Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Effect of surface preparation and bonding agent on the concrete-to-concrete

interface strength
Dinis S. Santos a, Pedro M.D. Santos b,⇑, Daniel Dias-da-Costa c,d
a
Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, School of Technology and Management, Civil Eng. Dept., Campus 2, Morro do Lena, Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
b
ICIST, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, School of Technology and Management, Civil Eng. Dept., Campus 2, Morro do Lena, Alto do Vieiro, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal
c
INESC Coimbra, Rua Antero de Quental 199, 3000-033 Coimbra, Portugal
d
Civil Eng. Dept., University of Coimbra, Rua Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal

h i g h l i g h t s

" Roughness is a key parameter in the behaviour of concrete-to-concrete interfaces.

" Bonding agents are usually adopted to increase the bond strength between layers.
" Substrate moisture can lead to a major reduction in the bond strength.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Concrete-to-concrete interfaces are present both in new and existing structures. Two distinctive situa-
Received 24 April 2012 tions can be identified: (1) placing hardened concrete against hardened concrete parts, such as the case
Received in revised form 2 July 2012 of precast members for viaducts and bridge decks; and (2) placing fresh concrete against hardened con-
Accepted 22 July 2012
crete parts, such as the rehabilitation and strengthening of existing structures by concrete jacketing or
Available online 24 August 2012
concrete overlay, among other techniques, as well as the use of precast members placed on site to later
receive a cast-in-place concrete layer.
Keywords:
The bond strength of the concrete-to-concrete interface is influenced by several parameters but mainly
Concrete
Bond
by: (1) the surface preparation; (2) the use of bonding agents; (3) the compressive strength of the weak-
Adhesion est concrete; (4) the moisture content of the substrate; (5) the curing conditions; (6) the stress state at
Interface the interface; (7) the presence of cracking; and (8) the amount of steel reinforcement crossing the inter-
Roughness face, among others.
Shear This paper presents an experimental study conducted to assess the influence of the surface preparation
and bonding agent on the bond strength of the concrete-to-concrete interface. The contribution of the
substrate moisture is also addressed. Experimental results are discussed and conclusions drawn.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction jacketing, where the cross section of existing members (columns

Concrete-to-concrete interfaces are common in new construc-
tions as well as in rehabilitation and strengthening of existing
structures. In general, fresh or hardened concrete parts are placed
against a hardened concrete substrate (existing concrete).
Placing hardened concrete parts against a hardened concrete
substrate is common in precast, such as the case of viaducts and
bridge decks made of precast/prestressed members. Adding a
new layer of fresh concrete against a hardened concrete substrate
is frequent in the rehabilitation of existing structures as well as in
precast construction. Strengthening techniques, such as concrete
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 244 820 300; fax: +351 244 820 310.
E-mail address: pedro.santos@ipleiria.pt (P.M.D. Santos).
and beams) is partially or totally involved by a new concrete layer
or when precast members, such as I-Beams (Fig. 1), are positioned
on site to later receive a new cast-in-place concrete layer on top is
a typical example of this. Adding a concrete overlay, which in-
creases the member thickness, is also frequent when slabs require
strengthening.
To improve the bond strength between the substrate concrete
and the new added concrete layer it is common to increase the
roughness of the substrate surface. Bonding agents are also fre-
quently used to increase the bond strength.
This paper presents an experimental study conducted to assess
the influence of the surface preparation and bonding agent on the
bond strength, given only by the contribution of adhesion, on the
concrete-to-concrete interface of composite members with layers

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.028
 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110
Fig. 1. Precast concrete I-Beam (courtesy of MAPREL).
cast at different ages. The influence of the substrate moisture is
also investigated. Materials and methods are described and exper-
imental results analysed and discussed. Conclusions are drawn and
suggestions for further research given.
2. Factors affecting the bond strength
The bond strength of the concrete-to-concrete interface is influ-
enced by several parameters, namely: (1) the preparation of the
substrate surface; (2) the use of a bonding agent at the interface;
(3) the mechanical properties of both concrete layers; (4) the mois-
ture content of the substrate; (5) the curing conditions of both con-
crete layers; (6) the stress state at the interface; (7) the presence of
cracking in the substrate; and (8) the amount of steel reinforce-
ment crossing the interface, among others.
It is common to increase the bond strength between the sub-
strate and the new concrete layer by increasing the roughness of
the substrate surface. Preparation techniques, such as wire-brush-
ing, sand-blasting, shot-blasting, chipping and hydro-demolition,
are frequently used to remove the superficial layer. The latter tech-
nique is widely recognised as the most adequate [1,2] since: (1) a
uniform roughness is achieved; (2) the reinforcement bars can be
cleaned if corroded; and (3) frequently leads to the highest values
of bond strength. Techniques like chipping with a pneumatic ham-
mer are usually inadequate since micro-cracking is often origi-
nated in the substrate due to the high impact energy [3–5].
Additionally to the roughness increasing procedure, a bonding
agent can be used to improve the bond strength. In this case,
epoxy-based resins are the most commonly adopted in bond
fresh/hardened to hardened concrete parts but the resulting bene-
fits are not widely accepted by researchers. Some suggest that an
adequate bond can be only achieved by combining the use of bond-
ing agents with a proper technique to increase the substrate rough-
ness [6], mainly when the substrate presents a smooth surface.
Others state that bonding agents are not necessary provided that
substrate concrete is dry and properly roughened to expose the
aggregates [7]. Moreover, the influence of the surface roughness
appears to be more significant when cement mortars or polymer
modified cement mortars are used, since when epoxy resins are
adopted failures do not frequently occur at the interface [8].
103
Besides roughness and bonding agents, the influence of param-
eters such as temperature, and in particular the effect of cyclic
variations, should be evaluated for each specific situation since
they can control the behaviour of the interface [9,10].
Since composite concrete members are cast at different ages,
different concretes are frequently adopted. Even with the same
mixture design, differences are obtained in the compressive
strength and, therefore, in the Young’s modulus. In this case, the
weakest concrete layer controls the failure of composite members.
Furthermore, differential stiffness, due to different Young’s modu-
lus at each layer, also affects the behaviour of the composite mem-
bers [11–13] since additional stresses are induced at the interface.
Current practice also recommends pre-wetting the substrate
concrete in the 24 h that precede the cast of the new concrete
layer, to achieve a saturated substrate with a dry surface [1,3,14].
Under hot and dry weather conditions, pre-wetting is fundamental
to achieve a good bond [15]. Nevertheless, in the case of high mois-
ture or free water at the substrate surface, bond strength decreases
[3].
Current design codes for concrete structures [16,17] do not
explicitly present provisions for the curing procedure of composite
members cast at different ages and, therefore, the influence of dif-
ferential shrinkage is often neglected. This is a key parameter since
different concretes with different curing conditions indeed exist in
composite members. It is usual recommended to start curing
immediately after the cast of the added concrete, extending it for
at least 3–7 days, to improve the bond strength [1,18]. Parameters
such as relative humidity and temperature, as well as the exposure
to wind, rain and solar radiation, must be considered [11,19].
The bond strength between concrete layers can also be im-
proved by increasing the compressive strength of concrete [18]
and, therefore, the contribution of cohesion for the shear strength.
A proper curing process ensures that the maximum stresses be-
tween the substrate concrete and the added concrete do not lead
to debonding and micro-cracking at the interface [1].
It should be highlighted that the stress state at the concrete-to-
concrete interface is very complex since it comprises a combina-
tion of shear and normal stresses. When acting on the material
properties, namely the compressive strength of each concrete
layer, it is possible to design the failure mode of composite mem-
bers [11,12] by specifying the differential stiffness between layers.
For the same level of shear stresses, normal stresses increase at the
interface when the differential stiffness between concrete layers
increases. This means that it is possible to define the failure mode
to be adhesive, due to debonding at the interface, or cohesive, by
concrete crushing at the bulk. Nevertheless, the increase of the dif-
ferential stiffness increases stress concentrations is other zones of
the interface [11–13].
3. Materials and methods
In the following section the materials and methods adopted in the experimental
study are presented and described, namely: (1) concrete mixture; (2) identification
of specimens; (3) experimental set-up to assess the bond strength of the concrete-
to-concrete interface; (4) surface preparation of the substrate; (5) curing condi-
tions; (6) difference of ages between layers; (7) bonding agent; (8) cast procedure;
and (9) test results.
3.1. Concrete mixture
The adopted concrete mixture was defined to achieve a C40/50 strength class
according to Eurocode 2 [16]. A Portland cement type II 32.5 N was selected. The
adopted aggregates were fine sand, coarse sand and a fine crushed limestone. A
commercial super-plasticizer admixture was also included to improve the concrete
strength, reducing the water but keeping the workability.
The maximum aggregate size was 9.52 mm; the predicted void volume was
30 l; and the predicted compacity 0.807. The proportions of each component were
determined by the Faury method [20] by adjusting the curve of the real mixture to
104 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110

the reference one. The final proportions, per cubic meter of concrete, are: 725 kg of
fine crushed limestone; 483 kg of coarse sand; 597 kg of fine sand; 350 kg of Port-
land cement type II 32.5 N; 160 l of water; and 2.50 l of super-plasticizer.

3.2. Identification of specimens

The composite specimens were tagged taking into consideration: (1) the num-
ber of the specimen (1–5); (2) the condition of the substrate concrete layer (fresh or
hardened); (3) the moisture condition of the substrate layer (dry or saturated); (4)
the preparation method for the interface surface; (5) the presence (or not) of a
bonding agent at the interface; and (6) the condition of the added concrete layer
(fresh or hardened).
The specimens were tagged with the capitals ‘‘F’’ and ‘‘H’’ when the substrate or
added concrete layers were fresh or hardened, respectively. Depending on the mois-
ture content of the substrate layer, the specimens were additionally tagged with
‘‘DS’’ and ‘‘SS’’ for the dry substrate and saturated substrate, respectively.
Depending on the condition of the substrate surface, the specimens were tagged
with: (1) ‘‘LAC’’, when the substrate surface was left as-cast; (2) ‘‘WB’’, when the
substrate surface was prepared by wire-brushing; and (3) ‘‘SHB’’, when the sub-
strate surface was prepared by shot-blasting. When the bonding agent was used
at the interface, the specimens were also tagged with a ‘‘B’’.
As an example, the third (3) composite specimen to be tested, with a hardened
(H) and dry substrate (DS), with the interface surface prepared by wire-brushing
(WB), a bonding agent (B) placed at the interface and a fresh (F) concrete layer
added on top was named of 3-H-DS-WB-B-F. Fig. 2 illustrates the specimens’ label-
ling scheme.
The specimens used to assess the compressive strength of the adopted concrete
were only tagged with the specimens’ number followed by the initials ‘‘CS’’.

Fig. 3. Bi-surface shear test.

3.3. Experimental set-up

The bond test selected to assess the adhesion between concrete layers was the
bi-surface shear test [21]. Cubic specimens of 150 mm where adopted. The sub-
strate concrete and the added concrete layers correspond to two-thirds and one-
third of the volume of the specimen (Fig. 3), respectively.
This bond test presents several advantages when compared to others, namely:
(1) the specimens’ geometry is the same of the standard cubic specimens and,
therefore, the same moulds can be used; (2) the specimens are tested in compres-
sion in a universal testing machine without the need of specific equipment; and (3)
loads are applied symmetrically without inducing bending.
The composite specimen is tested under compression being the loads applied
using three thick steel plates, with 50  150  25 mm3, originating two shear
planes. One shear plane corresponds to the bonded interface, while the second
plane is located in the substrate concrete.
To better illustrate the suitability of the selected bond test, a linear elastic finite
element model with bilinear plane stress elements was used to evaluate the stress
field along the interface, namely the distribution of shear and normal stresses and
the influence of the differential stiffness. For that purpose two layers are consid-
ered, layer 1 and 2, respectively on the left and on the right side of the interface
(see dashed line in Fig. 4a). Three different combinations were considered, where
layer 1 is progressively stiffer:
- model E30-30: C20/25 concrete in both layers with Young’s modulus of 30 GPa;
- model E35-30: C40/50 concrete in layer 1 with Young’s modulus of 35 GPa,
whereas layer 2 is equal to Model E30-30;
- model E44-30: C90/105 concrete in layer 1, with Young’s modulus of 44 GPa,
whereas layer 2 is equal to the previous models.
The Poisson’s ratio is equal to 0.2 and a vertical displacement is applied on top
leading corresponding to a 20 MPa compressive stress (see Fig. 4a) for all situations.
The principal stresses and maximum shear stress along the interface are repre-
sented in Fig. 4b). From this Figure, it can be concluded that the maximum principal
stress (r1) is the same in all situations, whereas the minimum principal stress (r3)
varies slightly at the top of the specimen. Fig. 5 shows the maximum shear stress
distribution and third principal stress direction. From this figure, it can be observed
that the maximum shear stress progressively increases in layer 1, from the bottom
to the top of the specimen, whereas the principal directions are practically un-
changed. However, the stress along the interface is almost unchanged (see also
Fig. 4b). Therefore, this experimental test is particularly insensitive to the differen-
tial stiffness among concrete layers. Based in the observations made for the stress
distribution at the interface, being the differential stiffness minimum since a single
concrete mixture was adopted, the bond test is suitable and was adopted in the re-
search study herein presented.
3.4. Surface preparation
Three different conditions were considered for the surface of the concrete sub-
strate, namely: (1) left as-cast against steel formwork (LAC), Fig. 6a; (2) prepared by
wire-brushing without exposing the aggregates (WB), Fig. 6b; and (3) prepared by
shot-blasting exposing the aggregates (SHB), Fig. 6c.
The left as-cast surface is considered the reference situation, while wire-brush-
ing and shot-blasting were adopted aiming to improve the surface roughness and,
therefore, the bond strength between the substrate and the added concrete.

Fig. 2. Specimens’ labelling scheme.

 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110 105

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. FE model: (a) structural scheme and adopted mesh (150 mm width, dimensions in mm); and (b) principal stresses and maximum shear stress along the interface.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 5. Map of the maximum shear stress (direction of minimum principal stress shown with small line segments) for: (a) E30-30; (b) E35-30; and (c) E44-30.

Fig. 6. Surface preparation: (a) left as-cast; (b) wire-brushed; and (c) shot-blasted. (pictures at scale).

The left as-cast (LAC) surfaces were obtained by placing the concrete directly
against steel formwork without further treatment after demolding. The wire-
brushed (WB) surfaces were prepared using an angle grinder with a metallic brush
attached. The shot-blasted (SHB) surfaces were prepared in an industrial chamber.
These three surface conditions were considered with the interface surface dry when
placing the bonding agent, when applicable, or the added concrete layer.
Since it is expected to obtain the highest bond strength for the specimens pre-
pared by shot-blasting, presenting these the highest surface roughness, it was
decided to also investigate the influence of the substrate moisture. Aiming at this,
two different conditions were considered for the substrate prepared by shot-blast-
ing: (1) dry substrate; and (2) saturated substrate with dry surface.
Subsequently, four different conditions were considered for the interface be-
tween the substrate and the added concrete layer.
All specimens were cleaned with compressed air, after the surface preparation,
aiming to remove dust and small particles originated by the removal of the super-
ficial concrete layer. Before placing the bonding agent, when applicable, and the
added concrete layer, the specimens’ surface was cleaned once more using com-
pressed air.
3.5. Curing conditions
All specimens were stored and cured in the laboratory, under normal conditions
of work, without being exposed to rain, wind and solar radiation. The temperature
and relative humidity conditions were not controlled but are assumed constant
during the curing period since the storage location was the basement of the
106 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110
Fig. 7. Curing conditions: (a) basement of the laboratory; and (b) water tank.
laboratory, Fig. 7a. Local measurements showed average values for temperature and
relative humidity around 20 °C and 70%, respectively. Besides these, all other
parameters that can influence the bond strength were kept constant.
The only difference in the curing conditions is related with the specimens pre-
pared by shot-blasting and with a saturated substrate. These specimens were ini-
tially stored together with the remaining. In the 72 h before placing the added
concrete, or bonding agent when applicable, the specimens were moved to a satu-
rated environment (water tank at 20 °C) and kept there for the next 48 h, Fig. 7b. In
the 24 h before placing the added concrete, or bonding agent when applicable, the
specimens were removed from the water tank and placed once more together with
the remaining specimens under the specified curing conditions.
When the added concrete, or bonding agent when applicable, was placed, these
specimens presented a saturated substrate but the interface surface was dry. With
this procedure it was possible: (1) to avoid an excessive dry substrate, which ab-
sorbs the water from the added concrete; and (2) to avoid a wet interface, which
reduces the bond between the substrate and the added concrete or bonding agent.
3.6. Difference of ages between concrete layers
Two different situations were considered for each one of the four interface con-
ditions: (1) fresh concrete placed against hardened concrete, with and without
bonding agent at the interface; and (2) hardened concrete placed against hardened
concrete, with a bonding agent at the interface.
In the first situation, the substrate concrete was stored during 28 days in the
specified curing conditions and, therefore, it was hardened when the fresh concrete
or bonding agent was placed. In the second situation, hardened concrete was placed
against hardened concrete using a bonding agent at the interface. In the latter sit-
uation, both concrete parts were cast in the same day, using concrete from the same
mixture, and stored under the same curing conditions. The bonding agent was ap-
plied when the concrete presented 28 days of age.
3.7. Bonding agent
The adopted bonding agent was a commercial epoxy resin-based bond coat
available in two components, adequate to bond fresh and hardened concrete
against hardened concrete. The adopted preparation and application procedures
were the ones specified by the manufacturer. The bonding agent was applied aim-
ing to achieve a uniform layer with a thickness of approximately 0.5 mm.
3.8. Cast procedure
All specimens were produced using the standard cubic steel moulds of 150 mm
adopted to cast the specimens to assess the compressive strength of concrete. First,
timber specimens with 50  150  150 mm3 were placed inside the mould to re-
duce its volume to two-thirds. Subsequently, the substrate concrete was cast. When
hardened, the substrate concrete was removed from the moulds, the interface sur-
face prepared and stored under the specified curing conditions. This procedure was
adopted to cast the substrate for all bi-surface shear specimens.
The same procedure was adopted to cast the added concrete that was placed
against the hardened substrate concrete. In the latter situation, the timber speci-
mens adopted to reduce the initial volume of the mould presented
100  150  150 mm3, since the added concrete layer correspond to only one-third
of the composite specimen.
When the substrate concrete reached 28 days of age, the specimens were placed
again inside the moulds and the added concrete cast, or placed against the substrate
as in the case of the hardened added concrete layer, occupying the remaining one-
third of the initial volume. When applicable, the bonding agent was placed before
the added concrete.
Five composite specimens were cast for each considered situation combining
the surface preparation and the curing conditions. Three cubic specimens of
150 mm were cast, for each batch produced, to assess the compressive strength
of the adopted concrete.
3.9. Test results
All bi-surface shear specimens, with a hardened substrate and the added con-
crete layer placed fresh, were tested when the latter reached 28 days of age. The
bi-surface shear specimens comprising two hardened parts were tested at 56 days
of age. In the latter situation, the bonding agent was applied when both parts pre-
sented 28 days of age and, therefore, it was decided to test the specimens only at
the 56 days of age.
All bi-surface shear specimens were tested using a universal testing machine
adopting a load rate of 2 kN/s, Table 1. The cubic specimens to assess the compres-
sive strength of the adopted concrete were tested at the test date of the bi-surface
shear specimens, adopting the same testing machine and a load rate of 10 kN/s,
Table 2.
After each test, the specimens were carefully observed to identify the failure
mode. Three distinctive failure modes were identified: (1) adhesive failure with
debonding at the interface, Fig. 8a; (2) cohesive failure with concrete crushing,
Fig. 8b; and (3) mixed failure, simultaneously with debonding and concrete crush-
ing, Fig. 8c.
Since some test results are atypically low/high it was decided to apply the Chau-
venet’s criterion [22] to each set of experimental results in order to detect and elim-
inate spurious values. According to this criterion, to detect spurious values in a
sample it is necessary to compute the mean and the standard deviation. Using a
normal distribution function, it is then possible to determine the probability of a va-
lue being spurious. If the product of this probability by the number of values of the
sample is lower than 0.5, then the value should be excluded from the sample, other-
wise it should be considered as valid. A value of a set can be excluded if the prob-
ability of obtaining the particular deviation from the mean is lower than 1/(2n),
being n the number of values. This criterion can be applied only once.
The spurious experimental results were not considered in the determination of
the mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation. Nevertheless, they are
presented between parentheses in Table 1.
4. Analyses and discussion of results
Next, the experimental results are analysed. The influence of the
surface preparation, the use of a bonding agent at the interface and
the substrate moisture are discussed and compared for the consid-
ered situations. Failure modes are also examined.
The bond strength of the interface (Table 1) is computed divid-
ing the failure load of the composite specimens by the number of
shear planes (2) and by the area of the bonded interface
(150  150 mm2). The analysis is made considering the mean value
of all specimens, e.g. five, considered valid after applying the Chau-
venet’s criterion [22]. Specimens presenting a cohesive or a mixed
failure mode were considered since the presented bond strength
corresponds to a lower bound of the true bond strength of the
interface. A comparative analysis between the bond strength ob-
tained for each considered situation is present in Fig. 9. It is possi-
ble to observe that the bi-surface shear specimens are sensitive to
the surface preparation method, as well as to the moisture content
of the substrate concrete and to the use of a bonding agent at the
 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110 107

Table 1
Failure stress of the bi-surface shear specimens.

Specimen Failure stress (MPa) Failure mode Average (MPa) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)
1-H-DS-LAC-F 1.14 Adhesive
2-H-DS-LAC-F 1.11 Adhesive
3-H-DS-LAC-F 1.25 Adhesive 1.38 0.29 21.14
4-H-DS-LAC-F 1.66 Adhesive
5-H-DS-LAC-F 1.71 Adhesive
1-H-DS-LAC-B-F 2.92 Adhesive
2-H-DS-LAC-B-F 3.41 Adhesive
3-H-DS-LAC-B-F 2.35 Adhesive 2.89 0.51 17.75
4-H-DS-LAC-B-F 3.37 Adhesive
5-H-DS-LAC-B-F 2.38 Adhesive
1-H-DS-LAC-B-H 3.27 Cohesive
2-H-DS-LAC-B-H 3.39 Mixed
3-H-DS-LAC-B-H 3.44 Mixed 3.37 0.07 2.13
4-H-DS-LAC-B-H (1.69) Adhesive
5-H-DS-LAC-B-H 3.39 Cohesive
1-H-DS-WB-F 1.77 Adhesive
2-H-DS-WB-F 2.16 Adhesive
3-H-DS-WB-F 1.28 Adhesive 1.93 0.58 29.92
4-H-DS-WB-F 2.80 Adhesive
5-H-DS-WB-F 1.65 Adhesive
1-H-DS-WB-B-F 2.86 Mixed
2-H-DS-WB-B-F 4.35 Cohesive
3-H-DS-WB-B-F 2.02 Adhesive 3.48 1.16 33.34
4-H-DS-WB-B-F 3.26 Adhesive
5-H-DS-WB-B-F 4.91 Adhesive
1-H-DS-WB-B-H 3.30 Cohesive
2-H-DS-WB-B-H 3.72 Cohesive
3-H-DS-WB-B-H 3.77 Cohesive 3.64 0.23 6.40
4-H-DS-WB-B-H (2.20) Cohesive
5-H-DS-WB-B-H 3.79 Cohesive
1-H-DS-SHB-F 6.33 Cohesive
2-H-DS-SHB-F 1.79 Adhesive
3-H-DS-SHB-F 2.06 Adhesive 3.67 1.93 52.56
4-H-DS-SHB-F 4.91 Adhesive
5-H-DS-SHB-F 3.26 Adhesive
1-H-DS-SHB-B-F 5.29 Adhesive
2-H-DS-SHB-B-F 3.08 Adhesive
3-H-DS-SHB-B-F 6.93 Mixed 4.76 1.99 41.75
4-H-DS-SHB-B-F 6.16 Mixed
5-H-DS-SHB-B-F 2.32 Adhesive
1-H-DS-SHB-B-H 2.22 Cohesive
2-H-DS-SHB-B-H 3.09 Cohesive
3-H-DS-SHB-B-H 3.73 Cohesive 3.59 0.96 26.70
4-H-DS-SHB-B-H 4.58 Cohesive
5-H-DS-SHB-B-H 4.34 Cohesive
1-H-SS-SHB-F (4.10) Adhesive
2-H-SS-SHB-F 2.29 Adhesive
3-H-SS-SHB-F 1.50 Adhesive 1.85 0.44 23.89
4-H-SS-SHB-F 1.43 Adhesive
5-H-SS-SHB-F 2.16 Adhesive
1-H-SS-SHB-B-F 4.16 Cohesive
2-H-SS-SHB-B-F 3.86 Cohesive
3-H-SS-SHB-B-F 3.24 Cohesive 4.17 0.72 17.34
4-H-SS-SHB-B-F 4.39 Cohesive
5-H-SS-SHB-B-F 5.22 Cohesive
1-H-SS-SHB-B-H 2.60 Cohesive
2-H-SS-SHB-B-H 4.11 Cohesive
3-H-SS-SHB-B-H 3.80 Cohesive 3.26 0.66 20.13
4-H-SS-SHB-B-H 2.78 Cohesive
5-H-SS-SHB-B-H 3.03 Cohesive

interface. This is a very significant observation since a bond test
should be influenced by these parameters, among others.
The compressive strength of the adopted concrete (Table 2) is
computed dividing the failure load of the cubic specimens by the
surface area (150  150 mm2). The mean value of three specimens
is considered. All batches present a similar compressive strength
and, therefore, the influence of this parameter in the bond strength
is not addressed.
4.1. Influence of surface preparation and bonding agent
The composite specimens, with a hardened concrete substrate
and an added concrete layer placed fresh, present a significant in-
crease of the bond strength, in comparison with the reference sit-
uation (left as-cast), when the interface surface is prepared by
wire-brushing and shot-blasting. This observation is valid for
specimens with and without a bonding agent at the interface.
108 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110

Table 2
Failure stress of the cubic specimens.

Surface preparation Layer Failure stress (MPa) Average (MPa) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%)
LAC Substrate 49.60 50.19 0.57 1.14
50.75
50.20
Added 40.62 41.38 1.02 2.47
42.54
40.97
WB Substrate 49.64 46.97 2.30 4.91
45.63
45.66
Added Specimens were cast using the same batch used for the added concrete of the left as-cast specimens
DS – SHB Substrate 54.04 53.08 0.83 1.57
52.52
52.70
Added 49.29 47.86 1.38 2.88
47.76
46.54
SS – SHB Substrate 39.15 38.28 0.78 2.03
37.63
38.08
Added Specimens were cast using the same batch used for the added concrete of the specimens with a shot-blasted surface and dry
substrate

Fig. 8. Failure modes: (a) adhesive; (b) cohesive; and (c) mixed.

Fig. 9. Bond strength in shear.

The influence of the bonding agent is more significant for the left
as-cast situation, reducing its influence when increasing the sur-
face roughness. This reveals that a highly roughened surface, with-
out bonding agent, can lead to the same values of the bond
strength achieved with a smooth surface with bonding agent.
Analysing the composite specimens with both substrate and
added concrete layers hardened when the bonding agent was
applied, it can be concluded that the influence of the surface
preparation can be neglected since the bond strength is very
similar for each considered surface condition. Therefore, it can be
 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110
stated that the bond strength is controlled by the bonding agent
and not by the surface roughness.
The coefficient of variation obtained for the bi-surface shear
specimens is within the expected values but two situations should
be highlighted. The specimens with the interface prepared by shot-
blasting, with a hardened substrate and a fresh concrete as the
added layer, with and without a bonding agent at the interface,
presented an abnormal coefficient of variation of 52.56% and
41.75%. Further studies are necessary to investigate this parameter.
4.2. Influence of the substrate moisture
The composite specimens with a saturated substrate present a
lower bond strength, for all situations, in comparison to the spec-
imens cast in the same conditions but with a dry substrate,
whether a bonding agent is applied or not. This behaviour reveals
that even with a proper surface preparation and/or a bonding agent
applied at the interface, the bond strength is controlled by the sub-
strate moisture content.
4.3. Analysis of the failure modes
The failure mode of each specimen is given in Table 1. In Fig. 10
is given the total number of specimens that presented adhesive
and non-adhesive (cohesive and mixed) failure modes. Specimens
removed using the Chauvenet’s criterion were not included in this
analysis since they were also not considered to compute the mean
bond strength of each set of specimens.
When fresh concrete was placed against hardened concrete,
without using a bonding agent at the interface, a single cohesive
failure occurred, namely for a specimen with the interface surface
prepared by shot-blasting (dry substrate). Therefore, it can be sta-
ted that improving the surface roughness does not modify the fail-
ure mode. It should be highlighted that both concrete layers,
substrate and added, were produced using the same mixture com-
position and, therefore, the differential stiffness between both lay-
ers is minimal. Previous studies [11,12] showed that the
differential stiffness between concrete layers could affect the fail-
ure mode.
When fresh concrete was placed against hardened concrete,
with a bonding agent at the interface, two non-adhesive failures
occurred for the specimens with the interface surface prepared
by wire-brushing and two more for the specimens with the inter-
face surface prepared by shot-blasting and presenting a dry sub-
strate. All specimens with the interface surface prepared by shot-
blasting, with a saturated substrate, presented a cohesive failure.
Fig. 10. Number and type of failure.
109
When hardened concrete was placed against hardened con-
crete, using a bonding agent at the interface, only cohesive failures
occurred.
These observations revealed that bonding agents are beneficial
to obtain a proper bond strength and a non-adhesive failure mode
of the composite specimen but the latter is mainly achieved when
hardened concrete is placed against hardened concrete. When
fresh concrete is placed against hardened concrete, the contribu-
tion of the bonding agent is less effective. The influence of adhesion
between the bonding agent and the fresh concrete should be
investigated.
5. Conclusions
The surface roughness, the use of a bonding agent and the mois-
ture content of the substrate can have a significant influence in the
bond strength of the interface and failure mode of composite con-
crete members with layers cast at different ages.
The bi-surface shear test proved to be sensitive to some of the
most influencing parameters affecting the bond between concrete
layers cast at different ages.
The conducted experimental study revealed that, when a fresh
concrete is cast against a hardened substrate, the improvement
of the surface roughness has a significant contribution for the
achieved bond strength. Moreover, the use of a bonding agent is
advantageous and leads to higher values of the bond strength. Nev-
ertheless, in highly roughened surfaces, such as those obtained by
shot-blasting, the influence of the bonding agent is less pro-
nounced. When the substrate is saturated or presents high mois-
ture content, even with its surface dry, the influence of the
surface preparation is less significant. In these conditions, the use
of a bonding agent is advantageous but also less significant in com-
parison to the same conditions but with a dry substrate.
When two hardened concrete layers are bonded together using
a bonding agent, the influence of the surface preparation is not
significant. The achieved bond strength is controlled, and mainly
affected, by the bonding agent. Since the shot-blasted surfaces
are more irregular than the left as-cast and wire-brushed surfaces,
the adopted volume of bonding agent placed at the interface ap-
pears to be insufficient to properly bond both concrete parts. Fu-
ture research studies are necessary to corroborate this possibility.
By increasing the surface roughness it is possible to obtain a
higher number of non-adhesive failures, namely cohesive and
mixed modes. The use of a bonding agent also suggests that adhe-
sive failures can be prevented. Further studies are necessary to
investigate the relationship between the failure mode and the
110 D.S. Santos et al. / Construction and Building Materials 37 (2012) 102–110
use of bonding agents since the number of tested specimens is re-
duced, in the author’s opinion, to draw definitive conclusions.
Further studies are necessary to evaluate the bond strength of
the interface of composite concrete members with layers cast at
different ages, by means of the bi-surface shear test, when different
strengths and densities are adopted, namely: (1) a normal concrete
(NC); (2) a high strength concrete (HSC); (3) a lightweight aggre-
gate concrete (LWAC); and (4) a ultra-high performance fibre rein-
forced concrete (UHPFRC). The influence of the moisture content of
the substrate concrete and the bonding agent, as well the adhesion
between the latter and the added fresh concrete, must be investi-
gated for these situations.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the material support given by SIKA
Portugal SA. Acknowledgments are extended to the students of
the master course in Civil Engineering – Building Construction,
for helping in performing the experimental tasks.
References
[1] Silfwerbrand J. Improving concrete bond in repaired bridge decks. Concr Int
1990;12(9):61–6.
[2] Hindo KR. In-place bond testing and surface preparation of concrete. Concr Int
1990;12(4):46–8.
[3] Silfwerbrand J, Paulsson J. The swedish experience: better bonding of bridge
deck overlays. Concr Int 1998;20(10):56–61.
[4] Abu-Tair AI, Rigden SR, Burley E. Testing the bond between repair materials
and concrete substrate. ACI Mater J 1996;93(6):553–8.
[5] Júlio ENBS, Branco FAB, Silva VD. Concrete-to-concrete bond strength.
Influence of the roughness of the substrate surface. Constr Build Mater
2004;18(9):675–81.
[6] Júlio ENBS, Branco FAB, Silva VD. Concrete-to-concrete bond strength:
influence of an epoxy-based bonding agent on a roughened substrate
surface. Mag Concr Res 2005;57(8):463–8.
[7] Clímaco JCTS, Regan PE. Evaluation of bond strength between old and new
concrete in structural repairs. Mag Concr Res 2001;53(6):377–90.
[8] Ali M, Kurihara S, Matsui S. Bonding shear strength of adhesives between
precast concrete elements. ACI J 2000;SP 193-33:551–69.
[9] Al-Gahtani AS, Rasheeduzzafar, Al-Mussallam A. Performance of repair
materials exposed to fluctuation of temperature. J Mater Civil Eng
1995;7(1):9–18.
[10] Al-Ostaz A, Irshidat M, Tenkhoff B, Ponnapalli PS. Deterioration of bond
integrity between repair material and concrete due to thermal and mechanical
incompatibilities. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 2010;22(2):136–44.
[11] Santos P, Júlio E. Factors affecting bond between new and old concrete,
American Concrete Institute. ACI Mater J 2011;108(4):449–56.
[12] Júlio ENBS, Branco FAB, Silva VD, Lourenço JF. Influence of added concrete
compressive strength on adhesion to an existing concrete substrate. Build
Environ 2006;41(12):1934–9.
[13] Austin S, Robins P, Pan Y. Shear bond testing of concrete repairs. Cem Concr
Res 1999;29(7):1067–76.
[14] Courard L, Nelis M. Surface analysis of mineral substrates for repair works:
roughness evaluation by profilometry and surfometry analysis. Mag Concr Res
2003;55(4):355–66.
[15] Talbot C, Pigeon M, Beaupré D, Morgan DR. Influence of surface preparation on
long-term bonding of shotcrete. ACI Mater J 1994;91(6):560–6.
[16] EN 1992-1-1. Eurocode 2, design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings. European committee for standardization; 2004.
p. 225 [with corrigendum dated of 16 January 2008].
[17] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318M–08) and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete
Institute; 2008. p. 473.
[18] Behfarnia K, Jon-nesari H, Mosharaf A. The bond between repair materials and
concrete substrate in marine environment. Asian J Civil Eng 2005;6(4):267–72.
[19] Beushaussen H, Alexander MG. Failure mechanisms and tensile relaxation of
bonded concrete overlays subjected to differential shrinkage. Cem Concr Res
2006;36(10):1908–14.
[20] Lourenço J, Júlio E, Maranha P. Lighweight aggregates concretes, APEB; 2006.
p.196 [in Portuguese].
[21] Momayez A, Ramezanianpour AA, Rajaie H, Ehsani MR. Bi-surface shear test
for evaluating bond between existing and new concrete American Concrete
Institute. ACI Mater J 2004;101(2):99–106.
[22] Taylor JR. An introduction to error analysis – the study of uncertainties in
physical measurements. 2nd ed. Sausalito, California, USA: University Science
Books; 1997. p. 349.