THE 2004 REVIEW

ON PREVENTION OF
ALKALI SILICA REACTION
IN CONCRETE

GEO REPORT No. 167

(Second Edition)

Y.H. Chak & Y.C. Chan

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OFFICE

CIVIL ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
 THE 2004 REVIEW
ON PREVENTION OF
ALKALI SILICA REACTION
IN CONCRETE

GEO REPORT No. 167

(Second Edition)

Y.H. Chak & Y.C. Chan

This report was originally produced in June 2005

as GEO Special Project Report No. SPR 5/2005
 - 2 -

© The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

First published, June 2005
Second Edition, January 2008

Prepared by:

Geotechnical Engineering Office,

Civil Engineering and Development Department,
Civil Engineering and Development Building,
101 Princess Margaret Road,
Homantin, Kowloon,
Hong Kong.
 - 3 -

PREFACE

In keeping with our policy of releasing information

which may be of general interest to the engineering
profession and the public, we make available selected internal
reports in a series of publications termed the GEO Report
series. The GEO Reports can be downloaded from the
website of the Civil Engineering and Development Department
(http://www.cedd.gov.hk) on the Internet. Printed copies are
also available for some GEO Reports. For printed copies, a
charge is made to cover the cost of printing.

The Geotechnical Engineering Office also produces

documents specifically for publication. These include
guidance documents and results of comprehensive reviews.
These publications and the printed GEO Reports may be
obtained from the Government’s Information Services
Department. Information on how to purchase these documents
is given on the second last page of this report.

R.K.S. Chan
Head, Geotechnical Engineering Office
January 2008
 - 4 -

FOREWORD

Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) was first reported in Hong Kong in 1991. A control
framework was introduced in 1994 based on the best practice then. The framework has
worked well.

In the ten years since, there has been important advancement in the state of knowledge
and practice of ASR control and use of alkali-reactive aggregates in concrete in the world.
Experience and information on alkali reactivity of aggregates in Hong Kong have also built up.
A review was therefore carried out in 2004 on the wealth of information, to examine the need
for and the way of improving the existing ASR control framework. This report documents
the review and proposes an expanded ASR control framework for use in Hong Kong.

The review was carried out by Mr CHAK Yu-hung, Steven under my supervision. Dr
Diarmad Campbell assisted in the review of local practice. Drafts of the report and the
proposed control framework were examined and discussed by members of the Standing
Committee on Concrete Technology and the Consultative Committee on the Review of
Concrete Related Standards. Other local practitioners knowledgeable about the subject have
also given views. They include Dr Malcolm Anderson, Dr Fung Wing-kun, Mr Peter WC
Leung, Mr Liu Kwong-kin, Kelvin, Mr Anthony Read, and Mr Wong Po-chi. Their
contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

Finally, I wish to give my sincere thanks to Dr Sue Freitag, Dr Viggo Jensen, Dr Philip
Nixon, Dr Hermann Sommer, and Professor Tang Ming-shu, renowned ASR experts of the
world, for their comments. It is an unwarranted privilege for this report to benefit from their
wealth of experience and international perspective.

Y C Chan
Deputy Head of the Geotechnical Engineering Office
(Planning and Standards)
 - 5 -

ABSTRACT

Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) was first diagnosed on concrete structures in Hong Kong
in 1991. Limitation of alkali content in concrete to 3kg/m3 was introduced in 1994 to
control ASR. The present review was carried out to see whether and how to update the
control approach.

Current practice in the world is to accept the use in concrete of reactive aggregates to
various degrees. The risk of ASR is controlled through the prescription of preventive
measures taking into account the nature of structures, the service environment of the structure,
and the reactivity of aggregates available. In this light, there is room for expanding the
control framework in Hong Kong for informed use of reactive aggregates in concrete.

The nature of structures is classified according to the consequence of ASR. Service

environment is described in terms of availability of moisture and alkali/chloride from outside
the structure. Reactivity is classified by a range of tests including petrographic examination,
accelerated mortar test and concrete prism test.

Common preventive measures are limiting alkali content of concrete, addition of

supplementary cementitious materials such as pulverized fuel ash and ground granulated
blast-furnace slag, and controlling the content of reactive silica in the aggregate assemblage of
a concrete.

Knowledge and experience of ASR and its prevention in Hong Kong was reviewed for
formulating the preventive measures for the expanded control framework. For the special
case of reinforced concrete in marine environment, ingress of chloride ion presents a more
immediate and demanding challenge than ASR to the durability of reinforced concrete in
marine environment. This is provided for by an existing set of special specification.

The text of the report describes key elements of international practices and shows the
rationale behind the proposed expanded ASR control framework for Hong Kong. Appendix
H describes the expanded control framework. The other Appendices provide detailed
information of local and international experience and practices. Of particular relevance to
readers in Hong Kong are Appendix G and Appendix I that describe local experience and
practice.
 - 6 -

CONTENTS

Page
No.

Title Page 1

PREFACE 3

FOREWORD 4

ABSTRACT 5

CONTENTS 6

1. BACKGROUND 8

2. EFFECT OF ASR 8

3. USE OF REACTIVE AGGREGATES 9

4. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN FRAMEWORKS 9

5. CLASSES OF STRUCTURE 9

6. SERVICE ENVIRONMENT 9

7. REACTIVITY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION 10

8. PREVENTIVE MEASURES 10

9. LOCAL EXPERIENCE 11

10. PROPOSED ASR CONTROL FRAMEWORK FOR HONG KONG 11

11. FURTHER WORK 11

12. REFERENCES 12

LIST OF TABLES 16

APPENDIX A: BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 18

APPENDIX B: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF ASR 26

CONTROL FRAMEWORK

APPENDIX C: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON 31

CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES
 - 7 -

Page
No.

APPENDIX D: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON 34

CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENT

APPENDIX E: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON 38

CLASSIFICATION OF ASR REACTIVITY

APPENDIX F: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES OF 49

PREVENTIVE MEASURES AGAINST ASR

APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE ON ASR 59

APPENDIX H: ALKALI AGGREGATE REACTION CONTROL 65

FRAMEWORK FOR HONG KONG

APPENDIX I: CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR DURABLE 70

CONCRETE
 - 8 -

1. BACKGROUND

Alkali silica reaction (ASR) was first observed in Hong Kong in 1991. Hobbs (1988)
described mechanisms of ASR. A review of international practice led to the formulation of a
framework for controlling the risk of ASR in Hong Kong. The framework, as described in
WBTC 5/1994 (WB, 1994), requires limiting alkali content in concrete to 3.0 kg/m3.

Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency (HKQAA) operates a Quality Scheme for the
Production and Supply of Concrete (QSPSC). All concrete supplied to public works projects
has to be from QSPSC accredited producers (ETWB, 2002). One of the requirements of
QSPSC is testing of alkali reactivity when an aggregate is first proposed for use (HKQAA,
2000). The presumption is that aggregates found to be reactive would not be accepted for use.

Limiting concrete alkali content to 3.0 kg/m3 may be too conservative for non-reactive
aggregates or structures of lesser importance. The alkali content limit should enable
aggregates of some reactivity to be used satisfactorily but, under the present framework, once
an aggregate is known to be reactive, they cannot be used.

For these and other reasons, the Public Works Central Laboratory (PWCL) commenced
a review of international practice and local experience in 2003. Appendix A is a list of the
documents reviewed. This report records findings of the review and proposes a new ASR
control framework for use in Hong Kong.

2. EFFECT OF ASR

From the information available, no concrete structures had collapsed due to ASR
damage. However, there were reports that some concrete structures were demolished
because of ASR. For example, two prestressed bridges in Germany were demolished in the
1960s because of ASR (Hobbs, 1988).

L A Clark made a report ‘Critical review of the structural implications of the ASR in
concrete’ in 1989 (West, 1996). Clark mentioned that ASR could reduce both the strength
and the stiffness of concrete. He further noted that the possible severe ASR effect on
isolated, unreinforced and unrestrained members may not be applicable to concrete in a
structure where it is restrained by adjacent material. Tests on under-reinforced concrete
beams and post-tensioned beams show no significant change in service load behaviour or
reduction in strength as a result of severe ASR cracking. Moreover, loading tests on
structures badly affected by ASR had not shown significant adverse effects on either strength
or stiffness. The report concluded that in general ASR is unlikely to have a significant effect
on ultimate strength. The effect would be on the durability and appearance of concrete
structures; the life of concrete structures affected by ASR may be reduced and more frequent
maintenance may be needed.

In Hong Kong, several concrete structures had been identified to suffer from ASR.
At Fanling, water repellent protective coatings were applied on two footbridges to exclude the
ingress of water. At Shek Wu Hui Treatment Plant, that part of ASR affected concrete at the
inner faces of the aeration tanks had been blast-cleaned by sand and re-rendered with a mortar
that contained a latex additive.
 - 9 -

3. USE OF REACTIVE AGGREGATES

Nearly all the countries reviewed permit the use of reactive aggregates to some degree.
ASR reaction is prevented by preventive measures including limiting the alkali content of
concrete, addition of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) such as pulverized fuel ash
(PFA) and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), or preclusion of reactive aggregates
from particular uses. The mitigation requirements are usually organized into some form of
frameworks.

4. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN FRAMEWORKS

Information on frameworks of concrete mix design to control ASR is summarized in

Appendix B. There are three general forms of framework. In the first form, aggregates are
classified as reactive or innocuous; preventive measures are prescribed for the use of reactive
aggregates. In the second form, the reactivity of an aggregate is first classified; preventive
measures are prescribed for use of the aggregate according to the nature of the structure and
the environment it is in. In the third form, consideration starts with the nature of the
structure to be constructed and the service environment; aggregate reactivity is considered for
the choice of supply sources and the preventive measures needed to prevent ASR.

The first form of framework is simple but could be too conservative because the
preventive measures would have to provide for the highest reactivity and worst service
environment. The second form is useful for places where most aggregates are reactive so
that the focus would be on how to make the best use of the aggregates. The third form is
appropriate for places like Hong Kong where some aggregates are reactive and the framework
aims at assisting the designer to decide whether and how to use reactive aggregates to suit the
requirements of the project.

Common to the second and third forms of control framework are classifications of the
structure to be constructed, service environment of the structures, and aggregate reactivity.
Systems of classifying these attributes are discussed in the following Sections.

5. CLASSES OF STRUCTURE

Information on international practice for classifying structures for designing concrete

against ASR is summarized in Appendix C. All adopt a three-tier system. The class
descriptions can be generalized to that in Table 1.

6. SERVICE ENVIRONMENT

Information on ways of classifying service environment of structures or works is

summarized in Appendix D. The general practice is to classify service environments to dry,
moist, and moist aggressive. An example of the moist aggressive environment is high
temperature when the concrete surface is wet.

In addition, Canada, New Zealand and RILEM include consideration of member size
 - 10 -

in the classification of service environment, for the reason that members over 0.5 m to 1.0 m
at the thinnest are likely to remain wet internally irrespective of the ambient humidity.
France and New Zealand do not distinguish between moist environment and moist aggressive
environment when prescribing preventive measures against ASR.

Given the high humidity and the other considerations above, it is suggested that all
concrete be designed for the moist aggressive environment in Hong Kong for ASR prevention.
However, in the most unfavourable case of concrete in contact with seawater periodically, the
need to control chloride ingress would impose addition requirements on concrete design.
See SCCT (2000).

7. REACTIVITY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION

International practice in testing and classifying alkali aggregate reactivity is

summarized in Appendix E. Common tests are petrographic examination, accelerated mortar
bar test (AMBT), and concrete prism test (CPT). CPT could be varied to test the effect of
additives and variations in alkali content. The latter is the basis of the alkali threshold test
proposed by RILEM (2005a).

Petrographic examination is commonly used to distinguish non-reactive rock from

reactive rock. AMBT provides a quick test of reactivity in practice, as opposed to prediction
based on petrography. Norway and RILEM also provide for grading alkali aggregate
reactivity using AMBT results. CPT is generally accepted as the definitive test of reactivity
and for classifying reactivity.

Most countries accept field performance to classify the reactivity of sources of

aggregate.

A three-tier classification of reactivity is common. These include a non-reactive class

and two classes of increasing certainty or degree of reactivity. Common class boundaries of
AMBT and CPT results are shown in Table 2 together with those suggested for use in Hong
Kong. For clarity, the three class names, when referred to in the rest of the report, would be
capitalised as “Innocuous”, “Potentially Reactive”, and “Reactive”.

8. PREVENTIVE MEASURES

International practice of measures to reduce the likelihood of ASR of concrete is

summarized in Appendices B and F. The common measures are limiting the alkali content
of concrete, use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) such as PFA, modifying the
gel chemistry, e.g. using lithium nitrate, and to change to a less reactive aggregate.

Experience with gel chemistry modification of concrete in Hong Kong is limited.

The approach is not recommended for use in Hong Kong for the moment. Limits of alkali
content or the percentage content of SCM to be used are summarized in Appendix F. The
exact limits to be used should also tie in with local experience. This is the subject of the
following Section.
 - 11 -

9. LOCAL EXPERIENCE

Local experience on alkali reactivity of various sources of aggregate, field

performance and effectiveness of preventive measures has been reviewed in Appendix G.
The following picture emerges.

Granite is non-reactive but materials along shear zones and intrusions could be reactive.
Unless quarried with suitable quality control, granite aggregate could be contaminated by the
reactive materials; the resulting aggregate could be Potentially Reactive. Experience with
concrete structures constructed since 1994 shows that controlling concrete alkali content to
3.0 kg/m3 could likewise prevent ASR.

Local report of preventive measures for using reactive aggregates in concrete is very
limited. Anderson and Read (2002) reported tests on the reactive aggregates from Anderson
Road Quarry, which indicated that incorporating PFA in concrete could control ASR under
some conditions.

Local experience of ASR in concrete in marine environment is absent. Effect of

chloride ingress in concrete is a more immediate concern for reinforced concrete. SCCT
(2000) prescribes measures to ensure durability of reinforced concrete in marine environment.

10. PROPOSED ASR CONTROL FRAMEWORK FOR HONG KONG

Based on the review in Sections 4 to 9, an ASR control framework has been proposed
in Appendix H. The framework comprises two parts. The first is on concrete mix design.
The second is on aggregate supply.

11. FURTHER WORK

RILEM is developing a control framework for international application (Nixon et al,

2004; RILEM, 2005a). The control framework proposed in this report aligns with the
RILEM framework, except in respect of the method of classifying alkali silica reactivity of
aggregates; the RILEM control framework uses alkali threshold to classify reactivity.
Studies are needed to match local experience with ASR to this reactivity classification system.

The first component of these studies is the development of capability of concrete prism
tests. PWCL has commenced work on this. The test capability will be used for
benchmarking AMBT results against alkali thresholds defined by RILEM. It will also be
used to conduct trials on the effectiveness of preventive measures proposed in the concrete
mix design framework, especially those for reactive aggregates.

Work is in progress to examine quality assurance requirements for use with the
proposed ASR control framework.
 - 12 -

12. REFERENCES

Anderson, G.M. & Read, A.S. (2002). A Study on the Use of Volcanic Tuff Aggregate from
Anderson Road Quarry in Concrete, Taywood Engineering Limited, 60 p.

Campbell, S.D.G. (2000). Petrographic Examination of Concrete Samples from Hill Road
Flyover (H114) from Pok Fu Lam to Connaught Road West, GEO Informal Report
IR 2/2000, 18 p.

Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1996). Alkali Aggregate Reaction

Guidelines on Minimising the Risk of Damage to Concrete Structures in Australia.
Cement and Concrete Association C&CAA T47, Standards Australia SAA HB79, 31 p.

Cement and Concrete Association of New Zealand (2003). Alkali Silica Reaction -
Minimising the Risk of Damage to Concrete Guidance Notes and Recommended
Practice (Second Edition). Cement & Concrete Association of New Zealand,
Technical Report No. 3, http://www.cca.org.nz/shop/downloads/TR03.pdf, 84 p.

CLP Power (2002). PFA Concrete Studies 1988-2000 Final Report. CD-Rom.

Concrete Society (1999). Alkali-silica Reaction: Minimising the Risk of Damage to

Concrete - Guidance Notes and Model Clauses for Specifications. The Concrete
Society, Technical Report 30, 3rd Edition, 72 p

CSA (2000). Concrete Materials and Methods of Concrete Construction/Methods of Test for
Concrete. A23.1-00/A23.2-00, 9th edition, Toronto, 378 p

Environment Transport & Works Bureau (2002). Quality Assurance for Structural Concrete.
ETWB TC(W) No 57/2002, 11 p.

Fournier, B., Bérubé, M.A. & Rogers, C.A. (2000). Canadian Standards Association (CSA)
standard practice to evaluate potential alkali-reactivity of aggregates and to select
preventive measures against alkali-aggregate reaction in new concrete structures.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 633-642

Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. (1993a). Report on the rocks and aggregate of Lamma
Quarry by W.J. French. A report prepared for the Shui On Group.

Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. (1993b). Report on the examination of rock samples
from Lamma Quarry by W.J. French. A report prepared for the Shui On Group.

Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. (1993c). Report on the petrographic examination of

eighteen rock samples from Lamma Quarry with respect to their potential for alkali
aggregate reaction by W.J. French. A report prepared for Taywood Engineering
Limited.
 - 13 -

Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. (1993d). Report on the petrography of samples of

aggregate from Lamma Quarry by W.J. French. A report prepared for Taywood
Engineering Limited.

Gibert, S.T. (1995). Petrographic Examination of Concrete Cores from Shek Wu Hui
Treatment Plant, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Special Project Report SPR 4/95,
36 p.

Godart, B & Le Roux, A. (1992). The principles of AAR preventive measures adopted by
the French Ministry of Equipment. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference
on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, The Concrete Society, pp 376-382

Guirguis, S. & Clarke, P. (2000). Alkali aggregate reactivity - towards standard test methods.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 653-662

HKQAA (2000). Quality Scheme for the Production and Supply of Concrete (QSPSC) Parts
One & Two, Administrative Regulations & Technical Regulations, Issue 5, 38 p

Hobbs, D.W. (1988). Alkali-Silica Reaction in Concrete, Thomas Telford, Ltd, London, 183 p.

Hobbs, D.W. (2000). Alkali levels required to induce cracking due to ASR in UK concretes.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 189-198.

Jawed. I. (1992). Alkali-silica reactivity - a highway perspective. Proceedings of the 9th

International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, The
Concrete Society, pp 471-476.

Liu, K.K. & Chan, C.Y. (2000). The Investigation of Cracking of the Concrete on Two
Footbridges near Fanling KCR Station. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Special
Project Report SPR 3/2000, 37 p.

Liu, K.K. & Tam, W.H. (2002). The Use of Accelerated Mortar Bar Test Methods for
Assessment of Alkali-aggregate Reactivity of Aggregate in Hong Kong.
Geotechnical Engineering Office, Technical Report TN 6/2002, 25 p.

Liu Y, Lee C F, Fu P X (2004) Alkali-silica reaction (ASR) characteristics of concrete made

from granite aggregates, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alkali
Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp369-376.

Malavar, L.J., Cline, G.D., Burke, D.F., Rollings, R., Sherman, T. & Greene, J. (2001).
Alkali-silica Reaction Mitigation.: State-of-the-art. Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center, Report No. TR-2195-SHR, 40 p
 - 14 -

Nixon, P. & Blackwell, B. (2000). New UK guidance and specifications to minimise risk of
damage to concrete from ASR. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 723-732.

Nixon P., Hawthorn F. & Smith I (2004) Development of an international specification to

combat AAR - proposals of RILEM TC 191-ARP. Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp 8-16.

Poole, A.B., Christopher, F.M. & Schrapel, K.N. (2000). Alkali-silica reaction in concrete
related to alkali diffusion through the cement pore network. Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City,
Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke
Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 209-218.

Read, A.S. & Anderson, G.M. (2002). Volcanic Rock as Aggregate in Concrete Control of
Alkali-silica Reaction (ASR) in Concrete in Hong Kong, KWP Quarry Co Ltd, 47 p.

RILEM (2005a). International Specification to Minimise Damage from Alkali Reactions in

Concrete: Part 1 Alkali Silica Reaction, (Draft - March 2005) Internal Document No.
RILEM/TC-ARP/05/08, 10 p.

RILEM (2005b). Accelerated (60oC) Concrete Prism Test - Suggested Interpretation Criteria.
Internal Document RILEM/TC-ARP/05/11, 8p.

SCCT (2000). Recommended Specification for Reinforced Concrete in Marine Environment,

Standing Committee on Concrete Technology, 4 p.

Sewell, R.J. (1999). Petrographic Examination of Concrete Cores from Fanling Footbridge,
GEO Informal Report IR 1/99, 22 p.

Sewell, R.J. (2000). Petrographic Examination of Concrete Samples from Feature

Nos. 11SE-A/C83 and C724 North Point Government School. Geotechnical
Engineering Office, Geological Report GR 3/2000, 12 p.

Sewell, R.J. & Campbell, S.D.G. (2001). Petrographic Examination of Concrete Samples,
GEO Report No. 119, 63 p.

Sewell, R.J., Ho, K.C., Leung, C.L. & Leung, K.Y. (2007). Causes and Mechanisms of
Distress in Concrete Seawall Blocks at Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoons. Geotechnical
Engineering Office, GEO Report No. 209, 116p.

Sims, I., Nixon, P.J. & Marion, A. (2004). International collaboration to control
alkali-aggregate reaction: the successful progress of RILEM TFC 106 and TC191-ARP.
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alkal Aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Beijing, pp 41-50.
 - 15 -

St John, D.A. (1992). Alkali-aggregate Investigation in New Zealand - Report on Work

Carried Out Since 1989. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, The Concrete Society, pp 885-893

Swamy, R.N. (1992). The Alkali-silica reaction in concrete. Blackie and Son Ltd,
Glasgow 336 p.

Taywood Maunsell Ltd. (1993). Independent geological assessment of Lamma Quarry as a

source of concrete aggregate by W.J. French. A report prepared for the
Kumagai-Maeda-Yokogawa-Hitachi JV by Taywood Maunsell Ltd.

Touma, W.E., Fowler, D.W. & Carrasquillo, R.L. (2001). Alkali-silica Reaction in Portland
Cement Concrete: Testing Procedures and Mitigation Methods. International Centre
for Aggregates Research, The University of Texas at Austin, Report No. ICAR 301-1F,
520 p.

West, G. (1996). Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete Roads and Bridges. Thomas

Telford Publications, London, 163 p.

Works Bureau (1994). Specification Clauses to Guard against the Occurrence of

Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete Structures. WBTC No 5/1994.

Wong, P.C. & Koirala, N.P. (1992). Interim Report - Investigation of Cracks at Shek Wu Hui
Treatment Plant. Report prepared for the Standing Committee on Concrete
Technology. Materials Division, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Hong Kong.
54 p.
 - 16 -

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
No. No.

1 Classification of Structures according to Potential 17

Consequence of ASR

2 Summary of Reactivity Classification Practice and the 17

Proposed Scheme
 - 17 -

Table 1 - Classification of Structures according to Potential Consequence of ASR

Class Definition and Examples

Some deterioration from ASR is acceptable e.g., temporary or short service life
1
structures, easily replaceable elements.
Minor ASR and resulting cosmetic cracking is acceptable e.g., most building and
2 civil engineering structures, which design life is in the regime of tens to a
hundred or so years.
No ASR damage is acceptable, even if only cosmetic - long service life or highly
3 critical structures: e.g., nuclear installations, dams, tunnels, exceptionally
important bridges or viaducts, structures retaining hazardous materials

Table 2 - Summary of Reactivity Classification Practice and the Proposed Scheme

Field
Country Acc. Mortar Bar* Concrete Prism* Petrography
Performance

HKMTRC -----0.15----
Read et al + ---0.1%---0.2%--- Yes
RILEM ---0.1%---0.2%--- ---0.05%---0.10%--- Yes Yes
Canada -----0.15%----- ---0.04%---0.12%--- Yes Yes
Denmark Non-standard tests Yes
France Non-standard tests Yes Yes
Japan Non-standard tests Yes
Netherlands Non-standard tests Yes
Norway ---0.1%---0.25%--- Yes
UK ---0.05%---0.1%----- Yes
USA -----0.1%----- -----0.04%----- Yes
Proposed # ---0.1%---0.2%--- ---0.05%---0.10%--- Yes Yes
Legend:
* ---0.1%---0.2%---: The first figure denotes the limit for the class of
non-reactive rock; the second figure denotes that for the
lower class of reactive rock
-----0.1%-----: The figure denotes the limit for the class of non-reactive rock
+ Read & Anderson (2002): It proposed a five-tier classification for Hong Kong.
# Proposed for use of the control framework described in Section 10.
 - 18 -

APPENDIX A

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

 - 19 -

Overseas

Andrade, W. P. D. (2003). Aging and Rehabilitation of Concrete and Masonry Dams and
Appurtenant Works. http://www.icold-cigh.org/Gr82.pdf, 93 p.

Barborak R, Folliand K J, Thomas M D A (2004) Using lithium compound to treat hardened

concrete suffering from ASR: preliminary laboratory results, Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing,
pp 483-489.

Barisone, G. & Restivo, G. (1992). Alkali-silica reactivity of alluvial deposits evaluated

using chemical and psammographic methods. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, pp 46-52.

Barisone, G. & Restivo, G. (2000). Alkali-silica reactivity of some italian opal and flints
tested using a modified mortar bar test. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de
Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 239-245.

Barringer, W.L. (2000). Application of accelerated mortar bar tests to new Mexico
aggregates. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate
Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton
(CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université
Laval, Quebec, pp 563-572.

Batic O R, Sota J D (2004) Identification of alkali-silica reactive granite aggregates,

Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Beijing, pp 243-250.

Bektas F, Turanli L, Monteiro P J M (2004) A preliminary study of the efficiency of crushed

brick blended cement in reducing ASR, Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp 479-482.

British Standards Institution (1985). Structural Use of Concrete. BS 8110: Parts 1

to 3:1985.

Carse, A. (2000). Testing of Australian concrete mixtures for alkali-silica reaction potential
and calibration with field performance of structures. Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City,
Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke
Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 247-256.

Crosswell, S.F. (1992). Alkali-aggregate reaction in the western cape region of South Africa.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, London, The Concrete Society, pp 211-216.
 - 20 -

Dahl, P.A. et al. (1992). Norwegian experience with different test methods for alkali
aggregate reactivity. Proceeding of the 9th International Conference on AAR,
London, pp 224-230.

Dahl, P.A. et al. (2004). Specifications and guidelines for production of AAR resistant
concrete in Norway. Proceeding of the 12th International Conference on AAR,
Beijing, pp 499-504.

Fournier, B., Bérubé, M.A. & Frenette, J. (2000). Laboratory investigations for evaluating
potential alkali-reactivity of aggregates and selecting preventive measures against
alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference
on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 287-296.

Fournier B, Nkinamubanzi P, Chevrier R (2004) Comparative field and laboratory

investigations on the use of supplementary cementing materials to control alkali-silica
reaction in concrete. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alkali
Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp 528-537.

Fournier et al (2004) The accelerated concrete prism test (60OC): variability of the test method
and proposed expansion limits. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp 314-323.

Franke, L., Eickermeier, K. & Bosold, D. (2000). Determination of the reactivity and the
amorphous component for opalsandstones by the Rietveld method. Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec
City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and
Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec,
pp 297-304.

Freitag, S.A., St John, D.A. & Goguel, R. (2000) ASTM C1260 and the alkali reactivity of
New Zealand greywackes. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 305-313.

French, W.J. & Howarth, R.J. (2000) The petrographic diagnosis of potneially deleterious
aggregates. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate
Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton
(CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université
Laval, Quebec, pp 315-324.

Glauz, D. & Jain, V. (2000). California’s experience with reactive aggregates. Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec
City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and
Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec,
pp 325-334.
 - 21 -

Grattan-Bellew, P.E. (1986). Concrete Alkali-aggregate Reactions. Noyes Publications,

New Jersey, USA, 509 p.

Grosbois, M. & Fontaine, E. (2000). Evaluation of the potential alkali-reactivity of concrete

aggregates: Performance of testing methods and a producer’s point of view.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 267-276.

Grosbois, M. & Fontaine, E. (2000b). Performance of the 60°C - accelerated concrete prism
test for the evaluation of potential alkali-reactivity of concrete. Proceedings of the
11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City,
Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke
Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 277-286.

Harkins, M.R. (1983). Alkali-aggregate Reaction: Minimising the Risk of Alkali-silica

Reaction, Guidance Notes. Report of a Working Party. Cement and Concrete
Association, Ref. 97-304, Wexham Springs, Slough, UK., 8 p.

Heijnen, W.M.M. (1992). Alkali-aggregate reactions in Netherlands. Proceedings of the

9th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, The
Concrete Society, pp 432-439.

Hooper R, Matthews J D, Nixon P J, Thmoas M D A (2004) The introduction of BS EN fly

ash and mitigating the risk of ASR in the UK. Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp 544-553.

Hopper R L, Nixon P J, Thomas M D A (2004) Considerations when specifying lithium

admixtures to mitigate the risk of ASR. Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp 554-563.

JCI-AAR Committee (1992). Concrete test method for alkali-silica reaction (JCI AAR-3).
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, London, The Concrete Society, pp 712-722.

Jensen, V. & Fournier, B. (2000). Influence of different procedures on accelerated mortar

bar and concrete prism tests: assessment of seven Norwegian alkali-reactive aggregates.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 345-354.

Johnston, D. & Fournier, B. (2000). A kinetic-based method for interpreting accelerated

mortar bar test (ASTM C1260) data. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de
Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 355-364.
 - 22 -

Katayama, T. (2000) Alkali-aggregate reaction in the vicinity of Izmir, Western Turkey.

Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 365-374.

Lane, D.S. (2000a). Alkali-silica reactivity in Virginia, USA: occurrences and reactive
aggregates. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate
Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton
(CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université
Laval, Quebec, pp 385-394.

Lane, D.S. (2000b). Preventive measures for alkali-silica reactions used in Virginia, USA.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 693-702.

Larbi J, Modry S, Katayama T, Blight G, Ballim Y (2004) Guide to diagnosis and appraisal of
AAR damage in concrete structures: the RILEM TC191-ARP approach. Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing,
pp 921-932.

Lee, C., Sheu, S.W., Chen, K.C., Ko, J.L. & Rau, C.C. (2000) Field AAR inspection for the
four harbors in Taiwan. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 869-878.

Lee, C., Shieh, W.K., lou, I.J. & Sheu, S.W. (2000) Evaluation of the effectiveness of slag
and fly ash in preventing expansion due to AAR in Taiwan. Proceedings of the 11th
International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City,
Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke
Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 703-712.

Li P X, Yang H Q (2004) Research on the activity of granite aggregate. Proceedings of the

12th International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing,
pp 355-361.

Lindgård, J. & Haugen, M. (2000) A review of the Norwegian experience with the
correlation between results obtained by use of petrographic analysis and the
accelerated mortar bar test. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 405-414.

Livesey, P. (1992). Alkali susceptibility of UK aggregates. Proceedings of the 9th

International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, The
Concrete Society, pp 614-621.
 - 23 -

Michel, B., Gnagne, C., Thiebaut, J., Wackenheim, C. & Maurin, B. (2000). Flint reactivity.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 71-80.

Mullick, A.K. & Wason, R.C. (2000). Comparison of different expansion tests to assess
reactivity of concrete aggregates. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference
on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 425-434.

Mullick, A.K., Wason, R.C. & Sinha, S.K. (1992). Potential reactivity of quartzite
aggregates containing strained quartz. Proceedings of the 9th International
Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, The Concrete Society,
pp 673-682.

Nixon, P.J. & Sims, I (1992). RILEM TC106 Alkali-aggregate Reaction - Accelerated tests
interim report and summary of survey of national specifications. Proceedings of the
9th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, London, The
Concrete Society, pp 731-738.

Nixon, P. & Sims, I. (1996). Testing Aggregates for Alkali-reactivity, Report of RILEM
TC-106. Materials and Structures, vol. 29, No. 190, 1996, pp 323-334.

Nixon, P. & Sims, I. (2000). Universally accepted testing procedures for AAR the progress
of RILEM Technical Committee 106. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de
Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 435-444.

Powers, L.J., (1999). Developments in alkali-silica gel detection, Concrete Technology Today.
PL991, Portland Cement Association, http://www.portcement.org/pdf_files/PL991.pdf.

RILEM (2000). RILEM TC 106-AAR: Alkali-aggregate reaction, Materials and Structures,

Vol. 33, June 2000, pp 283-293.

RILEM (2001). AAR-4-Detection of Potential alkali-Reactivity - Accelerated method for

aggregate combinations and concrete mix design’s using concrete prism. Internal
Report RILEM/TC-ARD/01/20, 18 p.

RILEM (2003). Survey of AAR test methods in use (10th edition), Internal Report
RILEM/TC-ARP/02/15, 5 p.

Rogers, C., Grattan-Bellew, P.E., Doug Hooton, R., Ryell, J. & Thomas, M.D.A. (2000).
Alkali-aggregate reactions in Ontario. Canadian Journal Civil Engineering, vol 27,
http://www.irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fulltext/nrcc43940.pdf, pp 246 - 260.
 - 24 -

Shrimer, F. and Jones, D.M. (2000). AAR in Southern British Columbia and Western
Washington. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate
Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton
(CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université
Laval, Quebec, pp 463-472.

Sims, I., Smart, S. and Hunt, B. (2000). Practical petrography - The modern assessment of
aggregates for AAR potential. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 493-502.

Smith I, Nixon P J, Marion A (2004) International collaboration to control alkali-aggregate

reaction: the successful progress of RILEM TC 106 and TC 191-ARP. Proceedings
of the 12th International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing,
pp 41-50.

Strang, F. (2000). The new Brunswick department of transportation’s experience with

alkali-silica reaction (ASR). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche
Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 503-512.

Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) (1996), Alkali-silica Reactivity, Technical

Brief # 13. National Research Council, Washington DC, USA,
http://www.cshrp.org/products/csbf.e13.pdf, 8 p.

Tamura, H., Takahashi, T. & Ohashi, M. (1992). Minimizing of alkali-aggregate reaction in

concrete. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate
Reaction in Concrete, London, pp 1035-1042.

The South African Department of Public Works (1993). Specification of Materials and
Methods to be Used, http://www.publicworks.gov.za/docs/consultants/pw371.pdf,
Pretoria, 26 p.

Thomas, M.D.A (2001). Using Silica Fume to Combat ASR in Concrete,

http://www.icjonline.com/techpapers/2001/October/paper7/Thomas.pdf, 6 p.

Touma, W.E., Suh, C., Fowler, D.W., Carrasquillo, R.L. & Folliard, K.J. (2000).
Alkali-silica reaction in Portland cement concrete: Testing procedures and mitigation
methods. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate
Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton
(CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université
Laval, Quebec, pp 513-522.

Toutlemonde et al (2004) Extensive database for validating ASR modelling: a French

contribution to the re-assessment of ASR-affected structures. Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Alkali Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing pp 31-40.
 - 25 -

Wigum, B.J., Hagelia, P., Haugen, M. & Broekmans, M.A.T.M.(2000). Alkali-aggregate

reactivity of Norwegian aggregates assessed by quantitative petrography.
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in
Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB)
(Laval and Sherbrooke Universities) Département de génie civil, Université Laval,
Quebec, pp 533-542.

Wood, J.G.M. (2000). Comparison of field performance with laboratory testing: How safe
and economic are current AAR specifications. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de
Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 543-552.

Tremblay C, Berube M A, Fournier B, Thomas M D, Stokes D B (2004) Performance of

lithium-based products against ASR: application to Canadian reactive aggregates,
mechanism, and test. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Alkali
Aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Beijing, pp 668-677.

Hong Kong

Gilbert, S.T. & Tse W.L. (1994). Final Report on the Investigation of Cracks at Shek Wu
Hui Treatment Plant. Geotechnical Engineering Office, Special Project Report
SPR 9/94, 35 p.

Leung, W.C., Tse, W.L., Mak, C.S. & Gilbert, S.T. (1995). AR Potential of Volcanic Rocks
from Anderson Road Quarries. Geotechnical Engineering Office, GEO Report
No. 49, 78 p.

Leung, W.C., Shen, J.M., Lau, W.C. & Chan, C.Y. (2000) Testing aggregates for
alkali-aggregate reactions in Hong Kong. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Alkali-aggregate Reaction in Concrete, Quebec City, Centre de
Recherche Interuniversitaire sur le Béton (CRIB) (Laval and Sherbrooke Universities)
Département de génie civil, Université Laval, Quebec, pp 395-404.

Liu, K.K. (2002). Studies on Alkali Aggregate Reactions in Concrete. Geotechnical

Engineering Office, Discussion Note DN 1/2002, 36 p.

Read, A.S. & Anderson, G.M. (2000). Use of Volcanic Aggregate from Anderson Road
Quarry in Concrete, Final Report on Stage 1 Testing, 12 p.
 - 26 -

APPENDIX B

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE OF ASR CONTROL FRAMEWORK

 - 27 -

Australia

Aggregate Reactivity + Structure Class → Prevention Level

(3 classes) (3 classes) (4 levels)

Prevention Levels: i) Preventive measures not needed

ii) Limit alkali level
iii) Use blended cements/SCM
iv) Use alternative aggregate or mix with non-reactive aggregate

Note: SCM - Supplementary cementatious materials including pulverised fuel ash (PFA),
ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and silica fume.

Reference: Guirguis & Clarke (2000)

Canada

Aggregate Reactivity + Environment & Size of → ASR Risk Level

(3 classes) Elements (3 classes) (4 levels)

ASR Risk Level + Structure Class → Prevention Level

(3 classes) (5 levels)

Prevention Levels:
Level V: Preventive measures not needed
Level W, X & Y: Reject aggregates, or limit alkali content or add SCM to the prescribed
extent
Level Z: Reject reactive aggregate, or combine limiting alkali content and
adding SCM

Reference: CSA (2000); Fournier, B., Bérubé., M.A.& Rogers, C.A. (2000);
Malvar L.J. et al (2001); Touma W.E. et al (2001)

Denmark

Environment + Aggregate Size → Tests and limits for

(3 classes) (2 sizes) accepting aggregates

Reference: Swamy R.N. (1992)

 - 28 -

France

Environment + Structure Class → Prevention Level

(4 classes) (3 classes) (3 level)

Prevention Levels: A. Preventive measures not needed

B. Preventive measures: any one of
Satisfactory track record of aggregate
Satisfactory track record of concrete mix
Alkali content below limit
Add SCM
C. Use of non-reactive aggregate

Reference: Godart B. & Le Roux A. (1992), Touma W.E.et al (2001)

Germany

Aggregate Reactivity + Environment → Prevention Level

(3 classes) (3 classes) (3 levels)

Prevention Levels: 1. Preventive measures not needed;

2. Use low-alkali cement;
3. Reject aggregate

Reference: Hobbs D.W. (1988)

Japan

Aggregate Reactive → Preventive Measures:

Low alkali cement
Limit alkali content
SCM: GGBS, OPC/PFA cement

Reference: Hobbs D.W. (1988), Swamy R.N. (1992)

 - 29 -

New Zealand

For normal* concrete → Limit alkali content to 2.5 kg/m3

Aggregate reactive
For special* concrete + Structure Class → Prevention Level
Environment & Member (3 classes) (3 levels)
size (3 classes)

Prevention levels: Nil: preventive measures not needed

Low, Standard & Extraordinary: reject aggregate, or limit alkali content
or add SCM to the prescribed extent.

Note:
Normal concrete: concrete producer designs mix to the specification of NZS 3104:2003 and
is responsible for the workability and strength of the concrete produced.
Special concrete: the designer imposes specification additional to NZS 3104:2003 and is to
agree with the concrete producer on acceptance criteria and quality
assurance.

Reference: St John D.A. (1992), Swamy R.N. (1992), Cement and Concrete Association of
New Zealand (2003).

RILEM

Structure class + Environment → Prevention Level

(3 classes) (3 classes) (4 levels)

Prevention levels: P1 Preventive measures not needed

P2 one of the preventive measures
M1: restrict alkali content of the pore solution
(extent depends on aggregate reactivity)
M2: avoid the presence of a critical amount of reactive silica
M3: maintain concrete in a sufficiently dry state
M4: modify property gel (using lithium nitrate)
P3 in addition to P2, design concrete to resist the aggravating factor
P4 combination of two of the preventive measures of P2

Reference: RILEM (2005a)

 - 30 -

UK

Aggregate Reactivity → Preventive measures:

(3 classes) Limit alkali content of concrete or add
SCM to various degrees.

Reference: Hobbs D.W. (1988); Hobbs D.W. (2000); Nixon, P. & Blackwell, B. (2000); Poole,
A.B. et al (2000); West G. (1996); Concrete Society (1999)

USA

Aggregate Reactive → Preventive Measures

Use SCM: Class F PFA, Class C PFA,
class N pozzolan, GGBS, Silica fume
Use low alkali cement
Add lithium nitrate

Reference: Jawed I. (1992), Malvar L.J. et al (2001), Touma W.E. et al (2001)

Summary

- There appears to be three general forms of framework.

- The simplest form is that of Japan and the USA in which aggregates are classified as
innocuous or reactive; and preventive measures are prescribed for use with reactive
aggregates.

- The second and the third forms take into account the nature of the structures to be
constructed and the environment they are in, for prescribing preventive actions.

- In the second form, represented by Australia, Canada and Germany, consideration starts
with the reactivity of the aggregate to be used.

- In the third form, represented by France, New Zealand and RILEM, aggregate reactivity is
considered only in the choice of preventive measures.

- The second form works better for a place where innocuous aggregates are not common
such that the focus is on how to make reactive aggregates work. The third form is for
places with some reactive aggregates, so that the designer could decide whether and how to
use reactive aggregates to suit the requirement of his project.

- The third form of framework appears to suit Hong Kong better.

 - 31 -

APPENDIX C

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES

 - 32 -

Country Structure Class Classification

RILEM 3 Classes:

S1 - low risk - Consequence of deterioration small or

negligible: Non load-bearing elements inside
buildings, temporary or short service life
structures (likely design life <50 years); easily
replaceable elements, and most domestic
structures
S2 - normal risk - Some safety, economic or environmental
consequences of major deterioration: Most
building and civil engineering structures, normally
designed for service life of 50-100 years.
S3 - high risk - Serious consequence if any deterioration: Long
service life or highly critical structures where the
risk of deterioration from AAR damage is judged
unacceptable, e.g. nuclear installations, dams,
tunnels, exceptionally important bridges or viaducts
and structures retaining hazardous materials

Australia 3 Classes:

Low - Structures with higher concrete strengths

Moderate exposed to long periods of high humidity are
High particularly in a higher class while low strength
concretes are in a low class.
- Guidelines recommend that concrete of 25 MPa
or less are considered to be for low risk structures

Canada 3 Classes:

Class 1 - Temporary elements with an expected or

desirable service life of 5 years or less
Class 2 - Concrete elements which have an expected life
of from 5 to 50 years
Class 3 - Concrete elements with a service life of 50 years
or more. This class also includes all structures
for which a major repair would be either
impossible or very expensive

France 3 Classes: Examples:

Low or slight risk of - Non load-bearing elements located inside

AAR acceptable buildings, (temporary structures)
Risk of AAR barely - Most civil engineering structures
acceptable
Risk of AAR - Exceptional bridges and tunnels (buildings and
unacceptable reactors of nuclear power plants)
 - 33 -

Country Structure Class Classification

New Zealand 3 Classes:

S1 Some deterioration from ASR is acceptable

e.g. non-load bearing elements inside buildings,
temporary structures. Includes elements on
which deterioration would be detected during
normal use and inspection of the structure and
that are easy and cheap to replace. These
elements are likely to be designed for service
life less than 50 years.
S2 Minor ASR and resulting cosmetic cracking
acceptable
e.g. most buildings and civil structures (e.g.
bridges). Includes elements on which
deterioration might or might not be detected
during normal inspection but where
remediation of the element or structure would
be possible if necessary. These structures
would normally be designed for service life
50 or 100 years.
S3 No ASR damage is acceptable, even if only
cosmetic
e.g. dams, tunnels and other major or prominent
civil structures, structures retaining hazardous
materials, nuclear installations, architectural
finishes such as F6. Includes critical
elements on which deterioration would not be
detected in normal inspection and where
remediation of the element structure would
not be practical. These structures would
normally be designed for service life 100
years or longer.
 - 34 -

APPENDIX D

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENT

 - 35 -

Country Environment Class Explanation/Clarification

Read & 3 Classes:
Anderson
(2002) Dry - Likely to remain dry with only a low risk of
suggested wetting, e.g. air-conditioned building interior
Exposed - subject to wet conditions such as rainfall or
natural ground water
Severe - wet conditions with salt or chemical
contamination such as marine exposure

RILEM 3 Classes:

E1 - protected from - Internal concrete within buildings; external

extraneous concrete protected from the atmosphere, e.g. by
moisture cladding
E2 - exposed to - Internal concrete in buildings where humidity is
extraneous high; e.g. laundries, tanks, swimming pools;
moisture concrete exposed to external atmosphere or to
non-aggressive ground; internal mass concrete
with a least dimension of 1 m or more
E3 - exposed to - Internal or external concrete exposed to de-icing
extraneous salts; concrete exposed to seawater or salt spray;
moisture plus concrete exposed to freezing and thawing whilst
aggravating factors wet; concrete subjected to prolonged elevated
temperatures whilst wet

Canada 3 Classes:

Non-massive and dry - a massive element has a least dimension of one

meter or more
- a dry environment corresponds to ambient
average relative humidity condition < 60%,
normally found in buildings
Massive and dry - a risk of ASR exists for massive concrete
elements in a dry environment because the
internal concrete has a high relative humidity
All concrete exposed to - a non-massive concrete element constantly
humid air, buried or immersed in sea water does not present a higher
immersed risk of ASR than a similar element exposed to
humid air, buried in the ground, or immersed in
pure water because the alkali concentration of
sea water (30 g/L NaCl => 0.51 M NaCl or Na)
is lower than the alkali concentration of the pore
solution of most concretes, while the penetration
of Cl ions is usually limited to a few centimetres
 - 36 -

Country Environment Class Explanation/Clarification

Denmark 3 Classes:

Passive environment - comprises dry, non-aggressive environment, i.e.

particularly an indoor climate
Moderate - comprises moist, non-aggressive outdoor and
environmental indoor environment, and flowing or standing
fresh water.
Aggressive - comprises environment containing salt or flue
environment gases, seawater or brackish water.

France 4 Classes: Type of environment

Class 1 - dry or only slightly damp (RH < 80%)

Class 2 - damp to wet or in contact with water
Class 3 - wet with frost and de-icing salts
Class 4 - maritime environment

Germany 3 Classes: Examples

D - Dry - interior components of buildings

M - Moist - externally exposed components
M+A - Moist plus an - concrete components exposed to seawater or
external supply of alkali de-icing salts

Ireland 2 Classes:

Class 1 - Relative humidity remains below 80% except

for short periods through the life of the structure,
or, the structure is protected from severe
exposure to moisture or the elements in its
working environment
Class 2 - the opposite of Class 1
 - 37 -

Country Environment Class Explanation/Clarification

New 3 Classes:
Zealand
E1 Non-massive (1) and dry (2)
e.g. a damp-proofed floor in dry service conditions
E2 Massive and dry (2,3); all concrete exposed to
humid air, condensation, rain, run-off,
groundwater (4), or other sources of moisture.
e.g. building facades, foundations, concrete
elements in a building enclosing a swimming
pool or laundry, water-retaining structures.
E3 Concrete exposed to external moisture and to
aggravating factors such as freezing and thawing,
wetting and drying in a marine environment or
prolonged elevated temperatures.
e.g. concrete in the splash zone of a marine
structures; concrete exposed to moisture and
elevated temperatures such as a cooling tower
or chimney

Notes: (1) A massive element has a least dimension of 0.5 m or more

(2) A dry environment corresponds to an ambient average relative
humidity condition lower than 60% (normally only found
inside buildings) and no exposure to external moisture
sources.
(3) A risk of alkali-silica reaction exists for massive concrete
elements in a dry environment because the internal concrete
may still have a high relative humidity.
(4) A non-massive concrete element constantly immersed in sea
water does not present a higher risk of ASR than a similar
element exposed to humid air, buried in the ground, or
immersed in pure water, because the alkali concentration of
sea water (30 g/l NaCl, i.e. 0.57 M NaCl or Na) is lower than
the alkali concentration of the pore solution of most concretes,
and the penetration of Cl¯ ions is usually limited to a few
centimetres.
 - 38 -

APPENDIX E

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE ON CLASSIFICATION OF ASR REACTIVITY

 - 39 -

Country Classification Testing Method and recommended Limits

Read & 5 Classes: AMBT to RILEM TC 106-2 (AAR-2)
Anderson
(2002) Low Up to and including 0.10% expansion
suggested Medium Up to and including 0.20% expansion
High Up to and including 0.30% expansion
Very High Up to and including 0.40% expansion
Extreme Greater than 0.40% expansion

RILEM 3 Classes:

Class I: very unlikely to AMBT - criteria for interpretation to be finalised,

be alkali-reactive tentatively*
Class II: potentially < 0.1%: non reactive
alkali-reactive or > 0.2%: reactive,
alkali-reactivity suggests that it is not currently possible to provide
uncertain interpretative guidance for results in the range of
Class III: very likely to 0.1% - 0.2%; for all practical purposes in the
be alkali-reactive absence of additional local experience, aggregate
yielding results in this range will need to be
regarded as being potentially alkali-reactive.

CPT - criteria for interpretation to be finalised,

tentatively*

< 0.05%: non reactive

> 0.1%: reactive,
suggests that it is not currently possible to
provide interpretative guidance for results in the
range of 0.05% - 0.10%; and, for all practical
purposes in the absence of additional local
experience, aggregate yielding results in this
range will need to be regarded as being
potentially alkali-reactive.

Accelerated concrete prism test - suggested

tentatively
<0.03% at 15 weeks: non-reactive.

* Note: Classification quoted from Sims et al (2004). RILEM (2005a)

described a 3-tier classification system based on the alkali
thresholds of aggregates.
 - 40 -

Country Classification Testing Method and recommended Limits

Canada 3 Classes

Non Reactive Petrographic Examination (ASTM C295)

Moderately Reactive No limit, regarded as essential to interpreting
Highly Reactive results of other observations
AMBT (CSA A23.2-25A)
Expansion < 0.15%: Non-reactive (0.1% for
limestone and some other aggregates) Expansion
> 0.15%: Highly Reactive (Note: AMBT was
not considered suitable for distinguishing
between moderate and highly reactive
aggregates. In the absence of CPT data,
aggregates that produces > 0.15% expansion at
14 days in the AMBT (0.1% for limestone) are
classified as highly reactive)
CPT (CSA A23.2-14A)
Definitive test - use as a ‘pass or fail’ criterion
Expansion < 0.04%: Non-reactive
Expansion 0.04 - 0.12%: Moderately Reactive
Expansion > 0.12%: Highly Reactive
 - 41 -

Country Classification Testing Method and recommended Limits

Denmark 3 Classes:

Class P: for use in Classification of Sand:

passive environment Petrographic examination using point-count
Class M: for use in method on thin sections (TI-B 52) - Mandatory
moderate Volume of reactive flint
environments Class P: not limited
Class A: for use in Class M: max 2%
aggressive Class A: max 2%
environments Mortar bar expansion (TI-B 51) @ 8 weeks
Class P: not limited
Class M: max 0.1%
Class A: max 0.1%

Classification of Coarse Aggregate

Petrographic examination using point-count
method on thin sections (TI-B 52) - Mandatory
Amount of reactive aggregate is limited by the
allowable amount of particles with density <
2400 kg/m³. This value is determined on 10%
of the flint with porous crust.
Class P: not limited
Class M: max 5%
Class A: max 1%
Adsorption (%)
Class P: not limited
Class M: max 2.5%
Class A: max 1.1%
 - 42 -

Country Classification Testing Method and recommended Limits

France 3 Classes:

NR: non reactive Classification proceeds through petro-mineralogical

PR: potentially reactive analysis which produces a “pre-diagnostic”
PRP: potentially through the evaluation of the reactive silica
reactive with a content. This pre-diagnostic is then controlled
pessimum effect with one of the following 5 tests, except when the
flint content of the sample exceeds 50%. In this
particular case, only the first two tests should be
used, as they are the only tests to detect the
pessimum effect.
(1) Chemical kinetic test (XP P 18-589)
(2) Microbar test (XP P 18-588)
measure relative expansion of micro mortar
prism (1x1x4cm) with 3 cement/aggregate
ratios (c/g): c/g = 2, 5 and 10.
Classified PR when one of the expansion
reading > 0.11%
Classified PRP when the value at c/g=5 > that
of c/g=2
(3) Autoclave Test (XP P 18-590)
measure relative expansion of mortar prism
(4x4x16cm) @ 18 hours.
Classified PR when > 0.15%
(The above 3 tests are rapid tests, used as
screening tests. When PR assessment is
obtained, a reference test of the following 2
tests should be applied.)
(4) Mortar bar (XP P 18-585)
(5) Concrete prism (XP P 18-587)
Sand sample: > 0.1% @ 6 months:
Potentially Reactive (PR)
Gravel sample: > 0.1% @ 8 months:
Potentially Reactive (PR)

Germany 3 Classes:

E1: inert Classification is based on the quantities of opal

EII: limited use with sandstone and active flint obtained from tests.
respect to ASR
EIII: deleteriously
reactive
 - 43 -

Country Classification Testing Method and recommended Limits

Japan 2 Classes

Innocuous Concrete Method (JASS 5NT-603, JCI AAR-3)

Reactive < 0.1% @ 6 months: innocuous
≥ 0.1% @ 6 months: reactive
Rapid Test (JIS A 1804)
Innocuous if one of the following three
conditions applies:
(1) ultrasonic pulse velocity ≥ 95%,
(2) relative dynamic modulus of elasticity ≥ 85%,
(3) length change < 0.1%

Chemical method (JIS A 1145)

Mortar bar method (JIS A 1146)
Appendix 7 & 8 of JIS A 5308 ready-mixed
concrete

Netherlands 3 Classes:

Under critical Petrographic examination

Above critical - Under Critical: contain low amount of reactive
Critical components such that no harmful ASR can occur
- Above critical: contain high amount of reactive
components such that no harmful ASR can occur
- Critical: contain the amount of reactive
components that harmful ASR can occur
 - 44 -

Country Classification Testing Method and recommended Limits

New 2 classes
Zealand
Innocuous (1) Petrographic Examination
Reactive Recommended Step 1 for screening reactive
aggregate by determining the mineral
composition. If the aggregate contains no
potentially reactive components, AAR need
not be considered further. If it does contain
potentially reactive components, even as
contaminants, either assume the aggregates to
be reactive or carry out further investigation.

(2) Field Data

Recommended Step 2. If aggregate contains
potentially reactive material, assess the
aggregate’s reactivity from existing test data
or field experience

(3) Chemical Test (ASTM C289)

Recommended Step 3. If neither existing
test data nor field experience are available,
assess its reactivity by ASTM C289. If
ASTM C289 tests show the rock to be
non-reactive, AAR need not be considered
further. If the aggregate is shown to be
deleterious or potentially deleterious, either
assume that it is reactive or carry out
mortar/concrete tests to establish its likely
reactivity in concrete.

(4) Mortar or concrete tests

Recommended Step 4. If mortar or concrete
tests show the rock to be non-reactive, AAR
need not be considered further. If the
aggregate is shown to be deleterious or
potentially deleterious, then preventive
measures such as limiting alkali limit to
2.5 kg/m³ should be implemented.
 - 45 -

Country Classification Testing Method and recommended Limits

Norway 3 Classes:

Innocuous Petrographic analysis by point counting

Deleterious but slowly (Norwegian method)
expanding potentially reactive rock types < 20%:
Deleteriously reactive innocuous
and rapid expanding potentially reactive rock types > 20%: alkali
reactive
AMBT (South African NBRI AMBT)
Expansion after 14 days
(i) ≤ 0.10% Æ innocuous
(ii) between 0.10% and 0.25% Æ deleterious
but slowly expanding
(iii) ≥ 0.25% Æ potentially deleteriously
reactive and rapid expanding

UK 3 Classses:

Low Reactivity Petrographic Examination (BS 7943:1999)

Normal Reactivity CPT (BS DD 218, now replaced by BS 812-123
High Reactivity (1999))
- Expansive: if > 0.2% expansion after 12 months
- Possible Expansive: if between 0.1% and 0.2%
- Probably non-expansive: if between 0.05% and
0.1%
- Non-expansive: if < 0.05%

USA 2 classes:

Innocuous AMBT (ASTM C 1260)

Potentially deleterious Expansion after 14 days
> 0.08-0.1%: potentially deleterious
< 0.08-0.1%: innocuous
(0.08% for metamorphic aggregate and
0.1% for all other aggregates)
CPT (ASTM C 1293)
Expansion after 1 year
> 0.04%: potentially deleterious
< 0.04%: innocuous
 - 46 -

Summary

The class limits for various counties could be summarized as follows.

Field
Country Acc. mortar bar* Concrete prism* Petrography
performance
Read et al + ---0.1%---0.2%--- Yes
RILEM ---0.1%---0.2%--- ---0.05%---0.10%--- Yes Yes
Canada -----0.15%----- ---0.04%---0.12%--- Yes Yes
Denmark Non-standard tests Yes
France Non-standard tests Yes Yes
Japan Non-standard tests Yes
Netherlands Non-standard tests Yes
Norway ---0.1%---0.25%--- Yes
UK ---0.05%---0.1%----- Yes
USA -----0.1%----- -----0.04%----- Yes
Legend:
* ---0.1%---0.2%---: The first figure denotes the limit for the class of
non-reactive rock; the second figure denotes that for the
lower class of reactive rock
-----0.1%-----: The figure denotes the limit for the class of non-reactive
rock
+ Read & Anderson (2002): It proposed a five-tier classification for Hong Kong

- Two-tier and three-tier classification systems are common.

- France and the Netherlands are special in having a class of aggregate that is non-reactive
when it contains a high proportion of reactive elements (pessimum effect; above critical).
- Of the countries that use standard AMBT and CPT tests for classification, the limit for
classifying non-reactive rock is 0.1% expansion after 14 days and 0.04/0.05% expansion
after 1 year respectively. Beyond these limits, the aggregates are taken as potentially
reactive.
- Where a medium ‘potentially reactive’ class is set, the upper limit of the class is either 0.20
(RILEM) or 0.25 (Norway) for AMBT and 0.10 (RILEM) or 0.12 (Canada) for CPT.
Canada regarded AMBT as not precise enough for setting a medium class of reactivity.
- Read and Anderson (2002) followed the RILEM limits for the medium class of reactivity.
- Field performance is taken as the best method of distinguishing sources of reactive
aggregates and innocuous aggregates.
- Petrographic examination is commonly adopted for accepting rock as non-reactive.
- RILEM (2005b) contains information that could be interpreted to produce expansion limits
for demarcating potentially reactive rock and reactive rock. This has to be calibrated
against CPT results.
 - 47 -

List of Test Standards Used in Various Countries

RILEM
Petrographical examination (AAR-1, previously called TC-106-1)
Ultra-accelerated (mortar bar) expansion test (AAR-2, previously called TC-106-2)
Concrete prism test (AAR-3, previously called TC-106-3)
Ultra-accelerated (60OC) concrete prism test (AAR-4, previously called TC-106-4)

Australia
Accelerated mortar bar test for AAR assessment by Road and Traffic Authority of NSW
(RTA T363)
Concrete prism test for AAR assessment by Road and Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA
T364)
Mortar-bar test (AS 1141 section 38)
Chemical Test (AS 1141 section 39)

Canada
Potential expansively of aggregates (procedure for length change due to AAR in
concrete Prisms) (CSA A23.2-14A)
Detection of ASR aggregate by accelerated expansion of mortar bars (CSA A23.2-25A)
Petrographic examination of aggregates for concrete (ASTM C 295)
Petrographic analysis adopted by The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and
Highways (BCH 1-17)

Denmark
Mortar bar expansion test in saturated sodium chloride solution (TI-B 51)
Petrographic thin-section point-counting method (TI-B 52)

France
Long-term, mortar accelerated expansion tests at 38ºC (XP P 18-585) - (mortar bar test)
Long-term, concrete accelerated expansion tests at 38ºC (XP P 18-587) - (concrete
prism test)
Ultra-accelerated expansion methods using mortar bars (XP P 18-588 and XP P 18-590)
- Microbar test (XP P 18-588) and autoclave test (XP P 18-590)
Chemical kinetic test (XP P 18-589)

Japan
Concrete test method for alkali-silica reaction - concrete method (JASS 5NT-603,
JCI AAR-3)
Chemical method (JIS A 1145)
Mortar bar method (JIS A 1146)
Methods of test for production control of concrete - method of rapid test for
identification of the alkali reactivity of aggregates (JIS A 1804)
 - 48 -

New Zealand
(Follows ASTM Testing Standards)

UK
Petrographic examination of aggregates (BS 812, Part 104)
Concrete Test (BS 812, Part 123:1999, replacing BS DD 218)

USA
Mortar-bar method (ASTM C 227)
Chemical method (ASTM C 289)
Petrographic examination of aggregates for concrete (ASTM C 295)
Accelerated detection of potentially deleterious expansion of mortar bars due to ASR
(ASTM C 1260, AASHTO T 303): (Accelerated mortar bar method)
Concrete aggregates by determination of length change of concrete due to ASR (ASTM
C 1293): (Concrete prism test)
 - 49 -

APPENDIX F

INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES OF PREVENTIVE MEASURES AGAINST ASR

(See Appendices B to E for background information

on the control frameworks in which the measures are used)
 - 50 -

Australia
Prevention Aggregate Structure
Preventive Measures
Level Reactivity Class
1 Slow/mild Low Preventive measures not needed
2 Substantial Low Limit alkalis to 2.8 Kg/m³, or
Slow/mild Moderate Use blended cements/SCM *1
3 Substantial Moderate Use blended cements/SCM *1
Slow/mild High
4 Substantial High Use alternative aggregate, or
If alternative aggregate is not available,
assess proposed mixes and modify mix until
the result is acceptable
Note:
1. Cement and Concrete Association of Australia (1996) recommends that silica fume should
comprise at least 10% of the total binder content by mass to ensure minimising ASR damages)
 - 51 -

Canada
Prevention Aggregate Environment &
Structure Preventive Measures
Level Reactivity Element Size *1
V Non All Classes All Classes Accept the proposed aggregate
Reactive without any preventive measure but
Moderately ND periodically ensure that the reactivity
Reactive MD < 5 years of the aggregate extracted has not
H changed
Highly ND
Reactive MD
W Moderately MD 5-50 years Mild preventive action - use one of
Reactive the following:
Highly ND (W1) Reject the aggregate, or
Reactive H < 5 years (W2) Limit the alkali content to <
3.0 Kg/m³ *2
(W3) Use SCM, Table B-2
X Moderately MD > 50 years Moderate preventive action - use one
Reactive H 5-50 years of the following:
Highly ND > 50 year (X1) Reject the aggregate, or
Reactive MD 5-50 years (X2) Limit the alkali content to <
s 2.4 Kg/m³, or
(X3) Use SCM, Table B-2
Y Moderately H > 50 years Strong preventive action - use one of
Reactive the following:
Highly MD (Y1) Reject the aggregate, or
Reactive H 5-50 years (Y2) Limit the alkali content to <
1.8 Kg/m³, or
(Y3) Use SCM, Table B-2
Z Highly H > 50 years Exceptional preventive action - use
Reactive one of the following:
(Z1) Reject the aggregate, or
(Z2) Use both Y2 and Y3
Note:
*1: ND = non-massive and dry; MD = Massive and dry; H = All concrete exposed to humid air,
buried or immersed
*2: The limit is that due to the Portland cement, in Na2O equivalent = Na2O + (0.658 x K2O)
 - 52 -

Table: Use of Supplementary Cementing Materials for Counteracting ASR

Chemical Cement Replacement (% by mass) *2

Total Alkali
Type of Composition
Content of SCM *1
SCM Requirement Prevention Prevention Prevention
(% Na2Oe)
(% oxides) Level W Level X Level Y & Z
Fly Ash < 3.0 CaO < 8% ≥ 15 ≥ 20 ≥ 25
CaO = 8-20% ≥ 20 ≥ 25 ≥ 30
CaO > 20% *3 *3 *3
3.0 - 4.5 CaO < 8% ≥ 20 ≥ 25 ≥ 30
CaO = 8-20% ≥ 25 ≥ 30 ≥ 35
CaO > 20% *3 *3 *3
> 4.5 *3
Blast < 1.0 *2 None ≥ 25 ≥ 35 ≥ 50
Furnace Slag
Silica Fume < 1.0 *2 None ≥ 2.0 x alkali ≥ 2.5 x alkali ≥ 3.0 x alkali
content *4 content *4 content *4
Natural Natural pozzolans that meet the requirements of CSA A23.5 may be used provided
Pozzolans that their effectiveness in controlling expansion due to ASR is demonstrated
according to CSA A23.2-28A
Ternary When two, or more, SCMs are used together to control ASR, the sum of the parts of
Blends each SCM is ≥ 1. For example, when silica fume and slag are combined, the silica
fume level may be reduced to one third of the minimum silica fume level given in
Table B-2 provided that the slag level is at least two thirds of the minimum slag
level.
Note:
1: Na2O equivalent = sodium oxide equivalent = Na2O + (0.658 x K2O)
2: The total alkali content of the concrete mixture (cement + any SCMs) should be < 1.0 % Na2Oe
3: Blast furnace slag and silica fume with alkali contents >1.0 % Na2Oe, and fly ash with alkali
contents > 4.5% Na2Oe and/or with CaO contents > 20% Na2Oe may be used as SCM when
their effectiveness is demonstrated in accordance with CSA A23.2-28A. Test results have
indicated that higher alkali fly ashes (but not high CaO ashes), when used in large quantities
(e.g., > 50% as cement replacement by mass), can reduce expansion to an acceptable level.
4: The minimum level of silica fume (as a % of cementitious material content) is calculated on the
basis of the alkali content of the concrete, but in cases where silica fume is the only SCM to be
used, the silica fume content should be > 7.0% by mass
5: Blended cements may be used provided that the proportions of the supplementary cementing
materials in the blend meet the requirements of Tables B-1 and B-2.
 - 53 -

France
Prevention
Structure Class *1 Environment *2 Preventive Measures
Level
A I: All classes Nil
II 1
B II 2, 3 or 4 Use non-reactive aggregates, or
Use a proven concrete design
including proportion and sources of
constituents, or
Limit alkali content to 3 kg/m3, or
Add SCM
C III All classes Use non-reactive aggregates
Note:
1. Structure classes: I = low or slight risk of ASR acceptable; II = Risk of ASR barely acceptable;
III = Risk unacceptable
2. Environment classes: 1 = Dry or only slightly damp (RH < 80%); 2 = Damp to wet or in contact
with water; 3 = Wet with frost and de-icing salts; 4: Maritime Environment
 - 54 -

Germany
Prevention
Aggregate Reactivity *1 Environment *2 Preventive Measures
Level
1 EI All classes None *3
EII D, M
EIII D
2 EII M+A Low-alkali cement *4

EIII M

3 EIII M+A Replacement of aggregates

Note:
1. Aggregate reactivity: E1 = inert; EII = limited use with respect to ASR; EIII = deleteriously
reactive.
2. Environment classes: D = Dry; M = Moist; M+A = Moist plus an external supply of alkali
3. In addition, if an approved admixture is used for classes EII structure in M environment, EII in
M + A and EIII in M, then
(a) its mass should not exceed 2% of that of the cement
(b) the cement content should not exceed 400 Kg/m³
(c) its alkali content expressed as equivalent sodium oxide should not be more than 8.5% by
mass
4. For classes EII in M + A and EIII in M, the risk of cracking is minimized by
(d) Use of a ‘cement’ with a low effective alkali content
(e) Limit the cement content to 500 Kg/m³
(f) Prohibit the use of mix water containing high contents of alkali
 - 55 -

Japan
Preventive Measures
(a) Use non-reactive aggregate.
(b) Use of low alkali Portland cement (cement containing less than 0.6% by mass of equivalent
sodium oxide)
(c) Limiting the maximum alkali content of the concrete to 3.0 Kg/m³ when a Portland cement with
alkali content greater than 0.6% by mass is used.
(d) Use of an appropriate blended cement, such as blast-furnace slag cement type B or type C to JIS
R 5211. Type B contains slag content of 30-60% and type C of 60-70% by mass.
(e) Use of type B or type C OPC/PFA cement to JIS R 5213. Type B contains between 10 and
20% by mass of PFA and type C 20-30% by mass. The total alkali content of the PFAs in use
in Japan range from 0.6 to 3.1% by mass.
 - 56 -

New Zealand
For Normal Concrete, limited alkali content of concrete to 2-5 kg/m3 if aggregate is reactive.
For Special Concrete
Prevention Structure
Environment *2 Preventive Measures
Level Class *1
Nil S1 E1 No special precautions are needed.
Low S1 E2, E3 Mild preventive action - one of the following:
S2: E1 L1: reject the aggregate, or
L2: limit the alkali content of the concrete to <
3.0 kg/m³ Na2O eq, or.
L3: use SCM *3.
Standard S2 E2, E3 Standard preventive action - one of the
S3 E1 following:
N1: reject the aggregate, or
N2: limit the alkali content of the concrete to <
2.5 kg/m³ Na2O eq, or
N3: use SCM *3.
Extraordinary S3 E2, E3 Exceptional preventive action - one of the
following:
X1: reject the proposed aggregate, or
X2: limit the alkali content of the concrete to <
1.8 kg/m³ Na2O eq, or
X3: use SCM *3.
Note:
1. Structure classes: S1 = Some deterioration from ASR is acceptable; S2 = Minor ASR and
resulting cosmetic cracking acceptable; S3 = No ASR damage is acceptable, even if only
cosmetic
2. Environment classes: E1 = Non-massive & Dry; E2 = Massive & Dry; E3 = Concrete exposed
to external moisture and to aggravating factors.
3. Where SCM is added to concrete to protect against ASR, the level of cement replacement will
depend on the SCM used. Approximate replacement levels needed to minimise ASR damage are:
- at least 8% for silica fume and geothermal silica;
- At least 15% for diatomite and metakaolin;
- More than 25% for pumicite and fly ash (high calcium fly ashes require an even higher
replacement level); and
- More then 50% for blast furnace slag.
 - 57 -

RILEM
Prevention
Structure *1 Environmental *2 Preventive Measures *3, 4
Level
P1 S1 All Classes No special precautions
S2 E1
P2 S2 E2 One of the following measures:
S3 E1 M1: restrict the alkalinity of the pore solution.
M2: avoid the presence of a critical amount of
reactive silica
M3: reduce the access of moisture and
maintain the concrete in a sufficiently dry
state
M4: modify the properties of any gel such that
it is non-expansive
P3 S2 E3 P2 + designing concrete to resist the
aggravating factor, e.g. seawater.
P4 S3 E2, E3 M2, or
a combination of two of M1, M3 and M4
Note:
1. Structure class: S1 = Consequence of ASR is small or negligible; S2 = Some consequences if
major ASR deterioration; S3 = Serious consequences if any ASR deterioration.
2. Environment class: E1 = Protected from extraneous moisture; E2 = Exposed to extraneous
moisture; E3 = Exposed to extraneous moisture plus aggravating factors.
3. Preventive measures: M1 includes the use of low alkali cement and SCM; M4 is by adding
lithium nitrate solutions.
4. Alkali limit and SCM depend on reactivity of aggregate as follows.

Aggregate reactivity Alkali limit (kg/m3 Na2Oeq)

Low None required
Medium Typically 3.0 or 3.5
High Lower limit, e.g. 2.5

Note: reactivity classified by alkali threshold, not AMBT or CPT.

recommended minimum proportions for reference, in % by mass of

Aggregate reactivity total cementitious material
Low lime PFA GGBS
Low - -
Medium 25 40
High 40 50

Tentative: 8% silica fume (>85%SiO2) or 15% Metakaolin (>45% SiO2)

 - 58 -

UK
Alkali limit (Kg/m³)

Aggregate Classification Portland cement alkali content, Na2Oeq (%)

≤ 0.60 ≤ 0.75 > 0.75

Low reactivity Self-limiting Self-limiting ≤ 5.0

Normal reactivity Self-limiting ≤ 3.5 ≤ 3.0
High reactivity ≤ 2.5 ≤ 2.5 ≤ 2.5
 - 59 -

APPENDIX G

SUMMARY OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE ON ASR

 - 60 -

Control Framework

Suspected alkali silica reaction (ASR) was first diagnosed in Hong Kong in 1991
(Wong & Koirala, 1992). Overseas experience was reviewed and a general control
framework was introduced in 1994. The framework is described in WBTC 5/94. It
prescribes the preventive measure of controlling the alkali content in concrete to 3.0kg/m³.
It is open on the policy of the use of reactive aggregates in concrete.

HKQAA operates the Quality Scheme for the Production and Supply of Concrete
(QSPSC). The scheme requires that where new sources of aggregate are proposed, the
aggregate should be tested before use for potential alkali reactivity. The test is to be
ASTM C289 (chemical test) or other recognized testing methods. The chemical test has
been found to be ineffective in screening alkali reactivity of aggregate in Hong Kong.

MTRC requires that concrete for its structures is limited to 3 Kg/m3 in alkali content,
uses aggregate which AMBT expansion at 14 days is less than 0.15%, and contains no river
sand. It also accept up to 40% of PFA in the concrete.

Read & Anderson (2002) proposed a control framework. The framework is of the
second form discussed in Appendix B: it starts with the reactivity of the aggregate in hand and
then shows how to use the aggregate for the particular combination of the service
environment and the nature of the structure to be constructed.

Past Studies

Since the suspected case of ASR, the Public Works Laboratories (PWL) of the
Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) started a series of trials on the accelerated mortar bar
test (AMBT). GEO also carried out petrographic examinations on specimens of concrete
recovered from sites of suspected ASR, as part of the studies on these cases. The results are
published in Gilbert (1995), Sewell (1999), Sewell (2000), Campbell (2000), Liu & Chan
(2000), Sewell & Campbell (2001), Liu & Tam (2002), and Sewell et al (2007).

Hong Kong constructed its first major sea crossings in the mid 1990s as part of the
ports and airport projects. Stringent specifications were set on concrete properties to ensure
durability. One of the contractors commissioned a study on Lamma Quarry that was to
supply aggregates. The quarry owner commissioned more studies when a part of the quarry
face was found to have materials that were potentially reactive.

China Light and Power Co Ltd (CLP) commissioned L G Mouchel & Partners (Asia)
and Taywood Engineering Limited to coordinate a study between 1988 and 2000 on the use of
pulverized fuel ash (PFA) produced by CLP for the production of concrete and the properties
of the resulting concrete. It included full-scale field studies at the ash lagoon at Tseng Tsui,
simulated field studies and laboratory testing of 43 representative concrete mixes. PFA was
introduced in the form of either blended cement or additions to the mixes. The PFA content
ranged from 0 to 70% of the total cementitious materials; the rest being normal cement. The
concrete mixes were used to cast seawall blocks from which samples could be cored at
various time later for testing for comparison with laboratory specimens. The study was
reported in Mouchel and Taywood (1990) and CLP Power (2002). The observation of ASR
cracks on some seawall blocks in year 11 (1999) provides information on field performance of
the aggregate in respect of alkali reactivity. Sewell et al (2007) revealed the presence of
 - 61 -

relatively small portion of ASR, but with considerable delayed ettringite formation.

Liu et al (2004) reported a study on granite aggregates from four queries in Hong Kong
and its neighbourhood. The study included petrographic examination and laboratories tests
including AMBT and concrete prism tests. The aggregate from Lam Tei Quarry in Hong
Kong appeared to be reactive. Lam Tei Quarry has been importing rock to supplement rock
excavated there to produce aggregate; and the paper has not been specific on the source rock
of the aggregate that was tested.

Granite has been the main rock type quarried for aggregates in Hong Kong. At
Anderson Road Quarry, the quarry face is capped by volcanic rocks that are alkali reactive.
The quarry owner commissioned a series of studies that are reported in Anderson & Read
(2002) and Read & Anderson (2002).

In the following sections, information relevant to various sources of aggregates is

described and analysed.

Aggregates of Various Sources

Lamma Quarry

Taywood Maunsell Ltd. (1993) studied fitness of aggregates from Lamma Quarry for
the Kap Shui Mun Bridge and Ma Wan Viaduct. The study covered geological inspection of
the quarry face, petrographic examination of 10 thin sections, chemical testing and gel-pat
tests. The gel-pat test showed the aggregate to be potentially reactive but the chemical
testing to ASTM C289 showed the aggregate to be marginally innocuous. Petrographic
examination showed possibly reactive materials in the form of microcrystalline quartz in
cataclasite along shear zones, as thin veins, and as intergrowths with feldspar.

Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. (1993a) reported a study of the rock types of the
quarry, especially in respect of the variability and general quality of the rock as aggregates.
Key to the study is the detailed mapping of one bench of the quarry face during which hand
specimens and bulk rock samples were collected for examination. The study recommended
further petrographic examination.

A total of 10 thin sections were subsequently produced for petrographic examination.

The study was reported in Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. (1993b). The study
recommended mortar tests to measure reactivity of the aggregate. There was no record of
the mortar bar test having been conducted.

Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. (1993c) and Geomaterials Research Services Ltd.
(1993d) reported further petrographic examinations of 18 and 3 thin-sections from rock
specimens of the quarry. They confirmed knowledge of the nature and extent of potentially
reactive materials in Lamma Quarry.

The aggregate for the field trial of CLP at Tseng Tsui Ash Lagoon came from Lamma
Quarry. Cement of normal alkali content was used for casting the seawall blocks.
Seawater was used to cure the concrete but freshwater was said to have been used for
production.
 - 62 -

In 1999, cracking of seawall blocks of PFA-free concrete was noticed. This was
subsequently confirmed by petrographic assessment to be the result of alkali silica reaction,
although clear evidence was reported from only one thin section. The results were recorded
in a petrographic report compiled by M.A. Eden and verified by W.J. French, both of
Geomaterials Research Services Ltd. The extent of field performance had not been
systematically recorded but detailed inspection showed that concrete with 25% PFA content
did not show signs of alkali reaction (CLP Power, 2002). Infilling of the core hole using
normal cement mortar initiated ASR cracking around the hole; this showed that the aggregate
was reactive and the original absence of ASR was due to PFA in the concrete.

The findings of the petrographic study reported by Sewell et al (2007) strongly

suggested the participation of alkali-silica gel and secondary ettringite in the distress of the
concrete seawall blocks at Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoon. Petrographic methods, supported by
uranyl-acetate testing of polished slabs, have been used to unambiguously identify
alkali-silica gel in approximately one third of the specimens, but the alkali-silica gel generally
is much less abundant than fibrous crystalline material resembling ettringite. It was concluded
that small amounts of alkali-silica gel are present within cracks and entrapped air voids in
many of the distressed seawall blocks. The gel appears to have been deposited in multiple
phases, and to have formed relatively early in the life of the concrete.

Granite Aggregates in General

Shear zones and veins present in Lamma Quarry are not uncommon among granite
masses. Such features at other granite masses could also be alkali reactive. Unless a
granite face is quarried specifically to avoid such features, the aggregates produced are likely
to be contaminated by materials from the features and hence potentially reactive. This
presumption is commensurate with field experience. Sewell and Campbell (2001) reported
ASR at concrete anchor heads on a cut slope behind North Point Government School. The
concrete comprised granite aggregate of unknown sources and cement of normal alkali
content. The aggregate in the concrete was granite of unknown origin. It was possible to
have been contaminated by reactive rock associated with shearing and intrusion features.

Since the limitation of concrete alkali content to 3 kg/m3 in 1994, there has not been
any observation of ASR. Given that there has not been any change in the effort to isolate
shear zones or intrusions from being quarried with the general mass, the improvement is
likely to have been due to the limiting of concrete alkali content.

River sand

Hong Kong previously used sand dredged from the Pearl River for fines in concrete.
Since the 1970s, its role has been taken over by fines crushed from rock. At present, river
sand is used in some concrete as part of the whole fine aggregate to achieve higher
workability. River sand is also used in cement mortar for rendering of concrete faces.

There have not been observations of alkali reaction of concrete comprising river sand
and cement of normal alkali content. The present reduced use of river sand as fines would
further lower the risk of reaction. Mortar for fixing tiles to walls is sometimes made from
river sand. If ASR occurs, the stress might precipitate separation of the tiles from the wall.
 - 63 -

Wu Shek Ku Quarry

Wu Shek Ku Quarry in Shenzhen supplied aggregates of volcanic rocks to Hong Kong

in the early 1980s.

Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works was where ASR was first observed in Hong
Kong. Gilbert (1995) reported a study of nine concrete cores recovered from the
sedimentation tanks and aeration tanks. Eight thin sections and nine plates were produced
on which petrographic examination was carried out. Microcrystalline and strained quartz
was noted among the coarser grains of the volcanic rock aggregates.

Sewell and Campbell (2000) reported a study of ASR of a footbridge at Fanling. The
affected concrete incorporating aggregate from Wu Shek Ku Quarry. Four concrete cores
were taken from which 16 thin sections and 16 plates were produced for petrographic
examination. The rock type of the aggregates was described as metatuff, strongly foliated,
altered, mineralized with abundant finely recrystallized quartz, and strained quartz crystal.

There were no records of the quarry face geology or results of reactivity tests.

Anderson Road Quarry

AMBT conducted in PWCL on aggregates of volcanic rock (the volcanic aggregates)

in this site gives a fourteenth day expansion of 0.309%. Anderson and Read (2002) reported
values of 0.133% to 0.364% and mentioned petrographic examinations having been
conducted on thin sections of the rock by Geomaterials Research Serivces Ltd.

Anderson & Read (2002) also reported AMBT and CPT tests aimed at showing the
effectiveness of PFA in controlling ASR. They concluded that the volcanic aggregate from
Anderson Road quarry could be use in concrete if the total alkali content of the concrete was
limited to 3 kg/m3, the concrete was not subject to severe exposure conditions, and 35% of the
cement was replaced by PFA.

The quarry operator also engaged Taywood Engineering Ltd. to conduct a field test, in
which 48 numbers of 400 mm square by 75 mm deep panels were cast of concrete of volcanic
aggregates and mortar of a range of composition, to check their durability. The panels were
sprayed with salt water at regular intervals daily to simulate an unfavourable environment.
ASR was not observed on the panels. At an inspection in May 2004, the spray was found to
be missing part of the panels due to sagging of the support benches. Regular running water
on the panels could in the longer run leach out the alkali in the panels.

Cases of ASR

Table G1 lists confirmed cases of ASR in Hong Kong. It took about 9 to 16 years for
the concrete to crack to an extent that drew suspicision of ASR
 - 64 -

Table G1: Known Cases of ASR in Hong Kong.

Year ASR Approximate

Site Year Constructed
Reported Time Lapsed
Shek Wu Hui Treatment Works 1980 - 1983 1991 10 years
Fanling foot bridge 1982 1998 16 years
North Point Government School 1986 - 1988 1999 12 years
Hill Road Flyover Completed in 1982 1997 15 years
CLP Tseng Tsui Ash Lagoon 1988 1999 11 years

There have not been reports of ASR on mass concrete seawall blocks. Serious
deterioration of reinforced concrete in marine environment occurred. Ingress of chloride and
the spelling on concrete cover by the resulting corrosion of steel reinforcement was the main
mechanism of such cases. SCCT (2000) prescribed measures to ensure durability of
reinforced concrete in marine environment.
 - 65 -

APPENDIX H

ALKALI AGGREGATE REACTION CONTROL FRAMEWORK FOR HONG KONG

 - 66 -

H.1 INTRODUCTION

This note describes a framework for designing concrete against the risk of alkali silica
reaction (ASR). It starts with classifying the structure to be built according to its tolerability
to ASR. Based on the structure class and the quality of aggregates from available supply
sources, measures to mitigate against ASR is assessed for the supply sources. Finally, the
designer balances cost, risk of ASR and other utility considerations to decide what supply
sources of aggregate the structure may accept.

The effectiveness of the concrete design framework relies on satisfactory control of the
quality of aggregates that are supplied to concrete producers. This would in turn require
testing of aggregates and control on the production process. This is described in the
aggregate control framework in section 3 of the note.

The frameworks are formulated with in mind simplicity of use, consistence with local
experience and international practice, and continuity with the present ASR control framework
as far as possible.

H.2 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN FRAMEWORK

H.2.1 Structures

Structures for which the concrete mix is designed are to be assigned to one of the three
classes in Table H1. The classification follows broadly the New Zealand system:

Table H1 - Classification of Structures According to the Potential Consequence of ASR

Class Definition and Examples

Some deterioration from ASR is acceptable: e.g., temporary or short service life
1
structures, easily replaceable elements.
Minor ASR and resulting cosmetic cracking is acceptable: e.g., most building
2 and civil engineering structures, which design life is in the regime of tens to a
hundred or so years.
No ASR damage is acceptable, even if only cosmetic - long service life or highly
3 critical structures: e.g., nuclear installations, dams, tunnels, exceptionally
important bridges or viaducts, structures retaining hazardous materials

H.2.2 Environment

All concrete mixes are to be designed for the moist aggressive environment.

H.2.3 Aggregates

Aggregates may be innocuous, potentially reactive or reactive. Their classification is

described in Section H.3.1.
 - 67 -

H.2.4 Design Requirements

Based on local and international experience, the following preventive measures are
prescribed for ASR control.

Structure Preventive Measures

Innocuous or Potentially Reactive aggregate:
- mitigation measures not needed
Class 1 Reactive aggregate:
- use low alkali cement to limit alkali content to 3.0 kg/m3, or
- use cement of normal alkali content but PFA to replace not less than
25% of cement by mass.
Innocuous aggregate: preventive measures not needed
Potentially Reactive aggregate:
- use low alkali cement to limit alkali content to 3.0 kg/m3, or
- use cement of normal alkali content but PFA to replace not less than
25% of cement by mass.
Reactive aggregate:
- Experience with preventive measures for use with Reactive aggregate
in Hong Kong is very limited. Anderson & Read (2002) reported test
Class 2 results. Read & Anderson (2002) proposed guidelines. These and
the wealth of information on international practice could be referred to
for designing preventive measures.
- Until more is known about the performance of the Reactive aggregate
in Hong Kong, the effectiveness of mitigation measures in a particular
design mix should be investigated, preferably by tests on concrete
prisms. Class 2 structures constructed with Reactive aggregates
should also be monitored for not less than 15 years; clients should be
made well aware of this obligation.
Innocuous aggregate: preventive mitigation measures not needed but
advisable to keep to low alkali limit of say 3.0 kg/m3.
Class 3
Potentially Reactive aggregate or Reactive aggregate: Particular concrete
mix and monitoring requirements to be worked out for each structure.

In addition, SCCT (2000) prescribes measures for reinforced concrete in marine

environment to ensure durability in general. See Appendix I for SCCT (2000) and the part
of WBTC 5/94 on estimation of alkali content of concrete for general reference.

H.3 AGGREGATES SUPPLY FRAMEWORK

H.3.1 Tests

Petrographic examination to RILEM AAR-1 may be used to classify rock as ASR

non-reactive or reactive. In case of doubt, carry out AMBT or CPT.

Accelerated Mortar Bar Test (AMBT) to RILEM AAR-2 can be used for ASR
classification of rock as follows:
 - 68 -

Expansion after 14 days < 0.10%: Non-reactive

Expansion after 14 days at 0.1% to 0.20%: Potentially Reactive
Expansion after 14 days > 0.20%: Reactive.

In case of difficulties in interpreting test results, e.g., for reasons of scattered results,
carry out CPT.

Concrete Prism Test (CPT) to RILEM AAR-3 can be used for ASR classification of
rock as follows:
Expansion after 1 year < 0.05%: Non-reactive
Expansion after 1 year at 0.05% to 0.10%: Potentially Reactive
Expansion after 1 year > 0.10%: Reactive.

Accelerated (60oC) Concrete Prism Test to RILEM AAR-4 may be used for ASR
classification of rock as follows:

Expansion after 15 weeks < 0.03%: Non-reactive.

H.3.2 Innocuous Aggregates

Innocuous aggregates are those produced from rock tested to be non-reactive, in such a
manner as to preclude contamination by potentially reactive materials along geological
features in the rock mass. Assurance against contamination should include:

i) an assessment of the petrography of the rock in the quarry

and its general geological background;

ii) a system of production, transportation and stockpiling of the

aggregates to prevent contamination by other rock products;
and

iii) sampling at the stockpile for confirmatory testing of the

reactivity of aggregates.

The study of petrography and geology of the site should best be carried out at the
exploration stage of a quarry. Where microcrystalline quartz or strained quartz is found
along some geological features, the extent and trends of distribution of the particular features
should be assessed. Quick testing by AMBT and confirmatory testing by CPT should be
carried out on materials from these features for calibration and future reference.

A quality assurance scheme against contamination during production should include

delineation of production zones in the quarry, to be adjusted regularly through confirmation of
site geology by rock face mapping. Where variation in geology is high or where the geology
as exposed differs much from that estimated before, the rock face mapping may have to be at
greater frequency or be supplemented by exploratory drilling of the rock mass behind the
quarry face. In serious cases, the petrography and geology of the quarry may have to be
studied again.
 - 69 -

A quality assurance scheme against contamination during transportation should include

assignment of loading unloading facilities and transport vehicles specifically for the
aggregates.

A quality scheme against contamination at the stockpile should include spatial

isolation of the stockpiles from other rock products not subjected to the same quality
assurance schemes.

Sampling of the stockpiles for testing should cover both the average materials and
materials that appear different from the average. It could be subjected to petrographic
examination, AMBT, CPT or their combinations.

The frequency of quarry face mapping and sampling at stockpiles should be designed
on the basis of the site geology and the transportation and stockpiling arrangement.

The study of petrography and geology, mapping of quarry faces, the quality assurance
schemes, and results of tests should be properly documented and maintained, for the
examination of concrete producers for supply source assessment. In addition, thin sections
for petrographic examination should be produced in sets of two; one is to be kept by the
quarry operator and one to a central depository at the CEDD.

H.3.3 Potentially Reactive Aggregates

Potentially Reactive aggregates are those produced from rock on which AMBT or CPT
expansion values are in the range of 0.1-0.2% and 0.05-0.10% respectively, as defined in
Section H.3.1.

Granite aggregates, unless produced with tight quality control as described in

Section H.3.2, should be taken as Potentially Reactive.

Sand dredged from the Pearl River Delta should be regard as Potentially Reactive until
proved otherwise by tests or by studies on particular deposits.

H.3.4 Reactive Aggregates

Reactive aggregates are those produced from rock which AMBT or CPT expansion
values are higher than 0.2% and 0.10% respectively, as defined in Section H.3.1.

Aggregates of unknown origin, e.g., many recycled aggregates, should be taken as

Reactive.
 - 70 -

APPENDIX I

CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS FOR DURABLE CONCRETE

 - 71 -

Recommended Specification for

Reinforced Concrete in Marine Environment

Standing Committee on Concrete Technology

 - 72 -

Standing Committee on Concrete Technology

Recommended Specification for

Reinforced Concrete in Marine Environment

(Endorsed at SCCT Meeting No. 2/2000)

1. Constituent Materials

Cementitious Materials

1.1 All cement and supplementary cementitious materials shall comply with the following
standards:

Ordinary and Rapid Hardening Portland Cement : BS 12

Portland-blast furnace cement : BS 146

Low heat Portland-blast furnace cement : BS 4246

Sulphate resisting Portland cement : BS 4027

Portland pulverised-fuel ash cement : BS 6588

Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) : BS 3892

(except that the criterion for maximum water requirement
shall not apply)

Blast furnace slag (BFS) : BS 6699

The Contractor shall nominate the source of any of the materials mentioned in above
proposed to be used in each concrete mix.

1.2 Where there is a danger or high risk of chlorides ingress causing the reinforcement to
corrode, the tricalcium aluminate (C3A) component of the cement is very desirable to
reduce the amount of chloride available to promote corrosion. Sulphate-resisting cements,
which are low in C3A content, may not be appropriate and their inclusion in concrete
mixes for marine environment may need to be reviewed carefully before adopting.

Mineral Additive

1.3 Mineral additive shall comply with the following:

Condensed Silica Fume (CSF):CSA-A23.5- M86 (Canadian Standard)

Water

1.4 Water for mixing, curing and cleaning concrete shall be clean fresh water taken from
the public supply.
 - 73 -

Aggregate

1.5 Concrete aggregates shall be normal weight and shall comply with the requirements of
BS882, “Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete”. In addition, the aggregates
shall meet the following:

(a) Particle Shape

Flakiness index shall not exceed 30%
Elongation index shall not exceed 35%.

(b) LA abrasion and sulphate soundness

The maximum Los Angeles Value (ASTM C131) shall be 30% loss and maximum
sodium sulphate soundness (ASTM C88) weighted average loss shall be 6%.

1.6 Aggregate shall be obtained from a dedicated deposit having demonstrable ability to
provide a consistent quality and grading of material for the duration of the Contract.
Aggregates from marine sources shall not be permitted.

2. Chemical Admixture

2.1 A chemical admixture is defined as a constituent material of concrete other than

cementitious materials, mineral additives, aggregates and water. The admixtures shall
comply and be used in accordance with the supplier’s recommendation. Chemical
admixtures shall comply with the following:

Pigments for Portland cement and Portland cement products : BS 1014

Accelerating admixtures, retarding admixtures and

water-reducing admixtures : BS 5075:Part 1

Superplasticising admixtures : BS 5075:Part 3

2.2 Where two or more admixtures are used in a concrete mix, the compatibility shall be
verified in writing by the supplier with the following:
BS 5075 Concrete Admixtures

2.3 The use of chemical admixtures shall only be permitted subject to the Contractor
carrying out prior testing on trial mixes in accordance with this specification.

2.4 The use of any chemical admixture containing chlorides is prohibited.

2.5 The Contractor shall submit relevant test data which demonstrates that the properties
of concrete composed of the chemical admixture meets the requirements of this
specification.
 - 74 -

3. Maximum Water/Cementitious Content Ratio

3.1 The water/cementitious content ratio of the concrete mix shall not exceed 0.38.

4. Cementitious Content

4.1 Cementitious content is the combined mass of cement and the dry mass of Condensed
Silica Fume (CSF) and the mass of either Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA) or Blast
Furnace Slag (BFS) per cubic metre of compacted concrete.

4.2 The cementitious content of the concrete mix shall be within the 380-450 Kg/m3.

4.3 Either PFA or BFS shall be incorporated in the concrete as separate materials in
accordance with the following requirements:

The proportion of PFA replacement shall be within the 25-40% range by mass of the
cementitious content for normal applications,

If BFS is used instead of PFA, the proportion of BFS replacement shall be within the
60-75% range by mass of the cementitious content for normal applications and the
60-90% range by mass of the cementitious content for low heat applications.

4.4 The proportion of the dry mass of CSF replacement shall be within the 5-10% range by
mass of the cementitious content.

5. Chemical Content

5.1 The acid soluble chloride ion content of all concrete shall be determined in accordance
with BS 1881:Part 124:1988 “Methods for Analysis of Hardened Concrete”, and shall
not exceed 0.02% of total weight of concrete.

5.2 The acid soluble sulphate content of all concrete expressed as SO3 shall be determined
in accordance with BS 1881:Part 124:1988 “Method for Analysis of Hardened
Concrete” and shall not exceed 4% of total weight of concrete.

6. Alkali-Aggregate Reaction

6.1 The reactive alkali of concrete expressed as the equivalent sodium oxide per cubic
metre of concrete shall not exceed 3.0kg.

7. Curing

7.1 After final set has taken place the concrete shall be cured for at least 7 days. All
exposed surfaces shall be protected from the sun and wind immediately after the initial
set has occurred and the concrete shall be kept moist by light water spray or other
 - 75 -

suitable means until curing methods are applied. Surfaces from which formwork has
been removed before 7 days shall be cured for the remaining period.

Moist Curing

7.2 Concrete shall be covered by canvas, hessian or plastic sheets and kept continuously
moist. Where plastic sheets are used, all edges of the sheeting shall be securely
fastened so that no air circulation can occur. Alternatively, exposed surfaces can be
cured by flooding or continuous sprinkling. Formwork left in position shall be kept
continuously wet.

8. Curing Compounds

8.1 Curing compound shall be a proprietary type approved by the Engineer and shall have
an efficiency index of not less than 90%. The use of curing compound shall be
limited to the following types:

(a) Wax Emulsion

(b) Petroleum Hydrocarbon Resin

8.2 The minimum application rate shall be 0.2 litre/m2 or the minimum stated on the
certificate of compliance, whichever is greater.

9. Cover to Reinforcement

9.1 The cover to all reinforcement in all exposure zones shall be 75 mm. Detailing and
fixing of reinforcement shall be such that this cover is achieved to a tolerance of
-5 mm, +10 mm.

9.2 For flexural crack width design and control purpose, allowable crack width may be
increased by a factor of 1.25.

10. Minimum Characteristic Strength

10.1 The minimum characteristic strength of the concrete mix shall be 45 MPa.
 - 76 -

Specification Items for the Control of Alkali-Aggregate Reaction in Concrete

(Abstracted from WBTC 5/94)

 - 77 -

Specification Items For

The Control of Alkali-Aggregate Reaction In Concrete

Measures to 1.01 Measures to control the occurrence of alkali-aggregate

Control AAR reaction (AAR) in concrete for all concrete elements shall be submitted
in Concrete to the Engineer for approval, unless in the opinion of the Engineer the
concrete element concerned will not be subject to moisture ingress
throughout its design life. In the absence of alternative proposals such
control shall be achieved by limiting the reactive alkali content of the
concrete as described in clauses 1.02 - 1.04.

Criteria: 1.02 The reactive alkali of concrete expressed as the equivalent

Limit on sodium oxide per cubic metre of concrete shall not exceed 3.0 kg.
Reactive
Alkali

Equivalent 1.03
Sodium (1) The equivalent sodium oxide (Na2O) content of the concrete
Oxide shall be calculated from the following expression:
(Na2O)
Content Equivalent Na2O = A + B + C

Where A is the sum of the acid-soluble alkalis

(expressed as equivalent Na2O) of cement,
admixtures and water.

B is equal to 1/6 the total alkalis of PFA

(expressed as equivalent Na2O).

C is equal to 0.76 times the chloride ion (C1)

of the aggregate.

(2) The acid-soluble alkali content of the cement shall be

determined in accordance with BS4550:Part2:1970
(excluding amendment AMD 7285, July 1992) and shall be
taken as the average of the latest 25 daily determinations of
equivalent sodium oxide plus twice the standard deviation of
the results.

(3) The acid-soluble alkali content of admixtures shall be

determined in accordance with BS1881:Part 124:1988.

(4) The acid-soluble alkali content of water shall be determined

in accordance with APHA (17ed. 1989) Sections 3500-K and
3500-Na.
 - 78 -

(5) The total alkali content of the pulverised-fuel ash shall be

determined in accordance with BS4550:Part 2:1970
(excluding amendment AMD 7285, July 1992) and shall be
taken as the average of 25 weekly determinations plus twice
the standard deviation f the results.

(6) The equivalent sodium oxide content of the coarse and fine
aggregates shall be calculated from the quantity of chloride
ion present which shall be measured in accordance with
BS812:Part 4:1976.

Submission 1.04
(1) The following particulars of the proposed concrete mix shall
be submitted to the Engineer:

(a) HOKLAS endorsed test certificates not older than 6

months giving the results of tests required in Items
1.03(2) to (6).

(b) calculation of the reactive alkali of the proposed mix.

(2) New HOKLAS endorsed test certificates giving the results of

tests required in Items 1.03 (2) to (6) shall be submitted at
quarterly intervals together with any necessary further
calculations to demonstrate that the mix continues to comply
with the limit on reactive alkali.
 GEO PUBLICATIONS AND ORDERING INFORMATION
㈯力工程處刊物及訂購㈾料

A selected list of major GEO publications is given in the next 部份土力工程處的主要刊物目錄刊載於下頁。而詳盡及最新的

page. An up-to-date full list of GEO publications can be found at 土力工程處刊物目錄，則登載於土木工程拓展署的互聯網網頁
the CEDD Website http://www.cedd.gov.hk on the Internet under http://www.cedd.gov.hk 的“刊物”版面之內。刊物的摘要及更新
“Publications”. Abstracts for the documents can also be found at 刊物內容的工程技術指引，亦可在這個網址找到。
the same website. Technical Guidance Notes are published on
the CEDD Website from time to time to provide updates to GEO
publications prior to their next revision.

Copies of GEO publications (except maps and other 讀者可採用以下方法購買土力工程處刊物(地質圖及免費刊物

publications which are free of charge) can be purchased either 除外):
by:

writing to 書面訂購
Publications Sales Section, 香港中環花園道
Information Services Department, 美利大廈4樓402室
Room 402, 4th Floor, Murray Building, 政府新聞處
Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong.
刊物銷售組
Fax: (852) 2598 7482
傳真: (852) 2598 7482

or 或
− Calling the Publications Sales Section of Information Services − 致電政府新聞處刊物銷售小組訂購 (電話：(852) 2537 1910)
Department (ISD) at (852) 2537 1910 − 進入網上「政府書店」選購，網址為
− Visiting the online Government Bookstore at http://bookstore.esdlife.com
http://bookstore.esdlife.com − 透過政府新聞處的網站 (http://www.isd.gov.hk) 於網上遞
− Downloading the order form from the ISD website at
交訂購表格，或將表格傳真至刊物銷售小組 (傳真：(852)
http://www.isd.gov.hk and submit the order online or by fax to
2523 7195)
(852) 2523 7195
− Placing order with ISD by e-mail at [email protected] − 以電郵方式訂購 (電郵地址：[email protected])

1:100 000, 1:20 000 and 1:5 000 maps can be purchased from: 讀者可於下列地點購買1:100 000，1:20 000及1:5 000地質圖：

Map Publications Centre/HK, 香港北角渣華道333號

Survey & Mapping Office, Lands Department, 北角政府合署23樓
23th Floor, North Point Government Offices, 地政總署測繪處
333 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong. 電話: 2231 3187
Tel: 2231 3187
Fax: (852) 2116 0774 傳真: (852) 2116 0774

Requests for copies of Geological Survey Sheet Reports, 如欲索取地質調查報告、其他免費刊物及地質圖，請致函：

publications and maps which are free of charge should be sent
to:

For Geological Survey Sheet Reports and maps which are free of 地質調查報告及地質圖:
charge: 香港九龍何文田公主道101號
Chief Geotechnical Engineer/Planning, 土木工程拓展署大樓
(Attn: Hong Kong Geological Survey Section)
土木工程拓展署
Geotechnical Engineering Office,
土力工程處
Civil Engineering and Development Department,
Civil Engineering and Development Building, 規劃部總土力工程師
101 Princess Margaret Road, (請交:香港地質調查組)
Homantin, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 電話: (852) 2762 5380
Tel: (852) 2762 5380 傳真: (852) 2714 0247
Fax: (852) 2714 0247 電子郵件: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]

For other publications which are free of charge: 其他免費刊物:

Chief Geotechnical Engineer/Standards and Testing, 香港九龍何文田公主道101號
Geotechnical Engineering Office, 土木工程拓展署大樓
Civil Engineering and Development Department, 土木工程拓展署
Civil Engineering and Development Building,
101 Princess Margaret Road, 土力工程處
Homantin, Kowloon, Hong Kong. 標準及測試部總土力工程師
Tel: (852) 2762 5346 電話: (852) 2762 5346
Fax: (852) 2714 0275 傳真: (852) 2714 0275
E-mail: [email protected] 電子郵件: [email protected]
 MAJOR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OFFICE PUBLICATIONS
土力工程處之主要刊物

GEOTECHNICAL MANUALS
Geotechnical Manual for Slopes, 2nd Edition (1984), 300 p. (English Version), (Reprinted, 2000).
斜坡岩土工程手冊(1998)，308頁(1984年英文版的中文譯本)。
Highway Slope Manual (2000), 114 p.

GEOGUIDES
Geoguide 1 Guide to Retaining Wall Design, 2nd Edition (1993), 258 p. (Reprinted, 2007).
Geoguide 2 Guide to Site Investigation (1987), 359 p. (Reprinted, 2000).
Geoguide 3 Guide to Rock and Soil Descriptions (1988), 186 p. (Reprinted, 2000).
Geoguide 4 Guide to Cavern Engineering (1992), 148 p. (Reprinted, 1998).
Geoguide 5 Guide to Slope Maintenance, 3rd Edition (2003), 132 p. (English Version).
岩土指南第五冊 斜坡維修指南，第三版(2003)，120頁(中文版)。
Geoguide 6 Guide to Reinforced Fill Structure and Slope Design (2002), 236 p.

GEOSPECS
Geospec 1 Model Specification for Prestressed Ground Anchors, 2nd Edition (1989), 164 p. (Reprinted,
1997).
Geospec 3 Model Specification for Soil Testing (2001), 340 p.

GEO PUBLICATIONS
GCO Publication Review of Design Methods for Excavations (1990), 187 p. (Reprinted, 2002).
No. 1/90
GEO Publication Review of Granular and Geotextile Filters (1993), 141 p.
No. 1/93
GEO Publication Technical Guidelines on Landscape Treatment and Bio-engineering for Man-made Slopes and
No. 1/2000 Retaining Walls (2000), 146 p.
GEO Publication Foundation Design and Construction (2006), 376 p.
No. 1/2006
GEO Publication Engineering Geological Practice in Hong Kong (2007), 278 p.
No. 1/2007

GEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS
The Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, by J.A. Fyfe, R. Shaw, S.D.G. Campbell, K.W. Lai & P.A. Kirk (2000),
210 p. plus 6 maps.
The Pre-Quaternary Geology of Hong Kong, by R.J. Sewell, S.D.G. Campbell, C.J.N. Fletcher, K.W. Lai & P.A.
Kirk (2000), 181 p. plus 4 maps.

TECHNICAL GUIDANCE NOTES

TGN 1 Technical Guidance Documents