Evaluation, selection and installation of

surface repair mortars at a dam site

J. Mirza and B. Durand
Hydro-Québec, Varannes, Quebec, Canada JOL 2PO

Received 31 August 1993; accepted 31 October 1993

Increasingly, large sums are being spent on the repairs and maintenance of concrete surfaces using
one or other of the hundreds of surface repair materials available on the market. Unfortunately,
however, information on these materials has always been scarce and manufacturers have been
unable to supply specific data on their products' resistance to harsh climatic conditions. The 5 year
project described in this paper was initiated in an aim to evaluate and select surface repair mortars
such as cementitious grouts, polymer-modified cement-based mortars containing styrene—
butadiene rubber (SBR) and acrylics, epoxy mortars, etc., and eventually to install them at different
dam sites in Quebec. About 40 mortars from different manufacturers were intensively tested for
their physico-mechanical and durability tests in the laboratory. Of these, 21 mortars were then
selected and installed on a small scale on the spillway of a Hydro-Québec dam. After careful analysis
of the laboratory data and periodic inspections of the products, the six best were selected and
recently installed on a large scale on two spillway aprons and their adjacent piers. The paper
presents some of the mortar evaluation and selection criteria, the small-scale installation and
inspection of 21 products and, specifically, the large-scale installation of
the selected mortars and their cost materials are being used without much
effectiveness. known about their essential properties,
especially at the low temperatures
Keywords: surface repair; mortars; generally found in northern areas. In order
to address this problem and evaluate
dams products for their physico-mechanical and
durability properties at low temperatures,
Hydro-Québec initiated a joint Canadian
Hundreds of surface repair materials are Electrical Association (CEA) project and
now available on the market. Despite the studied 40 mortars from different
excellent characteristics of some of these manufacturers.
materials, a number of drawbacks can be This paper summarizes the results of a 5
mentioned. First, data on essential year study which consists of laboratory
properties, such as the effect of curing studies (phase I), small-scale
conditions l , are very limited and rarely
published and, even when they do exist, the
values correspond to ambient temperatures
*Correspondence to Dr J. Mirza
which rarely correspond to harsh climatic
conditions. Second, small companies do
not always conduct their own tests because 0950-0618194101/0017-9 @ 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

of budget restraints and use data provided
by their customers, but only those for
whom their products performed best.
Nevertheless, all manufacturers say their
products are excellent and none say their
products are poor. In fact, users purchase
from the manufacturer or supplier whose
products are readily available in their own
area, regardless of superiority claims.
Consequently, as more and more structures
are ageing and deteriorating, surface repair
field tests (phase Il), and large-scale field
tests (phase Ill). The main objectives of
phase I were to modify and optimize the
properties of repair materials which
showed potential for improvement in a
previous study2 , to formulate and possibly
commercialize new repair materials with
the assistance of manufacturers, and to test
newly marketed products considered
durable by engineers, consultants,
manufacturers or other users. Products
showing a better performance than the

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number l 17

Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
Table 18

normal cement mortar (used as reference)

were then subjected to small-scale field
tests (phase Il). Only the best products
were ultimately employed on a large scale
in the field (phase Ill), which also
comprises an economic feasibility study.
These best products were then
recommended to utilities for the protection
of concrete hydraulic structures damaged
by abrasion—erosion.
The materials tested were mortars
designed to repair damaged concrete
surfaces while increasing their resistance to
in the case of eroded areas
less than 75 mm deep. Deeper areas should
be filled with a silica fume concrete prior
to coating the entire eroded area with the
repair mortar.
A total of 40 different mixes (Table l)
taken from 37 repair materials from 13
different manufacturers were selected for
this study. These materials may be grouped
into four categories: cement mortars,
including ordinary cement mortar, cement
mortar containing silica fume and
aluminous cement mortar; polymer-
modified cement-based mortars containing
styrene—butadiene rubber (SBR) and
acrylics; sand/epoxy mortars; and

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number 1

 Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand

Description of the surface repair materials tested in the laboratory

Mixes Type of materials Description

Cl Cement mortars/cement grouts Type 10 cement + Ottawa sand (reference mortar)

Type 10 cement + Ottawa sand + superplasticizera
Type 10 cement + 6% silica fume + sand + superplasticizera
Type 10 cement + 9% silica fume + sand + superplasticizera
Type 10 cement + 12% silica fume + sand + superplasticizera Type 10 cement + 15% silica fume + sand +
superplasticizera Inorganic cements + additives + abrasion-resistant aggregates
Portland cement + fines + additives + non-shrinkage agent
Type 10 cement + graded sand + non-ferrous admixtures
CIO Cement and premixed sand + additives

Cll Cement and premixed sand + additives

C12 Cement and premixed sand + additives + fibres

C13 Type 1() cement + sand + gassing and flowing agent

C14 Aluminous cement + artificial aggregates

C15 Aluminous cement + bonding agent + artificial aggregates

R16 Styrene—butadiene rubber (SBR) Latex emulsion + premixed cement-based powder + additives
R17 cement-based mortars Latex emulsion + premixed cement-based powder + additives
R18 Same as RI 7 + glass-reinforced fibres

R19 Latex emulsion with water + premixed cement-based powder + additives b

R20 Latex emulsion + cement + graded aggregatesb

R21 Latex emulsion + cement + premixed graded aggregates

R22 Latex emulsion + Portland-cement-based ingredients

A23 Acrylic cement-based mortars Latex emulsion + premixed non-shrinkage cement-based powder + low-density silica fume
A24 Latex emulsion + premixed cement-based powder + additives

A25 Latex emulsion + premixed cement-based powder + additives

A26 Latex emulsion + premixed cement-based powder + additives

E27 Sand/epoxy mortars Resin + hardener + premixed graded aggregates

E28 Resin + hardener + graded sand

E29 Resin + hardener + graded aggregates

E30 Low-modulus resin + hardener + graded sandc

E31 High-modulus resin + hardener + graded sand c

E32 High-modulus resin + hardener + graded sand

E33 Low-modulus resin + hardener + graded sand

E34 Resinhardener + silica sandc

E35 Resinhardener + premixed graded aggregates
E36 Resinhardener + graded sand
E37 Resinhardener + graded sand
E38 Resinhardener + quartz aggregate
EE39 Emulsified epoxy mortars Resin hardener + sand + cement
EE40 Resin hardener + sand + cement

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number l 19

"In-house mortar (with Ottawa sand, Illinois, USA)
Mortars fabricated with the manufacturer's assistance
c
Mortars selected and modified from our previous study
Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
Table 20

emulsified epoxy mortars. A mix
consisting of normal Portland cement
a water/cement ratio of 0.46
sand/cement ratio of 2.75 was used
reference throughout the study.
Laboratory tests (phase I)
The above-mentioned mortars were
subjected to various laboratory tests,
such as bond strength, sion resistance,
shrinkage-expansion, compressive
strength, coemcient of thermal expansion,
thermal compatibility with base concrete,
nitrogen gas permeability, freeze—thaw
cycling, alkali and sulfate content and
nature of major crystalline minerals by X-
ray diffraction, etc. Table 2 summarizes
some of the important test data from which
the following conclusions, by category, are
drawn.
A decrease from 0.46 (Cl) to 0.31 (C2)
in the water/ cement ratio of a standard
Portland cement mortar with the use of a
superplasticizer increases its resistance to
abrasion and compression as well as its
bond strength with the substrate concrete
18
Table 2 Test data summary of the laboratory-tested products
(Cl) in wet-cured specimens. However, the type
with of curing seems to have more influence on
and the volume change for mortars containing
as a silica fume after bonding; in fact, there is
greater shrinkage under dry curing and
greater expansion under wet curing.
Substituting 6% and 12% silica fume for
normal Portland cement increased the
mortar's compressive strength, although
increasing it to 15% showed no
further advantage. The use of silica fume
also seemed to have an added impact on
the physical properties, i.e. it increases the
concrete's bond strength and abrasion
resistance, which could be due to a
decrease in the water/cement ratio and to
the use of a superplasticizer. On the other
hand, silica fume seems to cause more
shrinkage under dry curing as well as
greater expansion under wet curing after
hardening compared with standard cement
mortar, which could possibly be due to the
high dosage of superplasticizer used. There
were no unusual variations in the thermal
expansion coemcients and tests showed
good thermal compatibility with the
substrate concrete. The use of

Bond strength Drying shrinkage Comp. strength

28 day (MPA)28 day (MPa)
Coeff. of
Coeff. of Thermal Coeff. of
Product Dry Wet abrasion— Net Total Dry Wet thermal exp. compat. permeability
code cure cure erosion change change cure cure x 10-6 % disbond Kc (cm S"A ) X 1

22.3 15.3 1.32 0.097 0.123 31.9 29.0 10.2 35

10.8
15.1 26.2 2.06 -0.14 0.238 33.5 43.4 9.9 10
77.5
26.8 30.3 I .63 -0.214 0.180 45.9 51.1 9.9 5
3.2
29.9 45.4 I .42 0.166 0.226 46.8 53.8 9.8 0
29 39.8 1.95 -0.171 0.221 50.3 61.0 9.9
37.9 41.0 2.38 -0.16 0.229 49.4 61.1 10.1
44.9 3704 - 0.067 0.165 72.8 73.3 12.9 20
18.6
50.2 47.3 2.17 -0.076 0.163 79.6 73.5 10.9 100
1.9
24. I 43.7 3.28 -0.078 0.1 18 41.9 44.0 9.7 9.6
CIO 39.8 33.5 -0.123 0.174 52.1 70.9 9 10 1.5
34 62.3 2.36 O, 174 59 77.3 9.7 5 4.9
Cll -0.154

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number 1

 Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand

C12 33.8 37.8 1.94 0.1 18 58.6 65.3 IOO 51.8

-0.105
C13 36.9 47.3 2.4 -0.089 0.125 48.8 52.1 95 9.4

C14 28.6 54.9 4.45 -0.02 0.050 82.1 95.1 5 9.9

50.4 64.8 3.23 -0.037 0.089 85.3 1 15.2 7.3 85 10.5

R16 34.7 36.4 2.51 -0.005 0.091 57.8 54.8 14 95 0.1
R17 34.1 26.4 2.57 0.086 0.433 48.1 46.5 1 1.5 95 1.6
R18 31.3 25.3 3.32 0.02 0.433 45.1 46.0 12.1 0.39

R19 49.9 37.7 3.3 - 0.001 62.6 61.5

R20 68.7 60.4 3.32 -0.143 0.171 85.9 80.5 7.741.9 R21 38.1 34.2 2.82 -0.179 0.201 53.2 7.92.4
R22 16.6 10.2 0.92 - 0.063 0.087 23.2 24.4 10.41.9
A23 16.5 20. 2.1 0.096 0.180 3 2 1 1.8 0.
4 5. 7.
6 3
A24 28.4 17. 2.6 - 0.092 0.163 5 5 1 1.7 1.
8 2. 0.
3 2
A25 32.8 32. 3.11 0.052 0.253 5 4 12.5 0 0.
6 5 4.
2
A26 33.6 35. 1.6 -0.015 0.193 4 2 12.4 70 0.
1 4 4. 7.
8 7
E27 2.6 3.97 0.094 0.619 5 18.7 90 >
5. 1000
8
E28 0.7 3.28 0.081 0.131 2 >
7. 1000
5
E29 3 1 .06? 5.4 0.131 0.128 4 23.1 10 18
4.
2
E30 3.4 1.8 0.165 0.295 3 > 10 0
8 6.
9
E31 4.4 2.68 0.135 0.279 3 >
0. 1000
2
E32 5.1 2.12 I .065 1.431 3 >
6. 1000
7
E33 4.2 4.81 0.316 0.337 3 >
7. 1000
7
E34 0.3 0.63 0.029 0.03 1
6
.
1
E35 18.3 5.22 0.07 0.071 6 20 184
8.
8
E36 10 3.17 0.033 0.106 4 22.4 > IO
0 OOO
E37 22.6 5.35 0.01 1 0.026 7 19.5 100 4
3.
8
EE39 7.2 1 0.87 -0.086 0.098 2 2
EE40 1.8 0. 1.
8. I 8
0 2 1
7. 4.

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number l 21

Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
Table 22
silica fume also resulted in a lower
permeability. The use of silica fume can be
optimized by using less superplasticizer,
another type of superplasticizer, or another
type of sand instead of Ottawa sand
(Illinois, USA). The field tests considered
these parameters and were performed
using such samples, i.e. the silica fume
content was the same but the amount of
superplasticizer was reduced. This
approach could reduce the shrinkage in
mixes C3 to
The manufactured cement grouts (C7 to
C12) all demonstrated high compressive
and bond strengths as well as high
resistance to abrasion. However, a few
grouts still showed variations in volume in
the shrinkage test after hardening and a
higher coefficient of thermal expansion
than for the standard cement mortar.
Most of the polymer-modified cement-
based mortars exhibited a higher resistance
to compression and abrasion, as well as a
higher bond strength, than the standard
cement mortar. However, considerable
variations in volume proved possible
during the hardening process and the
coemcient of thermal expansion of these
mortars was slightly higher than that for
the reference mortar.
In general, polymer-modified cement-
based mortars demonstrated much lower
permeability than hydraulic cement
mortars containing no polymers. These
mortars retain water seeping from the
underlying concrete, which causes
cracking and a premature debonding of the
repair product. Such products depend on
the choice of application site: if water can
seep through from the underlying concrete,
then specific precautions must be taken to
drain this water away; otherwise, such
mortars should be avoided.
Sand/epoxy mortars (E27 to E38)
demonstrated good abrasion resistance.
However, this type of product generally
performed poorly in terms of bonding with
the substrate concrete, in addition to
having a high expansion rate under wet
curing and a high coemcient of thermal
expansion. In the previous study 2 , the
sand/epoxy ratios were generally close to
Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number 1
9 4
3, as recommended by the manufacturers,
while in the present study they were
increased and varied from 6.4 to 10. This
lowered the coemcient of thermal
expansion by a factor of 2 but at the cost of
a considerable decrease in bond strength.
The emulsified epoxy mortars (EE39
and EE40) do not seem to be a feasible
alternative as a repair material, since they
demonstrated poor compressive strength,
bond strength and abrasion resistance.
The hydraulic cement mortars showed the
best perfor-
Surface repair mortars used for field tests
Type of product Mixes
Ordinary cement mortars
Silica fume mortars
Cement grouts C8, O, CIO, Cl l
Aluminous cement mortars C14,
Polymer-modified cement-based mortars:
SBR RI 7, R19, R20, R21
Acrylics A24, A25
Sand/epoxy mortars E29, E35, E38
a
Laboratory-tested in-house silica fume mortars which were
modified for field testing
mance (compressive and bond strength,
resistance to abrasion and shrinkage) under
wet curing (dry curing can lead to
considerable shrinkage). Hence, an initial
wet curing period of at least 24 h is always
required to ensure the cement is hydrated.
Moreover, the shrinkage tests
systematically showed that complete
immersion of hardened sand/epoxy
mortars during wet curing could lead to
much greater expansion, especially for
sand/epoxy mortars with high sand/epoxy
ratios ( < 5). This also warrants additional
study so that we can verify and
comprehend the phenomenon.
Almost all the repair materials having
experienced considerable disbonding
during the thermal compatibility test had a
much higher coemcient of thermal
expansion than standard cement mortars,
which stresses the importance of this
factor.
In general, the Portland cement mortars
and grouts showed very satisfactory
results, as did the mortars with silica fume
 Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
and mortars containing aluminous cement.
The polymer-modified cement mortars
containing SBR and acrylics also gave
very good results in many respects. As for
epoxy mortars, it can be seen that although
their abrasion resistance is very good, their
other physical properties have not given
satisfactory results.
This laboratory study allowed 21
products to be selected for the small-scale
field tests which began in autumn 1991.
The products selected were those which
performed better than the reference mortar
during the physico-mechanical and
durability tests in the laboratory. Some of
the in-house mixes already developed were
modified according to the results obtained.
A manufactured sand/epoxy mortar (E38)
was also selected for phase Il; it had not
undergone all the laboratory tests but had
performed well in some of them.
Small-scale field tests (phase Il)
The 21 selected mixes were employed at two
different locations, which made a total of 42
samples in the field, as listed in Table 3.
Two locations on a spillway of a Hydro-
Québec dam were chosen for the tests: at
the bottom of the spillway's steep incline
(less than 100) and at the top of the
spillway, at the foot of the sliding gate
(200). These two zones fulfilled the criteria
established for this study: severe
environmental conditions, abrasion—
erosion, freeze— thaw conditions, drying
and wetting, thermal cycling, etc.; zone to
be repaired was relatively smooth without
any major flaws and had similar exposure
conditions over the entire surface;
possibility of two zones needing
20
to be repaired at the same site with similar
exposure conditions; and slight risk of
freezing or bad weather conditions during
application of the material in September.
The surfaces were sandblasted before being
cleaned by air-pressured blasting. After that,
they were kept wet except for those parts where
the sand/epoxy mortars were to be applied. The
zones concerned were divided into 21 squares
of 500 mm x 500 mm using wood forms which
were firmly fixed in the spillway concrete. Oil
was first applied on the surface of the forms to
Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number l 23
facilitate removal once the samples had
hardened.
The manufactured products were first
weighed at the IREQ laboratory, packed in
pails, then carried to the site in such a manner
as to minimize handling; at the site. Only liquid
products (water, latex and epoxy) needed to be
weighed at the dam.
Hydraulic cement-based products were
mixed using a small conventional mixer with
fixed propellers having a capacity of about 0.05
m3 , although a conventional mixer with mobile
propellers would have been preferable for all
the mixes, considering the small volume of the
batches. The mix water consisted of distilled
water or bottled spring water. The sand/epoxy
mortars were mixed by hand or with a metal
rod in containers provided by the
manufacturers. The mixer was rinsed first with
river water and then with pure water.
Overall, the mixing procedure went well
except for a product containing acrylic which
adhered to the inner walls of the mixer. Once
the mixing was completed, the mixes were
transported in plastic pails and poured into
their respective forms to a general thickness of
less than 50 mm. Finishing was done with a
trowel.
We ended by placing specific mortars
outside the forms to create a slight incline
between the substrate concrete and the
repair mortars.
Once the setting cycle was completed,
all specimens except the sand/epoxy
mortars were covered with a damp piece of
jute and a polyethylene sheet. The forms
were removed after 7 days and the spaces
between the joints were filled with mortar.
The specimens were thus exposed to
ambient conditions 7 days after setting.
The 42 samples tested on the spillway
were subjected to stresses related to the
extreme climatic conditions found in
Quebec characterized by numerous cycles
of freeze—thaw and drying—wetting.
Subsequently, for about 2 weeks the
samples were also subjected to the
abrasive effect of waterborne sediments
and debris of all kinds (spring thaw). After
the spillway gates were closed, the
samples were inspected at the beginning of
June 1992. In addition to performing a
visual inspection of the materials, the
bonding strength of the concrete substrate
as well as the hardness of the surface were
analysed. The test consisted of applying a
steel nail to the surface of the material. An
Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
Table 24
empirical scale ranging from I to 10 was
established in order to assess the strength
and hardness of the material. An index
lower than 7 meant that the product was
not very resistant while an index of 9 or 10
meant that the material was quite hard,
with 10 indicating that the surface was left
unmarked. The state of the surface of the
repair mortar was also examined and
compared with its initial condition.
To test the bonding strength of the repair
mortar to the base concrete, the surface
was tapped with a hammer. A hollow
sound meant that the repair material had
par-
Bottom of spillway
TOP
( ) R17
5.1 8 6.4
R17 14
R20 R21
Disbonded product
Figure l Percentage of disbonded material as at 8
June 1992 (bottom of spillway)
tially or completely disbonded. All of the
repair mortars were thus 'sounded out'. It
should be noted, however, that a thin layer
of water could also cause this effect.
The amount of material that disbonded
for the samples applied at the bottom and
top of the spillway is shown in Figures 1
and 2. Tables 4 and 5 show the
approximate percentage of disbonded
material, the index of hardness (or the
material's resistance to scratching) and
Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number 1
comments on the appearance of the sample
with respect to surface, colour, cracking,
etc.
The gates of the spillway were closed
for a time in 1992 so that repair work
could be done. They were opened later in
the summer, which meant that the mortar
samples were exposed to the stresses from
the floating wood in addition to the effect
of waterborne particles and debris.
Based on the site tests during phase Il of
the project,
Table 4 Observations on samples at the bottom of
the spillway
Top of spillway
TOP
Figure 2 Percentage of disbonded material as at 8 June
1992 (top of spillway)
six (C3, Cl(), C 14, R 19, R2(), A24)
products were identified as being the best
(12 initially selected). The epoxy mortars
were not chosen because of their complex
composition and the limited volume that
would obtain in the mix. One standard
mortar (C2, prepared according to ASTM
C109 and modified) was used as the
reference mortar and another repair mortar
(eighth cement-based product, S88C)
recommended by the contractor was
added. Table 6 shows the products used for
each apron and its respective piers.
Large-scale field tests (phase Ill)
 Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand

Hull-2 generating station at the Chaudiére the selection of this site. Built in 1908, the

Easily
0 7 A small amountof whitish aggregate exposed below the paste
Cll
C14 0 8 Smooth, very good
Ring dam was chosen for large-scale Chaudiére Ring dam comprises 50 aprons
application of the repair products. The separated by 49 piers. Each pier is
criteria used in phase Il were also used in

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number l 25

Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
Table 26

reinforced concrete slab which acts as a were added to all the cement grout mixes,
diaphragm. Aprons No. 12 and 14 and including the shotcrete mortar. Moreover,
their bordering piers were chosen for use of the shotcrete method to apply
large-scale application of the selected products containing latex (acrylics or SBR)
repair products because of the very proved diffcult. The cement-based product
advanced erosion. Also, as the apron gates (Cl 5) was not jetted but applied by trowel.
were fully opened in 1992/3, the repair This product contains certain additives
mortars were exposed to maximum which cause the grout to harden in 3 min.
erosion. The repairs conducted in this Product A24 was applied by trowel. In
study were therefore subjected to a places
realistic and representative cycle of use. FLOW
The surface of most of the aprons and
piers was damaged by the effect of
abrasion—erosion caused by water flow. 2.2 m 1.55 m 3.75 m
The extent of the erosion varied from one
pier or apron to another, ranging from E
about 25 mm to 100 mm in depth. It
should be noted that some of these surfaces
had previously been repaired using (R19)
different products, but the results were not (C14)
satisfactory.
The surface of each apron as well as the
inner walls of the bordering piers were 45 mm 38m
repaired using the selected products (Table 1.0 m 1.2 m
6) which were applied manually on the
aprons (except for C3 which was also (R20)
applied by the shotcrete method) and by
the shotcrete method (except for A24
which was trowel applied) on the piers (see 3.75 m 3.75 m
Table 6).
Joint • I-component polyu ethane - self leveling (32
22 mm)

Joint : 2•mponent polyurethane - self

Large-scale application of repair materials
leveling (32, 38 45
Concrete sand was used for mortars C2
and C3 instead of the very fine mortar Figure 3 Locations of each product and field-
sand. Two application methods were used moulded joint sealants
on the aprons and piers: the trowel method (apron # 12)
and the shotcrete technique (wet—mix
process). All of the repaired surfaces were
subjected to wet curing: at least 3 days for
cement grout and I day for mortars
containing latex (SBR or acrylics). After FLOW
28 days of curing, the apron gates were
opened slowly over a period of 7 days in
order to subject the repair mortars to
abrasion-erosion. The first inspection was 0.63 m
scheduled for May/June 1993. 1.88 m 1.55 m 3.75 m

Aprons
The surfaces to be repaired were marked
by a 50 mm deep cut made by a diamond
saw. The surface of each spillway was
prepared using jack hammers (30, 16 and
2.5 kg, respectively) followed by

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number 1


7.07 m
Joint : 2-component polysulphide - self-
leveling (25 mm)
Joint : 2-component polyurethane - sew-
leveling (25 mm)
Figure 4 Locations of each product and field-
moulded joint sealants (apron # 14)
where the layer needed to be thicker than
75 mm, the products were first jetted to a
thickness of 25 to 35 mm, with the final
layer being applied an hour later.
Figures 5 and 6 show the locations of
each product applied to the piers.
FLOW
6.0 m
PIER 11
Joint : I-convonent plyurethane - non-sag
(25 mm)
Figure 5 Location of each product and field-moulded joint
sealants (piers)
Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number l 27
Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
FLOW
6.0 m 6.0 m
PIER 14 PIER 15
Joint : I-convonent polyurethane - non-
sag (20 mm)
Figure 6 Location of each product and field-moulded joint
sealants (piers)
Application of the field-moulded joint
sealants
This opportunity was used to evaluate the
field-moulded joint sealants in the
construction joints that were created
between the various surface repair
materials. Such a study, i.e. the evaluation
of fiel&moulded sealants in hydraulic
structures affected by severe climatic
conditions, appears nowhere in the
literature.
Application of the field-moulded joint
sealants required additional time and was
also a new study. We took this
opportunity to test the application of
these sealants both on the aprons and
piers.
Construction joints were created
between each of the products applied to
the apron and piers. The cuts were made
6.0 m using a diamond saw in the same direction
PIER 13 as the water flow as well as at a 90 0 angle.
The joints were created to decrease the
effect of the mechanical and thermal
stresses or the expansion/contraction
caused by shrinkage and/or freeze—thaw.
The inside surface of each joint was
sandblasted and then cleaned by air-
pressured blasting. The back-up rods (25%
larger than the joints) were installed in the
joints.
The field-moulded joint sealants used
for the study consist of a two-component
polyurethane (self-levelling and non-sag),
a two-component polysulfide (self-
Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
Table 28

levelling and non-sag), and a one- to test the behaviour and durability of the
component polyurethane (non-sag). The sealants but with varying rates of flow in
self-levelling and non-sag sealants from the apron joints.
the same products were applied in the The two-component sealants were mixed
same direction as the water flow as well as just before being applied to the joints but
at a 900 angle. The purpose was the single-component sealant was jetted.
Cost per square foot of the selected materials The one-component polyurethane field-
moulded joint sealant was used for all of
the pier joints.
Cost (Cdn $)
Product Apron floor
The repaired surfaces were flushed using
a wet spoon and a mixture of soap and
water a few minutes before application.
Cl 7 10 7 9 This process allowed the surface to be
CIO 5 brought to the same level as the repair
C14 mortar,
16 by hand which prevented cavitation damage
C14 12 R19 during water flow.
8 R20 The joints were covered with a wet
polyethylene sheet and curing
lasted at least I day for single-
10
component sealants. With respect
A24 to two-component sealants, the surfaces
S88C were covered with a polyethylene sheet (on
the pier) or with several planks of wood
(on the apron).
The application of field-moulded joint
sealants on aprons # 12 and # 14 is shown
O in Figures 3 and 4 and on the two adjacent
WALL piers of apron # 12 (in the same direction
as the water flow) in Figure 5. Only two
small joints were created in the same
direction and perpendicularly to the
water flow on apron # 14 (Figure 6).
After 28 days, the apron gates were
opened slowly over a period of 7
days. An inspection of the repaired
surfaces was planned for May/June
1993.

ResulG of the economic feasibäty

study
16
This study provided the cost of each
14 product (Table 7 and Figure 7) applied on
12 large-scale field tests. The relatively high
10 cost of the application of normal Portland
cement mortar (Cl) and the silica fume
8 mortar (C2) is
6
24
attributed to the intensive manual handling
of inexpensive raw materials. These are
received in bulk and transported in smaller
quantities to the area being repaired, where
Figure 7 Cost per square foot of the selected they have to be mixed thoroughly before
products application. In addition, they must be

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number 1

 Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
protected from rain and the elements,
which also adds to the handling costs.
Thus, in the case of conventional Portland
cement and sand mix (Cl), the unit cost per
square feet installed is approximately $7
per square foot whereas for mix CIO the
average cost is approximately $5 per
square foot. When material costs alone are
compared, the Portland cement mix is far
less expensive, but if the overall cost is
considered, CIO is cheaper.
Materials handling is simplified by
purchasing prepackaged units. In so far as
these units are delivered in waterproof
bags, there is no necessity for additional
protection. Mixing is also greatly
facilitated by using precisely premixed
units.
Concluding remarks
Regardless of the product used during
renovation work, each of the three phases
(surface preparation, product application
and curing) requires careful execution in
order to ensure the success of the whole
job. Several views exist with regard to the
surface preparation of concrete: for
example, sandblasting followed by a
clearwater rinse (as in our small-scale field
tests), or chipping and sandblasting
followed by hydroblast. Whether forms are
used or the zones are delimited with a
diamondcharged saw depends on the
particular zone; it is left to the contractor
to choose the appropriate method. The
application of repair products is usually
straightforward. As with concrete, steps
must be taken to ensure the mix is properly
compacted, that no air voids are left, that
no segregation occurs, and that a trowel be
used for the finishing while taking care to
minimize bleeding. Application should
take place as soon as mixing is complete.
Wet curing of all the hydraulic cement-
based products should be performed with
drinking water for 24 h for polymer-
modified cement-based mortars, and at
least 72 h for cement mortars not
containing any polymers. The repair
surfaces should be kept damp for at least I
h before applying repair materials. The use
of a bonding grout made of Portland
cement, latex or both could increase the
bond strength, but these grouts must be
Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number l 29
added immediately before the repair
mortar is applied so that they do not have
time to dry and cause a lack of
homogeneity between the old concrete and
the repair mortar. Should this happen, the
resulting bond could prove inferior to the
bond that would have been obtained
without any bonding agent.
Curing is a crucial phase and must be
performed carefully. The repaired surfaces
may be covered by a damp absorbent
material and a polyethylene sheet. Newly
repaired surfaces should not be exposed to
direct sunlight and strong wind. An
adequate curing agent can replace water
for zones hard to reach.
It is recommended that the surface of all
epoxy-based products be kept dry. The
ambient temperature must be maintained at
a constant level for the duration of the
setting or, failing that, temperature rises
should be avoided. The use of a bonding
agent containing pure epoxy could increase
the subsequent bond strength but may
significantly decrease the resulting
permeability of the sand/epoxy. As the
coemcient of thermal expansion is usually
greater for sand/epoxy mortars than for
concrete, this type of product is not
recommended for applications where wide
variations in temperature may occur,
unless the thermal-compatibility tests show
adequate performance in this respect.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to J. Maniez, L.-
M. Landry and L.-P. Mendes of Hydro-
Québec as well as the Canadian Electrical
Association for funding this research
project. Thanks also go to Mr A. Brosseau
and Dr R. Roberge of Vice-présidence
Technologie et IREQ, Hydro-Québec, and
to various members of that department for
their contribution to the various tests. Final
thanks are due to C. Biondic and L. Kelly-
Régnier for translation and careful editing.
References
I Mirza, J. and Durand, B. Effect of curing on some
properties of cementitious mortars with and without
polymer modifications. Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on
Durability of Building Materials and Components to be
published
Surface repair mortars at a dam site: J. Mirza and B. Durand
Table 30

2 Mirza, J. Coating and repairing materials for

concrete hydraulic structures damaged by
erosion. Canadian Electrical Association Report
#630 G 561, 1988

Construction and Building Materials 1994 Volume 8 Number 1