by Adam Neville

Autogenous Healing
A Concrete Miracle?

any people are aware of

autogenous healing, but a fairly
common attitude is: so what? We
cannot design a structure on the
assumption that autogenous healing
will take place but, under certain
circumstances, the occurrence of
autogenous healing can be highly
beneficial. It is, therefore, useful to
know how autogenous healing works,
when it works, how to promote it,
and how to take advantage of it.

GENESIS OF THIS ARTICLE

Recently, I was asked to express
an opinion on autogenous healing
under somewhat unusual circumstances. What was required was an
assessment of the extent of autogenous
This point of view article is presented
for reader interest by the editors. However,
the opinions expressed are not necessarily
those of the American Concrete Institute.
Reader comment is invited.

76

NOVEMBER 2002

healing that can be expected and

hence a prognosis for the durability
of the particular structure. As soon as
I approached the problem, I realized
that our knowledge of autogenous
healing is scanty and it has not
been coherently reviewed for a long
time. Indeed, the last overview of
autogenous healing was written by
Clear in 1985.1 Thus, I was not able to
answer immediately the questions
put to me and, in order to obtain
background information, I undertook
a literature search. This is the genesis
of the present article, written in the
hope that it may be of help to others
in the future.

WHAT IS MEANT BY
AUTOGENOUS?
The word autogenous entered
the English language from Greek in
the mid-nineteenth century; it means
self-produced. According to the
New Shorter Oxford Dictionary, an
especial meaning with respect to
welding is formed by or involving
the melting of the joined ends,
without added filler.
The word is, therefore, entirely
appropriate to what happens in
concrete when healing takes place
by restoring continuity between two
sides of a crack without a deliberate
external intervention of repair.

PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
OF AUTOGENOUS HEALING
Situations where autogenous
healing may be beneficial were given

/ Concrete international

by Turner, as far back as 1937, as:

damaged precast concrete elements;
piles damaged by handling or driving;
cracked water pipes made of concrete
or lined with cement mortar; tanks
that were allowed to dry out excessively; and green concrete disturbed
by vibration or shock.2
The occurrence of autogenous
healing and the benefits therefrom are
especially significant in a reduction
in water transport through the
cracks and in improving the protection
of embedded steel from corrosion.
The latter is important mainly when
the water contains chlorides. In
some situations, the recovery of
strength or of the modulus of
elasticity is also of interest.

HOW DOES THE

HEALING WORK?
The process of autogenous
healing occurs between opposing
surfaces of narrow cracks. In the
vast majority of cases, the cracks
were caused by shrinkage extensive
enough to induce locally a strain
larger than the tensile strain capacity
of the concrete; this means that the
tensile strength of concrete at the
given location has been reached.
Healing can take place only in the
presence of water because the
healing consists of chemical reactions
of compounds exposed at the
cracked surfaces. These reactions
produce new hydrates and other
minerals. The accretion of these
from the opposing surfaces of a

crack eventually bridges the crack

so that continuity is re-established.
The essential requirement is for
the presence of compounds capable
of further reaction. Thus, it is the
cement, hydrated or unhydrated, that
is the essential element in autogenous
healing. Clearly, we are concerned
with cement at or near the surface of
the crack; this cement is the parent
part of concrete or mortar.

THE REACTIONS OF HEALING

To my knowledge, it has not been
established conclusively what the
chemical reactions of healing are.
There are two possibilities: the
formation of calcium hydroxide and
of calcium carbonate. The former
requires the presence of water only;
the second requires, in addition, the
presence of carbon dioxide.
A third mechanism that can
contribute to healing, but cannot
provide it by itself, is silting up of
cracks or deposition of debris.
Whatever the chemical reactions
that take place, the presence of water
is essential; this will be discussed
more fully later. Because no simple
statement about the crack-filling
material (or filler) can be made, a
brief literature review may be useful.

Is it continued hydration?
Opening of cracks, regardless of
whether due to shrinkage or to
excessive tensile strain, exposes the
interior of cement paste, including
cement hydrates as well as the
hitherto unhydrated remnants of
cement powder. As long as they are
exposed to air, no autogenous
healing takes place. However, when
the air becomes replaced by water,
hydration restarts and calcium
hydroxide, as well as calcium silicate
hydrate, are formed. The presence of
carbon dioxide is not necessary, and
carbon is not involved in the new

products. There exists considerable

evidence of the above phenomena.
Hearn recognized the role of
further hydration of cement and the
formation of calcium hydroxide.3
However, her literature study led her
to report the formation of calcium
carbonate as well. In addition, she
introduced the concept of a selfsealing effect, but I have a difficulty
in understanding this classification,
especially since she says, in one
place, that the self-sealing effect
encompasses both autogenous
healing and continued hydration;
and, in another place, she distinguishes
self-sealing, autogenous healing, and
continuing hydration as three
separate phenomena.3 She mentions
also physical clogging of cracks.
Turner also recognized further
hydration of cement at cracked
surfaces, as well as continued
hydration of already formed gel, and
also intercrystallization of fractured
crystals.2 He did not explain the
latter two phenomena, and their
exact nature is not obvious to me.
Lauer and Slate determined by
petrographic analysis that the new
material in a healed crack in a
tension briquet consisted of calcium
carbonate and calcium hydroxide.4
They explained the presence of
calcium carbonate by the reaction of
carbon dioxide in ambient water or
air with calcium hydroxide present
at the crack surface.4 When this
calcium hydroxide has been consumed
in this reaction, more of it migrates
from the interior of the concrete.4
Unfortunately, Lauer and Slate did
not explain the driving force for this
migration. The calcium carbonate
crystals grow preferentially outwards
from the crack surface because the
space available within the hydrated
cement paste is limited.4 Wagner also
found the crack filler to consist of
calcium carbonate.5

Is it formation of calcium
carbonate?
We can see thus that the formation
of calcium carbonate, alone or
together with calcium hydroxide, is
the second possible mechanism of
autogenous healing. A condition for
this is that the water in the crack
contains a large amount of dissolved
carbon dioxide.6
Clear found the formation of
calcium carbonate to be significant
in later stages of exposure of cracks
to water, but this mechanism is not
predominant in the first few days.1
In his experiments, early reduction
in the flow of water through a crack
(which indicates progress of
autogenous healing) was caused by
blocking with loose particles already
present in the crack.1
On the other hand, Edvardsen
found that blocking and swelling of
hydrated cement paste had minimal
influence.7 According to her, in the
initial phase, there is a reaction
between calcium ions and carbon
dioxide at the surface of the crack.7
Once the calcium ions at the surface
have been used up, further calcium
ions are transported from the
hydrated cement paste deeper in the
mortar or concrete, the process
being diffusion-controlled.7
Edvardsen found that calcium
carbonate is almost the sole
cause of autogenous healing.7
She expressed the view that the
availability of carbonate ions is not
the controlling factor in the formation
of calcium carbonate.7
In any case, calcium hydrogen
carbonate, which is one source of
carbonate ions, is present in many
waters. Carbon dioxide is also
present in solution in water. Calcium
carbonate is, of course, almost
insoluble. In this connection, we
should note Edvardsens finding that
water hardness seems not to influence

Concrete international

/ NOVEMBER 2002

77

to promote autogenous healing, it is

highly beneficial to ensure an ample
supply of carbon dioxide in the water
the process of autogenous healing;
surprisingly, nor does the value of pH.7
As for chemical effects, it appears
that the reactions involved in
producing the crack filler involve
portland cement only. Specifically,
Gautefall and Vennesland found that
silica fume in the mixture had no
influence on autogenous healing.8

What is the filler material?

The preceding review does not
lead to a clear and unequivocal
answer to the question: what is the
filler material that has resulted in
autogenous healing?
In Properties of Concrete Fourth
Edition, I said that autogenous
healing is due primarily to the
hydration of the hitherto unhydrated
cement.9 I now believe that this is
true only in very young concrete, in
which the fracture is jagged so that
it exposes some unhydrated parts of
cement. However, later on, the
predominant product in the crack
filler is calcium carbonate. A practical
conclusion from this is that, when it
is intended actively to promote
autogenous healing, it is highly
beneficial to ensure an ample supply
of carbon dioxide in the water
involved in the healing process.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

PRESENCE OF WATER
The filler in the cracks is either
the product of hydration or it is
formed in water. It follows that the
presence of water in the cracks
is essential.
If the cracking was caused by
shrinkage, the relevant part of the

78

NOVEMBER 2002

concrete must have been exposed

to drying. As long as the drying
conditions exist, the crack will
remain as is or even become wider.
It is only on wetting that autogenous
healing can take place. The water
can be stationary or flowing.
The wetting has to be thorough,
that is, the crack has to be inundated.
It was found that, even when the
relative humidity of the air was as
high as 95%, the extent of healing
was much lower than in water;
moreover, the healing was erratic.4
My interpretation of the very
small extent of autogenous healing in
humid air, even almost saturated, is
twofold. Hydration of hitherto
unhydrated cement is faster in
water, and also water encourages the
leaching of calcium hydroxide from
the parts of the concrete somewhat
remote from the crack surface. More
importantly, very little carbonation
can take place in air because only
carbon dioxide dissolved in the
surface films of water is available.4
Carbon dioxide in gaseous form does
not react with calcium hydroxide.
In some situations, uninterrupted
wetting of crack surfaces is not
practicable. Fortunately, periodic
wetting, but without periods of low
relative humidity in between, results
in the healing process, but may not
produce a full closure of cracks.4 It
follows that, when it is planned to
benefit from the process of autogenous

healing, full contact of the crack

surfaces with water is essential.
In addition to promoting chemical
reactions, the presence of water in
the cracks and in their vicinity has
some other beneficial effects. For
example, in pipes, autogenous
healing may be supplemented by the
expansion of the mortar lining owing
to the absorption of water into the
previously dried mortar.5 It is thus
that the wetting part of the moisture
movement, which is a reversible
deformation, augments the process
of autogenous healing.
In some situations, temperature
changes contribute to the closing
of cracks. I have seen some very
large-diameter concrete pipes that
had been exposed for a long period
to drying in an arid climate; not
surprisingly, extensive shrinkage
cracks have opened. Subsequently,
the pipes were put into service
to carry water at a much lower
temperature than the previous air
temperature. The resulting thermal
contraction had a positive effect on
the closing of cracks. There is
nothing surprising in this but the
presence of thermal effects illustrates
the difficulty of predicting autogenous
healing and the associated closing of
cracks. An additional difficulty arises
from the fact that some pipes are
made of reinforced concrete, others
are prestressed, and yet others are
metal pipes with mortar lining.

MAXIMUM WIDTH OF
CRACKS THAT HEAL
An important practical question
is: what is the maximum width
of cracks that will be closed by
autogenous healing?

It is only on wetting that autogenous

healing can take place.

/ Concrete international

Reports on various crack widths

that have undergone healing are of
interest in pointing towards safe
crack widths. However, various
investigators report different
maximum widths of cracks. This is
not surprising because the test
conditions have varied widely. In
some cases, the cracks were caused
by shrinkage, in others by the
application of tension, usually
flexural, but in some tests by direct
tension. The age at the opening of
cracks varied, too. The healing took
place in static water or flowing
water. There was a head of water or
not. The water was fresh or seawater.
The material undergoing the autogenous healing was concrete or
mortar. The combinations of these
conditions are numerous, so that
generalizations about the maximum
width of cracks that will heal are not
possible. Nevertheless, a review of
the published test results presents a
useful background.
Loving reported that large, 1.5 to
2.4 m (5 to 8 ft) reinforced concrete
pipes that developed shrinkage
cracks up to 0.8 mm and 1.5 mm
(0.03 and 0.06 in.) wide, and were
subsequently put into service, were
found to have the cracks completely
closed by autogenous healing
5 years later.10
Wagner reported autogenous
healing in mortar lining of metal
pipes: a crack 0.33 mm (0.013 in.)
wide was still open after 30 days
immersion in city water, but healing
had taken place below the surface,
and was complete in places.5 In
another case, autogenous healing in
a concrete pipe resulted in sealing of
cracks up to 0.76 mm (0.03 in.) wide
after 5 years; one crack, 1.56 mm
(0.06 in.) wide, became sealed.5
Gautefall and Vennesland reported
that, when immersed in seawater,
concrete specimens with cracks more

Regardless of autogenous healing, cracks

up to a certain width in reinforced concrete
are inevitable and acceptable.
than 0.6 mm (0.024 in.) wide were
susceptible to corrosion attack but
this did not happen when the cracks
were less than 0.4 mm (0.016 in.)
wide.8 These tests were conducted
under conditions such that ample
oxygen was available at a separate
cathode, which was remote from the
anode; such a situation is unlikely to
be common in real-life structures.
The relevance of the presence of
seawater is that it may be conducive
to corrosion of embedded or underlying steel exposed by the crack. The
opinion of Lea on the maximum
crack width sealed by autogenous
healing carries considerable
weight.11 He wrote: Provided the
width at the surface is not more than
about 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) the presence
of such cracks does not usually lead
to any progressive corrosion of the
steel, though the critical width
depends on the thickness of the
concrete cover and the exposure
conditions.11 Fuller consideration of
the possibility of corrosion will be
discussed in a later section.
Edvardsen found that 1/4 to 1/2 of
cracks 0.20 mm (0.08 in.) wide healed
completely after 7 weeks of water
exposure; the proportion of cracks
closed depended on the water
pressure.7 With a crack width of 0.30
mm (0.012 in.), the flow through the
crack was reduced fivefold after 15
days in water under a head of 2.5 m
(100 in.). The use of mean values of
crack width has to be interpreted to
signify that some cracks had a
greater width, and the bulk of flow of
water would occur through the
wider cracks.7

Jacobsen, Marchand, and Boisvert12

reported extensive data on autogenous
healing, but this took place in limesaturated water. As such conditions
are unlikely to exist in a real-life
structure, the results of their tests are
of very limited interest with respect to
the subject matter of this article.12
The widths of cracks that have
healed and the length of the period
of healing, cited earlier, are related
to one another. This is only to be
expected, but above a certain width,
adequate autogenous healing will
not take place. Also, beyond a period
of about 3 months, significant
healing stops.
Regardless of autogenous healing,
cracks up to a certain width in
reinforced concrete are inevitable
and acceptable. For example, the
British structural design code
CP 110:1972 (drafted by a committee
of which I was a member) gives the
following as a serviceability limit
state requirement: An assessment
of the likely behavior of a reinforced
concrete structure should show that
the surface width of crack would not,
in general, exceed 0.3 mm.
Tolerable crack dimensions in
pipes are prescribed by the British
Standard B.S. 534:1990 Specification
for steel pipe...for water and sewage.
These apply both to concrete pipe
and to mortar-lined pipe. The
specific statement is: Cracks up to
0.25 mm in width in saturated linings
and not over 300 mm in length shall
not be a cause for rejection. First of
all, we should note that the British
Standard applies to the acceptance
of a newly manufactured pipe. At

Concrete international

/ NOVEMBER 2002

79

it is not possible to deduce rules about what to do in order to

achieve autogenous healing in a specific situation.
that stage, excessive shrinkage
should not have occurred; indeed,
the extent of drying shrinkage is
largely under the control of the
pipe manufacturer.
Secondly, we should note the
word saturated. At the time of
acceptance of the pipe by the
purchaser, the pipe can be maintained
in a saturated state by sprinkling
with water or by other means.
However, on site, the pipe is likely to
be exposed to dry air, and in some
cases also to wind, and it is then that
the cracks open or widen. A dispute
may arise as to whether the cracks
will close by autogenous healing in
service. The problem is that inspection
of the pipe and the measurement of
crack width take place, of necessity,
in an open pipe, and therefore a dry,
or greatly dried out, state.

RECOVERY OF STRENGTH
ON HEALING
In the majority of published studies,
the parameter investigated was the
extent of autogenous healing as
evidenced by the filling of cracks or by
the reduction of flow of water through
the cracks. The strength of the healed
concrete is rarely of interest and has
not often been determined.
It is arguable that full healing of a
crack makes the concrete or mortar
monolithic, and therefore as good as
new, or nearly so. Strictly speaking,
the development of strength is a
function of the extent of complete
bridging of the crack and of the
proportion of the volume of the
crack that has become filled by the
new compounds.4 Laboratory tests
have provided detailed quantitative
data on the relation between the
extent of filling of cracks by autogenous

80

NOVEMBER 2002

healing and recovery of the initial

tensile strength.4 However, such
information is largely of academic
interest because, in actual structures,
little is known about crack sizes:
unlike laboratory experiments, the
cracks vary in their dimensions. Thus,
the extent of healing is difficult to
quantify. What matters is the maximum
width of cracks that are expected to
heal; this was discussed earlier.
A condition necessary for a
successful recovery of strength
through autogenous healing is that
there be no longitudinal displacement
of the concrete on opposite sides
of a crack; in other words, the fit
must not be disturbed. On the
positive side, sustained compression
across the plane of the crack
enhances the process of healing;13
this is not surprising.
Tests on cracked cubes of mortar,
subsequently allowed to undergo
autogenous healing, indicated a
higher percentage recovery in richer
mortars.14 In some cases, the recovery
was 100%. The modulus of elasticity
followed the pattern of strength.14
Lauer and Slate4 reported that
more healing occurs in cement paste
with a higher water-cement ratio
when the cracks open in the first few
days after setting, but at later ages
there seems to be no influence of the
water-cement ratio on the recovery
of strength.4 There is, however, no
corroborating evidence.

ROLE OF AUTOGENOUS
HEALING IN CORROSION
PROTECTION
The main function of mortar or
concrete lining of a metal pipe is to
provide corrosion protection of the
metal, especially when the pipe

/ Concrete international

carries seawater or industrial

liquids. If such a pipe has developed
cracks owing to drying shrinkage
and it is then to be put into service,
there may arise the question
whether corrosion of steel can occur
or, alternatively, whether autogenous
healing will seal the cracks and
prevent all contact between seawater
and the steel. When confronted by
this problem, I was not able to find
any directly relevant information,
but an answer may be inferred from
the information so far presented in
this article.
There is, however, an additional
point. It is sometimes thought that
a crack right through the lining,
exposing bare steel, will automatically
lead to corrosion because both
chlorides in the seawater and oxygen
dissolved in the water have access
to the steel. However, corrosion is
the consequence of the formation
of an electrolytic cell. The exposed
steel at the bottom of the crack is a
possible locus of the anode, where
the actual corrosion occurs,
and the portion of the steel pipe
covered by the mortar lining, is the
possible cathode.
What happens then is that the
oxygen, if present in the water, has
to penetrate through the mortar
lining to the surface of the steel.
There, oxygen and water react with
the negatively charged free electrons
that have passed through the steel
pipe at the cathode, and negatively
charged hydroxyl ions are formed.
They travel through the mortar to
the anode where they react with
positively charged ferrous ions to
form iron hydroxide, that is, rust.
In other words, chlorides are
involved at the anode while oxygen

is required at the cathode. The crack

allows the development of the anode
whereas the cathode is the large
area of lined steel away from cracks.
The transport of oxygen through the
intact lining controls the amount of
oxygen that reaches the cathode.
Now, the lining is likely to have a
very low air permeability because it
is made of mortar with a very low
water-cement ratio; for example, the
British Standard B.S.534:1990
Specification for pipe...for water and
sewage, limits the water-cement
ratio to 0.46. Also, the pores in the
mortar are saturated, being in
contact with water, and this lowers
the air permeability. Moreover, the
amount of oxygen in the water
depends on the source of water and
on the extent of air entrainment in
the water caused by turbulent flow.
These parameters are difficult to
establish, and some help may be
found in papers by Vennesland and
Gjrv15 and by Gautefall and
Vennesland.8 In tests on reinforced
concrete immersed in seawater,
Vennesland and Gjrv15 confirmed
that the corrosion of the exposed
steel in the crack was a function of
the ratio of the area of the cathode
to the area of the anode. The effect
of autogenous healing was to slow
down the progress of corrosion of
the steel at the root of the crack.15
They reported that although
corrosion was observed for all crack
widths of 0.4 mm (0.016 in.) or more,
corrosion damage never developed
in the 0.5-mm (0.02 in.) crack in spite
of the galvanic coupling (that is, a
large cathode-to-anode area ratio).15
While these data are interesting, it
is not possible to apply the numerical
values to actual situations in a lined
steel pipe because the area of the
cathode cannot be estimated.
Nevertheless, it is worth quoting the
conclusion drawn by Vennesland and

Gjrv from their tests on reinforced

concrete blocks: For crack widths
smaller than 0.4 to 0.5 mm (0.016 to
0.02 in.), however, precipitation of
reaction products may effectively
clog up the crack and thereby inhibit
the corrosion before any damage to
the steel has occurred. 15
Somewhat relevant are the findings
of Jacobsen, Marchand, and Boisvert.
who measured the effect of autogenous
healing on chloride ion transport in
concrete.12 Healing resulted in about
1/3 reduction in the ion migration
but in only a very small improvement
in the compressive strength of the
specimens. No explanation of this
apparent inconsistency was offered
by the investigators.12
One more observation in connection
with corrosion and autogenous
healing should be made. Gautefall
and Vennesland reported that
products of corrosion of steel may
contribute to blocking of cracks.8

CONCLUSIONS
To a large extent, this article is a
review of published information
about autogenous healing. This
includes: the nature of the filler
material in the cracks; the maximum
width of cracks that will close fully
in consequence of autogenous
healing; some mechanical properties
of the material in the filler; the
requirements for the water that will
effect the healing; and the role of
autogenous healing in the corrosion
of embedded or underlying metal.
Unfortunately, from all these data
it is not possible to deduce rules
about what to do in order to achieve
autogenous healing of concrete or
mortar in a specific situation. The
reason for this is that the vast
majority of published data were
obtained on specimens that were
cracked deliberately so that the
crack properties were well known.

Such an approach is perhaps

unavoidable, but the information
deduced from those experiments is
difficult to translate into practical
situations. At the same time, in real
life, we have little knowledge of
crack widths and sometimes also of
other conditions in place.
This is not to deny that the
published data are valuable and, I
hope, their review is useful. When
problems in the field are encountered,
intelligent guesses can be made and
probable assessments put forward.
Nevertheless, inevitably, there
remains a gap between laboratorybased knowledge and the behavior
of concrete and mortar in the field.
This, of course, is always the case
but, with respect to autogenous
healing, especially so.
In connection with transfer of
findings in laboratory experiments
to the behavior in actual structures,
I cannot resist expressing my usual
words of caution. For example, test
results on concrete immersed in
lime water, such as those reported
by Jacobsen, Marchand, and
Boisvert,12 may well serve the
experimenters objectives, but they
should be ignored with respect to
autogenous healing.
Finally, the following may be
salutary. In searching for information
about the relation between autogenous
healing and fluid transport through
concrete, I came across a paper by
Sandberg and Tang.16 Although the
paper did not provide any direct
information on autogenous healing,
reporting mainly on chloride ion
transport, it contained an illuminating
statement which it is worth bearing
in mind in a broad context. This
reads: Maximum chloride
diffusivities calculated from the field
profiles after 4 years of exposure
were more than 10 times lower
than those obtained from the same

Concrete international

/ NOVEMBER 2002

81

concrete in the laboratory.16 It is worth pondering on an

error of fully one order of magnitude.
So, autogenous healing of concrete is not a miracle, but
it is an interesting and, under some circumstances, useful
self-healing process; we can thus look to concrete to heal
itself in the words of St. Luke in Chapter 4: Physician,
heal thyself.

16. Sandberg, P., and Tang, L., A Field Study of the Penetration of
Chlorides and Other Ions into a High Quality Concrete Marine Bridge
Column, Durability of Concrete, Proceedings of the Third International
Conference, SP-145, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
1994, pp. 557-571.
Selected for reader interest by the editors.

References
1. Clear, C. A., The Effects of Autogenous Healing upon the
Leakage of Water Through Cracks in Concrete, Cement and
Concrete Association, Technical Report No. 559, May 1985, 28 pp.
2. Turner, L., The Autogenous Healing of Cement and Concrete:
Its Relation to Vibrated Concrete and Cracked Concrete, International Association for Testing Materials, London Congress, April 19-24,
1937, p. 344.
3. Hearn, N., Self-Sealing, Autogenous Healing and Continued
Hydration: What is the Difference?, Materials and Structures, V. 31,
Oct. 1998, pp. 563-567.
4. Lauer, K. R., and Slate, F. O., Autogenous Healing of Cement
Paste, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings, V. 52, June 1956, pp. 1083-1097.
5. Wagner, E. F., Autogenous Healing of Cracks in Cement-Mortar
Linings for Grey-Iron and Ductile-Iron Water Pipes, Journal of the
American Water Works Association, V. 66, June 1974, pp. 358-360.
6. Hearn, N., and Morely, C. T., Self-Sealing Property of Concrete
Experimental Evidence, Materials and Structures, V. 30, Aug.-Sept.
1997, pp. 404-411.
7. Edvardsen, C., Water Permeability and Autogenous Healing of
Cracks in Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug.
1999, pp. 448-454.
8. Gautefall, O., and Vennesland, ., Effect of Cracks in the
Corrosion of Embedded Steel in Silica-Concrete Compared to
Ordinary Concrete, Nordic Concrete Research, No. 2, Dec. 1983,
pp. 17-28.
9. Neville, A. M., Properties of Concrete, Fourth Edition, Addison
Wesley Longman and John Wiley, 1995, 844 pp.
10. Loving, M. W., Autogenous Healing of Concrete, Bulletin 13,
American Concrete Pipe Association, 1936, Revised 1938, 6 pp.
11. Lea, F. M., The Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, Third
Edition, Edward Arnold, 1970, 727 pp.
12. Jacobsen, S.; Marchand, J.; and Boisvert, L., Effect of
Cracking and Healing on Chloride Transport in OPC Concrete,
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 26, No. 6, 1996, pp. 869-881.
13. Ngab, A. S.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., Shrinkage and
Creep of High-Strength Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78,
July-Aug., 1981, pp. 255-261.
14. Dhir, R. K.; Sangha, C. M.; and Munday, J. G., Strength and
Deformation Properties of Autogenously Healed Mortars, ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 70, Mar. 1973, pp. 231-236.
15. Vennesland, ., and Gjrv, O., Effect of Cracks in Submerged
Concrete Sea Structures on Steel Corrosion, in Corrosion 81,
Toronto, Ontario, Aug. 1981, pp. 49-51.

82

NOVEMBER 2002

/ Concrete international

am Nev
ACI Honorary Member Ad
Adam
Neviil l e has been contributing to
CI articles on various topics, all aimed at facilitating the use of
scientific knowledge to make better concrete in practice. His
book, Properties of Concrete, first published in 1963 and now
in its fourth edition, and translated into 13 languages, has
similar objectives. He is a recipient of several awards from ACI
and other organizations, as well as Commander of the Order of
the British Empire awarded by the Queen for his contribution to
science and technology.

Practitioner
Practitionerss Guide
toCold Weather Concreting
This compilation provides useful information on
concreting in cold weather, and is loaded with
practical tips from the experts, including articles.
Topics include construction preparation, controlling
concrete mixtures, antifreeze admixtures, curing and
protection of concrete, safety issues, improving worker
productivity, and much more.
Practitioners Guide to
Cold Weather Concreting
184 pp.
Order Code: 000PP2.CI11
$63.50 (ACI members $39.00)

To order: use form on Bookshelf page in back of this magazine, or

phone: (248) 848-3800 or online at www.concrete.org