An investigation of a ubiquitous slab repair problem

Getting Better Bond

in Concrete Overlays
What kinds of surface preparations and bonding agents work best
for producing strong bonds between existing slabs and repair over-
lays? An investigation into what works... and what doesn’t

by John A. Wells, Robert D. Stark, and Dimos Polyzois

T he continuing surge in structural restoration has gen- Table 1 — Summary of concrete properties
erated considerable interest in methods and materials
used to bond fresh, plastic concrete to hardened con- Substrate Overlay
crete. Resurfacing offices, warehouses, bridge decks, and
parking structures with bonded concrete overlays is a well- Specified
recognized restoration option. In our practice, we have fre- Design strength 25 MPa (3600 psi) 32 MPa (4600 psi)
quently investigated cracking and debonding in concrete Coarse aggregate 20 mm (: in.) 20 mm (: in.)
overlays and have observed considerable disagreement be- w/c 0.50 0.45
tween owners, engineers, and contractors on what constitutes Air entrainment 6 to 8 percent 6 to 8 percent
acceptable surface preparation and, if necessary, what type Slump 80 mm (3.1 in.) 80 mm (3.1 in.)
of bonding agents to be used to enhance the bond between
an overlay and the existing substrate. Actual
Slump 105 mm (4.1 in.) 115 mm (4.5 in.)
The Canadian Standards Association A23.1, “Concrete Ma- 3 3 3 3
Cement content 218 kg/m (367 lb/yd ) 297.5 kg/m (502 lb/yd )
terials and Methods of Concrete Construction,” clause 22, per- 3 3 3 3
mits the use of several methods of surface preparation, each Type C fly ash 39 kg/m (66 lb/yd ) 52.5 kg/m (88 lb/yd )
Air entrainment 7 percent 9 percent
varying significantly in cost and degree of aggressiveness in
7-day strength 23.6 MPa (3420 psi) 21.2 MPa (3070 psi)
texturing the surface.1 Referenced methods include: sandblast-
ing, shotblasting, waterblasting, power-brooming and vacuum- 28-day strength 33.2 MPa (4810 psi) 28.1 MPa (4070 psi)
ing, and acid etching. In addition, there are numerous products
available on the market that are designed to enhance the bond • saturated surface dry (SSD),
between existing concrete and fresh concrete. Indeed, relevant • cement-sand slurry at 0.42 water-cement ratio (w/c),
literature suggests several conflicting opinions regarding the
• cement-sand-acrylic latex slurry,
aggressiveness and type of surface preparation required, and
the type, if any bonding agent required.1-4 • proprietary cement-silica fume modified styrene butadiene
paste (SBR), and
Research program • a proprietary structural grade two-component, moisture-
insensitive epoxy conforming to ASTM C 881.5
To help understand the interrelationship between surface
preparation and bonding agents, a research program was set It was desired to simulate field conditions in which over-
up to evaluate the bond strength of concrete overlays utiliz- lays are frequently placed, and analyze the results with re-
ing four different methods of surface preparation and six dif- spect to concrete characteristics. Ready-mixed concrete was
ferent methods/materials for bonding agents. therefore delivered to the laboratory by a local ready-mix sup-
plier. The base substrate slab was designed with a water-
The four different methods of surface preparation were: cementitious material ratio (w/cm) of 0.50 and 25 MPa
• light brooming and vacuuming (“None”), (3600 psi) concrete; the slab depth was 125 mm (5 in.). The
• vigorous hand wire brushing and vacuuming, overlay design, however, had a lower w/cm of 0.45 and a higher
• waterblasting at 27.5 MPa (4000 psi), and design strength of 32 MPa (4600 psi); it was cast to a depth
• shotblasting to ICRI Minimum CSP-5, using 390 medium- of about 60 mm (2.4 in.).
heavy blast. Table 1 summarizes the substrate and overlay concrete
properties. Both the substrate slab and overlay were cast,
The six pretreatments were: consolidated with a pencil vibrator, and float finished. The
• none (dry), substrate slab and overlay each received a 7-day wet cure.

March1999 49
 4
Interestingly, the slump and resulting strength of the over- 3.5
lay concrete were inferior to those of the base slab even
though a lower w/c was specified. In the field, the high-slump 3
concrete would likely have been rejected.
Four 1.2 x 2.4 m (4 x 8 ft) base slabs were cast, each 125 mm 2.5
(5 in.) thick and reinforced with 10M steel bars* placed at mid-
depth and spaced at 400 mm (16 in.) on center in each direc- 2
tion. Each slab received one of the four surface preparations.
Each slab was then subdivided into six 0.6 x 0.8 m (2.0 x 2.6 ft) 1.5
sections for the six pretreatments. Chalk lines were drawn on
the slabs to define the boundaries between the different sur- 1
face treatments. All materials were mixed and applied in strict
accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. 0.5
Prior to placement of the bonding agents, the sections were
presoaked to obtain a saturated substrate. The section des- 0
ignated as none or dry was protected with polyethylene sheet- None Wire Brush Water Blast Shotblast
ing during the prewetting stage and bonding agent applica- Fig. 1 — Bond strength of dry surface.
tion. Placement of the bonding pretreatments were carefully
timed so that the material did not dry out prior to placement
of the fresh concrete overlay. 4
The bond strength between the base slab and the overlay
was measured using the uniaxial tension test in accordance 3.5
with CSA A23.2-6B.6 The standard requires a minimum bond
strength of 0.90 MPa (130 psi) following a 28-day cure of the 3
concrete. Upon 28-day cure (7 wet, 21 air dry), 75 mm (3 in.)
plates were adhered to the overlay — three per pretreatment 2.5
section or 18 per slab. The pull-test locations were staggered
and set back from the perimeter to decrease the effects of curl- 2
ing. The overlay was then cored over the plate and 30 mm
(1.2 in.) into the substrate slab. The plate was then pulled to 1.5
failure in direct tension from which the bond strength between
the overlay and the substrate was directly calculated, and the 1
plane of failure observed. The failure mode was classified as
0.5
overlay, bond interface, or substrate, depending on the loca-
tion of the plane of failure.
0
The data were then correlated to establish the best combi-
None Wire Brush Waterblast Shotblast
nation of surface pretreatment and surface preparation. The
bond strengths were then compared to the minimum of Fig. 2 — Bond strength of SSD surface.
0.90 MPa (130 psi) at 28 days required by CSA A23.1. Upon
completion of the bond tests, scanning electron microscopy
was utilized on select samples to examine the bond interface was easy to spray because of its finer texture and lower vis-
between the substrate and the overlay. cosity, making it more conducive to large areas.
Fig. 1 through 6 summarize the data for three bond tests for
Results and analysis each combination of pretreatment method and type of sur-
Shotblasting produced the roughest surface texture. Water- face preparation.
blasting created a surface texture similar to that of approxi- Fig. 1 shows the data for the dry surface. Six of the twelve
mately 100-grit sandpaper. The wire-brushed surface re- cores debonded during the coring process. The data indicate
sembled a 150- to 220-grit sandpaper. that some degree of surface preparation is required when at-
As for time of surface preparation, shotblasting and tempting to bond to dry concrete. Although two cores re-
waterblasting took the least time, requiring just one pass over mained bonded for the wire-brushed slab, the overall average
the surface. Waterblasting, however, created significant bond strength remained below the CSA minimum requirement
overspray and the resulting slurry had to be contained and of 0.90 MPa (130 psi). Note, however, that the shotblasted
removed. Wire brushing was very labor intensive; this method slab produced the second overall highest average bond
would not be suitable for large areas. strengths in the program at 3.02 MPa (438 psi). Furthermore,
All the surface pretreatments required a similar degree of the plane of failure for the shotblasted/dry surface was within
labor to apply. The SBR silica fume-cement mixture, however, in the overlay or substrate. Two failed cohesively in the over-
lay, the weaker of the two concretes.
* A No. 10 metric bar has a cross-sectional area of 100 m2 (0.16 in. 2 ); Fig. 2 presents the saturated-surface-dry pretreatment. Here,
it falls in size between an inch-pound No. 3 (0.11 in.2 ) and No. 4 (0.20 five of the twelve cores failed during the coring process. Note
in.2 ).

50 ConcreteInternational
 4 4

3.5 3.5

3
3

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1
1

0.5 0.5

0
0
None WireBrush Waterblast Shotblast None Wire Brush Waterblast Shotblast

Fig. 3 — Bond strength of cement–sand grout. Fig. 5 — Bond strength of cement–SF modified grout.

4 4

3.5 3.5

3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
None Wire Brush Waterblast Shotblast None Wire Brush Waterblast Shotblast
Fig. 4 — Bond strength of cement–sand–acrylic grout. Fig. 6 — Bond strength of epoxy.

again how shotblasting produced high bond strengths for all
three SSD tests, averaging 2.86 MPa (415 psi). For this sec-
tion, two failures occurred in the overlay, the third at the bond
interface.
Fig. 3, 4, 5, and 6 present, respectively, the data for the sec-
tions that had the various bonding agents. Fig. 7 provides a
summary of the average bond strength of the three specimens
for the various combinations of surface treatment and surface
pretreatment. For the panel that was only broomed and vacu-
umed (“None”), every core except one failed during the coring
process. Bond strength averages for all bonding agents were
relatively consistent, provided there was some degree of sur-
face preparation. Average bond strengths ranged from a low of
2.43 MPa (352 psi) for the cement-silica fume/waterblasted slab
to a high of 3.12 MPa (452 psi) for the epoxy/wire-brushed slab.
The overall average for the data obtained in Fig. 3, 4, 5, and 6 is
2.78 MPa (403 psi). All values are well above the CSA minimum
requirement of 0.90 MPa (130 psi). Note also the consistency in
the bond strength results.
For the shotblasted, waterblasted, and wire-brushed slab
sections with a bonding agent, failure occurred in the overlay
or substrate in 29 of the 36 pull tests (81 percent). In each
case, however, there was no discernable increase in measured
bond strength for cores with failure planes in either the over-
lay, substrate, or bond interface. The test substrate in which
only light brooming was used failed during the coring pro-
cess, indicating no bond strength.
The data obtained in this investigation confirm that some
degree of surface preparation is required to ensure sufficient
bond between a new concrete overlay and substrate. The data
further suggest, however, that shotblasting removes the de-
pendency on the use of a bonding agent, as indicated by the
shotblasted/dry substrate that produced the second overall
highest and most consistent bond strengths.
Scanning electron microscopy of the bond lines of repre-
sentative specimens suggest that the higher bond strength
in the shotblasted/dry substrate specimens was attributable
to greater penetration of the plastic concrete into the sub-

March1999 51
 3.5
3 strate and the overlay.
2.5
2 “Concrete Materials and Methods of
1.5
1 Misconceptions, and Controversial Issues
0.5
0 3. Kosmatka, S.; Panarese, W.; Allen,
None Wire Brush Waterblast
Dry SSD
Cement Grout Cement/Acrylic Grout
Cement/SF
LSF Grout Grout Epoxy
Fig. 7 — Summary of average bond strengths.
strate and, thus, greater mechanical interlock. Use of a bond-
ing agent tended to clog the capillaries, thereby decreasing
mechanical interlock. However, in slabs using less aggressive
methods of profiling, such as wire brushing and waterblasting,
the pore structure remained too tight for sufficient penetra-
tion of the plastic concrete. Here, a bonding agent, with its
lower viscosity and better fluidity, was required to penetrate
the pore structure and permit the formation of a bond line be-
tween the new and existing concrete. Hence, the results sup-
port the significance of scrubbing the bonding agent into the
substrate.
A further review of all bond strengths suggests that poly-
mer-based bonding agents provided no significant or
discernable advantage in obtaining high bond strengths over
conventional cement-sand slurry. The epoxy adhesive used
in this program had a published tensile strength of 33 MPa
(4800 psi), whereas the concrete tensile strength can be ap-
proximated by 0.5√f c′ which translates to an approximate ten-
sile strength of only 2.88 MPa (418 psi).
Conclusions
Based on the data obtained in the test program, we can derive
the following conclusions:
1. Some degree of surface preparation is required to clean
and texture the concrete substrate to effect a strong bond with
the new concrete overlay.
2. An aggressive method of surface preparation such as
shotblasting, which provides a course profile, removes the
dependency on the use of a bonding agent.
3. For less aggressive methods of surface preparation such
as wire brushing or waterblasting at 27.5 MPa (4000 psi), use
of a bonding agent to obtain a satisfactory bond strength
greater than 0.90 MPa (130 psi) between the substrate and
the overlay is required.
4. The results presented here suggest that no discernable
advantage exists in using polymer-modified bonding agents,
including a structural grade epoxy, over conventional cement-
sand slurry to obtain high bond strengths between the sub-
52
References
1. Canadian Standards Association,
Concrete Construction,” CSA A23.1-
M94.
2. Schrader, Earnest K., “Mistakes,
Concerning Concrete and Concrete Re-
pairs,” Concrete International, V. 14, No.
11, November 1992, pp. 54-59.
G.; and Cumming, S., Design and Con-
Shotblast trol of Concrete Mixtures, Fifth Edition,
Canadian Portland Cement Association,
1991, pp. 114-116.
4. Murray, Myles A., “Surface Prepa-
ration for Adhesives,” Concrete Interna-
tional, V. 11, No. 9., September 1989,
pp. 69-71.
5. ASTM C 881, Standard Specifica-
tion for Epoxy-Resin-Based Bonding
Systems for Concrete, American Society
for Testing and Materials, W.
Conshohocken, Pa.
6. Canadian Standards Association; Methods of Test for Concrete,
A23.2-M94.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions provided by The
University of Manitoba, Garry Wright of Brock White Steels, Forum
Construction Services for the shotblasting and expert concrete finish-
ing, National Testing Laboratories for loaning of the pull test equip-
ment, Lafarge Canada Inc. for the concrete, and Sika Canada Inc. for
material donations.
ACI member John A. Wells is a registered
engineer with Crosier Kilgour and Part-
SelectedWinnipeg,
ners, for reader interest by the Canada.
Manitoba, editors. He
obtained his Master’s in structural engi-
neering from the University of Manitoba in
1990 and practices in the field of investi-
gation and remediation of conventionally
reinforced, prestressed, and masonry
structures. His research interests include evaluating repair
and protection strategies for buildings.
Robert D. Stark is an engineer with
Wardrop Engineering, Inc., Winnipeg,
Manitoba. He received his Bachelor’s in
civil engineering from the University of
Manitoba while conducting the research
that is presented in this article.
Dimos Polyzois is a professor of civil and
geological engineering at the University of
Manitoba, where he heads the department
of structural engineering and is the direc-
tor of the University’s construction research
and development facility. He has been a
principal investigator on over 20 research
projects and has authored over 100 tech-
nical papers on concrete research and development in the
United States and Canada.
ConcreteInternational