National Academies Press: OpenBook

Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks (2012)

Chapter: APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire

« Previous: APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14654.
×
Page 57

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

30 REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES 1. Hida, S., et al., Assuring Bridge Safety and Serviceability 12.Bridge Deck Waterproofing Association webpage, Crow- in Europe, Report FHWA-PL-10-04, Federal Highway thorne, U.K. [Online]. Available: www.bdwa.org.uk. Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010, 56 pp. 13.Mertz, D.R., NCHRP Report 381: Report on the 1995 2. Manning, D.G., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice Scanning Review of European Bridge Structures, 4: Concrete Bridge Durability, Transportation Research National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Board, Washington, D.C., 1996, 30 pp. 1970, 28 pp. 14.Russell, H.G., NCHRP Research Results Digest 232: 3. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal-Aid Report on the 1997 Scanning Review of Asian Bridge Highway Program Manual, Vol. 6, Chapter 7, Section 2, Structures, Transportation Research Board, National Subsection 7, Concrete Bridge Decks, Transmittal 188, Research Council, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1998, 45 pp. FHWA, Washington, D.C., Apr. 5, 1976. 15.Hearn, G., et al., Bridge Preservation and Maintenance in 4. Manning, D.G., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice Europe and South Africa, Report No. FHWA-PL-05-002, 57: Durability of Concrete Bridge Decks, Transportation Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Research Board, National Research Council, Washing- Transportation, Washington, D.C., Apr. 2005, 150 pp. ton, D.C., 1979, 61 pp. 16.Ralls, M.L., et al., Prefabricated Bridge Elements and 5.Manning, D.G., Synthesis of Highway Practice 220: Systems in Japan and Europe, FHWA, U.S. Department Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks, of Transportation, Report No. FHWA-PL-05-003, Mar. Transportation Research Board, National Research 2005, 64 pp. Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, 69 pp. 17.International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI), Guide- 6.Babaie, K. and N.M. Hawkins, NCHRP Report 297: lines for Selecting and Specifying Concrete Surface Evaluation of Bridge Deck Protective Strategies, Trans- Preparation for Sealers, Coatings, and Polymer Over- portation Research Board, National Research Council, lays, ICRI, Rosemont, Ill., 1997, 41 pp. Washington, D.C., 1987, 80 pp. 18.Sohanghpurwala, A.A., NCHRP Report 558: Manual on 7. Russell, H.G., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice Service Life of Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete 333: Concrete Bridge Deck Performance, Transportation Bridge Superstructure Elements, Transportation Research Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, D.C., 2004, 101 pp. 59 pp. 8. Kepler, J.L., D. Darwin, and C.E. Locke, Jr., Evaluation of 19.Xi, Y., N. Abu-Hejleh, A. Asiz, and A. Suwito, Perfor- Corrosion Protection Methods for Reinforced Concrete mance Evaluation of Various Corrosion Protection Sys- Highway Structures, SM Report No. 58, University of tems of Bridges in Colorado, Colorado Department of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, 2000, 222 pp. Transportation, Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2004-1, Final Report, Jan. 2004, 141 pp. 9. American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials, (AASHTO), AASHTO LRFD Bridge Con- 20.Distlehorst, J., Cost-Effective Bridge Deck Reconstruc- struction Specifications, 3rd ed., AASHTO, Washington, tion in Kansas Using High-Density Concrete Overlays D.C., 2010. and Asphalt Overlays, Report No. FHWA KS-07-4, Kan- sas Department of Transportation Bureau of Materials 10.Ontario Provincial Standard Specification, Construction and Research, Topeka, Kans., Aug. 2009. Specification for Waterproofing Bridge Decks with Hot Applied Asphalt Membrane, OPSS 914, Ontario, Canada, 21.Wojakowski, J. and M. Hossain, "Twenty-Five-Year Per- revised Nov. 2009. formance History of Interlayer Membranes on Bridge Decks in Kansas," Transportation Research Record 1476, 11.United Kingdom Department for Transport (UKDOT), Transportation Research Board, National Research Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, Volume 2, High- Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp 180­187. way Structures (Sub Structures and Special Structures), Materials, Section 3 Materials and Components Part 4, 22.Hearn, G. and Y. Xi, Service Life and Cost Comparisons BD47/99, Waterproofing and Surfacing of Concrete for Four Types of CD Bridge Decks, Report No. CDOT- Bridge Decks, UKDOT, London, 1999. 2007-2, Final Report, Colorado Department of Transpor- tation, Denver, Sep. 2007, 116 pp.

31 23.Liang, Y., W. Zhang, and Y. Xi, Strategic Evaluation of onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec022.pdf Different Topical Protection Systems for Bridge Decks [accessed June 8, 2011]. and the Associated Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Report No. CDOT-2010-6, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, 2010, 71 pp. REFERENCED STANDARDS BY ASTM INTERNATIONAL 24.Korhonen, C.J., J.S. Buska, E.R. Cortez, and A.R. Gre- C900 Standard Test Method for Pullout Strength of Hard- atorex, Procedures for the Evaluation of Sheet Membrane ened Concrete Waterproofing, Report NETCR 13, U.S. Army Corps of D5 Standard Test Method for Penetration of Bituminous Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab- Materials oratory, Hanover, N.H., 1999, 67 pp. (Also published as CRREL Special Report 99-11.) D36/D36M Standard Test Method for Softening Point of Bitumen (Ring-and-Ball Apparatus) 25.European Organisation for Technical Approvals (EOTA), Determination of the Resistance to the Passage of Chlo- D41/D41M Standard Specification for Asphalt Primer Used ride Ions through Waterproofing Layer Subjected to in Roofing, Dampproofing, and Waterproofing Indentation by Aggregate, European Organisation for D146 Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Bitu- Technical Approvals, Report No. TR 022, Nov. 2007, 9 pp. men-Saturated Felts and Woven Fabrics for Roofing and 26.McKeel, W.T., A Commentary on the Implementation of Waterproofing Virginia Test Method Number 39, Electrical Resistivity D173 Standard Specification for Bitumen-Saturated Cotton Testing of Waterproof Membranes, Report No. VHTRC Fabrics Used in Roofing and Waterproofing 76-R57, Virginia Highway & Transportation Research Council, May 1976, 11 pp., plus appendices. D449 Standard Specification for Asphalt Used in Damp- proofing and Waterproofing 27.Morey, R.M., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 255: Ground Penetrating Radar for Evaluating Subsur- D517 Standard Specification for Asphalt Plank face Conditions for Transportation Facilities, National D882 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Thin Research Council, Transportation Research Board, Plastic Sheeting Washington, D.C., 1998, 37 pp. D1228 (Withdrawn Standard) Methods of Testing Asphalt 28.Stimolo, M., "Practical Utilization of Thermography in Insulating Siding Surfaced with Mineral Granules (With- Road Construction and in Waterproofing Systems," The drawn 1982) International Society for Optical Engineering (SPIE) Proceedings, Vol. 4710, 2002, pp. 299­306. D1668 Standard Specification for Glass Fabrics (Woven and Treated) for Roofing and Waterproofing 29.ACI Committee 228, Non-destructive Test Methods for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures (ACI 228.2R-98), D1777 Standard Test Method for Thickness of Textile Materials American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., D3236 Standard Test Method for Apparent Viscosity of Hot 1998, 59 pp. Melt Adhesives and Coating Materials 30.LCPC, Non-Destructive Testing in LCPC, An Overview, D3515 (Historical Standard) Standard Specification for Hot- Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, Apr. Mixed, Hot-Laid Bituminous Paving Mixtures (D3515 2008. [Online]. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/ does not appear to be the correct number for this AAS- onlinepubs/shrp2/tra_2008_oa07_bis_modified.pdf HTO specification.) [accessed June 8, 2011]. D3633 Standard Test Method for Electrical Resistivity of 31.Boisvert, D.M., Evaluation of the Bond between Barrier Membrane-Pavement Systems Membrane and Concrete Bridge Decks, Draft Report No. FHWA-NH-RD-12323G, New Hampshire Department of D4071 Standard Practice for Use of Portland Cement Con- Transportation, Concord, 2003, unpublished. crete Bridge Deck Water Barrier Membrane System 32.Martinelli, P., Bridge Deck Waterproofing Membrane Eval- D4541 Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coat- uation, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public ings Using Portable Adhesion Testers Facilities, Report No. AK-RD-96-04, Sep. 1996, 69 pp. D4632 Standard Test Method for Grab Breaking Load and 33.Transportation Research Circular E-C-022: Mainte- Elongation of Geotextiles nance Research Master Planning Workshop, Transporta- D4787 Standard Practice for Continuity Verification of Liq- tion Research Board of the National Academies, uid or Sheet Linings Applied to Concrete Substrates Washington, D.C., Nov. 2000 [Online]. Available: http://

32 D6153 Standard Specification for Materials for Bridge Deck E96/E96M Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Trans- Waterproofing Membrane Systems mission of Materials D6690 Standard Specification for Joint and Crack Sealants, E154 Standard Test Method for Water Vapor Retarders Used Hot Applied, for Concrete and Asphalt Pavements in Contact with Earth Under Concrete Slabs, on Walls, or as Ground Cover

33 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire The following survey for this synthesis was mailed in January 2011 to 50 U.S. state highway agencies, the District of Columbia, and 13 provincial and territorial highway agencies in Canada to collect information about the use of waterproofing membranes on concrete bridge decks. A total of 51 responses were received, including 18 from agencies that have not used waterproofing membranes since 1994. Synthesis Survey Topic 42-07 Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks 1. INTRODUCTION Dear Bridge Engineer: The Transportation Research Board (TRB) through its National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is preparing a syn- thesis on Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks. This is being done under the sponsorship of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The objective of this study is to compile and synthesize current practices, recent literature findings, and research-in-progress addressing the subject topic. The results of this study will be distributed through AASHTO, TRB, and FHWA in late 2011. This survey is being sent to U.S. state departments of transportation and Canadian provincial and territorial transportation agencies. If you are not the appropriate person at your agency to complete the survey, please forward it to the correct person. Please note that each section can be answered by a different person; however, only one person can work on the survey at a time (see questionnaire instructions below). Your agency's response to the survey is extremely important to this study. If your agency has not installed waterproofing membranes since 1994, there are only two questions to answer. If your agency has installed membranes, there are questions related to design, construc- tion, inspection, maintenance, and research. Please complete and submit this survey by February 11, 2011. We estimate that it should take no more than 60 minutes to complete. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our principal investigator Henry Russell at henry@hgrconcrete.com or 847-998- 9137. Supporting materials can be uploaded directly into the questionnaire, or you may e-mail them directly to Henry Russell or provide him with the appropriate links. Thank you very much for contributing to this synthesis of highway practice. KEY DEFINITION: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY, A WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE IS DEFINED AS A THIN IMPERMEABLE LAYER THAT IS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOT MIX ASPHALT WEARING SURFACE. Please enter the date (MM/DD/YYY). _____________________________________ Please enter your contact information.______________________________________ First Name ___________________________________________________________ Last Name ___________________________________________________________ Title ________________________________________________________________ Agency/Organization __________________________________________________ Street Address ________________________________________________________ Suite ________________________________________________________________ City _________________________________________________________________

34 State ________________________________________________________________ Zip/Postal Code _______________________________________________________ Country _____________________________________________________________ E-mail Address _______________________________________________________ Phone Number ________________________________________________________ Fax Number __________________________________________________________ Mobile Phone _________________________________________________________ URL ________________________________________________________________ 2. USAGE 1. Has your agency installed waterproofing membranes on concrete bridge decks since 1994? ( ) Yes ( ) No. Click on Next Page at the bottom and it will take you to the final question and then submit survey. 2. How many of these installations were on new concrete bridge decks or existing concrete bridge decks? New concrete bridge decks (including replacement bridge decks on old beams) ___________________________________ Existing concrete bridge decks ___________________________________________ 3. Does your agency continue to specify the use of waterproofing membranes for new concrete bridge decks? ( ) Yes ( ) No 4. Does your agency continue to specify the use of waterproofing membranes for existing concrete bridge decks? ( ) Yes ( ) No 5. Is your agency's use of waterproofing membranes? ( ) Increasing ( ) Decreasing ( ) About the same 3. PRODUCTS 6. Please list the commercial names and company names of waterproofing membrane systems used since 1994. Please indicate if they were used on new bridge decks, existing bridge decks, or both, if any of these were experimental, and how long they lasted. (Note: If the level of detail requested is not available, please attach a link to your agency's approved products list in the box provided in question #7.) 4. SPECIFICATIONS 7. Please provide any link(s) to document(s) describing the material and construction specifications for waterproofing membranes used by your agency (e.g., your agency's approved products list). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

35 or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25 (e.g., you agencies approved products list). 5. CRITERIA 8. Does your agency have criteria for when waterproofing membranes are used? Yes No New Bridge Decks Existing Bridge Decks If the answer to either of the above is Yes, please provide the criteria. This information may be submitted in the box below as a written description or link(s) to document(s). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25. 9. What are the expected service lives in years of the waterproofing membranes that your agency has used? 0 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 > 25 New Bridge Decks Existing Bridge Decks 10. What is the basis for the answers to the previous question? ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 11. Does your agency have specific reasons for selecting a particular membrane system? ( ) Yes. Go to Question 12. ( ) No. Click on Next Page at the bottom and it will take you to Question 13. 12. Please identify the reasons for selecting a particular membrane system. [ ] Cost [ ] Speed of installation [ ] Staged construction options [ ] Surface preparation [ ] Track record of previous installations [ ] Desired service life [ ] Availability [ ] Coordination requirements [ ] Product support [ ] Other If other, please describe briefly. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________

36 6. DESIGN DETAILS 13. Does your agency have standard details for the following: YesNo Installing waterproofing membranes Terminating edges of membranes Curb details for membranes Concrete barrier details for use with membranes Over construction joints At expansion joints If the answer to any of the above is Yes, please provide the details. This information may be submitted in the box below as a written description or link(s) to document(s). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25. 14. Does your agency use any of the following products in conjunction with waterproofing membranes? Yes No Primers applied to the concrete Venting layers Separate adhesives to bond the membrane Seepage layers Protection board Tack coat Other If the answer to any of the above is Yes, please provide any additional details about the product's use. This information may be submitted in the box below as a written description or link(s) to document(s). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25. 7. CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION 15. Does your agency have specifications for the surface preparation of new concrete bridge decks prior to the application of the water- proofing membrane system? ( ) Yes ( ) No 16. Does your agency have specifications for the surface preparation of existing concrete bridge decks prior to the application of the waterproofing membrane system? ( ) Yes ( ) No

37 17. Does your agency have special inspection practices during installation of waterproofing membrane systems? ( ) Yes ( ) No If any answer to Questions 15, 16, or 17 is Yes, please provide the specifications or practices. This information may be submitted in the box below as a written description or link(s) to document(s). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25. 8. COSTS 18. If available, please provide the unit cost (labor, equipment, and materials) for the waterproofing membrane system only for each project during the past five years. Please list as many as possible. Project Unit Cost, New or Name $/sq ft Existing Deck 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9. PERFORMANCE 19. What defects has your agency observed in the performance of waterproofing membranes on new concrete bridge decks? YesNo Lack of adhesion between the waterproofing membrane and the concrete deck Lack of adhesion between the waterproofing membrane and the asphalt surface Punctured waterproofing membranes Membrane blistering Horizontal shear failure at the membrane Cracks in the waterproofing membrane Voids under the waterproofing membrane Reinforcement corrosion Moisture penetration through the membrane but cause unknown Other

38 If Other, please describe briefly. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 20. What defects has your agency observed in the performance of waterproofing membranes on existing concrete bridge decks? YesNo Lack of adhesion between the waterproofing membrane and the concrete deck Lack of adhesion between the waterproofing membrane and the asphalt surface Punctured waterproofing membranes Membrane blistering Horizontal shear failure at the membrane Cracks in the waterproofing membrane Voids under the waterproofing membrane Reinforcement corrosion Moisture penetration through the membrane but cause unknown Other If Other, please describe briefly. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 10. REPAIRS 21. If your agency has requirements or specifications for repair of membrane systems, please provide details. This information may be submitted in the box below as a written description or link(s) to document(s). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25. 11. RESEARCH 22. Has your agency used any non-destructive testing to assess the condition of the in-place waterproofing membranes? ( ) Yes ( ) No If Yes, what method was used? This information may be submitted in the box below as a written description or link(s) to document(s). ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25. Was the method reliable? ( ) Yes ( ) No

39 23. Has your agency sponsored field studies or research on the performance of waterproofing membranes? ( ) Yes ( ) No If reports are available, please supply a reference or source (person or website link) for further information, or a copy of the report. File(s) may be uploaded in Question 25. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ 12. REASON FOR NON-USE 24. If your agency has not used or has discontinued the use of waterproofing membranes since 1994, please explain why and include details of unsuccessful experiences and reasons, if applicable. ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ or upload as a file (up to 1MB per file). Additional files may be uploaded in Question 25. 13. UPLOAD FILES 25. This question may be used to upload any additional relevant files not uploaded in previous questions (up to 1 MB per file). 14. PRINTOUT Here are your complete responses to date. You may print this page using `control p.' If you wish to change responses before submitting the survey, you may do so by paging back. Thank You! You have now completed this questionnaire. We appreciate your assistance.

40 APPENDIX B Summary of Responses to Survey Questionnaire 1. INTRODUCTION Responses to the survey were received from the following U.S. highway agencies and Canadian Provinces: U.S. States Nevada Ontario Alaska New Hampshire Prince Edward Island Arizona New Jersey Quebec Arkansas New York Saskatchewan California New Mexico Yukon Colorado North Carolina Connecticut North Dakota Delaware Oklahoma District of Columbia Oregon Florida Pennsylvania Georgia South Carolina Hawaii South Dakota Idaho Tennessee Illinois Texas Indiana Utah Iowa Virginia Kansas Washington Kentucky Wisconsin Louisiana Wyoming Maryland Canadian Provinces Michigan Alberta Minnesota Manitoba Mississippi New Brunswick Missouri Newfoundland and Labrador Nebraska Nova Scotia

41 Responses to the survey questionnaire are summarized in tables and graphs on the following pages. Some of the responses contain long website addresses. This report is available in PDF format from the NCHRP website. The addresses in the PDF version may be used as direct links or cut and pasted into a web browser. 2. USAGE 1. Has your agency installed waterproofing membranes on concrete bridge decks since 1994? Yes: 34 agencies No: 19 agencies 2. How many of these installations were on new concrete bridge decks or existing concrete bridge decks? New bridge decks: Answers ranged from 4 to over 500. Existing bridge decks: Answers ranged from 1 to over 500. 3. Does your agency continue to specify the use of waterproofing membranes for new concrete bridge decks? Yes: 20 agencies No: 14 agencies 4. Does your agency continue to specify the use of waterproofing membranes for existing concrete bridge decks? Yes: 27 agencies No: 7 agencies 5. Is your agency's use of waterproofing membranes? Increasing: 3 agencies Decreasing: 7 agencies About the same: 24 agencies 3. PRODUCTS 6. Please list the commercial names and company names of waterproofing membrane systems used since 1994. Please indicate if they were used on new bridge decks, existing bridge decks, or both, if any of these were experimental, and how long they lasted. The following information was determined from the product names and the manufacturer's description. Preformed Liquid Agency Self- Adhesive Heat Applied Spray Applied Hot USA AK X -- -- -- ID X* -- -- -- IL X -- X -- KS X* -- -- -- MO -- -- X -- NE X X -- -- NJ X -- X -- OK X* -- -- -- OR X -- X -- PA X* -- -- -- UT -- -- X -- Table continued on p.42

42 Table continued from p.41 Preformed Liquid Agency Self- Adhesive Heat Applied Spray Applied Hot WA X* -- -- -- Canada AB -- -- -- X NB X X -- -- NL -- X -- X NS X -- X X PE X X -- X QC -- X -- -- SK -- -- -- X -- Product not identified *May also use adhesives. 4. SPECIFICATIONS 7. Please provide any link(s) to document(s) describing the material and construction specifications for waterproofing membranes used by your agency (e.g., your agency's approved products list). Respondent Website Address Alaska Qualified Products List (QPL) at http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/desmaterials/qpl_intro.shtml 2004 Standard Specifications for Highway Construction http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsspecs/resources.shtml# California Deck Seal: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/specifications/SSPs/2006-SSPs/Sec_10/49-59/54-120_E_B11-16-07.doc Slurry Leveling Course: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/specifications/SSPs/2006-SSPs/Sec_10/49-59/54-150_E_B05-01- 06.doc Colorado http://apps.coloradodot.info/apl/SearchRpt.cfm?cid=3&scid=36&bcid=18 Connecticut Approved products list at: http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpublications/816/012004/2004_816_original.pdf See Division II, Section 7.07 and Division III Section M12.04 for specifications pertaining to Membrane Waterproofing (Woven Glass Fabric) Illinois http://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/spec2007/div500.pdf. See Section 581. Michigan Qualified Products List (section 914.11): http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDOT-Material_Source_Guide_Qualified_ Products_84764_7.pdf QPL qualification procedure (Section 914.11): http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_MQAP_Manual_7_ Section_F_307114_7.pdf Construction specifications: http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/specbook/ See subsection 710 Missouri http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/consultant_resources/documents/711-BSP-03_Waterproofing_Membrane.doc http:// www.modot.mo.gov/business/materials/pdf/PAL/Hot%20Pour%20Joint%20Material.pdf New Hampshire Qualified Products List: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/materials/research/documents/qpl.pdf. See Section 538 Products. Construction Specifications: http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/highwaydesign/specifications/documents/2010_Spec_Book.pdf. See Section 538. New York https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.EI_EB_DOC_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=doc_id&p_arg_val- ues=6637 https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/pls/portal/MEXIS_APP.EI_EB_DOC_DETAILS.show?p_arg_names=doc_id&p_ arg_values=6579 https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/technical-services-respository/alme/con_ wat.html Oklahoma http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/c_manuals/specbook/oe_ss_2009.pdf. Overlays are covered in Section 505 including asphalt membrane overlays. Membrane materials are covered in Section 712.09 (nonwoven). Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/CONSTRUCTION/QPL/Docs/QPL.pdf http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ SPECS/docs/08book/08_00500.pdf Table continued on p.43

43 Table continued from p.42 Respondent Website Address South Carolina http://www.scdot.org/doing/standardspecifications/pdfs/2007_full_specbook.pdf. Refer to subsection 814 http://www.scdot.org/doing/constructiondocs/pdfs/materials/070515%20qpp%2010.pdf for policy http://www.scdot.org/doing/constructiondocs/pdfs/materials/070515%20QPL%209.pdf for list Tennessee www.tdot.state.tn.us/materials/reseval/docs/qualprodlist.pdf (pp. 42­43; QPL 2, Section A) www.tdot.state.tn.us/construction/specbook/2006_spec600.pdf (PDF pp. 194­197 or Standard Specifications pp. 521­524) Utah www.udot.utah.gov. Specification No. 07105 Waterproofing Membrane Virginia www.virginiadot.org/business/const/spec-default.asp Washington http://www/wsdot.wa.gov/Design/ProjectDev/GSPAmendments.htm Material General Special Provision (GSP) 6-08.2(9- 11.2).OPT1.GB6 Wyoming See SS-500C at http://www.dot.state.wy.us/wydot/engineering_technical_programs/manuals_publications/standard_specifications/2003_ supplemental_specifications Alberta Construction Specifications: www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType246/Production/07bcs16.pdf Drawing: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/doctype30/production/S1443-98-rev7.pdf Manitoba Standard Construction Specifications: http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/contracts/manual.html (currently being updated) Approved Products List: http://www.gov.mb.ca/mit/mateng/index.html New Brunswick 2006 Standard Specifications: http://www.gnb.ca/0113/tenders/2006-Specs-e.asp Summary of revisions in 2011: http://www.gnb.ca/0113/publications/2011_Summary_of_Revisions-e.pdf Newfoundland http://www.iko.com/shared/commercial/chapters/7930001cMfAbridge45.pdf http://www.soprema.ca/en/content/113/anti- and Labrador rock-membranes.aspx Nova Scotia http://gov.ns.ca/tran/publications/standard.pdf Division 5 Section 9 Ontario Waterproofing membrane: http://www.roadauthority.com/mpl/mplListVersion. asp?MPICatId=7917BE45-79CB-4CB5-86BD-0CE9204B7EA0 Protection board: http://www.roadauthority.com/mpl/mplListVersion. asp?MPICatId=49C888F0-499F-48ED-9DA2-C9120CFF6063 5. CRITERIA 8. Does your agency have criteria for when waterproofing membranes are used? Yes No New Bridge Decks 17 15 Existing Bridge Decks 20 13 If the answer to either of the above is Yes, please provide the criteria. Respondent New Bridge Existing Criteria Decks Bridge Decks Alaska Yes Yes If an asphalt overlay is used, a waterproofing membrane is specified where possible. California Yes Yes In freeze-thaw areas only under the following circumstances: Used on sidehill viaducts. Used to avoid a drastic profile change when there is a thick AC overlay on an existing bridge deck that requires replacement. Connecticut Yes Yes Most bridges in Connecticut are constructed with membranes and bituminous concrete overlays. Idaho Yes Yes Depends upon what we are trying to achieve. Illinois No Yes Not allowed anymore on interstate bridge unless replacing in-kind, not to be used on bridges with ADTs over 10,000. Kansas No Yes We don't use membranes on new decks and I don't think we are going to do so anytime soon. When we have a bridge that has a bad deck that should either be re-decked or the entire bridge replaced and no available funds are currently available, we consider placing a waterproofing membrane with a 2-in. thick asphalt wearing surface as cover to maintain rideability. Of the 30 we have placed since 1994, 25 are currently in place and the other 5 were on bridges that have since been replaced or re-decked. Table continued on p.44

44 Table continued from p.43 Respondent New Bridge Existing Criteria Decks Bridge Decks Michigan No Yes When deck surface has more than 10% deficiencies and deck underside has more than 10% deficiencies and we need to extend the life of the deck by no more than 10 years. See the Deck Preservation Matrix for more detail at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/ MDOT_BridgeDeckMatrix_182438_7.pdf Spec Book http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/ public/specbook/ pg 461. Missouri Yes No Waterproofing membranes are currently used only for new construction using adjacent box beams or cored slabs that utilize an asphalt wearing surface. These bridges are constructed on roads with ADT < 1,000. MoDOT has increased its use of this structure type since 2009 as part of an initiative to improve rural bridges, many of which have ADT < 1,000. As such, MoDOT does not have a long track record with membranes. MoDOT has not con- structed membranes on concrete bridge decks since the 1994 cutoff date for this survey. Nebraska Yes Used on deteriorated decks with NBIS condition 5 when the chloride content is mini- mum and asphalt overlay is practical. New Hampshire No No We use them as standard practice. Oregon Yes Yes http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BRIDGE/docs/BDDM/apr-2010_finals/sec- tion_1-2004_apr10.pdf Pennsylvania No Yes Pub. 15 M Design Manual 4 - Part A Section 5.5.2 pg A.5-25 and 5.6 pg A.5-60 Link = ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%2015M.pdf South Carolina Yes No Waterproofing membranes for cored slab spans. South Dakota Yes Yes Waterproofing membranes are typically not used on new bridge decks. There was a pair of decks on the interstate where subsurface soils were causing approach roadway rideability problems. In that case, an asphalt overlay was placed on the new bridge decks to provide options for future profile adjustments to maintain a smooth ride. Waterproofing membranes with asphalt overlays are typically used on bridges/decks nearing the end of their service life. The asphalt overlay in that case serves as a good riding wearing course and provides some additional load distribution and buffering to the deteriorated concrete slab underneath. In these cases, the bridge/deck is expected to be replaced in 10 to 15 years following the overlay. Tennessee No Yes All resurfacing projects where bridge deck repairs are needed as a cost-effective way of waterproofing the repaired bridge deck. Utah No Yes Waterproofing membranes are standard practice when applying asphalt wearing surfaces on any existing deck. The combination of membrane and asphalt overlay usually occurs when a deck requires pothole patching. Virginia Yes Yes Asphalt overlay is to be placed on the deck. Washington Yes Yes All existing structures with asphalt and in the rare cases where asphalt is specified for new structures. Alberta Yes Yes 1. All new bridges with cast-in-place decks. Section 17 "Deck Protection and Wearing Sur- face" of the Bridge Structure Design Criteria. 2. For all existing bridge decks when addi- tional dead load imposed can be accommodated. New Brunswick Yes Yes All concrete decks are to be protected by a waterproofing system. Newfoundland Yes No Used on all new and full slab replacement projects. and Labrador Ontario Yes Yes Waterproofing membranes are used on all new and existing decks, as a standard policy. Membranes on existing decks are removed and replaced periodically to maintain deck protection. Prince Edward Yes No All new decks shall be waterproofed unless load restrictions prohibit additional asphalt Island dead load on existing bridges with new decks.

45 9. What are the expected service lives in years of the waterproofing membranes that your agency has used? Percentage Response 10. What is the basis for the answers to the previous question? Respondent New Bridge Existing Basis Decks Bridge Decks Alaska 16 to 20 11 to 15 If properly installed, asphalt deterioration typically governs membrane service life, 10­15 years. On new bridges, a 4-in.-thick overlay is typically used and may extend the service life, whereas on existing bridges less than 4-in. thick may be provided depending on the load rating, which may reduce the service life. Further, existing bridges may have deck damage that may also reduce the expected service life. California 6 to 10 6 to 10 Expected life of an AC overlay in a freeze-thaw area. Connecticut 16 to 20 16 to 20 The membrane will typically last approximately two paving cycles of about 10 years each on heavily travelled roadways. A partial depth milling, leaving the membrane intact and repaving is done at the end of the first overlay cycle. The membrane and overlay are typi- cally removed and replaced in whole at the end of the second paving cycle. Idaho 6 to 15 6 to 15 Experience. Illinois 11 to 15 11 to 15 Past experience. The membrane only lasts as long as the bituminous wearing surface on top of it. Kansas 0 to 5 Past performance and the condition of the existing deck that we are covering. We have only used waterproofing membranes as a last resort. They provide extended rideability for a deck that is in very bad shape. Usually in these situations, some full depth patches have to be completed before placement to prevent holes from developing. The plan is usually to extend the deck life for one to four years until funds become available for either a deck or bridge replacement. We have seen them perform for as long as 10 years. When one goes bad, the deteriorated condition of the covered concrete can accelerate. They trap water as well as they stop it when falling. Michigan 6 to 10 The Deck Preservation Matrix referenced in the answer to Question 8. The expected ser- vice life varies based on the initial deck condition. Experience. Missouri 16 to 20 It is anticipated the membrane will last as long as the asphalt it is beneath. Table continued on p.46

46 Table continued from p.45 Respondent New Bridge Existing Basis Decks Bridge Decks Nebraska 11 to 15 We use asphalt overlay when the life of the deck is near its end and we need to extend the life of the deck by 10 to 15 years before redecking the bridge or major deck rehabilitation with structural overlay such as silica fume. Asphalt life is about 10 to15 years. So we expect the life of the membrane to exceed the life of the asphalt. Our experience tells us it's hard to replace the asphalt overlay without damaging the membrane. New Hampshire 11 to 15 11 to 15 This is an estimation, as we do not have any with 15 years of service life yet. The basis (optimism) for this answer is that we frequently had good luck with peel-and-stick, although some of those debonded. The bond with the torch applied is superior, since the liquid asphalt is worked into the concrete surface. New Mexico 0 to 5 0 to 5 From talking with the districts that have used them. Their experience has been that they do not work well. New York Depends on the condition of the existing deck and the overlay placed. Membranes will last as long as both are performing. Oklahoma 16 to 20 6 to 10 Approximations based on visual observation. Oregon 16 to 20 16 to 20 We have no basis except anecdotal observations. The range given is about the longest we have seen them be effective. We have seen a few that have been improperly installed that are not effective for even a couple of years. We now require a performance test after instal- lation to show they are at least effective immediately after construction. Pennsylvania > 25 Research report that an estimated life is 40 years or more. South Dakota 16 to 20 11 to 15 Experience. Tennessee 6 to 10 Life expectancy of asphalt. Texas 11 to 15 The surface treatments are applied when the deck has lost its skid numbers. Also, surface treatments are applied to bridge decks when the approach roadways are being surface treated and asphalt overlaid. Utah 6 to 10 6 to 10 Our membranes usually only last about the life of the asphalt applied, which is on average 8-10 years. We applied a few spray-applied waterproofing membranes in 2007­2008 on a trial basis. These products have warranties for the life of the bridge, but we are too early in the evaluation to make a judgment on their performance and durability. Virginia 16 to 20 16 to 20 The asphalt surface mix will last approximately 10 years and the base mix will last at least 20 years. Resurfacing at 10 years without damaging the membrane gives a 20 year life. The membrane can last 20 to 30 years so a life > 25 years is possible, but I would use 20 years for design and LCC analysis unless we have better data to indicate a longer life. Washington 21 to 25 21 to 25 Performance of membranes has yet to be proven. WSDOT assumes a reasonable perfor- mance through one paving cycle of 20 to 25 years. WSDOT also has a method of data col- lection to measure the performance of membrane systems, but the results will not be avail- able for many years. Wyoming 11 to 15 Experience, typical life for an overlay on a bridge deck. Alberta > 25 > 25 Waterproofing membrane has been used by Alberta Transportation for over 25 years with very good performance. Manitoba 16 to 20 16 to 20 Expected service lives are based on the anticipated life expectancy and effectiveness of the waterproofing membrane. MIT is beginning to move away from waterproofing membranes and asphalt overlay systems to exposed concrete decks on our bridges due to deck perfor- mance enhancements realized by using fibre-reinforced concrete. Ancillary benefits are reduced dead load and/or increased structural capacity of the deck and better long-term per- formance of the riding surface (less rutting in wheel paths and potholes at joints). New Brunswick 21 to 25 21 to 25 Deck surface partially milled and resurfaced at 12­15 years, but membrane and full-depth resur- facing not expected to be replaced until 20­25 years; built in to our asset management system. Newfoundland 16 to 20 16 to 20 Ideally this would be the life of the asphalt pavement. Have in past year started to use and Labrador greater asphalt thickness on decks. This might allow for rehabilitation of asphalt surface without damaging waterproofing system. Nova Scotia 16 to 20 11 to 15 Experience has shown these products tend to last in our climate with our traffic loadings. Ontario > 25 > 25 An internal study was carried out, examining decks up to 17 years old, which confirmed the effective functioning of the membranes and resulted in an estimated service life of more than 25 years. We have done chloride tests to verify performance after 15­20 years. End result specification would ensure consistent quality of waterproofing. Prince Edward 16 to 20 6 to 10 Experience. Island Quebec 16 to 20 16 to 20 Experience. Saskatchewan 16 to 20 16 to 20 Historically removed waterproofing that was 17 to 20 years old that was in good condition.

47 11. Does your agency have specific reasons for selecting a particular membrane system Yes: 22 agencies No: 9 agencies 12. Please identify the reasons for selecting a particular membrane system. Percentage Response a.Cost b. Speed of installation c. Staged construction options d. Surface preparation e. Track record of previous installations f. Desired service life g. Availability h. Coordination requirements i. Product support j. Other If other, please describe briefly. Other reasons given were as follows: · Waterproofing membranes that were observed to have a significantly reduced service life were eliminated from use. Waterproofing membranes that were observed to have a significantly longer service life were permitted for use on more projects. Ease of instal- lation and speed of installation were also criteria given our short construction season, but were of less concern than service life and proven installations. · They provide extended rideability for a deck that is in very bad shape. · We have spray applied and sheet applied systems. The sprays applied are more expensive and tend to be better performing in difficult or high risk decks; i.e., with environmental concerns. · Compatibility with asphalt temperatures.

Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 425: Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks documents information on materials, specification requirements, design details, application methods, system performance, and costs of waterproofing membranes used on new and existing bridge decks since 1995.

The synthesis focuses on North American practices with some information provided about systems used in Europe and Asia.

NCHRP Synthesis 425 is an update to NCHRP Synthesis 220: Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks that was published in 1995.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!