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.
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 Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New York New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington Wisconsin Wyoming Canadian Provinces Alberta Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland and Labrador Nova Scotia Ontario Prince Edward Island Quebec Saskatchewan Yukon
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 agencyâs 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 manufacturerâs description. Agency Preformed Liquid Self- Adhesive Heat Applied Spray Applied Hot USA AK X â â â ID X* â â â IL X â X â KS X* â â â MO â â X â NE X X â â NJ X â X â OK X* â â â OR X â X â PA X* â â â UT â â X â Table continued on p.42
42 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 agencyâs approved products list). Agency Preformed Liquid Self- Adhesive Heat Applied Spray Applied Hot WA X* â â â Canada AB â â â X NB X X â â NL â X â X NS X â X X PE X X â X QC â X â â SK â â â X â Product not identified *May also use adhesives. 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 from p.41 Table continued on p.43
43 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 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. 42â43; QPL 2, Section A) www.tdot.state.tn.us/construction/specbook/2006_spec600.pdf (PDF pp. 194â197 or Standard Specifications pp. 521â524) 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 and Labrador http://www.iko.com/shared/commercial/chapters/7930001cMfAbridge45.pdf http://www.soprema.ca/en/content/113/anti- 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 Respondent New Bridge Decks Existing Bridge Decks Criteria 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 donât use membranes on new decks and I donât 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 from p.42 Table continued on p.44
44 Respondent New Bridge Decks Existing Bridge Decks Criteria 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 î¤ 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 âDeck Protection and Wearing Sur- faceâ 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 and Labrador Yes No Used on all new and full slab replacement projects. 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 Island Yes No All new decks shall be waterproofed unless load restrictions prohibit additional asphalt dead load on existing bridges with new decks. Table continued from p.43
45 9. What are the expected service lives in years of the waterproofing membranes that your agency has used? Pe rc en ta ge R es po ns e 10. What is the basis for the answers to the previous question? Respondent New Bridge Decks Existing Bridge Decks Basis Alaska 16 to 20 11 to 15 If properly installed, asphalt deterioration typically governs membrane service life, 10â15 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 Respondent New Bridge Decks Existing Bridge Decks Basis 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 itâs 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 2007â2008 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 12â15 years, but membrane and full-depth resur- facing not expected to be replaced until 20â25 years; built in to our asset management system. Newfoundland and Labrador 16 to 20 16 to 20 Ideally this would be the life of the asphalt pavement. Have in past year started to use 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 15â20 years. End result specification would ensure consistent quality of waterproofing. Prince Edward Island 16 to 20 6 to 10 Experience. 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. Table continued from p.45
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. Pe rc en ta ge R es po ns e 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: â¢ 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. â¢ They provide extended rideability for a deck that is in very bad shape. â¢ 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. â¢ Compatibility with asphalt temperatures.
48 â¢ Familiarity with product components. â¢ Contractor selects from the QPL. â¢ The contractor typically requests approval to use one of the approved membranes. â¢ Selection depends on where the bridge is located and safety/traffic concerns in replacing or repairing the waterproofing system. â¢ We have considered alternative systems and used them occasionally for unusual applications or on a trial basis, but the hot applied waterproofing membrane system has remained the most cost-effective for general use. â¢ Very easy to put in place with machines and well-performing membranes. 6. DESIGN DETAILS 13. Does your agency have standard details for the following: Pe rc en ta ge R es po ns e a. Installing waterproofing membranes b. Terminating edges of membranes c. Curb details for membranes d. Concrete barrier details for use with membranes e. Over construction joints f. At expansion joints If the answer to any of the above is Yes, please provide the details.
49 14. Does your agency use any of the following products in conjunction with waterproofing membranes? Pe rc en ta ge R es po ns e a. Primers applied to the concrete b. Venting layers c. Separate adhesives to bond the membrane d. Seepage layers e. Protection board f. Tack coat g. Other If the answer to any of the above is Yes, please provide any additional details about the productâs use. Respondent Detail Alaska Our standard details are per the manufacturerâs recommendations. Connecticut While we have no standard details, requirements for application, limits, and methodology are stipulated in great detail in the item specification for Membrane Waterproofing (woven glass fabric). Kansas In general, we request the contractor to provide and follow the manufacturerâs specifications. For expansion joints, we gener- ally install a plug joint type of expansion joint. This joint requires at least 2 in. of asphalt cover to work. These joints seem to perform about as long as needed to match the membrane. We have details (generally bridge-specific) and specifications. Michigan Spec Bookâhttp://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/specbook/ p. 461. New Hampshire NH does not truly have standard details. New York The Manufacturers Materials Details (approved list) offer details to address these conditions. Oregon http://oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BRIDGE/Docs/BDDM/apr-2010_finals/section_1-2004_apr10.pdf see page1-262. Pennsylvania Use the manufacturerâs details. See BCâ788M Sheet 11 ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/Bridge%20Standards/Current%20 Bridge%20Construction%20Standards/bc788m_all.pdf Tennessee Mastic is to be applied at terminating edges, curbs, and concrete barriers. An extra layer of membrane is placed over small expansion joints (not strip seals or modular joints) prior to the main membrane application. Washington Most suppliers have readily available details. Alberta Section 16 âBridge Deck Waterproofingâ of the Specifications for Bridge Construction and Standard Drawing S-1443. Manitoba See Specifications for Bridge Construction, Section 16, Standard Drawing S-1443. New Brunswick 2006 Standard Specificationsâhttp://www.gnb.ca/0113/tenders/2006-Specs-e.asp Nova Scotia http://gov.ns.ca/tran/publications/standard.pdf Division 5 Section 9
50 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: 19 agencies No: 12 agencies 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: 26 agencies No: 6 agencies 17. Does your agency have special inspection practices during installation of waterproofing membrane systems? Yes: 13 agencies No: 19 agencies Respondent Detail Alaska Use of tack coat prior to waterproofing membrane installation is per most manufacturersâ recommendations. California Install bleeder pipes on low side of deck spaced at 30-ft intervals. See specification. Connecticut Primer must meet requirements of ASTM D41 in accordance with the specification. Idaho Allow peel and stick Missouri The tack coat is used in conjunction with the asphalt wearing surface per MoDOT Standard Specifications. New Hampshire See the standard specification, 5188.8.131.52.3 for discussion of protection board. New York See installation procedures covered in each manufacturerâs materials details (approved list). Pennsylvania Primers are part of the manufacturerâs requirements South Dakota See response to Question 7. Tennessee Some products on the QPL require tack coat prior to the installation of the membrane. Utah Pre-formed roll-on membranes typically have a tack coat that holds the membrane to the deck for ease of installation and paving. Virginia The membrane is installed in accordance with VDOT specifications and manufacturerâs recommendations. Primers, adhe- sives, and tack coats are sometimes used if recommended by the manufacturer. Liquid membranes are typically epoxy and broadcast aggregate. Washington If a manufacturer recommends a primer, the contractor is required to use it. Wyoming Based on manufacturerâs recommendations with their supplied membrane. Alberta Wick drains and membrane reinforcing fabric. The requirements for these products are described in the applicable specifica- tions and on the standard drawings. Manitoba 10-mm protection board with 25-mm overlaps (longitudinally and transversely) installed between the waterproofing mem- brane and asphalt overlay. Protection board to be half sheet staggered (minimum 150 mm) at longitudinal joints in the wear- ing surface. New Brunswick Follow applicable manufacturerâs recommendations Newfoundland and Labrador Primers as per the membrane manufactureâs requirements for SBS modified thermo fusible membrane systems. Protection board is used with some systems. Nova Scotia http://gov.ns.ca/tran/publications/standard.pdf Division 5 Section 9 Ontario We use tack coat and protection board as part of our standard treatment. We may specify the use of a reinforcing membrane over deck cracks, where these are a significant issue, to help maintain continuity of the membrane. Prince Edward Island Primers can be used for peel and stick and hot applied rubberized compound applications. Weâve used protection boards with the hot applied method and we have allowed for deck drainage between layers of the membrane and asphaltic concrete overlay. Saskatchewan Tack coat and protection board used for hot applied rubber membranes is our normal practice.
51 If any answer to Questions 15, 16, or 17 is Yes, please provide the specifications or practices. Respondent Details Alaska 2004 Standard Specification for Highway Construction, Section 508 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 file_413279_148681034_2_e_b05-01-06.doc Connecticut See requirements specified under âConstruction Methodsâ for Membrane Waterproofing (woven glass fabric) in Form 816. Use following web address to access Form 816: My Documentssurveyshttp://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpublica- tions/816/012004/2004_816_original.pdf Idaho Basically must be clean. When engineer requires it: ASTM D3633 Illinois See Section 581 of the Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges Kansas We just use our general concrete patching specification and the contractor must submit and follow the manufacturerâs speci- fications and recommendations for the material they will be using. Michigan http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/specbook/files/710%20Wtrpr,%20Protective%20Covers.pdf See subsection 710.03.C Michigan Spec Book http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/specbook/ p. 461 Missouri http://www.modot.mo.gov/business/consultant_resources/documents/711-BSP-03_Waterproofing_Membrane.doc Nebraska We require manufacturerâs representative and follow their recommendations New Hampshire See specification. New Jersey As per recommendation of manufacturerâs representative. New York Our Engineering Instructions, issued with the specifications for each system type, offer guidance and the materials details of each approved system also addresses this. Oklahoma Refer to Subsection 505.04C.(1) of our standard specifications http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/c_manuals/ specbook/2009specbook.pdf Oregon http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/SPECS/2008_special_provisions.shtml Part_00500 Pennsylvania Pub 408 Section 680 Link = ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/bureaus/design/pub408/pub%20408-2011.pdf South Dakota See response to Question 7. Utah Surface preparations are the same for new decks as for existing and are covered in the our standard specificationâ07105 Waterproofing Membrane Virginia Section 416 of the Road and Bridge Specification covers these issues. The surface is typically cleaned and textured by grit blast. VDOT currently inspects most work. Washington Contractors are encouraged to use other methods to remove HMA. If rotary milling is used, 1/4-in. tooth spacing is required. Questions 15 & 16: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/projectdev/gspspdf/5-04.3.OPT3.BSP.GB5.PDF http:// www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/projectdev/gspspdf/6-08.3(2).OPT1.GB6.PDF http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publica- tions/fulltext/projectdev/gspspdf/6-08.3(4).OPT1.GB6.PDF 16. Measuring asphalt depth:http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publica- tions/fulltext/projectdev/gspspdf/5-04.3.OPT2.BSP.FB5.PDF 17. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/projectdev/ gspspdf/6-08.3(3).OPT1.GB6.PDF Wyoming See Question No. 7 Alberta Questions 15 & 16: Section 16 of the Specifications for Bridge Construction. Question 17: Monitor or inspect surface preparation, temperature of membrane, thickness of membrane, installation of pro- tection board, conformance to standard drawings and specifications. Manitoba Concrete surfaces to be shot blasted or sandblasted to expose sound, laitance free concrete and remove any materials that might adversely affect adhesion of the waterproofing membrane. New Brunswick Refer to Section 302.411.6 in Specifications Book Nova Scotia http://gov.ns.ca/tran/publications/standard.pdf Division 5 Section 13 Ontario See Specification OPS 914 Quebec Standard specification for blast cleaning and waterproofing. Specification 6752 file_413279_151817376_1_terproofing.doc
52 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. Respondent New or Existing Deck Unit Cost $/sq ft Alaska New 2.22 to 7.44 Alaska Existing 6.25 California New 2.50 to 9.61 California Existing 1.39 to 16.70 Connecticut â 1.67 to 4.22 Illinois Existing 2.46 to 9.14 Kansas Existing 7.00 Michigan Existing 5.00 Missouri New 2.22 to 3.62 New Jersey Both 1.5 to 12.00 New York â 1.49 to 11.15 Oklahoma Existing 2.18 to 3.89 Pennsylvania Existing 7.95 to 21.56 South Carolina New 9.75 to 42.80 South Dakota Existing 10.84 to 23.00 Tennessee Existing 0.56 to 1.10 Utah Both 1.50 to 10.00 Virginia Existing 3.33 Washington New 2.78 Washington Existing 1.11 to 4.22 Alberta New $C 2.51 to 6.60 Alberta Existing $C 3.25 to 8.55 New Brunswick New $C 2.14 to 3.07 New Brunswick Existing $C 2.79 Ontario Both $C 2.32 to 2.79 Prince Edward Island New $C 1.69 to 3.46 Quebec Both $C 3.72 Saskatchewan New $C 2.37 â Information not provided. 9. PERFORMANCE 19. What defects has your agency observed in the performance of waterproofing membranes on new concrete bridge decks?
53 20. What defects has your agency observed in the performance of waterproofing membranes on existing concrete bridge decks? Pe rc en ta ge R es po ns e a. Lack of adhesion between the waterproofing membrane and the concrete deck b. Lack of adhesion between the waterproofing membrane and the asphalt surface c. Punctured waterproofing membranes d. Membrane blistering e. Horizontal shear failure at the membrane f. Cracks in the waterproofing membrane g. Voids under the waterproofing membrane h. Reinforcement corrosion i. Moisture penetration through the membrane but cause unknown j. Other If Other, please describe briefly. Other defects included spalling and deterioration of the concrete deck below the membrane and insufficient thickness of materials. 10. REPAIRS 21. If your agency has requirements or specifications for repair of membrane systems, please provide details. Respondent Response Alaska When a waterproofing membrane is damaged, our procedure is to replace the entire waterproofing membrane. New Hampshire See Specification, Section 5184.108.40.206.1 New York Each manufacturer has provided guidance to repairs needed during installation of their product and how to ensure it is prop- erly performed. See Materials Details for approved systems. Tennessee We donât repair membranes. We would replace them. Utah Utah DOT follows the repair recommendations provided by the manufacturers of each system used. Table continued on p.54
54 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: â¢ Electrical conductivity â¢ Ground penetrating radar â¢ Electrical resistivity â¢ Chain drag or hammer sounding â¢ Visual inspection â¢ 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 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. Table continued from p.53
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 Decksâ1992â1996 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: â¢ 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. â¢ Do not salt bridge decks so there is no benefit to using a waterproofing membrane. â¢ 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. â¢ Poor performance and accelerated deterioration occurred in the past and the use of waterproofing membranes was discontinued. â¢ Have had very good success with concrete overlays and have not seen the need to use membranes. â¢ 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. â¢ 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. â¢ Have never been convinced that a membrane/overlay system presents a better more durable, maintenance-free riding surface. â¢ 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. â¢ Prefer to use concrete polymer overlays. â¢ Use a bridge deck waterproofing surface course. â¢ Only used on hollow core slabs and box beam bridges. â¢ Cost-benefit ratio not attractive. â¢ Too many adhesion failures in the past. â¢ Exposed deck is preferred for inspection and maintenance. â¢ Due to low traffic volumes and little use of de-icing salts, we obtain good performance without a membrane.
NEED SPINE WIDTH
92+ pages; Perfect Bind with SPINE COPY = 14 pts Waterproofing Membranes for Concrete Bridge Decks NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP SYNTHESIS 425 N CH R P SYN TH ESIS 425 W aterproofing M em branes for Concrete Bridge Decks NEED SPINE WIDTH Job No. XXXX Pantone 202 C TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 500 F ifth S treet, N .W . W ashing to n, D .C . 20001 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED TRB A Synthesis of Highway Practice