Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Novel active crack width control technique to reduce the variation on

water permeability results for self-healing concrete
Tim Van Mullem a,1, Elke Gruyaert b,2, Brenda Debbaut a, Robby Caspeele a,3, Nele De Belie a,⇑,4
a
Magnel Laboratory for Concrete Research, Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Tech Lane Ghent Science Park,
Campus A, Technologiepark Zwijnaarde 60, B-9052 Gent, Belgium
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Technology Cluster Construction, Structural Mechanics and Building Materials, KU Leuven, Gebroeders De Smetstraat 1, B-9000 Gent, Belgium

h i g h l i g h t s

Variability on permeability is dictated by crack width and internal crack geometry.

Active crack control can reduce the variability on the crack width significantly.

If this is done, internal crack geometry governs the variability on permeability.

A minimum sample size of 6 specimens is proposed when assessing water permeability.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An important characteristic of self-healing concrete is its ability to regain liquid tightness after it has been
Received 20 September 2018 damaged. This ability can be tested using water permeability setups. However, a lack of standardized test
Received in revised form 14 January 2019 methods makes it difficult to compare results between different studies. Additionally, the large variation
Accepted 17 January 2019
on crack widths between specimens results in a large spread of the permeability results. This, together
with all other factors (e.g. internal crack geometry) contributing to the variability of permeability results,
should be clearly assessed in order to develop a standardized permeability test. In this study a new active
Keywords:
crack width control technique has been developed to significantly reduce the variation on the crack width
Active crack control
Permeability test
within a series of specimens, resulting in more consistent permeability results. By analysing permeability
Variability results of specimens from test series with different nominal crack widths the factors contributing to vari-
Internal crack geometry ability could be assessed. The two main contributors are the variability on the mean crack width at the
Self-healing concrete crack mouth and the variability on the internal crack geometry. The variability of the mean crack width
Sealing efficiency can induce a 3 times higher variability of the permeability results. In contrast to the crack width, the
internal geometry of a crack cannot be determined directly, yet it can cause a difference in permeability
of more than 25% for specimens with an identical nominal surface crack width. It can be concluded that
when crack widths are actively controlled, the main source of variability on permeability results is the
internal geometry which cannot be controlled, regardless of the chosen cracking technique. In order to
reduce the variance on the mean permeability, it is proposed to use at least six specimens per series.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the concrete, which would damage the matrix and result in corro-
sion of the steel reinforcement, thereby limiting the service life. It
Self-healing concrete is a material which is able to repair and has been estimated that Europe spends about half of its construc-
close its own cracks without the need for external interaction. This tion budget on the repair of damaged structures [1]. These high
prevents the ingress of water and other aggressive substances in repair costs have increased the interest in self-healing concrete.
Many different self-healing strategies for concrete have been
developed: encapsulated polymers [2,3], bacteria [4,5], superab-
⇑ Corresponding author.
sorbent polymers [6,7], crystalline admixtures [8,9], among others.
E-mail address: Nele.DeBelie@ugent.be (N. De Belie).
1
ORCID: 0000-0003-0657-8893. Yet, it is difficult to compare results of different studies due to the
2
ORCID: 0000-0003-0117-2544. lack of standardized tests to evaluate the healing performance
3
ORCID: 0000-0003-4074-7478. of concrete. Currently, a wide range of characterization and
4
ORCID: 0000-0002-0851-6242.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.105
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
542 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551
assessment techniques are used to test the behavior of self-healing
concrete under a wide variety of boundary conditions [10]. Many
studies focus on techniques to test the recovery of liquid tightness
(sealing efficiency) as this is directly related to durability. These
techniques can mainly be divided in two categories: sorptivity
tests and permeability tests.
Sorptivity tests assess the amount of water concrete is able to
absorb. The driving force of these tests is capillary suction. The
cumulative absorbed water is plotted against the square root of
time. The slope of the data points gives the sorptivity index. Due
to its simplicity the test has been widely used to assess the sealing
efficiency by comparing the sorptivity index of uncracked, cracked
but unhealed, and cracked and healed specimens [11–16]. How-
ever, a recent study executed on uncracked samples questioned
the calculation of the sorptivity index by using the square root of
time [17]. Also the accuracy of the test is debated, as a partially
healed crack could have a smaller crack width and thus a higher
capillary force resulting in a possible larger amount of water
uptake compared to an unhealed crack.
Permeability tests investigate the amount of water which
passes through a crack. The driving force for these tests is water
pressure which eliminates the accuracy problem mentioned for
sorptivity tests. This type of tests was originally used for perme-
ability studies in cracked concrete [18,19] and fiber-reinforced
concrete [20]. The studies of Edvardsen [21] and Aldea et al. [22]
were among the first to study the healing behavior of concrete
using a permeability setup. The setup described by Aldea et al.
[22] consists of clamping a specimen (cracked in a splitting test)
between an upper and a lower water reservoir and looking at the
water drop in the upper reservoir (see Fig. 1(a)). This setup has
been used in several other studies about different healing mecha-
nisms [3,5,23–25]. Many researchers have also adapted this tech-
Fig. 1. Schematic overview of different permeability setups (dimensions are not to scale). (a) setup of Aldea et al. [22], (b) setup of Shin et al. [26], (c) setup of Palin et al. [27]
and Roig-Flores et al. [9], (d) setup of Mechtcherine and Lieboldt [28], (e) setup of Van Tittelboom et al. [29], (f) setup of Tziviloglou et al. [30] and Gruyaert et al. [33].
nique. Shin et al. [26] cracked cylindrical specimens through
their entire depth in a splitting test and tied the two halves
together with spacers. They determined the permeability by mon-
itoring the weight of the leaked water instead of the water drop
(the hydraulic water head was kept constant, see Fig. 1(b)). Palin
et al. [27] also completely broke and reattached their specimens
using spacers to obtain a specific crack width (taking extra care
that debris did not get lodged in the crack), but the test technique
did not have a lower reservoir; the leaked water was captured in a
container (see Fig. 1(c)). Roig-Flores et al. [9] used a similar tech-
nique but applied a much higher pressure. Mechtcherine and Lie-
boldt [28] developed a pressure-tight chamber system in which
it is possible to subject specimens to tensile stress during testing.
This setup used a pressurized lower reservoir and measured the
amount of water leaking out of the top reservoir (see Fig. 1(d)).
Van Tittelboom et al. [29] tested the water ingress in large-scale
concrete elements. They mounted a water reservoir at the crack
mouth (parts not covered by the reservoir were sealed) and mon-
itored the water drop over time (see Fig. 1(e)).
Most of the cracks in the previously mentioned permeability
tests were induced using a (closed-loop) splitting test, except for
the study on large-scale elements [29] and the study of Mechtcher-
ine and Lieboldt [28]. In a recently finished European collaboration
project a permeability setup was developed in which standardized
mortar prisms (40  40  160 mm3) are cracked in a crack-width-
controlled 3-point bending setup [30,31]. The prisms had a cast-in
hole over their length which was connected to a reservoir (see
Fig. 1(f)). The mass of the water which came from the reservoir
and went through the hole to leak out of the crack was recorded
before and after healing (for more details see Section 2.4). In order
to prevent the specimens from breaking during 3-point bending,
the specimens had 2 tensile reinforcement wires. The test setup
 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551
was evaluated in a round robin test [32]. Even though the same
crack width was targeted there was a large variation of the crack
widths. Even on an intra-lab level significantly different crack
shapes and geometries could be observed. On the one hand this
was attributed to the notch which was manually sawed prior to
cracking. The method of introduction, the width, the shape and
the depth of the notch varied between the different labs. Therefore,
it was concluded by the study that it would be better to cast spec-
imens with the notch. On the other hand, the large variation of the
crack width was attributed to the fact that the reinforcement wires
were too flexible; they should have been thicker. The round robin
test also found a large variation on the sealing efficiency. The seal-
ing efficiency SE was calculated as:


M healed
SE ¼ 1  100%
M unhealed
with Mhealed, respectively Munhealed, the mass of water leaked out
from the healed, respectively unhealed crack, during a period of
5 min. Aside from the variation of the crack width and shape, the
large variation on the sealing efficiency was attributed to the fact
that different specimens were used for the measurements before
and after healing (this to avoid a loss of mortar components or heal-
ing agent in the first permeability test). This permeability setup was
also used in a study on the sealing efficiency of superabsorbent
polymers in which also higher water pressures were applied [33].
In this study the same specimens were used before- and after heal-
ing and the specimen did not have a notch. Clear conclusions could
be drawn from the results, but the researchers noted that the vari-
ation on the crack width limited the number of specimens which
had a crack width within the predetermined range which was
studied.
This permeability test (hereafter termed the water flow test)
has some clear advantages over other test methods. Firstly, the test
is quite fast compared to other test methods; measurements can be
obtained after 5–15 min, as opposed to other permeability meth-
ods which can take several hours to even a month if the specimens
are healed in the setup. Secondly, the specimen can be observed
from all sides so that leakages can be immediately detected.
Thirdly, the crack is a flexural crack and not a uniform crack such
as for (indirect) tensile tests. This shape of a crack (triangular) is
much more common in practice than a uniform through-depth
crack. Lastly, the specimen does not need to be (re)assembled from
two separate halves, which is never ideal since it is impossible to
perfectly reattach two halves, especially with an accuracy in the
order of a few micrometer.
Like other permeability methods, the water flow test can have
some large variations on the results. These are caused, at least par-
tially, by the variation in crack width between specimens;
Edvardsen [21] stated that the permeability of a crack is related
to the third power of the crack width. Specimens with tensile rein-
forcement cracked in a crack width controlled 3-point bending
setup will undergo an elastic closure of the crack when the load
is removed. Aside from the cohesive component of the crack, this
elastic regain is the result of the reinforcement and is a significant
contributor to variability on crack width measurements between
different specimens. However, results of specimens with almost
identical mean crack widths can also have a high variation on
the permeability results. This is caused by differences in the inter-
nal geometry of the cracks.
The current article elaborates on an active crack control tech-
nique to significantly reduce the variation on the crack width. This
crack control technique is used to study the variation on the water
flow results of several series with different crack widths. A clear
distinction is made between the variation on the flow rate as a
result of the variation on the crack width between specimens
543
and as a result of the variation on the internal crack geometry
between specimens. Additionally, the variation on the water flow
results is studied theoretically using the propagation of error the-
ory. In the end recommendations are given to reduce the variabil-
ity on permeability tests to an acceptable level.
It is important to note that the test technique on which this
paper focusses is developed for mortar and not for concrete. In
addition to the fact that mortar is more homogenous than concrete,
the main reason for the use of mortar is the often high cost for
healing agents in the prototype phase. Thus, it is very useful to
do a fast screening of different healing agents and their effective-
ness in mortar, before upscaling the best healing agents for the
use in concrete. To test the sealing efficiency of concrete, a varia-
tion on the water flow test used in this study (without active crack
control) has already been used [34].
ð1Þ
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Mortar mixture composition
The used reference mortar composition (REF) consisted of:
450 g CEM I 42.5 N (ENCI, the Netherlands), 225 ml of water, and
1350 g standardized sand (grading 0/2, DIN EN 196–1). The mixing
procedure was in accordance with EN 196-1.
The composition was used to fill prismatic moulds
(40  40  160 mm3) which contained a smooth steel bar
(Ø 5 mm) covered in demoulding oil. This bar was positioned cen-
trally with its centre at 15 mm from the bottom side. After the
specimens were cast they were covered by plastic foil and stored
in an air-conditioned room at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C. The day
after casting the steel bar was removed from the specimens when
they were demoulded. The specimens were then wrapped again in
plastic foil and stored at 20 ± 2 °C until an age of 7, 14, 28 or
64 days depending on the test series. Each series had 4 to 6
specimens.
2.2. Crack creation and active crack width control
A new technique was developed in order to actively control the
crack width. By actively controlling the crack width, the variability
on the crack width between different specimens can be reduced,
resulting in a lower variability of the water permeability results.
The target crack width varied in the range of 150–310 mm depend-
ing on the series.
The day before cracking a black unidirectional Carbon Fiber
Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) laminate (40  160 mm2) was glued
on the top side of the previously described mortar prisms using
an epoxy resin, see Fig. 2(a). The CFRP laminates are commercially
available under the tradename PCÒ CARBOCOMP UNI (TRADECC,
Belgium) and are used to externally strengthen structural
elements. One side of the specimens was provided with a tube
(Øext. 6 mm) to connect the specimen later to the water flow setup.
In order to do this, the cast-in hole was enlarged over a length of
25 ± 5 mm using a drill. The tube was inserted in the hole and a
watertight connection was ensured by using silicone. At the other
side of the specimens, the cast-in hole was sealed using the same
silicone.
The specimens were cracked in a 3-point bending setup with a
span of 100 mm at a load rate of 50 N/s. The CFRP laminates at the
top of the specimens did not act as tensile reinforcement, so the
moment a crack was formed the specimens broke immediately in
2 halves. These halves stayed connected at the top due to the CFRP
laminates. However, the crack between the two halves was too
large (>1000 mm). Due to the stiffness of the laminates there was
only one degree of freedom between the two halves: the crack
544 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551

Fig. 2. Top (a) and bottom (b) side of a specimen restrained with the active crack width control technique.

could widen or close, but any rotation of the two sides with respect
to each other was prevented by the laminates. In order to restrain
the crack width a screw jack was mounted on the bottom of the
specimens. By applying an iterative approach of restraining and
measuring the crack width microscopically (see Section 2.3), the
desired crack width could be attained with good accuracy. Fig. 2
shows a bottom and a top view of a specimen restrained with
the active crack control technique.
2.3. Crack width measurement
The crack width is not constant over the height of the specimen
due to the triangular shape of the crack: the crack width is smallest
near the top of the specimen where the CFRP is located and is lar-
gest at the crack mouth at the bottom of the specimen. If the crack
width would be measured at the side of the specimens the value
would be dependent on the location where it would be measured,
which induces a degree of uncertainty. Therefore, it was chosen to
measure the maximum crack width at the crack mouth on the bot-
tom side of the specimens. It is noted that in many practical situ-
ations also only the maximum crack width of a concrete element
is measured. Three microscopic images were taken at random loca-
tions along the length of the crack mouth using an optical crack
microscope (Leica S8APO mounted with a DFC295 camera). For
each image 4 to 5 measurements of the crack width were per-
formed, resulting in a total of 12 to 15 measurements of the crack
width per crack. The reported crack width is the average of all
these measurements.
2.4. Water permeability measurement using water flow setup
After the crack width was restrained and measured, the cracks
at the sides of the specimens were sealed using a viscous methyl
methacrylate glue so that water could only leak out of the bottom
side of the crack. Because the methyl methacrylate hardened
within a couple of minutes, it was possible to prepare all speci-
mens of a test series on the same day; this includes cracking of
the specimens, measuring and restraining of the crack width, and
finally sealing of the sides of the crack. The sealing can be seen
in Fig. 2. If water would be allowed to leak out of the sides of the
specimen this could give a too conservative value. After all, the size
of the samples is small compared to practical dimensions of con-
crete elements such as beams and plates. Thus, the test specimens
can be considered as small elements out of a larger member. It can
then be assumed that the flow of one element to another element
can be neglected, and hence it can be considered that the flow out
of the sides of the elements is negligible compared to the flow out
of the bottom.
The water permeability of the specimens was determined using
the water flow setup. The test was carried out at a temperature of
20 ± 2 °C and a relative humidity of 60 ± 5%. Fig. 3 shows a sche-
matic drawing of the used water flow setup. The tube which was

Fig. 3. Schematic sketch of water flow setup.

 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551 545

inserted in the specimens was connected to a water reservoir at a

height of 50 ± 2 cm with respect to the cast-in hole (constant
head). Water from the reservoir could flow in the cast-in hole via
the tubing and could only leak out of the specimens through the
crack, since the other side of the cast-in hole was sealed. The
leaked water was captured and the mass of the leaked water was
recorded over time using an automatic measuring scale. In order
to remove as much air bubbles out of the crack as possible and
to prevent water absorption of the mortar matrix during testing,
the specimens were saturated (immediately after sealing of the
sides of the specimens) for approximately 2 days prior to testing.
Additionally, the first 30 s of testing were not recorded. This way
the error of air bubbles removed by the flow of water through
the crack would not be recorded and only a stable fully developed
flow was studied. The amount of water that leaked out of the
cracks was recorded for a minimum of 5 min. Out of this data
the average flow rate in g/min was calculated. Occasionally the
mass over time graph did not have a linear behavior. This could
have been the result of the dislodging of small particles in the
crack. If a non-linear behavior was recorded, only the last linear
part of the data was used.
For each specimen the average flow rate q in g/min can be
decomposed as:

q ¼ q þew þ en þ emeth þ esec
 minimum and maximum q within a series can easily amount up to
in which q is the theoretical general average flow rate of an infi-
nite population of specimens, ew is the error as a result of varia-
tions in the crack width between different specimens, en is the
error due to variations in the internal crack geometry of different
specimens, emeth is the error as a result of the testing method,
and esec is the combined error due to secondary effects.
3. Results
Different series were made to investigate the errors contribut-
ing to the variation on the flow rate. Table 1 shows the crack width
w (mm) and the flow rate q (g/min) for 5 of these series: REF-14d-
161, REF-28d-154, REF-7d-222, REF-7d-305, REF-64d-307. The
name indicates both the mix design, the age at cracking (7, 14,
28, or 64 days), and the mean crack width of the series. For exam-
ple the series REF-14d-161 was made from the reference mix
design, the specimens were cracked at an age of 14 days and the
crack width of the specimens was restrained so that the mean
crack width of the series was equal to 161 mm.
The difference between the crack widths in a series is relatively
low as a result of the use of the active crack control technique. The
range of the crack widths (difference between maximum and min-
imum crack width of a series) is: 9 mm, 10 mm, 17 mm, 24 mm, and
22 mm, respectively. Alternatively, the variation on the crack width
within a series can be expressed as the coefficient of variation COV
which is: 2.9%, 2.8%, 2.8%, 3.2% and 2.3% respectively. These varia-
Fig. 4. Flow rate of specimens relative to the mean flow rate of their respective
series.
tions are quite small; in literature significantly larger ranges have
been reported: 40 mm (crack-width-controlled 3–point bending)
[33], 50 mm (crack-width-controlled 3–point bending) [32], a COV
from 6% to 20% (cylinders cracked through their depth and tied
back together with spacers) [26]. This indicates that the active
crack control technique is able to effectively reduce the variability
on the crack width.
Nevertheless, this does not directly translate in a low variability
of the flow rate, as is illustrated in Fig. 4 which shows the differ-
ence between the flow rate q of a specimen relative to the mean
of its respective series. It is clear that there is quite some variation
ð2Þ between the flow rates within a series. The difference between the
40%. Table 1 indicates that the COV of the flow rate within a series
is an order of magnitude higher than the one on the crack width.
An ANOVA analysis also showed that the flow rate differs between
different series (effective significance level below 0.01%), as is to be
expected due to the varying crack widths between different series.
Student-Newman-Keuls tests (with significance level 5%) indicated
that the flow rate of series REF-14d-161 and REF-28d-154, respec-
tively REF-7d-305 and REF 64d-307, are statistically equal.
It appears that the COV on q is somewhat lower for the speci-
men series REF-64d-307. Partly this can be explained by the fact
that this series has the lowest COV on w, see also Section 4.1. Fur-
thermore, there is also a difference in the nominal crack width
between the different series, see Section 4.2. Additionally, the
higher variation for series with younger concrete can be due to a
small degree of autogenous healing which is not equal for all spec-
imens. The autogenous healing results from continued hydration of
unreacted cement at early age during the saturation period of
2 days prior to permeability testing.
4. Discussion
4.1. Variability due to variations in crack width
Edvardsen [21] proposed the following third power equation to
relate the crack width w (m) to the flow rate q (m3/s) for a through-
depth crack:

Table 1
Overview of crack width w (mm) and flow rate q (g/min) of 5 different reference series with calculation of the mean l, the standard deviation r and the coefficient of variation COV.

REF-14d-161 REF-28d-154 REF-7d-222 REF-7d-305 REF-64d-307

w q w q w q w q w q
1 156 15.5 151 9.9 224 33.1 316 107.7 317 84.9
2 158 11.9 159 12.6 223 26.4 315 76.7 309 102.1
3 164 11.2 157 9.3 230 40.8 298 100.2 306 107.4
4 165 17.1 149 12.2 213 30.7 302 114.3 295 87.0
5 – – 153 13.8 220 36.9 292 94.1 309 97.7
6 – – – – – – 308 86.4 304 103.5
l 161 13.9 154 11.6 222 33.6 305 96.6 307 97.1
r 4.6 2.86 4.2 1.89 6.3 5.55 9.7 13.81 7.1 9.21
COV 2.9% 20.5% 2.8% 16.4% 2.8% 16.5% 3.2% 14.3% 2.3% 9.5%
546 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551

Dp  b  w3 Table 2
q¼n ð3Þ Crack width w (mm), measured flow q (g/min) and calculated reduction factor n (-)
12g  d
before extra restraining, and crack width w (mm), measured flow qmeas (g/min) and
theoretical flow qcalc after extra restraining.
where n is a dimensionless reduction factor which corrects for the
roughness of the crack walls and the deviation from a fully devel- Before extra restraining After extra restraining
oped laminar flow, Dp is the difference in pressure between the w q n w qmeas qcalc
in- and outlet (N/m2), b is the crack length (m), g is the dynamic vis- 1 316 107.7 0.0435 206 34.5 29.6
cosity of the fluid (here water) (Ns/m2), and d is the distance the 2 315 76.7 0.0313 163 10.7 10.7
fluid has to travel through the crack or in other words the crack 3 298 100.2 0.0485 234 58.3 48.7
depth (m). If all parameters except for w are known, Eq. (3) can 4 302 114.3 0.0529 232 58.6 51.5
5 292 94.1 0.0483 226 39.5 43.4
be rewritten as: 6 308 86.4 0.0377 239 39.7 40.2
7 309 102.1 0.0444 253 50.6 56.6
q ¼ A  w3 ð4Þ 8 306 107.4 0.0477 212 28.2 35.5
9 295 87.0 0.0433 259 71.4 58.7
with A a fitting constant. 10 304 103.5 0.0469 244 56.4 53.3
Fig. 5 shows the flow rate in function of the crack width (m) for
the data presented in Table 1 complemented with some additional
own measurements. The figure also shows the third order trend
line calculated using the least square method. This trend line can
be compared to the Edvardsen relation if a few assumptions are
made: the parameter b is assumed to be equal to the width of
the specimens (0.040 m) and the parameter d is assumed to be
equal to the distance from the bottom of the cast-in hole to the
bottom of the specimen (0.0125 m). For all of these experiments
Dp was equal to 4905 N/m2 (0.50 m of water column). Using the
range of the reduction factor n reported by Edvardsen [21] (0.02–
0.17), the fitting constant A can be calculated as 2.61E + 4 1/s for
n equal to 0.02 or 2.22E + 5 1/s for n equal to 0.17. The fitting con-
stant for the trend line found in Fig. 5 for the axis where q is
expressed in m3/s is equal to 5.66E + 4 1/s which falls in-between
Fig. 6. Comparison for 10 different specimens of the measured flow qmeas after
these values. This fitting constant corresponds to an average n
additional restraining against a theoretical flow qcalc calculated by assuming that n
equal to 0.043. If q would be expressed in g/min the fitting constant stays constant when a specimen is further restrained.
for the trend line of Fig. 5 is equal to 3.40E + 12 1/s.
The experimental results in Fig. 5 also confirm that for cracks
with a nearly identical crack width there can still be a high varia-
reduction factor n will not change. Therefore, n is the same before
tion on the flow rate. This variation is caused by differences in the
and after restraining. Using the w measured after restraining, it is
internal crack geometry between different specimens and will be
then possible to calculate a theoretical flow rate qcalc. Fig. 6 com-
elaborated in Section 4.2. In order to limit the influence of the
pares the measured flow qmeas after restraining to the calculated
internal crack geometry, 10 specimens taken from the series REF-
flow qcalc. No clear trend can be discerned. An unpaired samples
7d-305 and REF-64d-307 were dried after their initial water flow
t-test shows that qmeas (l = 44.8 g/min, r = 17.8 g/min) is statisti-
test and their crack width was further restrained, after which an
cally equal to qcalc (l = 42.8 g/min, r = 14.6 g/min) with an effec-
additional water flow test was performed. From the initial crack
tive significance level of 37.7%. This is a clear indication of the
width measurement and the initial water flow test, n could be cal-
validity of the Edvardsen equation. Using this equation, it can be
culated according to Eq. (3), see Table 2. Under the assumption that
concluded that the variability of w induces a 3 times higher vari-
the extra restraining of the specimens is a purely 1D translational
ability of q, if all other factors remain constant (see also Sec-
movement by which the crack walls come closer together, the
tion 4.4). Therefore, it is of paramount importance to work with
narrow crack width ranges when performing water permeability
experiments.
However, the assumption that extra restraining induces a
purely 1D translational movement is not entirely valid. What will
actually happen is that the two crack walls will rotate towards
one another relative to an origin located at the crack tip. Since this
movement will not be a perfect rotation, some parts of the oppos-
ing crack walls may come into contact with one another, also loose
particles inside the crack might move, etc. Additionally, the extra
restraining causes the formation of small cracks at the bottom of
the specimen, see Fig. 7. These smalls cracks are perpendicular to
the main crack. They are located at the edge of the specimen and
are a result of the stiff methyl methacrylate used for sealing the
sides of the crack which resists the extra restraining. It is important
to note that the methyl methacrylate is only applied after the ini-
tial restraining; these small cracks are thus only formed when
extra restraining is applied. The exact influence of these cracks
on the water flow is unknown. However, due to the fact that these
Fig. 5. Flow rate in function of crack width for many different reference specimens cracks are smaller than the main crack and their length is limited,
(R2 = 91.6%). The formula of the trend line is to be used with q expressed in m3/s. it is assumed that their influence on q will not be dominant.
 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551 547

Fig. 8. Difference of crack width w and flow rate q relative to the mean of each
group (4 specimens in group 1 and 6 specimens in group 2).

Fig. 7. Main crack (vertical) and cracks due to extra restraining (horizontal). The
white near the top is the sealing.
COV on q cannot be explained by the larger data size of group 2;
disregarding for example specimen 1 and 2 in group 2 would result
4.2. Variability due to the internal crack geometry in an even lower COV of q. A possible physical explanation could be
that for bigger cracks the crack walls are further apart, meaning
The variation on the crack width alone cannot account for the that the influence of the internal geometry becomes less pro-
complete variation on the flow; in Table 1 the COV of q is for all ser- nounced. For smaller crack widths the crack walls are closer
ies distinctly larger than 3 times the COV of w. This is further together; therefore, the influence of the internal crack geometry
demonstrated by for example comparing specimen 1 (w = 316 mm becomes more dominant.
and q = 107.7 g/min) and 2 (w = 315 mm and q = 76.7 g/min) of ser-
ies REF-7d-305. They have a nearly identical crack width w, but 4.3. Variability due to the water flow test method
specimen 2 has a flow rate q which is more than 25% smaller than
the flow rate of specimen 1. Similar examples can easily be found When the water flow test is executed for one specimen, there is
in Table 1. They illustrate the importance of the internal crack a certain error on q as a result of the test method itself. This ran-
geometry on the variation of q. dom error consists out of variations between different measure-
Studying the influence of the internal crack geometry on the ments of the same specimen, as well as variations within one
flow results is not straightforward. The internal crack geometry measurement. This type of error exists for any kind of test method
is represented in Eq. (3) by the reduction parameter n. It is impos- and is the combination of many negligible random errors. For the
sible to determine this parameter directly. Techniques such as water flow test this error can be the result of: operator sensitivity,
tomography would provide a qualitative description of the internal small changes in the environmental conditions, small changes in
crack geometry but would not provide a quantitative description. the water head, accuracy of the scale, small particles which detach
Nevertheless, the influence of the crack geometry can be studied from the crack wall and either block a certain part of the crack or
by comparing results of flow tests on specimens with (nearly) are flushed out,. . .
identical crack widths. For this purpose the data in Table 1 is fil- In order to determine the magnitude of this error, the water
tered and combined in 2 groups with (nearly) identical crack flow test on series REF-7d-305 and REF- 64d-307 was redone twice
widths, see Table 3. From Fig. 8 it is clear that the variation on q more after the initial test reported in Table 1. The testing proce-
is quite large even though w is almost identical for the specimens dure was as follows: a specimen was taken out of saturation, was
within a group. The COV of w is almost identical for both groups: tested, and was then again saturated until the moment it was
0.88% and 0.85% for respectively group 1 and group 2. The COV of tested again. All water flow tests for one series were performed
q is equal to 20.8%, respectively 9.3%. at the same day. The results of the three water flow tests are dis-
The COV of q is lower for group 2 which has a larger mean crack played in Fig. 9. No clear trend can be seen between the repetitions
width (even though the COV of w is similar to group 1). This lower of a specimen, indicating the random character of this error. The
COV of the three measurements of one specimen varies from
0.96% to 4.53% for series REF-7d-305 and from 0.17% to 4.46% for
Table 3 series REF-64d-307, see Table 4.
Crack width w,flow rate q (g/min) and age (days) of 2 groups with an almost identical
crack width within each group. 4.4. Mathematical derivation of the error on the flow rate
Group 1 Group 2
w q Age w q Age
The COV of q can mathematically be derived from Eq. (3) under
the propagation of error theory by using a first order Taylor
1 156 15.5 14 302 114.3 7
2 157 9.3 28 304 103.5 64
approximation [35]. It can be assumed that the crack width w
3 158 11.9 14 306 107.4 64 and the internal crack geometry n are independent from one
4 159 12.6 28 308 86.4 7 another: slightly opening a crack would increase w but would
5 309 97.7 64 not change the internal crack geometry. The practical situation will
6 309 102.1 64
slightly deviate from the assumed independency, as is indicated in
l 157 12.3 306 101.9 Section 4.2. However, a more detailed study on the influence of the
r 1.4 2.56 2.6 9.45
interaction of w and n on q is required to make a better theoretical
COV 0.88% 20.8% 0.85% 9.3%
formulation.
548 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551

Fig. 9. Results of three repetitions (R1, R2 and R3) of water flow tests on six specimen of both series REF-7d-305 and REF-64d-307.

value of q and not of its mean. In Fig. 10 this function is evaluated

Table 4
for different COVn and COVw values. There are two extreme cases:
Mean l, standard deviation r and coefficient of variation COV of flow rate obtained
from the three water flow tests performed on each specimen of series REF-7d-305 and no variation on w and no variation on n. In the case that all cracks
REF-64d-307. have identically the same crack width, the variation on q would
be exactly the same as the variation on n. This case is indicated
REF-7d-305 REF-64d-307
by the linear, full line. The other extreme case is that the internal
l r COV l r COV
geometry is so similar between different cracks that there is no
(g/min) (g/min) (g/min) (g/min)
variation on n. The variation on q is then entirely determined by
1 106.4 1.3 1.26% 80.9 3.61 4.46%
the variation on w. This case is shown by the intersection of the
2 80.5 3.6 4.53% 102.3 0.18 0.17%
3 102.6 3.1 3.01% 107.8 0.34 0.31% lines with the left vertical axis. The variation on q is then threefold
4 114.7 1.1 0.96% 88.7 1.65 1.86% the variation on w.
5 96.4 2.2 2.23% 100.2 2.31 2.30% As already stated in Section 4.2, it is impossible to determine n
6 88.3 2.0 2.30% 105.7 1.89 1.79% directly. COVn can be determined by rewriting Eq. (5) in such a way
that n is a function of q and w:

Under the assumption that w and n are the dominating factors q

n¼ ð9Þ
and independent from each other in a small crack width range, B  w3
Eq. (3) for the calculation of q can be simplified and COVq can be To calculate COVn it can be assumed that w and q are the dom-
calculated as: inating factors, yet they cannot be assumed independent. The flow
rate q is directly dependent on the crack width w; increasing the
q ¼ n  w3  B ð5Þ
crack width would evidently change the flow rate. COVn can be cal-
 2  2 culated as:
@q @q
r2q ¼ r2n þ r2 ð6Þ
@n l @w l w  2  2    
@n @n @n @n
r2n ¼ r2q þ r2w þ 2 rqw ð10Þ
    @q l @w l @q l @w l
r ¼ Bl
2
q
3 2
w r þ 3 B  ln  l
2
n
2 2
w r
2
w ð7Þ

2

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 lq 2 2

1


lq 
COV q ¼ COV n2 þ 9 COV w2 ð8Þ r2n ¼ r2q þ 3 r þ 2 3 rqw
B  l3w B  l4w w
B  l3w B  l4w
in which [@q/on] and [@q/ow] are the partial derivatives of q to n, ð11Þ
respectively w, which should be evaluated at the mean values of n
and w, and B is a factor combining all the constant terms in Eq. sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(3). Note that this is the coefficient of variation of an individual rqw
COV n ¼ COV q2 þ 9 COV w2  6 ð12Þ
lq  lw

in which [@n/oq] and [@n/ow] are the partial derivatives of n to q,

Fig. 10. COVq in function of COVn for different COVw varying from 0% until 10%.
respectively w, which should be evaluated at the mean values of q
and w, and rqw is the covariance between q and w. For the series
in Table 1 COVn calculated according to Eq. (12) varies from 11.9%
to 21.1%.
It can be seen in Fig. 10 that when COVw is small (up to 4%), as is
the case for the reported series, and COVn is larger than 10%, the
value of COVq is mainly dependent on COVn. This is an ideal case:
the crack widths of the different specimen of a series have been
controlled in such a way that the variation on the crack width
has only a limited influence on the variation of the flow rate. The
variation on the flow rate is thus mainly governed by the variation
on the internal geometry which cannot be controlled.
 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551
4.5. Stability of the active crack control technique
The active crack control technique is not entirely stable: when
crack width measurements before and after water flow testing
were compared (2–3 days difference), it was noticed that there
was some elastic crack closure which did not seem related to auto-
genous healing. To study this phenomenon five specimens were
cast and cracked at an age of 28 days. After controlling their crack
width to a mean width of 159 mm, the specimens were stored in an
air-conditioned room (20 ± 2 °C and RH 60 ± 5%) for 7 days. Under
such a dry environment autogenous healing is not expected to take
place [9,36–39]. After the dry storage the crack width of the spec-
imens decreased (Fig. 11) on average by 22 mm. This elastic crack
closure can be explained by an elastic regain of the CFRP and by
some localized creep and crushing of the mortar near the crack
tip where the crack walls will be in contact with one another at
some locations due to the tortuosity of the crack. Note that this
elastic closure is much smaller and much more consistent than
the elastic closure which can be monitored for specimens with
steel reinforcement. For example Gruyaert et al. [33] loaded spec-
imens in a crack-width-controlled 3-point bending test until
300 mm to have a final crack width after unloading of 150 mm.
Tziviloglou et al. [32] also loaded specimens in a crack-width-
controlled 3-point bending test, yet they loaded until 350 mm to
have a final crack width after unloading of 300 mm, although it
should be noted that many specimens had a crack width lower
than 275 mm. These studies did not investigate the stability of a
crack over time (without the influence of healing).
4.6. Recommendations for test conditions
It is evident from the previous that the variation on the water
flow results cannot be completely eliminated. This is independent
of the cracking method and the permeability method which is used
and is a result of the fact that the internal crack geometry cannot
be controlled if real cracks are tested. However, when designing
a test program measures can be taken to reduce the variability of
the flow rate as much as possible. When the test method and the
layout of the specimens is constant, the focus should mainly be
on the variation on the crack widths and the number of specimens
which will be tested.
Section 4.1 indicated that it is important to work with narrow
crack width ranges when performing water permeability experi-
ments. Fig. 10 showed that as long as the COV of the crack width
stays below 4%, the contribution to the variation of the flow rate
will be limited. Therefore, it is important to think carefully about
Fig. 11. Crack width w immediately after crack control and after 7 days of dry
storage.
549
how the specimens will be cracked. If it is not possible to guarantee
a low variation on the crack width a control technique should be
used, as was done in this research.
Eq. (8) in Section 4.4 gave the coefficient of variation on an indi-
vidual value of q. When drawing conclusions and comparing
results with other studies it is mainly the mean of q which is
important, not the individual values. The variation on the mean
of q can similarly to eq. (8) be calculated as:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
COV n2 COV w2
COV lq ¼ þ9 ð13Þ
n n
where n is the number of specimens. This function was evaluated
for different sample sizes with a COVw which is constant and equal
to 4%, see Fig. 12. It is clear that the variation on the mean of q can
significantly be reduced if the sample size is increased from 3 spec-
imens to 6 specimens. A further increase in sample size only results
in a limited reduction. It can be concluded that a sample size of 6
specimens within a series will generally not result in a variation
on the mean of q which is larger than 10% if COVw is smaller than 4%.
The active crack control technique which was developed
induced a small amount of elastic closure of the crack over time,
see Section 4.5. To reduce this elastic closure of the crack an alter-
native crack width control step could be applied. This alternative
approach consists of restraining the crack width to roughly 30–
50 mm more than the intended crack width and allowing for some
acclimatization time. During this time there will already be some
elastic closure. When the crack width is restrained to its intended
value the amount of elastic closure that can still develop is more
limited, since already part of the elastic closure has occurred dur-
ing the acclimatization time. However, the elastic closure over
time will not be completely prevented. If a completely fixed crack
width is required, the elastic closure over time could be prevented
by stabilization of the specimens. This could be done using epoxy,
similarly as is done for thin section analysis (but without allowing
the epoxy to flow into the crack by sealing it using e.g. aluminum
tape). Alternatively, CFRP strips could be glued on the sides of the
specimens to prevent any movement in the crack.
This paper focussed on the development of a stable water per-
meability test, with an assessment of the factors contributing to
variability. Tests were performed on specimens cracked at different
ages as the method has to be applicable for all different cracking
ages and self-healing strategies. When assessing the efficiency of
a specific self-healing strategy with respect to the regain in liquid
tightness, the age of cracking will play a significant role in the
amount of autogenous healing. Strategies based upon a slow
autonomous healing will have a significant influence of the autoge-
nous healing, while strategies based on a quick autonomous heal-
ing (e.g. encapsulated polymers) will only have a limited influence
of the autogenous healing.
Fig. 12. COVlq in function of COVn for different sample sizes (COVw equal to 4%).
550 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551
5. Conclusions
The use of an active crack control technique to study the varia-
tion on the water flow results for specimens with triangular
shaped cracks demonstrated that:
- the proposed active crack control technique is able to signifi-
cantly reduce the variation on the crack width results, resulting
in a maximum COV of 3.2% within a test series;
- the proposed active crack control technique induces a small
degree of elastic crack closure as a result of elastic regain and
localized crushing and creep of the mortar near the crack tip;
- recommendations to reduce the elastic closure have been
proposed;
- the variation on the flow rate is the result of two main factors:
the variation on the crack width and the variation on the inter-
nal crack geometry;
- the flow rate is influenced by the crack width to the third power
for the studied cracks;
- for series with a low variation on the crack width (±2–3%) the
variation on the flow rate is a magnitude higher (10–20%), this
large variation is the result of the internal crack geometry
which cannot be directly determined;
- for narrower cracks the crack walls are closer together and the
influence of the internal crack geometry can become more
important; however, a more extensive study is required to
accurately assess the magnitude of this influence;
- the variation on the flow rate results is mainly determined by
the variation on the internal crack geometry if the variation
on the crack width stays below 4%;
- a sample size of 6 specimens within a test series will generally
not result in a variation on the mean of q which is larger than
10% if COVw is smaller than 4%.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant (19SCIP-B103706-05)
from the Construction Technology Research Program funded by
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean
government. Mr. D. Hillewaere from the Magnel Laboratory of Con-
crete Research is thanked for his technical support in the develop-
ment of the test equipment. TRADECC and ENCI are thanked for
their generous donation of materials.
Conflict of interest statement
None.
References
[1] E. Cailleux, V. Pollet, Investigations on the development of self-healing
properties in protective coatings for concrete and repair mortars,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Self-Healing Materials,
2009.
[2] D. Carolyn, M. William, Three-part methylmethacrylate adhesive system as an
internal delivery system for smart responsive concrete, Smart Mater. Struct. 5
(3) (1996) 297.
[3] K. Van Tittelboom, N. De Belie, D. Van Loo, P. Jacobs, Self-healing efficiency of
cementitious materials containing tubular capsules filled with healing agent,
Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (4) (2011) 497–505.
[4] H.M. Jonkers, A. Thijssen, G. Muyzer, O. Copuroglu, E. Schlangen, Application of
bacteria as self-healing agent for the development of sustainable concrete,
Ecol. Eng. 36 (2) (2010) 230–235, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoleng.2008.12.036.
[5] K. Van Tittelboom, N. De Belie, W. De Muynck, W. Verstraete, Use of bacteria to
repair cracks in concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (1) (2010) 157–166, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.08.025.
[6] D. Snoeck, P. Dubruel, N. De Belie, Superabsorbent polymers to prevent water
movement in cementitious materials, Int. J. 3 R’S 3 (3) (2012) 432–440.
[7] D. Snoeck, S. Steuperaert, K. Van Tittelboom, P. Dubruel, N. De Belie,
Visualization of water penetration in cementitious materials with
superabsorbent polymers by means of neutron radiography, Cem. Concr. Res.
42 (8) (2012) 1113–1121.
[8] L. Ferrara, V. Krelani, F. Moretti, On the use of crystalline admixtures in cement
based construction materials: from porosity reducers to promoters of self
healing, Smart Mater. Struct. 25 (8) (2016) 084002.
[9] M. Roig-Flores, S. Moscato, P. Serna, L. Ferrara, Self-healing capability of
concrete with crystalline admixtures in different environments, Constr. Build.
Mater. 86 (2015) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.091.
[10] L. Ferrara, T. Van Mullem, M.C. Alonso, P. Antonaci, R.P. Borg, E. Cuenca, A.
Jefferson, P.-L. Ng, A. Peled, M. Roig-Flores, M. Sanchez, C. Schroefl, P. Serna, D.
Snoeck, J.M. Tulliani, N. De Belie, Experimental characterization of the self-
healing capacity of cement based materials and its effects on the material
performance: a state of the art report by COST Action SARCOS WG2, Constr.
Build. Mater. 167 (2018) 115–142.
[11] M. De Rooij, K. Van Tittelboom, N. De Belie, E. Schlangen, Self-healing
Phenomena in Cement-Based Materials: State-of-the-art Report of RILEM
Technical Committee 221-SHC: Self-Healing Phenomena in Cement-Based
Materials, vol. 11, Springer, 2013.
[12] M. S ß ahmaran, S.B. Keskin, G. Ozerkan, I.O. Yaman, Self-healing of
mechanically-loaded self consolidating concretes with high volumes of fly
ash, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (10) (2008) 872–879, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2008.07.001.
[13] R. Alghamri, A. Kanellopoulos, A. Al-Tabbaa, Impregnation and encapsulation
of lightweight aggregates for self-healing concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 124
(2016) 910–921.
[14] J. Feiteira, E. Gruyaert, N. De Belie, Self-healing of moving cracks in concrete by
means of encapsulated polymer precursors, Constr. Build. Mater. 102 (2016)
671–678.
[15] M. Araújo, S. Van Vlierberghe, J. Feiteira, G.-J. Graulus, K. Van Tittelboom, J.C.
Martins, P. Dubruel, N. De Belie, Cross-linkable polyethers as healing/sealing
agents for self-healing of cementitious materials, Mater. Des. 98 (2016) 215–
222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.03.005.
[16] B. Van Belleghem, R. Montoya, J. Dewanckele, N. Van den Steen, I. De Graeve, J.
Deconinck, V. Cnudde, K. Van Tittelboom, N. De Belie, Capillary water
absorption in cracked and uncracked mortar–A comparison between
experimental study and finite element analysis, Constr. Build. Mater. 110
(2016) 154–162.
[17] Y.A. Villagrán Zaccardi, N.M. Alderete, N. De Belie, Improved model for
capillary absorption in cementitious materials: progress over the fourth root of
time, Cem. Concr. Res. 100 (2017) 153–165, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2017.07.003.
[18] K. Wang, D.C. Jansen, S.P. Shah, A.F. Karr, Permeability study of cracked
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 27 (3) (1997) 381–393, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0008-8846(97)00031-8.
[19] C.-M. Aldea, S.P. Shah, A. Karr, Effect of cracking on water and chloride
permeability of concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 11 (3) (1999) 181–187.
[20] M. Tsukamoto, Tightness of fiber concrete, Darmstadt Concr. 5 (3) (1990) 215–
225.
[21] C. Edvardsen, Water permeability and autogenous healing of cracks in
concrete, Mater. J. 96 (4) (1999) 448–454.
[22] C.-M. Aldea, W.-J. Song, J.S. Popovics, S.P. Shah, Extent of healing of cracked
normal strength concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 12 (1) (2000) 92–96.
[23] K.V. Tittelboom, K. Adesanya, P. Dubruel, P.V. Puyvelde, N.D. Belie, Methyl
methacrylate as a healing agent for self-healing cementitious materials, Smart
Mater. Struct. 20 (12) (2011) 125016.
[24] D.T.W. Snoeck, K.T.W. Van Tittelboom, S.W.E. Steuperaert, P. Dubruel, N.T.W.
De Belie, Self-healing cementitious materials by the combination of
microfibres and superabsorbent polymers, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. (2014).
[25] D. Homma, H. Mihashi, T. Nishiwaki, Self-healing capability of fibre reinforced
cementitious composites, J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 7 (2) (2009) 217–228.
[26] K.J. Shin, W. Bae, S.-W. Choi, M.W. Son, K.M. Lee, Parameters influencing water
permeability coefficient of cracked concrete specimens, Constr. Build. Mater.
151 (2017) 907–915, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.093.
[27] D. Palin, H.M. Jonkers, V. Wiktor, Autogenous healing of sea-water exposed
mortar: quantification through a simple and rapid permeability test, Cem.
Concr. Res. 84 (2016) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.02.011.
[28] V. Mechtcherine, M. Lieboldt, Permeation of water and gases through cracked
textile reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 33 (7) (2011) 725–734,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.04.001.
[29] K. Van Tittelboom, J. Wang, M. Araújo, D. Snoeck, E. Gruyaert, B. Debbaut, H.
Derluyn, V. Cnudde, E. Tsangouri, D. Van Hemelrijck, Comparison of different
approaches for self-healing concrete in a large-scale lab test, Constr. Build.
Mater. 107 (2016) 125–137.
[30] E. Tziviloglou, H.M. Jonkers, E. Schlangen, Bacteria-based self-healing concrete
to increase liquid tightness of cracks, Paper presented at the First conference
on ageing of materials and structures, Delft, The Netherlands, 2014.
[31] E. Tziviloglou, V. Wiktor, H. Jonkers, E. Schlangen, Bacteria-based self-healing
concrete to increase liquid tightness of cracks, Constr. Build. Mater. 122 (2016)
118–125.
[32] E. Tziviloglou, V. Wiktor, J. Wang, K. Paine, M. Alazhari, A. Richardson, M.
Gueguen, N. De Belie, E. Schlangen, H. Jonkers, Evaluation of experimental
methodology to assess the sealing efficiency of bacteria-based self-healing
mortar: round robin test, in: RILEM Conference on Microorganisms-
Cementitious Materials Interactions, RILEM, 2016, pp. 156–170.
 T. Van Mullem et al. / Construction and Building Materials 203 (2019) 541–551
[33] E. Gruyaert, B. Debbaut, D. Snoeck, P. Díaz, A. Arizo, E. Tziviloglou, E. Schlangen,
N. De Belie, Self-healing mortar with pH-sensitive superabsorbent polymers:
testing of the sealing efficiency by water flow tests, Smart Mater. Struct. 25 (8)
(2016) 084007.
[34] J. Feiteira, Self-Healing Concrete–Encapsulated Polymer Precursors as Healing
Agents for Active Cracks PhD thesis, Ghent University, Ghent, 2017.
[35] H.H. Ku, Notes on the use of propagation of error formulas, J. Res. Nat. Bur.
Stand. 70 (4) (1966).
[36] L. Ferrara, I. Albertini, R. Gettu, V. Krelani, S. Moscato, F. Pirritano, M.R. Flores,
P.S. Ros, S.M. Theeda, Self healing of cement based materials engineered
through crystalline admixtures: experimental results from a multinational
university network, Special Publ. 305 (2015). 13.11-13.10.
551
[37] J. Wang, J. Dewanckele, V. Cnudde, S. Van Vlierberghe, W. Verstraete, N. De
Belie, X-ray computed tomography proof of bacterial-based self-healing in
concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 53 (2014) 289–304, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2014.07.014.
[38] D. Snoeck, K. Van Tittelboom, S. Steuperaert, P. Dubruel, N. De Belie, Self-
healing cementitious materials by the combination of microfibres and
superabsorbent polymers, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 25 (1) (2014) 13–24,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389x12438623.
[39] H. Huang, G. Ye, C. Qian, E. Schlangen, Self-healing in cementitious materials:
materials, methods and service conditions, Mater. Des. 92 (2016) 499–511,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.12.091.