{"title":"Characterization of cementitious substrate-to-overlay interface bonds using strength and fracture tests","authors":"Ayumi Manawadu, Pizhong Qiao, Haifang Wen","doi":"10.1617/s11527-024-02391-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Adequate development of the substrate-to-overlay bond is crucial in repaired concrete structures. Poorly developed bonds may facilitate crack propagation, a concern evaluated through fracture tests. However, the scarcity of fracture tests, especially for in-plane shear-type cracks (Mode II), coupled with the reliance on strength-based bond characterizations in field tests, emphasizes the need to understand the relationship between fracture and strength behavior. Therefore, this study compares tensile, shear, and Mode I and Mode II fracture tests in characterizing shotcrete-to-concrete interface bonds with different substrate surface preparation techniques (chipped (C), sandblasted (SB), pressure-washed (PW), and as-cast (AC)). Results indicate that all three test methods are sensitive to the substrate surface preparation technique. The shear bond strengths in C, SB, and AC specimens are over two times the corresponding tensile bond strengths. In contrast, the shear bond strength of PW specimens is about 73% of the corresponding tensile strength. It is also evident that the Mode II fracture and shear behavior closely resemble each other and are more sensitive to surface roughness than the tensile bond strength. The comparative tests conducted in this study can assist in screening surface preparation techniques for cementitious overlays.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":691,"journal":{"name":"Materials and Structures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Materials and Structures","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1617/s11527-024-02391-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Adequate development of the substrate-to-overlay bond is crucial in repaired concrete structures. Poorly developed bonds may facilitate crack propagation, a concern evaluated through fracture tests. However, the scarcity of fracture tests, especially for in-plane shear-type cracks (Mode II), coupled with the reliance on strength-based bond characterizations in field tests, emphasizes the need to understand the relationship between fracture and strength behavior. Therefore, this study compares tensile, shear, and Mode I and Mode II fracture tests in characterizing shotcrete-to-concrete interface bonds with different substrate surface preparation techniques (chipped (C), sandblasted (SB), pressure-washed (PW), and as-cast (AC)). Results indicate that all three test methods are sensitive to the substrate surface preparation technique. The shear bond strengths in C, SB, and AC specimens are over two times the corresponding tensile bond strengths. In contrast, the shear bond strength of PW specimens is about 73% of the corresponding tensile strength. It is also evident that the Mode II fracture and shear behavior closely resemble each other and are more sensitive to surface roughness than the tensile bond strength. The comparative tests conducted in this study can assist in screening surface preparation techniques for cementitious overlays.
基底与覆盖层粘结的充分发展对于修补过的混凝土结构至关重要。粘结不牢可能会促进裂缝扩展,这也是通过断裂测试进行评估的一个问题。然而,断裂测试,尤其是平面剪切型裂缝(模式 II)的断裂测试非常少,再加上现场测试中对基于强度的粘结特征的依赖,强调了了解断裂与强度行为之间关系的必要性。因此,本研究比较了拉伸、剪切、模式 I 和模式 II 断裂试验,以确定采用不同基材表面处理技术(崩边 (C)、喷砂 (SB)、压力水洗 (PW) 和现浇 (AC))的喷射混凝土与混凝土界面粘结的特性。结果表明,所有三种测试方法对基材表面处理技术都很敏感。C、SB 和 AC 试样的剪切粘接强度是相应拉伸粘接强度的两倍多。相比之下,PW 试样的剪切粘接强度约为相应拉伸强度的 73%。同样明显的是,模式 II 断裂和剪切行为非常相似,对表面粗糙度的敏感性高于拉伸结合强度。本研究中进行的比较试验有助于筛选水泥基覆盖层的表面处理技术。
期刊介绍:
Materials and Structures, the flagship publication of the International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures (RILEM), provides a unique international and interdisciplinary forum for new research findings on the performance of construction materials. A leader in cutting-edge research, the journal is dedicated to the publication of high quality papers examining the fundamental properties of building materials, their characterization and processing techniques, modeling, standardization of test methods, and the application of research results in building and civil engineering. Materials and Structures also publishes comprehensive reports prepared by the RILEM’s technical committees.