YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Structural Design and Construction Practice
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Structural Design and Construction Practice
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

    Comparative Study of Different Bonding Agents for Substrate–Overlay Concrete

    Source: Journal of Structural Design and Construction Practice:;2025:;Volume ( 030 ):;issue: 001::page 04024090-1
    Author:
    Upasana Sar
    ,
    Aminul Islam Laskar
    DOI: 10.1061/JSDCCC.SCENG-1448
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    Abstract: Recent studies to examine feasibility of alkali activated material (AAM) as bonding agent between substrate and overlay concrete were either metakaolin based AAM or fly ash–based AAM. Till date, limited studies were carried out to investigate suitability of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) based alkali activated materials as bonding agent between substrate and overlay concrete. Therefore, in the present study an attempt has been made to use GGBS based AAM as bonding agent between substrate and overlay. In addition, cement paste and epoxy were also used as bonding agents for comparison. Three types of surface preparation to substrate concrete viz. smooth surface (without any surface preparation), wire-brushed surface and rough surface were used along with bonding agents to examine the effect of substrate surface preparation on the behavior between substrate and overlay concrete. Mechanical performance of substrate-overlay specimen was measured using slant shear test, split cylinder test, and modulus of rupture test. Test results indicated that choice of bonding agent and surface preparation method significantly affected the performance. Order of measured slant shear strength was: Epoxy composites > Cement paste composites > AAM composites > No bonding agent. For both split cylinder and modulus of rupture test, order of measured strength was: Epoxy composites > AAM composites > cement paste composites > composites with no bonding agent. If substrate-overlay concrete specimen without any bonding agent and without any surface preparation is taken as reference, AAM showed (160%–530%) relative slant shear strength, (368%–645%) relative split tensile strength and 158% relative modulus of rupture respectively. However, bonding agents could not enhance performance of composite specimens up to the level of monolithic specimens, whatever was the surface preparation. Rough surfaced composites with different bonding agents were able to alter the failure mode of composite specimens from pure adhesive failure to other modes.
    • Download: (5.532Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Price: 5000 Rial
    • Statistics

      Comparative Study of Different Bonding Agents for Substrate–Overlay Concrete

    URI
    http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4304222
    Collections
    • Journal of Structural Design and Construction Practice

    Show full item record

    contributor authorUpasana Sar
    contributor authorAminul Islam Laskar
    date accessioned2025-04-20T10:12:38Z
    date available2025-04-20T10:12:38Z
    date copyright10/28/2024 12:00:00 AM
    date issued2025
    identifier otherJSDCCC.SCENG-1448.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4304222
    description abstractRecent studies to examine feasibility of alkali activated material (AAM) as bonding agent between substrate and overlay concrete were either metakaolin based AAM or fly ash–based AAM. Till date, limited studies were carried out to investigate suitability of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) based alkali activated materials as bonding agent between substrate and overlay concrete. Therefore, in the present study an attempt has been made to use GGBS based AAM as bonding agent between substrate and overlay. In addition, cement paste and epoxy were also used as bonding agents for comparison. Three types of surface preparation to substrate concrete viz. smooth surface (without any surface preparation), wire-brushed surface and rough surface were used along with bonding agents to examine the effect of substrate surface preparation on the behavior between substrate and overlay concrete. Mechanical performance of substrate-overlay specimen was measured using slant shear test, split cylinder test, and modulus of rupture test. Test results indicated that choice of bonding agent and surface preparation method significantly affected the performance. Order of measured slant shear strength was: Epoxy composites > Cement paste composites > AAM composites > No bonding agent. For both split cylinder and modulus of rupture test, order of measured strength was: Epoxy composites > AAM composites > cement paste composites > composites with no bonding agent. If substrate-overlay concrete specimen without any bonding agent and without any surface preparation is taken as reference, AAM showed (160%–530%) relative slant shear strength, (368%–645%) relative split tensile strength and 158% relative modulus of rupture respectively. However, bonding agents could not enhance performance of composite specimens up to the level of monolithic specimens, whatever was the surface preparation. Rough surfaced composites with different bonding agents were able to alter the failure mode of composite specimens from pure adhesive failure to other modes.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleComparative Study of Different Bonding Agents for Substrate–Overlay Concrete
    typeJournal Article
    journal volume30
    journal issue1
    journal titleJournal of Structural Design and Construction Practice
    identifier doi10.1061/JSDCCC.SCENG-1448
    journal fristpage04024090-1
    journal lastpage04024090-15
    page15
    treeJournal of Structural Design and Construction Practice:;2025:;Volume ( 030 ):;issue: 001
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian