Abstract
ABSTRACT This study was conducted with the aim of evaluating the influence of different methods for end surface preparation of compressive strength test specimens. Four different methods were compared: a mechanical wear method through grinding using a diamond wheel established by NBR 5738; a mechanical wear method using a diamond saw which is established by NM 77; an unbonded system using neoprene pads in metal retainer rings established by C1231 and a bonded capping method with sulfur mortar established by NBR 5738 and by NM 77. To develop this research, 4 concrete mixes were determined with different strength levels, 2 of group 1 and 2 of group 2 strength levels established by NBR 8953. Group 1 consists of classes C20 to C50, 5 in 5MPa, also known as normal strength concrete. Group 2 is comprised of class C55, C60 to C100, 10 in 10 MPa, also known as high strength concrete. Compression tests were carried out at 7 and 28 days for the 4 surface preparation methods. The results of this study indicate that the method established by NBR 5738 is the most effective among the 4 strengths considered, once it presents lower dispersion of values obtained from the tests, measured by the coefficient of variation and, in almost all cases, it demonstrates the highest mean of rupture test. The method described by NBR 5738 achieved the expected strength level in all tests.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
