CHAPTER 6 ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF USING LITHIUM COMPOUNDS

6.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses some of the economic considerations of using lithium compounds to control ASR-induced expansion in new concrete (when used as an admixture) or existing structures (when used as a posttreatment).  Because of limited field applications of lithium to date, it is not possible to perform a comprehensive, quantifiable cost analysis of using the compounds to control ASR.  However, some of the important factors to consider are discussed below.

6.2 ECONOMICS OF USING LITHIUM COMPOUNDS IN NEW CONCRETE IN NEW CONCRETE

The cost of lithium is inherently quite high, compared to other concrete materials.  Typical unit costs of selected raw materials are shown below:

Basic Materials -Approximate Cost

Type I portland Portland cement:  $80/ton
Aggregates:  approximately $7-10/ton

Selected aAdmixtures and SCMs -A approximate C cost

Fly ash:  $25-30/ton
Slag:  $25-35/ton
Silica fume:  $600/ton
Calcium nitrite corrosion inhibitor:  $1.50/L liter
High-range water reducer:  approximately $3.25 per m³ of concrete
LiNO₃ (30 percent% solution):  ~ $3.50/L liter

The above estimates are based on typical values but do not reflect availability, differences in freight cost, local market trends, or other factors.  The raw materials cost typically constitute approximately 50 to 75 percent of the delivered cost of concrete.  For reference, a typical cubic meter of delivered concrete costs anywhere from around $60 to $120. 

Assuming a delivered cost of concrete of $90/m³, a cement content of 389 kg/m³, and a cement alkali content (Na₂O_e) of 0.6 percent, the incremental cost of adding a typical LiNO₃ dosage (4.6 L of 30 percent solution per kg Na₂O_e) to this concrete would be approximately $38, resulting in a final delivered cost of approximately $128/m³.  This increase in cost is considerable, but can be somewhat offset by combining LiNO₃ with fly ash.  Using the same example as above, but replacing 25 percent of the cement with low-lime fly ash and reducing the molar ratio (based on cement) to 0.54 (see section 5.2), the total cost of the concrete would be approximately $105/m³.   The above is just an example using assumed materials, mixture proportions, and costs.  Specific cases should be evaluated independently to determine the potential economic impact of using lithium compounds, with or without SCMs.  It is almost always the case that combining lithium with SCMs will make lithium more cost effective and will also produce higher quality, low-permeability concrete.  If laboratory testing (based on ASTM C 1293) shows that the required lithium dosage, used in conjunction with an SCM, is even less than that recommended in section 5.2, it may be possible to reduce the lithium dosage, thereby further decreasing the cost of the mixture.

The delivered cost of concrete is also just a part of the in-place cost of concrete, with the in-place cost depending on the type of structure, the amount of reinforcing steel, construction method, and other factors.  For example, the in-place cost of concrete for a bridge deck may be as high as $450/m³.  Thus, direct comparisons of raw materials costs one should be regarded direct comparisons of raw materials costs with caution, as these comparisonsy do not reflect total delivered concrete or in-place concrete costs.

It is clear that adding lithium to concrete increases the cost of the raw materials and delivered concrete, and in many cases, other less-expensive alternatives are selected, such as using appropriate amounts of SCMs.  However, when considering the use of lithium in new concrete, other factors must be taken into account:

• If the alternative is transporting non-reactive aggregates or low-alkali cement over a long distance, or if high-quality SCMs are not locally available, lithium becomes much more competitive. 

• For some highly reactive aggregates, relatively high dosages of fly ash or slag may be required to control expansion, but these higher replacement levels would have a significant effect on early-strength gain and related constructibility issues.  Using lower dosages of fly ash or slag, in combination with lithium, can then improve the early strength properties, which improves the economics of the situation. 

• Some agencies and organizations have limited the maximum amount of SCMs mainly because of perceived concerns with salt scaling, and using lithium in these instances in combination with lower dosages of lithium becomes a viable alternative.

• For certain concrete structures (i.e., dams or airfield pavements), very little expansion can be tolerated before the expansion impacts performance or function of the structure.  Using lithium in such structures, preferably in conjunction with SCMs, is a mitigation method worthy of consideration.  Those designing and constructing these type of important or sensitive structures are generally more willing to spend additional money up  front to ensure the desired function of the structure for the desired service life.   

A critical factor identified above is the impact of materials selection on service life.  For example, non-durable concrete that suffers from ASR (or other durability problems) may require significant repairs or even total replacement, and this has a major effect on the life-cycle cost of the structure.  Recently, models have been developed to predict service life of reinforced concrete structures suffering from corrosion.  These models can be used to predict impact of different mitigation options (i.e., SCMs, corrosion inhibitors) on the service life and life-cycle cost of structures.  However, models of this type are not currently available to predict the service life of structures suffering from ASR-induced damage.  Nevertheless, it is clear that using lithium compounds, SCMs, or combinations of theose will prolong the life of structures containing reactive aggregates significantly, thereby reducing the impact of initial material costs.  As new models are developed that specifically address ASR are developed, it will be possible to integrate life-cycle costs into initial strategies for controlling ASR, making the use of lithium compounds more attractive and competitive with other materials.

6.3 ECONOMICS OF TREATING EXISTING CONCRETE WITH LITHIUM

As discussed in sections 4.3 and 5.3 of this report, the effectiveness of treating existing ASR-affected concrete with lithium has not yet been established. Therefore, it is not possible to provide information on the economic viability of using this form of treatment. However, some discussion of the relevant economic considerations is warranted.

Lithium treatment of ASR-affected concrete is unlikely to be a lasting and complete solution to the problem. At best, such treatment may retard the deterioration process of deterioration and delay the time until more permanent repair or replacement becomes necessary. Also, lithium treatment usually will almost certainly only be considered only when some level of deterioration is already present, and additional strategies may have to be considered to improve the existing condition of the concrete. However, extending the time to a more expensive repair or replacement option still may be a viable alternative. For example, consider the case of a pavement suffering from ASR. If it is predicted that, left untreated, the pavement will require some level of major rehabilitation (e.g. overlay or repair) at time T₁ with a cost of R₁, then the present worth of this option, P₁, is given by:

Equation 10:

   where i = the discount rate for the financial analysis.

If the cost of applying a topical lithium treatment is R₂, and it is predicted that the lithium treatment will extend the time to major rehabilitation to time T₂, then the cost of the lithium treatment can be estimated as:

Equation 11:

Both R₁ and R₂ should include the full cost to the user of implementing the rehabilitation strategy.

The comparative costs of the two options, P₁ versus P₂, is clearly a function not only of the cost of the lithium treatment, but also of the difference in the timing of the major rehabilitation, T₁ versus T₂. Without reliable information to predict how lithium will impact the timing of the repair schedule, it is not possible to perform an economic analysis.  It is anticipated that an analysis of this type will be performedis anticipated in the near future, using data obtained from the lithium treatment of pavement sections in Delaware.

Back to Top

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

TFHRC Home | FHWA Home | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration