Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cement and Concrete Composites

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

Relating water permeability to electrical resistivity and chloride

penetrability of concrete containing different supplementary
cementitious materials
Caitlin M. Tibbetts a, Jerry M. Paris a, Christopher C. Ferraro a, *, Kyle A. Riding a,
Timothy G. Townsend b
a
Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida, P.O. Box 116580, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA
b
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Florida, P.O. Box 116450, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Electrical test methods for predicting concrete penetrability have been widely accepted for use in assessing
Concrete quality and durability of concrete; however, these methods are indirect and have not been related to concrete
Water permeability water permeability. This research compares three standardized electrical test methods, AASHTO T 358, AASHTO
Electrical resistivity
TP 119, and ASTM C1202, to hydraulic/water permeability. As no consensus standardized water permeability
Chloride ion penetrability
test method is available, a uniaxial, steady-flow permeameter test that has generally been used within the
Pore solution
Supplementary cementitious materials research community was employed for this research. The results demonstrate that the electrical test methods
investigated for predicting concrete penetrability are not necessarily appropriate for concrete mixtures con­
taining alternative supplementary cementitious materials. Materials with electrically conductive components in
pore solution or bulk matrix perform poorly in electrical testing such as surface or bulk resistivity, or chloride ion
penetrability testing, although water permeability indicates comparable performance to traditional supple­
mentary cementitious materials.

1. Introduction serviceability and durability of concrete structures as most degradation

A durable concrete must possess the ability to withstand weathering,
chemical attack, abrasion, and other degradation mechanisms during
the designed service life and exposure conditions while maintaining an
acceptable level of operation [1]. The long-term durability of concrete is
one of the most important properties when designing concrete structures
for their intended service life. Exposure sites for durability specimens
are valuable for assessing performance in real exposure conditions;
however, exposure sites typically require long exposure times, which are
unacceptable for most material qualification testing. Therefore,
short-term test methods are needed to predict durability for the
constantly evolving concrete industry. The use of alternative supple­
mentary cementitious materials (SCMs), innovative admixtures, and
complex concrete mixture designs make it impractical to rely on expo­
sure sites for qualifying concrete.
Research has shown that the transport properties (e.g., permeability,
diffusivity, absorption/sorption) of concrete are indicators of the
processes are dependent on the movement of fluid within the pore
structure [1–7]. Degradation mechanisms including corrosion of rein­
forcing steel, freeze-thaw, chemical attack, alkali-silica reactivity, and
carbonation are related to the penetrability and saturation level of the
concrete. The ability of concrete to resist penetration of substances
(e.g., water, chloride ions) depends on the porosity and pore charac­
teristics of the matrix [8–10]. The porosity and pore structure devel­
opment of concrete are influenced by several factors including:
materials, concrete mixture design, admixtures, curing practices, age,
and construction techniques [4,10–14]. Research has shown that the
water-cementitious (w/cm) ratio strongly affects the permeability of
concrete [6,9–11,15]. The total cementitious content and use of sup­
plementary cementitious materials also plays a major role in the hy­
dration and penetrability of concrete [4,11,14–16]. Older, more
hydrated concrete will possess a more developed pore structure and
lower permeability [4,6,10]. Concrete containing SCMs will generally
have delayed hydration, thus more time is required to develop resistance

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ctibbetts@ufl.edu (C.M. Tibbetts), jerry.paris@essie.ufl.edu (J.M. Paris), ferraro@ce.ufl.edu (C.C. Ferraro), kyle.riding@essie.ufl.edu
(K.A. Riding), ttown@ufl.edu (T.G. Townsend).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103491
Received 12 April 2019; Received in revised form 2 August 2019; Accepted 19 December 2019
Available online 23 December 2019
0958-9465/© 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C.M. Tibbetts et al.
to permeation [4,16]. The concrete pore structure is a dynamic system as
it changes with the hydration process and deterioration from exposure
conditions. Cement hydration products form in the void spaces pro­
ducing a denser pore structure, whereas degradation mechanisms cause
internal damage and often lead to cracking. As a result, measurements of
concrete transport properties are a function of the testing parameters,
sample conditioning, and type of transport mechanism being measured
[3].
Many test methods have been developed to estimate the transport
properties of concrete, ranging from long-term exposure tests to elec­
trical resistivity test methods. As electrical resistivity methods have
become more widely used, there is a need to evaluate the reliability of
using these methods as a tool for rating concrete water permeability.
This research focused on analyzing the relationship between standard­
ized electrical test methods for estimating concrete penetrability and
pressurized hydraulic/water permeability.
1.1. Electrical test methods for predicting concrete penetrability
To answer the demand from industry to have an alternative to long-
term exposure tests for determining concrete transport properties,
electrical test methods were developed. In the 1980s ASTM C1202
(AASHTO T 277) became the first electrical test method for predicting
concrete penetrability to be widely adopted [6,17–19]. Although origi­
nally termed the rapid chloride permeability (RCP) test [19], it was later
revised by ASTM to the “Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication
of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration” or as referred to
herein as the chloride ion penetration (CIP) test [17]. The method in­
volves cutting and sealing the specimens before an electrical potential of
60 V is applied across the ends of the specimen for 6 h while the total
charge (in coulombs) passed through the specimen is measured. The
total charge passed is a measure of the electrical conductance of the
concrete and was related to measurements of chloride intrusion from
long-term ponding tests (AASHTO T 259) [20]. The results were used to
establish a table that classifies the concrete chloride ion penetrability
from high to negligible based on charge passed [17,19,20]. This method
has been criticized for not truly measuring the penetrability of concrete
because the current flow is also a function of the pore solution con­
ductivity [3]. Additional criticism has been expressed as the method is
time consuming, destructive, prone to errors from sample heating, and
fails to account for the differences in chemistry due to the inclusion of
SCMs [21–25]. Despite the shortcomings, the CIP test has been used for
over 30 years and is still used as an index test for concrete penetrability.
Although it has been standardized and widely used to evaluate
durability in concrete, the CIP test is an indirect method of measuring
the penetrability or flow properties of concrete. The CIP test method is
much shorter compared to traditional long-term tests that directly
measure the transport properties of concrete, but it requires extensive
sample preparation and equipment. Research has thus been focused on
the development of more rapid test methods that correlate well with the
established CIP test. Extensive research has been conducted on short-
term electrical resistivity testing and two methods have been stan­
dardized [4,5,15,26–28]. Surface resistivity (AASHTO T 358) and bulk
resistivity (AASHTO TP 119) were developed as rapid methods for
qualifying the degree of concrete penetrability and have been stan­
dardized by the American Association of State Highway and Trans­
portation Officials (AASHTO) [27,28]. The bulk resistivity test was
made a provisional standard in 2015 by the Department of Trans­
portation (DOT) community (AASHTO), but has not been adopted
through a process of consensus outside of the DOT community [28–30].
Surface and bulk resistivity are also indirect, electrically-based methods
of measuring concrete durability; however, both are simple tests that
can be performed within minutes, making them ideal for routine
acceptance testing [31,32].
Surface resistivity applies a current across the surface of the spec­
imen using a Wenner probe and measures the voltage drop to calculate
2
Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491
the resistance. Bulk resistivity passes the current through the entire
specimen from end to end using stainless steel plates as electrodes
connected to the Wenner probe tips. First principles using Ohm’s law
relate the total charge passed from CIP to the bulk resistivity of the
material as given in Eq. (1) [17,28,33,34]. The final numerator of Eq. (1)
assumes the standard testing voltage of 60 V, a testing period of 6 h, and
a specimen geometry of 102 mm � 50 mm.
Z 6 ​ hr Z 6 ​ hr
V A A 1 21; 180
Q¼ I dt ¼ dt ¼ V t ¼ (1)
0 ​ hr 0 ​ hr ρ L L ρ ρ
where Q ¼ total charge passed from CIP (coulombs).
V ¼ test voltage (V)
L ¼ thickness of the specimen (cm)
A ¼ cross-sectional area of the specimen (cm2)
t ¼ test period (s)
ρ ¼ bulk resistivity (kΩ-cm)
Sample conditioning for surface and bulk resistivity test methods has
been identified as very important for accurate measurement; tempera­
ture and degree of saturation of the samples can have a significant in­
fluence on the results [4,5,15,26–28,33,35–38]. The specimen geometry
also affects the measured resistivity, and the bulk resistivity results must
be corrected for specimen dimensions. While the surface and bulk re­
sistivity test methods are related to the penetrability, they are indirect
methods influenced by factors other than the physical pore matrix
characteristics. Resistivity measurements can be affected by the source
of cement and SCMs and their chemical makeup as well as chemical
admixtures [1,17,27,28,37].
Similar to the CIP test, surface and bulk resistivity are also influenced
by the resistivity of the pore solution [1,33,38,39]. In an attempt to
account for this effect, the pore solution can be expressed from speci­
mens and tested for resistivity. Several devices for pore solution
expression have been developed; however, the process can be time and
labor intensive as pore solution expression requires large compressive
forces to drive the fluid out of the pores of the specimen [40–42]. As a
result, pore solution expression is commonly performed on cementitious
paste specimens as the force required is lower due to the absence of
aggregate that usually has a higher modulus of elasticity and low ab­
sorption. The pore solution resistivity can also be estimated using online
calculators and equations that use cementitious material composition
and degree of hydration for commonly available materials [38,43–45].
The pore solution composition primarily consists of sodium (Naþ), po­
tassium (Kþ), calcium (Ca2þ), and hydroxide ions (OHˉ), where Naþ, Kþ,
and OHˉ concentrations predominantly control the conductivity and pH
values [1,39–44]. There are a number of other minor ions that
contribute to the pore solution composition and affect its properties, but
the reactions are more complex and less understood [46].
1.2. Water permeability test methods
Although the dominant transport mechanism in a concrete structure
depends on the exposure conditions and saturation level in the concrete
matrix, the water permeability test is a direct method and is able to
measure the interconnectivity of the pore structure. Research and case
studies have shown that permeability is one of the most important
characteristics for predicting concrete durability [7,47]. Consequently,
there has been considerable interest in measuring the water perme­
ability of concrete, and research involving pressure driven flow has been
conducted for over 125 years [6,9,12,47–70]. Some non-consensus,
standardized test methods exist [55–58,69], but there is no consensus
standardized testing procedure for measuring water permeability
available today. Many researchers have thus developed their own
testing method, with the majority of methods employing uniaxial flow
[53,56–61,69–71]. While the exact equipment and procedures vary by
C.M. Tibbetts et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491

researcher, the basic principles are the same; a pressure gradient is relationships between each are evaluated. The pH and conductivity of
applied to a concrete specimen and the resulting flow rate is measured. the pore solution were measured to investigate the influences on the
Assuming laminar flow through a saturated porous medium, Darcy’s law electrical test methods.
is used to calculate the coefficient of permeability based on Eq. (2) [1,3,
60,65,68]. 2. Material and methods
QL
K¼ (2) 2.1. Mixture design
AP

where K ¼ water permeability coefficient (m/s).
Q ¼ flow rate through the specimen (m3/s)
L ¼ thickness of the specimen (m)
A ¼ cross-sectional area of the specimen (m2)
P ¼ hydraulic pressure drop over the specimen expressed as equiv­
alent pressure head (m)
For this research study, a constant pressure, uniaxial, steady-state
flow permeameter was used, similar to other water permeability test
setups seen in the literature [53,59–61,71]. The setup was developed at
the University of Florida in the late 1980s to provide a reliable, efficient,
and easy-to-replicate method for determining the water permeability of
concrete specimens [53,72].
Water permeability measurements of concrete can have high vari­
ability and require care to obtain accurate results, but can give an
indication of the interconnectivity of the capillary pores and the quality
of concrete [47,53,54,60,61,72,73]. Some of the variability, especially
at early ages, is due to the continued hydration of the specimens during
testing; this can make it difficult to reach steady-state flow [3,54,73].
The advantage of the saturated water permeability test is that it directly
measures permeability through Darcy’s law and only measures one
transport mechanism, whereas other tests can be a combination of
diffusion, absorption, or permeability. The specimen conditioning and
testing procedure minimize effects of binding that can occur when using
solutions (sodium chloride) and do not require specimen drying that is
known to alter the pore structure [1].
This study investigated the relationship between electrical test
methods for predicting penetrability (AASHTO T 358, AASHTO TP 119,
and ASTM C1202) and water permeability. The objective was to deter­
mine the reliability of the electrical test methods for estimating dura­
bility of concrete containing a variety of supplementary cementitious
materials. Although electrical test methods have been related to long-
term ponding and diffusion tests, a comparison to water permeability
has not yet been performed and the effect of a broad range of SCMs on
the electrical resistivity has not been established. The results obtained
from electrical test methods and water permeability and the
Nineteen concrete mixtures were investigated for this study; mixture
proportions are provided in Table 1. Cementitious materials for this
research study included: Type I/II ordinary portland cement (OPC),
Class F fly ash (F), Class C fly ash (C), silica fume (SF), ground granulated
blast furnace slag cement (Slag), metakaolin (MK), ground glass (GG),
and three types of sugarcane bagasse ashes (SCBA). The number in the
mixture name represents the percent portland cement replacement for
the particular supplementary cementitious material. The chemical
composition was measured using x-ray fluorescence for the cementitious
materials and is provided in Table 2.
The mixtures with sugarcane bagasse ash denoted as “SCBA” repre­
sent material originally acquired for testing, whereas mixtures denoted
either “SCBA-A” or “SCBA-B00 represent additional materials obtained
from a facility with an older incineration process (older boiler type and
emission controls, similar to SCBA) and a newer, more efficient incin­
eration process, respectively. The relatively high levels of phosphorus,
P2O5, (2–7% by mass) and potassium, K2O, (2–6% by mass) are attrib­
uted to fertilizer as they represent two of the three primary nutrients
used in fertilizer [74,75]. These elevated levels have been seen in other
studies incorporating agricultural waste [70,76–80]. Sugarcane bagasse
ashes have shown promising strength properties, but little research has
been done on the effect of SCBA cement replacement on the transport
properties of concrete [76–79,81–89]. It should be noted that based on
the chemical composition, the sugarcane bagasse ashes investigated in
this study could not be classified as a Class N pozzolans according to
ASTM C618 without further processing [90].
The coarse aggregate used was Florida limerock with No.89 grada­
tion and saturated surface-dry (SSD) specific gravity of 2.39; Florida
limerock is more porous, less dense, and softer than typical limestone
found in other regions [91–93]. The fine aggregate was a quarzitic sand
with a fineness modulus of 2.45 and SSD specific gravity of 2.62. The
ratio of fine to total aggregate volume was 0.5 for each of the concrete
mixes.
Mixing was performed in general accordance with ASTM C192 using
a drum mixer [94]. Specimens were cast into 102 mm � 205 mm cyl­
inders, immediately covered with plastic to prevent moisture loss, and
then demolded after 24 h. Following demolding, specimens were

Table 1
Concrete mixture proportions (kg/m3).
No. Mixture w/cm Portland cement Repl. 1 Repl. 2 Water Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate

1 OPC – Control 0.37 534 – 198 795 724

2 20F 0.37 427 107 198 780 711
3 20C 0.37 427 107 198 787 717
4 7SF 0.37 497 37 198 788 718
5 50Slag 0.37 267 267 198 786 717
6 20F/50Slag 0.37 160 107 267 198 771 702
7 10MK 0.37 481 53 198 785 716
8 10SCBA 0.37 481 53 198 783 714
9 20C/10SCBA 0.37 374 107 53 198 775 707
10 7SF/50Slag 0.37 230 37 267 198 779 710
11 20C/50Slag 0.37 160 107 267 198 778 709
12 30C/5F 0.37 347 160 27 198 778 710
13 20GG 0.37 427 107 198 784 714
14 20C/5GG 0.37 400 107 27 198 784 714
15 20SCBA 0.37 427 107 198 772 704
16 20SCBA-A 0.37 427 107 198 783 713
17 20SCBA-B 0.37 427 107 198 779 710
18 10SCBA-A 0.37 481 53 198 788 719
19 10SCBA-B 0.37 481 53 198 787 717

3
C.M. Tibbetts et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491

Table 2
Chemical composition of materials by x-ray fluorescence.
Chemical oxide OPC F C SF Slag MK GG SCBA SCBA-A SCBA-B

SiO2 18.7 57.8 34.7 90.9 33.6 51.5 71.9 58.7 67.0 40.8
Al2O3 5.36 21.4 18.5 0.39 14.4 43.7 0.48 1.66 1.32 1.37
Fe2O3 4.44 11.8 5.66 2.14 0.61 0.47 0.10 2.52 2.98 2.78
CaO 63.5 1.29 26.4 0.85 41.1 <0.01 9.21 20.8 17.0 35.9
MgO 0.94 1.32 6.36 0.78 5.88 0.14 4.11 4.10 3.17 3.94
SO3 3.27 0.24 1.84 <0.01 2.56 0.01 0.20 3.00 0.92 4.60
Na2O 0.14 0.90 1.88 0.20 0.19 0.28 12.9 0.41 0.23 0.46
K2O 0.40 2.52 0.43 1.07 0.34 0.25 0.05 1.86 2.31 6.14
TiO2 0.27 0.99 1.45 <0.01 0.53 1.35 0.01 0.10 0.15 0.12
P2O5 0.64 0.19 0.86 0.10 0.02 0.08 <0.01 6.72 4.46 2.42
Mn2O3 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.35 <0.01 <0.01 0.16 0.13 0.08
SrO 0.07 0.05 0.43 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.15 0.24
Cr2O3 0.07 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.04 –
ZnO 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.07 0.05 0.08
BaO – 0.07 0.83 <0.01 0.06 0.20 <0.01 – 0.06 0.06
Total 98.0 98.7 99.4 96.7 99.7 98.0 99.0 100 99.9 99.0
LOI 2.80 1.16 0.21 4.18 0.95 1.46 0.41 42.0 24.4 12.4
Na2Oeq 0.40 2.56 2.16 0.90 0.41 0.44 12.9 1.63 1.75 4.50

submerged in a saturated limewater tank kept at 23.0 � C � 2.0 � C until
test preparation.
Pore solution analysis was conducted on cementitious paste speci­
mens that were representative of the first fifteen concrete mixtures in
Table 1; SCBA-A and SCBA-B materials were not analyzed. Cementitious
paste mixing was performed in accordance with ASTM C305 [95].
Specimens were cast into approximately 50 mm � 75 mm cylinders,
cured 24 hours, demolded, then immediately vacuum-sealed in a damp
paper towel to prevent leaching and moisture loss. The sealed specimens
were stored in a temperature-controlled room at 23.0 � C � 2.0 � C until
testing age. The pore solution from sealed specimens will have different
alkali concentrations than the concrete specimens cured in saturated
limewater due to differences in degree of hydration and leaching;
however, research has shown good correlation between measured and
theoretical estimates of pore solution conductivity, for sealed specimens
[33,36,38].
2.2. Experimental setup
2.2.1. Electrical test methods
Surface resistivity (SR) and bulk resistivity (BR) were measured in
accordance with AASHTO T 358 and AASHTO TP 119, respectively [27,
28]. Before testing, the ends of the cylinders were ground flat to provide
better contact for bulk resistivity measurements, and the diameter and
length were measured to correct for geometry. The cylinders were stored
submerged in saturated limewater tanks until time of testing and were
marked at each quadrant so that the probe placement for the surface
resistivity test was consistent. Lime-saturated cloth squares were used as
the conductive medium between the specimens and the stainless steel
plate electrodes for bulk resistivity measurements to provide good
electrical contact. To reduce variability, the cylinders were tested at
23.0 � C � 2.0 � C and kept saturated during testing per AASHTO T 358
and AASHTO TP 119 [27,28].
The specimens for chloride ion penetrability (CIP) were tested in
accordance with ASTM C1202 [17]. Specimen preparation included the
acquisition of 50 mm slices from the middle of each 102 mm � 205 mm
cylinder to produce representative samples of the bulk concrete. The
specimens were then sealed on the sides with epoxy and vacuum satu­
rated according to the conditioning procedure in ASTM C1202 [17]. The
conditioning procedure for vacuum saturation involved: placing the
specimens in a desiccator with the faces exposed, maintaining a mini­
mum vacuum of 28 inches Hg for 3 hours, then covering with water while
still under vacuum for an additional hour, and finally removing vacuum
and keeping specimens submerged under water for 18 � 2 hours. After
vacuum saturation, specimens were assembled into the CIP cells using the
rubber gasket alternative and secured with bolts and tested [17].
2.2.2. Pore solution expression
The pore solution for this study was expressed from cementitious
paste specimens that were representative of the concrete mixtures
excluding SCBA-A and SCBA-B. The specimens for pore solution analysis
were vacuum-sealed and stored in a temperature-controlled room at
23.0 � C � 2.0 � C until testing age. At ages of 28 and 56 days, the spec­
imens were removed from sealed bags and placed in a pore solution
expression device as shown in Fig. 1, similar to the one described by
Barneyback and Diamond [42]. The specimens were placed in the device
whole instead of crushed to minimize moisture loss and carbonation.
The pore expression device confines the specimen while it is loaded in
compression to extract the fluid from the pores. The groove in the bot­
tom platen collects the pore fluid and connects to a drain on the side of
the base. The resultant solution was collected from the drain in a vial
and immediately tested for pH and conductivity.
2.2.3. Water permeability
Specimens were cut as 50 mm slices from the middle of each 102 mm
� 205 mm cylinder. The sides of the specimens were roughened slightly,
while not damaging or changing the dimensions of the specimen, to
create an abraded surface for bonding of the epoxy sealant. Loose par­
ticulates were removed, and the exterior of the specimens was dried. To
seal the sides against the pressurized water flow, the water permeability
specimens had a 25 mm ring of epoxy formed around the specimens; the
epoxy ring restricted flow through the faces of the specimens and pro­
vided a bearing surface for sealing the specimens while under pressure.
Soongswang et al. [53] details the procedure for specimen preparation
for the water permeability test. Subsequent to the epoxy curing, the
specimens were vacuum saturated according to ASTM C1202 [17]; this
saturation technique was adopted to be consistent with the preparation
of the CIP specimens and to decrease the time required to achieve
steady-state for water permeability. After vacuum saturation was com­
plete, the specimens were assembled in permeameter cells as shown in
Fig. 2.
Each permeameter cell was attached to a manometer tube that
connects to a calibrated measuring board as shown in Fig. 3. The top and
bottom chambers of the permeameter cell were filled with water so that
both sides of the specimen were kept saturated and the top chamber was
pressurized. A reference cell was also assembled to account for the effect
of temperature and evaporation on the manometer tube reading. The
reference cell contained no test specimen and had a solid base acrylic
plate (no hole), creating a zero-flow condition.
A gauge pressure of 586 kPa was used for the duration of testing and
the water level drop in the manometer tubes was measured over time.
The rate of water flow through the specimen was calculated by
measuring the water level drop in the manometer tube for the specimen

4
C.M. Tibbetts et al.
Fig. 1. Diagram of pore solution expression device.
Fig. 2. Diagram of water permeability cell with concrete specimen cast in
epoxy ring.
and subtracting the water level drop for the reference cell over time.
Water permeability specimens were tested for approximately two to
three weeks to achieve steady-state condition; permeability was calcu­
lated from the average flow rate after steady-state was achieved. Steady-
state flow can be reached in days or weeks depending on the quality of
the concrete and degree of hydration [53,72]; concrete mixtures with a
low w/cm or specimens that have an advanced curing age, will generally
take longer to achieve steady-state flow.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Surface and bulk resistivity
Surface and bulk resistivity were measured at 7, 28, 56, 91, 182, and
up to 365 days according to AASHTO T 358 and TP 119, respectively
[27,28]. Surface resistivity results were multiplied by 1.1 due to lime­
water curing as per the AASHTO specification [27]. A general trend of
increasing resistivity over time was observed, which is expected due to
continued hydration. The control mixture of 100% ordinary portland
cement did not show significant increase beyond 28 days as the majority
of hydration had occurred. Binary and ternary mixtures containing
SCMs had larger incremental increases in electrical resistivity at later
ages, consistent with the pozzolanic reaction that occurs at later ages for
many SCMs [1,40,96,97]. The rate of pozzolanic reaction is dependent
on several factors including the composition of the SCMs, replacement
level, and temperature [1,46,79,96,97]; the pozzolanic reaction of SCMs
does not occur immediately because the cement must first hydrate
5
Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491
sufficiently to produce calcium hydroxide for the reaction [1,96]. Dif­
ferences in the rate of pozzolanic reactivity were observed between the
various SCMs investigated in this study; mixtures containing fly ash had
a delay in electrical resistivity development, while mixtures containing
silica fume and metakaolin reacted quickly and had large increases in
electrical resistivity at early ages.
The only mixtures that did not outperform the control at 56 days
were binary sugarcane bagasse ash mixtures, which had low surface and
bulk resistivity values overall but performed slightly better in bulk re­
sistivity with only two mixtures not exceeding the control at 56 days.
The two mixtures with the highest surface and bulk resistivity were
7SF/50Slag followed by 20F/50Slag. However, 10MK had higher initial
resistivity at 7 and 28 days; all three mixtures had equivalent penetra­
bility classification of “very low” at 56 days per AASHTO T 358 and TP
119 [27,28]. These SCMs or combination of SCMs are known to have
high pozzolanic reactivity, making them beneficial for concrete struc­
tures in aggressive environments [1,40,46,97]. Due to the high surface
area of silica fume and metakaolin, the hydration rate is faster
contributing to the early resistivity. It is important to note that the
standard curing age for many tests is 28 days based on traditional
mixture designs with portland cement, but with the inclusion of SCMs
and advances in binary and ternary mixture designs, a curing period of
56 days is recommended to gain the benefits of a more developed pore
structure from the pozzolanic reaction [17].
The surface resistivity versus bulk resistivity results are plotted in
Fig. 4 with a linear regression line through the origin. There is a strong
linear correlation between the surface and bulk resistivity measure­
ments, with an overall R2 value of 0.99 and a slope of 1.93 for a total of
95 data points (average of three specimens). The ratio between the
surface and bulk resistivity measurements (1.93) is in agreement with
the geometry correction factors proposed by Morris et al. (1996) that
were empirically measured for a 102 mm � 205 mm cylinder [33,34,98,
99]. Although there was more variability at later ages, a similar trend to
that presented in literature was observed [34,96,98]. The geometry
correction factor is approximately 1.9 for 102 mm � 205 mm cylinders
depending on exact dimensions and testing conditions [33,34,99]. The
regression analysis for this research study included nineteen concrete
mixtures with nine different SCMs, tested at multiple curing ages. The
strong correlation observed between surface and bulk resistivity in­
dicates that the relationship holds for various SCMs and remains
consistent over time. The results were not noticeably affected by mixture
design or SCM type.
C.M. Tibbetts et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491

Fig. 4. Correlation of measured surface and bulk resistivity of 19 concrete

mixtures at differing ages (7, 28, 56, 91, 182, and up to 365 days).

the control at 56 days were binary sugarcane bagasse ash mixtures. This
is in agreement with the surface and bulk resistivity results measured.
Surface and bulk resistivity test methods have been used as easier,
quick alternatives to the CIP test because of their strong correlation.
Bulk and surface resistivity results showed similar trends when
compared to the results from CIP testing as presented in Fig. 5; these
relationships are in good agreement with the literature [15,26,100,101].
Since these three test methods are based on electrical resistance and
have similar influencing factors, the results are expected to be strongly
related. A power curve was fitted to each of the data sets and the cor­
responding equations and R2 values are given in Fig. 5. The trend line of
theoretical bulk resistivity values calculated using Ohm’s law (Eq. (1)) is
also plotted for reference against the measured bulk resistivity values;
there is a slight divergence at lower CIP values (higher bulk resistivity
values), but the experimental values are still within the precision of the
ASTM C1202 test method [17] and there are fewer data points for that
range. The surface resistivity theoretical curve can be calculated by
multiplying the bulk resistivity by the geometry correction factor;
however, the limits given in AASHTO T 358 were the result of a large
experimental study and are slightly different than those calculated using
the geometry factor [15,27,34].

3.3. Water permeability vs. electrical test methods

Water permeability results show a general trend of decreasing

Fig. 3. Water permeability test setup.

3.2. Chloride ion penetrability

The CIP testing was performed in accordance with ASTM C1202 and
the results were calculated as the average charge passed for three
specimens and adjusted for the specimen diameter of 102 mm. CIP
testing was measured at curing ages 28, 56, 91, and up to 182 days, and
results ranged from approximately 6000 to 450 coulombs, spanning all
of the classifications in ASTM C1202 with the exception of “negligible”
[17]. All mixtures show a decrease in total charge passed over time
indicating a denser microstructure due to hydration; 7SF/50Slag,
20F/50Slag, and 10MK had the lowest charge passed, with a chloride
ion penetrability rating of “very low” at 56 days according to the rating Fig. 5. Correlation between CIP and surface resistivity (SR) and bulk resistivity
table in ASTM C1202 [17]. The only mixtures that did not outperform (BR) of 19 concrete mixtures at differing ages (28, 56, 91, and up to 182 days).

6
C.M. Tibbetts et al.
permeability with time, with values ranging from approximately
1.5 x10-13 m/s to 1.2 x10-14 m/s. Water permeability testing was con­
ducted at ages 28, 56, 91, and up to 182 days of curing. As was seen with
the other test methods, the majority of mixtures had a lower water
permeability than the control mix for every testing age. The 20F and 20C
mixtures had a high water permeability initially but a lower water
permeability than the control for the final ages; this is attributed to the
slower pozzolanic reaction of fly ash and is consistent with other pub­
lished literature [46,97].
The results from water permeability testing were then compared to
the standardized electrical test methods to determine if relationships
could be observed. Similar trends were observed for the comparison of
surface resistivity to water permeability and bulk resistivity to water
permeability; based on the results from Fig. 4, the relationship between
these test methods and water permeability was expected to be compa­
rable. As a result, Fig. 6 includes only the surface resistivity data set as
there was slightly more variability than the bulk resistivity results.
Overall the data showed increasing resistivity with decreasing water
permeability, but there was an increase in variability once the water
permeability was below a threshold of approximately 6 x10-14 m/s. At
this point, the precision of the test method and sensitivity of flow
measurement begins to become too low to accurately measure the flow;
an error in measurement of the specimen or reference cell of 1 mm for a
24-hr time period gives an error in permeability of approximately
1 x10-14 m/s. Therefore, the increased scatter for the low permeability
values and the minimum measured water permeability may be due to
the current limitations of the test method.
However, when isolating the mixture designs, different trends among
the SCMs were discerned. Mixtures with traditional SCMs including fly
ash, silica fume, slag, and metakaolin had similar behavior, as
decreasing permeability is related to increasing resistivity which is
plotted in Fig. 6a; ternary mixtures including 20C/10SCBA and
20C/5GG are also included in Fig. 6a. The alternative SCMs (binary
mixtures of SCBA, SCBA-A, SCBA-B, and ground glass) mixtures per­
formed similarly to each other; in contrast to the traditional SCMs, the
electrical resistivity values were lower and did not show much increase
with age, while the water permeability values showed larger changes
over time as shown in Fig. 6b. The 20GG 56-day point had the highest
surface resistivity of the alternative SCMs in Fig. 6b with 18 kΩ-cm,
while the majority of the alternative SCM mixtures classified as “high”
chloride ion penetrability (<12 kΩ-cm) across all testing ages.
Conversely, the water permeability results for the alternative SCMs
showed almost an order of magnitude difference between the highest
permeability of 1.1 x10-13 m/s and the lowest value of 3 x10-14 m/s. This
Fig. 6. Comparison of water permeability and surface resistivity results from differing ages, with each data point representing the average of three specimens.
7
Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491
suggests that for these alternative SCMs, the water permeability test
method may be a better representation of the change in pore structure
over time than the electrical resistivity test methods. Although the
ground glass binary mixture was grouped with SCBAs, only two curing
ages (28 and 56 days) were evaluated for water permeability. The 20GG
mixture had better electrical resistivity than the control overall, but not
as high as would be expected given the water permeability results.
Since electrical resistivity results are known to be influenced by
factors other than the physical pore structure, the chemistry of the
sugarcane bagasse ashes and ground glass is likely the cause of the re­
sistivity test overestimating the concrete penetrability. There is little
research on the electrical resistivity or permeability of concrete con­
taining SCBA; however, prior research has found that SCBA amended
concrete tends to behave in a manner similar to traditional SCMs where
electrical resistivity increases and the total charge passed over the
specimen decreases when compared to ordinary portland cement con­
crete [76,89,96].
The initial linear relationship between water permeability and CIP
(ASTM C1202) for 61 data points was poor resulting in an R2 value of
0.37 (dashed regression line in Fig. 7); however, after differentiating the
mixture designs, trends based on SCM type were observed similar to
those found in Fig. 6. The three sugarcane bagasse ashes (SCBA, SCBA-A,
and SCBA-B) were identified as outlying points from the behavior of the
other SCMs. Binary mixtures containing sugarcane bagasse ashes
exhibited higher total charge passed for CIP than other mixtures with
similar water permeability values; as a result, these mixtures were
omitted from the final linear regression (solid regression line in Fig. 7).
The 20GG mixture also had a high CIP value compared to the general
trend and was removed from the final regression line. The resulting data
set of 40 points, representing traditional SCMs, shows increasing total
charge passed over the specimen with increasing water permeability and
has a higher R2 value of 0.71. The relationship observed is expected as
higher water permeability would indicate higher interconnected
porosity and thus more electrical current should be able to pass through
the specimen. The ternary mixtures (20C/10SCBA and 20C/5GG) fol­
lowed the general trend of the traditional SCMs and were not removed
from the regression due to the low inclusion rate of SCBA and GG.
The thresholds for the chloride ion penetrability classifications as
given in ASTM C1202 were marked in Fig. 7 as horizontal dotted lines
[17]. Equivalent classification threshold values were developed from the
regression line of the water permeability testing results (excluding GG
and SCBA binary mixtures), and are shown as vertical dotted lines in
Fig. 7. The resultant equivalent ranges for chloride ion penetrability
based on water permeability are provided in Table 3. The classification
C.M. Tibbetts et al. Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491

majority of mixtures also either remained the same or decreased at 56

Fig. 7. Relationship between water permeability and CIP for 19 concrete
mixtures. The dashed regression line includes all mixtures and the solid
regression line includes traditional SCMs, but excludes SCBA, SCBA-A, SCBA-B,
and 20GG. Chloride ion penetrability classification thresholds from ASTM
C1202 are shown as dotted lines.
of chloride ion penetrability based on water permeability is in general
agreement with the classifications based upon CIP testing. From this
data set, water permeability above 1.3 x10-13 m/s is classified as high
penetrability, 3.2 to 6.4 x10-14 m/s is low, and values with an order of
magnitude of x10-15 m/s are considered very low to negligible.
The slope of the final regression line was not appreciably affected by
curing age. As the specimens matured and the water permeability results
were classified as low or very low, the R2 value decreased. This increased
scatter is attributed to the smaller range of water permeability values
and the reduced accuracy of the flow measurements for the low
permeability ranges. All of the concrete mixtures evaluated in this
research study were mixtures with a w/cm of 0.37; typical concrete
produced has a higher w/cm and would be expected to have higher
water permeability, resulting in less scatter and more accurate
classification.
From the results of the electrical test methods, it was anticipated that
the mixes containing GG and SCBA would perform poorly in water
permeability testing. When these results were contradictory to expec­
tations, an investigation into the potential causes for this discrepancy
was conducted. As electrical testing methods can be affected by pore
solution irrespective of actual physical pore structure [1,33], the pore
solution of the mixes was analyzed to determine if pH or conductivity
provided a potential explanation for the contradictory results.
days. The pH and conductivity of the pore solution are directly related
and expected to decrease with time as calcium hydroxide is consumed by
the pozzolanic reaction that occurs with supplementary cementitious
materials; lower pH and conductivity values indicate relatively high
pozzolanic activity [1,40,87,102].
For the majority of the mixtures, a reduced pore solution conduc­
tivity generally trended well with higher surface and bulk resistivity and
reduced CIP charge passed. However, the electrical conductivity of bulk
concrete can be described by a combination of the total volume of
interconnected pore fluid, the conductivity of the pore fluid, and the
conductivity of the bulk solids. Minor fluctuations in pore fluid con­
ductivity will likely not dictate systematic electrical behavior.
The mixtures that had the highest conductivity (and pH) values were
those containing ground glass while the mixtures with the lowest con­
ductivity (and pH) contained silica fume. The low alkali content and fast
pozzolanic reaction of silica fume results in a low conductivity. This is
supported by literature that has shown silica fume to be highly reactive
and efficient at reducing the pore solution alkalinity [1,40,97].
Ground glass can have variable chemical composition and reactivity
based on the glass source and processing; the relatively low surface and
bulk resistivity (and high total charge passed) observed is assumed to be
due to the high alkali content of the ground glass in this study
(approximately 13% Na2Oeq) and resulting high pore solution conduc­
tivity (65–79 mS/cm) [39].
The binary sugarcane bagasse ash mixtures had the lowest surface
and bulk resistivity (and highest total charge passed) of the SCM types
investigated; however, the conductivity of the pore solution was rela­
tively low. The low pH and conductivity of pore solution indicates
reduction of alkali hydroxides due to pozzolanic activity and could also
be influenced by the relatively high phosphorus (P2O5) levels due to the
acidic and less conductive nature of P2O5 [103]. The low conductivity of
the pore solution combined with electrical testing results suggests that
either the pore structure is not as refined (more pathways for flow), or
the bulk concrete matrix is more conductive due to presence of electri­
cally conductive constituents. As water permeability measures the
physical pore structure, the results show that the pore matrix of the
SCBA mixtures is refined; therefore, it is concluded that the composition
of the SCBA mixtures are composed of electrically conductive bulk
material (rather than pore fluid).
The SCBA used in this research had high LOI values ranging from 12
to 42%; whereas SCBA material in literature had values ranging from 3
to 6% [76,89]. The LOI values for SCBA, SCBA-A, and SCBA-B were 42%,
24%, and 12%, respectively (Table 2). For SCBA and other agricultural
wastes, material processing to obtain a homogeneous material can be
challenging and variability is typically high. The majority of research on

3.4. Pore solution analysis

Table 4
Pore solution was expressed from cementitious paste specimens at 28 Pore solution pH and conductivity results for cementitious paste specimens at
and 56 days for pH and conductivity (millisiemens per centimeter) 28-day.
analysis to evaluate the influences of the SCMs on pore solution char­ Mixture pH Conductivity (mS/cm)
acteristics; the results of 28-day testing are presented in Table 4. The pH OPC – Control 13.2 52.1
values ranged from 12.7 to 13.3 and either remained the same or 20F 13.3 49.5
decreased slightly at 56 days. Conductivity measurements for the 20C 13.3 66.7
7SF 12.7 13.3
50Slag 13.1 37.2
Table 3 20F/50Slag 13.0 26.8
Equivalent empirical water permeability thresholds based on chloride ion 10MK 13.1 31.9
penetrability classifications from ASTM C1202. 10SCBA 13.1 37.1
20C/10SCBA 13.1 40.4
Chloride ion ASTM C1202 charge Equivalent empirical water
7SF/50Slag 12.7 10.7
penetrability passed (coulombs) permeability (x10-15 m/s)
20C/50Slag 13.0 28.9
High >4000 >130 30C/5F 13.3 59.3
Moderate 2000–4000 64–130 20GG 13.3 72.4
Low 1000–2000 32–64 20C/5GG 13.3 64.7
Very low 100–1000 3.2–32 20SCBAa 12.9 21.4
Negligible <100 <3.2 a
This cementitious paste mixture had a w/cm of 0.5 for workability.

8
C.M. Tibbetts et al.
SCBA for use in concrete has focused on the calcination and grinding of
the material to achieve optimum pozzolanic activity [76–78,83–89].
The high LOI in SCBA is attributed to elevated levels of unburnt carbon
in the material [78,84,89]. Thermal carbon blacks are known to have
conductivity in the range of 0.1–100 S/cm [104,105]; this conductivity
is a potential explanation for the conductive nature of the bulk matrix
for SCBA mixtures. Unburnt carbon in agricultural waste ashes can be
reduced by using higher calcination/boiler temperatures to reduce the
carbon content [78,84,89].
4. Conclusions
This research investigated the relationships between standardized
electrical test methods (ASTM C1202, AASHTO T 358, and AASHTO TP
119) and pressurized uniaxial water permeability to evaluate the accu­
racy of using electrical measurements as a tool for predicting concrete
penetrability. Nine different supplementary cementitious materials were
evaluated as part of this study, and differences in behavior between
traditional and alternative SCMs were observed. Subsequent to contra­
dictory results between electrical and water permeability testing
methods, the pore solution from cementitious paste specimens was
expressed to determine if pH or conductivity provided a potential
explanation for the discrepancies. The sugarcane bagasse ashes and
ground glass used for this research displayed low electrical resistivity (or
high total charge passed) when compared to water permeability. Based
on the experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The results of this study demonstrate that the electrical test methods
investigated for evaluating concrete penetrability are not necessarily
appropriate for concrete containing alternative supplementary
cementitious materials. Conductive constituents from alternative
SCMs such as sugarcane bagasse ash and ground glass can result in
electrical-based penetrability classifications that are inconsistent
with classifications obtained from water permeability testing. Con­
crete containing traditional SCMs including fly ash, slag, silica fume,
and metakaolin perform in the same manner where increasing
electrical resistivity (and decreasing total charge passed) corre­
sponds with decreasing water permeability, resulting in more dura­
ble concrete.
2. Contributing factors to the increased penetrability measurements
from electrical test methods are attributed to the following:
a. The increase in conductive ions (alkalis) within the pore solution.
b. The presence of conductive solids in the hardened bulk concrete
matrix.
3. Water permeability testing is unaffected by electrically conductive
components in the pore solution or bulk matrix of concrete.
4. This study confirms the general consensus that geometric correction
factors between surface and bulk resistivity specimens are unaffected
by SCM type and remain consistent over time.
The implications of this research extend beyond the use of alterna­
tive supplementary cementitious materials. In the case of SCBA, the low
electrical resistivity results are attributed to high amounts of conductive
carbon in the concrete. This trend was seen with SCBA having an LOI of
12%; ASTM C618 allows for the use of Class F fly ash with an LOI up to
12% as long as performance is verified [90]. Should high LOI fly ash be
used, the carbon content of the fly ash could skew electrical resistivity
tests, disqualifying materials that might perform adequately in water
permeability testing.
The nature in which a material is processed is critical with respect to
consistent behavior. Future research should include a sensitivity anal­
ysis on the effect of alkali concentrations, minor oxide concentrations,
and dispersed carbon on electrical test methods to determine if the
behavior of alternative SCMs follow that of traditional SCMs. Addi­
tionally, concrete with varying water-cementitious ratios should be
evaluated for water permeability to refine the proposed equivalent
9
Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491
classifications for qualifying concrete durability.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions presented in this document may not repre­
sent the official views of the State of Florida, the Florida Department of
Transportation or the University of Florida.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support received from the Florida
Department of Transportation for funding this research, contract num­
ber BDV31-TWO-977-42. The authors would also like to express their
gratitude to the following people at the FDOT SMO; Dr. H.D. DeFord for
his valuable advice, and Ronald Simmons and Teresa Risher for their
assistance with testing. The authors would also like to acknowledge the
following personnel from the University of Florida, Dr. Taylor
Rawlinson, Taylor Humbarger, Paul Schwartz, Neal Turner, Jason
McAllister-Pringle, Margaret Long, Jeanine Marrou, and Alexander
Campano.
References
[1] ACI Committee 201, Guide to Durable Concrete, American Concrete Institute,
2016.
[2] E.J. Garboczi, Permeability, diffusivity, and microstructural parameters: a critical
review, Cement Concr. Res. 20 (1990) 591–601, https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-
8846(90)90101-3.
[3] N. Hearn, R.D. Hooton, M.R. Nokken, Pore structure, permeability, and
penetration resistance characteristics of concrete, in: Significance of Tests and
Properties of Concrete and Concrete-Making Materials, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2006, pp. 238–252.
[4] K. Stanish, R.D. Hooton, M. Thomas, Testing the Chloride Penetration Resistance
of Concrete: a Literature Review, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2000.
[5] J. Weiss, S. Shields-Cook, Relating Transport Properties to Performance in
Concrete Pavements, 2014.
[6] D. Whiting, Permeability of Selected Concretes, 108, Special Publication, 1988,
pp. 195–222.
[7] P.K. Mehta, Durability of Concrete in Marine Environment–A Review, 65, Special
Publication, 1980, pp. 1–20.
[8] S. Ahmad, A.K. Azad, K.F. Loughlin, A study of permeability and tortuosity of
concrete, in: 30th Conference on Our World in Concrete and Structures, 2005,
pp. 153–160.
[9] S. Ahmad, A.K. Azad, K.F. Loughlin, Effect of the key mixture parameters on
tortuosity and permeability of concrete, J. Adv. Concr. Technol. 10 (2012) 86–94,
https://doi.org/10.3151/jact.10.86.
[10] PCA, Permeability of Concrete, Portland Cement Association, 1988.
[11] CCAA, Chloride Resistance of Concrete, Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia,
Sydney, Australia, 2009.
[12] X. Li, Q. Xu, S. Chen, An experimental and numerical study on water permeability
of concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 105 (2016) 503–510, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2015.12.184.
[13] L.O. Nilsson, E. Poulsen, P. Sandberg, Henrik Erndahl Sørensen, O. Klinghoffer,
HETEK, Chloride Penetration into Concrete, State-Of-The-Art. Transport
Processes, Corrosion Initiation, Test Methods and Prediction Models, 1996.
[14] B.A. Suprenant, Designing concrete for exposure to seawater, Concr. Constr.
(1991) 914–916.
[15] A.R. Chini, L.C. Muszynski, J.K. Hicks, Determination of Acceptance Permeability
Characteristics for Performance-Related Specifications for Portland Cement
Concrete, 2003.
[16] C. Ozyildirim, Effects of Temperature on the Development of Low Permeability in
Concretes, others, Virginia Transportation Research Council, 1998.
[17] ASTM C1202, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability
to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2012.
[18] AASHTO T 277, Standard Method of Test for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s
Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2011.
[19] D. Whiting, Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete, Final
Report Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, Construction Technology Labs,
1981.
[20] AASHTO T 259, Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride
Ion Penetration, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC, 2012.
[21] D.P. Bentz, E.J. Garboczi, N. Martys, K.A. Snyder, W. Guthrie, K. Kyritsis,
N. Neithalath, Virtual Testing of Concrete Transport Properties, Submitted to ACI
Fall 2009 Session on Material Science Modeling as a Solution to Concrete
Problems, 2009.
C.M. Tibbetts et al.
[22] G. Julio-Betancourt, R. Hooton, Study of the Joule effect on rapid chloride
permeability values and evaluation of related electrical properties of concretes,
Cement Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 1007–1015.
[23] K.A. Riding, J.L. Poole, A.K. Schindler, M.C. Juenger, K.J. Folliard, Simplified
concrete resistivity and rapid chloride permeability test method, ACI Mater. J.
105 (2008) 390–394.
[24] R. Feldman, L.R. Prudencio Jr., G. Chan, Rapid chloride permeability test on
blended cement and other concretes: correlations between charge, initial current
and conductivity, Constr. Build. Mater. 13 (1999) 149–154.
[25] J.F. Lamond, J.H. Pielert, Significance of Tests and Properties of Concrete and
Concrete-Making Materials, others, ASTM International, 2006.
[26] R.D. Hooton, G. Charmchi, Adoption of Resistivity Tests for Concrete Acceptance,
303, Special Publication, 2015, pp. 269–280.
[27] AASHTO T 358, Standard Method of Test for Surface Resistivity Indication of
Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2015.
[28] AASHTO TP 119, Standard Method of Test for Electrical Resistivity of a Concrete
Cylinder Tested in a Uniaxial Resistance Test, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2015.
[29] Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-119 – Federal Register (Federal
Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and
in Conformity Assessment Activities), 1998.
[30] L. Carnahan, A. Phelps, Conformity Assessment Considerations for Federal
Agencies, NIST Special Publication, 2000, 02.
[31] FDOT, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, 2018.
[32] LaDOTD, Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges, 2016.
[33] R. Spragg, Y. Bu, K. Snyder, D. Bentz, J. Weiss, Electrical Testing of Cement-Based
Materials: Role of Testing Techniques, Sample Conditioning, and Accelerated
Curing, JTRP Technical Reports, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5703/
1288284315230.
[34] R. Spragg, J. Castro, T. Nantung, M. Paredes, J. Weiss, Variability Analysis of the
Bulk Resistivity Measured Using Concrete Cylinders, JTRP Technical Reports,
2011, https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314646.
[35] U.M. Angst, B. Elsener, On the applicability of the wenner method for resistivity
measurements of concrete, MJ 111 (2014) 661–672.
[36] R. Spragg, C. Villani, K. Snyder, D. Bentz, J.W. Bullard, J. Weiss, Factors that
influence electrical resistivity measurements in cementitious systems, J. Transp.
Res. Board (2013) 90–98, https://doi.org/10.3141/2342-11.
[37] R. Spragg, C. Villani, J. Weiss, Electrical properties of cementitious systems:
formation factor determination and the influence of conditioning procedures,
Adv. Civ. Eng. Mater. 5 (2016) 124–148.
[38] R. Spragg, S. Jones, Y. Bu, Y. Lu, D. Bentz, K. Snyder, J. Weiss, Leaching of
conductive species: implications to measurements of electrical resistivity, Cement
Concr. Compos. 79 (2017) 94–105.
[39] Y. Bu, J. Weiss, The influence of alkali content on the electrical resistivity and
transport properties of cementitious materials, Cement Concr. Compos. 51 (2014)
49–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.02.008.
[40] A. Scott, M. Alexander, Effect of supplementary cementitious materials (binder
type) on the pore solution chemistry and the corrosion of steel in alkaline
environments, Cement Concr. Res. 89 (2016) 45–55.
[41] M. Tsui-Chang, P. Suraneni, L. Montanari, J.F. Mu~ noz, W.J. Weiss, Determination
of chemical composition and electrical resistivity of expressed cementitious pore
solutions using X-ray fluorescence, ACI Mater. J. 116 (2019) 155–164.
[42] R. Barneyback Jr., S. Diamond, Expression and analysis of pore fluids from
hardened cement pastes and mortars, Cement Concr. Res. 11 (1981) 279–285.
[43] K.A. Snyder, X. Feng, B. Keen, T. Mason, Estimating the electrical conductivity of
cement paste pore solutions from OH-, Kþ and Naþ concentrations, Cement
Concr. Res. 33 (2003) 793–798.
[44] Inorganic Materials Group, Estimation of Pore Solution Conductivity, NIST, 2017.
https://www.nist.gov/el/materials-and-structural-systems-division-73100
/inorganic-materials-group-73103/estimation-pore. (Accessed 25 February
2019).
[45] D.P. Bentz, A virtual rapid chloride permeability test, Cement Concr. Compos. 29
(2007) 723–731.
[46] H.F. Taylor, Cement Chemistry, second ed., Thomas Telford, 1997.
[47] A. El-Dieb, R. Hooton, Water-permeability measurement of high performance
concrete using a high-pressure triaxial cell, Cement Concr. Res. 25 (1995)
1199–1208, https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-8846(95)00112-P.
[48] G. Hyde, W. Smith, Results of experiments made to determine the permeability of
cements and cement mortars, J. Frankl. Inst. 128 (1889) 199–207.
[49] L. Basheer, J. Kropp, D.J. Cleland, Assessment of the durability of concrete from
its permeation properties: a review, Constr. Build. Mater. 15 (2001) 93–103,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00058-1.
[50] Q.T. Phung, N. Maes, G. De Schutter, D. Jacques, G. Ye, Determination of water
permeability of cementitious materials using a controlled constant flow method,
Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1488–1496, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2013.06.074.
[51] G.W. Scherer, J.J. Valenza II, G. Simmons, New methods to measure liquid
permeability in porous materials, Cement Concr. Res. 37 (2007) 386–397,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.09.020.
[52] 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.
[53] P. Soongswang, M. Tia, D.G. Bloomquist, C. Meletiou, L.M. Sessions, Efficient Test
Setup for Determining the Water-Permeability of Concrete, Transportation
Research Record, 1988, pp. 77–82.
10
Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491
[54] R.D. Hooton, What is needed in A permeability test for evaluation of concrete
quality, in: MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive 137, 1988.
[55] CRD-C, CRD-C 163-92 Standard Test Method for Water Permeability of Concrete
Using Triaxial Cell, U.S. Federal Standards, 1992.
[56] USBR 4913-92, Procedure for Water Permeability of Concrete, U.S. Department of
the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 1992.
[57] IS 3085-65, Method of Test for Permeability of Cement Mortar and Concrete,
Indian Standards Institution, 1965.
[58] WA 625.1, Water Permeability of Hardened Concrete, Pavements and Structures
Western Australia, 1998.
[59] N. Hearn, R. Mills, A simple permeameter for water or gas flow, Cement Concr.
Res. 21 (1991) 257–261.
[60] D. Ludirdja, R.L. Berger, Jf Young, Simple method for measuring water
permeability of concrete, Mater. J. 86 (1989) 433–439.
[61] R. Khatri, V. Sirivivatnanon, Methods for the determination of water permeability
of concrete, Mater. J. 94 (1997) 257–261.
[62] Z.C. Grasley, G.W. Scherer, D.A. Lange, J.J. Valenza, Dynamic pressurization
method for measuring permeability and modulus: II. cementitious materials,
Mater. Struct. 40 (2007) 711–721.
[63] C.A. Jones, Z.C. Grasley, Correlation of radial flow-through and hollow cylinder
dynamic pressurization test for measuring permeability, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21
(2009) 594–600.
[64] C. Jones, Z. Grasley, Measuring concrete permeability using dynamic
pressurization: achieving saturation, in: National Ready Mix Concrete Association
(NRMCA) Concrete Technology Forum, 2009.
[65] A. Bhargava, N. Banthia, Measurement of concrete permeability under stress, Exp.
Tech. 30 (2006) 28–31.
[66] F. McMillan, I. Lyse, Some permeability studies of concrete, J. Proc. (1929)
101–142.
[67] T. Powers, Concrete studies at the bull run dam, city of portland, Oregon, J. Proc.
(1929) 388–420.
[68] N. Banthia, S. Mindess, Water permeability of cement paste, Cement Concr. Res.
19 (1989) 727–736.
[69] CRD-C, CRD-C 48-92 Standard Test Method for Water Permeability of Concrete,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992.
[70] W. Tangchirapat, C. Jaturapitakkul, Strength, drying shrinkage, and water
permeability of concrete incorporating ground palm oil fuel ash, Cement Concr.
Compos. 32 (2010) 767–774.
[71] P. Soongswang, M. Tia, D. Bloomquist, Factors affecting the strength and
permeability of concrete made with porous limestone, Mater. J. 88 (1991)
400–406.
[72] J.M. Armaghani, D.G. Bloomquist, Development of Concrete Durability
Specification and Ratings in Florida, Transportation Research Record, 1994.
[73] M.R. Nokken, R.D. Hooton, Using pore parameters to estimate permeability or
conductivity of concrete, Mater. Struct. 41 (2007) 1–16, https://doi.org/
10.1617/s11527-006-9212-y.
[74] N. Otero, L. Vitoria, A. Soler, A. Canals, Fertiliser characterisation: major, trace
and rare earth elements, Appl. Geochem. 20 (2005) 1473–1488.
[75] R. Maguire, M.M. Alley, W. Flowers, Fertilizer Types and Calculating Application
Rates, others, 2009.
[76] A. Bahurudeen, D. Kanraj, V.G. Dev, M. Santhanam, Performance evaluation of
sugarcane bagasse ash blended cement in concrete, Cement Concr. Compos. 59
(2015) 77–88.
[77] A. Bahurudeen, M. Santhanam, Influence of different processing methods on the
pozzolanic performance of sugarcane bagasse ash, Cement Concr. Compos. 56
(2015) 32–45.
[78] G. Cordeiro, R. Toledo Filho, E. Fairbairn, Effect of calcination temperature on the
pozzolanic activity of sugar cane bagasse ash, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009)
3301–3303.
[79] J.M. Paris, J.G. Roessler, C.C. Ferraro, H.D. DeFord, T.G. Townsend, A review of
waste products utilized as supplements to Portland cement in concrete, J. Clean.
Prod. 121 (2016) 1–18.
[80] W. Tangchirapat, T. Saeting, C. Jaturapitakkul, K. Kiattikomol, A. Siripanichgorn,
Use of waste ash from palm oil industry in concrete, Waste Manag. 27 (2007)
81–88.
[81] N. Chusilp, C. Jaturapitakkul, K. Kiattikomol, Utilization of bagasse ash as a
pozzolanic material in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 3352–3358.
[82] S. Rukzon, P. Chindaprasirt, Utilization of bagasse ash in high-strength concrete,
Mater. Des. 34 (2012) 45–50.
[83] G. Cordeiro, R. Toledo Filho, L. Tavares, E. Fairbairn, Pozzolanic activity and
filler effect of sugar cane bagasse ash in Portland cement and lime mortars,
Cement Concr. Compos. 30 (2008) 410–418.
[84] J. Pay� a, J. Monz�o, M.V. Borrachero, L. Díaz-Pinz�on, L.M. Ordonez, Sugar-cane
bagasse ash (SCBA): studies on its properties for reusing in concrete production,
J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 77 (2002) 321–325. International Research in
Process, Environmental & Clean Technology.
[85] G.C. Cordeiro, K.E. Kurtis, Effect of mechanical processing on sugar cane bagasse
ash pozzolanicity, Cement Concr. Res. 97 (2017) 41–49.
[86] G.C. Cordeiro, R.D. Toledo Filho, L.M. Tavares, E. de M.R. Fairbairn, Ultrafine
grinding of sugar cane bagasse ash for application as pozzolanic admixture in
concrete, Cement Concr. Res. 39 (2009) 110–115.
[87] M.M. de Soares, D.C. Garcia, R.B. Figueiredo, M.T.P. Aguilar, P.R. Cetlin,
Comparing the pozzolanic behavior of sugar cane bagasse ash to amorphous and
crystalline SiO2, Cement Concr. Compos. 71 (2016) 20–25.
C.M. Tibbetts et al.
[88] M. Frías, E. Villar, H. Savastano, Brazilian sugar cane bagasse ashes from the
cogeneration industry as active pozzolans for cement manufacture, Cement
Concr. Compos. 33 (2011) 490–496.
[89] K. Ganesan, K. Rajagopal, K. Thangavel, Evaluation of bagasse ash as
supplementary cementitious material, Cement Concr. Compos. 29 (2007)
515–524.
[90] ASTM C618, Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural
Pozzolan for Use in Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2017.
[91] C.M. Tibbetts, M.C. Perry, C.C. Ferraro, others, Aggregate correction factors for
concrete elastic modulus prediction, ACI Struct. J. 115 (2018) 931–941.
[92] Mack Tyner, Effect of moisture oin thermal conductivity of limerock concrete,
J. Proc. 43 (1946), https://doi.org/10.14359/8742.
[93] ASTM C33, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregate, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[94] ASTM C192, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in
the Laboratory, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[95] ASTM C305, Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes
and Mortars of Plastic Consistency, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2014.
[96] C.C. Ferraro, J.M. Paris, T. Townsend, M. Tia, Evaluation of Alternative
Pozzolanic Materials for Partial Replacement of Portland Cement in Concrete,
2016.
[97] B. Lothenbach, K. Scrivener, R. Hooton, Supplementary cementitious materials,
Cement Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 1244–1256.
11
Cement and Concrete Composites 107 (2020) 103491
[98] P. Ghosh, Q. Tran, Correlation between bulk and surface resistivity of concrete,
Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 9 (2014) 119–132, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-
014-0094-z.
[99] W. Morris, E.I. Moreno, A.A. Sagü� es, Practical evaluation of resistivity of concrete
in test cylinders using a Wenner array probe, Cement Concr. Res. 26 (1996)
1779–1787, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(96)00175-5.
[100] A.A. Ramezanianpour, A. Pilvar, M. Mahdikhani, F. Moodi, Practical evaluation
of relationship between concrete resistivity, water penetration, rapid chloride
penetration and compressive strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011)
2472–2479, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.069.
[101] R.J. Kessler, R.G. Powers, M.P. Mario Paredes, Resistivity Measurements of Water
Saturated Concrete as an Indicator of Permeability, CORROSION 2005, 2005.
[102] R. Cherif, A. Hamami, A. Aït-Mokhtar, J. Meusnier, Study of the pore solution and
the microstructure of mineral additions blended cement pastes, Energy Procedia
139 (2017) 584–589.
[103] D.R. Lide, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 82nd ed., CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 2000.
[104] D. Pantea, H. Darmstadt, S. Kaliaguine, L. Sümmchen, C. Roy, Electrical
conductivity of thermal carbon blacks: influence of surface chemistry, Carbon 39
(2001) 1147–1158.
[105] H. Li, H. Xiao, J. Ou, Effect of compressive strain on electrical resistivity of carbon
black-filled cement-based composites, Cement Concr. Compos. 28 (2006)
824–828.