Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lafarge Canada Inc., 334 Avro, Pointe Claire, QC H9R 5W5, Canada
Lafarge Centre de Recherche, 95 rue du Montmurier, 38291 St Quentin Fallavier, France
University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5A3, Canada
d
University of Toronto, 35 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A4, Canada
e
Lafarge North-America, 12018 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 20191, USA
b
c
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 19 December 2013
Accepted 6 May 2014
Available online 6 June 2014
Keywords:
Sulfate attack (C)
Thaumasite
Durability (C)
Expansion (C)
Thermodynamic calculations (B)
a b s t r a c t
Blended Portland cements containing up to 15% limestone have recently been introduced into Canada and the
USA. These cements were initially not allowed for use in sulfate environments but this restriction has been lifted
in the Canadian cement specication, provided that the limestone cement includes sufcient SCM and that it
passes a modied version of the CSA A3004-C8 (equivalent to ASTM C1012) test procedure run at a low temperature (5 C). This new procedure is proposed as a means of predicting the risk of the thaumasite form of sulfate
attack in concretes containing limestone cements. The goal of the present study was to better understand how
this approach works both in practice and in theory. Results from three different laboratories utilizing the CSA
A3004-C8 test procedure are compared and analyzed, while also taking into account the results of thermodynamic
modeling and of thaumasite formation experiments conducted in dilute suspensions.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
European standards for limestone-blended cements (up to 20%
limestone for CEM II/A-L and up to 35% for CEM II/B-L) have existed
for several decades, and such cements are widely used in Europe.
They were introduced more recently into North America, rst in
Canada in 2008 [1] and then in the USA in 2012 [2]. In Canada they
are called Portland limestone cements (PLCs) and there are only
slight differences between the CSA A3000 PLC and the European
CEM II-A/L specications [3]. There are similar quality criteria for
the limestone permitted (based on minimum total calcium carbonate and maximum total organic carbon contents as well as maximum
methylene blue values), but the maximum permitted limestone
content in North America is only 15%. The Canadian and US specications, as does EN 197, also provide for more complex blended hydraulic
cements, combining limestone with supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs).
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: laurent.barcelo@lafarge.com (L. Barcelo).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.05.007
0008-8846/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
76
Table 1
Chemical analysis of cements and supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) used by the different laboratories.
Cements chemical analysis (%)
Laboratory
Cement
SiO2
A12O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
Na2O
K2O
SO3
LOI
% limest.
UNB
GU (OPC)
GUL #1 (PLC)
GUL#2(PLC)
GU #1 (OPC)
GU #2 (OPC)
GUL #1 (PLC)
GUL #2 (PLC)
GUL #3 (PLC)
GU (OPC)
GUL #1 (PLC)
GUL #2 (PLC)
GUL #3 (PLC)
19.9
18.1
16.8
20.6
19.7
18.9
18.5
17.4
20.2
18.8
19.1
18.2
4.9
3.8
4.2
5.5
5.4
5.1
5.0
4.6
4.3
4.0
4.5
4.3
3.1
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.5
63.2
61.5
59.6
63.4
62.7
61.9
61.3
59.8
61.5
61.2
60.2
61.2
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.3
4.5
4.3
2.5
2.8
0.23
0.21
0.23
0.23
0.24
0.21
0.22
0.20
0.22
0.19
0.12
0.27
0.90
0.91
0.90
1.22
1.18
1.15
1.12
1.07
0.60
0.57
0.74
0.89
3.5
3.5
3.4
4.2
4.7
4.3
4.4
4.1
2.8
2.7
3.8
3.4
NA
NA
NA
0.6
1.4
4.5
5.2
8.9
2.9
5.7
6.0
5.6
4
15
22
0
2.4
11
13
22
3.7a
10.5a
14.7
NA
UOT
Lafarge
SCMs
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
Na2O
K2O
SO3
LOI
UNB
Type F y ash
GGBFS
GGBFS
Type F y ash #1
Type F y ash #2
GGBFS
57.8
34.1
38.1
53.7
43.4
37.8
18.0
9.4
7.2
23.3
23.1
9.2
9.4
0.3
0.7
3.7
20.7
0.7
3.0
40.1
40.0
12.7
5.1
37.4
2.0
11.6
10.6
1.3
1.2
11.7
1.32
0.37
0.33
2.49
0.64
0.29
2.03
0.43
0.46
0.72
1.67
0.5
1.1
2.7
2.7
0.3
0.6
3.0
NA
NA
0.3
0.6
1.8
1.6b
UOT
Lafarge
a
b
SCM contents. For blends containing a single SCM, they are 25% for type
F y ash, 40% for slag and 15% for metakaolin. There are also two different possible SCM combinations, i.e. N5% silica fume plus N25% slag, or
else N5% silica fume plus N 20% type F y ash. Secondly, the standard
mortars made with these cements must meet an 18-month expansion
limit of not more than 0.10% when tested according to a modied version of CSA A3004-C8 conducted at 5 C. Furthermore, if mortars expand
by more than 0.03% during the last 6 months (i.e. from 12 to 18 months)
the test must be continued to 24 months and the 0.10% limit must be
met at this later age. Concurrently, the CSA A3004-C8 test method was
also updated. The traditional procedure at 23 C (outlined above) was
renamed Procedure A and a Procedure B was introduced, involving
testing at 5 C. Procedures A and B are similar, with the only difference
being that when the 20-MPa strength is reached on the companion
cubes, the bars undergoing procedure B are stored in the same sodium
sulfate solution but at 5 2 C instead of 23 2 C. Procedure B
was created to determine resistance to the potential for the thaumasite
form of sulfate attack (TSA) [5], based on the knowledge that TSA
would be accelerated by the use of lower temperatures.
To summarize the rationale of the Canadian approach, there is a
gradation of requirements regarding CSA A3004-C84:
HS or MS Portland cements do not have to be tested in accordance
with this procedure. They are considered sulfate-resistant if their
C3A contents are below specied limits and the cement does not
exceed the 14 d expansion limit when tested in accordance with
CSA A3004-C6;
HSb or MSb blended hydraulic cements have to pass procedure A
(23 C) at 6 months (or 12 months) to demonstrate that the SCM
quantity is adequate to reduce the traditional form of external sulfate
attack to an acceptable level;
HSLb or MSLb blended hydraulic cements with a PLC base cement
have to meet a specied minimum SCM addition level and to pass procedure A (23 C) at 6 months (or 12 months) as well as procedure B
4
Note that, in CSA A3004-C2 (referenced by CSA A3004-C8), the requirements for
blended cements (HSb, MSb, HSLb, MSLb) apply for both pre-blended cements and for
combinations of cementing materials blended at the concrete plant (during mixing).
77
Fig. 1. Example of variation of W/CM ratio for different SCM combinations used in LG to obtain constant ow (A) and of variation of ow used in UOT at a xed W/CM of 0.485 (B).
procedure specied when binder materials are blended at the concrete plant;
in the UNB and UOT laboratories, the mixes were tested at a constant
water-to-binder ratio (W/CM = 0.485). This is the procedure specied when the blended cement is made at the cement plant.
Typical differences in water-to-binder ratio (for LG) and ow (for
UOT) are provided in Fig. 1. It is apparent that following the procedure
specied when mixes are made at the concrete plant (constant ow
LG case) leads to signicant variations in the water-to-binder ratio.
2.2. Thermodynamic modeling
Thermodynamic calculations were run using the geochemical software CHESS [6] to calculate the evolution in the equilibrium phase assemblage of a fully hydrated cement paste as it reacts with an alkali
sulfate solution. The thermodynamic database was composed of the
standard CHESS database for minerals and aqueous ionic species, to
which data for the relevant cement-related minerals was added. The
formation equations and related solubility products (expressed as logK values) are given in Table 2, expressed in CHESS basis species. Phase
densities and data sources are also included.
Table 2
Thermodynamic data used for the different minerals.
Mineral
Formation equation
Density
(kg/m3)
Data source
Portlandite
CSH_16
CSH_08
Gypsum
Thaumasite
Ettringite
Calcite
Fe-monocarboaluminate
Strtlingite
Monocarboaluminate
Monosulfoaluminate
2240
1892
1630
2305.16
1768
1774
2709.89
2144
1768
2169
2014
Fe-monosulfoaluminate
2118
C3AH6
2521
78
C2.7S
C3A (1 to 9% wt. of OPC),
C4AF so that C3A + C4AF = 10% wt. of OPC
Gypsum (3% wt. of OPC).
The Ca/Si atomic ratio of 2.7 used here to represent the calcium
silicate phases is a typical value for standard OPC, simulating an OPC
with a C2S/C3S mass ratio of 0.42.
To this OPC was added various amounts of limestone (5, 15 and 20%
wt. of blend), treated as pure calcite. The impact of SCMs on the mineral
assemblage was estimated by adding pure reactive silica to the system
at 10% by mass of the total blend.
All the calculations were run at 5 C, in order to be representative
of CSA A3004-C8 procedure B. All phases present were allowed to
react completely so as to reach equilibrium. Thus, the initial system
state was calculated as the equilibrium state for a fully reacted
mixture of the OPC + limestone (+ silica fume) blend with water
at a water/solid ratio of 0.5, which corresponds to a fully-hydrated
cement paste.
Then this initial system was ushed 333 times with a sodium sulfate solution at 30 mmol/L. Every ushing step consists in removing
the totality of the interstitial solution (at equilibrium with the stable
mineral assemblage) and replacing it by an equivalent volume of sodium sulfate solution. This approach simulates, without taking into account the complex process of transport in the porous medium, what
may happen at equilibrium when a mineral assemblage is put in contact
with an aggressive medium, including leaching and ingress of external
ions.
The phase assemblages are expressed graphically as phase volumes
(in mL/100 g of binder) for minerals and porosity on the ordinate, as a
function of the number of ushing steps on the abscissa (333 steps on
the right hand side of the graphs).
Fig. 2. Evolution of expansion with time at 23 C (CSA A3004-C8 procedure A) for the different systems tested by the different laboratories.
79
Fig. 3. Evolution of expansion with time in the CSA A3004-C8 test procedure B (5 C) for different SCM combinations. See legend. Specication limit for HS cement: 0.1% expansion at
18 months.
complete; but there was always some residual calcite present, most
probably due to atmospheric carbonation.
3. Results
3.1. Expansion testing
3.1.1. 23 C expansion results (CSA A3004-C8-procedure A)
The evolution of expansion with time at 23 C for the different
cementitious systems tested in the different laboratories is presented
in Fig. 2. Results are consistent with expectations. The mixtures without
SCM expand quite rapidly and eventually exceed the expansion limit of
0.05%. The addition of SCM (20% slag or higher and 15% Type F y ash or
higher) signicantly reduces the expansion and none of the systems
with SCM exceed the 0.05% expansion limit at 6 months or the alternative limit (for HSb or HSLb) of 0.10% at 12 months.
3.1.2. 5 C expansion results (CSA A3004-C8-procedure B)
Expansion results with time at 5 C (CSA A3004-C8-procedure B) are
presented in Fig. 3. Compared to the equivalent experiments at 23 C,
the levels of expansion reached are generally much larger, especially
in mixtures containing SCMs. When such large expansions occur, comparing expansion values to try to assess the performance of different
systems can be misleading as mortar bars gradually lose integrity,
undergo warping, etc. Therefore, in order to better compare the different systems, a 5 C failure index is dened here for evaluating the
CSA A3004-C8-procedure B test data. It is dened as the time difference
(in days) between the moment when the mix reached 0.10% expansion
(estimated by linear interpolation of the data) and 18 months, which is
the duration of the test (see Fig. 4). Mixes that meet the expansion
criteria (b0.1% at 18 months) have a failure index of 0. Otherwise, the
sooner the 0.1% threshold is reached, the higher the failure index.
Note that this index is designed to compare the performance of mixes
in the context of this article and has not been correlated with any kind
of eld performance.
A plot of the 5 C failure index for the different mixes in the 3 different laboratories is shown in Fig. 5. As expected, mixes without any SCM
addition have the highest failure indexes as they reach the expansion
limit very rapidly.
Performance with SCM additions shows a much-contrasted picture
between the different laboratories:
For slag additions:
In UNB, 20% slag mixes failed and 40% slag mixes passed the 5 C test
(for both OPC and PLC)
In UOT, 30% slag mixes with OPC passed the 5 C test while with PLC
they did not (the PLC with the lowest amount of limestone did not
pass the 24 months limit, as the expansion between 12 and
18 months was larger than 0.030%). All mixes passed at 50% slag
addition;
In LG, all mixes (PLC or OPC) failed at 50% slag addition. At 65% slag
addition, the slag-PLC combination tested passed, while the slag
OPC combination failed to meet the expansion limit.
For y-ash:
In UNB, some mixes (both with OPC and PLC) met the 5 C expansion limit even for addition levels as low as 15%, while in more
recent test series (with a different clinker) mixes at 25% Type F y
ash addition failed (both with OPC and PLC).
80
Fig. 5. 5 C failure index for the different mixes from the different laboratories. Color key is similar to Figs. 2 or 3.
For LG, mixes with 25% Type F y ash addition failed (both with OPC
and PLC). Some mixes at 35% addition met the expansion limit,
while others with different cements and y ashes failed even at
50% ash addition.
Fig. 6. Expansions at 5 C vs. 23 C for different times. Red line corresponds to orthogonal regression line (variance ratio of 1) and the green line represents the equality line. A: 56 days, B:
91 days, C: 105d, D: 182 days, E: 182 days considering expansions below 0.1% only and F: 364 days considering expansions below 0.1% only.
81
Fig. 7. Matched Pairs t-test difference in the 6 month expansion at 23 C (%) vs. mean 6 month expansion at 23 C. Red line and dotted lines represent the average difference and its 95%
condence limit. A: All samples and B: combinations with expansions lower than 0.1%.
Fig. 8. Matched Pairs t-test difference in the 5 C failure index (d) vs. Mean 5 C failure index. Red line and dotted lines represent the average difference and its 95% condence limit. A:
All data and B: potential outlier removed.
82
1.2
1.0
gypsum
0.8
Fe-ettringite
C4AH19
0.6
ettringite
portlandite
0.4
CSH_16
0.2
C4FH13
0.0
0
100
200
300
flushing steps
Fig. 9. Evolution of the mineral assemblage of an OPC cement paste when ushed 333
times with a 30 mmol/L sodium sulfate solution, at 5 C.
gypsum
1.0
monocarboaluminate
0.8
thaumasite
calcite
0.6
portlandite
0.4
ettringite
CSH_16
0.2
Fe-monocarboaluminate
0.0
0
100
200
300
flushing steps
Fig. 10. Evolution of the mineral assemblage of an OPC + 15% limestone cement paste
when ushed 333 times with a 30 mmol/L sodium sulfate solution, at 5 C.
83
Fig. 11. Impact of the C3A and limestone contents on the evolution of the mineral assemblage of an OPC + limestone cement paste when ushed 333 times with a 30 mmol/L sodium
sulfate solution, at 5 C.
84
1.2
4. Discussion
1.0
0.8
calcite
thaumasite
0.6
0.4
ettringite
portlandite
CSH_08
monocarboaluminate
strtlingite
0.2
CSH_16
Fe-monocarboaluminate
0.0
0
100
200
300
flushing steps
Fig. 12. Evolution of the mineral assemblage of an OPC + 15% limestone + 10% silica fume
paste when ushed 333 times with a 30 mmol/L sodium sulfate solution, at 5 C.
In the recent years, there has been a renewed interest among the
scientic community in the sulfate resistance of cements containing
limestone (see for instance [9,1534] for relevant research or reviews
in the last 10 years). A signicant portion of this recent work was focused on the conditions of thaumasite formation in the case of external
sulfate attack and was probably mainly fueled by the occurrence of a
few high-prole cases of TSA in the UK at the end of the 90s (in concretes made with limestone aggregates) and subsequently by the industrial development of limestone-based blended cements.
4.1. Thaumasite formation in the sequence of sulfate attack reactions
As shown in the thermodynamic modeling section, in equilibrated
cement pastes containing carbonates, it is clear that thaumasite formation follows ettringite formation as the content of sulfate is increased,
and can only occur after all of the AFm phases have been converted
into ettringite. As expected, thaumasite grows at the expense of C-S-H,
portlandite and calcium carbonates (the sulfate ions being supplied
externally). This indicates that thaumasite formation does not occur
concurrently with traditional sulfate attack but rather represents a
later stage of the process of concrete deterioration. This point is also in
very good agreement with the conclusions of the thermodynamic
modeling study of Schmidt et al. [9].
A growing number of microstructural analyses made on samples
that contain carbonates and are subject to sulfate attack also recognize
that ettringite appears rst and is followed by thaumasite formation
[9,18,32,34]. Based on the work of Gollop and Taylor [35], Irassar et al.
[18] summarize the sequence of the processes that occur in cement
pastes immersed in fairly concentrated alkali sulfate solutions:
1. Diffusion of sulfate ions and leaching of portlandite;
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ettringite formation;
Gypsum formation and depletion of portlandite;
Decalcication of C-S-H
Thaumasite formation.
85
concrete impurities. The results indicate that C-S-H, gypsum and calcite, as well as portlandite, brucite and gibbsite, do not act as good
nucleation sites for thaumasite. When thaumasite is added, however,
the nucleation problem is overcome; and the use of ettringite appears to be similarly effective. It is concluded, therefore, that nucleation of thaumasite can be a rate-determining step in the reaction,
and that ettringite surfaces can denitely act as a site for thaumasite
nucleation.
3. Is topochemical replacement of ettringite by thaumasite possible
under TSA conditions?: Isomorphic replacement reactions are well
known in geology, but tend to be very slow. Crammond suggests the
possibility of such a replacement mechanism during TSA but did not
give a very plausible pathway. But we can consider the woodfordite
route proposed by Bensted to be a pathway involving replacement
of ettringite by thaumasite, so this pathway, if it is thermodynamically
permitted, could be a mechanism for the topochemical process. However, our thermodynamic analysis shows that it cannot occur in
the way described by Bensted (i.e. as a reaction between ettringite,
C-S-H and calcite to give thaumasite plus gypsum, portlandite and
gibbsite). So, under what conditions might a topochemical replacement reaction actually occur? In order to help answer this question,
it is helpful to treat the reaction as the simplest conceivable exchange
of ions or dissolved neutral species with the solution; for example:
n
^ CD15Hg 2 AlOH SO :
C3 A 3CD32H 2 SiOH4 2HCO3 2 CS CC
4
3
The above equation5 shows clearly that sources of silica and carbon
dioxide are needed for the reaction to progress, and that the reaction itself produces alumina and sulfate in addition to thaumasite. The fact
that this reaction actually releases sulfate ions clearly shows that it is
unlikely to be important in sulfate attack, because increasing sulfate
concentrations will tend to drive the reaction in reverse. On the other
hand, the fact that this reaction consumes carbon dioxide suggests
that it might occur, for instance, in concretes subject to attack by highly
carbonated waters. Matschei and Glasser [32] showed clearly that
thaumasite should form at the expense of ettringite (and that their
solid solution should form rst) during concrete carbonation, provided
that the relative humidity remains high enough. So it is now clear that
the woodfordite route should not occur during simple sulfate attack
conditions, although it is theoretically possible under carbonation
conditions.
As further evidence for our own mechanistic conclusions, we can
also cite the extensive study of the conditions of thaumasite nucleation
in cement pastes and dilute cement suspensions by Kohler et al. [19].
They tested different sulfate carriers (sodium sulfate or gypsum), different temperatures (5 C and 10 C), different base cement compositions (pure C3S, alite, mixtures of alite and C3A, mixtures or alite and
C4AF), different seeding conditions (no seeding, seeding with ettringite)
and the addition (or not) of very ne silica. They concluded that:
Woodfordite was rarely observed and there was no evidence to support the idea of it being an intermediate step in the reaction to form
thaumasite. Mixtures containing ettringite and calcite but no additional source of sulfate did not form thaumasite.
Thaumasite was almost never observed in mixes containing no alumina, even if the stoichiometric conditions for its formation were met.
Without prior formation of ettringite, the formation of thaumasite in
cement pastes is extremely slow.
The heterogeneous nucleation mechanism involving ettringite is the
most likely, with thaumasite growing as an epitaxial overgrowth on
the surface of ettringite.
The observations of our own study are certainly consistent with the
conclusions of Kohler et al. [19].
5
86
Regarding the relevance of the CSA A3004-C8 procedure B to determining resistance to the potential for the thaumasite form of sulfate
attack, we rst summarize its main features as follows:
1. Like procedure A designed for assessing resistance to traditional sulfate attack, procedure B is a length-change measurement procedure;
2. Samples are kept immersed in a highly concentrated sulfate solution
at low temperature (5 C);
3. Immersion starts when samples have reached a compressive
strength of 20 1 MPa.
4.4.1. The relevance of length-change measurement
Since both thermodynamic analysis and microstructural examinations have shown that thaumasite formation can occur only after all potential ettringite formation is nished; and since it has also been shown
that, even once it becomes thermodynamically stable, thaumasite
nucleation is very slow when ettringite is absent, it is reasonable to
use a method that is sensitive to the formation of ettringite to evaluate
the potential for thaumasite formation. Moreover, direct evaluation of
thaumasite formation using the currently available methods (XRD for
instance) would be difcult and impractical in the context of an
industrial quality control procedure. Length change measurement
appears adequate to fulll this objective. An alternative approach
using surface-sensitive leaky Rayleigh waves was examined recently
[34], but the conclusion of the study was that this technique did not
bring any advantage in terms of sensitivity compared to a length change
measurement. However, a qualitative rating of the surface/edge damage
of the test specimens could be added to the current procedure at little
cost.
One might reasonably still ask whether or not there might be a
pessimum scenario, (e.g. for low C3A cements), where the amount of
ettringite formed would be small enough to generate only modest
expansions but yet still high enough to initiate subsequent thaumasite
formation that might severely weaken the samples without necessarily
giving much linear expansion. However, although this risk cannot be
completely discounted, it now appears quite unlikely, because the evidence shows that, if the microstructure is not opened-up by cracking,
thaumasite formation tends to remain purely a surface phenomenon.
As Irassar concludes in his review article [27]: Regardless of limestone
ller content, in pastes, mortars and concretes made with low-C3A
cements (b 5%) and using a low effective w/c ratio (b0.50), which
complies with the ACI 201 recommendation for moderate sulfate
environments, no early damage at low temperatures resulted. In this
case, thaumasite is also found on the specimen surface on long time
exposure, but it lacks relevance in the damage process.
4.4.2. Comments on the use of low temperature and the 20 MPa strength
criterion
As shown in this article, longer-term expansions are generally greater at 5 C than at 20 C, independently of the presence or absence of
limestone. This is due to an earlier take-off of the expansion (the
rate during the initial slow expansion phase being apparently independent of temperature). This take off is generally attributed to the percolation of the crack network in the sample [36]. Thaumasite formation is
also generally reported to be thermodynamically favored by lower
temperatures.
The reason for the more rapid expansions observed at 5 C is difcult
to elucidate from the research conducted for this study. From the thermodynamic model of Schmidt et al. [9] it does not seem that this temperature change should have a signicant impact on the driving force
for ettringite formation. One hypothesis is related to the fact that,
when the mortar is put in the sodium sulfate solution it has a fairly
low degree of hydration (noting that 20 MPa is well below its ultimate
fully-cured strength). A low temperature (5 C) applied at this early
5. Conclusions
The purpose of this article was to investigate the test method CSA
A3004-C8 procedure B and its relevance to assess the risk of thaumasite
form of sulfate attack. Through comparisons of results obtained in
different laboratories on different cementitious systems as well as thermodynamic modeling and kinetic experiments, we can draw the following conclusions:
The length change measurement procedure proposed in CSA A3004-C8
appears to be relevant as an indirect evaluation of the risk of the
thaumasite form of sulfate attack:
1. Thermodynamic modeling conrms that the thaumasite form of sulfate attack is the nal step of the sulfate attack and happens after the
regular form of sulfate attack;
2. Kinetic experiments conrm that thaumasite formation is always extremely slow compared to ettringite formation (and gypsum formation) but can nevertheless be catalyzed to some extent by prior
formation of ettringite;
3. Alternative, usually more complex, techniques investigated by other
authors have not shown any benet compared to the standard simple
length change measurement;
4. Visual qualitative rating of corners and edges of the sample could be
added to the test procedure at little cost and could provide additional
useful information.
The testing condition of 5 C coupled with a high concentration of
Na2SO4 (50 g/l) also appear to be relevant.
1. The temperature is representative of the temperature in soils in
Canada;
2. High sodium sulfate concentrations have been questioned but they
are representative of sulfate concentrations in certain soils in North
America;
3. This high sodium sulfate concentration has been used in CSA A3004C8 procedure A for a long time and cementitious systems that have
87
been qualied by this procedure seem to have performed satisfactorily in the eld.
In its current version, the CSA A3004 procedure B appears overly
severe:
1. Many SCM combinations fail the test, independently of the presence
of limestone. This includes some SCM combinations that have a good
history of eld use in sulfate environments;
2. Mixes with limestone do not clearly appear to perform worse than
mixes without limestone, although this should be investigated further
as some datasets are conicting. The fact that PLCs in North America
are ground so as to give equivalent performance to Portland cements
in terms of strength development may explain the observation.
3. The severity of the test is probably due to the low maturity of the
samples when they are put in the solution at 5 C. At low temperatures, hydration rates, in particular for SCM, are expected to be
much slower, and sulfate ingress is expected to be faster.
4. We suggest modifying CSA A3004-C8 procedure B to ensure sufcient hydration maturity before the samples are subjected to sulfate
attack at low temperatures.
References
[1] CSA 3000-08: Cementitious Materials Compendium, Canadian Standards Association,
Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2008.
[2] ASTM C595-12: Standard Specication for Blended Hydraulic Cements, ASTM
International, 2012.
[3] EN 197-1: Composition, Specications and Conformity for Common Cements,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
[4] CSA A23.1-09: Test Methods and Standard Practices for Concrete, Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2009.
[5] CSA 3000-08: Cementitious Materials Compendium Update No. 2, Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2010.
[6] van der Lee, Thermodynamic and mathematical concepts of CHESS, Technical
Report No LHM/RD/98/39, Fontainebleau, France, 1998.
[7] B. Lothenbach, F. Winnefeld, Thermodynamic modelling of the hydration of Portland
cement, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (2006) 209226, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.
2005.03.001.
[8] T. Matschei, B. Lothenbach, F.P. Glasser, Thermodynamic properties of Portland
cement hydrates in the system CaOAl2O3SiO2CaSO4CaCO3H2O, Cem. Concr.
Res. 37 (2007) 13791410, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.06.002.
[9] T. Schmidt, B. Lothenbach, M. Romer, K. Scrivener, D. Rentsch, R. Figi, et al., A thermodynamic and experimental study of the conditions of thaumasite formation,
Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 337349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.
11.003.
[10] B. Lothenbach, L. Pelletier-Chaignat, F. Winnefeld, Stability in the system
CaOAl 2 O 3 H 2 O, Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (2012) 16211634, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.09.002.
[11] B.Z. Dilnesa, B. Lothenbach, G. Renaudin, A. Wichser, E. Wieland, Stability of
monosulfate in the presence of iron, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 95 (2012) 33053316,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2012.05335.x.
[12] B.Z. Dilnesa, B. Lothenbach, G. Le Saout, G. Renaudin, A. Mesbah, Y. Filinchuk, et al.,
Iron in carbonate containing AFm phases, Cem. Concr. Res. 41 (2011) 311323,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.017.
[13] P. Blanc, X. Bourbon, A. Lassin, E.C. Gaucher, Chemical model for cement-based materials: temperature dependence of thermodynamic functions for nanocrystalline
and crystalline C-S-H phases, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (2010) 851866, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.12.004.
[14] W. Kunther, B. Lothenbach, K.L. Scrivener, On the relevance of volume increase for
the length changes of mortar bars in sulfate solutions, Cem. Concr. Res. 46 (2013)
2329, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.01.002.
[15] N. Crammond, The thaumasite form of sulfate attack in the UK, Cem. Concr. Compos.
25 (2003) 809818, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(03)00106-9.
[16] P. Nobst, J. Stark, Investigations on the inuence of cement type on thaumasite
formation, Cem. Concr. Compos. 25 (2003) 899906, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0958-9465(03)00118-5.
[17] S. Tsivilis, G. Kakali, A. Skaropoulou, J.H. Sharp, R.N. Swamy, Use of mineral admixtures to prevent thaumasite formation in limestone cement mortar, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 25 (2003) 969976, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(03)00153-7.
[18] E.F. Irassar, V.L. Bonavetti, M.a. Trezza, M.a. Gonzlez, Thaumasite formation in limestone ller cements exposed to sodium sulphate solution at 20 C, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 27 (2005) 7784.
[19] S. Khler, D. Heinz, L. Urbonas, Effect of ettringite on thaumasite formation, Cem.
Concr. Res. 36 (2006) 697706, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.11.006.
[20] A. Skaropoulou, G. Kakali, S. Tsivilis, A study on thaumasite form of sulfate attack
(TSA) using XRD, TG and SEM, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 84 (2006) 135139, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10973-005-7198-2.
[21] F. Bellmann, J. Stark, Prevention of thaumasite formation in concrete exposed to
sulphate attack, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (2007) 12151222, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2007.04.007.
88
[22] X.J. Gao, B.G. Ma, H.J. Ba, Inuence of cement types and mineral admixtures on the
resistance of mortar to thaumasite form of sulfate attack, Int. Congr. Chem. Cem.,
Montreal, Canada, 2007.
[23] T. Schmidt, B. Lothenbach, K.L. Scrivener, M. Romer, D. Rentsch, R. Figi, Conditions
for thaumasite formation, Int. Congr. Chem. Cem., Montreal, Canada, 2007.
[24] A. Skaropoulou, K. Sotiriadis, G. Kakali, S. Tsivilis, A long term study on thaumasite
form of sulfate attack (TSA) in limestone cement pastes, Int. Congr. Chem. Cem.,
Montreal, Canada, 2007.
[25] S. Tsivilis, K. Sotiriadis, A. Skaropoulou, Thaumasite form of sulfate attack (TSA) in
limestone cement pastes, J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 27 (2007) 17111714, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2006.05.048.
[26] Q. Zhou, E.W. Byars, C.J. Lynsdale, J.C. Cripps, J. Hill, J.H. Sharp, Relative resistance of
Portland and Pozzolanic cements to the thaumasite form of sulfate attack (TSA), Int.
Congr. Chem. Cem., Montreal, Canada, 2007.
[27] E.F. Irassar, Sulfate attack on cementitious materials containing limestone ller a
review, Cem. Concr. Res. 39 (2009) 241254, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.
2008.11.007.
[28] M.D.A. Thomas, R.D. Hooton, The Durability of Concrete Produced with PortlandLimestone Cement: Canadian Studies, 2010.
[29] W. Kunther, Investigation of sulfate attack by experimental and thermodynamic
means, Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne, 2012.
[30] A.M. Ramezanianpour, R.D. Hooton, Sulfate resistance of Portland-limestone cements in combination with supplementary cementitious materials, Mater. Struct.
46 (2013) 10611073, http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-012-9953-8.
[31] C. Shi, D. Wang, A. Behnood, Review of thaumasite sulfate attack on cement mortar
and concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 24 (2012) 14501460, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000530.
[32] A.M. Ramezanianpour, R.D. Hooton, Thaumasite sulfate attack in Portland and
Portland-limestone cement mortars exposed to sulfate solution, Constr. Build.
Mater. 40 (2013) 162173, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.104.
[33] A. Skaropoulou, K. Sotiriadis, G. Kakali, S. Tsivilis, Use of mineral admixtures to
improve the resistance of limestone cement concrete against thaumasite form of
sulfate attack, Cem. Concr. Compos. 37 (2013) 267275, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.01.007.
[34] T. Schmidt, B. Lothenbach, M. Romer, J. Neuenschwander, K. Scrivener, Physical and
microstructural aspects of sulfate attack on ordinary and limestone blended
Portland cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 39 (2009) 11111121, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cemconres.2009.08.005.
[35] R.S. Gollop, H.F.W. Taylor, Microstructural and microanalytical studies of sulfate
attack. I. Ordinary Portland cement paste, Cem. Concr. Res. 22 (1992) 10271038.
[36] C. Yu, W. Sun, K. Scrivener, Mechanism of expansion of mortars immersed in sodium
sulfate solutions, Cem. Concr. Res. 43 (2013) 105111, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2012.10.001.
[37] G.W. Scherer, Stress from crystallization of salt, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (2004)
16131624, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.034.
[38] J. Bensted, Thaumasitedirect, woodfordite and other possible formation
routes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 25 (2003) 873877, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0958-9465(03)00115-X.