See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324270836

The Use of Polymer Additions to Enhance the Performance of Industrial and

Residential Decorative Concrete Flooring

Chapter · April 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-78175-4_11

CITATIONS READS

0 103

2 authors, including:

Deon Kruger
University of Johannesburg
29 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Concrete repair View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deon Kruger on 12 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ICPIC2018, 122, v4 (final): ’The use of polymer additions to enhance to performance of . . . 1

The Use of Polymer Additions to Enhance the

Performance of Industrial and Residential
Decorative Concrete Flooring.
Michelle Sykes1, Deon Kruger 2*
1
Final year student, Department of Civil Engineering Science,
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
2
Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering Science, University of
Johannesburg, South Africa.
*Corresponding Author: dkruger@uj.ac.za

Abstract
This paper provides an overview of an investigation into the use of various
polymeric additions into ordinary concrete formulations in order to enhance the
performance of such materials when used for decorative flooring in industrial,
commercial and residential applications.

Using the ACI 302.1R-04-Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction as the
basis for this research, various polymer additions were investigated to optimise the
durability and aesthetics of decorative flooring when exposed to extreme service
conditions such as high-level UV exposure, cyclic temperature variations, high
impact shock loading, chemical spillage and high-level foot and light vehicle traffic
[1].

Material properties that are enhanced includes strength, crack-resistance, prevention

of discoloration and flaking, maintaining of lustre as well as long-term durability.

The paper will conclude with a summary of the findings and a recommendation of
the most appropriate type and ratio of polymer addition for optimum enhancement
of decorative concrete flooring.

1 Introduction
This study is unique since it identifies whether the addition of polymers to
conventional concrete formulations will enhance the overall product of decorative
flooring and dominate the industry of concrete flooring. This study will delve-into
2 ICPIC2018, 122, v4 (final): ’The use of polymer additions to enhance to performance of . . .

the examination of which type of polymer and loading will enhance the overall
aesthetic properties of the decorative concrete flooring. The addition of polymers
to concrete is a fairly new concept with minimal guides, textbooks or codes to direct
designers on this material. Therefore, for this research, ACI 302.R-04-Guide for
Concrete Floor and Slab Construction serves as the basis to investigate high quality
decorative polymer modified concrete slabs for various service classes in terms of
concrete materials and concrete mixture proportions. Although the service class and
ideal qualities of the floor design depends on both the basic concrete mix design as
well as the type and dosage of polymer modifier, there is no fixed or universal rule
for specifying the most correct type or ratio of polymer, in turn the goal of this study
was to clarify this uncertainty.

There are three categories of concrete-polymer materials: polymer concrete (PC),

polymer modified concrete (PMC) and polymer-impregnated concrete (PIC). This
study will focus solely on polymer modified concrete, due to its practical properties.
PMC is a portland cement concrete which is modified with polymer or monomer
systems which is added when the concrete is mixed [2]. PMC is attractive because
it improves the adhesion, imperviousness, flexibility and shrinkage resistance
properties of concrete materials.

Polymers enhance the concrete system through two phases known as cement
hydration and polymer film formation while binding. When the PMC material cures,
the polymer particles coalescence into a network structure that is interpenetrating
contained by the hydrated cement paste [6]. This will enhance the durability of the
PMC material through the resistance of moisture transmission, increased
waterproofness and freeze-thaw resistance. Factors such as exposure conditions,
formulation of the PMC system, level of polymer loading, polymer type and water-
to-cement ratio will influence the degree of microstructural integration of the
polymer system as well as the portland cement that is essential for the long-term
durability of PMC material [5].

2 ACI Guide Requirements

The ACI guide provides information of the material for users during the planning,
designing and execution of construction. Based on the guide, a floor classification
of type 4- single course was selected; further specifications of design
considerations, materials, batching, mixing, placing, finishing, curing and
protection were followed, in accordance with the guide. A common Portland
cement of ASTM C 150 Type I was suggested for floor class 4. A coarse aggregate
of 19 mm was assumed, as the guide mentioned, since coarse aggregates are
favourable to ensure shrinkage reduction because of a lower water content
ICPIC2018, 122, v4 (final): ’The use of polymer additions to enhance to performance of . . . 3

requirement. Unless the main aim is to achieve a high flexural strength, it is optional
to use a natural sand as a fine aggregate. The minimum cementitious content
required for maximum aggregate size of 19 mm is specified as 320 kg/m³ and was
thus used in this study [1]. Admixture usage should conform to the requirements of
ASTM C 494 based on the type of admixture. Addition of a polymer to the mix
may act as a water reducing admixture that is advantageous to compressive and
flexural strength escalation; however, it may delay the initial setting time as well as
the final finishing time in hot climates while retardation could cause plastic
shrinkage cracking and surface crusting [1].

3 Latexes tested and Mix Designs

For the experimental tests, performed in this study, three commercially available
types of polymer systems were selected for evaluation. They were polyacrylic ester
emulsion (PAE) with the trade name Texicryl 13-072, styrene-butadiene rubber
latex (SBR), available as Savinex 29Y40, and vinyl acetate/ethylene copolymer
(VAE) available as Vinnapas 5010N. The Savinex 29Y40 SBR and Texicryl 13-
072 PAE are both water-based emulsions with a milky white physical appearance
which are slightly odorous. The SBR latex is a styrene acrylic copolymer emulsion
with 45% polymer solids by weight, a pH rating of 9.0 to 10.0 and relative density
of 1.0 at 20˚C. The PAE emulsion (Texicryl 13-072) is a dispersed emulsion
copolymer based on acrylic esters containing 60% by weight of polymer solids. It
has a boiling point of approximately 100˚C, a relative density of 1.10 at 20˚C, a pH
rating of 8.0 to 9.0 and fully miscible to water. The VAE (Vinnapas 5010N) is a
copolymer white powder resin which disperses freely in water. This powder resin
has a high ethylene content and glass transition temperature which can reach below
freezing point. It is odourless with a pH rating of 7. Its particle size is max. 2% over
400 µm with a 99±1% by weight of polymer solids [6].

3.1 Design of polymer modified concrete mixes

The polymer modified concrete mix proportion consisted of 1 (cement): 1 (sand): 1
(stone) by weight with varying water-cement ratios based on the type of polymer
and the quantity of polymer loading [4]. The control mixture with 0% polymer solid
was used as the basis to which the latex modified specimens were evaluated against.
The first test specimen of styrene-butandiene rubber latex (SBR1) of 5% polymer
solid was designed with a water-cement ratio of 0.625. The second specimen SBR2
had the same water-cement ratio but it was clear while mixing the water content
was too high; since the mixture was not cohesive. Suggestive of higher polymer
loading reducing the water content needed for the mix design. The last styrene
4 ICPIC2018, 122, v4 (final): ’The use of polymer additions to enhance to performance of . . .

butandiene rubber latex specimen with 15% polymer solid had a lower w/c ratio of
0.366. The first polyacrylic ester (PAE1) modified specimen of 5% polymer solid
had a w/c ratio of 0.45, the second polyacrylic ester (PAE2) specimen with 10%
polymer solid had a w/c ratio of 0.307, and the last polyacryilc ester (PAE3)
specimen with 15% polymer solid had a lower w/c ratio of 0.294. The first vinyl
acetate/ethylene copolymer (VAE1) specimen with 5% polymer solid had a w/c
ratio of 0.45, the second vinyl acetate/ethylene copolymer (VAE2) specimen with
10% had the lowest overall w/c ratio of 0.2616, and the last vinyl acetate/ethylene
copolymer (VAE3) specimen with 2.5% polymer solid had a w/c ratio of 0.3013.

4 Test results and discussion

Results of compressive strength based on the Schmidt hammer and tensile strength
from the tensile pull-off test for each test specimen were recorded in table 1.
Table 1: Compressive strength (MPa) and Tensile strength (kN)
Compressive Tensile
strength, strength,
Mix Type
MPa kN

12 1
Base
22 1
CON
15 0.8
SBR1
15 1.2
SBR2
26 1
SBR3
22 1
PAE1
20 1
PAE2
23 1
PAE3
18 1
VAE1
18 1
VAE2
24 1
VAE3

On review of the results, the unmodified control mix CON exhibited a high
compressive strength with a reading 83% higher than the concrete substrate. The
first and second modified mixes SBR1 and SBR2 had a 32% lower compressive
strength than the control mix. SBR3 had the highest compressive strength of all the
modified mixes which was 18% higher than the unmodified control mix. The first
polyacrylic ester emulsion specimen, PAE1, had the same compressive strength as
ICPIC2018, 122, v4 (final): ’The use of polymer additions to enhance to performance of . . . 5

the control mix. The PAE2 mix had a 9% lower compressive strength than PAE1
mix. The last polyacrylic ester emulsion modified mix, PAE3, had the highest
compressive strength of 23 MPa, 4% higher than the unmodified control mix
compressive strength but 11% lower than the SBR3 mix. Vinyl acetate/ethylene
copolymer modified mixes, VAE1 and VAE2, had the same compressive strength.
Even though the polymer loadings were 5% and 10%. The final modified mix,
VAE3, had the second highest compressive strength (8% lower than the SBR3 mix)
but contained the lowest polymer loading of 2.5%.

The compressive strength highlighted the importance of proper cement hydration

together with the polymer film formation process during the initial stages of the
PMC materials strength development; for this reason, initial wet curing is a
fundamental stage for ensuring long-term stability of the PMC materials. Both the
control and VAE3 mixes exhibited high compressive strength. It was only mix
SBR3 that outperformed the other mixes significantly.

The tensile strength of all the specimens had basically comparable results of 1 kN.
These results may be inconclusive as it could in fact be due to the limitation of the
superglue used to bond the test bolt to the concrete surface; since some of the test
did show concrete coating failure. Specimens SBR1, SBR2, PAE2, VAE1 and
VAE2 pulled off the concrete surface to which the bolt was bonded/glued thus
indicating concrete coating failure. The rest of the specimens, SBR3, PAE1, PAE3,
VAE3 and CON, showed no sign of concrete surface detachment, and hence, no
concrete coating failure.

Regarding the visual performance, specimens VAE1 and VAE2 exhibited amplified
amounts of cracks compared to the lower vinyl acetate/ethylene copolymer
modified mix VAE3 as well as the other polymer modified specimens. Conversely,
the VAE2 mix maintained the best lustre of all the specimens whilst the SBR1 and
CON specimens had moderate lustres.

5 Conclusion
The main focus of the study was to identify the most appropriate type and ratio of
polymer addition for optimum enhancement of decorative flooring PMC coatings
with a thickness of around 30mm.

From the results of the study, the SBR3 mix had the highest compressive strength
of 26 MPa, about 18% higher than the strength of the unmodified mix. The second
highest compressive strength of 24 MPa, 8% lower than the SBR3 result and 9%
higher than the control mix, VAE3 had the lowest polymer solid of 2.5% by weight
6 ICPIC2018, 122, v4 (final): ’The use of polymer additions to enhance to performance of . . .

of cement which was 83% lower polymer solid than for SBR3 mix. The PAE3 had
a compressive strength results of 4% which was higher than the unmodified mix.

The compressive strength development is interconnected to the polymer film

formation. The compressive strength results also indicate that the long-term stability
of the PMC material is very dependent on the critical development of the cement
hydration during the initial wet curing phase.

The tensile strengths were inconclusive however the detachment of the concrete
surface bonded to the bolt, as it was pulled off, was noticed in some specimens;
indicating coating failure. Specimens SBR3, PAE1, PAE2, VAE3 and CON had no
concrete surface sheared off therefore the concrete did not fail. Mix VAE2
maintained the best lustre of all the specimens during the evaluation period.

The ACI 302.1R-04 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab advises that water-
reducing admixtures, abiding to ASTM C494 requirements, will increase the
compressive strength and flexural strength; but will not essentially improve the
finishing characteristics nor will it reduce shrinkage [1].

It can therefore be concluded, based on the findings described above, that the
addition of polymers to the concrete formulation may improve the strength and
aesthetics of decorative flooring, when compared to unmodified coatings.
Additionally, the best performing polymer in this trial was the styrene-butadiene
rubber latex, when used as a PMC with a polymer loading of 15%.

6 References

[1] ACI 302.1R-04, “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction,” ACI Committee 302.
[2] ACI 548.3 R, “State of the Art Report on Polymer Modified Concrete,” American Concrete
Institute Manual of Concrete Practice,
Part 5.
[3] DePuy, G.W., “Polymer Modified Concrete-Properties and Application,” Third Southern
African Conference on Polymers in
Concrete Incorporating the First South African ICPIC Workshop, Jul. 1997. pp., 75.
[4] Owens, G, 2012. “Fundamentals of concrete,” Section Edition. Cement and Concrete
Institute, Midrand, South Africa, pp., 134.
[5] Ramli, M., and Swamy, R.N., 1995. “Development of Polymer-Modified Cement Systems
for Durable Concrete Construction,”
Proc. 3rd Asia Pacific Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, Ed
M.W.Hussin, pp.375-382.
[6] Ramli, M. and Swamy, R. N., 1997. ” A Rational Mix Design Methodology for Latex
Modified Concrete,” Third Southern African Conference on Polymers in Concrete
Incorporating the First South African ICPIC Workshop, pp., 260.

View publication stats