Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:35:35.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

What Is Needed In A Permeability Test For Evaluation Of Concrete Quality.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

R. Doug Hooton*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, 35 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S 1A4 (formerly with Ontario Hydro Research)
Get access

Abstract

While there is presently a great deal of interest in measurement of permeability, there are a wide variety of non-standard methods reported. The author's experience combined with a critical review of the literature is that:

  1. (a) results vary with operating variables of each test,

  2. (b) the coefficient of variation of results is large (typically 30 to 50%),

  3. (c) most methods cannot provide quantitative results in the range of interest for high strength, concretes and those containing supplementary cementing materials (10−15 m/s or less),

  4. (d) most methods do not represent the type of boundary conditions experienced by most critical concrete field conditions (i.e. fluid on one side and vapour on the other side),

  5. (e) Indirect measures of permeability such as rates of absorption, or resistivity measurements are easier to perform and relate directly to permeability.

The activity of research in the area of permeability is similar to that described in the technical literature from the 1920's and 1930's. Much of that early work has abandoned for reason (c) above.

It is attempted to review some of the previous experience, describe the problems and make suggestions for improved measurement of permeability.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Powers, T.C., J. Amer. Cer. Soc., 41, 1 (1958).Google Scholar
2. Hooton, R.D., in Blended Cement, edited by Frohnsdorff, G., (ASTM STP 897, 1986) pp. 128143.Google Scholar
3. Hooton, R.D., in Fly Ash. Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, edited by Malhotra, V.M. (ACI SP-91, V.1, 1986) pp. 333345.Google Scholar
4. Thomas, M.D.A., Mathews, J.D. and Haynes, C.A., in Fly Ash, Silica Fume. Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, edited by Malhotra, V.M. (ACI SP-114, V. 1, 1989) pp. 191217.Google Scholar
5. CRD-C48-73, “Method of Test for Water Permeability of Concrete”, U.S. Govt. Standards (1973).Google Scholar
6. “API Recommended Practice for Testing Oil-Well Cements and Cement Additives”, Amer. Pet. Inst., API RP1OB, 19th ed. (1984).Google Scholar
7. Hooton, R.D. and Wakeley, L.D., in Pore Structure and Permeability of Cementitious Solids, edited by Roberts, L. and Skalny, Y. (Mat. Res. Soc. Proc., 1989).Google Scholar
8. Hooton, R.D., in Advances in Cement Manufacture and Use, edited by Gartner, E. (Eng. Fdn. Proc., 1988) pp. 143154.Google Scholar
9. BS 1881, “Test for Determining the Initial Surface Absorption of Concrete”, British Standard 1991, Methods of Testing Concrete, Part 5 (1970).Google Scholar
10. AASHTO T 277-83, “Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete”, Amer. Assoc. Stat. Hwy. Trans. Officials, Std. Spec. Trans. Mat. Meth. Sampling and Testing, Part 2 (1988).Google Scholar
11. Pearson, J.C. and Smith, G.A., J. Amer. Cone. Inst., 15, 186 (1919).Google Scholar
12. McMillan, F.R. and Lyse, I., J. Amer. Cone. Inst, 26, 101 (1929).Google Scholar
13. Ruettgers, A., J. Amer. Cone. Inst., 26 637 (1930).Google Scholar
14. Ruettgers, A., Vidal, E.N. and Wing, S.P., J. Amer. Cone. Inst., 31, 382 (1935).Google Scholar
15. Transactions, Second Congress on Large Dams, Washington, D.C., 2 (1936).Google Scholar
16. Cook, H.K., ASTM Proc., 51, 1156 (1951).Google Scholar
17. Powers, T.C., Copeland, L.E., Hayes, J.C. and Mann, H.M., J. Amer. Cone. Inst., 51, 564 (1954).Google Scholar
18. Baker, A.F., Concrete, 19, 19 (1985).Google Scholar
19. Day, R.L., Joshi, R.C., Langan, B.W. and Ward, M.A., in Proc. 5th Int'l Ash Symp., Orlando 2 (1985) pp. 811821.Google Scholar
20. Mills, R.H., in Concrete Durability, edited by Scanlon, J. (ACI SP-100, V.1, 1987) pp. 621644.Google Scholar
21. Mills, R.H., Cem. Cone. Res., 15, 74 (1985).Google Scholar
22. Haynes, H.H., in Performance of Concrete in Marine Environment, edited by Malhotra, V.M. (ACI SP-65, 1980) pp. 2138.Google Scholar
23. Watson, A.J. and Oyeka, C.C., Mag. Cone. Res., 33, 85 (1981).Google Scholar
24. Rose, D.A., Mat. Struct., No. 29, 119 (1965).Google Scholar
25. Swoonsang, P., Tia, M., Bloomquist, D., Meletion, C. and Sessions, L.M., presented at the 1988 Trans. Res. 3rd. Annual Mtg., Washington D.C. (unpublished).Google Scholar
26. Voorinan, J., Mag. Cone. Res., 37, 153 (1985).Google Scholar
27. Hope, B.B. and Malhotra, V.M., Cdn. J. Civ. Eng., 11, 287 (1984).Google Scholar
28. Bisaillon, A. and Malhotra, V.M., in Permeability of Concrete, edited by Whiting, D. (ACI SP-108) pp. 175–193.Google Scholar
29. Kumar, A. and Roy, D.M., Cem. Conc. Res., 16, 74 (1986).Google Scholar
30. Copeland, L.E. and Bragg, R.H., PCA Res. Dept. Bull 52, (1955).Google Scholar
31. Hansen, T.C., J. Amer. Cone. Inst., 67, 404 (1970).Google Scholar
32. MacInnis, C. and Nathawad, Y.R., in Durability of Building Materials and Components, edited by Sereda, P.J. and Litvan, G.G., (ASTM STP 691, 1980) pp. 485496.Google Scholar
33. Lawrence, C.D., Cem. Conc. Assoc. Draft Report DN/4038 (1982).Google Scholar
34. Powers, T.C., in Proc. 4th Int'l. Symp. Chem. Cem., 2, 577 (1960).Google Scholar
35. Mitchell, J.K., Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1976, pp. 353359.Google Scholar
36. Whiting, D., in Permeability of Concrete, edited by Whiting, D. and Walitt, A., (ACI SP-108, 1988) pp. 195222.Google Scholar
37. Dolch, W.L. and Lovell, J.E., in Concrete Durability, edited by (ACI SP-100, 1987) pp. 509517.Google Scholar
38. Kelham, S., Mag. Conc. Res., 40, 106 (1988).Google Scholar