Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Practical evaluation of relationship between concrete resistivity, water penetration, rapid chloride penetration and compressive strength
Ali Akbar Ramezanianpour, Amirreza Pilvar , Mahdi Mahdikhani, Faramarz Moodi
Concrete Technology and Durability Research Center (CTDRc), Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
There are several factors and test methods for evaluating the durability of concrete. In recent years a great deal of attention has been paid to research and development of relationships of these parameters for production of sustainable concretes: water penetration and Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT) methods which are most commonly used to evaluate the permeability of concrete are two of the most famous methods specied by BS EN-12390-8:2000 and ASTM C1202 respectively. Concrete surface resistivity (SR) test is also a suitable indicator for concrete penetration and chloride ion permeability. It is a nondestructive, simple, rapid and economical method that can also be used on site. The present study is an exploratory research concerned with the relationship of these methods. Based on the correlation of concrete resistivity with water penetration and Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT) results, two new models for relating these parameters are presented. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 15 June 2010 Received in revised form 17 October 2010 Accepted 13 November 2010 Available online 28 December 2010 Keywords: Water penetration Electrical resistivity RCPT Permeability Pozzolans

1. Introduction It is widely known that deterioration of concrete due to corrosion of reinforcement is one of the most signicant durability problems that the construction industry is concerned with [1]. The corrosion of steel in concrete normally occurs as a result of either the reduction in alkalinity at the steel, due to carbonation of concrete or leaching of alkalis, or the presence of a signicant quantity of chloride ions in the concrete. Soluble chlorides in deicing salts or those occurring naturally in soils, seawater and groundwater can penetrate into concrete cover by absorption through its surface, diffusion in interconnected capillary pores or direct access through cracks in the concrete. Although the primary mechanism of chloride transport for the near-surface unsaturated concrete is absorption, the accumulation of chlorides in this layer leads to further penetration of chlorides into concrete by diffusion [2]. As a consequence, diffusion becomes the most dominant mechanism of chloride transport at higher depths. Nevertheless, the primary driving force in the diffusion of chloride ions in concrete is the difference in the concentration of chloride ions which are present in different sections of concrete [3]. There are several methods to evaluate the penetration of chloride into concrete. The methods which are solely based upon the diffusion mechanism suffer from a major limitation in that the diffusion process. The limitation is that diffusion process needs a long time to completely attain steady-state condition, and therefore it is
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 6454 3074; fax: +98 21 6641 4213.
E-mail addresses: amir63p@aut.ac.ir, amir63p@yahoo.com (A. Pilvar). 0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.069

not practical method to assess the resistance of concrete to chloride ions [4]. However, the diffusion process can be accelerated not only by decreasing the specimen thickness but also by increasing the upstream chloride concentration as quoted by Streicher and Alexander [5]. Since the 1970s different organizations and professionals have tried to develop and implement rapid, inexpensive and reliable tests to measure the ability of concrete to resist the penetration of chloride ions. For instance Whiting developed one of these tests for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the late 1970s. It is typically referred to the Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT) [6,7], even though it is really a measure of electric conductivity. This test was adopted by AASHTO in 1983 as T277 and by ASTM in 1991 as ASTM C1202 [8]. The ASTM C1202 standard test method for electrical indication of concretes ability to resist chloride ion penetration monitors the amount of electrical current that passes through a cylindrical concrete specimen when a 60 V dc potential difference is applied across the specimen for a period of 6 h [8]. The measured current vs. time data is integrated to obtain the total charge passed in coulombs. Five levels are identied to classify the charge passed as corresponding to chloride ion penetrabilities of high, moderate, low, very low, or negligible. The Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT) is very commonly used because of its simplicity. However, several researchers [9,10] have raised concerns over this test. The RCPT is an index test in which no steady-state conditions exist. Other problems associated with the RCPT include the heat evolved in the test [10] and alteration in the pore uid characteristics

A.A. Ramezanianpour et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479

2473

when pozzolanic materials are used. In addition, the ux in the RCPT may not be in steady-state condition due to the high potential difference of 60 V [11]. Consequently the results obtained may not represent true chloride diffusion in concrete. However, it is widely used because of its convenience and short-term duration. On the other hand, concrete resistivity is also a geometry independent material property that depends on the moisture content and the concrete composition [12]. Theoretical and experimental studies indicate a correlation between concrete resistivity and chloride ingress [1315]. In general, the chloride diffusion coefcient is inversely proportional to the concrete resistivity. Within a particular structure, more permeable zones will have a comparatively lower resistivity and higher chloride penetration. It well understood that the resistivity of concrete and the corrosion rate of reinforcement after depassivation are related. Ion transport between anodes and cathodes on the steel surface is one of the factors controlling the rate of corrosion [12]. One of the best methods to measure concrete resistivity is using four-point Wenner array probe resistivity meter. The non-destructive nature, speed, and ease of use, make the Wenner array probe resistivity technique a promising alternative test to characterise the chloride penetration resistance concrete. The set up utilizes four equally spaced surface contacts, where a 25 V peak to peak and 13 Hz alternating trapezoidal voltage is passed through a concrete sample between the outer pair of contacts [16]. Another main factor of concrete durability is permeability. Concrete with lower permeability shows better resistance against chemical attacks. When water penetrates into the concrete, some soluble salts including chloride ions go through concrete causing corrosion. Generally, it seems that lower permeability causes higher durability in concretes. Various tests such as water penetration test are used to evaluate the permeability of concretes and several studies have been carried out on this issue and validity of these tests has been approved [17] and several researchers used these methods for evaluation of performance of concrete [1820]. The aim of this study is to investigate the possibility of replacing the Rapid Chloride Penetration Test and water penetration test by the simple non-destructive surface resistivity test.

For all mix designs, coarse aggregates were crushed calcareous stone with a maximum size of 19 mm and ne aggregates were natural sand. The coarse aggregates have a specic gravity and a water absorption of 2510 kg/m3 and 1.90%, respectively, and the ne aggregate has a water absorption of 2.75% and a specic gravity of 2570 kg/m3. A superplasticizer was employed to achieve the desired workability. Potable water was used for casting and curing all concrete specimens. The concrete production was carried out in a 60 l capacity mixer. All replacements were made by mass. The mixture proportions for concrete specimens are summarized in Table 2.

2.2. Testing procedure and specimen preparation Concrete test specimens were vibrated over a vibrating table to remove entrapped air. After casting, the concrete specimens were covered with a wet towel for 24 h and cured under laboratory conditions. Then they were demolded and cured in lime-saturated water at 23 2 C to prevent possible leaching of Ca(OH)2 from these specimens. Concrete cubes of 100 100 100 mm dimension were cast for compressive strength. They were tested after 7 and 28 days of water curing. The water penetration test, which is most commonly used to evaluate the permeability of concrete, is the one specied by BS EN-12390-8:2000. In this test, water was applied on one face of the 150 mm concrete cubes specimen under a pressure of 0.5 MPa. This pressure was maintained constant for a period of 72 h. After the completion of the test, the specimens were taken out and split open into two halves. The water penetration prole on the concrete surface was then marked and the maximum depth of water penetration in specimens was recorded and considered as an indicator of the water penetration. The electrical resistivity meter was used to measure the surface resistivity (SR) of the specimens. This non-destructive laboratory test method measures the electrical resistivity of water-saturated concrete and provides an indication of its permeability. The test result is a function of the electrical resistance of the specimen. A schematic gure of electrical resistivity meter is shown in Fig. 1. Saturated cylinders (100 200 mm) were used at each test age. The electrical resistivity test for concretes was carried out by the four-point Wenner array probe technique. The probe array spacing used was 40 mm. The resistivity measurements were taken at four quaternary longitudinal locations of the specimen [21]. The Rapid Chloride Penetration Test was conducted in accordance with ASTM C1202 for each mixture. Two specimens of 100 mm in diameter and 50 mm in thickness which had been conditioned according to the standard were subjected to a 60 V potential for 6 h. The total charge passed through the concrete specimens was determined and used to evaluate the chloride permeability of each concrete mixture. The ages of specimens for the tests are shown in Table 3.

3. Results and discussions Electrical resistance and conductivity are both intrinsic properties of materials that can be evaluated for the durability of concretes. Several research studies concerning with the electrical resistance, permeability of concretes and resistance of concretes against chloride ions ingress have been carried out [14,15]. The results show that there is a strong relationship between electrical resistivity and permeability of concretes. Electrical resistivity of concrete represents moving ions (such as chloride ions) in pore solution. Therefore, the relationship between electrical resistivity and chloride ion penetration in concrete is reasonable.

2. Experimental programs 2.1. Material and mixture proportion A total of 57 concrete mixtures were used throughout this investigation. These concrete mixtures were made in the Concrete Technology and Durability Research Center (CTDRc) at Amirkabir University. ASTM C 150 type I Portland cement was used for all of the concrete mixtures. The two natural pozzolans which were used in this work included Tuff and Pumice. In addition, rice husk ash and metakaolin produced by a special designed furnace at 650 C for 60 min burning time where added to the mixture. Silica fume was used as cement replacement material. Chemical characteristics of the above mentioned materials are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Chemical characteristics of supplementary materials and cement. Chemical components Cement type I RHA Tuff

Pumice

Silica fume

Metakaolin A B 76.73 17.41 0.59 3.58 0.19 0.05 0.31 0.04 0.06 0.82 C 68.99 20.46 0.99 2.75 0.50 2.80 2.24 0.05 0.09 0.89

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO SO3 MgO Na2O K2O P2O5 TiO2 LOI

21.5 3.68 2.76 61.5 2.5 4.8 0.12 0.95 0.23 0.04 1.35

89.61 0.04 0.22 0.91 0.15 0.42 0.07 1.58 0.41 0.02 5.91

65.74 12.24 2.05 2.87 0 0.96 1.92 2.02 0.03 0.29 8.5

67.7 15.8 3.39 3.9 0.33 0.99 2.95 2 0.12 0.33 2.3

94.66 0.31 0.60 0.36 0.23 0.78 0.22 0.22 1.77

72.5 22.21 0.81 2.22 0.13 0.05 0.55 0.05 0.06 0.76

2474 Table 2 Mixture proportions of concrete. No. Mixtures

A.A. Ramezanianpour et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479

Cement content

w/c

Supplementary material Type (%) 0 10 15 20 15 20 25 0 7 10 15 0 4.5 7.5 4.5 7.5 0 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 0 0 7.5 7.5 15 15 10 10 0 7.5 0 7.5 0 7.5 0 7.5

Aggregate (kg/m3, SSD) Coarse 802 802 802 802 802 802 802 760 760 760 760 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 778 760 740 740 715 740 686 740 703 910 881 867 866 832 814 822 782 762 756 707 683 825 825 755 755 863 863 801 801 Fine 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 929 929 929 929 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 951 929 949 949 918 949 883 949 903 1112 1077 1060 1059 1016 995 1005 956 931 924 864 835 1009 1009 923 923 1054 1054 979 979

Compressive strength (MPa, 28 days)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57

C35.50P0 C35.50P10 C35.50P15 C35.50P20 C35.50T15 C35.50T20 C35.50T25 C42.45R0 C42.45R7 C42.45R10 C42.45R15 C40.45MS0 C40.45NS4.5 C40.45NS7.5 C40.45MS4.5 C40.45MS7.5 C40.45M0 C40.45Ma5 C40.45Ma10 C40.45Ma15 C40.45Ma20 C40.45Mb5 C40.45Mb10 C40.45Mb15 C40.45Mb20 C40.45Mc5 C40.45Mc10 C40.45Mc15 C40.45Mc20 C45.40MS0 SCC45.40MS0 SCC45.40MS7.5 SCC45.40MS7.5 SCC45.40P15 SCC45.40P15 SCC45.40R10 SCC45.40R10 C25.45 C25.55 C25.60 C30.45 C30.55 C30.60 C35.45 C35.55 C35.60 C42.45 C42.55 C42.60 C32.50MS0 C32.50MS7.5 C40.50MS0 C40.50MS7.5 C32.40MS0 C32.40MS7.5 C40.40MS0 C40.40MS7.5

350 350 350 350 350 350 350 420 420 420 420 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 450 450 450 480 450 515 450 495 250 250 250 300 300 300 350 350 350 425 425 425 325 325 400 400 325 325 400 400

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.45 0.55 0.6 0.45 0.55 0.6 0.45 0.55 0.6 0.45 0.55 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Pumice Pumice Pumice Pumice Tuff Tuff Tuff RHA RHA RHA RHA NS NS NS SF SF Metakaoline Metakaoline-A Metakaoline-A Metakaoline-A Metakaoline-A Metakaoline-B Metakaoline-B Metakaoline-B Metakaoline-B Metakaoline-C Metakaoline-C Metakaoline-C Metakaoline-C SF SF SF SF Pumice Pumice RHA RHA SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF

43.3 37.8 39.0 39.3 49.8 45.5 50.2 40.3 42.8 44.8 46.9 52.3 57.8 62.0 55.2 61.0 46.3 49.7 52.0 51.8 47.3 52.2 50.0 46.7 43.7 50.0 48.3 42.0 39.0 52.8 56.7 65.9 69.5 46.5 58.2 55.9 61.3 65.3 52.5 42.3 61.9 46.7 35.3 54.0 42.6 33.8 46.5 36.8 28.3 28.4 34.7 23.1 32.6 48.3 43.1 33.6 41.0

Fig. 1. Schematic gure of electrical resistivity meter [21].

If the electrical resistivity is high, then the movement of chloride ions in concrete will be slow and consequently the corrosion rate of reinforcements in concrete will decrease. Therefore, concrete elements will be more durable and have a longer life cycle. The results of Polders investigation [22] show that there is a linear relationship between electrical resistivity and probability of corrosion in concrete. On the other hand, there are some differences between concrete resistivity and its permeability. Concrete resistivity (rspecimen) depends both on the microstructure properties of the concrete (F) and the conductivity of the pore solution (rporesoln). Parameter F

A.A. Ramezanianpour et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479 Table 3 Ages of tests. No. Mixtures Test ages SR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 C35.50P0 C35.50P10 C35.50P15 C35.50P20 C35.50T15 C35.50T20 C35.50T25 C42.45R0 C42.45R7 C42.45R10 C42.45R15 C40.45MS0 C40.45NS4.5 C40.45NS7.5 C40.45MS4.5 C40.45MS7.5 C40.45M0 C40.45Ma5 C40.45Ma10 C40.45Ma15 C40.45Ma20 C40.45Mb5 C40.45Mb10 C40.45Mb15 C40.45Mb20 C40.45Mc5 C40.45Mc10 C40.45Mc15 C40.45Mc20 C45.40MS0 SCC45.40MS0 SCC45.40MS7.5 SCC45.40MS7.5 SCC45.40P15 SCC45.40P15 SCC45.40R10 SCC45.40R10 C25.45 C25.55 C25.60 C30.45 C30.55 C30.60 C35.45 C35.55 C35.60 C42.45 C42.55 C42.60 C32.50MS0 C32.50MS7.5 C40.50MS0 C40.50MS7.5 C32.40MS0 C32.40MS7.5 C40.40MS0 C40.40MS7.5 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 RCPT 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 2,890,180 2,890,180 2,890,180 2,890,180 2,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 7,284,290 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 W.P. 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 90,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 28 28 28 28 28 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890,180 72,890 72,890 72,890 72,890 72,890 72,890 72,890 72,890 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 728 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 Table 4 Comparison of ionic conductance [24]. Ions Cl OH

2475

Conductance (X1 m2) 0.007523 0.019800

is an experimentally constant factor and represents the effects of microstructure on permeability of concrete and it depends on many factors.

rspecimen rporesoln =F

Thus, a concrete containing a low-alkali cement should exhibit a lower resistivity even when it has the same microstructure as one produced by using a high-alkali cement. This is one of the commonly cited limitations in utilizing conductivity methods to assess diffusive transport in cement based materials [6,23]. As can be seen in RCPT and SR test results, the passing charge and electrical resistivity of concrete samples containing pozzolanic materials are improved 45 times compared to control samples.

The conductivity property of the concrete is predominantly governed by the chemical compositions of the pore solutions, although also affected by the pore structure of the concrete [24]. OH-ions, for example, have a greater ionic conductance than chloride ions (Table 4). Consequently in pore solution with a high concentration of OH-ions, these would be much more contribute to the cell current that chloride ions, and thereby by misleading any unsuspecting observer to believe, that the tested concrete shows an unacceptably high level of chloride permeability. In addition, Shi et al. [25] showed that the presence of silica fume can alter the composition of the concrete pore solution to the extent that the electrical conductivity of the concrete may be reduced by 90% against conventional mixtures with Portland cement alone. During the RCPT test because of the high voltage of 60 V, and relatively long duration of the test (6 h), temperature of specimens increases, causing to enhance the total passing charges. Temperature may also increase the microstructure damages and can change the chemical composition of pore solutions, and thereby the primary condition of concrete will be changed especially in a high water/cement ratio concrete. Therefore, due to the widespread use of RCPT, the idea of utilizing SR test instead of RCPT test is favorable. It means change in the type of measured data (conductivity instead of total charge) is an option that provides an improvement to the RCPT test. It is noticeable that the correlation between total charge and conductivity should be conrmed if it is expected to use SR test instead of RCPT test. Assuming constant conductivity of concrete samples during the test process, and based on physical principles of RCPT and SR tests, it can be concluded that the relationship between the two tests should be linear. However, the results of this study, show that there is a strong power relation (y = axb) between them with a level of agreement (R2) of 0.898 for a wide range of concrete specimens (see Fig. 2). Because temperature increases during the RCPT test, electrical resistance of samples decreases and the current through the sample increases. As a result, this correlation would not be linear and therefore with greater conductivity and higher permeability of concrete specimens, the power of relation (b) will be lower. Based on Julio-Betancourt and Hooton [26] investigation, if the sample temperature during the RCPT test remains constant, then a linear relationship between conductivity and total charge from RCPT test will be achieved with R2 = 0.988. They also recommend the 1 min conductivity test using the RCPT test equipment as a practical way of improving the current ASTM C1202 standard. One of the main factors of concrete durability is permeability. In this study, water penetration test in accordance with BS EN-123908 has been used to evaluate the permeability of concrete. As can be seen in Fig. 3, there is a relation with R2 = 0.827 between electrical resistivity and water Penetration of concrete in various mixtures. As can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5 a good relationship is obtained with the same type of cementitious materials (R2 = 0.875 and 0.866). However when samples with different cementitious materials are used, the correlation coefcient is reduced. This phenomenon can be described in that the result of SR test depends on both microstructure and pore solution of concretes while water penetration test depends only on microstructure. In the concrete samples with different cementitious materials the chemical compounds of pore solution is changed and various level of conductivities for pore solution are achieved. Therefore, the resistivity of concrete samples changes and the correlation

2476

A.A. Ramezanianpour et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479

Fig. 2. Relationship between RCPT and SR for all mixtures.

Fig. 3. Relationship between water penetration and SR for all mixtures.

Fig. 4. Relationship between water penetration and SR for mixtures containing metakaolin.

A.A. Ramezanianpour et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479

2477

Fig. 5. Relationship between water penetration and SR for plain mixtures.

Fig. 6. Relationship between compressive strength and SR for all mixtures.

Fig. 7. Relationship between compressive strength and SR for mixtures containing metakaolin.

2478

A.A. Ramezanianpour et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479

Fig. 8. Relationship between compressive strength and SR for plain mixtures.

Table 5 Obtained models. Model no. 1 2 Obtained models SR = 67,998 RCP SR = 107.88 Depth0.777
1.028

R2 R2 = 0.90 R2 = 0.83

Parameters SR: surface resistivity (KX C m), RCP: charge pass through the specimen (C) SR: surface resistivity (KX C m), Depth: depth of water penetration (mm)

between the results of SR and water penetration is reduced. However in samples made with the same cementitious materials and as a result of the similar chemical compounds of pore solution, the results of both tests are more sensitive to microstructure of concretes and a good correlation between the results can be achieved. Compressive strength is one of the most important mechanical properties of concrete and a simple test is used to measure it. In this paper several trial and error relationships between compressive strength and surface resistivity have also been studied. Generally, one of the main factors in compressive strength is the strength of Interlayer Transition Zone (ITZ) that has no signicant effect on concrete resistivity. On the other hand, chemical compound of pore solution has a great inuence on concrete resistivity while not affecting the compressive strength of concrete. Therefore, as seen in Fig. 6, there is no sensible correlation between compressive strength and concrete resistivity (R2 = 0.413) when concrete mixtures are made with various cementitious materials. However in the case of similar cementitious materials and due to the relationship between compressive strength and permeability, better correlations (R2 = 0.767 and 0.872) can be observed between compressive strength and concrete resistivity (see Figs. 7 and 8). Finally, considering to obtained correlations, two new models for correlating SR with RCPT and water penetration are presented in Table 5. 4. Conclusions Based on the correlation of concrete resistivity with water penetration and Rapid Chloride Penetration Test (RCPT) data, a relationship that can be used to estimate permeability of concrete from the measured resistivity values was discovered. For a wide range of concrete compositions in terms of cement type and w/c ratio, it appears that surface resistivity (SR) can be used as an electrical indicator of concrete chloride penetration resistance. It can specially be used on concretes when a large portion of their cementitious chemical reactions have been completed such as those concretes made with silica fume or metakaolin. The test should be used as a quality control predictor of the chloride

penetration resistance of the concrete, but not as a predictor of diffusion behavior for all kinds of concretes or as replacement of the long term diffusion tests. The long term diffusion tests should still be used when new concrete formulations are used in order to establish if the relationship between electrical properties and diffusion properties still holds. Results show that although in concretes with similar cementitious materials different relationships can be found, but generally because of different mechanisms of compressive strength and electrical resistivity, there is no appropriate relationship between them. Consequently it is not recommended to use electrical resistivity as an indicator for evaluation of compressive strength.

References
[1] Jones AEK et al. Development of an holistic approach to ensure the durability of new concrete construction. Report for the Department of Environment, Project 38/13/21 (cc1031), British Cement Association; 1997. p. 78. [2] Mc Carter WJ, Emerson M, Ezirim H. Properties of concrete in the cover zone: developments in monitoring techniques. Mag Concr Res 1995;47(172): 24351. [3] Suryavanshi AK, Swamy RN, Cardew GE. Estimation of diffusion coefcients for chloride ion penetration into structural concrete. ACI Mater J 2002;99(5): 4419. [4] Dhir RK, Jones MR, Ahmed HEH, Seneviratne AMG. Rapid estimation of chloride diffusion coefcient in concrete. Mag Concr Res 1990;42(152):17785. [5] Streicher PE, Alexander MG. A critical evaluation of chloride diffusion test methods for concrete. In: Proceedings of the third CANMET/ACI international conference on concrete durability, Nice, France; 1994. p. 51730. [6] Whiting D. Rapid measurement of the chloride permeability of concrete. Public Roads 1981;45(3):10112. [7] Whiting D, Mitchell TM. History of the rapid chloride permeability test. Transport Res Board 1992;1335:5562. [8] ASTM C1202. Standard test method for electrical indication of concretes ability to resist chloride ion penetration; 1997. [9] Hale M, Russell BW, Bush TD. An assessment of the rapid chloride ion penetrability test. In: Proceedings of the international conference on concrete for extreme conditions, Scotland, UK: University of Dundee; 2002. p. 44756. [10] Gowripalan N, Mohamed HM. Chloride-ion induced corrosion of galvanized and ordinary steel reinforcement in high-performance concrete. Cem Concr Res 1998;28(8):111931. [11] Sharfuddin A, Kayali O, Anderson W. Chloride penetration in binary and ternary blended cement concretes as measured by two different rapid methods. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30(7):57682.

A.A. Ramezanianpour et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 24722479 [12] Polder Rob B, Peelen Willy HA. Characterisation of chloride transport and reinforcement corrosion in concrete under cyclic wetting and drying by electrical resistivity. Cem Concr Compos 2002;24(5):42735. [13] Gulikers J. Theoretical considerations on the supposed linear relationship between concrete resistivity and corrosion rate of steel reinforcement. Mater Corros 2005;56(6):393403. [14] Andrade C, Sanjuan MA, Alonso MC. Measurement of chloride diffusion coefcient from migration tests. In: Proceedings of the NACE Corrosion93; 1993. p. 28998. [15] Polder RB. Chloride diffusion and resistivity testing of ve concrete mixes for marine environment. In: Proceedings of the RILEM international workshop on chloride penetration into concrete, St-Remy-les-Chevreuses, RILEM; 1997. [16] Kessler Richard J, Powers Rodney G, Vivas E, Paredes Mario A, Virmani Y Paul. Surface resistivity as an indicator of concrete chloride penetration resistance. In: Proceedings of the concrete bridge conference; 2008. [17] BS EN-12390-8. Depth of penetration of water under pressure. British Standards Institution; 2000. [18] Ramezanianpour AA, Mahdikhani M, Ahmadibeni G. The effect of rice husk ash on mechanical properties and durability of sustainable concretes. Int J Civ Eng 2009;72:8391.

2479

[19] Ramezanianpour AA, Ghiasvand E, Nickseresht I, Mahdikhani M, Moodi F. Inuence of various amounts of limestone powder on performance of Portland limestone cement concretes. Cem Concr Compos 2009;31(10):71520. [20] Rahmani H, Ramazanianpour AA. Effect of binary cement replacement materials on sulfuric acid resistance of dense concretes. Mag Concr Res 2008;60(2):14555. [21] FM 5-578. Florida method of test for concrete resistivity as an electrical indicator of its permeability; 2004. [22] Polder RB. Critical chloride content for reinforced concrete and its relationship to concrete resistivity. Mater Corros 2009;60(8):62330. [23] Snyder KA, Ferraris CF, Martys NS, Garboczi EJ. Using impedance spectroscopy to assess the viability of the rapid chloride test for determining concrete conductivity. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 2006;105(4):497509. [24] Willfried Krieg. Rapid chloride permeability testing, a critical review. In: Proceedings of the concrete in hot and aggressive environments; 2008. p. 14756. [25] Caldwell Robert J. Effect of supplementary cementing materials on the specic conductivity of pore solution and its implications on the rapid chloride permeability test results, Title No. 95-M36. ACI Mater J; 1998. p. 38994. [26] Julio-Betancourt GA, Hooton RD. Study of the joule effect on rapid chloride permeability values and evaluation of related electrical properties of concretes. Cem Concr Res 2004;34(6):100715.