Construction and Building Materials 127 (2016) 539–545

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Optimal mix and freeze-thaw durability of polysulfide polymer concrete

Sungnam Hong a, Hyeonjun Kim b, Sun-Kyu Park c,⇑
a
College of Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, South Korea
b
Samsung C&T Corporation, Seoul 137-956, South Korea
c
School of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon 440-746, South Korea

h i g h l i g h t s

 Polysulfide polymer concrete mix design and freeze–thaw durability were examined.
 The optimal mix design was determined from two-stage binder tests and mixing tests.
 Specimen strengths for the optimal mix were compared with design code requirements.
 Strength and modulus losses after accelerated freeze–thaw cycling were measured.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A study was conducted to determine the optimal mix design for polysulfide polymer concrete (PPC). Two-
Received 19 May 2015 stage binder tests and polymer concrete mixing tests were carried out for this purpose. The optimal mix-
Received in revised form 27 September ing ratio was determined from the test results. In addition, the strength and freeze–thaw resistance of
2016
specimens produced using the optimal mixing ratio were evaluated. The results of the strength tests
Accepted 6 October 2016
showed that the specimens satisfied the strength requirements of the relevant design codes. Repeated
freezing and thawing significantly decreased the mechanical strength of the specimens but had an
insignificant effect on the specimens’ relative dynamic modulus of elasticity (RDME). It was found that
Keywords:
Polysulfide
more than 300 freeze–thaw cycles could cause a problem for PPC in terms of its strength.
Polymer concrete Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Freeze–thaw
Mechanical properties
Optimal mix

1. Introduction
Improvements in the performance of construction materials
and advancements in construction technology [1–2] have con-
tributed to growth in public infrastructure. The structural demands
on ultra-large bridges and the harsh environments to which they
are exposed have prompted industry-wide efforts to reduce the
self-weight of ultra-large bridges and improve their strength and
durability [3]. There is therefore growing interest in new materials
that could replace asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete,
which have historically been favored as pavement materials.
A series of studies dating back to the 1950s have evaluated the
feasibility of using polymer concrete as a pavement material [4–8].
Based on the results of these studies, the American Concrete Insti-
tute (ACI) and the American Association of State Highway and Trans-
portation Officials (AASHTO) established a number of guidelines for
polymer concrete use, including the Guide for Polymer Concrete Over-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: skpark@skku.edu (S.-K. Park).
lays and the Guide Specifications for Polymer Concrete Bridge Deck
Overlays [9–10]. These publications provide comprehensive design
and construction guidelines for the use of polymer concrete as a
pavement material for bridges and other structures. However, there
have been studies on concrete produced using polysulfide polymer
or epoxy resin (referred to hereinafter as polysulfide polymer con-
crete, or PPC) [11–15]. Furthermore, no studies have been conducted
on how to determine the optimal mix design for PPC, despite the fact
that such findings are essential if PPC is to be employed in structures.
The freeze–thaw durability of PPC should also be assessed before it is
used as a pavement material for bridges.
This study was conducted to attempt to determine the optimal
mix design for PPC. Laboratory tests were first performed to estab-
lish the optimal formulation for the binder, which is composed of a
polysulfide polymer, an epoxy resin, a hardener, and a catalyst. The
optimal mix design for PPC was then determined from a series of
laboratory tests. The strength and freeze–thaw durability of PPC
specimens developed using the optimal mix design were then
tested.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.056
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
540 S. Hong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 127 (2016) 539–545
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
PPC is typically composed of a binder, a catalyst, and coarse and
fine aggregates. The binder used in this study consisted of a poly-
sulfide polymer, an epoxy resin, a hardener, and a catalyst. For this
study, YD-128, a bisphenol A epoxy resin (Kukdo Chemical, Seoul,
South Korea), and LP-3, a polysulfide liquid polymer (SPI Chem,
Philadelphia, PA, USA), were used as the main materials. JEFFA-
MINE D-230, an amine hardener manufactured by Huntsman Inter-
national LLC (Salt Lake City, UT, USA), and HIESCAT HI-54K, a metal
salt catalyst manufactured by Keumjung Co., Ltd. (Ulsan, South
Korea), were used as the hardener and catalyst, respectively. Infor-
mation on the physical properties of the epoxy resin, polymer,
hardener, and catalyst provided by the manufacturers is shown
in Table 1.
Silica sand with an average diameter in the range of 0.35–
0.7 mm was selected for use as the coarse aggregate. To ensure
excellent workability of the aggregate, silica powder was used as
the fine aggregate. The powder was made by grinding the silica
sand used as the coarse aggregate and filtering it with a No. 230
(63-l) sieve. The physical properties and chemical composition
of the silica aggregates are listed in Table 2.
2.2. Mixing tests
2.2.1. Binder
It was reported in a previous study that the optimal binding
result was obtained when the primary materials (bisphenol A
epoxy resin and polysulfide liquid polymer) were mixed at a ratio
of 6:4 [14]. Accordingly, the primary binding materials used in this
study were mixed at this same ratio.
Over the two stages of this study, a series of lab tests was per-
formed to establish the formulation of the binder. In the first stage,
the variations in the tensile strength, tensile elongation, and gel
time of the binder were observed with respect to the proportion
of the hardener, which ranged from 3% to 43% relative to the
weight of the primary materials. Based on the results, the appropri-
ate range for the optimal mixture ratio for the hardener, relative to
the weight of the primary materials, was determined. In the second
stage, the effectiveness of the catalyst was examined for each opti-
mal mixture ratio determined in the first-stage tests. The ratio of
catalyst content to the primary materials content varied from 1
to 3% by weight, and the optimal binder ratio was determined from
a series of results obtained at each mixture rate. Finally, the opti-
mal binder ratio was confirmed by verifying that the test results
for the binder specimens for each mixture ratio satisfied the rec-
ommendations of ACI 548.9-08 [16]. The binder specimens were
Table 1
Physical properties of the resin, polymer, hardener, and catalyst.
YD-128 Epoxy equivalent weight Viscosity
(Bisphenol A epoxy resin) (g/eq) (25 °C, mPa
s)
184–190 11,500–13,500
LP-3 Molecular weight Viscosity
(Polysulfide liquid polymer) (g/mol) (25 °C, mPa
s)
1000 940–1440
JEFFAMINE D-230 Molecular weight Viscosity
(Amine hardener) (g/mol) (25 °C, mPa
s)
230 9 0.948
HIESCAT HI-54 K Specific gravity Amine value
(Epoxy catalyst) (20 °C) (KOH mg/g)
0.97–0.99 610–630
produced and tested in accordance with ASTM standard test meth-
ods [17,18].
2.2.2. Polymer concrete
The recommended ratio of binder to aggregate (coarse + filler)
for polymer concrete is typically 1:3.7 [8]. However, it was
reported in a previous study that problems could occur with the
mixing properties and liquidity of polymer concrete if PPC was pro-
duced with this mixture ratio. It was also reported that the overall
performance of PPC could be improved if the ratio of coarse aggre-
gate to filler aggregate was maintained at a rate of 7:3 by weight
[15]. Therefore, in this study, the mixture ratio between the coarse
and filler aggregates was maintained at 7:3. The container residue
(the runoff amount), the 10-min flow, and the thickness after hard-
ening were each measured for binder-to-aggregate ratios of 1:2.0–
1:3.7 by weight.
The flow and thickness of each mixture were measured in
accordance with ASTM C1362 [19] and ASTM D35649 [20]. How-
ever, a standard method for assessing concrete mixture properties
has yet to be established. Therefore, the properties of the PPC mix-
tures prepared in this study were assessed in accordance with KS
M5000 [21], which includes some approximate test methods
require that 700 g of a PPC specimen be poured into a container
of a specific size and that the PPC’s mixture properties be evaluated
by measuring the residual amount in the container when the PPC
specimen flows out of the container.
2.3. Mechanical and durability tests
2.3.1. Strength tests
Strength tests were carried out to evaluate the performance of
the PPC specimens prepared based on the optimal ratio determined
from the results of the mixing tests. Compressive strength tests
were performed in accordance with ASTM C579 Test Method B
[22]. Several cubic specimens 50  50  50 mm in size
(height  width  length) were produced at room temperature
for use in the compressive strength testing. For comparison with
the compressive strengths of polymer concrete at 3- and 24-h
material ages, as recommended by ACI 548.9-08 [16], the speci-
mens were cured at 23 °C for 3 and 24 h, respectively, before being
subjected to compressive strength testing. Flexural strength test-
ing was performed using prismatic beam samples
25  25  300 mm in size, in accordance with ASTM C580 Test
Method A [23]. The prismatic beam samples were cured at 23 °C
for seven days, and the results of the flexural strength tests were
compared with the epoxy polymer concrete flexural strength value
recommended by ACI 548.5-98 [9]. Various methods can be used to
measure the bond strength. In this study, the bond strength was
measured using the direct pull-off method, for which the specimen
production and measurement procedure are easy. The cylindrical
Hy-Cl Specific gravity
(%, max) (20 °C)
0.05 1.17
Moisture Specific gravity Mercaptan content
(%, max) (20 °C) (%)
0.1 1.29 5.9–7.7
Specific gravity Density
(20 °C) (20 °C, kg/m3)
946.7
Viscosity Water content
(25 °C, mPa
s) (%)
150–250 <0.5
 S. Hong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 127 (2016) 539–545
Table 2
Physical properties of the silica sand and chemical composition of the silica powder.
Physical property Size Specific gravity
(mm) (20 °C)
0.35–0.7 2.64
Chemical composition SiO2 Al2O3
(%) (%)
83.22 10.00
specimens used in the bond strength testing were 50  12 mm in
size (diameter  height), and the specimens were cured at 23 °C
for seven days before testing. The strength of the bond of the spec-
imens to the surface of a prepared steel base was measured. The
bond strength tests were performed in accordance with ASTM
C1583 [24], and the test results were compared with the bond
strength value recommended by ACI 548.9-08 [16].
Tem specimens were prepared for the 3- and 24-h compressive
strength tests. Five specimens were prepared for the flexural
strength tests, and five specimens were prepared for the bond
strength tests. One set of tests consisted of tests of five specimens,
and the average value for three specimens, excluding the highest
and lowest values of the five, was used as the representative value.
2.3.2. Durability tests
A series of tests designed to measure the freeze–thaw durability
of the PPC used in this study was performed in accordance with
ASTM C666 [25]. Prismatic beam samples measuring
100  100  400 mm in size (height  width  length) were used
to measure the fundamental transverse frequency by using the
force resonance method. Specimens that were supported so that
they could freely vibrate in the transverse mode were forced by
an electromechanical driving unit to vibrate, and the response of
each specimen was recorded by a lightweight pickup unit on the
specimen. The driving frequency was varied until the measured
specimen response reached the maximum amplitude. The fre-
quency that induced the maximum response was considered the
fundamental transverse frequency of the specimen.
The specimens used in the freeze–thaw testing and the speci-
mens used in the mechanical strength testing were cured at
23 °C for 14 and 7 days, respectively, in accordance with the rele-
vant ASTM standard test methods [22–25]. After being cured, the
specimens used in the freeze–thaw testing were placed in a
freeze–thaw tester (FTA, Sewon Sys., Ansan, South Korea). Each
freeze–thaw cycle lasted 4 h, and the temperature was set to drop
from 4 °C to 18 °C at the center of each specimen before it rose
again from 18 °C to 4 °C.
Five specimens were prepared for use in the freeze–thaw test-
ing. Fifteen specimens were prepared for use in the compressive,
flexural, and bond strength testing. As with the earlier strength
tests, one set of tests consisted of five individual tests, and the
average value for three specimens after excluding the highest
and lowest values was used as the representative value. The funda-
mental transverse frequencies and mechanical strengths were
measured at 0, 150, and 300 cycles. The relative dynamic moduli
of elasticity (RDME) was calculated from the measured fundamen-
tal transverse frequencies.
3. Mixing test results and discussion
3.1. Binder
The binder was optimized to maximize the tensile strength and
tensile elongation at failure while minimizing the gel time. The
objective was to make the uncured and physical properties of the
optimized binder satisfy the recommendations of ACI 548-08
541
Unit weight Absorption Solid volume Fineness modulus Water content
(kg/m3) (%) (%) (%) (%)
1672 1.56 64.9 2.65 <0.1
Fe2O3 CaO MgO All others
(%) (%) (%) (%)
2.21 0.39 0.19 3.99
[16] and the MLTM (Ministry of Land, Transport, and Maritime
Affairs of South Korea) design code [26], i.e., a viscosity of 700–
2800 mPa
s, a gel time of 20–30 min, a tensile strength of 12–
34 MPa, and a tensile elongation of 30–70%.
Fig. 1 shows the first set of results from the lab tests performed
in the two stages to establish the binder formulation. The results
show that the tensile strength of the binder increases as the hard-
ener content, relative to the primary materials content, increases.
The results of the tensile elongation tests for the binder were con-
trary to those of the tensile strength tests. The tensile elongation
decreased linearly as the hardener content increased. The reason
for this is that the brittleness of the binder increased as the tensile
strength of the binder increased.
The relationship between the tensile strength, tensile elongation,
and rate of the hardener content (the ratio of the hardener content to
the primary materials content) was analyzed using linear regression
analysis. The regression analysis yielded high correlation coeffi-
cients for the tensile strength versus the hardener content
(0.9965) and the tensile elongation versus the hardener content
(0.9904). However, unlike the tensile strength, the gel time did not
decrease linearly with increasing hardener content. As Fig. 1, the
decrease in gel time was divided into three approximately linear
sections (A, B, and C). Of these, Section exhibited the steepest rate
of descent of the gel time with increasing hardener content.
Fig. 1 clearly shows that the ratio of the hardener content to the
primary materials content influences the physical properties of the
binder. If the optimal hardener ratio is selected based on only the
tensile strength and elongation, the value would be approximately
50, as indicated by the two linear regression lines shown in Fig. 1
for the tensile strength and elongation. Kim [15] reported, how-
ever, that there could be an agitation problem when the ratio of
the hardener content to the primary materials content is more than
45% and that this could cause a problem with the use of PPC in con-
struction. This researcher also recommended that a hardener ratio
in the range of approximately 10–30% be used to ensure both the
desired tensile strength and the desired tensile elongation. None
of the gel times measured in this study were within the range
(20–30 min) recommended in the design code [26]. Metallic salts
were therefore added to accelerate the hardening in the second-
stage laboratory tests. Section B, in which the gel time reduction
exhibited the most rapid decrease and in which the desired tensile
strength and elongation were obtained, was determined to be the
best section in which to apply the catalyst.
Fig. 2 shows the tensile strength, elongation, and gel time plotted
with respect to the ratio of the hardener content to the primary
materials content, as well as the effectiveness of the catalyst. The
impact of the catalyst on the physical properties of the binder was
obvious. For a given ratio of the hardener content to the primary
materials content, the tensile strength increased as the amount of
catalyst increased, whereas the tensile elongation and gel time
decreased. These trends were consistent for all of the cases consid-
ered. At a hardener-to-primary materials content ratio of 22%, the
longest gel time and the largest tensile elongation were observed
when the catalyst content was 1%, but the largest tensile strength
was observed when the catalyst content was 3%. For a given
hardener content, however, the variation in the tensile strength with
542 S. Hong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 127 (2016) 539–545

16 360
0 8
.27

Tensile elongation [%], Gel time [min]

+3
10 % 22 % 7 43x 965 320
14 a 0.2 0.9
y= R=
Considered range
280
Tensile strength [MPa]
12
240
10 Tensile strength
b Tensile elongation 200
8 Gel time
160
6
y=- 120
4 .1 0
2
4 R = 6x + 224
0 .9 9
04 .25 80
c
2 40

0 0
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 30 33 36 39 43
Hardener/main material [wt.%]
Fig. 1. Effects of the ratio of hardener content to primary materials content on the gel time, tensile strength, and elongation.

20 70

Tensile elongation or Catalyst [%], Gel time [min]

Optimal ratio
Tensile strength
18 Tensile elongation
11% 60
Gel time
16
Catalyst
Tensile strength [MPa]

10.6% -28.6%
14 50
-10.6%
12 11.1%
7.1% 40
e
10 -30% 19.5%
30
8 Gel time recommended
in the design code
6 20
-52%
4 -42.1%
-47.1%
-37.5%
10
2
2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3
1 1 1 1
0 0
10 10 10 15 15 15 20 20 20 22 22 22
Hardener/main material [wt.%]
Fig. 2. Effect of the ratio of hardener content to primary materials content and the catalyst content on the gel time, tensile strength, and elongation.

variation in the catalyst content was less significant than the varia- Table 3
tions in the tensile elongation and gel time, as shown in Fig. 2. In Comparison of the ACI/MLTM recommendations and the binder test results.
addition, the gel time recommended in the design code [26] was Tests ACI 548-08/MLTM Binder test
achieved only when the hardener-to-primary materials ratio and Viscosity (mPa
s) 700–2800 1453
catalyst content were 22 and 1%, respectively. Therefore, the binder Gel time (min) 20–30 25
formulation selected, based on the test results, included a hardener- Tensile strength (MPa) 12–34 16.3
to-primary materials ratio of 22% and a catalyst content of 1%. Tensile elongation (%) 30–70 66
Multiple binder specimens were produced using the optimal
ratio determined from the laboratory test results shown in Fig. 2.
Next, the viscosity, gel time, tensile strength, and tensile elonga- mixing properties of PPC, increases linearly with the ratio of the
tion of the specimens were assessed. The results were compared binder content to the aggregate content. A higher amount of con-
with the values recommended in ACI 548-08 [16] and the design tainer residue corresponds to poorer mixing properties. In fact,
code (MLTM) [26] and are presented in Table 3. The test results concretes with high container residues pose difficulties during
were satisfactory. the stirring process. However, the lower the binder content ratio
is, the smaller the 10-min flow value is. Thus, to achieve good mix-
3.2. Polymer concrete ing and flowability of the polymer concrete, a ratio of 1:3.0, which
is close to the ratio of 1:2.98 that corresponds to the point at which
As Fig. 3 shows, the container residue, which is the amount of the linear regression equations for the container residue and flowa-
residual material in the container and indirectly represents the bility values shown in Fig. 3 intersect, should be selected.
 S. Hong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 127 (2016) 539–545 543

440 Intersection at the ratio

Container residue [g] or 10 min flow [mm]

Container residue 4 14
1 : 2.98 .2
76

Thickness after hardening [mm]

10-min flow
400
x -2 4
Thickness after hardening 6 0
0.7 .98
360 17 = 0 12
Optimal ratio y= R
320
y = -6 10
280 0.02x
R = 0.9 + 411.26
890
240 8
200
6
160
120 4
80
2
40
0 0
1:2.0 1:2.5 1:3.0 1:3.5 1:3.7
Binder/aggregate ratio
Fig. 3. Effect of the binder/aggregate ratio on the residue, flow, and thickness.

However, some bubbles and separation of materials that could
have a detrimental effect on the durability of PPC after curing were
observed with the naked eye in the PPC specimens produced with
the aforementioned ratio of 1:3.0 between the binder and the aggre-
gates. Furthermore, because the PPC specimens produced at a ratio
of 1:2.0 were too thin compared to the other specimens, there were
concerns that they would pose usability problems after construc-
tion. The change in the thickness of the specimens was due to the
contraction of PPC during the curing process. The final aggregate
ratio, selected based on the test results and the various considera-
tions discussed previously, was 1:2.5. The optimal mixture propor-
tions determined for the binder and the PPC are listed in Table 4.
4. Strength and durability test results and discussion
4.1. Strength tests
The results of the laboratory tests conducted to measure the
strength of the PPC specimens produced with the optimal mixture
proportions listed in Table 4 are shown in the bar graph in Fig. 4.
The test results satisfied the strength recommendation in the ACI
guidelines [9,16]. The compressive and flexural strengths
(41.4 MPa and 23.4 MPa, respectively) were greater than those
reported for acrylic polymer in earlier studies (22 MPa and
7 MPa, respectively) [27]. The test results also showed that the
compressive and flexural strengths of the PPC specimens produced
with the optimal mixture proportions listed in Table 4 were greater
than those reported for PPC in another study (39 MPa and 14 MPa,
respectively) [14].
4.2. Durability tests
4.2.1. Variation in the relative dynamic modulus of elasticity
The fundamental transverse frequencies measured after various
numbers of freeze–thaw cycles and the change in the relative
dynamic modulus of elasticity (RDME) calculated from the mea-
surement results are shown in Fig. 5. The figure shows that the fun-
damental transverse frequency decreased by an average of 2.67%
between the start of the freeze–thaw testing and the 150th
freeze–thaw cycle but only decreased by 0.17% between the
150th and 300th freeze–thaw cycles. In other words, beyond 150
freeze–thaw cycles, the number of freeze–thaw cycles did not
decrease the fundamental transverse frequency significantly. In
addition, the RDME was calculated from the measured fundamen-
tal transverse frequencies. The calculated values were, on average,
94.8% at 150 cycles and 94.5% at 300 cycles. It was therefore con-
cluded that the decrease in the resistance of PPC to rapidly
repeated cycles of freezing and thawing was negligible.
4.2.2. Variation in strength
Fig. 6 shows the compressive, flexural, and bond strengths of
the PPC specimens after various numbers of freeze–thaw cycles.
As the figure shows, the mechanical strength of PPC decreases stea-
dily as the number of freeze–thaw cycles increases. The results
show that the rate at which the bond strength decreases over a
given number of freeze–thaw cycles is higher than the rates at
which the compressive and flexural strengths decrease. It can also
be deduced from Fig. 6 that the strengths are linearly related to the
freeze–thaw cycles for the range of cycles considered. The correla-
tion between the number of freeze–thaw cycles and the compres-
sive, tensile, and bond strengths was analyzed using linear
regression. The results showed strong correlations between the
number of freeze–thaw cycles and the compressive strength
(0.9771), the tensile strength (0.9948, and the bond strength
(0.9918). These correlation coefficients suggest that an increasing
number of freeze–thaw cycles is closely related to decreases in var-
ious measures of strength.
Accordingly, the number of freeze–thaw cycles at which PPC
produced using the mix design described herein would satisfy
the strength recommendations of the ACI [9,16] was calculated

Table 4
Optimal mixture proportions for binder and PPC.

Binder content Binder formation (wt.%) Filler Aggregate

(wt.%) Bisphenol A epoxy resin Polysulfide liquid polymer Hardener Catalyst (wt.%) (wt.%)
28.60 13.98 9.32 5.1 0.2 21.40 50.00
544 S. Hong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 127 (2016) 539–545

50
Present study
ACI recommendation

41.4
40

34.0

Strength [MPa] 30

23.4

20

14.0

10 9.6
7.0

4.4
1.7
0
Comp. (3 h) Comp. (24 h) Flexural Bond
Mechanical properties
Fig. 4. Comparison of specimen strengths with ACI recommendations.

Relative dynamic modulus of elasticity [%]

Frequency RDME
Fundamental transverse frequency [Hz]

10400 No. 1 No. 1

98
No. 2 No. 2
No. 3 No. 3

Ave. Ave.
10000
Ave. 96.1
9838.9 96.0 96

9600 -2.67% 94.7

94.1 94
Ave. -0.17% 93.5
9200 9204.4 93.3
Ave. 9055.6
94.8 94.5
8800 92

0 150 300 150 300

Freeze-thaw [cycle]
Fig. 5. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on the fundamental transverse frequencies and RDME of PPC.

using the linear regression equations presented in Fig. 6. The calcu- laboratory tests, therefore, metallic salts were added to
lated numbers of cycles were 413, 711, and 343 for the compres- accelerate the gel time. The content of metallic salts was
sive, flexural, and bond strengths, respectively. These results approximately 1–3% of the primary materials by weight.
suggest that some problems may arise as a result of the low The optimal ratio of the binder that satisfied all the test
freeze–thaw durability of PPC relative to its compressive strength requirements was determined with the addition of the
and bond strength, should the PPC be used in existing or new catalyst.
building structures in environments in which high levels of expo- (2) After PPC specimens were produced with the optimal binder
sure to freeze–thaw cycles were expected. formulation, the container residue, 10-min flow, and thick-
ness after hardening were measured. Based on the test
5. Conclusions results, a 1:2.5 ratio of the binder to the aggregates was
determined to be optimal.
The following conclusions were drawn from the results of the (3) The mechanical strength values of the PPC specimens pre-
mixture, strength, and freeze–thaw experiments on PPC specimens pared at the optimal mixing ratio suggested in this paper
performed in this study: were greater than the strength values recommended by
the design code.
(1) A series of laboratory tests was performed in two stages to (4) Exposure to accelerated freeze–thaw cycles had a significant
determine the optimal formulation of the binder. The results effect on the mechanical strength of PPC, but this was not
of the first stage of laboratory tests confirmed that a hard- the case for the relative dynamic modulus of elasticity. This
ener alone could not satisfy the gel time requirement for indicates that there is a durability issue associated with PPC
the various test conditions considered. In the second-stage under freeze–thaw conditions. The results of the tests
 S. Hong et al. / Construction and Building Materials 127 (2016) 539–545 545

60 28
Compressive strength
26

Flexural and bond strength [MPa]

Flexural strength
y = -0.0187x + 41.722 9.9% 16.8%
50 Bond strength 24

Compressive strength [MPa]

R = 0.9771
y = -0.0131x + 23.303
22
4.2% 13.6% R = 0.9948 20
40 18
16
30 ACI recommendation: 14
Over 34 MPa
ACI recommendation: 12
Over 14 MPa
20 y = -0.0076x + 4.305 10
R = 0.9918
8
6
31.8% 52.0%
10 4
ACI recommendation: 2
Over 1.7 MPa
0 0
0 150 300 0 150 300 0 150 300
Freeze-thaw [cycle]
Fig. 6. Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on the compressive, flexural, and bond strengths.

showed that there could be a problem with the compressive
and bond strengths of PPC at high numbers of freeze–thaw
cycles (more than 300 cycles). Therefore, care needs to be
taken when PPC is employed in structures constructed in
regions in which high numbers of freeze–thaw cycles occur.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Pro-
gram through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
and funded by the Ministry of Education (2013R1A1A2059122).
And this work was also supported by the National Research Foun-
dation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government
(MSIP) (No. 2011-0030040).
References
[1] M.M. Ali, K.S. Moon, Structural developments in tall buildings: Current trends
and future prospects, Archit. Sci. Rev. 50 (3) (2007) 205–223.
[2] P.C. Das, D.M. Frangopol, A.S. Nowak, Current and Future Trends in Bridge
Design, Construction, and Maintenance 2, Thomas Telford, London, UK, 2001.
[3] K.F. Meyer, F.K. Lawrence, Lightweight concrete reduces the weight and
increases the span length of pre-tensioned concrete bridge girders, PCI J. 47 (1)
(2002) 68–75.
[4] E. Kirlikovali, Polymer/concrete composites: A review, Polym. Eng. Sci. 21 (8)
(1981) 507–509.
[5] Y. Ohama, Recent progress in concrete-polymer composites, Adv. Cem. Based
Mater. 5 (2) (1997) 31–40.
[6] J.M.L. Reis, A.J.M. Ferreira, Freeze-thaw and thermal degradation influence on
the fracture properties of carbon- and glass fiber-reinforced polymer concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (10) (2006) 888–892.
[7] N. Ahn, Moisture sensitivity of polyester and acrylic polymer concrete with
metallic monomer powders, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 107 (2008) 319–323.
[8] ACI Committee 548, Report on Polymer-modified Concrete (ACI 548.3-09),
American Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA, 2009.
[9] ACI Committee 548, Guide for Polymer Concrete Overlays (ACI 548.5-98),
American Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA, 1998.
[10] AASHTO, Guide Specifications for Polymer Concrete Bridge Deck Overlays,
AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Task Force 34 Report, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, USA, 1995.
[11] A.M. Dinitz, S.S. Michael, The successful use of thin polysulfide epoxy polymer
concrete overlays on concrete and steel orthotropic bridge decks, in:
Proceedings of the 2010 Structures Congress, Orlando, May 2010, 2010, pp.
530–540.
[12] S.S. Michael, J.C. Arif, Thin polysulfide epoxy bridge deck overlays, Transp. Res.
Rec. 1749 (2001) 64–67.
[13] FHWA, Understanding and Mitigating the Effects of Chloride Deicer Exposure
on Concrete. Report No. FHWA-OR-RD-15-08, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, USA, 2014.
[14] J.H. Kim, Y.C. Suh, Laboratory evaluation of the polysulfide epoxy overlay
material for bridge decks, J. Korean Soc. Road Eng. 13 (2) (2011) 159–166.
[15] HJ. Kim, The Physical Properties of Polymer Concrete for Ultra-thin Bridge
Deck Pavements (M.E. thesis), Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea, 2013.
[16] ACI Committee 548, Specifications for Type-ES (Epoxy Slurry) Polymer
Overlays for Bridge and Parking Garage Decks (ACI 548.9-08), American
Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA, 2008.
[17] ASTM D 638, Standard Test Method for the Tensile Properties of Plastics,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA, 2010.
[18] ASTM C881, Standard Specifications of Epoxy-Resin-Base Bonding Systems for
Concrete, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA,
2014.
[19] ASTM C1362, Standard Test Method for the Flow of Freshly Mixed Hydraulic
Cement Concrete, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania,
USA, 2009.
[20] ASTM D3549, Standard Test Method for the Thickness or Height of Compacted
Bituminous Paving Mixture Specimens, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Pennsylvania, USA, 2003.
[21] KS M5000, Testing Method for Organic Coatings and Their Related Materials
Seoul, Korea:, Korean Industrial Standards (2014).
[22] ASTM C579, Standard Test Methods for the Compressive Strength of Chemical-
resistant Mortars, Grouts, Monolithic Surfacings, and Polymer Concretes,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA, 2012.
[23] ASTM C580, Standard Test Method for the Flexural Strength and Modulus of
Elasticity of Chemical-resistant Mortars, Grouts, Monolithic Surfacings, and
Polymer Concretes, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania,
USA, 2012.
[24] ASTM C1583, Standard Test Method for the Tensile Strength of Concrete
Surfaces and the Bond Strength or Tensile Strength of Concrete Repair and
Overlay Materials by Direct Tension (Pull-off Method), American Society for
Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA, 2008.
[25] ASTM C666, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing
and Thawing, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA,
2008.
[26] MLTM, Bridge Deck Pavement Design and Construction, Ministry of Land,
Transport, and Maritime Affairs, Seoul, Korea, 2011.
[27] T.W. Kim, D.Y. Kim, M.T. Nguyen, H.J. Lee, A study on the physical
characteristics of acryl concretes for thin bridge deck pavements, J. Korean
Soc. Road Eng. 11 (3) (2009) 1–11.