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
Engineering
Hussain Al-Rizzo
Professor of System Engineering
Program Coordinator:
Jim Carr
Professor of 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
FIGURE 4 . 3 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF CRUSHED LIME STONE & PINE BLUFF SAND ............. 37

xii
FIGURE 4 . 4 EXPANSION GRAPH OF SAMPLES MADE UP OF CRUSHED LIME STONE & PINE BLUFF SAND............. 38
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
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
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
Bluff Sand
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
Bluff Sand
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
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

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Thesis on ASR (20)

Thesis on ASR