Discussion: Alkali-Silica Reactivity: Mechanisms And Management ? Leming, M. L. - Mining Engineering. Vol. 48, No. 12, December 1996, Pp 61-64

I was very glad to see an article on alkali-silica reactivity of concrete aggregate in Mining Engineering. It is a topic that should be reexamined every 45 or 50 years. The last paper (that I am aware of) that examined this topic in Mining Engineering was Rexford (1950), who, at the time, was chief of the Petrography Section, South Pacific Division Laboratory, Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles, CA. The paper was presented at the AIME meeting in Los Angeles in October 1948. Professor Leming's discussion generally reflects the current state-of-the-art; but it provides no references for more detailed information. I wrote a paper titled "How to avoid excessive expansion of concrete due to alkali-aggregate reaction," which was included in the Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in Hydroelectric Plants and Dams (Mather, 1995). In it, I emphasized that it was the hydroxide ion (not the alkali ion) that caused the pore fluid in the concrete to dissolve reactive silica, producing alkali-silica gel capable of taking up water, thereby, causing swelling and rupturing of the concrete. Excessive expansion will not occur unless there is a sufficient amount of potentially expansive alkali-silica reaction product and water. However, this will not occur unless there is a sufficient quantity of reactive aggregate and unless there is a mechanism by which the pH of the pore fluid can get well above the normal value of about 12.6. In many cases it is sufficient that the cementitious medium not only contains portland cement but also contains ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) or a pozzolan such as fly ash, silica fume, metakaolin, volcanic glass or calcined shale - any of which may have been included for economic reasons. If, however, the person selecting the ingredients for concrete knows that the aggregate is reactive (with no alternate nonreactive aggregate available) and if the person knows that the only available portland cement has a high alkali content (i.e., more than 0.6% Na2O.; Na2e = % Na20 + 0.658 x % K20), then it becomes irresponsible not to establish what reasonable precaution one should take. Professor Leming suggests using one of the following: 30% Class F fly ash, 50% GGBFS or 7% to 10% silica fume. My view is that one should prepare test specimens with the cement and aggregate to be used and then expose these both with and without at least two dosages of each of the various alternative materials (slag, pozzolan and lithium salts), so that the required dosage. to control the expansion is established. Then, economic considerations can dictate the final selection. I would point out to the author that GGBFS is not a pozzolan and is not an admixture, but, rather, it is a latent hydraulic cement. An admixture is, by definition, a material other than hydraulic cement. I commend him for suggesting that aggregate producers should become more active in knowing about the reactivity of their products and the precautions needed to permit those products to be safely used in concrete.