This document discusses common restrictions placed on fly ash in concrete specifications and whether they are necessary. It notes that restrictions like prohibiting Class C fly ash do not ensure improved concrete durability, and alternative performance-based requirements testing for properties like resistance to alkali-silica reaction and sulfate attack are more effective.
This document discusses common restrictions placed on fly ash in concrete specifications and whether they are necessary. It notes that restrictions like prohibiting Class C fly ash do not ensure improved concrete durability, and alternative performance-based requirements testing for properties like resistance to alkali-silica reaction and sulfate attack are more effective.
This document discusses common restrictions placed on fly ash in concrete specifications and whether they are necessary. It notes that restrictions like prohibiting Class C fly ash do not ensure improved concrete durability, and alternative performance-based requirements testing for properties like resistance to alkali-silica reaction and sulfate attack are more effective.
This document discusses common restrictions placed on fly ash in concrete specifications and whether they are necessary. It notes that restrictions like prohibiting Class C fly ash do not ensure improved concrete durability, and alternative performance-based requirements testing for properties like resistance to alkali-silica reaction and sulfate attack are more effective.
SIP 4 – Restrictions on Type and Characteristics of Fly Ash
by the NRMCA Research Engineering and Standards Committee
WHAT restrictions to fly ash are seen in specifications? fective when these durability conditions exist (Thomas 2007). A limit on available alkalis was removed from Typical restrictions to fly ash seen in specifications for ASTM C618 in the 1990s based on work that indicated concrete include: that the available alkalis in fly ash were not a good Class C fly ash is not permitted indicator when considering the use of fly ash in con- The calcium oxide (CaO) content of fly ash shall not exceed XX% crete containing potentially reactive aggregate (Smith 1987). However, specifying Class F fly ash does not The Loss on Ignition (LOI) of fly ash shall not exceed X.X% (more restrictive than ASTM C618) ensure that the concrete will be resistant to ASR and Fly ash fineness—The percent retained on the 45 µm (No. 325) sieve sulfate attack. A methodical approach to addressing shall not exceed XX% (more restrictive than ASTM C618) ASR is covered in ASTM C1778. Sulfate resistance of The [available] alkali content of fly ash shall not exceed X.X% concrete is addressed in ACI 318-14 and the effect of fly ash in improving sulfate resistance is covered in the In an NRMCA review of more than 100 specifications optional requirements of ASTM C618. for private work, these types of restrictions were noted in 25% of the specifications, 80% of which did not al- LOI is a measure of the amount of unburnt carbon in low the use of Class C fly ash or had restrictions on fly ash. Certain forms of unburnt carbon absorb air- the CaO content of the fly ash. entraining admixtures and affect the air content of air- entrained concrete. Research has indicated that at the DO industry standards have restrictions on fly ash? same LOI, fly ash from different sources can exhibit varying impacts on air entrainment (Hill and Folliard ACI 318-14 permits the use of fly ash that complies 2006). It was also observed that fly ashes with lower with ASTM C618. It imposes no additional restrictions LOI were more sensitive to air entrainment. Possible on the characteristics of fly ash. reasons for the varying impacts are total carbon sur- ASTM C618 classifies fly ash as Class F or Class C face area, available surface area, and surface reactiv- based on composition and has the following require- ity of the carbon (ACI 232.2R-03). Imposing a lower ments: LOI limit on fly ash does not ensure better control of the air content in air-entrained concrete. The concrete Requirement Class F Class C producer is responsible for achieving the specified air (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3), min % 70.0 50.0 content in concrete. Loss on Ignition (LOI), max % Specifying more restrictive fineness requirements on 6.0* 6.0 fly ash could be an attempt to ensure that a more re- Fineness, retained on 45 µm (No. 325) active material is used. Research on this aspect indi- sieve, max % 34 34 cates that when fineness of fly ash from the same *ASTM C618 permits up to 12% LOI with documented service records or labora- source varied substantially (between 15% and 30%) tory evaluation. over a period of time, there was no significant differ- Additionally, there are limits on sulfur trioxide (SO 3), ence in strength of mortar cubes (Obla 2014). Besides moisture content, soundness, strength activity index, fineness, fly ash reactivity is impacted by factors such water requirement, and uniformity requirements for as chemical and physical composition, morphology, material from a single source. Optional requirements, and the portland cement with which it is used (ACI when specifically requested, are also covered in the 232.2R-03). The concrete producer is responsible for specification. There are no limits on alkali content of fly supplying concrete mixtures that meet the specified ash, but the supplier may report this, expressed as strength requirements. equivalent sodium oxide (Na2O). WHAT problems do these restrictions cause? WHAT is the basis for these restrictions? Fly ash may need to be obtained from distant In general, Class F fly ashes are more effective in miti- sources and the concrete producer will need to gain gating deleterious expansion due to alkali-silica reac- experience on optimized use; tion (ASR) and improving the sulfate resistance of con- Locally available materials that have history of ac- crete. Fly ashes with higher CaO content are less ef- ceptable mixture performance and service record are restricted from use; and Additional guidance and rationale for eliminating pre- There is a false sense of security that imposing scriptive requirements in specifications are provided restrictions ensures achievement of the intended elsewhere (NRMCA 2012; NRMCA 2015). performance.
WHAT is the alternative to this specification requirement? WHAT is the benefit of the alternative requirements?
As an alternative to prohibiting Class C fly ash or Alternative performance requirements ensure that con- imposing a limit on the CaO content of fly ash, con- crete attains improved durability such as resistance to sider performance-based tests: ASR and sulfate attack. Limiting the use to only Class For ASR, ASTM C1778 provides a reasonable F fly ash does not ensure improved concrete durabil- and rather detailed approach; ASTM C1567 ex- ity. pansion test results equal to or less than 0.1% Mitigation of ASR has been attained by increasing the at 14 days when the fly ash is used with the pro- percentage of Class C fly ash, or by using Class C fly ducer’s aggregates and cementitious materials; ash with other supplementary cementitious materials For sulfate resistance, consider the performance (SCMs) and lithium based admixtures (Shehata and requirements of ACI 318-14 or the optional re- Thomas 2000). Sulfate resistance has been attained quirements of ASTM C618 that evaluate the with ternary blends of Class C fly ash and silica fume ability of fly ash to improve sulfate resistance of (Shashiprakash and Thomas 2001). The alternative concrete based on ASTM C1012/C1012M test- performance requirements can make it feasible to use ing; locally available Class C fly ash sources that results in Do not include more restrictive requirements on LOI cost-effective concrete mixtures, and supports sustain- or fineness than those in ASTM C618. The market ability initiatives. will determine the acceptability of fly ash. The fly Eliminating restrictive limits on the LOI and fineness of ash supplier and concrete producer are responsible fly ash will permit the use of fly ash sources available for monitoring the quality and uniformity of fly ash to in some markets that might otherwise be restricted. ensure that the specified air content and strength These restrictions do not ensure concrete perform- are achieved (Obla 2014). ance.
References 1. ACI Committee 232, “Use of Fly Ash in Concrete (ACI 232.2R-03),” 2003, 41 pp. 2. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” 2014, 519 pp. 3. ASTM C618, “Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete.” 4. ASTM C1012/C1012M, “Standard Test Method for Length Change of Hydraulic-Cement Mortars Exposed to a Sulfate Solution.” 5. ASTM C1567, “Standard Test Method for Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Combinations of Cementitious Materials and Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method).” 6. ASTM C1778, “Standard Guide for Reducing the Risk of Deleterious Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete.” 7. Hill, R.L., and Folliard, K.J., “The Impact of Fly Ash on Air-Entrained Concrete,” Concrete inFocus, Fall 2006, pp. 71-72. (http:// www.nrmca.org/research/CIF%2006-4%20Tech%20Talk.pdf) 8. NRMCA, “Guide Performance-Based Specification for Concrete Materials - Section 03300 for Cast-in-place Concrete,” Silver Spring, MD, 2012, 27 pp. (www.nrmca.org/p2p) 9. NRMCA, “Guide to Improving Specifications for Ready Mixed Concrete,” Publication 2PE004, 2015, 27 pp. (www.nrmca.org/p2p) 10. Obla, K.H., Improving Concrete Quality, CRC Press/NRMCA, 2014, 200 pp. 11. Shashiprakash, S.G., and Thomas, M.D.A., “Sulfate Resistance of Mortars Containing High-Calcium Fly Ashes and Combinations of Highly Reactive Pozzolans and Fly Ash,” SP199, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, pp. 221-238. 12. Shehata, M.H., and Thomas, M.D.A., “The effect of fly ash composition on the expansion of concrete due to alkali-silica reaction,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 30, No. 7, July 2000, pp. 1063-1072. 13. Smith, R.L., “Is the Available Alkali Test a Good Durability Predictor for Fly Ash Concrete Incorporating Reactive Aggregate?,” MRS Proceedings, V. 113, 1987, pp. 317-324. 14. Thomas, M.D.A., “Optimizing the Use of Fly Ash in Concrete,” PCA IS548, Portland Cement Association, 2007, 24 pp. 2015
