Materials and Structures

, 51:146 | Cite as

Performance-based criteria to assess the suitability of geopolymer concrete in marine environments using modified ASTM C1202 and ASTM C1556 methods

  • Amin NoushiniEmail author
  • Arnaud Castel
Original Article


In marine or coastal zones, the most harmful exposure for reinforced concrete structures to chloride ions. The ASTM C1556 chloride diffusion test (or its European equivalent NT BUILD 443) has been widely used as the most reliable testing method to assess the performance of concrete against chloride penetration. However, this test is time demanding and labour intensive. As a result, accelerated test ASTM C1202 (RCPT) is often preferred, providing fast and acceptable assessment of chloride penetrability of Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete. This study aimed to investigate the suitability of RCPT to assess the performance of Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) in chloride environment. The correlation between several GPC properties [i.e. compressive strength, volume of permeable voids (VPV) and sorptivity] and the chloride diffusion coefficient are examined. Results indicate that the compressive strength, the VPV and the sorptivity coefficient are not suitable indicators of the GPC performance. The ASTM C1202 standard RCPT failed to measure the charges passed through most of the GPCs tested. A modified version of RCPT using 10 V (as opposed to 60 V specified by standard ASTM C1202) is proposed in this paper, allowing to successfully measure the charges passed through all GPC samples using a wide range of binders. A good correlation was observed between modified ASTM C1202 and Standard ASTM C1556 test results. Performance-based recommendations are proposed in this paper. Both experimental results from this study and appropriate reference concretes from the literature were used to calibrate the modified ASTM C1202 and ASTM C1556 performance-based requirements for GPCs.


Geopolymer ASTM C1202 ASTM C1556 Performance-based specifications RCPT Chloride diffusion Sorptivity 



This research work is funded by the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Low Carbon Living Ltd supported by the Cooperative Research Centres, an Australian Government initiative. Authors acknowledge that the design of mixes G18 and G19 used is this study has been provided by RILEM TC DTA.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors certify that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and all funding sources were declared in the acknowledgment section. Authors certify that this work does not contain any material subject to ethical standards.

Supplementary material

11527_2018_1267_MOESM1_ESM.docx (95 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 95 kb)


  1. 1.
    Andrade C, Castellote M, Alonso C, González C (1999) Relation between colourimetric chloride penetration depth and charge passed in migration tests of the type of standard ASTM C1202-91. Cem Concr Res 29(3):417–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrews-Phaedonos F (1997) Recommended durability classifications for structural concrete based on the measurement of volume of permeable voids (VPV). In: Fourth CANMET/ACI international conference on durability of concrete, Sydney, Australia, 311–329Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andrews-Phaedonos F (2008) Test methods for the assessment of durability of concrete. In: 23rd ARRB conference—research partnering with practitioners, Adelaide AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    AS/NZS4058 (2011) Precast concrete pipes (pressure and non-pressure)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    AS3600 (2009) Concrete structures. Standards Australia, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ASTM C1218 (2008) ASTM C 1218: water-soluble chloride in mortar and concreteGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bernal SA, Provis JL, Rose V, de Gutiérrez RM (2013) High-resolution X-ray diffraction and fluorescence microscopy characterization of alkali-activated slag-metakaolin binders. J Am Ceram Soc (J. Biernacki, ed.) 96(6):1951–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bjegovic D, Stirmer N, Serdar M (2012) Durability properties of concrete with blended cements. Mater Corros 63(12):1087–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davidovits J (1989) Geopolymers and geopolymeric materials. J Therm Anal 35(2):429–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davidovits J (1991) Geopolymers. J Therm Anal 37(8):1633–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duxson P, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Mallicoat SW, Kriven WM, van Deventer JSJ (2005) Understanding the relationship between geopolymer composition, microstructure and mechanical properties. Colloids Surf A 269(1–3):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Justnes H, Kim MO, Ng S, Qian X (2016) Methodology of calculating required chloride diffusion coefficient for intended service life as function of concrete cover in reinforced marine structures. Cem Concr Compos Elsevier 73:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maes M, Gruyaert E, De Belie N (2013) Resistance of concrete with blast-furnace slag against chlorides, investigated by comparing chloride profiles after migration and diffusion. Mater Struct 46(1–2):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Provis JL, van Deventer JSJ (eds) (2014) Alkali activated materials. RILEM state-of-the-art reports, Springer Netherlands, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Provis JL, Myers RJ, White CE, Rose V, van Deventer JSJ (2012) X-ray microtomography shows pore structure and tortuosity in alkali-activated binders. Cem Concr Res 42(6):855–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ramezanianpour AA, Pilvar A, Mahdikhani M, Moodi F (2011) Practical evaluation of relationship between concrete resistivity, water penetration, rapid chloride penetration and compressive strength. Constr Build Mater 25(5):2472–2479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    RILEM (1994) RILEM technical committee 124-SRC: draft recommendation for repair strategies for concrete structures damaged by reinforcement corrosion. Mater Struct 27(7):415–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    RMS (2013) QA specification B80, concrete work for bridges. Roads and Maritime Services, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shi C (2004) Effect of mixing proportions of concrete on its electrical conductivity and the rapid chloride permeability test (ASTM C1202 or ASSHTO T277) results. Cem Concr Res 34(3):537–545MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tang L, Sørensen HE (2001) Precision of the Nordic test methods for measuring the chloride diffusion/migration coefficients of concrete. Mater Struct 34(8):479–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glasby T, Day J, Genrich R, Aldred J (2015) EFC geopolymer concrete aircraft pavements at west brisbane wellcamp airport. In: Concrete 2015 conference, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang CC, Cho SW, Huang R (2002) The relationship between charge passed and the chloride-ion concentration in concrete using steady-state chloride migration test. Cem Concr Res 32(2):217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations