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

The chemical reaction between CO₂and a blended Portland cement concrete, referred to as carbonation, can lead to reduced performance, particularly when concrete is exposed to elevated levels of CO₂(i.e., accelerated carbonation conditions). When slight changes in concrete mix designs or testing conditions are adopted, conflicting carbonation results are often reported. The RILEM TC 281-CCC ‘Carbonation of Concrete with Supplementary Cementitious Materials’ has conducted a critical analysis of the standardised testing methodologies that are currently applied to determine carbonation resistance of concrete in different regions. There are at least 17 different standards or recommendations being actively used for this purpose, with significant differences in sample curing, pre-conditioning, carbonation exposure conditions, and methods used for determination of carbonation depth after exposure. These differences strongly influence the carbonation depths recorded and the carbonation coefficient values calculated. Considering the importance of accurately determining carbonation potential of concrete, not just for predicting their durability performance, but also for determining the amount of CO₂that concrete can re-absorb during or after its service life, it is imperative to recognise the applicability and limitations of the results obtained from different tests. This will enable researchers and practitioners to adopt the most appropriate testing methodologies to evaluate carbonation resistance, depending on the purpose of the conclusions derived from such testing (e. g. materials selection, service life prediction, CO₂capture potential).

The RILEM TC 281–CCC ‘‘Carbonation of concrete with supplementary cementitious materials’’ conducted a study on the effects of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) on the carbonation rate of blended cement concretes and mortars. In this context, a comprehensive database has been established, consisting of 1044 concrete and mortar mixes with their associated carbonation depth data over time. The dataset comprises mix designs with a large variety of binders with up to 94% SCMs, collected from the literature as well as unpublished testing reports. The data includes chemical composition and physical properties of the raw materials, mix-designs, compressive strengths, curing and carbonation testing conditions. Natural carbonation was recorded for several years in many cases with both indoor and outdoor results. The database has been analysed to investigate the effects of binder composition and mix design, curing and preconditioning, and relative humidity on the carbonation rate. Furthermore, the accuracy of accelerated carbonation testing as well as possible correlations between compressive strength and carbonation resistance were evaluated. One approach to summerise the physical and chemical resistance in one parameter is the ratio of water content to content of carbonatable CaO (w/CaO_reactive ratio). The analysis revealed that the w/CaO_reactive ratio is a decisive factor for carbonation resistance, while curing and exposure conditions also influence carbonation. Under natural exposure conditions, the carbonation data exhibit significant variations. Nevertheless, probabilistic inference suggests that both accelerated and natural carbonation processes follow a square-root-of-time behavior, though accelerated and natural carbonation cannot be converted into each other without corrections. Additionally, a machine learning technique was employed to assess the influence of parameters governing the carbonation progress in concretes.

With steadily rising CO₂ concentrations in the ambient air and fast-changing concrete compositions with reduced clinker contents, the availability of reliable and accelerated concrete carbonation tests is of crucial importance to design durable structures. This paper focuses on the effects of moisture under accelerated conditions and the effects of different CO₂ exposure conditions. Mortar prisms incorporating three different cement types were cured and stored at either 50% or 65% relative humidity (RH). Afterwards, the prisms were carbonated at different ambient humidities (50, 57 and 65%), different CO₂ concentrations (0.04, 1 and 3 vol.%) and complemented by a series of tests at increased gas pressure (2 barg). High-resolution test methods were used to explain the underlying carbonation mechanisms. The results show that pre-conditioning for two weeks—as currently suggested by the European Standard—seems to be too short because the initial inner moisture content severely affects the carbonation rate. Relative humidity during carbonation of 57% led to higher carbonation rates compared to 50% and 65%. In addition, climate data needs to be periodically (preferably permanently) recorded in research experiments and in laboratory testing to ensure fair interpretation of experimental results.