Divergence between Performance in the Field and Laboratory Test Results for Alkali-Silica Reaction

Abstract

The most common test methods used to evaluate alkali-silica reaction (ASR) are the concrete prism test (CPT) and the accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT). However, these tests were not found to be entirely reliable in predicting the performance of concrete under field conditions, especially when supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) are used. Recently, two new test methods, the miniature concrete prism test (MCPT) and the concrete cylinder test (CCT), have been proposed but still need to be benchmarked with results from outdoor exposed blocks. In this paper, the results from the MCPT, CCT, CPT and exposed blocks are compared and their ability to properly evaluate the expected behavior of these mixtures in service with regard to ASR is discussed. Here, the results of mixtures made with four reactive aggregates: Spratt, Placitas (coarse aggregates), Wright, and Jobe (fine aggregates) and SCMs (fly ashes Classes F or C, slag cement, or silica fume) at different levels of cement replacement or lithium nitrate are presented. For these mixtures, only the MCPT was capable of properly classifying the efficiency of the ASR preventive measures, as compared with the long-term results obtained from the exposed blocks.

A Multiscale and Multimethod Approach to Assess and Mitigate Concrete Damage Due to Alkali–Silica Reaction

“…In numerous studies, the results gained by applying different tests and standards to assess alkali reactivity of aggregates were compared and benchmarked against the behavior of structures in the field. [17,[32][33][34][35]73,74] Sources of reference for high-alkali cements and nonreactive aggregates were established for international and interlaboratory trials of accelerated tests. Contradictory results were carefully analyzed, and the methods have been continuously improved based on the resulting insights.…”

“…[31] Other studies of these expert committees set the frame for categorizing and harmonizing accelerated ASR testing methods, including detailed explanations of the advantages and drawbacks of different strategies. [8] Another important focus lies on the organization of round robin tests, and on the assemblage and overall evaluation of field tests [32][33][34][35] which are an indispensable tool for the calibration of accelerated tests, including the definition of limit values with respect to measured expansions.…”

CALTRANS: Impact of the Use of Portland-Limestone Cement on Concrete Performance as Plain or Reinforced Material

“…The authors also concluded that the CPT method is the most reliable ASTM method available currently, and the use of AMBT is possible to determine the required minimum amount of SCM to control ASR expansion as there is a low risk of damaging expansion in the field when the combination of materials pass the AMBT performance criteria [60]. The miniature concrete prism test -MCPT (AASHTO T 380 [61]) is a newer test method, which is also of interest as the preliminary results regarding the prediction of the field performance show promising results in shorter duration (up to 84 days) when compared to the CPT method [62,63].…”

Increasing the Reliability of Formation Factor-Based Transport Property Prediction for High Performance Concrete Mixtures Through Innovative Matching Pore Solution Curing

“…PSC of concrete is determined either through extraction or modeling approaches. However, the extraction of pore solution from paste/mortar/concrete requires a complicated procedure, contingent on the applied pressure and is thus usually limited to early ages ( 17 , 18 ). As for modeling approaches, the online NIST model ( 19 ) is widely used to estimate the PSC of concrete mixtures based on bulk oxide compositions of concrete ingredients.…”

“…As for modeling approaches, the online NIST model ( 19 ) is widely used to estimate the PSC of concrete mixtures based on bulk oxide compositions of concrete ingredients. However, several studies ( 18 , 20 ) have noted that while the NIST model provides a reasonable estimation of PSC for OPC mixtures, it significantly overestimates the PSC of fly ash mixtures, especially in cases of Class F FA ( 21 ). Of late, several researchers have successfully used the thermodynamic modeling approach to model hydration phase assemblage and predict the PSC of binary and ternary concrete mixtures ( 22 – 25 ).…”