ABSTRACT
Alkali-aggregate reaction (AAR) is among the most harmful deterioration mechanisms affecting concrete infrastructure worldwide, impacting more than 50 countries. Over the last decades, numerous laboratory tests have been developed to evaluate the reactivity of aggregates and the effectiveness of supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) to mitigate AAR. Among them, the accelerated mortar bar test (AMBT) and the concrete prism test (CPT) stand out and are used around the globe nowadays. However, in recent years, some discrepancies have been found between laboratory results (i.e., AMBT or CPT, especially AMBT) and concrete mixture performance in the field. Yet, these discrepancies have never been quantified. This work aims to critically review current laboratory methods for assessing AAR-induced development, followed by a comparison of performance (i.e., laboratory versus field) at distinct scales (i.e., laboratory specimens vs. field blocks and structures) and quantification of the risk associated with these tests to forecast AAR in the field.
