FOREWOJRD

Crack sealing and filling on asphalt concrete pavements is a commonly perfonned highway

maintenance operation. The Strategic Highway Research Program's (SHRP) H-I06 crack

treatment study was part ofthe most extensive pavement maintenance experiment ever

conducted. The information derived fi.-om this study will contribute greatly toward advancing the

state ofthe practice of crack treatments on asphalt-surfaced pavements.

This report provides information to pavement engineers and maintenance personnel on the results

ofthe R·I 06 crack treatment experiment. It presents the perfonnance and cost-effectiveness of

various crack sealing and fiiling materials and procedures for repairing cracks on asphaltsurfaced pavements.

This report will be ofinterest to anyone concerned with the maintenance and rehabilitation of

asphalt-surfaced pavements.

--;;ll .. .J/l II -.l/;/iA /~c "\

T. P ul Teng, P.E. 'fi

Director ( /

Office ofInfrastmctu .

Research and Development

NOTiCE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department ofTransportation in the

interest ofinfoni1ation exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its

contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and

manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the

object ofthe document.
Technical Report Documentat on Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient'. Catalog No.

FHWA-RD-99-143

4. Title and Subtitle

LTPP PAVEMENT MAINTENAN<:E MATERIALS: SHRP <:rack Treatment

Experiment, Final Report

5. Report Date

September 1999

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

K.L. Smith and A.R. Romine

8. Performing Organization Report No.

t-:-~"""':"'o:----------------------I

9. performing Organization Name and Address

ERES <:onsultants

A Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc.

505 W. University Avenue

<:hampaign, Illinois 61820-3915

12. Sponsoring Agency Namlland Address

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development

Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-93-<:~51

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA <:ontracting Officer's Technical Representative (<:OTR): Shahed Rowshan, HRDI

Project <:onsultants: Charlie Smyth

16. Abstract

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) H-106 maintenance experiment and the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) of Pavement Maintenance Materials Test Sites project studied

two distinct asphalt concrete (Aq crack treatments: transverse crack sealing and longitudinal crack filling. Both

activities are performed frequently in order to extend pavement life by preventing or substantially reducing the

infiltration ofwater into the pavement structure.

Highway agencies use different materials and methods to treat cracks in A<: pavements, and some of these treatments

are inherently better than others; however, the relative effectiveness of a treatment often depends on the situations or

conditions under which they are used. The primary objective of the H-106/LTM crack treatment experiment, then,

was to determine the most effective and economical materials and methods for conducting crack sealing and crack

filling operations. Secondary objectives included the identification of both performance-related material tests and

quicker, safer installation practices.

This report documents the entire A<: crack treatment study, including the installation of 31 unique crack treatments

(I.e., combinations of sealant/filler materials and installation method) at 5 different test sites, the laboratory testing of

experimental sealant/filler materials, and the 7-year performance monitoring of the various crack treatments. It also

discusses the results of comprehensive statistical analyses conducted on material performance and laboratory testing

data. The results of a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis are also presented.

17. KeyWords

Asphalt pavement, pavement maintenance, cracks,

crack sealing, crack filling, crack treatment,

performance, service life, cost-effectiveness

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to

the public through the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

19. Security ClassIf. (of this report) 20. Security Classlf. (of this page) 21. No of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 163

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
• I •

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO 81 UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSION

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply 

LENGTH LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 

It feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 

yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 

AREA AREA

jnI square inches 645.2 square millimeters mmt mmt square millimeters 0.0016 

ttl square feet 0.093 square meters m' m' square meters 10.764 

'1d' square yards 0.836 square meters m' m' square meters 1.195 

ac aaes 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 

mil square miles 2.59 square kilometers kmZ km' square kilometers 0.386 

VOLUME VOLUME

ft 01 ftuldounon n.S7 mlllliitars mL mL milliliters 0.034 

gal gaRon. 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 

It' cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters ma ma cubic meters 35.71 

..... III 'IdS cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters ma ma cubic meters 1.307 

..... NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 Ishal be shown in ma.

MASS MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 

Ib pounds -0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 

T short tons (2000 Ib) 0.907 megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.103 

(or -metric ton-) (or-r) (or Or) (or -metric ton")

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE 

DF Fahrenheit 5(F-32)19 Celcius DC DC Celcius 1.8C +32 

temperature or (F-32)11.8 temperature temperature 

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATIO

Ie foot~s 10.76 lux Ix Ix lux 0.0929 

ft foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m' c:cVm' c:cVm' candela/m' 0.2919 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE 

Ibf poundfon::e 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 

Ibflln' poundfon::e per 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 

square inch 

• SIIa the symbol for the Intemational System of Units. Appropriate 

rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
1. INTRODUCTION •

Objectives

Scope

Project Overview

Test Site Characteristics

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

1

1

...... 1

5

2. TEST SITE INSTALLATIONS

Test Site Arrangements

Installation Process

Documentation .....

Cost and Productivity Data

Comments .

............................... 13

14

14

30

31

33

Performance Data Collection •••••••

Summary of Treatment Performance •••••••

3. MATERIAL TESTING ...

Laboratory Tests Performed

Test Results .

4. FIELD PERFORMANCE .

Introduction ..•.•........••.

.................................

.................................

......

37

37

37

45

45

.46

50

5. DATA ANALYSIS .

Statistical Methodology

Comparative Analysis .

Analysis of Variance of Service Life

Laboratory Test-Field Performance Correlation Analyses

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 0 ••••••••

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings .

Recommendations

63

63

67

71

78

81

89

89

92

REFERENCES ••.......•••.••....•..•••••••.........••......... 95

APPENDIX A. TEST SITE LAyOUTS 97

APPENDIXB. INSTALLATION DATA 101

APPENDIX C. MATERIAL TESTING DATA 117

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX D. FIELD PERFORMANCE 129

APPENDIX E. COST-EFFECTIVENESS 153

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Rgme

1. AC crack treatment test site locations 2

2. Material placement configmations for AC crack treatments 4

3. Abilene, Texas transverse crack-seal test site 7

4. Elrna, Washington transverse crack-seal test site 8

5. Wichita, Kansas transverse crack-seal test site 9

6. Des Moines, Iowa transverse crack-seal test site 10

7. Prescott, Ontario longitudinal crack-fill test site 11

8. Conceptual layout oftest sections at each test site 16

9. Initial inspection sketch oftransverse crack 17

10. Hi-Spec reservoir-and-flush configmation (configmation A) 21

11. Hi-Spec simple band-aid configmation (configmation D) 21

12. Addition ofBoniFiber polyester fibers to asphalt cement 22

13. Backer rod installation 24

14. 890-SL deep reservoir-and-recess configmation (configmation E) 25

15. Placement of CRF in flush-fill configmation (configmation G) 26

16. Carbide-tipped rotary-impact router 28

17. Random crack saw with 200-rom diamond blade 28

18. Hot airblasting using hot compressed-air (HCA) lance (crack preparation

procedme 3) 29

19. Light sandblasting using wand with attached wooden guide (crack preparation

procedme 5) 29

20. Force-ductility load-elongation curves for various primary materials 41

21. ASTM D 412 modulus testing 42

22. Load-elongation curves for modulus test conducted at 23°C 42

23. Load-elongation curves for modulus test conducted at 4°C 43

24. Load-elongation curves for modulus test conducted at -18°C 43

25. ASTM D 3583 tensile adhesion testing 44

26. Crack-seal performance evaluation form 48

27. Overall performance trends of primary experimental treatments by site 50

28. Time-series effectiveness trends of Abilene, TX crack-seal treatments 52

29. Time-series effectiveness trends ofElrna, WA crack-seal treatments 53

30. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS adverse-conditions crack-seal

treatments 54

31. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS ideal-conditions crack-seal treatments. 56

32. Time-series effectiveness trends of Des Moines, IA crack-seal treatments 57

33. Illustration offull-depth adhesion loss in recessed band-aid 59

34. Illustration offull-depth cohesion loss in simple band-aid 60

35. Typical spall and secondary crack adjacent to 890-SL silicone seal 61

36. Time-series effectiveness trends of Prescott, ON crack-fill treatments 61

37. Illustration ofservice life estimation, based on 75 percent effectiveness 65

38. Illustration depicting estimates of actual versus predicted service lives 66

39. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives at Abilene 73

v
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

40. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives at Wichita ideal-condition subsite .. 73

41. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives at Wichita adverse-conditions

subsite ' 74

42. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment services lives at Ebna 74

43. Tukeyanalysis of estimated treatment service lives at Des Moines 75

44. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives at Prescott 75

B-l. Work journal and climatic condition chart 102

B-2. Test section layout form 103

B-3. Initial crack inventory form 104

B-4. Test section initial preparation form 106

B-5. Refaced crack inventory form 107

B-6. Kettle temperature monitoring chart 108

B-7. Nail plug monitoring chart 109

B-8. Final crack preparation and material installation form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

C-l. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for Hi-Spec 123

C-2. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for RS 515 123

C-3. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for 9030 124

C-4. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for XLM 124

C-5. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for 890-SL 125

C-6. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for Hi-Spec 125

C-7. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for RS 515 126

C-8. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for 9030 126

C-9. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for XLM 127

C-lO. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for 890-SL 127

D-l. Field performance evaluation form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

E-l. Example cost-effectiveness analysis 155

vi
LIST OF TABLES

1. List of material products installed in H-106 crack treatment experiment 3

2. Crack preparation procedures included in H-106 crack treatment experiment 5

3. Summary of crack-seal and crack-fill installations 6

4. Test site construction information 13

5. Estimated volumes for primary material configurations 31

6. Primary material costs and estimated application rates and costs 32

7. Typical requirements for various installation procedures 34

8. Designated initial test procedures 38

9. Target properties and modifications of supplemental performance tests 38

10. Initial test results for rubberized asphalt products and corresponding requirements 39

11. Supplemental test matrix for primary treatment materials 40

12. Summary oftest site inspections and corresponding treatment ages 45

13. Breakdown offailure modes for experimental crack seals 59

14. Illustration of service life statistics computation 66

15. Means and standard deviations of estimated service lives for all experimental crack

treatments 68

16. Test site crack movement statistics 69

17. Selected laboratory test-field performance correlation results 80

18. Estimated equipment costs for various installation processes 82

19. Installation requirements and costs of experimental crack treatments 83

20. Average annual cost comparisons of crack-seal treatments 86

21. Average annual cost comparisons of crack-fill treatments 87

A-1. Randomized order of treatments at Abilene crack-seal test site 97

A-2. Randomized order oftreatments at Elma crack-seal test site 97

A-3. Randomized order oftreatments at Wichita crack-seal test site 98

A-4. Randomized order oftreatments at Des Moines crack-seal test site 98

A-5. Randomized order oftreatments at Prescott crack-fill test site 99

B-1. Des Moines test section installation summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

B-2. Abilene test section installation summary 112

B-3. Wichita ideal-conditions subsite test section installation summary 113

B-4. Wichita adverse-conditions subsite test section installation summary 114

B-5. Elma test section installation summary 115

B-6. Prescott test section installation summary 116

C-1. Initial test requirements for rubber-modified asphalt materials 118

C-2. Initial test requirements for silicone, fiber, and emulsion materials 119

C-3. Mean laboratory test results for primary material products 120

D-1. Des Moines, IA crack treatment performance summaries 134

D-2. Wichita, KS adverse-conditions crack treatment performance summaries 137

D-3. Wichita, KS ideal-conditions crack treatment performance summaries 140

D-4. Abilene, TX crack treatment performance summaries 143

D-5. Elma, WA crack treatment performance summaries 146

D-6. Prescott, ON crack treatment performance summaries 149

vii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Objectives

Under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) H-106 maintenance experiment and

the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) of Pavement

Maintenance Materials Test Sites project, two distinct asphalt concrete (AC) crack treatment

activities were studied: transverse crack sealing and longitudinal crack filling. Both activities are

frequently performed by highway agencies in order to extend pavement life via preventing or

substantially reducing the infiltration of water into the pavement structure.

Several different materials and methods are used in crack treatment operations, some of which

are inherently better than others. In many cases, however, the relative effectiveness of materials

and methods depends on the situations or conditions in which they are used. Several studies have

been conducted in the past to assess the effectiveness ofthese items. Although these individual

studies have gradually advanced the state ofthe technology, a more comprehensive investigation,

such as that conducted in SHRP project H-106, has been long overdue.

The primary objective ofthe H-106 crack treatment experiment was to determine the most

effective and economical materials and methods for conducting crack sealing and crack filling

operations. Secondary objectives included the identification of both performance-related material

tests and quicker, safer installation practices. Toward these ends, a total offour transverse crackseal test sites and one longitudinal crack-fill test site were constructed throughout the United

States and Canada between March and August 1991. The general locations of these test sites are

shown in figure 1.

Scope

This report covers all aspects ofthe crack treatment portion of the H-106 maintenance study.

The various aspects of planning, installing, and evaluating the experimental crack treatment sites

constructed in the project are discussed in chapters 2, 3, and 4. An in-depth performance analysis,

conducted for the purpose of establishing useful trends or relationships among installation,

laboratory testing, and field performance, is presented in chapter 5. Chapter 6 summarizes the

preliminary findings and recommendations.

Project Overview

As stated previously, this project focused on both transverse crack sealing and longitudinal

crack filling operations. By definition, crack sealing is the placement ofspecialized materials into

and/or above "working" cracks in order to prevent the intrusion of water and incompressibles into

the cracks ("working" cracks refer to cracks that undergo significant amounts ofmovement,

generally 2.5 mm). Crack filling, on the other hand, is the placement of materials into "nonworking" cracks to substantially reduce water infiltration and reinforce adjacent cracks.

1
.. .....

.....

o

Oz

....

~o

a.

2

-
Because of the predominant interest in, and need for, longer lasting crack sealants, the emphasis in

this study was placed on crack sealing.

In the experiment, several different treatments were applied and evaluated for performance

over several years. The test sites containing the treatments were located on two- and four-lane

highways of moderate traffic volume, representing four fundamental climatic regions, as shown in

figure 1: dry-nonfreeze, dry-freeze, wet-nonfreeze, and wet-freeze. In order to examine the

effects of ambient weather conditions during sealing operations, the site at Wichita, Kansas

consisted of an ideal-conditions test lane and an adverse-conditions test lane. These two lanes

were located adjacent to one another.

The basic character of each test site was formulated in the SHRP H-105 project and finalized

just prior to the SHRP H-106 installations. In all, 10 material products were placed in the

transverse crack-seal sites and 6 material products were placed in the longitudinal crack-fill site.

Table 1 presents the entire list of materials, both primary and state-added, that were installed in

the experiment.

The installation methodology for a particular material involved: (1) the configuration in which

the material was placed and (2) the method of crack preparation. Figure 2 shows the eight

Table 1. List of material products installed in H-106 crack treatment experiment.

Product Material TyPe Test Site Locations

Meadows Hi-Spect>

Crafco RoadSavert> RS 515

Koch 9030

MeadowsXLM

85-100 Penetration-Graded AC

WitcoCR~

CrafcoAR2

CrafcoAR+

Koch 9000-S

ElfCRS-2P

H -Grade Kold Flo

Rubberized Asphalt

Rubberized

Fiberized Asphalt

Emulsion

As halt Rubber

Fiberized Asphalt

Emulsion

Rubberized Emulsion

3

Abilene, TX; Elma, WA; Wichita, KS;

Des Moines, IA

Wichita, KS

Des Moines, IA

Prescott, ON
16mm

1--1

ConfiKUl'ation C

S1uIl1ow RseBl:WJllBIIIIlJ.A.I4

16mm

1--1

Configuration E

Deep BeservolNs1uJ-Rscess

Confipatlon G

S/mpltJ Fbtsh-FiD

Conftguratlon B

SUlltlltmJ Rscesse4Btut4-Aill

Confipuation D

SintJIs BIJII4.Ai4

Configuration F

SGn4tmlR1!servob<-anil-&cess

Conlipation H

~4

Figure 2. Material placement configurations for AC crack treatments.

4
placement configurations employed (designated A through H), while table 2 lists the seven crack

preparation procedures used (designated 1 through 7). Altogether, 13 unique installation methods

were implemented. These methods are, herein, presented as A-3, D-4, E-6, etc.

Table 3 provides a complete matrix ofthe treatments applied at each site. As can be seen,

some materials were placed using only one method, while others were placed using several

methods. A total of 31 distinct treatments were applied in the experiment, several at multiple

locations.

Test Site Characteristics

1-20. Abilene. Texas

This crack-seal test site, representing the dry-nonfreeze climate, was located between

mileposts 278 and 282 in the westbound driving lane ofInterstate 20 near Abilene, Texas (see

figure 3). The pavement section was originally constructed in the mid-1960s using 76 mm ofAC,

203 mm of crushed limestone base, and 406 mm of crushed caliche subbase placed on a 152-mm

lime-stabilized subgrade. A 64-mm AC overlay with a geofabric interlayer was placed in 1989.

Pavement condition at the time ofinstallation was fairly good. Transverse cracks were the

only significant form of distress present. These cracks were typically about 3 mm wide and were

spaced fairly regularly-between 15 and 18 m Very little spalling and secondary cracking was

observed along the transverse cracks.

Table 2. Crack preparation procedures included in H-106 crack treatment experiment.

I Designation I Crack Preparation Procedure I

1 None-no cleaning and no accessory materials (e.g., backer materials)

2 Wirebrushing---aack channels cleaned with mechanical wire brush followed by

high-pressure air compressor

3 Hot airblasting---aack channels cleaned, dried, and heated with hot compressedair (RCA) lance connected to high-pressure air compressor

4 High-pressure airblasting---aack channels cleaned with high-pressure compressed

air

5 High-pressure airblasting and backerrod-crack channels cleaned with highpressure compressed air; backerrod placed at bottom of crack reservoir

6 Sandblasting and backerrod-crack channels cleaned with light application of

sandblasting followed by high-pressure airblasting; backer rod placed at bottom of

crack reservoir

7 Sandblasting and backer tape-crack channels cleaned with light application of

sandblasting followed by high-pressure airblasting; backer tape placed at bottom of

crack reservoir

5
Table 3. Summary of crack-seal and crack-fill installations.

Treatment

Material

Meadows Hi-Spec

Crafco RS 515

Koch 9030

MeadowsXLM

Kapejo BoniFiber + AC

Dow 890-SL

CrafcoAR+

Koch 9000-S

ElfCRS-2P

Crafco RS 211

AC

CrafcoAR2

Hercules Fiber Pave +

AC

WitcoCRF

Hy-Grade Kold Flo

Installation Method

(confil!:uration-ureparation urocedure)

A-2

A-3

B-3

C-3

D-3

D4

B-3

C-3

D-3

B-3

C-3

D-3

B-3

C-3

D-3

D-3

E-5

E-6

F-7

B-3

B-3

G4

B-3

H4

G-l

G-4

D4

G4

D4

G4

G4

State/Province Installed

Texas Kansas Washington Iowa

./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./ ./

./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./ ./

./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./ ./

./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./ ./ ./ ./

./

./

./

./

11111111~111111111:lllilil!!!li:!r!~!~I:I!!!:!I:III!111IIIIIIIIIIIIIJillllllllll:III!!!III!II!111111111111111IIIIUlilllllillllji::iliilil:II:::i!~'

Ontario

Configuration

A. Standard Reservoir-and-Flush

B. Standard Recessed Band-Aid

C. Shallow Recessed Band-Aid

D. Simple Band-Aid

E. Deep Reservoir-and-Recess

F. Standard Reservoir-and-Recess

G. Simple Flush-Fill

H. Capped

J>re.paration Procedure

1. None

2. Wire Brush and Compressed Air

3. Hot Compressed-Air Lance

4. Compressed Air

5. Light Sandblast, Compressed Air, and Backer Rod

6. Compressed Air and Backer Rod

7. Light Sandblast, Compressed Air, and Backer Tape

6
....... •

Figure 3. Abilene, Texas transverse crack-seal test site.

Two-way traffic on this four-lane interstate facility, as recorded in 1988, was approximately

19,900 vehicles per day (vpd). Data on the percentage oftrucks were not available, but it was

estimated to be fairly high-in the vicinity of 15 to 20 percent. Assuming a directional

distribution of 50 percent and a lane distribution of 60 percent, the amount oftraffic traversing the

test site (i.e., the westbound driving lane) was estimated to be nearly 6,000 vpd.

The mean annual precipitation at the Abilene site is about 600 mm (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

1983). Mean annual monthly temperatures range from 7°C to 29°C, and the mean number of

days with minimum temperatures below O°C is about 45 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

WA 8. Elma. Washington

This wet-nonfreeze crack-seal test site was located between mileposts 0 and 7.25 in the

eastbound passing lane ofWashington State Route 8 near Elma, Washingon (see figure 4). The

pavement section was originally constructed in 1964 as a full-depth AC pavement. An AC

overlay in the mid-1980s brought the total depth of AC to 229 mm.

When this road was selected as a crack-seal site, overall pavement condition was fairly good.

Transverse cracks were present, typically at 23 to 31 m The cracks, ranging between 3 and 6

mm wide, were accompanied by very few spalls and secondary cracks. Some rutting was evident

in the wheelpaths, but usually to depths no greater than 6 mm.

7
MONTESANO ELMA

ABERDEEN

Figure 4. Elma, Washington transverse crack-seal test site.

During the winter and early spring of 1991, the surface course in the driving lane ofthis fourlane divided highway experienced some severe delamination due to heavy freeze-thaw cycles.

The deterioration was sufficient to warrant full-depth repairs and the placement of a chip seal in

this lane over much ofthe section. Hence, the original idea ofsealing both lanes to investigate the

effects of traffic on sealant performance had to be abandoned and only the cracks in the passing

lane were sealed.

Two-way traffic on this facility in 1990 was approximately 14,000 vpd, 9 percent of which

was truck traffic. No lane-traffic distributions were obtained; however, estimates from the field

indicated that no more than 40 percent ofthe traffic occupied the passing lane, which is where the

experimental seals were located. Assuming a directional distribution of 50 percent, the maximum

amount oftraffic passing over the test site was estimated to be 2,800 vpd, easily making it the

lowest trafficked site.

The mean annual precipitation at the Elma site is about 2,450 mm (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

1983). Mean annual monthly temperatures typically range between 5°C and 21 °C, and the mean

number of days with minimum temperatures below O°C is about 90 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

1983).

KS 254. Wichita. Kansas

This crack-seal site, representing the dry-freeze climatic zone, was located between mileposts

4.5 and 10.2 of Kansas State Route 254 near Wichita, Kansas (see figure 5). The eastbound lane

of this two-lane highway represented the ideal-conditions lane, while the westbound lane

represented the adverse-conditions lane. The date of original construction for this pavement

8
TOWANDA

HAYSVILLE

Figure 5. Wichita, Kansas transverse crack-seal test site.

section was not available; however, it was constructed as a full-depth AC pavement. In the

summer of 1989, rehabilitation was performed by milling off 38 mm ofthe AC surface and placing

a blend ofrecycled and new AC to a depth of76 mm. Hence, the final cross section was

composed of 305 mm of AC.

As with the Abilene site, pavement condition at the time ofinstallation was fairly good.

Transverse cracks, between 3 and 5 mm wide, were typically spaced between 18 and 25 m apart.

Some ofthe transverse cracks exhibited a considerable degree ofsecondary cracking. To the

extent possible, these cracks were excluded from the experiment.

Two-way traffic on this undivided highway was estimated in 1988 to be 7,000 vpd, with 13

percent trucks. However, judging from observations made during the installation and 10

subsequent field inspections, this figure was believed to be considerably higher. Based on the

7,000-vpd estimate and assuming a directional distribution of 50 percent, the amount oftraffic

traversing each test site was at least 3,500 vpd.

The approximate mean annual precipitation at the Wichita site is 810 mm (U.S. Dept. of

Commerce, 1983). Mean annual monthly temperatures range from 1°C to 27°C, and the mean

number of days below O°C is about 112 (U.S. Dept. ofCommerce, 1983).

9
1-35. Des Moines. Iowa

The location ofthis wet-freeze crack-seal site was between mileposts 93 and 102 in the

northbound driving lane ofInterstate 35 near Des Moines, Iowa (see figure 6). The pavement

section was originally constructed in 1965 with 254 mm ofjointed reinforced concrete (JRC)

pavement placed on a 102-mm granular subbase. The joints were doweled and spaced 23 m

apart. In 1988, some partial- and full-depth patching was done, followed by the placement of a

102-mm AC overlay.

By the time this experimental site was installed, most ofthe transverse joints had reflected up

through the overlay. Several ofthe reflective cracks had been treated in 1989 with an emulsion

material, of which only traces remained. On average, transverse cracks were 2 to 4 mm wide and

were accompanied by some spalls and secondary cracks. Some longitudinal cracks were present

along the lane-shoulder joint.

Two-way traffic on this four-lane facility was estimated in 1990 to be 20,700 vpd, with

approximately 20.5 percent trucks. Based on a 50 percent directional distribution and a 60

percent lane distribution, more than 6,200 vpd crossed over the test site (ie., the northbound

driving lane).

Mean annual precipitation at the Des Moines site is about 840 mm (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

1983). Mean annual monthly temperatures range from -6°C to 24°C, and the mean number of

days below O°C is about 140 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

HUXLEY.

ANKENY.'

...... : I

DES MOINES I @ J.

Figure 6.

"

Des Moines, Iowa transverse crack-seal test site.

10
Highway 401. Prescott, Ontario

The longitudinal crack-fill test site, constructed in the wet-freeze climate, was located between

kilometerposts 716 and 718 in the eastbound lane of Highway 401 near Prescott, Ontario (see

figure 7), The date of original construction for this pavement section was not available; however,

the section was constructed as a 230-mmjointed plain concrete (JPC) pavement pfuced on 305

mm of granular subbase. In 1979, a 127-mm AC overlay was placed on the existing concrete

surface.

Transverse reflective cracks had developed in both lanes in the mid-1980s, at which time they

were sealed with a hot-applied rubberized asphalt. A fair percentage ofthese seals were observed

to have failed at the time the crack-fill experiment was installed. The longitudinal centerline crack

sealed in this experiment typically ranged from 3 to 5 mm wide. Some segments ofthe crack

were spalled or potholed, and tight alligator cracks ran along much ofthe crack length.

The two-way traffic for this four-lane divided highway was estimated in 1991 to be 12,000

vpd. The percentage oftrucks was not available; however, it was believed to be at least 12

percent. Because of the location ofthe longitudinal crack, very little traffic crossed the crack-fill

treatments.

Mean annual precipitation at the Prescott site is about 850 mm (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

1983). Mean annual monthly temperatures range from -7°C to 21°C, and the mean number of

days below O°C is about 140 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

Figure 7. Prescott, Ontario longitudinal crack-fill test site.

11

CHAPTER 2. TEST SITE INSTALLATIONS

After an extensive 4-month search in which 38 potential test sites were field-reviewed,

primary and backup test sites were selected in February 1991 (except for the crack-fill site, which

was selected in June 1991). These sites were selected based upon an overall rating of numerous

characteristics, including the quantity and appropriateness of distress, the uniformity and future

availability of the pavement section, and the ability and willingness of the local maintenance force

to participate in the study.

The field installation process began in March 1991 with the Abilene test site and concluded in

August 1991 with the Prescott test site. Upon completion, roughly 6,710 m of cracks were

treated with the experimental materials.

Table 4 summarizes basic information regarding the layout and construction of each test site.

As can be seen, each test site typically took between 1 and 2 weeks to layout and construct. The

actual time required at each site depended on the weather conditions encountered, the length of

the test site, the number of materials that were to be placed, and the available resources ofthe

participating agencies. For instance, at the 1.6-kmPrescott test site, five materials-two of which

were cold-applied emulsions-were placed in 2 working days. In contrast, the two subsites at

Wichita, each greater than 8 km long, took nearly 14 working days to construct. Eight materials

were placed at each ofthese subsites, and a few days ofinclement weather were experienced.

For the most part, the installations followed the procedures and criteria described in the SHRP

H-106 Experimental Design and Research Plan (EDRP) (Evans et al., 1991). However, a few

changes were made prior to and during the H-106 field installations. These included:

• Reduction in reservoir width for configurations A, B, and E (from 19 rom to 16 rom).

• Incorporation of two "no seal" test sections at Des Moines.

Table 4. Test site construction information.

Test Site Duration TotalNumber of

Facility Participating (Layout and Layout and

Test Site Location Type Agency Activity Construction) Construction Days

1-20, Abilene, TX 4-lane interstate Texas State Dept. Transverse 3/20/91 - 3/27/91 5

ofHighways and crack sealing

Public Trans.

KS 254, Wichita, KS 2-lane highway Kansas DOT Transverse 4/10/91 - 5/2/91 10

crack sealing

WA 8, EIma, WA 4-lane highway Washington State Transverse 4/22/91 - 4/27/91 3

DOT crack sealing

1-35, Des Moines, IA 4-lane interstate Iowa DOT Transverse 5/30/91 - 6{1/91 5

crack sealing

Hwy401, Prescott, ON 4-lane highway Ontario Ministry of Longitudinal 8/28/91 - 8/29/91 2

13
• Modification ofinstallation methods for two Dow Corning 890-SL sections at Wichita

adverse-conditions subsite (methods E-6 and F-7 were used instead ofl'llethod E-5).

• Incorporation ofsix supplemental (State-added) material products for performance

evaluation (see table 1).

• Incorporation ofsix additional test sections at Des Moines for investigating the

performance ofRS 515, 9030, and XLM sealants placed in configuration B.

Nearly every experimental treatment was replicated twice in the field to increase the statistical

validity of performance analyses. The exceptions to this were the two Dow Corning 890-SL

sections located in the Wichita adverse-conditions subsite. Here, methods E-6 and F-7 were used

in one section each, replacing the two sections allotted for method E-5.

Test Site Arrangements

Once each site was selected and approved for use, efforts were made to determine the

resources needed for complete installation ofthe various test sites. This entailed the estimation of

material requirements and a knowledge ofthe manpower and equipment available at each

participating agency. For instance, one agency did not have access to a hot compressed-air lance;

therefore, arrangements had to be made with an equipment manufacturer to lease one.

Initial material estimates were made based on the number ofsections testing each material and

the application rates associated with the various material configurations. A 25 percent wastage

factor was then applied to each material estimate. After conversations with manufacturers and

expert consultants, the hot-applied material estimates were again increased to ensure proper

functioning ofthe asphalt kettle units and to reduce the likelihood of material overheating. A

sufficient amount of material in the kettle vat helps safeguard against heating and application

problems.

To further inform participating agencies about what to expect during the installations, layout

and construction plans were prepared and sent to the project supervisors at each agency. These

plans presented the scope and objectives ofthe project and outlined the responsibilities ofthe

participating agency and the SHRP contractor. Conceptual maps illustrating the proposed layout

oftest sections for treatments also were included in this document. Several copies ofthese maps

were later made and distributed to field maintenance supervisors to assist them in coordinating the

installations.

Installation Process

The sequence of activities during each test site installation was rather straightforward. Each

experimental installation consisted ofthree primary phases:

1. Test site layout.

2. Initial crack preparation (i.e., crack cutting).

3. Final crack preparation (i.e., crack cleaning) and material placement.

14
Before any cracks could be prepared or material installed, the experimental test sections had to be

laid out. Furthermore, since detailed inspection and documentation of cut cracks was required,

the crack-cutting phase was conducted separately from the crack-cleaning and material-placement

phase.

Test Site Layout

The location ofthe experimental test sections at each site depended on the highway facility

type and the constraints associated with the pavement section. As seen in table 4, all ofthe sites

except Wichita were four-lane facilities. Additionally, with the exception ofElrna, the

experimental test sections at each site were established in the outside lane (i.e., the driving lane).

At Elrna, the inside lane (ie., the passing lane) had to be used because ofsurface delaminations

that occurred in the driving lane shortly before the scheduled installation.

The first phase in each experimental installation involved conducting a pavement survey and

laying out the site. A cursory inspection ofthe cracks was made first to determine which were

suitable for inclusion in the experiment. The criteria differed for transverse and longitudinal

cracks. Suitable transverse cracks had to be full-lane-width cracks, accompanied by minimal edge

deterioration (i.e., spalls, secondary cracks). Suitable longitudinal cracks, on the other hand,

could be accompanied by a greater amount of edge deterioration. When suitable cracks were

identified in the field, they were marked and numbered with spray paint.

Crack-seal treatments assigned to each test site were implemented in test sections consisting

of 10 suitable transverse cracks. The test sections were arranged in random order to form a test

replicate (see appendix A for the sequence of sections at each test site). This replicate of test

sections was repeated so that two sets of each treatment were applied, as shown in figure 8. This

design was also used at the crack-fill site, except that the test sections consisted oftwelve 7.6-m

divisions of continuous longitudinal centerline cracks. Crack-seal test sites ranged from 5.6 to

14.5 km long, depending primarily on the crack spacing and the number ofsections proposed for

each test site. The longitudinal crack-fill test site was approximately 1.6 km long.

Often, partial lane-width cracks and considerably deteriorated cracks were encountered in the

crack-seal test sites. These cracks were either sealed with the experimental materials during

installation or were sealed after installation using whatever material was available. However,

treatments for these cracks were not evaluated.

Permanent marking tape was used on the shoulders to mark the test section boundaries. A

three-digit code designating the treatment type used in the adjacent section was then spraypainted next to the strips of marking tape.

After each test site was laid out, the test sections, experimental cracks, and important

permanent fixtures (ie., milepost markers, bridges) were stationed. The stationing served as a

mapping reference in the event that remarking became necessary as a result of the paint fading

over time.

15
0\

ypical Crack-t-I

Section ~+=t-i=":=t--:-1-+:=J=--=l---=f.-+

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Twelve 7.6-m Longitud

Crack Divisions

Figure 8. Conceptual layout oftest sections at each test site.
At the crack-seal sites, a detailed inspection of experimental cracks 3 through 10 in each test

section was performed. This inspection involved sketching the general pattern of each crack and

recording the location(s) of deteriorated segments as a function oflane position (see figure 9). A

similar, less-intensive inspection was done on experimental cracks 5 through 12 in each section at

the crack-fill site. Since the longitudinal cracks were much straighter and more deteriorated, only

the excessively wide or potholed crack segments were identified and recorded.

The next step in the layout phase involved the placement of Parker-Kalon® (P-K) nails to

monitor horizontal crack movement throughout the year. The nails were driven flush into the

pavement on each side of, and perpendicular to, experimental cracks. The nail heads were

dimpled so that accurate measurements with a caliper could be taken during the installation and

during each subsequent evaluation.

At the crack-seal sites, the nails were installed near the center ofthe experimental lane,

roughly 138 mm on each side of the last eight experimental cracks in each test section. At the

crack-fill site, only two sets of nails were installed in each section. This was because little

movement was anticipated and the variation in movement along the entire crack was expected to

be small. With the exception ofthe Prescott site, this proved to be the most time-consuming step

in the layout phase, occasionally taking more than a full day to complete.

3.66-m

Lane

400-mm

secondary

crack

200-mm

spall

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

250-mm I

secondary/

crack

Inside

Edge

0.61 m

(typ)

I

Inside : Outside Outside

Wheelpath: Center Wheelpathl Edge

............-:0~.6~1~m-t~~ l......I-----:-1-::.2:-:::2-m---t~~ .. 0.61 rrr: • 0.61 m~

(typ) I (typ) (typ) : (typ)

I I

I I

I I

Figure 9. Initial inspection sketch of transverse crack.

17
Although efforts were made during each layout to achieve uniformity among test sections, a

final cursory survey was performed at each site to identify and record any global distresses (e.g.,

rutting, raveling) or localized features (e.g., drainage structures, superelevation) that could bias

performance results.

Initial Crack Preparation

The next step was initial crack preparation or crack cutting. This phase, although laborintensive, was rather simple and straightforward. Two two-person crews were usually

deployed-one to cut the cracks and one to blow debris off ofthe roadway. In some cases, the

machine operators were switched periodically for physical relief or training purposes. In the latter

case, only productivity was sacrificed.

Project staffregularly checked work quality to the extent possible by measuring reservoir

dimensions and inspecting the operator's ability to follow cracks with the router or saw.

Between 1 and 2 days of crack cutting was typical at each site. Lane closures were

established for the cutting operations at Abilene, Elma, and Des Moines. At Wichita, temporary

construction zones were set up using signs and flagmen.

Final Crack PreParation and Material Placement

In the final phase, maintenance crews cleaned cracks and installed the experimental materials.

The crack-cleaning operation generally preceded the material installation operation by 3 to 5

minutes or 15 to 30 m This gave the project staff time to monitor the crack-cleaning activity. In

most cases, the crack-cleaning crew had to be restrained from getting too far ahead of the

installation operation.

At crack-seal sites, one offour methods were used for final crack preparation, depending on

the sealant material that was installed. Sections where hot materials were applied were generally

airblasted either with hot compressed air or conventional compressed air (preparation procedures

3 and 4, respectively). Two Hi-Spec sections at Des Moines used a combination of wirebrushing

and compressed air (preparation procedure 2). Silicone sections involved more detailed

preparation; crack reservoirs were lightly sandblasted and cleaned with compressed air, and then

backer rod was installed. Crack preparation at the crack-fill test site consisted primarily of

conventional airblasting.

At the Wichita adverse-conditions subsite, the weather conditions often had to be artificially

produced. This meant that water had to be poured into and over experimental cracks and then

allowed to permeate the crack for a short time (approximately 5 to 10 minutes) prior to the

cleaning/drying operation.

The manner in which experimental products were installed depended upon the type of

material. Hot-applied materials were applied to cracks using the applicator system affixed to

kettle units. This system consists primarily of a pump, hose, and wand. Cold-applied asphalt

18
materials were placed using hand-held pour pots, and self-leveling silicone was dispensed from

0.9-L cartridges using either manual or air-powered caulking guns.

Once applied into or over the crack channels, asphalt materials were molded into desired

configurations using the appropriate squeegees. The squeegees were generally run between 0.6

and 3.0 m behind the material applicator, depending on the material viscosity at placement. No

finishing was required for the self-leveling silicone product.

In order to minimize tracking, traffic control had to be maintained long enough for the

treatments to solidify or form a protective skin. On a couple of occasions, maintenance vehicles

(e.g., trucks pulling arrow boards, crash attenuator trucks) followed too closely behind the

installation operation, causing some ofthe materials to be tracked.

Cleanup

After completing the installation of one hot-applied material, the asphalt kettle used in the

installation had to be cleaned for preparation and application ofthe next hot-applied material.

This meant first pumping as much ofthe old material out ofthe unit as possible. A few blocks (34

to 45 kg) ofthe next material to be installed were then loaded into the kettle vat and heated to

application temperature. This material, mixed with remnants from the previous material, was then

pumped from the vat and properly disposed. As a result, contamination by the previous material

was all but eliminated and the kettle was prepared for formal loading and heating of the next

material.

The cleanup associated with the fiberized asphalt materials was arduous and time-consuming.

Therefore, these materials either were placed last (in cases where only one kettle was available),

or were placed using a separate kettle.

Materials

Rubberized Asphalt

The hot-applied, rubberized asphalt product Meadows Hi-Spec served as the control sealant

material for the transverse crack-seal experiment. Nearly one-third ofthe treatments at each site

involved the use of Hi-Spec, as seen in table 3 of chapter 1.

Hi-Spec came packaged in 22.6-kg boxes, each containing two 11.3-kg blocks of sealant.

These blocks were loaded into the kettles and heated to temperatures between 200°C and 210°C.

Although the manufacturer advised avoidance of prolonged heating or overheating to prevent

decomposition, Hi-Spec was reported to be a little less sensitive to temperature than other hotpour materials. Nevertheless, no heating problems were observed during the installations.

Even though Hi-Spec was placed in four different formats (configurations A, B, C, and D),

the procedures used were similar. For cut cracks, the sealant was placed from the bottom up,

overfilling the reservoir to the extent necessary for either flush or band-aid squeegeeing. For

uncut cracks, enough sealant was applied to the crack to form the desired band dimensions with

19
the band-aid squeegee. Figures 10 and 11, respectively, illustrate the Hi-Spec reservoir-and-flush

and band-aid configurations employed.

Hi-Spec treatments were not without construction problems. Unanticipated down time at the

Abilene site created a situation in which Hi-Spec had to be reheated for application the next day.

Most ofits original quality, however, was believed to have been retained by loading additional

blocks ofmaterial during the reheating process.

Several Hi-Spec treatments at Wichita and Elma were subjected to considerable amounts of

bubbling. This bubbling occurred in both airblasted and hot-airblasted test sections and was

believed to have been the result of capillary moisture emanating from saturated base layers. It

was observed more in the uncut crack sections where the cleaning/drying operation was less

effective because of the small crack channels. In order to minimize the bubbling, airblasting

operators were instructed to be more meticulous in drying the cracks. Roughly 15 to 20 minutes

of curing time typically was needed for the Hi-Spec.

Modified Rubberized Asphalt

The three modified rubberized asphalt products (Crafco RS 515, Koch 9030, and Meadows

XLM) were placed at each site using identical configurations and crack preparation procedures.

Final crack preparation was accomplished using the heat lance, and configurations B, C, and D

were employed, although not at every site.

Sealants RS 515 and 9030 came packaged in boxes, each containing two 11.3-kg blocks.

Meadows XLM, on the other hand, came packaged in pails containing one 19.1-kg block, which

made loading more difficult. Recommended heating temperatures for these products ranged from

177°C to 188°C for XLM and 193°C to 204°C for RS 515. While these heating temperatures

were similar to these required for Hi-Spec, the softer asphalt bases necessitated closer

temperature monitoring.

Heating problems for these products generally were avoided. The only severe overheating

that occurred in the experiment took place at Abilene, where XLM was inadvertently heated to

temperatures exceeding 204°C. Unfortunately, additional material was not available to replace the

overheated batch. Although some gelling was noted, it was not significant. Most noticeable was

the appearance of microbubbles in this sealant during placement.

As with Hi-Spec, some of these sealants experienced substantial bubbling during installation.

At Elma, XLM and 9030 sustained considerable bubbling, and at Wichita, RS 515 bubbled. In

each case, the exposed crack channels were dry; however, base layers were at least partially

saturated, which is a condition conducive to capillary action.

Overall, application and finishing of these materials were quite similar. Occasionally, the

viscosity ofthe products and the size ofthe crack reservoirs necessitated immediate

reapplications. In these instances, sealant from the original application sank deep into the crack

and left insufficient material at the surface to form the desired configuration.

20
Figure 10. Hi-Spec reservoir-and-flush configuration (configuration A).

Figure 11. Hi-Spec simple band-aid configuration (configuration D).

21
Although traffic control was normally maintained for at least 30 to 60 minutes after each test

section installation, these sealants usually cured 15 to 20 minutes after placement.

Fiberized Asphalt

Two types offiber materials were installed in this experiment: Kapejo polyester fibers

(BoniFibers) and Hercules polypropylene fibers (Fiber Pave 3010). Both were mixed with asphalt

cement obtained from a local distributor. The blend of polyester fibers and AC-20 was placed at

the five transverse crack-seal sites, while the blend of polypropylene fibers and 85-100

penetration-graded AC was placed at the longitudinal crack-fill site.

Polyester fiber came packaged in 9.I-kg bags, three per box. The fiber was pre-weighed (5

percent by weight of asphalt) at the maintenance yards and added on site to the asphalt cement,

which was kept heated in the kettles (see figure 12). The entire process of adding the fibers,

thoroughly mixing the components, and heating to the application temperature usually took

between 1 and 2 hours, depending on the me1ter unit agitation system Units with full-sweep

agitation capabilities greatly expedited preparation.

The placement of BoniFiberized asphalt was standard at each test site. Final crack preparation

was accomplished using the heat lance and the product was placed in the simple band-aid

configuration. Application from some kettle units was occasionally difficult. For example, the

unit used at Elma had poor pumping capabilities, and when the material temperature was not

properly maintained, the hose clogged. This occurred twice; both times a torch was required to

unclog the hose.

Figure 12. Addition of BoniFiber polyester fibers to asphalt cement.

22
Curing time, with respect to all the other experimental materials, was perhaps lowest with this

product because ofthe lower application temperature. Although traffic control was generally

maintained for at least 30 to 60 minutes after placement, only 10 to 15 minutes were actually

necessary.

As for construction deficiencies associated with this product, considerable bubbling did occur

at the Elma and Wichita test sites. Again, water in the pavement system was believed to have

caused most, ifnot all, ofthe bubbling.

Fiber Pave came packaged in 16.3-kg bags. As before, the fiber was pre-weighed (7 percent

by weight of asphalt) at the maintenance yard and then added to the asphalt cement on site.

Although AC-20 was originally planned, a softer asphalt (85-100 penetration-graded asphalt

cement) was used because ofthe climate.

Two replicate sections of Fiber Pave asphalt were constructed at the Prescott site. In both

sections, cracks were blown clean using compressed air, and the fiberized asphalt was placed in

the simple band-aid configuration.

The sensitivity ofthe Fiber Pave polypropylene fibers created some interesting problems

during preparation. Since this particular type offiber melts at temperatures above 150°C, the

asphalt cement had to be kept below this temperature throughout preparation and application.

This was a difficult task, given that the kettle used did not have a full-sweep agitation system or

adequate pumping capabilities. In fact, in the first attempt to mix the fibers with the asphalt, the

asphalt was heated above 150°C to foster the mixing process. This, of course, melted the fibers

and the batch had to be discarded.

Preparation of the second batch was controlled more carefully. While it took significantly

longer to mix (2 to 3 hours), a satisfactory product was obtained. The subsequent application

also was successful, despite the strain placed on the kettle unit's pump.

Self-Leveling Silicone

Dow Corning 890-SL self-leveling silicone was placed in two replicate test sections at each

transverse crack-seal site. Once the experimental cracks were cut, the standard installation

sequence consisted of:

1. Light sandblasting ofthe crack reservoirs.

2. Airblasting with compressed air.

3. Placement of backer rod at a nominal depth of 16 mm.

4. Installation of sealant, recessed 6 mm below the pavement surface.

The backer rod used in the experiment was 22-mm-diameter closed-cell So~ Rod. A rollertype insertion tool was used to install the backer rod below the pavement surface. Figure 13

shows backer rod installation.

23
Figure 13. Backer rod installation.

Because ofthe small amount of material required for the experiment, 857-mL cartridges of

890-SL were purchased instead ofthe 151-L drums typically used in sealing projects. Both

manual and air-powered caulking guns were used to dispense the silicone into the cracks. Figure

14 shows the in-place, recessed silicone.

Because ofthe unfamiliarity associated with installing 890-SL, a few construction mistakes

occurred at the initial installation at Abilene. First, a few segments ofsealant were placed too

high (~ 3-mmrecess), which often enabled vehicle tires to pull the material out during the curing

process. A 6-mm recess was used at the remaining test sites.

Second, several seals became contaminated with sand particles because the sand from the

sandblasting operation had not been blown completely offthe roadway and shoulder. Measures

were taken at the other sites to prevent this from happening.

As mentioned previously, the standard 890-SL installation method (E-5) was replaced at the

Wichita adverse-conditions subsite by two different methods (E-6 and F-7). In one section,

method E-6 was used. This involved the elimination oflight sandblasting, leaving only

conventional airblasting for crack cleaning. This time-saving method was included to evaluate its

cost-effectiveness. In the second section, method F-7 was employed. Here, a more shallow cut

(13 mm deep) was made and the reservoir was sandblasted and airblasted. Backer tape was then

placed at the reservoir bottom instead of using backer rod. Because ofthe irregularity of the

crack reservoir, it was more difficult to place the tape than to use backer rod.

24
Figure 14. 890-SL deep reservoir-and-recess configuration (configuration E).

Asphalt Rubber

The asphalt rubber product Crafco AR2 was placed as a filler material at the Prescott test site.

Consisting of a selected blend of asphalt cement and vulcanized, granulated crumb rubber, this

product came packaged in boxes containing two 11.3-kg blocks of material. The recommended

heating temperatures range from 177°C to 200°C.

The installation of AR2 took place without any construction problems. Crack preparation in

all four AR2 sections was accomplished by conventional airblasting. The product was placed in

the flush-fill configuration in two sections and in the simple band-aid format in the other two

sections. Since most segments of the longitudinal crack were fairly wide (> 6 mm), the crack

usually was filled from the bottom up, overfilled, and then struck off with the appropriate

squeegee. The high rubber content associated with AR2 resulted in a viscosity that resembled

fiberized asphalt more than rubberized asphalt. However, it was easier to squeegee this material

than fiberized asphalt.

Emulsion

Witco CRF was another filler material installed at Prescott. This proprietary (modified)

emulsion was supplied in 208-L drums and required no heating. The drum was loaded on the

tailgate of a pickup truck, and was rolled and rotated end-over-end a few times to disperse asphalt

particles that might have settled to the bottom during storage.

25
Two replicate sections of CRF were installed in the experiment. In these sections, crack

cleaning was accomplished by conventional airblasting, hand-held pour pots were used to place

the emulsion into the cracks, and a flush squeegee was used to strike off excess material. Figure

15 shows the placement of CRF in the flush-fill configuration.

Two basic problems were experienced with the installation of CRF. First, throughout the test

sections, a few short segments of deep, wide cracks permitted the highly liquid emulsion to run

down into the pavement base, necessitating repeated applications to successfully fill the segments.

Although the manufacturer's recommendations suggested the placement ofsand at the bottom of

deep, wide cracks to serve as a barrier, such action was not taken in this case because ofthe small

number of sizable cracks.

Second, although lane closures were maintained for a few hours after placement, CRF tracked

heavily when exposed to traffic. The emulsion typically "broke" within 30 minutes after

application, and had formed a skin prior to the lane opening. Obviously, however, traffic was able

to dislodge a good portion ofthe material from the crack. In this case, sand should have been

used as a blotter to prevent tracking.

Equipment

Equipment played a crucial role in the experimental installations. Most participating agencies

either possessed or could readily obtain the equipment necessary for getting the job done.

However, a few special arrangements for equipment had to be made by the project staff prior to

the installations. These arrangements included the following:

Figure 15. Placement of CRF in flush-fill configuration (configuration G).

26
• Crafco Model 200 rotary-impact router (and operator) for use in Abilene.

• L.A. Manufacturing Model "c" hot compressed-air lance for primary use in Abilene and

backup use in Wichita and Des Moines.

• Cimline Model 200 melter-applicator specially adjusted for use with fiberized asphalt

application at Wichita and Des Moines.

With the exception of configurations A and B at the two Wichita subsites, rotary-impact

routers manufactured by Crafco were used to create reservoirs for the hot-applied materials at

each crack-seal site. Pressed with a considerable amount of crack cutting and only one available

router, it was decided at Wichita that two Cimline random crack saws, equipped with 203-mm

diamond blades, would be used to facilitate the cutting operations. These saws were not quite as

productive as the routers, but they provided smoother reservoir sidewalls, the effect of which will

be assessed in future analyses. Figures 16 and 17 show the rotary-impact router and diamond

blade dry saw used at the two Wichita subsites.

Although dry sawing was originally proposed for crack cutting in all the Dow Corning

890-SL sections, rotary-impact routers ultimately had to be used at Abilene and Elma.

Maintenance crews at both ofthese sites made initial attempts to saw the cracks using 356-mmdiameter saws. However, the saws could not follow the cracks effectively and consequently

caused significant damage. Because ofthis, the remaining cracks were cut with routers.

Various air compressors, made by Ingersoll Rand, Joy, Sullair, and Worthington, were used in

the experiment. All ofthe air compressors used in the crack-seal installations were capable of

providing 689 kPa of airblast. However, some ofthe units were not equipped with oil- and

moisture-filtering systems. While oil contamination was not detected in these units, moisture was

observed occasionally and confirmed by holding a white cloth over the wand during operation.

Such moisture was a cause for concern when airblasting was used to clean cracks immediately

prior to installation.

Heat lances from three different manufacturers were used for final crack preparation: the L.A.

Manufacturing model C, the Cimline Hot Rod, and the Seal-All Torch. Although each brand was

very effective at removing debris and drying moisture, two general observations were noted.

First, the push-button ignition switches furnished on some units often did not work and alternative

lighting sources had to be used. Second, the units having high blast and heat capabilities (915 m/s

and 1650°C) were noticeably more efficient, but required extra caution to avoid burning the AC.

Figure 18 shows one of t~e heat lances used at Abilene.

Most sandblasting operations were conducted using Clemeo blast machines connected to

portable air compressors. Typically, one pass was made with the sandblaster along each side of a

crack reservoir. A short time later, the reservoir and adjacent roadway were cleaned by

airblasting. Sandblasting wands were held approximately 100 to 200 mm from the reservoir. At

Wichita, a wooden rod was attached to the wand to help direct the blast against the crack

sidewalls (figure 19).

27
Figure 16. Carbide-tipped rotary-impact router.

Figure 17. Random crack saw with 200-mm diamond blade.

28
Figure 18. Hot airblasting using hot compressed-air (HCA) lance

(crack preparation procedure 3).

Figure 19. Light sandblasting using wand with attached wooden guide

(crack preparation procedure 5).

29
For the wirebrush-airblast cleaning procedure specified at Des Moines, a commercial powerdriven brush was not available. As a substitute, a random crack saw, specially equipped with a

200-mm wirebrush, was used. The wirebrush was somewhat stiff and had an occasional tendency

to spall the crack-reservoir edges.

Many different kettle units, manufactured by Crafco, Cirnline, Aeroil, and Marathon, were

used for preparation and installation of hot-applied material. The kettles ranged widely in age, vat

size, and heating and application features. In most instances, the materials took between 1.5 and

3 hours to heat to application temperatures. Heating time depended primarily on the kettle size

and the amount of material loaded into the vat. The 757-L melters usually required 1.5 to 2

hours, whereas the 1515- and 1890-L melters needed up to 3 hours.

Two additional factors that influenced heating time were the size ofthe material blocks and

the type of agitation system on the kettle unit. Smaller blocks and full-sweep agitators provided

greater exposure to heat, decreasing the amount oftime needed for heating.

Two types ofsqueegees were fabricated by the project stafffor the experiment: flush

squeegees and band-aid squeegees. Both were prepared by forming 360-mm straight industrial

squeegees into a "U" configuration. The rubber inserts were removed beforehand and then

reattached. A special cut (65 to 75 mm wide by 3 to 4 mm deep) was made in the rubber insert of

the band-aid squeegee while the rubber insert ofthe flush squeegee was left flat.

Documentation

In addition to laying out the test site and coordinating the installations, project staff were

charged with collecting as much pertinent information about the test site installations as possible.

To simplify this task, eight different documentation forms were developed prior to the

installations as part ofthe EDRP (Evans et al., 1991). Many items were documented in these

forms during the field installations, including:

• Climatic conditions.

• P-K nail measurements.

• Periodic hot-applied material temperatures.

• Crack conditions at placement.

• In-place sealant dimensions.

• Equipment brands and features.

• Production rates.

• Labor requirements.

Appendix B includes a detailed discussion ofthe types ofinstallation data collected and shows

completed samples ofthe eight documentation forms used.

Photographic prints and slides were another form of documentation. Pictures of

representative cracks in each test section were taken to help illustrate the condition ofthe cracks

before, during, and after the installation process.

30
Cost and Productivity Data

Material Cost Data

The quantities of each primary material needed for the experiment were estimated prior to

purchase. Estimates for each material were developed by summing the individual volumes

associated with each proposed configuration and multiplying that sum by a wastage 'factor

(usually 10 percent) and the material's unit weight. In every case, more than enough material was

ordered.

Treatment application cost is an important factor in assessing overall cost-effectiveness. It is

determined by multiplying the application rate (kilograms per linear meter of crack) by the total

material cost (i.e., purchasing and shipping costs) on a per kilogram basis. Since the actual

application rates for each treatment during installation were unobtainable, tables 5 and 6 have

been prepared as a resource for estimation of application rates and costs.

In table 5, the volume (per linear meter of crack) associated with each configuration has been

computed, based on the nominal crack channel and overband dimensions listed. In table 6, the

typical purchasing cost (January/February 1991) and typical unit weight for each material are

provided. (Material shipping costs are not included because ofthe unavailability ofsome cost

data and wide variations in the data obtained.) Application rates and application costs for each

primary treatment were calculated based on the configuration volumes in table 5 and the material

unit weights and costs in table 6.

Table 5. Estimated volumes for primary material configurations.

Channel Overband Total Cross- Volume (per linear Volume, with 10

Dimensions, Dimensions, Sectional Area, meter of crack), percent wastage,

Configuration mm" mmb mm2 m3

/linm m3/linm

A 16 x 19 - 304 3.04 x 104 3.34 x 104

B 16 x 19 76x3.2 547 5.47 x 104 6.02 x 104

C 38x5 76 x 3.2 433 4.33 x 104 4.76x 104

D 3x25 76x3.2 318 3.18 x 104 3.50 X 104

DC 4.5 x38 76 x 3.2 414 4.14 x 104 4.55 X 104

E&F 16 x 9.5 - 152 1.52 x 104 1.67 X 104

GC 4.5 x38 - 171 1.71 x 104 1.88 X 104

• Channel dimensions - nominal dimensions ofmaterial placed below pavement surface.

b Overband dimensions - nominal dimensions ofmaterial placed above pavement surface.

CCrack-fill configurations.

31
Table 6. Primary material costs and estimated application rates and costs.

_·~:IIII:::.~II·II·I:·.iilli·~II..III:I·IIIIII:1111·1·:llj~·I:L_0.21711Ij:I:I:I~i:li:liillllli:·I·11111111I.1.··I·lii.ii:lliillllil~II'IIIII'I::'·~i·1.i.IIII~·ii·IIIIIII·I,I·IIIIII:lii.:I,:lilli·II:I·lil·:·i.i:il·I.I

o.186 Iliiiii:iiiii:iii~iiii:i:ii::i~iiiil:::iii:~iiiiiiiiii:::i:iii::ii~:iiiiili:Ii:iiiiii:iiiiii:iIi::iiiiiii[iiiii:iiiiiiii

0.199 lI:i::::)))i)~:I:::i)::t::)::::::::II:I:mt&. 

0.43 0.34

0.63 050

051 0.40

0.77 0.61

Estimated Application C

Configurations, $/l

A

o.189 Iliiiii:Iiiiiiiiiiii:iii:iii~:~iiliiii~iii:i:iI:iJii:i::i:ii:ii::!:iiiii::iii:iiiiiiiiJ:i:iiiIi:liii:i:iii::iiii

li·illllll.lllllillllll·IIIII:lil·ll"lil~:ii~i~i:lII·j:·:j,"11II11,lIIlll11illlll·IIIII11I1IIIII11II11III·.II'I:I:IIII·IIIII11II:l lllllll111.1111·11::/

:1j~1~~~~1~~~~1\1jiii~i~11i111jiii~~\

o.385 (I:::li::iiiiIIIlIIiii~iiiiii:i:iiiiii:i:i:i:tU:ii. ii:i:i:i:ii:i.i.:iiiiii:i:ii:

0.3

0.481

89 fiiiiii:i:iii:i~iiiiii:::~iiiii:::i:iIII:ii~iiii:iiiiiiiI~::i:::!1 0.24

0.340

0.488

(iiii::iiiii~i~Iiii:iiitiiiiiiiliimiii:::iiii:~iiIIIi)liiiiimiiiiiiiIiii~:iiiiiii

0.369 f·llillll::llllilll:II:I·IIII·llllliillllll:II.11111111111111111111II111111IIIII~1I11111111111111:"illlllllllllllllllllllll1111

0.404 l:iiiiiiiiii:ii:i:ii:i:i:iillWiiiiiiiiiIMiiiii]liiiiti iitiiiIii:~iiiii~i

Estimated Application Rates for Primary Configurations, kg/lin mof crack

A I B I C I D I E&F I G

0.371 I 0.668 I 0.529

[:I::iIiiIi:iiiiIiil 0.695 I 0.550

ii:iIiliii:ii:i:iiiIii:1 0.585 I 0.462

~ilillil·1I11111:llllllllllii.il·l~i~I~IIIIIIIII.I·llii·ill·:illlllllllll:II,·,lil,

iiIi:iiiii.iiiiIi:iiiiiii:ili::iii:::::imi:II:il:i:i:iiii:::ii:::i*iiiiiiliiiii:Ii:iii~iiiii:i:iiIilIiiiiiii:iI:iiiiiiiii:iii:i::i

·i:iiiii:i:iiiii:iii:::::::i:ii[:i:Ii:i:iiiii:i:ii:::: i:lii::i:i:::i:ii:i:::::::I::i~:i:~:::~i:::i~::i~i::~::::ii::i[iiiii:iii::iiiiiiiI:ii~ii:i~i:

II:iHi::!.~i:ii.m:1 0.662 I 0523

:tiiilii~:)i)))):u):))m::I:)I):~):):mii:::i:::)::I::::li:::::ll

Ililllii~~ilil·III·lljll'j:lllllllllli,·jilll·I.li'll:l·ill.II:IIIIIIIII~lilllll:lli.illll

971.2

988.8

1,110.4

1,155.2

1,099.2

1,054.4

1,297.6

1,003.2

1,057.6

1,073.6

Material

UnitWeight,

kg/m3

Material

Material

I Cost, $/kg

Meadows Hi-Spec 0.64

Crafco RS 515 0.90

Koch 9030 0.77

MeadowsXLM 1.32

Kapejo BoniFibers "'0.44~

+AC ("'2.75)b

Dow Coming "'6.61

890-SL

AET SofRod (22 nun) $0.245/lin m

IAsphalt Cement "'0.26 w II WrtcoCRF tv O.44e

CrafcoAR2 0.62

Hercules FiberPave ",053~

+AC ("'3.39)b

Cost offibers andAC combined.

bCost offibers only. e Estimated cost.

NA=Not available.
Productiyity

While the various operational procedures have been described throughout this section, two

key aspects of these procedures have yet to be discussed. Productivity and labor requirements

associated with sealing and filling operations are perhaps the most important factors because they

influence treatment performance and account for roughly 80 percent ofthe cost, depending on the

size of the project. Table 7 shows a summary ofthe typical labor, equipment, and time

requirements for the various operations performed in the crack treatment experiment.

Crack cutting typically was a one- or two-person operation, depending on the type of

equipment used. For sawing operations, a spotter often was needed to help the saw operator

maneuver the machine in difficult situations. Between I and 3 minutes per 3.66-m crack was

typical for routing operations, whereas 2 to 5 minutes was the normal range for sawing

operations. Obviously, crack spacing had an effect on production rate, but other factors did too;

reservoir dimensions, pavement temperature, the type of aggregate in the AC, and the level of

wear on the cutting blades all seemed to affect the speed of the operations. Crack cutting was the

limiting operation in the initial crack preparation phase.

Table 7 shows that sandblasting was the most labor-intensive and time-consuming crackcleaning operation. Three, or sometimes four, persons were necessary for performing this task;

airblasting and hot airblasting operations required two persons.

The installation of cold-applied materials generally required more labor and time than the

installation of hot-applied materials. This was especially true ofthe installation of emulsions,

where two pour pots were needed to expedite the operation. Silicone installation would have

gone much more quickly had 151-L drums and appropriate pumps been used. The 857-mL

silicone cartridges had to be replaced continually, as two cartridges would seal only about three

cracks.

In most instances, material application was the constraining operation in the final crack

preparation and material installation phases. Cleaning operations often were held back to allow

for optimum material placement, while squeegeeing often was held up by material application.

Comments

To help ensure the proper installation ofthe sealant and filler products, material manufacturers

were asked to provide a representative at the installations. However, the initial contacts were not

made in time to permit the presence ofrepresentatives at the first installation at Abilene. Their

guidance would have been beneficial at this site. Representatives usually were present at the other

sites. However, in some cases, the manufacturers could not find or afford to send representatives

to 0 bserve the installations.

33
Table 7. Typical requirements for various installation procedures.

Estimated Time for Ten

3.66-m Transverse

Cracks, min"

Procedure

Required

Labor

(Number of

Persons)

Required

Equipment 15-m

Spacing

30-m

Spacing

Estimated Time

for 91-m Stretch

ofLongitudinal

Cracks, min"

Airblastin

Hot Airblasting

Sandblastin

2

2

2 to3

Air com ressor, truck

Sandblaster, air com ressor, truck

12 to 18

20 to 25

30 to 35

15 to 20

20 to 30

45 to 55

10 to 15

Backer Rod

Placement

Silicone Placement

Emulsion Placement

Material Finishin

1 to 2

2

2 to3

1

Properly adjusted roller tool

Manual or air-powered caulking

un

S uee ee

12 to 18

35 to 45b

20 to 25

50 to 65

20 to 30b

20 to 30

" Times do not include operational delays.

b Constraining operation.

NA=Not available.

34
The EDRP specified the use ofrotary-impact routers for crack-cutting in hot-applied material

sections (Evans et al., 1991). Diamond-blade dry saws were required for crack-cutting in the

silicone sections. However, as discussed previously, rotary-impact routers were used in the

silicone sections at Abilene and Elma, and diamond-blade dry saws frequently were used in place

ofrouters at Wichita. The stipulations in the EDRP were intended to allow for stronger

performance correlations between test sites.

Because the effects of sealing conditions on performance were intended to be among the

factors studied in this project, the ideal- and adverse-condition subsites were included at Wichita.

However, some ofthe test sections at Elma and the ideal subsite at Wichita could have been

classified as adverse condition, because the pavement systems were partially saturated during

placement as a result of particularly wet weather at these locations (Elma receives roughly 2,160

mm ofrain per year). Consequently, the presence of moisture in cracks was checked often and

recorded prior to installation. Similarly, the formation of bubbles in hot-applied materials after

placement was frequently monitored and documented.

35

CHAPTER 3. MATERIAL TESTING

Laboratory Tests Performed

Two sets oflaboratory tests were conducted on the primary experimental materials: initial

tests and supplemental performance tests. Initial tests ensured that the materials used in the

experiment met the specifications maintained by the manufacturer. Supplemental performance

tests were intended to strengthen correlations between laboratory-determined engineering

properties and actual field performance.

In all, 9 ofthe 10 primary material products used in the experiment underwent laboratory

testing. Each ofthe six primary sealant products distributed to the various sites for installation

originated from one production batch. For instance, the Hi-Spec material placed at Abilene came

from the same batch as the Hi-Spec placed at Elrna, Wichita, and Des Moines. Samples ofthe six

primary sealant materials and three primary filler materials were taken during installation from the

Abilene and Prescott sites, respectively, and shipped to the laboratories for testing.

Several of the initial tests, particularly those run on the silicone and rubber-modified asphalt

materials, were performance tests. These included ASTM D 3407 bond, resilience, penetration,

and flow tests, as well as ASTM D 412 tensile stress and elongation tests. The remaining initial

tests were general property-indicator tests. These included such tests as specific gravity, tack-free

time (silicone), viscosity (CRF emulsion), and denier (fiber). The test procedures followed for

each material product are listed in table 8.

The battery ofsupplemental performance tests was assembled to investigate major

performance properties such as flexibility, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, resilience, and durability.

At least one innovative or standard test was selected to correspond with each ofthese important

properties. Most ofthe tests originally identified were performed successfully with few or no

modifications. There were, however, a couple oftests that could not be conducted because of

procedural or equipment problems. Table 9 lists the original battery of tests, the properties

sought, and general comments about the conduct of each test.

Test Results

In all, 38 tests were attempted, ofwhich 36 were completed successfully. Generally, two or

three replicates of each test were performed to provide more reliable results. The averages of

these replicates were used in the analyses. With one exception, all nine material products tested

passed the various initial test requirements. The one material that did not pass, Meadows XLM,

failed only to meet the resilience specification of 35 percent recovery, as shown in table 10.

Looking at the initial test results for the four rubber-modified sealants, it is interesting to note

the differences in softness (cone penetration test at 25°C) and resilience. By far the softest

material, XLM exhibited poor resilience (16 percent recovery), seemingly making it susceptible

37
Table 8. Designated initial test procedures.

I Material Type I Test Procedures I

Rubberized Asphalt ASTM D 3407 and D 70

Modified Rubberized Asphalt Modified ASTM D 3407 and D 70

Silicone ASTM C 603, C 679, D 412, D 1475, and D 2240

Asphalt Rubber ASTM D 5078 and D 70

Fiber ASTM D 1577, D 3937, D 2256, and D 882

Emulsion ASTMD244

Table 9. Target properties and modifications ofsupplemental performance tests.

Derived

Test Procedure Pertinent Property(s) General Comments

Cone Penetration @ -18°C ASTMD 3407 Low-temperature Conducted @ ·18°C

flexibility

Softening Point ASTMD36 High-temperature None

tracking potential

Cold Bend Utah Test Cohesion Conducted @ -18°C

Force Ductility ASTMD 113 Flexibility Ductility test run @ 4°C

& Utah Test

Tensile Adhesion @ 24°C ASTMD3583 Adhesion/cohesion Standard test run using PCC blocks.

I. PCC blocks Alternative tests run using AC

2. AC blocks blocks

3. AC blocks, H2O-immersed (water-soaked and unsoaked)

Modulus@ ASTMD412 Flexibility Conducted at separation rate of 51

1. 24°C mrn/min instead of 508 mrn/min.

2. 4°C Tests initially set up for -18°C, 24°C,

3. -18°C and 60°C. Latter temperature

changed to 4°C due to extreme

material softness at 60°C.

Modulus after 504 hours artificial ASTMG23 & Durability/flexibility Performed @ 24°C only on silicone;

weathering ASTMD412 rubber-modified asphalt sealant

samples ran during hot cycles of

weathering phase.

Track Abrasion ASTMD 3910 Durability Test discontinued due to shearing

and

pull-up problems.

Modified Bond Tests ASTMD 3407 Adhesion/cohesion PCC blocks and sealant material

1. Reservoir configuration formed to required configuration.

2. Recessed band-aid Samples subjected to 10 cycles of

configuration 100% extension @ -29°C and

3. Simple band-aid configuration recompression to original width at

room temperature.

38
Table 10. Initial test results for rubberized asphalt products and corresponding requirements.

Test

Cone Penetration, dmm

(25°C)

Flow, mm (25°C)

D3405

Criteria

s 90

s3

Modified

ASTMD3405

Hi-Spec Criteria

62.5 60 to 180

0.0 s 5

RS515

75.5

1.0

9030

114.5

0,0

XLM

148.0

2.5

Bond, 50% extension

(-29°C)

3 cycles Pass

Bond, 100% extension

(-29°C)

3 cycles Pass Pass Pass

Resilience, % recovery

(25°C)

Asphalt Compatibility

60

No failure

63.7

Pass

35

No failure

38.3

Pass

83.7

Pass

16.0

Pass

to stone intrusion. The second-softest sealant, 9030, showed the best resilience with 84 percent

recovery. Hi-Spec and RS 515 showed similar degrees ofsoftness, but RS 515 was much lower

in resilience than Hi-Spec (38 and 64 percent recovery, respectively).

Table 11 presents mean results for some ofthe more meaningful test parameters in the

supplemental performance test program Considered to be a good cold weather performance

indicator, cone penetration at -18°C was performed on all ofthe primary materials except silicone

and asphalt cement. In comparing penetration at 25°C with penetration at -18°C for the four

rubber-modified sealants, 9030 exhibited the smallest percentage of drop (47 percent), followed

by XLM (60 percent), RS 515 (64 percent), and Hi-Spec (76 percent). Both fiberized asphalt

materials completely resisted penetration at -18°C, indicating highly inflexible materials at low

temperatures.

As expected, softening points for the rubber-modified materials were sufficiently high

(>71°C) to prevent tracking problems in the summer. CRF and the two fiberized asphalt

materials, however, exhibited low softening points «52°C). This is an important observation,

especially for the fiberized asphalt materials that were placed in the simple band-aid configuration.

In the cold-bend test, 3-mm x 25-mm x 25-mm material samples were bent to a 90° angle over

a 29-mm mandrel in a period of 2 seconds. The samples and mandrel were conditioned to -18°C.

None ofthe four rubberized asphalt sealants developed cracks, thereby passing the test.

The force-ductility test, a modified version ofthe ASTM D 113 ductility test, was conducted

at 4°C. In the test, briquette material specimens were pulled apart at a rate of 10 mm/min until

ultimate rupture. Load-deformation plots were generated from each run. Results from the test

showed XLM incurred the lowest buildup offorce through 150 percent elongation, followed by

RS 515, 9030, AR2, Hi-Spec, and the two fiberized materials (see figure 20).

39
Table 11. Supplemental test matrix for primary treatment materials.

Kapejo Dow 

Test Test Meadows Crafco Koch Meadows Fiberized Coming Witco 

Procedure DescriDtion Hi-5ooc RS515 9030 XLM Asohalt 890-5L CRF 

D3407 Cone Penetration (-18°C), dmm 15 27 60 60

D36 Softeninl! Point, "C 86 99 93 89

Utah Cold Bend (-18°a Pass Pass Pass Pass

439 439 305 274

D 113/Utah I Max Elonl!ation, mm I

14.5 7.6 9.6 2.1

704 515 441 547

Adh Adh Adh Adh

D3583 I - = - • -tt- .II 690 760 303 607

MJlY Plnnu,.tinn_ %

Adh Adh Adh Adh

683 680 336 539

Adh Adh Adh Adh

II I Modulus Test (..lm II 421.0 456.1 113.0 102.7

0 T_-=l_ C'l4--_._L l_n_

425 868 1093 1035

318.3 261.1 50.3 29.6

227.4 182.6 53.1 72.3

D412 I ---------0--.-- II 960 1255 620 960 Ultimate Elongation, %

130.2 93.7 32.4 19.3

73.0 53.1 59.3 33.1

863 910 832 915

48.9 26.2 31.7 13.8

1.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

I %Debondin~I

D3407 0.5 5.2 6.3 0.0

Modified

Modified Bond #2(25"0

%Debondin

0.7 2.9 0.7 0.0
I I I I Kapejo Gauge Len~th = 30 mm : I J

I I BoniFiberized AC

Extension ate = 10 ml11lmin I I

I I I I - ~-------~~-------~-------+-------~-------- Hercules I I I I

I I J I Fiber Pave

I I I I

I I I I -+-

I I I J Cratco ----- T--------r-------T-------4-------- AR2 I I I J

I I I I J I I I

I I I I Meadows

----- - I I I I Hi-Spec --------,-------T-------,--------

I

I

I I

I

I

I -- I J Crateo I

-------~ __I

L_______ l

I _______ I

________ RS 515

I I -oj<-

Koeh

- 9030 15l':~ ...... -a0 50 100 150 200 25P Meadows

Elongation, XLM

mm -*-

o

Load,kg

10

2

4

6

8

Figure 20. Force-ductility load-elongation curves for various primary materials.

In a similar test-the ASTM D 412 modulus test-dumbbell-shaped material samples were

pulled apart at a rate of 51 mm/min until rupture (see figure 21). Results showed that XLM and

890-SL consistently developed the lowest forces at various temperatures, as illustrated in figures

22 through 24. At 23°C and 50 percent elongation, Hi-Spec exhibited forces four times those of

XLM and 890-SL. For RS 515 and 9030, the factor was approximately two. At the more critical

temperature of-18°C, the factors offorce over 890-SL at 50 percent elongation were 14.8 for HiSpec, 12.6 for RS 515, 2.8 for 9030, and 1.6 for XLM.

Further examination ofthe force-elongation plots shows 890-SL was least affected by

temperature. In going from 25°C to -18°C, 50 percent more force was required. This compares

with 167 percent for XLM, 115 percent for 9030, 950 percent for RS 515, and 517 percent for

Hi-Spec.

The tensile adhesion test, illustrated in figure 25, was conducted to provide an indication of a

material's ability to extend without experiencing cohesion loss or adhesion loss. Three variations

ofthe test were performed on each ofthe four rubberized asphalt sealants and the silicone sealant.

The first variation used portland cement concrete blocks, and the second variation used asphalt

concrete blocks. A third variation, also using asphalt concrete blocks, included a phase during

which the sealant-block system was soaked in water prior to testing. In each variation, 13-mmx

51-mm x 51-mm material specimens were tested at 25°C using constant separation rates of 13

mm/min.

41
Figure 21. ASTM D 412 modulus testing.

-..-

Dow

890-SL

---+--

Meadows

Hi-Spec

Crafco

RS 515

--+--

Koch

9030

--e---

Meadows

XLM

300 40

----1----------

I

I

I

I

200

Elongation, %

100

Load, kg

1 .--------........-'----~-----~----_, .----..., I I

Test Temperature =23°C i

I I

I I I

----------~----------~----------~---------- I I I

I I I

I I I

I I I

I I 0.6 ----------r----------

0.8

Figure 22. Load-elongation curves for modulus test conducted at 23°C.

42
Meadows

Hi-Spec

Crafco

RS 515

-+--

Koch

9030

Meadows

XLM

200 300 400

Elongation, %

100

I

I

I I ----------~-=---------r----------~-=--------

I I

I I

I

I I ----------r----------r----------

I I

I I

_________L IL IL _

I I

1

Load,kg

3 .-----------------~--------. ...--------, I I

Test Temperature =4°C :

I I I

----------~----------~----------~---------- I I I

I I I

I I I

I I I 2 ----------r----------r----------r----

I I

I I

I

I

2.5

0.5

1.5

Figure 23. Load-elongation curves for modulus test conducted at 4°C.

-lIE--

Dow

890-SL

----¥--

Meadows

Hi-Spec

Crafco

RS 515

-+--

Koch

9030

Meadows

XLM

100 300 40

3

2

Load,kg

6 .-------~-----~-----~-------, ...--------, I I

Test TemperatLte =-18°C :

I I

5 ----------+----------~-------- I I

I I

I

I 4 ----------t-------

I

I L----.... I

I

I I -------,-----------r----------

I I

I I

I I I

I I I -------~-T----------,-----------I----------

I I I

I I I

I I I

:~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~t~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~:-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~:-~-~-~-~-~-~~--~~--~-

o

Figure 24. Load-elongation curves for modulus test conducted at -18°C.

43
Figure 25. ASTM D 3583 tensile adhesion testing.

The tensile adhesion test results yielded a few interesting observations. First, the small

material shape factor (width/depth =0.25) associated with this test produced much higher

extension loads than in other load-deformation tests. This effect was most apparent with

890-SL silicone. Second, water-immersed specimens normally incurred greater stresses during

extension than non-immersed specimens. Likewise, specimens bonded to AC blocks normally

incurred greater stresses than specimens bonded to PCC blocks. Finally, Koch 9030 exhibited

adhesion failure at significantly lower deformations. Maximum elongations for Hi-Spec, RS 515,

XLM, and 890-SL were between 57 and 92 percent greater than the maximum elongation

exhibited by 9030.

Three modified bond tests (ASTM D 3407) were devised to test sealants placed in shapes

representative of configurations B, D, and E used in the field. In each test, materials were

subjected to 10 cycles of 100 percent extension at -29°C and recompression at room temperature.

XLM showed excellent performance in all three test formats, experiencing no adhesion or

cohesion loss. Both 890-SL and 9030 also showed no losses when placed in the recessed format.

With the exception ofXLM, sealants placed in the recessed band-aid configuration became fully

debonded at the bottom ofthe crack reservoir. The 9030 sealant exhibited the highest percentage

of debonding in this format (6.3 percent).

A complete summary ofinitial and supplemental performance test results are provided in table

C-3 of appendix C. In addition, figures C-l through C-lO illustrate the various D 412 and D

3583 load-deformation curves for different sealants.

44
CHAPTER 4. FIELD PERFORMANCE

Introduction

As discussed in chapter 2, the experimental crack seal and crack fill materials were installed at

five test sites throughout the United States and Canada in the spring and summer of 1991. With

the exception of those installed at Elma, Washington and Prescott, Ontario, the treatments at each

site were evaluated for field performance 10 times between the time ofinstallation and February

1998. The Washington site was overlaid after approximately 4 years, thereby allowing only eight

evaluations of that site and the Ontario site was resurfaced after approximately 5 years, thereby

permitting 9 ofthe 10 scheduled inspections. Table 12 provides a complete listing ofthe test site

inspections (by week) and the corresponding treatment ages.

The first evaluation was conducted with the intention ofrecording any construction-related

failures or distresses. With the notable exceptions of 890-SL and XLM at Abilene, such

observations were limited. As expected after installation, 890-SL had experienced some pull-out

problems because of an inadequate recess, as well as considerable sand intrusion during the curing

process. XLM, on the other hand, showed significant early overband wear as a result of

overheating prior to placement.

The third evaluation at each site was conducted in January and February 1992 in order to

determine the extent to which cracks were opening during the coldest time ofthe year. The ages

of the crack fillers and sealants at that time were approximately 6 and 9 months, respectively. As

a result ofthe combined action of crack movement and overband wear, significant increases in

treatment failure were recorded during these evaluations.

Table 12. Summary oftest site inspections and corresponding treatment ages.

Planned Abilene, TX Ehna, WA Wichita, KS Des Moines, IA Prescott, ON

Inspection Nominal Week of Week of Week of Age, No. Age, months Week of Age, Week of Age, Age, Age, Imnnth~ Imn;'th~ Imn;'th~ Imn;'th~

Installation 3/20/91 - 3/27/91 4/22/91-4/27/91 4/10/91 - 5/2/91 5/30/91- 6/7/91 8/28/91 - 8/29/91

1 1 5/5/91 2 5/19/91 1 6/9/91 2 6/30/91 1 10/6/91 1

2 3 6/23/91 3 7/21/91 3 7/21/91 3 9/8/91 3 12/8/91 3

3 9 1/5/92 10 1/26/92 9 2/9/92 10 2/9/92 8 2/23/92 6

4 12 3/8/92 12 5/17/92 13 4/26/92 12 5/10/92 11 6/21/92 10

5 18 9/27/92 18 10/4/92 18 10/18/92 18 10/25/92 17 11/8/92 15

6 30 12/5/93 33 11/28/93 31 11/14/93 31 10/31/93 29 10/24/93 26

7 42 10/30/94 44 12/4/94 44 10/9/94 42 10/9/94 40 10/23/94 38

8 54 12/11/95 57 4/3/95 48 11/28/95 55 11/30/95 53 10/25/95 50

9 66 12/8/96 69 - - 12/8/96 68 2/20/97 69 11/17/96 63

10 71l ?/ll/Q1l Il? 'n"".... "".... 70 1011 ':l/Q7 77

45
The fifth round of evaluations, performed in the fall of 1992, represented the final evaluation

under the SHRP H-106 contract. Since the overall performance oftreatments at that time

remained very good, continued yearly monitoring ofthe treatments was deemed necessary to

obtain clearer distinctions in treatment performance. For this reason, a 5-year follow-up study

sponsored by the FHWA was conducted following the termination of SHRP in the spring of 1993.

Under the follow-up study, the experimental crack treatments were annually evaluated between

the months of October and February, beginning in 1993.

Prior to each evaluation, the project staff was responsible for contacting the participating

State maintenance agency and selecting the day(s) to do the evaluation. Normally, the smaller test

sites, such as Abilene, Elma, and Prescott, were evaluated in 1 day. The two Wichita subsites and

the Des Moines site, however, normally took 2 days to evaluate. For each evaluation, an

additional day was allotted in case ofrain or the need for test section remarking.

At the outset of most site inspections, the experimental cracks and test sections were

remarked with semi-permanent paint to ensure proper demarcation for the next field inspection.

Traffic control for the evaluations at Abilene, Elma, and Des Moines normally were conducted as

moving operations, using two or three trucks equipped with arrow boards and crash attenuators.

At Prescott, the passing lane was coned off, whereas flagpersons were used at Wichita.

Performance Data Collection

Several types of performance data were routinely collected in the crack-treatment field

evaluations, per the SHRP H-106 Evaluation and Analysis Plan (EAP) (Evans et al., 1992).

Although test sections consisted of either 10 transverse cracks (each crack was 3.66 m long) or

12 longitudinal crack divisions (each crack division was 7.63 m long), only the last 8 treated

cracks or crack divisions (i.e., transverse cracks 3 through 10, longitudinal crack divisions 5

through 12) in each section were inspected. In this way, the effects of problems that may have

occurred at the start of each test section during the material installation process were minimized.

As with the initial inspection ofthe cracks treated in the experiment, the treatments were

examined over O.61-m edge and wheelpath segments and 1.22-m center segments at the crackseal sites and over 1.53-m segments at the crack-fill site. Along each segment, the treatments

were examined for the presence, amount (i.e., length), and severity ofthe following distress types:

Distress TXVe

Weathering

Pull-outs

Overband wear

Tracking

Extrusion

Stone intrusion

Adhesion loss

Cohesion loss due to tensile/shear forces

Severity Leyels

low- and high-severity

partial- and full-depth

low-, high-, and extreme-severity

low- and high-severity

low- and high-severity

10w- and high-severity

partial- and full-depth

partial- and full-depth

46
Distress Txpe

Cohesion loss due to bubbling

Edge deterioration

Severity Leyels

partial- and full-depth

low- and high-severity

The amount and severity of each identified distress within a given segment was manually

recorded on a four-page performance evaluation form (see appendix D for the complete form). A

partial illustration ofthe four-page form (the first two pages, covering cracks 3 through 6 of a

specified test section) used in the last five inspection rounds ofthe transverse crack-seal sites is

provided in figure 26. In this figure, key distress types are listed along the top and the crack-seal

segments are given along the left margin. Example data are handwritten on the form, indicating

the amount (in inches) of a particular distress type and severity level observed within a given

crack segment during a given performance inspection.

Once all ofthe distress data for a particular test site and field inspection round were collected,

the data were manually entered into Microsoft Excel~, which served as the database manager for

the project. The entered data were carefully checked for accuracy and corrections were made as

necessary.

Most ofthe distresses represented a reduction in a treatment's ability to perform its function

(i.e., to keep water and incompressibles out ofthe crack channel). Examples of these distresses

include partial-depth adhesion and cohesion loss, and overband wear. On the other hand, some

distresses, such as full-depth pull-outs and full-depth adhesion and cohesion loss, signified a

treatment's to perform its function. These distresses were termed "failure distresses." The

total amount offailure distress observed in a treatment formed the basis for performance

comparison.

In the majority ofthe cases, only one failure distress was observed over a particular portion of

a crack. Sometimes, however, two types offailure distress were observed over the same portion

of a crack. To avoid over-assessing the actual amount oftreatment failure, the overall amount of

failure for each evaluation segment was recorded during the evaluations. Thus, if 102 mm offulldepth adhesion loss and 102 mm of high-severity secondary cracking were found to exist over the

same portion ofthe crack, then 102 mm of overall failure was recorded.

In the first evaluation, the presence offive construction-related distresses were considered.

These included construction bubbles, material sagging, sand intrusion, overband wear, and

tracking. As mentioned previously, the most notable construction-related distresses were

observed at Abilene, where 890-SL experienced sand intrusion and pull-outs during curing and

XLM exhibited high levels of overband wear.

In each of the first five inspection rounds, distance measurements between P-K nail sets were

taken across each experimental crack using a 305-mm digital caliper. These measurements were

taken to determine how much each crack moves during a year. Climatic data, such as air

temperature and cloud cover, were also recorded after each test section was evaluated.

47
I~ 1 ~~~I~

PulI-<lUls (In) Edgt! o..lerlorallon (In)

--~I Ifn..;1..;IJni··iniiniiD

1% l:ii;l:i::::lI:I) J)- nl:Il:ii::1::1:~:t 14 1::::::;::::::!::lwIL 11I':i;:t):::1:::;~:::::l:ll 1 ltl\~:ilim:::::;::] 1 1::::t:::m'::::::::lI:1 1

IWPIt::l::::::I:::::::l::tl I 1:::l:::::::::::mffi:::l::1 I 1::t::::::::I:::::::::l~::I_. I 1::::::i:::::::I::::ii::::::::1 I 1::::::::l:::::I::i:i:::::::i:1 I 1:::::::l:::::::I::tf:::::

POEI::::::i:i:i:l:i::i:lii[ '---lIi[:]=i::;:*i:1 , [I::lii::I::~::1 I li::l:]I:Ii:;[:::::i:1 '----.;i:i:iii:U --~I'::::ii::::ill , IEi

4101313

4101313

1-114101313

.--t-=+=+=-I-=-+-:~f;f¥.;g.....;./-I--f.¥4. I :::::::::li::: t:::~::: I :::::i:i:::::: ::::i::::l::::: ::::::l:l::::: :::::::::::i:i:::::::::;::: ::::::::::it:M:::

I::ll:t: :Iii::iiit tlli::i:ii: i::ii:i:::;i: I:llill :::i:B:i: :5 :iitii::i:i:i:i:l:i: 3 'iit::i:;:, ::lr;~;~:: . ~:m::::

jl:

jEij

f[I

::i:::~::::1j::I::::tl:::ll:

·':1[~l1[f,l~l~[\[l[:[l:[:

'::liiji[l~l:lti[:[l::[:::

t:::::::::mIl:!:::i]-I-rumi;:I:ffiillil·-n$~

*~*!11~1:::~~~~l:

:j:[:j:[ijij:jlll;I_'-

:::i::::::::l:I::::i::i:::i::

:ll:[::l[l;li:li:j::i[i[i:

1:[:::[::i::~:I:::::l:::::ljl:1 I l.l1

I::::lliIiili:iii

l:j:[:[::l:::::I:::j:;::::::il

:::l:::i:::ll:I':i::~Ii::'

[[~:~~i:\:f:l1*[::::

.:ll[ij:lil.:[i[~[:~;:

:::li::i::::::I:l::::t:ii

:::::l:::i::j:l:j:jij::ll:i!

l:::::j:il~::i:l:lji::::::j:il

:*~~:il:[~i\~~\~\

:itl~ji~jl::j:[lil~:

'\::i:i:l::::::I:l:;;l:l:l:::1 1 l:l:ljlili~l::llj;:ltl:l:1 1 Itlijm:OO;:j:!;:1 1 Il!::lil;lj::I:lj::ljljll:::1 1 l:l::l:l:lllii!:liji:lj:jlj:jl _.. '-'il(

li:iii:::i:::::i/:::i:ii'ii::::il I Ilj:::i:j:tl::ii:l:i:i:;lJ I 1'::i::it:::II::ii:::tl I l:i::i::::::::IIii:i:::] I 1::i::::::i:::::I:iiiii:i:::::] I 1:lt

.::::::::::::i:I:::::::::::::::I_I __ I::::::::::::::I:::::::::i:L I l:i:::l:i::li::I:::::~':l:::::I.. I 1::ii:::i:l::::I:::ili:::i::i:1 I 1:::::::::::::::I:ii::::::::::::1 I I::jfu

'ti::i::::U:I:l:::i:il:1 I li:::i::::::l::I::i::::::::l:il I I:i:i:i:::ii:i:li:::lt:tl I 1::::i:i::i:::iH::::I:::j 141:::i:ii:i:::i:I:::r~i::1 14 1:i.

I:::l,lilllll:l:ilIil:llll:1 I IIi,i:l:l:::I:l:llIIllI:t 1 ·III::t~l:l::l::ill:l:i:1 I Iliil:lil:lli:l:l:lt:::1 I m::ll:l:l:::liii\ll:llIi:1 I l:i~~:l

·:i::i:i:I::II:;i::1 I 3II*:ii::lIl1iJ '-lTIHi::::1 r :~i:ii:i::lijl-·-I-I:::::::i::ilm:ilr

:i::::::::i:i::I::::iit:~:::1

i\::::I:[:1::II::::

I 1:'~I:i:iii:I::i~:::::iilil... I l:l:::::i:::U,:::jli~U __ 1 n1:[:jiIl~Ui:ii:i:::::I-TlIi~ili:

::::i::i:::i:::I::i::i::::::l::1 I I:i:i::i:::::::!::t:::::] I 1::i::i:ii:::il:::::j::i::U I lii::::ti:::lii::i::i:iil::j I 1::::::ti:i::I,i:i::::::::i::1 I I:;lf

i::I:\:::::i:I::l:::II:

·::ij:::::j:ji::I::::j:i:j~::::i

i[1~[:il::~:I:::f:i:\::~1

t:[i[i[l1[i[i:I::imiili:

:l:::i:::ii::::I::i:~::i:::::l 1---!'::lIIjiITIII::::i:::I--nllt:lllIltlll::11--,llrf

5E l:i:i::iiiii:I::iIii::iii

1% l:iii::i;:.--lw:i:i::iil::i:::::tH I l:i::i:l:::i:::I:i:::i:i:i:::i) I 1::~:iumii::::J I I l:i::IHIit:iJ I I --llt:tJmfi::I/I-I~:i:

1% 1::::::::iII:::::::::::~::

JCN li:l::I:l:it::l:i:::lj:l

JCN 1::::::i:ii:::ll:::::l:::::ii

6 I POE 1[[ti~il:[:l~~i~i

6 I0WPf~\~~1[1[~\\1~\[~1

4

4101316

41013

I 0 I 31 5 1POE 1::i::::::ii::lll:ll:t:i::

4 I 0 I 31 5 I twP l:i::ii::!i:i,lji:l:i:!:;i::

4 10 I 31 5 IoWPli::i:::::::l:Ul:~ii*[l

4 1

41DI3

01 31 4 I POE I::::::::i::i:l::::::i:i::l:

4

4101315

101 31 4 foWrl:li:~::l::iil':l:::li::i:i:"

4 10 I 31 4 1 IWP l:i::::::i::U:::::i:::::i::

4 101 31 6 1 IWP lj::::::l[i:i:I:::::l::::ilil

4

4101316

I 0 I 31 4 I JCN .::l:iiii:il:ll\ll\II

4101314

4101315

.,J::o.

00

Figure 26. Crack-seal performance evaluation form
llf.~~I~ If

...........,"l I , ,_" 1Iiffr'l _--

410I 31 4I POE 1:::::::::\:::iiIl

410131 4IoWP1:::::::i:l:t:ii;

4 I0 I 31 4 1 ISE l:i~:~~H::i:i::~~:

4I01 31 5 IoWP (::::~:~::[::ii:::

t:t::I::J1:I:~i::ii:::~I:ti::::1 17

:i~~i::ill:I::;ii;i::~:i::::ii:!I, If

:iti:l:taili

:i:1i:i:::iw:&i:l:i:i!:::~ii/:[:::i:::ii

'i:i:::~i:~:I::::::i:n:::~tjili::::~::

i

:i:::ii[:liiiiiii:::13!/3

::i::!i::::I:I:i:!:I1I::1 II r-

1!11/:))iW~t&H 'LI/~,

:iii:]:~:i:I_:::

Itlii:l:iiiij.::1 12/

::::::::;ll:~I::;::::~:t:::~i:::::i 1/0

::m]l~i::iI~:::i~:~~~:i:] 51!3

::;::i:!i:I:I:I:::i!iilli:~:lli::j:i:1

.:::::::::i:l@i1:l.

1(,

.{~:

:i:~::i~U:::i:ii:H::::::i~:~~::t:::1

:::~::::~]i:::::ii:::I.:~i:i1::~fi;t:i~

::II::i:::ijiiil:tl:::~I·i::i!:ii::1

iiiii::::!:liii:ii::!::/:!:ii;::iif:i~~:i:i:i:

1,17

::;;;i::I::i:i::::::I:i:ii:i;:i~::!:i::i::

:ii:):i~:i:l·i[1.i;::I::ii::~::jHi::~i:::t

::~::::iU:::::::::::I::::::::U:::::I:

':::ii:tli:i:t~:[:~l::::I·::::::i::i

II

I:i:i:::I::::::::i::I::::::::l:f:::::ii::::

I::::Uiliii:::ii:[::::U::i

:i[:!i:Illf:llill

::::i:i:::11:1::lIi:

13

:::::ijl::I:II:ii:~ljjij~:~j:1 12

:Ii:t:lill:lii:::

:~:::::~i!:.::!:!~~:f;~:il:::1

:::III::I::I::::::i;!:t::!:::I!1113

1s :iii~:il:i:::::i::~i:ii:;iili:ii:::i:

~Iil)li:::i~ji::I:::jtjlj!li:n I:l

:::]i:::_i::13141

::~::~ll::~:~~::~:~~i::::!:~I:::::~:::

Il:::;1IIlII4Pf1 11I::_ii:l- ~fr

:::::::_iii:~::lii::::!::

Ii:i:I:iliti~H::iil::::::::i

Iiii:[l$l:i:::~rl:::i:i:U

::i::::::I[::::iII:i:i:i~i:li:i:ii:~:

::::::i::I:~:~::tn~:l~iilt:i~::

:i::~ii::I:~~t:i:n;::::I:::::~:~:

::~[:iI::li::i::::iil::~~i~ili!:::ii::

I3

:1J1::::!:i:i:l:i;!~!:I:!:::!:::11 13

:::::[::il.:II:::1

II:lli!*~:r:ii;I~:

1:!~:!ill:lf!:lil:iiI:;i:l:i:i~ii;

I 1 I rFlil$~::il·:::;:i;lii:151 I I(lI:il::~fj.i:141Iol 

·:!::::!:I::::~:~i~:t::i,i~il:~t:::

Illt~::i::I::::lii:iJiiii:i:U

I::::::~I::I::!*I:

4

.:::i:i:iili::i:::::i

::::i:::::I::::i:i:::::

l:::::tiI:i::i:

ti:::::liIi:i::-

1

:jii:j::iiIIi:~~:::,

:ti:jji~:jjji::::i;,

::iI:::H~:::1:1

.it::::I::iIi::;

i:i;:i;!l:j:i:i:::il

i!t:!::I::::!i::::

Iffi:lt~~i:j

::::i~i:::I:i)::)::i:l

·::~~:~::]:::Ii:::1

::::~:::~:t·::::~:I

·It:l~:t~:::1

i:~::::::::Ii:i:::i::::i

i::::~i:i:JIiiiii:j

:l:i:~:iJ::I:::::'

:::::::::il::~i:l:!:;'

:::iI:::I.~::::i~i~i:

.tt::I:;tiji:~

::::i:i:H::::i::iI

·::::::::::·I::::ii::ii::

::II:I:ii~it:ii

.ii!i:::i::/:i:iiiiIi

::i::;:i::I:::::i:~iii

:::!:::!:!il::!:j:!ti

I::::i::I::

::I::H:i:iiiiI:

:ii:::ii!::I®:i::

::::::::H:i:iii):~i:i

'::::::::]::::ti::i

·::::I::I:::i::::I

:::::::II:::::::::i::

:i:i!Ii:I::::::ii:::

t::t:l:i:i:i~:i~ii

::::~:i~i~·li:i::i~ii:::

.I:j::i::I:::::;::i::

JCN .::i:i:j::I:j:itii

ICN lii:j:j~iil~i!iii::~i

4I0I 31 6IoWP l::ji::::ij:i~ji~i,::

4

4101316

I01 31 3I JeN I::::::~::r:ti:

4101313

4101314

IOWPI::i:i::::I::iiii::1:

4I0I31 3iIWP l~j:j::j::I~::i::I

4I0131 6I POE 1:1~i:i:::l:i:i!:1~:

4I0I 31 5 I JCN I:~i~~:::l::ii::i::

4101 31 31POE r:::i:i:::li::::i::::

4 I 0 I 31 5 1 ISE li::iiii:li:i:Ii

4 101 31 5 I POE .I.::::~~i:: :::t:::

: : :::: : : :::1:111:111 il:lllli!

4101 31 5 I IWP li::ii:i::1:1iiii:ii,

4I0I 31 4I IWP t:iiiiiH·iiii~:::

\0

Figure 26. Crack-seal performance evaluation form (continued).
Finally, in addition to the evaluation and P-K distance measurements, two different in-place

tests were occasionally performed on the treatment materials. One test, the nondestructive coin

test, was done regularly on the elastic-type seals during moderate- and warm-weather evaluations

(i.e., temperature> lOOe) to give a rough indication ofthe material's resilience. The test

procedure consists ofinserting a quarter half-way into the sealant/filler and measuring the amount

it is ejected after a I-minute period. Full ejection ofthe quarter indicates a very resilient material,

one capable of keeping incompressibles from penetrating the crack reservoir. The second test, the

destructive pull-out test, was usually conducted during cold-weather evaluations to indicate

material flexibility and low-temperature adhesiveness. In this test, a 50-mm segment of

sealant/filler is cut along the crack reservoir sidewalls and at one end. The segment is then

grabbed at 25 mm and pulled straight up at a constant, gradual rate. Ifthe sealant/filler continues

to pull out ofthe reservoir with limited stretching, then the bond is inadequate. Ifit doesn't pull

out of the reservoir, the amount that it stretches before rupture is measured to determine how

extensible or flexible the material is.

Summary of Treatment Performance

Though not each test site was evaluated the planned 10 times, the overall performance trend

for each site can be seen in figure 27. Each test site performance trend is represented by the timeseries effectiveness values of primary treatments placed at the site. As can be seen, small to

moderate drops in treatment performance were experienced in the first three winters at Wichita,

Abilene, Des Moines, and Prescott, followed by major reductions in performance in the fourth,

fifth, and sixth winters.

84

Winter

1998

72

Prescott, ON

36 48 60

Age, months

1-1

Winter

1994

24

Elma, WA Des Moines. IA

- .......- --EJ--'

Abilene, TX Wichita, KS (ideal) Wichita, KS (advers

• • --ot<-_.

12

60

50

40

30

20

10

OL...J...JI-J-l""""'"-J.....J....l...J....l....J....J....I-l..J.....L..J-,.L...L...J...JL-l-.J""""'"-J.....J....l...J....l....J....J....I-l..J.....L..J-,.L...L...J...JL-l-.J..J...L..J

o

Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

1OO~I-------''-''-

90 ~8-~:'::':::~

80

70

Figure 27. Overall performance trends of primary experimental treatments

by site.

50
At the Elma site, where temperatures are fairly moderate year-round and the traffic level is

low, only slight decreases in performance were experienced throughout the entire 4 years of

service. Crack fillers at the Prescott site held up fairly well the first two winters, but began

incurring substantial failures after the third winter.

Crack-Seal Experinzent

The performance ratings listed below were applied to the various experimental treatments for

general discussion purposes. The ratings, established by Mike Belangie, were originally based on

the level of overall failure observed in a particular treatment (Belangie and Anderson, 1985). The

effectiveness level is simply the failure level subtracted from 100 percent (e.g., 10 percent overall

failure equals 90 percent overall effectiveness).

Rating

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor (failed)

Effectiyeness Leyel. %

90 to 100

80 to 89

65 to 79

50 to 64

<50

Figures 28 through 32 show the time-series effectiveness trends of the crack-seal treatments

placed at Abilene, Elma, Wichita, and Des Moines. Excluding the treatments at Elma, only 9 of

the 61 treatments exhibited greater than 80 percent overall effectiveness after the final round of

evaluations. Moreover, 32 ofthe 61 treatments reached "failed" status «50% effectiveness).

The primary modes of crack-seal failure did not change significantly over time. Each

treatment type typically exhibited one predominant mode offailure and one or two secondary

modes offailure. As seen in table 13, the predominant mode offailure was usually adhesion loss

or cohesion loss. Figures 33 and 34 provide conceptual illustrations ofthese types offailures.

For configurations A, B, and C of the rubberized asphalt seals (Hi-Spec and RS 515), adhesion

loss accounted for between 77 and 91 percent of the overall failure. The remaining failure was

mostly comprised of edge deterioration.

For configurations Band C ofthe low-modulus rubberized asphalt seals (9030 and XLM),

adhesion loss accounted for between 73 and 79 percent ofthe overall failure. These percentages

are considerably lower than the corresponding percentages for the rubberized asphalt seals,

primarily because the XLM C-3 treatment at the Wichita adverse-conditions site experienced

several pull-outs shortly after construction and because the XLM B-3 treatment at Abilene

exhibited significant edge deterioration.

For configuration D ofthe rubberized asphalt seals, between 95 and 98 percent ofthe failures

were the result offull-depth cohesion loss. In this type offailure, the overband is worn away by

traffic and the remaining sealant thickness is insufficient to withstand the internal stress brought by

crack-opening movement. This mode offailure was almost as predominant in the fiberized

asphalt and low-modulus rubberized asphalt seals.

51
•

RS 515 (8-3)

--~-_ . 9030 (8-3)

-~-

XLM (8-3)

Hi-Spec (A-3)

--8--'

890-SL (E-5)

--+--

24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12

90

80

70

60

?O

40

30

20

10

OL...L..J.-l..l.....L..J...l....I..JU-I.-l..l....L..l-L...L..J.-l..l.....L..J...l....I..JU-I.-l..l....L..l-L...L..J.-l..l.....L..J...L...L..J-I

o

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

1OO"~••~~~~~:;::::=:-;:=:-:-----,...----., ........ .. -+-....-=-~_ Hi-Spec (8-3)

........-...- .. --..-.... --........... ............ ........ ".. ........--- , --... ~""""'" \ .... \ .................

Figure 28. Time-series effectiveness trends ofAbilene, TX

crack-seal treatments.

\ RS 515 (D·3)

90 \

\ •

80 \ Hi-Spec (D-3) \

\ ---&-_.

70 \ XLM (D·3) \

60 -~-

\--.. 9030 (D-3)

50 ................ l~

.., HI-Spec (D'4) 40 "

, --8--'

30 ...,

,

8-Fiber (D-3)

, --+-- 20 \

,

\

10 \

,

,

0

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100.,.1!!fEa:*~=F==-:---------, ,.....-----,

Figure 28. Time-series effectiveness trends ofAbilene, TX

crack-seal treatments (continued).

52
-- - - - - - - Hi-Spec (8-3)

""" •

f- Hi-Spec (0-3)

--~---

f- RS 515 (8-3)

--oto--

f9030 (8-3)

I- ?~

XLM (0-3)

- --8--'

-

-

-

I I I I

24 36 48 60

Age, months

12

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

o

Figure 29. Time-series effectiveness trends ofElma, WA

crack-seal treatments.

"..-

RS 211 (8-3)

- •

lRS 515 (0-3)

--~-_.

I- 9030 (0-3)

--oto--

fXLM (8-3)

I- I~

Hi-Spec (A-3)

I-

--8--

lI-

'-

I I I I

24 36 48 60

Age, months

12

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

o

Figure 29. Time-series effectiveness trends ofElma, WA

crack-seal treatments (continued).

53
....... ---..:.:.-~-.; 890-SL (E-5)

I- -"""--01< •

fB-Fiber (0-3)

--~--,

f- Hi-Spec (0-4)

-.....--

flIfffI I I I

24 36 48 60

Age, months

12

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

o

Figure 29. Time-series effectiveness trends ofElma, WA

crack-seal treatments (continued).

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

1OO"~!M"-t-"'iiiiiiii~;;;;a::---------, ...----., - ........-- .: 9000-S (8-3)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0LL...L...l..J......L..J...J...J...JW-J....l...J.....L..J....J...J....l...l..J....J...J.....L..l...JW-J....J...J.....L....L...L..J....L....L..l....J...J.....L.....L.L..I

o 12 24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

•

Hi-Spec (C-3)

--~-_.

RS 515 (C-3)

-.....--

AR+ (8-3)

lIt

Hi-Spec (8-3)

--EJ-_.

9030 (C-3)

--+--

Figure 30. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS adverse-conditions

crack-seal treatme~ts.

54
•

XLM (C-3)

--~-_.

890-SL (E-G)

--t<--

XLM (0-3)

Hi-Spec (A-3)

--&-.

24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100~~~~;:::=:----------~ r-----,

890-SL (F-7)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0L..J...Jw...J.--L-L....L-.l-..J-J...J...J...Jw...J.--L-L....L-.l-..l...l.-J...J...J--L-L..l...J.....l..J-.l...l.-L...J....1--L-L....L-.l-...L-I...I

o

Figure 30. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS adverse-conditions

crack-seal treatments (continued).

lit

•

RS 515 (0-3)

B-Fiber (0-3)

--&-.

Hi-Spec (0-3)

--~-_.

Hi-Spec (0-4)

--t<--

9030 (0-3)

24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100_1=-------------------, ,----,

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0L...J....1--L-L..l...J......L....l-J...J.....L...J....1--L-L..l...J....J-J...J...J...Jw...J.....L...J:"'El-.J-J...J...J...Jw...J.--L-L...L....l-J....L..J

o

Figure 30. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS adverse-conditions

crack-seal treatments (continued).

55
•

AR+ (8-3)

--+--

9000-S (8-3)

--4--'

XLM (C-3)

--to--

Hi-Spec (C-3)

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

1 OO,-"::::':.......---=:!!!:!!'!!:::.:.::::.w:::::::::-------i ~--­

RS 515 (C-3)

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0W-J....J....L...L..l-L...J.-L..l-l.....L...J..-L....L..J....w...J...l-JL....L..J..J....J....l-l...J....L.J....L..J....l-l...J...l-L....L...J...l-W

o 12 24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

Figure 31. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS ideal-conditions

crack-seal treatments.

•

RS 515 (0-3)

--8--'

Hi-Spec (8-3)

9030 (C-3)

--~-_.

890-SL (E-5)

--to--

Hi-Spec (A-3)

72 84

...... "~.................

24 36 48 60

Age, months

12

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

OL.l...JL....L..J....w..........................l-L...L..J....L...L..Jl....l...l..............L..l-..............J....L..J....J....L..J...J'--'-.J......................w

o

Average Overall Effectiveness, 0,fo crack length

1OO.....~!!f=1Il=======:;-------1

90

Figure 31. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS ideal-conditions

crack-seal treatments (continued).

56
•

--~--, I

XLM (0-3)

8-Fiber (0-3)

--EJ--'

Hi-Spec (0-3)

Hi-Spec (0-4)

--1<--

9030 (0-3)

:+:

24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100-...-----------------....., ....-----,

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

OL..I...J_l..l...L..l..~I..J..l.~.l_i_l....L..J_l..l...L..l..J...l_JU_...lI9_J_.l-i-I..J..l.~.l-i-~

o

Figure 31. Time-series effectiveness trends ofWichita, KS ideal-conditions

crack-seal treatments (continued).

J~

XLM (8-3)

--EJ-_.

9030 (C-3)

--+--

24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

OL.J-J.....L-L.........................L...L.........J....I-'--'--'....L-L.........................L..J.....................'--'--'....L...L....L....L...~

o

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

1 OO...-I)........--tt-~~~gi;;:=~~-___,,------, ~-.;,j:~ XLM (C-3)

90 "--.--' '*

"'"'I< RS 515 (8-3)

--~-_.

Hi-Spec (C-3)

--1<--

Hi-Spec (8-3)

Figure 32. Time-series effectiveness trends ofDes Moines, IA

crack-seal treatments.

57
9030 (8-3)

•

XLM (0-3)

--B--'

Hi-Spec (0-4)

--+--

RS 515 (C-3)

--~-_.

890-SL (E-5)

-~­

Hi-Spec (A-2)

'it

24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01:..w.-L-l-...l-1...l....'....L....L..I...l....L...JU-L...L.J................J.-L.....L...L...l....'....L....L..J....l...l.-'U-L...l...J..................L.J

o

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

1001~'===:::=::.I,~=+===;:: 1 ...._............. -"'!'__=="._ ----$0- _

\ -~"i.: ~---'E>

\ 'Q --- \ " -"""*"- \\ '...'i: --*

\

\

\

\

\

..,

,

,

""'"

Figure 32. Time-series effectiveness trends of Des Moines, IA

crack-seal treatments (continued).

\ HI-Spec (A-3)

90

\ . 1\ •

I \ RS 515 (0-3) 80 I \

\ ~-g.--B --~-_.

70 I '" 9030 (0-3)

I " --ojo--

60 I

I " Hi-Spec (0-3) I " 50 I " III

I ~\ B-Fiber (0-3)

40 I \

I \

\ --B--'

I \

30 \ CRS-2P (G-4) I \

I \

, \ --+--

20 \

I \

\

I I!I

10 ,

I

0

0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100IllllH.....-.--....===------------, ~---.....,

Figure 32. Time-series effectiveness trends of Des Moines, IA

crack-seal treatments (continued).

58
Table 13. Breakdown offailure modes for experimental crack seals.

Percentage of overall failure

Installation

Material method Full-depth Full-depth Full-depth High-severity type (configurationpreparation) adhesion loss cohesion loss pull-outs edge deterioration

Rubberized A-2 83 0 0 17

asphalt A-3 77 0 0 23

B-3 88 0 1 11

C-3 91 0 2 7

D-3 0 98 1 1

D-4 0 95 1 4

Low-modulus B-3 79 0 1 20

rubberized C-3 73 0 16 11

asphalt D-3 0 90 6 4

Fiberized D-3 0 92 1 7

asphalt

Self-leveling E-5 32 0 10 58

silicone

Figure 33. Illustration offull-depth adhesion loss in recessed band-aid.

59
Figure 34. Illustration offull-depth cohesion loss in simple band-aid.

Finally, for the silicone seals, the primary mode offailure was edge deterioration. Over half of

the failure in this treatment was the result of high-severity edge deterioration, largely stemming

from low-severity spalls and secondary cracks created by saw-cutting operations during

installation. Figure 35 shows a typical spall and secondary crack associated with an 890-SL

silicone seal placed at Abilene.

Crack-Fill Experiment

As seen in figure 36, half ofthe longitudinal crack-fill treatments at Prescott performed

favorably, whereas the other half failed. The primary modes offailure in these treatments were

cohesion loss for asphalt cement, CRF, and Fiber Pave, and adhesion loss for RS 211 and Kold

Flo. For the AR2 material, adhesion loss was the predominant mode offailure in the simple flushfill configuration (0-4), and pull-out failure was the main failure constituent in the simple band-aid

configuration (D-4).

60
Figure 35. Typical spall and secondary crack adjacent to 890-SL silicone seal.

•

lit

AR2 (G-4)

AR2 (0-4)

--~-_.

RS 211 (H-4)

-......- F-Pave (0-4)

24 36 48 60 72

Age, months

12

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0L....J......L....J......L....J......L....J......L....J......L....J......L....J......L....J......L--I-L--I-L--I-L--I-L--I-...........L--I-L.......l....J...........L.....J.....J

o

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100r-......-+---=:::r:!!:!~~-~--~_F.;:::::=-I

90

Figure 36. Time-series effectiveness trends of Prescott, ON

crack-fill treatments.

61
24 36 48 60 72

Age, months

12

Average Overall Effectiveness, % crack length

100..=t=....~~:;:==-:-------1,----, I:"" CRF (G-4)

90 •

00 ~~

--~-_.

70 AC (G-1)

60 --010--

Kold Flo (G-4)

50

40

30

20

10

O~l....1...l....1...l....1...l....1....I.-..1-.I.-..1-.I.-..1-.I.-..1-J....L..J....L..J....L..J....L..J....L..~.J......I..:~"""""'"

o

Figure 36. Time-series effectiveness trends of Prescott, ON

crack-fill treatments (continued).

62
CHAPTER 5. DATA ANALYSIS

As stated in chapter 1, the primary objective ofthis experimental project was to determine the

most effective and economical materials and methods for conducting crack-sealing and crackfilling operations. To accomplish this objective, a statistical analysis was conducted on the field

performance data to determine differences in performance among the various treatments. This

was followed by a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis, whereby the total cost of applying a given

treatment was weighed against how long the treatment performs.

A secondary objective included finding correlations between field performance and laboratory

testing data. It was envisioned that new information in this area would lead to improved

performance-based sealant specifications.

This chapter describes the statistical methods used to analyze the various types ofinstallation,

field performance, and laboratory testing data, and presents the results ofthe analyses performed.

Listed below are the various types of analyses that were conducted in order to interpret the data.

• Comparative analysis--Comparison of performance between test sites, materials, and

methods using descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation).

• Analysis of variance (ANOYA)-Statistical analysis to identify significant differences in

long-term performance between treatments.

• Cost-effectiveness analysis-Life-cycle cost analysis and comparison using long-term

performance trends.

• Laboratory testing-field performance correlation analysis-Statistical analysis of

laboratory testing and field performance data to identify performance-indicative laboratory

tests.

Statistical Methodology

The statistical analysis of data was performed using Microsoft Excel~ and SAS@ version 6.12

statistical software. With the project data stored in Excel~ spreadsheets and with Excel@ software

providing the capability of organizing data and performing general statistics, this program was

used for the comparative and cost-effectiveness analyses, and was used to create American

Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) data files for SAS@ statistical analyses.

In the comparative analyses, the statistical means oftreatment performance were computed

and then comparisons were made among materials, methods, configurations, and test sites. In the

cost-effectiveness analysis, those statistical means were entered into a general cost-effectiveness

formula to generate average annual life-cycle costs that could then be compared.

The SAS@ statistical analyses consisted of analysis of variance (ANOYA) and correlation

analysis, For both ofthese analyses, command files were created in SAS@ that instructed the

program how to read the ASCII data, what types of statistical analysis to perform, and what form

of output to produce.

63
For the analysis oflong-terrn treatment performance, the SASGP General Linear Model (GLM)

procedure with the multi-variate analysis ofvariance (MANOVA) option was used. This test

procedure uses the mean and variation in treatment performance to determine ifthe performance

of one or more ofthe treatments is statistically different. The procedure was run in conjunction

with the Tukey studentized range grouping method, which groups treatments ofsimilar

performance and ranks both the groups and the treatments within each group. A confidence level

of95 percent (i.e., I-a = 95 percent) was used in the analysis.

Correlation analyses between laboratory test results and field performance were made using

the SAS Correlation (CORR) procedure. In the procedure, comparisons between the means of

various laboratory tests and field distresses were made at the 95 percent confidence level. The

strength of a relationship was measured by the Pearson correlation coefficient (r). Coefficients

near 0 indicated poor relationships, whereas those near 1 or -1 represented strong relationships.

Positive r values indicated direct relationships, whereas negative r values signified indirect

relationships.

Service Life Projections

To conduct the four statistical analyses described above, a standard measure oflong-term

treatment performance was required. Some past research studies have used qualifier terms (e.g.,

good, fair, poor) or rating scales (e.g., 1-10, 1-100) to convey the overall performance of crack

treatments, whereas others have used subjective estimates of crack treatment service life.

Because of the detail with which treatments were inspected for distresses and failures in this

study and because ofthe number ofinspections conducted over time, it was determined that field

performance would best be framed in terms ofservice life, and that the service life should be

defined as the estimated time for a treatment to reach the 75 percent effectiveness level. In other

words, the service life is the time required for 25 percent ofthe crack length to develop failure.

Figure 37 illustrates this concept. In this figure, a particular crack treatment has exhibited

varying losses in effectiveness over time. After 54 months, the treatment maintained an 88

percent effectiveness rating. However, after 66 months, the treatment dropped to a 69 percent

effectiveness rating. At the level of 75 percent effectiveness, the corresponding estimated age

(i.e., service life) is 62 months.

For the analyses conducted in this study, the estimated service lives ofindividual, treated

cracks (i.e., 3.66-m transverse cracks and 7.63-m longitudinal crack divisions) were determined,

and then the mean and standard deviation values ofservice life were computed for each treatment.

This approach allowed for the consideration ofthe variation that exists in treatment performance

from crack to crack.

Based on the appearances ofthe time-series performance data for many individual treated

cracks, third-order polynomial regression was chosen to provide best-fit curves to each set of

time-series data. The form of a third-order polynomial regression equation is as follows:

Eq.1

64
75% effectiveness

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Treatment Effectiveness, % crack length

1 OO.....I---.---tl~:::::::::::::;;;------:;::::::::==:-=:;.:::==~:-::::;-] / Treatment performance trend

10 Estimated service life _ 62 months

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Age, months

10 20 30 Ol.-l....;L...J.....l~...l....J....J...J.....l...J.....l..-l-l....i-l.....I-JL...J.....l....L...l....J...J.....J....L....l..-l-.l....L...J......I-l.....I-J~...l....J....J...J.....l...J.....l..-l-.l....L...l..J

o

Figure 37. Illustration of service life estimation, based on 75 percent effectiveness.

where: %Eff = Treatment effectiveness, percent.

ao, aj , a2' a3 = Regression coefficients.

Age = Treatment age, months.

Following the completion of each regression, which was performed using the SAS GlI

Regression (REG) procedure, the resulting a coefficient values were inserted into equation 1 and

the Age term was solved for using the 75 percent effectiveness criterion (i.e., %Eff=75). The

resulting Age value represented the service life ofthe treatment applied to an individual crack (or

crack division, in the case ofthe crack-fill study). In many instances, the resulting Age value for a

particular treated crack was equal to or less than the time period spent evaluating the treated

crack. In other words, the treated crack had reached 75 percent effectiveness on or prior to its

final evaluation, and so the computed Age value represented an estimate ofthe life. In

other instances, however, the treated crack had not reached 75 percent effectiveness by its final

evaluation, and the computed Age value represented an estimate of the predicted life. Figure 38

illustrates these two cases.

To maintain somewhat conservative estimates of predicted life, a maximum service life of 120

months was established. Thus, ifthe Age value for a particular treated crack was computed to be

greater than 120 months-this was usually the case if no more than 4 to 5 percent failure

developed over the monitoring period-then the computed value was changed to 120 months.

As illustrated in table 14, the estimated service lives of all treated cracks (or crack divisions)

evaluated as part of a particular crack treatment were used to compute a mean and standard

65
Treatment Effectiveness, % crack length

100~-------=-=::::::-!;-==JF=::::::::::;iE=:==r--------~

------

I --..... ... ., -.........

Actuall Predicted ............

I "

---T------------~ I

90

80 75% effectiveness

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0l..J....L.Ju...LL..J...J...l..LJ...J...L..L...l..L.J....l..Ji..LU...u....L..LLI..J....l...l...l...l...LJl...L..L..J.-U.L..LLI...l...L..Lu.J..J1.J..J....l..l..J...J..J...J..L.L..L...l..J...l..J..ju....L.1..J...J...l..J..J

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130 140150

Age, months

Figure 38. Illustration depicting estimates of actual versus predicted service lives.

Table 14. Illustration of service life statistics computation.

Reolicate-Crack No. Estimated Service life months Reolicate-Crack No. Estimated Service life months

1-3 64.3 2-3 66.9

1-4 56.7 2-4 65.1

1-5 50.7 2-5 58.3

1-6 61.2 2-6 69.4

1-7 58.8 2-7 63.6

1-8 74.2 2-8 60.4

1-9 64.7 2-9 57.5

1-10 59.3 2-10 70.3

Mean=62.6 Standard Deviation - 5.9

66
deviation of service life for that treatment. In most instances, the number ofindividually treated

cracks per treatment was 16, corresponding to 2 replicate sections in which 8 of the 10 cracks in

each section were evaluated (see chapter 4). In a couple ofinstances, however, the number of

individually treated cracks per treatment was eight. The resulting mean and standard deviation

values of estimated service life for all treatments are summarized in table 15.

Comparative Analysis

This section provides an overall comparison of crack treatment performance among test sites

and detailed comparisons ofthe performance characteristics oftreatment materials,

configurations, and procedures. The comparisons are based on the service-life estimates

previously provided in table 15.

Comparison of Test Sites

Perhaps the most apparent observation to date regarding crack treatment performance has

been the differences in mean estimated service life between the sites. Based on nine crack-seal

treatments (Hi-Spec A-3, B-3, D-3, and D-4; RS 515 D-3; 9030 D-3; XLM D-3; BoniFiberized

asphalt D-3; and 890-SL E-5) placed at Abilene, Wichita (ideal-conditions subsite), Elma, and

Des Moines, the mean estimated service lives for these treatments were 113.8 months for Elma,

52.2 months for Des Moines, 49.0 months for Abilene, and 33.3 months for the Wichita idealconditions subsite. These differences are primarily the combined result of crack movement (a

function of climate, pavement type, crack type, and crack spacing) and traffic.

Table 16 summarizes the mean horizontal crack movements observed at each site, based on

P-K nail plug measurements taken during installation and during the coldest field inspection. As

can be seen, Wichita had the highest recorded incidence of mean crack movement and,

subsequently, the highest mean rate of crack movement (expressed in mmrC). In comparison

with the Abilene and Des Moines sites, both of which had similar crack spacings, the Wichita site

exhibited a crack movement rate 2.5 times greater. It is believed that crack movements at the

Abilene and Des Moines sites were, in large part, constrained by components (fabric, JRC base)

within their pavement designs. Since the estimated daily traffic crossing the Wichita site was

significantly lower than the estimated daily traffic crossing at the Abilene and Des Moines sites

(3,500 vehicles/day versus 6,000 and 6,200 vehicles/day, respectively), crack movement is

believed to be a much greater factor in performance than traffic at this site.

The moderate climate and low traffic level at Elma made it the least intensive crack-seal site.

Even though the mean rate of crack movement at this site was nearly as high as the mean rates at

the Wichita subsites, average annual temperature variations are considerably lower (roughly 5 to

21°C at Elma and 1 to 27°C at Wichita). Thus, on average, the observed crack movement at Elma

was about half the crack movement observed at Wichita.

67
Table 15. Means and standard deviations of estimated service lives for

all experimental crack treatments.

Wichita Ideal Wichita Adverse EIma Des Moines Prescott

Estimated Service Life in Tenns of Mean±Standard Deviation, months

Abilene

Installation

Method

(cfl!:-orep ornc)

A-2 ::~~:~~t:~:r:)\/:~:~::::tM~:\:: :~~\~~~~~~~~::\?~t~~:r::r~~~I:::~: @::::~:M~t~~~~~~:~~~:f~::~:::::::~:::::::wm:::~~~ I)~:}tf:::::::~:~:::m:::::~::?(/ 56.5±19.8 :~:::i':::'~::' :':;:'..":: ,,:,: :.,:..

Treatment

Material

Meadows Hi-Spec

D-3 48.0±8.8 29.5±16.8 41.9±8.3 120.0±O.0 38.8±15.8 :~::::::::::::::::::::::\\r:(::

Crafco RS 515

Koch 9030

MeadowsXLM

D-4 43.8±3.5 28.5±16.3 29.7±20.0 9S.1±34.8 42.4±10.7 ~rtt:?~;\:/::~::·:··:··:··

B-3 109.H11.7 ~~:::::::~~:fff::::::::r::://::~:~::: ::):~:::::r::::M:::::::::@i::::::::::::::::~?:: 120.0±O.0 112.H11.4 i\::/·::::.:~ ..;·:i/:···

C-3 fi1tff}1~~~~~tmt~j~1m~m~~11~ 80.3±8.3 71.9±9.0 1~t?:~~m;~:~@~:~~~r~~~~~~:1:~i~:jjij~{ 94.8±30.2 iiiii\:.:i::\:i..i: ,::"

D-3 58.l±4.& 33.4±20.8 40.1±16.7 117.7±9.1 44.8±18.2 :,;::,,<:.;,.:.;.:::::}:::: ..

B-3 111.4±11.1 :{::?::::(:/??\fff:ta:::::::::f::f::::::::m:~::::::(::mt::f::f 120.O±O.O 105.8±10.9 :::.: :(::.}}:.:.:.

C-3 it//::::/:::::)::::::?:::::::::::::. 68.3±13.3 65.6±10.6 /r::::::::::::::::::/:::::::::::?\::::: 113.4±8.7 ·\:::::~:()/:t:):::::: ::::.

D-3 44.5±8.3 23.9±21.6 17.5±18.4 120.0±O.0 51.1±23.l )??t:::::::::::~:t(;::::..

B-3 85.8±13.4 ~r!::::::;::::;:2:i~::'::::::::~:::\?? Eti1::~~:::t::i::m:/l(:~:~:)~~)?: 120.O±O.O 113.7±11.4 ::::::\::::::.:::..:..:\.::.?::::.

C-3 :::?\:i:::r//::r:::::@:::::::::: 69.6±5.4 41.5±17.2 ::::::::::::ff::!:;:I::::::;:!i::::r!(' 111.6±17.8 :::::::::rr::::':::: :.::::.:'::--:

D-3 48.3±6.6 29.0±17.8 47.1±2.5 119.2±3.2 58.5±7.o~:I{:r}tff:::;:.::i:.

Kapejo BoniFiber

+AC

Dow 890-SL

CrafcoAR+

Koch 9000-S

ElfCRS-2P

Crafco RS 211

AC

CrafcoAR2

Hercules Fiber

Pave+AC

WitcoCRF

Hy-Grade Kold

Flo

Configuration

A. Standard Reservoir-and-Flush

B. Standard Recessed Band-Aid

C. Shallow Recessed Band-Aid

D. Simple Band-Aid

E. Deep Reservoir-and-Recess

F. Standard Reservoir-and-Recess

G. Simple Flush-Fill

H. Capped

Preparation Procedure

1. None

2. Wire Brush and Compressed Air

3. Hot Compressed-Air Lance

4. Compressed Air

5. Light Sandblast, Compressed Air, and BackerRod

6. Compressed Air and Backer Rod

7. Light Sandblast, Compressed Air, and Backer Tape

68
Table 16. Test site crack movement statistics.

Average Mean Air Temperature, ·C

Transverse Crack Movement Mean Rate of

Pavement Crack At At Coldest (Mean ± Std. Dev.), Crack Movement,

Test Site Type Spacing,m Installation Inspection Difference mm mmfC

Abilene Conventional AC 18 24 8 16 0.91 ±0.51 0.057

(wI fabric interlayer)

Wichita 17 3 14 2.03 ±0.90 0.145

(ideal) Full-Depth AC 20

Wichita 16 4 12 1.63 ± 1.06 0.136

(adverse)

Elma Full-Depth AC 25 14 6 8 1.04 ± 0.42 0.130

Des Moines Composite AC/JRC 18 26 0 26 1.52 ± 0.94 0.058

Prescott Composite AC/JPC - 30 -9 39 1.17 ± 0.35 0.030

To give a sense of the effects oftraffic on sealant overband wear, the mean time required for a

75 percent reduction in original overband thickness was computed for seven crack-seal treatments

(Hi-Spec B-3, 0-3, and 0-4; RS 515 0-3; 90300-3; XLM 0-3; and BoniFiberized asphalt 0-3)

placed at Abilene, Elma, Wichita, and Oes Moines. The lowest trafficked site, Elma (estimated

2,880 vpd/lane and 9 percent trucks), showed a mean elapsed time of 35.8 months. The Wichita

ideal-conditions subsite, which had a little heavier traffic (estimated 3,500 vpd/lane and 13 percent

trucks), had a mean elapsed time of 30.1 months. The heavier loaded test sites, Abilene

(estimated 6,000 vpd and 15 to 20 percent trucks) and Oes Moines (estimated 6,200 vpd and 20.5

percent trucks), showed mean elapsed times of26.8 months and 17.8 months, respectively.

The cold, damp sealing conditions typified by the adverse-conditions test sections at Wichita

appear to have had no effect on seal performance. Based on 12 distinct treatments placed at both

subsites, the mean estimated service lives were 43.9 months for the ideal-conditions subsite and

44.5 months for the adverse-conditions subsite. Half of the 12 treatments showed longer

estimated service lives as part ofthe adverse-conditions subsite than as part ofthe idealconditions subsite. It is believed that the effectiveness of the HCA lance at drying pavement

cracks was largely responsible for the resulting similarities in performance between the ideal- and

adverse-conditions crack seals.

Comparison of Crack-Seal Materials. Confit:urations. and Procedures

The experimental design ofthe crack-seal study allowed for several direct performance

comparisons between materials, configurations, and procedures. Many ofthe comparisons were

possible at the overall experiment level and these are discussed below. However, a few

comparisons made within test sites yielded the following observations.

• At Wichita (ideal conditions), the SHRP-specified control material Hi-Spec, placed using

method B-3, performed somewhat better than the State-added materials AR+ and 9000-S,

also placed using method B-3 (59.4 months versus 52.2 and 56.0 months, respectively).

69
• At Ehna, the SHRP-specified control material Hi-Spec, placed using method B-3,

performed the same (mean estimated service life of 120.0 months) as the State-added

material RS 211, also placed using method B-3.

• At Des Moines, the 17 SHRP-specified treatments, on average, performed much better

than the State-added emulsion material CRS-2P, placed using the G-4 method (74.4

months versus 5.6 months).

• At Wichita, 890-SL placed in a deep reservoir on top of backer rod, performed

considerably better than when placed in a standard reservoir on top of backer tape (47.7

months versus 36.1 months).

• At Wichita, 890-SL placed in a sandblasted reservoir performed substantially better than

when placed in a non-sandblasted reservoir (47.7 months versus 28.9 months).

• At Des Moines, slightly better performance was achieved with the hot-airblast cleaning

procedure in comparison with the wirebrush-compressed-air cleaning procedure (Hi-Spec

A-3 and A-2 methods, respectively) (61.1 months versus 56.5 months).

At the overall experiment level (i.e., based on the Abilene, Wichita [ideal conditions only],

Ehna, and Des Moines test sites), the following head-to-head comparisons were made with

respect to material, configuration, and procedure performance:

• SHRP-specified rubberized asphalt sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515, 9030, and XLM) placed

using methods B-3, C-3, and D-3.

+ RS 515 showed the longest estimated service life (85.6 months), followed closely by

the two low-modulus sealants 9030 (84.3 months) and XLM (84.0 months). The

standard modulus sealant Hi-Spec had a considerably shorter estimated service life

(73.4 months).

• SHRP-specified asphalt-based sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515, 9030, and XLM) placed using

methodD-3.

+ XLM showed the longest estimated service life (63.8 months), followed very closely

by RS 515 (63.5 months). 9030 had the next longest estimated service life (59.9

months), just edging out Hi-Spec (59.1 months). BoniFiberized AC had the shortest

estimated service life (35.0 months).

• SHRP-specified asphalt-based treatments (all methods used with Hi-Spec, RS 515, 9030,

XLM, and BoniFiberized asphalt) versus the SHRP-specified silicone-based treatment

(890-SL with the E-5 method).

+ The mean estimated service life of all SHRP-specified asphalt-based treatments was

slightly higher than the mean estimated service life ofthe silicone-based treatment

(73.8 months versus 70.4 months).

70
• Standard recessed band-aid (configuration B) versus shallow recessed band-aid

(configuration C) versus simple band-aid (confiiguration D) used with SHRP-specified

rubberized asphalt sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515, 9030, and XLM).

+- The standard recessed band-aid showed the longest estimated service life (94.5

months), followed very closely by the shallow recessed band-aid (92.9 months). The

simple band-aid showed a substantially shorter estimated service life (44.5 months).

• Standard reservoir-and-flush (configuration A) versus standard recessed band-aid

(configuration B), used with the SHRP-specified control material Hi-Spec.

+- A considerably longer estimated service life was observed with the standard recessed

band-aid as compared witll the standard reservoir-and-flush (84.7 months versus 70.0

months).

• Hot airblasting (crack preparation procedure 3) versus conventional airblasting (procedure

4) used with the SHRP-specified control material Hi-Spec.

+- A considerably longer estimated service life was observed with the hot airblasting

procedure as compared with the conventional airblasting procedure (59.1 months

versus 52.5 months).

Comparison of Crack-Fill Materials. Configurations. and Procedures

Direct comparisons ofthe crack-fill treatments at Prescott revealed the following performance

findings:

• Based on the 0-4 method (flush-fill configuration, conventional airblasting), the asphalt

rubber material AR2 provided the longest estimated service life (86.3 months), followed

distantly by the emulsion CRF (43.1 months), asphalt cement (42.3 months), and the

rubberized emulsion Kold Flo (34.6 months).

• Based on the asphalt rubber material AR2, the simple band-aid appears to have

outperformed the flush-fill configuration (97.7 months versus 86.3 months).

• The use of high-pressure air for cleaning cracks filled with asphalt cement does not appear

to be beneficial. The service-life estimates ofthe asphalt cement 0-1 and 0-4 treatments

are about the same (42.0 months and 42.3 months, respectively).

Analysis of Variance of Service Life

To make statistical performance distinctions between the various experimental treatments, an

analysis of variance was conducted using the SAS® OLM procedure and the Tukey studentized

range grouping method. The SASQll input file for this test consisted of the individual service-life

estimates (corresponding to a threshold of 75 percent effectiveness) computed for each treated

71
crack (or crack division). As previously mentioned, a confidence level of 95 percent (i.e., I-ex = 95 percent) was used.

The results ofthe Tukey comparisons of estimated treatment service life are illustrated in

figures 39 through 44. These figures graphically show the estimated service life statistics ofthe

treatments installed at the various test sites, in conjunction with the resulting Tukey performance

groupings. The mean service life of each treatment is displayed and is represented by the solid

square symbol. The corresponding variation in service life, in terms of one standard deviation

above and below the mean, is depicted by the vertical line through the mean service life symbol.

The Tukey performance groupings are given by the "level" designations above the service life

statistics. Each level represents a statistical distinction in performance, with level 1representing

highest performance, followed by level 2, level 3, and so on. Obviously, some treatments fell

under two or more performance levels, indicating that they can be categorized in various ways.

The comparison observations listed earlier in the chapter were reviewed in light ofthe

MANOVA-Tukey analysis results. A summary ofthat review is provided below.

• At Wichita (ideal conditions), the SHRP-specified control material Hi-Spec, placed using

method B-3, performed somewhat better than the State-added materials AR+ and 9000-S,

also placed using method B-3.

+ No statistically significant differences were observed between the Hi-Spec and the two

State-added materials.

• At Elma, the SHRP-specified control material Hi-Spec, placed using method B-3,

performed the same as the State-added material RS 211, also placed using method B-3.

+ No statistically significant difference between Hi-Spec and the State-added material.

• At Des Moines, the 17 SHRP-specified treatments, on average, performed much better

than the State-added emulsion material CRS-2P, placed using the 0-4 method (74.4

months versus 5.6 months).

+ Direct comparisons with the 17 SHRP-specified treatments showed the performance

of the CRS-2P 0-4 treatment to be statistically inferior to 15 ofthose treatments. No

statistically significant difference was observed between this treatment and the

BoniFiberized asphalt D-3 and Hi-Spec D-3 treatments.

• At Des Moines, slightly better performance was achieved with the hot-airblast cleaning

procedure in comparison with the wirebrush-compressed-air cleaning procedure (Hi-Spec

A-3 and A-2 methods, respectively).

+ No statistically significant difference was found to exist between the hot-airblast and

wirebrush-compressed-air cleaning procedures.

72
Time to 75% Effectiveness, months

160.------------------------,

Level 1

140

Level 2

11;;4to~--------~~~;---------------------------- - 1 I I

60 -----------------~~-.~- ~~------------------~-

40 ------------------------- ---j~!-J~~~~~~ ~~~---

120

100

20 ------------------------------------------------

Figure 39. Tukeyanalysis of estimated treatment service lives at Abilene.

Time to 75% Effectiveness, months

160.------------------------,

Level 1

Level 2

140~·-~·~~~~~~~~~~~~~---------------------

120 ---- . Level 3

100 -------- ....----------------

Level 4

Figure 40. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives

at Wichita ideal-conditions subsite.

73
Level 2

Level 1

_.....==----=--===::-::::'---:::-:====--------==~- -------------

Time to 75% Effectiveness~ months

160 r--------------------------,

140~------------------------------------------------

120

100 1--- -- _.-----~-~-------,........-:----:----:-=----- ------ Level 3

Figure 41. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives

at Wichita adverse-conditions subsite.

Time to 750/0 Effectiveness, months

160 r--------------------------,

140

Level 1

----------==:-------~=---=------====--------~ -----

Level 2

I I ('I) I ('I) .,.

m m I I

c 0 0

() () -U) 0 0 - - - - - () U) ..J I- ()

GJ at - ('I) ('I) ::E - ::E at - en GJ GJ Q, Q, U) 0 0 ..J N ..J Q, U) I :e Q,

en en en 0) 0) >< en >< en en 0 u.. en •.!. •.!. •.!. 0) I I

J: J: a:: a:: J: a:: GO m J:

Figure 42. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives at Elma.

74
Time to 750/0 Effectiveness, months

160 ...-----,...".,.,,1.9\ve:'T"~I:r-- ,--------------------,

Level 2 140 f------------ Uiviil"3-------------------------

Level4 '

120 ft3.T~1112.lfr.110S.t· -'. LevelS • ---------------

100-~---- --~--f-- ~1;~-~~--------L9~~---~:~~-------

80 u __ -~F-r-~t1..--------' ",,,,.--

60 ----------------------F-~c~Jb1.~----~----~­ 40 ------------------------------l--F-i-'fdtu---- 20 ------------------------------------~-------~J~~-

0L...J..---l~~--l...__J, I I I __~~~~~~-I----l,,_~~'_.J.oo~~~....J;I - I I I I I I ;;:

~~~~~~~~~~~N~~'~~.~

en e.ee.e.e.e.e!!!~ci ~e.e.e.e.e.~ - 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0

:!i ~:!i x, X,U;> x.:!i X,~ x. x.~

m 0

Figure 43. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives at Des Moines.

Level 1

Time to 75% Effectiveness, months

160,....-----------------------,

140

120

100 --frr7---f':.:---~-----~-------------------------- 80 -------- -----f-..---r~1-----------~~~----------

60

40 ------------------------. ,&,43.L. ..42.3 ...42.0 _

.34.6

20 -----------------------------------------------

OL.-.....l-__..L...-_---l__-I..__.....l-__..L-_---l__-I..-l

Q)I'\ )1'\ Q)I'\ ~)I,\ <:>)1'\ <:>)1'\ <:>,,,,\ <:>)1'\

~'}. ~'}. \.<:> :-te "" ~~ v v ~\O et~~ ~S').: v .LO\~ ~.\O "

Figure 44. Tukey analysis of estimated treatment service lives at Prescott.

75
• Among the SHRP-specified rubberized asphalt sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515,9030, and

XLM) placed using methods B-3, C-3, and D-3, RS 515 showed the longest estimated

service life (85.6 months), followed closely by the two low-modulus sealants 9030 (84.3

months) and XLM (84.0 months). The standard modulus sealant Hi-Spec had a

considerably shorter estimated service life (73.4 months).

9030 versus XLM: In one of nine direct comparisons, 9030 showed statistically

superior performance to XLM. No statistically significant differences existed in the

other eight comparisons.

9030 versus RS 515: In nine of nine direct comparisons, no statistically significant

differences in performance were observed.

9030 versus Hi-Spec: In one of nine direct comparisons, 9030 showed statistically

better performance than Hi-Spec. In the other eight comparisons, no statistically

significant differences in performance were observed.

XLM versus RS 515: In eight of nine direct comparisons, no statistically significant

differences in performance were observed. In the other comparison, XLM showed

statistically poorer performance than RS 515.

XLM versus Hi-Spec: In nine of nine direct comparisons, no statistically significant

differences in performance were observed.

RS 515 versus Hi-Spec: In one of nine direct comparisons, RS 515 showed

statistically better performance than Hi-Spec. In the other eight comparisons, no

statistically significant differences in performance were found to exist.

• Among the SHRP-specified asphalt-based sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515, 9030, XLM, and

BoniFiberized asphalt) placed using method D-3, XLM showed the longest estimated

service life (63.8 months), followed very closely by RS 515 (63.5 months). 9030 had the

next longest estimated service life (59.9 months), just edging out Hi-Spec (59.1 months).

BoniFiberized asphalt had the shortest estimated service life (35.0 months).

At Abilene, no statistically significant differences in performance were observed

between XLM, RS 515, 9030, and Hi-Spec. However, BoniFiberized asphalt showed

statistically poorer performance than these four sealants.

At the Wichita ideal-conditions subsite, no statistically significant differences in

performance were noted among the five sealants.

At Elma, no statistically significant differences in performance were observed among

the five sealants.

At Des Moines, XLM was found to be statistically better than BoniFiberized asphalt.

No statistically significant differences in performance were observed between RS 515,

9030, Hi-Spec, and BoniFiberized asphalt.

• Comparing the SHRP-specified asphalt-based treatments (all methods used with Hi-Spec,

RS 515, 9030, XLM, and BoniFiberized asphalt) and the SHRP-specified silicone-based

treatment (890-SL with the E-5 method), the mean estimated service life of all asphaltbased treatments was slightly higher than the mean estimated service life ofthe siliconebased treatment (73.8 months versus 70.4 months).

76
In 50 direct comparisons, the 890-SL E-5 treatment was statistically better than 4

asphalt-based treatments, statistically equivalent to 38 asphalt-based treatments, and

statistically worse than 8 asphalt-based treatments.

• Comparing the standard recessed band-aid (configuration B), the shallow recessed bandaid (configuration C), and simple band-aid (confiiguration D) used with SHRP-specified

rubberized asphalt sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515, 9030, and XLM), the standara recessed

band-aid showed the longest estimated service life (94.5 months), followed very closely by

the shallow recessed band-aid (92.9 months). The simple band-aid showed a substantially

shorter estimated service life (44.5 months).

Configuration B versus D: In 10 of 16 direct comparisons, configuration B showed

statistically better performance. In the other six comparisons, no statistically

significant differences in performance were observed.

Configuration C versus D: In six of eight direct comparisons, configuration C showed

statistically better performance. In the other two comparisons, no statistically

significant differences in performance were observed.

Configuration B versus C: In eight of eight direct comparisons, no statistically

significant differences in performance were observed.

• Comparing the standard reservoir-and-flush (configuration A) and the standard recessed

band-aid (configuration B) used with the SHRP-specified control material (Hi-Spec), a

considerably longer estimated service life was observed with the standard recessed bandaid as compared with the standard reservoir-and-flush (84.7 months versus 70.0 months).

In four direct comparisons, no statistically significant differences in performance were

observed.

• Comparing the hot airb1asting procedure (crack preparation procedure 3) and the

conventional airb1asting procedure (procedure 4) used with the SHRP-specified control

material Hi-Spec, a considerably longer estimated service life was observed with the hot

airb1asting procedure as compared with the conventional airblasting procedure (59.1

months versus 52.5 months).

In one offour direct comparisons, the hot airblasting procedure showed statistically

better performance than the conventional airb1asting procedure. In the other three

comparisons, no statistically significant differences in performance were observed.

• Based on the G-4 method (flush-fill configuration, conventional airb1asting), the asphalt

rubber material AR2 provided the longest estimated service life (86.3 months), followed

distantly by the emulsion CRF (43.1 months), asphalt cement (42.3 months), and the

rubberized emulsion Ko1d Flo (34.6 months).

AR2 showed statistically superior performance to CRF, asphalt cement, and Ko1d Flo.

No statistically significant differences in performance were observed among CRF,

asphalt cement, and Ko1d Flo.

77
• Based on the asphalt rubber material AR2, the simple band-aid appears to have

outperformed the flush-fill configuration (97.7 months versus 86.3 months).

No statistically significant differences in performance were found to exist between

these two configurations when used with AR2.

• The use of high-pressure air for cleaning cracks filled with asphalt cement does not appear

to be beneficial. The service-life estimates ofthe asphalt cement 0-1 and 0-4 treatments

are about the same (42.0 months and 42.3 months, respectively).

No statistically significant differences in performance were found to exist between

these two preparation procedures when used with asphalt cement.

Laboratory Test-Field Performance Correlation Analyses

Correlation analyses between laboratory test results and field performance indicators were

performed using the SASGll Correlation (CaRR) procedure. In this procedure, statistical

comparisons were made at the 95 percent confidence level between the numerical results of

various key laboratory tests and key field distresses. The strength of a relationship was indicated

by the Pearson correlation coefficient (r-value) computed in the analysis. Coefficients near 0

represented poor relationships, whereas those near 1 or -1 represented strong relationships.

Positive r-values indicated direct relationships, and negative r-values signified inverse

relationships.

The correlation analysis involved the comparison ofthe results of 4 field performance

indicators and 21 distinct tests, as measured on the 6 SHRP-specified sealant materials (Hi-Spec,

RS 515, 9030, XLM, BoniFiberized asphalt, and 890-SL). The field performance indicators and

laboratory tests included the following:

Field Performance Indicators

• Overband wear.

• Full-depth adhesion loss.

• Full-depth cohesion loss.

• Overall failure.

Laboratory Tests

• Cone penetration (ASTM D 3407) at -18 and 25°C.

• Flow (ASTM D 3407) at 60°C.

• Softening point (ASTM D 36).

• Force ductility (ASTM D 113 and Utah test) at 4°C.

• Tensile adhesion (ASTM D 3583) at 24°C using PCC blocks (standard), AC blocks

(modified #1), and soaked AC blocks (modified #2).

• Tensile strength (ASTM D 412) at -18, 4, and 24°C.

• Ultimate elongation (ASTM D 412) at -18, 4, and 24°C.

• Stress at 150 percent elongation (ASTM D 412) at -18, 4, and 24°C.

78
• Bond (ASTM D 3407) at 25°C using channel (~odified #1), recessed band-aid (modified

#2), and band-aid (modified #3) test configurations.

The comparisons were made using treatment service life estimates (i.e., time until 75 percent

overband thickness reduction for overband wear, time until 75 percent effectiveness for adhesion

loss, cohesion loss, and overall failure) and mean laboratory test results. Comparisons were made

on a site-by-site basis, as well as on an all-sites, or overall, basis. However, because ofthe small

sampling oftest results, the correlation analysis focused on overall comparisons only.

Results of the correlation analysis are given in table 17. In this table, shaded cells represent

tests and field indicators not expected to be related to each other, whereas unshaded cells

represent relationships expected to be at least reasonably strong. The listed correlation

coefficients reflect the strength ofrelationships between laboratory testing data and field

performance. A checkmark (~) by a coefficient indicates an expected, or desired, relationship,

whereas an X indicates an unexpected, or undesired, relationship.

Though correlations based on a level of significance of 0.05 (i.e., 95 percent confidence) were

originally targeted, correlations based on a 0.10 significance level (i.e., 90 percent confidence)

were also identified to expand the reach of potential relationships. The correlation coefficients for

both significance levels are given in table 17, with those in brackets representing the 0.10

significance level. A brief discussion of each identified correlation at the all-sites level is given

below.

• Cone penetration at 25°C versus overband wear. The higher the cone penetration at 25°C

(i.e., the softer the material), the shorter the time required to reduce the overband

thickness by 75 percent. A very high and desirable correlation was observed at the 0.10

significance level.

• Force ductility maximum elongation at 4°C versus cohesion failure. The greater the

extensibility, the longer the time required for cohesion loss to reach 75 percent

effectiveness. A high and desirable correlation was observed.

• Force ductility load at 150 percent elongation and 4°C versus cohesion failure. The

greater the load at 150 percent elongation, the shorter the time required for cohesion loss

to reach 75 percent effectiveness. A very high and desirable correlation was observed.

• Ultimate elongation at 4°C versus cohesion failure. The greater the cltimate elongation,

the longer the time required for cohesion loss to reach 75 percent effectiveness. A high

and desirable correlation was observed at the 0.10 significance level.

• Tensile strength at 24°C versus overall failure. The greater the tensile strength, the shorter

the time required for overall failure to reach 25 percent (i.e., 75 percent effectiveness). A

high, but undesirable, correlation was observed at the 0.10 significance level.

79
Table 17. Selected laboratory test-field performance correlation results.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients (r) for Field Distresses'

Test Parameter

Overband

Wear

Full-Depth

Cohesion Loss

Full-Depth

Adhesion Loss Overall Failure

Cone penetration at -18'C (3-A)

Cone penetration at 25'C (4-A) ./

[-0.919] 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:11III!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1I1I1I111I1II1IIIIII1111

Flow at 60'C (5-A)

Softening point (8-A)

Force ductility-maximum elongation at

4'C (ll-A) 1111:1!1!!!!!!!!!!!I!I!!!I!III!III!I!I!I!!!I!!!I!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!

./

0.872 I!I!li!III!I!I!I!!I!!!!IIIIIIIII!I!!!!I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!I!I!!!III

Force ductility-load at 150% elongation

and 4'C (ll-K) 1IIIIIIII1III!III!I:II!IIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIII!I!IIIIIII!1!IIIIIIIII

./

-0.937

Tensile adhesion at 24'C, std

(12-B) 1111111111111111111111111111111111111!IIIIIIIIII1II!11111111!1111111111111111111111111111111111:IIIII11111111111111111111111:11111111:

./

[0.895]

:111:111:I,I

1

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIII1III!1111111111

Ultimate elongation at 4'C (16-B)

Ultimate elongation at -18'C

(I5-B)

Tensile adhesion at 24'C, mod #1 (13-B)

Stress@ 150% elongation at -18'C

(I5-C)

Tensile strength at 4'C (16-A)

Tensile strength at -18'C (I5-A)

Tensile adhesion at 24'C, mod #2 (14-B)

Stress @ 150% elongation at 4'C

(16-C)

Tensile strength at 24'C (17-A)

IIIIIIIIIII!III!:IIIIII!II!IIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111'!11

x

[-0.858]

Ultimate elongation at 24'C

(17-B) I:I:I!II!II:IIIII:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!I!IIIIII'IIIIIIIIII111111111

./

0.946 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I!III:IIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIII!I!IIII

Stress @ 150% elongation at 24'C

(17-C) IIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIII!I;IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!II11111111 111I1111I111111111I111111111111111I111I11111111111I11111111111I

01

-0.922

Modified bond #1 at 25'C (19-B)

Modified bond #2 at 25'C (20-B)

Modified bond #'3 at 25'C (21-B)

./

-0.936

Note: Shaded cells represent tests and field indicators not expected to relate to each other.

Correlations based on level ofsignificance=0.05 (ie., 95% confidence). Correlations based on level ofsignificance

of 0.10 (i.e., 90% confidence) are given in brackets.

80
• Ultimate elongation at 24°C versus cohesion failure. The greater the ultimate elongation,

the longer the time required for cohesion loss to reach 75 percent effectiveness. A very

high and desirable correlation was observed.

• Tensile stress at 150 percent elongation at 24°C versus overall failure. The greater the

tensile stress, the shorter the time required for overall failure to reach 25 percent. A very

high and desirable correlation was observed.

• Modified bond #1 at 25°C versus adhesion failure. The greater the percentage of

debonding, the shorter the time required for adhesion loss to reach 75 percent

effectiveness. A very high and desirable correlation was observed.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Although treatment performance in itselfis quite important, cost-effectiveness should be the

main criterion in the selection of materials and procedures. A cost-effectiveness analysis indicates

which treatments provide the best performance for the money spent and which treatments do not

live up to their placement costs.

Presented in this section are the procedures that were used to assess crack treatment costeffectiveness and the subsequent findings ofsuch an analysis, based on the estimated treatment

service life corresponding to 75 percent overall effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness analysis

consisted of calculating and comparing the life-cycle costs ($/linear m of crack) ofthe

experimental treatments. To accomplish this, a spreadsheet was developed that contained crucial

installation and performance data, along with the necessary formulas for computing life-cycle

costs. The following types of data were compiled for use in the spreadsheet computations:

• Material cost.

• Unit weight of material.

• Cross-sectional area of material placement configuration.

• Crew size.

• Estimated daily labor cost.

• Estimated daily equipment cost.

• Estimated daily user delay cost.

• Estimated production rate.

• Estimated (actual or predicted) service life at 75 percent effectiveness level.

Using this information and the following equation, the total cost ofinstalling a crack sealant or

crack filler material was calculated.

CillSt = (Cmat x NAR) + (Cp1ac)PR) + (Cuse,/PR)

81

Eq.2
where: C inst = Total installation cost, $/linear m of crack.

C mat = Material cost, $/kg.

NAR = Net application rate, kg/linear m of crack.

Cplace = Estimated placement cost, $/day.

PR = Estimated production rate, linear m of crack/day.

Cuser = Estimated user delay cost, $/day.

The net application rate is the amount ofmaterial required to treat a unit length of crack (1 m

was used in this analysis). This quantity was computed using the cross-sectional area of a given

placement configuration, the unit weight ofthe subject material, and a 15 percent waste factor.

The estimated placement cost is the sum ofthe daily costs oflabor and equipment. In this

analysis, the amount oflabor was estimated based on the typical number of workers observed

during the SHRP H-106 installations. For each type oftreatment, one supervisor and X number

oflaborers defined the crew size. The following pay rates were assumed in the calculations:

• Supervisor-$200/day.

• Laborer-$120/day.

Table 18 provides the daily equipment cost estimates that were used in the analysis. The total

cost of equipment for a particular treatment type was obtained by summing the equipment costs

of the various operations required of that treatment type. An estimated user delay cost of

$2,000/day was used in the computation oftotal installation cost.

Table 19 summarizes the installation requirements and the resulting total installation costs of

the various experimental treatments. It also lists the estimated service lives ofthe treatments

based on 75 percent effectiveness. As can be seen, the total installation costs ofthe hot-applied

sealant materials placed in configuration D (simple band-aid) were generally in the range of $5.25

to $5.60/m Those placed in configurations A, B, and C (standard reservoir-and-flush, standard

recessed band-aid, and shallow recessed band-aid) were considerably more expensive ($7.00 to

$8.00/m) because of the crack reservoirs. The silicone installation cost was nearly double the

Table 18. Estimated equipment costs for various installation processes.

Installation Process Equipment Cost, $/day

Traffic control 400

Routing 150

Sawing 200

High-pressure airblasting 150

Hot airblasting 200

Wrrebrushing 150

Sandblasting 200

Inserting backer rod 10

Sealant annlication and finishine: 200

82
Table 19. Installation requirements and costs of experimental crack treatments.

Material Net Labor Equipment Estimated Total Estimated SeIVice

Cost, Application Crew Cost, Cost, Production Installation Life at 75%

Material Method $/kg Rate,kg/m Size $/day $/day Rate,mlday Cost,$/m Effectiveness, yrs

Abilene, Texas

Hi-Spec A-3 0.64 0.39 7 920 950 550 7.31 4.84

B-3 0.64 0.86 7 920 950 550 7.57 6.48

D-3 0.64 0.48 7 920 800 730 5.38 4.00

D-4 0.64 0.48 7 920 750 730 5.31 3.65

RS 515 B-3 0.90 0.89 7 920 950 550 7.87 9.10

D-3 0.90 0.49 7 920 800 730 5.54 4.84

9030 B-3 0.77 0.80 7 920 950 550 7.67 9.28

D-3 0.77 0.43 7 920 800 730 5.41 3.71

XLM B-3 1.32 0.74 7 920 950 550 8.03 7.15

D-3 1.32 0.40 7 920 800 730 5.61 4.02

B-Fiber D-3 0.44 0.55 7 920 800 730 5.31 0.75

890-SL E-5 6.61 0.22 11 1,400 1,360 550 10.16 4.46

Wichita, Kansas (Adverse Conditions)

Hi-Spec A-3 0.64 0.39 7 920 950 550 7.31 3.86

B-3 0.64 0.86 7 920 950 550 7.57 4.87

C-3 0.64 0.70 7 920 950 600 6.92 5.70

D-3 0.64 0.48 7 920 800 730 5.38 3.49

D-4 0.64 0.48 7 920 750 730 5.31 2.48

RS515 C-3 0.90 0.73 7 920 950 600 7.11 6.00

D-3 0.90 0.49 7 920 800 730 5.54 3.34

9030 C-3 0.77 0.66 7 920 950 600 6.95 5.46

D-3 0.77 0.43 7 920 800 730 5.41 1.46

XLM C-3 1.32 0.61 7 920 950 600 7.28 3.46

D-3 1.32 0.40 7 920 800 730 5.61 3.92

B-Fiber D-3 0.44 0.55 7 920 800 730 5.31 0.47

890-SL E-6 6.61 0.22 11 1,400 1,160 550 9.80 3.01

F-7 6.61 0.22 11 1,400 1,360 550 10.16 2.41

AR+ B-3 0.55 (est) 0.85 7 920 950 550 7.51 4.68

9000-S B-3 0.44 (est) 0.89 7 920 950 550 7.44 4.85

Wicbita, Kansas (Ideal Conditions)

Hi-Spec A-3 0.64 0.39 7 920 950 550 7.31 3.54

B-3 0.64 0.86 7 920 950 550 7.57 4.95

C-3 0.64 0.70 7 920 950 600 6.92 4.70

D-3 0.64 0.48 7 920 800 730 5.38 2.46

D-4 0.64 0.48 7 920 750 730 5.31 2.37

RS 515 C-3 0.90 0.73 7 920 950 600 7.11 6.69

D-3 0.90 0.49 7 920 800 730 5.54 2.78

9030 C-3 0.77 0.66 7 920 950 600 6.95 5.69

D-3 0.77 0.43 7 920 800 730 5.41 2.00

XLM C-3 1.32 0.61 7 920 950 600 7.28 5.80

D-3 1.32 0.40 7 920 800 730 5.61 2.42

B-Fiber D-3 0.44 0.55 7 920 800 730 5.31 0.51

890-SL E-5 6.61 0.22 11 1,400 1,360 550 10.16 3.98

AR+ B-3 0.55 (est) 0.85 7 920 950 550 7.51 4.35

9000-S B-3 0.44 (eRt) 0.89 7 920 9'i0 'i'iO 7.44 Hill

83
Table 19. Installation requirements and costs of experimental crack treatments (continued).

Material Net Labor Equipment Estimated Total Estimated Service

Cost, Awlication Crew Cost, Cost, Production Installation Life at 75%

Material Method $/kg Rate,kg/m Size $/day $/day Rate,mlday Cost,$/m Effectiveness, yrs

EIma, Washington

Hi-Spec A-3 0.64 0.39 7 920 950 550 7.31 9.85

B-3 0.64 0.85 7 920 950 550 7.57 10.00

D-3 0.64 0.48 7 920 800 730 5.38 10.00

D-4 0.64 0.48 7 920 750 730 5.31 7.93

RS515 B-3 0.90 0.89 7 920 950 550 7.87 10.00

D-3 0.90 0.49 7 920 800 730 5.54 9.82

9030 B-3 0.77 0.80 7 920 950 550 7.67 10.00

D-3 0.77 0.43 7 920 800 730 5.41 10.00

XLM B-3 1.32 0.74 7 920 950 550 8.03 10.00

D-3 1.32 0.40 7 920 800 730 5.61 9.93

B-Fiber D-3 0.44 0.55 7 920 800 730 5.34 8.78

890-SL E-5 6.61 0.22 11 1,400 1,360 550 10.16 9.08

RS211 B-3 0.66 0.98 7 920 950 550 7.70 10.00

Des Moines, Iowa

Hi-Spec A-2 0.64 0.39 7 920 1,050 550 7.48 4.71

A-3 0.64 0.39 7 920 950 550 7.31 5.09

B-3 0.64 0.85 7 920 950 550 7.57 6.81

C-3 0.64 0.70 7 920 950 600 6.92 7.34

D-3 0.64 0.48 7 920 800 730 5.38 3.23

D-4 0.64 0.48 7 920 750 730 5.31 3.53

RS515 B-3 0.90 0.89 7 920 950 550 7.87 9.34

C-3 0.90 0.73 7 920 950 600 7.11 7.90

D-3 0.90 0.49 7 920 800 730 5.54 3.74

9030 B-3 0.77 0.80 7 920 950 550 7.67 8.82

C-3 0.77 0.66 7 920 950 600 6.95 9.45

D-3 0.77 0.43 7 920 800 730 5.41 4.25

XLM B-3 1.32 0.74 7 920 950 550 8.03 9.48

C-3 1.32 0.61 7 920 950 600 7.28 9.30

D-3 1.32 0.40 7 920 800 730 5.61 4.88

B-Fiber D-3 0.44 0.55 7 920 800 730 5.34 1.62

890-SL E-5 6.61 0.22 11 1,400 1,360 550 10.16 5.97

CRS-2P G-4 0.26 (est) 0.09 5 800 750 915 3.90 0.47

Prescott, Ontario

RS211 H-4 0.66 (est) 0.86 7 920 750 2,440 2.07 6.18

Asphalt G-1 0.26 0.42 7 . 680 600 2,745 1.31 3.50

Cement G-4 0.26 0.42 7 920 750 2,200 1.77 3.53

CRF B-4 0.44 (est) 0.42 7 920 750 1,830 2.20 3.59

AR2 D-4 0.62 0.80 7 920 750 2.440 2.00 8.14

G-4 0.62 0.45 7 920 750 2,200 1.93 7.19

FiberPave D-4 0.53 0.67 7 920 750 2,440 1.87 6.55

Knlil "PIn H-4 044 (...f) 04? 7 920 750 1.830 ??O 2.89

84
hot-applied configuration D treatments (approximately $lO/m), primarily due to the cost ofthe

material. Finally, the cheapest crack sealant to place was the CRS-2P at approximately $3.90/m

Though the exact purchase cost ofthis product was unknown, an estimate of $0.26/kg was used.

Among the crack filler materials, CRF and Kold Flo were the most costly to place ($2.20/m),

despite purchase costs between 20 and 50 percent less than the hot-applied, polymerized asphalt

materials. The primary reason for this was the slower production rate. The least expensive

material to place was the asphalt cement, which had total installation costs between $1.31 and

$1.77/m

The total installation cost, estimated service life at 75 percent effectiveness, and a 5 percent

interest rate were used to compute average annual cost via the following equation:

where:

C:nnual = C inat X «i x (1 + i)8L)/«1 + i)8L - 1))

Cannual = Average annual cost, $/linear m of crack.

SL = Estimated service life, yrs.

= Total installation cost, $/linear m of crack.

= Interest rate, 5 percent.

Eq.3

Tables 20 and 21 list the average annual costs of each treatment, both at the test site level and

overall, based on the estimated service lives. As can be seen, service life had a profound effect on

average annual cost. Considering only the hot-applied sealants, those with estimated service lives

less than 2.0 years had average annual costs greater than $2.90/m Those with estimated service

lives between 2.0 and 5.0 years had average annual costs between $1.30 and $2.60/m And, those

with estimated service lives greater than 5.0 years had average annual costs below $1.70/m

Ofthe four SHRP-specified rubberized asphalt sealants, the most cost-effective sealant, based

on a service life corresponding to 75 percent effectiveness, was RS 515. A comparison ofthe

average overall annual costs for these materials, considering only non-adverse sites (Abilene, Des

Moines, and Wichita ideal-conditions subsite) and installation methods common to all four sites

(i.e., methods B-3, C-3, and D-3), yielded the following results:

RS 515

XLM

9030

Hi-Spec

$1.27/m

$1.35/m

$1.36/m

$1.44/m

Because ofthe silicone's significantly higher installation cost and less-than-desirable

performance, it was not very cost-effective (overall average annual cost of $2.23/m for the E-5

installation method). Compared to other treatments with service life estimates between 4 and 6

years, the silicone had an average annual cost anywhere between 10 and 100 percent greater.

85
Table 20. Average annual cost comparisons of crack-seal treatments.

Average Annual Cost Based on Estimated Service Life

Corresponding to 75% Effectiveness, $flinear m of crack

Installation

Sealant Method

Material (configuratio

n-preparation)

Abilene

Wichita

(Ideal)

Wichita

(Adverse) Ehna

Average ofAll

Non-Adverse

Test Sites

Des (excludes Wichita

Moines adverse subsite)

~i-Spec A-2 1.82 1.82

A-3

B-3

C-3

D-3

D-4

1.73

1.40

1.52

1.63

2.30 2.12

1.77 1.79

1.68 1.42

2.38 1.72

2.43 2.33

0.96

0.98

0.70

0.83

1.66

1.34

1.15

1.84

1.68

1.66

1.37

1.42

1.61

1.64

~S515 B-3 1.10 1.02 1.07 1.06

C-3

D-3 1.31

1.28 1.40

2.18 1.84 0.72

1.11

1.66

1.20

1.47

~030 B-3 1.05 0.99 1.10 1.05

C-3

D-3 1.64

1.44 1.49

2.92 3.95 0.70

0.94

1.45

1.19

1.68

DcLM B-3 1.36 1.04 1.09 1.16

Is-Fiber +

~C

890-SL

iAR+

~OOO-S

~s 211

rRS-2P

C-3

D-3

D-3

E-5

E-6

F-7

B-3

B-3

B-3

G-4

1.58

7.43

2.60

1.48

2.52

10.75

2.88

2.34

1.61

11.66

0.73

0.76

1.42

1.00

1.33

3.51

2.01

1.24

1.54

5.61

2.23

3.59

4.58

1.90'

1.80"

1.00

8.70

Includes costs at Wichita adverse-conditions subsite, since those treatments were actually placed in ideal conditions.

86
Table 21. Average annual cost comparisons of crack-fill treatments.

Filler Installation Method Average Annual Cost Based on Service Life

Material (configuration-preparation) Corresponding to 75% Effectiveness, $/linear m of crack

RS 211 H-4 0.40

!Asphalt cement 0-1 0.42

0-4 0.56

~RF 0-4 0.68

~2 D-4 0.30

0-4 0.33

lFiberPave D-4 0.34

Kold Flo 0-4 0.83

Finally, as can be seen, the SHRP-specified BoniFiberized asphalt was not very cost-effective

because ofits short service life. An average service life of about 2.92 years was achieved among

the non-adverse test sites, which resulted in an overall average annual cost of $5.61/m for this

material.

Though the range in average annual costs for the crack fillers is much smaller, there are

significant cost differences worth noting. Clearly, the most cost-effective treatments were the

AR2 D-4 and 0-4 treatments and the Fiber Pave D-4 treatment, with average annual costs of

$0.30, $0.33, and $0.34/m, respectively. Interestingly, although RS 211 provided more than 2.5

years of additional life compared to the asphalt cement 0-1 treatment, the average annual costs of

the two treatments were about the same-$OAO and $OA2/m, respectively. This is directly

attributed to material cost (RS 211 was about 2.5 times the cost of asphalt cement) and the

absence of airblasting with the asphalt cement 0-1 treatment.

87

CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The SHRP H-106 experiment and subsequent FHWA LTM project represent the most

comprehensive pavement surface maintenance study ever conducted. In the crack treatment

portion of the study alone, more than 6,710 m of cracking was sealed or filled using 31 distinct

treatment types (combinations ofmaterial, material placement configuration, and crack

preparation procedure) at 5 test sites. Several ofthe treatment types were applied at more than 1

site, resulting in a total of 82 treatments in 4 distinct climatic zones.

Extensive laboratory testing ofthe experimental treatment materials was conducted at the

outset ofthe study and the 82 treatments were routinely evaluated for field performance over a

period oftime ranging from 4.0 to 6.8 years, depending on the test site.

The details ofthe test sites constructed as part ofthe H-I06 crack treatment study were

provided in chapters 1 and 2 of this report. An in-depth discussion ofthe results of several

laboratory tests performed on the experimental materials was provided in chapter 3. Complete

documentation ofthe field performance collected in the study was given in chapter 4, and the

results of various data analyses designed to distinguish treatment performance and costeffectiveness were presented in chapter 5.

This chapter summarizes the major findings and observations ofthe crack treatment study.

The findings are divided into general findings and specific findings about materials and methods.

Also contained in this chapter are various recommendations concerning crack sealing and filling

operations that could be useful to highway maintenance administrators, practitioners, and

researchers.

Findings

General

• Excluding 13 treatments applied at the Elma site, which was overlaid after 4 years of

service, only 9 ofthe 61 crack-seal treatments exhibited "favorable" performance (greater

than 80 percent overall effectiveness) after the final round of evaluations (::::6.5 years).

Moreover, 32 ofthe 61 treatments reached "failed" status «50 percent effectiveness).

• Among the longitudinal crack fillers placed at the Prescott site, half ofthe eight treatments

performed favorably after the 63-month evaluation period. The other halffailed.

• Considerable differences in overall treatment performance were found to exist between

some ofthe test sites. These differences were primarily attributed to the combination of

crack movement (a function ofseveral variables, including climate and crack type and

spacing) and traffic. Generally speaking, the test sites with greater amounts of crack

89
movement and traffic, such as the Wichita and Des Moines sites, had lower levels of

treatment effectiveness than sites with less crack movement and traffic, such as the Elma

site.

• Most laboratory test-field performance correlations investigated were either weak or nonexistent. The strongest direct, positive relationships at the all-sites analysis level were as

follows:

+ Force ductility maximum elongation at 4°C versus cohesion failure.

+ Force ductility load at 150 percent elongation and 4°C versus cohesion failure.

+ Ultimate elongation at 24°C versus cohesion failure.

+ Tensile stress at 150 percent elongation at 24°C versus overall failure.

+ Modified bond #1 (reservoir configuration) at 25°C versus adhesion failure.

• In hot-applied crack sealants placed in the reservoir-and-flush, standard recessed band-aid,

and shallow recessed band-aid configurations (configurations A, B, and C), full-depth

adhesion loss accounted for the inajority ofthe overall failure. In hot-applied sealants

placed in the simple band-aid configuration (configuration D), full-depth cohesion loss

(i.e., ruptures in the band directly over the crack) was the main contributor to the overall

seal failure. In silicone seals, the primary mode offailure was edge deterioration,

stemming from low-severity spalls and secondary cracks created by saw cutting operations

during installation.

• Although adhesion loss and edge deterioration contributed highly to the overall failure in

some crack-fill treatments, the primary mode offailure in these treatments was cohesion

loss.

Materials

• Among the four SHRP-specified rubberized asphalt sealants (Meadows Hi-Spec, Crafco

RS 515, Koch 9030, and Meadows XLM) placed using three shared methods, RS 515

showed the longest estimated service life, followed closely by the two low-modulus

sealants, 9030 and XLM. The standard modulus sealant Hi-Spec had a considerably

shorter estimated service life.

Despite the overall mathematical differences in estimated service life, very few statistical

differences were noted. In 54 head-to-head comparisons involving the 4 sealants and 3

sealing methods, only 4 statistically significant differences were identified. At Abilene, the

9030 B-3 treatment showed statistically better performance than both the XLM and HiSpec B-3 treatments. Also at Abilene, the RS 515 B-3 treatment showed statistically

better performance than both the XLM and Hi-Spec B-3 treatments.

• Among the five SHRP-specified hot-applied asphalt sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515, 9030,

XLM, and Kapejo BoniFiberized asphalt) placed in the simple band-aid configuration,

XLM showed the longest estimated service life, followed closely by RS 515. 9030 and

90
Hi-Spec had the next longest estimated service lives, followed distantly by BoniFiberized

asphalt.

Statistically, no significant differences in performance existed among Hi-Spec, RS 515,

9030, and XLM. However, BoniFiberized asphalt showed statistically poorer

performance than all four ofthese materials at Abilene, and it showed statistically poorer

performance than XLM at Des Moines.

• When compared with the SHRP-specified asphalt-based treatments (i.e., Hi-Spec, RS 515,

9030, XLM, and BoniFiberized asphalt used with all installation methods), the SHRPspecified silicone-based treatment (890-SL placed in the deep reservoir-and-recess

configuration in cracks that were sandblasted and airblasted) showed a slightly lower mean

estimated service life. Statistically, its performance was better than 4 treatments,

equivalent to 38 treatments, and worse than 8 asphalt-based treatments.

• Although Hi-Spec placed in the standard recessed band-aid configuration at the Wichita

ideal-conditions subsite had a mean estimated service life slightly higher than those ofthe

two State-added sealants (Crafco AR+ and Koch 9000-S), no statistical differences in

these treatments were identified.

• At the Elma site, the State-added sealant (Crafco RS 211) placed in the standard recessed

band-aid configuration showed the same estimated service life as Hi-Spec placed in the

same configuration.

• At the Des Moines site, the 17 SHRP-specified treatments performed, on average, much

better than the State-added emulsion material CRS-2P placed in the flush-fill

configuration. Statistically, 15 of the 17 SHRP-specified treatments showed better

performance than the CRS-2P treatment, whereas the other 2 showed similar

performances.

• With respect to the performance oflongitudinal crack fillers, based on a flush-fill

configuration and conventional airblasting, the asphalt rubber material Crafco AR2

provided the longest estimated service life, followed distantly by the Witco CRF modified

emulsion, asphalt cement, and the Hy-Grade Kold Flo rubberized emulsion. Statistically,

AR2 showed a performance superior to each ofthe latter three materials.

• Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis that considered the total installation cost and

estimated service life of each treatment showed that the most cost-effective treatments

were usually those consisting ofrubberized asphalt placed in a standard or shallow

recessed band-aid configuration. The next most cost-effective treatments were generally

those consisting ofrubberized asphalt placed in the simple band-aid or reservoir-and-flush

configurations. Silicone treatments were considerably less cost-effective than the ones

described above; however, the least cost-effective sealants were the fiberized asphalt and

proprietary emulsion sealants.

91
• Among longitudinal crack-fill treatments, the most cost-effective treatments were the hotapplied, rubber- and fiber-modified asphalt materials placed in the overband and flush-fill

configurations. Asphalt cement flush-fill treatments were the next most cost-effective

treatments, followed by proprietary emulsions placed in the flush-fill configuration.

Methods

• A comparison ofthe standard recessed band-aid (configuration B), shallow recessed bandaid (configuration C), and simple band-aid (confiiguration D) configurations used with

SHRP-specified rubberized asphalt sealants (Hi-Spec, RS 515,9030, and XLM) showed

that the standard recessed band-aid had the longest estimated service life, followed very

closely by the shallow recessed band-aid. The simple band-aid showed a substantially

shorter estimated service life. In eight of eight direct statistical comparisons between the

standard recessed band-aid and the shallow recessed band-aid, no significant differences in

performance were observed. Furthermore, in 10 of 16 direct comparisons, the recessed

band-aid showed statistically better performance than the simple band-aid. Lastly, in six of

eight direct comparisons, the shallow recessed band-aid showed statistically better

performance than the simple band-aid.

• A comparison ofthe standard reservoir-and-flush (configuration A) and the standard

recessed band-aid (configuration B) used with the SHRP-specified control material (HiSpec) showed the standard recessed band-aid with a considerably longer estimated service

life. However, in four direct comparisons, no statistically significant differences in

performance were observed between these configurations.

• A comparison ofthe hot airblasting and conventional airblasting crack preparation

procedures (procedures 3 and 4) used with the SHRP-specified control material Hi-Spec

showed the hot airblasting procedure with a considerably longer estimated service life.

However, in only one offour direct comparisons did the hot airblasting procedure show

statistically better performance.

Recommendations

Crack Sealin&!Fillin& Operations

• Upon noticing the development of considerable cracking in an asphalt-surfaced pavement,

the complete circumstances ofthe pavement should be carefully assessed prior to taking

action. The type and orientation ofthe cracks to be treated should be established, along

with the climatic conditions, pavement structure composition, traffic characteristics, and

future rehabilitation plans. Each ofthese items will help determine the amount of annual

crack movement that can be expected-and consequently the quality ofthe material

required-and whether a short-, medium-, or long-term treatment ofthe cracks is most

appropriate.

92
• For cost-effective, short-term crack-seal performance (between 1 and 3 years) in

pavements with ordinary working cracks (2.5 to 5.0 nun of horizontal crack movement)

and moderate traffic levels, a standard rubberized asphalt (e.g., Meadows Hi-Spec) placed

in a simple band-aid configuration is considered most appropriate. After 1 or 2 years, the

band will become significantly worn by traffic (particularly in the wheelpaths) and

considerable amounts of cohesive failure will develop.

• For cost-effective, medium-term crack-seal performance (between 3 and 5 years) under

the above conditions, a standard rubberized asphalt (e.g., Meadows Hi-Spec) placed in the

recessed band-aid configuration or a modified rubberized asphalt (e.g., Crafco RS 515,

Meadows XLM) placed in the simple band-aid configuration is considered most

appropriate.

• For cost-effective, long-term crack-seal performance (say, between 5 and 8 years) under

the above conditions, a modified rubberized asphalt sealant (e.g., Crafco RS 515, Koch

9030) installed in either a standard or shallow recessed band-aid configuration should be

used. These materials provide a high level offlexibility and adhesiveness, so that annual

crack movements can be acconunodated. Moreover, the combination of a reservoir and

an overband helps to maximize sealant performance. The use of an HCA lance to clean,

dry, and warm the routed cracks appears to be justifiable in terms ofthe overall costeffectiveness.

• For cost-effective, short-term crack filler performance (1 to 3 years) in pavements with

non-working cracks (less than 2.5 nun of horizontal crack movement) and low to

moderate traffic levels, asphalt cement placed in a flush-fill configuration is considered

most appropriate. Though conventional airblasting with asphalt cement was shown to not

be a cost-effective proposition in the H-106/LTM study, its use in this situation should be

considered.

• For cost-effective, long-term crack filler performance (say, between 5 and 8 years) under

the above conditions, an asphalt rubber or rubberized asphalt (e.g., Crafco AR2, Crafco

RS 211) placed in either a flush-fill or overband configuration, or a fiberized asphalt (e.g.,

Hercules Fiber Pave) placed in an overband configuration is considered most appropriate.

The higher quality ofthese materials and the added life provided by the overband make for

the most cost-effective options in this scenario.

• The importance of quality control in crack sealing and filling operations cannot be overemphasized. Care must be taken by all crewpersons involved in the crack preparation and

material installation processes, so as to successfully manifest the designed treatment. A

key to this element is an objective, hands-on inspector.

Education and Research

• The information gathered and findings developed under the H-106/LTM study should be

disseminated to all individuals affiliated with crack treatment operations, including

highway maintenance policy-makers, supervisors, and crewpersons, as well as researchers

93
and new-products evaluation personnel. Such dissemination can occur through the

distribution ofthis report and through presentations at conferences and workshops.

• Because many new advancements in materials and equipment have occurred since the start

ofthe H-106 experiment, it is highly recommended that agencies conduct their own

customized crack-seal experiments. The materials and methods commonly used by agency

crews should be evaluated against the various materials and methods shown' to be effective

and economical in the H-106/LTM study. Also, new or promising technologies should be

included in the experiment.

• Though the 890-SL self-leveling silicone showed mediocre performance and poor costeffectiveness in the H-106/LTM study, field testing ofthis material should be continued, as

it is believed that it could perform very well in a routed reservoir. The sawn reservoirs in

which it was placed in the experiment contained many "missed crack" segments, which

tended to deteriorate under traffic and cause the seal to incur edge deterioration failure. If

tested, this material should be adequately recessed (minimum of 6 mm) below the

pavement surface to keep traffic from tracking it as it cures and to minimize the potential

for pull-outs.

• As a result ofthe lack of development of new substantive correlations between laboratory

tests and field performance indicators, it is recommended that research in this area

continue to be pursued. The identification ofreliable performance-related laboratory tests

would greatly help agencies ensure the proper selection of a material for a given project.

94
REFERENCES

Belangie, M.C. and DJ. Anderson. 1985. Crack Sealing Methods and Materialsfor Flexible

Pavements~inal Report, Report No. FHWNUT-85/l, Utah Department of Transportation,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Evans, L.D. et al. 1991. "Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) H-106 Experimental

Design and Research Plan," SHRP Contract SHRP-89-H-106, SHRP, National Research Council,

Washington, D.C.

Evans, L.D. et al. 1992. "Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) H-106 Evaluation and

Analysis Plan," SHRP Contract SHRP-89-H-106, SHRP, National Research Council,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983. Climatic Atlas ofthe United States, Environmental

Science Services Administration.

95

APPENDIX A. TEST SITE LAYOUTS

The AC crack treatment test sites were laid out end-to-end in two replicates. Each replicate

contained test sections consisting of 10 cracks treated using I combination ofmaterial and

method. The following tables present the sequentia1layout of experimental treatments in the form

of test sections at each site.

Table A-I. Randomized order oftreatments at Abilene crack-seal test site.

Treatment

Test Section (Material and Method)

1 Oow Corning 890-S1., B-5

2 Meadows Hi-Soec, 0-3

3 Meadows Hi-Soec, B-3

4 Meadows Hi-Spec, 0-4

5 Meadows SofSeal XLM, B-3

6 Koch 9030, B-3

7 Crafco RS 515,0-3

8 Kapeio BoniFibers + AC, 0-3

9 Meadows Hi-Spec, A-3

10 Crafco RS 515, B-3

11 Meadows SofSeal XLM, 0-3

12 Koch 9030, 0-3

Table A-2. Randomized order of treatments at Elma crack-seal test site.

Test Section Treatment (Material and Method)

A Crafco RS 211, B-3

1 Dow Corning 890-SL, E-5

2 Koch 9030, D-3

3 Meadows Hi-Spec, B-3

4 Meadows Hi-Spec, 0-4

5 Meadows SofSeal XLM, B-3

6 Koch 9030, B-3

7 Crafco RS 515,0-3

8 Kapeio BoniFibers + AC, 0-3

9 Meadows Hi-Spec, A-3

10 Crafco RS 515, B-3

11 Meadows SofSeal XLM, 0-3

12 Meadows Hi-Spec, 0-3

97
Table A-3. Randomized order oftreatments at Wichita crack-seal test site.

Test Section Treatment (Material and Method)

Ideal-Conditions Lane Adverse-Conditions Lane

1 Meadows SofSeal XLM, D-3 Meadows SofSeal XLM, D-3

2 Meadows Hi-Spec, C-3 Meadows Hi-Spec, C-3

3 Meadows Hi-Spec, D-4 Meadows Hi-Spec, D-4

4 Crafco RS 515, D-3 Crafco RS 515, D-3

5 Kapeio BoniFibers + AC, D-3 Kapejo BoniFibers + AC, D-3

6 Koch 9030, C-3 Koch 9030, C-3

7 Meadows Hi-Spec, D-3 Meadows Hi-Spec, D-3

8 Dow Corning 890-SL, E-5 Dow Corning 890-SL, E-6 and F-7

9 Meadows Hi-Spec, B-3 Meadows Hi-Spec, B-3

10 Koch 9030, D-3 Koch 9030, D-3

11 Crafco RS 515, C-3 Crafco RS 515, C-3

12 Meadows Hi-Spec, A-3 Meadows Hi-Spec, A-3

13 Meadows SofSeal XLM, C-3 Meadows SofSeal XLM, C-3

14 Crafco AR+, B-3 Crafco AR+, B-3

15 Koch 9000-S, B-3 Koch 9000-S, B-3

Table A-4. Randomized order oftreatments at Des Moines crack-seal test site.

Test Section Treatment (Material and Method)

1 Meadows SofSeal XLM, D-3

2 Meadows Hi-Spec, C-3

3 Koch 9030, C-3

4 Meadows Hi-Spec, D-4

5 Crafco RS 515, D-3

6 Kapeio BoniFibers + AC, D-3

7 Meadows SofSeal XLM, C-3

8 Koch 9030, B-3

9 Meadows Hi-Spec, D-3

10 Dow Corning 890-SL, E-5

11 Meadows Hi-Spec, B-3

12 Koch 9030, D-3

13 Crafco RS 515, B-3

14 Meadows Hi-Spec, A-3

15 Meadows SofSeal XLM, B-3

16 Crafco RS 515, C-3

17 Meadows Hi-Spec, A-2

18 ElfCRS-2P, 0-4

98
Table A-5. Randomized order oftreatments at Prescott crack-fill test site.

Test Section Treatment (Material and MethoC:)

A Crafco RS 211, H-4

1 Crafco AR2, G-4

2 Witco CRF, G-4

3 Asphalt Cement, G-4

4 Hercules Fiber Pave + AC, D-4

5 Asphalt Cement, G-l

6 Crafco AR2, D-4

7 Hy-Grade Kold Flo, G-4

99

APPENDIXB.INSTALLATIONDATA

Several types of data were collected at each field installation. Included in this appendix are

descriptions ofthe types of data recorded and illustrations ofthe forms used to record the data.

Tables B-1 through B-6 summarize the installation data collected for each experimental treatment.

Data Collection Forms

Work Log and Weather Conditions

Work accomplishments, construction occurrences, and ambient weather conditions were

recorded for each day ofthe installation process. Air temperatures were taken periodically

throughout each day, primarily for assessing crack widths as a function oftemperature. Figure B1 shows the field form used for documenting this data.

Test Section Layout

All experimental cracks, test section boundaries, roadway structures, and milepost markers

were stationed with a survey wheel to the nearest foot, as illustrated in figure B-2.

Pre-Existing Crack Data

After a test site was fully laid out in the field (ie., experimental cracks and test sections

marked) in preparation for the installation process, the first group ofinstallation data was

collected. These data represented the pre-existing conditions of each experimental crack and

were documented on copies ofthe form shown in figure B-3.

First, average crack widths were measured and recorded. Then, individual crack maps were

sketched showing the general crack patterns and the approximate positions and dimensions of

edge deterioration observed along the experimental cracks. To simplify analyses, distress

dimensions were measured in the longitudinal and transverse directions. This information was

recorded as a baseline condition for monitoring the development of additional edge deterioration

caused by crack-cutting operations or traffic applications.

To facilitate the documentation of edge deterioration along a transverse crack, the crack was

broken down into five positions. These positions were as follows:

• Inside edge (0.6 m).

• Inside wheelpath (0.6 m).

• Center (1.2 m).

• Outside wheelpath (0.6 m).

• Outside edge (0.6 m).

101
WORK JOURNAL I CLIMATIC CONDITION CHART

r--/ J General Information . J.;V5Th1. L-A""f"J:"07\J

Date: {P I Iq ( - Inspector:- ',J;j..r( }(LC

Test Site: WA TX KSU) KS(A) ONT

Time Air Relative

Temperature Humidity Qouds RepHcale 1/

("F) (%) (%) Work Activity Test Section I

6:00 a.m. ,.,,:15' -~

6:30 -c;" +ita. ( 1-Ie..+t'1IA 0(.

(gL 21 '70 - YLf\It .. 7:00

7:30 - 'iD'SD

8:00

8:30 g:</f

9:00 Coq Zr- 2~ t;"~1 ~+t'M...J

9:30 "l·t"

10:00 StAG~ ,'" f.iLJ~~ fe- "*(

10:30 (~ 3D 2.r- -(~.fO(U • 1- 1 ('XLM)

11:00 (- ? ('1 DSO )

11:30 (-, (XU" )

12:00 p.m. 1-8 C'=ru3u)

12:30 fi) 30 IS: I I-n. (1030)

1:00 I-IS ( ;(L.f\1 )

1:30

2:00

2:30 VJ.o- ..... 5ea.[:.v>, ;;" ftwt('uk. :Jt2

3:00 8/ '$.( 40 J"d'<>tIJ: 2 -I (;lI..t'-1 )

3:30 2-1 ('fo 'Ie)

4:00 2-'7 (;(Li1-I)

4:30 1-9 (1010 )

5:00 2-/? (Cf0]0)

5:30 7B ~) SO -:4(. {.. '2'/S ('<UI1 )

6:00

L ---'

Figure B-1. Work journal and climatic condition chart.

102
TEST SECfION LAYOUT FORM

I . -----_---~ 13""'1~

r._- - --.------------- /~("

11ff~"l. (2 -6»

([j) I-----------------~ 1]¥?7

I--- ~--._. --l3-t?o

-

LA1Jf. /:Pb.

(\-El

EXPCK#

/2+4/

( E)

General Information:

Date: 5/JeJ/91

Inspector: KLs/ K2. c.

Air Temperature: _

Relative Humidity: _

Site@VA TX KS<O KS<A)

Replicate #/Test Section #:

2 $"'"

B~gStation:~r?3

Ending Station: (4 r 12.

r---.. -------- -~~IAJ /1+-f"1

_-/0-/-84

_--_·-~_-_-__------~((;)=-I It}-f<)~ [[2 F' ~orJ

.. -_-------------- qd4

1----------------------- -

~---:r 1d:J'l-

- .fl2 1-r7S

.~---__.....__-~ _--- J.. -rCa I

Sketch patterns and record stationing of crack segments within test __-UUIl. fP -1-2 2

Figure B-2. Test section layout form.

103
INITIAL CRACK INVENTORY FORM

General Information

Date: fiJI/if I

Inspector: J(L5/ltc.

Initial Crack Evaluation

Test Site:/WWA TX KS(I) KS(A)

Replicate'itfest Section #/ Crack #: I / /7/5

CL 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' LE

_/-

Initial Crack Summary

-~--__I

rr

Pa_ 5unound 0-

Sepenl --s

(l1Il

Cuppins

SpoIIiJIS SocoIIduy Craddns

Hlsh Low HlP Low Hlsh Low

Outside EelS- (2 It) q

Outside Wheelpath (2 ft) 'I

Ceter(4ft) G.

IMide Wheelpalh (2 ft)

IMide EelS- (2 It)

Crack Width: 1/16 e3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2 9/16 5/8 11/16 3/4 13/16 7/8

Figure B-3. Initial crack inventory form.

104
By partitioning the transverse cracks in this way, the effects oftraffic on the sealant system

could be evaluated. The 7.6-m longitudinal crack divisions at Prescott were broken down into

five 1.5-m segments, but only to facilitate the evaluations.

Crack-Cutting Data

Information about crack-cutting operations and the resulting crack reservoir conditions was

recorded on copies ofthe forms shown in figures B-4 and B-5. After specified experimental

cracks were cut and quickly blown free of dust and debris, they were reinspected for edge

deterioration as described in the previous section. During the reinspection, three additional

distress phenomena were monitored: missed cracks, neglected cracks, and "islands." A missed

crack denoted a segment of crack missed in the cutting operation because ofthe inability ofthe

operator or the equipment to accurately follow the crack. Missed cracks resulted in two adjacent

defects: the original crack and the nearby channel cut. In places where secondary cracks existed,

the cutting operator had the option of cutting only the primary crack and neglecting the secondary

crack or cutting both the primary crack and the secondary crack. In the latter case, an "island" of

pavement surrounded by channel cuts was created. Although both cracks and crack reservoirs

were eventually sealed, it was desirable to see how fast these distressed segments would

deteriorate with time.

Material Pre.paration Data

For hot-applied materials, a material heating log was kept that showed the intermittent

temperatures of a product in the kettle vat during the heating and application phases. Copies of

the form shown in figure B-6 were used for documenting this information. Temperature readings

were taken from both the temperature gauge mounted on the kettle and a hand-held thermometer

probe that was inserted into the material in the vat.

Final Crack Pre.paration and Material Installation Data

Just prior to installation, a digital caliper was used to measure the distances between sets of

dimpled P-K nails installed across each experimental crack during layout. These distances served

as base references for determining the amount of horizontal movement a particular crack

experiences at various times throughout the year. Distances were recorded using copies of the

form illustrated in figure B-7.

Information regarding final crack preparation and material installation was documented on

forms identical to the one shown in figure B-8. Due to the lack of a standard procedure for

evaluating crack channels for cleanliness and moisture, subjective ratings were used to assess each

crack following the cleaning/drying operations. A five-point scale, with "1" designating "dirty"

and "5" designating "very clean", was used to evaluate crack channel cleanliness. Similarly, a

five-point scale was used to gauge the presence of moisture, with "1" indicating "no moisture

present" and "5" indicating "moisture present on bonding surfaces."

105
TEST SECI'ION INITIAL PREPARATION FORM

General Information

Date: G>!3!1t

Inspector: ~LCTest Site: IA WA TX

Replicate # est Sectio~ #:

KS(I) KS(A)

/ /2. (0.Jt'k, S~II<)w ~M''"'1)

Refacing Operation _

Saw/Router Type and Size: C~fu, fVbkl Zc)t) 2frvt -~J- W

Number of Crewpersons [indicate f (foreman), D (driver), or L Oaborer)]:

2 La-bcrM?-t:. (~kr-)

I W~~,.- (;::(ttj)

I Fx-e-~r'\ Time per Section (Begin/End): /0: /'1.. '!~ /0.' ro, Cot M

Airblasting Operation

Air Compressor Type and Capacity: 51.< I be. ,', 2sn f~';

Number of Crewpersons [indicate F (foreman), D (driver), or L (laborer)]:

ID,.;ve(

I r)ftP<fryTime per Section (Begin/End): Iv: /{'"aM /v: s,?>.:('--

FIgure B-4. Test section initial preparation form.

106
General Information

Date: r;/1/'f1

Inspector: ;a.s

REFACED CRACK INVENTORY FORM

Test Site@WA TX KSU) KS(A)

Replicate #/Test Section #/Crack #: / / /7 /S

Refaced Crack Evaluation

CL 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' LE

Refaced Crack Summary

Pawment SwTouncI Distreso

5epeftt Du. to ChIMe! C_ion

(in)

SpaJIing Sooondary Cracking

Hlp t- High t- Miued Crack

Outsid. Edge a ft)

011_ WIleelpath aIt) r."

Cel'lter (f It) '1" (" . I..id. WIlee1pIth aIt)

I..id. Edge aft)

Average Channel Width (in): VIr.,

Average Channel Depth (in): IYt~

Channel Creation Operation: [Saw]

Figure B-5. Refaced crack inventory form.

107
KETILE TEMPERATURE MONITORING CHART

This ftmn is to be completed by the person responsible for each melter/applicator. Readings using the thermometer prwided

the H-106 contractor will be taken at 30 min (.± 5 min) time intervals. One form will be completed for each sealant/filler

erial and for each day. Temperatures will be reported in degrees Fahrenheit.

Date: (g - $""-q I

Name of Kettle Tender: _G""""'o/':J'"'3--,B~. _ Kettle Type:

Kettle Size (gal): zoo 6..1

SealantIFiller Mtl: M·HiSpec C-515 K-9030 M.nG"oniFbrs~ C·AR2 H·FbrPave AC

/1:00 @pm

3ar ·F

'S3c) ·F

'SIS" op

Nozzle Temperature Readings

Lines may be cleared and application

Kettle Cage:

Kettle Temp:

.Itiill

Time:

Nozzle Temp:

Kettle Temp:

Kettle Cage:

The following times will be recorded as the

sealant/filler is heated:

Begin Heating: ~: /0 a ......

Product Liquified:

Product at Application Temp: _

temperature rerulings may be taken after the

J

sealant/filler in the kettle has remained at application

INJn+tt..m~) temperature fur at least 30 minutes.

I!:!ill.

Time: q: 50 @m

Nozzle Temp: 30-'

'..... onr

__.....;;.'3..;;'Z_O ·F

__--:;~.;.,/D ·F

Thermometer Gage

Time Reading Reading

6:00 am

6:30

7:00 ZelO 2<0

7:30 2Cfo 2'10

8:00 330 3Zc) ,

d6!1\ 1, 2.0

9:00 3 /0 '1./0

9:30 3/D 32.0

10:00 slO 52..0

10:30 SuO 1./0

11:00 3/0 ~Jo

11:30

12:00 p.m.

12:30

1:00

1:30

2:00

2:30

3:00

3:30

4:00

4:30 .

5:00

5:30

6:00

Figure B-6. Kettle temperature monitoring chart.

108
NA PLUG MONITORING HART

[INJ1IrLL ..t--r!I)N 1

Test Site: rJA) WA TX KS(I) KS(A)

Material: (!)2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ceneral Information

Date: G/1 Jq I

Inspector: KL $ /1L C

Configuration

(1) Hi-Spec (A) 0.63" x 0.75" Channel &: Flush

(2) 34515 (8) 0.63" x 0.75" Channel &: Band-Aid

(3) 9m0 (C) 1.5" x 0.2" Channel &: Band-Aid

(4) XLM (D) Band-Aid

(5) BoniFibers (E) Channel &: Recess

(6) 890 SL

(7) Other

(8)Other==

Cra Movement Record

C ~3

Oeanlng Procedure

(1) None

(2) Wire Brush &: Compressed Air

(3) HCA Lance

(4) Compressed Air

(5) Ught Sandblast, Compressed Air, &: Backer'Rod

Crack

Number

Replicate #/T~ Section I: / 12

Material: (y2 3 4 i 7 8 Conflgurati~n: A B D E

Preparation: 1 2 4 5

Replicate #/~~ Section I: f14

Material:Q;2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Configuration: ABC d5) E

Preparation: 1 2 3 <!J5

Replicate II/T~ Section II: / I 9

Material:(J)2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Configuration: A B @ E

Preparation: 1 2 @) 4 5

Time Reeding Time Reeding Time Reading

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Crack

Number

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Replicate II/Test Section I: II II

Material: If, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Configuration: A @ C D E

Preparation: 1 2 3 4 5

Time

Replicate II/Test Section I: I 114-

Material: ~2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Configuration: If) BCD E

Preparation: 'r' 2 4 5

Time

Replicate II/~t Section I: /117

Material: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Conflgurati n: rA!J C D E

Preparation: '('I 2 3 4 5

Time

Figure B-7. Nail plug monitoring chart.

109
TEST SECTION FINAL PREPARATION & INSTALLATION FORM

General Information:

Date: f.e /7/1 (

Inspector: KLSIf(LC

Test Site: WA TX I<S(I) I<S(A)

Replicate # est Section #: I / 2- ( H-;-S~ (- ~-hAw.-r)

Material Configuration Preparation Procedure

((1) Hi-Spec (1) 0.63" x 0.75" Channel & Flush (1) None

(2) 34515 (2) 0.63" x ·0.75" Channel & Band-Aid &Wjre B01Sb & Compressed Air

(3) 9030 (J3) 1.5" x 0.2" Channel & Band-Ajd::> HCA Lance)

(4) XLM (4) Band-Aid (4) Compressed Air

(5) BoniFibers (5) Channel & Recess (5) Light Sandblast, Compressed Air, & Backer Rod

(6) 890 SL

(7) Other__

(8) Other__

Final Preparation Installation & Finishing , ,

Brush Type and Size: - Melter/Applicator Type and Size: ell>'! {,I-<- 2,..cn>" .. t

Time (Begin/End): - ..' Finishing Apparatus Tf;: fS.,-J -A,'<:J s,kUju..

Compressed Air Unit Type and Capacity: 5:./k..r '2~f~ Time (Begin/End): .'2.0 1:4r'

Heat Lance Type and Model: C,',.."I:N.. Hut- f2.J L""a.. Total Number of Crewpersons [Indicate F, 0, or L):

Time (Begin/End): ~! (f" q:42 J brt'v-er

Total Num~Of Crewpersons [Indicate F, 0, or L): ( A-r¥ i,'GATor I :'KrI '0[Je.ra1--

Application Checklist I S1 1Me.,ee..r

Crack Number

Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sealant ;)1) Overheating

Sealant

Bubbling )"""I' 4fl1.<l_n

Crack

Oeanliness T GooD

Crack .... Ni)Ne

Moisture ' Afffl(lp./7

Overhand %2, /i 317- Thickness, yg I;§

in

Overhand 3(( Width, in

Depth to

in

Backer Rod, - Depth of

Recess, in - Miscellaneous Information ~? Approximate Amount of Material Used (lb):~. /' r. Blotting Required: Yes (H yes, sand or tp) I f".f..I,f.- I.~.J ...,!'''' )p

Figure B-8. Final crack preparation and material installation form.

110
Table B-1. Des Moines test section installation summary.

IA 1 1 A 2 31-May-91 0.106 0.563 0.727 Rout 0.563 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 2 18 0 0 0 0 

IA 1 2 A 2 03-Jun-91 0.098 0.563 0.704 Rout 0.563 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 2 72 0 0 0 0 

IA 1 1 A 3 31-May-91 0.106 0.563 0.711 Rout 0.563 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 2 90 0 0 0 0 

IA 1 2 A 3 03-Jun-91 0.102 0.563 0.719 Rout 0.563 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 2 108 18 0 0 0 

IA 1 1 B 3 31-May-91 0.110 0.563 0.625 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 2.75 N/A N/A No 2 90 0 0 0 0 

IA 1 2 B 3 03-Jun-91 0.106 0.563 0.735 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 120 6 0 0 0 

IA 1 1 C 3 31-May-91 0.106 1.500 0.235 Rout 1.500 4 2 0.094 2.75 N/A N/A No 2 126 18 0 0 0 

IA 1 2 C 3 31-May-91 0.113 1.500 0.196 Rout 1.500 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 72 72 0 0 0 

IA 1 1 D 3 31-May-91 0.102 N/A N/A N/A 0.102 4 2 0.094 2.75 N/A N/A No 2 114 12 0 0 0 

IA 1 2 D 3 03-Jun-91 0.106 N/A N/A N/A 0.106 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 120 24 0 0 0 

- I IA 1 1 D 4 31-May-91 0.106 N/A N/A N/A 0.106 3 2 0.094 2.75 N/A N/A No 2 108 36 0 0 0 

-- IIA 1 2 D 4 31-Mav-91 0.106 N/A N/A N/A 0.106 3 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 102 24 0 0 0 

IA 2 1 B 3 31-May-91 0.106 0.563 0.696 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 44.3 0 0 0 0 

IA 2 2 B 3 03-Jun-91 0.086 0.563 0.750 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 36 0 0 0 0 

IA 2 1 C 3 31-Mav-91 0.106 1.500 0.211 Rout 1.500 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 144 0 0 0 0 

IA 2 2 C 3 03-Jun-91 0.082 1.500 0.211 Rout 1.500 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 126 0 0 0 0 

IA 2 1 D 3 31-May-91 0.110 N/A N/A N/A 0.110 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 2 2 D 3 03-Jun-91 0.102 N/A N/A N/A 0.102 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 138 6 0 0 0 

IA 3 1 B 3 31-May-91 0.106 0.563 0.672 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 3 2 B 3 03-Jun-91 0.098 0.563 0.680 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 18 0 0 0 0 

IA 3 1 C 3 31-May-91 0.110 1.500 0.243 Rout 1.500 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 3 2 C 3 31-Mav-91 0.106 1.500 0.235 Rout 1.500 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 12 0 0 0 0 

IA 3 1 D 3 31-May-91 0.102 N/A N/A N/A 0.102 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 3 2 D 3 03-Jun-91 0.090 N/A N/A N/A 0.090 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0.25 0 0 0 0 

IA 4 1 B 3 31-Mav-91 0.106 0.563 0.704 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 4 2 B 3 03-Jun-91 0.098 0.563 0.688 Rout 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 4 1 C 3 31-May-91 0.117 1.501 0.235 Rout 1.501 4 2 0.094 3.06 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 4 2 C 3 03-Jun-91 0.094 1.500 0.219 Rout 1.500 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 4 1 D 3 31·May-91 0.110 N/A N/A N/A 0.110 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 4 2 D 3 31-May-91 0.110 N/A N/A N/A 0.110 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 54 0 0 0 0 

IA 5 1 D 3 31-May-91 0.110 N/A N/A N/A 0.110 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 5 2 D 3 03-Jun-91 0.113 N/A N/A N/A 0.113 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 144 0 0 0 0 

IA 6 1 E 5 31-Mav-91 0.098 0.563 1.617 Saw 0.563 5 1 N/A N/A 0.657 0.235 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 

IA 6 2 E 5 03-Jun-91 0.110 0.563 1.750 Saw 0.563 5 1 N/A N/A 0.649 0.250 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0.

IA E 1 G 4 31-May-91 0.106 N/A N/A N/A 0.106 NA NA N/A N/A N/A N/A NoA NA 0 0 0 0 0 

IA E 2 G 4 03-Jun-91 0.106 N/A N/A N/A 0.106 NA NA N/A N/A N/A N/A NoA NA 0 0 0 0 0 
Table B-2. Abilene test section installation summary.

TX 1 1 A 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 1.9 0 

TX 1 2 A 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 1 1 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.719 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 2.25 0 0 0 0 

TX 1 2 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

..... I TX 1 1 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 6 0 0 0 0 

..... I TX 1 2 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 72 0 0 0 0 

tv

TX 1 1 D 4 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 1 2 D 4 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 72 0 0 0 0 

TX 2 1 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 2 2 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 2 1 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 2 2 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 3 1 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 3 2 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 4.1 

TX 3 1 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 3 2 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 2 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 4 1 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A Yes 1 144 0 0 0 0 

TX 4 2 B 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.625 0.734 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A Yes 1 0 144 0 0 0 

TX 4 1 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A Yes 1 0 144 0 0 0 

TX 4 2 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A Yes 1 0 144 0 0 0 

TX 5 1 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 1.4 0 

TX 5 2 D 3 20-Mar-91 0.094 N/A N/A N/A 0.094 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 6 1 E 5 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.750 1.250 Rout 0.750 5 1 N/A N/A 0.566 0.117 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 

TX 6 2 E 5 20-Mar-91 0.094 0.750 1.250 Rout 0.750 5 1 N/A N/A 0.609 0.121 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 
Table B-3. Wichita ideal subsite test section installation summary.

1 A 3 ll-Apr-91 0.156 0.563 0.836 Saw 0.563 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 3 19.9 0 0 1 0 

2 A 3 12-Apr-91 0.156 0.563 0.719 Saw 0.563 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 3 128 0 0 0 0 

1 B 3 ll-Apr-91 0.180 0.563 0.797 Saw 0563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 125 0 0 0 0 

2 B 3 12-Apr-91 0.156 0.563 0.696 Saw 0.563 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 120 6 0 0 0 

1 C 3 ll-Apr-91 0.113 1.375 0.204 Rout 1.375 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 139 4.88 0 0 0 

2 C 3 11-Apr-91 0.156 1.375 0.352 Rout 1.375 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 120 10.1 0 0 0 

1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.137 N/A N/A N/A 0.137 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 135 0 0 0 0 

2 D 3 17-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 131 7.5 0 0 0 

- IKS(I)I 1 I 1 D 4 16-Apr-91 0.133 N/A N/A N/A 0.133 3 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 36 0 0 0 0 

- IKS (1)1 1 I 2 D 4 17-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 3 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 132 0 0 0 0 

W

1 C 3 11-Apr-91 0.180 1.375 0.227 Rout 1.375 4 3 0.094 250 N/A N/A No 3 0 0 0 16 45 

2 C 3 12-Apr-91 0.156 1.375 0.188 Rout 1.375 4 3 0.094 250 N/A N/A No 3 76.9 3 0 1.5 0 

1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.152 N/A N/A N/A 0.152 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 4 67.1 10.5 0 0 0 

2 D 3 17-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 36 0 0 0 0 

1 C 3 11-Apr-91 0.168 1.375 0.196 Rout 1.375 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 3.75 0 0 88 4.5 

2 C 3 11-Apr-91 0.156 1.375 0.235 Rout 1.375 4 1 0.094 250 N/A N/A No 1 8.25 0 0 16 0 

1 D 3 17-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 1 0.094 250 N/A N/A No 1 3.38 0 0 0 0.3 

2 D 3 17-Apr-91 0.172 N/A N/A N/A 0.172 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 101 0 0 0 0 

1 C 3 11-Apr-91 0.184 1.375 0.258 Rout 1.375 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 119 6.75 0 0.8 0 

2 C 3 12-Apr-91 0.156 1.375 0.211 Rout 1.375 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 144 0 0 5.6 0 

1 D 3 15-Apr-91 0.133 N/A N/A N/A 0.133 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 126 0 0 0 0 

2 D 3 17-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 90 0 0 0 0 

1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.125 N/A N/A N/A 0.125 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 96.4 0 0 39 0 

2 D 3 17-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 1 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 87 0 0 0 0 

1 E 5 16-Apr-91 0.133 0.625 1.430 Saw 0.625 5 1 N/A N/A 0.625 0.242 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 1

2 E 5 17-Apr-91 0.156 0.625 1.453 Saw 0.625 5 1 N/A N/A 0.625 0.250 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 1.1 1

1 B 3 Il-Apr-91 0.168 0563 0.860 Saw 0.563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 0 0 0 0 0 

2 B 3 12-Apr-91 0.156 0563 0.688 Saw 0.563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 0 0 0 0 0 

1 B 3 11-Apr-91 0.164 0.563 0.867 Saw 0563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 1.88 0 0 0 0 

2 B 3 12-Apr-91 0.144 0563 0.735 Saw 0563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 54 0 0 0 0 
Table B-4. Wichita adverse subsite test section installation summary.

KS{A 1 1 A 3 14-Apr-91 0.148 0.563 0.743 Saw 0.563 4 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 3 6.75 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 1 2 A 3 12-Apr-91 0.156 0.563 0.719 Saw 0.563 4 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 3 102 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 1 1 B 3 14-Apr-91 0.160 0.563 0.758 Saw 0.563 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 0 0 

KS (A) 1 2 B 3 12-Apr-91 0.200 0.563 0.727 Saw 0.563 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 0 144 0 0 0 

KS (A) 1 1 C 3 14-Apr-91 0.172 1.375 0.219 Rout 1.375 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 101 0 0 1 0 

KS (A) 1 2 C 3 15-Apr-91 0.110 1.375 0.223 Rout 1.375 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 130 0 0 1.8 0 

KS (A) 1 1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.148 N/A N/A N/A 0.148 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 126 0 0 0 0 

"'""" KS{A 1 2 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.117 N/A N/A N/A 0.117 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 140 0 0 0 0 

"'""" KS{A) 1 1 D 4 16-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 3 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 138 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 1 2 D 4 16-Apr-91 0.110 N/A N/A N/A 0.110 3 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 16.3 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 2 1 C 3 14-Apr-91 0.160 1.375 0.227 Rout 1.375 4 4 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 25.1 1.88 0 0 0 

KS{A 2 2 C 3 12-Apr-91 0.160 1.375 0.231 Rout 1.375 4 4 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 0.8 0 

KS (A) 2 1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 0 0 

KS (A) 2 2 D 3 16-Apr-94 0.110 N/A N/A N/A 0.110 4 4 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 110 0 0 0 0 

KS (A) 3 1 C 3 14-Apr-91 0.211 1.375 0.250 Rout 1.375 4 2 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 16.1 0 0 12 0 

KS{A) 3 2 C 3 15-Apr-91 0.110 1.375 0.211 Rout 1.375 4 2 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 14.6 0 0 6.3 0 

KS{A) 3 1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 2 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 72 0 0 0 0 

KS (A) 3 2 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.148 N/A N/A N/A 0.148 4 2 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 21.8 0 0 0 0 

KS (A) 4 1 C 3 15-Apr-91 0.168 1.375 0.215 Rout 1.375 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 5.25 0 0 0 0 

KSCA 4 2 C 3 J4-Apr-91 0.117 1.375 0.239 Rout 1.375 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 38.3 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 4 1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 2 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 2 75.8 0 0 0 0 

KS{A 4 2 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.141 N/A N/A N/A 0.141 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 34.1 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 5 1 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.141 N/A N/A N/A 0.141 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 132 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 5 2 D 3 16-Apr-91 0.125 N/A N/A N/A 0.125 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 137 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 6 2 E 6 16-Apr-91 0.133 0.617 1.446 Saw 0.617 3 1 N/A N/A 0.641 0.250 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 

KS (A) 6 1 F 7 16-Apr-91 0.133 0.602 1.438 Saw 0.602 5 1 N/A N/A 0.625 0.250 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 

KS{A 8 1 B 3 15-Apr-91 0.117 0.563 0.766 Saw 0.563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 0 0 0 0 0 

KS{A) 8 2 B 3 15-Apr-91 0.148 0.563 0.758 Saw 0.563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 0 0 0 0 0 

KS{A 9 1 B 3 15-Apr-91 0.133 0.563 0.750 Saw 0.563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 0 0 0 4.9 0 

KS CAl 9 2 B 3 15-Apr-91 0.133 0.563 0.750 Saw 0.563 NA NA NA NA N/A N/A NoA NA 2.63 0 0 0.5 0 
Table B-5. Elma test section installation summary.

WA 1 1 A 3 22-Apr-91 0.180 0.625 0.719 Rout 0.625 4 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 144 0 0 24 0 

WA 1 2 A 3 22-Apr-91 0.156 0.625 0.774 Rout 0.625 4 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 3 72 54 0 61 0.8 

WA 1 1 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.164 0.625 0.742 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 130 0 0 68 1.5 

WA 1 2 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.160 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 76.1 55.9 0 35 0 

WA 1 1 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.141 N/A N/A N/A 0.141 4 3 0.063 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 54 90 0 3.8 0 

WA 1 2 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.152 N/A N/A N/A 0.152 4 3 0.086 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 54 90 0 1.5 0 

- I WA 1 1 D 4 23-Apr-91 0.121 N/A N/A N/A 0.121 3 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 40.1 0 0 59 0 

- I WA 1 2 D 4 23-Apr-91 0.149 N/A N/A N/A 0.149 3 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 0 0.6 

VI I WA 2 1 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.160 0.625 0.766 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 129 0 0 16 0 

WA 2 2 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.133 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 126 18 0 20 0 

WA 2 1 D 3 22-Apr-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 1.3 0 

WA 2 2 D 3 22-Apr-91 0.160 N/A N/A N/A 0.160 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 0 0 

WA 3 1 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.144 0.625 0.735 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 33 5.3 

WA 3 2 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.156 0.625 0.789 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 113 19.5 0 35 5.3 

WA 3 1 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.102 N/A N/A N/A 0.102 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 3.38 0 0 13 0 

WA 3 2 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.141 N/A N/A N/A 0.141 4 3 • 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 72 72 0 3.1 0 

WA 4 1 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.156 0.625 0.735 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 29 1.4 

WA 4 2 B 3 22-Apr-91 0.152 0.625 0.766 Rout 0.625 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 25 0 

WA 4 1 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.129 N/A N/A N/A 0.129 4 3 0.070 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 108 18 0 6.8 2.6 

WA 4 2 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.164 N/A N/A N/A 0.164 4 3 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 3 144 0 0 2.8 0 

WA 5 1 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.148 N/A N/A N/A 0.148 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 3 0 0 0 2.6 1 

WA 5 2 D 3 23-Apr-91 0.137 N/A N/A N/A 0.137 4 3 0.094 2.50 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 11 0.5 

WA 6 1 E 5 22-ADr-91 0.148 0.688 1.414 Rout 0.688 5 1 N/A N/A 0.617 0.235 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 

WA 6 2 E 5 22-Apr-91 0.152 0.688 1.399 Rout 0.688 5 1 N/A N/A 0.625 0.242 NolA N/A 0 0 0 0 0 

WA 7 1 B 3 23-Mav-91 0.125 0.625 0.750 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 

WA 7 2 B 3 23-Mav-91 0.121 0.625 0.703 Rout 0.625 4 1 0.094 3.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 4.3 0 
Table B-6. Prescott test section installation summary.

....... ION 7 1 H 4 NA NA N/A N/A N/A NA NA NA N/A N/A N/A N/A NoA NA 0 300 0 0 0 0 

....... ION 7 2 H 4 NA 0.152 N/A N/A N/A 0.152 NA NA N/A N/A N/A N/A NoA NA 0 300 0 0 0 0 

0\ ON A 1 G 1 27-Aug-91 0.121 N/A N/A N/A 0.121 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON A 2 G 1 27-Aug-91 0.137 N/A N/A N/A 0.137 1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON A 1 G 4 27-Aug-91 0.125 N/A N/A N/A 0.125 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON A 2 G 4 27-Aug-91 0.144 N/A N/A N/A 0.144 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON B 1 G 4 27-Au2-91 0.144 N/A N/A N/A 0.144 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A NolA N/A 0 0 0 286 14 0 

ON B 2 G 4 27-Aug-91 0.137 N/A N/A N/A 0.137 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A NolA N/A 0 0 0 295 4.9 0 

ON C 1 D 4 27-Au2-91 0.148 N/A N/A N/A 0.148 3 1 0.094 4.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON C 2 D 4 27-Aug-91 0.137 N/A N/A N/A 0.137 3 1 0.094 4.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON C 1 G 4 27-Aul!-91 0.137 N/A N/A N/A 0.137 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON C 2 G 4 27-Aug-91 0.168 N/A N/A N/A 0.168 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON D 1 D 4 27-Au2-91 0.152 N/A N/A N/A 0.152 3 1 0.156 4.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON D 2 D 4 27-Aug-91 0.152 N/A N/A N/A 0.152 3 1 0.156 4.00 N/A N/A No 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

ON F 1 G 4 27-Aug-91 0.156 N/A N/A N/A 0.156 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A NolA N/A 0 0 0 300 0 0 

ON F 2 G 4 27-Aul!-91 0.133 N/A N/A N/A 0.133 3 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A NolA N/A 0 0 0 299 1.5 0 
APPENDIX C. MATERIAL TESTING DATA

This appendix includes tables showing the initial test requirements and complete test results

(initial and supplemental performance tests) for the primary experimental materials. Tables C-1

and C-2 show the requirements set forth in the initial testing program for each primary material.

Table C-3 shows the entire list of tests conducted and the corresponding mean results of each test

parameter for the various materials.

Illustrations ofthe load-deformation characteristics ofvarious primary sealants subjected to

ASTM D 412 (modulus) and ASTM D 3583 (tensile adhesion) tests are provided in figures C-1

through C-lO.

117
Table C-l. Initial test requirements for rubber-modified asphalt materials.

Requirement

~5

~35

No Failure

RS 515: 1.116 - 1.234

9030: 1.002 - 1.108

XLM: 0.922 - 1.020

Modified Rubberized Asphalt

(RS 515, 9030, XLM)

:jjj~~~jjj~~~jjjj~~~~jili~j~~~j~jj~j;~j_:jj~~jjjjjjtj~lj1j~1j~~:j~t~~~~~I~f~~~~jjj~jj~j[jjjjjjjjj~~~~~~jjjjj~jjjj~1~jjjjjjjjj~~~jjjjjjj~~jj'

No Failure

1.071 - 1.183

Rubberized Asphalt

(Hi-Spec)

3 cycles - No Failure

ASTMD36

ASTMD70

ASTMD3407

ASTMD3407

ASTMD3407

ASTMD3407

Procedure

Modified

ASTMD3407

ASTMD3407

ASTMD3407 phalt Compatibility (60°C)

ow, mm (60°C)

Test

ond (-29°C, 3 cycles, 100% extension)

ond (-29°C, 3 cycles, 50% extension)

one Penetration, dmm (4°C)

one Penetration, dmm (25°C)

esilience, % (25°C)

oftening Point

pecific Gravity (l6°C) I-'

I-'

00
Table C-2. Initial test requirements for silicone, fiber, and emulsion materials.

Requirement

Test Procedure

Silicone

(89Q-SL)

Fiber

(BoniFiber) I (Fiber Pave)

IUItimate Elongation, % (24°C)

trensile Stress @ 150% Elongation (24"C), kPa

IExtmsion Rate, gm/min (23"C, 50% Relative Humidity [RH])

track-Free Time, min (23°C, 50% RH)

~hore 00 Durometer Hardness, (23°C, 50% RH)

ASTMD412

ASTMD412

ASTMC603

ASTMC679

ASTM D 2240

1400 ffffirttt~ftttttfff:~=l~r~tf~t~tttttt@~~:~~r~:rrrtlrmtt~~~~

S 138 tImt\t~~~~\~:\~~II:::~:tf~:tmIt\i\l~t~~~~\\tlIIt\ltlt:~t:f:I\IIH\

300 - 400 t::::t:::~I:~~:\~~:~:I~~If::\tt~:rmmmI:~:~lt~tttIIII\~ItmIIrtrr~:~:~IM~:~

180 - 300 ~~tt:~::t~t~:~~It:t~~~~~~:t:~:~:tr~mtr.~t::::::tt\I::::~:::~~::\:::::::~:~~~~~~~:~~~~~

35 - 45 ~~mitIt:~~~:~:tf~::~\::f:ttttttbt:~~~:~t:~:~:~tttttttt:t:~:~:tI

1.283 - 1.418 ~tf:~::~~~~~~t~~~:mt~~:f~~:~:~t:~:~:~t:t~:I:~:~I:::::~:~::~~~~t\r~~~~t~f\~:~~~:~:~:~:~:~I~~~~:~:~~~~~:~:~:~:~W::

!Density, gm/mL (25"C)

lDemer (Fineness)

~mm

~rimps

~lor

IBreak Elongation, %

ensile Strength, MPa

\0 oisture Regain, % (21"C, 50% RH)

ybolt Viscosity, sec (25"C)

!Residue, %

!Miscibility

~ieve_ %

ASTMD 1475

ASTMD 1557

As Measured

ASTMD3937

As Observed

ASTM D 2256

ASTMD882

ASTMD2654

ASTMD244

ASTM D 244

ASTMD244

ASTMn?44

3.0 - 6.0 13.0 - 17.0

5.8 -7.0 8 -12

None None

White Gray

24 -42 ~33

~482 >276

- <0.1

l1~t1~~~m~~:~t:~!:::~:Itt1:\\IIki:\~it:I:~:::::H~\t~~~~t1~:t~fIt:~rf\~It:t~t:tlm~mt~:l:~t:mt:rItI\If:

t~::~~:~:~~~:~:~:~tf~~I:::r::~~~~~~~t:~:~tI:~::~::::::~:Ir:~~:::I~:::~:I~:~~~~::::~:::~\I~~::~::\:t~:::::\:~:~~~:t~:~IItf:~::~t~~:::\:~::~:~::\::~~t~~I:~~~:::tIt:

:::::~:~~~~~~~::~:::~~~~~:~~~:::~~~~~I:~~~~~:t\:~~::~~:~~::~~f:~\~::~~\~:~:t~::::::I::~::~~I~~~~~~\\~:~\::\:\:I::r::~:::~::\::~:~~~~~::::~::ff~:~:~:I::~[:~::~:~~:::~t:\:~~~:::~::::f:~\~::~:~~:~~~:~:

:~~t~:~r:::~trttf~::r~t:t~~:::ttfftrjf::t~t:EirjjjjrIi::mjffjr::~:~:t:i:tffjjf::t~:ttIrt
Table C-3. Mean laboratory test results for primary material products.

~:I::IIIIIrmII['ff;t~fI~lfrfffiI;ff;m[:[IIIlflm1gII

Pass Pass Pass

27 60 60

76 115 148

1 0 2.5

38 84 16

Pass Pass Pass

211 199 192

1.2 1.1 1.0

Pass Pass Pass

432 305 279

1.18 2.04 0.40

117 200 41

15 22 22

1,613 4,358 393

2.8 3.1 2.4

193 427 35

1,255 2,772 228

103 145 31

1,455 5,020 441

0.50 0.63 0.14

66 56 69

515 441 547

Adh Adh Adh

97 38 76

760 303 607

Atlh Atlh Atlh

122 ff[ff[[[f[f[lf~fi[[[[:[[[If) 

'II:!IIIII[f[Iltm[:[:IH::~ImiUII:m:[fI

89Q-SL

rJJ~[[fII[Irtii[I

:f[i[[[[:[::m~[[I[[:[i[[::II

[i[i[I[[[IfI[f[[[[If[I[E![

[f[fi[[[f[[[I[[[[[[[f[f[f[[I:a[r[:[

[:[[[m[I~[:[[III[[[IE[

[i[[f~[[f[~:~[[[[[[fI[f[[[f[[[[[[][[:

[:[[IIIf[[[[i:f[[[[[[[i[][[~[~[

[f:i![:[i[IIf[i[~f[f[i[:[:f~[[U[i[i[i

:::![[iII[!:i[I!:!~21ilifI

[fiii[[[[[[[[[[ft[[i[f[ff~[f[f[f]~[[[

::;fi[[[l[f[[[[[[i[[[[[[[[[[[[:II[[

o fI[J[[[;lf[i[[Ii~[~ii;l 

51

8.15

779

1.7

1,448

1.0

138

889

2,923

NA

7.24

B-Fiber

+AC

III::If~[[i[f:ff[i[[t 79 ._ n~:~[

ifI[f:'[II[Hil_606 .1[Im[

tI~lt[ff[[[ff[[[[[[[ff[[[~l~[[[[[[~f[I:[[[[[[[[I[[:[[[[[

l[f[[~:I[[[I[~m[~tillL --i.3_·.I

II[f~mI[[f[[[[[[f~:[ft[ltmf[[[~[~[:[[[f[f[[[[[f[[[[

[:~[[[I[[I::[IIttlt\dbI~oh -1:IIM~

![[[[~f~[~rI[ff~If[[~[~f[nmi[m~[II~f[[~[[[~[~[~][[[[[[[[f[[

l[f[[[[f[Ii[[[II[I[[Ir[[[i~III[[[[[[[[~[[[[[I

:~[[[[[[[[f[i~[:[:f[[[If[[[~.I~I[

MeanTestResults

XLM 9030 RS515

2.8

359

221

89

704

Adh

89

690

Adh

15

63

o

64

1.1

15

Pass

Pass

186

Pass

432

2.35

227

3,413

2,303

3,896

0.95

Hi-Spec

I·~~~~~I~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~I:

3

3

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

3

3

Number of

Test Replicates

Force Ductility -Max Tme Strain, mm/mm

Force Ductility -PolymerModulus, kPa

Cold Bend (-18"C)

Bond (-29°C, 3cycles, 50% ext)

Force Ductility -Area UnderTme CulVe, kPa

Force Ductility -Max Engineering Strain, mm/mm

Asphalt Compatibility (60"C)

Force Ductility -Max Engineering Stress, kPa

Force Ductility -Load @ 150% Elongation, kg

Force Ductility -Max Load, kg

Force Ductility -Area Under Engineering CulVe, kPa

Force Ductility -Max Elongation, rom (4"C)

Resilience, %recovery (25°C)

Tensile Adhesion (Mod #1: AC blocks) -Max Elongation, rom

Cone Penetration, dmm (25°C)

Bond (-29°C, 3cycles, 100% ext)

Flow, rom (60"C)

Cone Penetration, dmm

Test

(-18°C)

Description

Force Ductility -Max Tme Stress, kPa

Tensile Adhesion (Std -PCC blocks) -Max Elongation, rom

Tensile Adhesion (Mod #1) -Max Elongation, %

Force Ductility -Asphalt Modulus, kPa

Tensile Adhesion (Std) -Max Elongation, %

Tensile Adhesion (Std) -Type ofFailure

Specific Gravity (16°C)

Softening Point

IT"n";!p. Atlhp.";nn fMntl itl) _ Tvne _"u." .._

Test

I-A

2-A

3-A

4-A

5-A

6-A

7-A

8-A

9-A

lo-A

ll-A

ll-B

ll-C

11-0

ll-E

ll-F

11-0

ll-H

11-1

ll-J

ll-K

12-A

12-B

12-C

13-A

13-B

13-C

Designation

-
Table C-3. Mean laboratory test results for primary material products (continued).

Mean Test Results

Test

Designation Test Descriplion

Number of

Test Replicates Hi-8pec I RS 515 9030 XLM

B-Fiber

+AC 89D-SLCR

14-A Tensile Adhesion (Mod #2: AC blocks, H O-soaked) 2

- Max Elongation, mm 3

86 I 86 43 69

iliiiiil~iil:lllllil::ilijil:llli: 61

:lillii:i:iij

14-B

14-C

Tensile Adhesion (Mod #2) - Max Elongation, %

Tensile Adhesion (Mod #2) - Type ofFailure

683 I 680

Adh I Adh

337

Adh

539

Adh

:~m~~~m~~~~~~~J~~i~:

~~~~I~~IH~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1:

485

Adh

Iu

IU:_

15-A 412 Test (-18"C) - TensileStrmgtb,kPa 421 I 455 110 103 :~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~m~~~II~~~~~~ 310 ,III:~:~:~

15-B

15-C

15-0

412 Test (-I8"C) - U1timateElongation, %

412 Test (-18"C) - TensileStress@ 150% Elongation,kPa

412 Test (-I8"C) - Midpoint Thidmess, mm

2 425 I 868

317 I 262

7.6 I 5.1

1093

50

7.6

1035

30

7.6

mm~~~~mt~§~~]I~~~\

:~~~Ij~~~~~~~1~~~f~~II~~~r

~~~~~~~III~~~II~~~~~~

4566

65

5.1

l\lE::

1~::j:::::

!I:::::::

16-A 412 Test (4"C) - Tensile Strmgtb, kPa 228 I 186 53 69 I]I\\\!I\\!i~\Rft~Imt¥lit

~j:~::::\~:::::::::::~::\11~~:~~~:~:i:

I::::~I:::~:::::::~~\:~:::1:I:::~:::::::::::::I\:J1::I:~:::J

i:imM\mtjmlt\!l\\illl~

.....

N

.....

16-B

16-C

16-0

17-A

17-B

17-C

17-0

18-A

412 Test (4"C) - UltimateElongation, %

412 Test (4"C) - Tensile Stress @ 150%Elongation, kPa

412 Test (4"C) - Midpoint Thidmess,mm

412 Test (24"C) - TemileStrmgtb,kPa

412 Test (24"C) - U1timateElongation, %

412 Test (24°C) - TemileStress@ 150% Elongation,kPa

412 Test (24"C) - Midpoint Thidmess,mm

412 Test AfterWeathering (24"C) - Tensile Strength, kPa

2

2

960 I 1255

131 I 97

5.1 I 5.1

76 I 53

863 I 910

49 I 26

7.6 I 7.6

NA I NA

620

32

7.6

59

832

32

7.6

NA

960

19

7.6

33

915

14

7.6

NA

tj~~~~~~~~I~~I IIII~~~~ j

I~~~~~~~jIj~~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~j:

'~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

I~~~~~ ~~~~~m~~~~~m~r~~~:

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ I~~tt~~~ ~~

303

2096

76

5.1

284

I:J\I::I:

1:::\::I::

iiiUi

!::~~r:~r::

:fttt:r:

18-B 412 Test AfterWeathering (24"C) - Ultimate Elongation, % NA I NA NA NA \~~~~~~~~~l~i~i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j 1552 iI1I

18-C 412 Test AfterWeathering (24"C) - Tmsile Stress @ 150%

Elongation, kPa

3 NA I NA NA NA

:ill\III:I·:lill:I:llillil~li!l\i 66

,llllijl:illl

:~rII!I:~I:~:::~::I:::l::\:II:mI::::li:

r:~:m::::[~~:::~::::::U:::::II::~::::~::::~:~:~In:::::II

I:II@:I::::::::::U::::::::::::::::I::~::::::I]::I:I:::::::::

r~:r~~lr~r~rmrrtf@im:~r

:r{t

@I:~Ir::

@::I:

4.1

0.0

None

:~~~lI\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~:

-~~~!I1~~~1IIII~~r

~~~~I~~~~~l~~l~~~~~~~~

r:IEt:H;IIn;:IIItlIIiii

NA NA NA NA

Adh Adh None None

2 I 1.15 0.18 0.0 0.0

Adh Adh Adh None

2 I 0.52 5.21 6.25 0.0

Adh Adh Adh None

2 I 0.71 2.86 0.71 0.0

2 I U38 3.338 1.275 3.720

Modified Bond #3 (Band-Aid) - Type ofFailure

Modified Bond #1 (Owmel), % Debonding

Modified Bond #2 (Recessed Band-Aid), % Debonding

Modified Bond #1 (Owmel) - Type ofFailure

412 Test AfterWeathering (24"C) - Midpoint Thidmess, mm

Modified Bond #3 (Band-Aid), % Debonding

,.P.

Modified Bond #2 (Recessed Band-Aid) - Type ofFailure

18-0

19-A

19-B

20-A

20-8

21-A

21-B

22-A
Table C-3. Mean laboratory test results for primary material products (continued).

MeanTest Results

Test

Designation Test Description

Number of

TestReplicates Hi-Spec I RS SIS 9030 XLM

B-Fiber

+AC 89O-SL C

:~EII:::::::@l[fI:;mII::!::r:II::III:!]lffl::f::::::Ifnm::U!:J::r:~I:mltnI::::I::f:)II-51.

23-A IDenier (Fineness) I 3

24-A ILength. mm I 3

25-A ICrimps I 3

26-A IColor I 3

27-A IBreak Elongation, % f 3

28-A ITensile Strength, MPa I 3

29-A fMoisture Regain, % I 3

3O-A ISaybolt Viscosity, sec I 2

wrmffm:J:fl::f:::I:::'::J~@f:lm::IJI1IIlllEmll:L~:27 .rrJ:t:Hr?m:rr::::'

::::~:I::::::II::::m:I:::::::::~:::::::::::m::::::lI::::::::::::;:F:::::::~:~:::::::::::I:III::I:I_ 7 1~::::II::::::::::::::::::::I:~:II

:r::::::::::I::::'m~~:I::I::mI:Ir~::::I:::II]~rI::::::::::::II1:I:::I:::::::::1::::::I1 None 1~:::n:]1:::::::::::::::I:tII

:::::::::~:~::I:::::::::::::::::I::::~::::::::::::::::::::I::::lrIrI::::::::::::~:::lII:::H:::::::::::~:::::J~te [:::I:::::::::::II:::::m:::::::::

l!!I:III:Im:!:II::::::::tIlf::fI:!n:!f!~fIff~:~::~::::I!:fIfI~@l!:~!I:I~9.27_mJ~If]I!:I!~mI:rII

~~::::I~::fIImMI:::f:f::::::::::lm:rl::f:I::::::::;~::::~:::~::~r:II:M::::~:::~~f~::16~2,143 1::::f::II:~!:::::~~::::::::II:::::

f::::I:;:l::!f:lf:1:i!i!;;1:1IIII@!;EliIII1IE;iit.IIifIi:1 0.443 1~~Ij:iii1!I:ir:i:!iirrJ.!::::i

Il=::~~ I:e:~: % r 11!'!'!'I'I::':.II::·I~:!:il.il'I:II:'I':'·':"lliil~:1:·I·:II·:I::ii:·":::I·l'I~II"~I:I:l:I:·1;'11.'.I=:I:I~1..:I'.1.11111I,:il,:!·".iilFd

NN

31-A IResidue, % I 2

34-A IExtmsion Rate, gm/min (23°C and 50% RH) I 1

35-A ITack-Free Time, min (25"C and 50% RH) I 1 ~1'i_A I "'hn..... on J)l1rnmpt".. n,\o(' ..nil '\0% Inn I 3

r::::::::['::I[)IIill1I:[:[II:;:m:::IIII:[:[)[:Il::rI1II:)@I!:I:::::I::I::::;I):):;:I~I[I:::lmliI:::::::[:

:::::):::::::::::);m:Imm[~:::::!::[::::;)rIf[II:I!:I:):I:lIIIlliIIII:lIlli:;):::::)::::I):rl 2.S 1:):f::

:I:::I:I::III:]:::):::::::I:I::::.lIIttili:i:I::::::r:ttEI)::II:t:i:1:iIr18O BII

~r~~fffft@:l:Ilff{IIIlrrtWIii!lt~ft1iI:Ifillmtt!IiL --50~m!IIIII¥
-------1--------1---------

I I

I I

Load,kg

10 r----~--------~--------....., .----, I

Gauge Lengt~ =51 mm I

Extension Rale =51 mmJmi~ r I

8 --------r--------+--------~--------~--------- I I I I

I I I I

I I I I r r I I

I I I 1

6 --------r--------T--------~--------~--------- I r I I

I I I

I I I

I I I

I I I r--------T--------,--------j---------

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I 2 1 _

O.-.l....-...L...-...J'--'--'-----'----'---'--'---'----'---'---'--..L.-..L.-.L...-.L...-...J'--'----'----'----'--'---'--.....

o 100 200 300 400 500

Elongation, mm

Figure C-l. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for Hi-Spec.

200 300 400 500

Elongation, mm

100

Load, kg

10 r----~----~----~-------____, ...-------, I I

Gauge Lengt~ =51 mm :

Extension Rale =51 mmJmi~ I :

8 --------r--------+--------~--------~--------- I r I I

I I I I

I I I I

1 I I I

I I I I

6 --------r--------T--------~--------~--------- I I 1 I

1 I I

I I I

I I I

4 --------t------ T--------i--------~--------- I I I

I I I

I I I

I I I

2 --------t--------1-------- 1 _

Figure C-2. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for RS 515.

123
200 300 400 500

Elongation, mm

100

I I I 1

Gauge Lengt~ - 51 mm I I I -18°C

I I I

Extension Rate - 51 mmlmi~ I I

I I - ---------r--------+--------~--------~--------- 4°C I I I I

I I I I --+- I I I I

I I I I

I I I I 23°C ---------r--------T--------~--------~--------- ----..- I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I ---------r--------T--------,--------j--------- I I I 1

I I I I

I I I I

I 1 I I

---------r--------t--------i--------1---------

I I I I

I I I I

I I

i I i

4

o

o

2

6

8

Load, kg

10

Figure C-3. ASTM D 4121oad-deformation curves for 9030.

I I I I -18°C Gauge Lengt~ =51 mm I I I

I I I

Extension Rate - 51 mmlmi~ 1 I

I I - ~--------r--------+--------~--------~--------- 4°C I I I I

I I I I -+-- I I I I

I 1 I I

I I I I 23°C ~--------r--------T--------~--------~--------- I I I I ----..-

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I ~--------r--------T--------,--------j---------

1 I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

---------t--------t--------i--------1---------

I I

1

I

I I .i. I i

4

2

6

8

Load, kg

10

o

o 100 200 300

Elongation, mm

400 500

Figure C-4. ASTM D 4121oad-deformation curves for XLM.

124
-18°C

200 300 400 500

Elongation, mm

100

Load, kg

10,-----------------------,,.-----, I I I I

Gauge Lengt~ .. 19 mm: : :

Extension Rale =51 mmJmi~ : :

8 ~--------r--------+--------~--------~--------- I I I I

I I I I

I I I , I I I , I , I I

6 ~--------r--------i--------;--------,--------- I , I I

I I I I

I I I , I , I ,

4 ---------~--------+--------i--------~--------- I I I , I I I ,

I I I I , , I I

2 ~--------t--------+--------1--------1--------- I I I ,

O~r1I!~~~dl::::;::::==:!±1i:====j:t:===:r':::::£:--J---- I

o

Figure C-5. ASTM D 412 load-deformation curves for 890-SL

AC, Non-Immersed

--+-

AC, Immersed

-+--

PCC, Non-Immersed

10 40 50

5

10

Load,kg

30 .---~--~---......--- ..............------,

Sample: 1~ mm x 51 rpm x 51 mni

Extension ~ate: 13 m7'!min: ,

25 ------~-------~------~-------~------ , I , ,

, I I I , I I I , I I I

20 ------;-------r------;-------r------ , I I I , I I I , , , , , , , I

15 ------,-------,------,-------,------ I , , , I , , ,

I I , , I , ,

---- ------ -------,------

I I

I I

I ____ L L _ , , I I , , I I

I , I I , I I I

Figure C-6. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for Hi-Spec~

125
AC, Non-Immersed

-+--

AC, Immersed

--+--

PCC, Non-Immersed

20 30 40 50

Elongation, mm

10

Load, kg

30 r----~-------...-------___,

Sample: 1~ mm x 51 rPm x 51 mni :

Extension ~ate: 13 mrrvmin: :

25~------~-------~------~-------~------ I J I I

I J I I

I I I I

20~------~-------~------~-------~------ I I I I

I J I I

I I I I

15~------i-------~------i-------~------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

10~------i-------t------i-------t------ I I ->l.o I

5l~r--Jtr~~!~~~~-!==~31==="":-~------ o~. iiI i """-L..-L.-I.--'---'---L--'-J.-J..-'-....L..-L..-L.....L-.J......J--'--'--J.-J..-'-....L..-I......L.-J

o

Figure C-7. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for RS 515.

PCC, Non-Immersed

AC, Non-Immersed

-+--

AC, Immersed

--+--

Load,kg

30 r----~-------...-----------. _------...-, Sample: 1 mm x 51 rpm x 51 mrr1

Extension ~ate: 13 mrrvmin : I

25 ------~-------~------~-------~------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I 20 ------~-------r------~-------r------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

15 ------i-------~------i-------~------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

10 ------i-------t------i-------t------

I I I I

I I I I

I I ___________ L _

I I

I I

I I

I I

0 ........--'--'-.&......L--'-...........--L-....L...-..........-I.-..L......I.-'-............--'-....L..-"-'---'-...l.....J

o 10 20 30 40 50

Elongation, mm

Figure C-8. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for 9030.

126
PCC, Non-Immersed

AC, Non-Immersed

-+--

AC, Immersed

---+-

Load,kg

30 ..----~---~---~----------. ,....---------, Sample: 1~ mm x 51 rpm x 51 mrrj

Extension ~ate: 13 mr:rvmin : I

25 ------~-------~------~-------~------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I 20 -------""t-------r-------""t-------r-------

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

15 -------i-------~------i-------~------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

10~------i-------~------i-------~------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

5 -------1-------t------i-------L------ I

i

10

i I

20 30

Elongation, mm

I

i

40 50

Figure C-9. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for XLM.

5

15

10

AC, Non-Immersed

-+--

AC, Immersed

---+-

PCC, Non-Immersed

Load,kg

30 .-----~--~------~--___,

Sample: i3 mm x 51 ~m x 51 mrh :

Extension:Rate: 13 nimlmin: :

25 ------~-------~------,-------~------ I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I 20 ------""t-------r------""t-------r-------

I I I I

I I I

I I

I I Ir--r-""':S!=..--r--......--.,-------r------

I I

I I

I I I

I I I I ----I-------r------I-------,------

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I _____ L L _

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

10 20 30

Elongation, mm

40 50

Figure C-lO. ASTM D 3583 load-deformation curves for 890-SL,

127

APPENDIX D. FIELD PERFORMANCE

This appendix includes the various documentation forms and summary tables and charts

associated with the field performance ofthe experimental treatments. Figure D-l shows the

performance documentation forms used at each test site evaluation. Summaries ofthe key

performance distresses observed over the duration of the study are provided in tables D-l through

D-6.

129
Pull-<>uts (in) --. ,...------ 

}

1-114101313

:::

Ii IQI"'I n ;.~~ l

ISE 1::i:i:i::i:::I:::iiiii:~:::il I t::iiiiii~::::I:~i~i~iI~i] I.. I'~::::::i:iiiil:::i:i:::::iii~ I 1::iiiiiiii:[]::::i:i[;i[:::1 1:::::!:!::iiiiliiii[iiiii[:!:1 I I::::::i:ii:[~~:[!i::it~:,~

Overh

[1

~:iI:1 

I!::::iII 

4101313 IWP 1,:[:ii::::[i::!i::i::::i::ii:1 1 1:[:[:[:::[[iii:I.::::[:[I:i~1 I !~::::::::,::::I~i::::[[[i!:!:1 I 1~:~::i[[iil.!i][[[iJu.. I ". "'i:::[i!iI[:I:ii[ii:[:ii[i[1 I 1~:i~!::~Imt:i[,!i;I_J--li:!i!i:1 

4101313

4101313

410131 3

4101314

POE 1~:iii:ii~i::ili:iliI:::] '-.i.i.IN-"", ni~~~:~:::::J.i:i::l:I:::

l';E Iti:i:iiiiil:ii:rii:i:~ , I:mir::li:iiI::ii:1 I [I:i:i::i:I:::::::::lii~ I I,::i::::::::iil:i:~ml I [iiIiII::r:::::::1 I l:i:::::::::::::I:iiiii:~:i:in I I:I:iiiI:1 

IWPl::i:i:::::i::[:::::::::::il I I:::;::::[:[:~il::::i::::i::::il I !!![':!:!!!!:!:!!!!!i:![:!'.::!--"'-!I,...!!,!,.;·::r l-rll:i::::::ii::::1 I 1:::::i:::::::::I@::::::

4::::::::::::: :::i:i:::::i:: ::::iiI:::::::::::::i:::::

4 :::::::::::::~ iii::::::::::: :::~:::::::::::::::[::i[:::[:

410131 4

4101 31 4 I POE I,'::::I:::[::::::::I~ I I::::::::::::::I:~:::::::::::::I I 1:::::::::::::1::::::::::::::1 1-1_ I····1]:1:.-1 1:::::::::::::::lm::~~'~~1 I I::::::];:::~-

......

W

o

4 I 0 I31 5 1 JCN I:::ii]:i[:!:i:[:[i.:[:[:i

4 I 0 I 31 5 lowpf,::im::HiiI:::!i

4 I 0 I 31 5 IPOE 1::i::::::::::I::::::::::::::

:Ii.:~:::I.:.-1 l:ii:::::til:~1 l~iii:ii:[:[]:::::[:::iiii:1 i '&:1:[:::::1 I lii:::i.:i:::·

:~:::::::::::1::[::::::::::1 1 I~:::::[:::tlli;::*m I 1::::::::::::::1::::::::::[:::1 I I·::::::::i:::il::::[:::::::[::l I 1:::i:::!::J

~~::~it::::I:[:~~::::::::::I··- -'-_lii:::::::[:i::I:::::I:::::I"-r--I.*i:ili:I.I::ilf I 1::i::::::i:i::t::::::::::::::1 I 1~::::~::::::::,I:::i:::::ii:ii~1 I I:i::i:::::::~i

.~:::':::::::]I~::::::N I 1i:::::::::::::J:j::::::::::::J I 1::::::::::::::1·::::::::::::::1 I [:~:~:~::::]':::::::::::::I I 1:::':::::::::'·[:::::::::::::1 I II:::::::i:

'::::::::::::::I,:::::i::::::::

'::::::ijii::~itii:::l-I l:i:i::!:i:ll.-nIIIIT-r_-I-t:iliit:l.:::!:::iiii:::1 I 1:[:!:ii::::::1

l';E l:r::':::::V::::ii:I

IWP 1::::::[:::[::1::::::::[:::::

4101315

410131 5

I 14 I0 I 31 6 I ISE liii::i:~ii:ii i:i:::::::iii: ::iriii::::: ,:::~:::::r: :i:I:~::::: i'iiiiir::: ::iii:ii:::~:i :::i:iiii:;::l " :::::::::i:i:: :i::::::i::::: :~ir:::::~:: ~:iii::::::i::~::i:::ii:I 

I • 41 0 ]31 6 1IWP :i:::::::::::: ::::[::::::::: ::::II::: ::::[i:~:::i::i :~:~::j~::[:~: :ii::::::::[:! :::::::::::!:: iii!:::::::!::: :::[:[:::::::[ :~::[:::::::[: ::::::~:::~:::: [:~:[~::::::::: ,:[:I[:!::: 

4 I 0 I 31 6 I JCN 1::i::::::::::I:::!!!:!:!:!:! I!i!i:::::::j:::::::::I:: ::I:!:!::::I::::::[:::!:!:I I 1,:::!:!:::::::li:::::l:::::[iil I I::[:::::::!:::I:!:!~!:!:!:!:[I I 1::!:!:!:::::!:il:::!:::::::::::1 I I·!:::!:::!:!:!I 

4 I 0 I 31 6 IOWPI::::::!:!:i::I[:::!:!:!:!::: ':!::::::::::~::I::::::i::~::::, i:iii::':::i:il:~[:::i![:J·--I--··I::.;I]· I 1:[::::::::i::!I::!:!:!:::::::1 I 1::::::::I:::I:~!:::::::::!i:

4I 01 31 6 1POE1\\\:*\~~:I:::\\\t:\:i 'f:\~~:~~j::I:\:::::::\::~\ ~:::(:\:\ii!ljl:j~~~i!. ::j~~~i!.\\~~:j:!!:~~:l ::\~~:\~i::I::::::i::\::(: ::j:!::~~:::~I'::!:::\i::\~::

Figure D-l. Field performance evaluation form.
:ol

fQ II' "

l '<l 0 as

;. .2> ~IC. :l

"

1-1 403 3 lSE

403 3

403 3

403 3

403 3

4 0 341lSE

+- -

o 3 4

403 4

_4 o 3 4 ....

v.J I 14 .... o 3 4

I 14 o 3 51lSE

403 51

403 5

403

J- -1-1

403 5

403 6

403 6

403 6

403

J--1-1

4 0 316

Figure D-l. Field performance evaluation form (continued).
:i[i:i:::[::il

::I:::i:[l,

[[:iii::i:::ii[[[i:[f[:i[

iiiiiiiii::[::::\:i::::::i:i[:::

i[i:i!::::i[i:I:::Iiii:i:i

:i.

[iiiiiiiii:i]ili[i:iii:i

:i[i:i[Ii:I:IiiIi:

Ii::iiii::ilii:iii:::I~i

[i::::::::~i!liI:::ii:ii:

.:*i~~i:i

.[:[[i:i[:::[

:[::iii~i::::lii:::i:::i:::i

,:::iii:i:ii:::il:iiiili:ii:'

i:!iii!:!i!iii!il,ii:ii!:!i!t

!::::::::i::::i,I::::~:::::iI

I~:i:::[::[::iil[i:i[:[::::iii

i:IIIJ:[::ii:i:[::::[

li:::!ii:i:i[[:ilii!iii[iii:ii[:

::.::i

i:1ii!ii:::::li:i[:i:i~i[i:::

1:::iiiiii~:~iii:ii:ii:i::i;

Pull-outs (in)

--

IIII1111

II

1111111

,[:[i:i[:[i[ili:ii:[ii::::ii

Ii:::iIliI::[iIi

[I::::1Iii::::::::I

:i::i:ii:::::lii::[::[::::::

i[:]i:it::li~:i:i:i:::i:

~:!iii:!ii!:il:ii:iiii1i

[:::~mil!:i~:::~:::l

lC'

QI"S

4101317

4101317

41013

41013

41013

4101318 lOW

4 I 01 31 8 I ISE I!:i:[:::::::l:~:i::::li

41013181IWP

41013

4101318

4 0 3 9 ISE

4 0 3 9 IWP

403 9 JCN

403 9 0'

403 9 POE

4 0 3 10 ISE

4 0 3 10 IWP

4 0 3 10 JCN

4 OW

4 POE

'" 1i:: 1n II .. t'-I'" [g,~ ..

I--'

W

N

Figure D-1. Field performance evaluation form (continued).
13: l f·~~I~

AIOl317

':::'!:":::I t:::::::I::!:[:[:[:[I::::I:::~iiiii:::::

I ,:::::::II:!:[:::::::I::[:[:!:[:il:i!iii::::

4101317/0WP

::;:;:;.

:::::::::::1:::1::::::1:::::::::::~::::::::::

::::::::::]:::::::::::I:::::::::::f.::::::::::

::I::::l:::::::::I:::::::::::r.:::::::::j

::::i_[~!:::

::m::1::::::::::'Iilj::::::

::!:!:!::::I:l:!:::I::!:!:~!::I::::!:::!:

:::!iii::!il:!::iiii:::I:IiIir.::::::I

• ,::I:i:i:IItHii:iit:1IIi:

:::::Il:::::I[::::::::

,:::::::::\1\:\::::::]:::::::::::1::::::::::

·'::!::I:I:II::I:::::::::::!:!I:!::

*-

~~ 1111

:: IIII 

..... mmm 

I:!:::i~1I-!--U-IIII

::::':::I::::::::::I::::::::::I:::I::

::::::::1::::::::::1.:::::::::1:::::::::

::::::::[::::::::1::::::::::[:::::::

:.:.:.:.:

, I j::::::I:::::&:1::1:11::::::;:

::::::::::I':::::::::j

,::::::::::I::II::

:::::::::::1::::::::::::

.::I::H::::::::::::

':iI::U:iIii:i:i

'::::f

::::;:;::.

:::::::::1::::::::::

:::::::::1::::::::::

:::::::::1

:::::::::1

::::::!:I

41013181 IWP

41013181 JCN

4 101 31 8 1OWPI:::;::[:~::::::::

41013 8 POE

410 3 9 ISE

403 9 IWP

403 9 JCN

4 D 3 9 owpi

,4 D 3 9 POE

14 0 3 10 ISE

4 D 3 10 IWP

4 D 3 10 JCN

i 14 D 3 10 OWP

t 14101 ~Ilnl ......."

'"""'" W

W

Figure D-1. Field performance evaluation form (continued).
wTable D-l. Des Moines, IA crack treatment performance summaries.

Platemeut Crack Adhesiou Effectiveness (%) Over Time (mouths) Cohesion Effect

, Material Reo II Coufi.....tiOll Preo Procedwe 0 I 3 8 II 17 29 40 53 69 77 0 I 3 8 1

Hi-SDCc I Sid Reservoir·.ud-Flush Wirebtusb. Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.7 69.8 645 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Snec 2 StdReoervoir-aud-Flush Wirebtusb. Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 88.7 88.7 88.7 88.6 88.6 80.6 55.6 49A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 94A 94.4 94A 94.3 94.3 87.7 62.7 56.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Snec I Sid Reoervoir·.ud·Flush Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 84.1 - 70.7 64.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Suet 2 Std Reoervoir·aud·Flush HoI Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 94.0 69A 62.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 89.1 70.1 635 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Soet I Sid Rete...d Baud·Aid HoI Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.2 99.2 89.8 77.3 75.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Snec 2 Std Rece...d Baud·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100_0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 91.1 89.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 99.6 94.9 84.2 825 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Soet I Shallow Rete!SCd Baud-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.6 98A 915 87.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-S...c 2 Shallow RCCC!SCd Baud-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.3 91.1 86.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 91.3 87.3 N/A N/A N/A 

100.0 98.3 N/A N/A 

Hi-Snec 1 SiruDle Baud·Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.4 8

Hi-S...c 2 SiruDle Baud·Aid Hot Airblast NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 9

Avo N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.0 9

Hi-Soet 1 SimDle Baud-Aid CoDY Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.4 9

Hi-S...c 2 SiruDle Baud-Aid Conv Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 9

Avo N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.0 9

RS515 I Sid Rece...d Baud·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 93.6 92.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS515 2 Sid Rece...d Baud-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97A 96.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 95.5 94.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS515 I Shallow RCCC!SCd Baud·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.8 98_8 98.8 98.8 98.7 98.6 95.8 95.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS515 2 Shallow RCCC!SCd Baud·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 905 89.8 89.8 89.1 89.1 84.3 82.4 81.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.7 94.3 94.3 93.9 93.9 91A 89.1 88.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS515 I SiruDle Baud·Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.4 8

RS515 2 SiruDle Baud·Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 9

------ "--l\.Y&.. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nl~ ~L~ N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 ~,4 8

.._9O~L I f--Sid ~ece...d Baud·Aid Hot Airblast 10Q,Q ~!J0'O .. -~ r-.98 1· r-.-~ --2!!,1 1-.981 975 95.3 93.8 N/A- N/A N/A N/A ~~

9030 -TOo SId Recessed B.ud·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99A 99A 99A 99.4 99.4 - 98.7 97.7 94.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A 

.. Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.1 965 94.3 NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A 

9030 I Shallow Recessed Baud-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.2 98.8 98.1 96.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

9030 2 Shallow Rete!SCd Baud-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.2 99.1 955 94.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

AVI 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.2 99.0 96.8 95A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

9030 I SimDle Baud-Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.9 9

9030 2 SimDle Baud-Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.9 8

Avo N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 88A 8

XLM 1 Sid Rece...d B.ud·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99A 97.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM 2 SId Rece...d B.ud·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.7 98.6 98.6 98.6 97.9 96.8 95.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avr 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 99.3 98.9 98.1 96.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM I Shallow ReCC!SCd Baud-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.6 95.7 94.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM 2 Shallow Rete!SCd Baud·Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 96.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

AVI 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.3 96.3 95A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM 1 SimDle Baud-Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10

XLM 2 SimDle Baud-Aid Hot Airblast NlA NlA N/A N/A NlA NlA NlA NlA N/A NJA N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 9

Avr N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 9

B-Fiber I Siw,lle Baud·Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 68.9 6

B-Fiber 2 SimDle Baud-Aid HoI Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA NlA N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.3 8

Avo N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.6 7

89O-SL I Oceo Reservoir-.ud-Retess SaudiAirblast, Back Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 98.3 96A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

890-SL 2 OceD Reservoir-aud-Retess SaudiAirblasl, BackRod 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.0 97.0 N/A NlA N/A NlA N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 98.1 96.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

CRS-2P I Flush-Fill CoUV Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 .-- 

HS-2P 2 Flush-Fill Conv Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 --- 

, 

Avo N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 --- 

....-
w

U1

Table D-l. Des Moines, IA crack treatment performance summaries (continued).

Placemenl Crack Pull-Oul Effectiveness (91,) OYer Time (months) Edl!.e Delerioration Effe

Material Re,,# Confi2Uration Pre" Procedure 0 \ 3 8 11 \7 29 40 53 69 77 0 \ 3 8 11 

Hi·Spec \ Sid Reservoir-and·F1ush Wilebruoh. Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 

Hi·SPec 2 Sid Reservoir-and-F1ush WiIebIUsb. Airblasl 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 99.8 

AVI. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 

Hi·Spec 1 Sid Reservoir-and·F1ush HoI Airblast 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 

Hi-Spec 2 Std Reservoir-and-F1ush HoI Airblasl 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 

Avo 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 100.0 100.0 \00.0 99.9 99.8 

Hi-Spec \ Std Recessed Band·Aid HOI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.9 

Hi·Spec 2 SId Recessed Band·Aid HoI Airblasl \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 99.7 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 

Avl!. 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec \ Shallow Recessed Band·Aid HOI Airblasl \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid HOI Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avo \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 

Hi·Spec \ SimPle Band-Aid HoI Airblast \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 \00.0 100.0 -_. \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 

Hi-Spec 2 Simnle Band-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 100.0 98.6 98.5 98,4 98.1 98.1 97.7 97.7 

. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avo 100.0 \00.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.2 99.0 99.0 98.8 98.8 ... 100.0' \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 

Hi·Spec \ SimPle Band-Aid Conv Airblasl 100.0 100.0 \00.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.5 99.5 ... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 Simnle Band·Aid Conv Airblasl \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 98.8 98.8 ... 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 

AVI. 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.9 99.4 99,4 99.3 99.3 99.\ 99.1 ... 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RS 5\5 \ Sid Recessed Band·Aid HoI Airblasl \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0I \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 

RS S\5 2 SId Recessed Band-Aid HOI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 

Avo \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RS SIS \ Shallow Recessed Band·Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 

RS515 2 Shallow Recessed Band·Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.3 99.3 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 99.8 

Avl!. 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.7 99.7 99.5 99.5 99,4 99,4 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 99.9 

RS5\S \ Simnle Band·Aid HoI Airblast \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.3 99.3 '" 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RS 5\5 2 SimPle Band-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 97.3 96.7 97.8 97.1 96.2 95.6 95.3 ... \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 

.._-- !:.'f.l!. \00.0 100.0 \00.0 98.6 98.3 98.8 98.5 98.0 97.4 97.3 .-. 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

_._- 9030 \ Std Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 I-~ 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 

9030 2 Std Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.7 

Avl!. \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 99.9 

9030 1 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.6 99.6 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 

9030 2 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.

Avl!. 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 

9030 1 Simnle Band·Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 99.2 99.\ 99.0 99.0 99.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 

9030 2 SimPle Band·Aid HOI Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 ... 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.

Avr. \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.5 99.1 99.1 ... 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.

XLM \ SId Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.

XLM 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid HOI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.

Avo \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.

XLM 1 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid HOI Airblasl \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.

XLM 2 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.

Avo 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 

XLM \ SimPle Band-Aid HoI Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.

XLM 2 SimPle Band·Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.

Avo 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.

B-Fiber \ SimPle Band·Aid HoI Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.4 95.7 96.2 .-. ... \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 99.7 97.

B-Fiber 2 Simnle Band·Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 99.1 99.\ 97.9 95.0 94.9 --. --- 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 99.

Avo 100.0 \00.0 100.0 99.3 98.9 98.9 98.2 95.3 95.5 -.. -.. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 98.

r-m:SL \ DeeD Reservoir·and-Recess SandlAirblas1, BackRod 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 92.7 91.

890-SL 2 Dee" Reservoir-and·Recess SandlAirblas1, BackRod 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 96.0 95.

AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 93.

f--.....

Hush-Fill Conv Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ..- 

CP'2P \ .., 00. ..- -.. ... ..- .--

Ci/:' ',' 2 Hush-Fill Conv Airblasl \00.0 \00.0 100.0 \00.0 ..- ... .., --- --. _00

--- 100.0 \00.0 100.0 100.0 ... 

Avo 100.0 \00.0 100.0 \00_0 .., ... .., ... ... .,. ... \00.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 --- 

'--......
......

W

0\

Table D-l. Des Moines, IA crack treatment performance summaries (continued).

-_. Placement Crack Overall Bff.ctiveness(%) Over Time (months)

Material Rcp# Confi_ation Prep Procedure 0 1 3 8 11 17 29 40 53 69 77 Hi·Socc 1 Sid R.oervoir-and-FJu.h Wirebrush. Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.3 88.8 59.8 53.4

Hi-Socc 2 Sid R.oervoir-and·FJu.h Wirebrush. Airblut 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.3 88.5 88.5 88.3 88.3 77.8 51.0 43.0

AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.5 94.1 94.1 94.0 93.8 83.3 55.4 48.2

Hi·Socc 1 Sid R.servoir-and-FJu.h Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.1 97.7 73.4 58.1 49.2

Hi-Spec 2 Sid R.oervoir-and-FJu.h Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.0 90.0 63.6 53.0

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.4 98.4 81.7 60.9 51.1

Hi-Spec 1 Sid R.cessed Band-Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.1 98.5 86.5 72.5 68.8

Hi·Spec 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblut 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.6 99.8 99.8 99.7 98.9 89.2 84.8

AVR 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.8 99.5 99.1 92.7 80.9 76.8

Hi-Spec 1 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.6 99.5 97.8 89.4 85.1

Hi-Socc 2 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 99.6 95.0 85.2 80.8

AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.5 96.4 87.3 82.9

Hi-Spec 1 Silmle Band-Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.4 84A 84.2 73.4 68.9 35.1 24.2 --- Hi-Spec 2 Silmle Band-Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 99.8 99.8 98.1 98.0 97.9 97.6 95.9 53.6 29.9 ._-

Avg 100.0 99.9 99.9 91.2 91.2 91.1 85.5 82.4 44.4 27.1 _.- Hi-Socc 1 SimDle Band-Aid Conv Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.2 90.2 90.2 87.5 82.5 37.1 28.0 ... Hi·Spec 2 Silmle Band·Aid Conv Airblast 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.0 98A 98.4 98A 93.6 55.5 19.7 ... Avrz 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.6 94.3 94.3 92.9 88.0 46.3 23.8 ... RS 515 1 Sid Recessed Band·Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 98.5 93.1 92.4

RS515 2 Sid Recessed Band·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 96.8 95.1

AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.1 95.0 93.7

RS515 1 Shallow Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.7 97.4 94.9 93.1

RS515 2 Shallow R_dBand·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.5 89.0 88.9 88.3 87.9 81.7 78.5 76.1

Avrz 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.7 93.9 93.8 93.5 93.3 89.5 86.7 84.6

RS515 1 SimDle Band-Aid Hot Airblut 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.2 84.2 84.2 83.9 83.3 48.7 35.5 ... RS515 2 Simple Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.5 92.0 92.0 91.8 90.4 84.3 38.8 ..- AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 88.4 88.1 88.1 87.9 86.8 66.5 e.-W '-'

._.9030 1 Sid Recessed Band·Aid Hot Airblast ---. _100.0 100.0 100.0 98.1 98.1 98.1 ~,! 97.2 ~-'~ _32.1

9030 2 Sid Recessed Band·Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 99.1 99.1 99.1 98.5 -959 94.4 90.9

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.3 96.6 94.1 91.5

9030 1 Shallow Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 98.9 97.4 96.4 93.9

9030 2 Shallow R_dBand·Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.2 98.7 94.6 93.8

AvfI. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.0 98.0 95.5 93.8

9030 1 Silmle Band·Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.1 94.0 94.0 94.0 90.9 80.5 49.6 .-.

9030 2 SimDle Band·Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.9 81.9 81.9 81.6 80.6 72.1 40.7 .-- Avr. 100.0 100.0 100.0 88.0 87.9 87.9 87.8 85.8 76.3 45.1 --. XLM 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.6 98.7 95.9

XLM 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.6 98.6 96.8 95.1 93.5

AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.2 99.2 99.1 98.2 96.9 94.7

XLM 1 Shallow R......d Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.1 95.0 94.0

XLM 2 Shallow R......d Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 94.8 93.8

Avrz 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.7 94.9 93.9

XLM 1 Simple Band·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 97.2 85.9 63.5 41.3

XLM 2 Simple Band-Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.5 98.5 98A 95.9 72.8 49.6 36.1

Avr. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.3 98.9 96.6 79.4 56.6 38.7

B-Fiber 1 Simple Band·Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 67.3 66.5 65.6 49.9 42.3 17.1 ._. "-

B·Fiber 2 Silmle Band-Aid Hot Airbwt 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.3 81.3 79.5 76.2 54.0 10.8 ... ._.

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 74.8 73.9 72.6 63.1 48.1 13.9 _.. ._-

890-SL 1 De." Reservoir·and·R.cess SandfAirblast. Back Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.7 91.1 90.7 86.4 84.8 76.4 68.1 64.1

890-SL 2 Deep Reservoir-and-R.cess SandiAirblast. Back Rod 100.0 99.7 99.7 95.7 95.4 95.0 92.4 90.9 87.6 81.4 78.0

Avrz 100.0 99.9 99.9 94.2 93.3 92.8 89.4 87.8 82.0 74.8 71.\

CRS-2P 1 Fluah-FiU Conv Airblast 100.0 96A 96A 0.3 ._. --. --- -_. --- --- ._-

CRS-lP 2 FJu.h-FiU Conv Airblast 100.0 96.2 94A 0.0 .- --. ... -_. -.- --- --- Aw 100.0 96.3 95A 0.1 -- '" .-- .- --' ..- '"
W-'I

Table D-2. Wichita, KS adverse-conditions crack treatment performance summaries.

r-- aoemeDl Crac ~!Jton o/ftcUve",•• (%) Jver nne (moo Cob"lOD ;/ft

~1·aterial Rell# Configuration Prep Procedure 0 2 3 10 rb' 18 31 42 SS 68 79 0 2 3 10 

, iI; ,pec I Sid R...rvoir-and-f1115h HOI Airblaot 100.0 100.0 - 98.2 97.9 97.9 94.9 47.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

,k,oec 2 Std Reservoir-and-Auoh HOI Airblaot 100.0 100.0 963 9S.5 9S.0 86.5 84.6 S2.0 NlA N/A NlA N/A N

Avg 100.0 100.0 97.2 96.7 96.4 89.8 49.6 - --- N/A N/A N/A N/A N

Hi-Spec I SId Reomed Band-Aid HOI Airblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 98.5 983 - 97.2 66.1 543 42.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

lIi:Spec 2 Sid Rece...d Band-Aid HOI Airblaot 100.0 100.0 - 99.8 99.8 99.8 98.6 97.9 86.5 70.8 S8.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 99.2 99.2 99.0 - 97.6 763 62.6 SO.5 N/A N/A NlA N/A 

Hi·Soec I Sha110w Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 - 993 78.9 7S.5 69.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Spec 2 Shallow Rece.sed Band-Aid Hot Airblaot 100.0 100.0 - 98.9 98.9 98.9 983 97.8 92.2 8\.0 675 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 99.4 99.4 99.4 - 98.6 8S5 783 68.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi-Spec I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblaot N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A 100.0 I 100.0 100.0 97.2 

Hi-Spec 2 Simple Re"""d Band-Aid Hot Airblaot N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 - 9\.7 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 - 94.4 

Hi-Spec I Simple Recesoed Band-Aid Conv Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 9S3 

Hi-Soec 2 Simt>le Rece.oed Band-Aid Conv Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA 100.0 100.0 - 68.2 

Av~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 - 8\.8 

RS SIS I Shallow Rece.sed Band-Ai~ HOlAirblut 100.0 100.0 - 99.7 99.5 99.5 - 99.5 82.7 74.4 65.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

. RS SIS 2 Shallow Rece.sed Band-Aid HOlAirbiut 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.5 99..5 97.8 97.6 96.2 82.6 743 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 --- 99.7 99.S 99.S -- 98.S 89.5 78.S 70.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS SIS I Simvle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 893 

RS SIS 2 Simvle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 - 85.4 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 - 87.4 

9030 I Shallow Rece.oed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 93.5 93.4 - 9\.0 84.5 78.1 - N/A N/A N/A N/A 

9030 2 Shallow Rece.oed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 - 99.2 99.1 99.0 97.9 96.6 91.7 7\.6 66.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 96.8 96.3 96.2 - 93.8 88.1 74.9 - NlA N/A N/A N/A 

9030 I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 - 7\.4 

9030 2 Simple Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA 100.0 100.0 - 55.1 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 -- 63.3 

XLM I Shallow Rece.oed Band·Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 --- 96.7 96.4 96.3 --. 9S.5 8S.3 74.8 - N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM 2 Shallow Rece.oed Band-Aid HOI Airblaol 100.0 100.0 - 8S5 8S.I 8S.3 83.7 83.7 73.4 62.8 - N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Av~ 100.0 100.0 91.1 90.7 90.8 -- 89.6 793 68.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM I Simple Recessed Band·Aid HOI Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 

98.7 

XLM 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid HOI Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 -- 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 -- 98.8 

B·Fiber 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 33.9 

B-Fiber 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblaol N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 4\.0 

r' Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A WA N/A 100.0 100.0 375 

89().SL I Std Reoervoir-and-Rece.. AirbwI. Back Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 99.8 91.5 91.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

R9fl.SL 2 Deep Reservoir-and-Rece•• Sand/Airblast. Back Tape 100.0 100.0 - 98.1 98.1 98.0 9S5 95.3 92.4 9\.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 99.0 99.0 99.0 - 97.6 92.0 9\.0 - N/A N/A N/A N/A 

AR+ I Sid Reoe...d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 I 99.8 98.9 65.6 S3.8 43.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

AR+ 2 Sid Reoe...d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 - 98.8 98.8 98.6 97.2 96.9 74.2 64.2 5\.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.2 -- 97.9 69.9 59.0 47.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

C(~ln·s 1 Std Reoe...d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 --- 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 70.7 54.1 43.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

')iHI.S 2 Sid Rece...d Band-Aid HolAirbiast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.0 86.2 65.5 SO.O NlA N/A NlA N/A 

An 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 78.5 59.8 465 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
...-

U-i

oc

Table D-2. Wichita, KS adverse-conditions crack treatment performance summaries (continued

~··-T"--,--"'1Ita<>eme;;;;=DI'--;---""""~d<r---;-------"""IlU1J=I·-Onl":.lt"'!iffe<:tive==::'DOM=71(%1"'1):"1'C>ve~i,=:"I'!DDO='=(IOO~O=ndJ~------""-----~Ild"""I!l'''''')e'''tte''''n'''0I~a'''lJO=n-hrr,e'"euv=e

Matcrial Rell # ConfilmI3tion PteD Procedute 0 2 3 10 12 18 31 42 SS 68 79 0 2 3 10 12 

Hi-SIlOC 1 Sid Reservoir-and-flush HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 SId Reservoir-and-flush Hot Airblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 

Hi-SIlOc 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-SIlOC 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 1 Sha1low Reoessed Band-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.6 

Hi-Spec 2 Sha1lowRece.sedBand-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.1 98.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

~~-~~~-~~~~~~-~~~ 

Hi-Spec 1 Simple RecesoedBand-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 - 98.8 97.9 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 SimIlIe Recessed Band-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

- - - - - 

Hi-Spec 1 Simple Rece.sed Band-Aid Cony Aitb1aot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 SimIlIe Rece.oed Band-Aid Conv Aitblaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.1 9S.8 94.1 - - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

- - - - - 1~ 

RS SIS 1 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 

RS 515 2 Sha1low Rece.sed Band-Aid HOIAirblaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 99.9 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 --- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 --- 100.0 100.0 

RS SIS 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Aitblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RS SIS 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hoi Airblaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.0 - - 100_0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 99.9 995 --- - 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 

9030 1 Sha1low Rece.sed Band-Aid HOI Aitblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 98.8 97.0 96.9 96.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

0030 2 Shallow Rece.sed Band-Aid Hot Alrblaot 100.0 100.0 --- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 

_ Avg 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 99.4 985 98.4 98.4 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 

9030 1 SimIJIe Rece.oed Band-Aid Hot Aitblaot 100.0 100.0 --- 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 99.7 - - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

9030 2 SimIJIe Recessed Band-Aid HotAirblaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.6 905 -- - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 98.8 95.1 - - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

XLM 1 Sha1low Rece.sed Band-Aid HotAitbiaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 9\.8 80.3 79.9 - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

XLM 2 Sha1low Re,.".sed Band-Aid Hoi Aitblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.4 82.4 80.0 76.6 76.4 - 100.0 100.0 --- 99.7 99.7 

AVl 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 9\.2 ..- 8S.9 785 78.1 -- 100.0 100.0 --- 99.9 99.9 

XLM 1 Simple Rece.sed Band-Aid Hot Aitblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 -- 9S.9 9\.4 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

XLM 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblaot 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.6 97.2 97.0 - - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 99.9 99.9 99.8 -- 96.6 94.2 - - 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

B-Fibe, 1 SimIlIe Recessed Band-Aid HotAirbiaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 79.3 76.6 

B-Fibe, 2 SimIlIeReoessedBand-Aid HolAirbiaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - -- - 100.0 100.0 -- 74.3 705 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0 - 76.8 73.6 

89D-SL 1 Sid Reservoir-and-Recess Aitblasl, Back Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.6 87.1 85.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 885 87.7 

89D-SL 2 \)eep Re..rvo;'-and-Rece.. SaMlAitblasl, Bad< Tape 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 9S.1 84.0 83.1 100.0 100.0 91.8 91.1 

W - 1~ - 

AR+ 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid HolAitbiaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 

AR+ 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid HotAirbiaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

9000-S 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblaot 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

')O(~-S 2 Sid ReoessedBancl-Aid HotAirblut 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 995 99.4 99.4 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 

_ ~~ ~~~ ~m~~~~-~~~ 
I--'

UJ

1.0

Table D-2. Wichita, KS adverse-conditions crack treatment performance summaries (contin

Yla",melll Crack Overall ee:t1Vene.. (~) ver IIIIC montlll)

Malerial Rep' ConJigmation PreP Procedure 0 2 3 10 12 18 31 42 55 68 

Hi-Spec I Sid R.""rvoir-md-A...b Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 -. 98.2 97.9 97.9 .- 94.2 43.6 

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Re..rvoir-md-A...b Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 96.2 95.9 95.7 84.9 82.0 44.6

Avg 100.0 100.0 ._- 97.2 96.9 96.8 -.. 88.1 44.1 ... 

HI·Spec 1 Sid Re",...d Band-Aid Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 98.5 98.3 - 96.2 63.7 48.3 

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Re",ssed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 -- 99.8 99.8 99.8 98.1 97.4 82.9 66.5 

Avg 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 99.0 -- 96.8 73.3 57.4 

Hi,Sllec 1 Sballow Re",.""d Band-Aid Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.5 99.5 98.9 74.9 70.9 

Hi·Spec 2 Shallow R.",.""d Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 98.9 98.9 98.9 97.9 97.4 90.3 78.9 

Avg 100.0 100.0 ... 99.3 99.2 99.2 - 98.1 82.6 74.9 

Hi-Spec 1 SimPe Re",...d Band-Aid Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.9 96.5 96.5 - 87.5 19.0 _. 

Hi-Spec 2 SimP. Re",...d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 91.1 91.1 91.1 78.3 n.2 20.1 - 

Avg 100.0 100.0 94.0 93.8 93.8 - 82.3 19.6 - 

Hi-Spec 1 Simple Re",.""d Band-Aid Conv Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.3 95.1 95.0 - 88.6 25.7 - 

Hi·Spec 2 SimPe Re""""d Band-Aid Conv Ailblasl 100.0 98.4 -- 66.7 66.1 66.3 54.9 53.0 13.2 - 

AVR 100.0 99.2 81.0 80.6 80.6 - 70.8 19.4 - 

RS515 1 Sballow Re",.""d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.5 99.2 98.9 81.3 72.4 

RS515 2 Sballow Re""""d Band-Aid Hoi Airblasl 100.0 100.0 - 99.7 99.6 99.6 97.7 97.3 95.6 81.5 

Avg 100.0 100.0 -.- 99.7 99.5 99.4 - 98.1 88.5 n.o 

RS515 1 Simllie Re""""d Band-Aid Hoi Airblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 893 89.3 893 - 88.5 16.9 - 

RS515 2 Simllie Re",...d Band-Aid Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 - 85.4 85.4 85.4 81.3 813 46.4 - 

Avo 100.0 100.0 - 87.4 87.4 87.4 - 84.9 31.7 - 

9030 1 Sballow Re""""d Band-Aid Hoi Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 93.6 93.4 - 90.8 76.6 61.4 

9030 2 Shallow Re",.~ Band-Aid Hoi Airblasl 100.0 100.0 _. 99.2 99.1 99.0 97.9 96.6 91.3 71.3 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 96.8 96.4 96.2 - 93.7 84.0 66.3 

9030 1 SimPe Re",...d Band-Aid HolAIbiasl 100.0 100.0 - 71.4 71.3 71.3 - 67.8 25.7 - 

9030 2 Simllie Re",.""d Band-Aid Hot Nrblasl 100.0 100.0 55.1 55.1 55.! 47.5 46.3 2.S 

Avg 100.0 100.0 - 63.3 63.2 63.2 - 57.0 14.1 - 

XLM 1 Sballow Re~ Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 -- 96.5 96.4 96.3 - 87.2 66.8 54.1 

XLM 2 Sballow Re~Band·Aid Hoi Airblasl 100.0 100.0 - 85.2 84.8 84.8 6S.5 63.1 51.6 38.2 

Avo 100.0 100.0 90.9 90.6 90.5 -- 75.1 59.2 46.1

XLM 1 Simllie R.",...d Band·Aid Hoi Airblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.3 97.7 97.7 - 88.3 26.0 _. 

XLM 2 SimPe Re""""d Band·Aid HotAIbiast 100.0 100.0 - 98.3 98.2 96.9 94.1 91.7 46.9 - 

Avg 100.0 100.0 ... 98.3 98.0 97.3 - 90.0 36.5 - B·Fiber 1 SimPe Re""""d Band·Aid Hot Airblaot 100.0 100.0 100.0 33.9 32.8 30.0 - 14.4 - - 

B·Fiber 2 SimPe Re""""d Band·Aid Hot Airblaot 100.0 100.0 -- 41.0 38.9 35.1 6.4 1.6 - - 

AVR 100.0 100.0 - 37.5 35.9 32.6 - 8.0 .- - 89C-SL 1 Sid Re..rvoir·and·Re",.. Airblas~ Bact Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 87.8 87.0 87.2 - 76.8 53.7 47.9 

89C-SL 2 Deep ReseIVoir·and-Re",.. San<VAirbI.. Bact Tape 100.0 100.0 89.9 89.2 88.6 68.5 60.8 49.9 44.9

Avo 100.0 100.0 - 88.8 88.1 87.9 - 68.8 51.8 46.4 

AR+ 1 Sid Re",...d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8 98.6 63.8 50.6 

AR+ 2 Sid Re",...d Band-Aid Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 98.8 98.8 98.8 97.2 96.8 73.5 63.2 

Avo 100.0 100.0 993 99.3 99.3 97.7 68.7 56.9 

9000-S 1 Std Re",.sed Band-Aid Hoi Airblast 100.0 100.0 ... 99.9 99.9 100.0 98.9 66.8 49.5 

9000-S 2 Sid R~Bmd-Aid HotAIbiast 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 97.5 83.8 62.2 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2 753 55.9 
-

Table D-3. Wichita, KSideal-conditions crack treatment performance summaries.

..• 

l'I.cemeDl oack cIbe.,oo ifftCti\'euess (~1 ~r lIDO mon ) obeSlOO ;ffeC\

~1'1eria1 Rep' Configara!ion Jnp Procedure 0 2 3 10 12 18 31 42 55 68 19 0 2 3 10 12 

.Hi.Spec 1 Sid Reservoir-ood-flam HotAirbl" 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.1 95.3 94.4 81.4 80.2 15.5 .- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

-'.!i-Spec 2 Sid Reoervoir-md-flam HolAirbl" 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2 91.9 91.1 _. 96.1 36.9 -- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 ;} 96.6 96.1 -- 88.5 26.2 - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

Hi-Spec I Sid Recessed Bood-Aid HolAirbl" 100.0 100.0 100.0 .1 98.6 98.6 96.1 94.3 67.9 51.1 41.1 NlA N/A NlA N/A N/

Hi-Spec 2 SId ReeesoedBood-Aid HolAirbl.. 100.0 100.0 lOOK 99.9 99.8 99.8 98.5 81.3 11.3 53.4 NlA N/A NlA N/A N/

AVR 100.0 100.0 AtlO.O 99.3 99.2 99.2 96.4 14.6 64.2 41.3 NlA N/A NlA N/A N/

Hi-SIleC 1 Sba1low Reoesoed BaDd-Aid HoIAirbl.. 100.0 10M" 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 81.2 15.3 65.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

Hi-Spec 2 Sba1low Reoesoed BaDd-Aid HoIAirbl.. 100.0 vroo.O 100.0 98.9 98.6 98.6 - 96.6 51.1 43.9 41.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

Avr. 1~ 100.0 100.0 99.4 993 993 - 98.1 li9.5 59.6 53.9 NlA N/A N/A NlA N/

Hi·Spec I Simlie Reoesoed BaDd·Aid HoI AirblO!l NtA NlA N/A NlA NlA N/A N/A NlA NlA N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 83.5 82

Hi-Spec 2 S_e Reoesoed BaDd-Aid HotAirbiut NlA NlA NlA NlA N/A NlA NlA N/A NlA NlA NlA 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.0 ll4.

Avo NlA NlA NlA NlA N/A NlA NlA NlA NlA N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.2 83

Hi-Spec 1 Simple Reoesoed BaDd-Aid Conv Airblut NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 86.1 83

Hi-SlleC 2 Smde Reoeaed BIJd.Aid Conv Airblut NlA N/A N/A NlA NlA NlA N/A NlA NlA NlA NlA 100.0 100.0 100.0 12.6 12

Avo NlA NlA NlA N/A NlA N/A N/A NlA NlA N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 19.3 18

RS515 I Sba1low Reoesoed BaDd·AJd HotAirbiut 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8 98.4 98.2 91.1 82.6 15.2 NlA N/A NlA N/A N/

RS515 2 Sba1l"", Reoesoed BaDd·AJd HotAirbl.. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.4 81.9 80.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 -- 99.1 93.5 85.2 18.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

RS515 1 Simlie Recesoed BaDd-Aid HolAirbl.. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.4 95

RS515 2 Simde Reoesoed BaDd-Aid HotAirbl.. N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A NlA NlA N/A NlA 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.3 65

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.3 80

9030 1 Sba1low Reoesoed BaDd-Aid HoI Airbll5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 93.5 93.3 92.3 91.1 83.9 16.1 60.8 NlA N/A N/A N/A Nl

9030 2 Shallow Recesoed BaDd-Aid HoI Airbll5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.6 95.3 95.1 --- 93.1 86.5 11.1 69.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.0 94.4 94.2 - 92.1 85.2 16.9 65.1 N/A N/A NlA N/A N/

9030 I Simlie Recesoed BaDd·Aid HolAirbl.. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 51.0 51

9030 2 Simde Rece...d BaDd-Aid HoI Airbll5l N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 14.8 14

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 62.9 62

XLM 1 Shallow Rece.oed BaDd·Aid HoI Airbl.. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 99.5 94.1 16.8 68.1 NlA N/A N/A N/A N/

XLM 2 Sba1low Reeesoed BaDd-Aid HoI Airbll5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.8 98.8 98.8 - 96.1 86.9 12.1 51.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.3 -- 91.8 90.5 14.8 62.1 N/A NlA N/A N/A N/

XLM I Simde Rece...d BaDd-Ald HolAirbl" NlA N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 15.9 12

XLM Simple Rece...d BaDd-Ald Hot Airbll5l N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 86.1 86

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.0 19

B·Fiber 1 Simvle Rece...d BaDd-Ald HoI Airbll5l N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 39.1 31

Simde Rece...d BaDd·Ald N/A 100.0 100.0 46.4 

B·Fiber 2 HolAirbl" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 43

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 42.1 40

89O-SL 1 Deep Reservoir-aDd·Recess San<VAiIbIast, Back Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 i 99.8 99.2 91.8 81.8 11.6 163 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

89O-SL 2 Deep Reservoir-aDd-Recess San<VAiIbIast, Back Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 ._- 98.9 94.9 93.5 91.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.1 -- 98.4 883 85.5 83.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

AR+ 1 Std Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airbll5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.7 I 99.6 91.1 95.2 78.7 72.1 58.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

AR+ 2 Std Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airbll5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 -. 98.4 86.2 82.1 68.6 NlA N/A N/A N/A N/

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 I 99.7 96.8 82.5 11.4 63.5 N/A IN/A N/A N/A N/

90CJ0.S 1 Std Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airbll5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.1 96.9 93.4 86.8 70.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

90CJ0.S 2 Sid Reoessed Band-AJd HoI Airbll5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.1 83.2 76.7 54.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

AVR 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 98.3 883 8\.8 62.0 NlA N/A N/A N/A N/
.......

+::-

.......

Table D-3. Wichita, KS ideal-conditions crack treatment performance summaries (continued)

I'lacemelll era"" lUI-Out :lIe<:lM:oess (%) I )YOr nne monll: ) Il<I2e .JelUioralJOn bi

Malerial Rep # ConfiRUr.\tiOll PreD Procedure 0 2 3 10 12 18 31 42 55 68 79 0 2 3 10 12 

Hi-Spec I Std Reoervoir-and-Flnsh Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.5 97.6 

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Reservoir-and-Flush Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 98.7 

Hi-Spec I Sid RecesoedBand-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 985 985 98.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Hi-Spec 2 Sid ReoessedBand-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Hi-Spec I Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 97.8 97.8 97.5 97.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Hi-Spec 2 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 98.9 98.9 98.7 98.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.

Hi-Spec I Simple Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2 98.2 97.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.

Hi-Spec 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Hi-Spec I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Conv Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Hi-Spec 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Conv Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

RS515 I Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

RSSl5 2 Shallow Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

RS515 I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

RS515 2 Simple Recesoed Band-Aid Hoi Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

9030 I Shallow Reoesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

9030 2 Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

9030 I Simple Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 

9030 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 97.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 

XLM I Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 

XLM 2 Shallow Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 

XLM I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 94.2 85.7 61.8 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

XLM 2 Simple Recesoed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 995 99.5 - 99.5 99.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 --- 92.6 805 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

B-Fiber I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.2 96.

B-Fiber 2 Simple RecesoedBand-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.3 93.4 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.2 95.0 

89().SL I DeeD Reoervoir-and-Recess SaneVAirblast, Baek Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.4 96.3 96.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 95.9 94.

89().SL 2 Deep Reservoir-and-Recess SaneVAirblast, Baek Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.8 96.7 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 98.2 98.1 98.0 100.0 . 99.9 99.9 96.4 95.

AR+ I Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 995 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

AR+ 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

QOO().S I Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hoi Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

QOOO-S 2 Std RecessedBand-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avr. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

'-,-
I--'

.j::o.

tv

Table D-3. Wichita, KS ideal-conditions crack treatment performance summaries (continued

I'la<emem Crack JVeraJI tcliVene!S (..,) rver nne momru

Material Rep # Ccofignralion PreP Procedlm 0 2 3 10 12 18 31 42 55 68 79

Hi-Spec 1 Sid Reoervoir-and-A..h HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.8 93.7 92.8 78.1 74,4 15.4 - - Hi-Spec 2 Sid Reoervoir-and-Amh HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.0 97.8 97.3 - 95.7 32.2 -- - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.4 95.7 95.1 - 85.1 23.8 - ..

Hi-SIlOC 1 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.6 98.6 96.1 94.2 66.2 S4.5 38

Hi-SIlec 2 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.2 99.6 98.0 80.6 70.5 52

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 98.9 99.1 96.1 73.4 62.5 45

Hi-Spec 1 Shallow Recesoed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 97,4 83.5 72.0 62

Hi-Spec 2 Shollow Recessed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 98.6 98.6 - 96,4 51.5 43.7 4\

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99,4 99.3 99.3 - 96.9 67.5 57.8 51

Hi-Spec 1 SimIlle Recessed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.5 81.3 8\.0 68,4 63.3 3.1 - - Hi-Spec 2 SimIlle Recesoed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 84.0 83.6 83.5 - 82.6 2.3 - - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 83.2 82.5 82.2 - 72.9 2.7 - - Hi-Spec 1 Simple R..,..sed Band-Aid Conv Ailblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.7 83.1 83.\ 79.9 68.2 8.6 - - Hi-Spec 2 SimIlle Recesoed Band-Aid Conv Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 72.0 73.6 71.2 - 69.6 2.3 - - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 78.9 78.3 77.1 68.9 5,4 - - RS 515 1 Shollow Re......d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8 98.4 98.1 91.6 82.6 75

RS515 2 Shollow Re......d Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 93.3 85.9 77

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 - 98.9 92,4 84.2 76

RS515 1 SimIlle Rece...d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.3 95.9 95.9 95.3 94.3 56.3 - - RS515 2 SimIlle Re......d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 65.9 65.4 65,4 - 64.9 6.9 - - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.1 80.6 80.6 - 79.6 31.6 ..- - 9030 1 Shollow Re.....d Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 94.0 93.3 92.3 91.1 83.2 75.\ 59

9030 2 Shallow Re......d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.2 95.0 95.1 ..- 93.1 84.4 75.3 67

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 94.8 94.5 94.2 - 92.1 83.8 75.2 63

9030 1 SimIlle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 99.8 99.8 51.0 51.0 5\.0 46.9 46.6 11.1 - - 9030 2 Sbnllle Rece...d Band-Aid HotAlrbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 74.7 74.7 74.7 74.0 36.0 - _.

Avg 100.0 99.9 99.9 62.8 62.8 62.8 -- 60.3 23.6 ..- XLM 1 Shollow Re.....d Band-Aid Hot Alrblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 98.7 98.6 92.2 74.7 66

XLM 2 Shollow Recesoed Band-Aid HotAlrbiasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 98.6 98.5 - 95.7 86..5 72.5 56

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.2 - 97.\ 89.3 73.6 61

XLM 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid HotAlrblalJl 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.8 72.5 71.5 64.5 62.7 10.2 ..- XLM 2 SimIlle Re<105oed Band-Aid HotAlrbiasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 85.2 85.2 85.1 - 82.7 14.0 - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 80.5 78.9 78.3 --- 72.7 12.\ -" - B-Fiber 1 SimIlle Recesoed Band-Aid HotAirblalJl 100.0 100.0 100.0 39.1 37.9 37.7 21.4 15.9 - ..- - B-Fiber 2 SimIlle Recesoed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 46.7 43.7 42.0 - 31.9 - ..- - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 42.9 40.8 39.8 23.9

890-SL 1 DeeD Reservolr-and-Recess San<VAirbIa5l, Bacl: Rod 100.0 99.8 99.8 95.8 93.8 92.6 81.5 75.3 58.8 SC.3 45

89ll-SL 2 Deep R...rvoir-and-Reoess San<VAirbIa.~ Bacl: Rod 100.0 99.2 99.2 96.0 96.0 95.5 - 84.8 70.3 63.8 57

Avg 100.0 99.5 99.5 95.9 94.9 94.1 - 80.1 64.5 57.0 51

AR+ 1 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.7 99.6 96.0 94.0 55.1 47.5 34

AR+ 2 SldR.......dBand-Aid HotAirbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 - 98,4 60.9 55.8 43

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 993 99.7 ..- 96.2 58.0 5\.6 38

900ll-S 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbl..t 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.1 96.9 58.2 47.6 33

900ll-S 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 - 99.7 71,4 63.0 40

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 98.3 64.8 55.3 36
I-"

w

Table D-4. Abilene, TX crack treatment performance sununaries.

aoemeDt Crack ilheS"lD Effeeuveness (...) Over une (moDli ) Cohesion fleeu

Material Reo# Configuration PreD Procedure 0 2 3 10 12 18 33 44 57 69 82 0 2 3 10 12 

Hi-Spec 1 Std Reservoir-and-Rush Hot Airbl"" 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.1 91.5 91.5 96.8 95.1 SO.1 55.3 - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

IIi·SllOc 2 Std Reservoir·and-Rush HotAirblll!l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.1 98.6 98.4 11.4 49.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA 

Avo 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 983 983 91.1 91.0 16.1 523 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi·Snec 1 Std Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbl"" 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 983 903 81.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi·Snec 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbl"" 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.0 14.4 68.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.6 823 15.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Hi·Snec 1 Simae Rece...d Band·Aid Hot Airbl"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.

Hi.Suec 2 Simae Rece...d Band·Aid Hot Airbl"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.

Hi·Suec 1 siniDie Rece...d Band·Aid Cony AlIbI"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 

Hi-Spec 2 Simple Rece...d Band-Aid Cony AlIbI"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.5 

Avo N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.

RS515 1 Std Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblll!l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 98.5 96.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS515 2 Std Recessed Band-Aid HotAirblll!l 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.5 96.8 94.4 92.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 99.1 99.1 99.1 99.7 99.1 99.1 98.2 96.4 94.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS515 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbl"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

RS515 2 SimPle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

9030 1 Std RecessedBand-Aid HoI Airbl"" 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.4 93.6 90.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

9030 2 Std Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblast 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 96.6 94.2 93.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 91.5 93.9 91.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

9030 1 Simae Recessed Band·Aid Hot Airbl"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

9030 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

XLM 1 Std Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 95.5 88.5 82.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM 2 Sid Renessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.2 99.2 98.4 98.2 90.1 82.1 19.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.6 99.1 99.0 92.8 85.3 81.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

XLM 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbl"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.

XLM 2 Simple Recessed Band·Aid Hot Airblast N/A N/A NlA N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 993 

B-Fiber 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblast NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.2 59.

B·Fiber 2 Simple Recessed Band·Aid HoI Airbl"" N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 55.6 49.9 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 60.9 54.

89O-SL 1 DeeD Reservoir·and·Recess SancVAlIbIast, Back Rod 100.0 100.0 993 98.8 91.0 95.4 92.8 83.3 14.0 69.9 68.1 l!(/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

89O-SL 2 DeeD Reservoir·and·Reoess SancVAilbIast, Bact Rod 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.1 98.4 91.7 95.9 90.6 88.5 84.2 12.4 NlA N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avo 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.1 91.1 96.5 94.4 87.0 813 71.0 70.2 N/A NlA N/A N/A N/A 
-t

Table D-4. Abilene, TX crack treatment performance summaries (continued).

YJacemelll Crac:i< lIlI.Qut IIeCUYeJ "(""J Mr DIIO(lDOllllJ CQJle . JetenotatlOn t>n

Material Rep' Coofiguralion Prell Procedare 0 2 3 10 12 18 33 44 57 69 82 0 2 3 10 12 

Hi-Spec I Sid Reservoir-and-Hosh Hal AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 SidReservoir-and-HlISb Hot AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 

Av'l. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Svec I Sid RecessedBand-Aid Hot AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hal AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-SIlOC I Simple Rece...d Band-Aid Hot AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 Simple Rece...d Band-Aid Hal Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 1 Simple Rece...d Band-Aid Catv AiJt>105l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Hi-Spec 2 SlrDpie Rece..d Band-Aid ConvAlltllul 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.1 99.1 99.1 99.1 99.0 .- - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AVI 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.5 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RSSIS I Sid Recessed Band-Aid HolAirhlul 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RS515 2 Sid Rece...d Band-Aid HotAirNast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RS515 I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hal Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

RS515 2 Simple Rece.sed Band-Aid Hal AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avlt 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

9030 I Sid Recesoed Band-Aid Hal AirhlO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 995 

9030 2 Sid Rece.sed Band-Aid Hal Airhlast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 

9030 1 Simple Recesoed Band-Aid Hal AirhlO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

9030 2 SIrDr>le Rece...d Band-Aid Hot AirhlO5l 100.0 97.1 97.1 95.7 95.7 95.7 95.7 95.7 95.7 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 98.6 98.6 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 97.9 - -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

XLM I Sid Rece...d Band-Aid Hal Ail:N05l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 

XLM 2 Sid Rece.sed Band-Aid Hal AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.9 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 

XLM I Simple Rece...d Band-Aid Hal AirblO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 

XLM 2 Simple Rece...d Band-Aid Hal Ail:Nast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.5 99.5 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.7 - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 

B-Fiber I Simple Rece.sed Band-Aid HolAirN05l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.8 -- - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 

B-Fiber 2 Simple Rece...d Band-Aid Hot AirhlO5l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - - - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.8 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 I 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 

890-5L 1 Deep Reservoir-and-ReceS5 SancVAiJt>1a!l, Bact Rod 100.0 100.0 96.4 96.4 96.04 97.3 96.9 90.4 88.8 8M 86.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.1 91.8 

89D-SL 2 Deep Reoervoir-and-ReceS5 sancVAirbIasl. Bact Rod 100.0 99.5 99.2 99.2 I 99.2 995 995 99.2 97.4 94.0 93.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 %.2 98.0 

AV'I. 100.0 99.7 97.8 97.8 97.8 98.4 98.2 94.8 93.1 90.2 90.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.7 94.9 
I-'>

.j:>.

VI

Table D-4. Abilene, TX crack treatment perfonnance summaries (continued).

I'I1<lemeDl Crack man ec:l1VeDeSS ('lb) ( Fyer one (m00lbl

Material Rep' C<IIfWuation !'Iep Procecbe 0 2 3 10 12 18 33 44 57 (fJ 82

Hi-Spec 1 Sid Reoenoir-and-R1I5h Hot Airblasl 100_0 100.0 100.0 98.1 rn5 rn5 96.4 95.0 77.0 51.0

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Reoenoir-and-RU5h Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9 98.9 985 98.4 71.1 48.6 - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.0 98.2 98.2 rn5 96.7 74.0 49.8

Hi-Spec 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 95.1 84.4 75

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 88.4 73.1 65.

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 91.7 78.7 70.

Hi-Spec 1 SimPle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 91.0 86.0 24.8 - - Hi-Spec 2 SimPle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 96.1 92.2 245 - - Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 935 89.1 24.7 - - Hi-Spec 1 SimPle Recessed Band-Aid Ccnv AiIblasl 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 98.6 98.6 85.6 76.6 16.0 - - Hi-Spec 2 Simple R.."...d Band-Aid Ccnv AiIblasl 100.0 100.0 98.7 98.6 96.9 96.6 915 826 19.7 - - AVR 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 rn,7 rn.6 885 79.6 17.8 - -- RS515 1 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.4 96.9 91

RS515 2 Sid RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 995 995 995 99.5 995 995 95.9 927 90

Avg 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 rn.2 94.8 91.

RS515 1 Simple Reoesoed Band-Aid HOI Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 rn.7 rn.2 68.9 50.2 - RS515 2 SDnde Recessed Band-Aid HoI Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.6 73.4 48.4 - An 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 98.4 71.1 493 - 9030 1 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 995 99.5 995 995 rn.4 925 89

9030 2 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Alrbll!l 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 96.6 94.2 93

Avg 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 rn.o 93.4 91

9030 1 SimPle Reoesoed Band-Aid HOI Airbll!l 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 89.1 89.0 33.2 - - 9030 2 SimPle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 rn.1 rn,1 95.7 95.7 95.7 87.9 70.8 24.0 - - AVR 100.0 98.6 98.6 rn,9 rn.9 rn,9 885 79.9 28.6 - XLM 1 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 993 993 98.7 98.4 93.1 85.1 76

XLM 2 Sid Recesoed Band-Aid HoI Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.1 99.1 rn,7 rn.4 89.5 79.8 77

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.2 99.2 98.2 '/7.9 913 824 77

XLM 1 SimPle Recessed Band·Aid Hot Airblast 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 rn5 rn5 885 84.1 303 - - XLM 2 SimPle Recessed Band-Aid Hot Alrblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7 97.8 88.9 SO.2

Avg 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.4 98.6 98.6 93.2 86.S 40.2

B·Fiher 1 Simple R.."...d Band-Aid Hot Airblasl 100.0 100.0 100.0 66.2 59.7 59.7 SO.9 35.4 - -- B-Fiher 2 SDnde Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbll!l 100.0 100.0 99.7 55.8 SO.l 49.9 429 30.0 - - - AVR 100.0 100.0 99.9 61.0 54.9 54.8 46.9 327 - 89o-SL 1 DeeD ReseNoir-and-Reoeu SancVAiIb1asl, Bact Rod 100.0 100.0 95.7 927 86.7 83.8 813 61.6 520 426 40

890-5L 2 DeeD ReseNoir-mi-Reoeu SancVAiIb1asl, Bact Rod 100.0 995 99.2 rnA 95.7 943 915 85.6 81.4 70.1 56

Aft 100.0 99.7 rn5 95.1 91.2 89.0 86.4 73.6 66.7 S6.4 48
.....

Table D-5. Elma, WA crack treatment performance summaries.

Placemenl Crack Adhesion Effectiveness (%) Over Time (months) Cohesion Effe

Malerial Rep # Configuration Prep Procedure 0 1 3 9 13 18 31 44 48 0 1 3 

Hi-Spec 1 Sid Reservoir-and-Flush Hoi Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.913 N{A N{A N/A N

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Reservoir-and-Hush Hoi Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.957 N{A N/A N{A N

Hi-Spec I Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hal Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N/A N{A N

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid HOI Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N/A N{A N

Hi-Spec I Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblasl N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

Hi-Spec 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hal Airblast N{A N/A N{A N{A N/A N{A N/A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

Avg N{A N/A N{A N{A N/A N{A N/A N/A N{A 100 100 100 1

Hi-Spec 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Conv Airblast N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 99

iii-Spec 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Conv Airblast N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A N/A 100 100 100 1

Avg N{A N/A N{A N/A N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 99

RS 515 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hal Airblasl 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N/A N

RS515 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hal Airblasl 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

RS 515 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hal Airblast N/A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

RS 515 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hal Airblast N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N/A N/A N/A N{A 100 100 100 1

Avg N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

9030 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airbl&St 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N/A N

9030 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

--- 9030 I Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hal Airblasl N{A N{A N{A N{A 

N{A N{A N{A N{A N/A 100 100 100 1

9030 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

Avg N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

XLM I Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hal Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N/A N

XLM 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot AirbJast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

--- Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

XLM I Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hal Airblast N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

--·XLM 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hal Airblast N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

Avg N{A N{A N/A N/A N{A N{A N{A N/A N{A 100 100 100 1

B-Fiber I Simple Recessed Band-Aid HOI Airblast N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

."

B-Fiber 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hal Airblast N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A N/A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

AV8 N/A N/A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A N{A 100 100 100 1

890-SL I Deep Reservoir-and-Recess Sand/Airblast. Back Rod 100 99.566 99.566 99.566 99.566 99.566 99.479 99.219 99.132 N{A N{A N{A N

N{A 

890-SL 2 Deep Reservoir-and-Recess Sand/Airblast. Bact Rod 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N/A N{A N

--- Avg 100 99.783 99.783 99.783 99.783 99.783 99.74 99.609 99.566 N{A N{A N{A N

RS 211 I Std Recesssed Band-Aid Hal Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N{A N{A N

L:'S 211

2 Std Recesssed Band-Aid Hal Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N/A N/A N

Avf1. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 N{A N/A N/A N
.......

:!:i

Table D-5. Elma, WA crack treatment performance summaries (continued).

I ~.- Placement Crack Pull-Out Effectiveness (%) Over Time (months) Edge Deterioration E

I ~,~'"ial Rep II Configuration Prep Procedure 0 I 3 9 13 18 31 44 48 0 I 3 9 

IIi-Spec I Sid Reservoir-anel-Hush Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Reservoir-anel-Hush Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

~-- Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

- Hi-Spec I Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

f-1_1i_-S-,-p_ec-t--.:::2~I-_S_Id,-,Rc..ecc..c..ess-,-ed:..::..:::B-,-and::::.:::..:-Ai:.:·:.:d_+-_---=:H:.:.ot:..:Airb:.:·=:1ast'::":- __r--;Ii;;OOi;-+-~IOO;;;-+-~IOO;;;;-+-;I~OOi;-t-I;-;OO;;;-+-~IOO;;;;-+-;I~OO~t-I;-;OO~+-~IOO;;;;-+-;1~00~t-;-;100;;;-+-7100;;;;-

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

IIi-Spec I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.913 99.913 100 100 100 10

iii-Spec 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.957 99.957 100 100 100 10

_. Hi-Spec I Simple RecessedBand-Aid Conv Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Hi-Spec 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Conv Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

RS 515 I Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Alrblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

RS 515 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblut 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

RS 515 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.653 100 100 100 10

RS 515 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

1-- Avg 100 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.826 100 100 100 10

9030 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

9030 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

9030 I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

9030 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

XLM I Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

--XLM 2 Std Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

XLM I Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

XLM 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airb1ast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

B-Fiber 1 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.826 99.74 100 100 100 10

B-Fiber 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.826 99.826 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.826 99.783 100 100 100 10

890-SL 1 Deep Reservoir-and-Recess Sand/Airblast, Back Rod 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.566 99.566 99.2

890-SL 2 Deep Reservoir-and-Recess Sand/Airb1ast, Back Rod 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.783 99.783 99.6

RS 211 I Std Recesssed Band-Ald Hot Airb1ast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

RS 211 2 Std Recesssed Band-Aid Hot Airb1ast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10

L___ Avl(. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10
-

00

Table D-5. Elma, WA crack treatment performance summaries (continued).

Placemmt Crack Ovcnll Effectivmess (%) 0-Time (months)

Material Rep' Configuration Prep Procedure 0 I 3 9 13 18 31 44 

Hi-Spcc I Sid Reservoit-and-Flush Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 99.913 99.913 99.913 9

Hi-Spec 2 Sid Reservoit-and-Flush Hot Airblast 100 100 100 99.913 99.913 99.826 99.826 99.74 9

Avg 100 100 100 99.957 99.957 99.87 99.87 99.826 9

Hi-Spec 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Hi-Spcc 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Hi-Spcc 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.913 9

Hi-Spec 2 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.957 9

Hi-Spec 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Conv Airblast 100 100 100 99.913 99.306 99.219 97.743 81.597 8

Hi-Spcc 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Conv Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.392 9

Avg 100 100 100 99.957 99.653 99.609 98.872 90.495 9

RS515 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

RS515 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

RS515 1 Simple Recessed Band-AId Hot Airblast 100 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 99.74 9

RS51S 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Avg 100 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 99.87 9

9030 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

9030 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

9030 1 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.826 99.74 9

9030 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 10i) 100 100 100 100 100 

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.913 99.87 9

XLM 1 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

XLM 2 Sid Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 99.913 99.913 99.913 99.826 99.826 9

Avg 100 100 100 99.957 99.957 99.957 99.913 99.913 9

XLM 1 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.913 99.913 9

XLM 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 9

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.957 99.957 9

B-Rber 1 Simple RecessedBand-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.392 9

B-Rber 2 Simple Recessed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 98.51A 90.799 9

Avg 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.262 95.095 9

890-SL 1 Deep Reservoir-and-Recess Sand/Airblast. Back Rod 100 99.132 99.132 98.785 98.785 98.51A 98.09 97.569 9

890-SL 2 Deep Reservoit-and-Recess Sand/Airb1ast. Back Rod 100 100 100 100 99.74 98.785 98.264 98.003 9

Avg 100 99.566 99.566 99.392 99.262 98.655 98.177 97.786 9

RS211 1 SidRecesssed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

RS211 2 SidRecesssed Band-Aid Hot Airblast 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 

Avr. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
I--'

\0

Table D-6. Prescott, ON crack treatment performance summaries.

Placement Crad!: Adhesion Effectiveness (%) OverTime (months) Cohesion Effectivencss (

Material Rep II Confi~on PIep Procedu,., 0 1 3 6 10 15 26 38 50 63 0 1 3 6 10 

RS211 1 Capped Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.9 97.3 94.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

RS211 2 Capped Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.4 97.3 92.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 98.6 97.3 93.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

AC 1 Flush-Fill None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AC 2 Flush-Fill None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avl!, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AC 1 Flush-Fill Conv Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AC 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

CRF 1 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

CRF 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AR2 1 SimpleBand-Aid Cony Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AR2 2 Simple Band-Aid Cony Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avg N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AR2 1 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.2 97.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

AR2 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 98.5 %.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 98.8 %.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Fiber Pave I SimpleBand-Aid Cony Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Fiber Pave 2 SimpleBand-Aid Cony Airblast N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Avl!, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

KoldFlo 1 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.8 98.6 64.4 38.1 11.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

KoldFlo 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 98.0 95.6 73.0 39.4 5.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.4 97.1 68.7 38.8 8.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
I--'

Ul

o

Table D-6. Prescott, ON crack treatment performance summaries (continued).

Placement Crack Pull-OutEfIectivcness (%) OverTime (months) Edge Deterioration Effectivenes

Material Rep/; ConfiRUration Prep Procedu", 0 1 3 6 10 15 26 38 50 63 0 1 3 6 10 

RS211 1 Capped ConvAiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 98.6 98.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

RS211 2 Capped Cony AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.3 99.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

AC 1 Flush-Fill None 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 1

AC 2 Flush-Fill None 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 1

AvlT. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 1

AC 1 Flush-Fill Cony AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 1

AC 2 Flush-Fill Conv AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 

CRF 1 Flush-Fill Cony AiIbIast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

CRF 2 Flush-Fill Cony AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

AR2 1 Simple Band-Aid Cony AiIbIast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

AR2 2 SimpleBand-Aid Conv AiIbIast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

AvlT. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

AR2 1 Flush-Fill Conv AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 99.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AR2 2 Flush-Fill Cony AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

Avg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Fiber Pave 1 SimpleBand-Aid Cony AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

Fiber Pave 2 SimpleBand-Aid Conv AiIbIast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1

AvlT. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Kold Flo 1 Flush-Fill Conv AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Kold Flo 2 Flush-Fill Conv AiIblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 lOo.o 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

AVI; 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1
""""'

VI

""""'

Table D-6. Prescott, ON crack treatment performance summaries (continued).

Placement CIllCk Overall Effectiyeness (%) OverTime (months)

Material Rep II Configuration Prep Procedun: 0 1 3 6 10 15 26 38 50 63 -- 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.0 95.2 RS211 I Capped Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.4 81.0

RS 211 2 Capped Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 98.0 97.0 88.6

Ayg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.5 99.1 98.0 96.1 84.8

AC 1 Flush-Fill None 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 98.9 90.2 48.4 2.2

AC 2 Flush-Fill None 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 98.0 96.6 90.0 44.6 3.7

Ayl!. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 98.9 97.7 90.1 46.5 3.0

AC 1 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.5 96.3 86.6 45.7 4.2

AC 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.5 98.7 89.8 54.3 0.0

Ayg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.5 97.5 88.2 50.0 2.1

CRF 1 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 99.4 99.4 98.8 98.7 98.7 91.5 84.6 61.7 25.8

CRF 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 99.2 99.2 98.6 98.4 98.2 96.3 86.5 55.6 17.3

Ayl!. 100.0 99.3 99.3 98.7 98.5 98.4 93.9 85.5 58.7 21.6

AR2 1 SimpleBand-Aid Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.8 97.3 93.0

AR2 2 Simple Band-Aid Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 98.4 94.1

Ayg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 97.9 93.5

AR2 1 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 98.4 88.2

AR2 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 98.5 94.2

Ayg 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 98.4 91.2

FiberPaye 1 Simple Band-Aid Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.0 95.7 91.9 83.3

FiberPaye 2 Simple Band-Aid Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.3 96.7 95.5 88.8

Ayl!. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.1 96.2 93.7 86.1

KoldFlo 1 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.8 97.5 63.0 31.7 2.3

39.5 .. KoldFlo 2 Flush-Fill Cony Airblast 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.2 97.7 95.3 71.4 2.3

AY2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.3 96.4 67.2 35.6 2.3

APPENDIX E. COST-EFFECTIVENESS

The following is an illustration ofthe method for computing material cost-effectiveness using

complete cost, performance, and productivity information, and the equations presented in chapter

5. In the exercise, two treatment options are being considered by a maintenance agency for an

AC transverse crack-sealing project. They are as follows:

Option #1

Rubberized Asphalt, unit weight = 1.14 kg/L (or 1,140 kg/m3

)

Standard Recessed Band-Aid Configuration (Configuration B)

Material and Shipping Cost: $1.43/kg

Estimated Production Rate: 7621in m of crack/day

Estimated Service Life: 3 years (based on 75 percent effectiveness level)

Option #2

Low-Modulus Rubberized Asphalt, unit weight = 1.07 kg/L (or 1,070 kg/m3

)

Shallow Recessed Band-Aid Configuration (Configuration C)

Material and Shipping Cost: $1.90/kg

Estimated Production Rate: 9151in m of crack/day

Estimated Service Life: 5 years (based on 75 percent effectiveness level)

The following assumptions are made for both options:

• Same wastage factors (15 percent)

• 10 laborers @ $120/day each

• 1 supervisor @ $200/day

• Equipment costs =$500/day

• User delay cost =$2,000/day

Application rates are computed on the following pages and the actual cost-effectiveness analysis is

illustrated in figure E-1.

Option #1

Cross-sectional area ofreservoir

Volume ofreservoir (11in m of crack)

Gross Application Rate (no waste)

Net Application Rate (15% waste)

= (13 mmX 13 mm) + (102 mmX 3 mm)

=475 mm2 (0.000475 m2

)

=1 m x 0.000475 m2

= 0.000475 m3

= 1,140 kg/m3 x 0.000475 m3

=0.54 kg/lin m of crack

= 1.15 x 0.54 kg/lin m

= 0.62 kg/lin m of crack

153
Option #2

Cross-sectional area ofreservoir

Volume ofreservoir (100 m of crack)

Gross Application Rate (no waste)

Net Application Rate (15% waste)

= (38 nun x 5 nun) + (102 nun x 3 nun)

= 496 nun2 (0.000496 m2

)

=1 m x 0.000496 m2

=0.000496 m3

=1,070 kg/m3 x 0.000496 m3

= 0.53 kg/lin m of crack

= 1.15 x 0.53 kg/lin m

= 0.61 kg/lin m of crack

Placement Cost (both options)

Labor cost = (10 lab x $120/lab) + (l sup x $200/sup)

= $1400/day

Equipment cost = $500/day

Placement cost = $1400/day + $500/day

=$1900/day

Based on the calculations in figure E-l, option #2, with an average annual cost of $1.25/lin m,

is more cost-effective than option #1, with an average annual cost of $2.20/lin m

154
A. Cost ofpurchasing and shipping material

B. Net application rate

C. Placement cost (labor & equipment)

D. Production rate

E. User delay cost

Option #1 

$ 1.4.lLkg 

0.62 kg/lin m 

$ 1.9OO/!:Jm: 

762 lin mlday 

$_2.000Ldav 

I--'

V\

V\

F. Total installation cost

F =(A x B) + (C/O) + (B/O)

G. Interestrate

(1.43 x 0.62) + (19oon62) + (2ooon62)

= $ 6.OO/lin m

5.0 percent

(1.90 x 0.61) + (

H. Estimated service life (time to 75 percent effectiveness) 1 vears 

I. Average annual cost

1= F x [Q x (l + G)H]

(1 + G)H - 1

6.00 x ro.05 x (l + O.OW]

[(1 + 0.05)3 - 1] = $ 2.201lin m

S.46 x [O,OS x (l + 0,05)5]

[(1 +0.05)5 - 1] 

Figure E-1. Example cost-effectiveness analysis.