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.

surface treatment applied. In contr<strong>as</strong>t, a general premature failure occurred with thosesamples c<strong>as</strong>t on a <strong>concrete</strong> substrate with a dry moisture condition. Smooth, sandbl<strong>as</strong>ted,brushed and chipped surfaces presented similar strengths which indicates that the surfacetreatment is not a critical factor, at le<strong>as</strong>t under this loading configuration. Macrotexturedepths equal or greater than 1.5 mm are <strong>of</strong>ten related with good bond strength b<strong>as</strong>ed onfield experience (Sprinkel 1997), but in this research, the different substrate surfaces hadmacrotexture depths between 0.6 and 1.06 mm, and all <strong>of</strong> them presented outstandingstrengths. Therefore, it can be concluded that when UHPC is used <strong>as</strong> overlay <strong>material</strong> ona saturated substrate, a simple surface treatment that removes the dust from the <strong>concrete</strong>surface is enough to achieve a good bond that satisfies the bond strength ranges given by((ACI 546.3R-06 2006), (Sprinkel and Ozyildirim 2000)).In all c<strong>as</strong>es, 300 freeze-thaw cycles have a beneficial effect on the bond strength. Whilethe prolongation <strong>of</strong> the freeze-thaw cycles did not dr<strong>as</strong>tically affect the bond strength,having slightly greater or lower strengths that those obtained with 300 freeze-thawcycles.The low COV for the monolithic samples (from 6.7% to 12.9%) confirms the consistency<strong>of</strong> the splitting tensile test. Where<strong>as</strong> the COV for the composite specimens w<strong>as</strong> greater(from 7.1 to 29.4%) but still can be considered <strong>as</strong> consistent. They are in the same range(2.4 to 29.5 %) <strong>as</strong> obtained by Santos and Julio et al. (2011) in his study <strong>of</strong> the bondbetween two <strong>concrete</strong>s.Comparing the tensile strength attained by the composite prisms with respect to thatobtained by the monolithic samples and taking into consideration that the compressivestrength tests showed that NSC mix used to c<strong>as</strong>t the monolithic samples had <strong>high</strong>erstrength than the rest <strong>of</strong> NSC mixes, it is re<strong>as</strong>onable to state that most <strong>of</strong> the compositeprisms failed due to they have reached the maximum tensile capacity <strong>of</strong> the NSCsubstrate. The summary <strong>of</strong> the failure modes <strong>as</strong> well verifies the latter: most <strong>of</strong> thefailures were in the <strong>concrete</strong> substrate or a mix failure <strong>of</strong> bond and <strong>concrete</strong>. Therefore, itcan be drawn that the tensile strength <strong>of</strong> the bond interface is equal or greater than that <strong>of</strong>the substrate.82

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!