Sulfate
Attack
on Concrete:
Laboratory versus
Field Experience
I have worked for three decades in
California, where sulfate-rich soils
are common and, in my experience,
chemical sulfate attack on concrete is
minimal and material distress caused
by it is rare. Currently, in California,
there are dozens of litigation cases
related to sulfate attack on residential
concrete foundations. The primary
claim by plaintiffs in these lawsuits
is that sulfates are damaging the
concrete foundations of their homes
because the water-cementitious
materials ratio (w/cm) of the concrete
was higher than the American
Concrete Institute’s ACI 318, “Building
Code for Structural Concrete,” permits.
This litigation has focused
technical attention on sulfate attack,
rivaling that given to the subject in
the 1920s and 1930s when sulfate
attack was being studied aggres-
sively. Analysis of hundreds of cores,
drilled from concrete exposed to
sulfate-rich soil, has not shown
chemical sulfate attack. In all, only a
few samples show evidence of the
early stages of what may eventually
be sulfate attack. These microscopic
examples of sulfate attack were
64 JULY 2002 / Concrete international
BY HARVEY HAYNES
found near the exterior faces of
concrete that had been exposed to
sulfates for up to 10 years. Other
distress to the surface of the concrete,
however, has been found to be a
result of physical salt attack.
Laboratory research indicates
that concrete can be quite suscep-
tible to chemical attack by sulfates
and that considerable damage may
result. How can laboratory findings
show significant deterioration, while
concrete in the field exposed to sulfate-
rich soils seldom suffer from sulfate
attack? In this paper, an attempt is
made to explain this discrepancy.
BACKGROUND
Classical sulfate attack has been
considered to be distress caused by
a chemical reaction between sulfate
ions and the hydration products of
portland cement, with consequential
damage by ettringite and gypsum
formation. These two effects may be
independent of each other, and
either or both may cause deteriora-
tion of the concrete. Hime and
Mather1 not only discussed classical
sulfate attack, but also several
distress mechanisms that have been
incorrectly called sulfate attack.
Hime and Mather’s definition of
classic sulfate attack includes the
following expansive reactions:
■ Ettringite formation involving
calcium and aluminate ions supplied
by hydrated cement and sulfate ions
from an external source; and
■ Gypsum formation involving
calcium ions supplied by hydrated
cement and sulfate ions from an
external source.
The nonsulfate-attack mecha-
nisms, which in the past have been
considered sulfate attack, were:
■ Iron sulfide oxidizing to sulfate
and, in the process, producing
sulfuric acid;
■ The magnesium cation from
magnesium sulfate decomposing
hydrated cement paste; and
■ Sodium sulfate salt causing
physical salt attack.
These distinctions among sulfate-
attack mechanisms were not made
previously, thus “sulfate attack”
became an umbrella term.
Mehta2 performed a critical review
of cases of sulfate attack on field
concrete and concluded that labor-
atory tests were biased toward creating
the “ettringite type” of sulfate attack,
while field concrete experienced
mostly a combination of ettringite
and gypsum attack. Mehta’s view of
gypsum damage is different from the
classical view of expansion. He believes
that gypsum formation is associated
with weak, soft concrete. His theory
was that the presence of gypsum was
evidence of a loss of paste adhesive
strength due to the decomposition of
calcium silicate hydrates.
Gollop and Taylor3,4 reported a
different type of damage caused by
gypsum formation. They tested 1-in.
(25 mm) cubes of cement paste
exposed to sodium sulfate or
magnesium sulfate solutions with
sulfate concentrations of 24,000 ppm.
As the sulfate reaction advanced into
the paste, its first effect was the
production of ettringite, which did
not cause damage from expansion.
Subsequently, gypsum formed near
the exterior surface. The zone where
gypsum formed contained little or no
calcium hydroxide. Some gypsum
occurred in veins, which were below
and parallel to the cube’s surfaces,
and was especially abundant near
the cube’s edges. Gollop and Taylor
concluded that expansion occurred
in the zone of gypsum formation, and
that it tended to detach the surface
layer of the cube. One difference in
behavior between cubes made with
ordinary portland cement and with
sulfate-resistant portland cement
was that the ordinary cement
produced more ettringite and more
veins of gypsum.
Bonen and Cohen5 described a
similar attack mechanism on cement
paste specimens submerged in
magnesium sulfate solutions with
sulfate concentrations of 16,800 and
33,600 ppm. A double layer, where
brucite was the outer layer and
gypsum the inner layer, formed on
the surface of the specimens.
Additional layers of gypsum formed
internally, parallel to the specimen’s
surface. The brucite layer eventually
became thick enough to prevent the
further ingress of sulfate, and
gypsum formation ceased.
Thaulow and Jakobsen6 describe
evidence of sulfate attack on concrete
examined petrographically, and state
that the presence of gypsum layers
near the surface is a requisite sign
of attack.
Haynes, O’Neill, and Mehta7
discussed physical salt attack where
cycles of hydrating and dehydrating
sodium sulfate were identified as a
likely mechanism to cause damage
to the surface of concrete. The
concrete surface becomes etched,
eroded, or scaled, and has an
appearance similar to that of con-
crete damaged by freezing and
thawing. Salt attack commonly
occurs in field concrete where
sodium sulfate is present in the soil,
even when the concrete has not
been exposed to freezing-and-
thawing cycles. The attack mechanism
is independent of sulfate because
sodium carbonate salt causes
essentially identical distress. Idorn8
reported surface scaling of concrete
by sodium chloride.
A long-term field study by the
Portland Cement Association (PCA)
overlooked an opportunity to
distinguish between physical and
chemical effects. Stark9,10 tested
concrete prisms half-buried in soil
and exposed to sodium sulfate
solutions of about 68,000 ppm of
sulfate. The specimens also experi-
enced long-term cycles of wetting
and drying. The aboveground
portions of the concrete prisms
disintegrated by various degrees,
some completely. The belowground
portions of the prisms were essentially
in perfect condition, and companion
concrete prisms, submerged in
sulfate solutions in the laboratory,
were unaffected. No investigation
was conducted to identify the failure
mechanisms. The implicit assumption
was that distress resulted from
sulfate attack; however, Stark10
commented that physical salt attack
may have been a cause of distress.
CASE HISTORIES
I conducted a literature search to
identify case histories describing
sulfate attack. From 1968 to the
present, I found only seven reports,
which is an indication of the rarity of
sulfate attack problems in the field.
I studied these case histories11-17 to
determine whether I could identify
the attack mechanisms. In most of
the cases, the concrete had not been
examined microscopically or by
X-ray diffraction, which was a major
drawback. These analytical proce-
dures are necessary to identify
chemical alterations of the hydrated
cement paste, damage to the micro-
structure of the paste, or presence of
ettringite or gypsum. In the absence
of such examinations, descriptions
in the case histories were suspect.
Also, because the umbrella term
of sulfate attack was used at the
time, investigators did not distin-
guish among chemical sulfate
attack, acid attack, magnesium ion
attack, and physical salt attack. An
example is a case history reported
by Novokshchenov,16 in which he
concluded that “deterioration in the
underground structures occurred
due to aggressive action of magne-
sium sulfates from saline water and
the decomposing effect of calcium
sulfates from ground water.” How-
ever, other evidence in the text of
the report showed that chemical
sulfate attack on the concrete did
not occur. Petrographic examination
of concrete cores from the deterio-
rated areas showed that “no signs of
unsoundness were found below
the deteriorated layer.” Further
discussion describes possible
physical salt attack.
Most of the case histories were
for structures built prior to the
manufacture of sulfate-resistant
cement, or for structures using
ordinary portland cement concrete
or extremely poor-quality concrete.
Descriptions of deterioration
showed that the concrete had lost
mass and strength. The repeated
observation that distress occurred
Concrete international / JULY 2002 65
initially on the exterior surface—
which was in contact with soil or
water— and progressed inward, was
of interest. Overall, the few reported
cases strongly suggested little
indication of sulfate attack on
concrete constructed during the
past 50 years or so—the time period
that followed the manufacture of
sulfate-resistant cement.
LABORATORY VERSUS
FIELD EXPERIENCE
Because severe exposure conditions
are generally used in laboratory tests
for sulfate attack, the tests usually
convey an impression that sulfate
attack is significant. But, field experi-
ence seldom indicates significant
sulfate attack. Several factors may
account for this discrepancy between
laboratory and field experience.
Specimen size
External sulfate attack starts near
the surface and progresses deeper
into the concrete. Laboratory tests
use small specimens, such as
cylinders 2 or 3 in. (50 or 75 mm) in
diameter, prisms 1 x 1 in. (25 x 25 mm)
in cross section, or 1-in. (25 mm)
cubes. These specimens all have
large surface-to-volume ratios,
exposing a significant portion of the
mortar or concrete mass to sulfate.
Smaller specimens show the effects
of sulfate attack faster than larger
specimens do, which is an advantage
because it shortens the test duration.
If the outside surface layer of a
small specimen experiences sulfate
attack, a large percentage of the
cross-sectional area is affected.
Some compression tests of small
specimens have shown major
decreases in strength, implying that
the concrete had been significantly
attacked. For example, Miller and
Manson18 presented a figure that
showed decrease in compressive
strength as a function of expansion-
induced specimen length change.
Length changes of 0.25% reduced
compressive strength by 70%. Their
specimens were 2 x 4-in. (50 x 100 mm)
66 JULY 2002 / Concrete international
cylinders cured in distilled water
(a practice not recommended today
because of leaching of calcium
hydroxide). These cylinders were
then submerged in 7000-ppm sulfate
solutions for one to two years.
Sulfate attack did occur, but deterio-
rated concrete wasn’t trimmed off
the ends before they were capped
and the specimens were tested.
These factors, together with near-
surface sulfate attack, caused
significant decreases in compressive
strength of the small specimens.
In a full-scale structure, near-
surface deterioration is not structurally
significant. Reading17,19 reported on a
case of sulfate attack on the Fort
Peck Dam, which was built in 1937.
The cement used in the dam had a
tricalcium aluminate (C3A) content
ranging from 6.8 to 9.4%. The concrete
cement content was 560 lb/yd3
(333 kg/m3), and the water-cement
ratio was about 0.50. After 20 years
of service, the structure was
inspected and showed distress in
a few locations. One location of
distress was the bottom of a penstock
floor, which was in contact with
shale that contained sulfate at
concentrations up to 10,000 ppm.
Reading found, by petrographic
analysis, that the concrete contained
considerable amounts of ettringite
and some gypsum, so there had been
“a little chemical attack near the
shale, but the concrete appeared to
be sound and the cores showed no
drop-off in strength.”19 The depth of
the affected surface was measured
as 0.1 to 0.2 in. (3 to 5 mm).
The literature gives little attention
to the surface effects of sulfate
attack, although Glasser20 has stated
that ettringite and gypsum tend to
form at or near the surface. Laboratory
studies commonly use expansion as
an indication of sulfate attack. When
mortar bar specimens and cylinders
show transverse cracks through the
specimen, the implication is that the
expansion affects all of the concrete.
However, if the entire specimen
cross section expanded uniformly,
there would not be cracking.
Through-cracks appear when near-
surface concrete expands more than
the specimen’s core does. This
surface expansion places the core
of the specimen in tension, which
can cause cracks in small specimens.
Large field specimens of concrete are
not likely to be affected by similar
surface expansion.
Sulfate exposure
In preparation for field tests of
concrete placed in sulfate-rich soils
in 1915, Wig and Williams21 and Wig,
Williams, and Finn22 analyzed soils at
eight sites in the United States,
including seven Western states.
Photographs of these sites showed
the ground surfaces to be covered
with deposits of white alkali salts.
The cations and anions present
indicated that the soils contained
materials from ancient seabeds.
Generally, the soils had sulfate
contents that varied from 0.1 to 0.3%,
with an occasional high of about
1.0%. For soil mixed with water at a
one-to-one mass ratio, the sulfate
content of the water solution would
be 1000 to 3000 ppm, with highs of
10,000 ppm. Overall, the sulfate
content of the groundwater was less
than that determined for the soil,
with some exceptions.
To accelerate laboratory tests,
studies have typically used 5 to 10%
by mass of sodium sulfate or
magnesium sulfate dissolved in
distilled water. This produced sulfate
concentrations ranging from 34,000
to 80,000 ppm. In general, these
sulfate exposures are between one
and two orders of magnitude greater
than field sulfate exposures.
These significantly higher sulfate
conditions in the laboratory can
produce chemical reactions within
concrete that are not found in the field.
Price and Peterson12 wrote: “In one
phase of the research, test specimens
were immersed in a 5% solution of
Na2SO4 + MgSO4. It is now believed
that such a high concentration
provides a severe and unnatural
environment, which may give mislead-
ing results relative to performance
in the field.”
Because sulfate is a weak acid,
high concentrations may increase the
rate of calcium hydroxide dissolution.
Effect of chloride and
other ions
Typical sulfate-rich soils contain
varying amounts of common seawater
elements such as chloride, sulfate,
sodium, magnesium, calcium, and
potassium. The proportions of these
elements in the soil vary widely due
to leaching and changes in transport
properties over time.
The presence of chlorides and
other ions can have a mitigating
effect on sulfate attack. It is known
that seawater, which contains about
2700 ppm of sulfate, does not cause
aggressive sulfate attack, even for
concrete with high C3A content.
Mehta23 proposed that chloride ions,
which have essentially replaced
hydroxyl ions, suppress the expansion
of ettringite. This means that the
nonswelling type of ettringite should
form as opposed to the swelling
type. Mehta went on to say, “...the
influence of chloride on the system
demonstrates the error too often
made in modeling the behavior of
materials when, for the sake of
simplicity, the effect of an individual
factor on a phenomenon is predicted
without sufficient regard to the other
factors present, which may modify
the effect significantly.”
At times the amount of chloride in
sulfate-rich soil is sufficiently high
to present a concern regarding the
corrosion of reinforcement. Logic
would indicate that chloride ions in
the soil could have a mitigating effect
on sulfate expansion, just as is
observed with seawater.
Other common anions found in soil,
which do not originate from seawater,
are carbonate (CO3) and bicarbonate
(HCO3). These anions permit the
formation of the stable compounds,
calcite and carboaluminate, which will
not convert to a sulfate phase. There-
fore, these chemical reactions are
capable of mitigating sulfate attack
in the field.
In the laboratory, test solutions
are frequently made using pure
sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate.
The magnesium cation is not com-
monly found in the field in significant
amounts. Its presence in test solutions
can cause aggressive magnesium ion
attack on calcium silicate hydrate.23
This accelerated deterioration is
inappropriately attributed to sulfate
attack. Since the laboratory test
environment is artificial, it is possible
to isolate variables—a desirable
technique in reductionistic investiga-
tions, but a technique that rarely
simulates field behavior.
The concrete industry sorely
lacks investigative studies of field
concrete exposed to sulfate-rich native
soils. But there are many building
foundations with long-term exposure
to sulfate-rich soils. The following
section addresses this topic.
Field experience of sulfate-
rich soil interaction with
residential foundations
Throughout the state of California,
ancient seabed deposits provide
sporadic locations of sulfate-rich
soils. Tens of thousands of houses
have been built on sulfate-rich soil,
knowingly and unknowingly. These
houses represent a massive data
pool, providing information on long-
term field exposure to sulfates, which
can be useful in understanding
sulfate attack.
A tiny fraction of these houses
have been involved in litigation. As
mentioned earlier, much sampling
and testing of concrete from residential
foundations has occurred over the
past 7 years because of litigation.
These houses, of which the oldest
was 10 years old, have provided
important microanalysis data on
field concrete. Geographically,
housing developments from the
southernmost part of the state to the
northern San Francisco Bay area
were involved, with wide variations
in sulfate exposure. When a significant
amount of sulfate was found in the
soil, the amount was similar to that
found by Wig and Williams21 and Wig,
Williams, and Finn22 which was an
average water-soluble sulfate content
of about 0.2% by mass, with sparse
highs up to about 1.0%. The sulfates
present were primarily sodium sulfate,
with some magnesium sulfate and
calcium sulfate. Petrographers
across the country have examined
hundreds of concrete cores from
these homes using optical micro-
scopes. Their findings, as a whole,
showed that no significant sulfate
attack occurred on the concrete
exposed to sulfate-rich soils. There
were rare instances where the
petrographers found gypsum in
minor amounts within the exterior
5 mm (0.2 in.) of the concrete
surface. They also observed scaled
exterior surfaces, which indicate
physical salt attack.
For the houses not studied, common
design practice for the concrete was
to meet the minimum Uniform Build-
ing Code compressive strength
requirement of 2000 psi (13.8 MPa)
until 1988, when it was increased to
2500 psi (17.2 MPa). Typical concrete
mixtures used about 470 lb/yd3
(280 kg/m3) of Type II cement, and a
w/cm of 0.60 to 0.70. Since the late
1960s, all cement sold in California
had to meet at least the Type II
specification of less than 8% C3A.
I gathered performance data on
the foundations from the experience
of local concrete consulting engineers.
The justification for this approach is
that concrete material problems
require specialty knowledge for
analysis and solution. If a persistent
or pervasive problem existed with
the foundations in the area, the local
concrete engineers would be aware of
it. The experience of each engineer,
which ranged from 20 to 50 years, was
that he or she had encountered
isolated sulfate-attack problems in
processing plants or unusual situa-
tions, but these problems were not
related to sulfate-rich soils. I conclude
Concrete international / JULY 2002 67
from this that residential house
foundations have not had problems
with sulfate attack but, instead,
physical salt attack.
Perhaps sulfate attack on concrete
is not as aggressive as laboratory
research would indicate. Mehta24
recently asked, “…how serious is the
threat of structural failure due to
sulfate attack?” He answered that it
seems to be even less of a threat
than that caused by alkali-silica
reaction (ASR). He also concluded
that most ASR occurring in field
concrete is harmless.
REVISED VIEW OF DAMAGE
CAUSED BY SULFATE ATTACK
The impetus for a revised concep-
tual model of sulfate attack was
related to three observations that
are not explained by classical sulfate
attack mechanisms.
First, PCA data9,10,25 conclusively
showed that the C3A content of
cement affected the rate of deterio-
ration of field-exposed concrete.
Yet, it was evident that ettringite
formation was not the mechanism of
attack because the belowground
portion of the prisms had not
deteriorated. If ettringite formation
caused the deterioration of concrete
above ground, it would have also
caused deterioration below ground.
Because physical salt attack is not
related to the C3A content of the
cement, it alone could not be
entirely responsible for all of the
distress activity. So, what failure
mechanism involved C3A?
Second, calcium hydroxide is
abundant in the pore fluid of concrete
and, according to classical sulfate
attack, the calcium will combine with
sulfate to form gypsum (CaSO4 . 2H2O).
Thus, abundant gypsum should be
produced when sulfate ions enter
concrete. Petrographic examinations
of concrete from the residential
foundations did not reveal gypsum,
except in rare instances. Why wasn’t
abundant gypsum found?
Third, in the 1920s, Wig, Williams,
and Finn22; Williams26; and Williams
68 JULY 2002 / Concrete international
and Furlong27 stated that deterioration
due to sulfate attack appeared to be
from salt attack and some unknown
chemical activity. Between then and
the early 1990s, salt attack was not
acknowledged as a meaningful
deterioration mechanism. In 1996,
Haynes, O’Neill, and Mehta7 sug-
gested that physical salt attack may
have been reported as sulfate attack
in the past. Is it possible that the two
attack mechanisms have a similar
appearance, and that distress by
physical salt attack has been called
chemical sulfate attack?
The following conceptual model
offers a plausible explanation of the
three observations. The basic
framework follows that described by
Gollop and Taylor.4 Although they
used cement paste samples, the
following discussion herein will refer
to concrete. Earlier in this article,
I summarized the work in which they
observed sulfate attack as a gypsum
layer formation in subparallel veins
near the surface. An ettringite front
developed initially, and gypsum
followed later.
Ettringite converts to gypsum
Reardon28 and Gollop and Taylor3
reported that ettringite is unstable in
an environment with a pH below
10.7. The decomposition of ettringite
produces gypsum, calcium carbonate,
and aluminum hydroxide. This is a
source of gypsum that has not
previously been highlighted as a
major contributor to distress.
Gollop and Taylor4 noted that
ordinary portland cement, as
compared with moderate sulfate-
resistant cement, showed more
gypsum formation in layers near the
surface of specimens. This observation
supports the activity of ordinary
cement with a higher C3A content,
producing more ettringite and
subsequently more gypsum than
moderately sulfate-resistant cement.
The findings of the PCA9,10,25 tests
now have a possible explanation.
Concrete with a high C3A cement
deteriorated more rapidly than
concrete with a low C3A cement
because more ettringite was available
for formation of gypsum layers. The
aboveground concrete could have
deteriorated, in part, by exfoliation
of gypsum layers. Physical salt
attack could also have been active,
and likely was active,25 in the PCA
tests.
Calcium hydroxide
contributes to the
formation of gypsum under
restricted conditions
The pore fluid in normal concrete
has a pH of at least 12.5 due to the
hydroxyl ions provided by calcium
hydroxide. According to Reardon,28
gypsum precipitates at a pH of less
than 10.6 to 11.6. Hence, in the
presence of abundant calcium
hydroxide, gypsum will not precipitate
even though calcium and sulfate ions
are present. This explains the
observation that gypsum was not
found in concrete foundations
exposed to sulfate-containing soils.
Hydroxyl ions can leach out of
concrete near the surface, however,
reducing the pH of the pore fluid.
Under this restricted condition,
gypsum may form using calcium
from either calcium hydroxide or
calcium silicate hydrate and sulfate
from an external source.
Appearance of distress
Gollop and Taylor4 stated that
gypsum layers appeared to detach
from the surface, perhaps from weak
expansion forces. I surmise that, for
concrete above ground, detached
gypsum layers may appear as
exfoliation. This appearance could
be similar to that of physical salt
attack, which is described as a
surface scaling.
Overview of chemical
sulfate-attack mechanisms
An overview of chemical sulfate
attack can be described using the pH
of the pore fluid as a guiding factor.
For concrete made with cement of
high C3A content and exposed to
external sulfate, there is the strong
probability that distress occurs due to
ettringite formation by itself or by its
conversion to gypsum. Mehta29 found
that the swelling type of ettringite
required a pH of over 12.5, so
ettringite distress alone could occur in
the uncarbonated concrete. Below a
pH of 12.5, a nonswelling type of
ettringite was found. And, below a pH
of 10.7 ettringite is unstable.
With time, a slow, progressive
lowering of pH from the surface
inward would cause the decomposi-
tion of ettringite to gypsum and other
compounds. Gypsum-layer formation
near the surface can result in exfol-
iation of the surface. The gypsum
layers can also be an intermediate
stage to complete deterioration of
hydrated cement paste into a weak,
soft mass of gypsum.
For concrete made with cement of
low C3A content, the amount of
ettringite formed may be insufficient
to cause meaningful internal distress,
such as numerous microcracks.
Decomposition of ettringite to gypsum
would be minor, so gypsum layer
formation would be slight. Distress
by gypsum formation could occur if
the external sulfate environment
were high in sulfate ion concentration,
as found in laboratory tests.
SUMMARY
Laboratory test procedures
generally exaggerate the influence of
sulfate attack. Such procedures
involve the use of test solutions of
high sulfate concentration, solutions
of pure sodium sulfate or magnesium
sulfate, and small-sized specimens.
This contrasts with field concrete,
where sulfate solutions are of much
lower concentration and contain
other anions besides sulfate (such as
carbonate and chloride), which
mitigate the effects of sulfate attack.
Furthermore, the sizes of structural
members in the field are much
larger than those of laboratory
specimens. Field conditions, in
combination with concrete of
relatively low C3A content, appear
to result in concrete that rarely
shows chemical sulfate attack.
Apparently, the severity of chemical
sulfate attack on concrete has been
overstated due to the reliance on
results from laboratory studies.
An additional mechanism of
sulfate-attack damage on concrete is
discussed in this paper. It is proposed
that cements of high C3A content
initially form ettringite when exposed
to sulfate; however, if the hydroxyl
ion concentration in the pore fluid of
the concrete subsequently drops,
the ettringite decomposes into
gypsum. This gypsum, deposited in
layers just below the concrete’s
surface, can cause exfoliation that
resembles the damage caused by
physical salt attack.
References
1. Hime, W. G. and Mather, B., “Sulfate
Attack, or Is It?,” Cement and Concrete
Research, V. 29, 1999, pp. 789-791.
2. Mehta, P. K., “Sulfate Attack on
Concrete—A Critical Review,” Materials
Science of Concrete III, The American
Ceramic Society, 1992, pp. 105-127.
3. Gollop, R. S., and Taylor, H. F. W.,
“Microstructural and Microanalytical Studies
of Sulfate Attack—I: Ordinary Portland
Cement Paste,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 22, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1027-1038.
4. Gollop, R. S., and Taylor, H. F. W.,
“Microstructural and Microanalytical
Studies of Sulfate Attack—III: Sulfate-
Resisting Portland Cement: Reactions with
Sodium and Magnesium Sulfate Solutions,”
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 25, No. 7,
1995, pp. 1581-1590.
5. Bonen, D., and Cohen, M. D., “Magne-
sium Sulfate Attack on Portland Cement
Paste—II: Chemical and Mineralogical
Analyses,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 22, 1992, pp. 707-718.
6. Thaulow, N., and Jakobsen, U. H.,
The Diagnosis of Chemical Deterioration
of Concrete by Optical Microscopy:
Mechanisms of Chemical Degradation of
Cement-Based Systems, E & FN Spon, New
York, 1997, pp. 3-13.
7. Haynes, H.; O’Neill, R.; and Mehta, P. K.,
“Concrete Deterioration from Physical
Attack by Salts,” Concrete International, V. 18,
No. 1, Jan. 1996, pp. 63-68.
8. Idorn, G. M., Concrete Progress, Thomas
Telford, London, 1997, pp. 274-275.
9. Stark, D., “Longtime Study of Concrete
Durability in Sulfate Soils,” George Verbeck
Symposium on Sulfate Resistance in Concrete,
SP-77, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1982, pp. 21-40.
(Also available as Portland Cement Associa-
tion R & D Bulletin RD086.01T, pp. 1-13.)
10. Stark, D., “Durability of Concrete in
Sulfate-Rich Soils,” R & D Bulletin RD097.1T,
Portland Cement Association, 1989, pp. 1-14.
11. Hurst, W. D., “Experience in the
Winnipeg Area with Sulphate-Resisting
Cement Concrete,” Performance of Concrete,
University of Toronto Press, 1968, pp. 125-134.
12. Price, G. C., and Peterson, R.,
“Experience with Concrete in Sulphate
Environments in Western Canada,” Perfor-
mance of Concrete, University of Toronto
Press, 1968, pp. 93-112.
13. Hamilton, J. J., and Handegord, G. O.,
“The Performance of Ordinary Portland
Cement Concrete in Prairie Soils of High
Sulphate Content,” Performance of Concrete,
University of Toronto Press, 1968, pp. 135-158.
14. Harboe, E. M., “Longtime Studies and
Field Experiences with Sulfate Attack,”
George Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate
Resistance of Concrete, SP-77, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.,
1982, pp. 1-20.
15. St. John, D. A., “An Unusual Case of
Ground Water Sulphate Attack on Concrete,”
Cement and Concrete Research, V. 12, 1982,
pp. 633-639.
16. Novokshchenov, V., “Investigation of
Concrete Deterioration Due to Sulfate Attack
—A Case History,” Concrete Durability,
SP-100, V. 2, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1987, pp. 1979-2006.
17. Reading, T. J., “Combating Sulfate
Attack in Corps of Engineers Concrete
Construction,” Durability of Concrete, SP-47,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 1975, pp. 343-366.
18. Miller, D. G., and Manson, P. W., “Long-
Time Tests of Concretes and Mortars
Exposed to Sulfate Waters,” Technical
Bulletin 194, University of Minnesota
Agricultural Experiment Station, May 1951,
pp. 1-111.
19. Reading, T. J., “Physical Aspects of
Sodium Sulfate Attack on Concrete,” George
Concrete international / JULY 2002 69
Verbeck Symposium on Sulfate Resistance of
Concrete, SP-77, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, Mich., 1982, pp. 75-81.
20. Glasser, F. P., “Reactions Between
Cement Paste Components and Sulfate
Ions,” Materials Science of Concrete: Sulfate
Attack Mechanisms, 1999, pp. 99-122.
21. Wig, R. J., and Williams, G. M.,
“Investigation of the Durability of Cement
Drain Tile in Alkali Soils,” Technologic Papers
of the Bureau of Standards No. 44, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1915, pp. 1-56.
22. Wig, R. J.; Williams, G. M.; and Finn, A. N.,
“Durability of Cement Draintile and Concrete
in Alkali Soils,” Technologic Papers of the
Bureau of Standards No. 95, U.S. Department
of Commerce, 1917, pp. 1-140.
23. Mehta, P. K., Concrete: Structure,
Properties and Materials, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1st Edition, 1986,
pp. 159-160.
24. Mehta, P. K., “Sulfate Attack: Separat-
ing Myths From Reality,” Concrete Inter-
national, V. 22, No. 8, Aug. 2000, pp. 57-61. 29. Mehta, P. K., “Mechanisms of Sulfate
25. McMillian, F. R.; Stanton, T. E.; Attack on Portland Cement Concrete—
Tyler, I. L.; and Hansen, W. C., “Long-Time Another Look,” Cement and Concrete
Study of Cement Performance in Concrete, Research, V. 13, 1983, pp. 401-406.
Chapter 5. Concrete Exposed to Sulfate Soils,”
Selected for reader interest by the editors.
Research and Development Bulletin 30,
Portland Cement Association, Dec., 1949, pp. 64.
26. Williams, G. M., “Durability of Cement
Draintile and Concrete in Alkali Soils:
Third Progress Report (1919-1920),”
Technologic Papers of the Bureau of Standards Harvey Haynes, FACI,
No. 214, U.S. Department of Commerce, is Principal of Haynes
1922, pp. 463-494. & Associates, a
27. Williams, G. M., and Furlong, I., concrete consulting
“Durability of Cement Draintile and Concrete firm. He is a member
in Alkali Soils: Fourth Progress Report of ACI Committee
(1923),” Technologic Papers of the Bureau of 201, Durability of
Standards No. 307, U.S. Department of Concrete; and 224,
Commerce, 1926, pp. 191-240. Cracking; and is Past
28. Reardon, E. J., “An Ion Interaction Chair of 357, Offshore and Marine
Model for the Determination of Chemical Concrete Structures. He is a past presi-
Equilibria in Cement/Water Systems,” Cement dent of the ACI Northern California and
and Concrete Research, V. 20, 1990, pp. 175-192. Western Nevada Chapter.

NOW
W AVAILABLE—MSJC
A ABLE—MSJC 2002
Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures Specifications for Masonry Structures
(ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 602) (ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602)
PLUS COMPANION COMMENTARIES
A new chapter on strength design of masonry is one of several substantial changes incorporated in MSJC 2002. This new chapter provides an
improved model for inelastic system performance, especially for earthquake-induced loads. It also makes the MSJC 2002 code requirements
more compatible with the inelastic load criteria of ASCE 7-98 (Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Structures) and with IBC requirements.
Other significant code changes include:

■ Integrated seismic design requirements

■ Modifications for allowable flexural tension design values
■ Changes in wind-speed threshold for empirical design
■ New criteria for veneer supported by wood
■ Clarifications for empirically designed shear walls
■ Prohibition of the use of wall ties with drips
■ Addition of corrosion protection provisions to the code

The revised specification includes changes in cold-weather requirements, removal of all

“when-required” provisions, and addition of veneer anchorage requirements.

MSJC 2002
Order Code: 053002.CI07
$93.50 (ACI members $70.00)

Get your copy today.

To Order: Phone: (248) 848-3800; Fax: (248) 848-3801;
Online: www.concrete.org

70 JULY 2002 / Concrete international