TY - JOUR A1 - Bernal, Susan A. A1 - Dhandapani, Yuvaraj A1 - Elakneswaran, Yogarajah A1 - Gluth, Gregor J. G. A1 - Gruyaert, Elke A1 - Juenger, Maria C. G. A1 - Lothenbach, Barbara A1 - Olonade, Kolawole Adisa A1 - Sakoparnig, Marlene A1 - Shi, Zhenguo A1 - Thiel, Charlotte A1 - van den Heede, Philip A1 - Vanoutrive, Hanne A1 - Von Greve-Dierfeld, Stefanie A1 - De Belie, Nele A1 - Provis, John L. T1 - Report of RILEM TC 281-CCC: A critical review of the standardised testing methods to determine carbonation resistance of concrete JF - Materials and Structures N2 - 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). Y1 - 2024 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-024-02424-9 SN - 0025-5432 SN - 1359-5997 VL - 57 IS - 8 PB - Springer ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Vanoutrive, Hanne A1 - Van den Heede, Philip A1 - Alderete, Natalia A1 - Andrade, Carmen A1 - Bansal, Tushar A1 - Camões, Aires A1 - Cizer, Özlem A1 - De Belie, Nele A1 - Ducman, Vilma A1 - Etxeberria, Miren A1 - Frederickx, Lander A1 - Grengg, Cyrill A1 - Ignjatović, Ivan A1 - Ling, Tung-Chai A1 - Liu, Zhiyuan A1 - Garcia-Lodeiro, Inés A1 - Lothenbach, Barbara A1 - Medina Martinez, César A1 - Sanchez-Montero, Javier A1 - Olonade, Kolawole Adisa A1 - Palomo, Angel A1 - Phung, Quoc Tri A1 - Rebolledo, Nuria A1 - Sakoparnig, Marlene A1 - Sideris, Kosmas A1 - Thiel, Charlotte A1 - Visalakshi, Talakokula A1 - Vollpracht, Anya A1 - Von Greve-Dierfeld, Stefanie A1 - Wei, Jinxin A1 - Wu, Bei A1 - Zając, Maciej A1 - Zhao, Zengfeng A1 - Gruyaert, Elke T1 - 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 JF - Materials and Structures N2 - 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. Y1 - 2022 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-022-01927-7 VL - 55 IS - 3 SP - 1 EP - 29 PB - Springer ER -