ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title No. 118-M53
Estimation of Electrical Resistivity of Concrete with
Blast‑Furnace Slag
by S. E. S. Mendes, R. L. N. Oliveira, C. Cremonez, E. Pereira, E. Pereira, P. O. Trentin, and
R. A. Medeiros-Junior
Blast-furnace slag (BFS) has been increasingly used in cement
production and has shown great influence on the electrical resis-
tivity of concrete. The objective of this paper is to compare the
theoretical values of electrical resistivity obtained through a
mathematical model with experimental values for concrete with
BFS. Reference concrete mixtures with ordinary portland cement
were also studied. Results indicate higher electrical resistivity
and smaller porosity for concretes with CEM III/A. The electrical
resistivity of the CEM III/A concrete does not have a well-defined
correlation with the water-binder ratio (w/b) or with the compres-
sive strength, unlike CEM I concretes. The correlation between
calculated and experimental resistivity requires a correction factor
for the CEM III/A concretes. In this study, the correction factor
was obtained empirically by reducing the theoretical tortuosity of
concrete by 15%. Therefore, the model should be used in cements
with BFS with the application of a correction factor.
Keywords: durability; electrical resistivity; models; nondestructive testing;
porosimetry.
INTRODUCTION
Electrical resistivity of concrete
The electrical resistivity of concrete measures the mate-
rial’s ability to conduct electrical charges through its inte-
rior. The technique based on Wenner’s fourth electrodes is
generally used in reinforced concrete structures, where the
current is applied by the external electrodes and the voltage
is measured by the internal electrodes. Concrete electrical
resistivity has a relationship with the material’s microstruc-
ture,1-3 and it is directly related to the durability of cement-
based materials.4-6
Electrical resistivity measurement techniques are
becoming popular among researchers for the durability
assessment of concrete due to their practicality and the low
cost involved.3,4 This technique has been used as nondestruc-
tive testing to indirectly evaluate the durability of structures
because it is a simple and fast field methodology that pres-
ents reliable results and can indicate the risk of corrosion of
steel reinforcement. This test is correlated with some perfor-
mance characteristics of concrete such as chloride diffusion
coefficient and water absorption.2,7-12
According to Polder,13 a low electrical resistivity is
related to the rapid penetration of chloride and a high rate
of corrosion. Cruz et al.14 used electrical resistivity to eval-
uate mortars with pozzolans in the first 28 days of age. The
results showed that electrical resistivity can be used to assess
the degree of hydration. Ghoddousi and Saadabadi15 inves-
tigated the effect of metakaolin and silica fume on hydration
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
TECHNICAL PAPER
products and electrical resistivity of self-consolidating
concrete (SCC). The correlation coefficient of the relation-
ship between Ca(OH)2 content and electrical resistivity
was 0.96 for SCCs without pozzolans and 0.97 for samples
containing pozzolans.
Reinforcement corrosion is an electrochemical process
that involves electric flow and causes the degradation of
the concrete structures. Therefore, electrical resistivity is an
important tool for evaluating corrosion probability.4,16-18
Regarding the effects of aggregates on the electrical resis-
tivity of concrete, Hou et al.19 observed that the electric
current tends to cross through the coarse aggregates rather
than through the interface transition zone. Therefore, the
effect of the transition zone can be less intense than other
concrete parameters, such as the water-binder ratio (w/b).20
Estimation of electrical resistivity and application
in concrete service life modeling
The model based on Archie’s and Powers’ laws can
be used to estimate the concrete electrical resistivity, as
proposed by D’Andrea21 and validated by Mendes et al.22
Archie23 proposed the model of Eq. (1) from studies on the
exploration of oil and gas in sandy oils to estimate the elec-
trical resistivity (ρʹ, in Ω.m) of sand with its pores fully filled
by brine.
  0    (1)
where ρ0ʹ is the brine resistivity (Ω.m); εʹ is the sand porosity
(% volume); and τ represents the tortuosity (dimensionless)
of the void formed by the spaces between the grains of sand.
Therefore, Eq. (1) was adapted (Eq. (2)) to estimate the
electrical resistivity of concrete (ρ, Ω.m), where ρ0 (Ω.m)
is the electrical resistivity of the aqueous phase; ε is the
porosity of the concrete (% volume); and m is the tortuosity
(dimensionless) of concrete pores.21,23 Although the elec-
trical resistivity of the aqueous phase (ρ0) may vary between
different concrete mixtures, its order of magnitude is much
lower compared to the total resistivity of the concrete. Thus,
some studies18,21,22,24,25 recommend the use of the fixed
value of 0.5 Ω.m in terms of simplification, without major
ACI Materials Journal, V. 118, No. 4, July 2021.
MS No. M-2020-172.R1, doi: 10.14359/51732597, received September 4, 2020, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2021, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
27
impacts on the final value of the resistivity of the concrete.
Using this constant value represents a great saving of time
and resources because the extraction of the solution from
the pores of the concrete to determine the resistivity is an
expensive process.
  0    m
The porosity of concrete can be calculated from Eq. (3),
with the conversion of the porosity of the paste εp (% volume)
into the porosity of the concrete ε (% volume).21,23 Volpaste
(m3) and Volconcrete (m3) are the volumes of the cement paste
and concrete, respectively.
Vol paste
  p  (3)
Volconcrete
In this case, the classic model of Powers et al.26 can be
used to estimate the porosity of the cement paste (Eq. (4))21,26
 w / c   0.36   also increased the electrical resistivity of the samples. The
p  100%
 w / c   0.32
where εp is the porosity of the cement paste (% volume); w/c
is the water-cement ratio; and α is the degree of hydration
of cement.
According to D’Andrea,21 the simplified model proposed
by Mills27 can be used to estimate α in the case of portland
cements (Eq. (5)).
1.031   w / c 
  1.0
0.194   w / c 
Therefore, estimating the electrical resistivity of concrete
from Eq. (2) to (5) can be a powerful tool for interacting with
other service life models available in the literature. Andrade28
used electrical resistivity as an indicator of durability for
application in service life prediction (Eq. (6)), considering
corrosion initiated by chlorides or carbonation. This may be
possible because a very important factor regarding the rate
of corrosion is the electrical resistivity of the concrete. The
high resistivity of the concrete can restrict the flow of ions
between the anodic and cathodic regions29
x 2  es  rCl, CO2 Px  ef
t  ti  t p   (6)
kCl, CO2 kCorr
where t is the service life considering reinforcement corro-
sion (years); ti is the initiation period (years); tp is the propa-
gation period (years); x is the penetration depth of the aggres-
sive agent; ρes is the electrical resistivity of water-saturated
concrete; rCl,CO is the reaction or binding factor (parameter
2
depending on the type of cement); kCl,CO is the factor of 2
aggressive penetration (environmental parameter); Px is the
limit corrosion attack depth (loss in reinforcing bar diameter
or pit depth); ρes is the electrical resistivity of concrete at its
actual degree of saturation; and kCorr is the constant with a
value of 30,000 μA/cm2·kΩ·cm.
Thus, the possibility of mathematically estimating
electrical resistivity by a simplified method can be very
28
useful whether for application in the Andrade28 service
life model (Eq. (6)) or for other durability models that use
electrical resistivity as an input parameter,22,30 mainly for
new buildings.
Effect of blast-furnace slag on resistivity
(2) Tibbetts et al.31 compared three standardized electrical
test methods (AASHTO T 358, AASHTO TP 119, and
ASTM C1202) to evaluate the physical water permeability
of concrete. Surface and bulk resistivities were measured at
7, 28, 56, 91, 182, and up to 365 days. The electrical resis-
tivity increased with the use of blast-furnace slag (BFS)
in the mixture. The authors observed that the use of alter-
native supplementary cementitious materials including
fly ash, silica fume, slag, and metakaolin had similar
behavior, where the increase in resistivity is related to the
decreasing permeability.
Shubbar et al.32 developed a cement with a mixture of ordi-
nary portland cement (35%), BFS (35%), and high-calcium
fly ash (30%). The incorporation of supplementary materials
(4)
increase in electrical resistivity occurred in parallel with the
increment of the resistance to the diffusivity of chloride ions
and the densification of the microstructure.
He et al.33 used wet milling and dry separation to prepare
ultrafine BFS and improve its early reactivity in the cements.
The electrical resistivity of wet-milling specimens develops
at faster rates than that of dry-separation specimens.
According to the authors, electrical resistivity is driven by
the number of mobile ions in the solution. The amount of
ion decreases with the increment of BFS dosage due to its
(5)
low dissolution rate compared with that of ordinary portland
cement. Therefore, the specimens with more BFS content
have higher electrical resistivity values.
Rovnaník et al.34 compared the electrical properties
(resistance and capacitance) of portland cement and alkali-
activated slag mortars. The authors verified that the electrical
resistance decreases as the compressive stress increases.
Also, the resistivity of portland cement was 10 times higher
than that of alkali-activated slag mortars in the frequency
range of 40 Hz to 1 MHz. This effect was attributed to two
factors: the increased concentration of conductive electro-
lyte in alkali-activated slags pore solution and the presence
of iron particles in BFS.
Thus, the literature shows that the effect of BFS on the
electrical resistivity of concrete is significant. Therefore, this
paper aims to assess whether Eq. (2) to (5) are also valid for
the case of concretes with high BFS content. That is the main
motivation of this paper.
This model (Eq. (2) to (5)) was detailed by D’Andrea21
and validated by Mendes et al.22 for 33 concrete mixtures.
Therefore, electrical resistivity can be determined by mathe-
matical models or from experimental tests.
Mendes et al.22 proposed the use of electrical resistivity to
define the proportion of concrete materials (cement, water,
and aggregates). The electrical resistivity estimated by
Eq. (2) to (5) was compared with laboratory measure values
for concretes with four types of portland cement available in
the Brazilian market: CPIIF (up to 10% of limestone filler),
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
Table 1—Composition of concrete mixtures with CEM I
Code Cement, kg/m3 Fine aggregate, kg/m3 Coarse aggregate, kg/m3 w/b PA, % SPA, % Slump, mm ER, Ω.m
CI.1 656 454 1027 0.32 — 1.01 10.0 57.7
CI.2 572 551 1034 0.35 — 0.80 10.5 55.0
CI.3 497 624 1039 0.40 — 0.70 9.0 49.4
CI.4 444 681 1037 0.44 — 0.70 11.0 49.4
CI.5 395 721 1030 0.50 — 0.61 10.0 42.4
CI.6 352 761 1039 0.55 — 0.71 11.0 40.0
CI.7 328 785 1029 0.60 — 0.70 9.0 33.2
CI.8 297 820 1034 0.65 — 0.71 10.5 33.2
CI.9 281 828 1025 0.70 — 0.71 10.0 29.8
Note: PA is plasticizer additive; SPA is superplasticizer additive; ER is electrical resistivity at 28 days.

CPIIZ (up to 14% of fly ash), CPIV (up to 50% of fly ash),
and CPV (up to 5% of limestone filler). The authors verified
good correlations between the data. This is very useful to
make it possible to include durability in engineering projects
from the design stage.
However, BFS is widely used in civil constructions to
produce cement or concrete. Portland cement Type III is one
example of this kind of cement from Brazil. This cement
uses up to 75% of BFS in their composition. In this case, this
study aimed to verify the possibility of applying Eq. (2) to
(5) to cements with high slag content. This is a gap that was
not filled in the study of Mendes et al.22
Therefore, the objective of this paper was to compare the
theoretical values of electrical resistivity obtained through
a mathematical model (Eq. (2) to (5)) with experimental
values for concrete with BFS. Forty concrete mixtures were
analyzed in the present study. Then, the electrical resistivity
estimated for these concretes was compared with the values
obtained experimentally at 28 days. In addition, the resis-
tivity of the concretes was also assessed at 91 days because
the reactions of the slag are known to be slower than the
hydration of the clinker. This is also an innovation compared
to the study by Mendes et al.,22 where the authors only eval-
uated resistivity at 28 days. The relationship between elec-
trical resistivity and compressive strength tests were also
investigated at these two ages.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study aims to encourage the practical application of
the tested equations (Eq. (2) to (5)). This would be the best
use of this research. The main advantage of these equations
is that they are easy to apply. This encourages their use in
everyday civil engineering decision-making. Although other
models exist in the literature, their complexity inhibits real
application in practice. Therefore, the model studied in this
paper aims to be as applicable as possible.
Also, estimating the resistivity mathematically means
being able to use this parameter in modeling the concrete
service life28 and/or in defining concrete mixture design.22
This step is very important to allow including durability
parameters from the design stage of civil constructions.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Materials
In this study, 40 concrete mixtures (Tables 1 and 2) were
produced. Sulfate-resistant portland cement Type III avail-
able in the Brazilian market was used in 31 mixtures. This
cement is equivalent to CEM III/A (BFS content of approx-
imately 60%). The sulfate resistance property is a conse-
quence of the high slag content found in this cement. For
comparison of results, ordinary portland cement (CEM I)
was used in nine mixtures. This cement is equivalent to
portland cement CEM I 52.5R (portland cement with high
early strength).35 The chemical composition of the binders
obtained by X-ray fluorescence is shown in Table 3.
Some parameters were fixed for the 40 concrete mixtures’
designs: coarse aggregate with a maximum dimension of
12.5 mm and modulus of fineness of 5.61; fine aggregate
with a maximum dimension of 4.8 mm and modulus of fine-
ness of 2.62; and mortar content of 52% and consistency
of 100 ± 20 mm. The maximum size of the aggregates and
their modulus of fineness were fixed because they can influ-
ence the results of electrical resistivity, as reported by some
studies.19,36 The mortar content and consistency were fixed
to facilitate the comparison of concretes with similar appli-
cability. Two naphthalene-based additives (plasticizer and
superplasticizer) were used to control concrete consistency.
Thus, this research covers a wide variety of mixtures (all
with the same consistency) with w/c from 0.32 to 0.72 and
cement content from 259 to 663 kg/m3. This facilitates the
possibility of extrapolating the results to a larger number of
practical applications.
Cylindrical specimens of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm
height were cast. The cure was performed by immersion in
water. Some specimens were tested after 28 days of curing,
and others after 91 days of curing.
Electrical resistivity and compressive strength tests
The electrical resistivity test was performed according
to Wenner’s method (four points), based on the standard
established by UNE 83988-2:2014.37 The test consisted of
the use of four electrodes spaced by 0.05 m. An electrical
charge applied between the two external electrodes results
in a difference of potential, which is measured by the two
internal electrodes of the equipment.

ACI Materials Journal/July 2021 29

Table 2—Composition of concrete mixtures with CEM III/A
Code Cement, kg/m3 Fine aggregate, kg/m3 Coarse aggregate, kg/m3 w/b PA, % SPA, % Slump, mm ER, Ω.m
CIII.1 586 527 1020 0.35 1.01 — 9.5 237.9
CIII.2 493 663 1069 0.35 — 0.39 11.0 303.1
CIII.3 663 418 992 0.37 — — 8.0 155.3
CIII.4 503 692 1005 0.37 — 0.60 10.0 238.6
CIII.5 595 502 980 0.40 — — 9.0 199.3
CIII.6 596 478 987 0.40 — — 9.0 161.7
CIII.7 506 601 1026 0.40 0.91 — 10.5 190.8
CIII.8 433 717 1062 0.40 — 0.39 11.0 291.4
CIII.9 557 540 995 0.42 — — 9.0 179.5
CIII.10 567 507 997 0.42 — — 9.5 154.2
CIII.11 474 647 1032 0.42 0.91 — 9.5 212.6
CIII.12 444 746 1008 0.42 — 0.68 9.5 257.5
CIII.13 436 658 1004 0.50 — — 9.0 177.2
CIII.14 464 621 999 0.50 — — 10.0 190.3
CIII.15 380 749 1033 0.50 0.71 — 9.0 218.3
CIII.16 360 787 1045 0.50 — 0.39 9.0 293.3
CIII.17 371 763 1051 0.50 — 0.59 8.5 276.7
CIII.18 439 650 1003 0.52 — — 10.5 186.2
CIII.19 358 822 1005 0.52 — 0.70 8.5 237.5
CIII.20 361 729 1006 0.60 — — 9.0 179.1
CIII.21 377 713 996 0.60 — — 9.5 207.8
CIII.22 334 769 1029 0.60 0.69 — 11.0 208.1
CIII.23 306 840 1032 0.60 — 0.46 9.0 298.2
CIII.24 361 734 1009 0.61 — — 10.5 203.6
CIII.25 300 873 1005 0.62 — 0.80 10.0 245.8
CIII.26 310 777 999 0.70 — — 9.0 205.5
CIII.27 318 767 1002 0.70 — — 9.5 199.6
CIII.28 279 829 1027 0.70 1.00 — 8.5 216.8
CIII.29 266 864 1032 0.70 — 0.45 8.5 274.1
CIII.30 303 791 1005 0.72 — — 10.0 193.8
CIII.31 259 906 1004 0.72 — 1.08 8.0 250.7
Note: PA is plasticizer additive; SPA is superplasticizer additive; ER is electrical resistivity at 28 days.

Table 3—Chemical composition of cements

Cement SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 SO3 CaO MgO K2O TiO2
CEM I 17.46 7.34 3.11 2.61 64.83 3.19 0.93 0.54
CEM III/A 12.26 3.63 2.79 2.57 74.64 2.15 1.71 0.26

The test was carried out with the specimens in a satu-
rated surface-dry state. Three specimens were used for each
concrete mixture, and three measurements were made in
each of them, always spaced by angles of 120 degrees. The
electrical resistivity values obtained in the test needs to be
corrected according to the size of the specimen used. In the
case of the specimens used in this study, the correction factor
was 0.377, according to the UNE 83988-2:2014 standard.37
The compressive strength test was realized on the same
specimens used in the electrical resistivity test. The test
was executed according to the ABNT NBR 5739:200738
standard, using equipment for the rupture with 1000 kN of
capacity and speed of load application of 0.45 ± 0.15 MPa/s.
Estimation of electrical resistivity
The electrical resistivity was calculated according to
the law of Archie,23 Powers,26 and Mills27 (Eq. (2) to (5)).
According to D’Andrea,21 the m values used in Eq. (2)
were 2.7 and 1.7 for the CEM III/A and CEM I cements,

30 ACI Materials Journal/July 2021

Fig. 1—Electrical resistivity at: (a) 28 days; and (b) 91 days of curing time.
respectively. The ρ0 value used was 0.5 Ω.m, according to
the literature recommendation.18,21,22,24,25
Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP)
The technique of MIP was used in this study to compare
the theoretical (Eq. (3) to (5)) and experimental values of
porosity and tortuosity. As this is an expensive test, only
concretes with a w/c equal to 0.50 were tested (CI.5 and
CIII.17, Tables 1 and 2). In concrete with CEM III/A,
only CIII.17 sample was tested because this is the sample
most similar to CEM I concrete (CI.5), in terms of material
proportion and superplasticizer content additive. This test
was executed at the age of 28 days using a porosimeter.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Electrical resistivity and compressive strength
Figure 1 shows the electrical resistivity for different types
of cement and w/b obtained experimentally in concretes at
28 and 91 days. According to Fig. 1, a very well-defined
correlation (R2 > 0.9) for CEM I was found in both ages
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
analyzed. The increase in the w/b reduces the electrical resis-
tivity. However, the correlation between electrical resistivity
and w/b for CEM III/A is nonexistent because the w/b has
a nonsignificant influence on the electrical resistivity for
this type of cement. The variability of the data is greater
in CEM III/A, especially at 91 days. This type of behavior
makes the analysis of electrical resistivity more complex for
concretes with BFS. Tables 1 and 2 show the electrical resis-
tivity values for all samples.
According to Fig. 1, the resistivity is greater at 91 days
than at 28 days in both types of cements due to cement
hydration and the progressive hardening of concrete. The
effect of age is greater for CEM III/A due to the slower
reaction of BFS compared to clinker. Despite being slower,
this reaction is more progressive and therefore continues
increasing the electrical resistivity of concretes with BFS
even at advanced ages.
The electrical resistivity of BFS concretes is greater than
concretes without slag (Fig. 1). Concerning the relationship
between the electrical resistivity of concrete and the risk of
31
Table 4—Results of porosimetry test
Parameters CIII.17 CI.5
Median pore diameter (volume), µm 258.1 568.7
Median pore diameter (area), µm 35.2 199.6
Porosity, % 10.230 10.632
Tortuosity factor 0.082 0.080
Tortuosity 1.553 1.527

corrosion of the reinforcement, a lower probability of corro-

sion was observed with the use of BFS. In this case, an insig-
nificant risk was pointed out at 28 and 91 days. However,
with the use of CEM I, a moderate to high probability of
corrosion was identified. This analysis was performed based
on the limits presented by Elkey and Sellevold17 and Song
and Saraswathy.39 Medeiros-Junior and Lima9 observed
similar behavior for portland cement with BFS. The authors
pointed out that a large amount of BFS in CEM III/A compo-
sition (approximately 60%) increased the concrete resistivity
compared with the other samples, for the same w/b. The BFS
contributes to refine the pores of the concrete microstruc-
ture and substantially reduce the permeability, increasing the
resistivity. Table 4 shows the results of the porosimetry test
performed on concretes CIII.17 and CI.5. Figure 2 shows the
variation in pore size.
According to Table 4, the median pore diameter (both
volume and area) is larger for CEM I concrete. This caused
a greater number of pores larger than 50 nm (Fig. 2) and
greater porosity (Table 4) for this cement. However, the
tortuosity obtained from MIP testing was very similar
between cements CEM I and CEM III/A. Therefore, the
higher resistivity values obtained for cement with BFS were
also justified by the chemical composition of the concrete
pore solution.
Electrical conductivity depends on the amount of free
water and the presence of conductive ions. As demonstrated
in several studies,9,11 the amount of OH– ions is reduced
in concretes that contain mineral additions, such as BFS.
This is a consequence of the lower amount of clinker in
these concretes as well as pozzolanic reactions (in the case
of pozzolanic additions). Therefore, the pore solution of
CEM III/A concretes tend to have a lower content of OH–
ions,9 which reduces the conductivity of the material and,
consequently, increases the electrical resistivity. Also, the
increment of BFS reduces the amount of ion due to the
low dissolution rate of BFS compared with the clinker, as
confirmed by He et al.33 This low dissolution is reflected
in the results of compressive strength. Figure 3 shows the
compressive strength for concretes with different w/b at 28
and 91 days of curing time.
The use of BFS in the mixture decreased the compressive
strength for w/b less than 0.50. This is a consequence of the
lower amount of clinker in the composition of the concrete
with BFS. Thus, slag hydration is slower and takes longer
to produce a compressive strength similar to concrete with
CEM I.
A good relationship between the increase in the w/b and
the reduction in compressive strength was found. Also, the
Fig. 2—Pore size distribution: (a) CIII.17; and (b) CI.5.
compressive strength of all concrete specimens increased
with the time of curing. According to Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, the
compressive strength of CEM III/A concretes has a good
relationship with the w/b, different from the electrical resis-
tivity. This is explained because the compressive strength is
less dependent on the chemical composition of the concrete
pore solution, and the mechanical properties of concrete
are most strongly influenced by the w/b, as reported in
other studies.11,40,41
Figure 4 shows the relationship between compressive
strength and electrical resistivity for concretes with different
w/b at 28 and 91 days of curing time. According to Fig. 4,
concrete with CEM I have high correlations between the
tests. However, the correlation between these two tests
is nonexistent for concrete with BFS (CEM III/A). This
happens because the compressive strength of CEM III/A
concretes is much more sensitive to the w/b than the elec-
trical resistivity, as seen in Fig. 1 and 3. Also, data dispersion
was much higher for CEM III/A. The results showed so far
reinforce the greater complexity in the properties of hard-
ened CEM III/A concrete. This reinforces the importance
of this study because the analysis of the electrical resis-
tivity of concretes with this type of cement must be done
more cautiously.
According to Fig. 5, CEM III/A concretes have higher
electrical resistivity values per unit of compressive strength
(MPa). This means that the electrical resistivity is superior
for concretes with BFS even when comparing concretes
with the same compressive strength. The “electrical resis-
tivity/compressive strength” ratio of BFS concretes is
strongly influenced by the w/b, unlike concrete without slag.
This is explained because the increase in the w/b reduces

32 ACI Materials Journal/July 2021

Fig. 3—Compressive strength at 28 and 91 days.
Fig. 4—Relationship between compressive strength and electrical resistivity.
the compressive strength (Fig. 3) but has little impact on
concrete resistivity (Fig. 1). Consequently, this ratio tends
to grow with the increase in the w/b for the BFS concretes.
Also, this ratio is influenced by age only in concrete with
BFS. This is a consequence of the tendency to stabilize both
parameters (electrical resistivity and compressive strength)
at 28 days of the concrete with initial high-strength cement
(CEM I). These differences in behavioral trends reinforce
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
the need to ascertain the validity of Eq. (2) to (5) for cement
with BFS.
Correlation between calculated and experimental
resistivity
Figure 6 shows the calculated electrical resistivity. Equa-
tions (2) to (5) were used for the calculation. The m values
were 1.7 for CEM I and 2.7 for CEM III/A, and ρ0 was
considered equal to 0.5 Ω.m, according to Mendes et al.,22
33
Fig. 5—Electrical resistivity/compressive strength ratio (resistivity per MPa).
Fig. 6—Electrical resistivity estimated by model.
Fig. 7—Correlation between estimated and experimental
(laboratory) electrical resistivity.
34
Buenfeld et al.,24 and Goñi and Andrade.25 The electrical
resistivity calculated for CEM III/A is greater than that for
CEM I in any w/b used. This behavior agrees with the exper-
imental resistivity shown in Fig. 1. This is a consequence of
the higher theoretical tortuosity value for this type of cement
(2.7) compared to ordinary portland cement (1.7). Figure 7
presents the correlation between the resistivity estimated by
the model and the resistivity measured in the laboratory at 28
and 91 days of curing time.
The correlation between calculated and experimental
resistivity is very close for CEM I concretes, both at 28
and 91 days. The effect of age has little intensity on elec-
trical resistivity measures because this cement has high
initial strength. This is in accordance with Fig. 5 and proves
that the model (Eq. (2) to (5)) can also be applied for the
estimation of electrical resistivity at 91 days for this type
of cement. However, the correlation between calculated
and experimental resistivity requires a correction factor
for the CEM III/A concretes. The values obtained by the
model overestimated the electrical resistivity for concrete
with BFS. This is not advisable in terms of engineering
decisions, as it is contrary to safety. The direct use of the
resistivity values of the model, without the inclusion of a
correction factor, can compromise the safety of the struc-
ture and lead to inadequate service life predictions because
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
Fig. 8—Calculated and experimental porosity for concrete
with w/b of 0.50.
higher resistivity values will be expected than what the
material will actually present experimentally. Therefore, in
terms of engineering decisions, the adjustment (in this case,
reduction) of the calculated resistivity to values close to the
experimental measures is fundamental for a correct applica-
tion in service life simulation using the Andrade28 model or
for use as a parameter of concrete design using the Mendes
et al.22 model.
Figure 8 presents the calculated and experimental values
of porosity for concretes with a w/b of 0.50 (CI.5 and
CIII.17). Theoretical porosity calculations were developed
using Eq. (3). According to Fig. 8, the model can underes-
timate the porosity of concretes. This helps to explain the
variability in the correlations between the experimental and
calculated resistivity values.
In a simplified way, the correction factor to adjust the
CEM III/A data in Fig. 7 can be obtained by reducing
15% of the theoretical tortuosity value applied (m = 0.85 ×
2.7 = 2.3). This correction factor was obtained empirically
by this study and needs validation for other mixtures with
properties different from the 31 mixtures selected in this
paper (Table 2). Figure 9 shows the correlation between
experimental and calculated resistivities after applying the
correction factor.
According to Fig. 9, despite the dispersion of data, the
experimental and calculated resistivities were approximated
after reducing the theoretical tortuosity value by 15%. In
fact, the tortuosity found by the porosimetry test (1.527,
Table 4) was very close to the theoretical value (m = 1.7)
for CEM I cement. However, the value was very distant for
CEM III/A cement (experimental m = 1.553 and theoretical
m = 2.7). This is a consequence of the greater complexity of
the pore tortuosity for concrete with BFS, which makes it
difficult to standardize a tortuosity value for this case.
Therefore, although the electrical resistivity of CEM III/A
does not have a definite correlation with the w/b, nor with
the compressive strength, it is possible to estimate its value
by adjusting the tortuosity value on the model. The approxi-
mation was greater for the experimental resistivity obtained
at 28 days. This is a consequence of the high influence of
the age factor on the electrical resistivity measurements of
concrete with BFS (Fig. 1 and 5).
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
Fig. 9—Correlation between calculated and experimental
resistivity for CEM III/A with correction factor.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of blast-furnace slag (BFS) (CEM III/A) results in
higher electrical resistivity and smaller porosity of concretes.
CEM I concrete has a greater number of pores larger than
50 nm and, consequently, the median pore diameter is larger.
Concretes with CEM I have high correlations between
compressive strength and electrical resistivity. However,
because the compressive strength of CEM III/A concretes
is much more sensitive to the w/b than the electrical resis-
tivity, there is no correlation between these two properties
for CEM III/A concretes.
Concretes with BFS have higher electrical resis-
tivity values per unit of compressive strength. This ratio
(Ω.m/MPa) is strongly influenced by the w/b and the age in
BFS concretes, unlike concrete without slag. This is explained
because the increase in w/b reduces the compressive strength
but has little influence on the electrical resistivity.
CEM I concretes show good correlations between elec-
trical resistivity estimated by the model and the resistivity
obtained in the laboratory, both at 28 and 91 days. The effect
of age on electrical resistivity is small because this cement
has high initial strength. However, CEM III/A requires a
correction factor to correlate experimental and calculated
resistivities. This correction factor was obtained empiri-
cally in this study by reducing the theoretical tortuosity of
concrete by 15%. Therefore, the use of the model is recom-
mended for concretes with BFS only with the application of
a correction factor.
Finally, the proposed correction by reducing the theoret-
ical tortuosity by 15% was an example found by this paper
that served to adjust the data. The idea is that further research
is encouraged to verify whether this same adjustment applies
to other concrete mixtures. However, the main contribution
of the paper is to demonstrate that an adjustment is necessary,
35
unlike concretes without BFS, where the equations can be
applied directly with some reasonable precision.
AUTHOR BIOS
Sandro E. S. Mendes is a PhD Student in building materials. He received
his MS in civil construction and building materials from the Federal
University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Rafael L. N. Oliveira is a Researcher in building materials. He received
his MS in civil construction and building materials from the Federal
University of Paraná.
Claiton Cremonez received his BS in civil engineering from the Educa-
tion College of Araucária, Brazil. He has worked for many years in the
construction industry.
Eduardo Pereira is a Research Engineer and Professor at the State
University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil. He received his
MS and PhD from the Federal University of Paraná. He is an author of
several articles. His research interests include mainly concrete microstruc-
ture and sulfate attack.
Elias Pereira is a Research Engineer and Professor at the State University
of Ponta Grossa, where he received his MS. His research interests include
mainly concrete microstructure.
Priscila O. Trentin is a PhD Student in building materials at the Federal
University of Paraná. She received her MS in civil construction and
building materials from the Federal Technological University – Paraná,
Pato Branco, Brazil.
Ronaldo A. Medeiros-Junior is a Research Engineer and Professor at the
Federal University of Paraná. He received his BS from the University of
Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and his MS and PhD from the Technological
Institute of Aeronautics (ITA), São Paulo, Brazil. Author of several articles
and chapters of books, he is the Supervisor of MS and PhD students. His
research interests include durability, nondestructive testing, and service life
prediction of concrete structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Post-Graduation Program in Civil Construction
(PPGECC) of the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) for their infrastruc-
ture support for the development of this research and the State University of
Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Brazil. The authors also thank the Brazilian Federal
Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education (Coorde-
nação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—CAPES), the
National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho
Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico and Tecnológico—CNPq), and
the Araucária Foundation for their support in conducting this study.
REFERENCES
1. Nguyen, A. Q.; Klysz, G.; Deby, F.; and Balayssac, J. P., “Assess-
ment of the Electrochemical State of Steel Reinforcement in Water
Saturated Concrete by Resistivity Measurement,” Construction and
Building Materials, V. 171, May 2018, pp. 455-466. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2018.01.155
2. Balestra, C. E. T.; Nakano, A. Y.; Savaris, G.; and Medeiros-Junior,
R. A., “Reinforcement Corrosion Risk of Marine Concrete Structures
Evaluated through Electrical Resistivity: Proposal of Parameters Based on
Field Structures,” Ocean Engineering, V. 187, Sept. 2019, p. 106167. doi:
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106167
3. Medeiros-Junior, R. A.; Gans, P. S.; Pereira, E.; and Pereira, E.,
“Electrical Resistivity of Concrete Exposed to Chlorides and Sulfates,”
ACI Materials Journal, V. 116, No. 3, May 2019, pp. 119-130. doi:
10.14359/51714464
4. Azarsa, P., and Gupta, R., “Electrical Resistivity of Concrete for Dura-
bility Evaluation: A Review,” Advances in Materials Science and Engi-
neering, V. 2017, May 2017, pp. 1-31. doi: 10.1155/2017/8453095
5. Mazer, W.; Lima, M. G.; and Medeiros-Junior, R. A., “Fuzzy Logic
for Estimating Chloride Diffusion in Concrete,” Proceedings of the Insti-
tution of Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings, V. 171, No. 7, 2018,
pp. 542-551. doi: 10.1680/jstbu.16.00153
6. Souza, D. J.; Yamashita, L. Y.; Dranka, F.; Medeiros, M. H.; and
Medeiros-Junior, R. A., “Repair Mortars Incorporating Multiwalled Carbon
Nanotubes: Shrinkage and Sodium Sulfate Attack,” Journal of Materials in
36
Civil Engineering, ASCE, V. 29, No. 12, 2017, p. 04017246. doi: https://
doi.org//10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002105
7. Balestra, C. E. T.; Reichert, T. A.; Pansera, W. A.; and Savaris, G.,
“Evaluation of Chloride Ion Penetration through Concrete Surface Elec-
trical Resistivity of Field Naturally Degraded Structures Present in Marine
Environment,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 230, Jan. 2020,
p. 116979. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116979
8. Layssi, H.; Ghods, P.; Alizadeh, A. R.; and Salehi, M., “Electrical
Resistivity of Concrete,” Concrete International, V. 37, No. 5, May 2015,
pp. 41-46.
9. Medeiros-Junior, R. A., and Lima, M. G., “Electrical Resistivity of
Unsaturated Concrete Using Different Types of Cement,” Construction
and Building Materials, V. 107, Mar. 2016, pp. 11-16. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.12.168
10. Hornbostel, K.; Larsen, C. K.; and Geiker, M. R., “Relationship
between Concrete Resistivity and Corrosion Rate—A Literature Review,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 39, May 2013, pp. 60-72. doi:
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.03.019
11. Lübeck, A.; Gastaldini, A. L. G.; Barin, D. S.; and Siqueira,
H. C., “Compressive Strength and Electrical Properties of Concrete
with White Portland Cement and Blast-Furnace Slag,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, V. 34, No. 3, 2012, pp. 392-399. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2011.11.017
12. Medeiros-Junior, R. A., “Impact of Climate Change on the Service Life
of Concrete Structures,” Eco-Efficient Repair and Rehabilitation of Concrete
Infrastructures, F. Pacheco-Torgal, R. E. Melchers, X. Shi, N. De Belie, K.
Van Tittelboom, and A. Sáez, eds., Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, UK,
2018, pp. 43-68. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-102181-1.00003-4
13. Polder, R. B., “Test Methods for on Site Measurement of Resistivity
of Concrete—A RILEM TC-154 Technical Recommendation,” Construc-
tion and Building Materials, V. 15, No. 2-3, 2001, pp. 125-131. doi:
10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00061-1
14. Cruz, J. M.; Fita, I. C.; Soriano, L.; Payá, J.; and Borrachero,
M. V., “The Use of Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy for Monitoring the
Hydration Products of Portland Cement Mortars with High Percentage of
Pozzolans,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 50, Aug. 2013, pp. 51-61.
doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.03.019
15. Ghoddousi, P., and Saadabadi, L. A., “Study on Hydration Products
by Electrical Resistivity for Self-Compacting Concrete with Silica Fume
and Metakaolin,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 154, Nov. 2017,
pp. 219-228. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.178
16. Millard, S. G., “Reinforced Concrete Resistivity Measurement Tech-
niques,” Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers, V. 91, No. 1, 1991,
pp. 71-88. doi: 10.1680/iicep.1991.13583
17. Elkey, W., and Sellevold, E. J., Electrical Resistivity of Concrete,
Norwegian Road Research Laboratory, Oslo, Norway, 1995.
18. Andrade, C., and D’Andrea, R., “Electrical Resistivity as Microstruc-
tural Parameter for the Modelling of Service Life of Reinforced Concrete
Structures,” Proceedings, Second International Symposium on Service Life
Design for Infrastructure, Delft, the Netherlands, 2010, pp. 379-388.
19. Hou, T. C.; Nguyen, V. K.; Su, Y. M.; Chen, Y. R.; and Chen, P. J.,
“Effects of Coarse Aggregates on the Electrical Resistivity of Portland
Cement Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 133, Feb.
2017, pp. 397-408. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.044
20. Ramezanianpour, A. A.; Pilvar, A.; Mahdikhani, M.; and Moodi,
F., “Practical Evaluation of Relationship between Concrete Resistivity,
Water Penetration, Rapid Chloride Penetration and Compressive Strength,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 25, No. 5, 2011, pp. 2472-2479.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.069
21. D’Andrea, R., “Prediction of the Durability of Reinforced Concrete
from Corrosion Indicators: Application of Electrical Resistivity (in Spanish:
Predicción de la durabilidad del hormigón armado a partir de indicadores
de corrosión: aplicación de la resistividad eléctrica),” thesis, Polytechnic
University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2010.
22. Mendes, S. E.; Oliveira, R. L.; Cremonez, C.; Pereira, E.; Pereira, E.;
and Medeiros-Junior, R. A., “Electrical Resistivity as a Durability Param-
eter for Concrete Design: Experimental Data versus Estimation by Mathe-
matical Model,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 192, Dec. 2018,
pp. 610-620. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.145
23. Archie, G. E., “The Electrical Resistivity Log as an Aid in Deter-
mining Some Reservoir Characteristics,” Transactions of the American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, V. 146, No. 1,
1942, pp. 54-62. doi: 10.2118/942054-G
24. Buenfeld, N. R.; Newman, J. B.; and Page, C. L., “The Resistivity
of Mortars Immersed in Sea-Water,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 16,
No. 4, 1986, pp. 511-524. doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(86)90089-X
25. Goñi, S., and Andrade, C., “Synthetic Concrete Pore Solution
Chemistry and Rebar Corrosion Rate in the Presence of Chlorides,”
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 20, No. 4, 1990, pp. 525-539. doi:
10.1016/0008-8846(90)90097-H
26. Powers, T. C.; Copeland, L. E.; and Mann, H. M., “Capillary Conti-
nuity or Discontinuity in Cement Pastes,” PCA Research and Development
Labs, V. 2, No. 110, 1959, pp. 38-48.
27. Mills, R. H., “Factors Influencing Cessation of Hydration in Water
Cured Cement Pastes (Highway Research Board Special Report Number
90),” Proceedings, Symposium on the Structure of Portland Cement
Paste and Concrete, Highway Research Board, Washington, DC, 1966,
pp. 406-424.
28. Andrade, C., “Calculation of Initiation and Propagation Periods
of Service Life of Reinforcements by Using the Electrical Resistivity
(Pro048),” Proceedings, First International RILEM Symposium on
Advances in Concrete through Science and Engineering, Northwestern
University, Evanston, IL, 2004.
29. Gonzalez, J. A., and Andrade, C., “Effect of Carbonation, Chlorides
and Relative Ambient Humidity on the Corrosion of Galvanized Rebars
Embedded in Concrete,” British Corrosion Journal, V. 17, No. 1, 1982,
pp. 21-28. doi: 10.1179/000705982798274589
30. Medeiros-Junior, R. A., and Bem, D. H., “Study of the Environment
Factor from Fick’s and Electrical Resistivity Models by Simulation of Chlo-
ride Diffusivity Prediction,” Advances in Structural Engineering, V. 23,
No. 10, 2020, pp. 2097-2109. doi: 10.1177/1369433220906932
31. Tibbetts, C. M.; Paris, J. M.; Ferraro, C. C.; Riding, K. A.; and
Townsend, T. G., “Relating Water Permeability to Electrical Resistivity and
Chloride Penetrability of Concrete Containing Different Supplementary
Cementitious Materials,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 107, Mar.
2020, p. 103491. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103491
32. Shubbar, A. A.; Jafer, H.; Dulaimi, A.; Hashim, K.; Atherton, W.; and
Sadique, M., “The Development of a Low Carbon Binder Produced from
the Ternary Blending of Cement, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
and High Calcium Fly Ash: An Experimental and Statistical Approach,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 187, Oct. 2018, pp. 1051-1060.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.021
33. He, X.; Ma, M.; Su, Y.; Lan, M.; Zheng, Z.; Wang, T.; Strnadel, B.;
and Zeng, S., “The Effect of Ultrahigh Volume Ultrafine Blast Furnace Slag
ACI Materials Journal/July 2021
on the Properties of Cement Pastes,” Construction and Building Materials,
V. 189, Nov. 2018, pp. 438-447. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.004
34. Rovnaník, P.; Kusák, I.; Bayer, P.; Schmid, P.; and Fiala, L., “Compar-
ison of Electrical and Self-Sensing Properties of Portland Cement and Alkali-
Activated Slag Mortars,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 118, Apr.
2019, pp. 84-91. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2019.02.009
35. European Committee for Standardization, “Cement—Part 1: Compo-
sition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements (BS
EN 197-1: 2011),” CEN, Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
36. Lencioni, J. W., and Medeiros-Junior, R. A., “Analysis of Different
Parameters in the Electrical Resistivity Test of Concrete,” International
Journal of Civil Engineering, V. 19, Aug. 2020, pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1007/
s40999-020-00559-8
37. UNE 83988-2:2014, “Concrete Durability. Test Methods. Determi-
nation of the Electrical Resistivity. Part 2: Four Points or Wenner Method
(in Spanish: Durabilidad del hormigón. Métodos de ensayo. Determi-
nación de la resistividad eléctrica. Parte 2: Método de las cuatro puntas
o de Wenner),” Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification,
Madrid, Spain, 2014.
38. ABNT NBR 5739:2007, “Concrete—Compression Tests of Cylin-
drical Specimens (in Portuguese: Concreto—Ensaio de compressão de
corpos-de-prova cilíndricos),” Brazilian Association of Technical Stan-
dards, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2007.
39. Song, H. W., and Saraswathy, V., “Corrosion Monitoring of Rein-
forced Concrete Structures—A Review,” International Journal of Electro-
chemical Science, V. 2, Jan. 2007, pp. 1-28.
40. Dinakar, P.; Babu, K. G.; and Santhanam, M., “Corrosion Behaviour
of Blended Cements in Low and Medium Strength Concretes,” Cement
and Concrete Composites, V. 29, No. 2, 2007, pp. 136-145. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2006.10.005
41. Hunkeler, F., “The Resistivity of Pore Water Solution—A Deci-
sive Parameter of Rebar Corrosion and Repair Methods,” Construc-
tion and Building Materials, V. 10, No. 5, 1996, pp. 381-389. doi:
10.1016/0950-0618(95)00029-1
37
 NOTES:

38 ACI Materials Journal/July 2021