Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Water

    Uploaded by

    Cristian Camilo Quitian Morales
    7 views6 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views6 pages

    Water

    Uploaded by

    Cristian Camilo Quitian Morales

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 6
    In My Judgment by Adam Neville WAT ER — Cinderella Ingredient of Concrete fo say that water is a necessary accompaniment of I ‘cement is to state the obvious: you cannot make cconerete or mortar without water; you cannot even make neat cement paste. And yet, ofall the ingredients of concrete, water seems to have been treated like Cinderella: ithas been the subject ofthe least amount of study, and hardly any of the studies are recent ‘Not only is there'a dearth of research data on the properties of water for making concrete, there is also an absence of standards or even serious guides on the properties of mixing water. This situation is the background to this article, the purpose of which is to collate our knowledge of the influence of properties mixing water must have or must not have. There exists no British standard either. The nearest approach is an ‘appendix to a British standard. Let me explain this rather feeble and timid effort. ‘There exists a document published by the British Standards Tnstitution under the number BS 3148: 1980, titled “Meth- ods of test for Water for making concrete (including notes ‘on the suitability of the water).”! The wording as well as the use of capital letters are as in the original document, which is 20 years old, So nothing much has happened during the period: when the use of admixtures, especially high-range ———_water-reducing admixtures (or superplasticizers), has burgeoned; mixing water on the propertiesof here is no ACT document when high-performance conerete concrete and, even mote impor- tantly, to stimulate work in this Strictly speaking, there are four uses of water that are of interest ‘water put into the mixture; water used in curing; water used to wash ‘out mixers, agitators, and other ‘equipment; and water used to wash aggregate. Although the ‘various uses present some requirements in common, they ‘are not identical. For the sake of clarity, I should add that ‘mixing water includes crushed ice and ice shavings, and also the surface water on aggregate. ‘This article deals with water used in the mixture and for curing. A future article will look at the whole spectrum of relationships between water and concrete at various stages in the life of concrete and under many circumstances. ‘Standards for mixing water ‘A search for standards for mixing water has proved all but fruitless. There is no ACI document telling us what no British standard either.” been duit. fas well as the use of silica fume telling us what properties jas become firmly established: mixing water must have or must not have. There exists “he >! when ready-mixed concrete has become a dominant material; and er, taller, and more merete structures have complex The “notes” heralded in the ttle of the British document are contained in Appendix A (indeed, the only appendix).' A “note” has, to my mind, a distinctly noncommittal ing about it. Even though the Brit- ish Standard puts the words “Guidance on the suitability of the water, based on the initial setting time test, is given in ‘A.S"in parentheses, the wording lacks authority. “Guidance” is less definite than “guide,” with the latter probably indicating good practice. Although there are various ASTM standards for cements ‘and cementitious materials, for aggregate, and for admin- tures, there is no standard for mixing water for concrete in general. What exists is a section on water in ASTM C 94-98, “Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete.” This, ecm eed ns poi of ew acl ent eet har ofthe Amarin Coe nte Reader commen ied, section i brief and rather qualitative, being couched in terms like “The mixing water shall be clear and apparently clean” and expressions like “smell or taste unusual or objection- able.” I shall consider these criteria in a general way in the next section, The only quantitative requirements in ASTM C 94-98 refer to compressive strength and setting time; again, these are subjects ofa full discussion later inthis article, T am aware of only one English-language standard — Canadian Standard A23.1, whose latest version was published in 2000 (in French as well as in English). This standard contains a section on mixing water, ut itis couched in very general terms about the presence of harmful material; for more specific information, reference is made to U.S. publications in the 1960s and 1970s As for standards and codes in languages other than English, they are not easy to find. All I have managed to establish is that neither the German nor the Swiss codes contains detailed requirements for the quality of mixing water. In any case, unless they have been translated into English and publicized, they are unlikely to be used in English-speaking countries or in international construction, There exists a German memorandum on mixing water? This is not a standard of the DIN (Deutsche Norm) type. ‘This memorandum contains limit values on various ions and ‘other substances in the water, The memorandum also refers to the test forthe soundness of cement using the untied water; the need for this is not obvious. ‘What is unusual is that the German memorandum, as well as the German guide for the use of wash water,’ gives detailed information on the possible presence in water of hhumins, which is that part of naturally occurring organic ‘matter that is not alkali-soluble, The reason for avoiding an excessive amount of humins is that they interfere with the hydration of cement. As the term humin is not common, it ‘may be helpful to quote its definition in Webster's Dictionary: “a bitte, brownish yellow, amorphous substance, extracted from vegetable mold, and also produced by the action of acids on certain sugars and carbohydrates.” ‘The quantity of humins in water is acceptable ifthe color is Tighter than yellowish brown and there is no smell of ammonia. (Ammonia would be the product of putrefaction of nitrogenous animal or vegetable matter) Almost as a curiosity, we ean note that there exists a French, standard (Norme) NF P 18-303, unaltered since 1941. It is limited to consideration of the quantity of solids and the quantity of dissolved salts without differentiation in their nature In anticipatory mode, We should look at a European prestandard for mixing water that is in preparation. This is TEN 1008, which is making its way through the European system. If all goes well, the prestandard will appear in the year 2001; assuming that this happens, it will take a few ‘more years before a formal standard comes into being. I, for one, am not holding my breath ‘The European standard will deal with a whole range-of waters, including acid waters, reused water, and seawater* It is envisaged that the prestandard will contain, among others things, a requirement for strength tests on Standard mortar cubes, and chemical and physical tests, Preliminary testing islikely to be by smell (which should disappear upon “Spending money on water of the right quality is sometimes frowned upon as extravagance.” treatment by hydrochloric acid), color, foam stability, solids in suspension, and organic matter (whose color should disappear by treatment with caustic sods). Its interesting that chemical tests are likely to include a limit on sodium and potassium, taken together, of 1000 parts Per million (ppm) in cases where there is a risk of an alkali-aggregate reaction, It is worth remembering that so- ddium and potassium salts are highly soluble. ‘The limits on the time of setting of mortar made with an unknown water are expressed not only in terms of a percentage variation from a sample made with good water, ‘but contain also an absolute minimum value of the time of initial setting and an absolute maximum value of the time of final setting. ASTM advice on mixing water Although I seem to deplore the absence of standards with which mixing water must comply, I realize that we do not live by standards and codes alone. Good, reliable, and up-to-date scientific information would also enable us to make correct and prudent decisions about the quality of an untried mixing water. Before reviewing the relevant publications, I would like to comment on what is probably the most easily accessible handbook-style information: a chapter in ASTM STP 169C, published in 1994.5 This is the fourth version of ASTM STP 169, the first one having been published in 1956, In that year, the chapter on mixing water was written by Walter J. McCoy, who updated the information for the 1956 edition. We are told that he made ‘only minor changes for the 1978 edition. Now, the chapter in the 1994 edition of ASTM STP 169C ‘was written by James S. Pierce,’ who says about it: “This current version is essentially Mr. McCoy's (now retired) chapter with minimal updating. There has been very litle new technology published regarding mixing and curing ‘water for concrete.” In this, probably the most recent, major paper on mixing water, Pierce’ says that “most references appear to be-outdated”; indeed, they are all more than a quarter of a century old. Thasten t0 say that just because a publication is old, does not mean that its content isnot valid, But what MeCoy ‘wrote in 1956, as well as the very extensive test results of Duff Abrams published by ACI in 1924,* was based on cements and mixtures of the day. Those cements were substantially different from modern portland cements in their chemical composition, fineness, and seting characteristics. Moreover, nowadays there exists a whole range of different cementitious materials. The mixture proportions, especially the water content and the values of the water-cement ratio. (w/e), have changed, too. Furthermore, the parts of the world in which large-scale concrete construction takes place have extended enormously: in the various climates, and various 7 topographic areas, water is not the same as what comes out of a tap in Farmington Hillst Received wisdom on mixing water Despite all his, the received wisdom with respect 10 mixing water remains as it was. and yet water is not just a condiment added to the dish: in every cubic meter of ~ concrete, there are 130 to 200 L of water, Spending money oon water ofthe right quality s sometimes frowned upon as extravagance. | have experience 4 of construction in a remote part ‘whether water has to be imported. This information in a reliable form is needed at the tender stage as the cost differential to the contractor can be significant. My remarks are by no means 2 criticism of the PCA. It is simply that neither that organization, nor the rest of us, knows ‘any'beiter. So let me review what we do know of, more ‘correctly, the views that have been published. I am using the ‘word “views” advisedly because the relevant papers or parts of books rarely give test results demonstrating the limits of __ properties of water that have proved satisfactory or actual Stieuorld wheret was neces. “We definitely need to have an experience with waters em- sary t9 import cement, reinforce ‘ment, and some of the aggregate, but when it came to water. economy prevailed, the attitude being that “any water will do.” It did not “do,” and the conse {quences were very costly. I shall discuss this in some more detail imported. ina future article dealing speciti- cally with seawater in the mixture. Here, 1 would like to emphasize that water is a proper ingredient of concrete, and it should be factored into costs. ‘This is distilled (no pun intended) in aPCA publication by ‘Kosmatka and Panarese,’ in the opening words of Chapter 4: “Almost any natural water that is drinkable and has no pronounced taste or odor ean be used as mixing water for making concrete, However, some waters that are not fit for drinking may be suitable for concrete.” These statements may be true, but they are a rough-and-ready approach, “The opening word “almost” is wisely inserted. For example, ‘mineral waters from springs, good for our health, can be harmful in concrete. Specifically, some natural mineral waters may contain alkali carbonates or bicarbonates that could be conducive to alkali-ageregate reaction. "As faras piped water is concerned, on one of the Galapagos Islands, | found the local drinking water to be distinctly brackish and quite undrinkable (had to make do with beer even though the local people, who had no choice. routinely drank the available water, Ihave also heard about a ease in the desert in Africa, where the specification laid down “drinking water.” which, although drunk locally, tuned out to be bordering on saline and unsuited for concrete-making. Likewise, water containing quite small quantities of sugar ‘may be potable, but sugar would upset the time of setting. ‘At the other extreme, waters not fit for drinking because they are foul-smelling or have a disgusting taste may, in some ceases, be perfectly satisfactory as mixing water. In other cases, if used to make concrete, they may create serious problems. So there is no quiek fix by determining the color or odor of ‘an untried water, or even by establishing the presence of impurities: reliance on comparative tests is necessary. Whereas strength and the time of setting can be readily compared, longer-term effects are not easily established. In any case, a purely comparative case-by-case approach is, rather primitive and aot necessarily reliable. In pi impure” waters may vary from time to time. ‘We definitely need to have an objective way of determining whether the available water is suitable as mixing water or objective way of determining whether the available water is esstsfectoy onstrating that exceeding some limits has proved to be Paradoxically, water that suitable as mixing water OF stacks hardened conerete whether water has to be ‘may, in some cases, be satis- factory as mixing water, For ‘example, pore water, if flow- ing over a surface of conerete, would leach ealeium hydroxide, but is good as mixing water Criteria for acceptance of mixing water ‘These criteria are of two kinds: performance requirements, ‘and physical and chemical requirements, The performance requirements, whjch afe purely comparative in nature, are the time of setting and compressive strength. The physical and chemical requirements refer to dissolved salts and solids in suspension, Time of setting An untried water can affect the time of setting through salts dissolved in it or through other impurities. ASTM C 94-98c and we should recall that it applies to ready-mixed conerete ‘onily) requires the time of setting of cement made with the untried water {0 be not more than 60 rnin earlier and not ‘more than 90 min later than when the test is performed on the same cement using distilled water or tap water. Appendix A to BS 3148:1980 (and we should remember that this is only 4 note) has more stringent limits: 30 min earlier or 30 min later. “The German guide® has different limits. With untried wa- ter, the time of setting should not be less than 1 h or more than 12h, and should not differ from the time of setting of cement mixed with “good water” by more than 25% of that value. It is interesting to note that when the times of setting vary more than is acceptable, the German memorandum on ‘mixing water recommends that the causes of this behavior be established? Such an approach is more rational than a rejection of suspect water out of hand, Compressive strength ASTM C 94-98¢ requires the 7-day compressive strength of, standard mortar cubes made with the untried water to be not Jess than 90% of cubes made with distilled water or tap ‘water. The German guide® contains the same requirement ‘The British note also gives 90%, but the testis performed on concrete cubes at the age of 28 days." The note also states that water that results in a strength reduction up to 20% can be acceptable, but the mixture proportions should be adjusted as appropriate. Given that we are not dealing with manda- tory documents, this makes good sense, Chemical tests These tests are concerned with elements and ions present in an untried water. There is no difficulty in determining the quantities of these by standard chemical methods. It is, however, not obvious how much can be tolerated. One approach is to compare the results for an untried water with values for waters supplied in American cities. Unfortunately, the values readily available to concrete specialists (as, distinct from city water engineers) date back to 1944.7 Moreover, in some cases, the range is enormous. AS an ‘example, some actual extreme values of ions in city waters, in towns with a population of more than 20,000 are given in Table 1, extracted from Reference 7. Its, therefore, very

    You might also like