Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Carbonation Data of Mit Student
Carbonation Data of Mit Student
Carbonation Data of Mit Student
2989
by Donald Burden
by
Donald Burden
B.Sc. E., University of New Brunswick, 2003.
January 2006
The data indicate that HVFAC carbonates at a significantly faster rate than plain Portland
cement concrete at the same W/CM. The rate of carbonation increases with the level of
fly ash and differences become particularly marked as the degree of moist curing is
reduced or the W/CM is increased. The increased sensitivity of HVFAC can be offset by
(i) specifying lower W/CM, (ii) extending the period of moist curing, or (iii) increasing
the depth of cover when such concretes are used. The results are discussed in the context
of code requirements for reinforced concrete structures.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the persons that aided in the
completion of this project. I would like to thank Dr. Michael Thomas for his guidance
and support throughout the duration of the project. I would also like to thank the
undergraduate and graduate students in the Materials Group for their help during the
project but especially Andrew Ross and David Smith. My appreciation and thanks also go
out to the Civil Engineering Technical Staff and Faculty Shop for their support,
knowledge, and suggestions during the laboratory study. Finally, I would like to thank the
Portland Cement Association (PCA), EcoSmartTM, and the National Science Engineering
Research Council (NSERC) for their financial contributions to the project.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgement .....................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................iv
1.0 Introduction..........................................................................................................1
1.1 Background Information..........................................................................1
1.2 Problem Statement ...................................................................................2
1.3 Significance of Problem...........................................................................3
1.4 Goal and Objectives.................................................................................4
iv
3.3.1 Preparation .............................................................................23
3.3.2 Casting ...................................................................................25
3.3.3 Curing ....................................................................................26
3.3.4 Testing....................................................................................30
6.0 Conclusions..........................................................................................................93
7.0 Recommendations................................................................................................95
8.0 References............................................................................................................97
v
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Chemical Analysis & Physical Properties of Portland Cement...............21
Table 3.2 Chemical Analysis & Physical Properties of Fly Ashes..........................22
Table 3.3 Mixture Proportions.................................................................................24
Table 3.4 Phase 1 Curing Regimes ..........................................................................26
Table 4.1 Compressive Strength Data .....................................................................35
Table 4.2 Rapid Chloride Permeability Data...........................................................41
Table 4.3 Chloride Ion Penetrability Based on Charge Passed ...............................42
Table 4.4 Electrical Resistivity Data .......................................................................52
Table 4.5 Accelerated Carbonation Data .................................................................54
Table 4.6 Accelerated Carbonation Rates, k (mm/y^0.5)........................................59
Table 4.7 Indoor Carbonation Data .........................................................................60
Table 4.8 Indoor Carbonation Rates, k (mm/y^0.5) ................................................63
Table 4.9 Outdoor Carbonation Data.......................................................................65
Table 4.10 Outdoor Carbonation Rates, k (mm/y^0.5)..............................................68
Table 5.1 Carbonation Rate Predictive Model Data ................................................80
Table 5.2 Carbonation Rate Data from Dr. Michael Thomas..................................83
Table 5.3 k-Values for Various Values of Design Life and Cover..........................88
Table 5.4 Concrete Qualities and Nominal Cover to Steel for 100 Year
Service Life..............................................................................................92
vi
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Relationships between Results of Hydraulic Permeability Tests
and Rapid Chloride Penetration Tests (RCPT).......................................16
Figure 3.1 Sketch of Accelerated Carbonation Setup..............................................28
Figure 3.2 Accelerated Carbonation Chamber.........................................................29
Figure 3.3 Outdoor Exposure Condition..................................................................30
Figure 3.4 Equipment Used to Obtain Freshly Fractured Concrete.........................31
Figure 3.5 Freshly Fractured Concrete Sprayed with Phenolphthalein
Indicator Solution....................................................................................32
Figure 4.1 Curing vs. 28 Day Compressive Strength (W/CM=0.50) ......................36
Figure 4.2 Curing vs. 28 Day Compressive Strength (W/CM=0.40) ......................36
Figure 4.3 Curing vs. 28 Day Compressive Strength (W/CM=0.34) ......................37
Figure 4.4 Compressive Strength of Different Fly Ashes Continuously
Moist Cured for 28 Days.........................................................................37
Figure 4.5 Curing vs. 1 Year Compressive Strength (W/CM=0.50) .......................38
Figure 4.6 Curing vs. 1 Year Compressive Strength (W/CM=0.40) .......................39
Figure 4.7 Curing vs. 1 Year Compressive Strength (W/CM=0.34) .......................39
Figure 4.8 Curing vs. 28 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.50)............42
Figure 4.9 Curing vs. 28 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.40)............43
Figure 4.10 Curing vs. 28 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.34)............43
Figure 4.11 Curing vs. 90 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.50)............44
Figure 4.12 Curing vs. 90 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.40)............45
Figure 4.13 Curing vs. 90 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.34)............46
Figure 4.14 Curing vs. 1 Year Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.50).............47
Figure 4.15 Curing vs. 1 Year Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.40).............48
Figure 4.16 Curing vs. 1 Year Rapid Chloride Permeability (W/CM=0.34).............49
Figure 4.17 Curing vs. Rapid Chloride Permeability of Different Fly Ashes ...........50
Figure 4.18 Relationships between Resistivity and Rapid Chloride
Permeability Testing ...............................................................................53
Figure 4.19 Curing vs. 90 Day Accelerated Carbonation (W/CM=0.50)..................57
Figure 4.20 Curing vs. 90 Day Accelerated Carbonation (W/CM=0.40)..................57
Figure 4.21 Curing vs. 90 Day Accelerated Carbonation (W/CM=0.34)..................58
Figure 4.22 Curing vs. 90 Day Accelerated Carbonation of Different
Fly Ashes ................................................................................................58
Figure 4.23 Curing vs. 1 Year Indoor Carbonation (W/CM=0.50) ...........................61
Figure 4.24 Curing vs. 1 Year Indoor Carbonation (W/CM=0.40) ...........................62
Figure 4.25 Curing vs. 1 Year Indoor Carbonation (W/CM=0.34) ...........................62
Figure 4.26 Curing vs. 1 Year Outdoor Carbonation (W/CM=0.50) ........................66
Figure 4.27 Curing vs. 1 Year Outdoor Carbonation (W/CM=0.40) ........................66
Figure 4.28 Curing vs. 1 Year Outdoor Carbonation (W/CM=0.34) ........................67
Figure 4.29 Curing vs. 1 Year Outdoor Carbonation of Different Fly Ashes ...........67
Figure 5.1 Strength vs. Rapid Chloride Permeability at 28 Days of Age................69
Figure 5.2 Strength vs. Rapid Chloride Permeability at 1 Year of Age ..................70
Figure 5.3 Rapid Chloride Permeability vs. Carbonation at 90 Days of Age..........71
Figure 5.4 Rapid Chloride Permeability vs. Carbonation at 1 Year of Age ............71
vii
Figure 5.5 Rapid Chloride Permeability vs. Carbonation for Different
Levels of Fly Ash at 90 Days..................................................................72
Figure 5.6 Rapid Chloride Permeability vs. Carbonation for Different
Levels of Fly Ash at 1 Year ....................................................................73
Figure 5.7 Strength vs. Carbonation at 1 Year of Age.............................................74
Figure 5.8 Screenshot from Master Builder's RCPT Prediction Model ..................76
Figure 5.9 Laboratory Tested vs. Master Builder's Prediction of
RCPT at 28 Days ....................................................................................77
Figure 5.10 Laboratory Tested vs. Master Builder's Prediction of
RCPT at 90 Days ....................................................................................77
Figure 5.11 Laboratory Tested vs. Master Builder's Prediction of
RCPT at 1 Year.......................................................................................78
Figure 5.12 Predicted Carbonation Rates vs. Measured Carbonation Rates .............82
Figure 5.13 Predicted Carbonation Rates vs. Measured Carbonation Rates
(Dr. Michael Thomas).............................................................................84
Figure 5.14 Relationship between Accelerated & Natural Indoor
Carbonation Rates...................................................................................85
Figure 5.15 Relationship between Accelerated & Natural Outdoor
Carbonation Rates...................................................................................85
Figure 5.16 Guidelines for Concrete with k = 3.0 mm/year0.5 ...................................89
Figure 5.17 Guidelines for Concrete with k = 5.0 mm/year0.5 ...................................89
Figure 5.18 Guidelines for Concrete with k = 7.0 mm/year0.5 ...................................90
Figure 5.19 Guidelines for Concrete with k = 10.0 mm/year0.5 .................................90
viii
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background Information
Fly ash is an inorganic, non-combustible by-product of coal - burning power plants. As
coal is burnt at high temperatures, carbon is burnt off and most of the mineral impurities
are carried away by the flue gas in the form of ash. The molten ash is cooled rapidly and
solidifies as spherical, glassy particles (Malhotra and Mehta, 2002). Fly ash particles
range in diameter from <1 microns up to 150 microns (Malhotra and Ramezanianpour,
1994). Fly ash is removed from the flue gas by means of a series of mechanical
separators followed by electrostatic precipitators or bag filters (Malhotra and Mehta,
2002). Not all fly ashes are suitable for use in concrete. As many power companies are
installing scrubber systems to remove sulfur dioxide from stack gasses, many fly ashes
are being mixed with scrubber products, resulting in fly ash containing free lime and
calcium sulfates or sulfites. These materials cannot be used in concrete (Mindess et al.,
2003).
ASTM C618 classifies fly ash as Class C or F. It is true that the specification states that
Class F ashes are mainly produced from bituminous or anthracite coals and that Class C
ashes are mainly produced from sub-bituminous or lignite coals, but the main criterion
for classification are its chemical requirements: SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 > 70% for Class F
and SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 > 50% for Class C. However, many sub-bituminous and lignite
coal ashes meet the chemical requirements of Class F. This has caused some confusion so
Canada has removed reference to coal types and CSA A3000-03 classifies fly ash on the
basis of calcium content as follows: Type F < 8% CaO, Type CI 8-20% CaO, and CH >
20% CaO.
Fly ash is a pozzolanic material. A pozzolan is defined by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) as “a siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material which
in itself possesses little or no cementitious value but which will, in finely divided form
and in the presence of moisture, chemically react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary
temperature to form compounds possessing cementitious properties.” (ASTM, 1975). In
the presence of moisture, alumino-silicates within the fly ash react with calcium ions to
2
form calcium silicate hydrates (Malhotra and Ramezanianpour, 1994). Many ready-mix
companies use fly ash to partially replace Portland cement in concrete. Although the
addition of fly ash to concrete has economic benefits to the ready-mix producer (fly ash is
typically cheaper than Portland cement), fly ash also provides enhanced fresh and
hardened concrete properties (Mindess et al., 2003). Fly ash influences the rheological
properties of the fresh concrete and the strength, finish, porosity, and durability of
hardened concrete (Malhotra and Ramezanianpour, 1994).
Today, there is a general trend to replace higher levels of Portland cement with fly ash in
concrete. The increased pressure to use higher levels of fly ash in concrete stems from
three main aspects. The first aspect is economics. In most markets fly ash is less
expensive than Portland cement. Therefore, as the replacement level of fly ash increases,
the cost to produce concrete decreases. The second aspect and arguably the most
important is the environment. Fly ash is an industrial by-product, much of which is
deposited in landfills if not used in concrete. As of 1999, 4 mega-tonnes of fly ash per
year was being deposited in Canadian landfills. Also from an environmental perspective,
the more fly ash being utilized in concrete, the less the demand for Portland cement, the
less Portland cement production, and therefore the lower CO2 emissions. The third and
final aspect influencing the use of higher replacement levels is the technical benefits of
high volume fly ash concrete (HVFAC). HVFAC has improved performance over
ordinary Portland cement concrete, especially in terms of durability when appropriately
used. HVFAC is defined as concrete containing greater then 30% fly ash by mass of total
cement material. To date, the construction industry in Canada is only comfortable with
concrete containing 15 to 30% fly ash, but as more technical information and proven field
performance becomes available, this percentage should rise.
cementitious-material ratios (e.g., W/CM <0.35) has excellent properties when mature,
but there have been relatively few studies on the performance of concrete at higher
W/CM when produced and cured under normal conditions. The data that does exist
indicates that improperly proportioned and cured concrete with high levels of fly ash may
be of inferior quality, especially in terms of carbonation and resistance to deicer salt
scaling resistance. There are also indications that low quality concrete may be more
sensitive to the quality of fly ash being used. Further investigations are required to
determine the factors that influence the properties of concrete with high levels of fly ash
and to produce guidelines to ensure that the best practices are upheld.
The LEED program is broken down into six point categories with a maximum number of
points being 70:
• Sustainable Sites 14 points
• Water Efficiency 5 points
• Energy and Atmosphere 17 points
• Materials and Resources 14 points
• Indoor Environmental Quality 15 points
• Innovation and Design Process Points 5 points
Concrete as a building material is very effective in earning LEED points. The maximum
number of LEED points a project can receive through use of concrete is 23 points; 5
points through Sustainable Sites, up to 10 points through Energy and Atmosphere, 7
points through Materials and Resources, and 1 point through Innovative and Design
Process. However, although 23 points are available through concrete, 6 of these points
would be very difficult if not impossible to earn unless concrete contained low to high
levels of supplementary cementing materials. For example, Materials and Resources
Credits 4.1 and 4.2 (Recycled Content) are only achieved with concrete if the concrete
6
building is built with 25 and 40% of the Portland cement replaced with fly ash (or ground
granulated blast furnace slag), respectively. Other examples where higher levels of fly
ash replacement may be necessary to obtain maximum LEED points with concrete are:
Credit 5.1 (Regional Materials, 10% Extracted and Manufactured Regionally), Credit 5.2
(Regional Materials, 20% Extracted and Manufactured Regionally), Credit 8 (Durable
Building), and Credit 2 (LEED Accredited Professional, Innovation and Design).
Although LEED certification for private buildings is still not mandatory and probably
won’t be in the near future, support for green buildings has increased over the last
number of years in order to achieve a more environmentally friendly image. For example,
Mountain Equipment Coop (MEC), a Canadian company that specializes in outdoor
adventure products has recently built stores in Ottawa and Montreal that are LEED
certified and insist all new MEC stores will be LEED certified. This is just one
company’s attempt to promote sustainability and environmentalism. Many cities and
government agencies require LEED certification for new public buildings. For example,
City of Vancouver, Alberta Infrastructure, City of Calgary, Manitoba Hydro, Public
Works and Government Services Canada, and BC Buildings Corporation all require new
public buildings to be LEED certified (Cement Association of Canada, 2005).
Sustainability, durability, and economy are the paramount reasons for the use of high
volume fly ash concrete instead of conventional Portland cement concrete. As can be
seen from the comparison below, HFVA concrete is more environmentally friendly and
has more desirable technical properties then conventional concrete (Green Resource
Center, 2004)
High Volume Fly Ash Concrete Conventional
Less energy intensive manufacture Energy intensive manufacture
Higher ultimate strength Lower ultimate strength
More durable Less durable
Requires less water Requires more water
Uses a waste by-product Uses virgin materials only
Creates fewer global warming gases Creates more global warming gases
7
2.1.2 Examples
EcoSmart is a government – industry partnership aimed at reducing CO2 emissions by
encouraging the use of high volume supplementary cementing materials in concrete to the
greatest extent possible within the parameters of performance, constructability, and
profitability (de Spot, 2003). EcoSmart has coined the term “EcoSmart concrete” and
defines it as concrete produced by replacing roughly half of the Portland cement used in
conventional concrete with a supplementary cementing material such as fly ash.
EcoSmart’s mission is to explore the potential of EcoSmart concrete as a cost effective
and practical solution to an environmental challenge and to increase awareness of the
benefits and challenges of EcoSmart concrete. The technology to create HFVA concrete
was first introduced in Canada by CANMET (Canada Center for Mineral and Energy
Technology) in 1985. CANMET (which is a part of Natural Resources Canada) has
demonstrated that under both laboratory and field conditions (for example, indoor
parking garage for Park Lane Hotel / Office Complex and drilled caisson piles for 22
storey office tower in Purdy’s Wharf, both projects in Halifax) the performance of HVFA
concrete is on par or better then conventional concrete. EcoSmart is operating under the
premise that high volume fly ash in concrete is beneficial from two perspectives: the first
being economic and performance based (fly ash is a waste product that is typically
cheaper than Portland cement, reducing the overall cost of concrete while maintaining
desirable concrete properties) and the second being environmental / sustainable
(replacing Portland cement with fly ash reduces Portland cement production and
therefore reduces greenhouse gas emissions).
As with any new technology, until the technology is proven successful in field conditions
there is reluctance from the public to use such a technology. Understandably, the
construction industry is no different. Until high volume fly ash concrete is used and
proven in field conditions, there will be resistance to the adoption of such a material.
EcoSmart is an organization that examines and, if possible, resolves the major obstacles
that are limiting the use of HVFA concrete. EcoSmart through the use of case studies
hopes to help the construction industry with a smooth transition into the use of HVFA
concrete. Below are projects that have used EcoSmart concrete and have been tracked by
8
EcoSmart to determine the effects of fly ash on concrete properties, appearance and cost
implications:
• Ardencraig Townhouse Renovation
• University of British Columbia Lui Center
• Brentwood Skytrain Station
• Gilmore Skytrain Station
• York University Computer Science Building
• British Columbia Gas Coastal Facilities Operations Center
Results from the aforementioned case studies will be further discussed in later sections of
the literature review (Gillies, 2001; de Spot, 2003).
maximum water to cementing materials ratio for different exposure classes, maximum
water to cementing materials ratio for reinforced concrete, curing requirements, etc. This
standard defines high volume supplementary cementing material concrete with two
definitions depending on the proportions of fly ash (FA) and slag (S):
HVSCM-1: FA/40 + S/45 >1.00
HVSCM-2: FA/30 + S/35 > 1.00
However, further research and information is needed to supplement and strengthen this
standard. To date, there are two outstanding durability issues associated with HVFA
concrete, carbonation and deicer salt scaling resistance. These concerns will be discussed
further in this literature review.
increasing W/CM. When cured with liquid curing compounds, concrete containing fly
ash showed substantially less scaling than concrete cured in a moist room (Zhang et al.,
1998). CANMET has performed deicing salt scaling tests on HVFA concrete, in
accordance with ASTM C672, and have reported that its performance is less than
satisfactory. The HVFA specimens, when compared to normal Portland cement concrete
with the same W/CM and the same cementitious materials content, showed severe
surface scaling both visually and by weight loss. However, field performance contradicts
the laboratory findings. For example, a HVFA concrete sidewalk was placed in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, Canada, in 1996. This sidewalk is exposed to approximately 100 freezing
and thawing cycles and numerous applications of deicing chemical each year. To date,
this HVFA sidewalk has demonstrated good performance (Malhotra and Mehta, 2002;
Langley and Leaman, 1998). The contradictions on the scaling resistance of fly ash
concrete results from variations in the materials used, and differences in the conditions of
testing, exposure, finishing, and curing regime (Bilodeau et al., 1998). It is believed by
many researchers that the HVFA concrete salt scaling problem is more of a result of the
test method (ASTM C672) rather then the actual performance of the concrete (Malhotra
and Mehta, 2002).
2.2.4 Strength
Both the strength at a given age and the rate of strength gain of fly ash concrete are
affected by the characteristics of the fly ash (properties, chemical composition, particle
size, reactivity), the cement with which it is used, the proportions of each used in the
concrete, the temperature and other curing conditions, as well as the presence of other
additives (Hobbs, 1983; Berry and Malhotra, 1986; ACI Committee 232, 2003).
Although concrete mixtures containing fly ash tend to gain strength at a slower rate than
concrete without fly ash, the long-term strength is usually higher (Bremner and Thomas,
2004). After the rate of strength gain of hydraulic cement slows, the continued pozzolanic
activity of fly ash provides strength gain at later ages if the concrete is kept moist;
therefore, concrete containing fly ash with equivalent or lower strength at early ages may
have equivalent or higher strength at later ages than concrete without fly ash as long as
the concrete is moist cured or exposed to sufficient quantities of moisture during service.
The strength gain will continue with time and results in higher later-age strength than can
be achieved by using additional cement (Berry and Malhotra, 1986; ACI Committee 232,
2003). However, by using accelerators, activators, water reducers, or by changing the
mixture proportions, equivalent 3 or 7-day strength may be achieved (ACI Committee
232, 2003). High calcium fly ashes (Class C) will show a more rapid strength gain at
early ages than concrete made with a lower calcium fly ash (Class F) because Class C
ashes often exhibit a higher rate of reaction at early ages than Class F ashes (Bremner and
Thomas, 2004; Smith et al., 1982; ACI Committee 232, 2003). However, Class F ashes
will contribute to greater long-term strength gain of concrete than Class C ashes in spite
of its slower rate of strength development at early age. Because of its fineness and
pozzolanic activity, fly ash in concrete improves the quality of cement paste and the
microstructure of the transition zone between the binder matrix and the aggregate. As a
result of the continual process of pore refinement, due to the inclusion of fly ash
hydration products in concrete, a gain in strength development with curing is achieved
(Joshi and Lohtia, 1997). It should be noted that elevated temperature curing is very
beneficial to early strength and subsequent future strength gain of fly ash concrete
because of the higher activation energy required for pozzolanic reactions (ACI
Committee 232, 2003).
13
With respect to HVFA concrete, there is concern within the industry that the low early
strength is a potential problem. However, many studies have been conducted regarding
this issue and the findings are positive. Siddique (2003) reports that replacement of
cement with 40%, 45%, and 50% fly ash content reduces the compressive strength of
concrete at 28 days, but there is a continuous and significant improvement of strength
beyond 28 days when compared to conventional Portland cement concrete. He also states
that the strength of concrete with 40%, 45%, and 50% fly ash content, even at 28 days is
sufficient for use in reinforced concrete construction (Siddique, 2003).
CANMET has performed studies to investigate the typical strength development of high
volume fly ash concrete and have shown one-day strengths of approximately 8 MPa, 28-
day strength of approximately 35 MPa, and 91-day strengths of approximately 45 MPa.
However, it must be noted that strength values will differ depending on the materials and
proportions used. CANMET also reports that HVFA concrete can be used for high
strength concrete applications since field studies have been conducted on HVFA concrete
and strengths ranged from 35 to 50 MPa at 28 days, and from 50 to 70 MPa at 90 days
(Bilodeau et al., 2001; Langley and Leaman, 1998).
EcoSmart’s various case studies have also resulted in positive information regarding
early age strength of HVFA concrete. In general, they report experience from field
mixtures that HVFA concrete demonstrates enough strength development to produce
adequate strength at one day. They report one day strength of 10 MPa, which is
consistent with the findings of CANMET. EcoSmart also found that some concrete mixes
containing fly ash developed lower strengths at 3 and 7 days of age, but achieved higher
ultimate strengths when properly cured (Gillies, 2001). It is well accepted amongst
researchers that in order for HVFA concrete to achieve equivalent or higher ultimate
strengths than conventional Portland cement concrete, adequate extended moist curing is
necessary.
14
2.2.5 Permeability
Permeability is the most important aspect of concrete durability. To be durable, concrete
must be relatively impervious (Berry and Malhotra, 1986). In general, lower permeability
means greater durability (Joshi and Lohtia, 1997). Permeability of concrete is governed
by many factors such as the amount of cementitious material, water content, aggregate
grading, consolidation, and curing. Through its pozzolanic properties, fly ash chemically
reacts with Ca(OH)2 and water to produce C-S-H gel (ACI Committee 232, 2003). The
Ca(OH)2 is consumed in the pozzolanic reaction and is converted into a water-insoluble
hydration product (Joshi and Lohtia, 1997). This reaction reduces the risk of leaching
Ca(OH)2 (Ca(OH)2 is water soluble and may leach out of hardened concrete) (ACI
Committee 232, 2003). The incorporation of fly ash can result in considerable pore
refinement (Joshi and Lohtia, 1997). The transformation of large pores to fine pores, as a
result of the pozzolanic reaction between Portland cement paste and fly ash, substantially
reduces permeability in cementitious systems (Manmohan and Mehta, 1981). The
reduced permeability of fly ash concrete can decrease the rate of ingress of water,
corrosive chemicals, and oxygen (ACI Committee 232, 2003). This leads to enhanced
durability because aggressive agents cannot attack the concrete nor the reinforcing steel
embedded in it (Bremner and Thomas, 2004). The permeability of concrete is directly
related to the quantity of hydrated cementitious material. After 28 days of curing, at
which time little pozzolanic activity would have occurred, fly ash concretes are more
permeable than ordinary Portland cement concretes. However, after 6 months of curing,
fly ash concretes are much less permeable than ordinary Portland cement concretes due to
the slow pozzolanic reaction of fly ash (Davis, 1954; Berry and Malhotra, 1986; Joshi
and Lohtia, 1997).
The permeability of HFVA concrete is very low. The estimated permeability (hydraulic
conductivity) of HVFA concrete is less than 10-13 m/s. As a comparison, normal Portland
cement concrete with a W/C of 0.40, would have an estimated permeability of 10-12 m/s
(Malhotra and Mehta, 2002). In general, the resistance of a reinforced concrete structure
to corrosion, alkali aggregate expansion, sulfate and other forms of chemical attack
depends on the water tightness of the concrete. HVFA concrete when properly cured is
15
able to provide excellent water-tightness and durability (Mehta, 2004). The use of fly ash
in concrete decreases the required water and this combined with the production of
additional cementitious compounds leads to a low porosity and discontinuous pore
structure which reduces the permeability of the concrete (Estakhri and Saylak, 2004;
Malhotra and Mehta, 2002). It is worth re-emphasizing that the permeability of HVFA
concrete is greatly influenced by curing.
RCPT actually measures the electrical charge passing through a specimen. Low
permeability concretes exhibit a nearly constant current during the six hour test, whereas
high permeability concrete can exhibit increasing current, due to heating, which results in
increased conductivity (Mindess et al., 2003).
16
10
0.1
0.01
2000 4000 6000 8000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (Coulombs)
Figure 2.1 Relationship between Results of Hydraulic Permeability Tests and Rapid
Chloride Penetration Tests (RCPT) [From D. Whiting in Permeability of Concrete,
SP-108, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, pp. 195-222 (1988).]
2.2.6Carbonation
2.2.6.1 Mechanisms of Carbonation
Carbonation or neutralization is the process whereby calcium hydroxide in hydrated
Portland cement paste reacts in moist conditions with carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere to form calcium carbonate (Berry and Malhotra, 1986). As carbonation
proceeds, the remaining cement hydration products consisting of hydrated calcium
silicates, aluminates and ferrities, or related complex hydrated salts, are attacked and
decomposed with the ultimate formation of calcium carbonate and hydrated silica,
alumina and ferric oxide, and hydrates calcium sulfate (Roberts, 1981). Carbonation in
concrete may result in the following deleterious consequences: increased permeability
(under some circumstances), increased shrinkage and cracking, and the reduction of the
passive layer which protects reinforcing steel from corrosion (Berry and Malhotra, 1986).
It is fairly well known and accepted amongst researchers that carbonation depth increases
as: compaction decreases, permeability increases, strength decreases, W/CM increases,
17
cement content decreases, and fly ash content increases (Gebauer, 1982; Berry and
Malhotra, 1986; Roberts, 1981).
reducing or preventing entry of the carbon dioxide into the concrete, and as a result no
carbonation is generally found in concrete kept completely saturated or exposed to 100%
relative humidity. There is general agreement that the depth of carbonation reaches a
maximum at a relative humidity between 50 and 75%. (Parrott, 1987; Roberts, 1981). An
increase in temperature increases the rate of reaction of carbon dioxide and hydrated
cement compounds but it also promotes drying, therefore depending on the degree of
drying, elevated temperatures could increase or decrease the rate of carbonation (Parrott,
1987; Roberts, 1981). Protective coatings should limit carbonation by limiting water and
carbon dioxide diffusion, however the performance of coatings tends to be variable
(Parrott, 1987). The rate of carbonation decreases with increasing time of exposure to air,
and for concrete kept continuously dry at normal relative humidity’s it appears that the
depth of carbonation is approximately proportional to the square root of the time of
exposure (Roberts, 1981).
The high pH of concrete is due to the presence of alkali hydroxides in the pore solution,
which typically produces a pH of 13.0, and an abundance of solid calcium hydroxide
Ca(OH)2, which acts as a buffer to maintain a high pH even in the absence of the alkalis;
saturated calcium hydroxide solution has a pH of 12.45. Carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere can penetrate into concrete and react chemically with the alkali and calcium
hydroxides to produce carbonates. This process, carbonation, results in a significant
reduction in the pH of the concrete because carbonated concrete has a pH less then 9.0. If
the process of carbonation, which begins at the surface of concrete exposed to the
atmosphere, penetrates through the concrete cover to the steel, the pH in the vicinity of
19
the steel will drop enough to destroy the passive layer, at which point corrosion of the
metal will commence (Thomas, 2004; Parrott, 1987). The reduction of pore fluid
alkalinity that accompanies carbonation can lead to corrosion of reinforcing steel,
cracking of concrete cover and eventual spalling; resulting in the need for difficult and
expensive repairs (Parrott, 1987; Roberts, 1981). There are several conditions that
promote carbonation induced corrosion of steel:
• Exposure – Carbonation induced corrosion is most prevalent in environments
where there is not enough moisture to prevent carbon dioxide diffusion but there
is sufficient moisture to sustain corrosion. This condition most commonly occurs
on the underside of balconies and bridge decks, or locations where the concrete is
exposed to the environmental relative humidity, however is protected from direct
precipitation.
• High W/CM – The permeability of concrete will be increased and hence its
propensity for greater depth of carbonation (Roberts, 1981).
• Poor curing – Permeability will also be increased by inadequate curing because
inadequate curing results in the incomplete hydration of cement (Roberts, 1981).
• Low cover – Protection of reinforcement from carbonation induced corrosion can
be achieved by selecting an adequate concrete cover so that carbonation will not
reach the bar surface within the expected lifetime of the structure (Papadakis et
al., 1991).
• Pozzolans - As the permeability of the concrete is reduced by the addition of fly
ash, you would expect it to become harder for CO2 to penetrate the concrete.
However, fly ash reduces permeability by reacting with Ca(OH)2. This reaction
reduces the amount of material available for reaction with CO2. Thus less CO2 has
to penetrate to neutralize the concrete.
20
Although a range of fresh and hardened concrete properties were evaluated, the focus of
this study was the effect of curing on: strength development, chloride resistance, and
carbonation. With exception of carbonation, these properties were determined using
standard tests. Three different environments were used for carbonation testing; these
were: accelerated carbonation using a carbon dioxide enriched environment
(approximately 1% CO2 by volume) and optimum moisture conditions (65% RH), indoor
carbonation at 23oC and 55% relative humidity, and outdoor carbonation protected from
direct precipitation. The depth of carbonation was determined at specific times using
phenolphthalein indicator sprayed onto freshly fractured surfaces.
Physical Properties
Fineness
• 325 Passing, % 97
• specific surface, Blaine, m2/kg 363
Physical Properties
Fineness
• Passing 45 um 84.37 84.71 90.27 94.03 76.72
(wet), %
According to ASTM C618, SD and TB fly ashes are Class F (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 >
70%), whereas BR, CM, and RP are Class C (SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 > 50%). The
Canadian standard CSA A3001 recognizes, SD, TB, BR, and RP as Type CI ashes (CaO
between 8-20%), whereas CM is a Type CH (CaO > 20%). TB and BR fly ashes are
characterized by high alkali contents. All fly ashes meet the requirements of CSA A3001-
03 and ASTM C618.
3.2.3 Aggregate
The coarse aggregate used was a crushed coarse aggregate from McGundy Quarry with a
maximum nominal size of 19 mm. The fine aggregate used was Zeeland sand. Both the
coarse and fine aggregate was from local sources in the Fredericton region. The coarse
aggregate had a specific gravity of 2.68 and a water absorption value of 0.81%. The fine
aggregate had a specific gravity of 2.60 and a water absorption value of 1.32%. Both
aggregates meet the requirements of CSA A23.1-04.
23
3.2.4 Admixtures
A normal-range and high-range water reducing admixture were used in varying
proportions to achieve a target slump in the range of 100mm. The water reducing
admixture used was a normal-range water reducer that meets ASTM C-494 requirements
for a Type A water reducer. The superplasticizer that was used for this project meets the
requirements of ASTM C494 for a Type F, high-range water reducer.
24
25
The only fresh property of the concrete that was determined was the slump. The slump
test was performed according to ASTM C143 and the target slump for all mixes was
approximately 100 mm. Water reducer and superplasticizer were added to the concrete
mixture in order to achieve the desired slump.
3.3.2 Casting
Specimens for the project were cast in three phases:
Phase 1 – Twelve mixtures were produced which included three 0% fly ash mixes, three
30% fly ash mixes, three 40% fly ash mixes, and three 50% fly ash mixes. All mixes in
Phase 1 used SD fly ash. For each of the mixes in Phase 1, thirty-nine 100 mm x 200 mm
concrete cylinders were produced. Twenty-two of the cylinders were used for
compressive strength determination and the other seventeen cylinders were used for rapid
chloride permeability testing. Five 50 mm x 50 mm x 300 mm prisms (small prisms)
were cast for accelerated carbonation determination. Also, ten 75 mm x 75 mm x 300 mm
prisms (large prisms) were cast, five for indoor carbonation and five for outdoor
carbonation determination. All cylinders and prisms were cast according to ASTM C 192
/ C 192M-98.
Phase 2 – Four mixtures were produced, each mixture using a different fly ash, CM, BR,
TB, or RP. All mixes in Phase 2 had a W/CM of 0.50 and a fly ash replacement level of
50%. For each of the mixes in Phase 2, five 100 mm x 200 mm cylinders were produced.
Two cylinders were used to determine compressive strength and the other three were
used for rapid chloride permeability testing. Five 50 mm x 50 mm x 300 mm prisms
(small prisms) were cast for accelerated carbonation determination. Also, five 75 mm x
75 mm x 300 mm prisms were cast for outdoor carbonation determination. Again, all
cylinders and prisms were cast according to ASTM C 192 / C 192M-98.
Phase 3 – One mix was produced having a W/CM of 0.50 and SD fly ash with a
replacement level of 50%. The specimens from Phase 3 were used to determine the
effects of different curing compounds on concrete carbonation. Eight 50 mm x 50 mm x
300 mm prisms (small prisms) were produced for accelerated carbonation testing and
26
3.3.3 Curing
Curing of concrete specimens was different for each of the Phases, as described below.
Phase 2 – Concrete prisms for carbonation testing were cured for 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28 days.
After each curing duration, one small prism (50mm x 50mm x 300mm) and one large
prism (75mm x 75mm x 300mm) was removed from the water tank and placed in the
27
laboratory to air dry. At 35 days of age, the large concrete prisms (75mm x 75mm x
300mm) were placed in an outdoor exposure condition, covered from direct precipitation
and the smaller prisms (50mm x 50mm x 300mm) were placed in the accelerated
carbonation chamber. In Phase 2, the concrete cylinders for compressive strength and
rapid chloride permeability testing were continuously moist cured until testing.
Phase 3 – Concrete was only moist cured for 1 day, under wet burlap and plastic. After
this time, the concrete prisms were treated with curing compounds as follows:
• 2 small prisms (50mm x 50mm x 300mm) and 2 large prisms (75mm x 75mm x
300mm) were left untreated for controls.
• 1 small prism (50mm x 50mm x 300mm) and 1 large prism (75mm x 75mm x
300mm) were given 1 application of each of the three curing compounds.
• 1 small prism (50mm x 50mm x 300mm) and 1 large prism (75mm x 75mm x
300mm) were given 2 applications of each of the three curing compounds.
Each application of curing compound consisted of spraying the concrete specimen with
the curing compound and then brushing the sprayed curing compound until the surface of
the specimen was completely covered. After the application of the curing compounds, all
prisms were placed in the laboratory for 35 days to air dry. After this time, the large
prisms (75mm x 75mm x 300mm) were placed in the outdoor exposure site, covered
from direct precipitation, and the small prisms (50mm x 50mm x 300mm) were placed in
the accelerated carbonation chamber.
Air-Storage: After curing specimens were allowed to air dry in the laboratory.
compressed gas and CO2. The chamber was located within a temperature-controlled
laboratory where the temperature of the laboratory and chamber was 23oC. Relative
humidity within the chamber was maintained at 65% with a saturated sodium bromide
salt. Accelerated carbonation set-up is demonstrated in Figures 3.1 and 3.2.
Outdoor Carbonation: Specimens were stored on a shelving unit that was covered with
plastic sheeting. Specimens were protected from direct precipitation but were exposed to
typical temperatures and relative humidity’s in the Fredericton region (see Figure 3.3).
The outdoor carbonation conditions were chosen because it represents conditions most
likely to lead to carbonation-induced corrosion. CO2 penetrates very slowly when the
concrete pores are filled with water and therefore the rate of penetration increases as the
relative humidity decreases. However, the chemical reaction of CO2 with Ca(OH)2
requires that the CO2 first dissolve in water to form carbonic acid, which cannot occur if
there is insufficient water in the pores. Thus, the worst-case condition for the process of
carbonation is generally considered to be at a relative humidity in the range of 55 to 65%.
However, under these conditions, there is insufficient moisture available to sustain the
corrosion process when the carbonation front reaches the steel.
30
3.3.4 Testing
For this project, essentially four tests were conducted, compressive strength, rapid
chloride permeability, electrical resistivity, and carbonation. Compressive strength testing
was conducted according to ASTM C39, with the exception that the cylinders were tested
dry rather then saturated as stated in the standard. It is widely reported that testing
concrete cylinders dry will yield a compressive strength approximately 10 to 15% higher
compared with the same concrete tested saturated. All rapid chloride permeability testing
was conducted according to ASTM C1202. In some cases the test had to be terminated
early due to excessive charge passing and subsequent temperature increase. The 6-hour
charge was then estimated by extrapolating the data at termination. Since there is no
31
standard for determining carbonation penetration in concrete, the method employed for
this project was described by Roberts (1981). This method involves spraying
phenolphthalein indicator solution (colorless to purple red in highly alkaline solution)
onto a freshly fractured concrete surface and measuring the depth of carbonation (see
Figures 3.4 and 3.5). A purple red coloration is obtained almost immediately in the
unaffected interior of the sample where the concrete is still highly alkaline owing to the
presence of calcium hydroxide and alkali hydroxides, and no coloration is observed in the
outermost surface layer where the alkalinity of the concrete has become reduced by
penetration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (Roberts, 1981). The depth of the uncolored
zone is measured in several locations and averaged to obtain an approximate depth of
carbonation.
There is also no standard for determining electrical resistivity of concrete. The electrical
resistivity of the concrete was determined using the same test apparatus as described in
ASTM C1202 but using a power source that provided a constant alternating current of
100 μA. With 100 μA passing through the sample, the voltage (V) was measured. By
using Ohm’s Law (V=IR), the resistance (R) of the concrete was calculated. Knowing the
resistance of the concrete (R), the cross sectional area (A), and the length of the specimen
being tested (L), resistivity (ρ) was calculated using the equation ρ = RA/L.
Phase 2 - Compressive strength testing of the continuously moist cured concrete cylinders
occurred at 28 days of age. Rapid chloride permeability testing and electrical resistivity
of the continuously cured concrete cylinders occurred at 28 and 90 days of age.
Carbonation testing of the differently cured concrete prisms in the outdoor exposure site
occurred at 90 days and 1 year of age. Carbonation testing of the small prisms in the
accelerated carbonation chamber occurred at 7, 14, 28, 56, and 90 days after the prisms
were placed in the accelerated chamber.
Phase 4 - Testing will continue beyond this thesis. Long term carbonation measurements,
for indoor and outdoor exposure conditions will be tested at 2, 5, and 10 years.
34
35
36
70.0
50.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
70.0
60.0
28 Day Compressive Strength (MPa)
50.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
70.0
50.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
30.0
25.0
Compressive Strength (MPa)
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
CM BR TB RP SD
28 Day Continuous Moist Cure
Figure 4.4 Compressive Strength of Different Fly Ashes Continuously Moist Cured
for 28 Days
38
When tested at 1 year of age, compressive strength followed much of the same trends as
it did when it was tested at 28 days of age, however for the most part compressive
strengths at 1 year were higher than at 28 days. Again as the W/CM decreased, the
compressive strength of the concrete increased. Also, concrete containing no fly ash still
had higher compressive strengths then concrete containing fly ash. However, when tested
at 28 days of age, concrete containing fly ash demonstrated clearly that higher levels of
fly ash would yield lower compressive strengths. At 1 year this trend was not as clear.
Although concrete containing 50% fly ash generally yielded the lowest compressive
strength, the concrete containing 30 and 40% fly ash demonstrated similar compressive
strengths. As can be seen from Figures 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7, the longer the duration of moist
curing the higher the compressive strength. Although this trend was not observed at 28
days because of a testing error, the trend is clearly illustrated at 1 year of age. At 1 year
of age all cylinders tested for compressive strength were tested dry.
70.0
60.0
1 Year Compressive Strength (MPa)
50.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day 1-year
Curing
70.0
50.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day 1-year
Curing
70.0
60.0
1 Year Compressive Strength (MPa)
50.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day 1-year
Curing
Fly ash concretes only achieve comparable strength at 1 year if it is continuously cured.
The long-term strength of HVFA concrete is only realized if the concrete is exposed to
sufficient moisture during service to promote continued hydration and pozzolanic
reaction. In exposed elements protected from direct precipitation, it may take much
longer to achieve strength parity and in interior elements such benefits may never be
realized.
Rapid chloride permeability testing as outlined in ASTM C1202 is a test that measures
electrical conductivity not chloride permeability but there is a reasonable relationship
between these two parameters. Table 4.3 is taken from ASTM C1202 and relates charged
passed in coulombs to chloride ion penetrability.
As can be seen in Figures 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, all concrete tested at 28 days had a chloride
ion penetrability classified as high by the criteria in ASTM C1202. Although the charge
passed decreased with W/CM, there were no apparent trends with respect to the effect of
moist curing or the effect of fly ash levels on the amount of charge passed. There are
several reasons why clear trends may not have been established. These include: slow /
delayed pozzolanic reaction, and the variable nature of concrete.
Table 4.2 Rapid Chloride Permeability Data
FA
Content, 28 Day RCPT, Coulombs 90 Day RCPT, Coulombs 365 Day RCPT, Coulombs
% by Curing, days Curing, days Curing, days
Mix wt. of W/
No. CM (C+FA) 1 3 7 14 28 1 3 7 14 28 90 1 3 7 14 28 365
CM 0.5 9192 8752 6823 6070 6967 5689 6493 6582 5693 6300 6155 3327 3591 3727 3287 3281 4387
CM2 0.4 6330 6005 6175 7173 6158 5583 4907 5685 5613 5387 5472 4977 3535 3798 4600 3697 3293
CM3 0 0.34 4694 5425 4109 4357 4930 4153 3112 4147 3491 3625 4392 2545 2461 2355 2256 1975 1955
30F 0.5 9815 5974 6599 6619 5887 5610 6599 6031 6232 6468 4676 5692 4613 3904 3808 3657 1165
30F2 0.4 7454 6056 6478 6759 5487 4667 4386 3476 3669 2982 2250 3029 2906 2729 2712 2345 766
30F3 30 0.34 4578 4409 4238 4163 4695 4343 3764 3046 2947 2216 1523 2026 1857 1904 1392 1310 451
40F 0.5 9758 6699 5724 6697 7871 6694 5254 5737 5834 5415 4003 4498 3282 5190 4477 4769 620
40F2 0.4 5163 5787 4323 4883 4557 4961 3738 3613 3204 2098 1352 2799 3161 2624 2229 1566 473
40F3 40 0.34 5114 3939 3997 4512 5326 3973 2427 2073 2181 1754 1249 2510 1782 1747 1725 1143 439
50F 0.5 7785 6272 6271 6858 5535 6552 5879 6438 5881 7318 4440 5510 6294 6333 4001 2890 284
50F2 0.4 4378 4829 4630 4511 5376 5342 4526 4334 3338 2225 1625 2555 2303 2803 3253 1872 479
50F3 50 0.34 6526 5089 5415 4932 4995 4832 3228 3218 2373 1605 1348 2962 672 2050 947 1505 546
C 50 0.5 - - - - 10314 - - - - - 6637 - - - - - -
BR 50 0.5 - - - - 3405 - - - - - 1551 - - - - - -
TB 50 0.5 - - - - 5011 - - - - - 1601 - - - - - -
RP 50 0.5 - - - - 7478 - - - - - 4051 - - - - - -
41
42
10000
9000
28 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
8000
7000
6000
fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
5000
fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
10000
9000
28 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
8000
7000
6000
fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
5000
fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
10000
9000
28 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
8000
7000
6000
fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
5000
fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
When tested at 90 days, the effect of moist curing and fly ash replacement levels on the
amount of charge passed became evident. Again, as expected the amount of charge
passed decreased as the W/CM decreased. At W/CM = 0.50, the chloride ion
penetrability was “High” for all fly ash levels and moist curing durations. There was also
no apparent relationship between moist cure duration and charge passed or fly ash level
and charged passed at this particular W/CM.
8000
90 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
7000
6000
5000
fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
4000
fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
3000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day Continous
Curing (days)
At W/CM = 0.40, extended moist curing of the concrete containing no fly ash appeared to
have little effect on the amount of charge passed. The chloride ion penetrability for the
0% fly ash concrete was “High”. Although there was no apparent relationship between
fly ash replacement level and the amount of charge passed, there was a clear trend that
extended moist curing of fly ash concrete drastically reduces that amount of charge
passing through it. Concrete containing all levels of fly ash (30, 40, 50%) at 1-day moist
45
cure yielded a chloride ion penetrability of High, however, after 90 days of moist curing
yielded a chloride ion penetrability of Low.
8000
90 Day Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
7000
6000
5000
fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
4000
fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
3000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day Continous
Curing (days)
At W/CM = 0.34, extended moist curing of the concrete containing no fly ash appeared to
have little effect on the amount of charge passed. The chloride ion penetrability for the
0% fly ash concrete was Moderate to High. Again there was no clear relationship
between fly ash replacement level and the amount of charge passed, but there was a trend
demonstrating that extended moist curing of fly ash concrete reduces the amount of
charge passing through it. Concrete containing all levels of fly ash (30, 40, 50%) at 1-day
moist cure yielded a chloride ion penetrability of High, however after 90 days of moist
curing the same concrete yielded a chloride ion penetrability of Low.
46
8000
6000
5000
fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
4000
fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
3000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day Continous
Curing (days)
When tested at 1 year, many of the findings reported are similar to those found at 90
days, with the exception that the amount of charge passed at 1 year for all concrete is
lower then at 90 days. Again, as expected the amount of charge passed decreased as the
W/CM decreased. At W/CM = 0.50, the chloride ion penetrability for the concrete
containing no fly ash was Moderate and it appeared as though moist curing had little
effect on the amount of charge passed. The chloride ion penetrability for the concrete
containing fly ash was High for all fly ash levels at 1-day moist cure but Very Low after
1-year moist cure. There was no apparent relationship between fly ash level and charged
passed at this particular W/CM, however moist curing had the greatest effect on the 50%
fly ash concrete. This particular concrete when moist cured for 7 days had a charge
passed of over 6000 coulombs, however, at 1 year moist cured had a charge passed of just
a few hundred coulombs.
47
7000
5000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day Continous
Curing (days)
At W/CM = 0.40, extended moist curing of the concrete containing no fly ash appeared to
have little effect on the amount of charge passed. The chloride ion penetrability for the
0% fly ash concrete was Moderate to High. Although there was no apparent relationship
between fly ash replacement level and the amount of charge passed, there was a clear
trend that extended moist curing of fly ash containing concrete drastically reduces that
amount of charge passing through it. Concrete containing all levels of fly ash (30, 40,
50%) at 1-day moist cure yielded a chloride ion penetrability of Moderate, however after
1 year of moist curing yielded a chloride ion penetrability of Very Low.
48
7000
5000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day Continous
Curing (days)
At W/CM = 0.34, extended moist curing of the concrete containing no fly ash appeared to
have little effect on the amount of charge passed. The chloride ion penetrability for the
0% fly ash concrete was Low to Moderate. Again there was no clear relationship between
fly ash replacement level and the amount of charge passed, but there was a trend
demonstrating that extended moist curing of fly ash containing concrete reduces the
amount of charge passing through it. Concrete containing all levels of fly ash (30, 40,
50%) at 1-day moist cure yielded a chloride ion penetrability of Moderate, however after
1 year of moist curing yielded a chloride ion penetrability of Very Low.
49
7000
5000
2000
1000
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day Continous
Curing (days)
The bar chart below shows the rapid chloride permeability performance of different fly
ashes tested at 28 and 90 days. These specimens were cast with a W/CM = 0.50 and fly
ash level of 50%. As expected the amount of charge passed decreases at the later age
because of the slower pozzolanic reaction. Of the fly ashes tested, BR performed the best
with chloride ion penetrability at 90 days of Low, whereas CM had the least desirable
chloride ion penetrability at 90 days of High.
50
12000
10000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
CM BR TB RP SD CM BR TB RP SD
28 Day 90 Day
Curing (days)
Figure 4.17 Curing vs. Rapid Chloride Permeability of Different Fly Ashes
The following is a list of trends that are apparent from the RCPT data:
• At 28 days RCPT is high for all concretes regardless of curing, fly ash level or
W/CM.
• With two exceptions, the RCPT is moderate to high (i.e. >2000 coulombs) for all
control concrete regardless of curing, age of test, or W/CM. The exceptions are
the mix with W/CM = 0.34 which just achieved a low rating of <2000 coulombs
when tested at 1 year after either 28 day curing or continuous curing. These
values were 1975 and 1955 coulombs, respectively, for concrete moist cured for
28 days and 365 days prior to test at 1 year.
• The influence of moist curing on RCPT of fly ash appears to be minimal at early
age for all W/CM or at any age for concrete with W/CM = 0.50.
• The influence of curing on the RCPT of fly ash concrete becomes more pronounced
at later ages (i.e. 90 and 365 days) and with lower W/CM (i.e. 0.40 and 0.34).
• With one exception, all fly ash concretes (containing SD ash) achieve a low or very
51
low RCPT rating when they are continuously cured for 1 year. The exception is
the mix with W/CM = 0.50 and 30% fly ash which recorded a value of 1175
coulombs.
• The composition of fly ash clearly has an impact on the electrical conductivity of
the concrete.
• Concretes with W/CM = 0.50 and 50% fly ash had RCPT values ranging from 1601
to 6037 coulombs when continuously cured before testing at 90 days. The Type
CI fly ash with the highest CaO content (RP) gave the highest reading and the fly
ashes with the highest alkali contents gave the lowest reading.
52
53
When highly permeable concrete is tested according to ASTM C1202 the concrete heats
up during the duration of the 6-hour test. This heating effect, results in the concrete being
less resistant and more conductive to the current passing through the 50 mm sample. It is
well known that conductivity increases with temperature. Therefore, concrete tested at
early ages using ASTM C1202 is susceptible to a heating effect.
100000
2
28 Day R = 0.5609
2
90 Day R = 0.7817
2
1 Year R = 0.8647
Rapid Chloride (Coulombs)
10000
Day 28
Day 90
Year 1
Power 28 Day
Power 90 Day
Power 1 Year
1000
100
1 10 100
Resistivity (kohms cm)
4.4 Carbonation
4.4.1 Accelerated Carbonation
Accelerated carbonation data are summarized below in Table 4.5.
54
7 7 7 6 7 9
14 3 3 3.5 6 8
28 1 2 2 5 7
1 7 4 4 5 11
3 5 3 3 4 8
50F2 0.40 7 3 2 2 3 7
14 1 1 1 2 4
28 0.5 0.5 1 2 4
1 5 5 7 10 12
3 2 2 3 5 7
50F3 0.34 7 1 1 2 3 5
14 1 1 1 2 4
28 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 3
1 12 14 - 13 15
3 7 7 - 8 11
C CM 50 0.50 7 5 6 - 6 6
14 2.5 2.5 - 4 5
28 2 2 - 4 4.5
1 7 7 - 7.5 10
3 4 4.5 - 6 8
BR BR 50 0.50 7 3 3.5 - 5 8
14 2.5 3 - 4.5 7
28 1 1.5 - 3 5.5
1 9 10 - 11 11
3 7 7 - 8.5 8.5
TB TB 50 0.50 7 4.5 4.5 - 7 7
14 3 3 - 6 6
28 2 2 - 4.5 5
1 11 11 - 11 11
3 7 7 - 9 9
RP RP 50 0.50 7 4 4 - 7 7.5
14 3 3 - 6 7
28 2 2 - 4 5
Control 1 0.50 1 12 13 14 20 26
Control 2 0.50 1 12 12 12.5 18 26
CC1 (X1) 0.50 1 11 11.5 12 14 26
CC1 (X2) 0.50 1 7.5 8 9 12 17
SD 50
CC2 (X1) 0.50 1 9 9 9 13 17
CC2 (X2) 0.50 1 6 7 7.5 10 15
CC3 (X1) 0.50 1 10 11 12 16 25
CC3 (X2) 0.50 1 9 10 10 15 25
Control 1 – no curing compound
Control 2 – no curing compound
CC1 (X1) – one application of curing compound CC1
CC1 (X2) – two applications of curing compound CC1
CC2 (X1) – one application of curing compound CC2
CC2 (X2) – two applications of curing compound CC2
CC3 (X1) – one application of curing compound CC3
CC3 (X2) – two applications of curing compound CC3
56
As can be seen Figures 4.19, 4.20, and 4.21, at 90 days of exposure in the accelerated
carbonation chamber, concrete containing no fly ash yielded lower amounts of
carbonation then concrete containing fly ash. Also, the following trends are clearly
displayed: increased fly ash levels, increased W/CM, and decreased moist curing duration
all increase carbonation depths. Figure 4.22 compares the accelerated carbonation
performance of five different fly ashes. As can be seen in the figure, SD fly ash has the
greatest depths and therefore the least desirable carbonation performance. CM fly ashes
carbonation performance is most affected by the duration of moist curing and BR, TB,
and RP have very similar carbonation performance. The carbonation rates of all the
concrete tested in the accelerated carbonation chamber are given in Table 4.6. The 90 day
accelerated carbonation rates were calculated using k = d/tm, where k = carbonation rate
(mm/y1/2), d = carbonation depth (mm), t = age (years), m = 0.5. To determine the
accelerated carbonation rate at 90-days, only the 90-day data was used; as opposed to
fitting a line to the d vs. t1/2 plot for all of the data for a particular concrete / curing
condition. With respect to the effect of curing compounds on the rate of carbonation, CC1
with two applications reduces the depth of carbonation from 26mm (control) to 17mm,
CC2 with one application reduces the depth of carbonation from 26mm to 17mm, and
CC2 with two applications reduces the depth of carbonation from 26mm to 15mm. All of
these reductions in carbonation depth are significant; however the curing compound CC2
appears the most effective.
57
18
16
14
90 Day Carbonation (mm)
12
10 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
8
fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
18
16
14
90 Day Carbonation (mm)
12
10 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
8
fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
18
16
14
90 Day Carbonation (mm)
12
10 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
8
fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
18
16
14
90 Day Carbonation (mm)
12
CM
10 BR
TB
8 RP
SD
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
Figure 4.22 Curing vs. 90 Day Accelerated Carbonation of Different Fly Ashes
59
60
61
Indoor carbonation rates were calculated and are displayed in Table 4.8. Carbonation
rates were calculated based on both 90 day and 1-year carbonation depth measurements.
Since, the indoor conditions remained constant at 23oC and 50% relative humidity for the
entire year, it is expected that the carbonation rates at 90 days would be the same as the
carbonation rates at 1 year. Since the method used to measure carbonation was accurate
to plus/minus 1 mm, the carbonation rates calculated for 90 days and 1 year should be
within 2 mm of each other. As can be seen in Table 4.8, there is relatively good
correlation between the 90-day and 1 year carbonation rates, with few exceptions.
14
12
10
1 Year Carbonation (mm)
8 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
6 fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
14
12
10
1 Year Carbonation (mm)
8 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
6 fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
14
12
10
1 Year Carbonation (mm)
8 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
6 fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
63
64
Figure 4.29 illustrates the outdoor carbonation performance of the same five fly ashes
that were tested in the accelerated chamber. The findings for the outdoor exposure are
very similar when compared to the findings for the accelerated exposure. For the outdoor
exposure, CM fly ash has the least desirable carbonation performance and the other three
fly ashes, SD, TB, and RP have very similar carbonation performances. For the outdoor
exposure, BR fly ash exhibited the least amount of carbonation depth. With respect to the
effect of curing compounds at slowing the rate of carbonation, the outdoor exposure data
somewhat agrees with the accelerated carbonation data. However, the outdoor exposure
data suggests that the only curing compound tested that appears to significantly reduce
the carbonation rate is CC2 with two applications or coats.
Table 4.9 Outdoor Carbonation Data
90 Day Outdoor Carbonation, 1 Year Outdoor Carbonation,
mm mm
Mix No. FA Type FA Content, % by wt. of CM W / (C+FA)
Curing, days Curing, days
1 3 7 14 28 1 3 7 14 28
CM 0.50 2 1 1 0.5 0 5 3 2 1 0.5
CM2 0 0.40 5 5 0.5 0.5 0 6 6 1 0.5 0
CM3 0.34 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 0
30F 0.50 7 6 4 3 2 8 7 5 4.5 2.5
30F2 30 0.40 4 2 1 1 1 7 4 3 2 1
30F3 0.34 2.5 1 0.5 0.5 0 5 2 1 1 0.5
40F 0.50 11 6 5 3 2 12 8 6.5 6 5
40F2 SD 40 0.40 4 3 2 1.5 1 7 4.5 4 3.5 2.5
40F3 0.34 5 1.5 1 1 0.5 6 2.5 1.5 1 0.5
50F 0.50 13 7 5 5 3 13 10 9.5 8 6
50F2 50 0.40 4 3 3 2 1 9 7 5 4 3.5
50F3 0.34 7 4 2 1.5 1 10 6 3.5 3 2
C CM 50 0.50 5 4 3 2 1 14 10 8 6.5 6
BR BR 50 0.50 5 4 3.5 2 1 8 7 6.5 6 6
TB TB 50 0.50 6 5 4 3 2 12.5 11 8.5 6 6
RP RP 50 0.50 6 5 3 2.5 2 13 10 7 6.5 5.5
Control 1 10 - - - - - - - - -
Control 2 12 - - - - - - - - -
CC1 (X1) 9 - - - - - - - - -
CC1 (X2) 8 - - - - - - - - -
SD 50 0.50
CC2 (X1) 8 - - - - - - - - -
CC2 (X2) 3 - - - - - - - - -
CC3 (X1) 12 - - - - - - - - -
CC3 (X2) 11.5 - - - - - - - - -
65
66
14
12
10
1 Year Carbonation (mm)
8 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
6 fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
14
12
10
1 Year Carbonation (mm)
8 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
6 fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
14
12
10
1 Year Carbonation (mm)
8 fly ash 0%
fly ash 30%
fly ash 40%
6 fly ash 50%
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
16
14
12
1 Year Carbonation (mm)
10
CM
BR
8 TB
RP
SD
6
0
1-day 3-day 7-day 14-day 28-day
Curing (days)
Figure 4.29 Curing vs. 1 Year Outdoor Carbonation of Different Fly Ashes
Table 4.10 Outdoor Carbonation Rates, k (mm/y^0.5)
1 Year Outdoor Carbonation Rate, k
90 Day Outdoor Carbonation Rate, k (mm/y0.5)
FA Content, % W/ (mm/y0.5)
Mix No. FA Type
by wt. of CM (C+FA) Curing, days Curing, days
1 3 7 14 28 1 3 7 14 28
CM 0.50 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.5
CM2 0 0.40 10.1 10.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 0.5 0.0
CM3 0.34 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
30F 0.50 14.1 12.1 8.1 6.0 4.0 8.0 7.0 5.0 4.5 2.5
30F2 30 0.40 8.1 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 7.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0
30F3 0.34 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.5
40F 0.50 22.2 12.1 10.1 6.0 4.0 12.0 8.0 6.5 6.0 5.0
40F2 SD 40 0.40 8.1 6.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 7.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 2.5
40F3 0.34 10.1 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 6.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.5
50F 0.50 26.2 14.1 10.1 10.1 6.0 13.0 10.0 9.5 8.0 6.0
50F2 50 0.40 8.1 6.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 9.0 7.0 5.0 4.0 3.5
50F3 0.34 14.1 8.1 4.0 3.0 2.0 10.0 6.0 3.5 3.0 2.0
C CM 50 0.50 10.1 8.1 6.0 4.0 2.0 14.0 10.0 8.0 6.5 6.0
BR BR 50 0.50 10.1 8.1 7.1 4.0 2.0 8.0 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.0
TB TB 50 0.50 12.1 10.1 8.1 6.0 4.0 12.5 11.0 8.5 6.0 6.0
RP RP 50 0.50 12.1 10.1 6.0 5.0 4.0 13.0 10.0 7.0 6.5 5.5
Control 1 20.1 - - - - - - - - -
Control 2 24.2 - - - - - - - - -
CC1 (X1) 18.1 - - - - - - - - -
CC1 (X2) 16.1 - - - - - - - - -
SD 50 0.50
CC2 (X1) 16.1 - - - - - - - - -
CC2 (X2) 6.0 - - - - - - - - -
CC3 (X1) 24.2 - - - - - - - - -
CC3 (X2) 23.2 - - - - - - - - -
68
69
12000
10000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
8000
6000
R2 = 0.1982
4000
2000
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
Strength (MPa)
7000
5000
4000
3000
2000
R2 = 0.3771
1000
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
Strength (MPa)
Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show the relationship between rapid chloride permeability and indoor
and outdoor carbonation at 90 days and 1 year. A linear trend line was fitted to the data
and at 90 days the R-square values for indoor carbonation was 0.25 and for outdoor
carbonation 0.25. At 1 year the R-square values for indoor was 0.19 and for outdoor 0.31.
Again there does not appear to be a strong relationship between rapid chloride
permeability and indoor and outdoor carbonation. Fly ash will tend to reduce
permeability (especially in well cured concrete) and increase carbonation (especially in
poorly cured concrete). For a given permeability the carbonation will be greatest in fly
ash concrete because there is less calcium hydroxide. Therefore, a good relationship is
not expected.
71
14
12
2
Outdoor R = 0.2469
2
Indoor R = 0.2548
10
Carbonation (mm)
8 Outdoor Carbonation
Indoor Carbonation
Linear Outdoor Carbonation
6 Linear Indoor Carbonation
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
14
2
Outdoor R = 0.3106
2
Indoor R = 0.1884
12
10
Carbonation (mm)
8 Outdoor Carbonation
Indoor Carbonation
Linear Outdoor Carbonation
6 Linear Indoor Carbonation
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the relationship between rapid chloride permeability and
carbonation at 90 days and 1 year, respectively. It is evident from both figures that for a
given permeability, concrete containing higher replacement levels of fly ash will yield
higher carbonation depths.
14
2
Control R = 0.0422
2
30% fly ash R = 0.5989
12
2
40% fly ash R = 0.6167
2
50% fly ash R = 0.4248
10
Carbonation (mm)
Control
fly ash 30%
8 fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
Linear Control
6 Linear 30% fly ash
Linear 40% fly ash
Linear 50% fly ash
4
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
RCPT (coulombs)
Figure 5.5 Rapid Chloride Permeability vs. Carbonation for Different Levels of Fly
Ash at 90 Days
73
14
2
Control R = 0.2634
2
30% fly ash R = 0.6389
12
2
40% fly ash R = 0.5439
2
50% fly ash R = 0.5434
10
Carbonation (mm)
Control
fly ash 30%
8 fly ash 40%
fly ash 50%
Linear Control
6 Linear 30% fly ash
Linear 40% fly ash
Linear 50% fly ash
4
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
RCPT (coulombs)
Figure 5.6 Rapid Chloride Permeability vs. Carbonation for Different Levels of Fly
Ash at 1 Year
One might expect a good relationship between permeability and carbonation. As the
permeability of the concrete is reduced by the addition of fly ash you would expect it to
become harder for CO2 to penetrate the concrete. However, fly ash reduces permeability
by reacting with Ca(OH)2. This reaction reduces the amount of material available for
reaction with CO2. Thus less CO2 has to penetrate to neutralize the concrete.
Figure 5.7 below shows the relationship between compressive strength and carbonation at
1 year. A linear trend line was fitted to the data and the R-squared values were 0.76 for
indoor carbonation and 0.74 for outdoor carbonation. Based on these relatively high R-
squared values it appears as though compressive strength is a better indicator of
carbonation depth than permeability.
74
14
2
Outdoor R = 0.7423
2
Indoor R = 0.7592
12
10
Carbonation (mm)
8 Outdoor Carbonation
Indoor Carbonation
Linear Outdoor Carbonation
6 Linear Indoor Carbonation
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
Strength (MPa)
environments such as bridge decks or marine structures where the extended exposure to
sufficient moisture during service would yield the desirable long-term properties of
HVFA concrete. Also, it should be noted that in relatively dry environments such as
underside of balconies, bridges, and soffits HVFA concrete would not achieve its long-
term strength and permeability properties and would be more susceptible to carbonation
induced corrosion. In consistently dry indoor environments, HVFA concrete will not be
expected to achieve long-term strength and impermeability, but its failure to do so is
probably inconsequential as such environments do not pose a significant threat to
concrete. Even if carbonation reaches the steel during the service life of the concrete,
there is unlikely to be sufficient moisture available to sustain corrosion.
Below are three figures that compare rapid chloride permeability data obtained in this
project with predicted rapid chloride permeability results from Master Builder’s software,
continuously moist cured for 28, 90, and 365 days. It should be noted that Master
Builder’s software only provides coulomb values ranging from 0 to 4000. If a defined
concrete has a RCPT greater then 4000 coulombs, the program returns an output of
4000+. To make a graphic comparison between the actual (Laboratory Tested) and
theoretical (Master Builder’s Prediction) RCPT, any actual or theoretical data above 4000
coulombs or 4000+ respectively was plotted at 4000 coulombs.
77
4500
4000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
3500
3000
1500
1000
500
0
CM
RP
C
2
TB
F2
F2
BR
F2
3
F3
F3
F3
30
40
50
CM
CM
30
40
50
30
40
50
Mixture Identification
Figure 5.9 Laboratory Tested vs. Master Builder's Prediction of RCPT at 28 Days
4500
4000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
3500
3000
1500
1000
500
0
CM
RP
C
2
TB
F2
F2
BR
F2
3
F3
F3
F3
30
40
50
CM
CM
30
40
50
30
40
50
Mixture Identification
Figure 5.10 Laboratory Tested vs. Master Builder's Prediction of RCPT at 90 Days
78
4500
4000
Rapid Chloride Permeability (coulombs)
3500
3000
1500
1000
500
0
CM 30F 40F 50F CM2 30F2 40F2 50F2 CM3 30F3 40F3 50F3
Mixture Identification
Figure 5.11 Laboratory Tested vs. Master Builder's Prediction of RCPT at 1 Year
As can be seen from the above figures, Master Builder’s software program is somewhat
effective at predicting actual RCPT data, with exceptions. The most notable exception
being the control mixes (CM, CM2, CM3) containing no fly ash. At all three test ages,
the actual RCPT results produced in the laboratory are higher then that predicted by
Master Builder’s software. With respect to the concrete containing fly ash, it appears as
though Master Builder’s model is somewhat successful at predicting general trends in
rapid chloride permeability test results.
compressive strength (28 day continuous moist cure) yields the following: BR, TB, CM,
SD, and finally RP. Ranking permeability (90 day continuous moist cure) from least to
most permeable yields: BR, TB, RP, SD, and finally CM. Although the compressive
strength rankings agree somewhat with the permeability rankings, there appears to be no
correlation with the carbonation rankings. Ranking the 90 day accelerated carbonation
depths from least to greatest penetrability for the 1 day cured samples reveals: BR,
RP/TB, CM, and finally SD. However, ranking the 90 day accelerated carbonation depths
from least to greatest penetrability for the 28 day cured samples reveals something
different: CM, RP/TB, BR, and SD. From this comparison it appears as though CM’s
carbonation performance is the most sensitive to moist curing. Ranking the 1 year
outdoor carbonation depths from least to greatest penetrability for the 1 day cured
samples displays: BR, TB, RP/SD, and finally CM. However, the 1 year outdoor
carbonation depths for the 28 day cured samples are essentially equal. So again, the same
trend is observed as was observed in the accelerated carbonation exposure, CM’s
carbonation performance is the most sensitive to moist curing. Since no correlation could
be concluded regarding fly ash composition and concrete performance, further research
should be conducted to determine the influence of fly ash composition on strength,
permeability, and carbonation.
The +d is necessary because for some mixes, k = 0. This is an artifact of the testing.
When tested at one year, some of the well-cured, low-W/CM mixes showed little
measurable carbonation. However, if these specimens were measured at later ages
(greater then two years) there would be some measurable carbonation, so k would not be
equal to zero.
When the above equation is verified using the data from Table 5.1, k values can be
predicted with confidence as can be seen from the Table 5.1[k (predicted)] and Figure
5.12. However a good relationship would be expected since the measured data were used
to produce the model.
15
y = 0.9984x
2
R = 0.8576
10
k (measured)
0
0 5 10 15
k (predicted)
The table and figure below demonstrate applying the aforementioned carbonation rate
predictive model to data obtained by Thomas (unpublished) in a previous study. As
expected, the equation predicts carbonation rates more accurately when applied to data
presented in this thesis rather then data presented in Dr. Thomas’s study. However, as
further carbonation data becomes available (for example, the 2 year carbonation
measurements) the model will be refined such that the predictive model will become
more reliable for predicting carbonation rates and depths.
83
15
y = 0.797x
2
R = 0.6849
10
k (measured)
0
0 5 10 15
k (predicted)
Figure 5.13 Predicted Carbonation Rate vs. Measured Carbonation Rate (Dr.
Michael Thomas)
18.0
y = 0.455x + 1.3545
R2 = 0.8837
16.0
14.0
k-Indoor (mm/year^0.5)
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
k-Accelerated (mm/year^0.5)
Figure 5.14 Relationship between Accelerated & Natural Indoor Carbonation Rates
16.0
y = 0.4591x + 0.1479
R2 = 0.912
14.0
12.0
k-Outdoor (mm/year^0.5)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
k-Accelerated (mm/year^0.5)
(14.2 mm/year1/2 at 90 days and 10.0 mm/year1/2 at 1 year) the initiation period is
reduced to 11 years.
The newest addition of CSA A23.1-04 specifies two designations for high volume fly ash
concrete. Concrete containing greater then 40% fly ash is referred to as HVSCM 1 and
concrete containing less then 40% fly ash but greater then 30% is referred to as HVSCM
2. In CSA A23.1-04, concrete exposed to F2 exposure must have 50mm of cover to
reinforcing steel, 25 MPa strength at 28 days for HVSCM 2 or 25 MPa strength at 56
days for HVSCM 1, a maximum W/CM of 0.55 for HVSCM 2 or a maximum W/CM of
0.50 for HVSCM 1, and 7 days curing or until the concrete has reached 70% of its design
strength. If the cover to the reinforcing steel is less then 50mm, then the W/CM must be
reduced as follows: 0.45 for HVSCM 2 and 0.40 for HVSCM 1. For a 50% fly ash
concrete, depth of cover of 50mm, 7 day cure, W/CM of 0.50, and a carbonation rate of
9.75 mm/year1/2 (see Table 4.10), the initiation period is 26 years. If the 50% fly ash
concrete has only 40mm of cover depth, the W/CM must be reduced to 0.40. The
carbonation rate for this concrete assuming 7 days of curing is 5.5 mm/year1/2 (6.0
mm/year1/2 at 90 days and 5.0 mm/year1/2 at 1 year) yielding an initiation period of 53
years. It should be pointed out that reducing W/CM is more effective at extending the
initiation period than increasing concrete cover.
In summary, the initiation period for a Portland cement concrete that meets the minimum
requirement of CSA A23.1-00 and CSA A23.1-04 for an F2 exposure is 256 years. The
initiation period for a 50% fly ash concrete that meets the minimum requirement of CSA
A23.1-00 is 11 years. However, the initiation period of a 50% fly ash concrete that meets
the requirements of CSA A23.1-04 is 26 years with a concrete cover of 50mm and W/CM
of 0.50; and 53 years with a concrete cover of 40mm and W/CM of 0.40. Therefore,
producing high volume fly ash concrete in accordance with the requirements presented in
CSA A23.1-04 will result in greater initiation periods and service life then HVFA
concrete produced with CSA A23.1-00. Although the revised standard is a step in the
right direction, these initiation periods are still too short, therefore there is need for
improvement. The poor performance of HVFA in the laboratory with regards to
carbonation should be confirmed by field exposure of larger samples. For example, larger
88
specimens should be constructed and placed on an exposure site. These specimens could
include suspended slab specimens to investigate carbonation of the top (exposed) surface
versus the bottom surface, exposed wall specimens to investigate windward versus
leeward exposure, and column specimens both exposed and covered.
Based on the equation that was developed in Section 5.5, guidelines have been produced
for the use of high volume fly ash concrete. The table below illustrates k values required
for a specific design life, given the depth of concrete cover to the reinforcing steel. The k
values were calculated using the equation d = kt1/2 or k = d/t1/2. As can be seen from
Table 5.3, a k value of 3.0 mm/y0.5 is necessary to achieve a 100 year design life with
30mm of cover, a k value of 5.0 mm/y0.5 is necessary to achieve a design life of 50 years
with 30mm of cover or a 75 year design life with 40mm of cover, a k value of 7.0
mm/y0.5 is necessary to achieve a 50 year design life with 40mm of cover or a 100 year
design life with 60mm of cover, and finally a k value of 10.0 mm/y0.5 is necessary to
achieve a design life of 50 years with 60mm of cover.
Table 5.3 k-Values for Various Values of Design Life & Cover
Design Life (years)
Cover Depth (mm)
50 75 100
30 5.07 3.87 3.25
40 6.76 5.16 4.34
50 8.45 6.45 5.42
60 10.14 7.75 6.51
Figures 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, and 5.19 illustrate the relationship between W/CM and curing
for a given percentage of fly ash necessary to achieve k values of 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, and 10.0
mm/y0.5, respectively.
89
K = 3.0 mm/y0.5
6
5
Curing (days)
0%
4
30% Fly ash
40% Fly Ash
50% Fly Ash
3
0
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60
W/CM
7
K = 5.0 mm/y0.5
5
Curing (days)
0%
4
30% Fly ash
40% Fly Ash
50% Fly Ash
3
0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
W/CM
K = 7.0 mm/y0.5
5
Curing (days)
0%
4
30% Fly ash
40% Fly Ash
50% Fly Ash
3
0
0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
W/CM
K = 10.0 mm/y0.5
5
Curing (days)
0%
4
30% Fly ash
40% Fly Ash
50% Fly Ash
3
0
0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
W/CM
As can be seen from the above figures, as the necessary k values increase, the curing and
W/CM requirements decrease. Although these figures suggest a W/CM in excess of 0.55
for concrete without fly ash is acceptable, this guideline only considers carbonation, other
durability problems would be encountered at W/CM above 0.55. The requirements are
not very demanding for concrete without fly ash. To see carbonation induced corrosion in
the field, concrete without fly ash would have to have very low concrete cover depths to
the reinforcing steel or be present in even a very old structure. This may explain why
carbonation is not thought to be a big problem in North America. The requirements
become more demanding very quickly when fly ash is incorporated. It therefore may not
be practical to use more than a moderate amount of fly ash in buildings with an extended
service life requirements and normal amounts of cover. To avoid carbonation-induced
corrosion when using HVFAC in buildings with a plus 50 year design life it is necessary
to pay close attention to all three aspects: cover, W/CM, and curing.
The above guidelines can function in two ways. First, given a specific concrete design,
the guidelines can predict the design life of that concrete in terms of carbonation, or
alternatively, given a specified design life the guidelines can be used to develop an
appropriate concrete design in terms of cover, W/CM, fly ash replacement, and curing.
Table 5.4 is an example of how the guidelines work. For example, given a cover depth of
50mm, a W/CM of 0.34, and a percent fly ash replacement of 50%, how many days cure
is required to achieve a 100 year service life?
Table 5.4 Concrete Qualities and Nominal Cover to Steel for 100 Year Service Life
Minimum
Curing
Service
Initiation Propagation Period Cover Depth % Fly Ash (days)
Exposure Life W/CM
Period (years) (years) (mm) Replacement (from
(years)
Figure
5.17)
F2 – Concrete in an
unsaturated
condition exposed to 100 85 15 50 0.34 50 4
freezing and thawing
but not to chlorides.
92
93
6.0 Conclusions
This project determined the factors that influence the properties of concrete with high
levels of fly ash and produced guidelines to ensure the safe and appropriate use of high-
volume fly ash concrete.
The conclusions of the project are as follows:
1. Increasing the water to cementitious material ratio decreases compressive
strength, increases permeability and increases carbonation rates.
2. At early ages (28 days), concrete containing fly ash at replacement levels of
30, 40, and 50% has lower compressive strength, higher permeability, and
higher carbonation rates then concrete containing no fly ash. However, at later
ages (90 days & 1 year), concrete containing fly ash at replacement levels of
30, 40, and 50% has lower permeability, but still lower compressive strengths
(if not continuously cured for 1 year) and higher carbonation rates then
concrete containing no fly ash.
3. Increasing the duration of moist curing for high-volume fly ash concrete
results in higher compressive strength, lower permeability, and lower
carbonation rates.
4. Strength, permeability, and carbonation values were all affected by fly ash
composition. However, from the data it is not possible to discern trends
between composition and performance.
5. Only one curing compound of the three tested was effective at slowing the
rate of carbonation. The most effective curing compound at slowing the rate
of carbonation was the curing compound CC2 (Type 2, Class B) with 2
applications. However, this conclusion is based on limited data and further
investigation is required to determine the effect of curing compounds on
carbonation rates.
6. Electrical resistivity correlates very well with rapid chloride permeability
testing. There is a better correlation with low permeable concrete than with
highly permeable concrete because of the heating effect that occurs during the
rapid chloride permeability test with high permeable concrete.
94
7.0 Recommendations
After completion of the project, the following recommendations for further research with
regards to high volume fly ash concrete are outlined below.
1. Annual testing of the indoor and outdoor exposed carbonation specimens produced
for this project should be continued for the next 10 years. Carbonation rates (k)
and the carbonation predictive model developed for this project should be updated
as annual data become available.
2. Methods of “internal curing” such as the incorporation of saturated lightweight
aggregate or water-absorbing polymers should be investigated.
3. The effects of curing on freeze-thaw resistance, deicer salt scaling resistance, and
drying shrinkage should be investigated.
4. Specimens made with HFVA concrete should be reinforced with steel and
measurements made to determine corrosion rates, once corrosion has initiated.
5. Micro structural studies should be conducted on paste and mortar samples to
provide the following information:
a. How curing affects the development of the pore structure using both
mercury intrusion porosimetry and image analysis of polished samples by
scanning electron microscopy.
b. How micro structural changes influence carbonation using microhardness,
scanning electron microscopy, and X-ray diffraction analysis.
c. How curing and carbonation influence water, vapor, and chloride transport
using magnetic resonance imaging measurements.
6. Field studies should be conducted on concrete structures built with relatively high
volumes of fly ash (greater than 40%) to determine strength, permeability, and
carbonation depths of HVFA concrete in the field.
7. Research should be conducted to determine if concrete consisting of high volume
supplementary cementing materials (HVSCM) made with slag are equally as
vulnerable as HVSCM made with fly ash.
8. Research should be conducted to determine the influence of fly ash composition on
strength, permeability, and carbonation. A study that included more ashes and
more detailed characterization of the ashes may address this.
96
8.0 References
ACI Committee 232. (2003). “Use of Fly Ash in Concrete”. ACI Manual of Concrete
Practice 232.2R-03.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (1975). ASTM C 595. “Standard
specification for blended hydraulic cements”. In Annual book of ASTM standards, Part
13. ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 353.
American Society for Testing and Materials. (2000). Standards on Disc, Vol. 04.02,
October 2000, Concrete and Aggregates. West Conshohocken, PA, United States.
C618-99 Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined
Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete
Berry, E.E., and Malhotra, V.M. (1986). “Fly Ash in Concrete”. Energy, Mines and
Resources Canada, CANMET, Ottawa, Canada.
Bilodeau, A., Malhotra, V.M., and Seabrook, P.T. (2001). “Use of High – Volume Fly
Ash Concrete at the Liu Centre”. Materials Technology Laboratory. January 2001.
98
Bilodeau, A., Zhang, M.H., Malhotra, V.M., and Golden, D.M. (1998). “Effects of
Curing Methods and Conditions on the Performance of Fly Ash Concrete in De-Icing Salt
Scaling”. Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag &
Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, ACI SP – 178-20, pp. 361-384, Bangkok, Thailand.
Bremner, T.W., and Thomas, M.D.A. (2004). “Learning Module on Traditional and Non-
Traditional Uses of Coal Combustion Products (CCP)”. http://www.unb.ca/civil/Bremner
& Thomas/ CIRCA/Webpages/Circa_1_Introduction.htm
Canadian Standards Association (2003). CSA A23.1 - 04, Clause 8.8, “Concrete Made
with a High-Volume of Supplementary Cementing Materials (HVSCM)”, pp. 96-98, 100-
117, 183-186.
Davis, R.E. (1954). “Pozzolanic materials – with special reference to their use in concrete
pipe”. Technical Memo, American Concrete Pipe Association.
De Spot, M. (2003). “The EcoSmart Concrete Project”. Presented at the USGBC (United
States Green Building Council) Greenbuild conference, Pittsburgh, November 12 – 14,
2003.
Estakhri, C.K., and Saylak, D. (2004). “Potential for Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions
in Texas Through the Use of High Volume Fly Ash Concrete”. Transportation Research
Board. November 15, 2004.
Gebauer, J. (1982). “Some observations on the carbonation of fly ash concrete”. Silicates
Industriel, 1982, No. 6, pp. 155-159.
Gillies, V. (2001). “The EcoSmart Concrete Project: Results from the Case Studies”.
Report prepared by Veronica Gillies of Busby + Associates Architects for the EcoSmart
Concrete Project Steering committee. July 2001.
Ho, D.W.S., and Lewis, R.K. “Carbonation of Concrete and its Prediction”. Cement
Concrete Research, 1987, 17, No. 3, pp. 489 – 504.
Hobbs, D.W. (1983). “Influence of Fly Ash on the Workability and Early Strength of
Concrete”. Proceedings, 1st International Conference on the Use of Fly Ash, Silica Fume,
Slag and other Mineral By-Products in Concrete. ACI SP – 79, pp. 289-306, Detroit,
Michigan.
Joshi, R.C., and Lohtia, R.P. (1997). “Fly Ash in Concrete – Production, Properties and
Uses”. Advances in Concrete Technology Volume 2. Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers, Printed in India.
Langley, W.S., and Leaman, G.H. (1998). “Practical Uses for High-Volume Fly Ash
Concrete Utilizing a Low Calcium Fly Ash”. Proceedings, 6th International Conference
on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, ACI SP – 178-30, pp.
545-574, Bangkok, Thailand.
Malhotra, V.M., and Mehta, P.K. (2002). “High – Performance, High – Volume Fly Ash
Concrete”. Supplementary Cementing Materials for Sustainable Development Inc.,
Ottawa, Canada.
Malhotra, V.M., and Ramezanianpour, A.A. (1994). “Fly Ash in Concrete, Second
Edition”. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, CANMET – Canadian Centre for
Mineral and Energy Technology.
Manmohan, D., and Mehta, P.K. (1981). “Influence of Pozzolzinc, Slag, and Chemical
Admixtures on Pore Size Distribution and Permeability of Hardened Cement Pastes”.
Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, V. 3, No. 1, pp. 63-67.
Matthews, J.D. (1984). “Carbonation of Ten-Year Old Concretes With and Without
PFA”. Procedings 2nd International Conference on Fly Ash Technology and Marketing.
London, 1984, Ash Marketing, CEGB, 398A.
Mehta, P.K. (2004). “High – Performance, High – Volume Fly Ash Concrete for
Sustainable Development”. Proceedings, International Workshop on Sustainable
Development and Concrete Technology, Beijing, May 20-21, 2004.
100
Mindess, S., Young, J.F., and Darwin, D. (2003). “Concrete, Second Edition”. Prentice
Hall, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Papadakis, V.G., Vayenas, C.G., and Fardis, M.N. (1991). “Fundamental Modeling and
Experimental Investigation of Concrete Carbonation”. ACI Materials Journal, V. 88, No.
4, July – August 1991.
Roberts, M.H. (1981). “Carbonation of Concrete Made with Dense Natural Aggregates”.
Building Research Establishment Information Paper, April 1981.
Smith, R.L., Raba, C.F., and Mearing, M.A. (1982). “Utilization of Class C Fly Ash in
Concrete”. 6th International Fly Ash Utilization Symposium, Reno, Nev., Mar., p.31.
Thomas, M.D.A., and Matthews, J.D. (1992). “Carbonation of Fly Ash Concrete”.
Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 44, No. 160, 1992, pp. 217-228.
Thomas, M.D.A. (2003). “Use of High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete in Green Buildings”.
Proceedings, Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering,
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, June 4-7, 2003, pp. ENM – 301 – 1-8.
Thomas, M.D.A. (2004). “The Effect of Curing and Concrete Quality on the Durability of
Concrete with High-Volumes of Supplementary Cementing Materials”. EcoSmart Curing
Project Progress Report. March 15, 2004.
Zhang, M.H., Bilodeau, A., Shen, G., and Malhotra, V.M. (1998). “De-Icing Salt Scaling
of Concrete Incorporating Different Types and Percentages of Fly Ashes”. Proceedings,
6th International Conference on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag & Natural Pozzolans in
Concrete, ACI SP – 178-28, pp. 493-525, Bangkok, Thailand.
101
CURRICULUM VITAE
Donald Burden
Universities attended:
Publications:
N/A
Conference Presentations:
N/A
Awards: