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

net/publication/268803424

Modified Slant Shear Test to Enforce Adhesive Failure

Conference Paper · July 2012

CITATIONS READS

6 3,944

4 authors, including:

Eduardo Nuno Brito Santos Júlio Daniel Dias-da-Costa

Instituto Superior Técnico The University of Sydney
374 PUBLICATIONS 6,608 CITATIONS 179 PUBLICATIONS 2,648 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pedro M D Santos

33 PUBLICATIONS 1,239 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Nuno Brito Santos Júlio on 26 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MODIFIED SLANT SHEAR TEST TO ENFORCE ADHESIVE FAILURE
Rui F.S.M. Saldanha Eduardo N.B.S. Júlio Daniel Dias-da-Costa
ICIST & Dept. of Civil ICIST & DECivil, Instituto INESC & Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of Superior Técnico, TULisbon Engineering,
Coimbra Lisbon, University of Coimbra
Coimbra, Portugal Portugal Coimbra, Portugal
rsaldanha@dec.uc.pt ejulio@civil.ist.utl.pt dias-da-costa@dec.uc.pt

Pedro M.D. Santos

ICIST & Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Polytechnic Institute of Leiria
Leiria,
Portugal
pedro.santos@ipleiria.pt

KEYWORDS: Adhesive, failure, slant shear

ABSTRACT
Presently, there are several tests available to evaluate the adhesion between concrete layers cast at
different times. Among these, the slant shear test (SST) has a wide spread use, mainly for being sensitive
to the roughness of the interface surface and also for being a shear test, thus better simulating real
conditions. However, this test presents as major drawback the fact that two different failure modes can be
obtained: i) an adhesive failure (at the interface); or ii) a cohesive failure (monolithic). In fact, in the latter
case, common for rough interfaces, only a lower estimate of the interface strength is obtained. In order to
enforce adhesive failure, the authors developed the herein called ‘Modified Slant Shear Test’ (Modified-
SST). Specimens are essentially the same of those defined in most standards, with the only difference of
having reinforced concrete halves. Experimental tests that have been conducted to assess the viability of
this modified method are described and results are presented and discussed. An advanced FEM-based
numerical model has also been used. Finally, all relevant conclusions are presented. From these, the
following has to be highlighted: the Modified-SST can be used to accurately assess the adhesion of
concrete-to-concrete interfaces, since adhesive failure is always enforced.

INTRODUCTION
The bond strength of the interface between concrete layers cast at different times is important to ensure
the monolithic behaviour of reinforced concrete composite members. Structural interfaces are crucial for:
i) repairing/strengthening of existing concrete structures; and ii) composite precast concrete members
with cast-in-place parts. In these composite structures, the bond strength of the interface has to be higher
than acting shear forces in order to achieve a monolithic behaviour.

Presently, there are different experimental tests available to evaluate the behaviour of concrete-to-
concrete interfaces. These can be classified according to the stress state at the interface in the following
groups: i) tension; ii) bending; and iii) shear. In Table 1 the tests available for each of the referred groups
are listed.

In order to evaluate the bond strength in shear, the SST (Figure 1), has a wide spread use due to: i) the
simplicity of the experimental set-up; and also to ii) the fact that the interface is subjected to a combined
shear and compressive stress state, similarly to what happens in real structures (Clímaco and Regan,
2001).
 Table 1: Tests available to assess concrete-to-concrete bond strength
Tests Standards Research
(EN 1542, 2000)
Pull-off (ASTM C1583, 2004) -
(BS 1881: Part 207, 1992)
Tension
Direct (ASTM C1404, 2003)
-
Tension (CAN/CSA A23.2-6B, 1990)
(EN 12390-6, 2004)
Splitting -
(ASTM C496, 2004)
(Wall et al, 1986)
EN 12189, 2000 (Abu-Tair et al, 1996)
Bending -
EN 12636, 2001 (Kunieda et al, 2000)
(Kamada et al, 2000)
Direct Shear (Li et al, 1997)
-
Test (Chen et al, 1995)
Bi-surface
- (Momayez et al, 2005)
Shear Test
Shear
SST See Table 2
(Hofbeck et al, 1969)
Push-off - (Mattock, 1974)
(Crane, 2010)

Figure 1: SST Scheme

Equations (1) and (2) define the acting shear and normal average stresses at the interface due to axial
loading, respectively:
P ⋅ cos α ⋅ sin α
τ= (1)
a2

P ⋅ sin 2 α
σ= (2)
a2
where ‘τ’ is the average shear stress at the interface; ‘σ’ is the average normal stress at the interface; ‘P’ is
the compressive load; ‘α’ is the interface angle with the vertical; and ‘a’ is the cross section edge
dimension when prismatic specimens are adopted.

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SLANT SHEAR TEST

Originaly proposed in a cylinder-shaped specimen (Kriegh, 1976), the SST was used to evaluate the bond
strength in shear of epoxy based resins. Later on a prismatic version was adopted (Tabor, 1978) for
studying the bond strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces.

In Table 2 are listed the available standards that define the SST specimen.

Table 2: Standards available for the SST

Code Cross Section Total Height (H) Angle with the
Vertical (α)
100×100 mm2 400 mm 30º
BS EN 12615, 1999
40×40 mm2 160 mm 30º
Italian standard
(reported in Clímaco 70×70 mm2 200 mm 17º
and Regan, 2001)
NFP18-872
(reported in Clímaco 100 × 100 mm2 300 mm 30º
and Regan, 2001)
ASTM C882, 1999 75 mm diameter 150 mm 30º

Comparing these, it is observed that all adopt a 30º interface angle with the vertical, except the Italian
Standard, and that major differences exist regarding the specimen geometry.

Two research works must be mentioned when referring to the SST geometry optimisation: i) Clímaco
and Regan (2001), who studied the influence of the interface angle in the failure mode and ii) Santos,
(2009), who performed a numerical study aiming to optimise the geometry of the specimen, namely the
base height of the specimen (hmin in Figure 1) .

Two different failure mechanisms can occur on a SST: i) cohesive or monolithic failure (see Figure 2);
and ii) adhesive or interfacial failure (see Figure 3).

Figure 2: Cohesive failure Figure 3: Adhesive failure

These failure mechanisms are reported on different research studies. According to Austin et al. (1999), the
normal/shear stress ration and the interface angle with the vertical are extremely important to the ultimate
load and failure mode. Furthermore, it is suggested that different interface angles are studied for each
surface treatment in order to obtain a bond failure envelope.

In Clímaco and Regan (2001), a Mohr Coulomb failure criterion was adopted to select a critical angle to
ensure adhesive failure. Then, 223 tests were performed adopting three different angles (0º, 20º and
26.7º). Even though a 20º angle was defined to always obtain adhesive failures, cohesive failures were
also reported. Furthermore, even when the angle is the lowest possible (0º), cohesive failures were still
observed. From this study, it can be stated that: i) the interface angle plays an important role in the failure
mode; and ii) it is not always possible to obtain adhesive failure by adequately defining this parameter.

In Júlio et al. (2006), SST specimens were produced in order to verify the role of differential stiffness in
the shear strength of concrete-to-concrete interfaces. The substrate concrete was kept constant, with
30 MPa compressive strength, whereas three types of concrete were used for the added concrete layer
with the following compressive strengths: 30 MPa, 50 MPa and 100 MPa. The surface roughness was
increased with sand-blasting, being observed that specimens with the same concrete at both halves
(30/30) presented adhesive failures whereas others (30/50 and 30/100) presented cohesive failure, proving
the influence of differential stiffness on the failure type.

In Santos and Júlio (2011), two failures types (cohesive and adhesive) are also referred to. Moreover, it
was observed that the number of cohesive failures increases with the increase in the surface roughness. It
was also stated that the number of cohesive failures rises with increasing differential stiffness. Differential
shrinkage was also analysed by means of different curing conditions and different ages between the
substrate and the added concrete layer. It was also concluded that this parameter influences the failure
type.

In summary, the type of failure is influenced by the: i) interface angle (Clímaco and Regan, 2001);
ii) interface roughness (Júlio et al, 2004); iii) differential stiffness between both concrete parts, i.e. the
substrate and the added concrete layer (Júlio et al, 2006; Santos and Júlio, 2011); and iv) differential
shrinkage (Santos and Júlio, 2011).

MODIFIED SLANT SHEAR TEST

In general, when designing a connection, the identification of the weakest component should be the first
step since this will constrain the ultimate strength of the connection and also the failure type. In the case
of the SST, three main components can be identified: i) the interface; ii) the substrate concrete; and iii)
the added concrete. If a cohesive failure occurs, it means that the weakest component is the concrete with
the lowest compressive strength. In this case, adhesive failure can only be obtained if the halves are
strengthened. This can easily be achieved if reinforcement is provided to each concrete half of the SST
specimen, preventing cohesive failures due to the Poisson effect.

Specimen
Taking into consideration the previously mentioned research, the geometry adopted for the Modified-SST
was chosen. The specimen size is 150×150×600 mm3. The vertical angle is 30º which leads to a base
height of 170 mm. The reinforcement is composed by 6 mm stirrups which are held in place by a
secondary reinforcement. The adopted reinforcement is depicted in Figures 4a) and 4b). Concrete cover
was defined to reach good bond conditions between concrete and reinforcement, over 10 mm, according
to Eurocode 2 (2004).
 a) b)
Figure 4: Reinforcement used in the Slant Shear specimens

Numerical model
In order to verify if the stress distribution at the interface is influenced by the steel reinforcement, a
numerical study was performed using a finite element package for bidimensinal problems related to
structural interfaces and quasi-brittle failure (Dias-da-Costa et al 2009a-b).

Two linear elastic plane stress models have been considered (with and without reinforcement) using
492 bilinear finite elements for concrete (Figure 5a). At the interface, 15 two-node zero thickness finite
elements, connecting each half of the specimen, have been considered. Finally, the reinforcement was
simulated with 197 linear truss elements (Figure 5b). A 2x2 Gaussian integration scheme was adopted for
bilinear elements, whereas a 2-Point Newton-Cotes scheme was adopted for the interface elements to
avoid numerical inconsistencies.

The following material properties have been considered: i) a Young’s modulus of 30 GPa and a Poisson
ratio of 0.2, for current concrete; ii) a Young’s modulus of 200 GPa, for steel; and iii) a normal and a
shear stiffness of 105N/ mm3 each, for the interface which ensures the monolithic behaviour occurring
before loosing adhesion.

The boundary conditions (schematically represented in Figure 5c), have been selected to simulate the
loading the experimental test, i.e.: i) vertical and horizontal displacements prevented at the lower surface
of the specimen; ii) horizontal displacements prevented at the upper surface; and iii) a vertical load,
uniformly distributed at the upper surface.
 Δx = 0
Δy ≠ 0

Δx = 0
Δy = 0

a) b) c)
Figure 5: Finite element mesh: a) plain concrete; b) reinforcement steel;
c) concrete and reinforcement.
Analysing the numerical results, it is observed that stresses at the interface are almost the same in both
models (see Figure 6), meaning that the reinforcement does not interfere with the behaviour of the
interface.
16

12
Stress (MPa)

8
M-SST: shear stress
M-SST: normal stress
4
Plain specimen: shear stress
Plain specimen: normal stress
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Horizontal distance along the interface (mm)

Figure 6: Normal and shear stress at the interface for plain and reinforced model.
Experimental results
The most unfavorable situation has been selected to verify the efficiency of the Modified-SST, consisting
in monolithic specimens (without a structural interface) which have been tested in two different
situations: plain and reinforced (see Figure 7a and 7b). Tests were performed at 7 days of age using a
5000 kN universal testing machine and a loading rate of 5 kN/s.
 a) b)
Figure 7: Casted specimens: a) without; and b) with reinforcement (Modified-SST)
The experimentally obtained failure mechanisms are represented in Figure 8, where both cracks and
reinforcement have been highlighted. It is observed that the crack angle changes from 13º, for plain
specimens, to approximately 30º, for reinforced specimens. Therefore, it can be immediately concluded
that the Modified-SST effectively avoids cohesive failure (Figure 8a) and enforces adhesive failure in the
worst scenario (Figure 8b).

a) b)
Figure 8: Failure mechanism for specimens a) without reinforcement (cohesive);
b) with reinforcement (adhesive)

Additional experimental tests were also carried out in order to test the efficiency of the Modified-SST.
The Modified-SST was compared with the SST considering two different conditions for the interface,
namely: i) a Hand Scrubbed (HS) surface; and ii) surface presenting waviness (W), produced by being
casted against a wavy formwork. The second halves were casted at seven days of age of the first ones and
the load tests were performed seven days after that. Both surfaces were measured with a 2D Laser
Roughness Analyser (Santos and Júlio, 2008) and the corresponding roughness parameters have been
computed. In Figures 9 and 10 the surface profiles for both treatments are plotted.
6
5
4

Amplitude (mm)
3

Amplitude (mm)
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Position along the evaluation length (mm)

Figure 9: Roughness profile of the HS surface

4

2
Amplitude (mm)
Amplitude (mm)

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Position along the evaluation length (mm)

Figure 10: Roughness profile of the W surface

The average values of the roughess parameters are presented in Table 3, as well the standard deviation
(STD) and the coefficient of variation (COV).

Table 3 – Rougness parameters

HS W
Roughness
Parameter AVG STD COV AVG STD COV
(mm) (mm) (%) (mm) (mm) (%)
Ra 1.174 0.196 16.7 1.737 0.026 1.5
Rz(DIN) 5.898 0.481 8.1 5.893 0.119 2.0
Rmax 8.637 1.995 23.1 6.583 0.355 5.4
R3z 5.585 0.224 4.0 5.865 0.115 2.0
R3zmax 7.547 0.770 10.2 6.551 0.349 5.3
Rz(ISO) 9.314 1.176 12.6 6.652 0.292 4.4
Ry 10.094 1.861 18.4 6.682 0.293 4.4
Rq 1.536 0.199 12.9 1.955 0.029 1.5
Rpm 3.463 0.186 5.4 2.961 0.053 1.8
Rp 5.273 0.341 6.5 3.502 0.223 6.4
Rvm 2.434 0.458 18.8 2.933 0.075 2.6
Rv 4.822 1.881 39.0 3.181 0.089 2.8

The failure load results in compression are represented in Table 4. The corresponding average (AVG),
standard deviation (STD) and coefficient of variation (COV) are also provided for each situation.
 Table 4: Experimental results of the failure load in compression
Compressive
Failure load
Strength (MPa) of
Surface in AVG STD COV
Test Concrete
Treatment compression (kN) (kN) (%)
Substrate Added (kN)

679.2
SST 627.9 576.8 135.5 23.5
423.2
HS 36.9 32.5
598.5
Modified-
636.0 606.2 26.8 4.4
SST
584.1
665.6
SST 423.3 564.9 126.2 22.3
605.9
W 35.5 37.3
625.9
Modified-
564.4 594.8 30.8 5.2
SST
594.2

From the presented results it can be concluded that: i) the Modified-SST specimens present higher AVG
values of bond strength for the same treatment than the SST specimens; ii) the Modified-SST specimens
present lower STD and COV values; and iii) the Modified-SST specimens presented adhesive failures
while the SST ones presented cohesive failures.

CONCLUSIONS
Constant modifications in the SST were made by different researchers since 1976, in order to best fit their
goals. A direct consequence is the extreme difficulty in comparing experimental results. Furthermore, in
spite of the several proposals the SST failure type cannot be controlled by simply adjusting the geometry
and/or the interface angle since it also depends on the: i) interface roughness; ii) differential stiffness; and
iii) differential shrinkage. Therefore, a new Modified-SST has been herein proposed which aims at:
i) ensuring a uniform stress distribution at the interface; and ii) inducing adhesive failure. Using a
numerical simulation, it was shown that the reinforcement does not modify the stress distribution at the
interface. Furthermore, the experimental programme showed that adhesive failures can always be
obtained even for the most unfavourable scenario, which consists of monolithic specimens.

In summary, the Modified-SST can be successfully used to accurately assess the adhesion of concrete-to-
concrete interfaces.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research project has been funded by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) with
reference PTDC/ECM/098497/2008.

REFERENCES
Abu-Tair, A.I., Rigden, S.R. and Burley, E. - Testing the Bond Between Repair Materials and Concrete
Substrate, American Concrete Institute, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 6, pp. 53-58,
November-December 1996.
ASTM C 1404 - Standard test method for bond strength of adhesive systems used with concrete as
measured by direct tension, American Society for Testing Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West
Conshohocken, PA 19428, USA, 2003.
ASTM C1583 - Standard test method for tensile strength of concrete surface and the bond strength or
tensile strength of concrete repair and overlay materials by direct tension (pull-off method).
American Society for Testing Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr.,West Conshohocken, PA 19428,
USA, 2004.
ASTM C496 - Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,
American Society for Testing Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken, PA 19428,
USA, 2004.
ASTM C882 - Standard Test Method for Bond Strength of Epoxy-Resin Systems Used With Concrete by
Slant Shear, American Society for Testing Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Dr., West Conshohocken,
PA 19428, USA, 1999.
Austin, S., Robins, P.,Pan, Y. - Shear bond testing of concrete repairs, Elsevier, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 29, No. 7, pp. 1067-1076, July 1999.
BS 1881: Part 207 - Testing the Interface Bond Strength Between Existing and New Concrete. British
Standards Institution BSI, London1992.
BS EN 12615:1999 - Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures - Test
methods - Determination of Slant Shear Strength. 1999.
CAN/CSA, A23.2-6B - Methods of Test to Determine Adhesion by Tensile Load, Canadian National
Standard, Canadian Standards Association 1990.
Chen, P.W., Fu, X, Chung, D.D.L. - Improving the Bonding Between Old and New Concrete by Adding
Carbon Fibers to the New Concrete. Pergamon, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 25, No. 3,
pp. 491-496, April 1995.
Clímaco, J.C.T.S., Regan, P.E. - Evaluation of Bond Strength Between Old and New Concrete in
Structural Repairs, Thomas Telford, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol 53, No. 6, pp 377-390,
December 2001.
Crane, C.K. - Shear and Shear Friction of Ultra-High Performance Concrete Bridge Girders [PhD thesis],
Georgia Institute of Technology; 2010.
Dias-da-Costa, D., Alfaiate, J., Sluys, L.J., Júlio, E.N.B.S. - A Discrete Strong Discontinuity Approach,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 76, No. 9, pp. 1176-1201 June 2009a.
Dias-da-Costa, D., Alfaiate, J., Sluys, L.J., Júlio, E.N.B.S - Towards a generalization of a discrete strong
discontinuity approach. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol 198, No.
47-48 , pp. 3670-81, October 2009b.
EN 1542 - Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures - Test Methods -
Measurement of bond strength by pull-off, 2000.
EN 1992-1-1 - Eurocode 2 - Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings, European Committee for Standardization, 2004, 225 p. (with corrigendum dated of 16
January 2008).
EN 12189 - Products and Systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures – Test methods –
Determination of open time. 2000.
EN 12390-3 - Testing Hardened Concrete Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens, Portuguese
Institute for Quality, December 2003, 21 p. (in Portuguese).
EN 12390-6 - Testing hardened concrete - Part 6.: Tensile splitting strength of test specimens. Portuguese
Institute for Quality, January 2004, 14 p. (in Portuguese).
EN 12636 - Products and Systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures – Test methods –
Determination of adhesion concrete to concrete. 2001.
Hofbeck, J.A., Ibrahim, I.O., Mattock, A.H. - Shear transfer in Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 119-128, February 1969.
Júlio, E.N.B.S., Branco, F.A.B., Silva, V.D. - Concrete-to-concrete bond strength. Influence of the
roughness of the substrate surface, Elsevier, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 18, No. 9,
pp. 675-681, November 2004.
Júlio, E.N.B.S., Branco, F.A., Silva, V.D., Lourenço, J.F. - Influence of added concrete compressive
strength on adhesion to an existing concrete substrate, Elsevier, Building and Environment, Vol.
41, No. 12, pp. 1934-1939, December 2006.
Kamada, T., Li, V.C. - The Effects of Surface Preparation on the Fracture Behavior of ECC/Concrete
Repair System, Elsevier, Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 423-431, December
2000.
Kriegh, J.D. - Arizona Slant Shear Test: A Method to Determine Epoxy Bond Strength, American
Concrete Institute, Journal of the American Concrete Institute, Vol. 73, No. 3 pp. 372-373, 1976.
Kunieda, M., Kurihara, N., Uchida, Y. and Rokugo, K. - Application of Tension Softening Diagrams to
Evaluation of Bond Properties at Concrete Interfaces, Pergamon, Engineering Fracture Mechanics,
Vol. 65, No. 2-3, pp. 299-315, January 2000.
Li, S., Geissert, D.G., Frantz, G.C., Stephens, J.E. - Durability and Bond of High Performance Concrete
and Repaired Portland Cement Concrete, Joint Highway Research Advisory Council, Project JHR
97-257, University of Connecticut, 232 p., USA, June 1997.
Mattock, A.H. - Shear Transfer in Concrete Having Reinforcement at an Angle to the Shear Plane,
American Concrete Institute, Special Publication Vol 42, No.2, pp. 17-42, January 1974.
Momayez, A., Ehsani, M.R., Ramezanianpour, A.A, Rajaie, H. - Comparison of methods for evaluating
bond strength between concrete substrate and repair materials. Elsevier, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 748-757, April 2005.
Naderi, M. - Analysis of the Slant Shear Test. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, Vol. 23, No.
2, pp. 229 – 245, 2009.
Santos, P., 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, Vol. 60, No. 5, pp.
329-337, June 2008.
Santos, P. - Assessment of the Shear Strength Between Concrete Layers [PhD thesis]. Coimbra:
University of Coimbra; 2009.
Santos, P., Júlio, E.N.B.S. - Factors Affecting Bond Between New and Old Concrete, American Concrete
Institute, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 108, No. 4, pp. 449-456, July 2011.
Tabor, L.J. - Evaluation of Resin Systems for Concrete Repair, Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 30,
No. 105, pp. 117-125, December 1978.
Wall, J.S., Shrive, N.G. and Gamble, B.R. - Testing of Bond Between Fresh and Hardened Concrete,
International Symposium on Adhesion Between Polymers and Concrete: Bonding, Protection,
Repair, RILEM Technical Committee 52 - Resin Adherence to Concrete and Laboratoire Central
des Ponts et Chausées, Paris, Palais des Congrés, Aixen- Provence, France, 16-19 September,
1986.

View publication stats