Refine
Language
- English (5)
Has Fulltext
- no (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Aggregate (1)
- Carbonations (1)
- Environmental impact (1)
- SCMs (1)
- Supplementary cementitious materials (1)
- Transport properties (1)
- accelerated carbonation (1)
- database (1)
- natural carbonation (1)
Institute
Begutachtungsstatus
- peer-reviewed (4)
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.
Blended cements, where Portland cement clinker is partially replaced by supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), provide the most feasible route for reducing carbon dioxide emissions associated with concrete production. However, lowering the clinker content can lead to an increasing risk of neutralisation of the concrete pore solution and potential reinforcement corrosion due to carbonation. carbonation of concrete with SCMs differs from carbonation of concrete solely based on Portland cement (PC). This is a consequence of the differences in the hydrate phase assemblage and pore solution chemistry, as well as the pore structure and transport properties, when varying the binder composition, age and curing conditions of the concretes. The carbonation mechanism and kinetics also depend on the saturation degree of the concrete and CO2 partial pressure which in turn depends on exposure conditions (e.g. relative humidity, volume, and duration of water in contact with the concrete surface and temperature conditions). This in turn influence the microstructural changes identified upon carbonation. This literature review, prepared by members of RILEM technical committee 281-CCC carbonation of concrete with supplementary cementitious materials, working groups 1 and 2, elucidates the effect of numerous SCM characteristics, exposure environments and curing conditions on the carbonation mechanism, kinetics and structural alterations in cementitious systems containing SCMs.
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).
The RILEM TC 281–CCC ‘‘Carbonation of concrete with supplementary cementitious materials’’ conducted a study on the effects of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) on the carbonation rate of blended cement concretes and mortars. In this context, a comprehensive database has been established, consisting of 1044 concrete and mortar mixes with their associated carbonation depth data over time. The dataset comprises mix designs with a large variety of binders with up to 94% SCMs, collected from the literature as well as unpublished testing reports. The data includes chemical composition and physical properties of the raw materials, mix-designs, compressive strengths, curing and carbonation testing conditions. Natural carbonation was recorded for several years in many cases with both indoor and outdoor results. The database has been analysed to investigate the effects of binder composition and mix design, curing and preconditioning, and relative humidity on the carbonation rate. Furthermore, the accuracy of accelerated carbonation testing as well as possible correlations between compressive strength and carbonation resistance were evaluated. The analysis revealed that the w/CaOreactive ratio is a decisive factor for carbonation resistance, while curing and exposure conditions also influence carbonation. Under natural exposure conditions, the carbonation data exhibit significant variations. Nevertheless, probabilistic inference suggests that both accelerated and natural carbonation processes follow a square-root-of-time behavior, though accelerated and natural carbonation cannot be converted into each other without corrections. Additionally, a machine learning technique was employed to assess the influence of parameters governing the carbonation progress in concretes.
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).