<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>61857</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2025</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>1</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>18</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume>188</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName>Elsevier Ltd.</publisherName>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>1</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>--</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Comparative evaluation of laboratory methods for performance assessment of cementitious materials in wastewater networks: Biological and chemical tests versus field exposure</title>
    <abstract language="eng">The biodeterioration of concrete elements in sewer systems and their repair is of significant economic and societal concern. However, the available test methods to assess the performance of cementitious materials under the relevant conditions are insufficiently validated. In the present study, two biological test methods and a standardised chemical test were applied to two sewer repair mortars and a reference mortar, and the performances of these materials were compared in a severely deteriorating sewer environment. In both biological tests, the induction period was considerably shorter than that of the field, and time-resolved recording of durability indicators enabled to determine deterioration rates in the steady-state regime, which compared reasonably well with each other and with the behaviour in the sewer environment. The chemical test does not allow to obtain a deterioration rate, and the observed relative performance differences of the mortars deviated from the results of the biological tests.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Cement and Concrete Research</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="issn">0008-8846</identifier>
    <identifier type="issn">1873-3948</identifier>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1016/j.cemconres.2024.107741</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <enrichment key="date_peer_review">06.01.2025</enrichment>
    <author>A. Bertron</author>
    <author>C. Grengg</author>
    <author>M. Peyre Lavigne</author>
    <author>H. Wack</author>
    <author>Gregor Gluth</author>
    <author>A. Aboulela</author>
    <author>V. Sonois</author>
    <author>F. Mittermayr</author>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>MIC</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Biodeterioration</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Sulfuric acid attack</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Testing</value>
    </subject>
    <subject>
      <language>eng</language>
      <type>uncontrolled</type>
      <value>Cementitious repair systems</value>
    </subject>
    <collection role="ddc" number="624">Ingenieurbau</collection>
    <collection role="institutes" number="">7 Bauwerkssicherheit</collection>
    <collection role="institutes" number="">7.4 Baustofftechnologie</collection>
    <collection role="themenfelder" number="">Infrastruktur</collection>
    <collection role="literaturgattung" number="">Verlagsliteratur</collection>
    <collection role="fulltextaccess" number="">Datei im Netzwerk der BAM verfügbar ("Closed Access")</collection>
    <collection role="themenfelder" number="">Green Intelligent Building</collection>
  </doc>
</export-example>
