Artificial-Crack-Behavior Test Evaluation of the Water-Leakage Repair Materials Used for the Repair of Water-Leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures
There are no existing standard test methods at home and abroad that can verify the performance of water leakage repair materials, and it is thus very difficult to perform quality control checks in the field of water leakage repair. This study determined that the key factors that have the greatest impact on the water leakage repair materials are the micro-behaviors of cracks, and proposed an artificial-crack-behavior test method for the performance verification of the repair materials. The performance of the 15 kinds of repair materials that are currently being used in the field of water leakage repair was evaluated by applying the proposed test method. The main aim of such a test method is to determine if there is water leakage by injecting water leakage repair materials into a crack behavior test specimen with an artificial 5-mm crack width, applying a 2.5 mm vertical behavior load at 100 cycles, and applying 0.3 N/mm2 constant water pressure. The test results showed that of the 15 kinds of repair materials, only two effectively sealed the crack and thus stopped the water leakage. The findings of this study confirmed the effectiveness of the proposed artificial-crack-behavior test method and suggest that it can be used as a performance verification method for checking the responsiveness of the repair materials being used in the field of water leakage repair to the repetitive water leakage behaviors that occur in concrete structures. The study findings further suggest that the use of the proposed test method makes it possible to quantify the water leakage repair quality control in the field.
Crack-Bridging Property Evaluation of Synthetic Polymerized Rubber Gel (SPRG) through Yield Stress Parameter Identification
Yield stress parameter derivation was conducted by stress-strain curve analysis on four types of grout injection leakage repair materials (GILRM); acrylic, epoxy, urethane and SPRG grouts. Comparative stress-strain curve analysis results showed that while the yield stress point was clearly distinguishable, the strain ratio of SPRG reached up to 664% (13 mm) before material cohesive failure. A secondary experimental result comprised of three different common component ratios of SPRG was conducted to derive and propose an averaged yield stress curve graph, and the results of the yield stress point (180% strain ratio) were set as the basis for repeated stress-strain curve analysis of SPRGs of up to 15 mm displacement conditions. Results showed that SPRG yield stress point remained constant despite repeated cohesive failure, and the modulus of toughness was calculated to be on average 53.1, 180.7, and 271.4 N/mm2, respectively, for the SPRG types. The experimental results of this study demonstrated that it is possible to determine the property limits of conventional GILRM (acrylic, epoxy and urethane grout injection materials) based on yield stress. The study concludes with a proposal on potential application of GILRM toughness by finite element analysis method whereby strain of the material can be derived by hydrostatic pressure. Comparative analysis showed that the toughness of SPRG materials tested in this study are all able to withstand hydrostatic pressure range common to underground structures (0.2 N/mm2). It is expected that the evaluation method and model proposed in this study will be beneficial in assessing other GILRM materials based on their toughness values.
Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures
Abstract Two analytical solutions for estimating the ovaling deformation and forces in circular tunnels due to soil–structure interaction under seismic loading are widely used in engineering practice. This paper addresses an unresolved issue related to discrepancy between the two solutions. A comparison of the two solutions shows that the calculated forces and displacements are identical for the condition of full-slip between the tunnel lining and ground. However, the calculated lining thrusts differ by an order of magnitude when assuming no-slip between the tunnel lining and the ground. The analytical solutions are compared to numerical analyses of the no-slip condition using the finite element method to validate which of the two solutions provide the correct solution. Numerical analysis results agree with one of the analytical solution that provides a higher estimate of the thrust on the tunnel lining, thus highlighting the limitation of the other analytical solution.