The most commonly used method in repairing Concrete Crack is the inject grouting method. The inject grouting method is divided into a high-pressure injection and a low-pressure injection by an injection method. But the characteristics of these methods produce many problems in crack works in the aspe...
The most commonly used method in repairing Concrete Crack is the inject grouting method. The inject grouting method is divided into a high-pressure injection and a low-pressure injection by an injection method. But the characteristics of these methods produce many problems in crack works in the aspect of economy and construction. This Study divide the inject grouting method into four and compare and analyze problems in each construction. The purpose of this is to offer basic data for the improvement of construction performance and economical aspect by comparing and analyzing each problem and economical aspect and construction performance in repairing cracks after comparing and considering low-pressure injection methods, such as a manual injection method, an auto injection method, high-pressure injection methods, Pecker and Super-bullet methods, unlike the existing method which used epoxy to repair cracks in concrete structures. The following procedures were undergone study to get basic data for this study. Compared and analyzed the crack repairing method of low-pressure injection methods, an inject grouting method and an auto-inject grouting method, an epoxy inject method, stand and an injector. Then, compared and analyzed the installment time of high-pressure injection methods, process course and the technical aspect of a Pecker method and a Super-bullet method with each repair method. Divided the repair methods of cracks in existing concrete structures into four and compared and studied the construction performance and economical aspect. The conclusions are as follows. 1. In the comparison of a low-pressure method, studied the process order of an inject method, the treatment of crack, the attachment of sealing material and stand, the injection of epoxy, the removal of stand and an injector and finish. It took three days in the case of an inject, but only one day in the case of an auto inject. The period of construction can be reduced to the level of 1/3. 2. In the comparison of the economical aspect of a low-pressure method, when the thickness of an inject increased from 12㎝ to 20㎝, also from 20㎝ to 30㎝, the construction cost increased about 13% and the auto inject increased 20%. But the construction cost of each thickness was 30-35% lower in an auto inject. 3. In the comparison of a high-pressure injection method, the installment time took 3 minutes . 30 second. on the average in Pecker and 1~5 sec. in Super-bullet. In the case of process, a work was possible only after 24 hours in Pecker, but it was possible immediately in Super-bullet. Pecker had an effect on a structure, but Super-bullet had little effect on it. 4. In the economical aspect of a low-pressure injection method, when the thickness of Pecker increased from 12㎝ to 20㎝, also from 20㎝ to 30㎝, the construction cost increased about 14%. In the case of Super-bullet, the construction cost increased about 20%. In comparing the price by each thickness in the construction using Pecker and Super-bullet methods, the construction cost decreased 30%-35% depending on by each thickness.
The most commonly used method in repairing Concrete Crack is the inject grouting method. The inject grouting method is divided into a high-pressure injection and a low-pressure injection by an injection method. But the characteristics of these methods produce many problems in crack works in the aspect of economy and construction. This Study divide the inject grouting method into four and compare and analyze problems in each construction. The purpose of this is to offer basic data for the improvement of construction performance and economical aspect by comparing and analyzing each problem and economical aspect and construction performance in repairing cracks after comparing and considering low-pressure injection methods, such as a manual injection method, an auto injection method, high-pressure injection methods, Pecker and Super-bullet methods, unlike the existing method which used epoxy to repair cracks in concrete structures. The following procedures were undergone study to get basic data for this study. Compared and analyzed the crack repairing method of low-pressure injection methods, an inject grouting method and an auto-inject grouting method, an epoxy inject method, stand and an injector. Then, compared and analyzed the installment time of high-pressure injection methods, process course and the technical aspect of a Pecker method and a Super-bullet method with each repair method. Divided the repair methods of cracks in existing concrete structures into four and compared and studied the construction performance and economical aspect. The conclusions are as follows. 1. In the comparison of a low-pressure method, studied the process order of an inject method, the treatment of crack, the attachment of sealing material and stand, the injection of epoxy, the removal of stand and an injector and finish. It took three days in the case of an inject, but only one day in the case of an auto inject. The period of construction can be reduced to the level of 1/3. 2. In the comparison of the economical aspect of a low-pressure method, when the thickness of an inject increased from 12㎝ to 20㎝, also from 20㎝ to 30㎝, the construction cost increased about 13% and the auto inject increased 20%. But the construction cost of each thickness was 30-35% lower in an auto inject. 3. In the comparison of a high-pressure injection method, the installment time took 3 minutes . 30 second. on the average in Pecker and 1~5 sec. in Super-bullet. In the case of process, a work was possible only after 24 hours in Pecker, but it was possible immediately in Super-bullet. Pecker had an effect on a structure, but Super-bullet had little effect on it. 4. In the economical aspect of a low-pressure injection method, when the thickness of Pecker increased from 12㎝ to 20㎝, also from 20㎝ to 30㎝, the construction cost increased about 14%. In the case of Super-bullet, the construction cost increased about 20%. In comparing the price by each thickness in the construction using Pecker and Super-bullet methods, the construction cost decreased 30%-35% depending on by each thickness.
주제어
#에폭시 수지 콘크리트 균열 보수
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.