Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol.
34, October 2001, pp 479-485
Precision of the Nordic test methods for measuring the
chloride diffusion/migration coefficients of concrete
L. Tang1, 2 and H. E. Sørensen3
1) SP Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, Borås, Sweden
2) Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
3) FORCE Institute, Brøndby, Denmark
Paper received: September 13, 2000; Paper accepted: May 3, 2001
A B S T R A C T
This paper presents the results of the round-robin
test carried out in the Nordic countries to evaluate the
repeatability and reproducibility of three Nordic test
methods for measuring the chloride diffusion coefficient
of concrete. The three methods were: NT BUILD
443, NT BUILD 355 and the CTH Rapid Test. A total
of nine laboratories from Denmark, Sweden, Norway
and Iceland participated in the test. Concrete specimens
with three types of binder and two water-cement ratios
were used in the test, and the test results were evaluated
in accordance with international standard ISO 5725-94
for the determination of repeatability and reproducibil-
ity, in spite of small numbers of trials and laboratories.
The results show that, among the three methods tested
in this project, the CTH Rapid Test in general gives the
best precision in the determination of chloride diffusion
coefficient for Portland cement or silica fume concrete.
The NT BUILD 443 method also gives satisfactory pre-
cision. The NT BUILD 355 method gives satisfactory
precision for permeable concrete, but shows poor repro-
ducibility for dense or low-permeability concrete.
1. INTRODUCTION
The chloride diffusion coefficient is considered as a
very important parameter, dominating chloride transport
in concrete. Different test methods have been developed
for determining chloride diffusion coefficient, such as
diffusion cell tests (steady state diffusion) [1-3], immer-
sion tests (non-steady state diffusion) [4-5], migration
cell tests (steady state migration) [6-9], and the CTH
Rapid Test (non-steady state migration) [10-12]. In the
Nordic countries, three rapid test methods were devel-
oped in the past decade: NT BUILD 355 [13], NT
Editorial Note
Dr. Tang Luping is a RILEM Staff Member and works at the Swedish National Testing and Research Institute, a RILEM Titular Member. He parti-
cipates in the work of RILEM TC 178-TMC: ‘Testing and modelling chloride penetration in concrete’.
1359-5997/01 © RILEM
TECHNICAL REPORTS
R É S U M É
Cet article présente les résultats expérimentaux réalisés
en Scandinavie pour évaluer la répétabilité et la reproducti-
bilité des mesures accélérées du coefficient de diffusion des
ions chlore dans les bétons. Trois procédures ont été testées :
NT BUILD 443, NT BUILD 355 et l’essai accéléré
CTH. 9 laboratoires et 4 pays ont été impliqués dans ce
projet : Danemark, Suède, Norvège et Islande. Ont été
utilisés des échantillons de béton fabriqués avec 3 types de
ciment et 2 rapports E/C différents. Les résultats d’essais
ont été analysés selon la norme ISO 5725-94. Ceux-ci
montrent que parmi les 3 méthodes testées, la procédure
CTH donne la meilleure précision dans la détermination
du coefficient de diffusion des ions chlore pour le ciment
Portland ou les bétons avec fumée de silice. La procédure
NT BUILD 443 fournit aussi des précisions acceptables.
Par contre, si la procédure NT BUILD 355 donne des
résultats satisfaisants pour les bétons perméables, elle
n’offre pas une bonne reproductibilité lorsque la perméabi-
lité des matériaux diminue.
BUILD 443 [14] and the CTH Rapid Test which was
recently accepted as a Nordic standard NT BUILD 492
[15]. The theory behind these three methods has been
reviewed and discussed elsewhere [16]. Due to different
theoretical bases, the measured values of chloride diffu-
sion coefficients obtained by using different test meth-
ods are not generally directly comparable. The literature
showed a large scattering of the values from measure-
ments of the chloride diffusion coefficient. In addition
to the different theoretical bases, measurement error
might be one of the reasons to this scatter. So far, infor-
mation about the precision of each test method is very
479
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 34, October 2001
limited. In order to determine the uncertainty of the
measured values for chloride diffusion coefficient, a
round-robin test was carried out in the Nordic coun-
tries. This work was performed as a Nordtest project,
under which the repeatability and reproducibility of the
three Nordic test methods were evaluated. A total of
nine laboratories from Denmark, Sweden, Norway and
Iceland participated in the test. Due to the high cost of
the round-robin test, only three types of concrete were
used in the test. This paper presents some of the results
from the project. A detailed report has been published
within the project [17].
2. EXPERIMENTAL
2.1 Sample preparation
A total of three types of concrete with different types
of binder, and two water-binder ratios were manufac-
tured at SP. The mix proportions and properties of con-
crete are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 – Mix proportions and properties of concrete (kg/m3)
Mix Binder type Water- Binder Aggregate Admixture Compr.
binder content
ratio
92%(wt) SRPC + 8%(wt)
A silica fume (slurry) 0.4 420
corresp. to CEM II/A-D
B
100% SRPC
0.5 380
corresp. to CEM I
Dutch slag cement
C containing ~70%(wt) slag, 0.5 390
corresp. to CEM III/B
* At the age 28 days according to the Swedish Standard SS 13 72 10.
Each type of concrete was mixed in a 40 litre paddle
mixer and cast into 200 mm long × 100 mm diameter
plastic cylindrical moulds. Immediately after casting the
moulds were covered with thick plastic films to prevent
evaporation from the concrete surface. One day after
casting the concrete cylinders were numbered according
to the casting order and stored (still in the moulds) in
water at about 20°C. At an age of 7 days, the moulds
were stripped and the cylinders were continuously cured
in water at about 20°C. At 21 days, the concrete cylin-
ders were sorted for the nine laboratories plus extra
specimens for reservation by arranging similar distribu-
tions for each test method to minimise the effect of cast-
ing order. The sorted concrete cylinders were wrapped
with wet textile materials and sealed in thick plastic films
before being sent to the respective laboratories. On
arrival at each laboratory, the cylinders were again kept
in water at about 20°C until a specified age. The extra
reserved specimens were kept at SP by storage in water
at about 20°C.
At the specified age (about five weeks for the immer-
sion test, about two months for the migration tests),
three specimens for each test series were cut from the
central portion of two concrete cylinders. The speci-
mens were then prepared for testing according to the
respective standards or instructions.
2.2 Brief description of the test methods
2.2.1 NT BUILD 355 – Steady state migration test
The Nordic standard NT BUILD 355 [13] was
developed in the beginning of the 1980’s and revised in
the middle of the 1990’s. This is a steady state migration
test. The test procedure according to the revised version
involves:
– Coating the curved surface of the specimen with, for
example, epoxy resin;
– Saturating the specimen by immersion in saturated
lime water until the weight changes by not more than
0.1% per day;
– Mounting the specimen between the migration cells
and filling the upstream cell with 5% NaCl solution and
the downstream cell with 0.3 N NaOH solution;
– Applying an external potential of 12 V DC between the
two cells and measuring the actual
potential drop across the specimen by
using two reference electrodes;
content wt% of Strength* – Qualitatively checking the down-
binder MPa stream cell for chlorides by using
0.8 slightly acidified 1 M AgNO3 solu-
1860 (Cementa 82.6 tion until a white precipitate can be
92M)
observed;
1860 0 63.2 – Quantitatively determining chlo-
ride contents in the downstream cell
at least once a day over at least seven
1860 0 45.1 days by using a standardised method;
– Performing linear regression analy-
sis of at least five points of the linear
part of the c-t (concentration-time)
curve until a linear correlation coefficient of at least 0.9
is obtained;
– Calculating the chloride f lux J from the slope of the
linear regression.
The chloride diffusion coefficient, Dssm, is then cal-
culated using the following equation:
RTL RTL V2 ∆c2
Dssm = ⋅J = ⋅ ⋅ m 2 / s (1)
zF∆Ec1 zF∆Ec1 A ∆t
where
R: gas constant, R = 8.314 J/(K·mol);
T: average value of the initial and final temperatures
in the anolyte solution, K;
L: thickness of the specimen, m;
z: absolute value of ion valence, for chloride, z = 1;
F: Faraday constant, F = 9.648 × 104 J/(V·mol);
∆E: absolute value of the potential dif ference
between the upstream solution and the down-
stream solution, measured by using two refer-
ence electrodes, V;
c1, c2: chloride concentration in the upstream and
downstream cell, respectively, kg/m3;
480
Tang, Sørensen
J: chloride flux, kg/(m2s);
V2: volume of the downstream cell, m3;
A: cross-sectional area of the specimen, m2;
∆c2/ ∆t: slope of the concentration-time plot, kg/(m3s).
In this study, the tests were started at a concrete age
of about two months. Since the water-accessible porosity
has an important effect on the chloride flux, this para-
meter was determined after the migration test by mea-
suring the weights of the specimen in air, in water at
20°C and after drying at 105°C respectively.
2.2.2 NT BUILD 443 – The immersion test
The Nordic standard NT BUILD 443 [14] was based
on the immersion test APM 302 [6]. The test procedure
involves:
– Coating all the surfaces of the specimen, except for the
exposed surface, with (for example) epoxy resin;
– Water saturation by immersion in saturated lime water
until the weight changes by not more than 0.1% per 24
hours;
– Chloride exposure by immersion in a salt solution
with a concentration of 165 g NaCl per litre for a period
of at least 35 days;
– Dry-grinding the specimen successively from the
exposed surface to obtain at least six powder samples,
covering the chloride profile between the exposed sur-
face and the depth where the penetrated chloride con-
tent has fallen to 0.03% of the mass of sample;
– Determining the chloride content in each sample by
using the Volhard or potentiometric titration method to
obtain the chloride penetration profile.
The chloride diffusion coefficient, Dnssd, is obtained
by curve-fitting the chloride penetration profile to Fick’s
second law:
 
( ) ( )
C x, t = Cs − Cs − Ci ⋅ erf 
x
 (2)
 4 Dnssdt 
where erf is the error function, x is the distance and t is
the immersion duration. C is the chloride content, sub-
scripts s and i denote the surface and the initial chloride
content respectively.
In this study, immersion of the specimens in the
chloride solution started at a concrete age of six weeks.
2.2.3 NT BUILD 492 – Non-steady state migration test
The Nordic standard NT BUILD 492 [15] was, in
principle, based on the CTH Rapid Test [12], but some
modifications were made in accordance with suggestions
from a Nordic mini-seminar [16]. The test procedure
involves:
– Vacuum-saturating the specimen by using a procedure
similar to AASHTO T277 [18];
– Mounting the specimen in the migration cell (a silicon
rubber tube) and filling the downstream cell with 0.3 N
NaOH solution (anolyte);
– Placing the cell in the upstream reservoir (a plastic box)
containing 10% NaCl solution (catholyte);
– Applying an external potential of 30 V DC between
the two electrodes and adjusting the potential (in a range
481
of 10 to 60 V DC) according to the initial current so as
to keep the power consumption of the specimen in most
cases less than 2 W;
– After a specif ied test duration (in most cases, 24
hours), axially splitting the specimen into two pieces;
– Spraying 0.1 M AgNO3 solution on one of the freshly
split surfaces of the specimen and, when the white silver
chloride precipitation on the split surface is clearly visi-
ble (about 15 minutes), measuring the penetration
depths across the split surface at intervals of 10 mm to
obtain 5 to 7 valid depth readings;
– Optionally, determining the surface chloride content
in the other piece of the specimen by using a standard-
ised method.
The chloride diffusion coefficient, Dnssm, is then cal-
culated using the following equation:
RTL xd − α xd
Dnssm = ⋅ (3)
zF∆E t
where xd is the average value of the penetration depths, t
is the test duration, and α can be taken as a laboratory
constant:
2  2c 
α= ⋅ erf −1  1 − d  (4)
a  c0 
It should be noticed that, due to the potential differ-
ence between the electrode and the specimen surface [19-
21], the applied potential should be corrected to obtain the
actual potential across the specimen. An accurate way to do
this is to measure the potential difference between the
upstream solution and the downstream solution by using
two reference electrodes, as described in [13]. According to
the study by McGrath and Hooton [19], the potential drop
is within a range of 1.9 to 2.4 V when the applied potential
is 6 to 30 V. Therefore, ∆E in Equation (3) can be approxi-
mated by ∆E = U – 2, where U is the absolute voltage of
the external potential applied between the two electrodes.
Since the NT BUILD 443 test started at an age of 35
days, and the specimens were immersed in the salt solu-
tion for another 35 days, the average test age is, there-
fore, about 60 days. In order to make the results compa-
rable, the project plan stated that the CTH Rapid Test
should start at a concrete age of 60 days. Some laborato-
ries could not, however, follow the plan, and tested at an
age other than 60 days. It is known that the concrete age
has a significant effect on the diffusivity [22]. In order to
evaluate the precision of the method, the results tested at
an age other than 60 days should be corrected by using
the following equation:
( c)
β
 t  −0.6
D60 d = Dt   , β = 0.152 w (5)
 60 
where t represents the specimen age (days) and w/c is the
water-cement ratio. It should be noticed that the value β
in Equation (5) was obtained by performing a regression
analysis of the data for Portland cement concrete reported
by Tang and Nilsson [22]. Owing to the lack of data for
the concrete made with blended cement, the same β value
was used for concrete mixes A and C in this study.
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 34, October 2001

Since it was the first time that some laboratories had

performed the CTH Rapid Test, some of the tests failed
due to a lack of experience. In these cases, the extra
reserved specimens were sent to the laboratories to
repeat the tests.

3. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF
MEASUREMENT ERRORS
If we exclude the influence of material heterogeneity,
the errors caused by different measurement parameters
can be estimated by differentiating the relevant parame-
ters involved in the calculation equations. The detailed
evaluation procedures were described elsewhere [16].
The evaluation results are summarised as follows.
By differentiating Equation (1) one can obtain the
measurement errors involved in the NT Build 355 test:
 ∆c 
∆ 2 
∆Dssm
= +
( )
∆T ∆ ∆E ∆L ∆c1 ∆V2 ∆A
+ + + + +
 ∆t 
(6)
Dssm T ( )
∆E L c1 V2 A  ∆c2 
 
 ∆t 
Under the test conditions of T = 298 K, ∆E = 10 V,
L = 0.05 m, c1 = 0.5 mol/l, V2 = 236 ml or 0.000236 m3,
and A = π × 0.12/4 = 0.00785 m2, for a normal educated
operator with normal laboratory equipment, the mea-
surement errors except the last one in the above equa-
tion, which will be discussed later, might be limited to
∆T = ± 3°C, ∆(∆E) = ± 0.2 V, ∆L = ± 0.2 mm or
± 0.0002 m, ∆c 1 = ± 0.01 mol/l, ∆V 2 = ± 1 ml or
0.000001 m3, and ∆A = ± 0.00005 m3. The accumula-
tive error will be:
 ∆c 
∆ 2 
∆Dssm  ∆t 
= 0.06 + (7)
Dssm  ∆c2 
 
 ∆t 
The last term in the above equation is the error caused
by the determination of the slope from a concentration-
time plot, which is dependent on the chloride analysis (val-
ues of c2) and the judgement of linearity or “steady state”.
This might be the largest error source involved in the
steady state test. An example of more than 100% error in
the determination of slope has been given in Ref. [16].
It is difficult to make a mathematical analysis of the
measurement error involved in the NT BUILD 443 test,
because the final calculation for chloride diffusion coeffi-
cient is by curve-fitting. The error from a curve-fitting
technique is trivial if a correct computer program is
employed. The main error sources may be in the determi-
nation of chloride profiles, which involves sampling tech-
nique and chloride analysis. As Gran [23] reported, about
10% error for high chloride contests and up to 40% error
for low chloride contests in concrete samples were found
when using the standard recommended Valhard titration.
The large error in chloride content measurement may not
mean the same error in the NT BUILD 443 test, but after
Fig. 1 – Coefficient of variation (COV) caused by different error
sources.
Test conditions: U = 30 ± 0.2 V, L = 0.05 ± 0.0002 m, T = 298 ±3 K,
t = 24 ± 0.1 h, and c0 = 2 ±0.1 mol/l; assuming ∆xd = ± 0.5 mm.
all it increases the uncertainty of the method. According
to Sørensen [24], an error of 15% is estimated from a
round-robin test with three laboratories.
The measurement errors involved in the CTH Rapid
Test can be shown in Fig. 1 [16], where the thick line is
the sum of the errors caused by various sources, and can
be called the “pessimistic” maximum error in the mea-
surement. It can be seen that the measurement of pene-
tration depth results in a large error, but when a penetra-
tion depth is larger than 10 mm, the maximum error can
be minimised into a range of a few per cent.
4. TEST RESULTS AND PRECISION ANALYSIS
The measured chlor ide dif fusion coef f icients
reported from different laboratories are summarised in
Table 2. Since the NT BUILD 355 test needs expensive
equipment and is time-consuming, only 2 to 3 laborato-
ries participated the test. Owing to the laborious and
expensive fact of the NT BUILD 443 test, only Mix B
was tested in several laboratories while two laboratories
tested Mixes A and C. The ISO 5725-2 standard proce-
dure [25] was employed for the precision analysis. From
the preliminary precision analysis, it was found that the
NT BUILD 443 test results reported by Laboratory 4 for
Mix B and Mix A exceeded the criteria for outlier and
straggler respectively. These data were rejected in the
calculation of repeatability and reproducibility for this
method. After rejection of the outlier and straggler data,
only one laboratory (Laboratory 1) returned valid results
for Mix A from the NT BUILD 443 test. Thus the data
reported by Sørensen [24] from another round-robin
test with three participating laboratories and similar con-
crete were employed to calculate the repeatability and
reproducibility for Mix A from this test.
The mean diffusion coefficients are shown in Figs. 2
and 3, and the results from the precision analysis are
summarised in Figs. 4 and 5. The data reported by
Frederiksen et al. [26] were also employed in Fig. 3 for
comparison. Since the effects of potential drop and con-
crete age were not considered in reference [26], the data

482
Tang, Sørensen

Table 2 – Summary of the measured chloride diffusion coefficients 5. DISCUSSIONS

D (×10-12 m2/s)
It can be seen from Figs. 2 and 3 that the
NT BUILD 355 NT BUILD 443 The CTH Rapid Test
measured values from the CTH Rapid Test
Lab No. Mix A Mix B Mix C Mix A Mix B Mix C Mix A Mix B Mix C are slightly higher than those from the NT
n.d. n.d. n.d. 2.9 18 1.7 2.7 20 2.9 BUILD 443 test. However, the values from
1 n.d. n.d. n.d. 2.9 13 1.9 2.8 19 2.5 these two methods are fairly comparable. The
n.d. n.d. n.d. 2.4 16 1.8 2.7 19 2.8 diffusion coefficients measured by the NT
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 12 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. BUILD 355 test are, however, some one to
2 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 15 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. two orders of magnitude lower than those
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 13 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. measured by the other two methods.
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 8.1 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
From the results shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
3 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 10 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
the CTH Rapid Test reveals quite good pre-
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 14 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d.
cision with a repeatability COV of 5~9% and
a reproducibility COV of 12 ~ 24%. The
0.250 1.6 0.084 4.4 34 2.1 3.0 20 2.9
repeatability is in a good agreement with the
4 0.240 1.4 0.083 6.4 16 2.3 2.8 19 2.4
theoretical analysis as shown in Fig. 1 since
0.200 1.7 0.086 3.4 19 2.5 2.9 20 2.4
most of the penetration depths measured in
0.067 1.1 0.041 n.d. 19 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. this study are larger than 10 mm. It seems that
5 0.054 1.3 0.037 n.d. 19 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. the reproducibility of the CTH Rapid Test
0.069 1.1 0.036 n.d. 17 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. for the concrete with slag cement (Mix C) is
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.6 19 3.0 relatively poor (COV up to 23.6%) when
6 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 2.8 16 2.8 compared with that of the concrete with
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 2.6 16 2.5 Portland cement and silica fume cement
0.051 1.5 n.d. n.d. 17 n.d. 3.4 19 3.4 (Mixes B and A respectively). It is known that
7 0.028 1.5 n.d. n.d. 14 n.d. 3.0 18 3.3 the paste compositions of slag cement con-
0.023 1.6 n.d. n.d. 15 n.d. 3.6 18 3.5 crete are quite different from Portland cement
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.3 16 1.8 concrete. Some of these compositions may
8 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.2 15 1.8 interfere with the observation of colour
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.0 15 2.0 change for the determination of chloride pen-
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.7 23 1.9 etration depth. This might be one of the rea-
9 n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.6 22 1.7 sons for the relatively poor reproducibility
n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. n.d. 3.3 21 2.2 when compared with those for Portland
cement concrete.
n.d. = Not determined.
The NT BUILD 443 test also reveals
good precision. Its repeatability COV is in a

Fig. 2 – Mean diffusion coefficients from different test methods Fig. 3 – Comparison between different chloride diffusion coeffi-
(logarithmic scale). cients (normal scale).

for the CTH Rapid Test from reference [26] have,
therefore, been re-calculated by using the absolute
potential drop ∆E = (U – 2) in Equation (3) instead of
the applied potential U and corrected to an age of 50
days (the average age of the specimens for the NT
BUILD 443 test in that study), using Equation (5), but
with 50 instead of 60.
range of 8~14%, and its reproducibility COV is in a
range of 16~23%. The latter is comparable with the
CTH Rapid Test.
The NT BUILD 355 test reveals good precision only
for concrete Mix B (w/c 0.5, moderate permeability)
with a repeatability COV of 8.2% and a reproducibility
COV of 16.6%. The method gives a very poor repro-

483
Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 34, October 2001
Fig. 4 – Repeatability of different test methods.
Fig. 5 – Reproducibility of different test methods.
Fig. 6 – Accumulated chlorides passed through concrete Mix A.
Data of A11-T, A11 and A12 were measured by Laboratory 7, while
those of A31-T, A31 and A32 were measured by Laboratory 4.
ducibility (COV 55~98%) for low permeability con-
crete, such as Mix A or Mix C. The testing time for low
permeability concrete is usually very long (1~2 months
in this study). Some unintended events, e.g. leakage,
leaching of ions from the pore solution, etc., might
occur during this long-time test, resulting in completely
different chloride f low properties, as shown in Fig. 6,
where different laboratories measured rather different
slopes. As pointed out in the theoretical analysis, the
determination of slope is the largest error source in a
steady state test. It seems that this method is more suit-
able to permeable or moderately permeable concrete.
484
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND
SUGGESTIONS
The NT BUILD 443 test provides satisfactory preci-
sion. Its repeatability COV is in a range of 8~14%, and its
reproducibility COV is in a range of 16~23%. It could be
possible to improve its precision by such means as specify-
ing a more explicit formulation of the depth intervals for
powder grinding. Considering the fact that the test condi-
tions in this method are closer to reality than the electri-
cally accelerated methods, the NT BUILD 443 test is rec-
ommended as a reference test method for measurements
of chloride penetration into concrete.
Of the three methods tested in this project, the CTH
Rapid Test provides the best precision for measurements
of the chloride diffusion coefficient. Its repeatability
COV is in a range of 5~9%, and its reproducibility COV
is in a range of 12~24%. This test is therefore a good
alternative method due to its simplicity, rapidity, good
precision and fairly comparable results with the NT
BUILD 443 test.
The NT BUILD 355 test method provides satisfac-
tory precision for permeable or moderately permeable
concrete. However, poor reproducibility (COV > 50%)
for dense or low permeability concrete was found in this
study. Since the determination of slope is the largest
error source in a steady state test, the precision could
possibly be improved by such means as specifying the
sampling intervals more explicitly.
Finally, it should be noted that, since the numbers of
trials and laboratories involved in the round-robin test
are small, there exists a large uncertainty of precision
analysis in this study. Nevertheless, it is the authors’
hope that the results reported in this paper could provide
useful information about the precision of different test
methods for measuring chloride diffusion/migration
coefficient of concrete.
REFERENCES
[1] Ushiyama, H. and Goto, S., ‘Diffusion of various ions in hard-
ened portland cement paste’, 6th Intl. Congr. Chem. Cem.,
Moscow, Vol. II-1 (1974) 331-337.
[2] Page, C. L., Short, N. R. and Tarras, A. El., ‘Diffusion of chlo-
ride ions in hardened cement pastes’, Cement and Concrete Research
11 (3) (1981) 395-406.
[3] Roy, D. M., Kumar, A. and Rhodes, J. P., ‘Diffusion of chloride
and cesium ions in Portland cement pastes and mortars contain-
ing blast furnace slag and fly ash’, Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on the Use of Fly Ash, Silica Fume,
Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, ACI SP-91, Madrid,
(1986) 1423-1444.
[4] Collepardi, M., Marcialis, A. and Turriziani, R., ‘The kinetics of
penetration of chloride ions into the concrete’, Il Cemento (4)
(1970) 157-164.
[5] Frederiksen, J. M., ‘APM 302 - Danish test method for the chlo-
ride ingress into concrete’ (in Danish), Dansk Beton (2) (1992)
22-27.
[6] Whiting, D., ‘Rapid determination of the chloride permeability
of concrete’, Report No. FHWA/RD-81/119 (1981).
[7] Dhir, R. K., Jones, M. R., Ahmed, H. E. H. and Seneviratne, A.
M. G., ‘Rapid estimation of chloride diffusion coefficient in con-
Tang, Sørensen
crete’, Magazine of Concrete Research 42 (152) (1990) 177-185.
[8] Andrade, C., ‘Calculation of chloride diffusion coefficients in
concrete from ionic migration measurement’, Cement and
Concrete Research 23 (3) (1993) 724-742.
[9] Zhang, T. and Gjørv, O. E., ‘An electrical method for accelerated
testing of chloride diffusivity in concrete’, Cement and Concrete
Research 24 (8) (1994) 1534-1548.
[10] Tang, L. and Nilsson, L.-O., ‘Rapid determination of chloride
diffusivity of concrete by applying an electric field’, ACI Materials
Journal 49 (1) (1992) 49-53.
[11] Tang, L., ‘Electrically accelerated methods for determining chlo-
ride diffusivity in concrete’, Magazine of Concrete Research 48 (176)
(1996) 173-179.
[12] Tang, L., ‘Chloride transport in concrete - Measurement and pre-
diction’, PhD thesis, P-96:6, Dept. of Building Materials, Chalmers
University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, (1996).
[13] NT BUILD 355, ‘Concrete, mortar and cement-based repair
materials: Chloride diffusion coefficient from migration cell
experiments’, Ed. 2, Nordtest, Espoo, Finland, (1997).
[14] NT BUILD 443, ‘Concrete, hardened: Accelerated chloride
penetration’, Nordtest, Esbo, Finland, (1995).
[15] NT BUILD 492, ‘Concrete, mortar and cement-based repair
materials: Chloride migration coefficient from non-steady state
migration experiments’, Nordtest, Espoo, Finland, (1999).
[16] Tang, L., ‘Chloride diffusion coefficient of concrete and relevant
test methods - The state of the art and suggestions for future
work’, SP Report 1997:23, SP Swedish National Testing and
Research Institute, Borås, Sweden, (1997).
[17] Tang, L. and Sørensen, H. E., ‘Evaluation of the rapid test meth-
ods for measuring the chloride diffusion coefficients of concrete’,
SP Report 1998:42, SP Swedish National Testing and Research
Institute, Borås, Sweden, (1998).
[18] AASHTO, ‘Standard method of test for rapid determination of
the chloride permeability of concrete’, AASHTO T 277,
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
485
Officials, Washington D.C., (1983).
[19] McGrath, P. F. and Hooton, R. D., ‘Influences of voltage on
chloride diffusion coefficients from chloride migration tests’,
Cement and Concrete Research 26 (8) (1996) 1239-1244.
[20] Justnes, H. and Rodum, E., ‘Chloride ion diffusion coefficients
for concrete - A review of experimental methods’, Proceedings
of the 10th International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement,
June 3-6, 1997, Gothenburg, Sweden, Vol. IV, p. 4iv081.
[21] Zhang, T., ‘Chloride diffusivity in concrete and its measurement
from steady state migration testing’, Doctoral thesis 1997:132,
Dept. of Building Materials, University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway, (1997).
[22] Tang, L. and Nilsson, L.-O., ‘Chloride diffusivity in
high-strength concrete at different ages’, Nordic Concrete Research
11 (1992) 162-171.
[23] Gran, H. C., ‘Measurement of chlorides in concrete - An evalu-
ation of three different analysis techniques’, in ‘Chloride
Penetration into Concrete Structures - Nordic Miniseminar’, ed.
by L.-O. Nilsson, Chalmers University of Technology, P-93:1
(1993) 71-80.
[24] Sørensen, H. E., ‘Nordtest project 1154-94, Determination of
chloride penetration parameters for concrete’, AEC Laboratory
Report No. 94-019, AEC Consulting Engineers Ltd., Vedbæk,
Denmark, (1995).
[25] ISO, ‘Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement meth-
ods and results - Part 2: Basic method for the determination of
repeatability and reproducibility for a standard measurement
method’, ISO 5725-2:1994, International Standardization
Organization.
[26] Frederiksen, J. M., Sørensen, H. E., Andersen, A. and
Klinghoffer, O., ‘HETEK, The effect of the w/c ratio on chlo-
ride transport into concrete - Immersion, migration and resistiv-
ity tests’, HETEK Report, ed. by J. M. Frederiksen, published by
the Danish Road Directorate, (1997).