Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

A review on concrete surface treatment Part I: Types and mechanisms

Xiaoying Pan a, Zhenguo Shi b, Caijun Shi a,⇑, Tung-Chai Ling a, Ning Li a
a
College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China
b
Interdisciplinary Nanoscience Center (iNANO) and Department of Chemistry, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The application of surface treatments in concrete has been widely investigated over the past decades.
Received 22 May 2016 Surface treatment technology has become more important in concrete structures especially in preventing
Received in revised form 26 November 2016 deterioration and damage when exposed to extremely aggressive environments, and in further extending
Accepted 3 December 2016
service life. This paper presents comprehensive details of four types of concrete treatments, including
surface coating, hydrophobic impregnation, pore blocking surface treatment and multifunctional surface
treatment. Additionally, the knowledge of their interaction mechanisms with cementitious substrate is
Keywords:
presented and discussed. The advantages and drawbacks of each treatment as well as the influencing fac-
Concrete
Surface treatment
tors on the protective effects of surface treatments on concrete, such as air permeability, bonding
Coating strength and cracking resistance, are also discussed. Despite decades of study, the mechanisms of many
Air permeability newly developed surface treatments remain poorly understood. A deeper understanding of the chemical
Bonding strength and physical reaction mechanisms is therefore essential, especially at micro-scale levels.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
2. Types and mechanisms of surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
2.1. Surface coating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
2.1.1. Traditional polymer coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
2.1.2. Polymer nanocomposite coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
2.1.3. Cementitious coatings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
2.2. Hydrophobic impregnation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
2.3. Pore-blocking surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
2.4. Multifunctional surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
3. Factors influencing the performance of surface treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
3.1. Air permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584
3.2. Bonding strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
3.3. Penetration depth / coating thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
3.4. Cracking resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586
3.5. Substrate properties and application method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
4. Summary and perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cshi@hnu.edu.cn (C. Shi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.025
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
1. Introduction
Durability problems of concrete structures usually begin with
the deterioration of materials. Although the deterioration of mate-
rials does not cause immediate safety problems at the beginning, it
gradually creates a potential danger for the whole structure.
Extensive research has been conducted over the last four dec-
ades due to the economic impact caused by the durability problem.
Several methods to provide better and durable concrete or rein-
forced concrete structures have been proposed. The most common
strategy adopted is to delay the degradation process of reinforced
concrete by decreasing the porosity by reducing the water-to-
cement ratio and adding nanoparticles. However, this method
has two main drawbacks: firstly, the protection might be sufficient
in highly aggressive environments, such as marine, saline and alka-
line land, and frigid area; and secondly this method has generally
led to overdesigning the whole structure [1–4]. Thus, several
approaches which are more economical are applied to provide
additional protection for materials against degradation [5–8]. They
are (1) metal, epoxy resin and polymer coatings for steel rebar; (2)
corrosion inhibitor; (3) electrochemical method which is usually
used in concrete re-alkalization; and (4) concrete surface treat-
ment. Among these methods, (1) and (2) cannot be used in old
structures, and the effect of coatings for reinforced steel is a con-
troversial issue, because the corrosion rate increases rapidly in bro-
ken areas of coatings. So far, the effect of corrosion inhibitors in
prolonging the service life of steel bar is still unclear. Meanwhile,
(3) can be used in existing structures but is relatively expensive.
On the other hand, (4) concrete surface treatment has received
wider acceptance due to its effectiveness in preventing the ingress
of aggressive substances.
Since 1986, a hydrophobic agent named isobutiltrimetoxisilane
(100% pure) has been used on bridges in the United Kingdom to
prevent chloride penetration. Agencies in America and the Depart-
ment of Transportation in Germany use hydrophobic agents on
bridges subjected to chloride penetration [9]. A detailed review
of the performances of surface treatment was presented by Bash-
eer et al. [10]. However, a lot of progress has been made in under-
standing the mechanisms of surface treatment agents which have
been commercially available for a long time. Moreover, a new gen-
eration of surface treatment agents has emerged over the last
20 years.
This review includes two parts. This first part explores the clas-
sification, mechanisms and factors influencing the surface treat-
ment performances by summarizing the current state of
Table 1
Properties of traditional polymer coating used for concrete surface treatment.
Curing mechanism
Epoxy resins
[19–27]
Acrylic [28–33] Physically drying
Polyur-ethane
[34–41]
579
knowledge of the interaction between surface treatment agents
and cementitious substrate. The second part reviews and compares
the effects of surface treatments and their durability performance
[11]. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the research
and development of surface treatments over the past 30 years. In
addition, some insights and suggestions for further research are
presented.
2. Types and mechanisms of surface treatment
According to the chemical composition of surface treatment
agents, they can be classified into two categories: inorganic and
organic treatments. Organic surface treatments are the most
commonly-used treatments because of their good protective effect.
However, there are concerns over their poor fire resistance, ease to
crack and detach, limited service life, and difficulty to be removed
after losing their protective effects [12,13]. The most common inor-
ganic surface treatment is sodium silicate solution (also known as
‘‘waterglass”). To a much smaller extent, potassium silicates,
lithium silicate, and fluosilicates have also been reported to be
used for inorganic surface treatments [3,14]. Although inorganic
surface treatments have better durability performance, less
research has focused on this area, especially their penetration
depth and interactions with cementitious substrate.
In term of functions, the surface treatments are grouped into
three types according to the EN 1504-2:2004 [15–17]: hydropho-
bic impregnation, impregnation, and coatings. However, this clas-
sification does not include some newly developed surface
treatments. Thus, all the surface treatments discussed in this paper
are divided into four major groups: surface coating, hydrophobic
impregnation, pore blocking surface treatment, and multifunc-
tional surface treatment. The following sections describe these four
types of treatment in detail.
2.1. Surface coating
Surface coating forms a continuous polymer film which acts as a
physical barrier to prevent corrosive substances from penetrating
into cementitious substrate [5,16,18]. There are several types of
surface coatings, including traditional polymer coatings, polymer/-
clay nanocomposite coatings and cementitious coatings. Tradi-
tional polymer coating and polymer/clay nanocomposite coatings
form a dense polymeric film with a thickness of about 0.1–1 mm
on the concrete surface, whereas, cementitious coating acts by
Advantages Disadvantages
Low shrinkage; Low fracture energy;
Easy to cure; Low impact on strength;
Good chemical resistance; Poor hydrophobicity
Good adhesive strength; Low thermal stability;
Easy to weathering;
Poor resistance to the initiation and
propagation of cracks
High resistance to hydrolysis Low bond strength;
and ultraviolet radiation; Poor ductility;
good alkali resistance Generally not applied for constant immersion in
water or soil
Excellent resistance to Poor resistance towards mechanical strains and
weathering; self-healing; no deformation and/or degradation at high temperatures
shrinkage
580 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
forming a low permeability layer with a thickness of about 2–
10 mm.
2.1.1. Traditional polymer coatings
Epoxy resins, acrylic and polyurethane are traditional protective
coatings which have been used in the construction industry for
many years. The properties of these polymer coatings are listed
in Table 1. Acrylic acid has good resistance to alkali, oxidation
and weathering, but its bonding strength and ductility are rela-
tively poor compared to epoxy resin [19]. Polyurethane coating
has better performance in protecting concrete with no shrinkage,
with high resistance to acid attack. However, it is not stable in a
high alkaline environment. In addition, isocyanates which are the
main raw materials that make up polyurethane are harmful to
human health.
The water resistance of the coated concrete is mainly related to
the barrier effect of the polymer coating. The kinetics of moisture
transport in polymer coatings are usually described by Fick’s law
[42–44]. However, the water diffusion in polymer coatings is com-
plicated. The experimental results of Maggana et al. [45] showed
that water diffusion in epoxy coatings deviates from Fick’s law,
especially when the temperature is lower than 20 °C. Hence, it is
necessary to evaluate the diffusion property of polymer coatings
at different temperatures before being applied to concrete. Accord-
ing to Vanlandingham et al. [46], water diffusion of polymer coat-
ings is related to two main factors. The first one is the availability
of molecular-sized holes in the polymer, which depends on the
polymer microstructure, crosslink density, and morphology. These
three properties are functions of the degree of cure, molecular
chain stiffness, stoichiometry, and cohesive energy density of the
coating. The second factor is the polymer-water affinity which is
related to the presence of hydrogen bonding sites along the poly-
mer chains. Due to the effect of polymer-water affinity, Fick’s law
can only describe the beginning stage of water diffusion, but it is
not applicable during the whole process [45,47].
Failure patterns observed on polymer coatings/concrete sys-
tems include four types: blistering, cracking, holes and peeling
[35,39,48–50]. Blistering indicates partial loss of adhesion result-
ing from osmotic pressure. Cracking may be caused by shrinkage
of coatings due to temperature change or cracking of cementitious
substrate. Uneven painting and osmotic pressure may cause holes
and pores which greatly increase the permeability of the coating.
Peeling is attributed to loss of adhesion caused by penetration of
aggressive substances into the substrate. In modern construction,
coatings are usually built up of several layers to obtain a better
protective effect. Furthermore, many efforts have been made by
researchers to improve their properties by adding various nano-
fillers, which will be discussed in following Section 2.1.2 [19–21].
2.1.2. Polymer nanocomposite coatings
Recently, polymer nanocomposite coatings have attracted great
interest in both academic research and engineering application due
to their remarkable properties over the virgin polymers. Polymer
nanocomposite coatings generally have higher strength, tensile
modulus, abrasion resistance, heat resistance, and thermal stabil-
ity. The addition of nanoparticles could reduce gas permeability
and flammability, etc. [51–57]. The incorporation of an inorganic
nanocomposite can improve the barrier properties and slow down
the degradation of polymers by increasing the diffusion path [58].
The lengthening of the diffusion path increases with tortuosity
which increases with concentration of nanocomposites and their
properties, such as aspect ratio and volume fraction [59–61]. Even
with a small dosage of nanocomposites, the gas permeability of a
polymer nanocomposite coating can be reduced by 50–500 times
compared with virgin polymer [52]. However, research on the
applications of polymer nanocomposite coatings in concrete struc-
tures is very limited [60,62–64]. Only a few researchers have inves-
tigated the properties of polymer/clay nanocomposite coatings on
cementitious materials [51,65–67]. Though polymer/SiO2 and
polymer/Al2O3 also show potential advantages in providing a bar-
rier effect, their performances have not been evaluated. Natural
polymers like starch can be used for the preparation of nanocom-
posite materials because of their low price [56]. Their potential
application in the concrete industry is worth investigating.
2.1.3. Cementitious coatings
Polymer modified cementitious coatings are the most common
cementitious coatings used for concrete protection. Polymer mod-
ified cementitious coatings are made with polymer (mainly acry-
late, polyurethane or epoxy) along with cement and aggregates
(generally very fine aggregate). The addition of polymer greatly
improves the properties of strength, resilience, adhesion, chemical
resistance and impermeability of cement paste. There are four
main reasons why polymer modified cementitious coatings can
provide additional protection for concrete [22]. First, the polymer
forms a net structure in the hardened cement paste, which
increases the toughness of the paste, and thus, surface micro-
cracking can be reduced. In addition, the pore structure in polymer
cementitious coatings is different from ordinary cement mortar.
Studies show that pores larger than 100 nm decrease while pores
smaller than 100 nm increase in polymer modified mortar. Third,
shrinkage can be mitigated when applying polymer-modified
cement-based coatings. Modified cementitious coatings show good
‘‘breathability” and considerable ‘‘crack-bridging” ability due to
their low elastic modulus [18,68,69]. Furthermore, polymer modi-
fied mortars have higher ultraviolet light (UV) resistance compared
with polymer coatings [70–72]. Thus, they are strongly recom-
mended for use on cracked concrete since they can close existing
cracks and maintain their protective effect for a long time
[18,73]. It is worth to mention that the effects of polymer modifie
cementitous are affected by the curing regimes [146].
Geopolymer can also be used as a protective coating for marine
concrete [74–77]. There have been several attempts to use gopoly-
mer as a protective coating in transportation infrastructure [78,79].
It has been reported that geopolymeric coating is still in a good
state after 9 years of exposure in Rhode Island [80]. Geopolymer
coatings show good durability even in highly aggressive environ-
ments. Zhang et al. [75–77] demonstrated that the use of geopoly-
mer coatings is more effective than the use of organic polymers,
especially in salt water environments. In addition, geopolymer
has a glassy texture, and thus is graffiti resistant [78,79]. Salwa
et al. [81] stated that geopolymer has a potential in fire resistant
and protective coatings for different surfaces including metal and
concrete due to their superior mechanical, chemical and thermal
resistance properties. However, the shrinkage problem of geopoly-
mer should be carefully considered, which may lead to failure of
the coating.
Fig. 1. Molecular structure of silane (a) and of siloxane (b) [144].
 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
2.2. Hydrophobic impregnation
Hydrophobic impregnation operates through penetrating con-
crete pores, enlarging the contact angle. The surface becomes
hydrophobic when the contact angle is larger than 90°. Thus,
hydrophobic impregnation can inhibit penetration of water and
water-born ions, but allows water vapor to enter or exit.
Silane, siloxane and a mixture of these two components are the
most commonly-used hydrophobic impregnation. Small molecular
structures of silane (1.0
106–1.5
106 mm diameter) and
Fig. 2. The chemical reaction between silane and cementitious substrate [62].
Fig. 3. SEM photographs at the surface of mortar (3000
): (a) control (b) calcium silicate treatment [86].
581
siloxane (1.5
106–7.5
106 mm diameter) allow them to pen-
etrate efficiently into a highly dense substrate, while also making
them very volatile. Typical molecular structures of silane and silox-
ane are shown in Fig 1. Both silane and siloxane contain an alkyl
group and several alkoxy groups [82,83]. The alkyl group can
reduce the surface tension of the concrete substrate, while the
structure of the alkoxy group is related to how silane/siloxane
bonds to the concrete surface [84]. The characteristics of alkyl
groups significantly influence the hydrophobicity of silane and
siloxane. The alkyl group with higher molecular weight (e.g. iso-
butyl and n-octyl) provides a higher degree of hydrophobicity than
the lower molecular weight alkyl group (e.g. methyl and ethyl). In
addition, the structure of the alkyl group is also related to the
degree of hydrophobicity, generally having the following order:
branched structure > straight chained > cyclic structure. Thus, the
structure and size of the alkyl group also play an important role
in the resistance of silane and siloxane to deterioration in alkaline
environments. On the other hand, the characteristics of the alkoxy
group (such as, ethoxy or methoxy) are associated with the pene-
tration depth of the silane or siloxane. An investigation showed
that silane treatment not only can provide a hydrophobic surface,
but also make the substrate surface tougher [85]. Thus, silane is
also as an effective agent to prevent cracking and heal cracks smal-
ler than 0.2 mm [85]. However, there are no adequate experimen-
tal results to explain this effect.
The chemical reaction between silane and cementitious sub-
strate is shown in Fig 2. In the first step, silane hydrolysis reacts
with water or water vapor in capillary pores, and the alkoxy group
will undergo hydrolysis and form silanol groups. Then, the unsta-
ble silanol molecules will lose water and condensate into silicone
resin. Consequently, the silanol groups in silicon resin react with
hydroxyl groups in the concrete substrate through hydrogen
bonds. Finally, the silicon resin bonds to substrate during drying,
and provides a water-repellent effect. The alkalinity of the concrete
acts as a catalyst in this reaction [62].
2.3. Pore-blocking surface treatment
Pore-blocking surface treatments have been used in buildings
and highway bridges for many years [15]. They can block the cap-
illary pores existing in concrete surface, so as to increase the hard-
ness and impermeability of the concrete’s surface layer.
Silicate-based solutions (e.g. lithium silicate, calcium silicate
and sodium silicate) and fluosilicate have been proved to be effec-
tive in blocking capillary pores in concrete surfaces [16]. Moon
et al. [86] studied the mechanism of calcium silicate as a surface
treatment. The SiO4- 4 ions contained in the treatment agent react
with the soluble Ca2+, Mg2+, Al3+ ions inside the mortar, and form
an insoluble colloid silicate. Eventually, the insoluble silicate acts
as a micro-filler, generating a compact microstructure and a dense
surface, as shown in Fig 3. Sodium silicate is one of the most
582 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
common pore blocking surface treatment agents. The interaction
between sodium silicate and cement paste is shown as Eq. (1)
[87,88]. Some studies have also demonstrated that sodium silicate
treatment can improve the durability of concrete, especially after
post-treatment of cationic surfactant (alkyl quaternary ammonium
salts) [85,86,89]. Pan and Jia [87,90] demonstrated that sodium flu-
osilicate pretreatment can also enhance the performance of
sodium silicate. However, Ibrahim and Dai [15,91] showed that
sodium silicate treatment cannot significantly improve resistance
to the penetration of water and chloride ions. It was reported that
there is a lot of micro-cracking on concrete surface treated with
sodium silicate as shown in Fig 4 [14]. In addition, the reaction
of sodium silicate and calcium hydroxide will generate NaOH,
which might increase the likelihood of alkali-silicate reaction [15].
Na2 O  nSiO2 þ CaðOHÞ2  CaO  nSiO2  xH2 OðGelsÞ þ 2NaOH
During the last few decades, some researchers have attempted
to use nanoparticles for concrete surface treatment. A developed
strategy to mitigate reinforcement corrosion in concrete is through
the use of electrokinetic nanoparticle (EN) treatment. Cardenas
et al. [7,92] attempted to use EN treatment to improve the durabil-
ity of concrete. They found that an electrokinetic technique can
enhance the effect of nanoparticle treatment on the quality of
the concrete cover. Kupwade-Patil et al. [89] used EN treatment
to drive pozzolanic nanoparticles into concrete. They reported that
the nanoparticles inhibit the ingress of chlorides, and increase ten-
sile strength by 25%. It was found that the treatment reduces the
Ca(OH)2 content by approximately 8%, and forms additional cal-
cium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and calcium aluminate hydrate (C-
A-H). Wu et al. [93] stated that the electrokinetic technique can
cause nanoalumina particles to drift into concrete pores to refine
the porosity distribution and increase bond strength of rebar-
concrete interface.
The prerequisite of effectiveness of nano-materials treatment
on cement-based materials is its penetration into the hardened
Fig. 4. SEM photographs of surface concrete without treatment (a), and with sodium silicate treatment (b) [14].
Fig. 5. SEM images of nanoSiO2 /TEOS-treated mortar: (a) control, (b) nanoSiO2, (c) TEOS [96].
matrix, and the pozzolanic reaction with calcium hydroxide.
Nano-SiO2 is generally produced by the sol-gel process or vaporiza-
tion of silica. Its particle size ranges from 100 nm to 5 nm. As a
siliceous material, nano-SiO2 has been intensively studied
[94,95]. Recently, Hou et al. [96,97] found that nano-SiO2 treat-
ment can increase the impermeability of hardened cement pastes,
because it can reduce the volume of pores larger than 50 nm, and
the threshold value of a pore network. The influence of nano-
SiO2 on the morphology of cement mortar is shown in Fig 5. It
can be seen that pores with a size of about 10 lm are easy to
observe in the untreated sample, while such pores become rare
in nano-SiO2-treated samples. Nano-MgO is another newly
explored chemical reactive nanocomponent in cement-based
materials though its application on surface treatment waits for fur-
ther investigation [147].
ð1Þ
Because of the good stability of calcium carbonate, many
researchers have used calcium carbonate precipitation for concrete
surface treatment. There are mainly two methods for generating
calcium carbonate precipitation on concrete surface: bacterial
induced carbonate mineralization and dimethyl carbonate (DMC)
solution. Some bacteria, such as ureolytic bacteria, can produce a
urease enzyme which can catalyze the hydrolysis of urea, and pro-
duce CO2 and ammonia [98–102]. The hydrolysis process increases
the pH, resulting in an increment of carbonate concentration, as
shown in Fig 6 [103]. Calcium carbonate crystals nucleate and pre-
cipitate on bacterial cells, which increases the resistance of cemen-
titious materials to aggressive substances. In terms of DMC, it is a
highly biodegradable and low toxicity solution. At room tempera-
ture and pressure, DMC can hydrolyze slowly and form carbonate
and methanol (CH3OH) [104,105]. CH3OH has no side-effects in
relation to the treatment and environment, because it will oxidize
into carbon dioxide and water in the air. On the other hand, car-
bonate can react with additive calcium ions, and thus forms car-
bonate precipitation. Though both methods are eco-friendly, they
still have some drawbacks. The culture of bacteria which induces
 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590 583

Fig. 6. The process of bacterial induced carbonate mineralization [103].

carbonate mineralization needs to be carefully controlled on con-
crete surface. In addition, the nutrient solution for the develop-
ment of these bacteria is expensive, and may result in
environmental eutrophication. The DMC solution is a green reagent
compared with many surface treatment agents, but its treatment
process must follow specific introduction practices and does not
provide a good protection effect without multi-treatment.
2.4. Multifunctional surface treatment
The existing classification does not include some newly devel-
oped surface treatments which have one or more of the three basic
functions mentioned above. Silane/clay nanocomposites, ethyl sil-
icate and super-hydrophobic paper sludge ash coating can be clas-
sified into this group.
Silane–clay nanocomposites are a new class of surface treat-
ment agent. They not only exhibit a hydrophobic effect, but also
change the microstructure in concrete cover. Woo et al. [62]
demonstrated that the effect of silane on reducing permeability
and chloride diffusion of concrete is substantially improved even
with the addition of clay particles. Typical SEM photographs of
concrete surfaces treated with silane–clay nanocomposite are
shown in Fig. 7 [54]. It can be clearly seen that silane–clay
nanocomposite coating blocks the micro pores presented on the
untreated concrete. In addition, coverage of micro-voids could
increase with clay content, which is directly attributed to the
impermeability of concrete to liquids or gases. Meanwhile, the
increase of clay content can reduce the surface roughness, and thus
decrease the surface area exposed to aggressive environments.
According to Woo et al. [62], the lowest permeability was obtained
when the clay content was 5 wt%. But they also reported that the
chloride diffusion resistance of silane–clay nanocomposite treat-
ment decreases compared with neat silane [59]. The possible rea-
son for this phenomenon is that the addition of clay particles
leads to higher viscosity and a poorer wetting property which
reduces its penetration depth, though the barrier properties
increase. As there are no experimental data about the penetration
depth of silane–clay nanocomposites, this hypothesis needs further
investigation [59,62].
Ethyl silicate (or tetraethylorthosilicate, TEOS) is an alkoxysi-
lane compound. It can be produced through the reaction between
alcohol and tetrachlorosilane. TEOS has been widely used in stone

Fig. 7. SEM photographs of untreated concrete surface (a), concrete treated with silane (b), silane-3 wt% clay nanocomposite (c), and silane-5 wt% clay nanocomposite (d)
[62].
584 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590

treatment and the refractory industry [106]. Recently, Franzoni 3. Factors influencing the performance of surface treatment
et al. [2,107] found that TEOS can effectively enhance the quality
of concrete surfaces by either brushing or immersion. The protection provided by surface treatments varies with the
TEOS itself does not have binding ability, but it can form a silica condition of the concrete substrate and treatment process
gel and fill the pore network through the hydrolyzing process. As [13,115]. To ensure good surface treatment of concrete, it is neces-
an alkoxysilane, its hydrophobic effect can last for more than sary to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the factors which
6 months [108], and therefore before hydrolysis completes it can affect the performance of surface treatment [116,117].
also protect the substrate by preventing the entry of corrosive sub-
stances. A two-stage reaction takes place as TEOS penetrates into
3.1. Air permeability
the capillary pores on concrete surface, as shown in Fig 8. Firstly,
TEOS hydrolyzes, forming silanol and ethanol. The silanol dehy-
Air permeability primarily influences the performance of
drates and condensates in the second stage in which silica gel pre-
surface-treated concrete in two aspects. On one hand, the greater
cipitates inside the pore structures. On the other hand, ethanol
the air permeability, the faster the carbonation rate, and thus, rein-
evaporates quickly leaving no damage to either the treatment or
forced steel bars are more susceptible to corrosion. Vries et al.
the substrate [109]. In addition, Pigino et al. [2] showed that TEOS
[115] found that diffusion of water vapor of surface-treated con-
displays pozzolanic behavior. It reacts with calcium hydroxide in
crete should be 60% less than that of untreated concrete. On the
concrete substrate, forming calcium silicate hydrate as shown in
other hand, sufficient permeability to water vapor should be
Fig. 9.
allowed, because concrete needs a certain degree of breathability.
The following reasons mainly guarantee that TEOS has potential
Otherwise, accumulation of water beneath the surface can cause
to protect concrete structure effectively in an environmentally
great damage in freezing and thawing cycles [9]. Moreover, Liu
friendly way: (1) TEOS has low viscosity and small molecular size
et al. [118] demonstrated that breathability affects the adhesion
which allows it to penetrate deeply into concrete substrate [110].
between the concrete matrix and coatings. Also, when the emis-
(2) The by-products of TEOS are non-toxic (water and ethanol).
sion rate of water vapor was less than 283 lg/s, the adhesion
(3) The silica gel has excellent compatibility with cementitious
strength between the coating and the concrete matrix was found
materials and good stability in outdoor environments; (4) TEOS
to significantly decrease [119]. Therefore, the effect of concrete
will not block all open pores and only partially reduces permeabil-
surface treatment on air permeability must be carefully consid-
ity to air [111]. However, it has three drawbacks: (1) slow reactive
ered. The air permeability of many polymer coatings, such as epoxy
rate [106]; (2) easy to crack during shrinkage and drying; and (3) a
and polyurethane, is almost zero [116], which is one of the main
limited effect on carbonated concrete since its effect is not signifi-
disadvantages of polymer coatings. Studies have shown that silane
cant in lime stone. These drawbacks might be improved by the
and siloxane do not have a significant effect on air permeability,
addition of a catalyst, nanoparticles, and additives, but these addi-
and thus they cannot resist the ingress of carbon dioxide [10].
tions require further investigation [112–114].
There are several methods for measuring the air permeability of

Fig. 8. Reaction of TEOS in concrete surface: (a) hydrolysis reaction, and (b) condensation reaction [107].

Fig. 9. The products of reaction between TEOS and Ca(OH)2 (left), and the chemical profile (right) [2].
 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
surface-treated concrete, including water absorption-desorption,
dry-cup/wet-cup method, and Autoclam air permeability [10].
3.2. Bonding strength
Surface treatment should have good adhesion to concrete sub-
strate, which can ensure its long-term performance and protection
of concrete. Previous investigation showed that the bonding
strength of coatings should be not less than 1.4 to 1.75 MPa
[120]. According to Berndt [121], the average bond strength of dif-
ferent epoxy coatings ranges between 2.9 and 4.0 MPa, and the
bond strength for cementitious mortar is about 2.2–3.3 MPa. These
adhesions are generally governed by several factors, such as prop-
erties of the coating and primer, the quality and condition of sub-
strate, and the method of application of coatings
[18,74,114,118,122]. Researchers have found that the surface
roughness of substrate might influence the adhesion of coatings.
And the roughness depends on the compressive strength of sub-
strate and the properties of aggregates [123–125]. It is known that
organic coatings will degrade after aging, but less research has
been focused on the bonding strength after aging of coating
systems.
As shown in Fig 10, ASTM D4541 and ASTM C321-00 can be
modified for measuring the bonding strength of coatings. In ASTM
D4541, the coated concrete is drilled by a diamond driller to sepa-
rate the center part of the coating from the whole coating system.
Then, a metal sheet is fixed on the coating using rapid setting
epoxy. The bonding strength equals the stress added to the metal
sheet when the coating separates from the substrate. This method
is widely used for in-situ testing, but is a time-consuming
approach [126]. Sometimes, the measurement is less accurate
because the coating system is susceptible to damage during the
preparation for testing. Liu et al. [127] modified ASTM C321-00
to determine the bonding strength of coatings. As shown in
Fig 10(b), two concrete blocks are bonded together by a layer of
coating, then loading is added to the blocks to separate them.
Recently, Czarnecki et al. [128] used an ultrasound approach to
measure the bonding strength. This is a non-destructive test, and
much more convenient in comparison with the previous discussed
approach, but still requires further research and improvement.
3.3. Penetration depth / coating thickness
Impregnation surface treatment agents should penetrate into
the substrate as deeply as possible to ensure long-term durability
[129,130]. There is no direct measurement to determine the pene-
tration depth of impregnation. Researchers have tried different
methods to investigate the penetration depth of impregnation,
Fig. 10. Testing for measuring coating bonding strength [118, 127, 128].
585
and the possible methods are summarized as follows: (1) The spec-
imen treated with the impregnation product is split into two parts,
and water is sprayed over the fracture surfaces. The penetration
depth is taken as the thickness of the hydrophobic layer [15]. This
simple method can evaluate the penetration depth quickly. How-
ever, it is a destructive method, and cannot be used for impregna-
tion treatments without hydrophobic effect. (2) The penetration
depth can be calculated though Eq. (2), proposed by Dhir et al.
[131]. This method assumes the treatment agent is distributed
equally at different depths, which is not the case in reality. (3)
Inductive coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-
OES) was used to measure the penetration depth through detecting
the chemical element profile in a concrete surface layer [4]. Though
this method can accurately measure the penetration depth, it is
time-consuming. (4) Red soluble pigment can be mixed with an
impregnation treatment agent, then the penetration depth is
determined by measuring the thickness of the red layer.
The penetration depth of surface treatment agents depends on
the following factors [2,129,131]: (1) properties of the surface
treatment agent, particularly the molecular size and viscosity; (2)
the type of solvent; (3) the properties of the concrete substrate,
such as porosity and saturation degree; (4) the reaction time;
and (5) reaction rate, such as the water-repellent film formed by
silane impeding its own penetration. Silanes and siloxanes can
penetrate into concrete and form a hydrophobic layer due to their
small molecular nature [85]. The penetration of alkyl triethoxysi-
lane is deeper than for other silanes due to its lower reaction rate.
According to Dai et al. [15], both silane-based gel and silane-based
cream can achieve deeper penetration than liquid silane. This is
because both gel and cream contain highly active silane content,
even though their viscosities are much higher than liquid-based
silane. Meanwhile, the liquid silane evaporates fast during applica-
tion, while silane gel and cream remain on the surface for a longer
time.
For surface coatings, their penetration depths are often a few
millimeters or even less. Therefore, penetration depth has little
effect on their protection. However, the coating thickness signifi-
cantly affects their performance [10,15,132]. Generally, coating
thickness can be measured directly. The thicknesses of concrete
coating can also be measured by a mobile nuclear magnetic reso-
nance (NMR) instrument. This method is a non-destructive tech-
nique, and can be used on site [133,134]. Recently, Sondej et al.
[135] proposed using X-ray micro-computed tomography and con-
focal laser-scanning microscopy as non-destructive techniques to
evaluate the coating thickness. However, this technique is cur-
rently only allowed to be used on circular concrete pipes now.
Table 2 summarizes several penetration depths of impregnation
treatment agents/thicknesses of concrete coatings.
586 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590

Table 2 combination makes a positive contribution to concrete with a

The penetration depth of impregnation treatment agent / thickness of concrete crack width of about 0.08 mm. A few studies have been carried
coating.
out to study the cracking resistance of surface treatments. Tittarelli
Ref. Treatment Measuring methods Penetration depth et al. [8] reported that silane can be used as a restorative method in
methods / thickness the presence of 0.5-mm wide cracks. Godkowska [139] developed a
[131] Epoxy resin Micrometer 200  400 lm model to calculate the cracking resistance of protective polymer
[132] Methacrylate Micrometer 100  150 lm coatings and polymer cement subjected to short-term and long-
[132] Acrylic Micrometer 100  300 lm
[15,129,133], Silane Hydrophobic layer/ About 12 mm
term loading. Though this forecasting method has potential for
NMR sensor application in the design of protective coatings, the experimental
[4] Ethyl silicate ICP-OES P19 mm test results are generally found to be higher than that obtained
[15] Sodium Hydrophobic layer Almost 0 mm by calculation. The reason is that the forecasting method only cal-
silicate
culates the mean stress, which is usually lower than the maximum
stress, as indicated in Fig 11.
DryWeighðgÞ There are two testing methods to measure the crack-bridging
WetWeighðgÞ

VolumeAppliedðcm3 Þ
Mean Penetration DepthðcmÞ ¼ ability of coatings. One of them measures the crack-bridging ability
Areaðcm2 Þ indirectly by measuring creep of coatings [126]. Strips of coatings
ð2Þ are fixed in two jaws and subjected to a constant stress of
0.5 MPa at room temperature. This method mainly considers the
3.4. Cracking resistance physical properties of coatings, but it is difficult to reflect the
actual situation. Another method is a direct crack-bridging test
With a relatively low tensile strength, concrete easily cracks [140–142]. A crack is cut by a saw on the center of a concrete slab.
[136,137]. Thus, barrier properties will be lost soon after the appli- Then, forces should be added to the concrete sample to control the
cation of any surface treatment system that does not have ade- development of the crack at about 0.5 mm/min. The stress is
quate crack healing ability or cracking resistance. Yoon [138] recorded in the displacement process, as shown in Fig 12. In the
found that polymer coatings and silane treatment can protect con- first stage, the crack develops with the increase of stress, and the
crete which has cracks with a maximum width of 0.06 mm. Their concrete slab finally breaks. After that, stress decreases rapidly

Fig. 11. Graph of the displacement (a) tensile strain (b) sharing strain in the coating-concrete (c) combining plane at relaxation zone length [139].
 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
Fig. 12. Stress of the concrete and coating system during a crack-bridging ability
testing [142].
and represents the crack-bridging ability of the coating. The
response of coating under loading is shown in stage III. Finally,
the abrupt change in the stress results from the failure of the coat-
ing near the cracking. Although the test can characterize the
behaviors of coating under cracking, during the experiment it must
be ensured that the concrete and coating are tested under pure
tensile stress which is difficult to obtain. Otherwise the accuracy
of the experiment cannot be guaranteed.
3.5. Substrate properties and application method
The effect of surface treatment is affected by age and water con-
tent of the concrete substrate, treatment methods (spraying,
brushing or immersion) and the amount of treatment agent [10].
Baltazar et al. [143] found that the effectiveness of surface treat-
ment is more significant in concrete with higher porosity, because
treatment agents can penetrate more easily and deeply into that
concrete. In addition, the capillary water might impede the pene-
tration of some treatment agents. Siloxane cannot be applied on
wet surface, while the alkyl triethoxysilane which undergoes
hydrolysis with water can be used on wet substrate. As for most
treatment agents, the age of the substrate also affects the effective-
ness of surface treatment. Hydrophobic treatment works for
10 years when treated on 6-month old concrete, but this long-
term effect cannot be achieved when treatment is applied on early
age concrete because the hydration of cement creates a new sur-
face which is hydrophilic [129]. It is reported that the surface
roughness of substrate might influence the adhesion of coatings
[123]. However, the effect of surface roughness is difficult to deter-
mine, because the roughness is hard to control without changing
the porosity of the substrate [143].
Application methods of surface treatment also have a great
impact on its effectiveness. Franzoni [4] found that concrete
immersed in TEOS performed better (in terms of duration tests)
than concrete brushed with TEOS. Medeiros et al. [144] showed
that the number of brushing times also affected the treatment
effect. Generally, the first brushing is most important, and the
hydrophobic effect does not increase proportionally with brushing
times. Table 3 shows the number of applications required for each
hydrophobic agent within the water absorption limit guidelines
established in the literature. This result is similar to that of the
study of Nwaubani et al. [145] on stone surface treatment.
587
Table 3
Number of coatings required to follow water absorption limit guidelines established
in literature [145].
Water Information source Material
absorption
Silane/ Silane/
Limit
siloxane siloxane
dispersed in dispersed in
water solvent
50% German Committee for 3 2
Reinforced Concrete
75% The US NHRP Report 244: >4 3
‘‘National Cooperative
Highway Research Program’’
80% Vries et al. >4 4
4. Summary and perspective
Protection through surface treatment is a complex issue, which
includes various physical–chemical mechanisms. On the basis of
the literature review, some conclusions can be drawn: (1) Surface
treatments can prevent the ingress of aggressive substances to
improve the performance and service-life of concrete structures.
According to the mechanism, surface treatment agents can be clas-
sified into four types: surface coating, hydrophobic impregnation,
pore blocking surface treatments and multifunctional surface
treatment agents. (2) Over the last three decades, there have been
many significant advances in surface treatment methods. New sur-
face treatment agents are emerging. The main tendency is to
improve their protective effect and resistance to weathering. (3)
Surface treatment is mainly affected by air permeability, bonding
strength, penetration depth/thickness, crack resistance, substrate
properties and application method. Therefore, the surface prepara-
tion of substrate before treatment is essential for its effectiveness
and failure patents.
To get a full understanding of surface treatment methods, the
following aspects need to be considered in future research: (1)
Though the mechanism of organic coating and silane/siloxane are
clarified, further experimental studies on polymer/clay nanocom-
posite coating and pore blocking treatment are needed. (2) The
protection provided by surface treatment agents varies according
to the condition of the concrete substrate and treatment process;
therefore, further studies are required to develop a selection
method. (3) The Ca(OH)2 content in hardened cement paste will
affect the reaction of silane, ethyl silicate, and silicate-based pore
blocking treatments, but there is no research showing the effect
of cement type on the selection of surface treatment. (4) There
are no definitive acceptance criteria for many of the properties dis-
cussed in this article. (5) Specifications and guidelines for treat-
ment methods and preconditioning of concrete substrate are very
important and necessary.
References
[1] S. Pour-Ali, C. Dehghanian, A. Kosari, Corrosion protection of the reinforcing
steels in chloride-laden concrete environment through epoxy/polyaniline–
camphorsulfonate nanocomposite coating, Corros. Sci. 90 (2015) 239–247.
[2] B. Pigino, A. Leemann, E. Franzoni, P. Lura, Ethyl silicate for surface treatment
of concrete–Part II: characteristics and performance, Cement Concr. Compos.
34 (3) (2012) 313–321.
[3] F. Pacheco-Torgal, S. Jalali, Sulphuric acid resistance of plain, polymer
modified, and fly ash cement concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (12) (2009)
3485–3491.
[4] E. Franzoni, H. Varum, M.E. Natali, M.C. Bignozzi, J. Melo, L. Rocha, E. Pereira,
Improvement of historic reinforced concrete/mortars by impregnation and
electrochemical methods, Cement Concr. Compos. 49 (2014) 50–58.
[5] A.A. Almusallam, F.M. Khan, S.U. Dulaijan, O. Al-Amoudi, Effectiveness of
surface coatings in improving concrete durability, Cement Concr. Compos. 25
(4) (2003) 473–481.
[6] E. Nolan, P. Basheer, A.E. Long, Effects of three durability enhancing products
on some physical properties of near surface concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 9
(5) (1995) 267–272.
588 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
[7] H.E. Cardenas, L.J. Struble, Electrokinetic nanoparticle treatment of hardened
cement paste for reduction of permeability, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (4) (2006)
554–560.
[8] F. Tittarelli, G. Moriconi, Comparison between surface and bulk hydrophobic
treatment against corrosion of galvanized reinforcing steel in concrete, Cem.
Concr. Res. 41 (6) (2011) 609–614.
[9] I.J. De Vries, R.B. Polder, Hydrophobic treatment of concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 11 (4) (1997) 259–265.
[10] P. Basheer, L. Basheer, D.J. Cleland, A.E. Long, Surface treatments for concrete:
assessmentmethods and reported performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 11 (7)
(1997) 413–429.
[11] X. Pan, Z. Shi, C. Shi, T.C. Ling, N. Li, A review on surface treatment for concrete
– Part 2: performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 2016 [accepted].
[12] M. Delucchi, A. Barbucci, G. Cerisola, Study of the physico-chemical
properties of organic coatings for concrete degradation control, Constr.
Build. Mater. 11 (7) (1997) 365–371.
[13] C.M. Hansson, L. Mammoliti, B.B. Hope, Corrosion inhibitors in concrete—part
I: the principles, Cem. Concr. Res. 28 (12) (1998) 1775–1781.
[14] E. Franzoni, B. Pigino, C. Pistolesi, Ethyl silicate for surface protection of
concrete: performance in comparison with other inorganic surface
treatments, Cement Concr. Compos. 44 (2013) 69–76.
[15] J. Dai, Y. Akira, F.H. Wittmann, H. Yokota, P. Zhang, Water repellent surface
impregnation for extension of service life of reinforced concrete structures in
marine environments: the role of cracks, Cement Concr. Compos. 32 (2)
(2010) 101–109.
[16] L. Bertolini, B. Elsener, P. Pedeferri, E. Redaelli, R.B. Polder, Corrosion of Steel
in Concrete: Prevention, Diagnosis, Repair, John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[17] M.H. Medeiros, P. Helene, Surface treatment of reinforced concrete in marine
environment: influence on chloride diffusion coefficient and capillary water
absorption, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (3) (2009) 1476–1484.
[18] M.V. Diamanti, A. Brenna, F. Bolzoni, M. Berra, T. Pastore, M. Ormellese, Effect
of polymer modified cementitious coatings on water and chloride
permeability in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 720–728.
[19] A.S. Zerda, A.J. Lesser, Intercalated clay nanocomposites: morphology,
mechanics, and fracture behavior, J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 39 (11)
(2001) 1137–1146.
[20] A.C. Moloney, H.H. Kausch, T. Kaiser, H.R. Beer, Parameters determining the
strength and toughness of particulate filled epoxide resins, J. Mater. Sci. 22 (2)
(1987) 381–393.
[21] J.J. Chruściel, E. Leśniak, Modification of epoxy resins with functional silanes,
polysiloxanes, silsesquioxanes, silica and silicates, Prog. Polym. Sci. 41 (2015)
67–121. Topical Issue On Polymer Chemistry.
[22] B. Reddy, J.M. Sykes, Degradation of organic coatings in a corrosive
environment: a study by scanning Kelvin probe and scanning acoustic
microscope, Prog. Org. Coat. 52 (4) (2005) 280–287.
[23] B. Wetzel, F. Haupert, M. Qiu Zhang, Epoxy nanocomposites with high
mechanical and tribological performance, Compos. Sci. Technol. 63 (14)
(2003) 2055–2067.
[24] S. Yamini, R.J. Young, Stability of crack propagation in epoxy resins, Polymer
18 (10) (1977) 1075–1080.
[25] S. Ahmad, A.P. Gupta, E. Sharmin, M. Alam, S.K. Pandey, Synthesis,
characterization and development of high performance siloxane-modified
epoxy paints, Prog. Org. Coat. 54 (3) (2005) 248–255.
[26] T.T. Velan, I.M. Bilal, Aliphatic amine cured PDMS-epoxy interpenetrating
network system for high performance engineering applications—
Development and characterization, Bull. Mater. Sci. 23 (5) (2000) 425–429.
[27] I. Yarovsky, E. Evans, Computer simulation of structure and properties of
crosslinked polymers: application to epoxy resins, Polymer 43 (3) (2002)
963–969.
[28] E. Carretti, L. Dei, Physicochemical characterization of acrylic polymeric
resins coating porous materials of artistic interest, Prog. Org. Coat. 49 (3)
(2004) 282–289.
[29] Ö. Topçuoğlu, S.A. Altinkaya, D. Balköse, Characterization of waterborne
acrylic based paint films and measurement of their water vapor
permeabilities, Prog. Org. Coat. 56 (4) (2006) 269–278.
[30] M. Sangermano, D. Foix, G. Kortaberria, M. Messori, Multifunctional antistatic
and scratch resistant UV-cured acrylic coatings, Prog. Org. Coat. 76 (9) (2013)
1191–1196.
[31] A. Kozak, Multi-criteria assessment of an acrylic coating exposed to natural
and artificial weathering, Procedia Eng. 108 (2015) 664–672.
[32] D.K. Chattopadhyay, D.B. Rohini Kumar, B. Sreedhar, K. Raju, Thermal stability
and dynamic mechanical behavior of acrylic resin and acrylic melamine
coatings, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 91 (1) (2004) 27–34.
[33] O.D. Lewis, G.W. Critchlow, G.D. Wilcox, J. Sander, A study of the corrosion
resistance of a waterborne acrylic coating modified with nano-sized titanium
dioxide, Prog. Org. Coat. 73 (1) (2012) 88–94.
[34] H.A. Toutanji, H. Choi, D. Wong, J.A. Gilbert, D.J. Alldredge, Applying a
polyurea coating to high-performance organic cementitious materials,
Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (2013) 1170–1179.
[35] P.A. Sørensen, S. Kiil, K. Dam-Johansen, C.E. Weinell, Anticorrosive coatings: a
review, J. Coat. Technol. Res. 6 (2) (2009) 135–176.
[36] W.H. Awad, C.A. Wilkie, Investigation of the thermal degradation of polyurea:
the effect of ammonium polyphosphate and expandable graphite, Polymer 51
(11) (2010) 2277–2285.
[37] E. Zur, Polyurea–the new generation of lining and coating, Adv. Mater. Res. 95
(2010) 85–86.
[38] X.F. Yang, C. Vang, D.E. Tallman, G.P. Bierwagen, S.G. Croll, S. Rohlik,
Weathering degradation of a polyurethane coating, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 74
(2) (2001) 341–351.
[39] X.F. Yang, D.E. Tallman, G.P. Bierwagen, S.G. Croll, S. Rohlik, Blistering and
degradation of polyurethane coatings under different accelerated weathering
tests, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 77 (1) (2002) 103–109.
[40] H.A. Toutanji, H. Choi, D. Wong, J.A. Gilbert, D.J. Alldredge, Applying a
polyurea coating to high-performance organic cementitious materials,
Constr. Build. Mater. 38 (2013) 1170–1179. 25th Anniversary Session for
ACI 228 – Building on the Past for the Future of NDT of Concrete.
[41] X.F. Yang, D.E. Tallman, S.G. Croll, G.P. Bierwagen, Morphological changes in
polyurethane coatings on exposure to water, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 77 (3)
(2002) 391–396.
[42] A.D. Drozdov, J.D. Christiansen, R.K. Gupta, A.P. Shah, Model for anomalous
moisture diffusion through a polymer–clay nanocomposite, J. Polym. Sci. Part
B Polym. Phys. 41 (5) (2003) 476–492.
[43] C. Shen, G.S. Springer, Moisture absorption and desorption of composite
materials, J. Compos. Mater. 10 (1) (1976) 2–20.
[44] J. Kim, C. Hu, R.S. Woo, M. Sham, Moisture barrier characteristics of
organoclay–epoxy nanocomposites, Compos. Sci. Technol. 65 (5) (2005)
805–813.
[45] C. Maggana, P. Pissis, Water sorption and diffusion studies in an epoxy resin
system, J. Polym. Sci. Part B Polym. Phys. 37 (11) (1999) 1165–1182.
[46] M.R. Vanlandingham, R.F. Eduljee, J.W. Gillespie, Moisture diffusion in epoxy
systems, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 71 (5) (1999 Jan 31) 787–798.
[47] C. Perez, A. Collazo, M. Izquierdo, P. Merino, X.R. Nóvoa, Characterisation of
the barrier properties of different paint systems: part II. Non-ideal diffusion
and water uptake kinetics, Prog. Org. Coat. 37 (3) (1999) 169–177.
[48] C. Vipulanandan, J. Liu, Performance of polyurethane-coated concrete in
sewer environment, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (9) (2005) 1754–1763.
[49] S.J. Hinder, C. Lowe, J.T. Maxted, C. Perruchot, J.F. Watts, Intercoat adhesion
failure in a multilayer organic coating system: an X-ray photoelectron
spectroscopy study, Prog. Org. Coat. 54 (1) (2005) 20–27.
[50] F. Perrin, C. Merlatti, E. Aragon, A. Margaillan, Degradation study of polymer
coating: improvement in coating weatherability testing and coating failure
prediction, Prog. Org. Coat. 64 (4) (2009) 466–473.
[51] R.S. Woo, H. Zhu, C.K. Leung, J. Kim, Environmental degradation of epoxy-
organoclay nanocomposites due to UV exposure: part II residual mechanical
properties, Compos. Sci. Technol. 68 (9) (2008) 2149–2155.
[52] G. Choudalakis, A.D. Gotsis, Permeability of polymer/clay nanocomposites: a
review, Eur. Polym. J. 45 (4) (2009) 967–984.
[53] S. Pavlidou, C.D. Papaspyrides, A review on polymer–layered silicate
nanocomposites, Prog. Polym. Sci. 33 (12) (2008) 1119–1198.
[54] G.M. Russo, G.P. Simon, L. Incarnato, Correlation between rheological,
mechanical, and barrier properties in new copolyamide-based
nanocomposite films, Macromolecules 39 (11) (2006) 3855–3864.
[55] C. Hu, J. Kim, Epoxy-organoclay nanocomposites: morphology, moisture
absorption behavior and thermo-mechanical properties, Compos. Interfaces
12 (3–4) (2005) 271–289.
[56] H. Fischer, Polymer nanocomposites: from fundamental research to specific
applications, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 23 (6) (2003) 763–772.
[57] S.C. Tjong, Structural and mechanical properties of polymer nanocomposites,
Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 53 (3) (2006) 73–197.
[58] A.P. Kumar, D. Depan, N.S. Tomer, R.P. Singh, Nanoscale particles for polymer
degradation and stabilization-trends and future perspectives, Prog. Polym.
Sci. 34 (6) (2009) 479–515.
[59] C.K. Leung, H. Zhu, J. Kim, R.S. Woo, Use of polymer/organoclay
nanocomposite surface treatment as water/ion barrier for concrete, J.
Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (7) (2008) 484–492.
[60] P. Scarfato, L. Di Maio, M.L. Fariello, P. Russo, L. Incarnato, Preparation and
evaluation of polymer/clay nanocomposite surface treatments for
concrete durability enhancement, Cement Concr. Compos. 34 (3) (2012)
297–305.
[61] S.S. Ray, M. Okamoto, Polymer/layered silicate nanocomposites: a review
from preparation to processing, Prog. Polym. Sci. 28 (11) (2003) 1539–1641.
[62] R.S. Woo, H. Zhu, M.M. Chow, C.K. Leung, J. Kim, Barrier performance of
silane–clay nanocomposite coatings on concrete structure, Compos. Sci.
Technol. 68 (14) (2008) 2828–2836.
[63] P. Manoudis, S. Papadopoulou, I. Karapanagiotis, A. Tsakalof, I. Zuburtikudis,
C. Panayiotou, Polymer-Silica nanoparticles composite films as protective
coatings for stone-based monuments, Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
IOP Publishing, 2007.
[64] P.M. Carmona-Quiroga, S. Martínez-Ramírez, I. Sobrados, M.T. Blanco-Varela,
Interaction between two anti-graffiti treatments and cement mortar (paste),
Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (5) (2010) 723–730.
[65] I. Hackman, L. Hollaway, Epoxy-layered silicate nanocomposites in civil
engineering, Compos. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 37 (8) (2006) 1161–1170.
[66] R.S.C. Woo, Y. Chen, H. Zhu, J. Li, J. Kim, C.K.Y. Leung, Environmental
degradation of epoxy–organoclay nanocomposites due to UV exposure.
Part I: poto-degradation, Compos. Sci. Technol. 67 (15–16) (2007) 3448–
3456.
[67] Y. Kojima, A. Usuki, M. Kawasumi, A. Okada, Y. Fukushima, T. Kurauchi, O.
Kamigaito, Mechanical properties of nylon 6-clay hybrid, J. Mater. Res. 8 (05)
(1993) 1185–1189.
[68] L. Shi, J. Liu, J. Liu, Influence and mechanism of polymer coating on concrete
carbonation, J. Southeast Univer. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 40 (2) (2010) 208–213.
 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
[69] S. Dong, Preparation for Polymer Modified Cementitious Waterproofing
Coating and Study on its Properties and Microstructure, Chongqing
University, 2002.
[70] R.N. Swamy, S. Tanikawa, An external surface coating to protect concrete and
steel from aggressive environments, Mater. Struct. 26 (8) (1993) 465–478.
[71] G. Sergi, A. Seneviratne, M.T. Maleki, M. Sadegzadeh, C.L. Page, Control of
reinforcement corrosion by surface treatment of concrete, Proc. ICE Strct.
Build. 140 (1) (2000) 85–100.
[72] A.M.G. Seneviratne, G. Sergi, C.L. Page, Performance characteristics of surface
coatings applied to concrete for control of reinforcement corrosion, Constr.
Build. Mater. 14 (1) (2000) 55–59.
[73] R.N. Swamy, A.K. Suryavanshi, S. Tanikawa, Protective ability of an acrylic-
based surface coating system against chloride and carbonation penetration
into concrete, ACI Mater. J. 95 (1998) 2.
[74] F. Pacheco-Torgal, Z. Abdollahnejad, S. Miraldo, S. Baklouti, Y. Ding, An
overview on the potential of geopolymers for concrete infrastructure
rehabilitation, Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (36) (2012 Nov) 1053–1058.
[75] Z. Zhang, X. Yao, H. Zhu, Potential application of geopolymers as protection
coatings for marine concrete: I. Basic properties, Appl. Clay Sci. 49 (1) (2010)
1–6.
[76] Z. Zhang, X. Yao, H. Zhu, Potential application of geopolymers as protection
coatings for marine concrete: II. Microstructure and anticorrosion
mechanism, Appl. Clay Sci. 49 (1) (2010) 7–12.
[77] Z. Zhang, X. Yao, H. Wang, Potential application of geopolymers as protection
coatings for marine concrete III. Field experiment, Appl. Clay Sci. 67–68 (0)
(2012) 57–60.
[78] P. Balaguru, Geopolymer for Protecting Coating of Transportation
Infrastructures, Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation
(CAIT), Civil & Environmental Engineering, Rutgers State University,
Piscataway, 2002.
[79] C.G. Papakonstantinou, P.N. Balaguru, Geopolymer protective coatings for
concrete, in: International SAMPE symposium and exhibition (proceedings),
vol. 52; 2007.
[80] P.N. Balaguru, M. Nazier, M.D. Arafa, M.R. Sasor, Field Implementation of
Geopolymer Coatings, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Rutgers
State University, Piscataway, 2008.
[81] M.S.S. Salwa, A.M.M. Al Bakri, H. Kamarudin, C.M. Ruzaidi, M. Binhussain, S.S.
Zaliha, Review on current geopolymer as a coating material, Aust. J. Basic
Appl. Sci. 7 (5) (2013) 246–257.
[82] G. Batis, P. Pantazopoulou, A. Routoulas, Corrosion protection investigation of
reinforcement by inorganic coating in the presence of alkanolamine-based
inhibitor, Cement Concr. Compos. 25 (3) (2003) 371–377.
[83] K. Johnson, A.E. Schultz, C. French, J. Reneson, Crack and Concrete Deck
Sealant Performance, 2009.
[84] E. McGettigan, Factors Affecting the Selection of water-repellent treatments,
APT Bull. (1995) 22–26.
[85] J. Li, Z. Yi, Y. Xie, Progress of Silane Impregnating Surface Treatment
Technology of Concrete Structure, Mater. Rev. 26 (3) (2012) 120–125.
[86] H.Y. Moon, D.G. Shin, D.S. Choi, Evaluation of the durability of mortar and
concrete applied with inorganic coating material and surface treatment
system, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (2) (2007) 362–369.
[87] L. Jiang, X. Xue, W. Zhang, J. Yang, H. Zhang, Y. Li, R. Zhang, Z. Zhang, L. Xu, J.
Qu, The investigation of factors affecting the water impermeability of
inorganic sodium silicate-based concrete sealers, Constr. Build. Mater. 93
(2015) 729–736.
[88] X. Pan, C. Shi, L. Jia, J. Zhang, L. Wu, Effect of inorganic surface treatment on air
permeability of cement-based materials, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 04015145 (2015).
[89] K. Kupwade-Patil, H.E. Cardenas, K. Gordon, L.S. Lee, Corrosion mitigation in
reinforced concrete beams via nanoparticle treatment, ACI Mater. J. 109 (6)
(2012).
[90] L. Jia, C. Shi, X. Pan, J. Zhang, L. Wu, Effects of inorganic surface treatment on
water permeability of cement-based materials, Cement Concr. Compos.
(2016).
[91] M. Ibrahim, A.S. Al-Gahtani, M. Maslehuddin, F.H. Dakhil, Use of surface
treatment materials to improve concrete durability, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 11 (1)
(1999) 36–40.
[92] H.E. Cardenas, Nanomaterials in Concrete: Advances in Protection, Repair,
and Upgrade, DEStech Publications, 2012.
[93] H. Wu, F.T. Isfahani, W. Jin, C. Xu, E. Redaelli, L. Bertolini, Modification of
properties of reinforced concrete through nanoalumina electrokinetic
treatment, Constr. Build. Mater. 126 (2016) 857–867.
[94] L.P. Singh, S.R. Karade, S.K. Bhattacharyya, M.M. Yousuf, S. Ahalawat,
Beneficial role of nanosilica in cement based materials–a review, Constr.
Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1069–1077.
[95] M.I. Abdou, H. Abuseda, Upgrading offshore pipelines concrete coated by
silica fume additive against aggressive mechanical laying and environmental
impact, Egypt. J. Petrol. (2015).
[96] P. Hou, X. Cheng, J. Qian, S.P. Shah, Effects and mechanisms of surface
treatment of hardened cement-based materials with colloidal nanoSiO2 and
its precursor, Constr. Build. Mater. 53 (2014) 66–73.
[97] P. Hou, X. Cheng, J. Qian, R. Zhang, W. Cao, S.P. Shah, Characteristics of
surface-treatment of nano-SiO2 on the transport properties of hardened
cement pastes with different water-to-cement ratios, Cement Concr. Compos.
55 (2015) 26–33.
589
[98] W. De Muynck, K. Cox, N. De Belie, W. Verstraete, Bacterial carbonate
precipitation as an alternative surface treatment for concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 22 (5) (2008) 875–885.
[99] W. De Muynck, D. Debrouwer, N. De Belie, W. Verstraete, Bacterial carbonate
precipitation improves the durability of cementitious materials, Cem. Concr.
Res. 38 (7) (2008) 1005–1014.
[100] W. De Muynck, N. De Belie, W. Verstraete, Microbial carbonate precipitation
in construction materials: a review, Ecol. Eng. 36 (2) (2010) 118–136.
[101] R. Siddique, N.K. Chahal, Effect of ureolytic bacteria on concrete properties,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (10) (2011) 3791–3801.
[102] F. Pacheco-Torgal, J.A. Labrincha, Biotech cementitious materials: some
aspects of an innovative approach for concrete with enhanced durability,
Constr. Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 1136–1141.
[103] S.G. Gupta, C. Rathi, S. Kapur, Biologically induced self healing concrete: a
futuristic solution for crack repair, Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. 1 (3) (2013)
85–89.
[104] S. Amidi, J. Wang, Surface treatment of concrete bricks using calcium
carbonate precipitation, Constr. Build. Mater. 80 (2015) 273–278.
[105] M. Faatz, F. Gröhn, G. Wegner, Mineralization of calcium carbonate by
controlled release of carbonate in aqueous solution, Mater. Sci. Eng. C 25 (2)
(2005) 153–159.
[106] G.G. Amoroso, V. Fassina, Stone Decay and Conservation: Atmospheric
Pollution, Cleaning, Consolidation and Protection, Elsevier Science
Publishers, 1983.
[107] F. Sandrolini, E. Franzoni, B. Pigino, Ethyl silicate for surface treatment of
concrete – Part I: pozzolanic effect of ethyl silicate, Cement Concr. Compos.
34 (3) (2012) 306–312.
[108] G.W. Scherer, G.S. Wheeler, Silicate consolidants for stone, Key Engineering
Materials, Trans Tech Publ., 2009.
[109] R. Zárraga, J. Cervantes, C. Salazar-Hernandez, G. Wheeler, Effect of the
addition of hydroxyl-terminated polydimethylsiloxane to TEOS-based stone
consolidants, J. Cult. Heritage 11 (2) (2010) 138–144.
[110] M.J. Mosquera, D.M. de Los Santos, A. Montes, L. Valdez-Castro, New
nanomaterials for consolidating stone, Langmuir 24 (6) (2008) 2772–2778.
[111] J.D. Rodrigues, Consolidation of decayed stones. A delicate problem with few
practical solutions, Historical Constructions, 2001, pp. 3–14.
[112] C. Miliani, M.L. Velo-Simpson, G.W. Scherer, Particle-modified consolidants: a
study on the effect of particles on sol–gel properties and consolidation
effectiveness, J. Cult. Heritage 8 (1) (2007) 1–6.
[113] E.K. Kim, J. Won, J. Do, S.D. Kim, Y.S. Kang, Effects of silica nanoparticle and
GPTMS addition on TEOS-based stone consolidants, J. Cult. Heritage 10 (2)
(2009) 214–221.
[114] P. Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki, N. Kallithrakas-Kontos, Z. Agioutantis, S.
Maurigiannakis, D. Korakaki, A comparative study of porous limestones
treated with silicon-based strengthening agents, Prog. Org. Coat. 62 (1)
(2008) 49–60.
[115] R.B. Polder, H. Borsje H. De Vries, Hydrophobic treatment of concrete against
chloride penetration, in: Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete
Construction. Proceedings of Fourth International Symposium, Cambridge,
1–4 July 1996. Special Publication No 183. 1996.
[116] Y. Dang, N. Xie, A. Kessel, E. McVey, A. Pace, X. Shi, Accelerated laboratory
evaluation of surface treatments for protecting concrete bridge decks from
salt scaling, Constr. Build. Mater. 55 (2014) 128–135.
[117] R. Singh, Chapter Nine - High-Efficiency Coating and Cathodic Protection, in
Corrosion Control for Offshore Structures, Gulf Professional Publishing,
Boston, 2014, pp. 131–147.
[118] J. Liu, C. Vipulanandan, Evaluating a polymer concrete coating for protecting
non-metallic underground facilities from sulfuric acid attack, Tunn. Undergr.
Space Technol. 16 (4) (2001) 311–321.
[119] B.A. Suprenant, W.R. Malisch, Effect of water-vapor emissions on floor-
covering adhesives, Concr. Constr. (1999).
[120] J.B. Soebbing, R.R. Skabo, H.E. Michel, G. Guthikonda, A.H. Sharaf,
Rehabilitating water and wastewater treatment plants, J. Protective Coat.
Linings 13 (5) (1996) 54–64.
[121] M.L. Berndt, Evaluation of coatings, mortars and mix design for protection of
concrete against sulphur oxidising bacteria, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (10)
(2011) 3893–3902.
[122] T. Nguyen, E. Byrd, D. Bentz, C. Lint, In situ measurement of water at the
organic coating/substrate interface, Prog. Org. Coat. 27 (1) (1996) 181–193.
[123] A. Garbacz, L. Courard, K. Kostana, Characterization of concrete surface
roughness and its relation to adhesion in repair systems, Mater. Charact. 56
(4) (2006) 281–289.
[124] A. Garbacz, M. Górka, L. Courard, Effect of concrete surface treatment on
adhesion in repair systems, Mag. Concr. Res. 57 (1) (2005) 49–60.
[125] S. Czarnecki, J. Hoła, Evaluation of the height 3D roughness parameters of
concrete substrate and the adhesion to epoxy resin, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes.
(2015).
[126] J. Liu, C. Vipulanandan, Tensile bonding strength of epoxy coatings to
concrete substrate, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (7) (2005) 1412–1419.
[127] C. Shi, Y. Mo, High-Performance Construction Materials: Science and
Applications, World Scientific, 2008, p. 1.
[128] L. Czarnecki, A. Garbacz, M. Krystosiak, On the ultrasonic assessment of
adhesion between polymer coating and concrete substrate, Cement Concr.
Compos. 28 (4) (2006) 360–369.
590 X. Pan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 132 (2017) 578–590
[129] L. Schueremans, D. Van Gemert, S. Giessler, Chloride penetration in RC-
structures in marine environment–long term assessment of a preventive
hydrophobic treatment, Constr. Build. Mater. 21 (6) (2007) 1238–1249.
[130] M. Bofeldt, B. Nyman, Penetration depth of hydrophobic impregnating agents
for concrete, Int. J. Restor. Build. Monuments 8 (2/3) (2002) 217–232.
[131] M.R. Jones, R.K. Dhir, J.P. Gill, Concrete surface treatment: effect of exposure
temperature on chloride diffusion resistance, Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (1) (1995)
97–208.
[132] M. Bethencourt, F.J. Botana, M.J. Cano, R.M. Osuna, M. Marcos, Lifetime
prediction of waterborne acrylic paints with the AC–DC–AC method, Prog.
Org. Coat. 49 (3) (2004) 275–281.
[133] J. Orlowsky, Measuring the layer thicknesses of concrete coatings by mobile
NMR – a study on the influence of steel reinforcements, Constr. Build. Mater.
27 (1) (2012) 341–349.
[134] J. Orlowsky, M. Raupach, M. Baias, B. Blümich, Application of the NMR-
technique to concrete coatings, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting (ICCRRR),
Cape Town, South Africa, 2008.
[135] F. Sondej, A. Bück, E. Tsotsas, Comparative analysis of the coating thickness
on single particles using X-ray micro-computed tomography and confocal
laser-scanning microscopy, Powder Technol. 287 (2016) 330–340.
[136] W. Khaliq, M.B. Ehsan, Crack healing in concrete using various bio influenced
self-healing techniques, Constr. Build. Mater. 102 (2016) 349–357.
[137] Q. Liu, J. Yang, J. Xia, D. Easterbrook, L. Li, X. Lu, A numerical study on chloride
migration in cracked concrete using multi-component ionic transport
models, Comput. Mater. Sci. 99 (2015) 396–416.
[138] I. Yoon, Chloride penetration through cracks in high-performance concrete
and surface treatment system for crack healing, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. (2012).
[139] W. Głodkowska, Forecasting crack resistance of short- and long-term loaded
coatings, Arch. Civil Mech. Eng. 11 (1) (2011) 33–44.
[140] M. Delucchi, A. Barbucci, G. Cerisola, Crack-bridging ability and liquid water
permeability of protective coatings for concrete, Prog. Org. Coat. 33 (1) (1998)
76–82.
[141] M. Delucchi, A. Barbucci, T. Temtchenko, T. Poggio, G. Cerisola, Study of the
crack-bridging ability of organic coatings for concrete: analysis of the
mechanical behaviour of unsupported and supported films, Prog. Org. Coat.
44 (4) (2002) 261–269.
[142] M. Delucchi, A. Barbucci, G. Cerisola, Crack-bridging ability of organic
coatings for concrete: influence of the method of concrete cracking,
thickness and nature of the coating, Prog. Org. Coat. 49 (4) (2004) 336–341.
[143] L. Baltazar, J. Santana, B. Lopes, M. Paula Rodrigues, J.R. Correia, Surface skin
protection of concrete with silicate-based impregnations: influence of the
substrate roughness and moisture, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 191–200.
[144] M. Medeiros, P. Helene, Efficacy of surface hydrophobic agents in reducing
water and chloride ion penetration in concrete, Mater. Struct. 41 (1) (2008)
59–71.
[145] S.O. Nwaubani, M. Mulheron, G.P. Tilly, B. Schwamborn, Pore-structure and
water transport properties of surfacetreated building stones, Mater. Struct.
33 (3) (2000) 198–206.
[146] M. Parghi, M. Shahria Alam, Effects of curing regimes on the mechanical
properties and durability of polymer-modified mortars–an experimental
investigation, J. Sustain. Cement-Based Mater. 5 (5) (2016) 324–347.
[147] S.P. Shah, P. Hou, M.S. Konsta-Gdoutos, Nano-modification of cementitious
material: toward a stronger and durable concrete, J. Sustain. Cement-Based
Mater. 5 (1–2) (2016) 1–22.