The appraisal of the deterioration mechanisms that will affect various materials during
the service life;
b) The appreciation of the failure criteria for the elements and components;
c) The philosophy as to how the selected design will achieve the durability objective;
d) The identification of the critical elements and issues and their treatment with respect to
the durability;
e) The specific provisions of the relevant International Codes/Standards (first preferencebe-
ing given to BS Codes/Standards, where applicable)that will be followed to explicitly
meet the durability objective (including BS EN 206:2013, BS 8500-1:2006 etc.); and
f) The requirements for the post construction maintenance.”

The DAAR shall assume, evaluate and derive the parameters affecting the Durability of the
structure during the service. The parameters that affect the durability of the structure are as
follow:
a) Concrete and assosciated inputs; grade of concrete, cement content, permeability etc.
b) Cover of the reinforcement, Fire resistance and exposure conditions.

Page 5
c) Other Enhancements/Requirements that ensure the durability of system.

The above mentioned parameters are defined by the ODS and in case the parameters are not
defined they are suitably assumed based on the codal provisions as per the order of prece-
dences and standard practices mentioned in the contract.

The durability requirements during the service life of the structure are mentioned in the
Clause “Cl.2.4 of the Outline Design Specfication”. An abridge of the ODS specifying the
durability requirements is present below:

“2.4 Design Lifeand Serviceability

2.4.1 General

The‘design life of a structure or component is that period for which the item is required to
fulfil its intended function when maintained in accordance with agreed procedures to meet
a required level of performance.The definition of a ‘designlife’ for a structure or compo-
nent doesnot necessarily mean that the structure will no longer be fit for its intended pur-
pose at the end of that period.Neither will it be expected to necessarily continue to be ser-
viceable for that length of time without adequate maintenance to mitigate the demands of
degradation.
2.4.2 Civil Engineering Structures

(1) The design life of all civil engineering structure shall be a minimum of 120years un-
less otherwise specified or agreed upon.
(2) Adequate measures shall be taken to ensure a minimum of 120 years serviceability
ofcivil structures by producing durable concrete structures. For achieving this suita-
ble property enhancers/blending materials conforming to relevant BIS codes (or
morestringent International Standards/Codes wherever required) may be used as
deemed appropriate and subject to Notice of No Objection from the Engineer.
(5) The design life of the above ground building structures including ancillary buildings,
utility support, structures and vent shafts etc. shall also be 120 years.
(6) The design life of non-structural elements shall be 50 years.”

From, the above clause it may be noted that the defined Service life of the structural ele-
ments is 120 years for Permanent structures and that of the non structural elements shall
be 50 years. The design life of the structure is defined so that the parameters supporting the
service life are selected deligently and due prudence.

The different codal provsions mentioning the service life are evaluated and subsequently
the provisions of the code enabling the durability during the service life of the structure are
discussed and evaluated.

Page 6
2 SERVICE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE

1) IS 456:2000 – Although the code doesnot explicitly mention the service life attained by
adopting the code but the Clause Cl.8 mentions the durability requirements which must
be followed to achieve the service life of the structure. The clause Cl.8 (Figure 2.1) is
presented below.

Figure 2.1 – Durability Requirements as per IS 456:2000

2) IRS Concrete Bridge Code:1997 – The code is exclusively for bridges. However, the
Cl.15.1.3 mentions the service life for bridge depending on the exposure conditions.
The Clause Cl.15.1.3 is presented below (Figure 2.2):

Figure 2.2 – Service Life of structures as per IRS CBC

3) British Standard BS EN 1990:2002 – Basis of Structural Design : Referring to the Na-

tional Annex (NA), the design service life of a structure is classified into 5 category de-
pending on the type of structure (Figure 2.3).

Page 7
 Figure 2.3 – Service life of Structures as per BS EN 1990:2002

4) Eurocode EN 1990:2002 – Basis of Structural Design : Section 2.3 of the code classi-
fies the structures into 5 categories. The table 2.1 is presented in (Figure 2.4)

Figure 2.4 – Service life of Structures as per EN 1990:2002

From the above, it can be inferred that British Standards BS EN 1900:2002 (Basis of Struc-
tural Design) with an indicative design working life of 120 years appears to best suit the re-
quirements of the project.Therefore, the provisions of the British standards along with Indi-
an Standards shall be evaluated in this report to estabilish the durability of the system dur-
ing the service life.

Conclusion for service life

Sl. Service life,
Code of practice Type of structure
No. Years
Not mentioned
1 Indian standard - 456 Building
exclusively
Indian railway standards – Bridge in the rest of
2 100 Years
Concerte Bridge Code India
British Standard BS EN Other Civil engi-
3 120 Years
1990:2002 neering Structure
Other Civil engi-
4 Eurocode EN 1990:2002 100 Years
neering Structure
Outline Design Specifica- Underground Met-
5 120 Years
tion – Ahmedabad Metro ro Station
Table 2.1 – Service Life of the Structure

Page 8
Factors affecting the durability of the structure are broadly listed below:
1. Environmental conditions or exposures conditions;
2. Thickness of the Members;
3. Concrete specifications & its constituent materials – including cover, permeability etc.
The factors affecting the durability shall listed, evaluated with respect to different codal
provisions to suit the durability requirements mentioned in the “Outline Design Specifica-
tions”.
Note: None of the auxillary measures acting as enhacers like water proofing coat or pro-
tective memberanes are considered for any relaxation in the durability parameters of the
concrete. These auxillary measure further enhance the durability of the system other
than the instrinsic assumed parameters.

Page 9
3 EXPOSURE/ENVIRONENTAL CONDITIONS

One of the major factor that governs the strength and the durability of the concrete during
the service life structure is the exposure of the concrete to the surrounding environment.
The environment shall be aggressive or otherwise. The exposure also influences the selec-
tion of the cover to the reinforcement, cement quantity, cement type, admixtures and other
constituent materials of the concrete. The exposure is generally determined by the chemical
analysis of the water and soil samples in the vicinity of the proposed structure.The chemical
analysis of the soil and water samples are presented in table 3.1 to 3.6.

Table 3.1 Kankaria Station - Chemcial Test Result of Water Samples

Sulphate
SO4 (mg/l)

Table 3.2 Kalupur Station - Chemcial Test Result of Water Samples

Chemical Test of Water Samples

Bore Hole
NO. Chlorides Sulphates SO4 Carbobates CaCO3
pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

BH-34 8.45 94.97 237.02 Not available

BH-35 7.97 103.97 195.87 Not available

BH-36 8.36 93.97 263.36 Not Available

Table 3.3 Launching Shaft - Chemcial Test Result of Water Samples

From the Table 3.1, table 3.2 and table 3.3, the maximum chemcical contents are listed be-
low:

Chlorides – 340.89 mg/L

Sulphates (SO4) – 263.36 mg/L

Page 10
Carbonate as CaCO3 – 0.54mg/L

pH –8.07 to 9

Table 3.4 Kankaria Station - Chemcial Test Result of Soil Samples

From the Table 3.3 and table 3.4, the maximum chemcical contents are listed below:

Chlorides (%) – 0.0255

Sulhates (SO4) (%) – 0.0921

Carbonate as CaCO3 (%) –8.5

pH –7.06 to 9.42

Page 11
 Table 3.5 Kalupur Station - Chemcial Test Result of Soil Samples

The highest values are highlighted in organic content, sulphates expressed in SO4 (%)
terms, Chlorides content (%), carbonates as CaCO3 (%) and the maximum and the mini-
mum values of the pH values are also highlighted in table 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6.
The limiting values of the above mentioned parameters in different codal provisions should
be evaluated to arrive at the required. The following sections give specifications of different
codal provisions as regards to external attack agents in the form of sulphates, carbonates,
chlorides and the pH of the surrounding medium.

Page 12
Table 3.6 Launch shaft - Chemcial Test Result of Soil Samples

Page 13
3.1 Indian Railway Standard – Concrete Bridge Code

The IRS CBC doesnot exclusively provide the limiting values of the attacking agents men-
tioned in the previous section, it does discuss the limits of the suspended solids in water to
be used in mixing, curing, washing of aggregates and other allied activities. This otherwise
can be treated as the limits of the attacking agents in the external medium implicitly. The
clause Cl.4.3 (figure 2.1.1) discusses the details of water to be used.

Fig.3.1.1 Permissible limits of Solids in water used for Concreting & Allied activities

From the water sample analysis; table 3.1 to3.3; the limits of the solids are well within
permissible limits specified in figure 3.1.1. As per the Clause Cl.4.3.2 the pH of the water
shall generally not be less than 6. From the above tables, the pH is well above 6 in the
chemical analysis of water samples.

Clause Cl.5.4.1 of the IRS CBC classifies the exposures into 5 catergories; mild, moderate,
severe, very severe and extreme as listed below:

Figure 3.1.2 Exposure Conditions as per IRS CBC

Page 14
 The chemical analysis of the soil and water samples do not indicate any aggressive envi-
ronment. Also the condition of severe rain and severe condensation donot persist in current
site. Therefore, the exposure can be treated as “Moderate”.

3.2 Indian Standard IS 456:2002 – Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of Practice

The IS 456 also has similar classification of exposure classes as the one mentioned in the
IRS CBC, except that the limiting values of sulphates expressed in terms of SO4 are ex-
plicity mentioned in table 4 (Figure 3.2.2) of the code along with the recommendation for
the type of cement and cement content. Further table 7 (Figure 3.2.3) of the code gives the
content of acid soluble chlorides in concrete.The Clause Cl.5.4 give th permissible limits of
solids in water to be used in concreting and allied activities. Table 1 (Figure 3.2.1) of the
standard is presented below for ready reference.

Fig.3.2.1 Permissible limits of Solids in water used for Concreting & Allied activities

Page 15
 Figure 3.2.2 Limiting Value of Sulphates – IS 456:2000

Figure 3.2.3 Limits of Chlorides in Concrete – IS 456:2000

Page 16
 Figure 3.2.4 Exposure Classes as per IS 456:2000

The analysis of the extrenal attacking agents indicate “Moderate” exposure as per the IS
456:2000.

3.3 British Standard BS EN 206:2013 and BS 8500-1:2015

The actions of the environment are classified by exposure classes as the BS EN:206:2013.
The codes explains in detail the exposure class for different attacking agents. The exposure
can be a combination of more than two attacking agents. The different exposure classes as
per the clause Cl.4 (BS EN 206:2013) are presented in figure 3.3.1. Further, limiting value
of exposure class for attacking agents; both in soil and water is presented in figure 3.3.2.

Page 17
Figure 3.3.1 – Exposure Classes as per Table 1 of BS EN:206:2013

Page 18
 Figure 3.3.1 – Exposure Classes as per Table 1 of BS EN:206:2013

Figure 3.3.2 – Limiting values for exposure classes - Table 2 of BS EN:206:2013

The exposure classes as per BS 8500-1:2015 are listed below:

Figure 3.3.3 – Exposure classes - Table A.1 of BS 8500:2015

Page 19
Figure 3.3.3 – Exposure classes - Table A.1 of BS 8500:2015

Page 20
 Figure 3.3.3 – Exposure classes - Table A.1 of BS 8500:2015

Figure 3.3.4 – Clauses A2.2 and A2.4 of BS 8500:2015 (Chemical Attack & Corrosion of
Reinforcement)

Page 21
Figure 3.3.4 – Clauses A2.2 and A2.4 of BS 8500:2015 (Chemical Attack & Corrosion of
Reinforcement)

Figure 3.3.5 – Aggressive chemical Environment for concrete (ACEC) exposure classes

Page 22
 Figure 3.3.5 – Aggressive chemical Environment for concrete (ACEC) exposure classes
(BS 8500-1:2015)
From Figure 3.3.1 to 3.3.5, the guidance for the exposure as a specifier are as follows:
1. X0 : the Structure cannot be classified a no corrosion as non of the permanent structures
are of plain cement concerte and none of the exposures are completely dry.

2. Carbonation Induced Corrosion

a. XC1 – for structures enclosed within structures (enclosed within station box)
like interior rcc walls and slabs, inne faces of the diphragm walls, base slabs and
roof slabs.
b. XC2 – for structures permanently in contact with soil not containing chlorides
– for example the soil faces of diphragm walls, retaining walls, the base slabs,
the roof slabs under the over burden.
3. Corrosion by chlorides other than Sea water – For all underground structures this many
not be possibility. The presence of airborne chloride is either negligible or not of
congnisable quantity. Therefore, the XC or XS classes can be rules out. Further, from
table 3.1 to 3.3, the maximum chlorides present in ground water 340.89mg/L which is
well below 1800mg/L. Maximum value of soil chlorides is 0.0255%. Considering the
unit weight of soilas 2000 kg/m3. Every m3of soil contains

Page 23
 (0.0255/100/2000=255)g/m3of chlorides. Therefore, every 1000 litres of soil contains
255g of chlorides i.e, 255mg/L which less than 275mg/L (Figure 3.3.3).
4. Chemical Attack:Figures 3.3.5 gives the limiting values of the chemicals in the form of
sulphatesFrom the chemical analysis of the soil and water samples the maximum sul-
phate in soil is 0.0921% is = 0.0921*1000*1000/100 mg/kg = 0.0921 mg/kg. Minimum
pH in both; water and soil is more than 7.06, the CO2 expressed in terms of the calcium
carbonate is well below 15mg/l. Therefore, even the chemical attack class XA1 is not
applicable.
5. Aggressive Chemical environment for concrete exposure classes: Based on the chemi-
cal analysis of the soil and water samples, the sulphates is soil is below 0.24%, the pH
is greater than 6.5, the carbon dioxide expressed as CaCO3 is below the 15mg/l. Hence,
the ACEC class AC1G) is applicable and the design sulphate class DS-1.

Summary of attacking agents and limiting values:

Sl. Code of Exposure Limiting Values Measured

No. Practice Class Sulphates Chlorides pH Carbonates Values

Soil Sul-
Soil extract *
NA phates–
– 0.2%
0.0921%
Indian
Ground
1 standard – Moderate ≥6 *
NA
Water–
456 Water – Water –
171.59mg/L
300mg/L 500mg/L
Min. pH-
7.06
Water –
IRS - Water –
2 Moderate 1000 ≥6 *
NA
CBC 500 mg/l
gm/l
Water - ≥
200mg/l ≤
600mg/l ≤ ≥ 15 & ≤ Values il-
XC1,
BS EN Soil - Water - 6.5 40 mg/l lustrated
3 XC2,
206 ≥ 2000 275 mg/l ≥ (express as above
AC12),DS1
mg/kg 5.5 CO2)
≤ 3000
mg/kg

NA – Not available or not mentioned

*

Table 3.3.1 – Summary of Attacking Agents

Page 24
4. COVER TO REINFORCEMENT
The corrosion protection for the embedded metal/reinforcement depends on the cover to
the reinforcement. The different codal provisions regrading the cover to reinforcement are
evaluated in the proceeding paragraphs. In addition to codal provisions, the steel reinf.
Bars are coated with Inhibitor solution in cement slurry as per ODS/OCS requirement.

4.1 Indian Standard – IS 456:2000

The table 16 of the code gives the nominal cover to reinforcement for different exposure classes.
However, the code explicitly doesnot define the service life of the structure. The table 16 of the
code is presented in the figure 4.1.1.

Figure 4.1.1 Nominal Cover to Reinforcement – IS 456:2000

The minimum cover to the reinforcement for diaphgram wall is exclusively mentioned in the code of practice
for diaphgram wall IS : 9556 – 1980 i.e., Cl.12.2.4 is 75mm.
IS 456:2000 sepcifies the minimum cover to reinforcement; for footing as 50mm(Cl.26.4.2.2) and for col-
umns as 40mm (Cl.26.4.2.2). Therefore, due less specific information linking the exposure conditions with
specific nature of attack, the exposure for present case, based on IS 456:2000 can be redefined as Severe for
the structure exposed to the soil and Moderate for the rest.

Other Ele-
ments
Exposed to
soil

Figure 4.1.2 Exposure Based on the nominal Cover as a criteria

Page 25
4.2 Indian Railway Standards – Concrete Bridge Code
The cl 15.9.2.2 of the IRS CBC gives the details of the nominal cover for reinforcement for
different exposure classes. The same is presented below in figure 4.2.1 for ready reference.

Other Elements

exposed to Soil

Figure 4.2.1 – Cover to reinforcement for different Exposure classes

As mentioned in the previous section, the exposure may be classified as Severe for the el-
ements expose to soil and as moderate for rest.

4.3 British Standard BS – 8500:2015 and BS EN 1992 Part1

The details of the cover for the different exposure classes are illustrated in detail in the
paragraphs to follow.

Figure 4.3.1 Environmens related to Corrosion of Reinforcement

Minimum cover required (Cmin):

This standard discusses the minimum cover required Cmin and the deviation in the cover re-
quired in design ∆Cdev. Minimum cover is discussed at depth in Cl.4.4.1 of the code. The
following illustrates the process to adopt the cover for particular elements depending on
exposures. The cl.4.4.1.1 of the code is presented for ready reference in Figure 4.3.2.

Page 26
 Figure 4.3.2 Minimum cover requiremnets as EN 1992 Part 1
Amongst the minimum cover requirements, the minimum cover requirements for bond and
the minimum cover required for environmental conditions are discussed. Further, any addi-
tional treatment like water proofing have not been considered for any relaxation in the cov-
er. As stainless steel is not used the reduction in cover is not applicable here.
Table 4.2 of the code gives the minimum cover required for bond. The same is presented
below for ready reference in Figure 4.3.3.

Figure 4.3.3 Minimum cover requiremnets – Bond criteria EN 1992 Part 1

The British standards classify the structures into 6 types from S1 to S6 with S4 being the
minimum consideration for 50 years of intended service life. The S4 structural classifica-
tion an be considered as the datum for the classification. The recommendation for structural
classification is given in the table 4.3N of the code this presented in figure 3.3.4 for ready
reference.

Page 27
 Figure 4.3.4 Recommended Structural classification BS EN 1992 Part 1
The observed exposure classes as per section 2.3, the current structural system is subjected
to XC1 and XC2 exposures. Accordingly the structural classifications for different elements
in done is Figure 3.3.5 (Table 4.4N of BS EN 1992 Part1).

Others Internal Internal External Slab

Slab

Other
External

Figure 4.3.5 Minimum cover for Structural classifcation – Durability Criteria

Internal Elements include the structural elements that enclosed within diaphragmwall, base
slab and roof slab, the anciallry structures and other enabling structures, Internal face of the
roof slab and base slab for the station. Extrenal elements include diaphgrams both faces, re-
taining wall cast against soil, roof slab (soil face), base slab (soil face) or any other soil face
of the permanent structure.

Deviation in the Cover (∆Cdev):

The practical difficulties in maintain the cover at site, some tolerance in the cover may be
needed to offset the practical difficulties in execution, this may be termed deviation in cov-
er ∆Cdev. Clause Cl.4.4.1.3 of the code enunciates “Allowance for deviation in design”the
same is presented in figure 4.3.6.

Page 28
 Figure 4.3.6 – Allowances for Deviation Cl.4.4.1 EN 1992 Part1

Figure 4.3.7 – British National Annex for ∆CdevDiscussion for EN 1992 Part 1
From figure 4.3.1 to 4.3.7, it my be noted that the nominal cover for the following elements

 Elements Exposed to soil = 30 + 10 (∆Cdev) = 40mm

 All other internal elements = 15 + 10 (∆Cdev) = 25mm
The recommended values of nominal cover in the EN 1992 part 1for elements cast directly
against soil is 75mm and the one cast against a blinding is 40mm.
Further, the BS EN 1538 specifies a minimum concrete cover of 75mm for the diaphragm
wall. The same is presented in the figure 4.3.8.

Figure 4.3.8 – Minimum cover to diaphragm Wall – BS EN 1538

Page 29
For design working life of more than 100 years, the table A.5 of the BS 8500-1:2015 gives
the details of cover to different exposure classes. Fig.4.3.9 the minimum cover require-
ments for a minimum of 100 years service life.

Page 30
 Figure 4.3.9 – Durability recommendations for an Indicative service Life of atleast 100
External Ele-
ments as per
ODS

Internal Ele-
ments as per
ODS

External Ele-
ments as per
Exposure Class

Internal Elements
as per Exposure
Class years

Page 31
 ODS
External ele-
ments as per
Figure 4.3.10 – Durability recommendations for an Indicative service Life of atleast 100 years

Page 32
 From fig. 4.3.9 and fig. 4.3.10, it may be noted that the exposure class is XC1, XC2 and
AC1D). However, the exposures to chlorides XD and XS are not applicable.

4.4 Outline Design Specifications

The ODS mentions minimum cover required for the a member is table 2.2 Cl.2.6.3. The
Cl.2.6.3 and table 2.2 is reproduced here for ready reference.
“2.6.3 Crack Width

(1)All structural concrete elements shall be designed to prevent excessive cracking due to
flexure, early age thermal and shrinkage. The maximum crack width sshall be as specified
in Table 2.2.
(2)Flexural Cracking
Flexural crack width shall bechecked in accordance with latest IRS codes and correction
slips, any additional protection, such as waterproof in 56:2000. The limits specified in Ta-
ble 2.2 shall apply irrespective of whether any additional protection, such as waterproofing
membrane, is provided to the membersat the exposed face of the structure.
(3)Early age Thermal and Shrinkage Cracking
a) Suitable reinforcement shall be designed to prevent early age thermal and
shrinkage cracking for walls and slabs more than 250 millimetres thick and subjected to in-
ternaland external restraints during construction. The thermal and shrinkage strains due to
early age temperature differences and shrinkage shall be accounted for in the design of re-
inforcement for cracking.
b) It is preferred that smaller diameter bars in any direction are placed at closer in-
tervals to prevent early age thermal and shrinkage cracks. The limits specified in Table 2.2
shall be imposed. Guidance can be sought from CIRIA C660 on Early Age Thermal Control
of Concrete.

Table 2.2 Cover and Crack Width Criteria

Element Durability Max Crack Mini- Nominal Coverto

Exposure Width mum be considered for
Condition (mm) required Crack width
Cover check (mm)
Diaphragm 0.2(for ground- (mm)75 50
Wall/Secant piles wall Severe face) 45
Moderate 0.25 (for non- 75
ground face)
Pile cap (side and
bottom faces) resting Severe 0.2 75 50
on layer of blinding
concrete not less than
50mm thick

Page 33
 Base Slab–Top Sur- Moderate 0.25 50 40
face Base Slab– Severe 0.2 75 50
Bottom Surface (cast
against
ground/blinding)
Basement Walls
a) Face in contact Severe 0.2 50 45
with ground Moderate 0.25 50 40
b) Other face
Columns (Internal): Moderate 0.25 50 40
Load bearing Walls Moderate 0.25 50 40
(Internal)
Non–load bearing Moderate 0.25 30 –
Walls
Stairs
(Internal) Moderate 0.25 35 30
Water Tank Severe 0.2 50 45
Beams
Top surface (contact Severe 0.2
with ground) 50 45
Top surface (No con- Moderate 0.25 50 40
tact with ground)
Bottom and sides
–continuous Moderate 0.25 50 40
–simplysupported Moderate 0.25 70 40
Slabs
Top surface (contact Severe 0.2 50 45
with ground)
Top surface (No con- Moderate 0.25 50 40
tact with ground)
Bottom surface
–continuous Moderate 0.25 50 40
–simplysupported Moderate 0.25 60 40

Notes
1. Ground slab/beam is protected by water proof membrane and a minimum of
50millimetre thick blinding, the concrete surface is fully protected from the effects of
driving rain and aggressive water. Therefore, the exposure class shall be consid-
eredto be moderate.
2. Nominal cover is measured to the outer most reinforcement.
3. Nominal cover does not include any allowance for construction tolerance.
4. External surfaces are fully protected by Architectural render in gand cladding
andhence shall be considered to be having moderate exposure condition.

Page 34
5. For underground structures minimum diameter of main reinforcement bar shall be
12mm and for distribution it shall be 10mm, for underground structures.
6. Minimum reinforcement as per IRS: CBC.
7. For Underground section in contact with NALA / Sewer water with or within influ-
ence zone, minimum required cover must be increased by 15mm minimum.”

Conclusion on the cover provided to the reinforcement:

Diaphragm Walls

Sl. No. Code of Practice Exposure Cover, mm

IS 456:2000 / IS Severe
1 75
9556:1980

2 IRS - CBC Severe 75

XC2,
3 BS EN 1538 75
AC1D)

4 ODS Severe 75

Table 4.1 – Cover to reinforcement – Diaphragm walls

Base Slab

Exposure Cover, mm
Sl. Code of
No. Practice Soil Other Other
Soil Face
Face Face Face

1 IS 456:2000 Severe Moderate 45 30

2 IRS - CBC Severe Moderate 25 25

BS 8500- XC2, 75 (Cast

3 XC1 25
1:2015 AC1D) against soil)

4 ODS Severe Moderate 75 50

Table 4.2 – Cover to reinforcement – Base slab

Roof Slab

Exposure Cover, mm
Sl. Code of
No. Practice Soil Other Soil Other
Face Face Face Face

1 IS 456:2000 Severe Moderate 45 30

2 IRS - CBC Severe Moderate 25 25

Page 35
 BS 8500- XC2,
3 XC1 40 25
1:2015 AC1D)

4 ODS Severe Moderate 50 50

Table 4.3 – Cover to reinforcement – Roofslab

Concourse Slab / Other Slabs

Sl. Code of Exposure Cover, mm

No. Practice Top Bottom Top Bottom

1 IS 456:2000 Moderate Moderate 30 30

2 IRS - CBC Moderate Moderate 25 25

BS 8500-
3 XC1 XC1 25 25
1:2015

4 ODS Severe Moderate 50 50

Table 4.4 – Cover to reinforcement – Concourseslab

Columns

Sl. Code of
Exposure Cover, mm
No. Practice

1 IS 456:2000 Moderate 40

2 IRS - CBC Moderate 25

BS 8500-
3 XC1 25
1:2015

4 ODS Moderate 50

Table 4.5 – Cover to reinforcement – Columns

Beams (All beams are continuous) / Ancillary Building Beams

Sl. Code of Exposure Cover, mm

No. Practice Top/Bottom Bottom/Top Top/Bottom Bottom/Top

1 IS 456:2000 Severe Moderate 45 30

2 IRS – CBC Severe Moderate 40 35

BS 8500-
3 XC2, AC1 XC1 40 25
1:2015

4 ODS Moderate Moderate 50 50

Table 4.6 – Cover to reinforcement – Beams

Page 36
5 CEMENT CONTENT IN CONCRETE
The cement content in the concrete depends on the grade of concrete and the exposure
clause. Although the ODS does not explicitly mention the cement quantity to be used in the
concrete for station and assosciated structures. Cl.2.5.1 gives the details of the cement to be
used. As an additional measure to enhance durability, the concrete for the base slab and re-
taining walls are admixed with crystalline growth type admixture as per ODS/OCS.

“2.5.1 Cement

(1) Ordinary Portlandcement (OPC) of 5 3 grade conforming to IS 8112-1989 and IS

12269-1987, respectively, shall be used.
(2)Portland Pozzolana cement (PPC) conforming to IS 1489 may also be used.
(3)The Engineermay give Notice for the usage of sulphate-resistant Portland cement
conforming to IS12330 for structural elements exposed to soil/ground.
(4)In all cases the cement shall meet the 28day strength requirement of IS8112 -1989 or
IS 12269-1987.
2.5.2 Concrete

(1)The material properties shall be asfollows

Specified Characteristic Coefficient of

Concrete Compressive Strength of Thermal Expan- Poisson’s
Grade 150mm3at 28 days in sion per° Ratio
MPa (IRS - CBC); Celsius
M35 35
M40 40
M45 45 1.17x10-5 0.15

M50 50
M60 60

(2) M odulus of elasticity (Ec) shall be as per clause. 5 .2.2.1 of IRS: C B C .

(3)The modular ratio shall be taken as per clause 5.2.6 of IRS: CBC.
(4)Density of concrete shall be 25kN/m3 for reinforced concrete and 24kN/m3for plain
cement concrete.”

The different codal provisions which specify the cement content for different exposures
conditions are evaluated in the proceeding sections.

5.1 Indian Standard 456:2000

Table 5 of the IS 456:2000 specifies the cement content, water cement ratio and grade of
concrete. The figure 5.1.1 gives details of the table 5.

Page 37
 Figure 5.1.1 Min. Cement content, Max. w/c ratio and Min. Grade of concrete

The maximum cement content is 320kg/m3for severe exposure (Exposed to soil) and mini-
mum cement content 300kg/m3 for moderate exposures (All other exposures). The outline
construction specification Cl.1.4.6.9(2) mentions a maximum water cement ration of 0.4
and a minimum grade of concrete for permanent structures as M35 as per ODS Cl.2.6.1(1).
From figure 5.1.1, these requirements transpire to minimum cement content of 360 kg/m3
for any element (Cement content here mean the total cementitious content i.e., the total ce-
ment content and its additive as mentioned in Cl.5.2 of IS 456:2000)

5.2 Indian Railway Standard : Concrete Bridge Code

Table 4a, 4b and 4cof Indian railway standards spell out the limits of the water cement ra-
tio, grade of concrete and cementitious material content to be adopted for different expo-
sure clauses. Figure 5.2.1 gives details of the specifications given in IRS CBC. OCS
Cl.1.4.6.9(2) mentions the maximum water cement ratio and minimum grade of concrete as
0.40 and the ODS Cl.2.6.1(1) is M35(cube strength) implied minimum cementatious con-
tent values from figure 5.2.1 is between 400 kg/m3 and 430 kg/m3. The maximum cementi-
tious materials contents shall 500 kg/m3 as the Cl.5.4.5 of IRS CBC. The definition of the
cementitious material as per Cl. 2 of IRS CBC is “Cementitious material means cement or
cement mixed with mineral admixtures like Pozzolanic Fly Ash (PFA), Grounded granulat-
ed blastfurnace slag (GGBFS), micro silica etc.”

Page 38
 Not Exposed to
Soil

Exposed to Soil

Figure 5.2.1 Min. Cement Content, Max. w/c ratio and and min. grade of concrete

5.3 British Standards: BS 8500-1:2015, BS EN 206:2013, BS EN 1538:2013& BS EN 197-1-

2011
Based on the exposures conditions, the table A.5 of the code gives minimum the cement
and its combinations that are to be used to maintain the durability of the structure during
the intended service life of the structure. Table A.5 (Figure 4.3.9 & Figure 4.3.10) assures
a minimum of 100 years of service life but doesnot mention 120 years explicitly as re-
quired by the ODS.
Furthermore, the likely exposures classes are XC1, XC2 and AC1 as derived section 2.3.
From exposures, the design chemical class can be derived from the table A.10 of the code
(Figure 5.3.1) and any additional protection measure (APM) if required can be derived
from table A.11 (Figure 5.3.1).

Note: None of the Additional Protection Measures are used to obtain any relaxation in
durability parameters.

Page 39
Figure 5.3.1 – Design Chemical Class for different Aggressive Chemical Environment
for concrete

Figure 5.3.2 – Additional Portection Measures Required

Page 40
 From Figure 5.3.1, the Design Chemcial class is DC-1. Additional Proetction Measures
(APM) like APM1 in Diaphragm wall concrete, APM3, APM4 and APM5 as screed, wa-
terproofing coat and water proofing arrangements are also provided although they are not
considered for any relaxation in durability parameters.

As the design chemical is DC-1 from the figure 5.3.1, table A.12 (Figure 5.3.3) gives the
limiting composition of concrete for the designated design chemical class.

Figure 5.3.3 – Limiting values of composition and Properties for concrete of Design
Chemical Class
From the figure 5.3.3, it may be noted that all the compositions and properties of concrete
given in the table A.6 of the code is applicable for the present design class, DC-
1.Therefore, the table A.6 of the code is presented in the figure 5.3.4 to arrive at the compo-
sition and properties for the concrete.

Page 41
 Figure 5.3.4 – Cement and combination Types
The BS 8500-1:2015 defines cement and it combinations is Cl.3.12 and Cl.3.1.3 of the
code. Figure 5.3.5 of give the deifination of concrete as per BS 8500-1:2015.

Page 42
 Figure 5.3.5 – Cement and combination -Definition
The BS 8500-1 refers to BS EN 206:2013 for suitability of combinations confirming to the
principles of Equivalent Performance of Combinations Concept (EPCC).

Cement content for Diaphragm walls:

BS EN 1538:2013 gives the cement specifications for the diaphragm walls in Cl.6.3 (Figure
5.3.6).

Figure 5.3.6 – Cement and other Specifications – Diaphragm Walls (BS EN 1538:2013)
As BS EN 1538:2016 refers to Table D2 for cement contents. The Table D2 is presented in
figure 5.3.7.

Page 43
 Figure
5.3.7 – Cement Content – Diaphragm Walls (BS EN 206:2013)
As the Outline Construction Specifications Cl.1.5.1.3(8) advices to adopt a minimum size
of 20mm size aggregates to attain a optimum workability. Therefore, from table D2 of BS
EN 206:2013, the minimum cement content can be taken as 400kg/m3 for diaphragm walls.

Cement content for other Permanent structures:

Referring to table A.6 of the BS 8500-1:2015 (figure 5.3.4) for a design chemical class DC-
1, all the cement and combination types are applicable, but the requirement of sulphate re-
sisting cement is not forseen as given exposure. Hence, from Table A.6 of the BS 8500-
1:2015 (Figure 5.3.4), the most likely classes of cement are CEM I or CEM II B.

Further, the minimum grade of concrete for permanent structure as per the ODS Cl.2.6.1(1)
is M35(cube strength) and maximum water cement ratio is 0.4 as per Cl.1.4.6.9(2). From
the above parameters referring to table A.7 of the BS 8500-1:2015 (Figure 5.3.8), the min-
imum cement content can be between 300 kg/m3to 360 kg/m3 (where the definition of the
cement shall conform BS EN 197-1-2011). Further, references shall be sought from the fig-
ure 4.3.9 and figure 4.3.10.

Figure 5.3.8 – Minimum Cement Content with Aggregate size & W/Cement Ratio

The definition of the cement can be obtained from figure 5.3.9 i.e., table 1 of BS EN 197-1-
2011. The same is presented below for ready reference.

Page 44
Figure 5.3.9 – Cement Type and its constituents

Page 45
 Adopted Cement con-
British Stand- IS
Parameter IRS CBC tent and total Cementi-
ards 456:2000
tous materials

Diaphragm Walls / COLUMNS (M50 grade concrete)

Cement 320 Annexure-2

400 kg/m3 400 kg/m3
/Cemetitiuos kg/m3(Ceme
(Fig. 5.3.9) (Cementitious)
Material ntitious)

0.6 (D.3.3 BS Annexure-2

W/C Ratio 0.45 0.4
EN 206)

All Concrete elements (M40 grade concrete other than Base Slab & Roof Slab)

Cement 300-360 300

400 kg/m3
/Cemetitiuos kg/m3 (Fig. kg/m3(Ceme Annexure-4
(Cementitious)
Material 5.3.8) ntitious)

0.45 (D.3.3
W/C Ratio 0.5 0.4 Annexure-4
BS EN 206)

M40 grade concrete for Base Slab with crystalline admixture

Cement 300-360 300

400 kg/m3
/Cemetitiuos kg/m3 (Fig. kg/m3(Ceme Annexure-3
(Cementitious)
Material 5.3.8) ntitious)

0.45 (D.3.3
W/C Ratio 0.5 0.4 Annexure-3
BS EN 206)

Roof Slab (M50 grade concrete)

Cement 320 Annexure-5

400 kg/m3 400 kg/m3
/Cemetitiuos kg/m3(Ceme
(Fig. 5.3.9) (Cementitious)
Material ntitious)

0.6 (D.3.3 BS Annexure-5

W/C Ratio 0.45 0.4
EN 206)

Table 5 Summary of Cement Content and Water cement Ratio

Page 46
6 PERMEABILITY OF CONCRETE
The ease with which the water and gases penerate through the given thickness of concrete
is called permeability of the concrete. Permeability of the concrete is the key component
that governs the durability of the structure. As the concrete is subject to the attack from ex-
ternal agents like chlorides, sulphates and other chemicals which are detrimental in the cor-
rosion of the reinforcement, the impermeability of the concrete to such chemical is of ut-
most importance. Therefore, item no.4 of Clause Cl.2.4.2 necessitates the impermeability
test of the concrete. It quotes“ The concrete shall be tested for impermeability according to
DIN1048 and ability to resist chloride ion penetration according to ASTM C-1202. Water-
permeability shall not be more than 10 millimetres (at the concrete age of 28 days) and
RCPT value shall not exceed 1000 coulombs at the concret eage of28days.”
Permeability gives a picture of the penetration water with attacking chemicals into the con-
crete and hence inducing the corrosion of the steel. The RCPT gives an idea about the con-
crete resistance to chloride ions which can be catastropic if they induce corrosion in the
embedded metal.
Permeability to Water flow
IS 456:2000 doesnot exclusively mention the limits but the Indian Railway Standards men-
tioned the limits of permeability of concrete is Cl.5.4.2.1 (Figure 6.1)

Figure 6.1 – Permeability as per IRS CBC

The test results for permeability of concrete is presented is figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2 – Permeability Test Results on Concrete Specimens

Page 47
Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT)
RCPT is an indication of resistance to chlorides ions which has a bearing on the induction
of corrosion process in the embeded metal. The RCPT is done as per the ASTM C1202.
The ODS limits the resistance to chlorides to 1000 coulombs in 28 days. The test results are
presented in the figure 6.3 and the classification as per the ASTM C1202 is presented in the
figure 6.4.

Figure 6.3 – RCPT Test Results

Figure 6.4 – Classification of Chlorides Penetration – ASTM C1202

Page 48
7 FIRE RESISTANCE OF MEMBERS
The ODS Cl.2.6.2 requiresall the structural members i.e., load bearing structures to resist
fire upto 4 hours in underground structures and a fire resistance of 2 hours in above ground
ancillary structures. Based on which the Cl.2.6.2 mentions a minimum thickness of the
member exposed to fire load. The Cl.2.6.2 is reproduced for ready reference:

“2.6.2 Fire ResistancePeriod

(1) All structures shall be designed for fire protection as specified by the applicable
standards and codes. Materials specified for the Works shall be non-combustible and
noremit toxic fumes when subject to heat or fire, except where permitted under the
Contract. Inall cases where there is significant fire risk, materials shall be self-
extinguishing, low flammability, low smoke and low toxicity
(2) All the elements of the station structures ( e x c e p t n o n - l o a d b e a r i n g
s e p a r a t i o n w a l l s ) and all other underground structures (including bored and
NATM tunnels) shall be designed for a minimum fire resistance period of 4 hours. The
Fire resistance of non load bearing separation walls shall be determined by their fire
compartmentation requirements.
(3)The minimum element thicknesses for this fire resistance shall be as given in Table
2.1 below.
(4)The minimum values for the covers to reinforcement for this resistance period are
specified inTable 2.2.

Table 2.1 Minimum Element Sizes for 4-hour Fire Protection

Element MinimumSizesfor
4-hourFRP(mm)
RC Slab Thickness 170
RC Beam Width 280
RC Column Sizes 450
RC Wall Thickness: <1% reinforcement 240
RC Wall Thickness: >1% reinforcement 180
Block work Wall Thickness 150
Staircase (waists) 170

2.6.4 Above ground Ancillary Structures

(1) Clauses 2.6.1 to2.6.3 above stipulat durability requirements for underground struc-
tures. For above-ground ancillary structures the following contents shall be adopted.
(2) Not Used
(3) The minimum grade of concrete shall be M35
(4) Fire Resistance Period: All the structural elements shall be designed for a minimum
fire resistance period of 2hours. The minimum element thicknesses for this fire re-
sistance shall be as follows.

Page 49
 Sl.No. Element MinimumDimension (mm)
1 RC Slab 125
2 RC Beams 200
3 RC Columns 300
4 RCWalls 160
5 BlockWorkWall 100

(5) Crack Width Check

Crack width in concrete shall be checked in accordance with latest IRS CBC codes and
its correction slips. The maximum allowable crack width shall be as given in Table2.2
above.”

Cl.21 of IS 456:2000 provide the specifications for fire resistance by a structural elements.
The same is presented in figure 7.1 for ready reference.

Page 50
 Figure 7.1 – Fire Resistance – IS 456:2000

Table 16A of IS 456:2000 (Figure 7.2 & 7.3) provides the minimum member thickness for
fire resistance for different fire ratings.

Figure 7.2 – Member Thickness for Different Fire Loadings – IS 456:2000

Figure 7.3 – Member Thickness for Different Fire Loadings – IS 456:2000

Note: The Tests on the constituents of concrete have been annexed to the document.

Page 51
8 STRAY CURRENT EXPOSURE
8.1 General
Rail systems with dc power systems are recognized as a primary source of stray current. The stray
current damage arising from interaction with such systems is a cumulative effect that is a function
of the current density – current per unit surface area – and the duration over which it occurs.

The reinforcement steel in concrete structures generally provides a low resistance preferential path
for stray current flow although the exact path of the stray current can be complex and will frequent-
ly involve discharge from the structure into the ground. It is at the point of current discharge that
stray current corrosion will occur.

Current transfer from one mesh of reinforcement to another, or even from one rebar to an adjacent
one, can also take place through the concrete. Where current leaves the rebar and enters the con-
crete, corrosion will occur.

8.2 Stray Current from Metro System

While stray current cannot be eliminated, the metro system is designed to minimize and control the
flow of stray current and thus control the risk to the concrete structures.

The stray current flow from Metro system will be time and location variant as a function of train
movement across the system and timetable variations through the operational life. This variance
helps to mitigate the issue by distributing the current over a very large surface area thus reducing
the current density.

8.3 Stray Current Corrosion

Stray current can be viewed as an accelerating factor that provides an external driving force for
‘normal’ corrosion reactions in much the same way as differential aeration effects. The impact and
morphology of the corrosion is similarly a function of oxygen availability. As an external accelerant,
stray current may be present for the life of the structure. As it is driven by the potential gradient
produced between the stray current source and the stray current return point, the behaviour over
time will be a function of the relative electrical resistance of the individual components and how
these change as corrosion progresses.

With good stray current control, the worst case risks will be to the oxygen-facing parts of a struc-
ture where the voluminous nature of the stray current corrosion product causes early cracking of
the concrete cover and thus defeats the durability protection. The absolute magnitude of current
required to give stray current corrosion problems on any individual component can be very low, but
the very large surface area of reinforcement steel that may be affected mitigates this and it is the
current density in terms of amps per square metre of steel that is important. Calculation of metal
loss arising from stray current leakage is determined from Faraday’s laws, which give a relation-
ship for steel that 1A of current flowing for one year will corrode approximately 9.1 kg. Applying this
relationship to a T40 mm rebar in oxygenated concrete, a continuous stray current density of only
1250 μA/m2 will be sufficient to cause cracking over 100 years under worst case conditions.

This factor is derived from a calculation of the volume of steel lost from a 1 meter x 150 μm annu-
lus around 50% of the circumference of a 40 mm diameter bar – 101,000 mm3 - and then using
the density of steel to determine the mass of this corrosion volume – 770 g. Faraday’s relationship
is then used to determine the continuous current required to dissolve 770g of steel over a 100 year

Page 52
 life – 0.85 mA. The allowable current density is then determined from the surface area of 50% of
the bar.

8.4 Mitigation of Stray Current

With respect to the facilities directly associated with the rail system, mitigate traction stray current
through control at source to minimize the magnitude and control its distribution. This includes:

 The provision of a high return circuit conductivity, low rail voltage and good rail insulation;
 The provision of a stray current collection system;
 The installation of a metallic galvanized cage accessible form inside the gallery (4 longitu-
dinal bars (corners of the internal faces) and transversal connections at every 25m) linked
regularly to the main reinforcement of the structure to measure and control the situation of
the electric activity of the reinforcement. Below figure shows the scheme:

Earthing cable
Connections to the reinforced bars

Longitudinal galv. plate linked to transversal galv. plates

Plates exposed linked to the reinforcement and to the

metallic galvanized cage
Transversal galv. plates @ every 25m
Connections to the reinforced bars

Longitudinal galv. plate linked to transversal galv. plates

Transversal galv. plates @ every 25m

Plates exposed linked to the reinforcement and to the metallic galva-
nized cage

Figure 8.1: Scheme for possible reinforcement protection against stray currents in station struc-
tures

Page 53
 Figure 8.2: Scheme for possible reinforcement protection against stray currents in station struc-
tures

Monitoring the stray currents using the internal cage electrically linked with the reinforcement is
highly recommended. In any case, E&M specialty has to agrre with this kind of preventive
measure.

With the provisions of the above measures after agreement and detailed definition of the E&M
specialties, no further assessment of this risk shall be made in the determination of concrete re-
quirements for the associated facilities.

Page 54
9 ALKALI-SILICA REACTION (ASR)

9.1 Alkali-aggregate Reactions

The Alkali-Aggregate Reaction (AAR), also known as Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR), is a chemical
reaction that produces expansive reaction products. This can occur in concrete, causing partial or
total disruption of even the hardest cement matrix.

The reaction can take one of three forms; alkali-silica, alkali-silicate or alkali-carbonate. In all cas-
es, the reaction is between the alkaline components in the concrete and the reactive component of
the aggregate. AAR is only able to proceed and cause damage if there is:

• Sufficient moisture (at least 75% relative humidity)

• Sufficient alkalinity
• A critical amount of reactive aggregate
AAR is prevented by elimination of one or more of these three factors. The selection of an aggre-
gate to avoid the reactive elements is the safest approach, as moisture and alkalis can penetrate
concrete from an external source. The difficulty in achieving this is that some aggregates start to
show signs of AAR many years after construction. As well as standard tests for AAR, including
petrographic examination of thin sections; the history of use of a proposed aggregate source with
the proposed cement should also be investigated.

When the aggregate source is identified, testing should be completed to determine the reactivity
and potential for AAR to occur. It is noted that an alternative to low-alkali cement which is recom-
mended in area of AAR risk is for example the use of cement containing GGBS (Ground, Granu-
lated Blast (Furnace) Slag).

10 REINFORCEMENT CORROSION
Corrosion of steel embedded in concrete will only occur if the concrete is affected by corrosive
species (ie chlorides) that break down the passive film. No concrete is entirely impervious and if
there are corrosive species in the surrounding environment they will eventually reach the steel,
allowing corrosion to start, provided there is sufficient oxygen present.

It should be noted that under certain conditions, (limited oxygen, high chloride), steel in concrete
can corrode to a form of corrosion product ('black rust') that has a volume similar to the original
steel. In these circumstances there may be no visible signs of deterioration on the surface of the
concrete.

The exposure conditions based on the chemical test results of soil and ground water is moderate
exposure. In this case concrete can be made durable by suitable choice of cement content, mini-
mum cover and water cement ratio related with the compressive strength value. This exposure
class will not cause the corrosion of the reinforcement. Hence, reinforcement steel bars conforming
to IS 1786 should be adopted for reinforced concrete. With the existing exposure condition, the
protective coating or inhibitor solution is not recommended for reinforcement steel bar and struc-
tural steel. However it has been provided as per contract requirement.

Page 55
11 CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION, FAILURE MECHANISM,
MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING

11.1 Construction Method

Station structures are built as following:

 constructing D-wall from ground level

 excavating the soil in the area limited by the D-walls perimeter
 installing different levels of struts and wallers/slabs conforming to the excavation progress
 monitoring water-table level, movements and level of the excavation
 once reached bottom level, following works are carried out
 Provide PCC and the water proofing membrane along with protection layers as per contract.
 install reinforcement of the bottom slab (including electrical connections to the reinforcement
for discipation of stray currents)
 install shutters and water stop joints
 concreting the bottom slab completed
 Install waterproofing membrane and protection layer prior to start backfilling process over the
top slab
 start backfilling process over the level of the top slab.
 complete internal metallic galvanized cage and plates all electrically connected to the
reinforcement of the station structure.

11.2 Failure Mechanism

The failure mechanism foreseen, in this class of structures constructed with slabs and walls made
inside a shaft contained by other methods, is the corrosion of the reinforcement. The cause that
trigger the corrosion due to the specific environmetal aggressiveness is the carbonation of the
concrete (loss of the passive protection of the concrete around the steel bars).

The carbonation process will be more severe on those structures that are exposed to an environ-
ment where the RH is in the range of 50 to 70%. When the RH is higher than 70%, the concrete
pores tend to saturate with water making the diffusion of C02 through the concrete very slow. On
the other hand, when the relative humidity is lower than 50%, the pores tend to become dry and
the dissolution of Ca(OH) and C02 necessary for the carbonation reaction does not takes place.

The mechanism is progressive if no maintenance measure are adopted and may lead to failures.

11.3 Significance of the Failure

If the reinforcement is generally corroded, the cut & cover structure lose its servicability. The
extension and degree of the corrosion has to be controlled prior to reach this state. With the
measures proposed, the working life of 120 years can be reached without major repairs.

Controls and preventive and corrective measures have to be done along the working life of the
structure.

Page 56
Visual inspections and non destructive and destructive test have to be carry out to define what
measure has to be taken to face any symptom of damage.

Visual inspections have to be done to detect:

 wet patches on the concrete faces

 increase in number and opening for the cracks
 patches with oxide residues
 shelling on the concrete surface
 visible voids
 visible fines patches because water infiltration through joints or other constructive elements
(hoses or bars to join or stabilize form works for concrete the walls)
Non destructive tests can be carried out when visual inspection detects pathologies or when
programmed. Destructive tests can also be carried out to confirm origin, correlate effects and
causes or to trace evolution of the pathologies.

Usual preventive and corrective measures without major repair being necessary is assumed can
happen to reach the assumed period for which the structure or a part of it is to be used for its
intended purpose.

For this structure, regular control and regular preventive maintenance minimize the risk of general
failure of the structure by corrosion of the reinforcement under the exposure defined. The exposure
for the Internal faces of the structure and the external faces have been considered as per codel
provisions.

Corrosion of the reinforcement by stray currents can be controlled having acces to the
reinforcement by electrical connections and thereby doing earthing of the stray currents.

General corrosion of the reinforccement has major significance for the reinforcement located at the
external faces of the cut & cover cross section. Corrective measures could be adopted in this case
to repair the steel and the concrete.

11.4 Maintenance and Monitoring

No accessibility of the external face of the structure is foreseen and the waterproofing membrane
is not considered for durability purposes accordingly with reccomendation of BS 8500-1: 2015 and
mandatory indication of IS 456:2000.

Repair of the concrete at the external faces is not possibe. Control of the carbonation process can
be done by non destructive or destructive tests.

Page 57
Non destructive

 Half-cell Potential Measurement

Non-destructive methods of testing
reinforcement corrosion require the use
of a half-cell system and high-impedance
voltmeters. This system is capable of
detecting the current flow of ion migration
through the concrete between anodic
and cathodic sites by measuring the
resultant equipotential lines (Elsener,
Müller, Suter, & Böhni, 1990). The
concrete functions as an electrolyte and
the risk of corrosion may be related
empirically to the measured potential
difference that leads to corrosion.

Figure 11.1: Schematic drawing of half-cell apparatus

The standard guideline on application and interpretation of reinforcement corrosion testing is

ASTM C 876 - 91: Standard Test Method for HalfCell Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing Steel in
Concrete. The conditions for the successful testing are exposure and electrical continuity of
reinforcement in the test area. According to ASTM 876, there is a:

 90% probability of active corrosion if negative potential is more than -350mV;

 90% probability of no corrosion if negative potential is less than -200mV ;

 Uncertainty in corrosion if negative potential is between -350mV and -200mV.

The half-cell potential test is a useful technique to locate likely active areas of corrosion. It is
recommended that potential surveys be supplemented with tests for carbonation (destructive) and
soluble chloride ion content (destructive) for more accurate results.

Phases of corrosion activity As measured by

Copper Half-cell Silver Half-cell

Initial phase – Corrosion < -200 mV < -500 mV

activity not taking place

Transient phase – Corrosion -200 mV to -350 mV 500 mV to -700 mV

activity uncertain

Final phase – Corrosion oc- > -350 mV > -700 mV

curring positively

Table 11.1: Phases of reinforcement corrosion by Half-cell potential measure

Page 58
 Surface potential measuring technique
In ‘Half-cell Potential Test’, electrical connection to reinforcing bar is necessary to obtain potential
measurements. Normally with connection at one place, sufficient number of readings can be ob-
tained. Sometimes, it may not be possible to give connection to reinforcement. In such cases, the
other method known as ‘surface potential measuring technique’ may be suitable. This method uses
two reference electrodes and no electrical connection to reinforcement is necessary. A potential
difference of 30 mV indicates that steel remains in passive condition and if it is more than 100 mV,
it indicates active corrosion conditions.

Destructive

 Test for Carbonation, pH and Chloride Content of concrete

Carbonation of concrete in cover results in loss of protection to the steel against corrosion. The
depth of carbonation can be measured by spraying the freshly fractured concrete surface with a
0.2% solution of phenolphthalein in ethanol. Since phenolphthalein is a pH indicator, the magneta
(pink colour) areas represent uncarbonated concrete and the remaining (colourless) portion, the
carbonated area. The change in colour occurs at around pH 10 of concrete. The test must be ap-
plied only to freshly exposed surfaces, because reaction with atmospheric carbon dioxide starts
immediately. Also it should be ensured that the carbonated surface is not contaminated with dust
from uncarbonated concrete. pH indicators are also now commercially available for determining
the pH of concrete in different ranges. Relating carbonation depth to concrete cover is one of the
main indicators of corrosion.

The presence of chloride in concrete may be contributory factor towards corrosion of reinforce-
ment. Portable equipment have become available for rapid on-site measurement of chloride con-
tent of concrete.

Similar equipment are available for rapid determination of sulphates and alkali in concrete. A rotary
percussion drill is used to collect a pulverised sample of concrete and the chlorides are extracted
by a special acid. The amount of acid soluble chloride is determined directly by a chloride sensitive
electrode connected to a electrometer. If different samples are obtained from different concrete
depths, it can be established whether the chloride contamination was there in the original concrete
or the same has come from the environment. The chloride content of concrete can also be deter-
mined by chemical analysis of concrete in the laboratory

Destructive tests means that the concrete has to be drilled witout damaging the waterproofing
membrane. To avoid this kind of problems, might be recommended:

 identify the points (areas) where the concrete can be drilled with a visible indication
 these points have to be distributed along the structure to obtain representation of all the
structure: bottom slab, walls and top slab
 these points cannot hamper the installation of the metro equipment inside the gallery
 these points have to be referred and have visible permanent plates where the reference and
the thickness of the concrete are indicated. Traceability along the time of the situtation of the
concrete around these points is required. So, several samples have to be able to be taken

Page 59
 along the years around these particualr points. Because of that, area is a better word to
design these points
 at these points a protective layer with enough dimension and thickess has to be placed
between the concrete and the water proofing membrane to avoid any damage during the
sample extraction (for instance a 4cm thick plate of polysterene high density 150cmx150cm
between the waterproofing membrane and the concrete face at these monitoring points)
 when possible, the distribution of the reinforcement at these points has to allow the extraction
of the samples without cutting the reinforcement
 once the sample is extracted, the void has to be backfilled with a proper mortar or
microconcrete with similar characterisitcs to the concrete at t0 age.

Internal faces have to be submitted to visual inspection every year to detect sympthoms of
concrete or reinforcement degradation. Visual inspection of concrete structure is carried out before
any intended non-destructive test. Visual inspections provides information on type of concrete
damage, their possible causes and type of Non Destructuve Test suitable for further investigation.
Visual inspection is carried out by experienced civil engineers who can interpret information from
the damages in the concrete structure.

All concrete structures deteriorate with time. The anatomy of life cycle of a typical concrete
structure is shown in next figure. Following a trouble-free period, the deterioration continues to
build up and the cumulative damage will require a repair at some stage to restore its original
strength. Thereafter, the cycle is repeated again as shown below. Accordingly, all structures
should be inspected periodically. In an inspection, a process or object is viewed closely with critical
appraisal. Inspections are usually carried out by an inspector or a professional engineer.

Figure 11.2: Shape of Life Cycle for a Structure

Monitoring of the corrosion process is recommended to do every 5 years using, initially, non
destructive methods. If some doubts appears after obtaining the results of the non destructive
methods, destructive methods should be applied (state of the art regarding technology and tests
procedures can be develpoped meanwhile).

Page 60
Monitoring the stray currents using the internal cage electrically linked with the reinfircement is
highly recommended. In any case, E&M specialty has to agree with this kind of preventive
measure.

Preventive actions to mitigate the corrosion process, if detected, are:

 install anodic or cathodic protection linked electrically to the bars. Proposed preventive cage
to control stray currents can serve for this purpose also. This solution is useful for the
external bars also (external faces)
 seal detected cracks. This solution is only useful for exposed faces (internal faces)
 coating the concrete surface to reduce the permeability of the concrete
 coating the bars at specific places to retrieve its passivation layer. This solution is only useful
for exposed faces (internal faces)

Corrective measures to repair the structure because loss of serviciability, are:

 refurbishment of the structure with partial demolitions of the concrete. This solution is
possible for exposed faces (internal faces) and much more complicated for the external
faces. To reach them, treatments around the structure should be done to create stable
conditions for the demolitions and waterproffing protection would require to be also repaired
probabilly.

11.5 Necessity of providing additional protection.

In this case, once considered all these aspects:

 the agressivennes of the exposure already defined,

 the proposed measures for the concrete taking under cosnideration the standards and the
Tender specifications,
 the proposed measures for monitor and control the corrosion process
we conclude that no additional protection is necessary to reach a working life of 120 years without
majors corrective repairs of the structure.

12 CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT WATERPROOFING PROTECTION AND SEAL-

ING DETAILS
As specified by Tender, waterproofing membrane has to be installed. “Waterproofing treatment for
the base slabs to be done by protective PVC membrane and its concrete having crystalline growth
admixture type for entire element.”

As designers, a PVC waterproofing membrane with next characterisitcs is proposed:

Page 61
 Figure 12.1: Waterproofing membrane PVC (poly-vinyl-chloride)

Layers of protective felt have to be installed to protetc the integrity of the PVC. The material
proposed is a continuous filament non-woven poly-propylene geotextile of uniform thickness and
surface texture meeting the requirements listed below:

Property Specified value Standard

Unit weight 500 g/m2 min. DIN 53854

Thickness at 0.0s bar 3,9 mm min. DIN 53855/3

Thickness at 2.0 bar 1,9 mm min. DIN 53855/3

Tensile strenght 100 N/5cm min. DIN 53857/2

Extension at break 70% min. DIN 53857/2

Extension at 30% 0f tensile 20% min. DIN 53857/2

strength

Permeability in plane

at 0.0s bar 5x10-1 cm/s min.

at 2.00 bar 5x10-2 cm/s min.

Resistance against acid and Loss of strength 10% max. SN 640550

alkaline solutions, pH 2-13
DIN 53857/2

Resistance to punching 2000N DIN 54307

Figure 12.2: Felt’s characteristics

Top slab has to be protected by waterproofing and as specified in tender,

Page 62
“The spray cold applied polymer membrane shall be suitable for use in an ambient temperature

range not greater than 30-degree C.”

The polymer membrane shall meet or surpass the following requirements: -

Figure 12.3: Cross section with waterproofing layer of bottom slab

Water stops embedded into the concrete have to be installed to welded the waterproofing longitu-
dinally and transversally along the length.

Page 63
ANNEXURE 1 - TEST RESULTS

Page 64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
ANNEXURE – 2

165
166
167
168
ANNEXURE – 3

169
170
171
172
173
ANNEXURE - 4

174
175
176
177
ANNEXURE - 

178
179
180
181
182