Comparative evaluation of laboratory methods for performance assessment of cementitious materials in wastewater networks: Biological and chemical tests versus field exposure

Alexandra Bertron*, Cyrill Vallazza-Grengg, Matthieu Peyre Lavigne, Holger Wack, Gregor Gluth, Amr Aboulela, Vanessa Sonois, Tilman Gehrke, Florian Mittermayr

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The biodeterioration of concrete elements in sewer systems and their repair is of significant economic and societal concern. However, the available test methods to assess the performance of cementitious materials under the relevant conditions are insufficiently validated. In the present study, two biological test methods and a standardised chemical test were applied to two sewer repair mortars and a reference mortar, and the performances of these materials were compared in a severely deteriorating sewer environment. In both biological tests, the induction period was considerably shorter than that of the field, and time-resolved recording of durability indicators enabled to determine deterioration rates in the steady-state regime, which compared reasonably well with each other and with the behaviour in the sewer environment. The chemical test does not allow to obtain a deterioration rate, and the observed relative performance differences of the mortars deviated from the results of the biological tests.
Original languageEnglish
Article number107741
Number of pages18
JournalCement and Concrete Research
Volume188
Issue number107741
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2025

Keywords

  • Microbially-induced concrete deterioration
  • Biodeterioration
  • Sulfuric acid attack
  • test methods
  • Test methods

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Building and Construction
  • General Materials Science

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparative evaluation of laboratory methods for performance assessment of cementitious materials in wastewater networks: Biological and chemical tests versus field exposure'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this