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 65
55 2002 DES-02-1172 Comparative Performance of Rosphalt 50 to Soprema Waterproofing Membrane on Kennebecasis Structures 2001 CON-01-1162 Review of Bituthene 5000 Waterproofing Membrane Installed on New Brunswick Bridge Decks--19921996 2000 MT-00-1158 Field Evaluation of Bituthene 5000 Waterproofing Membrane 2000 MT-00-1153 Field Performance Review of Various Waterproofing Membranes 1999 MT-99-1145 Field Evaluation of Colphene Self Adhesive, Waterproofing Membrane 1999 MT-99-1138 Field Evaluation of Soprema Flam Antirock Waterproofing Membrane 1992 RS-92-1028 Additional Work on Field Test IV of a Waterproofing Membrane with Asphaltic Concrete Overlay using Jiffy Seal by Protecto Wrap 1988 RS-88-1028 Field Test IV of a Waterproofing Membrane with Asphaltic Concrete Overlay using Jiffy Seal by Protecto Wrap 1987 RS-87-1019 Field Test III of Waterproofing Membrane with AC Concrete Overlay 1987 RS-87-1003 Field Test II of Waterproofing Membrane with A.C. Overlay 1987 RS-87-1002 Adhesion Test of Asphalt Over Royston Waterproofing Membrane 12. REASON FOR NONUSE 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. The following reasons were provided for not using waterproofing membranes: · Prefer to use bare concrete deck with integral wearing surface. Salt contaminated water can be trapped between the asphalt and the concrete, which then penetrates the concrete. Because the concrete surface is not visible, damage can go unnoticed until the asphalt deteriorates. By that time, the concrete damage can be serious. · Do not salt bridge decks so there is no benefit to using a waterproofing membrane. · We have very good concrete due to our good aggregates, very little freeze-thaw problems because of mild winters, and very few bridges exposed to coastal conditions. · Poor performance and accelerated deterioration occurred in the past and the use of waterproofing membranes was discontinued. · Have had very good success with concrete overlays and have not seen the need to use membranes. · Only use waterproofing membranes as a last resort to extend the rideability of a deck that is in bad shape for one to four years. · Specify permeability for our concrete bridge deck mix design and feel that this is adequate to achieve the required service life because we have limited use of de-icing salts. · Have never been convinced that a membrane/overlay system presents a better more durable, maintenance-free riding surface. · Experimented with membranes in the early 1970s and were not satisfied with the results. We prefer to use a low-slump concrete overlay or full-depth high-performance concrete deck. · Prefer to use concrete polymer overlays. · Use a bridge deck waterproofing surface course. · Only used on hollow core slabs and box beam bridges. · Cost-benefit ratio not attractive. · Too many adhesion failures in the past. · Exposed deck is preferred for inspection and maintenance. · Due to low traffic volumes and little use of de-icing salts, we obtain good performance without a membrane.
OCR for page 66
OCR for page 67
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED