Bentz Dale P, De la Varga Igor, Muñoz Jose F, Spragg Robert P, Graybeal Benjamin A, Hussey Daniel S, Jacobson David L, Jones Scott Z, LaManna Jacob M
Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
SES Group & Associates, Federal Highway Administration, McClean, VA 22101.
Cem Concr Compos. 2018 Mar;87:63-72. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.12.005. Epub 2017 Dec 8.
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.
关于在应用修复材料之前现有基材的最佳湿度状态,文献中有相互矛盾的观点。在各种研究中,饱和面干(SSD)基材和干燥基材都被认为是更可取的。一个混杂因素是,一些研究通过拉拔(直接拉伸)试验评估修复材料与基材的粘结,而其他研究则采用某种形式的剪切试样作为其首选的测试配置。现有证据表明,干燥基材试样在剪切试验中通常表现相当或更好,而进行拉拔试验时,SSD基材试样通常表现出更高的粘结强度,尽管也观察到了这些趋势的例外情况。本文应用多种微观结构表征工具来研究当新鲜修复材料应用于干燥或SSD基材时形成的界面微观结构。同时使用中子和X射线射线照相术来观察固化前4小时内在该界面发生的动态微观结构重排。基于干燥和SSD试样分别发生的水分移动和致密化(颗粒压实)差异,提出了一个假设,即为什么不同的粘结试验可能有利于一种湿度状态而不是另一种,这也取决于它们的表面粗糙度。建议在倾斜剪切载荷下测试时,干燥基材表面颗粒的压实可能会增加摩擦阻力,但当界面承受拉拔力时,对粘结的贡献相对较小。为了使粘结性能最大化,必须充分考虑修复材料的流动性以及基材的粗糙度和湿度状态。