Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting II – Alexander et al (eds)

© 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-46850-3

Adhesion – A challenge for concrete repair

L. Czarnecki
Building Materials Engineering Department, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT: Repair of concrete structure results in formation of at least two-component system, i.e. concrete
overlay/concrete substrate and repair material/repaired concrete. The adhesion between overlays and concrete
substrate is one of the most important factors that affects the reliability and durability of repair. Achievement of
maximum bond strength is basic recommendation for various types of repair joints. The requirement for high
adhesion arises from the higher tolerance on non-compatibility of properties of the bonded materials. In this
paper, the necessity of the above recommendation has been discussed with regards to: repair material type,
strength of concrete substrate and environmental conditions of bond service. The criteria for creation of the
desired bond strength in relation to tensile strength of the concrete substrate have been formulated. The pos-
sibilities of creation higher level of adhesion as well as economical and technical limitations of the adhesion
improvement have been stressed. The need for new generation materials—High Adhesion Repair Materials,
HARM for repair of the High Strength Concrete, HSC is formulated.

1 INTRODUCTION
Physics

The European Standard EN 1504-10 defined the

Surface Joint
bond as the adhesion of the applied product or sys- Science design

tem to the concrete substrate. Adhesion is defined as Science &

Engineering
adherence of two materials in contact or in a more Chemistry
of Adhesion
Mechanics
colloquial way “of being stuck together”. It is not sur- Polymeric
prising that adhesion is a fundamental issue in con- Materials

struction engineering. It is of particular significance

for concrete repair, as in this case, repair materials
have to be combined with an existing substrate. N N N
macrolevel
From a scientific point of view, fundamentals of 1 m
B B B

adhesion belong to the nano-technology and surface

physic and chemistry in particular (hydrogen bonds,
Van der Waals forces, and chemisorption). The cor- 10
-6
m microlevel
responding engineering research area will include
mechanical interlocking on the rough surface of a
substrate on the micro-scale. This opens up a new -9
research area, which might be called concrete sur- 10 m nanolevel

face science or shorter “concrete surfology” (Gar-

bacz et al., 2005). Recently, E.M. Petrie pointed out
that the huge variety of applications and the multi-
functional nature of the technology make it very diffi-
cult for engineers to fully understand the present state
of knowledge. There is probably no other industry,
where there is such a need for a basic interdiscipli-
nary understanding (Fig. 1).
Repair of concrete structure results in formation of
at least two-component system, i.e. concrete overlay/
Figure 1. Adhesion science and engineering as the multiple
sciences (acc. to E.M. Petrie) considered on multiscale levels.
concrete substrate and repair material/repaired
concrete. The adhesion between overlays and con-
crete substrate is one of the most important factors
that affects the reliability and durability of repair.

935
Achievement of maximum bond strength is basic
recommendation for various types of repair joints.
The question arises how high bond strength is high
enough? Some consideration on that has been pre-
sented in the paper with regards to: repair material
type, strength of concrete substrate and environmen-
tal conditions of bond service.
2 REPAIR BOND AS STANDARD
REQUIREMENT
Adhesion strength is one (if not the first one) of the
most important technical characteristics of the repair
materials (Czarnecki & Chmielewska, 2005). Adhe-
sion is a decisive factor of repair effective-ness. It ap-
parently appears to be a trivial problem. In EN 1504
the adhesive bond level are formulated in two ways of
expression of results:
− threshold value in MPa; towards structural repair
(EN 1504-3): ≥2,0 MPa (Class R4), ≥1,5 MPa
(Class R3);
− pass/fail criteria towards structural bonding
(EN 1504-4) e.g. hardened concrete-to-hardened
concrete or fresh concrete-to-hardened concrete:
the test shall result in fracture in the concrete.
− macrolevel: a level of an adhesion performance;
usually on this level macrodefects—lack of adhe-
sion are demonstrated, e.g. various kind of cracks
in repaired system (L. Czarnecki, 2007);
− microlevels: microcracks under low (left) and high
(right) load could be observed (H. Schorn, 2007);
− nanolevel: a level of atoms and molecules. Adhe-
sion is the molecular attraction exerted between
bodies in contact—the level at an effective creation
of adhesion but also a source of adhesion defects.
Photos shows creation of polymer film in polymer
modified cementitious composites (H. Schorn,
2007, Czarnecki & H. Schorn, 2007).
Additionally, results of thermal compatibility of
structural and non-structural repair products are also
evaluate in terms of bond strength (see EN 1504-3).
Compatibility—according to technical vocabulary
mean “capable of existing together in harmony”.
The achievement of the compatibility is the general
requirement according to the European Standard
EN 1504-10: “Site application of products and systems
and quality control of the works”. However, beyond
the general statement, products and systems should
be compatible with each other and with the original
concrete structure (EN 1504-9), the Standard has not
defined the concept of compatibility or the method
of its quality control. There is only one exception—
“thermal compatibility”. According to European
Standard EN 1504-3: “thermal compatibility” —“the
936
property of repair product or system when bonded
onto prepared concrete substrate, to accommodate
cyclic changes in temperature”. It gives us the signal
on well-known fact, that a high adhesion increases a
tolerance on non-compatibility of properties of the
bonded materials (Czarnecki & Runkiewicz, 2005).
3 ADHESION AS A MEASURE OF REPAIR
EFFECTIVENESS (CZARNECKI, 2007)
Adhesion between the repair material and the con-
crete substrate is a very important technical property
towards structural and non-structural repair as well.
Proper level of adhesion assures utmost load capac-
ity of the repaired system (Fig. 2). The adhesion of
repair joint is effective if it enables the load transfer
and ensures even distribution of stresses. It can be
reached if bonding materials satisfy the conditions of
physico-chemical compatibility and guarantee tight-
ness of the joint. Module of elasticity, setting shrink-
age, coefficient of thermal expansion and creep are
the properties of particular significance.
Stressed induced by setting shrinkage concern the
systems in which setting causes changes in volume.
Stress concentration is located mainly at the inter-
facial zone that forms between the mineral surface
and the setting material. Similar stressed result from
differentiation in the coefficients of thermal expan-
sion between the substrate and the covering layer.
They arise both during the setting, when it occurs
with thermal effects and during an exploitation when
temperature changes (Fig. 3).
Differences in the coefficients of thermal expan-
sion of bonding materials and setting shrinkage are
of significance when polymers are used for repair
and protection of the cement concrete. Shrinkage
of polymer composites depends mainly on the type
of polymer and composite composition. Even when
BREAKDOWN OF REPAIR BOND
failure of adhesion failure of cohesion
in repair material in concrete substrate
Figure 2. Breakdown of repair bond due to the failure of
adhesion and/or failure of cohesion in concrete substrate
and/or repair material.
 a) b)
c) d)
Figure 3. Modeling of cooperation non-compatible sys-
tem (Czarnecki & Emmons, 2002): a–constant tempera-
ture, b–surface cooling, c–surface heating, d–“constraint
compatibility” (effective to some extent).
M
εS >0
M
A not only “broad sense” but “common sense” as well;
C b)
α ΜΤ > α CΤ
Figure 4. Shear stresses in the interfacial zone of a com-
posite as a result of a) setting shrinkage, b) difference in
coefficients of thermal expansion.
polymer concrete is highly filled with aggregate the
coefficient of thermal expansion is usually about two
times higher (2 × 10−5 mm/mm/°C) in comparison with
cement concrete (1 × 10–5 mm/mm/°C). The change
of temperature in such system causes shrinkage or
expansion of the polymer layer, which is restricted by
smaller deflection of the cement concrete. When the
polymer layer is under tensile stress the concrete sub-
strate is compressed (Fig. 4).
The relationship between shear and normal stresses,
which develop at the boundary of cement concrete/
polymer concrete phases, was analysed taking into
account thickness of the polymer concrete layer and
the difference in modulus of elasticity of both materials
(Choi et al., 1999). It was demonstrated that stresses
decrease when the thickness of the polymer concrete
and their modulus of elasticity increase (range of
investigation: E = 3 ÷ 28 GPa). It is significant that
with the increase of adhesion there is also an increase
in the tolerance of compatibility errors in the material
selection (Czarnecki et al., 2004).
4 CRACKS AND ADHESION
In very roughly estimation, a successful repair
means “no cracks”. Paradoxically, if adhesion in the
repaired system is zero than free shrinkage will be
possible and in consequence: zero stresses (Carino,
1995). However, from practical point of view zero
adhesion repair method seems to be close to absurd.
Much more promising is another extremum- maximal
adhesion (Tab. 1).
In rough estimation, various oriented cracks occur
regarding to the combination of values: concrete ten-
sile strength, ftC; repair material tensile strength, ftR and
adhesion strength, fA in relation to internal stresses,
σt (Tab. 2). European Standard EN 1504-4 makes no
doubts the bond test shall result in fracture “in the ref-
erence concrete”. Exactly to the Standard “reference
a)
concrete” (MC (0.40) acc. EN 1766) means: C50/60
with surface tensile strength above 3.0 MPa. However,
if we treat the “reference concrete” in the broad sense,
it means a “given concrete to be repaired”. It makes
in agreement with engineer’s intuition. The repair
bond should not be the weakest place in surroundings
concrete. It is particularly of importance in structural
repair bonding (EN 1504-4), where “the casting of
fresh concrete to hardened concrete using an adhesive
bonded joint where it forms a part of the structure and
Table 1. Modeling relation between adhesion to concrete
substrate and shrinkage stresses (acc. Carino, 1995).
Diagram Comments
repair mortar fill
loss in concrete
Zero adhesion
before setting
Δh Δl free setting
shrinkage
high adhesion level
repair mortar after
setting
shrinkage stresses
estimated on
2 MPa
937
 Table 2. Various kind of cracks in repaired
system.
Diagram Relation
ft R < σ t < ft C ≤ f A
f A < σ t < ft C ≤ ft R
ft C < σ t < ft R ≤ f A
ft R < σ t < ft C ≤ f A
σ t < ft C ≤ ft R ≤ f A
ftk depends on the various repair materials (MCC–
Modified Cement Concrete, PCC–Polymer Cement
Concrete, PC–Polymer Concrete) and on different
system: with- and without protection coating.
5 HARM (HIGH ADHESIVE REPAIR
MATERIAL)—NEEDS
Previous considerations give us a set of required
adhesion strength ascribed to the given mechanical
strength of concrete substrate. If we put together the
concrete strength classes according to the EN 206-1
and required adhesion values, than compare them with
features of various repair materials, the computation
diagram for repair usability can be built up (Fig. 5).
It is obvious that existing repair materials are good
enough for ordinary concretes. Categorization “top
down” for usability of repair materials for concrete
substrate of various classes will be as follow:

− PC—(Polymer Concrete and Mortars) below

C60/75
σt–internal shrinkage stress, ftR–repair material − PCC—(Polymer Cement Concrete and Mortars)
tensile strength, ftC–concrete tensile strength, below C40/50
fA–adhesion strength. − MCC—(Modified Polymer Cement Concrete and
Mortars) below C25/30.
Table 3. Requirement adhesion strength value, fA in relation
to the concrete tensile strength, ftk (author’s suggestion). There is no effective (adhesive) enough repair
materials for High Strength Concrete, HSC–classes
Repair system C70/85, C80/95, C90/105, C100/115 and more.
Of course, when we think about concrete repair,
without protection with protection we usually have an old and weak concrete in mind,
coat coat e.g.—below C20/25. However, an old concrete is not
necessarily a weak one, it could be quite healthy and
strong.
Repair material
Moreover, a damage caused by accidental impact
MCC (polymer fA = 1,20 ftk fA = 1,15 ftk (e.g. due to the traffic), overloading, settlement and
content ≤5% explosion could also happen to new high-strength
cement mass) concrete elements. There is need for new generation
PCC (polymer fA = 1,25 ftk fA = 1,20 ftk of repair materials—High Adhesive Repair Materials,
content >5% HARM.
cement mass) The work on High Adhesive-Polymer Cement
PC fA = 1,30 ftk fA = 1,25 ftk Concrete, HA-PCC is already under way. The PCC
with adhesion bond (pull-off test) around 5 MPa has
MCC–Modified Cement Concrete, PCC–Polymer Cement
Concrete, PC–Polymer Concrete. been received (Łukowski, 2003) till now. It is worth
to stress that High Strength Concrete need—by
nature—more aggressive surface preparation, which
is required to act compositely”. It means, that fA > ftC, could result—in turn—in the increase of microcracks
or in more practical way fA > ftk. in concrete substrate (Czarnecki et al., 2003). In such
There is a need for the compromise between econ- case “bonding layer” on concrete substrate below the
omy and ageing sensibility (durability), compatibil- repair materials will be justified or even needed. The
ity level and reliability requirement. It is necessary repair materials—as the rule—should contain micro-
to remember that ageing is more dangerous in case fibers for better “microcrack bridging”. There is a
of polymer composite than mineral one, and external need not only for new generation of repair materials
protection coating makes a difference too. According but also for new generation of repair systems and
to the author’s suggestion (Tab. 3): fA = (1.15 ÷ 1.30) methods.

938
Figure 5. Required adhesion strength, fA vs. concrete compressive strength, fCm adequately to the concrete strength classes.
Areas of “adhesion usability” adequate to various kind of repair materials: MCC, PCC, PC are described.
6 FACTORS AFFECTING ADHESION BOND
There are many factors affecting adhesives strength
involved (Czarnecki & Chmielewska, 2005) with:
− concrete substrate: mechanical strength, surface
roughness, microcracks, porosity, dampness, impu-
rities, etc.,
− repair materials: viscosity, wetting (surface ten-
sion), setting shrinkage, thermal expansion, elastic
modulus, creep, etc.,
− environmental impact: transportation phenomena
(diffusion, osmosis, capillary suction), tempera-
ture level and change of temperature, humidity
level and change of humidity, mechanical loading,
degradation (ageing, carbonation, corrosion).
Some of them could increase adhesion level, but—
in general—are the reasons of adhesive destruction;
in case of environmental usually gradually due to
the time. Considering the factors affecting adhesion
bond the High Adhesive Repair Materials need is still
obvious.
7 CONCLUSIONS
If we would treat the European Standard (EN 1504-4)
requirement: “adhesion test shall result in fracture
939
in the concrete” in the broad sense and compare it
with concrete strength classes according to the EN
1206-1, it will be clear that existing repair materials
are suitable only for the repair of the ordinary (regu-
lar) concrete.
There is the need for new generation materials—
High Adhesion Repair Materials for repair of the
High Strength Concrete; HARM for HSC.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the paper has been used some ideas and fig-
ures formerly published in “Adhesion in Interfaces
of Building Materials: a Multi-scale Approach
(L.Czarnecki, A.Garbacz, eds), Advances in Materi-
als Science and Restoration (AMSR), 2007. Author
would like express acknowledgement to AMSR Edi-
tor Prof. dr FH Wittmann and Aedificatio Publisher.
This work has been prepared in the framework of
the Warsaw University of Technology grant nr 504
G 1080 7007.
REFERENCES
Carino, N.J. 1995. Prediction of restrained shrinkage crack-
ing in cement-based repair materials: a rational approach.
 Research needs for establishing materials properties to
minimize cracking on concrete repairs. Gaithersburg,
MD.
Choi, D-U., Fowler, D.W. & Wheat, D.L. 1999. Ther-
mally-induced interface stresses in polymer concrete-
portland cement concrete composite beams, RILEM
Proc. no PRO 9. International Symposium Adhesion
between polymers and concrete ISAP’99 (Eds.Y.Ohama,
M.Puterman), Dresden, 67–81.
Czarnecki, L. 2007. Adhesion level prediction for repair
concrete systems. In “Adhesion in Interfaces of Build-
ing Materials: a Multi-scale Approach” (Eds. L. Czar-
necki and A. Garbacz). Advances in Materials Science
and Restoration AMSR No. 2. Aedificatio Publishers.
21–28.
Czarnecki, L. & Chmielewska, B. 2005. Factors affecting
adhesion in building joints. Cement-Lime-Concrete. 2:
74–85.
Czarnecki, L. & Emmons, P.H. 2002. Repair and protection
of concrete structures (in Polish), Ed. Polski Cement,
Krakow.
Czarnecki, L., Garbacz, A. & Kostana, K. 2003. The Effect
of Concrete Surface Roughness on Adhesion in Indus-
trial Floor Systems. In: 5th Colloquium Industrial Floors
(Ed. P. Seidler), Esslingen, Germany.
Czarnecki, L., Głodkowska, W. & Piatek, Z. 2004. Estimation
of compatibility of polymer i polymer-cement composites
with ordinary concrete under short-time load conditions.
Archives of Civil Engineering, L (1): 133–150.
Czarnecki, L. & Schorn, H. 2007. Nanomonitoring of poly-
mer cement concrete microstructure. The International
Journal for Restoration of Buildings and Monuments,
Vol. 13 (3): 141–151.
940
European Standard EN 1504-3. Products and systems for the
protection and repair of concrete structures—Definitions—
Requirements—Quality control and evaluation of con-
formity—Part 3: Structural and non-structural repair.
European Standard EN 1504-4. Products and systems for the
protection and repair of concrete structures—Definitions—
Requirements—Quality control and evaluation of con-
formity— Part 4: Structural bonding.
European Standard EN 1504-9. Products and systems
for the protection and repair of concrete structures—
Definitions—Requirements—Quality control and evalu-
ation of conformity—Part 9: General principles for the
use of products and systems.
European Standard EN 1504-10. Products and systems for the
protection and repair of concrete structures—Definitions—
Requirements—Quality control and evaluation of con-
formity—Part 10: Site application of products and
systems and quality control of the works.
European Standard EN 1766. Products and systems for the
protection and repair of concrete structures. Test meth-
ods. Reference concretes for testing.
Garbacz, A. Gorka, M. & Courard, L. 2005. On the effect of
concrete surface treatment on adhesion in repair systems.
Magazine of Concrete Research. 57, 49–60.
Łukowski, P. 2008. Role of polymers in forming of proper-
ties of polymer-cement binders and composites. Warsaw
University of Technology Publishing House. pages 159.
Petrie, E.M.: http://www.omnexus4adhesives.com.
Schorn, H. 2007. Experiments from the macro to the nano-
scale. In “Adhesion in Interfaces of Building Materials:
a Multi-scale Approach” (Eds. L. Czarnecki and A. Gar-
bacz), Advances in Materials Science and Restoration
AMSR No. 2, Aedificatio Publishers, 91–105.