See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320512898

Influence of Permeability-Reducing Admixtures on Water Penetration in

Concrete

Article  in  Aci Materials Journal · December 2017

DOI: 10.14359/51701002

CITATIONS READS

8 2,892

3 authors, including:

Vute Sirivivatnanon Daksh Baweja

University of Technology Sydney University of Technology Sydney
76 PUBLICATIONS   3,262 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   264 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Validating the New Australian Standards for Alkali Silica Testing View project

Influence of micro and macro cracks on chloride ion penetration in concrete View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daksh Baweja on 25 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
MS No. M-2016-416.R2
Influence of Permeability-Reducing Admixtures on Water
Penetration in Concrete
by Mohammadreza Hassani E., Kirk Vessalas, Vute Sirivivatnanon, and Daksh Baweja
An experimental investigation was carried out on concrete into
the effectiveness of integral permeability-reducing admixtures as
possible alternatives to the traditional external waterproofers.
The efficiency of hydrophobic water repellents and crystalline
pore blockers were evaluated in concretes incorporating fixed
water-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm) and different cemen-
titious material types covering OPC, fly ash, and granulated
blast-furnace slag. Three different test methods were employed to
evaluate the water penetration resistance of concrete. To isolate
the benefits that are achieved by varying the mixture design param-
eters, statistical factorial analysis of variances was carried out to
discover the significance of each variable. Results indicated that
the effect of w/cm and cementitious material is more pronounced
compared to the addition of permeability-reducing admixtures.
It was also demonstrated that the admixtures can be effective
in reducing water penetration; however, their effect is varied in
different mixtures. Caution must be exercised when using such
admixtures in different concrete mixtures.
Keywords: absorption; ANOVA; chemical admixture; permeability;
permeability-reducing admixture; water penetration.
INTRODUCTION
Durability of concrete is in part determined by its resis-
tance to the penetration of water and diluted deleterious
substances. In a concrete structure, water may penetrate
through cracks, joints, construction defects, and concrete
matrix. Considering the greater sizes of the flow paths in
cracks, joints, and construction defects, the volume of the
penetrated water may be more significant compared to
the water penetrated through concrete matrix. However,
proper structural design (crack control), joint detailing, and
construction practices can minimize the risk of water pene-
tration through cracks, joints, and construction defects. In
such cases, the water penetration through concrete matrix
becomes more important and should be considered when the
durability and watertightness of structures are to be assessed.
Over the past two decades, permeability-reducing admix-
tures have been widely used to improve the watertightness
and durability of concrete. These admixtures can be consid-
ered a possible alternative to membrane-based waterproofing
systems when they are used in conjunction with proper
concrete mixture and structural designs.1 ACI 212.3R.162
subdivides permeability reducing admixtures into two main
groups: admixtures for concrete exposed to hydrostatic
(PRAH—Permeability-Reducing Admixture for Hydrostatic
conditions) and nonhydrostatic (PRAN—Permeability-
Reducing Admixture for Nonhydrostatic conditions) service
conditions.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017
TECHNICAL PAPER
In nonhydrostatic service condition, concrete is exposed
to little or no water under hydrostatic head pressure while
water penetrates concrete by capillary absorption2 (such as
suspended roof slabs and precast panels exposed to rainfall).
In contrast, hydrostatic service condition is defined as those
exposed to considerable water under hydrostatic head pres-
sure, mainly when the permeability is the main mechanism
of water movement2 (such as water tanks and underground
car parks).
Different types of materials are available to be used as
permeability-reducing admixtures.2 Crystalline products are
such materials that can be used both as PRAH and PRAN.
The hydrophilic crystalline chemicals react with the cement
and water to increase the density of the calcium-silicate
hydrate (C-S-H) and generate the pore-blocking deposits,
reducing the effective porosity in the paste and aggre-
gate-paste transition zones.3 These admixtures are also bene-
ficial in accelerating and improving the autogenous healing
of concrete by healing the structural cracks up to 0.015 in.
(0.4 mm), which is out of the scope of this paper.3
Hydrophobic water repellents classified as PRAN are
another type of permeability-reducing materials that can be
used in applications with a head pressure of up to 157 in.
94 m) and even up to 550 in. (14 m).4,5 These admixtures
contain water-repellent chemicals, including various soaps,
oils, and long-chain fatty acid derivatives.2 When they are
added to a concrete mixture, the insoluble stearate created
by the reaction between the admixture and lime forms a thin
hydrophobic layer on the walls of the pores and voids in the
concrete matrix, leading to higher contact angles to water.3
The Concrete Society’s discussion document on the inte-
gral permeability-reducing admixtures highlighted the lack
of suitable quantitative information to allow the use of
permeability-reducing admixtures with confidence in prac-
tice.1 Researchers have reported inconsistent performances
of such admixtures in the technical literature.4-9 Aldred et al.9
showed that the addition of a hydrophobic water repellent
reduced the water absorption of concrete with water-cemen-
titious materials ratio (w/cm) of 0.40 at the age of 28 days by
60%. Experimental investigations by Dao et al.5 showed that
the addition of a hydrophobic water repellent to the mixture
improved the durability of concrete with respect to reduced
ACI Materials Journal, V. 114, No. 6, November-December 2017.
MS No. M-2016-416.R2, doi: 10.14359/51701002, received December 29, 2016,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2017, American
Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the
discussion is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
1
diffusion coefficient, whereas the use of a crystalline admix-
ture had almost no noticeable effect. Roberts and Adderson10
reported significant variability in the performance of hydro-
phobic water repellents, with only four out of nine admix-
tures tested showing decreasing effects on water penetration.
The performance of permeability-reducing admixtures
can be influenced by different concrete mixture parame-
ters such as w/cm and type of cementitious materials.2 ACI
212.3R.162 highlights the importance of proper mixture
design when such admixtures are to be evaluated. It indicates
that the effect of cementitious material, w/cm, and water
reduction effects of multi-component permeability-reducing
admixtures should be taken into account in the evaluation
process. A vast variety of permeability-reducing admix-
tures (particularly liquid hydrophobic water repellents) acts
as plasticizer, which may have water-reducing aftereffects.
When the crystalline admixtures are used, considering
the hydrophilic nature of these materials, water-reducing
admixtures are commonly added to the mixture to achieve
the target slump. Thus, the permeability-reducing admix-
tures are generally used in concretes with lower w/cm, and
it is essential to isolate the benefits that are achieved by the
reduction of w/cm alone. An analysis carried out by Turl11
stressed the importance of providing control data at the same
w/cm as that used for the test materials. This study revealed
that four out of six admixtures, which were claimed to be
beneficial by the manufacturers, demonstrated no significant
benefit when w/cm was adjusted.
According to the aforementioned discrepancies in the
technical literature, this study aims to carry out an exper-
imental and numerical investigation into the effectiveness
of permeability-reducing admixtures, isolating the benefits
achieved by the addition of admixtures and reducing w/cm
as well as the addition of supplementary cementitious mate-
rials (SCMs) in concrete. For this purpose, concrete mixtures
with two different fixed w/cm (0.40 and 0.60) and three
different cementitious materials—namely, ordinary portland
cement (OPC) (ASTM C150 Type I cement); fly ash (FA)
Type F (ASTM C618); and ground-granulated blast-fur-
nace slag (GGBS) were selected. Furthermore, two different
permeability-reducing admixtures were introduced to the
mixtures and their performances were assessed against the
control mixtures devoid of such admixtures. To benchmark
the performance of admixtures, three different test methods
were employed to measure the volume of permeable voids,
depth of water penetration, and compressive strength of
concrete. Results were analyzed by statistical factorial
analysis of variances to isolate the influence of each variable
and determine their significance.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The popularity of permeability-reducing admixtures has
increased significantly in the last couple of decades due to
their cost and time efficiency compared to the membrane-
based waterproofers. However, the available information
with respect to their performance has not expanded at the
same pace, so the reliance is mostly based on the manufactur-
er’s data associated with experimental evidence. This study
aims to evaluate the performance of admixtures and isolate
2 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017
their influences from other affecting factors, including w/cm
and SCMs. The results provide the basis for an acquainted
choice of permeability-reducing admixtures and emphasize
the requirement of exercising caution during specification.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The aim of the experimental investigation was to eval-
uate the water penetration characteristics of concrete spec-
imens with different w/cm, cementitious materials, and
permeability-reducing admixtures, as well as exploring the
significance of these three factors in achieving a desired
water penetration. For this purpose, 18 concrete mixtures
were prepared and casted with a fixed w/cm of 0.40 and
0.60. These mixtures contained three different cementitious
materials: OPC; OPC/FA (75:25); and OPC/GGBS (60:40).
Two types of permeability-reducing admixtures were added
to the mixtures to evaluate their performance against the
control mixtures (mixtures devoid of permeability-reducing
admixtures). For reproducibility in workability, the target
slump was set to be 3.94 ± 0.78 in. (100 ± 20 mm). Because
the permeability-reducing admixtures had plasticizing
effects and influenced the workability of the mixtures, vari-
able dosages of water-reducer admixture were used in the
concrete mixtures to achieve the target slump. Water-reducer
was an aqueous solution of highly purified polycarboxylate
and carbohydrates. Water-reducer included a proprietary
dispersing agent, which provides uniform performance to
concrete and conforms to AS 1478.1-200012 Type WR.
The dosages and mixing sequences of the admixtures
conformed to the respective manufacturers’ technical infor-
mation. Liquid hydrophobic water repellent was added to the
mixture with water, while the powdered crystalline admix-
ture was added to the binder before mixing. The coarse
aggregate fraction was prepared by blending 3/8 and 3/4 in.
(9.5 and 19.0 mm) aggregates. Similarly, the fine aggregate
fraction was obtained by blending fine and coarse sands.
Table 1 summarizes the mixture proportions and the levels
of the investigated variables.
Materials
The raw materials used in the concrete mixtures were:
1. Type OPC portland cement conforming to AS
3972-201013;
2. Fly ash (FA)—ASTM C618 Type F sourced from
Eraring Power Station, New South Wales (NSW), Australia,
conforming to AS 3582.1-199814;
3. Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS)
conforming to AS 3582.2-20015;
4. Coarse aggregate with relative density of 2700 kg/m3;
5. Fine aggregate with relative density of 2650 kg/m3;
6. Chemical admixtures (hydrophobic water repellent,
crystalline pore blocker, and water reducer) conforming to
AS 1478.1-200012; and
7. Potable water.
Coarse aggregate was blended from 3/4 and 3/8 in. (19
and 9.5 mm) single-size aggregates. The 3/4 in. (19 mm)
aggregate was from Marulan quarry located in NSW, and
3/8 in. (9.5 mm) aggregate was from Nepean river of NSW.
Fine aggregate was blended from uncrushed fine aggregates
Table 1—Mixture proportions adopted
Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate
Cemen- Water-
titious OPC, FA, GGBS, 3/4 in., 3/8 in., Uncrushed, Water, reducer, HP, CP,
material Admixture lb/ft3 lb/ft3 lb/ft3 lb/ft3 lb/ft3 lb/ft3 Manufactured, lb/ft3 lb/ft3 lb/ft3 lb/ft3
w/cm type type (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) lb/ft3 (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
0.30 0.00 0.00
C
(4.82) (0.00) (0.00)
28.1 0.0 0.0 0.24 0.28 0.00
OPC HP
(450.0) (0.0) (0.0) (3.78) (4.50) (0.00)
0.24 0.00 0.28
CP
(3.78) (0.00) (4.50)
0.13 0.00 0.00
C
(2.07) (0.00) (0.00)
21.1 7.0 0.0 40.0 23.1 39.0 6.5 11.2 0.12 0.28 0.00
0.40 OPC/FA HP
(338.0) (112.0) (0.0) (640) (370) (625) (105) (180.0) (1.98) (4.50) (0.00)
0.05 0.00 0.28
CP
(0.86) (0.00) (4.50)
0.13 0.00 0.00
C
(2.03) (0.00) (0.00)
OPC/ 16.8 0.0 11.2 0.06 0.28 0.00
HP
GGBS (270.0) (0.0) (180.0) (0.95) (4.50) (0.00)
0.02 0.00 0.28
CP
(0.32) (0.00) (4.50)
0.10 0.00 0.00
C
(1.59) (0.00) (0.00)
17.7 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.18 0.00
OPC HP
(284.0) (0.0) (0.0) (1.25) (2.84) (0.00)
0.05 0.00 0.18
CP
(0.80) (0.00) (2.84)
0.11 0.00 0.00
C
(1.85) (0.00) (0.00)
13.3 4.4 0.0 38.7 21.8 46.8 5.3 10.6 0.09 0.18 0.00
0.60 OPC/FA HP
(213.0) (71.0) (0.0) (620) (350) (750) (85) (170) (1.51) (2.84) (0.00)
0.08 0.00 0.18
CP
(1.33) (0.00) (2.84)
0.11 0.00 0.00
C
(1.73) (0.00) (0.00)
OPC/ 10.6 0.0 7.1 0.07 0.18 0.00
HP
GGBS (170.0) (0.0) (114.0) (1.08) (2.84) (0.00)
0.06 0.00 0.18
CP
(0.99) (0.00) (2.84)

Notes: “C” denotes control concrete mixture without any permeability-reducing admixture; “HP” denotes concrete mixture with hydrophobic water repellent; “CP” denotes concrete
mixture with crystalline pore blocker; permeability-reducing admixture dosage equals 1% of cementitious material content by weight.

from Nepean river of NSW, and washed and rotary-dried
manufactured fine aggregates from Bass Coast of Victoria,
Australia. Both coarse and fine aggregates met the exact
grading requirements of AS 2758.1-201416 for aggregates
used in the concrete specimens. Table 2 presents the particle
distribution for four types of the aggregates used to prepare
concrete specimens.
The chemical admixtures were a hydrophobic water repel-
lent (HP) and a crystalline pore blocker (CP). HP consists
of active components that form non-soluble materials
throughout the pore and capillary structure of the concrete,
partly sealing the concrete against penetration of water and
other liquids. HP is classified as a PRAN as per ACI 212.3R-
16.2 CP is a powdered crystalline pore blocker, which is
mostly used in hydrostatic conditions to improve water
impermeability and self-healing properties of the concrete.
CP is classified as a PRAH as per ACI 212.3R-16.2
Chemical composition of cementitious materials
and permeability-reducing admixtures
X-ray fluorescence (XRF)—The major elements of OPC
cement, FA, GGBS, and CP admixtures were analyses by
the XRF technique. All elements analyzed are expressed as
weight of percent oxides in Table 3.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy of binders and
admixtures (FTIR)—The FTIR technique was used to

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017 3

Table 2—Particle size distribution of aggregates Table 3—Chemical composition of cementitious
Sieve size, in. (mm) Percent passing sieve, %
materials and CP admixture
3/4 in. single-sized aggregate Oxide, wt.% OPC FA GGBS CP

1.06 (26.5) 100 SiO2 18.52 62.82 33.65 8.14

3/4 (19.0) 93 TiO2 0.30 1.00 0.57 0.09

3/8 (9.5) 28 Al2O3 5.05 24.67 13.58 1.51

No. 4 (4.75) 1 Fe2O3 2.79 3.17 0.74 1.03

No. 200 (0.075) 0 Mn3O4 0.20 0.12 0.50 0.06

3/8 in. single-sized aggregate MgO 1.21 0.47 5.02 1.16

0.53 (13.2) 100 CaO 63.40 1.92 41.64 47.41

3/8 (9.5) 85 Na2O 0.25 0.74 0.30 3.49

No. 4 (4.75) 13 K2O 0.57 1.75 0.33 0.14

No. 8 (2.36) 1 P2O5 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.12

No. 200 (0.075) 0 SO3 2.94 0.10 2.67 0.56

Uncrushed fine aggregate Loss on

5.47 2.19 1.91 36.09
ignition
No. 4 (4.75) 100
Total 100.83 99.04 100.93 99.80
No. 8 (2.36) 81
No. 16 (1.18) 62 attributable to an electrostatic charge imparted to the walls
No. 30 (0.600) 38 of capillary pores.17
Figure 5 shows the FTIR spectrum of CP, which contains
No. 50 (0.300) 16
strong Si–O, Al–O, and carbonates (or nitrates) vibrations
No. 100 (0.150) 5 appearing at bands around 342, 280, and 555 in.–1 (870, 710,
No. 200 (0.075) 1 and 1410 cm–1), respectively. This structure may be associ-
Manufactured fine aggregate ated with reactive powders such as condensed silica fume,
amplifying the C-S-H layers produced by the cement, leading
No. 20 (0.850) 0
to permeability reduction (in both hydrostatic and nonhy-
No. 30 (0.600) 0 drostatic conditions). This mechanism may be attributed
No. 40 (0.425) 0 to the refinement of pore system due to the replacement of
No. 50 (0.300) 5 coarsely crystalline calcium hydroxide in the cement matrix
by C-S-H gel.17 Figure 6 shows the combined FTIR spectra
No. 70 (0.212) 51
of OPC, FA, GGBS, HP and CP for comparison.
No. 100 (0.150) 35 Particle size distribution (PSD) of cementitious materials
No. 140 (0.106) 7 and crystalline admixture—Cement, fly ash, slag, and crys-
No. 200 (0.075) 2 talline admixture (CP) particle size distributions were inves-
tigated by means of the laser diffraction technique.18 In this
No. 270 (0.053) 0
technique, the angular distribution of light scattered from
dilute particle dispersion is measured. Figure 7 illustrates the
investigate the chemical bonds existing in the binders and
particle size distribution for the investigated raw materials.
chemical admixtures. Figures 1, 2, and 3 illustrate the FTIR
Results indicated that the GGBS had the smallest particle
spectrum of OPC, FA and GGBS, respectively. In these
size compared to other cementitious materials.
three materials, vibrations corresponding to Si–O, Al–O,
Test methods and specimen preparation—The water
and carbonates were observed. In addition to these bonds,
penetration characteristics of concrete were assessed by
sulfates were also observed in OPC.
two different test methods. The water penetration under
Figure 4 illustrates the FTIR spectrum of HP revealing
nonhydrostatic conditions (absorption) was measured by
vibrations of C–H, C=O, and O–H appearing at the bands
volume of permeable voids (VPV) carried out in accordance
around 262, 646, and 1307 in.–1 (665, 1640, and 3320 cm–1),
with ASTM C642-13.19 In this test, two standard cylinders
respectively. This relatively complex structure may be asso-
(3.93 in. [100 mm] diameter x 7.87 in. [200 mm] height)
ciated with an admixture comprising three main ingredients,
were cured for 28 days in lime-saturated water (as per AS
such as ammonium stearate solution, a sulfonated naphtha-
1012.8.1-201420). Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the rotary pan
lene-formaldehyde high-range water-reducing admixture,
mixer and curing tank used in the present study, respec-
and an asphaltic emulsion.17 These materials may reduce
tively. Cylinders were cut into four discs to perform the test
the water absorption (capillary suction under nonhydro-
in accordance with the standard test method requirements.
static conditions) in dry concrete by inducing water repel-
Figure 10 shows the test specimens stored in a desiccator.
lency properties to the capillaries. The mechanism may be

4 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017

Fig. 1—FTIR spectrum of OPC.
Fig. 2—FTIR spectrum of FA.
The non-steady-state permeability of the concrete,
subjected to 72.5 psi (0.5 MPa) water pressure (1968 in.
[50 m] of water head), was tested indirectly by measuring
the depth of penetration of water in accordance with BS EN
12390-8:2009.21 Khatri and Sirivivatnanon22 showed that the
depth of penetration of water can be converted to the coeffi-
cient of water permeability (steady-state permeability) if the
flow of water is uniaxial. In this test, three cubes (5.90 x 5.90
x 5.9 in. [150 x 150 x 150 mm]) were cured for 28 days in
lime-saturated water (as per AS 1012.8.1-201420) and subse-
quently pressurized for 72 hours. During the testing phase,
water under pressure was applied to the top surface of the
specimen. Figure 11 shows the test setup. To determine the
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017
depth of water penetration, the specimen was split perpen-
dicular to the penetration surface and the maximum depth of
penetration was determined visually by means of the appli-
cation of methylene blue dye. Methylene blue was used as
the tracer to specify the exact penetration depth, as it yields
a blue solution when dissolved in water. Methylene blue dye
was used to improve the accuracy of readings. Figure 12
illustrates a broken specimen with trace of methylene blue
dye showing the extent of water penetration under pressure.
In addition to the aforementioned tests, compressive
strength of specimens was assessed after 28 days curing in
lime-saturated water in accordance with AS 1012.9-1999.23
The strength test is used in the current study to monitor any
5
Fig. 3—FTIR spectrum of GGBS.
Fig. 4—FTIR spectrum of HP.
negative influence on compressive strength that may be
caused by the use of permeability-reducing admixtures.
The repeatability of the employed test methods was
measured using nine concrete mixtures with three different
w/cm (0.40, 0.50, and 0.60). Mixtures with fixed w/cm were
repeated three times and in each repetition, three specimens
were tested. The coefficient of variation (COV) of the test
methods was calculated using the average of three standard
deviations. Table 4 summarizes the COVs of test methods at
two confidence levels (68% [1σ] and 95% [2σ]).
FACTORIAL ANALYSIS OF VARIANCES
A series of factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to evaluate the significance of influencing factors
6 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017
on water penetration characteristics of concrete. Factorial
ANOVA is a statistical technique that assesses the effects of
several independent variables and their interaction effects on
a single dependent response.24 The use of this technique in
the present study had the advantage of separating the main
effects of mixture parameters (w/cm, binder type, and the
addition of chemical admixture) and their interaction on any
measured property.24 To test the significance of each factor,
the F-statistic test is used, in which the ratio of the mean
square of the variable to the error mean square is determined
and compared with the percentile from standard tables for a
level of significance decided by the experimenter (95% in
current study).25 Table 5 presents the three variables inves-
tigated in this paper. For each test method, a series of full
Fig. 5—FTIR spectrum of CP.
Fig. 6—Combined FTIR spectra of OPC, FA, GGBS, CP, and HP.
factorial analysis were carried out by MINITAB statistical
software, and relative significances of each variable are
reported in the subsequent sections.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the experimental study are presented
in Tables 6 and 7 for concretes with w/cm of 0.4 and 0.6,
respectively, and discussed in the subsequent sections.
Compressive strength
Influence of the binder type—Figure 13 shows the normal-
ized compressive strength results (normalized against control
mixture with OPC) for concretes with w/cm of 0.4 and 0.6.
To isolate the effect of admixtures, the effect of binder type
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017
is analyzed first. Test results indicated that the replacement of
OPC with 25% FA and 40% GGBS decreased the compres-
sive strength by approximately 30% and 20%, respectively.
This may be attributable to the pozzolanic reaction of FA and
lower cementitious reactivity of slag, which results in slower
hydration rate of concrete, giving less compressive strength at
the age of 28 days. All tests in the present study were carried
out after 28 days, which might have not provided the required
time for the complete hydration when SCMs were used.
Influence of the permeability-reducing admixtures—The
influences of examined chemical admixtures on compres-
sive strength are illustrated in Fig. 13. Factorial ANOVA
revealed that the three studied parameters, including w/cm,
type of cementitious material, and permeability-reducing
7
Fig. 7—Particle size distribution of raw materials.

Fig. 10—Concrete specimens placed in desiccator for VPV test.

Fig. 11—Depth of penetration of water test setup.

Fig. 8—Rotary pan concrete mixer.

Fig. 9—Curing tank.

Fig. 12—Broken specimen (depth of penetration of water test).

8 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017

Table 4—Coefficient of variation of test methods admixtures, had significant effects on compressive strength.
COV, % COV, %
In addition, factorial ANOVA showed that there were inter-
68% confidence 95% confidence actions between these three parameters—that is, the effi-
Test measurement level (1σ) level (2σ) ciency of admixtures was a function of the w/cm and type
Compressive strength 2 3 of cementitious material. In concretes with w/cm of 0.4, HP
and CP increased the compressive strength up to +22% with
Depth of penetration of water 17 34
different ranges in different binders. For instance, the addi-
Volume of permeable voids 3 5 tion of CP to the mixture with FA increased the compres-
sive strength from 7179 psi (49.5 MPa) to 8775 psi (60.5
MPa) (22%). However, CP had more pronounced effect
Table 5—Mixture variables analyzed by factorial
in comparison with HP. FTIR analysis showed that CP
analysis
includes strong Si–O and Al–O bonds, which might be the
Number of reason for higher strength. Furthermore, the considerable
Mixture variable levels Nature of variation influence of crystalline pore blockers may be attributable
w/cm 2 0.40, 0.60 to the formation of new C-S-H layers in the matrix due to
Binder type 3 OPC, OPC/FA, OPC/GGBS the use of crystalline admixtures.3 Likewise, in concretes
with w/cm of 0.6, the addition of crystalline admixtures to
Permeability-reducing
admixtures
3 C, HP, CP the mixtures incorporating OPC and GGBS increased the
compressive strength. The maximum increase was observed

Table 6—Summary of test results: mixtures with w/cm of 0.4

Binder type OPC OPC/FA OPC/GGBS
Admixture type C HP CP C HP CP C HP CP
10,080 10,225 11,095 7179 8122 8775 8195 8992 9282
28-day compressive strength, psi (MPa) (69.5) (70.5) (76.5) (49.5) (56.0) (60.5) (56.5) (62.0) (64.0)
[+1] [+10] [+13] [+22] [+10] [+13]
205 184 180 123 144 151 170 188 (1.3) 193 (1.3)
Standard deviation, psi (MPa)
(1.4) (1.3) (1.2) (0.8) (1.0) (1.0) (1.2)
11.3 11.5 10.7 13.5 13.2 13.3 13.5 12.3 12.2
Volume of permeable voids, %
[+2] [–6] [–2] [–2] [–9] [–10]
Standard deviation, % 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.24 0.19 0.17 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.04
Depth of penetration of water, in. (mm) (6.0) (4.8) (4.3) (6.0) (3.7) (4.0) (0.3) (0.1) (1.0)
[–19] [–28] [–39] [–33] [–70] [+200]
0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01
Standard deviation, in. (mm)
(1.3) (0.8) (0.5) (1.0) (0.5) (0.8) (0.0) (0.0) (0.3)

Notes: “C” denotes control concrete mixture without any permeability-reducing admixture; “HP” denotes concrete mixture with hydrophobic water repellent; “CP” denotes concrete
mixture with crystalline pore blocker; Values in [ ] show ratio of test results of mixtures containing HP and CP to that of control mixture in percentage.

Table 7—Summary of test results: mixtures with w/cm of 0.6

Binder type OPC OPC/FA OPC/GGBS
Admixture type C HP CP C HP CP C HP CP
5874 5801 6526 3988 3698 3046 4931 5439 5946
28-day compressive strength, psi (MPa) (40.5) (40.0) (45.0) (27.5) (25.5) (21.0) (34.0) (37.5) (41.0)
[–1] [+11] [–7] [–24] [+10] [+21]
96 98 108 63 55 53 75 74 86
Standard deviation, psi (MPa)
(0.7) (0.7) (0.8) (0.4) (0.4) (0.4) (0.5) (0.5) (0.6)
12.9 12.9 12.2 14.2 13.7 15.0 14.1 13.5 13.3
Volume of permeable voids, %
[0] [–5] [–4] [+5] [–4] [–5]
Standard deviation, % 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4
0.76 0.43 0.35 0.67 0.51 1.06 0.25 0.20 0.28
Depth of penetration of water, in. (mm) (19.3) (11.0) (9.0) (17.0) (13.0) (27.0) (6.3) (5.0) (7.2)
[–43] [–53] [–24] [59] [–21] [+13]
0.09 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.03 0.04 0.05
Standard deviation, in. (mm)
(2.2) (1.5) (1.2) (2.0) (2.0) (3.2) (0.8) (1.0) (1.2)

Notes: “C” denotes control concrete mixture without any permeability-reducing admixture; “HP” denotes concrete mixture with hydrophobic water repellent; “CP” denotes concrete
mixture with crystalline pore blocker; Values in [ ] show ratio of test results of mixtures containing HP and CP to that of control mixture in percentage.

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017 9

Fig. 13—Normalized compressive strength results.
Fig. 14—Normalized VPV results.
in the mixture containing GGBS in which the addition of
CP increased the compressive by 21%. In contrast, the
addition of both HP and CP to the mixtures containing FA
decreased the compressive strength considerably (7% and
24%, respectively). This finding may be attributable to the
reactions taking place between the admixtures and SCMs in
concretes with higher w/cm, revealing the necessity of trail
mixings before using any particular admixture.
Volume of permeable voids (absorption)
Influence of the binder type—Normalized results of the
volume of permeable voids (VPV) are shown in Fig 14.
Similar to the compressive strength results, the addition of
SCMs had negative effects on VPV, increasing the volume
of voids by 19% in control mixtures. This negative influence
may be attributable to the slower hydration rate of SCMs as
a result of pozzolanic reaction of FA and slower cementi-
tious reactivity of slag (refer to the discussion of compres-
sive strength results).
Influence of permeability-reducing admixtures—The addi-
tion of the admixtures to the mixtures with OPC and OPC/FA
had no significant effect on the volume of voids. However,
with concretes containing GGBS, both admixtures showed
10
minor improvements by reducing the VPV around 10%. This
was also confirmed with factorial ANOVA showing interac-
tion between permeability-reducing admixture and type of
cementitious materials. However, considering a 5% coeffi-
cient of variation for VPV test results, the 10% improve-
ment was not considerable. Volume of the permeable voids
is a function of the paste volume in concrete rather than the
discontinuity of the pores. The incompetency of the admix-
tures in reducing the volume of voids may suggest that the
permeability-reducing admixtures do not affect the total
volume of pores and subsequently do not affect the absorp-
tion of concrete.
Depth of penetration of water (non-steady-state
permeability)
Influence of the binder type—Figure 15 illustrates the
normalized results of depth of penetration of water. The
addition of GGBS had a significant effect on the permea-
bility by decreasing the depth of penetration of water by
90% and 65% in concretes with w/cm of 0.4 and 0.6, respec-
tively. However, the incorporation of FA in the mixtures
had no considerable effect on the permeability. This may
be attributable to a higher cementitious property of GGBS
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017
Fig. 15—Normalized depth of penetration of water results.
compared to FA, due to higher CaO content (refer to XRF
results) as well as higher fineness of GGBS particles (refer
to PSD results). Results suggest that the higher cementitious
property and finesse of GGBS boiled down in smaller and
discontinues pores in the paste, which in turn reduced the
permeability of concrete.
Influence of permeability-reducing admixtures—With
effect of admixtures, factorial ANOVA showed that the
effects of admixtures were statistically significant. HP was
found to be reasonably effective in reducing the permea-
bility. The highest reduction of permeability was observed in
the OPC concrete with w/cm of 0.6 while the depth of pene-
tration of water reduced from 0.75 in. to 0.43 in. (19 mm to
11 mm) (–45%). It may suggest that the hydrophobic water
repellents can also be beneficial under hydrostatic conditions
(tested under 72.5 psi [0.5 MPa] water pressure in the current
study), while ACI 212.3R-162 recommends that this type of
admixture to be used only in nonhydrostatic conditions.2
In contrast, CP showed a fluctuating behavior in concretes
contacting different w/cm and binder types. Considering the
repeatability limit of the test method, concretes containing
GGBS found to be so impermeable that the effect of admix-
tures was not distinguishable.
Fig. 16—Significance of factors affecting water penetration
Significance of affecting factors characteristics of concrete.
Figure 16 shows the relative significances of affecting
factors influencing the tested properties of concrete, analyzed 1. Hydrophobic water repellents and crystalline pore
by factorial ANOVA. The effect of permeability-reducing blockers were beneficial in reduction of water penetration
admixtures was less pronounced in all of the properties than in concrete specimens (in both hydrostatic and nonhydro-
the effects of changing w/cm and type of cementitious mate- static conditions). For instance, addition of HP to concrete
rials. The compressive strength was mainly controlled by decreased the depth of penetration of water by 45%.
w/cm, whereas the volume of permeable voids (absorption) However, admixtures were found to be more efficient in
was largely influenced by the type of cementitious materials. concretes with w/cm of 0.6 compared to 0.4. It was found
The depth of penetration of water (non-steady-state perme- that their efficiency was dependent on the w/cm and type of
ability) was influenced by w/cm and type of cementitious cementitious materials used in the binder of the concrete.
materials equally. Therefore, the interaction between admixtures and SCMs
should be considered in any given application, and caution
CONCLUSIONS must be exercised when using such admixtures as an alter-
Based on the results of this experimental and numerical native to membrane-based waterproofers to achieve the
investigation, the following conclusions are drawn: desired performance.

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017 11

 2. The water penetration of concrete was influenced by
w/cm, binder type, and permeability-reducing admixtures,
but at varying degrees. The w/cm and binder type had greater
impacts on water penetration than on the permeability-
reducing admixtures. For instance, the contributions of w/cm,
binder type, and admixtures on permeability of concrete were
found to be approximately 45%, 45%, and 10%, respectively.
3. Experimental results suggested that the side effects
of admixtures (mainly water reduction effect) should be
investigated and isolated from the other variables when the
admixtures are to be benchmarked. Advanced experimental
mixture designs are required to deal with these factors
simultaneously.
4. The addition of GGBS to concrete mixtures as a replace-
ment of OPC (40%) further aided permeability-reducing
admixtures to achieve better performance in improving the
watertightness of concrete.
AUTHOR BIOS
Mohammadreza Hassani E. is a PhD Candidate at the University of Tech-
nology Sydney, NSW, Australia. He received his BS from Tabriz University,
Tabriz, Iran, and his MS from Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran, Iran. His research interests include structures and concrete technology.
Kirk Vessalas is a Lecturer in Concrete Technology and Practice at the
University of Technology Sydney. He received his BAppSci and PhD. His
research interests include alkali-silica reaction, delayed ettringite forma-
tion, watertight concrete, crumb rubber concrete, and fiber-reinforced
concrete.
Vute Sirivivatnanon is a Professor of Concrete Engineering at the
University of Technology Sydney. He received his BE from the University
of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, and his PhD from the University of New
South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. His research interests include the use
of industrial by-products and concrete durability.
Daksh Baweja, FACI, is Director of BG&E Materials Technology and
Honorary Associate of Civil Engineering at the University of Technology
Sydney. He received an award for sustained and outstanding contributions
to concrete technology from the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in 2007.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge BG&E Pty Ltd and Sika Australia
Pty Ltd for the financial support provided through the research program.
REFERENCES
1. The Concrete Society, “The Influence of Integral Permeability-
Reducing Admixtures on the Durability of Concrete,” The Concrete
Society, UK, 2013, pp. 5-6.
2. ACI Committee 212, “Report on Chemical Admixtures for Concrete
(ACI 212.3R-16),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2016, pp. 43-48.
3. Day, K. W.; Aldred, J.; and Hudson, B., Concrete Mix Design, Quality
Control and Specification, fourth edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
2013, pp. 65-86.
12
View publication stats
4. Rixom, M. R., and Mailvaganam, N. P., Chemical Admixtures for
Concrete, E&FN Spon, London, UK, 1986.
5. Dao, V. T. N.; Dux, P. F.; Morris, P. H.; and Carse, A. H., “Performance
of Permeability-Reducing Admixtures in Marine Concrete Structures,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010, pp. 291-296.
6. Justnes, H., “Low Water Permeability through Hydrophobicity,” COIN
Project Report 1, SINTEFBuilding and Infrastructure, Oslo, Norway, 2008.
7. Trinder, P. W., and Chalmers, C., “Resistance for Concrete to Harsh
Environment—Ammonium Sulphate,” Concrete in Australia, 1999.
8. Yodmalai, D., and Sahamitmongkol, R., “Chloride Resistance of
Cement Paste with Crystalline Materials,” Annual Concrete Conference 6,
Thailand, 2010.
9. Aldred, J. M.; Swaddiwudhipong, S.; Lee, S. L.; and Wee, T. H.,
“The Effect of Initial Moisture Content on Water Transport in Concrete
Containing a Hydrophobic Admixture,” Magazine of Concrete Research,
V. 53, No. 2, 2001, pp. 127-134. doi: 10.1680/macr.2001.53.2.127
10. Roberts, M. H., and Adderson, B. W., “Tests on Permeability-
Reducing Admixtures for Concrete,” B.R.E Technical Note No. 159/85,
1985.
11. Turl, S., “Concrete Waterproofers—Types, Mechanisms and Effec-
tiveness,” Imperial College, Final Year Project, London, UK, 2011.
12. AS 1478.1-2000, “Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, Mortar and
Grout—Admixtures for Concrete,” Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW,
Australia, 2000.
13. AS 3972-2010, “General Purpose and Blended Cements,” Standards
Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2010.
14. AS 3582.1-1998, “Supplementary Cementitious Materials for
Use with Portland and Blended Cement—Fly Ash,” Standards Australia,
Sydney, NSW, Australia, 1998.
15. AS 3582.2-2001, “Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Use
with Portland and Blended Cement—Slag – Ground Granulated Iron
Blast-Furnace,” Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2001.
16. AS 2758.1-2014, “Aggregates and Rock for Engineering Purposes—
Part 1: Concrete Aggregates,” Standards Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia,
2014.
17. Hewlett, P. C., Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, fourth
edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1998, pp. 837-896.
18. Bohren, C. F., and Huffman, D. R., Absorption and Scattering of
Light by Small Particles, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2008.
19. ASTM C642-13, “Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption,
and Voids in Hardened Concrete,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2013, 3 pp.
20. AS 1012.8.1-2014, “Methods of Testing Concrete Method 8.1:
Method for Making and Curing Concrete,” Standards Australia, Sydney,
NSW, Australia, 2014.
21. BS EN 12390-8-2009, “Testing Hardened Concrete, Part 8: Depth
of Penetration of Water under Pressure,” British Standards Institution,
London, UK, 2009.
22. Khatri, R. P., and Sirivivatnanon, V., “Methods for the Determination
of Water Permeability of Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 94, No. 3,
May-June 1997, pp. 257-261.
23. AS 1012.9-2014, “Methods of Testing Concrete—Compressive
Strength Tests – Concrete, Mortar and Grout Specimens,” Standards
Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2014.
24. Basheer, P. A. M.; Montgomery, F. R.; and Long, A. E., “Factorial
Experimental Design for Concrete Durability Research,” Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers. Structures and Buildings, V. 104, No. 4,
1994, pp. 449-462. doi: 10.1680/istbu.1994.27203
25. Box, G. E. P.; Hunter, J. S.; and Hunter, W. G., Statistics for Exper-
imenters—Design, Innovation, and Discovery, second edition, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, 2005.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2017