Repair Composite Adhesion Strength: A Comparison of Testing Methods

The adhesive strength of repair composites to concrete substrates was assessed through both Ukrainian and European standard test methods. The types of adhesion loss observed included adhesive failure along the contact layer (AF-S), and cohesion failure along the substrate (CF-S). The Ukrainian method showed adhesive bond loss in 90.5% of samples (181 out of 200), while the European method showed loss in 76% (152 out of 200). However, under identical conditions, the EU standard showed greater consistency (standard deviation 0.25) than the Ukrainian standard (standard deviation 0.42 and 0.32). The effect of pull-off techniques on failure models varied depending on the epoxy thickness and the mechanical testing performed. Repair composites meeting the highest Ukrainian structural class criteria (PM1) were classified as R3 materials according to the European standard. This research highlights that statistical analysis shows a significant improvement in reliability with an increased number of pull-off tests.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Sciences
Published
2024-11-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210749
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Concrete Corrosion and Durability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.26
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Repair Composite Adhesion Strength: A Comparison of Testing Methods

S.I. Hedulian, N.R. Antoniuk, Khrystyna Moskalova, Mario Šercer
1 citations
Applied Sciences
Concrete Corrosion and Durability
0.26
article

Repair Composite Adhesion Strength: A Comparison of Testing Methods

S.I. Hedulian, N.R. Antoniuk, Khrystyna Moskalova, Mario Šercer
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The adhesive strength of repair composites to concrete substrates was assessed through both Ukrainian and European standard test methods. The types of adhesion loss observed included adhesive failure along the contact layer (AF-S), and cohesion failure along the substrate (CF-S). The Ukrainian method showed adhesive bond loss in 90.5% of samples (181 out of 200), while the European method showed loss in 76% (152 out of 200). However, under identical conditions, the EU standard showed greater consistency (standard deviation 0.25) than the Ukrainian standard (standard deviation 0.42 and 0.32). The effect of pull-off techniques on failure models varied depending on the epoxy thickness and the mechanical testing performed. Repair composites meeting the highest Ukrainian structural class criteria (PM1) were classified as R3 materials according to the European standard. This research highlights that statistical analysis shows a significant improvement in reliability with an increased number of pull-off tests.

Applied SciencesVol. 14(22)
Polytechnic of Međimurje in Čakovec (HR), Odessa State Academy of Civil Engineering and Architecture (UA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 43%
Concrete Corrosion and Durability
0.26
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Repair Composite Adhesion Strength: A Comparison of Testing Methods — S.I. Hedulian, N.R. Antoniuk, et al. · Applied Sciences (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS