Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3016a
ABSTRACT
ACI 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, contains requirements on constituent materials and mix designs for concrete structures in sulfate soils. The requirements set exposure classes and mitigation measures based on the level of soluble sulfates in the soil. However, the test method for determining the level of sulfates is not specified.* This same situation exists in other standards for concrete structures. The objective of this project was to provide data on water-soluble sulfates in soils measured using four commonly referenced test methods. These data were used to evaluate the potential assignment of exposure class based on the test method used. Ten soil samples were selected for evaluation to represent a range of sulfate levels. For a given soil, the range of results found by the four methods varied significantly relative to specified soluble sulfate limits, such that the same soil could be assigned a different exposure class based on the test method used. This confirms that specification of sulfate requirements should include reference to a standard test for soluble sulfates in the soil. It is recommended that ASTM C1580, Test Method for Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil, be adopted as the reference test method. Based on the findings in this test program, suggested improvements to ASTM C1580 are outlined.
KEYWORDS
Chemical tests, codes, concrete durability, outdoor exposure, soil tests, specifications, sulfates, sulfate attack, sulfate exposure classification, sulfate soils, water-soluble sulfate.
REFERENCE
Feng, X. and Hayes, C. F., Test Methods for Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soils (Updated), SN3016a, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA, 2010, 15 pages.
Since this report was originally published, ACI 318 has been revised. Sulfate exposure requirements were unchanged although the format for designating exposure classes was revised.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Keywords ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Reference ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Objective and Scope ....................................................................................................................... 5 Test Program ................................................................................................................................... 6 Sample Acquisition and Preparation ........................................................................................... 6 Comparison of Test Methods ...................................................................................................... 7 Experimental Design ....................................................................................................................... 8 Test Results ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Total and Acid-Soluble Sulfate Contents ................................................................................... 9 Water-Soluble Sulfate Contents ................................................................................................ 10 ASTM C1580 Test for Soils with High Sulfate Contents......................................................... 11 Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Implications of Test Results...................................................................................................... 12 Observations on the Test Methods ............................................................................................ 13 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 14 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 15 References ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Sulfate exposure
Cement type
Negligible
< 150
Moderate
0.10 to 0.20
150 to 1500
0.50
28 (4000)
0.45 0.45
31 (4500) 31 (4500)
The ACI 318 sulfate requirements apparently have their genesis in work of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The USBRs extensive testing for sulfate resistance of concrete resulted in requirements that have been published in their Concrete Manual for many years (Fig. 1). It is generally assumed that, in establishing their published table limits, the USBR determined soluble sulfates in soils using test procedures similar to their Method of Test for Determining the
Materials Scientist (XFeng@ctlgroup.com) and Senior Chemist (CHayes@ctlgroup.com), respectively, CTLGroup Inc., 5400 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077-1030, U.S.A. Tel (847) 965-7500, www.ctlgroup.com. The ACI 318 Building Code has been revised to ACI 318-08 since this report was first published. Sulfate exposure requirements were unchanged although the format for designating exposure classes was revised.
*
Quantity of Water-Soluble Sulfate in Solid (Soil and Rock) and Water Samples, the current version of which is dated May 1, 1973. However this is not fully documented.
As other organizations such as ACI adopted requirements based on the USBR table, they have not consistently associated the table limits with the USBR test method for water-soluble sulfate in soils. Other test methods for water-soluble sulfates have been developed, but their relationship to the USBR method has not been established.
OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE The objective of this project was to provide data on water-soluble sulfates in soils as measured using four commonly referenced test methods. These data were used to evaluate the potential assignment of exposure class based on the test method used. Initially, five soil samples were tested and evaluated (Hayes, 2007). This report is an extension of the earlier work. Five additional samples are included. The ten soil samples were selected for evaluation to represent a range of sulfate levels. The soil samples were evaluated for water-soluble sulfate content by the USBR method and by three other test methods commonly used to assess exposure for sulfate attack on concrete placed in direct contact with soil:
United States Bureau of Reclamation, Method of Test for Determining the Quantity of Water-Soluble Sulfate in Solid (Soil and Rock) and Water Samples, 1973. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Test Method A23.2-3B, Determination of Total or Water-Soluble Sulphate Ion Content of Soil, 2000. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Test Method 417-99, Testing Soils and Waters for Sulfate Content. ASTM C1580-05, Standard Test Method for Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soil.
TEST PROGRAM This study consisted of the following tasks: Obtain representative samples of naturally occurring soils to represent a range of sulfate content levels. Screen submitted soil samples for total sulfate content. Select ten soils that potentially represent the breadth of sulfate exposure categories as listed in the ACI 318-05 table. Evaluate the selected soils by the four test methods. Report the findings.
Upon receipt, large rocks, vegetation, and foreign debris if visibly present were removed from submitted soil samples by hand. For each soil sample, a sub-sample was oven-dried at 45C for 24 hours and the percent volatile loss was determined. A portion of this oven-dried sample was passed through a 50-mesh sieve. The sieved portion was then used to test total sulfate content by
For protection against spread of invasive species and for pest management, the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the movement of soils from designated areas of the country. This placed some restrictions on available sites for high sulfate soils.
the CSA test method. This was done for screening purposes to ensure a range of sulfate levels would be evaluated. If selected for continued study, the remaining oven-dried sample was split into appropriate portions for each test method. Samples were prepared for USBR and Caltrans test methods by passing through a No. 10 (2-mm) sieve. Samples were prepared for the ASTM C1580 test method by continued oven drying at 110C for another 24 hours prior to passing the sample through a No. 30 (0.6-mm) sieve. The percent volatile loss for drying at 110C was also determined. A total of eighteen soil samples were received from various locations throughout the United States. After the prepared samples were screened for total sulfate content, ten were selected for full evaluation.
It is assumed that the turbidimetric method was used for determination of the precision statement, but this is not stated in the method.
Test method
Air dry
Air dry at room temperature and humidity Not stated in test method 18 to 24 h @ 110C
Gravimetric (total SO4 screen and soluble sulfate) Turbidimetric* or gravimetric (soluble SO4) Turbidimetric or ASTM C 114 (soluble SO4)
Extraction ratio water:soil, mL:g 10:1 (or higher if gypsum is present) agitated for at least 6 hr. [9 x (%SO4 by acid-soluble method)]:1 agitated for 6 hr. 3:1 agitated for 15 min. ~8:1 and ~80:1 agitated for 1 hr.
N/A
N/A
N/A
ASTM C1580-05
* A new edition of Caltrans 417 issued Nov. 2006 replaces the turbidimetric method with ion chromatography.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN A total of eighteen soil samples were received from various locations throughout the United States. After being screened for total sulfate content by CSA Test Method A23.2-3B 5.1 (2000) and by chemical analysis ASTM C114-06, Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Hydraulic Cement, ten soil samples were selected for further investigation based on their total sulfate content. Testing of water-soluble sulfate in soil samples was conducted in accordance with each test method. Table 3 shows the procedures for each sample. It should be noted that ASTM C1580 includes the turbidimetric method as the default method, and the gravimetric method as an option. Samples 1733006, 1733005, 1733002, 1733001, and 1825101 were tested in triplicate for each of the four test methods; sample 1982002 was tested in triplicate by the CSA and ASTM methods, but in single runs by the other two methods. The other four samples were tested in single runs by the four methods.
Table 3. Experimental Procedures USBR Method G G G G G G G G G G ASTM Method T T T T T T, G T, G T, G T, G T, G Caltrans Method T T T T T T T T T T CSA Method G G G G G G G G G G
CTL ID 1733006 1733005 1733002 1733001 1825101 1982002 2048601 2048603 2048604 2048605
w/s 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
w/s 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80 8, 80
w/s 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
TEST RESULTS
Table 4. Sulfate Content by Chemical Analysis and CSA Method Volatile loss after oven drying at 45C, % by mass 8.8 18.5 3.0 28.3 19.1 22.5 1.7 1.2 4.1 1.4 Total SO3 % by mass (ASTM C114) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.82 34.97 40.04 29.81 36.68 Calculated as SO4, % by mass (ASTM C114) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.18 41.96 48.05 35.77 44.02 Acid soluble SO4, % by mass (CSA) 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.25 3.49 1.95 20.83 24.22 17.55 21.56
Sample 1733006 1733005 1733002 1733001 1825101 1982002 2048601 2048603 2048604 2048605
Standard deviation 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.24 0.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sample
Mean N/A N/A 0.11 0.00 2.06 1.99 27.11 33.04 25.74 29.04
1733006 1733005 1733002 1733001 1825101 1982002 2048601 2048603 2048604 2048605
10
Sample ID
Water-to-soil extraction ratio ASTM 8:1 ASTM 80:1 1.82 35.52 14.24 16.85 15.69
Based on the results shown in Tables 5 and 6, the exposure class for a concrete placed in direct contact with these soils was determined by the ACI 318 table limits and is shown in Table 7. Because ASTM C1580-05 provides no requirement, the gravimetric results were arbitrarily averaged for the two extraction ratios.
11
Table 7. Sulfate Exposure Based on Test Method Average water-soluble sulfate content, %SO4 by mass of soil (ACI Exposure Class) USBR CSA 0.01 (Negligible) 0.00 (Negligible) 0.14 (Moderate) 0.01 (Negligible) 1.32 (Severe) 1.61 (Severe) 1.39 (Severe) 1.46 (Severe) 1.57 (Severe) 1.41 (Severe) 0.01* (Negligible) 0.02* (Negligible) 0.11 (Moderate) 0.00 (Negligible) 2.06 (Very Severe) 1.99 (Severe) 27.11 (Very Severe) 33.04 (Very Severe) 25.74 (Very Severe) 29.04 (Very Severe)
ASTM 0.02 (Negligible) 0.02 (Negligible) 0.18 (Moderate) 0.02 (Negligible) 1.71 (Severe) 1.73 (Severe) 18.40** (Very Severe) 7.75** (Very Severe) 9.12** (Very Severe) 8.44** (Very Severe)
Caltrans 0.01 (Negligible) 0.00 (Negligible) 0.11 (Moderate) 0.00 (Negligible) 0.43 (Severe) 0.87 (Severe) 0.40 (Severe) 0.47 (Severe) 0.55 (Severe) 0.38 (Severe)
1733002
* Total acid-soluble sulfate per CSA method. ** Average of test results for gravimetric method at the two extraction ratios.
DISCUSSION
12
Table 7 indicates the exposure class designation for all lower sulfate samples was relatively consistent based on the different test methods even though the range of water-soluble SO4 values for a given soil sample could be significant. With the exception of Sample 1825101 and the four high sulfate soils, there were no differences in exposure class based on test method. This reflects the relatively large range of water-soluble SO4 values specified for each exposure class as much as it does any close correlation between methods. It also was somewhat fortuitous in that, except for Sample 1825101, results for the samples tested fell within classification brackets, and were not borderline. Even considering the above discussion, it is quite possible that results based on the different methods for low sulfate soils could have resulted assignment of a different exposure class for the samples tested. Consider sample 1733002 for example. Within the precision of the ASTM test method, it is conceivable that the sample could have tested at a 0.20% SO4, which would have moved it to the Severe classification, just as a variation of 0.02% could have moved it to the Negligible classification based on the Caltrans method. And it is very likely that samples on the border of classification ranges would be impacted by the test method, particularly if one laboratory used ASTM C1580 while another laboratory used Caltrans 417. This issue becomes more significant at higher sulfate levels with differences between the Severe and Very Severe classification. As would be expected, differences in extraction ratio become more significant for soils with higher sulfate levels. Clearly a test method should be specified when sulfate requirements such as those in ACI 318 are invoked. One of the questions that instigated this test program was whether the test methods being used are consistent with the USBR method that served as the basis for the exposure classifications in ACI 318 and other standards. None of the methods used in this project gave identical results to the USBR method primarily due to differences in extraction ratios. However, as noted earlier, the USBR method is somewhat ambiguous regarding extraction ratios for higher sulfate soils. Given that it is a consensus method that can be readily updated, the ASTM method appears to be promising as a reference test for sulfate exposure requirements. The ASTM test results, although somewhat higher, were reasonably consistent with the USBR method test results over the range of soils tested when taking differences in extraction ratio into account. Within the practical application of such tests, it would be reasonable to use the ASTM method in conjunction with the ACI 318 sulfate requirements without change to the table limits.
13
The Caltrans method (California Test 417) is an internal method developed by the California Department of Transportation. As such it is consistent with California DOT specification requirements. The 3:1 extraction ratio is the lowest of all the methods. It has been reported that this method has worked well in classifying soils for use with sulfate limits such as those in ACI 318-05. As would be expected given the extraction ratio, in the tests conducted in this program the method consistently gave the lowest results for water-soluble SO4 relative to the USBR, CSA, and ASTM methods. The CSA method (A23.2-3B) is a consensus method used in Canadian standards for concrete structures. It includes a built in screening mechanism whereby total acid soluble sulfate is first measured. If the total sulfate value is 0.20% or less, no further testing is required. This screening method is efficient and useful, although such screening can be included in a specification or practice, and is not essential to a test method. The extraction ratio is variable, defined as a function of the total sulfate level. The ASTM method (ASTM C1580) is also a consensus method, and was developed relatively recently with the first edition published in 2005. As such, it is consistent with use in current specifications. The method uses two extraction ratios with limiting ranges for values determined at the different extraction and aliquot levels based on sulfate solubility calculations. Given that sample preparation, especially the drying temperature, can have a significant impact on the sulfate content of a soil, this method clearly defines sample preparation and drying procedures. ASTM C1580 allows both turbidimetric and gravimetric measurement techniques to be used. However, because turbidimetric measurements can drift from the actual value over time the results must be corrected with standards (turbidity blanks) periodically. The ASTM method does not require periodic correction checks, which makes it susceptible to drift. The gravimetric method is not susceptible to drift because it measures the weight of barium sulfate formed. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the test results from this project, the following recommendations are made: ASTM C1580 should be proposed as the standard test method for determination of watersoluble sulfate levels in soil for assignment of sulfate exposure limits in ACI 318 or similar standards.** ASTM C1580-05 should be revised to: o Discontinue the use of the turbidimetric measurement technique as the default method and require gravimetric measurements (or qualified ASTM C114 methods) as the default and reference method. o Update procedure in Paragraph 8.3 to reflect use of gravimetric method. o If the turbidimetric method is maintained as an alternate, update Note 3 and Annex to clarify provisions for high sulfate soils.
**
Since this work was conducted, ACI Committee 318 has adopted ASTM C1580-05 for inclusion in ACI 318-11.
14
o Clear provisions should be added to require correction of readings to account for drift of the instrument if the turbidimetric technique is used as an alternate method. o Update the precision and bias statement based on revisions to the measurement techniques. o Add a note to recommend that total acid-soluble sulfate values be used for screening. o Add provisions to clarify the evaluation of gravimetric results based on extraction ratio.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research reported in this paper (PCA R&D Serial No. 3016a) was conducted by the CTLGroup with the sponsorship of the Portland Cement Association (PCA Project Index No. 0510 and 05-10a). The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the Portland Cement Association. Special thanks to Dr. Kevin Folliard at Texas University at Austin, Mr. Orville Werner at CTL/Thompson, staffs of California Portland Cement Co., Holcim (US) and TXI who were instrumental in providing soil samples for this project. The authors would also like to thank Raja Naamane, Cecylia Wedzicha, and Rick Stevenson of CTLGroup for their contributions to this project.
REFERENCES Hayes, Cyler F., Test Methods for Water-Soluble Sulfate in Soils, SN3016, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA, 2007, 13 pages. Rebel, B., Detwiler, R., Gebler, S., and Hooton, R., The Right Sulfate Test Makes a Difference, Concrete International, February 2005, pages 49 to 52.
15