Title:
The Influence of the Binder and Aggregate Type on Concrete Electrical Resistivity
Author(s):
Hugo Valido Deda, Leandro Francisco Moretti Sanchez, Mayra Tagliaferri de Grazia
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
349
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
237-255
Keywords:
Concrete microstructure, electrical resistivity, non-destructive testing, supplementary cementitious materials
DOI:
10.14359/51732750
Date:
4/22/2021
Abstract:
Although the 28-day concrete compressive strength is often used as a quality control indicator, early-age mechanical properties are becoming more critical to optimize construction scheduling. Numerous advanced techniques have been proposed in this regard and among those, electrical resistivity (ER), a non-destructive and inexpensive technique able to characterize the microstructure development of cementitious materials has been showing promising results. Yet, recent literature data have evidenced that ER might be significantly influenced by a variety of parameters, such as the binder type/amount and aggregates nature used in the mix. These factors can hinder the practical benchmark of concrete mixtures proportioned with distinct raw materials. Thus, six concrete mixtures incorporating two types of aggregates (granite and limestone) and two ground granulated blast furnace slag cement replacements (e.g. 0%, 35%, and 70%) were manufactured for this research. Moreover, three distinct ER techniques (e.g. Bulk, Surface, and Internal) and compressive strength tests were performed at different concrete ages. Results show that the binder replacement may significantly affect ER results over time, whereas the aggregate type presented a less significant impact.
Related References:
1. Xiao, L., and Wei, X. 2011. Early age compressive strength of pastes by electrical resistivity method and maturity method, Journal Wuhan University of Technology, Materials Science Edition, 26(5), 983–9.
2. Polder, R. B. 2001. Test methods for on site measurement of resistivity of concrete - a RILEM TC-154 technical recommendation, Construction and Building Materials, 15(2–3), 125–31.
3. Mancio, M., Moore, J. R., Brooks, Z., et al. 2010. Instantaneous In-Situ Determination of Water- Cement Ratio of Fresh Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, 107(6), .
4. Ghoddousi, P., Shirzadi Javid, A. A., Sobhani, J., et al. 2016. A new method to determine initial setting time of cement and concrete using plate test, Materials and Structures, 49(8), 3135–42.
5. Martínez-Molina, W., Torres-Acosta, A. A., Jáuregui, J. C., et al. 2014. Predicting Concrete Compressive Strength and Modulus of Rupture Using Different NDT Techniques, Advances in
Materials Science and Engineering, 1–15.
6. Princigallo, A., van Breugel, K., and Levita, G. 2003. Influence of the aggregate on the electrical conductivity of Portland cement concretes, Cement and Concrete Research, 33(11), 1755–63.
7. Metha, P. K., and J.M. Monteiro, P. “Concrete Miscrostructure, Properties and Mateirals,” 3rd edition, McGraw Hill, 2006.
8. Lateste, J., Breysse, D., Sirieix, C., et al. 2006. Electrical Resistivity Measurements on Various Concretes Submitted to Marine Environments. Structural Faults and Repair, 9.
9. Chen, W. “Hydration of slag cement: theory, modeling and application.”, S.l., 2006.
10. Hill, J., and Sharp, J. H. 2002. The mineralogy and microstructure of three composite cements with high replacement levels, Cement and Concrete Composites, 24(2), 191–9.
11. Layssi, H., Ghods, P., Alizadeh, A. R., et al. n.d. Electrical Resistivity of Concrete, 6.
12. Giatec. “SmartBox.” Available at: https://www.giatecscientific.com/products/concretesensors/smartbox-electrical-resistivity/. Accessed March 15, 2020.