ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 119-S16
Bond Performance between Normal-Strength Concrete and
Sand-Lightweight Concrete
by Patricia Figueiredo, Sergio Luis Garcia, Renato Cossetti, and Afonso Leite
This work presents an experimental study to characterize the adhe-
sion strength of concrete interfaces with conventional and light-
weight aggregate density. For this purpose, 75 specimens of slant
shear (SS), 24 for pushoff (PS) and pulloff (PO) were performed.
For the SS test, a modified model was proposed inducing different
stresses at the interface of that traditional slant shear. The
substrates were manufactured with conventional density concrete
with a compressive strength of approximately 50 MPa, and for the
overlay and four lightweight concrete with percentages of 25, 50,
75, and 100% aggregate replacement. In the modified slant shear
(MSS) substrates five types of roughness were performed: smooth,
as vibrated and three intentionally rough (R1, R2, and R3), and for
the PS and PO tests only the ones: as vibrated (V) and the intention-
ally rough (R2). An automatic roughness measuring method was
developed using a laser displacement sensor. Comparing experi-
mental and theoretical results showed that they provide different
values for each type of test. For the MSS, Eurocode 2 and fib model
codes can be used for these types of concrete interfaces, but for the
PS they have proved to be very conservative.
Keywords: interface; pulloff; pushoff; roughness; shear strength; slant
shear.
INTRODUCTION
With the development of lightweight concrete production
technology, it has become possible to produce structural
concrete with reduced density values by replacing normal
aggregate with lightweight aggregates, while maintaining
adequate mechanical performance and durability. Moreover,
presenting advantages such as reduction of own weight,
increase of span, ease in handling.1 Lightweight concrete
represents an interesting solution, not only for new struc-
tures, including pre-molded structures, but also to strengthen
existing structures. In both cases, it will result in a composite
element, which can be an interface between normal and
lightweight concrete or between lightweight concrete.2 The
strength of the bond between a new concrete and an old one—
that is, the adhesion between a concrete-concrete layers is
a critical issue and of great importance when it comes to
prefabricated elements or the repair of a structure. This
strength depends on several factors, such as: the compres-
sive strength of old concrete (substrate) and new concrete
(overlay),3 the moisture state of the substrate,4-9 the geom-
etry of the specimens,5 and the roughness of the substrate
surface causing an increase in the contact surface.8-11
The type of surface roughness at the interface influences
the cohesion, friction and bond strength between the concrete
layers.8,9 Roughness is usually evaluated only qualitatively
by visual observation of the substrate surface and classified
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
TECHNICAL PAPER
from very smooth to very rough. However, this analysis is
very subjective as it does not provide a representation and
quantification of the actual roughness profile sufficient for
the calculation of parameters. Therefore, to obtain a reliable
quantitative analysis of the surface roughness of a concrete
interface some methods used in other sciences have been
applied in the concrete field.12-19 All these researches were
motivated to determine roughness parameters and correlate
them with the bond strength of the interface, thus estimating
the real influence of the roughness, thus being possible to
evaluate the durability of the repair system.
The strength of the concrete-concrete interface has
been studied for normal strength concrete and currently
many researches have focused on ultra-high-performance
concrete19-23 and self-consolidating concrete.24 Few studies
have evaluated the behavior of sand-lightweight concrete
regarding the shear strength of interfaces.2,25,26 The study
presented here evaluates the adhesion strength of interfaces
between normal and sand-lightweight concrete substrate/
overlay, with different percentages of replacement of bulk
aggregate by lightweight and types of surface preparation.
There are many tests available to evaluate the strength of
the interface between the concrete substrate and the comple-
ment. In general, they can be divided into three categories:
direct tensile tests, direct shear tests and shear tests combined
with compression. The slant shear test is the most widely
used laboratory test to estimate the interface strength.20,22,23,27
In general, the validity of the use of this test is sometimes
subjective,4,21,28 being pointed out advantages and disad-
vantages, such as the possibility of representing real stress
states of a structure and the fact that the rupture is highly
conditioned by the orientation of the interface plane.29 The
resistance to the interface’s adherence, that is, the connec-
tion between the concrete-concrete layer obtained in the test
depends, to a certain extent, on the chosen test configuration.
The sensitivity for the test configuration occurs due to the
interaction of normal and shear stresses, the different stress
states and distributions and possible effects of unintended
eccentricities. Above that, there is no direct conversion
formula between tensile strength and shear stress, and the
dispersion of the available experimental results is enormous,
ACI Structural Journal, V. 119, No. 1, January 2022.
MS No. S-2020-525.R3, doi: 10.14359/51733007, received June 9, 2021, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2022, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
199
Table 1—Physical properties of coarse aggregates
Lightweight aggregate
Characteristics Natural coarse aggregate CINEXPAN 0500 CINEXPAN 1506
Density, g/cm 3
2.73 1.55 1.15
Real specific mass, g/cm 3
1.58 0.85 0.62
Water absorption, % 0.35 6.83 7.50
Maximum size, mm 9.50 4.80 9.50
Fineness module, mm — 3.10 5.50

besides the great variety of parameters related to the type of Table 2—Mechanical properties of steel used in
concrete and the surface preparation factors. stirrups-shape transverse reinforcement
Due to the difficulty of performing some bonding tests Yield strength fy, Modulus of elasticity
routinely there is an interest from some researchers,30 in Steel type Ø, mm MPa E, GPa
defining conversion factors between different tests and,
CA-50 8 570 247.83
mainly, in using traction test data obtained from tests as
pull-off and splitting test to estimate the shear strength of the
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
interface. This problem is highly sensitive to failure modes
Materials
and should be taken into account primarily in test configu-
In the production of the concrete a Brazilian type V port-
rations that allow for interface failure rather than material
land cement (high early strength cement31) as the main
failure (substrate or overlay).
binder. The conventional coarse aggregates for the produc-
However, to better represent stress transfer in structures
tion of concrete was of the basalt type, from crushing of the
subjected to bending and shear stress, a modified slant shear
mines in Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ, with specific mass
specimen has been proposed, which induces a different
of 2.73 g/cm3 and unit mass of 1.58 g/cm3. As lightweight
stress state than the traditional slant shear commonly found
aggregates, the expanded clay, was used in two sizes:
in reinforced or prestressed concrete elements. In this case,
CINEXPAN 0500, used as a fine aggregate and CINEXPAN
the specimen is subjected to axial forces with an eccen-
1506, used as a coarse aggregate. Table 1 presents the values
tricity, causing normal and tangential variable stresses
of the specific mass and the unit mass in the dry and loose
along the slanted interface. Pushoff and pulloff tests were
state, the latter calculated according to ABNT,32 the specific
also performed to determine shear and tensile strength at the
mass of the lightweight aggregates CINEXPAN 0500 was
interface between normal and lightweight concrete, respec-
determined by the method prescribed by ABNT,33 while
tively. In addition, to characterize these interfaces, a simple
CINEXPAN 1506, following the prescriptions of ABNT34
and efficient system was developed that allowed measuring
Natural quartz sand from the Paraíba do Sul River was used
the roughness without requiring contact with the surface,
in the city of Campos dos Goytacazes, RJ, with a specific
being easy to use, fast to perform and suitable for use in situ
mass equal to 2.63 g/cm3 and a unit mass in the loose and
and in the laboratory.
dry state equal to 1.54 g/cm3. Fumed silica was used with
specific mass calculated according to ABNT35 equal to 2.20
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
g/cm3. A third-generation high-range water-reducing admix-
Although many researchers have addressed the
ture (HRWRA) was used. This additive has a chemical
concrete-concrete interface strength for different types and
base of modified carboxylic ether, acting as dispersant of
strengths of concrete. Specifically between concretes with
cementitious material, propitiating HRWRA and high water
normal strength and density, and currently between these
reduction.
and ultra-high performance concretes. The interfaces of
Ribbed bars were used for the PS test, according to
conventional and sand-lightweight concrete have not been
Brazilian specifications,36 with 8 mm nominal diameter (ϕ),
explored very much and there are no published works
were used to produce stirrup-shaped transverse reinforce-
with concrete manufactured with different percentages of
ment, as well as 4.2 mm plain bars and 8 mm bars were
replacements of the conventional for lightweight aggregate.
used for auxiliary reinforcement. The mechanical properties
The development of a simple and reliable automatic process
of the steel used as a transverse reinforcement are shown in
for the measurement of roughness allowed the quantification
Table 2.
of the roughness of the studied surfaces. The evaluation of
the resistance of interfaces subjected to shear and compres-
Concrete proportioning
sion stresses using a modified slant shear model allowed the
For the experimental characterization of the strength of
evaluation of the interface in stress gradients different from
the interfaces with concrete of different ages, the following
the traditional model. This simulates parts of reinforced or
concrete were defined: one normal strength concrete (NSC)
prestressed concrete structures with this stress distribution
with normal density and four sand-lightweight concrete
and, finally, the results of this study showed that the use of
(SLW) with substitutions of conventional coarse aggregate
this type of concrete is feasible and relevant for structural
for lightweight aggregate in the proportions of 25, 50, 75,
applications.
and 100%, named SLW-25%, SLW-50%, SLW-75%, and

200 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

Table 3—Mixture proportions of concretes
Proportions, kg/m3
Materials NSC SLW-25% SLW-50% SLW-75% SLW-100%
Cement 511.6 550.0 565.0 575.0 580.0
Water 225.8 220.0 226.0 230.0 232.0
Natural coarse aggregate 905.2 654.5 452.0 230.0 —
CINEXPAN 0500 — 126.5 129.9 132.3 133.4
CINEXPAN 1506 — 99.0 209.1 — 429.2
Natural fine aggregate 719.8 704.0 723.5 736.0 742.4
Silica fume — 55.0 56.5 57.5 58
HRWRA 1.47 2.53 2.60 2.64 2.67
w/cm 0.44 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

Table 4—Concrete properties

Type concrete fcm, MPa fct,sp, MPa E, GPa r, kg/m1
NSC 49.8 3.51 41,676.7 2470
SLW-25% 46.2 3.43 38,534.6 2289
SLW-50% 30.8 2.81 24,818.8 2250
SLW-75% 30.4 2.64 25,193.2 2012
SLW-100% 28.7 2.22 19,994.2 1788

SLW-100%, respectively. The quantity of materials for each

of the compositions used in the elaboration of the concretes
is presented in Table 3.

Details of specimens
Three types of tests were performed to characterize the
resistance of the interfaces: (MSS), (PS), and (PO). In the
SS type specimens, NSC was used in the substrate and five
types of concrete were used in the overlay: NSC, SLW-25%,
SLW-50%, SLW-75%, and SLW-100%. The mechanical and
physical properties of concrete are presented in Table 4.
The interface condition of the substrate for all specimens
was smooth (S), as vibrated (V) and three intentionally
rough conditions named R1, R2, and R3, with roughness of
5, 7.5, and 15 mm, respectively.
The values adopted for roughness were based on ABNT37
indications, which suggest for intentionally rough surfaces,
with a minimum roughness of 5 mm in 30 mm. Therefore, it
was also chosen to use tools capable of providing roughness
around that suggested by the code. Figure 1 shows the tools
manufactured to obtain this roughness.
For the SS test, specimens were made with the five combi-
nations of roughness (S, V, R1, R2, and R3), with three
replicas each, totaling 75 specimens. For the PS and PO,
only the roughness (V and R2), with four types of concrete
of the overlay, except NSC, totaling for both types of tests 24
specimens. Each specimen was given the following nomen-
clature: numbering of the replica, type of concrete of the
substrate, type of concrete of the overlay, type of roughness
of the interface and finally the type of test corresponding to
it. For example: Specimen 1-NSC-100-R2-MSS, represents
replica number 1, produced with NSC substrate, overlay
with sand-lightweight concrete with 100% substitution of
Fig. 1—Tools manufactured to perform roughness R1, R2,
and R3.
lightweight aggregate, roughness R2 and the corresponding
test type MSS.
For the formwork of the straight slant shear (SSS) type of
specimens, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubes with an internal
diameter of 140 mm and a height of 280 mm were used.
These was cut at an angle of inclination of 45 degrees in
equal parts, serving as a form for producing the specimen
substrate. Cylinders with a height of 280 mm were also
produced for later concreting of the overlay. Place this inside
and obtain the straight cylindrical specimen (traditional slant
shear), then this SSS was cut using a professional cutting
saw, with an angle of inclination of 15 degrees with respect
to the horizontal, in the upper and lower parts, with the aim
of obtaining a MSS, thus having an angle of 30 degrees with
respect to the vertical (Fig. 2(a)), angle recommended by
different researchers.20,22,23,27
For the PS test, the formwork was produced to allow a
non-monolithic condition along the shear plane and so that
the shear plane was totally exposed to allow the preparation
of its surface when the substrate was concreted, after this
first face, it was introduced into the form and the concreting
of the overlay was performed (Fig. 2(b)). For the PO test,
metal formwork with dimensions of 150 x 150 x 500 mm
were used, being divided into three equal parts, resulting in

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 201

Fig. 2—Detail of formwork and dimensions of specimens used for tests: (a) MSS; (b) PO; and (c) PS. (Note: Units in mm; 1 mm
= 0.0394 in.)
each specimen with dimensions of 150 x 150 x 150 mm. The
subtrate was performed with a height of 100 mm and the
overlay with 50 mm (Fig. 2(c)).
The PS specimens were made with auxiliary reinforce-
ment. A schematic diagram of the PS specimens is shown
in Fig. 3. The shear plane area of each concrete element was
18,900 mm2.

Casting of specimens
In Fig. 4 a sequence of the manufacturing process of the
specimens is shown. The cast specimens of the MSS, PS and
PO tests using a vibrating needle, obtaining a good compac- Fig. 3—PS specimen’s reinforcement details. (Note: Units in
tion. The smooth interface (S) was made with a wood form- mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
work, the interface as vibrated (V) was the one obtained
interface to efforts from the demolding process. Then the
after the vibration and the intentionally rough interfaces,
same curing procedure as above was carried out and later
R1, R2, and R3, were produced after one hour of casting
they were stored in the laboratory until the day of the test.
the specimens, the roughness was performed in the direction
perpendicular to the shear application, for the MSS and PS
Roughness measurement
specimens. The substrate demolded occurred after 24 hours,
For the measurement of the interface roughness, an auto-
and then it was placed in curing immersed in water with lime
mated system was developed consisting of a high-perfor-
for 28 days.
mance distance laser displacement sensor, with a displace-
Before casting the overlay, the interface was cleaned, using
ment measurement range between 50 and 350 mm and a
an air compressor to remove impurities that could reduce the
manipulator table formed by two motors for the movement
adhesion of the new concrete layer and then humidified with
of the specimen, using the Arduíno® platform of free hard-
running water. After casting the overlay all, the specimens
ware electronic prototyping. A setup was developed that
were demolded with extreme care in order not to expose the
included a wooden base and a metal support, fixed to the

202 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

Fig. 4—Manufacturing process of specimens.
manipulator to place the specimens in such a way that they
were leveled, thus ensuring that the measurement made by
the sensor always represented the roughness and not possible
unevenness of the specimen. A software was made to auto-
mate the whole process and provide the data emitted by the
displacement sensor (Fig. 5). After performing the rough-
ness measurements of the substrates for the manufacture of
MSS, PS, and PO specimens, the data was processed and
all roughness profiles determined. In Fig. 6 the profiles of
the five types of roughness studied are presented in Table 5
the results of the roughness parameters analyzed are also
presented.
The system developed proved to be simple and efficient,
presenting the advantages of obtaining measurements in situ,
as long as a specific configuration is made for the problem in
question. Because it is carried out before the concrete overlay
is casting, the element to be measured is not sectioned, as
in other methods used for example by Santos,38 and when
sectioned the specimen can be significantly damaged, influ-
encing the results obtained.
Noted that the interface with smooth roughness corre-
sponds to low roughness parameters, while the surface with
rough R3 corresponds to the maximum value, the other
intermediate values being increasing for the interfaces as Fig. 5—Setup for roughness measurement with laser
vibrated and rough R1 and R2. displacement sensor.

Realization of tests
Figure 7 presents the preparation, instrumentation and
execution procedures of the MSS, PS and PO tests. The
MSS type tests were performed on a universal mechanical
testing machine and the PS type tests were performed using
a hydraulic actuator controlled by a servo-hydraulic system,
with a 500 kN load capacity. Both at a load application speed
of 0.3 mm/s until rupture and performed at the civil engi-
neering laboratory at UENF.
The PO test was performed according to ASTM C1583/
C1583M-13,39 and consists of the extraction of a core of
the concrete specimen by traction using an apparatus for
pulling out the company SOLOTEST®, designed to perform
adhesion tests with metal plates bonded on flat surfaces of a
substrate.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 203

Table 5—Roughness parameter average
Roughness parameter, mm Type of surface treatment
Roughness of Roughness of Roughness of
Description Symbols Smooth (S) As vibrated (V) 10 mm (R1) 15 mm (R2) 30 mm (R3)
Average roughness Ra 0.392 1.243 1.555 1.900 2.344
Mean peak-to-valley height Rz(DIN) 0.875 2.490 4.184 5.263 5.679
Maximum peak-to-valley height Rmax 1.411 3.890 6.181 7.602 8.051
Mean third highest peak-to-
R3z 0.383 0.681 1.111 1.406 1.496
valley height
Maximum third highest peak-to-
R3zmax 0.710 1.706 2.691 3.392 3.497
valley height
Height of ten points Rz (ISO) 1.575 4.153 5.177 6.211 7.101
Total roughness height Ry 0.796 2.604 3.915 5.233 5.417
Mean peak height Rpm 0.405 1.256 2.017 2.637 2.792
Maximum peak height Rp 0.927 2.972 3.616 4.884 5.179
Maximum valley depth Rvm 0.473 1.271 2.167 2.626 3.018
Total roughness height Rv 1.096 2.900 4.156 4.837 5.494

The simulation was performed for a load of 200 kN for both

Fig. 6—Comparison of roughness profiles.
The drilling was performed in the test specimen until it
reached a greater depth than the interface to avoid stress
concentration with a diameter of 40 mm. A steel disc using a
two-component epoxy resin was then bonded to the surface
of the core and after hardening, the test was performed.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Numerical simulation of specimens straight slant
shear and modified slant shear
To evaluate the behavior of the MSS model, a numerical
simulation of it and the straight slant shear (SSS) model was
made, with a slope angle of 30 degrees.
The software ABAQUS® V-6.0 was used, a three-dimen-
sional simulation was performed with linear elastic analysis,
isotropic material and a square element with eight nodes and
three degrees of freedom per node (C3D8R) was used, with
linear integration.
In the interaction of the two parts (substrate/overlay)
a rough-type contact was used, with no possibility of
displacement.
On the substrate, the contour conditions restricted the
movement on the three axes (x, y, and z) and on the overlay,
the movement was prevented on the x and z axes and free for
the movement in y—that is, the direction of load application.
types of specimens.
In Fig. 8(a) and (b) the shear stress τxy and normal stress
σy for the NSC-NSC group SSS and MSS specimens and in
Fig. 8(c) and (d) those of the NSC-100% group are shown.
They were chosen because they have unique characteristics
with respect to the rigidity between substrate and overlay.
Noted that for both groups a range of τxy greater varia-
tion in the specimen of MSS ware obtained. For example,
in the NSC-NSC group the SSS specimen showed values of
τxy in the range of 1.96 to 3.58 MPa and the MSS of 0.16 to
4.54 MPa.
In Fig. 9(a) and (b) the values corresponding to the tangen-
tial and normal stresses versus normalized distance (distance
of each node divided by the total interface distance) at the
inclined interface, respectively, were plotted for the SSS and
MSS specimens for different compressive strength ratios of
substrate concrete and complement and a load of 200 kN,
which was chosen arbitrarily.
Note that the curves plotted in Fig. 9(a) and (b) show
differences in the shapes and magnitude of the tangential
and normal stresses calculated at the inclined interface. In
the case of SSS specimens, it is evident that this occurs due
to the difference in strength between the concrete of the
substrate and the overlay—that is, differences between the
modulus of elasticity of both parts of the specimen. For MSS
specimens it is observed that where the compression strength
ratio of the substrate concrete and the overlay was greater
than 1.0. There was less variability in the stress obtained in
the left and direct part of the specimens, different from what
happened in SSS, when the ratio was less than 1.0, and at the
same time close, showed the greatest variations.
In the MSS specimens at the sloping end, lower values of
difference between the maximum and minimum tangential
and normal stresses were obtained. This shows that regard-
less of the stiffness, they present a lower variability of the
stresses at the evaluated interface.

204 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

Fig. 7—Test preparation, instrumentation, and execution: MSS, PS e, and o PO.

Fig. 8—Stress distribution τxy and σy: (a) SSS of group NSC-NSC; (b) MSS of group NSC-NSC; (c) SSS of group NSC-100%;
and (d) MSS of group NSC-100%.
Results from MSS, PS, and PO
The calculation of the normal stress σu and tangen-
tial τu at the MSS test specimen interface was performed
using Abaqus® V-6.0, with the model previously defined.
Each specimen was simulated considering the rupture
load obtained in the test, considering the properties of the
substrate and overlay materials (Table 6). Table 7 shows
the strength to pure adherence (τ0) at the interface, obtained
in the PS test specimens, obtained from the division of the
rupture load by the shear area (τ0 = P/Ac). Table 8 shows
the tensile strength of direct adherence of the interface (fti),
obtained in the PO test specimens, result of the division of
the rupture load by the core area.
The MSS specimens showed two modes of rupture: cohe-
sive and adhesive, the first occurred mainly on specimens
with high interface surface roughness (R1, R2, and R3) and
the adhesive was observed mainly on specimens with low
interface surface roughness (S and V), in the same way as it
occurred in the researchers.2,40 The type of cohesive rupture
is common and undesirable in this type of test, because the
shear stress obtained is not the rupture stress of the spec-
imen. This depends primarily on the strength of the substrate

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 205

Fig. 9—Variation of stresses at inclined interface for test specimens SSS and MSS: (a) shear stress; and (b) normal stress.

Table 6—Experimental results in MSS test

MSS
Standard deviation,
Samples σua, MPa τua, MPa MPa Co.V, % Failure mode
NSC-NSC-S-MSS 14.66 14.74 1.81 12.28 adhesive
NSC-NSC-V-MSS 13.69 13.67 0.19 1.39 adhesive
NSC-NSC-R1-MSS 11.27 11.33 0.51 4.50 adhesive
NSC-NSC-R2-MSS 12.70 12.77 0.98 7.67 adhesive*
NSC-NSC-R3-MSS 12.87 12.94 1.94 14.99 adhesive*
NSC-25-S-MSS 10.97 10.88 0.43 3.95 cohesive†
NSC-25-V-MSS 9.18 9.11 0.26 2.85 adhesive
NSC-25-R1-MSS 8.25 8.19 0.84 10.26 cohesive†
NSC-25-R2-MSS 9.95 9.87 0.76 7.70 adhesive
NSC-25-R3-MSS 10.46 10.38 1.05 10.11 adhesive*
NSC-50-S-MSS 8.16 8.41 0.52 6.18 adhesive
NSC-50-V-MSS 5.77 5.94 0.36 6.06 cohesive†
NSC-50-R1-MSS 8.32 8.57 0.12 1.40 cohesive†
NSC-50-R2-MSS 8.40 8.65 0.40 4.62 cohesive
NSC-50-R3-MSS 9.03 9.30 1.45 15.59 cohesive†
NSC-75-S-MSS 7.10 6.92 1.11 16.04 adhesive*
NSC-75-V-MSS 7.32 7.13 1.10 15.42 adhesive*
NSC-75-R1-MSS 7.80 7.60 0.29 3.81 cohesive
NSC-75-R2-MSS 8.48 8.27 0.81 9.79 cohesive
NSC-75-R3-MSS 8.89 8.66 0.33 3.81 cohesive
NSC-100-S-MSS 6.31 6.53 0.79 12.09 adhesive
NSC-100-V-MSS 6.54 6.77 0.05 0.70 adhesive
NSC-100-R1-MSS 6.74 6.98 0.34 4.87 cohesive†
NSC-100-R2-MSS 6.81 7.06 0.33 4.67 cohesive†
NSC-100-R3-MSS 6.96 7.20 0.16 2.22 cohesive†
*
cohesive sample.
†
adhesive sample.

206 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

Table 7—Experimental results in PS test
PS
Standard deviation,
Samples τ0i, MPa τ0a, MPa MPa Co.V, % Failure mode
1-NSC-25-V-PS 2.90 adhesive
2-NSC-25-V-PS 2.95 2.82 0.18 6.38 cohesive
3-NSC-25-V-PS 2.62 cohesive
1-NSC-25-R2-PS 3.50 cohesive
2-NSC-25-R2-PS 3.63 3.42 0.25 7.31 cohesive
3-NSC-25-R2-PS 3.15 cohesive
1-NSC-50-V-PS 3.27 cohesive
2-NSC-50-V-PS 3.15 3.32 0.20 6.02 adhesive
3-NSC-50-V-PS 3.55 cohesive
1-NSC-50-R2-PS 3.73 cohesive
2-NSC-50-R2-PS 3.69 3.65 0.09 2.46 cohesive
3-NSC-50-R2-PS 3.55 cohesive
1-NSC-75-V-PS 3.19 cohesive
2-NSC-75-V-PS 3.28 3.32 0.16 4.82 cohesive
3-NSC-75-V-PS 3.51 adhesive
1-NSC-75-R2-PS 3.87 cohesive
2-NSC-75-R2-PS 3.65 3.76 0.11 2.92 cohesive
3-NSC-75-R2-PS 3.77 cohesive
1-NSC-100-V-PS 2.69 adhesive
2-NSC-100-V-PS 2.58 2.57 0.13 5.06 adhesive
3-NSC-100-V-PS 2.43 cohesive/adhesive
1-NSC-100-R2-PS 3.20 cohesive
2-NSC-100-R2-PS 2.89 2.96 0.21 7.09 cohesive
3-NSC-100-R2-PS 2.79 cohesive

and overlay, the roughness of the interface and the type of
specimen SS used, including the angle of the interface to the
vertical.
In the SS tests performed40 most of the specimens in
which high-strength concrete was used ruptured cohesively,
regardless of the level of compression stress applied at the
interface and even for all the inclination angles considered
(20, 25, and 30 degrees). The authors affirmed that the cohe-
sive rupture of the specimens with high strength overlay and
the cracks propagated throughout the cylinder in the form
of vertical cracks, reaching the rupture before the interfacial
shear stresses reached the rupture strength of the interface.
The PS and PO specimens also showed forms of adhesive
and cohesive rupture. Figure 10 shows the forms of rupture
of the three tests performed.
Influence of roughness on strength of test
specimen interface MSS, PS, and PO
In Fig. 11 through 13, are plotted the adherence strength
values of the interfaces for the different types of roughness
of the MSS and PS and PO specimens, respectively.
In general, the modified slant shear test specimens
reduced the resistance values of the interface bond when
the compression strength of the overlay decreased—that is,
as concrete with greater substitution of lightweight aggre-
gates was used. In addition, the specimens exhibited higher
strength values when the overlay concrete was equal to the
substrate for the NSC-NSC.
Noted that for the rough interfaces (R1, R2, and R3) there
was an increase in the strength of the interface with the
increased roughness. However, it is observed in the results
that the order of magnitude between the rough interfaces did
not result in significant increases in the bonding capacity of
the bond strength.
The values obtained from the interface’s adherence
strength for each group were submitted to analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA), complemented by Tukey’s test at a 5%
probability level.
Statistical analysis of the MSS specimens showed that the
NSC-NSC, NSC-75% and NSC-100% groups were statisti-
cally equal, and for the NSC-25% group we obtained differ-
ences in mean values of the rough interface (R1) for smooth
(S) and rough (R3), greater than 24.75% and 21.10%,
respectively.
In the NSC-50% group, with interface as vibrated (V)
significant differences were obtained with lower values in

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 207

Table 8—Experimental results in PO test
PO
Samples fti, MPa ftia, MPa Standard deviation, MPa Co.V, % Failure mode
1-NSC-25-V-PO 1.82 adhesive
2-NSC-25-V-PO 2.03 1.93 0.11 5.70 adhesive
3-NSC-25-V-PO 1.96 adhesive
1-NSC-25-R2-PO 2.81 adhesive
2-NSC-25-R2-PO 3.34 3.12 0.28 8.97 adhesive
3-NSC-25-R2-PO 3.22 adhesive
1-NSC-50-V-PO 1.88 cohesive
2-NSC-50-V-PO 2.05 2.00 0.10 5.00 adhesive
3-NSC-50-V-PO 2.05 adhesive
1-NSC-50-R2-PO 2.09 adhesive
2-NSC-50-R2-PO 1.99 2.14 0.18 8.41 cohesive-overlays
3-NSC-50-R2-PO 2.34 cohesive-overlays
1-NSC-75-V-PO 2.06 adhesive
2-NSC-75-V-PO 2.93 2.46 0.44 17.89 cohesive-overlays
3-NSC-75-V-PO 2.40 cohesive-substrate
1-NSC-75-R2-PO 2.68 cohesive-overlays
2-NSC-75-R2-PO 2.55 2.53 0.16 6.32 adhesive
3-NSC-75-R2-PO 2.36 cohesive-overlays
1-NSC-100-V-PO 2,05 cohesive-overlays
2-NSC-100-V-PO 2.43 2.24 0.19 8.48 adhesive
3-NSC-100-V-PO 2.23 adhesive
1-NSC-100-R2-PO 2.07 adhesive
2-NSC-100-R2-PO 2.86 2.41 0.41 17.01 adhesive
3-NSC-100-R2-PO 2.29 adhesive

Note: fti was obtained by dividing failure load by area of core.

Table 9—Equations proposed by codes and researchers

Codes and
researchers Proposed equations tu, MPa Coefficient (n) Coefficient of cohesion and friction
Model Code43 Cfctd + μσn ≤ 0.5vfcd 0.55(30/fck)1/3 < 0.55 Table 10
Eurocode 42
Cfctd + μσn ≤ 0.5vfcd 0.6(1– fck /250) Table 10
Santos 44
C.fctd ≤ 0.25fcd — c = 1.062Rvm0.145
c = 0.2363e0.237Rpm
Mohamad et al.45 Cfctd + μσn —
μ = 0.8766Rpm0.3978
c = 0.86Rpm0.48
Costa et al.2 C.fctd + μσn —
μ = 1.16Rpm0.04

Note: fctd is lowest tensile strength of concrete design; fcd is compressive strength of concrete; σn is normal stress at interface due to external loading; μ is coefficient of friction; and
ν is reduction coefficient of strength.

relation to all other series, of 29.30%, 30.65%, 31.29%, and
36.12%, when compared to interfaces S, R1, R2, and R3,
respectively.
The results of the PS specimens were satisfactory in rela-
tion to the increase in roughness within the same group—that
is, there was an increase in shear strength when compared to
interface values as vibrated (V) with those of rough interface
(R2).
Statistical analysis showed that the NSC-50% and
NSC-100% groups did not present differences, not so, the
NSC-25 and NSC-75 groups presented higher values of
17.49% and 11.63%, respectively.
In the PO test bodies for the vibrated interface (V) there
were not differences between the groups, not so the rough
interface, where the group with higher tensile strength at the
interface was the NSC-25%, showed significant differences

208 ACI Structural Journal/January 2022

Fig. 10—Forms of rupture of specimens: (a), (c), and (e) cohesive; and (b), (d), and (f) adhesive.
of 31.44% and 22.94% in relation to the groups, NSC-50%
and NSC-100%, respectively.
Assessment of adherence tests together
Due to the difficulty of performing some adherence tests
and the interest of some researchers,30 in defining conversion
factors between different tests and, mainly, in using tension
test data obtained from tests such as PO and Splitting test to
estimate the shear strength of interfaces.
Based on this assumption, this research correlated the tests
performed to contribute to the relationship between tensile
and shear strength for the interfaces as vibrated (V) and
rough (R2).
Figure 14 shows the results of the rupture strength of the
MSS, PS, and PO specimens in the studied interfaces.
The values of adherence strength obtained by different
tests it was obtained that the average relationship between
the strengths obtained in the MSS test and the PS was 2.55
and 2.39 for interfaces such as vibrated and rough (R2),
respectively. Between MSS and PO was 3.40 and 3.35 for
interfaces as vibrated and rough (R2), respectively, and
the average ratios between the PS and PO test results was
1.40 and 1.38 for interfaces as vibrated and rough (R2),
respectively.
Zanotti and Randl41 emphasized the validation of the PO
test and its correlations with other tests, because this is not
only the simplest adherence test, but also allows a faster
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
analysis of the quality of the new and old concrete connec-
tion. However, they reported that the relationship between
shear and tensile strength is significantly affected by the
method used to determine cohesion. When the interface is
under a pure shear stress state, direct tensile results should
not be used unless correction factors are applied, as the
tensile strength of the interface is less influenced by friction,
not cohesion, and the shear strength is highly influenced by
friction.
Comparison of measured and predicted shear
strengths
The experimental results of the MSS and PO tests were
compared with those obtained by the models proposed.2,42-45
The following considerations were made: unitary reduction
coefficients, in the calculations of the researchers’ models the
cohesion equations that correlate some roughness parameter
were considered, obtained in this research and for codes, the
cohesion coefficients prescribed by them were considered.
The codes and researchers’ equations are presented in
Table 9. These have been reduced for the case of interfaces
that do not have reinforcement that crosses the same. Table 10
shows the values of cohesion and friction coefficients
In Table 11, the relations between the average values of
resistance to experimental adhesion and the average values
of theoretical adhesion strength calculated according to the
models proposed by researchers and standards, obtained in
209
Fig. 11—Influence of roughness on strength of MSS spec-
imen interface.
Fig. 12—Influence of roughness on resistance of PS spec-
imen interface.
Fig. 13—Influence of roughness on resistance of PO test
specimen interface.
the specimens of MSS, are presented and in Table 12 those
of the specimens of the PS test are presented.
The values presented in Table 11 show that the model
of Mohamad et al.45 was the one that experienced the best
behavior for the evaluated specimens, with an overall
average of 1.0. Followed by Eurocode,42 with a general
average of 1.13. Finally, the model of the Model Code43 with
a general average of 1.15. In addition, at the same time, the
model of Santos44 presented very conservative values, with
a value of 2.96. On the other hand, the Costa et a1.2 provided
general average values against safety of 0.68.
The values presented in Table 12 show that the model
Santos44 was the best behavior experienced for the specimens
210
Fig. 14—Results of tests to evaluate strength to adherence.
Fig. 15—Comparison between interaction curves of different
researchers for interface as vibrated.
Fig. 16—Comparison between interaction curves of different
researchers for interface as rough.
evaluated, with an overall average of 1.19. Followed by
Costa et a1.,2 with an overall average of 1.44. The other
models were very conservative, in the order of Eurocode,42
Model code,43 and Mohamad et al.45 with values of 2.85,
3.02, and 4.05, respectively.
Experimental interaction of normal and tangential
stresses for MSS, PS, and PO
The strength of the interfaces between concrete layers
needs to be evaluated under different stress conditions to
evaluate the two important interfacial parameters, cohesion,
and coefficient of friction. In actual structures, the interfaces
are submitted to compression, tensile, shear or multiple
stress state. Therefore, the interface strength needs to be
investigated under multiple stress states. The use of a test
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
Table 10—Cohesion and friction coefficients proposed by Eurocode and Model Code
Model Code43 Eurocode42
Surface textures c m c m
Very smooth 0.025 to 0.10 0.5 0.025 to 0.1 0.5
Smooth 0.2 0.6 0.35 0.6
Rough 0.4 0.7 0.45 0.7
Very rough/indented 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9

Table 11—Relationship between experimental and predicted strengths of MSS test

Groups
Experimental strength/predicted General
strength NSC-NSC NSC-25% NSC-50% NSC-75% NSC-100% average
τexp/Model Code43 1.17 1.06 1.15 1.16 1.22 1.15
τexp/ Eurocode 42
1.15 1.04 1.11 1.14 1.19 1.13
τexp/Santos44 3.66 2.59 2.41 2.89 3.09 2.93
τexp/Mohamad et al.45 1.02 0.92 0.93 1.19 0.97 1.01
τexp/Costa 2
0.70 0.65 0.66 0.71 0.70 0.68

Table 12—Relationship between experimental and predicted strengths of PS test

Groups
Experimental strength/predicted General
strength NSC-25% NSC-50% NSC-75% NSC-100% average
τexp/Model Code43 2.08 2.87 3.47 3.67 3.02
τexp/Eurocode42 1.96 2.70 3.27 3.46 2.85
τexp/Santos44 0.84 1.08 1.46 1.40 1.19
τexp/Mohamad et al. 45
2.77 3.85 4.65 4.91 4.05
τexp/Costa 2
0.99 1.37 1.66 1.75 1.44

Table 13—Summary of equations and parameters obtained from iteration of tangential and normal
stresses
Authors Roughness (τ/fct,sp)* c/fct,sp μ ϕ, degrees
Average (as vibrated) –0.73σ + 0.83 0.83 0.73 36.1
Present study
Average Rough (R2) –0.73σ + 0.96 0.96 0.73 36.1
As vibrated –0.07σ + 1.70 1.70 1.07 46.9
Harris et al.46
Rough (R2) –1.26σ + 1.45 1.45 1.26 51.6
As vibrated –1.36σ + 0.91 0.91 1.36 53.7
Costa et al.2
Rough (R2) –1.30σ + 1.40 1.40 1.30 52.4
Semendary et al.22 Rough (R2) –1.36σ + 1.22 1.22 1.36 53.7
As vibrated –1.34σ + 0.47 0.47 1.34 53.3
Zhang et al.47
Rough (R2) –1.36σ + 0.60 0.60 1.36 53.7
*
σ and fct,sp in MPa.

method may not be sufficient for a complete evaluation of
the interfacial interface strength.
Figures 15 and 16 show a comparison between the interac-
tion curves obtained in the present study and those obtained
with data2,22,46,47 for interfaces such as vibrated (V) and
rough (R2), respectively. The data plotted in this analysis for
the present study are the average values of all series evalu-
ated (NSC-25%, NSC -50%, NSC-75%, and NSC-100%).
The slopes of these curves are dependent on the type of
slant shear used and consequently the coefficient of friction
and the angle of friction. The values obtained in this research
were lower when compared to those obtained in the research
evaluated. However, the angles of friction obtained here are
approximately equal to that defined by the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion for concrete.

ACI Structural Journal/January 2022 211

 Table 13 presents the equations obtained for adhesion
strength and cohesion normalized, as well as the coefficient
and angle of friction obtained for the interface values as
vibrated (V) and rough (R2). Using a simple linear adjust-
ment, a good correlation between all tests were observed.
The normalized cohesion values of the evaluated studies
varied in the range of 0.47 to 1.70, being those of the present
study in the range of variation.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn from the present
study:
1. The development of a setup to obtain the roughness
profile provided satisfactory and reliable results, proving to
be able to be used to characterize the surface roughness of a
concrete interface;
2. A simplified numerical analysis allowed us to conclude
that the stresses obtained at the interface through the MSS
for the same applied load were higher than they would be
obtained in a SSS. Thus, even presenting some cohesive
flaws it was possible to effectively quantify the adherence of
the concrete-concrete interfaces;
3. In the simulation it was shown that for the MSS spec-
imens the variation of tangential and normal stresses is
also evidenced. It was noted that for specimens where the
compressive strength ratio of the substrate concrete and the
complement was greater than 1.0, there was less variability
of stresses obtained at the edges of the specimens;
4. For the rough interfaces (R1, R2, and R3) as the rough-
ness increased, there was an increase in shear strength.
However, the order of magnitude between them did not
result in significant increases in bonding capacity;
5. For the rough interfaces (R1, R2, and R3) in the MSS
specimens as the roughness increased, there was an increase
in shear strength. However, the order of magnitude between
them did not result in significant increases in the strength of
the interface; and
6. The experimental results of the MSS specimens were
very similar to those obtained from the Eurocode,42 Model
Code43 prescriptions, and the model of Mohamad et al.45
However, for the PS specimens it was the model of Santos44
that was the most representative, the three previously cited
being very conservative.
AUTHOR BIOS
Patricia Figueiredo is a Research Engineer in the Civil Engineering
Department at State University of North Fluminense (UENF), Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. She received her BS and MS from UENF and is currently
a doctoral student in civil engineering. Her research interests include
concrete adherence.
Sergio Luis Garcia is a Professor and a Research Engineer in the Civil
Engineering Department at UENF. He received his BS from Universidad
Central de Las Villas, UCLV, Cuba; his MS from Federal University of Rio
de Janeiro (UFRJ); and his PhD from UFRJ. His research interests include
reinforced concrete structures variations and effects.
Renato Cossetti is a Research Engineer in the Civil Engineering Depart-
ment at UENF and is currently studying for a master's degree in civil
engineering.
Afonso Leite is a Student in the Civil Engineering Department at UENF
and participates in the science initiation program.
212
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was funded in part by the Coordination for the Improvement
of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)—Funding Code 001.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 213, “Guide for Structural Lightweight-Aggregate
Concrete (ACI 213R-14),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,
MI, 2014.
2. Costa, H.; Carmo, R. N. F.; and Júlio, E., “Influence of Lightweight
Aggregates Concrete on the Bond Strength of Concrete-to-Concrete Inter-
faces,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 180, 2018, pp. 519-530.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.011
3. Diab, A. M.; Abd Elmoaty, A. E. M.; and Tag Eldin, M. R., “Slant
Shear Bond Strength between Self Compacting Concrete and Old
Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 130, 2017, pp. 73-82.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.023
4. Zanotti, C., and Banthia, N., “Modified Slant Shear Cylinder Test for
Inherent Characterization of Bond in Concrete Repairs,” Indian Concrete
Journal, V. 90, No. 8, 2016, pp. 32-40.
5. Bentz, D. P.; De la Varga, I.; Muñoz, J. F.; Spragg, R. P.; Gray-
beal, B. A.; Hussey, D. S.; Jacobson, D. L.; Jones, S. Z.; and LaManna,
J. M., “Influence of Substrate Moisture State and Roughness on Interface
Microstructure and Bond Strength: Slant Shear vs. Pull-Off Testing,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 87, 2018, pp. 63-72. doi: 10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2017.12.005
6. Beushausen, H.; Höhlig, B.; and Talotti, M., “The Influence of
Substrate Moisture Preparation on Bond Strength of Concrete Overlays and
the Microstructure of the OTZ,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 92,
2017, pp. 84-91. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.11.017
7. Diab, A. M.; Abd Elmoaty, A. E. M.; and Tag Eldin, M. R., “Slant
Shear Bond Strength between Self Compacting Concrete and Old
Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 130, 2017, pp. 73-82.
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.023
8. Júlio, E. N. B. S.; Branco, F. A. B.; and Silva, V. D., “Concrete-to-Con-
crete Bond Strength. Influence of the Roughness of the Substrate Surface,”
Construction and Building Materials, V. 18, No. 9, 2004, pp. 675-681. doi:
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2004.04.023
9. Santos, P. M. D.; Júlio, E. N. B. S.; and Silva, V. D., “Correlation
between Concrete-to-Concrete Bond Strength and the Roughness of the
Substrate Surface,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 21, No. 8,
2007, pp. 1688-1695. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.05.044
10. Li, Z., and Rangaraju, P. R., “Effect of Surface Roughness on the
Bond between Ultrahigh-Performance and Precast Concrete in Bridge Deck
Connections,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta-
tion Research Board, V. 2577, No. 1, 2016, pp. 88-96. doi: 10.3141/2577-11
11. Gadri, K., and Guettala, A., “Evaluation of Bond Strength between
Sand Concrete as New Repair Material and Ordinary Concrete Substrate
(The Surface Roughness Effect),” Construction and Building Materials,
V. 157, 2017, pp. 1133-1144. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.183
12. Maerz, N. H., and Franklin, J. A., “Joint Roughness Measurement
Using Shadow Profilometry,” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geometrics Abstracts, V. 27, No. 5, Oct. 1990,
pp. 329-343.
13. Abu-Tair, A. I.; Lavery, D.; Nadjai, A.; Rigden, S. R.; and Ahmed,
T. M. A., “New Method for Evaluating the Surface Roughness of Concrete
Cut for Repair or Strengthening,” Construction and Building Materials,
V. 14, No. 3, 2000, pp. 171-176. doi: 10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00016-7
14. Norbert H., and Maerz, M. L. “Measurement of Flat and Elonga-
tion of Coarse Aggregate Using Digital Image Processing,” No. 01, 2001,
pp. 1-14.
15. Issa, M. A.; Issa, M. A.; Islam, M. S.; and Chudnovsky, A.,
“Fractal Dimension—A Measure of Fracture Roughness and Tough-
ness of Concrete,” Engineering Fracture Mechanics, V. 70, No. 1, 2003,
pp. 125-137. doi: 10.1016/S0013-7944(02)00019-X
16. Garbacz, A.; Górka, M.; and Courard, L., “Effect of Concrete
Surface Treatment on Adhesion in Repair Systems,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 57, No. 1, 2005, pp. 49-60. doi: 10.1680/macr.2005.57.1.49
17. Santos, P. M. D., and Júlio, E. N. B. S., “Development of a Laser
Roughness Analyser to Predict In Situ the Bond Strength of Concrete-to-
Concrete Interfaces,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 60, No. 5, 2008,
pp. 329-337. doi: 10.1680/macr.2007.00024
18. dos Santos, P. D., “Assessment of the Shear Strength Between
Concrete Layers,” Tesse de Doutorado, Coimbra, Portugal, 2009.
19. Valikhani, A.; Jahromi, A. J.; Mantawy, I. M.; and Azizinamini,
A., “Experimental Evaluation of Concrete-to-UHPC Bond Strength with
Correlation to Surface Roughness for Repair Application,” Construc-
tion and Building Materials, V. 238, 2020, pp. 1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117753
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
 20. Carbonell Muñoz, M. A.; Harris, D. K.; Ahlborn, T. M.; and
Froster, D. C., “Bond Performance between Ultrahigh-Performance
Concrete and Normal-Strength Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, V. 26, No. 8, 2014, pp. 1-9. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0000890
21. Farzad, M.; Shafieifar, M.; and Azizinamini, A., “Experimental
and Numerical Study on Bond Strength between Conventional Concrete
and Ultra High-Performance Concrete (UHPC),” Engineering Structures,
V. 186, February 2019, pp. 297-05. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.02.030
22. Semendary, A. A., and Svecova, D., “Factors Affecting Bond between
Precast Concrete and Cast in Place Ultra High Performance Concrete
(UHPC),” Engineering Structures, V. 216, Aug. 2019, 2020, p. 1-15.
23. Ganesh, P., and Ramachandra Murthy, A., “Simulation of Surface
Preparations to Predict the Bond Behaviour between Normal Strength
Concrete and Ultra-High Performance Concrete,” Construction and Building
Materials, V. 250, 2020, pp. 2-14. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118871
24. Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Luo, Y.; and Wang, L., “Effects of Interface
Orientations on Bond Strength between Old Conventional Concrete and
New Self-Consolidating Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 5,
Sept. 2020, pp. 191-01.
25. Shaw, D. M., and Sneed, L. H., “Interface Shear Transfer of Light-
weight-Aggregate Concretes Cast at Different Times,” PCI Journal, V. 59,
No. 3, 2014, pp. 130-144. doi: 10.15554/pcij.06012014.130.144
26. Sneed, L. H.; Krc, K.; and Wermager, S., “Interface Shear Transfer of
Lightweight-Aggregate Concretes with Different Lightweight Aggregates,”
PCI Journal, Mar.-Apr. 2016, pp. 38-55.
27. Tayeh, B. A.; Abu Bakar, B. H.; Megat Johari, M. A.; and Voo, Y. L.,
“Evaluation of Bond Strength between Normal Concrete Substrate and
Ultra High Performance Fiber Concrete as a Repair Material,” Procedia
Engineering, V. 54, 2013, pp. 554-563.
28. Saldanha, R.; Júlio, E.; Dias-Da-Costa, D.; and Santos, P., “A Modi-
fied Slant Shear Test Designed to Enforce Adhesive Failure,” Construc-
tion and Building Materials, V. 41, 2013, pp. 673-680. doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2012.12.053
29. Simon, A.; Peter, R.; and Youguang, P., “Tensile Bond Testing
of Concrete Repairs,” Materials and Structures, V. 29, No. 28, 1999,
pp. 249-259.
30. Espeche, A. D., and León, J., “Estimation of Bond Strength Enve-
lopes for Old-to-New Concrete Interfaces Based on a Cylinder Splitting
Test,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 25, No. 3, 2011, pp. 1222-
1235. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.09.032
31. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), “Cimento Port-
land de alta resistência inicial,” 2018, 16 pp.
32. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), “NBR NM 45:
Agregados – Determinação da massa unitária e do volume de vazios,” 2006,
18 pp.
ACI Structural Journal/January 2022
33. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), “Fine Aggre-
gate—Determination of the Bulk Specific Gravity and Apparent Specific
Gravity (NBR: 52: 2009),” Brazil, 2009.
34. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), “Agregado
graúdo—Determinação de massa específica, massa específica aparente e
absorção de água (NBR NM 53), 2009.
35. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), “NBR
6474/2001 NM 23 CIMENTO PORTLAND Determinação da Massa Espe-
cífica,” 2001.
36. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), “Steel for the
Reinforcement of Concrete Structures—Specification (NBR 7480:2007),”
second edition, Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian Association of Technical Stan-
dards, 2007, 13 pp.
37. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas (ABNT), “Projeto e
execução de estruturas de concreto pré-moldado (NBR 9062),” 2017,
pp. 86.
38. dos Santos, P. M. D., “Influência da Rugosidade da Superficie
da Intereface Betão/Betão na sua Resiatencia ao Corte Longitudinal,”
Coimbra, 2005.
39. ASTM C1583/C1583M-13, “Standard Test Method for Tensile
Strength of Concrete Surfaces and the Bond Strength or Tensile Strength
of Concrete Repair and Overlay Materials by Direct Tension (Pull-off
Method),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
40. Zanotti, C., and Randl, N., “Are Concrete-Concrete Bond Tests
Comparable?” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 99, Feb. 2019,
pp. 80-88. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.02.012
41. Zanotti, C., and Randl, N., “Are Concrete-Concrete Bond Tests
Comparable?” Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 99, Feb. 2019,
pp. 80-88. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.02.012
42. Eurocode 2, EN 1992-1-1 “Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1–1:
General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” 2010.
43. fib, “Model Code for Concrete Structures,” International Federation
for Structural Concrete,” Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010.
44. Santos, P. M. D., and Júlio, E. N. B. S., “A State-of-the-Art Review
on Shear-Friction,” Engineering Structures, V. 45, No. 1, 2012, pp. 435-448.
doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.06.036
45. Mohamad, M. E.; Ibrahim, I. S.; Abdullah, R.; Abd. Rahman, A.
B.; Kueh, A. B. H.; and Usman, J., “Friction and Cohesion Coefficients of
Composite Concrete-to-Concrete Bond,” Cement and Concrete Compos-
ites, V. 56, 2015, pp. 1-14. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.10.003
46. Harris, D. K.; Sarkar, J.; and Ahlborn, T. T. M., “Characterization
of Interface Bond of Ultra-High-Performance Concrete Bridge Deck Over-
lays,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, V. 2240, No. 1, 2011, pp. 40-49. doi: 10.3141/2240-07
47. Zhang, Y.; Zhu, P.; Liao, Z.; and Wang, L., “Interfacial Bond Prop-
erties between Normal Strength Concrete Substrate and Ultra-High Perfor-
mance Concrete as a Repair Material,” Construction and Building Mate-
rials, V. 235, 2020, pp. 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117431
213
ARE YOU A RESEARCHER?
SIGN UP FOR TODAY!
ORCID provides a persistent digital identifer that distinguishes you
from every other researcher and, through integration in key research
workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports
automated linkages between you and your professional activities,
ensuring that your work is recognized.
Individuals may use ORCID services freely and it’s as easy as 1-2-3:

1 REGISTER

2 ADD YOUR INFO

3 USE YOUR ORCID ID

For more information and to register, visit:

WWW.ORCID.ORG