12.07.2015 Views

compatibility of ultra high performance concrete as repair material

compatibility of ultra high performance concrete as repair material

compatibility of ultra high performance concrete as repair material

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

3 MethodologyThis report aims to study the interface bond characteristics <strong>of</strong> UHPC and NSC using avariety <strong>of</strong> bond tests including the slant shear, splitting prism and the pull <strong>of</strong>fconfigurations. The effects <strong>of</strong> surface preparation treatment, pre-wetting conditions andfreeze-thaw cycles were included. In this investigation, the slant shear test w<strong>as</strong> used withdifferent interfacial angles making possible to draw the failure envelope by means <strong>of</strong> theCoulomb criterion, while the splitting prism test allowed for the inclusion <strong>of</strong> the effects<strong>of</strong> freeze-thaw cycling. Inclusion <strong>of</strong> the pull <strong>of</strong>f scenario provided a direct me<strong>as</strong>urement<strong>of</strong> the tensile strength necessary for defining the complete failure envelope, whileproviding a correlation with the other tests. Results from this study provide insight intothe fe<strong>as</strong>ibility <strong>of</strong> using UHPC <strong>as</strong> a rehabilitation <strong>material</strong>.Different surface treatments were used to <strong>as</strong>sess the influence <strong>of</strong> surface roughness on thebond strength. The first step <strong>of</strong> the research consisted <strong>of</strong> a combination <strong>of</strong> splitting tensiletest with freeze-thaw cycles. Five different surfaces (smooth, brushed, chipped,sandbl<strong>as</strong>ted and grooved) were included in this study <strong>of</strong> the indirect tensile strength. Onthe b<strong>as</strong>is <strong>of</strong> the results <strong>of</strong> this test, it w<strong>as</strong> concluded that the smooth, brushed and chippedsurfaces had similar degree <strong>of</strong> roughness, therefore only one representative surface <strong>of</strong>these three w<strong>as</strong> included in the second stage <strong>of</strong> the research (the slant shear and pull <strong>of</strong>ftests). A new surface treatment w<strong>as</strong> utilized to achieve a rougher surface. This newmethod consisted <strong>of</strong> using a <strong>concrete</strong> retarder in to obtain a surface with <strong>high</strong> aggregateexposure. To sum up, four different surfaces (brushed, sandbl<strong>as</strong>ted, grooved and rough)were included in the slant shear and pull <strong>of</strong>f tests.38

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!