Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol.

32, November 1999, pp 695-696

Discussion of ‘A water sorptivity test for water and

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

concrete’
by B. B. Sabir, S. Wild and M. O’Farrell (Materials and Structures, 31, (212) (1998), 568-574).

M. G. Alexander and J. R. Mackechnie

University of Cape Town, South Africa

We congratulate the authors on a very useful contri-

bution to the issue of measurement of transport proper-
ties in concrete, and of how these properties might be
used practically. The paper contains helpful data and is
presented in a clear and lucid form. While we are in
general agreement, there are several points of discussion
that we would like to raise.

1. We have also devised a sorptivity test for concrete

and mortar (copy of standard test method available if
required). In our test, originally devised by Kelham and Fig. 1 – Schematic of set-up for sorptivity test.
modified to its present form in our laboratories, a 68
mm diameter disc is preconditioned by drying and then
allowed to rest upon a bed of saturated absorbent paper
towelling - see Fig. 1. Mass change is recorded manually
with time up to approximately 1 hour. As in the test
under discussion, plots of mass change versus t show
roughly linear plots - see Fig. 2. While manual measure-
ment is more time consuming that automatic measure-
ment, this method has several major advantages, such as
the ability to record multiple specimens at any one time
(assuming a suitable procedure is in place to move from
one specimen to the next in a logical sequence) and
there is the avoidance of the problems of buoyancy and
air entrapment mentioned by the authors.
Our main concern is with the method of drying,
which is 100°C. This is known to cause major damage to
concrete microstructure, and may disadvantage many
materials. In contrast, our test calls for drying at 50°C
which has been shown causes substantially less damage to Fig. 2 – Typical results from sorptivity test.
the samples.
No detail is given on the paper on the time or cantly better quality. The plots given in the paper do not
method of cooling of the specimens. We have found this indicate that such conditions have been measured and it
to be critical in getting repeatable results, since relatively would be interesting to know whether the authors have
small differences in temperature can cause different sorp- ever measured this effect.
tivities to be measured. The main purpose, we believe, of sorptivity testing and
2. The units for sorptivity should preferably be in similar simple index tests (e.g. air permeability, chloride
mm/ h (or something equivalent). Such a unit gives a conductivity), is to assist in characterising the properties of
direct measure of the rate of advance of a wetting front the material using relevant mechanisms which relate to
in a porous medium, and as such is clearer and more actual deterioration processes. (See for example, Alexander,
easily conceptualised measure of sorptivity. M. G. ‘An indexing approach to achieving durability in
3. In our work, we have concentrated extensively on concrete structures’, FIP’97 Symposium: The Concrete
the influences of curing in relation to the near surface as Way To Development, Johannesburg, March 1997,
opposed to internal parts of a member. The sorptivity Concrete Society of Southern Africa, 1997, pp. 571-576).
test is able to distinguish between an outer layer only a There is no other way to make sense of measuring some-
few mm thick, compared with an inner layer of signifi- thing like sorptivity in a small sample, preconditioned at an

1359-5997/99 © RILEM 695

Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, November 1999
elevated temperature, and tested under laboratory condi-
tions. In this indexing approach it is possible to rank diffe-
rent materials in terms of their sorptivity (or some other
relevant parameter), and then correlate these results with
performance of materials in practice. In the case of the
sorptivity test in particular, being very sensitive to the
effects of curing, it is possible to consider incorporating
such a test into a construction specification so as to get a
measure of the effectiveness of site curing.
REPLY TO THE DISCUSSION
OF PROF. M. G. ALEXANDER
AND PROF. J. R. MACKECHNIE
We wish to express our thanks to Prof. Alexander
and Dr. Mackechnie for their interest in our paper and
their constructive comments.
Our interest in devising a system for sorptivity measu-
rement in mortar and concrete stems from our extensive
activities in the assessment of parameters which impact on
concrete durability, being affected by the use of pozzolans
as partial cement replacements. As mentioned in our paper
the pore matrix structure of the paste is the principal factor
affecting the transport properties of water, and other harm-
ful solutions, in hardened mortar and concrete. It is wellk-
nown that the pozzolanic reaction causes profound and
complex changes to the pore structure of the paste. For
example some pozzolans, e. g. silica fume, not only pro-
duce a refined pore system but also reduce the thickness of
the interfacial zone between paste and aggregate. Also, the
authors have found [1, 2] that although ground clay brick,
when used as a pozzolan, results in increased pore volume
it, at extended ages (> 28 days), results in a more refined
pore structure. We wanted a measurement system that is
not only practical but also sensitive to the resulting changes
in the pore system affected by the different pozzolans and
indeed to the amount of cement replacement by the poz-
zolan. An automatic system of measurement which renders
handling and human error to a minimum was, therefore,
preferred. A further advantage of the system described in
the paper is that it is very much less labour intensive than a
manual version. Once the test is started it requires virtually
no further attention until it is completed. Also there is no
effort spent in data collection, inputting of data and pro-
duction of graphs.
We did not find buoyancy or air entrapment to be pro-
blems of any significance as they occurred only very occa-
sionally. We believe that care taken during sample prepara-
tion and at the commencement of the test pays good
ERRATUM
Third International RILEM Workshop on High Performance Fiber-reinforced Cement Composites:
HPFRCC3
In the October issue of Materials and Structures p. 622, the report was authored by Dr. A. Naaman and
Prof. H.-W. Reinhardt, the two organisers of this event. Our apologies for not having mentioned Dr. Naaman.
696
dividends in this respect. It would be of interest to know
how the problem of air entrapment was resolved in the
method used by Prof. Alexander and Dr. Mackechnie.
One would assume that in their method once the sample is
placed on the wet paper towel there would be no opportu-
nity for the escape of air between the test surface and the
towel, thus influencing the sorption process.
We agree that elevated sample drying temperatures
cause major changes to the microstructure. We do point
out (section 4 in our paper) that in our test the specimens
were in fact dried at 40°C. It was stated that this was done
in preference to the standard drying temperature (105°C)
used in total absorption tests in order to avoid modification
to the capillary pore structure. In our test, after drying, the
specimens were allowed to cool over silica gel at ambient
temperature for at least 4 hours in an enclosed environment
before testing. The control exercised in drying and cooling
of the test specimens and the automated measurement sys-
tem adopted have no doubt contributed to the high degree
of repeatability (Fig. 2 of our paper) observed for sorptivity
results from different samples of the same material.
With regard to the units of measurements, we prefer to
use the rate of water mass uptake by the specimen as oppo-
sed to measuring sorptivity as a rise in the water level mani-
fested by the wetted front in the solid. This more precise
measurement should give a better indication even of the
small changes in microstructure effected by the pozzolan.
The measurement of the penetration depth on the outer
surface of the specimen gives no indication of the water
mass uptake and hence no correlation of measurements
could be made with the microstructure of the concrete.
As we pointed out above, we were principally
concerned with the effect of the pozzolanic reaction and
chose the interior of the specimen for testing. This was
done in order to remove any surface effects. The test, of
course, can also be applied to near surface specimens.
We agree with the comments made regarding indexing
and relating test results to actual performance in the field.
We hope that the above clarifies the points raised and
once again we thank Prof. Alexander and Dr.
Mackechnie for their interest in our paper.
REFERENCES
[1] Copernicus Research Project ‘Recyling of waste clay brick and
tile material for the partial replacement of cement in concrete’,
Third and final annual report, January 1998, European
Commission, Contract No CIPA-CT94-O211.
[2] O’Farrell, M., ‘The Durability of Mortar with ground clay brick
as partial cement replacement’, PhD thesis, University of
Glamorgan, UK, January 1999.