NTPEP 16001.2 Final

2006 NTPEP Report Series
NTPEP Report 16001.2
Two Year Report of Field and Laboratory

Evaluations of Joint Sealant Materials for
Portland Cement Concrete
(2003 Minnesota Test Deck)
February 2006
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Executive Office: 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 x Washington, DC x 20001
(t) 202.624.5800 x (f) 202.624.5469 x www.ntpep.org.
DOWNLOAD DATA FILES FOR THIS NTPEP REPORT @ WWW.NTPEP.org

PROLOGUE
General Facts about NTPEP Reports

NTPEP Reports contain data collected according to laboratory testing and field evaluation protocols
developed through consensus-based decision by the AASHTO’s NTPEP Oversight Committee.
Products are voluntarily submitted by manufacturers for testing by NTPEP. Testing fees are assessed
from manufacturers to reimburse AASHTO member departments for conducting testing and to report
results. AASHTO member departments provide a voluntary yearly contribution to support the
administrative functions of NTPEP.
AASHTO/NTPEP does not endorse any manufacturer’s product over another. Use of certain proprietary
products as “test control specimens” does not constitute endorsement of those products.
AASHTO/NTPEP does not issue product approval or disapproval; rather, test data is furnished for the
user to make judgment for product prequalification or approval for their transportation agency.
Guidelines for Proper Use of NTPEP Results

The User is urged to carefully read any introductory notes at the beginning of this Report. Also, to
consider any special clauses, footnotes or conditions which may apply to any test reported herein. Any of
these notes may be relevant to the proper use of NTPEP test data.
The User of this Report must be sufficiently familiar with the product performance requirements and/or
(standard) specification of their agency in order to determine which test data is relevant to meeting those
qualifying factors.
NTPEP test data is intended to be predictive of actual product performance. Where a transportation
agency has successful historical experience with a given product it is suggested to factor that precedence
in granting or withholding product approval or prequalification.
NTPEP Report Special Advisory for Joint Sealant Materials for Portland Cement Concrete (JS)
The user is urged to establish QC/QA protocols for project-level acceptance of products. This NTPEP
report is useful only for expediting product prequalification and does not take the place of a managed
QC/QA program.
For specific questions regarding this NTPEP report or for advice on how to implement NTPEP data
furnished in this report, the user is encouraged to contact NTPEP at (202) 624-3695 for a listing of
NTPEP Lead States.
Mike Rafalowski (FHWA) David Iverson (MN)

Chairman, JS Project Panel Vice Chairman, JS Project Panel
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program
Two Year Report of Field and Laboratory Evaluations of Joint

Sealant Materials for Portland Cement Concrete
(2003 Minnesota Test Deck)

NTPEP Report 16001.2
Report and Laboratory Testing by:

Minnesota Department of Transportation
February 2006
© Copyright 2006, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, all rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This book or parts
thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP)
Chair: Richard K. Smutzer, Indiana
Vice Chair: Thomas E. Baker, Washington
Liason: Michael J. McGough and Amy Hearon, AASHTO
Oversight Committee
Member Department Member/Delegate Phone Number Fax Number Email Addres
Alabama
Lynn Wolfe, P.E. (334) 206-2335 (334) 834-5799 [email protected]
Alaska
Michael San Angelo (907) 269-6234 [email protected]
Arizona
Frank T. Darmiento, P.E. (602) 712-3134 (602) 712-3400 [email protected]
John Ivanov (602) 712-8205 (602) 255-8415 [email protected]
Arkansas
Jerry Westerman (501) 569-2185 (501) 569-2368 [email protected]
Mark Bradley (501) 569-2380 (501) 569-2070 [email protected]
Tony Sullivan (501) 569-2661 (501) 569-2014 [email protected]
California
Peter Vacura (916) 227-7285 (916) 227-7075 [email protected]
Wesley S.C. Lum (916) 324-2713 (916) 324-2669 [email protected]
Colorado
David Kotzer (303) 757-9421 (303) 757-9242 [email protected]
Gabriela Vidal (303) 757-9879 (303) 757-9219 [email protected]
Tim Aschenbrener (303) 757-9249 (303) 757-9242 [email protected]
Connecticut
Andrew J. Mroczkowksi (860) 258-0304 (860) 258-0399 [email protected]
James M. Sime, P.E. (860) 258-0309 (860) 258-0399 [email protected]
Keith R. Lane (860) 258-0371 (860) 258-0399 [email protected]
Deleware
James T. Pappas III, P.E. (302) 760-2400 (302) 739-5270 [email protected]
Teresa Gardner (302) 760-2515 (302) 739-8282 [email protected]
(updates found at www.ntpep.org)

Oversight Committee
Florida
David Bremer (850) 414-4126 (850) 414-4199 [email protected]
Karen Byram (850) 414-4353 (850) 414-4199 [email protected]
Paul Vinik (352) 955-6654 (352) 955-6689 [email protected]
Georgia
Don Wishon (404) 362-2545 (404) 363-7684 [email protected]
Greg Wiggins (404) 363-7632 [email protected]
Hawaii
Gary C.P. Choy (808) 832-3403 (808) 832-3407 [email protected]
Idaho
Stephen B. Loop (208) 334-8267 (208) 334-4411 [email protected]
Illinois
James DuBose (217) 782-2921 (217) 782-2572 [email protected]
Indiana
Ronald P. Walker (317) 610-7251 (317) 356-9351 [email protected]
Iowa
Joseph Putherickal (515) 239-1259 (515) 239-1092 [email protected]
Kurtis Younkin (515) 239-1184 (515) 239-1891 [email protected]
Kansas
David Meggers, PE (785) 291-3845 (785) 296-2526 [email protected]
Rick Kreider (785) 296-3899 (785) 296-6665 [email protected]
Kentucky
Derrick Castle (502) 564-3160 (502) 564-7034 [email protected]
Greta Smith (502) 564-3160 (502) 564-7034 [email protected]
Ross Mills (502) 564-3160 (502) 564-7034 [email protected]
Louisiana
Henry Lacinak (225) 248-4103 (225) 248-4187 [email protected]
Jason Davis (225) 248-4131 (225) 248-4187 [email protected]
Maine
Doug Gayne (207) 624-3268 (207) 624-3301 [email protected]

Oversight Committee
Maryland
Gil Rushton (410) 321-3170 (410) 321-3099 [email protected]
Peter Stephanos, P.E. (410) 321-3100 (410) 321-3099 [email protected]
Russell A. Yurek (410) 582-5505 (410) 582-9861 [email protected]
Massachusetts
David Phaneuf (617) 973-7722 (617) 973-7554 [email protected]
Michigan
Calvin Roberts (517) 322-3333 (517) 322-2699 [email protected]
Minnesota
David Iverson (651) 779-5550 (651) 779-5616 [email protected]
James McGraw (651) 779-5548 (651) 779-5616 [email protected]
Mississippi
Celina Sumrall (601) 359-7001 (601) 359-1716 [email protected]
John D. Vance (601) 359-7111 (601) 359-7126 [email protected]
John J. Smith (601) 359-1454 (601) 359-5918 [email protected]
Missouri
Julie Weiland (573) 751-2487 (573) 526-4361 [email protected]
Montana
Craig Abernathy (406) 444-6269 (406) 444-6204 [email protected]
Nebraska
Mostafa Jamshidi (402) 479-4750 (402) 479-3975 [email protected]
Nevada
A. Reed Gibby, PhD (775) 888-7803 (775) 888-7230 [email protected]
Scott L. Thorson (775) 888-7567 (775) 888-7077 [email protected]
New Hampshire
Alan D. Rawson (603) 271-3151 (603) 271-8700 [email protected]
John W. Corcoran, P.E. (603) 271-2291 (603) 271-6083 [email protected]
William Real (603) 271-3151 (603) 271-8700 [email protected]
New Jersey
Richard Jaffe (609) 530-5463 (609) 530-3790 [email protected]
New Mexico
Ernest D. Archuleta (505) 827-5525 (505) 827-3202 [email protected]

Oversight Committee
New York
Gary A. Frederick (518) 457-5826 (518) 457-7535 [email protected]
Jim Curtis (518) 457-4704 (518) 457-8080 [email protected]
Orlando Picozzi, PE (518) 457-4285 (518) 457-8171 [email protected]
North Carolina
J. Stuart Bourne (919) 250-4151 (919) 250-4195 [email protected]
Jack E. Cowsert (919) 733-7088 (919) 773-8472 [email protected]
Meredith McDiarmid (919) 250-4159 (919) 250-4195 [email protected]
North Dakota
Ron Horner (701) 328-6904 (701) 328-6913 [email protected]
Ohio
Brad Young (614) 351-2882 (614) 644-7175 [email protected]
Lloyd M. Welker Jr. (614) 275-1351 (614) 275-1354 [email protected]
Oklahoma
Kenny R. Seward (405) 521-4999 (405) 522-0552 [email protected]
Reynolds H. Toney (405) 521-2677 (405) 522-0552 [email protected]
Oregon
Ivan Silbernagel, PE (503) 986-6213 (503) 983-3096 [email protected]
Mike Dunning (503) 986-3059 (503) 986-3096 [email protected]
Pennsylvania
David H. Kuniega (717) 787-7150 (717) 793-5955 [email protected]
Tim Ramirez (717) 783-6714 (717) 783-5955 [email protected]
Puerto Rico
Orlando Diaz-Quirindong (787) 729-1592 (787) 721-3245 [email protected]
Rhode Island
Colin A. Franco, P.E. (401) 222-3030 [email protected]
Deborah Munroe (401) 222-3030 (401) 222-4573 [email protected]
Mark F. Felag, P.E. (401) 222-2524 [email protected]
South Carolina
Patti Gambill (803) 737-6702 (803) 737-6649 [email protected]
Terry Rawls (803) 737-1498 (803) 737-0271 [email protected]

Oversight Committee
South Dakota
David L. Huft (605) 773-3292 (605) 773-4713 [email protected]
Joe J. Feller (605) 773-3401 (605) 773-5867 [email protected]
John Forman (605) 773-3704 (605) 773-6600 [email protected]
Tennessee
Danny Lane (615) 350-4175 (615) 350-4128 [email protected]
Heather Hall (615) 350-4150 (615) 350-4128 [email protected]
Texas
John Bassett (512) 465-7922 (512) 302-2054 [email protected]
Robert Sarcinella (512) 465-7302 (512) 465-7616 [email protected]
Scott Koczman (512) 416-2073 (512) 416-2152 [email protected]
USDOT - FHWA
Michael Rafalowski (202) 366-1571 (202) 493-2070 [email protected]
Utah
Michelle Page (801) 965-4333 (801) 965-4796 [email protected]
Rukhsana Lindsey, P.E. (801) 965-4196 (801) 965-4796 [email protected]
Vermont
Craig Graham (802) 828-6290 (802) 828-2792 [email protected]
Virginia
James R. Swisher (804) 328-3123 (804) 328-3136 [email protected]
Stephen C. Brich (804) 786-7941 (804) 225-4978 [email protected]
William R. Bailey III (804) 328-3106 (804) 328-3136 [email protected]
Washington
Tony Allen (360) 709-5450 [email protected]
West Virginia
Bruce E. Kenney III, P.E. (304) 558-3044 (304) 558-1209 [email protected]
Dennis King (304) 558-9600 [email protected]
Larry Barker (304) 558-3160 (304) 558-1209 [email protected]
Wisconsin
Peter J. Kemp (608) 246-7953 (608) 246-4669 [email protected]
Wyoming
Delbert McOmie, P.E. (307) 777-4484 (307) 777-4163 [email protected]

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 2
2. OBJECTIVE............................................................................................................................................... 2
3. SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
4. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................ 2
5. JOINT SEALER TYPE.............................................................................................................................. 3
6. VENDORS ADDRESSES ......................................................................................................................... 3
7. SITE LOCATION ...................................................................................................................................... 4
8. SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 5
9. MANUFACTURER COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... 6
10. WEATHER DATA .................................................................................................................................. 8
11. TRAFFIC LEVEL/SNOWPLOW PASSES/SNOW AND ICE CHEMICALS USED............................ 9
12. LAB TESTING COMMENTS................................................................................................................. 9
13. FIELD EVALUATION COMMENTS .................................................................................................. 10
14. NTPEP PROJECT WORK PLAN FOR FIELD AND LABORATORY EVALUATION OF
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (PCC) PAVEMENT JOINT SEALANT MATERIALS................. 11
15. JOINT SEALANT PRODUCT LIST AND EVALUATION SUMMARY……………………..……...24
16. CRACK INVENTORY FORM……………………………………………………………………...….25
17. FIELD EVALUATION RESULTS…………………………………………………………………..…26
18. FIELD EVALUATION PHOTOLOG…………………………………………………………...… …44
19. LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS…………………………………………………………….. ..134

1. Introduction
The National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP) was developed in

order to evaluate a variety of traffic, construction and maintenance products. This report
provides information on the evaluation of Joint Sealers on Portland Cement Concrete
(PCC) submitted by manufacturers in 2003.
2. Objective
The objective of the NTPEP is to combine and focus the resources of the participating
NTPEP member departments in the evaluation of material of common interest in order to
improve cost-effectiveness. This report provides the NTPEP member departments the
necessary information to evaluate joint sealers without the investment of their time and
manpower for testing. In keeping with the NTPEP philosophy of purely testing materials,
no conclusions are given in this report. The evaluation of data in this report is left up to
each member department. Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
conducted both the lab testing and the field evaluation.
3. Scope
This report contains the laboratory test results and data accumulated during the first year
of the NTPEP Test Facility’s study of joint sealers on PCC submitted in 2003.
4. Background
Joint Sealer manufacturers submitted Product Evaluation Forms (PEF) to the NTPEP
Coordinator. The NTPEP Coordinator assigned each material a number (JS-2003-xx) as
indicated in 4A and 4B. The PEF’s were forwarded to Mn/DOT and product installation
dates were scheduled with the vendors. Product installation was done on Sept 11 and 12,
2003. Laboratory samples were taken at time of installation from the same lot of material
used for sealing the test joints of each section.
Evaluation protocols, also known as Project Work Plans in NTPEP terminology, are
based on procedures developed under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP)
document Materials and Procedures for Repair of Joint Seals in Portland Cement
Concrete Pavements-Manual of Practice-, FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-99-146
This manual can be accessed at http://ntl.bts.gov/data/num/99-146.pdf. The work plan is
located on page 12.
The NTPEP evaluation procedures consider both hot-poured and cold applied
chemically cured silicone sealants. The Work Plan calls for manufacturers to field install
10 consecutive joints for each sealant material. A battery of lab tests is also performed on
the sampled material. Retained samples are subject to Fourier Infrared Spectroscopy
(FTIR) analysis for yearly re-certification.
2
5. Joint Sealer Type
Mn/DOT ID NTPEP Number Company Product Trade Name

Cell 3 JS(2003) – 1 Deery American Corporation Deery 101 ELT
Cell 4 JS(2003) – 11 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver 522
Cell 6 JS(2003) – 12 Crafco, Inc. Superseal Low-Mod
Cell 7 JS(2003) – 16 McAsphalt, Inc. Beram 3060 LM
Cell 9 JS(2003) – 2 Dow Corning Corporation Dow Corning® 888
Cell 10 JS(2003) – 3 Dow Corning Corporation Dow Corning® 890-SL
Cell 11 JS(2003) – 4 May National Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 NS
Cell 12 JS(2003) – 5 May National Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 SL
Cell 13 JS(2003) – 6 May National Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 RCS
Cell 14 JS(2003) – 7 Tremco, Inc. Spectrum 800
Cell 15 JS(2003) – 8 Tremco, Inc. Spectrum 900 SL
Cell 16 JS(2003) – 9 Pecora Corporation 301NS Silicone
Cell 17 JS(2003) – 10 Pecora Corporation 300SL Silicone
Cell 18 JS(2003) – 13 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver Silicone SL
Cell 19 JS(2003) – 14 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver Silicone 902
Cell 20 JS(2003) – 17 Watson Bowman Acme Corporation WABO® Silicone Seal
Cell 21 JS(2003) – 18 CSL Silicones, Inc. CSL 341 Non-Slump
Cell 22 JS(2003) – 19 CSL Silicones, Inc. CSL 316 Self-Leveling
6. Vendors Addresses
JS(2003)-1 Deery American Corporation

PO Box 4099
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Telephone: (800) 227-4059
JS(2003)-2 &3 Dow Corning Corporation

2200 W. Salzburg Road
Auburn, MI 488611
Telephone: (989) 496-4569
JS(2003)-4 thru 6 May National Associates, Inc

1700 Route 3 West
Clifton, NJ 07013
Telephone: (973) 473-3300
JS(2003)-7&8 Tremco,Inc
3735 Green Road
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 292-5058
3
JS(2003)- 9&10 Pecora Corporation
165 Wambold Road
Harleysville, PA 19438
Telephone: (215) 799-7520
JS(2003)-11 thru 14 Crafco, Inc

6975 West Crafco Way
Chandler, AZ 85226
Telephone: (602) 276-0476
JS(2003)-16 McAsphalt Industries Ltd.

8800 Sheppard Avenue East
Scarborough, Ontario,Canada M1B 5R4
Telephone: (416) 281-8181
JS(2003)-17 Degussa Construction Chermicals

Watson Bowman Acme Corporation
95 Pineview Drive
Amherst, NY 14228
Telephone: (716) 691-7566
JS(2003)-18 & 19 CSL Silicones, Inc

144 Woodlawn Road West
Guelph, Ontario,Canada N1H 1B5
Telephone: (519) 836-9044
7. Site Location
STATE PROJECT No.: 7702-41 (T.H. 10), "Construction Plan for Unbonded Concrete
Overlay"
LOCATION: "T.H. 10 from Staples to 1025 feet west of the Todd/ Morrision County
Line"
Figure 1: Site Location
4
8. Site Conditions
Construction Details:
Eastbound T.H. 10 - Unbonded PCC Overlay, 7” reinforced concrete, 1.5” Permeable

Asphalt Stabilized Stress Release Course 33’wide, HMA shoulders, 14’ driving lane, 13’
passing lane. 15’ Contraction joint spacing.
Joint Preparation:
Concrete was poured on September 8, 2003

Widening Saw Cut -September 10, 2003. Detail B depth was modified to 1 ¼” to allow
use of ½” backer rod for Hot-Pour Sealants. All hot-pour products use the same
configuration. Widths were sawed to ½”. Minimal spalling was seen after sawing.
Detail E was used for the silicone sealants. Final saw cut was done to 3/8” x 1 ¼”. All
products were installed with backer rod.
Each joint was sandblasted and blown out beginning at 7:00 am on the day of sealing.
Heat lancing is not standard procedure on concrete, but because of the rain experienced
the day before the heat lance was used to dry out the joints.
Installation Weather:
September 11th - installations started at 8:30am. The ambient temperature was 65 oF @

10am. At 1:30PM light rain (drizzle) started. At 3:00pm hard rain caused the test site to
be suspended until the next day, September 12th.
September 12th -8:00 am fog 51 oF . 9:30am - Sunny

Installation conditions can be found in field report.
5
9. Manufacturer Comments
The only manufacturer comments received were from Crafco.
Crafco: Report on Installation of Sealants for the Minnesota NTPEP Project Sealed on
September 12, 2003.
According to Jim McGraw from the Minnesota DOT, the concrete for the entire project
was poured Monday September 8. The Joint spacing was 15 feet and the widening cut
was made Wednesday September 10. According to Jim McGraw, all the joints were
sandblasted beginning at 7:00 am on the day of sealing. Dan Smith from Shafer stated
that the joints were sandblasted with two passes to clean both sides of the Joints. The
Joints were dried with a heat lance according to Jim McGraw. Heat lancing is not
standard procedure on concrete, especially new concrete. There are some indications that
this drying of the concrete may affect the Cure and therefore the strength of the concrete.
This weakening can lead to spalling.
The concrete received some amount of rain on Wednesday according to weather reports,
and then received a significant amount of rain starting at 3:00pm on Thursday and
continuing into the night. At 8:00 am the area was in a dense fog and the temperature
was 51F.
Listed below are individual reports on the sections as they were applied.
Section 18: Crafco Self Leveling Silicone Sealant 34903.
The 10 joints in Section 18 had an average width of 7/16”. In the file there is a map of
the 10 joints. The map shows that there was some wandering of the saw on the joints in
the passing lane and also some spalling of concrete. It has been shown that saw
wandering can cause sliver spalling. The fog lifted at about 9:00 am and sealing was
begun at 9:50 am. The air temperature was about 57F and the pavement temperature was
about 65F. Because of damage in my luggage, the probe and wire thermocouples were
behaving erratically. The sun was shining. The Section started at marker 1222.50.
The depth of the widening cut was 1 ¼ inches. ½ inch backer rod was installed in the
joint. The depth of the applied sealant varied but was on average 5/16”. The sealant was
recessed approximately ¼ inch. There were a few spots that were high and had to be
wiped to lower them.
Section 6:Superseal Low-mod
The 10 joints of Section 6 had an average width of 9/16 inches. The file contains a map
of this section. There was a small amount of saw wandering in this section as shown on
the map. The saw wandering was less in this section than either 18 or 19, but more than
section 4. The joints where the concrete cracked to full depth are shown on the map.
6
Section 6 was on a super elevation with Concrete thickness of 17 inches on the South side
and 8 inches on the North side. The air temperature was 63 F and Pavement temperature
was measured at 71F using an IR gun. The skies were sunny at 11:30 am. The section
started at marker 1202 + 38.6.
The widening cut was measured at 1 3/8 inches deep. The joints were blown out with
compressed air shortly before sealing. Before being blown out there was a small amount
of powder on the concrete. After blowing a couple of finger checks showed the concrete
to be clean. 5/8” backer rod was installed. The sealant thickness was installed at a
nominal 5/8 inch thickness. The recess varied between flushed and ¼ inch down but was
generally less than 1/8 inch when installed. The melter was started at 7:00 am and Low-
mod was added to melter shortly after. The sealant was in the melter under heat until
applied at 11:30 am. The highest temperature recorded was 298F. The temperature at
application was 277F as measured by the IR gun. The temperature of the sealant
measured at the nozzle was 232F.
Section 19:Crafco Silicone 902
The 10 joints of Section 19 had an average width of 7/16 inch, and the depth of the
widening cut was 1 ¼ inch. The file contains a map of section 19. There was some
wandering of the saw blade in this section in the passing lane. The section started at
Marker 1224.00. It was sunny and 69F at 12:30 pm when sealing started.
The joints were blown out before installation of the backer rod. ½ inch backer rod was
used for the 902. I did not witness the installation of the backer rod and half of the
sealant. The measured depth of the sealant in the center of the joint was 5/16 inch in
some areas and ¼” in other areas. The recess in the center of the sealant was about ¼
inch. The material was tooled with backer rod.
Section 4:Roadsaver 522
The 10 joints of Section 4 had an average width of 9/16 inch and the depth of the
widening cut was 1 3/8 inch. The file contains a map of section 4. The widening cut was
very straight. In some sections in the Deck there were three joints that were cracked all
the way through the depth of the concrete, in other sections there were two. The joints
that were cracked through the concrete are shown in the map. The section starts at
marker 1199 + 40. The super elevation started in Section 4. It was sunny and 70F at
12:50 when sealing began.
The joints were blown out before installation of the backer rod. There was a small
amount of dust in the joints that the blow out removed as confirmed by a finger test. 5/8
inch backer rod was installed to the bottom of the widening cut. 522 was installed at 396
F measured by the digital readout and 388 F measured by the IR gun. The IR gun
reading at the nozzle was 365F. The recess averaged about 1/8 inch. There was bubbling
in 522 as it was being installed. This bubbling did not occur in the Low-mod.
7
10. Weather Data
2003 Weather Data
2003 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
High Daily
Temp (0F) 73 68 41 37
Low
Minimum 27 20 -5 -7
Temp (0F)
# Days
2 21 28 31
<= 32 (0F)
Total
Precipitation 2.88 1.24 0.87 0.17
(inches)
2004 Weather Data
High Daily
Temp (0F) 22 37 47 62 65 72 78 71 76 62 48 33
Low
Minimum -37 -23 -1 18 24 38 42 32 34 27 9 -19
Temp (0F)
# Days
31 29 28 19 6 0 0 2 0 8 26 31
<= 32 (0F)
Total
Precipitation 1.03 .90 1.55 1.70 1.73 1.73 3.97 1.34 5.57 4.10 0.62 0.82
(inches)
2005 Weather Data
High Daily
Temp (0F) 29 38 55 69 66 81 81 80 78 65 49 31
Low
Minimum -37 -12 -11 22 22 48 46 42 25 26 1 -12
Temp (0F)
# Days
31 28 29 18 4 0 0 0 1 14 19 27
<= 32 (0F)
Total
Precipitation 2.22 .82 1.03 2.28 3.13 7.02 2.13 3.11 4.16 4.12 2.52 1.38
(inches)
8
11. Traffic Level/Snowplow Passes/Snow and Ice Chemicals used
2003 2004 2005

Average Daily
9700 10,900
Traffic Vehicles
Commercial
970 800
Trucks
Deicing Tons Salt
133 204
Chemicals Used
Gallon Salt
Brine 290 1,780
Snow/Ice Events
24 20
Snow Plow
Passes 55 120
For 2004, in addition to the 204 tons of salt, 13 tons of winter sand was used.
12. Lab Testing Comments
Hot-Pour:
Since the approval of the project work plan, changes to the ASTM Hot-Pour Sealant
standards have been made. ASTM D-1190 and ASTM D-3405 along with other sealant
specifications have been combined into ASTM D- 6690.
The safe heating temperature recommended by the manufacturer was used in the
preparation of the samples.
Since 3 of the hot-pour products were ASTM D-6690 Type IV (low modulus) sealants,
bond test temperatures and extensions for Type IV sealants were followed. JS(2003)12,
Crafco Superseal was tested at –29 o C at both 100% and 200% Extension. Since the
Superseal sealant hardens to a solid upon cooling, 2nd Heating was not done as advised
by manufacturers technical representative. Special preparation instructions received from
Crafco were followed. In all cases, manufacturer instructions were followed for the
preparation of the samples for testing.
Silicone:
Ultimate Elongation and Tensile Strength tests with done with Mn/DOT’s Instron 5500R
Universal Testing Machine using a 20 # load cell.
9
Accelerated Weathering was conducted using the Atlas U/V Con Device. Samples were
weathered for 2,000 hours with each 12 hour cycle being 8hours ultraviolet radiation and
4 hours condensation @ 40 o C.
Numerical Cracking Ratings on a scale of 0 to 4 were given for Accelerated Weathered

and Heat Aged specimens. Ratings were done by visual comparison to the control
sample. Examples of Cracking Obtainable can be seen in ASTM C 792 and C793. A
rating of 0 means no cracking or chalking while a rating of 4 means sample experienced
severe cracking and chalking. The Accelerated Weathered samples were also given a
cracking rating after a bend test over a ½” mandrel. Examples of obtainable cracking can
be seen in ASTM C793.
13. Field Evaluation Comments
The Visual Inspection Method for determination of Water Infiltration was used per the
project work plan. A leaf blower was used to clean joints before evaluation. A 12-foot
rule was used to aid in measuring adhesion/cohesion loss.
Photos of each joint can be seen in the Photo Log. The numbering system for each joint
photo is the cell number separated by a decimal point and then the joint number. For
example the photo from Joint 1 in Cell 3 would be 3.1. The initial photos were taken after
installation. These photos include the entire joint for both the passing and driving lanes.
The 1st year photos were close ups taken in either the left of right wheel path or areas of
the seal that showed some distress. These photos don’t necessarily represent the condition
of the entire joint.
Both Stationing and GPS locations were documented for each product test section. PK
nails were also used to locate the start of each test section.
10
NTPEP PROJECT WORK PLAN FOR
FIELD AND LABORATORY EVALUATION OF
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (PCC) PAVEMENT
JOINT SEALANT MATERIALS
PURPOSE
The purpose of this work plan is to define the laboratory, and field procedures used to evaluate
pavement joint sealant materials. The current evaluation procedures include hot poured sealants
and cold applied chemically curing sealants such as silicone materials. Additional types of joint
sealant materials may be included in this evaluation process at a later date.
The laboratory, procedures consist primarily of ASTM test procedures and the field evaluation
procedures are based on procedures described in the Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP) "Materials and Procedures for the Repair of Joint Seals in Concrete Pavements - Manual
of Practice."
The evaluation procedures are divided into the following sections:

a) Laboratory Evaluation Procedures
x Standard Laboratory Conditions
x Hot Poured Sealants
x Cold Applied. Chemically Curing, Sealants
x Recertification
b) Field Evaluation Procedures
x Site Selection and Required Quantities
x Sealer Installation
x Evaluation
- Water Infiltration
- Debris Retention
c) Reporting of Results
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS
ASTM D1190: Standard Specification for Concrete Joint Sealer, Hot-Applied Elastic Type
ASTM D3405: Standard Specification for Joint Sealants, Hot Applied, for Concrete and Asphalt
Pavements
ASTM D5167: Standard Practice for Melting of Hot-Applied Joint and Crack Sealant and Filler
for Evaluation R (1997)
ASTM D5329: Standard Test Methods for Sealants and Fillers, Hot Applied, for Joints and
Cracks in Asphaltic and Portland Cement Concrete Pavements Replaces D1191-1994 and D3407-
1978
ASTM D5893: Standard Specification for Cold Applied, Single Component, Chemically Curing
Silicone Joint Sealant for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements
ASTM C679: Standard Test Method for Tack-Free Time of Elastomeric Sealants E 1-1997 R
(1997)
ASTM C793: Standard Test Method for Effects of Accelerated Weathering on Elastomeric Joint
Sealants E 1-1997 R (1997)
11
LABORATORY EVALUATION PROCEDURES
STANDARD LABORATORY CONDITIONS
Standard laboratory conditions are defined as a temperature of 24qC ± 4°C (77qF ± 7qF) and a
relative humidity of 50 ± 10%.
HOT POUR SEALANTS
The manufacturer shall supply two 11.4 kg (25 pound) blocks of sealant material from the same
lot or batch number of material used for the field evaluation. One of the 11.4 kg (25 pound)
blocks will be used to conduct the laboratory evaluation and the second 11.4 kg (25 pound) block
of material will be retained for 1 month after the manufacturer has been notified of the
laboratory, evaluation results for potential verification testing. The laboratory evaluation will
consist of two sample evaluations (i.e., the preparation and testing of two approximately 2,200
gram (4.9 pound) samples of material) using the following procedures. The laboratory results
that are reported will be the average of the individual tests at each heating condition. The report
forms for the hot pour sealants are provided in Table 1 of the Report section.
1. Sample Preparation - The joint sealant samples be prepared in accordance with

ASTM D 5167 using a sample size of approximately 2,200 grams (4.9 pounds). The specimens
will be prepared:
- Immediately after reaching the recommended pouring temperature (ASTM D 1190):
- Immediately after reaching the recommended safe heating temperature (ASTM D3405):
- After maintaining the sealant at the manufacturer's recommended safe heating temperature for 6
hours ± 15 minutes, after which the initial set of test specimens for bond to concrete, flow,
resilience, and penetration will be prepared. The sealant material remaining in the melter will be
allowed to cool 17 ± 2 hours and then reheated to the manufacturer's recommended safe heating
temperature for an additional 6 hours ±15 minutes, after which a second set of test specimens for
bond to concrete, flow, resilience, and penetration will be prepared (as selected by the
manufacturer).
2. Sealant Evaluation - The sealant shall be evaluated in accordance with:

- ASTM D1190
- ASTM D3405
- The methods described in the following paragraphs.
3. Bond to Concrete - Eighteen bond specimens will be prepared and tested in accordance with
ASTM D5329, section 9 using a sealant width of 12.5 mm (0.5 inches) and the blocks will be
prepared in accordance with ASTM D 1190, section 6.4. Three of the bond specimens will be
tested in accordance with ASTM D 1190 (this is 50 % extension at -18°C ± 1°C (0°F ± 2°F) for
5 cycles). Three additional bond specimens will be conditioned in water for 96 hours ± 4 hours
and then test in accordance with ASTM D 1190, section 6.4). Three non-immersed and three
water-immersed bond specimens, prepared as described above, will be tested at -29°C ± 1°C (-
20°F ± 2°F) for 3 cycles of 200% extension and recompression. The remaining six bond
12
specimens (three non-immersed and three water immersed prepared as described above) will be
tested at -18°C ± 1°C (0°F ±2°F) for 5 cycles of 100% extension and recompression. The result
of each extension cycle for each specimen will be reported as the amount of adhesion and/or
cohesion failure in square centimeters (square inches).
4. Flow - The flow specimens will be prepared in accordance with ASTM D5329, section 8 and
tested at 60°C (140°F) for five hours. The flow results will be reported as the total amount of
flow exhibited.
5. Resilience - The resilience specimens will be prepared and in accordance with ASTM D5329,
section 12 and tested at 25°C (77°F). The resilience results will be reported as the percent
recovery.
6. Penetration - Two penetration specimens will be prepared in accordance with ASTM D5329,
section 6. One penetration specimen will be tested in accordance with ASTM D5329, section 6.
The second specimen will be tested in accordance with ASTM D5329. Section 6 with the
following exceptions; the specimen will be allowed to cool to standard laboratory conditions for
17 ± 2 hours, the specimen will then be placed in a freezer at -18°C ± 1°C (0°F ± 2°F) for 4
hours ±15 minutes prior to testing. One hour before testing, the penetrometer cone attachment
will also be placed in the freezer at -18°C ±1°C (0°F ±2°F). At the end of the 4-hour specimen-
conditioning period, remove the test specimen and cone from the freezer, place the cone in the
penetrometer and immediately conduct the test. After making the measurement, clean the cone
attachment and place the specimen and cone back in the freezer for 10 ± 2 minutes before
making two successive measurements for a total of three measurements. The penetration results
will be averaged and the average value reported.
COLD APPLIED, CHEMICALLY CURING SEALANTS
The manufacturer shall supply six-quart size tubes, or equivalent, of sealant material for
laboratory, evaluation from the same lot or batch number of the material used for the field
evaluation. Three of the tubes, or equivalent, will be used to conduct the laboratory evaluation
and the remaining, three tubes of material, or equivalent, will be retained for 1 month after the
manufacturer has been notified of the laboratory evaluation results for potential verification
testing. The laboratory evaluation will consist of two sample evaluations. The report forms for
the cold applied sealants are provided in Table 2 of the Report Section.
All specimens shall be cured at standard laboratory conditions. The preparation and testing of
samples will be:
- Is described below
- In accordance with ASTM D5893 as selected by the manufacturer.
1. Tack Free Time - The tack free time specimens will be prepared and tested in accordance
with ASTM C679.
2. Weight Loss - Test specimens will be prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM C792.
The weight loss will be reported as percent weight loss.
13
3. Bond to Concrete -Twelve test specimens will be prepared and tested in accordance with
ASTM D5893, section 8.8 with the following exceptions. Six (three non-immersed and three
water-immersed) of the bond specimens will be tested at -29°C + 1°C (-20°F + 2°F) for three
cycles of 200% extension and recompression. The remaining six (three non-immersed and three
water-immersed) bond specimens will be tested at - 18°C + 1°C (0°F + 2°F) for 5 cycles of
100% extension and recompression. The result of each extension cycle for each specimen will
be reported as the amount of adhesion and/or cohesion failure in square centimeters (square
inches).
4. Ultimate Elongation and Tensile Stress at 150% Elongation - Test specimens will be
prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM D5893, section 8.11. The tensile stress at 150%
elongation and the ultimate percent elongation will be reported.
5. Accelerated Aging - Test specimens will be prepared and tested in accordance with ASTM
C793 except that the specimens will aged for 2000 hours. The visual condition of the specimens
will be reported.
RECERTIFICATION
Joint sealant samples shall be taken from the laboratory evaluation material and from the field
evaluation for Fourier Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis using Attenuated Total Internal
Reflectance (ATR) technique. Three specimens will be prepared from the laboratory, material
and three specimens will be prepared from the field material by pouring the sealant into a mold
as described in ASTM D5893, section 8.11. 1. The sealant shall be allowed to cure in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Once cured, the specimens shall be cut
into three equal portions and individually placed on a germanium crystal and analyzed using an
FTIR. The specimens (18 total) will be used as the baseline for future recertification of sealant
materials.
The manufacturer shall submit samples on an annual basis of materials that have undergone
laboratory and field evaluations for recertification. The results of the recertification analysis will
be reported as statistically the same material or statistically different material. Failure to submit
samples for recertification will be noted in the annual report.
14
FIELD EVALUATION PROCEDURES
SITE SELECTION AND QUANTITIES
The member department will select a field evaluation site consisting of at least two replicates of
five consecutive Joints for each sealant material.
SEALANT INSTALLATION
The manufacturer will supply all materials for the evaluation of their material. The equipment
and labor to prepare the joints and install the joint sealant material will be mutually agreed upon
by the manufacturer and the test state (i.e., the manufacturer will supply all labor and equipment
required or the test state will provide a single contractor for all manufacturers at the
manufacturers’ expense). Traffic control, installation scheduling, and installation location will be
provided by the test state. The manufacturer should have a technical representative present at the
installation of the sealant to certify that the material is installed in accordance with their
recommended procedures. If the representative believes that the installation is not in accordance
with the recommended procedures (including shape factor, etc.), they will inform the designated
representative of the member department of this fact in writing within one week of the
installation of the material. If this occurs, the member department may eliminate that
manufacturer's installation from further evaluation without a refund of fees. If no letter is
received within this first week, the installation will be accepted and included in the field
evaluation.
During the installation, a drawing will be prepared to show the location of each sealant, provide
the slope of the pavement, the joint spacing, the joint width, any special condition of the joints
(i.e., chamfered or not, if the joint was cut using Soft cut technology, the amount of spalling,
etc.). The average daily traffic, the closest Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP)
weather data station will also be reported. The manufacturer will supply with the application for
evaluation the recommended shape factor and performance characteristics such as the amount of
joint movement the sealant is capable of withstanding or the sealant working range, the
maximum and minimum joint width for satisfactory performance of the sealant, the
recommended joint preparation and sealant installation procedures, and when the area can be
reopened to traffic.
The joint preparation and sealant installation techniques used during the installation will be
recorded. Any deviation from the manufacturer's recommendations will be noted. Additionally,
the manufacturer's representative will be allowed to provide comments on the joint preparation
and sealant installation. If the manufacturer's representative does provide such comments, they
will be included with the installation report. The weather conditions during the installation will
also be recorded.
15
FIELD EVALUATION OBSERVATIONS
A "Sealant Condition Number" (SCN) will be assigned to the sealant once a year for three years.
The SCN will be based upon two distress types: water infiltration and debris retention. Each
distress type will be rated as having no distress, or low, medium, or high severity distress
(described below). The results of the two distress ratings will be inserted into the following
equation to provide the SCN.
SCN = 1(L) + 2(M) + 3(H)
where:
SCN = Sealant Condition Number

L = the number of low severity sealant conditions
M = the number of medium severity sealant conditions
H = the number of high severity sealant conditions
If the sealant material has no defects, then the SCN is defined as 0, the best possible rating.
A SCN of 6, the worst possible rating, is obtained when both the debris retention and water
infiltration are rated as high severity.
Water Infiltration
Water infiltration will be measured as the percentage of the overall Joint length where water can
bypass the sealant and enter the Joint either through complete adhesion or cohesion failure.
Adhesion and cohesion failures will be determined through visual inspection or by the use of a
vacuum tester. The percentage of joints that allow water infiltration will be determined by the
equation:
%L = (Lf/Ltot)* 100
where:
%'L = Percent length of the joint allowing water infiltration

Lf = Total length of the joint sealant field evaluation section allowing the
Infiltration of water (inches)
Ltot = Total length of the joint sealant field evaluation section (inches)
No Water Infiltration: %L = 0% < %L < 1%

Low Severity Water Infiltration: 1% < %L < 10%
Medium Severity Water Infiltration: 10% < %L < 30%
High Severity Water lnfiltration: %L > 30%
16
Visual Inspection of Joint Sealants
One hundred percent of the joints shall be inspected to determine the percent allowing water
infiltration. Any visual cracks, splits or openings in the sealant or between the sealant and
concrete shall be examined to determine the depth of the opening. Instruments such as a dull
knife may be used to assist in the evaluation.
Vacuum Tester Inspection of Joint Sealants
One hundred percent of the joints shall be inspected to determine the water tightness of the joint.
A soap and water solution shall be applied to the joint and the vacuum box shall be placed on the
joint. A minimum vacuum of -5.07 X 104 Pa (15 inches) of mercury (gauge) shall be applied to
the box and the results noted. Inability to obtain the minimum vacuum or bubbles that exceed
12.4 mm (0.5 in) shall be considered allowing water infiltration and the length of failure will be
estimated. It is expected that the vacuum tester inspection will indicate a higher percentage of
water infiltration than the visual inspection.
Debris or Stone Retention
Stone or debris retention will be rated as follows:
No Debris Retention: No stones or debris are stuck to the top of the sealant or embedded on the
surface of the sealant/ I channel interface.
Low Severity: Occasional stones and/or debris are stuck to the top of the sealant, or debris
embedded on the surface of the sealant/channel interface.
Medium Severity: Stones or debris is stuck to the sealant and some debris is deeply embedded in
the sealant or material embedded between the sealant and the joint face but not entering
the Joint below the sealant.
High Severity: A large amount of stones and debris is stuck to and deeply embedded in the
sealant or filling the joint, or a considerable amount of debris is embedded between the
sealant and the joint face and entering the joint below the sealant.
Photographs of the joints shall be taken and provided with the report. These photographs
will
be used to standardize the stone debris retention rating once significant data has been collected.
Previous ratings may be adjusted once the standardization has been completed.
Additional information such as the pavement condition, environmental conditions, and traffic
conditions will also be recorded. Specific items that are to be recorded are provided in Table 3
in the Report section.
17
Example SCN Calculation
Assume that a 153 m (500 ft) joint sealant installation was inspected and it was noted
that there were occasional stones and/or debris stuck to the top of the sealant and that
approximately 31 m (100 ft) exhibited adhesion or cohesion failure that would allow water
infiltration through the joints. From this information, one would calculate the total percentage of
water infiltration from %L = (Lf/Ltot )* 100 or %L = (31/153)* 100 = 20%. Therefore the
sealant would have a low severity debris or stone retention rating and a medium severity water
infiltration rating. The number of low severity ratings would equal 1, the number of medium
severity ratings would equal 1, and the number of high severity ratings would equal 0. The SCN
would be calculated by SCN = 1 (L) + 2(M) + 3(H) = 1 * 1 + 2* 1 + 3*0 = 3. The SCN = 3.
REPORTING OF THE RESULTS
The results of the sealant evaluations will consist of the appropriate laboratory evaluation form
and the field evaluation form.
Table 1a. ASTM D1190 Laboratory Evaluation.
Joint Sealant Test Results from 1st Heating1 Results from 2nd Heating
Heating Method Selected
Pour Point, °C (°F)
Cone Penetration at 25°C (77°F)
Flow
Nonimmersed Bond -18°C
(0°F), 3 cycles, 50% extension
1
When testing in accordance with ASTM D1190 heating procedures, only the results from the
first heating will be reported. When the alternate heating is selected with the six-hour reheat,
then the second column will be used.
18
Table 1b. ASTM D3405 Laboratory Evaluation.
Joint Sealant Test Results from 1st Heating2 Results from 2nd Heating
Heating Method Selected
Safe Heating Temperature, °C
(°F)
Cone Penetration at 25°C (77°F)
Flow
Nonimmersed Bond -18°C
(0°F), 3 cycles, 50% extension
Resilience at 25°C (77°F)
Asphalt Compatibility
2
When testing in accordance with ASTM D3405 heating procedures, only the results from the
first heating will be reported. When the alternate heating is selected with the six-hour reheat,
then the second column will be used
19
Table lc. Hot Pour Sealant Laboratory Evaluation.
Joint Sealant Test Results from 1st Heating Results from 2nd Heating
Bond To Concrete -29°C
(-20°F), 3 cycles, 200%
extension
Bond To Concrete -18°C
(0°F), 5 cycles, 100%
extension
Flow
Resilience
Penetration at 25°C (77°F)
Penetration at -18°C (0°F)
20
Table 2a. ASTM D5893 Laboratory Evaluation.
Joint Sealant Test Test Results

Type Sealant
Cure Evaluation
Extrusion Rate
Tack Free Time
Effects of Heat Aging
Nonimmersed Bond To Concrete -29°C
(-20°F), 5 cycles, 100% extension
Water-Immersed Bond To Concrete -29°C
Oven- Aged Bond To Concrete -29°C
Hardness
Flow
Ultimate Elongation
Tensile Stress at 150% Elongation
Accelerated Weathering
Resilience
21
Table 2b. Cold Applied Sealant Laboratory Evaluation.
Joint Sealant Test Test Results

Tack Free Time
Cure Through Test
Non- Volatile Content
Bond To Concrete -20°F, 3 cycles, 200%
extension
Bond To Concrete 0°F, 5 cycles, 100%
extension
Compression Set
Elongation
Accelerated Aging
22
Table 3. Field Evaluation Form.
SEALANT CONDITION Pavement Condition

N L M H Expected Pavement Life
% Length Water Entering 0-1 1-<10 10-30 >30 Avg. Faulting (in) (mm)
Note percentage of Corner Breaks, % slabs
adhesion and cohesion
failures
Stone Intrusion None Low Med High Pumping, % joints
Sealant Condition Number Spalls > 1 in (25.4mm), %
slabs
Environmental Condition Current Joint Design
Avg. Annual Percip. (in) (mm) Sealer Age, months
Days < 32°F (0°C) Avg Sealer Depth, in (mm)
High/Low Temperature3 Avg Joint Width, in (mm)
Traffic Conditions Avg Joint Depth, in (mm)
ADT (vpd): % Truck Max Joint Spacing, ft (m)
3
The high and low temperature data used for this entry should be the data provided in the
Strategic Highway Research Program data base for the location of the evaluation site.
23
2003 NTPEP Evaluation of Joint Sealers for PCC Pavements
MnDOT In-Service Field Performance Evaluation
Mn/DOT ID NTPEP Number Company Product Trade Name Jt. Sealant Configuration
Cell 3 JS(2003) – 1 Deery American Corporation DEERY 101 ELT C2B-D Modified
Cell 4 JS(2003) – 11 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver 522 C2B-D Modified
Cell 6 JS(2003) – 12 Crafco, Inc. Superseal Low-Mod C2B-D Modified
Cell 7 JS(2003) – 16 McAsphalt, Inc. BERAM 3060 LM C2B-D Modified
Cell 9 JS(2003) – 2 Dow Corning Corporation Dow Corning® 888 C4E-D
Cell 10 JS(2003) – 3 Dow Corning Corporation Dow Corning® 890-SL C4E-D
Cell 11 JS(2003) – 4 May National Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 NS C4E-D
Cell 12 JS(2003) – 5 May National Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 SL C4E-D
Cell 13 JS(2003) – 6 May National Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 RCS C4E-D
Cell 14 JS(2003) – 7 Tremco, Inc. Spectrum 800 C4E-D
Cell 15 JS(2003) – 8 Tremco, Inc. Spectrum 900 SL C4E-D
Cell 16 JS(2003) – 9 Pecora Corporation 301NS Silicone C4E-D
Cell 17 JS(2003) – 10 Pecora Corporation 300SL Silicone C4E-D
Cell 18 JS(2003) – 13 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver Silicone SL C4E-D
Cell 19 JS(2003) – 14 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver Silicone 902 C4E-D
Cell 20 JS(2003) – 17 Watson Bowman Acme Corporation WABO® Silicone Seal C4E-D
Cell 21 JS(2003) – 18 CSL Silicones, Inc. CSL 341 Non-Slump C4E-D
Cell 22 JS(2003) – 19 CSL Silicones, Inc. CSL 316 Self-Leveling C4E-D
2003 NTPEP Evaluation of Joint Sealers for PCC Pavements

MnDOT In-Service Field Performance Evaluation
Mn/DOT ID NTPEP Number Company 2004 SCN Number 2005 SCN Number 2006 SCN Number
Cell 2 Shafer - Single Cut Hot Pour 4 4
Cell 3 JS(2003) – 1 Deery American Corporation 1 2
Cell 4 JS(2003) – 11 Crafco, Inc. 1 1
Cell 7 JS(2003) – 16 McAsphalt, Inc. 2 2
Cell 9 JS(2003) – 2 Dow Corning Corporation 2 2
Cell 10 JS(2003) – 3 Dow Corning Corporation 2 2
Cell 11 JS(2003) – 4 May National Associates, Inc. 2 2
Cell 14 JS(2003) – 7 Tremco, Inc. 1 1
Cell 15 JS(2003) – 8 Tremco, Inc. 1 2
Cell 16 JS(2003) – 9 Pecora Corporation 2 2
Cell 17 JS(2003) – 10 Pecora Corporation 2 2
Cell 20 JS(2003) – 17 Watson Bowman Acme Corporation 1 2
Cell 21 JS(2003) – 18 CSL Silicones, Inc. 1 1
Cell 22 JS(2003) – 19 CSL Silicones, Inc. 1 1
24
CRACK INVENTORY FORM
DATE: CRACK ID:

INSPECTOR:
LE 10' 8' 6' 4' 2' CL
jt jt
LE 10' 8' 6' 4' 2' CL
WATER INFILTRATION - VISUAL OBSERVATION Total Failure

Adhesion Failure (inches) Cohesion Failure (inches) inches feet
Outside Edge (2 ft) 0 0.0

Outside Wheelpath (2 ft) 0 0.0
Center (4 ft) 0 0.0
Inside Wheelpath (2 ft) 0 0.0
Inside Edge (2 ft) 0 0.0
TOTALS 0 0 0 0
DEBRIS OR STONE RETENTION

Definition:
No stones or debris are stuck to the top of the sealant or embedded on the surface of
No Debris Retention
the sealant / channel interface
Occasional stones or debris are stuck to the top of the sealant or debris embedded on
Low Severity
the surface of the sealant / channel interface
Stones or debris are stuck to the sealant and some debris is deeply embedded in the
Medium Severity sealant or material embedded between the sealant and the joint face but not entering the
joint below the sealant
A large amount of stones or debris is stuck to and deeply embedded in the sealant or
High Severity filling the joint, or a consideralbe amount of debris is embedded between the sealant and
the joint face and entering the joint below the sealant
RATING (circle one)

No Debris Retention Low Severity Medium Severity High Severity
25
Mn/DOT ID NTPEP # Company Product Trade Name Jt. Sealant Configuration
Cell 3 JS(2003) - 1 Deery American DEERY 101 ELT C2B-D Modified
Installation Date Technical Contact Product Lot # Contractor Equipment
9/11/2003 Wally Smith 136499 Deery American Magna 230 Heater
Larry Fagerlund
Application Conditions: Comments:
Heating Temp: 386/372 (pit gauge) Good Control - Flow
Air Temp: 63
Adhesion/Cohesion/Infiltration
SCN
Date of Test Lf (ft) L lot(ft) %L Severity component
September 8 & 9, 2004 1.33 240 0.55% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 11.08 240 4.62% Low 1
2006
Infiltration Severity Ratings
No Water Infiltration 0% < %L < 1% 0
Low Severity Water Infiltration 1% < %L < 10% 1
Medium Severity Water Infiltration 10% < %L < 30 2
High Severity Water Infiltration %L > 30% 3
Stone/Debris Retention SCN Comments
Date of Test Severity SCN component 0(No)+1(L)+2(M)+3(H)
September 8 & 9, 2004 Low 1 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
26
Cell 4 JS(2003) - 11 Crafco, Inc. RoadSaver 522 C2B-D Modified
T 8586 Crafco
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 0.50 240 0.21% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 0.92 240 0.38% No 0
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 1
2006
27
Cell 6 JS(2003) - 12 Crafco, Inc. SuperSeal Low Mod C2B-D Modified
T 1131 Crafco
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 1.67 240 0.70% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 5.00 240 2.08% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
28
Cell 7 JS(2003) - 16 McAsphalt, Inc. BERAM 3060 LM C2B-D Modified
9/11/2003 Batch # 031959 Kettle: Hot Shot 2D, Stepp
Manufacturing
Heat Temp: 383 White backer rod, photos 13-17, trouble filling to 1/8"
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 6.33 240 2.64% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 7.67 240 3.20% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
29
Jt. Sealant
Mn/DOT ID NTPEP # Company Product Trade Name Configuration
Cell 9 JS(2003) - 2 Dow Corning Corp Dow Corning 888 C4E-D
9/11/2003
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 6.92 240 2.88% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 19.46 240 8.11% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
30
Jt. Sealant
Cell 10 JS(2003) - 3 Dow Corning Corp Dow Corning 890-SL C4E-D
9/11/2003 Mark Brinkman
Bill Francis
Cell 10: Longitudinal
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 3.42 240 1.43% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 16.33 240 6.80% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
31
Jt. Sealant
May National
Cell 11 JS(2003) - 4 Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 NS C4E-D
9/12/2003 Mike Prizzi 84504226 Hand Caulk
(Gaithersburg, MD)
Start: 9:30 AM Non Sag 1210+00, 6 tubes taken.
End: 11:00 AM
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 14.29 240 5.95% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 17.00 240 7.08% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
32
Jt. Sealant
May National
Cell 12 JS(2003) - 5 Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 SL C4E-D
9/11/2003 84604286

6 samples taken, JT 6 HG Crack RT. Edge, JT 10 LG Crack
LT. Edge
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 6.63 240 2.76% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 7.67 240 3.20% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
33
Jt. Sealant
May National
Cell 13 JS(2003) - 6 Associates, Inc. Bondaflex Sil 728 RCS C4E-D
9/11/2003 JS(2003) - 6

8:00 AM - 2:00 PM 2 Component Silicone (Photos 31-37)
Primer-P-728-P
(Organo-Silane)
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 2.92 240 1.22% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 9.92 240 4.13% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
34
Jt. Sealant
Cell 14 JS(2003) - 7 Tremco, Inc. Spectrum 800 C4E-D
325326 Superior Sawing & Sealing

Start: 11:15 AM Backer Rod start at 12 noon 2nd Sand Blast & Clean
End: 12:27 PM Sealing start at 12:05 PM Barrel lot verified with sample
Sunny, 70 deg, Lt. Breeze Finished w/ foam tube (1.5" back rod) Backing rod sample in this box.
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 0.33 240 0.14% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 1.13 240 0.47% No 0
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 1
2006
35
Jt. Sealant
Cell 15 JS(2003) - 8 Tremco, Inc. Spectrum 900 SL C4E-D
Ben Jacobus 325328 Self Leveling

Backer Rod Start: 12:28 PM Photos: 68-71 #5 JT. 1216+00 Finish 1:00 PM
(DSB) Seal Start: 12:45 PM Long JT. Not "Blocked" off
Big Spall RT Panels
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 1.63 240 0.68% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 5.83 240 2.43% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
36
Jt. Sealant
Cell 16 JS(2003) - 9 Pecora Corporation 301NS Silicone C4E-D
9/12/2003 225305502 Superior Sawing & Sealing Newborn #125 Hand Caulk

Start: 1:00 PM Silicone cut with putty knife
End: 1:35 PM 1 part non-sag finished with 1 1/2" diameter backer rod
Sample Taken longitudinal JT Pneumatic power caulk JT #3
2nd JT - Air
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 2.88 240 1.20% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 8.33 240 3.47% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
37
Jt. Sealant
Cell 17 JS(2003) - 10 Pecora Corporation 300SL Silicone C4E-D
9/12/2003 2243-3 06589

Start: 1:45 PM Ends masked
End: 4:00 PM huge spall JT. #2 RT. Panel(s)
1222+00 sample taken
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 6.46 240 2.69% Low 1
October 13 & 14, 2005 12.42 240 5.18% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
38
Jt. Sealant
Cell 18 JS(2003) - 13 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver Silicone SL C4E-D
9/12/2003 52135-3 Roadway Services, Inc.
Fargo, SD
Start: 9:45 AM Hand Fill Low Spots
End: 10:15 AM Photo # 45
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 0.75 240 0.31% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 1.50 240 0.63% No 0
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 1
2006
39
Jt. Sealant
Cell 19 JS(2003) - 14 Crafco, Inc. Roadsaver Silicone 902 C4E-D
9/12/2003 52132-1

12:20 PM: Re-Blast Joints Photos 64-67
Start:12:30 PM Tool joints smear from side
End: 1:45 PM
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 0.33 240 0.14% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 1.42 240 0.59% No 0
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 1
2006
40
Jt. Sealant
Watson Bowman
Cell 20 JS(2003) - 17 Acme Corp. WABO Silicone Seal C4E-D
9/12/2003 A52108 1/2 Pneumatic Power Applied

Sealant Start: 2:15 PM Doing 1 JT at a time CLN, backer rod, seal
Backer rod sample taken extended backer rod on edges
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 1.33 240 0.55% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 7.71 240 3.21% Low 1
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 2
2006
41
Jt. Sealant
Cell 21 JS(2003) - 18 CSL Silicones, Inc. CSL 341 Non-slump C4E-D
341 04092003

Nomaco HBR backer rod 1/2" Silicone Non-Sag
Sealant Start: 2:15 PM Finish: 3:15 PM LG Spall #4 JT panel(s)
1.5" backer rod finish Hand caulk COX 12:1 small tube 1228+00
backer rod sample taken fro CSL & Pecora
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 0.58 240 0.24% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 1.17 240 0.49% No 0
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 1
2006
42
Jt. Sealant
Cell 22 JS(2003) - 19 CSL Silicones, Inc. CSL 316 Self-Leveling C4E-D
9/12/2003 316 2453305

Start backer rod: 3:15 PM Taped Ends
Start sealant: 3:50 PM LG spall JT # 7 LT panel(s)
SCN
September 8 & 9, 2004 1.00 240 0.42% No 0
October 13 & 14, 2005 1.92 240 0.80% No 0
2006
October 13 & 14, 2005 Low 1 1
2006
43
Joint 3.1 Joint 3.1 Joint 3.1 Joint 3.1 Joint 3.1 Joint 3.1 Joint 3.1 Joint 3.1
Passing Lane Passing Lane Passing Lane Passing Lane Driving Lane Driving Lane Driving Lane Driving Lane
Initial 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years Initial 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years
Joint 11. 2 Joint 11. 2 Joint 11. 2 Joint 11. 2 Joint 11. 2 Joint 11. 2 Joint 11. 2 Joint 11. 2
Cell 17 Pics Page 28





Joint 18.3 Joint 18. 3 Joint 18.3 Joint 18.3 Joint 18.3 Joint 18. 3 Joint 18.3 Joint 18.3
Joint 18.7 Joint 18.7 Joint 18.7 Joint 18.7 Joint 18.7 Joint 18. 7 Joint 18.7 Joint 18.7
Joint 21.4 Joint 21.4 Joint 21.4 Joint 21.4 Joint 21.4 Joint 21. 4 Joint 21.4 Joint 21.4
Joint 21.10 Joint 21. 10 Joint 21.10 Joint 21.10 Joint 21.10 Joint 21.10 Joint 21.10 Joint 21.10
Laboratory Testing for Hot-Pour Sealants
NTPEP Number Company Product Trade Name Heating Temperature ( o F)

JS(2003) – 1 Deery American Corporation DEERY 101 ELT 390
Results from 1st Results Results from 2nd Heating

Non immersed Bond, -29°C , 200 % extension, 1st cycle 0 0
loss of adhesion(sq. inches) 2nd cycle 0 0
3rd cycle 0 0
Water immersed Bond, -29°C ,200 % extension, 1st cycle 0 0

loss of adhesion(sq. inches) 2nd cycle 0 0
3rd cycle 0 0
Flow, mm 4 3
Resilence at 25° C, % recovery 48 50
Cone Penetration at 25° C, 1/10 mm 134 128

JS(2003) – 12 Crafco Inc. Superseal 290
Results from 1st Heating No Second Heating

Non immersed Bond -29°C, 100 % extension, 1st cycle 0
loss of adhesion(sq. inches) 2nd cycle 0
3rd cycle 0
4th cycle 0
5th cycle 0
Water immersed Bond -29°C, 100 % extension, 1st cycle 0
loss of adhesion(sq. inches) 2nd cycle 0
3rd cycle 0
4th cycle 0
5th cycle 0
Non immersed Bond -29°C, 200 % extension, 1st cycle 2
loss of adhesion(sq. inches) 2nd cycle -
3rd cycle -
Water immersed Bond -29°C, 200 % extension, 1st cycle 2
loss of adhesion(sq. inches) 2nd cycle -
3rd cycle -
Flow, mm 1
Resilence at 25° C, % recovery 47
Cone Penetration at 25° C, 1/10 mm 157
Cone Penetration at 0° C, 1/10 mm 24
134
Laboratory Testing for Hot-Pour Sealants

JS(2003) – 11 Crafco Inc Roadsaver 522 380
Results from 1st Heating Results from 2nd Heating

Non immersed Bond, -29°C, 200 % 1st cycle 0 0
extension, loss of adhesion(sq. inches) 2nd cycle 0 0
3rd cycle 0 0
Water immersed Bond, -29°C, 200 % 1st cycle 0 0

3rd cycle 0 0
Flow, mm 4 4

JS(2003) – 16 McAsphalt Beram 3060LM 380
Results from 1st Heating Results from 2nd Heating

Non immersed Bond, -29°C, 200 % 1st cycle 0 0
3rd cycle 0 0
Water immersed Bond, -29°C, 200 % 1st cycle 0 0

3rd cycle 0 0
Flow, mm 4 4
135
Laboratory Testing for Silicone Sealant
Product Trade Name Tack Free Ultimate Tensile Strength Bond to Concrete Bond to Concrete
Number Time, Elongation, 150% Elongation, Non - Immersed, Immersed,
Minutes % psi Bond Loss Sq Inches Bond Loss Sq Inches
JS(2003)-2 Dow Corning 888 45 1002 37.1 0 0

JS(2003)-3 Dow Corning 890 245 1088 8.6 0 0
JS(2003)-4 Bondaflex Sil 728NS 55 928 38.4 0 0
JS(2003)-5 Bondaflex Sil 728SL 130 926 18.7 0 0
JS(2003)-6 Bondaflex Sil 728RCS 20 726 19.6 0 0
JS(2003)-7 Spectrum 800 125 1013 29.2 0 0
JS(2003)-8 Spectrum 900SL 100 910 23.0 0 0
JS(2003)-9 301NS Silicone 295 937 50.0 0 0
JS(2003)-10 300SL Silicone 120 493 31.1 0 0
JS(2003)-13 Roadsaver Silicone SL 450 1006 20.8 0 0
JS(2003)-14 Roadsaver Silicone 902 125 796 45.6 0 0
JS(2003)-17 WABO Silicone Seal 50 866 18.4 0 0
JS(2003)-18 CSL 341 Non-Slump 65 644 60.8 0 0
JS(2003)-19 CSL 316 Self-Leveling 100 684 45.2 0 0
NTPEP ID Product Trade Name Accelerated Weathering Heat Aging

Cracking Bend Test % Loss Cracking
0 = no cracking 0=no cracking
JS(2003)-2 Dow Corning 888 0 0 3.5 0

JS(2003)-3 Dow Corning 890 0* 0 2.8 0
JS(2003)-4 Bondaflex Sil 728NS 0 0 2.8 0
JS(2003)-5 Bondaflex Sil 728SL 0 0 2.4 0
JS(2003)-6 Bondaflex Sil 728RCS 0 0 5.4 0
JS(2003)-7 Spectrum 800 0 0 1.5 0
JS(2003)-8 Spectrum 900SL 0 0 1.7 0
JS(2003)-9 301NS Silicone 0 0 4.0 0
JS(2003)-10 300SL Silicone 0 0 3.9 0
JS(2003)-13 Roadsaver Silicone SL 0 0 2.8 0
JS(2003)-14 Roadsaver Silicone 902 0 0 3.5 0
JS(2003)-17 WABO Silicone Seal 0 0 4.3 0
JS(2003)-18 CSL 341 Non-Slump 0 0 4.7 0
JS(2003)-19 CSL 316 Self-Leveling 0 0 3.7 0
* Surface Grazing
136
“The National Transportation Product
Evaluation Program (NTPEP) was
established by the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) in early 1994. The
program pools the professional and
physical resources of the AASHTO
member departments in order to test
materials, products and devices of
common interest. The primary goals of
the program are to provide cost-effective
evaluations for the states by eliminating
duplication of routine testing by the
states; and to reduce duplication of
effort by the manufacturers who produce
and market commonly used proprietary,
engineered products.” NTPEP
-- Rick Smutzer (IN), NTPEP Chairman
To Order Additional Copies

of this NTPEP Report:
call 1.202.624.3695
fax 1.202.624.5469
online www.NTPEP.org
ITEM: NTPEP 16001.2

Price per copy $2500

NTPEP 16001.2 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NTPEP 16001.2 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NTPEP 16001.2 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2006 NTPEP Report Series

NTPEP Report 16001.2

Two Year Report of Field and Laboratory

(2003 Minnesota Test Deck)

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

DOWNLOAD DATA FILES FOR THIS NTPEP REPORT @ WWW.NTPEP.org

General Facts about NTPEP Reports

Guidelines for Proper Use of NTPEP Results

Mike Rafalowski (FHWA) David Iverson (MN)

Two Year Report of Field and Laboratory Evaluations of Joint

(2003 Minnesota Test Deck)

Report and Laboratory Testing by:

© Copyright 2006, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

John Ivanov (602) 712-8205 (602) 255-8415 [email protected]

Mark Bradley (501) 569-2380 (501) 569-2070 [email protected]

Tony Sullivan (501) 569-2661 (501) 569-2014 [email protected]

Wesley S.C. Lum (916) 324-2713 (916) 324-2669 [email protected]

Gabriela Vidal (303) 757-9879 (303) 757-9219 [email protected]

Tim Aschenbrener (303) 757-9249 (303) 757-9242 [email protected]

James M. Sime, P.E. (860) 258-0309 (860) 258-0399 [email protected]

Keith R. Lane (860) 258-0371 (860) 258-0399 [email protected]

Teresa Gardner (302) 760-2515 (302) 739-8282 [email protected]

(updates found at www.ntpep.org)

Karen Byram (850) 414-4353 (850) 414-4199 [email protected]

Paul Vinik (352) 955-6654 (352) 955-6689 [email protected]

Greg Wiggins (404) 363-7632 [email protected]

Kurtis Younkin (515) 239-1184 (515) 239-1891 [email protected]

Rick Kreider (785) 296-3899 (785) 296-6665 [email protected]

Greta Smith (502) 564-3160 (502) 564-7034 [email protected]

Ross Mills (502) 564-3160 (502) 564-7034 [email protected]

Jason Davis (225) 248-4131 (225) 248-4187 [email protected]

(updates found at www.ntpep.org)

Peter Stephanos, P.E. (410) 321-3100 (410) 321-3099 [email protected]

Russell A. Yurek (410) 582-5505 (410) 582-9861 [email protected]

James McGraw (651) 779-5548 (651) 779-5616 [email protected]

John D. Vance (601) 359-7111 (601) 359-7126 [email protected]

John J. Smith (601) 359-1454 (601) 359-5918 [email protected]

Scott L. Thorson (775) 888-7567 (775) 888-7077 [email protected]

John W. Corcoran, P.E. (603) 271-2291 (603) 271-6083 [email protected]

William Real (603) 271-3151 (603) 271-8700 [email protected]

(updates found at www.ntpep.org)

Jim Curtis (518) 457-4704 (518) 457-8080 [email protected]

Orlando Picozzi, PE (518) 457-4285 (518) 457-8171 [email protected]

Jack E. Cowsert (919) 733-7088 (919) 773-8472 [email protected]

Meredith McDiarmid (919) 250-4159 (919) 250-4195 [email protected]

Lloyd M. Welker Jr. (614) 275-1351 (614) 275-1354 [email protected]

Reynolds H. Toney (405) 521-2677 (405) 522-0552 [email protected]

Mike Dunning (503) 986-3059 (503) 986-3096 [email protected]

Tim Ramirez (717) 783-6714 (717) 783-5955 [email protected]

Deborah Munroe (401) 222-3030 (401) 222-4573 [email protected]

Mark F. Felag, P.E. (401) 222-2524 [email protected]

Terry Rawls (803) 737-1498 (803) 737-0271 [email protected]

(updates found at www.ntpep.org)

Joe J. Feller (605) 773-3401 (605) 773-5867 [email protected]

John Forman (605) 773-3704 (605) 773-6600 [email protected]

Heather Hall (615) 350-4150 (615) 350-4128 [email protected]

Robert Sarcinella (512) 465-7302 (512) 465-7616 [email protected]

Scott Koczman (512) 416-2073 (512) 416-2152 [email protected]

Rukhsana Lindsey, P.E. (801) 965-4196 (801) 965-4796 [email protected]