Many (inter)national standards exist to evaluate the resistance of mortar and concrete to carbonation. When a carbonation coefficient is used for performance comparison of mixtures or service life prediction, the applied boundary conditions during curing, preconditioning and carbonation play a crucial role, specifically when using latent hydraulic or pozzolanic supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). An extensive interlaboratory test (ILT) with twenty two participating laboratories was set up in the framework of RILEM TC 281-CCC ‘Carbonation of Concrete with SCMs’. The carbonation depths and coefficients determined by following several (inter)national standards for three cement types (CEM I, CEM II/B-V, CEM III/B) both on mortar and concrete scale were statistically compared. The outcomes of this study showed that the carbonation rate based on the carbonation depths after 91 days exposure, compared to 56 days or less exposure duration, best approximates the slope of the linear regression and those 91 days carbonation depths can therefore be considered as a good estimate of the potential resistance to carbonation. All standards evaluated in this study ranked the three cement types in the same order of carbonation resistance. Unfortunately, large variations within and between laboratories complicate to draw clear conclusions regarding the effect of sample pre-conditioning and carbonation exposure conditions on the carbonation performance of the specimens tested. Nevertheless, it was identified that fresh and hardened state properties alone cannot be used to infer carbonation resistance of the mortars or concretes tested. It was also found that sealed curing results in larger carbonation depths compared to water curing. However, when water curing was reduced from 28 to 3 or 7 days, higher carbonation depths compared to sealed curing were observed. This increase is more pronounced for CEM I compared to CEM III mixes. The variation between laboratories is larger than the potential effect of raising the CO2 concentration from 1 to 4%. Finally, concrete, for which the aggregate-to-cement factor was increased by 1.79 in comparison with mortar, had a carbonation coefficient 1.18 times the one of mortar.@en

Many standardised durability testing methods have been developed for Portland cement-based concretes, but require validation to determine whether they are also applicable to alkali-activated materials. To address this question, RILEM TC 247-DTA ‘Durability Testing of Alkali-Activated Materials’ carried out round robin testing of carbonation and chloride penetration test methods, applied to five different alkali-activated concretes based on fly ash, blast furnace slag or metakaolin. The methods appeared overall to demonstrate an intrinsic precision comparable to their precision when applied to conventional concretes. The ranking of test outcomes for pairs of concretes of similar binder chemistry was satisfactory, but rankings were not always reliable when comparing alkali-activated concretes based on different precursors. Accelerated carbonation testing gave similar results for fly ash-based and blast furnace slag-based alkali-activated concretes, whereas natural carbonation testing did not. Carbonation of concrete specimens was observed to have occurred already during curing, which has implications for extrapolation of carbonation testing results to longer service life periods. Accelerated chloride penetration testing according to NT BUILD 443 ranked the tested concretes consistently, while this was not the case for the rapid chloride migration test. Both of these chloride penetration testing methods exhibited comparatively low precision when applied to blast furnace slag-based concretes which are more resistant to chloride ingress than the other materials tested.@en