ACID SULFATE SOILS

Concrete Structures - Advice For Design And Construction

REVIEW REPORT, EDITION 2 - JUNE 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

SUMMARY
The use of the terms Acid Sulfate Soils (ASS) and Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) has increased in the last few years. For many engineers in both design and construction, as well as project managers, the knowledge, implications and actions required to deal with ASS and PASS is not well understood. This report is aimed at supplying the necessary knowledge to enable correct decisions to be made for structural concrete in ASS and PASS environments. The report : gives a brief environmental and geological briefing for the target readers (Sections 1 to 4), describes associated deterioration of concrete structures (Section 5), reviews methods of exposure classification (Section 6), recommends an exposure classification method (Section 7), details factors to be considered when designing and specifying concrete structures in contact with acid sulphate soils (Sections 8 to 10), reviews and recommends protective coatings and other protection methods (Sections 11, 12), and recommends procedures with a flowchart for dealing with the soils (Section 13).

A list of selected papers, standards, manuals, etc is given in the Reference section for readers who need further details regarding any aspects of the report.

DISCLAIMER
The Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW and its employees or agents involved in the preparation and publication of this Document do not accept any contractual, tortious or any other form of liability for the contents of this Document or for any consequences arising from its use. Anyone using the information contained in this Document shall apply and rely upon their own skill and judgement.

RTA Technology

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 BACKGROUND

3 IDENTIFIED LOCATIONS OF ASS IN NSW

4 IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS TO STRUCTURES

5 DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES IN ASS 5.1 TYPES OF DETERIORATION 5.2 WHAT IS THE PH 5.3 DETERIORATION DUE TO ACIDITY 5.4 DETERIORATION DUE TO SULFATES 6 EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATIONS 6.1 GENERAL 6.2 92 AUSTROADS BRIDGE DESIGN CODE 6.3 AS 3600 CONCRETE STRUCTURES 6.4 AS 3735 CONCRETE STRUCTURES FOR RETAINING LIQUIDS 6.5 AS 2159 PILING - DESIGN AND INSTALLATION 6.6 OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS 7 RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 8 9

8 STRUCTURAL DESIGN 8.1 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 8.2 EFFECT OF PROTECTIVE MEASURES ON PILE ULTIMATE CAPACITY 9 SACRIFICIAL CONCRETE LAYER

13 13 13 13

10 CONCRETE MIXES

14

RTA Technology

ii

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

10.1 MEASURES AGAINST SULFATE ATTACK 10.2 MEASURES AGAINST ACID ATTACK 11 PROTECTIVE COATINGS 11.1 GENERAL 11.2 SURFACE PREPARATION - AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT 11.3 TYPE OF COATING SYSTEMS 11.4 COATING SYSTEM LIFE 12 OTHER PROTECTION METHODS

14 15 15 15 16 17 18 18

13 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES

19

REFERENCES

21

APPENDIX A

23

APPENDIX B

25

APPENDIX C

26

RTA Technology

iii

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

1 INTRODUCTION
The RTA has recently issued a Policy and Procedures Manual and a Guidelines Manual addressing environmental issues and risks posed by acid sulfate soils (ASS) and potential acid sulfate soils (PASS)24, 25. The overall policy for project development, construction, maintenance and decommissioning of roadworks in areas containing such soils is given in the manuals. The above manuals focus on the impact of RTA works on the environment where acid sulfate and potential acid sulfate soils exist, and the identification, classification, treatment, monitoring and management of such soils. This report provides information and advice to structural designers and project managers to help ensure that concrete structures in naturally occurring ASS and PASS environments have the required durability. The information and advice form the RTA policy on this topic. This report does not cover pavements, concrete pipes or other acid sulfate or potentially acid sulphate environments such as waste.

2 BACKGROUND
Potential acid sulfate soils are naturally occurring soils which contain iron pyrite (iron sulphide, [FeS2]) or pyritic material in unoxidised state.(The pH of PASS is generally between 6 to 7.) Acid sulfate soils are naturally occurring soils containing pyrite, or chemical precursors of pyrite, which have begun to oxidise through exposure to oxygen. When water passes through ASS, sulphuric acid is leached out (the pH of ASS can be as low as 3.5). The sulphuric acid reacts with the minerals in the soil to change soil properties. If the soil has insufficient buffering capacity to neutralise the acid, the soil-water, ground water and drainage water will all become acidic and will contain dissolved aluminium, iron and heavy metals. Engineering operations on potential and acid sulfate soils, such as excavation, dredging and draining accelerate the exposure of pyritic material to air. These operations can speed up the production of acidic waters to many times the natural rate. Passing into waterways and ground water, the sulphuric acid affects plant growth, aquatic life, animal and human health, and degrades engineering structures. In addition to the deterioration risk for engineering structures in acid sulfate soils, the unconsolidated estuarine sediments containing PASS may cause uneven subsidence under relatively low loads, causing structural problems.

RTA Technology

Page 1 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

In the remainder of this report, ASS will be taken to refer to both ASS and PASS unless otherwise noted.

3 IDENTIFIED LOCATIONS OF ASS IN NSW

ASS may be found at any level up to 5 metres above Australian Height Datum along the NSW coastal plain. They may be covered by other sediments. Reported findings of locations containing ASS in NSW include the floodplains of the following rivers : Clarence River Clyde River Hawkesbury River Hunter River Macleay River, Manning River Myall River Nambucca River Richmond River Shoalhaven River Tweed River

The above list only covers those sites which have been identified at the time of preparation of the RTA Policy on ASS and PASS.

4 IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS TO STRUCTURES

Much legislation has been put in place to protect the environment from deterioration due to the effects of ASS. Under legislation, acid sulfate soils are those which contain greater than 0.1% sulphide and net acid generation potential greater than 0.0. The RTA Policy and Procedures Manual requires the identification of acid sulfate soils at an early stage of project planning. Assessment and treatment procedures together with a procedure for preparing management plans have been set out in that manual. In obtaining the information necessary to prepare the environmental management plan, much of the information required for the concrete durability design will be obtained. The identification of ASS is carried out in various stages. For the purpose of this report, only two simple methods of identification are noted.

RTA Technology

Page 2 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

The two methods are : (i) visual indicators of ASS, (ii) on-site pH measurements. Visual indicators of ASS at a site may include yellow efflorescence on the soil surface, sulphurous smell, iron staining and iron flocculants in streams. On site pH measurements of streams and fresh ground water samples, and of 1:5 soil : water samples provide a good indication of the likely severity of the acid sulfate problem. Where the soils contain enough sulphides, the sulfate content of ground water collecting in construction pits, wells or boreholes may increase over a period of weeks to several times the original value. After the backfilling of the construction pits, the sulfate content soon drops to the previous level, since the supply of air has been interrupted . This explains why water samples taken from the construction pit are usually higher in sulfates than those obtained from exploratory drilling. Protective measures based on the higher sulfate content of water samples obtained from the construction pit would be excessively conservative and expensive since the formation of sulfates is in this case local and transient. Moving water is particularly dangerous to concrete. In stagnant water, the dissolved salts will tend to combine with the components of the hardened cement paste. For example, the sodium sulfate content of ground-water will react with the calcium hydroxide in cement to form gypsum. The pores of concrete are sealed to a certain extent by the precipitated gypsum. As a result, a natural protective layer is developed on and near the concrete surface. Also, in moving water the aggressive acid sulfates may be replenished, whilst in stagnant water the acid sulfates become exhausted with time. In cohesive soils (clay) the seepage rate of ground-water is of the order 10-5 m/s while in granular soils, rates a hundred or even a thousand times higher are possible. In such soils, higher rates of deterioration should be anticipated.

5 DETERIORATION OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES IN ASS 5.1 Types of Deterioration

In general terms, depending on the predominant chemical reaction, deterioration processes can be classified generally into three groups, namely: leaching, which removes part or all of the hardened cement paste from concrete; deterioration by exchange reactions and by the removal of readily soluble compounds from the hardened cement paste; swelling deterioration, largely due to the formation of new, stable compounds in the hardened cement paste

RTA Technology

Page 3 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

5.2 What Is The pH

The acid or alkaline character of a liquid depends on its content of H+ (hydrogen ions) and OH- (hydroxyl ions). There are hydrogen and hydroxyl ions in water. The condition of any aqueous solution is described by its hydrogen ion concentration. The pH value is -log10 (hydrogen ion concentration). In fully neutral water the number of H ions which cause acidity is equal to the number of OH ions, which cause alkalinity. Any increase in the number of the one type of ion in water is accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the number of the other type. The neutral pH level is 7. Decreasing numbers from 7 to 0 indicate increase in acidity. Increasing numbers from 7 to 14 indicate increase in alkalinity. A small change in the pH value is significant since the scale is logarithmic.

Approximate classification for pH values

pH 0-1-2-3 Character of water pH content Acidic 4-5-6 Mildly acidic 7 Neutral 8-9-10 Mildly alkaline 11-12-13-14 Alkaline

H+ ions predominant

OH- ions predominant

5.3 Deterioration Due To Acidity

Acids in concentrations common in natural waters tend to dissolve the carbonate layer on the surface of concrete, preventing further carbonation and promoting thereby the leaching of lime from the interior of concrete. Concrete will deteriorate because the calcium hydroxide of concrete and the acids attacking it form water soluble salts which are subsequently leached. Beside the general leaching effect of acids , sulphuric acids may give rise to sulfate swelling as well. The rate of acid corrosion of any concrete is controlled by the nature of the acid, the concentration of free hydrogen ions (the pH), and by the solubility of the calcium salts formed by exchange reactions with the salts dissolved in the water. These calcium salts, if soluble, are leached from the concrete.

RTA Technology

Page 4 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

5.4 Deterioration Due To Sulfates

The sulfates most detrimental to Ordinary Portland Cement are those of ammonium, calcium, magnesium, and sodium. Potassium, copper and aluminium sulfates are less harmful. Barium sulfate and lead sulfate which are insoluble in water do not affect concrete. Damage to concrete is caused by an expansive chemical reaction between tricalcium aluminate C3A in the cement and sulfates in solution which produces both gypsum and calcium sulphoaluminate (ettringite). The crystals of ettringite occupy a larger volume than the original compounds. The larger volume leads to concrete expansion, cracking, and disintegration. The aggressiveness of soil containing sulfates is specified in terms of SO3 content and recently in terms of SO4 content. However SO3 can be converted into SO4 by the following relationship : SO3 = 0.83 SO4

6 EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATIONS 6.1 General

There are a number of codes, standards and other references which deal with exposure classifications. This section reviews the available classifications and aims to give guidance when selecting exposure classifications for ASS of various aggressiveness. According to the exposure classifications, concrete quality, chemical content restrictions, cover, and other requirements are determined. In determining the classification of structural members in ASS, the designers/specifiers in conjunction with the Project Managers should weight the possible changes in the environment, and hence classification, over the design life of the structure. Since changes to the pH with time is dependant on many factors, there is no direct valid laboratory method capable of measuring potential pH. However, by careful study of various factors and examination of test results (tests in Appendix B of reference 24), experts would be able to predict potential changes to the pH within a reasonable range. It is suggested that such estimate should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. For example, if pH of ground water is measured at 7 at the investigation stage, but other tests have shown that the soil is potential acid sulfate soil, this means that pH can significantly drop as the soil becomes disturbed or drained. Therefore construction methods, future development, and other factors which result in draining or disturbing

RTA Technology

Page 5 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

potential acid sulfate soil should be considered when determining the exposure classification. The permeability of soil, discussed earlier, is another factor to be taken into account when determining the exposure classification. In this section and associated appendices, soils with permeability less than 10-5 m/s are referred to as low permeability soils (eg clay) and soils with higher permeability are referred to as high permeability soils (eg sand). Free water streams come under the category of high permeability soils. It is important that designers and specifiers ensure that appropriate and complete information is reported by the responsible investigation parties, evaluated and then used when selecting an exposure classification.

6.2 92 AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code

Classifications are given in the order of increasing aggressiveness from A, B1, B2 to C. U classification is used for other exposures subject to special consideration. For ASS, the exposure classification U is to be used since the specific environment for such soils is not included in any of the classifications A to C. The Code requires the designers/specifiers to identify such exposures and specify requirements to ensure durability. It is the designers responsibility to then draw limits and requirements for this particular exposure. The Code broadly considers that permeable soils with a pH < 4.0 or ground containing more than one gram per litre ( 1000 mg/l or 1000 ppm) of sulfate ions as aggressive.

6.3 AS 3600 Concrete Structures

The approach and classifications used this Standard are similar to that of 92 AUSTROADS. The commentary for the Standard 8 lists some references for guidance to limits and requirements to be specified for exposure classification U.

6.4 AS 3735 Concrete Structures For Retaining Liquids

Four basic exposure classifications in order of increasing aggressiveness from A to D are given in the Standard. The classification is in line with 92 AUSTROADS and AS 3600 but with an additional classification D in the absence of classification U. Also comprehensive guidance is given in a separate Supplement 10. It should be noted that for all concrete surfaces in exposure classification D, the Standard requires such surfaces be isolated from the attacking environment. The exposure classifications are determined for a range of environments which are:

RTA Technology

Page 6 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

1. 2. 3.

Fresh water Sewage and waste water Sea water

4. 5. 6.

Corrosive liquids, vapours and gases Other liquids Ground water

The applicable item for ASS is No. 6, in which a broad range of classifications is given and reference made to the Supplement for assistance. The applicable item, together with material from the Supplement, is rearranged and detailed in Appendix A. The exposure classification for the surface of a member is to be determined from the Standard and from AS 3600 for the most severe environment, or use, to which the concrete will be subjected during its operational life. However in the case of ASS, AS 3735 requirements are more detailed than AS 3600 and hence overrule. For ASS, the above means that the exposure classification needs to be determined for both sulfate aggressiveness and for acidity and the higher classification from the two is to be used in accordance with the qualifications given in the Standard (eg the use of Sulfate Resistant cement and/or the use of limestone aggregates). The Standard recognises the following as methods for obtaining such concrete: the use of sulfate resistant cements (superseded cement classification Type D) the use of pozzolanic material (eg fly ash) blended with Ordinary Portland Cement ie blended cements the use of a waterproofing agent with Ordinary Portland Cement.

Sulfate resistant concrete and RTA preferred methods for obtaining sulfate resistance are discussed in detail in later sections.

6.5 AS 2159 Piling - Design and Installation

This Standard uses different exposure classifications to 92 AUSTROADS and the other Australian Standards reviewed above. The classification is self explanatory and comprises Non-aggressive, Mild, Moderate, Severe and Very Severe. The relevant classification for ASS is rearranged and summarised in Appendix B. The Standard uses sulfate expressed as SO3 . To maintain consistency of this report and to enable comparisons, the SO3 is converted in the appendix to SO4 (this is done by using the equation SO3 = 0.83 SO4). The sulfate limits of this Standard approximate those of AS 3735. However direct matching for the two different classifications of the two standards is not appropriate since specified minimum concrete strengths and cover differ. AS 2159 refers to AS 3735 for design of concrete which is exposed to severe and very severe sulfate environments. AS 2159 also uses separate tables for acid and sulfate exposure. This limits the usefulness of the standard in ASS conditions.

RTA Technology

Page 7 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

6.6 Other Classifications

In a report recently published by the Building Research Establishment 14, exposure classifications are given differently to the above reviewed standards and codes. The significance of the classification is the progressive selection of exposure classification and the relationship between various exposures. The SO4 and pH of soils and natural ground water are measured and classified accordingly. Where pH is greater than 5.5, classification is dependant only on the SO4 concentration. There are five basic classes for SO4 and two sets of modifications to these classes to be considered progressively according to types of exposure and types of structure. Various cement types are also specified within the basic classification. Where pH is less than 5.5, sites are classified first on basis of SO4 concentration as above and then reclassified on basis of pH. The BRE method of determining the SO4 content uses a two stage process. The initial stage uses a simple method to detect the presence of SO4. If this method gives a result above a threshold, then a more accurate test is applied to determine the SO4 content for design purposes. The procedures use either : a) b) undiluted ground water or ground water diluted to 2 : 1

As Australian tests use either undiluted ground water or ground water diluted to 5 : 1, the recommendations in this report are based on undiluted ground water. Since the scope of the BRE report covers other structures as well as bridges and road structures, only classifications and modifications applicable to bridge and road structures in ASS are referred to in this report. Appendix C includes the rearranged classification tables. Table C/1 determines the exposure classification in accordance with SO4 content and modifies the classification according to the member size and the mobility of the ground water. Table C/2 shows the changes to be made to the classification determined from Table C/1 according to the pH and the nature of the ground water. This last modified classification is used to determine the requirements for cement type, minimum cement content, maximum free water - cement ratio and concrete protection.

RTA Technology

Page 8 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

7 RECOMMENDED EXPOSURE CLASSIFICATIONS AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Based on the above available information, Tables 1a and 1b below relate exposures applicable to bridge foundations in ASS to the classifications of 92 AUSTROADS. Exposures are given in term of B1, B2, C, and U. The exposure classification type A is not used as B1 is the minimum requirement for members in soil or water under 92 AUSTROADS requirements. Except for exposure classification U in Tables 1a and 1b, concrete quality, cover and other durability requirements are determined according to the exposure classification in the normal fashion of 92 AUSTROADS. For exposure classification U, recommended design requirements are given in Tables 2a and 2b. The two tables relate exposures applicable to bridge foundations in ASS to the classifications of 92 AUSTROADS with additional measures and qualifications. Design requirements B1, B2, C indicate equivalent concrete requirements to that specified for the relevant exposure classification of 92 AUSTROADS. Design requirement C1 indicates design requirement C with the addition of full isolation of the concrete surface from the aggressive environment. For retaining and culvert structures, high permeability soil condition and its relevant design requirements should be always used. This is due to the nature of construction of these structures requiring draining and granular fill.

RTA Technology

Page 9 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Table 1a : Recommended Exposure Classification in Terms of 92 AUSTROADS For LOW Permeability Soil

SO4 (mg/l or ppm)

Equivalent Exposure Classifications in terms of 92 AUSTROADS pH 3.5 > 3.5 4.5 > 4.5 5.5 B1 B1 B1 U U B1 B1 B1 U U > 5.5

< 400 400 - 1500 1500 - 3000 3000 - 6000 > 6000

U U U U U

U U U U U

Table 1b : Recommended Exposure Classification in Terms of 92 AUSTROADS For HIGH Permeability Soil

SO4 (mg/l or ppm)

Equivalent Exposure Classifications in terms of 92 AUSTROADS pH 3.5 > 3.5 4.5 U U U U U > 4.5 5.5 B2 C U U U > 5.5 B1 B2 U U U

< 400 400 - 1500 1500 - 3000 3000 - 6000 > 6000

U U U U U

RTA Technology

Page 10 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Table 2a : Design Requirements for Exposure Classification Type U of Table 1a For LOW Permeability Soil

SO4 (mg/l or ppm)

Design Requirements (See Notes : Table 2 below) pH 3.5 4.5 > 3.5 B1 B1 B1 B2 C B2 B2 B2 B2 > 4.5 5.5 > 5.5

< 400 400 - 1500 1500 - 3000 3000 - 6000 > 6000

B2 B2 B2 C C1

Notes : Table 2a
1. Table 2b is to be used for retaining and culvert structures. 2. Design requirements B1, B2, C indicate equivalent concrete requirements to that specified for the relevant exposure classification of 92 AUSTROADS. 3. Design requirement C1 indicates design requirement C with the addition of full isolation of the concrete surface from the aggressive environment. 4. Environments under the dark horizontal line require sulfate-resisting blended cement. (Refer to section 10). 5. Environments to the left of the dark vertical line require require blended cement concretes containing calcareous aggregate with an increased concrete cover unless design requirement C1 is achieved. (Refer to section 8.)

RTA Technology

Page 11 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Table 2b : Design Requirements for Exposure Classification Type U of Table 1b For HIGH Permeability Soil

SO4 (mg/l or ppm)

Design Requirements (See Notes : Table 2 below) pH 3.5 > 3.5 4.5 C C C C1 C1 C C C1 B2 C C1 > 4.5 5.5 > 5.5

< 400 400 - 1500 1500 - 3000 3000 - 6000 > 6000

C1 C1 C1 C1 C1

Notes : Table 2b
1. Design requirements B1, B2, C indicate equivalent concrete requirements to that specified for the relevant exposure classification of 92 AUSTROADS. 2. Design requirement C1 indicates design requirement C with the addition of full isolation of the concrete surface from the aggressive environment. 3. Environments under the dark horizontal line require sulfate-resisting blended cement (refer to section 10). 4. Environments to the left of the dark vertical line require blended cement concretes containing calcareous aggregate with an increased concrete cover unless design requirement C1 is achieved. (Refer to section 8.) 5. Modification to the table for retaining and culvert structures Calcareous aggregate shall not be used B2 becomes B2 plus full isolation C becomes C1 C1 : no change

RTA Technology

Page 12 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

8 STRUCTURAL DESIGN 8.1 Conceptual Design

The conceptual design of a bridge or any other structure in ASS should cater for associated deterioration and environmental risks. Suitable designs in such cases would incorporate minimum excavation. For example driven piles would be preferred over in-situ bored piles. Also the possibility of extending the piles above the ground to the headstocks or having above ground pile caps ( hence avoiding excavation) should be considered.

8.2 Effect of Protective Measures on Pile Ultimate Capacity

If the shaft of a concrete pile is covered by a special casing, liner or coating, it is necessary to take into account the reduction in the shaft resistance for that section of the pile which is protected. The overall bearing capacity of friction piles is likely to be greatly reduced compared to end-bearing piles. Where cast-in-situ piles have to be installed in ground which is highly aggressive over the full depth of the piles, fully sleeved pile shafts on expanded bases of inert aggregate can be used, but the bearing capacity may be less than when the pile bases are formed with concrete.

9 SACRIFICIAL CONCRETE LAYER

Under conditions of stagnant soil water, the use of reactive aggregate can mitigate the degree of chemical attack on the concrete. For example, the appropriate use of good quality limestone aggregate neutralises part of the acid that would otherwise attack the cement paste. There are certain advantages in having a coarse aggregate which is not completely immune to attack. One of the advantages is that the concentration of acid in the aggressive water can be reduced more rapidly if it reacts with both the aggregate and the cement. Since limestone-aggregate concrete is capable of maintaining a reasonably smooth surface during erosion, it can be practicable to design for relatively thick sacrificial layers. Based on Hughes et al, the rate of erosion for 0.0016% acid concentration (pH of approximately 3.5) was about 0.75 mm per year, so for a life of 20 years and a safety factor of 2, the required sacrificial layer would be 30 mm. When total cover, comprising the design cover plus the sacrificial layer thickness, exceeds 80 mm, the use of supplementary mesh reinforcement in the cover zone is required.

RTA Technology

Page 13 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

The use of limestone aggregate without an increase in concrete cover is disastrous. Therefore it is crucial that when limestone aggregate is specified for ASS an appropriate increase in concrete cover, as a sacrificial layer, should be made. The increase of concrete member thickness due to such a layer should not be accounted for when calculating design capacity.

10 CONCRETE MIXES 10.1 Measures Against Sulfate attack

To resist sulfate attack it is essential that the concrete is dense and well compacted. Low concrete permeability and choice of cement type is more important than high characteristic strength. It has been reported that a more mature concrete is far more resistant than an immature concrete exposed to sulphate attack. It is highly recommended for the concrete to be fully cured and matured before exposure to sulphate. In neutral to alkaline environment, some resistance to sulfate attack is obtained when the tricalcium aluminate , C3A, content of the cement is kept low. The traditional sulfate resisting Portland cements with low C3A have been and are still used in such environments. In acidic environments, the efficiency of Portland cement of low C3A by its own is questionable. Work done by the CSIRO and others has demonstrated that the addition of supplementary cementitious materials to Portland cement improves sulfate resistance in neutral to acidic environment. It has been reported in several experimentally-based papers that the use of blended cements gives protection against sulfate attack that is superior to that provided by sulfate resisting Portland cement. This is regarded as being due to the lowering of C3A content by replacement of Portland cement, the refined pore structure, and the reduction of calcium hydroxide required for the formation of gypsum in the attack mechanism. The use of blended cements referred to above has some qualifications. Blended cements of Portland cement and fly ash has good sulfate-resisting properties only when the fly ash content exceeds 25% of the total cementitious content of the concrete. The use of fly ash proportions exceeding 40% is not recommended for general use, because of placement difficulties and a lack of data on performance. Similarly, blended cements with high slag content not less than 65% are considered sulfate-resisting. The higher the slag content up to a maximum of 75%, the higher the concrete resistance to sulfate attack. The use of such high slag content cement should be restricted to concrete surfaces which will be either permanently in a wet condition or permanently isolated from air. This restriction guards against the high risk of deterioration by carbonation of such concretes when exposed to carbon dioxide present in the air.

RTA Technology

Page 14 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Blended cements with 5-15 % silica fume also have good sulfate-resisting characteristics. Care should be taken when specifying sulfate resisting cement in acidic environment. Calling for AS 3972 type SR cement for use in ASS without further qualifications will not guarantee the required resistance. A sulfate resisting blended cement with proportions as above and quality as specified in RTA QA Specification B80 23, should be clearly stated and used.

10.2 Measures Against Acid Attack

The erosion of concrete surfaces by acidic water is affected much less by the type of cement than by the quality of the concrete. However, the lower porosity of blended cements is generally regarded as being beneficial in reducing the rate of acid attack. It is recommended that blended cements incorporating fly ash and/or slag as indicated above be used. The use of limestone aggregate in a sacrificial concrete layer has been discussed previously. In the case of piles installed in an impermeable clay soil, acid or sulfate attack only penetrates the concrete to such a small extent that the incorporation of some extra centimetres of dense sacrificial concrete, may obviate the need for special cements. However in other circumstance where higher permeability soil is present, both measures in addition to others may be necessary.

11 PROTECTIVE COATINGS 11.1 General

Protective coating is a specialised field and outside the scope of this report. The purpose and the scope of this section is for general reference only. Coating of steel members is very well established and a wide range of references and standards are available for use including RTA specification B220. Concrete coatings are covered in many references but not to the extent of steel coatings. Concrete coatings should be considered as one line of defence in an aggressive environment along with other measures. Thus, as a general rule, using coatings does not mean relaxation of concrete quality and composition discussed in earlier sections. The selection of a coating type is a complex process and is affected by several factors. These factors include : The type of surface to be coated and its condition Surface orientation (eg horizontal, vertical) Construction methods

RTA Technology

Page 15 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

The environment and level of aggressiveness Duration and changes of exposure Temperature at time of curing of coating System life required Maintenance frequency and methods, if feasible

Therefore, attempting to recommend a general coating system for a specified environment is not appropriate since the environment is not the only factor. An expert opinion should be sought on a case by case basis.

11.2 Surface Preparation - An Essential Element

Surface preparation and conditions under which the coating is applied are extremely critical. Therefore, such processes should have appropriate supervision to ensure the efficacy of the coating system. Minimum requirements for surface quality and cleanliness are usually specified by the coating supplier in terms of methods of preparation to be used. This is to ensure the bonding of the coating to the concrete surface. Mechanical cleaning such as blasting is usually required. In ACI 515.1R-79, there are a few quick and simple methods to measure the cleanliness of a surface, three of which are reported herein Dusty condition. Wipe the surface with a dark cloth. If a white powder is on the cloth, the surface is considered to be too dusty and therefore unsatisfactory for some coating systems Oily condition. Sprinkle water on the dried concrete surface. If the water spreads out immediately instead of standing as droplets, it may be concluded that the surface is not contaminated by oils or dust. Laitance. The presence of laitance may be detected by scraping the surface with a putty knife. If a loose powdery material is observed, excessive laitance is present. Adhesion could be adversely affected by this laitance. The repair of defects in concrete which will be covered with a coating requires special attention. Patches should be allowed to cure and full bond achieved prior to coating application. If poor adhesion and/or unsound patching is suspected, then the patch should be removed and replaced with a new sound patch prior to coating application. The dryness of the concrete surface is also critical. A maximum moisture content of 5 to 8 % is usually recommended by suppliers. Moisture content is considered excessive if moisture collects at the bond line between the concrete and the coating material before the coating has cured. This may be evaluated by taping a 1 m x 1 m clear,

RTA Technology

Page 16 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

polyethylene sheet to the concrete surface and determining the time required for moisture to collect on the underside of a polyethylene sheet. This can be compared with the curing time of the coating reported by the supplier. However the use of a primer facilitates the process as its curing time is normally shorter than the main coating.

11.3 Type of Coating Systems

There are a number and variety of coating systems. The basis of the coating and the curing process differentiate the various systems. The following are the recommended generic types of coating systems suitable for application to concrete.: 1. Chlorinated Rubber Systems 2. Epoxy Systems 3. Vinyl Ester Systems 4. Bituminous Systems Epoxy coatings have generally satisfactory acid resistance where pH>3.0. They are not suitable where pH <3.0. Coal tar epoxies should not be used for any coating purposes. Their use has not been approved by the Australian Paint Approval Committee (previously known as Government Paint Committee) for health hazard reasons. A bituminous coating provides an economical alternative to proprietary paints for coating concrete elements which will be buried. Bitumen has good resistance to acid attack and water penetration and adheres well to properly prepared concrete surfaces. Application procedure should be as steps 1 and 2 below followed by a priming coat of cutback bitumen or thinned bitumen emulsion. Two spray applications of cutback bitumen or bitumen emulsion (with at least one day between coats) should then be applied. Care should be taken when placing granular fill around bitumen coated concrete as bitumen when cured is usually not as hard or abrasion resistant as proprietary paints. Bitumen coating of culverts should ideally be carried out insitu to avoid potential coating damage during transport/installation. Vinyl ester coatings are the most appropriate coating for the protection of concrete in acid soil conditions where pH<3.0. A complete system of any of the above systems would include elements such as surface requirements, primer and one or more coats of the material. For example, the recommended procedure for application of a vinyl ester system, in a high acidic environment is as follows :

1. Lightly brush blast concrete surface to remove laitance

RTA Technology

Page 17 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

2. Fill voids in concrete surface. Where many small voids are present , use a cement render. An epoxy putty may be appropriate for filling a few, large voids (greater than 2 mm) 3. Apply a moisture cured urethane primer, to seal surface 4. Apply high build vinyl ester coating, 1 coat with minimum dry film thickness 2 mm. Application of coatings should be by trained and experienced applicators only.

11.4 Coating System Life

The life of a coating systems varies from one system to another. Designers, specifiers and Project Managers should be aware of such variations and the relatively short life of coating systems compared with the design life of the structure. It is necessary to consider the coating system life along with the other protection measures taken in an aggressive environment (eg sacrificial limestone concrete cover, etc) The life of coating types as indicated earlier could vary from 10 to 20 years or even more depending on the severity of the conditions and the quality of surface preparation and coating application.

12 OTHER PROTECTION METHODS

Protection methods other than coatings may be required in some circumstances. Such circumstances include a prolonged and very aggressive environment capable of penetrating beyond the resistance of any concrete and coating combination. In these circumstances, higher level of protection is required. There have been a number of isolation methods previously used some of which are listed below. 10 mm gauge permanent mild steel casings with an inner liner of 1.5 mm thick heavy duty PVC membrane have been used for piles in extremely high concentration of sulfates (13,800 to 28,800 ppm). In an environment of 3000 ppm of sulfate in addition to high concentration of chlorides in the Middle East, PVC sleeves coated with nylon fabric were recommended for pile protection. Packing a layer of limestone around the exposed face of the concrete component has been used to protect piles in acidic ground water. The precautionary measure of providing an extra sacrificial layer of concrete around the shaft of the pile is sometimes used together with other measures (it is rarely relied upon by itself in very highly aggressive conditions)

RTA Technology

Page 18 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Local replacement of permeable soil around piles with an impermeable layer of soil.

13 RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
The flowchart in the following page summarises procedures to be followed by designers, specifiers and/or Project Managers in the design, specification and construction of structures in ASS. The procedures are grouped in three main stages:the investigation stage, the design and review stage, and construction stage. At each of these stages a number of steps is recommended. It is essential that designers, specifiers and project managers communicate at all stages of the project development so as to deliver adequate, buildable and economical structures. Monitoring and evaluation of design, specification and construction methods of structures in ASS in a project will not only satisfy that project requirements but also benefit other projects. Relevant sections of this report are referred to in the flowchart against most of the recommended steps.

RTA Technology

Page 19 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

DEALING WITH ACID SULFATE SOILS IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FLOWCHART

Actions
I nves i i tgaton
Obtain briefing on the nature of ASS and PASS.

Reference Section(s)
1, 2, 3

Gather monitored data from completed projects dealing with ASS / PASS

Obtain existing soil conditions for permeability, pH, and SO4

4, 5

Obtain expert advice on potential pH and SO4 over life time of structure

D es gn and Revi i ew
Determine exposure classifications and durability design requirements 7

Input into the overall structural design, as required

Input into the concrete section design and technical specification, as required

Specify special concrete mix requirements

10

Obtian expert advice on type of coatings and specify as required

11

Specify other protection method, as required

12

Cons r i t ucton
Monitor compliance with design and specification

RTA Technology

Page 20 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

REFERENCES
1. 92 AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code, Section Five-Code, AUSTROADS 1992. 2. 92 AUSTROADS Bridge Design Code, Section Five-Commentary, AUSTROADS 1992. 3. ACI Committee 515, Guide for the Protection of Concrete against Chemical Attack by Means of Coatings and Other Corrosion Resistant Materials, ACI Manual Part 5 4. Al-Amoudi O.S., Maslehuddin M. and Saadi M.M., Effect of Magnesium Sulfate and Sodium Sulfate on the Durability Performance of Plain and Blended Cements. ACI Materials Journal, V.92, No.1, Jan-Feb 1995. 5. AS 2159 Piling-Design and Installation, Standards Australia, 1995. 6. AS 2159 Supp1 Piling-Design and Installation-Guidelines, Standards Australia, 1996. 7. AS 3600 Concrete Structures, Standards Australia, 1994. 8. AS 3600 Supp1 Concrete Structures-Commentary, Standards Australia, 1990. 9. AS 3735 Concrete Structures for Retaining Liquids, Standards Australia, 1991. 10. AS 3735 Supp1 Concrete Structures for Retaining Liquids - Commentary, Standards Australia, 1991 11. Bartholomew R.F., The protection of concrete piles in aggressive ground conditions : an international appreciation, symposium paper : Recent Developments in the Design and Construction of Piles. Institution of Civil Engineers, 1979. 12. Beal D.L. and Brantz H.L., Assessment of the durability characteristics of triple blended cementitious materials, Paper presented at Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, Fourth International Conference, Istanbul, Turkey, May 1992. 13. Biczok I., Concrete Corrosion - Corrosion Protection, Publishing House of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, 1972. 14. Building Research Establishment Digest 363, Sulfate and Acid Resistance of Concrete in the Ground, January 1996. 15. Environmental Impact Statement for State Highway 10-Pacific Highway, Chinderah Bypass. Report by GHD for RTA, 1991.

RTA Technology

Page 21 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

16. Fattuhi N.I. and Hughes B.P., Effect of acid attack on concrete with different admixtures or protective coatings, Cement and Concrete Research, vol 13, 1983 pp 655-665. 17. Fidjestol P. and Frearson J. High-Performance Concrete Using Blended and Triple Blended Binders .High Performance Concrete Proceedings, ACI International Conference, Singapore, 1994. ACI , SP 149-8. 18. Guirguis S. , Durable Concrete Structures, CIA Technical Note TN57, March 1986. 19. Harrison W.H., "Durability of Concrete in Acidic Soils and Waters", Concrete , February 1987. 20. Hughes B.P. and Guest J.E., Limestone and Siliceous Aggregate Concretes Subjected to Sulphuric Acid Attack, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol 30, No 102, March 1978 pp 11-18. 21. Mangat P.S. and Khatib J.M., Influence of Fly Ash, Silica Fume, and Slag on Sulfate Resistance of Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 92 No. 5, Sept-Oct. 1995. 22. Redner J. A., Randolph P. H. and Esfandi E., Evaluation of Protective Coatings for Concrete, Paper from the Proceedings of SSPC 91 Protective Coatings for Flooring and Other Concrete Surfaces, 1991. 23. RTA B80 Concrete Work for Bridges. 24. RTA Guidelines Acid Sulfate Soil, 1996. 25. RTA Policy and Procedures Acid Sulfate Soil, RTA, 1995. 26. White I. And Melville M.D., Treatment and Containment of Potential Acid Sulfate Soils, CSIRO Technical Report No. 53, 1993.

RTA Technology

Page 22 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

APPENDIX A
Exposure Classification - Sulfate-containing Soils (AS 3735)

SO4 Content In Soil % <0.2 In water mg/l or ppm 400

Ground water replenishment rate (ie soil permeability) Low (eg clay) High (eg sand)

A2

B1

0.2 - 0.6

400 - 1500

B1

B2 (or B1 with SR cement) B2, with SR cement C, with SR cement D

0.6 - 1.2

1500 - 30000

B1

1.2 - 2.4

3000 - 6000

B2 (or B1 with SR cement) B2, with SR cement

Sulfate-Resistant cement part per million

> 2.4
Notes : 1. 2.

> 6000
SR cement: ppm:

RTA Technology

Page 23 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Exposure Classification -Acidic Soils (AS 3735)

Acidity measure pH

Ground water replenishment rate (ie soil permeability) Low (eg clay) High (eg sand)

> 6.5

A1

B1

5.5 - 6.5

A2

B2

4.5 - 5.5

A2

B2, with calcareous aggregate and increased cover to 125% of nominal C, with calcareous aggregate and increased cover to 125% of nominal D

3.5 - 4.5

B1

< 3.5
Notes : 1.

B1, with calcareous aggregate and increased cover to 125 %

Calcareous aggregate is a limestone aggregate

RTA Technology

Page 24 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

APPENDIX B
Exposure Classification for Concrete Piles - Sulfate-Containing Soils (AS 2159)

SO4 In Soil % In water (mg/l or ppm)

Exposure Classification Low Permeability Soil (eg clay) High Permeability Soil (eg sand)

<0.25 0.25 - 0.62 0.62 - 1.25 1.25 - 2.5 > 2.5

Notes : 1.

375 375 - 1250 1250 - 3125 3125 - 6250 > 6250

ppm:

Non-aggressive Non-aggressive Mild Moderate Severe

Non-aggressive Mild Moderate Severe Very Severe

part per million

Exposure Classification for Concrete Piles - Acidic Soils (AS 2159)

Acidity measure pH

Exposure Classification

Low Permeability Soil (eg clay) Non aggressive

High Permeability Soil (eg sand) Non-aggressive

> 6.5

5-6 4.5 - 5 4 - 4.5 <4

Non-aggressive Mild Moderate Severe

Mild Moderate Severe Very severe

RTA Technology

Page 25 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

APPENDIX C
Exposure Classification - Sulfate-containing Soils (Other Classifications from BRE report 14) Table C/1

SO4 content in ground water (mg/l or ppm)

Cast -in-situ concrete 140 mm to 450 mm in thickness

Cast-in-situ concrete over 450 mm thickness, and Precast concrete members which have had additional air curing after normal curing cycle. (Several weeks air curing)

Low Permeability Soil (eg clay) < 400 400 - 1400 1400 - 3000 3000 - 6000 > 6000
Notes : 1.

High Permeability Soil (eg sand) 1 2 3 4 5

Low Permeability Soil (eg clay) 1 1 1 2 3

High Permeability Soil (eg sand)

1 1 2 3 4
ppm : part per million

1 1 2 3 4

RTA Technology

Page 26 of 27

June 1997

ASS - Concrete Structures

Modification to Exposure Classification for Acidity (Other Classifications from BRE report 14) Table C/2

Exposure of Foundation members

pH

Changes in exposure Class (+ / - = increase / decrease the class determined from the previous table) Low Permeability Soil (eg clay) High Permeability Soil (eg sand) No change +1 +1 +1 +2 +3

Natural ground water

> 5.5 3.5 - 5.5 < 3.5

No change No change +1 No change +1 +1

Wastes or made-up ground

> 5.5 4.5 - 5.5 < 4.5

RTA Technology

Page 27 of 27

June 1997