@article{BernalDhandapaniElakneswaranetal., author = {Bernal, Susan A. and Dhandapani, Yuvaraj and Elakneswaran, Yogarajah and Gluth, Gregor J. G. and Gruyaert, Elke and Juenger, Maria C. G. and Lothenbach, Barbara and Olonade, Kolawole Adisa and Sakoparnig, Marlene and Shi, Zhenguo and Thiel, Charlotte and van den Heede, Philip and Vanoutrive, Hanne and Von Greve-Dierfeld, Stefanie and De Belie, Nele and Provis, John L.}, title = {Report of RILEM TC 281-CCC: A critical review of the standardised testing methods to determine carbonation resistance of concrete}, series = {Materials and Structures}, volume = {57}, journal = {Materials and Structures}, number = {8}, publisher = {Springer}, issn = {0025-5432}, doi = {10.1617/s11527-024-02424-9}, pages = {31}, abstract = {The chemical reaction between CO2 and a blended Portland cement concrete, referred to as carbonation, can lead to reduced performance, particularly when concrete is exposed to elevated levels of CO2 (i.e., accelerated carbonation conditions). When slight changes in concrete mix designs or testing conditions are adopted, conflicting carbonation results are often reported. The RILEM TC 281-CCC 'Carbonation of Concrete with Supplementary Cementitious Materials' has conducted a critical analysis of the standardised testing methodologies that are currently applied to determine carbonation resistance of concrete in different regions. There are at least 17 different standards or recommendations being actively used for this purpose, with significant differences in sample curing, pre-conditioning, carbonation exposure conditions, and methods used for determination of carbonation depth after exposure. These differences strongly influence the carbonation depths recorded and the carbonation coefficient values calculated. Considering the importance of accurately determining carbonation potential of concrete, not just for predicting their durability performance, but also for determining the amount of CO2 that concrete can re-absorb during or after its service life, it is imperative to recognise the applicability and limitations of the results obtained from different tests. This will enable researchers and practitioners to adopt the most appropriate testing methodologies to evaluate carbonation resistance, depending on the purpose of the conclusions derived from such testing (e. g. materials selection, service life prediction, CO2 capture potential).}, language = {en} } @article{VanoutriveVandenHeedeAldereteetal., author = {Vanoutrive, Hanne and Van den Heede, Philip and Alderete, Natalia and Andrade, Carmen and Bansal, Tushar and Cam{\~o}es, Aires and Cizer, {\"O}zlem and De Belie, Nele and Ducman, Vilma and Etxeberria, Miren and Frederickx, Lander and Grengg, Cyrill and Ignjatović, Ivan and Ling, Tung-Chai and Liu, Zhiyuan and Garcia-Lodeiro, In{\´e}s and Lothenbach, Barbara and Medina Martinez, C{\´e}sar and Sanchez-Montero, Javier and Olonade, Kolawole Adisa and Palomo, Angel and Phung, Quoc Tri 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 Zając, Maciej and Zhao, Zengfeng and Gruyaert, Elke}, 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}, series = {Materials and Structures}, volume = {55}, journal = {Materials and Structures}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, doi = {10.1617/s11527-022-01927-7}, pages = {1 -- 29}, 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. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1617/s11527-022-01927-7.}, language = {en} }