Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Construction
and Building

Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067

MATERIALS
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Durability of concrete incorporating GGBS activated by water-glass

Saud Al-Otaibi *

Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Building and Energy Technologies Department, P.O. Box: 24885, SAFAT 13109, Kuwait

Received 29 July 2006; received in revised form 24 July 2007; accepted 24 July 2007
Available online 24 September 2007

Abstract

The environmental concerns related to the production of cement in terms of the energy consumption and the emission of CO2 lead to
the search for more environmentally viable alternatives to cement. One of those alternative materials is ground granulated blast-furnace
slag is used not only as a partial replacement to cement but also as the sole binder in the form of alkali-activated slag (AAS) to produce
concrete. In addition to a control OPC mix, an OPC/slag mix with 60% cement replacement by GGBS, and also AAS mixes were pre-
pared with slag as the sole binder, activated with water glass at two dosages, 4% and 6% Na2O (by weight of slag). Two types of water
glass were used, one in a solution form and the other in a solid granules form. The two forms of the activator used were also of different
silicate modulus (Ms); 1.65 for the solution form and 1.0 for the granule form. All the mixes had the same binder content and w/b = 0.48.
This paper presents the results of the durability related tests that were carried out which included, chloride penetration resistance, poros-
ity, carbonation, and alkali–silica reaction. The effect of the different parameters including the activator type and dosage are discussed.
The results give indications on the good durability of alkali-activated slag concrete compared to conventional OPC concrete.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Slag; Alkali; Activator; Silica modulus; Durability; Porosity; Chloride permeability; Alkali–silica reaction

1. Introduction tice in the USSR in 1960 and in Poland in 1972. Alkali-

Blast-furnace slag refers in particular to the slag pro-
duced from the manufacture of pig iron. If the molten slag
is quenched sufficiently rapidly it forms a glassy material,
when finely ground, called ‘‘ground granulated blast-fur-
nace slag’’ or GGBS [1]. GGBS has been used in compos-
ite cements and as a cementitious component of concrete
for many years and it can be expected that the expansion
of GGBS use will continue for the foreseeable future [2].
As an example, in the year 2000 GGBS accounted for
about 10%, of the total cementitious material used
throughout UK [3]. On the other hand alkali-activated
slag cements using granulated blast-furnace slags were
invented by Glukhovsky and patented in 1958. A review
given by Glukhovsky [4] commented that alkali-activated
slag cements had been introduced into construction prac-
*
Tel.: +965 4989247; fax: +965 4989099.
E-mail address: uotaibi@safat.kisr.edu.kw
activated slags have been employed on a limited scale as
oilwell cements and as a roof support system in mine
applications in South Africa and Canada. Industrial expe-
rience of precast products utilizing these cements is wide-
spread in Eastern Europe, Finland and France [5].
Research in China has confirmed the high strength of
these systems [6].
The use of slag as supplementary cementitious material
improves the durability of concrete as it reduces the perme-
ability of GGBS concrete and significantly inhibits the
ingress of sulfates [7]. The reduction in chloride penetration
achieved by GGBS has been confirmed by many different
investigators [8–12].
Wang [6] cited some research carried out in China show-
ing AAS mortars to be very impermeable. They also state
that the pores in hardened AAS concrete are distinctly
smaller than those in OPC concrete. Alkali-activation
ensures long-term alkalinity of AAS concrete, which pre-
vents corrosion.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.07.023
2060 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067

Deja and Malotepszy [13] carried out tests on AAS mor- concrete is limited. This paper is part of research work car-
tars and reported high resistance to sulfates and chlorides. ried out as a contribution to knowledge at this level.
Roy et al. [10] reported very low chloride diffusion in
alkali-activated cement pastes. 3. Experimental investigation
Researchers Glukhovsky [4] and Pu et al. [14] and Wu
et al. [15] showed that the strength of AAS mortars 3.1. Materials
increased after 1 year in 1–2% MgSO4 solution and stayed
constant for 2 years in dilute acids, HCl and H2SO4, while The same types of ordinary Portland cement, ground
OPC samples deteriorated in six months. Byfores et al. [16] granulated blast-furnace slag, lime, alkali activators, fine
used an activator (called F-activator) composed of 2.75% and coarse aggregates have been used throughout the
NaOH plus 1.0% Na2CO3 and reported that for the same investigation with one exception when a special reactive
w/b ratio AAS concrete showed more carbonation than fine aggregate was used for the alkali-aggregate reaction
OPC. They attributed this to the small content of hydrated test. Details of each material used are given below.
CaO, which may react with incoming CO2 and also to the
microcracking in their F-concrete. Neville [1] stated that 3.1.1. Cement
blended cement with high replacement levels of slag exhib- Ordinary Portland cement conforming to the require-
its high carbonation rate. But since carbonation and pore ments of BS 12:1996 class 42.5 N, was used in this investi-
structure are interrelated, good curing, which resulted in gation. The chemical and physical properties of the cement,
a more compact structure, helped to reduce carbonation. as provided by the manufacturer, are given in Table 1.
This also means the higher the strength, the lower the
carbonation. 3.1.2. Slag
Douglas et al. [17] reported AAS concrete having good The ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) used
resistance to chloride ion penetration with ion penetration complied with BS 6699:1992. Typical chemical and physi-
ranging from 1311 to 2547 C for 28 days curing and from cal properties provided by the manufacturer are shown in
676 to 1831 C at 91 days. Table 2.
Shi [18] presented rapid chloride permeability test
(RCPT) results for AAS mortars using water-glass as an 3.1.3. Lime
activator. These results were very high for the early ages Hydrated lime of commercial grade was used in the
20,000 C at 3 days reducing to 12,000 C at 7 days and fur- alkali-activated slag mixtures to control the setting. The
ther to a value around 5000 C at 28 and 90 days. lime was added in a slurry form of equal parts (by weight)
Although the hydration of OPC/slag blended and AAS of lime and water.
in concrete produces low Ca(OH)2, which is responsible for
carbonation in OPC concrete, some researchers [19,20] had
reported higher carbonation with AAS concrete especially Table 1
Chemical and physical properties of cementa
with low grade concretes in comparison with OPC con-
crete. This might be due to carbonation of the C–S–H. Oxide Percent Physical properties
Some researchers report studies made on alkali-aggre- SiO2 20.7 Specific surface: 331 m2/kg
gate in AAS concrete and observed only slight expansion Al2O3 5.7 Average particle size: 10 lm
Fe2O3 2.3 Coarse particles (>45 lm): 11.2%
in the first period and no expansion after 28 days. Wang
CaO 64.8 Specific gravity: 3.14
et al. [20] cited Krivenko [21] stating that AAS concrete MgO 1.1 Loss on ignition: 0.92%
suffers no AAR because hydration products bind 80% of SO3 3.21 Colour: steel grey
the alkali at one year. Metso and Kajaus [22] carried out Na2O 0.19
an AAR study of AAS sand mortar by the measurement K2O 0.6
a
of expansion rate and found a maximum expansion for Provided by the manufacturer.
about 8% opal content (reactive aggregate) by total aggre-
gate weight. Gifford and Gillot [23] reported results on
alkali–silica reaction (ASR) and alkali–carbonate reaction Table 2
Chemical and physical properties of GGBSa
(ACR) in alkali activated slag concrete.
Oxide Percent Physical properties
2. Research significance SiO2 35.84 Specific surface: 401 m2/kg
Al2O3 13 Specific gravity: 2.91
Fe2O3 0.55 Colour: white
Alkali-activated slag is not a widely known and used
CaO 39.53
construction material. Most of the research done has been MgO 8.28
at the material development stage dealing with paste and SO3 0.1
mortar specimens to study the material’s chemistry and N2O 0.35
microstructure and the strength and engineering properties. K2O 0.5
a
Information pertaining to the concrete durability of AAS Provided by the manufacturer.
 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067 2061

3.1.4. Sodium silicate (water-glass) 3.2.4. Carbonation

The alkali activator used was a sodium silicate (water-
glass). Two forms of the activator were used: The first
was sodium silicate solution with a molecular ratio SiO2:
Na2O (Ms) = 1.65 with 31.8% SiO2 and 20.2% Na2O by
weight. The second was sodium metasilicate solid granules
from with a molecular ratio SiO2:Na2O (Ms) = 1.00.
Medium graded sand and 20-mm uncrushed gravel com-
plying with BS 882:1992 were used in this investigation.
Potable tap water was used throughout the investigation.
3.1.5. Concrete mixes
The mixes were as follows:
CM2: PC control mix with w/c = 0.48;
SLG60: 60% GGBS + 40% OPC mixture with w/c =
0.48;
SS4: Sodium silicate alkali-activated slag mixture with
Na2O content of 4% with w/c = 0.48;
SS6: Sodium silicate alkali-activated slag mixture with
Na2O content of 6% with w/c = 0.48;
MET4: Sodium metasilicate alkali-activated slag mix-
ture with Na2O content of 4% with w/c = 0.48;
MET6: Sodium metasilicate alkali-activated slag mix-
ture with Na2O content of 6% with w/c = 0.48.
The details are shown in Table 3.
Measurement of the carbonation of concrete specimens
was carried out following. The procedure is prescribed by
RILEM (1988) using phenolphthalein in ethanol solution.
3.2.5. Alkali–silica reaction
A set of three prisms 75 · 75 · 280 mm for each mix were
prepared and tested according to BSI Draft DD218: (1995).
3.2.6. Aggregate reactivity testing
Reactive sand from Greywacke type rock source pro-
vided by BRE was used as fine aggregate in the concrete
mixes for this test.
Two mixes were designed initially to assess the reactivity
of the aggregates. They were intended to promote ASR
expansion therefore they had high binder content.
TEST 1: A control mix designed exactly according to the
standard using specified high alkali cement and
added alkalis to the required Na2O level of 1%
of the weight of cement by adding potassium sul-
phate. The Na2O equivalent of the cement origi-
nally was 0.68%. The purpose of this mix is to
cause ASR and accelerate the reaction.
TEST 2: Replacing 60% of the cement in TEST 1 by
GGBS and maintaining the alkali content of the
cement at 1%.

3.2. Testing procedure 3.2.7. ASR for AAS mixes

The mixes used have the same proportions as the mixes
3.2.1. Compressive strength used throughout the investigation for OPC, OPC/slag, and
100 · 100 · 100 mm3 cubes were prepared to determine AAS concrete, replacing the sand by the reactive aggregate
the compressive strength according to BS 1881:1983. and tested for ASR expansion.

3.2.2. Porosity 4. Experimental results and discussion

The porosity for the concrete specimens investigated was
determined using a vacuum saturation apparatus (RILEM
CPC-11.3, 1984) at 7, 14, 28, 90, 180 and 365 days.
3.2.3. Rapid chloride permeability
This test followed the ASSHTO T277 or ASTM C 1202.
Cylinders of 100 mm B · 50 mm long were used to deter-
mine the rapid chloride permeability. The rapid chloride
permeability test procedure was applied at 7, 14, 28, 90
and 180 days.
4.1. Compressive strength development
It can be seen in Fig. 1 that SS6 mix with a dosage of 6%
Na2O achieved higher gain in compressive strength in com-
parison with all the other mixes. The 28 day compressive
strength for SS6 was 79 MPa while it was 51 MPa for
CM2 mix and 57.5 MPa for SS4 mix having the dosage
of 4% Na2O. This clearly shows the effect of the Na2O dos-
age on the early compressive strength gain. In a similar

Table 3
Concrete mix proportions
Mix Slag OPC Activator Activator Lime Lime slurry Water Total water Total Fine Agg. Coarse Agg. w/b
no. (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (Na2O %) (kg/m3) (%) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) binder (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (%)
(kg/m3)
CM2 375 180 186 375 600 1215 0.48
SLG60 225 150 180 186 375 591 1215 0.48
SS4 326.39 0 4 64.63 4 30 133.97 180 375 591 1215 0.48
SS6 305.34 0 6 90.69 6 45 113.96 180 375 591 1215 0.48
MET4 333.15 4 47.93 4 30 144.38 180 375 591 1215 0.48
MET6 314.49 6 67.87 6 45 128.31 180 375 591 1215 0.48
2062 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067

120

100
Compressive Strength (MPa)

80

CM2
60 SS4
SS6
MET4
MET6
40

20

0
0 90 180 270 360
Age (days)

Fig. 1. Compressive strength development for the different mixes.

manner the MET6 mix had higher compressive strength worth noting that MET4 and SLG60 concrete strengths
gain (61 MPa at 28 days) in comparison to MET4 started lower than OPC CM2 but they caught up and
(48 MPa at 28 days) which is lower than the control mix exceeded the control mix strengths after 90 days. This is
CM2. The results in Fig. 6, representing early strength attributed to the continuing pozzolanic reaction in slag
development under dry curing, show a similar trend and concrete.
indicate that the AAS mixes having 6% Na2O gave higher
early strength gain than the mixes with 4% Na2O. 4.2. Porosity
The long-term strength development is clearly slower
after 28 days. SS6 and MET6 (Na2O = 6%)at later ages Fig. 2 shows the porosity of the concrete mixes at differ-
achieve the highest strength followed by SS4 and MET4 ent ages (7, 14, 28, 90, 180 and 365 days) under water cur-
(Na2O = 4%) and then come CM2 then SLG60 and. It is ing condition. CM2 has the lowest value of porosity for all

14

12

10

CM2
Porosity %

8 SLG60
SS4
SS6
6 MET4
MET6

0
7 14 28 90 182 365
Age (days)

Fig. 2. Porosity results.

 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067
ages. Replacing 60% of the cement by (GGBS) in mix
SLG60 resulted in an increase in the porosity of concrete
compared to the OPC concrete mix (CM2) with the same
w/c of 0.48. But when comparing the slag mix with the
OPC control mix having w/c of 0.55 the results show the
SLG60 having lower porosity. These results are in agree-
ment with results presented by Lynsdale and Sit [24] where
they indicated that 70% slag replacement of OPC resulted
in an increase in porosity in the early age up to 28 days.
The comparison was done on equal w/c ratio but when
the comparison was done on equal slump the slag concrete
eventually had lower porosity after 28 days.
On the other hand, looking at the results of the AAS
concrete mixes it can be noted that the increase in the
Na2O dosage of the activator from 4% to 6%, that was
expected to produce lower porosity, did not do so in the
case of the SS4 and SS6 mixes, where the activator has
an Ms = 1.65, but did so in the case of MET4 and MET6
mixes, with the activator having an Ms = 1.00. The poros-
ity of concrete is generally reduced with age as is clearly
shown in the results.
4.3. Chloride permeability
The results shown in Fig. 3 for the water cured mixes show
that CM2 gave higher results than SLG60 in all ages. The
RCPT values at 7 days are 2490 and 1650 C for CM2 and
SLG60 respectively, decreasing with age to reach 1811 and
690 C at 182 days. These values indicate low chloride ion
penetrability for CM2 and very low chloride ion penetrabil-
ity for SLG60 after 28 days according to the AASHTO test
classification.
6000
5000
Chloride Permeability Coloumbs
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
7 14
Age (days)
Fig. 3. Chloride permeability results.
2063
This clearly demonstrates that the incorporation of
GGBS as a replacement for OPC leads to a reduction in
RCPT values.
It can be noticed from the results that Na2O dosage of
the activator plays a role influencing RCPT values for
AAS concrete mixes. Comparing SS4 (with Na2O = 4%)
to SS6 (with Na2O = 6%) indicate that from 7 to 90 days
SS6 gave the higher result with the difference between the
values decreasing with age until SS6 gave the lower result
at 182 days. Similarly it can be noted that MET6 (with
Na2O = 6%) gave results higher than MET4 (with
Na2O = 4%) decreasing with age until it gave lower results
from 90 days onward.
The AAS concrete gave generally lower RCPT results in
comparison with the control mix CM2 except for the
MET6 mix at the first 28 days.
The increase in RCPT results with the higher Na2O dos-
age at the early ages is not an indication of the low quality
of the concrete, but it directs attention to a shortcoming in
the test itself. The test measures the current passed and not
the actual permeability of the concrete. Hence the presence
of high concentration of alkalis probably gives misleading
results. At later ages the alkalis are supposedly bound in
the hydration products and this leads to reduction in their
influence on the results in addition the effect of hydration
progress on the permeability.
It can be noted from the results of Fig. 3 also that with
AAS concrete having the same Na2O dosage, the silica
modulus Ms has an effect on the chloride permeability.
The higher the Ms the lower the RCPT values, thus the
SS4 gave lower values than the MET4 and the SS6 gave
lower values than the MET6 at all ages.
CM2 (WC)
SLG60 (WC)
SS4 (WC)
SS6 (WC)
MET4 (WC)
MET6 (WC)
28 90 182
2064 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067
16
14
12
Depth of Carbonation (mm)
10
0
CM2
4.4. Carbonation
Results of carbonation depth measurement after 1 year
of age are presented in Fig. 4. These results show that
CM2, which is the OPC mix with w/c = 0.48, having a car-
bonation depth of 4.5 mm. The OPC/slag mix SLG60 had
carbonation depth of 6 mm depth grater than CM2 which
has similar w/c ratio.
The AAS mixes differ in their depth of carbonation, as
the lowest depth of carbonation was achieved by SS6 with
a depth of only 4 mm of carbonation followed by MET6
with depth of 7.5 mm then SS4 which had a carbonation
depth of 9 mm and the highest carbonation depth which
was with MET4 having 12 mm.
Although hydrated slag blended and AAS concrete pro-
duce low Ca(OH)2 which is the main reactant for carbon-
ation in OPC concrete, some researchers have reported
higher rate of carbonation with AAS concrete especially
with low grade, low strength concretes. This might be
due to carbonation of C–S–H [20,25].
4.5. Alkali–silica reaction
The results of the alkali–silica reaction expansion test
carried out in this investigation on the prisms of the con-
crete mixes cast and treated in accordance with the relevant
standard detailed in previous sections are discussed in
detail to reach an understanding of the behaviour and
potential for ASR to occur in AAS concrete.
4.5.1. Reactivity of the aggregate
The Thames valley sand used in this investigation was
identified by Blackwell et al. [26] being of greywacke source
as having deleterious expansion attributed to AAR. This
finding is confirmed in this investigation. Results shown
in Fig. 5 show that the TEST 1 mix exhibited high expan-
SLG60 SS4 SS6 MET4 MET6
Mixes
Fig. 4. Depth of carbonation after 1 year.
sion up to 0.185% after 1 year of exposure. Greywacke
some times is the only available source for aggregate for
construction. That is the case with certain areas in the
UK. The potential reactivity of such aggregates can still
be avoided by several means, including controlling the
alkali or using cement replacing binders such as fly ash
or slag. The results in Fig. 5 show that the OPC/slag mix
having high binder content and 60% cement replacement
by GGBS (TEST 2) achieved a reduction in the expansion
reaching only 0.027% after 1 year, which is below the
0.04% limit. This result is in agreement with Hobbs [27]
who stated that incorporation of GGBS for 50% of OPC
in concrete results in a reduction in the expansion of con-
crete in the presence of reactive aggregate. Sims [28], Tho-
mas and Innis [29] stated that the addition of slag had a
beneficial effect in reducing expansion. Also reached similar
conclusions to the reduction in expansion in mortar bars
and concrete prisms made with alkali–silica reactive aggre-
gates. It can be noted from Fig. 6 that the OPC/slag mix
SLG60 reached a maximum value of expansion 0.02%,
which is lower also than the limit and lower than the TEST
2 mix probably because of the high cementitious content
and the alkali content of the latter. The role of slag in
reduction of expansion due to ASR in OPC and GGBS
blends containing at least 50% slag was attributed by the
BRE digest [30] to the greatly reduced ability of hydroxyl
ions to diffuse within the cement paste. Glasser [31] stated
that the products of hydration of blended cements have
higher binding power for alkalis resulting in less potential
for reaction with aggregate.
4.5.2. ASR potential in AAS concrete
The results in Fig. 6 show that AAS concrete had overall
a low expansion indicating less susceptibility to ASR.
Comparing the mixes based on the Na2O dosage shows
that the higher the Na2O content the higher the expansion,
 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067 2065

0.2

0.15
Expansion (%)

0.1 TEST1
TEST2

0.05

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

-0.05
Time (days)

Fig. 5. Aggregate reactivity test results.

0.03

0.025

0.02
CM2
Expansion (%)

SLG60
SS4
0.015 SS6
MET4
MET6

0.01

0.005

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Time (days)

Fig. 6. ASR expansion for the different mixes.

as SS6 shows higher expansion than SS4, and MET6 shows
higher expansion than MET4. On the other hand, compar-
ison based on the Ms of the activator indicates that the
higher the Ms, the lower the expansion, when the Na2O
is the same since, the SS4 expansion was lower than that
of MET4, and SS6 expansion was lower than that of
MET6. The control OPC mix CM2 also showed low values
for expansion reaching 0.0165% at 1 year. The available lit-
erature is contradictory. Some researchers pointed out
there is no susceptibility for ASR with AAS in agreement
with what was found in this investigation. Some of those
researchers stated that it is not possible for ASR to take
place in the activated slag mortar because all, or almost
all, the alkalis (more than 80%) are combined in the differ-
ent hydration products [5]. Gifford and Gillot [23] pro-
posed that AAS concrete is less susceptible to ASR
because of the pessimum effect, which results in the con-
sumption of the reactive silica during the early period of
2066 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067
hardening. On the other hand others reported potential for
ASR in AAS mortars and concrete. Metso [22] reported
expansion in AAS mortars. Wang [6] reported some work
done in China that found ASR expansion about 0.1–
0.15% using 3% granulated silica in AAS mortars. Bakha-
rev et al. [32] tested AAS concrete where slag was activated
by a mixture of Na2SiO3 and NaOH having an Ms = 0.75.
They reported high expansion starting from 0.04% at 90
days, increasing to 0.045% after 12 months, reaching
0.1% after 22 months. They recommended that ASR test-
ing with AAS concrete should continue for over 2 years
as they noticed slower expansion at early ages where it is
mitigated according to the researchers by rapid strength
development. This suggestion is probably reasonable as
the results of this investigation, shown in 6, show a trend
of probable increase in the future for the AAS mixes having
6% Na2O although the expansion is still below the 0.04%
limit after 1 year.
Glasser [31] as mentioned earlier stated that OPC/slag
blends among other blended cements have higher binding
power for alkalis in their hydration products, which can
also be true for AAS concrete resulting in less potential
for ASR. The results of this investigation can be explained
following the same logic. The effect of Ms of the activator
on the expansion as it decreases with higher Ms can be due
to the binding of the alkali fraction to the silicate fraction
of the activator in forming part of the hydration products.
SS4, having lower alkali and higher Ms showed the lowest
expansion.
5. Conclusions
1. The choice of the type of activator and dosage is very
important in AAS concrete with the higher dosage
resulting in higher strength and the higher silicate mod-
ulus of the activator resulting in higher strength.
2. Replacing 60% of OPC by GGBS results in an increase
in porosity compared to the OPC mix of the same w/c
ratio while it results in lower porosity when compared
to the OPC mix with the same workability level.
3. The increase of the Na2O dosage in AAS concrete,
where the activator has an Ms = 1.0, results in a
decrease in porosity. But in the case of the AAS con-
crete, with the activator having Ms = 1.65, the porosity
increases with the increase of the Na2O dosage.
4. Slag/OPC concrete undergoes higher carbonation than
OPC concrete with the same w/c ratio.
5. AAS concrete with low compressive strength around
40 MPa shows higher carbonation depth compared to
OPC concrete of the same grade.
6. Replacing 60% of the OPC by slag reduces the alkali–sil-
ica reaction expansion of concrete prisms containing
reactive aggregates.
7. AAS concrete has low susceptibility to ASR expansion
possibly because of binding of alkalis in the hydration
products.
References
[1] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. 4th ed. Longman; 1995.
[2] Euroslag. Granulated blast-furnace slag. Technical leaflet; 2003
[3] Higgins D, Parrott L, Sear L. Effects of ground granulated blastfur-
nace slag and pulverised fuel ash upon the environmental impacts of
concrete. Available at www.concemsus.info; 2002.
[4] Glukhovsky VD. High strength slag alkaline cements. In: Proceedings
of the 7th international congress on the chemistry of cement, Paris;
1980.
[5] Talling, B. Brandstetr J. Present state and future of alkali activated
slag concretes. In: Proceedings of the third international conference
on fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural Pozzolans in concrete,
Trondheim, SP114-72; 1989. p. 1519–46.
[6] Wang S-D. Review of recent research on alkali-activated concrete in
China. Mag Concrete Res 1991(154):29–35.
[7] Osborne GJ. The sulfate resistance of Portland and blast furnace slag
cement concretes. In: Proceeding of second international conference
on the durability of concrete, SP-126 Montreal, Canada; 1991. p.
1047–71.
[8] Page CL, Short NR, El Taras A. Diffusion of chloride ions in
hardened cement pastes. Cement Concrete Res 1981;11:395–406.
[9] Arya C, Xu Y. Effect of cement type on chloride binding and
corrosion of steel in concrete. Cement Concrete Res 1995;25(4):
893–902.
[10] Roy DM, Jiang W, Silsbee MR. Chloride diffusion in ordinary,
blended, and alkali-activated cement pastes and its relation to other
properties. Cement Concrete Res 2000;30:1879–84.
[11] Leng F, Feng N, Lu X. An experimental study on the properties of
resistance to diffusion of chloride ions of fly ash and blast furnace slag
concrete. Cement Concrete Res 2000;30:989–92.
[12] Pal SC, Mukherjee A, Pathak SR. Corrosion behaviour of reinforce-
ment in slag concrete. ACI Mater J 2002(November–December):
521–7.
[13] Deja J, Malotepszy J. Resistance of alkali-activated slag mortars to
chloride solutions. In: Proceedings of the third international confer-
ence on fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural Pozzolans in concrete,
Trondheim, 2, SP114-72; 1989. p. 1547–63.
[14] Pu XC, et al. Study on durability of alkali-slag concrete. In:
Proceedings of the international symposium on concrete engineering,
Nanjing; 1991; p. 1144–9.
[15] Wu C et al. Properties and application of alkali-slag cement. J
Chinese Ceram Soc 1993;21(2):176–81.
[16] Byfores K, Klingstedt G, Lehtonen V. Durability of concrete made
with alkali-activated slag. In: Proceedings of the third international
conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural Pozzolans in
concrete, Trondheim, 2, SP114-70; 1991. p. 1428–66.
[17] Douglas E, Bilodeau A, Brandstetr J, Malhotra VM. Properties and
durability of alkali-activated slag concrete. ACI Mater J 1992;89(5):
101–8.
[18] Shi C. ‘Strength, pore structure and permeability of alkali-activated
slag mortars. Cement Concrete Res 1996;26(12):1789–99.
[19] Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, Cheng YB. Resistance of alkali-activated
slag concrete to carbonation. Cement Concrete Res 2001;31:
1277–83.
[20] Wang S-D, Scrivener KL, Pratt PL. Factors affecting the strength of
alkali-activated slag. Cement Concrete Res 1994;24(6):1033–43.
[21] Krivenko PV. Alkaline cements. In: Proceedings of the 9th interna-
tional congress on the chemistry of cement, vol. 4. New Delhi; 1992.
p. 482–8.
[22] Metso J, Kajaus E. Activation of blast furnace slag by some inorganic
materials. In: 1st international conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag
and natural Pozzolans in concrete, vol. 2. Montbello, Canada; 1983.
p. 1059–73.
[23] Gifford PM, Gillot JE. alkali–silica reaction (ASR) and alkali-
carbonate reaction (ACR) in activated blastfurnace slag cement
(ABFSC) concrete. Cement Concrete Res 1996;26(1):21–6.
 S. Al-Otaibi / Construction and Building Materials 22 (2008) 2059–2067
[24] Lynsdale CJ, Sit WL. The Influence of curing on the early age
properties of concrete incorporating PFA and slag. In: An interna-
tional workshop on blended cements, Singapore; 1992. p. 37–42.
[25] Wang S-D, Pu X, Scrivener KL, Pratt PL. alkali-activated slag
cement and concrete: a review of properties and problems. Adv Cem
Res 1995;27:93–102.
[26] Blackwell BQ, Thomas MDA, Nixon PJ, Pettifer K. The use of fly ash
to suppress deleterious expansion due to AAR in concrete containing
greywacke aggregate. In: The ninth international conference on
alkali-aggregate reaction in concrete, London; 1992.
[27] Hobbs DW. Influence of pulverized-fuel ash and granulated blast-
furnace slag upon expansion caused by the alkali–silica reaction. Mag
Concrete Res 1982;34(11):83–94.
2067
[28] Sims I. The influence of ground granulated blast furnace slag on the
alkali reactivity of flint aggregate concrete in the United Kingdom. In:
Proceedings of the 6th international conference on alkalis in concrete.
Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark; 1983. p. 69–84.
[29] Thomas MDA, Innis FA. Effect of slag on expansion due to
alkali-aggregate reaction in concrete. ACI Mater J 1995(Novem-
ber–December):716–24.
[30] BRE digest. ASR in concrete, 1988.
[31] Glasser FP. Chemistry of alkali aggregate reaction. In: Swamy RN,
editor. The alkali–silica reaction in concrete. Blackie; 1990. p. 30–52.
[32] Bakharev T, Sanjayan JG, Cheng Y-B. Resistance of alkali-activated
slag concrete to alkali-aggregate reaction cement concrete. Cement
Concrete Res 2001;31(4):1367–74.