OCTOBI;R 1999

PB2000100914 LTPP Pavement Maintenanee 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Materials :.SP.S-4 SUPi.plE3RJ~.fl~pJJ9in t

Seall~xJ3sri m®nt, .Fin~[.,~~~~[~j

PUBLIOATIONNO.FHWA-RO~99-151

u.s. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

REPRODUCED BY: D..•.!!!!o u.s. Department of Commerce

National Technicallnfonnation Service

Springfield, Virginia 22161
FOREWORD

During the conduct ofthe Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) on highway operations,

rigid pavement, preventative maintenance treatments were placed on pavements throughout the

United States. The placement and performance monitoring ofthese Specific Pavement Study

(SPS)-4 projects have been conducted under the SHRP and Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program. The information derived from

this study will contribute greatly toward advancing the state ofthe practice ofjoint sealing and

resealing of portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements.

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

ofthe SPS-4 joint seal experiment. It presents the performance and cost data of various joint

sealant materials, and procedures for sealing joints in PCC pavements.

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

PCC pavements.

~d/Y:'~ T. Paul Teng, P.E.

Director

Office ofInfrastruc e

Research and Development

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department of Transportation in the

interest of information 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.
1. Report No.

FHWA-RD-99-151

PB2000-100914

1111111" 111111111/1 "" 11111111/1

Technical Report Documentation Page

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

LTPP PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE MATERIALS: SPS-4 SUPPLEMENTAL

JOINT SEAL EXPERIMENT, FINAL REPORT

5. Report Date

October 1999

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

K.1. Smith, M.A. Pozsgay, 1.D. Evans, and A.R. Romine

8. Performing Organization Report No.

~:,,:,,:,:::,~~-------------------1

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

ERES Consultants

A Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc.

505 W. University Avenue

Champaign,IL 61820-3915

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and 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-C-00051

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Ofticer's Technical Representative (COTR): Shahed Rowshan, HRDI

Project Consultants Charlie Smyth

16. Abstract

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) Specific Pavement Studies (SPS)-4 preventive maintenance experiment was

established to determine the benefits and cost-effectiveness of concrete maintenance activities, such as joint sealing and slab

undersealing. Since 1989, several test sites have been constructed throughout the United States for this purpose.

A secondary investigation at some of these SPS-4 sites has focused on the long-term effectiveness (If various joint seal

treatments (i.e., combinations of sealant material and installation method) at preventing the infiltratilln of water into the

pavement structure. Referred to as supplemental joint seal sites, a total ofsix such sites were constructed adjacent to SPS-4 test

sites, and the performance of the various joint seal treatments have been monitored under the FederallIighway Administration

(FHWA) Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) ofPavement Maintenance Materials Test Sites project.

This report documents the entire SPS-4 supplemental joint seal study, including the installation of 29 unique joint seal

treatments, the laboratory testing of experimental sealant materials, and the multi-year performance monitoring of the various

joint seal treatments. It also discusses the results of comprehensive statistical analyses conducted on sealant material

performance.

17. Key Words

Concrete pavement, pavement maintenance, joints,

joint sealing, joint sealant, 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)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

172

I 22. Price

I

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

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

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

LENGTH LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in

ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet tt

yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA AREA

in' square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm· mm· square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

ftI square feet 0.093 square meters m· m· square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

ytJ- square yards 0.836 square meters m· ml square meters 1.195 square yards ydl

ac aaas 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

mil square mHes 2.59 square kilometers kmZ km· square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi·

VOLUME VOLUME

flOl fluidounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces II oz

gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal

ftI cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ft'

-0. III yeP cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd' -0.

NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 I shall be shown in m3 .

MASS MASS

Ol ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 tlunces oz

Ib pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 pounds Ib

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

(or "metric ton") (or Or) (or "to) (or "metric ton")

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)

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

temperature or (F-32)11.8 temperature temperature temperature

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION

fc fooH:andles 10.76 lux Ix Ix lux 0.0929 foot-amdles fe

fI foot-Lamberts 3.426 candelalm2 cdlml cdlm· candelalm· 0.2919 foot-Lamberts II

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

Ibl poundforce 4.45 n9W1Ons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce Ibf

Ibflin' poundforce per 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per Ibflin2

square inch square inch

• SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate (Revised September 1993)

rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ]

Objectives 0 •••••• 0 0 ••••• 1

Scope 1

Project Overview ., . 2

Test Site Characteristics 0 0) •••••6

2. TEST SITE INSTALLATIONS 13

Test Site Planning, Coordination, and Layouts ..•..............•............. 13

Installation Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Field Data Collection and Analysis .............•........................... 28

Productivity and Cost Data 31

3. MATERIAL TESTING 33

Laboratory Tests Performed 33

Laboratory Test Results 35

4. FIELD PERFORMANCE .............•........................ 41

Performanc~ Data Collection 41

Field Performance Results 44

5. DATA ANALYSIS 57

Statistical Methodology 57

Analysis of Variance of Current Performance ..•.....•....................... 57

Analysis of Variance of Service Life 65

Laboratory Test-Field Performance Assessments 74

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 75

Findings 75

Recommendations 78

REFERENCES ....................•............................ 81

APPENDIX A. TEST SITE LAYOUTS 83

APPENDIX B. INSTALLATION DATA ••.......................... 89

APPENDIX C. FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA 119

iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Locations of SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites 2

2. Joint configurations for SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites 5

3. Mesa, Arizona SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location 8

4. Campo, Colorado SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location 8

5. Wells, Nevada SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location 10

6. Tremonton, Utah SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location 10

7. Salt Lake City, Utah SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location 11

8. Heber City, Utah SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location 12

9. Mesa, Arizona test site layout 15

10. Campo, Colorado test site layout 16

11. Wells, Nevada test site layout 17

12. Tremonton, Utah test site layout 18

13. Salt Lake City, Utah test site layout 19

14. Heber City, Utah test site layout 20

15. Primary joint sawing operation at Wells, Nevada test site 21

16. Sandblasting operation at Wells, Nevada test site 23

17. Backer rod placement at Campo, Colorado test site 24

18. Hot-applied sealant installation at Heber City, Utah test site 25

19. Silicone sealant pumping apparatus used at Heber City, Utah test site 25

20. Mechanical installation of neoprene compression seal at Heber City, Utah test site 27

21. Manual installation of neoprene compression seal at Tremonton, Utah test site 27

22. SPS-4 supplement joint seal performance evaluation form 43

23. Overall performance of primary transverse joint seals at each test site 45

24. Overall failure oftransverse joint seals at Mesa, Arizona test site 47

25. Overall failure oftransverse joint seals at Campo, Colorado test site 47

26. Overall failure oftransverse joint seals at Wells, Nevada test site 48

27. Overall failure of transverse joint seals at Tremonton, Utah test site 48

28. Overall failure of transverse joint seals at Salt Lake City, Utah test site 49

29. Overall failure of transverse joint seals at Heber City, Utah test site 49

30. Adhesion and cohesion failure in hot-applied rubberized asphalt seal 50

31. Spall failure in self-leveling silicone seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

32. Gap failure in preformed neoprene compression seal 51

33. Overall failure oflongitudinal joint seals placed at Mesa, Arizona test site 53

34. Overall failure oflongitudinaljoint seals placed at Wells, Nevada test site 53

35. Kold Seal Neo Loop compression seal design 55

36. Overall effectiveness groupings for Mesa, Arizona transverse joint seal treatments 60

37. Overall effectiveness groupings for Campo, Colorado transverse joint seal treatments . 60

38. Overall effectiveness groupings for Wells, Nevada transverse joint seal treatments .... 61

39. Overall effectiveness groupings for Tremonton, Utah transverse joint seal treatments .. 61

40. Overall effectiveness groupings for Salt Lake City, Utah transverse joint seal

treatments 62

IV
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure

41. Overall effectiveness groupings for Heber City, Utah transverse joint seal

treatments 62

42. Overall effectiveness groupings for Mesa, Arizona longitudinal joint seal treatments 66

43. Overall effectiveness groupings for Wells, Nevada longitudinal joint seal treatments 66

44. Illustration of service life estimation, based on 75 percent effectiveness 67

45. Illustration depicting estimates of actual and predicted service lives 68

46. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives at Mesa, Arizona test

site 69

47. Tukey a~alysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives at Wells, Nevada test

site 70

48. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives at Tremonton, Utah

test site 70

49. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives at Salt Lake City,

Utah test site 71

50. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives at Heber City, Utah

test site 71

51. Tukey analysis of estimated longitudinal joint seal service lives at Mesa, Arizona

test site 73

52. Tukey analysis of estimated longitudinal joint seal service lives at Wells, Nevada

test site 73

v
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of materials and procedures used for joint seal installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

2. Test site construction and experimental joint seal installation information 13

3. Methods used for cleaning each site 22

4. Material costs and sealant installation times at Wells, Nevada test site 31

5. Material costs at Mesa, Arizona test site 31

6. Summary oflaboratory testing of SPS-4 supplemental joint seal materials 33

7. Summary of laboratory tests performed on various sealant types 34

8. Formal laboratory testing results for non-self-Ieveling silicone sealants installed

at Wells, Nevada test site 36

9. Material manufacturer laboratory testing results for non-self-Ieveling silicone sealant

installed at Campo, Colorado test site 36

10. Formal laboratory testing results for self-leveling silicone sealants installed at

Wells, Nevada test site 37

11. Formal laboratory testing results for self-leveling silicone sealants installed at Salt

Lake City and Heber City, Utah test sites 38

12. Material manufacturer laboratory testing results for self-leveling silicone sealant

installed at Campo, Colorado test site 38

13. Material manufacturer laboratory testing results for neoprene compression seals

installed at Campo, Colorado test site 39

14. Summary of SPS-4 test site inspections and corresponding treatment ages 41

15. Overall effectiveness levels of SPS-4 transverse joint seal treatments following

1997-1998 field inspection round 46

16. Summary of performance ratings 46

17. Probability ratings from analysis of variance of SPS-4 transverse and longitudinal

joint seal treatments 58

18. Illustration of service life statistics computation 69

VI
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Objectives

Joint sealants are an integral part of any jointed plain concrete (JPC) or jointed reinforced

concrete (JRC) pavement. Joint sealants provide protection for the pavement in two important

manners. First, they reduce the infiltration of moisture at pavement joints-moisture that can lead

to softening, pumping, and erosion of the base or subgrade near the joints, and ultimately to

pavement distresses, such as corner breaks and faulting. Second, joint sealants protect the

pavement by preventing incompressible materials from entering the joints. These incompressibles,

such as small stones, enter the joints and inhibit thermal slab movement. As joints are filled with

incompressible materials and slab expansion is restrained, the result is an increase in stresses in the

pavement slabs, which can result in substantial joint spalling or possibly blow-ups. In essence, the

success or failure of a jointed concrete pavement may often be attributed, in part, to the success

or failure of the joint sealants.

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) acknowledged the important role ofjoint

sealants in the performance ofjointed concrete pavements and the need for research in this area.

The SHRP Specific Pavement Studies (SPS)-4 experiment (Preventive Maintenance Effectiveness

of Rigid Pavements), which involved the construction of several test sites nationwide, was

primarily developed to answer questions about the effectiveness ofjoint sealing. Does sealing

impart additional life to concrete pavements? Is sealing a cost-effective proposition?

Six particular SPS-4 sites, designated as supplemental joint seal sites, were constructed in four

States in the SHRP western region to test the effectiveness of various joint seal materials and

methods used in new and existing concrete pavements. Though initially monitored for

performance under the SHRP Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program, the joint seals

installed at these sites were subsequently evaluated under the Federal Highway Administration

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

The primary objectives of the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal experiment were as follows:

• Determine the sealant material-joint configuration combinations that perform best in

newly constructed pavements.

• Determine the properties of sealants that relate best to long-term performance.

Scope

This report describes all aspects of the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal experiment, beginning

with a discussion in chapter 1 of the materials and methods used, as well as descriptions ofthe

selected test sites. Details of the installation of materials at each site are described in chapter 2,

including site layout efforts, joint preparation and sealant placement procedures, productivity, and

other observations. Included in chapter 3 are descriptions of the laboratory tests performed on

some of the sealant materials and a discussion of the results of those tests. Summaries of the field

performance data collected over the course of the experiment are provided in chapter 4 and an in1
depth discussion of the analyses conducted on the performance data and the corresponding results

is given in chapter 5. Lastly, chapter 6 presents an overall summary ofthe findings and

reconmlendations of the study.

Project Overview

Between March 1991 and October 1992, a total of 106 test sections (including 14 unsealed

sections) were installed at 5 different test sites located in Utah and Arizona. An additional 19 test

sections (including 2 unsealed sections) were installed at a sixth test site in Colorado in November

1995, bringing the total number oftest sections to 125. The six SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test

sites, and the climatic zones in which they lie, are listed below and are illustrated in figure 1.

• U.S. 60-Mesa, Arizona

• U.S. 287-Campo, Colorado

• I-80-VVells, Nevada

• I-I5-Tremonton, Utah

• UT 154 (Bangerter Road)-Salt Lake City, Utah

• U.S. 40-Heber City, Utah

Dry-nonfreeze region

Dry-freeze region

Dry-freeze region

Dry-freeze region

Dry-freeze region

Dry-freeze region

Figure 1. Locations of SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites.

2
With the exception of the Campo site, each site was located on moderate- to high-volume

highway facilities consisting offour or six lanes in two directions. The Campo site was located on

a two-lane highway having low traffic volume. Test sections at each site consisted of

experimental seals placed in transverse contraction joints. However, at the Mesa and Wells sites,

several test sections included experimental longitudinal joint seals in addition to the transverse

contraction joint seals.

Sealant Materials

Overall, 21 different sealants were placed at the 6 test site locations. The majority of these

sealants were silicone; however, several hot-applied sealants and preformed compression seals

were also installed. Silicone sealants are defined as one-part polymer materials that, upon

chemical curing, form a continuous silicone-oxygen-silicone network that is highly elastic and

highly insensitive to environmental effects (e.g., temperature changes, ultraviolet light, hardening

over time) (Smith et aI., 1991). First-generation silicones were relatively viscous and had to be

tooled into place within joints. These types of silicone are referred to as standard, non-sag, or

non-self-Ieveling silicones. In recent years, more fluid-like formulations of silicone were

developed that do not require tooling into place. These types of silicones are referred to as selfleveling silicones. The silicone sealants used in the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sections are

as follows:

• Crafco 902

• Crafco RoadSaver (RS) 903-SL

• Dow Corning 888

• Dow Corning 888-SL

• Dow Corning 890-SL

• Mobay Baysilone 960

• Mobay Baysilone 960-SL

Non-self-Ieveling

Self-leveling

Non-self-Ieveling

Self-leveling

Self-leveling

Non-self-Ieveling

Self-leveling

Hot-applied sealants are asphalt- or tar-based sealants that become soft upon heating and

harden upon cooling, usually without a change in chemical composition (Smith et al., 1991).

Most hot-applied sealants are asphalt-based (derived from the distillation of crude oil) and include

rubber-, polymer-, or fiber-modifiers to impart desirable elastic and tensile strength properties.

Tar-based sealants (derived from the destructive distillation of coal) are largely resistant to fuel

spillage and are usually modified with rubbers or polymers. In this experiment, four hot-applied

sealants were used in Arizona and the three Utah locations. These sealants are as follows:

• Crafco RS 221

• Crafco SuperSeal (SS) 444

• Koch 9005

• Koch 9012

ASTMD 3405

ASTMD 3406

ASTMD3405

ASTMD 3406

Each test site contained at least one test section with neoprene compression seals. These seals

are premolded synthetic materials that are inserted (often with thy aid of a lubricant/adhesive) into

joints in a state of compression. They are designed to maintain contact pressure with the joint

3
faces and therefore are not subject to adhesion failures. The neoprene materials used in the SPS-4

supplemental joint seal experiment are as follows:

• D.S. Brown E-437H

• D.S. Brown V-687

• D.S. Brown V-812

• Kold Seal Neo Loop

• Esco PV 687

• Watson Bowman 687

• Watson Bowman 812

In addition to the above sealant products, a self-leveling polysulfide sealant (Koch 9050-SL),

a polyethylene sealant (product name unknown), and a proprietary sealant (named after Mike

Roshek ofthe Utah Department of Transportation [DOT]) were installed.

Joint Preparation Methods

Because ofthe varying interests and practices of each participating State highway, the sealant

materials were installed using many different joint preparation methods. For instance, seven

different combinations ofjoint configuration/construction were used throughout the experiment,

as described below and illustrated in figure 2.

• Configuration A-Formed using a standard riding saw, the joint width of this

configuration was nominally 3 mm and the depth was nominally one-third or one-fourth

the slab thickness. This configuration was used only with some ofthe silicone sealants.

• Configuration B-The nominal joint width of 6 mm for this configuration was also formed

using a standard riding saw. Both silicone and neoprene compression seals were placed in

this configuration. For silicone sealants, the minimum depth was 38 mm to accommodate

the backer rod, sealant, and sealant recessment. Less depth was needed for neoprene

compression seals; however, a depth of 38 mm was still typically used.

• Configurations C and G-Both ofthese 9-mm-wide by 38-mm-deep configurations were

created using a standard riding saw. However, to investigate the possible reduction of

sliver spalls at one site, configuration G included beveling ofthe upper 3 mm of each joint

edge at a 45-degree angle. Only 10 joints (sealed with a non-self-Ieveling silicone) were

fashioned in this configuration, as it was determined that the sawing/beveling process

caused excessive raveling and resulted in aesthetically displeasing joint edges. All sealant

types, except polyethylene, were installed in configuration C.

• Configuration D-In this configuration, nominal joint dimensions of 13 mm wide and

41 mm deep were created using a standard riding saw. Only one sealant type, a neoprene

compression seal, was installed in this joint configuration.

4
--_.-3mm

T/3

Al?wications

Silicone Seal

Unsealed

AJwlications

Silicone Seal

Compression Seal

Joint Configuration A Joint Configuration B

Joint Configuration C

Al?l?lications

Compression Seal

Al?l?lications

Silicone Seal

10mm

Joint Configuration D

~-- 9 mm beveled edges

63

Al?l?lications

Silicone Seal

Unsealed

Al?l?lications

Hot-Applied Seal

Silicone Seal

Compression Seal

RoshekSeal

Unsealed

mm

3mm

19

T/3

Joint Configuration E Joint Configuration G

Figure 2. Joint configurations for SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites.

• Configuration E-The joint width ofthis configuration was the same as that of

configuration A (nominally 3 mm deep). However, the joints were created using the SoffCut sawing method, whereby joints are sawed shallower (typically 19 mm) and much

sooner than conventional sawcutting.

• Configuration F-The dimensions ofthis configuration were not known, since the test site

in which it was used (Wells) was located on a pavement originally constructed and sealed

with polyethylene long before the pavement was made into an SPS-4 test site. This

configuration was designated as an "undisturbed" joint configuration.

Another aspect ofjoint preparation was the cleaning method used to ensure clean joint

sidewalls for proper adherence by the experimental seals. Though the same cleaning method was

essentially used for each sealant at a given site, the methods varied somewhat from site to site.

For instance, at the Mesa site, each joint was sandblasted, waterblasted, and airblasted, whereas at

the Wells site, each joint was sandblasted and airblasted. At the Tremonton site, each joint was

waterblasted and airblasted, whereas most joints at the Salt Lake City site were only airblasted.

Though the performance analyses described later in this report are confined to individual test sites,

this information about joint cleaning methods was deemed noteworthy, so as to prevent the

development of incorrect, broad-based conclusions about seal performance.

5
The use of 21 different sealant materials and 7 different joint configurations resulted in a total

of 29 distinct joint seal treatment types (i.e., material--configuration combinations). Table 1

summarizes the joint seal treatment types applied at each test site and shows the number of test

sections of each treatment type. It can be seen that several ofthe treatments were unique to only

one site. However, overlooking the different joint cleaning methods used at the various sites, it

can also be seen that some treatment types (e.g., Crafco 903-SL in configuration C, Dow 888-SL

in configuration C) were used at multiple test sites.

The experimental layout varied greatly from site to site. Each test site contained from 17 to

24 test sections. Either two or four ofthese sections were designated specifically as SHRP test

sections; the remaining sections were designated as State supplemental sections. With the

exception ofthe Wells test sections, which contained only 15 transverse joints, each section

contained between 25 and 48 transverse joints in which the experimental joint seals were placed.

Appendix A provides the physical layout ofthe various material--configuration combinations at

each test site.

Test Site Characteristics

U.S. 60. Mesa. Arizona

This test site is located in the dry-nonfreeze climatic region ofthe United States along a 3.5-

km stretch of highway more commonly known as Superstition Freeway. The test sections are

located in the eastbound travel lanes, and are bounded by Power Road and Ellsworth Road, as

illustrated in figure 3. The highway consists of six lanes in two directions, with each lane

approximately 3.7 m wide. The pavement was constructed in February 1991 and consists of a

330-mm-thick JPC pavement, placed on 102 mm of compacted aggregate base on a compacted

subgrade. The joint spacing is staggered at intervals of 4.0, 4.6, 5.2, and 4.6 m Experimental

joint seals were installed shortly after pavement completion in February 1991. The pavement was

designed for 2.9 million 80-leN equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) and a 20-year design life.

Average annual precipitation at this site is about 178 mm, and the average monthly temperatures

range from about 10 to 33°C (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

U.S. 287. Campo. Colorado

This test site is located in the northbound lane of U.S. 287 in Baca County, 4.8 km south of

Campo, in southeastern Colorado. The specific location ofthe test site is shown in figure 4. The

test site is approximately 2.1 kmlong, and the two-lane highway on which it sits has 3.7-m-lanes

and 3.0-m-wide paved shoulders. Constructed in October and November of 1995, the pavement

was designed to carry 10 million 80-leN ESALs for its 30-year design period. The pavement

structure consists of 254 mm of portland cement concrete (PCC) placed on 610 mm of unbound

6
Table 1. Summary of materials and procedures used for joint seal installation.

Number of Test Sections Installed at Test Site

C

Joint

Configuration! t----.-----"'T""---"'T""------r---......,----ll

Construction Salt Lake Heber

Mesa, AZ Campo, CO Wells, NV Tremonton, UT City, UT City, UT

(U.S. 60) (U.S. 287) (1-80) (1-15) (UT 154) (U.S. 40)

2 ):=:=:/=:=/\))=:::\:;i:\.::' ':::'::::.::':·'j·:::j:::f::,::tIt:: .::::::::t:'{':'@:r::=:t:::::::::I),t't:· 2 ....:;.:.. :: :'.::..':'

Sealant

Material

~rafco RS 221

r:::rafco SS 444

r:::rafco 902

Crafco 903-SL

pow 888

pow 888-SL

pow 890-SL

DS Brown E-437H

DS Brown V-687

DS Brown V-812

Koch 9005

Koch 9012

Koch 9050-SL

Kold Seal Neo Loop

Mobay960

Mobay 960-SL

~oshek

~scoPV 687

r.vatson Bowman 687

Watson Bowman 812

Unsealed

.

C

A

B

C

G

A

B

C

C

C

A

B

C

E

B

C

D

C

C

C

B

C

C

C

C

C

C

A

C

E

F

):'(:ffjf'@}:,,::::g:::· i~=~~ ::::;·::::::::m:}::\:\==:m:}::::::::, 1 :rrr'::::i:::::::::tf::::::'::?=::'::::::::::?= ::::::::::::::::::)=:)::::!:::):r::::::..=.:::):;:=::::::=:},::ttt:

Total Treatment Types (excl. lUlsealed)

Total Test .

12 9 8 9 9 9

24 19 17 ?.1 n n

Joint Configuration/Construction

A. Standard saw, 3-mmjoint width.

B. Standard saw, 6-mmjoint width.

C. Standard saw, 9-mmjoint width.

D. Standard saw, 13-mmjoint width.

E. Soff-Cut saw, 3-mm joint width.

F. Undisturbed.

G. Standard saw, 9-mm beveled joint.

7
.

x

Broadway

1 1 -g

'€ I I

rn -- 0

rIl

, r ,r

60

...... Phoem

Figure 3. Mesa, Arizona SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location.

Walsh

Figure 4. Campo, Colorado SPS-4 supplemental joint seal

test site location.

8
R-70 select soil (compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density) and a sandy, drainable

subgrade. The transverse joints are doweled and unskewed, with an even joint spacing of 4.6 m

Experimental seals were installed shortly after completion of paving in November 1995. The

average annual precipitation at this dry-freeze site is about 377 mm, and the average monthly

temperatures range from about 0 to 25°C (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

1-80. Wells. Nevada

This dry-freeze test site is located in Elko County, west ofWells, in the westbound and

eastbound driving lanes of 1-80 in northeastern Nevada. Figure 5 shows the specific location of

the test site. Though the pavement was originally built in March 1980, the experimental joint

seals were installed in August 1991. The pavement was constructed using 246 mm ofJPC placed

on a 152-mm cement-treated base, 112 mm of aggregate subbase, and a silty-sand subgrade. The

transverse joints were skewed, doweled, and spaced in a random pattern of 4.3, 4.0, 5.8, and

5.8 m Sealant was placed in the joints at the time of original construction, but was removed as

part of the 1991 experimental seal installation. The length of the test site is approximately 1.0 km.

The interstate on which it lies consists oftwo 3.7-m-wide lanes in each direction, with 3.0-m- and

1.2-m-wide PCC outside and inside shoulders, respectively. The average annual precipitation at

this site is about 305 mm, and the average monthly temperature ranges from about -5 to 22°C

(U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

1-15. Tremonton. Utah

Located approximately 8 km north ofthe Riverside/Logan exit, this test site is situated in the

northbound and southbound driving lanes ofthe four-lane 1-15 in north central Utah. Figure 6

shows the specific location of this dry-freeze site. The pavement was constructed in October

1990 with 254 mm ofJPC placed on a 102-mm lean concrete base and a 102-mm crushed gravel

subbase. Additional support consisted of 457 mm of well-graded gravel with sand placed on a

subgrade of well-graded gravel with cobbles. Transverse joints were spaced at repeated intervals

of 3.0, 4.6, 3.4, and 4.3 m, and were made skewed and undoweled. The experimental joint seals

were installed a few weeks after pavement construction. The travel lanes of the facility are 3.7 m

wide, and the PCC outside and inside shoulders are 2.4 m and 0.9 m, respectively. The average

annual precipitation at the Tremonton site is approximately 406 mm, and the average monthly

temperatures range from about -7 to 23°C (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

UT 154. Salt Lake City. Utah

This dry-freeze test site is located in the northbound and southbound lanes of Utah Route 154

(Bangerter Road) in the southern part of Salt Lake City. Specifically, it is located between 3500

South Street and 4100 South Street, as illustrated in figure 7. The test site pavement was

constructed in the fall of 1991 and spring of 1992. Shortly after construction, the experimental

joint sealants were installed. The pavement was constructed with 254 mm ofJPC placed on a

102-mm lean concrete base, 102 mm of crushed gravel subbase, and 305 mm of poorly graded

9
j

em::>

Figure 5. Wells, Nevada SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location.

Salt Lake City

y

• Plymouth

Figure 6. Tremonton, Utah SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location.

10
----e 80 )---1IIIIIllII..

Salt Lake City

W. Valley

3500 S. St. City

171

4100 S. St.

15

0

Figure 7. Salt Lake City, Utah SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test site location.

gravel. A 305-mm geo-grid layer of clean, free-draining gravel and filter fabric was placed

beneath the poorly graded gravel, and the entire structure rests on a sandy clay subgrade.

Transverse joints were constructed at staggered intervals of 3.0, 4.6, 3.4, and 4.3 m. These joints

were skewed, but undoweled. The highway on which the test site lies consists of six lanes (in two

directions), with each lane approximately 3.7 m wide. The curb and gutter flank the outside lanes,

whereas a 3.7-m-wide PCC shoulder adjoins the inside lanes. The average annual precipitation of

this test site is approximately 610 mm, and the average monthly temperatures range from about-3

to 24°C (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1983).

U.S. 40. Heber City. Utah

This test site is located in the eastbound and westbound lanes of U.S. 40, approximately

50 km southeast of Salt Lake City, in north central Utah. As seen in figure 8, the site is located

between mileposts 5 and 6.5 on U.S. 40. Though this four-lane highway extends north and south

at the location of the test site, it is technically an east-west route. The pavement was constructed

in September 1991, and the experimental joint sealants were installed shortly thereafter. The

travel lanes were constructed with PCC to a thickness of 254 mm. The pavement base in the

westbound lanes consisted of an unknown thickness of asphalt concrete (Ae), whereas 102 mm

oflean concrete were used for the base in the eastbound lanes. The subbase in both directions

11
Salt Lake City

ParkCitye

15

Figure 8. Heber City, Utah SPS-4 supplemental

joint seal test site location.

consists of 102 mm of crushed gravel placed on 457 mm of silty, sandy gravel and a poorly

graded gravel subgrade. Skewed, undoweled transverse joints were constructed at staggered

intervals of3.0, 4.6, 3.4, and 4.3 m The pavement consists of two 3.7-m-wide lanes in each

direction, with 2.4-m- and 1.2-m-wide PCC outside and inside shoulders, respectively. Average

annual precipitation at the Heber City test site is approximately 610 mm, and the average monthly

temperatures range from -6 to 22°C (U.S. Dept. ofCommerce, 1983).

12
CHAPTER 2. TEST SITE INSTALLATIONS

As discussed in chapter 1, five of the six SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites involved the

installation of experimental sealants in newly constructed PCC pavements, thereby classifying

them as joint seal sites. Since the pavement at the Wells site was originally built in 1980 (joints

were initially sealed at that time), but the experimental sealants were not installed until 1991, this

site is classified as a joint reseal site.

In the case of the five sites containing new seals, the pavement construction contracts were

originally written to include the experimental joint seal installation work or the necessary change

orders were developed to allow the experimental installations to occur. At each of these five

sites, the experimental installations followed closely behind the pavement construction process

(usually within a few weeks), as indicated in table 2. At all six test sites, the sealant installations

were performed by contractors selected by the sponsoring State highway agency (SHA). These

contractors are also listed in table 2.

Test Site Planning, Coordination, and Layouts

As primary beneficiaries ofthe SPS-4 test results, each sponsoring State highway agency had

control over the design and layout of the test sites installed in their State. The selections of

material products and procedures, along with the planning ofjoint seal treatment locations and

boundaries, were generally made by key researchers, engineers, and administrators within the

sponsoring DOTs.

Table 2. Test site construction and experimental joint seal installation information.

Secondary Sawing and Sponsoring

Pavement Construction and Experimental Sealant Highway Experimental

Test Site Primarv SawinlJ Dates Installation Dates AlJencv Sea]inlJ Contractor

U.S. 60-Mesa, AZ 2/13/91 - 2/15/91 3/18/91 - 3/31/91 Arizona DOT Multiple Concrete

Enterprises, Inc.

U.S. 287-Campo, CO 10/24/95 - 11/15/95 11/15/95 - 11/19/95 Colorado DOT Castle Rock

Construction, Inc.

1-80-Wells, NV 3/80 8/14/91 - 8/22/91 Nevada DOT Diversified Concrete

Cutters, Inc.

1-15-Tremonton, UT 10/9/92 - 10/23/92 10/23/92 - 10/26/92 Utah DOT Concrete Sawing and

Sealing, Inc.

UT 154-Salt Lake City, UT Fa1l1991 - Spring 1992 5/19/92 - 5/27/92 (SB) Utah DOT A-Core, Inc.

6/29/92 - 8/14/92 (NB)

U.S. 40-HeberCity, UT 6/26/91 - 7/8/91 (EB) 7/8/91 -7/11/91 (EB) Utah DOT Multiple Concrete

9/16/91 - 9/23/91 (WB) 9/23/91 - 10/1/91 (WB) Enternrises Inc.

13
The proposed experimental joint seal treatments and testing sequences for a given site were

usually detailed in an experimental plan. Some changes were made to the original experimental

plans developed by each sponsoring agency, as a result of problems incurred with the installation

of the materials (e.g., running out of sealant, joint preparation problems, sealant preparation

problems). These changes were documented in each of the six SPS-4 supplemental joint seal

construction reports (Meier, 1992; Wienrank and Evans, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d; Ambroz

and Evans, 1996).

Figures 9 through 14 show the final layouts of each test site. As can be seen in these figures,

each test section was assigned a test section number, corresponding to its location in the field

testing sequence, and a six-digit SHRP identification (ID) number, indicating the State in which

the test section is located and the sealant material and procedure used in the section. In most

cases, two replicate test sections of each material-procedure combination were established, either

in opposite directions or in the same direction, but spaced apart from each other.

The size of test sections varied, both in terms oflength and number of transverse joints.

Sections ranged between 56 and 183 m long and were comprised of between 15 and 48 transverse

joints. At the Arizona and Nevada sites, the same sealant placed in the transverse joints of a given

test section was typically used to seal the longitudinal joints within that section. At the other four

test sites, one sealant was typically used throughout the entire site to seal the longitudinal joints.

All test sections were marked according to standard SHRP-LTPP guidelines. Permanent

signing was erected to indicate the boundaries of the entire test site, as well as the beginning and

end of each individual test section. Each test section was also marked with two white paint

stripes extending across the test lane. These stripes were located at the beginning and end of each

section. In most cases, the six-digit SHRP ID number was painted at the beginning of the test

section, near the outside shoulder.

InstaJlation Processes

In general, the experimental sealant installation process at each site consisted offive steps,

following the completion of concrete paving operations. These steps were as follows:

1. Primary/initial joint sawing.

2. Secondary/reservoir joint sawing.

3. Joint cleaning.

4. Backer material placement.

5. Sealant application.

Since the Wells site was installed on an in-service concrete pavement with initially sealed joints,

the first step in this process was not needed and the second step served the combined purpose of

removing old sealant and widening the joint to the specified test width. Additionally, the fourth

step was not required for use with neoprene compression seals, nor was it used in the 3-mm SoffCut joints that were sealed with Dow 890-SL silicone at the Salt Lake City and Heber City sites.

14
Eastbound

A t II B

St.t.13 Sla'e22 Sla'.04

3 mm Dow aaO-SL 117 m 8 mm W.taGn Bowman 812 It mm Dow e90-SL

04A41S1 04A4S0 04A442

S,ele14 8la'e23 Stat. 06

o mm OS Brown V-887 115m Ii mm C,.Ioo SS 444 " mm Wataon Bowman 887

04A452 04A481 04A443

SIele11S Sla'.24 Sla'e08

II mm Daw8SS 114 m 8 mm Dow 8110-SL 110 m II mm Daw 888-SL

04A453 04A482 04.0.444

St.t.i. Sla'.07

.. mm Mobay O&O-SL 114 m 8mm DowSl1

004''41S4 04.0.445

Stat. iT Slale08

3mm Una_l.d 114m 5118 m It mm Crafeo SS 444

04A41S1S 04.0.448

S'elel8 Slale 011

8 mm Dow 8aO-SL. 113 m 3 mm Dow 8110-SL

004''41S. 04A447

Stat. iii ata'e01 Sla'el0

.. mm Dow aa.~SL 114 m Ii mm OS Brown V-IaT 114 m lit mm Mobay OIO-SL

004''41S7 04A441 04.0.448

S'ele 20 SHRP 02 Sla'.11

• mm Craloo 8D3-SL 114 m II mm Cralco 1I03-SL 158 m 8 mm CrafGo RS 221

004"458 04A410 04.0.4411

S'ale 21 SHRP 03 Slale12

It mm C,.tOD RS 221 IllS m 3mm Une_5ed 173m • mm DQIIN' 8aO-SL

04A4511 04.0.430 04.0.450

A A II B

Figure 9. Mesa, Arizona test site layout.

15
M.P. 4.1S (S" Soollon 242+60) 1B A --r---liiiir-A

3 mm Un•••Jed

08A431

5001lon 2B

3 mm Crafeo RS 802

OSA413

Soellon 311

3 mm CrateD Rs 803-GL

08A444

Soellon 4B

a mm Crafeo RS 002

08A414

5_llon SII

a mm Crafeo RS D03-SL

08A446

Tranall:lon

Seotlon

~orm.r 08A454

SecUon 78

.. mm CratOD RS a02

08A415

S.cUon aa 8 mm Crafoo R5 803-SL

08A441S

Section ,U.

8 mm Crafoo R5 802

OSA455

5_llon 10B

8 mm (beve5ed) Crafeo RS 802

08A41 IS

M.P. 3.8 (51a 205+00)

aouthbollnd Nerth ntl

La". L .

114.3 m

114.3 m

114.3 m

114.3 m

114.3 m

114.3 m

114.3 m

114.3 m

114.3 m

11S.3m

8e.0 m

A-+---+-_-j_A

.oulhbound Northbound

La". La"A

M.P. 5.3 (5" 280+00)

Sactlon 1A

3 mm Un•••1ed

08A430

50.llon 2A

3 mm Crafeo R5 802

OSA410

seotlon 3A

3 mm Cratoo RS 803-SL

08A441

Soellon 4A

IS mm CrateD RS 802

08A411

Sactlon SA

a mm CrateD RS 803-SL

08A442

Section SA

e mm DS Brown E·437H

OSA451

SecUon 7A

• mm Cra'oo RS 802

08A412

SacUon SA

8 mm Crafoo RS 803-SL

08A443

S.cllon 9A

8 mm DS Brown V-eS7

OSA452

S_llon lOA Sit mm (bev.led) CrafeD RS 802

08A453

M.P. 4.S (51a 242+50)

Figure 10. Campo, Colorado test site layout.

16
MP 348.08 Stat. 15-1

• mm Dow ••O"'L

32A.481

atate 8-1

• min CrateD illS 803-SL

:l2A4BZ

atat_ 7·1

• min DO'IN' ......L

S2A••S

atat••-1

is mm Da IIl"OW'n V-8,2

S2A,45"

Stat. 8 ..1

• Inlft Mobav ••0

:l2,A4Sa

..... tOot

• mm C,,'OO Ita .02

82A458

atat_ 11-1

.mm Dow •••

82A487

a.,.a-2 • min Dow ••O...L

82A488

alai. a"" • mlft Crafoo Ra eOa-aL

:l2A4B8

..... 7-2 ."'m Daw •••-8L

82A48O

._..... 13 mm DS Brawn V-e12

:l2A4Bt

atat. e-2 • min Mobay ••O

:l2A482

a'at_ 10-2

• min Cra'oo Ra e02

S2A48S

..... tt·2

• mm Dow •••

:l2A484

MP 348.87

Eastbound

t &4.8 1ft

14.8 In

S8.7m

••.7m

13.4 m

••.7m

Se.4m

1 ••• m

• •.• m

13.4 m

.".Om

13.4 In

..... m

1 .... In

••.7m

13.4 m

S8.7m

.".3m

eO.'7m

152.5 m

.'.0 In

182.5m

.,.0 m

1&2.15 m

152.5 m

Westbound

MP 348.07

8HIOP04

Un•••'-cII

32A430

8HRP 03

• mm Dow •••

32A4'O

SHRP02

Und...._1

• min Daw •••

32A.420

aHRP Ot

QPS aeotlon

Polyethylene

:t23010

MP 348.68

Figure 11. Wells, Nevada test site layout.

17
MP 394.15

atat.07

• mm lCold S ••I Nao Loop

411C445

MP 392.95

8tat.02

II mm Kooh 11005

4QC441

SHRP 04

3 mm Un.....d

411C430

St.t.01

• mm Koch 8012

411C440

Stat. OS

• mm I!!:aoo PV ea7

41lC444

Stat. 011

I mm Mobay eaD

4QC447

SHRP 03

II mmD_II11-8L

411C410

Stat. 05

II mm Mob", 1110

4QC443

Stat. O.

:I mm Dow a80-SL

411C44S

30.5 m

,..··lnlll

Lan.

122.0 m

122.0 m

155.5 m

110.1 m

122.Dm

113.0 m

122.0m

122.0 m

123.11 m

747.3 m

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0m

1,071.5 m

Stat. 111

• mm Mob.y e.o 411C4S1

Stal.111

3 mm Un•••led

411C431

Bridge

stat. 20

3 mm Dow aIO-SL

411C454

Stat. 17

a mm Koch 8012

411C452

stal.21

• mm Dow aaa-SL

411C455

Stal.111

.. mm Mobay .ao 411C453

Stat. 14

IilJ mm Eaoo PV ea7 41lC441l

Overpass

Stat. 13

II mm Koch 11005

411C44.

Bridge

Stat. 12

3 mm(Soff-Cut) Un•••1ed

41C4S11

Stat. 11

.. mm Roahet

41C4S7

stat. 15

e mm Kolc:I S••I Neo Loop

411C4S0

Stat. 10

3 mm (Soff-Cut) Dow 880-SL

480468

MP 392.95

MP 395.09

Northbound

Figure 12. Tremonton, Utah test site layout.

18
Southbound

__It t 3500 Soulh Sireet

SHRP 01

3mm Una_a.d

410430

8HRP02

o mm Oowllllll-SL

41D410

8.'.03

OmmD_1I1111

41D443

S.,.04

I mm os ISr_n V-1I117

410444

S.'.OIS

II mm c ..roo RS 221

41D441

S.'.OI

3 mm DOW' .DO~L

41D441

S.,.07

I mm Koch 1012

48D440

S.'.08

I mm DS ISrown 1!-437H

41D441S

Stal.OO

I mm Kooh 105D-sL

41041'

Stal.10

3 mm (Solf-Cut) Dow IIO-SL

41D41S1

Stal.11

3 mm (Soff-Cut) Un•••1ed

41D458

01.1S m

183.0 m

162.lSm

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0 m

122.0m

11.5m

State 12

amm Unsealed

400431

SI.te 13

• mm Dew aaa-SL

410466

SI.,.14

It mm DOW'sa.

410461

Stat. 15

I mm 08 Brown V...17

410441

al.,.1.

o mm c ..roo Ra 221

41D441

al.ta 17

ImmOow.IO-SL

41D454

8'at.18

I mm Kooh 1012

400452

.,.,.10

I mm OS ISrown E-437H

41D460

al.ta20

8 mm Koch 0060-SL

480412

.,.,.21

3 mm (Soff-Cut) 0_ 100-BL

480450

SI.,.22

3 mm (Sotr-Cut) Una_led

480410

4100 South Sireet

8m 171+00

+ +1

Northbound

Figure 13. Salt Lake City, Utah test site layout.

19
Eastbound

Sta 040404+00 SHRP 12

3 mm Un.....d

411E430

SHRP13

II mm Dow III-SL

41E410

SI.I.,4

.. mm Dow sea

41E443

Sial. 15

II mm Koch liDOS

411E441

St.r:.18

8 mm D8 Brown V-ea7

41E444

SI.I.,7

3 mm Dow IIIO-SL

48E441

Sial. 11

II mm Kooh 8012

48E440

Slat.'8

8 mm DS Brown E-437H

48E445

SI.I.20

8 mm Koch 8050-SL

41E411

Slat. 21

3 mm (Soff-Cul) Dow 180-8L

48E451

SI.te 22

3 mm (Soff.Cut) Un.....d

48E4111

Sta 500+00

152.5 m

30.5 m

152.5 m

128.lm

22.8m

152.5 m

152.5 m

152.lm

152.5 m

141.5 m

152.5 m

152.5 m

1411.11 m

,...IIn. L•••

St. 0444+00

Slat. 11

S mm Un.....d

41E4S1

al.I.10

• mm Dow 11I-8L

4.E455

81at. o.

'mm Dow III

48E451

al.I.OI

8 mm Kooh 8012

48E452

atot.07

" mm Dow 1180-8l

48E454

Slat. 011

• mm Da IIrown E....37H

48E450

atoto OS

• mm Kooh 8005

48E441

8tot.04

• mm Da Brown V·IIT

48E448

8tot.03

• mm Kooh 10SO·al

41E412

atot.02

3 mm (Soff-CuI) Dow I.o-al

48E4S8

Stot.01

3 mm (aoff-CuI) Un.....d

41E410

St. 500+00

Westbound

Figure 14. Heber City, Utah test site layout.

20
Primary Joint Sawing

In most cases, primary joint sawing was accomplished using a water-cooled riding saw with a

305- to 356-rnm-diameter single-saw blade. The width of the primary sawcut was approximately

3 rnm, while the depth was typically maintained to either one-third or one-fourth the thickness of

the concrete slabs. This step was performed as soon as the concrete had cured to the point that

extensive raveling would not occur. Figure 15 illustrates the primary sawcutting operation, as

performed at the Wells site.

Primary joint sawing using the Soff-Cut procedure differed slightly from conventional means.

Because the Soff-Cut pavement saw is lighter than conventional saws, sawing operations can be

performed sooner after the paving process (essentially as soon as the pavement can support the

weight ofthe saw) and consequently require a shallower cutting depth. As a result ofthe

shallower cut, the productivity of the operation is increased. The Soff-Cut joints created at the

Tremonton, Salt Lake City, and Heber City sites were typically between 19 and 25 rnm deep.

These cuts were substantially shallower than the 85-rnm-deep cuts created using conventional

saws.

Secondary Joint Sawing

Several experimental joints required a secondary sawcut in order to produce the specified

sealant shape factor. In most cases, these cuts were made with one pass of a riding saw having

water-cooled, 305- or 356-rnm-diameter blades. For wider cuts, double and triple blades were

Figure 15. Primary joint sawing operation at Wells, Nevada test site.

21
used. Secondary cuts were not as deep as primary cuts, and they varied according to the sealant

and configuration used. Some spalling and raveling of pavement joint edges were observed

during the secondary sawcutting operations, particularly in the Crafeo RS 902 beveled-joint

sections installed at the Campo site.

Joint Cleaning

Different methods ofjoint cleaning were used at each test site. The methods involved one or

a combination ofthe following four techniques:

• High-pressure airblasting.

• Waterwashing.

• High-pressure waterblasting.

• Sandblasting.

Joints that were to be left unsealed were not cleaned at all. Table 3 lists, in sequence, the

techniques used to clean the joints at each site. Figure 16 shows the sandblasting of a joint

located at the Wells test site.

Table 3. Methods used for cleaning each site.

Test Site

Mesa, Arizona

Campo,

Colorado

Wells, Nevada

Tremonton,

Utah

Salt Lake City,

Utah

eber City, Utah

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

827-kPa Dry saw

Airblast

Waterwash Air dry

(30 min)

Sandblast 862-kPa

(2 passes) Airblast

6,895-kPa Waterwash

Waterblast

19,306-kPa 586- to

Waterblast 1,034-kPa

(2 compression seal Airblast

sections only)

552-kPa Waterblast

(WB sections)

6,895-kPa

Waterblast

(EB sections)

Step 4

Airblast

Step 5

Waterblast

Step 6

Airblast

22
Figure 16. Sandblasting operation at Wells, Nevada test site.

Backer Material Placement

Backer rods were used to prevent field-molded sealants from flowing down into the joints and

to provide a more uniform sealant depth and shape factor. Typically, heat-resistant foam backer

rod materials were used in conjunction with the hot-applied sealants, whereas non-heat-resistant

materials were used with the silicone and polysulfide sealants. For 9-mm-wide joints, l3-mmdiameter backer rods were used; for 6-mm-wide joints, 8- and 9-mm-diameter rods were used;

and for 3-mm-wide joints, 6-mm-diameter rods were used. All backer rods were installed after

the final joint cleaning and just prior to the actual application of the sealant. Figure 17 shows

backer rod being installed with a backer rod tool at the Campo test site. The backer rod tool

facilitates placement and provides uniform depth ofinsertion.

Sealant Application

In general, experimental joints were sealed within 3 to 4 hours after final cleaning. However,

joints in some ofthe test sections at Salt Lake City and Tremonton were not sealed until 24 to 48

hours after cleaning. Visual observations ofjoint cleanliness and dryness by SHRP contractor

field representatives indicated that joints at the Wells and Tremonton sites were dry and clean,

whereas joints at the Campo, Heber City, and Salt Lake City sites were mostly dry, to dry and

mostly clean, to clean. Visual observations ofjoint cleanliness and dryness at the Mesa site were

not reported.

23
Figure 17. Backer rod placement at Campo, Colorado test site.

Hot-Applied Sealants

Experimental hot-applied sealants were heated in asphalt kettles to temperatures ranging from

123 to 210°C. To prevent burning of sealant material and to promote uniform heating, each hotapplied sealant was mechanically stirred with agitator paddles located within the heating vats of

the asphalt kettles. Once the recommended melting temperature of a particular sealant was

reached, the sealant was pumped through a hose-and-wand unit into the bottom ofthe prepared

joints, as illustrated in figure 18.

Overall, very little difficulty was experienced with the installation of hot-applied sealants. The

only notable problems included extended heating of Crafco SS 444 at the Mesa site (Meier et aI.,

1992), some difficulties maintaining proper temperature of Koch 9012 at the Tremonton site

(Wienrank and Evans, 1995b), and contamination of Koch 9012 at the Salt Lake City site

(Wienrank and Evans, 1995c).

Silicone Sealants

Experimental silicone sealants were placed into joints under pressure using a joint sealant

pump (typically 208 L) mounted on either a flatbed truck or a trailer (figure 19). Application

pressures ranged from 240 to 690 kPa. Regular, or non-self-leveling, silicones were tooled to

ensure good contact with joint surfaces, to control sealant depth, and to produce the required

recessment below the pavement surface. At most sites, tooling was accomplished using a piece of

flexible tubing attached to the end of a broom handle.

24
....

Figure 18. Hot-applied sealant installation at Heber City, Utah test site.

Figure 19. Silicone sealant pumping apparatus used at Heber City, Utah test site.

25
The only reported installation problem associated with the non-self-Ieveling silicones was the

buildup of material along the tops ofjoint walls at the Campo site. It was determined that the tool

used to form a concave surface in the silicones was not sufficiently wide or flexible enough to

force the sealant against both sides ofthe joint.

Because oftheir fluid-like natures, self-leveling silicones required no tooling after application.

These sealants were simply dispensed into the joint bottom and allowed to level under gravity to

the specified recessment below the pavement surface.

A few difficulties were encountered with the self-leveling silicones. At the Heber City and

Salt Lake City sites, sealing crews had trouble applying sealant into 3-mm-wide joints. To

overcome this problem, crews ground down the nozzle located on the end ofthe application wand

so that it would fit into the narrow joints. A similar problem encountered· at the Mesa site was

resolved by using a smaller modified nozzle taken from an asphalt kettle unit.

At the Campo site, self-leveling silicones were routinely placed too near the pavement surface,

exposing large portions ofthe material to direct contact by traffic tires. The narrow joint

openings (3 mm) where this occurred were believed to be a factor.

Neoprene Compression Seals

The preformed compression seals used in the SPS-4 test sites were supplied by manufacturers

in continuous rolls. Most ofthe seals were installed mechanically using a special installation

machine, such as the D.S. Brown Auto Installer shown in figure 20. These machines compressed

the seal, coated the seal with a lubricant adhesive, and inserted it into the pavement joint.

Typically, the first and last few millimeters of these seals along each joint had to be installed by

hand.

Generally speaking, the compression seal installation machines worked well for 9- and

13-mm-wide joints. However, there was much greater difficulty with the installation of

compression seals in 6-mm-wide joints. Nearly half ofthe seals destined for the 6-mm-wide joints

at the Heber City site had to be installed by hand.

The Esco PV-687 seals at the Tremonton site were installed by hand, as shown in figure 21.

In addition, because of an improperly functioning installation machine, the two compression seals

selected for use at the Campo site were also installed by hand using putty knives. The result at

the Campo site was several twisted and sunken seals, especially in the 6-mm-wide joints.

Polysulfide Sealant

The self-leveling polysulfide sealant Koch 9050-SL was installed at the Salt Lake City and

Heber City test sites. Much like silicone sealant, this material was placed into joints under

pressure using a joint sealant pump mounted on a flatbed truck. Although some minor problems

26
Figure 20. Mechanical installation of neoprene compression seal

at Heber City, Utah test site.

Figure 21. Manual installation of neoprene compression seal

at Tremonton, Utah test site.

27
were experienced with the pump during the installation of Koch 9050-SL at Salt Lake City, a

much greater problem was experienced when rain washed some of the sealant out ofthe joints at

this site and caused some seals to have low spots. Seals that were washed out were subsequently

resealed with new polysulfide material.

Field Data Collection and Analysis

Installation data for each test section in each test site were collected in the field and recorded

on SHRP LTPP data collection forms. Among the types of information collected were the

following:

• Installation date and time.

• Test section stationing.

• Joint preparation method.

• Joint reservoir dimensions.

• Backer rod material installed.

• Depth to top of backer rod.

• Sealant material installed.

• Depth to top of sealant.

Summaries of most ofthis information are contained in the six SPS-4 supplement joint seal

construction reports (Meier, 1992; Wienrank and Evans, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d; Ambroz

and Evans, 1996). These reports also describe the results of analyses performed to determine

adherence of actual joint reservoir and seal dimensions to the experimental design dimensions.

Those analysis results are summarized below.

• Secondary sawcuts-For most sections at each site, joints were sawed to an acceptable

tolerance (±1.6 mm) of the specified joint width. Ofthe 125 test sections comprising the 6

test sites, 101 sections had the majority ofjoints sawed to within the specified tolerance

limits. The vast majority ofthe 24 sections that didn't meet design specifications

consisted of overly wide sawcut joints. The causes ofthese occurrences were not

identified. However, for five sections found to be out of compliance at the Wells site, it

was believed that the existing joints were about as wide as the design dimension and that

the required secondary sawing (to remove the old sealant and provide a new reservoir)

inevitably resulted in excessively wide joint reservoirs.

• Depth to top of backer rod-With the exception of the Campo test sections, backer rods

were usually placed to the allowable limits of 13 to 19 mm below the pavement surface.

AU 18 sections requiring backer rods at the Mesa site and all 11 sections requiring backer

rod at Tremonton had a majority of the joints installed with backer rod to within allowable

limits. Moreover, 27 ofthe 39 backer rod sections at Wells, Salt Lake City, and Heber

City had a majority ofjoints with the backer rod placed to acceptable depths. At the

Campo site, 7 ofthe 12 sections requiring backer rod had a majority of the joints with

backer rod placed out of tolerance. Overwhelmingly, the backer rods in these sections

were placed too high.

28
• Depth to top of sealant-At all sites, the allowable limits for depth to the top of sealant

from the pavement surface were established at 6 and 9 mm Measurements taken in the

field indicated that most sealants were placed to depths outside these limits. At the Mesa,

Campo, and Salt Lake City sites, 33 of the 45 sections measured for sealant depth showed

that the majority of seals were placed too high (less than 6 mm deep) in the joint,

potentially exposing them to traffic. A few sections at Heber City and Tremonton were

also observed to have excessively high sealants. In contrast, 7 ofthe 16 sections measured

for sealant depth at Wells had a majority ofthe joints in which sealant was placed too low

(in excess of 9 mm deep).

• Sealant shape factor-An important parameter in the design and construction of fieldmolded sealants is the sealant shape factor. The shape factor is defined as the ratio of the

sealant depth to the sealant width, and it is important because different shape factors result

in different levels of stress development for different sealant types during sealant

extension. The shape factors that result in the lowest buildup of stresses most often

provide better field performance. As examples, silicone sealants generally provide the best

performance when placed in a shape factor of about 0.5, whereas hot-applied rubberized

asphalt materials generally provide the best performance when placed in a shape factor

around 1.0. A summary ofthe analysis of shape factors at each test site is provided

below.

- At Mesa, two different treatments had mean shape factors outside ofthe specified

design tolerances (0.57 to 1.20 for 9-mm-wide joints, 0.80 to 2.00 for 6-mm-wide

joints, and 1.00 to 5.00 for 3-mm-wide joints). One section of Dow 890-SL, placed in

6-mm-wide joints, had a mean shape factor of 0.61, whereas the design shape factor

range for this treatment was 0.80 to 2.00. Also, the two sections of Dow 890-SL

placed in 3-mm-wide joints had mean shape factors of 0.58 and 0.62. The design

shape factor range for this treatment was 1.00 to 5.00. Since silicone has been shown

to provide the best performance with a shape factor around 0.5, the performance of

these treatments could be better than what the design shape factor would have

provided.

- At Campo, 4 of the 13 test sections measured for seal dimensions had mean shape

factors outside ofthe specified design tolerances (0.29 to 1.60 for 9-mm-wide joints,

0.80 to 2.67 for 6-mm-wide joints, and 0.67 to 8.00 for 3-mm-wide joints). Two

sections of Crafco 903-SL placed in 6-mm joints had mean shape factors of 0.77 and

0.71, whereas the design shape factor range for this treatment was 0.8 to 2.67. Also,

one section of Crafco 902 placed in 6-mm joints had a mean shape factor of 0.77,

slightly under the minimum tolerance of 0.8. Lastly, one section of Crafco 902 placed

in 3-mmjoints had a mean shape factor of 0.5, whereas the design shape factor range

for this treatment was 0.67 to 8.00. Though each of these treatments were

considerably thinner than what was designed, their shape factors are closer to the

optimal shape factor for silicone sealants.

29
- At Wells, all ofthe 14 test sections measured for seal dimensions had mean shape

factors within the specified design tolerances (0.29 to 1.60 for 9-mm-wide joints).

Most ofthe measured mean shape factors were around 0.60, which is generally to the

advantage ofsilicone seals. However, in some ofthese sections (Dow 888, Crafco

902, and Crafco 903-SL, all placed in 9-mmjoints), very high standard deviations of

shape factor were computed, which means that several ofthe seals probably had

shape factors below the minimum tolerance of 0.29.

- At Tremonton, all ofthe seven test sections measured for seal dimensions had mean

shape factors within the specified design tolerances (0.29 to 1.60). Most ofthe

measured mean shape factors were around 1.00, which is generally very suitable for

hot-applied seals, but slightly less suitable for silicone seals.

- At Salt Lake City, all but 1 ofthe 10 test sections measured for seal dimensions had

mean shape factors within the specified design tolerances (0.29 to 1.60 for 9-mmwide joints and 0.67 to 8.00 for 3-mm-widejoints). A section ofCrafco RS 221 had a

mean shape factor of 1.85, whereas the design shape factor range for this treatment

was 0.29 to 1.60. The replicate section ofthis treatment had a mean shape factor of

1.46; however, its standard deviation of 0.37 indicates that several ofthe seals

probably exceeded the maximum tolerance of 1.60. Generally speaking, these mean

shape factors are too high for optimal performance by hot-applied rubberized asphalt

sealant.

The 3-mm-wide joint design was used in two sections. The mean shape factors ofthe

Dow 890-SL seals placed in these sections were 2.48 and 2.29, both of which were

within the design shape factor limits of 0.67 to 8.00. However, these shape factors

are considerably higher than the optimal shape factor of 0.5 for silicone sealants, and

could result in reduced performance.

- At Heber City, all ofthe 12 test sections measured for seal dimensions had mean

. shape factors within the specified design tolerances (0.29 to 1.60 for 9-mm-wide

joints and 0.67 to 8.00 for 3-mm-wide joints). However, one section ofKoch 9012

placed in

9-mmjoints was computed as having a mean shape factor of 1.37 and a standard

deviation of 0.25, which indicates that several ofthe seals probably had shape factors

above the maximum tolerance of 1.60.

Like the Salt Lake City site, the 3-mm-wide joint design was used in two sections.

The mean shape factors ofthe Dow 890-SL seals placed in these sections were 1.67

and 2.13, both of which were within the design shape factor limits of 0.67 to 8.00.

However, these shape factors are considerably higher than the optimal shape factor of

0.5 for silicone sealants, and could result in reduced performance.

30
Productivity and Cost Data

Because very few records were·kept regarding the time, material, labor, and equipment

required to saw, clean, and seal each test section, individual estimates of productivity and

installation costs for each joint seal treatment were not available. The only productivity data

available were from Wells (table 4). In addition, material costs were available from both Wells

(table 4) and Mesa (table 5).

Table 4. Material costs and sealant installation times at Wells, Nevada

test site (Wienrank and Evans, 1995a).

I Material I Sealant Cost I Average Installation Time for One Section, min I

Dow 890-SL $11.95/L 30

Crafco 903-SL $1O.73/L 25

Dow 888-SL $1O.04/L 25

D.S. Brown V-812 $1.80/m 115

(includes lube & adhesive)

Mobay960 $11.76/L 27.5

Crafco RS 902 $1O.33/L 40

Dow 888 $1O.83/I. 32.5

Table 5. Material costs at Mesa, Arizona test site (Meier et al., 1992)

I Sealant Material I Cost. $/m I

Watson Bowman Compression Seal 2.03&

Lubricant QJ.l

Total 2.16

Elastomer PV-687 Compression Seal 1.90

Lubricant QJ.l

Total 2.03

ICrafco RS 221 Hot-Applied 0.16

Flush Oil Q.Q1

Total 0.23

ICrafco SS 444 Hot-Applied 0.29

Flush Oil Q.Q1

Total 0.36

Dow 890-SL 1.64

Dow 888-SL 1.64

Mobay Baysilone 960-SL 1.61

Dow 888 1.34

f"'rafco 903-SL 1.34

Used in place of Elastomer PV-687.

31

CHAPTER 3. MATERIAL TESTING

As a check to ensure that the sealants used in the test sites met the specifications maintained

by the manufacturers, laboratory material testing was performed. These tests were completed on

samples taken from the batches of material shipped to and used at each site. For reasons not

reported, not all sealant products placed in the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal sites were tested.

Most of the testing was conducted on silicone materials; however, some compression seals and

some hot-applied sealants were also tested. This chapter discusses the tests that were performed

under the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal studies and presents the results ofthose tests.

Laboratory Tests Performed

Formal laboratory testing, using SHRP LTPP procedures, was conducted on field-retrieved

sealant samples from four ofthe six SPS-4 test sites. None of the sealants installed at the Campo

and Tremonton sites were formally tested. However, the results of material tests performed by

the manufacturers of sealants installed at Campo were made available by the manufacturers.

Table 6 summarizes, by test site, the types of materials tested, both formally under the SHRP

LTPP program and internally by the sealant manufacturers.

The battery of tests performed on each sealant type consisted of general material property

tests (e.g., specific gravity, extrusion rate) and performance-related tests (e.g., bond, tensile stress

under elongation). Table 7 lists the individual tests performed on each sealant type and the

corresponding designated test method and guiding specification.

Table 6. Summary of laboratory testing of SPS-4 supplemental joint seal materials.

Test Site SHRP LTPP Laboratorv Testing Material Manufacturer Laboratorv Testing

Mesa, AZ Compression seals NA

Hot-applied seals

Non-self-leveling silicone seals

Self-leveling silicone seals

Campo,CO NA Compression seals

Non-self-leveling silicone seals

Self-leveling silicone seals

Wells,NV Non-self-leveling silicone seals NA

Self-leveling silicone seals

Tremonton, UT NA NA

Salt Lake City, UT Self-leveling silicone seals NA

Heber Citv. UT Self-leveling silicone seals NA

33
Table 7. Summary of laboratory tests performed on various sealant types.

Sealant Tvne Test Descrintion Test Method Guidim>: Snecification

Non-self-leveling Silicone Tensile stress @ 150% strain ASTM D 412 (die C) Georgia DOT 106

and Durometer hardness ASTMD2240 Georgia DOT 106

Self-leveling Silicone

Bond to PCC mortar AASHTO T-132 Georgia DOT 106

Tack-free time ASTMC679 Georgia DOT 106

Extrusion rate MILS-8802 Georgia DOT 106

Specific gravity ASTMD792 Georgia DOT 106

Movement capability and ASTMC 719 Georgia DOT 106

adhesion

Non-volatiles Georgia DOT 106

Elongation at break ASTM D 412 (die C) Michigan DOT

Preformed Neoprene Tensile strength ASTMD 412 (die C) ASTMD2628

Elongation at break ASTMD 412 (die C) ASTMD2628

Durometer hardness ASTM D 2240 (mod.) ASTMD2628

Accelerated aging ASTMD573 ASTMD2628

Very low-temperature recovery ASTMD2628 ASTMD2628

Low-temperature recovery ASTMD2628 ASTMD2628

High-temperature recovery ASTMD2628 ASTMD2628

Compression-deflection @ 80% ASTMD2628 ASTMD2628

nominal width

, Oil swell ASTMD471 ASTMD 2628

Hot-Applied Penetration ASTMD 3583 ASTMD3406

PVC-Coal Tar Flow ASTMD 3583 ASTMD3406

Non-immersed bond ASTMD 3583 ASTMD 3406

Water-immersed bond ASTMD 3583 ASTMD3406

Resilience ASTMD 3583 ASTMD3406

Oven-aged resilience ASTMD 3583 ASTMD3406

Tensile adhesion ASTMD 3583 ASTMD 3406

Flexibility ASTMD 3583 ASTMD3406

Hot-Applied Penetration ASTMD 3407 ASTMD3405

Rubberized Asphalt Flow ASTMD3407 ASTMD3405

Bond ASTMD3407 ASTMD 3405

Water-immersed bond ASTM D 3407 (variant) ASTM D 3405 (variant)

Resilience ASTMD 3407 ASTMD3405

Brookfield viscosity

Ductility ASTMD 113

Asnhalt comnatabilitv ASTMD 3407 ASTMD 3405

34
Laboratory Test Results

Details of the laboratory testingresults for selected materials installed at each site were

provided in the six SPS-4 supplemental joint seal construction reports (Meier et aI., 1992;

Wienrank and Evans, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c, 1995d; Ambroz and Evans, 1996). Summaries of the

results, categorized by sealant type, are provided in the sections below.

Non-Self-Leveling Silicone Sealants

Non-self-Ieveling silicone material batches tested under the SHRP LTPP program included the

following:

• Dow 888 at Mesa, Arizona.

• Dow 888 at Wells, Nevada.

• Mobay Baysilone 960 at Wells, Nevada.

• Crafco RS 902 at Wells, Nevada.

Though specific test results for the Dow 888 placed at Mesa were not listed in the

construction report, it was reported that this material met the guiding specification for non-selfleveling silicone sealants (Georgia DOT silicone specification 106) (Meier et aI., 1992).

The specific test results for the three silicones placed at Wells are presented in table 8. All

three sealants met the guiding non-self-leveling silicone specification (Georgia DOT

requirements).

The results of tests performed by Crafco on the RS 902 silicone installed at Campo are

provided in table 9. This material met the guiding specification (based on Georgia DOT and

Michigan DOT requirements) for non-self-leveling silicone sealants.

Self-Leveling Silicone Sealants

Self-leveling silicone material lots tested under the SHRP LTPP testing protocol included the

following:

• Dow 888-SL at Mesa, Arizona.

• Dow 890-SL at Mesa, Arizona.

• Mobay Baysilone 960-SL at Mesa, Arizona.

• Crafco RS 903-SL at Mesa, Arizona.

• Dow 888-SL at Wells, Nevada.

• Dow 890-SL at Wells, Nevada.

• Crafco RS 903-SL at Wells, Nevada.

• Dow 888-SL at Salt Lake City, Utah.

• Dow 888-SL at Heber City, Utah.

35
Table 8. Formal laboratory testing results for non-self-leveling silicone sealants installed

at Wells, Nevada test site (Wienrank: and Evans, 1995a).

Georgia DOT Mobay Crafco

Test Descrintion Test Method Snecification Bavsilone 960 RS 902 Dow 888

Tensile Stress @ ASTMD412 s; 310 239.4 278.8 247.0

150% Strain, kPa (die C)

Durometer Hardness, ASTMD2240 10 - 25 12 10 16

Shore A

Bond to PCC Mortar, AASHTO T-132 z 345 434.7 648.6 579.6

kPa

Tack-Free Time, min ASTMC679 s; 90 48 55 51

Extrusion Rate, MILS-8802 z 75 308 167 196

g/min

Non-volatiles, % z 90 94.9 96.2 96.3

Specific Gravity ASTMD792 1.1 - 1.5 1.188 1.297 1.488

Movement Capability ASTMC719 10 cycles@ Pass Pass Pass

and Adhesion ±50%

Table 9. Material manufacturer laboratory testing results for non-self-leveling silicone sealant

installed at Campo, Colorado test site (Ambroz and Evans, 1996).

Test Descri tion

Tensile Stress @ 150% Strain,

kPa

Durometer Hardness, Shore A

Bond to PCC Mortar, kPa ,

Tack-Free Time, min

Extrusion Rate, g/min

Specific Gravity

Movement Capability and

Adhesion

Elongation at Break, %

NA=Not available.

Test Method

ASTMD412

(die C)

ASTMD2240

AASHTO T-132

ASTMC679

MILS-8802

ASTMD792

ASTMC719

36

10 - 25

z 345

z 75

1.1 - 1.5

Crafco

RS 902

209.1

10

NA

70

NA

NA

Pass

927
Specific test results for the four self-leveling silicones placed at Mesa were not listed in the

construction report for that site. However, it was reported that only the Dow 888-SL met the

guiding Georgia DOT silicone specification (Meier et aI., 1992). The Dow 890-SL sealant met all

parts of the specification except the Durometer (Shore A) Hardness test, whereby the recorded

value of 3 for the material was less than the requirement of 10 to 25. The Mobay Baysilone 960-

SL sealant failed the movement capability and adhesion test (10 cycles, ±50%/0% at -18°C).

Lastly, the Crafco RS 903-SL sealant failed both the Durometer (Shore A) Hardness test (a test

value of 2, which was lower than the 10 to 25 requirement) and the Tack-Free Time test (135

minutes, as compared to a maximum of 90 minutes).

As seen in table 10, two of the three silicones placed at Wells met the guiding self-leveling

silicone specification (Georgia DOT requirements). Only the Crafco RS 903-SL did not, as it

failed the Tack-Free/Skin-Over Time test (219 minutes, as compared to a maximum of 90

minutes).

Table 11 shows the results of the tests performed on separate batches of Dow 888-SL placed

at Salt Lake City and Heber City. As can be seen, the Heber City batch met all parts of the

guiding self-leveling silicone specification (Georgia DOT requirements), whereas the Salt Lake

City batch failed the requirement for tensile stress at 150 percent strain (322.2 kPa, as compared

to a maximum of 276 kPa).

The results of tests performed by Crafco on its RS 903-SL silicone installed at Campo are

provided in table 12. As can be seen, this material met the guiding specification for self-leveling

silicone sealants (Georgia DOT requirements).

Table 10. 'Formal laboratory testing results for self-leveling silicone sealants installed

at Wells, Nevada test site (Wienrank and Evans, 1995a).

Georgia DOT Crafco Dow Dow

Test Descriotion Test Method Soecification RS 903-SL 888-SL 890-SL

Tensile Stress @ ASTMD412 50 276 73.8 162.8 73.8

150% Strain, kPa (die C)

Durometer Hardness ASTMD2240 0 7 1

(Shore A)

Bond to PCC Mortar, AASHTO T-132 276 331.2 427.8 407.1

kPa

Tack-Free Time, min ASTMC679 50 90 219 52 64

(skin over)

Extrusion Rate, g/min MILS-8802 90 1,447 377 326

Non-volatiles, % 90 96.4 94.3 97.6

Specific Gravity ASTMD792 1.1-1.5 1.335 1.344 1.318

Movement Capability ASTMC719 10 cycles@ Pass Pass Pass

and Adhesion ±50%

37
Table 11. Formal laboratory testing results for self-leveling silicone sealants installed at

Salt Lake City and Heber City, Utah test sites (Wienrank: and Evans, 1995c and 1995d).

Georgia DOT Dow 888-SL at Dow 888-SL at

Test Descrintion Test Method Snecification Salt Lake City. UT Heber City. UT

Tensile Stress @ ASTMD412 !!. 276 322.2 129.0

150% Strain, kPa (die C)

Durometer Hardness ASTMD2240 7 8

(Shore A)

Bond to PCC Mortar, AASHTO T-132 276 476.1 627.9

kPa

Tack-Free Time, min ASTMC679 !!. 90 40 48

(skin over)

Extrusion Rate, g/min MILS-8802 90 226 307

Non-volatiles, % 90 93.5 93.8

Specific Gravity ASTMD792 1.1-1.5 1.3 1.349

Movement Capability ASTMC719 ±50%min Pass Pass

and Adhesion

Table 12. Material manufacturer laboratory testing results for self-leveling silicone sealant

installed at Campo, Colorado test site (Ambroz and Evans, 1996).

Georgia DOT Crafco

Test Descrintion Test Method Snecification RS 903-SL

Tensile Stress @ 150% ASTMD412 !!. 276 199.4

Strain, kPa (die C)

Durometer Hardness ASTMD2240 57

(Shore A)

Bond to PCC Mortar, AASHTO T-132 276 428.5

kPa

Tack-Free Time, min ASTMC679 !!. 90 49

(skin over)

Extrusion Rate, g/min MILS-8802 90 548

Specific Gravity ASTMD792 1.1-1.5 NA

Movement Capability ASTMC719 10 cycles@ Pass

and Adhesion ±50%

Elongation at Break, % ASTMD412 874

(die C)

NA=Not available.

38
Compression Seals

Preformed neoprene compression seals tested under the SHRP LTPP laboratory testing

protocol included the following:

• D.S. Brown V-687 at Mesa, Arizona.

• Watson Bowman 687 at Mesa, Arizona.

• Watson Bowman 812 at Mesa, Arizona.

Though specific test results for these compression seals were not listed in the Mesa

construction report, it was reported that the D.S. Brown V-687 seal met all requirements except

those for the High-Temperature Recovery test (70 hours @ 100°C, 50% deflection); the actual

value was 80.5 percent and the required minimum value was 85 percent (Meier et aI., 1992).

Likewise, the two Watson Bowman seals met all requirements except those for the HighTemperature Recovery test. The Watson Bowman 687 seal registered a recovery of 66 percent,

whereas the Watson Bowman 812 registered a recovery of 82 percent, both below the minimum

requirement of 85 percent.

The results of tests performed by D.S. Brown on their E-437H and V-687 compression seals

installed at Campo are provided in table 13. As can be seen, both materials met the guiding

specification (ASTM: D 2628 requirements).

Table 13. Material manufacturer laboratory testing results for neoprene compression seals

installed at Campo, Colorado test site (Arnbroz and Evans, 1996).

ASTMD2628 D.S.Brown D.S.Brown

Test Descrintion Test Method Snecification E-437H V-687

Tensile Strength, kPa ASTMD412 13,800 18,630 17,478

Elongation at Break, % ASTMD412 250 467 467

Durometer Hardness ASTMD2240 50 - 60 56 56

(Shore A)

High-Temperature Recovery ASTMD2628 85 98 91

(70 hour @ lOO°C, 50%

deflection), %

Low-Temperature Recovery ASTMD2628 88 99 97

(72 hour @ _lOoc, 50%

deflection), %

Low-Temperature Recovery ASTMD2628 83 98 89

(22 hour @ -29°C, 50%

deflection), %

Compression-Deflection (80% ASTMD2628 0.063 0.078 0.087

nominal width) kl!/mm

39
Hot-Al)l)lied Sealants

Two hot-applied sealants were tested under the SHRP LTPP laboratory testing protocol.

These sealants were as follows:

• Crafco RS 221, a rubberized asphalt sealant placed at Mesa, Arizona.

• Crafco SS 444, a PVC-coal tar sealant placed at Mesa, Arizona.

Though specjfic test results for these sealants were not listed in the Mesa construction report,

it was reported that both materials met their respective specifications (ASTM D 3405 for Crafco

RS 221 and ASTM D 3406 for Crafco SS 444) (Meier et at, 1992).

40
CHAPTER 4. FIELD PERFORMANCE

As discussed'in chapter 2, SPS-4 experimental joint sealants were installed at three test sites in

1991, two sites in 1992, and one site in 1995. With the exception ofthe Campo site, experimental

joint seals were inspected for performance four tin1es. These inspections were performed each

fall, beginning in 1994 and ending in 1997. Joint seals at the Campo site were inspected three

times, beginning in spring 1996 and ending in fall 1997. Table 14 provides a complete listing of

the test site inspections (by week) and the corresponding approximate joint seal ages.

Prior to each field inspection, project staff were responsible for contacting the participating

State maintenance agency and selecting the days to do the inspection. Normally, each test site

required 2 days ofinspection, whereby the lanes in which the experimental seals were installed

were closed to traffic and a detailed evaluation of the conditions of the sealants and surrounding

concrete was performed. Weather hampered the inspections in a few instances, making a third

day necessary for completing the inspection.

Performance Data Collection

Several types of performance data were routinely collected in the SPS-4 joint seal evaluations.

These performance data prin1arily consisted of seal failure data and seal distress data, both derived

from detailed, visual inspections. Seal failure was defined as a deterioration ofthe seal material or

surrounding pavement that permits moisture or debris to pass below the seal. Seal distress was

defined as those seal system deficiencies that result in a reduction in seal performance without

inhibiting the seal's ability to resist the infiltration of moisture and debris below the seal. The

complete list offailures and distresses evaluated in the field-molded sealants (silicone, hotapplieds, polysulfide) and preformed compression seals are as follows:

Table 14. Summary of SPS-4 test site inspections and corresponding treatment ages.

Mesa,AZ Campo,CO Wells, NV Tremonton, UT Salt Lake City, UT Heber City, UT

Inspection

No. Week of Age, Week of Age, Week of Age, Week of Age, Week of Age, Week of Age,

Insnect. months Insnect. months Insnect. months Insnect. months Insnect. months Insnect. months

Installation 3/18-3/31/91 11/15-11/19/95 8/14-8/22/91 10/23-10/26/92 5/19-5/27/92 (SB) 7/8-7/11/91 (EB)

6/29-8/14/92 (NB) 9/23-10/1/91 (WB

1 11/20/94 45 4/21/96 5 9/25/94 37 9/18/94 47 9/18/94 25 9/25/94 36

2 2/11/96 60 10/27/96 11 10/22/95 50 11/12/95 61 11/12/95 39 10/22/95 49

3 2/2/97 72 11/2/97 24 10/20/96 62 11/17/96 73 11/17/96 51 10/20/96 61

4 1/25/98 83 - - 10/12/97 74 11/16/97 85 11/16/97 63 10/12/97 73

41
Fie1d-Molded Sealants

• Partial-depth adhesion loss.

• Full-depth adhesion loss (failure).

• Partial-depth spalling.

• Full-depth spalling (failure).

• Stone intrusion.

• Partial-depth cohesion loss.

• Full-depth cohesion loss (failure).

Preformed Compression Seals

• Partial-depth spalling.

• Full-depth spalling (failure).

• Twisted/rolled seal (failure).

• Sunken seal (failure).

• Compression set (failure).

• Surface extrusion.

• Gap (failure).

Toward the goal of collecting the required performance data efficiently, consistently, and

completely, a two-page joint seal evaluation form was prepared in a format similar to that used in

the SHRP H-106 joint resealing experiment. The form contained adhesion loss and cohesion loss

tables on one page and spall distress, compression seal distress, and stone intrusion tables on the

second page, as illustrated in figure 22. It also contained an overall failure column, whereby the

total length of all failures combined was recorded.

Because of the large number of transverse joint seals in each test section-often between 25

and 3D-a statistical sampling plan was devised to permit the field survey crew to evaluate a

representative subset ofthe joint seals without introducing bias into the evaluation results. In this

sampling plan, 6 sets of 12 random joint numbers between 1 and 30 were generated using a

random number generator. Each set of 12 random numbers was then randomly assigned to each

test section at a test site. In this way, a semi-randomjoint selection pattern was established that

would allow for the consistent evaluation of 12 joint seals within each section at a given site.

During each field inspection, each randomly selected transverse joint seal was examined for

locations offailure and distress within twelve 0.305-m segments along the joint. Each identified

failure or distress location was then measured (with the aid of two 1.8-m folding rulers) and

recorded (in inches) on the evaluation form according to the corresponding joint number and

position. In the case of adhesion and spall failures and distresses, the side ofthe joint (approach

or leave) was also noted.

For hot- and cold-applied formed-in-place sealants, the overall failure length was identified as

the total length ofjoint seal where moisture and debris were able to bypass the seal as a result of

full-depth adhesion failure, cohesion failure, or spall failure. The same definition was applied to

neoprene compression seals; however, failure modes consisted of spall failure, twisting,

compression set, gap, and sunken seal.

42
Adhesion Loss Tensile Failure Construction Problems Overall

Adh/Coh

Joint Pt\. Pt\. Pt\. Full Full Full Sunk Sunk Missing <0.06 in Tooling High Failure,

ID Pos Left, Right, Overall, Left, Right, Overall, Pt\., Full, Pt\., Full, Seal, thick, Failure, Seal, in

;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n in in

04J421401 1

04J421401 2 2 2 3

04J421401 3 4 5 9

04J421401 4 3 5 5 2 1 6

04J421401 5

04J421401 6

p4J421401 7

p4J421401 8

p4J421401 9

p4J421401 10 3 2 5 5

P4J421401 11

h,1U"Unl I?

Sliver Spall Distress PCC Edge Failure Compression Seal Distress Overall

System

Joint Pt\. Pt\. Pt\. Full Full Full Full Full Full Twist! Sunk Compo Compo Failure,

ID Pos. Left, Right, Overall, Left, Right, Overall, Left, Right, Overall, Roll, >0.5 in, Set, Gap, Overall, in

;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n ;n

04J421401 1 11 11

04J421401 2 1 1

04J421401 3 1 1

04J421401 4 6

104J421401 5 1 1

104J421401 6

104J421401 7 1 1 1 1 1

104J421401 8

104J421401 9 1 1

104J421401 10 5

104J421401 11

h,1TA"lMll 17.

1 in = 25.4 mm

Figure 22. SPS-4 supplement joint seal performance evaluation form

43
To evaluate the resilience, adhesive properties, and cohesive properties of the field-molded

seal materials, two field tests were completed: the coin test and the pull-out test. These tests

were performed as specified in the SHRP H-106 Evaluation and Analysis Plan (EAP) (Evans et

at, 1992). Coin tests were completed on hot-applied and silicone sealant materials, and pull-out

tests were carried out on hot-applied, silicone, and polysulfide sealants. The coin test is an

indicator of sealant resiliency at the testing temperature, and the pull-out test reveals the adhesive

and cohesive properties of sealant materials in the joints. Due to time constraints, coin tests and

pull-out tests were performed only at the Campo site. The IA-VAC joint seal vacuum testing

device was also used on randomly selected joint seals at the Campo site. A representative of the

Colorado DOT performed the IA-VAC testing.

Once all of the performance data for a particular test site and field inspection were collected,

the data were manually entered into Microsoft Access©, which served as the database manager for

the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal experiment. The entered data were carefully checked for

accuracy and corrections were made as necessary.

Field Performance Results

The bottom-line assessment ofjoint seal performance in this study is based on the percentage

of total joint length that has experienced a failure of one type or another. This percentage of

failure is computed using the following equation:

where: %Fail

Lfail

Ltotal

%Fail =(Lfan / Ltotal) X 100%

= Percentage ofjoint seal failed, %.

= Length offailed joint seal, rnrn.

= Total length ofjoint seal, rnrn.

(Eq. 1)

In most ofthe reporting contained herein, joint seal effectiveness is discussed. Joint seal

effectiveness is the opposite ofjoint seal failure, and is computed as follows:

where:

%Eff =100% - %Fail

%Eff = Percentage of effective joint seal, %

%Fail = Percentage ofjoint seal failed, %.

(Eq.2)

As seen in figure 23, a comparison by test site of the overall performance ofthe transverse

joint seals gives an indication ofthe rate ofjoint seal deterioration at each site. Though these

performance trends are based on the individual performance trends of different groups ofjoint

seal treatments, the greatest deterioration rates have been at the three Utah sites, whereas the

lowest deterioration rates have been at the Mesa and Wells sites.

44
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

+---------------~~---------j

i

+---r:::i~c~onU~S2~8::;l7~------~~""oo::::_-----J.I

.......NVI-80

+------1

-+-AZUS 60

+------1"'*" UT SR 1541----------------------1

-+-UTUS40

+----!""*""UT 1-15

100

90

oS 80 en

&:I

- 70 ...

&:I ...

0

60 .....

50

.~ 40 ... 30

c;

v.l 20

10

0

0

Time, months

Figure 23. Overall performance of primary transverse joint seals at each test site.

Transverse Joint Seals

The overall effectiveness levels oftransverse joint seals stemming from the 1997-1998 round

of test site inspections are shown in table 15. As can be seen, several ofthe sealants have

performed well, but many have performed very poorly. Based on the seal performance rating

categories developed by Belangie and Anderson (1985) and shown in table 16, 26 ofthe 56

treatments have performed favorably (~80 percent of the joint length has not failed), whereas 22

have reached "failed" status «50 percent ofthe joint length has not failed). Seven treatments

exhibited mediocre performance at the time ofthe 1997-1998 inspections, and one showed poor

performance.

Figures 24 through 29 show, by test site, the overall percentage offailure that each treatment

exhibited at the time of the 1997-1998 field inspections. These figures also show the types and

percentages of individual failure modes contributing to the overall failure percentage. As can be

seen, the predominant modes offailure varied by sealant type and by test site. Generally speaking,

the main mechanism of failure in hot-applied seals (e.g., Crafco RS 221, Koch 9012) was adhesive

failure, as illustrated in figure 30. Cohesive failure, which can also be seen in figure 30, was

significant in some ofthe seals.

45
Table 15. Overall effectiveness levels of SPS-4 transverse joint seal treatments

following 1997-1998 field inspection round.

Overall Effectiveness, % joint length

Sealant

Material

Crafco RS 221

Crafco SS 444

Crafco 902

Cratco 903-SL

Dow 888

Dow 888-SL

Dow 890-SL

DS Brown E-437H

DS Brown V.(j87

DS Brown V-812

Koch 9005

Koch 9012

Koch 9050-SL

Ko1d Seal

Mobay960

Mobay 960-SL

Roshek

EscoPV 687

Watson Bowman 687

Watson Bowman 812

Joint

Config.

C

C

A

B

C

G

A

B

C

C

C

A

B

C

E

B

C

D

C

C

C

C

C

C

A

C

C

C

Mesa,AZ

(US 60)

10.7

31.7

98.0

98.9

97.7

96.5

98.4

98.8

Campo,CO

(US 287)

Salt Lake City, UT

(UT 154)

• Based on three replicate sections.

b Based on one replicate section.

Joint Configuration/Construction

A. Standard saw, 3-mm joint width.

B. Standard saw, 6-mm joint width.

C. Standard saw, 9-mm joint width.

D. Standard saw, 13-mm joint width.

E. Soff-Cut saw, 3-mm joint width.

F. Undisturbed.

G. Standard saw, 9-mm beveled joint.

Table 16. Summary of performance ratings.

Rating Effectiveness Level, % Number ofTreatments

Very good 90 to 100 18

Good 80.0 to 89.9 8

Fair 65.0 to 79.9 7

Poor 50.0 to 64.9 1

(f"ilprl) o to 49.9 22

46
100 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ -- - -- .

90 ~Gap

80 IlJilComp. Set

il

ell o Spall 70

- • Cohesion :s 60 Q

.... ~Adhesion

t. 50

'if

;.. 40

i 30 III

r..

20

10

0

Figure 24. Overall failure of transverse joint seals at Mesa, Arizona test site.

+---------------------j ~Gap

11III Extrusion

+------------------------l IlJil Compo Set

rnlTwist

+----------------------1 0 Spall

• Cohesion

+-----------------------! ImAdhesion

100

90

80

il

70

:sQ 60 ....

c:> 50 ..:-

;.. 40

i 30 III

r..

20

10

0

r§' ..§' ..§' ~'Y ~'Y ~'Y 0.,r;;;:,'Y 00., 00., 00., 0

Figure 25. Overall failure of transverse joint seals at Campo, Colorado test site.

47
100

90

.s 80

! 70

... 60

'I

af 50 :>-

.!l

III 40

30

20

10

0

.§' Q,~ C>J~ V Q,~

V

!8l Gap

fEiI Compo Set 1----------------

00 Twist

o Spall

• Cohesion

~Adhesion

Figure 26. Overall failure oftransverse joint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

100

90 !8l Gap

fEilComp. Set

80 o Twist

i !!B Sunken

= 70 o Spall

.!l • Cohesion

S 60 ~Adhesion c

...

I- 50

af

40 III

30 GIl

20

10

0

Figure 27. Overall failure oftransverse joint seals at Tremonton, Utah test site.

48
100

90 ~Gap

III Extrusion

80 i'f1l Compo Set ;;

011 o Twist ! 70

o Spall :5 60 • Cohesion Cl

..... fill\'lAdhesion I- 50

"i

:> 40 ..,

-..,

t 30

20

10

0

Figure 28. Overall failure oftransverse joint seals at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

100

90 ~Gap

80 IiIII Ext:rusion

;; i'f1l Compo Set

70 o Twist .!l o Spall :5 60 Cl • Cohesion .....

I- fill\'lAdhesion 50 J..,

:>

.!l 40 ..,

30

= 20

10

0

Figure 29. Overall failure of transverse joint seals at Heber City, Utah test site.

49
Figure 30. Adhesion and cohesion failure in hot-applied

rubberized asphalt seal.

For the non-self-leveling silicone seals, the primary failure mode varied. At a majority of the

sites, spall failure (figure 31) comprised most ofthe failure in these seals, whereas at other sites,

adhesive failure was the controlling mechanism Similar performance characteristics were

observed with the self-leveling silicone sealants, except that adhesive failure was predominant at

the majority of sites.

The most common failure modes for the compression seals were compression set and gap

failure. In compression set, the neoprene web structure loses its ability to exert outward pressure

as a result of being in a state of compression for very long periods of time. Thus, when the joint

opens, the seal loses contact with the joint sidewall and an opening in the seal system is created

that allows infiltration of moisture or debris. Gap failure, which is closely related to compression

set, occurs when joints open wider than the compression seal is able to span, and stones work

their way between the edge of the compression seal and the edge of the joint. When the joint

contracts. the stones remain between the seal and the joint edge and allow water to bypass the

edge of the seal. Figure 32 illustrates the gap phenomenon.

50
Figure 31. Spall failure in self-leveling silicone seal.

Figure 32. Gap failure in preformed neoprene compression seal.

51
Longitudinal Joint Seals

Longitudinal joints were sealed with the same material as the transverse joints at the Mesa and

Wells sites, and similar evaluations were conducted on these seals. The overall failure levels and

failure mode breakdowns for each seal type placed at these two sites are displayed in figures 33

and 34. For the most part, the failure levels and modes for these seals are similar to those of the

transverse joint seals. The primary exception is that the polyethylene sealant placed at the Wells

site is performing significantly better in the longitudinal joints than in the transverse joints. This

can probably be attributed to less joint movement at the longitudinal joint.

Overall Sealant Material Performance

Hot-Applied Rubberized Asphalt Seals

Hot-applied rubberized asphalt sealants meeting the ASTM D 3405 specification were

installed at all sites except Wells and Campo. The products installed were Crafco RS 221 and

Koch 9005, and the average effectiveness level for this material type as a transverse joint sealant

following the 1997-1998 field inspection round was about 28 percent. In longitudinal joints at the

Mesa site, the average effectiveness ofthis material type was 22 percent. Adhesion failure

accounted for about 85 percent ofthe total failure in these materials placed in transverse joints.

The best performance ofrubberized asphalt sealants was obtained at the Salt Lake City and Heber

City sites, with much worse performance at the Mesa and Tremonton sites.

The performance of similar seals placed in the SHRP H-106 joint resealing experiment was

considerably better (Evans et al., 1999). After approximately 7 years, Koch 9005, placed

recessed in sawn joints at five U.S. test sites, had an average effectiveness of about 72 percent.

Crafco RS 221 placed recessed in sawn joints at a site in Phoenix, Arizona had an effectiveness of

57 percent after 7 years. It is believed that the level ofjoint cleaning is a major factor in the

performance differences between the SPS-4 hot-applied seals and the H-106 hot-applied seals.

With the exception ofthe Mesa site where joints were sandblasted, waterblasted, and airblasted,

the cleaning effort for the hot-applied seals at the other SPS-4 sites (Salt Lake City, Tremonton,

and Heber City) was not to the level used in the H-106 sites (sandblast and airblast).

Hot-Applied PVC-Coal Tar Seals

ASTM D 3406 hot-applied PVC-coal tar sealants were placed in the Mesa and three Utah test

sites, using either Crafco SS 444 or Koch 9012. The average effectiveness ofthese materials

placed in transverse and longitudinal joints was 32 and 53 percent, respectively. Full-depth

adhesion loss was the predominant failure mode, as it comprised 55 percent ofthe overall failure

in transverse seals. Cohesion failure was also a significant contributor, particularly at the Mesa

site, where possible overheating ofthe sealant prior to installation may have altered the properties

of the Crafco SS 444 in one ofthe replicates.

52
100

90

SO

-= 70

.!:l=

li 60 CI

....

t- 50

ai

:>- 40 - 30 III

r..

20

10

o

o Spall

------------------1 • Cohesion 1-------1

------------------1 Adhesion f--------l

Figure 33. Overall failure oflongitudinaljoint seals placed

at Mesa, Arizona test site.

100 .

9O+-------------------------------l

oUlI-lJI-l2O+------------.====;--r-r

so +-----f--:r&I;:;:::O;-a-p--l------------------l

70 +------1 flfl Compo Set 1---------

.!:l mTwist

60 0 Spall

.... • Cohesion

50 -1------1 ...t ~Adhesion

40 +------------------

==30+--------------------1 III

r..

Figure 34. Overall failure oflongitudinaljoint seals placed

at Wells, Nevada test site.

53
Non-Self-Leveling Silicone Seals

Non-self-leveling silicone sealant products from Dow, Crafco, and Mobay were placed at all

six test sites, and this material type's performance has arguably been the best. Of 11 total

treatments, only 1 exhibited unfavorable performance «80 percent effectiveness) in the 1997-

1998 field inspections. Dow 888, placed in 9-mmjoints at Heber City, experienced considerable

adhesion failure, causing its effectiveness rating to drop to 15 percent Goint cleanliness may have

been a factor in this failure). Inclusion ofthis treatment in the calculation ofthe average

effectiveness ofthe 11 standard silicone treatments resulted in a rating of 85 percent, whereas

exclusion resulted in a rating of92 percent. Not considering the Dow 888 placed at Heber City,

the predominant mode offailure in this material type was spall failure (56 percent oftotal

failure); however, considerable percentages of adhesive and cohesive failure were also observed.

Self-Leveling Silicone Seals

A total of21 self-leveling silicone sealant treatments, consisting ofDow 888-SL, Dow 890-

SL, Crafco 903-SL, and Mobay 960-SL placed in 3-mm (standard and Soff-Cut), 6-mm, and

9-mm sawed joints, were installed at the six test sites. Ofthese 21 treatments, 4 exhibited poor

or fair performance (50.0 to 79.9 percent effectiveness) and 4 more exhibited failed performance

«50.0 percent effectiveness) in the 1997-1998 field inspections. These eight unfavorably

performing treatments were located at the three Utah sites, and the predominant failure mode was

adhesive failure (97 percent oftotal failure). Among the 13 favorably performing treatments, the

primary failure type was spall failure (56 percent oftotal failure), with considerable percentages

of adhesive and cohesive failure also observed.

Self-Leveling Polysulfide Seals

Koch 9050-SL one-part polysulfide sealant was installed at the Salt Lake City and Heber

City sites. The average effectiveness level ofthis sealant after the 1997-1998 field inspections

was 9 percent, with a slightly higher percentage of adhesive failure than cohesive failure. Apart

from the proprietary sealant installed at Tremonton, this material performed the worst ofthose

placed at the six test sites. During inspection, the polysulfide sealant was found to be very stiff

with very little extension ability.

Preformed Compression Seals

Neoprene compression seal materials manufactured by D.S. Brown, Watson Bowman, Esco,

and a fourth manufacturer were installed at all six sites. In general, performance ofthis material

type was mixed, as 4 ofthe 12 treatments performed favorably at the time ofthe 1997-1998 field

inspections and 5 reached failed status. The average effectiveness level ofthis seal type was 56

percent.

The one-celled Kold Seal Neo Loop seal (figure 35), installed at Tremonton, performed very

poorly, with only 1 percent ofits length still effective after the 1997-1998 field inspections. The

primary mode offailure in this product was gap failure, which is believed to be partly the result

ofthe seal's design and the roadway conditions. The seal has a bulb at its surface that projects

54
():)npression

seal

.Joi nt

~ervoi r

Figure 35. Kold Seal Neo Loop compression seal design.

above the top of the main seal flanges. Small stones and sand wedged between the bulb and the

joint edges when the joints were at their widest opening. In the summer, the joints closed to a

smaller width, but the stones between the bulb and the joint walls remained in place. Because the

bottom ofthe seal was allowed to compress inward toward the center ofthe joint, a gap

developed between the seal flanges and the joint edge. In some cases, the width ofthe gap was

nearly 3 mm, thus allowing the infiltration of water and debris into the joint. . .

The four-cell Esco PV-687 compression seal, installed at Tremonton, experienced

considerable gap failure, as well as some compression set and twist failures. As a result, its

effectiveness during the 1997-1998 field inspections fell to 21 percent.

D.S. Brown compression seals of various widths were used at all but the Tremonton site. The

E-437H seal was used in 6-mmjoints at three sites with mixed results. At Heber City, the

effectiveness ofthis product remained relatively high, whereas at Salt Lake City, Utah, failure was

reached. At the 2-year-old Campo site, effectiveness dropped to 65 percent. Compression set

comprised approximately 54 percent of the overall failure and gap failure comprised 20 percent of

the overall failure. The V-687 seal was installed in 9-mmjoints at the above three sites and Mesa.

This product's effectiveness was very low (29 percent) at Mesa, mostly as a result of gap failure

and compression set. The seal performed much better at the Campo, Salt Lake City, and Heber

City sites, with effectiveness levels ranging from 69 to 93 percent at the time ofthe 1997-1998

field inspections. Primary modes offailure ofthis product varied by test site, with compression

set being the predominant factor at Salt Lake City and twisting, which occurred during

installation, the main factor at Campo. The V-812 seal, placed in 13-mmjoints at Wells, received

an effectiveness rating of 35 percent in the 1997-1998 field inspections. The primary mode of

failure was compression set, with considerable percentages of twist and gap failure also recorded.

55
Finally, two Watson Bowman seals, WB-687 and WB-812, were installed in 9-mmjoints at

the Mesa site. Both of these products have performed favorably after 83 months of service.

Compression set and gap failure each comprised about 50 percent of the overall failure ofthese

seal products.

Miscellaneous Seals

In the final round offield inspections, the proprietary sealant material provided by Mike

Roshek (Utah DOT) and installed at the Tremonton site exhibited 14 percent effectiveness. Fulldepth cohesion loss was the predominant failure mechanism for this sealant, with some adhesive

failure, spall failure, and sunken seal failure also noted.

The polyethylene sealant installed at Wells in 1980 showed 0 percent effectiveness long before

the final round offield inspections. The vast majority ofthe failed length was the result of

cohesive failure.

Joint Configuration Performance

Comparison ofthe effectiveness levels of the various silicone seal treatments indicate limited

potential performance differences with respect to joint configuration. For instance, seals installed

at the Mesa site exhibited very little difference in performance when installed in 3-,6-, and

9-mm-wide joints--effectiveness ranged from 96.5 to 98.8 percent. Also, at the Campo site,

where Crafco 902 standard silicone and Crafco 903-SL self-leveling silicone were installed in 3-,

6-, and 9-mm-wide joints, effectiveness levels after 24 months remained very high and fairly

similar to one another. Even the Crafco 902 seal placed in a 9-mm-wide beveled joint showed

comparable performance.

Comparison of the Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone seals placed in conventionally sawed and

Soff-Cut sawed 3-mmjoints at the three Utah sites indicates a possible difference in performance

trends. At the Salt Lake City and Heber City sites, seals placed in the Soff-Cut joints showed

much better performance than those placed in conventional joints. Similar performance by these

two types ofseals was observed at the Tremonton site.

56
CHAPTERS. DATAANALYS~

As stated in chapter 1, the primary objective of this experimental study was to determine the

sealant material-joint configuration combinations that perform best in newly constructed

pavements. To accomplish this objective, statistical analyses were conducted on the field

performance data to identify differences in performance among the various experimental joint seal

treatments installed at each site. This chapter describes the statistical methods used to analyze the

various types of performance data and presents the results ofthe analyses.

Statistical Methodology

The SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites were designed for a randomized block design

analysis with the following two factors: treatments and position along the joint. Two replicates of

12 joints sealed using unique treatments comprised the blocks for analysis of seal performance at

each site. Analyses of variance were performed on both the current (1997-1998) joint seal

effectiveness levels and the service lives of the experimental seals, as defined by the time required

for a sealant to reach 75 percent effectiveness, given its historical effectiveness trend.

Analysis offield performance data was conducted using SAS® statistical software version

6.12. In preparation for statistical analysis, performance data were compiled in spreadsheets,

verified, and converted to American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) format.

SAS® command files were prepared for each analysis, instructing the program how to read the

ASCII data, what types of statistical analysis to perform, and what form of output was desired.

The SAS® General Linear Model (GLM) procedure with the multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA) option was used for the analysis oftreatment performance. This procedure uses the

mean distress values and variability associated with each distress or failure to determine if the

performance oftwo or more ofthe treatments is statistically different. The procedure was run in

conjunction with the Tukey studentized range grouping method, which groups treatments of

similar performance and ranks both the groups and the treatments within each group.

Analysis of variance yields a probability rating between 0 and 1 that the values of each distress

are the same for each replicate, treatment, and position. For example, if there is no significant

difference at one site between the adhesion failure of all treatments, the rating would be near 1.

If, however, a significant difference exists between two or more ofthe treatments, the rating

would be near O. The ratings used in this study were based on a Type IV mean square, with

Replicate*Treatment as an error term Also, probability ratings of 0.05 were used to indicate the

existence of significant differences, based on a 95 percent confidence level.

Analysis of Variance of Current Performance

One way to evaluate the performance characteristics of different joint seal treatments is to

statistically analyze the most recently documented effectiveness levels. This type of "snapshot" or

57
"point-in-time" performance assessment was carried out on the effectiveness levels determined

from the 1997-1998 field inspections using the SAS® procedures described above and the

established 95 percent confidence level.

Results ofthe analysis of variance of treatments for the six sites are presented as probability

ratings in table 17. Considering the sites containing transverse joint seal treatments, it can be seen

that two or more treatments at the Mesa, Tremonton, and Salt Lake City sites exhibited a

significant difference in partial-depth adhesion loss. Also, differences in full-depth adhesion loss

were significant at the Mesa, Tremonton, and Heber City test sites, and significant differences in

full-depth cohesion failure were found at all but the Salt Lake City and Heber City sites.

Partial-depth spalling distress was found to be significantly different at all sites except Campo

and Salt Lake City, and significant differences in full-depth spall distress were identified at the

Wells and Salt Lake City sites. Overall failure, which includes full-depth adhesion loss, full-depth

spalls, cohesion failure, and several compression seal failure modes, was significantly different

between at least two treatments at all but the Campo and Salt Lake City sites. Because of the

closeness of the mean overall failure and the variability in overall failure between joints, the

overall performance ofthe treatments at the Salt Lake City site was not significantly different.

Analysis of variance ofthe longitudinal joint seal treatments indicates that the only significant

difference among these treatments was with respect to overall failure at the Wells site. No other

significant differences were found among the various distress and failure types.

Table 17. Probability ratings from analysis of variance of SPS-4 transverse

and longitudinal joint seal treatments.

Mesa, Wells,

Arizona Nevada

Distress/Failure Trans. Long. Campo, Trans. Long. Tremonton, Sal~ Lake City, Heber City,

Type Seals Seals Colorado Seals Seals Utah Utah Utah

Partial-Depth 0.0001 v' 0.5974 1.0000 0.1524 0.1567 0.0004v' 0.0001v' 0.4043

Adhesion Loss

Full-Depth 0.0001v' 0.4609 1.0000 0.0725 0.1182 0.0001v' 0.3527 0.0481v'

Adhesion Loss

Full-Depth 0.0141v' 0.5808 0.0485v' 0.000 Iv' 0.2146 0.0001v' 0.2806 0.3491

Cohesion Loss

Partial-Depth 0.0351v' 0.1258 0.0754 0.0037v' 0.6762 0.0241 v' 0.0737 0.0085v'

Spall Distress

Full-Depth 0.0641 0.6575 0.9415 0.0293v' 0.5115 0.0610 0.0006v' 0.1710

Spall Distress

Overall 0.0002v' 0.0740 0.9999 0.0005v' 0.0089v' 0.0001v' 0.1763 0.0001v'

Failure

v' Indicates a significant difference at the 95 percent confidence level.

58
When the MANDVA analysis indicates a significant difference in the performance of two or

more of the treatments, further analysis can be conducted to determine which treatments are

performing differently. To make this determination, the Tukey's studentized range analysis was

used with the SAS GLM procedure to rank each treatment by similar performance at each site.

Transverse Joint Seal~

The results ofthe Tukey comparisons of current (1997-1998) transverse joint seal

effectiveness are illustrated in figures 36 through 41. These figures show the mean effectiveness

levels ofthe various treatments and the Tukey performance groupings (given by the "level"

designations) for each joint seal site. Each level represents a statistical distinction in performance,

with level 1 representing the highest performance, followed by level 2, level 3, and so on. As cail

be seen in these figures, statistically significant differences were found to exist at all test sites

except Salt Lake City.

Several observations can be made regarding the performance groupings shown in these

figures. The most noteworthy ofthese observations, by test site, are as follows:

Mesa, Arizona

• Standard and self-leveling silicone seals are statistically performing the same, and both

types are statistically outperforming the hot-applied seals and most preformed

compression seals. Since the in-place costs of silicone materials are substantially higher

than those of hot-applied seals, better performance is necessary for them to be costeffective.

• Insufficient failure has occurred in the Dow 890-SL seals installed in 3-,6-, and 9-mm

joints to determine which configurations are statistically performing better or worse. The

conclusion that can be drawn at this time is that the narrow, and less expensive, 3-mm

joint seals are performing as well as the seals installed in wider, and more expensive,

joints.

• Extended heating and overheating of the Crafco SS 444 sealant are likely to have

attributed to its current poor performance at Mesa. Almost all of the failures ofthis

sealant have been cohesive failures.

Campo. Colorado

• Compression seals are performing statistically poorer than silicone seals after a period of

24 months, primarily because ofimproper installation techniques. As mentioned in

chapter 2, the compression seal installation machine did not function well during the

installatipn process, so the two compression seals were installed by hand using putty

knives. The result was considerable failure in the form of twisted seal and compression

set.

59
100

90

I 80

li 70 c

:.-- 60 ,;;

..

2j SO

'il 40

&I

'I 30 .,

20

10

0

100

20

o

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• u ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Level 3

Figure 36. Overall effectiveness groupings for Mesa, Arizona

transverse joint seal treatments.

Levell .. Level. 2

Figure 37. Overall effectiveness groupings for Campo, Colorado

transverse joint seal treatments.

60
100 .. 90

t 80

:El 70 co

....

'S- 60 ..

..

::! 50

40

..

'I 30 ..

foil

20

10

0

o§I 0&......

$!CoY ~Y

<f:>~ 'Q 'Q

Levd1

Level 2 ..

100

90

i 80 ...

i 70 ....

'S- 60 ..

..

::! 50 i 40

..

'I 30 ..

foil

20

Figure 38. Overall effectiveness groupings for Wells, Nevada

transverse joint seal treatments.

Levell

Figure 39. Overall effectiveness groupings for Tremonton, Utah

transverse joint seal treatments.

61
100

90 t 80

i 70 -.

,If

..5 so

.. 40

-; 30 ..

III

20

10

o

...........-- __ -_ -.

Levell

Figure 40. Overall effectiveness groupings for Salt Lake City, Utah

transverse joint seal treatments.

OIl Levell

100 •

90

Level 2

80 +-----+

oS! =

...

. 70 ....

tli! 60

= 50 ..

. 40

..

OJ 30 .. ['J

20

Figure 41. Overall effectiveness groupings for Heber City, Utah

transverse joint seal treatments.

62
• In general, insufficient failure has occurred in the silicone treatments in order to find any

statistical differences at this time. However, marginally poorer performance has been

identified in the Crafco 902 seals placed in 9-rnrn-wide beveled joints and the Crafco 903-

SL seals placed in 6-rnrn-wide joints. The former treatment was placed too thin in several

joints (mean shape factor of 0.32 in one section), resulting in some cohesive failure. The

latter treatment was placed too high in many locations, which exposed the seal to contact

with traffic and has resulted in considerable adhesion failure.

Wells. Nevada

• Silicone seal treatments are performing significantly better than the D.S. Brown

compression seal at this site. However, full-depth spalling has resulted in considerable

overall failure (between 10 and 16 percent) in each treatment.

• Though some of the silicone seal treatments were found to have been installed with very

low shape factors «0.4), no statistical differences in current performance exist.

• At 0 percent effectiveness, the 18-year-old polyethylene sealant (all other seals are

approximately 6 years old) represents the lowest category of current performance. All of

its failures have been in the form offull-depth cohesion loss.

Tremonton. Utah

• With the exception of Dow 888-SL placed in 9-rnrnjoints, silicone seal treatments are

performing statistically better than the compression seals, hot-applied seals, and the

Roshek seal. Although the two Dow 890-SL joint seal treatments are currently

performing statistically the same as the Mobay 960 treatment, the fact that these

treatments were occasionally placed high or thin in the joint has caused them to incur

considerably more failure than the Mobay 960 seals.

• The low performance levels of the Esco PV-687 and Kold Seal Neo Loop compression

seals are largely attributable to improper installation and poor design, respectively. Esco

PV-687 seals were installed by hand rather than machine, and the unique design ofthe

Kold Seal Neo Loop appears to foster gap failure.

• Full-depth adhesion loss is the primary reason for the two hot-applied seals (Koch 9005

and Koch 9012) falling in the lowest performance category at this site. Both seals were

reported as being somewhat or very hard during the 1997-1998 field inspection, which

may have led to the development of adhesion failure. As discussed in chapter 2, there was

some difficulty in maintaining the proper application temperature of the Koch 9012 sealant

during installation.

Salt Lake City. Utah

• Despite the fact that some treatments have experienced much greater amounts of failure

than others, the results of Tukey groupings do not indicate a significant difference in

63
current overall performance between any ofthe various treatments. Nevertheless, the

following points should be made with regard to the performance characteristics ofsome of

the joint seal treatments:

- Two Dow 890-SL treatments showed considerably lower effectiveness levels than

the Dow 888 and Dow 888-SL treatments. These lower effectiveness levels were

partly the result ofthe seals being placed too high in the joint, leading to contact

with traffic and, consequently, full-depth adhesion loss.

- The performance ofthe Koch 9012 seals may have been affected by contamination

ofthe material during installation.

- High shape factors (>1.40) may have contributed to the very poor performance of

the Crafco RS 221 seals.

Heber City. Utah

• Tukey groupings indicate that all treatments, except Koch 9050-SL polysulfide, are

statistically performing the same at this site. However, as seen in figure 41, there is a wide

range in the effectiveness levels of the various treatments. It is believed that the variability

in performance between replicate sections is the reason for no overall statistical differences

among eight ofthe nine treatments. Recall from table 3 (chapter 2) that the joints in the

eastbound lane test sections received much higher waterblasting and airblasting pressures

than the joints in the westbound lane test sections. Other factors in the performance of

some ofthese sealants are as follows:

- About half ofthe D.S. Brown E-437H seals were installed by hand, which may

account for some ofthe failure ofthis treatment.

- Difficulty in placing the two Dow 890-SL seals in 3-mmjoints could be a factor in

the poor performance ofthese seals.

- Placement ofseals too high in the joint could be a factor for some ofthe

treatments, particularly Dow 890-SL in 3-mm-wide joints, Koch 9012, Koch 9005,

and D.S. Brown V-687.

• Mass adhesive and cohesive failures have led to the total failure ofthe Koch 9050-SL

polysulfide seals. This material was found to be very hard during the 1997-1998 field

inspection, and it showed poor resilience.

General

• Neoprene compression seals installed by hand have shown poorer performance than

expected.

64
• Among 3-mm-wide joints formed using Soff-Cut equipment and wet-sawing equipment,

and sealed with Dow 890-SL, no significant differences have been individually identified at

the Tremonton, Salt Lake City, and Heber City sites.

• No statistical differences in current performance have been identified among Crafco 903-

SL, Dow 888, Dow 888-SL, and Dow 890-SL seals placed in 9-mm-wide joints at either

Mesa or Wells.

Longitudinal Joint Seals

The results ofthe Tukey comparisons of current (1997-1998) longitudinal joint seal

effectiveness are illustrated in figures 42 and 43. Noteworthy observations regarding the

performance groupings ofthese seals at the Mesa and Wells sites are given below.

Mesa. Arizona

• Generally speaking, the performance patterns ofthe longitudinal joint seals at Mesa mirror

those of the transverse joint seals. No statistical differences in current performance were

found, even though two hot-applied joint seal treatments (Crafco SS 444 and Crafco RS

221) showed substantial levels offailure. As with the transverse joint seals, extended

heating and overheating ofthe Crafco SS 444 sealant (in one replicate) are likely to have

attributed to this material's current poor performance.

Wells. Nevada

• Like the transverse joint seals at Wells, the statistical performance breakout oflongitudinal

joint seals at this site show the D.S. Brown V-812 compression seals with distinctly lower

performance than all silicone seals. Full-depth spalling has also been the cause for

considerable overall failure in the silicone treatments.

Analysis of Variance of Service Life

A second way in which the performance of experimental seals was evaluated was through

analysis of variance ofjoint seal service life. The service life of a particular seal type provides a

better overall picture of performance because it indicates the seal's effectiveness over time and,

more importantly, its longevity in maintaining a minimum acceptable level of effectiveness.

To conduct a service life analysis, it was first necessary to define a minimum acceptable

effectiveness level. Because ofthe highly varying levels offailure observed throughout the SPS-4

test sites, a value of75 percent effectiveness was chosen for this analysis. Figure 44 illustrates the

service life determination concept. In this figure, a particular joint seal 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 of75 percent effectiveness, the corresponding estimated age

(i.e., service life) is 62 months.

65
90

80

10

o

20

70

30

50

60

40

r···················································································~~~i·i················· j

100

Figure 42. Overall effectiveness groupings for Mesa, Arizona

longitudinal joint seal treatments.

100

90

80 = 70 .... 60

.;;

f!l 50 ..

=

13 40

..

"i 30

20

10

0

f'

~'V G

Levell

Level 2

III •

Figure 43. Overall effectiveness groupings for Wells, Nevada

longitudinal joint seal treatments.

66
50 60 70 80 90 100

rront hs

40

Pge,

30

75%.f eel I veness

20

ESt I ...eel aervl ce I I f e =62 mlnt. hs

10

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

O ...........................L-J~~ ................L-J~~............-"--'~~..L-L.-"--'~~..L-L.-"--'~~..L-L.-"--'~~..L-L.-"--'~ ..........

o

Treat nent Bfect i veness, %j oi nt length

1oo~""'I-W----III-----IIIo=:=::::::;;~------::;:;:-:-::-::::=--=~:=:=-::-:::::;---, perf orr'IIII'1C8 trend

90

Figure 44. Illustration of service life estimation, based on 75 percent effectiveness.

For the analyses conducted in this study, the estimated service lives ofindividual joint seals

were determined, and then the mean and standard deviation values of service life were computed

for each joint seal treatment. This approach allowed for the consideration ofthe variation that

exists in treatment performance from joint to joint.

Based on the appearances of the time-series performance data for many individual sealed

joints, third-order polynomial regression was chosen to provide best-fit curves to each set of data.

The form of a third-order polynomial regression equation is as follows:

(Eq.3)

where: %Eff

ao, al> a2> a3

Age

= Seal effectiveness, percent.

= Regression coefficients.

= Seal age, months.

Following the completion of each regression, which was performed using the SAS®

Regression (REG) procedure, the resulting a coefficient values were inserted into equation 3 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 of a particular joint seal treatment applied to an

individual joint. In many instances, the resulting Age value was equal to or less than the time

period spent evaluating the joint seal. In other words, an individual joint seal had reached 75

percent effectiveness by its final evaluation, and so the computed Age value represented an

estimate of the actual life. In other instances, however, an individual joint seal had not reached 75

67
percent effectiveness by its final evaluation, and the computed Age value represented an estimate

ofthe predicted life. Figure 45 illustrates these two cases.

Using the service life estimates ofindividual joint seals comprising a particular joint seal

treatment, the mean and standard deviation of service life for that treatment were calculated, as

illustrated in table 18. An analysis of variance ofthe service life data was then conducted using

the SAS® GLM procedure and the Tukey studentized range grouping method. As with the

analysis of variance of current performance, a 95 percent confidence level was used.

Transverse Joint Seals

The results of the Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives are illustrated

in figures 46 through 50. These figures show the estimated service life statistics ofthe joint seal

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.

Tukey performance groupings are given by the "level" designations, with level 1 representing the

highest performance, followed by level 2, level 3, and so on. Because of the very high levels of

effectiveness among the treatments at Campo and because of the short performance period there

(2 years), it was determined that a service life analysis of the Campo treatments was premature.

75%81'f ect i veness

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 .L...L..J .L...L..J...u.. ...u..J....J....1.-l...J.. ...L.-l-'--I...J. '--I...J. .L...L..J ....L.J...J....J....1-'-'

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Pge, rmnt hs

Treat nent efect i veness, %j oi nt length

100 ,.-----III----=a:::::::::::::--'lF=::::::::;iE==:::::I:------------, ---- ,. I • ---- ....................

kt uaI : R-edl cted ................

I "

---T------------~ I

Figure 45. Illustration depicting estimates of actual and predicted service lives.

68
Table 18. Illustration of service life statistics computation.

Renlicate-Joint No. Estimated Service Life months Reolicate-Joint No. Estimated Service Life months

1-2 64.3 2-2 66.9

1-5 64.0 2-5 62.2

1-8 59.9 2-8 63.8

1-10 56.7 2-10 65.1

1-11 50.7 2-11 58.3

1-13 61.2 2-13 69.4

1-16 58.8 2-16 63.6

1-18 74.2 2-18 60.4

1-22 64.7 2-22 57.5

1-23 70.1 2-23 64.3

1-27 67.7 2-27 66.7

1-29 59.3 2-29 70.3

Mean -63.3 Standard Deviation - 5.22

·········································Uiierr········ .

260 +--~=====::;======::I~-----------l

240 -t--t---+-~--t------::---Le.--::;-:.'ve::Tl. ..,--.i,-----------l

220 -I--.lr---:l:----I--I----I---f-----.:~"------"- .. ~---="'=,...._------__i

Levell 200-t--t---+-~----'P--JP----......--t-----;i'"=:::::::IIt....--------i

180 -1-....L--_---I--I----"---f---'P---I'"---------__i

160 -1--------I------f---I----If---f---------i

140 t----------~---_y_--t-+~T~·"v~"'ld=.-l

120 -I------------------I'"----'I'--------__i

l00-t------------------If---t---I------i

80 -r----;::==~~~===:==:=:===;,..._---------:t:__---__j

Level ofSignificance =0.05

60 - Treatments included in multiple 1

40 -levelsrepresent borderline cases. 1------------f---11I---.1--i

20 +- ---lTL..-_'F--l'

o -t--t----1---+-_I_--t---t---j--+---I~--+-_I_---Il

Figure 46. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives

at Mesa, Arizona test site.

69
Levell

Level 2

•

1

T

- Level ofSignificance - 0.05

'--- Treatments

levels represent

included

borderline

in multiple

cases. •

260

l! 240

=220 g

.. 200

1i 180

160 ....

-a 140

120

100

.s 80

60

t""""' 40

20

o

Figure 47. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives

at Wells, Nevada test site.

............................................................................................................_-..- --

260 +----------------------------; Levell ! 240 +-~=======II!..-----------1ITL~ev;;del-;:;o:F.fS<;i;igniti~·~can::c;:;;e~O;r;.O;:C5~----l

220 Level 2 Treahnents included in multiple ----4

200 levels represent borderline cases. -----i. '" 180 +--+---+--------=--"'7::'"--------------; Level 3

160

140 +--+----f---f---------------------;

120 +--1------4-----4----------..,----.-....------------< -#J Level 4

100 +-----J--~~-~~============================::::::::!.~--j to-

.s 80+------f----f----.,....----;,...----------------;

60 +--------""'-~I---!---- .---.-1--1------<

40 -t-----------t--~'-----...l---;Tl----+----{

20 +-----------------------::...----J.I---~~___!

O+---+----r.---I------t---t----+---+---+-I----j

-§' lo~ # ~o, ~r::f <:)00

Figure 48. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives

at Tremonton, Utah test site.

70
Level ofSignificance - 0.05

Treatments c---i included in mu1liple

levels represent borderline cases. r-----:

.. Levell ..

. • 1 +I +

&

• +

&

260

'" 240

~El= 220

200

gf 180

160

140

Ql 120

I-III 100 t--

..s 80

e 60

!= 40

20

o

~'b 'XJ'\

<)00 4,.50

<:)~

Figure 49. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives

at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

1

1 1

T ,

,

I

Level 2

r

I

+-_----:----;;-:-- ---ILevei of Sigoificance = 0.05

Levell Treatments included in mulliple i -I-~==~~----------11evels represent borderline cases.

.........................................................................................................- - _.. :

I

260

1 240

220

200

rii

'" 180 ! 160

140

Ql 120

IIII 100 t--

..s 80

Ql 60

40

20

0

Figure 50. Tukey analysis of estimated transverse joint seal service lives

at Heber City, Utah test site.

71
In general, the Tukey service life groupings reinforce the observations made previously

regarding current performance groupings. For instance, at Mesa, the standard silicone seal

treatment and five ofthe six self-leveling silicone seal treatments showed statistically longer

service lives than the compression seals and hot-applied seals. The sixth self-leveling silicone seal

treatment, Dow 890-SL placed in 3-mm-wide joints, showed a statistically longer service life than

the two hot-applied seals and two ofthe three compression seals. However, this material showed

a marginally shorter service life in 3-mm-wide joints than in 6- and 9-mm-wide joints.

Most ofthe silicone seal treatments at Wells have statistically outperformed the compression

seal at that site. Only the Mobay 960 and Crafco 902 seals placed in 9-mmjoints showed the

same statistical service life as the D.S. Brown V-812 compression seal. Due to the lack of pre1991 performance data on the polyethylene seal, no estimates of service life could be made for

this material. Though it was installed in 1980, it showed 100 percent failure in the initial field

inspections of 1994-1995.

At Tremonton, two of the four silicone seals-Mobay 960 in 9-mm-wide conventionally

sawed joints and Dow 890-SL in 3-mm-wide Soff-Cut joints-statistically showed longer service

lives than the compression seals, hot-applied seals, and the proprietary Roshek seal. A third

silicone seal, Dow 890-SL in 3-mm-wide conventionally sawed joints, statistically showed the

same estimated service life as the two compression seals and the hot-applied rubberized asphalt

product, Koch 9005. The fourth silicone seal, Dow 888-SL, placed in 9-mm-wide conventionally

sawed joints, shows no statistical difference in estimated service life when compared to the two

compression seals, the two hot-applied seals, and the Roshek seal. Lastly, no statistical

differences in estimated service life were found between the Dow 890-SL 3-mm-wide Soff-Cut

and conventionally sawed joints, which suggests that the more expeditious Soff-Cut sawing

method could be more cost-effective.

As with the results ofthe Tukey analysis of current performance, no statistical distinctions in

estimated service life were found among the treatments at the Salt Lake City site. However, it

can again be pointed out that a more cost-effective sawing method than conventional sawcutting

is the Soff-Cut method.

At the Heber City site, the D.S. Brown V-687 compression seal showed a statistically longer

service life than the silicone seals, hot-applied seals, and the self-leveling polysulfide seal.

Moreover, with no statistical differences in estimated service life between the Dow 890-SL 3-mmwide Soff-Cut and conventionally sawed joints, the more expeditious Soff-Cut sawing method

may be econorn\cally justifiable.

Longitudinal Joint Seals

The results ofthe Tukey analysis of estimated longitudinal joint seal service lives are

illustrated in figures 51 and 52. The only statistical distinction in estimated service life at Mesa

was between the Crafco RS 221 joint seal treatment (significantly lower service life) and four of

the seven silicone seal treatments. Recall that no distinctions were apparent in the evaluation of

current performance levels.

72
Levell

Leve12

,

•

I--- Level ofSignificance 0.05

I--- Treatments included in multiple

I--- levels represent borderline cases.

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

o

Figure 51. Tukey analysis of estimated longitudinal joint seal service lives

at Mesa, Arizona test site.

260 -t------------------------------'

240 -t-------------------------------, t 220 -t------------::----=-=------------------' o Levell

a 200 +-----..:!::=========================I~----_I

=- 180-t---t--------------------------I j 160 -t---t----+----------..---------..,,------I

lj .. Leve12 •

140

Gl 120 -t---t-----t----+----I---------------1

100 +--I-----I----+----t-----t-,---------I

.s 80 -t---t--------+----I--------'l1F-----.l1.-------1

Gl 60 , = f-- Level ofSignificance 0.05

!:! 40 f-- Treatments included in multiple 1

20 t--ele:.:..:Vel=s:..:rep~res=ent:::..:b=or:.:d=erlin=" =e.:::..:c3S=es:::..J-" T--j

0-t-----t-----t----t------jf-------I----+----1

Figure 52. Tukey analysis of estimated longitudinal joint seal service lives

at Wells, Nevada test site.

73
Among the longitudinal joint seal treatments at Wells, it was found that the D.S. Brown V812 compression seal treatment showed a statistically shorter service life than the three standard

silicone treatments installed at that site and one ofthe three self-leveling silicone treatments. This

compression seal showed statistically poorer performance than its counterparts during the 1997-

1998 field inspections.

Finally, in figures 46 through 52, it can be seen that some ofthe joint seal treatments had high

standard deviations of estimated service life. Probable factors in these high standard deviations

include differences in material quality, sealing workmanship, and joint characteristics (e.g., width

and condition, movement) between replicate sections of a given treatment. A good example of

this is the Crafco SS 444 placed at the Mesa, Arizona test site. As seen in tables C-2 and C-50 in

appendix C, the effectiveness levels over time for the replicate 1 seals were much lower than for

the replicate 2 seals, due to the extended heating that occurred with this material during

installation.

Laboratory Test-Field Performance Assessments

Because no statistical distinctions in estimated service life were found among the three

non-self-Ieveling silicones (Dow 888, Mobay 960, and Crafco 902) placed in 9-mm-wide joints at

Wells, and because each sealant met the established laboratory test specifications, a clear

performance indicator could not be identified. However, the excellent performance ofthese three

sealants at Wells reflects well upon the set oftests conducted (e.g., tensile stress at 150 percent

strain, bond to PCC mortar, movement capability and adhesion) and the established test criteria.

With no statistical differences in estimated service life observed among the three self-leveling

silicones (Crafco 903-SL, Dow 888-SL, and Dow 890-SL) placed in 9-mm-wide joints at Wells,

no evidence could be found that one or more laboratory tests provides clear indications of

performance.

Though three ofthe four self-leveling silicone sealants placed at Mesa did not entirely satisfy

the established laboratory test specifications-Crafco 903-SL and Dow 890-SL failed the

durometer hardness requirement and Mobay 960-SL failed the movement capability and adhesion

requirement-the effect on performance (9-mm-wide joints) has not been apparent. All four

sealants, including the Dow 888-SL sealant that met the specifications, showed statistically similar

service lives, and the limited failure observed in each sealant has been in the form offull-depth

spalling.

74
CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The SHRP SPS-4 supplemental joint seal experiment represents the interests and desires of

selected State highway ~gencies in determining the most effective and long-lasting materials and

methods for sealing joints ip their jointed concrete pavements. Six test sites were constructed in

four States for this purpose, with each test site containing between 8 and 12 installed

combinations ofsealant material and joint preparation procedure. Well over 2,000 transverse

joints were sealed and performance was monitored as part of the study, and many longitudinal

joints were ~so sealed and evaluated.

The details of the test sites constructed as part of the SHRP SPS-4 supplemental joint seal

study were provided in chapters 1 and 2 ofthis report. An in-depth discussion of the results of

laboratory tests performed on some ofthe experimental materials was provided in chapter 3.

Complete documentation of the field performance information collected in the study was given in

chapter 4, and the results of various data analyses designed to distinguish treatment performance

and cost-effect\veness were presented in chapter 5.

This chapter summarizes the major findings and observations ofthe SPS-4 supplemental joint

seal study. The findings are divided into general findings and specific findings about materials and

methods. Also contained in this chapter are various recommendations concerning joint sealing

operations that could be useful to highway construction and maintenance administrators,

practitioners, and researchers.

FiIldings

General

• At the conclusion ofthe 1997-1998 field inspections, a significant amount of overall joint

seal failure ha4 developed at five ofthe six SPS-4 supplemental joint seal sites. The

overall average failUfe pftreatments at these 5- to 7-year-old sites ranged from 19 to 58

percent of the joint length. At the sixth site, overall joint seal failure was low

(approximately 9 percent) because ofthe young age (2 years) ofthe treatments.

• Of 56 joint seal treatments placed at the 6 sites, 26 have shown favorable performance

(~80 percent effectiveness), 7 have shown mediocre performance (65 to 79.9 percent

effectiveness), 1 has shown poor performance (50 to 64.4 percent effectiveness), and 22

have reached "failed" status «50 percent effectiveness).

75
• Joint seal treatments with the longest mean estimated service life at each site were as

follows:

- Mesa (transverse seals): Dow 890-SL in 9-mm-wide joints (218 months).

- Mesa (longitudinal seals): Mobay 960-SL in 9-mm-wide joints (204 months).

- Wells (transverse seals): Dow 888 in 9-mm-wide joints (127 months).

- Wells (longitudinal seals): Dow 888 in 9-mm-wide joints (134 months).

- Tremonton (transverse seals): Mobay 960 in 9-mm-wide joints (155 months).

- Salt Lake City (transverse seals): Dow 888 in 9-mm-wide joints (88 months).

- Heber City (transverse seals): D.S. Brown V-687 in 9-mm-wide joints (158 months).

• Poor construction practices, such as overheating and extended heating of hot-applied

sealants~ placement of silicone seals too thin or too high in the joint, and hand installation

of compression seals, have affected the performance of several joint seal treatments.

• Despite large variations in performance among the transverse joint seal treatments at Salt

Lake City and Heber City, and the longitudinal joint seal treatments at Mesa, the results of

Tukey groupings do not indicate statistical differences in performance among the

treatments at each of these sites. A probable explanation ofthis phenomenon for the

Heber City site is that substantially different joint cleaning intensities were used during the

installation ofreplicate sections (i.e., joints in the eastbound test sections received higher

waterblast and airblast pressures than joints in the westbound test sections).

• Because oflimited laboratory testing and an overall lack ofstatistical performance

differences among sealant materials, no significant relationships were identified between

field performance indicators and laboratory-determined material properties.

Materials

Although some of the combinations of material and configuration were installed at multiple

sites, the fact that joint cleaning procedures varied from site to site limited the development of

broad-based conclusions about the performance of materials. Thus, the findings presented in this

section are site-specific.

• Among the seals placed in 9-mm-wide transverse joints at the Mesa site, superior

performance has been provided by the one standard silicone (Dow 888) and the four selfleveling silicones (Dow 890-SL, Crafco 903-SL, Mobay 960-SL, and Dow 888-SL).

Each had statistically longer estimated service lives than those of competing seals. Two

preformed compression seals (Watson Bowman 687 and Watson Bowman 812) at this site

showed good performance and, consequently, had statistically longer service lives than the

two hot-applied seals (Crafco SS 444, which incurred substantial cohesion failure as a

result of extended heating or overheating during installation, and Crafco RS 221) and a

third compression seal (D.S. Brown V-687).

76
• Three of the five silicone seals (Dow 888, Mobay 960-SL, and Dow 888-SL) placed in 9-

mm-wide longitudinal joints at Mesa showed statistically longer service lives than did the

hot-applied rubberized asphalt seal (Crafco RS 221). However, despite considerable

cohesive failure in the Crafco SS 444 as a result of extended heating or overheating during

installation, all five silicone seals showed statistically the same service lives as Crafco SS

444.

• At the Campo test site, no statistical differences were observed in the 2-year performance

levels of the three seals (Crafco 903-SL self-leveling silicone seal, Crafco 902 standard

silicone seal, and D.S. Brown V-687 compression seal) placed in 9-mm-wide transverse

joints, despite the fact that the compression seal was poorly installed. However, the

Crafco 903-SL and Crafco 902 seals placed in 6-mm-wide joints did show statistically

longer service lives than that of a second compression seal (D.S. Brown E-437H) that was

poorly installed in 6-mm-wide joints.

• No statistical differences in estimated service life were found to exist among the three

standard silicone seals (Dow 888, Mobay 960, and Crafco 902) and three self-leveling

silicone seals (Dow 888-SL, Crafco 903-SL, and Dow 890-SL) placed in 9-mm-wide

transverse joints at the Wells site.

• At the Tremonton site, superior performance was provided by the Mobay 960 standard

silicone. The estimated service life ofthis seal placed in 9-mm-wide joints was statistically

longer than the estimated service lives offive similarly placed seals (Dow 888-SL selfleveling silicone, Esco PV-687 preformed compression seal, Koch 9005 hot-applied

rubberized asphalt, Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar, and Roshek proprietary sealant).

Though construction problems are believed to have significantly affected the performance

characteristics of the Esco PV-687 and Koch 9012 seals, their estimated service lives were

statistically the same as the Dow 888-SL, Koch 9005, and Roshek seals.

• No statistical differences in estimated service life were observed among six different

sealants (Dow 888 standard silicone, D.S. Brown V-687 preformed compression seal,

Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar, Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone, Crafco RS 221

hot-applied rubberized asphalt, and Koch 9050-SL self-leveling polysulfide) placed in

9-mm-wide transverse joints at the Salt Lake City site. Some ofthese seals, such as Koch

9012 and Crafco RS 221, were reported to have had construction difficulties.

• At the Heber City site, superior performance was provided by the D.S. Brown V-687

preformed compression seal. The estimated service life of this seal placed in 9-mm-wide

joints was statistically longer than the estimated service lives offive similarly placed seals

(Koch 9005 hot-applied rubberized asphalt, Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar, Dow

888-SL self-leveling silicone, Dow 888 standard silicone, and Koch 9050-SL self-leveling

polysulfide).

77
Configurations

• At the Mesa site, no statistical differences in estimated service life were observed among

the 3-,6-, and 9-mm-wide transverse joints sealed with Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone.

Likewise, no statistical differences in estimated service life were observed among the 3-,

6-, and 9-mm-wide longitudinal joints sealed with Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone.

• At the Campo site, no statistical differences in the 2-year performance levels were

observed among the 3-,6-, and 9-mm-wide transverse joints sealed with Crafco 903-SL

self-leveling silicone. In addition, no statistical differences in the 2-year performance

levels were observed among the 3-,6-, 9-mm, and beveled 9-mm-wide transverse joints

sealed with Crafco 902 standard silicone.

• At the Tremonton site, no statistical differences in estimated service life were observed

among the 3-mm Soff-Cut-sawed and conventionally sawed transverse joints sealed with

Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone.

• No statistical differences in estimated service life were observed among the 3-mm SoffCut-sawed and conventionally sawed transverse joints sealed with Dow 890-SL at the Salt

Lake City site.

• Like the Tremonton and Salt Lake City sites, no statistical differences in estimated service

life were observed among the 3-mm Soff-Cut-sawed and conventionally sawed transverse

joints sealed with Dow 890-SL at the Heber City site.

Recommendations

Recommendations are provided below for both the designer/operator ofjoint sealing projects

and the planner/researcher for joint sealing policies.

Joint Sealing Operations

All joint sealing recommendations are based on available performance data and on experience

with test site installation.

• Long-term (>8 years) initial joint seal performance can generally be obtained using

standard and self-leveling silicone materials (e.g., Dow 888, Mobay 960, Crafco 902, Dow

890-SL, Mobay 960-SL, and Crafco 903-SL) properly placed in thoroughly cleaned

9-mm-wide joints.

• Long-term performance similar to the standard and self-leveling silicone seal types can

also be achieved using Dow 890-SL properly placed in thoroughly cleaned 3- or

6-mm-wide joints. Since less material is required for these narrower joints, these seals

may be more cost-effective.

78
• Similar long-term performance capabilities achieved by Dow 890-SL placed :in 3-mm

conventionally sawed and Soff-Cut-sawed jo:ints suggest that the more expeditious SoffCut method would be more cost-effective than the conventional saw:ing method.

• Although long-term initial jo:int seal performance is obta:inable with preformed

compression seals, such as Watson Bowman 687 and D.S. Brown V-687, proper jo:int

design and seal :installation are critical.

• Hot-applied sealants (e.g., Crafco RS 221, Koch 9012) placed:in 9-mm-wide jo:ints are

likely to provide moderate performance (4 to 8 years) if they are properly heated and are

installed :in thoroughly cleaned joints. Though their service lives appear to be substantially

shorter than silicone seals and compression seals, their :installation costs are considerably

less, which may make them the most cost-effective option.

Education and Research

The SHRP SPS-4 supplemental jo:int seal study has taken steps toward irnprov:ing the state of

the practice of sealing jo:ints :in concrete pavements. Recommendations for actions :in research and

education that may lead to further progress:in jo:int resealing are as follows:

• Continue monitoring the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites. The Mesa, Wells, and

Campo sites, :in particular, have many jo:int seal treatments with less than 25 percent

overall failure. Most of the treatments with less than 25 percent overall failure are

standard and self-leveling silicones. Additional time-series effectiveness data will likely

enable further dist:inctions to be made regard:ing the performance of these materials and

some of the preformed compression seals.

• Promote the design and construction of additional jo:int seal test sites. Because many new

advancements :in materials and equipment have occurred s:ince the :installations of the six

SPS-4 supplemental jo:int seal test sites, it is highly recommended that agencies conduct

their own customized jo:int seal experiments. The materials and methods commonly used

by agency crews should be evaluated aga:inst the various materials and methods shown to

be effective in the SPS-4 supplemental joint seal study. New or promising technologies

should be included in the experiments.

• Transfer the technology. The information gathered under the SPS-4 supplemental joint

seal experiment can be put to its best use when it reaches the most people on the decisionmak:ing, supervisory, and :installation levels ofjoint sealing operations. Therefore,

continued incorporation of this study's results into technology transfer programs is

essential.

79

REFERENCES

Ambroz, J.K. and L.D. Evans. 1996. Construction Reportfor Campo, Colorado SHRP SPS-4

Experiment 08A400, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Contract No. DTFH61-93-R00051, FHWA, McLean, Virginia.

Evans, L.D., C.A Good Mojab, AJ. Patel, AR. Romine, K.L. Smith, and T.P. Wilson. 1992.

SHRP H-106 Evaluation and Analysis Plan (EAP), SHRP Contract No. SHRP-89-H-106,

SHRP, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

Evans, L.D., M.A Pozsgay, K.L. Smith, and AR. Romine. 1999. LTPP Pavement Maintenance

Materials: SHRP Joint Reseal Experiment, Final Report, Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, D.C.

Evans, L.D. and c.J. Wienrank:. 1995a. Draft Construction Reportfor Wells, Nevada SHRP

SPS-4Experiment 32A400, FHWA Contract No. DTFH61-93-R-00051, FHWA, McLean,

Virginia.

Evans, L.D. and C.J. Wienrank:. 1995b. Draft Construction Reportfor Tremonton, Utah SHRP

SPS-4 Experiment 49C400, FHWA Contract No. DTFH61-93-R-00051, FHWA, McLean,

Virginia.

Evans, L.D. and C.J. Wienrank:. 1995c. Draft Construction Reportfor Salt Lake City, Utah

SHRP SPS-4 Experiment 49D400, FHWA Contract No. DTFH61-93-R-00051, FHWA, McLean,

Virginia.

Evans, L.D. and C.J. Wienrank:. 1995d. Draft Construction Reportfor Heber City, Utah SHRP

SPS-4 Experiment 49E400, FHWA Contract No. DTFH61-93-R-00051, FHWA, McLean,

Virginia.

Meier, W.R. and E.J. Elnicky. 1992. Construction Reportfor Arizona's SHRP SPS-4

Experiment, Report No. AZ92-377-1, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983. Climatic Atlas ofthe United States. U.S. Dept. of

Commerce, Environmental Science Services Administration.

81

APPENDIX A. TEST SITE LAYOUTS

The SHRP SPS-4 supplemental joint seal test sites were laid out in two replicates. These

replicates were established in adjacent, opposing lanes at the three Utah sites. However, at the

Mesa, Arizona; Campo, Colorado; and Wells, Nevada test sites, the replicates were placed endto-end. The order of sealant placement at each test site was chosen randomly. Tables A-I

through A-6 list the combinations of sealant material and joint configuration used at each site in

the order that they lie along the roadway.

Table A-I. Layout oftest sections at the Mesa, Arizona test site.

Replicate Test Section No. Sealant Joint

No. rSHRPID) Material Confilm1"ation

13 (04A451) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

14 (04A452) D.S. Brown V-687 compression seal C

15 (04A453) Dow 888 non-sag silicone C

16 (04A454) Mobay Baysilone 960-SL self-leveling silicone C

17 (04A455) Unsealed A

18 (04A456) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone C

2"

19 (04A457) Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

20 (04A458) Crafco 903-SL self-leveling silicone C

21 (04A459) Crafco RS 221 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

22 (04A460) Watson Bowman 812 compression seal C

23 (04A461) Crafco SS 444 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

24 (04A462) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone B

01 (04A441) D.S. Brown V-687 compression seal C

02 (04A410) Crafco 903-SL self-leveling silicone C

03 (04A430) Unsealed A

04 (04A442) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone C

05 (04A443) Watson Bowman 687 compression seal C

I b 06 (04A444) Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

07 (04A445) Dow 888 non-sag silicone C

08 (04A446) Crafco SS 444 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

09 (04A447) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

10 (04A448) Mobay Baysilone 960-SL self-leveling silicone C

11 (04A449) Crafco RS 221 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

12 (04A4Sm Dow 890-SL self-levelinQ' silicone B

b

Replicate located in eastbound travel lane. Replicate begins with Section 13 at milepost 16.90 and ends

with Section 24 at milepost 17.78.

Replicate located in eastbound travel lane. Replicate begins with Section 1 at milepost 18.15 and ends

with Section 12 at milepost 18.90.

83
Table A-2. Layout oftest sections at the Campo, Colorado test site.

Replicate Test Section No. Sealant Joint

No, (SHRPID) Material Confilnlration

lOB (08A4l6) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone G

9B (08A455) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone C

8B (08A446) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone C

7B (08A4l5) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone C

2' 5B (08A445) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone B

4B (08A4l4) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone B

3B (08A444) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone A

2B (08A4l3) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone A

lB (08A43l) Unsealed A

lOA (08A453) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone G

9A(08A452) D.S. Brown V-687 compression seal C

8A(08A443) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone C

7A(08A4l2) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone C

lb 6A(08A451) D.S. Brown E-437H compression seal B

5A(08A442) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone B

4A(08A411) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone B

3A (08A44l) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone A

2A(08A4lO) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone A

1A rno A"n, TT A

,

b

Replicate located in northbound lane. Replicate begins with Section lOB at milepost 3.90 and ends with

Section lB at milepost 4.60.

Replicate located in northbound lane. Replicate begins with Section lOA at milepost 4.66 and ends with

Section lA at milepost 5.30.

84
Table A-3. Layout of test sections at the Wells, Nevada test site.

Replicate Test Section No. Sealant Joint

No. (SHRPID) Material Confimrration

1 (323010) Polyethylene (existing GPS left undisturbed) F

2 (32A420) Dow 888 non-sag silicone (undersealing test section) C

SHRP' 3 (32A410) Dow 888 non-sag silicone C

4 (32A430) Unsealed C

5-1 (32A451) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone C

6-1 (32A452) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone C

I b 7-1 (32A453) Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

8-1 (32A454) D.S. Brown V-812 compression seal D

9-1 (32A455) Mobay Baysilone 960 non-sag silicone C

10-1 (32A456) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone C

11-1 (32A457) Dow 888 non-sag silicone C

5-2 (32A458) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone C

6-2 (32A459) Crafco RS 903-SL self-leveling silicone C

2< 7-2 (32A460) Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

8-2 (32A461) D.S. Brown V-812 compression seal D

9-2 (32A462) MobayBaysilone 960 non-sag silicone C

10-2 (32A463) Crafco RS 902 non-sag silicone C

11-2 <12A4fi4) Dow R8R nOn-S~H' silicon~ r.

SHRP replicate located in westbound driving lane. SHRP replicate begins at milepost 348.56 and ends at

milepost 348.07.

Replicate located in eastbound lane. Replicate begins with Section 5-1 at milepost 348.06 and ends with

Section 11-1 at milepost 348.36.

Replicate located in eastbound lane. Replicate begins with Section 5-2 at milepost 348.37 and ends with

Section 11-2 at milepost 348.67.

85
Table A-4. Layout oftest sections at the Tremonton, Utah test site.

Replicate Test Section No. Sealant Joint

No (SHRPlm Material c.onfilmration

1 (49C440) Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

2 (49C44l) Koch 9005 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

3 (49C41O) Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

4 (49C430) Unsealed A

5 (49C443) Mobay Baysilone 960 non-sag silicone C

I" 6 (49C444) Esco PV 687 compression seal C

7 (49C445) Kold Seal Neo Loop compression seal B

8 (49C446) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

9 (49C447) Mobay Baysilone 960 non-sag silicone C

10 (49C456) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone E

11 (49C457) Sealant supplied by Mike Roshek C

12 (49C458) Unsealed E

13 (49C448) Koch 9005 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

14 (49C449) Esco PV 687 compression seal C

15 (49C450) Kold Seal Neo Loop compression seal B

2b 16 (49C451) Mobay Baysilone 960 non-sag silicone C

17 (49C452) Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

18 (49C431) Unsealed A

19 (49C453) Mobay Baysilone 960 non-sag silicone C

20 (49C454) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

21 '4111 '4"" now RRR-~T .~p.lf-' " , , ('

"

b

Replicate located in northbound and southbound driving lanes. Replicate begins in northbound lane with

Section 1 at milepost 392.95 and extends through Section 9 at milepost 394.15. Replicate continues in

southbound lane with Section 10 at milepost 395.09 and ends with Section 12 at milepost 394.82.

Replicate located in southbound lane. Replicate begins with Section 13 at milepost 394.15 and ends with

Section 21 at milepost 392.95.

86
Table A-5. Layout oftest sections at the Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Replicate Test Section No. Sealant Joint

No. (SHRPlm Material ConfiQ'nration

1 (490430) Unsealed A

2 (490410) Oow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

3 (490443) Oow 888 non-sag silicone C

4 (490444) O.S. Brown V-687 compression seal C

5 (490441) Crafco RS 221 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

I" 6 (490446) Oow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

7 (490440) Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

8 (490445) O.S. Brown E-437H compression seal B

9 (490461) Koch 9050-SL self-leveling polysulfide C

10 (490456) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone E

11 (490458) Unsealed E

22 (490460) Unsealed E

21 (490459) Oow 890-SL self-leveling silicone E

20 (490462) Koch 9050-SL self-leveling polysulfide C

19 (490450) O.S. Brown E-437H compression seal B

18 (490452) Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

2b

17 (490454) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

16 (490448) Crafco RS 221 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

15 (490449) O.S. Brown V-687 compression seal C

14 (490451) Oow 888 non-sag silicone C

13 (490455) Oow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

12 (490431) Unsealed A

b

Replicate located in southbound lanes. Replicate begins with Section 1 at station 121+00 and ends with

Section 11 at station 168+00.

Replicate located in northbound lanes. Replicate begins with Section 22 at station 168+00 and ends with

Section 12 at station 121+00.

87
Table A-6. Layout oftest sections at the Heber City, Utah test site.

Replicate Test Section No. Sealant Joint

No. (SHRPID) Material Conti

p 1 (49E460) Unsealed E

2 (49E459) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone E

3 (49E462) Koch 9050-SL self-leveling polysulfide C

4 (49E449) D.S. Brown V-687 compression seal C

5 (49E448) Koch 9005 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

6 (49E450) D.S. Brown E-437 H compression seal B

7 (49E454) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

8 (49E452) Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

9 (49E451) Dow 888 non-sag silicone C

10 (49E455) Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

11 (49E43l) Unsealed A

2b 12 (49E430) Unsealed A

13 (49E410) Dow 888-SL self-leveling silicone C

14 (49E443) Dow 888 non-sag silicone C

15 (49E441) Koch 9005 hot-applied rubberized asphalt C

16 (49E444) D.S. Brown V-687 compression seal C

17 (49E446) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone A

18 (49E440) Koch 9012 hot-applied PVC-coal tar C

19 (49E445) D.S. Brown E-437 H compression seal B

20 (49E461) Koch 9050-SL self-leveling polysulfide C

21 (49E456) Dow 890-SL self-leveling silicone E

22 f49E4'iR) Unsealed E

b

Replicate located in westbound lanes. Replicate begins with Section 1 at station 500+00 and ends with Section

11 at station 444+00.

Replicate located in eastbound lanes. Replicate begins with Section 12 at station 444+00 and ends with

Section 22 at station 500+00.

88
APPENDIX B. INSTALLATION DATA

During installation ofthe test sites, several items were documented. These items included

sawing and joint dimensions, depth to the top of sealant, and depth to the top of backer rod.

Statistical analyses were performed on these data, the complete results of which are presented in

this appendix. Tables that are included for each site are as follows:

• Average sawing and joint dimensions.

• Comparison of sawcut widths to specified widths.

• Comparison of depths to top of sealant to specified range.

• Comparison of depths to backer rod to specified range.

• Summary of sealant shape factors.

Table B-l. Average sawing and installation dimensions at Mesa, Arizona (Meier, 1992).

Section No. Joint Width, rom Joint Depth, rom Depth to Top ofBacker Rod, rom Depth to Top of Seal, rom

1 9.6 10204 - 7.0

2 9.8 106.8 15.0 6.6

3 No data, unsealed section

4 9.6 103.1 17.9 704

5 9.8 - - -

6 9.5 105.1 15.5 604

7 9.6 108.0 15.7 7.9

8 lOA 104.0 17.0 7.3

9 5.2 106.0 16.1 5.7

10 10.2 107.1 16.8 7.6

11 9.6 105.1 15.1 4.2

12 11.1 105.7 18.7 8.0

13 4.8 108.2 1504 404

14 9.8 113.9 - 9.3

15 9.8 113.6 16.9 8.0

16 9.5 113.5 1504 6.1

17 4.2 - - -

18 lOA 10204 16.5 7.1

19 10.1 107.1 17.3 6.0

20 10.7 105.5 15.8 5.8

21 10.3 111.3 16.0 4.7

22 9.9 95.9 - -

23 9.9 11004 17.8 4.6

24 7.1 107.6 144 4.8

89
Table B-2. Comparison of sawcut width to specified widths at Mesa, Arizona (Meier, 1992).

Sawcut Width (mm) Standard Deviations for: Percentage Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. UL lL lL UL Total

1 9.6 0040 4.26 3.76 0 0 0

2 9.8 0.62 3.00 2.08 0.001 0.019 0.020

3 No data, unsealed section

4 9.6 0041 4.14 3.62 0 0 0

5 9.8 0.64 2.92 2.02 0.002 0.022 0.024

6 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0 0 0

7 9.6 0.39 4.36 3.87 0 0 0

8 lOA 2.05 1.20 0.35 0.155 0.363 0.518

9 5.2 0.79 4.51 0.5 0 0.691 0.691

10 10.2 0.84 2.74 1.05 0.003 0.147 0.150

11 9.6 0.41 4.14 3.62 0 0 0

12 11.1 0.00 Infinity Infinity a 0 0

13 4.8 0.92 3046 0 0 0.500 0.500

14 9.8 0.58 3.15 2.36 0.001 0.009 0.010

15 9.8 0.94 2.01 1.38 0.023 0.084 0.107

16 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0 0 0

17 4.2 1.28 2.02 0046 0.022 0.323 0.345

18 lOA 1.39 1.75 0.54 0.040 0.295 0.335

19 10.1 0.83 2.63 1.20 0.004 0.118 0.122

20 10.7 1.27 2.17 0.33 0.015 0.371 0.386

21 10.3 0.82 2.84 1.03 0.002 0.152 0.154

22 9.9 0.72 2.76 1.66 0.003 0.048 0.051

23 9.9 0.71 2.79 1.68 0.003 0.046 0.049

24 7.1 1.12 2.12 0.71 0.017 0.239 0.256

IL=Lower limit: 1.6 mm for sections 9, 13, and 17; 4.8 mm for section 24; 8.0 mm for all otl1er sections.

UL=Upper limit: 4.8 mm for sections 9, 13, and 17; 8.0 mm for section 24; 11.1 mm for all other sections.

90
Table B-3. Comparison of depths to top of sealant to specified range

at Mesa, Arizona (Meier, 1992).

Depth to Top of Seal, rom Standard Deviations for: Percentage Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. LL UL LL UL Total

1 7.0 1.02 0.62 2.50 0.268 0.006 0.274 - 2 6.6 1.24 0.16 2.39 0.436 0.008 0.444

3 No data, lIDsealed section

4 7.4 2.03 0.52 1.04 0.302 0.149 0.451

5 No data. Watson Bowman compression seal

6 6.4 1.57 0 2.02 0.500 0.022 0.522

7 7.9 1.02 1.55 1.58 0.061 0.057 0.118

8 7.3 2.24 0.43 0.99 0.334 0.161 0.495

9 5.7 1.73 -0.37 2.21 0.644 0.014 0.658

10 7.6 1.32 0.92 1.48 0.179 0.069 0.248

11 4.2 1.37 -1.57 3.89 0.942 0 0.942

12 8.0 1.42 1.16 1.07 0.123 0.142 0.265

13 4.4 2.59 -0.74 1.96 0.770 0.025 0.795

14 9.3 1.68 1.79 0.11 0.037 0.456 0.493

15 8.0 0.99 1.67 0.94 0.047 0.174 0.221

16 6.1 1.63 -0.16 2.11 0.564 0.017 0.581

17 No data. lIDsealed section

18 7.1 1.70 0.55 1.45 0.291 0.074 0.365

19 6.0 1.30 -0.23 2.69 0.591 0.004 0.595

20 5.8 1.78 -0.31 2.10 0.622 O.ol8 0.640

21 4.7 1.24 -1.33 3.88 0.908 0 0.908

22 No data. Watson Bowman compression seal section

23 4.6 1.65 -1.05 2.97 0.853 0.001 0.854

24 4.8 1.32 -2.54 4.94 0.994 0 0.994

LL=Lower limit of 6.4 mID.

UL=Upper limit of 9.5 mID.

91
Table B-4. Comparison of depths to backer rod to specified range

at Mesa, Arizona (Meier, 1992).

Depth to Top ofBacker Rod, nun Standard Deviations for: Percentage Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

1 No data, compression seal section

2 15.0 0.91 2.50 4.44 0.006 0 0.006

3 No data, unsealed section

4 17.9 0.97 5.39 1.18 0 0.119 0.119

5 No data, compression seal section

6 15.5 1.02 2.80 3.45 0.003 0 0.003

7 15.7 0.64 4.80 5.2 0 0 0

8 17.0 1.19 3.57 1.74 0 0.041 0.041

9 16.1 1.80 1.90 1.62 0.029 0.053 0.082

10 16.8 1.12 3.75 1.93 0 0.027 0.027

11 15.1 1.22 1.98 3.23 0.024 0.001 0.025

12 18.7 0.84 7.12 0.45 0 0.326 0.326

13 15.4 2.03 1.31 1.81 0.095 0.035 0.130

14 No data, compression seal section

15 16.9 0.89 4.77 2.37 0 0.009 0.009

16 15.4 0.97 2.84 3.74 0.002 0 0.002

17 No data, unsealed section

18 16.5 1.22 3.12 2.08 0.001 0.019 0.020

19 17.3 1.37 3.37 1.26 0 0.104 0.104

20 15.8 0.97 3.21 3.37 0.001 0 0.001

21 16.0 1.19 2.77 2.55 0.003 0.005 0.008

22 No data, compression seal section.

23 17.8 1.57 3.23 0.81 0.001 0.209 0.210

24 14.4 1.12 1.55 4.14 0.061 0 0.061

LL=Lower limit of 12.7 nun.

UL=Upper limit of 19.1 nun.

92
Table B-5. Summary ofsealant shape factors at Mesa, Arizona (Meier, 1992).

Shape Factor

Section No. Mean Standard Deviation Remarks

1 - - Compression seal section

2 1.24 0.21

3 - - Unsealed section

4 1.07 0.54

5 - - Compression seal section

6 1.08 0.28

7 1.25 0.26

8 1.10 0.32

9 0.58 0.16

10 1.16 0.24

11 0.93 0.16

12 1.07 0.18

13 0.62 0.32

14 - - Compression seal section

15 1.17 0.23

16 1.14 0.29

17 - - Unsealed section

18 1.13 0.32

19 0.95 0.19

20 1.08 0.20

21 0.91 0.12

22 - - Compression seal section

23 0.78 0.13

24 0.61 0.08

93
Table B-6. Average sawing and installation dimensions

at Campo, Colorado (Ambroz and Evans, 1996).

Depth to Top of Backer Depth to Top of

Section No. Joint Width mm Joint Denth mm Rod mm Seal mm

1A(OSA430) 4.S - - -

2A(OSA410) 604 - 10.9 5.3

3A(OSA44l) 4.S - 10.1 1.5

4A(OSA411) lOA 37.S 13.7 4.6

5A(OSA442) 9.7 36.3 lOA 2.3

6A (OSA451) 9.7 37.6 - 6.1

7A (OSA412) 0 34.5 15.2 7.6

SA (OSA443) 9.7 34.3 13.2 1.0

9A(OSA452) 9.7 37.1 - 4.1

lOA (OSA453) 0 33.S 13.5 7.6

1B (08A431) 4.S - - -

2B (OSA413) 5.S - 704 3.6

3B (OSA444) 6.4 - 12.5 2.3

4B (OSA414) 9.7 29.0 10.7 4.3

5B (OSA445) 604 3S.9 9.9 5.1

6B (OSA454) Transition zone

7B (OSA415) 9.7 - - -

SB (OSA446) 9.7 39.6 13.5 5.1

9B (OSA455) - - -.- -

lOB WSA416) - - - -

94
Table B-7. Comparison of sawcut widths to specified widths

at Campo, Colorado (Ambroz and Evans, 1996).

Sawcut Width, mm Standard Deviations for: Percentage Beyond Specified Limits

Section No.

Mean Std. Dev. LL UL LL UL Total

1A (OSA430) 4.S 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

2A(OSA41O) 6A 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 100.0 100.0

3A (OSA441) 4.S 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

4A (OSA41l) lOA 1.02 5.56 -2A4 0.0 99.3 99.3

5A (OSA442) 9.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 100.0 100.0

6A (OSA451) 9.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 100.0 100.0

7A (OSA412) 12.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 100.0 100.0

SA (08A443) 9.7 0.00 Infinity InfInity 0.0 0.0 0.0

9A(08A452) 9.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

lOA (08A453) 12.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

1B (08A431) 4.8 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

2B (08A413) 5.8 0.76 5.58 -lA2 0.0 92.2 92.2

3B (08A444) 6A 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

4B (08A414) 9.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

5B (OSA445) 6A 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

6B (08A454) Transition section

7B (08A415) 9.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

8B (08A446) 9.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.0 0.0 0.0

9B (OSA455) - - - - - - -

lOB WSA416) - - - - - - -

Note: LL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 1.59 mm less than and greater than the specified width,

respectively.

95
Table B-8. Comparison of depths to top of sealant to specified range

at Campo, Colorado (Ambroz and Evans, 1996).

Joint Seal Recess, mm Standard Deviations for: Percentage Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

1A (08A430) No data, unsealed section

2A(08A41O) 5.3 0.76 -1.33 5.50 90.8 0.0 90.8

3A (08A441) 1.5 1.52 -3.17 5.25 100.0 0.0 100.0

4A (08A411) 4.6 1.02 -1.75 4.88 96.0 0.0 96.0

5A(08A442) 2.3 1.52 -2.67 4.75 99.6 0.0 99.6

6A (08A451) 6.1 3.30 -0.08 1.04 53.2 14.9 68.1

7A(08A412) 7.6 1.27 1.00 1.50 15.9 6.7 22.6

8A(08A443) 1.0 1.52 -3.50 5.58 100.0 0.0 100.0

9A(08A452) 4.1 4.32 -0.53 1.26 70.2 10.4 80.6

lOA (08A453) 7.6 2.54 0.50 0.80 30.9 21.1 52.0

1B (08A431) No data, unsealed section

2B (08A413) 3.6 1.52 -1.83 3.92 96.6 0.0 96.6

3B (08A444) 2.3 1.52 -2.67 4.75 99.6 0.0 99.6

4B (08A414) 4.3 1.78 -1.14 2.93 87.3 0.2 87.5

5B (08A445) 5.1 1.27 -1.00 3.50 84.1 0.0 84.1

6B (08A454) Transition section

7B (08A415) No data collected

8B (08A446) 5.1 1.02 -1.25 4.38 89.4 0.0 89.4

9B (08A455) No data collected

lOB C08A416) No data collected

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 6.4 mm and 9.5 mm, respectively.

96
Table B-9. Comparison of depths to backer rod to specified range

at Campo, Colorado (Ambroz and Evans, 1996).

Section No. Backer Rod Depth, mm Standard Deviations for: Percentage Beyond Specified Limits

Mean Std. Dev. IL UL UJ UL Total

1A (08A430) No data, unsealed section

2A (08A410) 10.9 1.27 -1.40 6.40 91.9 0.0 91.9

3A (08A441) 10.2 1.02 -2.50 8.75 99.4 0.0 99.4

4A (08A411) 13.7 1.27 0.80 4.20 21.2 0.0 21.2

5A (08A442) 10.4 1.27 -1.80 6.80 96.4 0.0 96.4

6A (08A451) No data, compression seal

7A (08A412) 15.2 1.52 1.67 2.50 4.8 0.6 5.4

8A (08A443) 13.2 1.02 0.50 5.75 30.9 0.0 30.9

9A(08A452) No data, compression s~al

lOA (08A453) 13.5 0.76 1.0 7.33 15.9 0.0 15.9

1B (08A431) No data, unsealed section

2B (08A413) 7.4 3.30 -1.62 3.54 94.7 0.0 94.7

3B (08A444) 12.4 2.29 -0.11 2.89 54.4 0.2 54.6

4B (08A414) 10.7 3.30 -0.62 2.54 73.2 0.6 73.8

5B (08A445) 9.9 1.78 -1.57 5.14 94.2 0.0 94.2

6B (08A454) Transition section

7B (08A415) No data collected

8B (08A446) 13.5 1.78 0.43 3.14 33.4 0.0 33.4

9B (08A455) No data collected

lOB C08A416) No data collected

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 12.7 mm and 19.1 mm, respectively.

97
Table B-lO. Summary of sealant shape factors at Campo, Colorado (Ambroz and Evans, 1996).

Shape Factor (depth/width)

Section No. Required Mean Remarks

1A (08A430) - - Unsealed

2A (08A41O) 2.0 0.81 Wide joints

3A (08A441) 2.0 1.67

4A (08A411) 1.0 0.83

5A(08A442) 1.0 0.77

6A (08A451) - - Compression seal

7A (08A412) 0.67 0.56

8A(08A443) 0.67 1.25 Thick sealant

9A(08A452) - - Compression seal

lOA (08A453) 0.67 0.32 Wide joint, thin sealant

1B (08A431) - - Unsealed

2B (08A413) 2.0 0.5 Wide joint, thin sealant

3B (08A444) 2.0 1.43

4B (08A414) 1.0 0.77

5B (08A445) 1.0 0.71

6B (08A454) - - Transition section

7B (08A415) 0.67 - Data not collected

8B (08A446) 0.67 0.83

9B (08A455) - - Designed for compression seal

lOB W8A416) - - Desilmed for comnression seal

98
Table B-ll. Average sawing and installation dimensions

at Wells, Nevada (Wienrank and Evans, 1995a).

Section No. Joint Width, mm Joint Depth, mm Depth to Top ofBacker Depth to Top of

Rod mm Seal mm

1 (323010) - - - -

2 (32A420) 10.0 37.2 17.5 11.1

3 (32A41O) 13.0 37.2 17.5 10.3

4 (32A430) - - - -

5-1 (32A451) 10.5 40.0 17.1 7.1

6-1 (32A452) 9.7 40.5 18.3 8.5

7-1 (32A453) 10.5 40.5 16.8 7.8

8-1 (32A454) 14.0 46.7 - 10.8

9-1 (32A455) 12.7 38.7 19.5 9.3

10-1 (32A456) 13.5 42.2 20.2 8.2

11-1 (32A457) 10.5 39.7 20.3 12.2

5-2 (32A458) 10.2 39.5 19.7 8.6

6-2 (32A459) 14.0 44.9 18.1 10.5

7-2 (32A460) 9.9 40.0 16.4 9.5

8-2 (32A461) 13.3 45.4 - 11.9

9-2 (32A462) 12.4 40.6 16.4 8.7

10-2 (32A463) 13.7 42.5 17.9 8.0

11-2 (32A464) 9.7 38.4 19.1 8.4

99
Table B-12. Comparison of sawcut widths to specified widths

at Wells, Nevada (Wienrank: and Evans, 1995a).

Sawcut Width, mm Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

323010 No data, existing GPS left undisturbed

32A41O 13.0 4.60 1.10 -0.41 0.136 0.659 0.795

32A420 10.0 1.07 1.93 1.04 0.027 0.149 0.176

32A430 No data

32A451 10.5 1.52 1.66 0.41 0.049 0.341 0.390

32A452 9.7 0.51 3.48 2.85 0.000 0.002 0.002

32A453 10.5 1.52 1.66 0.41 0.049 0.341 0.390

32A454 14.0 1.24 2.28 0.25 0.011 0.401 0.412

32A455 12.7 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 1.000 1.000

32A456 13.5 1.73 3.24 -1.39 0.001 0.918 0.919

32A457 10.5 1.52 1.66 0.41 0.049 0.341 0.390

32A458 10.2 1.35 1.66 0.71 0.049 0.239 0.288

32A459 10.2 1.40 1.64 0.63 0.051 0.264 0.315

32A460 9.9 1.02 1.90 1.26 0.029 0.104 0.133

32A461 13.3 0.81 2.71 1.16 0.003 0.123 0.126

32A462 12.4 1.02 4.43 -1.26 0.000 0.896 0.896

32A463 13.7 1.70 3.35 -1.49 0.001 0.932 0.933

32A464 9.7 0.51 3.48 2.85 0.000 0.002 0.002

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 1.59 mm less than and greater than the specified width,

respectively.

100
Table B-13. Comparison of depths to top of sealant to specified range

at Wells, Nevada (Wienrank and Evans, 1995a).

Section Depth to Top ofJoint Sealant, mm Standard Deviations Portion Beyond Specified Limits

No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

323010 No data, existing GPS left undisturbed

32A410 10.3 1.91 2.09 -0.42 0.018 0.663 0.681

32A420 11.1 3.18 1.50 -0.50 0.067 0.692 0.759

32A430 No data, unsealed section

32A451 7.1 2.97 0.24 0.83 0.405 0.203 0.608

32A452 8.5 4.34 0.49 0.24 0.312 0.405 0.717

32A453 7.8 3.51 0.40 0.50 0.345 0.309 0.654

32A454 10.8 2.08 2.13 -0.61 0.017 0.729 0.746

32A455 9.3 1.57 1.89 0.13 0.029 0.448 0.477

32A456 8.2 2.11 0.88 0.63 0.189 0.264 0.453

32A457 12.2 3.66 1.60 -0.74 0.055 0.770 0.825

32A458 8.6 2.64 0.87 0.33 0.192 0.371 0.563

32A459 10.5 2.24 1.86 -0.44 0.031 0.670 0.701

32A460 9.5 2.79 1.13 0.00 0.129 0.500 0.629

32A461 11.9 1.88 2.97 -1.27 0.002 0.898 0.900

32A462 8.7 1.55 1.54 0.51 0.062 0.305 0.367

32A463 8.0 2.36 0.67 0.67 0.251 0.251 0.502

32A464 8.4 2.79 0.74 0.40 0.230 0.345 0.575

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 6.4 mm and 9.5 mm, respectively.

101
Table B-14. Comparison of depths to backer rod to specified range

at Wells, Nevada (Wienrank and Evans, 1995a).

Depth to Top ofBacker Rod, rom Standard Deviations Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. u.. UL u.. UL Total

323010 No data, existing GPS left undisturbed

32A410 17.5 4.04 1.18 0.39 0.119 0.348 0.467

32A420 17.5 1.30 3.67 1.22 0.000 0.111 0.111

32A430 No data, unsealed section

32A451 17.1 3.33 1.33 0.57 0.092 0.284 0.376

32A452 18.3 2.16 2.58 0.37 0.005 0.356 0.361

32A453 16.8 3.76 1.10 0.59 0.136 0.278 0.414

32A454 No data, compression seal

32A455 19.5 2.79 2.43 -0.17 0.008 0.568 0.576

32A456 20.2 3.81 1.95 -0.29 0.026 0.614 0.640

32A457 20.3 2.57 2.96 -0.49 0.002 0.688 0.690

32A458 19.7 3.02 2.32 -0.21 0.010 0.583 0.593

32A459 18.1 3.68 1.47 0.26 0.071 0.397 0.468

32A460 16.4 4.37 0.84 0.62 0.201 0.268 0.469

32A461 No data, compression seal

32A462 16.4 1.83 1.98 1.47 0.024 0.071 0.095

32A463 17.9 2.79 1.87 0040 0.031 0.345 0.376

32A464 19.1 1.50 4.24 0.00 0.000 0.500 0.500

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 12.7 rom and 19.1 rom, respectively.

102
Table B-l5. Summary of sealant shape factors at Wells, Nevada (Wienrank: and Evans, 1995a).

Shape Factor (depth/width)

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. Remarks

323010 - - Undisturbed section

32A410 0.571 0.461

32A420 0.440 0.441

32A430 - - Unsealed section

32A451 0.938 0.658

32A452 0.919 0.584

32A453 0.792 0.381

32A454 - - Compression seal

32A455 0.625 0.363

32A456 0.558 0.507

32A457 0.792 0.464

32A458 1.017 0.551

32A459 0.445 0.368

32A460 0.688 0.414

32A461 - - Compression seal

32A462 0.625 0.212

32A463 0.735 0.341

32A464 1.107 0.302

103
Table B-16. Average sawing and installation dimensions

at Tremonton, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995b).

Depth to Top ofBacker Depth to Top of

Section No. Joint Width nun Joint Denth nun Rod. nun Seal nun

1 (49C440) 10.2 30.8 15.9 -

2 (49C441) 10.3 33.2 16.7 5.7

3 (49C41O) 10.3 36.3 15.6 7.3

4 (49C430) 4.8 84.0 - -

5 (49C443) - - - -

6 (49C444) 10.3 34.1 - -

7 (49C445) 8.6 46.8 - -

8 (49C446) 4.8 81.3 17.9 -

9 (49C447) 9.7 34.1 17.3 7.5

10 (49C456) 4.8 33.5 16.4 -

11 (49C457) - - - -

12 (49C458) - - - -

13 (49C448) 10.0 35.3 15.9 6.2

14 (49C449) 9.0 34.3 - -

15 (49C450) 8.4 49.4 - -

16 (49C451) 10.2 32.5 17.3 7.5

17 (49C452) 10.2 34.1 17.0 5.7

18 (49C431) 4.9 84.8 - -

19 (49C453) - - - -

20 (49C454) 4.8 78.1 15.7 -

21 (49C455) 11.3 31.4 17.6 6.4

104
Table B-17. Comparison of sawcut widths to specified widths

at Tremonton, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995b).

Sawcut Width, mm Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. LL UL LL UL Total

49C41O 10.3 0.84 2.85 0.95 0.002 0.171 0.173

49C430 4.8 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49C431 4.9 0.51 6.64 -0.32 0.000 0.626 0.626

49C440 10.2 0.81 2.71 1.16 0.003 0.123 0.126

49C441 10.3 0.84 2.85 0.95 0.002 0.171 0.173

49C443 No data

49C444 10.3 0.84 2.85 0.95 0.002 0.171 0.173

49C445 8.6 0.81 4.65 -0.77 0.000 0.779 0.779

49C446 4.8 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49C447 9.7 0.51 3.48 2.85 0.000 0.002 0.002

49C448 10.0 0.76 2.69 1.45 0.004 0.074 0.078

49C449 9.0 1.07 1.04 1.93 0.149 0.027 0.176

49C450 8.4 0.76 4.76 -0.62 0.000 0.732 0.732

49C451 10.2 0.81 2.71 1.16 0.003 0.123 0.126

49C452 10.2 0.81 2.71 1.16 0.003 0.123 0.126

49C453 No data

49C454 4.8 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49C455 11.3 0.89 3.70 -0.18 0.000 0.571 0.571

49C456 4.8 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49C457 No data

49C458 No data

Note: LL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 1.6 mm less than and greater than the specified width,

respectively.

105
Table B-18. Comparison of depths to top of sealant to specified range

at Tremonton, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995b).

Depth to Top of Seal, mID Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

49C410 7.3 1.12 0.86 2.00 0.195 0.023 0.218

49C430 No data, unsealed section

49C431 No data, unsealed section

49C440 No data

49C441 5.7 0.81 -0.77 4.65 0.779 0.000 0.779

49C443 No data

49C444 No data

49C445 No data

49C446 No data

49C447 7.5 1.07 1.04 1.93 0.149 0.027 0.176

49C448 6.2 0.89 -0.18 3.70 0.571 0.000 0.571

49C449 No data

49C450 No data

49C451 7.5 1.07 1.04 1.93 0.149 0.027 0.176

49C452 5.7 0.81 -0.77 4.65 0.779 0.000 0.779

49C453 No data

49C454 No data

49C455 6.4 1.30 0.00 2.45 0.500 0.007 0.507

49C456 No data

49C457 No data

49C458 No data, unsealed section

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 6.4 mID and 9.5 mID, respectively.

106
Table B-19. Comparison of depths to backer rod to specified range

at Tremonton, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995b).

Depth to Top ofBacker Rod, mm Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

49C41O 15.6 1.24 2.28 2.79 0.011 0.003 0.014

49C430 No data, unsealed section

49C431 No data, unsealed section

49C440 15.9 1.30 2.45 2.45 0.007 0.007 0.014

49C441 16.7 1.35 2.94 1.77 0.002 0.038 0.040

49C443 No data

49C444 No data, compression seal

49C445 No data, compression seal

49C446 17.9 1.07 4.89 1.04 0.000 0.149 0.149

49C447 17.3 0.89 5.11 1.94 0.000 0.026 0.026

49C448 15.9 1.30 2.45 2.45 0.007 0.007 0.014

49C449 No data, compression seal

49C450 No data, compression seal

49C451 17.3 1.17 3.93 1.49 0.000 0.068 0.068

49C452 17.0 1.07 4.00 1.93 0.000 0.027 0.027

49C453 No data

49C454 15.7 1.17 2.57 2.85 0.005 0.000 0.005

49C455 17.6 1.17 4.20 1.22 0.000 0.111 0.111

49C456 16.4 1.30 2.79 2.06 0.003 0.020 0.023

49C457 No data

49C458 No data, unsealed section

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 12.7 mm and 19.1 mm, respectively.

107
Table B-20. Summary of sealant shape factors at

Tremonton, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995b).

Shape Factor (depth/width)

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. Remarks

49C41O 0.798 0.177

49C430 - - Unsealed section

49C431 - - Unsealed section

49C440 - -

49C441 1.062 0.080

49C443 - -

49C444 - - Compression seal

49C445 - - Compression seal

49C446 - -

49C447 1.019 0.119

49C448 0.969 0.122

49C449 - - Compression seal

49C450 - - Compression seal

49C451 0.976 0.205

49C452 1.112 0.111

49C453 - -

49C454 - -

49C455 1.000 0.089

49C456 - -

49C457 - -

49C458 - - Unsealed section

108
Table B-2!. Average sawing and installation dimensions

at Salt Lake City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995c).

Depth to Top ofBacker Depth to Top of

Section No. Joint Width rom Joint Denth rom Rod rom Seal rom

1 (49D430) - - - -

2 (49D41O) 9.4 43.7 14.0 3.5

3 (49D443) 9.2 40.0 13.7 5.9

4 (49D444) 7.0 52.1 - 4.8

5 (49D441) 9.9 34.0 15.4 1.2

6 (49D446) 4.9 53.5 17.3 -

7 (49D440) 10.6 37.6 17.0 3.0

8 (49D445) 5.1 57.9 - 4.6

9 (49D461) 9.5 35.9 13.5 -

10 (49D456) - - - -

11 (49D458) - - - -

12 (49D431) - - - -

13 (49D455) 10.2 32.7 18.4 5.1

14 (49D451) 10.6 31.9 14.6 6.2

15 (49D449) 8.0 25.6 '- -

16 (49D448) 10.8 34.6 19.8 -

17 (49D454) 5.9 43.8 19.7 3.8

18 (49D452) 12.1 46.4 12.7 2.9

19 (49D450) 6.2 68.1 - -

20 (49D462) 9.9 34.8 13.3 -

21 (49D459) - - - -

22 (49D46Q) 3.8 19.1 - -

109
Table B-22. Comparison of sawcut widths to specified widths

at Salt Lake City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995c).

Sawcut Width, mm Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL LL UL Total

49D410 9.4 0.51 2.85 3.48 0.0022 0.0002 0.002

490430 No data, unsealed section

490431 No data, unsealed section

490440 10.6 0.76 3.52 0.62 0.000 0.268 0.268

490441 9.9 1.02 1.90 1.26 0.029 0.104 0.133

49D443 9.2 0.66 1.90 2.85 0.029 0.002 0.031

49D444 7.0 0.81 -1.16 5.03 0.877 0.000 0.877

49D445 5.1 0.66 0.47 4.27 0.319 0.000 0.319

490446 4.9 0.51 6.64 -0.32 0.000 0.626 0.626

490448 10.8 0.66 4.27 0.47 0.000 0.319 0.319

490449 8.0 0.74 0.00 4.24 0.500 0.000 0.500

490450 6.2 0.51 2.85 3.48 0.002 0.000 0.002

490451 10.6 0.76 3.52 0.62 0.000 0.268 0.268

490452a 12.1 0.81 5.03 -1.16 0.000 0.877 0.877

490452 10.3 0.84 2.85 0.95 0.002 0.171 0.173

49D454 5.9 0.76 5.59 -1.45 0.000 0.927 0.927

490455 10.2 0.81 2.71 1.16 0.003 0.123 0.126

490456 No data

49D458 No data, unsealed section

490459 No data

490460 3.8 0.81 2.71 1.16 0.003 0.123 0.126

490461 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

490462 9.9 0.66 2.85 1.90 0.002 0.029 0.031

Section 490452 was removed and reinstalled.

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 1.6 mm less than and greater than the specified width,

respectively.

110
Table B-23. Comparison of depths to top of sealant to specified range

at Salt Lake City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995c).

Oepth to Top of Seal, mm Standard Oeviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std.Oev. LL UL LL UL Total

490410 3.5 1.91 -1,48 3.14 0.9306 0.001 0.932

490430 No data, Wlsealed section

490431 No data, Wlsealed section

490440 3.0 2.18 -1.53 2.99 0.937 0.001 0.938

490441 1.2 2.36 -2.18 3.53 0.985 0.000 0.985

490443 5.9 1.30 -0.36 2.79 0.641 0.003 0.644

490444 4.8 1.68 -0.95 2.85 0.829 0.002 0.831

490445 4.6 1.17 -1.49 4.20 0.932 0.000 0.932

490446 0.0 2.59 -2,45 3.67 0.993 0.000 0.993

490448 No data

490449 No data

490450 No data

490451 6.2 0.89 -0.18 3.70 0.571 0.000 0.571

490452" 2.9 1.02 -3,48 6.64 1.000 0.000 1.000

490452 No data, removed and resealed

490454 3.8 2.92 -0.88 1.96 0.811 0.025 0.836

490455 5.1 1.24 -1.01 3.55 0.844 0.000 0.844

490456 No data

490458 No data, Wlsealed section

490459 No data

490460 No data, Wlsealed section

490461 No data

490462 No data

Section 490452 was removed and reinstalled.

Note: LL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 6,4 mm and 9.5 mm, respectively.

111
Table B-24. Comparison of depths to backer rod to specified range

at Salt Lake City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995c).

Depth to Top ofBacker Rod, mm Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

49D41O 14.0 1.24 1.01 4.06 0.156 0.000 0.156

49D430 No data, unsealed section

49D431 No data, unsealed section

49D440 17.0 1.30 3.28 1.58 0.001 0.057 0.058

49D441 15.4 2.36 1.14 1.54 0.127 0.062 0.189

49D443 13.7 1.85 0.51 2.90 0.305 0.002 0.307

49D444 No data, compression seal

49D445 No data, compression seal

49D446 17.3 1.91 2.42 0.92 0.008 0.179 0.187

49D448 19.8 1.12 6.36 -0.71 0.000 0.761 0.761

49D449 No data, compression seal

49D450 No data, compression seal

49D451 14.6 1.65 1.16 2.71 0.123 0.003 0.126

49D452a 12.7 1.07 0.00 6.00 0.500 0.000 0.500

49D452 19.7 1.70 4.09 -0.37 0.000 0.644 0.644

49D454 19.7 0.81 8.52 -0.77 0.000 0.779 0.779

49D455 18.4 1.12 5.15 0.57 0.000 0.284 0.284

49D456 No data, no backer rod used with Soff-Cut

49D458 No data, unsealed section

49D459 No data, no backer rod used with Soff-Cut

49D460 No data, unsealed section

49D461 13.5 1.73 0.46 3.24 0.323 0.001 0.324

49D462 13.3 0.81 0.77 6.97 0.221 0.000 0.221

Section 49D452 was removed and reinstalled.

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 6.4 mm and 9.5 mm, respectively.

112
Table B-25. Summary ofsealant shape factors at

Salt Lake City, Utah (Wienrank: and Evans, 1995c).

Shape Factor (depth/width)

Section No. Mean Std.Oev. Remarks

490410 1.013 0.421

490430 - - Unsealed section

490431 - - Unsealed section

490440 1.329 0.300

490441 1.462 0.374

490443 0.853 0.270

490444 - - Compression seal

490445 - - Compression seal

490446 2.475 1.752

490448 1.848 0.197

490449 - - Compression seal

490450 - - Compression seal

490451 0.793 0.207

490452" 0.821 0.133 " Second installation

490452 - -

490454 2.292 1.371

490455 1.324 0.202

490456 - -

490458 - - Unsealed section

490459 - -

490460 - - Unsealed section

490461 - -

490462 - -

"Section 490452 was removed and reinstalled.

113
Table B-26. Average sawing and installation dimensions

at Heber City, Utah (Wienrank: and Evans, 1995d).

Depth to Top ofBacker Depth to Top of

" No. Joint Width mm Joint Denth mm Rod mm Seal mm

1 (49E460) - - - -

2 (49E459) 6.4 13.8 - 8.7

3 (49E462) 9.5 33.8 17.5 10.8

4 (49E449) 9.5 34.1 - 8.4

5 (49E448) 9.5 35.9 18.4 6.2

6 (49E450) 8.0 40.8 - 11.4

7 (49E454) 4.9 78.1 19.5 9.2

8 (49E452) 9.5 36.0 14.3 5.6

9 (49E451) 11.3 34.3 17.5 11.1

10 (49E455) 9.7 33.7 17.8 8.3

11 (49E431) - - - -

12 (49E430) - - - -

13 (49E41O) 9.5 35.3 18.9 10.6

14 (49E443) 9.5 34.6 18.9 9.2

15 (49E441) 9.5 34.9 19.1 7.0

16 (49E444) 9.5 34.6 - 6.0

17 (49E446) 4.8 73.0 14.1 6.2

18 (49E440) 9.5 34.6 19.5 6.5

19 (49E445) 6.4 36.5 - 8.0

20 (49E461) 9.5 34.6 18.1 8.8

21 (49E456) 3.2 25.7 - 8.3

22 (49E458) - - - -

114
Table B-27. Comparison of sawcut widths to specified widths

at Heber City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995d).

Sawcut Width. rom Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No.

Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

49E41O 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E430 No data. unsealed section

49E431 No data. unsealed section

49E440 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E441 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E443 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E444 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E445 6.4 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E446 4.8 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E448 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E449 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E450 8.0 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E451 11.3 0.51 6.64 -0.32 0.000 0.623 0.623

49E452 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E454 4.9 0.51 6.64 -0.32 0.000 0.623 0.623

49E455 9.7 0.51 3.48 2.85 0.000 0.002 0.002

49E456 3.2 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E458 No data. unsealed section

49E459 6.4 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 1.000 1.000

49E460 No data. unsealed section

49E461 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

49E462 9.5 0.00 Infinity Infinity 0.000 0.000 0.000

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit. which are 1.6 rom less than and greater than the specified width.

respectively.

115
Table B-28. Comparison of depths to top of sealant to specified range

at Heber City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995d).

Depth to Top of Seal, rom Standard Deviations for: Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

49E41O 10.6 2.69 1.59 -0.41 0.056 0.659 0.715

49E430 No data, unsealed section

49E431 No data, unsealed section

49E440 6.5 2.03 0.08 1.48 0.468 0.069 0.537

49E441 7.0 1.52 0.41 1.66 0.341 0.049 0.390

49E443 9.2 1.45 1.96 0.22 0.025 0.413 0.438

49E444 6.0 0.66 -0.47 5.22 0.681 0.000 0.681

49E445 8.0 1.07 1.50 1.50 0.067 0.067 0.134

49E446 6.2 1.17 -0.14 2.85 0.556 0.002 0.558

49E448 6.2 2.03 -0.08 1.63 0.532 0.052 0.584

49E449 8.4 1.50 1.37 0.74 0.085 0.230 0.315

49E450 11.4 1.45 3.48 -1.31 0.000 0.905 0.905

49E451 11.1 1.30 3.67 -1.22 0.000 0.889 0.889

49E452 5.6 2.51 -0.32 1.58 0.626 0.057 0.683

49E454 9.2 1.80 1.59 0.18 0.056 0.429 0.485

49E455 8.3 2.34 0.81 0.54 0.209 0.295 0.504

49E456 8.3 3.71 0.52 0.33 0.302 0.371 0.673

49E458 No data, unsealed section

49E459 8.7 2.39 0.99 0.33 0.161 0.371 0.532

49E460 No data, unsealed section

49E461 8.8 2.11 1.17 0.33 0.121 0.371 0.492

49E462 10.8 3.66 1.22 -0.35 0.111 0.637 0.748

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit, which are 6.4 rom and 9.5 rom, respectively.

116
Table B-29. Comparison of depths to backer rod to specified range

at Heber City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995d).

Depth to Top ofBacker Rod, mm Standard Deviations Portion Beyond Specified Limits

Section No.

Mean Std. Dev. IL UL IL UL Total

49E41O 18.9 0.89 6.87 0.18 0.000 0.429 0.429

49E430 No data, unsealed section

49E431 No data, unsealed section

49E440 19.5 1.07 6.37 -0.44 0.000 0.670 0.670

49E441 19.1 1.50 4.24 0.00 0.000 0.500 0.500

49E443 18.9 0.89 6.87 0.18 0.000 0.429 0.429

49E444 No data, compression seal

49E445 No data, compression seal

49E446 14.1 2.03 0.70 2.41 0.242 0.008 0.250

49E448 18.4 0.81 6.97 0.77 0.000 0.221 0.221

49E449 No data, compression seal

49E450 No data, compression seal

49E451 17.5 1.30 3.67 1.22 0.000 0.111 0.111

49E452 14.3 1.50 1.06 3.18 0.145 0.001 0.146

49E454 19.5 2.13 3.21 -0.22 0.001 0.587 0.588

49E455 17.8 1.32 3.82 0.96 0.000 0.169 0.169

49E456 No data, no backer rod used with Soff-Cut

49E458 No data, unsealed section

49E459 No data, no backer rod used with Soff-Cut

49E460 No data, unsealed section

49E461 18.1 1.35 4.03 0.71 0.000 0.239 0.239

49E462 17.5 1.83 2.60 0.87 0.005 0.192 0.197

Note: IL and UL are lower limit and upper limit. which are 12.7 mm and 19.1 mm, respectively.

117
Table B-30. Sunnnary ofsealant shape factors at

Heber City, Utah (Wienrank and Evans, 1995d).

Shape Factor (depth/width)

Section No. Mean Std. Dev. Remarks

49E41O 0.867 0.292

49E430 - - Unsealed section

49E431 - - Unsealed section

49E440 1.367 0.246

49E441 1.267 0.196

49E443 1.017 0.214

49E444 - - Compression seal

49E445 - - Compression seal

49E446 1.667 0.609

49E448 1.283 0.261

49E449 - - Compression seal

49E450 - - Compression seal

49E451 0.563 0.172

49E452 0.917 0.275

49E454 2.125 0.625

49E455 0.600 0.634

49E456 - -

49E458 - - Unsealed section

49E459 - -

49E460 - - Unsealed section

49E461 1.067 0.417

49E462 0.700 0.436

118
APPENDIX C. FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA

A large amount of field performance data was collected during the 4 years of SPS-4

supplemental joint seal test site monitoring. The data were stored in spreadsheets and the FHWA

LTM database, and summaries ofthe field performance are contained in the tables in this

appendix.

119
Table C-l. Transverse joint seal performance summary at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Partial-depth Full-depth Full-depth Partial-depth Full-depth Overall

Material Cnfg. Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion spall spall effectiveness, No. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, % joint lengtt % edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Crafco RS 221 C 1 53.8 24.9 85.0 97.7 99.2 9.1

Crafco RS 221 C 2 51.7 16.0 96.5 98.2 99.7 12.2

Avg. 52.7 20.5 90.7 98.0 99.5 10.7

Crafeo SS 444 C 1 100.0 99.9 2.5 97.7 99.8 2.1

Crafeo SS 444 C 2 99.7 99.7 62.3 96.9 99.2 61.3

Avg. 99.8 99.8 32.4 97.3 99.5 31.7

Crafeo 903-SL C 1 99.3 99.9 99.9 91.8 98.4 98.3

Crafco 903-SL C 2 97.0 99.9 99.9 90.4 97.9 97.7

Avg. 98.1 99.9 99.9 91.1 98.1 98.0

Dow 888 C 1 99.9 99.9 100.0 95.3 99.0 99.0

Dow 888 C 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.8 98.9 98.9

Avg. 99.9 100.0 100.0 94.0 99.0 98.9

Dow 888-SL C 1 97.7 99.4 100.0 93.8 98.7 98.1

Dow 888-SL C 2 99.4 99.7 100.0 91.4 97.7 97.3

Avg. 98.6 99.5 100.0 92.6 98.2 97.7

Dow 890-SL A 1 96.7 99.2 100.0 95.0 99.2 98.4

Dow 890-SL A 2 94.4 97.5 100.0 92.8 97.4 94.8

Avg. 95.5 98.3 100.0 93.9 98.3 96.6

Dow 890-SL B 1 98.7 99.9 100.0 94.3 99.1 99.0

Dow 890-SL B 2 98.5 99.5 99.9 95.3 98.4 97.9

Avg. 98.6 99.7 100.0 94.8 98.7 98.4

Dow 890-SL C 1 99.2 99.6 100.0 96.4 99.7 99.2

Dow 890-SL C 2 99.3 99.7 100.0 96.5 98.6 98.3

Avg. 99.2 99.7 100.0 96.4 99.1 98.8

Mobay 960-SL C 1 99.7 99.4 99.2 92.8 96.2 94.8

Mobay 960-SL C 2 99.9 99.9 99.9 95.9 98.0 97.9

Avg. 99.8 99.7 99.6 94.4 97.1 96.4

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.8 99.2 99.2

No Seal A 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 91.3 99.0 99.0

AVf1. 1000 1000 100.0 94.0 99.1 QQ 1

120
Table C-2. Overall transverse joint seal effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

1 100.0 67.9 50.7 18.1 9.1

Crafeo C 2 100.0 28.1 22.1 18.1 12.2 RS 221

Avg. 100.0 48.0 36.4 18.1 10.7

1 100.0 83.6 30.6 10.8 2.3

Crafeo C 2 100.0 99.6 94.7 81.3 61.3 SS444

Avg. 100.0 91.6 62.7 46.0 31.8

1 100.0 99.4 98.8 98.4 98.3

Crafeo C 2 100.0 99.1 98.3 97.8 97.7 903-SL

Avg. 100.0 99.3 98.6 98.1 98.0

1 100.0 99.5 99.3 99.1 99.0

Dow 888 C 2 100.0 99.5 99.1 99.0 98.9

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.2 99.1 98.9

1 100.0 99.3 98.8 98.4 98.1

Dow C 2 100.0 98.9 97.8 97.6 97.3 888-SL

Avg. 100.0 99.1 98.3 98.0 97.7

1 100.0 99.6 99.2 98.8 98.4

Dow A 2 100.0 97.6 95.9 95.2 94.8 890-SL

Avg. 100.0 98.6 97.5 97.0 96.6

1 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.1 99.0

Dow B 2 100.0 99.5 98.3 98.0 97.9 890-SL

Avg. 100.0 99.6 98.8 98.6 98.4

1 100.0 99.7 99.6 99.4 99.2

Dow C 2 100.0 99.5 98.6 98.4 98.3 890-SL

Avg. 100.0 99.6 99.1 98.9 98.8

1 100.0 61.8 41.3 28.8 26.6

D.S.Brown C 2 100.0 64.0 41.1 35.9 32.8 V~87

Avg. 100.0 62.9 41.2 32.3 29.7

1 100.0 97.6 96.8 95.8 94.8

Mobay C 2 100.0 98.9 98.2 98.1 97.9 960-SL

Avg. 100.0 98.2 97.5 97.0 96.4

Watson 1 100.0 97.7 95.5 91.1 87.2

Bowman C

687

Watson 1 100.0 99.9 96.9 93.5 90.3

Bowman C

812

1 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.4 99.2

No Seal A 2 100.0 99.5 99.1 99.0 99.0

Avp. 100.0 QQ.7 QQ QQ.2 99.1

121
Table C-3. Adhesion effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, ercent joint lenp;th

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

Crafco 1 100.0 71.1 55.6 24.2 24.9

RS 221 C 2 100.0 29.6 24.0 21.5 16.0

Avg. 100.0 50.3 39.8 22.9 20.5

Crafco 1 100.0 99.1 98.8 99.5 99.9

SS444 C 2 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.7

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.4 99.7 99.8

Crafco 1 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9

903-SL C 2 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.4

888-SL C 2 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.7

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.5

Dow 1 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.2

890-SL A 2 100.0 98.8 98.3 97.7 97.5

Avg. 100.0 99.4 99.0 98.6 98.3

Dow B 1 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9

890-SL 2 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.5

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.7

Dow C 1 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.6

890-SL 2 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.7

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7 99.7

D.S.Brown 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687 C 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avp;. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay 1 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.3 99.4

960-SL C 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.7

Watson 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Bowman C

687

Watson 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Bowman C

812

1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No Seal A 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ava 100.0 100.0 1000 1000 1000

122
Table C-4. Cohesion effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

Crafco C 1 100.0 97.3 95.8 94.7 85.0

RS 221 2 100.0 98.7 98.4 96.8 96.5

Avg. 100.0 98.0 97.1 95.7 90.7

Crafco C 1 100.0 84.7 32.0 11.5 2.5

SS444 2 100.0 99.9 95.4 81.9 62.3

Avg. 100.0 92.3 63.7 46.7 32.4

Crafco C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

888-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay C 1 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.9 99.2

960-SL 2 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.9 99.6

Watson C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Bowman

687

Watson C 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Bowman

812

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ava 100 0 100.0 100.0 1000 100.0

123
Table C-5. Spall effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

S all effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

Crafco C I 100.0 99.5 99.3 99.2 99.2

RS 221 2 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.7

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.5 99.5 99.5

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

SS444 2 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.3 99.2

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.6 99.5 99.5

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.5 98.9 98.4 98.4

903-SL 2 100.0 99.2 98.4 98.0 97.9

Avg. 100.0 99.4 98.7 98.2 98.1

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.5 99.3 99.1 99.0

2 100.0 99.5 99.1 99.0 98.9

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.2 99.1 99.0

Dow C 1 100.0 99.5 99.0 98.8 98.7

888-SL 2 100.0 99.1 98.0 97.8 97.7

Avg. 100.0 99.3 98.5 98.3 98.2

Dow A 1 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.3 99.2

890-SL 2 100.0 98.8 97.6 97.5 97.4

Avg. 100.0 99.2 98.5 98.4 98.3

Dow B 1 100.0 99.8 99.4 99.2 99.1

890-SL 2 100.0 99.5 98.5 98.5 98.4

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.0 98.8 98.7

Dow C 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.7 99.7

890-SL 2 100.0 99.6 98.8 98.7 98.6

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.3 99.2 99.1

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.5 99.5

V~87 2 100.0 99.7 99.6 99.6 99.4

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.6 99.6 99.5

Mobay C 1 100.0 97.7 97.1 96.6 96.2

960-SL 2 100.0 99.0 98.3 98.2 98.0

Avg. 100.0 98.4 97.7 97.4 97.1

Watson C 1 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8

Bowman

687

Watson C 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Bowman

812

No Seal A 1 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.4 99.2

2 100.0 99.5 99.1 99.0 99.0

Av'i!.. 100.0 99.7 99.3 99.2 99.1

124
Table C-6. Twist effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Twist effectiveness over time, percent ioint len th

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

D.S.Brown C 1 100 100 100 100 100

V-687 2 100 100 100 100 100

Avg. 100 100 100 100 100

Watson C 1 100 100 100 100 100

Bowman

687

Watson C 2 100 100 100 100 100

Bowman

Rl?

Table C-7. Compression set effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Compression set effectiveness over time, percent ioint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 92.9 87.0 80.8 78.8

V-687 2 100.0 98.3 93.8 93.2 91.6

Avg. 100.0 95.6 90.4 87.0 85.2

Watson C 1 100.0 99.5 98.8 96.6 94.7

lBowman687

Watson C 2 100.0 100.0 98.1 95.4 95.0

Rl?

Table C-8. Gap effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Gap effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 54.6 48.5 48.2

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 47.7 43.1 41.8

Avg. 100.0 100.0 51.1 45.8 45.0

Watson C 1 100.0 100.0 96.8 94.6 92.7

Bowman 687

Watson C 2 100.0 100.0 98.8 98.1 95.3

Rl?

125
Table C-9. Transverse joint seal performance at Campo, Colorado test site.

Partial-<lepth Full-<lepth Full-<lepth Partial-<lepth spall Full-<lepth spall Overall Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion Material Cnfg. No. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness,

% edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Crafco 902 A 1 99.9 99.7 99.3 97.2 98.9 94.9

CrafCO 902 A 2 98.5 99.7 98.3 97.6 99.1 96.2

Avg. 99.2 99.7 98.8 97.4 99.0 95.6

Crafco 902 B 1 97.1 99.9 99.3 96.1 98.7 97.8

Crafco 902 B 2 98.5 99.8 97.5 96.8 99.0 95.3

Avg. 97.8 99.9 98.4 96.4 98.8 96.5

Crafco 902 C 1 93.3 100.0 99.7 97.3 99.1 98.8

Crafco 902 C 2 98.0 99.9 99.8 96.5 99.1 98.9

Avg. 95.7 100.0 99.8 96.9 99.1 98.8

Crafco 902 G 1 98.1 100.0 97.9 98.8 99.2 97.1

Crafco 902 G 2 96.4 99.9 96.0 99.6 99.6 95.0

Avg. 97.2 99.9 96.9 99.2 99.4 96.0

CrafCO 903-SL A 1 44.0 74.0 100.0 97.7 98.9 72.9

Crafco 903-SL A 2 91.4 99.5 99.9 95.3 98.4 97.6

Avg. 67.7 86.8 99.9 96.5 98.6 85.3

Crafco 903-SL B 1 78.9 98.8 100.0 98.4 98.6 97.5

Crafco 903-SL 13 2 94.0 99.4 99.9 96.3 98.6 97.9

Avg. 86.5 99.1 100.0 97.3 98.6 97.7

Crafco 903-SL C 1 74.2 99.8 100.0 98.2 99.4 99.2

Crafco 903-SL C 2 95.8 99.9 100.0 96.2 98.8 98.7

Avg. 85.0 99.9 100.0 97.2 99.1 99.0

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.8 97.2 97.2

No Seal A 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.4 99.0 99.0

Avp. 100.0 100.0 100.0 Q2.6 Q!U Q~.1

126
Table C-lO. Overall transverse joint seal effectiveness at Campo, Colorado test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 6 months 13 months 25 months

Crafco 902 A 1 100.0 99.8 98.7 97.9

2 100.0 99.8 98.1 97.1

Avg. 100.0 99.8 98.4 97.5

Crafco 902 B 1 100.0 99.2 98.3 97.9

2 100.0 98.9 96.5 96.2

Avg. 100.0 99.1 97.4 97.1

Crafco 902 C 1 100.0 99.7 99.2 98.8

2 100.0 99.8 99.3 98.9

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.2 98.8

Crafco 902 G 1 100.0 99.0 97.4 97.1

2 100.0 99.9 96.4 95.4

Avg. 100.0 99.4 96.9 96.3

Crafco A 1 100.0 99.8 99.0 72.9

903-SL 2 100.0 99.8 98.7 97.8

Avg. 100.0 99.8 98.8 85.4

Crafco B 1 100.0 99.2 98.3 97.5

903-SL 2 100.0 99.5 99.0 97.9

Avg. 100.0 99.4 98.6 97.7

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.2

903-SL 2 100.0 99.7 99.1 98.7

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.3 99.0

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 81.7 66.6 63.2

E-437H

No Seal A 1 100.0 98.5 98.1 97.2

2 100.0 99.3 99.1 99.0

Avg. 100.0 98.9 98.6 98.1

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 85.2 82.8 82.7

V-687

C'r"fcn OO? C 1 100.0 99.8 99.2 98.5

127
Table C-ll. Adhesion effectiveness at Campo, Colorado test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 6 months 13 months 25 months

Crafeo 902 A 1 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7

Avg. 100.0 99.9 100.0 99.7

Crafeo 902 B 1 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9

2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9

Crafeo 902 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Crafeo 902 G 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

Crafeo A 1 100.0 99.9 99.5 74.0

903-SL 2 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.5

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.7 86.8

Crafeo B 1 100.0 99.9 99.7 98.8

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.4

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.1

Crafeo C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

E-437H

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687

f'r"frn OO? f' 1 1000 1000 1000 QQ R

128
Table C-12. Cohesion effectiveness at Campo, Colorado test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 6 months 13 months 25 months

Crafco 902 A I 100.0 99.9 99.3 99.3

2 100.0 99.9 98.6 98.3

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.0 98.8

Crafco 902 B 1 100.0 99.9 99.4 99.3

2 100.0 99.2 97.3 97.5

Avg. 100.0 99.5 98.4 98.4

Crafco 902 C 1 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.7

2 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8

Crafco 902 G 1 100.0 99.4 98.1 97.9

2 100.0 100.0 96.8 96.0

Avg. 100.0 99.7 97.4 96.9

Crafco A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Crafco B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Crafco C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S. Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

E-437H

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687

£:1"- nn... £: 1 100.0 1000 (}(}h (}()<;

129
Table C-13. Spall effectiveness at Campo, Colorado test site.

Spall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 6 months 13 months 25 months

Crafco 902 A 1 100.0 100.0 99.5 98.9

2 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.1

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.0

Crafco 902 B 1 100.0 99.5 99.0 98.7

2 100.0 99.7 99.2 99.0

Avg. 100.0 99.6 99.1 98.8

Crafco 902 C I 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.1

2 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.1

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.1

Crafco 902 G I 100.0 99.6 99.3 99.2

2 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.6

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.4

Crafco A 1 100.0 99.9 99.5 98.9

903-SL 2 100.0 99.9 98.9 98.4

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.2 98.6

Crafco B 1 100.0 99.3 98.6 98.6

903-SL 2 100.0 99.5 99.0 98.6

Avg. 100.0 99.4 98.8 98.6

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.4

903-SL 2 100.0 99.7 99.1 98.8

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.1

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5

E-437H

No Seal A 1 100.0 98.5 98.1 97.2

2 100.0 99.3 99.1 99.0

Avg. 100.0 98.9 98.6 98.1

D.S. Brown C 1 100.0 99.9 99.3 99.2

V~87

rmfco QO? r 1 1f)() () QQ R QQ h QQ?

130
Table C-14. Twist effectiveness at Campo, Colorado test site.

Twist effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 6 months 13 months 25 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 97.1 95.9 96.4

E437H

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 88.3 88.3 88.3

V.E.R7

Table C-15. Compression set effectiveness at Campo, Colorado test site.

Compo set effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 6 months 13 months 25 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 93.9 79.2 74.8

E437H

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 98.1 98.1

V-687

Table C-16. Gap effectiveness at Campo, Colorado test site.

Gap effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 6 months 13 months 25 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 93.8 96.5 97.8

E437H

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0

V-6R7

131
Table C-17. Transverse joint seal performance summary at Wells, Nevada test site.

Partial-depth Full-depth Full-depth Partial-depth Full-depth Overall

Material Cnfg. Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion spall spall effectiveness, No. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness,

% edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Crafco 902 C 1 98.0 99.2 99.0 88.1 85.4 83.7

Crafco 902 C 2 99.7 99.7 99.1 84.7 86.0 84.9

Avg. 98.8 99.5 99.1 86.4 85.7 84.3

Crafco 903-SL C 1 92.5 98.7 99.8 86.9 86.0 84.4

Crafco 903-SL C 2 99.8 99.5 99.6 87.1 90.7 89.8

Avg. 96.0 99.0 99.7 87.0 88.2 87.0

Dow 888 C 1 98.0 99.3 99.9 87.0 95.7 94.9

Dow 888 C 2 99.4 99.9 99.7 84.2 94.2 93.8

Avg. 98.8 99.7 99.8 85.4 94.8 94.3

Dow 888 C 3 97.1 96.9 99.9 85.7 82.4 79.2

Dow 888 C 4 97.2 99.2 99.7 81.0 84.8 83.7

Dow 888-SL C 1 98.5 98.5 100.0 90.2 91.8 90.3

Dow 888-SL C 2 97.2 97.4 99.9 91.9 92.6 89.9

Avg. 97.8 97.9 100.0 91.1 92.2 90.1

Dow 890-SL C 1 91.6 97.4 100.0 92.4 89.7 87.1

Dow 890-SL C 2 76.5 97.8 100.0 89.6 93.3 91.1

Avg. 83.2 97.6 100.0 90.8 91.7 89.3

Mobay960 C 1 96.1 99.3 99.7 81.5 87.3 86.3

Mobay960 C 2 99.2 99.7 99.7 85.3 85.6 84.9

Avg. 97.7 99.5 99.7 83.5 86.4 85.6

Polyethylene F 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 94.9 94.2 0.0

Unsealed C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 g5.8 gO.8 gO.8

132
Table C-18. Overall transverse joint seal effectiveness at Wells, Nevada test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafco 902 C 1 100.0 96.1 92.0 86.0 83.7

2 100.0 97.2 94.5 88.8 84.9

Avg. 100.0 96.7 93.3 87.4 84.3

Crafco C 1 100.0 96.3 94.9 89.1 84.4

903-SL 2 100.0 97.4 95.7 91.7 89.8

Avg. 100.0 96.8 95.3 90.4 87.1

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.2 97.7 95.2 94.9

2 100.0 98.4 98.1 92.8 93.8

Avg. 100.0 98.8 97.9 94.0 94.3

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 95.0 94.4 86.2 83.7

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 96.8 95.9 83.3 79.2

Dow C 1 100.0 98.4 96.9 92.1 90.3

888-SL 2 100.0 96.9 97.2 92.4 89.9

Avg. 100.0 97.7 97.0 92.2 90.1

Dow C 1 100.0 98.9 98.5 91.8 87.1

890-SL 2 100.0 97.8 97.1 93.6 91.1

Avg. 100.0 98.4 97.8 92.7 89.1

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 96.3 73.8 51.7 46.1

V-812 2 100.0 97.8 73.3 36.7 24.7

Avg. 100.0 97.0 73.5 44.2 35.4

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 97.9 94.1 88.7 86.3

2 100.0 96.9 92.8 88.0 84.9

Avg. 100.0 97.4 93.5 88.4 85.6

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 93.3 91.3 90.8

Polyethylene F 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

133
Table C-19. Adhesion effectiveness at Wells, Nevada test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafco 902 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.5 99.2

2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.5

Crafeo C 1 100.0 99.8 99.3 99.2 98.7

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.9 99.5

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.5 99.1

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.4 99.2

2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.1 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.3 99.6

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.6 99.7 97.8 96.5

1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.2

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.2 98.5

888-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.3 97.4

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.3 97.9

Dow C 1 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.0 97.8

890-SL 2 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.5 97.8

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.2 97.8

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-812 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 99.9 99.5 99.3 99.2

2 100.0 100,0 99.9 99.9 99.7

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.6 99.4

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Polvethvlene P 1 100.0 1000 1000 100.0 1000

134
Table C-20. Cohesion effectiveness at Wells, Nevada test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafco 902 C 1 100.0 99.7 99.3 99.1 99.0

2 100.0 99.8 99.2 99.3 99.1

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.3 99.2 99.1

Crafco C 1 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.7

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 95.7 95.2 99.9 95.9

1 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.7

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

888-SL 2 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-812 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.8 99.7

2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.7

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.7

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

F 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

135
Table C-21. Spall effectiveness at Wells, Nevada test site.

Spall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafco 902 C I 100.0 96.4 93.1 87.4 85.4

2 100.0 97.4 95.4 89.7 86.0

Avg. 100.0 96.9 94.3 88.5 85.7

Crafco C 1 100.0 96.5 95.7 90.1 86.0

903-SL 2 100.0 97.2 95.6 91.9 90.6

Avg. 100.0 96.8 95.6 91.0 88.3

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.2 97.9 95.9 95.7

2 100.0 98.4 98.2 94.9 94.2

Avg. 100.0 98.8 98.1 95.4 94.9

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 97.1 96.2 87.2 84.2

1 100.0 95.0 95.2 87.0 84.8

Dow C 1 100.0 98.4 97.2 92.8 91.8

888-SL 2 100.0 97.0 97.4 93.1 92.6

Avg. 100.0 97.7 97.3 93.0 92.2

Dow C 1 100.0 97.9 97.8 92.0 88.1

890-SL 2 100.0 97.9 97.4 94.1 93.3

Avg. 100.0 97.9 97.6 93.1 90.7

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 99.2 98.7 97.9 97.7

V-812 2 100.0 99.0 98.7 98.4 97.9

Avg. 100.0 99.1 98.7 98.2 97.8

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 97.7 94.7 89.7 87.4

2 100.0 96.9 93.1 88.3 85.6

Avg. 100.0 97.3 93.9 89.0 86.5

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 93.3 91.3 90.8

p 1 1nn n 00 R Ofi~ 04R 044

136
Table C-22. Twist effectiveness at Wells, Nevada test site.

Twist effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

D.S.Brown D I 100.0 97.2 88.2 88.0 87.6

V-812 2 100.0 98.8 96.1 95.0 95.1

Av£!. 100.0 98.0 92.2 91.5 91.4

Table C-23. Compression set effectiveness at Wells, Nevada test site.

Compo set effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 94.3 77.1 71.0

V-812 2 100.0 100.0 80.3 45.1 42.4

Avcr 1000 1000 87.3 61.1 'ill?

Table C-24. Gap effectiveness at Wells, Nevada test site.

Gap effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.6 90.1

V-812 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.6 89.4

Av'i!. 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.1 89.7

137
Table C-25. Transverse joint seal performance summary at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Partial.depth Full-depth FUll-depth Partial-depth Full-depth Overall

Material Cnfg. Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion spall spall effectiveness, No. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, % joint length % edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Dow 888-SL C 1 99.6 64.1 100.0 96.9 92.8 56.9

Dow 888-SL C 2 99.8 46.5 99.9 98.3 94.3 40.7

Avg. 99.7 55.3 100.0 97.6 93.5 48.8

Dow 890-SL A 1 99.5 84.7 93.9 92.6 96.4 74.9

Dow 890-SL A 2 99.3 91.3 98.3 94.0 95.9 85.5

Avg. 99.4 88.0 96.1 93.3 96.2 80.2

Dow 890-SL E 1 96.9 89.2 99.2 92.2 92.5 80.8

Koch 9005 C 1 60.6 9.3 96.9 97.1 97.8 4.1

Koch 9005 C 2 55.4 18.5 98.6 96.2 97.3 14.4

Avg. 58.0 13.9 97.7 96.7 97.6 9.2

Koch 9012 C 1 81.8 33.8 65.4 96.1 98.1 0.0

Koch 9012 C 2 89.4 16.6 84.5 97.9 99.1 0.2

Avg. 85.6 25.2 74.9 97.0 98.6 0.0

Mobay960 C 1 96.6 99.9 99.8 91.7 94.2 93.9

Mobay960 C 2 97.7 99.6 99.8 91.6 94.5 93.9

Avg. 97.1 99.7 99.8 91.6 94.4 93.9

Mobay960 C 1 97.9 99.7 100.0 94.4 95.8 95.5

Mobay960 C 2 89.4 99.0 99.9 90.8 93.0 92.0

Avg. 93.7 99.4 100.0 92.6 94.4 93.8

Roshek E 1 100.0 92.5 27.7 97.3 96.7 16.8

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.0 96.3 96.3

No Seal A 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.1 98.3 98.3

A Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.1 97.3 97.3

No Seal E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 RR.9 90.0 90.0

138
Table C-26. Overall transverse joint seal effectiveness at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 47 months 61 months 73 months 85 months

Dow C I 100.0 94.6 74.8 71.3 56.9

888-SL 2 100.0 92.2 67.3 52.3 40.7

Avg. 100.0 93.4 71.1 61.8 48.8

Dow A 1 100.0 98.2 92.9 89.2 74.9

890-SL 2 100.0 97.9 93.4 89.7 85.5

Avg. 100.0 98.1 93.2 89.5 80.2

Dow E 1 100.0 88.6 86.6 83.7 80.9

890-SL

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 72.8 36.3 17.5 4.5

2 100.0 59.7 29.2 20.7 15.2

Avg. 100.0 66.3 32.8 19.1 9.9

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 70.3 32.1 12.2 0.2

2 100.0 36.8 9.7 5.0 0.9

Avg. 100.0 53.5 20.9 8.6 0.5

KoldSeal B 1 100.0 90.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

NeoLoop 2 100.0 74.3 8.7 5.5 3.9

Avg. 100.0 82.3 4.3 2.7 1.9

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 99.2 98.4 96.8 95.5

2 100.0 98.1 96.2 93.9 92.0

Avg. 100.0 98.7 97.3 95.3 93.8

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 97.2 96.1 95.1 93.9

2 100.0 98.1 96.8 95.5 93.9

Avg. 100.0 97.7 96.4 95.3 93.9

Roshek E 1 100.0 36.6 28.5 18.3 17.7

Esco PV 687 C 1 100.0 79.6 37.9. 37.4 37.1

2 100.0 88.5 45.9 29.0 26.1

Avg. 100.0 84.1 41.9 33.2 31.6

No Seal A 1 100.0 97.3 96.8 96.5 96.3

2 100.0 98.8 98.5 98.4 98.3

Avg. 100.0 98.1 97.6 97.4 97.3

NnC;:p<ll E 1 100.0 Q2.Q QO.7 QO.4 Qf) f)

139
Table C-27. Adhesion effectiveness at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 47 months 61 months 73 months 85 months

Dow C 1 100.0 97.5 79.3 77.7 64.1

888-SL 2 100.0 94.2 70.8 57.2 46.5

Avg. 100.0 95.8 75.1 67.4 55.3

Dow A 1 100.0 99.9 99.5 98.1 84.7

890-SL 2 100.0 99.2 97.7 95.0 91.3

Avg. 100.0 99.6 98.6 96.5 88.0

Dow E 1 100.0 96.2 93.3 91.1 89.2

890-SL

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 75.1 39.1 20.7 9.3

2 100.0 63.1 32.0 23.8 18.5

Avg. 100.0 69.1 35.5 22.2 13.9

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 75.9 35.4 24.0 33.8

2 100.0 37.0 11.9 8.2 16.6

Avg. 100.0 56.4 23.7 16.1 25.2

Kold Seal B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NeoLoop 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7

2 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.7 99.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.4

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.9 99.9

2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.6

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7

Roshek C 1 100.0 92.4 93.6 93.0 92.5

EscoPV687 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No Sp...l P. 1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

140
Table C-28. Cohesion effectiveness at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 47 months 61 months 73 months 85 months

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

888-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow A 1 100.0 99.5 96.1 94.4 93.9

890-SL 2 100.0 99.9 97.8 98.6 98.3

Avg. 100.0 99.7 97.0 96.5 96.1

Dow E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.2

890-SL

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 99.2 99.3 98.8 96.9

2 100.0 97.5 99.0 98.7 98.6

Avg. 100.0 98.4 99.1 98.8 97.7

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 91.0 65.4

2 100.0 100.0 93.7 88.8 84.5

Avg. 100.0 100.0 96.8 89.9 74.9

Kold Seal B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NeoLoop 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8

Roshek C 1 100.0 43.8 36.6 27.9 27.7

Esco PV 687 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nn~p-"l F 1 100.0 100.0 1000 100.0 1000

141
Table C-29. Spall effectiveness at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Spall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 47 months 61 months 73 months 85 months

Dow C 1 100.0 97.2 95.5 93.6 92.8

888-SL 2 100.0 98.0 96.5 95.2 94.3

Avg. 100.0 97.6 96.0 94.4 93.5

Dow A 1 100.0 98.8 97.6 96.9 96.4

890-SL 2 100.0 98.7 97.9 97.1 95.9

Avg. 100.0 98.8 97.7 97.0 96.2

Dow E 1 100.0 94.7 93.3 93.1 92.5

890-SL

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 98.5 97.9 97.8 97.8

2 100.0 98.4 97.9 97.6 97.3

Avg. 100.0 98.4 97.9 97.7 97.6

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 99.0 98.5 98.3 98.1

2 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.4 99.1

Avg. 100.0 99.4 99.0 98.8 98.6

Ko1dSeal B 1 100.0 99.9 98.2 98.1 97.7

NeoLoop 2 100.0 99.7 98.5 98.4 98.3

Avg. 100.0 99.8 98.4 98.2 98.0

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 99.2 98.5 96.9 95.8

2 100.0 98.1 96.5 94.3 93.0

Avg. 100.0 98.7 97.5 95.6 94.4

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 97.2 96.3 95.4 94.2

2 100.0 98.1 96.9 95.7 94.5

Avg. 100.0 97.7 96.6 95.5 94.4

Roshek C 1 100.0 98.1 97.3 96.9 96.7

EscoPV687 C 1 100.0 99.6 99.0 99.0 98.9

2 100.0 98.0 95.9 95.0 94.6

Avg. 100.0 98.8 97.5 97.0 96.7

No Seal A 1 100.0 97.3 96.8 96.5 96.3

2 100.0 98.8 98.5 98.4 98.3

Avg. 100.0 98.1 97.6 97.4 97.3

No.C;:p,,1 E 1 100.0 Ql1 RQ1 RQO RR7

142
Table C-30. Twist effectiveness at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Twist effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 47 months 61 months 73 months 85 months

Kold Seal B 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.7

NeoLoop 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.7 99.9

Esco PV 687 C 1 100.0 79.9 68.1 79.3 83.5

2 100.0 90.5 87.0 95.1 95.3

AvfY_ 100_0 R~_2 77_5 R7_2 RQ .i

Table C-3l. Compression set effectiveness at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Compression set effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 47 months 61 months 73 months 85 months

Kold Seal B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NeoLoop 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Esco PV 687 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.5 100.0 93.7

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 83.9 74.1

AvfY. 100.0 100.0 QQ7 Q1.Q R':\.Q

Table C-32. Gap effectiveness at Tremonton, Utah test site.

Gap effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 47 months 61 months 73 months 85 months

Kold Seal B 1 100.0 90.7 25.7 0.0 0.0

Neo Loop 2 100.0 74.6 58.1 18.5 6.8

Avg. 100.0 82.6 41.9 9.3 3.4

EscoPV 687 C 1 100.0 100.0 60.6 54.7 44.4

2 100.0 100.0 68.8 59.4 57.5

AvfY . 100.0 100.0 64.7 57.0 51.0

143
Table C-33. Transverse joint seal performance summary at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Partial-depth Full-depth Full-depth Partial-depth FUll-depth spall Overall

Material Cnfg. Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion spall effectiveness, effectiveness, No. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, % joint length % joint length % edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Crafco RS 221 C 1 37.9 27.5 36.2 3.0 0.9 64.7

Crafco RS 221 C 2 47.0 48.4 0.1 4.5 1.9 50.5

Avg. 42.5 38.0 18.2 3.7 1.4 57.6

Dow 888 C 1 0.1 28.6 0.1 8.3 6.9 35.8

Dow 888 C 2 0.9 1.6 0.1 9.8 7.3 8.9

Avg. 0.5 15.1 0.1 9.1 7.1 22.3

Dow 888-SL C 1 13.4 29.9 0.0 6.2 8.1 38.0

Dow 888-SL C 2 4.9 10.2 0.0 7.9 6.7 16.9

Avg. 9.1 20.0 0.0 7.0 7.4 27.4

Dow 890-SL A 1 17.7 66.1 0.0 4.2 4.1 70.1

Dow 890-SL A 2 18.8 22.9 0.5 8.0 5.5 28.9

Avg. 18.2 44.5 0.3 6.1 4.8 49.5

Dow 890-SL E 2 53.9 30.7 0.3 9.7 8.7 39.8

Koch 9012 C 1 4.6 11.5 0.0 2.8 1.7 13.2

Koch 9012 C 2 7.8 32.2 45.4 2.5 1.2 78.8

Avg. 6.2 21.8 22.7 2.7 1.4 46.0

Koch 9050-SL C 1 0.5 20.3 48.3 6.1 5.3 73.8

Koch 9050-SL C 2 0.1 42.0 43.6 4.6 4.1 89.8

Avg. 0.3 31.1 46.0 5.4 4.7 81.8

No Seal A 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 6.8 6.8

No Seal A 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 6.4 6.4

Avg. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 6.6 6.6

No Seal p. ? 0.0 00 00 11 RQ RQ

144
Table C-34. Overall transverse joint seal effectiveness at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 25 months 39 months 51 months 63 months

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.0 77.0 55.0 35.0

RS 221 2 100.0 93.0 82.0 73.0 50.0

Avg. 100.0 96.0 79.5 64.0 42.5

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 97.0 89.0 73.0 64.0

2 100.0 98.0 96.0 94.0 91.0

Avg. 100.0 97.5 92.5 83.5 77.5

Dow C 1 100.0 91.0 82.0 74.0 62.0

888-SL 2 100.0 97.0 93.0 89.0 83.0

Avg. 100.0 94.0 87.5 81.5 72.5

Dow A 1 100.0 65.0 40.0 34.0 30.0

890-SL 2 100.0 92.0 85.0 78.0 71.0

Avg. 100.0 78.5 62.5 56.0 50.5

Dow E 1 100.0 91.0 81.0 69.0 60.0

890-SL

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 97.0 31.0 28.0 26.0

E-437H 2 100.0 98.0 34.0 24.0 21.0

Avg. 100.0 97.5 32.5 26.0 23.5

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 98.0 82.0 73.0 61.0

V~87 2 100.0 93.0 92.0 91.0 79.0

Avg. 100.0 95.5 87.0 82.0 70.0

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 99.0 95.0 92.0 87.0

2 100.0 95.0 80.0 47.0 21.0

Avg. 100.0 97.0 87.5 69.5 54.0

Koch C 1 100.0 97.0 64.0 47.0 26.0

9050-SL 2 100.0 58.0 33.0 16.0 10.0

Avg. 100.0 77.5 48.5 31.5 18.0

No Seal A 1 100.0 98.0 97.0 94.0 93.0

2 100.0 97.0 95.0 95.0 94.0

Avg. 100.0 97.5 96.0 94.5 93.5

No Seal E 1 100.0 Q6.0 92.0 910 91.0

145
Table C-35. Adhesion effectiveness at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 25 months 39 months 51 months 63 months

Crateo C 1 100.0 99.4 79.4 83.2 72.5

RS221 2 100.0 93.3 83.9 74.4 51.6

Avg. 100.0 96.4 81.6 78.8 62.0

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.9 92.4 80.1 71.4

2 100.0 99.9 99.6 99.4 98.4

Avg. 100.0 99.9 96.0 89.8 84.9

Dow C 1 100.0 94.4 86.9 81.5 70.1

888-SL 2 100.0 99.3 95.1 93.2 89.8

Avg. 100.0 96.9 91.0 87.4 80.0

Dow A 1 100.0 67.5 42.5 37.0 33.9

890-SL 2 100.0 93.5 87.7 81.8 77.1

Avg. 100.0 80.5 65.1 59.4 55.5

Dow E 1 100.0 96.0 88.0 76.3 69.3

890-SL

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

E-437H 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 100.0 95.9 93.7 88.5

2 100.0 94.9 80.5 60.6 67.8

Avg. 100.0 97.5 88.2 77.1 78.2

Koch C 1 100.0 99.1 90.6 87.7 79.7

9050-SL 2 100.0 67.1 62.7 58.4 58.0

Avg. 100.0 83.1 76.7 73.0 68.9

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nn.llp<ll E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1000

146
Table C-36. Cohesion effectiveness at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 25 months 39 months 51 months 63 months

Crafco C 1 100.0 100.0 98.3 72.6 63.8

RS221 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.2 86.3 81.8

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.7 99.8 99.9 99.9

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

888-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.5

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7

Dow E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7

890-SL

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

E437H 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 81.3 54.6

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 90.7 77.3

Koch C 1 100.0 99.6 77.2 64.2 51.7

9050-SL 2 100.0 92.3 72.6 60.8 56.4

Avg. 100.0 95.9 74.9 62.5 54.0

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No Sf'.al E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

147
Table C-37. Spall effectiveness at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Spall effectiveness over time. percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 25 months 39 months 51 months 63 months

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.5 99.4 99.2 99.1

RS221 2 100.0 99.3 98.6 98.4 98.1

Avg. 100.0 99.4 99.0 98.8 98.6

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 97.7 96.7 93.8 93.1

2 100.0 98.6 96.6 95.0 92.7

Avg. 100.0 98.1 96.7 94.4 92.9

Dow C 1 100.0 96.9 94.8 92.9 91.9

888-SL 2 100.0 98.3 97.7 95.7 93.3

Avg. 100.0 97.6 96.3 94.3 92.6

Dow A 1 100.0 97.9 97.3 96.6 95.9

890-SL 2 100.0 98.3 97.0 96.2 94.5

Avg. 100.0 98.1 97.2 96.4 95.2

Dow E 1 100.0 95.0 93.5 92.4 91.3

890-SL

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 96.9 96.1 95.4 95.3

E-437H 2 100.0 98.8 97.9 97.1 96.5

Avg. 100.0 97.9 97.0 96.3 95.9

D.S. Brown C 1 100.0 98.5 97.7 97.7 97.5

V-687 2 100.0 98.5 97.9 97.7 96.9

Avg. 100.0 98.5 97.8 97.7 97.2

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 99.0 98.7 98.4 98.3

2 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.4 98.8

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.2 98.9 98.6

Koch C 1 100.0 98.5 96.5 95.4 94.7

9050-SL 2 100.0 98.8 97.8 96.5 95.9

Avg. 100.0 98.6 97.1 95.9 95.3

No Seal A 1 100.0 98.2 96.5 94.3 93.2

2 100.0 97.1 95.1 94.6 93.6

Avg. 100.0 97.7 95.8 94.4 93.4

No Seal E 1 100.0 96.0 91.6 91.3 91.1

148
Table C-38. Twist effectiveness at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Twist effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 25 months 39 months 51 months 63 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.9 99.5

E-437H 2 100.0 98.7 88.7 88.5 89.4

Avg. 100.0 99.4 94.4 93.2 94.4

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V~87 2 100.0 94.8 95.0 94.9 94.9

Avf!.. 100.0 97.4 97.5 97.5 97.5

Table C-39. Compression set effectiveness at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Compression set effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 25 months 39 months 51 months 63 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 76.2 72.8 65.5

E-437H 2 100.0 100.0 72.1 50.5 48.2

Avg. 100.0 100.0 74.1 61.6 56.8

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 93.3 78.8 70.3

V~87 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 88.9

AVfJ. 100.0 100.0 Qf..7 RQ.1 7Q.f.

Table C-40. Gap effectiveness at Salt Lake City, Utah test site.

Gap effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 25 months 39 months 51 months 63 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 58.5 63.0 66.0

E-437H 2 100.0 100.0 82.9 90.9 86.3

Avg. 100.0 100.0 70.7 76.9 76.2

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 92.2 97.6 92.6

V~87 2 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.4 99.1

Avf!.. 100.0 100.0 96.0 98.5 95.9

149
Table C-41. Transverse joint seal performance summary at Heber City, Utah test site.

Partial-depth Full-depth Full-depth Partial-depth Full-depth Overall

Material Cnfg. Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion spall spall effectiveness, No. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, % joint length % edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Dow 888 C I 100.0 26.2 99.9 90.9 96.3 22.4

Dow 888 C 2 100.0 34.0 99.3 89.8 76.2 9.4

Avg. 100.0 30.1 99.6 90.3 86.2 15.9

Dow 888-SL C 1 99.0 27.1 100.0 94.3 96.7 23.8

Dow 888-SL C 2 99.7 36.2 100.0 94.2 78.4 14.6

Avg. 99.3 31.7 100.0 94.2 87.6 19.2

Dow 890-SL A 1 98.8 58.7 99.9 91.1 95.7 54.3

Dow 890-SL A 2 100.0 21.2 100.0 92.0 89.1 10.3

Avg. 99.4 40.0 100.0 91.6 92.4 32.3

Dow 890-SL E 1 93.1 81.1 100.0 75.8 92.0 73.1

Dow 890-SL E 2 60.2 88.4 96.8 81.9 77.5 62.6

Avg. 76.0 84.9 98.3 79.0 84.5 67.6

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 97.1 87.1 99.0 98.8 83.0

Koch 9005 C 2 27.6 19.5 99.7 91.8 96.2 15.5

Avg. 63.8 58.3 93.4 95.4 97.5 49.2

Koch 9012 C 1 94.6 53.9 100.0 96.8 98.4 52.4

Koch 9012 C 2 73.8 37.0 99.8 95.5 98.8 35.6

Avg. 84.2 45.5 99.9 96.2 98.6 44.0

Koch 9050-SL C 1 100.0 5.4 94.3 93.8 99.7 0.0

Koch 9050-SL C 2 100.0 72.9 33.3 91.2 94.6 0.8

Avg. 100.0 39.1 63.8 92.5 97.1 0.1

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.2 94.9 94.9

No Seal A 2 100.0 99.6 100.0 88.7 85.6 85.2

Avg. 100.0 99.8 100.0 92.4 90.2 90.0

No Seal E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.3 93.0 93.0

No Seal E 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.1 94.3 94.3

Ava 1000 100.0 100.0 Q1.2 Q1.7 Q1.7

150
Table C-42. Overall transverse joint seal effectiveness at Heber City, Utah test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 36 months 49 months 61 months 73 months

Dow 888 C I 100.0 71.0 49.0 30.0 23.0

2 100.0 66.0 37.0 22.0 13.0

Avg. 100.0 68.5 43.0 26.0 18.0

Dow C 1 100.0 76.0 58.0 35.0 24.0

888-SL 2 100.0 76.0 43.0 28.0 16.0

Avg. 100.0 76.0 50.5 31.5 20.0

Dow A 1 100.0 93.0 82.0 65.0 54.0

890-SL 2 100.0 73.0 38.0 25.0 11.0

Avg. 100.0 83.0 60.0 45.0 32.5

Dow E 1 100.0 93.0 83.0 77.0 73.0

890-SL 2 100.0 74·9 74.0 72.0 62.0

Avg. 100.0 83.5 78.5 74.5 67.5

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 86.0 85.0 78.0

E-437H 2 100.0 94.0 78.0 72.0 66.0

Avg. 100.0 97.0 82.0 78.5 72.0

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 99.0 93.0 93.0 92.0

V~87 2 100.0 98.0 96.0 94.0 93.0

Avg. 100.0 98.5 94.5 93.5 92.5

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 99.0 99.0 98.0 83.0

2 100.0 99.0 70.0 27.0 16.0

Avg. 100.0 99.0 84.5 62.5 49.5

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 98.0 89.0 68.0 52.0

2 100.0 100.0 81.0 67.0 36.0

Avg. 100.0 99.0 85.0 67.5 44.0

Koch C 1 100.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

9050-SL 2 100.0 83.0 13.0 7.0 3.0

Avg. 100.0 43.0 6.5 3.5 1.5

No Seal A 1 100.0 99.0 96.0 95.0 95.0

2 100.0 92.0 87.0 86.0 85.0

Avg. 100.0 95.5 91.5 90.5 90.0

No Seal E 1 100.0 97.0 95.0 94.0 93.0

2 100.0 97.0 96.0 95.0 94.0

Avp. 100.0 Q7.0 Q5.5 Q4.5 Q15

151
Table C-43. Adhesion effectiveness at Heber City, Utah test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 36 months 49 months 61 months 73 months

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 71.8 50.8 32.9 26.2

2 100.0 71.2 55.0 44.6 34.0

Avg. 100.0 71.5 52.9 38.8 30.1

Dow C 1 100.0 78.1 60.0 37.6 27.1

888-SL 2 100.0 81.0 60.0 47.8 36.2

Avg. 100.0 79.5 60.0 42.7 31.7

Dow A 1 100.0 93.7 83.0 68.7 58.7

890-SL 2 100.0 76.9 46.3 35.3 21.2

Avg. 100.0 85.3 64.7 52.0 40.0

Dow E 1 100.0 90.3 89.6 84.9 82.6

890-SL 2 100.0 78.0 97.5 96.2 88.4

Avg. 100.0 84.1 93.5 90.5 85.5

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

E-437H 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 97.1

2 100.0 99.3 71.9 30.0 19.5

Avg. 100.0 99.7 86.0 64.9 58.3

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 99.2 90.0 72.9 53.9

2 100.0 99.9 83.0 68.5 37.0

Avg. 100.0 99.5 86.5 70.7 45.5

Koch C 1 100.0 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.4

9050-SL 2 100.0 84.7 77.9 75.6 72.9

Avg. 100.0 44.6 41.3 40.3 39.1

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8

No Seal E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AVC1. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

152
Table C-44. Cohesion effectiveness at Heber City, Utah test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 36 months 49 months 61 months 73 months

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9

2 100.0 99.2 98.2 99.4 99.3

Avg. 100.0 99.6 99.1 99.7 99.6

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

888-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 97.7 97.6 96.8

Avg. 100.0 100.0 98.9 98.8 98.4

D.S. Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

E-437H 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

D.S. Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.4 87.1

2 100.0 99.8 99.7 100.0 99.7

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.7 93.4

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ,

2 100.0 100.0 98.6 99.8 99.8 -- Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.9 99.9 - Koch C 1 100.0 98.2 95.0 94.2 94.3

9050-SL 2 100.0 99.9 38.1 34.9 33.3

Avg. 100.0 99.1 66.6 64.6 63.8

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

No Seal E 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avp'. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

153
Table C-45. Spall effectiveness at Heber City, Utah test site.

Spall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 36 months 49 months 61 months 73 months

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.5 98.8 97.6 96.3

2 100.0 95.9 83.2 77.2 76.2

Avg. 100.0 97.7 91.0 87.4 86.2

Dow C 1 100.0 98.3 98.2 97.5 96.7

888-SL 2 100.0 95.4 83.4 79.9 78.4

Avg. 100.0 96.8 90.8 88.7 87.6

Dow A 1 100.0 99.0 98.7 96.6 95.7

890-SL 2 100.0 95.8 91.5 90.0 89.1

Avg. 100.0 97.4 95.1 93.3 92.4

Dow E 1 100.0 95.4 93.9 92.0 91.1

890-SL 2 100.0 84.3 79.0 78.0 77.5

Avg. 100.0 89.8 86.4 85.0 84.3

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 99.7 99.5 98.9 98.4

E-437H 2 100.0 98.4 97.0 95.4 94.9

Avg. 100.0 99.0 98.3 97.1 96.7

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.4 98.8

V-687 2 100.0 98.1 96.5 94.4 93.9

Avg. 100.0 99.0 98.2 96.9 96.4

Koch 9005 C 1 100.0 99.6 99.4 99.0 98.8

2 100.0 99.8 98.2 96.9 96.2

Avg. 100.0 99.7 98.8 97.9 97.5

Koch 9012 C 1 100.0 99.2 99.1 98.6 98.4

2 100.0 99.7 99.2 99.1 98.8

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.2 98.8 98.6

Koch C 1 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.7

9050-SL 2 100.0 98.1 97.0 96.3 94.6

Avg. 100.0 99.0 98.4 98.0 97.1

No Seal A 1 100.0 99.0 96.1 95.4 94.9

2 100.0 91.9 87.0 86.1 85.6

Avg. 100.0 95.4 91.6 90.8 90.2

No Seal E 1 100.0 96.9 94.5 93.6 93.0

2 100.0 97.4 95.7 95.0 94.3

AVI!. 100.0 97.1 9'iJ 943 9~.7

154
Table C-46. Twist effectiveness at Heber City, Utah test site.

Twist effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 36 months 49 months 61 months 73 months

D.S.Brown B I 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9 100.0

E-437H 2 100.0 95.5 86.1 94.1 93.3

Avg. 100.0 97.8 93.0 97.0 96.6

D.S. Brown C 1 100.0 99.0 98.3 98.5 98.8

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AVf!. 100.0 99.5 99.2 99.2 QQ4.

Table C-47. Compression set effectiveness at Heber City, Utah test site.

Compression set effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 36 months 49 months 61 months 73 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 97.4 93.2 83.7

E-437H 2 100.0 100.0 95.6 86.2 82.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 96.5 89.7 82.8

D.S. Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.9

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5

Table C-48. Gap effectiveness at Heber City, Utah test site.

Gap effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 36 months 49 months 61 months 73 months

D.S.Brown B 1 100.0 100.0 87.3 99.7 99.0

E-437H 2 100.0 100.0 98.6 97.7 97.8

Avg. 100.0 100.0 93.0 98.7 98.4

D.S.Brown C 1 100.0 100.0 99.4 99.5 99.7

V-687 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AVfJ. 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.& QQ.Q

155
Table C-49. Longitudinal joint seal performance summary at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Partial-depth Full-depth Full-depth Partial-depth Full-depth spall Overall

Material Cnfg. Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion spall effectiveness. effectiveness, No. effectiveness. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, % joint length % joint lengtt % edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Crafeo RS 221 C 1 100.0 100.0 0.5 97.9 99.6 0.2

Crafeo RS 221 C 2 43.8 45.7 99.3 97.3 98.9 43.9

Avg. 72.2 73.1 49.4 97.6 99.3 21.8

Crafeo SS 444 C 1 100.0 99.1 11.0 98.8 99.6 9.8 •..~_.~

~-.

Crafeo ~.s__444 C 2 88.0 99.5 98.2 96.6 100.0 97.6 ..

Avg. 94.1 99.3 54.1 97.7 99.8 53.2 ... CraIeo 903-SL C 1 98.9 100.0 99.1 96.4 99.1 98.1

(',afeo 903-SL C 2 98.0 99.8 100.0 93.1 98.9 98.7

Avg. 98.4 99.9 99.5 94.8 99.0 98.4

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 98.9 99.8 93.0 99.3 98.0

Dow 888 C 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 92.9 96.7 96.7

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.9 92.9 98.0 97.3

Dow 888-SL C 1 99.6 99.4 100.0 95.5 98.6 98.1

Dow 888-SL C 2 98.0 97.0 99.6 86.3 97.2 93.9

Avg. 98.8 98.2 99.8 90.8 97.9 95.9

Dow 890-SL A 1 98.6 98.4 100.0 95.7 98.3 96.7

Dow 890-SL A 2 96.0 97.6 98.9 96.6 95.5 92.0

Avg. 97.3 98.0 99.4 96.2 96.8 94.3

Dow 890-SL B 1 100.0 99.6 100.0 97.2 99.6 99.2

Dow 890-SL B 2 99.8 100.0 100.0 98.6 98.8 98.8

Avg. 99.9 99.8 100.0 97.9 99.1 99.0

Dow 890-SL C 1 80.6 98.4 100.0 95.5 94.8 93.2 -'-

Dow 890-SL C 2 98.6 99.1 100.0 97.2 99.8 98.9

Avg. 90.0 98.8 100.0 96.4 97.4 96.2 -_...... MohoY 96()·SL C 1 99.2 99.4 99.2 98.6 99.8 98.4 --~.. Mobay 9tiO-SL C 2 98.2 99.6 99.6 98.0 96.6 95.9

Avg. 98.7 99.5 99.4 98.3 98.1 97.1 - No Se.al A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.1 99.4 99.4

!I lw Seal A 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.0 99.3 99.3 f,---r--.

AVr!. 100.0 100.0 1000 98.1 99.3 99.3 L

156
Table C-50. Overall longitudinal joint seal effectiveness at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

Crafeo C 1 100.0 33.5 3.8 2.0 0.3

RS 221 2 100.0 82.2 62.1 54.2 45.7

Avg. 100.0 57.8 33.0 28.1 23.0

Crafeo C 1 100.0 94.4 53.8 25.0 9.0

SS444 2 100.0 99.6 99.3 98.9 97.8

Avg. 100.0 97.0 76.5 62.0 53.4

Crafeo C 1 100.0 99.2 98.2 97.7 98.2

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.8 98.9 98.7

Avg. 100.0 99.6 99.0 98.3 98.5

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.3 98.0 98.0 98.0

2 100.0 100.0 97.6 97.1 97.1

Avg. 100.0 99.6 97.8 97.5 97.5

Dow C 1 100.0 98.8 98.5 98.5 98.1

888-SL 2 100.0 98.5 95.6 94.8 93.9

Avg. 100.0 98.7 97.0 96.6 96.0

Dow A 1 100.0 99.2 98.4 97.7 96.7

890-SL 2 100.0 98.6 93.7 92.3 92.1

Avg. 100.0 98.9 96.1 95.0 94.4

Dow B 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.6 99.2

890-SL 2 100.0 99.6 98.7 98.7 98.7

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.2 99.2 99.0

Dow C 1 100.0 98.0 97.6 94.4 93.5

890-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.1 99.1 99.0

Avg. 100.0 98.9 98.4 96.8 96.2

Mobay C 1 100.0 99.2 98.4 98.8 98.4

960-SL 2 100.0 99.1 96.6 96.3 95.8

Avg. 100.0 99.1 97.5 97.6 97.1

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 99.4

2 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.3 99.3

AVlJ 1000 1000 QQ7 QQ3 QQ~

157
Table C-51. Adhesion effectiveness oflongitudinal joint seals at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

Crafco C 1 100.0 44.3 4.6 98.2 100.0

RS 221 2 100.0 82.2 62.0 54.2 45.7

Avg. 100.0 63.3 33.3 76.2 72.8

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.6 99.5 96.8 99.1

SS444 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.5

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.7 98.2 99.3

Crafco C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.9

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.8 98.9

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.9 99.4

Dow C 1 100.0 99.6 99.4 99.4 99.4

888-SL 2 100.0 99.1 97.4 97.4 97.0

Avg. 100.0 99.3 98.4 98.4 98.2

Dow A 1 100.0 99.4 99.0 99.0 98.4

890-SL 2 100.0 99.5 98.6 97.6 97.6

Avg. 100.0 99.4 98.8 98.3 98.0

Dow B 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.6 99.6

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8

Dow C 1 100.0 99.6 99.6 98.8 98.4

890-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.3 99.3 99.1

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.5 99.1 98.8

Mobay C 1 100.0 99.8 99.0 99.6 99.4

960-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.6

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.4 99.7 99.5

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow 888 C Xl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9

Dow 888 C Xl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AvO' 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

158
Table C-52. Cohesion effectiveness of longitudinal joint seals at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

Crafco C 1 100.0 89.7 91.5 4.1 0.5

RS 221 2 100.0 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.3

Avg. 100.0 94.7 95.6 51.9 49.9

Crafco C 1 100.0 95.4 59.0 30.7 11.0

SS444 2 100.0 99.6 99.3 99.3 98.2

Avg. 100.0 97.5 79.2 65.0 54.6

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 98.5 99.1

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.2 99.5

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.3 99.6 98.9 99.8

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 99.6 99.8 99.4 99.9

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

888-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.6 99.6 99.6

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8

Dow A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.1 98.9 98.9

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.5 99.5

Dow B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 99.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Mobay C 1 100.0 99.4 99.4 99.2 99.2

960-SL 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.6 99.4

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Dow 888 C Xl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6

Avg. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8

Dow 888 C Xl 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

X2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

AVl1 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

159
Table C-53. Spall effectiveness oflongitudinaljoint seals at Mesa, Arizona test site.

Spall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 45 months 60 months 72 months 83 months

Crafeo C 1 100.0 99.6 99.6 99.6 99.6

RS 221 2 100.0 99.3 99.1 98.9 98.9

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.4 99.3 99.3

Crafeo C 1 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.6

SS444 2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.8

Crafeo C 1 100.0 99.4 99.1 99.1 99.1

903-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.1 98.9

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.4 99.1 99.0

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.3 99.3 99.3

2 100.0 100.0 97.3 96.7 96.7

Avg. 100.0 100.0 98.3 98.0 98.0

Dow C 1 100.0 99.2 99.0 99.0 98.6

888-SL 2 100.0 99.4 98.5 97.8 97.2

Avg. 100.0 99.3 98.8 98.4 97.9

Dow A 1 100.0 99.8 99.4 98.6 98.3

890-SL 2 100.0 99.1 96.0 95.7 95.5

Avg. 100.0 99.5 97.7 97.1 96.9

Dow B 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.6

890-SL 2 100.0 99.8 98.8 98.8 98.8

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.4 99.4 99.2

Dow C 1 100.0 98.3 97.9 95.3 94.8

890-SL 2 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8

Avg. 100.0 99.1 98.8 97.6 97.3

Mobay C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8

960-SL 2 100.0 99.3 97.2 96.6 96.6

Avg. 100.0 99.6 98.6 98.3 98.2

No Seal A 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 99.4

2 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.3 99.3

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.7 99.3 99.3

Dow 888 C Xl 100.0 99.6 99.5 99.5 99.5

X2 100.0 97.3 97.3 96.7 96.7

Avg. 100.0 98.5 98.4 98.1 98.1

Dow 888 C Xl 100.0 99.6 99.5 99.5 99.5

X2 100.0 99.8 99.0 99.0 99.0

AVI1. 100.0 QQ7 QQ.2 QQ.2 QQ.2

160
Table C-54. Longitudinaljoint seal performance summary at Wells, Nevada test site.

Partial-depth Full-depth Full-depth Partial-depth Full-depth spall Overall

Material Cnfg. Rep. adhesion adhesion cohesion spall effectiveness, effectiveness, No. effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, effectiveness, % joint length % joint lengtt % edge length % joint length % joint length % joint length

Crafeo 902 C I 94.7 99.2 95.5 91.9 96.8 91.5

Crafeo 902 C 2 90.4 98.0 97.3 93.7 91.2 86.4

Avg. 92.4 98.6 96.4 92.8 93.8 88.8

Crafeo 903-SL C 1 75.8 98.1 97.3 94.3 85.3 80.6

Crafeo 903-SL C 2 89.5 99.8 95.0 91.3 94.5 89.3

Avg. 83.2 99.0 96.1 92.7 90.3 85.3

Dow 888 C 1 90.9 98.8 91.1 93.1 91.6 81.5

Dow 888 C 2 95.7 99.8 95.7 93.4 98.7 94.2

Avg. 93.3 99.3 93.4 93.3 95.2 88.0

Dow 888 C 3 98.5 94.8 99.2 100.0 94.3 88.2

Dow 888 C 4 95.6 94.4 97.4 100.0 93.1 84.9

Dow 888-SL C 1 91.5 86.0 98.6 94.8 89.8 74.4

Dow 888-SL C 2 96.8 91.2 99.4 93.6 96.6 87.2

Avg. 94.2 88.7 99.0 94.2 93.2 80.9

Dow 890-SL C 1 84.4 95.0 100.0 93.1 76.0 71.0

Dow 890-SL C 2 77.2 88.5 99.8 92.7 95.7 84.0

Avg. 80.3 91.3 99.9 92.8 87.1 78.3

Mobay960 C 1 98.3 98.3 86.0 96.7 95.6 79.9

Mobay960 C 2 96.0 99.6 94.6 93.6 88.3 82.5

Avg. 97.1 99.0 90.5 95.1 91.8 81.2

Polyethylene F 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 79.2 79.2

No Seal C 1 100_0 100_0 100_0 100_0 1000 1000

161
Table C-55. Overall effectiveness of longitudinal joint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

Overall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafeo 902 C 1 100.0 98.3 96.4 92.8 91.0

2 100.0 97.3 93.7 89.0 85.3

Avg. 100.0 97.8 95.1 90.9 88.2

CrafeD C 1 100.0 96.4 93.9 85.1 80.6

903-SL 2 100.0 98.1 94.9 91.8 89.3

Avg. 100.0 97.2 94.4 88.4 84.9

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 97.4 94.1 86.5 80.7

2 100.0 98.0 96.3 94.2 93.6

Avg. 100.0 97.7 95.2 90.3 87.1

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 98.0 95.1 87.2 83.7

1 100.0 98.5 95.8 88.1 82.9

Dow C 1 100.0 99.1 98.4 86.2 75.8

888-SL 2 100.0 99.1 99.1 93.7 86.2

Avg. 100.0 99.1 98.7 89.9 81.0

Dow C 1 100.0 94.9 92.2 75.6 70.6

890-SL 2 100.0 98.2 98.1 93.9 84.6

Avg. 100.0 96.5 95.2 84.8 77.6

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 85.5 43.7 42.5 29.8

V-812

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 96.9 92.2 84.1 79.3

2 100.0 95.7 92.0 86.1 83.4

Avg. 100.0 96.3 92.1 85.1 81.3

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

lPolvethvlene F 1 100.0 100.0 1000 87.8 75.7

162
Table C-56. Adhesion effectiveness oflongitudinaljoint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

Adhesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafeo 902 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.5 99.1

2 100.0 99.8 99.5 99.8 97.2

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.8 99.7 98.1

Crafco C 1 100.0 99.8 99.1 99.5 97.7

903-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.4 99.7 98.7

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.5 98.6

2 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.8 99.8

Avg. 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 99.2

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.5 97.9 92.8 92.8

1 100.0 99.3 99.3 94.9 94.9

Dow C 1 100.0 99.5 98.4 94.9 83.3

888-SL 2 100.0 99.3 99.3 94.9 89.1

Avg. 100.0 99.4 98.8 94.9 86.2

Dow C 1 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.1 94.7

890-SL 2 100.0 97.9 97.7 95.6 84.0

Avg. 100.0 98.8 98.7 97.3 89.4

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-812

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 99.5 99.8 99.1 97.9

2 100.0 99.8 99.8 100.0 99.5

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.8 99.5 98.7

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

lPolyethylene F 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

f) 2 1nell) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

163
Table C-57. Cohesion effectiveness oflongitudinal joint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

Cohesion effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafeo 902 C 1 100.0 98.1 95.8 95.1 94.4

2 100.0 98.8 97.5 96.5 96.3

Avg. 100.0 98.5 96.6 95.8 95.4

Crafeo C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.5 96.8

903-SL 2 100.0 98.4 94.2 93.3 93.1

Avg. 100.0 99.2 97.1 95.4 94.9

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 97.9 94.2 90.7 89.4

2 100.0 97.9 96.8 94.9 94.7

Avg. 100.0 97.9 95.5 92.8 92.0

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.1 99.1 98.8 98.8

1 100.0 99.3 98.1 97.7 97.7

Dow C 1 100.0 99.8 100.0 98.6 98.4

888-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.3

Avg. 100.0 99.8 99.9 99.1 98.8

Dow C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

890-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

Avg. 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

V-812

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 97.2 92.4 86.6 83.1

2 100.0 97.2 93.5 93.5 92.8

Avg. 100.0 97.2 92.9 90.0 88.0

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Polyethylene F 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

J) ? 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

164
Table C-58. Spall effectiveness oflongitudinaljoint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

Spall effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep. No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

Crafco 902 C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 96.1

2 100.0 98.1 95.1 90.0 88.0

Avg. 100.0 99.1 97.6 93.5 92.0

Crafco C 1 100.0 96.1 94.0 85.4 82.6

903-SL 2 100.0 99.3 98.8 95.6 92.4

Avg. 100.0 97.7 96.4 90.5 87.5

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.1 99.1 94.4 90.0

2 100.0 100.0 99.3 98.8 98.4

Avg. 100.0 99.5 99.2 96.6 94.2

Dow 888 C 1 100.0 99.3 97.5 92.1 92.1

1 100.0 98.8 95.8 90.3 90.3

Dow C 1 100.0 99.5 99.5 89.4 87.7

888-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.8 98.1 95.8

Avg. 100.0 99.7 99.7 93.8 91.8

Dow C 1 100.0 94.4 91.7 75.0 74.3

890-SL 2 100.0 99.8 99.8 95.8 94.0

Avg. 100.0 97.1 95.7 85.4 84.1

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 99.3 99.1 99.8 99.3

V-812

Mobay960 C 1 100.0 99.8 99.1 95.8 94.7

2 100.0 96.8 95.4 86.8 84.3

Avg. 100.0 98.3 97.2 91.3 89.5

No Seal C 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Polyethylene F 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 75.7 75.7

n 7. 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

165
Table C-59. Twist effectiveness oflongitudinaljoint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

Twist effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material ConfIg. Rep. No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

D.S. Brown D 1 100.0 85.2 32.4 33.1 29.6

V-81?

Table C-60. Compression set effectiveness oflongitudinal joint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

Compression set effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. omonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 71.5

V-Rl?

Table C-61. Gap effectiveness oflongitudinal joint seals at Wells, Nevada test site.

Gap effectiveness over time, percent joint length

Material Config. Rep.No. Dmonths 37 months 50 months 62 months 74 months

D.S.Brown D 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 63.4 99.1

V-81?

166