首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparison of methods for evaluating bond strength between concrete substrate and repair materials
【2h】

Comparison of methods for evaluating bond strength between concrete substrate and repair materials

机译:混凝土基材与修补材料之间粘结强度评估方法的比较

摘要

Placing freshly mixed concrete against old existing concrete is a point of interest in repair applications, and can be sometimes a vital issue. Unless good bond is ensured at the interface, the concrete section may become improper and sometimes unsafe. An experimental study was performed to investigate the effect of testing methods on bond strength between concrete substrate and repair material. 27 numbers of sample with different dimension were prepared according to different type of testing. Sample with dimension of 150x150x150 mm cubes were required for spliting test. The cubes is constructed into two parts as old substrate concrete and repair material with a size of base size 75x150 mm and a height of 150mm. In the Bi-Surface shear method, the repair material constitutes one third of the samples which means the prisms with a base size of 100x150 mm and a height of 150 mm are cast as old or substrate concrete. Then the repair materials are cast in prisms with a base of 1 50x50 mm and a height of 150 mm and are bonded to the concrete substrate. Slant Shear Test samples were lOOxlOOx400 mm udand it is cut at angle 60° to their cross sectional axis whereas the old substrate designed with a base size of lOOxlOOmm and height 1 13.5mm as well as the repaired material samples. Steel wire brush were rub to bonding surface in order to produce different surface roughness. The estimated amplitude of low roughness was 3-4 mm and using a similar approach, the high-roughness was roughened to amplitude of 7-8 mm. After two weeks, the new concrete was added to the substrate concrete. Splitting prism test, BiSurface direct shear test and Slant shear tests were performed to evaluate the bond strength at age 7 days, 14 days and 28 days The results shows sample with high roughness surface were produce more conpressive strength in all type of testing. Hence, direct shear test was develop greater comprasive strength compare to spliting prism test and slant sheat test.
机译:将新拌混凝土与旧的旧混凝土放置在一起是维修应用中的一个关注点,有时可能是至关重要的问题。除非在界面处确保良好的粘结,否则混凝土部分可能会变得不合适,有时甚至不安全。进行了一项实验研究,以研究测试方法对混凝土基材与修补材料之间粘结强度的影响。根据不同的测试类型,准备了27个不同尺寸的样本。分裂测试需要尺寸为150x150x150 mm立方体的样品。立方体分为两部分,分别是旧的基底混凝土和修补材料,基本尺寸为75x150 mm,高度为150mm。在双表面剪切法中,修复材料构成了样本的三分之一,这意味着将基础尺寸为100x150毫米,高度为150毫米的棱镜浇铸为旧混凝土或基体混凝土。然后,将修补材料浇铸成底部为1 50x50 mm,高度为150 mm的棱柱,并粘结到混凝土基材上。倾斜剪切试验样品为100×100×400mm 2,并以与它们的横截面轴线成60°角切割,而设计成具有100×100mm的基底尺寸和1×13.5mm的高度的旧基材以及修复的材料样品。将钢丝刷摩擦到粘合表面以产生不同的表面粗糙度。低粗糙度的估计振幅为3-4毫米,使用类似的方法,高粗糙度被粗糙化为7-8毫米的振幅。两周后,将新混凝土添加到基础混凝土中。进行了分裂棱镜测试,BiSurface直接剪切测试和倾斜剪切测试,以评估7天,14天和28天时的粘结强度。结果表明,具有高粗糙度表面的样品在所有类型的测试中均产生更高的抗压强度。因此,与分裂棱镜试验和斜切试验相比,直接剪切试验具有更大的综合强度。

著录项

  • 作者

    Nurulnizam Mohamed;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2013
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号