ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 105-M45

Simplified Concrete Resistivity and Rapid Chloride

Permeability Test Method
by Kyle A. Riding, Jonathan L. Poole, Anton K. Schindler, Maria C. G. Juenger, and Kevin J. Folliard

A simplified method of measuring concrete resistivity, as an index It is well known that ASTM C1202 may give a false estimate
of permeability, has been developed that is similar to ASTM C1202 of the concrete chloride diffusion when some supplementary
or the rapid chloride permeability test (RCPT). It is significantly cementing materials are used, especially silica fume,6,7
faster and easier to perform, however. In this test, cylinders 100 x when some chemical admixtures such as calcium nitrite are
200 mm (4 x 8 in.) were cured in 100% relative humidity and tested used or when steel fibers or reinforcing steel bars are
using the same solutions, test cells, and rubber gaskets as specified
present.2 Some supplementary cementing materials (SCMs)
in ASTM C1202. To eliminate the problem of the temperature rise
of the sample during the test, only one current reading was taken
and chemical admixtures change the pore solution hydroxyl
(after 5 minutes) that could be used to calculate the concrete or other ionic species concentration. This can change the
resistivity. Testing was conducted on various different concrete electrical conductivity of the concrete without necessarily
mixtures after 91 days of moist curing using both the new quicker changing the tortuosity of the pore structure.5 Because of
method and the standard ASTM C1202 method. An empirical their high electrical conductivity, steel fibers or reinforcing
correlation between the new method and the standard method bars cause very low resistance values in ASTM C1202, even
demonstrates the validity and promise of the new method. though they do not fundamentally change the concrete pore
structure (ASTM C1202 2005).
Keywords: concrete permeability; rapid chloride permeability test; resistivity. In spite of its flaws, ASTM C1202 or any other electrical
resistivity-based test may still be useful for quality control to
INTRODUCTION detect radical changes in the water-cementitious material
First developed by Whiting,1 ASTM C1202, or the rapid ratio (w/cm) or material properties. It is also useful to know
the concrete electrical resistivity for modeling the galvanic
chloride permeability test (RCPT),2 has become a common
cell that is formed after corrosion has initiated.2,8
test to assess concrete’s ability to resist chloride intrusion.
Previous research has suggested that the current RCPT
The test method is commonly used because it is relatively
may be greatly simplified. Scali et al.9 first suggested that the
quick (approximately 24 hours for sample preparation plus
permeability test could be simplified into just a resistivity
an additional 6 hours for testing) and inexpensive as opposed
test; conversion factors are used to achieve the same results
to the alternative AASHTO T 259 salt ponding test, which as ASTM C1202. In other studies, good correlations were
takes at least 119 days to perform after concrete curing.3 shown between the initial current readings, or conductance,
ASTM C1202 measures the electrical conductivity of a and the total charge passed for a limited number of concrete
50 mm (2 in.) thick concrete disk over a 6-hour time period. samples. These tests were conducted on a limited variety
The current readings taken are then integrated over the 6-hour of blended cements and chemical admixtures.6,7,10,11
period to obtain the final charge passed.2 Because it is the Several other methods have been developed for measuring
electrical conductivity (or resistance) that is measured, the the chloride permeability of concrete. Electrical methods
test is really a long-duration resistivity test. It is assumed that include the electrical migration technique, the rapid migration
the resistivity is directly related to the tortuosity of the pore test, concrete resistivity,8 and alternating current (AC)
network or concrete permeability, although the relation is impedance techniques.5,10 The electrical migration technique
not perfect.4 is similar to ASTM C1202, but the chloride ion concentration
One problem with ASTM C1202 is that the current tends is measured in the anode solution instead of simply
to increase during the test, especially with low quality/high- measuring the total charge passed through the concrete
permeability concrete, because the specimens heat up, thus during a 6-hour period of time. In the rapid migration tests,
increasing the conductivity. Furthermore, chloride ions may an electrical charge is applied to the sample, after which the
migrate in while hydroxyl ions migrate out, changing the sample is split and the depth of chloride penetration is
concrete conductivity.5,6 Another problem with ASTM determined using chemical indicators. Concrete resistivity
C1202 is the amount of sample preparation needed. Sample tests are simple measures of the concrete’s electrical resistance
cutting, vacuum saturation, and testing take at least 24 hours per unit cross section and length.8 AC impedance
to complete. Additionally, sample cutting can introduce a measurements are similar to resistivity measurements,
significant amount of variation in the test method. Two except that an alternating current is used instead of a direct
samples both cut according to ASTM C1202 could have a current (DC). Pressure and temperature have also been used
difference in length between the two of 6 mm (1/4 in.) or
over 12%. The samples may also not be reused because of ACI Materials Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-August 2008.
concerns over leaching in a moist environment and the MS No. M-2007-242.R1 received June 28, 2007, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
exposure to chlorides during the test, which may change the including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors’ closure, if any, will be published in the May-June
pore solution conductivity. 2009 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is received by February 1, 2009.

390 ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2008

 different types of cements and supplementary cementing
ACI member Kyle A. Riding is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute
of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland. He received his MSE and PhD from the materials is described. The test method may serve as a quick
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. and inexpensive quality control test for concrete construction.
ACI member Jonathan L. Poole is an Engineer at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates,
Inc. He received his BS, MSE, and PhD from the University of Texas at Austin. He is a EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
member of ACI Committee 207, Mass Concrete.
ASTM C1202,2 the RCPT, was used to evaluate 117 concrete
ACI member Anton K. Schindler is an Associate Professor in the Department of mixtures. After 91 days of moist curing, two 50 mm (2 in.)
Civil Engineering at Auburn University, Auburn, AL. He received his MSE and PhD in specimens were cut from the same 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.)
civil engineering from the University of Texas at Austin.
cylinder for each mixture. Both specimens for each batch were
ACI member Maria C. G. Juenger is an Assistant Professor of Civil, Architectural, tested according to ASTM C1202.2 Specimens were tested
and Environmental Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. She received her
PhD in materials science and engineering from Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. using rubber gaskets instead of silicone rubber caulking to
prevent leakage of the solution, as allowed by ASTM C1202.2
Kevin J. Folliard, FACI, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil, The total charge passed during the 6-hour test, as well as the
Architectural and Environmental Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. He
received his PhD in civil engineering from the University of California at Berkeley, initial voltage drop across the sample, was recorded.
Berkeley, CA, in 1995. He received the ACI Young Member Award for Professional Fifty-five of the concrete mixtures tested according to
Achievement in 2002.
ASTM C12022 were also tested at 91 days using a simplified
version of the RCPT method, hereafter called the simplified
as driving forces to speed up chloride diffusion in concrete RCPT. The test was conducted using the same electronic
for direct measurement. ASTM C1556, the concrete bulk equipment, ionic solutions, and voltage cells as used in ASTM
diffusion test, uses high temperatures to speed up the diffusion
C1202.2 The differences were as follows. The simplified
of chloride ions into concrete.12
RCPT method was conducted on a full 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.)
A new, simplified method of performing ASTM C1202
cylinder using a 188 mm (7.4 in.) long acrylic sleeve, as
has been developed and is reported herein. The method
greatly simplifies the sample preparation needed on lab- shown in Fig. 1, instead of the shorter 50 mm (2 in.) specimen
cured samples to measure the rapid chloride permeability of and 36 mm (1.4 in.) sleeve prescribed by the ASTM C12022
concrete. The new test uses the same setup as ASTM C1202, test. In the simplified RCPT method, the sample was taken
except that specimen was cured at 100% relative humidity directly out of the curing room (100% relative humidity) and
instead of vacuum saturation. The specimen was 200 mm tested; no vacuum desiccation was performed. In the simplified
(8 in.) in length and uncut, and the specimen was only tested RCPT method, only the voltage drop across the sample
for 5 minutes. The total test may now take less than a half after 5 minutes was recorded; the total charge passed
hour from sample setup to finish. The new test method also through the sample was not recorded.
can be run with only minor modifications to existing ASTM To illustrate the effect of temperature on the resistivity of
C1202 testing equipment, and the same test cylinder can be concrete, cylinders from three different concrete mixtures
tested at a given age, returned to moist-curing conditions, were placed overnight in water at 38 and 60 °C (100 and
and retested at subsequent ages. Additionally, because the 140 °F) and in the 23 °C (73 °F), 100% relative humidity
test is run for such a short duration, the sample temperature chamber. The three concrete mixtures were over a year old
increase should be negligible. Because this new test method to reduce the effects of the temporary high temperature on
is so similar to ASTM C1202 and can use the same equipment, hydration and leaching. The samples were tested for resistivity
practitioners can easily implement this new test method. using the simplified RCPT method.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Corrosion of reinforcing steel is the largest durability CONCRETE MATERIALS
problem worldwide in concrete structures. Engineers have A wide variety of materials were tested using ASTM
been specifying high-performance concrete (high strength/ C1202.2 Several types and brands of ASTM C49413 Type A
low permeability) in recent years in an effort to reduce water reducer, mid-range water reducer, and ASTM C49413
concrete chloride diffusion and increase the service life of high-range water reducer were used. One type of calcium
structures. In this paper, a simplified procedure for nitrate-based accelerator was used in four mixtures, and a
measuring electrical resistivity of concrete containing calcium nitrite corrosion-inhibiting admixture was used in
one mixture. The value of w/cm ranged from 0.32 to 0.53 for
the ASTM C12022 tests and 0.32 to 0.50 for the simplified
tests, with the majority being between 0.40 to 0.44. Three
types of ASTM C61814 Class C fly ash were used, whereas
five types of ASTM C61814 Class F fly ash were used. One
type each of silica fume, ultra-fine fly ash, and Grade 120
ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS)15 were used in
the study. Table 1 summarizes the number of material sources
and the number of mixtures that contained each type of material
for the tests performed according to ASTM C12022 and the
simplified RCPT method. As seen in Table 1, not all mixtures
were tested using the simplified RCPT method. Table 2
summarizes the range of material quantities used in the study.
When comparisons between tests were made, concrete cylinders
Fig. 1—Simplified RCPT test setup. from the same concrete batches were tested using each test.

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2008 391

 RESULTS higher at the higher resistivity values. This increased scatter
The initial readings taken during the testing for the ASTM may be because of the 200 mm (8 in.) sample length in the
C12022 test and the simplified RCPT method were simplified RCPT method, which results in more resistance
converted to resistivity values using Eq. (1) and hence a lower voltage drop. The voltmeter used in this
study is not sensitive enough to distinguish between very
dense concrete with very low voltage drops. This leads to an
( E s – 2 ) ⋅ R⎞ ⎛ A⎞
ρ c = ⎛ --------------------------
- ⋅ --- (1) increase in scatter in the data with concrete with a high electrical
⎝ Em ⎠ ⎝ L⎠ resistivity. A higher precision voltmeter or measurement of
the sample current instead of voltage drop would reduce this
where ρc is the concrete resistivity (Ω-m), Es is the supplied scatter in the higher resistivity values.
DC voltage (60 V), R is the resistance provided by the shunt Another way to compare the two tests is using a method
resistor (0.01 Ω), Em is the voltage drop measured, A is the suggested by Arup et al.,6 who calculated equivalent
cross-sectional area of the cylinder (m2), and L is the length coulomb values from the initial readings assuming a constant
of the specimen (m). Following the method suggested by voltage drop during a 6-hour period. These calculated values
Arup et al.,6 two volts are subtracted from the supplied for the simplified RCPT method are compared with the
measured values of total charge passed from the ASTM C12022
voltage to account for “the voltage loss due to polarization of
test. The coulomb values from the simplified test are multiplied
the electrodes (or the voltage loss in electrolyzing water and
by 4 to compensate for the length of the specimen. The data
forming hydrogen and oxygen).” Figure 2 shows a comparison
from the simplified test were extrapolated to an equivalent
of the average calculated resistivity values for the two
6-hour charge passed to facilitate a direct comparison of
samples tested for each mixture using ASTM C12022 versus
the two test methods. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the
the simplified RCPT method. Figure 3 shows the resistivity
coulomb readings for the simplified RCPT method assuming
values measured for the first ASTM C12022 sample versus a constant voltage drop during 6 hours versus the average of
the values measured for the second ASTM C12022 sample the two coulomb values for a full 6-hour ASTM C12022 test.
from the same concrete batch to illustrate the inherent scatter Figure 4 clearly shows that the differences between the two
in the ASTM C12022 test method itself. The r2 value of 0.97 test methods examined in this study are very predictable.
shown in Figure 3 is an indicator of how well the two tests
relate. A perfect match between the two tests would give an
r2 value of 1. As shown in Fig. 2 and 3, the scatter from the
resistivity tests obtained from the simplified test method is

Table 1—Number of sources and mixtures for

different mixtures used in testing
ASTM C1202 Simplified method
No. of No. of No. of No. of
Material sources mixtures sources mixtures
Type I cement 3 47 2 14
Type I/II cement 6 58 5 28
Type V cement 1 12 1 12
Class F fly ash 5 34 5 13
Class C fly ash 3 28 3 12
GGBFS 1 12 1 6
Ultra-fine fly ash 1 7 1 4 Fig. 2—Resistivity values for ASTM C1202 method versus
Silica fume 1 7 1 2
simplified RCPT method. (Note: 1 KΩ-cm = 0.394 KΩ-in.)

Table 2—Material amount ranges used

ASTM C1202 Simplified method
Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum
Calcium nitrite-based
corrosion inhibitor L/100 kg
of total cementing materials 0 8.3 (1) 0 8.3 (1)
(gal./100 lb of total
cementing materials)
Calcium nitrate-based
accelerator L/100 kg of total
cementing materials 0 2.2 (0.26) 0 2.2 (0.26)
(gal./100 lb of total
cementing materials)
w/cm 0.32 0.53 0.32 0.5
Class F fly ash, % replacement 0 55 0 31
Class C fly ash, % replacement 0 40 0 40
GGBFS, % replacement 0 70 0 70 Fig. 3—Comparison of resistivity values from two samples
Ultra fine fly ash, % replacement 0 9 0 8 tested from same concrete batches using ASTM C1202.
Silica fume, % replacement 0 10 0 10 (Note: 1 KΩ-cm = 0.394 KΩ-in.)

392 ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2008

 The data presented in Fig. 4 from the ASTM C12022 and increasing temperature, as expected. As shown in Fig. 6, the
the simplified RCPT methods were combined with similar temperature dependence of concrete resistivity follows Eq. (3)5
data from previous studies where DC resistivity values were
collected at the same time as ASTM C12022 values. This 1
joint data set was used to develop an empirical model to ρ c ( T ) = --------------------------
- (3)
– ΔE
relate the increase in charge passed during a 6-hour time A exp -------------
( kb T )
period to that extrapolated from initial values. This relationship
is also shown in Fig. 5. The values for concrete at early ages
from Feldman et al.7 were not included in the data set where A and ΔE are empirical constants determined for each
because heating during the 6-hour test can increase the mixture, kb is Boltzmann’s constant, and T is the absolute
hydration reaction, changing the results expected. A temperature (K). The concrete resistivity increased by 92,
quadratic trend worked well to describe the increase in 71, and 65% for the three concrete mixtures when the
charge passed during the 6-hour time, as shown in Eq. (2) temperature was increased from 23 to 60 °C (73 to 140 °F).
As the data in Fig. 6 shows, the simplified RCPT method can
be used to measure the temperature dependence of the
2
Q 6h = 0.0000205Q i + 0.8758Q i (2) concrete mixture resistivity. These data can be useful for
modeling the galvanic current present once reinforcing steel
where Q6h is the charge passed during a full ASTM C12022 corrosion, which is dependent on the concrete resistivity, has
test (coulombs), and Qi is the charge for a 6-hour period initiated. The modeling of the galvanic current may prove
extrapolated from one initial current reading normalized to a useful in service-life models to determine the rate of corrosion
50 mm (2 in.) length (coulombs). Equation 2 is nonlinear and the possible extent of damage from corrosion.
because of heating that occurs in the samples and, to a lesser
extent, chloride ion movement, especially in more porous ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
concrete. Equation (2) may be used to develop a concrete OF SIMPLIFIED RCPT
rating system similar to that used in ASTM C 12022 based The simplified RCPT method greatly simplifies the test
on the simplified RCPT method extrapolated to 6 hours of procedure found in ASTM C12022 for determining the
charge passed. The new concrete classification guidelines
recommended for use with the new simplified RCPT method
are shown in Table 3.

EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE
The three concrete mixtures tested at different temperatures
using the simplified method decreased in resistivity with

Table 3—Recommended guidelines for

equivalent concrete classification based
on initial current reading
Charge passed Extrapolated charge from initial reading
Concrete during full 6-hour normalized to 50 mm (2 in.) length for
permeability test, coulombs simplified RCPT, coulombs
Very low <1000 <900
Low 1000 to 2000 900 to 1600
Fig. 5—Comparison of coulomb values extrapolated from
Moderate 2000 to 4000 1600 to 3000
initial resistivity reading in simplified RCPT method to total
High >4000 >3000 charge passed in 6-hour ASTM C1202 test.
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

Fig. 4—Comparison of ASTM C1202 test to simplified Fig. 6—Concrete resistivity versus concrete temperature at
RCPT method assuming constant current. (Note: 1 mm = testing using simplified RCPT method. (Note: 1 °C = 1 °F;
0.0394 in.) 1 KΩ-cm = 0.394 KΩ-in.)

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2008 393

electrical resistivity of concrete. The simplified RCPT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
method gives results that are comparable to those obtained The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) for funding this research (Project 0-4563). The
from ASTM C12022 as shown in Fig. 2, 4, and 5. The proce- advice and support of R. Browne of TxDOT is greatly appreciated. Additionally,
dure eliminates saw cutting and the inherent problems and the advice of M. Thomas and N. Burke is gratefully acknowledged.
variability associated with it. The simplified RCPT method
can be run very quickly; consequently, the specimen NOTATION
temperature does not increase during the test and change the C = ASTM C618 Class C fly ash
charge passed. The test method may also be used as a simple F = ASTM C618 Class F fly ash
indicator of the concrete permeability based on revised GGBFS = ground-granulated blast-furnace slag
HRWR = ASTM C494 Type F high-range water-reducing admixture
guidelines for interpreting the data shown in Table 3. The LRWR = ASTM C494 Type A water-reducing admixture
simplified RCPT method for concrete resistivity may serve MRWR = mid-range water reducer
as an important method for characterizing the temperature
dependence of concrete resistivity on temperature for REFERENCES
modeling the corrosion rate in service-life models. Additionally, 1. Whiting, D., “Rapid Determination of the Chloride Permeability of
the specimens may be reused at a later age to track the Concrete,” Final Report No. FHWA/RD-81/119, Federal Highway
Administration, NTIS No. PB 82140724, 1981.
change of the concrete resistivity with time.
2. ASTM C1202, “Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of
The simplified RCPT method does not solve all of the Concrete’s Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration,” ASTM International,
problems associated with the RCPT method. Because the West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 6 pp.
new test is still an electrical test, changes in pore solution 3. AASHTO T 259-02, “Standard Method of Test for Resistance of
Concrete to Chloride Ion Penetration,” AASHTO Standard Specification,
chemistry will still register a change in the measured values American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
that may not be indicative of a change in porosity and pore Washington, DC, 2002.
structure tortuosity. The test method may also produce a 4. Mindess, S.; Young, J. F.; and Darwin, D., Concrete, second edition,
large amount of scatter when the voltage is measured instead Pearson, Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2003, 644 pp.
of current at higher concrete resistivity values. Using a more 5. Beaudoin, J. J., and Liu, Z., “The Permeability of Cement Systems to
Chloride Ingress and Related Test Methods,” Cement, Concrete and
sensitive voltmeter, however, may eliminate this problem. Aggregates, V. 22, No. 1, June, 2000, pp. 16-23.
6. Arup, H.; Sørensen, B.; Frederiksen, J.; and Thaulow, N., “The Rapid
CONCLUSION Chloride Permeation Test—An Assessment,” Paper 334, Corrosion93, The
NACE Annual Conference and Corrosion Show, 1993, 11 pp.
A simplified method for quickly measuring the concrete 7. Feldman, R.; Prudencio, L. R.; and Chan, G., “Rapid Chloride
resistivity and corresponding rapid chloride permeability Permeability Test on Blended Cement and Other Concretes: Correlations
value has been developed. The test is based on the procedures Between Charge, Initial Current and Conductivity,” Construction and
outlined in ASTM C1202,2 simplified to avoid cutting Building Materials, V. 13, 1999, pp. 149-154.
8. Stanish, K. D.; Hooton, R. D.; and Thomas, M. D. A., “Testing the
samples, desiccation, test duration, and sample heating. Chloride Penetration Resistance of Concrete: A Literature Review,” FHWA
Specimens containing various cement types, supplementary Contract DTFH61-97-R-00022, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
cementing materials, w/cm, and chemical admixtures were Canada, June 2000, 31 pp.
tested using the new simplified test and ASTM C12022 for 9. Scali, M. J.; Chin, D.; and Berke, N. S., “Effect of Microsilica and Fly
comparison. The correlation between the simplified RCPT Ash Upon the Microstructure and Permeability of Concrete,” Proceedings
of the Ninth International Conference on Cement Microscopy, Reno, NV,
and the ASTM C12022 worked well for all materials tested. Apr. 5-9, 1987, pp. 375-397.
The difference in values obtained from the two different tests 10. Feldman, R.; Chan, G.; Brouseau, R.; and Tumidajski, P., “An
was due mainly to concrete heating that occurred during the Investigation of the Rapid Chloride Permeability Test,” Proceedings of the
ASTM C12022 test and was found to be very predictable. A Third Canadian Symposium on Cement and Concrete, Ottawa, ON,
Canada, Aug. 3-4, 1993, pp. 279-306.
correlation between the two tests and implementation guidelines 11. Zhao, T. J.; Zhou, Z. H.; Zhu, J. Q.; and Feng, N. Q., “An Alternating
were also developed. The simplified procedure is advantageous Test Method for Concrete Permeability,” Cement and Concrete Research,
in that existing RCPT equipment may be used—the only V. 28, No. 1, 1998, pp. 7-12.
modification being a longer acrylic sleeve around the 12. ASTM C1556, “Standard Test Method for Determining the Apparent
concrete and longer bolts to provide compression to the Chloride Diffusion Coefficient of Cementitious Mixtures by Bulk Diffusion,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2004, 7 pp.
rubber gaskets. The test method may also be used to determine 13. ASTM C494, “Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for
the temperature dependence of concrete resistivity for a Concrete,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999, 9 pp.
particular concrete mixture. The test method, like other 14. ASTM C618, “Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or
electrical methods, does not directly measure the chloride Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2003, 3 pp.
diffusion of a concrete sample. The method has only been 15. ASTM C989, “Standard Specification for Ground Granulated Blast-
performed on laboratory-cured samples, and its suitability Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete and Mortars,” ASTM International, West
for cored field samples has not yet been determined. Conshohocken, PA, 2005, 5 pp.

394 ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2008