Performance Tests PDF

Concrete Institute of Australia
CONCRETE INSTITUTE
of AUSTRALIA
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
Z7/07
Durability Performance TestsZ7/07

Concrete Durability Series

Z7/07
Performance Tests
to Assess
Concrete Durability


Z7/07
Performance
Tests to Assess
Concrete Durability
Concrete Institute of Australia is a national Concrete Institute of Australia
membership-based not-for-profit organisation formed to National Office
provide a forum for exchange of information between its Suite 401, Level 4
members and others. Since the information contained 53 Walker Street
in its publications is intended for general guidance only North Sydney NSW 2060 Australia
and in no way replaces the services of professional
PO Box 1227
consultants on particular projects, no legal liability for
North Sydney NSW 2059 Australia
negligence or can be accepted by the Institute for the
information contained in this publication. Phone: +61 2 9955 1744
No part of this publication may be reproduced Facsimile: +61 2 9966 1871
in whole or in part, or stored in a retrieval system, or Email: admin@concreteinstitute.com.au
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, Website: www.concreteinstitute.com.au
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, For contact information on Institute Branches
without written permission of the publisher. This book and networks in Queensland, New South Wales,
is sold subject to the condition that it shall not be lent, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western
resold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the Australia visit the web site at:
publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover www.concreteinstitute.com.au
other than that in which it is published. This condition All Concrete Institute of Australia publications,
being imposed on any subsequent purchasers. including this Handbook, are made possible through
For information regarding permission, write to: the continuing support received from our Platinum
The Chief Executive Officer Company Members. As at 1 May 2014 these included:
PO Box 1227
North Sydney NSW 2059 Australia
Wagstaff Piling
Email: admin@concreteinstitute.com.au
Pty Ltd
Cement Australia
CTI
Holcim
ITW Construction
Systems
Produced by Engineers Media for

Concrete Institute of Australia ACN 000 715 453
Z7/07 First edition published 2015
ISBN 978 0 9941738 2 9
ii
Performance Tests to Assess Concrete Durability
Recommended Practice by Durability Committee
This Recommended Practice is the first edition and has been developed by the Durability Committee and Task
Group of the Concrete Institute of Australia with contribution from the below listed. This is part of a series of
concrete durability guides.
The Task Group that developed this Recommended Practice was:

W Green Vinsi Partners (Chair)
A Peek GHD
S Freitag Opus
M Dacre AECOM
R Barnes PCTE
Durability Committee active contributors were:

F Papworth BCRC
R Paull GHD
D Baweja EMS
The CIA would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of members from comments obtained through the
peer review process. Many of the comments have been included directly into this document.
iii
steel reinforcement). The durability series provides
recommendations on durability design using a wider
range of concretes and reinforcements, and details how
Foreword to implement new durability design methods.
Durability requirements in Australian Standards
are fragmented through different standards and
The Durability Series is a set of Concrete their commentaries dealing with concrete durability
Institute of Australia recommended practices that requirements for different structure types (e.g. AS 2159,
provide deemed to satisfy requirements applicable to AS 3735, AS 4997 and AS 5100.5). Perceived conflicts
all concrete structure types based on standard input between these documents (e.g. higher covers in AS
parameters for design life, reliability and exposure. 3735 than AS 3600 for the same life and exposure)
The series includes details on project planning and might sometimes be explained by the different owner
implementation which if followed will increase the requirements (e.g. reliability required) but reasons
likelihood that the specification, design detailing and for the differences are not given and the associated
construction will be optimal to achieving the developer assessment methods not clearly stated. To some
and community expectations regarding the long term extent the concrete industries energy for contributing
performance of concrete structures. Also included are to development of durability codes is diluted through
methods for modelling degradation over time and for maintenance of the multitude of codes that cover the
crack control design. Thus the series provides what is same topic in variable ways.
described as a unified durability design process. For many, concrete elements in mild exposures
Prior to around 1970 concrete was incorporating the recent durability related developments
generally regarded by asset owners, designers and into a unified durability design process for all structure
contractors as a reliable construction material that types may make little difference to their durability design
provided long term durability with relatively little because existing codes deemed to satisfy provisions
maintenance. Subsequently, premature deterioration often provide adequate performance. However, for
of concrete structures, arising from changing cement elements in more severe exposures, guidelines that
characteristics, quality management and other comprehensively detail how to assess owners’ needs,
factors, damaged this reputation. Because concrete environmental exposures and materials requirements;
is a complex material, research into the cause of how to specify performance or prescriptive materials
problems and development of appropriate new rules properties; and how to ensure construction is
and operational methods has taken a long time. The appropriate to the design will provide structures that
durability series provides recommendations that if meet their durability requirements more consistently.
followed will largely eradicate premature deterioration. The durability series provides the required guidelines.
While research into concrete durability continues, The Concrete Institute of Australia first
the knowledge on exposure significance, deterioration introduced Z7 “Durable Concrete Structures” in 1990 as
processes, materials properties and workmanship an initial response to concerns about the poor durability
implications has developed significantly over the last performance of some concrete structures. This was
30 years. In addition, new cementitious materials, revised in a second edition in 2001, which gave some
admixtures and additives have been widely introduced. excellent information on how to achieve durability
Much more advanced concretes are now available. but did not set out to provide a set of unified design
New durability design practices have also been guidelines as an alternative to the approach in the
developed, including durability modelling methods, and Australian Standards noted above.
new methods of construction have been introduced. The Concrete Institute of Australia’s Durability
However, to an extent at least, these developments are Committee was formed in late 2008 to review Z7.
not fully reflected in a clear and unified manner through In view of the committee’s perceived need for a
the Australian Standards dealing with concrete durability broader review of durability requirements it managed
requirements (e.g. modelling methods, use of fly ash, workshops around Australia in mid-2009 to review
slag and silica fume, use of galvanised and stainless issues with concrete durability practices and standards
iv
in Australia. The outcome from these workshops, and The durability that the owner and community
other feedback from Concrete Institute of Australia require from structures will only be obtained if specific
members at the Concrete Institute of Australia National consideration is given to how durability requirements
Conference in 2009, was that comprehensive and impact on construction cost, inspections needs,
unified durability guidance was required. In response, maintenance requirements, aesthetics, and operational
the Durability Committee established Task Groups to and community costs that unplanned maintenance
produce a series of recommended practices as a major brings. While strong emphasis is placed on achieving
revision to Z7 that would form a durability series. The the design life, durability must be met long into the
series comprises: future, possibly well past the initial design life. The
n Z7/01 Durability – Planning durability series will go a long way to providing the
n Z7/02 Durability – Exposure Classes necessary tools for design and construction of durable
n Z7/03 Durability – Deemed to Comply structures based on the latest understanding of
Requirements exposure, materials and deterioration process.
n Z7/04 Durability – Good Practice through Frank Papworth
Design, Concrete Supply Durability Committee Chairman
and Construction
n Z7/05 Durability – Modelling
n Z7/06 Durability – Cracks and Crack Control
n Z7/07 Durability – Testing
v
are available, the appropriateness of those
methods to the structures’ exposure,
Preface environment and life cycle, and the most cost

effective testing regimes to achieve the required
outcomes and level of certainty that they are
looking to achieve.
All engineering materials, including concrete,
■■ Designers: To know which tests are the most
deteriorate (corrode) with time, at rates dependent
appropriate to specify and how much test data
upon the type of material (concrete), the nature of
is required to ensure that the level of statistical
the environment and the deterioration mechanisms
confidence from the test results underpinning the
involved.
design is appropriate.
In engineering terms, the objective is to select
■■ Contractors and material suppliers:
the most cost effective combination of materials
To understand and have confidence in the
(concretes, reinforcements, coatings, etc) to achieve the
consistency, repeatability and validity of trial data
required design life. In doing so, it is critical to realise
and quality control performance testing they are
that the nature and rate of deterioration of materials is a
required to undertake for compliance with the
function of their environment.
project specification.
Accordingly, the environment is a “load” on a
■■ Suppliers of laboratory testing services: To
material (concrete) as a force is a “load” on a structural
maintain and calibrate equipment, train staff,
component. It is the combination of the structural (or
maintain third party accreditation for the tests
non-structural) load and environment load in synergy
(e.g. perform the tests to sufficient frequency,
which determines the performance of the concrete
provide regular proficiency training of staff and
component.
keep detailed records) and competitively price
The protective measures to be adopted for
test methods despite some being not often
(concrete) structures/elements within a project depend
specified.
on the risk of deterioration over the design life, the
Often several test methods supply similar
cost of preventative measures, the feasibility and
information. Combinations of tests may be necessary.
cost of remedial actions and ongoing preventative
The limitations and advantages of the methods are
maintenance. It is typical that these need to be
reviewed, and recommendations provided on which
balanced to arrive at the best whole-of-life cost and
test(s) is the most suitable for project specifications.
optimised value for money.
The Durability Planning Recommended Practice
The Concrete Institute of Australia Durability
Z7/01 provides guidance on performance tests for
Series provides the tools for managing durability
durability during design, construction and operation of
through design, construction and maintenance. Z7/07
a structure.
provides guidance on performance tests for durability
Design phase durability testing requirements are
design and implementation.
recommended to be clearly specified for four stages:
Test methods are available to assess various
■■ Mix trials to confirm the mix is suitable.
aspects of durability performance through a concrete
■■ Quality assurance tests as construction
structure’s life cycle including:
proceeds.
■■ Mix acceptance tests (including tests to validate
■■ Tests at the end of the defects liability period to
values used in modelling).
create a list of items for repair.
■■ Tests for quality assurance.
■■ Tests during the design and service life including
■■ Tests where placed concrete is suspect.
monitoring.
■■ Tests for condition monitoring.
Construction phase materials testing and selec-
A wide range of tests designed to demonstrate
tion requirements recommended are:
the potential durability performance of concrete have
■■ Materials testing and selection must be
been introduced over the years. This has caused some
completed in accordance with the project
uncertainty for:
specifications prior to use in the works.
■■ Asset owners: To understand what methods
vi
Additional testing is required prior to a change in limited to visual inspections only and these may
supply of materials or a new source of materials. be performed on a regular basis or ad-hoc. This
■■ Verification of concrete mix designs to meet may be adequate provided no major defects
project specification durability requirements are found and may be sufficient to prevent
can take considerable time, and unscheduled minor defects from becoming major ones. If
changes in concrete supply during construction appropriate, follow up repairs are performed
may result in program delays. Durability testing as required. This approach may be suitable for
of concrete such as chloride diffusion, water minor structures and/or structures with a short
permeability, drying shrinkage, etc, may have a design life.
long test period (e.g. up to 3 months). ■■ In-service condition monitoring and
■■ Variability of durability tests must be taken testing: Proactive maintenance will involve
into account by the durability consultant, with early intervention to prevent or delay the onset
specification test criteria allowing for alternative of corrosion initiation. This will require regular
solutions to achieve the required durability if the inspections in conjunction with additional
test results do not achieve the specified values. activities such as structural monitoring and non-
This can be achieved by conservative durability destructive testing, as required.
design and/or provision for use of additional If significant repairs/strengthening have been
measures such as protective coatings or special carried out, then a post-intervention inspection should
additives or other measures. be carried out along similar lines to a new structure first
Operation and maintenance phase monitoring inspection mentioned above.
and testing recommended are: This document is intended to inform all parties
■■ Practical completion inspection: Prior to a involved in design, construction and maintenance about
structure going into service it is important to the benefits of durability performance testing and how
determine if any defects need to be contractor as part of a durability planning and implementation
repaired and to document the initial structure process will lead to an increased likelihood of
characteristics and condition for future reference achievement of design life of structures and buildings.
and comparison.
Warren Green
■■ Periodic in-service visual inspection: A
Z7/07 Task Group Chairman
reactive approach to on-going maintenance be
vii
4.6.1 Semi-adiabatic concrete temperature
monitoring methods
Contents
4.6.2 Predicted concrete adiabatic
temperature
4.7 Alkali-Aggregate Reaction
Terminology
4.8 Delayed Ettringite Formation
1 Introduction 4.9 Sulfate Resistance
1.1 Scope of Z7/07 4.10 Abrasion Resistance
1.2 Selection of Test Methods and 4.10.1 Introduction
Interpretation of Results 4.10.2 AS 4456.9 Abrasion test
1.3 Laboratory Accreditation 4.10.3 BS EN 13892-4 Abrasion test
4.10.4 BS EN 13892-3 Abrasion test
2. Summary Guide to Test Methods 4.10.5 ASTM C779 Abrasion methods
3. Sampling and Sample Preparation 4.10.6 Recommendations
4.11 Bleed Tests
3.1 General
4.12 Between-Batch Variability
3.2 Standard Methods of Sample Preparation
from Fresh Concrete 5. Tests for Quality Assurance During Construction
3.2.1 Specification of testing requirements 5.1 Introduction
for fresh concrete 5.2 Compressive Strength
3.2.2 Effect of sample concrete 5.3 Cover
compaction on test results 5.4 Maturity/Temperature Matched Curing
3.2.3 Curing of concrete samples 5.5 Cracks
3.3 Sampling Methods for In-situ Concrete 5.6 In-situ Temperature and Strain Measurements
3.3.1 Background 5.7 Electrical Resistivity
3.3.2 Wet diamond coring 5.8 Cross Hole Sonic Logging
3.3.3 Recommended practice
for wet diamond coring 6. Tests where Placed Concrete is Suspect
3.3.4 Grinding core cuts 6.1 Introduction
3.3.5 Drilled dust samples 6.2 Reinforcement Location and Cover Depth
6.2.1 Instrument types and applicable
Concrete Mix Acceptance Tests for Durability
4.
standards
Design and Construction Compliance 6.2.2 Magnetic reluctance covermeters
4.1 General 6.2.3 Pulsed eddy current covermeters
4.2 Chloride Penetration 6.2.4 Covermeter limitations
4.2.1 General 6.2.5 Ground penetrating radar
4.2.2 Chloride diffusion tests 6.2.6 Ultrasonic pulse echo
4.2.3 Recommendations 6.3 Compressive Strength
4.2.4 Atmospheric chloride content 6.3.1 Concrete core sample testing
environmental assessment 6.3.2 Windsor Probe and Capo tests
4.3 Carbonation Rate 6.3.3 Rebound hammer
4.3.1 Introduction 6.3.4 Ultrasonic pulse velocity
4.3.2 Recommendations 6.4 Detecting Defects within the Concrete
4.4 Water Absorption and Sorptivity 6.4.1 Ultrasonic pulse velocity
4.4.1 Introduction 6.4.2 Ultrasonic pulse echo
4.4.2 AS 1012.21 Volume of 6.4.3 Impact echo
permeable voids 6.4.4 Impulse response
4.4.3 Taywood/GHD/SGS sorptivity test 6.4.5 Ground penetrating radar
4.4.4 ASTM C1585 sorptivity test 6.5 Assessment of Concrete Surface Quality
4.4.5 RMS T362 sorptivity test 6.5.1 Initial surface water absorption (ISAT)
4.4.6 Recommendations 6.5.2 Torrent air permeability
4.5 Water Permeability 6.6 Mix Composition
4.5.1 Introduction 6.6.1 Cement (binder) content
4.5.2 Recommendations and composition
4.6 CIA Z7/07 Semi Adiabatic Tests to predict 6.6.2 Air content
Concrete Adiabatic Temperature Rise 6.6.3 Water to cement ratio
viii
6.7 SCM Content and Composition Table 4.12 S8204-2:2003 and concrete society TR34
B
6.8 Chloride and Sulfate Ion Content chaplin abrasion tests criteria
6.9 Alkali Content Table 5.1
Compressive strength listed in
7. Condition Monitoring clause 4.5 of AS 5100.4
7.1 Introduction Table 5.2 Types of resistivity test

7.2 Test Locations Table 5.3
Set of typical resistivity results
7.2.1 Structure configuration for concrete cylinders
7.2.2 Element configuration Table 5.4 Cross hole sonic logging tests
7.2.3 Construction influences
7.2.4 Exposure Table 6.1
Recommended tests for assessment
of as placed concrete
7.2.5 Existing condition
7.2.6 Type of monitoring Table 7.1 uide for use of electrode potential mapping
G
7.3 Visual Inspection for condition monitoring
7.4 Intermittent Site Test Table 7.2 orrosion current criteria for surface applied
C
7.4.1 Electrode (half cell) potential mapping corrosion rate measurements [Reference 55]
7.4.2 Carbonation depth
Table 7.3
Types of strain and displacement
7.4.3 Chloride profile measurement
7.4.4 Resistivity
7.4.5 Polarisation resistance
7.4.6 Petrographic examination Figures
7.4.7 Microbial analysis
Figure 1 Phases in the life of a structure [Reference 2]
7.5 Permanent Surface Mounted and Embedded (Terminology)
Monitoring Techniques
7.5.1 Corrosion initiation Figure 3.1 Wet diamond drilling to obtain concrete cores
7.5.2 Corrosion rate Figure 3.2
Dry grinding core cuts to obtain
7.5.3 Strain, vibration and deflection concrete samples
8. References Figure 3.3 Method of taking drilling dust samples

Figure 4.1
Typical carbonation tank where CO2 level is
controlled by injection of an air/CO2 mixture
Tables and tank air/CO2 mixture is re-circulated
Table 2.1
Testing summary guide and report through a temperature and humidity controller
location of detailed description Figure 4.2 Taywood/GHD/SGS sorptivity test. A sample is
Table 4.1 Recommended mix acceptance tests stood in contact with water and the height rise
and weight gain measured with time.
Table 4.2
Outline of test methods used to measure
chloride diffusion coefficient set up Figure 4.3
Pressure permeability test. One face of
and analysis samples is kept under constant pressure by
the compressed air bottle. The other side
Table 4.3 Common water absorption and sorptivity tests can be left open to witness time to water
Table 4.4
AVPV performance assessment criteria penetration or closed so that water flow rate
(VicRoads Specification 610 can be measured.
on structural concrete [Reference 13]) Figure 4.4 T ypical “hot box arrangement” and monitoring
option 1 by one concrete position method
Table 4.5 RMS T362 water sorptivity test criteria
[Reference 78]
Table 4.6
Common concrete water permeability test Figure 4.5
Design of semi-adiabatic temperature
methods monitoring option 2 by multiple concrete
positions method [Reference 77]
Table 4.7 ommon concrete alkali-aggregate reaction
C
test methods Figure 4.6 diabatic temperature rise development for
A
S50 concrete
Table 4.8 E xpansion limits for ASTM C1012-13 test for
fly ash blended cement Figure 4.7 Abrasion damage examples
Figure 4.8
Abrasion resistance vs compressive strength
Table 4.9 Cement sulfate resistance tests using AS 4456.9 test for off form finish
Table 4.10 Abrasion tests [Reference 144]
Table 4.11
Criteria for acceptance of abrasion resistance Figure 4.9 Chaplin abrasion tests
of segmental pavers using the AS 4456.9 test
ix
Figure 5.1
Different types of crack measuring equipment
Figure 5.2 Schematic of 4 probe resistivity equipment
Figure 6.1
Schematic of a hand held GPR unit scanning
rebar and an example of the on-screen real
time image
Figure 6.2 Cover distribution from a series of GPR scans
Figure 6.3
Screen shot of the segment cross section
generated by UPE with a matching sketch
of reinforcement layout
Figure 6.4 Field measurements of water absorption
Figure 6.5 Torrent air permeability testing equipment
Figure 7.1
Measurement of electrode potentials
Figure 7.2 E stablishing electrode potential criteria for

corrosion assessment [Reference 73]
x
comparing the present condition rating with a particular
criterion, such as a specified loading. Condition
evaluation generally considers the requirement for any
later intervention which may be needed to meet the
Terminology performance requirements specified.
Condition survey: A process whereby information
is acquired relating to the current condition of the
Definitions of terminology for many aspects of structure with regard to its appearance, functionality
durability through a structures service life are given in and/or ability to meet specified performance
Z7/01. Definitions from Z7/01 that are relevant to testing requirements with the aim of recognising important
are listed first, and additional definitions specific to this limitations, defects and deterioration. A wide range of
document listed second. parameters may be included within a condition survey
with data being obtained by activities such as visual
Terminology extracted from Z7/01 inspection and various forms of testing. Condition
Condition assessment: A process of reviewing survey would also seek to gain an understanding of the
information gathered about the current condition of a (previous) circumstances which led to the development
structure or its components, its service environment of that state, together with the associated mechanisms
and general circumstances, whereby its adequacy for causing damage or deterioration.
future service may be established against specified Corrosion: The destruction or deterioration of a
performance requirements for a defined set of loadings material through reaction with its environment. The term
and/or environmental circumstances. “corrosion” can refer both to a process or the damage
Condition control: The overall through-life process caused by such a process.
for conserving the condition of a structure involving Design service life or design life (specified): The
condition survey, condition assessment, condition term “design life” is often used to convey the same
evaluation, decision-making and the execution of any intent as “design service life” and both terms are
necessary interventions; performed as a part of the acceptable to convey the same intent. The period in
conservation process. which the required performance shall be achieved
Condition evaluation: Similar to condition used in the design of new structures (see Figure 1).
assessment, but may be applied more specifically for The specified (design) service life is related to the
Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3: Operational Service Life

Design Construction Intervention Intervention
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance
Residual
Service Life
Condition
Current Time
Design Prolonged Realised

$
service life service life service life

Re-birth Certificate
Re-birth Certificate
Birth Certificate
Owner Requirements Time

Design Characteristics Dismantlement
Condition Assessment
Figure 1: Phases in the life of a structure [Reference 2]
xi
required service life, as given by the stakeholders (i.e. chemical and biological actions resulting from the
owners, users, contractors, society) and to the other atmospheric conditions or characteristics of the
implications of service criteria agreement (e.g. with surroundings to the structure including macro and
regard to structural analysis, maintenance and quality micro influences.
management). In this document the international Ingress: The entry of substances (e.g. gas, liquid, ions)
definition is adopted. Refer Z7/01 for full definition. into structural and/or non-structural components of a
Deterioration: Worsening of condition with time, or structure. Often the term “ingress” is associated with
a progressive reduction in the ability of a structure or the entry of substances that cause deterioration (e.g.
its components to perform according to their intended chlorides into reinforced or prestressed concrete, water,
specifications. sulphates and carbon-dioxide (CO2 ) into concretes,
Deterioration model: Mathematical model that etc).
describes a structure’s performance as a function of Inspection: A primarily visual examination, often at
time, taking deterioration into account. close range, of a structure or its components with the
Durability: The capability of structures, products objective of gathering information about their form,
or materials of continuing to be useful after an current condition, service environment and general
extended period of time and usage. In the context of circumstances.
performance-based design of structures, durability Investigation: The process of inquiry into the cause or
refers to the fulfilment of the performance requirements mechanism associated with some form of deterioration
within the framework of the planned use and the or degradation of the structure, and the evaluation
foreseeable actions, without unforeseen expenditure of its significance in terms of its current and future
on maintenance and repair. In this document the performance. The term may also be employed during
international definition is adopted. Refer Z7/01 for full the assessment of defects and deficiencies. The
definition. process of inquiry might employ sampling, testing and
Durability consultant: Person or group who various other means of gathering information about the
completes the durability assessment and is the author structure, as well as theoretical studies to evaluate the
of the durability assessment report and durability importance of the findings in terms of the performance
checklists. Intent is a person or group who can apply of the structure.
materials deterioration knowledge to construction Monitoring: To keep watch over, recording progress
materials and construction processes, additional to and changes in materials properties or condition
more common structural, civil, geotechnical and other and / or structural properties or responses with time;
engineering knowledge of design, construction and possibly also controlling the functioning or working of
maintenance. Maybe an in-house employee of the an associated entity or process (e.g. warning alarms
design team, or an independent consultant engaged based upon parameters such as applied load, element
for the purpose. Intended to have a close working deflection or some aspect of structural response).
relationship with the asset owner, design team and Monitoring plan: Instructions for the monitoring
construction team to ensure durability is provided specific to the structure, including all elements of the
to achieve the asset owner required service life. structure.
Practical experience is essential to ensure the durability Prolonged service life: The period extended after
assessment report and durability checklists do not the design service life by the owners with relevant
become a research exercise. Contractor reviews are maintenance completed (see Figure 1).
included to achieve a buildable final design for the Risk: The combination of the likelihood of occurrence of
asset owner service life. The durability consultant may a particular hazard and its consequences [Reference 2].
be a person with relevant technical qualifications other Service life (operational): The period in which the
than a qualified engineer (e.g. materials scientists), with required performance of a structure or structural
the asset owner client (or authorised representative) element is achieved, when it is used for its intended
responsible to approve the durability consultant for a purpose and under the expected conditions of use. It
project. comprises design service life and prolonged service
Environment/exposure influences: Physical, lives (see Figure 1 and Design service life).
xii
Service life (required): The stakeholders, (i.e. owners, furnace slag (GGBFS), slag, ground granulated iron
users, contractors, society) stated period in which blast furnace slag (GGIBFS); silica fume, condensed
the required performance shall be achieved after silica fume (CSF), microsilica, amorphous silica; or
construction (see Figure 1 and Design service life). pozzolans.
Service life (residual): The remaining period in which Testing: The process of scientifically measuring a
the required performance shall be achieved from property of a material, element or structure to obtain
current time until the design service life is achieved (see information about its composition, condition or
Figure 1 and Design service life). performance. Tests may be carried out directly on the
Survey: The process, often involving visual examination structure itself (“in-situ testing”) or on test specimens
or utilising various forms of sampling and testing, aiming made in the laboratory or taken from the structure/
at collecting information about the shape and current site. Testing may be classified as destructive or non-
condition of a structure or its components. Refer Z7/01 destructive. A “destructive” test is one that damages
for full definition. the specimen or structure, such that the specimen
is destroyed or the structure needs repair. A test
Terminology specific to Z7/07 performed on a specimen taken from the structure is
considered a destructive test because the sampling
Abrasion: The ability of the concrete surface to resist
leaves damage that must be repaired. In contrast, a
being worn away by rubbing and friction.
“non-destructive” test does not damage the structure
Absorption: A measure of the complete or partial
or test specimen in any way. Destructive testing must
filling of pores with a liquid (typically water) by any
not reduce the structural capacity of the element
mechanism.
unless the element or structure is to be demolished or
Diffusion: Movement of ions (e.g. chloride ions) due to
strengthened immediately following the sampling or
a difference in the concentration gradient.
testing.
Durability performance test: A performance test
method the results of which can be used to assess
durability.
Penetrability: A term used to indicate general rate
of ingress due to any mechanism (e.g. absorption,
sorptivity, permeation, diffusion). It has no units and is a
subjective term when used to convey a rate.
Permeability: A measure of flow of a liquid (typically
water) or gas under pressure through a material.
Permeability can be calculated from measurements
of penetration depth at a certain time or flow rate for a
known thickness.
Pressure gradient: The differential water pressure in
metres divided by the concrete element thickness in
metres that the pressure differential acts on
Sample: The pieces or “specimens” of concrete
representing the concrete to be tested. A sample may
comprise one specimen or several replicate specimens.
Sorptivity: Rate of absorption of a liquid (typically
water) by capillary suction.
Specimen: The individual piece of concrete on which
a test is performed. Several replicate specimens may
be needed to comprise a representative sample of the
concrete of interest.
Supplementary cementitious material (SCM): Fly
ash, pulverised fuel ash (PFA); ground granulated blast
xiii
1 ■■ Tests for Quality Assurance
Quality assurance/control tests are primarily
Introduction required to demonstrate consistency of supply
in conformance with the works specification and
the properties established by acceptance trial
1.1 SCOPE OF Z7/07
mixes. Timeliness of results is therefore a highly
The aims of this document are to consider the
important criterion, generally superseding the
current design guides, codes and Australian practice
requirement to produce values for modelling
to provide advice on preferred methods of testing
purposes. Although strength tests of concrete
concrete to demonstrate the durability performance of
are routine, durability tests are not, and the type
a structure to meet design life intent as set out in the
and frequency of tests must be specified in the
project specification. There are a wide range of tests
contract documents.
discussed in the various sections of this document
In Section 5 tests for quality assurance of
and therefore as a quick reference all test methods
concrete durability are discussed.
considered are listed in Section 2.
■■ Tests where Placed Concrete is Suspect
In view of the above, this Recommended
The concrete performance in the field will differ
Practice provides discussion and recommendations on
to that in the trial mixes. To assess the extent
the appropriateness of test methods that can be used
of this, performance tests on the as-placed
to assess various aspects of durability performance
concrete might be required. This is often by
through a structures life cycle (see Terminology for
non-destructive testing, or testing cores for
design and service lives definitions and as shown
strength or other properties. Such testing may
in Figure 1). Before any testing can be undertaken
be undertaken where there is doubt that the
test locations must be selected and in many cases
construction method or materials will have
samples taken. Section 3 provides recommendations
on selecting test locations and methods of sampling. provided the required performance (e.g. routine
Testing is then discussed under the following main testing has revealed an anomaly or trend of
headings: concern), or to verify the efficacy of the routine

■■ Mix Acceptance Tests quality control testing program.
Testing during the design phase is conducted Section 6 reviews field testing that will provide
to support the design process, in particular to information on the as-placed concrete durability.
demonstrate that the combination of design ■■ Tests for Condition Monitoring
details and practical concrete supply to the During the life of a structure it is necessary
project will yield the desired performance. to check that the concrete is responding to
The test methods are primarily required to the environment as expected. It is also often
provide measurements that are relevant to the necessary to assess the residual life of the
potential durability of structural elements in structure in order to determine what intervention
specific exposures, and these values are used in is necessary (and when best performed) to
predictive modelling processes to inform design reach the design life, or to assess the feasibility
decisions or to show a certain performance level of extended operational service life. Some
has been achieved. specifications now require that the maintenance
Prior to commencement of construction, trial manual for the structure be prepared at the
mixes are generally required to produce samples time of design and that this include the type,
for testing to demonstrate that the proposed mix frequency, extent and criteria for in-service
design, using materials available to the project testing.
site, is suitable for the design life, exposure Section 7 deals with tests that can help establish
conditions and method of application. the condition of a structure.
In Section 4 the principal concrete mix In order to evaluate durability requirements a
acceptance tests for durability design and reasonable assessment of the exposure conditions
construction are discussed. is required. Tests for exposure assessment are not
1:1
included in this document, and it is recommended that 1.3 LABORATORY ACCREDITATION
this be developed in a future revision. Testing by a NATA accredited laboratory is
For all test methods the limitations and frequently specified. NATA accreditation applies to
advantages are given and where possible the variance specific tests and a laboratory’s accreditation for one
of the test results stated. test does not necessarily mean it will be qualified to
Applications for the tests are provided and undertake a test for which it is not accredited. Many of
where appropriate interpretation and use of results is the tests referenced in this document are not common,
included. and there might not be a NATA accredited laboratory
available for them. The designer should search NATA’s
SELECTION OF TEST METHODS AND
1.2 website for facilities that are accredited to undertake
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
the test to be specified. Where the designer determines
Laboratory test methods used to inform that the test can be undertaken by an accredited facility,
durability design often do not accurately reflect they can specify testing by a NATA accredited facility.
processes that occur in the field. Whether the results Where the designer determines that there is not a
are used to compare different materials or to predict suitably accredited facility for the test, they can require
their performance, it’s important to account for the that the test is undertaken by a facility to be approved
limitations of the method. by the designer. Approval can be based on specific
Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the experience with the test required and/or overall testing
selection of test methods, design of test programs, experience of a similar nature. Laboratories accredited
and interpretation of the results be performed by by an organisation belonging to ILAC (the International
experienced professionals who have appropriate Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) for similar tests
knowledge of both the testing processes and the may also provide a suitable service.
deterioration processes that occur in structures
exposed to various environments. This will ensure that
test results, and the outcomes of predictive modelling
based on the results, are interpreted appropriately.
It is also noted that the use of 2 or 3 different
particular test methods can provide more complete
data about the performance at various ages of a
proposed concrete mix under different durability
regimes.
1:2
2
Summary Guide

to Test Methods
A summary guide to the test methods and appropriate methods for a particular structure,
location in this document is given in Table 2.1. The exposure, condition, etc. The comments below on
more detailed description in this document must reproducibility are indicative interpretations from
be considered for the evaluation and selection of nominal identical samples in one test location.
Table 2.1: Testing summary guide and report location of detailed description
Test Use of Test Practical Reproducibility Experience Test Time Report
Application Required Section
SAMPLING METHODS FOR IN-SITU CONCRETE

Wet diamond Common Easy Good Limited N/A 3.3.2,
coring 3.3.3
Grinding core Occasional, for Easy Good Limited N/A 3.3.4
cuts dry concrete
sampling
Drilled dust Less common Easy Good Limited No 3.3.5
samples than coring
CONCRETE MIX ACCEPTANCE TESTS FOR DURABILITY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMPLIANCE
Chloride Diffusion (Migration) Tests 4.2
Classical Not used, N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.2
membrane cell obsolete by
other tests
developed
Nordtest Not common N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.2
NT Build 355
Nordtest Prequalification Moderate Good Fairly 56 days 4.2
NT Build 443 of concrete extensive
mixes
ASTM C1556-11 Prequalification Moderate Good Fairly 56 days 4.2
(derived from NT of concrete extensive
Build 443) mixes
AASHTO T259 Not common, Moderate Fair Fairly 90 days 4.2
prequalification extensive
of concrete
mixes
ASTM Not common, Moderate Fair Fairly 90 days 4.2
C1543-10a prequalification extensive
(derived from of concrete
AASHTO T259) mixes
Nordtest Used to derive Moderate Good Fairly 6-96 hours 4.2
NT Build 492 “diffusion extensive
coefficients”
when calibrated
to individual mix
2:1
Carbonation Rate 4.3

fib Bulletin 34 Not common, Difficult Fair Fairly 28 days 4.3.1
carbonation rate typically for extensive
research and
development
Modified fib 34 fib 34 test Difficult Fair Fairly 28 days 4.3.2
accelerated modified to extensive
carbonation test be consistent
with standard
Australian
laboratory
practice
Water Absorption Tests 4.4
AS 1012.21 Fairly common Easy Fair Limited 2 days 4.4.2

ASTM C642-06 Not common Easy Fair Limited 4 days 4.4.1
BS 1881 Part 122 Not common Easy Good Limited 4 days 4.4.1
Water Sorptivity Tests 4.4

Taywood/GHD/ Fairly common Easy Good Limited 2-3 days 4.4.3
SGS sorptivity
ASTM C1585-07 Becoming more Fairly easy Good Limited 28 days 4.4.4
common
RTA T362 Fairly common Easy Fair Limited 36 days 4.4.5
BS 1881 Part 208 Not common, Fairly easy Poor Fairly limited Depends 4.4.1
designed for on sample
use on in-situ condition-
concrete ing
BS 1881 Occasional Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 2-3 days 4.4.1
Part 124
Water Permeability 4.5
Taywood/GHD/ Occasional Fairly easy Good Fairly limited 5 days 4.5
SGS water
permeability
DIN 1048.5 Not common Fairly difficult Fair Fairly 3 days 4.5
Method 7.6 extensive
ASTM D5084-10 Not common Fairly difficult Good Fairly Varies 4.5
(Various methods) extensive
Main Roads Occasional Fairly difficult Good Fairly Not defined 4.5
Western Australia extensive
Test Method WA
625.1
US Army Corps of Not common Fairly difficult Good Fairly 14-20 days 4.5
Engineers CRD-C extensive
48-92
US Army Corps of Not common Fairly difficult Good Fairly Not defined 4.5
Engineers CRD-C extensive
163-92
2:2
Semi Adiabatic Tests to predict Concrete Adiabatic Temperature 4.6

Semi adiabatic Fairly common Fairly easy N/A Fairly Up to 14 4.6.1
test 1m3 concrete extensive days
block – one
concrete position
method
Semi adiabatic Fairly common Fairly easy N/A Fairly Up to 14 4.6.1
test 1m3 concrete extensive days
block – multiple
concrete
positions method
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction (AAR) 4.7
Petrographic 4.7
AS 1141.65 Fairly common Easy Good Extensive 1-2 days 4.7
ASTM C295-12 Common Easy Good Extensive 1-2 days 4.7
Mortar Bar Expansion 4.7
ASTM C227-10 Not common Difficult Poor Extensive Up to 2 4.7
years
ASTM C441-11 Not common Difficult Poor Extensive >1 year 4.7
ASTM C1260-07 Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited Up to 2 4.7
months
ASTM C1567-13 Not common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited Up to 2 4.7
months
RMS T363 Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited >21 days 4.7
& VicRoads
RC376.03
MRWA WA 624.1 Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited >22 days 4.7
AS 1141.60.1 Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 22 days 4.7
Aggregate 4.7
ASTM C289-07 Not common Difficult Poor Extensive 24 hours 4.7
Concrete Prism 4.7
ASTM C1293-08 Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 1-2 years 4.7
RMS T364 Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 1 year 4.7
& VicRoads RC
376.04
Qld Main Roads Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited >4 months 4.7
Q458
AS 1141.60.2 Fairly common Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 1-2 years 4.7
Delayed There is no reliable concrete test to evaluate the risk of DEF. The risk of DEF is 4.8
Ettringite assessed by reviewing of the concrete mix composition, predicting the concrete
Formation (DEF) peak temperature and specifying a maximum concrete peak temperature.
2:3
Sulfate Resistance 4.9

AS 2350.14 Used for Fairly difficult Fair Fairly 16 weeks 4.9
benchmarking extensive
cement
performance
ASTM C452-10 Used for Fairly difficult Fair Fairly 14 days 4.9
cement
performance
ASTM C1012-13 Used for Fairly difficult Fair Fairly 6-12 4.9
benchmarking extensive months
cement
performance
ASTM C1038-14 Used for Fairly difficult Fair Fairly 14 days 4.9
cement
performance
Abrasion Resistance 4.10
AS 4456.9 Test for Fairly easy Fair Fairly Hours 4.10.2
segmental extensive
pavers
BS EN 13892-4 Test for floors Fairly difficult Fair Fairly Hours 4.10.3
extensive
BS EN 13892-3 Test for floor Fairly difficult Poor Extensive Hours 4.10.4
screed materials
ASTM C418-12 Concrete Difficult Fair Extensive Hours 4.10.1
subject to
abrasive wear
with dry particles
ASTM C779/ Three alternative Fairly difficult Good to fair Fairly Hours 4.10.5
C779M-12 procedures extensive
for horizontal
surfaces
ASTM C944/ Suited to cores Fairly easy Fair to poor Fairly Hours 4.10.1
C944M-12 extensive
ASTM Water-borne Difficult Fair to poor Extensive Hours 4.10.1

C1138M-05 particles for
concrete
underwater
TESTS FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION 5
Compressive Strength 5.2
AS 1379 Common Easy Good Limited Minutes 5.2
Concrete Cover Refer below in this Table 5.3
Maturity/Matched Curing 5.4
ASTM C1074-11 Becoming more Fairly difficult Fair Fairly Up to 28 5.4
common extensive days
2:4
Crack Measurements 5.5
Crack width Common Easy Good Limited Minutes 5.5

Crack movement Occasional Fairly easy Good Fairly limited Days 5.5
In-situ Temperature and Strain Measurements 5.6
In-situ Occasional Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited Days 5.6
temperature
In-situ strain Occasional Fairly difficult Fair Fairly Days 5.6
extensive
Electrical Resistivity 5.7
AASHTO Becoming more Easy Good Limited Minutes 5.7
TP95-11 common
ASTM C1202 Occasional Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 6-96 hours 5.7
AASHTO T277 Occasional Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 6-96 hours 5.7
Cross Hole Sonic Logging 5.8
AS 2159 Not common Difficult Not known Extensive Hours 5.8
TESTS WHERE PLACED CONCRETE IS SUSPECT 6
Concrete Cover and Reinforcement Size 6.2
Magnetic Common Fairly easy Good Fairly limited Minutes 6.2.2
reluctance &
covermeter 6.2.4
Pulsed eddy Common Fairly easy Good Fairly Minutes 6.2.3
current extensive &
covermeter 6.2.4
Ground Not common Fairly difficult Fair Extensive Minutes 6.2.5
penetrating radar
Ultrasonic pulse Not common Difficult Fair to poor Extensive Minutes 6.2.6
echo
Compressive Strength 6.3
Concrete core Common Easy Good Limited 1 day 6.3.1
sample testing
Windsor Probe Not common Fairly difficult Fair to poor Fairly Hours 6.3.2
and Capo tests extensive
Rebound hammer Common (as Easy Fair to poor Limited Minutes 6.3.3
an indicator of
concrete surface
hardness)
Ultrasonic pulse Not common Fairly easy Fair to poor Fairly Minutes 6.3.4
velocity extensive
Assessment of Defects 6.4
Ultrasonic pulse Occasional Fairly easy Fair to poor Fairly Minutes 6.4.1
velocity extensive
Ultrasonic pulse Not common Fairly difficult Fair to poor Fairly Minutes 6.4.2
echo extensive
2:5
Impact echo Not common Fairly difficult Fair to poor Fairly Minutes 6.4.3
extensive
Impulse response Not common Difficult Fair Extensive Minutes 6.4.4
Ground Not common Fairly difficult Fair Extensive Minutes 6.4.5
penetrating radar
Assessment of Concrete Surface Quality 6.5
BS 1881-208 Not common Fairly easy Poor Fairly limited Hours 6.5.1
initial surface
water absorption
(ISAT)
Karsten Tube, Not common Fairly easy Poor Fairly limited Hours 6.5.1
RILEM 25-PEM,
initial surface
water absorption
(ISAT)
Torrent air Not common Fairly difficult Poor Extensive Minutes 6.5.2
permeability
Mix Composition 6.6
Cement (binder) Occasional Fairly easy Good Extensive 1 day 6.6.1
content and
composition
Air content Petrographic Fairly easy Good Extensive 1 day 6.6.2
examination
Water to Not common Fairly easy Fair Extensive 1 day 6.6.3
cement ratio
SCM Content and Composition 6.7
Petrographic Occasional Fairly easy Good Extensive 3-5 weeks 6.7
examination
Electrical Occasional Easy Fair Limited Minutes 6.7
resistivity
Chemical analysis Occasional Fairly easy Good Extensive 1 day 6.7
Chloride and Sulfate Ion Content 6.8
Chemical analysis Common Fairly easy Good Extensive 1 day 6.8
Alkali Content 6.9
Chemical analysis Occasional Fairly easy Good Extensive 1 day 6.9
Condition Monitoring 7
Visual inspection Common Fairly easy Good Fairly limited Inspector 7.3
& site
dependent
Intermittent Site Tests 7.4

Electrode (half Common Fairly easy Good Limited Site 7.4.1
cell) potential dependent
mapping
Carbonation Common Fairly easy Good Limited Site 7.4.2
depth dependent
2:6
Chloride profile Common Fairly easy Good Limited Site 7.4.3
dependent
Resistivity Common Fairly easy Good Limited Site 7.4.4
dependent
Polarisation Occasional Fairly difficult Fair Fairly limited Site 7.4.5
resistance when defect dependent
justifies
Petrographic Occasional Fairly easy Good Extensive 3-5 weeks 7.4.6
examination when defect
justifies
Microbial analysis Occasional Fairly easy Good Extensive 3-5 weeks 7.4.7
when defect
justifies
Permanent Surface Mounted and Embedded Monitoring 7.5
Corrosion Occasional for Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited 1-20+ 7.5.1
initiation high corrosion years
risk
Corrosion rate Occasional for Fairly difficult Fair Fairly limited 1-20+ 7.5.2
high corrosion years
risk
Strain, Vibration and Deflection 7.5.3
Resistive strain Occasional Fairly difficult Fair Fairly Site 7.5.3
gauge when defect extensive dependent
justifies
Vibrating wire Occasional Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited Site 7.5.3
strain gauge when defect dependent
justifies
Crack meter Occasional Easy Fair Limited Site 7.5.3
when defect dependent
justifies
Mechanical strain Occasional Fairly easy Fair Fairly limited Site 7.5.3
gauge when defect dependent
justifies
Linear variable Occasional Fairly difficult Fair Fairly Site 7.5.3
displacement when defect extensive dependent
transducer justifies
Accelerometers Rarely used Difficult Fair Extensive Site 7.5.3
dependent
Interferometric Occasional Difficult Fair Extensive Site 7.5.3
radar when defect dependent
justifies
2:7
3 mm compressive strength test cylinders. However,
other geometries such as cubes and beams of various
Sampling and Sample
sizes can also be required for particular test methods.
Preparation As AS 1379:2007 [Reference 7] only nominates

requirements for compressive strength samples, the
project concrete specification must nominate the
3.1 GENERAL
number and type of samples required for durability
Sampling and sample preparation requirements
related testing in addition to the frequency of sampling.
for fresh concrete and hardened concrete (including
laboratory specimens and samples taken from in-situ Effect of sample concrete compaction
3.2.2
concrete) and the frequency and extent of sampling on test results
are all necessary considerations prior to any durability While the standard compaction procedures
testing whether it be concrete mix acceptance testing, described in AS 1012.8.1:2000 (cylinders) [Reference
quality assurance testing, testing where placed 95] and AS 1012.8.2:2000 (beams) [Reference
concrete is suspect or condition monitoring testing. 96] are satisfactorily consistent for measurement
The accuracy of any test result is strongly of macroscopic properties such as compressive
influenced by the quality of the sample tested. Thus strength, testing of durability related properties such
representative sampling, sample preparation, and as water penetration, chloride ingress, carbonation
the repeatability and reproducibility of the method or chemical resistance is inherently more sensitive to
are critical features. A sample may comprise one the microstructure and continuity of voids within the
specimen or several replicate specimens. Several concrete.
replicate specimens may be needed to comprise a Published systematic repeatability studies of
representative sample of the concrete of interest. water permeability testing [Reference 6] have shown
that consistency of concrete compaction of the sample
STANDARD METHODS OF SAMPLE
3.2 is the primary factor that influences the often perceived
PREPARATION FROM FRESH CONCRETE
poor repeatability/reproducibility of durability related
tests. Where due care is taken in compacting the
Specification of testing requirements
3.2.1 concrete when casting test specimens, coefficients of
for fresh concrete
variation for water permeability and absorption tests, for
The specification of durability related parameters example, that are comparable to those for compressive
other than compressive strength for concrete means strength testing can be obtained.
that the concrete has to be specified as “special class” Compaction of test specimens using a
in accordance with AS 1379:2007 [Reference 7]. In vibrating table is preferred to other methods because
addition, where special class concrete is specified, it consolidates concrete with relatively little effort;
the project concrete specification will often call for therefore, is the easiest way to consistently achieve
quality control testing to be performed under “Project good compaction in all samples. However, concrete can
Assessment”. Under the provisions of AS 1379:2007 be consolidated effectively with other methods if care is
[Reference 7], this triggers a higher frequency of routine taken to avoid over- or under-compaction.
compressive strength testing from more restricted “Durability” samples should not be given “special
sample pools than the “production assessment” applied attention” to try and produce particularly high levels of
to “normal class” concrete. compaction in order to secure favourable test results.
The method of preparing compressive strength For example, forensic investigation of past instances
test samples from production concrete is referenced of failure to comply with specified water permeability
to AS 1012.8.1:2000 [Reference 95], which describes criteria has found that over-zealous compaction can
various compaction procedures deemed acceptable for result in the formation of microstructural features such
preparation of test samples. as segregation and bleed channels that adversely
Samples for durability performance related tests affect test results, even to the extent of compromising
are most commonly prepared as standard 100∅x200 specification compliance.
3:1
3.2.3 Curing of concrete samples concrete are reviewed in this section.
The way in which concrete is cured significantly Many test methods have specific requirements
affects its potential durability, both through the extent of for the size and condition of samples. It is necessary
cement hydration and the nature of the pore structure to be familiar with such requirements before specifying
that develops. Similarly, the way in which concrete a sampling program. Unless sampling particular
samples are cured will significantly affect the results of anomalies, a primary requirement is often to ensure
durability tests. that the extracted samples represent the bulk of the
AS 1379:2007 [Reference 7] nominates curing concrete in terms of properties such as aggregate
of compressive strength samples in accordance with distribution and voids. Certain structures, such as dams
AS 1012.8.1:2000 [Reference 95]. Test cylinders are and some historical structures, and elements with
required to be capped or covered and initially left at site, large cross sections and little or no reinforcement can
but transferred to a controlled wet curing environment contain abnormally large aggregate particles, to greater
within 18 to 36 hours from moulding. than 200 mm, which makes “representative” sampling
Standard wet curing conditions by lime saturated difficult or impractical. In such cases, experience is
water bath immersion or, much less commonly, fog required in assessing sampling methods and sample
room, are 23 ± 2 °C for sites in temperate climates size to facilitate gathering the required information.
(defined as Australian Capital Territory, New South The most common method for taking samples
Wales, South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, and Western is by wet diamond coring. Where this is not convenient,
Australia south of latitude 25° S) or 27 ± 2 °C for tropical drilled dust samples or dry grinding core cuts may be
climates (defined as Queensland, Northern Territory, taken. This Section describes standard procedures for
and Western Australia north of latitude 25° S). In NZ, the taking all three sample types.
standard curing temperature is 21 +/- 2 ºC. Before taking the sample, the reinforcement
It is sometimes necessary to employ non- position should be located and marked so that the
standard curing conditions in the preparation of sample can be taken over the reinforcement to inspect
samples for durability related tests, in order to reflect the physical condition of the reinforcement and
the conditions under which the concrete will cure on- measure the cover depth for verification of cover meter
site. Examples of this include: readings, or to avoid the reinforcement as required.
■■ Early age steam curing of precast elements. Furthermore, before taking the sample the
■■ Temperature matched curing for maturity concrete surface should be inspected and any defects
calculations. recorded.
■■ Unusually cold or hot conditions.
■■ Insulated conditions. 3.3.2 Wet diamond coring
■■ Trial mixes that are performed in a different Extracted cores have the same diameter as
climatic zone to the project site. the internal diameter of the core bit. In contrast, coring
Where non-standard curing conditions are contractors typically refer to the “core size” as the size
required, these must be described in the project of the hole left behind, i.e. the outside diameter of the
concrete specification. core bit. The difference is usually about 5-6 mm, hence
the designer must clearly define the diameter when
SAMPLING METHODS FOR
3.3 specifying cores.
IN-SITU CONCRETE
Diamond drilled cores for chemical analysis of
concrete commonly have diameters from 30 mm to 150
3.3.1 Background mm. A 30 mm core is adequate for visual examination
Sampling from a concrete structure is often of deterioration induced by chemical attack. If the
required to assess one or more properties. The sample concrete maximum aggregate size is 20 mm or larger,
type, size, locations and frequency of collection will a 30 mm core will not be suitable for chemical analysis
depend on the properties to be determined, the (e.g. chloride or sulfate ion content) as the sample
reliability required for the results and the practicalities aggregate:cement ratio might not be representative
and cost of testing. The methods of sampling for in-situ of the concrete. For example, a single piece of coarse
3:2
aggregate could occupy the entire cross section of the cannot be easily repaired.
core at one or more locations along the core length. ■■ Bolt (or attach by vacuum pad) diamond
If 30 mm diameter cores are the largest that can be tipped coring drills to the concrete surface and
taken for chemical analysis, three such cores should lock them in place with the core bit aligned
be extracted and combined to provide a representative perpendicular to the surface, refer Figure 3.1c.
sample. Cores of 50 mm diameter provide sufficient This will minimise damage to the concrete core
area to give representative samples for chemical sample by the core bit vibrating during coring. If
analysis provided that the depth increments selected the core drill is not firmly locked in place, ridges
are at least 10 mm thick. Often it is preferable to cut a can form on the core surface, which might make
core in half longitudinally and measure chloride content the core sample unsuitable for testing. Failure
on one half and cement content or carbonation on the to properly secure the drill can also result in it
other half. Cores of 75 mm diameter provide sufficient detaching from the surface, with risks of injury to
cross sectional surface area for both halves of the core the operator and damage to the equipment.
to give representative samples. ■■ Use mains water or a battery operated pump on
Many physical test methods prescribe the water reservoir for continuous water supply.
requirements for the geometry of the core sample. This avoids damaging the core bit, and hence
For example, for compressive strength testing AS the core, by interrupted water supply.
1012.14:1991 [Reference 97] states that “The diameter ■■ Coring to be undertaken at a constant rate
of cores shall be not less than the greater of 75 mm with relatively constant and not undue force. If
or 3 times the nominal size of coarse aggregate in the possible do not interrupt coring. This will help
concrete …” Other test methods specify the sample minimise ridges on the core and core breakage.
size by the face area of the core, or the volume of ■■ Before coring, mark the core’s exposed outer
concrete comprising the core. surface to indicate orientation and designation.
Cores of 100 mm diameter are often considered ■■ Immediately after coring, mark the core sides to
to be the standard size for diffusion, penetrability and indicate orientation and designation, refer Figure
strength testing. However, 75 mm diameter cores 3.1a and Figure 3.1b.
can often be used as the minimum size for concrete After coring, check the cores to ensure that they
with aggregate size up to 20 mm. However, to ensure satisfy testing requirements and clearly identify cores
compliance with minimum requirements a tolerance that should be rejected. Record the following details
should be allowed and 80-85 mm diameter cores about the core samples:
provide the ideal balance between minimum damage ■■ Length and whether it is acceptable for testing,
to the structure (less concrete extracted and less risk of (e.g. for length/diameter ratio after ends trimmed
damaging reinforcement) and acceptable assurance of for strength tests) or to reach the required depth
meeting minimum diameter requirements. into the structure.
■■ Reinforcement present, size, cover depth,
Recommended practice for
3.3.3 corrosion condition before flash rusting, and
wet diamond coring whether any reinforcement not removed by
AS1012.14:1991 [Reference 97] provides limited trimming the core will prevent testing.
information on the method of taking cores. Z7/07 ■■ Cracks, delaminations or cold joints present.
recommends the following procedures when coring: ■■ Voids quantity and size.
■■ Locate reinforcement with by a covermeter or ■■ Compaction variations or segregation of the
ground penetrating radar (GPR), see Section concrete.
6.2, before coring. GPR will typically show ■■ Core ridges greater than 2 mm.
reinforcement to around 300-500 mm whereas ■■ Photograph all concrete surfaces.
covermeters only show the top reinforcement. Useful information might also be gained from
Cores containing reinforcement could be inspecting the core hole. For example record:
unsuitable for testing. Cutting the reinforcement ■■ Depth of carbonation.
damages the structure, and cut reinforcement ■■ Reinforcement present, size, cover depth and
3:3
 Before coring, mark the core’s exposed outer surface to indicate orientation and designation.
 Immediately after coring, mark the core sides to indicate orientation and designation, refer
Figure 2a) and Figure 2b).
Figure 2 : Wet Diamond Drilling to Obtain Concrete Cores
a) Diamond Core. 100 mm cores are often considered standard for strength but 80-85 mm diameter is generally preferable as it causes less c) Diamond Coreing with 82 mm core bit with battery
damage, is considerably faster to take and has less risk of cutting reinforcement. operated water pump in the foreground.
b) Diamond Core. 30 mm cores are quick to take and can provide a lot of information on materials and concrete quality to considerable depth.
50 mm cores are more suited for chemical analysis.
Figure 3.1: Wet diamond drilling to obtain concrete cores

After coring, check the cores to ensure that they satisfy testing requirements and clearly identify
cores that should be rejected. Record the following details about the core samples:
 Length
corrosion condition and flash
before whether it is acceptable for■■ testing,
rusting. (e.g.
Electrical for length/diameter
resistivity (refer Section ratio
5.7). after ends
trimmed for strength tests) or to reach the■required depth into the structure.
■■ Compaction variations or segregation of the ■ Dynamic modulus (refer Section 4.9).
concrete.  Reinforcement present, size, cover depth, corrosion
■ ■ condition
Ultrasonic pulse before
velocityflash
(referrusting,
Sectionand whether
6.3.4).
any reinforcement not removed by trimming the core will prevent testing.
■■ Excessive voids.
■■
 Cracks,
Features such delaminations
as delamination planesororcold joints present.
cracks. 3.3.4 Grinding core cuts
 Voids
It is frequently quantity
necessary and size.cores
to transport Dry grinding core cuts are not ideal to obtain
to a laboratory fortesting. After inspection
Compaction on-site
variations the
or segregation of the concrete.
concrete samples because they do not provide suitable
cores should be wrapped
 Coreinridges
“clinggreater
film” and packed
than 2 mm. samples for some test methods (see below), and
in a manner that will protect the core from damage sampling to depths exceeding the cover zone can be
 Photograph all concrete surfaces.
during transport. The cores can be packed in polythene difficult. However, they are a useful compromise where
bags inside a packing case filled with shock absorbing access is difficult or wet diamond coring equipment is
materials (e.g. “bubble wrap”). PVC tubes can also be impractical (e.g. overhead) or not available (e.g. remote
Performance Testscores.
used to transport To Assess Concrete Durability 26
areas).
If sampling for alkali aggregate reaction (AAR) In some cases the cored concrete sample is
testing, e.g. petrographic examination, see Section obtained intact while in other cases the concrete comes
7.4.6, it is particularly important that the cores be out as fractured pieces. In some cases it is virtually dust
preserved by sealing in a damp, airtight environment. with some pieces of aggregate.
For compressive strength testing, A hammer drill fitted with a tungsten carbide
AS1012.14:1991 [Reference 97] provides the method tipped core cutter, refer Figure 3.2, is used to cut the
of preparing cores for testing and after a decision is concrete but will not cut through reinforcement. No
made on the appropriate conditioning these procedures coring machine frame or cooling water is required. The
should be followed. drill is hand held, refer Figure 3.2a and 3.2b, and if not
After trimming the core ends, consideration held firmly the core can break while being cut, jamming
could be given to measuring the following properties the bit. A pilot drill bit makes a hole in the centre of the
before cutting, crushing or otherwise processing the core over the first 20 mm. A nominal 82 mm outside
core, as they are quick, do not damage the concrete diameter grinding core is typically used and is probably
and provide useful information about durability and the maximum practical size to cut.
strength:
3:4
Figure 3 : Dry Grinding Core Cuts to obtaining Concrete Samples
a) Grinding core cuts are particularly useful for soft fit samples where b) Grinding core cuts require little effort on decks but special c) Grinding core exposes large diameter
diamond cores have to be taken with hydraulic equipment. cleaning equipment is required to collect the dust. reinforcing bar at centre of hole.
d) Grinding core exposes small diameter bar on

hole side. Breakout reveals bar behind.
Figure 3.2: DryDrilled

3.3.5 grinding coreSamples
Dust cuts to obtain concrete samples
This method is often regarded as the option of last

Grinding core cut samples can be used for
resort where other concrete sampling methods
Drilled dust samples extracted using a 20-
are impractical or not available. However, when conducted in accordance with the
visual examination, reinforcement presence,
recommendations below, thesize, coverdoes25
method mm bitconcrete
provide will not provide
samplesa representative sample testing.
suitable for chemical
depth and corrosion condition, refer Figure 3.2c and unless a number of adjacent holes are drilled and the
A hand held
Figure 3.2d, petrographic percussionchemical
examination, drill withtests,
a 20-25 mm
dust diameter
combined.tungsten carbide
The number tipped
of drill holesdrill bit is isused for
required
taking drilled dust samples. A 60 mm diameter clear pipe cut off at 45 degrees and with a drill bit
etc. However, extracted cores might contain cracks and typically:
entry hole is used for collecting dust, as shown in Figure 4.
micro-cracks induced by the percussion drilling process ■■ 15 mm depth intervals – 6 to 8 No.
Figure 4 : Method of Taking Drilling Dust Samples
Dust
that could affect testisresults.
usually collected from several sequential depth increments from the outer surface to the
depth
Information can ofalso
the be
outer reinforcement
obtained or slightly beyond it.
from the core
hole visual inspection, similar to that described for wet
diamond drilled cores.
3.3.5 Drilled dust samples

This method is often regarded as the option of
last resort where other concrete sampling methods are
impractical or not available. However, when conducted
in accordance with the recommendations below, the
method does provide concrete samples suitable for
chemical testing.
A hand held percussion drill with a 20-25 mm
diameter tungsten carbide tipped drill bit is used for
taking drilled dust samples. A 60 mm diameter clear
pipe cut off at 45 degrees and with a drill bit entry hole
is used for collecting dust, as shown in Figure 3.3.
Dust is usually collected from several sequential
Performance Tests To Assess Concrete Durability 28
depth increments from the outer surface to the depth of
the outer reinforcement or slightly beyond it. dust samples Figure
Drilled extracted
3.3:using
Methoda 20-25 mm
of taking bit will
drilling notsamples
dust provide a representative sam
a number of adjacent holes are drilled and the dust combined. The number of drill hol
is typically:
 15 mm depth intervals – 6 to 8 No. 3:5
 20 mm depth intervals – 4 Performance
to 6 No. Tests to Assess Concrete Durability
 The number of holes might need to be increased if drilling soffits, due to less ef
collection, or if smaller diameter drill bits are used.
■■ 20 mm depth intervals – 4 to 6 No. When complete move to the second hole and collect
■■ The number of holes might need to be increased the dust in the same as the first. Repeat the process
if drilling soffits, due to less efficient dust until the sample bag contains dust from the prescribed
collection, or if smaller diameter drill bits are number of holes. Wrap the dust collected tightly in the
used. polythene bag and record the sample location and the
■■ Fewer holes can be drilled if larger drill bits are depth increment on the bag with a permanent marker
used; however, drilling with greater than 25 mm pen.
diameter drill bits can be more difficult. Clean the collection tube with a brush and
■■ A minimum weight of concrete sample can be remove dust remaining in the drill hole. Then take the
required for a specific test that will determine the sample from the second depth increment using the
number of holes at specific depth increments. same drill holes used for the first depth increment.
The depth interval will depend on the cover Use the same routine to collect samples for each
depth, but should be a maximum of cover x 0.3, if depth increment. Wrap all the samples in one bag and
the concrete is thought to be heavily contaminated. label the bag with the sample number.
Sampling beyond the cover depth will help determine Guidance on drilled dust samples for chloride
the depth of contamination as well as background levels ion content testing is given in Concrete Society
of the contaminant. Technical Report TR 60 [Reference 189] that requires a
Select the concrete surface area and drill the minimum of 25 grams of concrete dust for each depth
first hole to the required depth collecting the dust. increment from multiple drill positions.
3:6
4 ■■ Frequency of test and number of test specimens
to be used to give one result (unless included in
Concrete Mix Acceptance
the method of test).
Acceptance criteria (including tolerances) or
Tests for Durability Design and ■■
details to be reported (if not clear in the method

Construction Compliance of test).
Testing during the project’s design and
4.1 GENERAL construction phases is described in Z7/01 and Z7/04.
This section reviews the primary types of Tests to provide data for design life modelling are listed
durability performance tests used for concrete mix in Z7/05, and tests related to early age crack control
acceptance. The designer and/or durability consultant and crack measurement are referred to in Z7/06.
will need to assess whether specific durability tests Table 4.1 summarises the recommended durability
are required for the project (see Section 1). If durability performance tests for mix acceptance. Additional
testing is required, the project specification would details of these tests, and other tests that give similar
include: data, are given later in this section. The method of using
■■ Test method according to some publicly available test results in modelling and the criteria applicable to
method. test results for mix assessment are provided in Z7/01
■■ Sampling method (including curing), sample and/or other documents.
geometry and size (unless included in the
method).
Table 4.1: Recommended mix acceptance tests
Common Parameter Key Testing Method Applicable Comments

Reference Measured Aspects Exposures
NT Build Effective Result is average of 3 Severe chloride Results from trial mix
443:1995 Chloride chloride results from different exposures, e.g. splash are generally required
penetration transport cylinders from bulk of and tidal zone to to confirm assumed
[Reference 98], coefficient for cylinders. Typically 15 determine acceptability values or indicative
Section 4.2 mix as used weeks from completion of the mix at the results from NT Build
in modelling of curing to actual nominated cover. 492.
chloride diffusion
coefficient (Dc ) results.
NT Build 492:1999 Chloride Result is average of 3 Intermittent QA. Used to give an early
Chloride migration migration results from different indication of chloride
test [Reference coefficient cylinders from bulk of migration (diffusion)
99], Section 4.2 when ingress cylinders. Typically 3 coefficient (results
accelerated weeks from completion need correlation
under an of curing to actual factor). Can be used
applied migration coefficient as intermittent QA test
electrical field results. once calibrated against
NT Build 443.
fib 34:2006 Depth of pH Carbonation Where environment Results can be used
Carbonation rate change due accelerated by use of is not dry enough to in a model that allows
test [Reference 1], to ingress of high CO2 content. Test restrict corrosion rate for other aspects of
Section 4.3 CO2 exposure condition and: exposure (e.g. wetting)
modified to Australian (a) CO2 levels are high, to give the depth of
temperate conditions. (b) concrete quality is carbonation with time.
Typically 4 weeks not clear (e.g. new Results can also be
exposure after curing. materials), or used to compare
(c) cover is low. different mixes.
4:1
ASTM C1585:13 Rate of water Conditioning of sample In any severe exposure Used where a rate of
Water sorptivity absorbed in to a standard (not oven where ingress of absorption is required
test [Reference a standard dried) environment. contaminants by for modelling or where
18], Section 4.4 environment Typically 4 weeks to capillary absorption is absorption is not
complete (excluding a risk. deemed adequate to
presaturation stage). define performance for
durability assessment.
AS 1012.21:1999 Water Boiled absorption The test can be used Used extensively in
Volume of absorption of standard sized for any exposures as Victoria by VicRoads
permeable voids test that samples. different criteria are set to show that concrete
[Reference 12], is likely to Typically 2-3 weeks to for different concrete mixes of specified
Section 4.4 saturate all complete. grades. characteristics will give
pores a minimum level of
durability.
Water permeability Water Ensure no leakage Where water transport Test can be specified
test, Section 4.5 transport around edges of is under a pressure where penetration
under a sample. Allows for head. under a high pressure
pressure measurement of flow gradient is a concern.
head at different times.
Semi-adiabatic Temperature 1 m3 insulated block Elements where limits Used to calculate
test, Section 4.6 rise under that approaches on rebar stress might adiabatic temperature
insulated adiabatic conditions. not be an adequate rise, not as a direct
conditions Minimises energy means of crack indication of in-
with minimal interchange with the control: situ temperature
heat loss environment, e.g. solar (a) thick sections rise. Include strain
gain and losses due to (>500 mm) measurement to
wind. (b) high heat output give coefficient of
concrete thermal expansion
(c) elements with high when required. Used
restraint. wherever early age
thermal cracking or
excessive maximum
temperatures are an
issue.
Alkali aggregate Various Process of determining Areas where sufficient The experience in
reactivity (AAR), aspects to testing requirements moisture is available assessing results is as
Section 4.7 different tests is defined in AS HB79 to fuel reaction with important as the test
[Reference 63]. Rapid potentially reactive method. Test methods
test on mortar bars aggregates. and in-situ aggregate
takes approximately 23 performance vary
days after manufacture from state to state
of specimens. and expertise on local
Concrete prism testing conditions should be
takes 3-24 months employed.
depending on test
method.
4:2
Delayed ettringite Concrete mix Study review as a DEF may occur if The risk of DEF
formation (DEF), composition reliable test method concrete temperature is assessed by
Section 4.8 is reviewed does not exist (see during early stages of reviewing the concrete
combined Section 4.8). curing exceeds about mix composition,
with a 70 ºC and the concrete predicting the concrete
concrete is subsequently peak temperature
peak kept in damp or wet (see Section 4.6) and
temperature service conditions. specifying a maximum
criterion Temperature up to concrete peak
80 ºC is allowed for temperature.
concrete with specific
proportions of GGBFS
or FA.
Sulfate resistance, Cement Expansion of mortar Most mild-moderate Further work is
Section 4.9 system is bars stored in sulphate sulfate exposures but required to define test
assessed solution for 16 weeks not more extreme requirements for use of
and minimum. exposures (e.g. uncoated concrete in
combined No specific acid sulphate soil more extreme sulfate
with a requirement given to conditions). exposures.
penetrability concrete penetrability.
requirement
AS 4456.9:2003 % volume Equipment is not For general application, Calibration of
Abrasion test loss when commonly available. strength is basis of test is required
[Reference 139], concrete Test takes about acceptance. before extending
Section 4.10 surface a week including Test is specifically to application not
subjected to preconditioning of designed for segmental previously assessed.
impact and specimens. pavers but use has Does not relate to
the rolling been extended. actual wear rates in
action of service.
steel ball Results are strongly
bearings influenced by finishing
and curing processes.
BS EN 13892- Depth of Equipment is not For most slabs, Consider limitations
4:2002 Abrasion wear due commonly available. specification of found in real
resistance to rotating Test is carried out on concrete by strength implications of test
[Reference 180], wheels. in-situ concrete. grade is adequate. results to actual
Section 4.10 Use BS EN 13892-4 abrasion resistance.
where risk of failure Interpretation of results
due to abrasion is can be difficult where
moderate or above. impact damage arises
from wheels “skipping”
over exposed coarse
aggregate particles.
4:3
4.2 CHLORIDE PENETRATION and the longer term tests is determined by the pore
water chemistry of the individual concrete, which in turn
4.2.1 General is determined by the cement and SCM chemistry, batch
water supply and admixtures. Therefore there is no
Ingress of chloride ions is a common cause of
universal relationship between results from each type of
reinforcement corrosion. Hence resistance to chloride
test, although calibration curves can be determined for
ion penetration is an important measure of concrete
individual concretes if required.
durability, particularly in marine environments.
A range of test methods also exist for measuring
In saturated concrete, the mechanism of
or inferring the sample’s chloride ion diffusion
chloride ingress is by diffusion through saturated
coefficient. These include “non-steady state diffusion”
pores, voids and cracks. In concrete that is not
(NSSD) and “non-steady state migration” (NSSM)
permanently saturated, the mechanism is a combination
methods. The resistance to chloride ingress is typically
of absorption of water into partly dry concrete,
expressed as the chloride diffusion coefficient. Because
concentration of chlorides when the concrete dries, and
the test result is influenced by other ions present in the
diffusion through saturated pores.
concrete, the result is often referred to as the apparent
Although it does not account for cyclic wetting
diffusion coefficient.
and drying processes, chloride diffusion is relatively
Table 4.2 compares the various chloride
easy to measure accurately and model, therefore it
penetration test methods and provides an outline of
has become a parameter often used in modelling.
the test method set up. It also provides comparative
Consequently, chloride diffusion tests are frequently
results for a sample concrete using the various tests.
used in specifications for concrete in marine and
These are a general comparison for one concrete and
coastal structures.
should not be taken to apply to all concretes. However,
they indicate the order of magnitude of results, and
4.2.2 Chloride diffusion tests
demonstrate clearly the difference between steady-
While test methods have been developed state and non-steady state test results.
that effectively measure chloride diffusion, there is More details on chloride penetration test
still great debate about how these results should be methods can be found in references such as Stanish et
applied. Tests that give the most precise estimate al [Reference 43], Tang and Sørensen [Reference 46],
of chloride diffusion take a long time to complete. Lane [Reference 44], Vivas et al [Reference 47], Narsilio
The original “steady state diffusion” (SSD) method of et al [Reference 45] and Peek et al [Reference 6].
measuring chloride diffusion involved placing a sample In Australia, the NordTest NT Build 443
in a cell with a chloride solution on one side and a [Reference 98] method is commonly used to test and
solution with no chlorides on the other. The chloride pre-qualify concrete mixes for use in chloride-bearing
concentration in the receiving cell was measured over environments. An alternative standard, ASTM C1556-
time until a constant chloride ion concentration was 11a [Reference 50], is based on NT Build 443. Although
achieved. The chloride diffusion coefficient was then there are procedural differences between the methods,
calculated. However, the diffusion coefficient could any effect on the test results has not been published
take six months or more to measure, and require many at the time of writing, the two methods are expected to
chloride analyses. Because of the slow rate of increase produce similar results for practical purposes.
in chlorides in the receiving side of the cell, it is easy to Both methods require appropriate curing of
assume a steady state has been reached when it has concrete, NT Build 443 [Reference 98] requires “28
not. This can lead to reporting of optimistic diffusion maturity days” while ASTM C1556-11a [Reference 50]
coefficients. requires “28 days of laboratory standard moist curing”.
Rapid tests have been developed whereby the This has implications for the “age at test”, because the
diffusion of chlorides is driven by a potential difference. standard European laboratory curing temperature is
The property measured under these conditions is often 20 °C (e.g. NT Build 201 [Reference 101] is 20 ± 4 °C),
described as chloride migration rather than diffusion. compared to 23 ± 2 °C as in the USA and Australia and
The relationship between the results from rapid tests 21 +/- 2 ºC in NZ.
4:4
Test Test Set Up Equation NaCl/ Volts Time Dc x 10-12 Precision Mechanism When to use
Method NaOH (1) m2/s (CoV %)
Measures the steady state With the development of
diffusion coefficient. the other tests to measure
Classical Fick’s 1st Law diffusion coefficient,
1.2 M/ 150-
Membrane — 0.61 this test is considered
0.3 M 300 d
Cell Test to be obsolete. Not
recommended for use.
This is also a steady state Has not been commonly

test but it is accelerated by used in Australia. Not
NordTest Nernst Plank application of a driving force, recommended for use.
5%/
NT Build 200 5d 0.83 i.e. 200V charge. Originally
0.3 M
355 developed as a rapid
alternative to a classical SSD.
15% NSSD test. Concrete cylinders Used for prequalification

according or cores exposed to sodium of concrete mixes. High
Nordtest
to NT Build chloride solution for minimum quality concrete mixes
NT Build
Fick’s 2nd Law 2.8 M 443 of 35 days. Specimens sliced require at least 56 day
443 (ASTM
(168 and analysed for chloride exposure duration. Useful
C1556-11a — 35+ d 13.6
g/l)/ concentration. Effective for durability modelling.
is derived
0.3 M diffusion coefficient in m2/s
from NT
calculated based on best
Build 443)
fit of Fick’s Second Law of
Diffusion.
9% NSSM test. Slices from Quicker than NT Build
according concrete cylinders or 443. Results affected
to NT Build cores placed in migration by binder composition
Nernst Plank 6hr to
NordTest 492 cell and electrical field and admixtures due to
10%/ 200- 96 hr
NT Build 16.6 applied. Depth of chloride their effects on pore
0.3 M 1200 (usually
492 penetration measured by water chemistry. Only
24 hr)
colourimetric method and used to derive “diffusion
Table 4.2: Outline of test methods used to measure chloride diffusion coefficient set up and analysis
migration coefficient in m2/s is coefficients” when

calculated. calibrated to individual mix.
Average chloride Salt Ponding of dried Can require exposure
AASHTO concentration from 13.6 samples. Slabs exposed to greater than 90 days
T259 several 12 mm slices at If sorption sodium chloride solution for to achieve measurable
(ASTM specified depths. and at least 90 days and up to results.
3%/ - — 90 d
C1543-10a Profile affected by vapour 12 months or more. Powder
is derived sorptivity, vapour effects samples at specific depths

4:5
from T259) transmission and minimal. collected and analysed for
diffusion. chloride concentration.
1
”Time” is the duration under test and does not include curing time or time required for chemical analysis of concrete slices after exposure.
The diffusion coefficient will change with time ■■ Curing of concrete cylinders to AS 1012.8.1
as the concrete matures, therefore the age at which [Reference 95] to 28 days. This curing applies
the test is carried out will determine the results. Thus only to Portland and blended Portland cement
apparent diffusion coefficients determined at early ages concretes. The curing of other non-Portland
do not represent ultimate diffusion rates, particularly for cement binders is to be separately specified.
concretes containing fly ash or slag. ■■ At the age of 28 days, the specimens shall be
Curing is followed by exposure to a chloride exposed to water containing sodium chloride in
solution for at least 35 days. For a reliable result, the accordance with NT Build 443 or ASTM C1556
exposure period must be long enough for a measurable at 23 ± 2 °C.
chloride ion concentration profile to develop. For high ■■ The period of exposure to sodium chloride
performance concretes, particularly those containing solution shall be 56 days typically.
SCM, exposure for 56 days or more is necessary to ■■ For core samples they shall be kept wet until
give time for sufficient chloride ions to penetrate. delivery to the test laboratory. They must be
NordTest NT Build 492 [Reference 99] also representative of the concrete and/or structure in
requires appropriate curing of the samples prior to test question and the concrete must be hardened to
by reference to NT Build 201 (cylinders) [Reference a minimum of 28 maturity-days.
101] and NT Build 202 (cores) [Reference 102]. The There are no universal acceptance criteria for
test involves driving chloride ions through the concrete this test, as the required value is calculated based on
under an applied potential difference and measuring the modelling analysis.
depth of penetration after a specified time (6-96 hours The following two-step process can be followed
depending on current passed with applied voltage) when specifying the chloride penetration resistance:
determined by the concrete quality. ■■ Establish a mean diffusion coefficient that gives
The rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT), the design life required by diffusion modelling
originally AASHTO T277 {Reference 48] and later ASTM and any allowances considered appropriate to
C1202 [Reference 49], is a misnomer as it doesn’t provide a margin for error. It is essential that
give an indication of chloride diffusion directly. It was model values are reviewed by an experienced
originally developed as a quick test to indicate the professional in terms of what can reasonably be
chloride diffusion coefficient, but it has subsequently expected to be achieved in practical concrete
been found to be primarily a measure of electrical production prior to incorporation in a works
resistivity. Internationally the test is used primarily (project) specification, otherwise there is a risk of
for quality control, but is being displaced in favour specifying impractically low values that cannot
of resistivity tests. ASTM has also introduced a bulk be achieved in practice.
electrical conductivity test for hardened concrete, ■■ Specify the maximum diffusion coefficient to
ASTM C1790 [Reference 100] as a rapid indicator be achieved, or note the desired value and
of chloride ion diffusion resistance as measured by require that the actual value be reported. It is
ASTM C1556-11a [Reference 50]. These rapid tests are recommended that a specified value only be set
not discussed here, but are referred to in Section 5.7 where local suppliers have experience in meeting
(Electrical resistivity). the proposed specified value. If local suppliers
do not have the necessary previous experience
4.2.3 Recommendations in making this type of concrete then they will
NT Build 443 [Reference 98] or ASTM C1556-11a need to carry out trial batching to demonstrate
[Reference 50], modified in terms of a specific sample they can produce this type of concrete with
curing regime and to be consistent with standard satisfactory consistency.
Australian laboratory practice, is recommended.
The “modified NT Build 443 or ASTM C1556 Atmospheric chloride content
4.2.4
environmental assessment
method” is as follows:
■■ Production of concrete cylinders of dimensions In many cases, the environmental chloride load
used for standard compression test to AS can be assessed using the guidelines in AS 3600 and
1012.8.1 [Reference 95]. AS 5100.5, categorising the exposure conditions as A1,
4:6
A2, B1, B2, C1 or C2 accordingly. If a more detailed none have been standardised. Extensive research on
assessment of local exposure conditions at the site is carbonation was undertaken by CSIRO in the 1980s,
required, rates of salt deposition can be estimated by involving both accelerated and field exposure tests
methods such as a “wet candle method” or “coupon (e.g. Reference 105). The accelerated conditions thus
exposure”. These methods are considered beyond the developed (25 °C, 50% RH, 4% CO2 ) were empirically
scope of this document at this time. correlated with exterior exposure in Melbourne to give
an approximately 50-fold acceleration, and therefore
4.3 CARBONATION RATE have some direct relevance to Australian conditions.
Accelerated test methods have been proposed
4.3.1 Introduction in Europe and the UK. An “Accelerated carbonation
test” is detailed in fib Bulletin 34 [Reference 1]. A
Carbonation is the reaction between
draft test method was developed by CEN and has
4.3
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO CARBONATION
2 ) gas and cementRATE
been evaluated by researchers including Harrison et
hydration products dissolved in the concrete pore
4.3.1 Introduction al [Reference 106] and Jones et al [Reference 107].
water, in particular calcium hydroxide. Carbonation
Carbonation An reaction
is the accelerated test method
between is under
atmospheric development
carbon dioxide (CO2) gas and cement hydr
reduces the pH of concrete pore solution from 13 to
products dissolved in the
in the concrete
form of prBSpore water, in particular
1881-131:2011 calcium
[Reference hydroxide. Carbonation red
108].
less than 9. This change destabilises the passive
the pH oxide
of concrete pore solution from 13 to less than 9. This change destabilises the passive o
NordTest NT Build 357 [Reference 109] also describes
film on the surface of the steel reinforcement,film on the surface of the steel reinforcement, allowing the reinforcement to corrode.
allowing
a methodology for accelerated carbonation testing.
the reinforcement to corrode.
Under normal atmospheric conditions the deemed-to-comply concrete grade and c
Under normal atmospheric conditionsrequirements
the of AS 3600 [Reference 177] and AS 5100.5 [Reference 178] will generally pro
adequate protection. Recommendations
4.3.2 Because carbonation alone rarely causes significant corrosion, carbon
deemed-to-comply concrete grade and cover
rate tests are not generally The undertaken.
“Accelerated However, carbonation
carbonation test” as rate testing
detailed in is sometimes requ
requirements of AS 3600 [Reference 177] and forAS example when:
5100.5 [Reference 178] will generally provide adequate fib Bulletin 34 [Reference 1], modified to be consistent
a)
protection. Because carbonation alone rarely causes A mix does not perform
with well Australian
standard in general laboratory
quality testspractice,
and the isactual carbonation resistance o
mix is required.
significant corrosion, carbonation rate tests are not recommended.
generally undertaken. However, carbonation b) rateWhere non-standardInmaterials
testing the “fib method”, the carbonation
are used and rate has to be specifically asses
their performance
is sometimes required, for example when: is accelerated by testing at a carbon dioxide
c) Where the in-situ carbonation rates are high and/or the design life is in excess of 100 years
■■ concentration
a specific assessment
A mix does not perform well in general quality of theofconcrete
2% which is approximately
needs to be used to 50 times cover requirements.
determine
tests and the actual carbonation resistance of the normal atmospheric CO2 concentration but not
Testing for carbonation rate is relatively simple. Concrete samples are cured for an approp
the mix is required. so high as to change the reaction mechanisms or the
time and are then placed in an airtight tank, refer Figure 5. The carbonation rate is accelerate
■■ Where non-standard materials are used using
anda their morphology
higher than normal CO of 2the reaction
content products.
in the After
tank while curing,
temperature and humidity are held
standard level. The
concrete content must
CO2 samples are not be so
exposed forhigh
28 that itThus,
days. affects the chemical reactions
performance has to be specifically assessed.
occur, or the morphology of the reaction products. When the results are used in mode
■■ Where the in-situ carbonation rates are allowance
high and/ ignoring
is made for theother factors
effects the carbonation
of actual depth achieved
exposure conditions compared to those in the tank
or the design life is in excess
Figure 5of: 100 years,
Typical and a
Carbonation during
Tank where CO2 Level is controlled byapproximately
the test will be achieved in-situ in Injection of an Air/CO2 Mixture a
specific assessment of the concreteTank needs
Air/COto 2 Mixture is Re-Circulated through a Temperature and Humidity Controller
be
used to determine cover requirements.
Testing for carbonation rate is relatively simple.
Concrete samples are cured for an appropriate time
and are then placed in an airtight tank, refer Figure 4.1.
The carbonation rate is accelerated by using a higher
than normal CO2 content in the tank while temperature
and humidity are held at a standard level. The CO2
content must not be so high that it affects the chemical
reactions that occur, or the morphology of the reaction
products. When the results are used in modelling,
allowance is made for the effects of actual exposure
conditions compared to those in the tank. Figurerate
Although carbonation 4.1:tests
Typical
havecarbonation
been undertakentank where CO2 using different tank condit
in Australia
none have beenlevel is controlled
standardised. by injection
Extensive of anonair/CO
research 2 mixture
carbonation was undertaken by CSIR
Although carbonation rate tests have been
and tank
the 1980s, involving bothair/CO 2 mixture
accelerated is re-circulated
and field exposure through
tests a(e.g. Reference 105).
undertaken in Australia using different tank conditions, temperature
accelerated conditions and humidity
thus developed controller
(25°C, 50% RH, 4% CO2) were empirically correlated
exterior exposure in Melbourne to give an approximately 50-fold acceleration, and therefore
some direct relevance to Australian conditions.
Accelerated test methods have been proposed in Europe and the UK. An 4:7“Accelerated Carbon
Test” is detailed in FIB Bulletin 34 [Reference 1]. A draft test method was developed by CEN
Performance
has been evaluated by researchers Tests to Harrison
including Assess Concrete Durability 106] and Jones
et al [Reference
[Reference 107]. An accelerated test method is under development in the form of prBS 1
four to five years (depending on wet/dry cycles in-situ). x c = mean carbonation value from the test in
The benefits of the “fib method” are: metres
■■ The buffering capacity of the concrete does not τ = time constant = 420 (from fib
have to be considered separately. Bulletin 34).
■■ Changes of the carbonation resistance due CIA Recommended Practice Z7/05 provides
to carbonation do not have to be considered further details of the modelling procedure using the “fib
additionally. 34 method”.
■■ Good reproducibility of the test results.
■■ Short duration. Usually the factor that determines 4.4 WATER ABSORPTION AND SORPTIVITY
the duration of carbonation testing is the time
required to condition the test specimens to 4.4.1 Introduction
a specified constant relative humidity prior to
Water absorption and sorptivity are measures
starting the carbonation phase.
of concrete pore volume (porosity) and structure as
The “modified fib method” (to be consistent with
indicated by the volume and rate of uptake of water
standard Australian laboratory practice) is as follows:
by capillary suction respectively [Reference 5]. Solvent
■■ Production of concrete prism specimens of
absorption can also be used as a measure of the
dimensions 100 x 100 x 350 mm as used for
capillary porosity of concrete [Reference 6].
AS 1012.8.2 [Reference 96] standard flexural
Permeability is also a measure of pore structure,
strength test.
but measures the influence of pore volume and
■■ After removing the formwork, the specimens are
connectivity on the rate of transport of water applied
stored in water at 23 ± 2-3 °C for six days.
under pressure. Permeability tests are described in
■■ After water storage, the specimens are stored for
Section 4.5.
21 further days at 23 ± 2-3 °C and 60 ± 5% RH.
Absorption tests measure the total weight
■■ At the age of 28 days, the specimens are placed
gained by concrete immersed in water. Absorption
in a carbonation chamber at 23 ± 2-3 °C, 60
tests focus on filling the voids in concrete without
± 5% RH. In the chamber the specimens are
reference to the rate at which this occurs, although
exposed to a CO2 concentration of 2.0 ± 0.2
some tests might only partially fill the voids if the
vol. % for 28 days. CO2 concentration may be
duration of the absorption period is fixed. Results can
increased up to 4% and additional exposure
be used as mix acceptance tests, but they cannot be
periods such as 7, 56, 90 and 112 days added
used for modelling. Absorption test results are often
if required, e.g. to obtain more reliable data or
referred to as the “volume of permeable voids (VPV)”
enable comparison with existing data. However,
or the “apparent volume of permeable voids (AVPV)”.
CO2 concentrations must not be elevated
Absorption values are expressed as percentage void
beyond 4% because this can affect the nature of
space by volume of sample, or less commonly as the
the carbonation reaction products.
mass of absorbed water as a percentage of the dry
■■ After removal, the concrete specimens
mass of sample.
are split longitudinally and the carbonation
In contrast, Sorptivity tests measure the rate of
depth is measured at the plane of rupture
water absorption. The results can be used in formulae
with an indicator solution consisting of 1.0 g
for assessing the depth of penetration of water with
phenolphthalein per litre (dissolved in a 50:50
time under capillary action. Sorptivity is measured by
methylated spirits/distilled water mixture). The
placing concrete in contact with water with no pressure
phenolphthalein solution will stain un-carbonated
head and measuring weight gain with time to obtain
concrete magenta, while carbonated concrete
a sorptivity value. The corresponding visible height
will not be stained (see also Section 7.4.2).
rise is often also measured; however, this is a less
■■ The inverse carbonation resistance factor,
accurate method for calculation of a sorptivity value.
RACC,0-1 is calculated as:
The result can be used for modelling of water ingress
■■ RACC,0-1 = (xc/τ)^2 units are x 10-11 (m2/s)/(kg/m3).
due to capillary rise, and can also be used as a quality
Where
assurance test. Sorptivity values are calculated as
4:8
volume absorbed per unit surface area related to the and are not used outside of relevant manufacturing
square root of time, e.g. mm3/mm2/min1/2 which is often standards [Reference 6].
1/2
reduced to mm/min . Since compressive strength monitoring has
Both absorption tests and sorptivity tests are a long track history, and is routinely performed for all
widely used in Australia for mix acceptance and quality grades of concrete regardless of other parameters that
assurance. Absorption tests are simple, therefore might be specified for a given project, it is sensible to
preferable where data for modelling is not required, use the same statistics for tests related to concrete
while sorptivity tests are used where modelling of water porosity when using them to assess compliance
ingress is required. [Reference 6]. Modern computer controlled concrete
Table 4.3 summarises the various test methods batch plants can achieve CoVs in the order of 4-6% for
in common use in Australian concrete specifications. compressive strength values taken over a significant
It includes information on the repeatability of the test number of production batches. This level of consistency
method where available, typically as the coefficient of can be used as a minimum value when evaluating
variation (CoV). Table 4.3 does not include certain tests water absorption and sorptivity test results, although
such as the water absorption tests in AS 4058:2007 in practice the actual variability of the water absorption
[Reference 110], AS 4198:1994 [Reference 111], or and sorptvity tests may be higher due to the inherently
AS/NZS 4676:2000 [Reference 112]. These are tests greater complexity of the test methods.
specified for particular precast concrete products,
Table 4.3: Common water absorption and sorptivity tests
Common Drying Precision

Test Type Comments
Reference Temp (CoV %)
Absorption Tests
Essentially an Australian adaptation
Measures the AVPV as a percentage
of ASTM C642-90, with minor
No precision of the volume of the bulk materials, i.e.
procedural changes. Also known
AS 1012.21 105 ºC statement in solid and voids. A standard VicRoads
as the “Apparent volume of
standard “durability criterion” used on road
permeable voids” test or “AVPV”
projects in Victoria.
test.
Oven dry sample of defined size at
least 24 hrs and to weight change
Values of absorption and density
tolerance, immerse in water not
calculated at different’s stages. Popular
less than 48 hrs and to weight No precision
in the late 1990s, now sometimes
ASTM C642 change tolerance, boil 5 hrs and 105 ºC statement in
superseded in Australia by AS
cool not less 14 hrs in water. standard
1012.21, or often by quicker and less
Measures the volume of permeable
expensive BS 1881:Part 122 test.
voids (VPV) as a percentage of the
solid.
Oven dry samples of specified
geometry for 72 hrs, equilibrate at
Essentially a 30 minute single-point
BS 1881 standard room temperature for 24 5-5.5%
105 ºC sorptivity test, often colloquially referred
Part 122 hrs, immerse in water for 30 mins [Reference 6]
to as the “BSAT” test.
and calculate water absorption
from mass gain (Δm).
4:9
Common Drying Precision
Test Type Comments
Reference Temp (CoV %)
Sorptivity Tests
Nomenclature dates back to the 1980s
arising from the original introduction of
Oven dry to constant weight,
method by Taywood Engineering. The
expose one planar face to water
primary criticism of the method is that
and measure uniaxial water
“Taywood/ the drying temperature creates a worst
absorption by weight gain at 5.2-16.8%
GHD/SGS 105 ºC case result because the capillaries
intervals over 4 hrs. Assessment [Reference 6]
Sorptivity” test are unfilled. There is also concern that
by linear regression analysis of Δm
the drying temperature might damage
vs √t. Tests can be completed in 7
the samples by micro-cracking of the
days.
paste, but this has not been found to
be the case in VPV testing.
Dry under specified conditions for 3 Recent introduction to Australia, has
days, equilibrate at standard room been proposed for some projects.
temperature for at least 15 days, Precision data stated by ASTM C1585
seal non-exposed surfaces and is for a single laboratory and single
ASTM 50 ºC
measure uniaxial water absorption 6.0% operator. The test method is similar to
C1585-13 80% RH
by weight gain at specified intervals the Taywood sorptivity test except for
over 9 days. Assessment by linear the drying conditions, which will lead to
regression analysis of Δm vs √t. a result that is more closely related to
Tests can be completed in 14 days. in-situ concrete.
Drying and immersion periods set by
reference to anticipated exposure class
Dry prism samples in specified as defined in AS 3600. A standard
controlled environment up to 35 No precision RMS (RTA) criterion for verification
23 ºC
RTA T362 days, immerse in water up to statement of curing regime on road projects in
50% RH
24 hrs, measure depth of water available NSW. The method of measuring visible
penetration by dye stain method. height rise of water can be difficult to
read and destroys the specimen which
cannot be used for further testing.
Initial surface absorption test Designed to be permitted on in-situ
(ISAT). Measure rate of flow into concrete. Rarely specified, results can
defined area at 200 ± 20 mm head be difficult to interpret as test is very
BS 1881
pressure at intervals over 1 hour. N/A Not known sensitive to existing concrete moisture
Part 208
Geometry means that non-uniaxial condition. Also sensitive to small
flow occurs, making comparison of changes in concrete mix constituents,
results to other methods complex. strength grade and curing.
Solvent absorption to saturation
Occasionally specified. Prescribed
into oven-dry sample, initially
solvent is difficult to obtain in Australia
BS 1881 at reduced pressure. Calculate
105 ºC Not known due to Montreal Protocol on ozone
Part 124 porosity from weight gain. Part
depleting substances, so an alternative
of original free water content
is used.
determination in standard.
Notes:
1. Water absorption tests are not suitable for concretes containing water repellents.
2. Water sorptivity tests are suitable for concretes containing water repellents.
4:10
Table 4.4: AVPV performance assessment criteria (VicRoads Specification 610
on structural concrete [Reference 13])
Max AVPV at 28 days (%)

Concrete Grade
Vibrated Cylinder Rodded Cylinder Cores
VR330/32 14 15 17
VR400/40 13 14 16
VR450/50 12 13 15
VR470/55 11 12 14
4.4.2 AS 1012.21 Volume of permeable voids while others did not reduce AVPV significantly.
AS 1012.21:1999 [Reference 12] is an Australian While CC&AA [Reference 5] notes that there
adaptation of ASTM C642-06 [Reference 113]. In the is a poor relationship between some absorption tests
AS1012.21:1999 test method cylinders or cores are cut and chloride diffusion, others [Reference 65] quote a
into four equal slices so that several results are obtained reasonable relationship between AVPV and chloride
from one test specimen. The slices are oven dried to a diffusion and propose AVPV as possibly the best overall
constant weight then immersed and boiled in water in assessment method for durability performance.
order to saturate the concrete’s permeable voids and
thus give a measure of the total pore volume. 4.4.3 Taywood/GHD/SGS sorptivity test
Extensive work by VicRoads [Reference 65] The Taywood sorptivity test [Reference 69], refer
has enabled them to assess the potential durability of Figure 4.2, was originally a brick test. Recognising the
concrete, as indicated by AVPV results, for concrete significance of the rate of water ingress due to capillary
of different grades to ensure a high reliability that the action, as opposed to tests which only measure the
mixes will be durable in the exposure for which they are volume of pores, the original brick test was adapted
intended. Criteria developed for VicRoads are shown in for concrete in the late 1970s. The test is mentioned in
Table 4.4.
Concrete Society TR31:1988 [Reference 69] but was
Whiting [Reference 66] compared AVPV results
never issued in a standard.
measured using ASTM C642-06 [Reference 113] with
The test has continued to be used by many
results from water permeability and air permeability
people who had developed an understanding of
on mixes with different water/binder (w/b) ratio and a
concrete quality through the extensive use of this
mix with silica fume. The results showed that AVPV
method. A significant quantity of tests have been
differentiated better than air permeability between the
conducted on Australian concrete using the method
concretes at w/b ratios less than 0.4 but neither method
named as Taywood Sorptivity, GHD Sorptivity 2001 to
differentiated between concretes at w/b ratios over 0.4.
2008 and SGS Sorptivity since 2008.
In comparison, water permeability differentiated the
high w/c ratio concretes but measurements at low w/c
4.4.4 ASTM C1585 sorptivity test
ratios could not be made.
Andrews-Phaedonos [Reference 65] reported The ASTM C1585-13 [Reference 117] test is
on the relationship between AVPV and various concrete relatively simple to undertake. Although it takes slightly
properties as follows: longer than the Taywood sorptivity test and with shorter
■■ Relationship to strength is poor, reflecting that history of usage in Australia, it gives results that are
strength is a poor indicator of durability. more representative of in-situ concrete, and is an
■■ AVPV detects the improved performance of slag, international standard.
fly ash and silica fume in a similar fashion to The fact that it is more representative of in-situ
other durability tests. concrete is significant for modelling, which is a major
■■ Some admixtures reduce AVPV very significantly advantage over alternative tests.
4:11
Figure 6 : Taywood/GHD/SGS Sorptivity Test. A Sample is stood in Contact with Water and the Height Rise
and Weight Gain Measured with Time
Figure 4.2: Taywood/GHD/SGS sorptivity test. A sample is stood in contact with water and the height rise and
The test has continued to be used by many people who had developed an understanding of
weight gain measured with time.
concrete quality through the extensive use of this method. A significant quantity of tests have been
conducted on Australian concrete using the method named as Taywood Sorptivity, GHD Sorptivity
2001sorptivity
4.4.5 RMS T362 to 2008 and
test SGS Sorptivity since 2008.
decide to deviate from deemed-to-comply curing
In the RMS (formerly requirements, and as a specified requirement in various
4.4.4 ASTM C1585RTA) T362 water
Sorptivity Testsorptivity
test [Reference 16], 100 x 100 x 350 mm samples are exposures for bridges, refer Table 4.5.
The
pre-conditioned ASTM
at 50% RHC1585-13
and then are[Reference 117] test is relatively simple to undertake. Although it takes
placed under
slightly longer than the Taywood
50 mm of water for 6-24 hours before being broken Sorptivity TestRecommendations
4.4.6 and with shorter history of usage in Australia, it
gives results that are more representative of in-situ concrete, and is an international standard.
open in flexure using a beam test rig and the depth 1. Where a general test of concrete quality
of water penetration measured.
The fact Asmore
that it is the water head is
representative is required
of in-situ concrete for mix assessment
is significant or quality
for modelling, which is a
low the resultsmajor advantage
are a measure over
of the alternative
concrete tests.
capillary control it is recommended that the AS
suction. 1012.21 [Reference 12] AVPV test is used
4.4.5 RMS T362 Sorptivity Test
This method is similar in many respects to the because it is already standardised and
test developedInatthe
CSIRO
RMS[Reference
(formerly105]. guidelines
RTA) T362 water sorptivity test for interpretation
[Reference of test results
16], 100x100x350 mm samples
The RMSare pre-conditioned at 50% RH and then are placed under 50 mm of water for
and CSIRO methods are seldom used have been published, albeit for6-24 hours before
specific
being broken
commercially because open
each test in flexure
specimen using
yields onlya beam test rig and the depth
concrete of water penetration measured.
mix designs.
As the water head is low the results are a measure of the concrete capillary suction.
2. Where a sorptivity rate is required for use in
one result, the test specimens are relatively large, and
many specimensThisaremethod
requiredisifsimilar
results in
at many
different test
respects modelling, the
to the test developed ASTM C1585
at CSIRO [Reference
[Reference 105].117]
ages are required. test should be specified. This is because its
TheT362
The RMS RMS andsorptivity
water CSIRO methods are seldom used commercially
test [Reference because preconditioning
method of specimen each test specimen
meansyields
only
16] can be used one result,
in different the
ways test specimens
depending on the are relatively large, and many
its results specimens
will more are required
closely reflect if results
the in-situ
at different test ages are required
application of the concrete, (Table 4.5). It is used by sorptivity.
RMS as an acceptance
The RMSmethod sorptivity test [Reference3.
where contractors
T362 water 16]As thebe
can RMS sorptivity
used test offers
in different waysnodepending on
the application of the concrete, see Table 6. It is used by RMS as an acceptance method where
Contractors decide to deviate from deemed-to-comply curing requirements, and as a specified
requirement
Table 4.5: RMS T362 waterin varioustest
sorptivity exposures
criteria for bridges, refer Table 6.
Exp. Deemed-to-comply or prove curing Used for specification of durability

Class performance e.g. RMS B80
Deemed to Comply Sorptivity Depth Max (mm) for GP Max (mm) for
Curing (days test) (mm) Cement Blended Cement
A 7 (7) 45 35 35
B1 7 (7) 35 25 25
B2 9 (14) 17 17 20
C 14 (21) 11 N/A 8
4:12
Figure 7 : Pressure Permeability Test. One face of Samples is kept under Constant Pressure
Compressed Air Bottle. The Other Side can be Left Open to Witness Time to Water Penetration o
so that Water Flow Rate can be Measured
advantages over the ASTM C1585

[Reference 117], Z07/07 recommends that
in the interest of industry-wide consistency,
that industry endeavours to develop ASTM
C1585 as an eventual replacement for RMS
sorptivity.
4. AS 4198 [Reference 111], AS 4676
[Reference 112] and AS 4058 [Reference
110] are specific to quality control for
particular manufacturing processes and
should not be used for purposes other than
those for which they are intended. Neither
should they be adapted for other purposes,
instead the tests described above should be
used.
Figure 4.3: Pressure permeability test. One face
Testing for of
coefficient
samplesof waterunder
is kept permeability
constantbypressure
any method
by therequires appropriate equ
4.5 WATER PERMEABILITY specimen preparation and the test itself. The test can take several days to complete.
compressed air bottle. The other side can be left open
to witness time to water penetration or closed so that
DIN 1048.5 [Reference 124] gives a test method for measuring water penetration of con
water flow rate can be measured.
4.5.1 Introduction a constant head of water. However, the results are measured in terms of depth of p
rather than coefficient of permeability. The distorted hemispherical flow pattern th
The penetration of water into concrete under a
concrete means the depth of penetration cannot be easily converted to permeability.
pressure head (permeability) is an important durability
Table 7 summarises the concrete water permeability test methods.
performance parameter for concrete exposed to water
Tablespecimen
7 : Common Concrete
preparation andWater Permeability
the test Test
itself. The test canMethods
pressure. The coefficient of water permeability is also a
Precision Comments
very sensitive indicator of durability Common reference
for other exposure take several
Testdays to complete.
type
(CoV %)
conditions, as the factors controlling permeability also DIN 1048.5 [Reference 124] gives a test method
Nomenclature reflects the chang
Taywood/GHD (2001 – for measuring water penetration of concrete
control other penetration modes. of under
the laboratory that offers the te
2008)/SGS (from 2008)
The coefficient of permeability Constant head 10
a constant head of water. However, the results Australia.
are Uniaxial flow test throu
Water or hydraulic
Permeability
sample at nominally 100 m head
conductivity is defined by Darcy’s[References 69 and
Law, and has the 70] measured in terms of depth of penetrationspecified.
rather than
units of length/time (typically m/s). coefficient of permeability. The distorted hemispherical
Depth of water penetration is me
There are no Australian Standard test methods flow pattern through the concreteNot means the depthopen
splitting of sample after three
DIN 1048.5 Constant head
known This
penetration cannot be easily converted to permeability.is not a true measure of coe
for measuring the coefficient of water permeability of
permeability.
concrete. Some test methods include ASTM D5084-10 Table 4.6 summarises the concrete water
Constant or falling head Typically used for rocks but also
ASTM D5084-10
[Reference 120], Main Roads Western Australia Test permeability test methods. 10
test using triaxial cell concrete. Flexible wall permeam
Method WA 625.1 [Reference 121], MainUSRoads
Army Western
Corps of The coefficient of water permeability for good
Similar to US Army Corps of Eng
Australia Test
Engineers CRD-C 48-92 [Reference 122] or US Army Method WA Constant head 10
quality concrete is typically of the order of CRD-C48-92.
10-12 m/s Rigid wall permea
625.1
Corps of Engineers CRD-C 163-92 [Reference 123]. or lower. The coefficient of variation associated with
US Army Corps of
These methods differ in the typeEngineers
of permeameter used, laboratory
Constanttests
headfor coefficient of water
10 permeability
Rigid wall is permeameter.
CRD-C48-92
which can be either rigid or flexible wall. The methods usually around 10% [Reference 6].
Method actually calculates intrins
US Army Corps of Constant head test
are similar in principle and all are suitable for measuring 10 which can be converted to coeffic
Engineers CRD-C163-92 using triaxial cell
water permeability. 4.5.2 Recommendations permeability. Flexible wall perme
A common method used for measuring water The Concrete Society TR 31 water permeability
permeability in Australia is the method developed by test [References 69 and 70] is a simple test and
Taywood Engineering, refer Figure 4.3. The method was can be undertaken using equipment that is easily
Performance
published as an in-house procedure Tests
and was To Assessmanufactured.
included Concrete Durability
Results using this method have been
in Concrete Society Technical Report TR31:1998 compared with tests using the MRWA 625.1 method
[Reference 69] and TR31:2008 [Reference 70]. and results were found to be comparable [Reference 6].
Testing for coefficient of water permeability Hence it is recommended that this method is specified
by any method requires appropriate equipment for for water permeability testing of concrete.
4:13
Table 4.6: Common concrete water permeability test methods
Precision
Common reference Test type Comments
(CoV %)
Taywood/GHD (2001 – Nomenclature reflects the changes in

2008)/SGS (from 2008) ownership of the laboratory that offers the
Water Permeability Constant head 10 test method in Australia. Uniaxial flow test
[References 69 through a dried sample at nominally 100 m
and 70] head, or as specified.
Depth of water penetration is measured
Not by splitting open sample after three days
DIN 1048.5 Constant head
known of testing. This is not a true measure of
coefficient of permeability.
Constant or falling head Typically used for rocks but also applicable
ASTM D5084-10 10
test using triaxial cell to concrete. Flexible wall permeameter.
Main Roads Western
Similar to US Army Corps of Engineers
Australia Test Method Constant head 10
CRD-C48-92. Rigid wall permeameter.
WA 625.1
US Army Corps of
Constant head 10 Rigid wall permeameter.
Engineers CRD-C48-92
Method actually calculates intrinsic
US Army Corps of Constant head test permeability which can be converted to
10
Engineers CRD-C163-92 using triaxial cell coefficient of permeability. Flexible wall
permeameter.
CIA Z7/07 SEMI ADIABATIC TESTS

4.6 To predict the in-situ concrete temperature
TO PREDICT CONCRETE ADIABATIC of a concrete pour, the heat generating capacity of
TEMPERATURE RISE
the concrete must be known. Historically, adiabatic
temperature rise (i.e. the temperature rise of a piece
Semi-adiabatic concrete temperature
4.6.1 of concrete if there was no heat loss) was measured
monitoring methods
directly by placing a concrete sample in an insulated
The chemical reaction that takes place when chamber and measuring the heat input required to
cement is mixed with water is exothermic. The volume maintain it at the same temperature as the concrete
of the concrete will expand and contract as it heats up pour it represents. However, this test is available from
and then cools back down to the ambient temperature. a limited quantity of materials testing laboratories,
If the concrete is restrained (unable to move freely) equipment is not commonly available for site testing and
in certain locations, this expansion and contraction it is logistically more difficult to arrange at a laboratory
may result in the concrete cracking. Drying shrinkage by comparison with on-site or at a concrete batch plant.
that starts after effective curing ceases will add to the Therefore, adiabatic temperature rise tests are possible
risk of concrete cracking. The concrete’s early age but they are rarely conducted except for research
temperature will also determine the risk of delayed purposes. Instead, semi-adiabatic temperature rise is
ettringite formation (DEF, see Section 4.8) and strength more commonly measured and the data obtained is
development (i.e. high early concrete temperature may used to predict the concrete adiabatic temperature.
result in lower ultimate strength). To calculate thermal strains, the coefficient of
Models are used during design to predict thermal expansion of the concrete will need to be used.
concrete peak temperature, maximum temperature Values can be assumed based on aggregate type;
differentials, concrete strain and concrete crack risk, however, actual values can vary significantly from one
refer to CIA Z7/06. source to another for the same aggregate type. Hence,
4:14
when conducting semi-adiabatic temperature rise tests, and to minimise temperature losses from conduction,
it is recommended that embeddable vibrating wire convection and radiation. It is important that the
strain gauges (VWGs) are used to measure heat-up polystyrene be inside the plywood as this reduces
and cool-down strain, noting use of a conservative errors due to the energy absorption of the plywood. The
coefficient of thermal expansion based on published box is typically placed on two 100 mm deep timbers
data might have a significant effect to modelling to reduce ground effects. A polythene sheet 0.2 mm
outcomes. This data is used to derive actual concrete thick is generally placed on the inside of the polystyrene
thermal coefficients of expansion and contraction. to prevent leakage through joints in the polystyrene
The most reliable approach to predict the and plywood. The assembly should be sheltered from
adiabatic temperature rise from a semi-adiabatic test sun, wind and rain to minimise temperature variations
is to test concrete using the same mix constituents outside of the box.
and proportions as in the concrete pour. In addition The concrete semi-adiabatic temperature and
to mix proportions, the adiabatic temperature rise ambient temperature are measured and an allowance
is significantly influenced by the binder type (e.g. for heat loss made to predict the concrete adiabatic
proportions and composition of ordinary Portland temperature rise. Two measurement approaches have
cement, ground granulated blast furnace slag, flyash been adopted in Australia as described below:
and silica fume) and the aggregate type (e.g. granite, (a) Semi-adiabatic temperature monitoring
limestone, basalt, etc.). option 1 by one concrete position method
3
A semi-adiabatic test based on a 1 m block [Reference 78]: In this test method a
of concrete has been commonly used for 25+ years thermocouple is located at the centre of
(Figure 8a) is cast within 18 mm plywood formwork, which is lined on all interior surfaces with 100
[References mm-thick
79 and 125].
(Figure 8a) isThe
polystyrene
castconcrete
within temperature
to allow
18 mm free expansion
plywood formwork, whichtheisbox
and contraction of (Figure
lined the all4.4b),
onconcrete
interior which
and tohas
surfaces been
minimise
with 100
is measuredtemperature
mm-thick
by thermocouples. losses Vibrating
polystyrene fromtoconduction,
allow
wirefree convection
expansion and
strain andradiation.
foundIt to
contraction isof important an that
the concrete
enable the
accurate and polystyrene
to minimise
assessment of
be inside the plywood
temperature losses as this
from reduces errors
conduction, due toand
convection the energy
radiation.absorption
It is of the plywood.
important that the The box
polystyrene
gauges (VWGs) is can be placed
installedonfortwostrain measurement adiabatic temperature rise by sheet
appropriate
betypically
inside the plywood as this 100mmreducesdeeperrors
timbers dueto to
reduce ground
the energy effects.
absorption Aofpolythene
the plywood. 0.2box
The
that allows themm
is typically placed on two 100mm deep timbers to reduce ground effects. A polythenejoints
thick
concrete is generally
coefficient placed
of on
expansion the inside
and of the polystyrene to
allowanceprevent of leakage
heat loss. through
A strain gauge
sheetinwith
0.2
contraction to the
mm polystyrene
bethick and
is generally
calculated. plywood.
placed on
The approach The assembly should be
the inside of the polystyrene
is also sheltered from
to prevent
thermocouple sun,
canleakage wind and
be usedthrough rain
insteadjointsto
of justin
minimise temperature variations outside of the box.
known as thethe “hot polystyrene
box” test orand plywood.
“thermal block”The test.assembly should be sheltered from
a thermocouple wheresun,the wind and rain
coefficient of to
minimise temperature variations outside of the box.
The
There is no concrete
Australian semi-adiabatic temperature and ambient thermal
Standard for measuring temperatureexpansion are ismeasured
required. and an
allowance for heat lossrise;made to predict the concrete adiabatic temperature rise. Two measurement
The concrete
the semi-adiabatic temperature semi-adiabatic
however, temperature
generally and ambient temperaturetemperature
(b) Semi-adiabatic are measured and an
monitoring
approaches have been adopted in Australia as described below.
allowance for heat loss
the sample consists of a 1.0 × 1.0 × 1.0 m cube of made to predict the concrete adiabatic temperature rise. Two
option 2 by multiple concrete positions measurement
approaches have been adopted in Australia as described below.
unreinforceda)concrete.
Semi-Adiabatic
The block Temperature
(Figure 4.4a) Monitoring
is cast Option 1 by Onemethod Concrete Position 77]:
[Reference Method The [Reference
concrete
78]: In this test method a thermocouple is located at the centre of the box (Figure 8b), which has
within 18 mma)plywood formwork,
Semi-Adiabatic which is lined
Temperature on
Monitoring Option of 1 by monitoring
One Concrete is completed
Position at multiple concrete
been found to enable an accurate assessment adiabatic temperature riseMethod [Reference
by appropriate
78]:
all interior surfaces In
with this100test method
mm-thick a thermocouple
polystyrene to is located at the centre
allowance of heat loss. A strain gauge with thermocouple can be used instead of just the
positions of
to the box
detect (Figure
any heat 8b),
loss which
and ahas
been found towhere
thermocouple enable the an accurate
coefficient of assessment
thermal of adiabatic
expansion is temperature rise by appropriate
required.
allow free expansion and contraction of the concrete positions can be selected to coincide with a
allowance of heat loss. A strain gauge with thermocouple can be used instead of just a
Figure 8 : Typical “Hot Box Arrangement”
thermocouple where the coefficient of thermal expansionOne
and Monitoring Option 1 by Concrete Position Method
is required.
[Reference 78]
Figure : TypicalView
a) 8Exploded “Hotand Box Arrangement”
As-constructed Viewand of Monitoring
“Hot Option 1ofby
b) Location One Concrete
Thermocouple and/orPosition
StrainMethod
Gauge in
Box” [Reference 78] the Block
a) Exploded View and As-constructed View of “Hot b) Location of Thermocouple and/or Strain Gauge in
Cables from strain and
Box” temperaturethe Block
gauges
Cables from strain and
300mm
temperature gauges Block
Gauge for Ambient 300mm
Temperature Strain
BlockGauge
Gauge for Ambient
Gauge for Concrete Plastic
Strain Gauge
Temperature Support Bar
Temperature
Gauge for Concrete Plastic
Temperature Support Bar
(a) Exploded view and as-constructed view of “hot box”. (b) Location of thermocouple and/or strain gauge in the block.
Figure 4.4:b) Semi-Adiabatic

Typical Temperature
“hot box arrangement” andMonitoring
monitoringOption
option21 by
by one
Multiple
concreteConcrete
positionPositions
method Method
[Reference 78] [Reference 77]: The concrete monitoring is completed at multiple concrete positions to detect
any heat loss and the positions can be selected to coincide with a calculation method to predict
b) Semi-Adiabatic Temperature Monitoring Option 2 by Multiple Concrete Positions Method
the adiabatic temperature by Ng et al [References 79, 80] with details at Section 4.6.2. This
[Reference 77]: The concrete monitoring is completed at multiple concrete positions to detect
approach has been used successfully in Australia by Jong et al [Reference 77] and Paull & Jong
any heat loss
[Reference 78]and thethe
using positions
hot boxcanin be selected
Figure to coincide
8a). The concretewith a calculation
block contains two method to predict
horizontal,
the adiabatic placed,
temperature byofNg et al [References 79, 80] with 4:15
perpendicular lengths threaded rod at mid-height that aredetails
sleeved at with
Section
PVC 4.6.2.
pipe toThis
approach has been used successfully in Australia by Jong et al
Performance [Reference
Tests
minimise any impact on VWGs placed in the middle. The VWGs have integral temperatureto 77]
Assessand Paull
Concrete & Jong
Durability
[Reference
sensors 78] using
suitable the hot
to measure box inearly
concrete Figure
age8a). The concrete
temperature block The
and strain. contains
strain two horizontal,
gauges are
perpendicular
attached placed,and
with zip-ties lengths of threaded
polystyrene spacerrod at mid-height
blocks to preventthat
theare sleeved
strain gaugewith PVCfrom
platens pipe to
minimise any
contacting impact
the PVC on VWGs placed in the middle. The VWGs have integral temperature
sleeves.
sensors suitable to measure concrete early age temperature and strain. The strain gauges are
calculation method to predict the adiabatic n Mid-depth, on an edge, 50 mm in from
temperature by Ng et al [References 79, 80] adjacent faces, Te.
with details at Section 4.6.2. This approach n Top-corner, 50 mm in from 3 adjacent
has been used successfully in Australia by faces, Tc.
Jong et al [Reference 77] and Paull & Jong n Middle of top face, directly above Tm, 50
[Reference 78] using the hot box in Figure mm in from the top face, Tt.
4.4a. The concrete block contains two n Air ambient temperature Ta, 300 mm
horizontal, perpendicular placed, lengths of away from the box.
threaded rod at mid-height that are sleeved The thermocouples are positioned using a
with PVC pipe to minimise any impact on wooden dowel and all other thermocouples
VWGs placed in the middle. The VWGs are positioned using the threaded
have integral temperature sensors suitable rod. Figure 4.5 shows the VWG and
to measure concrete early age temperature thermocouple positions in the thermal block.
and strain. The strain gauges are attached The strain and temperature data is recorded
with zip-ties and polystyrene spacer blocks by a multi-channel data logger.
to prevent the strain gauge platens from Whichever measurement method is used
contacting the PVC sleeves. subsequent concrete placing and reporting
Probes that can accurately measure requirements are the same. The concrete is
early age concrete temperature (e.g. poured and vibrated as required, avoiding
thermocouples or thermistors) are placed impact with the gauges. Lifting hooks are
to record temperature at recommended installed to allow the concrete block to be
positions as shown on Figure 4.5: moved following completion of monitoring
n Centre of the box, Tm (an extra and the polystyrene lined lid is fitted.
probe approximately 75 mm directly The following information should be
underneath Tm position will provide reported for each test:
a back-up given this is a critical n Mix design identification, mix design and
measurement location). actual batched records provided by the
n Mid-depth, in middle of face, 50 mm in concrete supplier to record the specific
from face, Tf. concrete tested. A minimum of 3 m3
Tt
Tc
Tm
Tf
x
Te
y
(a) Thermocouple positions in the thermal block. (b) VWG and thermocouple positions in the thermal block.
Figure 4.5: Design of semi-adiabatic temperature monitoring option 2 by multiple concrete positions method
[Reference 77]
4:16
should be batched. temperature rise test data by people with concrete
n Location the test was conducted. thermal behaviour experience.
n Shelter provided for the test sample. CIRIA C660 [Reference 125] details the
n Time and temperature of batched. assessment of thermal expansion and cracking,
concrete taken with the compressive including a spreadsheet that automatically provides
strength samples. an adiabatic temperature rise based on concrete mix
n Compressive strength test at 3, 7, 28 designs and cementitious binders. The spreadsheet
and 56 (for blended cement types only) was developed specifically for United Kingdom binders.
days. It should not be used for any other binders without
n Time at commencement of filling appropriate modification for the specific binder product
concrete into the box and time the lid is to be used. Even the performance of the same binder
placed. product may vary with time, therefore for large projects
n Concrete temperature, concrete strain and for update information on local binder performance
and air ambient temperature readings thermal behaviour is recommended to be assessed
for 60 minutes prior to pour, at time of whenever the binder product, type or composition
4.6.2 Predicted Concrete Adiabatic Temperature
pouring and then continue at 30 minute changes.
The data
intervals generated
until by the
7 to 10 days semi-adiabatic
after the peak temperature rise method
An example requires
of adiabatic calculations
temperature riseto predict
the adiabatic temperature rise to compensate for heat loss that is dependent on the specimen size,
temperature. prediction from a semi adiabatic test, plus CIRIA C660
ambient conditions, energy absorbed by the mould and the heat insulation provided. One
n Name and type of all probes used and
calculation method is provided by Ng et al[Reference 125]79
[References estimation
and 80].isPrior
shownto in Figure 4.6.methods
calculation The
being
the developed, a method used was a curve-estimation
datalogger. drawn
S50 mix for low-heat oncement
(LH) a graphtype
of the
withsemi-adiabatic
ground
temperature rise test data by people with concrete thermal behaviour experience.
n Name of people who conducted the granulated blast furnace slag in 2014 behaves more like
test.
CIRIA C660 [Reference 125] details the assessment a GP cement of probably due to the and
thermal expansion specific clinkerincluding
cracking, and
a spreadsheet that automatically providesthe angrind
adiabatic
whichtemperature
gave high 7 dayrisecompressive
based on concrete mix
strengths.
4.6.2 Predicted designs andadiabatic
concrete cementitious binders. The spreadsheet
temperature wastemperature
The adiabatic developed specifically for Unitedmix
rise of the concrete Kingdom
is
binders. It should not be used for any other binders without appropriate modification for the specific
The data binder product
generated to semi-adiabatic
by the be used. Even the performancevery different
of thetosame
other S50
binderconcretes
product with
mayLH cement
vary with time
therefore for large projects and
temperature rise method requires calculations to predict for update
and information
CIRIA C660 on local
[Reference binder
125] performance
predictions for thermal
the mix,
behaviour is recommended to be assessed whenever the binder product, type or composition
which illustrates the importance of local cement testing.
the adiabatic temperature
changes. rise to compensate for heat
loss that is dependent on the specimen size, ambient When a semi-adiabatic test is not conducted for
Anabsorbed
conditions, energy example byof adiabatic
the mouldtemperature
and the heat rise aprediction
project, thefrom a semitemperature
adiabatic adiabatic test,riseplus
wouldCIRIA
needC660
[Reference 125] estimation is shown in Figure to be 10. The S50bymix
estimated a for low-heat
person with (LH) cement
appropriate type with
local
insulation provided. Onegranulated
ground calculation blast
method is provided
furnace slag in 2014 behaves more like a GP cement probably due to the
by Ng et al [References
specific79clinker
and 80].andPrior
theto grind
calculation
which gave experience
high 7 in dayconcrete thermal strengths.
compressive behaviour who The canadiabatic
temperature rise of the concrete
methods being developed, a method used was a curve- mix is very different
justify the to other
prediction. S50 concretes with LH cement and
CIRIA C660 [Reference 125] predictions for the mix, which illustrates the importance of local
estimation drawncement
on a graph of the semi-adiabatic
testing.
Figure 10: Adiabatic Temperature Rise Development for S50 Concrete
a) (a)
Ambient
Ambientandandhot
hot box testdata
box test data used
used to calculate
to calculate the the b) Adiabatic
(b) Adiabatic temperature
temperature rise forrise for cement
S50 slag S50 slag cement
concrete
adiabatic
adiabatic temperature
temperature rise forrise for slag
the S50 the cement
S50 slag cement
concrete concrete
compared compared
to the CIRIA C660to the CIRIAforC660
prediction prediction
this mix and to for
concrete
shown shown
in (b) in b)
using the usingmeasurement
simple the simple approach.
measurement this mix andmade
concretes to concretes madeofwith
with GP cement LH GP cement of LH
cement.
approach cement
Figure 4.6: Adiabatic temperature rise development for S50 concrete
When a semi-adiabatic test is not conducted for a project, the adiabatic temperature rise would
need to be estimated by a person with appropriate local experience in concrete thermal behaviour
who can justify the prediction.
4:17
4.7 ALKALI-AGGREGATE REACTION Performance Tests to Assess Concrete Durability
Alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) refers to the chemical reaction between alkalis released by hydrating
cement and certain silica and carbonate minerals that can be present in aggregates. Various different tests
4.7 ALKALI-AGGREGATE REACTION perpetuation of unnecessary multiple tests and
Alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) refers to the this is likely to lead to industry confusion.
chemical reaction between alkalis released by hydrating ASTM C1260-07 [Reference 34] is based on the
cement and certain silica and carbonate minerals that South African NBRI test [Reference 128], and
can be present in aggregates. Various different tests can give different results to the AS 1141.60.1
are available for assessing the reactivity of aggregates test because the early-age curing regimen
prior to selection for use in concrete. These include is quite different. Hence this method is not
petrographic examination of the aggregate, chemical recommended.
analysis and mortar bar or concrete prism expansion ■■ Concrete Prism: AS 1141.60.2 [Reference
tests based on standard mix designs. For mortar bar 191], RMS (RTA) Test Method T364 [Reference
and concrete prism tests, expansion limits have been 38], VicRoads RC 376.04 [Reference 42] or
set to indicate the reactivity of the aggregate under Queensland Department of Transport and Main
test. Different AAR test methods can give contradictory Roads Q458 [Reference 40].
results. There is ongoing research to improve test Where petrographic or mortar bar expansion
methods so that they better predict field performance tests are inconclusive these tests can be used
of aggregates. However, interpretation must be based to provide specific evidence as to whether a
on local knowledge about the alkali reactivity of similar proposed concrete mix and cement system will
aggregates in the specific test used and in concrete have acceptable resistance to AAR.
structures. These methods are similar but differ in detail and
Table 4.7 summarises laboratory test methods are not necessarily directly comparable. Usage
available in Australia for assessing AAR. Further varies by state and the individual methods were
information on the suitability and limitations of test developed along similar lines but with variation
methods can be found in relevant references such as designed to detect perceived differences in
Carse and Dux [Reference 23], Shayan [Reference 28], aggregate reactivity. The Q458 test [Reference
Standards Australia HB79 [Reference 63], Guirguis and 40] is covered by a patent, so can only be
Clarke [Reference 27], Shayan and Morris [Reference performed by a laboratory with a licence from
26], Thomas et al Reference 24], Lindgård et al the patent holder. As aggregate reactivity does
[Reference 25] and Ideker et al [Reference 29]. HB79 vary from state to state it is recommended that
[Reference 63] summarises current Australian best the common local test is undertaken to assess
practice. concrete until a more universal test and criteria
For Australian aggregates, Z7/07 recommends are developed.
the following tests: Results of accelerated testing can occasionally
■■ Petrographic: ASTM C295-12 [Reference 32] be misleading, and more than one test method
or AS 1141.65:2008 [Reference 127]. might be needed to resolve the potential AAR risk.
■■ Mortar Bar Expansion: AS 1141.60.1 For example, in WA a widely used aggregate that is
[Reference 190]. classified “potentially reactive” by petrography, gives
Where previous use or petrographic tests do not “highly reactive” expansions by mortar bar test, but is
provide sufficient evidence that the aggregates classified “innocuous” by concrete prism and has 40+
will be acceptable it is recommended that this years ASR problem free track record in marine and
test is undertaken to determine the degree to water retaining structures. Thus wherever possible,
which the aggregate is reactive. the specific tests used should be those upon which
The RMS (RTA) Test Method T363 [Reference knowledge about reactivity of local aggregates is
37]; VicRoads RC 376.03 [Reference 41] or Main based, and local experience should be utilised in
Roads Western Australia Test Method WA 624.1 interpreting test results.
[Reference 39] are sufficiently similar that results Whichever test methods are used, the art of
are comparable. Hence they might be used the testing is in designing a test programme that best
as an alternative to the AS 1141.60.1 method meets project needs, rather than simply applying a
but this is not recommended as it leads to a pass/fail criterion associated with a particular test
4:18
method. For example, with use of appropriate control has been considerable debate about the relationship
mixes, test results can be evaluated by comparison with between the two reactions. Evidence suggests DEF is
aggregates or concrete with known site performance. unlikely to cause damage unless preceded by AAR (or
Laboratories or consultants experienced in this type of other mechanisms that produce microcracking in which
testing will be able to advise on a suitable approach for the ettringite can crystallise), although it can occur by
a given application. itself if all high-risk factors are present [Reference 131].
Because significant variations in mineralogy DEF can almost always be prevented by limiting
can exist within quarries, it is recommended that the the maximum peak concrete hydration temperature
material be characterised by petrography annually, and to less than 70 ºC during initial early age. This can be
AAR testing be repeated at a frequency that reflects achieved directly via the project specification. Concrete
changes in the source material. For some sources this with specific proportions of ground granulated blast
may be as often as yearly. furnace slag or flyash can allow the initial early age peak
concrete hydration temperature up to 80 ºC.
4.8 DELAYED ETTRINGITE FORMATION There is no reliable concrete test to evaluate
Ettringite is a normal early product of Portland the risk of DEF. Thus the risk of DEF is assessed by
cement hydration at ambient temperatures and does reviewing of the concrete mix composition, predicting
not damage the concrete when formed in this way. But the concrete peak temperature (see Section 4.6) and
if the temperature of the concrete exceeds about 70 ºC specifying a maximum concrete peak temperature.
during the early stages of curing, for example in mass
concrete, or in accelerated curing, a different hydration 4.9 SULFATE RESISTANCE
product forms. Once normal ambient temperatures are Concrete is often exposed to sulfates in
restored, it will convert back to ettringite if sufficient ground water or in industrial chemicals. Commonly
water is available. This process is known as Delayed used standard test methods use mortars of standard
Ettringite Formation (DEF). Ettringite takes up more proportions for the purpose of benchmarking cement
space than the original hydration products, and so performance. The sulfate resistance of concrete is
the conversion generates internal stress, which, like assessed in three ways:
ASR, can be enough to crack the concrete. Cracking (a) For compliance with concrete durability
may take 20 or more years to appear, but can also be requirements in the Australian Standard,
rapid and dramatic. Like other forms of cracking, it can sulfate resistance is obtained by using
increase the risk of secondary forms of deterioration the specified cover, concrete grade and a
such as reinforcement corrosion by allowing ingress of sulfate resisting cement (AS 3972 Type SR).
aggressive agents. The cements’ sulfate resistance is measured
Reported cases have included precast railway in accordance with AS 2350.14:2006
sleepers, and precast piles immersed in water. In these [Reference 132], in which standard mortar
cases, accelerated heat curing is likely to be the cause. bars are immersed in a 5% sodium sulfate
DEF has also been reported in mass concrete, solution. Expansion for Type SR cement is
where heat of hydration has elevated the early age limited to 750 microstrain at 16 weeks as
concrete temperature. defined in AS 3972:2010 [Reference 133].
The risk of DEF is determined primarily by The test criteria is deemed to take account
the early age curing temperature, although some for the variance of the test method when the
cement compositions and aggregate types will further required number of samples are tested.
increase the risk [References 85, 86, 87, 88 & 129]. (b) The cements’ sulfate resistance might not
It is very sensitive to small changes in chemical and adequately describe the sulfate resistance of
physical conditions so is often localised. This leads to the concrete proposed. Sirivivatnanon and
inconsistent observations that make its cause difficult to Lucas [Reference 134] investigated methods
identify [Reference 130]. of assessing concrete resistance to sulfates
AAR is also induced by high early age curing over a three year exposure period, and
temperatures. It is often associated with DEF, and there proposed two testing criteria when samples
4:19
Common Reference Exposure Time Test Type Comments
4:20
AS Microscopic examination of aggregates Identifies potentially reactive components in aggregates.
1141.65 using polarised light. Requires a skilled petrographer for accurate assessment.
Can be subjective. Best used in conjunction with mortar
bar or concrete prism expansion tests such as
Petrograaphic None Hours AS 1141.60.1/ASTM C1260 and/or AS 1141.60.2/ASTM
ASTM C1293.
C295-12
Up to 2 years for reliable results Inability to detect slow reactivity, long duration and
excessive leaching of alkalis. Unreliable.
ASTM C

3-6 mths
227-10
38 °C, high
humidity
To determine effectiveness of supplementary Pyrex glass chemistry differs from natural aggregates and
cementitious materials. High alkali cement test data does not necessarily represent performance
ASTM is used in matrix and crushed Pyrex of mixes with natural aggregates. Variability in sources
>1 year
C441-11 (borosilicate) glass is used as aggregate. of glass affects results. Reactivity and alkalis in glass,
Table 4.7: Common concrete alkali-aggregate reaction test methods
in addition to severe limits, might give false positives.

Unreliable.
Up to two months. Water/binder material Useful as screening test. Best used in conjunction with
ASTM
ratio = 0.47. other tests such as ASTM C1293 due to false negatives/
C1260-07
> 14 positives.
days
ASTM Similar method to ASTM C1260. Used to evaluate mixes
C1567 containing pozzolans or blast furnace slag.
Mortar bar
expansion Originally a CSIRO test method now used by Similar to ASTM C1260, except for initial curing, reactivity
RMS and Vic Roads. Water/cement ratio of limits and slight differences in preparation. Possibly
RMS T363
0.42-0.45 used as guideline. Water content better able to distinguish reactivity of slowly reactive
&
adjusted to give flow of 5-20%. aggregates. Discussed further by Shayan and Morris
VicRoads
[Reference 26].
RC376.03
> 21
days Specimen preparation as per ASTM C1260 Clause 7.
Accelerated Similar to RMS Test Method T363 but with different
in expansion limits and additional classifications for
MRWA 1 N NaOH reactivity of fine aggregate.
WA 624.1 at 80 °C
22 days Modified ASTM C1260. Classification limits for the test have been drawn from
local methods based on Australian experience of ASR.
AS
The method has been modified to include procedures,
1141.60.1
based on Australian and international research, intended
to improve repeatability and reproducibility.
24 hrs Crushed aggregate immersed in sodium Inability to detect slow reactivity, reported poor reliability
hydroxide solution at elevated temperature. and false negatives, operator-sensitive. Aggressive
Amount of dissolved silica and reduction of test conditions not necessarily representative of field
alkalinity is measured. conditions. Does not account for contribution of
ASTM
Aggregate other phases in aggregate that might affect reactions.
C289-07
Unreliable for Australian aggregates. Results have
been found to correlate more reliably with the in situ
performance of highly reactive fresh volcanic aggregates
such as rhyolites and andesites found in NZ.
1-2 years Use high alkali cement. Minimum cement Long duration. Can also be used to test effectiveness of
content equivalent to 420 kg/m3 and NaOH supplementary cementitious materials over test duration
ASTM
added to mixing water to give cement alkali of two years.
C1293
content of 1.38% Na2O equivalent. Water/
38 °C, high binder ratio 0.42-0.45.
humidity
RMS T364 1 year Minimum cement content equivalent to 420 Concrete prism test. Similar to ASTM C1293 but with
& kg/m3 and NaOH added to mixing water to higher alkali content.
VicRoads give cement alkali content of 1.38% Na2O
RC 376.04 equivalent.
Concrete >4 Minimum cement content equivalent to Shown to have good correlation with field performance
Prism months 520 kg/m3 and NaOH added to mixing water for Queensland aggregates. Discussed further in Carse
Qld Main
50 °C, to give cement alkali content of 1.0% Na2O and Dux [Reference 23].
Roads
100% RH equivalent. Specimens are steam cured prior
Q458
to testing.
38 °C, 1-2 Modified ASTM C1293. Cement content The principal modification is to allow the use of cement
100% RH years 420±10 kg/m3 and NaOH added to mixing with lower alkali content as obtaining Australian cement
AS water to give total alkali content of 0.9% with an alkali content of 0.9%, as used in ASTM C1293,
1141.60.2 Na2O equivalent. Water/cement ratio is difficult.
0.42-0.45.

4:21
were exposed to 5% NaSO4 solution as curing period are different. International Standards
follows: detail sulphate resisting cements differently to Australia.
■■ An expansion limit of 220 microstrain per For example, ASTM C150-12 [Reference 184] only
year in the first 3 years and a maximum permits use of Portland cement (i.e. it does not include
expansion in 3 years of 500 microstrain. the use of SCMs) and lists:
■■ 90% retention of 28 day strength. ■■ Type II cement as “For general use, more
(c) In some situations the composition or especially when moderate sulfate resistance or
concentration of the in-situ sulfate solution moderate heat of hydration is required”.
might not be adequately addressed using ■■ Type V cement as “For use when high sulfate
the standard sulfate exposures. In such resistance is desired”.
cases a project-specific sulfate exposure ASTM C150-12 [Reference 184] is a prescriptive
might be undertaken. Such testing should specification for cement and lists specific chemical
be designed and overseen by experts in composition limits for Type II and Type V including limits
relevant test procedures and should include on C3A content of 8% and 5% which are designed to
control specimens so that the results provide the required sulphate resistance. A permitted
can be assessed with direct correlation alternative to various chemical limits for Type II and
to the performance of samples of known Type V cements, including the C3 A, is to limit 14 day
performance. For example, comparison expansion of 0.04% when tested in accordance with
of performance with samples in seawater ASTM C452-10 [Reference 135]. SO3 is limited to 3.0
can identify if the weight or strength loss and 2.3% respectively, but is permitted to be higher
measurements are significant by comparing if ASTM test C1038-14a [Reference 137] (mortar bar
the results to exposure to a common immersed in water for 14 days) gives an expansion of
environment. This helps account for the less than 0.2%.
accelerating effects of sample size and ASTM C452-10 [Reference 135] is not suitable
geometry. for testing blended cement but ASTM C1012-13
Laboratory testing of concrete for sulfate [Reference 136] can be used to verify that a blended
resistance is described in Xu et al [Reference 93]. cement will be sulphate resistant. This method is
Tests involve measuring the expansion of mortar bars listed in ASTM C1157-11 [Reference 186] which is a
exposed to a sulfate solution. Sulfate resistance can performance specification for cements. In this test,
also be assessed by measuring the change in other mortar bars are immersed in 5% sodium sulphate for
physical properties of the concrete with time while a specified period (typically 6-12 months) and if the
exposed to sulfate, e.g. dynamic elastic modulus, expansion is less than a designated amount (Table 4.8)
ultrasonic pulse velocity or residual compressive the cement is considered sulphate resistant. The test
strength. has been criticised for the time it takes and because
ASTM standards for measuring the sulfate expansion occurs predominantly at the ends of the
resistance of cementitious binders include ASTM specimen where the test pins are located.
C452-10 [Reference 135], ASTM C1012-13 [Reference Monteiro et al [Reference 183] lists various
136] and ASTM C1038-14a [Reference 137]. ASTM criticisms of ASTM C452-10 [Reference 135] and
C1012-13 [Reference 136] is similar to AS 2350.14:2006 ASTM C1012-13 [Reference 136] accelerated sulphate
[Reference 132] except that the specimen size and durability tests, i.e:
Table 4.8: Expansion limits for ASTM C1012-13 test for fly ash blended cement
Sulfate Resistance of Expansion (maximum) Expansion (maximum)

Blended Cement at 6 months % at 12 months %
Moderate 0.10 –
High 0.05 0.10
Very high – 0.05
4:22
Table 4.9: Cement sulfate resistance tests
Common Precision Comments

Test Type (CoV %)
Reference
Used to determine cement
Measures expansion of mortar bars compliance as a permitted
ASTM C 452/
based on type GP Portland cement. alternative to otherwise prescriptive
C452M-10
Mortar bars are immersed in water. requirements of ASTM C150. Not
suited to blended cements.
Measures expansion of mortar bars
Used to show compliance with
based on Type GP Portland cement
cement performance requirements of
and blends of Type GP Portland
ASTM C1012 ASTM C1157 Other sulfate solutions
cement with pozzolans or slags.
might be used to simulate exposure
Specimens are immersed in 50 g/L
environment.
Na2SO4 solution for 6-12 months.
Measures expansion of mortar bars
Used to determine limit on sulfate
ASTM C 1038 of Portland cement including sulfates
content in ASTM C150.
when exposed to water.
Test types include rotating discs under pressure, rotating steel balls, dressing wheels or blasting
Similar to ASTM C1012 but test length Other sulfate solutions might be used
AS 2350.14 with sand. Abrasion resistance test methods are summarised in Table 11.
is 16 weeks. to simulate exposure environment.
Figure 11: Abrasion Damage Examples
Invert
Invert of Pipe
of pipe Completely
completely abradedAbraded Due to
due to particulates Abrasion/Cavitation damagedamage
Abrasion/cavitation of a Dam
of aSpillway
dam spillway.
Particulates in High
in high Velocity
velocity water. Water
Figure 4.7: Abrasion damage examples Table 11 : Abrasion Tests
Precision Comments
Common Reference Test Type
(CoV %)
■■ Too sensitive to specimen size and geometry. 4.10 ABRASION RESISTANCESimulates wear under high impact loads with
AS 4456.9 Test for segmental pavers
■■ Sulphate addition not representative of field scraping. Has associated acceptance criteria.
conditions. Depth of wear by rotating wheel measured.
4.10.1 Introduction
Has associated acceptance criteria. Also
BS
■■ EN 13892-4
Tests In-situ test
do not account forfor floor surfaces
different forms of attack makes reference
Abrasion is potentially an issue to for:
relevance of BS 8204-2
at different sulphate concentrations. test and criteria.
■■ Pavements and slabs exposed to vehicle and
pH not representative of field conditions. Usually relevant for dry-shake toppings used
■■
foot traffic, particularly where inadequate finishing
Laboratory test known as the “Bohme test”. Used on floors. Difficult to adapt to other
BS EN 13892-3 et al [Reference 183] recommends
Monteiro and curing leads to a weak
for testing screed materials. applications as or
thedelaminating
manufactured specimen
control of pH and testing for strength loss as a means surface layer. cannot be representative of the actual floor.
of overcoming some of these issues. As yet a standard ■■ Measures loss of volume
Pipelines, spillways, retained waterways, due to
ASTM C418-12 Sandblasting method 10 sandblasting. Applicable to concrete
test based on strength loss and expansion has not seawalls and other hydraulic structures,
subjected to abrasive wear withexposed
dry particles
been produced. to particulate matter carried at high flow rates
(a) Revolving
Table 4.9 summarises the testdiskmethods,
with silicon noting
carbide abrasive and/or5.5turbulentThree
flowalternative
causing procedures
cavitation,for
refer
horizontal
that all of the methods shown are primarily designed Figure 4.7. surfaces. Procedure (a) uses sliding and
scuffing of revolving steel disks in conjunction
for benchmarking cement performance under However, in general abrasion resistance has not
with abrasive grit. Procedure (b) uses a
standardised (b) Rotating dressing wheels
conditions. been found to12be an issue, provided Australian code
ASTM C779/C779M-12 dressing wheel machine to give impact and
sliding friction of three sets of steel dressing
wheels. Procedure (c) involves high contact
stresses, impact and sliding friction from steel
(c) Steel ball abrasion with water 18 balls and water flushing. 4:23
Suited to cores. Similar to Procedure (b) of
ASTM C944/C944M-12 Rotating dressing wheels 12-21
ASTM C779.
Depth of wear measured. Applicable to
requirements for concrete compressive strength for 4.10.2 AS 4456.9 Abrasion test
different applications are achieved. The abrasion test specified for segmental
There are many abrasion tests used pavers, AS 4456.9:2003 [Reference 139] also known
internationally for a variety of purposes, but most are as the Sydney City Council Test, is useful because
not used in Australia. In general, the results of abrasion acceptance criteria for different applications have been
tests cannot be correlated directly with in-situ durability developed based on this method by correlation with
performance, therefore their application for modelling is in-situ performance. In this test the % volume loss
limited to comparative testing of (for example) different after subjecting the concrete surface to impact and the
mix designs and construction techniques. This is rolling action of steel ball bearings for 3,600 tumbling
discussed for the different tests. cycles, is measured. The result is expressed as the
Test types include rotating discs under pressure, “abrasion index”.
rotating steel balls, dressing wheels or blasting Table 4.11 presents criteria for selecting
with sand. Abrasion resistance test methods are segmental pavers for different applications based on
summarised in Table 4.10. their abrasion resistance measured by this test.
Table 4.10: Abrasion tests
Common Precision
Test Type Comments
Reference (CoV %)
Simulates wear under high impact

AS 4456.9 Test for segmental pavers loads with scraping. Has associated
acceptance criteria.
Depth of wear by rotating wheel
measured. Has associated
BS EN 13892-4 In-situ test for floor surfaces acceptance criteria. Also makes
reference to relevance of BS 8204-2
test and criteria.
Usually relevant for dry-shake
toppings used on floors. Difficult to
Laboratory test known as the “Bohme
BS EN 13892-3 adapt to other applications as the
test”. Used for testing screed materials.
manufactured specimen cannot be
representative of the actual floor.
Measures loss of volume due to
sandblasting. Applicable to concrete
ASTM C418-12 Sandblasting method 10
subjected to abrasive wear with dry
particles
(a) Revolving disk with silicon carbide Three alternative procedures for
5.5
abrasive horizontal surfaces. Procedure
(a) uses sliding and scuffing of
revolving steel disks in conjunction
with abrasive grit. Procedure (b)
ASTM C779/ (b) Rotating dressing wheels 12
uses a dressing wheel machine to
C779M-12
give impact and sliding friction of
three sets of steel dressing wheels.
Procedure (c) involves high contact
(c) Steel ball abrasion with water 18 stresses, impact and sliding friction
from steel balls and water flushing.
ASTM Suited to cores. Similar to Procedure

Rotating dressing wheels 12-21
C944/C944M-12 (b) of ASTM C779.
Depth of wear measured. Applicable
ASTM
Steel grinding balls in water 14 to abrasion by water-borne particles
C1138M-05
experienced by concrete underwater.
4:24
Table 4.11: Criteria for acceptance of abrasion resistance of segmental pavers using the AS 4456.9 test
Application Max Abrasion Reference

Resistance
(Mean Abrasion Index)
Residential and industrial pavements 7 ACT and Municipal
Services, Standard
Low volume public footpaths, minor & collector roads 5 Specification for
Urban Infrastructure,
High volume public footpaths 3.5 2002 [Reference 147]
1
Public footpaths – low impact 6.0 NZS 3116:2002
1 [Reference 148]
Public footpaths – high impact 3.5
1
Public space – low traffic volume 7 AS/NZS 4455.2:2010
1 [Reference 139]
Public space – medium traffic volume 5.5
1
Public space – high traffic volume 3.5
1
Refer to the relevant Standards for specific details about these applications and applications that do not have an associated abrasion resistance
criterion.
The method is not suitable for measuring the durability of the macro-texture is likely to be influenced
performance of concrete cast in-situ because abrasion by the surface compaction and finishing technique and
resistance is largely determined by the method of the associated bleeding characteristics of the concrete.
construction, which cannot necessarily be replicated Similarly, inadequate curing is likely to reduce abrasion
in laboratory-made specimens. However, the relative resistance. Hence, specifying the appropriate strength
performance of different mixes, including the effect of grade might not necessarily lead to an acceptable
aggregate, can be measured by this test. abrasion resistance and is a sound reason for some
CC&AA [Reference 144] investigated the level of QA testing on critical floors.
performance of various concretes using this test and CC&AA [Reference 144] also compared results
found a reasonable correlation between strength and from saw cut and off form finishes from the same
abrasion resistance, refer Figure 4.8, but noted: The mixes. Saw cut surfaces had approximately half the
60.0
55.0
28-day Compressive Strength, MPa
2.7, 53.7
2.5, 50.9
50.0
3.0, 46.5
45.0
40.0
R2 = 02578
35.0
30.0
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.504.00
Figure 4.8: Abrasion resistance vs compressive strength using AS 4456.9 Test for off form finish [Reference 144]
4:25
Figure 1313
Figure : Chaplin Abrasion
: Chaplin Tests
Abrasion Tests
BS EN 13892-4 test equipment. Measuring the abrasion from a BS EN 13892-4 test.

BSBS
ENEN 13892-4
13892-4 Test
Test Equipment
Equipment Measuring
Measuring the
the Abrasion
Abrasion From
From a BS
a BS ENEN 13892-4
13892-4 Test
Test
Figure 4.9: Chaplin abrasion tests
“ “
Table1313 : BS8204-2:2003 and Concrete Society TR34 Chaplin Abrasion Tests Criteria
abrasionTable : BS8204-2:2003
resistance and
of formed surfaces Concrete
and Society
hence the TR34 Chaplin
revolving plate.Abrasion
The plate Tests Criteria
revolves at a set speed for a
BS8204 Duty
BS8204 Duty Type
Type ofof Concrete
Concrete Minimum
Minimum Maximumwear
Maximum wear
formed surface
Classshould generally be tested with
Concrete due set
grade time
N/mmunder
3 3 a prescribed
cement load. The
content depth resultant
depth mm annulus
Class Concrete grade N/mm cement content mm
allowance being given when cut surfaces have to be kg/m
of wear is measured
kg/m 3 3at eight points and the average
tested. Special
Special Severe
Severe Special
Special mixes
mixes depthmixes
Special
Special ofmixes
wear is reported
and
and toorthe
dry-shake
dry-shake or nearest 0.05
0.01
0.05mm.
abrasion
abrasion and
and resins
resins sprinkle
sprinkle finishes,
finishes, resins,
resins,
Historically, etc been classified in
floorsetc
have
4.10.3 BS AR1
AR1EN 13892-4 Very
Very High test
Abrasion
High High
High strength
strength 60-85
accordance
60-85 with Tables475
475 3 and 4 of BS 8204-2 0.1
0.1
Abrasion
Abrasion toppings
toppings
Hulett [Reference 185] reviewed abrasion [Reference 140]. It is now appreciated that those
AR2
AR2 High abrasion Direct
Direct finish C50 400value as the difference
0.2
resistance of floors High
and inabrasion
particular the BSfinish
EN 13892-4 C50
classifications are of 400
little 0.2
concrete
concrete
[Reference 146] test method as follows: between the applications related to each of the
AR3
AR3 Moderate
Moderate Direct
Direct finish
finish C40
C40 325325 0.4
0.4
The most commonly used method
abrasion for testing
concrete classifications is totally subjective and therefore
abrasion concrete
in-situ floor surfaces is described in BS EN 13892-4 unhelpful. It has also been shown that in practice, the
[Reference4.10.4
4.10.4 BSBS
146]. ENEN
This 13892-3
Standard
13892-3 Abrasion
prescribes
Abrasion aTest
Testmachine, difference between for an example an AR1 and AR2
known as the BCA (British Cement Association) test, (see Table 4.12) floor has not been reflected in real long-
Hulett
Hulett [Reference
[Reference 185]
185] notes
notes that
that “In“In parts
parts of of Europe,BSBSEN
Europe, EN13892-3:2004
13892-3:2004[Reference
[Reference180]
180]isis
which creates commonly
a wearing
commonly process. The machine, shown term wear rates of the floor.
cited in specifications for floors. This is is
cited in specifications for floors. This a laboratory
a laboratory test
test known
known asas theBöhme
the Böhmetest
testand
and
is used
in Figure 4.9, simulates
is used for for testing
a wearing screed
mechanism
testing screed materials. It is usually
by theIt is usually cited
materials. cited in
ForinUK respect
Concrete
respect of dry-shake toppings
Society Technical
of dry-shake used
toppings Report
used on on
TR34
floors.
floors. It It is
is difficult
difficult to to see
see the
the relevance
relevance of of this
this test
test methodasasthe
method themanufactured
manufacturedtest
testspecimen
specimen
use of three hardened-steel
used wheels mounted on arepresentative [Reference 149], itfloor.”
was concluded that the test method
used in in
thethe laboratory
laboratory cannot
cannot beberepresentative of of thethe actual
actual floor.”
4.10.5ASTM
4.10.5 ASTM C779
C779 Abrasion
Abrasion Methods
Methods
Table 4.12: BS8204-2:2003 and concrete society TR34 chaplin abrasion tests criteria
Hulett[Reference
Hulett [Reference185]185]also
alsonotes
notesthat that“ASTM
“ASTMC779M-12
C779M-12[Reference
[Reference142] 142]prescribes
prescribesthreethree
BS8204 Dutyusing different Type
methods of
machines, each Concrete
of which Grade
apply Minimum Maximum Wear
methods using different machines, each of which apply a different abrasion mechanism. It can bebe
a different abrasion mechanism. It can
Class assumed that the Concrete
three different methods are 3
intended to Cement
simulate different Depth
types of mm
abrasive
assumed that the three different methods areN/mm intended to simulate different3 types of abrasive
action.
action. However,
However, nono guidance
guidance is isgiven
givenin inthis
thisstandard
standardtotosuggest
suggest
Content thethe
kg/mappropriatemethod
appropriate methodforfor
simulating
simulating any
any particular
particular useuse
of of a floor.
a floor. It is
It is understood
understood that
that floors
floors are
are rarely
rarely tested
tested byby any
any ofof these
these
methods.” Special mixes Special mixes and dry-shake
Special methods.”
Severe abrasion 0.05
and resins or sprinkle finishes, resins, etc
Very high High strength
AR1 60-85 475 0.1
abrasion toppings
Performance Tests Toabrasion Direct

Assess Concrete finish
Durability
AR2
Performance TestsHigh
To Assess Concreteconcrete
Durability C50 400 0.25757
Moderate Direct finish

AR3 C40 325 0.4
abrasion concrete
4:26
was not useful in characterising long-term wear rates ■■ Where abrasion resistance is critical, the
under typical warehouse use. This is to say that there materials and mix be assessed using AS
are no data to show that, for example, a floor with a test 4456.9:2003 [Reference 139] to ensure that
classification of AR1 will have a longer service life than the abrasion resistance expected will be in
a floor that is compliant with AR2. However, the test accordance with expectations for the concrete
was accepted as being a useful indicator of a minimum grade.
acceptable floor surface for this type of application. For ■■ Where the performance of an industrial
that reason a maximum test limit of abrasion of 0.2 mm pavement is critical, the specification should
is required using BS EN 13892-4 [Reference 146]. include BS EN 13892-4:2012 [Reference
TR34 [Reference 149] notes that resin-based 146] tests on a trial slab to demonstrate the
curing compounds create a layer or “skin” on the performance of the mix and finishing methods.
surface of the floor that can be impenetrable to the test Three tests should be undertaken on the trial
machine. Caution should therefore be exercised when slab and the abrasion resistance calculated as
interpreting results. the average of the three results.
4.10.4 BS EN 13892-3 Abrasion test 4.11 BLEED TESTS

Hulett [Reference 185] notes that: In parts Bleed of concrete can have a major effect on
of Europe, BS EN 13892-3:2004 [Reference 180] is the properties of a concrete surface that determine
commonly cited in specifications for floors. This is a whether it will be durable. This is discussed at length in
laboratory test known as the Böhme test and is used for CIA Z7/04.
testing screed materials. It is usually cited in respect of It is recommended that where the bleed of
dry-shake toppings used on floors. It is difficult to see a concrete mix is not known and bleed could have
the relevance of this test method as the manufactured an adverse effect on durability (see Z7/04), that its
test specimen used in the laboratory cannot be measurement on a trial mix is included in the project
representative of the actual floor. specification.
For very deep pours where the concrete
4.10.5 ASTM C779 Abrasion methods will be fluid over the full height at the same time,
Hulett [Reference 185] also notes that: ASTM AS1012.6:1999 [Reference 150] method will not provide
C779M-12 [Reference 142] prescribes three methods adequate guidance on bleed due to pressure effects.
using different machines, each of which apply a CIA Z17 [Reference 151] details appropriate test
different abrasion mechanism. It can be assumed that procedures that should be followed for such pours.
the three different methods are intended to simulate
different types of abrasive action. However, no guidance 4.12 BETWEEN-BATCH VARIABILITY
is given in this standard to suggest the appropriate Samples for determining durability performance
method for simulating any particular use of a floor. It is for mix acceptance would usually be cast from trial
understood that floors are rarely tested by any of these mixes. Although more than one trial might be produced
methods. to demonstrate that the plant is capable of consistent
The rotating cutter method, however, could be supply of the proposed mix, it is unlikely that properties
used to test core samples to compare the abrasion other than slump, air, density and compressive strength
resistance at different locations on a floor as well as the would be measured on more than one trial batch.
strengths of the concrete at that location. Instead, additional durability testing may be requested
as part of the project quality assurance testing (see
4.10.6 Recommendations Section 5).
CIA Z7/07 recommends:
■■ AS/NZS 4456.9:2003 [Reference 139] abrasion
tests be specified as a quality assurance test
for the selection and acceptance of segmental
pavers.
4:27
5 [Reference 152] and Sirivivatanon [Reference 153]
report a large proportion of cover depths being
Tests for Quality Assurance
significantly less than the specified value. This could
During Construction lead to durability problems becoming widespread in

many structures before the end of their design service
life. Therefore it is important to ensure the design cover
is actually achieved.
5.1 INTRODUCTION The specified cover is achieved by fixing the
Testing for assurance that durability achieves steel reinforcing within the formwork and physically
expectations is undertaken throughout construction spacing it from the formwork using spacers or bar
to verify durability is not compromised by unforseen chairs. Z7/04 provides information on suitable bar chair
construction or material matters that may influence types and quantity required. However, reinforcement
concrete performance. This Section outlines tests sagging between bar chairs placed too far apart,
that are used for durability quality assurance during crushing of bar chairs, and general displacement of
construction. the reinforcement cage during construction can reduce
the cover achieved. Low cover on unformed items can
5.2 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH be particularly irregular (high or low) due to the lack
Z7/04 notes that: One of the reasons that of a fixed surface to guide the concrete placer and
compressive strength is such a useful tool is that the difficulty of matching top bar locations to the falls
it is relatively simple to do, has a well-established proposed on the slab.
methodology and hence low variance and established After fixing the reinforcement and having largely
criteria for acceptance and sharing of risk. As such it is completed formwork and screed rails in place the cover
an essential part of the durability testing suite of tests. can be physically measured to ensure that it is within
However, it also notes that maintenance of the trial mix specification. This checking is particularly important as
actual strength should be considered and provides a in some locations cover checking will not be practical
recommendation to that effect. after the concrete is placed. In these locations it also
Compressive strength testing in accordance with will not be possible to establish the cover distribution
AS 1379:2007 [Reference 7] is considered appropriate for residual life assessments later in the structure’s
as one of the measures for assurance of durability. For service life. Consequently, the following procedures are
non-severe exposures it might be the only concrete test recommended:
required to assure durability. SCMs are commonly used (a) (i) On the first pour of each type, undertake a
for severe exposures, which reduces the correlation detailed pre-pour cover survey, completed by
between compressive strength and durability. Durability taking sufficient random cover measurements
tests other than compressive strength are more (i.e. a minimum of 30 measurements) to
likely to be required when SCMs are used. However, establish the mean cover and its variance in
compressive strength remains an important consistency each zone where these values might differ. A
test for durability assessment purposes. set of gauge blocks that fit between the bar
and formwork might be a more convenient
5.3 COVER way of measuring the cover than by tape
Cover is defined as the minimum distance from measure (latter more difficult). On the top
the concrete surface to the closest face of the steel surface where there is no formwork, cover
reinforcement. can be checked by measuring between the
AS 3600 [Reference 177] and AS 5100.5 reinforcement and a string line stretched
[Reference 178] specify minimum cover depths for between screed rails.
different exposure conditions and concrete grades. (ii) The measured cover depths can be used to
These form the basis for durability design. However, accept or reject the method of construction
the intended durability will not be achieved if the cover to achieve specified cover. If accepted then
depths are less than specified. Indeed, Marrosszeky the data should be provided to the designer
5:1
and contractor as a permanent record of the recommended for post pour cover checks:
cover distribution expected for that type of (a) On the first pour, measure the cover over a wide
element. Where cover is found to be deficient area using a non-destructive test (NDT) method
it is to be remedied. This process should as described in Section 6.2. Record the results
be repeated on subsequent pours until the as a mean cover and standard deviation. Then
cover is found to be acceptable on the first proceed as in (a) (ii) above.
assessment. (b) Once a pour type is found to have an
(b) Once a pour of a given type has been found appropriate cover distribution then the cover
to have no cover deficiencies it is reasonable checks by NDT can be reduced. The extent
to assume that the method of construction is should be included in the specification as
appropriate and the pre-pour cover check on appropriate for the project, but as a minimum at
subsequent pours might be limited to a general 10 locations on every fifth pour.
check using a block passed between the

5.4 ATURITY/TEMPERATURE
M
reinforcement and formwork or reinforcement
MATCHED CURING
and stringline to ensure that there are no
Maturity measurement and matched curing are
apparent areas with a lower cover than specified.
means of assessing in-situ concrete strength. They take
The block size used would be the same as the
account of in-situ temperatures that might be higher or
specified minimum cover, i.e. the reinforcement
lower than the standard curing temperature of cylinders.
spacer size less the negative tolerance on cover.
When strength gain is faster than in standard curing
The placement of concrete can move the
conditions, the tests can enable early stripping or early
reinforcing within the formwork. It can either be weighed
transfer of prestress. When strength gain is slower
down or shift because of vibration, insufficient spacers,
they can prevent stripping, loading or stressing before
etc.
concrete has achieved adequate strength. In terms of
Confirming that the correct cover has been
durability, however, the primary interest relates to curing
achieved is important to ensure that the construction requirements.
process is properly managed. Where errors are made It is commonly accepted that curing can cease
during construction of the first element, catching this once the concrete reaches 65% of its characteristic
early can prevent the problem persisting through every strength. This is demonstrated for accelerated curing in
element. It is in the contractors’ interest to undertake Table 5.1.
post–pour checks on early pours to ensure the By monitoring the maturity (maturity or matched
construction method will provide the cover specified, cure methods) of the cover zone concrete to determine
rather than checking cover at the end of a project and when the concrete has reached 65% f’c, it may be
thus risk finding all pours have a cover deficiency due possible to curtail curing at an early age without
to a systematic error. Through the life of the structure adversely affecting the concrete durability. Conversely,
the cover distribution will also be important for residual cold weather temperatures that retard strength
life assessments. Hence the following procedure is development can result in longer curing duration.
Table 5.1: Compressive strength listed in clause 4.5 of AS 5100.4
Strength Requirements (MPa) B as a %

Exposure Class
Minimum CharacteristicA At Completion of Accelerated CuringB of A
A 25 15 60
B1 32 20 62.5
B2 40 25 62.5
C 50 32 64
5:2
ASTM C1074-11 [Reference 154] details maturity (c) The method needs to be supplemented by
measurement. The major limitations of the maturity other indications of the potential strength of the
method are: concrete mixture.
(a) The concrete must be maintained in a condition The accuracy of the estimated strength
that permits cement hydration. depends, in part, on using the appropriate maturity
(b) The method does not take into account the function for the particular concrete mixture. There
effects of early-age concrete temperature on the are a number of commonly used maturity calculation
long-term strength. methods, namely:
Method Equation Description

Arrhenius maturity This method accounts
function –E 1 1  for nonlinearity in the rate
t  – 
R  273+Tc 273+Tr  of cement hydration. The
M – ∑e ⋅ Δt Arrhenius method yields a
0 maturity index in terms of
M = Arrhenius maturity index at Tr (hours) an “equivalent age”, which
represents the equivalent
Tc = average concrete temperature Δt (°C)
duration of curing at the
Tr = reference temperature (°C) reference temperature that
E = activation energy (J/mol) and would result in the same
R = universal gas constant value of maturity as the curing
[8.3144 J/ (mol • K)]. period for the given average
temperature.
Nurse-Saul maturity t The Nurse-Saul maturity
function M – ∑ (Tt – Te ) ⋅ Δt function is the sum of the
0 average temperature for the
time interval minus the datum
M = Nurse-Saul maturity index at age
temperature multiplied by the
t (°C + hours)
time interval of interest.
Tt = average concrete temperature Δt (°C)
Te = datum temperature (°C) and
Δt = time interval (hours).
Temperature matched curing involves storing be based on maturity showing that the required
cylinders in a container in which the temperature is in-situ strength has been met.
controlled to match the temperature of the in-situ (4) Alternatively, match curing may be used to
concrete the sample represents. The cylinders are measure the actual strength of the in-situ
tested for strength at various ages after casting, until concrete at specified ages after placement.
the specified strength is attained.
It is recommended that: 5.5 CRACKS
(1) Specifications base the required curing time on Cracks in concrete are often inevitable. The
the strength of concrete in the cover zone and impact of cracks on durability can be a contentious
allow curing to be curtailed when the strength matter for all stakeholders during asset design,
reaches 65% f’c. construction and operation. Therefore, all stakeholders
(2) Maturity or matched curing be permitted by should have awareness of potential crack formation,
specifications as a means of establishing the location and size. The concrete crack risk should
in-situ strength of concrete. be proactively evaluated during design, and any
(3) Stripping and stressing times in cold weather (°C unexpected cracks evaluated reactively. The
hours in-situ less than standard curing °C hours) importance of concrete cracks is described in Z7/06.
5:3
Not all concrete crack widths that exceed Crack measurements (width, depth and
the limit used in design calculations and/or stated orientation) during construction will be used together
in specifications will need to be repaired. For with other information to determine responsibility for
example, some cracks may exceed the design and/ the crack formation. For example, plastic cracks are
or specification crack width at the surface but the usually related to construction practice but early age
crack may not penetrate to any great depth. Hence a restrained thermal and drying shrinkage cracks might
pragmatic approach to cracking is required. be design influenced or due to construction not being
If cracks form, investigation is required to in accordance with the specification. Whoever is
determine whether they are acceptable or should be responsible, cracks that are clearly near or over the limit
repaired. While the design crack widths may be a guide, of acceptability, will need to be measured so that they
the actual cracks require specific evaluation of their can be assessed objectively. Measurement is generally
likely significance over the design life. The cause and based on preparing a crack map and measuring the
significance of cracks formed should be evaluated using crack width at various points. A representative number
technical publications on concrete cracks such as CIA of measurements must be taken including additional
Z15 [Reference 81], Z7/06, CIRIA C660 [Reference 125], positions near maximum crack widths. The broken top
Concrete Society Technical Report TR 22 [Reference corner arris of a crack must be identified separately to
82] and ACI 224.1R-07 [Reference 83]. the crack width. Cracks can quickly taper with depth,
Measuring crack width at the concrete surface and hence depth of crack should also be established
to determine if the crack exceeds a given limit is not as to determine whether the crack presents a significant
straightforward as it seems because the width varies corrosion risk. Repairs to cracks that are still opening
along the crack length. In addition, the crack width might fail and hence it might be important to measure
Performance Tests Page 63
changes with concrete temperature (i.e. cracks close crack movement. A selection of crack measuring
as the temperature increases) and moisture content instruments is shown in Figure 5.1.
(cracks close as concrete moisture content increases). When the crack width is to be measured it is
Figure 14 : Different Types of Crack Measuring Equipment
Crack width meter

• 10 reduction
scales
• Up to 5 mm
width
Measuring magnifier
• 8 x magnification
• Up to 15 mm width
• Accuracy ± 0.05 mm
Crack monitor
• Horizontal and vertical scales
• For flat areas and corners
• Accuracy ± 0.10 mm
• Fix with glue or screws
Deformation meter
Cracks are measured at various times
• Accuracies ± 0.001 mm to ± 0.1 mm
• Analogue or digital display
• 5 mm max. crack width
FigureWhen
5.1: Different
the cracktypes
widthof
is crack measuringitequipment
to be measured is recommended that:
a) The width values should be reported as maximum for each crack. A mean and distribution (with
variance) can then be assessed for comparison with the design values. The mean and variance values
5:4 require taking sufficient measurements to obtain a statistically representative sample (e.g. 30
measurements
Performance are
Tests to Assess likely toDurability
Concrete be sufficient). Planning for crack measurements is critical as the quantity
needs to consider the number and length of cracks on specific structure elements or portions of large
sized elements.
b) A measuring magnifier be used to give an accuracy of ±0.05 mm. Crack width meters are suitable for
recommended that: Measuring microscopes are useful for more
(a) The width values should be reported as precise work such as in laboratory research, but their
maximum for each crack. A mean and accuracy is often greater than the crack movement and
distribution (with variance) can then be assessed the measuring process is too slow to be practical for
for comparison with the design values. The use on construction sites.
mean and variance values require taking
sufficient measurements to obtain a statistically IN-SITU TEMPERATURE
5.6
representative sample (e.g. 30 measurements AND STRAIN MEASUREMENTS
are likely to be sufficient). Planning for crack Site measurement of concrete temperature is
measurements is critical as the quantity needs used to determine the concrete maximum temperature
to consider the number and length of cracks on and differential temperature for comparison with
specific structure elements or portions of large technical specification requirements for compliance
sized elements. and design predicted cracks (i.e. predictive calculations
(b) A measuring magnifier be used to give an of crack risk and likely positions for cracks to form).
accuracy of ±0.05 mm. Crack width meters are Site measurement of strain is used to determine actual
suitable for first estimates of crack width (e.g. restraint within the concrete (i.e. restraint factor and
to assess which cracks need to be measured) differential strain) and presence of any internal cracks.
but accuracy is only about +/-0.1 mm so they Temperature and strain measurements, where required,
are not suited to more accurate assessments. are normally taken on representative initial cast concrete
With an appropriate crack width distribution the elements. The test results are used to interpolate the
characteristic crack width can be assessed and expected temperature and strain for the remaining
used as the crack width. concrete pours on the project, plus the need for any
(c) Crack widths should be measured during additional testing. Design crack risk assessment can be
the coolest part of the day when they have re-evaluated with the initial construction feedback data
a maximum width. This will make decision to minimise the risk of any unexpected high concrete
making conservative. The impact of cooler temperatures or unexpected cracks during the project.
weather crack widening needs to be considered The position of thermocouples will be selected
when measurements are taken in hot weather to determine the concrete peak temperature and
conditions. maximum differential temperature for structural
(d) Concrete core samples of 50 mm diameter can components as directed by the designer and/or
be taken through representative crack positions durability consultant. Similarly strain gauges will be
to the interior reinforcement depth to evaluate positioned to determine maximum restraint and any
the crack depth and width beneath the concrete likely internal cracks.
surface. This approach is recommended where An example of site temperature monitoring
the concrete crack width measured at the positions is listed below.
surface is a concern or is non-compliant. When ■■ Centre of the thickest section of the element,
the core is removed from the structure, the where heat loss to the environment will be
loss of restraint from the surrounding concrete slowest.
may result in widening of the crack, which ■■ Top, centre and bottom of the pour at locations
requires evaluation for the specific crack and where the edge effects for temperature loss will
the measured crack width impact on durability, be minimal.
structural adequacy and contract requirements. ■■ Side of the pour at mid-height and well away
Where changes in crack width are to be from other sides.
assessed for operational or structural purposes, ■■ Near a corner where heat loss to the
demountable strain gauges (accuracy to ±0.01 mm) environment will be highest, and thus the largest
or surface installed vibrating wire strain gauges are temperature differential to the centre of the pour
often used. Where a lower accuracy is acceptable, the will exist.
crack width can be monitored using a crack monitor or ■■ Ambient temperature.
deformation meter. In the case of the top, bottom, side and corner
5:5
measurements the thermocouple or thermistor can primarily reflects moisture content. Electrical resistivity
be tied to the front face of reinforcement so that of saturated concrete is influenced by the nature of
measurements are effectively made at the depth of the cement system and in particular the use of SCMs,
cover. Alternative depths of the thermocouple from certain admixtures and w/b ratio. Changes to binder
the surface up to 100 mm may be used, which is the composition and admixtures may not have a significant
typical maximum depth to monitor surface effects. The effect on strength, and hence resistivity is a useful
reinforcement also provides a degree of protection of quality assurance test on the concrete mix. There are
the sensor from damage during concrete placement. two common types of resistivity test:
The thermocouple end sensor should not be in direct ■■ Tests that are designed to measure resistivity,
contact with the reinforcement to avoid an electrical and such as the 4 probe Wenner resistivity test.
thermal connection. ■■ Tests that were designed to measure chloride
Monitoring at 30 minute or hourly intervals is ingress rate but in fact measure resistivity,
typically satisfactory. Measurements are continued after e.g. rapid chloride permeability test, RCPT
stripping the formwork until the concrete temperature (i.e. AASHTO T277 [Reference 48] and ASTM
complies with the specified requirements, which will C1202-12 [Reference 49]).
vary depending on the concrete minimum dimension. Both types of test are listed in Table 5.2 but as
Strain monitoring uses embeddable type RCPT is a complex test compared to resistivity it is only
vibrating wire strain gauges (VWGs), which must be included for completeness. Z7/07 recommends that this
the type appropriate for concrete early age movement test not be included in specifications.
(i.e. there are many strain gauge products and only The four probe Wenner method of measuring
specific products are acceptable). The strain test concrete resistivity was developed for soils investigation
positions are selected where design crack assessment and is used extensively to assess the resistivity of
indicates high strain levels or a significant probability of different soil layers. In this method four probes are
internal cracking. For example, positioned adjacent to spaced at equal distances apart. A current is passed
construction cold joints to allow verification of restraint between the outer probes and the voltage generated
factors, differential strain development between pours is measured between the inner two. In the adaptation
and crack formation. of the test for concrete the probesessentially a complex
are placed and long
closer
resistivity test.
The concrete site testing of temperature and together than in soil tests. Based on the idealised
strain is complementary with the testing to determine potential field created, the resistivity of the concrete can
The four probe Wenner method of measuring concrete resistivity was developed for soils investigation and
the concrete adiabatic temperature outlined at Section be calculated,
is used extensively to assess the resistivity of different see Figure
soil layers. In this5.2.
method four probes are spaced
4.6. at equal distances apart. A current is passed betweenThe theprobe
outerspacing
probescanand be the
any voltage
distance.generated
In is
measured between the inner two. In the adaptation of theit is
concrete test for concrete
generally thezone
the cover probes are placed
concrete that closer
together than in soil tests. Based on the idealised potential field created, the resistivity of the concrete can
5.7 ELECTRICAL
be calculated, RESISTIVITY
see Figure 15. is of concern, and a probe spacing that will not be
Electrical resistivity Figure
of unsaturated influenced by reinforcement is desired. Initial work
concrete of a 4 Probe
15 : Schematic Resistivity Equipment
ρ=2πa V
I
ρ = Resistivity
a = Probe spacing
V = Potential difference
between inner probes
I = AC current passed
between outer probes
Figure 5.2: Schematic of 4 probe resistivity equipment

The probe spacing can be any distance. In concrete it is generally the cover zone concrete that is of
concern, and a probe spacing that will not be influenced by reinforcement is desired. Initial work 30 years
ago focused on a probe spacing of 50 mm such that the probe length was 150 mm. This could sometimes
not be fitted within a rebar grid and hence narrower probe spacing has been used (i.e. 30 mm). As a
5:6
universal measuring device a spacing of 30 mm is preferred but this is more influenced by the surface
Performance Tests to
concrete andAssess
henceConcrete
mightDurability
be more susceptible to low readings caused by bleed or surface drying for
example. It will also be susceptible to small defects and the effects of larger aggregates. AASHTO TP95-
11 [Reference 155] recommends a spacing of 1.5” or 38 mm. Different models of test equipment offer
different probe spacings.
Table 5.2: Types of resistivity test
Common Precision Comments

Test type
Reference (CoV %)
AASHTO 4 probe Wenner surface The single operator CoV This test is a direct measure
TP95-11 resistivity test, designed for use of a single test result of electrical resistivity, which
on cylindrical specimens or in = 6.3%. is one of the factors that
situ concrete Two tests by the same affect potential reinforcement
operator on concrete corrosion rate.
samples from the same Although the method is
batch should not differ by increasingly used in the US to
more than 21%. indicate resistance to chloride
ion penetration, it can only
be used to monitor chloride
penetration resistance if
calibrated against chloride ion
diffusion tests on the same
concrete.
It will, however, readily
detect changes in concrete
composition.
ASTM Standard test method for Not Known Conductivty can be related to
C1760-12 bulk electrical conductivity of ASTM C1556 apparent chloride
hardened concrete. It uses the diffusion via references given in
same cell as ASTM C1202-12, the test method.
and the same specimen type,
though specimen sides do not
need to be sealed and both
upstream and downstream cells
are filled with 3% NaCl. Current
passed is measured 1 min
after applying a 60 V potential
difference across the cell, and
conductivity calculated from
specimen dimensions, V and I.
ASTM Chloride penetration accelerated Repeatability 12.3% Often referred to as RCPT,
C1202-12 by electrical charge. Results Reproducibility 18% these tests were developed
reported in terms of charge [Reference 66] as a rapid test for measuring
AASHTO passed (coulombs) and rated on chloride ion penetration. Widely
T277 scale from negligible to high. used in USA. Has been used
in Australia for monitoring
concrete quality during
construction (e.g. Queensland).
It is essentially a complex and
long resistivity test.
30 years ago focused on a probe spacing of 50 mm and the effects of larger aggregates. AASHTO TP95-11
such that the probe length was 150 mm. This could [Reference 155] recommends a spacing of 1.5” or 38
sometimes not be fitted within a rebar grid and hence mm. Different models of test equipment offer different
narrower probe spacing has been used (i.e. 30 mm). probe spacings.
As a universal measuring device a spacing of 30 mm The comparison of results of resistivity
is preferred but this is more influenced by the surface measurements from different probe spacings and
concrete and hence might be more susceptible to specimen sizes (i.e. cylinder lab sample to on-site
low readings caused by bleed or surface drying for measurement) means that correction factors are
example. It will also be susceptible to small defects required to convert these readings.
5:7
Table 5.3: Set of typical resistivity results for concrete cylinders
Measured Resistivity Values (kohm.cm) at Quartile Points Std

Cylinder Mean
0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 90° 180° 270° Dev
1. 89.9 101.9 98.1 101.2 100.3 102.6 94.1 102.7 98.9 4.6
2. 120.1 105.9 117.9 119.5 116.4 122.3 125.1 119.3 118.3 5.7
3. 134.2 146.9 161.6 144.8 144.5 130.3 144.9 145.0 141.5 6.5
4. 102.4 99.7 99.7 89.2 99.6 95.1 103.3 98.3 98.4 4.5
Table 5.4: Cross hole sonic logging tests
Common Test Type Precision Comments

Reference (CoV, %)
AS 2159:2009 Cross hole sonic logging involves Not known Australian Standard for piling design
placing plastic or metal tubes around and installation includes information
the perimeter of a bored pile or on a range of piling tests for load and
diaphragm wall. durability.
Time of flight ultrasonic testing is then
conducted between tubes to detect
regions with potential defects.
A set of typical resistivity results on concrete (1) 4 probe Wenner resistivity be measured in
cylinder samples is shown in Table 5.3. accordance with AASHTO TP95-11 [Reference
Carrying out this test as part of a mix evaluation 155] or equivalent to determine the mean
or to assess variation in concrete during a construction resistivity for the concrete based on results from
project is simple. The test is fast and non-destructive multiple batches with tests on three cylinders
and the samples already collected for standard 7 and from each batch.
28 day age compressive strengths are suitably and (2) 4 probe Wenner resistivity be measured in
consistently conditioned. Adding a resistivity check accordance with AASHTO TP95-11 [Reference
before crushing has a very low cost. The sheer volume 155] or equivalent on all 28 day age compressive
of samples and hence data produced is itself a strong strength tests undertaken. If resistivity trends
argument for such an approach, which is being used up and results fall to 20% below the average
increasingly by US state road authorities. result in the trial mix, then the designer and/
When used as a check on concrete variation, or durability consultant should consider what
there are no established criteria for the test results. It actions should be undertaken to bring the mix
is the variation in resistivity that is significant and the back to the performance of the trial mix.
variation should only be used as an indication that there
might be something untoward with the concrete that 5.8 CROSS HOLE SONIC LOGGING
requires further investigation. Cross hole sonic logging is used to assess voids
Temperature has a significant effect, therefore and cave-ins in bored piles and diaphragm walls as
laboratory tests must be undertaken at a standard either of these defects might reduce the final durability
temperature (e.g. 23 ± 2 °C). Moisture content also of the pile. Testing involves measuring the time of
has a significant effect, and hence samples should flight of an ultrasonic wave between a transmitter and
be tested for resistivity within 15 minutes of removal receiver lowered to the same height down different
from the water bath. If core samples are to be tested, tubes. The tubes are installed during construction and
they should be preconditioned to a saturated state in are usually plastic or steel. The tubes are capped and
accordance with AS 1012.14:1991 [Reference 97]. filled with water. The transducers are hydrophones
For structures in severe exposures it is and use the water as couplant for the transmission of
recommended that:
5:8
ultrasonic waves. Using results from multiple tubes and hence testing on selected elements is undertaken. The
multiple heights, a large proportion of a pile or wall can extent of testing might depend on the significance of
be assessed. On occasion tests might be between two the element, the ground conditions and the element
sonic transducers within a single tube. Transmission geometry. It is recommended that the first element cast
is direct between transmitter and receiver and no data is tested and each element thereafter until no problems
can be obtained for regions outside the perimeter of are found in a pour. Thereafter, testing at the rate of
the tubes. Hence design of the tube layout is important. 5-30% of elements is recommended. The frequency of
The test is included in AS 2159:2009 [Reference 156] as testing can be relaxed as the system of construction is
shown in Table 5.4. proven, returning to a higher frequency when problems
Cross hole sonic logging is recommended for are identified.
general usage in piles and diaphragm walls as it can Cross hole sonic logging services are provided
detect defects that are not uncommon and can have by contractors specialising in pile integrity testing and
a significant impact on durability. Coverage of all piles specialised geotechnical and foundation testing, rather
and walls on a project is generally not economical, than by materials testing laboratories.
5:9
6 [Reference 21] is probably the most comprehensive
in that it specifies accuracy, although it only relates to
Tests where Placed
electromagnetic (magnetic reluctance) type meters, as
follows:
Concrete is Suspect
■■ For use in lab: ±5% or 2 mm whichever
is greater.
■■ For use in field: ±15% or 5 mm whichever
6.1 INTRODUCTION is greater.
The performance of a concrete in situ will differ

6.2.2 Magnetic reluctance covermeters
from its performance in trial mixes or laboratory tests
on quality control samples taken during construction. Covermeters have undergone a generational
Testing of as-placed concrete is not a common change since their inception. The first “covermeter” was
requirement, as in-situ concrete quality is generally of the magnetic reluctance type, developed in 1955 at
accepted as being adequate if the mix supplied is the (then) C&CA in the UK. Covermeter manufacturers
in accordance with the specification and there is no used this principle for the next thirty years, and it is
reason to suspect that placing, finishing and curing still found in use today. This method measures small
were substandard. changes in the electromagnetic field of the core, and
Testing of the as-placed concrete during it can be strongly affected by variations in the core,
construction might be required for assurance of e.g. temperature, external magnetic fields. The field is
durability when the concrete mix, placing, or curing is also affected by magnetic aggregates. Devices might
suspect. This is analogous to non-destructive testing, have different heads with varying coil arrangements
or testing of cores for strength where the designer for specific purposes such as determining cover of
or contractor is not satisfied that the method of congested reinforcement, measuring cover in different
construction will provide the performance that would be depth ranges and for bar diameter estimation.
expected. In terms of the accuracy of electromagnetic
The main tests that might be undertaken covermeters, BS 1881:Part 124:1988 [Reference 21]
to assess the adequacy of new construction are requirements apply:
summarised in Table 6.1 and are described in more ■■ Covers <80 mm, accuracy = ±1 mm.
detail in this Section. ■■ Covers 80-120 mm, accuracy = ±2 mm.
■■ Covers 120-160 mm, accuracy = ±3 mm.
REINFORCEMENT LOCATION
6.2 ■■ Covers 160-180 mm, accuracy = ±4 mm.
AND COVER DEPTH
Both the reinforcement location/spacing/ 6.2.3 Pulsed eddy current covermeters
position and the depth of cover over reinforcement In the pulse eddy current method, a pulse
are important, and may need to be determined when of current creates a magnetic field through the coils
investigating the quality of a concrete placement. The in the instrument, which induces an eddy current in
importance of cover depth was described in Section the reinforcement. The eddy current induced in the
5.3. bar produces a second magnetic field that creates
a decay time signal in the coils proportional to the
6.2.1 Instrument types and applicable standards bar diameter and cover. This process occurs in less
The types of equipment available for non- than a millisecond, enabling reasonably fast scanning
destructively locating reinforcement and measuring its rates. Devices might have different heads with varying
cover depth include magnetic reluctance, pulsed eddy coil arrangements for specific purposes such as
current, ground penetrating radar and ultrasonic pulse determining cover around core holes, measuring
echo. The applications of these and recommended cover in different depth ranges and for bar diameter
procedures are described in this Section. estimation. Alternatively, various coil types might be
There are few published standards on the housed in one measuring head and are tuned for
performance and use of covermeters. BS1881-204:1988 sensitivity to bar spacing or cover depth. These coils
6:1
Table 6.1: Recommended tests for assessment of as placed concrete
Suspect Parameter Key Testing Applicable

Comments
Aspect Measured Method Aspects Circumstance
Strength of magnetic Use equipment that Simple and known accuracy Measurements by either
reluctance or pulsed will give accurate cover for spot measurements where method must be calibrated by
Reinforcement Position and Cover
eddy current induced measurement. reinforcement details known. exposing the reinforcement
in the reinforcement, at representative sites and
Depth (see Section 6.2)
i.e. covermeter measuring its cover depth by

ruler or tape measure.
Flight time of radio Result affected by Fast scanning to give image It takes many hours of practice
wave reflected by the permittivity of the of variation of reinforcement on different types of concrete and
reinforcement, i.e. concrete which is cover. structure to master the use of a
ground penetrating moisture sensitive. Wherever unknown bar size, cover meter or radar unit.
radar lap locations or closely spaced Inadequate cover is one of the
rebar invalidate covermeter major causes of premature
measurements. deterioration. Therefore the
Can measure covers deeper actual cover distribution should
than covermeter. be measured and kept as a
permanent record on all projects.
Core compressive Take & condition cores to Where cylinder strengths Only method accepted in
strength AS1012.14. Test to avoid are low or deemed Australian codes for assessment
rebar. unrepresentative of in-situ of in-situ strength.
Compressive Strength
strength.
(see Section 6.2)
Hardness using a Proper surface Use NDT to define variations Ultrasonic pulse velocity and
rebound hammer preparation. Appropriate in strength across an element rebound relationship to strength
statistical analysis and and hence guide core varies from mix to mix so
calibration against locations. calibration to same concrete mix
strength measured by of known strength required.
core sample. Rebound is a measure of surface
hardness only, hence results
Flight time over known Accurate measurement might be unrepresentative of
distance to give of ultrasonic pulse flight bulk or unformed or deteriorated
ultrasonic wave velocity path. surfaces.
Time of flight of direct Ability to accurately Where delaminations, cold In-expensive equipment but high
compression wave locate transmitter and joints or significant voids are labour cost. Results influenced by
i.e. Ultrasonic Pulse receiver on opposite suspected. presence of reinforcing steel.
Presence or Depth of Defects
Velocity sides of the element.

Flight time of reflected Various multiple Advanced equipment gives ability
(see Section 6.4)
shear wave i.e. transmitter/receiver to see cross sections through the

Ultrasonic Pulse Echo devices available. concrete.
Frequency of reflected Simple impact echo Simple method for assessing
compression wave equipment available but element thickness and identifying
from rear face or requires experienced defect risk within a section at a
defect i.e. Impact Echo operator. single point on the surface.
Flight time of radar Wide range of Ground If voids present that are likely Only identifies voids if saturated.
wave reflected by the Penetrating Radar to be water filled. Might not show air-filled voids or
rear face or defect equipment available. defects.
Initial surface water BS 1881-208 ISAT Water penetration into Not recommended as a means
absorption (ISAT) concrete surface under a of assessment of in-situ concrete
Concrete (see Section
Quality of Surface
small head pressure quality.

Karsten Tube ISAT (<200 mm). Results are affected too much by
concrete moisture content.
6.5)
Air permeability Torrent Test Air flow measurement Not frequently used.
into surface concrete Results are affected too much by
and determination of air concrete moisture content.
permeability coefficient (m/s)
and depth of penetration (mm)
6:2
can then be interpreted conjunctionally to give greater reinforcement, interfering signals will be picked
functionality. up from the reinforcement either side of the
In terms of the accuracy of pulsed eddy current target reinforcing bar, increasing the total
meters, suppliers claim: signal strength and therefore decreasing the
■■ ±1 mm up to 60 mm cover displayed cover. This effect is also a function
■■ ±2 mm at 60-80 mm cover of reinforcement diameter. Some covermeters
■■ ±3 mm at 80-160 mm cover have in-built adjustment for near reinforcement
■■ ±4 mm at 160-180 mm cover correction, these covermeters generally give
better accuracy for congested reinforcement.
6.2.4 Covermeter limitations However, a point is reached where the cover is
Like all devices, electromagnetic (magnetic so high and the reinforcement so close that there
reluctance) and pulsed eddy current covermeters have is no detectable signal strength change as the
limitations. The following are the most common: probe is swept over the surface.
(a) Determining reinforcement diameter: (d) Reinforcing bar diameter affects sensitivity:
The strength of the field depends on the The field strength induced in the reinforcement
bar diameter, hence for accurate cover depends on reinforcement diameter and hence
measurements the bar diameter must be known. the maximum depth of measurement decreases
Some covermeters give an approximate bar with decreasing reinforcement size. The depth of
diameter through the use of multiple sensors measurement is typically up to 150 mm for larger
in the instrument; however, these are generally reinforcement but might be less than half that for
of low accuracy, particularly at high covers or smaller reinforcement.
areas of congested reinforcement. This is a (e) Reinforcement orientation: The measurement
good reason for recording the cover distribution head when located midway between certain
as part of the construction quality assurance reinforcement arrangements might falsely
process, as the reinforcement diameters will then indicate the existence of reinforcement. Follow
be known. Even where designed reinforcement the manufacturer’s advice for scanning in these
diameters are known, it is recommended that circumstances. Reinforcement cannot be
reinforcement diameter and depth be established assumed to be straight, parallel or remaining in
by exposing the reinforcement at one or more plane. It is recommended that measurements
representative sites and measuring its cover be taken at different positions of the same
depth and diameter by ruler or tape measure. reinforcement to ensure that relevant cover
(b) Laps increase the field strength relative to single measurements are made.
reinforcing bar, the effect being analogous to
increasing the diameter of the reinforcement, 6.2.5 Ground penetrating radar
consequently the cover indicated at a lap is Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) uses radio
lower than the true cover. This can be tested waves to pick up changes in the dielectric properties
by sliding the covermeter probe along the inside an element. This technology makes use of a
reinforcement and looking for a sudden jump transmitter sending radio waves into the substrate and
or drop in cover. It is important to consult the a receiver recording the reflected waves. The waves
drawings of the reinforcing detail to choose are reflected where the dielectric constant changes.
positions where cover measurements will be The depth of such changes can be calculated using the
accurate. Where drawings are not available, time of flight and an estimation of wave velocity. GPR is
extensive tests might be necessary to resolve generally used for the location of steel embedments in
where laps occur. If the location of laps is not concrete, but has many and varied applications in civil
known, it might be preferable to use ground engineering.
penetrating radar (GPR). Many of the limitations described above for
(c) Interference from adjacent reinforcing bars: covermeters do not apply to GPR, although GPR has
When measuring cover of closely spaced its own limitations. Often covermeters and GPR can
6:3
VCS Display
Rebar locations but front face located
Bar 4
Bar 3
Bar 2
Bar 1
from peak positive in reflected wave to
the right.
Front face of wall
Cover to front face
Front face of rebar (centrally placed)
Reflected Wave
T=transmitter; R=receiver
T R
Electromagnetic wave
reflected from different
materials
Value set at
calibration
Figure 6.1: Schematic of a hand held GPR unit scanning rebar and an example of the on-screen real time image
0.1 1.00
KBSB Wharf Front of Beam
0.09
Mean
0.08 Characteris c 0.80
Cumulative Probability
Cumula ve Prob. Dist.
Discrete Probability
0.07
0.06 0.60
0.05
0.04 0.40
0.03
39
0.02 0.20
53
0.01
0 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cover (mm)
Mean (mm) = 52.8 Std. Dev. (mm)= 8.3 Charac. (mm) =39
Figure 6.2: Cover distribution from a series of GPR scans
be used synergistically to get a true impression of the “ground truthing” (calibration) is required in order to gain
cover. accurate cover values. Calibration can be achieved by:
Where reinforcing is particularly congested (a) Comparing a dimension measured by tape
or where there are laps, use of covermeters is not with a measurement made by GPR, e.g. a wall
recommended as erroneous readings are likely. GPR thickness.
can achieve greater accuracy in these circumstances. (b) Comparing covermeter measurements with GPR
The time of flight of the radar wave is highly sensitive to measurement.
the concrete permittivity, which is largely controlled by (c) Measuring actual cover by exposing
the concrete moisture content. Hence some means of reinforcement in one or more locations.
6:4
In situations where cover is critical and reinforcement bars are masked by steel fibres, UPE is a
consideration for post-pour quality assurance checks.
Figure 18 : Screen-Shot of the Segment Cross Section Generated by UPE with a Matching Sketch of
Reinforcement Layout
Figure 6.3: Screen shot of the segment cross section generated by UPE with a matching sketch
6.3of reinforcement
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
layout
Testing the strength of concrete in the field might be required for controlling the construction process quality
assurance, repair of the structure, or auditing a structure’s final form.
Once the dielectric constant has been set for The small diameter shear wave transmitters are spaced
the Tests
concrete
forbeing measured,
concrete the GPR
strength fall unit
intocan
tworapidly at up to 30destructive
main categories, mm centres tests
and when
and triggered the array of
non-destructive tests. A
scandestructive
the concretetest is defined
surface. This is as
the one
idealthat will leave damage
method requiring
signals produces repair.
a cross A non-destructive
sectional image throughtest
the will not
leave any both
of establishing damage.
the cover distribution and any concrete. The frequency of the waves emitted can be
patterns to cover, as many covers can be visualised and increased or decreased dependent on the geometry
Both forms of testing have their strengths and weaknesses. Destructive tests give a definitive value directly
measured
measuredin a short
fromtime.
the Thus the dielectric
structure, but asconstant
they damage of the
thescenario (i.e. they
concrete thick element, large targets
are generally etc.). and only
restricted
of aprovide
particularinformation
concrete mixabout thebetween
will vary small area tested. Non-destructive
different In general use, thetests can be carried
low frequency waves out
passover wide areas
through
on the structure. However, they do
placements or positions within a single placementnot definitively the reinforcement without significant interference andof results
measure strength, and accurate interpretation
requires calibration against results from
depending on exposure to moisture, and the dielectric
tests on laboratory specimens or destructive in-situ tests.
the reflected waves are taken to represent flaws, voids
constant
BS ENat a13791:2007
particular site[Reference
may vary with time
157] or the
dueassociated
and to concrete
guide rear surface[Reference
BS 6089:2010 as these represent the methods
158] detail
cyclic wetting and drying. largest change in impedance (which
of measuring and assessing in situ compressive strength using cores, rebound hammer, ultrasoniccauses the waves pulse
velocity and pull-out
Widespread tests. are possible with
cover surveys to reflect). In high frequency mode, the reinforcement is
small hand held GPR units, refer Figure 6.1. The detected and in some cases the device can be used to
onscreen display enables real time review of the scan give a reasonable estimate of cover.
along a line. Continuous scans of 10-20 m are possible, Although not commonly used for cover
the review of the full scan makes it easy to see rise and measurements due to the equipment’s expense and
Performance Tests To Assess Concrete Durability
falls in the reinforcement, and the cover depth can be unsuitability for general cover measurements or bar
73
quickly read. Sufficient scans then need to be taken to location, it has been used successfully to assess the
give a clear impression of the pattern of cover on an cover of edge bars in steel fibre reinforced tunnel lining
element. This might enable the element to be broken segments (Figure 6.3). The cover to edge bars was a
into different zones with different covers due to the concern as it was known that the anti-burst edge cages
geometry or method of construction. Several elements had twisted leading to very low cover in some cases,
can then be scanned to give a few scans representing and the edge bars were particularly vulnerable should
each zone. A cover distribution can then be established joint leakage occur. The other types of covermeter
for each zone based on several scans, refer Figure 6.2. noted in this section were unable to measure the cover
Higher performance GPR equipment is available due to the interference of the steel fibres.
that can detect reinforcement at greater depths, but In situations where cover is critical and
its use is rarely warranted for development of cover reinforcement bars are masked by steel fibres, UPE is a
distributions as the units are more cumbersome and consideration for post-pour quality assurance checks.
more expensive.
6.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
6.2.6 Ultrasonic pulse echo Testing the strength of concrete in the field might
Ultrasonic pulse echo (UPE) was introduced for be required for controlling the construction process
assessment of concrete using a device with numerous quality assurance, repair of the structure, or auditing a
(48 or more) transmitter/receivers mounted in one head. structure’s final form.
6:5
Tests for concrete strength fall into two main the results of testing cores taken from the structure. It
categories, destructive tests and non-destructive tests. describes the reasons for strength evaluation by the
A destructive test is defined as one that will leave use of cores, and how to obtain cores from concrete
damage requiring repair. A non-destructive test will not structures so that they will be suitable for testing and
leave any damage. the test results will be “significant” in the true statistical
Both forms of testing have their strengths and sense. Steps in the determination and evaluation of
weaknesses. Destructive tests give a definitive value concrete strength from the results include providing
directly measured from the structure, but as they for corrections to the indicated compressive strength
damage the concrete they are generally restricted and of the core for length to diameter ratio of the core;
only provide information about the small area tested. presence of reinforcement in the core; position of the
Non-destructive tests can be carried out over wide core axis in relation to the standard cylinder axis; age
areas on the structure. However, they do not definitively of the concrete; quality of compaction of the concrete;
measure strength, and accurate interpretation of and, the curing regime experienced. A feature of the
results requires calibration against results from tests on correction for quality of compaction of the cores is
laboratory specimens or destructive in-situ tests. a series of photographs of concrete of known void
BS EN 13791:2007 [Reference 157] and contents. This visual means of correcting for excessive
associated guide BS 6089:2010 [Reference 158] voids in the cores is presented with an alternative
detail methods of measuring and assessing in situ procedure using actual density measurements of the
compressive strength using cores, rebound hammer, cores [Reference 161].
ultrasonic pulse velocity and pull-out tests. It is recommended that the practices in CIA
Measuring compressive strength of concrete in Z11:2002 [Reference 159] be followed, with extra
an existing structure will generally involve a combination interpretation as in BS EN 13791:2007 [Reference 157]
of non-destructive tests (i.e. no concrete removal) and and associated documents.
destructive tests (e.g. core samples extracted). The
amount of concrete removed must not reduce the 6.3.2 Windsor Probe and Capo tests
structural capacity or other performance parameters of The Windsor Probe and Capo tests are
the element. proprietary tests.
The Windsor Probe fires a projectile into the
6.3.1 Concrete core sample testing concrete using gun powder. The depth the probe
Compressive strength testing of core penetrates reflects the quality of the surface concrete.
samples from hardened concrete is described in AS Users need to be licenced to operate the equipment.
1012.14:1991 [Reference 97]. This standard specifies The Capo test is a form of pull out test, in which
that the core sample should have a length to diameter an expandable fitting is inserted into a hole drilled in
ratio close to 2:1, with a minimum diameter of 75 mm the hardened concrete. After expanding the fitting in
or 3 times the maximum nominal aggregate size, the hole, the force required to pull it out is measured.
whichever is greater. It should be taken from the bulk of The design of the fitting means that the primary mode
the concrete rather than the top surface where concrete of resistance to the tensile force is the compressive
is known to be of a lower strength. The standard strength of the concrete.
also touches on correction for differing dimensions, These tests are not generally used for site
treatment of sample prior to testing, precision and investigations. For further information see CIA CPN 22
rejection criteria. The compressive strength test itself [Reference 161].
is to be completed accordance with AS 1012.9:1999
[Reference 181]. 6.3.3 Rebound hammer
BS EN 13791:2007 [Reference 157] (and A rebound hammer test measures the surface
Standards cited therein) provides detailed guidance on hardness or more correctly the rebound of the
evaluating compressive strength from core compressive concrete. During the test a steel spring driven mass
strength tests. CIA Z11 [Reference 159] gives more is released from its maximum height to impact on the
general guidance on evaluating concrete strength from surface of a concrete specimen. The perpendicular
6:6
distance from the concrete surface that the mass on the use and upkeep of the test equipment
rebounds or bounces is then measured and called the and on the statistical treatment of results.
“rebound number”. This rebound distance is a function CIA CPN 22 [Reference 161] considers that
of the elastic rebound of the concrete specimen. Newer coefficients of variation of compressive strength
rebound hammers measure the velocity of the mass estimated from rebound number can range between 18
instead to alleviate the effect of gravity on the test. to 30%.
The rebound number of the concrete depends To achieve reliable results, rebound hammers
not only on the compressive strength of the concrete require regular checking on standard test blocks,
but also the local hardness at the point of impact. Thus, with cleaning and lubrication of the mechanism when
it is influenced by the presence of aggregate or paste at deviation from the calibration value is found.
the point of impact; surface texture/finish, cleanliness,
moisture condition and carbonation; concrete age, 6.3.4 Ultrasonic pulse velocity
and type of coarse aggregate. Although a measure Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) typically requires
of the quality and condition of the concrete surface, it access to two faces of the element under test – one
may be affected by whether the element is supported for a source transducer and the other for a receiver. It
or suspended, and on the thickness of suspended measures average velocity of a compression wave over
elements. Consequently, different concrete mixes the path between the two transducers. This velocity
of the same nominal strength, or the same concrete has a direct relationship to the compressive strength,
in different placements, may give different rebound elastic modulus and density of concrete, thus can be
numbers. used to assess concrete quality. It is also affected by
Because it is influenced by so many factors the presence of cracks, voids and other discontinuities,
other than strength, rebound number must be therefore it may also be used to detect the extent of
calibrated against compressive strength. Three such defects.
methods commonly used to correlate rebound number The test can be carried out in several ways:
are as follows: ■■ Direct transmission, where the source transducer
(a) Rebound number is not calibrated or converted is opposite the receiver.
to a compressive strength value, and instead the ■■ Semi-direct transmission, where the source
readings are only used comparatively over a site and the receiver do not face each other but are
or element. located on different faces of an element such as
(b) Rebound numbers are compared with across a corner.
compressive strength test results obtained ■■ Indirect transmission, where the source and
from cylinder or core samples. In some cases, receiver are placed on the same surface.
such as in precasting large numbers of units, a The most critical aspect in obtaining useful UPV
specific concrete mix calibration can be created data is the ability to measure the direct linear distance
in the laboratory prior to use in the field. For site between the transducers accurately.
investigations, the rebound hammer testing is Correlation of the UPV to concrete compressive
completed and then a core sample is extracted strength is carried out in a similar manner as outlined
at the same position for compressive strength for rebound hammer testing. Readings can be treated
testing. This is the most accurate method. purely for comparative purposes or calibrations can
(c) Rebound hammer manufacturer’s calibrations be formulated using destructive testing. Generally the
are used. The calibration is not specific to results are interpreted comparatively, i.e. by looking at
the project concrete, therefore this approach the pattern of results over a surface, rather than the
cannot be used as anything but a rough guide, absolute values. Deviations from a consistent pattern
and certainly not to accept or reject concrete. may indicate a possible defect.
Guidance can be found in BS EN 12504-2:2012 International standards providing guidance on
[Reference 162] (replacing BS 1881-202:1986) both the use of and interpretation of UPV readings are
and ASTM C805/C805M-13a [Reference 163]. BS EN 12504-4:2004 [Reference 164] (replacing BS
These standards give step by step instructions 1881-203:1986), ASTM C597–09 [Reference 165] and
6:7
ACI 228.1R:2003 [Reference 166]. widely used in the Unites States, Europe and Singapore
UPV is affected by reinforcement, therefore it to diagnose the integrity of concrete structural
may be less effective in reinforced concrete than in elements.
mass or unreinforced concrete. A low-strain hammer (rubber mallet) sends a
CIA CPN 22 [Reference 161] indicates that in stress wave into the test element. Plate-like structures
uncracked concrete a coefficient of variation within 1% respond to the impact in a bending mode, i.e. the
is feasible. structure vibrates at low frequency. The force of the
hammer impact is measured by the hammer’s built-in
DETECTING DEFECTS WITHIN
6.4 load cell as a force vs time plot (the “force spectrum”).
THE CONCRETE The concrete’s surface vibration is measured as a
Defects may be detected to a limited extent by velocity vs time plot by a geophone. A fast fourier
visual inspection of the surface and/or core samples. transform (FFT) algorithm is used to process both
A range of non-destructive test methods is available signals to give force vs frequency for the hammer
for determining whether defects are present over wider impact and velocity vs frequency for the geophone
areas. These are listed in Table 6.1. responses (the “velocity spectrum”). As the response
is dependent on the impact force, a “transfer function”
6.4.1 Ultrasonic pulse velocity is derived by dividing the velocity spectrum by the
See Section 6.3.4. force spectrum. This transfer function, known as the
“mobility”, has units of m/s/N. For each test point
6.4.2 Ultrasonic pulse echo mobility vs frequency is obtained. The average mobility,
which is the averaged reading between 0 to 800 kHz,
See Section 6.2.6.
is generally used for analysis. The average mobility is
then indirectly proportional to the concrete element
6.4.3 Impact echo
thickness.
Elastic, low frequency transient stress waves For large structures, tests are conducted on
are produced at a test point by tapping a small weight a grid pattern to cover the area of concern. Sound
against the test element’s concrete surface. The concrete in plate structures (slabs, walls, bridge decks
waves travel through the concrete and are reflected and arches) typically gives constant values of impulse
by any discontinuities caused by changes in acoustic response (average mobility) across the element. Poor
impedance (partially affected by concrete density). A consolidation and honeycombing causes a rise in
transducer held on the surface adjacent to the impact average mobility.
point detects the reflected waves as they rebound
between the concrete surface and discontinuities. 6.4.5 Ground penetrating radar
Major discontinuities (such as defects) reflect
See Section 6.2.5.
the most energy. For in-plate concrete elements such
as slabs and walls with no defects, the most significant
ASSESSMENT OF CONCRETE
6.5
discontinuity is the rear face of the element. ASTM SURFACE QUALITY
C1383-04a [Reference 182] refers to the measurement The quality of the concrete surface greatly
of thickness in concrete slabs and plates using the influences the durability of the concrete. In turn,
impact echo method. Where defects such as voids or the surface quality is determined largely by curing
delaminations provide a significant barrier to the wave, method and duration. Inadequate curing may reduce
reflections of the wave energy cause an amplitude peak compressive strength, but the effect on durability
at the corresponding frequency and the distance to the is likely to be greater. When the quality of curing is
defect can be calculated. suspect, measurement of the surface’s resistance
to ingress of water or air by methods such as those
6.4.4 Impulse response described below is possible but is not frequently done.
Originally, the impulse response method was The biggest issue with the types of tests
developed for deep foundation evaluation, but it is now described below is that the test result is affected by
6:8
Figure 19 : Field Measurements of Water Absorption
a) (a)ISAT
ISAT - -Karsten
KarstenTubeTube Method
method. b) BS
(b)1881-208
BS 1881-208ISAT Test
ISAT test Equipment
equipment.
Figure 6.4: Field measurements of water absorption

6.5.2 Torrent Air Permeability
An indication of the air permeability of surface concrete can be determined using a Torrent
Permeability Tester [Reference 170], refer Figure 20. The Torrent test equipment has a
the concrete moisture content. Consequently, care is Results are affected by concrete moisture content.
two-chamber vacuum cell and a pressure regulator, which ensure that air flows at right angles to
required whenthe
interpreting
concretethe results.isThey
surface are also
directed Therefore,
towards the the test is(Figure
inner chamber not recommended as a means
20). This permits of
the calculation
influenced by of
thethe air permeability
surface finish/texture,coefficient
which may kT (m/s).assessment of in-situ concrete surface quality.
affect the correct functioning of the test equipment. The Karsten Tube, RILEM 25-PEM test 11.4:1986
The unit measures the pressure increase[Reference
The most common methods of assessing the quality of
as a function of time according to a specific sequence.
168], refer Figure 6.4a, has been developed
The associated data is automatically collected and the permeability coefficient kT (m/s) and the
as cast concretedepthis to of
take samples andL measure
penetration the
of the vacuum as
area simple form ofThe
calculated. ISAT.measurement
It does not require bolting
takes 2-12to minutes,
performance using a laboratory tests such as sorptivity the concrete surface. However, with little
depending on the air permeability of the concrete. In the case of dry concrete, the quality class of exposure to
the concrete
or volume of permeable voidscover
(VPV)can be read
although from a table
a test using the
the research kT value.
outside Europe,In itthe
hascase
failedof tomoist
become concrete, kT
related directlyistocombined with the
the mechanism concrete’smay
of deterioration electricalinternationally
resistivity (ρ) and theA quality
specified. study byclass
Nwaubaniis determined from a
nomogram.
be considered. For field testing, the Torrent test could [Reference 169] comparing in-situ methods of ISAT
be consideredThe
but only if anofallowance
claims for concrete
performance rated the Karsten
are from the equipment Tube method
manufacturer. highly
This testbecause of the
is not frequently used.
moisture content is possible. However, this method is non-destructive nature and low cost. In the US, the
not commonlyFurthermore, the Torrent
available in Australia Air surface
and initial Permeabilitymethod
test cannot be used
has found favourwhere a surface
in slightly treatment
modified form, withhas been
applied.
water absorption tests are more likely to be available. larger diameter reservoirs being used to increase the
test area.
6.5.1 Initial surface water absorption (ISAT) Like the BS 1881-208:1996 ISAT, the primary
The BS 1881-208:1996 [Reference 167] ISAT, limitation of the Karsten Tube ISAT is that the test result
refer Figure 6.4b, is rarely used in on-site investigations. is affected markedly by the concrete moisture content.
A container of defined size is bolted to the Hence, the test is not frequently used.
concrete surface such that the container’s open surface Furthermore, the BS 1881-208:1996 ISAT cannot
is in contact with the concrete. The container is filled be used where a surface treatment has been applied,
with water and the water absorbed by the concrete although the Karsten Tube ISAT might be useful in
under a defined pressure head of 200 mm is measured. assessing the quality of surface treatments.
This pressure head is taken to be higher than the
average pressure of driving rain. 6.5.2 Torrent air permeability
The equipment is simple to set up in laboratory An indication of the air permeability of
tests, but more cumbersome for in-field tests. surface concrete can be determined using a Torrent

6:9
Figure 20 : Torrent Air Permeability Testing Equipment
Torrent
Torrent Test Equipment
test equipment. Schematic of AirofFlow
Schematic in the
air flow Interpretation
Interpretation of of Torrent
Torrent Air Flow
air flow results
inTorrent Testtest.
the Torrent Results
using Using Combination
combination with resistivityWith
to split
Resistivity to Split
results Results
into quality into Quality
zones.
Zones
Figure 6.5: Torrent air permeability testing equipment
6.6 MIX COMPOSITION
6.6.1 Cement (Binder) Content and Composition
Chemical
permeability tester analysis
[Reference 170],ofrefer
concrete
Figureby6.5.
BS 1881:Part can124:1988 [Reference
be determined. 21] can be used
For cementitious to determine
binders consisting
the acid-soluble calcium and silicon contents of the concrete, from which the approximate cement
The Torrent test equipment has a two-chamber vacuum of type GP cement alone, the calcium content alone
content can be determined. For cementitious binders consisting of type GP cement alone, the
cell and a pressure regulator,
calcium which
content ensure
alone will that air
be generally bewill be generally
sufficient, but be sufficient,
if the concrete butalso
if thecontains
concreteshell,
also
limestone aggregate, or other
flows at right angles to the concrete surface is directedsources of calcium carbonate then the silicon content also
contains shell, limestone aggregate, or other sources needs to of
be measured.
towards the inner chamber (Figure 6.5). This permits the calcium carbonate then the silicon content also needs
calculation of theBSair 1881:Part
permeability124:1988 [Reference
coefficient kT (m/s).21] reports
to be measured. of 40 kg/m 3 and a reproducibility of
a repeatability
60 kg/m3 for cement content determinations of flint-based concrete. Findings of an inter-laboratory
The unit measures the pressure increase as BS 1881:Part 124:1988 [Reference 21] reports
trial involving four mixes each with different binder type indicated an average repeatability of 60
a function of timekg/m
according
3 and antoaverage
a specific sequence. of 120akg/m
reproducibility repeatability
3 of 4091].
[Reference kg/m and a the
Although
3
reproducibility
authors suggestof 60
the accuracy
The associated data is closercollected
is automatically to that reported
and by BSkg/m
1881:Part
3 124:1988 [Reference 21] once outliers
for cement content determinations of flint-based are
removed, they recommend caution in using the results of cement contents determined by this
the permeability method,
coefficient kT (m/s) and
in particular whentheusing
depththem to express
concrete. Findings
the results of an
from inter-laboratory
other analyses as a trial involving
proportion
cement
of penetration L of the content.
vacuum are calculated. The four mixes each with different binder type indicated
measurement takes 2-12 minutes, depending on
Chemical analysis by these methods may beanless average repeatability
accurate for concreteof 60 kg/m3 and
containing SCM an unless
averagea
the air permeability of the concrete. In the case of
reference sample is available for comparison. reproducibility of 120 kg/m [Reference 91]. Although
3
dry concrete, the quality class of the concrete cover the authors suggest the accuracy is closer to that
Chemical analysis must be carried out by a laboratory with appropriate experience and
can be read fromunderstanding
a table using the kT value. Inconcrete
of analysing the reported
by these by BS preferably
methods, 1881: Part 124:with 1988
NATA[Reference
or equivalent21]
accreditation
case of moist concrete, (see Section
kT is combined 1.4).
with the once outliers are removed, they recommend caution in
concrete’s electrical resistivity (ρ) and the quality class is using
Petrographic examination (see Section 7.4.5) canthe results of
determine thecement
type ofcontents determined
cement used by this
(e.g. Type
determined fromGP,a nomogram.
SR, GB, white cement, calcium aluminate method,cement) and when
in particular the volume percent
using them of binder
to express the
The claims [References 21 & 90].
of performance are from the results from other analyses as a proportion of cement
equipment manufacturer. This test is not frequently
6.6.2 Air Content content.
used. Chemical analysis by these methods may be
The the
Furthermore, entrained
Torrentair
aircontent of hardened
permeability test concrete can be estimated by petrographic examination
[Reference 90]. less accurate for concrete containing SCM unless a
cannot be used where a surface treatment has been reference sample is available for comparison.
applied. 6.6.3 Water to Cement Ratio Chemical analysis must be carried out
by a laboratory
The water to cement ratio of hardened concrete is difficultwith appropriate
to measure experience
accurately, butand
can be
6.6 MIX COMPOSITION
estimated by chemical analysis [Reference 21] or petrographic examination [Reference 90].methods,
understanding of analysing concrete by these
preferably with NATA or equivalent accreditation (see
6.6.1 Cement
Performance (binder)
Tests content
To Assess and Durability
Concrete composition Section 1.4). 79
Chemical analysis of concrete by BS 1881:Part Petrographic examination (see Section 7.4.5) can
124:1988 [Reference 21] can be used to determine determine the type of cement used (e.g. Type GP, SR,
the acid-soluble calcium and silicon contents of the GB, white cement, calcium aluminate cement) and the
concrete, from which the approximate cement content volume percent of binder [References 21 & 90].
6:10
6.6.2 Air content concrete, the significantly higher saturated resistivity of
The entrained air content of hardened concrete SCM concrete compared to concrete with GP cement
can be estimated by petrographic examination can be used to indicate if SCMs have been used
[Reference 90]. correctly.
The test may be carried out on cylinders, cores
6.6.3 Water to cement ratio or in situ. Results must be compared with results
from a reference sample of concrete of the specified
The water to cement ratio of hardened concrete
composition.
is difficult to measure accurately, but can be estimated
Because the resistivity of concrete is highly
by chemical analysis [Reference 21] or petrographic
affected by moisture content, the resistivity test should
examination [Reference 90].
be undertaken on saturated concrete (e.g. by applying
Chemical analysis [e.g. Reference 21] involves
a sprinkler to the element’s surface for several hours),
combining measurements of cement content, bound
or by wet conditioning core samples in accordance with
water in hydrated cement, and porosity. The estimated
AS 1012.14:1991 [Reference 97].
accuracy (expressed as reproducibility) is +/- 0.1 of
If a low resistivity relative to the saturated
the actual water to cement ratio for the range 0.4-
cylinder resistivity is obtained it might be inferred that
0.8 [Reference 89]. It is less accurate for concrete
SCM usage is not as would be expected. Further
that is poorly compacted, carbonated, air entrained
analysis of batch records may reveal the cause of the
or cracked. Results reported by Barnes and Ingham
difference. If not, petrographic examination may be able
[Reference 91] varied by up to +/- 0.2 from the actual
to identify whether the binder contained the intended
value.
SCM.
Petrographic examination is more reliable
The presence and nature of SCM in relatively
as it also provides information about carbonation,
new concrete can be determined by petrographic
air entrainment and voids. For accuracy it requires
examination or scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
comparison with reference materials of known water [Reference 90], provided the concrete is sampled
to cement ratio. Provided the sample is representative before the SCM has reacted significantly. Fully reacted
of the placement (rather than of a defective area), the SCM cannot be physically differentiated from normal
results may be accurate within an error of +/- 0.05 of cement phases. Residual particles of fly ash and slag
the actual water to cement ratio for the range 0.4- may remain visible for more than a year after casting.
0.8. Greater accuracy is achievable for relatively new For amorphous silica and other SCMs that react
concrete where reference materials consists of exactly rapidly, evidence may be limited to agglomerates of
the same concrete cured in the same way as the in- poorly dispersed SCM, or indirect evidence such as
situ concrete [Reference 90]. This approach may be the distribution and size of voids and calcium hydroxide
appropriate for measuring water to cement ratio on in the hardened cement paste. Chemical analysis
large projects where reference samples are match- for species such as calcium, silicon, aluminium and
cured for other testing such as compressive strength. iron can sometimes provide indicative information if
compared to reference samples of known composition.
6.7 SCM CONTENT AND COMPOSITION
Electrical resistivity can be utilised to indicate 6.8 CHLORIDE AND SULFATE ION CONTENT
whether SCMs have been used in accordance with the To minimise the risk of chloride-induced
project specification. Section 5.7 recommends that reinforcement corrosion, maximum limits on the acid
for concrete in severe exposure conditions, resistivity soluble chloride ion content of fresh concrete are set
of all 28-day compressive strength test specimens be by Standards such as AS 1379:2007 [Reference 7].
measured as a check on the consistency of concrete The chloride ion content may be determined by adding
composition. In general, such testing is unnecessary, together the chloride ion contents of all concrete
as batch records and QA testing will provide adequate constituents, or by chemical analysis of the hardened
evidence of correct use of SCMs. However, if there is concrete.
doubt about the use, type or quantity of SCMs in the The acid-soluble chloride content of concrete
6:11
is determined by methods such as AS1012.20:1992 that the relationship between XRF and AS 1012.20:1992
[Reference 175], ASTM C1152/C1152M-04 [Reference [Reference 175] was not close enough to directly
177] or BS 1881:Part 124:1988 [Reference 21]. These convert XRF results to “AS 1012 equivalent” results. In
analyses must be carried out by suitably experienced addition, the accuracy of XRF was found to depend
laboratories (ideally ones that hold NATA or equivalent heavily on the use of appropriate reference materials.
accreditation for these or related analyses). The It was concluded that XRF would only be suitable for
methods differ slightly in the way the samples are assessing compliance if initially calibrated against wet
prepared, but the actual analyses are all based on chemistry methods using the concrete in question,
sound analytical procedures. Methods such as AS and if XRF analyses for a specific project included a
1012.20:1992 [Reference 175] allow for a variety of reference material comprising a sample of the concrete
analytical procedures to be used provided they are on which the calibration had been determined.
calibrated against a reference procedure and meet the Because of the inherent inaccuracy in the
repeatability requirements of the standard. chemical analyses, Z7/07 recommends that where
Sulfate ion content is determined largely from measurements of chloride and sulfate ion content
the sulphate content of the binder. It may be measured exceed the specified limits then the values determined
by methods such as AS 1012.20:1992 [Reference 175] by summing of the constituents shall take precedence.
or BS 1881:Part 124:1988 [Reference 21].
An inter-laboratory trial of the BS 1881:Part 6.9 ALKALI CONTENT
124:1988 [Reference 21] method found that it In some circumstances, the risk of AAR is
consistently overestimated the chloride content, often managed by specifying a maximum concrete alkali
significantly, while the results from the sulfate analysis content. For example, in NZ a maximum alkali limit of
showed no consistent trend between actual and 2.5 kg/m3 is used for many concretes when potentially
measured values [Reference 91]. Clear [Reference 92] reactive aggregate is used. Determination of the alkali
subsequently recommended that for marine structures content of hardened concrete may be required to
the method of summation be used instead of chemical assess compliance with such specifications, or to
analysis of hardened concrete. evaluate the cause of AAR in an existing structure
Sirivatnanon et al [Reference 171] showed the to help identify appropriate precautions for future
repeatability of AS 1012.20:1992 [Reference 175] when construction.
used to test sand was good but its reproducibility was BS 1881-124:1988 [Reference 21] provides
poor. They concluded it could mean a difference of a method for determining acid soluble sodium and
0.05% chloride (by weight of sample) between results potassium contents. Barnes and Ingham [Reference
from two different labs when used to test concrete. 91] reported that inter-laboratory test results from this
Freitag et al [Reference 72] considered the method were consistently higher than the target, which
precision of the AS 1012.20:1992 [Reference 175] may reflect extraction of alkalis that would not normally
method as stated in the test method and quoted by a be available for AAR, such as alkalis bound within
testing laboratory. AS 1012.20’s required repeatability minerals in the aggregate. Of potentially greater concern
was considered equivalent to an uncertainty and is that the range of results they reported exceeded 1.0
precision of +/--0.2 kg Cl/m3 concrete. In the context of kg/m3 for all for concretes tested. Thus, this method
a maximum Cl content of 0.5 kg Cl/m for prestressed
3
may not be accurate enough to be of practical use.
concrete in NZS 3101:2006 [Reference 148], this was Other in-house methods may be more
considered significant. Therefore, it was suggested appropriate, such as methods that measure water
that when evaluating compliance with NZS 3101, soluble alkalis, and/or that separate the binder fraction
concrete chloride contents not exceeding 0.7 kg/m3 from the aggregate and analyse only the binder
Cl be accepted as complying with the 0.5 kg Cl/m3 fraction, but were considered beyond the scope of this
requirement. document.
Freitag et al [Reference 72] also considered the
accuracy of x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy for
determining chloride ion contents. Results suggested
6:12
7 like strain they give more extensive information
not obtained from intermittent site testing that
Condition Monitoring
starts once the deterioration is imminent. This
type of monitoring has a significant capital outlay
and ongoing maintenance and operating costs,
therefore should only be installed where the
7.1 INTRODUCTION
structure’s owner will commit to undertaking
Condition monitoring is an asset management the monitoring throughout its service life. Where
function undertaken to assess whether a structure monitoring of this type is undertaken it must
is still able to fulfil its levels of service and how it is be considered throughout the design phase
performing with respect to its design life. This informs and into the construction phase. Experienced
the asset owner on future maintenance expenditure and contractors must be used during the installation
when either major renewals and/or replacement of the to ensure it is given the greatest chance of being
asset should be planned. successfully operational.
Monitoring is not solely collecting and storing
data. It requires the data to be interpreted, and 7.2 TEST LOCATIONS
decisions made about when intervention is necessary In order to obtain representative test results,
to maintain serviceability or structural performance. the locations tested must be representative of
Criteria for interpreting data and signalling a need the population. In determining the locations to be
to consider changing the monitoring methods or tested careful consideration should be given to the
frequency intervention must be established at the same configuration of the structure/element, the macro and
time as the methods for collecting and storing data. micro exposure and the method of construction. When
Condition monitoring can be undertaken in developing the testing plan, the item to be assessed
various ways. The project owner needs to be clear on (structure or exposure) should be split into zones where
the advantages and disadvantages of the approaches the results can reasonably be expected to be similar. In
including: that way the sample results expressed as a mean and
(a) Intermittent visual inspection: Visual variance will give a true statistical representation of the
inspection will only detect visible damage. Unless zone. In this section examples of zone selection are
conducted regularly, by the time damage occurs, discussed.
deterioration might be advanced and options
for preventative maintenance might be reduced 7.2.1 Structure configuration
or lost. Visual inspection can be undertaken Even though a structure might be constructed
relatively cheaply over the whole structure at from the same concrete mix throughout, the in-situ
frequent time intervals. performance of the concrete might vary depending on
Intermittent site testing: Site testing can be
(b) placing, finishing and curing. For example:
undertaken to monitor the rate of deterioration, (a) There might be many areas of different elements
and predict residual life based on the observed of similar construction and materials that can be
deterioration rate. Calculating residual life often treated as the same zone. For example, all soffits
requires various assumptions to be made as might be considered as one zone.
it is impractical to measure all parameters in (b) The structure will have been built from concrete
the models. This can lead to large errors in batched at different times. This might lead to
predictions. variability. The method of batching quality control
(c) Permanent surface mounted and embedded might suggest a pattern in quality (e.g. control of
monitoring: These are installed preferably water content can be difficult after rain).
at the time of construction but can also be (c) Apart from mix and placing variability, materials
retrofitted. Some monitoring methods facilitate also vary. For example, in Western Australia,
the assessment of residual life and because they the performance of slag blended cements was
establish a base line at construction for items affected by ageing so concrete produced at
7:1
the end of the slag stockpile might have lower zones should be further subdivided based on exposure.
strengths than the fresh slag. It might be valuable Care should be taken not to assume too much about
to check historical records of compressive exposure severity of micro climates. While one side of
strength and locations of concrete placement by a beam might seem to be sheltered, wind eddies can
batch to determine any pattern that might help lead to salt deposition in what appears to be sheltered
direct the zoning for tests. locations.
(d) Prestressed concrete requires specific
consideration. 7.2.5 Existing condition
If deterioration has already started, it is
7.2.2 Element configuration important to determine whether the visible damage is
Even though an element might be constructed related to local defects or represents the beginning of
from the same concrete mix or even the same concrete a more widespread problem. If obviously related to a
batch, the in-situ performance of the concrete might local defect (such as honeycombing, formwork defects,
vary depending on placing, finishing and curing. For embedded items or displaced reinforcement), then
example: sample locations representing apparently undamaged
(a) Formed surfaces have different finishing and concrete in zones potentially more likely to deteriorate
curing to unformed surfaces. Test results on (such as the outer edges of a bridge deck soffit) will
an unformed concrete surface might have better represent the risk to the overall durability of the
no relationship to the performance of formed structure or element.
surface and neither necessarily relate to the
performance of bulk concrete. Where cores are 7.2.6 Type of monitoring
taken for strength assessment they are normally The type of condition monitoring will also play
taken from the bulk of the concrete. Samples a role in collecting data. Methods such as electrode
are taken of sufficient length so that the top 50 (half-cell) potential can be fast scanning techniques
mm can be cut off so strength results are not (e.g. using a wheel type electrode) and can be
affected by surface effects. Conversely, when used to identify areas of reinforcement corrosion
assessing the durability of concrete the cover induced deterioration in undamaged concrete areas.
zone is critical and surface samples are valuable. It is practical to use this type of technique globally.
(b) The performance of concrete at the bottom of Embedded reference electrodes (half cells) can also
deep pours will differ from that at the top due to be used to measure electrode potential but they only
bleed and pressure effects. measure at a single point and are therefore more useful
(c) Tension zones of an element are likely to contain to measure the change of condition of a more globally
micro-cracks that could affect the concrete similar yet difficult access situation.
performance. Each technique has its own limitations and
advantages, as discussed below, and should be
7.2.3 Construction influences considered as part of a system for condition monitoring.
When assessing cover, the configuration of the
reinforcement might be important. For example, cover 7.3 VISUAL INSPECTION
might be low at starter bars or where ligatures overlap. As noted, visual inspection only provides
evidence of visible deterioration damage and once
7.2.4 Exposure such damage has occurred it might be too late to
Exposure variations will lead to differences in apply cost effective preventative measures. However,
condition of parts of an element constructed in identical visual inspections might detect the development of
ways and with the same materials. For example, one deterioration or structural issues that would not have
side of a beam might be exposed to direct wind-blown otherwise been detected. They can also point to areas
salts while the other side is sheltered. Once a structure of more serious exposure, local deterioration related to
is broken down into zones of similar configuration, the construction defects or design features, or less resistant
7:2
concrete. Hence they can be usefully incorporated into ■■ The location of defects and the area or length of
an overall condition monitoring programmeme to detect concrete affected.
potential deterioration before it becomes more serious. ■■ The depth of surface scaling, delamination or
Inspection of distant surfaces by naked eye softening.
or binoculars may fail to observe defects, particularly ■■ The orientation, length and approximate width
in poor lighting conditions. Therefore as with physical of cracks and their relationship to the position of
testing, good access must be provided to surfaces reinforcement.
being inspected. This is likely to involve managing Core samples may be taken to investigate the
hazards related to working at heights, in confined depth of surface damage. This may initially simply
spaces, traffic, industrial processes, or environmental involve visual examination of the core and cutting
hazards. further sub-samples to measure carbonation depth and
The biggest issue for visual inspections is their examine by microscope under reflected light. It may
subjectivity: they are undertaken by different people also involve petrographic examination in more detail,
who even with training will give different ratings to see Section 7.4.6.
the scale of deterioration. Hence, excellent training Records of such observations and
and provision of standard defect descriptions and measurements at successive inspections can then
ratings is required. Major asset owners may have their be compared to assess the rate of deterioration.
own inspection manuals and inspector accreditation Alternatively, results from a single visual inspection may
schemes. General guides to assessing the visible be used to estimate the remaining service life, from
condition of concrete structures are found in technical which the timing of future inspection/maintenance can
publications such as CIA Z15 [Reference 81], CIRIA be determined based on the actual risk. This can be
C660 [Reference 125], UK Concrete Society Technical more cost effective than basing inspections and more
Report TR 22 [Reference 82] and American Concrete detailed instrumental monitoring simply on age or a
Institute ACI 224.1R-07 [Reference 83]. Details with regular time interval.
references specific to concrete cracks are in Z7/06. The presence of environmental factors or design
Visual inspection involves examining surfaces for features contributing to the damage should also be
evidence of damage such as: recorded; for example, water draining over the surface,
■■ Cracking: distinguishing between cracks traffic patterns, local turbulence in water flow, other
caused by construction processes, structural evidence of acidic groundwater or soil, operational
actions, single events (e.g. fire, seismic events or aspects and use of chemicals in an industrial process.
other ground movements, impact) and durability It may be possible to address these before extensive
issues such as reinforcement corrosion, alkali damage is incurred.
aggregate reaction, sulfate attack, delayed
ettringite formation, unsound aggregates or 7.4 INTERMITTENT SITE TESTS
binder. In addition to visual examination described
■■ Surface scaling or delamination: may be above, non-destructive test methods and methods of
related to traffic or natural weathering combined sample analysis can be employed at intervals during
with freeze-thaw cycles, crystallisation of salts or the structure’s life. The structure should deteriorate
possibly construction-related defects. slowly if well-designed and constructed. Consequently,
■■ Surface softening: may be related to attack many of these methods will not provide any significant
by soft or aggressive water, carbonation, acid, information other than establishing an initial baseline
sulfates, sugars, carbonation. performance until at least 20% of the time into the
■■ Surface erosion: related to trafficking or water design life. This approach is attractive to design and
flow over an otherwise sound surface. construct projects because the testing can often be
■■ Surface deposits: that may harbour bacteria specified in the maintenance programme and have no
and other microorganisms impact on the design and construction cost.
Visual examination also involves quantifying Some tests can be used to scan the concrete
visible features such as: surface to help identify what other tests should be
7:3
undertaken in different areas, for example: design life is often defined as time to corrosion initiation,
■■ Electrode (half cell) potential mapping used to the method gives an immediate impression of whether
identify areas of corrosion (see Section 7.4.1). the design life has been reached. Results can also
■■ Rebound hammer used to identify areas of low be used to define what further testing is required. At
surface strength (see Section 6.3.3). anodic areas the extent of corrosion then needs to be
Where the rate of ingress of a critical assessed. If not actively corroding, the time to corrosion
deterioration related front is required, e.g. chloride initiation needs to be evaluated. If actively corroding,
profiles to give the depth of corrosion activation front the section loss and corrosion rate might need to be
(see Section 7.4.3) and carbonation depth (see Section evaluated.
7.4.2), test results can be used in conjunction with The equipment set up incorporating a portable
cover distributions established during construction to reference electrode is shown in Figure 7.1. A positive
calculate the residual life. Electrode potential mapping electrical connection is made between the steel
results might indicate that the deterioration front should reinforcement and a high impedance voltmeter
be measured in areas that are consistently passive, (multimeter). The negative return in the voltmeter is
while further information on resistivity and corrosion connected to a standard reference electrode (for
rate (see Section 7.4.5) might be indicated for active example, copper in a saturated copper sulfate solution,
corrosion areas. Sampling for petrographic examination silver/silver chloride/potassium chloride, manganese/
(see Section 7.4.6)
Performance Testsor wet chemical analysis (see Section manganese dioxide). The electrical circuit is completed
Page 86
6.6 and 6.7) might be called for where chemical attack when the reference electrode is placed on a wetted
is of concern due to the deterioration risk or due to low concrete surface (via the concrete electrolyte). Due
apparent surface strengths identified using rebound
corresponding location on a grid map of the tosurface
the high[References
order of the71 electrical
and 189].contact resistance
Recording might be
hammer scans (see manual or 6.3.3).
Section automated. The testing continues until
and the(ingrid
also is complete.
some cases) the Plotting of potential
high resistivity of contours
the
or isopotential values is then conducted. ASTM C876-09 [Reference 172] gives a method for the
taking and displaying of potential measurements. concrete, Forarapid
high impedance
scans of largevoltmeter
areas aiswheel
essential (input
electrode
7.4.1 Electrode can (halfbecell)
used potential
[Referencemapping
74]. The requiredimpedance
spacing of>10 the Mohms)
wheel runs is marked71on
[References and the189].
concrete
surface and the measurement interval along each run set in the instrument. Scans are then made
The process of corrosion A predetermined grid pattern is developed
along each run.inWhichever
reinforcedmethod
concreteof recording results interpretation is similar.
involves the establishment of anodic (more negative and marked on the concrete surface. As the
ASTM(more
potential) and cathodic C876-09 [Reference
positive 172] provides corrosion
potential) reference probability
electrode is criteria
touchedbased on absolute
to each potential
grid point, the
values as developed from statistical analysis of potential surveys conducted on US bridge decks
sites on the embedded steel.
suffering fromSince differences
de-icing potential
in It considers
salt attack. is readvalue
a potential on themore
voltmeter andthan
negative recorded
-350 mVat the
with
electrical potential respect to a copper/copper
exist between sulfate reference
anodic (“corroding”) electrode location
corresponding (CSE) toonindicate a greater
a grid map than 90%
of the surface
probability of corrosion, and . A. potential value more positive than -200 mV CSE to indicate a less
and cathodic (“passive”)
than 10%sites, then by measuring
probability [References
of corrosion. At intermediate 71 and corrosion
potentials 189]. Recording
activitymight be manual
is uncertain. The
ASTM C876-09 [Reference
potentials on the surface of the concrete with respect 172] criteria or automated. The testing continues until the grid is not
must be used with caution as they are generally
applicable to other situations. As can be seen from Figure 21, cover for example, determines where
to the potential of a stable reference electrode the complete. Plotting of potential contours or isopotential
in the potential field the surface potential is measured and this can significantly effect the measured
size and location ofvalue,
anodicas and
can cathodic
concrete areas can amongstvalues
resistivity, is then conducted.
other factors, ASTM C876-09
see below [References 71 and [Reference
189].
be established [Reference 71 Figure
and Reference 172] gives a method
189]. As of Reinforcement
21 : Measurement for the taking and displaying of
Potentials
Figure 7.1: Measurement of electrode potentials

Gulikers [Reference 73] provides an approach that can be used to establish “ASTM type criteria”
for an individual structure. In this method all the potential measurements are treated as being from
bi-modal distributions representing active (anodic areas) and passive (cathodic areas) states.
7:4 Results between the clear distributions are considered as uncertain, see Figure 22. In order to use
the method, results need to include significant areas of active (anodic) and passive (cathodic)
reinforcement.
Figure 22 : Establishing Electrical Potential Criteria for Corrosion Assessment [Reference 74]
a) Cumulative
Figure probability
7.2: Establishing for potential criteria
electrode for corrosioncriteria
b) Likelihood assessment [Referencefor
established 73]different
various structures structures
lndividual absolute values of potential can also provide an indication of corrosion activity but only
potential measurements. For rapidwith
when correlated scans
theofvisual
largecondition
areas ofanthe
individual structure.
reinforcement In this method
subsequent all the potential
to concrete breakout.
a wheel electrode can be used [Reference 74]. The measurements are treated as being from bi-modal
required spacingAoffurther alternative
the wheel runs is analysis
marked onmethod
the is to use potential representing
distributions differences and the (anodic
active rate of potential
areas) andchange
(potential gradients) to provide a measure of the location and extent of reinforcement corrosion
concrete surface[Reference
and the measurement
75]. interval along passive (cathodic areas) states. Results between the
each run set in the instrument. Scans are then made clear distributions are considered as uncertain, see
Although the electrode potential
along each run. Whichever method of recording results technique serves7.2.
Figure in most cases
In order as the
to use a reasonable prediction
method, results needoftothe
thermodynamic tendency of steel to corrode, it provides no information about the extent or rate of
corrosion. This is illustrated for reinforcedinclude
interpretation is similar. significant
concrete areasinofseawater
immersed active (anodic)
whereand passivethe
although
potential
ASTM C876-09 might reach
[Reference 172]-600 to -900 mV CSE
provides (indicating
(cathodic) active steel), the corrosion rate is typically
reinforcement.
negligible
corrosion probability criteriadue lo lack
based of oxygen
on absolute to fuel the cathodic
potential reactionabsolute
lndividual in the corrosion
values of process
potential [References
can also
71 and 189].
values as developed from statistical analysis of potential provide an indication of corrosion activity but only when
There
surveys conducted arebridge
on US many traps
decksfor the unwary,
suffering from including the following
correlated with the [References 71 and
visual condition 189]:
of the reinforcement
de-icing salt attack. It considers a potential value more subsequent to concrete breakout.
Junction potentials: Carbonated concrete tends to produce potential readings less negative than
negative than -350 mV withThis
expected. respect to to
is due a copper/copper A furtherpotential
the generation of a liquid junction alternative analysis
at the method is to use
carbonated/uncarbonated
sulfate reference concrete
electrodeinterface
(CSE) to due to the
indicate difference inpotential
a greater hydroxyldifferences
ion concentration
and the between the almost
rate of potential neutral
change
carbonated layer and the highly
than 90% probability of corrosion and a potential alkaline concrete.
(potential gradients) to provide a measure of the location
value more positive than -200
A junction mV CSE
potential to indicate
effect a occur and
could also extent
where of reinforcement
chloride corrosion
has penetrated into the[Reference 75].has
concrete but
not yet reached
less than 10% probability the reinforcement.
of corrosion. At intermediateA more concentrated
Althoughsolution is nearpotential
the electrode the surface leading to a
technique
more
potentials corrosion negative
activity potential The
is uncertain. reading than wouldserves
ASTM be expected.
in most cases as a reasonable prediction of the
C876-09 [Reference 172] criteria
Concrete cover: must used withconcretethermodynamic
Withbeincreasing tendency
cover, the potential of at
values steel
theto corrode,surface
concrete it provides
over
anodic
caution as they are and cathodic
generally areas to
not applicable become
other more similar, and localised
no information aboutactive areasormore
the extent difficult
rate of to detect,
corrosion.
see Figure 21.
situations. As can be seen from Figure 7.1, cover for This is illustrated for reinforced concrete immersed in
example, determines where in the potential field the seawater where although the potential might reach -600
surface potential is measured and this can significantly to -900 mV CSE (indicating active steel), the corrosion
effect the measured value, as can concrete resistivity, rate is typically negligible due lo lack of oxygen to
amongst other factors, see below [References 71 and fuel the cathodic reaction in the corrosion process
189]. [References 71 and 189].
Gulikers [Reference 73] provides an approach There are many traps for the unwary, including
that can be used to establish “ASTM type criteria” for the following [References 71 and 189]:
7:5
Table 7.1: Guide for use of electrode potential mapping for condition monitoring
Condition Monitoring Using Electrode

Condition
Potentials
Only if there are signs of corrosion

Low risk
induced distress
Moderate risk At 20% of the design life
Very high risk
(or embedded reference electrodes At 50% of the design life
indicate potentials shifting more negative)
■■ Junction potentials: Carbonated concrete monitoring. Like all condition monitoring,

tends to produce potential readings less negative electrode potential mapping is used to reduce
than expected. This is due to the generation the risk of failure by providing an early warning
of a liquid junction potential at the carbonated/ of more serious deterioration that might occur
uncarbonated concrete interface due to the if preventative measures are not taken. Based
difference in hydroxyl ion concentration between on the risk associated with corrosion in the
the almost neutral carbonated layer and the elements design life, a guide that might be
highly alkaline concrete. considered is given in Table 7.1.
A junction potential effect could also occur When electrode (half cell) potentials are used
where chloride has penetrated into the concrete it is recommended that an expert in the taking of
but has not yet reached the reinforcement. A measurements and the interpretation of the results be
more concentrated solution is near the surface utilised. They may also require additional testing based
leading to a more negative potential reading than on the results.
would be expected.
■■ Concrete cover: With increasing concrete 7.4.2 Carbonation depth
cover, the potential values at the concrete
Carbonation causes concrete to lose its alkalinity
surface over anodic and cathodic areas become
and it can be measured by applying a pH indicator to a
more similar, and localised active areas more
freshly exposed surface. Solutions of phenolphthalein in
difficult to detect, see Figure 7.1.
a distilled water/methylated spirits mixture such as that
■■ Highly resistive concrete surface layers: A
specified in Section 4.3 produce a bright purple stain
highly resistive surface layer tends to record a
when applied to un-carbonated concrete with pH higher
less negative potential over anodic areas than
than 10.5, but do not alter the concrete colour when
expected. The macro-cell current paths tend to
avoid the highly resistant concrete. applied to carbonated concrete with pH lower than 9.
■■ Polarisation fields: Anodic areas could Thus the depth of carbonation can be clearly indicated.
polarise adjacent cathodic areas due to macro- Other pH indicators might also be used, but their colour
cell effects. This effect has been recorded, for changes are less distinct.
example, on marine structures where that part A method for measuring concrete carbonation
of a reinforced concrete element which was by phenolphthalein test is described in BS 14630:2006
immersed was polarising the above-water part of [Reference 174] that was based on the UK Concrete
the element. Society Technical Report TR 60 2004 [Reference
■■ Interference: Stray electrical direct currents 189] and prior Current Practice Sheet No 131:2003
(DC) can lead to polarisation of the steel [Reference 175].
reinforcement. Concrete carbonates quickly after exposure
It is recommended that the asset maintenance to air, therefore carbonation must be measured on a
manual could include options for the use of freshly-exposed surface. Cutting might expose un-
electrode potential mapping for condition carbonated cement grains that have not previously
7:6
been exposed to the air, and phenolphthalein staining the time at which it might do so can be estimated,
associated with these grains might mask carbonated see Section 4.3. The rate of corrosion will then be
areas. Fracture surfaces are therefore considered determined predominantly by the availability of moisture
to provide more accurate measures of carbonation and oxygen. It might be very slow.
depth. However, the appearance of cut surfaces can
reveal other features that could affect carbonation, 7.4.3 Chloride profile
and if all cutting debris is removed from the cut The depth and amount of chloride ion
surface prior to applying the phenolphthalein it can contamination is determined by analysing samples
give meaningful results. If only a very small sample is from increasing depth from the exposed concrete
available, the only way to generate a fresh surface in surface to at least the outermost cover depth (BS
the desired orientation might be to cut the sample. 14629 [Reference 189] that was based on the UK
When testing a cut or drilled surface, the depth of Concrete Society Technical Report TR 60 [Reference
carbonation is determined while flushing the surface 189]). Typically 10-25 mm increments would be tested,
with indicator. When testing a fracture surface, the depending on cover depth, refer Section 3.3.
depth of carbonation is determined by lightly spraying Samples might be drilled powder (Section 3.3.5)
the surface with phenolphthalein, avoiding run-off. or slices cut from core samples (Sections 3.3.2 and
Concrete is not a homogeneous material, 3.3.4).
therefore carbonation depth varies over a surface. Samples are usually analysed for total chloride
The maximum carbonation depth might represent a content, determined as acid soluble chlorides
localised physical feature such as a crack or void that [References 21, 175 & 177], or as total chlorine by
could render the concrete more susceptible to chemical instrumental methods such as x-ray fluorescence
or physical attack at that point. Thus, maximum (XRF). These analyses must be carried out by suitably
carbonation depth should be recorded in addition to the experienced laboratories (see Section 6.8). The
mean or typical carbonation depth. methods differ slightly in the way the samples are
Phenolphthalein testing allows a large surface prepared, but the actual analyses are all based on
area to be assessed quickly and relatively cheaply. It sound analytical procedures. Methods such as AS
can be carried out in-situ, or on samples such as cores 1012.20:1992 [Reference 175] allow for a variety of
or lumps extracted from the structure for examination in analytical procedures to be used provided they are
the laboratory. calibrated against a reference procedure and meet
Phenolphthalein might produce a pale the repeatability requirements of the standard, refer
discolouration on concrete that is partly carbonated. Section 6.8. The accuracy of the methods is discussed
A decrease in the apparent depth of carbonation in Section 6.8.
observed once the indicator solution has dried may A semi-quantitative indication of chloride content
indicate a zone of partial carbonation. The possibility of can be obtained from test kits. These might be suitable
partial carbonation can be confirmed by petrographic when an instant decision is needed or the site is
examination if necessary. remote, but do require some skill and care to carry out,
Concrete can lose alkalinity not only by and are much less accurate than laboratory testing.
carbonation caused by exposure to atmospheric Chloride concentrations are used to determine
carbon dioxide gas, but also by exposure to acids the risk of chloride-induced reinforcement corrosion.
or soft water. Determination of carbonation depth by If the chloride concentration at cover depth exceeds a
phenolphthalein testing will not distinguish between threshold value, the steel reinforcement might start to
alkalinity loss from carbonation or by other causes. corrode. If the chloride concentration at cover depth
Alternative methods of analysis such as by petrographic hasn’t reached threshold level, the time at which it is
examination are needed to determine the presence of likely to do so can be calculated, refer Section 4.2. The
other such mechanisms. rate of corrosion will then be determined predominantly
When the depth of carbonation reaches the by the availability of moisture and oxygen.
cover depth, the steel reinforcement might start to A decrease in chloride ion concentration with
corrode. If it hasn’t already reached cover depth, depth from the exposed surface indicates the chlorides
7:7
were introduced from external sources such as carried out in areas identified as probably corroding
exposure to seawater or seaspray. A constant chloride (anodic areas) by electrode (half-cell) potential
content with increasing depth indicates chlorides measurements. Since the corrosion rate is dependent
were present from the time the concrete was cast, on variables such as temperature and moisture content,
perhaps added via site-contaminated aggregate or as a it is important to recognise that the rate measured by
chloride-based accelerating admixture. field polarisation resistance tests is instantaneous and
reflects the conditions at that particular moment in time.
7.4.4 Resistivity For potentiostatic polarisation resistance
A method for measuring concrete resistivity on- measurements, a small potential, ΔE in the range
site is described in the UK Concrete Society Technical 10-20 mV is applied to the reinforcement (working
Report TR 60 [Reference 189]. Water saturated electrode) to perturb it from the corrosion potential,
concrete with no reinforcement corrosion will give a Ecorr. This results in a current, ΔI, passing between the
low resistivity value and some references (e.g. TR 60 reinforcement (working electrode) and auxiliary (counter)
[Reference 189]) do not adequately highlight this matter. electrode, which is measured after a suitable delay time
Similarly, water saturated to dry concrete with no to allow equilibrium to be established. From this the
reinforcement corrosion will have increasing resistivity to (linear) polarisation resistance, Rp, can be determined
greater than 100,000 ohm.cm. and then related to the corrosion current density using
If electrode potential mapping does not indicate the Stern-Geary equation. The corrosion current density
that the reinforcement is activity corroding, there is little can then be converted into a direct weight-loss of iron
point in taking resistivity measurements. in terms of a corrosion penetration rate, as shown in
Table 7.2.
7.4.5 Polarisation resistance While an official standard test method for
The polarisation resistance or (linear) polarisation polarisation resistance on concrete has not yet
resistance (LPR) method is commonly used in research become available, recommended procedures exist.
to measure the corrosion rate of steel in concrete. The These include RILEM TC 154-EMC [Reference 52] and
method is also used for field measurement of corrosion SHRP-S-330 [Reference 56].
rate and commercial equipment is available. Numerous A key consideration for on-site measurements
references describe the method and its limitations. is the knowledge and determination of the area of
Examples include Green and Grapiglia [Reference 94], reinforcement that is polarised. Limitations and potential
Bertolini et al [Reference 55], Andrade and Alonso errors arising from non-uniform current distribution can
[Reference 52], Carino [Reference 57], Nygaard be reduced by confining the polarised area through
[Reference 58], So and Millard [Reference 59], Berke the use of a guard ring auxiliary electrode around a
et al [Reference 53] and UK Concrete Society TR 60 central auxiliary (counter) electrode. Alternatively, the
[Reference 189]. Polarisation resistance testing involves critical length reached by the electrical field needs to
either a potential shift (potentiostatic from an auxiliary be calculated. The RILEM TC 154-EMC document
electrode) or current perturbation (galvanostatic from an [Reference 52] describes other means of confinement
auxiliary electrode) [References 94 and 189]. and calculation of critical length. This can include use of
Field polarisation resistance tests are usually additional reference electrodes aligned with the auxiliary
Table 7.2: Corrosion current criteria for surface applied corrosion rate measurements [Reference 55]
Corrosion Current Density Corrosion Rate

Corrosion Rate (µm/year)
(µA/cm2) Classification
Up to 0.1 to 0.2 Up to 1-2 Very low or passive

0.2 to 0.5 2-6 Low to moderate
0.5 to 1.0 6-12 Moderate to high
>1.0 >12 High
7:8
electrode and reference electrode of the polarisation when:
resistance device. (a) Aggregates used are potentially alkali reactive,
For condition monitoring, polarisation resistance and the means of mitigation are unknown or in
using portable probes is recommended where question.
electrode potentials taken during condition monitoring (b) DEF is a potential risk due to concrete peak
indicate possible active corrosion, but it is uncertain hydration temperature being close to or higher
whether the corrosion rate will be significant (e.g. than specified limits.
saturated concrete). (c) Surface deterioration due to some form of
chemical attack is expected to occur at a rate
7.4.6 Petrographic examination that leads to a greater than moderate risk in the
Examination of concrete samples by microscope life of the structure.
techniques will reveal information about concrete Testing at 20% of the structures life will indicate
composition, aggregate type, concrete quality and the if the potential deterioration of concern is commencing
causes and extent of damage. or not.
Petrographic examination is a technique used
by geologists to investigate rocks and aggregates. 7.4.7 Microbial analysis
It involves visual examination of concrete surfaces Where microbial attack is a potential concern
under reflected light in hand specimen or by binocular or suspected, such as in water retaining structures,
microscope, or of thin sections under polarised samples of biological slime or other surface deposits
transmitted light. Scanning electron microscopy can be analysed by a microbiologist to identify the
(SEM) can be used to detect further detail, and is presence of bacteria, algae, fungi, etc, that could
usually augmented by spot chemical analyses by x-ray attack the underlying concrete or steel (or other metal
techniques to identify the composition of specific components).
features. A geologist will be able to analyse concrete Specialist microbiological analytical services are
samples to identify features related to the aggregates, available for this purpose. Samples must be collected,
but if information about the concrete is required, stored and transported in accordance with their
then the examination should be carried out by a recommendations.
petrographer with specialist knowledge about concrete
materials and technology. PERMANENT SURFACE MOUNTED AND
7.5
Samples for petrographic examination are EMBEDDED MONITORING TECHNIQUES
generally prepared from core samples. Other means of It is important that installation of surface
sampling may causing microcracking or other damage. mounted or permanently embedded sensors is carried
Thin section microscope examination and SEM out by experienced persons. Improper installation of
is valuable to identify the cause and extent of chemical sensors or damage to sensors, cables or termination
attack both from external aggressive agents such as boxes can cause long term problems that are difficult to
acids or sulfates and from within the concrete itself fix and can also cause difficulties in data interpretation.
such as alkali aggregate reaction (AAR) and delayed Furthermore, testing should be carried out on sensors
ettringite formation (DEF). It is also useful for identifying before concrete is placed and again immediately after
the cause and extent of physical attack such as by concrete pours to ensure they are still operational.
freezing and thawing, surface defects, cracking, or Similarly, monitoring and interpretation of results
penetration of the concrete by materials such as surface must be carried out by personnel with appropriate
treatments (protective or remedial), and can distinguish experience.
zones of complete and partial carbonation. The UK Permanent monitoring devices should not
Concrete Society Technical Report TR71 [Reference 90] be installed unless the owner of the structure is
describes petrographic examination of concrete in more committed to the monitoring process. To ensure it is
detail. undertaken correctly, the nature of the instrumentation,
Petrographic examination of retrieved samples its maintenance requirements and the monitoring
might be specified as part of condition monitoring process itself must be documented in detail in the asset
7:9
management and maintenance manual. The monitoring out pre-pour by tying to the rebar and connections
must be part of the asset’s maintenance programme. to the rebar allow corrosion rate data to be collected.
Monitoring may be carried out in-house, or by specialist polarisation resistance probes can also be cast into
consultants. existing concrete elements to provide information about
corrosion rate over a varying depth profile. Several
7.5.1 Corrosion initiation independent polarisation resistance electrodes at
The point in time when corrosion of steel varying depth within concrete cover, allow an accurate
in concrete begins can be detected by installing estimation of the rate at which the corrosion front is
a reference electrode into the concrete structure. penetrating the concrete.
A reference electrode can be cast into new or An automated data-logging system or a portable
existing structures to raise an alarm when potentials data collection system is often employed to collect,
shift substantially and possibly indicate a change store and transfer polarisation resistance data in a
in corrosion state of the reinforcement. Typically permanent monitoring system.
the reference electrode is of silver/silver chloride
or manganese/manganese dioxide composition 7.5.3 Strain, vibration and deflection
specifically designed for permanent installation into Strain, vibration and deflection measurement
concrete. might be employed as part of a condition monitoring
Probes such as “macro-cell probes” can be programmeme for several reasons:
utilised to predict the corrosion initiation of steel in (a) Concern over collapse of ageing infrastructure
concrete. The probe is cast into the cover concrete, due to unnoticed deterioration.
of newly constructed concrete structures with the (b) The appearance of new cracks as an indicator of
capability of measuring most of the relevant corrosion untoward structural actions. Inspectors are often
parameters. Macro-cell probes are a multi-sensor briefed on critical areas of potential high stress
system, which typically consist of three or four steel for more thorough inspection. Strain can be
anodes and one noble metal cathode. The anodes monitored in critical areas using embedded or
are placed in varying distances from the exposed surface mounted strain gauges and these would
concrete surface. By measuring the corrosion current provide a much clearer impression of the actions
and electrode potential in different depths in the occurring than intermittent visual inspection.
concrete cover it is possible to predict when the (c) Long term structural performance can be
corrosion front (i.e. chlorides or carbonation) will reach tracked by monitoring the change in strain
response to load with age. Load can be from
the reinforcement and thus prepare the necessary
normal traffic conditions or wind load (e.g. to
maintenance measures in time before damage occurs.
obtain natural frequency) or from artificial loads
(e.g. for load testing) such as weight trucks.
7.5.2 Corrosion rate
Signature strains collected during commissioning
Monitoring of corrosion rate is as important to
can be compared to periodic re-measurements
define when corrosion starts on reinforcement set at
and both can be compared to structural
different covers as it is to measure the corrosion rate
predictions.
after corrosion initiation of the actual reinforcement. (d) Determination of frequency/tension of cables –
Corrosion rate is most widely determined by vibration under wind loads (e.g. cables).
the polarisation resistance technique as discussed (e) Measure the effectiveness of strengthening
in Section 7.4.5. For a typical permanent condition – take deflection readings before and after
monitoring system, a polarisation resistance probe can construction to monitor outcomes for projects
be embedded in concrete quite often with the capability and match modelling.
of detecting corrosion potential, concrete resistance The types of strain, vibration and deflection
and concrete temperature. measurement instruments are outlined in Table 7.3. The
Permanent corrosion rate monitoring systems measurements from some of these instruments can be
can be installed for either existing structures or new linked into the system, if necessary, used for monitoring
structures. Installation for new structures is carried of corrosion.
7:10
Table 7.3: Types of strain and displacement measurement
Instrument Monitoring Monitoring Description Comments

Speed Region
Resistive strain Fast, sufficient Can be affixed Metal and plastic leaf Resistive strain gauges require
gauge to allow fully to outside of bonded to monitoring temperature compensation and
dynamic structure, or region. Measured are often used in pairs. When
monitoring smaller gauges resistance varies with fixing to concrete it is important
used to obtain elongation. to use a strain gauge relatively
local reinforcing larger than aggregate size to
strain or similar ensure a wholesale strain is
parameters measured, rather than local
strain in paste or aggregate.
Vibrating wire Slow, can Can be affixed to Steel gauge sealed VW strain gauges when heat
strain gauge monitor long surface or embed with end points treated to remove residual strain
term strain within structure mounted to structure, of construction offer long term
changes either flanges stability superior to other strain
embedded or grouted measurement.
or bonded.
Crack meter Slow, can Affixed to surface, Similar construction Generally larger than strain
monitor long usually over joints to VW gauge, but will gauges. Up to 3 sensors
term strain or cracks monitor elongation of required for triaxial movement.
changes tens of millimetres
Mechanical Manual, data Discs bonded to Precision gauge, Used where long term
strain gauge collected by surface, change in usually mounted performance monitoring
hand distance measured to low temperature required.
by precision gauge variable metal. Metal
points engaged with
studs to monitor
change in position.
Linear variable Slow to fast, Measures Analogous to an Types available for static and
displacement depending on displacement electrical transformer, dynamic monitoring. Can
transducer type used between fixed as magnitude of only determine the structural
reference points deflection increases deformation vs the reference
in positive or negative point.
direction the AC
voltage will increase.
Accelerometers Fast, 10 times Cables, Piezoelectric sensor Accelerometers can produce
maximum questionable that directly measures a large sample of data very
sampled elements, varied acceleration. Usually quickly. This can prevent
frequency heights on uniaxial although analysis on long term projects
required for structures to tri-axial options can and cause issue in data
5% accuracy. match vibration be sought. Low storage and transfer. Event
(e.g. 1 Hz modes frequency large type data logging can be more
sampling rate for sensors required for advantageous, whereby the data
measurement of civil applications. logger is programmemed with a
0.1 Hz vibration threshold, whereby only major
frequency signal) events are logged.
Interferometric Very fast, e.g. Any location The change in phase No contact needed with
radar can monitor observable of a reflected radar the structure. Can detect
cable vibration remotely wave is monitored displacement with a resolution
frequency over various points of 0.01 mm and frequencies of
on the structure with 100 Hz.
one instrument to give
displacements.
7:11
8 Part 122: Method of determination of water
absorption”, British Standards Institute, London,
References 1988.
16. Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW, “RTA Test
Method T362, Interim test for verification of curing
regime – Sorptivity”, Sydney.
1. fib Bulletin 34, “Model Code for Service Life
17. Roads & Traffic Authority of NSW, “RTA QA
Design”, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2006.
Specification B80, Concrete Work for Bridges”,
2. fib Bulletin 65 and 66, “Model Code 2010
Sydney.
Volumes 1 and 2 – Final Draft”, Volume 1, March
18. ASTM C1585-13, “Measurement of rate of
2012.
absorption of water by hydraulic cement
3. fib Bulletin 59, “Condition Control and
concretes”, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures
19. Building & Construction Research & Consultancy,
Exposed to Corrosive Environments (Carbonation
“OS 017 BCRC Sorptivity Test”, Perth.
/ Chlorides)”, State-of-the-Art Report, May 2011.
20. BS 1881 Part 208:1996, “Testing Concrete:
4. ISO 16204: 2012, “Durability – Service life design
Recommendations for the determination of the
of concrete structures”, International Organization
initial surface absorption of concrete”, British
for Standardization, Switzerland, 2012.
Standards Institute, London, 1996.
5. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia,
“Chloride Resistance of Concrete”, June, Sydney, 21. BS 1881 Part 124:1988, “Testing Concrete Part
2009. 124: Methods for analysis of hardened concrete”,
6. Peek, A. M., Nguyen, N. and Wong T., “Durability British Standards Institute, London, 1988.
Planning and Compliance Testing of Concrete in 22. ASTM D5084-10, “Standard Methods for
Construction Projects”, Proc. Corrosion Control Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of

007 Conf., Australasian Corrosion Association Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall
Inc., Sydney, 25-28 November, 2007. Permeameter”, American Society for Testing and
7. AS 1379:2007, “Specification and supply of Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2010.
concrete”, Standards Australia International Ltd, 23. Carse, A.H. and Dux, P.F., “Development
Standards Australia, Sydney, 2007. of an Accelerated Test on Concrete Prisms
8. AS 4058:2007, “Precast concrete pipes (pressure to Determine their Potential for Alkali-Silica
and no-pressure)”, Standards Australia, Sydney, Reaction”, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol.
2007. 20, No. 6, pp. 843-851, 1990.
9. AS 4198-1994, “Precast concrete access 24. Thomas, M., Fournier, B., Folliard, K., Ideker, J.
chambers for sewerage applications”, Standards and Shehata, M., “Test Methods for Evaluating
Australia, Sydney, 1994. Preventive Measures for Controlling Expansion
10. AS/NZS 4676:2000, “Structural design due to Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete”, Cement
requirements for utility services poles”, Standards and Concrete Research, Vol. 36, No. 10,
Australia, Sydney, 2000. pp. 1842-1856, 2006.
11. Not used. 25. Lindgård, J., Andiç-Çakir, Ö., Fernandes, I.,
12. AS 1012.21:1999, “Methods of testing concrete Rønning, T.F., and Thomas, M.D.A., “Alkali-Silica
Method 21: Determination of water absorption and Reactions (ASR): Literature Review on Parameters
apparent volume of permeable voids in hardened Influencing Laboratory Performance Testing”,
concrete”, Standards Australia, Sydney, 1999. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 42, No. 2,
13. VicRoads, “Standard specifications for road pp. 223-243, 2012.
works and bridgeworks – Section 610 Structural 26. Shayan, A. and Morris, H., “A Comparison of RTA
Concrete”, Melbourne. T363 and ASTM C 1260 Accelerated Mortar Bar
14. Not Used. Test Methods for Detecting Reactive Aggregates”,
15. BS 1881 Part 122:1988, “Testing concrete Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 31, No. 4,
13:1
pp. 655-663, 2001. 37. Roads and Maritime Services (formerly RTA), Test
27. Guirguis, S. and Clarke, P., “Alkali-Aggregate Method T363, “Accelerated Mortar Bar Test for
Reactivity – Towards Standard Test Methods”, the Assessment of Alkali-Reactivity of Aggregate”,
11th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate January 2012.
Reaction, Quebec, pp. 653-662, 2000. 38. Roads and Maritime Services (formerly RTA),
28. Shayan, A., “Prediction of Alkali Reactivity Test Method T364, “Concrete Prism Test for AAR
Potential of Some Australian Aggregates and Assessment”, February 2001.
Correlation with Service Performance”, ACI 39. Main Roads Western Australia, Test Method WA
Materials Journal, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 13-23, 1992. 624.1-2012, “Potential Alkali-Silica Reaction by
29. Ideker, J.H., Bentivegna, A.F., Folliard, K.J. Accelerated Mortar Bar”, February 2012.
and Juenger, M.C.G., “Do Current Laboratory 40. Queensland Department of Transport and
Test Methods Accurately Predict Alkali-Silica Main Roads, Test Method Q458, “Alkali-Silica
Reaction?”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 109, No. 4, Reactivity”, 1998.
pp. 395-402, 2012. 41. VicRoads, Test Method RC 376.03, “Accelerated
30. ASTM C 227-10, “Standard Test Method for Mortar Bar Test for the Assessment of Alkali-
Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement-Aggregate Reactivity of Aggregate”, October 2004.
Combinations (Mortar-Bar Method)”, American 42. VicRoads, Test Method RC 376.04, “Concrete
Society for Testing and Materials, West Prism Test for AAR Assessment”, June 2003.
Conshohocken, USA, 2010. 43. Stanish, K.D., Hooton, R.D., and Thomas, M.D.A.,
31. ASTM C 289-07, “Standard Test Method for “Testing the Chloride Penetration Resistance of
Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Aggregates Concrete: A Literature Review”, FHWA Contract
(Chemical Method)”, American Society for Testing DTFH61-97-R-00022, 2000.
and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2007. 44. Lane, D.S., “Laboratory Comparison of Several
32. ASTM C 295/C295M-12, “Standard Guide for Test for Evaluation the Transport Properties of
Petrographic Examination of Aggregates for Concrete”, Virginia Transportation Research
Concrete, American Society for Testing and Council, Research Report VTRC 06-R38, 2006.
Materials”, West Conshohocken, USA, 2012. 45. Narsilio, G.A., Li, R., Pivonka, P. and Smith, D.W.,
33. ASTM C 441/C441M-11, “Standard Test Method “Comparative Study of Methods Used to Estimate
for Effectiveness of Pozzolans or Ground Ionic Diffusion Coefficients Using Migration
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag in Preventing Methods”, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol.
Excessive Expansion of Concrete Due to Alkali- 37, No. 8, pp. 1152-1163, 2007.
Silica Reaction”, American Society for Testing and 46. Tang, L. and Sørensen, H.E., “Precision of the
Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2011. Nordic Test Methods for Measuring the Chloride
34. ASTM C 1260-07, “Standard Test Method for Diffusion/Migration Coefficients of Concrete”,
Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar- Materials and Structures, Vol. 34, pp. 479-485,
Bar Method)”, American Society for Testing and 2001.
Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2007. 47. Vivas, E., Hamilton, H.R. and Boyd, A.J.,
35. ASTM C 1293-08b, “Standard Test Method for “Permeability of Concrete – Comparison of
Determination of Length Change of Concrete Due Conductivity and Diffusion Methods”, University of
to Alkali-Silica Reaction”, American Society for Florida, UF Project No 00026899, June 2007.
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 48. AASHTO T 277-96, “Standard Test Method for the
2008. Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist
36. ASTM C 1567-11, “Standard Test Method for Chloride Ion Penetration”, Standard Specifications
Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity for Transportation Materials and Methods of
of Combinations of Cementitious Materials and Sampling and Testing, Washington DC, 1996.
Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method)”, 49. ASTM C 1202-12, “Standard Test Method for the
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist
Conshohocken, USA, 2011. Chloride Ion Penetration”, American Society for
13:2
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, concrete”, British Standards Institute, London,
2012. 1996.
50. ASTM C 1556-11a, “Standard Test Method for 61. RILEM Commission 25-PEM, “Recommended
Determining the Apparent Chloride Diffusion Tests to Measure the Deterioration of Stone and to
Coefficient of Cementitious Mixtures by Bulk Assess the Effectiveness of Treatment Methods”
Diffusion”, American Society for Testing and Journal of Materials and Structures, Vol. 13 No.
Materials, West Conshohocken, USA, 2011. 75, 175-254, 1980.
51. ASTM C 1543-10a, “Standard Test Method for 62. Papworth, F. and Marosszeky, M., “Durability
Determining the Penetration of Chloride Ion into Assessment of Tunnels”, Concrete Institute of
Concrete by Ponding”, American Society for Australia. Biennial Conference, Perth, Western
Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, USA. Australia, 2011.
52. Andrade, C. and Alonso, C., RILEM TC 154 63. HB79:2015, “Alkali Aggregate Reaction –
EMC, “Test Methods for On-Site Corrosion Rate Guidelines on Minimising the Risk of Damage
Measurement of Steel Reinforcement in Concrete to Concrete Structures in Australia”, Standards
by Means of the Polarization Resistance Method”, Australia, Sydney, 1996.
Materials and Structures, Vol. 37, pp. 623-643, 64. CCAA 2012, “Effect of Manufactured Sand on
2004. Surface Properties of Concrete Pavements”,
53. Berke, N.S., Shen, D.F. and Sundberg, K.M., Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia
“Comparison of the Polarization Resistance Research Report, Sydney, August, 2012.
Technique to the Macrocell Corrosion Technique”, 65. Andrews-Phaedonos, F., “Assessment of
in Corrosion Rates of Steel in Concrete, ASTM Concrete Durability Using a Single Parameter with
STP 1065, N.S. Berke, V. Chaker and D. Whiting a High Level of Precision – The VPV Test”, 25th
(Eds), American Society for Testing and Materials, ARRB Conference – Shaping the Future: Linking
Philadelphia, pp. 38-51, 1990. Policy, Research and Outcomes, Perth, Australia
54. BRE Digest 434, “Corrosion of Reinforcement in 2012.
Concrete: Electrochemical Monitoring”, Building 66. Whiting, D., “Permeability of Concrete”, SP-108,
Research Establishment, 1998. American Concrete Institute, 1988, pp. 195-222.
55. Bertolini, L., Elsener, B., Pedeferri, P. and Polder, 67. CCAA Report, “Chloride Resistance of Concrete”,
R.P., “Corrosion of Steel in Concrete”, Wiley-VCH, Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia,
Weinheim, 2nd Edition, 2013. Sydney, Australia, June, 2009.
56. Cady, P.D. and Gannon, E.J., “Condition 68. Sirivivatnanon, V. and Guirguis, S., “High Sulfate-
Evaluation of Concrete Bridges Relative to Resisting Concrete”, Cement Concrete and
Corrosion”, Vol. 8, Procedure Manual, Strategic Aggregates, Sydney Australia, 2011.
Highway Research Program SHRP-S-330, 1993. 69. UK Concrete Society, Technical Report
57. Carino, N.J., “Methods to Evaluation Corrosion of TR31, “Permeability Testing of Site Concrete”,
Reinforcement, in Handbook on Nondestructive Camberley, UK, 1988.
Testing of Concrete”, V.M. Malhotra and N.J. 70. UK Concrete Society, Technical Report
Carino (Eds), CRC Press, 2004. TR31, “Permeability Testing of Site Concrete”,
58. Nygaard, P.V., Geiker, M.R. and Elsener, B., Camberley, UK, 2008.
“Corrosion Rate of Steel in Concrete: Evaluation 71. Green, W. K. and Collins, F. G., “Electrochemical
of Confinement Techniques for On-Site Corrosion Potential Measurements of Steel in Concrete”,
Rate Measurements”, Materials and Structures, Concrete in Australia, Vol. 20, No. 1, April, 1994.
Vol. 42, No. 8, pp. 1059-1076, 2009. 72. Freitag, S. A., Cook, D. and Gaimster, R.,
59. So, H.S. and Millard, S.G., “On-Site “Measuring chloride ion contents in new concrete:
Measurements on Corrosion Rate of Steel in how to demonstrate that your concrete complies
Reinforced Concrete”, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. with NZS 3101 requirements (and why you have
104, No. 6, pp. 638-642, 2007. to)”, NZ Concrete Industry Conference, Wellington,
60. BS 1881:Part 208, “Recommendations for the NZ, 7-9 October, 2010.
determination of the initial surface absorption of 73. Gulikers, J. and Elsener, B., “Development
13:3
of a calculation procedure for the statistical of Cracks in Concrete Structures”, American
interpretation of the results of potential mapping Concrete Institute, 2012.
performed on reinforced concrete structures”, 84. Building Research Establishment (BRE)
Materials and Corrosion Journal, Wiley Inter- Information Paper IP 11/01, “Delayed ettringite
Science, Weinheim, 60, No 2, 2009. formation: in-situ concrete”, 2001.
74. Broomfield, J.P., Langford, P.E., and Ewins, 85. FHWA/TX-60/0-4085-5, “Preventing ASR/DEF in
A.J., “The Use of a Potential Wheel to Survey New Concrete: Final Report”, Center for Transport
Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Corrosion Research, The University of Texas, November
Rates of Steel in Concrete, ASTM STP 1065, 2005.
Philadelphia, pp. 157-173, 1990. 86. Collepardi, M., “A state-of-the-art review on
75. Chang Z., Marosszeky, M. and Cherry, B, delayed ettringite attack on concrete”, Cement &
“Potential Curvature Method – A New Approach Concrete Composites 25 (2003), pp. 401-407.
for Corrosion Assessment in Concrete 87. Kelham, S., “The effect of cement composition
Structures”, in 9th International Conference on and fineness on expansion associated with
Durability of Building Materials and Components, delayed ettringite formation”, Cement and
presented at 9th International Conference on Concrete Composites, 18, 171, 1996.
Durability of Building Materials and Components, 88. fib Bulletin (Draft by TG5.10), “Birth Certificate and
Brisbane, Qld, 17-20 March, 2002. Through-Life Management Documentation”. fib
76. Vennesland Ø., Raupach, M. and Andrade C5 Meeting, Prague, 2011.
C., “Recommendation of RILEM C154-EMC: 89. Concrete Society TR32, “Analysis of Hardened
Electrochemical techniques for measuring Concrete – A guide to tests, procedures and
corrosion in concrete – measurements with interpretation”. The Concrete Society, Camberley,
embedded probes”, RILEM April, 2007. Surrey, 1989.
77. Jong, Paull and Finlay, “Thermal/Restraint and 90. Concrete Society TR71 “Concrete Petrography –
Shrinkage Crack Control in Water Retaining an introductory guide for the non-specialist”, The
Concrete Structures using Fly Ash and Blast Concrete Society, Camberley, Surrey, 2010.
Furnace Slag”, CIA Concrete 2011 Building a 91. Barnes, R. and Ingham, J., “The chemical analysis
Sustainable Future, October, Perth, Western of hardened concrete: results of a ‘round robin’
Australia, 2011. trial – parts I and II”. Concrete, Vol. 47, No.8,
78. Paull & Jong, “Concrete Thermal/Restraint and pp. 45-48, Oct 2013 and Vol. 48, No. 1,
Shrinkage Crack Risk – Case Study Design to pp. 48-50, Dec 2013/Jan 2014.
Construction Feedback”, CIA Concrete 2013 92. Clear, C., “Chloride content of hardened concrete
Understanding Concrete Conf., October, Gold – a flaw in the maritime code BS6349-1-4”,
Coast, Queensland, 2013. Concrete, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 40-41, 2014.
79. Ng, P. L., Ng, I. Y. T., and Kwan, A. K. H., “Heat 93. Xu, A., Shayan, A. and Baburamani, P., “Test
Loss Compensation in Semi-Adiabatic Curing Test methods for sulphate resistance of concrete and
of Concrete”, ACI Materials Journal, V. 105, No. 1, mechanism of sulphate attack”, ARRB Transport
pp. 52-61, Jan-Feb 2008. Research Ltd, Review Report 5, Sept, 1998.
80. Ng, I.Y.T., Ng, P. L., and Kwan, A. K. H., “Effects 94. Green, W. K. and Grapiglia J. P., “Reinforcement
of Cement and Water Contents on Adiabatic corrosion rate by the polarisation resistance
Temperature Rise of Concrete”, ACI Structural technique”, Concrete in Australia, Vol. 20, No. 2,
Journal, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 42-49, Jan-Feb 2009. June 1994.
81. CIA Z15, “Cracking in Concrete Slabs on Ground 95. AS 1012.8.1:2000, “Method of making and curing
and Pavements”, Concrete Institute of Australia, concrete – Compression and indirect tensile test
May 2011. specimens”, Standards Australia, Sydney, 2000.
82. Concrete Society TR22, “Non Structural Cracks 96. AS 1012.8.2:2000, “Method of making and curing
in Concrete”, The Concrete Society, Camberley, concrete – Flexure test specimens”, Standards
Surrey, 2010. Australia, Sydney, 2000.
83. ACI 224.1R-07, “Causes, Evaluation, and Repair 97. AS 1012.14:1991, “Method for securing and testing
13:4
cores from hardened concrete for compressive 111. AS 4198:1994, “Precast concrete access
strength”, Standards Australia, Sydney, 1991. chambers for sewerage applications”, Standards
98. Nordtest NT Build 443, “Concrete Hardened: Australia, Sydney, 1994.
Accelerated Chloride Penetration”, Finland, 1995. 112. AS/NZS 4676:2000, “Structural design
99. Nordtest NT Build 492, “Concrete, Mortar and requirements for utility service poles”, Standards
Cement-Based Repair Materials: Chloride Australia, Sydney, 2000.
Migration Coefficient from Non-Steady State 113. ASTM C642:06, “Standard Test Method for
Migration Experiments”, Finland, 1999. Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened
100. ASTM C1790-14, “Standard Specification for Concrete”, ASTM International, West
Fly Ash Facing Brick”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.
Conshohocken, PA, 2014. 114. BS 1881 Part 122:1998, “Testing Concrete:
101. Nordtest NT Build 201, “Concrete: Making and Method for determination of water absorption”,
curing of moulded test specimens for strength British Standards Institution, London, 1998.
tests”, 2nd ed., Finland, Approved 1984-05. 115. BS 1881: Part 122:1983, “Testing Concrete:
102. Nordtest NT Build 202, “Concrete, hardened: Method for determination of water absorption”,
Sampling and treatment of cores for strength British Standards Institution, London, 1983.
tests”, 2nd ed., Finland, Approved 1984-05. 116. BS 1881-122:2011 “Testing Concrete: Method
103. Nordtest NT Build 355, “Concrete, mortar and of determination of water absorption”, British
cement based repair materials: Chloride diffusion Standards Institution, London, 2011.
coefficient from migration cell experiments”, 2nd 117. ASTM C1585-13, “Standard Test Method for
ed., Finland, Approved 1997. Measurement of Rate of Absorption of Water
104. AASHTO T259, “Standard Method of Test by Hydraulic-Cement Concretes”, ASTM
for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
Penetration”, Standard Specifications for 118. BS 1881 Part 208:1996, “Testing concrete:
Transportation Materials and Methods of Recommendations for the determination of the
Sampling and Testing, Washington DC, 2002. initial surface absorption of concrete”, British
105. Ho, D. W. S. and Lewis, R. K., “Carbonation Standards Institution, London, 1996.
of concrete and its prediction”, Cement and 119. BS 1881 Part 124:1988, “Testing concrete:
Concrete Research, 17, pp. 489-504, 1987. Methods for analysis of hardened concrete”,
106. Harrison, T. A., Jones, M. R., Newlands, M. D., British Standards Institution, London, 1988.
Kandasami, S. and Khanna, G., “Experience of 120. ASTM D5084-10, “Standard Test Methods
using the prTS 12390-12 accelerated carbonation for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of
test to assess the relative performance of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible
concrete”, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. Wall Permeameter”, ASTM International, West
64, No. 8, pp. 737-747, July 2012. Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
107. Jones, M.R., Dhir, R.K., Newlands, M.D. and 121. Main Roads Western Australia Test Method
Abbas, A.M.O., “Study of the CEN test method WA 625.1, “Water Permeability of Hardened
for measurement of the carbonation depth of Concrete”, 1998.
hardened concrete.” Materials and Structures, Vol. 122. US Army Corps of Engineers CRD-C 48-92,
33, No. 2, pp. 135-142, 2001. “Standard Method for Water Permeability of
108. prBS 1881-131:2011, “Testing concrete. Methods Concrete”, 1992.
for testing cement in a reference concrete”, British 123. US Army Corps of Engineers CRD-C 163-92,
Standards Institution, London, 2011. “Method for Water Permeability of Concrete Using
109. NordTest NT Build 357, “Concrete, repairing Triaxial Cell”, 1992.
materials and protective coating: Carbonation 124. DIN 1048.5, “Testing Concrete; Testing of
resistance”, Finland, Approved 1989. Hardened Concrete”, Deutsches Institut Fur
110. AS/NZS 4058:2007, “Precast concrete pipes Normunge.V. Berlin, Germany, 1991.
(pressure and non-pressure)”, Standards 125. Bamforth, P B, “Early-age thermal crack control in
Australia, Sydney, 2007. concrete”, CIRIA C660, London, 2007.
13:5
126. UK Concrete Society, “Abrasion Resistance Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
of Warehouse Floors”, Concrete Magazine, 138. AS 2350.14-2006, “Methods of testing portland,
Camberley, UK, January, pp. 53-54, 2013. blended and masonry cements – Length change
127. AS 1141.65:2008, “Methods for sampling and of cement mortars exposed to sulfate solution”,
testing aggregates – Alkali aggregate reactivity Standards Australia, Sydney, 2006.
– Qualitative petrological screening for potential 139. AS/NZS 4456.9:2003, “Masonry units, segmental
alkali-silica reaction”, Standards Australia, Sydney, pavers and flags – Method of test. Method 9:
2008. Determining abrasion resistance”, Standards
128. Davies, G. and Oberholster, R.E., “An Inter- Australia, Sydney, 2003.
laboratory Test Programme on the NBRI 140. BS 8204-2:2003+A2:2011, “Screeds, bases and in
Accelerated Test to Determine the Alkali Reactivity situ floorings: Concrete wearing surfaces”, Code
of Aggregates”, National Building Research of Practice, British Standards Institution, London,
Institute, Special Report BOU 92-1987, Pretoria 2011.
RSA, 1987. 141. ASTM C418-12, “Standard Test Method
129. Brunetaud, X., Linder, R., Divet, L., Duragrin, D. for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete by
and Damidot, D., “Effect of curing conditions and Sandblasting”, ASTM International, West
concrete mix design on the expansion generated Conshohocken, PA, 2012
by delayed ettringite formation”, Materials and 142. ASTM C779/C779M-12, “Standard Test
Structures, 40, pp. 567-578, 2007. Method for Abrasion Resistance of Horizontal
130. Thomas, M., Folliard, K., Drimalas, T. and Concrete Surfaces”, ASTM International, West
Ramlochan, T., “Diagnosing delayed ettringite Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
formation in concrete structures”, Cement and 143. ASTM C944/C944M-12, “Standard Test Method
Concrete Research, 38, pp. 841-847, 2008. for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete or Mortar
131. Shayan, A. and Xu, A., “Effects of cement Surfaces by the Rotating-Cutter Method”, ASTM
composition and temperature of curing on AAR International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
and DEF expansion in steam cured concrete”, 144. CC&A Australia, “Effect of Manufactured Sand
Proc. 12th international conference on alkali on Surface Properties of Concrete Pavements”,
aggregate reaction (ICAAR), Beijing, China, pp. Research Report, Cement Concrete & Aggregates
773-788, 15-19 Oct., 2004. Australia, 1st August 2012.
132. AS 2350.14:2006, “Methods of testing portland, 145. ASTM C1138M-05, “Standard Test Method
blended and masonry cements – Length change for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete
of cement mortars exposed to sulfate solution”, (Underwater Method)”, ASTM International, West
Standards Australia, Sydney, 2006. Conshohocken, PA, 2005.
133. AS 3972:2010, “General purpose and blended 146. BS EN 13892-4:2002, “Methods of test for screed
cements”, Standards Australia, Sydney, 2010. materials. Determination of wear resistance-
134. Sirivivatnanon, V. and Lucas, G., ”Specifying BCA”, European Committee for Standardization,
Sulfate Resisting Concrete”, Proc. Austroads 8th Brussels, 2002.
Bridge Conference, Sydney, Nov 2011. 147. ACT and Municipal Services, “Standard
135. ASTM C452/ C452M-10, “Standard Test Method Specification for Urban Infrastructure”, 2002.
for Potential Expansion of Portland-Cement 148. NZS 3116:2002, “Concrete Segmental Paving”,
Mortars Exposed to Sulfate”, ASTM International, New Zealand Standards, 2002.
West Conshohocken, PA, 2010. 149. UK Concrete Society Technical Report TR34,
136. ASTM C1012-13, “Standard Test Method “Concrete industrial ground floors a guide to
for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement design and construction”, 4th Edition, June, 2014.
Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution”, ASTM 150. AS 1012.6:1999, “Method of Testing Concrete:
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013. Method of Determination of Bleeding in Concrete”,
137. ASTM C1038-14a, “Standard Test Method for Standards Australia International Ltd, Strathfield,
Expansion of Hydraulic Cement Mortar Bars NSW, Australia, 1999.
Stored in Water”, ASTM International, West 151. CIA Z17:2012, “Tremie Concrete for Deep
13:6
Foundations”, Concrete Institute of Australia, Determination of ultrasonic pulse velocity”,
2012. European Committee for Standardization,
152. Marosszeky, M., Griffiths, D. and Sade, D., “Site Brussels, 2004.
study of factors leading to a reduction in durability 165. ASTM C597–09, “Standard Test Method for Pulse
of reinforced concrete”, American Concrete Velocity through Concrete”, ASTM International,
Institute SP-100, pp. 1703-1726, 1987. West Conshohocken, PA, 2009.
153. Sirivivatnanon, V. and Cao, H.T., “The Need 166. ACI 228.1R:2003, “In-place Methods to Estimate
for and a Method to Control Cracking Cover”, Concrete Strength”, American Concrete Institute,
CSIRO, Division of Building, Construction and 2003.
Engineering. Melbourne, 1991. 167. BS 1881-208:1996, “Testing concrete:
154. ASTM C1074-11, “Standard Practice for Estimating Recommendations for the determination of the
Concrete Strength by the Maturity Method”, ASTM initial surface absorption of concrete”, British
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011. Standards Institution, London, 1996.
155. AASHTO TP95-11, “Standard Method of Test for 168. RILEM 25-PEM Test II.4:1986, “ISAT Water
Surface Resistivity Indication of Concrete’s Ability Absorption Tube Test”, Bagneux, France, 1986.
to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration”, Standard 169. Nwaubani, S.O., “Non-Destructive Assessment
Specifications for Transportation Materials and of the Performance of Surface Treated Concrete”,
Methods of Sampling and Testing, Washington Technology Publishing Company, JPCL-PMC.
DC, 2011. Pittsburgh PA Jan 1999.
156. AS 2159:2009, “Piling – Design and installation”, 170. Swiss Standard SIA 262/1-E:2003, Norme
Standards Australia, Sydney, 2009. Suisse SIA 262/1: “Construction en béton –
157. BS EN 13791:2007, “Assessment of in-situ Spécifications complémentaires”, Annexe E:
compressive strength in structures and precast Perméabilité à l’air dans les Structures, pp. 30-31,
concrete components”, European Committee for 2003.
Standardization, Brussels, 2007. 171. Sirivivatnanon, V. and Cao, H.T., “The Need
158. BS 6089:2010, “Assessment of in-situ for and a Method to Control Cracking Cover”,
compressive strength in structures and precast CSIRO, Division of Building, Construction and
concrete components”, Complementary guidance Engineering, Melbourne, 1991.
to that given in BS EN 13791, British Standards 172. ASTM C876-09, “Standard Test Method for
Institution, London, 2010. Corrosion Potentials of Uncoated Reinforcing
159. CIA Z11:2002, “The Evaluation of Concrete Steel in Concrete”, ASTM International, West
Strength by Testing Cores”, Concrete Institute of Conshohocken, PA, 2009.
Australia, 2002. 173. BS EN 14630:2006, “Products and systems
160. BS EN 12504-1:2009 “Testing concrete in for the protection and repair of concrete
structures. Cored specimens. Taking, examining structures. Test methods. Determination of
and testing in compression”, European Committee carbonation depth in hardened concrete by the
for Standardization, Brussels, 2009. phenolphthalein method”, European Committee
161. CIA CPN 22:2008, “Non-destructive Testing of for Standardization, Brussels, 2006.
Concrete” Concrete Institute of Australia, Sydney, 174. UK Concrete Society, Current Practice Sheet No
2008. 131:2003, “Measuring the depth of carbonation”,
162. BS EN 12504-2:2012, “Testing concrete in The Concrete Society, Camberley, Surrey, 2003.
structures. Non-destructive testing. Determination 175. AS 1012.20 1992, “Methods testing concrete.
of rebound number”, European Committee for Method 20: Determination of chloride and sulfate
Standardization, Brussels, 2012. in hardened concrete and concrete aggregates”,
163. ASTM C805/C805M-13a, “Standard Test Method Standards Australia, Sydney, 1992.
for Rebound Number of Hardened Concrete”, 176. ASTM C1152 / C1152M-04, “Standard Test
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, Method for Acid-Soluble Chloride in Mortar
2013. and Concrete”, ASTM International, West
164. BS EN 12504-4:2004, “Testing concrete. Conshohocken, PA, 2004.
13:7
177. AS 3600:2009, “Concrete structures”, Standards 185. Hulett, T, “Abrasion resistance of warehouse
Australia, Sydney, 2009. floors”, Concrete, pp. 5-54, December/January,
178. AS 5100.5:2004, “Bridge design – concrete”, 2013/2014.
Standards Australia, Sydney, 2004. 186. ASTM C1157-11, “Standard Performance
179. AS 3735:2001, “Concrete structures retaining Specification for Hydraulic Cement”, ASTM
liquids”, Standards Australia, Sydney, 2001. International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011.
180. BS EN 13892-3:2004, “Methods of test for 187. ASTM C1760-12, “Standard Test Method for Bulk
screed materials. Determination of wear Electrical Conductivity of Hardened Concrete”,
resistance-Bohme”, European Committee for ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
Standardization, Brussels, 2004. PA, 2012.
181. AS 1012.9:1999, “Methods of testing concrete 188. BS EN 14629:2007, “Products and systems for
– Determination of the compressive strength the protection and repair of concrete structures.
of concrete specimens”, Standards Australia, Test methods. Determination of chloride content
Sydney, 1999. in hardened concrete”, European Committee for
182. ASTM C1383-04, “Standard Test Method Standardization, Brussels, 2007.
for Measuring the P-Wave Speed and the 189. UK Concrete Society Technical Report TR60,
Thickness of Concrete Plates Using the Impact- “Electrochemical tests for reinforcement
Echo Method”, ASTM International, West corrosion”, 2004.
Conshohocken, PA, 2010. 190. AS 1141.60.1:2014, “Methods for sampling and
183. Monteiro, P.J.M, Kurtis, K.E., Roesler, J. and testing aggregates Method 60.1: Potential alkalis-
Harvey, J, “Accelerated tests for measuring silica reactivity – Accelerated mortar bar method”,
sulphate resistance of hydraulic cements for Standards Australia, Sydney, 2014.
Caltrans LLPRS program”, Pavement Research 191. AS 1141.60.2:2014, “Methods for sampling
Centre, Institute of Transportation Studies, and testing aggregates Method 60.2: Potential
University of California, Berkeley, April 2000. alkali-silica reactivity – Concrete prism method”,
184. ASTM C150-12, “Standard Specification for Standards Australia, Sydney, 2014.
Portland Cement”, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
13:8
CONCRETE INSTITUTE
of AUSTRALIA
Z7/07
Durability Performance TestsZ7/07


Z7/07
Performance Tests
to Assess
Concrete Durability

Performance Tests PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Performance Tests PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Concrete Institute of Australia

Durability Performance TestsZ7/07

Concrete Durability Series

Concrete Durability Series

Produced by Engineers Media for

The Task Group that developed this Recommended Practice was:

Durability Committee active contributors were:

Preface environment and life cycle, and the most cost

7.1 Introduction Table 5.2 Types of resistivity test

8. References Figure 3.3 Method of taking drilling dust samples

Figure 5.2 Schematic of 4 probe resistivity equipment

Figure 6.2 Cover distribution from a series of GPR scans

Figure 6.4 Field measurements of water absorption

Figure 6.5 Torrent air permeability testing equipment

Figure 7.2 E stablishing electrode potential criteria for

Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3: Operational Service Life

Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance

Design Prolonged Realised

service life service life service life

Owner Requirements Time

Figure 1: Phases in the life of a structure [Reference 2]

headings: concern), or to verify the efficacy of the routine

SAMPLING METHODS FOR IN-SITU CONCRETE

Carbonation Rate 4.3

AS 1012.21 Fairly common Easy Fair Limited 2 days 4.4.2

Water Sorptivity Tests 4.4

Semi Adiabatic Tests to predict Concrete Adiabatic Temperature 4.6

Sulfate Resistance 4.9

ASTM Water-borne Difficult Fair to poor Extensive Hours 4.10.1

Crack Measurements 5.5

Crack width Common Easy Good Limited Minutes 5.5

Intermittent Site Tests 7.4

Preparation As AS 1379:2007 [Reference 7] only nominates

Figure 3.1: Wet diamond drilling to obtain concrete cores

d) Grinding core exposes small diameter bar on

Figure 3.2: DryDrilled

This method is often regarded as the option of last

3.3.5 Drilled dust samples

details to be reported (if not clear in the method

Table 4.1: Recommended mix acceptance tests

Common Parameter Key Testing Method Applicable Comments

This is also a steady state Has not been commonly

15% NSSD test. Concrete cylinders Used for prequalification

migration coefficient in m2/s is coefficients” when

Performance Tests to Assess Concrete Durability

Table 4.3: Common water absorption and sorptivity tests

Common Drying Precision

Max AVPV at 28 days (%)

Exp. Deemed-to-comply or prove curing Used for specification of durability

Performance Tests To Assess Concrete Durability 42

advantages over the ASTM C1585

Taywood/GHD (2001 – Nomenclature reflects the changes in

CIA Z7/07 SEMI ADIABATIC TESTS

Figure 4.4:b) Semi-Adiabatic

Figure 10: Adiabatic Temperature Rise Development for S50 Concrete

Performance Tests to Assess Concrete Durability

in addition to severe limits, might give false positives.

Performance Tests to Assess Concrete Durability

Sulfate Resistance of Expansion (maximum) Expansion (maximum)

Common Precision Comments

Table 4.10: Abrasion tests

Simulates wear under high impact

ASTM Suited to cores. Similar to Procedure

Durability Performance TestsZ7/07

8. References Figure 3.3 Method of taking drilling dust samples

Figure 5.2 Schematic of 4 probe resistivity equipment

Figure 7.2 E stablishing electrode potential criteria for

Durability Performance TestsZ7/07