Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: A review of methods for concrete removal
Authors: Campbell, Roy L., 1942-
Keywords: Acetylene-air rock-breaker
Concrete splitter
Borehole notching
Diamond saw
Concrete cutting
Electric-arc equipment
Concrete removal
Electrothermal lance
Concrete spaller
Expansive agent
Explosive blasting
Hand-held breaker
High-pressure carbon dioxide blaster
Hydraulic rock-breaker
Powder lance
Powder torch
Thermal lance
Vehicle-mounted breaker
Water cannon
Water jet
Publisher: Structures Laboratory (U.S.)
Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.)
Series/Report no.: Technical report (U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station) ; SL-82-3.
Description: Technical Report
Abstract: The purpose of this report is to aid the engineer in his selection of applicable means of removal of distressed or deteriorated concrete for maintenance and preservation work at Corps projects. The report reviews methods of concrete removal and the particular devices that are presently being used or have potential for use in removal of distressed or deteriorated surfaces from mass concrete structures. The report presents the main advantages and disadvantages of each of the following means: (A.) Acetylene-air rock-breaker. (B.) Concrete spaller. (C.) Concrete splitter. (D.) Diamond saw. (E.) Electric-arc equipment. (F.) Explosive blasting. (G.) Expansive agent. (H.) Hand-held breaker. (I.) High-pressure carbon dioxide blaster. (J.) High-pressure water jet. (K.) Hydraulic rock-breaker. (L.) Powder lance. (M.) Powder torch. (N.) Thermal lance. (O.) Vehicle-mounted breaker. (P.) Water cannon. Also reviewed is a borehole notching technique that appears to enhance the performance and crack control for some means, such as explosive blasting and the use of an expansive agent, that require boreholes. Of the removal means reviewed, explosive blasting is considered to be the most cost-effective and expedient for surface removal of large volumes of material from mass concrete structures. In situations where explosive blasting cannot be used, the following have potential as alternates: (1.) Acetylene-air rock-breaker. (2.) Concrete splitter. (3.) Expansive agent. (4.) High-pressure carbon dioxide blaster. (5.) High-pressure water jet (in situations where reinforcement is to be preserved for reuse). It is recommended that a field comparison study of these potential alternates, including an evaluation of the borehole notching technique, be carried out as part of the scheduled repair and rehabilitation work at a Corps project. The principal determinations to be made for comparison should be: (1.) Cost. (2.) Rates of removal. (3.) Extent of damage to concrete that remains. (4.) Problem areas.
Rights: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Appears in Collections:Technical Report

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
TR-SL-82-3.pdf9.56 MBAdobe PDFThumbnail