Materials and Structures

, Volume 46, Issue 7, pp 1061–1073 | Cite as

Sulfate resistance of Portland-limestone cements in combination with supplementary cementitious materials

  • Amir Mohammad Ramezanianpour
  • R. Douglas Hooton
Original Article


In this study, the sulfate resistance of five different high-C3A Portland and Portland-limestone cements and their combinations with 30–50 % slag were examined at both 5 and 23 °C according to CSA A3004-C8 (similar to ASTM C1012). Also, XRD was used to identify the phases formed after sulfate attack. It was found that in 23 °C exposure, while 100 % cement mixes deteriorated due to conventional ettringite-based sulfate attack, partially replacing the cements with 30 or 50 % slag was effective in making the mixes highly sulfate-resistant. At 5 °C, all of the 100 % cement mortar bars expanded more than the test limits and eventually completely disintegrated due to the formation of thaumasite. Partially replacing cement with 30 % slag was only effective in controlling the deterioration for Portland cements but not Portland-limestone cements. However, all the Portland-limestone cements with 50 % slag were resistant to the thaumasite form of sulfate attack after 2 years.


Portland-limestone cements Sulfate resistance Thaumasite Slag Sustainability 



Financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Cement Association of Canada and Holcim Canada Inc. is gratefully appreciated.


  1. 1.
    Borsoi A, Collepardi S, Coppola L, Troli R, Collepardi M (2000) Sulfate attack on blended Portland cements. ACI SP-192, 1: 417–432Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Collepardi M, Monosi S, Favoni O, Ogoumah-Olagot JJ (2003) Resistance to sulfate attack of mixtures with limestone-Portland blended cements. Proceedings of 6th international conference on durability of concrete, ACI SP-212, pp 941–949Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    CSA A3000 (2008) Cementitious materials compendium, Canadian Standards Association, CSA International, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gao X, Ma B, Yang Y, Su A (2007) Sulfate attack of cement-based material with limestone filler exposed to different environments. J Mater Eng Perform 17:543–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    González MA, Irassar EF (1998) Effect of limestone filler on the sulfate resistance of low C3A Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 28:1655–1667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartshorn SA, Sharp JH, Swamy RN (2001) Engineering properties and structural implications of Portland limestone cement mortar exposed to magnesium sulfate attack. Adv Cem Res 13:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hekal EE, Kishar E, Mostafa H (2002) Magnesium sulfate attack on hardened blended cement pastes under different circumstances. Cem Concr Res 32:1421–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins DD, Crammond NJ (2003) Resistance of concrete containing GGBS to the thaumasite form of sulfate attack. Cem Concr Compos 25:921–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Higgins DD (2003) Increased sulfate resistance of GGBFS concrete in the presence of carbonate. Cem Concr Compos 25:913–919MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holton I (2003) Final report on 3-year investigation to establish resistance of Portland limestone cement concretes. BRE Report 209-164 for British Cement AssociationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hooton RD (1986) Permeability and pore structure of cement pastes containing fly ash, slag, and silica fume. In: Frohnsdorff G (ed) Blended cements, ASTM STP 897. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 128–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hooton RD (1990) Effects of carbonate additions on heat of hydration and sulfate resistance of Portland cement. In: Klieger P, Hooton RD (eds) Carbonate additions to cement, ASTM STP 1064. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hooton RD, Thomas MDA, Nokken MR (2007) Portland-limestone cement: state-of-the-art report and gap analysis for CSA A3000. Portland Cement Association, Research and Development Report SN3053Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Irassar EF, Gonzalez M, Rahhal V (2000) Sulfate resistance of Type V cements with limestone filler and natural pozzolana. Cem Concr Compos 22:361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Irassar EF, Bonavetti VL, Trezza MA, González MA (2005) Thaumasite formation in limestone filler cements exposed to sodium sulfate solution at 20 °C. Cem Concr Compos 27:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Javed I, Bhatty JI, Taylor PC (2006) Sulfate resistance of concrete using blended cements or supplementary cementitious materials. Portland Cement Association, R&D Serial No. 2916aGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee ST, Hooton RD, Jung H, Park D, Choi CK (2008) Effect of limestone filler on the deterioration of mortars and pastes exposed to sulfate solutions at ambient temperature. Cem Concr Res 38:68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marsh BK, Joshi RC (1986) Sulphate and acid resistance of cement paste containing pulverized limestone and fly ash. Durab Build Mater 4:67–80Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matthews JD (1994) Performance of limestone filler cement concrete. In: Dhir RK, Jones MR (eds) Euro-cements—impact of ENV 197 on concrete construction. E&FN Spon, London, pp 113–147Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sawicz Z, Heng SS (1996) Durability of concrete with addition of limestone powder. Mag Concr Res 48:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmidt T, Lothenbach B, Romer M, Neuenschwander J, Scrivener K (2009) Physical and microstructural aspects of sulfate attack on ordinary and limestone blended Portland cements. Cem Concr Res 39:1111–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soroka I, Stern N (1976) Effect of calcareous fillers on sulfate resistance of Portland cement. Am Ceram Soc Bull 55:594–595Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor, PC (2001) Sulfate resistance tests on Type V cements containing limestone, PCA R&D Serial No. 2182b, Portland Cement Association, SkokieGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Torres SM, Lynsdale CJ, Swamy RN, Sharp JH (2006) Microstructure of 5 year old mortars containing limestone filler damaged by thaumasite. Cem Concr Res 36:384–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amir Mohammad Ramezanianpour
    • 1
  • R. Douglas Hooton
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations