Construction and Building Materials 95 (2015) 164170

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

The potential of ground clay brick to mitigate AlkaliSilica Reaction

in mortar prepared with highly reactive aggregate
Kaveh Afshinnia , Amir Poursaee
Glenn Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA

h i g h l i g h t s

 A brief study has been done to evaluate the pozzolanic reactivity and ASR mitigation performance of ground crushed brick.
 A brief study has been done to evaluate the effect of ground crushed brick neness on ASR mitigation performance.
 Microscopic analysis has been conducted to evaluate the microstructure of the mortar containing ground crushed brick.
 A comparison has been made to investigate the pozzolanic reactivity of ground crushed brick using XRD analysis.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The objective of this work was to study the effect of ground clay brick on mitigating the Alkali Silica
Received 1 March 2015 Reaction (ASR) in mortar bars prepared with highly reactive aggregates. To evaluate the potential of
Received in revised form 9 July 2015 ground crushed clay brick to mitigate ASR distress in mortar, mortar bars and mortar cubes were cast
Accepted 15 July 2015
with combination of different dosages of ground clay brick (partial replacement of portland cement).
The pozzolanic reactivity of ground clay brick was also evaluated using strength activity index test. In
addition, the Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and the Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS)
Keywords:
were conducted to evaluate the microstructure and location of the ASR gel and its chemical composition.
Ground crushed brick (GCB)
AlkaliSilica Reaction (ASR)
The results from this study indicated satisfactory level of pozzolanic reactivity when cement was partially
Pozzolanic reactivity replacement by the ground clay brick. Also, it was found that replacing 25% of cement with ground clay
Concrete expansion brick (by weight) could signicantly decrease the ASR expansion by 67% at the age of 14 days. However,
Cementitious material this study suggested that the compressive strength values of the specimens containing higher dosages of
XRD ground crushed brick (i.e. 50% replacement level) were signicantly lower than that of the control
specimens.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Alkali Silica Reaction (ASR) is a chemical reaction occurs
between the specic source of silica from aggregate and the
hydroxyl ions that are usually available in the alkaline environ-
ment of the pore solution. The product of this reaction is a
hygroscopic ASR gel, which by itself does not cause any problem
for the concrete. However, at the presence of moisture, the ASR
gel swells and consequently causes signicant pressure through
the surrounding concrete matrix.
Typically, Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) such
as y ashes [15], slag [68], meta-kaolin [912], silica fume
[13,14] and other SCMs derived from waste materials such as glass
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: kafshin@clemson.edu (K. Afshinnia), amire@clemson.edu
(A. Poursaee).
[1519] have been used successfully to mitigate the ASR distress in
concrete. Depletion of alkali loading in concrete mixture due to the
replacement of portland cement (dilution effect), better alkali
binding provided by modied CSH (CalciumSilicateHydrate)
gel (particularly, where the calcium to silica ratio are low), higher
strength provided by pozzolanic reaction of SCMs and decreasing
the rate of silica dissolution from aggregate surface [20] are some
of the main causes by which the SCMs can mitigate ASR distress in
concrete mixtures. Moreover, the SCMs may rene the pores dis-
tribution in concrete paste; therefore, the reactive aggregates have
less access to the external moisture compared to the conventional
concrete (without SCMs) [21,22]. Even though the benecial inu-
ence of typical SCMs such as y ash, meta-kaolin, slag and silica
fume have been well investigated in different studies, the use of
pozzolans derived from waste materials such as ground clay brick
needs further investigations. In addition, due to the different envi-
ronmental agency reports, alternative methods of recycling waste

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.155
0950-0618/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. Afshinnia, A. Poursaee / Construction and Building Materials 95 (2015) 164170
materials such as using them in construction materials must be
considered to reduce the high volume of waste disposed of in
landlls.
Typically, the main components of the clay bricks are kaolin and
shale. However, small amount of magnesium and/or barium are
added to modify its color. Based on the chemical composition of
clay brick, this material typically contains approximately 70% silica
and 1520% alumina. It has been reported that the presence of sol-
uble alumina in SCM may improve the ASR mitigation performance
by formation of CASH (Aluminum containing CalciumSilicate
Hydrate) gel instead of the CSH gel, which has more potential to
bind the alkalis and consequently deplete the alkalinity of the pore
solution [23]. Several studies were conducted to assess the bene-
cial inuence of ground clay brick when used as a portland cement
replacement on the fresh properties as well as mechanical proper-
ties of mortar or concrete mixtures [2428]. Wild et al. evaluated
the pozzolanic reactivity of ground clay brick with a maximum
particle size of 250 lm collected from four European countries
[24]. They found that the ground clay brick could be replaced up
to 30% of the portland cement by weight without signicant reduc-
tion in mechanical properties of concrete. Other study by Naceri
et al. was carried out to evaluate the inuence of using waste brick
powder as a cement replacement at 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% dosage
levels on the mechanical properties of mortars [25]. It was found
that the 28-day compressive strength of the mortar cubes gradu-
ally decreased with increasing waste brick powder content. Lin
et al. evaluated the fresh and mechanical properties of paste spec-
imens containing 050% waste brick powder [26]. They found that
the use of waste brick powder increased the initial and nal setting
time of the paste. Also, the compressive strength of the paste spec-
imens with brick powder developed slowly in the early ages, and
increased at the later ages. OFarrel et al. showed that at early ages,
the pore volume of the mortar mixtures containing brick was
higher than that of the control [27]. Therefore, the compressive
strength of such mixtures was less than the control mixtures.
However, at later ages, the pore volume and the compressive
strength of the mortar specimens were comparable with control
mixtures. A study by Gonalves et al. was carried out to compare
the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and pore size dis-
tribution of mortar mixtures containing waste clay brick powder
with mortar mixture containing meta-kaolin [28]. It was found
that the use of clay brick powder as a cement replacement reduced
the proportion of macro pores and modulus of elasticity of the
mortar specimens. As aforementioned studies, the majority of the
studies showed that the pozzolanic reactivity of ground brick
was more profound at later ages compared to that in early ages.
A limited number of studies conducted to assess the mitigation
ability of the ground brick powders to suppress the Alkali Silica
Reaction in mortars or concrete [29,16]. A study by Turanli et al.
on mortar bars containing 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% ground crushed
brick as cement replacement using accelerated mortar bar test
(AMBT) showed that the ASR distress was properly mitigated in
mortar bars containing 20% or 30% ground crushed brick [29].
Other study by Bektas et al. on the ASR mitigation performance
of ground clay brick combined with other conventional SCMs such
as y ash and natural pozzolan indicated that the ground clay brick
was not as effective as y ash while a similar mitigation
performance of ground clay brick compared to that of the natural
pozzolans was observed. Nevertheless, the ASR mitigation perfor-
mance of ternary blend of ground clay brick and y ash
out-performed the mitigation performance of binary blend con-
taining just ground clay brick, but underperformed the mitigation
performance of binary blend containing y ash [16].
Some studies were carried out to assess the ASR reactivity in
specimens containing crushed brick as their aggregates replace-
ment [30,31]. A study by Bektas showed that both mortar bars
165
and concrete prisms containing crushed brick aggregate indicated
signicant amount of ASR distress [30]. In addition, both ASR gel
and ettringite from delayed ettringite formation (DEF) were seen
within the mortar or concrete specimens. Another study by
Bektas et al. was carried out to investigate the ASR distress in mor-
tar bars containing 10% and 20% crushed brick aggregate as a ne
aggregate replacement using the accelerated mortar bar test
(AMBT) [31]. It was found that the crushed brick aggregate was
susceptible to ASR attack.
This study was aimed to evaluate the impact of ground clay
brick as both cement and aggregates partial replacements on mit-
igating the ASR in mortar bars prepared with highly reactive aggre-
gates. Moreover, the pozzolanic reactivity of ground brick as a
cement replacement was evaluated. The microscopic analysis
was also conducted to study the ASR gel in the specimens.
2. Materials and experimental procedures
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Cement
Type I high alkali cement (Na2Oeq = 0.88%), with the chemical composition
shown in Table 1, was used in this study.
2.1.2. Clay brick as an aggregate material
Clay brick with chemical composition shown in Table 1, was used in this study.
The clay bricks were rst crushed using laboratory jaw crusher. Then, crushed brick
with the specic size gradation in accordance with ASTM C1260 was used as ne
aggregates in mortar bars [32].
2.1.3. Ground crushed brick (GCB) as a cementitious material
A laboratory ball mill crusher was used to prepare the ground crushed brick
with an average particle size of 40 lm. Fine crushed brick was grounded in a labo-
ratory ball mill for 10 min with the speed of 250 rpm.
2.1.4. Reactive ne aggregate
Rhyolitic gravel from Las Placitas Pit in Bernalillo County, New Mexico with
oven-dry specic gravity (SGOD) of 2.6, saturate-surface-dry specic gravity
(SGSSD) of 2.63, absorption of 1.09%, and dry rodded unit weight (DRUW) of
1585.3 kg m3 was used as the reactive sand in all mixtures. Previous study showed
considerable 14-day expansion value of mortar bars containing Rhyolitic gravel,
thus, it is used in this investigation as reactive aggregate [3].
2.2. Mixture proportion
Mortar bars containing 10%, 25% and 50% ground crushed brick as portland
cement replacement by weight were cast. To consider the inuence of cement dilu-
tion effect (reducing the proportion of alkali loading), two more mortar mixtures
wherein 10% and 25% of the cement in the mixture proportion were replaced by
inert non-reactive material, were cast. In order to evaluate the effect of crushed
brick neness on the ASR mitigation, a mortar mixture containing 100% portland
cement and 25% crushed brick as an aggregate replacement was prepared.
Table 2 shows the mixture proportions of the mortar mixtures used in this study.
Table 1
Chemical compositions of portland cement and ground crushed brick.
Chemical analysis (%) Portland cement Clay brick
SiO2 19.45 69.43
Al2O3 4.85 17.29
Fe2O3 3.79 6.4
CaO 61.37 0.51
SO3 3.3 2.54
MgO 2.92 1.14
Na2Oeq 0.88 1.72
Loss on ignition 2.54 0.17
166 K. Afshinnia, A. Poursaee / Construction and Building Materials 95 (2015) 164170

Table 2 125
Mixture proportions used to prepare the samples. 7 Days 28 Days 90 Days

Strength Activity Index (%)

Mixtures Cementitious material (%-mass) Fine aggregate 100
(%-mass)
Inert non- Portland Ground New Crushed 75
reactive cement crushed Mexico brick
material brick
50
1 0 100 0 100 0
2 0 90 10 100 0
25
3 0 75 25 100 0
4 0 50 50 100 0
5 0 100 0 75 25 0
6 10 90 0 100 0 10% 25% 50%
7 25 75 0 100 0 Ground crushed brick dosage (%)

Fig. 1. Strength activity index of the mortar specimens containing ground crushed
brick.
2.3. Test procedures

2.3.1. X-ray Diffraction (XRD)

The mineralogical compositions of the ground clay brick were examined by
X-ray Diffraction (XRD) technique. For this purpose, the powder was mounted on
an aluminum slide for XRD analysis and scanned from 5 to 80 2h with a scan rate
of 0.1 steps per minute.
2.3.2. Strength activity index (SAI)
50 mm  50 mm  50 mm (2.00 in.  2.00 in.  2.00 in.) mortar cubes contain-
ing 0%, 10%, 25% and 50% ground crushed brick were cast to evaluate the pozzolanic
reactivity of mortar mixtures containing ground crushed brick as portland cement
replacement. After demolding, the mortar cubes were wet cured at the curing room
at 23 C and 100% relative humidity. The compressive strength of the mortar cubes
were measured at 7, 28 and 90 days using ASTM C109 [34]. The strength activity
index (SAI) which is a number based on the compressive strength of the cubes,
was calculated using the ASTM C311 as following [35]:
Strength Activity Index SAI A=B  100 1
where, A is an average compressive strength of three mortar specimens containing
pozzolan and B is an average compressive strength of reference sample (without
pozzolan). The higher strength activity index represents the higher pozzolanic
reactivity of the pozzolan.
2.3.3. Accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT)
For each mixture, three 25 mm  25 mm  285 mm (1 in  1 in  11.25 in)
mortar bars were cast and wet cured for 24 h. Then, bars were demolded and imme-
diately immersed in water and kept in an oven at 80 C for 24 h. The measured
length of each bar (after 24 h immersion in water) was recorded as the initial length
(zero reading). Then, all bars were transferred into the 1 N NaOH solution and kept
at 80 C during the test period. The bars expansions were measured during 28 days
of the experiment. The mixture with the 14-day expansion value less than 0.1% is
considered as a mixture that will not experience the ASR distress, while the mixture
with the 14-day expansion value more than 0.2% is considered a mixture that will
experience the ASR distress.
2.3.4. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Disperse X-ray Spectroscopy
(EDS)
The microstructural examination of polished sections from mortar bars sub-
jected to the ASTM C1260 method, containing ground crushed brick as a portland
cement replacement was conducted to identify the location of ASR gel after 28 days
immersion in 1 N NaOH soak solution. A lapidary saw was used to section samples
from the mortar bar specimens. The SEM test was conducted in back-scatter mode
using Hitachi TM-3400 microscope. Also, the EDS equipment was used to evaluate
the chemical composition of paste and ASR gel in mixtures prepared with or
without ground crushed brick.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Strength activity index
As shown in Fig. 1, the 28-day strength activity index values of
the mortar specimens containing 10%, 25% and 50% ground
crushed brick were 92%, 86% and 59%, respectively. In addition,
the strength activity index values of the mortar mixtures were
gradually increased by time. For instance, the 7-day, 28-day and
90-day strength activity index values of the mortar mixtures
containing 25% ground crushed brick were 79%, 86% and 91%,
respectively, which indicated the pozzolanic reactivity of ground
crushed brick at later ages. However, the improvement in strength
activity index values by time was not observed in the mortar mix-
tures containing 10% ground crushed brick. For instance, the 7-day
and 90-day strength activity index values of the mortar mixtures
containing 10% ground crushed brick were very similar.
Higher dosage of ground-crushed brick (i.e. 50% replacement)
did not show the acceptable pozzolanic reactivity.
3.2. Accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT)
As shown in Fig. 2, the expansion values of mortar bars contain-
ing the inert material (10% and 25% inert non-reactive material) as
cement replacement were less than that of the mortar bars contain-
ing 100% portland cement (i.e. control mortar bars) and more than
that of the mortar bars containing the same dosages of ground
crushed brick. Therefore, it can be concluded that the incorporation
of ground crushed brick as cement replacement mitigated ASR, par-
ticularly at higher dosage levels (i.e. 25% replacement level). For
instance, the 14-day expansion values of mortar bars containing
10%, 25% and 50% ground crushed brick reduced approximately
31%, 67% and 95% compared to that of the control specimens,
respectively. In addition, the 14-day expansion values of the mortar
bars containing 10% and 25% ground crushed brick as cement
replacement in mortar mixtures showed 22% and 47% reduction
compared to that of the mortar bars containing the same dosages
of inert material, indicating the benecial mitigation inuence of
ground crushed brick. The 14-day expansion value of the mortar
bars containing 50% ground crushed brick was 0.04%, which was
signicantly lower than 0.1%, the expansion threshold suggested
by the ASTM C33 [33]. However, due to the low strength activity
index values of the mortar mixtures containing 50% ground crushed
brick (as shown in Fig. 1), by employing this level of replacement,
the satisfactory level of the compressive strength will not be
achieved. Considering the high reactivity of the natural aggregates
used in this study, the results from this study suggested that by
employing moderate or low reactive aggregate, even 25% ground
crushed brick could be sufcient to mitigate the ASR distress.
To evaluate the effect of crushed brick particle size on the mit-
igation performance of ASR distress in mortar bars, mortar bars
containing ne crushed brick as partial replacement of ne aggre-
gates were used in this study as well. The crushed brick was
replaced as an aggregate material with the specic size fraction
in accordance with ASTM C1260. As shown in Fig. 3, the use of ne
crushed brick as an aggregate material did not have any positive
impact on the ASR mitigation. For instance, the 14-day expansion
value of the mortar bars containing 25% ne crushed brick as an
aggregate replacement was 0.71%, while the 14-day expansion
value of the mortar bars containing 25% ground crushed brick as
 K. Afshinnia, A. Poursaee / Construction and Building Materials 95 (2015) 164170 167

1.30 10% groung crushed brick

1.20 10% inert material
25% ground crushed brick
1.10 25% inert material
1.00 50% ground crushed brick
Control (100% portland cement) 0.88
0.90
0.78

Expansion (%)
0.80
0.70 0.61
0.60
0.50 0.55
0.40
0.29
0.30
0.20
0.10 0.04
0.00
0 7 14 21 28
Age (day)s

Fig. 2. Expansion behavior of mortar bars containing 0%, 10%, 25% and 50% ground crushed brick or inert non-reactive material.

1.30
1.20 25% ground crushed brick (cement replacement)
25% crushed brick (aggregate replacement)
1.10
Control (0% ground or crushed brick)
1.00
0.90
0.88
Expansion (%)

0.80
0.70
0.71
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.29
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 7 14 21 28
Age (Days)

Fig. 3. Expansion behavior of mortar bars containing 0% and 25% ground crushed brick and ne crushed brick.

cement replacement was 0.29%. Thus, the neness of crushed brick
plays an important role in the ASR mitigation.
It seems that the higher surface area of the ground brick power
compared to that of the crushed brick, enhanced the mitigation
performance of the ground crushed brick.
Fig. 4(a)(c) show the images were taken from control mortar
bar (without brick), the mortar bars containing 25% ground
crushed brick (cement replacement) and the mortar bar containing
25% ne crushed brick (ne aggregate replacement), respectively,
after 28 days of immersion in 1 N NaOH solution. As can be seen,
signicant amount of cracks were observed on the surface of the
control mortar bar. Furthermore, considerable deformation along
its longitudinal axis was observed in the control specimen. While
the deformation and cracks were decreased, using the ne crushed
brick as aggregate replacement, there is no visible deformation or
surface cracks of the bar made with ground crushed brick as it par-
tial cement replacement.
3.3. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Disperse X-ray
Spectroscopy (EDS)
Microstructure of polished sections from mortar bars subjected
to AMBT test, containing 0% and 25% ground crushed brick was
examined to identify the location and chemical composition of
ASR gel after 28 days immersion in 1 N NaOH solution.
The SEM images of the aforementioned specimens are shown in
Fig. 5. As shown in Fig. 5(a), signicant amount of ASR gel was
observed within the cement paste and aggregate particles of the
control specimen. These results are in agreement with the
28-day expansion values of the control mortar bars (as shown in
Fig. 2, the 28-day expansion value of the control mortar bar was
1.21%). However, as shown in Fig. 5(b), less ASR gel was observed
in the microstructure of the mortar section containing 25% ground
crushed brick. Nevertheless, the ASR gel in the mortar section of
specimen containing ground crushed brick was mostly found in
the air voids (as shown in Fig. 5(b)).
The EDS test was conducted to evaluate the chemical composi-
tion of the ASR gel in the specimens. Results from the EDS analysis
showed distinctive chemical compositions for the ASR gels formed
in the specimen containing ground crushed brick compared to that
in the control specimen. The chemical compositions of the ASR gel
obtained from at least three locations as indicated in Fig. 5 (by
average) are given in Table 3. As it is apparent from Table 3, the
alkali content of ASR gel in control specimen is much higher than
that of the specimen containing ground crushed brick (i.e. Na + K
content). Less alkali content in the ASR gel from specimen with
168 K. Afshinnia, A. Poursaee / Construction and Building Materials 95 (2015) 164170

(a) Control (0% crumb rubber)

(b) 25% ground crushed brick (cement replacement)

(c) 25% fine crushed brick (aggregate replacement)

Fig. 4. Images from mortar bars after immersion in 1 N NaOH for 28 days.

ASR Gel (Point 1) ASR Gel (Point 2)

Fig. 5. SEM Images from mortar bar sections after immersion in 1 N NaOH for 28 days: (a) Control (0% ground crushed brick) and (b) 25% ground crushed brick.

Table 3 rigid without signicant swelling [37]. In addition, the EDS results
Chemical compositions ASR gel obtained from EDX analysis. in this study suggested that the ASR gel in the specimen containing
Sample Location Chemical composition (%) ground crushed brick could exchange its alkali ions with calcium
Ca Si Na K Al Ca/Si
ions from the surrounding cement paste. The resulting gel was
more stable than the initial alkali-rich gel. In addition, the gels
Control ASR gel 21.3 48.9 24.5 3.1 1.4 0.44
(Point 1)
were accumulated in the void (Fig. 5(b)), which indicated lower
25% Ground ASR gel 28.4 45.0 16.1 4.2 4.4 0.63 viscosity of the gel.
crushed brick (Point 2)

3.4. X-ray Diffraction (XRD)

ground crushed brick was attributed to the higher potential of
alkali binding provided by the modied CASH gel in the speci-
men containing ground crushed brick [23]. Considering that the
ground crushed brick was rich in alumina, the CASH gel had
a potential to x the alkali ions in the pore solution; therefore, less
alkali ions were available in the pore solution to react with sili-
cates. The calcium content of the ASR gel in the specimen contain-
ing ground-crushed brick was noticeably higher than that in the
control specimen. It was shown that the ASR gel with higher cal-
cium content, was more viscous and less mobile compared to the
ASR gel with lower level of calcium content (lower calcium to silica
ratio-C/S) [36]. Although, the mobile gel was more capable of dif-
fusing through cement matrix and could move through the paste
and did not apply a localized pressure to the surrounding matrix,
the stiff ASR gel (which contains high level of calcium) was more
Fig. 6 shows the XRD pattern of the mortar specimens with dif-
ferent percentage of ground crushed brick as cement replacement,
1 year after casting. Results showed that the peaks corresponding
to the portlandite decreased or disappeared by replacing the
cement with brick powder. This can be attributed to consumption
of the portlandite phase due to pozzolanic activity of the brick
powers. However, at 10% replacement level, the level of portlandite
was comparable with that of the control.
Fig. 7 compares the XRD pattern of a mortar specimen contain-
ing 25% ground crushed brick as cement replacement with a mor-
tar specimen containing 25% crushed brick as ne aggregate
replacement. As can be seen, the portlandite peaks were either
weaker or disappeared when the brick powder was used as cement
replacement. This observation can be characterized as more poz-
zolanic activity of ground crushed brick with smaller size and more
 K. Afshinnia, A. Poursaee / Construction and Building Materials 95 (2015) 164170
Intensity (a.u.)
Fig. 6. XRD pattern of samples with different percentage of brick as cement
replacement. 1 = Quartz (SiO2), 2 = Portlandite (Ca(OH)2) and, 3 = Mullite
(3Al2O3.2SiO2 or 2Al2O3.SiO2).
Intensity (a.u.)
Fig. 7. XRD pattern of samples with 25% brick as cement replacement and ne
aggregate replacement. 1 = Quartz (SiO2), 2 = Portlandite (Ca(OH)2) and, 3 = Mullite
(3Al2O3.2SiO2 or 2Al2O3.SiO2).
surface area used to partially replaced cement compared to that of
the ne crushed brick with coarser size.
While the results of the SAI showed that increasing the ground
brick content led to a decrease of the pozzolanic reactivity, the XRD
patterns indicated an opposite behavior. This observation can be
attributed to the age of the specimens. The SAI analysis was per-
formed on maximum 90-day old specimens; however the XRD
tests were conducted on the 1 year old specimens. It should be
noted that the SAI values were also increased by increasing the
age of the specimens, which is in agreement with the XRD results.
4. Conclusions
1. The use of 10% and 25% ground crushed brick as partial replace-
ment of portland cement showed pozzolanic reactivity. This
pozzolanic reactivity is more apparent at the later ages (i.e.
90 days).
2. By using 10%, 25% and 50% ground crushed brick as a cement
replacement, the ASR expansion values reduced by 31%, 67%
and 95% at 28 days, respectively.
169
3. The particle size of crushed brick plays an important role in its
potential to mitigate ASR distress in mortars. Thus, the ner
crushed brick provides higher level of mitigation due to the
ASR distress.
4. The presence of ground crushed brick in the mortar mixtures
can signicantly alter the chemical composition of the ASR gel
in mortar specimens prepared with highly reactive aggregate.
It was found that the ASR gel in the mortar specimens contain-
ing ground crushed brick has lower viscosity; decreasing the
pressure on the surrounding matrix.
5. The XRD tests conrmed that brick powders indeed have poz-
zolanic behavior. Smaller size (more surface area) showed more
pozzolanic activity.
References
[1] M.D.A. Thomas, Field studies of y ash concrete structures containing reactive
aggregates, Mag. Concr. Res. 48 (177) (1996) 265279.
[2] E.R. Dunstan, The effect of y ash on concrete alkali-aggregate reaction, ASTM
Cement Concr. Aggregates 3 (2) (1981) 101104.
[3] H.K. Venkatanarayanan, P.R. Rangaraju, Decoupling the effects of chemical
composition and neness of y ash in mitigating alkalisilica reaction, Cement
Concr. Compos. 43 (2013) 5468.
[4] H.K. Venkatanarayanan, P.R. Rangaraju, Effect of blended y ashes in
mitigating alkalisilica reaction, Transport. Res. Rec. J. Transport. Res. Board
2240 (1) (2011) 8088.
[5] M.H. Shehata, M.D. Thomas, The effect of y ash composition on the expansion
of concrete due to alkalisilica reaction, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (7) (2000) 1063
1072.
[6] J.S. Lumley, The ASR expansion of concrete prisms made from cements
partially replaced by ground granulated blast furnace slag, Constr. Build.
Mater. 7 (2) (1993) 9599.
[7] D. Hester, C. McNally, M. Richardson, A study of the inuence of slag alkali
level on the alkalisilica reactivity of slag concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (9)
(2005) 661665.
[8] A. Beglarigale, H. Yazici, Mitigation of the detrimental effects of ASR in cement
based composites by combination of steel micro-bers and ground-granulated
blast-furnace slag, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (12) (2014).
[9] G.V. Walters, T.R. Jones, Effect of metakaolin on AlkaliSilica Reaction (ASR) in
concrete manufactured with reactive aggregate, ACI Special Publ. 126 (1991)
941954.
[10] W. Aquino, D.A. Lange, J. Olek, The inuence of metakaolin and silica fume on
the chemistry of alkalisilica reaction products, Cement Concr. Compos. 23 (6)
(2001) 485493.
[11] T. Ramlochan, M. Thomas, K.A. Gruber, The effect of metakaolin on alkalisilica
reaction in concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (3) (2000) 339344.
[12] M. Shekarchi, A. Bonakdar, M. Bakhshi, A. Mirdamadi, B. Mobasher, Transport
properties in metakaolin blended concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (11)
(2010) 22172223.
[13] K. Pettersson, Effects of silica fume on alkalisilica expansion in mortar
specimens, Cem. Concr. Res. 22 (1) (1992) 1522.
[14] A.M. Boddy, R.D. Hooton, M.D.A. Thomas, The effect of the silica content of
silica fume on its ability to control alkalisilica reaction, Cem. Concr. Res. 33
(8) (2003) 12631268.
[15] K. Afshinnia, P.R. Rangaraju, Inuence of neness of ground recycled glass on
mitigation of alkalisilica reaction in mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 81 (2015)
257267.
[16] F. Bektas, L. Turanli, K. Wang, H. Ceylan, Comparative performance of ground
clay brick in mitigation of alkalisilica reaction, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (12)
(2007) 10701078.
[17] B. Taha, G. Nounu, Utilizing waste recycled glass as sand/cement replacement
in concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21 (12) (2009) 709721.
[18] A. Shayan, A. Xu, Value-added utilization of waste glass in concrete, Cem.
Concr. Res. 34 (1) (2004) 8189.
[19] N. Schwarz, H. Cam, N. Neithalath, Inuence of a ne glass powder on the
durability characteristics of concrete and its comparison to y ash, Cement
Concr. Compos. 30 (6) (2008) 486496.
[20] S.M. Shafaatian, A. Akhavan, H. Maraghechi, F. Rajabipour, How does y ash
mitigate alkalisilica reaction (ASR) in accelerated mortar bar test (ASTM
C1567)?, Cement Concr Compos. 37 (2013) 143153.
[21] M.M. Johari, J.J. Brooks, S. Kabir, P. Rivard, Inuence of supplementary
cementitious materials on engineering properties of high strength concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (5) (2011) 26392648.
[22] R. Siddique, J. Klaus, Inuence of metakaolin on the properties of mortar and
concrete: a review, Appl. Clay Sci. 43 (3) (2009) 392400.
[23] S.Y. Hong, F.P. Glasser, Alkali sorption by CSH and CASH gels: Part II. Role of
alumina, Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (7) (2002) 11011111.
[24] S. Wild, A. Gailius, H. Hansen, L. Pederson, J. Szwabowski, Pozzolanic
properties of a variety of European clay bricks, Build. Res. Inform. 25 (3)
(1997) 170175.
170 K. Afshinnia, A. Poursaee / Construction and Building Materials 95 (2015) 164170
[25] A. Naceri, M.C. Hamina, Use of waste brick as a partial replacement of cement
in mortar, Waste Manage. 29 (8) (2009) 23782384.
[26] L. Kae-Long, B.Y. Chen, C.S. Chiou, A. Cheng, Waste bricks potential for use as a
pozzolan in blended portland cement, Waste Manage. Res. (2010).
[27] M. OFarrell, S. Wild, B.B. Sabir, Pore size distribution and compressive strength
of waste clay brick mortar, Cement Concr. Compos. 23 (1) (2001) 8191.
[28] J.P. Gonalves, L.M. Tavares, R.D. Toledo Filho, E.M.R. Fairbairn, Performance
evaluation of cement mortars modied with metakaolin or ground brick,
Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (5) (2009) 19711979.
[29] L. Turanli, F. Bektas, P.J.M. Monteiro, Use of ground clay brick as a pozzolanic
material to reduce the alkalisilica reaction, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (10) (2003)
15391542.
[30] F. Bektas, Alkali reactivity of crushed clay brick aggregate, Constr. Build. Mater.
52 (2014) 7985.
[31] F. Bektas, K. Wang, H. Ceylan, Effects of crushed clay brick aggregate on mortar
durability, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (5) (2009) 19091914.
[32] ASTM, C1260, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of
Aggregates (Mortar Bar Method), ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
PA, 2014.
[33] ASTM, C33, Standard Specication for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[34] ASTM, C109, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic
Cement Mortars, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[35] ASTM, C311, Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Fly Ash or
Natural Pozzolans for Use in Portland-Cement Concrete, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[36] R.F. Bleszynski, M.D. Thomas, Microstructural studies of alkalisilica reaction
in y ash concrete immersed in alkaline solutions, Adv. Cem. Based Mater. 7
(2) (1998) 6678.
[37] S. Urhan, Alkali silica and pozzolanic reactions in concrete. Part 1:
Interpretation of published results and an hypothesis concerning the
mechanism, Cem. Concr. Res. 17 (1) (1987) 141152.