Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seal No Seal Utah Workshop
Seal No Seal Utah Workshop
YOUN SU JUNG
KEIVAN NESHVADIAN
DAN ZOLLINGER
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
JANUARY 2011
Outline
Background
Seal/No Seal, Risk Perspective
Sealant Failure Modes
Evaluation of Sealant Longevity
Field Tests
Ongoing Field/Lab Tests
Test Results
Joint Design
3.2 mm to 6.4 mm
recess
width
depth
backer rod
The Concern
Joint seals are not working well enough
Not keeping the joint free of moisture
Field observations have noted the presence of water
LTPP faulting data : strong correlation to annual rainfall
Moisture
Concrete
Deterioration/Slab
edge Crack
Traffic
Spalling/
Traffic
Base Erosion
Lack of Support
Corner Breaks
Faulting
and Wisconsin
Hawaii,
Seal - No Seal
Should be an engineering risk-based decision
Cost
Benefit
Probability of failure should be defined relative to the key
factors
Key factors
Annual rainfall
Seasonal temperature changes
Traffic levels
Subbase type, strength, thickness, and stiffness
Joint stiffness
The Risk
Present sealing practices are not 100% perfect and durable
Costs associated with sealing
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Material
Labor
Construction
Repair
Traffic and Lane closure
(Shober, 1997)
This amount is for around 15 years ago and for the particular network size
The Risk
Risks of No-Seal
The Risk
Failure Mechanism
Adhesive Failure ;
Debonding of the sealant from the well
side wall (cleanliness?)
Cohesive Failure ;
Tensile failure within the sealant material
(Aging)
Sealant Failure
Slab Movement
(Traffic Load)
Surface Water
Traffic Passing
Freeze-thaw Damage
Weathering (Moisture, Sun & Solar
diffusion Energy)
Major
Factors
Traffic)
Other
Factors
20
21
No of loading Cycle
126000
125000
124000
123000
122000
121000
120000
119000
Sandblast
SandBlast + WaterBlast
SandBlast +Primer
Sealant Design
Problems with sealing narrow joints:
Shape factor and stress limits
Correct joint spacing
Unbroken transverse joints
Movable Joint
opening after debonding
Compression
Hot pour
79
100
100
19
Silicone
100
2
1/4
3/8
1/2
119
10
1/8
1/2
Debonding Sealants
Silicon
Bonded
Debonded
Hot pour
Bonded
Debonded
After debonding, tight contact allows no infiltration
Silicon
Hot-pour
Compression
Silicon
Hot-pour
Compression
Silicon
Hot pour
Compression
25 % damage
1.9
2.8
2.4
50 % damage
5.1
7.9
5.8
2 slab segment to
be anchored/tied
laterally into the
adjoining concrete
Current Joint
(No seal)
110
Movable 2 slab
segment
Double sealing
Compression
79
Hot pour
100
2
Silicone
100
2
Current Joint
(No seal)
100
100
2
2
1
10
Movable Joint
Wood Joint
Coring Location
Movable Joint
Measure
every
0.02 mm
opening
Movable Joint
0.05
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.8
6.0
Silicon
Hotpour
Compression
2.9
3.8
5.0
6.2
7.4
8.6
9.5
11.0
11.8
13.2
15.0
16.7
16.7
16.7
0.020
0.001
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.005
0.18
0.6
1.5
2.7
3.5
4.6
5.9
7.2
8.0
9.7
11.3
12.0
13.3
14.3
16.2
0.18
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.4
2.0
2.7
3.8
0.16
0.8
1.9
3.0
4.1
5.2
6.2
7.5
8.2
9.4
10.9
11.8
Silicon
Hotpour
Compression
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
5.0
6.0
No seal
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Silicon
Hotpour
Infiltration Rate
Tempo
Infiltration
RateIncreasing
vs. Sealant
TypeAlong with Joint Opening
Compression
y = 6.0x + 2.6
y = 5.2x - 19.6
y = 4.8x - 1.2
5
4
3
y = 2.5x - 2.8
2
1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
5.0
6.0
No seal
Silicon
Hot pour sealant allowed lower rates of infiltration than other sealants when
the opening of sealant is less than 1 mm
50% debonded
75% debonded
100% debonded
y = 5.4x - 2.1
12
100% debonded
10
8
6
y = 3.9x - 2.5
75% debonded
y = 2.3x - 1.7
50% debonded
y = 1.3x - 0.8
25% debonded
2
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
4.0
5.0
6
y = 1.3067x
R = 0.9868
5
4
3
2
1
0
25% debonded
50% debonded
75% debonded
100% debonded
50% debonded
75% debonded
100% debonded
16
y = 6.2x - 2.5
14
100% damage
12
10
75% damage
8
6
y = 2.4x - 0.8
y = 1.1x - 0.5
50% damage
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
4.0
5.0
7
6
5
y = 1.5714x
R = 0.6053
4
3
y = 0.0595e1.5379x
R = 0.992
2
1
0
50% debonded
75% debonded
100% debonded
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
1.0
2.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
1.0
2.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
3.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
3.0
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
Joint Opening width (mm)
3.0
Sealant
Backer rod
6 in.
Relaxation Test
54
55
Weathering Device
56
57
58
59
60
1.85 inch
158 lb
2 inch
Sample
3/8 inch
Rubber Pad
4 or 6 inch
Sealant
Backer rod
2 inch
Questions?