Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T06:34:29.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Resistance of Fly Ash Mortars to Sulphate Attack in a Controlled Environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2011

Robert L. Day
Affiliation:
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jana Konecny
Affiliation:
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Sulphate-expansion tests were performed on mortar bars manufactured with two types of subbituminous fly ash and two types of cement. One fly ash was from Alberta, Canada while the second, a high-calcium ash, was from the United States. Ordinary and sulphate-resistant cements were used in the examination.

Bars were exposed to attack when they reached a given strength level. Some bars were soaked in a mixed solution of sodium and magnesium sulphate under controlled conditions; the pH of each solution was maintained at either 7 or 9.5 by regular additions of sulphuric acid. For other bars the pH of the solution was not controlled. Behaviour of bars in water baths where pH was maintained approximately constant was also examined. Bars were soaked in individual three-bar groups so that possible correlation between amount of acid added and linear bar expansion with time could be observed. Post-expansion examinations included strength degradation, qualitative X-ray analysis and thermal analysis.

Results show some interesting correlations, or lack therof, between acid addition and sulphate attack. Mortars made with the Alberta ash performed better than the corresponding control mortars; however, in a mixed magnesium/sodium solution expansions were much greater than in previous tests where only sodium sulphate was used. Bars made with the high-calcium subbituminous ash performed very poorly under all conditions.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Day, R.L and Ward, M.A., in Fly-Ash & Coal Conversion Byproducts: Characterization. Utilization and Disposal IV, Materials Research Society Proceedings, V 113, 1988, pp 153161 Google Scholar
2 Mehta, P.K., Cem. Concr. Res., 13, p. 401 (1983)Google Scholar
3 Biczok, I., Concrete Corrosion and Concrete Protection, Chemical Publishing Co., NY, 1967 Google Scholar
4 Van Aardt, J.H.P. and Visser, S., Cem. Concr. Res., 15, pp 485494, 1985 Google Scholar
5 Ouyang, C., Nanni, A. and Chang, W.F., Cem. Concr. Res., 18, pp 699709, 1988 Google Scholar
6 Osborne, G.J., Adv. Cem. Res., 2, No. 5, pp 2127, 1989 Google Scholar
7 Piasta, W.G., Sawicz, Z. and Piasta, J., Cem. Concr. Res., 12, pp. 216227, 1989 Google Scholar
8 Mehta, P.K., Amer. Conc. Inst. Special Publ. 79, 1, pp 147, 1983 Google Scholar
9 Mehta, P.K., Cem. Concr. Res., 3, No. 1, pp. 16, 1973 Google Scholar
10 Chatterji, S. and Jeffery, J.W., Mag. Concr. Res., 15, pp 8386, 1963 (??? look for more recent reference to the controversy)Google Scholar
11 Dunstan, E.R. Jr., Amer. Concr. Inst Special Publ. 77, pp 4162, 1982 Google Scholar
12 Hartmann, C. and Mangotich, E., Amer. Concr. Inst. Special Publ. 100, 2, pp 21352151, 1988 Google Scholar
13 McCarthy, G.J., Tikalsky, P.J., Carrasquillo, R.L, Manz, O.E. and Thedchanamoorthy, A., Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., 136, pp 273275, 1989 Google Scholar
14 Day, R.L. and Ward, M.A., Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, 113, pp 153161, 1988 Google Scholar
15 Konecny, J., MSc thesis, University of Calgary, Feb. 1989, p158 Google Scholar
16 McCarthy, G.J., private communicationGoogle Scholar
17 Brown, P.W., Cem. Concr. Res., 11, pp 719727, 1981 Google Scholar