Abstract
The number of aged bridges among concrete structures is increasing. Therefore, to increase their lifespans, repair and reinforcement schemes ought to be implemented. This study selected various repair materials according to crack-surface treatment, crack-filling, and crack-injection methods. These repair materials were evaluated using various test methods proposed by the Korean Standards and the American Society for Testing and Materials for structure protection, structure restoration, and crack repair; the results were analyzed and compared. Consequently, the structure restoration material exhibited a similar freezing-thawing trend as that of chloride, while also exhibiting similar flexural, compressive, bond, and splitting-tensile strengths. However, chloride yielded performance differences (up to two-fold) depending on the type of material used for comparison. The crack-repair material yielded similar trends only for bond strength but yielded differences (up to 2-4-fold) in tensile, compressive, and flexural strengths depending on the material used for comparison. These results confirmed that crack-repair materials exhibit significant differences in performance depending on the manufacturer compared with structure protection and structure restoration materials. Therefore, it is expected that repair materials appropriate for usability, durability, and structure safety, while also being environmentally friendly, could be used in future bridge repairs based on these test evaluations.