MINUTES

 
ACI  232  -­‐  Fly  Ash  and  Natural  Pozzolans  
March  26,  2014,  1:00  –  4:00  
Room  N7  Grand  Sierra  Resort  
Reno,  NV  
 
 
There  were  30  members  and  17  guests  in  attendance:    
 
Voting   Members   Present:   K.   Obla,   R.   Neal,   L.   Sutter,   T.   Adams,   G.   Barger,   J.   Buffenbarger,   R.  
Carrasquillo,  B.  Descheneaux,  J.  Dongell,  J.  Fox,  H.  Haynes,  J.  Hicks,  R.D.  Hooton,  M.  Huffman,  T.  
Keiper,  S.  Kosmatka,  B.  Ramme,  S.  Ratchye,  B.  Stein,  C.  Wallace,  O.  Werner  
 
Voting   Members   Absent:   M.   Thomas,   J.   Blankenship,   T.   Greene,   J.   Jensen,   A.   Nacamuli,   M.  
Serra,  A.  Shypula,  O.  Tavares,  P.  Tikalsky,  T.  Van  Dam  
 
Consulting  Members  Present:  M.  Bury  
 
Associate  Members  Present:  R.  Dolbeare,  K.  Kruse,  W.  Lyons,  P.K.  Mehta,  A.  Mukhopadhyay,  A.  
Ramme,  J.  Thomas  
 
Subcommittee  Members  Present:  S.  Morrical  
 
Guests   Present:   D.   Baweja,   P.   Brooks,   J.   Cheung,   M.   Dalki,   M.   Donovon,   M.   Guindon,   J.   Hearne,  
G.  Hightower,  A.  Hossack,  B.  Jeapson,  D.  Ludirdja,  G.  Mass,  R.  Minaric,  K.  Sobolev,  K.  Wolf,  H.  Yi,  
E.  Yurdakul  
 
 
Approval  of  Minutes  
 
The  minutes  of  the  October  21,  2013  meeting  in  Phoenix,  AZ  were  approved  on  a  unanimous  
voice  vote.  
 
Membership  Update  
 
The  Chair  provided  a  membership  update.  There  are  currently  27  voting  members,  8  consulting  
members,  48  associate  members,  and  2  subcommittee  members.  
 
   

Page 1 of 4
Chair  Updates  
 
The  Chair  reported  on  the  TAC  Chairs  breakfast  meeting.    Key  points  were:  
• The   new   ACI   web   site   was   introduced   and   according   to   ACI   staff,   the   reception   by  
members  has  been  positive.  
• A  new  TAC  Committee  Manual  has  been  introduced  with  minor  changes.  
• Gordon  Clark  from  FIB  presented  at  the  breakfast  
 
Subcommittee  232-­‐A  Report  
 
The   subcommittee   discussed   the   mission   of   the   subcommittee   now   with   the   232.1R-­‐12  
document   being   completed   and   the   new   name   established   by   TAC.   The   main   question   was,  
should  the  committee  stay  as  a  subcommittee  of  232  focusing  on  both  natural  pozzolans  and  
processed   pozzolans,   or   split   away   from   232   into   a   technical   committee?   The   latter   option   was  
preferred.   A   primary   reason   expressed   was   the   growth   of   natural   pozzolan   use,   particularly  
internationally,   warranted   a   separate   committee.   Additionally,   the   issues   associated   with  
natural  pozzolans  are  very  different  from  the  issues  faced  in  the  production  and  use  of  coal  fly  
ash.   A   number   of   different   committee   configurations   were   discussed.   The   subcommittee   made  
two  recommendations  to  the  main  committee:  
 
1. Recommend  to  232  that  subcommittee  232-­‐A  break  off  as  a  separate  TAC  committee  
addressing  natural  pozzolans  as  defined  in  CCT.  
 
2. Recommend  to  232  that  supplementary  cementitious  materials  as  defined  in  CCT  and  
not  covered  by  another  ACI  committee  be  addressed  in  a  new  sub-­‐committee  of  232.  
 
Discussion  of  Subcommittee  232-­‐A  Report  
 
These  recommendations  were  discussed  at  the  main  committee  meeting.  One  issue  identified  
was  the  potential  of  creating  a  meeting  conflict  by  creating  a  new  committee.  Members  of  the  
subcommittee   felt   this   would   occur   only   for   a   few   members.   Most   are   interested   in   either  
natural  pozzolans,  or  fly  ash,  not  both.  Regarding  any  new  committee,  there  was  considerable  
discussion   of   the   name   of   the   committee   and   its   scope.   Finally,   a   number   of   committee  
members   expressed,   with   or   without   a   split   in   the   committee,   alternative   SCMs   defined   as  
materials  not  meeting  the  definitions  of  fly  ash,  natural  pozzolans,  slag  cement,  or  silica  fume  as  
defined  in  CCT,  must  be  dealt  with  in  ACI  as  these  materials  are  beginning  to  enter  the  industry  
and  appropriate  guidance  is  required.  Overall,  there  were  two  issues  identified  to  be  resolved  
based  on  the  subcommittee’s  report  and  subsequent  discussion:  
 
1. Should  natural  pozzolans  be  represented  in  a  stand-­‐alone  committee?  
2. How  should  SCMs  not  meeting  the  definitions  of  fly  ash,  natural  pozzolans,  slag  cement,  
or  silica  fume  as  defined  in  CCT  be  dealt  within  ACI?  
 

Page 2 of 4
To  resolve  the  issue  a  series  of  votes  were  undertaken  at  the  main  committee  meeting.  
 
Motion   1:   Committee   232   recommends   the   existing   subcommittee   232-­‐A   be   established   as   a  
separate   technical   committee   addressing   natural   pozzolans   (as   defined   in   CCT).   The   motion  
carried  on  a  vote  of  16  -­‐  0  –  2.  
 
Motion  2:  Committee  232  recommends  forming  a  new  subcommittee  under  232  that  addresses  
alternative  SCMs  defined  as  materials  not  meeting  the  definitions  of  fly  ash,  natural  pozzolans,  
slag  cement,  or  silica  fume  as  defined  in  CCT.    The  motion  failed  on  a  vote  of  8  -­‐  0  -­‐  6.  
 
Motion  3:  Committee  232  recommends  TAC  form  a  new  committee  that  addresses  alternative  
SCMs   defined   as   materials   not   meeting   the   definitions   of   fly   ash,   natural   pozzolans,   slag  
cement,  or  silica  fume  as  defined  in  CCT.    The  motion  failed  on  a  vote  of  7  -­‐  3  -­‐  3.  
 
Motion   4:   Committee   232   recommends   TAC   transfer   to   Committee   555   Recycled   Materials,  
jurisdiction   of   alternative   SCMs   defined   as   materials   not   meeting   the   definitions   of   fly   ash,  
natural  pozzolans,  slag  cement,  or  silica  fume  as  defined  in  CCT.    The  motion  failed  due  to  the  
lack  of  a  second.  
 
Motion   5:   Committee   232   recommends   TAC   create   a   new   ITG   addressing   alternative   SCMs  
defined  as  materials  not  meeting  the  definitions  of  fly  ash,  natural  pozzolans,  slag  cement,  or  
silica   fume   as   defined   in   CCT.   The   motion   carried   on   a   vote   of   14   -­‐   2   –   0.   See   Attachment   A   for  
draft  letter  to  TAC.  
 
Motion   6:   Committee   232   recommends   the   existing   Committee   232   be   renamed   Fly   Ash   in  
Concrete   and   the   new   committee   Natural   Pozzolans   in   Concrete.   The   scope   of   232   will   be  
modified   to   read   “Develop   and   report   information   on   the   use   of   fly   ash   in   concrete”.     The  
motion  carried  on  a  vote  of  16  -­‐  0  –  0.  See  Attachment  A  for  draft  letter  to  TAC.  
 
As   part   of   the   discussion   of   these   motions   a   number   of   issues   were   raised.   With   respect   to  
alternative   SCMs   (ASCM),   consistency,   supply,   and   performance   were   all   identified   as   key  
issues.  In  some  cases  these  were  arguments  in  support  of  ACI  addressing  these  materials  (i.e.,  a  
need   to   define   these   attributes),   and   in   some   cases   these   were   arguments   against   moving  
towards  incorporating  these  materials  in  ACI  documents  (i.e.,  keep  “junk”  out  of  concrete).  It  
was  recognized  there  is  a  need  for  vetting  these  materials  if  they  are  to  enter  the  market.  There  
was   discussion   of   whether   ASCMs   should   be   cementitious   or   pozzolanic,   or   both.   Concerns   and  
questions   were   raised   regarding   the   new   ACI   ITG-­‐10   addressing   alternative   cementitious  
systems.   It   was   the   understanding   of   the   committee   that   ITG-­‐10   is   dealing   with   cementitious  
systems  (i.e.,  stand-­‐alone  systems)  that  were  predominantly  non-­‐portland  cement  based,  while  
ASCMs  are  materials  used  as  a  supplement  or  replacement  of  some  portion  of  portland  cement  
in   concrete,   but   portland   cement   was   still   used.   Also,   ASTM   has   developed   a   guide   for  
evaluating   these   materials   and   is   moving   towards   developing   a   materials   specification.   There  
appears  to  be  a  need  to  develop  in  parallel  an  ACI  initiative  to  help  provide  guidance  on  the  use  
of  these  materials.  

Page 3 of 4
High  Volume  Fly  Ash  Concrete  Document  
 
Changes   to   the   high   volume   fly   ash   concrete   document   based   on   TAC   comments   have   been  
balloted  and  approved.  The  document  has  been  returned  to  TAC/ACI  staff  for  final  review.    The  
document   should   be   published   in   3-­‐4   months.   The   Chair   acknowledged   the   efforts   of   all  
involved,  in  particular  H.  Haynes  and  S.  Ratchye.    H.  Haynes  acknowledged  the  efforts  of  B.  Neal  
and  K.  Obla  in  helping  respond  to  the  TAC  comments.  
 
ACAA  Update  
 
Tom  Adams  presented  on  legislative  activities.    The  presentation  is  included  with  these  minutes  
as  Attachment  B.  
 
232  TAC  Review  of  Main  Document    
 
Most   chapters   have   been   reworked   except   Chapters   4   and   9.   Authors   for   Chapters   4   &   9   are  
needed.  L.  Sutter  is  doing  a  final  edit  on  the  other  chapters.  All  edited  chapters  are  available  on  
the   committee   work   page   under   draft   documents.   C.   Wallace   and   M.   Christiansen   will   assist  
with  final  editing  of  Chapter  4.  K.  Sobolev  will  lead  changes  to  Chapter  9.  
 
Potential  Future  Sessions  
 
2016  -­‐  In  Honor  of  Tarun  Naik  -­‐  Task  Group  B.  Ramme,  K.  Sobolev  
2016  -­‐  Fly  Ash  Beneficiation  -­‐  Task  Group  P.  Rangaraju  
2016  -­‐  Fly  Ash  Characterization  -­‐  No  task  group  identified  
 
Old  Business  
 
None  
 
New  Business  
 
A   new   Task   Group   was   formed   to   develop   a   guide   performance   specification   based   on   A  
Concrete  International  article  authored  by  K.  Obla.  Hank  Kuiper  will  chair  the  new  Task  Group.  A  
copy  of  the  article  is  included  with  these  minutes  as  Attachment  C.  
 
L.   Sutter   presented   on   recently   completed   NCHRP   report   on   fly   ash   specifications   and  
acceptance  tests.  The  report  is  available  on  the  NCHRP  web  site  as  Report  No.  749.  A  copy  of  
the  presentation  is  included  with  these  minutes  as  Attachment  D.  
 
Adjourn  
 
The  meeting  was  adjourned  at  4:05  PM.  
 

Page 4 of 4
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment  A  
   
The following is a proposal to TAC outlining a name change to Committee 232 as well
as a change to the current mission statement for Committee 232

To TAC:
Committee  232,  “Fly  Ash  Natural  and  Processed  Pozzolans  in  Concrete”  proposes  the  following  changes  
to  the  names  and  mission  statement:  
 
Change  the  name  of  Committee  232  “Fly  Ash  Natural  and  Processed  Pozzolans  in  Concrete”  to:  
“Fly  Ash  in  Concrete”.    
 
As  part  of  this  name  change  process,  the  committee  recognizes  that  the  mission  statement  for  232  will  
also  need  to  be  amended.  This  proposal  is  as  follows:  
 
“Develop  and  report  information  on  the  use  of  fly  ash  in  concrete”  
 
Thank  you  for  considering  these  proposals.  
 
Sincerely,  
 
Committee  232  and  Subcommittee  232A  
 
 
  

The following is a proposal to TAC outlining the formation of a new ITG

To TAC:
Committee  232,  “Fly  Ash  Natural  and  Processed  Pozzolans  in  Concrete”  proposes  to  TAC  to:  
 
Form  a  new  ITG  “Alternative  SCMs  in  Concrete”  
 
Alternative  SCMs  are  materials  not  meeting  ASTM  C618,  ASTM  C1240  or  ASTM  C989  
 
Many  materials  such  as  co-­‐combustion  ash,  rice  husk  ash,  ground  glass,  crushed  brick,  and  crushed  
bottom  ash  have  not  “fit”  well  within  the  current  titles  of  any  ACI  committees.  Committee  232  feels  
these  materials  need  to  be  considered  by  this  new  ITG.      
 
Thank  you  for  considering  these  proposals.  
 
Sincerely,  
 
Committee  232  and  Subcommittee  232A  
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment  B  
   
Update on CCP Regulations

ACI 232 Committee Meeting

Reno, NV March 24, 2014

American Coal Ash Association

Developments in 2014
•  US District Court: Consent decree
signed
•  EPA completes risk evaluation
methodology and demonstrates
application
•  Duke Energy events put CCP back on
page 1

American Coal Ash Association

1
EPA agrees to a deadline
•  Appalachian Voices et al vs. Gina
McCarthy – 11 ENGOs and 2 ash
marketers sued EPA – thank you
Headwaters and Boral
•  Court found that EPA failed to meet its
obligation to review/revise regs.
•  December 19, 2014 deadline

American Coal Ash Association

Senate may yet act

•  HR 2218 passed last April
•  Bill has been on Senate calendar
waiting leadership and action
•  Democrats asking for more concessions
from utilities and regulators
•  Chances for passage slim

American Coal Ash Association

2
EPA: Fly ash in concrete OK
•  Responding to IG criticism EPA created
a methodology for evaluating beneficial
use
•  Fly ash in concrete, gypsum in
wallboard evaluated
•  Both uses found to be safe
•  What’s next?

American Coal Ash Association

Dan River spill

•  A spill at a closed plant focused
attention on North Carolina ash ponds
•  Politics add fuel to the fire
•  ENGOs says this proves states cannot
be trusted
•  Closure of ponds important to beneficial
use interests

American Coal Ash Association

3
Ash Utilization Workshop
•  What are coal combustion products?
•  How are they generated?
•  How are they recycled
•  Characteristics, testing methods,
regulatory challenges
•  April 29 and 30 in Lexington, KY
•  Co-hosts: CAER and ACAA

American Coal Ash Association

Questions?

American Coal Ash Association

4
 Thank You

AMERICAN COAL ASH ASSOCIATION

Thomas H. Adams

720.870.7897

info@acaa-usa.org
American Coal Ash Association

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Attachment
 C
 

 
 

feature
Specifying Fly Ash
for Use in Concrete
By Karthik H. Obla, Ph.D., P.E.
Managing Director, Research & Materials Engineering, NRMCA
Currently, fly ash is used in
more than 50% of all ready
mixed concrete placed in
the United States, yet many
design professionals continue
to remain overly restrictive
when it comes to using fly
ash in concrete.
60 ı SPRING 2008
As seen in Concrete InFocus, Spring 2008
O
ver the past several decades, the use of fly ash in concrete has had a successful track
record. The performance benefits fly ash provides to mechanical and durability
properties of concrete have been well researched and documented in actual struc-
tures. Currently, fly ash is used in more than 50% of all ready mixed concrete placed in the
United States, yet many design professionals continue to remain overly restrictive when it
comes to using fly ash in concrete.
This article addresses some optimal ways of specifying fly ash for use in concrete while
ensuring that the desired concrete performance is achieved. Most of these recommendations
form part of a larger NRMCA publication that should be released later in 2008. Project speci-
fications for most commercial work in the United States are typically written as per American
Institute of Architects MasterSpec format. Any cementitious material is typically addressed
under Section 2.5 (Concrete Materials) of that format as follows.
Cementitious materials: Use materials meeting the following
requirements:
Hydraulic Cement: ASTM C150 or ASTM C1157 or ASTM C595
<specify type of cement required for the work; C150 – I, II, III, V; C 595 – IP, IS; C 1157
GU, HE, MS, HS, MH, LH>
Pozzolan or Fly Ash: ASTM C618
<specify class of fly ash if pertinent to the work – Class N, C or F>
Slag: ASTM C989
<specify grade of slag if pertinent to the work; Grade 100 or 120>
Silica Fume: ASTM C1240
The above format clearly states that fly ash has to meet ASTM C618, which is the standard
specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. This by
itself is adequate for specifying fly ash in concrete. Frequently, design professionals make it
more complicated and too restrictive. Some of these restrictions, the possible rationale behind
them and issues related to not having these restrictions are discussed below.
Limitations on quantity of fly ash
This is perhaps the most frequently applied restriction governing the use of fly ash in a con-
crete specification. When fly ash was originally used in concrete in the 1970s, there was some
basis for restricting its use. However, after extensive research and several decades of successful
utilization of fly ash, there is no basis for a restriction on the quantity of fly ash that should be
permitted to be used in concrete. Some may say that the ACI 318 Building Code restricts fly
 Impact of Fly Ash LOI (carbon) on Air Entrainment
10
7
Concrete Air Content (%)
6 Source B
5 Source H
4 Source E
2
1 Fly Ash Micrograph (note spherical particles)
0
0 1
ash use to 25% of total cementitious content.
However, that is inaccurate. The new ACI
318-08 Building Code in Chapter 4 defines
very severe freeze-thaw exposure (Exposure
Class F3) as concrete exposed to freezing
and thawing cycles that will be in continu-
ous contact with moisture and exposed to
deicing chemicals. For concrete structural
members subject to Exposure Class F3, there
is a limitation on the quantity of supplemen-
tary cementitious materials, expressed as a
percentage of the total cementitious materi-
als, as follows:
1. Fly ash or other C618 pozzolans – max:
25 percent
2. Total of fly ash or other pozzolans and
silica fume – max: 35 percent
3. Combined fly ash, pozzolan and silica
fume – max: 50 percent with fly ash or
pozzolan not exceeding 25 percent and
silica fume not exceeding 10 percent
4. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag
– max: 50 percent
5. Silica fume – max: 10 percent
The primary reason for these limits in
the Building Code is to minimize the po-
tential for deicer-related surface scaling that
can subsequently compromise the concrete
cover over reinforcement and initiate corro-
sion earlier than expected. There is no tech-
nical reason to extend this maximum 25%
limit for other applications. It is seen that
for adequate resistance to alkali silica reac-
tion (ASR) with some types of aggregate and
for sulfate resistance, more than 25% of fly
2 3 4 5
Loss on Ignition (LOI) %
ash frequently is required. Also, with greater
quantities of fly ash, the durability of con-
crete related to resistance to ASR, sulfate at-
tack and chloride-induced corrosion is fur-
ther enhanced. Further, the use of fly ash in
concrete supports sustainable construction.
While it is true that greater quantities of
fly ash can delay setting and early strength
gain, these could be addressed to a large
extent through the effective use of chemi-
cal admixtures. The concrete producer can
evaluate the setting and early strength-gain
characteristics of concrete containing fly
ash under varying ambient conditions to
assure the contractor that these needs will
be achieved. It should be left to the concrete
producer to optimize concrete mixtures to
accommodate different quantities of fly ash.
Prescriptive limits on fly ash amounts do
not help concrete performance in any way
and may actually limit the improvement in
concrete durability.
Limitations on the loss on
ignition (LOI) of fly ash to less
than x% (x = 2 is typically 2 or 4)
Most commercially available fly ashes
will not meet this specification limitation,
so in effect, this requirement will prevent
fly ash use. In fact, C618 already has a LOI
limit of 6%.
LOI is a measure of unburnt carbon in
fly ash. Certain forms of unburnt carbon
can absorb air-entraining admixtures and
affect air entrainment of concrete. So, some
Source C
Source D
Source C
Cement Micrograph
Impact of Fly Ash LOI (Carbon) on Air Entrainment Hill,
R.L., and Folliard, K.J. (2006)
6
may argue that by restricting LOI contents,
the air-entrainment problems due to fly ash
can be reduced. However, that is inaccurate.
Figure 1 illustrates that at the same LOI, dif-
ferent fly ashes can lead to different perfor-
mance related to generating the necessary air
content. In fact, the low-LOI fly ash in that
study was more sensitive to air entrainment
than the higher-LOI fly ash. The reason for
this is that certain fly ashes have finer car-
bon, which, in spite of lower LOI, can have
a more significant effect on air entrainment.
So, restricting the LOI of fly ash to 2% or
4% does not eliminate the problems with air
entrainment.
The issue is not the LOI but rather the
variability of carbon content and type at a
given source. If the carbon content and type
varies frequently (even as often as during
the day) in an unpredictable manner, then
it will be challenging for the concrete pro-
ducer to supply air-entrained concrete with
consistent levels of entrained air. This is re-
ally a quality-control issue that the fly ash
marketer and concrete supplier have to re-
solve through frequent testing. The fly ash
marketer can do a quick indicator test every
four truckloads and supply that information
to the concrete producer when delivering
the fly ash load. The concrete producer can
adjust the air-entrainment dosage on that
basis and confirm the air content of the pro-
duced concrete. Some of the indicator tests
are LOI, mortar air content and fly ash foam
index test.
CONCRETE in focus ı 61
 Specifying a maximum LOI limit does This will allow for necessary quality-control also used. Slag cement may be the preferred
not resolve the air-entrainment problems actions if necessary. supplementary cementitious material in
related to fly ash use and might in fact pro- some markets. Concrete producers will gen-
vide a false sense of security because these ef- Limitation on mixture erally not stock more than one or two types
fects may not be determined before concrete proportioning, such as replacing of supplementary cementitious materials.
is placed in the structure. “1.2 pounds of fly ash per pound Project specifications must address local
of cement” availability and experience to allow fly ash
28-day strength requirement This mixture-proportioning approach and pozzolans meeting C618, slag meeting
In general, concrete containing fly was popular when fly-ash use in concrete was C989 and silica fume meeting C1240 in the
ash has a slower rate of strength develop- in its infancy and the use of chemical admix- specification.
ment and often results in a higher later-age tures was not very prevalent. The objective It is true that Class F fly ash is more ef-
strength than with portland cement con- was to achieve 28-day strength equivalent fective in increasing concrete’s resistance to
crete. In some projects, there may not be a to a portland cement concrete mixture with ASR and sulfate attack. However, rather
need for a 28-day strength requirement for some sources and types of fly ash, cement, than disallowing Class C fly ash, durabil-
members or classes of concrete that will not aggregates and chemical admixtures. It was ity can be ensured through a performance
have anticipated construction or service understood early on that there is no magic specification as discussed below:
loads applied at 28 days. For example, speci- replacement ratio of cement with fly ash.
fying 8,000-psi compressive strength to be The optimum replacement level will depend Requirement for Class F fly ash
for resistance to Alkali Silica
Reaction (ASR)
Design professionals often specify pre-
Fly ash has to meet ASTM C618, which is the standard scriptive requirements such as quantities
specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural of Class F fly ash, slag, low-alkali cement,
pozzolan for use in concrete. This by itself is adequate for the use of a non-reactive aggregate, etc., to
specifying fly ash in concrete. avoid ASR-related distress in structures.
Class C fly ash may not be allowed. Con-
crete resistance to ASR can be ensured by
incorporating the performance option pro-
vided below in the concrete specification:
achieved at 56 instead of 28 days for columns on the strength targets at different ages, the Alkali silica reactivity – If the aggregate
will result in highly optimized mixtures. A properties being targeted, climactic condi- is deemed reactive as per Section XX.X and
later-age strength requirement when feasible tions, the use of admixtures and cement and for structural concrete members that will
will permit a higher quantity of supplemen- fly ash sources. The concrete producer must be moist in service, submit documentation
tary cementitious materials, reduce the total be allowed to tailor concrete mixture pro- qualifying the proposed cementitious ma-
cementitious content (paste volume) and portions to satisfy strength, durability and terials used with the aggregate by ASTM
therefore reduce the potential for cracking fresh properties such as workability, setting C1567 tests with an expansion after 14 days
while improving long-term concrete dura- time, etc. of exposure less than or equal to 0.1%.
bility. Many projects have been successfully C1567 is a standard test method for
completed where the specified strength had Limitations on the class of fly ash determining potential alkali-silica reactiv-
to be attained at 56 days. or supplementary cementitious ity (ASR) of combinations of cementitious
If there is a need to obtain information material materials and aggregate. Generally, fly ash,
about the acceptability of concrete strength Some specifications only permit the use silica fume and slag are used to mitigate
at an earlier age, one might use a percent- of C618 Class F fly ash. In many parts of the problems associated with deleterious ASR,
age of the specified strength at the desig- country, good quality Class C fly ash is also with increasing levels typically leading to
nated earlier age or an accelerated curing available. In some regions, a good quality improved resistance. If the aggregate is
procedure in accordance with ASTM C684. Class N pozzolan, such as calcined clay, is deemed reactive, the concrete supplier can
perform ASTM C1567 tests with different
types and proportions of supplementary ce-
mentitious materials and choose the combi-
When fly ash was originally used in concrete in the 1970s, nation that yields a 14-day expansion lower
there was some basis for restricting its use. However, than 0.1%. For example, if 25% fly ash A
after extensive research and several decades of successful shows expansion below 0.1%, the concrete
utilization of fly ash, there is no basis for a restriction supplier should use at least 25% of that fly
on the quantity of fly ash that should be permitted ash in the mixture proportions. Th is is a
better approach because more than 70% of
to be used in concrete.
the aggregates are typically found to test as
potentially reactive to ASR by the ASTM

62 ı SPRING 2008
IT STANDS LIKE A MONUMENT TO
YOUR GOOD BUSINESS JUDGMENT.
Ready mix producers around the world depend on CON-E-CO® batch plants to maximize productivity and keep their fleets running
profitably. The quality and reliability are renowned. And you get 24/7 access to the industry’s best dealer network and factory
support. Contact your local CON-E-CO dealer today. Or visit our web site and use the Configurator to spec one for your business.

P.O. Box 430 • Blair, NE 68008 • 402-426-4181 www.con-e-co.com

© 2008 Concrete Equipment Company. CON-E-CO and the CON-E-CO logo are registered trademarks of Concrete Equipment Company, Blair, NE. An Oshkosh Corporation.
C1260, Potential Reactivity of Aggregates limit on the available alkali content of fly limits. Therefore, there is no need for a
(Mortar-Bar Method). Most of the aggre- ash. Research indicated that there was separate limit on the total alkali content
gates that test to be potentially reactive no good correlation between the mea- of fly ash.
show good field performance. Disallowing sured available alkali content and the
Class C fly ash on the basis that the aggre- performance of the fly ash to mitigate The requirement of a certain
gate fails the C1260 test or even the C1293 ASR. Th is limit has been deleted from quantity, type of fly ash or
concrete prism test is not a good approach. C618 and it is not measured by marketers another supplementary
The use of C1567 test limits allows the pos- of fly ash. Th is requirement, however, cementitious material for
resistance to chloride ion
penetration
For concrete exposed to chlorides (deic-
With greater quantities of fly ash, the durability of concrete ing chemicals, marine exposure), it is well
related to resistance to ASR, sulfate attack and known that fly ash, silica fume and slag
chloride-induced corrosion is further enhanced. can increase resistance to deterioration re-
lated to the corrosion of reinforcing steel
Further, the use of fly ash in concrete supports
by reducing chloride ion penetrability of
sustainable construction. concrete, with increasing levels typically
leading to improved performance. Howev-
er, it is not advisable to invoke prescriptive
proportions, type and choice of fly ash,
sibility of using Class C fly ash at different continues to remain in some project speci- silica fume and slag to attain the improved
dosages while ensuring that the concrete fications. However, if the total alkali of fly performance.
can attain resistance to ASR. ash is high (> 5% Na2O equivalent), the fly The ASTM C1202 test, which re-
ash has not been found to be effective in ally measures the electrical conductivity
Limits on the available alkali of controlling ASR. These high-alkali fly of concrete, provides a rapid indication
fly ash ashes, when tested with reactive aggregate, of concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion
ASTM C618 used to have an optional will exceed the ASTM C1567 expansion penetration. By requiring a low C1202

ı
64355860_odisa.indd
SPRING 2008 1 11/2/07 1:48:55 PM
coulomb level, the design professional en- tary cementitious materials judiciously to
The use of silica fume without
sures that the concrete mixture will have a attain target performance levels. The use
any other supplementary
potential for low chloride ion penetrability of a lower quantity (3% to 4%) of a highly
cementitious material
without establishing prescriptive limits on reactive pozzolan such as silica fume with
the quantity, choice and types of fly ash, A concrete specification that requires fly ash or slag can lead to optimum early
slag or silica fume. If the test option is the use of, say, 7% silica fume without any age strength, fresh concrete properties and
used, it will need some necessary lead time other supplementary cementitious mate- significant long-term durability benefits.
for developing and testing one or more rial may not be an optimized mixture for
mixtures. Depending on the criteria, a val- the application. The design professional Reference to water to cement
ue of 1,500 to 2,000 coulombs at 28 days should focus on the intended performance ratio (w/c)
might be selected as the criterion. The test requirement (permeability, resistance to It is common for concrete to have sup-
samples must be standard cured for seven ASR, sulfate attack, etc.) and allow the plementary cementitious materials such as
days, followed by 21 days of curing in concrete producer to combine supplemen- fly ash and slag that are included in the
100-degree water. For standard laboratory
curing, the test period should be extended
to at least 56 days to recognize the benefit
provided by fly ash. The use of C1202 test
criteria provides freedom to the concrete
producer to optimize mixture proportions
while ensuring that concrete of low chlo-
ride ion penetrability is used.
Note that the C1202 test has a high
testing variability and is not very suitable
for the testing of samples obtained at the
your advantage
jobsite. It is suggested to be used primarily
to qualify concrete mixtures. For critical
projects, if the design professional is inter-
ested in the use of C1202 criteria for con- CONCRETE
crete acceptance, a more rigorous statisti- WHERE
cal approach is appropriate, as discussed in
Reference 8. YOU

NEED IT,
Requirement for Class F Fly
ash for resistance to sulfate WHEN
attack YOU
For different levels of sulfate exposure,
the 318 Building Code has w/cm, com- NEED IT.
pressive strength and cementitious type
requirements. Concrete containing Class
C fly ash is not known to be very effective
against sulfate attack. Therefore, engineers
prescribe only Class F fly ash for concrete With CemenTech Volumetric Concrete
exposed to sulfate environments. The new Mixers you can reach more job sites, more
318-08 Code adopts a more progressive
economically. Short loads or large pours,
approach and allows a performance-based
evaluation of the proposed cementitious CemenTech delivers consistent, quality
materials by ASTM C1012. The code also concrete every time — putting CemenTech
permits the evidence of past successful users at a significant advantage.
field performance to be used. The use of
C1012 criteria ensures that the concrete
is resistant to sulfate attack and does not
restrict the use of Class C fly ash or any
other material. The one disadvantage of
this approach is the considerable lead time
needed, since tests progress for six months
to one year.

356048_Cementech.indd 1 12/11/07
CONCRETE in focus ı 9:11:22
65 PM
 Annual Book of ASTM Standards Vol-
ume 4.01, ASTM International, West
The design professional should focus on the intended Conshohocken, Pa., www.astm.org
4. ASTM C618, C989, C1202, C1240,
performance requirement (permeability, resistance to ASR,
C1260, C1293, C1567, Annual Book
sulfate attack, etc.) and allow the concrete producer to combine of ASTM Standards Volume 4.02,
supplementary cementitious materials judiciously to attain target ASTM International
performance levels. 5. ACI 318-05, “Building Code Require-
ments for Structural Concrete,” ACI
Manual of Concrete Practice, Ameri-
can Concrete Institute, www.aci-int.
calculation of w/cm. The ACI 318 Building be determined by placing trial slabs rather org
Code has limitations on the maximum wa- than the prescriptive minimum cementi- 6. Hill, R.L., and Folliard, K.J., (2006),
ter-to-cementitious-materials ratio (w/cm) tious material content approach, which does “The Impact of Fly Ash on Air-En-
for various durability requirements. Re- not necessarily ensure good fi nishability. trained Concrete,” Concrete InFocus,
ferring to w/c may be misleading, and this Also, a high minimum cementitious mate- Fall 2006, pp. 71-72.
should always be referred to as water-to- rial content frequently leads to non-opti- 7. Thomas, Michael, “Optimizing the
cementitious-materials ratio (w/cm). mized mixtures, high paste contents, higher Use of Fly Ash in Concrete,” Portland
shrinkage, high temperatures due to heat of Cement Association, Publication IS
Minimum cementitious content hydration and associated cracking. ■ 548, 2007, 24 pages
requirements 8. Obla, Karthik, and Lobo, Colin,
ACI 301 and 302 recommend mini- “Acceptance Criteria for Durability
mum cementitious material content (not References Tests,” Concrete International, Ameri-
cement) for floor slabs only, primarily to 1. Guide Toward Improving Concrete can Concrete Institute, May 2007, pp.
improve fi nishability. There is no techni- Specifications, NRMCA publication 43-48.
cally valid reason to include a minimum (under development) 9. ACI 301, 302, ACI Manual of Con-
cementitious content for other structural 2. Master Spec, Cast in Place Concrete, crete Practice, ACI, www.aci-int.org.
elements, provided the performance re- Section 03300, American Institute of For more information, contact Obla
quirements for that element are achieved. Architects, http://www.arcomnet.com/ at 240-485-1163 or via e-mail at kobla@
Even for floor slabs, the fi nishability can 3. ASTM C150, C595, C1012, C1157, nrmca.org.

Visit our Buyers’ Guide online at NRMCA.OfficialBuyersGuide.net

STOP
Kemco Systems is a proud member

LOSING and supporter of the NRMCA

Thank
BUSINESS!
Don’t let hot water shortages slow you down,

You
ensure your hot water supply keeps up with
YOUR demand. RM99
Direct
The RM99 Direct Contact Water Heater Contact
Water

to the advertisers
• 99.7% fuel efficient Heater
• Instantaneous hot water
• Stainless steel, non-pressurized unit
KEMCO SYSTEMS
• Convenient 4-point connection
who made
To schedule an on-site plant analysis or
for information contact Kemco Systems
800.633.7055 this publication possible
www.kemcosystems.com
sales@kemcosystems.com

ı
254429_Kemco.indd
66 SPRING 1 2008 7/31/06 9:38:12 AM
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attachment  D  
 A Summary of Proposed Changes to
AASHTO M 295 Resulting from
NCHRP Project 18-13 - Specifications and
Protocols for Acceptance Tests of Fly Ash
Used in Highway Concrete

Larry Sutter
Michigan Technological University

Acknowledgements

NCHRP 18-13 Specifications and

Protocols for Acceptance Tests of
Fly Ash Used in Highway Concrete
Larry Sutter1, Doug Hooton2, Scott Schlorholtz3
&
Zeyad Ahmed1, Melanie Keuber Watkins1,
Dave Hand1, Andre de Groot2
1 Michigan Technological University
2 Universityof Toronto
3 Iowa State University

1
 NCHRP 18-13

•  Objective - recommend potential

improvements to specifications
and test protocols to determine
the acceptability of fly ash for use
in highway concrete

NCHRP 18-13
•  Characterization Study – evaluate existing specifications
and classification methods for CFA
•  Strength Test Study – investigate test methods for
characterizing the strength activity of CFA
•  Carbon Effects on Air Entrainment Study – develop test
methods for characterizing the adsorption properties of
residual carbon in CFA
•  ASR Mitigation Study – examine test methods to
evaluate use of CFA to mitigate alkali-silica reaction in
concrete

2
 Characterization Study

•  Gathered data on 100+ CFA sources

•  Surveyed the SHAs to determine common
sources used
•  Selected 30 for comprehensive analysis
–  17 Class F, 13 Class C
–  Selected sources from the 30 best suited for the other
testing performed

Summary of 30 Sources
•  Sum of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3: 51.8 to 92.7%
•  Calcium oxide (CaO): 0.9 to 30.6%
•  Na2Oe: 0.3 to 7.9%.
•  LOI: 0.1 to 5.6%
•  Fineness: 10 to 24.0%
•  Strength Index (7-day test value): 75 to 112%
•  Strength Index (28-day test value): 80 to 120%
•  Water requirement: 93 to 100%
•  Density: 2.1 to 2.8g per cubic-centimeter

3
 Characterization Study

•  Characterized 30 sources using ASTM C311

methods
–  All AASHTO M 295 Required and Optional Chemical
and Physical Properties
–  Pozzolanic Activity Index (PAI) using ASTM C311
methods
–  Qualitative XRD
•  Quantitative XRD and TGA/DTA on 8 selected
sources

Chemical Classification

4
Chemical Classification

Chemical Classification

5
 Chemical Classification

Available Alkali vs. Total Alkali

6
 Strength Activity Index

Strength Test Study

•  Strength Activity Index is questioned as it allows inert
materials to pass

•  Experiments performed with non-pozzolanic quartz filler

7
 Strength Test Study
•  Evaluated the Keil Hydraulic Index

•  Replace an equal percentage of the control sample

cement with an inert filler

•  Evaluated different fillers, replacement levels (20%,

35%), and cements

Keil Hydraulic Index

8
 Keil Hydraulic Index

Strength Activity Index

9
 Strength Test Study
•  Take Aways
–  The Keil Hydraulic Index provided a test that identified strength
contribution separate from “filler” effects

–  The test was sensitive to the cement used

–  Other evaluations of the existing strength activity index showed

increasing the specification limit to 85% eliminated inert
materials

–  Need to change the time required for testing to accomdate some

Class F ash

Carbon Effects on Air Entrainment Study

•  Effect of Carbon on Air Entrainment
–  The LOI test is adequate for estimating the total carbon but does
not adequately identify if the carbon will effect air entrainment

–  There is a need for a test to directly determine adsorption

capacity

–  The foam index test is useful at determining the interaction of the

fly ash with air entrainment admixtures but has not been
standardized and is not part of AASHTO M 295 or ASTM C311

10
 Carbon Effects on Air Entrainment Study

•  Four tests evaluated:

–  Foam Drainage
–  Foam Index
–  Direct Adsorption Isotherm
–  Coal Fly Ash Iodine Number

Carbon Effects on Air Entrainment Study

•  Four tests evaluated:

–  Foam Drainage
–  Foam Index
–  Direct Adsorption Isotherm
–  Coal Fly Ash Iodine Number

11
 Foam Index Test
•  Evaluated 16 published versions
•  Adopted the methodology of Harris with some
modifications
Harris, N. J., K. C. Hover, K. J. Folliard, and M. T. Ley. The Use of the Foam Index Test to Predict AEA
Dosage in Concrete Containing Fly Ash: Part I-Evaluation of the State of Practice. Journal of ASTM
International, Vol. 5, No. 7, 2008.

Harris, N. J., K. C. Hover, K. J. Folliard, and M. T. Ley. The Use of the Foam Index Test to Predict AEA
Dosage in Concrete Containing Fly Ash: Part II-Development of a Standard Test Method: Apparatus
and Procedure. Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 5, No. 7, 2008.

Harris, N. J., K. C. Hover, K. J. Folliard, and M. T. Ley. The Use of the Foam Index Test to Predict AEA
Dosage in Concrete Containing Fly Ash: Part III-Development of a Standard Test Method: Proportions
of Materials. Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 5, No. 7, 2008.

Foam Index Test

•  2 g ash, 8 g cement
•  25 mL water
•  Add AEA solution drop-wise
–  5 % vol. AEA / Water solution
–  (0.02 mL/drop)
•  Shaken, not stirred
•  Look for a stable foam
•  Repeat…

12
 Foam Index Test
•  Vary Solution Strength
–  2, 6, 10, 15 %vol. AEA
•  Achieve uniform contact
time
–  12 to 18 minutes
•  Determine total AEA
added
–  Foam Index

Foam Index Test

•  Benefits
–  Cheap & Easy
•  Issues
–  Not achieving
equilibrium
–  Not quantitative
–  Subjective
•  Agitation?
•  What is a stable foam?

13
 Adsorption Based Tests
•  Adsorption characterized by an adsorption
isotherm
•  Multiple adsorption models and isotherms

1/n
•  Freundlich Isotherm q=K×C
–  q = mass of adsorbate adsorbed per unit mass of adsorbent, mg/g
–  K = Freundlich isotherm capacity parameter, (mg/g) (L/mg)1/n
–  C = Solution concentration, mg/L
–  1/n = Freundlich isotherm intensity parameter, dimensionless

Freundlich Isotherm
Slope = 1/n Intercept = log K

14
 Direct Adsorption Isotherm

•  Based on existing ASTM test method with

modifications:
–  Modified procedure for determining solution
concentration
•  COD test versus spectroscopic methods

–  Needed to account for the contribution of cement

Direct Adsorption Isotherm

determines AEA adsorption “capacity”

15
 Direct Adsorption Isotherm
•  Measures the adsorption capacity of the
ash AND the adsorption capacity of the
AEA
•  Can be used to estimate AEA dosage
•  Simple execution
–  Scales
–  Beakers & Stir Plate & Filtration
–  COD Kits & Colorimeter

Direct Adsorption Isotherm

Vinsol resin

16
 Direct Adsorption Isotherm
Alpha olephin sulfonate

Coal Fly Ash Iodine Number

•  Based on existing ASTM test method with

modifications:
–  HCl treatment to acidify the ash and remove SO3
–  Initial solution strengths modified (0.025 N vs 0.1 N)
–  Target concentration for determining capacity differs
from published test method (0.01 N vs 0.02)

17
Coal Fly Ash Iodine Number

Coal Fly Ash Iodine Number

18
Coal Fly Ash Iodine Number

Iodine Number vs. Capacity

19
 Coal Fly Ash Iodine Number
•  Measures the adsorption capacity of the
ash
•  Does not account for the adsorption
capacity of the AEA
•  Simple execution
–  Scales
–  Beakers & Stir Plate & Filtration
–  Titration

CHANGES SINCE REPORT

•  Issues with filtration after acidification
–  Switched to nitric acid rather than hydrochloric
•  Seeking faster version
–  Adopted single point isotherm based on
ASTM D1510

20
 CHANGES SINCE REPORT
•  Issues with filtration after acidification
–  Switched to nitric acid rather than hydrochloric

•  Seeking faster version

–  Adopted single point isotherm based on
ASTM D1510

•  New method to be published in a

Wisconsin DOT report available by early
summer

Carbon Effects on Air Entrainment Study

•  Take Aways
–  Publish a standardized version of the foam index test that
provides a uniform test time and mechanical agitation

–  Specify use of the the coal fly ash iodine number to evaluate ash
adsorption potential

–  Specify use of the direct adsorption isotherm test to evaluate fly

ash – air entrainer combinations

21
 ASR Mitigation Study
•  Evaluate protocols for applying existing test
methods (ASTM C1567 and ASTM C1293)
•  Evaluate the Alkali Leaching Test (Shehata and
Thomas, 2006) and correlate with the results of
ASTM C1293 and ASTM C1567
–  The alkali leaching test is used to determine the free
alkalis available to be leached from a particular
combination of cement and fly ash

ASTM C1293

22
ASTM C1567 – 14 days

ASTM C1567 – 28 days

23
 ASR Mitigation Study
•  Take Aways
–  Confirmed the AASHTO PP-65 limits of 0.1% expansion @ 14
days for ASTM C1567

–  Provided data showing a 28-day limit on ASTM C1567 does not

correlate with ASTM C1293

–  Alkali Leaching Test – no clear threshold of alkali release was

identified that correlated with a 0.04% ASTM C1293 expansion

Recommended Changes to AASHTO M 295

•  Add a maximum sum of the oxide limit (i.e., 70%) to the
Class C classification

•  Report CaO, MgO, Na2O, and K2O

•  Adopt the use of the Iodine Number Test and the Direct
Adsorption Isotherm Test under Optional Chemical
Requirements

24
Recommended Changes to AASHTO M 295
•  Raise the the Strength Activity Index to 85% of control
BUT allow the material to be qualified at 7, 28, OR 56
days
•  Delete the available alkali limit

•  Delete use of ASTM C441 (Pyrex Glass Test) and adopt

ASTM C1567 with a 14 day limit of 0.1%

25