Thesis on ASR

ALKALI SILICA REACTION IN CONCRETE MADE FROM ARKANSAS REGION AGGREGATES

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate School

University of Arkansas at Little Rock

in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in Construction Management

in the Department of Construction Management and Civil & Construction Engineering

of the College of Engineering and Information Technology

May 2016

Adithya Reddy Mallu

B.S., Maturi Venkata Subba Rao Engineering College, India, 2013.

© Copyright by Adithya Reddy Mallu

2016

This thesis, “Alkali Silica Reaction in Concrete made from Arkansas Region Aggregates”, by Adithya Reddy Mallu, is approved by: Thesis Advisor:

Amin Akhnoukh Associate Professor of Construction Management and Civil & Construction Engineering

Thesis Committee:

John Woodard Senior Instructor of Construction Management and Civil & Construction Engineering

Hussain Al-Rizzo Professor of System Engineering

Program Coordinator:

Jim Carr Professor of Construction Management and Civil & Construction Engineering

Interim Graduate Dean:

Paula Casey Professor of Law

Fair Use This thesis is protected by the Copyright Laws of the United States (Public Law

94-553, revised in 1976). Consistent with fair use as defined in the Copyright Laws, brief quotations from this material are allowed with proper acknowledgment. Use of this material for financial gain without the author’s express written permission is not allowed.

Duplication I authorize the Head of Interlibrary Loan or the Head of Archives at the Ottenheimer

Library at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to arrange for duplication of this thesis for educational or scholarly purposes when so requested by a library user. The duplication will be at the user’s expense.

ALKALI SILICA REACTION IN CONCRETE MADE FROM ARKANSAS REGION AGGREGATES, by Adithya Reddy Mallu, May 2016

Abstract: Alkali-Silica Reaction is an unwanted reaction which occurs over time between

cement paste and silica. This in turn alters the expansion of the aggregate and often in an unpredictable way, which will result in loss of strength of concrete and complete failure. This research studies the effects of using locally available coarse and fine aggregates available in Arkansas. This research will provide the necessary information in selecting the type of aggregate that is to be used in constructions and a viable comparison between different aggregates available in Arkansas have been made. Different materials used for preparation of concrete samples have been mentioned. A major criterion in this research is the increase in the length of the concrete samples being tested with time. The time span selected for this research is about two years for the results to be used in real conditions. After testing different samples, crushed limestone with Arkansas River Sand has shown minimum expansion over chosen period, the expansion percentage from this material was 0.01% after a period of two years. Key Words: Alkali-Silica-Reaction(ASR), Expansion due to Alkali-Silica-Reaction, Aggregates, Supplementary Cement Materials

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Amin Akhnoukh, for his advice, encouragement

and guidance entirely through this study. It was an extreme opportunity for me to work as

his research assistant and develop a strong academic background. He created great

occasions and support for me to attain technical knowledge which helped me to develop

strong foundation on Alkali Silica Reaction in Concrete.

I would like to thank my committee member Dr. Hussain Al-Rizzo for adjusting his

valuable time in spite of his busy schedule.

I would like to thank my committee member Dr. John-Woodard, P.E. for his valuable

inputs and helping me in my path.

I owe special thanks to my friends Abhijith Budur, Arun Mallu & Mounika Anisetty for

helping me when I needed. I owe great gratitude to Nitya Reddy Sandadi for providing

me the emotional support and motivation through out my scientific work.

Nothing ends without thanking my family. The final thanks go to my family because of

whom, I am here.

Valuable advice, suggestions and support provided by Dr. Amin Akhnoukh during the

course of this work are much appreciated. This work was supported in part by a grant

from the Engineering Information and Technology at University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

1.1 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 HISTORY OF ASR: .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.3 DELETERIOUS EFFECTS OF ASR: ................................................................................................................. 5

1.4 SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTING MATERIALS: .................................................................................................. 7

1.5 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................................................................... 8

1.6 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................................................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................... 10

2.1 CONVENTIONAL MORTAR/CONCRETE TESTS ............................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Mortar bar tests ........................................................................................................................ 10

2.1.2 Chemical test methods .............................................................................................................. 12

2.1.3 Concrete prisms test – ASTM 1293 - (CPT): ............................................................................... 13

2.2 MITIGATION OF ASR .............................................................................................................................. 13

CHAPTER 3. MATERIALS & EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES .................................................................. 17

3.1 MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................................... 17

3.1.1 Cementitious Materials ............................................................................................................. 17

3.1.2 Normal-weight Coarse Aggregate............................................................................................. 17

3.1.3 Light-Weight Aggregate & Properties (LWA) ............................................................................ 18

viii

3.1.4 Shape and Surface Texture ........................................................................................................ 20

3.1.5 Creep ......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.1.6 Experiment Molds ...................................................................................................................... 21

3.1.7 DEMEC– Detached Mechanical ................................................................................................. 22

3.2 TESTS PERFORMED ................................................................................................................................ 24

3.2.1 Slump Test ................................................................................................................................. 24

3.2.2 Density ....................................................................................................................................... 25

3.2.3 Air Content ................................................................................................................................ 25

3.2.4 Mixtures proportioning ............................................................................................................. 26

3.3 DETAILS OF DIFFERENT EXPERIMENTS ....................................................................................................... 26

3.3.1 Concrete Prism Test ................................................................................................................... 26

3.3.2 Canadian Concrete Prism Test & Field Exposure of Concrete Blocks......................................... 29

3.3.3 Site Location .............................................................................................................................. 33

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................... 34

4.1 CLS/PBS-1 (CRUSHED LIME STONE / PINE BLUFF SAND) ............................................................................ 34

4.1.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 34

4.1.2 Width ......................................................................................................................................... 35

4.2 CLS/PBS-2 (CRUSHED LIME STONE / PINE BLUFF SAND) ............................................................................ 37

4.2.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 37

4.2.1 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 38

4.3 CLS/ARS-1 (CRUSHED LIME STONE / ARKANSAS RIVER SAND) ..................................................................... 40

ix

4.3.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 40

4.3.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 41

4.4 CLS/ARS-2 (CRUSHED LIME STONE / ARKANSAS RIVER SAND) ..................................................................... 43

4.4.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 43

4.4.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 44

4.5 ES/ARS-1 (EXPANDED SHALE/ARKANSAS RIVER SAND) .............................................................................. 46

4.5.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 46

4.5.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 47

4.6 ES/ARS-2 (EXPANDED SHALE/ARKANSAS RIVER SAND) .............................................................................. 49

4.6.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 49

4.6.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 50

4.7 ES/PBS-1 (EXPANDED SHALE/PINE BLUFF SAND) ...................................................................................... 52

4.7.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 52

4.7.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 53

4.8 ES/PBS-2 (EXPANDED SHALE/PINE BLUFF SAND) ...................................................................................... 55

4.8.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 55

4.8.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 56

4.9 EC/ARS-1 (EXPANDED CLAY/ARKANSAS RIVER SAND) ................................................................................ 58

4.9.1 Length Change ........................................................................................................................... 58

4.9.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 59

4.10 EC/ARS-2 (EXPANDED CLAY/ARKANSAS RIVER SAND) .............................................................................. 61

x

4.10.1 Length Change ......................................................................................................................... 61

4.9.2 Width Change ............................................................................................................................ 62

4.11 EC/PBS-1 (EXPANDED CLAY/PINE BLUFF SAND)...................................................................................... 64

4.11.1 Length Change ......................................................................................................................... 64

4.11.2 Width Change .......................................................................................................................... 65

4.12 EC/PBS-2 (EXPANDED CLAY/PINE BLUFF SAND)...................................................................................... 66

4.12.1 Length Change ......................................................................................................................... 66

4.12.2 Width Change .......................................................................................................................... 67

5.CONCLUSIONS & RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 69

6.FUTURE RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................................................... 70

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................................. 71

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 ASR-INDUCED DAMAGE IN UNRESTRAINED CONCRETE ELEMENT. UNIFORM EXPANSION IN ALL

DIRECTIONS RESULTS IN CLASSIC MAP-CRACKING (FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND

TECHNOLOGY, 2003) ........................................................................................................... 6

FIGURE 1.2 MISALIGNMENT OF ADJACENT SECTIONS OF A PARAPET WALL ON A HIGHWAY BRIDGE DUE TO ASR-

INDUCED EXPANSION(FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 2003) ..... 7

Figure 2 . 1 Influence of the presence or absence of wicks on mortar bar expansion tests

(Grattan-Bellew P. ,

1989)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11

Figure 3.1 2 Expanded clay LWA (left) and Expanded Shale LWA (Right) 19

FIGURE 3.1 3 CONCRETE MOLDS .......................................................................................................... 21

FIGURE 3.1 4 DEMEC POINTS ............................................................................................................. 23

FIGURE 3.1 5 CONCRETE SLUMP ........................................................................................................... 25

Figure 3.3.2 View of samples at Site Exposure…………………………………………………………………………30

FIGURE 3.3 3 LOCATION OF SAMPLES PLACED AT SITE ................................................................................ 33

FIGURE 3.3 4 CLOSER VIEW OF SAMPLES FROM GOOGLE EARTH .................................................................. 33

Figure 4 . 1 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone & Pine Bluff Sa……….34

FIGURE 4 . 2 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF CRUSHED LIME STONE & PINE BLUFF SAND ............. 35


xii


FIGURE 4 . 5 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF CRUSHED LIME STONE & ARKANSAS RIVER SAND ...... 40



FIGURE 4 . 8 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF CRUSHED LIME STONE & ARKANSAS RIVER SAND ..... 44

FIGURE 4 . 9 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF EXPANDED SHALE & ARKANSAS RIVER SAND ............ 46

FIGURE 4 . 10 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF EXPANDED SHALE & ARKANSAS RIVER SAND .......... 47

FIGURE 4 . 11 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF EXPANDED SHALE & ARKANSAS RIVER SAND ......... 49

FIGURE 4 . 12 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF EXPANDED SHALE & ARKANSAS RIVER SAND ......... 50

FIGURE 4 . 13 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF EXPANDED SHALE & PINE BLUFF SAND .................. 52




FIGURE 4 . 17 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF EXPANDED CLAY & ARKANSAS RIVER SAND ............ 58




FIGURE 4 . 21 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF EXPANDED CLAY & PINE BLUFF SAND ................... 64


xiii



1

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

One of the many factors that might be fully or partly responsible for the deterioration

and premature loss in serviceability of concrete structures / infrastructure is Alkali-

Aggregate Reaction (AAR). Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) is currently recognized as one

of several reactions in the concrete; included in Alkali-Aggregate Reaction (AAR), the

other one is Alkali-Carbonate Reaction (ACR). Briefly, AAR, ASR & ACR reactions can

be defined as follows:

Alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR): The reaction, which occurs after a long time in

concrete between alkali hydroxides that are usually derived from the cement and reactive

components in the aggregate particles is called Alkali-Aggregate Reaction

(Ramachandran, 2002)

Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR): The reaction between the alkali in the cement paste

and the siliceous rocks and minerals present in some aggregates. This reaction causes

expansion and cracking of the concrete and mortar.

Alkali-Carbonate Reaction (ACR): the reaction in the concrete or in the mortar

between hydroxyl ions of the alkalis in the cement paste and the carbonate rocks present

in some aggregates. This reaction causes the alkali gel which can lead to irregular

expansion and cracking of the concrete and mortar.

2

ASR Chemical Reaction

With presence of enough moisture and suitable environmental conditions, a reaction

between receptive silica and antacid hydroxides happen in cement with time. These

reactions deliver a gel and expansion in the dimensions of the shape over time. This gel

absorbs water which is the reason for expansion. With growing burden on swelling

surrounding the presence of more moisture, it prompts further expansion and some times,

catastrophic failure (Blight, 2011)

Some of the features of this reaction are described below.

1. The presence of a solution with ions such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, OH- and H3SiO4 causes

the silica to react and undergo dissolution and swelling.

2. These alkali and calcium ions diffuse into a gel that forms a swelling aggregate that

combines with water which in turn results in the formation of a non swelling C-N-S-H gel.

3. The pore solution gets diffused through the C-N-S-H gel layer to silica. The rate of

diffusion depends upon the relative concentration of alkali. Depending upon the rate of

diffusion, the result may be considered safe or unsafe. If calcium oxide contains more

than 53% of C-N-S-H gel, a non-swelling gel is formed. For any higher concentrations

than this, the solubility of CH is depressed, which will form a swelling C-N-S-H gel that

contains little or no calcium.

4. This C-S-H gel formed attracts water. This in turn increases the volume and local

stresses present in the concrete. If the stresses become large enough, they will result in

product failure.

3

1.2 History of ASR:

Forms of concrete have been used as a durable building material at least since Roman

times, and concrete structures of Roman origin can still be seen in many parts of Europe

today. As early as the nineteenth century it was realized that, although normally a very

durable material, concrete could deteriorate, with frost and seawater being considered

the principal agents causing deterioration of concrete structures. Cases of concrete failure

that could not be attributed to one or other of these causes were left unexplained.

During the 1920s and 1930s numbers of concrete structures in California, USA, were

observed to develop severe cracking within a few years of their construction, although

quite acceptable standards of construction and quality control of materials were

employed. It was a major scientific achievement with far-reaching consequences when

Stanton in 1940 was able to demonstrate (Stanton, 1940) the existence of alkali-

aggregate reaction as an intrinsic deleterious process between the constituents of a

concrete. It soon became clear that exposure to external environmental conditions was

of less importance to the type of concrete deterioration observed in California than the

characteristics of the cements and aggregates used. Stanton’s subsequent experimental

studies showed that cracking and expansion of concrete were caused by combinations

of the high-alkali cement and opaline aggregates used. In 1941, shortly after Stanton had

published his work, Blanks (Blanks, 1941) and (Meissner, 1941) described cracking and

deterioration in the concrete of the Parker Dam. They were able to show that an alkali-

silica reaction product was being produced in the concrete and that the reactive

4

components in the aggregate were altered andesite and rhyolite fragments which together

only represented about 2% of the total aggregate.

During the following decades research on the alkali-aggregate reaction was carried out

at many laboratories, first in the United States but later in Europe, Canada and other parts

of the world. Research studies have progressed rapidly in a number of different directions,

ranging from identification of the aggregate mineral components which are involved in the

reaction, through the mechanisms and controls of the reactions themselves, to diagnosis,

testing and assessment of reaction effects. Substantial contributions to the knowledge of

this subject have been made by research workers from many parts of the world, but

perhaps three of the most significant names in this field of research who have produced

work now regarded by many as of particular importance are Swenson of Canada, who

recognized alkali-aggregate reactions which involved carbonate aggregates (Swenson,

1957), as one of the first European scientists to investigate concrete deterioration due to

alkali-silica reaction (Idorn, 1967) and Vivian of Australia, who has contributed a great

deal to understanding the mechanisms of the reaction over many years. Many other

research workers contributed to the research in this field, so that it becomes difficult to

select particular names for special mention. Nevertheless, the reference list for this text

bears witness to the efforts and dedicated research work of a large number of scientists,

many of whom are involved with the alkali-aggregate problems of concrete at the present

time.

5

Since Stanton published his first findings in 1940 an enormous volume of

research papers has been published on this subject, with contributions from workers in

all five continents appearing in numerous national and international journals. In 1974 the

first of a series of international meetings of scientists interested in alkali-aggregate

reactivity in concrete was held in Denmark; the Portland Research and Development

Seminar on Alkali-Silica Reaction at Koge. Since that first meeting a series of international

conferences has been held, which has attracted increasing numbers of research workers

and engineers. These conferences were held in Iceland (Asgeirsson, 1975) , the UK

(Poole, 1976) , the USA (Diamond S. (., 1978) , (Oberholster, 1981)and Canada (1986)

(Grattan-Bellew P. (., 1986). The series of published proceedings of these conferences

perhaps provides the most important source of research information available, including

valuable reviews of national and international experience relating to research findings,

case histories and to preventive and remedial measures.

1.3 Deleterious Effects of ASR:

The ASR reaction causes the expansion of the aggregate by the formation of a

swelling gel of calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H). This gel increases in volume with water

and exerts an expansive pressure inside the concrete, causing many visual symptoms.

Cracking:

There are some factors that lead to the shape of the cracking; such as environmental

conditions, the presence and arrangement of reinforcement, and the load acting in the

concrete. The shapes of these cracks called “Pattern cracking”, which is simply the result

6

of surface shrinkage occurring at a faster rate than shrinkage beneath the surface. The

real culprit is probably inadequate curing which permits the surface of the concrete to dry

out faster than that of the interior. Since the drying process is accompanied by shrinking,

there is a difference in the amount of movement between the surface concrete and the

concrete immediately beneath the surface; as seen in figure (1.1).

Figure 1.1 ASR-Induced Damage in Unrestrained Concrete Element. Uniform Expansion in all Directions Results in Classic Map-Cracking (Federal Highway

Administration Research and Technology, 2003)

Expansion causing deformation, relative movement, and displacement:

The extent of ASR often varies between or within the various parts of an affected concrete

structure, thus causing distress such as:

- Relative movement of adjacent concrete members or structural units.

- Deflection, closure of joints with associated squeezing of sealing materials.

- Ultimately, spalling of concrete at joints.

7

Figure 1.2 Misalignment of Adjacent Sections of a Parapet Wall on a Highway Bridge Due to ASR-Induced Expansion(Federal Highway Administration Research and

Technology, 2003)

On the other hand, sometimes the deformations in concrete structures happen because

of different cause such as: loading, shrinkage, thermal moisture movements, gravity and

foundation, creep and vibration; as it shown in figure (1.2).

Surface pop-outs:

Pop-out is a small cone shape cavity in the horizontal concrete surfaces due to the

particle aggregate has expanded and fractured. The sizes of these cavities can around

¼ inches (6 cm) to few inches in diameters.

1.4 Supplementary Cementing materials:

Supplementary Cementing Materials (SCM’s):

The main components of the concrete mixture are water, aggregate (fine and course)

and cement. Today, most concrete mixtures contain supplementary cementing materials;

even most cement types contain these materials.

These materials are working as additives for the reaction between water and cement to

improve concrete performance (workability, durability and strength), either are a

8

byproduct of other process or natural materials. Each type of SCM affects these benefits

to a different degree (Smith, Schokker, & and Tikalsky, 2004):

Increased compressive strength

Reduced heat during curing (heat of hydration)

Reduced permeability

Corrosion resistance

Mitigation of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) (fly ash)

Electrical resistivity (silica fume)

Workability

The concrete industry uses hundreds of millions of tons of byproduct materials; that

would otherwise be deposited in landfills as waste, to produce SCM.

1.5 Research Significance

The development and use of durable concrete is important to the construction and

maintenance of structures. Concrete which can undergo less ASR has the potential to

decrease the life cycle cost and enhance the durability of the structural systems.

The current research provides information on the density, mechanical properties, and

drying shrinkage of different concrete mixes, obtained from a controlled set of

experiments that includes a number of material variables.

9

1.6 Objectives and Scope

The purpose of this research is to test the drying shrinkage due to Alkali Silica

Reaction effect on concrete bars made from the natural aggregates present in Arkansas

and the recommendations for durable construction taking into account on the outcomes

got from experiments.

The research is divided into the following chapters:

Chapter 1: An introduction chapter where some background information is provided

on concrete and its history. In addition to that, this chapter discuses briefly the importance

of this research and its objectives.

Chapter 2: Contains a review of previous resources and researches related to this

research scope.

Chapter 3: Presents information about the materials that were used, the mixtures

proportion, and brief description of the tests that were performed.

Chapter 4: Includes a discussion about the results obtained from the preformed tests,

analysis, and graphs.

Chapter 5: Summaries the research and the obtained conclusions. It is also gives

some recommendation for future research.

10

Chapter 2. Literature Review

After the discovery of ASR and its deleterious effects on structures, many studies,

research projects, and publications took place to analyze and suggest mitigation

processes and the general data in relevance to the Alkali-Silica reaction (ASR) is studied.

This chapter will review the the current researches and the most up to date studies,

tests on ASR as well as Mitigation methods for ASR.

2.1 Conventional mortar/concrete tests

There are three tests which have traditionally been used to evaluate the potential

reactivity of aggregates—the ASTM C227 mortar bar test (ASTM, 1988), the concrete

prism test, CSA A23.2-14A (CSA, 1986), and the chemical method, ASTM C28916.

Recent research has shown that all these test methods have serious drawbacks, which

are briefly discussed below.

2.1.1 Mortar bar tests

This test for evaluating alkali-silica reactive aggregates have been shown to be not

always reliable (Rogers C. a., 1989), (Grattan-Bellew P. , 1989). As mandated in ASTM

C227, mortar bars are stored in containers with wicks. (Rogers & Hooton 1989), testing

mortar bars with a wide range of containers with and without wicks, found that containers

with efficient wick systems may cause excessive leaching of alkalis out of the mortar bars

and may thus reduce expansion significantly. On the other hand, mortar bars stored in

containers without wicks or sealed in plastic bags showed expansion

11

Figure 2 . 1 Influence of the presence or absence of wicks on mortar bar

expansion tests (Grattan-Bellew P. , 1989).

After 1 year the amount of expansion was found to correlate well with the amount of

alkalis remaining in the mortar bars. Therefore, mortar bar tests, to be successful, require

the removal of wicks from containers or sealing the specimens in plastic bags. Mortar bar

test results are also very much influenced by the test conditions (Grattan-Bellew P. ,

1989). A large number of factors are known to affect ASR expansion, and these include

the proportion of reactive aggregate in the mortar, the particle size distribution of the

aggregates, the alkali content of the cement, storage temperature and humidity. The size

of the mortar bars also has an important influence on the expansion measured: the larger

12

the cross-sectional area of the mortar bar the greater the expansion observed (Grattan-

Bellew P. , 1989).

2.1.2 Chemical test methods

The chemical tests are generally rapid tests designed to give quick results when

conventional mortar bar and concrete prism tests cannot be carried out.

There are several tests which can be broadly classified as chemical tests:

ASTM C289-86 chemical method

Weight loss method (Germany)

Gel pat test (UK) Osmotic cell test (USA)

Chemical shrinkage method (Denmark).

The standard ASTM C289 test is the most widely known of all these tests, but it is not

suitable for use with all types of aggregates, and it is unable to give the expansion

potential of an aggregate. In general, each of these methods is only suitable for use with

certain types of aggregates and none of the tests is universally applicable.

In particular, it has been shown that the chemical method is unreliable to determine

the potential reactivity of carbonate aggregates. However, (Berard, 1986) have proposed

a modified version in which the chemical test is performed on the insoluble residues of

the siliceous limestone or dolostone aggregates. More recently Fournier and Berube

(Berube, 1990) have carried out an extensive investigation in which they studied the

influence of different parameters such as the concentration of the acid used for carbonate

dissolution and the particle size distribution of the insoluble residues under test. They also

evaluated the precision of the modified test procedure through an inter laboratory test

program; and, further, they applied the test method to more than 70 carbonate aggregates

13

from Quebec and eastern Ontario in Canada. The results showed that there was no good

correlation between the amount of dissolved silica (corrected or not) and the amount of

expansion measured in the concrete prism expansion test. It was concluded that

parameters other than the nature and amount of insoluble residue within the carbonate

rocks governed their potential for deleterious expansion in concrete, and that factors like

the permeability and porosity of the carbonate rocks had a major influence on

their expansion behavior in concrete.

2.1.3 Concrete prisms test – ASTM 1293 - (CPT):

This test method covers the determination of the susceptibility of an aggregate or

combination of an aggregate with SCM‟s for participation in expansive alkali-silica

reaction by measurement of length change of concrete prisms. (Davies G. and

Oberholster, 1987)

CPT method is intended to evaluate the potential of an aggregate or combination of

an aggregate with pozzolan or slag to expand deleteriously due to any form of alkali-

silica reactivity for an entire year (Rogers C. , 1990).

2.2 Mitigation of ASR

The best way to mitigate ASR is to prevent its occurrence through the proper use of

materials in the concrete mixture.

Though there are multiple methods to do this, three main methods that are used to

prevent the catastrophic expansions are:

1. Minimizing usage of reactive aggregates

2. Alkali level in the cement must be minimized to specific quantity

14

3. Using mineral additives in concrete mixture

Elimination of reactive aggregates is as known as the most effective method to

mitigate ASR. After doing the necessary tests, usage of materials that are truly innocuous

is the only way to keep a tab on reducing the Alkali Silica Reaction. There is no chance

of harmful reaction to occur, if there are no harmful materials for the reaction to occur in

the first place (Hassan, 2002). But an issue arises in confirming that, Is the material used

is truly innocuous. For this all the tests and field service records must be used to verify

the reactivity of the aggregate in a very conspicuous manner. Important considerations

should be taken and materials previously used must be used again for comparison in

selection of the reactive aggregates. Also, it must be made sure that the tested

aggregates must have the same properties of the original composition material. All the

test’s and present data must be maintained in well organized manner, so that for further

testing this data can be used for comparison. Other factors affecting the potential for

reaction must also be taken into account (Santagata, 2000).

ASR reaction includes the effect of environmental factors. A lot of environmental

factors play an important role for the ASR to occur. Depending upon the condition of the

aggregate, the rate of reaction could vary. Most important factor from the environmental

is the humidity conditions. For this, very good performance results and testing results

should be taken and put to use (Nelsen, 2003)

Another method in mitigating the ASR is to reduce or limit the alkali level in the cement.

“The reduction of alkali cannot go beyond a specific point because, reduction in alkali

level to less than 0.6% can be very harmful and still cause harmful expansions” (Diamond

15

S. &., 1993). This is a method that should be used potentially for moderate to low reactive

aggregates only, if complete removal of them is not an option. Reduction in the alkali

content should reduce or completely eliminate any unwanted expansion produced by

harmful ASR” (Davies, 1987). Usage of alkaline based chemical needs to be accounted

during this process. Some times, even though a minimalist amount of alkali levels are

maintained, usage of alkaline based deicer chemicals when necessary may create

enough alkali to produce a harmful reaction. But this might be the case only in higher

reactive aggregates. However when selecting concrete, entire life of concrete must

potentially mitigate ASR (Chatterji, 1987)

Another method in mitigating ASR is to add certain types of mixtures which prevent

this from happening. Of all the mixtures considered, fly ash is found to be the most

effective one. Certain types of admixtures have been found to be very effective mitigating

materials to prevent ASR. The most popular, and often considered the most effective

mitigating admixture is fly ash. (Farny, 2002)

Some other in comparison with fly ash are blast furnace slag (from iron production),

silica fumes and metakaolin which are together called as pozzolan. These materials

protect concrete from harmful ASR reactions. This happens when the admixtures react

during cement hydration by combining alkalis in the calcium silicate hydrate and thereby

reducing the amount of hydroxyl ion concentration and they reduce the diffusion rates of

alkali through the concrete pore solution to reaction sites (Diamond S. &., 1993).

There are two types of fly ashes that are recognized by ASTM. They are class F and

16

class C with the prime difference between them being the amount of permissible SiO2. In

class F type of fly ash, the amount is 70% where as in class C the amount is 50%. A

higher amount of silica produces a hydration product that complexes alkalis in pore

solution. Also, class C ashes have higher lime contents (10%-20%). A higher proportion

of lime indicates the reduction in effectiveness of fly ash to prevent ASR from happening.

Some times, it even acts as catalyst. Hence only class F fly ash is found to be effective

material (Malvar et al,2002).

17

Chapter 3. Materials & Experimental Procedures

3.1 Materials

For economic objectives, the scope of this research is to focus on using materials

available in the local market. All the materials used in this experiment are obtained from

within the state of Arkansas. Aggregates selected for this project were obtained from

Arkansas area aggregate producers.

A total of 2 natural sands and 3 coarse aggregates were tested for ASR expansion.

Fine aggregates selected for test are Arkansas River sand and Pine Bluff sand. Coarse

aggregates selected for test are Crushed limestone, Expanded clay, Expanded shale

3.1.1 Cementitious Materials

Type I Portland cement was used in all mixtures to avoid variables that could

occur. The properties of the Portland cement are shown in Table 3.1 1

3.1.2 Normal-weight Coarse Aggregate

The coarse aggregate used in the Control mixture was crushed limestone obtained

from McClinton-Anchor located in Springdale, AR. The coarse aggregate complied with

grading requirements of AASHTO T 27, It has an absorption capacity of 0.38% and

Table 3. 1 1Portland cement properties

C3S C2S C3A C4AF Free

CaO

SO3 MgO Blaine

Fineness

60.3 % 18.2 % 5.4 % 11.3 % 0.9 % 2.6 % 1.3 % 351

(m2/kg)

18

specific gravity of 2.68 (Floyd, 2012) Lime Stone gradations shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3. 2 Lime Stone Gradations

3.1.3 Light-Weight Aggregate & Properties (LWA)

Two different types of LWA were used during testing, expanded clay and expanded

shale. Old Castle Materials Inc. manufactured the coarse expanded clay in West

Memphis; AR. Buildex Inc. manufactured the coarse expanded shale in Ottawa, KS.

The properties of the coarse aggregate used in this research are shown in Table 3.3

Table 3. 3 Coarse Aggregate Properties(Floyd,2012)

Sieve size AHTD Specification, Coarse Aggregate %

Passing

1.25” 100

1.0” 60-100

0.75” 35-75

0.5” -

0.375” 10-30

#4” 0-5

#8” -

Coarse Aggregate Absorption Capacity

(Percent)

Specific Gravity

Expanded Clay 15 1.25

Expanded Shale 12.9 1.41

19

Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a substance to the density of a reference

substance; equivalently, it is the ratio of the mass of a substance to the mass of a

reference substance for the same given volume

Absorption capacity (AC or absorption) represents the maximum amount of water the

aggregate can absorb. It is calculated from the difference in weight between the dry state

and oven dry state, expressed as a percentage of the OD weight:

Absorption capacities and specific gravities were tested in previous research

performed by Royce Floyd at the University of Arkansas (Floyd, 2012). The crushed

limestone which was used in the control mixture is included to contrast its properties with

those of coarse LWA’s The expanded clay LWA had a nominal maximum aggregate size

of ½ inch, and the expanded shale LWA had a nominal maximum aggregate size of ¾

inch. Figure 3.1 shows both types of coarse Light weight Aggregates (LWA) used in this

study.

Figure 3.1 1 Expanded clay LWA (left) and Expanded Shale LWA (Right)

20

Linear shrinkage was first tested using ASTM C157. The steel molds were used in

accordance with ASTM C403 (ASTM, 2004) and linear change recorder called DEMEC

gauge is used.

3.1.4 Shape and Surface Texture

Particles shape and texture vary depending on the source of the aggregate and their

method of manufacturing. The color may range from light grey (pumice) through dark grey

(blast-furnace slag, furnace clinker) and reddish brown (expanded clays and shale) to

reddish black. LWA may consist of crushed sharp-edged particles, or of rounded nodules.

They may have a glassy outer skin or have more or less large open pores on the exterior

of the particles like in pumice, clinker and slag. Some types of aggregate like expanded

slate and shale have a foliated or laminated structure (Vénuat, 1974).The shape and

surface properties of the aggregates have an effect on the workability, pump ability, fine-

to-coarse aggregate ratio, binder content and water requirement (ACI213R-03)

3.1.5 Creep

Creep is the increase in strain of concrete under a sustained stress. Creep

properties of concrete may be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the structural

conditions. Concentrations of stress, either compressive or tensile, may be reduced by

stress transfer through creep, or creep may lead to excessive long-time deflection,

prestress loss, or loss of camber. The effects of creep along with those of drying shrinkage

should be considered and, if necessary, taken into account in structural designs. 4.8.1

Factors influencing creep—Creep and drying shrinkage are closely related phenomena

that are affected by many factors, such as type of aggregate, type of cement, grading of

21

aggregate, water content of the mixture, moisture content of aggregate at time of mixture,

amount of entrained

3.1.6 Experiment Molds

HM-279 and HM-281 Hinge-Free Steel Molds are lightweight and hinge free to

collapse into individual parts for easy stripping and cleaning. They are compact when

broken down and assemble quickly with plated bolts, wing nuts, and stainless steel U-bolt

carrying handles.

Standards in which these molds are accepted are AASHTO T126, AASHTO T23,

ASTM C192, ASTM C31, and ASTM C403. Steel molds manufactured by Gilson were

used in this research. The molds dimensions are 6 x 6 x 21 inches (figure 3.1 2).

Figure 3.1 2 Concrete Molds

22

3.1.7 DEMEC– Detached Mechanical

DEMEC: The DEMEC Mechanical Strain Gauge was developed as a reliable and

accurate way of taking strain measurements at different points on a structure using a

single instrument. With a discrimination of two micro strains (on the 200 mm gauge) and

gauge lengths of 50 to 2000 mm the DEMEC strain gauge is ideal for use on many types

of structure for strain measurement and crack monitoring.

Digital version of DEMEC: The digital DEMEC strain gauge incorporates a digital

indicator with a resolution of 0.001 mm, zero set, preset and output for SPC. The indicator

can be connected to a data processor for recording and analysis of results. The indicator

displays spindle movement digitally by means of a linear encoder and has a response

speed of 1000 mm/sec, and is battery operated (Mayes Instrument ltd).

Strain Gauges: Micro strains represented by one division on the dial gauge, or one

increment on the digital indicator.

Table 3. 4 Gauge length and micro strains

Gauge Length Digital version micro strains

50 mm -

100 mm 8

150 mm 5.3

200 mm 4

250 mm 3.2

300 mm 2.8

400 mm 2

500 mm 1.6

23

Each division is visually sub-dividable on the dial version of the DEMEC.A variety of

methods of locating the DEMEC points are available. Figure 3.1.3 displays few of the

DEMEC points.

Figure 3.1 3 DEMEC Points

Shrinkage was recorded at 0, 1, 2, 4, 7, 14, 56, 90 and 112 weeks for each of the

three prisms cast with each experimental mixture. First, DEMEC points are placed on the

concrete prism with the help of DEMEC rod and the DEMEC bar, which is measured and

zeroed. Then, the DEMEC bar is placed on points and the length was then recorded. The

reference bar was removed from points and zeroed, and the next prism length was

recorded. This process was repeated so that the length of each prism was recorded twice

to ensure consistent results. Linear change in percentage was calculated by dividing the

change in length by the gauge length of 20 inches and multiplied by 100.

24

3.2 Tests Performed

All the tests that have been performed were according to American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM). Set of tests performed on fresh properties of the concrete are

slump, density, and air content.

3.2.1 Slump Test

Definition

Slump is a measurement of concrete's workability, or fluidity. It’s an indirect

measurement of concrete consistency or stiffness. A slump test is a method used to

determine the consistency of concrete. The consistency, or stiffness, indicates how much

water has been used in the mix. The stiffness of the concrete mix should be matched to

the requirements for the finished product quality

The slump test of the fresh concrete was conducted according to ASTM C 1611-14.

The slump test is one of the most accepted methods to measure the workability of self-

consolidating concrete (SCC), both in the laboratory and the field. The test apparatus

consists of a metal conical mold with the base 8 inches in diameter, the top has 4 inches

in diameter and the height 12 inches. The metal conical mold placed upright on a flat,

nonabsorbent rigid surface, should be filled in one lift without tamping or vibration. Once

the concrete is spread, the difference in height of

The slump value noted in experiment is 6 inches, the ideal value in case of a dry

sample will be in the range of 25-50 mm that is 1-2 inches. But in case of a wet concrete,

the slump may vary from 150-175 mm or say 6-7 inches.

25

Figure 3.1 4 Concrete Slump

3.2.2 Density

The density of the fresh concrete was determined according to ASTM C 138-14. The

test apparatus consists of a balance or scale accurate to 0.1 lb or to within 0.3% of the

test load, whichever is greater, a round straight tamping rod 5/8 inches in diameter and

24 inches in length, a cylindrical container measure made of steel or any other suitable

metal. the volume of the measure varies with the size of aggregate used, a flat rectangular

metal plate at least 1⁄4 inches thick with a length and width at least 2 inches greater than

the diameter of the measure to be used, and a mallet with a rubber head. Care is needed

to consolidate the concrete adequately by either rodding or internal vibration. The top

surface should be stricken using a flat plate so that the container is filled to a flat smooth

finish.

3.2.3 Air Content

This test method covers the determination of the air content of freshly mixed concrete.

It measures the air contained in the mortar fraction of the concrete. Air content was

determined by using the same test for density, ASTM C 138-14. The measured density

of the concrete is subtracted from the theoretical density. This difference, expressed as

26

a percentage of the theoretical density is the air content. Mixture proportions and specific

gravities must be determined accurately; otherwise results may be in error.

3.2.4 Mixtures proportioning

A control mixture was prepared to conform to ACI 211.1-91 “Standard Practice for

Selecting Proportions for Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete”. A minimum water

content of 325 Ib/yd3 was required with a maximum w/cm of 0.50. Type I Portland cement

was used with a content of 570 Ib/yd.

The controlled concrete mix contains cement, coarse aggregate, and fine aggregate.

1. The accurately weighed cement, fly ash and fine aggregates are mixed together

until the whole mix become uniform and homogeneous in color.

2. Calculated amount of respective coarse aggregates is added to the

homogeneous mix.

3. Calculated amount of water i.e. 0.48% of water to cement weight is added and

mixed thoroughly until a uniform homogenous concrete is obtained.

4. After mixing, the concrete is placed in the molds, which were kept ready with small

amount of oil applied to molds, in order to prevent concrete sticking to molds.

5. Concrete is then compacted with shovels or iron bars. After compaction, the top

surface of the concrete is smoothened and kept ready for curing.

3.3 Details of Different Experiments

3.3.1 Concrete Prism Test

In this work, two different experiments have been conducted, in the first experiment

six different concrete mixes of different aggregates are prepared, each mix has six

specimens of which three are made of class C fly ash and another three are made of

27

class F fly ash and all the specimens are placed in field in order to expose them to

Arkansas weather conditions and note the respective changes. Table 3.3 1 gives the

concrete mix details. 0.50% of water to cement ratio is used, as per the 1997 Uniform

Building Code, when concrete is exposed to freezing and thawing in a moist condition.

Table 3.3 1 Different Mixes of Aggregates

S No W/C Ratio Fly ash Type Fine

Aggregate

Coarse

Aggregate

1

2

3

4

5

6

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

C

C

C

F

F

F

ARS

ARS

ARS

ARS

ARS

ARS

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

7

8

9

10

11

12

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

C

C

C

F

F

F

ARS

ARS

ARS

ARS

ARS

ARS

CLS

CLS

CLS

CLS

CLS

CLS

S No W/C Ratio Fly ash Type Fine

Aggregate

Coarse

Aggregate

19

20

0.50

0.50

C

C

ARS

ARS

EC

EC

28

21

22

23

24

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

C

F

F

F

ARS

ARS

ARS

ARS

EC

EC

EC

EC

25

26

27

28

29

30

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

C

C

C

F

F

F

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

13

14

15

16

17

18

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

C

C

C

F

F

F

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

CLS

CLS

CLS

CLS

CLS

CLS

S No W/C Ratio Fly ash Type Fine Aggregate

Coarse Aggregate

31

32

33

34

35

36

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

C

C

C

F

F

F

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

PBS

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

29

3.3.2 Canadian Concrete Prism Test & Field Exposure of Concrete Blocks

The development of the Canadian concrete prism test (now CSA A23.2-14A) began

in the 1950’s (Swenson and Gillott,1964), the principal motivation being the failure of the

standard mortar bar test (ASTM C 227) to correctly identify both alkali-silica (Swenson,

1957) and alkali-carbonate (Swenson,1957) reactive rocks in Ontario. Originally, concrete

prisms containing 523 lb/yd3 of cement were stored in a moist-curing room at 230C (730F)

and an expansion limit of 0.020% at 84 days was used to indicate potentially reactive

aggregates. The test has been continuously calibrated against field performance over the

years, and the test conditions have evolved to ensure that all known reactive aggregates

are correctly identified (Rogers et al, 2000)

In this experiment eight large concrete blocks of one mix is made and are placed

in site. Monitoring large blocks stored on an external exposure site provides a good

surrogate for field service records. Exposure site is the site at the work space provided

by University of Arkansas in the Little Rock, USA. These Specimens are in size 350mm

x 900-mm (13.8-in x 35.4-in.) and are stored directly on the wood blocks above the ground

of 20mm height to make whole specimen exposure to environment Figure 3.3 1 shows

the view of samples exposed at site. Field exposure of large specimens has been used

to supplement laboratory studies on the use of fly ash, slag, and metakaolin compounds

to control ASR. Expansion measurements can be made easily using DEMEC strain

gauges and embedded DEMEC points. Expansion data for 8 samples are shown in Table

3.3 2.

30

Table 3.3 2 . Expansion data

1st reading 6/6/2014

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-1

I 0.10785 0.08750 0.11265 0.08835

J 0.13025 0.09115 0.00750 0.11930

K 0.07900 0.11270 0.08380 0.09805

L 0.09560 0.07565 0.07215 0.09690

M 0.05375 0.09620 -0.00015 0.08440

N 0.12365 0.09780 0.08840 0.09125

O 0.08270 0.18955 0.12086 0.10040

P 0.10010 0.09305 0.07055 0.06315

Figure 3.3.2 View of samples at Site Exposure

31

Table 3.3 3 Second Readings of Canadian Experiment

Samples Second Reading 7/4/2014

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-1

I 0.10685 0.08970 0.14710 0.21780

J 0.11735 0.10380 0.09275 0.07460

K 0.14955 0.10880 0.00675 0.03035

L 0.08275 0.19100 0.04080 0.02005

M 0.17935 0.10875 0.18530 0.10530

N 0.19455 0.03545 0.13090 0.10340

O 0.15980 0.02570 0.15180 0.15285

P 0.00545 0.03955 0.03955 0.03955

Table 3.3 4 Third Readings of Canadian Experiment

Samples Third Reading 8/24/2014

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-1

I 0.10735 0.08500 0.11195 0.08605

J 0.13000 0.08195 0.00745 0.11730

K 0.07985 0.11080 0.08565 0.06060

L 0.09450 0.07390 0.07255 0.09570

M 0.05465 0.09095 0.00040 0.08280

N 0.12580 0.07195 0.08955 0.09065

O 0.08145 0.16275 0.11975 0.07395

P 0.10230 0.08065 0.07285 0.06145

Table 3.3 5 Fourth Readings of Canadian Experiment

Samples Fourth Reading 10/6/2014

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-1

I 0.10835 0.08700 0.11065 0.08825

J 0.13025 0.09150 0.00655 0.12030

K 0.07900 0.11270 0.08430 0.09795

L 0.09420 0.09780 0.07120 0.07620

M 0.05425 0.09700 0.00010 0.08495

N 0.01240 0.09845 0.08640 0.09280

O 0.08210 0.19415 0.11890 0.10115

P 0,10155 0.09395 0.07065 0.06380

32

Table 3.3 6 Fifth Readings of Canadian Experiment

Samples Fifth Reading 12/4/2014

1-2 2-3 3-4 4-1

I 0.10850 0.08900 0.11865 0.09225

J 0.13125 0.09450 0.00725 0.12330

K 0.08200 0.11870 0.08930 0.10705

L 0.09620 0.09980 0.07920 0.07920

M 0.05725 0.10200 0.00100 0.08895

N 0.01270 0.09945 0.09340 0.09380

O 0.08610 0.19515 0.12790 0.10815

P 0.10955 0.09995 0.07765 0.07100

33

3.3.3 Site Location

Figure 3.3 3 and 3.3 4 shows the images of samples placed at 5608 Asher Avenue, Site

allocated and belongs to University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Figure 3.3 3 Location of samples placed at site

Figure 3.3 4 Closer view of samples from Google Earth

34

Chapter 4. Results and Discussions

4.1 CLS/PBS-1 (Crushed Lime Stone / Pine Bluff Sand)

4.1.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 1 Expansion of length of samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone and Pine

Bluff Sand

Time Beam 13

Exp %

Beam 14

Exp %

Beam 15

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

14 0.01 0.01 0.02

28 0.02 0.02 0.03

56 0.02 0.02 0.04

90 0.02 0.03 0.04

112 0.03 0.03 0.04

Figure 4 . 1 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone & Pine Bluff

Sand

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Beam 13 Exp % Beam 14 Exp % Beam 15 Exp %

35

4.1.2 Width

Table 4 . 2 Expansion of width of samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 13

Exp %

Beam 14

Exp %

Beam 15

Exp %

1 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02

14 -0.11 -0.1 -0.08

28 -0.09 -0.05 -0.05

56 -0.11 -0.08 -0.04

90 -0.06 -0.01 0.03

112 -0.03 0.00 0.04


Sand

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


36

Percentage of expansion shown in figures 4.1 and 4.2 are the expansion of

concrete samples in length and width respectively plotted against days. The

mixes of these concrete samples are shown in table 3.3.1. Percentage of

expansion in concrete sample’s made of crushed lime stone and Pine Bluff

Sand with Class C fly ash are shown in these figures. From the graph, it is

noted that the percentage of expansion of these samples fall around 0.03 on

an average.

37

4.2 CLS/PBS-2 (Crushed Lime Stone / Pine Bluff Sand)

4.2.1 Length Change


Time Beam 16

Exp %

Beam 17

Exp %

Beam 18

Exp %

7 0.00 0.00 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 0.00

21 0.01 0.00 0.00

28 0.02 0.01 0.00

56 0.02 0.02 0.01

90 0.02 0.02 0.01

112 0.03 0.03 0.02


Sand

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


38

4.2.1 Width Change


Time Beam 16

Exp %

Beam 17

Exp %

Beam 18

Exp %

1 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02

14 -0.05 -0.09 -0.05

28 0.00 0.00 0.01

56 0.02 0.01 0.01

90 0.02 0.03 0.03

112 0.03 0.03 0.03


Sand

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


39

Percentage of expansion shown in figures 4.3 and 4.4 are the expansion of

concrete samples in length and width respectively, plotted against days. The

mixes of these concrete samples are shown in table 3.3.1. Percentage of

expansion in concrete sample’s made of Crushed lime stone and Pine Bluff

Sand with Class “F” fly ash is shown in above graphs. From the graph, it is

noted that the percentage of expansion of these samples fall around 0.03 on

an average.

40

4.3 CLS/ARS-1 (Crushed Lime Stone / Arkansas River Sand)

4.3.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 5 Expansion of length of samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 7

Exp %

Beam 8

Exp %

Beam 9

Exp %

1 0.00 0.00 0.00

7 0.00 -0.01 0.00

14 0.00 0.00 0.00

28 0.00 0.01 0.01

56 0.01 0.01 0.01

90 0.01 0.01 0.01

112 0.01 0.02 0.01

Figure 4 . 5 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone & Arkansas

River Sand

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

41

4.3.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 6 Expansion of width of samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 7

Exp %

Beam 8

Exp %

Beam 9

Exp %

1 0 0 0.02

7 -0.02 -0.02 0

14 -0.06 -0.06 -0.09

28 -0.06 -0.04 -0.07

56 -0.07 -0.02 -0.09

90 -0.05 0.01 -0.05

112 -0.04 0.02 -0.01

Figure 4 . 6 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone & Arkansas River Sand

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


42

Percentage of expansion shown in above figures 4.5 and 4.6 are the

expansion of concrete samples in length and width respectively plotted against

days. The mixes of these concrete samples are shown in table 3.3.1.

Percentage of expansion in concrete sample’s made of Crushed lime stone and

Arkansas River Sand with class Class “C” fly ash is shown in above graph.

From the graph, it is noted that the percentage of expansion of these samples

are around 0.01 on an average.

43

4.4 CLS/ARS-2 (Crushed Lime Stone / Arkansas River Sand)

4.4.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 7 Expansion of length of samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 10

Exp %

Beam 11

Exp %

Beam 12

Exp %

7 0 0 0

14 0.01 0 0

21 0.02 0.02 0.01

28 0.03 0.03 0.02

56 0.03 0.04 0.02

90 0.04 0.04 0.02

112 0.04 0.04 0.03


River Sand

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


44

4.4.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 8 Expansion of width of samples made up of Crushed Lime Stone and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 10

Exp %

Beam 11

Exp %

Beam 12

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02

14 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08

28 -0.03 -0.05 -0.06

56 -0.01 -0.04 -0.04

90 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01

112 0 -0.01 -0.01


River Sand

-0.09

-0.08

-0.07

-0.06

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


45




Percentage of expansion in concrete sample’s made of Crushed lime stone and

Arkansas River Sand with class Class “F” fly ash is shown in above graph.

From the graph, it is noted that the percentage of expansion of these samples

are around 0.04 on an average.

46

4.5 ES/ARS-1 (Expanded Shale/Arkansas River Sand)

4.5.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 9 Length expansion of Samples made up of Expanded Shale & Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 1

Exp %

Beam 2

Exp %

Beam 3

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 0.01 0 0

14 0.01 0.01 0.01

28 0.02 0.02 0.01

56 0.03 0.03 0.03

90 0.04 0.04 0.03

112 0.04 0.04 0.04

Figure 4 . 9 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Expanded Shale & Arkansas

River Sand

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


47

4.5.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 10 Expansion of width of samples made up of Expanded Shale and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 1

Exp %

Beam 2

Exp %

Beam 3

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03

14 -0.05 -0.07 -0.08

28 -0.03 -0.02 -0.03

56 -0.01 -0.04 -0.01

90 0.02 -0.03 0.02

112 0.02 0.01 0.03


River Sand

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


48

Percentage of expansion shown in above figures 4.9 and 4.10 are the expansion

of concrete samples in length and width respectively plotted against days. The mixes of

these concrete samples are shown in table 3.3.1. Percentage of expansion in concrete

sample’s made of Expanded Shale and Arkansas River Sand with class Class “C” fly ash

is shown in above graph. From the graph, it is noted that the percentage of expansion of

these samples are around 0.04 on an average.

49

4.6 ES/ARS-2 (Expanded Shale/Arkansas River Sand)

4.6.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 11 Expansion of Length of samples made up of Expanded Shale and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 4

Exp %

Beam 5

Exp %

Beam 6

Exp %

7 0 0 0

14 0 -0.01 0

21 0.01 0 0

28 0.02 0.01 0.01

56 0.05 0.01 0.01

90 0.03 0.02 0.01

112 0.03 0.03 0.02


River Sand

-0.02

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


50

4.6.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 12 Expansion of width of samples made up of Expanded Shale and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 4

Exp %

Beam 5

Exp %

Beam 6

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02

14 -0.09 -0.05 -0.18

28 -0.08 -0.03 -0.16

56 -0.1 -0.01 -0.14

90 -0.04 0.11 -0.03

112 0 0.02 -0.03


River Sand

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


51




sample’s made of Expanded Shale and Arkansas River Sand with class Class “F” fly ash



52

4.7 ES/PBS-1 (Expanded Shale/Pine Bluff Sand)

4.7.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 13 Expansion of Length of samples made up of Expanded Shale and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 31

Exp %

Beam 32

Exp %

Beam 33

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 0.03 0.05 0.02

14 0.04 0.05 0.05

28 0.04 0.06 0.06

56 0.05 0.06 0.06

90 0.05 0.06 0.07

112 0.06 0.06 0.07

Figure 4 . 13 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Expanded Shale & Pine Bluff

Sand

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


53

4.7.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 14 Expansion of width of samples made up of Expanded Shale and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 31

Exp %

Beam 32

Exp %

Beam 33

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.07 -0.02 -0.02

14 -0.03 0.03 0.03

28 0.04 0.05 0.07

56 0.05 0.06 0.08

90 0.07 0.08 0.07

112 0.07 0.08 0.08


Sand

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


54







55

4.8 ES/PBS-2 (Expanded Shale/Pine Bluff Sand)

4.8.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 15 Expansion of Length of samples made up of Expanded Shale and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 34

Exp %

Beam 35

Exp %

Beam 36

Exp %

7 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

21 0.01 0.01 0.01

28 0.03 0.02 0.02

56 0.03 0.02 0.02

90 0.04 0.02 0.03

112 0.04 0.03 0.03


Sand

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


56

4.8.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 16 Expansion of width of samples made up of Expanded Shale and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 34

Exp %

Beam 35

Exp %

Beam 36

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.05 -0.02 -0.02

14 -0.08 -0.15 -0.05

28 -0.06 -0.13 -0.11

56 -0.03 -0.09 -0.07

90 -0.02 -0.05 -0.03

112 0 0.02 0.02


Sand

-0.18

-0.16

-0.14

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


57







58

4.9 EC/ARS-1 (Expanded Clay/Arkansas River Sand)

4.9.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 17 Expansion of Length of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 19

Exp %

Beam 20

Exp %

Beam 21

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 0 0 0

14 0.01 0.01 0.01

28 0.02 0.01 0.02

56 0.02 0.02 0.02

90 0.02 0.02 0.03

112 0.03 0.03 0.03

Figure 4 . 17 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Expanded Clay & Arkansas

River Sand

-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


59

4.9.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 18 Expansion of Width of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 19

Exp %

Beam 20

Exp %

Beam 21

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.02 -0.03 -0.04

14 -0.04 -0.06 -0.07

28 -0.04 -0.06 -0.07

56 -0.05 -0.09 -0.1

90 -0.03 -0.07 -0.06

112 -0.01 -0.03 -0.03


River Sand

-0.12

-0.1

-0.08

-0.06

-0.04

-0.02

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


60




Percentage of expansion in concrete sample’s 19, 20, and 21 made of

Expanded Clay and Arkansas River Sand with Class C fly ash is shown in above

graph. From the graph, it is noted that the percentage of expansion of these

samples are around 0.03 on an average.

61

4.10 EC/ARS-2 (Expanded Clay/Arkansas River Sand)

4.10.1 Length Change

Table 4 . 19 Expansion of Length of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 22

Exp %

Beam 23

Exp %

Beam 24

Exp %

7 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

21 0.01 0.03 0.01

28 0.06 0.05 0.02

56 0.03 0.04 0.03

90 0.04 0.05 0.03

112 0.04 0.05 0.04


River Sand

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


62

4.9.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 20 Expansion of Width of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Arkansas River Sand

Time Beam 22

Exp %

Beam 23

Exp %

Beam 24

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03

14 -0.04 -0.02 -0.04

28 -0.04 -0.02 -0.03

56 -0.02 0 -0.02

90 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02

112 -0.02 0 0


River Sand

-0.045

-0.04

-0.035

-0.03

-0.025

-0.02

-0.015

-0.01

-0.005

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


63



days. The mixes of these concrete samples are shown in table 3.3.1


Expanded Clay and Arkansas River Sand with Class F fly ash is shown in above

graph. From the graph, it is noted that the percentage of expansion of these

samples are around 0.04 on an average.

64

4.11 EC/PBS-1 (Expanded Clay/Pine Bluff Sand)


Table 4 . 21 Expansion of Length of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 25

Exp %

Beam 26

Exp %

Beam 27

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 -0.01 0.01 0

14 0 0.01 0.01

28 0.03 0.04 0.02

56 0.03 0.04 0.02

90 0.04 0.04 0.02

112 0.04 0.04 0.03

Figure 4 . 21 Expansion Graph of Samples made up of Expanded Clay & Pine Bluff

Sand

-0.02

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


65

4.11.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 22 Expansion of Width of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 25

Exp %

Beam 26

Exp %

Beam 27

Exp %

1 0 0 0

7 0 -0.01 -0.01

14 -0.03 -0.03 -0.03

28 -0.06 -0.01 -0.01

56 -0.04 -0.02 0.01

90 -0.02 -0.03 0.01

112 0.01 0 0.03


Sand

-0.07

-0.06

-0.05

-0.04

-0.03

-0.02

-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


66

4.12 EC/PBS-2 (Expanded Clay/Pine Bluff Sand)


Table 4 . 23 Expansion of Length of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 28

Exp %

Beam 29

Exp %

Beam 30

Exp %

7 0 0 0

14 0 0 0

21 0.01 0.04 0.02

28 0.04 0.05 0.05

56 0.1 0.05 0.05

90 0.05 0.05 0.06

112 0.05 0.06 0.06


Sand

-0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


67

4.12.2 Width Change

Table 4 . 24 Expansion of Width of samples made up of Expanded Clay and Pine Bluff Sand

Time Beam 28

Exp %

Beam 29

Exp %

Beam 30

Exp %

1 0 -0.02 0

7 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01

14 -0.05 -0.04 -0.24

28 -0.02 -0.02 -0.05

56 -0.13 -0.09 -0.02

90 -0.21 -0.07 -0.09

112 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04


Sand

-0.3

-0.25

-0.2

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0 20 40 60 80 100 120


68





Expanded Clay and Pine Bluff Sand with class Class “F” fly ash is shown in

above graph. From the graph, it is noted that the percentage of expansion of


69

5.Conclusions & Results

The expansion of concrete samples due to Alkali-Silica Reaction was measured in this

research. Since none of the tests that are used currently meet all the criteria, most suitable

way of test has been taken as the method of evaluation (Concrete Prism Test at Arkansas

environment). The expansion values of different aggregates show near similar values in

expansion percentage. Among all the materials that are compared, crushed limestone

with Arkansas River Sand has shown minimum amount expansion over chosen period.

With all considerations made, the expansion percentage from this material was 0.01%

after a period of 112 weeks Compared to all the other aggregates formations formed with

other sands, Arkansas River Sand is preferable over the Environmental conditions in

Arkansas. Though it wasn’t possible to find out specific mechanism regarding to ASR

reaction, necessary steps to mitigate the ASR have been mentioned. This study was

based upon only one type of cement (Portland Cement). These results can be used as a

reference when applied to other cements, but cannot be considered for sure, it is highly

recommended to conducted the test upon different cements and also to conduct different

tests on same samples used to check the credibility of the result.

70

6.Future Recommendation

Since the availability of high quality and low reactivity dwindles, the use of alternative

methods to suppress the expansion due to ASR is becoming mandatory. Even though

there are multiple methods in mitigating ASR, like using less active aggregates, reducing

the alkaline level and using mineral additives, there are many technical and practical

issues that deserve much attention. More mechanic research must be done in defining

how specific compounds suppers the expansion due to ASR. Even though several

theories have been proposed, a good further detailed investigation into this matter

provides the understanding of the process that happens in expansion and how other

additives work. Gaining a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms will result

in more efficient and cost-effective applications of mineral additive compounds in concrete

construction.

Developing a reliable model to determine a near approximate life time of the

constructions can also be developed further. Reliable modeling of ASR could be an

extremely useful tool for prediction of the remaining life of affected structures, for optimum

scheduling of repair, and for design of these repairs. The available experimental methods

are especially inaccurate with respect to predicting the future performance and

progression of ASR in structures in service, and reliable models could have great utility

in supplementing laboratory experiments and field monitoring. New methods in mitigation

ASR should be studied

71

Bibliography

ACI213R-03. (n.d.).

Asgeirsson, H. (1975). Proceedings of a Symposium on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, Preventive

Measures. . Reykjavik.

ASTM. (1988). Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity of cement-aggregate

combinations (Mortar Bar Method). . American Society for Testing Materials.

Berard, J. a. (1986). La viabilité des bétons du Québec. Canada.

Berube, M. (1990). Evaluation of a modified chemical method to determine the alkali-reactivity

potential of siliceous carbonate aggregates. Report EM- 92, Canadian Developments in

Testing Concrete Aggregates for Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity. 118-135.

Blanks, R. (1941). Concrete deterioration at Parker Dam. . 462– 465.

Blight, G. &. (2011). Alkali-aggregate reaction and structural damage to concrete:Engineering

assessment, repair, and management. The Netherlands.

Chatterji, N. T. (1987). Studies of alkali-silica reaction. Part 4. Effect of different alkali salt

solutions on expansion, Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 17,.

CSA. (1986). Standards Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction. Canada.

Davies G. and Oberholster, R. (1987). NBRI accelerated test to determine the alkali-reactivity of

aggregates. . CSIRO Special Report BOU 92–1987.

Davies, G. &. (1987). An interlaboratory test program on the CSIR accelerated test to determine

the alkali reactivity of aggregates. 621-635.

72

Diamond, S. &. (1993). Chemical admixtures for highway concrete: Fundamental research and a

guide to usage.

Diamond, S. (. (1978). Effects of Alkalis in Cement and Concrete. W.Lafayette, USA.:

Publication No. CE-MAT-1–78. School of Engineering.

Farny, J. A. (2002). Diagnosis and Control of Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity, IS413. Portland

Cement Association.

Fedaral Highway Administration Research and Technology. (2003, July). Retrieved from

www.fhwa.dot.gov]

Floyd, R. W. (2012). Investigating the bond of prestressing strands in lightweight self-

consolidating concrete. Arkansas, USA: University of Arkansas: ProQuest.

Grattan-Bellew, P. (. (1986). Concrete Alkali-Aggregate Reactions. Far Ridge, NJ: Noyes

Publications.

Grattan-Bellew, P. (1989). Test methods and criteria for evaluating the potential reactivity of

aggregates. . Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate

Reaction, (pp. 279–294.).

Hassan, Y. A. (2002). Effects of Runway Deicers On Pavement Materials and Mixes:

Comparison with Road Salt. Journal of Transportation Engineering,. 385-385.

Hooton, R. (1986). Effect of containers on ASTM C 441—Pyrex mortar bar expansions.

Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in

Concrete,, (pp. 351–357.).

Idorn, G. (1967). Durability of Concrete Structures in .

Meissner, H. (1941). Cracking in concrete due to expansion reaction between aggregate and

high-alkali cement as evidenced in Parker Dam. 549-668.

73

Nelsen, D. (2003). Investigation of the damaging effects of exposure to deicing chemicals on

Portland cement materials. 173-188.

Oberholster, R. (. (1981). Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete. Pretoria, South Africa.:

National Building Research Institute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial

Research,.

Poole, A. (. (1976). Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on the Effect of Alkalis on

the Properties of Concrete. Cement and Concrete Association. . Wexham Springs,, UK:

Blackie & Son Ltd.

Ramachandran, V. (2002). Handbook of thermal analysis of construction materials. Norwich,

N.Y.: Noyes Publications. .

Rogers, C. (1990). Concrete prism expansion test for the alkalicarbonate reaction. Concrete

Aggregates for Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity, 136-149.

Rogers, C. a. (1989). Leaching of alkalis in alkali-aggregate reaction testing. Proceedings of the

Eight International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, (pp. 327–332).

Santagata, M. a. (2000). The Effect of CMA Deicers on Concrete Properties: Cement and

Concrete Research,. Pergamon Press, 1389-1394.

Slag Cement Association, S. C. (2013). Slag Cement Association. Retrieved from Slag Cement

Association: http://www.slagcement.org/

Smith, K. M., Schokker, A. J., & and Tikalsky, P. J. (2004, September). “Performance of

Supplemental Cementing Materials in Concrete Resistivity and Corrosion Monitoring

Evaluations. ACI Materials Journal, 6.

Stanton, T. (1940). Expansion of concrete through reaction between cement and aggregate.

ASCE, 1781-1811.

74

Swenson, E. (1957). A reactive aggregate undetected by ASTM tests. ASTM Bulletin No. 226.

Vénuat. (1974). Concrete Materials (Vol. 2). New Jersey, USA: NOYES Publications.

Thesis on ASR

Documents