ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title No. 113-M02

Suppressing Alkali-Silica Reactivity Using Class F Fly Ash:

An Experimental and Analytical Investigation
by Mohammad S. Islam and Nader Ghafoori
This paper reports the optimum dosages of experimental and
analytical Class F fly ash that could suppress the excessive expansions of six reactive aggregates to below the prescribed failure
limits of mortar bars at test durations of 14, 28, and 56 days. The
optimum fly ash content of each reactive aggregate was determined
by the proposed models based on the equivalent SiO2 (SiO2(eq)),
equivalent CaO (CaOeq), and the CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials, and was then compared with that obtained by the
experimental procedures. The proposed models were also used on
the experimental data of previous research studies consisted of
eight reactive aggregates with different mineralogy, two types of
portland cements, and six types of Class F fly ashes having a wide
spectrum of alkali, silica, and calcium contents. The study revealed
that a good correlation existed between the optimum fly ash content
obtained by the experimental procedures and that predicted by the
analytical investigations.
Keywords: aggregate mineralogy; alkali-silica reactivity (ASR); Class F
fly ash; mortar expansion; SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total
cementitious materials; test duration.

INTRODUCTION
Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) is one of the utmost recognized harmful phenomena in concrete structures, and has
been a major distress since its discovery by Stanton (1942) in
the late 1930s. ASR occurs between the reactive silica or silicates present in aggregates with certain mineralogy and the
alkalis (mainly coming from portland cement) in concrete.
The resulting product, named alkali-silica gel, expands in
the presence of sufficient moisture, causing cracks, a loss of
mechanical properties, and serviceability-related problems
in portland cement concrete (Bach et al. 1993; Stark et al.
1993; Lger et al. 1996). The potential reactivity of aggregates depends on aggregate mineralogy (Stark et al. 1993;
Leming et al. 1996; Islam 2010; Islam and Akhtar 2013),
atomic structure (Leming et al. 1996), physico-chemical
compositions (Pietruszczak 1996; Tambelli et al. 2006),
grain size (Hobbs 1988; Broekmans 1999; achlov 2013),
porosity (Hobbs 1988), degree of crystallinity (Folliard
et al. 2005; achlov 2013), solubility of silica in high-pH
concrete pore solution (Swamy 1992; Broekmans 1999;
Folliard et al. 2005), and amount of reactive silica present
in aggregate (Swamy 1992; Broekmans 1999; Folliard et al.
2005). Though a very small amount of reactive silica can
produce ASR-related damages (Swamy 1992), the quantity
differs depending on aggregates reactive minerals and rock
type (ACI Committee 221 1998).
ASTM C1260, commonly known as the accelerated mortar
bar test (AMBT), is one of the most widely used methods
to assess the alkali silica reactivity (ASR) of aggregates
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

(Brub and Fournier 1993; Shon et al. 2002; Johnston et al.

2000,2004). The AMBT requires a minimum of 14 days after
immersing test specimens in 1.0N NaOH at 80C (176F) to
determine the extent of aggregate reactivity. The concerns
over the 14-day failure limit of 0.10% (Jin 1998; Folliard
et al. 2005; Lenke and Malvar 2009) had led to additional
expansion limits of 0.33% at 28 days and 0.48% at 56 days,
proposed by Hooton (1991, 1995) and Hooton and Rogers
(1993). Islam (2010) suggested that aggregates producing
the 28- and 56-day mortar expansions of 0.28% and 0.47%,
respectively, can be considered reactive. Additionally, aggregates generating expansions of more than 0.10% at 14 days
and less than 0.28% at 28 days and 0.47% at 56 days can be
classified as moderately reactive (Islam 2010).
The main factor in suppressing or eliminating ASR is
through the use of innocuous (non-reactive) aggregates in
concrete construction. However, the reactive aggregates can
also be used without affecting the ASR-induced damages
in concrete by using various mitigation techniques (Mather
1999; Touma et al. 2001; Islam 2010). Fly ash is the most
commonly used secondary cementitious material (SCM) in
concrete because of its economical, technical, and ecological benefits. Using Class F fly ash as a partial replacement of
portland cement by weight is the most beneficial and practical
means of controlling concrete expansions caused by ASR.
The effectiveness of fly ash is clearly proven to be fairly
variable in preventing ASR, primarily because its composition depends on the properties of coals from which it is
produced (Hudec and Banahene 1993; Malvar et al. 2002;
Schwing 2010; Jasso 2012). The compositional characteristic of Class F fly ash, when used in a sufficient amount,
makes a substantial difference in its influence on ASRinduced expansion (McKeen et al. 1998, 2000; Shehata and
Thomas 2006; Ballard et al. 2008; Schwing 2010; Jasso
2012). Evaluation of the pozzolanic activity of fly ash falls
into three categories: chemical, physical, and mechanical
(Malhotra and Ramezanianpour 1994). The chemical evaluation of fly ash has two distinct influence on its capacity
to control ASR-induced expansion: the constituents that
increase expansion and those that reduce expansion (Malvar
et al. 2001; Malvar and Lenke 2006; Thomas 2011).
Calcium oxide (CaO) in fly ash has been proven to be
the major constituent that induces ASR expansion most
ACI Materials Journal, V. 113, No. 1, January-February 2016.
MS No. M-2014-195.R5, doi: 10.14359/51688180, received April 12, 2015, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2016, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journals date if the discussion
is received within four months of the papers print publication.

13

Table 1Identification, chemical composition, rock type, and potential ASR reactivity of trial aggregates
Chemical composition, %
Aggregate
ID

SiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3

CaO

MgO

Na2O

K2O

Loss on
ignition

Rock type

Potential ASR

Field performance

A-1

13.50

0.40

0.29

32.55

13.09

0.03

0.14

39.4

Dolomite-limestone

Reactive

N.R.

A-2

63.09

11.50

3.48

6.92

1.97

2.34

3.28

6.43

Dacite

Reactive

Reactive

A-3

60.82

15.89

5.37

4.34

2.49

3.57

3.73

2.14

Andesite

Reactive

Reactive

A-4

68.00

15.48

2.86

1.14

0.94

4.52

5.40

0.63

Dacite

Reactive

Reactive

A-5

59.33

17.15

5.83

5.30

2.54

3.76

2.68

1.83

Andesite

Reactive

Reactive

A-6

52.50

18.45

8.35

8.36

4.59

3.74

1.22

0.98

Basaltic-andesite

Reactive

Reactive

Note: N.R. is no record.

(Malhotra and Ramezanianpour 1994; Bleszynski and

Thomas 1998; McKeen et al. 1998; Malvar et al. 2001;
Shehata and Thomas 2000; Malvar and Lenke 2006;
Thomas 2011). Other deleterious constituents of SCMs are
Na2Oeq, MgO, and SO3. All constituents of fly ash liable to
increase ASR-induced expansion can be replaced by their
CaO molar equivalents (CaOeq) of total cementitious materials in a concrete mixture, and they are presented in Eq.(2)
(Malvar and Lenke 2005, 2006; Lenke and Malvar 2009).
The 14-day mortar expansion and the CaOeq of total binding
materials showed a better correlation with an R2 value of
0.7800 than the previously developed correlation for a single
constituent of CaO with an R2 of 0.7143, Na2Oeq with an R2
of 0.0251, MgO with an R2 of 0.055, and SO3 with an R2
of 0.05, in promoting ASR expansion (Malvar and Lenke
2005, 2006). The sequence in which the constituents of fly
ash are beneficial to suppress ASR is SiO2 > Al2O3 > Fe2O3,
and these constituents can be replaced by their SiO2 equivalents (SiO2(eq)) as shown in Eq. (1) (Malvar and Lenke 2005,
2006). The influence of the equivalent SiO2 content on ASR
expansion has shown an inverse correlation with an R2 value
of 0.7834, which is better than any previous correlation with
a single component of SiO2 (R2 = 0.741), Al2O3 (R2 = 0.604),
and Fe2O3 (R2 = 0.131) (Malvar and Lenke 2005, 2006).
SiO2(eq) = SiO2 + 0.589Al2O3 + 0.376Fe2O3 (1)
CaOeq = CaO + 0.905Na2Oeq + 1.391MgO + 0.700SO3 (2)
A higher level of calcium in the fly ash elevates the
Ca/Si ratio that forms lower hydration and increases the level
of alkalinity in pore solution (Shehata et al. 1999; Kerenidis
2007; Schwing 2010). Malvar and Lenke (2005, 2006) and
Lenke and Malvar (2009) proposed a model to determine
the optimum analytical fly ash dosage for a given reactive
aggregate to be non-reactive at the test duration of 14 days.
The model also used the ratio of CaOeq and SiO2(eq) of total
cementitious materials in the mortar bar and the expansion
of untreated mortar bars made with the companion aggregate group. The model overestimated the optimum fly ash
replacement for each reactive aggregate required to inhibit
the expansion below the prescribed failure limit of 0.10%
at 14 days.

14

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
This study serves as an extension to the past research
studies by: a) proposing prediction models of using the
SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious
materials to determine the minimum dosage of Class F fly
ash needed to inhibit the ASR-induced expansion below
the recommended failure limits at 14, 28, and 56 days; and
b) verifying the validation of the proposed models on the
experimental data of the previous studies consisting of eight
aggregates having different mineralogy, two types of portland cements, and six types of Class F fly ashes having a
wide range of chemical compositions. Finally, a detailed
statistical analysis was performed to support the findings.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The reactive aggregates used in this study were acquired
from six different quarries. The identification, percent chemical composition (rock type), and potential reactivity of each
aggregate are shown in Table 1. The chemical compositions
of ASTM Type V portland cement used in this study were:
21% SiO2, 3.6% Al2O3, 3.4% Fe2O3, 63.1% CaO, 4.7% MgO,
0.84% Na2Oeq, 2.6% SO3, and 1.3% loss on ignition (LOI).
Class F fly ash consisted of 57.8% SiO2, 21.7% Al2O3, 5.1%
Fe2O3, 7.4% CaO, 0.30% Na2Oeq, and 0.2% LOI was also
used as sole secondary cementitious material.
Table 2 shows the mixture constituents of mortar bars,
conformed to the requirements ASTM C1260 (2007) and
C1567 (2007), prepared with various dosages (0, 15, 20, 25,
and 30%) of Class F fly ash as a partial replacement of portland cement by weight. The SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and the ratio
of CaOeq and SiO2(eq) of the total cementitious materials in
the studied mortar bars are also presented in Table 2. Four
mortar bar specimens were prepared from each reactive
aggregate type and each dosage of Class F fly ash content.
The mortar bars were mixed in accordance with the requirements of ASTM C305, and they were molded within a total
elapsed time of less than 2 minutes and 15 seconds. After
24 hours of moist curing, the bars were demolded and initial
readings were taken. The bars were then stored in water at
80C (176F) for 24 hours, after which the zero readings
were recorded. Afterward, the specimens were immersed in
1N NaOH solution in an air-sealed plastic container maintaining a temperature of 80C (176F). Additional readings
were taken at 3, 6, 10, and 14 days, and one reading per week
until the immersion age of 98 days.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

Table 2Mixture constituents of mortar bars prepared with various dosages of Class F fly ash
Test

Fly ash, %

Graded aggregate, g

w/c*

Portland
cement, g

ASTM C1260

ASTM C1567

Class F
fly ash, g

SiO2(eq), %

CaOeq, %

CaOeq/SiO2eq

2310.0

0.47

1026.7

0.0

24.40

71.84

2.94

15

2310.0

0.47

872.7

154.0

31.61

62.27

1.97

20

2310.0

0.47

821.3

205.4

34.02

59.07

1.74

25

2310.0

0.47

769.9

256.7

36.42

55.88

1.53

30

2310.0

0.47

718.5

308.0

38.83

52.69

1.36

w/c is water-cement ratio.

Using Eq. (1).

Using Eq. (2).

Note: 1 g = 0.0022 lb.
*

Table 3Optimum experimental Class F fly ash

dosage to suppress ASR-induced expansion, %

Fig. 1Expansion progression of untreated mortar bars.

28-day

56-day

Aggregate
ID

14-day*
(0.10%)

(0.28%)

(0.33%)

(0.47%)

(0.48%)

A-1

15

15

20

20

20

A-2

15

15

15

15

15

A-3

25

20

25

25

25

A-4

20

15

15

15

20

A-5

25

25

30

30

30

A-6

25

25

30

30

30

Failure criteria based on ASTM C1260.

Failure criteria proposed by Islam (2010).

Failure criteria proposed by Hooton (1991, 1995) and Hooton and Rogers (1993).

Fig. 2Expansion development of mortar bars prepared

with A-2 aggregate and various dosages of Class F fly ash.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Expansion development of untreated mortar bars
Figure 1 shows the progression of ASR-induced expansion of the untreated mortar bars made with each trial aggregate. As can be seen, the mortar expansion increased with
an increase in test duration. However, the progression in
expansion varied depending on aggregate type. In general,
a maximum increase in expansion was observed between
the test durations of 14 and 28 days. A moderate increase in
expansion was noted between the ages of 28 and 56 days,
after which the mortar bars expanded slowly up to the test
duration of 98 days.
The ASR of the investigated aggregates was classified
based on the previously suggested expansion limits at the
test durations of 14, 28, and 56 days. It was found that the
14-day expansion limit of 0.10% resulted in all aggregates
as reactive, and a similar outcome was also obtained by
the failure criteria in the extended test durations of 28 and
56 days, which were proposed by Hooton (1991, 1995),
Hooton and Rogers (1993), and Islam (2010). As such, a
nearly perfect correlation existed on the aggregate reactivity
based on the expansion limits at the ages of 14, 28, and 56
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

days. Because ASR is a complex mechanism that depends

on a number of factors, it is highly recommended to use
conservative expansion limits in evaluating the reactivity
of an aggregate. As such, in this study, the 28- and 56-day
extended failure criteria of 0.28% and 0.47%, respectively,
were used.
Expansion development of mortar bars treated
with Class F fly ash
The study showed a strong influence of the Class F fly
ash dosages in arresting the ASR-induced expansion of the
investigated reactive aggregates. Figure 2 shows the expansion development of mortar bars prepared with A-2 aggregate and various dosages of Class F fly ash. As can be seen,
mortar expansion increased with an increase in test duration
and decreased with increased in fly ash content of the mortar
bar. The characteristics of the remaining five aggregates
followed a similar pattern to that of the A-2 aggregate group.
Table 3 documents the optimum experimental fly ash
dosages required to inhibit the excessive mortar expansions
of the six reactive aggregates at the test durations of 14, 28,
and 56 days. As can be seen, the amount of Class F fly ash
to inhibit ASR-related expansions of the A-2 aggregate at
the early age of 14 days was also insufficient to reduce the
increased expansion at the extended test durations of 28 and
56 days. The A-1, A-5, and A-6 aggregates required a higher
dosage of Class F fly ash to control both ASR-induced expansions at 28 and 56 days than that required at 14 days. In the
case of the A-4 aggregate group, the 15% Class F fly ash was
15

Fig. 3Reduction in expansion of mortar bars treated with: (a) 15%; and (b) 30% Class F fly ash dosages.
capable of inhibiting ASR-related expansions of the mortar
bars immersed in the solution for 28 and 56 days, whereas
the amount was insufficient to reduce the mortar expansion
below the expansion limit of 0.10% at 14 days. Table 3 also
shows that the 28- and 56-day failure criteria resulted in a
good agreement on the ASR classifications of the trial aggregates when treated with various dosages of Class F fly ash.
Because the alkali-silica reactivity of aggregate depends on
a number of factors, it is recommended to use the maximum
required fly ash dosage in controlling the mortar expansion
of each reactive aggregate below the expansion limits of
0.10% at 14 days, 0.28% at 28 days, and 0.47% at 56 days.
As such, the extended failure limits of 0.28% at 28 days
and 0.47% at 56 days, proposed by Islam (2010), would be
used instead of the expansion limits (0.33% at 28 days and
0.48% at 56 days) recommended by Hooton (1991, 1995)
and Hooton and Rogers (1993).
Reduction in expansion of control mortar bars
treated with Class F fly ash
The effectiveness of Class F fly ash in suppressing the
control expansion of the selected reactive aggregates was
expressed in term of reduction in expansion (RIE) of the
untreated mortar bars prepared with the companion aggregate groups. The characteristic of the RIE of the mortar bars
prepared with 15 and 30% Class F fly ash dosages over the
test duration is shown in Fig. 3. As can be seen, the RIE at the
early age of 14 days was shown to be the highest, and then
gradually decreased with an increase in the test duration. For
each fly ash replacement, the RIE decreased rapidly with an
increase in test duration at lower fly ash content (15%) than
that obtained for the higher (30%) fly ash mortar bars. The
RIE of the specimens treated with 30% Class F fly ash over
the test duration of 98 days was fairly linear for all aggregate
groups (Fig. 3(b)) when compared to that of made with 15%
fly ash content (Fig. 3(a)). After approximately 3 months of
testing, the RIE became relatively constant, indicating that
the expansion rate of the fly ash specimens was similar to
that of the untreated mortar bars.
The 14-day RIE of the mortar bars made with the selected
reactive aggregates varied from 61.9 to 75.5% with an
average of 70.2% for the 15% fly ash, from 77.3 to 85.1%
with an average of 81.7% for the 20% fly ash, from 83.4 to
91.6% with an average of 88.0% for the 25% fly ash, and
from 87.4 to 96.3% with an average of 92.5% for the 30%
16

fly ash, respectively. As the testing period prolonged, the

variation in the RIE among the selected reactive aggregates
increased. The 98-day RIE of the mortar bars varied from
22.3 to 49.6% for the 15% fly ash, from 41.9 to 62.9% for
the 20% fly ash, from 50.8 to 74.2% for the 25% fly ash, and
from 61.1 to 79.8% for the 30% fly ash, respectively. Finally,
the study showed that the influence of Class F fly ash on the
mortar expansions of six reactive aggregates varied widely
for the lower fly ash dosage (Fig. 3(a)) than for the higher fly
ash content (Fig. 3(b)).
Relationship between Class F fly ash replacement
and the SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total
cementitious materials in mortar bars
The effectiveness of Class F fly ash dosages in preventing
ASR-induced expansion was analyzed through the chemical compositions of total cementitious materials in the
mixture. The SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and the CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of the
total cementitious materials in the trial mortar bars were
shown in Table 2. The computations were made on a weight
and composition basis of each cementitious material (portland cement and Class F fly ash) in each trial mixture. The
percent of Class F fly ash content (FA) versus the SiO2(eq),
CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials in
mortar bars are shown in Eq. (4), (5), and (6), respectively.
The compositions of total binding materials showed a nearly
perfect linear correlation with R2 values of 1.00, 1.00, and
0.98 for Eq. (4), (5), and (6), respectively

FA (%) = 2.079(SiO2(eq)) 50.723

(4)

FA (%) = 1.566(CaOeq) + 112.530

(5)

FA (%) = 18.841(CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) + 53.597

(6)

Effect of SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total

cementitious materials on mortar expansion
A typical 14-day mortar expansion over the SiO2(eq),
CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2eq of total cementitious materials in
the trial mortar bar is shown Fig. 4. As can be seen, a very
good linear correlation with the R2 values of 0.9137, 0.9138,
and 0.9731 existed between the 14-day mortar expansion
and the SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding
materials in the mortar bar, respectively. Figure 4(a)
demonstrated that the mortar expansion decreased with
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

Fig. 4Relationship between 14-day expansion of A-4 aggregate and: (a) SiO2(eq); (b) CaOeq; and (c) CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total
cementitious materials.
a decrease of SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials. The
expansion increased with an increase of CaOeq and CaOeq/
SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials present in mortar
bars, as shown in Fig. 4(b) and (c), respectively. The trends
indicated an agreement with the findings obtained by the
past research investigations (Malvar and Lenke 2005, 2006).
Once the test duration was extended to 28 and 56 days, the
patterns of the data points of A-4 aggregate for the SiO2(eq),
CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding materials in the
mortar bar were found to be identical to that observed in
Fig. 4(a), (b), and (c), respectively. The expansion behavior
of the remaining five aggregates displayed a similar characteristic to that of the A-4 aggregate group. As such, the
typical relationships between the mortar expansions and the
SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding materials
in the mortar bars at the test durations of 14, 28, and 56 days
can be represented by linear regressions of Eq. (7), (8), and
(9), respectively

Exp = ms [SiO2(eq)] + cs (7)

Exp = mc [CaOeq] + cc (8)

Exp = mc/s [CaOeq/SiO2(eq)] + cc/s (9)

where Exp is the expansion of mortar bar prepared with 0, 15,

20, 25, and 30% Class F fly ash; ms, mc, and mc/s are the slopes
of the linear regression lines of mortar expansion versus
SiO2eq, CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials, respectively; cs, cc, and cc/s are the intercepts of the linear
regression lines of mortar expansion versus SiO2eq, CaOeq,
and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding materials, respectively.
Proposed models to predict optimum dosages of
Class F Fly ash using SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and
CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials
An analytical study was conducted to predict the optimum
dosage of Class F fly ash that was capable of suppressing the
excessive expansion of the investigated reactive aggregates
below the adopted failure limits during the test durations of 14,
28, and 56 days. The analysis was conducted using the SiO2(eq),
CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials in the
mortar bars. The expansions of mortar bars prepared with each
investigated reactive aggregate and the SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials in the corresponding mortar bars were fitted
with Eq. (7) at the test durations of 14, 28, and 56 days. The
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

regression coefficients of ms and cs, the t-ratio of both regression coefficients, the standard error of the estimate, and the R2
and R2adj of Eq. (7) for each aggregate group were determined.
The results are documented in Table 4.
As can be seen in Table 4, the t-ratio of each regression
coefficient (ms and cs) was much greater than 1.0, which indicated that the both parameters are more significant to Eq. (7).
The coefficients of determination of Eq. (7) for all aggregate
groups (R2 = 85.2 to 99.5) implied that approximately 85 to
99% of the variability of dependent variable (mortar expansion) was explained by the linear model. Additionally, the
adjusted coefficient of determination (R2adj), another reliable
parameter for the model, was shown to be very close to the
R2 values, and the standard errors of the estimate (0.026 to
0.150) were very low. It indicates that the expansion data
of the investigated six reactive aggregates were nicely fitted
with Eq. (7).
The relationships between the mortar expansions and the
CaOeq and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding materials were also
fitted with Eq. (8) and (9), respectively. The values of mc,
cc, mc/s, and cc/s were determined for each aggregate group
during the test durations of 14, 28, and 56 days. Additionally,
the analysis of variance of Eq. (8) and (9) for each reactive
aggregate was also performed. The results obtained from
various statistical parameters of R2, R2adj, standard error of
the estimate, and Prob(F) showed that Eq. (8) and (9) were
shown to be a very good fit for experimental expansion data
and the CaOeq and the CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding materials at 14, 28, and 56 days, respectively.
The coefficients of ms and cs of Eq. (7), mc and cc of
Eq. (8), and mc/s and cc/s of Eq. (9) were correlated with the
expansion of control mortar bars and the test durations of 14,
28, and 56 days. The regression equations that fit most with
the independent variables and the response variables of ms,
cs, mc, cc, mc/s, and cc/s were represented by Eq. (10) through
(15), respectively. As can be demonstrated, approximately
99.0%, 99.6%, 99.0%, 97.9%, 99%, and 91.7% of the independent variables (mortar expansion and test duration) were
explained by the coefficients of ms, cs, mc, cc, mc/s, and cc/s,
respectively. The adjusted coefficients of multiple determination (RadjR) were shown to be very close to measured R2,
and Prob(F) was shown to be 0.0000. These indicated that
Eq. (10) through (15) were well-fitted between the coefficients (ms, cs, mc, cc, mc/s, and cc/s) and the independent variables of control mortar expansion and test duration.

17

Table 4Coefficients and statistical significance of Eq. (7) for each aggregate for test durations of 14, 28,
and 56 days
Aggregate
ID
A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

t-ratio

Parameters

Test duration,
days

Standard error

R2

R2adj

14

0.649

0.017

16.586

14.304

0.026

0.919

0.915

28

1.268

0.032

23.516

20.102

0.036

0.957

0.955

56

2.086

0.052

22.719

18.766

0.061

0.951

0.949

14

0.787

0.021

11.564

10.177

0.045

0.852

0.844

28

1.457

0.038

14.247

12.403

0.068

0.895

0.889

56

2.168

0.055

20.751

17.517

0.069

0.945

0.942

14

2.247

0.059

15.023

13.240

0.099

0.907

0.902

28

2.811

0.071

18.272

15.433

0.102

0.930

0.926

56

2.934

0.069

28.122

22.039

0.069

0.964

0.962

14

1.175

0.031

15.966

14.035

0.049

0.916

0.912

28

1.518

0.038

25.580

21.528

0.039

0.963

0.961

56

1.834

0.044

33.487

26.661

0.036

0.975

0.974

14

2.813

0.075

13.870

12.399

0.134

0.895

0.889

28

3.949

0.102

17.482

15.070

0.150

0.927

0.923

56

4.698

0.112

47.295

37.624

0.066

0.987

0.987

14

2.260

0.060

15.444

13.695

0.097

0.912

0.908

28

2.993

0.076

23.824

20.146

0.083

0.958

0.955

56

3.478

0.081

76.028

59.436

0.030

0.995

0.995

The proposed analytical models required the expansion of

the control mortar bars (having no fly ash content, Exp0%FA)
and the chemical compositions of cementitious materials in
mortar bars to predict the optimum analytical fly ash content
in mitigating the excessive expansion below the prescribed
failure limits. Once the control expansion (Exp0%FA) of a
reactive aggregate was known, the values of slope (ms) and
intercept (cs) of Eq. (7) for the 14, 28, and 56 days were
determined by substituting the Exp0%FA in Eq. (10) and (11),
respectively. The required SiO2eq of the cementitious materials in mortar bars to inhibit the 14-, 28-, and 56-day mortar
expansion of each trial reactive aggregate below the failure
criteria of 0.10%, 0.28%, and 0.47%, respectively, was evaluated by replacing the values of ms and cs in Eq. (7). Finally,
Eq. (4) yielded the required minimum dosages of Class F fly
ash to resist the alkali-silica reactivity of each trial aggregate
at the test durations of 14, 28, and 56 days. The prediction of
optimum Class F fly ash content (or SiO2(eq)) in mortar bars
to suppress alkali-silica reactivity of the investigated aggregate groups is shown in Table 5.

ms = 0.0980 (Exp0%FA)0.9900 T0.1381 (10)

cs = 2.9924 (Exp0%FA)0.9964 T0.0609 (11)

mc = 0.0740 (Exp0%FA)0.9905 T0.1390 (12)

cc = 4.9815 (Exp0%FA) 0.9873 T0.2183 (13)

mc/s = 0.9584 (Exp0%FA)0.9886 T0.1603 (14)

18

cc/s = 3.0628 (Exp0%FA)0.9933 T0.4614 (15)

where Exp0%FA is control expansion (%); ms, mc, and mc/s are
the slopes of the linear regression lines of Eq. (7) through
(9), respectively; cs, cc, and cc/s are the intercepts of the linear
regression lines of Eq. (7) through (9), respectively; and T is
test duration, in days.
The minimum dosages of Class F fly ash content to
suppress alkali-silica reactivity using the CaOeq and
CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials in mortar
bars was also evaluated using the similar procedures to that
obtained using the SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials.
Tables 6 and 7 present the prediction of optimum Class F fly
ash content in the mortar bars to suppress ASR using the CaOeq
and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials at the test
durations of 14, 28, and 56 days, respectively. As can be seen in
Tables 5 through 7, a good agreement existed between the
required optimum Class F fly ash content evaluated by
experimental setting, and that predicted by the proposed
models using SiO2(eq), CaOeq and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total
cementitious materials present in the mortar bars at the ages
of 14, 28, and 56 days.
Figure 5 shows the percent difference between the
optimum experimental and analytical fly ash contents for
each reactive aggregates at the test durations of 14, 28, and
56 days. As can be seen, the variations in optimum Class F fly
ash content obtained from the experimental procedures and
the proposed analytical methods using three different chemical
compositions (SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) of binding
materials were insignificant for each reactive aggregate and
test duration. The optimum experimental fly ash dosage that
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

Table 5Prediction of optimum Class F fly ash content (SiO2(eq)) in mortar bars to suppress ASR using
SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials
Aggregate
ID
A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

Test duration, days

Control
expansion, %

14

Estimated statistical parameters

m s*

cs

Suppressive
expansion, %

Estimated
SiO2(eq)

Analytical fly
ash||, %

Experimental
fly ash, %

0.275

0.0190

0.7040

0.080

32.92

17.7

15.0

28

0.502

0.0312

1.2287

0.224

32.18

16.2

15.0

56

0.823

0.0463

1.9275

0.248

36.27

24.7

20.0

14

0.310

0.0222

0.8270

0.071

33.97

19.8

15.0

28

0.570

0.0367

1.4458

0.170

34.74

20.0

15.0

56

0.870

0.0500

2.0840

0.360

34.47

20.3

15.0

14

0.890

0.0606

2.2679

0.099

35.79

23.7

25.0

28

1.171

0.0723

2.8597

0.236

36.29

24.7

25.0

56

1.318

0.0738

3.0833

0.434

35.89

23.9

25.0

14

0.465

0.0319

1.1882

0.081

34.72

21.5

20.0

28

0.620

0.0385

1.5178

0.262

32.58

17.0

15.0

56

0.800

0.0450

1.8750

0.412

32.48

16.8

15.0

14

1.097

0.0746

2.7944

0.082

36.38

24.9

25.0

28

1.600

0.0984

3.9007

0.251

37.09

26.4

25.0

56

1.993

0.1112

4.6552

0.432

37.99

28.3

30.0

14

0.886

0.0603

2.2580

0.079

36.12

24.4

25.0

28

1.218

0.0751

2.9727

0.236

36.42

25.0

25.0

56

1.514

0.0847

3.5403

0.352

37.64

27.5

30.0

Using Eq. (10).

Using Eq. (11).

Mortar expansion, determined by experimental procedures, below failure limits of 0.10% at 14 days, 0.28% at 28 days, and 0.47% at 56 days.

Using Eq. (7) and estimated values of ms and cs.

||
Using Eq. (4) and estimated SiO2eq.
*

was sufficient to inhibit the ASR of the investigated reactive

aggregates showed a good correlation with the analytical fly
ash content except for the A-2 aggregate source, for which
the difference was shown to be approximately 34% at 14, 28,
and 56 days. The reasons for the deviation may be attributed
to the aggregate mineralogy, its atomic structure, and their
interactions with the physcio-chemical compositions of total
cementitious materials.
Use of proposed models on previous studies
The proposed analytical models were used on the expansion data of mortar bars prepared with eight reactive aggregates, two types of portland cement, and five types of Class F
fly ash, which were retrieved from the past studies conducted
by Touma (2000), Touma et al. (2001), and Schwing (2010).
The identification, mineralogy, source and the reactivity of
the aggregates used in these investigations are shown in
Table 8. As can be shown, the aggregates were collected
from different geological regions and they consisted of a
wide range of mineralogy.
The chemical compositions of total cementitious materials
used in the selected past studies are presented in Table 9. As
can be seen, portland cement (Type I/II) (PC) having total
alkali content (Na2Oeq) of 1.14% and Class F fly ash (FC)
having total alkali content (Na2Oeq) of 0.30% were used as
cementitious materials in the studies conducted by Touma
(2000) and Touma et al. (2001). The study conducted by
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

Schwing (2010) used four types of Class F fly ash (FA1,

FA2, FA3 and FA4) having a broad spectrum of alkali, silica,
and calcium contents and Type I portland cement (PC1). The
SiO2, CaO, Al2O3, Fe2O3, MgO, SO3, and Na2Oeq of the FA1,
FA2, FA3, and FA4 fly ashes varied from 47.66 to 63.95%,
5.63 to 12.30%, 16.4 to 25.14%, 4.21 to 6.01%, 0.94 to
4.14%, 0.37 to 1.2%, and 1.04 to 6.61%, respectively. The
Na2Oeq of all fly ashes (1.04 to 6.61%) was much higher than
that of portland cement (PC1) (0.79%) used in the experimental investigation conducted by Schwing (2010).
Because the percent chemical compositions of total
cementitious materials used in the selected past studies were
different than those used in this study, Eq. (4) through (6)
were needed to be reformed to incorporate the SiO2(eq), CaOeq,
and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of binding materials in each mixture. The
relationships between the Class F fly ash replacement and
the SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding materials in mortar bars were shown in Eq. (16) through (18) for
PC+FC, Eq. (19) through (21) for PC1+FC1, Eq. (22) through
(24) for PC1+FC2, Eq. (25) through (27) for PC1+FC3, and
Eq. (28) through (30) for PC1+FC4.
For PC+FC

FA (%) = 2.223(SiO2(eq)) 54.765

(16)

FA (%) = 1.882(CaOeq) + 131.660

(17)
19

Table 6Prediction of optimum Class F fly ash content (CaOeq) in mortar bars to suppress ASR using
CaOeq of total cementitious materials
Aggregate
ID

Test duration, days

Control
expansion, %

14
A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

Estimated statistical parameters

mc*

cc

Suppressive
expansion, %

Estimated
CaOeq

Analytical fly
ash||, %

Experimental
fly ash, %

0.275

0.0143

0.7827

0.080

60.44

17.9

15.0

28

0.502

0.0235

1.2183

0.224

61.31

16.5

15.0

56

0.823

0.0348

1.7060

0.248

56.07

24.7

20.0

14

0.310

0.0168

0.9182

0.071

59.06

20.0

15.0

28

0.570

0.0276

1.4315

0.170

57.93

21.8

15.0

56

0.870

0.0377

1.8432

0.360

58.49

20.9

15.0

14

0.890

0.0457

2.4949

0.099

56.79

23.6

25.0

28

1.171

0.0545

2.8138

0.236

56.00

24.8

25.0

56

1.318

0.0556

2.7173

0.434

56.68

23.7

25.0

14

0.465

0.0240

1.3148

0.081

58.11

21.5

20.0

28

0.620

0.0290

1.5020

0.262

60.81

17.3

15.0

56

0.800

0.0339

1.6599

0.412

61.11

16.8

15.0

14

1.097

0.0562

3.0682

0.082

56.04

24.7

25.0

28

1.600

0.0742

3.8272

0.251

54.99

26.4

25.0

56

1.993

0.0837

4.0873

0.432

53.97

28.0

30.0

14

0.886

0.0455

2.4841

0.079

56.36

24.3

25.0

28

1.218

0.0566

2.9239

0.236

55.83

25.1

25.0

56

1.514

0.0638

3.1162

0.352

54.38

27.4

30.0

Using Eq. (12).

Using Eq. (13).

Mortar expansion, determined by experimental procedures, below failure limits of 0.10% at 14 days, 0.28% at 28 days, and 0.47% at 56 days.

Using Eq. (8) and estimated values of mc and cc.

||
Using Eq. (5) and estimated CaOeq.
*

FA (%) = 19.438(CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) + 54.754

(18)

For PC1+FA1

FA (%) = 1.926(SiO2(eq)) 46.848

(28)

FA (%) = 1.655(CaOeq) + 133.465

(29)

FA (%) = 21.846(CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) + 60.303

(30)

FA (%) = 2.658(SiO2(eq)) 64.660

(19)

FA (%) = 2.195(CaOeq) + 150.524

(20)

FA (%) = 26.148(CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) + 72.550

(21)

The proposed analytical models were used in the study

conducted by Touma (2000) and Touma et al. (2001) to
predict the optimum dosage of Class F fly ash in restraining
the ASR-induced expansion of six reactive aggregates below
the prescribed threshold limits at the test durations of 14 and
28 days. The results are documented in Table 10. A maximum
of 20% variation was noted between the optimum Class F fly
ash contents of each reactive aggregate evaluated by the experimental procedures and that determined by the three proposed
empirical equations using the SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq)
of total cememtitios materials in the mortar bars. However, the
14-day expansion limit of 0.10% resulted in slight conservative
outcome of the optimum Class F fly ash content as compared to
the 28-day expansion limit of 0.28%.
The proposed empirical models were also verified on the
experimental expansion data prepared with two reactive
aggregates (A1 and A2) and four types of Class F fly ashes,
which were retrieved from the study conducted by Schwing
(2010). Table 11 shows the prediction of optimum dosages
of four types of Class F fly ash required to inhibit the mortar
expansions of A1 and A2 aggregates at the test durations

For PC1+FA2

FA (%) = 2.404(SiO2(eq)) 58.470

(22)

FA (%) = 2.122(CaOeq) + 145.540

(23)

FA (%) = 25.059(CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) + 69.438

(24)

For PC1+FA3

FA (%) = 1.960(SiO2(eq)) 47.674

(25)

FA (%) = 1.794(CaOeq) + 122.987

(26)

FA (%) = 22.463(CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) + 62.047

(27)

For PC1+FA4
20

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

Table 7Prediction of optimum Class F fly ash content (CaOeq/SiO2(eq)) in mortar bars to suppress ASR
using CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials

Aggregate ID
A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

A-5

A-6

mc/s*

cc/s

Suppressive
expansion,
%

0.275

0.1752

0.2514

0.080

1.89

18.0

15.0

28

0.502

0.2841

0.3318

0.224

1.95

16.8

15.0

56

0.823

0.4143

0.3937

0.248

1.55

24.4

20.0

14

0.310

0.2056

0.2952

0.071

1.78

20.0

15.0

28

0.570

0.3338

0.3902

0.170

1.68

22.0

15.0

56

0.870

0.4477

0.4255

0.360

1.75

20.6

15.0

14

0.890

0.5592

0.8069

0.099

1.62

23.1

25.0

28

1.171

0.6568

0.7701

0.236

1.53

24.7

25.0

56

1.318

0.6603

0.6288

0.434

1.61

23.3

25.0

14

0.465

0.2945

0.4236

0.081

1.71

21.3

20.0

28

0.620

0.3503

0.4095

0.262

1.92

17.5

15.0

56

0.800

0.4031

0.3830

0.412

1.97

16.5

15.0

14

1.097

0.6879

0.9935

0.082

1.56

24.2

25.0

28

1.600

0.8937

1.0494

0.251

1.45

26.2

25.0

56

1.993

0.9938

0.9482

0.432

1.39

27.4

30.0

14

0.886

0.5568

0.8034

0.079

1.58

23.8

25.0

28

1.218

0.6825

0.8004

0.236

1.52

25.0

25.0

56

1.514

0.7574

0.7217

0.352

1.42

26.9

30.0

Test duration, days

Control
expansion, %

14

Estimated statistical parameters

Estimated
SiO2(eq)

Analytical fly Experimental

ash||, %
fly ash, %

Using Eq. (14).

Using Eq. (15).

Mortar expansion, determined by experimental procedures, below failure limits of 0.10% at 14 days, 0.28% at 28 days, and 0.47% at 56 days.

Using Eq. (9) and estimated values of mc/s and cc/s.

||
Using Eq. (6) and estimated CaOeq/SiO2(eq).
*

Fig. 5Percent difference between experimental and analytical fly ash contents for each reactive aggregate at test durations
of: (a) 14 days; (b) 28 days; and (c) 56 days.
of 14 and 28 days. As can be shown, the proposed empirical
models of using the SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total
cementitious materials resulted in nearly identical outcomes
for each reactive aggregate, which showed a good alignment
with the findings obtained by experimental procedures.
To validate the three empirical models proposed in this
study, they were used to predict the optimum amounts of
Class F Fly ash in suppressing the mortar expansions of 14
reactive aggregate groups (six from this study, six from the
studies conducted by Touma [2000] and Touma et al. [2001],
and remaining two from the study conducted by Schwing
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

[2010]) for three types of portland cement, and six types

of Class F fly ash having a wide range of alkali, silica, and
calcium contents. The study revealed that, regardless of
aggregate mineralogy and the chemical compositions of
total binding materials, the minimum dosages of Class F fly
ash determined by the proposed models of using the SiO2(eq),
CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials
were shown to be in good agreement with those produced by
the experimental procedures. Among the models proposed
in this study, however, the model using the CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of
total binding materials resulted in most accurate outcomes as
21

Table 8Identification, mineralogy, source, and reactivity of aggregates used in previous studies
Studies

Touma
(2000),
Touma et al.
(2001)

Aggregate
ID

Aggregate mineralogy

Aggregate source

Reactivity

Field
performance

A2-WY

Rhyolite

Wyoming

Reactivity

Reactive

A4-ID

Quartzite, sandstone, limestone, andesite, rhyolite

Idaho

Reactivity

Reactive

A6-NM

Rhyolite, andesite

New Mexico

Reactivity

Reactive

B4-VA

Quartz, quartzite, granitic rock fragments, siltstone, sandstone, and

natural mineral fragments

Virginia

Reactivity

N.R.

C2-SD

Pink quartzite, pyroxene, iron oxide, sericite, clay

South Dakota

Reactivity

Reactive

E2-IA

Glacial deposit, shale

Iowa

Reactivity

Innocuous

A1

Natural sand, mixed volcanic

Oregon

Reactivity

N.R.

A2

Mixed quartz/chert sand

Texas

Reactivity

N.R.

Schwing
(2010)

Note: N.R. is no record.

Table 9Chemical compositions of total cementitious materials used in previous studies, %

Studies

Cememtitious materials

SiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3

CaO

MgO

Na2Oeq

SO3

Loss on
ignition

Touma (2000),
Touma et al. (2001)

Type I/II portland cement (PC)

20.90

3.43

3.01

62.65

2.97

1.14

3.06

1.68

Class F fly ash (FA)

56.50

19.30

4.70

12.30

2.30

0.30

1.50

0.30

Type I portland cement (PC1)

20.08

5.61

2.51

63.79

1.22

0.79

3.39

1.59

Class F fly ash (FA1)

47.66

21.58

4.21

12.3

2.70

6.61

1.20

0.76

Class F fly ash (FA2)

54.06

16.36

6.01

11.16

4.14

4.52

0.64

0.24

Class F fly ash (FA3)

63.95

16.54

4.43

6.16

2.38

3.28

0.54

0.31

Class F fly ash (FA4)

59.36

25.14

5.56

5.63

0.94

1.04

0.37

0.16

Schwing (2010)

Table 10Prediction of optimum Class F fly ash content of each reactive aggregate used in the studies
conducted by Touma (2000) and Touma et al. (2001)
Aggregate
ID
A2-WY
A4-ID
A6-NM
B4-VA
C2-SD
E2-IA

Analytical fly ash dosage, %

Test durations,
days

Control
expansion, %

Suppressive
expansion*, %

SiO2(eq)

CaOeq

CaOeq/SiO2(eq)

Experimental
fly ash dosage, %

14

0.245

0.050

21.1

21.0

19.7

20.0

28

0.370

0.140

19.0

18.9

18.3

20.0

14

0.790

0.100

24.2

24.2

22.4

20.0

28

0.950

0.220

24.7

25.0

23.6

20.0

14

0.910

0.120

24.1

24.0

22.2

20.0

28

1.120

0.270

24.4

24.7

23.3

20.0

14

0.150

0.030

21.0

21.1

19.7

20.0

28

0.280

0.060

24.7

25.4

24.0

20.0

14

0.170

0.040

20.0

19.8

18.7

20.0

28

0.300

0.090

21.7

22.0

21.0

20.0

14

0.420

0.060

23.4

23.4

21.7

20.0

28

0.620

0.100

27.0

27.7

26.0

20.0

Expansion of mortar bars treated with Class F fly ash below failure limits of 0.10% at 14 days and 0.28% at 28 days except for A4-ID aggregate.

Using Eq. (10), (11), and (16).

Using Eq. (12), (13), and (17).

Using Eq. (14), (15), and (18).

*

compared to the optimum dosages of Class F fly ash determined by the experimental procedures.
Because the ASR of a reactive aggregate and its interactions with Class F fly ash depend on various factors, it
is recommended to use the analytical minimum dosage of
Class F fly ash that was sufficient to suppress the excess
22

expansions below the failure limits at the test durations of

14, 28, and 56 days. Considering the complex mechanisms
of ASR, it is also recommended that each reactive aggregate
needs to be experimentally tested with the anticipated cement
and Class F fly ash before used in concrete construction.

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

Table 11Prediction of optimum Class F fly ash content of each reactive aggregate used in the study
conducted by Schwing (2010)
Aggregate
ID

Class F fly
ash ID
FA1
FA2

A1
FA3
FA4||
FA1
FA2
A2
FA3
FA4||

Analytical fly ash dosage, %

Test
durations, days

Control
expansion, %

Suppressive
expansion*, %

SiO2(eq)

CaOeq

CaOeq/SiO2(eq)

Experimental fly ash

dosage, %

14

0.656

0.085

29.6

25.0

28.5

25.0

28

0.851

0.211

29.6

25.4

29.4

25.0

14

0.656

0.039

29.2

27.0

31.0

35.0

28

0.851

0.142

29.9

28.2

32.7

35.0

14

0.656

0.100

21.1

19.6

24.3

25.0

28

0.851

0.278

19.3

18.7

22.7

25.0

14

0.656

0.030

23.8

21.5

27.3

25.0

28

0.851

0.121

24.7

22.9

29.2

25.0

14

0.280

0.079

23.2

18.3

23.5

25.0

28

0.405

0.138

22.8

20.8

26.3

25.0

14

0.280

0.036

26.3

23.9

28.4

35.0

28

0.405

0.096

26.9

24.9

29.8

35.0

14

0.280

0.037

26.2

20.1

25.2

25.0

28

0.405

0.116

24.9

19.1

24.5

25.0

14

0.280

0.040

25.8

18.1

24.0

25.0

28

0.405

0.086

27.7

20.2

26.6

25.0

Expansion of mortar bars treated with Class F fly ash below failure limits of 0.10% at 14 days and 0.28% at 28 days.
Using Eq. (19), (20), and (21) for SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq), respectively.

Using Eq. (22), (23), and (24) for SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq), respectively.

Using Eq. (25), (26), and (27) for SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq), respectively.
||
Using Eq. (28), (29), and (30) for SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq), respectively.
*

CONCLUSIONS
1. The mortar expansion decreased with an increase in fly ash
content. The percent reduction in expansion of the fly-ash treated
mortar bars was highest at 14 days and gradually decreased with
an increase in test duration. Additionally, the reduction in expansion decreased more rapidly with an increase in test duration at
the lower fly ash content (that is, 15%) than that obtained for the
mortar bars made with higher fly ash dosage (that is, 30%).
2. For a few aggregates, the minimum experimental
Class F fly ash dosage to inhibit excessive ASR-induced
expansions below the 0.10% at 14 days proved to be effective
in reducing expansions below 0.28% at 28 days and 0.47%
at 56 days. However, for the most reactive aggregates, a
higher dosage of Class F fly ash was needed to suppress ASR
expansions at 28 and 56 days than that required at 14 days.
3. The mortar expansion decreased linearly with an
increase in the SiO2(eq) of total cementitious materials in the
mortar bar. Conversely, it increased proportionally with an
increase in the CaOeq and the CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of total binding
materials in the mixture.
4. The proposed analytical models were able to predict the
optimum dosage of Class F fly ash in suppressing the excess
mortar expansion of the six studied reactive aggregates
below the expansion limits at the test durations of 14, 28, and
56 days. A good agreement existed between the minimum
required Class F fly ash content evaluated by the experimental procedures and that predicted by the proposed empirical models of using the SiO2(eq), CaOeq, and CaOeq/SiO2(eq)
of total cementitious materials in the mortar bars.
ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

5. The proposed empirical models were also used on the

experimental expansion data of previous studies conducted
by Touma (2000), Touma et al. (2001), and Schwing (2010).
The study revealed that the proposed models were able to
evaluate the minimum dosage of Class F fly ash to hold
back the 14- and 28-day excess expansions of eight reactive
aggregates for two types of portland cement, and five types
of Class F fly ash having a wide spectrum of alkali, silica,
and calcium contents. The model using the CaOeq/SiO2(eq) of
total binding materials resulted in most accurate outcomes as
compared to the optimum dosages of Class F fly ash determined by the experimental procedures.
AUTHOR BIOS

Mohammad S. Islam is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV.
Nader Ghafoori is a Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering and Construction at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to cordially recognize the Nevada Department of

Transportation for providing financial support and raw materials. Thanks
are also extended to a number of aggregate and cement producers who
supplied materials for this study.

REFERENCES

ACI Committee 221, 1998, Report on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity

(ACI 221.1R-98) (Reapproved 2008), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 31 pp.

23

ASTM C1260, 2007, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method), ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 5 pp.
ASTM C1567, 2007, Standard Test Method for Determining the Potential Alkali-Silica Reactivity of Combinations of Cementitious Materials and
Aggregate (Accelerated Mortar-Bar Method), ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 5 pp.
ASTM C305, 2014, Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of
Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 3 pp.
Bach, F.; Thorsen, T. S.; and Nielsen, M. P., 1993, Load-Carrying
Capacity of Structural Members Subjected to Alkali-Silica Reactions,
Construction and Building Materials, V. 7, No. 2, pp. 109-115. doi:
10.1016/0950-0618(93)90040-J
Ballard, Z. J.; Caires, W. S.; and Peters, S. R., 2008, Alternate Mitigation Materials for Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in Concrete, Report No.
CDOT-2008-10, DTD Applied Research and Innovation Branch, Colorado
Department of Transportation, Denver, CO, 72 pp.
Brub, M. A., and Fournier, B., 1993, Canadian Experience with
Testing for Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity in Concrete, Cement and Concrete
Composites, V. 15, No. 1-2, pp. 27-47. doi: 10.1016/0958-9465(93)90037-A
Bleszynski, R. F., and Thomas, M. D. A., 1998, Microstructural Studies
of Alkali-Silica Reaction in Fly Ash Concrete Immersed in Alkaline Solutions, Advanced Cement Based Materials, V. 7, No. 2, pp. 66-78. doi:
10.1016/S1065-7355(97)00030-8
Broekmans, M. A. T. M., 1999, Classification of the Alkali-Silica Reaction in Geochemical Terms of Silica Dissolution, Proceedings of the 7th
Euroseminar on Microscopy Applied to Building Materials, H. S. Pietersen,
J. A. Larbi, and H. H. A. Janssen, eds., Delft University of Technology,
Delft, the Netherlands, pp. 155-170.
Folliard, K. J.; Ideker, J.; Thomas, M. D. A.; and Fournier, B., 2004,
Assessing Aggregate Reactivity Using the Accelerated Concrete Prism
Test, Proceedings of the Seventh CANMET/ACI International Conference
on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology, SP-222, V. M. Malhotra, ed.,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 269-283.
Hobbs, W. D., 1988, Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete, Thomas Telford,
London, UK, 183 pp.
Hooton, R. D., 1991, New Aggregate Alkali-Reactivity Test Methods,
Pep. MAT 91-14, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Research and
Development Branch, Toronto, ON, Canada, 83 pp.
Hooton, R. D., 1995, Test Procedures for ASR, Proceedings of the
Third Annual ICAR Symposium, Concrete, Bases, and Fines, Center for
Aggregates Research (ICAR), Austin, TX, 9 pp.
Hooton, R. D., and Rogers, C. A., 1993, Development of the
NBRI Rapid Mortar Bar Test Leading to its Use in North America,
Construction and Building Materials, V. 7, No. 3, pp. 145-148. doi:
10.1016/0950-0618(93)90051-D
Hudec, P., and Banahene, N., 1993, Chemical Treatment and Additives
for Controlling Alkali Reactivity, Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 15,
No. 1-2, pp. 21-26. doi: 10.1016/0958-9465(93)90036-9
Islam, M. S., 2010, Performance of Nevadas Aggregate on AlkaliAggregate Reactivity of Portland Cement Concrete, PhD dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Nevada,
Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, 362 pp.
Islam, M. S., and Akhtar, S., 2013, A Critical Assessment to the Performance of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in Concrete, Canadian Chemical
Transactions, V. 1, No. 4, pp. 253-266.
Jasso, A. J., 2012, Characterization of Fly Ash for Evaluating the Alkali-Silica Reaction Resistance of Concrete, masters thesis, The University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 115 pp.
Jin, W., 1998, Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete with Glass AggregateA Chemo-Physico-Mechanical Approach, PhD dissertation,
Columbia University, New York, NY, 154 pp.
Johnston, D.; Stokes, D.; and Surdahl, R., 2000, A Kinetic-Based
Method for Interpreting ASTM C 1260, Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, V. 22, No. 2, pp. 142-149. doi: 10.1520/CCA10474J
Johnston, D. P.; Stokes, D. B.; Fournier, B.; and Surdahl, R. W., 2004,
Kinetic Characteristics of ASTM C1260 Testing and ASR-Induced
Concrete Damage, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, China, pp. 338-346.
Kerenidis, K., 2007, Mitigating Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete with
Supplementary Cementing Materials when Used in Conjunction with Portland Cements Having Alkali Contents in Excess of 1.0%, masters thesis,
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 233 pp.
Lger, P.; Cote, P.; and Tinawi, R., 1996, Finite Element Analysis of
Concrete Swelling Due to Alkali-Aggregate Reactions in Dams, Computers
& Structures, V. 60, No. 4, pp. 601-611. doi: 10.1016/0045-7949(95)00440-8
Leming, M. L.; Mitchell, J. F.; Johnson, J. K.; and Ahmad, S. H., 1996,
Investigation of Alkali-Silica Reactivity in North Carolina Highway Struc-

24

tures, Center for Transportation Engineering Studies, Department of Civil,

Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 278 pp.
Lenke, L. R., and Malvar, L. J., 2009, Alkali-Silica Reaction Criteria for
Accelerated Mortar Bar Test, Proceedings of World of Coal Ash (WOCA),
Lexington, KY, 17 pp.
Malhotra, V. M., and Ramezanianpour, A. A., 1994, Fly Ash in
Concrete, Report MSL 94-45(IR), Canada Cement for Mineral and Energy
Technology, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 307 pp.
Malvar, J.; Cline, G. D.; Burke, D.; Rollings, R.; Sherman, T.; and
Greene, J., 2001, Alkali-Silica Reaction Mitigation State-of-the-Art,
Technical Report No. TR-2195-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service
Center, Washington Navy Yard, DC, 40 pp.
Malvar, J., and Lenke, L. R., 2006, Efficiency of Fly Ash in Mitigating
Alkali-Silica Reaction Based on Chemical Composition, ACI Materials
Journal, V. 103, No. 5, Nov.-Dec., pp. 319-326.
Malvar, L. J.; Cline, G. D.; Burke, D. F.; Rollings, R.; Sherman, T. W.;
and Greene, J., 2002, Alkali Silica Reaction Mitigation: State-of-the-Art
and Recommendations, ACI Materials Journal, V. 99, No. 5, Nov.-Dec.,
pp. 480-489.
Malvar, L. J., and Lenke, L. R., 2005, Minimum Fly Ash Cement
Replacement to Mitigate Alkali Silica Reaction, Proceedings, World of
Coal Ash, Lexington, KY, 69 pp.
Mather, B., 1999, How to Make Concrete That Will Not Suffer Deleterious Alkali-Silica Reactions, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 29,
No. 8, pp. 1277-1280. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00240-3
McKeen, R. G.; Lenke, L. R.; and Pallachulla, K. K., 1998, Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reactivity in New Mexico, Report to the Research
Bureau, New Mexico Department of Transportation, ATR Institute, Materials Research Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 3 pp.
McKeen, R. G.; Lenke, L. R.; Pallachulla, K. K.; and Barringer, W. L.,
2000, Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reactivity in New Mexico, Transportation Research Record, V. 1698, pp. 9-16. doi: 10.3141/1698-02
Pietruszczak, S., 1996, On the Mechanical Behavior of Concrete
Subjected to Alkali-Aggregate Reaction, Computers & Structures, V. 58,
No. 6, pp. 1093-1097. doi: 10.1016/0045-7949(95)00228-6
achlov, ., 2013, Microstructure Parameters Affecting Alkali-Silica
Reactivity of Aggregates, Construction and Building Materials, V. 49,
pp. 604-610. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.08.087
Schwing, K., 2010, Use of Fly Ash in the Mitigation of Alkali-Silica
Reaction in Concrete, masters thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR, 116 pp.
Shehata, M. H., and Thomas, M. D. A., 2000, The Effect of Fly Ash
Composition on the Expansion of Concrete Due to Alkali-Silica Reaction,
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 30, No. 7, pp. 1063-1072. doi: 10.1016/
S0008-8846(00)00283-0
Shehata, M. H., and Thomas, M. D. A., 2006, Alkali Release Characteristics of Blended Cements, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 36, No. 6,
pp. 1166-1175. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2006.02.015
Shehata, M. H.; Thomas, M. D. A.; and Bleszynski, R. F., 1999, The
Effects of Fly Ash Composition on the Chemistry of Pore Solution in
Hydrated Cement Pastes, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 29, No. 12,
pp. 1915-1920. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00190-8
Shon, C. S.; Zollinger, D. G.; and Sarkar, S. L., 2002, Evaluation of
Modified ASTM C 1260 Accelerated Mortar Bar Test for Alkali-Silica
Reactivity, Cement and Concrete Research, V. 32, No. 12, pp. 1981-1987.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00903-1
Stanton, T. E., 1942, Expansion of Concrete through Reaction between
Cement and Aggregate, Transactions of the American Society of Civil
Engineers, V. 107, No. 1, pp. 54-84.
Stark, D.; Morgan, B.; Okamoto, P.; and Diamond, S., 1993, Eliminating or Minimizing Alkali-Silica Reactivity, SHRP-P-343, Strategic
Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 49 pp.
Swamy, R. N., ed., 1992, The Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete, Blackie
and Son Ltd., Glasgow, UK, 288 pp.
Tambelli, C. E.; Schneider, J. F.; Hasparyk, N. P.; and Monteiro, P. J. M.,
2006, Study of the Structure of Alkali-Silica Reaction Gel by High-Resolution NMR Spectroscopy, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, V. 352,
No. 32-35, pp. 3429-3436. doi: 10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2006.03.112
Thomas, M. D. A., 2011, The Effect of Supplementary Cementing Materials on Alkali-Silica Reaction: A Review, Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 41, No. 12, pp. 1224-1231. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2010.11.003
Touma, E. W., 2000, Alkali-Silica Reaction in Portland Cement
Concrete: Testing Methods and Mitigation Alternatives, PhD dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 520 pp.
Touma, E. W.; Fowler, D. W.; and Carrasquillo, R. L., 2001, Alkali-Silica Reaction in Portland Cement Concrete: Testing Methods Alternatives, Research Report ICAR-301-1f, International Center for Aggregates
Research, Austin, TX, 520 pp.

ACI Materials Journal/January-February 2016

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.