Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorUpasana Sar
dc.contributor.authorAminul Islam Laskar
dc.date.accessioned2025-04-20T10:12:38Z
dc.date.available2025-04-20T10:12:38Z
dc.date.copyright10/28/2024 12:00:00 AM
dc.date.issued2025
dc.identifier.otherJSDCCC.SCENG-1448.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4304222
dc.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.
dc.publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
dc.titleComparative Study of Different Bonding Agents for Substrate–Overlay Concrete
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.journal.volume30
dc.journal.issue1
dc.journal.titleJournal of Structural Design and Construction Practice
dc.identifier.doi10.1061/JSDCCC.SCENG-1448
dc.journal.fristpage04024090-1
dc.journal.lastpage04024090-15
dc.page15
dc.treeJournal of Structural Design and Construction Practice:;2025:;Volume ( 030 ):;issue: 001
dc.contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record