RESEARCH ARTICLE


Measurement of the Hygric Resistance of Concrete Blocks with Perfect Contact Interface: Influence of the Contact Area – Complementary Comments



J.M.P.Q. Delgado1, A.S. Guimarães1, *, I. Ribeiro1, V.P. Freitas1
1 CONSTRUCT-LFC, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, s/n, Porto 4200-465, Portugal


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 408
Abstract HTML Views: 310
PDF Downloads: 179
ePub Downloads: 121
Total Views/Downloads: 1018
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 291
Abstract HTML Views: 189
PDF Downloads: 146
ePub Downloads: 92
Total Views/Downloads: 718



Creative Commons License
© 2022 Delgado et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the CONSTRUCT-LFC, Departamento de Engenharia Civil, Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, s/n, Porto 4200-465, Portugal; E-mail: anasofia@fe.up.pt


Abstract

Introduction:

In March 2021, this journal published the paper “Measurement of the Hygric Resistance of Concrete Blocks with Perfect Contact Interface: Influence of the Contact Area”. This commentary aims to provide readers with a set of complementary comments that seek to clarify a few issues that can be raised.

Methods:

The analysis was done based on the original paper “Measurement of the Hygric Resistance of Concrete Blocks with Perfect Contact Interface: Influence of the Contact Area”. The purpose was to complete and comment on the work developed in the original paper, and to clarify some points that might be less understood.

Results and Discussion:

Some interesting questions are presented, and the analysis results intend to clarify them, namely: (1) the magnitude of the quantified post-interface flows; (2) the distinguishability of the moisture absorption in the monolithic and perfect contact samples; (3) the robustness of the knee-point identification algorithm; (4) the dependability of the capillary absorption measurements; (5) the consistency of the capillary absorption processing; (6) the number and “quality” of samples that should be used.

Conclusion:

The conclusions to highlight are the following: the hygric resistance results would be different as they consider different methodologies for the knee point detection and a different number of data points after the knee (different ones) to calculate the slope; the monolithic samples reached the highest moisture masses, Mw, and the Mw values became lower with the interface occurrence; for the knee-point identification, it was only considered valid the use of the third of the three algorithms described in Section 2.3; the taping of the samples was carefully done, and absorption tests using epoxy resin is considered a better solution; the C calculation was made for all monolithic samples, but only the 3 more representative experimental results for each contact area were represented (as mentioned) and the Aw of the 10x10 cm2 cross-section should be 0.1013 kg/m2s0.5, which does not influence the conclusions/findings.

Keywords: Concrete, Water resistance, Capillary absorption, Moisture, Water proofing, Hygric résistance.