Skip to main content

Evolution of Damage Due to Sulphate Attack in Cement Mortar with and Without Ground Coal Bottom Ash

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 402 Accesses

Part of the book series: RILEM Bookseries ((RILEM,volume 21))

Abstract

Siliceous coal bottom ash is a residue originated in thermo-electrical power stations as a result of the hard coal combustion. It is expected that some characteristics of the coal bottom ash would be similar to those of the coal fly ash formed together in the same boiler. Coal bottom ash has a larger size than coal fly ash. Then, the first one was ground to achieve a particle size similar to the cement size. Therefore, to assess the sulphate resistance of cement-based materials made of ground coal bottom ash, sixteen Portland cement mixes were prepared by combining a cement CEM I 42.5 N according to the European standard EN 197-1:2011, a ground coal bottom ash and a coal fly ash. Both ashes were formed in the same boiler. The expansion measurements are considered to be an adequate parameter to assess damage due to sulphate attack of continuously submerged specimens. This procedure is the basis of the American standard ASTM C-1012/C1012 to evaluate the resistance of Portland cement and other cementitious materials to sulphate attack wherein the expansion measurements are taken with a standardized length comparator along the time. In this research program, the extent of sulphate attack was quantified by the percentage expansion of slender bars submerged in 5% sodium sulphate solution according to the ASTM C-1012 standard. This standard specifies an expansion limit of 0.01% for ordinary Portland cements CEM I and 0.035% for blended cements after a period of one year of exposure. The Portland cement CEM I 42.5 N made without ashes exhibited the largest expansion at 330 days (0.09%); whereas a cement with 10% of coal ash, CEM II/A-V, the expansion was much lower (0.03%) for both types of ashes. The expansion decreases when the ash content increases. In this property, no difference was found between ground coal bottom ash and coal fly ash provided by the same thermo-electrical power station.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Veronelli DJE, Calleja J (1980) Nuevos puntos de vista sobre el atoque de sulfatos y cloruros alcalinos al hormigón. Mater Construcc 180:5–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Collepardi M (2003) A state-of-the-art review on delayed ettringite attack on concrete. Cem Concr Compos 25:401–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Skalny J, Pierce JS (1999) Sulfate attack issues: an overview. In: Marchand J, Skalny JP (eds) Materials science of concrete: sulfate attack mechanisms. American Ceramic Society, Westerville, OH, pp 49–63

    Google Scholar 

  4. ACI 201.2R-01 (2001) Guide to durable concrete. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA

    Google Scholar 

  5. Neville AM (2004) The confused world of sulfate attack on concrete. Cem Concr Res 34:1275–1296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ramyar K, Inan G (2007) Sodium sulfate attack on plain and blended cements. Build Environ 42:1368–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Santhanam M, Cohen MD, Olek J (2003) Effects of gypsum formation on the performance of cement mortars during external sulfate attack. Cem Concr Res 33:325–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. ASTM C1012/C1012M (2013) Standard test method for length change of hydraulic-cement mortars exposed to a sulfate solution. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  9. ASTM C 452 (2006) Standard test method for potential expansion of Portland-cement mortars exposed to sulfate. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sanjuán MA, Argiz C (2012) The new European standard on common cements specifications EN 197-1:2011. Mater Construcc 62:425–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. EN 196-1 (2016) Methods of testing cement—Part 1: determination of strength. CEN, Brussels, Belgium

    Google Scholar 

  12. Argiz C, Menéndez E, Sanjuán MA (2013) Effect of mixes made of coal bottom ash and fly ash on the mechanical strength and porosity of Portland cement. Mater Construcc 309:49–64

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen DM, Mather B (1991) Sulfate attack on concrete—research needs. ACI Mater J 1:62–69

    Google Scholar 

  14. Biczok I (1967) Concrete corrosion and concrete protection. Chemical Publishing Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Santhanam M, Cohen MD, Olek J (2001) Sulfate attack research—whither now? Cem Concr Res 31:845–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wong GS, Poole T (1988) Sulfate resistance of mortars using Portland cement and blends of Portland cement and pozzolan or slag. Technical report SL-88-34. US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  17. Steiger M (2005) Crystal growth in porous materials-II: influence of crystal size on the crystallization. J Cryst Growth 282(3–4):470–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Haynes H (2002) Sulfate attack on concrete: laboratory versus field experience. Concr Int 24(7):64–70

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tikalsky PJ, Carrasquillo RL, Snow PG (1990) Sulfate resistance of concrete containing fly ash. In: Proceedings of the G.M. Idorn international symposium on durability of concrete, ACI SP-131, pp 255–265

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hewlett PC (2004) LEA’S chemistry of cement and concrete, 4th edn. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  21. Prasad J, Jain DK, Ahuja AK (2006) Factors influencing the sulphate resistance of cement concrete and mortar. Asian J Civil Eng (Buil & Hous) 7(3):259–268

    Google Scholar 

  22. Monteiro PJM (2006) Scaling and saturation laws for the expansion of concrete exposed to sulfate attack. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(31):11467–11472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Skalny J, Marchand J, Odler I (2002) Sulfate attack on concrete. Modern concrete technology series. Spon Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Neville AM (1996) Properties of concrete, 4th edn. Wiley, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tian B, Cohen MD (2000) Does gypsum formation during sulfate attack on concrete lead to expansion? Cem Concr Res 30:117–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Torii K, Taniguchi K, Kawamura M (1995) Sulfate resistance of high fly ash content concrete. Cem Concr Res 25(4):759–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Al-Dulaijan Salah U, Maslehuddin M, Al-Zahrani MM (2003) Sulfate resistance of plain and blended cements exposed to varying concentrations of sodium sulfate. Cem Concr Compos 25(4–5):429–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chindaprasirt P, Kanchanda P, Sathonsaowaphak A, Cao HT (2007) Sulfate resistance of blended cements containing fly ash and rice husk ash. Constr Buil Mater 21(6):1356–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Irassar EF (1990) Sulphate resistance of blended cements: prediction and relation with flexural strength. Cem Concr Res 20(1):209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mangat PS, El-Khatib JM (1992) Influence of initial curing on sulfate resistance of blended cement mortars. Cem Concr Res 22(6):1089–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sercale R, Gioffi R, de Vito B, Frigione G, Zenone F (1997) Sulphate attack on carbonated and uncarbonated Portland and blended cement mortars. In: Proceedings of the 10th international congress on the chemistry of cements, Gothenburg, Sweden, Paper 4iv017

    Google Scholar 

  32. Aye T, Oguchi C (2011) Resistance of plain and blended cement mortars exposed to severe sulfate attacks. Constr Buil Mater 25:2988–2996

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zanqun L, Dehua D, De Schutter G, Zhiwu Y (2011) Micro-analysis of “salt weathering” on cement paste. Cem Concr Compo 33(1):179–191

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stark D (2002) Performance of concrete in sulfate environments, vol RD129. Portland Cement Association

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nobst P, Stark J (2003) Investigations on the influence of cement type on thaumasite formation. Cem Concr Compos 25(8):899–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunstan ER Jr (1980) A possible method for identifying fly ashes that will improve sulfate resistance. Cem Concr Aggregates 2(1):20–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mehta PK (1986) Effect of fly ash composition on sulfate resistance of cements. ACI Mater J 83(6):994–1000

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Menéndez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 RILEM

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Menéndez, E., Argiz, C., Sanjuán, M.A. (2020). Evolution of Damage Due to Sulphate Attack in Cement Mortar with and Without Ground Coal Bottom Ash. In: Menéndez, E., Baroghel-Bouny, V. (eds) External Sulphate Attack – Field Aspects and Lab Tests. RILEM Bookseries, vol 21. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20331-3_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20331-3_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20330-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20331-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics