IP 15/92 ‘ : BRE Information Paper ug 02 Latest research information and how to apply it cuss q(R8) Assessing the risk of sulphate attack on concrete in the ground WH Harrison BRE recently published a 15-year interim report on a long-term field and laboratory study of the sulphate resistance of concrete, 11 has also revised ity Digest on recommendations for the use of concrete in sulphate soils and groundwaters. This I jon Paper links the data given in the report and the Digest, and explains how recent results from various research programmes have been built into the revised tables of recommendations. It will be of interest to specifiers, consultants and all concerned with concrete technology. INTRODUCTION Most Portland cement conere the mineral ettingite, from the reaction of sulphate with any ina sulphate-beuring hydrated tricale soil is susceptible to sulphate attack, but in many cases the “common but equally desteuetive form of attack, the sulphate rctual amount of attack on good quality conerete has heen So uppears to combine with hydrated calcium silicate in the small, even after many years exposure. as to be practically presence of water and finely divided internal earhonate, to impossible to detect, In contnis, some types of conereie ‘exposed in particular ways can he completely destroyed ina relatively short period Sulphate attacks the hydrated coment, disrupting the comerete and often causing i to expand with a force which cain exert considerable pressure an any adjacent part of a structure, The attack is generally related to the formation of kos Ave Ey 285 kgm? g 2 oenp the mineral thaumasite, The mechanism of this hatter process snl the particule conditions under which i occurs TThis paper discusses the effect of the composition and type o ceonerete and its mode of expost o different types of sulphate soil on its lability 1 attack (Figure 1), Some indications of the rate of sulphate movement into different “a mp wo Ot = mle capth to Sample death (rn Sere dopty im Sale pts (ra Figure 1 Penetration of sulphate int various types of comers afer 15 yeur’ exposure to the groundwater atthe Northwick Park test te Building Research Establishment Garston, Watlo, WO2 7IR Telephone 0923 894040types of concrete have been obtained from samples retrieved after 15 years ina fied experiment cartied out in a sulphate- bearing elay soil at Northwick Park near Harrow in Midalesex. The slow rate of sulphate attack on well compacted concrete was confirmed by finding no loss in Compressive strength. A report ofthis experiment has recently been published by BRE! BRE also publishes a Digest? giving recommendations for concrete in sulphate-bearing soils and groundwaters. Ths has recently been revised to take account of the results of the Northssick Park experiment and of other research carried out at BRE and elsewhere ‘The revised Digest retains the concept of classifying a site by acing it in one of five classes according 1o the level of sulphate in the soil or groundwater. Also unchanged is the recommendation that castin-situ conerete be fully compacted and that it should have progressively higher cement contents and lower watericement ratios as the site classification increases from ] 104, with the filth class additionally requiring suttace protection. Only certain ‘cements are listed as suitable for use in classes 3t0 5. and only sulphate-resisting Portland cement is considered satisfactory for use in classes 4 and 5 ifa high proportion of the sulphate is present as the magnesium sat, ‘The principal change in this revision of the Digest relates to site reclassification procedures to accommodate variations in the type of exposure and in the type of concrete. Where field tests or site investigations have cevealed a particularly ‘onerous condition of exposure (for example acidic ‘groundwater or a hydrostatic head acting on one face of the concrete), a recommendation is made to increase the site lassfication. This will then automatically requie a higher ‘quality conerete. Similarly, some exposure conditions can lead to a class reduction. Some reclassification according to the type of concrete has also been introduced, MOVEMENT OF SULPHATE IN SOIL, Sulphate can be transported through soil only in the presence bf water, in which it must be soluble. Insoluble sulphate salts are therefore harmless to conerete and the risk of attack increases with the solubility. When water moves through the soil it carries the sulphate anions and associated cations (usually ealeium, magnesium or sodium) with it. The ions can also move through static water by diffusion, for which the driving force is concentration gradient, Such a gradient could arse, for instance. when sulphate is removed from groundwater in the immediate vicinity of conerete by reaction with the components of the hydrated cement. A. continuous water phase is all that is necessary for thi process. soa soil which feels just moist to the touch could permit the slow transport of sulphate ions. ‘The permeability ofthe soil plays a key role in both methods of sulphate movement, but its a difficalt parameter o guantfy in terms which will usefully cover all the possibilities “which can arise on sites where concrete will be used, These ‘may range [rom an unfissured heavy clay soil to a sandy soil ‘with a high water-table or those. even more difficult to deal with, where the two conditions coexist as in the experimental site at Northwick Park, Here. a heavy London clay contains discontinuous sandy fissures, allowing limited horizontal flow of water as soon as the sol is disturbed. A. ‘relatively high water table (1 m) was found in boreholes bu. because of the discontinuous nature of the fissures ‘measurement of the soil permeability on site indicated a low value of 15 x 10° mis. leading toa horizontal water movement on this site of only 100 mm a year. The refill rate of the holes used for water sampling was high, however. and percolation of water into tral pts was soon evident. Large quantities of water were elearly present, with the ability to carry sulphate to any concrete placed in such a soil In the Digest some limited recognition of the effect of soil permeability has been introduced to the site classification procedure, by allowing a reduetion of one class ifa site is judged to be nominally dry or the water is judged to be static in a soil type having a permeability less than 10-5 ov. This value relates 10 the soi classification given in Figure 6 of British Standard BS 8004, TYPE OF EXPOSURE Sulphate will enter concrete in the same ways that it moves ‘through soil, Water can carry it in, in two ways, depending on the form of the construction, When moisture is lost from one face of the conerete. this can induce replacement water from the face in contact with the sol. This condition eam happen in basement, embankment or retaining walls, but the concrete ‘quality given in the tables of recommendations in the Digest is generally good enough to resist significant sulphate penetration unless a second factor is present. This is the presence of s hydraulic head, creating sufficient pressure to force water, albeit slowly, through the conerete. Few factual data are available on adltional precautions whieh mig prevent penetration in these circumstances, but several European Standards recommend additional protection if a hydraulic head greater than five times the concrete thickness is created. This has been adopted in the Digest, which recommends that the site classification be ineveased by one class, thereby effectively increasing the concrete quali required and so reducing its permeability Some indication of the depth of penetration of sulphate into fully compacted conerete subject to.a hydraulic head slight exceeding the five-times-the-thickness criterion, was obtained from the walls of an experimental basement at the Northwick Park site. Various types of cement and cement contents were used to construct separate vertical concrete panels forming the long walls ofthe rectangular chamber: Figure 1(a) illustrates results obtained from cores cut from fully compacted mixes made with ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and cast directly against the clay face. It shows the depth of sulphate penetration in the 250-mm thick walls after years, and the marked reduction in penetration with the better quality concretes. An extreme case of the effect of water loss from one face of conerete being replenished by sulphate water entering from another i that of conerete floors cast directly onto fill ‘material contaminated with sulphate, Relatively high rates of evaporation are possible, particularly in heated buildings, and a rapid build-up of sulphate within the concrete can ‘occur, Many costly failures of conerete floors cast on sulphate-containing fill in domestic and business premises bear witness to the high risk inthis area. Special advice is given in the Digest. As the conerete used in these floors is, often of inferior quality and thinner in section than structural concrete, the emphasis is placed on preventing the sulphate contacting the concrete. An impervious membrane is used. ln the unheated and unvented Northwick Park basement. a high relative humidity was maintained and the build-up rates in the 250-mm structural quality concretes ofthe floor slabs were not excessive, being similar to those in the wall panels, subject to the same hydraulic head,TYPE OF CONCRETE Concretes should be designed to use available materials to produce a mix that is sufficiently workable to ensure full compaction (expelling all the air entrapped during placing but retaining the tiny air bubbles created by the use of ai centraining admixtures). Failure to achieve full compaction renders the concrete more liable to sulphate attack as the air pockets are filled with groundwater. so providing ready access of sulphate to the interior. This was demonstrated at the experimental site by comparing the penetration of ‘sulphate in fully compacted precast concrete eylindess and in cylinders from the same mix but uncompacted (see Fig [(b)). The Digest states that poorly compacted concrete designed for full compaction is nat acceptable for sulphate resistanee The fow penetration rate indicated for well compacted concrete means that for high quality mass conerete some tolerance could fe intracced. In the Digest. for concrete over 450) mm thick a reduction in the classification of one classi allowed, Conversely. for concrete under 140) min thick, an increase in the classification by one class is required ‘On dense well compacted concrete with a smooth finish. & short period of airstorage. after the normal curing procedure has been completed, gives & thin carbonated layer which resists the penetration of sulphate’, Improved sulphate resistance from carbonation has been recognised for many years, and was convincingly demonstrated by cores taken from the walls of the experimental basement. The panels of the east wall were cast directly against the clay face. The panels of the west wall were cast from the same mixes but in free-standing shuttering. After curing and demouiding the panels ofthis wall were lett for several weeks betore the clay ‘was backfilled against thesn. The nesligible sulphate penetration of these panels compared with those on the east side, even For 285 kg/m eement content concrete, is shown in Figure 1(¢). Smooth faced precast concrete units, employed as ground beams, wall units or piles, and which, after normal curing, have heen exposed to air but protected from rain for several weeks, are allowed a reduction of ome class in the Digest. Pressed concrete blocks are made from semi-dry conerete, ‘often with a fairly open texture to give a good appearance, lightness and better thermal insulation. Sorte types of block are permitted below the ground-level damp-proof course (pe) and, while there have been no reports of failures, there has hitherto been no satisfactory criterion on which to base their suitability in sulphate soils. The use of sulphate- resisting cement is recommended only in fully compacted ‘onerete, with a minimum cement content far in excess of that generally used in blocks. Because they are precast products, they will have an opportunity to airearbonate before use below ground, but their open texture cannot provide the continuous thin layer Which appears to protect ‘normal moulded conercte. The openness of the surtace, however, will allow atmospheric carbon dioxide to penetrate the concrete rapidly and, provided that the internal pore structure is allowed to dry out following the normal euring schedule, a degree of sulphate resistance will be imparted, The few samples of pressed blocks included in the site tests showed no loss in strength after 15 years, and only a lightweight aggregate block, which would not be deemed suitable for use below ground, showed any significant sulphate accumulation (Figure 1(@!)}. The inevcasing level of sulphate found towards the interior ofthis highly porous type of block appears to confirm the resistance to reaction with sulphate of the more easily carbonated outer layers Preliminary indications from further research elsewhere on pressed blocks appear to confirm an increase in sulphate resistance following eathonation. [n the Digest, blocks approved for use below a ground-level dpe are considered 10 bie satisfactory in class 1, and may be used also in lasses 2 and 3 provided that more than 509% of their least cross- section is carbonated, This can be judged on site by breaking a namber of locks and spraying the broken surface with phenolphthalein solution, Another long established method of improving the sulphate resistance of conerete is autoclaving*, a process adopted by some pressed-black makers and by all the United Kingdom manufacturers of Aircrete, Samples of these materials showed no loss in strength after 15 years’ exposure in the test. site sol or even in a 1.5% SO magnesium sulphate solution at BRE. In this solution it was found that many of the pores made by the acration process during manufacture of the Aircrete blocks and situated just below the surface were filled with calcium sulphate atter $ years, They remained filled at LS years, with no apparent detriment to the blocks Little penetration of sulphate was found for Airerete blocks from the experimental site (Figure 1(d)). According to the Digest, any type of autoclaved block suitable for use below a ground-level dpc is allowed in sulphate soil eonditions up to and including class 3 To fulfil their function as conveyors of water oF waterborne effluent, precast concrete pipes need! to be made with concrete of low permeability In British Standard BS 591 Parts 100 and 120 for pipes and jacking pipes". minimum ‘cement contents and maximum watericement ratios ‘equivalent to those recommended in elass-4in the Digest, are requlted irrespective of any further need to resist attack by sulphate. In addition, there are tests for leakage under hydrostatic pressure and for water absorption, Although pipes have relatively thin walls the stringent composition land performance requirements demand a high level of ‘quality control and this, together with the surtace carbonation associated with precast products, allows a reduction by one class in applying the sulphate classification inthe Digest. Because the coment content and water/cement ratio cannot be reduced to retain compliance with the British ‘Standard, the reduction of one class applies only to the choice of cement In the special ease of porous concrete pipes used in land drainage (British Standard BS 1194), a comentsand mortar, rich in cement, surround the coarse aggregate particles, leaving interconnecting voids. The method of manufacture and the test requirements ensure that the mortar component has a low watericement ratio and renders the pipe fairly resistant to leaching and chemical attack despite the overall porous nature ofthe product. The pipes are not recommended for use in soils with a sulphate level higher than class 2. oF where the pH of the groundwater is less than 3.5 ‘TYPE OF CEMENT Measurements of the penetration rates of sulphate in various types of conerete from the test site at Northwick Park have provided useful data on which to base recommendations relating to types of exposure and methods of curing, The higher the penetration rate the bigher is the potential for sulphate attack. However, the risk is real only if the sulphate seaets with the cement binder and causes loss in strength oF expansive disruption of the conerete. The results on all but the poorest quality conerstes exposed at the test site have shown no reduction in compressive strengch atter 15 years, and therefore give little guidance on the relative merits of the different cement binders used. Also, ofthe five different‘cements included in the test. only the ordinary Portland ‘cement and the sulphate-resisting Portkind cement are still dligectly relevant to the types oF cements in common use today for structural concrete, In reviewing the Digest recommendations with respect 10 cement type, therefore. data on the performance of small Tahuratory vests have been specimens in azeclera cconvslered, The methods by whieh the data are obtained vide imto two categories: hose whieh are directed at establishing whether a jutticular cement can be classified as ‘sulphate-resisting, and those more relevant to establishing what level of eonerete quality i required with any type of ‘cement to provide sulphate-resisting properties for use in the sil conditions elasified in the Digest, When testin resisting, the simple expedient of using small specimens of feat eement paste or mortar and immersing thent in a strong, Sulphate solution enables comparative performance to be assessed within a very short timescale, Unfortunately the choice of sulphate type and concentration. the shape of th specimen, the curing conditions and the method of sssessing ‘affeet the various cements in differemt ways. In ccemenis to categorise them as sulphite- failure ea ‘consequence, it has heen difficult to reach a consensus oa the “most appropriate method to adopt for British Standard, Now the debare fas been widened in an attempt to solve the problem within the European Comenitiee for Standardization (CEN) A better assessment (by accelerated testing) of how cements, will perform in the fil is obtained from ceonctete, These inevitably require a longer timescale, wich is not attractive to those wishing to establish a standard test ‘os. indged, to many research establishments, Uhimately however: the results from such tests are easier to relate to the behaviour of concrete in the ground. and can be used 10 categorise cements as well as eoneretes, Resulis of recent tests (GJ Osborne” and J D Matthews. personal communication} have led to a reappraisal of the performance ff the current produetion of Portland cements und blends of Portland cements with pulverised-fuel ash (pf or fly ash) aand ground granulated dblastfurnace slag (gghs). The level of ‘gement content originally recommended in class 3 (380 kya) for composite cements or equivalent mixer combinations containing specific corspositional ran deemed satisfactory. in the Digest. for class 4— with one restriction. The restriction relates to the 2 these cemens to the presence of high concentrations of ‘magnesium ions, Only sulphate-resisting Portland cement is recommended in ehiss 4 the magnesium jon concentration rests carried out on es of pla or slag. is now eater Sensitivity of exceeds | g/lin groundwater, The recommended minimum cement content for composite coments in class 3 has been reduced from 380 kem? to 340 kg/m’. The high performance ‘of sulphate-resisting Portland cement in the accclerated tests hhas led 10 a small reduction in recommended cement contents for classes 3 and A high level of alumina content in slags used in slagicement blend was known to lower Sulphate resistance when used with Portland cements which had a high content of tricalcium aluminate (CA). A maximum alumina content of 15% bad Asa result of recent caarlicr been Fecommended for sl work in the UK, the Digest now proposes that if slag ‘contains over [4% alumina it should be used for sulphate resisting concrete only when combined with a Portland cemeat that has & low to moderate CyA content (typically fess thar 10%). REFERENCES: 1 Harrison W HL Sulphate resistance of buried comerete: The third report on a longterm investigation at Northavick Park ‘and on similar coneretes in sulphate solutions at BRE Building Reseurch Establishment Report. Garston, BRE. 1992, 2. Building Research Establishment. Sulphate and acie resistange of concrete in the ground. BRE Digest 303, (replaces Digest 250 which isnow withdrawn). Garston, BRE, 1991 3° British Standards Institution. Code of practice for foundations, British Standard BS S04:1986, London. BSI, 1986, 4 Oshorne G J. The effectiveness of a carbonated outer layer to eonerete in the prevention of sulphate attack, 1s Protection of concrete. Proceedings af the fnrervationat Conference held ac the Universcy of, Dundee, Scotland September 1990, London, Spon, 1980, 5 Van Aurdt J HP, Deterioration of cement products in aggressive media, Proceedings of the Ath International Symposium on the Chemisiry of Genera, Washington: 1960, National Bureau of Standards USA, Monograph 48. Vol IL Paper VIS) 6 Miller D Gand Manson PW, Techiaical Bullen 194, St Pails, University af Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1951, (Surmmarised in: Lea FM. The chemistry of cement and concrete. London, Armd 1970. Third edition, pp 347-348.) 7. British Standards Institution, Precast concrete pipes Filings und ancillary produets. British Standard BS 5911 Part 100:1988 Specification for unreinforeed and reinforced pipes and fittings with flexible joints. London, BSI, 1988, Part 120:1989 Specifications for reinforced jacking pipes with flexible joints. London, BSI. 1989, 8 British Standards Inctitution. Specification for concrete porous pipes for underdrainage. British Standart BS 1 194:1969, London, BSI, 1969. 9 Osborne G J. The sulphate resistance of Portland and blastfurnace coment coneretes, la Proceedings of the 2nd CANMETIACH International Conference on the Durabitty of Concrete, Montreal, Canada, August 1991 ‘Vol fl SP 126-156. pp 1047-1071 10 Frearson J PH, Sulphate resistance of combinations of Portland cement and ground granulated blastturance slag. In Fly ash, siliew fume, lag and nawural pozzolans in concrete. Proceedings af the 2nd International Conference. Madrid 1986, Detroit, American Conerete Institute, 1986. Vol 2, SP91. pp 1495-1524. Price group 2 Axo salable on suoseroton. Far curent pres lease contact BRE Bookshop. ulding Reeearch Eetabiehmont, Garson, Watton {02 7UR elechone 0222 Gets, rllconis oa -ocon eevee 0 BAE publeatens are quenin BRE News, tee Wee Io Subsea’. Crown copyight 1982 Pubtshed by ho Suing Rescarch Estabichmont ‘Aspicalons 0 reprcuce exacs souls be mada tothe BA Pusieaons Marager,IP 15/82 Assessing the risk of sulphate attack on concrete in the ground by WH Harrison Correction In Figure 1(b) the labels (Full compaction) and (Partial compaction) should be swapped. The correct version appears below. (ey Procast evn Flare pars compactor (OPC 238 gm “| ; mex | AE 2 SSamale pth (rm)