Abrasion Resistance of Concrete

Exposed to Organic Acids

Sungwoo Park, Ph.D. 1; Lisa Castellano 2; Morton A. Barlaz, F.ASCE 3; and Mohammad Pour-Ghaz, M.ASCE 4

Abstract: The objective of this study is to investigate how exposure of concrete to organic acids affects its resistance to mechanical abrasion
and to identify the most important factors contributing to its abrasion resistance under acid exposure. The abrasion resistance of both cement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pastes and concrete materials with different water-to-cement ratios (w/c), coarse aggregate type, and proportions of aggregate were exper-
imentally measured after exposure to organic acids. In addition, the effect of silica fume, latex, fibers, and chemical surface hardeners on
the abrasion resistance of cement paste and concrete materials were investigated. The results indicate that in the absence or presence of an
organic acid attack, the abrasion resistance of concrete is primarily a function of the hardness of the coarse aggregates and w/c plays a
secondary role. While a secondary factor, the effect of w/c on the abrasion resistance is more significant in the presence of an organic acid
attack. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003251. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction The objective of this work was to investigate how exposure

The impetus for the present study was the widely reported prema-
ture deterioration of the concrete floors in solid waste transfer sta-
tions (WTS) (Park et al. 2018). Concrete floors in solid waste
transfer stations are exposed to organic acids in waste leachate
and mechanical abrasion from the solid waste handling equipment
(e.g., loader). The results of a nationwide survey indicate that the
premature deterioration of concrete floors in WTSs is a major con-
cern for owners and operators of these facilities (Park et al. 2018).
The common deteriorations that are observed include degradation
of paste and aggregate exposure, aggregate dislodging, and crack-
ing; and the median service life of concrete floors was only seven
years. Such a short service life results in significant direct cost of
replacement and even more significant indirect costs because of
operational delays in these facilities.
The problem is further compounded by a lack of an industry
standard practice for the design of WTS concrete floors. Currently,
only compressive strength of concrete is used in the design of these
floors and the durability of the concrete under the specific exposure
condition in WTS is not considered. Concrete materials with a wide
range of compressive strength (3–10 Ksi) have been used in WTSs,
resulting in large variations in service life expectancy. The over-
arching goal of the present study is to provide engineers with a
guide to design WTS concrete floors for durability.
1 of coarse aggregate hardness and volume fraction; (3) no general
Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering,
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27606 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7132-4753. Email: spark19@ncsu
.edu
2
Environmental Engineering Lab Manager, Dept. of Civil, Construc-
tion, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh,
NC 27606.
3
Distinguished University Professor and Head, Dept. of Civil, Construc-
tion, and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh,
NC 27606.
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental
Engineering, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27606.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 22, 2019; approved on
December 30, 2019; published online on May 25, 2020. Discussion period
open until October 25, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
of concrete to organic acids affects its resistance to mechanical
abrasion and to understand whether our understanding of factors
controlling the abrasion resistance of concrete holds true when
simultaneous organic acid attack and mechanical abrasion is
concerned.
The abrasion resistance of concrete has been long identified
as an important property as concrete materials are often subjected
to mechanical abrasion. As such, abrasion resistance has been
well studied. For example, Liu (1981) reported that the hardness
of coarse aggregates is a significant factor contributing to the abra-
sion resistance of concrete. Nanni (1989) suggested that a proper
moist-curing condition is essential for abrasion-resistant concrete.
Laplante et al. (1991) observed that the abrasion resistance of high-
strength concretes largely depends on the type of coarse aggregate
and that the addition of silica fume slightly improves concrete
abrasion resistance. Li et al. (2006) showed that the use of poly-
propylene fibers increases abrasion resistance. Similarly, Won et al.
(2009) showed that the use of metakaolin and latex can improve the
abrasion resistance of concrete. More recently, Park and Pour-Ghaz
(2019) developed a new abrasion resistance test method and studied
the abrasion resistance of concrete. They showed that (1) the abra-
sion resistance of concrete is primarily controlled by the hardness
and the volume fraction of the coarse aggregates; (2) decreasing
the water-to-cement ratio (w/c) of the mixture may increase the
abrasion resistance of concrete, but its effect is smaller than those
correlation exists between w/c and abrasion resistance; and (4) in
general, no correlation exists between compressive strength and
abrasion resistance.
While many factors affecting the mechanical abrasion of con-
crete have been characterized, the effect of exposure to organic
acids on abrasion resistance has not been studied. Given the alka-
line nature of concrete materials, reduction of the abrasion resis-
tance of concrete with exposure to organic acids is hypothesized
to be due to the formation of water-soluble calcium salts that result
from the reaction of acids with calcium-containing hydrated phases
(Zivica and Bajza 2001). For example, the following reaction be-
tween acetic acid and CaðOHÞ2 (CH) has been proposed (Moore
et al. 2001):
2CH3 COOH þ CaðOHÞ2 → CaðCH3 COOÞ2 þ 2H2 O ð1Þ

© ASCE 04020205-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205

 The presence of acetic acid lowers the pH of concrete and results
in the degradation of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) that is a stable
phase at high pH (Taylor 1997). Since CH provides a buffer against
acids and protects the CSH, concrete materials with a high cement
content may provide better performance in resisting organic acids
(Zivica and Bajza 2001). The use of supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs), in contrast, may reduce the resistance of con-
crete to organic acids due the conversion of CH to CSH by SCMs.
The chemical composition of the aggregates may also play a role
in increasing the resistance of concrete against organic acids since
aggregates such as limestone may react with acids and provide a
buffer to protect the hydrated phases (Barnard 1967; Chang et al.
2005; Thistlethwayte and on Hydrogen Sulphide Corrosion in
Sewerage Works 1972; Hughes and Guest 1978; Harrison 1987).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
In consideration of previous research on the abrasion resistance
of concrete and organic acid attack on concrete, the broad research
question of the present study is whether our current understanding
of the abrasion resistance of concrete holds true in the presence of
simultaneous organic acid attack and mechanical abrasion. More
specifically, the present study aims to address the following ques-
tions: (1) Previous research shows that while secondary to the hard-
ness of coarse aggregates, a decrease of w/c increases the abrasion
resistance of concrete (Liu 1981; Laplante et al. 1991); does this
hold true in the presence of organic acid attack? (2) While the
use of harder coarse aggregate (e.g., granite as opposed to lime-
stone) increases the abrasion resistance of concrete (Laplante et al.
1991; Liu 1981), carbonate aggregates (e.g., limestone) may pro-
tect the cement paste against organic acid attack by providing a
buffer. Can a combination of granite and limestone aggregate be
used to increase the concrete abrasion resistance in the presence
of organic acid attack? (3) The addition of silica fume to concrete
converts CH to CSH, decreasing its porosity and increasing its
compressive strength. Published data also indicate that the use of
silica fume increases the abrasion resistance of concrete (Laplante
et al. 1991; Liu 2007; Rashad et al. 2014; Roy et al. 2001). How-
ever, when exposed to organic acids, the presence of CH may be
beneficial in protecting the CSH against degradation (Zivica and
Bajza 2001). Does the use of silica fume degrade the abrasion re-
sistance of concrete in the presence of organic acids? (4) The use
of latex in concrete may increase its abrasion resistance (Shaker
et al. 1997; Won et al. 2009). However, latex may react with organic
acids, adversely affecting the abrasion resistance of concrete. How
does the use of latex in concrete affect its abrasion resistance in the
presence of organic acid? (5) The use of polymeric fibers may in-
crease the abrasion resistance of concrete (Kabay 2014; Li et al.
2006). Are the use of polymeric fibers effective when concrete
is exposed to organic acids?
The approach to address the aforementioned questions is de-
scribed in the following experimental design and materials sections.
This includes the approach to evaluate mixture proportions, speci-
men preparation, and the formulation used for the organic acid
solution. A chemical analysis of the solid waste leachate is reported
in the “Results and Discussion” section. This is followed by the
results of the impact of organic acids and w/c on the abrasion re-
sistance of concrete.
Experimental Design
Multiple cement paste and concrete materials were prepared, and
their abrasion resistance was evaluated after exposure to an organic
acid solution. Before proceeding further, we would like to highlight
two points: (1) In the present study, the recently developed abrasion
resistance test method by Park and Pour-Ghaz (2019) was used.
© ASCE 04020205-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205
This test method was selected since it has less variability as com-
pared to previous test methods. A brief description of this test
method is provided herein, and detailed information has been re-
ported (Park and Pour-Ghaz 2019). (2) The organic acid solution
used in the present study was formulated based on the chemical
analyses of several solid waste leachate solutions, as this research
was motivated by the widely reported premature deterioration
of concrete floors in solid waste transfer stations across the
United States (Park et al. 2018). The previous work by Bertron et al.
(2005) also suggests that the use of a combination of organic acids
results in a more aggressive degradation of concrete than degrada-
tion due to exposure to a single organic acid. Furthermore, in real
applications, the possibility of exposure of concrete to a single
organic acid is very small since multiple organic acids would be
present simultaneously.
Materials
Cement Paste
The abrasion resistance of mature cement pastes of varying w/c
ratios was tested after exposure to organic acids for up to 120 days.
Table 1 provides the list of the cement paste materials tested. All
cement pastes were cast in 5.1 × 5.1 × 61 cm (2 × 2 × 24 in.)
rectangular PVC molds and were seal-cured for one year. The
pastes were then cut into 5.1 × 5.1 × 5.1 cm (2 × 2 × 2 in.) cubes
for use in exposure testing and then exposed to organic acid sol-
ution as well as a water control. In addition to the effect of w/c, the
effects of polymeric fibers and commercial chemical surface hard-
eners were studied. The fibers were synthetic polymeric fibers com-
plying with ASTM C1116 type III and comprised 1% of the cement
paste by volume. The chemical surface hardener was a typical com-
mercially available product consisting mainly of lithium silicate.
This hardener was applied to the entire surface of each specimen
with a brush and dried for 24 h before the initiation of abrasion
testing or exposure to the organic acid solution (following the
manufacture’s recommendations).
All cement paste specimens were fully submerged in an organic
acid solution inside a high-density polyethylene container. The
overall volume ratio of the specimens to the acidic solution was
0.95. The initial pH of the acidic solution was 4.7. The pH of
the acidic solution was monitored daily and the solution was
replaced with a new solution when the pH increased to 10. This
resulted in daily solution replacement for the first 8 days and every
two days thereafter. After exposure for 30, 60, and 120 days, a set
of specimens (three replicates) were removed from the acidic sol-
ution and tested for abrasion resistance. The results show that im-
mersion in synthetic leachate accelerates concrete degradation as
compared to field conditions. The acceleration of degradation
was, however, necessary to evaluate the performance of concrete
in a short time.
Table 1. Cement paste specimens tested
Name w/c Additive/treatment
Paste 0.30 0.30 —
Paste 0.42 0.42 —
Paste 0.48 0.48 —
Paste 0.30 fiber 0.30 Polymeric fiber
Paste 0.42 fiber 0.42 Polymeric fiber
Paste 0.30 surface hardener 0.30 Surface hardener
Paste 0.42 surface hardener 0.42 Surface hardener
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Table 2. Concrete specimens tested
Name w/ca Aggregate Other ingredients
Concr 0.30 Grnt 0.30 Granite —
Concr 0.30 Lmst 0.30 Limestone —
Concr 0.30 Grnt&Lmst 0.30 Granite + Limestoneb —
Concr 0.30 Grnt-SF 0.30 Granite Silica fume (5% of cement by W.)
Concr 0.30 Grnt-Fbr 0.30 Granite Polymeric fiber (1.5% of cement by V.)
Concr 0.30 Grnt-Ltx 0.30 Granite Latex (15% of cement by W.)
Concr 0.47 Grnt-Ltx 0.47 Granite Latex (15% of cement by W.)
Concr 0.48 Grnt 0.48 Granite —
Concr 0.48 Lmst 0.48 Limestone —
Concr 0.48 Grnt&Lmst 0.48 Granite + Limestonea —
Note: 1% superplasticizer (by mass of cement) was used in mixtures with w=c ¼ 0.30.
a
The water to cement ratio.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

b
The proportions of granite and limestone aggregates were each 50%.

Concrete
The concrete materials tested are listed in Table 2. Granite and
limestone aggregates with 1.3 cm (1=2 in.) maximum aggregate
size were used. In all concrete mixtures, the total volumetric aggre-
gate content was 70% (28% fine aggregate and 42% coarse aggre-
gate by volume). In mixtures containing silica fume, polymeric
fibers, and latex emulsion, commercially available products were
used. In concrete mixtures with w=c ¼ 0.30, 1% (by mass of ce-
ment) commercially available superplasticizer was used. Two con-
crete mixtures containing latex were produced; in the case of Concr
0.30 Grnt-Ltx, the water content of the latex emulsion was ac-
counted for so that the final w/c of the mixture remained constant
at 0.30, and in the case of Concr 0.47 Grnt-Ltx, the water content of
the latex emulsion was not corrected for, resulting in a w/c of 0.47,
while the ratio of cement to mixing water during batching was 0.30.
All concrete mixtures were cast in 2 × 2 × 24 in. rectangular PVC
pipes and were seal-cured for six months to reduce the effect of
their maturity on the results (Yen et al. 2007). The mixtures were
then cut into 2 × 2 × 2 in. cubes for use in organic acid exposure
experiments.
The same method used for cement paste specimens was adopted
for the concrete specimens. The criterion of replacing the acid sol-
ution when pH exceeded 10, resulting in daily solution replacement
for the first seven days, every two days until day 43, every three
days until day 73, and every four days thereafter.
Methods
phosphoric acid to lower its pH to <2 and then filtered with a
0.2-μm filter. For the NPOC test, leachate samples were filtered
with a 0.2-μm filter and then diluted 1∶1000. The concentrations
of chloride and sulfate ions were quantified by ion chromatography
using a Dionex OnGuard II Na 2.5cc Cartridge.
The results of chemical analyses of the solid waste leachate sam-
ples are reported in the “Results and Discussion” section. Based on
these results, a synthetic leachate (organic acid solution) was for-
mulated. The cement paste and concrete specimens were exposed
to this organic acid solution.
Abrasion Test
The recently developed abrasion test method by Park and Pour-
Ghaz (2019) was used. The test equipment is shown in Fig. 1
and consists of a changeable abrasive wheel for testing materials
with different abrasion resistances, gravity-based force mechanism,
water nozzle, and DC power supply to control the motor speed.
This test method has a smaller coefficient of variation (4.0% for
cement paste and 4.4% for concrete) than other ASTM methods
(typically 11%–20%) (Bakke 2006), and therefore, was able to
capture the effect of different parameters with a higher statistical
significance. For details of the test method, see (Park and Pour-
Ghaz 2019).
Due to the significant difference between the abrasion resistance
of cement paste and concrete, two different abrasive wheels were
used. For cement paste materials, an in-house developed aluminum
wheel enveloped by a 100 grit abrasive tape was used (Fig. 1),

Organic Acid Solution

Twenty fresh solid waste leachate samples were collected from
three different waste transfer stations. The samples were collected
directly from waste collection trucks, and the pH was measured
immediately after collection. After pH measurement, each sample
was mixed and poured in two 200-mL glass bottles and sealed. The
glass vials were completely filled to avoid contact with air. The
samples were then transported to the laboratory and preserved by
freezing within 2 h (from the collection time) until the start of chemi-
cal analyses. Prior to the chemical analysis, thawed samples were
centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 45 min and then filtered (0.45 μm).
Solid waste leachate mainly consists of volatile fatty acids
(VFAs) (Chian and DeWalle 1977; Burrows and Rowe 1975;
Hughes et al. 1971; Mao and Pohland 1973). The VFAs were quan-
tified by gas chromatography (GC), and the total organic content
Fig. 1. The abrasion test method developed by Park and Pour-Ghaz
was quantified as nonpurgeable organic carbon (NPOC). For the
(2019). (Image by author.)
GC analysis, 10-mL leachate was mixed with 250 μL of 85%

© ASCE 04020205-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205

 Table 3. Chemical analysis on 20 samples of waste leachate from three different sites
Volatile fatty acids (VFAs) Anions Carbon
Sulfate Chloride VFAs/total
Sources pH Acetic Propionic Butyric i-Butyric i-Valeric Valeric i-Caproic Hexanoic (SO2−
4 ) (Cl− ) From VFAs Total (%)
Residential 4.9 1,123 685 4,149 31 43 0 8 313 1,289 433 3,287 9,315 35
Commercial 4.2 1,905 307 300 14 18 48 7 14 434 50 1,135 9,967 11
Residential 4.9 2,330 2,289 3,650 33 48 0 11 102 1,139 914 4,152 7,228 57
Residential 6.3 2,458 1,147 350 17 31 69 7 17 597 334 1,815 8,200 22
Residential 4.8 2,630 73 104 13 19 6 7 8 1,341 299 1,174 30,375 4
Commercial 4.3 2,792 114 141 5 7 12 2 9 —a —a 1,270 21,612 6
Residential 4.3 2,896 854 207 11 14 31 4 23 1,011 249 1,735 14,658 12
School 4.8 4,553 291 420 14 18 25 5 13 1,488 131 2,236 28,576 8
Commercial 5.3 2,413 187 176 12 18 40 10 22 1,864 661 1,213 12,541 10
Residential 5.6 2,849 1,369 1,862 108 167 699 11 549 911 102 3,737 5,356 70
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Commercial 4.6 2,880 315 196 10 15 28 8 28 626 175 1,465 9,043 16

Residential 5.1 3,003 714 390 9 15 128 3 39 453 153 1,876 7,078 27
Commercial 4.7 3,258 173 218 5 8 60 3 212 938 257 1,626 12,020 14
Commercial 4.2 4,039 387 441 24 33 47 11 36 1,424 116 2,134 11,250 19
Residential 4.7 4,044 710 636 31 36 114 10 48 991 354 2,451 18,457 13
Residential 4.1 4,801 715 666 32 41 75 9 21 1,852 200 2,735 10,873 25
Residential 3.9 5,002 208 264 18 23 9 7 22 3,195 918 2,293 25,066 9
Residential 4.6 5,955 215 265 29 46 20 7 24 2,355 482 2,705 14,784 18
Residential 4.7 6,168 215 265 34 35 27 1 24 1,058 307 2,787 13,271 21
Residential 4.3 7,069 979 856 26 33 227 6 80 1,180 544 3,991 23,238 17
Average 4.7 3,608 597 778 24 33 83 7 76 1,271 351 2,291 14,645 16
Mean 4.7 2,949 351 325 18 27 35 7 24 1,139 299 2,185 12,281 18
STD 0.54 1,514 530 1,109 21 33 151 3 128 662 248 914 7,238 —
Note: The unit of VFA, sulfate, chloride, and carbon is mg=L.
a
Insufficient volume available for analysis.

and the rotation speed of the wheel was 190 rpm. A new abrasive
tape was used for each test. After the abrasion test, the volume loss
was measured using oil-based clay (Rushing 1968; Bakke 2006).
Volume loss measurements were used instead of mass loss to quan-
titatively compare materials with different densities and to avoid the
effect of the mass of the absorbed water during the test on the mea-
surements. The abrasion test results of cement paste are the average
volume loss of three replicates.
For concrete specimens, 0.5-in. thick silicon carbide grinding
wheels were used, and each wheel was used for three replicates.
The rotation speed of the grinding wheel was 420 rpm. The abrasion
test results of concrete are reported as the sum of the volume loss of
three replicates. This method of reporting was selected due to the
significant degradation of the wheel and has been shown to produce
a low coefficient of variation (CoV) (Park and Pour-Ghaz 2019).
Results and Discussion
average pH of field samples, the pH of the synthetic solution
was adjusted to 4.7 with sodium hydroxide. The chloride and sul-
fate concentrations in the synthetic solution were adjusted using
sodium chloride and sodium sulfate.
Mechanical Abrasion Test Results
Fig. 2 illustrates the results of the abrasion tests performed on ce-
ment pastes exposed to water [Fig. 2(a)] and organic acid solution
[Fig. 2(b)]. Exposure to water was used as a control. The results are
shown as average volume loss of three replicates and the error bars
indicate one standard deviation.
Cement paste materials with a higher w/c have a higher initial
volume loss (at zero-day exposure). When exposed to water
[Fig. 2(a)], all cement pastes show a slight increase in volume loss.
The rate of volume loss over time (slope of the lines) increases with
w/c, and the rate of volume loss for the cement paste with w=c ¼
0.30 is approximately zero. In Fig. 2(b), the rates of the volume loss

Chemical Composition of the Organic Acid Solution

Table 4. Composition and properties of the synthetic organic acid solution
The results of chemical analyses of the solid waste leachate samples
are shown in Table 3. The data indicate that the leachate samples Composition pH
mainly consist of three VFAs: acetic, propionic, and butyric acid. Acetic (2.95 g=L) 4.7
The concentration of the rest of the organic acids was relatively Propionic (0.35 g=L)
small. Based on the results in Table 3, a synthetic leachate (organic Butyric (0.32 g=L)
acid solution) with the chemical composition shown in Table 4 was Sodium chloride (1.88 g=L)a
formulated. While the total carbon in the organic acid solution in Sodium sulfate (0.44 g=L)b
Table 4 is only 16% of the average amount of carbon in raw waste Sodium hydroxide (1.20 g=L)c
leachate samples, the pH of the synthetic solution was 3.0, and this 58.45 g=mol of NaCl
a
1;139 mg of Cl− × ¼ 1.88 g=L.
was lower than the average pH (4.7) of waste leachate samples. 35.45 g=mol of Cl−
This indicates that there were organic materials other than VFAs 142.04 g=mol of Na2 SO4
b
299 mg of SO2−
4 × ¼ 0.44 g=L.
in the leachate samples (e.g., oil, fat, and other residual liquids from 96.06 g=mol of SO2−
4
c
solid waste). To match the pH of the synthetic solution with the To adjust pH to 4.7.

© ASCE 04020205-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(c)
Fig. 2. Effect of w/c ratio on the abrasion resistance of cement paste specimens after exposure to water and organic acids (smaller abraded volume is
better): (a) water; (b) organic acids; and (c) the effect of w/c ratio on the rate of volume loss after exposure to water and organic acids up to 120 days.
(slope of the lines) of the cement paste materials exposed to the
organic acid solution are higher than those of cement pastes
exposed to water; even cement pastes with w=c ¼ 0.30 show in-
creased volume loss with exposure time. The rate of volume loss
increases with w/c.
The reason for the higher rate of volume loss when exposed to
organic acids is a reduction in pH, resulting in the degradation of
CSH. Fig. 3 shows the measured pH of the solutions (water or
organic acid) 24 h after refreshing the solution. The pH of water
Fig. 3. Average pH of the exposure solutions 24 h after replacement.
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205
(b)
remains close to 12 even after 60 solution replacements due to the
dissolution and leaching of CH, while the pH of the acidic solution
drops to below 7 after 10 replacements, indicating that the buffer
capacity of the concrete samples has diminished.
Fig. 2(c) shows the rate of volume loss of cement paste
samples for different w/c ratios; that is, the slope of the lines in
Figs. 2(a and b). For exposure to both water and organic acids,
the rate increases with increasing w/c ratio; however, the effect
of w/c on the rate of volume loss is higher when samples are ex-
posed to organic acids. This indicates that the w/c ratio is an im-
portant factor that contributes to the abrasion resistance in the
presence of organic acids.
Fig. 4 shows the effect of nylon fiber and the chemical surface
hardener on the abrasion resistance of cement paste. The left and
right columns show the results for cement pastes with w=c ¼ 0.30
and 0.42, respectively. The first row corresponds to the effect of
fibers, and the second row corresponds to the effect of chemical
surface hardener. The abrasion test results and statistical analysis
for the effect of fibers and surface hardener are summarized in
Table 5.
Fig. 4(a) indicates that the addition of fibers degrades the abra-
sion resistance of cement paste with w=c ¼ 0.30 when the cement
paste is not exposed to organic acids (i.e., zero-day exposure).
Table 5 reports the p-values for different test results. The p-value
provides a measure of the probability of the observation of the null
hypothesis, and a p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that the effect
of a parameter is statistically significant. The p-value reported in
04020205-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Effect of fibers and chemical surface hardener on the abrasion resistance of cement paste after exposure to organic acids for 0, 30, 60, and
120 days: (a) w=c ¼ 0.30 þ fibers; (b) w=c ¼ 0.42 þ fibers; (c) w=c ¼ 0.30 þ surface hardener; and (d) w=c ¼ 0.42 þ surface hardener.

Table 5 indicates that the effect of fibers at zero-day exposure is
significant (p ¼ 0.05). After 120 days of exposure to organic acids,
the fibers seem to increase the abrasion resistance of cement
paste (p ¼ 0.06). While the data for 30 and 60 days exposure in-
dicate that fibers adversely affect the abrasion resistance of cement
paste, the p-values in Table 5 indicate that the differences are not
significant.
Fig. 4(b) indicates that the addition of fibers increases the abra-
sion resistance of cement paste with w=c ¼ 0.42 in the presence or
absence of an organic acid attack (p ¼ 0.05 for 0-day exposure and
p ¼ 0.02 for 120-day exposure).
The reason for the difference in the effect of fibers in cement
pastes with different w/c ratios is that in low w/c (0.30) cement
paste, the paste contributes more to the abrasion resistance than
fibers since the cement paste is harder; in other words, since fibers
are significantly softer than the matrix, the addition of fibers does
not have a significant effect on abrasion resistance or they may even
degrade the abrasion resistance. On the other hand, when fibers are
included in a soft matrix (high w=c ¼ 0.42), they may help in hold-
ing the matrix together during the mechanical abrasion; Similarly,
for low w/c ratio, cement paste that is exposed to organic acids for
120 days [exposure in Fig. 4(a)], the addition of fibers increases the
abrasion resistance of the cement paste since organic acids have
degraded the cement paste and made it softer. Therefore, it seems
that fibers only increase the abrasion resistance of soft cement
pastes, or other words, high w/c or low w/c ratio cement paste ex-
posed to organic acids for a long time.
Figs. 4(c and d) both indicate that the use of a chemical surface
hardener has an insignificant effect on the abrasion resistance of
cement paste (0-day exposure) (p > 0.20 in Table 5). The data also
indicate that chemical surface hardeners reduce the abrasion resis-
tance of cement paste exposed to organic acids with statistical sig-
nificance increasing with exposure duration. The rate at which the
use of a chemical surface hardener reduces the abrasion resistance
increases with w/c, or in other words, the use of chemical surface
hardener degrades the abrasion resistance of high w/c pastes more
than those of low w/c pastes. The reason for the reduction in the
abrasion resistance when exposed to organic acids is that this spe-
cific chemical surface hardener converts CH to CSH; since CH
provides a buffer against acid attack, this conversion reduces the
resistance of cement paste treated with the chemical surface hard-
ener. In the case of higher w/c pastes, the chemical surface hardener
can more easily penetrate the cement paste due to their higher
porosity. This enhanced penetration makes a surface hardener more
effective in converting CH to CSH; therefore, the adverse effect of a
surface hardener on the abrasion resistance of higher w/c cement
paste exposed to organic acids is more pronounced.
Fig. 5 shows the effect of coarse aggregates on the abrasion resis-
tance of concrete exposed to organic acids. In both Figs. 5(a and b),
in the absence of organic acid exposure (0-day exposure), the

© ASCE 04020205-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205

 Table 5. Cement paste abrasion resistance test results and their statistical abrasion resistance of cement paste (Fig. 2), increasing the w/c
significance for cement pastes containing fibers or treated with surface from 0.30 to 0.48 increased the volume loss by a factor of 3. This
hardener indicates that in the absence of organic acid attack, the abrasion
Volume loss (cm3 ) resistance of concrete is mainly influenced by the hardness of
Cement paste coarse aggregate and the effect of the w/c ratio is secondary (Park
Neat with fibers and Pour-Ghaz 2019).
Exposure cement or surface When simultaneous organic acid exposure and mechanical abra-
Material Additive/treatment (days) paste hardener p-valuea sion is considered, however, the effect of w/c becomes significant.
Paste Fibers 0 1.82 2.00 0.05
Figs. 5(a and b) show that at w/c of 0.30 and 0.48, the abrasion
0.30 [from Fig. 4(a)] 30 2.00 2.15 0.18 resistance of concrete decreases with exposure to organic acids,
60 2.48 2.61 0.11 but this decrease is more pronounced at higher w/c; this is because
120 2.86 2.71 0.06 a more porous matrix (higher w/c concrete) allows for easier pen-
Surface hardener 0 1.82 1.90 0.20 etration of organic acids into the concrete. The decrease of abrasion
[from Fig. 4(c)] 30 2.00 2.40 0.03 resistance is especially significant when high w/c ratio concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

60 2.48 2.61 0.12 contains soft aggregate (limestone in this case).

120 2.86 3.01 0.07 Overall, concrete materials containing only granite aggregate
Paste Fibers 0 4.02 3.78 0.05 show significantly better abrasion resistance in the presence or ab-
0.42 [from Fig. 4(b)] 30 4.20 4.16 0.54 sence of organic acid attack than concrete materials containing
60 4.85 4.49 0.08 limestone aggregates. Concrete materials that have both limestone
120 5.71 5.41 0.02 and granite aggregates appear to show comparable abrasion resis-
Surface hardener 0 4.02 4.03 0.90 tance to concrete materials that are made of granite aggregates up
[from Fig. 4(d)] 30 4.20 4.44 0.07 to 60 days of exposure to organic acids; however, their abrasion
60 4.85 5.25 0.07
resistance decreases significantly with longer-term exposure. This
120 5.71 6.12 0.01
seems to suggest that limestone may provide only a short-term
Note: A p-value of less than 0.05 indicates that the effects of fibers and buffer against organic acids.
surface hardener on the abrasion resistance of cement paste are In Fig. 5(b), the abrasion resistance of the samples with lime-
statistically significant (Ott and Longnecker 2010). stone coarse aggregate exposed to organic acids remained constant
a
Two-tailed t-test results.
after 120 days of exposure. It is assumed that cement paste and
limestone dissolved in organic acids made the sample surface slip-
pery and the abrasive wheel spun with a low friction force. There-
abrasion resistance of concrete decreased with reduced granite fore, these data may indicate the limitation of the utilized abrasion
volume fraction; this is expected since granite is significantly harder test methods.
than limestone. Figs. 6(a and b) show the results of abrasion resistance tests per-
Comparing the abrasion resistance of concrete with w=c ¼ 0.30 formed on concrete materials containing silica fume and fibers, re-
[Fig. 5(a)] with the abrasion resistance of concrete with w=c ¼ 0.48 spectively. The abrasion test results and statistical analysis are
at 0-day exposure indicates that the w/c did not significantly affect summarized in Table 6. In Fig. 6(a), in the absence of organic acid
the abrasion resistance in the absence of organic acid exposure. exposure (0-day), the use of silica fume does slightly improved the
For example, for concrete made with w=c ¼ 0.30 and granite ag- abrasion resistance of concrete; this is consistent with the previ-
gregate, the total volume loss at day 0 was 1.2 cm3 , and for con- ously reported results (Laplante et al. 1991). However, in the pres-
crete with w=c ¼ 0.48 and granite aggregate, the total volume loss ence of organic acid exposure, the abrasion resistance of concrete
at day 0 was 1.8 cm3 . Similarly, for concrete mixtures containing containing silica fume decreases more than that of concrete that
limestone aggregate, increasing the w/c from 0.30 to 0.48 increased does not contain silica fume (p ¼ 0.01 at day 180). This is because
the volume loss by approximately 0.6 cm3. However, regarding the silica fume converts CH to CSH, reducing the buffer capacity of

Fig. 5. Effect of exposure to organic acids on the abrasion resistance of concrete with different aggregate types: (a) w/c = 0.30; and (b) w/c = 0.48.

© ASCE 04020205-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Effect of silica fume and polymeric fibers on the abrasion resistance of concrete after exposure to organic acids: (a) silica fume; and
(b) polymeric fibers.

Table 6. Results of abrasion tests of concrete and their statistical phenomenon and since organic acids attack the surface of cement-
significance for concrete materials containing silica fume or fibers based materials, the reduction of buffer capacity seems to offset the
Volume loss (cm3 ) effect of reduced permeability.
Fig. 6(b) compares the abrasion resistance of concrete contain-
Concrete Exposure Plain Concrete
ing fibers with plain concrete. Similar to results reported in the lit-
mixture Additive (days) concrete with additive p-valuea
erature (Kabay 2014; Li et al. 2006), in the absence of organic
Concr Silica fume 0 1.19 1.17 0.61 acids, the use of fibers increased the abrasion resistance of concrete
0.30 Grnt [Fig. 6(a)] 60 1.48 1.55 0.22 (p ¼ 0.07); however, after exposure to organic acids, the abrasion
120 1.73 2.20 0.01
resistance of fiber reinforced concrete decreased more than that
180 1.84 2.45 0.01
Fibers 0 1.19 1.08 0.07 of unreinforced concrete (p ¼ 0.00). The use of fibers in low w/c
[Fig. 6(b)] 60 1.48 1.70 0.03 cement paste (w=c ¼ 0.30) also showed a decrease in abrasion re-
120 1.73 2.63 0.00 sistance [Fig. 4(a)], but to a lesser extent. The reason for the more
180 1.84 2.74 0.00 significant decrease in the abrasion resistance of concrete than ce-
a ment paste may be attributed to the higher fiber-to-cement paste
Two-tailed t-test results.
volume fraction in concrete than in cement paste. Since only
30% of the concrete was made of cement paste, the fiber to cement
paste volume ratio of concrete was approximately 3%, and this is
concrete against acid attack. The use of silica fume results in the higher than that of fiber-reinforced cement paste, which is 1%.
microstructure densification of concrete; this increases the abrasion Figs. 7(a and b) show the effect of latex on the abrasion resis-
resistance of concrete in the absence of exposure to organic acids tance of concrete. The water content of the mixture in Fig. 7(a) was
[Fig. 6(a), zero exposure time]. The microstructure densification adjusted for the water in the latex emulsion to keep the w/c of the
also decreases the permeability of concrete and is expected to re- mixture at 0.30, while the water content of the mixture in Fig. 7(b)
duce acid penetration; however, mechanical abrasion is a surface was not adjusted, but the ratio of the mixing water to cement was

Fig. 7. Effect of latex on the abrasion of concrete after exposure to organic acids: (a) w/c = 0.30; and (b) w/c = 0.47.

© ASCE 04020205-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205

 Table 7. Results of abrasion tests and their statistical significance for resistance of concrete against mechanical abrasion. The findings
concrete materials containing latex indicate that limestone reacts with organic acids and only provides
Volume loss (cm3 ) a short-term buffer against organic acids. Because limestone aggre-
gate is soft and reactive, concrete made with limestone does not
Concrete Exposure Plain Latex modified
mixture Additive (days) concrete concrete p-valuea
perform as well as concrete made with granite aggregate. In high
w/c concrete (w=c ¼ 0.48), the abrasion resistance of concrete
Concr Latex (w/c 0.30) 0 1.19 0.99 0.02 made with limestone and granite approached that of limestone,
0.30 Grnt [Fig. 7(a)] 60 1.48 1.95 0.01
while in low w/c concrete (w=c ¼ 0.30), the abrasion resistance of
120 1.73 2.06 0.02
180 1.84 2.37 0.01
concrete made with limestone and granite fell between those of
Latex (w/c 0.47) 0 1.19 1.56 0.01 concrete made only with limestone or granite. Therefore, the use
[Fig. 7(b)] 60 1.48 2.79 0.00 of combined aggregate is not a useful strategy to increase the abra-
120 1.73 2.95 0.00 sion resistance of concrete beyond that of concrete made with gran-
180 1.84 3.22 0.00 ite aggregate.
a The addition of silica fume to concrete converts CH to CSH,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Two-tailed t-test results.

kept at 0.30; this resulted in the true w=c ¼ 0.47. The abrasion test
results and statistical analysis are summarized in Table 7.
In Fig. 7(a), in the absence of organic acid attack, the use
of latex in concrete, when the w/c was kept constant, increased
the abrasion resistance of concrete (p ¼ 0.02); this is consistent
with results reported in the literature (Won et al. 2009). When
the w/c was not kept constant, the abrasion resistance of concrete
decreased [Fig. 7(b)]. In the presence of organic acid attack,
however, the abrasion resistance of concrete containing latex
decreased irrespective of the adjustment of water content; this de-
crease was significantly greater for higher w/c concrete (or in this
case, when the water content was not adjusted). The decrease of
abrasion resistance with the addition of latex may be due to the
chemical interaction between organic acids and latex; however,
no chemical reaction has been reported in the literature.
Summary and Concluding Remarks
In the present paper, we investigated the effect of organic acid at-
tack on the abrasion resistance of cement paste and concrete to
evaluate whether the current understanding of the abrasion resis-
tance of concrete applies directly to the abrasion resistance of con-
crete exposed to organic acids. The results indicate that factors that
increase the abrasion resistance of concrete in the absence of or-
ganic acid attack may or may not increase the abrasion resistance
of concrete exposed to organic acids, depending on the specific
factor considered.
The previous research shows that in the absence of organic acid
exposure, the hardness of coarse aggregates is the primary factor
controlling the abrasion resistance of concrete and that the effect of
a reduction of w/c is a secondary contributor to the abrasion resis-
tance of concrete. The present study confirms that the abrasion
resistance of concrete is mainly a function of the hardness of
the coarse aggregates in both the presence and absence of organic
acids. However, in the presence of organic acids, the degree to
which w/c affects the abrasion resistance depends on the aggregate
type. In other words, if hard coarse aggregates (granite herein) are
used in the production of concrete, w/c plays a minimal role in in-
creasing the abrasion resistance of concrete. In contrast, when a soft
aggregate that is reactive with organic acids (limestone herein) was
used, w/c had a more significant effect on the abrasion resistance of
concrete exposed to organic acids.
We evaluated whether a combination of granite and limestone
aggregates could be used to increase concrete abrasion resistance in
the presence of organic acids since carbonate aggregates (e.g., lime-
stone) may protect the cement paste against organic acid attack by
providing a buffer and hard aggregates (granite) can increase the
decreasing its porosity and increasing its compressive strength.
Previously published data also indicate that the use of silica fume
increases the abrasion resistance of concrete in the absence of ex-
posure to organic acids. The results of the present study suggest that
when exposed to organic acids, the presence of CH helps protect
the CSH against degradation. The use of silica fume increases the
abrasion resistance of concrete in the absence of organic acid attack
and decreases the abrasion resistance of concrete exposed to or-
ganic acids since by converting CH to CSH, while silica fume re-
duces the buffer capacity of the concrete against organic acids.
While the use of silica fume reduces the penetration rate of fluids
in concrete, mechanical abrasion is a surface phenomenon, and the
reduction of buffer capacity seems to offset the effect of a reduced
penetration rate of organic acids in systems containing silica fume
and exposed to organic acids.
The use of latex in concrete increases its abrasion resistance in
the absence of organic acids but reduces the abrasion resistance of
concrete exposed to organic acids. We speculate that latex reacts
with organic acids, although the chemical mechanism for this effect
requires further investigation.
In the absence of organic acid exposure, the use of polymeric
fibers may increase the abrasion resistance of concrete; however, in
the presence of organic acids, the fibers reduce the abrasion resis-
tance of concrete. In the presence of organic acids, fibers enhanced
the abrasion resistance of cement paste with high w/c (0.42) and
decreased the abrasion resistance of low w/c (0.30) cement paste.
Polymeric fibers are softer than cement paste and in the presence of
organic acids may suffer from a weak interface and may pull out in
high w/c cement paste or in concrete that has a lower volume frac-
tion of cement paste than plain cement paste.
The results of the present study provide insight into the degra-
dation of concrete subjected to simultaneous mechanical abrasion
and attack by a wide range of organic acids.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, or code generated during this study are available
from the corresponding author by request.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Environmental Research
and Education Foundation (EREF), which is greatly appreciated.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the EREF. The research team
greatly appreciates the technical support and advice of Smith
Gardner and in particular that of Mr. Stacey Smith.

© ASCE 04020205-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205

 References
Bakke, K. J. 2006. “Abrasion resistance.” Chap. 18 in Significance of tests
and properties of concrete and concrete-making materials, 184–193.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Barnard, J. L. 1967. Corrosion of sewers. Research Rep. No. 250. Pretoria,
South Africa: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Bertron, A., J. Duchesne, and G. Escadeillas. 2005. “Attack of cement
pastes exposed to organic acids in manure.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
27 (9–10): 898–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2005.06
.003.
Burrows, W. D., and R. S. Rowe. 1975. “Ether soluble constituents of
landfill leachate.” Water Pollut. Control Fed. 47 (5): 921–923.
Chang, Z. T., X. J. Song, R. Munn, and M. Marosszeky. 2005. “Using
limestone aggregates and different cements for enhancing resistance
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by NUS-Central Library on 06/01/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of concrete to sulphuric acid attack.” Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (8):
1486–1494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.03.006.
Chian, E. S. K., and F. B. DeWalle. 1977. “Characterization of soluble or-
ganic matter in leachate.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 11 (2): 158–163.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es60125a003.
Harrison, W. 1987. “Durability of concrete in acidic soils and waters.”
Concrete 21 (2): 18–24.
Hughes, B., and J. Guest. 1978. “Limestone and siliceous aggregate con-
cretes subjected to sulphuric acid attack.” Mag. Concr. Res. 30 (102):
11–18. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.1978.30.102.11.
Hughes, G. M., R. A. Landon, and R. Farvolden. 1971. Hydrogeology of
solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois. Rep. No. sw-12d.
Washington, DC: USEPA.
Kabay, N. 2014. “Abrasion resistance and fracture energy of concretes with
basalt fiber.” Constr. Build. Mater. 50 (Jan): 95–101. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.040.
Laplante, P., P. Aitcin, and D. Vézina. 1991. “Abrasion resistance of con-
crete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 3 (1): 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(1991)3:1(19).
Li, H., M. H. Zhang, and J. P. Ou. 2006. “Abrasion resistance of con-
crete containing nano-particles for pavement.” Wear 260 (11–12):
1262–1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2005.08.006.
Liu, T. C. 1981. “Abrasion resistance of concrete.” In Vol. 78 of ACI
Journal Proc., 341–350. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute.
Liu, Y. W. 2007. “Improving the abrasion resistance of hydraulic-concrete
containing surface crack by adding silica fume.” Constr. Build. Mater.
21 (5): 972–977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.03.001.
Mao, M. C.-M., and F. G. Pohland. 1973. Continuing investigations on
landfill stabilization with leachate recirculation, neutralization, and
© ASCE 04020205-10
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2020, 32(8): 04020205
sludge seeding. Atlanta: School of Civil Engineering, Georgia Institute
of Technology.
Moore, J., P. Jurs, and C. Stanitski. 2001. Chemistry: The molecular
science. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Nanni, A. 1989. “Abrasion resistance of roller compacted concrete.”
ACI Mater. J. 86 (6): 559–565. https://doi.org/10.14359/2206.
Ott, R., and M. Longnecker. 2010. An introduction to statistical methods
and data analysis. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Park, S., M. Barlaz, and M. Pour-Ghaz. 2018. Design of waste transfer sta-
tion concrete overlays against premature deterioration. Final Rep.
Raleigh, NC: Environmental Research and Education Foundation.
Park, S., and M. Pour-Ghaz. 2019. “Another look at the abrasion resistance
of concrete.” Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 8 (1): 423–434. https://doi.org/10
.1520/ACEM20180159.
Rashad, A. M., H. E. D. H. Seleem, and A. F. Shaheen. 2014. “Effect of
silica fume and slag on compressive strength and abrasion resistance of
HVFA concrete.” Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 8 (1): 69–81. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s40069-013-0051-2.
Roy, D., P. Arjunan, and M. R. Silsbee. 2001. “Effect of silica fume, meta-
kaolin, and low-calcium fly ash on chemical resistance of concrete.”
Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (12): 1809–1813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008
-8846(01)00548-8.
Rushing, H. B. 1968. Concrete wear study. Rep. No. pb 183410. Baton
Rouge, LA: Louisiana Dept. of Transportation and Development.
Shaker, F. A., A. S. El-Dieb, and M. M. Reda. 1997. “Durability of Styrene-
Butadiene latex modified concrete.” Cem. Concr. Res. 27 (5): 711–720.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00055-0.
Taylor, H. 1997. Cement chemistry. 2nd ed. London: Thomas Telford
Publishing.
Thistlethwayte and on Hydrogen Sulphide Corrosion in Sewerage
Works. 1972. The control of sulphides in sewerage systems. London:
Butterworths.
Won, J.-P., J.-H. Kim, S.-W. Lee, and C.-G. Park. 2009. “Durability of low-
heat, ultra rapid-hardening, latex-modified polymer concrete.” Prog.
Rubber Plast. Recycl. Technol. 25 (2): 91–102. https://doi.org/10
.1177/147776060902500201.
Yen, T., T.-H. Hsu, Y.-W. Liu, and S.-H. Chen. 2007. “Influence of class
F fly ash on the abrasion–erosion resistance of high-strength concrete.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2): 458–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2005.06.051.
Zivica, V., and A. Bajza. 2001. “Acidic attack of cement based materials:
A review. 1: Principle of acidic attack.” Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (8):
331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(01)00012-5.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.