ALKALI-AGGREGATE REACTIVITY (AAR)

WORKSHOPS
FOR ENGINEERS AND PRACTITIONERS
Reference Manual

November 2012
 Table of Contents
 
1 – Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3
 
1.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 3
 
1.2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 3
 
1.3 WORKSHOP OUTLINE ...................................................................................................... 4
 
1.4 RELATED RESOURCES..................................................................................................... 5
 
REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 6
 
2 – Fundamentals of Alkali-Aggregate Reaction .................................................. 7
 
2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 7
 
2.2 TYPES OF ALKALI-AGGREGATE REACTION .............................................................. 7
 
2.3 HISTORY OF AAR .............................................................................................................. 8
 
2.4 FUNDAMENTALS OF ASR ............................................................................................... 8
 
2.4.1 ASR Mechanisms of Reaction and Expansion ............................................................... 8
 
2.4.2 Requirements for ASR.................................................................................................. 12
 
2.5 FUNDAMENTALS OF ACR............................................................................................. 18
 
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 19
 
3 – Symptoms of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) ................................................... 22
 
3.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ......................................................................................... 22

3.2 CRACKING ........................................................................................................................ 22

3.3 EXPANSION CAUSING MOVEMENTS AND DEFORMATIONS ............................... 28

3.4 POP-OUTS.......................................................................................................................... 30

3.5 SURFACE DEPOSITS (GEL EXUDATION VS. EFFLORESCENCE) .......................... 32

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 32

4 – Test Methods .................................................................................................... 33

 
4.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 33
 
4.2 ASR TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING AGGREGATE REACTIVTY ................. 33
 
4.3 ASR TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING PREVENTIVE MEASURES .................. 37
 
4.4 ACR TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING AGGREGATE REACTIVITY................ 40
 
4.5 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 42
 
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 42
 
5 – Prevention of Alkali-Silica Reaction .............................................................. 44
 
5.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 44
 
5.2 PREVENTIVE MEASURES – OPTIONS ......................................................................... 44
 
5.3 USE OF NON-REACTIVE AGGREGATES ..................................................................... 45
 
5.4 LIMITING THE ALKALI CONTENT OF THE CONCRETE ......................................... 45
 
5.5 USE OF SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTING MATERIALS............................................ 47
 
5.5.1 Effect of SCM on Expansion of Concrete .................................................................... 47
 
5.5.2 How SCMs Work to Control ASR ............................................................................... 52
 
5.5.3 Tests Methods for Evaluating the Efficacy of SCM..................................................... 55
 
5.6 USE OF LITHIUM ............................................................................................................. 56
 
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 57
 
6 – Alkali-Aggregate Reactions: Specifications .................................................. 60
 
6.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 60
 
 6.2 EXISTING SPECIFICATIONS IN USA ........................................................................... 60
 
6.2.1 ASTM ........................................................................................................................... 60
 
6.2.2 ACI ............................................................................................................................... 62
 
6.2.3 State Specifications....................................................................................................... 63
 
6.3 AASHTO PP65-11.............................................................................................................. 63
 
6.3.1 Evaluating Aggregate Reactivity .................................................................................. 63
 
6.3.2 Selecting Preventive Measures..................................................................................... 64
 
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 72
 
7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis of Alkali-silica Reaction in Concrete Structures 73
 
7.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 73

7.2 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR AAR-AFFECTED STRUCTURES ......................... 73

7.2.1 ASR investigation program – Step 1 (Diagnosis) ........................................................ 74

 
7.2.2 ASR investigation program – Step 2 (Prognosis)......................................................... 84
 
7.3 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 93
 
REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................... 93
 
8 – Mitigation Methods for ASR-Affected Structures........................................ 97
 
8.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 97
 
8.2 OVERVIEW OF MITIGATION METHODS .................................................................... 97
 
8.3 REDUCING INTERNAL RELATIVE HUMIDITY ......................................................... 98
 
8.4 APPLICATION OF LITHIUM COMPOUNDS............................................................... 102
 
8.5 APPLICATION OF EXTERNAL RESTRAINT ............................................................. 104
 
8.6 STRESS RELIEF .............................................................................................................. 105
 
8.7 SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 105
 
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 106
 
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 1 – Introduction

1 – Introduction 

1.1 BACKGROUND

Funding for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Alkali-Silica Reactivity (ASR)
Development and Deployment Program was provided under SAFETEA-LU. A related
Conference Report provides additional guidance stating that “project and programs related to
ASR should…assist states in inventorying existing structures for ASR.” Throughout the
program, the FHWA has been leading a national effort to further the development and
deployment of techniques which can prevent and mitigate ASR.

In closing of the ASR Development and Deployment Program, workshops are being delivered to
effectively transfer the deliverables of the Program and provide State Department of
Transportation (DOT) engineers and practitioners with the information and tools necessary to
address ASR in their states.

This document serves as the Reference Guide for the FHWA workshops on Alkali-Aggregate
Reactivity (AAR).

1.2 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

Upon completion of the workshop, the participants should be able to:

• Understand the fundamentals of AAR, which includes alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and
alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR).
• Describe available methods of preventing or mitigating ASR-induced damage in newly-
constructed and existing concrete structures.
• Identify test methods and specifications related to ASR.

Case studies of ASR-affected concrete structures and rehabilitation strategies are provided
throughout the workshop.

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 1 – Introduction

1.3 WORKSHOP OUTLINE

The workshop is divided into eight sessions or major topics. This Reference Guide also follows
the same outline, and a brief description of each topic follows:

Introduction and Workshop Objectives

This first session provides an introduction of the speakers, workshop objectives and outline, and
includes the opportunity for participants to present themselves.

Session 2 - Fundamentals of Alkali-Silica Reaction

This session provides a brief history of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and alkali-carbonate reaction
(ACR), and discusses the mechanisms of reaction and expansion. The main methods of
mitigating ASR are presented as well.

Session 3 - Symptoms of ASR

This session describes the symptoms of ASR and provides case studies of ASR-induced damage
in concrete structures. Methods of monitoring and evaluating existing structures for ASR are
described.

Session 4 - ASR Test Methods

This session reviews available ASR test methods, including tests for aggregates, supplementary
cementing materials (SCMs), etc. The instructors make recommendations for test methods based
on the state-of-the-practice.

Session 5 - Prevention of ASR

This session discusses various strategies for preventing alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in concrete,
including avoiding reactive aggregates, controlling the alkali content of the concrete, using
supplementary cementing materials, and the use of lithium-based compounds.

Session 6 - ASR Specifications

This session discusses performance-based and prescriptive specifications for alkali-aggregate

reaction. The instructors focus on AASHTO PP65-11 “Standard Practice for Determining the
Reactivity of Concrete Aggregates and Selecting Appropriate Measures for Preventing

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 1 – Introduction

Deleterious Expansion in New Concrete Construction.” Requirements within ASTM and ACI are
also discussed.

Session 7 - Diagnosis and Prognosis of ASR

This session describes field and laboratory evaluations to confirm that AAR is the main cause or
a significant contributor to the deterioration observed. In addition, this session covers
management of ASR-affected structures, which includes in-situ monitoring of the deterioration.

Session 8 - Repair Methods

This session presents repair methods to mitigate ASR-induced damage in newly-constructed or

existing concrete structures, including: topical application of silanes and similar products,
application of lithium compounds, and confinement.

1.4 RELATED RESOURCES

Some relevant publications and guidance developed under the FHWA ASR Development and
Deployment Program include:

• Report on the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reaction in

Transportation Structures. The report is available online at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/pubs/hif09004/asr00.cfm
• Alkali-Silica Reactivity Field Identification Handbook, which can be downloaded online
at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=800
• Alkali-Silica Reactivity Surveying and Tracking Guidelines, which can be downloaded
online at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=820
• The online FHWA ASR Reference Center, which includes research reports, guidance
documents, specifications related to ASR, field trials reports, and other helpful links. It
can be accessed at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/asr/reference.cfm

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 1 – Introduction

REFERENCES
AASHTO. 2011. PP65-11, “Standard Practice for Determining the Reactivity of Concrete
Aggregates and Selecting Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New
Concrete Construction,” Washington, D.C.

109th Congress. 2005. House Report 109-203, “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users,” Section 5203.

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

2 – Fundamentals of Alkali‐Aggregate Reaction 

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This section provides a brief history of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and alkali-carbonate reaction
(ACR), and discusses the mechanisms of reaction and expansion. Requirements for both ASR
and ACR include a source of reactive aggregate, a sufficient concentration of alkalis and
moisture availability. Sources of reactive silica and the role of alkalis in ASR are discussed in
detail.

2.2 TYPES OF ALKALI-AGGREGATE REACTION

Alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) is a reaction in concrete between the alkali hydroxides, which
originate mainly from the portland cement, and certain types of aggregate. Two types of AAR
are currently recognized; these are alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and alkali-carbonate reaction
(ACR). As the names imply, these types of reaction differ in that they involve reactions with
either siliceous or carbonate phases in the aggregates. The reactions are briefly defined as
follows:

AAR Chemical reaction in either concrete or mortar between hydroxyl ions (OH-) of
the alkalies (sodium and potassium) from hydraulic cement (or other sources),
and certain constituents of some aggregates; under certain conditions
deleterious expansion of concrete or mortar may result.
ACR Chemical reaction in either concrete or mortar between hydroxyl ions (OH-) of
the alkalies (sodium and potassium) from hydraulic cement (or other sources)
and certain carbonate rocks, particularly calcitic dolostone and dolomitic
limestones, present in some aggregates. The reaction is usually accompanied by
dedolomitization and expansion of the affected aggregate particles, leading to
abnormal expansion and cracking of concrete in service.
ASR Chemical reaction in either concrete or mortar between hydroxyl ions (OH-) of
the alkalies (sodium and potassium) from hydraulic cement (or other sources),
and certain siliceous rocks and minerals, such as opal, chert,
microcrystalline quartz, and acidic volcanic glass, present in some
aggregates. This reaction and the development of the alkali-silica gel
reaction product can, under certain circumstances, lead to abnormal expansion
and cracking of the concrete.

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

ASR is far more widespread than ACR and is the main focus of this workshop. However, it
should be noted that some test methods used to detect alkali-silica reactive aggregates may fail to
detect alkali-carbonate reactive aggregates. In addition, measures used to prevent damaging ASR
are generally ineffective in preventing ACR expansion and, consequently, alkali-carbonate
reactive rocks should not be used in the production of concrete.

2.3 HISTORY OF AAR

Problems due to ASR were first identified in the State of California in the 1930s and reported by
Thomas Stanton of the California State Division of Highways in 1940 (Stanton 1940). Stanton’s
studies demonstrated that the expansion of mortar bars was influenced by the alkali content of
the cement, the type and amount of the reactive silica in the aggregate, the availability of
moisture and temperature. He further showed that expansion was negligible when the alkali
content of the cement was below 0.60% Na2Oe and that expansion could be reduced by
pozzolans, thus setting the groundwork for preventive measures. Subsequent to Stanton’s
discovery, ASR was diagnosed as the cause of abnormal cracking in a number of dams operated
by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and in the 1940s a number of agencies initiated studies on
ASR in the U.S.A. (Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Public Roads, Portland Cement
Association) and other countries (Denmark and Australia). ASR is now recognized as a major
cause of concrete deterioration in the U.S.A., incidences having occurred in most, if not all, of
the contiguous states, and worldwide.

Alkali carbonate reaction (ACR) was first discovered by Swenson (1957) as the cause of
concrete deterioration in Canada and was subsequently implicated in cases of degradation of
concrete structures in the USA (Hadley 1961). Unlike ASR, problems with ACR are restricted to
a few isolated locations worldwide. Consequently, there has been comparatively little research
conducted on this topic.

2.4 FUNDAMENTALS OF ASR

2.4.1 ASR Mechanisms of Reaction and Expansion

Figure 2.1 shows the sequence of events in the alkali-silica reaction. The pore solution of
concrete is composed primarily of sodium (Na+) and potassium (K+) ions, balanced by hydroxyl
ions (OH-), giving rise to a high pH (typically 13.2 to 14.0). At high pH, the OH- ions “attack”
the silanol (Si-OH) groups and, subsequently, the siloxane (Si-O-Si) groups of reactive silica
present in the aggregate, causing dissolution of the silica.

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

Concrete pore solution is

dominated by Na, K & OH
(with minor amounts of Ca).
If the silica in the aggregate is
reactive – the OH and then the
Na & K will react with the SiO2

The product of the reaction is in

alkali-silica gel composed of
Na, K, Ca & Si
The gel forms around and
within the aggregate

The gel imbibes water from the

surrounding cement paste
The gel expands
Eventually the swelling
pressures may exceed the tensile
strength of the surrounding
paste and cause expansion &
cracking of the concrete

Figure 2.1. Alkali-Silica Reaction Sequence

These reactions can be represented by Eqns. 2.1 and 2.2 as follows (modified from Dent Glasser
and Kataoka 1981) 1:

1
Note that Na is used in these equations to represent both sodium (Na) and potassium (K); similar equations can be
written replacing Na for K.
9

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

Si-OH + OH- + Na+ → Si-O-Na + H2O Eqn. 2.1

Si-O-Si + 2OH- + 2Na+ → 2(Si-O-Na) + H2O Eqn. 2.2

In the presence of calcium, the silica precipitates from solution as an alkali-silica gel, primarily
composed of sodium, potassium and silica, with small amounts of calcium. The gel, which forms
within and/or around the aggregate, is hygroscopic and has the capacity to absorb water and
swell. Under certain conditions, the formation and subsequent swelling of the gel may cause
expansion and, eventually, cracking of the concrete.

Figure 2.2 shows a petrographic thin section of ASR-affected concrete viewed under a
microscope with transmitted light. The image shows a flint sand particle (at left) embedded in
cement paste. The flint particle has reacted, expanded and cracked, and the crack extends out into
the surrounding cement paste. The crack within the aggregate and in the paste is partially filled
with a reaction product, alkali-silica gel.

Cement
paste

Reaction
product
(gel)

Reactive
aggregate

Figure 2.2. Photograph of a Thin Section of Concrete Undergoing ASR (field of view ~ 5 mm)

Despite general acceptance of the chemical reactions involved, a number of different

mechanisms of expansion have been proposed as follows:
• Hansen (1944) suggested that the cement paste surrounding reactive grains acts as a semi­
permeable membrane through which water (or pore solution) may pass but not the larger
complex silicate ions. The water is drawn into the reacting grain where its chemical
potential is lowest. An osmotic pressure cell is formed and increasing hydrostatic
pressure is exerted on the cement paste, inevitably leading to cracking of the surrounding
mortar.

10

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

• McGowan and Vivian (1952) disputed the classical osmotic theory on the basis that
cracking of the surrounding cement paste “membrane” due to ASR would relieve
hydraulic pressure and prevent further expansion. They proposed an alternative
mechanism based on the physical absorption of water by the alkali silica-gel and
subsequent swelling of the gel.
• Powers and Steinour (1955a, 1955b) proposed a compromise, suggesting that both
osmotic and imbibition pressures may be generated depending on whether the alkali-
silicate complex is fluid or solid. In their hypothesis, the reaction product itself may act as
a semi-permeable membrane depending on its composition.

Regardless of the mechanism, the fundamental cause of swelling is thermodynamically the same,
i.e. the entry of water into a region where the effect of a solute or of adsorption reduces its free
energy.

A number of experimental studies have concluded that significant expansion only occurs when
an adequate supply of calcium is available as calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2]. In systems with
abundant alkali hydroxides and reactive silica, but no calcium hydroxide, silica dissolves and
remains in solution. Although the precise role calcium plays in gel expansion remains unclear, a
series of mechanisms have been proposed, as listed below (ACI 201):
• Calcium promotes “alkali recycling” by replacing alkalies in the reaction product thereby
regenerating alkalies for further reaction (Thomas 2001; Hansen 1944).
• Ca(OH)2 provides a reservoir of OH- ions to maintain a high level of OH- in solution
(Wang and Gillott 1991).
• High calcium concentrations in the pore solution prevent the diffusion of silica away
from reacting aggregate particles (Chatterji 1979; Chatterji and Clausson-Kass 1984).
• If calcium is not available, reactive silica dissolves in alkali hydroxide solution without
causing damage (Thomas 1998; Diamond 1989).
• The formation of calcium-rich gels is necessary to cause expansion either directly or
indirectly through the formation of a semi-permeable membrane around reactive
aggregate particles (Thomas 1998; Thomas et al. 1991; Bleszynski and Thomas 1998).

Although the precise role(s) of Ca(OH)2 is equivocal, it is evident that calcium must be available
for damaging reaction to occur. Thus, reducing the availability of calcium – for example, by
consuming Ca(OH)2 through pozzolanic reactions – should result in a reduction in the expansion
due to ASR.

11

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

2.4.2 Requirements for ASR

On the basis of the discussion on reaction and expansion mechanisms above, it is clear that there
are three requirements for damaging ASR to occur; these are:
• A sufficient quantity of reactive silica (within aggregates)
• A sufficient concentration of alkali (primarily from portland cement)
• Sufficient moisture

Elimination of any one of these requirements will prevent the occurrence of damaging alkali-
silica reaction; this is discussed further in the sections dealing with prevention and mitigation of
ASR. Each of these requirements is discussed below.

2.4.2.1 Sources of Reactive Silica

Silica, SiO2, is a component of many rocks; however, not all forms of silica react significantly
with the pore solution of concrete and, thus, not all siliceous aggregates produce damaging ASR.
For example, the mineral quartz is stable whereas the mineral opal is highly reactive, although
both are silica minerals with similar chemical composition, being primarily composed of SiO2.
Figure 2.3 shows the differences in the solubility of the silica and the crystalline structure of
these two minerals. Opal has a highly disordered (amorphous) structure which renders it unstable
at high pH and, as such, aggregates containing significant quantities of the mineral opal may be
expected to react and result in expansion when used in concrete, provided there is sufficient
alkali present. On the other hand, quartz will not react deleteriously regardless of the alkali
content of the concrete.

12

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

Opal
Opal

Chalcedony

Rhyolite

Andesite
Rock Type

Si
Volcanic Glass O
Quartzite Quartz OH
Ground aggregate in Na or K
Greywacke 1 M NaOH at 80°C
(ASTM C 289)
Quartz Sand

0 250 500 750 1000

Dissolved Silica (mM/L)

(a) Soluble Silica in Aggregates (b) Schematic Showing Crystalline Structure

of Opal (top) and Quartz (bottom)
Figure 2.3. Solubility and Structure of Opal and Quartz

The following silica minerals are considered to be alkali-silica reactive: opal, tridymite,
cristobalite, volcanic glass, chert, cryptocrystalline (or microcrystalline) quartz and strained
quartz. These minerals may be found in the following rock types: shale, sandstone, silicified
carbonate rocks, chert, flint, quartzite, quartz-arenite, gneiss, argillite, granite, greywacke,
siltstone, arenite, arkose and hornfels. However, this does not mean that all sources of such rocks
will produce deleterious reaction when used in concrete. For example, granitic aggregate is
widely used in concrete and only certain sources produce damaging ASR. The reactivity of a
rock depends on the type and quantity of reactive minerals present, if any.

Although the presence of reactive minerals can usually be detected by an experienced

petrographer, appropriate performance testing of specific aggregate sources is recommended to
confirm alkali-silica reactivity. Test methods are discussed in Section 4.

2.4.2.2 Sources of Alkali

While portland cement is considered the main contributor of alkalis, under certain conditions,
other materials may provide additional alkalis that are available to the reaction. The source of
alkalis can be from any of the following:

13

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

• Portland cement
• Supplementary cementing materials (e.g., fly ash, slag, silica fume, natural pozzolans)
• Aggregates
• Chemical admixtures
• External sources (e.g., seawater and deicing salts)
• Wash water (if used)

The quantity of alkalis in portland cement is typically expressed in terms of equivalent sodium
(written either Na2Oe or Na2Oeq) which may be calculated using the following formula:

Na2Oe = Na2O + 0.658 x K2O Eqn. 2.3

where: Na2O and K2O are the mass percentages of sodium oxide and potassium oxide in the
portland cement as reported on the cement mill test report.

Although the percentage of alkalis in portland cement is relatively low (in the range of 0.2 to
1.3% Na2Oe for most North American sources) in comparison to other oxides, the alkalis are
highly soluble and dominate the pore solution of the concrete. Figure 2.4 shows the composition
of the pore solution extracted from portland cement pastes and mortars at various ages. During
the first few hours the pore solution is mainly composed of alkali sulfates (Na+, K+ and SO42-),
but beyond this time the formation of solid sulfate phases (calcium mono-sulfo-aluminate and
ettringite) results in a reduction of the SO42- concentration in solution, and hydroxyl ions (OH-)
come into solution to maintain balance with the positively charged alkali cations. Beyond the
first day, the pore solution is composed almost entirely of Na+, K+ and OH-.

14

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

0.8
Pastes w/cm = 0.50 OH-
Cement: 0.91% Na2Oe
Ion Concentration (mol/L) .

K+
0.6
K+
Mortars w/cm = 0.50
0.4 SO4-- Cement: 0.91% Na2Oe
OH-
Na+
Na+
0.2

Ca++ Ca++
0
0 6 12 18 24 10 100 1000
Age (hours) Age (days)

Figure 2.4. Pore Solution Composition in Portland Cement Pastes and Mortars (Diamond 1983)

Figure 2.5 shows that the alkali concentration of the pore solution is strongly influenced by the
alkali content of the portland cement. Note in Figure 2.5 that the OH- concentration ranges from
about 0.15 M for the lowest alkali cement to about 1.00 M for the highest; this represents a pH
range from 13.2 to 14.0.

15

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

1.0
y = 0.7231x - 0.0011
R² = 0.9148
0.8
OH Concentration (mol/L) .

0.6

0.4

0.2 Diamond & Penko, 1988

Nixon & Page, 1987

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Cement Alkalis (% Na2Oe)

Figure 2.5. Relationship between the Alkalinity of the Pore Solution and the Alkali Content of
the Portland Cement (Diamond and Penko 1992; Nixon and Page 1987)

Based on Stanton’s early work (1940), it was proposed for many years that expansion resulting
from the alkali-silica reaction is unlikely to occur when the alkali content of the cement is below
0.6% Na2Oe. Many specifications allow the use of potentially-reactive aggregates provided that
the cement alkali content does not exceed 0.6% Na2Oe. However, it is now recognized that
limiting the alkali content of portland cement is not, by itself, an effective way of preventing
ASR-induced damage, because this approach does not control the total alkali content of the
concrete mixture.

Limiting the maximum alkali content of concrete is the preferred approach when specifying
alkali levels. The alkali content of portland cement concrete is calculated by multiplying the
cement content by the alkali content of the cement. Figure 2.6 illustrates the effects of the
concrete alkali content on the expansion of concrete prisms stored over water at 38°C (100°F) for
one year. Concrete mixtures were produced with a reactive siliceous limestone and varying
cement contents (275 to 450 kg/m3, 458 to 750 pcy) using cements with a wide range of alkali
contents (0.67 to 1.40% Na2Oe). From the data it is evident that the expansion of concrete with a
given reactive aggregate is dependent on the alkali content of the concrete. Figure 2.6 indicates
that deleterious expansion of the concrete prisms containing this reactive aggregate may be
prevented if the alkali content of the concrete is kept below 3.0 kg/m3 (5.0 lb/yd3) Na2Oe. It
should be noted that expansion may occur in the field at lower alkali contents than that found
necessary to cause expansion in the laboratory. The reason for this is that a portion of the alkalis
may be lost through leaching under the conditions of the concrete prism test (Thomas et al,

16

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

2006). For example, the aggregate for which expansion data are presented in Figure 2.6 caused
expansion and cracking of field-exposed concrete blocks (approximately 0.6 x 0.6 x 2.0 m, 2 x 2
x 6 ft.) with an alkali content of just 1.9 kg/m3 (3.2 lb/yd3) Na2Oe (MacDonald et al. 2012).

0.3
Siliceous Limestone
from Ottawa
Expansion at 1 year (%)

0.2
275
300 Cement
350 content
0.1 (kg/m3)
400
450

0
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Concrete Alkali Content (kg/m3 Na2Oe)

Figure 2.6. Effect of Concrete Alkali Content on Expansion

The alkali content of concrete may increase during service due to (i) alkali migration caused by
moisture movements or electrical currents, (ii) penetration of alkalis from external sources (e.g.
deicing salts), or (iii) long-term release of alkali from aggregates. These factors should be taken
into consideration when setting alkali limits for concrete containing reactive aggregates.

2.4.2.3 Role of Moisture

Sufficient moisture is required to both sustain the chemical reaction and to provide for the
expansion of the gel. It is generally considered that the chemical reaction will cease if the
internal relative humidity inside the concrete falls below 80% (Figure 2.7). Local differences in
moisture availability within the same structure can result in very different levels of ASR damage
occurring within that structure. Specifically, portions of the structure exposed to a constant or
steady source of moisture (e.g., as a result of poor drainage or poor detailing) can exhibit
significant ASR-induced damage, while other portions of the structure that remain essentially dry
may show little or no damage.

17

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

Figure 2.7. Effect of Relative Humidity on Expansion of Concrete Prisms (Pedneault 1996)

2.5 FUNDAMENTALS OF ACR

Alkali-carbonate reaction occurs between alkali hydroxides and certain argillaceous dolomitic
limestones; these dolomites are characterized by a matrix of fine calcite and clay minerals with
scattered dolomite rhombohedra. The reaction is manifested in the rapid expansion and extensive
cracking of concrete, and structures affected by ACR usually show cracking within five years or
less. Although there is a lack of consensus regarding the precise mechanisms involved, it is
generally agreed that the reaction is accompanied by the dedolomitization process, as follows:

CaMg(CO3)2 + 2ROH → CaCO3 + Mg(OH)2 + R2CO3 Eqn 2.4

dolomite + alkali hydroxide → calcite + brucite + alkali carbonate

where R represents K or Na. However, since this reaction results in a reduction in solid volume,
the expansion must be attributed to an alternative mechanism. Several theories have been
proposed to explain the expansion mechanism (Swenson and Gillott 1964; Tang et al. 1987;
Fournier and Berube 2000), and these include:
• Hydraulic pressures caused by the migration of water molecules and alkali ions into the
restricted spaces of the calcite/clay matrix around the dolomite rhombs;
• Adsorption of alkali ions and water molecules on the surfaces of the “active” clay
minerals scattered around the dolomite grains; and
• Growth and rearrangement of the products of dedolomitization (i.e., brucite and calcite).

18

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

The alkali carbonate produced in the dedolomitization reaction may react with calcium
hydroxide in the cement paste as follows:

R2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 → CaCO3 + 2ROH Eqn. 2.5

thereby “regenerating” alkalis for further reaction. Thus, provided there is sufficient alkali
available to initiate the reaction, the process may continue independently of the amount of alkalis
available in the concrete. This could explain why low-alkali cements are not effective in
controlling damaging reaction in some instances.

As with ASR, a source of reactive aggregate, sufficient alkali and a supply of moisture is
required to sustain alkali-carbonate reaction. Although it has been reported (Newlon et al. 1964)
that ACR may be prevented by using low-alkali cement, damaging expansion has been observed
in structures with very low alkali contents.

REFERENCES

Bleszynski, R.F. and Thomas, M.D.A. 1998 “Microstructural Studies of Alkali-Silica Reaction in
Fly Ash Concrete Immersed in Alkaline Solutions.” Advanced Cement Based Materials, 7, 66­
78.

Chatterji, S. 1979, “The Role of Ca(OH)2 in the Breakdown of Portland Cement Concrete due to
Alkali-Silica Reaction.” Cement and Concrete Research, 9(2), 185-188.

Chatterji, S. and Clausson-Kass, N.F. 1984 “Prevention of Alkali-Silica Expansion by Using

Slag-Portland Cement.” Cement and Concrete Research, 14(6), 816-818.

Dent Glasser, L.S. and Kataoka, N. 1981. “The chemistry of alkali-aggregate reactions.”
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, Cape Town,
S252/23.

Diamond, S. 1983. "Alkali reactions in concrete - Pore solution effects." Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Alkalis in Concrete, (Ed. G.M. Idorn and Steen Rostam), Danish
Concrete Association, Copenhagen, 155-166.

Diamond, S. 1989. “ASR - Another Look at Mechanisms.” Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, (Eds. K. Okada, S. Nishibayashi, and M. Kawamura),
Kyoto, Japan, 83–94.

19

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

Diamond, S. and Penko, M. 1992. “Alkali silica reaction processes: the conversion of cement
alkalis to alkali hydroxide.” Durability of Concrete – G.M. Idorn International Symposium (Ed.
Jens Holm), ACI SP-131, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 153-168.

Fournier, B. and Berube, M-A. 2000. “Alkali-aggregate reaction in concrete: a review of basic
concepts and engineering implications.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 27, 167-191.

Hadley, D.W. 1961. “Alkali reactivity of carbonate rocks: expansion and dedolomitization.”
Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, 40, 462-474.

Hansen, W.C. 1944. “Studies relating to the mechanism by which the alkali-aggregate reaction
proceeds in concrete.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 15, 3, 213-227.

MacDonald, C.A., Rogers, C. and Hooton, R.D. 2012. “The relationship between laboratory and
field expansion – observations at the Kingston outdoor exposure site for ASR after twenty
years.” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Austin, TX, USA, May.

McGowan, J.K. and Vivian, H.E. 1952. “Studies in cement-aggregate reaction: correlation
between crack development and expansion of mortars.” Australian Journal of Applied Science,
3, 228-232.

Newlon, H.H., Jr. and Sherwood, W.C. (1964). “Methods for Reducing Expansion of Concrete
Caused by Alkali-Carbonate Rock Reactions.” Highway Research Record No. 45, Highway
Research Board, Washington, D.C., 134-150.

Nixon, P.J. and Page, C.L. 1987. "Pore solution chemistry and alkali aggregate reaction." In
Concrete Durability, Katherine and Bryant Mather International Conference, (Ed. J.M. Scanlon),
ACI SP-100, Vol. 2, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1833-1862.

Pedneault, A. 1996. “Development of testing and analytical procedures for the evaluation of the
residual potential of reaction, expansion, and deterioration of concrete affected by ASR.” M.Sc.
Memoir, Laval University, Québec City, Canada, 133p.

Powers, T.C. and Steinour, H.H. 1955a. “An investigation of some published researches on
alkali-aggregate reaction. I. The chemical reactions and mechanism of expansion.” Journal of the
American Concrete Institute, 26(6), 497-516.

Powers, T.C. and Steinour, H.H. 1955b. “An interpretation of some published researches on the
alkali-aggregate reaction. Part 2: A hypothesis concerning safe and unsafe reactions with reactive
silica in concrete.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 26(8), 785-811.

20

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 2 – Fundamentals of AAR

Stanton, T.E. 1940. “Expansion of concrete through reaction between cement and aggregate,”
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 66(10), 1781-1811.

Swenson, E.G. 1957. “A reactive aggregate undetected by ASTM tests.” Proceedings of

American Society for Testing and Materials, 57, 48-51.

Swenson, E.G. and Gillott, J.E. 1964. “Alkali-carbonate rock reaction.” Highway Research
Record, 45, 21-40.

Tang, M., Liu, Z. and Han, S. 1987. “Mechanism of alkali-carbonate reaction.” Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Concrete Alkali-Aggregate Reactions, (Ed. P.E. Grattan-
Bellew), Noyes Publications, New Jersey, 275-279.

Thomas, M.D.A. 1998 “The Role of Calcium in Alkali-Silica Reaction.” Materials Science of
Concrete - The Sidney Diamond Symposium, (Eds. M. Cohen, S. Mindess, and J.P. Skalny),
American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, 325-331.

Thomas, M.D.A. 2001. “The role of calcium hydroxide in alkali recycling in concrete.”
Materials Science of Concrete Special Volume on Calcium Hydroxide in Concrete, (Eds. J.
Skalny, J. Gebauer, and I. Odler), American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, 269-280.

Thomas, M.D.A., Nixon, P.J. and Pettifer, K. 1991. “The effect of pfa on alkali-silica reaction.”
In Second CANMET/ACI Conference on the Durability of Concrete (Ed. V.M. Malhotra), ACI
SP-126, II, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 919-940.

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K., Ideker, J. and Shehata, M. 2006. “Test methods for
evaluating preventive measures for controlling expansion due to alkali-silica reaction in
concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(10), 1842-1856.

Wang, H. and Gillott, J.E. 1991. “Mechanism of Alkali-Silica Reaction and the Significance of
Calcium Hydroxide.” Cement and Concrete Research, 21(4), 647-654.

21

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

3 – Symptoms of Alkali‐Silica Reaction (ASR) 

3.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

As mentioned before, three conditions are necessary to initiate and sustain AAR in concrete: (1)
reactive mineral forms must be present in the aggregate materials; (2) the concentration of alkali
hydroxides ([Na+,K+-OH-]) in the concrete pore fluid must be high, and (3) sufficient moisture
must be present. Concrete elements affected by AAR respond quite differently from one another,
reflecting wide variations in the above conditions.

Common visual symptoms of ASR consist of:

• Cracking
• Expansion causing deformation, relative movement, and displacement
• Localized crushing of concrete
• Extrusion of joint (sealant) material
• Surface pop-outs
• Surface discoloration and gel exudations

A brief description and photographs of these symptoms are given hereafter. Additional
photographs could be found in Thomas et al. (2011).

3.2 CRACKING

The pattern of cracking due to ASR is influenced by factors such as the shape or geometry of the
concrete member, the environmental conditions, the presence and arrangement of reinforcement,
and the load or stress fields (restraint) applied to the concrete. The classic symptom of ASR is
map cracking (also called pattern cracking), which takes the form of randomly-oriented cracks
on the surface of concrete elements that are relatively free (unrestrained) to move in all
directions (Figure 3.1A&B). However, drying shrinkage, freezing/thawing cycles, and sulfate
attack can also result in a pattern of cracks showing a random orientation.

22

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

A B

C D

Figure 3.1. (A). Map-cracking in the wing wall of a 30-year-old bridge structure affected by ASR
(CSA 2000). (B). Severe map-cracking and associated gel staining around cracks in a median
highway barrier affected by ASR. (C). Well-defined crack pattern associated with the
development of ASR in highway pavement; the orientation of predominant cracks is
longitudinal, while map- or pattern-cracking is also identified. (D). Preferred alignment of cracks
in an ASR-affected concrete column. (E). Longitudinal cracking in a precast, reinforced concrete
beam affected by ASR.

23

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

Steel reinforcement or other restraint arising from applied compressive stress may reduce ASR
expansion in concrete. However, surface cracking due to AAR is often not significantly reduced
by the use of internal or external restraint. When expansion is restrained in one or more
directions, more expansion occurs in the direction of least confinement, and the cracks become
oriented in the same direction as the confining stresses. For example, with concrete pavements,
the expansion being restrained in the longitudinal direction, a greater amount of expansion
occurs in the transverse direction and cracks develop preferentially in the longitudinal direction
(Figure 3.1C); in the case of reinforced concrete columns, cracks tend to be aligned vertically
due to the restraint imposed by the primary reinforcement and the dead load (Figure 3.1D); for
prestressed bridge girders, the cracks will usually be aligned horizontally due to the confinement
imposed by the prestressing tendons parallel to the beam axis (Figure 3.1E).

In many cases, discoloration occurs around the cracks, often due to gel exudation in the vicinity
of the cracks (Figure 3.1B).

Cracking is usually most severe in areas of structures where the concrete has a renewable supply
of moisture, such as close to the waterline in piers, from the ground behind retaining walls,
beneath pavements slabs, elements/parts of structures exposed to rain or by wick action in piers
or columns (Figure 3.2).

24

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

A B

C D

Figure 3.2. (A&B). Map-cracking in wing walls (exposed elements) of bridge structures affected
by ASR. (C). Cracking in the column and the exposed portion of a beam affected by ASR.
(D&E). Cracking in the exposed portion (above ground) of the wing wall of a bridge structure
affected by ASR; the wing wall has been excavated before being demolished. The lower ground
portion shows limited cracking; discoloration occurs around the cracks above ground (E).

25

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

Concrete members undergoing ASR and experiencing cyclic exposure to sun, rain and wind, or
portions of concrete piles in tidal zones often show more severe surface cracking resulting from
induced tension cracking in the “less expansive” (due to alkali leaching/dilution processes,
variable humidity conditions, etc.) surface layer under the expansive thrust of the inner concrete
core (Stark and Depuy 1987, ACI 1998) (Figure 3.3).

26

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

Surface layer shows less reactivity

• Drier
• Alkali leaching
• Carbonation

3-D
Humid Exp
Water
Table
Saturated

Humid 3-D
Exp
Water
Table
Saturated

Figure 3.3. Concrete member undergoing ASR and experiencing cyclic exposure to sun, rain and
wind shows more severe surface cracking resulting from induced tension cracking in the “less
expansive” (due to alkali leaching/dilution processes, variable humidity conditions, etc.) surface
layer under the expansive thrust of the inner concrete core.

27

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

3.3 EXPANSION CAUSING MOVEMENTS AND DEFORMATIONS

The extent of ASR often varies between or within the various members/parts of an affected
concrete structure, thus causing distresses such as:
• relative movement of adjacent concrete members or structural units (Figure 3.4A);
• deflection, closure of joints with associated squeezing/extrusion of sealing materials
(Figures 3.4B&C); and
• ultimately, spalling of concrete at joints (Figures 3.4C-E).

28

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

A B

C E

Figure 3.4. (A). Relative movement of abutting sections of parapet wall in a bridge structure affected by
ASR (Stark 1991). (B). Expansion of bridge girder leading to loss of clearance between the girder and
embankment and eventually crushing of the girder end with localized spalling. (C). Expansion causing
spalling at joints in a concrete pavement incorporating a highly-reactive aggregate. (D). Expansion
causing spalling at joints and extrusion of sealant material in a concrete pavement incorporating a highly
reactive aggregate. (E). Expansion with associated severe spalling in abutting jersey barrier sections
affected by ASR.

29

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

It is important to remember that deformations in concrete structures may be caused by a range of

different mechanisms, such as loading, thermal or moisture movements, differential shrinkage,
gravity and foundation effects, hydraulic pressure, creep, impact, and vibrations (BCA 1992).

3.4 POP-OUTS

The expansion of individual unsound or frost-susceptible aggregate particles [such as laminated,

schistose and argillaceous, clayey or porous particles or certain varieties (porous) of chert,
ironstones] at or near the concrete surface due to frost-action is likely to be the main factor for
the development of pop-outs in northern regions (Figure 3.5A). Pop-outs can also be caused by a
poor bond between the cement paste and dusty coarse aggregate particles. Alkali-silica reactive
aggregates undergoing expansion near the concrete surface may also induce the detachment of a
portion of the skin of concrete leaving the reactive aggregate in the bottom (Figure 3.5B).

30

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

A B

C D

Figure 3.5. (A). Pop-out created by the expansion of a frost-susceptible porous coarse aggregate
particle (leached chert). (B). ASR-induced pop-out in a concrete pavement incorporating highly-
reactive aggregates; also noted pattern cracking. (C). Efflorescence and exudations of alkali-silica
gel at the surface of the concrete foundation of a 25-year-old highway bridge affected by ASR.
(D). Efflorescence and exudations of alkali-silica gel at the surface of a small concrete monument
affected by ASR. (E). Surface discoloration and exudation associated with cracks.

31

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 3 – Symptoms of ASR

3.5 SURFACE DEPOSITS (GEL EXUDATION VS. EFFLORESCENCE)

Although surface gel exudation is a common and characteristic feature of ASR, the presence of
surface deposits is not necessarily indicative of ASR as other mechanisms (such as frost action or
the movement of water through cracked concrete members) can also cause surface deposits
called efflorescence (without the presence of ASR gel) (Figures 3.5C-E).

REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute (ACI). “State-of-the-Art Report on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity.”

ACI 221.1R-98, 1998.

British Cement Association (BCA). “The Diagnosis of Alkali-Silica Reaction – Report of a

Working Party.” Wexham Springs, Slough (UK), SL3 6PL, 44p., 1992.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). “Guide to the Evaluation and Management of Concrete
Structures Affected by Alkali-Aggregate Reaction.” CSA A864-00, Canadian Standards
Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 2000.

Institution of Structural Engineers (ISE). “Structural Effects of Alkali-Silica Reaction –

Technical Guidance Appraisal of Existing Structures.” Institution of Structural Engineers, 11
Upper Belgrave Street, London SW1X 8BH, 45p., 1992.

Stark, D. “Handbook for the Identification of Alkali-Silica Reactivity in Highway Structures.”

SHRP-C/FR-91-101, TRB National Research Council, 49p., 1991.

Stark, D. and Depuy, G. “Alkali-Silica Reaction in Five Dams in Southwestern United States.”
Proceedings of the Katherine and Bryant Mather International Conference on Concrete
Durability, Atlanta, Georgia (USA), ACI SP-100, 1759-1786, April 1987.

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K.J., Resendez, Y.A. 2011. “Alkali-Silica Reactivity
Field Identification Handbook.” Office of Pavement Technology, Federal Highway
Administration, March 2011, 72p.

32

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

4 – Test Methods 

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This section describes the various test methods currently being used to assess the reactivity of
aggregates (with regard to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR)). In
addition to describing and recommending appropriate test methods for evaluating aggregate
reactivity, this chapter also provides recommendations for tests aimed at evaluating measures for
preventing ASR, such as supplementary cementing materials (SCMs) and lithium nitrate. Only
limited information is provided on ACR, with the primary focus on test methods aimed at
identifying aggregates susceptible to ACR so that they can be avoided for use in concrete as
there are no available preventive measures for such aggregates.

4.2 ASR TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING AGGREGATE REACTIVTY

Ever since Stanton discovered ASR in the late 1930s, a wide variety of test methods have been
developed and implemented. Some have been successful, some have proven to be complete
failures, and others fall somewhere in the middle. Through research and development, as well as
trial and error, test methods have evolved over the years, and there has been a general
convergence in terms of the tests that are generally used (for good or bad). This section
describes the various test methods that are currently being used, discusses the positive and
negative attributes of each test, and provides recommendations on what current standard tests are
most appropriate for testing aggregate reactivity and preventive measures.

Table 4.1 lists the most common standard test methods that have been or are currently being used
to assess aggregate reactivity, including relevant comments related to the positive and/or
negative attributes of each test. A more detailed discussion and critique on the Accelerated
Mortar Bar Test (AMBT) and Concrete Prism Test (CPT) are provided next as these are the two
most commonly used ASR test methods and they are integrated into AASHTO PP65-11,
Standard Practice for Determining the Reactivity of Concrete Aggregates and Selecting
Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New Concrete Construction,
which is a newly-developed standard practice based on Thomas et al. (2008). Although past
field performance and a petrographic evaluation are considered under AASHTO PP65-11, the
AMBT and CPT are the primary approaches for evaluating the potential reactivity of a given
aggregate, and modified versions of these methods may subsequently be used to select
appropriate preventive measures, including supplementary cementing materials and lithium
nitrate (used as a chemical admixture).

33

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

Table 4.1. Test Methods for Evaluating Aggregate Reactivity

Test Method Comments

ASTM C 295: Standard Guide for Petrographic • Useful evaluation to identify many (but not all) potentially reactive
Examination of Aggregates for Concrete components in aggregates.
• Reliability of examination depends on experience and skill of
individual petrographer.
• Results should not be used exclusively to accept or reject
aggregate source – findings best used in conjunction with other
laboratory tests (e.g., ASTM C 1260 and/or ASTM C 1293).
ASTM C 289: Standard Test Method for Potential • Aggregate test in which crushed aggregate is immersed in 1M
Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Aggregates (Chemical NaOH solution for 24 hours – solution is then analyzed for amount
Method) of dissolved silica and alkalinity.
• Poor reliability.
• Problems with test include:
- Other phases present in aggregate may affect dissolution of silica
(Bérubé and Fournier 1992).
- Test is overly severe, leading aggregates with good field
performance to fail the test.
- Some reactive phases may be lost during pretest processing.
ASTM C 227: Standard Test Method for Potential • Mortar bar test (aggregate/cement = 2.25), intended to study
Alkali Reactivity of Cement-Aggregate cement-aggregate combinations.
Combinations (Mortar-Bar Method) • Specimens stored in high-humidity containers at 38°C.
• Several reported problems with test, including excessive leaching
of alkalis from specimens.
AASHTO T 303 (ASTM C 1260): Standard Test • Mortar bar test, originally designed to assess aggregate reactivity.
Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of • Bars are soaked in 1N NaOH solution for 14 days.
Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method) • Accelerated test suitable as screening test, but because of severity
of test, it should not be used, by itself, to reject a given aggregate.
If aggregate is tested using both AASHTO T 303 and ASTM C
1293, the results of ASTM C 1293 should govern.

ASTM C 1293: Standard Test Method for Concrete • Concrete prism test, generally regarded as best indicator of field
Aggregates by Determination of Length Change of performance, is conducted at high humidity (close to 100%) at
Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction 38°C.
• Uses high-alkali cement (raised to 1.25% Na20e), with a cement
content of 420 kg/m3.
• Developed as aggregate test (using non-reactive fine aggregate to
test reactivity of coarse aggregate, and vice-versa).
• Test requires one year for completion.
• Widely accepted test method, but long duration of test is major
drawback.

AASHTO T 303 (ASTM C 1260) is based on the method developed by Oberholster and Davies
(1986) at the National Building Research Institute in South Africa. The test, often referred to as
the accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT), has been adopted by various countries and agencies,
including the United States (ASTM and AASHTO) and Canada. The test entails casting mortar
bars containing the subject aggregate (either coarse or fine), which is processed to a standard
gradation. The mortar bars are then removed from their molds after 24 hours and placed in water

34

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

at room temperature. The temperature of the water is then raised to 80°C in an oven, and the
mortar bars are stored in this condition for the next 24 hours. Upon removing the bars from the
water, they are measured for initial length and then submersed in a 1N NaOH solution at 80°C,
where they are then stored for 14 days. Length change measurements are made periodically
during this storage period. The total expansion at the end of the 14-day soaking period typically
is used in specifications, although the expansion limits specified by different agencies vary. For
example, the expansion criteria established by ASTM and CSA are as follows:

ASTM C 1260 expansion criteria: CSA A23.2-25A expansion criteria:

< 0.10% is considered innocuous > 0.15% (0.10% for limestones) is considered reactive
0.10 to 0.20% is considered potentially reactive < 0.15% (0.10% for limestones) is considered non-reactive
> 0.20% is considered reactive

In ASTM C 1260, these expansion limits are proposed in an appendix to the standard test method
and are not a mandatory part of the standard, whereas in CSA, the limits form part of a standard
practice for assessing reactivity and evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures (CSA
A23.2-27A). AASHTO PP65-11 specifies a 0.10 percent expansion limit at 14 days; aggregates
with expansions below this are considered non-reactive. However, AASHTO PP65-11 cautions
that AASHTO T 303 is not as accurate as the concrete prism test (ASTM C 1293) for evaluating
aggregate reactivity and that users who rely upon AASHTO T 303 are assuming some degree of
risk in doing so.

AASHTO T 303 is recognized as a very severe test method because of the extreme test
conditions, specifically the use of a highly alkaline storage solution and high temperature.
Because of this inherent severity, the test has been shown to identify some aggregates as being
reactive, even though they have performed well in concrete prism testing (ASTM C 1293) and in
field applications (Bérubé and Fournier 1992). More recently, a number of coarse aggregates
have been found to pass AASHTO T 303 but fail ASTM C 1293 and expand and crack in
outdoor exposure blocks (Folliard et al. 2006). Thus, when both AASHTO T 303 and ASTM C
1293 data are available for a given aggregate, the ASTM C 1293 data should be relied upon for
assessing aggregate reactivity.

ASTM C 1293, commonly referred to as the concrete prism test, is generally considered the most
accurate and effective test in predicting the field performance of aggregates. In this test,
concrete is cast with a cement content of 420 kg/m3. The cement is required to have an
equivalent alkali content between 0.8% and 1.0%, and additional alkalis (NaOH) then are added
to the mixing water to obtain a total alkali content of 1.25% (by mass of cement), which equates
to a total alkali content in the concrete mixture of 5.25 kg/m3. Concrete prisms are cast, cured
for 24 hours at 23°C, and then stored over water at 38°C. Expansion measurements are taken at
regular intervals, and when testing plain concrete (without SCMs or chemical admixtures), the

35

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

test typically is run for one year (or as described later in this section, the test is conducted for two
years when evaluating supplementary cementing materials or lithium-based admixtures).

In recent years, more countries and agencies have adopted the concrete prism test as a standard
method. An expansion limit of 0.04% (at the end of the one- or two-year test) typically is
specified, as this value has been reported to correlate well with cracking of test prisms. This
expansion limit (0.04%) is referenced in the appendix to ASTM C 1293 and in AASHTO PP-65.

Although ASTM C 1293 is generally regarded as the most accurate test for assessing aggregate
reactivity, it is not without its limitations or drawbacks. Thomas et al. (2006) reported that
approximately 35 percent of the internal alkalis within concrete prisms may leach out during the
course of a one-year test, with as much as 20 percent of the alkalis leaching out in the first 90
days. As such, higher alkali contents are needed to cause expansion in the CPT than what is
actually needed in field concrete or exposure blocks. This was clearly illustrated in a study by
Folliard et al. (2006), in which a series of three concrete mixtures with varying alkali loadings
were cast using a highly-reactive sand from El Paso, Texas. Prisms from these mixtures were
then tested using ASTM C 1293, and exposure blocks were cast and stored outdoors in Austin,
Texas. Table 4.2 summarizes the CPT data at one year and the exposure block data after
approximately 3.5 years of outdoor exposure. Of most significance is the mixture containing the
low-alkali cement (Na20e=0.52 percent), whose prisms easily passed the 0.04 percent expansion
criteria after the one-year ASTM C 1293 test but whose exposure blocks expanded and cracked
significantly. The reason for this discrepancy is the leaching from the concrete prisms which
dropped the concrete below its alkali threshold, thereby suppressing expansion. The larger
exposure blocks were less susceptible to leaching and hence exhibited significant expansion and
cracking. Based on these results, and results from other researchers, it is not recommended that
one use ASTM C 1293 to determine the alkali threshold for a given aggregate or aggregate-
binder combination.

Table 4.2. Comparison of Expansions in ASTM C 1293 Compared to Outdoor Exposure

Blocks, Highlighting Importance of Leaching in Concrete Prism Test (Folliard et al. 2006)

Cement ASTM C 1293 – Expansion Outdoor Exposure Blocks – Expansion

Alkalinity at one year (%) after approximately 3.5 years (%)
(% Na2Oe)
0.52 0.01 0.88
0.95 0.33 1.10
1.25 0.59 1.07

Another drawback to ASTM C 1293 is that the test duration (one year for aggregates, two years
for preventive measures) is often deemed to be too long, especially in the United States. As
such, very few agencies specify this test and very few practitioners run the test. The excessive
duration is due to the fact that the storage conditions (storing real concrete prisms above water at
36
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

38°C) are nowhere near extreme as the AMBT, and the source of alkalis is finite and internal.
Researchers have attempted to accelerate the test by increasing the storage temperature to 60°C,
in hopes of generating relevant data in a few months instead of 1-2 years. However, as reported
recently by Ideker et al. (2010), this accelerated version of the CPT yields significantly less
expansion than the standard CPT for the following reasons:

• Additional leaching of alkalis at 60°C, compared to 38°C

• Additional prism drying observed at 60°C, compared to 38°C
• Changes in pore solution at 60°C (ettringite begins to dissolve, contributing sulfates to
the pore solution at the expense of hydroxyl ions, thus lowering pore solution pH).
• The “non-reactive” sand used in conjunction with the subject coarse aggregate has major
effect on expansions at 60°C.

4.3 ASR TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING PREVENTIVE MEASURES

This section describes test methods for evaluating preventive measures, such as supplementary
cementing materials and lithium compounds. Table 4.3 details the most common test methods
used to evaluate preventive measures. Specific details are listed in the table for each test, but the
primary focus of this section is on ASTM C 1567, which is a modified version of AASHTO T
303, and ASTM C 1293 as these two methods are the most commonly used test methods and the
ones that are integrated into AASHTO PP65-11.

ASTM C 1567 is essentially identical to AASHTO T 303, with the one exception that it is aimed
at evaluating the use of SCMs. As such, the test utilizes the same test specimens and storage
conditions as AASHTO T 303 and is subject to the same issues and pitfalls as the standard
version of the AMBT. First and foremost, if the aggregate to be evaluated does not produce
accurate results when tested under AASHTO T 303, due to false negatives or false positives, it
should be quite evident that the AMBT is not a suitable test for evaluating the specific aggregate
in combination with SCMs to determine the dosage needed to control expansion. This is
recognized in AASHTO PP65-11, as shown in Figure 4.1, where it is recommended that a
reasonable correlation between AASHTO T 303 and ASTM C 1293 must first be developed for a
given aggregate of interest; only upon obtaining such agreement between test methods can
ASTM C 1567 then be used to evaluate preventive measures, such as SCMs, blended cements,
and lithium admixtures.

37

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

Table 4.3. Test Methods for Evaluating Preventive Measures

Test Method Comments

ASTM C 441: Standard Test Method for • Mortar bar test, intended to assess effectiveness of SCMs in
Effectiveness of Mineral Admixtures or Ground reducing ASR expansion.
Blast-Furnace Slag in Preventing Excessive • Test uses high-alkali cement and PyrexTM glass.
Expansion of Concrete Due to the Alkali-Silica • Test not very reliable because of the use of Pyrex glass, which is
Reaction sensitive to test conditions and contains alkalis that may be
released during the test. Test does not correlate well with data
from concrete mixtures containing natural aggregates (Bérubé and
Duchesne 1992).
ASTM C 1567: Standard Test Method for • Mortar bar test, originally designed to assess aggregate reactivity.
Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of • Bars are soaked in 1N NaOH solution for 14 days.
Combinations of Cementitious Materials and • Should only be used for aggregates for which a reasonable
Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method) correlation between AASHTO T 303 (ASTM C 1260) and ASTM
C 1293 has been established (see AASHTO PP65-11 for details).
• ASTM C 1567 can be modified as per AASHTO PP65-11 to
evaluate lithium nitrate-based admixtures, although ASTM C 1293
is deemed to be a more effective test method for determining
requisite lithium nitrate dosages for concrete.
ASTM C 1293: Standard Test Method for Concrete • Modified version of concrete prism test, allows for testing SCMs,
Aggregates by Determination of Length Change of blended cements, and lithium admixtures.
Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction • Test duration is two years, with expansion limit of 0.04 percent.

1.0 –

If AMBT vs CPT data fall

Expansion in AMBT at 14 Days (%)

within this range, the AMBT

0.8 –
may be used to evaluate
preventive measures.
0.6 –

0.4 –

0.2 –

0–
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Expansion in CPT at 1 Year (%)

Figure 4.1. Comparison of AMBT and CPT Data for the Purpose of Determining Whether
the AMBT is Suitable for Evaluating Preventive Measures with a Specific Aggregate (after
AASHTO PP65-11)

Once it has been determined that ASTM C 1567 is an appropriate test method for evaluating a
given aggregate, past work has shown that there is generally a good agreement between ASTM C

38

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

1567 (using a 0.10 percent expansion limit at 14 days) and ASTM C 1293 (using a 0.04 percent
expansion limit at two years) when testing various SCMs (Thomas and Innis 1998), as shown in
Figure 4.2. This figure illustrates that similar SCM dosages are needed in each of these tests to
reduce the expansions below the aforementioned limits.
60

'Safe Level' in Concrete Test (%) 50

40

30 S - Slag
F - Fly Ash
20
CI - Fly Ash

10 CH - Fly Ash
N - Pozzolan
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
'Safe Level' in Mortar Bar Test (%)

Figure 4.2. Comparison of SCM Dosage Needed to Reduce Expansions below Test Limits for

ASTM C 1567 and ASTM C 1293 (after Thomas and Innis 1998)

When considering using lithium nitrate as an admixture in concrete, AASHTO PP65-11

recommends ASTM C 1293 as the most suitable and accurate test for determining the requisite
dosage to control expansion below an expansion limit of 0.04 percent at two years. The AMBT,
in its current form, is not suited for testing lithium compounds as any lithium present in the
mortar bars would be overwhelmed by the sodium hydroxide in the soak solution. AASHTO
PP65-11 provides guidance, based on Tremblay et al. (2008), for how to test lithium compounds
in a modified version of the AMBT. This approach recognizes that certain aggregates cannot be
tested using the AMBT in conjunction with lithium nitrate as erroneous results are generated that
do not correlate with actual performance in concrete prisms or exposure blocks. As such, the
procedure recommended in AASHTO PP65-11 identifies such aggregates and requires that these
aggregates only be tested using ASTM C 1293. Aggregates that are suitable for being tested in
combination with lithium nitrate in the modified AMBT are also identified and a testing regime
is then specified that will arrive at an estimated dosage of lithium to control expansion, based on
an extensive database that is correlated with CPT results. A broad overview of the approach
specified in AASHTO PP65-11 is shown in Figure 4.3; readers are directed to Tremblay et al.
(2008) for a more detailed description of this methodology for evaluating lithium nitrate in the
modified AMBT (or in the CPT if it is deemed not possible to use the modified AMBT for a
given aggregate).

39

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

Figure 4.3. Approach to Using the Modified Accelerated Mortar Bar Test to Determine the

Dosage of Lithium Nitrate (Expressed as [Li]/ [Na+K]) to Adequately Suppress Expansion in

Concrete (Tremblay et al. 2008)

4.4 ACR TEST METHODS FOR EVALUATING AGGREGATE REACTIVITY

ACR is a unique form of AAR that is highly expansive and damaging to concrete structures. It is
also a reaction for which there are no known preventive measures. Measures that are effective in
controlling ASR, such as the use of low-alkali cement, SCMs, and lithium compounds, are
ineffective in suppressing ACR-induced expansion. As such, the only safe strategy for dealing
with ACR is to identify susceptible aggregates and disallow their use in concrete. This section
briefly describes how practitioners and researchers can identify ACR-susceptible aggregates.

AASHTO PP65-11 provides guidance, based primarily on Canadian experience, on how to

evaluate aggregates that are potentially susceptible to ACR-induced expansion and cracking. If
the aggregate being assessed is a quarried carbonate rock, the potential for alkali-carbonate
reaction may be assessed on the basis of its chemical composition using the test method CSA
A23.2-26A. This test involves the determination of the lime (CaO), magnesia (MgO), and
alumina (Al2O3) content of the rock, and determining where the composition of the rock falls on
a plot of CaO/MgO ratio versus the Al2O3 content, as shown in Figure 4.4.

40

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

Rock Cylinder ExpansionTest (ASTM C 586) Concrete Prism Expansion Test (CSA A23.2-14A)
<0.1% expansion at 4 weeks <0.025% expansion at 1 year
<0.1% at 4 weeks but >0.2% at 16 weeks in 1.25% Na2O equivalent cement
>0.1% expansion at 4 weeks <0.025% expansion at 1 year
in 1.25% Na2O equivalent cement
200
Aggregates
considered
100
nonexpansive
CaO/MgO Ratio

50
Aggregates
considered
20
potentially
expansive
10

Aggregates considered nonexpansive

1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Al2O3 in percent

Figure 4.4. Using Chemical Composition as a Basis for Determining Potential Alkali-
Carbonate Reactivity of Quarried Carbonates (from CSA A23.2-26A)

If the composition falls in one of the two ranges identified as “Aggregates considered non-
expansive” in Figure 4.4, the aggregate is not potentially alkali-carbonate reactive, and it should
be tested to determine the potential for alkali-silica reaction using the methods described in
Section 4.2.

If the composition falls in the range of “aggregates considered to be potentially expansive” in

Figure 4.4, the aggregate is potentially alkali-carbonate reactive and must be evaluated further.
There are two options for further testing. One option is to test the aggregate in the concrete prism
test, ASTM C 1293, to simultaneously determine the potential for alkali-carbonate and alkali-
silica reactivity. After the test, the prisms are examined by petrography to determine the role
played by the alkali-carbonate reaction. The second option is to test using the specific concrete
prism test developed for ACR-susceptible aggregates, ASTM C 1105, which employs a reduced
alkali loading to determine the potential for alkali-carbonate reaction only. If expansion of the
specific aggregate-cement combination is equal to or greater than 0.025 percent at 6 months or
0.030 percent at 1 year, the aggregate shall be considered to be alkali-carbonate reactive and
shall not be used in concrete. If the specific aggregate-cement combination passes the above
expansion criteria, it is considered not to be alkali-carbonate reactive and can be tested in the
same manner as aggregates with a composition that falls in the two ranges identified as
“Aggregate considered non-expansive” in Figure 4.4.

41

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

4.5 SUMMARY

This section provided a brief summary of the available, standard test methods for evaluating
aggregates susceptible to ASR or ACR. Recommendations were made on what tests are most
appropriate for evaluating aggregate reactivity, as well as tests suitable for assessing preventive
measures for ASR-susceptible aggregates.

REFERENCES

AASHTO PP65-11. 2011, “Standard Practice for Determining the Reactivity of Concrete
Aggregates and Selecting Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New
Concrete Construction, American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials.”
24p.

Bérubé, M.A. and Duchesne, J. 1992. “Evaluation of Testing Methods Used for Assessing the
Effectiveness of Mineral Admixtures in Suppressing Expansion Due to Alkali-Aggregate
Reaction.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag,
and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, (Ed. V.M. Malhotra), ACI SP132, Vol. 1, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 549–575.

Bérubé, M.A. and Fournier, B. 1992. “Accelerated Test Methods for Alkali-Aggregate
Reactivity.” Advances in Concrete Technology, (Ed. V.M. Malhotra), CANMET/EMR, Ottawa,
Canada, 583–627.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2000. “Standard Practice to Identify Degree of Alkali-
Aggregate Reactivity of Aggregates and to Identify Measures to Avoid Deleterious Expansion in
Concrete.” CSA A23.2-27A, 2000a, Ontario, Canada.

Folliard, K.J., Barborak, R., Drimalas, T., Du, L., Garber, S., Ideker, J., Ley, T., Williams, S.,
Juenger, M., Thomas, M.D.A. and Fournier, B. 2006. “Preventing ASR/DEF in New Concrete:
Final Report.” The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Transportation Research (CTR),
CTR 4085-5.

Oberholster, R.E. and Davies, G. 1986. “An Accelerated Method for Testing the Potential
Reactivity of Siliceous Aggregates.” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 16, 181–189.

Thomas, M.D.A. and Innis, F.A. 1998. “Effect of Slag on Expansion Due to Alkali-Aggregate
Reaction in Concrete.” ACI Materials Journal 95 (Dec. 1998), 716–24.

42

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 4 – Test Methods

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K., Ideker, J. and Shehata, M. 2006. “Test methods for
evaluating preventive measures for controlling expansion due to alkali-silica reaction in
concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(10), 1842-1856.

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B. and Folliard, K.J. 2008. “Report on determining the reactivity of
concrete aggregates and selecting appropriate measures for preventing deleterious expansion in
new concrete construction.” Federal Highways Administration, FHWA-HIF-09-001, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C. A34.

Tremblay, C., Bérubé, M.A., Fournier, B., Thomas, M.D.A., Folliard, K.J. and Nkinamubanzi,
P.C. 2008. “Use of the Accelerated Mortar Bar Test to Evaluate the Effectiveness of LiNO3
Against Alkali-Silica Reaction -- Part 2: Comparison with Results from the Concrete Prism
Test.” Journal of ASTM International (JAI), Online ISSN: 1546-962X, Published Online: 17
September 2008, 21p.

43

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

5 – Prevention of Alkali‐Silica Reaction 

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This section discusses various strategies for preventing alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in concrete,
including avoiding reactive aggregates, controlling the alkali content of the concrete, using
supplementary cementing materials, and the use of lithium-based compounds. The section does
not discuss methods for preventing alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR). Strategies for controlling
ASR are not generally effective for preventing ACR and, consequently, alkali-carbonate reactive
rocks must not be used in concrete.

5.2 PREVENTIVE MEASURES – OPTIONS

In Section 2 it was shown that there are three basic requirements for damaging ASR to occur in
concrete; these are:
• A sufficient quantity of reactive silica (within aggregates)
• A sufficient concentration of alkali (primarily from portland cement)
• Sufficient moisture

Elimination of any one of these requirements will prevent the occurrence of damaging alkali-
silica reaction. Exclusion of water from civil engineering structures is not practical in most cases
and so the most obvious options for preventing expansion due to ASR are the following:
1. Avoid the use of reactive aggregates
2. Minimize the amount of alkalis from the portland cement

Two other options are as follows:

3. Use of supplementary cementing materials (SCM)
4. Use of lithium-based compounds

In fact, the use of SCM is a form of Option 2 as these materials consume alkalis and reduce their
availability for reaction with the aggregate. Lithium compounds work in a different manner by
changing the nature of the reaction product. Both of these mechanisms are discussed later in the
chapter.

44

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

5.3 USE OF NON-REACTIVE AGGREGATES

Using non-reactive, or more correctly, non-deleteriously-reactive, aggregates is certainly a viable

method of preventing ASR-induced damage if such aggregates are available. Competent and
thorough testing is required to ensure that aggregate sources are non-reactive and this can be
achieved through a combination of petrographic examination, expansion testing of mortar
(ASTM C 1260) or concrete (ASTM C 1293), and field performance. Such testing should be
performed on a regular basis to ensure that the composition (and reactivity) does not change
within a pit or a quarry. If the aggregate sources can be confirmed to be truly non-reactive, no
further precaution is required to prevent ASR.

There are a number of reasons why the option of using non-reactive aggregates is not always
feasible; these include:
• Non-reactive aggregates are not available locally and the cost of shipping non-reactive
materials from other locations is prohibitive
• Reactive aggregates that are otherwise wholly suitable for concrete are readily and
abundantly available at lower cost and reduced environmental impact compared with
non-reactive materials
• Lack of confidence in test results (or testing laboratories) or test results are ambiguous
(e.g. different test methods do not agree)
• All of the locally-available materials fail the very aggressive accelerated test (regardless
of true reactivity)

In such cases, it is necessary to adopt one of the other options for preventing damaging ASR.

Furthermore, some instances warrant extra caution even when using aggregates believed to be
non-reactive; examples include the design of critical structures (e.g. prestigious structures or
those with an extended design life) and the construction of structural elements exposed to a very
aggressive environment (e.g. structures exposed to seawater or deicing salts, which may provide
an external source of alkalis).

5.4 LIMITING THE ALKALI CONTENT OF THE CONCRETE

The role of alkalis and the relationship between the alkali content of the concrete and expansion
is discussed in Section 2.4.2.2. If the alkali content of the concrete is below some threshold value
deleterious expansion is prevented. This threshold value is likely to vary between aggregates of
different reactivity but, unfortunately, there is currently no suitable test method for determining
the threshold. A number of specifications have employed a maximum concrete alkali content as
45

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

an option to control expansion in concrete containing reactive aggregates. Nixon and Sims
(1992) reported that maximum permissible alkali contents between 2.5 and 4.5 kg/m3 (4.2 to 7.5
lb/yd3) Na2Oe have been specified by various countries and agencies, with the allowable alkali
content sometimes varying depending on aggregate reactivity. In 2000, the alkali limit used as a
preventive measure in the Canadian Standard (CSA A23.2-27A) was modified from the single
value of 3.0 kg/m3 (5 lb/yd3) Na2Oe specified in the 1994 edition to a sliding scale from 1.8 to
3.0 kg/m3 (3 to 5 lb/yd3) Na2Oe; the limits are as follows:

Table 5.1. Alkali Limits Specified in CSA A23.2-27A

Level of prevention Alkali limit (Na2Oe)

required
kg/m3 lb/yd3
Mild 3.0 5.0
Moderate 2.4 4.0
Strong 1.8 3.0
Exceptional 1.8 + SCM 3.0 + SCM

These same alkali limits were adopted in AASHTO PP65; this is discussed further in Section 6.
The selection of the appropriate level depends on the risk and consequences of ASR as
determined by the reactivity of the aggregate and the nature, exposure conditions, and design life
of the structure. An example where a “strong” prevention level is required would be when a
moderately reactive aggregate (expansion in concrete prism tests is greater than 0.04% but less
than 0.12%) is used in an exposed structure with a design life of greater than 75 years (e.g. a
bridge or a dam). If a highly reactive rock is used in the same type of structure an “exceptional”
level of prevention would be required. If a moderately reactive aggregate was used in an exposed
structure with a design life of less than 75 years (e.g. sidewalk or pavement) only a moderate
level of prevention is required. An example of “mild” prevention is that required for unexposed
massive elements incorporating a moderately-reactive aggregate in a dry environment (e.g.
interior elements of buildings).

Aggregates that are used in concrete with an alkali content below the threshold for expansion
may cause damaging expansion if the alkali content of the concrete increases at some locations
during the service life of the structure. This may occur through alkali concentration caused by
drying gradients, alkali release from aggregates, or the ingress of alkalis from external sources,
such as deicing salts or seawater (Nixon et al. 1987). Stark (1978) reported increases in soluble
alkali from 1.1 to 3.6 kg/m3 Na2Oe close to the surface of some highway structures. Migration of
alkalis due to moisture, temperature, and electrical gradients has also been demonstrated by
laboratory studies.

46

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

A number of studies have demonstrated that many aggregates contain alkalis that may be leached
out into the concrete pore solution, thereby increasing the risk of alkali-aggregate reaction. Stark
and Bhatty (1986) reported that, in extreme circumstances, some aggregates release alkalis
equivalent to 10% of the portland cement content.

Supplementary cementing materials (SCM), such as fly ash, silica fume, slag, and natural
pozzolans may also contain significant quantities of alkali. However, these alkalis generally do
not need to be included in the calculation of the concrete alkali content as SCM tend to reduce
the alkalis that are available for reaction with the aggregate; this is discussed in the next section.

5.5 USE OF SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTING MATERIALS

5.5.1 Effect of SCM on Expansion of Concrete

One of the most efficient means of controlling ASR in concrete containing reactive aggregates is
the appropriate use of supplementary cementing materials (SCM). Such materials include
pozzolans (e.g. fly ash, silica fume, calcined clay, or shale) and ground-granulated blast furnace
slag. The potential use of pozzolans to control ASR dates back as far as the discovery of ASR,
having been reported in the first major publication on the phenomenon (Stanton 1940).

Almost any SCM can be used to control ASR provided it is used at a sufficient level of
replacement. The amount required varies widely depending on, among other things, the
following:
• The nature of the SCM (especially mineralogical and chemical composition); more SCM
is required as its silica content decreases or as its alkali and calcium content increase,
• The nature of the reactive aggregate; generally, the more reactive the aggregate, the
higher the level of SCM required,
• The availability of alkali within the concrete (i.e., from the portland cement and other
sources); the amount of SCM required increases with the amount of available alkali,
• The exposure conditions of the concrete; concrete exposed to external sources of alkali
may require higher levels of SCM.

Figure 5.1 shows the (conceptual) relationship between the (long-term) expansion of concrete
and the level of replacement for different SCMs. Generally, as the level of replacement increases
with a particular SCM, the expansion decreases and eventually reaches an acceptable level at
which no damage occurs. SCMs that are very high in reactive silica, such as silica fume and
metakaolin, tend to be very efficient in controlling expansion and are only required at relatively
low levels of replacement (e.g. 10 to 15%). On the other hand, SCMs with lesser amounts of
47

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

silica, such as Class C fly ash and slag, need to be used at higher levels of replacement (e.g. ≥
40%). Some SCMs (e.g. some Class C fly ashes) may produce a pessimum effect by increasing
the amount of expansion (compared to concrete without SCM) if they are used at low levels of
replacement, but decreasing expansion at higher levels of replacement.

Level of replacement required to

control ASR expansion increases as:
• SiO2 of SCM decreases
• CaO of SCM increases
•
How much is •
Alkali content of SCM
Alkali available in the concrete
increases
sufficient? • Reactivity of aggregate increases

Figure 5.1. Expansion versus SCM Content - Conceptual Relationship (Thomas 2011)

Figure 5.2 shows experimental data to support this concept. In this figure, the two-year
expansion of concrete prisms (tested in accordance with ASTM C 1293) produced with high-
alkali cement and a highly-reactive siliceous limestone (Spratt) is plotted against the level of
replacement for a range of SCMs.

48

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

Low-CaO fly ash

0.25

High-CaO fly ash

Expansion at 2 Years (%)

0.20

High-Na2Oe fly ash

0.15

Silica Fume
0.10
Metakaolin
0.05
Slag
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

SCM Replacement Level (%)

Figure 5.2. Expansion of Concrete with Various SCMs (Thomas 2011)

The amount of SCM required to prevent damaging ASR expansion generally falls in the ranges
below (modified from Thomas and Folliard 2007):

Table 5.2. Required Levels of SCM

Type of SCM Level required (%)

Low-calcium fly ash (< 8% CaO) 20 to 30
Moderate-calcium fly ash (8 - 20% CaO) 25 to 35
High-calcium fly ash (> 20% CaO) 40 to 60
Silica fume 8 to 15
Slag 35 to 65
Metakaolin (calcined kaolin clay) 10 to 20

However, the level of SCM required may exceed these values under exceptional conditions (e.g.
extremely reactive aggregate, high alkali availability in concrete – including alkali contribution
from aggregates, concrete exposed to high concentrations of alkali in service, or critical structure
with extended service life).

49
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

The efficacy of fly ash with regards to controlling ASR varies widely with the different types of
fly ash commercially available in North America. Class F fly ashes with low calcium contents
are generally much more efficient than Class C fly ashes with high calcium contents. The role of
calcium in fly ash is shown in Figure 5.3 which shows the 2-year expansion of concrete
containing high-alkali cement, highly-reactive siliceous limestone (Spratt) aggregate, and 25%
fly ash for fly ashes of varying compositions. Most fly ashes with calcium contents below 20%
CaO are effective in controlling expansion, and the level of expansion increases as the calcium
content of the fly ash increases above 20% CaO. Note that fly ashes with high alkali contents (≥
5% Na2Oe) are not effective at a 25% level of replacement regardless of calcium content. Figure
5.4 shows that high-calcium fly ashes are effective at controlling ASR expansion provided that
they are used at higher levels of replacement (typically more than 40%).

0.20
Concrete Prisms with Siliceous Limestone (Spratt) Aggregate
Expansion at 2 Years (%)

0.15 Alkali content

of fly ash: High‐alkali
< 4% Na2Oe fly ashes

0.10 5 to 10% Na2Oe

0.05

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Calcium Content of Fly Ash (% CaO)

Figure 5.3. Expansion of Concrete with Fly Ashes of Different Calcium Content (Thomas 2011)

50

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

0.3
LG
FM Class F fly ashes
Expansion at 2 years (%) MN
EW
0.2 WM Class C fly ashes
OK
BD - High-alkali fly ash
(8.45% Na2Oe)
0.1

0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Fly Ash (%)
Figure 5.4. Effect of Fly Ash Replacement Level on Expansion of Concrete (Thomas 2011)

Ternary blends containing two SCMs can be very effective in controlling ASR. Figures 5.5 and
5.6 show the impact of combinations of, respectively, silica fume and fly ash, and silica fume
and slag.
0.3
Expansion of Concrete at 2 Years (%)

5% SF + Fly Ash (6.4% CaO)

5% SF + Fly Ash (18.5% CaO)

0.2
5% SF + Fly Ash (27.7% CaO)

0.1

0.0
0 10 20 30

Fly Ash Content (%)

Figure 5.5. Expansion of Concrete with Blends of Silica Fume and Fly Ash

51
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

Expansion of Concrete at 2 Years (%) 0.30 Control Mix

0.25

0.20

Slag only
0.15
Silica Fume mixes
mixes
0.10
0
4
0.05
5
Ternary 6
0.00 8
Silica Fume
0
mixes Content (%)
15 12
25
35
50
Slag Content (%)

Figure 5.6. Expansion of Concrete with Blends of Silica Fume and Slag

5.5.2 How SCMs Work to Control ASR

Supplementary cementing materials control expansion due to ASR by reducing the availability of
alkalis in the concrete. The alkalis, sodium and potassium, in concrete are partitioned between
the solid phases (i.e., bound by the hydrates) and the liquid phases (i.e., pore solution) of the
concrete. Only the alkali hydroxides in the pore solution can attack the reactive components of
the concrete. The binding capacity of the hydrates is, to a large extent, a function of the calcium-
silica ratio of the C-S-H that forms. C-S-H with a lower Ca/Si ratio has an increased alkali-
binding capacity (Bhatty and Greening 1978) since the surface charge becomes less positive as
the calcium content decreases and this attracts more positive cations (Na+ and K+) from the
surrounding pore solution (Glasser and Marr 1985).

Figure 5.7 shows the evolution of the pore solution alkalinity (OH- ion concentration) extracted
from cement pastes (w/cm = 0.50) produced with high-alkali cement and various SCMs. The
OH- concentration of the control sample is very high approaching 1 Mole/L which equates to a
pH of 14. Most SCMs are effective in reducing the OH- concentration although the extent of the
reduction is a function of the SCM type and replacement level, and age. The effect of SCMs on
the pore solution composition depends on the amount of alkali (Na2Oe) they contribute, and the
degree to which the presence of the material changes the Ca/Si ratio of the hydrates that form.

52

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

1.0
High-alkali cement

25% High-CaO fly ash

OH Concentration (Moles/L)

0.8
25% Low-CaO fly ash
0.6 10% Silica Fume

5% SF + 15% Fly Ash

0.4
5% SF + 25% Slag

50% Slag
0.2
20% Metakaolin

0.0
0 6 12 18 24
Age (Months)

Figure 5.7. Effect of SCM on the Evolution of the Pore Solution of Pastes (Thomas 2011)

Thus SCMs with low levels of Na2Oe and CaO, and high levels of reactive SiO2, will contribute
little alkali to the system, but significantly increase the alkali-binding capacity of the hydrates
(by reducing the Ca/Si ratio). The effect of binder composition on the OH- concentration of the
pore solution was shown in Figure 2.5 and discussed in Section 2.4.2.2. It is evident from this
figure that the hydroxyl (and alkali) ion concentration is a function of the alkali, calcium and
silica content of the binder including the SCM component.

The reactive silica in the SCM reacts with the alkali hydroxides in the pore solution in the same
way as the reactive silica in the aggregate. The initial reaction product is an alkali-silica gel
containing small amounts of calcium and, over time, calcium exchanges for alkali in the gel and
C–S–H forms with a relatively low Ca/Si ratio compared to that formed in portland cement paste.
The only substantial differences between this pozzolanic reaction (between the silica in SCM and
the alkalis in solution) and the alkali-silica reaction is the timescale over which the reactions
occur and the absence of any detectable expansion due to the pozzolanic reaction. The lack of
expansion can perhaps be explained by the fact that pozzolans are very-finely divided materials
and the alkali-silica gel that forms and is subsequently converted to C–S–H is distributed
throughout the cement paste, whereas the presence of reactive aggregate particles leads to the
accumulation of larger deposits of alkali-silica gel in discrete locations that can become sites of
expansion.

53

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

The importance of the size and distribution of the reactive silica can be demonstrated in two
ways. Firstly, it has been known since the formative work of Stanton (1940) that if a reactive
aggregate is ground to sufficient fineness expansion is eliminated. Figure 5.8 shows unpublished
data from the author's laboratory relating to the effect of ground Vycor glass (sub-100 μm) on the
expansion of mortar bars containing sand-sized Vycor glass as a reactive aggregate. The sand-
sized Vycor glass behaves as a reactive aggregate causing expansion of the mortar with portland
cement as the only binder. However, the same material, when ground, behaves like a pozzolan
when it is used to replace 20% of the Portland cement and prevents expansion. Secondly, if
finely-divided pozzolans agglomerate and form sand-sized particles, these particles will behave
like reactive aggregates and may result in expansion and cracking. This effect has been observed
with agglomerated silica fume both in the field and in the laboratory. Figure 5.9 (photo courtesy
of Maria Juenger) shows a back-scattered electron image of a mortar bar containing
agglomerated silica fume after storage in 1 M NaOH solution at 80°C for 14 days (Maas et al.
2007). The mortar, which contained non-reactive sand, expanded during test and the expansion
was attributed to the reaction of the agglomerated silica fume.

0.4
All mortars contain sand-sized
Vycor glass as a reactive
aggregate
0.3
Expansion (%)

100% Portland Cement

0.2
20% ground quartz
20% ground Vycor glass

0.1

0
0 14 28 42 56

Age (days)

Figure 5.8. Role of Particle Size on the Behaviour of Vycor Glass (Thomas 2011)

54

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

Figure 5.9. Agglomerated Silica Fume Particle Behaving as a Reactive Aggregate and Source of
ASR Expansion (Maas et al. 2007)

5.5.3 Tests Methods for Evaluating the Efficacy of SCM

Either the concrete prism test (ASTM C 1293) or the accelerated mortar bar test (ASTM C 1567)
is recommended for evaluating the effect of SCM on ASR or for determining the minimum level
of a particular SCM (or combination of SCMs) required to control expansion with a specific
reactive aggregate. A detailed discussion of AAR test methods is provided in Section 4 of this
reference manual.

It is recommended that the following criteria are used when evaluating SCM-reactive aggregate
combinations (Thomas et al. 2006; 2007):

Table 5.3. Criteria to Evaluate SCM-Reactive Aggregate Combinations

Test Method Expansion Limit

Concrete prism test (ASTM C 1293) ≤ 0.040% at 2 years
Accelerated mortar bar test (ASTM C 1567) ≤ 0.10% at 14 days

55

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

5.6 USE OF LITHIUM

The ability of lithium to control deleterious expansion due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in
mortar and concrete was first demonstrated by McCoy and Caldwell (1951). They showed that,
out of more than 100 chemical compounds tested, various salts of lithium (e.g. LiCl, Li2CO3,
LiF, Li2SiO3, LiNO3, and Li2SO4) were the most promising and could virtually eliminate the
expansion of mortar containing Pyrex glass provided they were used at sufficient levels of
replacement. Since then, there have been numerous studies which corroborate this earlier
discovery (Feng et al. 2005).

It is somewhat paradoxical that lithium compounds are effective suppressants of ASR as lithium
is an alkali metal like sodium and potassium. The precise mechanism by which lithium controls
ASR is not known, although many theories have been put forward (Feng et al. 2005). The
simplest and most commonly used explanation is that lithium salts will react with reactive silica
in a similar way to sodium and potassium salts, but the reaction product is an insoluble lithium-
silicate with little propensity to imbibe water and swell. The lithium silicate forms around
reactive aggregate particles and protects the underlying reactive silica from “attack” by alkali
hydroxides.

The initial work of McCoy and Caldwell (1951) showed that the amount of lithium required to
control expansion was a function of the availability of other alkalis (Na + K) in the system and
they concluded that the expansion of mortar bars containing reactive Pyrex glass could be
effectively suppressed provided that the lithium-to-sodium-plus-potassium molar ratio was
greater than 0.74, i.e. [Li]/[Na+K] > 0.74. Since then numerous workers have demonstrated a
similar relationship between the amount of lithium required and the amount of alkali available,
but the minimum value of [Li]/[Na+K] has been shown to vary depending on a number of issues
such as the form of lithium, nature of reactive aggregate and, perhaps, the method of test used
(Feng et al. 2005).

Although most lithium compounds have a beneficial effect, lithium nitrate (LiNO3) is considered
to be the most efficient form for suppressing ASR (Stokes et al. 1997). Lithium nitrate solution is
commercially available from a number of companies in North America being marketed as an
“ASR-suppressing admixture”. Currently the product is sold as a 30% solution of LiNO3. To
achieve a lithium-to-sodium-plus-potassium molar ratio of [Li]/[Na+K] = 0.74 using a 30%
solution of LiNO3 requires a dose of 4.6 gallons of LiNO3 solution per 1 kg of Na2Oe (0.55
gallons of solution per 1 lb Na2Oe). This has been referred to as the “standard dose” of lithium
nitrate solution.

Recent research (Tremblay et al. 2007) has highlighted the influence of aggregate type on the
amount of lithium required to suppress expansion due to ASR. Figure 5.10 shows the 2-year

56

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

expansion of concrete prisms with 12 different reactive aggregates and 1 non-reactive aggregate
(NF), and various levels of lithium (standard dose is [Li]/[Na+K] = 0.74). For 6 of the 12
aggregates 75% to 100% of the standard dose was sufficient to control expansion (≤ 0.040% at 2
years). For 3 of the aggregates 125% to 150% of the standard dose was required; however, for
the remaining 3 aggregates expansion could not be controlled even at 150% of the standard dose.

0.25 NS1
NS2
0.20 NB1
2-Year Expansion (%)

NB2
0.15 NB3
QC1
0.10 QC2
ON1

0.05 ON2
AL1

0.00 AL2
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 BC
Dose (% Standard) NF
Figure 5.10. Effect of Lithium Dose on the Expansion of Concrete with Different Reactive

Aggregates (Tremblay et al. 2007)

As the effectiveness of lithium appears to be extremely aggregate dependent, it is not possible to

prescribe a single dose for controlling ASR, and the minimum dose must be determined by
testing lithium with the specific reactive aggregate being considered for use. At this point in time
there is no consensus regarding the appropriateness of accelerated tests for determining the
correct lithium dose and it is recommended that the concrete prism test is used for this purpose.

REFERENCES

Bhatty, M.S.Y. and Greening, N.R. 1978. “Interaction of alkalis with hydrating and hydrated
calcium silicates.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Effects of Alkalis
in Cement and Concrete, Purdue, 87-112.

57

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2000. “Standard Practice to Identify Degree of Alkali-
Reactivity of Aggregates and to Identify Measures to Avoid Deleterious Expansion in Concrete.”
CSA A23.2-27A, 2000a, Ontario, Canada.

Feng, X., Thomas, M.D.A., Bremner, T.W., Balcom, B.J. and Folliard, K.J. 2005. “Studies on
lithium salts to mitigate ASR-induced expansion in new concrete: a critical review.” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 35, 1789-1796.

Glasser, F.P. and Marr, J. 1985 “The alkali binding potential of OPC and blended cements.” Il
Cemento, 82, 85-94.

Maas, A.J., Ideker, J.H. and Juenger, M.C.G. 2007. “Alkali silica reactivity of agglomerated
silica fume.” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 37. 166–174.

McCoy, W.J. and Caldwell, A.G. 1951. “New approach to inhibiting alkali-aggregate
expansion.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute, 22 (9), 693-706.

Nixon, P.J. and Sims, I. 1992. “Alkali Aggregate Reaction ± Accelerated Tests Interim Report
and Summary of National Specifications.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Vol. 2. The Concrete Society, Slough, 731-738.

Nixon, P.J., Canham, I., and Page, C.L. 1987. “Aspects of the Pore Solution Chemistry of
Blended Cements Related to the Control of Alkali-Silica Reaction.” Cement and Concrete
Research, 17(5), 839-844.

Stanton, T.E. 1940. “Expansion of concrete through reaction between cement and aggregate.”
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, 66(10), 1781-1811.

Stark, D. 1978. “Alkali-silica Reactivity in the Rocky Mountain Region.” Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Effects of Alkalis in Cement and Concrete, CE-MAT-1-78, Purdue
University, W. Lafayette, Indiana, 235-243.

Stark, D. and Bhatty, M.S.Y. 1986. “Alkali-silica Reactivity: Effect of Alkali in Aggregate on
Expansion.” Alkalis in Concrete, ASTM STP 930, American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 16-30.

Stokes, D.B., Wang, H.H. and Diamond, S. 1997. “A lithium-based admixture for ASR control
that does not increase the pore solution pH.” Proceedings of the 5th CANMET/ACI International
Conference on Superplasticizers and Other Chemical Admixtures in Concrete, (Ed. V.M.
Malhotra), ACI SP-173, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 855-867.

Thomas, M.D.A. 2011. “The effect of supplementary cementing materials on alkali-silica

reaction: A review.” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 41, 1224-1231.

58

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 5 – Prevention of ASR

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K., Ideker, J. and Shehata, M. 2006. “Test methods for
evaluating preventive measures for controlling expansion due to alkali-silica reaction in
concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(10), 1842-1856.

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K.J., Shehata, M., Ideker, J. and Rogers, C.A. 2007.
“Performance limits for evaluating supplementary cementing materials using the accelerated
mortar bar test.” ACI Materials Journal, 104(2), 115-122.

Tremblay, C., Berube, M-A., Fournier, B., Thomas, M.D.A. and Folliard, K.F. 2007.
“Effectiveness of lithium-based products in concrete made with Canadian reactive aggregates.”
ACI Materials Journal, 104(2), 195-205.

59

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

6 – Alkali‐Aggregate Reactions: Specifications 

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This section discusses specifications for alkali-aggregate reaction focusing on AASHTO PP65­
11 “Standard Practice for Determining the Reactivity of Concrete Aggregates and Selecting
Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New Concrete Construction.”
Requirements within ASTM and ACI are also discussed.

Essentially there are two approaches to specifying preventive measures for controlling alkali-
aggregate reaction. In the prescriptive approach, reactive aggregates are permitted provided they
are used with prescribed amounts of ameliorative materials such as a minimum level of fly ash or
slag (for example). In a performance-based approach, a certain combination of materials
(reactive aggregates and preventive measures) are permitted provided they are tested and shown
to meet certain performance requirements such as meeting the expansion limits of mortar-bar or
concrete-prism expansion tests. AASHTO PP65-11 has both prescriptive and performance
options.

6.2 EXISTING SPECIFICATIONS IN USA

6.2.1 ASTM

ASTM C 33 Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates states that “concrete aggregates for
use in concrete … shall not contain any materials that are deleteriously reactive with the alkalis
in the cement in an amount sufficient to cause excessive expansion of mortar or concrete” unless
one of the following three conditions is met:
• the aggregate is “used with a cement containing less than 0.60 % alkalis calculated as
sodium oxide equivalent (Na2Oe = Na2O + 0.658 x K2O),”
• there is a satisfactory service record evaluation,
• the aggregate is used “with the addition of a material that has been shown to prevent
harmful expansion due to the alkali-aggregate reaction.”

Within the ASTM concrete standards there are number of laboratory test methods that can be
used to determine the potential for aggregates to be deleteriously reactive or the effectiveness of
different preventive measures against ASR; these are:

60

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

• C 295 Petrographic Examination of Aggregates

• C 227 Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Cement-Aggregate
Combinations (Mortar-Bar Method)
• C 289 Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Aggregates
(Chemical Method)
• C 441 Standard Test Method for Effectiveness of Pozzolans or Ground Blast-Furnace
Slag in Preventing Excessive Expansion of Concrete Due to the Alkali-Silica Reaction
• C 1105 Standard Test Method for Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Carbonate
Rock Reaction
• C 1260 Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar
Method)
• C 1293 Standard Test Method for Determination of Length Change of Concrete Due to
Alkali-Silica Reaction
• C 1567 Standard Test Method for Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of
Combinations of Cementitious Materials and Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar
Method.

Appendix X1 of ASTM C 33 provides some limited guidance on interpretation of the results

from these tests and measures for mitigating alkali-silica reaction 2. If the aggregate produces
little or no expansion in C 1260 or C 1293, or has a satisfactory service history (with similar
cementitious materials) no mitigation is necessary. On the other hand, if the aggregates are
considered to be deleteriously alkali-silica reactive Appendix X1 (section 4.3) recommends one
of the following preventive measures:
• Use of ASTM C 150 portland cement meeting the low-alkali option (≤ 0.60% Na2Oe)
• Use of ASTM C 595 blended cement meeting the optional mortar-bar-expansion
requirement
• Use of hydraulic cement meeting the ASTM C 1157 performance specification including
Option R - Low Reactivity with Alkali-Reactive Aggregates.
• Use of pozzolans or slag meeting the optional requirements of the relevant material
specifications (C 618 for fly ash and natural pozzolans, C 1240 for silica fume, and C 989
for slag) for preventing excessive expansion due to ASR.

2
ASTM C 33 Appendix X1 also provides guidance on mitigation of alkali-carbonate reaction. The guidance is
limited to “avoiding reactive carbonate rocks; selective quarrying; diluting reactive rock to less than 20 % of the
aggregate in the concrete; use of smaller maximum size; and the use of very low alkali cement.”
61

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

The optional requirements for blended cements, C 1157 cements, pozzolans, and slag all make
use of C 441 (Pyrex) mortar-bar method for demonstrating the effectiveness in controlling
expansion due to ASR. However, each material specification has different performance
requirements and these may be summarized as follows:

ASTM Specification Expansion Limit of Mortars with Pyrex Glass

C 595 Blended cements Maximum expansion of 0.020% at 14 days and 0.060%
at 56 days
C 1157 Hydraulic cements Maximum expansion of 0.020% at 14 days
(performance-based specification)
C 618 Fly ash and natural pozzolans Expansion of fly ash mortars not greater than expansion
of control mortars with low-alkali cement (≤ 0.60%
Na2Oe) at 14 days
C 989 Slag Expansion of the job cement plus slag should not
expand by more than 0.02% at 14 days or, if the job
cement is not known, the slag should reduce the 14-day
expansion of a mixture with high-alkali cement by at
least 75% when compared with a mix with high-alkali
cement on its own.
C 1240 Silica fume Blend of high-alkali cement plus silica fume must
reduce expansion by at least 80% compared with high-
alkali cement alone

A joint C09/C01 Task Group recently recognized that numerous ASTM specifications provide
requirements and guidance for avoiding deleterious ASR expansion for individual concrete
materials (e.g. cementitious materials, aggregates, and SCMs) while, together, these
specifications do not provide coherent guidance for preventing deleterious expansion in concrete;
also, the specifications utilize standard test methods that are in many cases considered to be
unreliable (Struble 2010). The Task Group thus recommended that clear and consistent
guidance/specification for the prevention of ASR be developed that addresses performance at the
concrete level and includes requirements for aggregates. A joint ASTM technical subcommittee,
C01/C09-50, was then formed to develop new global requirements for the Risk Management of
Alkali-Aggregate Reactions. This new subcommittee started its activities in 2010.

6.2.2 ACI

ACI 301 Specifications for Structural Concrete (ACI 301-10) states that potentially reactive
aggregates may be used either with low-alkali cement (≤ 0.60% Na2Oe) or supplementary

62

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

cementing materials “in an amount shown to be effective in preventing harmful expansion due to
alkali-aggregate reaction in accordance with ASTM C 441” and defers to ASTM C 33.

ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) requires aggregates
to meet the requirements of ASTM C 33 but makes no reference to alkali-aggregate reactions
(ASR or ACR) or the use of deleteriously-reactive aggregates in concrete.

Guidance for preventing damage due to AAR is provided in ACI 201 Guide to Durable Concrete
(ACI 201.2R-08) and ACI 221 Report on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity (ACI 221.1R-98).

6.2.3 State Specifications

Many state transportation agencies have developed specifications for minimizing the risk of
deleterious alkali-aggregate reactions in concrete. These are too numerous to discuss here but
examples of these specifications are available for review at the following link:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/concrete/asr/reference.cfm?main_category=Specifications

6.3 AASHTO PP65-11

A version of AASHTO PP65-11 Standard Practice for Determining the Reactivity of Concrete
Aggregates and Selecting Appropriate Measures for Preventing Deleterious Expansion in New
Concrete Construction was first published in 2010. As the title suggests, these guidelines can be
broken down into two steps as follows:
• Evaluating aggregate reactivity (for alkali-silica and alkali-carbonate reactive aggregates)
• Selecting preventive measures (for alkali-silica reactive aggregates only)

6.3.1 Evaluating Aggregate Reactivity

Aggregate reactivity is evaluated by considering one or more of the following options: (i) field
performance history, (ii) petrographic assessment, (iii) chemical composition (for quarried
carbonates), (iv) data from accelerated mortar bar tests (AASHTO T 303), and (v) data from
concrete prism tests (ASTM C 1293). Aggregates may be classified as non-deleteriously-reactive
and can be used without preventive measures provided they meet one of the following
conditions:
• There is an established history of satisfactory field performance (minimum 15 years) with
the aggregate used in the same exposure conditions with similar cementitious materials.

63

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

• Petrographic examination of the aggregate by a skilled and experienced petrographer

indicates that potentially deleterious minerals are not present in sufficient concentration
to cause deleterious reaction and expansion.
• Expansion of mortar bars (AASHTO T 303; ASTM C 1260) is not greater than 0.10%
after 14 days immersion in 1 M NaOH at 176ºF (80ºC).
• Expansion of concrete prisms (ASTM C 1293) is not greater than 0.040% at 1 year.

Although AASHTO PP65-11 allows aggregates to be accepted solely based on field history
and/or petrography it strongly recommends expansion testing using either the accelerated mortar
bar test or, preferably, the concrete prism test.

Prior to expansion testing, quarried carbonates must be subjected to chemical analysis to

determine whether there is a risk of alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR). If the results of the analysis
indicate a potential for ACR the aggregate must be tested by the concrete prism test as the
accelerated mortar bar test is not capable of detecting alkali-carbonate reactive aggregate. If the
concrete prisms expand during test, the prisms must be examined to determine whether the
expansion was due to ACR, ASR, or a combination of ASR and ACR. If ACR is considered to
have contributed to the expansion the aggregate must be rejected for use in concrete.

If, after testing, the aggregate is identified to be alkali-silica reactive, AASHTO PP65-11
requires that it is either rejected for use or used together with appropriate preventive measures.

6.3.2 Selecting Preventive Measures

PP65-11 provides two approaches for selecting preventive measures; these being: (i) a
performance approach based on laboratory testing, and (ii) a prescriptive approach based on a
consideration of the reactivity of the aggregate, type and size of structure, exposure conditions,
and the composition of cementitious materials being used. The two test methods used for the
performance-based approach are the accelerated mortar bar test for evaluating combinations of
cementing materials and aggregates (ASTM C 1567) and the concrete prism test (ASTM C
1293), with preference given to the latter test. The rationale behind the use of these two tests and
the preference for the concrete prism test is presented in FHWA-HIF-09-001 (Thomas et al.
2008) and in Thomas et al. (2006).

The options for preventive measures included in the prescriptive approach of PP65-10 are to (i)
control the alkali content of the concrete to a maximum allowable level, (ii) use a minimum level
of supplementary cementing material (SCM) or combination of SCMs, or (iii) use a combination
of these two options (that is controlling the alkali content of the concrete and using SCM). The
precise level of alkali permitted or SCM required depends on a number of factors including the

64

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

aggregate reactivity, type and size of structure, exposure conditions, and even the composition of
the cement and SCM being used.

A brief summary of the prescriptive and performance options are described here.

6.3.2.1 Prescriptive Approach for Selecting Preventive Measures

The prescriptive approach of AASHTO PP65 can be summarized in the following steps:
Step 1. Determine aggregate reactivity class: The aggregate is tested in either the
accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT), AASHTO T 303, or, preferably, the concrete
prism test (CPT), ASTM C 1293. The criteria in Table 6.1 are used to classify the
aggregate reactivity, which can range from “R0 – non-reactive” to “R3 – very
highly reactive”.
Step 2. Determine level of ASR risk: Based on the aggregate-reactivity class determined in
Step 1 (Table 6.1) and the size and exposure conditions of the concrete under
construction, the level of ASR risk is determined using the criteria in Table 6.2.
The risk may range from Level 1 (lowest or negligible risk) to Level 6 (highest
risk).
Step 3. Determine level of prevention: Based on the level of ASR risk determined in Step 2
(Table 6.2) and the classification of the structure 3, the level of prevention required
is determined using Table 6.3. The level of prevention required may range from
Level V (no measures necessary) to Level ZZ (extreme preventive measures
necessary).
Step 4. Identification of preventive measures: Based on the level of prevention required
that was determined in Step 3 (Table 6.3), a number of options are presented as
acceptable measures for preventing ASR; these are:
Option 1 – limiting the alkali content of the concrete (Table 6.5)
Option 2 – using supplementary cementing materials, SCM 4 (Table 6.6)

Option 3 – limiting the alkali content of the concrete and using SCM (Table 6.8)

3
Table 6.4 is intended to provide guidance in selecting the Class of Structure.
4
For Option 2, the minimum amount of SCM determined from Table 6 may be adjusted based on the alkali level of
the portland cement using Table 6.7.
65

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

Table 6.1. Classification of Aggregate Reactivity

Aggregate- Description of One-Year Expansion 14-Day Expansion in

Reactivity Class Aggregate Reactivity in CPT (%) AMBT (%)
R0 Non-reactive ≤ 0.04 ≤ 0.10
R1 Moderately reactive > 0.04, ≤ 0.12 > 0.10, ≤ 0.30
R2 Highly reactive > 0.12, ≤ 0.24 > 0.30, ≤ 0.45
R3 Very highly reactive > 0.24 > 0.45

Table 6.2. Determining the Level of ASR Risk

Aggregate-Reactivity Class
Size and exposure conditions R0 R1 R2 R3
1 2
Non-massive concrete in a dry
Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
environment
Massive1 elements in a dry2
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
environment
All concrete exposed to humid air,
Level 1 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
buried or immersed
All concrete exposed to alkalis in
Level 1 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
service3
1
A massive element has a least dimension > 3 ft (0.9 m).
2
A dry environment corresponds to an average ambient relative humidity lower than 60%, normally only found in
buildings.
3
Examples of structures exposed to alkalis (sodium and potassium) in service include marine structures exposed to
seawater and highway structures exposed to deicing salts (e.g. NaCl) or anti-icing salts (e.g. potassium acetate,
potassium formate, sodium acetate, sodium formate, etc.).

66

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

Table 6.3. Determining the Level of Prevention

Classification of Structure (Table 4)

Level of ASR
S1 S2 S3 S4
Risk (Table 6.4)
Risk Level 1 V V V V
Risk Level 2 V V W X
Risk Level 3 V W X Y
Risk Level 4 W X Y Z
Risk Level 5 X Y Z ZZ
††
Risk Level 6 Y Z ZZ
††
It is not permitted to construct a Class S4 structure (see Table 6.4) when the risk of ASR
is Level 6. Measures must be taken to reduce the level of risk in these circumstances.
The level of prevention V, W, X, Y, Z and ZZ are used in Tables 6.5 to 6.8.

67

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

Table 6.4. Structures Classified on the Basis of the Severity of the Consequences Should ASR1
Occur (Modified for Highway Structures from RILEM TC 191-ARP)

Consequences of Acceptability of
Class Examples2
ASR ASR
Safety, economic, or
Some deterioration ƒ Non-load-bearing elements inside
environmental
S1 from ASR may be buildings
consequences small
tolerated ƒ Temporary structures (e.g. < 5 years)
or negligible
Some safety,
economic, or
Moderate risk of ƒ Sidewalks, curbs, and gutters
S2 environmental
ASR is acceptable ƒ Service-life < 40 years
consequences if
major deterioration
ƒ Pavements
ƒ Culverts
Significant safety,
economic, or ƒ Highway barriers
Minor risk of ASR ƒ Rural, low-volume bridges
S3 environmental
acceptable ƒ Large numbers of precast elements
consequences if
minor damage where economic costs of
replacement are severe
ƒ Service life normally 40 to 75 years
Serious safety, ƒ Major bridges
economic, or ƒ Tunnels
ASR cannot be
S4 environmental ƒ Critical elements that are very
tolerated
consequences if difficult to inspect or repair
minor damage ƒ Service life normally > 75 years
1
This table does not consider the consequences of damage due to ACR. This practice does not permit the use of alkali-carbonate
reactive aggregates.
2
The types of structures listed under each Class are meant to serve as examples. Some owners may decide to use their own
classification system. For example, sidewalks or curbs and gutters may be placed in the Class S3.

68

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

Table 6.5. Maximum Alkali Contents in Portland Cement Concrete to Provide Various Levels of
Prevention

Maximum Alkali Content of Concrete (Na2Oe)

Prevention Level
lb/yd3 kg/m3

V No limit

W 5.0 3.0

X 4.0 2.4

Y 3.0 1.8

Z1
Table 6.8
ZZ1
1
SCMs must be used in Prevention levels Z and ZZ.

69

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

Table 6.6. Minimum Levels of SCM to Provide Various Levels of Prevention

Minimum Replacement Level3

Alkali level
Type of SCM 1
of SCM (% by mass of cementitious material)
(% Na2Oe)
Level W Level X Level Y Level Z Level ZZ

Fly ash ≤ 3.0 15 20 25 35

(CaO ≤ 18%) > 3.0, ≤ 4.5 20 25 30 40

Slag ≤ 1.0 25 35 50 65 Table 6.7

1.2 x LBA 1.5 x LBA 1.8 x LBA 2.4 x LBA

Silica Fume2
≤ 1.0 or or or or
(SiO2 ≥ 85%)
2.0 x KGA 2.5 x KGA 3.0 x KGA 4.0 x KGA
1
The SCM may be added directly to the concrete mixer or it may be a component of a blended cement. SCMs should meet the
requirements of AASHTO M 295, M 302 or M 307. Blended cements should meet the requirements of AASHTO M 240 or
ASTM C 1157.
2
The minimum level of silica fume (as a percentage of cementitious material) is calculated on the basis of the alkali (Na2Oe)
content of the concrete contributed by the portland cement and expressed in either units of lb/yd3 (LBA in Table 6.6) or kg/m3
(KGA in Table 6.6). LBA is calculated by multiplying the cement content of the concrete in lb/yd3 by the alkali content of the
cement divided by 100. For example, for a concrete containing 500 lb/yd3 of cement with an alkali content of 0.81% Na2Oe,
the value of LBA = 500 x 0.81/100 = 4.05 lb/yd3. For this concrete, the minimum replacement level of silica fume for Level Y
is 1.8 x 4.05 = 8.1%. KGA is calculated by multiplying the cement content of the concrete in kg/m3 by the alkali content of the
cement divided by 100. For example, for a concrete containing 300 kg/m3 of cement with an alkali content of 0.91% Na2Oe,
the value of KGA = 300 x 0.91/100 = 2.73 kg/m3. For this concrete, the minimum replacement level of silica fume for Level X
is 2.5 x 2.73 = 6.8%. Regardless of the calculated value, the minimum level of silica fume shall not be less than 7% when it is
the only method of prevention.
3
The use of high levels of SCM in concrete may increase the risk of problems due to deicer salt scaling if the concrete is not
properly proportioned, finished, and cured.

70

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

Table 6.7. Adjusting the Minimum Level of SCM Based on the Alkali Content in the Portland

Cement

Cement Alkalis
Level of SCM
(% Na2Oe)
Reduce the minimum amount of SCM given in
≤ 0.70
Table 6.6 by one prevention level1
> 0.70, ≤ 1.00 Use the minimum levels of SCM given in Table 6.6
Increase the minimum amount of SCM given in
> 1.00, ≤1.25
Table 6.6 by one prevention level
> 1.25 No guidance is given
1
The replacement levels should not be below those given in Table 6.6 for prevention level W,
regardless of the alkali content of the portland cement.

Table 6.8. Using SCM and Limiting the Alkali Content of the Concrete to Provide Exceptional
Levels of Prevention

SCM as Sole Prevention Limiting Concrete Alkali Content Plus SCM

Prevention
Level Maximum Alkali
Minimum SCM Level Minimum SCM Level
Content, lb/yd3 (kg/m3)

SCM level shown for SCM level shown for

Z 3.0 (1.8)
Level Z in Table 6.6 Level Y in Table 6.6

SCM level shown for

ZZ Not permitted 3.0 (1.8)
Level Z in Table 6.6

The prescriptive approach does not allow the option for using lithium compounds as a preventive
measure. Research has shown that the efficacy of lithium compounds in controlling expansion
due to ASR is highly influenced by the nature of the reactive aggregate (Tremblay et al. 2007).
Currently, it is not possible to prescribe the required lithium dose based on aggregate reactivity
or mineralogy and, consequently, lithium compounds must be tested using the prescriptive
approach to determine the minimum dose required with a specific aggregate.

71

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 6 – AAR Specifications

6.3.2.2 Performance Approach for Selecting Preventive Measures

AASHTO PP65-11 recommends that the concrete prism test (ASTM C 1293) is used to evaluate
the efficacy of supplementary cementing materials or lithium-based compounds for controlling
alkali-silica reaction. Preferably tests should be conducted at a range of SCM levels or lithium
doses to determine the “safe” level. The preventive measure is considered to be effective
provided the expansion of concrete prisms is not greater than 0.040% after 2 years.

If there is insufficient time to conduct concrete tests, ASTM C 1567 (modified accelerated
mortar-bar test for evaluating combinations of reactive aggregate and SCM) may be used to
evaluate SCMs. The SCM is deemed to be effective in controlling ASR expansion with the
aggregate under test provided the expansion of mortar bars is not greater than 0.10% after 14
days immersion in 1 M NaOH at 176ºF (80ºC).

AASHTO PP65-11 also includes a modified version of the accelerated mortar bar test for
evaluating lithium-based compounds. However, there are few data available for calibrating this
test method and it is strongly recommended that the concrete prism test be used to evaluate
lithium-aggregate combinations.

REFERENCES

Struble, L. 2010. “Opening remarks.” Workshop on specifications on alkali-aggregate reaction.

Sponsored by ASTM Committees C09 on Concrete and Concrete Aggregates and C01 on
Cement, June 6, 2010, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. (available on ASTM website).

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K., Ideker, J. and Shehata, M. 2006. “Test methods for
evaluating preventive measures for controlling expansion due to alkali-silica reaction in
concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 36, No. 10, 1842-1856.

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B. and Folliard, K.J. 2008. “Report on determining the reactivity of
concrete aggregates and selecting appropriate measures for preventing deleterious expansion in
new concrete construction.” Federal Highways Administration, FHWA-HIF-09-001, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C. A34.

Tremblay, C., Bérubé, M-A., Fournier, B., Thomas, M.D.A. and Folliard, K.F. 2007.
“Effectiveness of lithium-based products in concrete made with Canadian reactive aggregates.”
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 104, No. 2, 195-205.

72

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis of Alkali‐silica Reaction in Concrete
 
Structures 

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) is one of the many factors that might be fully/partly responsible
for the deterioration and premature loss in serviceability of concrete infrastructure. Comparative
field and laboratory investigations can be carried out to confirm that AAR is the main cause or a
significant contributor to the deterioration observed, thus aiming at selecting appropriate remedial
actions. Such investigations will likely include one or several of the following steps:
• the field inspection of the structure(s) under study to identify the presence/distribution and
severity of the defects affecting the various structural elements (especially those features
diagnostic of AAR), as well as the exposure conditions to which the structure is subjected;
• the in-situ monitoring of deterioration (especially signs of expansion and deformation); and
• a range of laboratory tests (including petrographic characterization, chemical, physical, and
mechanical tests) on samples collected from one or several components of the affected
concrete structure.

7.2 MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR AAR-AFFECTED STRUCTURES

A global approach was recently proposed by FHWA for the diagnosis and prognosis of alkali-
silica reaction (ASR) in transportation structures (Fournier et al. 2010). Figure 7.1 presents a
summary of the above protocol. This step-by-step approach aims at evaluating the cause of
concrete distress (diagnosis) and the potential for future expansion/damage (prognosis), both
elements providing information for the selection of appropriate mitigation measures in ASR-
affected structures. The extent to which each of the various methods described in the global
approach will need to be implemented in a particular case will depend upon the nature/extent of
the problem and the criticality of the structure, including the impact on the safety of users.

73

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

Routine inspection at usual frequency (e.g. 2-year basis)

No / Low
Probability of ASR/ACR ?

Medium to high
Sampling

No ASR Investigate for

Laboratory
other
(Petrography) mechanisms
ASR present
No immediate No No Select remedial
Need more information before
action needed selecting remedial measure(s) ? action
Yes

Detailed Program (Prognosis)

• In-situ monitoring
• Advanced laboratory
investigations

Figure 7.1. Global Flow Chart for the Evaluation and Management of Concrete Structures for
ASR (from Fournier et al. 2010)

7.2.1 ASR investigation program – Step 1 (Diagnosis)

7.2.1.1 Condition Survey

Signs of premature deterioration in concrete transportation structures that could be related to ASR
can generally be detected during routine site inspections (condition survey). FHWA recently
proposed Alkali-Silica Reactivity Surveying and Tracking Guidelines (Thomas et al. 2012a) that
are intended to assist engineers, inspectors, and users in tracking and surveying ASR-induced
expansion and cracking in bridges, pavements, and tunnels.

In the case of bridge structures, inspection elemental data can first be collected for the various
elements of the structure, for example in accordance with the new AASHTO Guide Manual for
Bridge Element Inspection (2011). The presence and extent of ASR-related defects are noted and
quantified in accordance to the four conditions states described in Table 7.1.

74

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

Table 7.1. Standard Condition States for Defects in Bridge Elements (after AASHTO 2011)

Condition State # Condition State

1 Good
2 Fair
3 Poor
4* Severe
* Condition state 4 (severe) is typically reserved for conditions that warrant
safety concerns and that are beyond the range of defects described in
condition states 1 through 3.

The concept is to identify defects that are specific/unique enough so the manifestation of distress
may be attributed to ASR. An updated version of the Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP) ASR Handbook (Stark 1991), titled “Alkali-Silica Reactivity Field Identification
Handbook” (Thomas et al. 2011), provides detailed coverage on the causes and effects of ASR
and a wide range of photographs illustrating common symptoms of ASR, as well as examples of
severity ratings. These include map cracking, aligned cracking, gel exudation, and relative
dislocation/ misalignment of adjacent sections. Table 7.2 summarizes the proposed ASR-related
defects, defect descriptions, and criteria/threshold for bridge element types using a similar
approach as in the AASHTO guide manual (2011).

Table 7.2. Recommended Defects and Condition States for Bridge Elements Potentially Affected
by ASR

Condition Condition Condition Condition State 4

Defect
State 1 State 2 State 3
Map None to Narrow size or Medium size or density, or
Cracking hairline density, or both both
The condition is beyond the
Aligned None to Narrow size or Medium size or density, or
limit state of Condition State 3,
Cracking hairline density, or both both
warrants a structural review to
Gel
None Moderate Severe (with gel staining) determine the strength or
Exudation
serviceability of the element or
Relative Approaching or exceeding
bridge, or both
dislocation/ None Tolerable limits (including causing
misalignment local crushing)

More detailed descriptions of the above defects are provided in Table 7.3; examples of defects
with different condition states are given in Figure 7.2. In addition, environmental conditions,
especially temperature, relative humidity, exposure to sun and winds, and precipitation, can be
tracked and coupled with other inspection findings to attempt linking the specific climatic
conditions to the progress of ASR.

75
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

Table 7.3. Recommended Defects and Condition States for Bridge Elements Potentially Affected
by ASR

Defect Hairline-Minor Narrow-Moderate Medium-Severe

Crack width < 0.0625” Crack width: 0.0625” (1.6 mm)
Crack width > 0.1250” (3.2 mm)
Map Cracking (1.6 mm) – 0.1250” (3.2 mm)
% Map Cracking > 25%
% Map Cracking < 5% % Map Cracking: 5 to 25%
Aligned Crack width < 0.0625” Crack width: 0.0625” (1.6 mm)
Crack width: > 0.1250” (3.2 mm)
Cracking (1.6 mm) – 0.1250” (3.2 mm)
Gel build-up on surface (>20% of
Gel visible on surface (< 20% of concrete surface), typically at or
Gel Exudation None concrete surface, with no build­ near cracks; gel staining visible
up of gel) (especially once structure dries
after a rain event)
Tolerable (movement is visible
Relative Movement is visual, with loss of
but no loss of clearance,
dislocation/ None clearance, exudation of sealants at
exudation of sealants at joints,
misalignment joints, or local crushing
or local crushing)

76

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A B

D E

Figure 7.2. ASR-related defects in bridge elements and severity assessment. A. Map cracking on
bridge abutment (condition state 3). B. Aligned cracking on column (condition state 2). C.
Aligned cracking in beam (condition state 3). D. Gel exudation (condition state 3). E. Relative
dislocation/misalignment, leading to loss of clearance and cracking (SHRP C-315 1991)
(condition state 3).

77

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A similar approach can be followed for pavements. The distresses most commonly associated
with ASR in pavements include map cracking, joint deficiencies/deterioration, and in some
cases, popouts. Tables 7.4 and 7.5 provide detailed criteria/description for the distress types,
followed by selected photographs of the defects, some with varying degree of severity (Figure
7.3).

Table 7.4. Recommended Distress and Condition States for Pavements Potentially Affected by

ASR

Condition Condition Condition Condition

Distress
State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4
None to Narrow size or Medium size or The condition is beyond the limit
Map Cracking
hairline density, or both density, or both state of Condition State 3, warrants a
Joint Sealant Failure None Moderate Severe structural review to determine the
Joint Deterioration None Moderate Severe strength or serviceability of the
Popouts None Moderate Severe pavement, or both.

Table 7.5. Recommended Distress and Distress Descriptions for Pavements Potentially Affected
by ASR

Defect Hairline-Minor Narrow-Moderate Medium-Severe

Map Crack width < 0.0625” (1.6 mm) Crack width: 0.0625” (1.6 Crack width > 0.1250”
Cracking % Map Cracking < 5% mm) – 0.1250” (3.2 mm) (3.2 mm)
% Map Cracking: 5 to 25% % Map Cracking > 25%
Joint Sealant Joint sealant failure in less than Joint sealant failure in 10 to Joint sealant failure in greater
Failure 10% of joints. 50% of joints. than 50% of joint
Joint None or only minor cracking Wide, open cracks exist and Wide, open cracks and mass
Deterioration near corners/joints mass loss has occurred in loss has occurred in joint region
joint region (less than 5% of (greater than 5% of joints).
joints). No patching applied. Patching has been applied.
Popouts None Popouts isolated and few Popouts prevalent
[< 1 popout per 10 ft] [> 1 popout per 10 ft]
* Popout data generally not collected and not included in LTPP. Estimates are in []

78

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A B

C D

Figure 7.3. ASR-related defects in pavements and severity assessment. A. Map cracking of
concrete pavement (condition state 3). B. Joint Sealant Failure in Concrete Pavement (condition
state 3). C. Joint Deterioration in Concrete Pavement (condition state 2). D. Joint Deterioration in
Concrete Pavement (condition state 3).

If the condition survey points out issues that can impair the integrity of the structure or public
safety (related or not to ASR), immediate action should be taken in consultation with experts in
the respective fields.

7.2.1.2 Documentation

Any documents (i.e., testing of materials, construction, and inspection reports) related to the
structure examined should be gathered as they may provide valuable information in the appraisal
process. This activity could also be carried out either in preparation for the condition survey or

79

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

following it, i.e., for structures where some signs of deterioration potentially indicative of ASR
have been noticed. Useful information could include the following (CSA 2000):

• Type and location of the structure and, hence, its likely exposure conditions due to its
nature of operation and geography.
• Age of the structure and details and dates of any modifications or repairs. ASR may take
from 3 to even more than 25 years to develop significantly in concrete structures depending
on factors such as the nature (reactivity level) of the aggregates used, the moisture and
temperature conditions, and the concrete alkali content.
• Plans, drawings, and specifications.
• Details of concrete mixes used, particularly mix proportions, source of cement and
aggregates, and details of any analyses or tests carried out on concrete materials. The
availability of samples of these materials should also be checked; some agencies store
samples of cements and aggregates used in major projects.
• Previous inspection/testing reports, especially dates when deterioration was first observed.
• Information from other local structures that may have been constructed with the similar
materials, especially if these structures are exhibiting signs of deterioration typical of ASR.

Details regarding the concrete materials, especially the composition and proportion of the cement
and the type of aggregate used, are most useful when assessing the likelihood of ASR. It is
recognized that information of this nature is often not available or lacks specific detail in the case
of many structures; however, it is important to collect whatever data is available.

7.2.1.3 Laboratory investigation - petrography

When the nature and extent of the visual signs of deterioration observed on the structure(s) under
inspection are such that ASR is a possibility, investigations can be carried out to determine
whether or not ASR is a contributing factor in the deterioration observed. Cores are collected
from components showing typical features of deterioration suggestive of ASR (e.g. Figures 7.2
and 7.3), which, most often, correspond to structural components exposed to a constant or
renewable supply of moisture. For comparison purposes, it will also be appropriate to collect
cores from non or less deteriorated/exposed members of the structure.

Various types of specimens, e.g. polished sections or slices, broken (fresh) surfaces, and thin
sections can be prepared from the core samples. They will then be examined petrographically to
recognize any signs of deterioration associated with ASR and other deleterious mechanisms
(BCA 1992; St-John et al. 1998; Walker et al. 2006). Although not necessarily exclusive to ASR,
petrographic signs of ASR generally consist of (Figure 7.4):

80

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

• microcracking in the aggregate particles (coarse and/or fine) and/or the cement paste;
• presence of reaction products “alkali-silica gel” in the cracks of the aggregate particles
and/or of the cement paste, as well as in air voids of the cement paste;
• reaction rims (to differentiate from weathering rims); and
• loss of the cement paste-aggregate bond.

81

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A (distance between the vertical lines = 1 cm) B (distance between the vertical lines = 1 cm)

C (distance between the vertical lines = 1 cm) D (distance between the vertical lines = 1 cm)

1mm

E F

10 mm 5 mm
Figure 7.4. Typical petrographic features of deterioration due to ASR
• Polished concrete sections (stereomicroscope): Cracks with reaction products in coarse (A,C) and fine
(B) aggregate particles. Reaction rims around reactive coarse aggregate particles (A). Reaction
products (ASR gel) in cracks (A,C) and voids (A) of the cement paste.
• Thin sections (petrographic microscope). Reaction products (ASR gel) in cracks of coarse aggregate
particles and in an adjacent air void of the cement paste (D).
• Broken surface of concrete sample (stereomicroscope): Alkali-silica reaction products on broken
surfaces of reactive coarse aggregate particles (E), and in voids (E) or covering cracked surfaces of the
cement paste (F).
82

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

Staining techniques have been proposed to facilitate identification of the reaction product gel in
concrete affected by ASR (Natesaiyer et al. 1991; Stark 1991; Guthrie and Carey 1997). A
technique developed at Cornell University (Natesaiyer et al. 1991) consists in applying an uranyl
acetate solution on polished or fresh broken surfaces of concrete specimens to be examined
followed by a visual observation of the section under a UV light; the technique has even been
used on field structures (Stark 1991; AASHTO 1993; ASTM C 856-02). Stark (1991) indicated
that “by applying the uranyl acetate solution to a surface containing the gel, the uranyl ion
substitutes for alkali in the gel, thereby imparting a characteristic yellowish-green glow when
viewed in the dark using short wavelength ultraviolet light ASR gel fluoresces much brighter
than cement paste due to the greater concentration of alkali and, subsequently, uranyl ion in the
gel”. This technique should be used with great care following appropriate health and safety
procedures because of the potentially hazardous nature of the product. Technically speaking, the
results of the test should be interpreted with great care since some aggregates fluoresce naturally,
which can incorrectly suggest the presence of alkali-silica gel through macroscopic or
microscopic examinations. Guthrie and Carey (1997) proposed a method that consists in treating
fresh concrete surfaces to successive applications of Sodium Cobaltinitrite and Rhodamine B.
Upon treatment, regions affected by ASR stain either yellow or pink. According to Guthrie and
Carey (1997), yellow staining would be associated with massive ASR-related precipitate with
gel-like morphology as well as granular precipitate consisting of crystals that have grown from
the gel. On the other hand, yellow stained regions would correspond to alkali-bearing siliceous
reaction products resulting from ASR.

Table 7.6 classifies the occurrence of the features obtained from the petrographic examination as
indicative of low, medium, and high probability of ASR. When petrographic evidence of ASR is
confirmed, a decision on further steps to be taken is based on factors such as the severity of the
damage and the "criticality" of the structure (Fournier et al. 2010) (Figure 7.1). In some cases, it
may be decided that additional “technical” investigations are not required and some remedial
actions could/should already be implemented. Examples of such cases are further discussed in
Fournier et al. (2010). Also, in some cases, the extent of the damage is such that no immediate
action is needed; the structure will then be re-examined as part of the routine condition survey.
However, in the case of “critical” structures (e.g. large size/major highway bridges and
pavements, hydraulic dams) or when the extent of deterioration is significant, a detailed
laboratory and/or in-situ investigation program may be necessary.

83

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

Table 7.6. Classification system for petrographic examination (Fournier et al. 2010)

Probability of ASR Nature and Extent of Features

No potentially reactive rock types (from petrographic examination of thin sections):
• no alkali-silica gel present (or only in a very few air voids), no (or very few) reaction
Low rims, no (or very few) sites of expansive reaction, very limited cracking within the
aggregate particles that extends, or not, into the cement paste;
• presence of other indicative features rarely found.
Presence of some features generally consistent with AAR:
• damp patches on core surfaces;
• presence of potentially reactive rock types;
• cracking/microcracking within a fair number of aggregate particles; some of the
Medium cracks may extend into the cement paste;
• alkali-silica gel observed in cracks within a fair number of aggregate particles and/or
cracks within the cement paste and/or air voids;
• darkening of cement paste around reactive aggregate particles, cracks or voids;
• reaction rims around the internal periphery of a fair number of reactive particles.
Presence of extensive signs of ASR (as described in the previous section but observed
in larger frequency), for instance:
• evidence of site of expansion reaction, i.e. where evidence or reaction and emanation
High of swelling pressure can be positively identified; and/or
• presence of gel in cracks and voids associated with several reactive particles and
readily visible to the unaided eye or under low magnification.

7.2.2 ASR investigation program – Step 2 (Prognosis)

This part of the study aims at generating additional technical information, leading to a more
complete assessment of the degree of damage due to ASR in the concrete structure and the
selection of most appropriate remedial measures (Figure 7.1). The selection of the activities will
depend on the criticality of the structure, the amount of time/funding available to generate the
data, and the degree of precision expected.

7.2.2.1 In-situ investigations

An in-situ investigation program, which includes monitoring of expansion, deformation, and

availability of moisture over several years (to account for seasonal temperature changes), can
provide “prognostic” information for ASR-affected structural members. The detailed in-situ
investigation program can include one or several of the following:
• Surface cracking. The extent of surface cracking on severely exposed/cracked sections of
concrete elements is somewhat related to the overall amount of expansion reached by the
affected member. The Cracking Index (CI) method consists in the measurement and
summation of crack widths along a set of lines drawn perpendicularly on the surface of the
concrete element investigated (LCPC 1997, 1999) (Figure 7.5). The method gives a
quantitative assessment of the extent of cracking in structural members, either punctually

84

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

(when obtained at a specific time) or as a progressive process when performing the

measurements, on a regular basis, at the exact same location (rate of expansion – prognosis).
• Expansion and deformation measurements. Measurements of expansion/deformation can be
performed using different means (e.g. demec points and/or metallic references at the surface of
selected structural members, extensometers, invar wires/rods or optical systems (leveling))
(Fournier et al. 2010; LCPC 2003, 2009; Thomas et al. 2012b) (Figure 7.6).
• Temperature and humidity measurements. The relative humidity in a concrete structure can be
measured over time with depth or laterally in different concrete elements using various
techniques (e.g. wooden stick, portable or permanent probes) (Thomas et al. 2012b; Jensen
2004) (Figure 7.7).
• Non-destructive testing. Periodic measurements, such as pulse velocity, impact echo, acoustic
methods, etc. can be made on specific members of the affected structure (at the surface or in
the bottom of drilling holes) to determine the evolution/extent of internal cracking or
deterioration (Thomas et al. 2012b; Moradi-Marani et al. 2011; Tajari et al. 2011; Sargolzahi
et al. 2010) (Figure 7.8).

85

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A B

O
B
A
C
C
1 2 3 4 5 Base Crack opening (mm)
#
Interval (10 cm) Length Total Avg. Avg. C.I.
6 7 8 9 10 cracks
(m) sum /crack /m mm/m
OA 0.1, 0.1 0.2 -- -- 0.6 0.5 6 1.8 0.3 3.6
Vertical  0.4 -- -- 0.4 --
3.2
direction  BC 0.1 0.4 -- 0.1 0.1 0.5 7 1.4 0.2 2.8
-- 0.3 0.2 0.2 --
-- -- 0.3, 0.5 0.4 0.3
OB 0.5 7 2.8 0.4 5.6
Horizontal  0.4 0.3 -- -- 0.6
4.6
direction  0.5 0.2 -- -- 0.3
AC 0.05 0.05 0.1, 0.2 -- 0.2 0.5 8 1.6 0.2 3.6

Figure 7.5. Measurements of the Cracking Index on ASR-affected pavement (A) and jersey barrier (B).
An example of the data generated in the Cracking Index method is given in (C). The values of C.I. are
given separately for the vertical and horizontal measurements.

86

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A B

Figure 7.6. In-situ measurements of expansion of ASR-affected concrete elements

A B

Figure 7.7. In-situ measurements of humidity in concrete. A. Wooden-stick method. B. Vaisala

probes.

87

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A B

Figure 7.8. Non-destructive testing of ASR-affected concrete structures. A. Impact-echo. B. Non­

linear acoustic technique.

7.2.2.2 Detailed laboratory investigations

A series of tests can be performed on core samples extracted from structural members showing
different degrees of deterioration and/or of exposure conditions. The data will provide
information for further evaluating the current concrete condition, the expansion reached to date,
the current rate of expansion, and the potential for future expansion of the concrete.
• Quantitative petrography. The Damage Rating Index (DRI), a semi-quantitative petrographic
technique, evaluates the condition of concrete by counting, under the stereomicroscope (~16x
magnification), the number of typical petrographic features of ASR on polished concrete
sections (Grattan-Bellew 1992). The DRI represents the normalized value (to 100 mm2) of the
presence of these features after the count of their abundance over the surface examined has
been multiplied by weighing factors representing their relative importance in the overall
deterioration process (Villeneuve et al. 2012) (Table 7.7; Figures 7.4 and 7.9).
• Mechanical testing. In most cases, the properties most rapidly affected by ASR are the
modulus of elasticity and the direct tensile strength (ISE 1992; Pleau et al. 1989). The
Stiffness Damage Test (SDT), which consists in subjecting concrete cores to 5 cycles of
uniaxial loading/unloading up to a maximum of 5.5 MPa (Chrisp et al. 1989) or 10 MPa
(Smaoui et al. 2004) (Figure 7.10A), can be used for assessing the ASR expansion attained to
date through (1) the energy dissipated during the first cycle (hysteresis loop), and (2) the
accumulated plastic strain after the 5 load/unload cycles (Figure 7.10B). Recent research
indicates that more accurate results are obtained when the SDT is carried out at a percentage
of the design (28-day) strength (40%) instead of a fixed load (Sanchez et al. 2012).
Calibration curves correlating the above output parameters and expansion obtained on

88

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

laboratory specimens can be used for estimating the amount of expansion reached to date by
the field concrete (Smaoui et al. 2004) (Figure 7.10C).
• Expansion tests on cores. Expansion tests on cores (in air at > 95% R.H. and 38°C) can
provide an ‟estimate” of the potential for further expansion of ASR-affected concrete over a
relatively short period of time, e.g. six months to one year (Fournier et al. 2010; Fecteau et al.
2012; Bérubé et al. 2002; CSA 2000) (Figure 7.11). Although this method is commonly used,
the correlation between the ‟free” expansion of cores (i.e. when extracted from their
restraining environment) and the expansion of the corresponding structural element in the
field is yet to be established.
• Alkali content of concrete. The measurement of the ‟available/residual” alkali content in
concrete can yield interesting information in assessing whether the concrete tested contains
sufficient alkalis to sustain this reaction (prognosis). The ‟available/residual” alkali content in
concrete can be obtained by hot-water extraction or, when possible, using pore solution
extraction devices (Fournier et al. 2010; Bérubé and Tremblay 2004).

Table 7.7: Petrographic Features and Weighing Factors for the DRI (Grattan-Bellew and Mitchell
2006)

Petrographic feature Abbreviation Weighing factor

Coarse aggregate with cracks CrCA x 0.75
Open crack in coarse aggregate OCrCA x 4.0
Coarse aggregate with cracks and reaction products Cr+RPCA x 2.0
Coarse aggregate debonded CAD x 3.0
Reaction rims around aggregate RR x 0.5
Cement paste with cracks CrCP x 2.0
Cement paste with cracks and reaction products Cr+RPCP x 4.0
Air voids lined or filled with reaction products RPAV x 0.50

89

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A B

Figure 7.9. Examination of the polished concrete section under the stereomicroscope for the
determination of the Damage Rating Index. Petrographic features of deterioration (Table 7.7;
Figure 7.4) are counted in a one cm by one cm grid system drawn at the surface of the polished
concrete section.

90

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A B

Hysteresis loop
(1st cycle)

Total strain
(5 cycles)

Strain (mm/m)
C
Dissipated energy (joules x 10-3/m3)
1.2
Quebec NM
R2=0.98 R2=0.99
1.0
Potsdam
0.8 R2=1
Texas
R2=0.92
0.6

0.4

0.2 Limeridge
R2=0.83
0.0
0.000 0.080 0.160 0.240 0.320 0.400
Expansion (%)

Figure 7.10. Mechanical testing of concrete cores using the Stiffness Damage Test (SDT). A.
Cores subjected to 5 loading/unloading cycles up to 10 MPa. B. The best output parameters
correspond to the energy dissipated during the first cycle (hysteresis loop) and the accumulated
plastic strain after the 5 cycles. C. Calibration curves for different reactive aggregates (Smaoui
et al. 2004).

91

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

A C

Figure 7.11. Residual expansion testing carried out on core samples (38oC, R.H. > 95%). A.
Expansion measurement of the core. B. Mass measurements are also carried out in parallel to the
expansion measurements to determine the moisture uptake capacity of the core. C. Example of
comparative mass and residual expansion measurements for cores. This allows differentiating the
hydric reequilibration of the concrete at the beginning of the test (due to moisture uptake only)
and the residual expansion potential due to ASR.

7.2.2.3 Collective assessment of in-situ and laboratory investigations

Fournier et al. (2010) provides a scheme for the analysis of the results obtained from the in-situ
and laboratory investigations for prognostic evaluation of ASR. In summary, the authors suggest

92

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

that in the case of reinforced concrete members (e.g. bridges), the potential for further expansion
due to ASR will be expressed by the number of years before the reinforcing steel yield (in the
direction of lower or lack of restraint) could occur, which requires data on the ASR expansion
attained to date and the current expansion rate. In the case of concrete pavements, the potential
for further expansion due to ASR will be expressed by the number of years before the joints
could close, which requires information on the current expansion rate and widths of joints. The
urgency of applying remedial actions will then be partly based on criteria related to the delay
before steel yielding in reinforced concrete members (expansion criteria of > 0.20% is proposed),
or the delay before the closure of expansion joints occur in the case of concrete pavements. It is
recommended that further action be taken when the delay before steel yielding or joint closure is
estimated to be less than 5 years, for example by starting an in-situ monitoring program of
expansion, with measurements at least on a yearly basis, and/or by performing a structural
assessment of the member/structure; it would be appropriate to confirm an assessment that has
been based essentially on expansion tests on cores rather than on in-situ monitoring.

7.3 CONCLUSION

Unexpected or premature concrete deterioration due to alkali-silica reactivity (ASR) is a

widespread problem worldwide. Routine site inspections performed on a regular basis may
permit identification of the problem; however, ASR in concrete cannot generally be diagnosed
without detailed site investigations. Such investigations would include determination of the
distribution and severity of the various defects affecting the concrete structure, as well as
laboratory testing (petrography) of samples collected from the affected concrete structures. For
critical structures such as large dams and fair to large size highway bridges, detailed
investigations including a more extensive sampling program might be necessary to quantify the
current condition of the concrete, and to evaluate the potential for future deterioration
(prognosis). Such investigations can involve a detailed sampling program for further testing in
the laboratory and in-situ monitoring of the progress of expansion/deterioration. The results of
the above processes of investigation will then be analyzed to propose appropriate management
actions to be taken for each of the particular applications.

REFERENCES

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). “Standard

Method of Test for Rapid Identification of Alkali-Silica Reaction Products in Concrete (Uranyl
Acetate Procedure),” AASHTO T299-93, 1993.

93

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2011.

AASHTO guide manual for bridge element inspection (1st edition), 172 p.

American Standards for Testing and Materials. “Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination
of Hardened Concrete,” ASTM International, ASTM C856-02, Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Section Four, Vol. 04.02 Concrete and Aggregates, 434-450, 2003.

Bérubé, M.A. and Tremblay, C. 2004. “Chemistry of pore solution expressed under high pressure
– influence of various parameters and comparison with hot-water extraction method.” 12th
International conference on AAR in Concrete, Beijing (China), October 2004, Int. Academic
Publishers, Beijing World Publishing Corp., 833-842.

Bérubé, M.A., Frenette, J., Rivest, M. 2002. "Laboratory Assessment of the Potential Rate of
ASR Expansion of Field Concrete.” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, 24 (1), 28-36.

British Cement Association (BCA). 1992. “The Diagnosis of Alkali-Silica Reaction – Report of a
Working Party.” Wexham Springs, Slough (UK), SL3 6PL, 44 p.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2000. “Guide to the Evaluation and Management of
Concrete Structures Affected by Alkali-Aggregate Reaction.” CSA A864-00, Canadian Standards
Association, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.

Chrisp, T.M., Wood, J.G.M., Norris, P. 1989. “Towards Quantification of Microstructural

Damage in AAR Deteriorated Concrete.” International Conference on Recent Developments on
the Fracture of Concrete and Rocks, Elsevier Applied Science, London, U.K., 419-427.

Fecteau, P.L., Fournier, B., Duchesne, J. 2012. "Residual expansion testing: new aspects on
cores extracted from exposure blocks submitted to environmental conditions.” 14th International
Conference on AAR in Concrete, May 20-25 2012, Austin (Texas), electronic.

Fournier, B., Bérubé, M.A., Folliard, K.J., Thomas, M.D.A. 2010. “Report on the diagnosis,
prognosis and mitigation of alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in transportation structures.” Federal
Highway Administration, FHWA-HIF-09-004.

Grattan-Bellew, P.E. 1992. “Comparison of Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Alkali-Silica

Reaction in Large Dams,” First International Conference on Concrete AAR in Hydroelectric
Plants and Dams, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 23 p., September-October 1992.

94

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

Grattan-Bellew, P.E., Mitchell, L.D. 2006. “Quantitative petrographic analysis of concrete –The
Damage Rating Index (DRI) method, a review.” Marc-André Bérubé symposium on AAR in
concrete, CANMET/ACI Advances in concrete technology, Montréal, Canada, 321-334.

Guthrie, G.G., Jr. and Carey, J.W. “A Simple Environmentally Friendly, and Chemically Specific
Method for the Identification and Evaluation of the Alkali-Silica Reaction,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 27, No. 9, 1407-1417, 1997.

Institution of Structural Engineers (ISE). 1992. “Structural Effects of Alkali-Silica Reaction –

Technical Guidance Appraisal of Existing Structures.” Institution of Structural Engineers, 11
Upper Belgrave Street, London SW1X 8BH, 45 p.

Jensen, V. 2004. “Measurements of cracks, relative humidity and effects of surface treatments on
concrete structures damaged by alkali-silica reaction.” 12th International conference on AAR in
Concrete, Beijing (China), October 2004, Int. Academic Publishers, Beijing World Publishing
Corp., 1245-1253.

Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées (LCPC). Ministère de l’équipement, des transports et
du logement, 58 bd Lefebvre F75732 Paris cedex 15,
• 1997. Détermination de l’indice de fissuration d’un parement de béton. Méthode no. 47.
• 1999. Manuel d’identification des réactions de dégradation interne du béton dans les
ouvrages d’art.
• 2003. Aide à la gestion des ouvrages atteints de réactions de gonflement interne.
• 2009. Méthodes de suivi dimensionnel et de suivi de la fissuration des structures.

Moradi-Marani, F., Kodjo, S.A., Rivard, P., Lamarche, C.P. 2011. "Application of the
mechanical perturbation produced by traffic as a new approach of nonlinear acoustic technique
for detecting microcracks in concrete: a laboratory simulation.” Conference on Review of
progress in quantitative nondestructive evaluation (QNDE), Burlington (USA), July 17-22, 2011.

Natesaiyer, K., Stark, D. and Hover, K.C., “Gel Fluorescence Reveals Reaction Product Traces,”
Concrete International, 25-28, January 1991.

Pleau, R., Bérubé, M. A., Pigeon, M., Fournier, B., Raphaël, S. 1989. "Mechanical Behavior of
Concrete Affected by AAR. 8th International Conference on AAR in Concrete.” Kyoto, Japan,
1989, 721-726.

St-John, D.A., Poole, A.W., Sims, I. 1998. “Concrete Petrography: A handbook of investigative
techniques.” Arnold. London. 474 p.

95

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 7 – Diagnosis and Prognosis

Sanchez, L., Fournier, B., Jolin, M. 2012. "Study of the parameters of the stiffness damage test
for assessing concrete damage due to alkali-silica reaction.” Proceedings of the 14th International
Conference on AAR in Concrete, May 20-25, 2012, Austin (Texas), electronic.

Sargolzahi, M., Kodjo, S.A., Rivard P., Rhazi, J. 2010. "Effectiveness of nondestructive testing
for the evaluation of ASR in concrete.” Construction & Building Materials, 24(8): 1398-1403.

Sims, I. and Nixon, P.J. 2010. “Outline guide to the use of RILEM methods in assessments of
alkali-reactivity potential.” RILEM Recommended Test method AAR-0. RILEM committee
documentation (September 2010).

Smaoui, N., Bérubé, M.A., Fournier, B., Bissonnette, B. and Durand, B. 2004. "Evaluation of the
Expansion Attained to Date by ASR-Affected Concrete – Part I: Experimental Study.” Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering, 31: 826-845.

Stark, D. 1991. “Handbook for the Identification of Alkali-Silica Reactivity in Highway

Structures.” SHRP-C/FR-91-101, TRB National Research Council, 49p.

Tajari, M., Shekarchi, M. and Sadri, A. 2011. “Use of Impact-echo Technique for Detection of
Distributed Damage in Concrete due to ASR.” Material Evaluation, 69 (7): 881-890.

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K.J. and Resendez, B. 2011. “Alkali-silica reactivity
field identification Handbook.” FHWA-HIF-12-022, 80p.

Thomas, M.D.A., Fournier, B., Folliard, K.J. and Resendez, B. 2012a. “Alkali-silica reactivity
surveying and tracking guidelines.” July 2012, 32p.

Thomas, M.D.A., Folliard, K.J., Fournier, B., Drimalas, T. and Rivard, P. 2012b. “Study of
remedial actions on highway structures affected by ASR.” 14th International Conference on AAR
in Concrete, May 20-25, 2012, Austin (Texas), electronic.

Villeneuve, V., Fournier, B. and Duchesne, J. 2012. "Determination of the damage in concrete
affected by ASR – the Damage rating Index (DRI).” 14th International Conference on AAR in
Concrete, May 20-25, 2012, Austin (Texas), electronic.

Walker, H.N., Lane, D.S. and Stutzman, P.E. 2006. “Petrographic Methods of Examining
Hardened Concrete: A Petrographic Manual.” (Revised 2004). Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-HRT-04-150.

96

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

8 – Mitigation Methods for ASR‐Affected Structures 

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This section briefly describes various mitigation measures that are available for ASR-affected
structures, identifies options that have been used the most, discusses those whose effectiveness
has been proven in the laboratory and field, and describes those that remain experimental in
nature due to lack of data/information proving their merit in real-world applications. The main
objective of this section is to provide guidance on means of extending the service life of ASR-
affected structures. The term “mitigation” is used in lieu of “repair” because the methods
described herein are generally not able to, nor are they intended to, repair or restore the original
properties or integrity to the ASR-affected structure. Rather, the intention is to reduce future
expansion of the structure or to lessen the detrimental impact of future expansion.

The majority of the work to date on treating existing structures has focused on ASR-affected
structures, as opposed to ACR-affected structures, and there are by far many more ASR-affected
structures worldwide. As such, the focus of this portion of this protocol is aimed at ASR-
affected structures. However, some of the mitigation measures, particularly those aimed at
drying the concrete, would be helpful whether it is ASR or ACR that is impacting the structure.

8.2 OVERVIEW OF MITIGATION METHODS

Figure 8.1 summarizes the various mitigation options that have been applied to field structures
affected by ASR. This section will briefly discuss each of the options shown in Figure 8.1 and
will then focus on those that have the greatest potential for effectively treating ASR-affected
structures. For each of these options, the merits will be discussed, as well as inherent
shortcomings, both in terms of general applicability to field structures and specific application to
certain structures. Recent FHWA-funded field trials will be highlighted, when applicable, as
they relate to several of the methods highlighted in Figure 8.1.

97

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

¾ Improved drainage
¾ Application of coatings/sealers
¾ Application of cladding
¾ Crack filling
¾ Application of lithium compounds
¾ Application of restraint (FRP, etc.)
¾ Saw cutting/slot cutting

Figure 8.1. Mitigation Methods for ASR-Affected Concrete Structures

The first four methods highlighted in Figure 8.1 are all aimed at reducing the relative humidity in
concrete, and for convenience, these methods will be discussed together in Section 8.1. Section
8.2 will describe various methods of applying lithium-based compounds to ASR-affected
structures. Lastly, methods aimed at restraining ASR-induced expansion and relieving ASR-
induced stress are briefly discussed in Sections 8.3 and 8.4, respectively.

8.3 REDUCING INTERNAL RELATIVE HUMIDITY

Moisture is an essential component of ASR-induced expansion and cracking. Pedneault (1996)

showed that below a relative humidity (RH) of 80 percent, ASR-induced expansion is
significantly reduced or suppressed, as shown in Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.2. Influence of Relative Humidity on Expansion due to ASR (after Pedneault, 1998)

98

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

Given the importance of moisture availability on ASR, any methods that can be applied in the
field to reduce the internal RH are worthwhile. This can involve improving drainage for a given
structure, for example, by diverting drainage from a bridge deck away from an ASR-affected
column. The application of exterior cladding that prevents the ingress of additional moisture
may be beneficial, but it should be noted that the moisture already present within the concrete
may be sufficient for ASR to remain active, and this fact must be considered when contemplating
a cladding as a mitigation measure.

A more sound solution with regard to reducing internal moisture is to apply a coating or sealer
that prevents external water from penetrating into the concrete, but also allows water vapor from
within the concrete to exit, thereby resulting in an overall decrease in the internal relative
humidity. There are a range of products, some proprietary in nature, that satisfy the above
characteristics, but siloxanes, and especially silanes, tend to be most suitable and are, as a result,
the most commonly used as mitigation measures for not only ASR, but also to help reduce the
ingress of water (to enhance frost resistance) and external chlorides (to reduce the rate of
corrosion of reinforcing steel). In recent years, silanes have become the most important and
most widely used product for these purposes. There are a variety of silane products available,
varying primarily based on the concentration of silane in the specific formulation (ranging from
20 percent to close to 100 percent) and based on the type of carrier with which the silane is
combined (either water-based or solvent-based). More stringent restrictions regarding VOC
emissions have resulted in more water-based silanes or solvent-based silanes with higher silane
contents (and thus lower solvent content and reduced VOCs).

There have been several studies that have confirmed the benefits of applying siloxanes, and
especially silanes, to field structures to reduce future ASR-induced expansion. The research by
Bérubé et al. (2002) was particularly encouraging as it showed that applying silane to highway
barriers heavily damaged by ASR resulted in a dramatic reduction in cracking (Figure 8.3), as
well as future expansion (Figure 8.4). Several FHWA-funded field trials over the past few years
have included the topical application of silane-based products. Figure 8.5 shows the significant
reduction in cracking of highway barriers in Massachusetts, approximately three years after the
topical application of silane.

99

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

Control Silane-treated

Figure 8.3. Reduction in cracking of highway barriers in Canada, after application of silane
(Bérubé et al. 2002)

Figure 8.4. Reduction in expansion of highway barriers in Canada, after application of silane
(Bérubé et al. 2002)

100

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

Silane

Control

Figure 8.5. Reduction in cracking of highway barriers in Massachusetts, after application of

silane (FHWA Field Trials)

As described, silanes can be quite effective in the field in reducing ASR-induced expansion, but
there are certainly limitations. For pavements, slabs on grade, wingwalls, or other applications
where moisture is available from below (or beneath), silanes will likely not be as effective as
their benefits are only realized from the treated surface. To quantify the effects of treating such
elements with silane, FHWA-funded field trials have in recent years included the treatment of
wingwalls in Maine and Rhode Island and pavements in Arkansas; it is too early to determine
what benefits, if any, will be derived from such treatments.

Lastly, it should be noted that the application of silanes will not be effective in concrete with
large crack widths. For these larger cracks, flexible caulking or similar products should be used
to seal the larger cracks. In a FHWA field trial in Wetumpka, Alabama, flexible caulking was
applied to selected cracks in a bridge that were deemed to be too wide to be effectively treated by
silanes. There have been other recent developments, including the use of “high-build” paints or
elastomeric coatings that may show promise in bridging larger cracks and avoiding the need for
caulking of individual cracks. The need to seal larger cracks becomes critical when reinforced
concrete is exposed to external chlorides or in regions exposed to cycles of freezing and thawing.
These elastomeric coatings have recently been applied to bridge structures in Maine and
Vermont and highway barriers in Massachusetts as part of ongoing FHWA field trials; again, it is
too premature to make any conclusions about the efficacy of such applications, but monitoring is
ongoing.

101

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

8.4 APPLICATION OF LITHIUM COMPOUNDS

There have been several laboratory-based publications related to using lithium compounds to
treat concrete already suffering from ASR-induced expansion. Research by Stark et al. (1993),
Stokes et al. (2000), and Barborak et al. (2004) have shown that lithium compounds can reduce
future expansion of small, ASR-affected concrete specimens in accelerated laboratory tests.
Although the mechanism is not fully understood, it is generally believed that lithium compounds
enter into the existing gel and change the nature and behavior of the gel from expansive to
essentially non-expansive. Because of these positive results in laboratory-based work, there has
been considerable interest in treating ASR-affected field structures, especially in recent years
under FHWA-funded research. A detailed review of past field trials using lithium compounds
can be found in Folliard et al. (2006), and several field trials are still being monitored under
current FHWA projects. The most common method of applying lithium compounds in field
trials has been via topical application, primarily for pavements (Figure 8.6), highway barriers
(Figure 8.7(a)), and bridge decks. There have also been a handful of field trials where lithium
was applied either by vacuum (Figure 8.7(b)) or through electrochemical means, both aimed at
increasing the depth of penetration of lithium.

Figure 8.6. Photograph showing topical application of 30%-LiNO3 solution to concrete pavement
in Idaho

102

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

a. b.
Figure 8.7. Photograph showing topical application (a) and vacuum application (b) of 30%­
LiNO3 solution to highway barrier in Massachusetts

Although lithium compounds have been found to be effective in laboratory-based research,

which has focused on treating small specimens affected by ASR, there is, unfortunately, very
little, if any, documentation that lithium is effective in reducing ASR-induced expansion in
actual structures in the field. Part of this is due to the general lack of monitoring of field trials in
which lithium compounds have been applied to structures (or pavements). However, in recent
FHWA-funded field trials (under FHWA Project DTFH61-02-C-00097) in Idaho, Massachusetts,
and Texas, which have likely been the most instrumented and monitored lithium-based field
trials to date, the depths of penetration of lithium have been measured to be quite minimal,
especially for topical applications. In fact, depths of penetration for topical applications in an
Idaho pavement were found to be only a few millimeters, with dosages of lithium necessary to
suppress expansion measured only down to the first 2 to 3 mm, even after three treatments in
heavily cracked pavements. These results are consistent with laboratory evaluations performed
under the same project, and when taken as a whole, it appears that due to an inherent lack of
penetration, the topical application of lithium compounds shows little, if any, promise of
mitigating ASR in structures and pavements.

Because of the documented lack of penetration in field and laboratory trials in which lithium
compounds have been applied topically, recent focus has shifted towards more aggressive means
of driving lithium into ASR-affected concrete, specifically through vacuum impregnation and
electrochemical methods. Unfortunately, in research performed under FHWA Project DTFH61­
02-C-00097, vacuum impregnation was not found to be effective in the laboratory or in field
structures in Texas and Massachusetts. For example, for ASR-affected bridge columns in which
lithium nitrate was applied via vacuum, the depths of lithium penetration were found only to be
present in the outer 9 to 12 mm, drawing into question whether such an elaborative and
expensive vacuuming technique is justified. Substantially higher depths of penetration were
observed in the same study when lithium nitrate was electrochemically driven into bridge
columns, with dosages sufficient to reduce ASR measured all the way down to the reinforcing
103

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

steel (50 mm from outer surface). Information on the specific details of the electrochemical
method used for this bridge structure can be found in East (2007). However, one major concern
with this technique is that the electrochemical process, itself, tends to drive alkalis already
present in the concrete towards the rebar, which may be a significant obstacle to this technology.
It appears that as a whole, this technique is quite powerful in driving external lithium into the
concrete, but the rearrangement of internal alkalis and accumulation of sodium and potassium
(which in turn leads to an augmented pH near the rebar) is a serious concern that deserves further
attention. More work is in progress to evaluate this treatment technique and to quantify the
benefits (and downsides) of this approach.

Despite the general lack of penetration observed in laboratory and field structures in which
lithium was applied topically or by vacuum, it is hoped that data will be generated from other
field trials, thereby increasing the state of knowledge and expanding the database of depth of
penetration data. It will especially be quite useful to determine if lithium can help to extend the
service life of structures exposed to external deicing salts. Lastly, the success in driving lithium
all the way to the reinforcing steel is encouraging, but the adverse effects of pushing sodium and
potassium to the vicinity around the steel deserve further attention. Given that lithium
compounds have clearly been shown to be effective in reducing future expansion in ASR-
affected concrete in the laboratory, and given that the options for treating the cause of ASR in the
field are limited, it is hoped that additional lithium-based field trials be conducted and monitored,
thereby helping to quantify the effects, if any, of lithium application on remaining service life.

8.5 APPLICATION OF EXTERNAL RESTRAINT

Numerous studies and field trials have shown that physical restraint or confinement (e.g.,
encapsulation of the affected member by a surrounding non-reactive concrete, applied stress, or
reinforcement) can significantly reduce deleterious expansion due to ASR in the direction of
restraint (Fournier et al. 2004). Because of the unique nature of this mitigation approach and the
fact that the structural response is impacted, it is imperative that a structural engineer play the
leading role in specifically designing the methodology for a given ASR-affected structure.

Post tensioning in one or two dimensions, or by encasement in conventional reinforced concrete,

is currently used as a means to restore the integrity of the structure; however, it should generally
be restricted to relatively small masses of structural concrete because of the huge forces that may
result from the expansive process due to ASR (Rotter 1995, CSA 2000). Post-tensioned tendons
or cables are considered to be an effective solution for thin arch dams (Singhal and Nuss 1991)
or structural members of bridge/highway structures; however, they may be less attractive for
large concrete structures because of the necessity of periodic destressing (Rotter 1995). Methods
to restrain expansion and movement in mass concrete foundations such as tower bases have also
included rock anchors and/or encapsulation (Bérubé et al. 1989).
104

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

Strengthening by introducing reinforcement with straps, steel plates, and tensioning through
bolts was also found to be effective in providing containment for selected ASR-affected concrete
members (Wood and Angus 1995). Wrapping ASR-affected reinforced concrete columns with
composite materials (FRP) has also been applied in field structures (Figure 8.8) and more
recently in Vermont as part of ongoing FHWA field trials.

Figure 8.8. Photograph showing topical bridge column wrapped with FRP (Carse 1996)

8.6 STRESS RELIEF

For certain applications, such as a pavement suffering from ASR-induced expansion, a viable
option to extend the service life is to remove sections of concrete near the joints by saw cutting.
Removing these sections is helpful in eliminating joint-related failures and minimizing ride
quality issues. The sections that have been removed can be replaced by sound concrete, with
careful attention paid to restoring the intended joint details (opening, dowel bars, etc.). This
approach has been done on a much larger scale for concrete dams, where large slots have been
cut to accommodate future expansion. It should be noted that this approach (saw cutting/joint
cutting) only relieves stresses but does nothing to address the root cause of the expansion. It is
common for this method to be performed repeatedly as expansion continues and negates the
benefits achieved from the previous concrete removal.

8.7 SUMMARY

This section described a variety of methods that have been applied to field structures suffering
from ASR-affected expansion and cracking. Some methods, such as the application of silanes,

105

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

have shown significant promise, especially when applied to elements such as small columns and
highway barriers, whereas other methods, such as the topical application of compounds, have
shown little or no promise in reducing ASR-induced expansion and cracking. It is hoped that
ongoing FHWA field trials will better quantify the potential benefits of these and other
preventive measures and will help to contribute to improved management of ASR-affected
structures in the future.

REFERENCES

Barborak, R., Folliard, K.J. and Thomas, M.D.A. 2004. “Using Lithium Compounds to Treat
Hardened Concrete Suffering from ASR: Preliminary Laboratory Results.” Proceedings of the
12th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity (ICAAR), Beijing, China, 483­
489.

Bérubé, M.A., Fournier, B. and Frenette, J. 1989. “Détérioration de fondation de pylônes

d'ancrage de lignes de transport d'électricité par des réactions alcalis-granulats, performance
mécanique et réparation du béton.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 16,(6), 945-959.

Bérubé, M.A., Chouinard, D., Pigeon, M., Frenette, J., Rivest, M. and Vézina, D. 2002.
“Effectiveness of Sealers in Counteracting Alkali-Silica Reaction in Highway Median Barriers
Exposed to Wetting and Drying, Freezing and Thawing, and Deicing Salts.” Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 29(2), 329-337.

Canadian Standards Association (CSA). 2000. “Guide to the Evaluation and Management of
Concrete Structures Affected by Alkali-Aggregate Reactions.” CSA A864-00, 2000b, Ontario,
Canada.

Carse, A. 1996. “The Asset Management of Alkali-Silica Rection in a Long Bridge Structure.”
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete,
Quebec City, Canada, (Eds. M.A. Bérubé, B. Fournier and B. Durand), 1025-1032.

East, B. 2007. “Laboratory and Field Investigations on the use of Lithium Nitrate to Prevent or
Mitigate Alkali-Silica Reaction.” MS Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin.

Pedneault, A. 1996. “Development of Testing and Analytical Procedures for the Evaluation of
the Residual Potential of Reaction, Expansion, and Deterioration of Concrete Affected by ASR.”
M.Sc. Memoir, Laval University, Québec City, Canada, 133p.

Rotter, H.M. 1995. “Alkali-Aggregate Reaction: from Basic Principles to Structural Behaviour –
A literature Review.” Rapport No. EPM/GSC 1995-11, École Polytechnique de Montréal,
Montréal, PQ, 166p.

106

Alkali-Aggregate Reaction Reference Guide Section 8 – Mitigation Methods

Singhal, A.C. and Nuss, K.L. 1991. “Cable Anchoring of Deteriorated Arch Dam.” Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities, 5(1), 19-37.

Stark, D., Morgan, B., Okamoto, P. and Diamond, S. 1993. “Eliminating or Minimizing Alkali-
Silica Reactivity.” SHRP-C-343, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Stokes, D.B., Thomas, M.D.A. and Shashiprakash, S.G. 2000. “Development of a Lithium-Based
Material for Decreasing ASR-Induced Expansion in Hardened Concrete.” Proceedings of the
11th International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, (Eds. M.A. Bérubé, et
al.), CRIB, Quebec City, Canada, 1079–1087.

Wood, J.G.M. and Angus, E.C. 1995. “Montrose Bridge: Inspection, Assessment and Remedial
Work to a 65 Year Old Bridge with AAR.” Structural faults and Repair – 95, 6p.

107