Evaluation of the Compatibility of Repair Materials for Concrete Structures
International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials
Evaluation of the Compatibility of Repair Materials for Concrete Structures
Perumalsamy Naidu Balaguru
This study evaluates the compatibility of repair materials for concrete bridge decks. A new compatibility test set-up was designed and tested based on the concrete bridge deck cracking and delamination mechanism theory. The repair materials used in this study include lab formulated inorganic nano-aluminum silicates and commercially available organic two-part epoxy systems. Two different lab test-setups are proposed in this study: a prototype and a full-scale test. The developed test procedures were effective in communicating results in terms of compatibility of material properties, performance and quality. The prototype beams test can successfully serve as a small scale screening test providing insights on materials selection for the full-scale beam tests. The full-scale beams demonstrated the compatibility of the repaired system by providing data on authentic field conditions. Based on the observations it can be concluded that the proposed test setup is effective in examining the concrete bridge deck repair materials performance and selection, and compatibility in terms of mechanical properties and further guarantee the repaired structure safety.
concrete repair; concrete bridge deck repair; compatibility test; organic and inorganic repair materials
Aging infrastructure is a growing concern for federal,
state, and local governments across the United States and for
many countries worldwide. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) estimates that one in nine of the nation’s
bridges is rated as structurally deficient and the average age
of the nation’s 607,380 bridges is about 42 years (ASCE
(American Society of Civil Engineers) 2017; AASHTO
(American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials) 2008; NJDOT (New Jersey Department of
Transportation) 2007).1 Thus county, city, state, and federal
agencies need to increase budgets enormously to fix these
deficient bridges. Many research studies focused on
materials, systems and technologies to improve the life span of
deficient bridge structures (FHWA (Federal Highway
Administration) 2009; Floyd 2009; Stratton and McCollom
1974; Barbara and Wayne 1988;
Camille and Debs 2007
was reported that sound rehabilitation principles and
techniques also play a crucial role in successful concrete
rehabilitation process (
Chase and Laman 2000
; FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) 1999;
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program)
Synthesis 375 2007).
In bridge superstructure, deck plays a crucial role in bridge
performance and have a direct impact from flowing traffic
and environment (such as snow accumulations and heavy
rains etc.). It is extremely important for bridge owners to
maintain its integrity and structural soundness for safety and
sudden failures. Thus periodic inspection and maintenance is
often required. In most bridges, the bridge decks are
constructed using reinforced concrete. Regardless of the type of
superstructure, the number and length of spans, and the type
of concrete used, certain cracks develop in every reinforced
concrete bridge deck (FHWA (Federal Highway
Chase and Laman 2000
; FDOT (Florida
Department of Transportation) 1999). With time, these
cracks lead to chloride penetration and corrosion of
reinforcement. Corrosion of steel bars can lead to a
concentration of internal stresses in the concrete and reduction in bond
often resulting in further cracking and deterioration.
Different types of concrete cracks are observed in concrete decks
(Krauss and Rogalla 1996; ElSafty and Abdel-Mohti 2013;
Ramseyer and Kang 2012; Soltani et al. 2013; Labib et al.
. These include vertical cracks which can be detected
by visual inspection when there is no overlay and horizontal
cracks, also called delaminations, which can cause a
breaking-away of the concrete deck. Concrete delamination
in bridge deck is a serious issue for bridge maintenance,
because it cannot easily be identified as surface cracks and
can lead to sudden failure of deck. Thus identifying and
repairing of these cracks in concrete bridge decks is crucial
for guaranteeing the quality and safety (Smoak 1996; PCA
(Portland Cement Association) Final Report 1970; ACI
(American Concrete Institute) Committee 224 report 2001).
Several repair procedures are often employed in the field
for bridge decks based on location and size of cracks, which
include Portland cement mortar filling, dry packing, epoxy
bonded dry packing, shotcreting, epoxy bonded mortar
filling, polymer concrete, alkyl-alkoxy siloxane sealing
compound and resin injection etc.
(Floyd 2009; Stratton and
McCollom 1974; Soriano 2002; Davidovits 1991; Matthew
et al. 2011)
. Both narrow and wide dormant cracks (in
dormant cracks width does not change over time may be
repaired by routing and sealing, which is the simplest and
most common technique for crack repair. Narrow, dormant
cracks may be effectively sealed by epoxy injection
Kim 2012; Iowa Department of Transportation 2008; Rodler
et al. 1989; Leivo et al. 2006)
. In some cases concrete
structural elements can be bonded together with repair
Currently, There are various materials can be used for
concrete deck crack repair which include Portland cement
binders, polymers such as high molecular weight
methacrylate and low viscosity epoxies etc.
Barbara and Wayne 1988)
. Among all these materials, the
most commonly used repair materials are organic epoxies. In
recent years, many research studies focused on geo-polymer
materials for infrastructure construction and maintenance. It
was observed that the performance of these inorganic
(Soriano 2002; Davidovits 1991; Hammell 2000;
Garon 2000; Richard et al. 1997; Woo et al. 2008)
superior over traditional organic materials. It is certain that
these newly developed materials such as inorganic
compounds has huge role to play in future infrastructure
maintenance. It is always debatable which materials should be
used for bridge deck repair and it is often big challenge for
agencies and bridge owners to make such decisions. For
concrete structures under service conditions (with both
traffic and environmental loadings), bond strength is
sometime evaluated as an important property for crack repair
materials. There are several standard test methods available
to evaluate bond strength indirectly using different types of
repaired concrete samples (ASTM (the American Society for
Testing and Materials) 2005; ASTM (the American Society
for Testing and Materials) 2008; ASTM (the American
Society for Testing and Materials) 2013).
To better understand the performance of repair materials,
it is important to study their compatibility along with bond
strength. However, there are no standard methods for
determining the compatibility of repair materials with
respect to concrete substrate. For the repair material to be
completely compatible with concrete, the internal stresses
would be able to be transferred across the repair plane and
distribute over the entire cross-sectional area of the
concrete. When concrete is used in flexural applications tensile
reinforcement is required due to the low tensile capacity of
the concrete. In concrete, steel reinforcement is added to
provide the missing tensile reinforcement. Since the
capacities of each material are different, the equivalent area
in the concrete is greater to counteract the tensile forces in
the steel in order to balance out the flexural internal
(Elgabbas et al. 2016)
. However, the effective area
of the concrete is only a quarter to a fifth of the total
crosssectional area of the beam. When defects occur in this
compression zone, the internal stresses must concentrate
around the defect and reduce the load capacity of the
concrete. If a repair material is used, it should be able to
bond the concrete together so that the entire load resisting
area can be utilized. When a beam is composed of several
smaller cross-sections that are not mechanically or
chemically fastened to one another, the total flexural capacity of
the beam is controlled by the smallest cross-section along
the span. Thus if the compression zone of the concrete is
removed, the stresses must redistribute to the concrete area
closer to the tensile fibers which reduces the moment arm
of the flexural strength and reduces the moment capacity of
The objective of this study is to evaluate the
compatibility of repair materials with respect to the corresponding
concrete substrate. The repair materials used in this study
include lab formulated inorganic nano-aluminum silicates
and commercially available organic two-part epoxy
systems. A compatibility test for the repair materials was
developed and tested in this study, based on the concrete
bridge deck cracking and delamination mechanism theory.
Two different lab test-setups are proposed in this study: a
prototype and a full-scale test. The developed test
procedures were effective in producing results for repair
materials properties and for performance and quality in terms of
compatibility. Based on the observations it can be
concluded that the proposed test setup is effective in
examining the concrete bridge deck repair materials performance
and selection, and compatibility in terms of mechanical
properties and further guarantee the repaired structure
2. Concrete Cracking and Delamination
Delaminations often occur in bridge decks due to
corrosion in the reinforcing bars causing tensile stresses to the
concrete and flexural loading conditions inducing shear
stresses along the top mat of reinforcement
Rogalla 1996; ElSafty and Abdel-Mohti 2013)
. A typical
bridge consists of vertical supports spanned by horizontal
beams. The bridge deck is supported on several beams
which are typically spaced between 4 feet to 10 feet. The
bridge deck is usually anywhere from 8 inches to 12 inches
thick but can be greater if required. Usually the deck features
two layers of reinforcement called mats and consists of two
sets of bars located perpendicular to each other for transverse
and longitudinal flexural loads near the outer edge of the
concrete as shown in Fig. 1.
When concrete is loaded in flexure, small flexural cracks
form as a result of the transfer of tensile forces from the
concrete to the steel reinforcement. In addition, when loads are
applied to the superstructure, the opposing tensile and
compression stresses from the ensuing flexural forces provide
shear loads at or near the neutral axis (see Fig. 2). Since the
strength of concrete and steel are different the neutral axis is
not located at the mid-point as would be the case in a
homogenous material but rather can be located at
approximately 1/5 the thickness of the deck. This location often
corresponds to the location of one of the two reinforcing mats
described above. Most concrete decks are cast continuously
across the supporting girders and therefore the compression
and tensile inducing shear zones of the deck alternate with
respect to the girder spacing. The zones located at the top
surface of the bridge deck are where the maximum stresses can
occur—‘‘compressive’’ shear stresses near the deck supports
and ‘‘tensile’’ shear stresses at the midsection.
Another force that contributes to bridge deck
delaminations is caused by expansion of the steel reinforcement due
to corrosion. Water has been known to infiltrate the steel
reinforcement by way of the flexural cracks that form during
service loads. When water, oxygen and steel combine, the
oxidized product forms known commonly as rust. This form
of iron is known to be less dense than the parent materials
thereby exerting tensile stresses in the confining concrete
around the bar.
Therefore, the main stresses acting on the concrete causing
delaminations, spalling, and eventually loss of the concrete
cover and potholes, are tensile forces from corroding steel
reinforcement and/or shear forces resulting from the
opposing compressive and tensile stresses inherent in
flexural loading. This analysis is used to design a test set-up for
finding how effective the concrete repair is and determine
repair material compatibility with concrete. A beam is
designed with notches at either end at the compressive
reinforcement (top mat) layer (see Fig. 3). Then blocks are
formed to fill the notches to the size of a rectangular beam
after being fixed to the notched beam using the repair
3.1 Repair Materials
In this study, the inorganic and organic repair materials
that were selected include a lab formulated inorganic nano
alumino-silicates and commercially available two part epoxy
system. The epoxy resin boasts low viscosity, high modulus
and non-shrinkage properties. The reported viscosity, given
in the product data sheet, is about 280 cps and cures in
approximately 24 h
. The inorganic mix
design was obtained based on materials performance on
different tests including flexural tests, slant shear tests,
freeze/thaw durability and wetting durability tests
. The final mix design of the inorganic material has
standard silica/alumina ratio and optimized zinc oxide
3.2 Concrete Mix-Design
The mix design for the prototype small beams and the
fullscale beams include Portland Type I cement, coarse
aggregates, fin aggregates (sand), fly ash, water, and
. The mix design proportions are
shown in Table 1. The samples were removed from molds
after a minimum of 24 h and were cured in a in a fog room
for a minimum of 28 days.
4. Test Procedure
4.1 Concrete Beams Design and Casting
4.1.1 Prototype Beams
In order to test compatibility between the repair materials
and concrete, small-scale (prototype) beams samples were
prepared and cast. The small beam specimens were helpful
in verifying some assumptions and the observations from
their testing and test results helped in designing
representative full-scale beams and avoiding problems during the test
itself. The dimensions were scaled from the proposed
fullscale samples with the length fixed at 14 inches. The
concrete in the flexural samples was tested with a compressive
strength of 5500 psi. The dimensions for the width and depth
were 1–1/8 inch. The notches were 5/16 inch and 1/4 inch
for the approximate neutral axis. Length of the notch was set
at L/3 and was equal to 4.75 inches including the 1 inch
overhang at the end as shown in Fig. 4. Since the beams
were created from existing concrete without internal tensile
reinforcement, the beams were strengthened using carbon
fibers after the notches were repaired with the specified
repair materials as shown in Fig. 5. Two tows of 35 k Zoltec
Panex fibers were fixed to the bottom of the beams using a
typical 2-part epoxy for bonding carbon fibers to concrete
The beams were notched and then repaired using selected
inorganic and organic repair compounds. Two similar
inorganic materials compounds (inorganic 1 and inorganic 2)
were formulated based on silica/alumina ratio as specified in
Sect. 2.1. Similarly for the organic materials, two epoxy
systems (epoxy 1 and epoxy 2) were used
After the repaired beams were allowed to cure at room
temperature for at least one week they were tested using
MTS Sintech 10/GL load testing machine with 10 kip load
capacity as shown in Fig. 6.
4.1.2 Full-Scale Beams
The dimensions of the full-scale beam were chosen to
accommodate equipment where a 600 kip beam testing
machine was used. The machine is optimized for 8 foot
length beams and is a common bridge girder spacing. The
depth of the beam, 8 inches, was chosen as a common bridge
deck thickness and the width was kept at 8 inches to give a
depth to width ratio of 1. In addition, the thickness satisfies
target neutral axis calculations by placing the axis between 1
and 1/2 to 2 inches (approximately 1/5–1/4 the depth of the
beam). This also explains the choice of the notch depth at
1–1/2 on one side and 2 inches on the other so that the full
range of the neutral axis can be affected and maximum shear
can be applied to the repair. The full-scale beam elevation
dimensions are shown in Fig. 7.
As for tensile reinforcement, four #6 bars were used to
create an over-reinforced design as shown in Fig. 8, to insure
the beam will reach maximum shear in the neutral axis. In an
over-reinforced beam, the ultimate failure occurs in the
compression zone. The maximum load of the beam was
found to be at 19.17 kip in each load point (third point
bending) for a total of 38.34 kip. However, since the beam is
not to be tested destructively and to represent normal bridge
loading condition which include respective factors of safety
of the inherent error in the load and material resistance, the
beam is only loaded to approximately 60% of the ultimate
load corresponding to two point loads of 11.5 kip spaced at
one-third the length of the beam or 23.0 kip total. This load
also satisfies the cracking load which is found to be 1.61 kip,
meaning that the reinforcement will be loaded during the
test. Minimum shear reinforcement in the critical areas of the
beam is provided using #2 stirrups spaced at d/2 = 3–1/2
inches over the outside one-third of the span. The concrete
shear resistance is sufficient in the center third of the beam
simplifying the design and construction of the beam.
Minimum concrete cover of 3/4 inch is supplied in all directions
around the reinforcing steel.
Five full-scale beams are cast in that two beams used as
control beams, one repaired with the inorganic repair
material, one repaired with epoxy, and one used as
contingency plan beam against beam damage (see Fig. 9). The
organic and inorganic materials for the full-scale study were
selected based on their performance in prototype testing
(Sect. 4.1). The two control beams are a full-sized 8 inch
square beam without notches and a notched beam to give the
expected upper and lower bounds on the load–deflection
The differences between the prototype beams and the
fullscale beams are that the repair blocks are not full length, the
tensile reinforcement in the full-scale beams is steel and the
compressive strength of the concrete is lower at 4600 psi.
The reason for the sectional repair blocks is that given the
deflections of the reinforced concrete beam, full length
blocks might cause complex stresses on the blocks that are
difficult to account for. By dividing the blocks into sections,
pure shear stress along the repair can be applied. The reason
for the steel reinforcement is to utilize steel as the tensile
reinforcement as typical in traditional concrete bridge decks.
The lower compressive strength was specified for the
fullscale tests to simulate typical field conditions.
The repair was prepared by wrapping half of the horizontal
repair plane with tape to prevent the repair material from
leaking out and causing voids. The repair materials were
applied by pouring the mix in the dam created by the tape
and attach each block section into place. The blocks were
pressed firmly into the repair material. Excess amounts of
material were not allowed to drain so as to reduce the
amount of voids. If the blocks were higher than the middle
compressive zone of the concrete beam, it would not affect
the overall strength of the beam since the strength is limited
by the smallest moment arm in the pure flexural zone of the
loading arrangement. As each block was placed into
position, the vertical face mating with the beam or another block
was coated with repair material and pressed together. Once
all blocks were in place, the vertical crack was sealed with
tape and the repair mix was poured over the crack to
completely fill all the voids. Once the two beams were repaired,
they were allowed to cure for a minimum of 7 days before
the tape was removed. The cracks were inspected for
presence of voids and no voids were observed.
The data collection system used in this study gathered data
points that includes the loads and deflection at the midpoint
and at each load point to create a load–deflection profile for
each beam (see Fig. 10). These data were used to determine
the effective stiffness of each beam and allow for easy
comparison to check for effectiveness of repair. In addition
to the loads and deflection, lines were drawn on the side
surfaces of the repaired beams crossing over the repair plane
so that the shear movement can be monitored. Initially, the
use of crack monitoring equipment was specified but the
dimensions of the notches would not allow for installation of
the gauges (Fig. 11).
The length of the test included a preloading period to seat
the support and load equipment and zero the gauges. Then,
the beams were loaded to 60% of failure at a static loading
rate (between 15 and 20 lbs per second) for a total of about
15 min for the entire test. Once the specified load is reached,
scale pictures of the crack lines are taken and then the beam
is unloaded and the entire test is repeated two more times for
a total of three loading cycles to provide a complete stiffness
profile of the beam.
The system used to gather the load and deflection data are
a series of sensors that are connected to a computer using
USB ports. Two load cells are located under each load and
three deflection gauges are positioned at the midpoint for
ultimate deflection and under each load to allow for
computation of a deflection curve. The data is collected by a
proprietary software package ( 2016). This software logs the
data collected into a.csv file for importing into any
spreadsheet program for further analysis. The data collection rate
was set at 1 s intervals.
5. Results and Discussions
5.1 Prototype Samples
From Fig. 12, it can be observed that the stiffness is
greater in the inorganic repaired beam and the loads are
higher in the same beams. Both of these outcomes were
predicted in theory. Recall that if the repair material was
more compatible with concrete, then it would behave as a
single homogeneous beam and offer the same stiffness and
load capacity. If the repair material could not transfer stresses
across the repaired plane, the strongest beam action would
be in the smallest dimension (the weakest limit on the beam).
Hence, the lower values for the beams repaired with the
organic epoxy. The beams deflected more with less load
acting as a beam that could not rely on the compressive
strength of the notched block repair.
All beams were failed at similar strain due to debonding of
the carbon fibers as predicted. The beams repaired with the
inorganic material failed at an average of 747 psi and the
beams repaired with the epoxy failed at an average of 547
psi. The average deflections were 0.0913 inches. Both
inorganic repair beams fracture point occurred in the middle
third of the beam as most third-point loading test usually do.
The epoxy repaired beams fracture point was located at the
load point or outside of the middle third of the span as
shown below in Fig. 13. (Notches were added outside of the
middle third of the span on either side).
5.2 Full-Scale Beams
The full-scale tests performed similar to the prototype
tests. Here the repaired inorganic aluminosilicate beams
showed similar stiffness to the solid beam. The repaired
organic epoxy beam behaved just like the notched beam that
had not been repaired at all. The curvature (shown in
Fig. 14) shows that the notched and epoxy repaired beams
had internal hinges in at the load points at L/3. The solid and
aluminosilicate repaired beams had an even curvature all
across the span.
In addition, the load/deflection graphs show a similar trend
(Fig. 15). Both the notched and epoxy repaired beams
showed lower stiffness with increased deflection over the
same loading. The inorganic repaired and solid beams
exhibited higher stiffnesses. A model of a solid beam was
also generated using the cracked moment of inertia
and the inorganic repaired and solid beams
followed closely to the model with slight deviations due to
imperfections in the cast beams.
Both of these results clearly show that the epoxy repaired
beam did not benefit from the repair. The beam had the same
load and deflection reaction as the beam that was completely
notched without repair of any type. The beam repaired with
the inorganic polymer showed the same stiffness as the
calculated model and slightly higher stiffness than the actual
solid unnotched beam. Of course, this is due to
imperfections in the beam but the point is still poignantly made, that
the inorganic epoxy allows the internal forces to transfer
across the repair plane and include the compression block in
the resolution of the moment arm in the flexural strength of
the beam. Figure 16 illustrate the shifting of the blocks with
respect to the beam. The flexibility of the organic epoxy is
evident in the offset of the detection lines across the
horizontal crack. The inorganic repaired beam does not have any
apparent movement and indicates that the repair of the
concrete using the inorganic epoxy will be able to provide
stress transfer and concrete compatibility for the structural
element. This will allow that repaired component greater
resistance against additional delamination cracking and
prolong the life of the structure.
In addition to the experimental evidence of the
incompatibility of the epoxy repair system and the concrete, both
the notched and epoxy repaired beams featured shear
cracking in the outside third of the beam. This indicated that
the minimum shear reinforcement set by the ACI 318 code
requirement of half the distance from the extreme
compression fiber to the centroid of the tensile reinforcement was
too large (ACI (American Concrete Institute) 2011). In
essence, the actual extreme compression fiber was not the
top of the block in the case of the epoxy repaired beam, but
the top of the notch as seen in Fig. 17.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1. The prototype beams showed the feasibility of full-scale
beams for use as effective tests of compatibility of repair
materials with concrete because of their success on the
2. In prototype testing, the beams repaired with the
inorganic material failed at an average of 747 psi and
the beams repaired with the epoxy failed at an average
of 547 psi. The average deflections were 0.0913 inches.
3. The prototype tests indicated that the organic repair
systems were not able to provide the same strength
resistance of the inorganic repaired beams. These tests
could not show the range of repair that each system
offered since no control beams were used.
4. The full-scale beams demonstrated the compatibility of
the repair system by providing real data on the
effectiveness of the repair material.
5. The inorganic repaired beams featured higher stiffness,
no detectible shear slippage along the repair interface,
no failure cracking and loading behavior similar to both
the calculated model and the solid unnotched beam.
6. The organic repaired system featured lower stiffness,
shear slippage along the repair plane, shear cracking
near the reaction supports indicating decreased depth
from the extreme compression fiber to the centroid of
the tensile reinforcement, and loading behavior
surprisingly similar to the notched control beam.
7. Finally, it can be concluded that proposed testing
methodology along with standard testing methods can
greatly help to examine the performance of concrete
repair materials. It can also help in the selection of
suitable materials in terms of compatibility and repaired
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits un
restricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons
license, and indicate if changes were made.
AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) . ( 2008 ). Bridging the gap . Washington, DC: AASHTO.
ACI (American Concrete Institute ) Committee 224 report . ( 2001 ). Control of cracking in concrete structures . Farmington Hills , MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). ( 2011 ). Building code requirements for reinforced concrete-ACI 318 . Farmington Hills , MI.
Arockiasamy , M. ( 2000 ). Evaluation of conventional repair techniques for concrete bridges . Tallahassee, FL: FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation).
ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). ( 2017 ). 2017 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Reston , VA.
ASTM (the American Society for Testing and Materials) . ( 2005 ). Standard test method for bond strength of epoxyresin systems used with concrete by slant shear . ASTM C882-05 , West Conshohocken , PA.
ASTM (the American Society for Testing and Materials) . ( 2008 ). Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete using simple beam with third-point loading . ASTM C78-08 , West Conshohocken , PA.
ASTM (the American Society for Testing and Materials) . ( 2013 ). Standard test method for tensile strength of concrete surfaces and the bond strength or tensile strength of concrete repair and overlay materials by direct tension (pull-off method) . ASTM C1583/C1583 M - 13 , West Conshohocken , PA.
Barbara , S. J. , & Wayne , S. F. ( 1988 ). Bridge deck hollow plane repair using injected epoxy. Topeka, KS: KDOT (Kansas Department of Transportation) .
Camille , A. I. , & Debs , P. ( 2007 ). Experimental study of epoxy repairing of cracks in concrete . Construction and Building Materials , 21 ( 1 ), 157 - 163 .
Chase , S. , & Laman , J. ( 2000 ). Dynamics and field testing of bridges. Transportation in The new Millennium: State of the Art and future Directions, Perspectives from TRB (the Transportation Research Board Standing) Committees . Washington, DC.
Davidovits , J. ( 1991 ). Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials . Journal of Thermal Analysis , 37 , 1633 - 1656 .
Do , J. Y. , & Kim , D. K. ( 2012 ). AHP-based evaluation model for optimal selection process of patching materials for concrete repair: Focused on quantitative requirements . International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials , 6 ( 2 ), 87 - 100 .
Elgabbas , F. , Ahmed , E. , & Benmokrane , B. ( 2016 ). Experimental testing of concrete bridge-deck slabs reinforced with basalt FRP bars under concentrated loads . ASCE Journal of Bridge Engineering , 21 ( 7 ), 04016029 .
ElSafty , A. , & Abdel-Mohti , A. ( 2013 ). Investigation of likelihood of cracking in reinforced concrete bridge decks . International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials , 7 ( 1 ), 79 - 93 .
FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation). ( 1999 ). Bridge maintenance and repair handbook . Tallahassee, FL: FDOT. http://www.fdot.gov/maintenance/STR/IN/Maintenance_ and_Repair_Handbook_ 08 - 13 -11.pdf.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). ( 2009 ). Annual Materials Report on New Bridge Construction and Bridge Rehabilitation: National Bridge Inventory (NBI) . Washington, DC.
Floyd , S. D. ( 2009 ). Repairing Bridge Deck Cracks . Epoxy bonding is an economical solution . Concrete Construction Magazine . http://www.concreteconstruction.net/products/dec orative-concrete -surfaces/repairing-bridge-deck-cracks_o.
Garon , R. J. ( 2000 ). Effectiveness of high strength composites as structural and protective coatings for structural elements . Dissertation . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Hammell , J. A. ( 2000 ). The influence of matrix composition and reinforcement type on the properties of polysialate composites . Dissertation . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Iowa Department of Transportation. ( 2008 ). Inspection and acceptance epoxy resins . http://www.iowadot.gov/erl/ archives/2009/oct/IM/content/491.19.pdf.
Krauss , P. D. , Rogalla , E. A. ( 1996 ). Transverse cracking in newly constructed bridge decks : NCHRP Report 380 . Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.
Labib , E. L. , Mo , Y. L. , & Hsu , T. T. C. ( 2013 ). Shear cracking of prestressed girders with high strength concrete . International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials , 7 ( 1 ), 71 - 78 .
Leivo , J. , Mika , L. , Cilaine , V. T. , Janne , P. , Jessica , R. , Erkki , L. , et al. ( 2006 ). Sol-gel synthesis of a nanoparticulate aluminosilicate precursor for homogeneous mullite ceramics . Journal of Materials Research , 21 ( 5 ), 1279 - 1285 .
Loadstar Sensors . ( 2016 ). Software for load sensors . http:// www.loadstarsensors.com/software.html?view=default.
Matthew , K. ( 2013 ). Nondestructive repair and rehabilitation of structural elements using high strength inorganic polymer composites . Dissertation . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.
Matthew , K. , Venkiteela , G. , Husam , N. , & Balaguru ., P. N. ( 2011 ). Nanoscale materials for non-destructive repair of transportation infrastructures . In Proceedings of SPIE 7983 , Nondestructive Characterization for Composite Materials , Aerospace Engineering, Civil Infrastructure, and Homeland Security . San Diego, CA.
NCHRP (National Cooperative Highway Research Program) Synthesis 375 . ( 2007 ). Bridge inspection practices . Washington, DC.
NJDOT (New Jersey Department of Transportation). ( 2007 ). Highways carrying bridges in New Jersey . http://www. state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/bridgereport102007.pdf.
PCA (Portland Cement Association). ( 1970 ). Final report: Durability of concrete bridge decks . Skokie , IL.
Ramseyer , C. , & Kang , T. H. K. ( 2012 ). Post-damage repair of prestressed concrete girders . International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials , 6 ( 3 ), 199 - 207 .
Richard , L. E. , Balaguru , P. N. , Andrew , F. , Usman , S. , Joseph , D. , & Michel , D. ( 1997 ). Fire resistant aluminosilicate composites . Fire and Materials , 21 ( 1 ), 67 - 73 .
Rodler , D. J. , Whitney , D. P. , Fowler , D. W. , & Wheat , D. L. ( 1989 ). Repair of cracked concrete with high molecular weight methacrylate monomers. Polymers in concrete advantages and applications: ACI SP-116 , Farmington Hills , MI.
SealBoss. ( 2012 ). Sealboss 4040 LV Epoxy Resin . Product Data Sheet, SealBoss Corporation , Santa Ana, CA.
Smoak , W. G. ( 1996 ). Guide to concrete repair . Denver, CO: Bureau of Reclamation.
Soltani , A. , Harries , K. A. , & Shahrooz , B. M. ( 2013 ). Crack opening behavior of concrete reinforced with high strength reinforcing steel . International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials , 7 ( 4 ), 253 - 264 .
Soriano , A. ( 2002 ). Alternative sealants for bridge decks: Final report . Pierre, SD: South Dakota Dept. of Transportation Office of Research.
444 | International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials (Vol. 11 , No.3, September 2017 )
Stratton , F. W. , & McCollom , B. F. ( 1974 ). Repair of hollow or softened areas in bridge decks by rebonding with injected epoxy resin or other polymers . Topeka: State Highway Commission of Kansas.
Woo , R. S. C. , Honggang , Z. , Michael , M. K. C. , Christopher , K. Y. L. , & Jang-Kyo , K. ( 2008 ). Barrier performance of silane-clay nanocomposite coatings on concrete structure . Composites Science and Technology , 68 ( 14 ), 2828 - 2836 .