工程地质聚合物复合材料与普通混凝土粘结界面抗剪性能试验

doi:10.13229/j.cnki.jdxbgxb.20241376

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了开展工程地质聚合物复合材料（EGC）加固增强既有混凝土构件的应用研究，以混凝土为基体、以EGC为覆盖层，设定二者粘结界面为凿削与刻槽两种形式、且每种形式设定了不同参数水平，完成了EGC与混凝土粘结界面的直剪性能试验研究。根据试验数据可以看出：随着界面粗糙度的增加，界面抗剪强度也在增加，虽然在受剪极限状态下，粘结界面均因抗剪强度较低而发生EGC受剪破坏，但不同界面呈现出不同破坏形式。此外，研究结果显示：试件的荷载-位移曲线有一定相似，均存在上升曲线和下降曲线，界面粗糙度较高的试件达到极限荷载后，下降曲线更为平缓。基于试验结果，利用非线性拟合的方法建立了EGC与既有NC界面抗剪强度计算公式，与试验结果吻合良好。依据试验剪切荷载-位移曲线和纤维增强混凝土抗剪韧性评价方法对NC-EGC粘结试件开展了剪切韧性评价，结果显示：其峰值荷载前韧性可达C60混凝土对照组的139%、234%，表现出EGC具有良好的增韧能力。

关键词: 结构工程, 工程地质聚合物复合材料, 抗剪强度, 刻槽界面, 凿削界面

Abstract:

To investigate the application of engineering geopolymer composites （EGC） in strengthening existing concrete components， a study was conducted using concrete as the substrate and EGC as the overlay. Two types of bonding interface treatments， chiseling and grooving， were employed， with various parameter levels specified for each treatment. Direct shear tests were performed to evaluate the bonding interface performance between EGC and concrete. According to the experimental data， it can be observed that as the interface roughness increases， the interface shear strength also increases. Although all bonded interfaces ultimately fail in EGC shear failure under ultimate shear states， different interface configurations exhibit distinct failure modes. The study further revealed that the load-displacement curves of the specimens exhibited similarities， characterized by ascending and descending segments. Specimens with higher interface roughness displayed a gentler descending curve after reaching the ultimate load. Using the experimental data， a nonlinear fitting method was employed to develop a shear strength calculation formula for the NC-EGC interface， which aligned well with the experimental results. Furthermore， the shear toughness of the NC-EGC bonding specimens was assessed through shear load-displacement curve analysis and a toughness evaluation approach tailored for fiber-reinforced concrete. The results showed that the toughness prior to the peak load was 139% and 234% of the C60 concrete control group， demonstrating the outstanding toughening ability of EGC.

Key words: structural engineering, engineering geopolymer composites, shear strength, grooved interface, chiseled interface

中图分类号:

TU388

程东辉,王霄,李科,王丽. 工程地质聚合物复合材料与普通混凝土粘结界面抗剪性能试验[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2026, 56(7): 1882-1893.

Dong-hui CHENG,Xiao WANG,Ke LI,Li WANG. Experiment investigation of interface shear properties between engineering geopolymer composites and concrete[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Engineering and Technology Edition), 2026, 56(7): 1882-1893.

图/表 19

表1

图1

图2

图3

表2

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

表3

试件界面抗剪强度及界面滑移"

试件	剪切破坏形式	抗剪极限承载力/kN	抗剪强度 $τ p$ /MPa	与H?N?N抗剪强度比值/%	平均峰值滑移 $s p$ /mm
H-N-N	沿粘结界面开裂破坏（脆性）	35.9	3.59	100	0.88
H-E₁-E₁	沿粘结界面开裂破坏（延性）	26.1	2.61	73	1.15
F-N-E₁	嵌入混凝土基体粗糙界面的EGC受剪破坏	14.0	1.40	39	0.50
L-N-E₁		15.5	1.55	43	0.45
H-N-E₁		18.9	1.89	53	0.69
UH-N-E₁		24.2	2.42	67	0.88
F-N-E₂		20.6	2.06	57	0.53
L-N-E₂		24.3	2.43	68	0.71
H-N-E₂		27.4	2.74	76	0.92
UH-N-E₂		34.4	3.44	96	1.01
20T₂-N-E₁	嵌入混凝土基体的EGC键槽受剪破坏	20.9	2.09	58	0.99
30T₂-N-E₁		27.6	2.76	77	1.14
20T₂-N-E₂		29.4	2.94	82	1.22
30T₂-N-E₂		39.5	3.95	110	1.39

表3

图10

图11

图12

表4

抗剪强度试验值与计算值对比"

试件	$f c u$ /MPa	粗糙度 /mm	$α$	$a$	$b$	$d$	$R 2$ （COD）	试验值/MPa	计算值/MPa	比值
F-N-E₁	53.4	0	1.0	0.009 25	0.566 49	0.016 69	0.98	1.40	1.38	0.98
L-N-E₁		0.6	1.0					1.55	1.58	1.02
H-N-E₁		1.2	1.0					1.89	1.87	0.99
UH-N-E₁		2.0	1.0					2.42	2.41	0.99
20T₂-N-E₁		1.2	1.08					2.09	2.02	0.97
30T₂-N-E₁		1.8	1.21					2.76	2.74	0.99
F-N-E₂	87.8	0	1.0	0.014 69	0.359 24	0.008 97	0.99	2.06	2.08	1.01
L-N-E₂		0.6	1.0					2.43	2.39	0.98
H-N-E₂		1.2	1.0					2.74	2.77	1.01
UH-N-E₂		2.0	1.0					3.44	3.43	0.99
20T₂-N-E₂		1.2	1.08					2.94	2.99	1.02
30T₂-N-E₂		1.8	1.21					3.95	3.93	0.99

表4

图13

图14

表5

试件韧性评价结果"

试件	$f e q$ /MPa	$γ p$ /%	$T p$ （10⁴J/m³）	$f p, k$ /MPa			$R p, k$
试件	$f e q$ /MPa	$γ p$ /%	$T p$ （10⁴J/m³）	$f p, 1.5$	$f p, 2.5$	$f p, 4.0$	$R p, 1.5$	$R p, 2.5$	$R p, 4.0$
H-N-N	1.56	0.877	1.366	-	-	-	-	-	-
H-E₁-E₁	1.21	1.148	1.389	2.03	1.27	-	0.78	0.49	-
F-N-E₁	0.57	0.504	0.288	0.37	0.27	-	0.24	0.17	-
L-N-E₁	0.67	0.454	0.305	0.85	0.55	0.33	0.47	0.31	0.21
H-N-E₁	0.75	0.686	0.502	1.41	0.85	0.58	0.75	0.45	0.31
UH-N-E₁	1.23	0.883	1.081	1.71	1.17	0.84	0.74	0.50	0.36
F-N-E₂	0.91	0.531	0.483	0.31	-	-	0.15	-	-
L-N-E₂	1.22	0.707	0.887	1.03	0.67	0.50	0.42	0.27	0.20
H-N-E₂	1.43	0.918	1.315	1.67	1.09	0.77	0.61	0.40	0.28
UH-N-E₂	1.88	1.009	1.901	2.52	1.78	1.24	0.73	0.52	0.36
20T₂-N-E₁	1.01	0.986	0.961	1.57	1.25	0.92	0.75	0.60	0.44
30T₂-N-E₁	1.27	1.138	1.344	2.33	1.56	1.02	0.82	0.55	0.36
20T₂-N-E₂	1.49	1.224	1.815	2.45	1.68	1.20	0.83	0.57	0.41
30T₂-N-E₂	2.27	1.393	3.192	3.64	2.46	1.62	0.87	0.59	0.40

表5

参考文献 27

[1]	Lao J C, Ma R Y, Xu L Y, et al. Fly ash-dominated high-strength engineered/strain-hardening geopolymer composites(HS-EGC/SHGC): influence of alkalinity and environmental assessment[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2024, 447: No.141182.
[2]	Han J, Cai J, Lin Y, et al. Impact resistance of engineered geopolymer composite(EGC) in cold temperatures[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2022, 343 (Sup.C): No.128150.
[3]	Farooq M, Krishna A, Banthia N, et al. Highly ductile fiber reinforced geopolymers under tensile impact[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2022, 126: No.104374.
[4]	Yang K H, Song J K, Song K I, et al. Assessment of CO₂ reduction of alkali-activated concrete[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013, 39: 265-272.
[5]	Provis J L. Alkali-activated materials[J]. Cement and Concrete Research, 2018, 114:40-48.
[6]	Elmesalami N, Celik K. A critical review of engineered geopolymer composite: a low-carbon ultra-high-performance concrete[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2022, 346: No.128491.
[7]	Choi J I, Lee B Y, Li V C, et al. Ultra-high-ductile behavior of a polyethylene fiber-reinforced alkali-activated slag-based composite[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2016, 70: 153-158.
[8]	Huy-Hoàng Nguyễn, Quang-Hiếu Lương, Jeong-Il Choi, et al. Ultra-ductile behavior of fly ash-based engineered geopolymer composites with a tensile strain capacity up to 13.7%[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2021, 122: No.104133.
[9]	Wu J Q, Lu Z, Chen Y T, et al. Mechanical properties and cracking behaviour of lightweight engineered geopolymer composites with fly ash cenospheres[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2023,400: No.132622.
[10]	Wang Y S, Peng K D, Alrefaei Y, et al. The bond between geopolymer repair mortars and OPC concrete substrate: strength and microscopic interactions[J]. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2021, 119: No. 103991.
[11]	Xie J, Li J, Zhang B, et al. Effects of pretreated recycled fine aggregates on the mechanical properties and microstructure of alkali-activated mortar[J]. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2024, 20: No.e02819.
[12]	Li S, Ma W, Chen D, et al. Bonding characteristics between existing concrete substrate and high ductility geopolymer overlays under direct shear loading[J]. Engineering Structures, 2024, 315: No.118324.
[13]	Wang B, Feng H, Huang H, et al. Bonding properties between fly ash/slag-based engineering geopolymer composites and concrete[J]. Materials, 2023, 16(12): No.4232.
[14]	Lei M, Wang X, Chen J, et al. Bond behavior of the FRP grid-concrete interface with geopolymer mortar as an adhesive[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024, 87: No. 109120.
[15]	Hashemi A, Mousavi S S, Nazarpour H, et al. Effect of nano-SiO₂ and sulfate solutions curing on bond strength of GGBFS-based geopolymer repairing mortar[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2024, 435: No. 136778.
[16]	. 混凝土物理力学性能试验方法标准 [S].
[17]	. Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars [S].
[18]	Randl N. Design recommendations for interface shear transfer in fib Model Code 2010[J]. Structural Concrete, 2013, 14(3): 230-241.
[19]	Yokota H, Rokugo K, Sakata N, et al. JSCE recommendations for design and construction of high performance fiber reinforced cement composite with multiple fine cracks[J].Konkurito Kogaku, 2008, 45(3):3-9.
[20]	Tian J, Wu X, Zheng Y, et al. Investigation of interface shear properties and mechanical model between ECC and concrete[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2019, 223: 12-27.
[21]	Wu X, He J, Tian J, et al. Shear behaviors of engineered cementitious composites to seawater sea-sand concrete(ECC-to-SSSC) interfaces cast using 3D-printed pre-grooving formwork: mechanical properties, characterization, and life-cycle assessment[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2023, 78: No.107636.
[22]	刘增晨, 蒋利, 成莞莞, 等. 高强混凝土抗压抗拉强度的尺寸效应[J]. 科学技术与工程, 2015, 15(30): 209-213.
	Liu Zeng-chen, Jiang Li, Cheng Guan-guan, et al. The dimensional effect of compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of high strength concrete[J]. Science Technology and Engineering, 2015, 15(30): 209-213.
[23]	EN1992-1-1.Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures-part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings [S].
[24]	fib-2010. Fib Model code for concrete structures 2010 [S].
[25]	王德弘, 沈彤, 鞠彦忠, 等. 后浇普通混凝土与预制UHPC的黏结受剪性能研究[J]. 建筑结构学报, 2020, 41(): 411-419.
	Wang De-hong, Shen Tong, Ju Yan-zhong, et al. Study on shear bond behavior of post-cast normal concrete and precast UHPC[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2020, 41(Sup.2): 411-419.
[26]	邓明科, 刘华政, 马福栋, 等. 聚乙烯醇纤维改性高延性混凝土双面剪切试验及剪切韧性评价方法[J]. 复合材料学报, 2020, 37(2): 461-471.
	Deng Ming-ke, Liu Hua-zheng, Ma Fu-dong, et al. Double shear experiment of highly ductileconcrete modified by polyvingl alcohol and shear toughness evaluation method[J]. Acta Mater Composite Sinica, 2020, 37(2): 461-471.
[27]	Gao Z, Zhang P, Wang J, et al. Interfacial properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete substrate: effect of polyvinyl alcohol fiber and nano-SiO₂ contents[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2022, 315: No.125735.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

材料	CaO	SiO₂	Al₂O₃	FeO	MgO	MnO	SO₂	其他
矿渣	39.7	38.2	7.76	1.09	11.02	0.59	0.93	0.71
粉煤灰	7.68	53.67	28.8	1.01	1.43	-	-	7.41

试件编号	界面类型	基材/ 覆盖层	NC强度 /MPa	EGC强度 /MPa
H-N-N	1.2 mm	NC/NC	66.2	-
H-E₁-E₁	1.2 mm	E₁/E₁	-	53.4
F-N-E₁	0	NC/E₁	66.2	53.4
L-N-E₁	0.6 mm
H-N-E₁	1.2 mm
UH-N-E₁	2.0 mm
20T₂-N-E₁	刻槽20%
30T₂-N-E₁	刻槽30%
F-N-E₂	0	NC/E₂	66.2	87.8
L-N-E₂	0.6 mm
H-N-E₂	1.2 mm
UH-N-E₂	2.0 mm
20T₂-N-E₂	刻槽20%
30T₂-N-E₂	刻槽30%