4.4 Article

Three-Dimensional Electrical Impedance Tomography to Monitor Unsaturated Moisture Ingress in Cement-Based Materials

期刊

TRANSPORT IN POROUS MEDIA
卷 115, 期 1, 页码 101-124

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11242-016-0756-1

关键词

Concrete; Electrical impedance tomography; Unsaturated moisture transport; Electrical methods; X-ray computed tomography

资金

  1. Academy of Finland [270174, 273536]
  2. Academy of Finland (AKA) [273536, 273536] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of tools to monitor unsaturated moisture flow in cement-based material is of great importance, as most degradation processes in cement-based materials take place in the presence of moisture. In this paper, the feasibility of electrical impedance tomography (EIT) to monitor three-dimensional (3D) moisture flow in mortar containing fine aggregates is investigated. In the experiments, EIT measurements are taken during moisture ingress in mortar, using electrodes attached on the outer surface of specimens. For EIT, the so-called difference imaging scheme is adopted to reconstruct the change of the 3D electrical conductivity distribution within a specimen caused by the ingress of water into mortar. To study the ability of EIT to detect differences in the rate of ingress, the experiment is performed using plain water and with water containing a viscosity-modifying agent yielding a slower flow rate. To corroborate EIT, X-ray computed tomography (CT) and simulations of unsaturated moisture flow are carried out. While X-ray CT shows contrast with respect to background only in highly saturated regions, EIT shows the conductivity change also in the regions of low degree of saturation. The results of EIT compare well with simulations of unsaturated moisture flow. Moreover, the EIT reconstructions show a clear difference between the cases of water without and with the viscosity-modifying agent and demonstrate the ability of EIT to distinguish between different flow rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据