a

Novel Alternative Cementitious 

Materials for Development 

of the Next Generation 

of Sustainable 

Transportation Infrastructure

The Exploratory Advanced Research Program

TECHBRIEF
b

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the 

interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information 

contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names 

appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are 

used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement.

Cover photo illustration: 

© Falak Shah and The Georgia Institute of Technology
i

Technical Report Documentation Page
ii
iii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT

RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS

NEXT STEPS

BACKGROUND

TECHNICAL APPROACH

Assessment of Current Practice

Site 1: I-16 in Dublin, GA

Site 2: Los Angeles, CA

Site 3: Dalton Highway, AK

Site 4: U.S. Interstate 90/I-94 N, Chicago, IL

Site 5: Treat Island, ME

SUMMARY

Usage Survey Results

Further Testing

Research Team

REFERENCES

1

2

2

3

6

6

10

11

15

16

17

18

18

19

20

21
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Survey responses for States’ ACM usage.

Figure 2. The wearing surface of the I-16 slab section in Dublin, GA, 

and one of the few cracks present.

Figure 3. Cast surface of the slab section in Dublin, GA.

Figure 4. The Route 60W/71S interchange in the Los Angeles, CA, 

area shows good performance after 17 years of continual heavy 

traffic loads.

Figure 5. A close-up view of the Route 60W/71S interchange in the 

Los Angeles, CA, area.

Figure 6. The Route 60W/71S interchange in the Los Angeles, CA, area.

Figure 7. Surface wear and minor joint spalling on the Route 60W/71S 

interchange in the Los Angeles, CA, area.

Figure 8. The Route 60E/71N interchange in the Los Angeles, CA, 

area shows good performance after 17 years of continual heavy 

traffic loads.

Figure 9. A close-up view of the Route 60E/71N interchange in the 

Los Angeles, CA, area shows good performance after 17 years of 

continual heavy traffic loads.

Figure 10. A close-up view of pavement slabs on I-10E near Los 

Angeles, CA, shows deterioration after 15 years.

Figure 11. Pavement slabs on I-10E near Los Angeles, CA, shows 

deterioration after 15 years.

Figure 12. Pavement slabs on Route 60W in Los Angeles, CA, show 

some cracking and spalling at joints after 1 year of use.

Figure 13. An example of pavement slabs cracking and spalling at 

joints after 1 year of use on Route 60W near Los Angeles, CA.

8

10

10

11

11

11

11

12

12

13

13

14

14
v

List of Figures, cont’d.

Figure 14. Magnesium phosphate bridge grout on a bridge on 

the Dalton Highway, AK, located at mile point 78.8, after more 

than 20 years in service.

Figure 15. Repaired pavement on northbound I-90 in Chicago, IL, 

shows good performance of the CAC concrete after 5 years.

Figure 16. Vehicles travel over the repaired pavement on 

northbound I-90 in Chicago, IL, which shows good 

performance of the CAC concrete after 5 years.

Figure 17. Fly ash geopolymer beams after 1 year of exposure at 

Treat Island.

Figure 18. CSA cement concrete beams after 1 year of exposure 

at Treat Island.

Figure 19. Slag geopolymer beams after 1 year of exposure at 

Treat Island.

15

16

16

17

17

17
vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Binder abbreviations.

Table 2. CO2 emitted in the manufacture of “pure” cement compounds.

Table 3. Basic ACM information from literature review.

Table 4. State DOT ACM usage survey results.

3

4

7

9
vii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AA alkali-activated

ACM alternative cementitious material

CAC calcium aluminate cement

CALTRANS California Department of Transportation

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide emissions

CSA calcium sulfoaluminate

CSAB calcium sulfoaluminate belite

DOT department of transportation

EAR Exploratory Advanced Research

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

MPC magnesium phosphate cement

OPC ordinary portland cement
viii
1

Abstract

Georgia Institute of Technology and 

collaborators from Oklahoma State 

University, Tourney Consulting, and the 

Army Corps of Engineers, for an Exploratory 

Advanced Research (EAR) Program 

project funded by the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA’s) Turner–Fairbank 

Highway Research Center, are performing a 

comprehensive and systematic investigation 

of novel alternative cementitious materials 

(ACMs) for applications in sustainable 

transportation infrastructure. These materials 

include calcium aluminate cement (CAC), 

calcium sulfoaluminate (CSA), calcium 

sulfoaluminate belite (CSAB), magnesium 

phosphate cement (MPC), and alkali-activated 

(AA) and carbonate-binder systems that 

provide potential advantages over traditional 

portland cement through reductions in 

embodied energy and greenhouse gases, 

as well as enhanced performance, which 

contributes to sustainability. The research 

includes evaluation of early-age and longterm material properties, in addition to 

multiscale durability investigations. The 

research team aims to provide guidance 

for recommended test methods and, 

where relevant, test limits for acceptance 

of ACMs for transportation infrastructure, 

including highway structures and rigid 

pavements, as well as preliminary 

specifications for use. 

Contact: Richard Meininger, Office of 

Infrastructure Research and Development, 

FHWA. E-mail: richard.meininger@dot.gov.
Research Conclusions

I

n the first phase of this project, the research 

team investigated ACMs that were either 

currently commercially available or almost 

commercially available in the United States 

through review of technical and trade literature, 

site visits, and consultation with producers and 

users. This led to an increased understanding 

of the benefits, shortcomings, and potential 

changes in standard construction processes 

surrounding the increased use of ACMs. 

They are currently primarily used in 

pavement and bridge repairs and joints 

of precast panels. The research team will 

note additional conclusions as the research 

moves forward into the next phase. 

Next Steps

I

n the next research phase, the research team 

will begin to conduct experimental work to 

better characterize the selected materials 

and learn about their viability for use in 

pavements and bridge decks throughout the 

United States. The research team will use this 

research to recommend guidelines for test 

methods and, where relevant, test limits 

for acceptance of ACMs for transportation 

infrastructure. Of particular interest are 

performance criteria that can be incorporated 

in preliminary specifications for use. 

2
Background

Concrete is the world’s most widely 

used construction material. As a 

result of the vast quantities produced 

each year, it also represents a significant 

worldwide environmental impact, accounting 

for 4.8 percent of global anthropogenic 

carbon dioxide emissions (CO2e).[1] These 

emissions primarily result from the calcining 

of limestone and the burning of fuel during 

the manufacture of portland cement clinker, a 

key component of concrete. The manufacture 

of cement results in the emission of 830 kg 

(1,830 lbs) of carbon dioxide (CO2) per metric 

tonne of clinker because of the raw materials 

required for processing, in addition to further 

emissions resulting from the energy required 

to heat the cement kiln to temperatures of 

nearly 1,450° C (2,640°F).[2]

Increasing the use of ACMs, such as those 

listed in table 1, and in other publications,[3]

can result in the production of concretes with 

equal or greater strengths and durability than 

traditional portland cement concrete and 

is one possible method for reducing the 

total greenhouse gas contribution of the 

construction industry. 

Table 2 shows rough estimates of the 

quantity of CO2e that could be avoided by 

replacing portland cement with an equal 

quantity, by mass, of ACM binder.[3] Table 2 

also shows that a substantial CO2e savings 

can be achieved through the use of ACMs 

with the greatest CO2e savings associated 

with the use of CSAs, CACs, and chemicallyactivated aluminosilicate binders. 

The numbers shown in table 2 fail to consider 

other aspects of these materials that may 

also contribute to, or detract from, increased 

sustainability. [4] These aspects can be difficult 

to quantify, and their contributions to overall 

sustainability of a structure are often not 

obvious. Material features that contribute 

indirectly to improvements in sustainability 

Table 1. Binder abbreviations.

BINDER SYSTEM ABBREVIATION

Ordinary portland cement OPC

Alkali-activated binders AA

Calcium aluminate cement CAC

Calcium sulfoaluminate cement CSA

Calcium sulfoaluminate belite cement CSAB

Magnesium phosphate cement MPC

3
include increased strength and better 

durability. The research team is currently 

investigating these features for many of the 

alternative binders. Higher strength materials 

may enable the use of smaller members, 

reducing both the quantity of concrete 

required outright for the structural member, 

while also reducing the overall dead load of 

the structure. This reduction in weight could 

lead to further material savings. Improved 

durability can also result in greater time 

before repairs or replacement is required. 

For example, using a single bridge for 100 

years will result in the need for less material, 

and will generate less CO2e when compared 

to building, then rebuilding, a bridge with a 

50-year lifespan. Claims that these materials 

are of higher durability have not fully been 

investigated, however, leading to uncertainty 

about this aspect of binder sustainability. 

Moreover, other aspects of these materials 

may lead to decreased sustainability, 

including increased shipping distances 

because of the currently limited regional 

availability of many of these binders. With 

increased usage and economies of scale, 

these negative aspects can be reduced; 

therefore, although the improvements in 

CO2e shown in table 2 suggest that ACMs 

can contribute to greater sustainability in 

highway infrastructure, their full impact is not 

completely understood at this time.

Note: Quantities reflect emissions associated with release of CO2 from calcination of raw materials, and from 

coal, to heat the materials to required calcination temperatures. The research team calculated CO2e reductions 

assuming a 1:1 replacement of ordinary portland cement (OPC) with alternative cementitious materials.

Table 2. CO2 emitted in the manufacture of “pure” cement compounds.

BINDER

SYSTEM

GRAMS CO2e PER GRAM OF CEMENT[3] PERCENT CO2e v. 

USING OPC

OPC[5] 0.55 100%

CSA[6] 0.28 51%

CSAB[7] 0.46 84%

CAC[8] 0.29 53%

MPC[9] 0.30 55%

AA[10]

Emissions result from manufacture of alkali solutions 

and transportation only. Precursor materials (fly 

ash, slag, etc.) were assumed to contribute no 

CO2e as they are byproducts of other industries.

44–64%

4
In the past, most ACM users found 

limited (i.e., specialty) or small-scale 

applications for the materials, such as 

rapid repairs and creating joints for 

precast panel road replacements;[11,12]

however, the research team found that 

there is limited understanding of the 

scalability of these material systems, their 

long-term performance and durability 

in a range of environments, or their 

structural response when subjected 

to transportation-relevant loading 

conditions. Appropriate test methods, 

or well-defined alternatives to standard 

test methods, are also required. The 

researchers noted that these are needed 

to provide pathways for specification of 

ACMs, which can increase their use. 

5
Technical Approach

To assess the current state of 

knowledge and practice, the research 

team reviewed technical and trade 

literature that involved large-scale 

ACM use, made site visits to evaluate 

pavements, and communicated with material 

suppliers. In addition, the researchers met 

with producers and users and created a 

technical working group comprised of user 

stakeholders who represented various 

State and Federal agencies. 

For the literature review, the research team 

focused on hydration mechanisms, set times, 

usage of admixtures, and durability testing. 

The literature review offered insight into 

historical use of ACMs throughout the 

United States and abroad, and enabled the 

research team to obtain observations from 

test sections throughout the United States. 

Table 3 summarizes general information 

found in the literature about each of the ACM 

classes investigated. Further information on 

hydration kinetics research needs is available 

in a joint National Institute of Standards and 

Technology–FHWA publication and road 

map for coordinated cement research. The 

joint publication was developed following an 

International Summit on Cement Hydration 

Kinetics and Modeling.[13]

Assessment of Current Practice 

6
Table 3. Basic ACM information from literature review.

LITERATURE

REVIEW 

TOPIC

CALCIUM 

ALUMINATE 

CEMENT (CAC)

CALCIUM 

SULFOALUMINATE 

CEMENT (CSA)

CALCIUM 

SULFOALUMINATE 

BELITE CEMENT 

(CSAB)

MAGNESIUM 

PHOSPHATE 

CEMENT (MPC)

ALKALIACTIVATED 

(AA) BINDERS/

GEOPOLYMERS

CARBONATE 

SYSTEMS

BASIC 

HYDRATION

Calcium aluminate 

compounds react 

with water to 

form one of three 

calcium aluminate 

hydrate phases 

(6CaOAl2O3.10H2O, 

2CaO.Al2O3.8H2O, 

or 3CaO.

Al2O3.6H2O), 

depending on 

temperature and 

the amount of 

moisture present. 

Only the 3CaO.

Al2O3.6H2O form is 

stable long term, 

with the phase 

transformation 

generally referred 

to as conversion.

4CaO.3Al2O3.SO3

(Klein’s compound) 

reacts quickly 

with water to 

form monosulfate, 

ettringite or 

stratlingite. 

Klein’s compound 

is used in 

conjunction 

with high belite 

content cement 

to create a binder 

system capable of 

generating high 

early strengths 

in addition 

to continued 

improvement of 

properties over 

time from the slow 

hydration of the 

belite.

Magnesia, NH4H2PO4

(ammonium 

phosphate), and 

water react to form 

NH4MgPO4.6H2O.

Chemical bonding 

is formed by a rapid 

through-solution 

acid-base reaction 

between dead 

burned magnesia and 

phosphate.[14]

AA binders are 

formed through 

three steps: 

1. Covalent 

Si-O-Si and 

Al-O-Al bonds 

are broken 

down by a high 

pH solution; 

2. Products 

accumulate; 

and 3. an 

amorphous 

aluminosilicate 

structure 

reforms and 

precipitates.

Carbonate 

“cement” powder 

and sand are 

mixed with water 

and CO2. The 

cement reacts 

with CO2 to form 

calcium carbonate 

and silicate hydrate 

gel, gaining 

strength through 

solidification.

TYPICAL 

WATER-TOCEMENT 

RATIOS USED

0.30–0.40 [15–18]

≤0.4 is necessary 

for good longterm strength.[19]

0.20–0.70[7, 20–26] 0.40–0.70[27–33] 0.10–0.52[14, 34–38] 0.28–1.10[39–46] N/A

COMPRESSIVE 

STRENGTHS 

(POUNDS 

PER SQUARE 

INCH)

3,000–4,200 @ 

3 hrs

6,500–7,900 @ 

28 days with 0.38 

w/c.[47, 48]

87–3,800 @ 3 

hrs depending 

on accelerator/ 

retarder usage.[20, 23] 

1,200 @ 28 days 

(for 0.8 w/c)

5,000 @ 28 days 

(for 0.26 w/c).[49, 50] 

2,900–7,300 @ 3 hrs.

[37, 51] 

2,000 @ 3 hrs

10,000–20,000 

@ 28 days.[52]

9,000 @ 24 

hrs (personal 

communications—

Solidia 

Technologies, 

25 Sept 2014).

TIME TO 

INITIAL SET AT 

23°C WITH NO 

ADMIXTURES

2–6 hrs.[53]

However, no 

superplasticizers 

are effective for 

longer than 15 

min, so working 

time is very 

limited (personal 

communications—

Kerneos Inc., May 

2015).

8–22 min.[20, 23] 10–15 min with no 

admixtures.[28]

9 min.[37] As little as 35 

min (based 

on U.S. Army 

Engineer 

Research and 

Development 

Center in-house 

report).

Product is 

currently available 

as a precast 

product only. 

Elements typically 

require 24 hrs to 

cure.

RETARDING 

ADMIXTURES

Retarders 

recommended by 

CAC manufacturer 

include 

lignosulfonates, 

Melmet 50, Chryso 

AL810, Grace 

Daratard 17, and 

BASF Pozzolate 

100XR (personal 

communications—

Kerneos Inc., May 

2015).

Organic acids, 

such as citric 

acid, tartaric 

acid in doses not 

exceeding 0.25% by 

mass of cement.[48] 

Nanoparticles 

can be used 

to accelerate 

hydration; dopants 

can be used during 

clinkering to distort 

belite structure 

to make it more 

reactive.[49, 54]

Borax can be used in 

dosages of 2–25% by 

weight of cement, but 

higher dosages may 

affect compressive 

strength.[35, 51, 55] 

Sodium silicate 

can increase the 

speed of binder 

nucleation and 

polymerization. 

[56, 57] 

N/A

7
8

In addition, the research team was able to 

summarize survey results on the usage of 

ACMs by State departments of transportation 

(DOTs). The American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials’ 

Subcommittee on Materials conducted 

a survey about ACMs. Of the 27 responding 

States, 14 States (50 percent) indicated that 

they had experience using ACMs, as shown in 

figure 1. The specific ACMs used by each State 

and anecdotal assessments of performance 

by ACM class are provided in table 4. 

Figure 1. Survey responses for States’ ACM usage.

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

Has used ACMs

Has not used ACMs

Did not respond
9

Table 4. State DOT ACM usage survey results.

MATERIAL STATE 

USAGE

APPLICATIONS ANECDOTAL MATERIAL 

OBSERVATIONS

CSA California

Kentucky

Maine

Missouri

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Patching

Rapid set overlays

Closure pour application 

 with precast deck panels

Bridge joint repairs

Partial depth concrete 

 pavement repairs

Short-term replacement 

 for bridge departures/

 entrances

Bridge sleeper slab 

 replacements

Precast deck slab closures

LMC overlays

Peer cap to deck slab 

 connections

Panel replacements and 

 DBR pour back material

“Performed well.”

“Performed well in construction and service.”

“Performed well so far with no issues.”

“Good field performance, one large transverse 

 crack but no debonding.”

“Worked very well for more than 5 years, even 

 with a profoundly under-designed and very 

 thin pavement.”

“Excellent performance–fewer cracks and 

 lower permeability than concrete overlays.”

“Good when mixed, placed, and cured 

 properly.”

“Field tests show good performance, after one 

 year, from CSA pavements.”

CSA-latex 

mixtures

Missouri Rapid set bridge deck 

 overlays

Partial depth repairs

“Some scaling issues, discoloration, and 

 reduction in compressive strength.”

CAC Illinois

Maryland

New York

Texas

Roadway patching

Precast deck slabs closures

Bridge armor joint repairs

Full-depth pavement repairs

“Material has held up well, but experienced 

 and well-organized contractors with top-

 notch placement equipment are absolutely 

 necessary in order to obtain good results.”

“Performed well for many years after placement.”

“One product showed scaling the first year 

 and performed well for the next 17 years, 

 others have had very poor durability with lots 

 of scaling and freeze-thaw loss.”

“Have had good experiences with CAC.”

MPC Alaska

Maryland

Virginia

Bridge deck patching and 

 overlays

Precast panel joints

“14 years after placement, some joints have 

 slightly delaminated and cracking has 

 occurred where the material was subjected 

 to torsion, but overall the material seems to 

 have worked reasonably well.”

“CSAs preferred because of cost.”

AA Georgia

Kentucky

Texas

Virginia

Full- and partial-depth 

 concrete slab pavements 

 and bridge decks, and 

 repairs to pavements and 

 bridge decks

Patching

“Getting a level finish in the short set window 

 was challenging, but otherwise the material 

 performed well.”

“Performed well in construction and service.”

“Had low strength issues, but activator may 

 have been out of date.”

“Field tests show good performance, after 1 

 year, from AA fly-ash pavements.”

Polyester 

Cement

California Bridge overlays “Doing well so far after 1 year of placement.”
10

The research team examined full-depth 

chemically-activated binder concrete 

slabs, originally placed on U.S. Interstate 

16 in Dublin, GA. Images from the site are 

shown below in figures 2 and 3. These slabs 

were originally placed in early 2008 and 

remained in service until 2013, when a full 

highway section replacement was completed. 

Since then, the slabs have been stored at a 

Georgia DOT storage yard. 

The research team observed that the slabs 

appeared to be in excellent condition, with only 

Site 1: I-16 in Dublin, GA 

Figure 2. The wearing surface of the I-16 slab section in 

Dublin, GA, and one of the few cracks present. (It is not 

known if the crack was present before slab removal.)

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 3. Cast surface of the slab section in Dublin, GA.

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

very minimal cracking. This cracking was likely 

caused by removing the slab from the roadway 

and transporting it via a front-end loader from 

the original site to a Georgia DOT storage area. 

The slab surface showed exposed aggregates; 

however, this was assumed to be a result of the 

paving process, and perhaps grinding of the 

surface to smooth it and improve rideability, 

rather than a durability issue, as no evidence 

indicated salt scaling or delamination. 
11

The California DOT (Caltrans) has used 

rapid-setting ACM binders since the 

1990s to reduce road closure times for 

weekend replacement in highly trafficked 

roadways. The research team visited four sites 

in the San Gabriel Valley in the Los Angeles, 

CA, area. 

California State Route 60W to State Route 

71S Interchange 

The California State Route 60W to State 

Route 71S interchange near Pomona, 

Site 2: Los Angeles, CA 

Figure 4. The Route 60W/71S interchange in the Los 

Angeles, CA, area shows good performance after 17 

years of continual heavy traffic loads.

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 7. Surface wear and minor joint spalling on the 

Route 60W/71S interchange in the Los Angeles, CA, area. 

Figure 6. The Route 60W/71S interchange in the Los 

Angeles, CA, area. (A defect, perhaps caused by a 

placing or finishing issue, is apparent in the passing lane.)

Figure 5. A close-up view of the Route 60W/71S interchange 

in the Los Angeles, CA, area.

CA, was constructed in 1997 with a 

commercially available ACM, which 

Caltrans has described as an 85-percent 

CSA and 15-percent portland-cement 

binder. Figures 4–7 show the condition of 

the pavement. After the pavement had 

been exposed for 17 years, the research 

team observed that the pavement was still 

in very good condition with only occasional 

spalls noted at the joints, although the 

research team noted some evidence of 

surface abrasion. 

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

© The Georgia Institute of Technology
12

California State Route 60E to State Route 

71N Interchange 

The California State Route 60E to State 

Route 71N interchange near Pomona, CA, 

was constructed in 1997 with a 100-percent 

CSA binder. The pavement required grinding © The Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 8. The Route 60E/71N interchange in the Los 

Angeles, CA, area shows good performance after 17 

years of continual heavy traffic loads.

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 9. A close-up view of the Route 60E/71N 

interchange in the Los Angeles, CA, area shows good 

performance after 17 years of continual heavy traffic 

loads. (Surface wear and perhaps early grinding for 

rideability is apparent.)

after placement, possibly caused by poor 

compactability or a set time that was too 

rapid for proper finishing. Despite this 

grinding, the research team noted that this 

pavement was in good condition, as shown 

in figures 8 and 9.
13

U.S. Interstate 10 

Forty-five km (28 mi) of U.S. Interstate 10 (I-10) 

near Los Angeles, CA, also called the San 

Bernardino Freeway, were placed in 1999 

using a 100-percent CSA binder. The research 

team observed that pavement slabs in both 

the eastbound and westbound directions at 

this site showed significantly more damage 

than did the previous sites. The condition of 

pavement on I-10E is shown in figures 10 and 

11. The slabs showed evidence of damage, 

including joint deficiencies and spalls. In of Technology © The Georgia Institute 

Figure 10. A close-up view of pavement slabs on 

I-10E near Los Angeles, CA, shows deterioration 

after 15 years.

of Technology© The Georgia Institute 

Figure 11. Pavement slabs on I-10E near Los Angeles, 

CA, shows deterioration after 15 years.

addition, the research team noticed mid-panel 

cracking and corner cracking in many of the 

slabs in these sections, including both ACM and 

portland cement concrete, leading the team to 

conclude that the ACMs did not contribute to 

the damage. Caltrans attributed the damage to 

the combination of subgrade deficiencies and 

underdesign and a slab thickness that is too 

low for today’s traffic loads. The flow of water 

down an adjacent hillside also contributes to 

the poor subgrade conditions. 
14

California State Route 60 

Sixty-four km (40 mi) of the Pomona Highway 

(California SR 60) between California State 

Route 57 and California Interstate 605 (I-605) 

were constructed in 2012 using a 100-percent 

CSA binder. Figures 12 and 13 show the 

condition of the pavement. Pavement was 

placed in both the eastbound and westbound 

directions over new base material, with the 

pavement designed for higher traffic loads 

constructed with an increased slab thickness 

Figure 12. Pavement slabs on Route 60W in Los 

Angeles, CA, show some cracking and spalling at 

joints after 1 year of use.

© The Georgia Institute of Technology© The Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 13. An example of pavement slabs cracking 

and spalling at joints after 1 year of use on Route 60W 

near Los Angeles, CA. 

and doweled joints. Similar to what was seen 

with the Route 60E to 71N interchange, the 

surface of this pavement was intentionally 

ground after placement because of pavement 

irregularities observed during placement. 

Despite its short time in service and improved 

design, the research team observed some 

spalling at joints, extensive longitudinal 

cracking, and corner cracking. Patches were 

required in several areas. 
15

I

n 1991, the Alaska DOT undertook a 

massive project to rehabilitate 18 bridges 

on the Dalton Highway, which runs north–

south from Livengood, AK, to Prudhoe 

Bay, AK. Because of the extremely short 

construction season in Alaska, in addition 

to heavy truck usage of the road during 

the summer months, construction crews 

used MPCs in conjunction with precast 

concrete deck panels to facilitate rapid 

deck replacement of bridges along the 

Dalton Highway.[11] After speaking with 

Alaska DOT officials, the research team 

obtained a representative picture of an 

MPC bridge joint, shown in figure 14. After 

more than 20 years of service, Alaska DOT 

officials were satisfied overall with the 

performance of the material. The officials 

attributed some cracking in the joint to 

torsional forces from bridge deck bending 

at those locations, rather than deterioration 

because of material deficiencies. 

Site 3: Dalton Highway, AK

© Alaska Department of Transportation

Figure 14. Magnesium phosphate bridge grout on a 

bridge on the Dalton Highway, AK, located at mile 

point 78.8, after more than 20 years in service.
16

I

n 2009, the Illinois DOT replaced a 

significant section of interstate highway 

pavement in downtown Chicago with 

CAC concrete after what they described 

as a “catastrophic blowup of a section of 

pavement” resulting from nearby tunnel 

construction. Figures 15 and 16 show the 

repaired section of pavement. The Illinois 

DOT chose CAC as the replacement material 

for the damage to three northbound lanes 

of I-90/94 between Jackson and Adams 

Site 4: U.S. Interstate 90/I-94 N, 

Chicago, IL

© Falak Shah

Figure 15. Repaired pavement on northbound I-90 

in Chicago, IL, shows good performance of the CAC 

concrete after 5 years.

© Falak Shah

Figure 16. Vehicles travel over the repaired pavement 

on northbound I-90 in Chicago, IL, which shows good 

performance of the CAC concrete after 5 years.

Streets because of its capacity for high early 

strength. The Illinois DOT placed the CAC 

using mobile volumetric mixers and poured 

58.3 m3 (76.25 yd3) of concrete and reopened 

the road within 5 hours after the start of 

the construction repairs. The engineer of 

record noted that the material seems to be 

holding up well, but that “experienced and 

well-organized contractors with top notch 

placement equipment” are required to 

obtain good results. 
17

The U.S. Army Engineer Research 

and Development Center has a large 

outdoor exposure site located at 

Treat Island just south of Eastport, ME.[58]

Researchers at this site placed 15 by 15 by 

53 cm (6 by 6 by 21 in) beams (shown in 

figures 17–19) on a pier in the tidal zone. The 

researchers exposed the concrete to both 

freezing and thawing during the winter, 

as the beams are alternately immersed in 

sea water and then exposed to the air and 

freezing weather conditions, as well as to 

salt water wetting and drying exposure 

year round. 

Site 5: Treat Island, ME

Figure 18. CSA cement concrete 

beams after 1 year of exposure 

at Treat Island.

© The Georgia Institute of Technology

Figure 17. Fly ash geopolymer beams 

after 1 year of exposure at Treat Island.

Figure 19. Slag geopolymer 

beams after 1 year of exposure 

at Treat Island.

The research team examined beams, 

produced from a fly ash-based geopolymer, 

a slag-based geopolymer, and a CSA 

cement, for signs of deterioration. These 

signs included scaling, cracking, and 

expansion. No signs of expansion or 

cracking were apparent in any of the ACM 

samples after 1 year of exposure. Research is 

ongoing to determine the chloride diffusion 

coefficient of the beams, which will be 

useful in assessing the potential resistance 

to corrosion for reinforced members. © The Georgia Institute of Technology

© The Georgia Institute of Technology
18

Summary

The ACM usage survey results and the 

research team’s observations made 

during site visits, in addition to information 

provided by users or owners at these sites, 

demonstrate that there is growing interest in 

the use of ACMs for large-scale transportation 

infrastructure construction in the United States. 

At this time, the materials most commonly used 

for larger scale pavement construction include 

CAC, CSA, and AA products. 

In general, the research team found ACM 

usage to be concentrated mainly in large 

urban areas, where the rapid setting and high 

early strength of these materials contributed 

to minimal road closure time. Such time-saving 

advantages provided value that superseded 

potential increases in costs for materials and 

construction, as well as challenges associated 

with the construction itself. For example, 

because of the rapid-setting characteristics 

of some of these materials, volumetric mixer 

trucks capable of combining materials at 

the job site were employed in some ACM 

construction projects. In some cases, more 

rapid-than-anticipated set times required 

pavement surface grinding because of 

difficulties achieving smooth finishes. 

The research team found few examples of 

MPC and belite cement usage for larger 

scale transportation construction. The most 

common examples of MPC usage include 

small road repairs and joint construction. 

The research team found that MPC 

availability in the United States has been 

limited. Seasonal availability, variability in 

composition and quality, and challenges 

with short working time of the material have 

all prevented more widespread adoption 

of MPCs. Although usage for small-scale 

rapid repairs seems practical, larger scale 

construction using MPCs does not seem 

practical at this time. The research team 

also found that use of belite cements 

was less common. These cements have 

required longer cure times and relatively 

low strengths compared to other materials. 

New formulations may improve these 

current challenges. 

Usage Survey Results
19

Further Testing

Based on the results of the initial literature 

review, the ACM survey, conversations 

with material suppliers, and consultation 

with FHWA and the project’s technical 

working group, the research team identified a 

subset of materials for further testing. These 

materials include two CSA cements, two CA 

cements (in which one is a blend of CA and 

portland cement), one belite cement, and 

two AA cements. Because the research is 

aimed at the scalability of these materials, 

most cements examined by the research 

team are commercially available, with the 

exception of a geopolymer concrete that 

is being developed by using off-the-shelf 

constituent materials. Research is ongoing; 

the team is currently focused on screening 

of available ACM technologies by examining 

fresh and hardened concrete properties 

and assessing durability. The research team 

will use these assessments to identify viable 

candidate ACMs for further investigation 

and to construct larger test sections at the 

culmination of the project.
20

Research Team

Prasanth Alapati 

Ph.D. Student 

Georgia Institute of Technology

Neal Berke 

Vice President 

Tourney Consulting Group 

Lisa E. Burris 

Postdoctoral Researcher 

Georgia Institute of Technology

Mehdi Khanzadeh 

Ph.D. Student 

Oklahoma State University

Kimberly E. Kurtis 

Principal Investigator and Professor 

Georgia Institute of Technology

M. Tyler Ley 

Associate Professor 

Oklahoma State University

Robert D. Moser 

Research Civil Engineer 

U.S. Army Engineer Research 

 and Development Center 
21

References

[1] Olivier, J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., & Peters, J. (2012). Trends in global CO2 emissions 

(p. 60). Bilthoven, Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

[2] Gartner, E., & Macphee, D. (2011). A physico-chemical basis for novel cementitious 

binders. Cement and Concrete Research, 41(7), 736–749.

[3] Gartner, E. (2004). Industrially interesting approaches to “low-CO2” cements. Cement 

and Concrete Research, 34(9), 1489–1498.

[4] Kendall, A., Keoleian, G., & Helfand, G. (2008). Integrated life-cycle assessment and 

life-cycle cost analysis model for concrete bridge deck applications. Journal of 

Infrastructure Systems, 14(3), 214–222. 

[5] Scrivener, K. (2004). Backscattered electron imaging of cementitious microstructures: 

understanding and quantification. Cement and Concrete Composites, 26(8), 935–945.

[6] Mechling, J., Roux, A., Le Rolland, B., & Lecomte, A. (2013). Sulfoaluminate cement 

behaviours in carbon dioxide, warm and moist environments. Advances in Cement 

Research, 26(1), 52–61.

[7] Chen, I., Hargis, C., & Juenger, M. (2012). Understanding expansion in calcium 

sulfoaluminate–belite cements. Cement and Concrete Research, 42(1), 51–60.

[8] Bizzozero, J., Gosselin, C., & Scrivener, K. (2014). Expansion mechanisms in calcium 

aluminate and sulfoaluminate systems with calcium sulfate. Cement and Concrete 

Research, 56, 190–202.

[9] Wagh, A. (2013). Recent progress in chemically bonded phosphate ceramics. ISRN 

Ceramics, 2013, 1–20. 

[10] McLellan, B., Williams, R., Lay, J., van Riessen, A., & Corder, G. (2011). Costs and carbon 

emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. Journal 

of Cleaner Production, 19(9–10), 1080–1090.

[11] Pioneering precast in Alaska: The 7-month replacement of 18 bridges on the storied 

Dalton Highway. In Highways for LIFE (1993). Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC.

[12] Wilson, T. P., Smith, K. L., & Romine, A. R. (1999). Materials and Procedures for Rapid 

Repair of Partial-Depth Spalls in Concrete Pavements—Manual of Practice. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

[13] Biernacki, J. J., Bullard, J. W., Constantiner, D., Meininger, R. C., Juenger, M. G., Cheung, 

J. H., Hansen, W., Hooton, R. D., Lüttge, A., & Thomas, J. J. (2013). Paving the way for 

a more sustainable concrete infrastructure: A vision for developing a comprehensive 

description of cement hydration kinetics. National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Special Publication, 1138 (Federal Highway Administration Publication 

No. HRT-13-052). The publication can be found at http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/

SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1138.pdf.
22

[14] Li, Y., & Chen, B. (2013). Factors that affect the properties of magnesium phosphate 

cement. Construction and Building Materials, 47, 977–983.

[15] Alonso, M., Palacios, M., & Puertas, F. (2014). Effect of PCE admixtures on fluidity, 

hydration and microstructure of calcium aluminate cement pastes. Proceedings from 

International Conference on Calcium Aluminates (pp. 341–351). Avignon, France.

[16] Bier, T., Mathieu, A., Espinosa, B., & Marcelon, C. (1995) Admixtures and their interactions 

with high range calcium aluminate cement. Proceedings from UNITECR ‘95 Congress 

(pp. 1–7). Kyoto, Japan.

[17] Jolin, M., Lemay, J.D., Bissonnette, B., & Crépault, É. (2014). Rheology of calcium 

aluminate cement based concrete: Controlling the “pot life.” Proceedings from 

International Conference on Calcium Aluminates (pp. 309–320). Avignon, France.

[18] Thomas, M.D.A., Yi, H., & Dhole, R. (2008). The durability of CAC concrete exposed to 

seawater and de-icing salt. Proceedings from Calcium Aluminate Cements Centenary 

Conference (p. 21). Avignon, France.

[19] Scrivener, K.L., & Capmas, A. (1998). Calcium aluminate cements. In P.C. Hewlett (Ed.), 

Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 4, 713–782. New York and Toronto: Arnold.

[20] Beretka, J., Marroccoli, M., Sherman, N., & Valenti, G. (1996). The influence of C4A3S 

content and ratio on the performance of calcium sulfoaluminate-based cements. 

Cement and Concrete Research, 26(11), 1673–1681.

[21] Kurtis, K., Shomglin, K., Monteiro, P., Harvey, J., & Roesler, J. (2001). Accelerated test 

for measuring sulfate resistance of calcium sulfoaluminate, calcium aluminate, and 

portland cements. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 13(3), 216–221.

[22] Bernardo, G., Telesca, A., & Valenti, G. (2006). A porosimetric study of calcium 

sulfoaluminate cement pastes cured at early ages. Cement and Concrete Research, 

36(6), 1042–1047.

[23] Ramseyer, C., & Perez, V. (2009). Highway panel replacement—CSA concrete in 

California. Proceedings from National Conference on Preservation, Repair, and 

Rehabilitation of Concrete Pavements (pp. 223–232). St. Louis, MO.

[24] Ioannou, S. Paine, K., & Quillin, K. (2010). Performance of calcium sulfoaluminatebased concretes, BRE Trust Review, 292, 26–28.

[25] Liao, Y., Wei, X., & Li, G. (2011). Early hydration of calcium sulfoaluminate cement 

through electrical resistivity measurement and microstructure investigations. 

Construction and Building Materials, 25(4), 1572–1579.

[26] Bianchi, M., Canonico, F., Capelli, L., Pace, M.L., Telesca, A., & Valenti, G.L. (2009). 

Hydration properties of calcium sulfoaluminate–portland cement blends, ACI Special 

Publication, 261(13), 187–200.

[27] Arjunan, P., Silsbee, M., & Della M. Roy. (1999). Sulfoaluminate-belite cement from lowcalcium fly ash and sulfur-rich and other industrial by-products. Cement and Concrete 

Research, 29(8), 1305–1311.
23

[28] Janotka, I., Krajči, L., Ray, A., & Mojumdar, S. (2003). The hydration phase and pore 

structure formation in the blends of sulfoaluminate-belite cement with portland 

cement. Cement and Concrete Research, 33(4), 489–497.

[29] Senff, L., Castela, A., Hajjaji, W., Hotza, D., & Labrincha, J. (2011). Formulations of 

sulfobelite cement through design of experiments. Construction and Building 

Materials, 25(8), 3410–3416.

[30] Bescher, E., Stremfel, J., Ramseyer, C., & Rice, E.K. (2012). The role of calcium 

sulfoaluminate in concrete sustainability. Proceedings from Twelfth International 

Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues 

(pp. 612–632). Prague, Czech Republic.

[31] Chen, I., & Juenger, M. (2012). Incorporation of coal combustion residuals into calcium 

sulfoaluminate-belite cement clinkers. Cement And Concrete Composites, 34(8), 

893–902. 

[32] Janotka, I., & Krajèi, L. (2000). Resistance to freezing and thawing of mortar specimens 

made from sulphoaluminate–belite cement. Bulletin of Materials Science, 23(6), 521–527.

[33] Quillin, K. (2001). Performance of belite–sulfoaluminate cements. Cement and 

Concrete Research, 31(9), 1341–1349.

[34] Popovics, S., & Rajendran, N. (1987). Early age properties of magnesium phosphatebased cements under various temperature conditions. Transportation Research 

Record No. 1110 (pp. 34–45). Transporation Research Board, Washington, DC.

[35] Seehra, S., Gupta, S., & Kumar, S. (1993). Rapid setting magnesium phosphate cement 

for quick repair of concrete pavements—characterisation and durability aspects. 

Cement and Concrete Research, 23(2), 254–266.

[36] Yang, Q., Zhu, B., Zhang, S., & Wu, X. (2000). Properties and applications of magnesia–

phosphate cement mortar for rapid repair of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 

30(11), 1807–1813.

[37] Ding, Z., & Li, Z. (2005). Effect of aggregates and water contents on the properties of 

magnesium phospho-silicate cement. Cement and Concrete Composites, 27(1), 11–18.

[38] Qiao, F., Chau, C., & Li, Z. (2010). Property evaluation of magnesium phosphate cement 

mortar as patch repair material. Construction and Building Materials, 24(5), 695–700.

[39] van Deventer, J., Lukey, G., & Xu, H. (2006). Effect of curing temperature and silicate 

concentration on fly-ash–based geopolymerization. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 

Research, 45(10), 3559–3568.

[40] Rowles, M., & O’Connor, B. (2003). Chemical optimisation of the compressive 

strength of aluminosilicate geopolymers synthesised by sodium silicate activation of 

metakaolinite. Journal of Materials Chemistry, 13(5), 1161–1165.

[41] Williams, R., & van Riessen, A. (2010). Determination of the reactive component of fly 

ashes for geopolymer production using XRF and XRD. Fuel, 89(12), 3683–3692.
24

[42] Lizcano, M., Gonzalez, A., Basu, S., Lozano, K., & Radovic, M. (2012). Effects of water 

content and chemical composition on structural properties of alkaline activated 

metakaolin-based geopolymers. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 95(7), 

2169–2177.

[43] Burciaga-Díaz, O., & Escalante-García, J. (2013). Structure, mechanisms of reaction, 

and strength of an alkali-activated blast-furnace slag. Journal of the American 

Ceramic Society, 96(12), 3939–3948.

[44] Adam, A.A., Molyneaux, T.C.K., Patnaikuni, I., & Law, D.W. (2009). Strength, sorptivity 

and carbonation of geopolymer concrete. In N. Ghafoori (Ed.), Challenges, 

Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering and Construction (pp. 563–

568). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

[45] Bernal, S., Mejía de Gutiérrez, R., & Provis, J. (2012). Engineering and durability 

properties of concretes based on alkali-activated granulated blast furnace slag/

metakaolin blends. Construction and Building Materials, 33, 99–108.

[46] Aughenbaugh, K., Williamson, T., & Juenger, M. (2015). Critical evaluation of 

strength prediction methods for alkali-activated fly ash. Materials and Structures, 

48(3), 607–620.

[47] Dornak, M.L. (2014). Mechanical properties, early age volume change, and heat 

generation of rapid, cement-based repair materials (Master’s thesis). Retrieved 

from the University of Texas Digital Repository.

[48] Zuniga, J.R. (2013). Development of rapid, cement-based repair materials for 

transportation structures (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from the University of Texas 

Digital Repository.

[49] Campillo, I., Guerrero, A., Dolado, J., Porro, A., Ibáñez, J., & Goñi, S. (2007). 

Improvement of initial mechanical strength by nanoalumina in belite cements. 

Materials Letters, 61(8–9), 1889–1892.

[50] Guerrero, A., Goñi, S., Macıas, A., & Luxán, M. (1999). Mechanical properties, pore 

size distribution, and pore solution of fly ash-belite cement mortars. Cement and 

Concrete Research, 29(11), 1753–1758.

[51] Yang, Q., & Wu, X. (1999). Factors influencing properties of phosphate cementbased binder for rapid repair of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 29(3), 

389–396.

[52] Davidovits, J. (1994). Properties of geopolymer cements. Proceedings from 

First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes (pp. 131–

149). Kiev, Ukraine.

[53] Bushnell-Watson, S., & Sharp, J. (1986). The effect of temperature upon the 

setting behaviour of refractory calcium aluminate cements. Cement and Concrete 

Research, 16(6), 875–884.
25

[54] Lee, B., & Kurtis, K. (2011). Proposed acceleratory effect of TiO2 nanoparticles on 

belite hydration: preliminary results. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 

95(1), 365–368.

[55] Hall, D., Stevens, R., & El-Jazairi, B. (2001). The effect of retarders on the 

microstructure and mechanical properties of magnesia–phosphate cement mortar. 

Cement and Concrete Research, 31(3), 455–465.

[56] Criado, M., Palomo, A., & Fernández-Jiménez,, A. (2005). Alkali activation of 

fly ashes. Part 1: Effect of curing conditions on the carbonation of the reaction 

products. Fuel, 84(16), 2048-2054. 

[57] Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J., Lukey, G., Palomo, A., & van Deventer, 

J. (2007). Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art. Journal of Materials 

Science, 42(9), 2917–2933.

[58] Green, B., Moser, R., Scott, D., & Long, W. (2014). Ultra-high performance concrete 

history and usage by the Corps of Engineers. ASTM International Advances in Civil 

Engineering Materials, 20140031. 
26
27

About the EAR Program

The EAR Program addresses the need for longer term, higher risk research with the 

potential for long-term improvements to transportation systems—improvements in 

planning, building, renewing, and operating safe, congestion-free, and environmentally 

sound transportation facilities. The EAR Program seeks to leverage advances in science 

and engineering that could lead to breakthroughs for critical current and emerging issues 

in highway transportation, that is, where there is a community of experts from different 

disciplines who likely have the talent and interest in researching solutions and who likely 

could not do so without EAR Program funding. 

To learn more about the EAR Program, visit the Exploratory Advanced Research Web 

site at www.fhwa.dot.gov/advancedresearch. The site features information on research 

solicitations, updates on ongoing research, links to published materials, summaries of past 

EAR Program events, and details on upcoming events. For additional information, contact 

David Kuehn at FHWA, 202-493-3414 (email: david.kuehn@dot.gov), or Terry Halkyard at 

FHWA, 202-493-3467 (email: terry.halkyard@dot.gov). 
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development 

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

Publication No. FHWA-HRT-16-017

HRTM-30/10-15(WEB)E