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.

Blended cements, where Portland cement clinker is partially replaced by supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), provide the most feasible route for reducing carbon dioxide emissions associated with concrete production. However, lowering the clinker content can lead to an increasing risk of neutralisation of the concrete pore solution and potential reinforcement corrosion due to carbonation. carbonation of concrete with SCMs differs from carbonation of concrete solely based on Portland cement (PC). This is a consequence of the differences in the hydrate phase assemblage and pore solution chemistry, as well as the pore structure and transport properties, when varying the binder composition, age and curing conditions of the concretes. The carbonation mechanism and kinetics also depend on the saturation degree of the concrete and CO₂ partial pressure which in turn depends on exposure conditions (e.g. relative humidity, volume, and duration of water in contact with the concrete surface and temperature conditions). This in turn influence the microstructural changes identified upon carbonation. This literature review, prepared by members of RILEM technical committee 281-CCC carbonation of concrete with supplementary cementitious materials, working groups 1 and 2, elucidates the effect of numerous SCM characteristics, exposure environments and curing conditions on the carbonation mechanism, kinetics and structural alterations in cementitious systems containing SCMs.