Ì×ÌÔÛ ßÍÍÛÍÍÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÓÐßÌ×Þ×Ô ...eprints.uns.ac.id/21724/1/Bab_0.pdfperpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id commit to user ßÝÕÒÑÉÔÛÜÙÛÓÛÒÌ

perpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id

commit to user

Ì×ÌÔÛ

ßÍÍÛÍÍÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÓÐßÌ×Þ×Ô×ÌÇ ÞÛÌÉÛÛÒÝÑÒÝÎÛÌÛ ßÒÜ ÊßÎ×ÑËÍ ÎÛÐß×Î ÓßÌÛÎ×ßÔÍ

ÞßÍÛÜ ÑÒ ÐÑÎÑÍ×ÌÇ ÓÛßÍËÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ

ÌØÛÍ×Í

Í«¾³·¬¬»¼ ¬± ¬¸» Ð±¬ Ù®¿¼«¿¬» ±º Ý·ª·´ Û²¹·²»»®·²¹ Ð®±¹®¿³ ·²Ð¿®¬·¿´

Ú«´º·´´³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» Î»¯«·®»³»²¬ º±® ¬¸» Ü»¹®»» ±º Ó¿¬»® ±º Ð®±¶»½¬

Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬

Þ§æ

ÉßÔßÛÜÜ×Ò ÉßÒ×Í ßò ßÙßÛÔ

Íçìïíðîðìí

ÐÑÍÌ ÙÎßÜËßÌÛ

Ý×Ê×Ô ÛÒÙ×ÒÛÛÎ×ÒÙ ÐÎÑÙÎßÓÍ

ÍÛÞÛÔßÍ ÓßÎÛÌ ËÒ×ÊÛÎÍ×ÌÇô ÍËÎßÕßÎÌß

îðï5


commit to user

ÐÎÑÒÑËÒÝÛÓÛÒÌ

The person who signs here:

NAME : Walaeddin Wanis A. Agael

NIM : S941302043

Certifies that the thesis entitled:

ßÍÍÛÍÍÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÓÐßÌ×Þ×Ô×ÌÇ ÞÛÌÉÛÛÒ

ÝÑÒÝÎÛÌÛ ßÒÜ ÊßÎ×ÑËÍ ÎÛÐß×Î ÓßÌÛÎ×ßÔÍ

ÞßÍÛÜ ÑÒ ÐÑÎÑÍ×ÌÇ ÓÛßÍËÎÛÓÛÒÌÍ

This is really his own work. Anything related to others’ work is

written inquotation, the source of which is listed on the bibliography.If

then, this pronouncement proves wrong, I am ready to accept

anyacademic punishment. Including the withdrawal of this thesis and my

academicdegree.

Surakarta, 24 June 2015

The person who makes this Pronouncement

Walaeddin Wanis A. Agael


commit to user


commit to user


commit to user

ßÝÕÒÑÉÔÛÜÙÛÓÛÒÌ

I am grateful to the Allah for the good health and wellbeing that

werenecessary to complete this research.

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Eng. Ir. Syafi’I, MT,Principal of

the Faculty of Sebelas Maret University, for providing me with all thenecessary

facilities for the research.

I place on record, my sincere thank you to Dr. Yusip Muslih P., ST., MT.,

Ph.D.

I am also grateful to Prof.SA.Kristiawan . S.T., M.Sc .Ph.D. my supervisor

and lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering. I am extremely thankful and

indebted to him for sharing expertise, and sincere and valuable guidance and

encouragement extended to me.

I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ir.Winny Astuti,

M.Sc., Ph.D.

I take this opportunity to express gratitude to the entire Department facultyof

civil engineering members for their help and support. I also thank my mother for the

unceasing encouragement, support and attention. My dear father Times are hard. You

always used to help me through everything. I also thank my brothers and sister for

constant encouragement to me .I am also grateful to my wife and mydaughter who

supported me through this venture.

I also place on record, my sense of gratitude to one and all, who

directly orindirectly, have lent their hand in this venture.


commit to user

ßÞÍÌÎßÝÌ

Structures with poor concrete quality are susceptible to premature deterioration

which results in early requirement of repair. It is important to understand the

properties of repair materials, as this will allow the selection of a repair system that

matches, as closely as possible, the properties of the concrete to be repaired. The

repair material itself should not be cause of concrete deterioration because of poor

porosity. Therefore, this research will focus on determining the compatibility of

different repair materials with concrete based on porosity measurements.

Various RepairMaterials used are Normal mortar, UPR, BASF Nanocrete R4

and Sika repair mortar. Percent of absorption and porosity were measured according

to RILEM recommendation. Scanning Electron Microscope analysis was conducted

to study the porous and bond behavior of concrete with repair materials.

The result showed that UPR mortar 50% has lower porosity of 0.7968% than

SIKA, Mortar and BASF nanocrete R4. According to Macrostructure (Ms) and

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) can be seen that UPR mortar has less void and

porous on the specimen structure. Normal mortar, UPR Mortar 50%, BASF

Nanocrete R4 and SIKA Repair Mortar is used as repair material in this study and

shows that all repairs concrete result is tend to increase the porosity except UPR

mortar 50%.


commit to user

ßÞÍÌÎßÕ

Struktur dengan mutu beton rendah rentan terhadap kerusakan dini yang

akhirnya membutuhkan perbaikan. Hal ini penting untuk memahami sifat bahan

repair, karena ini akan memungkinkan pemilihan sistem perbaikan yang cocok,

sedekat mungkin, sifat beton yang akan diperbaiki. Perbaikan materi itu sendiri tidak

boleh penyebab kerusakan beton karena porositas yang buruk. Oleh karena itu,

penelitian ini akan fokus pada penentuan kompatibilitas bahan repair yang berbeda

dengan beton berdasarkan pengukuran porositas.

Berbagai repair material yang digunakan adalah normal mortar, UPR, BASF

Nanocrete R4 dan Sika repair mortar. Persentase dari penyerapan dan porositas

diukur menurut rekomendasi RILEM. Scanning Electron Microscope analisis

dilakukan untuk mempelajari porositas dan ikatan beton dengan repair material.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa UPR mortar 50% memiliki porositas

dengan nilai 0,7968% lebih rendah dari SIKA, Mortar dan BASF nanocrete R4.

Menurut macrostructure (Ms) dan Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) dapat dilihat

bahwa UPR mortar memiliki sedikit void dan pori pada struktur spesimen. Normal

mortar, UPR Mortar 50%, BASF Nanocrete R4 dan SIKA repair mortar digunakan

sebagai bahan perbaikan dalam penelitian ini dan menunjukkan bahwa semua

material perbaikan beton cenderung meningkatkan porositas kecuali UPR mortar

50%.


commit to user

ÝÑÒÌÛÒÌ


commit to user


commit to user

Ô×ÍÌ ÑÚ ÌßÞÔÛÍ

Table 2.1 Resume from previous researchTable 3.1 Parameters and Variables........................................................................................ 17

Table 3.2 Asphalt concrete gradation ..................................................................................... 19

Table 3.3 Concrete mix design at 30 MPa .............................................................................. 21

Table 3.4 Mixing ratio of Repair material (Normal Mortar) ................................................. 23

Table 3.5 Mixing ratio of Repair material (BASF Nanocrete) ............................................... 24

Table 3.6 Mixing ratio of Repair material (Sika Repair Mortar) ............................................ 24

Table 3.7 Mixing ratio of repair material (UPR-Mortar 50%)................................................ 24

Table 4.1 Fine aggregate test result..........................................................................................28

Table 4.2 Gradation of Fine Aggregate .................................................................................. 28

Table 4.3 Coarse Aggregate Test Result................................................................................. 29

Table 4.4 Gradation of Coarse Aggregate .............................................................................. 30

Table 4.5 Compressive strength test result ............................................................................. 32

Table 4.6 Porosity test result................................................................................................... 33

Table 4.7 Porosity test of various UPR dimensions................................................................ 35

Table 4.8 Comparison of test results of normal concrete and UPR Mortar 50%.................... 37

Table 4.9 Porosity test of various mortar dimensions............................................................. 38

Table 4.10 Comparison of test results of normal concrete and mortar. .................................. 39

Table 4.11 Porosity test of various BASF nanocrete dimensions ........................................... 41

Table 4.12 Comparison of test results of normal concrete and BASF Nanocrete R4............. 42

Table 4.13 Porosity test result of various SIKA dimensions .................................................. 44

Table 4.14 Comparison of test results of normal concrete and SIKA repair mortar............... 45


commit to user

Ô×ÍÌ ÑÚ Ú×ÙËÎÛÍ

Figure 3.1 Gradation limit of AC............................................................................................ 20

Figure 3.2 The compressive strength test’s tool...................................................................... 26

Figure 3.3Flow chart of research ............................................................................................ 27

Figure 4.1 Fine aggregate gradations ...................................................................................... 29

Figure 4.2 Coarse Aggregate Gradation ................................................................................. 31

Figure 4.3 Compressive strength test result ............................................................................ 32

Figure 4.4 Porosity test of different materials......................................................................... 34

Figure 4.5 Porosity rate of different specimen size................................................................. 36

Figure 4.6 Porosity test result of UPR Mortar 50%................................................................ 37


Figure 4.8 Porosity test result of Mortar ................................................................................. 40


Fig ure4.10 Porosity test result of BASF Nanocrete R4 ......................................................... 43

Figure 4.11 Porosity rate of different specimen size............................................................... 45

Figure 4.12 Porosity test result of Sika repair mortar ............................................................. 46

Figure 4.13 Macrostructure test of UPR mortar ..................................................................... 47

Figure 4.14 SEM compatibility condition between normal concrete with UPR-Mortar 50%.47

Figure 4.15 Macrostructure test of mortar .............................................................................. 48

Figure 4.16 SEM compatibility condition between normal concrete with normal mortar...... 49

Figure 4.17 Macrostructure test BASF ................................................................................... 50

Figure 4.18 SEM compatibility condition between normal concrete with BASF ................. 50

Figure 4.19 Macrostructure test SIKA.................................................................................... 51

Figure 4.20 SEM compatibility condition between normal concrete with Sika Repair Mortar.

................................................................................................................................................ 52


commit to user

Ô×ÍÌ ÑÚ ÍÇÓÞÑÔ

A = sample weight in water, W water (grams)

A’ = Section area (cm2)

B = sample weight Events SSD, W saturation (grams)

C = oven dry sample weight, W Dry (grams)

°C = Temperature (celcius degree)

f’c = Compressive strength (MPa)

h = degree of hydration

P = Load (kN)

vc = Voids of concrete

W = weight (gr)


commit to user

ßÐÐÛÒÜ×È

Appendix A Concrete mix design and material test

Appendix B Porosity Test

Appendix C Experimental Figures

Documents

Ì×ÌÔÛ ßÍÍÛÍÍÓÛÒÌ ÑÚ ÝÑÓÐßÌ×Þ×Ô ...eprints.uns.ac.id/21724/1/Bab_0.pdfperpustakaan.uns.ac.id digilib.uns.ac.id commit to user ßÝÕÒÑÉÔÛÜÙÛÓÛÒÌ