TRANSPORT A N D ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY

Department of Transport

RESEARCH REPORT 81

REPAIR OF CRACKED REINFORCED CONCRETE:

ASSESSMENT OF INJECTION METHODS

By A J J CALDER

The views expressed in this Report are not necessarily those of the Department
of Transport

Bridges Division
Highways and Structures Department
Transport and Road Research Laboratory
Crowthorne, Berkshire, RG11 6AU

ISSN 0266-5247
Ownership of the Transport Research
Laboratory was transferred from the
Department of Transport to a subsidiary of
the Transport Research Foundation on I st
April 1996.

This report has been reproduced by

permission of the Controller of HMSO.
Extracts from the text may be reproduced,
except for commercial purposes, provided
the source is acknowledged.
CONTENTS
Page

Abstract 1

1. Introduction 1

2. General description of experiment 2

3. Test Equipment 4

3.1 The reinforced concrete slab 4

3.2 The test rig 4

4. Method 5

4.1 Loading 5

4.2 Repair methods 6

4.2.1 Epoxy repairs 7

4.2.2 Liquid silicate repairs 8

4.2.3 Polyester and methyl methacrylate

repairs 9

5. Results and discussion 11

5.1 Long term performance 11

5.2 Assessment of repair methods 12

5.3 Loading tests on repaired slabs 13

6. Conclusions 17

7. References 18

8. Acknowledgements 18

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 1986

Extracts from the text may be reproduced,
except for commercial purposes, provided the
source is acknowledged
REPAIR OF C R A C K E D R E I N F O R C E D C O N C R E T E :
A S S E S S M E N T OF I N J E C T I O N M E T H O D S
ABSTRACT
Chloride deicing salts are used for winter
maintenance on highway bridges, and are known to
penetrate concrete and cause corrosion of the
reinforcement. Cracks, which provide easy routes for
chlorides to reach the steel, might be sealed with
reactive resins or with liquid silicate solution. The
object of this work was to assess the structural
implications of repair by injection and its
effectiveness in preventing ingress of deicing salts
into the concrete. Concrete slabs were cracked, held
under a constant load and repaired using various
injection techniques. The structural performance of
slabs after repair was then determined. Other slabs
were ponded with salt solution and after various
periods of exposure were broken up to assess the
effectiveness of the repair methods. This Report
outlines the design, manufacture, stressing and repair
of the concrete slabs. It assesses the effectiveness of
the injection methods, details the loading tests and
the short and long term structural performance of the
slabs. A second Report will describe the exposure of
the slabs and their assessment for corrosion. The
best overall structural performance was provided by
the slabs repaired with epoxy resin. The performance
of the slabs repaired with polyester and methyl
methacrylate resins may have been impaired by poor
penetration, although the results of slant shear tests
suggest that, at best, they are not structurally as
effective as epoxy resin.
1 INTRODUCTION
Concrete highway bridges are often exposed to
aggressive environments. Chloride deicing salts are
used for winter maintenance and are known to
penetrate concrete and cause corrosion of the steel
reinforcement (Cavallier and Vassie, 1981). Beeby
(1978 and 1983) and Manning et al (1985) suggest
that cracks will exacerbate the problem by providing
an easy route for chlorides to reach the
reinforcement and so shorten the time to the onset
of corrosion. These authors also argue that in the
long term, crack width will have little effect on the
subsequent corrosion rates. The British Standard on
Steel, Concrete and Composite Bridges (1978) limits
crack widths according to exposure. It appears that
sealing cracks before exposure to deicing salts should
provide some protection against corrosion. Cracks
might be sealed by injecting with reactive resins
(Concrete Society (1982 and 1984)) or with liquid
silicate solution. These methods should not be used
in cases where the reinforcement is corroding or
where the cracking has been caused by corrosion.
Injecting cracks with reactive resins has structural
implications because the resins bond the faces of the
cracks together and can therefore transmit tensile
and compressive forces.
Hewlett and Wills (1973) reviewed crack injection and
explained some of the underlying principles.
Guidelines for the use of the method have been
given by the Louisiana State Highway Research and
Development Section (Anon 1975). Resins chosen for
repair should bond well to moist concrete, and
should have a viscosity and pot life suitable to
penetrate the range of crack widths and depths to be
injected. Epoxy resins are most commonly used
because of their tolerance to moisture. For example,
Hewlett and Morgan (1982) injected beams that had
been previously loaded so that the reinforcement had
yielded. They showed that the performance of
repaired beams is at least as good as that of the
original beams; these rseults confirmed the earlier
work of Chung (1975). The use of methyl
methacrylate and polyester resins for sealing cracks is
described in Concrete Society Report No. 22 (1982)
and by Tyrer and Jones (1985), but little has been
published about the behaviour of these resins in
cracks under load. Jaber et al (1975) showed that the
performance of beams injected with methyl
methacrylate decreased because of poor bonding as
the moisture levels in the concrete increased.
Howdyshell (1972) reports that polyester did not
perform well as a structural material in composite
concrete/polyester beams, and Shaw (1982) has
argued that polyesters give lower bond strengths
than epoxies and they do not cure reliably in moist
conditions.
The object of this work was to assess the
effectiveness of various crack injection systems for
protecting reinforcing steel from the ingress of
deicing salt and to assess their effect on structural
performance. Cracked reinforced concrete slabs,
repaired under toad with an epoxy resin, a liquid
silicate solution, a polyester resin, and a methyl
methacrylate resin were ponded with sodium chloride
solution and exposed for up to three years. After
exposure, some slabs were cut up and the
reinforcement assessed for corrosion. Flexural
performance of the repaired slabs was assessed
duirng the course of the experiment.
This Report outlines the design, manufacture,
stressing and repair of the concrete slabs. It assesses
the repair methods, details the loading tests and the
short and long term structural performance of the
slabs. The properties of the resins used depend upon
their formulation, and these were not necessarily
typical. The results given in this Report can only
apply to the particular materials used. A second
 Report will describe the exposure of the slabs and
their assessment for corrosion.
2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
EXPERIMENT
Reinforced concrete slabs were cracked, and held
under a nominally constant load during repair with
materials and methods in fairly common use. All the
slabs were cast during July and August 1981;
cracking and repair, in sets of six, took place during
1982 and 1983. One slab from each set was cut up
and examined soon after repair; one was load tested
to failure, three were exposed to a corrosive
environment and one was kept as a control in a non-
corrosive environment. The time table for the
experiment is given in Figure 1.
The slabs were mounted in reaction frames (Plate 1)
and loaded in flexure using hydraulic jacks so that
the longitudinal reinforcement was in tension across
a series of transverse cracks in the concrete. The aim
was to achieve surface crack widths in the range
0 . 1 - 0 . 4 mm with a target mean of 0.2 mm. After
stressing, the jacks were removed from the reaction
frames and a nominally constant load maintained
throughout repair and exposure by springs mounted
at each corner of the slab. Under this applied load,
the cracks were injected by specialist repair
contractors who used various repair systems. Six
slabs were repaired with each of 4 injection materials:
epoxy resin (Series A), liquid silicate (Series B),
OF polyester resin (Series C), and methyl methacrylate
resin (Series D). The liquid silicate repair material is
said to react chemically with the parent concrete to
form crystals which seal the crack. Comparisons are
being made with uncracked slabs and slabs
containing unfilled cracks (Series E). The structural
performance of the slabs during the cracking, repair
and exposure was assessed by monitoring the
curvature and the surface crack widths. The
effectiveness of the springs in maintaining a constant
load was assessed by monitoring the load in the tie
rods of the reaction frames.
A pond constructed over the constant bending
section of each slab (Plate 2), was used to retain the
salt solution and water. The slabs were first wetted
twice weekly for 4 weeks with applications of 400 ml
of water. This was followed by 3 periods of
conditioning and exposure. Each conditioning period
consisted of applying 400 ml of 5 per cent solution
and 400 ml of water on Tuesdays and Fridays
respectively for 5 weeks. The sodium chloride
solution was replaced by 400 ml of water on the
control slabs. During the exposure cycles, which

I, c s,,n B D Stress'ng C ~1 Repair D D Water

added
E ~ Conditioning F !~1 Exposure I

Series A: Epoxy
lO~ A B C
I 1~--2"1 __DE F E F E
oI M , HHti- I. , , I I

Series B: Silicate
10

rN i
B C
D E F E F E F
i

.~ Series C: Polyester
¢0

"~ 1 0 / A B C DE F E
"6 F E

E 0
l. , i

Z
Series D: Methyl methacrylate
10 F I~A B C DE F =

0/1 . 1 1
Series E: Control slabs
A
107-__ DE F E F

, , II !
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987

Fig.1 T i m e t a b l e of experiment

2
 Bracing beam
Hydraulic jack
_ ~. ~.~f

Neg. no. B14,83

Plate 1 The test rig and general arrangement

Neg. no. B169 $5

Plate2 A slab during exposure

lasted for 23, 48 and 72 weeks, 200 ml of water was
applied to all the slabs on Tuesdays and Fridays if
the slabs were dry. One salted slab from each set
was cut up and examined after each cycle to assess
the effectiveness of the repair in preventing corrosion
of the reinforcement. A more detailed account of the
conditioning and exposure of the slabs and their
assessment will be given in a second Report.
The allocation of slabs between c o n d i t i o n i n g and
exposure, load tests to failure and post repair
assessment are given in Table 1.

3
 TABLE 1
Allocation of slabs

Series

A D E
Controls (unrepaired)

Methyl
Item Epoxy Silicate Polyester methacrylate Uncracked Cracked

Assessment after repair A1 B1 C1 D1 -- --

Load test to failure A2 B2 C2 D2 E4, E5 --

Slabs used for corrosion assessment

Conditioning with water only

3 cycles of exposure -- B3 C3 D3 I 51 I E8
m

Conditioning with sodium chloride solution and water

1 cycle of exposure A3 B4 C4 D4 -- E7

2 cycles of exposure A4 B5 C5 D5 E2 E8

3 cycles of exposure A5, A6 B6 C6 D6 E3 E9

3 TEST EQUIPMENT
3.1 T H E R E I N F O R C E D CONCRETE
SLAB
The design and analysis of the slab is given by
Calder (1981) and the method of manufacture by
Gowan and Calder (1982).
The test slab shown in Figure 2 was designed to
provide a series of injectable transverse cracks in the
tension zone with the reinforcement loaded in its
elastic range. Each slab was 1.8 m x 0.7 m x 0.1 m
and contained four longitudinal 10 mm diameter and
three transverse 6 mm diameter high yield reinforcing
bars (characteristic strength: 460 N/ram2). The cover
was 15 mm. The reinforcement was wire brushed
and was degreased to remove any loose rust prior to
assembly in the mould. The concrete, which had a
characteristic strength of 30 N / m m 2 and a water-
cement ratio of 0.47, contained Thames Valley flint
gravel aggregate (maximum size: 10 mm) and zone 3
sand w i t h ordinary Portland cement. The mean 28
day compressive strength was 46 N/ram 2.
The slabs were cast in batches of three and cured
for 28 days under damp hessian in an open ended
shed where they were stored until required. The
distribution of 28 day compressive strengths for each
batch is given in Figure 3. There are significant
differences in strengths between batches despite
careful control of the mixing process. The slabs were
distributed into sets of 6 for repair so that any bias
would be minimised.
Demec pips were fixed along the upper surface of
both longitudinal edges of each slab so that the
crack widths could be monitored using a 50 mm
demec gauge. Pips were also mounted on the upper
surface at the outer edges so that the curvature of
the slabs could be monitored using a curvature
gauge consisting of a dial gauge mounted centrally
on a beam which records the mid-point displacement
relative to the 2 outer pips.
3.2 T H E TEST RIG
Each slab in its reaction frame was loaded in 4-point
bending using jacks and load cells mounted on
crossheads at each end of the slab: this is illustrated
in Plate 1. The crossheads were connected to the
reaction frames by stainless steel tie rods, some of
which are fitted with full bridge electrical resistance
strain gauges to monitor the load during the
experiment. After cracking, the jacks and crossheads
 Lr°ang~~rdien~larb~rs6mlOm g / ~ ~

/ / ~ ~ / 7 ~ ~ T ~ °ncrete

~ / f / / / . / ~ / _
I
Reinforcement

100
J //Y-Y-7-fX
~ 15cover millimetres
n

i_ .j
i- -I
Fig.2 Reinforced concrete slab

3- of 0 . 1 - 0 . 4 mm in the tension face of the concrete;

"5
2 I this is at the lower end of the range injected in
practice. The procedure adopted enabled the flexural
performance of each slab to be determined at the
-Q
E
1 I various stages of the test. The method is illustrated
in Figure 4 w h i c h is a plot of applied m o m e n t against
3
I I I I I I curvature. The slope of this graph gives the flexural
0
40 5o stiffness determined for each slab at various stages
Mean compressive strength (Nmm -2) during the experiment.

Fig.3 Distribution of results of compressive strength

tests on control cubes 15

Z Testingof
were removed from the rigs and the load was °lraiginal
maintained by a stack of spring washers at each 10
E
corner of the slabs: see Plate 2.
oE
~_ ~/ / Testingof
/ A/ /'~'~ repaired
c~
4 METHOD <{:z // /
0 oAo' I /, o" I l J I J I I
The test slabs were brought into the laboratory (20°C o 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 o.10
and 65 per cent RH) in sets of 6 as required and Curvature(m-1)
were kept there for at least 7 days before being
Fig.4 Loading diagram for slab
mounted in the test rigs ready for loading.

4.1 LOADING
A detailed account of the procedure has been given
by Calder (1985).
The aim of the loading was to produce a series of
transverse cracks having surface widths in the range
The initial loading of each slab was carried out in
t w o stages; O A B O ' and O'B, Figure 4. The load was
first increased in increments to give an applied
moment of 8 kNm (B), and this produced a b o u t 7 or
8 tranverse cracks in the surface of the concrete.
The slope of the linear section, OA of the moment-
curvature graph gave the uncracked stiffness of the
slabs. Initial cracking of the concrete took place in
the non-linear part of the curve (AB). The load was
then released (BO') and reapplied (O'B), the gradient
of O'B giving the cracked stiffness of the slabs. The
load was then transferred to the springs by
tightening nuts on the tie rods onto the spring caps.
The jacks were then removed from the rig. After the
initial loading test, the concrete crept under the
action of the nominally constant load applied by the
springs. The creep is represented by BB'.
Photographs were taken of the top surface of each
slab to record the crack pattern.
A load test to failure was carried out on one slab
from each series soon after repair. The jacks were
remounted onto the test rigs, the load transferred
onto the jacks and released (B'O"). The slab was
then reloaded up to the repair point (O"B'). The
slope O " B ' gave the repaired stiffness. The load was
then released again before the slab was reloaded in
in increments to failure (O"B'C) determined by yield
of the reinforcing bar. The reloading slope, O " B ' ,
gives a second estimate of the repaired stiffness of
the slab. As the load was increased beyond the point
B' cracking of the concrete recurred which was
partially associated with the repaired cracks. After
the test the top surface of each slab was
photographed and the position of the new cracks
relative to the original cracks was estimated to within
_+2 mm.
4.2 REPAIR M E T H O D S
Specialist contractors repaired the slabs using their
own materials and methods. The epoxy repairs were
carried out in June 1982, the silicate repairs in
September 1983, the polyester and methyl
methacrylate repairs in November 1982. The physical
properties of the resins from the data sheets supplied
by the repair specialists are given in Table 2. Twenty
four slabs were repaired, six for each material.
The repairs to the slabs were carried out a minimum
of 6 weeks after stressing. The results of the
measurements of curvature, crack width and applied
load confirmed that the initial creep of the slabs had
taken place before repair.

TABLE 2
Physical properties of the resins

Epoxy

Property Resin Hardener Polyester Methyl methacrylate

Viscosity (cp) 700-900 15-20 80 10-15

Gel Time (mins) 50-60 at

20oc

Flash point (°C) 120 114 11

Cure time (hours) 48

Specific Gravity 1.12-1.16 0.91-0.95 1.0 0.988 (mixed)

1.18 (cured)

Compressive Strength ( N / m m 2) 76 65 130

Tensile Strength ( N / m m 2) 15

Shear Strength ( N / r a m 2) 15-17 32

Flexural Strength ( N / m m 2) 100

Adhesion to concrete (N/ram 2) >10

Volumetric Shrinkage (%) 5 0.12

Coeff. of expansion ( x 1 0 - 6 ) / ° C 35 17.5

Y o u n g ' s Modulus ( k N / m m 2) 25

No data are available for the silicate solution, (most of t'he properties tabulated were not applicable).

6
The shear bond strength of the materials used for
crack injection was measured using the slant shear
test described by Tabor (1978). Plaques containing a
single diagonal crack were injected at the same time
as the slabs, then tested after 7 days and compared
with plain uncracked specimens.
4.2.1 Epoxy repairs
The method used, illustrated in Plate 3, was broadly
in accordance with the method given by the
Louisiana Department of Highway Research and
Development (Anon 1975). The resin and the
hardener were stored in separate containers within
the injection unit, electrically heated and then
pumped separately into the mixing head. The larger
cracks were first surface sealed with polyester putty.
Short lengths of clear polythene tube were set in the
putty, each with an open end directly over the crack.
The tubes were spaced at intervals up to 50 ram.
These were then connected in turn to the output
nozzle of the mixing head starting with a tube closest
to the edge of a slab. Resin was pumped into the
crack at a constant pressure until visible in the
•~ 14
Plate 3 Epoxy repair method
adjacent tube. The pressure was then released, the
nozzle disconnected and the tube sealed w i t h a
plastic bung. The nozzle was then connected to the
tube adjacent to the sealed tube and the process
repeated for each tube along the length of the crack
until the crack was completely filled w i t h resin.
In the method used for injecting finer cracks, the
tubes were replaced by areas of exposed concrete at
intervals along the seal (Plate 4). The injection head,
fitted w i t h a rubber grommet, was pressed onto the
concrete directly over the crack. The procedure for
working along the crack was similar to that employed
in filling the larger cracks. In some cases cracks were
filled by a combination of the t w o methods. The
contractors w o u l d not have filled these fine cracks in
normal practice.
When the resin had cured, the polyester p u t t y was
scraped from the surface of the concrete after being
softened by b l o w i n g hot air over the surface. Cracks
w h i c h had been judged by the contractors to be too
small to be injected were sealed with five coats of an
e p o x y sealer painted onto the concrete surface.
o " •
Neg. no. CR473/82/1
 I
Plate 4 Method of injecting fine cracks with epoxy resin
4.2.2 Liquid silicate repairs
T h e silicate repair s y s t e m is d i f f e r e n t in p r i n c i p l e f r o m
t h e o t h e r s y s t e m s . A s o l u t i o n of s o l u b l e silicate w a s
p u m p e d into t h e c r a c k s , w h e r e , a c c o r d i n g to the
supplier, it w o u l d r e a c t w i t h t h e c a l c i u m h y d r o x i d e in
the c o n c r e t e t o f o r m crystals w h i c h seal the crack. It
is n o t c l a i m e d t h a t t h e s e crystals p r o v i d e any
structural strength.
A series of 10 m m d i a m e t e r h o l e s w e r e drilled
50 60 m m d o w n t h e cracks in t h e c o n c r e t e at a b o u t
90 m m s p a c i n g . N o p r e c a u t i o n s w e r e t a k e n to
p r e v e n t t h e c r a c k s b e i n g b l o c k e d w i t h the d u s t f r o m
the drillings, or t o s u r f a c e seal t h e cracks b e t w e e n
the holes. Special nozzles w e r e sealed into the holes
a n d c o n n e c t e d via a m a n i f o l d t o a m a n u a l h y d r a u l i c
p u m p . Each nozzle had its o w n valve. In p r a c t i c e up
to 5 nozzles w e r e c o n n e c t e d t o t h e p u m p at any one
t i m e a n d these w e r e inserted in a d j a c e n t holes a l o n g
a crack; see Plate 5. Liquid w a s i n j e c t e d t h r o u g h all
t h e nozzles s i m u l t a n e o u s l y .
II
Neg. no. CR466/82/11
All the cracks on each slab w e r e first flushed with
saturated lime solution to ensure that there w a s
sufficient lime present to react w i t h the silicate
solution. The lime w a s p u m p e d into the cracks from
the holes until it b e c a m e visible at the surface of the
c o n c r e t e along the line of the crack. The nozzles
w e r e then m o v e d to the next set of holes and the
process repeated. A f t e r flushing all the cracks on the
slab, the process w a s repeated using the silicate
solution. H o w e v e r , in this case the crack w a s sealed
by rubbing c e m e n t p o w d e r into it w h e n the solution
a p p e a r e d on the surface of the concrete. The c e m e n t
set very quickly and sealed the crack.
W h e n the injection w a s finished, the drilled holes
w e r e filled in layers w i t h ordinary Portland c e m e n t
p o w d e r f o l l o w e d by a m i x t u r e of silicate solution and
c e m e n t . M o r e c e m e n t p o w d e r w a s rubbed into the
cracks on the surface of the concrete and then
brushed w i t h silicate solution. The repaired slabs
w e r e left uncovered to cure in an open e n d e d shed
for a b o u t 3 m o n t h s before the c o n d i t i o n i n g and
exposure.
 /
/
Plate 5 Silicate repair method
4.2.3 Polyester and methyl methacrylate
repairs
The polyester and methyl methacrylate repairs were
carried out at the same time and by the same
method. Tyrer and Jones (1985) describe the
method, which involved drawing resin into the cracks
under vacuum. The concrete surface 20 mm each
side of the crack was first grit blasted to expose the
aggregate. Any loose grit was removed from the
cracks by compressed air. The surface of the
concrete, which was damp as a result of the grit
blasting operation, was gently dried using a blow
torch. Steel plates with short tubes welded to their
upper surface (Plate 6) were fixed to the concrete
using polyester putty. Generally three plates were
attached to the concrete along the length of a single
crack spanning the full width of the slab. Small
circular nipples were also used along with the plates
on the larger cracks and also on the vertical faces of
the slabs. The exposed cracks between the plates
and around the edges of the plates and nipples were
sealed with polyester putty. Nitrogen was then blown
through the cracks. The surface of the concrete was
wetted with soap solution so that any leaks in the
seals would be visible as bubbles.
/
Z
Neg. no. CR589,'83,'3
Both the polyester and methyl methacrylate resins
and their hardeners were batched by w e i g h t and
mixed in a polythene beaker which was placed in a
pressure pot. The resin was drawn under vacuum
into one crack at a time (Plate 7). A tube, with one
end immersed in the resin in the pressure pot, was
connected to one of the plates or nipples on a crack,
and the other plates or nipples were connected to
the vacuum pump and a vacuum established.
Nitrogen from a cylinder at a pressure of about 1
atmosphere was then applied to the pressure pot so
that resin was forced from the pot, along the tube
and drawn into the crack. (A bubble was formed in
the tube from the pressure pot to m o n i t o r the flow.)
When resin appeared in the vacuum tube from the
adjacent plate, the latter was clamped. The pressure
and vacuum were maintained in the remaining tubes
until the bubble in the tube from the pressure pot
stopped moving, at w hic h point, the supply tube was
clamped. The supply tube was then cut off behind
the clamp and connected to the next vacant plate,
and the process continued until the crack was
completely filled.
9
 I :~__ .i
~' .f~.:,;.~:,.-~..
:I i

Neg. no. CR859/82/7

Plate 6 Plates glued to the surface of the concrete used for injecting polyester and
methyl methacrylate resins

Neg. no. CR855/82/10

Plate 7 Polyester and methyl methacrylate repair method

10
When the resin had cured, the plates were knocked
off the concrete and most of the polyester putty
removed with a hammer and chisel. The surface was
then cleared with an angle grinder. This method of
removing the polyester from the concrete tended to
pull pieces of aggregate from the surface and leave a
rough finish to the concrete. Finally the cracks were
pointed by priming with polyester or methyl
methacrylate and sealed with polyester putty.
5 RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION
5.1 LONG TERM PERFORMANCE
The long term flexural performance of the slabs
under constant applied load was monitored
throughout the life of the experiment by measuring
the curvature, tie rod loads and crack widths. The
measurements were made first on a weekly basis and
then less frequently. Typical results for the epoxy
and silicate repaired slabs are given in Figures 5 and
6, where curvature, tie rod loads and crack w i d t h s
are plotted against time. In all cases the crack widths
and curvature increased because of creep of the
concrete during the first f e w weeks after stressing;
consequently the springs relaxed and so reduced the
load. After the initial creep had taken place, the
measured curvatures, crack w i d t h s and loads
remained approximately constant for the remainder of
the experiment. The repairs to the slabs were carried
out a minimum of 6 weeks after stressing. In all six
s!abs repaired w i t h e p o x y resin there is evidence of a
slight decrease in the measured crack w i d t h s during
the cure of the resin immediately after repair. This
may have been caused by shrinkage of the resin
w h i c h pulled the sides of the cracks together. Crack
widths in the six slabs repaired w i t h liquid silicate
increased immediately after the repair suggesting that
there may be an expansive reaction. Data on the
crack w i d t h of the polyester and methyl methacrylate
repaired slabs is very limited, but it appears that the
curvatures provide no evidence of expansion or
shrinkage after repair.

.~ ;_-

0.04 0.04
f
0.03 0.03
I
E I ii
0.02 0.02

~3 0.01
-I II 0.01
III
0 I= I JIl I I I I I I o I
i
,il = i
, , , , ,
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

0.25
II 0.25
~g
E
0.20
E
0.20 -i il
0.15 0.15
1 II -I II
0.10 0.10

0.05 II L) 0.05 -I ii
I I I I I I 0 I I I I 1 I
0
0 Jj 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 o i2ooil 400 600 800 1000 1200

10 -I II 1o I II
z
v
v

6 6
8 O

-(3
O
10
o 4 I li
F-
2 il 2 I li
I I 1 I 1 I 0 I I I 1 I I
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Days after first loading Days after first loading
Fig.5 Typical variation in c u r v a t u r e , crack width and Fig.6 T y p i c a l v a r i a t i o n in c u r v a t u r e , c r a c k width and
tie rod load o f e p o x y repaired slab tie r o d l o a d o f silicate r e p a i r e d slab

11
5.2 A S S E S S M E N T OF REPAIR

I
F ~ ] Max value
METHODS Mean value
The distribution of crack widths at the time of repair Min value
is given in Figure 7, and the range and mean for
Epoxy repairs
each slab in Figure 8. With the exception of slabs
repaired with epoxy resin, an attempt was made to
inject all the cracks regardless of width. The cracks
judged by the contractors to be too fine to inject
with epoxy resin were surface sealed. Figure 9
.4F Flsl
illustrates the distribution of crack widths that were o
injected or surface sealed with epoxy resin. Seventy A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
t w o per cent of the cracks having widths of less than
0.15 mm were surface sealed. Silicate repairs
.4

80

E
70
B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6

60

E
"6 .4 _ Polyester repairs
r,-,,-1
~_~
5o C
2

~ 40
o
.Q C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
E 30
z

20 Methyl methacrylate repairs ~]

10

I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
I,
0.4
Crack width (mm)
0.5
o
D1 D2 D3 D4
Fig.8 Range of crack widths prior to repair
05 D6

Fig.7 Distribution of surface crack widths prior to repair 30 --

A f t e r repair and exposure, the slabs were sawn up

for examination as shown in Figure 10. The
penetration of the resin down the cracks at each Injected
intersection with the sawn faces was measured using 20 -- /
a crack microscope, and the results of the data Sealed
obtained from 3 slabs from each series are
summarised in Figure 11. There are no data available
from the slabs repaired with silicate solution because
the products of the reaction, if present, were
indistinguishable from the parent concrete. The 10 --
penetration of the epoxy was much better than that
of the polyester and methyl methacrylate resins, and
the polyester penetrated to a greater depth than the
methyl methacrylate. The distribution of penetration
of the resins into cracks with widths up to 0.25 ram,
and between 0.25 and 0.50 mm are given in Figure
12. As the distribution of the two ranges of crack 0
F 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
I
0.5
width were similar for all three resins it appears that Crack width (rnm)
surface crack width had little effect on the Fig. 9 Distribution of crack widths repaired
penetration. using epoxy resin

12
 Saw cut Table 2, and probably had a shorter pot life. An
Reinforcement explanation for the differences in penetration is
therefore sought in the differences in method. The
injection points for the epoxy resin were at a spacing
Top surface of concrete slab approximately equal to the depth of the cracks, and
their diameters were small compared with the
.l_--J J spacing. In this situation the penetrating front is
assumed to be radial (Hewlett and Wills 1973) so
I I that, in principle, the resin reaches the next port at
about the same time as the crack is completely filled.
In the case of the polyester and methyl methacrylate
repairs, a vacuum was applied to one port whilst
I resin was injected at the adjacent one. The vacuum
I ' I may have caused a pressure gradient to be set up
within the crack and resin to be sucked preferentially
Fig.10 Plan of concrete slab showing position of saw cuts
towards the adjacent port, thus giving a show of
resin before the crack was completely filled.
Furthermore, the distance between the adjacent
plates was small and the plates large compared with
20 -- Epoxy repairs the crack depth; when the injection started the space
Slabs: A1 A3 A4 between the surface of the concrete and the plate
may have filled preferentially with resin which was
then drawn the comparatively short distance along
the crack to fill the void beneath the next plate.
10 --
These two factors offer possible explanations for the
poor penetration achieved by this system. These
factors would have been exacerbated because both
the inlet and outlet ports were on the upper surface
I I I I I I -- of the concrete. A subsequent review however,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 suggests that normal injection procedures were not
followed and Farthing (1985), has reported that
Polyester repairs cracks wider than 1 mm have been successfully
E 20
== Slabs: C1 C4 C5 injected using a vacuum technique. The differences
in the penetration of the polyester and methyl

q_
y!
E methacrylate resins must be attributed to material
properties as the same method of injection was used
for both materials, for example, the methyl
L methacrylate may have had a shorter pot life than
L polyester.

.Q
E 0
I I l-~, I' , ' I
# 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7O
5.3 LOADING TESTS ON REPAIRED
20 SLABS
tiet h~llabse:t h~; rYDI4t e; ; p airs
The flexural stiffness of each slab was determined at
various stages during the experiment. It was
calculated by linear regression from the slope of the
moment-curvature graph illustrated in Figure 4. OA
10
and 0 ' B represent the uncracked and cracked
stiffness prior to repair; and O " B ' represents the
repaired stiffness measured with the repair materials
in compression. The results given in Table 3, were
I I I--F'I, t , I-1 I
variable, but it is clear that the stiffness of cracked
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7O
slabs was about one quarter of their uncracked value
Resin penetration (mm) and the stiffness of the repaired slab was about half
Fig.11 Distribution of resin penetrations the uncracked value. Hewlett and Morgan (1982)
found that all the uncracked stiffness was regained
on cracked beams that had been loaded to point of
The superior penetration of the epoxy system is yield of the reinforcement bars prior to repair. The
unlikely to be attributable to the properties of the similarity in stiffness after repair is illustrated by the
materials because epoxy resin was more viscous than moment-curvature curves in Figure 13 for slabs
the polyester and methyl methacrylate resins: see loaded to failure.

13
 Crack widths: 0 -- 0.25turn Crack widths: 0.26 -- 0.50rnm

Epoxy repaired slabs: A1 A 3 A 4

F 6

0 I I I• I I rl
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Polyester repaired slabs: C1 C4 C5

]
8 8 m

6 6 --
t-
.9
4 4 -

2 2 --
"6
J~
E 0 0 I F ,7 i | i 1"7 i I
z3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Methyl methacrylate repaired slabs: D1 D 4 D5

- 6

1"7 1'71 i i o i 7 i i !-I 1"7 I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Resin penetration (mm)

Fig.12 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f resin p e n e t r a t i o n f o r c r a c k w i d t h s
(from 0 - 0.25ram and 0.26 - 0.50turn)

The stiffnesses of the slabs after repair were broadly
similar despite the differences between the elastic
moduli and the penetrations achieved by the different
resins. This is surprising but Keer and Emberson
(1985) suggest that tensile stiffness of repaired
prisms is insensitive to the modulus of elasticity of
the resin injected. The results for the silicate repaired
slabs suggest t h a t the compressive loads were
supported by the mortar plugs formed in the cracks
at time of repair (section 4.2.2) The results of the
slant shear tests in Table 4 s h o w that cracks injected
w i t h silicate solution had no structural strength.
W h e n the m o m e n t applied was increased beyond the
load at repair, the repair materials were in tension
and the slabs cracked again (Figure 13). Table 5
shows that nearly 90 per cent of the new cracks in
the slabs repaired with the silicate solution and the
methyl methacrylate were at repaired cracks. Some
60 per cent of the new cracks in the slab repaired
w i t h polyester were at the repaired cracks, whereas
the value for the epoxy repaired slab was only 30 per
cent. These results show that the epoxy resin had
penetrated the cracks well enough to support tensile
loads and modify the stress distribution in the slabs.
The polyester with its lower penetration was less
effective in modifying the stress distribution. Neither
the liquid silicate nor the methyl methacrylate
appeared to support tensile stress. The poor
performance of the methyl methacrylate can possibly

14
 TABLE 3
Measured stiffness of slabs

Uncracked Cracked Repaired

Repair Slab stiffness stiffness stiffness
material number kNm 2 kNm 2 kNm 2

Epoxy A1 1792 353

I

A2 1914 454 977, 945

I

A3 1781 379

A4 1566 444

A5 1895 375

A6 1231 431
I I

Mean 1697 404 961

, t
Silicate B1 1759 458

B2 ' 2155 391 806, 805

I I

B3 21 58 405
I I

B4 1592 360

B5 1898 314
I I

B6 1534 393
I I

Mean 1849 387 806

I

Polyester C1 * 497
I I I
C2 * 400 1000, 841
I I I

C3 * 397
I I I

C4 * 435

C5 * 440

C6 * 469
I I I

Mean * 440 921

M e t h y l Methacrylate D1 * 445
I I I
D2 * 443 921, 764
I I I

D3 * 419
r i i

D4 * 409
I I I

D5 * 370
I

D6 * 450
I

Mean * 423 843

Unrepaired E4 1555 358

r i

E5 1442 391
I [

E5 * 401
I I

E6 * 377
I I

E7 * 458
I I

E9 * 466
I

Mean 1499 409

Notes: * N o t measured
Stiffness of repaired slabs tested to failure was measured t w i c e .

15
 TABLE 4
Results of slant shear tests

Compressive strength (N/ram 2)

Repair material repaired prism uncracked prism Mode of failure

Epoxy 78 81 Failure in concrete close to crack

77 73
79 86
75 84

Mean 77 81

Polyester 47 76 Failure occurred due to loss of adhesion of

46 69 the joint
41 77
44 76

Mean 45 75

Methyl methacrylate 63 Failure occurred in the joint with some

49 concrete cracking
58
65

Mean 59

Note: No uncracked prisms were tested in conjunction with the methyl methacrylate repairs

be attributed to the poor penetration as it has been
shown by Jaber e t a l (1975) that methyl methacrylate
will bond to cracks in dry concrete and support
significant flexural loads.
The above argument is supported by the results of
the slant shear tests in Table 4; these show that the
epoxy repaired prisms failed at higher compressive
strengths (77 N/ram 2) than the prisms repaired with
methyl methacrylate (59 N/ram 2) and polyester
(45 N/mm 2) resins. These differences are reflected in
the respective failure modes; the epoxy repaired slabs
failed in the concrete whereas the methyl
methacrylate failed in the crack and the polyester
failed due to loss of adhesion between the resin and
the concrete. The silicate solution gave no structural
strength.
Overall, the results suggest that penetration and
modulus affect repairs in tension but not in

TABLE 5
Cracking of slabs loaded to failure

Length of failure
cracks associated
Length of repaired Length of failure with repaired Percentage of associated
Slab number: material cracks (mm) cracks (mm) cracks (mm) cracking

62: Epoxy 4177 4089 1244 30

B2: Silicate 5266 4107 3621 88

C2: Polyester 5974 3710 :~:~ 60

D2: Methyl methacrylate 5503 3732 3310 89

16
 15 6 CONCLUSIONS
Epoxyrepair C
Slab A2B Twenty four reinforced concrete slabs with surface

S/I',,
10
crack widths in the range 0.1 to 0.4 mm were
repaired using four different materials and methods.
The properties of the resins depend on their
formulation and there is no one formulation of each
type which is generally typical. The results given in
this Report apply only to the particular materials
used.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
15
I Silicaterepair 1. The epoxy resin penetrated the cracks to a
Slab B2

S
markedly greater depth than either the polyester or
10
the methyl methacrylate resins. This difference may
be the result of the different injection methods
employed rather than to differences in the material
5 properties. The penetration of the polyester was
better than that of the methyl methacrylate resin.
Data for the silicate repaired slabs were not available
0 I I I as the reaction products, if present, were
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
indistinguishable from the parent concrete.
15
~ Polyesterr e p a i r /
Slab C2 fC There was no evidence that the penetration was
10 better in wider cracks.

2. The stiffness of the cracked slabs was about a

quarter of that of the uncracked slabs. The repairs
< reinstated only about half of this loss. The stiffnesses
0 I/o'J I o"~1 I I of all the repaired slabs were broadly similar. This
shows that in compression the stiffness of the slabs
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
15 after repair is insensitive to the modulus or to the
Methylmethacrylate~ penetration of the repair material.
repair
10 m Slab D2 B l'e
3. When the applied moment was increased beyond
5 ; / / / 8 ° the moment at repair, the slabs recracked. Only 30
per cent of the new cracks were associated with
cracks repaired with epoxy resin, some 60 per cent
were associated with cracks repaired with polyester
o fo'~ lJo" I I ! resin and almost 90 per cent with cracks repaired
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 with methyl methacrylate resin and liquid silicate.
15 Thus the bond and penetration of epoxy resin was
Unfilledcracked C sufficient to modify the stress distribution in the slab.
The polyester had less penetration and was less
effective. Neither the liquid silicate nor the methyl
methacrylate sustained much tensile load, the latter
10 t ~ ~ because of poor penetration.

4. The overall structural performance of the slabs

Sro'& I I I I repaired with epoxy resin was best. The performance
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 of the slabs repaired with polyester and methyl
methacrylate resin may have been impaired by poor
Curvature (m-1 )
penetration, although the results of the slant shear
Fig.13 Moment againstcurvaturefor slabs tests suggest that, at best, they are not structurally
load tested to failure as effective as epoxy resin. The tests confirm that
the liquid silicate repairs had no structural strength.

compression. The epoxy resin is more effective in

tension than the other two thermosetting resins, and The corrosion of the slabs which have been
the liquid silicate repair, as expected, had no subjected to conditioning with salt solution and
structural strength. exposure will be discussed in a second Report.

17
7 REFERENCES
ANON. (1975). Structural repair of concrete cracks
by injection of epoxy resin adhesive. Louisiana
Department of Highway Research and Development
Section.
BEEBY, A W (1978). Cracking and corrosion.
CIRIA/UEG, Cement and Concrete Association,
Department of Energy. Concrete in the Oceans
Technical Report No 1. Slough: Cement and
Concrete Association.
BEEBY, A W (1983). Cracking, cover and corrosion
of reinforcement. Concrete International. Vol 5, No 2,
February, pp 35-40.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (1970).
Methods of testing concrete. British Standard
BS 1881. London: British Standards Institution.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (1972). The
structural use of concrete. Code of Practice, CPI lO.
London: British Standards Institution.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION (1978). Steel,
concrete and composite bridges. British Standard
BS 5400. London: British Standards Institution.
CALDER, A J J (1981). Design of test slabs for
repair of concrete structures. TRRL Working Paper
WP/BD 8/81. Crowthorne: Transport and Road
Research Laboratory (unpublished).
CALDER, A J J (1985). Loading equipment and
stressing procedure for evaluation of repairs to
cracked concrete slabs. TRRL Working Paper
B/91/85. Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research
Laboratory (unpublished).
CAVALIER, P G and VASSlE, P R (1981).
Investigation and repair of reinforcement corrosion in
a bridge deck. Proc. Inst. Civ. Engs. Part 1. August,
pp 461-480.
CHUNG, H W (1975). Repaired reinforced concrete
beams. American Concrete Institute Journal. Vol 72,
No 5, May, pp ~ 3 - 2 3 4 .
CONCRETE SOCIETY (1982). Non structural cracks
in concrete: report of Working Party. Concrete
Society Technical Report No 22. London: The
Concrete Society.
CONCRETE SOCIETY (1984). Repair of concrete
damaged by reinforcement corrosion: report of
Working Party. Concrete Society Technical Report
No 26. London: The Concrete Society.
18 Printed in the UK for HMSO by Hobbs the Printers of Southampton
(1951/86) Dd8222661 9/86 G426
FARTHING, D W (1985). Design and construction of
concrete aircraft pavements with particular reference
to plastic shrinkage cracking. 3rd Int. Conf. on
Concrete Pavement Design and Rehabilitation.
Purdue University, Indiana. April.
GOWAN, N R and CALDER, A J J (1982).
Manufacture of slabs for evaluating repairs to
concrete structures. TRRL Working Paper WP BD
29/82. Crowthorne: Transport and Road Research
Laboratory (unpublished).
HEWLETT, P C and WILLS, A J (1973). A
fundamental look at structural repair by injection
using synthetic resins. Symposium: Resin and
concrete. University of Newcastle on Tyne. April.
HEWLETT, P C and MORGAN, J G D (1982). Static
and cyclic response to reinforced concrete beams
repaired by resin injection. Magazine of Concrete
Research. Vol 34, No 118, March, pp 5-17.
HOWDYSHELL, P A (1972). Creep characteristics of
polyester concrete. Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory. Technical Report M-23,
Champaign, Illinois: Construction Engineering
Research Laboratory.
JABER M M, FOWLER, D M and PAUL D R, (1975).
Repair of concrete with polymers. University of
Texas. Research Report 114-3,
KEER, J G and EMBERSON, N (1985). Resin-injected
reinforced concrete members under load: a
theoretical and experimental study. University of
Surrey.
MANNING, D G e t al. (1985). Debate: Crack width,
cover and corrosion. Concrete International. Vol 82,
No 2, May, pp 20-35.
SHAW, J D N (1982). A review of resins used in
construction. International Journal of Adhesion and
Adhesives. Vol 2, No 2, April, pp 77-83.
TABOR, L J (1978). The evaluation of resin systems
for concrete repair. Magazine of Concrete Research.
Vol 30, No 105, December, pp 221-225.
TYRER, R G and JONES, N (1985). A resin injection
technique for fine cracks in concrete. Proc. Second
Int. Conf. on Structural faults and repair. Edinburgh,
April, pp 233-236. Engineering Technics Press.
8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work described in this Report was carried out in
the Bridges Division (Division Head Dr G P Tilly) of
the Highways and Structures Department of TRRL.
The author wishes to thank the specialist repair
contractors who repaired the slabs.