Influence of Substrate Moisture State and Roughness on Interface Microstructure and Bond Strength: Slant Shear vs. Pull-Off Testing.

There are conflicting views in the literature concerning the optimum moisture state for an existing substrate prior to the application of a repair material. Both saturated-surface-dry (SSD) and dry substrates have been found to be preferable in a variety of studies. One confounding factor is that some studies evaluate bonding of the repair material to the substrate via pull-off (direct tension) testing, while others have employed some form of shear specimens as their preferred testing configuration. Available evidence suggests that dry substrate specimens usually perform equivalently or better in shear testing, while SSD ones generally exhibit higher bond strengths when a pull-off test is performed, although exceptions to these trends have been observed. This paper applies a variety of microstructural characterization tools to investigate the interfacial microstructure that develops when a fresh repair material is applied to either a dry or SSD substrate. Simultaneous neutron and X-ray radiography are employed to observe the dynamic microstructural rearrangements that occur at this interface during the first 4 h of curing. Based on the differences in water movement and densification (particle compaction) that occur for the dry and SSD specimens, respectively, a hypothesis is formulated as to why different bond tests may favor one moisture state over the other, also dependent on their surface roughness. It is suggested that the compaction of particles at a dry substrate surface may increase the frictional resistance when tested under slant shear loading, but contribute relatively little to the bonding when the interface is submitted to pull-off forces. For maximizing bond performance, the fluidity of the repair material and the roughness and moisture state of the substrate must all be given adequate consideration.

[1]  Abraham S. Grader,et al.  Water Movement During Internal Curing: Direct Observation Using X-Ray Microtomography , 2006 .

[2]  Guang Ye,et al.  Effect of Moisture Exchange on Interface Formation in the Repair System Studied by X-ray Absorption , 2015, Materials.

[3]  M. R. Ehsani,et al.  Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Bond Strength Between Concrete Substrate and Repair Materials , 2005 .

[4]  Pietro Lura,et al.  Internal curing with lightweight aggregate produced from biomass-derived waste , 2014 .

[5]  Ahmad Ardani,et al.  Influence of Aggregate Characteristics on Concrete Performance , 2017 .

[6]  J. Silfwerbrand.  Shear bond strength in repaired concrete structures , 2003 .

[7]  Edward J. Garboczi,et al.  Digital simulation of the aggregate–cement paste interfacial zone in concrete , 1991 .

[8]  Fernando A. Branco,et al.  CONCRETE-TO-CONCRETE BOND STRENGTH. INFLUENCE OF THE ROUGHNESS OF THE SUBSTRATE SURFACE , 2004 .

[9]  Yang Lu,et al.  State-of-the-art review of interface bond testing devices for pavement layers: toward the standardization procedure , 2017 .

[10]  Kenneth A. Snyder,et al.  Suspended hydration and loss of freezable water in cement pastes exposed to 90% relative humidity , 2004 .

[11]  D. Hoelzer,et al.  Energetic Study of Helium Cluster Nucleation and Growth in 14YWT through First Principles , 2016, Materials.

[12]  D. Jacobson,et al.  Neutron and X-ray Tomography (NeXT) system for simultaneous, dual modality tomography. , 2017, The Review of scientific instruments.

[13]  Evaluation of Test Methods for Measuring the Bond Strength of Portland Cement Based Repair Materials to Concrete , 1989 .

[14]  G. D. Scott,et al.  On the Random Packing of Spheres , 1964 .

[15]  Dale P Bentz,et al.  NEUTRON RADIOGRAPHY MEASUREMENT OF SALT SOLUTION ABSORPTION IN MORTAR. , 2017, ACI materials journal.

[16]  K. Zilch,et al.  New insights into mechanisms influencing the bond strength between old and new concrete , 2008 .

[17]  Luc Courard,et al.  Saturation level of the superficial zone of concrete and adhesion of repair systems , 2011 .

[18]  L. Courard,et al.  Development of Specifications and Performance Criteria for Surface Preparation Based on Issues Related to Bond Strength , 2017 .

[19]  Hans Beushausen,et al.  The influence of substrate moisture preparation on bond strength of concrete overlays and the microstructure of the OTZ , 2017 .

[20]  Benoît Bissonnette,et al.  Best Practices for Preparing Concrete Surfaces Prior to Repairs and Overlays , 2012 .

[21]  D. Bentz.  Three-Dimensional Computer Simulation of Portland Cement Hydration and Microstructure Development , 1997 .

[22]  D. Bentz,et al.  Preliminary observations of water movement in cement pastes during curing using X-ray absorption , 2000 .

[23]  H. Beushausen,et al.  The influence of concrete substrate preparation on overlay bond strength , 2010 .

[24]  D. Bentz,et al.  X-ray Microtomography Studies of Air-Void Instability and Growth during Drying of Tile Adhesive Mortars , 2008 .

[25]  Scott Z. Jones,et al.  Influence of Internal Curing on Properties and Performance of Cement-Based Repair Materials , 2015 .

[26]  D. Bentz,et al.  X-ray absorption studies of drying of cementitious tile adhesive mortars , 2008 .

[27]  Eduardo Júlio,et al.  Correlation between concrete-to-concrete bond strength and the roughness of the substrate surface , 2007 .

[28]  B A Graybeal,et al.  GROUT-CONCRETE INTERFACE BOND PERFORMANCE: EFFECT OF INTERFACE MOISTURE ON THE TENSILE BOND STRENGTH AND GROUT MICROSTRUCTURE. , 2018, Construction and building materials.

[29]  P. Monteiro,et al.  Microstructural analysis of recycled concrete using X-ray microtomography , 2016 .

[30]  Simon A. Austin,et al.  Shear bond testing of concrete repairs , 1999 .