Next Article in Journal
Experimental Study on Seismic Performance of Prefabricated Columns Connected Using a Novel Dry Sleeve
Previous Article in Journal
Developments in Quantifying the Response Factors Required for Linear Analytical and Seismic Design Procedures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/buildings14010248
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of the Mechanical Performance of High-Strength Nano-Modified Cement Mortars for Overlays

by
Jacek Szymanowski
* and
Łukasz Sadowski
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 50-370 Wrocław, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(1), 248; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010248
Submission received: 16 November 2023 / Revised: 28 December 2023 / Accepted: 11 January 2024 / Published: 16 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Building Materials, and Repair & Renovation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article provides the results of the analysis of the mechanical performance of high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays. In order to find the optimal addition amount of those nanoparticles for which an improvement in the mechanical performance of high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays in floors will be noticeable in terms of their mechanical, functional, and adhesive properties, the mechanical performance ratio (MPR) was used. Mechanical performance analyzes were carried out for the six most common variants of overlays. It has been shown that from the point of view of the mechanical performance of the high-strength overlay, it is optimal to use the addition of SiO2 nanospheres in the amount of 0.5% and TiO2 tetragonal crystalline nanoparticles in the amount of 1% of the cement mass.

1. Introduction

Floor screeds are the top layer of floors in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. Generally, screeds consist of cement mortar (sometimes containing optional additives) which is placed on a concrete substrate. Depending on the conditions in which the surface layers will be used, they should have a number of parameters that are assumed at the design stage. These parameters can be divided into three groups: adhesive (pull-off adhesion), functional (subsurface tensile strength, abrasion resistance), and strength (compressive and bending strength) parameters [1,2,3]. The methods used to improve the abovementioned parameters of the cement overlay in floors are presented in Figure 1. In order to increase the values of these parameters, additional procedures are used, e.g., surface hardening with various types of hardeners, the use of dispersed reinforcement (fibers), or impregnation [4,5,6]. For durability reasons, the cement top layer is required to have appropriate adhesive properties. In floors, adequate pull-off adhesion between the overlay and the substrate is particularly required. In order to improve this adhesion, many known methods are used, such as using bonding agents, additives, surface treatment techniques to increase surface roughness, or curing procedures [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. One of these methods is the modification of the structure of the overlay using various additives [14,15,16,17] to the mortar constituting the overlay. The mechanical performance of the overlays is determined by their strength, adhesion, and functional properties.
There are studies in the literature showing that modification of the cement mortar overlay composition with the addition of SiO2 nanoparticles, cellulose nanofibers, and graphene nano-platelets can improve its adhesive, functional, and strength properties [18,19,20,21,22,23], but there is no extensive research on this issue. In addition to the examples mentioned, attempts are increasingly made to modify cement materials, taking into account ecological aspects and sustainable development [24,25,26], but also to give structures special features, such as self-sensing or continuous health monitoring [27,28]. However, work is still being carried out to improve the properties of cement surface layers. This is related, among other things, to its increasingly wider application of high-strength surface layers in cement floors, i.e., with a compressive strength above 60 MPa and a bending tensile strength above 7 MPa [29]. The use of additives with increasingly finer grains, such as nanoparticles, may be particularly useful for this purpose [19,30,31]. Cement mortars of ordinary strength are most often used to make the top layers of new construction [32,33,34,35]. In turn, in the case of repair overlays, high-strength mortars are increasingly used [29,36,37,38,39,40].
The addition of nanoparticles to high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays may have a beneficial effect on the strength, adhesion, and functional properties of the overlay. This is indicated, for example, in works [18,19,22,41,42] but there is still no broader research on this issue. It should be noted that the existing studies on the impact of modifying cement overlays with the addition of nanoparticles are not numerous and mainly concern surface layers of ordinary strength. Moreover, other articles focus on selected parameters of cement composites modified with various types of nanomaterials but do not mention the specific application of the overlays in a concrete floor.
This article aims to try to indicate the optimal amount of nanoparticles added to high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays in concrete floors from the point of view of its mechanical efficiency and the method of its implementation (the six most common variants of the overlay were analyzed). A mechanical analysis of this type in relation to high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays has not been performed before and it is a novelty of this article.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Floor Model Element—Preparation and Materials

In order to carry out this research, a model element reproducing the floor was designed and made. This element consisted of a C30/37 class concrete substrate with a thickness of 125 mm and an overlay of high-strength nano-modified cement mortar with a thickness of 40 mm. First, the base layer was made, and then the top layer was made, and in this order, the materials used are described below.
Figure 2 shows the weight composition of the concrete mixture used to make the substrate. To make the substrate, a concrete mixture was used, composed of cement CEM II A-LL 42.5 R, fly ash, fine aggregate (up to 2 mm), and coarse aggregate (up to 8 mm). Moreover, to obtain the appropriate consistency of the concrete mix, 2.0 L of superplasticizer was used.
Twenty-eight days after concreting, the surface of the substrate was prepared using a shot blasting machine. Then, high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays differing in the percentage share of selected nanoparticles were applied to the prepared concrete substrate. The reference mortar was designed without the addition of nanoparticles as a high-strength cement surface layer of class C60, F10 based on [45]. The procedure for preparing fresh cement mortar was as follows. Nanoparticles were added and mixed with the mixing water and superplasticizer. Then, cement was added, and the mixture was mixed for 45 s with an automatic mixer at a speed of 140 rpm. Then, sand was added, and the mixture was mixed for another 45 s at a speed of 140 rpm. Then, the whole thing was stirred for 18 s at a speed of 285 rpm.
The following ingredients were used to make high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays: Portland cement CEM I 42.5 R, dried quartz sand (up to 2 mm), superplasticizer dosed in an amount of 0.5% of the cement mass, water, and three kinds of nanoparticles. The following designations were assigned to the tested mortars: R—mortar without the addition of nanoparticles, S—mortar with the addition of silicon oxide nanoparticles, A—mortar with the addition of aluminum oxide nanoparticles, and T—mortar with the addition of titanium oxide nanoparticles. The percentage of nanoparticles in relation to the cement mass was 0% for the reference mortar (R-0), 0.5% (series: S-0.5, A-0.5, T-0.5), 1.0% (series S-1.0, A-1.0, T-1.0), and 1.5% (series S-1.5, A-1.5, T-1.5). Figure 3 shows the compositions of all mortar series used to make the high-strength cement overlay.
Three types of nanoparticles were used in this research: silicon oxide (SiO2) amorphous silica nanospheres with a purity of 95%, diameter of 19 ± 3.7 nm, and specific surface area of 300 m2/g; aluminum oxide (Al2O3) nanopowder with a purity of 99.8%, particle size below 50 nm, and specific surface area of over 40 m2/g; and tetragonal crystalline titanium oxide nanoparticles (TiO2) with a purity of 99.7%, particle size of 29 ± 7.1 nm, and specific surface area of 45–55 m2/g. Size distributions of the tested nanoparticles were obtained based on 50 randomly selected nanoparticles and have been presented in papers [42,43,44]. The morphology of the nanoparticles was determined using a Hitachi H-800 (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) transmission electron microscope. For this purpose, the nanoparticles were placed in deionized water and exposed to ultrasonic waves for one second to separate their agglomerates. Then, they were placed on a carbon–copper mesh and dried. The observation was carried out in a standard bright field with an accelerating voltage of 150 kV using an EMSIS Quemesa CCD camera (EMSIS GmbH, Muenster, Germany). Based on the obtained images, nanoparticle size distributions were created based on the measurement of 50 randomly selected particles (for each type of nanoparticle).

2.2. Strength Properties

To determine the compressive strength of high-strength nano-modified cement mortars, the method described in the PN-EN 196-1: 2016 [46] standard was used. The test was performed 28 days after the samples were prepared. Six samples were tested for each mortar series. In turn, to determine the bending tensile strength of high-strength nano-modified cement mortars, the method described in the PN-EN 196-1: 2016 [46] standard was used. The test was performed 28 days after the samples were prepared. Six samples with dimensions of 4 × 4 × 16 cm were tested for each mortar series.

2.3. Adhesive Properties

Twenty-eight days after laying the surface layer of high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays on the concrete substrate, the pull-off adhesion between the overlay and the substrate was tested following the EN 1542 standard [47]. Figure 4 shows a diagram of a model element designed to test adhesion. On the left side of the drawing, a view of the model element is shown, along with marking the places of adhesion measurement and the place from which core drilling was taken to conduct additional structural tests of the high-strength surface mortar in the interface zone.
In the upper part of the view, the content of the tested nanoparticles (as a percentage of the cement mass) is shown, and on the right side of the view, the type of nanoparticle used. The right side of the drawing shows a cross-section through the model element.
Core drillings with a diameter of 50 mm and a depth of approximately 5 mm were made below the interface zone between the overlay and the substrate using a core drill. Then, steel disks with the diameter of the core drill were glued in place of the drilling holes using epoxy adhesive. After the glue had hardened, the pulling of the steel discs was started using a Proceq DY 216 (Proceq AG, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland) automatic tester with a constant stress increase of 0.05 MPa/s. For each series of mortar, the test was carried out in at least three places.
Then, the pull-off adhesion tests were determined according to Equation (1):
f b = 4 F b π D f 2
where f b —pull-off adhesion (MPa); F b —failure force (N); and D f —core drill diameter (m).

2.4. Functional Properties

2.4.1. Abrasion

For each mortar series, three samples with dimensions of 71 × 71 × 71 mm were prepared to determine the abrasion resistance of the high-strength cement surface layer on the Boehme disc in accordance with the EN 13892 standard [48]. Before the tests began, the samples were dried and placed in desiccators. Before each abrasion cycle on the Boehme disc, the disc was cleaned, and 22 g of abrasive material (corundum) was evenly spread on the abrasive belt. Then, the sample was mounted in the holder loaded with a force of 294 ± 3 N and subjected to 16 abrasion cycles. Each abrasion cycle consisted of 22 revolutions of the disc, and after each four cycles, the sample was weighed and rotated 90° to its previous position in the holder. Abrasion was determined as the loss of mass and volume of the sample after 16 abrasion cycles.

2.4.2. Subsurface Tensile Strength of the Overlay

Twenty-eight days after laying the high-strength nano-modified cement mortar overlays on the concrete substrate, the subsurface tensile strength of the overlay was tested following EN 1542 [47]. Figure 5 shows a diagram of a model element designed to test the subsurface tensile strength of a high-strength cement overlay. On the left side of the drawing, a view of the model element is shown, along with the locations of measuring the subsurface tensile strength of the high-strength overlay. In the upper part of the view, the content of the tested nanoparticles (as a percentage of the cement mass) is shown, and on the right side of the view, the type of nanoparticle used. The right side of the drawing shows a cross-section through the model element.
Core drillings with a diameter of 50 mm and a depth of approximately 5 mm were made in the surface layer using a core drill. Then, steel disks with the diameter of the core drill were glued in place of the drilling holes using epoxy adhesive. After the glue hardened, the discs were detached using a Proceq DY 216 automatic tester with a constant stress increase of 0.05 MPa/s. For each series of mortars, tests were conducted in at least three locations.
Then, the subsurface tensile strength fh of the high-strength nano-modified cement mortar overlays was determined from Equation (2):
f h = 4 F b π D f 2
where f h —subsurface tensile strength (MPa); F b —failure force (N); and D f —core drill diameter (m).

2.5. Mechanical Performance Analysis

In order to select, through research, the type and addition amount of nanoparticles for which there will be a noticeable improvement in the mechanical performance of high-strength cement overlays on floors from the point of view of their strength, adhesive, and functional properties, the mechanical performance ratio (MPR) was used based on the proposal from [49].
To analyze the mechanical performance of high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays, the research results were used, including the basic properties of these overlays, such as compressive strength fcm, flexural strength fct, pull-off adhesion between the overlay and the substrate fb, abrasion of cement mortars (as volume loss ΔV), and the subsurface tensile strength of the overlay fh.
For the purposes of analyzing the mechanical performance of high-strength nano-modified cement mortar overlays, different weights were assigned to individual properties depending on the conditions in which these layers were to be applied.
The relationship describing the global mechanical performance factor MPR is presented below:
M P R = w e i g h t · v a l u e   X r e f e r e n c e   v a l u e + w e i g h t · v a l u e   X r e f e r e n c e   v a l u e + … s u m   o f   w e i g h t s

3. Results and Discussion

Mechanical performance analyses were performed for the six most common methods of making overlays presented below. Figure 6 shows possible configurations of cement overlays on floors depending on the location of the overlay.
Figure 6a shows the overlay bonded to the substrate, Figure 6b on the separating layer (e.g., construction foil), and Figure 6c on the thermal insulation layer (so-called floating screed).
The three configurations mentioned above also occur when a finishing layer is placed on the cement overlay, as shown in Figure 7.
The mechanical performance of cement overlays in floors is determined primarily by their strength, adhesion, and functional properties. It is obvious that depending on the configuration of the floor, these properties may be more or less important. For example, when the overlay is made on a separating layer (Figure 6b), adhesive properties are not important, but when the overlay is bonded to the substrate, they are crucial [29] (Figure 6a). The list of these properties and the corresponding mechanical performance classes is presented in Table 1. In construction practice, ordinary strength cement mortars are most often used for making the surface layers of new construction. In turn, in the case of repair surface layers, high-strength mortars are increasingly used, i.e., with compressive strength above 60 MPa and bending tensile strength above 7 MPa [50].
To analyze the mechanical efficiency, the mechanical efficiency coefficient was used according to Equation (3). The three most common cases in construction practice were assumed: the surface layer bonded to the substrate, the surface layer placed on the separating layer, and the surface layer placed on the thermal insulation layer. In addition, for the variants mentioned above, the possibility of applying a finishing layer (overlay constituting a base for the finishing layer) was taken into account. In order to relate the different properties, the decisive properties listed in the table below are assigned a weight of three, additional properties a weight of two, and auxiliary properties a weight of one. The principal properties of cement overlays and the weights assigned to them depending on the variant of the overlay are shown in Table 2.
The results of the analyses performed are presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The drawing shows graphs of the mechanical performance depending on the adopted variant of the overlay: the overlay bonded to the substrate (a), the overlay placed on the separation layer (b), and the overlay placed on the thermal insulation layer (c).
Figure 8 shows that, in each case, the highest value of the MPR coefficient was obtained for the addition of 0.5% SiO2 nanoparticles: 131.9% for variant a, 141.3% for variant b, and 128.8% for variant c. Smaller, but also significant, MPR values were recorded for the addition of 1% TiO2 nanoparticles: 123.2% for variant a, 127.7% for variant b, and 119.2% for variant c. In turn, for the addition of Al2O3 nanoparticles, the MPR value was a maximum of 114% for the addition in the amount of 1.5% for variant b, 110.7% for the addition in the amount of 1% for variant a, and 108.9% for the addition in the amount of 1.5% for variant c. Taking the above into account, the optimal amount of the additive is 0.5% of SiO2 and 1% of TiO2 nanoparticles. In the case of Al2O3, the optimal amount is 1% and 1.5%.
Figure 9 shows graphs of the mechanical performance depending on the adopted variant of the overlay: when the overlay is also a finishing layer: bonded to the substrate (a), placed on the separating layer (b), and placed on the thermal insulation layer (c).
Figure 9 shows that, in each case, the highest value of the MPR coefficient was obtained for the addition of 0.5% SiO2 nanoparticles and 1% TiO2 nanoparticles. In the case of SiO2 nanoparticles, the values were 120.2% for variant a, 125.2% for variant b, and 115.2% for variant c. In the case of TiO2 nanoparticles, the values were 121.9% for variant a, 126.5% for variant b, and 117.3% for variant c. In turn, for the addition of Al2O3 nanoparticles, the MPR value was a maximum of 116.2% for the addition of 1% for variant b, 112.9% for the addition in the amount of 1% for variant a, and 109.7% for the addition in the amount of 1% for variant c. Taking the above into account, the optimal amount of the additive is 0.5% of SiO2 and 1% of TiO2 nanoparticles. In the case of Al2O3, the optimal amount is 1%.
To sum up, both in the case when the overlay is a finishing layer and when an additional finishing layer is made on the top layer, it is possible to distinguish the optimal amount of nanoparticles to be added from the point of view of mechanical efficiency. This is consistent with reports from the literature, which describe the beneficial effect of the addition of nanoparticles on cement-based materials, but these studies focus on selected properties or on one specific property. Nanoparticles used as an additive to cement composites may play an important role in the cement hydration process, act as a filler in the composite structure, and may also give the composites special properties [30,31,52,53]. Due to the very small size of nanoparticles (below 100 nm), they have a large specific surface area, which significantly increases their reactivity towards mineral additives with larger particle sizes, e.g., microsilica or silica fume [45]. Therefore, both through their reactivity, which has a positive effect on the hydration process, strengthening the structure of the cement composite, and through their role as a filler (due to the very small size of particles), they reduce porosity [54,55]. On the other hand, the large specific surface area of nanoparticles and the tendency to form agglomerates result in the deterioration of workability and uneven distribution of properties in the composite structure [45,54]. For these reasons, it is important to evenly distribute the nanoparticles in the mixing water and prevent agglomerating by using various dispersion methods, e.g., ultrasonication, high shear mixing, ball mixing, or chemical methods [20,21]. Generally, in the tests on overlays made of cement mortars described in the literature, the amount of nanoparticles added ranges from 0% to 5% [56]. However, the optimal amount of the additive depends on many factors. First of all, it depends on what properties of the composite we want to improve or obtain, which in the case of an overlay in floors depends on the variant (method) of making the overlay. It also depends on the type of nanoparticles, their size, and specific surface area, the dispersion method, the use of a superplasticizer, or the water–cement ratio [53]. Selecting the optimal amount of nanoparticle additive is necessary because using too little or too much may not significantly improve the desired properties or even worsen them.

4. Conclusions

This article presents the results of the analysis of the mechanical performance of high-strength nano-modified cement mortars for overlays. In particular, this research concerns the use of overlays in concrete floors and is based on the test results presented in the works [42,43,44]. In order to find the optimal addition amount of those nanoparticles, the mechanical performance ratio (MPR) was used, and analyses were carried out for the six most common variants of overlays. In order to combine the various properties of the surface layer in the case of the individual variants of the surface layer, the desired properties were selected and assigned different weights depending on their importance in a given variant. Taking into account the presented research, potential areas of application of the presented high-strength nano-modified mortars could be the strengthening, modification, or repair of various types of structures, including pavements, surface layers of floors, or hydraulic structures like concrete dams [29,57].
The analysis of mechanical performance allowed for the determination of the optimal amount of additive in the form of SiO2 nanospheres, tetragonal crystalline TiO2 nanoparticles, and Al2O3 nanopowder. The research conclusions are as follows:
  • If the overlay is a finishing layer, the optimal amount of addition is 0.5% of SiO2 and 1% of TiO2 nanoparticles, regardless of whether the overlay is bonded to the substrate, on the separating layer, or on the thermal insulation layer;
  • In the case of the addition of Al2O3 nanoparticles, the optimal amount of the addition is 1.5% if the overlay is a finishing layer and it is on a separating layer, 1% when the overlay is bonded to the substrate, and 1.5% on the thermal insulation layer;
  • In a situation where the overlay is a base for the finishing layer, the optimal amount of addition is 1% of TiO2 and 0.5% of SiO2 nanoparticles, regardless of whether the overlay is bonded to the substrate, on the separating layer, or on the thermal insulation layer;
  • In the case of the addition of Al2O3 nanoparticles, the optimal amount of the addition is 1.5% if the overlay is a base for the finishing layer and it is on separating layer, 1.5% when the overlay is bonded to the substrate, and 1% on the thermal insulation layer.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Ł.S. and J.S.; methodology, J.S.; validation, J.S.; investigation, J.S.; resources, Ł.S.; data curation, J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S.; writing—review and editing, Ł.S.; visualization, J.S.; supervision, Ł.S.; project administration, Ł.S. and J.S.; funding acquisition, Ł.S. and J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research project is supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (www.ncn.gov.pl)—Grant No. 2021/41/N/ST8/03412 “Experimental evaluation of the adhesive and functional properties of layered cement composites modified with TItanium oxide (IV) NAnoparticles in the form of anatase with tetragonal crystal system (TINA)”.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Czarnecki, L.; Van Gemert, D. Scientific basis and rules of thumb in civil engineering: Conflict or harmony? Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2016, 64, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sadłowski, K.; Urbanowicz, D.; Warzocha, M. Podkłady podłogowe: Wymagania, projektowanie, wykonawstwo. Materiały Budowlane 2015, 11, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garbacz, A.; Courard, L.; Bissonnette, B. A surface engineering approach applicable to concrete repair engineering. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2013, 61, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Felekoğlu, B.; Türkel, S.; Altuntaş, Y. Effects of steel fiber reinforcement on surface wear resistance of self-compacting repair mortars. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2007, 29, 391–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Franzoni, E.; Varum, H.; Natali, M.E.; Bignozzi, M.C.; Melo, J.; Rocha, L.; Pereira, E. Improvement of historic reinforced concrete/mortars by impregnation and electrochemical methods. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 49, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Grdic, Z.J.; Curcic, G.A.T.; Ristic, N.S.; Despotovic, I.M. Abrasion resistance of concrete micro-reinforced with polypropylene fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 27, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Beushausen, H.; Bester, N. The influence of curing on restrained shrinkage cracking of bonded concrete overlays. Cem. Concr. Res. 2016, 87, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Canbaz, M.; Topçu, İ.B.; Ateşin, Ö. Effect of admixture ratio and aggregate type on self-leveling screed properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 116, 321–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Courard, L.; Piotrowski, T.; Garbacz, A. Near-to-surface properties affecting bond strength in concrete repair. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2014, 46, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, G. A new way to increase the long-term bond strength of new-to-old concrete by the use of fly ash. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mohammadi, M.; Moghtadaei, R.M.; Samani, N.A. Influence of silica fume and metakaolin with two different types of interfacial adhesives on the bond strength of repaired concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pan, X.; Shi, Z.; Shi, C.; Ling, T.-C.; Li, N. A review on concrete surface treatment Part I: Types and mechanisms. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 132, 578–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Santos, D.S.; Santos, P.M.; Dias-Da-Costa, D. Effect of surface preparation and bonding agent on the concrete-to-concrete interface strength. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 37, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Xu, F.; Zhou, M.; Chen, J.; Ruan, S. Mechanical performance evaluation of polyester fiber and SBR latex compound-modified cement concrete road overlay material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 63, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chajec, A.; Sadowski, Ł.; Moj, M. The adhesive and functional properties of cementitious overlays modified with granite powder. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2022, 117, 103008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Javed, A.; Gillani, S.A.A.; Abbass, W.; Riaz, M.R.; Hameed, R.; Abbas, S.; Salmi, A.; Deifalla, A.F. Mechanical Performance of Amorphous Metallic Fiber-Reinforced and Rubberized Thin Bonded Cement-Based Overlays. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al-Kheetan, M.J.; Rahman, M.M. Integration of Anhydrous Sodium Acetate (ASAc) into Concrete Pavement for Protection against Harmful Impact of Deicing Salt. JOM 2019, 71, 4899–4909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ghazy, A.; Bassuoni, M.T. Shrinkage of nano-modified fly ash concrete as a repair material. ACI Mater. J. 2017, 114, 877–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Haruehansapong, S.; Pulngern, T.; Chucheepsakul, S. Effect of nanosilica particle size on the water permeability, abrasion resistance, drying shrinkage, and repair work properties of cement mortar containing nano-SiO2. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017, 4213690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lin, Y.; Du, H. Graphene reinforced cement composites: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 265, 120312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jiang, Z.; Sevim, O.; Ozbulut, O.E. Mechanical properties of graphene nanoplatelets-reinforced concrete prepared with different dispersion techniques. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 303, 124472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Silva, J.J.; Ismael, R.; Carmo, R.N.F.; Lourenço, C.; Soldado, E.; Costa, H.; Júlio, E. Influence of nano-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 additions on the shear strength and the bending moment capacity of RC beams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 123, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sun, X.; Wu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Qing, Y.; Wu, Y.; Lee, S. Rheology, curing temperature and mechanical performance of oil well cement: Combined effect of cellulose nanofibers and graphene nano-platelets. Mater. Des. 2017, 114, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mondal, B.; Maity, D.; Patra, P.K. Bond Behavior between Bamboo and Normal-Strength Concrete: Experimental and Numerical Investigation. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2022, 27, 04022037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Manokaran, S.; Manikkavasagan, K.; Nesappan, S.; Meenakshisundaram, H. Synthesis of chemically exfoliated reduced graphene oxide from as-grated graphite rods recovered from used household batteries for utilization in tribological applications. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part L J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2023, 237, 2068–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tjahjani, A.R.; Fulazzaky, M.A.; Jonbi, J.; Tinumbia, N.; Meutia, W.; Suraedi, D.; Ranna, P. Comparative analysis of natural nanosilica versus commercial nanosilica on compressive strength and durability of high-performance concrete. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2023, 69, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sasmal, S.; Sindu, B.S. Smart cementitious nanocomposites for self-sensing and continuous health monitoring of structures. In Smart Nanoconcretes and Cement-Based Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 485–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Han, B.; Sun, S.; Ding, S.; Zhang, L.; Yu, X.; Ou, J. Review of nanocarbon-engineered multifunctional cementitious composites. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2015, 70, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. López-Carreño, R.-D.; Pujadas, P.; Cavalaro, S.H.; Aguado, A. Bond strength of whitetoppings and bonded overlays constructed with self-compacting high-performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 153, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, R.; Cheng, X.; Hou, P.; Ye, Z. Influences of nano-TiO2 on the properties of cement-based materials: Hydration and drying shrinkage. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 81, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Du, H.; Pang, S.D. High performance cement composites with colloidal nano-silica. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 224, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sadowski, Ł. Adhesion in Layered Cement Composites; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; Volume 101. [Google Scholar]
  33. Santos, T.; Almeida, J.; Silvestre, J.; Faria, P. Life cycle assessment of mortars: A review on technical potential and drawbacks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 288, 123069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sadowski, Ł.; Hoła, J. Non-Destructive Diagnostics of Concrete Floors: Methods and Case Studies; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  35. Szymanowski, J. Evaluation of the Adhesion between Overlays and Substrates in Concrete Floors: Literature Survey, Recent Non-Destructive and Semi-Destructive Testing Methods, and Research Gaps. Buildings 2019, 9, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Czarnecki, L.; Geryło, R.; Kuczyński, K. Concrete Repair Durability. Materials 2020, 13, 4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hajduk, P. Projektowanie Podłóg Przemysłowych; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warsaw, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bissonnette, B.; Courard, L.; Fowler, D.W.; Granju, J.L. Bonded Cement-Based Material Overlays for the Repair, the Lining or the Strengthening of Slabs or Pavements: State-of-the-Art Report of the RILEM Technical Committee 193-RLS; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  39. Feng, S.; Xiao, H.; Liu, R.; Liu, M. The bond properties between ultra-high-performance concrete and normal strength concrete substrate: Bond macro-performance and overlay transition zone microstructure. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 128, 104436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sabah, S.A.; Hassan, M.; Bunnori, N.M.; Johari, M.M. Bond strength of the interface between normal concrete substrate and GUSMRC repair material overlay. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 216, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kaszyńska, M. Early age properties of high-strength/high-performance concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2002, 24, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Szymanowski, J.; Sadowski, Ł. The Development of Nanoalumina-Based Cement Mortars for Overlay Applications in Concrete Floors. Materials 2019, 12, 3465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Szymanowski, J.; Sadowski, Ł. Functional and adhesive properties of cement-based overlays modified with amorphous silica nanospheres. J. Adhes. 2019, 96, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Szymanowski, J.; Sadowski, Ł. The influence of the addition of tetragonal crystalline titanium oxide nanoparticles on the adhesive and functional properties of layered cementitious composites. Compos. Struct. 2019, 233, 111636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Liu, J.; Li, Q.; Xu, S. Influence of nanoparticles on fluidity and mechanical properties of cement mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 892–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. EN 196-1:2016; Methods of Testing Cement—Part 1: Determination of Strength. European Standard: Bruessel, Belgium, 2016. Available online: https://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-en-196-1-2016-07p.html (accessed on 16 March 2019).
  47. BS EN 1542:1999; 1542—Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of Concrete Structures-Test Methods-Measurement of Bond Strength by Pull-Off. British Standard Institution: London, UK, 1999.
  48. EN 13892-3:2005; Methods for Testing Materials for Undercoats—Part 3: Determination of Abrasion Resistance According to Bohme. European Standard: Bruessel, Belgium, 2005. Available online: https://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-en-13892-3-2015-02e.html (accessed on 16 March 2019).
  49. Kurda, R.; De Brito, J.; Silvestre, J.D. Combined economic and mechanical performance optimization of recycled aggregate concrete with high volume of fly ash. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. DIN 18560-7; Floor Screeds—Part 7: Heavy-Duty Screeds (Industrial Screeds). DIN: Berlin, Germany, 2004.
  51. PN-EN 13813; Screed Material and Floor Screeds—Screed Material—Properties and Requirements. PKN: Warsaw, Poland, 2003.
  52. Nivethitha, D.; Srividhya, S.; Dharmar, S. Review on Mechanical Properties of Cement Mortar Enhanced with Nanoparticles. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2014, 5, 913–916. [Google Scholar]
  53. Paul, S.C.; van Rooyen, A.S.; van Zijl, G.P.; Petrik, L.F. Properties of cement-based composites using nanoparticles: A comprehensive review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 189, 1019–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ng, D.S.; Paul, S.C.; Anggraini, V.; Kong, S.Y.; Qureshi, T.S.; Rodriguez, C.R.; Liu, Q.-F.; Šavija, B. Influence of SiO2, TiO2 and Fe2O3 nanoparticles on the properties of fly ash blended cement mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 119627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wang, L.; Zheng, D.; Zhang, S.; Cui, H.; Li, D. Effect of Nano-SiO2 on the Hydration and Microstructure of Portland Cement. Nanomaterials 2016, 6, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Faraj, R.H.; Ahmed, H.U.; Rafiq, S.; Sor, N.H.; Ibrahim, D.F.; Qaidi, S.M. Performance of Self-Compacting mortars modified with Nanoparticles: A systematic review and modeling. Clean. Mater. 2022, 4, 100086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Roy, M.; Ray, I.; Davalos, J.F. High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Development and Evaluation as a Repairing Material. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26, 04014074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 00248 g001
Figure 1. Methods used to improve the strength, functional, and adhesive properties of the cement overlay in floors.
Figure 1. Methods used to improve the strength, functional, and adhesive properties of the cement overlay in floors.
Buildings 14 00248 g001
Buildings 14 00248 g002
Figure 2. The composition of the concrete mixture for the substrate (based on [42,43,44]).
Figure 2. The composition of the concrete mixture for the substrate (based on [42,43,44]).
Buildings 14 00248 g002
Buildings 14 00248 g003
Figure 3. The composition of cement mortars with the addition of nanoparticles from which a high-strength cement overlay was made (based on [42,43,44]).
Figure 3. The composition of cement mortars with the addition of nanoparticles from which a high-strength cement overlay was made (based on [42,43,44]).
Buildings 14 00248 g003
Buildings 14 00248 g004
Figure 4. Scheme of the model element designed to test the adhesive properties of a high-strength nano-modified cement mortar overlay.
Figure 4. Scheme of the model element designed to test the adhesive properties of a high-strength nano-modified cement mortar overlay.
Buildings 14 00248 g004
Buildings 14 00248 g005
Figure 5. Scheme of the model element designed to test the functional properties of a high-strength nano-modified cement mortar overlay.
Figure 5. Scheme of the model element designed to test the functional properties of a high-strength nano-modified cement mortar overlay.
Buildings 14 00248 g005
Buildings 14 00248 g006
Figure 6. Possible configurations of cement overlays in floors when the overlay is the finish floor: (a) bonded to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Figure 6. Possible configurations of cement overlays in floors when the overlay is the finish floor: (a) bonded to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Buildings 14 00248 g006
Buildings 14 00248 g007
Figure 7. Possible configurations of cement overlays in floors when the top layer is the substrate for the finish floor: (a) bound to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Figure 7. Possible configurations of cement overlays in floors when the top layer is the substrate for the finish floor: (a) bound to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Buildings 14 00248 g007
Buildings 14 00248 g008
Figure 8. Analysis of the mechanical performance of high-strength cement overlays in floors when the overlay is the finish floor: (a) bonded to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Figure 8. Analysis of the mechanical performance of high-strength cement overlays in floors when the overlay is the finish floor: (a) bonded to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Buildings 14 00248 g008
Buildings 14 00248 g009
Figure 9. Analysis of the mechanical performance of high-strength cement overlays in floors when the overlay is the substrate for the finish floor: (a) bonded to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Figure 9. Analysis of the mechanical performance of high-strength cement overlays in floors when the overlay is the substrate for the finish floor: (a) bonded to the substrate, (b) on the separating layer, (c) on the thermal insulation layer.
Buildings 14 00248 g009
Table 1. List of mechanical performance classes corresponding to the principal properties of cement overlays in floors (based on [51]).
Table 1. List of mechanical performance classes corresponding to the principal properties of cement overlays in floors (based on [51]).
Principal Properties of Cementitious OverlaysMechanical Performance Class
Strength propertiesCompressive strength [MPa]
C5C7C12C16C20C25C30C35C40C50C60C70C80
Tensile strength [MPa]
F1F2F3F4F5F6F7F10F15F20F30F40F50
Adhesive propertiesPull-off adhesion between overlay and substrate [MPa]
B0.2B0.5B1.0B1.5B2.0
Functional propertiesAbrasion resistance (cm3/50 cm2)
A22A15A12A9A6A3A1.5
Subsurface tensile strength [MPa]
H0.2H0.5H1.0H1.5H2.0
Table 2. Principal properties of high-strength cement overlays in floors in terms of their mechanical performance.
Table 2. Principal properties of high-strength cement overlays in floors in terms of their mechanical performance.
Floor VariantPrincipal Properties of Cementitious Overlays in Terms of Their Mechanical Performance
Strength PropertiesAdhesive PropertiesFunctional Properties
Compressive StrengthTensile StrengthPull-Off Adhesion between Overlay and SubstrateAbrasionSubsurface Tensile Strength
The overlay is the finish floor
On concrete substrate◌◌●●O
On separation layer◌◌-●O
On the insulation layer◌●-●O
The overlay is the substrate for the finish floor
On concrete substrateO◌●-●
On separation layerO◌--●
On the insulation layerO●--●
Designation of the property: “●”—decisive; “O”—additional; “◌”—auxiliary; “-”—irrelevant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szymanowski, J.; Sadowski, Ł. Analysis of the Mechanical Performance of High-Strength Nano-Modified Cement Mortars for Overlays. Buildings 2024, 14, 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010248

AMA Style

Szymanowski J, Sadowski Ł. Analysis of the Mechanical Performance of High-Strength Nano-Modified Cement Mortars for Overlays. Buildings. 2024; 14(1):248. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010248

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szymanowski, Jacek, and Łukasz Sadowski. 2024. "Analysis of the Mechanical Performance of High-Strength Nano-Modified Cement Mortars for Overlays" Buildings 14, no. 1: 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010248

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop