Inventory Example

Licensed copy from CIS: bbeatty, Balfour Beatty Construction, 27/03/2012, Uncontrolled Copy.
A single copy of this document is licensed to
bbeatty
On
27/03/2012
This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

most current version of the document by searching
the Construction Information Service.
2003
Special Digest 1
Concrete in aggressive ground

Part 1: Assessing the aggressive chemical environment
BRE Centre for Concrete Construction

BRE Centre for Ground Engineering and Remediation
constructing the future

ii
Prices for all available
BRE publications can be
obtained from:
BRE Bookshop
151 Rosebery Avenue
London, EC1R 4GB
Tel: 020 7505 6622
Fax: 020 7505 6606
email:
brebookshop@emap.com
SD1 Part 1
ISBN 1 86081 502 2
© Copyright BRE 2001

First published 2001
Second edition 2003
The four parts of this Special Digest deal with

Published by
the specification of new concrete that will be
BRE Bookshop
used in the UK in contact with aggressive
by permission of
Building Research
ground.
Establishment Ltd
The Special Digest applies both to buildings and
Requests to copy any
civil engineering construction. It does not cover
part of this publication
should be made to:
the diagnosis, remedy or structural implications
BRE Bookshop of chemical attack, nor does it cover safety and
Building Research health aspects of aggressive ground.
Establishment
Watford WD25 9XX It replaces Digest 363, which is withdrawn.
BRE is committed to Acknowledgements

providing impartial and The preparation of this Special Digest was
authoritative information funded by a Government sponsored
on all aspects of the built construction research programme. The work
environment for clients,
was undertaken in close collaboration with a
designers, contractors,
steering committee comprising members of the
engineers, manufacturers,
occupants, etc. We make
BS 5328 Thaumasite Amendment Panel.
every effort to ensure the Contributions made by numerous consultees
accuracy and quality of and, in particular, Members of the Thaumasite
information and guidance Expert Group, are acknowledged.
when it is first published.
However, we can take no BRE Contact details
responsibility for the
For technical enquiries or comment on the use
subsequent use of this
of this Special Digest please email:
information, nor for any
errors or omissions it
construction@bre.co.uk
may contain.
BRE material is also published quarterly on CD BRE Bookshop
Each CD contains BRE material published in the current BRE Bookshop supplies a wide range of building and
year, including reports, specialist reports, and the construction related information products from BRE and
Professional Development publications: Digests, other highly respected organisations.
Good Building Guides, Good Repair Guides and
Information Papers. Contact:
post: BRE Bookshop
The CD collection gives you the opportunity to build a 151 Rosebery Avenue
comprehensive library of BRE material at a fraction of London EC1R 4GB
the cost of printed copies.
fax: 020 7505 6606
As a subscriber you also benefit from a substantial phone: 020 7505 6622
discount on other BRE titles. email: brebookshop@emap.com
website: www.brebookshop.com
For more information contact:
BRE Bookshop on 020 7505 6622
iii
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Constituents of aggressive ground and groundwater 4
2.1 Sulfates and sulfides 4
2.2 Acids 5
2.3 Magnesium ions 6
2.4 Ammonium ions 6
2.5 Aggressive carbon dioxide 6
2.6 Chloride ions 6
2.7 Phenols 6
3. Principle types of chemical attack on concrete 7
3.1 Sulfate attack 7
3.1.1 Sulfate attack leading to the formation of ettringite and gypsum 7
3.1.2 Thaumasite form of sulfate attack (TSA) 7
3.2 Acid attack 8
4. Presence and mobility of groundwater 8
4.1 Static groundwater 8
4.2 Mobile groundwater 8
4.3 Highly Mobile groundwater 9
5. Site investigation for aggressive ground conditions 9
5.1 Introduction 9
5.2 Desk study 10
5.3 Site inspection (walk-over survey) 10
5.4 Visual description of the ground 10
5.5 Sampling and testing soils 11
5.6 Sampling and testing groundwater 11
6. Classification of sites for chemical aggressive to concrete 12
6.1 Groundwater and soils analyses 12
6.1.1 All sites (except those subject to brownfield development or containing pyrite) 12
6.1.2 Brownfield sites 14
6.1.3 Pyritic ground 16
6.2 Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) Classification 17
7. British and European standards 21
Appendix 1 Recommended test procedures for ground aggressive to concrete 22
Appendix 2 Damage to concrete from crystallisation of salts 22
Appendix 3 Guidance on comprehensive site investigation of sulfate ground 22
References 24
iv Concrete in aggressive ground
Parts 1 to 4 of this Special Digest

Part 1 identifies chemicals in the ground that are potentially harmful to
concrete and gives procedures that lead to assessment of the Aggressive
Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) Class of the ground.
Part 2 provides recommendations for the types of cement and aggregate and
the type and quality of concrete suitable for use below ground level in the
aggressive chemical environments identified and classified in Part 1. Concrete

quality is specified in terms of a Design Chemical Class (DC Class)
corresponding to each combination of ACEC Class and use of concrete below
ground. Each DC Class (Table 6) follows the previous practice of defining
concrete quality in terms of minimum cement content and maximum
water/cement ratio for each cement group. However, it also allows for any
carbonate content of the aggregates used in the concrete by additionally
specifying concrete in terms of Aggregate Carbonate Range. This latter
measure has been introduced to combat the thaumasite form of sulfate attack
(TSA), following the recommendations of the Thaumasite Expert Group.
A procedure, which broadly follows that of previous Digests, is given in
Table 7 for deriving concrete specification in terms of DC Class. The
procedure either allows a relaxation or recommends an increase in the
concrete quality according to the thickness of the concrete element and the
conditions of exposure (eg exposure to hydrostatic groundwater pressure).
In some circumstances, Additional Protective Measures (APM) are
recommended to further protect the concrete. The various APM options are
listed in Table 8. The number of APM recommended depends on the
Structural Performance Level required of the concrete element, as defined
in Table 5.
Part 3 gives sets of Design Guides 1x to 3x for the common applications of

below-ground concrete, including foundations, retaining walls and floor slabs
for domestic properties. These Design Guides inherently allow for the
variation in type of concrete construction (eg concrete section thickness) or
exposure conditions (eg hydrostatic pressure and carbonation). These
parameters are taken into account by adjustment of the relationship between
the ACEC Class for the ground and the DC Class for the concrete and, in
some cases, by recommending specific Additional Protective Measures. They
also carry specific design notes based on expert experience. It is therefore
recommended that Design Guides 1x to 3x be used and be referenced in
contract documents, wherever they are applicable.
Part 4 gives sets of Design Guides 4x to 7x for the specific precast concrete
products used for pipeline systems, segmental linings for tunnels and shafts,
box culverts and concrete masonry blocks. These Design Guides allow for the
exposure conditions likely to be encountered by these products. They also
take into account distinctive concrete specifications arising from particular
methods of manufacture.
The Tables are numbered consecutively irrespective

of the Part in which they appear
Part 1: Assessing the aggressive chemical environment 1
1. Introduction Differing site assessment procedures are given here for

natural ground, for brownfield sites that contain industrial
In the UK, sulfates in soil and groundwater are the wastes, and pyritic ground. The procedure for the latter is
chemical agents most likely to attack concrete. The specifically included due to recent occurrences in
effects can be serious (see Figure 1-1) resulting in highway sub-structures of the thaumasite form of sulfate
expansion and softening of the concrete to a mush. attack (TSA), see Figure 1-1. A study of these cases [1]
Another common cause of concrete deterioration is found the principal cause of the TSA to be exposure of
groundwater acidity and this is sometimes linked with susceptible concrete to high concentrations of sulfate
the presence of sulfates. which had resulted from oxidation of pyrite-bearing

In this Special Digest, the extent to which sulfates and Lower Lias Clay used in construction.
acidity affect concrete is linked to their concentrations, The study of the sulfate-attacked highway structures
the type of ground, the presence of groundwater, the type also indicated the need to modify existing Digest
of concrete, and the form of construction in which recommendations on the constituents and qualities of
concrete is used. The reaction of sulfates in the presence concrete required to resist chemical attack, and
of other ions, notably carbonate and magnesium, is also specifically, to resist TSA. A particular requirement
taken into account. Recommendations are given for the identified was the need to take account of the
composition of concretes suitable to resist attack in a contribution from carbonate in the aggregate to TSA
range of ground conditions, including ground containing occurrence. The new guidance for concrete specification,
industrial wastes. given in Parts 2 to 4, has been based on the Report [1] of
Natural ground, fills (made ground) and groundwaters the Thaumasite Expert Group, which was convened in
containing chemicals that are aggressive to concrete are 1998 by the Minister for Construction to review the
classified in this Part of the Digest. Parts 2, 3 and 4 give implications of TSA. The new guidance includes the use
recommendations for the types of cement, the of Additional Protective Measures for some uses of
combinations of aggregate, and the quality of concrete concrete, in particular for sites where ground conditions
required to provide resistance to attack from these are highly aggressive and the intended structures are
chemicals, for the main types of construction employing required to meet high durability and safety standards.
concrete in contact with the ground.
An overview of the various stages in the ground
assessment and decisions affecting concrete is set out in
Figure 1-2. The detailed steps involved in ground
assessment are shown in Figure 1-3. The terminology
used in the various boxes of these figures is explained
later. A glossary of terms is in Part 2, Appendix 5.
Earlier BRE Digests have used a primary classification
of ground into five sulfate classes. They also gave
incremental rules for modification of these primary
classes to account for other factors that affect the severity
of chemical attack, including:
● groundwater acidity and mobility
● concrete geometry, curing conditions and type of use.
Sometimes, however, these recommended modifications

have been overlooked or incorrectly applied by designers
and specifiers.
A new approach to classification of aggressive ground
conditions has therefore been adopted here: the
aggressive chemical environment for concrete (ACEC).
This takes direct account of the type of site, sulfate
concentration, and groundwater acidity and mobility.
Factors which are specific to the concrete construction,
such as type of element, section thickness, curing
conditions, exposure conditions and the required
structural performance level, are taken account of
separately in Parts 2 to 4 when specifying concrete quality Figure 1-1 Extreme example of sulfate attack in a 30-year-old
to meet the assessed ground conditions. highway bridge sub-structure exposed to wet, pyritic clay fill
2 Concrete in aggressive ground
Stage 1 Part 1 Consider design options for building or structure and

of Special Digest prepare specification for site investigation.
Inform geotechnical specialist of design concept and
Designer of building / structure site investigation requirements.
Stage 2 Carry out site investigation to determine chemical

conditions for concrete, including water mobility.
Geotechnical specialist See Part 1: Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6.1
Determine DS Class and ACEC Classes

for site locations using Table 2 of Part 1.
See Part 1: Section 6.2
Part 2 Determine the Structural Performance Level of

of Special Digest proposed building or structures guided by Table 5.
See Part 2: Section 3
Parts 3 and 4
of Special Digest
Stage 3
Find specification of concrete using Design
Find specification of concrete using
Designer of building / structure basic procedure in Part 2:
guides for common applications of concrete
and specific precast concrete products:
Determine the DC Class and number of APM
Determine the DC Class and APM for the
from Table 7; Adjust DC Class for surface
concrete using Design guides 1x to 3x in Part 3
carbonation and hydrostatic pressure;
and Design guides 4x to 6x in Part 4,
Determine options for APM from Table 8
and Table 8 or 8a
State in Contract Documents the DS Class & ACEC class of the ground and the method of deriving the
concrete specification, eg use of Tables 5 to 8 in Part 2, or Design guide xx in Part 3.
State requirements and options for concrete / basic number of APM, specified DC Class of concrete
after any enhancement, any restrictions on Aggregate Carbonate Range, specified number and
type of APM, grade of concrete, any other requirements.
Stage 4 Obtain from Contract Documents the specified DC Class any restrictions on
Aggregate Carbonate Range, number and type of APM, and any other design
Contractor for building / structure requirements for each concrete element
Formulate concrete mix design for structural element, taking account of

specified DC Class, grade of concrete, availability and cost of materials and
contract requirements
*Concrete producer *Obtain Carbonate Range of aggregate combination, using CaC03 equivalent
data from aggregate suppliers, as Part 2: Appendix 3
Is aggregate
combination permitted in this No
DC Class and by Contract
Documents ?
Yes
Check requirements for binder content and water / cement ratio for
specified DC Class and chosen Cement Group using
Table 6 of Part 2 or Table 6a of Part 4
No Are all requirements of Design guide

and Contract Documents met ?
Figure 1-2 Procedure for design of buried concrete for use Yes
in an aggressive chemical environment
Accept concrete mix design for specific use.
Implement any APM specified for DC Class or in
Contract Documents
Steps of procedure Refer to Special Digest
1. Carry out Desk Study and Walk Over of site to identify Part 1, Sections 5.2 and 5.3
type of site, eg brownfield and any ground conditions
which may be aggressive to concrete
2. Carry out Ground Investigation to determine: Part 1, Sections 5.5 and 5.6
a) Groundwater mobility (Static, Mobile, Highly Mobile) Part 1, Section 4
b) Concentrations of aggressive chemicals in soil and
groundwater, including:
- sulfates
- sulfides (especially in pyritic ground Part 1, Section 6.1
- water soluble magnesium
- acids (indicators pH, chloride and nitrate ions)
3. Determine Design Sulfate Class for site Part 1, Section 6.1.1 Step 3 and
Part 1, Section 6.1.3 Stage (3)
4. Determine Aggressive Chemical Environment for Part 1, Section 6.1 and Table 2
Concrete (ACEC) Class for the location from Table 2,
taking into account:
- Design Sulfate Class,
- type of site (Natural or Brownfield)
- water mobility
- pH
5. Proceed to concrete specification in Parts 2 to 4 Continue as Stage 3 of Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3 Procedure for assessing ground environments that are aggressive to concrete
2. Constituents of aggressive ground and The sulfate-bearing strata of greatest national

significance are shown in Figure 1-4a. However, it is
groundwater important to note that:
This Section describes the chemical agents commonly ● In most geological deposits (the Mercia Mudstone
encountered in natural and brownfield sites that are being a notable exception) only the weathered zone
aggressive to concrete. It does not discuss other types of (generally the upper 2 m to 10 m) is likely to have a
chemical activity or ground contamination. significant quantity of sulfates present. In most affected
strata, the sulfate-bearing zone can therefore be
2.1 Sulfates and sulfides distinguished by brown colouration characteristic of

Sulfates commonly occur both in the solid part of the weathered clay, compared to the dark-grey colour of
ground (soil, rock or fill) and in groundwater. Sulfates can unweathered clay, shale or mudstone that may contain
also be derived by oxidation of sulfides, such as pyrite sulfide minerals.
(FeS2), by natural processes such as weathering, ● Within the weathered zone, sulfate concentrations
sometimes aided by construction activities. It is, may vary substantially laterally and vertically. It is usual
therefore, necessary to consider the distribution of for the top metre or so of undisturbed ground to be
sulfides, as well as sulfates in ground, which may be affect very low in sulfates owing to leaching by rainfall. Also
buried concrete. It should be noted, however, that common are high concentrations of sulfates which
sulfides usually provide no hazard to concrete in the have accumulated at the base of the tree root zone, at
absence of oxygen and mobile water. depths of 2 to 3 m, and near the bottom of the
An overview of the role and occurrence of sulfates and weathered zone, at typical depths of 3 to10 m.
sulfides is given here. A more detailed discussion is given
in Chapter 3 of the Thaumasite Expert Group Report [1]. In all of the geological strata listed above, except Mercia
In UK ground conditions, sulfates most commonly Mudstone, unweathered material at some metres depth
occur in the form of hydrated calcium sulfate (gypsum). may contain sulfides, particularly pyrite. In their natural
Significant amounts of magnesium sulfate (epsomite) and environment, it may take thousands of years for such
sodium sulfate (Glauber’s salt) may also be present. sulfides to be converted to sulfates by weathering. But
Calcium sulfate has limited solubility, producing a sulfides can be converted rapidly to sulfuric acid and
maximum concentration of SO4 in water at normal sulfates if exposed to air and water by construction
temperatures of about 1.4 g/l. Magnesium sulfate and activities or by the presence of mobile groundwater.
sodium sulfate are much more soluble so, if present in the Fill materials found on sites, or brought in during
ground in sufficient quantities, will dissolve to produce construction, may also contain substantial quantities of
sulfate concentrations many times greater. More rarely, sulfates and occasionally sulfides. The characteristic red
sulfate may also be present in relatively insoluble forms, shale generated from the self-combustion of colliery spoil
as in the mineral barite (barium sulfate). Such minerals do (see Figure 1-4b) often contains variable amounts of
not usually present a hazard to concrete. sulfates which originated from pyrite present in some
The likelihood of sulfates being present in natural Coal Measures strata. Other fill materials which may
ground depends on the geological strata, the weathering contain sulfates include accumulations of old blastfurnace
history of those strata and the groundwater flow patterns. slag, oil shale residues in the Lothians and clinker from
The geological strata most likely to have substantial the old-style chain grate power stations or from refuse
sulfate concentrations are ancient sedimentary clays, incineration. Furnace bottom ash (fba) and pulverized-
including Mercia Mudstone (Keuper Marl), Lower Lias fuel ash (pfa) from the current power generation process
Clay, Kimmeridge Clay, Oxford Clay, Wealden Clays, contain only small amounts of calcium sulfate. Some
Gault Clay and London Clay. In addition to the above,
sulfates may be found in locally significant concentrations How sulfides are converted to sulfates in disturbed ground
in a wide range of other natural strata ranging from The process of oxidation of sulfides to sulfates in initially
Carboniferous mudstones to Recent alluvium and peat. unweathered geological material is complex and may involve
bacterial action but can be simply expressed as follows.
In the presence of oxygen in air or groundwater, pyrite (FeS2)
Sulfur mineral species found in UK ground
may be oxidised to form red-brown ferric oxide (Fe2O3) or yellow-
Anhydrite CaSO4 Found in evaporite rocks
brown hydrated ferric oxide Fe(OH)3 together with sulfuric acid
Barytes BaSO4 Common vein mineral in rocks
(H2SO4). The latter is the initial source of sulfate ions and acidity.
Celestine SrSO4 Rare find, eg Mercia Mudstone
If calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is present, the H2SO4 will further
Epsomite MgSO4.7H2O Found in evaporite rocks
react with it to produce calcium sulfate which crystallises as
Gypsum CaSO4.2H2O Common in soils and rocks
gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O).
Jarosite KFe3(OH)6(SO4)2 Weathering product of pyrite
In the presence of calcium, up to 1.4 g/l of sulfate ions (SO4) may
Marcasite FeS2 Nodules in chalk and limestone
remain in solution in groundwater. If there is insufficient calcium
Mirabilite NaSO4.10H2O Found in evaporite rocks
carbonate to neutralise the sulfuric acid, the groundwater may
(Glauber’s salt)
become acidic. The latter condition is rare in the most commonly
Pyrite FeS2 Common in soils and rocks
encountered pyritic clays as these generally contain abundant
Pyrrhotite FeS Rare find in soils and rocks
calcium carbonate. It can, however occur in certain strata, such as
Organic sulfur Common in peat
some Carboniferous mudstones.
Weald Clay
London Clay
Kimmeridge Clay
Oxford Clay
Lower Lias Clay
Mercia Mudstone
(Keuper Marl)
Limit of main areas

of glacial deposits
Figure 1-4a Principal sulfate and/or

sulfide bearing strata in England and Wales
North of the indicated limit, much of these
strata are covered with glacial deposits
that are generally low in sulfate
sulfates in brick rubble may arise from the bricks but more
significant quantities may be present if it has adhering
plaster (containing gypsum), or if the bricks came from
the demolition of old chimneys.
Coal mining areas
The types of chemical sulfate attack on buried concrete
are described in Section 3.1. Site investigation and
laboratory testing procedures required to detect and
measure the concentration of sulfates are given in
Section 5. Classification in terms of aggressiveness to
concrete is dealt with in Section 6.
In addition to causing chemical attack on concrete,
sulfates originating in the ground can lead to degradation
of concrete through a physical mechanism involving
crystallisation of sulfate salts near to the surface of the
concrete – see Appendix 2 on page 22.
2.2 Acids
The action of acids on concrete is to dissolve the cement
hydrates and, in the case of aggregates with a high
calcium carbonate content, much of the aggregate.
Natural groundwater may be acidic owing to the
presence of humic acid (which results primarily from the
decay of organic matter), or carbonic acid (see Section
2.5). These acids are not highly ionised and will not
produce a pH below about 3.5. The action of carbonic
acid is more complex than that of humic acid - see the
Figure 1-4b Coal mining areas of Great Britain
discussion of aggressive carbon dioxide in Section 2.5.
Where sulfate-bearing coal mining wastes and metal processing
Mineral acids are highly ionised in solution but only
slags are most likely to be encountered
sulfuric acid is likely to be found in natural groundwater. calcium bicarbonate, which will then dissolve. This is
As noted in Section 2.1, this acid may result from the how swallow holes and caves are formed in limestone.
oxidation of pyrite. Acidic conditions from the oxidation With bicarbonate ( HCO3-) now in solution, a certain
of pyrite are reported in fills derived from Carboniferous amount of the dissolved carbon dioxide will be needed to
mudstone and Oxford Clay [2]. There have also been cases stabilise it, so there will be less available to attack further
of pH levels less than 3.5 on recently drained marsh land, carbonated concrete. It is this remaining portion of the
resulting from pyrite-bearing peaty soils being exposed to dissolved carbon dioxide which is referred to as
oxygen. However, in much of UK there is sufficient ‘aggressive’ and specific sampling and test procedures,
calcium carbonate available in the ground eventually to given in pr EN 13577: 1999 should be used to assess it.
neutralise any sulfuric acid by forming calcium sulfate Measures to take account of aggressive carbon dioxide
(gypsum). Residual pockets of sulfuric acid may be found for some uses of specific precast concrete products are
on sites previously used for industrial processes and, in incorporated into the Design guides in Part 4.
exceptional circumstances, hydrochloric (see Section 2.6)
or nitric acid could also be found. 2.6 Chloride ions
A discussion of the effects of acid attack on concrete is Only in abnormally high concentration does chloride
given in Section 3.2. Assessment of the ground conditions chemically affect hardened unreinforced concrete. Levels
in relation to acidity and mobility of water are included in of chloride found in the ground are generally chemically
Sections 6.1.2, 6.2 and 5.1 - 5.6. innocuous; indeed, they may be beneficial since there is
considerable evidence, from seawater studies, that the
2.3 Magnesium ions presence of chloride generally reduces sulfate attack. This
Magnesium can be present in natural ground as is taken into account for brackish water in Note [1] to
magnesium sulfate (Mg SO4 ). This is highly soluble and Table 2 on page 20. No recommendations are given here
provides as many magnesium ions in solution as it does for concrete exposed to seawater. Reference should be
sulfate ions. There is some evidence that certain cements made to BS 6349: Part 1 for maritime structures.
are more susceptible than sulfate-resisting Portland While not generally causing chemical attack on
cement to attack by high concentrations of magnesium concrete, chlorides originating in the ground can lead to
sulfate. The determination of magnesium ion content is a degradation of concrete through a physical mechanism
routine part of site investigation and is further discussed involving crystallisation of chloride salts near to the
in Sections 5 and 6. surface of the concrete; this is sometimes called ‘salt
weathering’ – see Appendix 2.
2.4 Ammonium ions The risk of corrosion of embedded metals in buried
Ammonium sulfate, (NH4 )2 SO4 , is one of the most concrete in non-aggressive soil is generally lower than in
aggressive salts to concrete; cases of attack have occurred externally exposed concrete. However, high chloride
resulting from spillage of the material around fertiliser concentrations in the ground will increase the risk of
stores. However, there is no evidence that harmful corrosion, since chloride ions may migrate into the
concentrations of ammonium sulfate occur in natural concrete and lead to a reduction in passivity at the metal
soils or arise from the normal use of fertiliser. In the UK, surface. The recommendations for the protection of steel
the determination of ammonium ion concentration is not reinforcement given in Digest 444 should be followed.
routine in the investigation in of natural ground. On brownfield sites that have industrial waste deposits
Ammonium ions may be present in brownfield sites or ground penetrated by leachates, the presence of
subject to former industrial use, especially gasworks, and chloride ions, together with a pH below 5.5, could
specialist advice should be sought if suspected. indicate the existence of hydrochloric acid. It will,
therefore, be important to determine the amount of
2.5 Aggressive carbon dioxide chloride in the soil and/or groundwater during site
Aggressive carbon dioxide is relevant only to certain investigation, as described in Section 5. The procedure
situations where water is highly mobile and continually for taking account of the measured chloride content in
flowing over (or seeping through) the concrete. this particular circumstance is given in Section 6.1.2.
Diversion pipes or culverts around dams retaining
moorland waters containing high concentrations of 2.7 Phenols
aggressive carbon dioxide can be subject to erosion, as Phenols are a group of organic contaminants which are
can poorly compacted concrete, or permeable concrete by-products of town gas, tar and coke manufacture,
products (for example some aggregate concrete blocks) commonly found on brownfield sites. Their presence
used in foundations. Further explanation of highly mobile may affect the setting of concrete through an inhibition
groundwater conditions is in Section 4. or modification of the hydration of the cement (see BRE
Calcium carbonate ( CaCO3 ) is practically insoluble in Report BR 255). Where in-situ concrete is placed directly
water but calcium bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2) is soluble. against ground suspected of substantial contamination by
Where carbon dioxide dissolves in water, carbonic acid phenols, consideration should be given to the use of a
(H2CO3) is formed and this will react with any barrier, such as polyethythene sheeting, as protection
carbonated cement (or limestone aggregate) to form during the setting and hardening period.
3. Principal types of chemical attack the extent of this reaction. If magnesium ions accompany
the sulfates they may enter into reaction with calcium
on concrete hydroxide producing gypsum and very low solubility
3.1 Sulfate attack magnesium hydroxide which precipitates out of solution.
The essential agents for sulfate attack are sulfate (SO4) Laboratory tests show that the first effect of the
anions. These are transported to the concrete in various reactions is to increase the strength and density of the
concentrations in water, together with cations, the more concrete as the reaction products fill the pore space.
common of which are calcium, magnesium and sodium. When it is filled, further ettringite formation induces
Where porous concrete is in contact with saturated internal stresses in the concrete which may disrupt
ground the water phase is continuous across the causing expansion of the affected region. Together with
ground/concrete interface and sulfate (SO4) ions will be white crystalline accumulations, this is characteristic of
readily carried into the body of the concrete. Well- the ettringite/gypsum form of sulfate attack.
compacted, dense, low water:cement ratio concrete in
such an environment will, however, initially restrict 3.1.2 Thaumasite form of sulfate attack (TSA)
access of the ions to the surface layer. Migration of A comprehensive account of this form of sulfate attack
sulfates ions from unsaturated ground into the concrete has been given in the Report of the Thaumasite Expert
can take place by diffusion provided there is sufficient Group [1] so only the essentials are mentioned here.
water to coat the particles of soil, but the rate will be slow Several factors must generally be coincident for TSA to
and dependent on the sulfate concentration. occur in susceptible concrete:
The reactions that take place when sulfates enter the ● a source of sulfates, generally from sulfates or sulfides
concrete matrix are complex and contentious. A simple in the ground;
guide is given here in order to understand the basic ● the presence of mobile groundwater;
chemistry and resultant effects. The reactions have been ● a source of calcium silicate hydrate, mostly derived
demonstrated to depend on the type of cement, the type from cementitious calcium silicate phases present in
of aggregate and the temperature. Two separate forms of Portland cements;
sulfate attack to Portland cement concretes are described: ● the presence of carbonate, generally in coarse and/or
● a well-known type (sometimes known as the fine concrete aggregates;
‘conventional form of sulfate attack’) leading to the ● low temperatures (since thaumasite formation is most
formation of gypsum and ettringite; active below 15°C).
● a more recently identified type producing thaumasite.
The presence of carbonate (CO3) in aggregate or as ions
In practice, both will operate together to some extent in in the pore water of the concrete changes the reaction
field conditions in buried concrete. Laboratory tests are products when sulfates enter. Below about 15°C in the
continuing in order to better understand the mechanisms presence of water, the reactions between the calcium
involved. These tests include the use of Portland cement, silicate hydrate, the carbonate and the sulfate ions
Portland limestone cement, sulfate-resisting Portland produces thaumasite: CaSiO3.CaCO3.CaSO4.15H2O. The
cement and combinations of Portland cement with calcium silicate hydrates provide the main binding agent
ground granulated blastfurnace slag (ggbs) or pulverized- in Portland cement, so this form of attack weakens the
fuel ash (pfa). concrete and, in advanced cases, the cement paste matrix
is eventually reduced to a mushy, incohesive white mass
3.1.1 Sulfate attack leading to the formation of ettringite (Figure 1-5). Sulfate-resisting Portland cement (SRPC)
and gypsum
For sulfate attack to occur leading to the formation of
ettringite and gypsum in susceptible concrete the
following must be present:
● a source of sulfates, generally from sulfates or sulfides
in the ground;
● the presence of mobile groundwater;
● calcium hydroxide and calcium aluminate hydrate in
the cement matrix.
In the alkaline pore solution provided by the sodium,

potassium and calcium hydroxides liberated during the
cement hydration reactions, the sulfate ions react with
calcium hydroxide to form calcium sulfate (gypsum). Figure 1-5 Sample of formerly high quality concrete from highway
This in turn reacts with calcium aluminate hydrate to bridge foundation that has been severely affected by TSA.
form calcium sulfo-aluminate hydrate (ettringite). In The outer 50 mm of concrete has been reduced to a white mushy
sulfate-resisting Portland cement (SRPC), the tricalcium reaction product rich in thaumasite. White haloes of pure
aluminate (C3A) level is kept to a minimum so reducing thaumasite can be seen around dolomite aggregate particles
can also be vulnerable to this form of attack. Concretes 4. Presence and mobility of groundwater
containing ggbs as part of the cement seem to have some
resistance to TSA. Concretes made with other cement The rate of chemical attack of concrete depends on the
types must rely on achieving very low permeability for concentration of the aggressive ions and the ease with
resistance. which they can be replenished at the reaction surface in
The effect of temperature variation on the severity of the concrete. The replenishment rate will be related both
TSA has been explored in accelerated laboratory tests. to the porosity and permeability of the soil adjacent to the
Concrete specimens, which showed no sulfate attack concrete and to the presence and mobility of the
when immersed in sulfate solutions at a normal groundwater in the surrounding area.

laboratory temperatures of around 20°C were Definitions of water mobility used in this Digest, and
progressively more severely affected by TSA when the procedures for establishing them, are given below:
temperature was lowered below 15°C.
In the field the significance of temperature on the 4.1 Static groundwater
reactions is not so well understood. However, it is likely Static groundwater is confined to sites where the ground
to be significant since there is a variation within the is either permanently dry, or contains water but has low
critical temperature band of 5 to 15°C in near-surface permeability (ie little water movement is possible). The
ground. In central and southern England, Meteorological mass permeability in the latter case will generally be less
Office data [3] indicate that the seasonal ground than 10-6 m/s (see BS 8004, Figure 6). A typical example
temperature variation progressively decreases with would be clayey soils with tight fissures and no included
depth, converging to a value of about 10 - 12°C. At sand or silt horizons.
shallow foundation depths down to 1.2 m below ground In winter and spring, when water tables are generally
level, the typical temperature range is from a minimum of at their highest, the presence of Static groundwater
4°C in March to maximum of 17°C in September. At a conditions can be established on a proposed construction
depth of 3.0 m, the temperature range is from a minimum site by either digging a trial pit or drilling a borehole to
8°C in April to a maximum of 12°C in October. As in the the intended full depth of concrete. If no water has
laboratory, it is likely that the extent of TSA will be seeped into the trial pit or borehole within 24 hours, the
increased at the cooler temperatures if the chemical water conditions can be declared to be Static.
conditions are satisfied. It is relevant to note, however, Alternatively, a standpipe piezometer can be installed, for
that minimum ground temperatures below some types of example by embedding it in a sand column in a borehole
construction will be raised significantly above natural and sealing over the top 0.75 m with bentonite pellets. If
levels, and these sub-structures may, therefore, be less this remains dry, or a variable head test (see BS 5930)
prone to TSA. indicates a ground permeability of less than 10-6 m/s, the
water conditions can be confirmed as effectively Static.
3.2 Acid attack At times of low water table (generally early summer to
Concrete subject to the action of highly mobile acid mid-autumn), it will often be difficult to prove Static
(ie low pH) water is vulnerable to rapid deterioration. groundwater conditions from seepage tests. At these
Even mildly acidic mobile water will attack concrete times of year the absence of water at proposed concrete
significantly. However, acidic groundwaters that are not depths must not be taken as the sole evidence of Static
mobile appear to have little effect on buried concrete. groundwater conditions. Either request an appropriately
The effect of any type of acid attack on concrete is the qualified professional (such as a geotechnical engineer,
dissolution of the cement paste matrix. In concrete with engineering geologist or hydrologist) to prove a case for
siliceous gravel, granite or basalt aggregate, the surface Static groundwater conditions from a consideration of
attack will produce an ‘exposed aggregate’ appearance. the site geology and hydrology, or assume for concrete
However, in concrete with limestone aggregates, the design purposes that the more conservative condition of
aggregate may dissolve at a rate similar to that of the Mobile groundwater exists.
cement paste and leave a smoother surface. The rate of Some construction activities can greatly increase mass
attack depends more on the rate of water movement over permeability of ground and may, therefore, change a
the surface and on the quality of the concrete, than on the natural site condition of Static groundwater to a Mobile
type of cement or aggregate. High quality concrete is groundwater condition. The likelihood of this happening
needed to resist highly mobile acid water. However, if the should be considered in the ground assessment.
pH is above 5.5 and the water is not highly mobile, the
rate of attack will be very slow. This is particularly true if 4.2 Mobile groundwater
the sulfate content is also low, indicating that the acids Mobile groundwater sites include those where water is
are primarily organic in origin. Reaction products formed held in pores and structural discontinuities in the soil, and
on the surface of concrete by humic acid are mainly which is free to flow into an excavation to give a standing
insoluble and tend to impede further attack. water level. The ground permeability will generally be
Neither ettringite nor thaumasite are stable in acid greater than 10-6 m/s. Ponds, sumps, or similar
solution so that the reaction product from sulfuric acid accumulations of free water are considered Mobile.
attack will be primarily calcium sulfate. The presence of Mobile groundwater may be seasonal.
Important facts to note about the presence and mobility of

case of Highly Mobile water as indicated below).
groundwater in relation to chemical attack of concrete are: However, these flow characteristics should be reported
● The presence and mobility of groundwater may vary seasonally. as part of the site investigation findings, as this may have a
Highest groundwater levels may be expected in winter and spring, bearing on the type of Additional Protective Measures to
the lowest levels in late summer. be adopted for protecting concrete from chemical attack.
● Groundwater mobility may vary with depth and must be
established for the full depth of a concrete construction. 4.3 Highly Mobile groundwater
● Permeable silty and sandy soils in which water is present generally Groundwater is regarded as Highly Mobile when it is
provide little or no resistance to the movement of water carrying

actually flowing, albeit slowly, through the ground. This
dissolved chemicals.
● Accumulations of free water, for example in a pond, will readily
is difficult to determine unless a drainage channel is
facilitate the movement of dissolved chemicals. provided or one already exists on the site or adjacent to it.
● Fissured clay and clay fills, which may have free water present in Where the site contains very permeable soil and is
fissures and voids, generally have a relatively low permeability that sloping or could be subject to a hydraulic head from a
allows only slow movement of water carrying dissolved chemicals. nearby hill or embankment, a flow of groundwater across
This may be detrimental to concrete over a period of time. the site would be expected. Only in a few particular cases,
● Clays in which fissures and other discontinuities are absent or are referred to in Part 4, Design guides 4c, 6c and 7a, is
tightly closed have very low permeability but generally remain fully Highly Mobile water in itself significant to the
saturated with pore water at all seasons owing to capillary action.
precautions recommended. However, it could be a
This pore water may allow some limited movement of chemicals
by diffusion through the liquid phase, but in general the quantity of
vehicle for transporting aggressive chemicals to a site
chemicals reaching the concrete will not be sufficient to cause from adjacent land.
significant chemical attack. ‘Pure’ water, which contains only low concentrations
● Ground on, or at the foot of, slopes or retaining structures may be of dissolved ions, can be aggressive when it is Highly
subject to enhanced flow of groundwater owing to the gravitational Mobile, particularly to cast in-situ concrete. In this case,
‘head’ of water. the calcium hydroxide formed during the hydration of
● Civil engineering works, such as road construction, office and the cement will not be surface-carbonated (since it is
factory developments, and large housing developments can below ground and not exposed to carbon dioxide in the
disrupt natural drainage. This may affect flows in rivers and
air) and could be gradually dissolved.
streams, and sub-surface groundwater movements and levels. In
differing circumstances this may lead to increased or reduced
flows. The consideration of the effects of site drainage in relation 5. Site investigation for aggressive
to structures and foundations is essential and, in particular, the
ground conditions
presence of porous carrier drains which may divert water into the
area of the foundations – see Part 2, Section 5.4). 5.1 Introduction
● Care is needed to avoid concrete being exposed to aggressive This section describes the site studies, sampling and
conditions in a ‘sump’ environment. In several cases of serious testing needed to assess whether ground conditions are
deterioration to concrete from TSA in the foundations of highway potentially aggressive to concrete. It is recommended
bridges [1], a major contributory factor was that the foundations
that the investigation comprise sequentially a desk study,
had been constructed in excavations that were subsequently
backfilled with pyritic clay and also subject to ingress of water.
a walk-over survey, and a ground investigation using trial
pits and/or boreholes to assess visually the ground profile
At times of year when groundwater levels are high, and to take representative samples of soil and
Mobile groundwater conditions can be confirmed by groundwater for chemical analysis. The chemical agents
either digging a trial pit or drilling a borehole to the to be quantified in particular are those listed in Section 2
relevant depth and leaving it temporarily open. Surface as commonly encountered: sulfates, sulfides, acids (pH)
protection is needed to prevent ingress of rainfall and for and magnesium. In brownfield sites, chloride and nitrate
safety of personnel. If Mobile water is present, there will should also be quantified as respective indicators of
be some seepage into the trial pit or borehole within 24 hydrochloric and nitric acids. The presence of all of these
hours but often the water intake will be much more rapid. is specifically taken into account by the ACEC
In early summer to mid-autumn, when groundwater classification here.
levels are generally low, these simple field tests may fail to A list of recommended test methods and source
detect seasonally adverse mobile groundwater documents for the chemical analysis of soils and
conditions. However, it will often be apparent from a groundwater are given in Appendix 1.
consideration of the site geology and hydrology that the Chemical agents aggressive to concrete that are
seasonal occurrence of mobile groundwater is likely. On encountered only rarely, such as ammonium salts, should
no account should the conclusion be drawn that also be investigated if their presence is suspected, for
groundwater conditions are Static merely because there example from past use of the site. However, specialist
is an absence of mobile groundwater at one particular advice should be sought with regard to their detection
time or season. and appropriate concrete specification. Additionally,
The rapidity and position of groundwater flow aggressive CO2 in groundwater should also be
detected in trial pits or boreholes does not further affect determined in respect of the type of Highly Mobile
the groundwater mobility classification (except in the ground-water conditions indicated in Section 2.5.
Investigation of contaminated land requires localities indicated. The geological formations are not
consideration of other hazards, as well as chemicals necessarily confined to these locations and pyrite
aggressive to concrete. Such matters are beyond the contents may vary substantially from indicated values.
scope of this Special Digest. BS 10175: 2001 and DETR
Contaminated Land Research Report 11 [5] are 5.3 Site inspection (walk-over survey)
recommended for guidance on the additional The aim of the walk-over survey is to examine the surface
requirements required for planning, executing and of the site for evidence of conditions that might
interpreting site investigations on contaminated land. contribute to a chemical/ hydrological environment
For all sites an appraisal should be made of the aggressive to concrete. Particular attention should be
groundwater conditions and, in particular, whether paid to the following:
concrete could be exposed to Mobile or Highly Mobile ● examine any exposures of natural ground and record
groundwater (see Section 4). details of geological materials and organic deposits
The site investigation should be carried out by suitably such as peat (which may be acidic);
experienced persons. The level of detail should be ● inspect and record details of any former structures and
broadly related to the required structural performance waste materials;
level (see Part 2, Section 4) of the proposed construction. ● compare surface topography with previous records to
Appendix 3 gives guidance on more comprehensive check for the presence of fill, erosion or cuttings;
site investigation which may be needed when ● consider the effects of changes to the topography as a
investigating cases of sulfate attack on concrete. result of new construction;
● note the presence of slopes which, by providing a head
5.2 Desk study to water, could enhance water mobility;
An initial desk study should be carried out to identify and ● note water levels, direction and rate of flow in
review relevant existing information. In particular, watercourses;
evidence should be sought of any aggressive chemicals ● note position of wells or springs;
and of potentially aggressive substances such as pyrite. ● note the nature of vegetation in relation to soil type
Guidance on desk studies is given in BRE Digest 318; and wetness of the ground. Unusual green patches,
the boxes (below) list items specific to aggressive ground. reeds, rushes or willow trees often indicate wet
In respect of pyrite, particular note should be taken of ground.
grey or black-coloured alluvial deposits, over-
consolidated clays, mudrocks, Coal Measures, slates and More general guidance on the walk-over survey is given
schists. A list of geological formations known to contain in BS 5390 Annex C and BRE Digest 348. Following the
pyrite is given in Table 1. Also listed are typical pyrite walk-over survey, an assessment should be made of the
contents (by % mass) quoted for samples taken from the presence and distribution of conditions likely to be
aggressive to concrete. These data should be used to plan
Possible sources of information to be considered in a desk the ground investigation.
study:
● published topographical maps;
5.4 Visual description of the ground
● aerial survey photographs;
The starting point for an investigation of chemical agents
● geological maps and memoirs (particularly ‘Drift’ maps);
● soil survey maps;
in the ground which may be aggressive to concrete is a
● site investigation records for past developments or construction good visual description of the ground profile to the full
on adjacent sites; depth of concrete construction. Laboratory testing can
● data from the Environment Agency or local authorities on regional give precise values for chemical contents at particular
water levels and flooding; locations but will not necessarily be fully representative.
● data from British Geological Survey. A visual assessment may detect local concentrations of
potential hazardous minerals, such as gypsum
Further sources of information are listed in Annex B of BS 5930:1999
(CaSO4.2H2O), pyrite (FeS2) and marcasite (FeS2), and
and TRL Report 192 [4].
features which affect the transmission of groundwater.
The soil description can be accomplished by means of
The following list of topics may be relevant to desk study trial pits or boreholes, described in BS 5930 and BRE
assessment of the risk of chemical attack of concrete:
Digests 381, 383 & 411. Guidance on the occurrence and
● bedrock and superficial (drift) geology (particularly important as an
identification of sulfate and sulfide minerals is given in
indicator of pyritic ground, see Section 2.1);
● location and type of previous development, particularly of industry
Appendices A, B and C of HA 74/00 [6].
which might have left aggressive waste materials; The ground description should particularly note the
● topography from ground contours, including changes which might following features relevant to assessment of the
indicate placing of fill; aggressivity of chemical environment :
● records of flooding; ● Soil particle size and composition.
● location of existing natural and man-made drainage systems ● Soil colour: a dark-grey or black colour of
including, streams, ditches, trench drains and field drains; unweathered mudrocks and clays generally indicates
● reworking of pyrite-rich clays;
that they originated in anaerobic conditions conducive
● use of colliery spoil or mine waste.
profile of aggressive chemicals, in particular, of sulfates
Table 1 UK geological formations known to contain sulfides and sulfides as indicated in Section 2.1. One test might be
considered sufficient for a house foundation to be
Geology Location of samples % pyrite installed at 1 m depth and two tests if it is to be founded at
3 m depth. For more substantial foundations and piles,
Colliery spoil UK 0 – 12 samples should be taken at about 1 – 2 m intervals
Carboniferous Limestone Shales Yorks & Derbyshire 5 – 10 ensuring they include at least one from any obvious
Coal Measure shales England 0.7 – 1.4 change of stratum. The number of pits or boreholes will
Carboniferous Culm Measures Devon 2.4 depend mainly on the size, topography and complexity of
Namurian mudstones Derbyshire 0–6 the geology of the site, as evidenced by the findings of the
Rhaetic mudstones, desk study and walk-over survey.
Westbury Formation S. Glamorgan 4–6 The mass of samples required for chemical testing
Stonefields Slate Glos should be as given in BRE Report BR 279 Section 4 or
Lower Lias Clay S W England 5–8 BS 1377: Part 1:1990 Section 7, that is 100 g for fine-
Upper Lias Clay Northants 3–5 grained soils, 500 g for medium-grained soils and 3 kg for
Whitby Shale Teesside 3–9 coarse-grained soils. In fine-grained soils, samples should
Oxford Clay Oxon, Cambs 3–5 be obtained preferably by driving a tube into the ground.
Oxford Clay E & S England 5 – 15 After extraction of the tube, the ends of the sample
Kimmeridge Clay Dorset 4 should be sealed to restrict loss of moisture and intrusion
Weald Clay Sussex of air and thereby minimise oxidation of pyrite. The
Sandgate Beds SE England 0.5 – 0.9 samples should be stored in a cool, dark place, at a
Gault S England 0.7 – 1.0 temperature of between 2°C and 4°C, and be tested as
Bracklesham Beds SE England soon as possible: the maximum delay should be three
Headon Beds SE England weeks. The conditions and duration of storage prior to
Barton Clay Hants testing should be recorded and given to the site appraiser
Bembridge Beds Isle of Wight together with the test data. Material selected for
London Clay SE England 0–4 laboratory testing should be taken from the centre of
Recent alluvial deposits Derbyshire block and core samples to avoid the effects of surface
Marsh peat Fen district oxidation and contamination by different water or soil.
Recommended test methods for the chemical analysis
to the formation of pyrite; a dark-grey, blue or black of aggressive soils are given in Appendix 1.
colouration of clay generally indicates that it is
unoxidised; brown colouration of clay generally 5.6 Sampling and testing groundwater
indicates that it is in a weathered, oxidised state. If there is mobile groundwater on a site, indicated by
● Soil structure: this gives information on the state of visible seepage into a trial pit or borehole, this should
weathering and ease of groundwater transmission. always be tested for aggressive chemical content. This is
● Presence of any visible sulfate or sulfide minerals but because groundwater may have a concentration of
note that pyrite is often finely disseminated and is not dissolved chemicals greater than are present in the
identifiable, even with a hand lens. immediately surrounding solid ground owing to
● Presence of any visible calcium carbonate in the form transportation from a distant source.
of amorphous nodules, fossil fragments or calcite Groundwater samples can be obtained by collecting
crystals. This can be also be detected by effervescence seepage into a trial pit or borehole. Water seeping from
of the soil when it is tested with dilute hydrochloric the base or sides of a trial pit can be collected in a
acid (5% HCl). container such as a clean, sealable sample jar. Care should
be taken to avoid water that has entered the pit directly
5.5 Sampling and testing soils from rainfall or surface run-off. A note of any visible
Samples for the required chemical tests can be taken seepage and the direction(s) from which it comes will
using standard site investigation techniques help in a groundwater mobility assessment. In ground of
incorporating trial pits and boreholes – see BS 5930, lower permeability (<10-6 m/s – see BS 8004, Figure 6 ) a
BS 10175 and BRE Digests 381, 383 and 411. Precautions groundwater sample can best be obtained from a
should be taken to protect site workers and site standpipe piezometer installed in a borehole, backfilled
neighbours if the desk study indicates the presence of with sand and sealed over the topmost metre with
substances harmful to health. To avoid contaminating the bentonite/cement pellets. After reaching equilibrium,
samples, the minimum amount of water should be added such a piezometer will also indicate the height of the
to the hole during boring, preferably none. water table. Additionally, the permeability of the ground
Representative samples should be taken for sulfate can be determined in the piezometer by a variable head
classification from key depths in the ground in each test test (see BS 5930).
pit or borehole, bearing in mind the preliminary The concentration of some chemicals in groundwater,
structural design concept and the likely distribution for example sulfates, may vary seasonally, probably being
greatest in the late summer when groundwater is reduced carried out, it should be assumed that pyrite may be
in volume. Also, it is possible for groundwater in present in the ground and the site testing procedure given
boreholes to be found to contain different concentrations in Section 6.1.3 should be followed.
of soluble sulfates at different depths. In such The precautions recommended in this Special Digest
circumstances, it should be noted that groundwater apply only to concrete placed in ground where the
samples taken after the boring is completed may contain pH >2.5. Only in very exceptional circumstances in the
water from several different strata. UK are pH readings below 2.5 reported.
Controlled procedures should be used for obtaining,
handling and storage of groundwater samples. Samples of 6.1.1 All sites (except those subject to brownfield
1 to 2 litres should be obtained. They should be stored in development or containing pyrite)
a clean, well-filled, sealed container, kept at low This is a site that has not been subject to previous
temperature to minimise changes due to bacterial action industrial development and that does not contain pyrite
(4°C recommended) and analysed as soon as possible. in the ground which might (where disturbed) lead to
The acidity/alkalinity of water can be tested on site using oxidation and formation of sulfates. Several locations may
pH test strips or a portable meter. For highly mobile need to be separately classified for chemical agents
waters requiring the determination of aggressive CO2 , aggressive to concrete if the site is extensive and/or the
use the sampling procedure given in prEN 13577:1999. ground conditions are complex.
Recommended test methods for the chemical analysis of The analytical tests required for classification (see
aggressive groundwater are given in Appendix 1. Figure 1-6) are water-soluble sulfate content (SO4 g/l),
It is strongly recommended that, at the same time as pH and, in some cases, the magnesium ion content.
samples of groundwater are taken, an assessment is made Classification should be carried out, wherever possible,
of its mobility with reference to the definitions in by using samples of both soil and groundwater. For soil,
Section 4. Knowledge of the mobility of any groundwater the sulfate analysis, expressed as SO4, should be on a 2:1
on the site is an essential prerequisite for the ACEC water/soil extract and the pH analysis on a 2.5:1
classification of the ground. This is because groundwater water/soil extract.
determines the ease with which an aggressive chemical The limits for sulfates for the 2:1 soil extraction
can have access to the concrete. Also, the mobility of any method and for groundwater are given in Table 2. If the
groundwater must be known for some categories of sulfate level is greater than 3.7 g/l in the water extract or
concrete construction, since one of the recommendations greater than 3.0 g/l in the groundwater, the magnesium
for the protection of concrete foundations may be to ion concentration must also be measured.
address the site drainage. The chemical classification of a given site location
should be carried out in the following five steps:
6. Classification of sites for chemicals
Step 1: Determine the ‘characteristic’ values for sulfate
aggressive to concrete concentration and, if applicable magnesium
The Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete concentration, in tests on (a) soil samples and (b)
(ACEC) is classified here to take into account sulfate groundwater samples. It is important to test
concentration and other factors related to the groundwater samples if these are obtainable from
environment in which the concrete is to be placed, for the site as groundwater is generally the agent by
example the mobility and pH of the groundwater. For which aggressive chemicals reach the concrete
higher Sulfate Classes, the magnesium ion concentration and for some sites 2:1 water/soil extraction test
is also taken into account. Reduced limits on acidity are may give an unrealistically low sulfate
applied to brownfield sites as compared to natural classification (see box on page 14).
ground. All samples to be used for sulfate classification
should be carefully taken, handled and tested, as
6.1 Groundwater and soil analyses described in Section 5.
Three different categories of site have been identified as (a) Soil samples
requiring specific procedures for investigation for If only a small number of soil samples have been
aggressive ground conditions: tested for water-soluble sulfate and magnesium
● All sites (except for those subject to brownfield using the 2:1 water/soil extract test, the highest
development or containing pyrite). These are the measured sulfate concentrations (g/l SO4) and
most commonly encountered sites. They are described magnesium concentration (g/l Mg) should be
in Section 6.1.1 and Figure 1-6. taken as the characteristic values. However, if the
● Brownfield sites – see Section 6.1.2 and Figure 1-7. water-soluble sulfate results for soil vary widely,
● Pyritic ground. These are sites where the ground it may be appropriate to test further samples to
contains pyrite which, if disturbed, may oxidise to obtain a more representative data set. In a data
sulfates – see Section 6.1.3 and Figure 1-8. set where there are five to nine results available
The category of site should be provisionally established for the location, the mean of the highest two of
by desk study (see Section 5.2). If no desk study has been the sulfate test results should be taken as the
For each site location, select samples of various site

materials from key depths (see Section 5.5, 5.6)
Use tests in Appendix 1 on samples to find:

(a) Water soluble sulfate g/l S04 in 2:1 water / soil extract
(b) pH in 2.5:1 water / soil extract
Yes Determine Mg g/l as

For (a), is water-soluble sulfate
> 3.7 g/l S04 ? Appendix 1
Take the highest of Results 1 and 2 as
the Design Sulfate Class for the site
No location
Consider all water-soluble S04 and Mg results and deduce

‘characteristic’ values of water soluble S04 g/l and Mg g/l
for a given location
Option 2
Option 1
Find Sulfate Class equivalent to characteristic values For Mobile and Highly Mobile
For Static groundwater select
of water-soluble S04 and Mg using groundwater select
column 7 of Table 2
columns 1, 2 and 3 of Table 2 = Result 1 column 8 of Table 2
Are groundwater samples No For adopted Design Sulfate Class, For adopted Design Sulfate Class,
available? select row of Table 2 corresponding to select row of Table 2 corresponding to
characteristic pH of location. characteristic pH of location.
ACEC Class can now be found from ACEC Class can now be found from
column 11 of Table 2 column 11 of Table 2
Yes
Use tests in Appendix 1 to determine:

(a) water-soluble sulfate g/l S04
(b) pH
of groundwater samples
Groundwater samples should be taken and

tested wherever physically possible
Yes Determine Mg g/l
For groundwater is S04 > 3.0 g/l?
as Appendix 1
No
Consider all water soluble S04 and Mg results and deduce

‘characteristic’ values of water soluble S04 g/l and Mg g/l See Section 6.1.1 for further information
Find Sulfate Class equivalent to characteristic values

of soluble S04 and Mg in groundwater
using columns 1,4 and 5 of Table 2 = Result 2
Figure 1-6 Procedure for determining ACEC classification for locations on all sites
except those subject to brownfield development or pyritic oxidation
characteristic value for water-soluble sulfate
Technical note on limits for sulfate classes
(g/l SO4). In a data set where there are 10 or
The division between Classes 2 and 3 for groundwater is related to
more results available, the mean of the highest the maximum solubility of calcium sulfate (1.44g/ l SO4). Higher
20% of the sulfate test results (rounded to 0.1 g/l) sulfate concentration in groundwater confirms the presence of more
should be taken as the characteristic value. soluble sulfates, usually magnesium or sodium. Other divisions
(b) Groundwater samples between Sulfate Classes are drawn somewhat arbitrarily.
The highest determined sulfate concentration Following the precedent of earlier Digests, higher class limits are
(g/l SO4) and magnesium concentration given here for sulfate concentration determined by the 2:1 water/soil
(g/l Mg) of the samples (rounded to 0.1 g/l) extraction test on soil than for the equivalent test on groundwater. The
original reason for these higher limits was the conception that
should be taken as the ‘characteristic’ values for
persons carrying out a site investigation would tend to select samples
the groundwater at a given location.
of soil with visible sulfate crystals for testing so the samples would be
Step 2: Determine the Sulfate Classes corresponding to unrepresentative of the bulk of the ground. Also the water/soil extract
the Step 1 characteristic values for groundwater test would inherently tend to give a high value compared with
using columns 1, 4 and 5 of Table 2 and for soil groundwater samples.
using columns 1, 2 and 3 of Table 2. Some recent reviews of site investigations have, however,
Step 3: Adopt a value for Design Sulfate Class for the site indicated that:
location from a consideration of the Sulfate ● biased selection of samples is not typical;
Classes for groundwater and soil determined in ● where both groundwater sulfate content and 2:1 water/soil
extraction tests on soil are available for sites, the latter generally
Step 2.
leads (unjustifiably) to a lower sulfate classification.
If only one type of sample (groundwater or soil)
was tested, the Class determined for this type The implication of the latter finding is that, for parity of classification,
may be taken as the Design Sulfate Class for the the limits of sulfate classes based on 2:1 water/soil extraction tests
site location. on soil should be reduced so that they are nearer those for tests on
If both types of sample (groundwater and soil) groundwater. Historical conditions indicate that the disparity is likely
were tested, the highest of the two determined to be greater for soils that are low in Ca sulfate but moderately high in
Sulfate Classes should be taken as the Design Mg, Na and K sulfates. In 1968, BRE changed from use of 1:1
Sulfate Class for the site location. water:soil extracts to 2:1 extracts. In doing so, it calculated new
Step 4: Determine the ‘characteristic’ values for pH by Sulfate Class limits based on the assumption that Ca sulfate soil
contents constituted at least 0.288% of the dry soil mass, that is,
considering the values obtained from tests on soil
sufficient to saturate the 2:1 extract. The resultant limits are
and groundwater. For both soil and groundwater, disproportionately high for Mg, Na and K sulfate conditions. While
take the respective lowest measured values of pH such soil conditions are atypical of most UK sulfate-bearing strata,
if only a small number of samples have been they may be encountered on brownfield sites where the sulfate source
tested. Otherwise take the respective means of is industrial. Such conditions are also frequently encountered in arid
the lowest 20% of the pH results. The areas of the world. Data is currently not available for sufficient types
characteristic value of the pH should then be of ground for re-adjustment of Sulfate Class limits to be done with
taken as the lowest of the pH determinations for confidence. A decision has therefore been taken that, for the present,
the soil and groundwater the limits to the sulfate classes derived by the 2:1 water/soil
extraction will remain unchanged. However, a strong
Step 5: Determine the ACEC Class for the site location.
recommendation is given that, wherever possible, groundwater
Starting with the Design Sulfate Class, add the samples should be tested.
characteristic value of the pH to chose the
appropriate pH range for the assessed mobility of
groundwater (Static or Mobile) - see Figure 1-6 procedure given in Section 6.1.1. This gives a ‘basic’
and Table 2. The ACEC classification is sulfate class for the site location. For ground containing
explained further in Section 6.2. wastes, an additional procedure is recommended prior to
taking account of the mobility of the groundwater.
As well as the outcome of this classification procedure, The pH of the samples should first be considered
the results of all the individual chemical analyses, (Figure 1-7). If a significant number of these are lower
including the location and depth of the samples, should than 5.5, the amounts of chloride and nitrate (NO3)
be made available to the engineer and concrete specifier. should also be determined in addition to sulfate content.
Substantial presence of chloride and nitrate ions on a
6.1.2 Brownfield sites brownfield site indicates that hydrochloric and nitric
A brownfield site is defined here as one that has been acids may be present in the ground. The effect of
subject to industrial development, storage of chemicals hydrochloric and nitric acids on concrete is likely to be
(including agricultural use) or waste deposition, and similar to that of sulfuric acid so, for classification
which may contain aggressive chemicals in surface waste purposes, their chemically equivalent sulfate
accumulations or in ground penetrated by leachates. concentration should be calculated and added to any
The assessment of chemical aggressiveness actual soluble sulfates present (as SO4 g/l) in the
(Figure 1–7) is similar in the initial stages to the respective samples:

materials from key depths
see Section 5.5, 5.6

(a) Water-soluble sulfate g/l S04 in 2:1 water / soil extract; See Section 6.1.2 for further information
(b) Cl and N03 in 2:1 water / soil extract
(c) pH of 2.5:1 water / soil extract
For (a), is water-soluble sulfate Yes Determine Mg g/l

> 3.7 g/l S04 ? as Appendix 1 Take the higher of
Results 1 and 2 as the
basic Sulfate Class for the
site location
No

No
Is pH < 5.5 for location ?
Find Sulfate Class equivalent to characteristic values of

water soluble S04 and Mg using Yes
columns 1, 2 and 3 of Table 2 = Result 1
No
Is CI or N03 present at location [1]?
No
Are groundwater samples
Yes
available?
Respectively for test results on soil and groundwater:

Yes calculate S04 equivalent of Cl (Cl x 1.35 g/l) and / or
S04 equivalent of N03 (N03 x 0.77 g/l) and add to
corresponding characteristic values for soluble S04.
Use tests in Appendix 1 to determine: Find Sulfate Classes for soil and groundwater equivalent
(a) water soluble sulfate g/l S04; to these adjusted characteristic values = Results 3 and 4.
(b) Cl g/l and N03 g/l content; Use the higher of Results 3 and 4 to find the Design
(c) pH Sulfate Class for the location
of groundwater samples

For groundwater is S04 > 3.0 g/l ?
as Appendix 1
Option 2
Option 1
For Mobile and Highly Mobile
For Static groundwater select
No groundwater select
column 9 of Table 2
column 10 of Table 2
Consider all S04 and Mg results for groundwater and

deduce ‘characteristic’ values of
S04 g/l and Mg g/l for given location
For adopted Design Sulfate For adopted Design Sulfate

Class, select row of Table 2 Class, select row of Table 2
corresponding to characteristic corresponding to characteristic
pH of location. pH of location.
ACEC Class can now be found ACEC Class can now be found
soluble S04 and Mg in groundwater using columns
from column 11 of Table 2 from column 11 of Table 2
1,4 and 5 of Table 2 = Result 2
Note [1] Significant values of Cl and N03 indicate that hydrochloric and nitric acids may be present.
Groundwater samples should be taken and These can be allowed for by adjusting the determined soluble sulfate content.
tested wherever physically possible The moderate presence of chlorides is not of concern, provided that the pH > 5.5
Figure 1-7 Procedure for determining ACEC classification for locations on brownfield sites
SO4 equivalent of Cl = Cl x 1.35 g/l (1) Determine the characteristic values of the Total
SO4 equivalent of NO3 = NO3 x 0.77 g/l. Potential Sulfate content (TPS % SO4 ) for the site
This procedure should not be used to assess the location from a consideration of the results of several
susceptibility of reinforcement to corrosion. tests on the pyritic ground. In a data set where five to
nine results are available for the location, the mean of
Adjusted characteristic values of sulfate may then be the highest two of the TPS values should be taken as
derived and from these adjusted Sulfate Classes for soil the characteristic value (rounded to 0.1% SO4 ). In a
and groundwater. The Design Sulfate Class for the data set where 10 or more TPS results are available,
locality may be taken as the highest of these adjusted the mean of the highest 20% should be taken as the
Sulfate Classes. characteristic value.
If the desk study indicates there is a possibility that the (2) Determine the Sulfate Class equivalent to the
ground materials on the brownfield site (natural or fill) characteristic value of the Total Potential Sulfate
have oxidisable sulfides, such as pyrite in unburnt colliery content using columns 1 and 6 of Table 2.
spoil, then the procedure given in Section 6.1.3 should (3) Compare the Sulfate Class for Total Potential Sulfate
additionally be carried out and the Design Sulfate Class with the Sulfate Classes determined (in Section 6.1.1)
for the locality be taken as the highest of the sulfate for groundwater and water-extract tests on soil. The
classes derived by procedures 6.1.2 and 6.1.3. highest of these Sulfate Classes should then be taken
as the Design Sulfate Class for the site location. A
6.1.3 Pyritic ground limitation can be applied if the Sulfate Class for the
To classify sites where ground materials (natural or fill) Total Potential Sulfate is found to be three or more
may contain sulfides, such as pyrite, it is essential to take classes higher that the Sulfate Classes for the water-
account of the ‘total potential’ sulfate content which extract tests on soil. In this case, the Design Sulfate
might result from oxidation following ground Class for the site location can be limited to two
disturbance. The extra test requirements, compared with classes higher than that for water-extract tests on soil.
the procedure given in Section 6.1.1, are (see Figure 1-8): The reason for this limitation is that the procedure for
(i) Determine the ‘total’ sulfate content (‘AS’ as % SO4) sulfate classification based on Total Potential Sulfate
by the ‘acid-soluble’ method – see Appendix 1. is often highly conservative (sometimes lifting sulfate
(ii) Determine the ‘Total sulfur’ present (‘TS’ % S). classification from Design Sulfate Class DS-2, based
(iii) Calculate the ‘Total Potential Sulfate content’ solely on the 2:1 water-extract test, to Class DS-5.
(TPS as % SO4) from the stoichiometric equation: Some reliance is therefore placed on the findings of
TPS % SO4 = 3.0 x TS % S. field studies of disturbed pyritic clay that has
This gives a conservative estimate of the Total undergone oxidation. These have shown only a one
Potential Sulfate since any sulfur within organic matter or two class increase in Sulfate Class for the oxidised
and minerals such as barite, both of which are more inert clay relative to undisturbed pyritic clay.
than pyritic sulfur, are included. (4) Determine the ACEC Class of the ground from the
(iv) Determine, for each individual sample, the amount of row of Table 2 which correlates first with the Design
Oxidisable Sulfides (‘OS’ expressed as % SO4) in the Sulfate Class, second with the water conditions, and
suspected pyritic ground by subtracting the acid-soluble third with the characteristic value of pH.
sulfates (AS % SO4) from the Total Potential Sulfate
content (TPS % SO4): The determination of the ‘acid-soluble sulfate content’
OS % SO4 = TPS % SO4 - AS % SO4 alone as employed in some recent European standards
will not detect sulfides which might be oxidised to
If the amount of Oxidisable Sulfides is greater than sulfates as a result of ground disturbance.
0.3% SO4 in a significant number of samples, pyrite is
probably present. This can be confirmed by X-Ray
Diffraction (XRD) and Scanning Electron Microscopy
(SEM) analysis. It can also be quantified directly by the Concrete in pyritic ground which is initially low in soluble sulfate does
Acidified Chromium Reduction method – see TRL not have to be designed to withstand a high potential Sulfate Class
Report 447 [7] unless it is exposed to ground which has been ‘disturbed’ to the extent
If it is concluded that pyrite is present in significant that contained pyrite may oxidise and the resultant sulfate ions reach
the concrete. This may prompt redesign of the structure or change to
amounts, the sulfide content of the ground material must
the construction process to avoid ground disturbance, for example by
be taken into account if concrete is to be exposed to
using piles instead of a spread footing that is constructed in an
disturbed material which might be vulnerable to excavation that is subsequently backfilled.
oxidation. This should be done in four stages :
6.2 Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete substances including magnesium ions, pyrite and, for pH
(ACEC) Classification less than 5.5, chloride and nitrate ions. Having established
The Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete the appropriate Design Sulfate Class, modifications are
(ACEC) classification is set out in Table 2. The basis of applied which relate to the mobility and pH of
the classification for sulfate and acidity remain the same groundwater. Mobile water (see Section 4) and low pH
as in the previous BRE Digest 363, although the (see Section 3.2) are both adverse ground conditions
nomenclature has changed and a classification for Total which lead to the designation of a more severe ACEC
Potential Sulfate from pyritic soils has been added. class. Static water is a more benign condition that allows
The process of ACEC classification of a site starts with for a less severe ACEC class.
the classification of the ground into one of five Design An overview of the procedure to determine and apply
Sulfate Classes. The route through this sulfate the ACEC classification is set out in Figure 1-3; detailed
classification (see Section 5.1 and Figures 1-6 to 1-8) steps for the three main categories of site are given in
depends on the type of site and presence or absence of Figures 1-6, 1-7 and 1-8.
Figure 1-8 Procedure for determining ACEC classification for locations where
disturbance of pyrite-bearing ground could result in additional sulfates
is on pages 18 and 19
18 Concrete in aggressive ground Part 1: Assessing the aggressive chemical environment 19

materials from key depths
(see Section 6.5, 6.6)

(a) Water soluble sulfate (WSS as S04 g/l) in
2:1 water / soil extract
(b) Acid soluble sulfate (AS as % S04;
(c) Total Potential Sulfate (TPS as % S04)

= 3 x Total Sulfur (TS % S)
(d) pH of 2.5:1 water / soil extract
Is there a possibility
No
of sulfides in ground, eg pyrite in
unweathered clay ?

From (a), is water-soluble sulfate Yes
as Appendix 1
> 3.7 g/l S04 ?
Will concrete be
No exposed to disturbed ground in No
which pyrite may oxidise to
sulfate ?
Yes
For each individual sample of the pyritic ground See section 6.1.3 for further information
subtract the result of the Acid Soluble test
(AS as % S04) from the result of the
Total Potential Sulfate test (TPS as % S04)
to calculate the amount of
water soluble S04 g/l and Mg using
Oxidisable Sulfide (OS as % S04).
columns 1, 2 and 3 of Table 2 = Result 1 ie OS = (TPS - AS)
Take the highest of

Results 1, 2 and 3 as the
Design Sulfate Class.
But if Result 3 is the highest, then
Are the values of limit the Design Sulfate Class to Take the higher of Results 1 and
Are groundwater samples No OS > 0.3% S04 for a significant No not greater than two classes 2, as the Design Sulfate Class
available ? number of samples ? above Result 1
Yes Yes
Use tests in Appendix 1 to determine: This indicates that pyrite is present which
(a) water soluble sulfate content g/l S04; Option 2
may oxidise if ground is disturbed. Option 1
(b) pH For Mobile and Highly
From a consideration of all Total Potential For Static groundwater
of groundwater samples Mobile groundwater select
Sulfate tests on pyritic ground deduce select column 7 of Table 2
column 8 of Table 2
characteristic value of TPS (S04 %) for location.
For adopted Design Sulfate For adopted Design Sulfate

Yes Determine Mg g/l Class, select row of Table 2 Class, select row of Table 2
For groundwater, is S04 > 3.0 g/l ? corresponding to characteristic corresponding to characteristic
as Appendix 1 Find Sulfate Class equivalent to characteristic
value of Total Potential Sulfate (TPS as S04 % ) pH of location. pH of location.
using columns 1 and 6 of Table 2 = Result 3 ACEC Class can now be found ACEC Class can now be found
from column 11 of Table 2 from column 11 of Table 2
Consider all S04 and Mg results for groundwater and

deduce ‘characteristic’ values of S04 g/l and Mg g/l
for given location
Groundwater samples should be taken and

Find Sulfate Class equivalent to characteristic values of tested wherever physically possible
soluble S04 and Mg in groundwater using columns
1,4 and 5 of Table 2 = Result 2
Figure 1-8 Procedure for determining ACEC classification for locations where
disturbance of pyrite-bearing ground could result in additional sulfate
Table 2 Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) site classification
Sulfate and magnesium Natural soil Brownfield [3] ACEC

Design 2:1 water/soil Groundwater Total Static Mobile Static Mobile class
Sulfate Class extract Potential water water water water for site
for site sulfate [2]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SO4 Mg SO4 Mg SO4 pH pH pH [4] pH [4]
g/l g/l g/l g/l %
DS-1 <1.2 <0.4 <0.24 All pH All pH AC-1s
values values
>5.5 >6.5 AC-1
≤5.5 5.5–6.5 AC-2z
4.5–5.5 AC-3z
<4.5 AC-4z
DS-2 1.2–2.3 0.4–1.4 0.24–0.6 >3.5 >5.5 AC-1s
>5.5 >6.5 AC-2
≤3.5 ≤5.5 AC-2s
≤5.5 5.5–6.5 AC-3z
4.5–5.5 AC-4z
<4.5 AC-5z
DS-3 2.4–3.7 1.5–3.0 0.7–1.2 >3.5 >5.5 AC-2s
>5.5 >6.5 AC-3
≤3.5 ≤5.5 AC-3s
≤5.5 5.5–6.5 AC-4
<5.5 AC-5
DS-4 3.8–6.7 ≤1.2 3.1–6.0 ≤1.0 1.3–2.4 >3.5 >5.5 AC-3s
>5.5 >6.5 AC-4
≤3.5 ≤5.5 AC-4s
≤5.5 ≤6.5 AC-5
DS-4m 3.8–6.7 >1.2 [1] 3.1–6.0 >1.0 [1] 1.3–2.4 >3.5 >5.5 AC-3s
>5.5 >6.5 AC-4m
≤3.5 ≤5.5 AC-4ms
≤5.5 ≤6.5 AC-5m
DS-5 >6.7 ≤1.2 >6.0 ≤1.0 >2.4 >3.5 >5.5 AC-4s
≤3.5 All pH values ≤5.5 All pH values AC-5
DS-5m >6.7 >1.2 [1] >6.0 >1.0 [1] >2.4 >3.5 >5.5 AC-4ms
≤3.5 All pH values ≤5.5 All pH values AC-5m
Notes
[1] The limit on water-soluble magnesium does not apply to brackish groundwater (chloride content between 12g/l and 18g/l).
This allows m to be omitted from the relevant ACEC classification.
[2] Applies only to sites where concrete will be exposed to sulfate ions (SO4) which may result from the oxidation of sulfides
such as pyrite, following ground disturbance.
[3] ‘Brownfield' is defined as sites which may contain chemical residues remaining from previous industrial use or from imported wastes.
[4] An additional account is taken of hydrochloric and nitric acids by adjustment to sulfate content - see Section 6.1.2.
Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC Class number

● Suffix s indicates that, as the water has been classified as Static, no Additional Protective Measures are generally necessary.
● Concrete placed in ACEC Classes which include the suffix z have primarily to resist acid conditions and may be made with cements from any
of the Groups in Part 2, Table 3 – but see the restrictions in the table on the use of Portland limestone cement.
● Suffix m relates to the higher levels of magnesium in Sulfate Classes 4 and 5.
Incremental rules used in Table 2 to adjust the ACEC Class of a site with respect to
each Design Sulfate Class:
For natural ground with Static groundwater
● For Design Sulfate Classes 2, 3 & 4, the ACEC class has been decreased by 1.
● For pH > 3.5 there is no further change.
● For pH < 3.5 the ACEC class has been increased by 1.
● The suffix s has been added.
For natural ground with Mobile groundwater

● For pH > 5.5 there is no change.
● For pH < 5.5 the ACEC class has been increased by 1 and suffix z has been added.
For brownfield sites with Static groundwater

● For Design Sulfate Classes 2, 3 & 4, the ACEC class has been decreased by 1.
● For pH > 5.5 there is no further change.
● For pH < 5.5 the ACEC class has been increased by 1.
● The suffix s has been added.
For brownfield ground with Mobile groundwater

● For pH > 6.5 there is no change to the ACEC class.
● For pH 5.5 - 6.5 the ACEC class has been increased by 1 and suffix z has been added.
● For pH 4.5 - 5.5 the ACEC class has been increased by 2 and suffix z has been added.
● For pH < 4.5 the ACEC class has been increased by 3 and suffix z has been added.
For sites with Static water, two adjustments will often be applicable and these may cancel out.
7. British and European standards

Many of the recommendations in the previous Digest which dealt with sulfate
and acid attack of concrete in the ground (Digest 363) were also embodied in
British Standards, notably in BS 5328: Concrete. Amendments to Parts 1, 2
and 3 of BS 5328 were issued following first publication of this Digest to bring
the two documents into line. It is, however, intended to replace BS 5328 by
the European Standard BS EN 206-1: Concrete and its complementary British
Standard, BS 8500, on 1 December 2003.
The most significant difference between the BS 8500 provisions and those
in BS 5328 is in the notation used for cements. This edition of the Special
Digest and BS 8500 are aligned in using the BS EN 197-1 notation (see Part 2,
Appendix 2 of this Special Digest) plus residual British Standards for cements
not covered by BS EN 197-1; BS 5328 still refers entirely to British Standards.
The classification in BS EN 206-1 for chemical aggressiveness is limited to
natural soils and static water conditions. For this reason, BS 8500 is following
this Special Digest with its far wider range of application.
Appendix 1: Recommended test Additionally, where crystallisation initially occurs at a

relatively high temperature producing an anhydrous salt,
procedures for ground aggressive to subsequent wetting may lead to conversion to a hydrous
concrete crystalline form of substantial greater volume. A salt
UK test methods for the chemical analyses of aggressive particularly implicated in this latter mechanism is sodium
soil and groundwater have traditionally been sulfate which, subjected to alternate wetting and drying,
documented in BS 1377: Part 3: 1990. may alternate between anhydrous thenardite (Na2SO4)
Because this Standard did not cover some tests needed and hydrous mirabilite (Na2SO4.10H2O), with a change in
for ground investigation in respect of concrete, it was crystalline volume of some 300% and a potentially large
supplemented in 1995 by procedures detailed in BRE cyclical stress change. A comprehensive discussion of the
Report BR 279. This updated some test procedures topic is included in Sulfate attack on concrete [8].
covered by BS 1377 to include modern techniques, such In the UK, degradation of concrete due to salt
as determination of sulfate in aqueous solutions by cation crystallisation is rarely a problem for partly-buried
exchange and ion chromatography. concrete. For most ground conditions, the measures
Currently, however, both these documents are in need recommended here to mitigate chemical attack on
of further revision to accord, for example, with the latest concrete (and in particular specified free water:cement
widespread practice of determining elements in solution ratios of 0.5 or less) should also be effective against
by use of inductively coupled plasma atomic emission physical degradation due to crystallisation of sulfate salts.
spectroscopy (ICP-AES), rather than gravimetric Further guidance for extreme conditions is given CIRIA
analysis. The larger test laboratories currently follow in- Report C577 [9].
house procedures using this latter approach, rather than
BS 1377 and BR 279. Appendix 3: Guidance on comprehensive
The list of recommended test methods in Table A1
opposite is based on recent BRE experience and the
site investigation of sulfate ground
outcome of a review of test procedures for determination While the scope and procedures detailed in Sections 5
of sulfur species, reported in TRL Report 447 [7]. This list and 6 should be appropriate for site investigation leading
is not exclusive, however, and other methods may be to routine specification of durable concrete in the UK, it
used provided they can be demonstrated to be does not provide the full understanding of sulfate ground
appropriate. conditions which may be required for other applications
For total sulfur, the preferred method is the Ignition in or investigation of cases of sulfate attack on buried
oxygen method described in BR 279. This is a rapid concrete. The principal lack in the given standard
method which burns the soil sample at a high procedures is a separate determination of the likely
temperature in pure oxygen. All sulfur present is evolved constituent sulfates (those of calcium, magnesium,
as sulfur dioxide, quantified by infra-red detectors. sodium and potassium metals). Knowledge of these can
be important bearing in mind that:
Appendix 2: Damage to concrete from ● the Mg, Na and K sulfates are potentially more
problematic than Ca sulfate owing to their high
crystallisation of salts solubilities and different chemical activities, particularly
In addition to causing chemical attack on concrete, in the case of Mg sulfate which is notably aggressive to
soluble compounds originating in the ground can lead to some types of concrete;
degradation of concrete through a physical mechanism ● the limits of Sulfate Classes based on 2:1 water:soil
involving crystallisation of salts, usually sulfates or extracts are disproportionately high and the resultant
chlorides, near to the concrete surface. A classic scenario classification too low when the sulfates present are
for this is where concrete of high permeability is partly- relatively low in Ca sulfate and moderately high in Mg,
buried in wet sulfate or chloride-bearing ground and Na and K sulfates – see the box on page 14.
partly exposed to air. Sulfates or chlorides in solution may If a better understanding is required, a comprehensive
be drawn through the concrete by capillary suction to suite of soil and groundwater analyses can be carried out
evaporate at or close to the free surface. Crystallisation of to include determination of Ca, Mg, Na and K ions.
salts in pores close to the surface of the concrete may Procedures for these are given in BR 279. It can also be
generate expansive stresses that disrupt the concrete, carried out by ICP-AES analysis. Where cases of sulfate
while surface salt deposits form a characteristic attack are being investigated and groundwater samples
efflorescence. The process may be aggravated by can be obtained , it is additionally recommended that
repeated wetting and drying of the exposed concrete carbonate (or bicarbonate), chloride and nitrate contents
surface; this leads to cyclical salt precipitation and be determined. The former will provide data on a
dissolution and fatigue stressing of the concrete fabric. possible source of external carbonates that can fuel TSA
in the absence of carbonate aggregates, while the (2) the numbers of ions to be multiplied by their valencies
inclusion of all three will enable an ion balance check to as indicated by the respective superscripts in the
be made to provide an assurance that the principal following SO4-2, Cl-1, NO3-1, CO3-2,Ca+2, Mg+2, Na+1, K+1;
constituents of the groundwater have been accurately (3) the algebraic sum of (2) to be expressed as a
determined. Such an ion balance check will require: percentage by dividing by the total number of ions.
(1) the quantities of the determined ions (mg/l) to be Any significant out-of-balance that can not be accounted
divided by their atomic weights to find their relative for by analytical errors may indicate the presence of some
numbers in solution; other ion which needs to be identified.
Table A1 List of recommended source documents and test methods
Chemical determinations Symbol Recommended source Recommended test methods

recommended by (unit) documents
this Special Digest
Soil
pH in 2.5:1 water/soil extract pH BR 279 Electrometric method
BS 1377: Part 3 Section 9 Electrometric method
Soluble sulfate in WS (g/l SO4) BR 279 Procedures for gravimetric method, cation exchange
2:1 water/soil extract or ion chromatography
BS 1377: Part 3:1990 Gravimetric or ion exchange methods.
Section 5 Values determined as g/l SO3 should be multiplied by 1.2
TRL Report 447: Test 1 Sulfate extraction procedure as BS 1377, but
ICP-AES used to determine sulfur in solution
Acid soluble sulfate AS (% SO4) BR 279 Gravimetric method
BS 1377: Part 3:1990 Gravimetric methods
TRL Report 447: Test 2 Preparation and extraction of sulfate as BS 1377,
ICP-AES used to determine sulfur in solution
Total sulfur TS (% S) BR 279 Ignition in oxygen method
TRL Report 447:
Test 4A or Microwave digestion method
Test 4B Ignition in oxygen method
Magnesium in (g/l Mg) BR 279 Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) method
2:1 water/soil extract Sample preparation as BR 279, ICP-AES used
to determine magnesium in solution
Ammonium ion (g/l NH4+) BR 279
Nitrate in (g/l NO3) BR 279
2:1 water/soil extract
Chloride in (g/l Cl) BR 279
2:1 water/soil extract BS 1377: Part 3 Section 7
Groundwater
pH pH BR 279 Electrometric method
BS 1377: Part 3 Section 9 Electrometric method
Soluble sulfate GWS (SO4) BR 279 Procedures for gravimetric method, cation exchange
or ion chromatography
BS 1377: Part 3:1990 Gravimetric or ion exchange methods
TRL Report 447: Test 1 Determination of sulfur by ICP-AES
Soluble magnesium (g/l Mg) BR 279 Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) method
Sample preparation as BR 279, ICP-AES used
to determine magnesium in solution
Ammonium ion (g/l NH4+) BR 279
Nitrate (g/l NO3) BR 279
Chloride (g/l Cl) BR 279
BS 1377: Part 3 Section 7
Aggressive carbon dioxide (mg/l CO2) pr EN 13577:1999
References
[1] Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. The thaumasite form
of sulfate attack: Risks, diagnosis, remedial works and guidance on new construction.
Report of the Thaumasite Expert Group. DETR, January 1999.
[2] Cripps J C and Edwards R L. Ground Chemistry Implications for Construction.
Paper 2-2: Some geotechnical problems associated with pyrite bearing mudrocks.
Ed Hawkins A B. Balkema. Rotterdam. pp 77-88, 1997.
[3] Meteorological Office. Averages of earth temperature at depths of 30 cm and
122 cm for the United Kingdom 1931-1960. Report MO 794. HMSO, 1968.
[4] Perry J and West G. Sources of information for site investigations in Britain.
Report 192. TRL, 1996.
[5] Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. Handbook of model
procedures for managing contaminated land. Contaminated Land Research Report 11.
DETR, 1999.
[6] Highways Agency et al. Treatment of fill and capping materials using either lime or
cement or both. Advice Note HA 74/00, 2000.
[7] Reid J M, Czerewko M A and Cripps J C. Sulfate Specification for structural
backfills. TRL Report TRL447: Transport Research Laboratory, 2001.
[8] Skalny J, Marchant J and Older I. Sulfate attack on concrete. Spon Press,
London, 2002.
[9] Walker M. Guide to the construction of reinforced concrete in the Arabian
Peninsular. Report C577. CIRIA, London, 2002.
BRE
Paul, V. Performance of building materials in contaminated land.
BRE Report BR 255. Garston, BRE, 1994.
Bowley MJ. Sulfate and acid attack on concrete in the ground: recommended
procedures for soil analysis. BRE Report BR 279. Graston, CRC, 1995.
Roger Johnson. Protective measures for housing on gas-contaminated land.
BRE Report BR 414. Garston, CRC, 2001.
Charles, JA, Chown, RC, Watts, KS, and Fordyce, G. Brownfield sites: ground-
related risks for building. BRE Report BR 447. Garston, CRC, 2002.
BRE Digests
318 Site investigation for low-rise building: Desk studies
348 Site investigation for low-rise building: The walk-over study
381 Site investigation for low-rise building: Trial pits
383 Site investigation for low-rise building: Soil description
411 Site investigation for low-rise building: Direct investigation
444 Corrosion of steel in concrete (in three parts)
British Standards Institution

BS 12: 1996 Specification for Portland cement (withdrawn)
BS 1377: Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes
Part 1:1990 General requirements and sample preparation
Part 3:1990 Chemical and electro-chemical tests
BS 5328: Concrete
Part 1: 1997 Guide to specifying concrete
BS 5930: 1999 Code of practice for site investigation for civil engineering
BS 6349-1: Code of practice for maritime structures
Part 1:2000 General criteria
BS 8004: 1986 Code of practice for foundations
BS 8500: 2002 Concrete - complementary British Standard to BS EN 206:1
BS 10175: 2001 Code of practice for the identification of potentially contaminated sites
BS EN 197-1: 2000 Cement
Part 1: Composition, specification and conformity criteria for common cements
BS EN 206-1: 2000 Concrete
Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity
pr EN 13577: 1999 Water quality - Determination of aggressive CO2 content
(99/103828 DC)

Inventory Example

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Inventory Example

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Licensed copy from CIS: bbeatty, Balfour Beatty Construction, 27/03/2012, Uncontrolled Copy.

A single copy of this document is licensed to

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

Concrete in aggressive ground

BRE Centre for Concrete Construction

constructing the future

© Copyright BRE 2001

The four parts of this Special Digest deal with

BRE is committed to Acknowledgements

BRE material is also published quarterly on CD BRE Bookshop

Parts 1 to 4 of this Special Digest

aggressive chemical environments identified and classified in Part 1. Concrete

Part 3 gives sets of Design Guides 1x to 3x for the common applications of

The Tables are numbered consecutively irrespective

1. Introduction Differing site assessment procedures are given here for

the presence of sulfates. which had resulted from oxidation of pyrite-bearing

Sometimes, however, these recommended modifications

Stage 1 Part 1 Consider design options for building or structure and

Stage 2 Carry out site investigation to determine chemical

Geotechnical specialist See Part 1: Sections 2, 4, 5 and 6.1

Determine DS Class and ACEC Classes

Part 2 Determine the Structural Performance Level of

Formulate concrete mix design for structural element, taking account of

No Are all requirements of Design guide

Steps of procedure Refer to Special Digest

5. Proceed to concrete specification in Parts 2 to 4 Continue as Stage 3 of Figure 1-2

2. Constituents of aggressive ground and The sulfate-bearing strata of greatest national

2.1 Sulfates and sulfides distinguished by brown colouration characteristic of

Lower Lias Clay

Limit of main areas

Figure 1-4a Principal sulfate and/or

In the alkaline pore solution provided by the sodium,

when immersed in sulfate solutions at a normal groundwater in the surrounding area.

Important facts to note about the presence and mobility of

provide little or no resistance to the movement of water carrying

For each site location, select samples of various site

Use tests in Appendix 1 on samples to find:

Yes Determine Mg g/l as

Consider all water-soluble S04 and Mg results and deduce

Use tests in Appendix 1 to determine:

Groundwater samples should be taken and

Consider all water soluble S04 and Mg results and deduce

Find Sulfate Class equivalent to characteristic values

For each site location, select samples of various site

Use tests in Appendix 1 on samples to find:

For (a), is water-soluble sulfate Yes Determine Mg g/l

Consider all water-soluble S04 and Mg results and deduce

Find Sulfate Class equivalent to characteristic values of

Respectively for test results on soil and groundwater:

Yes Determine Mg g/l

Consider all S04 and Mg results for groundwater and

For adopted Design Sulfate For adopted Design Sulfate

For each site location, select samples of various site

Use tests in Appendix 1 on samples to find:

(c) Total Potential Sulfate (TPS as % S04)

Yes Determine Mg g/l

Take the highest of

For adopted Design Sulfate For adopted Design Sulfate

Consider all S04 and Mg results for groundwater and

Groundwater samples should be taken and

Table 2 Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete (ACEC) site classification

Sulfate and magnesium Natural soil Brownfield [3] ACEC

Explanation of suffix symbols to ACEC Class number

For natural ground with Mobile groundwater