Journal of

Testing and Evaluation

F. Bektas1 and X. Wang2

DOI: 10.1520/JTE20150263

Effectiveness of Ternary Blends

in Mitigating ASR Demonstrated
on the Modified Mortar-Bar Test
VOL. 45 NO. 3 / MAY 2017

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 5 10:50:16 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Iowa State Univ (Iowa State Univ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
doi:10.1520/JTE20150263
Manuscript received June 17, 2015;
accepted for publication April 5, 2016;
published online June 20, 2016.
1
Inst. for Transportation, 2711 S Loop
Drive, Suite 4700, Ames, IA 50010
(Corresponding author),
e-mail: fbektas@iastate.edu
2
Inst. for Transportation, Iowa State Univ.,
Ames, Iowa 50010
Copyright V 2016 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copyright
C
by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 5 10:50:16 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Iowa State Univ (Iowa State Univ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
Vol. 45 No. 3 / May 0000 / available online at www.astm.org
TECHNICAL NOTE
F. Bektas1 and X. Wang2
Effectiveness of Ternary Blends in Mitigating
ASR Demonstrated on the Modified
Mortar-Bar Test
Reference
Bektas, F. and Wang, X., “Effectiveness of Ternary Blends in Mitigating ASR Demonstrated on the
Modified Mortar-Bar Test,” Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 45, No. 3, 2017, pp. 1–6, doi:10.1520/
JTE20150263. ISSN 0090-3973
ABSTRACT
Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) are the effective means of improving
concrete durability. Combining two SCMs with ordinary Portland cement helps overcome the
probable drawbacks of using single SCM. Ternary cementitious systems have become
popular in the construction industry, particularly for use in high-performance concrete. In
this study, the effectiveness of ternary blends in controlling alkali–silica-reaction (ASR)
deterioration was tested in the comparison of a modified mortar-bar method and ASTM
C1260-14/C1567-13. Our experiment included the evaluation of 22 binary or ternary
combinations of five cementitious materials (Portland cement, metakaolin, low-calcium fly
ash, high-calcium fly ash, and slag) tested with two different reactive aggregates. In addition
to standard ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13, the mortar mixes were assessed on a modified
mortar-bar method of short bars (25  25  150 mm3) stored at 60 C and >95 % relative
humidity. Ternary cementitious blends containing metakaolin and low-lime fly ash proved to
be very effective at controlling ASR. In the proposed modified test, a pass/fail criterion of
0.03 % expansion over 60 days was found to be in agreement with the expansion at 14 days
of ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 at 0.10 %.
Keywords
alkali–silica reaction, ternary blend, mortar-bar method
1
2 Journal of Testing and Evaluation

Introduction days. As the severity of conditioning increases, the test duration

Alkali–silica reaction (ASR) has plagued concrete for decades,
and is still one of the major durability problems. Internal
pressure caused by the reaction between concrete alkalis and
reactive siliceous aggregate is often high enough to disrupt con-
crete. Even though the resultant cracking is usually not a struc-
tural problem, it is a long-term maintenance problem because
the reaction is irrevocable. Avoiding problematic aggregate may
not be economically viable. Therefore, preventive measures,
such as use of low-alkali cement and pozzolanic materials, are
taken at the mix-design stage.
Supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) (industrial
by-products, such as fly ash, silica fume, or naturally occurring
pozzolans, such as trass and diatomaceous earth) are added to
Portland cement concrete to increase its durability, including its
resistance to ASR. For a given reactive aggregate, the amount of
SCM needed to mitigate reaction depends on the characteristics
of the material used: in general, low levels (e.g., 3 %–10 %) of
silica fume, moderate levels (e.g., 20 %–30 %) of low-calcium fly
ash, and high levels (e.g., 40 %–50 %) of high-calcium fly ash
and slag. The use of ternary blends in ASR mitigation has been
researched [1–7]. Combining two SCMs helps overcome the
probable drawbacks of using a single SCM. For instance, a high-
slag-content mix is required to mitigate ASR, but such a mix
may struggle to develop early strength. And a slag–silica fume
combination would overcome low early-strength problems, and
suppress ASR at the same time.
Because ASR progresses slowly, all methods that test either
aggregate reactivity or the ASR effectiveness of SCMs boost
favorable reaction conditions: humidity, temperature, and alkali.
For instance, ASTM C227-10 [8] stipulates the use of high-
alkali cement and requires the storage of 25  25  285-mm3
bars over water at 38 C in sealed containers. ASTM C1260-14
[9] and ASTM C1567-13 [10] test same-size specimens in 1-N
sodium hydroxide solution at 80 C. ASTM C227-10 recom-
mends a period of 12 months for determining the potential
reactivity, whereas ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 needs only 14
decreases. However, the testing environment diverges signifi-
cantly from field conditions.
This technical note summarizes the preliminary findings
of a study that aimed to investigate the effectiveness of
ternary blends, using a modified mortar-bar test, where
25  25  150-mm3 bars were stored over water (i.e., >95 % rel-
ative humidity) at 60 C for 60 days, and compared with
the standard accelerated mortar-bar test (ASTM C1260-14/
C1567-13). Hence, the study had two objectives: to observe the
ASR performance of ternary blends, and to assess the modified
method. The study included 23 cementitious blends and two re-
active aggregates.
Materials and Methods
One high-alkali cement (PC), one metakaolin (M), one low-
calcium fly ash (F), one high-calcium fly (C) ash, and one slag
cement (S) were used in the experiments. (The chemical com-
positions of the cementitious materials are given in Table 1.)
There were 23 cementitious combinations used: one plain Port-
land cement as control, seven binary blends, and 15 ternary
blends. (The percentage combinations of the cementitious
materials used are given in Table 2.) Two reactive aggregates,
one natural river sand and one reclaimed glass–limestone blend
where crushed glass and manufactured limestone were com-
bined in the proportion 1:2, were used in the mortar mixtures.
The glass aggregate was obtained from a local recycling plant.
The study was carried out in two phases. In the first
phase, two conventional 25  25  285-mm3 bars and two
25  25  150-mm3 bars were cast with the cementitious com-
binations and the glass–limestone blend, in accordance with
ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13. (A visual comparison of the long
and short bars can be seen in Fig. 1.) The bars were demolded
after 24 h and immersed in water at room temperature. The
water temperature was then raised to 80 C. After 24 h in water,
the initial lengths of the mortar bars were recorded and the bars
were transferred to a 1-N sodium hydroxide solution at 80 C.

TABLE 1 Chemical composition of the cementitious materials.

Portland Cement Metakaolin Low-Calcium Fly Ash High-Calcium Fly Ash Slag

CaO, % 62.3 0.0 3.8 25.2 40.1

Al2O3, % 5.4 44.7 23.7 19.4 9.5
Fe2O3, % 3.4 0.4 16.4 6.0 0.5
SiO2, % 20.2 52.3 45.1 36.7 37.2
MgO, % 2.4 0.0 0.9 4.8 11.0
SO3, % 3.5 0.0 0.7 2.0 1.1
Na2O, % 0.2 0.2 0.8 2.2 0.3
K2O, % 1.2 0.2 1.5 0.5 0.4
Loss on ignition 1.9 0.1 5.4 0.3 0.0
Specific gravity 3.11 2.51 2.41 2.61 2.93

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 5 10:50:16 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Iowa State Univ (Iowa State Univ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
 BEKTAS AND WANG ON TERNARY BLENDS IN MITIGATING ASR 3

TABLE 2 Percent composition of cementitious materials used in the mixes.

Binder No. Portland Cement Metakaolin Low-Calcium Fly Ash High-Calcium Fly Ash Slag
1 100 – – – –
2 95 5 – – –
3 90 10 – – –
4 80 – – 20 –
5 77.5 5 – 17.5 –
6 75 10 – 15 –
7 60 – – 40 –
8 60 5 – 35 –
9 60 10 – 30 –
10 87.5 – 12.5 – –
11 82.5 5 12.5 – –
12 77.5 10 12.5 – –
13 75 – 25 – –
14 70 5 25 – –
15 65 10 25 – –
16 74 – 12.5 13.5 –
17 67.5 – 25 7.5 –
18 60 – 25 15 –
19 60 – 12.5 27.5 –
20 80 – – – 20
21 74 – – 13 13
22 60 – – – 40
23 60 – – 20 20

Expansion measurement was done immediately after removing
the bars from the solution. The expansions were recorded over
28 days.
In the second phase, a modified version of ASTM C227-10
mortar-bar method was used. Short bars were cast with the
same 23 cementitious combinations, either a glass–limestone
blend or reactive river sand. The bars were demolded after 24 h,
their lengths were measured on a length comparator with a cus-
tom attachment (Fig. 1), and they were transferred to airtight
polypropylene containers. The bars were stored over water (i.e.,
not in contact with water) in accordance with ASTM C227-10.
The expansions were recorded periodically over 60 days. Before
each measurement, the bars were cooled down to room temper-
ature for 16–24 h to eliminate thermal effect.
Results and Discussion
Fig. 2compares ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 expansions
obtained from the short 150-mm bars to the standard 285-mm
bar length. Both the 14- and 28-day measurements are given for
the 23 cementitious combinations cast with glass–limestone
blend. (The results for the reactive sand were published in
a previous work [11].) There is good correlation between the
two specimen sizes. The results show that the short bars tend
to give a slightly higher expansion, particularly at high values.
This is attributed to the fact that the long bars are prone to
warping at high expansions. It is worth noting that for all 23
cementitious–aggregate combinations, the short bars demon-
strated the same reactive/non-reactive decision (i.e., on the basis
of the “0.10 % at 14 days” criterion given by ASTM C1260-14/
C1567-13) as the long bars. The current results give further sup-
port to the view that short bars may be used in expansion
measurements.
The ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 results obtained from the
short bars are shown in Table 3. As mentioned above, the first
column was adopted from a previous study [11], whereas the
rest of the data were generated from the current work. Both the
river sand and the glass–limestone blends are highly reactive,
reaching a 1.14 % and 0.76 % expansion, respectively. For the
river sand, 13 cementitious blends were found to be successful
in controlling the ASR and 11 of them were ternary blends.
Similarly, for the reactive glass–aggregate blend, 12 cementi-
tious blends suppressed the reaction below the required limit,
and 10 of them were ternaries. There were differences and simi-
larities between the performances of the cementitious blends.
For instance, as expected, high-calcium fly ash and slag were
poor performers, both in binary and ternary combinations, and,
in general, metakaolin and low-calcium fly ash performed well.
Binders #4, 20 % C; #16, 13.5 % C þ 12.5 % F; #20, 20 % S; #21,
13 % C þ 13 % S; #22, 40 % S; and #23, 20 C þ 20 % S were not
successful in both reactive aggregates. On the other hand,
binder #7, 40 % C mitigated the ASR because of the glass

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 5 10:50:16 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Iowa State Univ (Iowa State Univ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
4 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
FIG. 1 (a) 25  25  285-mm3 and 25  25  150-mm3 bars are side by side;
and (b) length comparator with attachment for measuring short bars.
aggregate, but that was not an effect also of river sand. And
binder #3, 10 % M performed inversely. Furthermore, advan-
tages were observed in using ternary blends when combining
low dosages of metakaolin (i.e., 5 %) with other SCMs. The 5 %
M (i.e., binder #3) was ineffective with both reactive aggregates.
When 5 % M was combined with 17.5 % C (i.e., binder #5),
which would not be effective alone, ASR expansion because of
the river sand was mitigated. Furthermore, combining 5 % M
and 35 % C (i.e., binder #8) was effective in mitigating ASR for
both reactive aggregates. Such a ternary blend would offer ASR
mitigation without sacrificing early strength. Moreover, the
results showed that 12.5 % of low-calcium fly ash was also not
sufficient to suppress ASR. The mix-design choice was either to
increase the amount or combine with another SCM. It was
found that increasing F content to 25 %, or combining 12.5 % F
with either 5 % M or 27.5 % C, were both successful at sup-
pressing ASR.
Table 3 shows the expansion results obtained from the
modified mortar-bar test in which the bars were stored over
water at 60 C, for 60 days. There is a distinct contrast between
the two controls (i.e., the reactive aggregates cast without
SCMs). The glass–limestone blend expanded by 0.58 %, which
is 72 % of the expansion experienced in the harsher ASTM
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 5 10:50:16 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Iowa State Univ (Iowa State Univ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
FIG. 2 Comparison of short and long mortar-bar expansions of the mortars
cast with reactive glass aggregate in accordance with ASTM C1260-14
[9]/C1567-13 [10].
C1260-14/C1567-13 conditions. On the other hand, river sand
showed an expansion of 0.17 %, which is only 15 % of the
expansion recorded in ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13. This result
alone demonstrates the complex nature of the ASR phenom-
enon with regard to the effect of curing/accelerating conditions
on the expansion behavior of a specific aggregate.
The expansion criterion is obviously one of the major ele-
ments of an ASR test method, particularly when conditions are
accelerated. Expansions less than 0.10 % at 14 days are indica-
tive of innocuous behavior according to ASTM C1260-14/
C1567-13. Whereas there is no given limit in ASTM C227-10
(where the specimens are at high humidity at 38 C), it is often
considered that a length change of either 0.05 % at 3 months or
0.10 % at 6 months is a sign of deleterious expansion [12]. The
ASTM C1293-08b [13] concrete prism test method uses the
same conditions (i.e., specimens over water at 38 C in sealed
containers) as ASTM C227-10. However, as its title implies,
ASTM C1293-08b tests concrete specimens, and the expansion
criterion for the method is 0.04 % at 1 year. The duration
increases to 2 years if the effectiveness of SCM is evaluated.
Another concrete prism test method stores specimens at 60 C,
and an expansion below 0.03 % at 15 weeks indicates a non-
reactive mix [14].
Fig. 3 shows the 14-day expansion in ASTM C1260-14/
C1567-13 versus the 60-day expansion in the modified mortar-
bar method used in this study. Because of the overlapping data,
the graph shows fewer points than are actually plotted. The
results indicate that an expansion of less than 0.03 % at 60 days
in the modified test suggests a non-reactive mix. Based on this
 BEKTAS AND WANG ON TERNARY BLENDS IN MITIGATING ASR 5

TABLE 3 ASR expansions of the aggregates tested with cementitious blends.

River Sand Glass–Limestone Blend

ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 Modified Test ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 Modified Test

Binder No. 14-Day Expansion, % 60-Day Expansion, % 14-Day Expansion, % 60-Day Expansion, %

1 1.14 0.17 0.76 0.58

2 0.33 0.02 0.48 0.03
3 0.07 0.02 0.19 0.01
4 0.52 0.07 0.54 0.05
5 0.08 0.00 0.17 0.03
6 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.02
7 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.02
8 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01
9 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02
10 0.38 0.05 0.40 0.04
11 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.01
12 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00
13 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.02
14 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00
15 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00
16 0.12 0.02 0.14 0.04
17 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02
18 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02
19 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.01
20 0.53 0.05 0.56 0.04
21 0.30 0.02 0.59 0.04
22 0.12 0.01 0.23 0.04
23 0.10 0.01 0.14 0.02

criterion, the modified test is in agreement with ASTM C1260-

FIG. 3 Comparison of modified ASTM C227-10 [8] with ASTM C1260-14 [9]/
C1567-13 [10]. (Please note that the two control aggregates marked at
the upper right corner actually fall out of the marked boundaries of
the figure. Therefore, these points are given with the expansion
values.)
14 in 38 mixes out of 46: 13 mixes were identified as reactive
and 25 as non-reactive, by both methods. Of the eight disagree-
ing evaluations, six were results attributable to river sand and
two to the glass–limestone aggregate.
Balancing testing environment (e.g., temperature, moisture)
and duration is a major challenge in ASR testing. Despite being
the most popular ASR test for its quick turnaround time, ASTM
C1260-14/C1567-13 is criticized for being too severe, and is
often recommended as a screening test. The proposed method
increases the test duration. However, the testing conditions are
relatively more realistic when compared with ASTM C1260-14/
C1567-13. All of the disagreeing evaluations are reactive on
ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 and non-reactive on the proposed
method. And five of these mixes (i.e., binders #7, 16, 22, and 23
with the river sand, and binder #23 with the glass–limestone
blend) have an ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 expansion in the
range of 0.10 % and 0.14 %. If ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13 con-
ditioning is overly conservative, the proposed method might
have correctly labeled these mixes as “non-reactive.” The results
have suggested that this modified version of ASTM C227-10 is
potentially a reliable pragmatic test of fine aggregate–binder
combinations. Further testing, particularly in comparison with
ASTM C1293-08b and field data, is certainly needed.

Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 5 10:50:16 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Iowa State Univ (Iowa State Univ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
6 Journal of Testing and Evaluation
Nonetheless, the available data have confirmed the effectiveness
of ternary cementitious blends in controlling ASR expansion.
Conclusions
The effectiveness of ternary blends in controlling ASR expan-
sion was tested on a modified mortar-bar test in comparison
with ASTM C1260-14/C1567-13. The experimental program
included 46 mortar mixes. In addition to a no-SCM control
mix, 22 binary or ternary combinations of five cementitious
materials (i.e., Portland cement, metakaolin, low-calcium fly
ash, high-calcium fly ash, and slag) were evaluated, using two
different reactive aggregates. The major outcomes are as
follows:
• Ternary blends, when they are correctly designed for that
purpose, successfully mitigate ASR expansion. Metakao-
lin and low-lime fly ash are very effective; low amounts of
metakaolin or low-lime fly ash can be combined with a
poor performer (i.e., high-calcium fly ash) to suppress
ASR expansion.
• The 150-mm bars can be used as expansion measure-
ments as an alternative to standard 285-mm bars.
• An expansion criterion of 0.03 % at 60 days in the pro-
posed modified mortar-bar test is found to correlate well
with the 0.10 % expansion at 14 days in ASTM C1260-
14/C1567-13.
References
[1] Thomas, M. D. A., Shehata, M. H., Shashiprakash, S. G.,
Hopkins, D. S., and Cail, K., “Use of Ternary Cementitious
Systems Containing Silica Fume and Fly Ash in Concrete,”
Cement Concrete Res., Vol. 29, No. 8, 1999, pp. 1207–1214.
[2] Lane, D. S. and Ozyildirim, C., “Preventive Measures
for Alkali-Silica Reactions (Binary and Ternary
Systems,” Cement Concrete Res., Vol. 29, No. 8, 1999,
pp. 1281–1288.
[3] Shon, C.-S., Kim, Y.-S., and Jeong, J.-D., “ASR Resistance
of Ternary Cementitious Systems Containing Silica Fume-
Fly Ash Using Modified ASTM Method,” J. Korea Con-
crete Inst., Vol. 15, No. 3, 2003, pp. 497–503,
Copyright by ASTM Int'l (all rights reserved); Fri Aug 5 10:50:16 EDT 2016
Downloaded/printed by
Iowa State Univ (Iowa State Univ) pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.
[4] Bektas, F., Turanli, L., Wang, K., and Ceylan, H.,
“Comparative Performance of Ground Clay Brick in
Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reaction,” J. Mater. Civil Eng.,
Vol. 19, No. 12, 2007, pp. 1070–1078.
[5] Moser, R. D., Jayapalan, A. R., Garas, V. Y., and Kurtis,
K. E., “Assessment of Binary and Ternary Blends of
Metakaolin and Class C Fly Ash for Alkali-Silica Reaction
Mitigation in Concrete,” Cement Concrete Res., Vol. 40,
No. 12, 2010, pp. 1664–1672.
[6] Rangaraju, P. R. and Desai, J., “Effectiveness of Fly Ash
and Slag in Mitigating Alkali–Silica Reaction Induced by
Deicing Chemicals,” J. Mater. Civil Eng., Vol. 21, No. 1,
2013, pp. 19–31.
[7] Kandasamy, S. and Shehata, M. M., “The Capacity of
Ternary Blends Containing Slag and High-Calcium Fly
Ash to Mitigate Alkali–Silica Reaction,” Cement Concrete
Comp., Vol. 49, 2014, pp. 92–99.
[8] ASTM-10, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reac-
tivity of Cement-Aggregate Combinations (Mortar-Bar
Method), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2010, www.astm.org
[9] ASTM-14, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reac-
tivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method), ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, www.astm.org
[10] ASTM-13, Standard Test Method for Determining the
Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Combinations of
Cementitious Materials and Aggregate (Accelerated
Mortar-Bar Method), ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2013, www.astm.org
[11] Bektas, F. and Wang, X., “Statistical Mixture Design of
Ternary Blends for Controlling ASR,” Mag. Concrete Res.,
Vol. 67, No. 2, 2014, pp. 63–70.
[12] Wigum, B. J., French, W. J., Howarth, R. J., and Hills, C.,
“Accelerated Tests for Assessing the Potential Exhibited by
Concrete Aggregates for Alkali-Aggregate Reaction,”
Cement Concrete Comp., Vol. 19, Nos. 5–6, 1997,
pp. 451–476.
[13] ASTM -08b, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Length Change of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[14] Lindgard, J., Thomas, M. D. A., Sellevold, E. J., Pedersen,
B., Andic-Cakir, O., Justnes, H., and Ronning, T. F.,
“Alkali–Silica Reaction (ASR)—Performance Testing:
Influence of Specimen Pre-Treatment, Exposure Condi-
tions and Prism Size on Alkali Leaching and Prism
Expansion,” Cement Concrete Res., Vol. 53, 2013,
pp. 68–90.