Title:
Effect of Coatings on Concrete Resistance to Physical Salt Attack
Author(s):
M. R. Sakr, M. T. Bassuoni, and M. Reda Taha
Publication:
Materials Journal
Volume:
116
Issue:
6
Appears on pages(s):
255-267
Keywords:
durability; physical salt attack; repair; sulfate attack; surface coatings
DOI:
10.14359/51718058
Date:
11/1/2019
Abstract:
In this study, different types of surface coatings were applied to concrete to assess their suitability for resisting physical salt attack (PSA). Concretes with different water-binder ratios (w/b) were tested and severe PSA conditions were implemented, using sodium sulfate, to obtain conclusive trends on the performance of coatings. Visual assessment and mass loss of concrete specimens were used as physical indicators to quantify the damage, while mineralogical and microstructural studies were conducted to elucidate the damage mechanisms. Epoxy, ethyl silicate, and acrylic emulsion coatings were found successful at protecting concrete from PSA regardless of the quality of the substrate concrete, while other coatings tested were highly dependent on the concrete quality. Coatings that permit a high rate of absorption and/or desorption (evaporation) led to more severe PSA damage compared with coatings with low absorption/desorption.
Related References:
1. ACI Committee 201, “Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 201.2R-16),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2016, 84 pp.
2. Haynes, H., and Bassuoni, M. T., “Physical Salt Attack on Concrete,” Concrete International, V. 33, No. 11, Nov. 2011, pp. 38-42.
3. Flatt, R. J.,“Salt Damage in Porous Materials: How High Supersaturations are Generated,” Journal of Crystal Growth, V. 242, No. 3-4, 2002, pp. 435-454. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0248(02)01429-X
4. Scherer, G. W., “Stress from Crystallization of Salt,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 34, No. 9, 2004, pp. 1613-1624. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.034
5. Bassuoni, M. T., and Rahman, M. M., “Response of Concrete to Accelerated Physical Salt Attack Exposure,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 79, 2016, pp. 395-408. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.02.006
6. Zhutovsky, S., and Hooton, R. D., “Experimental Study on Physical Sulfate Salt Attack,” Materials and Structures, V. 50, 2017, 10 pp.
7. Stark, D., “Performance of Concrete in Sulfate Environments,” RD129, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 2002, 23 pp.
8. Irassar, E.; Di Maio, A.; and Batic, O.,“Sulfate Attack on Concrete with Mineral Admixtures,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 26, No. 1, 1996, pp. 113-123. doi: 10.1016/0008-8846(95)00195-6
9. Bassuoni, M. T., and Nehdi, M. L.,“Durability of Self-Consolidating Concrete to Different Exposure Regimes of Sodium Sulfate Attack,” Materials and Structures, V. 42, No. 8, 2009, pp. 1039-1057. doi: 10.1617/s11527-008-9442-2
10. Pan, X.; Shi, Z.; Shi, C.; Ling, T. C.; and Li, N., “A Review on Concrete Surface Treatment Part I: Types and Mechanisms,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 132, 2017, pp. 578-590. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.025
11. Suleiman, A. R.; Soliman, A. M.; and Nehdi, M. L., “Effect of Surface Treatment on Durability of Concrete Exposed to Physical Sulfate Attack,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 73, 2014, pp. 674-681. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.006
12. CAN/CSA-A3001, “Cementitious Materials for Use in Concrete,” Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2013, 691 pp.
13. ASTM C494/C494M-13, “Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013, 10 pp.
14. ASTM C192/C192M-12, “Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 8 pp.
15. ASTM C39/C39M-12, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 7 pp.
16. Kumar, R., and Bhattacharjee, B., “Porosity, Pore Size Distribution and in situ Strength of Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 33, No. 1, 2003, pp. 155-164. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00942-0
17. Basheer, P. A. M.; Basheer, L.; Cleland, D. J.; and Long, A. E., “Surface Treatments for Concrete: Assessment Methods and Reported Performance,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 11, No. 7-8, 1997, pp. 413-429. doi: 10.1016/S0950-0618(97)00019-6
18. Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M., Concrete: Microstructure, Properties and Materials, McGraw Hill Education, New York, 2014, 675 pp.
19. Montgomery, D. C., Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2014, 326 pp.
20. McGill, L. P.; Humpage, M.; and Chemicals, F. C., “Prolonging the Life of Reinforced Concrete Structures by Surface Treatment,” Protection of Concrete: Proceedings of the International Conference, University of Dundee, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1990, pp. 191-200.
21. Saraswathy, V., and Rengaswamy, N. S., “Adhesion of an Acrylic Paint Coating to a Concrete Substrate,” Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, V. 12, No. 7, 1998, pp. 681-694. doi: 10.1163/156856198X00236
22. Moon, S., and Lee, K. J., “Simultaneous Control of Size and Surface Functionality of Silica Particle via Growing Method,” Advanced Powder Technology, V. 28, No. 11, 2017, pp. 2914-2920. doi: 10.1016/j.apt.2017.08.019
23. Baltazar, L.; Santana, J.; Lopes, B.; Rodrigues, M. P.; and Correia, J. R., “Surface Skin Protection of Concrete with Silicate-Based Impregnations: Influence of the Substrate Roughness and Moisture,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 70, 2014, pp. 191-200. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.071
24. Barberena-Fernández, A. M.; Carmona-Quiroga, P. M.; and Blanco-Varela, M. T., “Interaction of TEOS with Cementitious Materials: Chemical and Physical Effects,” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 55, 2015, pp. 145-152. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.09.010