DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSURES
while others employed an open system. The former is preferred
Discussion of “Sources of Variations When
Comparing Concrete Carbonation Results”
by F. G. da Silva, P. Helene, P. Castro-
Borges, and J. B. L. Liborio
July 2009, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 333–342.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0899-1561共2009兲21:7共333兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by 103.214.200.106 on 11/24/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
E. I. Moreno1
1
Prof., College of Engineering, Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Av.
Industrias No Contaminantes s/n, 97110, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico.
E-mail: emoreno@uady.mx
The authors bring forth a much needed discussion about standard-
ization for accelerated carbonation tests. However, some issues
have been left aside or discussed briefly. An accelerated carbon-
ation test may be used for several purposes, and that by itself
could be a source of variation. As long as the accelerated test is
not intended to model natural carbonation, then there is no need
for standardization 共e.g., to compare concrete mixes with different
water/cement ratios or different concrete coatings兲. But, if the
purpose is to compare accelerated results with natural carbon-
ation, then standardization is needed. One of the main issues left
aside in the paper is which ones of the 46 accelerated methods
presented had a good correlation with natural carbonation, which
would be a good basis for standardization.
The authors discussed the specimens geometry, pointing out
that cylindrical specimens would have an accelerating effect as
the CO2 diffusion occurs toward the core. However, a corner
effect may occur in small rectangular specimens or even in larger
ones if the test is run over a long period 共Moreno 1999兲. This is
the reason why RILEM CPC 18 共RILEM 1988兲 requires discard-
ing the measurements closer to the corners.
The whole idea of preconditioning is to make the specimens
ready for fast carbonation in a way that the results can be com-
parable with those from natural exposure. In real life, concrete
elements carbonate over a long period of time; thus, concrete is
hydrated and the inner moisture is in equilibrium with the exter-
nal RH. If the specimens undergo accelerated carbonation just
after curing, then RH inside the chamber will be extremely af-
fected. In addition, the CO2 will not be able to diffuse inside the
concrete pore network as it diffuses three orders of magnitude
lower in water than in air 共Tuutti 1982兲, making it difficult to
compare with results from natural exposure.
Although the authors did discuss the effect of the CO2 concen-
tration inside the chamber, they did not discuss how the gas is fed
inside the chamber. Some researchers employed a closed system
758 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JULY 2010
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2010, 22(7): 758-758
for high CO2 concentrations with gas renovation from time to
time, while the latter is preferred for low CO2 concentrations with
continuous feeding all the time 共Dhir et al. 1985; Papadakis et al.
1991; Moreno 1999兲. Continuous feeding has the advantage of
compensating the amount of CO2 consumed by the carbonation
reaction.
With respect to carbonation depth determination it is true that
few researchers employed other methods than pH color indicator.
However, one has to bear in mind that TGA cannot be applied if
concrete was prepared employing limestone aggregate as the de-
composition of limestone will be in the same range as the decom-
position of CaCO3, thus hindering the results.
For the proposed methodology, the size of the specimens is
good for natural exposure but not necessarily for accelerated car-
bonation with high w/c ratio unless the corner effect is taken into
account during carbonation depth determinations. One way to
avoid the corner effect would be by applying an anticarbonation
coating at the top and the bottom of the rectangular specimens as
well as in the lateral sides. In this way one can also avoid the use
of knife edge supports and the specimens can be piled one on top
of the other thus allowing more specimens in the chamber. Al-
though it is true that optimum conditions for carbonation are in
the range 50–80% RH, better results can be achieved if we nar-
row the range to 60–65% RH 共Verbeck 1956; Papadakis et al.
1991兲. Thus the proposed 75% RH is a little off plus it is usually
employed in closed systems by the use of a saturated saline solu-
tion, neglecting the advantages of employing continuous feeding.
Nevertheless, for comparison purposes, RH inside the chamber
should match the RH under natural exposure.
References
Dhir, R. K., Jones, M. R., and Munday, J. G. L. 共1985兲. “A practical
approach to studying carbonation of concrete.” Concrete, 19共10兲, 32–
34.
Moreno, E. I. 共1999兲. “Carbonation of blended-cement concretes.” Ph.D.
thesis, Univ. of South Florida, Tampa, Fla.
Papadakis, V. G., Vayenas, C. G., and Fardis, M. N. 共1991兲. “Fundamen-
tal modeling and experimental investigation of concrete carbonation.”
ACI Mater. J., 88共4兲, 363–373.
RILEM. 共1988兲. “Measurement of hardened concrete carbonation depth
Recommendations CPC-18.” Mater. Struct., 21共126兲, 453–455.
Tuutti, K. 共1982兲. Corrosion of steel in concrete, Swedish Cement and
Concrete Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Verbeck, G. 共1956兲. “Carbonation of hydrated Portland cement.” Cement
and Concrete ASTM-205, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia.