本文對於花蓮溪和木瓜溪骨材所做的岩種分類，可發現各地方所含的岩種比例雖然不盡相同。但可確定的是：木瓜溪骨材不含安山岩，而花蓮溪骨材含有少量的安山岩。在花蓮港北岸的消波塊所進行的鑽心試體，發現有少量的安山岩存在，並對照現地花蓮溪骨材的岩種，可確定花蓮港北岸的骨材來源為花蓮溪。 確定現地有疑似鹼-骨材反應的破壞案例後，本文依據ASTM C227和ASTM C1260的鹼-骨材反應試驗方法，以確定花蓮溪骨材中具有鹼-骨材反應的岩種為何。研究結果為：不具鹼-骨材反應的岩種為大理岩、石英脈和變質輝綠岩，具有鹼-骨材反應的岩種為安山岩，其餘岩種則有待進一步的研究加以確認。 對於花蓮溪的安山岩更進一步做悲極值研究，並對照白守蓮的安山岩和白守蓮的斑狀安山岩，其鹼-骨材反應性大小為：白守蓮斑狀安山岩的反應性最大、其次為花蓮溪安山岩，白守蓮安山岩反應性較小。 單一岩種的悲極值研究，其非反應性骨材可用氧化鋁、標準砂、和平石灰岩和花蓮港北岸的變質輝綠岩。 以花蓮溪和木瓜溪骨材取代和平石灰岩的ASTM C1260和ASTM C227試驗，結果皆為：當花蓮溪和木瓜溪骨材含量越多時，其膨脹量也越大，膨脹量會隨著反應性骨材增加而增加。 This study is to classify the rocks in Hualien and Mugua Rivers. There are different rations rock types in Hualien and Mugua Rivers which we collected. We can make sure that the aggregates in Mugua River without andesite, but there are few andesites in Hualien River. As we knew that in north of pier Hualien maybe caused destroyed by alkali-aggregate reaction, we use ASTM C227 and ASTM C1260 test method to test the reaction and to check which type of rocks may cause this reaction. We found that marble, quartz and metadibase didn't have the alkali-aggregate reaction, but andesite had the reaction. For the other types of rocks we will still need more study. Studying on the pessimum value of andesite in Hualien River, and compared with andesite and porphyritic andesite in Baishoulien , we found that : porphyritic andesite in Baishoulien had biggest potential in this reaction; which in Hualien River were middle; in Baishoulien were the smallest. Pessimum value study in single rock type can use Al2O3, standard sand, Hoping limestone, and metadibase in north of pier Hualien to be the non-reactive aggregates.