See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/350736286

Methods of Test for Concrete Permeability: A Critical Review

Article in Advances in Civil Engineering Materials · April 2021

DOI: 10.1520/ACEM20200067

CITATIONS READS

22 6,143

6 authors, including:

Jose Milla Tara Cavalline

FDH University of North Carolina at Charlotte
18 PUBLICATIONS 354 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 350 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bharath Melugiri Shankaramurthy Gilson R. Lomboy

Iowa State University Rowan University
11 PUBLICATIONS 136 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 697 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Milla on 13 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

doi:10.1520/ACEM20200067 / Vol. 10 / No. 1 / 2021 / available online at [Link]

REVIEW PAPER

Jose Milla,1 Tara L. Cavalline,2 Tyson D. Rupnow,3 Bharath Melugiri-Shankaramurthy,4

Gilson Lomboy,5 and Kejin Wang4

Methods of Test for Concrete

Permeability: A Critical Review

Reference
J. Milla, T. L. Cavalline, T. D. Rupnow, B. Melugiri-Shankaramurthy, G. Lomboy, and K. Wang,
“Methods of Test for Concrete Permeability: A Critical Review,” Advances in Civil Engineering
Materials 10, no. 1 (2021): 172–209. [Link]

Manuscript received May 12, 2020;

accepted for publication January
ABSTRACT
26, 2021; published online April 8,
2021. Issue published April 8, 2021. The transport of liquids, gasses, and aggressive agents into concrete is responsible for a variety
of durability issues. To obtain the low-permeability concrete required for long-lasting, sustain-
1
Louisiana Transportation
able infrastructure, stakeholders desire the ability to specify concrete based upon the per-
Research Center, 4101 Gourrier
Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70808, meability rating for specific uses. The mechanisms of moisture ingress into concrete are
USA (Corresponding author), e- complex phenomena, and they are highly dependent on materials, mixture characteristics, cur-
mail: [Link]@[Link], https://
ing conditions, and other factors. This review article provides an overview of the available per-
[Link]/0000-0001-9144-8545
meability test methods and identifies existing gaps in the current field and knowledge. It
2
Department of Engineering discusses the mechanisms and key factors influencing moisture movement within concrete
Technology and Construction
(capillary suction, absorption, water, and gas permeability) and outlines the procedures, ad-
Management, University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 vantages, and limitations of available permeability test methods. Despite a variety of tests
University City Blvd., Charlotte, available for water permeability, widespread acceptance for use of a single (or even a
NC 28223, USA, [Link]
few) tests has not been achieved. No clear link exists between these tests and acceptable field
org/0000-0002-4745-1920
performance. Additionally, several tests are viewed as problematic from a time, cost, or vari-
3
Louisiana Transportation ability standpoint. Therefore, improved rapid permeability tests are needed to provide a
Research Center, 4101 Gourrier
pathway for agencies to move toward performance specifications with confidence.
Ave., Baton Rouge, LA 70808,
USA Recommendations regarding future work to support the development of improved test meth-
4
ods and, potentially, a model that would predict moisture ingress based on electrical resistivity,
Department of Civil, Construction
and Environmental Engineering, are also presented.
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
50011, USA
Keywords
5
Department of Civil and
permeability, concrete durability, transport properties, chloride ion ingress
Environmental Engineering,
Rowan University, 201 Mullica Hill
Rd., Glassboro, NJ 08028, USA

This work is not subject to copyright law. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 172
ASTM International is not responsible, as a body, for the statements and opinions expressed in this paper. ASTM International does not endorse
any products represented in this paper.
MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 173

Introduction
IMPORTANCE AND CHALLENGES OF MEASURING CONCRETE PERMEABILITY
Concrete, the most widely used construction material in the world, is a nonhomogenous, composite material
typically made from a mixture of portland cement, sand, water, and coarse aggregates. A hydrated cement
paste is a porous material, as it consists of air voids that are due to small amounts of entrapped air, and their
sizes typically range from 50 to 200 μm. In addition, it also consists of capillary voids that represent the space
not filled by the solid components of the hydrated cement paste, with sizes usually ranging from 10 nm to
1 μm.1 Through these voids, the ingress of water and other deleterious ions from the environment can deterio-
rate concrete prematurely. As such, permeability is of great interest as it relates to its durability. Although the
term permeability is strictly related to a flow occurring under a pressure differential, it is often used to include
other transport mechanisms such as absorption and diffusion. Quite often, permeability is mistaken for
porosity, and vice versa. However, the latter is only concerned with the relationship of pores to the total
volume.2
All aspects of durability rely upon a transport mechanism allowing fluids into the concrete matrix, which
may cause premature physical deterioration and chemical or electrical instability in the system.3 The primary
factors influencing moisture movement within concrete are capillary suction, absorption, water, and gas per-
meability, each of which affects durability. Permeability related tests are intended to be a measure of the pore
structure of concrete. The test methods currently available for evaluating water permeability can generally be
categorized as absorption tests and permeation tests.4
Practitioners are also concerned with permeability as it relates to chloride ion penetration, as chloride
ingress at critical threshold concentration can initiate the corrosion of reinforcing steel and can trigger
calcium oxychloride attack (when using deicing salts). These processes can lead to premature joint
deterioration and, ultimately, failure.5 Chloride ions penetrate concrete through diffusion, which is the prin-
cipal pathway through which chlorides infiltrate concrete to the level of steel reinforcement. The rate
of diffusion is controlled by the physical characteristics of the capillary pore structure, as well as the pore
solution’s concentration, which is usually expressed by a diffusion coefficient. A portion of the chloride ions
can react with the cementitious matrix by becoming chemically or physically bound,6 producing compounds
such as Friedel’s salt and Kuzel’s salt. These salt formations may clog concrete’s micropores and slow down
the rate of diffusion. Calcium oxychloride, on the other hand, can produce deleterious reactions that damage
concrete.7
Challenges to measuring water permeability or chloride ion penetration are similar to those facing a number
of durability tests. Existing tests are often long in duration and costly to perform, and they require relatively highly
trained personnel to execute and interpret their results. Additionally, the correlation of permeability test results to
field performance is not extensively established for many test methods. Measurement of “the right thing” using
economical, rapid, test methods is becoming increasingly critical as infrastructure continues to age and deteriorate
and agency resources (both funds and personnel) become stretched.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this article is to provide an overview of the key factors influencing concrete’s transport properties
and to provide a critical review of the test methods available to measure water permeability, absorption, and
diffusion characteristics of concrete.
A comparison of water and chloride ion permeability tests is presented, with a discussion of the merits and
limitations for each test method presented later in summary tables. Published relationships between water per-
meability tests and electrical tests are provided, with an emphasis on identifying promising approaches. Gaps in
the knowledge base were identified, and recommendations for improved rapid permeability and/or electrical tests
are presented.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

174 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

Background
FUNDAMENTALS OF CONCRETE’S TRANSPORT PROPERTIES
The ability of concrete to resist chemical or physical processes of degradation depends on its transport properties
(i.e., its ability to limit the fluid or ion penetration), which can be measured through permeability, absorption, or
diffusivity.8 Permeability measures the ease at which a fluid flows into and through the concrete matrix under a
pressure differential. A higher water permeability means the concrete is more vulnerable to acid attack, undesired
expansive chemical reactions within concrete, and corrosion of the reinforcing steel. Absorption refers to the
uptake of fluid in concrete through capillary action; thus, a higher absorption is an indication of concrete’s
susceptibility to water penetration. Lastly, diffusivity is defined as the rate of diffusion, which measures the rate
at which a particular entity (e.g., ions, atoms, or molecules) is transferred from a region of higher concentration to
a region of lower concentration.

Ion Transport
Diffusion
Premature deterioration in reinforced concrete is often caused by the ingress of chloride ions, driven by diffusion
to reach the steel reinforcement and initiate corrosion.6 Diffusion is a process driven by a concentration gradient
and can occur in “steady state” and “non-steady state” conditions. The former describes diffusion at a constant
rate (i.e., where the number of atoms or ions crossing a given interface is constant over time), whereas the latter
refers to a time-dependent rate of diffusion.
Measuring diffusion in concrete may be challenging, however, as chloride ions do not diffuse through a
homogeneous medium. This is because concrete is a porous material with solid and liquid phases, and these
phases inherently have different diffusion rates. The diffusion through the solid portion of the matrix can be
considered negligible compared to the rate of diffusion through the pore structure. The transport of ions
may also be affected by the presence of other ions in the pore solution, and by chemical reactions that may
occur within the cementitious matrix such as chloride binding.9–11
Fick’s second law is commonly applied to predict chloride ingress, as it provides a one-dimensional analysis
of a non-steady state diffusion of ions within concrete’s pores and calculates the chloride diffusion coefficient as
shown in equation (1):

δC δ2 C
= Da 2 (1)
δt δx
where:
C = the concentration of the ion at a distance x from the surface after time t, g/m3;
Da = the apparent diffusion coefficient, m2/s; and
t = time, s.
The solution to Fick’s second law shown in equation (2) assumes that the surface concentration and diffusion
coefficients are constant over time.12 However, because concrete’s diffusion properties do change over time (and with
the concentration of the diffusant) and the surface concentration is affected by the free chlorides and bound chlorides,
this approach serves more as a convenient estimation tool rather than an accurate model of chloride ion transport.13–15

 
x
Cðx, tÞ = C s 1 − erf pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (2)
2 Da t

where:
C (x,t) = the chloride concentration at depth x, m, at time t, s;
Da = the apparent diffusion coefficient, m2/s;
erf = error function; and
Cs = surface chloride concentration, %.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 175

The salt ponding test (AASHTO T 259, Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion
Penetration16) and bulk diffusion tests (such as ASTM C1556-11a(2016), Standard Test Method for Determining
the Apparent Chloride Diffusion Coefficient of Cementitious Mixtures by Bulk Diffusion,17 and NT Build 443,
Concrete, Hardened: Accelerated Chloride Penetration18) are examples of non-steady state chloride diffusion tests,
where the apparent chloride ion diffusion coefficient is determined by fitting profiles of the acid soluble chloride
concentration to the analytical solution of Fick’s second law of diffusion.19 For this reason, the term “apparent
chloride ion diffusion” is used to differentiate the results obtained from a chloride ion concentration profile with
concrete’s true diffusion coefficient. In order to estimate chloride ingress in concrete more accurately, several
authors have proposed adjustments to the application of Fick’s second law to consider the effects of chloride
binding, time, porosity, and tortuosity, among other factors.15,19–21
Alternatively, an “effective diffusion coefficient” is used to account only for the movement of free chlorides
and can be calculated using the Fick’s first law of diffusion22 for one-dimensional analysis as shown in equa-
tion (3). This diffusion coefficient is determined after steady-state conditions have been reached, and is therefore
unaffected by chloride binding.6
dC
q = −De (3)
dx
where:
q = the flux of chloride ions, mol/m2s;
De = the chloride diffusion coefficient, m2/s;
C = the concentration of chloride ions, mol/m3;
x = the position variable, m; and
dC
dx = the concentration gradient, g/m3/m.
These tests are typically conducted in a diffusion cell setup, where the upstream compartment is the chloride
source, and the downstream compartment is free of chlorides before the test begins. The chloride flux (i.e., the
amount of chloride that will flow through a unit area of concrete for a given time) is then calculated by measuring
the rate of change of chloride concentration in one of the compartments after the steady state is reached.

Migration
Measuring diffusion in concrete is very time-consuming, as ions can take several months to penetrate a depth of just
1 cm in mortar.23,24 For this reason, many attempts have been made to measure ion diffusion through accelerated
testing procedures, usually involving the application of an external current.9 Migration tests differ from diffusion
tests because a constant electrical potential difference is applied across the concrete, so the calculation of the dif-
fusion coefficient is based on the Nernst-Planck equation 25 rather than Fick’s law. The Nernst-Planck equation
calculates the migration-based effective diffusion coefficient, shown in equation (4). All of the following variables
can be calculated or measured experimentally. It should be noted that the migration-based chloride diffusion co-
efficients differ from the diffusion coefficients obtained via natural diffusion such as the salt-ponding tests.
J Cl RTL
De = × 100 (4)
jZ Cl jFC Cl ðΔE − ΔEc Þ

where:
De = the migration-based effective diffusion coefficient, cm2/s;
R = the gas constant, 8.31 J/mol-K;
T = the absolute temperature, K;
ZCl = the charge of chloride ion, taken as −1;
F = the Faraday constant, 96,500 C/mol;
CCl = the measured chloride ion concentration on the cathode side, mol/L;
ΔE − ΔEc = the electric potential difference between specimen surfaces, V; and
L = the thickness of specimen, cm.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

176 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

The flux (JCl) of the chloride ions in steady-state conditions is calculated using equation (5).

V II ΔcII
J Cl = Cl
(5)
A Δt

where:
VII = the volume of the anode solution (usually sodium hydroxide), L;
A = the cross-sectional area of the specimen, cm2; and
Cl =Δt = the rate of change of the chloride ion concentration at the anode solution, mol/L/year.
ΔcII
Additional information on ionic transport in concrete can be found in published works by McGrath and
Hooton,26 Samson, Marchand, and Beaudoin,27 Samson and Marchand,9 and Truc, Ollivier, and Nilsson,28 among
others. The rapid chloride permeability test (ASTM C1202-19, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of
Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration,29 or AASHTO T 277, Standard Method of Test for Electrical
Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration) and the Nordtest NT Build 492, Concrete, Mortar
and Cement-Based Repair Materials: Chloride Migration Coefficient from Non-Steady-State Migration
Experiments,30 methods are examples of non-steady state migration tests, whereas the Nordtest NT Build 355,
Concrete, Mortar and Cement-Based Repair Materials: Chloride Diffusion Coefficient from Migration Cell
Experiments,31 and the Japanese JSCE-G571-2003, Test Method for Effective Diffusion Coefficient of Chloride
Ion in Concrete by Migration,32 test methods are conducted in steady-state conditions. For the steady-state tests,
the flux is calculated once the rate of change in chloride ion concentration passing through the sample is constant.
The migration-based effective chloride diffusion coefficient is then calculated using the Nernst-Planck or the
Nernst-Einstein equations. 33 Although steady-state tests take considerably longer to conduct than non-steady state
tests, the advantage of the former is that all chloride binding would have already taken place before the first readings
are measured, and thus the results would not be influenced by this factor.6

Electrical Resistivity
Electrical resistivity is the inverse of electrical conductivity and is an inherent material property that measures
how strongly it can resist or conduct an electric current. This relationship is based on Ohm’s law, as shown in
equation (6).

V l
R= =ρ (6)
I A

where:
R = the electrical resistance, Ω;
V = the voltage, V;
I = the current, A;
ρ = the resistivity, Ω-m or Ω-cm;
l = length of the conductor, m or cm; and
A = cross-sectional area of the conductor, m2 or cm2.
In practice, resistivity is often reported in Ω-m, or most commonly in the United States, in kΩ-cm for
concrete specimens (where 1 Ω-m equals 0.10 kΩ-cm). From this point forward, resistivity will be reported
in kΩ-cm for consistency.
Measuring resistivity requires the determination of the electrical resistance of the object and the appli-
cation of a geometric factor, Kg, as shown in equation (7). The geometric factor is a numerical multiplier that is
defined by the position of the electrodes from the testing device. There are three main electrode configurations
used to measure resistivity: the Wenner array (which is the most commonly used for concrete applications), the
dipole-dipole array, and the Schlumberger array. As such, the geometric factor would vary based on the elec-
trode array selected, and its value depends on the units used to measure the distances between each electrode.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 177

ρ = Kg × R (7)

where:
ρ = the measured resistivity, Ω-m or kΩ-cm;
R = the electrical resistance, Ω or kΩ; and
Kg = the geometric factor, m or cm.
Electrical resistivity is an intrinsic property measuring how a material can withstand the transfer of ions in an
electrical field. In saturated concrete, the electrical charge is transferred through ions in the pore solution. Because
the electrical conductivity of concrete depends on the pore solution and the pore structure properties, resistivity
measurements can be used as a durability indicator to assess the size and extent of the interconnectivity of pores.34
However, as with most electrical tests, care must be taken when measuring resistivity because both the degree of
saturation and temperature of the specimen have a significant impact on the test results.35 For this reason, stand-
ardized test methods control these parameters in a laboratory environment to obtain meaningful results. More
details on electrical resistivity testing can be found in the section titled “Electrical Resistivity.”
Although resistivity is an indirect method to assess concrete’s pore connectivity, it can be used to estimate the
potential service life of reinforced concrete structures and to develop limiting values for specifications and quality con-
trol (QC).36,37 Service life predictions of reinforced concrete structures can be calculated through a simplified approach
by relating the diffusivity of concrete with its electrical conductivity, derived from the Nernst-Einstein equation.38,39

kCl
D= (8)
ρ

where:
D = the diffusion coefficient, cm2/s;
kCl = a factor for the external ionic concentration (usually of chlorides), kΩ-cm3/s; and
ρ = the resistivity of saturated concrete, kΩ-cm.
The value of kCI can be determined experimentally, and it can also be estimated based on the external chlo-
ride concentration. The expression in equation (8) accounts for the transport of chloride ions and does not ac-
count for the effect of chloride binding. Andrade and d’Andrea39 and Andrade, d’Andrea, and Rebolledo40
proposed a “reaction” factor representing bound chloride. This value depends on the type and amount of cement
used and can be measured from a migration test or estimated based on the cement’s composition.36

Fluid Transport
Capillary absorption is the main transport mechanism for water in concrete materials, which describes the move-
ment of water through concrete’s pore structure, driven by moisture gradients. It is a useful property to measure
as it determines an unsaturated concrete’s susceptibility to water penetration in the absence of a pressure head,
given that hydraulic heads are rarely maintained on highway structures.6
The concept of critical saturation has emerged as an important concept in understanding the ingress of water
into concrete, as well as the susceptibility of concrete to freeze-thaw (F-T) distress and other moisture-related
deterioration mechanisms.41–43 From a F-T durability standpoint, damage does not occur when (1) the distance
water needs to flow from a given point to an air void does not exceed the critical flow distance (Dcr), and (2) the
degree of saturation of the concrete is less than the critical saturation (Scr). This is illustrated in figure 1.
As water sorption initially progresses, small gel and capillary pores become filled with water first, as shown in
stages 1 through 4 in figure 2. This “initial absorption” period is shown schematically as the line segment con-
necting positions 1–4. Once gel and capillary pores become filled, water begins filling entrained and entrapped
voids as part of “secondary absorption,” shown as stages 5 through 8. The secondary absorption stage is shown
schematically as the line segment between 5 and 8. Secondary absorption occurs far slower than initial absorption
and appears to be highly influenced by the quality of the air void system within the concrete.44 The intersection of
the two line segments is referred to as the “nick point” (SNICK). With more air present in the concrete, SNICK is

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

178 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

FIG. 1
Schematic of the
concept of critical flow
distance and critical
saturation,44 where:
(A) concrete’s saturation
is less than the critical
saturation, and the
distance that water can
flow from a freezing site
to the nearest air void is
less than the critical flow
distance; (B) concrete’s
critical saturation and
the critical flow distance
has been reached;
(C) both the critical
saturation and the
critical flow distance
have been exceeded;
and (D) the relationship
between the flow
distance and the degree
of saturation before and
after concrete’s critical
saturation is reached.

FIG. 2
Schematic of initial
absorption (water filling
gel and capillary pores,
stages 1–4) and
secondary absorption
(water filling entrained
and entrapped voids,
stages 5–8).8

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 179

lower, indicating it will likely take a longer time for the concrete to reach critical saturation, and therefore the
concrete will better withstand F-T related stresses.
The entrained air system influencing secondary absorption can be somewhat controlled by the addition of
adequate quantities of air entraining admixtures. However, the characteristics of the gel and capillary pore structure
of concrete are influenced by the cementitious materials utilized, water to cementitious ratio, and other factors.

Characterization and Measurement of Water Permeability

Water permeability is influenced by the concrete pore structure and its interconnectivity to allow water to pen-
etrate into the concrete matrix. The primary factors influencing water permeability are the water-cement ratio,
curing age and regime, aggregate size and gradation, and the use of pozzolanic materials.1 This section summa-
rizes the existing test methods for evaluating the fluid transport properties of concrete, measured through ab-
sorption and water permeability.

WATER ABSORPTION TESTS

Initial Surface Absorption Test- ISAT (BS 1881-208)
This test was originally developed by Glanville in 1931 and modified by Levitt in the 1970s.45 The method measures
the rate at which water is absorbed into the surface and therefore must not be mistaken as a test to measure the bulk
permeability of concrete.3 The test is covered by BS 1881-208:1996, Testing Concrete. Recommendations for the
Determination of the Initial Surface Absorption of Concrete.46 A schematic of the test setup is shown in figure 3.
The test begins with the placement of an acrylic cap on the concrete surface with a minimum water contact area of
5,000 mm2 and making it water-tight by clamping it. A pressure head of 200 mm (∼0.02 bar) is established by means of
a water reservoir. With the inlet tap opened, water is allowed to flow to fill the gap, and then through the outlet it climbs
into the calibrated horizontal capillary tube. After 10 min, the tap is closed, and the rate of water suction by the concrete
is monitored by following the retraction of the meniscus in the capillary tube. The absorption values are determined
following this procedure at 10, 30, 60, and 120 min from the start of the test. The inlet tap is opened after each mea-
surement in order to allow the head of the water to be maintained at 200 mm. The ISA-value is given by equation (9).
D
ISA = 0.6 (9)
δt
where:
ISA = rate of water suction, ml/m2/s;
D = number of scale the meniscus moves during the time interval δt; and
δt = time interval, s.

FIG. 3
Schematic of ISAT
method (adapted from
Basheer48).

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

180 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

A study by Dhir et al.47 showed the absorptivity of concrete, measured with the ISAT, could be used as an
accurate specification for concrete durability, irrespective of curing, grade or mix constituents. A strong corre-
lation (R2 = 0.95) was observed to exist between ISAT test results and F-T durability, depth of carbonation, abra-
sion depth, and chloride diffusion.48
The main advantage of this test method is that it is relatively quicker (~150 min) and a simple nondestructive
in-situ test method that can be used to measure water penetration into a concrete surface. Ensuring a watertight
seal is probably one of the greatest challenges of this test, as such related issues have been reported in practice.
Other limitations are that the measured property is greatly affected by the moisture condition of the concrete and
the method cannot be applied to the underside of the existing concrete elements.

Standpipe Absorptivity Test

The principle of this test is similar to that of ISAT. In this method, a vertical tube with suitable diameter is
connected to another vertical or a horizontal piece, and subsequently glued on to the specimen’s test surface.
Then water is filled up to a level and noted and then is allowed to be absorbed by the test surface. The quantity of
the water absorbed per unit time is determined and expressed as an index for water absorptivity of the surface.48
There are three different versions of this test: the Chimney method, the Australian water permeability
test, and the Karsten’s pipe test. Various features of these tests are given in Table 1. Although the standpipe
tests are simple to perform at the field, the tests lack the sensitivity observed in the ISAT and Autoclam sorptivity
methods.

Figg-Poroscope Method
The test method was first reported in England by J. W. Figg in 1973.49 The test setup and a commercially available
poroscope50 are shown in figure 4. The test is performed by drilling a hole perpendicular to the test surface with
the hole dimensions being 10 mm (diameter) and 40 mm (height). The hole is then cleared and rendered airtight
using a rubber silicone plug that forms a cylindrical chamber of 20 mm length as shown. Once the rubber hardens,
a typical syringe needle is pierced through the rubber and is applied with a water head of 100 mm. The chamber
along with the attached capillary tube are then filled with water using the syringe. After 1 min (from the initial
contact of water to concrete surface), the stopcock is shut, and the rate of water suction is observed by monitoring
the meniscus movement in the horizontal capillary on the side. The time taken for the test concrete surface to
absorb 0.01 ml of water is noted and reported as the test result, which is evaluated per Table 2.
The same test is performed multiple times at the same test location and are averaged to obtain a represen-
tative test result. The test concrete surface is then categorized based on the average test result in accordance with
classification provided by Figg.51 The typical total test time inclusive of instrument setup is around 40 min.
However, it can significantly extend further beyond 40 min especially when testing low to very low permeability
concrete mixtures.52 Multiple tests at the same location are to be averaged, and the results are compared to “pro-
tective quality” categories provided by the Figg method.51
The main advantage of this method is that it is a relatively simple test to run and the same test setup can also
be utilized for measuring the air permeability of the test surface. However, the hole drilled on the concrete can

TABLE 1
Details of standpipe tests (regenerated from Basheer48)

Standpipe
Test Type Diameter, mm Water Head, mm Parameter Observed

Chimney method 67 100 (constant head) Total quantity of water absorbed in a total of 6 d with measurements
taken every 24 h
Karsten’s pipe test 60 100 (falling head) The volume of water absorbed by the surface in between 5 and 15 min
from the beginning of test
Australian water permeability 100 200 (falling head) Plot of variation between water head and time while watching either head
test for a 2-h period or until the water head falls by 100 mm

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 181

FIG. 4 (A) Schematic illustration of the Figg-Poroscope Method,4 and (B) a commercially available poroscope.50

TABLE 2
Concrete categories based on the Figg method4

Concrete Category 0 1 2 3 4

Protective quality Bad Fair Medium Good Very good

Poroscope absorption time (s) <20 20–50 50–100 100–500 >500

affect the microstructure at the surface. The test results are also affected if the hole is drilled through larger coarse
aggregate particles.
The Covercrete Absorption Test
The covercrete absorption test (CAT) test is very similar to the ISAT, with the difference being the absorption of
the concrete is measured over the full depth of a 50-mm hole drilled into the cover. This method was initially
developed to avoid localized effects such as carbonation on the measured surface absorption properties. The
testing procedure also is similar to the ISAT method. A schematic of the test setup is shown in figure 5.
Both ISAT and CAT methods determine the rate of capillary suction (or sorption) and the testing is done
for a period of 1 h. The test results are regarded insufficient to be used for modeling long-term capillary transport
properties in concrete and are deemed to represent only the surface phenomenon of capillary absorption.53
Water Absorption (RILEM CPC11.2)
In this test method, the cross section of the specimen resting over the supports is immersed in water, so the water
level is maintained at 5 mm above the bottom specimen surface. The specimen setup is preferably covered to
prevent evaporation of water, and the test is performed at atmospheric pressure.36
As the specimen starts to absorb water, it is removed from the water and wiped off to remove excess water,
and its weight is recorded at time periods of 3, 6, 24, 24, and 72 h from the initial contact of specimen surface with
the water. Prior to taking weights, the excess moisture is allowed to drip in a nonabsorbent base for a minute. For
each time period, ti, the water absorption of the specimen through capillary action (acc) is then determined using
equation (10).

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

182 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

FIG. 5
Schematic arrangement
of the CAT method.53

ðmi − m0 Þ
acc = (10)
A
where:
m0 = initial mass of the specimen, g;
mi = mass of the specimen after a specific time ti, g; and
A = specimen cross-sectional area, mm2.
The water absorption can also be expressed in terms of height because of capillary rise. The test results are
usually expressed as a function of (t)1/2with analogy of capillary action of water in cylindrical pores, which could
be expressed approximately using the Washburn equation.
t
mðtÞ = Sc × (11)
2
where:
m(t) = increase in specimen mass (or cumulative water absorption) in time t; and
Sc = absorption coefficient (or sorptivity).
Preconditioning of the test specimens is crucial for obtaining consistent results. A major limitation is that
there is no widely accepted procedure, which makes comparison of interlaboratory test results difficult. Though
standard steps have been suggested by “RILEM TC 116-PCD: Permeability of Concrete as a Criterion of Its
Durability”54 for the preconditioning of test specimens, the procedure is time-consuming and laborious.
Other limitations associated with this test include the lack of established values to base the evaluation criteria
for concrete quality (excluding national standards), and field testing is destructive as it requires cores to be drilled
out from the structures.36 Lastly, it is worth mentioning that this test method has been withdrawn and superseded
by other national standards such as ASTM C1585, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Rate of Absorption
of Water by Hydraulic-Cement Concretes.

Water Sorptivity (ASTM C1585 and Bentz et al. Method)

Sorptivity of concrete can be evaluated using test methods that consider pressure induced by a head of water
above the concrete surface, as in the ponding method developed by Bentz et al.,55 or by methods considering
capillary action only (ASTM C1585). Both methods are intended to determine the susceptibility of unsaturated

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 183

concrete to the penetration of water. Initial absorption (within the first few hours) and the secondary absorption
(over several days) are both of interest. As the test specimen absorbs water, mass change is recorded. Because
sorptivity is a diffusion process, the rate of increase in mass per unit surface area is plotted against the square root
of time.56 Least-square linear regression is performed to fit two line segments to the data: the first for initial
absorption and the second for secondary absorption. The initial absorption is often defined as the slope of
the best fit line for the 1-min to 6-h data, and the secondary absorption is often defined as the slope of the best
fit line for the day 1 to day 7 data.55 Initial and secondary sorptivity are typically reported in units of in/min0.5 or
mm/min0.5, and they are sometimes referred to as sorptivity coefficients.
The procedure for performing the water absorption test according to the ASTM C1585 standard is similar to
that recommended by RILEM. In this standard, the preconditioning of the specimens is recognized as the prevailing
step as well.36 The test is used to measure the water absorption rate of both the concrete surface and interior con-
crete. The test determines the rate of absorption (sorptivity) of water by hydraulic cement concrete by measuring the
increase in the mass of a specimen resulting from the absorption of water as a function of time when only one
surface of the specimen is exposed to water. The specimen is conditioned in an environment at a standard relative
humidity (RH) to induce a consistent moisture condition in the capillary pore system. This preconditioning ensures
the equilibration of the moisture distribution within the test specimens and has been found to provide an internal
RH of 50–70 %, which is similar to the RH found near the surface in some field structures.
The exposed surface of the specimen is immersed in water, and the water ingress of unsaturated concrete is
dominated by capillary suction during initial contact with water. Similar to the procedure recommended by
RILEM, the preconditioned specimens are allowed to absorb water for a given time. The absorption I is the
change in mass divided by the product of the cross-sectional area of the test specimen and the density of water,
as shown in equation (12). For the purpose of this test, the temperature dependence of the density of water is
neglected, and a value of 0.001 g/mm3 is used.
mt
I= (12)
ad

where:
I = absorption, mm;
mt = change in specimen mass at time t, g;
a = exposed area of the specimen, mm2; and
d = density of the water in g/mm3.
For the ponding test,55 a reservoir is constructed above the top surface of the preconditioned specimen.
Approximately 3 mm of water is added to the reservoir, resulting in the influence of a small hydrostatic head
in the test.

Water Sorptivity (South African Durability Index Manual)

This water sorptivity test measures the rate of water uptake by a dry specimen that is normalized by its porosity, in
accordance with the South African Durability Index Testing Procedure Manual.57 The schematic of the test setup
is shown in figure 6. The water sorptivity value is measured in mm/h0.5. Drying of the specimen is accomplished
by placing it in an oven maintained at a temperature of 50°C for a total of 7 days. A lower water sorptivity index
indicates a potentially more durable concrete as compared to a higher sorptivity index value. The test also enables
the determination of the specimen porosity (n) using equation (13).

ðM sv − M so Þ
n= × 100 % (13)
Adρw

where:
Msv = vacuum saturated mass of the specimen, g;
Mso = mass of the specimen at time t0 (start of the test), g;

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

184 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

FIG. 6
Schematic of South
African water sorptivity
setup.36

A = cross-sectional area of the specimen, mm2;

d = average specimen thickness, mm; and
ρw = density of water, 10−3 g/mm3.
The advantages of the sorptivity tests are that the testing procedure simulates the natural fluid intrusion in
concrete, the specimens from the field can also be tested by obtaining cores, and the test is sensitive to the near
surface characteristics of the concrete and hence helps in its evaluation. Some major limitations are that the results
are highly sensitive to the specimen conditioning, the duration for specimen conditioning is longer, the test is
destructive (slicing standard lab cast cylinders and obtaining drilled cores from the field structures), and the
results are highly affected by the presence of cracks and macrovoids.58,59

Water Absorption by Vacuum Saturation

In this test method, the water absorption of concrete is measured with vacuum saturated specimens. The spec-
imens are subjected to vacuum for a total of 4 h and then are soaked under water in a desiccator for next 20 h.
Next, the saturated surface dry mass and buoyant mass are calculated. Using these values, the permeable porosity
of the test concrete is calculated using equation (14).12

ðW s − W d Þ
Permeable porosity = × 100 % (14)
ðW s − W b Þ

where:
Wb = buoyant mass of the saturated specimen in water, g;
Wd = oven-dry mass of the specimen in air, g; and
Ws = saturated surface dry mass of the specimen in air, g.

Water Absorption by Boil Test (ASTM C642)

The water absorption capacity tests determine the effective porosity in concrete and are not intended to measure
the rate of capillary suction. One such test for concrete is the ASTM C642-13, Standard Test Method for Density,
Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete,60 generally called “boil test.” Compared to other test methods for
determining permeability, this test follows a very simple procedure without any need of specialized equipment.
Through the measurement of concrete’s density in different states (i.e., oven dry state, saturated and saturated-
boiled states), the permeable pore space volume can be estimated.61 A higher value of permeable pore space
volume indicates less durable concrete. A limiting value on the permeable pore space volume is often specified
depending on the concrete application. For example, for concrete pavements, a permeable pore space volume less
than or equal to 12 % is desired for long-term durability.61
Depending on the intended usage of the test results, the results from the boil test need to be carefully an-
alyzed noting the ASTM C642 method tends to underestimate the total specimen porosity. A study by Bu, Spragg,
and Weiss62 determined that the estimated total porosity from ASTM C642 results seemed to exclude a large

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 185

portion of voids in the entrained air void system. Instead, the test determines only the total porosity volume
present in the matrix and aggregate. Thus, it is recommended to obtain the specimen porosity estimates through
application of vacuum (preferably at two different vacuum degrees) as the results are more reliable and can be
used for transport and durability calculations.

Water Absorption (Australian Standard - AS 1012.21)

This test method is covered under AS 1012.21-1999 (R2014), Methods of Testing Concrete – Determination of
Water Absorption and Apparent Volume of Permeable Voids in Hardened Concrete,63 essentially an Australian
version of ASTM C642, with minor modifications in the testing procedure. The test is also known as the “ap-
parent volume of permeable voids” test or “AVPV” test.64 The AVPV is the apparent volume of interconnected
void space in a concrete test specimen that is emptied by specified oven drying procedure and later filled by water
during immersion and boiling processes. The AVPV is measured as a percentage of the volume of the bulk
materials, including both solids and voids.
The Australian standard incorporates further modifications over ASTM C642 to avoid misinterpretations
and variabilities in the obtained test results.65 One such refinement is related to the oven drying aspect for the test
specimens, which requires drying to within 1 g from successive measured weights, unlike in ASTM C642, which
requires the difference between successive weight measurements to be <0.5 % of the lowest obtained weight value.
The latter sometimes might result in a difference of even 3 g to 4 g. This provides the Australian standard a higher
accuracy, repeatability, and reproducibility in terms of the test results. Another advantage of this standard is the
use of clear language to elucidate the test specimen requirements. Thus, it facilitates the user’s interpretation of the
standard.

PRESSURIZED WATER PERMEABILITY TESTS

Germann Water Permeability Test (GWT-4000)
The Germann water permeability test is used for on-site evaluation of the water permeation of the skin-concrete in
finished structure, the water permeation of masonry panels, the water tightness of construction joints and sealed
control joints, and effectiveness of waterproofing membranes.66 Figure 7 shows the schematic of the test setup.
In this method, a pressure chamber containing a watertight gasket is secured and held tightly against the test
surface with the help of two anchored clamps or by means of a suction plate or glue. The chamber is then filled

FIG. 7
Schematic illustration of
the GWT setup.66

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

186 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

with water and the values are shut. The top chamber lid is rotated until a desired water is achieved (a value of
100 kPa is usually considered). The selected pressure is maintained using a micrometer gage pressing a piston into
the water-filled chamber submitting the water penetrating into the material. The piston travel with time is used to
characterize the permeation property of the test surface. The testing procedure is partially destructive in nature
and therefore requires repair of the holes after testing. The total test duration inclusive of the instrument setup
time is usually about 40 min.
The gage readings are noted with elapsed time, and they are used to evaluate the test surface against its
permeation characteristics. Depending on the quality of the test concrete, a single test generally lasts for about 5
to 10 min. However, longer testing using higher pressures (of about 500 kPa) might be needed while testing
concrete with lower w/cm ratios.66 The test procedure can be used to evaluate horizontal and vertical faces, and
the obtained results usually represent a combined influence of surface porosity, water permeability, and ab-
sorption of the test surface. Hence, the results are evaluated carefully depending on the purpose of testing.
One limitation of the test is that it assumes the water flows parallel to the gasket from the chamber to the
outside. However, this assumption remains invalid especially while testing porous concrete surfaces. In addi-
tion, there have been issues reported with respect to maintaining constant water pressures on horizontal test
surfaces.36

Autoclam
The Autoclam permeability system was developed by Basheer,67 Structural Materials Research Group at Queen’s
University Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. It was developed for evaluating the in-situ permeation characteristics of
the concrete through applications of pressurized air onto the test surface. The same testing system could be used
not only to measure the air permeability of the concrete and other building and surface repair materials but also to
determine their water absorption (sorptivity) and water permeability properties. The test method is nondestruc-
tive in nature and could be used both on lab specimens and on-site.68
The test procedure includes pumping the water to the test region via a priming pump, and the pressure of the
water is measured using a pressure transducer. Once the testing chamber is filled with water, the priming pump
turns off automatically, and the test region/area is pressurized by a micro pump to 0.5 bar over atmospheric
pressure at which point the test begins. At this applied pressure, the water transport that takes place in the capil-
lary pores does not occur from the pressure induced flow, but instead from the absorption. As the water ab-
sorption proceeds, the pressure tends to decline and is maintained constant via a pump with a control
system. The volume of water is measured and recorded every 15 min, and the water flow quantity is plotted
against (t)1/2. The slope of the line between the 5- and 15-min mark is considered for specifying the water per-
meability index in m3/min1/2. Figure 8 shows a schematic of the Autoclam permeability system and a commer-
cially available test device.
Major advantages of this test method include the instrument’s portability and ease of use for on-site ap-
plications. The testing can be carried out by nonskilled personnel, and the test procedure does not leave any mark
on the test surface. The total testing duration is less than 30 min including set up. Few limitations of this testing
method include issues in ensuring water tightness between the instrument and the surface, and also in main-
taining constant water pressure especially while evaluating vertical surfaces.36

Water Penetration (EN 12390-8 and DIN 1048-5)

This test procedure is described in BS EN 12390-8:2019, Testing Hardened Concrete. Depth of Penetration of
Water under Pressure,69 and has an equivalent German standard (DIN 1048-5).70 The test method requires oven
drying of cylindrical test specimens at a temperature of 105°C until a constant mass is reached. Then, the circular
sides of the specimens are coated with epoxy to ensure unidirectional flow of water under a maintained pressure
of 500 ± 50 kPa at a head of 92.5 m. The pressure level is maintained for a period of 72 h after which the specimens
are split into halves and the depth of water penetration is determined. Figure 9 shows the water permeability test
setup and concrete specimens with marked waterfront indicating water penetration depth.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 187

FIG. 8 (A) Schematic of Autoclam test setup,4 and (B) a commercially available Autoclam water permeability test
device.68

FIG. 9
(A) Water permeability
test setup designed to
meet EN 12390-8 and
DIN 104874, and (B)
tested concrete samples
marked with water fronts
to indicate depth of
penetrated water.36

Field Permeability Test (Florida Test)

The test method was developed by Meletiou, Tia, and Bloomquist in the 1990s.71 Figure 10 shows the schematic
setup of the test. The first step includes drilling a hole of 23 mm in diameter and 152 mm in depth into the test
concrete surface and introducing a cylindrical probe into it. The top nut is then tightened to seal the central
chamber. The chamber is then applied with a full vacuum for around 5–10 min after which the probe is connected
to the instrument unit. Using nitrogen, water is then pressurized at 1 to 3.5 MPa (generally 1.7 MPa) into the
chamber via the probe, which then flows into the surrounding concrete. Once a steady flow is attained, the water
flow rate is recorded (with a mean value of five measurements) and the water permeability coefficient is calculated
in accordance with Darcy’s law. The total test duration inclusive of the setting up of the instrument is about
40 min, and the test is partially destructive in nature.

Characterization and Measurement of Chloride Ion Transport

The main transport mechanism by which ions penetrate concrete is through diffusion, and through diffusion
chlorides can infiltrate to the level of concrete’s steel reinforcement.6 The rate of diffusion is controlled by the

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

188 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

FIG. 10
Schematic view of the
Florida test setup.4

physical characteristics of the capillary pore structure, as well as the pore solution’s ionic strength, which is usually
expressed as a diffusion coefficient based on the types of ions present. This section summarizes the existing test
methods used to measure chloride ion penetrability in concrete.

NATURAL DIFFUSION
Salt Ponding Test (AASHTO T 259/ASTM C1543)
The salt ponding test measures concrete’s resistance to chloride ion penetration after subjecting the
specimens to continuous ponding with a 3 % sodium chloride (NaCl) solution. The specimens are cured
for 14 days and subsequently dried for 28 days before ponding begins. The testing procedure requires subjecting
concrete in an environment with a high concentration of chloride ions up to 90 days to measure the absorbed
chloride ion content throughout the depth of the concrete specimen. A chloride profile is subsequently de-
veloped, illustrating the average and maximum absorbed chloride ion values calculated at certain depth
intervals.
However, this test method’s duration may not be applicable to high-quality concretes, as the 90-day
exposure period may not be enough to develop a chloride profile because of its limited penetration.
In such circumstances, it is recommended that the test duration is extended up to 180 days to address this
problem.72,73 For this reason, the ASTM version of the salt ponding test recommends the initial sampling at
90 days, with the option of subsequent sampling at 6 and 12 months, and 12-month intervals thereafter if
needed.
Such a long testing duration, however, makes it impractical for an agency to require concrete materials that
limit chloride ion penetration based on the described test method. In addition, this test has been known to exag-
gerate the impact of sorption in concrete, which has been attributed to the initial 28-day drying period. This leads
to higher chloride diffusion coefficients, particularly in concrete supplemented with mineral admixtures.74 It is
also worth mentioning that ASTM’s version of the salt ponding test (ASTM C1543, Standard Test Method for
Determining the Penetration of Chloride Ion into Concrete by Ponding) was withdrawn in February 2019 as it was
considered obsolete.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 189

Apparent Chloride Diffusion in Concrete (ASTM C1556)

This test method is used to determine the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient for hardened cementitious mix-
tures (ASTM C1556). The apparent chloride diffusion coefficient is a parameter describing chloride transport in
concrete, using Fick’s second law of diffusion to estimate chloride penetration. It is calculated from the acid-
soluble chloride profile data obtained from saturated specimens exposed to chloride solutions (165 g/L for at
least 35 days extendable up to 90 days or longer for high-performing concretes), albeit without a correction
for chloride binding. Chloride binding refers to the loss of chloride ions during a chemical reaction with the
surrounding cementitious products. Despite its lack of chloride binding correction, this test method provides
a useful indication of concrete’s susceptibility to chloride ion penetration.
This test method improves upon the shortcomings of the ponding test (i.e., as its overestimation of sorption)
by no longer requiring a 28-day drying period and by saturating the sample with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)
solution prior to the NaCl exposure. The pretreatment of Ca(OH)2 solution helps minimize carbonation in the
liquid and eliminates the contribution of absorption on chloride ingress. Similar to AASHTO T 259, however,
the test method’s main drawback is the relatively long testing period required, which can make it impractical for
routine purposes.13 In addition, this test method does not determine the true diffusion coefficient because the
conditions within concrete do not satisfy the requirements for Fick’s second law of diffusion. This is because
concrete is heterogeneous, its diffusion properties can change with time, and chemical reactions such as chloride
binding can occur. Regardless, Fick’s second law is used to get an estimate of chloride ingress, and as such,
the term apparent chloride diffusion coefficient is used to distinguish the results obtained from this test from
concrete’s true diffusion, which is inherently complex to determine.

Accelerated Chloride Penetration (NT Build 443)

Nordtest NT BUILD 443 is a long-term bulk diffusion test method utilizing a high concentration of NaCl solution
(16.5 %) to estimate the resistance of chloride ion penetration in hardened concrete samples. The goal of this test
method is to obtain a chloride ion penetration parameter (KCr), which is a function of a non-steady state chloride
diffusion coefficient (Dnssd) and an apparent surface chloride content value (Cs). Diffusion coefficients are used in
deterioration and service life modeling using Fick’s law of diffusion. Specimens are sealed off in an epoxy coating
except for one surface, which is exposed to the NaCl solution, after which thin layers are ground off, and their
chloride contents are determined.
Results from bulk diffusion tests such as NT BUILD 443 and AASHTO T259 are often used to benchmark
conductivity tests. These test methods simulate, in a more diffusion-controlled manner, the natural penetration of
chloride ions. Unlike AASHTO T259, the specimens are preconditioned in a Ca(OH)2solution at 23°C, which
facilitates the deterioration process by minimizing carbonation in the liquid and eliminating the contribution of
absorption. Sealing the specimen in the epoxy coating also eliminates vapor conduction or wicking from the wet
face to the dry face, which has been exposed to the NaCl solution (fig. 11).
This test method can be applied to new specimens or those taken from existing structures without construc-
tion faults after curing in moist conditions for 28 days. Drawbacks to this method include the tedious and labo-
rious preparation and monitoring of specimens, as well as its long test duration. Low-quality concrete must be
exposed for a period of 35 days, and higher quality concrete up to 90 days or longer, while agitating the submerged
specimens once every week.

MIGRATION
Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration (AASHTO T 277/ASTM C1202)
The Electrical Indication of Concrete Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration test method, also known as the
rapid chloride ion penetration test (RCP), has been widely accepted for assessing the durability of concrete.
This is achieved by measuring the electrical conductance of concrete under non-steady state conditions to
provide a rapid indication of its resistance to the penetration of chloride ions. Its results are applicable to
concretes that have been correlated to the long-term chloride ponding procedures such as those described

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

190 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

FIG. 11
NT Build 443 bulk
diffusion test setup.18

in AASHTO T 259.6,75–78 The chloride ion penetrability rating is based on the charge passed (in Coulombs), as
shown in Table 3.
The test method is an indirect measurement of chloride ion penetrability because it is an electrical test.
Whereas ion diffusion depends on the microstructure and chemical binding capacity of the cementitious matrix,
electrical conductivity measurements depend on concrete’s microstructure and the pore solution chemistry.79 As
a result, RCP is not applicable for concretes containing certain corrosion inhibitor admixtures added directly into
the mixture. This is because some corrosion inhibitors such as calcium nitrite can increase the pore solution’s
conductivity and produce misleading results. In addition, certain supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs)
such as slag cement may also alter the pore solution chemistry, which in turn provides test results overestimating
its effectiveness in reducing the chloride ion penetrability.80
Although RCP drastically reduces the testing time from the AASHTO T 259 salt ponding tests (which can
last up to one year), it is still considered slow and time-consuming as well as destructive, and it fails to adequately
capture some features associated with SCMs. In addition, RCP has a high variability and is prone to errors caused
by sample heating, specifically with lower quality concretes. Although a 30-min testing period can alleviate such a
problem with lower quality concretes,72 high-quality concretes may also be difficult to assess because the charge
passed is low and with high variability.81
However, many state highway agencies (SHAs) have extensively utilized this test and have correlated test
results to local field performance with some success. When the test results are properly interpreted, RCP becomes
an effective tool for QC.13,82 Along these lines, many SHAs have taken the ASTM C1202 test results and applied
them to other areas of concrete permeability with the thought that if water transport of chloride ions is slowed,
then the movement of other waterborne aggressive agents is also slowed or mitigated. Additionally, the belief
among practitioners is that if the concrete is not permeable, it will take a long time to reach critical saturation for
F-T damage to occur.

TABLE 3
Chloride ion penetrability rating based on the RCP results29

Charge Passed
Chloride Ion Penetrability (Coulombs)

High >4,000
Moderate 2,000–4,000
Low 1,000–2,000
Very low 100–1,000
Negligible <100

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 191

Chloride Diffusion Coefficient from Migration Cell Experiments (NT Build 355)
The NT Build 355 is a test method measuring the steady-state chloride ion diffusion coefficient of concrete, using
an accelerated procedure through chloride migration. This is achieved by applying an external electrical field that
drives the chloride ions from a NaCl solution through a concrete specimen of 100 mm in diameter and 50 mm in
thickness. The chloride flux through concrete is measured as the increase in chloride concentration over time in
the NaOH solution compartment after steady-state conditions are achieved. Then, the chloride diffusion coef-
ficient is calculated. The setup for the test cell is illustrated in figure 12. Although this test successfully accelerates
chloride diffusion through migration, the sample preparation and test duration can still exceed 8 days, which
makes the test time-consuming for routine QC and quality assurance (QA).

Chloride Migration Coefficient from Non-Steady State Migration Experiments

(NT Build 492)
Nordtest NT Build 492 is a rapid migration test method utilizing an external electric field to accelerate chloride
ion penetration in hardened concrete specimens. The goal of this test method is to obtain a non-steady state
chloride migration coefficient (Dnssm). This coefficient is a measure of the concrete’s resistance to chloride pen-
etration and is independent of chloride diffusion coefficient from other test methods, such as the non-steady state
immersion test (NT Build 443) or the steady-state migration test (NT Build 355). Migration coefficients are also
used in chloride transport modeling to simulate long-term chloride ion penetration.
The transport of chloride ions is accelerated in non-steady state migration by applying a potential difference
across the concrete specimen. This method is applicable to specimens cast in the laboratory or taken from the
field. The specimens with a cut surface are fitted into rubber sleeves and exposed to a NaCl solution (10 % NaCl).
Specimens are preconditioned prior to exposure by vacuum suturing in a Ca(OH)2 solution. The procedure in-
volves imposing a 10–60-V external potential across the specimen with the cut surface exposed to the NaCl
solution while the opposing surface is in contact with a sodium hydroxide solution for approximately 6 to
96 h, depending on the quality of concrete and the initial current selected. Figure 13 shows the migration cell
test setup.
Once the testing period is completed, the specimens are split and the penetration depth of chlorides is mea-
sured using a colorimetric method, which involves spraying the cut surface with a silver nitrate solution. However,
it is worth noting that silver nitrate has been found to be more problematic in indicating the chloride penetration
depth in concretes with a high slag cement content.83 Furthermore, the voltage used during testing affects
the penetration depth, and therefore direct comparisons can only be made with specimens tested at the same
voltages.

FIG. 12
Illustration of the NT
Build 355 migration cell
test setup.31

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

192 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

FIG. 13
Schematic of the NT
Build 492 migration cell
test setup.30

Test Method for Effective Diffusion Coefficient of Chloride Ion in Concrete by Migration
(JSCE-G571)
This test method calculates the effective diffusion coefficient of chloride ion in concrete by employing an accel-
erated migration test under steady-state conditions. This migration-based coefficient measures the sample’s re-
sistance to chloride ion penetrability and is different from the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient. The
migration cell consists of an upstream NaCl solution and a downstream sodium hydroxide solution, as shown
in figure 14.
Once a constant voltage of 15 V (direct current) is applied, the chloride ions start migrating through the
concrete specimen (of 100 mm in diameter and 50 mm in height) toward the downstream solution. The steady-
state solution is said to be reached once the rate of chloride concentration increase in the sodium hydroxide
solution is constant. At that moment, the flux of chloride ions is determined, and the effective chloride diffusion
coefficient is subsequently calculated using the Nernst-Planck equation.

FIG. 14
Migration cell setup
(JSCE-G571).32

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 193

The sample preparation and testing duration is long (11 days or longer) and requires daily measurements
until a steady-state condition is verified. Thus, it may take longer for high-quality concretes to attain a steady-
state condition. As a result, this test may be impractical for most SHAs looking to implement the procedure for
QC and QA.

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY
Surface Resistivity (AASHTO T 358)
AASHTO T 358, Standard Method of Test for Surface Resistivity Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride
Ion Penetration (Inactive),84 is the standard test method for determining surface resistivity as an indication of
resistance to chloride ion penetration. There are several commercially available surface resistivity measurement
devices, where the Proceq Resipod85 and the Giatec Scientific Surface Resistivity Meter are the most widely used.
The technology behind surface resistivity is straightforward and shown in figure 15. A current is applied across
the outside two probes, and the resistance (potential) is measured with the inside two probes. The output is
measured in kΩ-cm or Ω-m.
The surface resistivity measurements are compared with Table 4 to obtain the concrete specimen’s chloride
ion penetrability rating per AASHTO T 358. These values are based on specimens conditioned in a moist room or

FIG. 15
Schematic of the surface
resistivity meter.85

TABLE 4
Chloride ion penetration rating for the surface resistivity test method84

Surface Resistivity Test

Chloride Ion Penetrability 100-mm by 200-mm Cylinder, kΩ-cm 150-mm by 300-mm Cylinder, kΩ-cm

High <12 <9.5

Moderate 12–21 9.5–16.5
Low 21–37 16.5–29
Very Low 37–254 29–199
Negligible >254 >199

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

194 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

cabinet (95 % RH) at room temperature, using a Wenner probe with a fixed tip spacing (38 mm or 1.5 in)
on concrete cylinders. If there is any deviation from these variables, correction factors will need to be
applied.
The test method is simple and easily repeatable, as indicated by Icenogle and Rupnow.86 Past and recent
efforts have correlated electrical resistivity to chloride ion penetrability, showing excellent correlations.87–92
Ruggedness studies have revealed resistivity to be sensitive to parameters known to affect permeability, such
as aggregate size, segregation of the concrete, the use of air entrainment admixtures, specimen age, use of
SCMs, and water-cement ratios.92,93
Several factors can affect the surface resistivity test results. The AASHTO T 358 and the Florida test pro-
cedure FM 5-578, Florida Method of Test for Concrete Resistivity as an Electrical Indicator of Its Permeability,94
indicate calcium nitrite, lime water curing, and temperature during testing are significant factors. Similarly, stud-
ies have shown curing conditions, sample geometry, surface moisture, probe spacing, and alignment affect the
results as well.88,92 However, such testing conditions and procedures can be easily controlled in a laboratory
environment to minimize variability.

Bulk Conductivity (ASTM C1760)

ASTM C1760-12, Standard Test Method for Bulk Electrical Conductivity of Hardened Concrete (Withdrawn),95 is
the method for determining the bulk electrical resistivity (the inverse of conductivity). The advantages of using
bulk electrical resistivity over surface resistivity include potential shorter testing time and testing of the entire
concrete cylinder, not solely near the surface. Commercially available equipment includes an adaptor for the
Proceq Resipod85 and the RCON2 Resistivity Meter96 from Giatec Scientific Inc. (fig. 16).
The premise of the test method is that an applied current travels through interconnected pores and voids
through the sample, from which the bulk resistivity can be measured. Experimental data confirm correlation
between the apparent chloride diffusion coefficient measured by ASTM C1556 and the bulk electrical conduc-
tivity.97,98 Similarly, good correlations have also been found between bulk electrical conductivity and surface
resistivity.92,98 Care must be taken to ensure the specimens’ top and bottom surface finishes are as flat as possible
to ensure adequate contact with the plate electrodes to avoid erroneous results.

Formation Factor and Bucket Test

As cementitious systems become more complex (binary, ternary, etc.), adjustments to electrical resistivity mea-
surements to account for pore system characteristics and pore solution chemistry may be necessary. Efforts are
underway to normalize the results of electrical resistivity tests using the Formation Factor (F factor), which is
related to the characteristics (pore size, connectivity, total volume, etc.) of the pore system.8 The formation factor
is used to characterize the microstructure of concrete100 and can be determined by the ratio of the resistivity of the
bulk concrete (ρ) to the resistivity of the pore solution contained within the concrete (ρ0), as shown in equa-
tion (15).101 The pore solution resistivity of concrete is influenced by a variety of mixture-specific factors,

FIG. 16
(A) Proceq Resipod with
bulk resistivity
adaptors,85 and
(B) RCON2 resistivity
meter for measuring bulk
resistivity.96

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 195

including the alkali contents of the cementitious materials, the mixture proportions, and the degree of hydration
at the time of measurement.100

ρðkΩ · cmÞ
F= (15)
ρ0 ðkΩ · cmÞ

This equation can be further refined to include the resistivity of the pore solution (φ) and the porosity (β), as
well as the relationship between the self-diffusion coefficient of a given ionic species in water (D0) and the effective
diffusion coefficient of the given ion in concrete (De).102

1 D0 ðcm2 =sÞ
F≅ = (16)
φβ De ðcm2 =sÞ

The pore solution resistivity can be measured by determining its chemical composition. This can be achieved
by using specialized equipment such as inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy, titration, atomic absorption
spectroscopy, and ion chromatography. However, these types of measurements are time-consuming and require
highly skilled operators. The extraction of concrete’s pore solution can also be challenging. In addition, because
each ionic species is typically tested individually, several test methods and samples may be required to fully char-
acterize the pore solution’s composition.103,104 Additional information on the techniques used to extract and
analyze the pore solution in concrete can be found in published works by Plusquellec et al.105 and Behnood,
Van Tittelboom, and De Belie.106
Alternatively, the pore solution resistivity may be assumed as 0.10 Ω-m (10−2 kΩ-cm) per AASHTO PP 84-
18, Standard Practice for Developing Performance Engineered Concrete Pavement Mixtures (Superseded), or esti-
mated with a mathematical model based on the mixture proportions and the materials used.107 However, the
assumed pore solution resistivity of 10−2 kΩ-cm is only an empirical value and can yield inaccurate results. The
mathematical model has also been known to be unreliable for binary and ternary mixtures, and its accuracy is also
affected by alkalis leaching out of concrete for specimens cured in a moist room or lime water.104
To address these concerns, an improved test procedure was developed. This test, known as the “bucket test”
aims to aid in standardizing the resistivity measurements, as well as identifying SNICK. Using a 19-L (5-gal) bucket,
a specific volume of water is added along with a certain amount of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and
Ca(OH)2 to make a solution with a known resistivity. Two 100-mm by 200-mm concrete cylinder specimens are
demolded, and the uniaxial electrical resistivity is measured. The samples are then placed into the solution in a
manner ensuring contact to all surfaces, and the bucked is sealed. The uniaxial electrical resistivity is measured
periodically at times from 2 h up to 91 days.
At this stage, if the operator wishes to evaluate the impact of the degree of saturation on resistivity mea-
surements, a correction factor has been proposed by Spragg, Villani, and Weiss108 by saturating the specimen and
taking resistivity measurements as it dries. This is achieved by conditioning the specimens to be oven dried to
constant mass, and then vacuum saturated with lime water. Periodic resistivity measurements can then be taken at
different degrees of saturation as the sample dries. It is worth noting that the proposed correction is only appli-
cable to non-air-entrained concrete specimens. More information on the proposed corrections to the measured
formation factor with respect to the degree of saturation, as well as corrections for temperature and leaching can
be found in works published by Spragg, Villani, and Weiss108 and Coyle et al.109
The “bucket test” holds promise because of its ability to provide information on both critical saturation
(SNICK) and the formation factor (pore solution characteristics).110 However, the accuracy of this test
method depends on whether the curing solution in the bucket penetrated the specimen sufficiently to reach
equilibrium. If it does not, then the measured formation factor may be over or underestimated from the actual
value.104

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

196 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

TABLE 5
Relationship between the saturated formation factor, RCP, and surface resistivity (adapted from Spragg et al.92)

Saturated Formation Factor Charge Passed at 6 h Surface Resistivity

Chloride Ion Penetrability ∼ Coulombs kΩ-cm

High 0–520 >4,000 0–5.2

Moderate 520–1,040 2,000–4,000 5.2–10.4
Low 1,040–2,080 1,000–2,000 10.4–20.8
Very low 2,080–20,700 100–1,000 20.8–207
Negligible >20,700 0–100 >207

Current research efforts aim to utilize the formation factor to obtain other transport properties108,111 and
relate it to pore solution conductivity, water permeability, and the RCP, which has been validated by many agen-
cies in-field performance. Table 5 shows the saturated formation factor with an assumed 0.10 Ω-m (10−2 kΩ-cm)
pore solution resistivity and its approximate equivalent RCP and surface resistivity values.

Discussion
COMPARISON OF WATER PERMEABILITY TESTS AND ELECTRICAL TESTS
Comparison of Water Permeability Tests
A summary of information regarding the different water absorption and permeability tests published in selected
studies is given in Table 6. Although some of these test methods are useful in measuring important properties
such as the nick point degree of saturation (SNICK), sorptivity rates, and permeation depths, many of these test
methods have criticisms regarding repeatability and robustness, or long testing durations. For instance, ASTM
C1585 tests may require weeks to perform and may have sensitivity issues related to conditioning. Therefore,
shorter test durations are highly favored particularly for QC and acceptance from contractors and SHAs. From
the fourteen tests identified, seven have durations of a day or more, which detracts from their ease of use for
routine testing. In addition, six of the fourteen tests are destructive tests requiring cores, limiting their appeal for
use in the field.
Using this screening method, 7 of the 14 tests show promise as (1) rapid (less than one day to complete) and
(2) relatively nondestructive (require either a small drilled hole or no hole). Of these tests, significant limitations
exist with the sensitivity and repeatability (Standpipe Absorptivity Test, Figg Poroscope Method, Covercrete
Absorption Test). Although the ISAT Test and the Germann Water Permeability Test show promise as rapid,
nondestructive tests, issues with ensuring stability of the test, particularly in nonhorizontal applications, have
been reported. The Florida Field Permeability Test shows promise as a rapid test with only a small drilled hole
required, but only limited information on the merits of this test were identified in the literature. Based on a review
of the available literature, the Autoclam Permeability Method is the most promising test method because it has a
short duration (1 h), is nondestructive and portable, and has been correlated to other durability test results.

Comparison of Chloride Ion Transport Test Methods

Natural diffusion tests such as AASHTO T 259, NT Build 443, and ASTM C1556 offer a one-dimensional evalu-
ation of chloride ingress through long-term chloride exposure. However, their long testing durations (35–
180 days) can prove to be prohibitive for QC and acceptance for contractors and SHAs, respectively. For this
reason, accelerated testing procedures have been developed to measure ion transport through the application of
an external current (i.e., migration). Although migration tests do not measure concrete’s transport properties
directly, they can provide a valuable indication of its resistance to chloride ion penetrability.
Steady-state migration tests can significantly shorten the testing duration down to 7 days (depending on how
long it takes to achieve steady-state conditions), whereas non-steady state migration tests have even shorter test
durations (6–96 h).

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

 TABLE 6

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

Summary of water permeability test methods based on literature review

Test Instrument
Sample Mechanism/ Commercially
Number Test Name In Situ Test Duration Concept Merits Limitations Available?

1 Initial Surface No 150 min Water absorption Relatively quick (∼150 min) and Difficulty to ensure water tightness, measured Yes
Absorption Test (BS simple NDT property is greatly affected by the moisture condition
1881-208:1996) of the concrete, cannot be applied to underside of the
concrete, does not measure bulk permeability
2 Autoclam Permeability Yes 60 min Water pressure Total duration of each test <30 min Not a standardized test. Measurements are only Yes
Method (absorption) including instrument setup time, applicable to concretes with less than 80 % internal
portable setup, easy to use, NDT, humidity
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

good relationship with other

durability test results has been seen
3 Standpipe Yes Varies Water absorption Very simple to carry out on site Lacks sensitivity that ISAT and Autoclam sorptivity No
Absorptivity Test tests possess. Not a standardized test
4 Figg Poroscope Method Yes 40 min Water pressure Simple and easy test Relatively poor repeatability and drilling the hole Yes
(absorption) might change microstructure of concrete. Not a
standardized test
5 Covercrete Absorption Yes 1h Water absorption Believed to avoid localized effects Provide insufficient information regarding modeling No
Test (CAT) because of phenomena such as of long-term capillary transport properties and are
carbonation on the concrete limited to describing the surface effects on capillary
absorption properties absorption. Not a standardized test
6 Water Absorption No 3 days Water absorption None noted in literature Destructive, time-consuming, and laborious; needs No
(RILEM CPC 11.2) through surface field cores to be drilled for tests
7 Water Sorptivity No 8 days (Overall, Water absorption Standardized preconditioning, test Destructive, time-consuming, and laborious test; No
(ASTM C1585) 4 weeks by capillary conditions more representative of field results very sensitive to specimen conditioning; needs
including suction concrete, results can be used for field cores to be drilled for tests
specimen modeling
conditioning)
8 South African Water No 1 day Water absorption by Sensitive to microstructural properties Destructive, needs field cores to be drilled for tests No
Sorptivity capillary suction near concrete’s surface
9 Water Absorption by No 2 days Bulk water Provides consistent pore volume Destructive, needs field cores to be drilled for tests. No
Vacuum Saturation absorption under results, better porosity results Not a standardized test
vacuum compared to ASTM C642

197
 198
TABLE 6 Continued

Test Instrument
Sample Mechanism/ Commercially
Number Test Name In Situ Test Duration Concept Merits Limitations Available?

10 Water Absorption No 2 days Bulk water Easy and quick method Test underestimates total porosity. Does not directly No
by Boil Test absorption measure permeability
(ASTM C642)
11 Australian Water No 2 days Bulk water Very easy test, improvements over Destructive, needs field cores to be drilled for tests No
Absorption Test absorption ASTM C642, superior repeatability and
(AS 1012.21) reproducibility, very sensitive to even
small changes in concrete, very good
relationship with chloride intrusion
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

12 Germann Water Yes 40 min Water pressure Tests can be performed on horizontal Problems with obtaining constant water pressure on Yes
Permeability Test (absorption) and vertical surfaces nonhorizontal concrete elements. Not a standardized
test
13 Depth of Water No 3 days Pressurized water Penetration depth measured, represents Destructive test Yes
Penetration Under (permeation) field concrete condition subjected to
Pressure (EN 12390-8 hydraulic pressures, good correlation
& DIN 1048-5) of water penetration with surface
resistivity has been observed
14 Field Permeability Yes 40 min Pressurized water Rapid test method Slightly destructive because of drilling the hole No
Test- FPT (Florida

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

Test)
MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 199

RCP (ASTM C1202) became a widely accepted test by SHAs, as its short testing duration of 6 h made it an
attractive method for qualifying concrete mixtures. However, this test method has well-documented flaws, in-
cluding but not limited to high testing variability, overestimating the benefits of SCMs, and sample heating errors.
In addition, RCP gives qualitative results on concrete quality, rather than through a chloride diffusion coefficient,
which most service life models use.
Migration cell tests such as NT Build 492, NT Build 355, and JSCE-G571 can overcome these limitations,
as they are not prone to sample heating errors, and can determine chloride ion diffusion coefficients
experimentally. Nevertheless, these tests are more labor-intensive and longer in duration, and they require
a higher level of expertise to conduct and interpret the test results. In addition, there are no standardized test
methods in the United States that use the migration cell setup to measure concrete’s chloride ion transport
properties.
Surface resistivity has emerged as a viable alternative for SHAs to qualify concrete mixtures because
of its correlation with RCP, its significantly shorter testing duration (within minutes), and a low testing
variability. In addition, the test method is simple and highly cost-effective. The Louisiana Transportation
Research Center performed a cost-benefit analysis showing that implementation of the surface resistivity
method saved Louisiana’s Department of Transportation approximately $101,000 in personnel costs within
the first year, dramatically decreasing the cost per lot tested from $224 using ASTM C1202 to $13 using surface
resistivity. Similarly, the adoption of surface resistivity was estimated to save contractors about $1.5 million in
QC costs a year, dropping costs per sample from $506.00 using ASTM C1202 to $8.65 using surface
resistivity.89
Similar to RCP, however, surface resistivity is affected to the same degree by concrete’s pore solution chem-
istry, which in turn can exaggerate the benefits of SCMs. This can make it challenging to distinguish what mixture
is more durable, as the pore solution conductivity can offset the resistivity measurements.104 As such, recent
studies have suggested a formation factor be used in lieu of electrical resistivity for a more accurate assessment
of concrete’s transport properties.5,104 This is achieved by considering the contribution of the pore solution’s
chemistry and normalizing the results as the formation factor incorporates the ratio of the resistivity (ρ) of
the bulk concrete to the resistivity (ρo) of the pore solution. The pore solution’s resistivity can be either be as-
sumed as 0.10 Ω-m (10−2 kΩ-cm) per AASHTO PP 84-18, estimated through mathematical models, or measured
experimentally. However, as noted in the section “Formation Factor and Bucket Test,” the assumed value is not
accurate, and the mathematical models may not always be reliable, particularly with concretes containing
SCMs.107 In addition, measuring the pore solution’s resistivity experimentally is complex and time-consuming
and requires special equipment and skills.104
Characterizing concrete’s chloride ion transport is a complex process, and each test method discussed has its
merits and limitations, as summarized in Table 7. SHAs must therefore find a balance between test methods that
facilitate routine QA/QC inspections and test methods that can extract data able to accurately predict concrete’s
durability. In addition, additional consideration should be given nondestructive tests exhibiting simplicity, low
variability, and high reproducibility of results.
Based on these considerations, an overview of each test method’s test duration, merits, and limitations, and
whether the testing equipment is commercially available is presented. With the exception of electrical resistivity
methods, all other test methods are destructive and are significantly more time-consuming. In addition, most
chloride ion permeability tests cannot be readily used on-site.

ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY VERSUS PERMEABILITY RELATIONSHIPS

After comparing the available water permeability and chloride ion permeability tests, surface resistivity
is identified as the most advantageous method for QC and acceptance of concrete mixtures because of its
simplicity, fast evaluation, and nondestructive nature. As such, this section focuses on the relationships
between electrical resistivity and other permeability test methods, with a summary provided by
Table 8.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

 200
TABLE 7
Summary of chloride ion permeability test methods based on the literature review

Test Instrument
Sample Mechanism/ Commercially
Number Test Name In Situ Test Duration Concept Merits Limitations Available?

1 Salt ponding test No 90–180 days Diffusion Calculates chloride diffusion Overestimates sorption. Extremely time- No
(AASHTO T 259) coefficient. Can be used to consuming. Destructive test. Not valid for
model service life samples containing steel reinforcing
2 Bulk diffusion test No 35–90 days Diffusion Calculates chloride diffusion Very time-consuming. Destructive test. Not No
(ASTM C1556) coefficient. Can be used to valid for samples containing steel reinforcing
model service life
3 Accelerated Chloride No 35–90 days Diffusion Calculates chloride diffusion Very time-consuming. Destructive test. Not No
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

Penetration (NT Build 443) coefficient. Can be used to valid for samples containing steel reinforcing
model service life
4 RCP (ASTM C1202) No 6h Migration, Rapid indication of chloride ion Overestimates benefits of SCMs. Prone to Yes
non-steady penetrability sample heating errors and high variability. Not
state valid for samples containing steel reinforcing.
No migration coefficient calculated.
Destructive test
5 Steady-State Migration Cell No 7 days (or longer, Migration, Migration coefficient can be used Time-consuming. Requires specialized No
Experiment (NT Build 355) until steady-state steady-state to model service life equipment and skills. Destructive test. Not valid
conditions are for samples containing steel reinforcing.

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

achieved)
6 Non-Steady State No 6–96 h (depending Migration, Measures actual chloride penetration High variability. Requires specialized Yes
Migration Cell on voltage selected) non-steady state depth. Migration coefficient can be equipment and skills. Destructive test. Not valid
Experiment used to model service life for samples containing steel reinforcing
(NT Build 492)
7 Effective Diffusion Coefficient No 7 days (or longer, Migration, Migration coefficient can be used Time-consuming. Requires specialized No
by Migration (JSCE-G571) until steady-state steady-state to model service life equipment and skills. Destructive test. Not valid
conditions are for samples containing steel reinforcing
achieved)
8 Surface Resistivity Yes 5 min Electrical Extremely fast, easy to use, Overestimates benefits of SCMs. Not valid for Yes
(AASHTO T 358) resistivity nondestructive test samples containing steel reinforcing
9 Bulk Conductivity Yes 5 min Electrical Extremely fast, easy to use, Overestimates benefits of SCMs. Not valid for Yes
(ASTM C1760) resistivity nondestructive test samples containing steel reinforcing
 TABLE 7 Continued

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

Test Instrument
Sample Mechanism/ Commercially
Number Test Name In Situ Test Duration Concept Merits Limitations Available?

10 Formation Factor No 5 min–91 days Electrical Normalizes resistivity results by Measuring the pore solution resistivity directly Yes
(AASHTO PP 84) (Depending on resistivity considering pore solution can require special equipment and skills.
which method is used chemistry. Nondestructive test Modeled estimates of pore solution resistivity
to obtain pore are not reliable in binary and ternary mixtures.
solution chemistry) If bucket test is used, specimen may have to be
monitored for a substantial period (up to
91 days). Not valid for samples containing steel
reinforcing
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

TABLE 8
Summary of correlations between surface resistivity and other concrete permeability test methods

Number
Comparison R2 Trendline w/cm Mix Components of Mixtures Reference

BR versus SR 0.9986 Linear 0.34, 0.35, 0.37, 0.39, 0.40, 0.41 Portland cement, fly ash, silica fume, metakaolin, slag 12 Spragg et al.92
0.78 Linear 0.44 Type II-V cement, grade 100 slag, grade 120 slag 16 Ghosh and Tran99
0.58 Linear 0.44 Type II-V cement, silica fume 10 Ghosh and Tran99
0.99 Linear 0.44 Type II-V cement, metakaolin 10 Ghosh and Tran99
0.86 Linear 0.44 Type II-V cement, class C and class F fly ash 22 Ghosh and Tran99
0.99 Linear 0.37 Type I/II cement, class C fly ash, class F fly ash, slag, 19 Tibbetts et al.112
metakaolin, sugarcane bagasse ash, ground glass
0.9781 Linear 0.37, 0.42, 0.47 Type I/II cement, class F fly ash, portland limestone 24 Cavalline et al.113
cement
0.98 Linear 0.37, 0.38, 0.40, 0.42, 0.43, 0.45 Portland cement (type not specified), fly ash, slag 9 Gudimettla and Crawford114
log BR versus log DRCM 0.87 Linear (Logarithmic) 0.40, 0.45, 0.47, 0.55 Slag-cement based concrete (CEM III/B 42,5 N) 47 van Noort, Hunger, and Spiesz83
RCP versus BR 0.95 Power 0.37 Type I/II cement, class C fly ash, class F fly ash, 19 Tibbetts et al.112
slag, metakaolin, sugarcane bagasse ash, ground glass
SP versus SR 0.9488 Power 0.35, 0.40, 0.50 Type I cement, metakaolin 12 Ramezanianpour and Jovein115

201
 202
TABLE 8 Continued

Number
Comparison R2 Trendline w/cm Mix Components of Mixtures Reference

SR versus RCP 0.8922 Power 0.35, 0.50, 0.65 Type I/II cement, class C fly ash, class F fly ash, grade 21 Rupnow and Icenogle89
100 slag, grade 120 slag, silica fume
0.8656 Power Not disclosed Not disclosed 343 Jenkins91
0.98 Power 0.37 Type I/II cement, class C fly ash, class F fly ash, 19 Tibbetts et al.112
slag, metakaolin, sugarcane bagasse ash, ground glass
0.7741 Power 0.35, 0.37, 0.42, 0.47, 0.48 Type I/II cement, class F fly ash, portland limestone 47 Cavalline et al.113
cement
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

0.89 Power 0.37, 0.38, 0.40, 0.41, 0.42, 0.43, 0.44, 0.45 Portland cement (type not specified), fly ash, slag 11 Gudimettla and Crawford114
0.9219 Power 0.35, 0.40, 0.50 Type I cement, metakaolin 12 Ramezanianpour and Jovein115
0.8977 Power 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.55, 0.60 Type I cement, RHA, tuff, pumice, silica fume, 57 Ramezanianpour et al.116
metakaolin
0.7933 Power 0.48 Type I cement, class F fly ash, portland limestone 18 Medlin117
cement
0.9219 Power 0.48 Type I cement, class F fly ash 9 Medlin117
0.92 Power 0.37, 0.4, 0.42, 0.43 0.45, 0.46, Type I/II cement, class C fly ash, class F fly ash, 25 Tanesi and Ardani118
0.47, 0.48, 0.50 fine limestone powder
0.9481 Power Not disclosed Portland cement (type not specified), fly ash, slag, 134 Chini, Muszynski, and Hicks119

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

silica fume
SR versus BT 0.3767 Power Not disclosed Not disclosed 101 Jenkins91
WP versus SR 0.8268 Power 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6 Type I cement, rice husk ash, tuff, pumice, silica fume, 57 Ramezanianpour et al.116
metakaolin

Note: BR = bulk resistivity (ASTM C1760); BT = boil test (ASTM C642); DRCM = migration diffusion coefficient (NT Build 492); RCP = rapid chloride permeability test (ASTM C1202); SP = salt ponding (ASTM C1543);
SR = surface resistivity (AASHTO T 358); and WP = water penetration (EN 12390-8). a Author did not specify the composition of the concrete mixtures tested. Rather, the study mentioned the number of mixtures evaluated
by the state DOT.
MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 203

Bulk Resistivity versus Surface Resistivity

Several studies have compared bulk resistivity and surface resistivity measurements and found excellent linear
correlations,92,112–114 with R2 values often exceeding 0.95. One notable exception was observed in a study by
Ghosh and Tran,99 which found a weaker correlation (R2 = 0.58) within silica fume mixtures at 28-day data
points. However, when the bulk and surface resistivity measurements taken at later ages (days 56–161), the cor-
relation improved significantly. This same trend was observed with virtually all the binary and ternary mixtures
tested, where the highest correlation coefficients were observed for data points collected at later ages.

RCP versus Electrical Resistivity

Several researchers have studied the relationship between the RCP (ASTM C1202) method and surface
resistivity,89,91,112–119 and they have found good correlations with R2 values ranging from 0.77 to 0.98. For this
reason, many studies have recommended that surface resistivity be used as an alternative to RCP for QC and
acceptance of concrete mixtures, particularly since SR has a lower variability, in addition to significantly shorter
test durations. However, it is important to note that sample heating errors caused by the high voltage applied in
the RCP method may weaken the correlation with concrete’s resistivity.

Water Penetration versus Surface Resistivity

Ramezanianpour et al.116 observed a good correlation between EN 12390-8 water penetration and surface re-
sistivity was obtained with the same type of cementitious materials (with R2 = 0.866 and 0.875) and the corre-
lation coefficient reduced (to R2 = 0.827) when specimens with different cementitious materials were included for
comparison. This is because the surface resistivity test depends on both microstructure and pore solution of
concretes, whereas the water penetration test depends only on microstructure.116 In the concrete specimens with
different cementitious materials, the chemical composition of pore solution is altered, and hence the conductivity
of the pore solution varies. Therefore, the resistivity changes, and the correlation between the results of surface
resistivity and water penetration deteriorates. Similar results were reported by Tibbetts et al.112 for concrete mix-
tures containing alternative SCMs such as ground glass and sugar cane bagasse ash, where poor correlations were
observed between water permeability and electrical test methods such as surface and RCP. However, good cor-
relations can be observed between water permeability and surface resistivity for specimens made with the same
type of cementitious materials (because of their similarities within the pore solution chemistry).116

Permeable Voids versus Surface Resistivity

There is very limited information within the literature that has attempted to correlate surface resistivity and the volume
of permeable voids in concrete. However, a study that featured a large sample size with over 100 mixtures found a poor
correlation (R2 = 0.37) between surface resistivity measurements to the volume of permeable voids (ASTM C642).91

RCM versus Bulk Resistivity

Although there are scarce data in the literature that has evaluated the relationship between the chloride diffusion
coefficient from the NT Build 492 test and bulk resistivity, van Noort, Hunger, and Spiesz83 explored the link
between these two test methods for concretes containing high slag cement contents. The results showed a good
correlation (R2 = 0.87) in a plot of log(DRCM) against log(resistivity). It is worth noting that the value of the
migration diffusion coefficient DRCM relative to the resistivity was also influenced by the cement used, which
suggests that the chloride binding capacity is an influential factor. As such, the authors suggested performing
a calibration of the DRCM and resistivity data for the mixtures with the same composition before recommending
the resistivity measurement as an alternative for the NT Build 492 test.83

Concluding Remarks
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Concrete’s permeability tests are broadly classified as measurements of its fluid or chloride ion transport proper-
ties. Despite the availability of a wide range of these tests for water and chloride ion permeability, widespread

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

204 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

acceptance and use of a single test (or even a few tests) have not been achieved. Many test methods are viewed as
problematic from a time, cost, or variability standpoint, leading to little traction in their widespread use or adop-
tion. Therefore, no clear link exists between these tests and acceptable field performance. Understanding the
mechanisms of moisture ingress into concrete is a complex phenomenon and is highly dependent on materials,
mixture characteristics, curing conditions, and other factors.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Several test methods that measure permeability, water absorption, or concrete’s susceptibility to chloride ion
penetration were described and critically reviewed with respect to their accuracy, repeatability, test duration,
among other factors. Based on the literature reviewed, surface resistivity remained consistently regarded as
one of the most reliable and efficient methods to characterize concrete’s chloride ion penetrability rating.
This is largely due to its excellent correlation with RCP test results, which used to be the most widely accepted
test method by SHAs, albeit at an increased precision. Despite surface resistivity’s limitations, its reproducible
results, ease of use, and rapid test time made it a highly desirable test method to adopt for the acceptance of
structural concrete. In addition, SHAs and industry contractors can benefit from the implementation of surface
resistivity as a test method for QC as it yielded significant cost savings per sample.89
Many SHAs generally do not design explicitly with permeability in mind, much less service life.
In general, the SHAs believe a long-life product will be produced if their design (i.e., cover, reinforcement
steel type, etc.), standards, and specifications are followed during the construction of critical infrastructure.
With the newly found ability to quickly measure concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion ingress cost effectively,
many SHAs are considering implementation of either surface or bulk resistivity testing. In addition to in-
vestigation and adoption of resistivity as a measure of concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion ingress, many
SHA personnel also believe other concrete properties will also improve because a decrease in concrete
permeability tends to reduce the risk for many other waterborne concrete deterioration mechanisms such
as F-T, ASR, etc.
Using the knowledge gained through the course of this critical review, the authors believe the best current
method of measuring the permeability of concrete is through resistivity testing. Although the test does not directly
measure permeability, it is a very suitable surrogate test correlating well to widely accepted standard tests. In
addition, it is believed that resistivity measurements will eventually correlate to other permeability measurements,
such as air and water.
Enhancements to this electrical method to normalize it in relation to the characteristics of the pore
system (use of the formation factor) should provide the ability for stakeholders to predict and compare
the permeability across a range of mixture types (e.g., binary and ternary blended systems) and potentially
extend the use of the electrical methods to future concrete mixtures with alternative cementitious materials
and fillers.

RESEARCH NEEDS
Although resistivity measurements have been linked to the measurement of potential chloride ingress, the
ability to measure or rate concrete water permeability using resistivity measurements may provide a useful
extension to evaluating concrete’s ability to withstand other types of materials related distresses.
Development of a model predicting moisture ingress based on resistivity could be used to assist in a better under-
standing of the potential for chloride ingress, F-T damage, and damage because of the formation of calcium
oxychlorides. Additionally, sulfate attack can be caused by the migration of sulfates in solution into the concrete,
and alkali-aggregate reactivity (AAR) depends on the presence of moisture to produce deleterious expansive
gel products. If resistivity measurements can be linked to the potential for moisture availability to support
these types of distress mechanisms, a secondary benefit to work would be achieved. Additionally, research into
the “holy grail” of concrete service life modeling that will take into account various cracks widths should be
undertaken.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 205

References
1. P. K. Mehta and P. J. M. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014).
2. L. Basheer, J. Kropp, and D. J. Cleland, “Assessment of the Durability of Concrete from Its Permeation Properties: A
Review,” Construction and Building Materials 15, nos. 2–3 (2001): 93–103, [Link]
3. M. Soutsos, Concrete Durability: A Practical Guide to the Design of Durable Concrete Structures (London, UK: Thomas
Telford, 2010).
4. J. Castro, R. Spragg, P. Kompare, and W. J. Weiss, Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Permeability Performance,
FHWA/IN/JTRP-2010/29 (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University; Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of
Transportation, 2010), [Link]
5. W. J. Weiss, T. J. Barrett, C. Qiao, and H. Todak, “Toward a Specification for Transport Properties of Concrete Based on
the Formation Factor of a Sealed Specimen,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 5, no. 1 (2016): 179–194, [Link]
org/10.1520/ACEM20160004
6. K. D. Stanish, R. D. Hooton, and M. D. A. Thomas, Testing the Chloride Penetration Resistance of Concrete : A Literature
Review, FHWA Contract DTFH61-97-R-00022 (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto; McLean, VA: Federal Highway
Administration, 1997).
7. Y. Farnam, S. Dick, A. Wiese, J. Davis, D. Bentz, and J. Weiss, “The Influence of Calcium Chloride Deicing Salt on Phase
Changes and Damage Development in Cementitious Materials,” Cement and Concrete Composites 64 (November 2015):
1–15, [Link]
8. J. Weiss, “Relating Transport Properties to Performance in Concrete Pavements,” CP Road Map (Ames, IA: Iowa State
University, December 2014).
9. E. Samson, J. Marchand, and K. A. Snyder, “Calculation of Ionic Diffusion Coefficients on the Basis of Migration Test
Results,” Materials and Structures 36, no. 3 (2003): 156–165, [Link]
10. J. Marchand, I. Odler, and J. P. Skalny, Sulfate Attack on Concrete (London, UK: CRC Press, 2002).
11. H. F. W. Taylor, Cement Chemistry (London, UK: Thomas Telford, 1997).
12. M. Safiuddin and N. Hearn, “Comparison of ASTM Saturation Techniques for Measuring the Permeable Porosity of
Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research 35, no. 5 (2005): 1008–1013, [Link]
13. ACI Committee 201, ACI 201.2R-16 Guide to Durable Concrete (Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute,
2016).
14. K. Pettersson, Olika faktorers inverkan på kloriddiffusion i betongkonstruktioner [The Effect of Different Factors on the
Chloride Diffusion in Concrete], CBI Rapport 4:94 (Stockholm, Sweden: Cement och Betong Institutet, 1994).
15. Y. Bu, D. Luo, and J. Weiss, “Using Fick’s Second Law and Nernst–Planck Approach in Prediction of Chloride Ingress in
Concrete Materials,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 3, no. 1 (2014): 566–585, [Link]
ACEM20140018
16. Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration, AASHTO T 259 (Washington, DC:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2017).
17. Standard Test Method for Determining the Apparent Chloride Diffusion Coefficient of Cementitious Mixtures by Bulk
Diffusion, ASTM C1556–11a (2016) (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, approved December 15, 2016),
[Link]
18. Concrete, Hardened: Accelerated Chloride Penetration, NT Build 443 (Espoo, Finland: Nordtest, 1995).
19. M. Nokken, A. Boddy, R. D. Hooton, and M. D. A. Thomas, “Time Dependent Diffusion in Concrete—Three Laboratory
Studies,” Cement and Concrete Research 36, no. 1 (2006): 200–207, [Link]
20. B. Martín-Pérez, H. Zibara, R. D. Hooton, and M. D. A. Thomas, “A Study of the Effect of Chloride Binding on Service
Life Predictions,” Cement and Concrete Research 30, no. 8 (2000): 1215–1223, [Link]
00339-2
21. P. J. Tumidajski, “Application of Danckwerts’ Solution to Simultaneous Diffusion and Chemical Reaction in Concrete,”
Cement and Concrete Research 26, no. 5 (1996): 697–700, [Link]
22. G. K. Glass and N. R. Buenfeld, “Theoretical Assessment of the Steady State Diffusion Cell Test,” Journal of Materials
Science 33, no. 21 (1998): 5111–5118, [Link]
23. J. Marchand, B. Gerard, and A. Delagrave, “Ion Transport Mechanisms in Cement-Based Materials,” in Materials Science
of Concrete, ed. J. P. Skalny and S. Mindess (Westerville, OH: American Ceramic Society 1998), 307–400.
24. L.-O. Nilsson, E. Poulsen, P. Sandberg, H. E. Sørensen, and O. Klinghoffer, HETEK, Chloride Penetration into Concrete,
State-of-the-Art, Transport Processes, Corrosion Initiation, Test Methods and Prediction Models (Copenhagen, Denmark:
Danish Road Directorate, 1996).
25. C. Andrade, “Calculation of Chloride Diffusion Coefficients in Concrete from Ionic Migration Measurements,” Cement
and Concrete Research 23, no. 3 (1993): 724–742, [Link]
26. P. F. McGrath and R. D. Hooton, “Influence of Voltage on Chloride Diffusion Coefficients from Chloride Migration
Tests,” Cement and Concrete Research 26, no. 8 (1996): 1239–1244, [Link]
27. E. Samson, J. Marchand, and J. J. Beaudoin, “Describing Ion Diffusion Mechanisms in Cement-Based Materials Using the
Homogenization Technique,” Cement and Concrete Research 29, no. 8 (1999): 1341–1345, [Link]
8846(99)00101-5

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

206 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

28. O. Truc, J.-P. Ollivier, and L.-O. Nilsson, “Numerical Simulation of Multi-Species Transport through Saturated Concrete
during a Migration Test – MsDiff Code,” Cement and Concrete Research 30, no. 10 (2000): 1581–1592, [Link]
1016/S0008-8846(00)00305-7
29. Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, ASTM C1202-19
(West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, approved February 1, 2019), [Link]
30. Concrete, Mortar and Cement-Based Repair Materials: Chloride Migration Coefficient from Non-Steady-State Migration
Experiments, NT Build 492 (Espoo, Finland: Nordtest, 1999).
31. Concrete, Mortar and Cement-Based Repair Materials: Chloride Diffusion Coefficient from Migration Cell Experiments, NT
Build 355 (Espoo, Finland: Nordtest, 1997).
32. Test Method for Effective Diffusion Coefficient of Chloride Ion in Concrete by Migration, JSCE-G571-2003 (Tokyo, Japan:
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2003).
33. X. Lu, “Application of the Nernst-Einstein Equation to Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research 27, no. 2 (1997): 293–
302, [Link]
34. E. I. Nadelman and K. E. A. Kurtis, “A Resistivity-Based Approach to Optimizing Concrete Performance,” Concrete
International 36, no. 5 (2014): 50–54.
35. W. Elkey and E. J. Sellevold, Electrical Resistivity of Concrete (Oslo, Norway: Directorate of Public Roads-Norwegian Road
Research Laboratory, 1995), [Link]
xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/191626/Publication%20%[Link]?sequence=1
36. H. Beushausen and L. Fernandez Luco, Performance-Based Specifications and Control of Concrete Durability: State-of-the-
Art Report RILEM TC 230-PSC (Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, 2016).
37. H. Layssi, P. Ghods, A. R. Alizadeh, and M. Salehi, “Electrical Resistivity of Concrete,” Concrete International 37, no. 5
(2015): 41–46.
38. O. Sengul and O. E. Gjorv, “Electrical Resistivity Measurements for Quality Control during Concrete Construction,” ACI
Material Journal 105, no. 6 (2008): 541–547.
39. C. Andrade and R. d’Andrea, “Electrical Resistivity as Microstructural Parameter for the Modelling of Service Life of
Reinforced Concrete Structures,” in Second International Symposium on Service Life Design for Infrastructures, ed.
K. van, G. Breugel, and Y. Ye Yuan (Paris, France: RILEM, 2010), 379–388.
40. C. Andrade, R. d’Andrea, and N. Rebolledo, “Chloride Ion Penetration in Concrete: The Reaction Factor in the Electrical
Resistivity Model,” Cement and Concrete Composites 47 (March 2014): 41–46, [Link]
2013.09.022
41. W. Li, W. Sun, and J. Jiang, “Damage of Concrete Experiencing Flexural Fatigue Load and Closed Freeze/Thaw Cycles
Simultaneously,” Construction and Building Materials 25, no. 5 (2011): 2604–2610, [Link]
2010.12.007
42. G. Fagerlund, A Service Life Model for Internal Frost Damage in Concrete, Report TVBM, Vol. 3119 (Lund, Sweden:
Division of Building Materials, LTH, Lund University, 2004).
43. V. Barde, A. Radlinska, M. Cohen, and W. J. Weiss, Relating Material Properties to Exposure Conditions for Predicting
Service Life in Concrete Bridge Decks in Indiana, FHWA/IN/JTRP-2007/27 (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University;
Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Department of Transportation, 2009), [Link]
44. H. Todak, C. Lucero, and W. J. Weiss, “Why Is the Air There? Thinking about Freeze-Thaw in Terms of Saturation,”
Concrete in Focus (Spring 2015): OC3–OC7.
45. M. Levitt, “The ISAT: A Non-destructive Test for the Durability of Concrete,” British Journal of Non-destructive Testing
13, no. 4 (1971): 106–112.
46. Testing Concrete. Recommendations for the Determination of the Initial Surface Absorption of Concrete, BS 1881-208:1996
(London, UK: British Standards Institution, 1996).
47. R. K. Dhir, E. A. Byars, Y. N. Chan, and I. G. Shabaan, “ISAT Prediction of Concrete Durability” in Non-Destructive
Testing in Civil Engineering, ed. J. H. Bungey (Northampton, UK: British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing, 1993),
301–314.
48. P. A. M. Basheer, “Permeation Analysis,” in Handbook of Analytical Techniques in Concrete Science and Technology:
Principles, Techniques, and Applications, ed. V. S. Ramachandran and J. J. Beaudoin (Norwich, NY: William Andrew
Publishing, 2001), 658–727.
49. J. W. Figg, “Methods of Measuring the Air and Water Permeability of Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research 25,
no. 85 (1973): 213–219, [Link]
50. James Instruments, C-P-6000, C-P-6050 Porosiscope: Operator’s Manual (Chicago, IL: James Instruments, 2018).
51. J. Figg, “Concrete Permeability: Measurement and Meaning,” Chemistry and Industry, no. 21 (1989): 714–719.
52. T. Cavalline, A. Kitts, and J. Calamusa, Durability of Lightweight Concrete Bridge Decks – Field Evaluation, FHWA/NC/
2011-06 (Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina at Charlotte; Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of
Transportation, 2013).
53. V. N. Patel, “Sorptivity Testing to Assess Durability of Concrete against Freeze-Thaw Cycling” (PhD diss., McGill
University, 2009).
54. RILEM TC 116-PCD, “TC 116-PCD: Permeability of Concrete as a Criterion of Its Durability,” Materials and Structures
32, no. 217 (1999): 163–173.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 207

55. D. P. Bentz, M. A. Ehlen, C. F. Ferraris, and J. A. Winpigler, Service Life Prediction Based on Sorptivity for Highway
Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Attack and Freeze-Thaw Conditions, FHWA-RD-01-162 (Gaithersburg, MD: National
Institute of Standards and Technology; McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration, 2002).
56. C. Hall, “Water Sorptivity of Mortars and Concretes: A Review,” Magazine of Concrete Research 41, no. 147 (1989):
51–61. [Link]
57. Y. Ballim and M. Alexander, “Guiding Principles in Developing the South African Approach to Durability Index Testing
of Concrete,” in Sixth International Conference on Durability of Concrete Structures, ed. P. A. M. Basheer (Dunbeath, UK:
Whittles Publishing, 2018), 36–45.
58. B. S. Dhanya, M. Santhanam, R. Gettu, and R. G. Pillai, “Performance Evaluation of Concretes Having Different
Supplementary Cementitious Material Dosages Belonging to Different Strength Ranges,” Construction and Building
Materials 187 (October 2018): 984–995, [Link]
59. M. G. Alexander, Y. Ballim, and K. Stanish, “A Framework for Use of Durability Indexes in Performance-Based Design
and Specifications for Reinforced Concrete Structures,” Materials and Structures 41, no. 5 (2008): 921–936, [Link]
org/10.1617/s11527-007-9295-0
60. Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete, ASTM C642-13 (West Conshohocken,
PA: ASTM International, approved February 1, 2013), [Link]
61. G. Fick, Testing Guide for Implementing Concrete Paving Quality Control Procedures (Ames, IA: National Concrete
Pavement Technology Center; Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2008).
62. Y. Bu, R. Spragg, and J. Weiss, “Comparison of the Pore Volume in Concrete as Determined Using ASTM C642 and
Vacuum Saturation,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 3, no. 1 (2014): 308–315, [Link]
ACEM20130090
63. Methods of Testing Concrete – Determination of Water Absorption and Apparent Volume of Permeable Voids in Hardened
Concrete, AS 1012.21-1999 (R2014) (Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia, 1999).
64. Performance Tests to Assess Concrete Durability, CIA Z7/07 (North Sydney, Australia: Concrete Institute of Australia,
2015).
65. F. Andrews-Phaedonos, “Assessment of Concrete Durability Using a Single Parameter with a High Level of Precision-The
VPV Test” (paper presentation, 25th ARRB Conference, Perth, Australia, September 23–26, 2012).
66. Germann Instruments, “Germann Water Permeation Test,” Germann Instruments, [Link]
20200512165733/[Link]
67. P. A. M. Basheer, “A Brief Review of Methods for Measuring the Permeation Properties of Concrete In Situ,” Proceedings
of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Structures and Buildings 99, no. 1 (1993): 74–83, [Link]
22515
68. Amphora NDT, “Autoclam,” [Link]
69. Testing Hardened Concrete. Depth of Penetration of Water under Pressure, BS EN 12390-8:2019 (London, UK: British
Standards Institution, 2019).
70. Testing Concrete; Testing of Hardened Concrete (Specimens Prepared in Mould), DIN 1048-5 (Berlin, Germany: German
National Standard, 1991).
71. C. A. Meletiou, M. Tia, and D. Bloomquist, “Development of a Field Permeability Test Apparatus and Method for
Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal 89, no. 1 (1993): 83–89.
72. P. F. McGrath and R. D. Hooton, “Re-evaluation of the AASHTO T259 90-Day Salt Ponding Test,” Cement and Concrete
Research 29, no. 8 (1999): 1239–1248, [Link]
73. M. R. Sherman, D. B. McDonald, and D. W. Pfeifer, “Durability Aspects of Precast Prestressed Concrete Part 2: Chloride
Permeability Study,” PCI Journal 41, no. 4 (July–August 1996): 76–95, [Link]
74. V. T. Ngala and C. L. Page, “Effects of Carbonation on Pore Structure and Diffusional Properties of Hydrated Cement
Pastes,” Cement and Concrete Research 27, no. 7 (1997): 995–1007, [Link]
75. D. Whiting, “Rapid Measurement of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete,” Public Roads 45, no. 3 (1981): 101–112.
76. C. Ozyildirim, “Rapid Chloride Permeability Testing of Silica-Fume Concrete,” Cement, Concrete and Aggregates 16, no. 1
(1994): 53–56, [Link]
77. R. I. A. Malek and D. M. Roy, “The Permeability of Chloride Ions in Fly Ash-Cement Pastes, Mortars and Concrete,” MRS
Proceedings 113 (1987): 291, [Link]
78. M. Geiker, N. Thaulow, and P. J. Anderson, “Assessment of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test of Concrete with and
without Mineral Admixtures,” in Durability of Building Materials and Components: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference, ed. J. M. Baker, P. J. Nixon, A. J. Majumdar, and H. Davis (London, UK: E. & F. N. Spon,
1990), 493–502.
79. N. R. Buenfeld and J. B. Newman, “Examination of Three Methods for Studying Ion Diffusion in Cement Pastes, Mortars
and Concrete,” Materials and Structures 20, no. 1 (1987): 3, [Link]
80. R. J. Detwiler and C. A. Fapohunda, “A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring the Chloride Ion Permeability of
Concrete,” Cement, Concrete and Aggregates 15, no. 1 (1993): 70–73, [Link]
81. R. D. Hooton, “What Is Needed in a Permeability Test for Evaluation of Concrete Quality,” MRS Proceedings 137 (1988):
141, [Link]
82. C. J. Bognacki, M. Pirozzi, W. C. Baumann, and J. Marsano, “Rapid Chloride Permeability Testing,” Concrete
International 32, no. 5 (2010): 47–52.

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

208 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW

83. R. van Noort, M. Hunger, and P. Spiesz, “Long-Term Chloride Migration Coefficient in Slag Cement-Based Concrete and
Resistivity as an Alternative Test Method,” Construction and Building Materials 115 (July 2016): 746–759, [Link]
10.1016/[Link].2016.04.054
84. Standard Method of Test for Surface Resistivity Indication of Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration
(Inactive), AASHTO T 358 (Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
2017).
85. Proceq, “Resipod Family - Operating Instructions,” Proceq, 2017, [Link]
[Link]/uploads/tx_proceqproductcms/import_data/files/Resipod%20Family_Operating%20Instructions_English_
[Link]
86. P. J. Icenogle and T. D. Rupnow, “Development of Precision Statement for Concrete Surface Resistivity,” Transportation
Research Record 2290, no. 1 (2012): 38–43, [Link]
87. W. Morris, E. I. Moreno, and A. A. Sagüés, “Practical Evaluation of Resistivity of Concrete in Test Cylinders Using a
Wenner Array Probe,” Cement and Concrete Research 26, no. 12 (1996): 1779–1787, [Link]
(96)00175-5
88. R. J. Kessler, R. G. Powers, E. Vivas, M. A. Paredes, and Y. P. Virmani, “Surface Resistivity as an Indicator of Concrete
Chloride Penetration Resistance,” in 2008 Concrete Bridge Conference (Washington, DC: Federal Highway
Administration, 2008), CD-ROM.
89. T. D. Rupnow and P. J. Icenogle, “Surface Resistivity Measurements Evaluated as Alternative to Rapid Chloride
Permeability Test for Quality Assurance and Acceptance,” Transportation Research Record 2290, no. 1 (2012): 30–37,
[Link]
90. J. T. Kevern, C. Halmen, D. P. Hudson, and B. Trautman, “Evaluation of Surface Resistivity for Concrete Quality
Assurance in Missouri,” Transportation Research Record 2577, no. 1 (2016): 53–59, [Link]
91. A. Jenkins, Surface Resistivity as an Alternative for Rapid Chloride Permeability Test of Hardened Concrete, FHWA-KS-14-
15 (Topeka, KS: Kansas Department of Transportation, 2015).
92. R. P. Spragg, J. Castro, T. Nantung, M. Paredes, and J. Weiss, “Variability Analysis of the Bulk Resistivity Measured
Using Concrete Cylinders,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 1, no. 1 (2012): 1–17, [Link]
ACEM104596
93. T. D. Rupnow and P. J. Icenogle, “Investigation of Factors Affecting PCC Surface Resistivity through Ruggedness
Testing,” Journal of Testing Evaluation 42, no. 2 (2014): 467–474, [Link]
94. Florida Method of Test for Concrete Resistivity as an Electrical Indicator of Its Permeability, FM 5-578 (Tallahassee, FL:
Florida Department of Transportation, approved January 1, 2004).
95. Standard Test Method for Bulk Electrical Conductivity of Hardened Concrete (Withdrawn), ASTM C1760-12 (West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, approved January 1, 2012), [Link]
96. Giatec Scientific Inc., “RCON2 User Manual,” Giatec Scientific Inc., [Link]
[Link]
97. N. S. Berke, A. J. Aldykiewicz, R. J. Hoopes, and F. Li, “Long-Term Behavior of Fly Ash and Silica Fume Concretes in
Laboratory and Field Exposures to Chlorides” (paper presentation, NACE Corrosion Conference 2005, Houston, TX,
April 3–7, 2005), Paper No. NACE-05253.
98. V. Baroghel-Bouny, K. Kinomura, M. Thiery, and S. Moscardelli, “Easy Assessment of Durability Indicators for Service
Life Prediction or Quality Control of Concretes with High Volumes of Supplementary Cementitious Materials,” Cement
and Concrete Composites 33, no. 8 (2011): 832–847, [Link]
99. P. Ghosh and Q. Tran, “Correlation between Bulk and Surface Resistivity of Concrete,” International Journal of Concrete
Structures and Materials 9, no. 1 (2015): 119–132, [Link]
100. Standard Practice for Developing Performance Engineered Concrete Pavement Mixtures (Superseded), AASHTO PP 84-18
(Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2018).
101. W. J. Weiss, R. P. Spragg, O. B. Isgor, M. T. Ley, and T. Van Dam, “Toward Performance Specifications for Concrete:
Linking Resistivity, RCPT, and Diffusion Predictions Using the Formation Factor for Use in Specifications,” in High Tech
Concrete: Where Technology and Engineering Meet, ed. D. Hordijk and M. Luković (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018),
2057–2065.
102. V. J. Azad, A. R. Erbektas, C. Qiao, O. B. Isgor, and W. J. Weiss, “Relating the Formation Factor and Chloride Binding
Parameters to the Apparent Chloride Diffusion Coefficient of Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 31,
no. 2 (2019): 04018392, [Link]
103. M. Tsui-Chang, P. Suraneni, L. Montanari, J. F. Muñoz, and W. J. Weiss, “Determination of Chemical Composition and
Electrical Resistivity of Expressed Cementitious Pore Solutions Using X-Ray Fluorescence,” ACI Materials Journal 116,
no. 1 (2019): 155–164, [Link]
104. J. Tanesi, L. Montanari, and A. Ardani, Formation Factor Demystified and Its Relationship to Durability (Washington,
DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2019).
105. G. Plusquellec, M. R. Geiker, J. Lindgård, J. Duchesne, B. Fournier, and K. De Weerdt, “Determination of the pH and the
Free Alkali Metal Content in the Pore Solution of Concrete: Review and Experimental Comparison,” Cement and
Concrete Research 96 (June 2017): 13–26, [Link]
106. A. Behnood, K. Van Tittelboom, and N. De Belie, “Methods for Measuring pH in Concrete: A Review,” Construction and
Building Materials 105 (February 2016): 176–188, [Link]

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

 MILLA ET AL. ON CONCRETE PERMEABILITY REVIEW 209

107. D. P. Bentz, “A Virtual Rapid Chloride Permeability Test,” Cement and Concrete Composites 29, no. 10 (2007): 723–731,
[Link]
108. R. Spragg, C. Villani, and J. Weiss, “Electrical Properties of Cementitious Systems: Formation Factor Determination and
the Influence of Conditioning Procedures,” Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 5, no. 1 (2016): 124–148, [Link]
org/10.1520/ACEM20150035
109. A. T. Coyle, R. P. Spragg, P. Suraneni, A. N. Amirkhanian, and W. J. Weiss, “Comparison of Linear Temperature
Corrections and Activation Energy Temperature Corrections for Electrical Resistivity Measurements of Concrete,”
Advances in Civil Engineering Materials 7, no. 1 (2018): 174–187, [Link]
110. C. Qiao, M. K. Moradllo, H. Hall, M. T. Ley, and W. J. Weiss, “Electrical Resistivity and Formation Factor of Air-
Entrained Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal 116, no. 3 (2019): 85–93, [Link]
111. M. K. Moradllo, C. Qiao, B. Isgor, S. Reese, and W. J. Weiss, “Relating Formation Factor of Concrete to Water
Absorption,” ACI Materials Journal 115, no. 6 (2018): 887–898, [Link]
112. C. M. Tibbetts, J. M. Paris, C. C. Ferraro, K. A. Riding, and T. G. Townsend, “Relating Water Permeability to Electrical
Resistivity and Chloride Penetrability of Concrete Containing Different Supplementary Cementitious Materials,” Cement
and Concrete Composites 107 (March 2020): 103491, [Link]
113. T. L. Cavalline, B. Q. Tempest, R. B. Biggers, A. J. Lukavsky, M. S. McEntyre, and R. A. Newsome, Durable and Sustainable
Concrete through Performance Engineered Concrete Mixtures, FHWA/NC/2018-14 (Raleigh, NC: North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 2020).
114. J. Gudimettla and G. Crawford, “Resistivity Tests for Concrete—Recent Field Experience,” ACI Materials Journal 113,
no. 4 (2016): 505–512, [Link]
115. A. A. Ramezanianpour and H. B. Jovein, “Influence of Metakaolin as Supplementary Cementing Material on Strength
and Durability of Concretes,” Construction and Building Materials 30 (May 2012): 470–479, [Link]
conbuildmat.2011.12.050
116. A. A. Ramezanianpour, A. Pilvar, M. Mahdikhani, and F. Moodi, “Practical Evaluation of Relationship between Concrete
Resistivity, Water Penetration, Rapid Chloride Penetration and Compressive Strength,” Construction and Building
Materials 25, no. 5 (2011): 2472–2479, [Link]
117. C. D. Medlin, “Durability of Pavement Concrete with Replacement of Cement by Flyash and Portland Limestone
Cement” (master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2016).
118. J. Tanesi and A. Ardani, Surface Resistivity Test Evaluation as an Indicator of the Chloride Permeability of Concrete,
FHWA-HRT-13-024 (Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2012).
119. A. R. Chini, L. C. Muszynski, and J. K. Hicks, Determination of Acceptance Permeability Characteristics for Performance-
Related Specifications for Portland Cement Concrete, Report No. BC 354-41 (Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 2003).

Advances in Civil Engineering Materials

View publication stats