Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 64
54
Table continued from p.53
Respondent Response
Virginia We patch delaminated epoxy membranes with new epoxy.
Washington http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/projectdev/gspspdf/5-04.3(14).opt11.bsp.gb5.pdf
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/projectdev/gspspdf/6-08.3(3).OPT1.GB6.PDF
Any torn or cut areas, or narrow overlaps, shall be patched using a satisfactory adhesive and by placing sections of the mem-
brane over the defective area in such a manner that the patch extends at least 6 in. beyond the defect. The patch shall be
rolled or firmly pressed onto the surface.
Wyoming See Question 7
Alberta No. Repair would consist of full removal of failed area and re-application conforming to specification requirements.
New Brunswick As per manufacturers recommendations
Ontario We do not have requirements for repair. Depending on the nature and severity of the deficiency, our specifications provide
for financial penalty, or removal and replacement of the membrane. See OPS 914.
Quebec No except during first installation.
11. RESEARCH
22. Has your agency used any non-destructive testing to assess the condition of the in-place waterproofing membranes?
Yes: 7 agencies
No: 23 agencies
If Yes, what method was used?
The following non-destructive test methods were reported:
· Electrical conductivity
· Ground penetrating radar
· Electrical resistivity
· Chain drag or hammer sounding
· Visual inspection
· Leak testing
Was the method reliable?
Yes: 4 agencies
No: 3 agencies
The methods identified as being reliable were chain drag or hammer sounding, visual inspection, and leak testing. The methods
identified as being unreliable were electrical conductivity, electrical resistivity, and ground penetrating radar.
23. Has your agency sponsored field studies or research on the performance of waterproofing membranes?
Yes: 7 agencies
No: 30 agencies
If reports are available, please supply a reference or source (person or website link) for further information, or a copy of the report.
The following research reports were listed:
Bridge Deck Restoration Methods and Procedures, Report No. FHWA/CA/SD-79/19.
Boisvert, D.M., Evaluation of the Bond between Barrier Membrane and Concrete Bridge Decks, Draft Report No. FHWA-NH-
RD-12323G, January 2003, Draft report was not published .
New Brunswick Reports:
2005 CON-05-1208 Audit of Bridge Deck Waterproofing Systems
2005 CON-05-1201 Review of Hot-Pour Waterproofing on Bridge Decks
