PROPOSALS FOR A DRAFT CODE FOR

DESIGNING DURABLE CONCRETE STRUCTURES

IN THE ARABIAN GULF

M.N. Haque*, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

Civil Engineering Department, Kuwait University

‫اﻟﺨﻼﺻــﺔ‬
ّ ‫ُﺗـ‬
‫ﺤﺘـﻢ اﻟﺒـﻴﺌﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ وﺟﻮد إﺟﺮاءات ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻴﺎر اﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ أﺑﺮز اﻟﻤﺸﺎآﻞ‬
.‫ وﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗـﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻣﻨﻄﻘـﺔ اﻟﺠﺰﻳﺮة اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ إﻟﻰ ﺟﺰء ﺣﺎر وﻧﺎﺷﻒ وﺟﺰء ﺣﺎر ورﻃﺐ‬.‫ﻓﻲ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ اﻟﻤﻨﺸﺂت اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ وﺑﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺑﺤﺎث اﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ واﻟﺨﺒﺮة‬.‫وهﻨﺎك ﺗـﻘﺴﻴﻤﺎت أﺧﺮى ﻟﻜﻞ ﺟﺰء وﻓﻘﺎً ﻟﻠﻤﺆﺛﺮات اﻟﺴﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ دﻳﻤﻮﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ‬
‫ وهﺬﻩ اﻻﻗـﺘﺮاﺣﺎت ﻧﻮﻋﻴﺔ وآﻤﻴﺔ‬.‫ ُوﺿﻌﺖ اﻗـﺘﺮاﺣﺎت ﺿﺮورﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻊ اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ‬،‫اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ‬
‫ ﺗﻤﺜـﻞ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﺑﺪاﻳﺔً ﻹﻋﺪاد ﻣﻌﻴﺎر ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﺔ‬.‫ﻟﻠﺘﺄآﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ اﻟﻤﺘﻌﺪدة ﻓﻲ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ اﻟﺨﻠﻄﺔ اﻟﺨﺮﺳﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
.‫ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻮﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ‬
ABSTRACT
The severity of the Arabian Gulf environment demands certain provisions for a
design code that would cater to local challenges in concreting. With this view in mind,
an apparent climatic divide was identified for the Arabian Peninsula viz. Hot–Dry and
Hot–Humid zones which were further classified into an order of exposures, detailing
the potential dangers to concrete durability. Moreover, suggestions are included based
on both research and experience in the Gulf, to practice essential quantity and quality
checks on concrete mix design parameters. It is intended that this contribution would
help formulate a draft design code respecting concrete durability in this part of the
world.
Key words: Cement, Codes, Compressive Strength, Concrete Durability, Cover,
Climate, Curing, Exposure, Hot–Dry Zone, Hot–Humid Zone, Threshold Limits.

*Address for Correspondence:

Civil Engineering Department
Kuwait University
P.O. Box 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait
e-mail: naseer@civil.kuniv.edu.kw

Paper Received 21 February 2005; Revised 19 June 2005; Accepted 24 October 2005.

June 2006 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. 205
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

PROPOSALS FOR A DRAFT CODE FOR DESIGNING DURABLE CONCRETE

STRUCTURES IN THE ARABIAN GULF

1. INTRODUCTION
Designers and engineers, world over, have relied on international building codes of practice for concrete construction
which are more suited for their countries of origin. The lack of a local code in a region like the Arabian Gulf makes it
difficult to address the regional problems. A local code of practice would focus more on the specific challenges with
regard to harsh climate, exposure, and materials. ACI-318 [1] is used to a significant extent as a guide to building in the
Gulf. Certain changes or suggestions in its documentation with respect to the Arabian Gulf would help localize the code
and concentrate much more on durable construction.
It is a common practice to focus more on the strength of concrete, treating it as the only measure of durability. But it
should be realized that durability is more than just cube/cylindrical crushing strength. It involves permeability of
concrete, cover provided to reinforcement, and more importantly, the ambient environment. In view of the above, today,
codes such as ACI-318 [1], AS 3600 [2], and EuroCode [3]; all devote an entire section to durability of concrete.
Also, with immense researched knowledge on the intricacies of concrete chemistry, it would be easier to adopt better
concreting operations in the codes by including the type and amount of cement, aggregate, curing period and methods,
water–cement ratios, cover, and other additional provisions to ensure durability of the structures in the multifaceted
environment of the Gulf.

2. PROBLEMS IN THE GULF

The Gulf weather conditions are mostly associated with hot weather. Hot weather as far as concrete is concerned is:
high ambient temperature and its variation; low relative humidity; high solar radiation; and winds [4]. These conditions
are not very conducive to achieving the design life of concrete structures. Here, the weather can fluctuate between
summer temperatures reaching nearly 50ºC and winter temperatures with a minimum of 18ºC [5]. Relative humidity
follows a similar pattern ranging between 5% and 90% from inland to coastal regions respectively. Structures have to be
built to accommodate these extreme highs and lows in climate statistics.
The common problems are discussed further. The rate of cement hydration can be adversely affected during hot
weather. The outside temperature together with the process of hydration can detrimentally increase the temperature of
concrete rapidly by which the final product may not ultimately reach its design strength. Initial setting is also very rapid
and thus decreases slump. As a general rule, there is an approximate 20 mm change in slump for every 10ºC rise in
concrete temperature [6]. Likewise, a rise in concrete temperature increases the water demand of the concrete mix [6].
But addition of more water would reduce the water tightness, strength, and durability of concrete. There is also a
likelihood of increased drying shrinkage when extra water is added [7]. Thermal cracking can occur with temperature
fluctuations throughout the day [8]. Also, plastic shrinkage cracking is typically associated with this region due to high
concrete temperature, low relative humidity, and high wind speeds.
Water bodies that surround the Peninsula, such as the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea, are primary bearers
of different salts. As a fact, the Arabian waters record high levels of salinity, where chloride content is nearly 1.6 to
2 times higher than the waters of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic [9]. Occasional rains followed by a rapid rate of
evaporation leave cracks on concrete surfaces, thus leaving entry zones for easy attack by salts, sea water, and salt-
contaminated dust.
Raw materials are deleterious when local aggregates with a high salt content and dust-like texture are used for making
concrete. Zein Al-Abideen of Saudi Arabia has presented some interesting features of aggregates and their variability in
the region of Saudi Arabia and the adjoining Gulf states [10]. His findings cover the geology, density, gradation, and
quality of aggregates throughout the region. The geology of the region shows that limestone, a sedimentary rock, is
spread mostly around the Gulf region and is treated as coarse aggregate. These rocks are mostly weak and absorb a lot
of water.

206 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. June 2006
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

3. DIVISION OF THE ARABIAN PENINSULA INTO CLIMATIC ZONES

An analysis of the climate, geology, and location of the Arabian Peninsula reveals that the region can be broadly
classified into two zones. It is evident that some parts of the region are predominantly in the vicinity of water bodies
while some are around the inland desert areas. The authors felt that the division of the Peninsula into Hot–Dry
( predominantly inland) and Hot–Humid ( prominently coastal) zones as illustrated in Figure 1 would enable better
concreting practices respecting the nature and location of each zone. The following sections will discuss more on the
idea behind zoning.

Figure 1. Key cities in the hot–dry and hot– humid zones of the Arabian Peninsula.

4. TYPES OF EXPOSURE CONDITIONS IN THE ARABIAN GULF

The Arabian (Persian) Gulf is located to the east of the Peninsula and several condition surveys [9] conducted on
structures in the adjoining littoral states have recorded premature concrete deterioration. Even a layman would associate
this with hot and salty gulf conditions. But there is more to it than meets the eye. The ‘hot–dry’ and ‘hot–humid’ zones
of the Gulf are in fact a blend of exposures; highlighted as ‘microclimates’ (immediate surroundings of a structure) in
publications by Brian Sharp [11], Peter Fookes [12], and many others. This paper proceeds to classify these exposures
based on both severity and location from the sea lending a clear picture on the extent of ‘hot–dry’ and ‘hot–humid’
conditions.

Classification Based on Degree of Threat to Concrete

This classification is described in Table 1 and is similar to that found in design codes such BS: 8110: Part I: 1985 [13]
and IS: 456 – 1994 [14].

June 2006 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. 207
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

Table 1. Classification Based on Degree of Threat.

Exposure Description

Structures protected from harsh conditions except for a brief period of exposure to normal weather conditions
Mild
during construction.

Structures submerged in water, structures sheltered from rains, salt spray, and heavy winds, structures exposed
Moderate
to dry winds, underground structures.

Structures exposed to spray or abrasive action of sea water, alternate wetting and drying, structures exposed to
Severe
corrosive fumes in industrial areas, underground structures.

Classification Based on Proximity to the Sea

A survey of structures conducted in Kuwait revealed Surface Chloride build-up (2 km from sea)
some interesting conclusions as to how their location from
0.7

Chloride (% wt. of cement)

the sea could affect the rate of chloride and sulfate ingress 0.6
and also the depth of carbonation in concrete [15, 16]. 0.5
Figures 2–6 validate this idea of exposure classification 0.4 Actual Data

where structures located within 0 –2 km from the sea are 0.3 Linear (Actual Data)
0.2
recognized as coastal, those within 3 –10 km are near- 0.1
coastal and those above 10 km are inland. For a uniform 0

rate of surface chloride build-up, coastal structures 2 4 6 8 10

Time in years
(Figure 2) are found to have a yearly chloride increment of
0.16 kg/m3 of concrete while it is nearly less than half of
Figure 2. Surface chloride build-up rate near the coast.
that (0.07 kg/m3) for inland structures (Figure 3) [15].
These values, though highly conservative, merely yield a Surface Chloride build-up (12 km from sea)
base for comparison since only a combination of factors
(cover, concrete quality, etc.) can decide the exact rate of 0.35
Chloride (% wt. of cement)

0.3
chloride build-up on the surface. Likewise, plots showing
0.25
the chloride content, sulfate content, and carbonation depths 0.2 Actual Data
in structures of the same age exhibit interesting variations 0.15 Linear (Actual Data)

with distance from the sea. The chloride profile (Figure 4) 0.1
0.05
has a declining slope indicating the decreasing severity of 0
sea exposure with distance [15]. The sulfate profile 2 4 6 8 10

(Figure 5) records high values both near the coast and Time in years

further inland since soils and groundwater here are rich in

sulfates [15]. The carbonation profile (Figure 6) has high
values (12 –14 mm) near the coast due to high heat and
relative humidity; decreases with decreasing humidity as it
approaches inland, and rises further inland. Haque and
Figure 3. Surface chloride build-up rate further inland.
Chloride profile with distance from the sea
0.7

Al-Khaiat have speculated on this rise in areas inland, 0.6

Chloride (% wt. of cement)

possibly due to the vast drop in temperature during the night 0.5

[16]. All this goes to say that structures located near the 0.4

coast have a greater risk of concrete deterioration such as 0.3

reinforcement corrosion, while structures inland face other 0.2

challenges arising from climate and soil conditions. 0.1

0
Based on the observed patterns, it was decided to classify 0 10 20 30 40 50

exposures as marine, coastal, inland, and low-risk zones. Distance from sea (km)

This would help key out the potential causes of deterioration

in concrete structures such as cracking, spalling and Figure 4. Chloride–distance profile.

208 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. June 2006
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

staining, to name a few and eventually predict service-life. Table 2 presents a possible classification of the Arabian Gulf
into exposure zones which are given the acronyms GM (Gulf Marine), GC (Gulf Coastal), GI (Gulf Inland), and
GL (Gulf Low-Risk).

Sulfate profile with distance from the sea Carbonation Depth with distance from the sea

8 16
7 14

Depth of carbonation (mm)

Sulfates (% wt. of cement)

6 12
5 10
4 8

3 6

2 4

1 2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from sea (km) Distance from sea (km)

Figure 5. Sulfate–distance profile. Figure 6. Carbonation depth–distance profile.

Table 2. Classification Based on Distance from the Sea.

Distance from
Exposure Subdivision Description of attack
sea

GM 1 Spray • Active corrosion due to aerosols and salts

• Acute chloride-induced corrosion due to sea waves and current

Gulf 0 –100 m GM 2 Splash / tidal
abrasion
Marine GM within the
Zone shore • Minimum corrosion risk
GM 3 Submerged • Chloride and sulfate decomposition
• Biological attack

• Dampness on structures attracting salts and fungal growth

Gulf 100 m from
• Chloride build-up from salt spray, soils and ground water
Coastal GC the shore up to -
Zone 10 km • Carbonation due to high relative humidity (55–75%)
• Sulfate-rich coastal soils induce sulfate attack

Within
capillary-rise
• Attack due to sulfates and chlorides present in soil and
GI A zone (i.e. 3m
groundwater from either natural or industrial sources
Gulf or less above
Inland GI 10 –50 km water table)
Zone
Above
• Deterioration due to salt-weathering /carbonation and /or dry
GIB capillary-rise
winds carrying aggressive salts
zone

Gulf
50 km and
Low-Risk GL - • Occurrence of contamination or attack is low
above
Zone

June 2006 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. 209
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

Remarks on the Two Groups of Classifications

The ‘hot–dry’ and ‘hot–humid’ climates are better understood in the order of predominance of specific Gulf exposures
(second group of classification) as presented in Table 3. Furthermore, these exposures can be attributed to a certain
degree of severity where Figure 7 graphically illustrates the link between the two classes of exposure. Worth noting in
this figure is that the GI B exposure is grouped under 3 different categories; the reason being when GI B exposure involves
salt weathering, the danger can be highly moderate to severe. At the same time, GI B exposure involving carbonation
would be of moderate threat whereas that involving dry winds laden with salts, would only have a mild to moderate
degree of threat.

Table 3. Exposures in the Descending Order of Predominance for each Zone.

Hot–Dry Zone Hot–Humid Zone

GI GM

GL GC

Severity of Exposures

GM1, GM2

GIB, GIA, GC

GIB

GIB, GM3
GL
-M d er e
ild M sev ver
od era e
er te
e- e

M e
at S

at
ild
o
er
od
M

Figure 7. Relationship model between the two classes of exposure.

5. CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY IN THE ARABIAN GULF — QUANTITY AND QUALITY CONTROL FOR
DURABILITY
Cement
Along with other factors, the amount of Portland cement used in concrete is hugely responsible for the ill-effects of
cracking due to plastic shrinkage and thermal gradients resulting from cement hydration in the region [17]. The higher
the cement content, the greater is the magnitude of cracks. Also the quality of cement used greatly controls the
permeability of the hydrated paste. The authors suggest that an amount of Portland cement maintained at 300 to
400 kg/m3 of concrete along with appropriate amounts of cement replacement materials like silica fume, fly ash, and
ground granulated blast furnace slag should be sufficient to obtain concrete of adequate strength, density and durability
for the Gulf. Strictly speaking, the addition of these materials should be administered carefully within the specified
limits because an oversight would alter the permeability and other properties of concrete. Moreover, proper and timely
curing is necessary to prevent early-age plastic and drying shrinkage cracking in the case of silica fume addition whereas
it is essential in the development of a refined pore structure in the case of fly ash addition [18].

210 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. June 2006
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

Cover
The cover to reinforcement is the breastplate of concrete in aggressive exposure. A small cover made with poor-
quality concrete has a higher tendency to crack due to heat and moisture movements thereby facilitating easy approach
paths for salt ingress. Apparently, the rate of progress of carbonation and chlorides in concrete could be predicted as a
function of the square root of time [19] as shown in Equation (1) (t is the time of measurement in years).

Depth = k t . (1)

On study, it is observed that ‘k’ has a value of 4.5 mm/y1/2 and above for chloride penetration in hot–humid exposures
whereas it is below 4 mm/y1/2 in hot–dry exposures for concrete strengths ranging from 20 to 30 MPa. At the same time,
carbonation penetrates at a rate ‘k’ equivalent to 10 times ‘B’, where ‘B’ is a constant depending on the strength of
concrete and storage conditions [20]. Haque and Al-Khaiat have investigated the values of ‘B’ in a survey conducted on
various structures in Kuwait. Its value was approximated as 0.3 for concrete in strengths ranging from 30 to 50 MPa
[16]. These values of penetration rates are thought to be instrumental in determining proper covers for concrete
structures exposed to different environments.
Curing
This might be considered a low-key and tedious operation but its neglect, especially in the Gulf, could highly impair
the concrete, resulting huge costs in terms of repair of cracks and reconstruction. Curing can be done both by external
wetting and membranes. However, Matta [21] described that hessian (burlap), which is the common means of
membrane curing in the Gulf, has a tendency to increase permeability in concrete with time because hessian dries
quickly and draws out moisture from within concrete. Hence, membrane curing should not be counted as a sole
alternative to wet curing. Rather both should go hand in hand such that hessian is kept wet permanently. Regarding the
duration of curing, Haque [22] recommended that a mandatory initial curing period of 7 days would be satisfactory in
achieving good quality concrete. Moreover, it goes without saying, sea or brackish water should never be used for
curing.
Minimum Compressive Strength
It was a long-held myth that strength and durability of concrete are synonymous [23], when, in reality, strength is only
one of the indicators of durability. Today, high strength is achieved by implementing high quality materials, lower
water–cement ratios, state-of-the-art superplasticisers [24], and so on. Haque and Khaiat [25] recommend that structural
reinforced concrete in the Gulf should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 30 MPa. This is essential to
ward off the effects of severe exposure.

Additional Protection of Reinforcement

Reinforcement holds out much longer in a corrosion-free, passive environment offered by concrete, but this fails when
concrete renders itself inadequate with time in a hot and aggressive environment. Without mentioning the importance of
cement, cover, and curing all over again, protection in ordinary concrete is also ensured when water–cement ratios are
kept low. Such concretes are found to have slower chloride penetration and lesser sensitivity to carbonation and external
chemical attack [26]. Furthermore, proper structural detailing of reinforcement bars, special surface coatings for
concrete [27], the use of epoxy coated or galvanized steel, stainless steel [28] etc. would provide much better resistance
to corrosion, thereby extending service-life considerably.
It is also advised that concrete mixes adhere to the threshold limits set for chlorides due to huge risks of corrosion
from external salt contamination encountered in the Gulf. The critical chloride content that would trigger corrosion in
reinforcement varies from code to code [29]. Matta [21] had reported a chloride content of 0.8 to 1.5 kg/m3 of concrete
to be the threshold limit whereas a limiting range of 0.6 to 0.9 kg of chloride per m3 of concrete in another account forms
a more conservative edge [15].
Conforming to Gulf standards, it is recommended that a total (acid-soluble) chloride content of nearly 0.2% by weight
of cement and 0.4% by weight of cement would serve as reasonable threshold limits for highly aggressive and moderate

June 2006 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. 211
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

exposures respectively. Table 4 presents these limits for reinforced concrete using ordinary Portland cement in different
exposures. Haque and Al-Khaiat have also maintained that chloride contamination of the mix ingredients should never
exceed 0.1% by weight of cement [15].

Table 4. Suggested Limits for Chlorides in Concrete at the Time of Placing.

Max. acid soluble chlorides

Type of exposure
(% weight of cement)

Mild 0.8

Moderate 0.4

Severe 0.15 – 0.2

Dastidar and Khalili [30] stated from their experience in the Gulf that the maximum chloride content which is unlikely
to cause corrosion at a serious rate in uncarbonated concrete is about 0.5% by weight of cement. In Table 4, this theory
would fit the criteria for moderate exposure (likelihood of carbonation) where 0.4% is the limit set for carbonated
concrete.
Protection from Sulfate Attack
Sulfate contamination from both inherent mix ingredients and external sources (soil and groundwater) has a
disintegrating effect on concrete causing the formation of large cracks. Sulfate attack can be controlled by the use of
highly impermeable concrete and more recently, surface coatings provide an added safeguard for footings and
foundations located in areas susceptible to a rise in ground water table. Guides like the CIRIA [31] recommend that the
amount of water soluble sulfates in the concrete mix be limited to 4% by weight of cement. Haque and Al-Khaiat have
stated that sulfate contamination in the concrete mix should not be allowed to exceed 2% by weight of cement which is
in keeping with Gulf standards [15].
Based on the above information, the authors have furnished appropriate OPC mix design parameters corresponding to
all exposures relative to their location from the sea in Table 5. This table is designed to serve as a check for concrete
practitioners in the Arabian Gulf.
For the reader’s understanding, it must be observed that most of the quantities in the table are provided as a range.
This is because the GM, GC, GI, and GL exposures vary in their degree of severity from ‘mild’ to ‘severe’. Also, it is
recommended to adopt rich mixes (cement content ranging from 300 to 450 kg/m3 of concrete) using low water–cement
ratios with suitable plasticizers, since Bader [32] had reported an excellent durability performance with such mixes even
in harsh marine conditions. From among the minimum covers specified, 60 to 80 mm is thought to be sufficient for the
GM (Gulf Marine) exposure while CIRIA [31] states at least 100 mm for its GM equivalent. It must be argued that a
huge cover of 100 mm or more would invite cracks from service loads or drying shrinkage [33], therefore spelling
greater risks to structural integrity.

Table 5 Recommended Mix Design Parameters for Reinforced Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete in the Arabian Gulf.

Maximum water– Minimum 28-day compressive

Type of Exposure Minimum Cover (mm)
cement ratio strength (MPa)

GM (Gulf Marine) 60 – 80 0.35 – 0.4 35 – 45

GC (Gulf Coastal) 60 –70 0.4 35 – 40

GI (Gulf Inland) 50 – 60 0.45 30 – 45

GL (Gulf Low-risk) 25 – 40 0.5 30

212 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. June 2006
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

6. CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions provide the gist of the concepts discussed so far.
1. Studies reveal that exposures in the Gulf can be grouped in accordance with their degree of severity and proximity
to the sea. It is established that GM (Gulf Marine) and GC (Gulf Coastal) exposures come rightly under the hot–
humid zone whereas GI (Gulf Inland) and GL (Gulf Low-Risk zone) are more a part of the hot–dry zone. In other
words, the Arabian Gulf is not influenced by a single climatic pattern but rather is an impressive accumulation of
extreme humid conditions near the coast and lesser humid conditions, inland. This accounts for the accelerated
progress of chlorides, sulfates, and carbonation in structures near the coast, whilst the same deterioration
mechanisms occur inland due to the characteristic heat and geological conditions.
2. Cement content in the range of 300 to 400 kg/m3 of concrete is satisfactory to avoid plastic shrinkage cracks and
thermal cracks due to the heat resulting from cement hydration.
3. It is recommended to maintain the maximum water–cement ratios in ordinary Portland cement concrete in the range
of 0.35 to 0.5 for Gulf exposures according to their varying severity. This must be implemented provided
workability of the mix is ensured.
4. Concrete structures are much sturdier against deterioration when they possess a minimum compressive strength of
30 to 45 MPa.
5. Curing should never be ignored or mismanaged especially during the first one week of placing. Concrete covers
have been selected for each exposure and must be adhered to rigorously since it determines the progressive entry of
harmful salts into concrete.
6. Threshold limits set for both chlorides and sulfates provide helpful checks in maintaining high performance and
reliability of concrete in the Gulf.
7. The paper does not comment on the properties of aggregates to be used and the skills required for effective
workmanship in construction. These factors also significantly contribute to high quality concrete.
In summary, the authors have tried to furnish details relating to durability of concrete on the grounds of
experimentation and in-depth study. It is envisaged that this information would assist engineers and researchers involved
in the field to unitedly combine all efforts towards the launching of a design code for the Arabian Gulf.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by the office of the Vice President of Research, Kuwait
University in the project EV09/00 for studies on the durability of concrete in the Arabian Gulf.

REFERENCES
[1] ACI 318M-95 & 02, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI, USA:
American Concrete Institute, 2002.
[2] Standards Australia, Concrete Structures. AS 3600, Sydney, Australia, 1994.
[3] European Standard, Concrete Specification, Performance, Production and Conformity. BS EN 206-1, 2001.
[4] ACI Committee 305, Hot Weather Concreting. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Committee Report ACI 305 R-91, 1991.
[5] M. Walker, “Concrete Performance in Aggressively Hot Environments”, Concrete, 2002, pp. 18–21.
[6] A. Morales, “X-treme Concreting (Part 1) Hot Weather Concreting Practices”, National Precast Concrete Association,
MC Magazine Summer, www.precast.org.
[7] P. Livesey, “Concreting in Hot and Dry Conditions”, Concrete, 33(7) (1999), pp. 14 –15.
[8] P.D. Cady, “An Overview of Concrete Durability Problems in the Arabian Gulf region”, The Arabian Journal for Science &
Engineering, 11(2) (1986), pp. 119–127.
[9] Rasheeduzzafar, F.A. Dakhil, and A. Al-Gahtani, “Deterioration of Concrete Structures in the Environment of the Middle East”,
ACI Journal, 81(1) (1984), pp. 13–20.

June 2006 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. 213
 M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, and B. John

[10] H.M. Zein Al-Abideen, ‘Environmental Impact on Concrete Practice I ”, Concrete International, 20(11) (1998), pp. 48–54.
[11] B. Sharp, “Durability of Maritime Concrete in BS 6349: Part 1:2000”, Concrete, 34(6) (2000), pp. 48–50.
[12] P. Fookes, “Concrete in Hot, Dry and Salty Environments”, Concrete, 29 (1995), pp. 34–39.
[13] British Standard Institution, The Structural Use of Concrete. BS 8110: Part 1:1985.
[14] Indian Standard, Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. IS: 456 – 1994, Bureau of Indian Standards, pp. 28–29.
[15] M.N. Haque and H. Al-Khaiat, “Durable Concrete Structures in a Chloride–Sulfate Rich Environment”, Concrete International,
21(9) (1999), pp. 49–52.
[16] M.N. Haque and H. Al-Khaiat, “Carbonation of Concrete Structures in Hot Dry Coastal Regions”, Cement and Concrete
Composites, 19 (1997), pp. 123–129.
[17] A. Neville, “Good Reinforced Concrete in the Arabian Gulf”, Materials and Structures, 33 (2000), pp. 655 – 664.
[18] J.M. Lafave, D.W. Pfeifer, D.J. Sund, D. Lovett, and S.A. Civjan, “Using Mineral and Chemical Durability — Enhancing
Admixtures in Structural Concrete”, Concrete International, 24 (2002), pp. 71–78.
[19] T. Kay and M. Walker, “Guide to Evaluation and Repair of Concrete Structures in the Arabian Peninsula”, Concrete Society
(U.K.) Special Publication CS 137, (2002), pp. 31–35.
[20] I. Sims, “The Assessment of Concrete for Carbonation”, Concrete, 28(6) (1994), pp. 33–38.
[21] Z.G. Matta, “Concrete Practices in the Arabian Gulf Region”, Concrete International, 20 (1998), pp. 51–52.
[22] M.N. Haque, “Give it a Week: Seven Days Initial Curing”, ACI, Concrete International, 20(9) (1998), pp. 45– 48.
[23] J.F. Lamond, “Designing for Durability”, Concrete International, 19 (1997), pp. 34–36.
[24] S.P. Shah, K. Wang, and W.J. Weiss, “Mixture Proportioning for Durable Concrete”, Concrete International, 22 (2000),
pp. 73–78.
[25] H. Al-Khaiat and M.N. Haque, “Carbonation of some Coastal Concrete Structures in Kuwait”, ACI Materials Journal,
94 (1997), pp. 602– 607.
[26] P.C. Aitcin, “Durable Concrete — Current Practice and Future Trends”, Concrete Technology — Past, Present and Future,
Conference Proceedings of V. Mohan Malhotra Symposium, SP-144, (1994), pp. 85–104.
[27] A.A. Al Musallam, F.M. Khan, S.U. Dulaijan, and O.S.B. Al-Amoudi, “Effectiveness of Surface Coatings in Improving
Concrete Durability”, Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4-5) (2003), pp. 473– 481.
[28] P. Castro-Borges, O.T. Rincon, E.I. Moreno, A.A. Torres-Acosta, M. Martinez-Madrid, and A. Knudsen, “Performance of a
60-Year-Old Concrete Pier with Stainless Steel Reinforcement”, Materials Performance, (2002), pp. 50–55.
[29] M.N. Haque and H. Al-Khaiat, “Durability Survey in Kuwait”, Concrete International, 19(7) (1997), pp. 41– 44.
[30] B.G. Dastidar and S.A. Al-Khalili, “Deterioration of Reinforced Concrete Structures and Preventive Measures: An Introduction
to Local Standards”, Conference Proceedings on Deterioration of Reinforced Concrete in the Gulf and Methods of Repair,
15–17 December 1996, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman, pp. 267–286.
[31] M. Walker, “Guide to Construction of Reinforced Concrete in the Arabian Peninsula”, CIRIA Publication C577, Concrete
Society Special Publication CS 136, 2002.
[32] M.A. Bader, “Performance of Concrete in a Coastal Environment”, Cement and Concrete Composites, 25(4-5) (2003),
pp. 539–548.
[33] A. Neville, “Chloride Attack of Reinforced Concrete: an Overview”, Materials and Structures, 28 (1995), pp. 63–70.

214 The Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Volume 31, Number 1C. June 2006