Long-Term Performance of Epoxy Adhesive Anchor Systems (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 59-107
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 59... ...
59 The purpose of this chapter is to describe the procedures used to reduce the experimental data into usable results. The tests were labeled with a series of letters and numbers.
|
From page 60... ...
60 Test Series Adhesive Repetition Value(kips) Mean (kips)
|
From page 61... ...
61 Test Series Mean (kips)
|
From page 62... ...
62 at the University of Florida and at the University of Stuttgart. The results are presented in Appendix I and Table 26.
|
From page 63... ...
63 of Florida (UF) were very close, 98% and 99%, respectively.
|
From page 64... ...
64 Test Series AdhesiveA Adhesive B Adhesive C UF 2 US2 3 Service temperature (>120°F (49°C)
|
From page 65... ...
65 Discussion on Unconfined Results At the time of installation and testing for test series 16 (unconfined setup) the concrete compressive strength was 4,360 psi.
|
From page 66... ...
66 15,600 15.6 N lbf N kips cb cb = = The short-term tests results for test series 16 verification tests at 110°F (43°C) are presented in Table 35 and Figure 44.
|
From page 67... ...
67 Figure 44. Test series 16 (unconfined setup)
|
From page 68... ...
68 before failure. The photos and discussion can be found in Appendix H
|
From page 69... ...
69 Figure 47. Typical terminated sample for adhesive B
|
From page 70... ...
70 Model Equation for Stress versus Time-to-Failure Relationship The SvTTF projection as listed in AASHTO TP 84-10 recommends a logarithmic model. For comparison a logarithmic model (s = m ln(t)
|
From page 71... ...
71 Figure 53. Baseline TS01B SvTTF plot with short-term tests excluded from the projection.
|
From page 72... ...
72 This reduced expected failure stress level for short-duration loads appears to result from a dual requirement placed on the polymer. The magnitude of the load causes the polymer to undergo inelastic deformation as it redistributes the load down the anchor, and the sustained nature of the load causes the polymers to migrate within the adhesive.
|
From page 73... ...
73 Combined SvTTF Baseline Curves Figure 72 to Figure 74 present the individual and combined baseline curves from UF and US for the three adhesives, respectively. Since different anchor diameters and embedment depths were used at the two laboratories, the stresses have all been normalized by the average of the 15 short-term bond stresses (10 at UF and 5 at US)
|
From page 74... ...
74 Figure 57. Failure displacement versus %MSL for all three UF baseline tests.
|
From page 75... ...
75 Figure 59. SvTTF TS04-B service temperature (70°F)
|
From page 76... ...
76 Figure 61. SvTTF TS06-A installation direction (vertical)
|
From page 77... ...
77 Figure 63. SvTTF TS08-B moisture in service.
|
From page 78... ...
78 Figure 65. SvTTF TS10-A installation temperature (mfr minimum/mfr minimum)
|
From page 79... ...
79 Figure 67. SvTTF TS12-A standard DOT mix.
|
From page 80... ...
80 Figure 69.
|
From page 81... ...
81 Figure 71. SvTTF TS16-C unconfined setup.
|
From page 82... ...
82 Figure 73. Combined baseline SvTTF for adhesive B normalized by the average bond stress of the short-term tests from UF and US.
|
From page 83... ...
83 Tests Still Running at Time of Publishing Those tests that were still running at the time this report was completed were included in the SvTTF plots with the current test duration and are identified with a circle and their test durations listed in the tables in Appendix L Adhesive-Alone Testing Short-Term Results The short-term test results for the dogbone specimens are presented in Appendix I
|
From page 84... ...
84 Figure 76. DMTA test results for adhesive B
|
From page 85... ...
85 Figure 78. Adhesive A baseline strain vs.
|
From page 86... ...
86 Figure 80. Adhesive C baseline strain vs.
|
From page 87... ...
87 Figure 82. Adhesive B baseline compliance vs.
|
From page 88... ...
88 Figure 84. Compliance vs.
|
From page 89... ...
89 Figure 86. Comparison between predicted compliance from the DSR creep test and the sustained load creep tests on dogbone samples for adhesive A
|
From page 90... ...
90 Figure 88. Shifted master compliance curve for adhesive B using 43°C as a reference temperature.
|
From page 91... ...
91 Figure 90. Compliance versus time for the DSR creep test of adhesive B at different stress levels.
|
From page 92... ...
92 Figure 92. Shifted factor as a function of compliance for each pair of compliance creep curves for adhesive B at different stresses for short-term DSR creep tests.
|
From page 93... ...
93 this value. Clearly the curve fits are very good for all curves and all the linear fit plots roughly converge at the origin of the coordinate system.
|
From page 94... ...
94 Figure 95. Compliance vs.
|
From page 95... ...
95 Figure 97. Comparison between predicted compliance from the DSR creep test and sustained load creep tests on dogbone specimens for adhesive C
|
From page 96... ...
96 of magnitude. The strain measured in the anchor tests is not a direct measurement of adhesive strain but rather a measurement of the total system.
|
From page 97... ...
97 Figure 101. Creep compliance comparison between dogbone and anchor tests for adhesive B
|
From page 98... ...
98 tests and the dogbone tests. The SvTTF curves for the dogbones are presented in Appendix L (series 21 and 22)
|
From page 99... ...
99 does not have a more adverse effect at that point in time as compared to the short-term effect. Figure 106 presents the results of this analysis for the parameters investigated.
|
From page 100... ...
100 Parameters with Adverse Sustained Load Influence TS03 -- 120°F (49°C) service temperature.
|
From page 101... ...
101 duration) then the parameter was said to have an adverse effect on the sustained load performance.
|
From page 102... ...
102 temperature and tested at 110°F (43°C) as was the case for the baseline and evidenced by the alpha-reduction factor of 1.10.
|
From page 103... ...
103 it was still tacky with a dark gray glossy color indicating an improper ratio of the hardener and resin.
|
From page 104... ...
104 The Sensiron sensors in the control slabs reported a consistent 100% relative humidity (RH) reading for the entire month.
|
From page 105... ...
105 Initially, the surface absorption of the top formed surface and the sides of the hole showed similar rates. The top formed surface drastically increased in surface absorption over the first 2 weeks and then leveled off (within the scatter of the data)
|
From page 106... ...
106 nature of the load causes the polymers to migrate within the adhesive. These two actions occurring simultaneously reduce the capacity.
|
From page 107... ...
107 Figure 113. Hardness, concrete compression strength, and split tensile strength versus concrete age.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.