posted on 2010-10-15, 11:30authored byRaymond W. Hudd
A comparison was made between a number of laboratory and
in-situ concrete permeability test methods. The laboratory
tests used measured air, water, and water vapour permeability,
whilst the in-situ tests used were the Initial surface
absorption test, the Figg air and water tests, and a new
in-situ method called the Egg test; a non-destructive surface
test which measures air permeability properties.
An initial set of tests were carried out on six concrete
mixes with water: cement(w/c) ratios between 0.3 and 0.8. These
tests showed that problems existed with both the laboratory and
in-situ test methods. Some of these problems arose from the
preparation of specimens or test procedures and these were
overcome with practice or by modifying the test methods.
However, it was found that a major problem is moisture in the
concrete which decreases it's measured permeability.
Further tests were carried out on a second set of
concrete specimens with the same mix proportions as the first
and a set of mortar specimens with w/c ratios ranging from 0.3
to 1.1 and cement: sand (c: s) ratios from 1: 1 to 1: 5. Results
from tests on oven dry specimens were used to compare the
different methods and showed that few simple relationships
existed between the different methods. Comparing the test
results with the mix proportions showed that in the majority of
cases, the measured permeability values increased as the w/c
ratio increased, but the relationships between the tests
results and c: s ratio were more complicated.
After these tests had been completed, specimens from
twenty six of the mixes were retested after being conditioned
to various different moisture contents. The results of these
tests showed that in most cases there was a rapid increase in
measured permeability as the specimens dried, followed by a
slower increase (in some cases a decrease) as the specimens
approached an oven dry condition.
To complement this study a number of methods were
examined for measuring in-situ moisture content. The most
promising of these was a non-destructive method which operated
by measuring the electrical permittivity of the material it was
placed against. Because the electrical permittivity varies with
the amount of water in the concrete, it is largely independent
of the type material being tested. Results from this test
showed a shallow linear drop from saturated to approximately
half of the saturated moisture content, followed by a steep
drop towards the oven dry condition.