Salt Hydration
Distress
Observations on an unidentified or misidentified cause of concrete distress.
BY WILLIAM G. HIME, ROSS A. MARTINEK, LISA A. BACKUS, AND STELLA L. MARUSIN
W hen concrete, mortar, stone, or
stucco surfaces are exposed to
sodium sulfate solutions, deterioration
is often evidenced as white efflores-
cence and loss of surface. Our studies
of many of these occurrences have
shown that:
■ The mechanism of deterioration is
“salt hydration distress” (SHD), a
term we coined to best describe the
process, which essentially relates to
the repeated reconversions of
sodium sulfate between its anhy-
drous and hydrated forms. Conver-
sion of anhydrous sodium sulfate
(thenardite) to the decahydrate
(mirabilite) involves an expansion
of 317%;
■ The usual methods of investigation of
such instances of distress have
removed the very evidence for its
existence; and
■ As a consequence, the deterioration
is misidentified by others as “sulfate
attack,” “salt crystallization,” “salt
damp,” or “physical salt distress.”
Here we detail some reasons for
erroneous investigations and conclu-
sions, and our development of more
appropriate and definitive ones.
Historical background
Many of the original sulfate-attack
investigations involved field occur-
rences where concrete contacted soil
or water containing sodium sulfate. In
many instances the distress was
primarily or entirely above ground, a
clue that should have ruled out a strict
classical sulfate-attack mechanism.
Also, news of the effect of sodium
sulfate on other types of structures had
failed to reach the concrete technolo-
gists. For example, Gillmore1 noted in
1864 that “sulfate of soda acts like frost
in crystallizing” in brick and stone, and
that the effect was “favored by a humid
state,” and “was more prominently
Concrete international / OCTOBER 2001 43
Fig. 1: Aboveground
concrete-wall
deterioration of an
Adelaide home due
to salt hydration
distress
(Photo courtesy of
Koukourou Engineers,
Adelaide, South
Australia)
developed on the sea shore.” Schaffer2 concluded in 1932
that several instances of deterioration of building stones
above ground were associated with white salt efflores-
cence, and were caused by conversion of anhydrous
sodium sulfate to the decahydrate.
Reading, in summarizing Corps of Engineers’ work on
sulfate attack through 1975,3 stated that little deterioration
was observed where concrete was exposed to sulfate-laden
water, but distress was observed at drying surfaces,
apparently due to “repeated crystallization of sulfate salts.”
He followed up this work several years later4 and concluded
that most of the distress was due to sodium sulfate solu-
tion that “dries rapidly, forming salt crystals which pro-
duce an expansion and progressive shedding of the
concrete surface.”
In Australia, especially near Adelaide, aboveground
portions of concrete foundations and brick walls evidenced
distress at the evaporation front of salt solutions dissolved
from the soils (Fig. 1). Dozens of articles (e.g. 5, 6) on these
occurrences failed to disclose a mechanism, and the
phenomenon was termed “salt damp.” However, our
investigations of this distress in Australia found it to be due
to the repeated conversion of sodium sulfate between its
mineral forms, thenardite (anhydrous sodium sulfate) and
mirabilite (sodium sulfate decahydrate).
The natural occurrence of sodium sulfate in soil led
many investigators to do “sulfate attack” field studies using
sodium sulfate. For example, the enormous study by Miller
and Manson7 in 1951 employed wetting and drying of
specimens exposed to sodium sulfate or magnesium
sulfate. The Portland Cement Association’s extensive
Sacramento test plot studies8 included periodic exposure
44 OCTOBER 2001 / Concrete international
of half-buried concrete prisms to sodium sulfate solutions.
In 1989, Stark reported that the portions of the PCA prisms
embedded in the ground were in perfect condition, while
the aboveground portions were partly or completely
disintegrated.9 He speculated that conversion of thenardite
to mirabilite, not sulfate attack, caused the distress.
Recently Haynes, O’Neill, and Mehta10 investigated
aboveground distress in concrete structures in California,
and found it due to “physical attack by salts,” and “crystal-
lization of salts in pores.” They did not associate the
distress with conversion of thenardite to mirabilite, but did
point out that the procedures of ASTM C 88, “Soundness of
Aggregates by Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate”
employ the same process. Since the deterioration caused
by those tests occurs with aggregate, and do not involve
portland cement, it’s obvious that the classical term,
“sulfate attack,” is a misnomer for this distress mechanism.
Novak and Colville11 in 1989 correctly surmised that
“phase transformation between thenardite and mirabilite”
may be a cause of degradation of surfaces of concrete slabs
in Southern California. Mather,12 in 1992, commented that
an incidence of deterioration evidenced as sodium sulfate
efflorescence and surface loss was “entirely physical” and
due to the volume increase occurring when anhydrous
sodium sulfate converts to the decahydrate. He pointed
out that Binda and Baronio in 1987 found that conditions
for such conversion occurred every month of the year in
Milan, Italy.
Irassar et al.14 in 1997 investigated concrete specimens
half-buried in soils containing sodium sulfate, and con-
cluded that they disintegrate aboveground. Although they
termed it “salt crystallization” they correctly credited it to
thenardite-mirabilite conversion and stated that much of
the world’s studies have improperly attributed such
distress to “chemical sulfate attack.”
Hime and Mather15 in 1999 pointed out that sodium
sulfate could cause several types of distress, including
those due to thenardite-mirabilite conversions, salt
crystallization, and gypsum and ettringite formation, and it
is important to distinguish between these mechanisms. For
example, use of Type II or V cements will do nothing to
prevent SHD because there is no chemical reaction be-
tween sulfate and aluminate components in hydrated
portland cements.

Recognition problems
We believe there are two major problems in recognizing
SHD. The first involves the nomenclature. As noted above, Fig. 2: Sodium sulfate efflorescence on the stem wall of an
Adelaide home
the thenardite-mirabilite conversion has been termed “salt
crystallization,” “physical attack by salts,” “salt damp,”
and, completely improperly, “sulfate attack.”
■ “Salt crystallization” is improper because it implies that a
salt crystallizing from solution will cause distress. The
literature is ambivalent on this, but some investigators
indicate that crystallization of a salt from supersaturated
solution can cause distress. Whether or not this phenom-
enon played a role in any of these investigated cases is
not certain.
■ “Physical attack by salts” implies a much more general
process than SHD does, and doesn’t tell how the attack
exhibits itself, or how the distress develops.
■ “Salt damp” has no readily determinable meaning.
■ “Sulfate attack” is improper, not only because the
thernardite-mirabilite conversion doesn’t do what classic Fig. 3: Salt hydration distress just inside the garage of an
sulfate attack does — cause deleterious formation of Orange County home. Some SHD also occurs near shrinkage
cracks in the garage
ettringite — but also because no sulfate ion reactions
occur with SHD.
The second problem is that the mechanics of investiga-
tion often remove all the evidence for the cause of the
distress. The sodium sulfate can be dissolved from the
sample due to coring water and to water used in cutting,
polishing, and thin-section preparation.

Investigations of SHD incidences

The distress
Our investigations of Adelaide and Orange County
homes show similar distress in aboveground portions of
concrete foundations, mortar, and stucco—occurrences of
a white salt a few inches above the ground level, with
occasional loss of concrete or stucco surface at the level of
the salt deposits (Fig. 2). In addition, salt deposits and
Fig. 4: Excavation of dirt beside an Adelaide home demon-
concrete loss often occur in the garage slab about 2 in. strated that there was no deterioration of the belowground
(50 mm) from the joint between it and the driveway (Fig. 3). foundation wall. Petrographic and scanning electron micro-
Adelaide has many brick buildings where the salt line is scope studies of the core in the distressed aboveground area
revealed salt hydration distress but no sulfate-attack damage.
evident on basement walls or on brick walls, with deterio- (Photo courtesy of Koukourou Engineers, Adelaide, South Australia)
ration of both mortar and brick. In either case, no deterio-
ration appears in the belowground concrete (Fig. 4). “Mediterranean-climate” environmental exposures.
Analyses of the efflorescent salts in both locations revealed Adelaide is almost exactly the same latitude south of the
thenardite, mirabilite, or both. equator as Orange County is north of it. Both have oceans to
Adelaide and Orange County have almost identical the west, soils that contain sodium sulfate in concentrations

Concrete international / OCTOBER 2001 45


Fig. 5: Temperature and humidity stability ranges for thenardite
and mirabilite (from Ref. 11)
as high as several thousand parts per million, and undergo
almost daily changes in temperature and humidity that
would convert thenardite to mirabilite and back again
(Fig. 5, from Ref. 11).
Our first investigations of Orange County concrete
cores, taken at the line of salt deposits and surface loss,
failed to reveal a cause for distress. We found no sodium
sulfate, no gypsum, and—with a single exception—no
ettringite. There was no distress below ground. Because
some of the soils were quite acidic (pH as low as 3 due to
oxidation of pyrite in the soil) and because coring water
had dissolved most of the salts (Fig. 6), we attributed
concrete surface loss to acid attack or leaching. It was only
after visiting Adelaide, along with fortuitous sampling and
core handling, that we realized we had missed the sodium
sulfate. As a consequence, we refined our analytical
procedures to better allow proper identification of the
distress mechanism.
General considerations
SHD requires two conditions to affect natural stone,
brick, stucco, and concrete:
1. The surface of the substrate must cycle in relative
humidity, or a portion of it must occasionally be wet
while an immediately adjacent area is relatively dry. This
latter condition would exist for a structure such as a
46 OCTOBER 2001 / Concrete international
Fig. 6: Coring water removed all surface salts in the area of the
stem wall with salt hydration distress
partially exposed foundation in an arid to semiarid
climate, particularly if the adjacent soil is irrigated; and
2. The salt must have at least two hydration states, and be
readily able to change between them, preferably repeat-
edly. One of the hydrate forms must have a greater
volume than the unhydrated (or lower-hydrate) form.
The salt must also be readily soluble in water. One such
salt is sodium sulfate, which can cycle between the
anhydrous state (thenardite) to the fully hydrated state
(mirabilite) with changes in temperature, relative
humidity, or both. Conversion of thenardite to mirabilite
causes a 317% increase in volume. Although our studies
have primarily involved the thenardite-mirabilite system,
any salt with these characteristics may produce similar
effects. Sodium carbonate, which can convert at normal
ambient conditions from the monohydrate to the 7- or 10-
hydrate forms, is another SHD example that we have
found. The usual change, from the monohydrate to the 7-
hydrate, causes a 91% increase in volume. Anhydrite-
hemihydrite-gypsum is not such a system. The hydrate
state is not reversible at normal atmospheric conditions.
Sampling
To properly investigate concrete distress where SHD is a
potential contributor, it is necessary to:
1. Secure soil samples* adjacent to the concrete foundation
where efflorescence and surface loss occurs. Analyze the
soils for water-soluble sulfate concentration (we recom-
mend a 20:1 water-soil extraction ratio) and for identifica-
tion of soluble salts, using X-ray diffractometry on the
evaporated extracts;
2. Secure efflorescence salts for analyses by X-ray
diffractometry. Using a small brush or double-stick-tape
works well; and
3. Secure concrete samples from the affected areas. Four-
inch (100 mm) cores are useful, but larger cores are
better. Coring water has the potential to wash out much
*Federal law restricts the movement of soil in certain areas,
including Orange County, Calif. Prior to obtaining samples check
with the USDA or a laboratory with a soil permit.
 of the sulfate salts (Fig. 6). Avoid using excess water
during coring. Quickly rinse the cores without wiping
them, and place them in a sealed plastic container or a
plastic bag with a sealable closure.
Recommended investigative
techniques
Petrography
SHD may be initially evidenced as a white, water-
soluble, efflorescence that occurs on portions of concrete
(or stucco, brick, or mortar) surfaces. Often the first
indication is the formation of shallow spalls and flakes on
the surfaces, usually less than 1 mm (0.04 in.) in depth and
up to several millimeters wide. These spalls frequently
occur over fine aggregate particles. Where the spall is
incipient (that is, it hasn’t completely broken free of the
parent concrete), microscopic deposits of the salt may be
present in a ring around the perimeter of the particle. As
deterioration continues, the spalls spread together and
deepen. In later stages of distress, individual spalls and
flakes may be up to 3 mm (0.1 in.) deep and approximately
10 mm (0.4 in.) in lateral extent. At this stage, aggregate
particles that have imbibed the sodium sulfate solutions
may become fractured (essentially by the process of ASTM
C 88, “Soundness of Aggregate by Use of Sodium Sulfate or
Magnesium Sulfate”). Fractures are generally subparallel to
the exposed aggregate surface. Porous aggregate particles
at or near the surface are particularly affected.
Distress occurs on those portions of the concrete that
experience frequent drying and wetting. Relative humidity
changes can also cause hydrate state changes, as is
indicated in the following X-ray diffraction section. Subsur-
face concrete that is continuously moist is not affected by
SHD, nor is concrete that remains dry.
The surface features left when SHD is caused by sodium
sulfate are usually sharp and angular, with distinct and
well-defined intercepts with aggregate particles and air
voids. The cement paste is unaffected, showing no alter-
ation other than carbonation. Secondary ettringite is
generally not present, or is present only in small amounts,
since primary ettringite is unstable in carbonated cement
paste and the development of secondary ettringite re-
quires prolonged exposure to moisture. Such exposure is
likely to dissolve and remove the active salt.
Where exposure is sufficiently severe, abundant exuda-
tions of the salt may occur after the sample is cut and
lapped in water and then allowed to dry out slowly at room
temperature at a sufficiently low humidity. Such manifesta-
tions may occur even if no physical distress is yet evident,
depending on exposure conditions. This makes collection
and identification of the salt by X-ray diffraction easy.
In many cases, the amount of recoverable salt from a
sample may be too small for any usual method of identifi-
cation. Moderate amounts may be obtained by water
extraction from the surface. These can be dried on a slide
and identified optically. More often, particle mounts of the
miniscule amounts present will have to be used. The
optical characteristics of thenardite and mirabilite can
sometimes be confused with those of ettringite and
gypsum, especially when crystal size is very small. How-
ever, distinctions can be made based on careful study (see
“Crystal Characteristics”).
In concretes affected by SHD, some investigators have
reported the presence of microscopic lenses of gypsum
near the exposed surface. This may be due to reaction of
sodium sulfate with calcium hydroxide from the cement
paste, to decomposition of ettringite when the cement
paste carbonates, to gypsum-bearing aggregates, or simply
Crystal characteristics
Ettrin gi
ringi
gitte (Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12•24H2O) is in the
hexagonal crystal system. The crystal habit is fibrous
to columnar, almost always the former in concrete.
The natural mineral is uniaxial positive with nω=1.491,
nε =1.470, length fast.16 However, indices of refraction
usually found in concrete range from nω=1.464, nε
=1.458 to nω=1.469, nε=1.462.17 Winchell18 gives
optical data for Ca6Al2(SO4)3(OH)12•26H2O as uniaxial
negative with nω=1.464, nε=1.458. The indices
increase with partial dehydration, nε more rapidly
then nω, resulting in a change in optic sign. Ettringite
formed from solution has the latter composition.
Thenardi
henardit te (Na2SO4) is orthorhombic. The
crystal habit is fibrous (frequently curved), short
prismatic, dipyramidal, or in basal plates. It is biaxial
positive with nβ=1.473 to 1.477, nα=1.464 to 1.471, and
nγ=1.481 to 1.485; 2V≅83°, weak dispersion, r > v. In
masses of microcrystalline to cryptocrystalline
crystals—as in secondary deposits—it may appear
either length fast or length slow. Thenardite is soluble
in water.19
From this optical data, it’s obvious that the two
minerals are readily distinguishable if sufficient
optical data can be obtained. However, when present
as microcrystalline to cryptocrystalline deposits in
and on concrete, they are easily confused visually.
Only the slight difference in habit may provide a clue
to the wary petrographer. Furthermore, in the pres-
ence of sufficient moisture, thenardite converts to
mirabilite with a change in optical properties. If
examined soon enough after wetting, mirabilite is
identifiable, and confirms the original presence of
thenardite.
Mirabili
Mirabilit te (Na2SO4•10H2O) is monoclinic with
a prismatic-acicular to granular habit. It is biaxial
negative with nβ=1.410, nα=1.396, and nγ=1.419;
2V=76; and strong crossed dispersion, v > r.20
Winchell21 gives slightly different indices and reports
weak r > v with strong crossed dispersion. As
mirabilite loses water, its refractive indices increase
as it reverts to thenardite, which is probably the
reason for variation in reported optical properties.
Concrete international / OCTOBER 2001 47
 Fig. 7: Backscatter image at 1100X and 4000X, and X-ray
analysis of pure sodium sulfate
Fig. 8: Backscatter image at 92X and 260X, and X-ray
analysis of a trace of sodium sulfate deposit on an
exposed concrete surface
to dissolution of gypsum in the contacting soil and
reprecipitation in voids and on surfaces of the substrate.
Such reprecipitation does not cause distress.
Scanning electron microscopy
As noted above, both forms of sodium sulfate crystals
are very soluble in water and may be washed out of the
exposed concrete surfaces, leaving such a small amount
that they can’t be readily identified by petrographic
examination, wet chemical analyses, or X-ray diffraction
analyses. Coring, sawing, and lapping water can also
dissolve away salts from the original concrete surfaces.
In many cases, trace amounts of sodium sulfate on
48 OCTOBER 2001 / Concrete international
Fig. 9: Backscatter image at 24X and 180X of sodium
sulfate crystals and aggregate particle, and their X-ray
elemental analysis
scaled surfaces can only be identified by using scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) and associated X-ray
analysis procedures.
To obtain a valid analysis, SEM images and X-ray
elemental analyses should preferably be of samples
taken from original scaled surfaces not altered by wet
cutting or grinding.
An X-ray elemental analysis can’t distinguish between
thenardite and mirabilite. For comparison purposes, the X-
ray analysis of a laboratory standard of pure sodium sulfate
is given in Fig. 7.
Fig. 8 shows an example of SEM analysis of a trace
amount of sodium sulfate on an exposed concrete surface,
and Fig. 9 shows a backscatter (BS) image of clusters of
sodium sulfate crystals among aggregate particles.
X-ray diffractometry
If enough salt can be recovered, X-ray diffraction is often
the easiest and most definitive method for identifying the
salt on concrete, brick, stone, or mortar surfaces, or in the
soil (after water-extraction, filtration, and evaporation). For
identification, the X-ray scan of the sample is compared to
known references. For example, thenardite has major peaks
at d-spacings of 2.78, 4.66, 3.08, 3.18, 2.65 and mirabilite at
5.49, 3.21, 3.26, 3.11, 4.77. If using Cu Kα radiation, these
correspond to 2θ values of 32.12, 19.03, 28.99, 28.03, 33.83,
and of 16.13, 27.77, 27.33, and 28.68, respectively. At typical
laboratory conditions, (about 20 C [68 F] and less than 60%
relative humidity) thenardite is the stable form of these
two sodium sulfate compounds. Since these two mineral
forms readily convert to the most stable form for a given
temperature and relative humidity, the thenardite mineral
is the one usually identified by X-ray diffraction, even if the
mirabilite form was present at the site.
On occasion, if the material was sampled in the field,
transferred to the laboratory in a sealed plastic bag (or
other sealed container) and analyzed immediately upon
opening, mirabilite (if originally present) may be detected.
Depending on the laboratory temperature and relative
humidity, and the X-ray scan time, the mirabilite may
convert to thenardite during a scan, making interpretation
more difficult. A second run can then be performed, if
necessary. Conversely, if the laboratory is humid,
thenardite can convert to mirabilite. When we purposely
placed our laboratory samples in higher or lower humidity
for 2 hours and then analyzed them, they had converted
from mirabilite to thenardite, or vice versa. Regardless, the
finding of either thenardite or mirabilite indicates that,
given the necessary environmental conditions, conversion
will take place, resulting in SHD.
SHD summary and distress symptoms
Salt hydration distress, SHD, is caused by changes in the
hydration state, and the accompanying volume changes, of
salts that may accommodate different numbers of water
molecules in their structures, and for which the hydration
process is readily reversible under the temperature and
humidity conditions at the site. Many of the salts involved
are sulfates, but sodium carbonate and other salts may also
cause this type of distress.
SHD is in the form of thin (0.1 mm) to relatively thick
(30 mm) delaminations from the exterior surface. One or
more forms of the salt involved may be present as exudates
on the original surface or on fracture surfaces. In the latter
case, the most likely location is just under partial or
incipient spalls or flakes.
Salts causing SHD are usually readily soluble, and can
sometimes be dissolved from the surface of a sample and
deposited on a glass slide. Applying water to a concrete
core, followed by drying, may also bring the salts to the
surface. It’s very difficult to find these salts within the
cement paste system because they’re extremely small and
highly soluble. Coring, sawing, and lapping water can
readily dissolve salts from original and treated surfaces.
If the salt is a sulfate, such as thenardite-mirabilite, it
may react with calcium compounds to produce gypsum
lenses near the surface. Later reaction between the gypsum
and the portland cement paste may produce classic sulfate
attack, although evidence for it is almost invariably lacking.
Gypsum and ettringite, however, can be present even when
no sulfate attack has occurred. Indeed, ettringite is often a
ubiquitous paste component of most uncarbonated
concrete, and occurs in voids in virtually any uncarbonated
concrete structure exposed to water.
Petrographic microscopy, scanning electron microscopy,
and X-ray diffractometry, collectively, or on occasion singly,
can usually identify the involved salt minerals, but often
only when appropriate care is used to prepare the sample.
References
1. Gillmore, Q. A., “Limes, Hydraulic Cements and Mortars,”
Papers on Practical Engineering, V. 5, No. 9, Engineer Department,
New York, 1864.
2. Schaffer, R. J., “The Weathering of Natural Building Stones,” Special
Report No. 18, Building Research, Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research, London, 1932, 139 pp.
3. Reading, T. J., “Combating Sulfate Attack in Corps of Engineers
Concrete Construction,” Durability of Concrete, SP-47, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1975, pp. 343-366.
4. Reading, T. J., “Physical Aspects of Sodium Sulfate Attack on
Concrete,” Sulfate Resistance to Concrete, SP-77, American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1982, pp. 76-81.
5. Coventry, L. S., Salt Damp – Its Origin, Location and Nature,
Conference on Salt Damp in Buildings, Adelaide, 1978, 19 pp.
6. Anonymous, Rising Damp and Salt Attack, Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, City of Adelaide, 1995, 21 pp.
7. Miller, D. W., and Manson, P. W., “Long Term Tests of Concretes
and Mortars Exposed to Sulfate Waters,” Bulletin No. 194, University of
Minnesota, May 1951.
8. McMillan, F. R.; Stanton, T. E.; Tyler, I. L.; and Hansen, W. C.,
“Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils,” Long Term Study of Cement
Performance in Concrete, Bulletin 30, Research Laboratories of the
Portland Cement Association, Chicago, Ill., Dec. 1949, 64 pp.
9. Stark, D., “Durability of Concrete in Sulfate-Rich Soils,” PCA
Research and Development, Bulletin RD 097.01T, Skokie, Ill., 1989, 14 pp.
10. Haynes, H.; O’Neill, R.; and Mehta, P. K., “Concrete Deterioration
from Physical Attack by Salts,” Concrete International, V. 18, No. 1, Jan.
1996, 63-68 pp.
11. Novak, G. A., and Colville, A. A., “Efflorescent Mineral Assem-
blages Associated with Cracked and Degraded Residential Concrete
Foundations in Southern California,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 19, No. 1, Jan. 1989, pp.1-6.
12. Mather, B., “Concrete Deterioration, East Los Angeles County
Area: Case Study,” Performance of Constructed Facilities, ASCE 6, No. 1,
Feb. 1992, pp. 66, 67.
13. Binda, L., and Baronio, G., “Mechanisms of Masonry Decay
Due to Salt Crystallization,” Durability of Building Materials, V. 4,
1987, pp. 227-240.
14. Irassar, E. F.; Di Maio, A.; and Batie, O. R., “Deterioration of
Concrete and Mineral Admixtures Due to Sulfate Salt Crystallization,”
Supplementary Papers, Fourth CANMET International Conference on
Durability of Concrete, Sydney, Australia, 1997, pp. 507-517.
15. Hime, W. G., and Mather, D., “‘Sulfate Attack,’ or Is It?” Cement
and Concrete Research, V. 29, 1999, pp. 789-791.
16. Phillips, W. R., and Griffen, D. T., Optical Mineralogy, The
Nonopaque Minerals, Freeman, San Francisco, Calif., 1981, p. 436.
17. ASTM C 856, “Standard Practice for Petrographic Examination
of Hardened Concrete,” ASTM V. 4.02, Concrete and Aggregate,
American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
Pa., 1997.
18. Winchell, A. N., and Winchell, H., Microscopical Characters of
Artificial Inorganic Solid Substances: Optical Properties of Artificial
Minerals, Republication of the Third Edition, McCrone Research
Institute, Chicago, Ill., 1989, p. 436.
19. Phillips, op cit, p. 472; Winchell, op cit, p. 125.
20. Phillips, op cit, p. 556.
21. Winchell, op cit, p. 136.
Received and reviewed under Institute publication policies.
Concrete international / OCTOBER 2001 49
 W i l li am G. Hime, FACI, is a principal of
liam
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
(WJE). He has nearly 50 years’ experience
in the analyses of cement and concrete,
and the study of distressed structures. He
has published more than 50 articles and
chapters relating to his work and studies.
Ross AA.. M ar
Mar tinek is a senior petrographer
artinek
with WJE and a licensed professional
geologist in Illinois. He is a member of ACI
and is active on several ASTM committees.
A former geochemist, he has more than 20
years of experience in the examination and
analysis of concrete and the investigation
of distressed concrete. He has authored or
co-authored several papers on various
aspects of the application of geological
methods to materials science.
50 OCTOBER 2001 / Concrete international
Li
Lissa A
A.. B ac
Bac
ackku s is the director of chemical
and physical laboratory services at WJE.
She has more than 27 years’ experience in
the study of construction material failures.
Her expertise includes analyses of
efflorescence, mortars (modern and
historic), concrete, plasters, and stucco,
and studies of corrosion and distressed
cementitious materials.
St el
elll a L. M
Stel aru
Maru
aruss in, FACI, is a consultant at
WJE. She has performed numerous studies
related to concrete durability, including
field investigations and chemical and
scanning electron microscopy analyses.
She has published about 90 papers
related to her research and investigations.