@article{01HM8R42DCATB3050TH0YA493G,
  abstract     = {{Many (inter)national standards exist to evaluate the resistance of mortar and concrete to carbonation. When a carbonation coefficient is used for performance comparison of mixtures or service life prediction, the applied boundary conditions during curing, preconditioning and carbonation play a crucial role, specifically when using latent hydraulic or pozzolanic supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). An extensive interlaboratory test (ILT) with twenty two participating laboratories was set up in the framework of RILEM TC 281-CCC 'Carbonation of Concrete with SCMs'. The carbonation depths and coefficients determined by following several (inter)national standards for three cement types (CEM I, CEM II/B-V, CEM III/B) both on mortar and concrete scale were statistically compared. The outcomes of this study showed that the carbonation rate based on the carbonation depths after 91 days exposure, compared to 56 days or less exposure duration, best approximates the slope of the linear regression and those 91 days carbonation depths can therefore be considered as a good estimate of the potential resistance to carbonation. All standards evaluated in this study ranked the three cement types in the same order of carbonation resistance. Unfortunately, large variations within and between laboratories complicate to draw clear conclusions regarding the effect of sample pre-conditioning and carbonation exposure conditions on the carbonation performance of the specimens tested. Nevertheless, it was identified that fresh and hardened state properties alone cannot be used to infer carbonation resistance of the mortars or concretes tested. It was also found that sealed curing results in larger carbonation depths compared to water curing. However, when water curing was reduced from 28 to 3 or 7 days, higher carbonation depths compared to sealed curing were observed. This increase is more pronounced for CEM I compared to CEM III mixes. The variation between laboratories is larger than the potential effect of raising the CO2 concentration from 1 to 4%. Finally, concrete, for which the aggregate-to-cement factor was increased by 1.79 in comparison with mortar, had a carbonation coefficient 1.18 times the one of mortar.}},
  articleno    = {{99}},
  author       = {{Vanoutrive, Hanne and Van den Heede, Philip and Alderete, Natalia Mariel and  Andrade, Carmen and  Bansal, Tushar and  Camoes, Aires and  Cizer, Ozlem and De Belie, Nele and  Ducman, Vilma and  Etxeberria, Miren and  Frederickx, Lander and  Grengg, Cyrill and  Ignjatovic, Ivan and  Ling, Tung-Chai and Liu, Zhiyuan and  Garcia-Lodeiro, Ines and  Lothenbach, Barbara and  Martinez, Cesar Medina and  Sanchez-Montero, Javier and  Olonade, Kolawole and  Palomo, Angel and  Quoc Tri Phung, [missing] and  Rebolledo, Nuria and  Sakoparnig, Marlene and  Sideris, Kosmas and  Thiel, Charlotte and  Visalakshi, Talakokula and  Vollpracht, Anya and  Von Greve-Dierfeld, Stefanie and  Wei, Jinxin and  Wu, Bei and  Zajac, Maciej and  Zhao, Zengfeng and  Gruyaert, Elke}},
  issn         = {{1359-5997}},
  journal      = {{MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES}},
  keywords     = {{CHALLENGES,PASTE,Carbonation,Ground granulated blast-furnace slag,Fly ash,CO2 concentration,Curing,Cement}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{29}},
  title        = {{Report of RILEM TC 281-CCC : outcomes of a round robin on the resistance to accelerated carbonation of Portland, Portland-fly ash and blast-furnace blended cements}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01927-7}},
  volume       = {{55}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}

Altmetric

View in Altmetric

Web of Science

Times cited: