Coatings for Concrete Protection against Aggressive Environments
Source abstract
Abstract
The effect of polymeric coatings on concrete protection against chemically aggressive environments was evaluated. Two polymers - acrylic and epoxy - were applied on different concretes. The protection was measured by tests related with chemical resistance. The chlorides penetration, sulphates, acids and bases attack tests were used. Surface treatments act as a barrier between the environment and the concrete. This work intends to contribute to a better understanding of the performance of coated concrete in chemically aggressive environments, by presenting results of ion diffusion and resistance to aggressive solutions of several coatings used to protect concrete. The performance of the used coated concretes against chemically aggressive environments was generally better than the performance of the unprotected concretes. The results indicate that the overall performance of the used epoxy resin was better than that of other used coatings.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Concrete Corrosion and Durability · Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal.
References (27)
Show source-provided references
1. Aguiar, J., Moreira, P., Lukowski, P., Czarnecki, L., Camões, A. and Van Gemert, D. (2007). “Ranking procedure for polymeric coatings and hydrophobic agents for concrete protection.” Restoration of Buildings and Monuments, 13, 251-264.10.1515/rbm-2007-6143 ↗
2. Almusallam, A., Khan, F. M. and Maslehuddin, M. (2002). “Performance of concrete coatings under varying exposure conditions.” Materials and Structures, 35, 487-494.10.1007/BF02483136 ↗
3. ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials, (1999). “C88, Standard test method for soundness of aggregates by use of sodium sulfate or magnesium sulphate.” West Conshohocken, USA.
4. ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials, (2002). “D 4541, Standard test method for pull-off strength of coatings using portable adhesion testers.” West Conshohocken, USA.
5. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, (2000a). “EN 197-1, Cement. Part 1: Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements.” Brussels, Belgium.
6. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, (2000b). “EN 1766, Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures. Test methods. Reference concretes for testing.” Brussels, Belgium.
7. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, (2003). “EN 13529, Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures. Test methods. Resistance to severe chemical attack.” Brussels, Belgium.
8. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, (2004). “EN 1504-2, Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures. Definitions, requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity. Part 2: Surface protection systems for concrete.” Brussels, Belgium.
9. CEN, European Committee for Standardization, (2005). “EN 196-3, Methods of Testing Cement. Part 3: Determination of setting times and soundness.” Brussels, Belgium.
10. Fattuhi, N. I. and Hughes, B. P. (1988). “The performance of cement paste and concrete subjected to sulphuric acid attack.” Cement and Concrete Research, 18, 545-553.10.1016/0008-8846(88)90047-6 ↗
11. ISO, International Organization for Standardization, (1990). “ISO 4628-6, Paints and varnishes. Evaluation of degradation of paint coatings. Designation of intensity, quantity and size of common types of defects. Part 6: Rating of degree of chalking by tape method.” Geneva, Switzerland.
12. ISO, International Organization for Standardization, (2003a). “ISO 4628-1, Paints and varnishes. Evaluation of degradation of coatings. Designation of quantity and size of defects, and of intensity of uniform changes in appearance. Part 1: Introduction general and designation system.” Geneva, Switzerland.
13. ISO, International Organization for Standardization, (2003b). “ISO 4628-2, Paints and varnishes. Evaluation of degradation of coatings. Designation of quantity and size of defects, and of intensity of uniform changes in appearance. Part 2: Assessment of degree of blistering.” Geneva, Switzerland.
14. ISO, International Organization for Standardization. (2003c). “ISO 4628-4, Paints and varnishes. Evaluation of degradation of coatings. Designation of quantity and size of defects, and of intensity of uniform changes in appearance. Part 4: Assessment of degree of cracking.” Geneva, Switzerland.
15. ISO, International Organization for Standardization, (2003d). “ISO 4628-5, Paints and varnishes. Evaluation of degradation of coatings. Designation of quantity and size of defects, and of intensity of uniform changes in appearance. Part 5: Assessment of degree of flaking.” Geneva, Switzerland.
16. Kissel, J. and Pourbaix, A. (1996). “Les effets combinés de la tenneur en chlorure et de l'alcalinité des bétons sur la corrosion de l'acier.” Rapport Technique 315, Centre Belge d'Étude de la Corrosion, Brussels, Belgium.
17. Kreijger, P. C. (1984). “The skin of concrete. Composition and properties.” Materials and. Structures, 17, 275-283.
18. Luping, T. (1996). “Chloride transport in concrete, measurement and prediction.” Doctoral Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gotemborg, Sweden.
19. Moreira, P. M., Aguiar, J. B. and Camões, A. (2006). “Systems for superficial protection of concretes.” Proceedings of the International Symposium Polymers in Concrete, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal, 225-236.
20. Neville, A. M. (1995). “Properties of Concrete.” 4th ed., Longman Group, Essex, England.
21. Pfeifer, D. W. and Scali, M. J. (1981). “Concrete sealers for protection of bridge structures.” Department of Transportation, NCHRP 244, Washington D.C.
22. RILEM, International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures, (1995). “Performance criteria for concrete durability.” State of the Art Report prepared by RILEM Technical Committee TC 116-PCD, E & FN Spon, London.
23. Rodrigues, M. P., Costa, M. R. N., Mendes, A. M. and Marques, M. I. E. (2000). “Effectiveness of surface coatings to protect reinforced concrete in marine environments.” Materials and Structures, 33, 618-626.10.1007/BF02480601 ↗
24. Schueremans, L., Van Gemert, D. and Giessler, S. (2007). “Chloride penetration in RC/structures in marine environment - Long term assessment of a preventive hydrophobic treatment.” Construction and Building Materials, 21, 1238-1249.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.006 ↗
25. Skalny, J., Marchand, J. and Odler, I. (2002). “Sulfate Attack on Concrete”, E & FN Spon, London.10.4324/9780203301623 ↗
26. Swamy, R. N. and Tanikawa, S. (1990). “Surface coatings to preserve concrete durability.” Proceedings of International Conference on Protection of Concrete, edited by R. K. Dhir and J. W. Green, E & FN Spon, London, 149-165.
27. Swamy, R. N., Suryavanshi, A. K. and Tanikawa, S. (1998). “Protective ability of an acrylic based surface coating system against chloride and carbonation penetration into concrete.” ACI Materials Journal, 95, 101-112.