“…Results obtained by Abdul Razak et al (2004), Chan and Ji (1999) and McCarter and Watson (1997) using a variety of test methods including electrical conduction measurements, ISAT and the water absorption test detailed in BS 1881-122 (BSI, 2011 all found that the use of silica fume (SF) additions reduces the sorptivity of concrete when compared with plain OPC concrete. However, the results of tests on mixes containing pulverised fly ash (pfa) and ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) are sometimes contradictory when compared with each other or plain OPC concrete, perhaps because of differences in Unfortunately, the results of these experiments cannot be used to model chloride ingress in any meaningful way and hence estimate the depth of concrete cover needed to prevent corrosion in structures exposed to cyclic wet-dry chloride environments because (a) the absorbing solution used is normally water, which behaves somewhat differently to salt solution because of factors such as pore blocking due to chloride binding and/or crystallisation of chloride salts (Chrisp et al, 2002), and differences in the densities of the two liquids (Emerson and Butler, 1997) (b) in many cases the moisture content of test specimens is unlikely to be representative of field conditions and this can significantly affect sorptivity (Arya et al, 2014).…”