Naderi 2009

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]
On: 21 December 2014, At: 15:10

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Adhesion Science and

Technology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription
information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tast20
Analysis of the Slant Shear Test

a
Mahmood Naderi
a
Engineering Faculty, Imam Khomeini International University, P.O. Box
288, Qazvin 34194, Iran; and drmahmoodnaderi@yahoo.com, Email:
naderi-m@ikiu.ac.ir
Published online: 02 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: Mahmood Naderi (2009) Analysis of the Slant Shear Test, Journal of Adhesion Science
and Technology, 23:2, 229-245, DOI: 10.1163/156856108X369589
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156856108X369589
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views
of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use
can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 23 (2009) 229–245
www.brill.nl/jast
Analysis of the Slant Shear Test
Mahmood Naderi ∗
Engineering Faculty, Imam Khomeini International University, P.O. Box 288, Qazvin 34194, Iran
Received in final form 11 September 2008

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 15:10 21 December 2014
Abstract
The slant shear test which subjects the interface of two bonded semi-prisms of concrete and repair system
to a combined state of compression and shear is claimed to represent the stress state typical of real struc-
tures, but the test has some serious shortcomings. The effects of joint angle (angle of concrete/repair plane),
adhesion, orientations of semi-prisms during manufacture, mechanical interlocking and friction along the
concrete–repair interface are presented. Theoretical analysis of the factors involved in failure and a compar-
ison of the outcome with the experimental results indicated the existence of a critical joint angle. Although
the bond strengths of cementitious and polymer modified repair systems measured by this method did not
agree with the respective values obtained using the friction-transfer method, but the trend of bond strengths
of the resinous systems tested were similar. The coefficient of variation for the slant shear bond strengths
was found to be about 23.5%.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009
Keywords
Slant shear test, bond, concrete–repair materials, friction-transfer method
1. Introduction
In the slant shear test as shown in Fig. 1, a semi-prism of concrete and repair sys-
tem is made in such a way that when it is axially loaded under compression, the
concrete–repair interface has an inclination angle (usually 30◦ ) and, therefore, one
material is forced to slide over the other. Since the concrete used in construction
industry is mainly designed to withstand compressive stresses, this test method has
attracted the attention of many researchers for measuring the bond strength of repair
systems. Before the use of the slant shear test in the repair section of the construc-
tion industry, it had been used on ordinary concrete joints, because when there is
no reinforcement along the fresh/old concrete interface, the adhesion and the fric-
tion along the joint make up its total resistance to sliding [1]. This method was also
used to study the influence of the aggregate–cement bond strength on the strength
* E-mails: naderi-m@ikiu.ac.ir and drmahmoodnaderi@yahoo.com
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI:10.1163/156856108X369589

230 M. Naderi / Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 23 (2009) 229–245
Figure 1. Slant shear method for testing repair/concrete bond strength with applied forces on the joint.
“As ” is the active shearing force along the joint plane provided by the axial pressure “Pv ”, “α” is the
joint angle and “b” is the width of the specimen.
of concrete, and for the determination of aggregate–cement, cement–cement and

steel–cement bond strengths by employing a half-inch thick aggregate slice sand-
wiched between the two rectilinear half-prisms of the cement paste [2, 3].
In addition to the study of the creep behavior of epoxy bonded concrete prisms,
some researchers used the slant shear test method to assess the properties of epoxy
mortar and the bond strength between the two old as well as between an old and
a new concrete prism halves bonded with an epoxy adhesive [4–6].
Tabor proposed a modified version of the slant shear test in 1978 by suggesting
use of composite prism with a joint angle of 30◦ . In Tabor’s method the texture of
the fresh/old concrete surface resembled the substrate surface encountered in prac-
tice [7]. In 1984 the British Standards Institution included the slant shear method
for testing of resin compositions for use in construction in its B.S. 6319 [8]. In ad-
dition to cylindrical specimens, rectilinear composite prisms with 30◦ joint angle
and a saw cut surface have also been recommended for measuring the adhesion be-
tween resinous materials, polymer modified cementitious mortars and cementitious
substrates in different standards [9–11].
Due to the inclusion of the slant shear test in many standards, it has been used
very extensively by different researchers for assessing the bond strengths of fresh
concrete to concrete, resinous materials to concrete, and polymer modified cemen-
titious mortar to concrete [12–15].
M. Naderi / Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology 23 (2009) 229–245 231
From the points discussed above, the influence of parameters such as adhesion,
joint angle (and therefore normal pressure), interfacial friction, on the shear bond
strength of a material becomes obvious, making the investigation of these parame-
ters involved in the slant shear test method a necessity and thus in this paper we
concentrate on these aspects. Comparison of the shear bond strengths of different
repair systems obtained from the slant shear method has also been carried out with
those obtained from the friction-transfer method [16].
2. Examination of the Effect of Compression Inherent in the Slant Shear Test

on the Shear Bond Strength
Since frictional resistance inherent in the slant shear test method is highly dependent
on the normal pressure, and knowing that in this context the physical rather than the
chemical nature of the interface is of importance, some researchers [17] by applying
wax to the sawn faces of concrete semi-prisms found failure (sliding) results rang-
ing from 2 to 15 MPa (depending on the joint angle), which can be attributed solely
to the effect of normal pressure acting on the joint. Other investigators realized that
most of the failures were of brittle nature but some regained their strength after ini-
tial slip and even some specimens could be reloaded 40 times before failure of the
specimens [3]. By microscopic examination of aggregate–cement interface, some
observed that after aggregate–cement bond failure, a very fine film of cement paste
lodged in the microscopic corrugations of the sawn face. This finding may justify
the application of results obtained from tests on friction between cement–aggregate
to cement–cement interfaces because the aggregate surface is practically covered
by the cement paste during testing.
Due to the presence of a compressive normal stress on the joint the failure shear
strength of the joined prisms with a joint angle of 30◦ or more showed failure
strength higher than the monolithic parent concrete [4]. Roughly equal strengths
for parent concrete and joined prisms with a joint angle of 20◦ were also reported.
Despite a similar coefficient of friction observed for the sliding of unbonded ce-
ment on aggregate and on steel, the difference between static and the final (after
initial sliding) friction coefficients for sliding of cement on unbonded steel and ag-
gregate was found to be 0.38. It is also reported that after initial overcoming of
the adhesion, due to the polishing action encountered during testing, the mecha-
nism of sliding may be cement on cement or aggregate (or steel) on cement. At
low water/cement ratios (0.35–0.45), the results of this investigation showed that
normal pressure acting on the joint had a positive and linear effect on both adhe-
sional (before failure) and frictional (after failure) shear bond strengths, and the rate
of increase in both of these bond strengths was the same. At higher water/cement
ratios (>0.45) it is reported that depending, to some extent, on the type of bonded
materials, the friction measurements taken after the bond failure can be extremely
variable if slip is not controlled.
3. Analysis of the Stresses Involved in the Slant Shear Test

As shown in Fig. 1, if the width and the thickness of the composite prism used in
the slant shear test are assumed to be “b” and unity respectively and its joint has an
angle of α with the vertical axis, when sliding takes place under sufficient uniaxial
pressure Pv , the equilibrium of the forces along the joint plane can be stated as:
As = Ra + Rf + Rk , (1)
in which: As = active shearing force along the joint plane provided by the axial
pressure Pv , Ra = resistance provided by the adhesion along the repair/concrete
interface, Rf = frictional resistance along the joint plane, due to normal pressure
Pn acting on the joint, Rk = resistance provided by the keying effect along the
repair/concrete interface.
If the adhesion along the repair/concrete interface is assumed to be “Sb0 ” per unit
area, with “ϕ” as the friction angle, we have along the joint plane:
As = Pv b cos α, (2)
Ra = Sb0 b/ sin α, (3)
Rf = Pv b sin α tan ϕ. (4)
For simplicity and because the bonding surfaces along the joint plane were saw cut
surfaces throughout the experimental work, the mechanical interlocking effect (Rk )
is assumed to be zero, then:
Pv b cos α = Sb0 b/ sin α + Pv b sin α tan ϕ, (5)
leading to:
Pv = Sb0 /(sin α cos α − sin2 α tan ϕ). (6)
Since we need to know the minimum axial pressure (Pv ) value which overcomes
the shearing resistance provided by adhesion and friction along the joint plane,
differentiation of Pv with respect to α, is set to zero, giving:
dPv /dα = Sb0 (− cos α + sin α + 2 cos α sin α tan ϕ)/(sin α cos α − sin α tan ϕ),
(7)
α = 45 − ϕ/2 = αcritical , (8)
which is independent of Sb0 and can be obtained using Coulomb’s law. According
to this law, if the number of stress states that produce shear failure is known, it is
assumed that a common tangent can be drawn to the Mohr circles representing the
states of stress and is called failure pattern.
Considering the stresses acting on the repair/concrete joint in Fig. 1, the shear
and normal stresses acting on the joint plane i.e. St and Pn can be calculated as:
St = Pv sin α cos α, (9)
Pn = Pv sin α.
2
(10)
Since all the failures will not take place completely along the joint plane, therefore
by alteration of the failure plane position (α), some unavoidable errors can be in-
corporated in the calculation of these stresses. It can be seen that any change in the
joint angle (α) brings about simultaneous changes in sliding shear stress, normal
stress and the adhesional resistance force, because the magnitude of this force is
dependent on the joint area, which changes if α is altered. Therefore, depending on
the friction angle (ϕ), a change in α results in a situation at which the sliding force
just balances the resisting forces and the failure commences. The least axial stress
that is needed to cause failure is associated with a joint or fracture angle that can
be defined as the critical joint angle i.e. α = αcritical . It should be noted that at the
time of sliding, yielding takes place and, therefore, the assumption of uniform state
of stress along the joint does not seem to be very erroneous.
4. Examination of the Adhesion Along the Repair/Concrete Interface in the

Slant Shear Test
Although the adhesion developed between the repair and concrete is very impor-
tant and, therefore, every test method should be able to quantify it, but little or no
reference is made to it by the original proposers of the slant shear test. However, it
has to be admitted that the main difficulty lies in the correct definition of this term
if the results of the slant shear test method are to be compared with other methods
such as direct tensile test, shear test and other tests. For this reason and to avoid
confusion, a clear definition of the term should be useful. The author believes that
application of the term “cohesion intercept” as is used in soil mechanics can be
misleading, since this term applies to the attractive forces between two or more
identical particles and not to a case where the bond between two different materials
is concerned.
Assuming the adhesion to be equal to the tensile bond strength also seems in-
appropriate, because the nature of the stress involved in sliding one semi-prism
against the other along the joint plane, which is the case in the slant shear test, is
shear rather than tensile. Furthermore, since the mechanisms of the bond phenom-
ena need further understanding, one cannot be absolutely certain about the effect of
the magnitude of the normal pressure (Pn inherent in the slant shear test) acting at
the joint plane on the initial bond strength, so the term “shear bond strength under
zero compression” seems more appropriate.
5. Experimental Investigation
Noting the parameters involved in the slant shear test and the difference between
the “adhesion measurement” and “composite behavior under compression/shear”
of a repair system the following experimental program was carried out.
In order to see the actual occurrence of the critical angle of failure plane i.e.
αcritical , ten 100 × 100 × 250 mm rectilinear monolithic sand/cement mortar prisms
were cast and after curing, they were compression tested at the age of 28 days
(which is a usual age for testing concrete) using universal compression testing ma-
chine with a loading rate of 15 MPa/min. The height of 250 mm was chosen to
reduce the restraining effects of the end platens and allow a free propagation of the
initiated cracks and, therefore, development of the failure plane.
By applying sand/cement mortar plus cement bonding grout to sawn faces of
concrete semi-prisms, ten slant shear specimens were fabricated with a joint angle
of 30◦ and were tested at the age of 28 days.
Using ordinary sand/cement mortar, acrylic and styrene butadiene rubber modi-
fied cementitious mortar, sand/cement mortar with acrylic bonding grout, polyester
and epoxy resin mortar, and sand/cement mortar with epoxy bonding agent, semi-
prisms with three to four different joint angles were fabricated and tested to assess
the versatility of the slant shear test method for measuring the bond strengths of
different repair systems.
Since in practice any deteriorated concrete surface may be horizontal or vertical,
the effects of vertical and horizontal application of repair systems were studied by
horizontally and vertically locating the concrete semi-prisms during the manufac-
ture of the slant shear specimens. For each joint angle and each repair system three
slant shear tests were carried out, using cementitious materials only, because it was
anticipated that with resinous materials, due to their different curing systems, this
effect could not be very significant.
To compare the shear bond strengths of different repair systems, obtained from
the slant shear tests, nine different repair systems were applied to sawn faces of
concrete slabs measuring 600 × 300 mm and their bond strengths were measured at
the same age as the slant shear specimens, using the friction-transfer method shown
in Fig. 2. The friction-transfer test method [16] involves cutting a 50 mm partial core
by means of diamond tipped drill (Fig. 2). The depth of the core for assessing the
bond strength between the repair and the concrete substrate should be deep enough
to penetrate about 5 mm into the concrete substrate. The gripping device fits on top
of the partial core and after tightening the pressure bolts a torque is applied to the
gripping device using the torque-applying unit, by fitting it into the square space
provided at the top of the device. The torque is then gradually increased manually
Figure 2. Friction–transfer method for determining repair/concrete bond strength.

Table 1.
Coefficients of variation of mortar prisms and slant shear specimens
Sample Compressive strength Axial failure stress of slant

number of 250 mm mortar shear test specimens with
prisms (MPa) 30◦ joint angle (MPa)
1 26.7 21.4
2 27.3 23.6
3 27.8 24.0
4 28.5 24.5
5 29.1 25.4
6 29.9 27.6
7 31.0 28.9
8 31.4 29.3
9 32.3
10 34.2
Coefficient of 8.1 10.9
variation
until the partial core is fractured and maximum torsional shear stress at failure is
calculated.
6. Results and Discussion

Having tested the monolithic repair prisms under compression, the angles between
the loading axis and the cracks developed along the failure planes were measured
to be within the range of 22–32◦ . Noting the effect of secondary cracks which de-
veloped after the initial onset of failure, a good agreement between the theoretical
and observed crack patterns (equation (8)) was found with ϕ = 37◦ . As shown in
Table 1, the range of the compressive strengths of these prisms was found to be be-
tween 27.3–34.2 MPa and the coefficient of variation of the results was recorded as
about 8.1%. With the coefficient of variation of about 10.9% recorded for the slant
shear semi-prisms with axial failure stress of 21.4–29.3 MPa (Table 1), and com-
paring it with this coefficient of variation and that of 50 mm ordinary sand/cement
mortar cubes, the repeatability of the slant shear test method with the employed
joint angle of 30◦ was considered to be satisfactory.
It is worth mentioning that the failure patterns of concrete prisms tested under
compression were similar to those of the sand/cement mortar prisms except that
with concrete, the cracks followed mostly the boundaries between the coarse ag-
gregate and the cement paste.
6.1. Variation in Slant Shear Test Results
Since the coefficient of variation of 250 mm long rectilinear mortar prisms tested
under compression was found to be 8.1% (Table 1), using the statistical formula,
CVhw = CV2mp + CV2mc (in which, CVhw = the coefficient of variation due to the
height/width ratio of the mortar prisms, CVmp = Coefficient of variation inher-
ent in long mortar prisms = 8.1% and CVmc = Coefficient of variation of mortar
cube = 5.4%), the coefficient of variation due to the height/width ratio is calcu-
lated to be 6%. Similarly using the coefficients of variation of monolithic mortar
prisms and composite mortar/concrete prisms, the coefficient of variation due to
mortar, concrete and the joints between them, was estimated as 7.3%. It should be
noted that since the loading system used in all cases was the same universal testing
machine, coefficient of variation due to this factor was not considered.
Comparison of the coefficients of variation belonging to purely interfacial fail-
ure with that of mixed failure indicated that the coefficient of variation decreased
with increase in the percent bond failure. Using 34 sets of slant shear results, the
average coefficient of variation was found to be 23.5%. Comparison of this value
with 10.9% (Table 1) of trial tests on sand/cement mortar applied to saw cut faces
of concrete would tend to indicate the high degree of variation inherent in the slant
shear test method.
6.2. Examination of Normal and Shear Stresses Acting on Repair/Concrete
Interface (Pn and St )
A typical scatter graph of failure shear stress plotted against the normal stress on
the joint is shown in Fig. 3. Investigation of the various best-fit correlations favored
the linear correlation and produced the best line equations shown in Table 2.
Figure 3. Typical scatter graph of ultimate shear stress against normal stress along the joint showing
“Sb0 ” and friction angle.
Table 2.
Equations of best-fit lines for shear and normal stresses on the joint
Repair Equation of Coefficient of

material best-fit line correlation
Fiber reinforced acrylic modified St = 2.250 + 0.790Pn 0.98

cementitious mortar
Sand/cement mortar plus acrylic St = 2.271 + 0.756Pn 0.97
bonding grout
Styrene butadiene rubber modified St = 3.432 + 0.631Pn 0.78
cementitious mortar
St = 3.453 + 0.590Pn
Acrylic modified cementitious mortar 0.91

Sand/cement mortar plus cement St = 3.605 + 0.746Pn 0.87
bonding grout
Polyester resin mortar St = 4.467 + 0.723Pn 0.97
Sand/cement mortar plus epoxy St = 5.695 + 0.449Pn 0.86
bonding agent
Epoxy resin mortar St = 11.01 + 0.587Pn 0.92
Examination of the magnitudes of the joint angles that produced the highest per-
centage of mixed (repair, bond or concrete) failures, and the variation of St /Pv ratio
with change in the joint angle (α), indicated that their effect on the best-fit line as in-
significant and, therefore, the magnitudes of the correlation coefficients (0.78–0.98)
proved the acceptability of the fitted lines for all the repair systems.
6.3. Examination of Adhesion Intercept (Adhesion Under Zero Compression-Sb0 ),
Friction Angle (ϕ) and Angle of Joint or Failure Plane (α)
Using the best-fit lines such as the one shown in Fig. 3, Sb0 and ϕ for different repair
systems, were calculated (Table 3). Examination of these values clearly indicates
that if the performance of a repair system under compression/shear stresses is to be
studied, at least three different joint angles should be used in order to pass a line
through and estimate Sb0 , and ϕ.
To see the effect of change in α on the axial failure stress, using equation (6),
the relationship between σy /Sb0 and α for ϕ = 37.5◦ is depicted in Fig. 4. It can
be seen from this figure that α has a pronounced effect on the magnitude of the
axial failure stress and that the mere magnitude of the sliding shear stress alone
cannot be considered as the deciding factor, since the normal stress component
(Pn due to axial pressure Pv ), which offers the frictional resistance to sliding, is
also affected by the change in α. Figure 4 also shows a dramatic increase in the
axial failure load when α increases beyond 40◦ . Obviously this has no physical
meaning since the ultimate strength of the composite prism is also controlled by
the individual strengths of repair system and the concrete. All this means is that at
Table 3.
Data from slant shear tests using different repair systems
Repair Av. axial failure stress Friction Friction Shear bond Adhesion
system with joint angle (MPa) angle (◦ ) coefficient strength under zero
obtained from normal
30◦ 45◦ 50◦
friction- pressure,
transfer Sb0
method (MPa) (MPa)
Fiber reinforced 11.3 22.0 24.5 39.3 0.79 2.4 2.3
acrylic modified
cementitious
mortar
Sand/cement 11.4 23.1 28.5 37.1 0.76 3.0 2.3
mortar plus
acrylic bonding
grout
Styrene butadiene 16.2 19.8 15.7 32.3 0.63 1.7 3.4
rubber modified
cementitious
mortar
Acrylic modified 12.7 14.8 18.6 30.5 0.59 2.7 3.5
cementitious
mortar
Sand/cement 23.6 30.6 28.7 36.7 0.75 2.4 3.6
mortar plus
cement bonding
grout
Polyester resin 18.8 44.7 43.4 36.2 0.73 3.1 4.5
mortar
Sand/cement 16.2 20.1 23.7 24.2 0.45 3.2 5.7
mortar plus
epoxy bonding
agent
Epoxy resin 44.9 52.0 57.7 30.4 0.59 3.5 11.1
mortar
these inclination angles (about 55◦ ), the resisting forces exceed the force along the
joint plane and shearing becomes impossible. It should be noted that with tests on
slant shear specimens having joint angles of 50◦ , mixed (concrete, repair and bond)
failure was dominant.
The relationship between the ratio Pv /Sb0 against friction angle shown in Fig. 4
indicates that up to about 35◦ , the increase in ϕ causes almost a uniform increase
in the axial failure stress, but beyond about 40◦ , there can be a significant increase
in the axial failure stress. Since there are at least three ϕ values (one for repair, one
for concrete, and one for interfacial region), involved in the slant shear test, their
proper assessments are required to enable one to obtain meaningful results from
this method.
Using the results of Eyre and Domone [17], graph of shear stress versus nor-
mal stress acting on a waxed joint is plotted in Fig. 5. Examination of this figure
Figure 4. Plot of axial failure stress/shear bond strength under zero normal pressure, against joint and
friction angles.
Figure 5. Shear and normal stresses acting at waxed joints (Eyre and Domone [17]).
clearly indicates that despite the very low adhesion intercept (about 0.63 MPa), the
28.3◦ friction angle shows the dependence of the shear resistance of the joint on the
normal pressure. If the recorded failure axial stress of 12.7 MPa is compared with
shear/normal stress of the waxed sawn surfaces depicted in Fig. 5, one can estimate
the mechanical keying effect to be of the order of 3.0 MPa under similar axial stress.
As was seen earlier, examination of the failure plane indicated the existence of
a “critical joint angle — αcritical ”. Therefore, if the conditions (e.g. strength, stress
and ϕ) are uniform along a prism under uniaxial compression, the failure is most
likely to take place along a plane that requires minimum amount of axial load to
fail. This plane coincides with the critical plane of failure (i.e. αcritical ). After av-
eraging the two friction angles belonging to sand/cement (S/C) mortar, shown in
Table 3 (i.e. (37.1 + 36.7)/2) and subtracting it from 45 results in 26.5 (according
to equation (8)), which is close to what was observed experimentally. In this re-
spect, the crack arresting function of some epoxy joints could be the main reason
for obtaining higher compressive failure loads for the prisms having epoxy joints
compared with the same grade monolithic concrete prisms [6].
6.4. Effect of Orientation of Bond Area on the Bond Strength
Comparison of the results of the vertically positioned repair faces with those situ-
ated horizontally during the fabrication of the semi-prisms showed 14, 20, 82 and
131% increases in the axial failure stress for styrene butadiene rubber modified
cementitious mortar (c. mortar), fiber reinforced (f.r.) acrylic cementitious mortar,
acrylic modified cementitious mortar and sand/cement mortar plus acrylic bonding
grout (b. grout) respectively. This increase may be attributed to the fact that when
old concrete is vertically located during the application of the cementitious materi-
als, the colloidal particle are said to travel upwards and cover the bond area. This
effect is comparable to bleeding which is encountered in ordinary concrete use. In
comparison if the old concrete surface is positioned horizontally during the applica-
tion of the repair system, better compacted and more densified interfacial particles
will result leading to higher bond strength. It can also be said that the shrinkage
effect is more pronounced in the case of vertically placed concrete surfaces because
the repair system tends to pull away during the shrinkage process. It should be noted
that viscosity, evaporation, segregation, wetting and penetration of the bonding aid
into the pores of the concrete surface are among the most important factors involved
in developing concrete/repair interfacial adhesion.
Regarding the shrinkage effect, it should be noted that the pressure applied to
the bond area during the testing stage could relieve the inherent shrinkage stresses,
resulting in unrealistic bond strength readings. This effect is also influenced by the
Poisson’s ratio and modulus of elasticity of the constituent materials. For further
studies on the complexity of the stresses along the joints, the reader is advised to
consult ASTM D 4896 [18].
6.5. Estimation of Shear Bond Strength of a Repair System Using the

Friction-Transfer Test
Since the adhesion values of different repair systems under zero normal pressure
i.e. Sb0 , recorded in Table 3 were obtained from graphs similar to that of Fig. 3, and
therefore were influenced by the mixed failures (concrete, repair and bond), it was
decided to measure the pure shear bond strength using the friction-transfer method
by the use of a well-known formula:
3
τ = rT /J, (11)
4
in which: τ is the shear bond strength, r is the radius of the partial core in the
friction-transfer method, T is the failure torque and J is the polar second moment
of area of the partial core in the friction-transfer method. The calculated shear bond
strengths are shown in Table 3 and the relative Sb0 values are plotted in Fig. 6. As it
can be seen from this figure there tend to exists differences between the two relative
values and that this difference is much higher for resinous systems indicating that
even when using three different joint angles in the slant shear test, the adhesion
obtained is not reliable. As stated earlier, the main reason for this is the influence
of the frictional resistance along the joint which is affected by the consolidation of
the repair system provided by the presence of the normal pressure.
6.6. Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Results
Having developed equation (6), friction angles (ϕ) for 8 different repair systems
were calculated (Table 3). Due to the facts discussed in Section 6.5 the shear bond
strengths obtained from the friction-transfer method were used for Sb0 and were
substituted in equation (6).
Figure 6. Shear bond strengths of different repair systems under zero normal pressure (Sb0 ) obtained
from the slant shear and friction-transfer methods.
Figure 7. Comparison of theoretical and experimental axial failure stresses obtained from the slant
shear test.
The theoretical axial failure stresses along with their respective experimental
values obtained for 30◦ , 45◦ and 50◦ joint angles are shown in Fig. 7. This figure
shows that the average experimental axial failure stresses appear to be higher than
the theoretical values at 30◦ joint angle. Possible explanation for this could be the
mechanical keying (due to the penetration of the repair system or bonding layer
into the pores of the substrate) effect, which was ignored during the derivation of
equation (6). According to the studies of the cement/aggregate interface, made using
scanning electron microscopy, the epitaxial growth of cement hydration products
provides needle-shape protrusions buildup in the pores of the aggregate surface
resulting in a substantial degree of mechanical interlocking [19, 20].
Figure 7 also shows that, except for resinous repair systems, as the joint angle in-
creases, the differences between the experimental and theoretical values are reduced
and by the time the joint angle reaches about 50◦ , the experimental values become
even smaller than the theoretical values. The main reason for this may be the fact
that the readings of bond strengths obtained at larger joint angles are influenced by
the strength of materials leading to mixed failures, because if the 100% bond fail-
ures alone were to be considered, due to the low estimation of bond strength, the
differences would have been even higher (i.e. part of the bond which had not failed
is stronger than the quoted value). As stated earlier, cracking and partial failure for
Figure 8. Comparison of bond strengths of different repair systems under different stress conditions.
joint angles greater than about 40◦ causes the bond strength of the system to be
underestimated.
6.7. Bond Strengths of Different Repair Systems
For comparison, the bond properties of different repair systems recorded in Table 3
together with their respective shear bond strengths obtained from the friction-
transfer method [16] are shown in Fig. 8. According to this figure, the low to
high-ranking order of the torsional shear bond strengths of the systems tested
shows no resemblance to the adhesion under zero normal pressure and axial fail-
ure stress at 30◦ joint angle. It should be pointed out that when testing ordinary
sand/cement mortar the half-prisms were separated during the sample preparation
for the slant shear test method, while the same system showed even higher bond
strength than styrene butadiene rubber modified mortar when the friction-transfer
method was employed. Although a reasonably good agreement seems to exist be-
tween the ranking orders of the slant shear bond strengths of resinous systems and
their friction-transfer results, but the respective adhesion under zero normal pres-
sure shows otherwise. Therefore, it can be said that even adhesion intercept obtained
from the slant shear test can be misleading.
7. Conclusions
Based on the experimental and theoretical examination of the slant shear test
method, it can be said that:
1. A critical failure plane exists, the angle of which depends on the strengths of
the repair, concrete and the bond between the two, and its average angle with
the loading axis was found to be about 26.5◦ . The angles between the loading
axis and the cracks along the failure planes of 250 mm sand/cement mortar
prisms were measured to be in the range of 21.8–32◦ . For the development of
failure plane with these angles, the restraining effects of the end platens should
be considered.
2. The coefficient of variation of the test results obtained from sand/cement mortar
and concrete prisms was found to be 10.9% and the respective value for the slant
shear test method was found to be 23.5%.
3. The bond strength depends on the orientation of the concrete surface during the
repair process.
4. The adhesion under zero normal pressure (which can be considered as the true
bond strength of a repair system) obtained by the slant shear method was found
to closely relate to the axial failure stress acting at 30◦ joint angle but it did
not represent the performance of the repair under compression and to be able
to estimate the adhesion of a repair system under zero normal pressure at least
three joint angles should be considered.
5. For repair systems tested using the slant shear method, linear relationships with
coefficients of variation of 0.78–0.97 were found to exist between the shear and
normal stresses acting on the joint.
6. Results of the slant shear test method depend on the strengths of repair and con-
crete as well as on the bond and friction between the two. Friction coefficients
of the repair systems tested along repair/concrete interface ranged from 0.45 to
0.79. Increasing the joint angle increases the possibility of obtaining a higher
extent of mixed failure.
Acknowledgement
The support of Imam Khomeini International University is gratefully acknowl-
edged.
References
1. L. A. Clark and B. S. Gill, Magazine of Concrete Research 37, 95–100 (June, 1985).
2. K. M. Alexander, Proc. of International Conference on the Structure of Concrete, London,
pp. 121–127 (September, 1965).
3. M. A. Taylor and B. B. Broms, American Concrete Institute J. 61, 939–944 (August, 1964).
4. R. P. Johnson, The Structural Engineer 41, 313–319 (June, 1963).
5. R. P. Johnson, The Structural Engineer 48, 227–234 (June, 1970).
6. J. D. Kreigh, American Concrete Institute J. 73, 372–373 (1976).
7. L. J. Tabor, Magazine of Concrete Research 30, 221–225 (December, 1978).
8. British Standards Institute, Testing of Resin Composites for Use in Construction, BS 6319, Part 4:
Measurement of Bond Strength by Slant Shear Method.
9. ASTM C 1042, Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Latex Systems Used With Concrete by
Slant Shear.
10. ASTM C 882/C 882M, Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Epoxy Resin Systems Used
With Concrete by Slant Shear.
11. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), AASHTO 237,
Test Slant Shear Strength of Epoxy Bonding Agent.
12. E. N. B. S. Júlio, F. A. B. Branco, V. D. Silva and J. F. Lourenço, Building and Environment 41,
1934–1939 (2006).
13. M. H. Baluch, A. H. Al-Gadhib, A. R. Khan and A. Shaalan, Cement and Concrete Composites
25, 503–512 (2003).
14. E. N. B. S. Júlio, F. A. B. Branco and V. D. Silva, Construction and Building Materials 18, 675–
681 (2004).
15. K. Kadotani and F. Aki, Composites 15, 57–63 (1984).
16. M. Naderi, Construction and Building Materials 19, 454–459 (2005).
17. J. R. Eyre and P. L. J. Domone, Proc. of International Conference on Structural Faults, pp. 141–
147 (March, 1985).
18. ASTM D 4896, Standard Guide for Use of Adhesive-Bonded Single Lap-Joint Specimen Test
Results, American Standards for Testing and Materials.
19. D. J. Pinchin, The Cement–Steel Interface: Friction and Adhesion, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Cambridge (1977).
20. D. W. Hadly, The Nature of the Paste–Aggregate Interface, Ph.D. Thesis, Prude University (1972).

Naderi 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Naderi 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 21 December 2014, At: 15:10

Journal of Adhesion Science and

Analysis of the Slant Shear Test

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156856108X369589

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Analysis of the Slant Shear Test

Received in final form 11 September 2008

* E-mails: naderi-m@ikiu.ac.ir and drmahmoodnaderi@yahoo.com

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009 DOI:10.1163/156856108X369589

of concrete, and for the determination of aggregate–cement, cement–cement and

2. Examination of the Effect of Compression Inherent in the Slant Shear Test

3. Analysis of the Stresses Involved in the Slant Shear Test

of stress along the joint does not seem to be very erroneous.

4. Examination of the Adhesion Along the Repair/Concrete Interface in the

Figure 2. Friction–transfer method for determining repair/concrete bond strength.

Sample Compressive strength Axial failure stress of slant

6. Results and Discussion

Repair Equation of Coefficient of

Fiber reinforced acrylic modified St = 2.250 + 0.790Pn 0.98

Acrylic modified cementitious mortar 0.91

6.4. Effect of Orientation of Bond Area on the Bond Strength

6.5. Estimation of Shear Bond Strength of a Repair System Using the

You might also like