‘Advanced Testing and Characterization of Bituminous Materials ~ Loizos, Partl, Scarpas & Al-adi (eds) © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-55854-9. Performance evaluation of prepared gelled hot sealant in cold climates AI Al-Hadidy & Yi-giu Tan ‘School of Transportation Science and Engineering Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China ABSTRACT: In this study, three types of gelled hot applied joint sealants are produced, A series of different tests have been used in the asphalt industry according to the ASTM pro- cedures, to characterize the behavior of joint sealants. In addition, the field evaluation was performed on these sealants after 12 months and 18 months of it application in three selected sites in Heilongjiang Province located in the northern part of China. Results indicated that joint sealant complied with the requirements of ASTM D1191, D6690-06a, and D3405. The field evaluation observations revealed that starch joint sealant type 2 is a reliable material for crack treatment. The results also revealed that this sealant reduced the safe heating and appli- cation temperature by 12% and 12.5%, respectively, when compared with hot rubber asphalt crack sealant, as well as it shows resistant to fuels, most common chemicals and solvents. 1 OVERVIEW Concrete pavement joints are cracks intentionally formed in the pavement to accommodate expansion and contraction due to temperature changes. Today, 98% of the agencies building and maintaining concrete roadways, and 100% of the agencies building and maintaining con- crete airport pavements in the United States require the sealing of these joints for new pave- ments, There are two major reasons for sealing rigid pavement joints. The first is to reduce the amount of water infiltrating the pavement structure, which results in slab erosion and loss of support. The second reason is to minimize the entry of incompressible materials into the joint reservoir, resulting in point loading when slabs expand under hot temperatures and sub- sequent joint spalling damage. Another reason for sealing rigid pavement joints is to reduce the potential for dowel bar corrosion by reducing entrance of de-icing chemicals (Soliman et al., 2008; Brigitte & Nii, 2006; Donald et al., 2004; Morian & Stoffels, 1998; Lynch, 1996), The proper sealing and maintenance of concrete pavement joints thus seems to be essential for the overall performance of the rigid concrete pavement On the other hand, the spillage of petroleum based materials on HMA pavements will soften and leach away the asphalt binder. The damaged pavement will eventually require repair or replacement. HMA pavements are susceptible to damage from petroleum prod- ucts because the asphalt cement binder in the pavement is derived from the same petroleum material. These petroleum products include hydraulic fluid, motor oils, diesel, and gasoline. Spillage occurs most often in parking, maintenance, and refueling areas. Coal-tar emulsions have been historically used as a fuel resistant binder material for sealers and in some cases for the pavement itself, The major limitation in the use of coal-tar sealers has been their lack of durability, Cracking of the coal-tar sealer often occurs within a year or two after placement. These cracks eventually increase in number and size until a new sealer or other pavement rebabilitation is required. The normal useful life of a coal-tar sealer generally varies from about 2 to 5 years (James & Tere, 2007), In recent years polymer additives have been introduced as a way to improve the perform- ance of the sealers. However, in many instances these additives have not provided a signifi- cant increase in durability and more expensive. Therefore, it is important to find a way to 227select the most appropriate sealant from the host of available sealants or to prepare the cost-effectiveness and performance crack sealant for any given transverse joint system usable by any province in any climatic region including Heilongjiang especially, and at the same time must have properties that will withstand jet blast, jet fuel, hydraulic fluid, and to fuel spill- age or jet blast but will be in the other fluids as required. This would help prevent/ minimize premature sealant failures. Understanding the factors, and in what way these factors lead to sealant failures, is therefore essential for the preservation of pavement life. The results of a study reported herein provide some of this type of information for the prepared gelled hot applied sealers. However, substantial quantities of starch are potentially available widely in the world. Starch is a fine white powder mainly composed of two carbohydrate polymers, ammylose and amylopection. It characterized with low weight and is generally much cheaper (0.8 $/kg) than other conventional polymers such as polyethylene, styrene-butadiene-styrene, and polypro- pylene. Starch granule size varies from (1-100) microns in diameter and shape (James, 1980), Starch represents an ideal material for inclusion as an asphalt modifier for a number of rea- sons. Firstly, it exists as microscopic white grains that are insoluble in alcohol, ether, and cold water. Secondly, it is a highly organized mixture of two carbohydrate polymers, ammylose and amylopection. Thirdly, substantial quantities of starch are potentially available widely in the world at low cost, Finally, unlike many other materials such as used tires, starch comes from its source as a fine, free-flowing powder, which obviates any need for preprocessing the starch before mixing it into the asphalt. On the other hand, beta-hydroxytrioarboxylic (cittic) acid is a fine white powder with an average particle size of 100 mesh. Citric acid is a very use- ful and effective preservative, obtained from naturally occurring organic acids and is much cheaper than polymers such as styrene, butadiene-styrene, SBS... etc. It consists of 10 ppm heavy metal, 150 ppm sulphate, not more than 0.1 percent sulphated ash, 0.2 ppm aluminum, less than 3 ppm ash, and 350 ppm oxalate (James, 1980). These characteristics make citric acid and starch especially desirable to develop low cost-effective waterproofing materials. As a result of binder modification with starch and citric acid, the physical and chemical properties of the binder are improved. This improvement takes place because of the change in the chemical properties of the binder, There is one approach for producing starch modified asphalt. That is by blending starch into the asphalt using hot water (60 + 1°C). Starch granules when heated in water gradu- ally absorb water and swell in size, causing the mixture to thicken, With continued heating however, the swollen granule fragments become less thick, and amylose and amylopectin become soluble in the hot mixture. This process of granule swelling and fragmenting is called “gelatinization”. Because of the larger size of the swollen granules compared to the size of amylose and amylopection. The viscosity of the swollen granules mixture is much higher than the viscosity of the amylose/amylopection mixtures. In this research, it is intended to prepare the cost-effectiveness and performance hot pour gelled-asphalt crack sealant by blending starch into 20% citric acid modified asphalt with the use of a liquid blending agent. The blending is carried out with slow-speed drill and at tem- perature above about 160°C. A series of different tests according to the ASTM (2000) proce- dures have been used in the asphalt industry to characterize the behavior of joint sealant. In addition, we conducted the field study in Heilongjiang Province located in the northern part of China to evaluate the field performance of joint and crack sealants. 2 EXPERIMENTS 2.1 Material selection 70-100 asphalt binder was selected for the present study. The physical properties of asphalt cement as per ASTM (2000) are penetration: 78 dmm, and softening point: 42°C, Calcium carbonate (CaCO,) finer than 200 sieve and had specific gravity of 2.73 was used as mineral filler. Starch included in this study has a chemical formula [CH,,0 gogo, PUrity of 99.2% and contains 27.49% Amylose. It was obtained from one market in'China. Citric acid is a 228white powder material with an average particle size of 100 mesh and purity of 99.98% was used as a modifier for asphalt cement. 2.2. Preparation of starch joint sealant samples Citric acid was mixed with asphalt at 20 weight percentage for 7 minutes at a temperature of 160 + 5°C to produce an economically asphalt cement that comply with the requirements of asphalt mastic ASTM (2000). Its characteristic properties according to ASTM (2000) are: penetration at 25 and 4°C: 39 and 8 dmm, respectively, ductility: 18.181, softening point 64°C, and solubility: 99.184%, The starch joint sealant (SIS) samples were prepared in the following procedure: 207% citric acids modified asphalt that comply with the physical requirements of asphalt mastic ASTM (2000) was heated to the desired temperature in a three-neck flask provided with stirrer and contact thermometer. The temperature was held constant by an automatic control system while stirring intensively. The starch was dispersed into the citric acid modified asphalt by using hot water (60+ 1°C). The resultant asphalt was then combined with filler. The citric acid modified asphalt was treated with different percentages of starch (10, 30, and 50 wt% of virgin asphalt) and one percentage of calcium carbonate filler (125 w1% of virgin asphalt). The best results were achieved when the blending temperature was maintained above about 160°C. 23° Tests of samples A seties of tests were cartied out in the asphalt industry on SJS samples according to ASTM (2000). These tests include: Penetration before and after aging, D-5; Softening point, D-36; Flow, D-1191; Recovery before and after aging, D-5329; Flexibility, D-5329; Compatibility, D-5329; Density, D-70; Tensile adhesion, D-412 Die C; Chemical resistance, D-147 and Fuel resistance, D-3569. Descriptions of some of these tests were in the following paragraphs: 23.1 Tensile adhesion to concrete Nine specimens of each mixture were prepared to determine the tensile properties using Materials Testing System (MTS-810). Specimens were divided into three groups. The first group placed in water bath at 25°C, and then loaded at a ratio of 12.7 mm/minutes. The sec- ond group was cured in a cooling room maintaining a temperature of —19°C for more than 3h, and then loaded at a ratio of 0.05 mm/minutes. The third group was immersed in benzene solvent for 4 h, and then loaded at a ratio of 12.7 mm/minutes, and the stress and elongation values were obtained. 23.2 Chemical (Alkali and acid) resistance test ‘Two groups of starch joint sealant samples were subjected to alkali and acid resistance test in accordance with ASTM D147.The first group was placed in 40 percent NaOH at 21°C solution for 1000 h, The second group was immersed in 95 percent Hel at 21°C solution for 1000 h. After that the samples were brought to weight loss determination as designated as alkali and acid-resisting. 2.3.3 Fuel resistance test Three groups of starch joint sealant samples were tested for fuel resistance in accordance with ASTM 15329. The first group was immersed in JP-4 fuel bath at 40 + 1°C for 24 h. ‘The second group was placed in hydraulic bath at 25 + 1°C for 7-days. The third group was immersed in glycol/water (50/50) bath at 25 + 1°C for 168 h. The samples were then brought to weight loss determination as designated as fuel-resisting, 2.4 Field installation sections and evaluation procedures ‘We conducted the field study in Heilongjiang Province located in the north part of China to evaluate the field performance of joint and crack sealants. The test sections were located in an 229asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) roadways, The pavement in the test section No.1 consists of a 200 mm thick, fourteen-year old PCC on cement treated base This section is subjected to high traffic volumes of passenger cars and buses. The pavement in the test sections 2 and 3 consists of a 100 mm thick, twelve-year old wearing AC placed over a 50mm binder AC pavement on granular base. These sections are subjected to medium traffic volumes of passenger cars and buses. The total pavement width for sections 1, 2 and 3 are 15, 9.20 and 7.20 m, respectively. Figures 1-3, show the sketches of these sections The pavement in the test locations is subject to severe temperature changes. The high and low pavement design temperatures were found to be +40 and ~27°C, respectively ‘The laboratory performance of the sealants used in this study should be evaluated at these temperatures, since they represent the extreme temperatures that a sealant experiences dur- ing the year, Sealants were applied to transverse cracks of the test sections in 2007. Sealants were inspected in 2008 after 12 months, and 18 months. Inspections of transverse sealed cracks Corrosion in concrete face Figure 1, Joint sealant installation section at parking lot in Harbin airport; SIS3 type. SE SEE TY Wet-treeze ~ ree climate = 4 Figure 2. Joint sealant installation section at irregular crack of a roadway in HIT campus; SIS2 type. Adhesive failure Figure 3, Joint sealant installation section at regular crack of a roadway in HIT campus; SIS2 type. 230120 100 80 60 —e Section 1 40 eo Section 2 20 Section 3 “Transverse joint failure (%) 0 1 2 Time after sealing (Years) Figure 4, ‘Transverse joint failures from field evaluation results, were made in early spring when adhesion failures can be visually observed. Figure 4 shows the failure rates of transverse sealed joints. In addition, the following observations were made based on procedures detailed in SHRP (1999). 2.4.1 Sealant condition number A “Sealant Condition Number” (SCN) was assigned to the sealant once a year. The SCN was based upon two distress types: water infiltration and debris retention. Each distress type was rated as having no distress or low, medium or high severity distress (described below). The results of two distress ratings were inserted into the Equation 1 to provide the SCN. SCN = 1(L) +2(M) + 30D, a where SCN = sealant condition number; L = the number of low severity sealant conditions, M=the number of medium severity sealant conditions; and H = the number of high severity sealant conditions. If the sealant material has no defects, then the SCN is defined as 0, the best possible rat- ing. A SCN of 6, the worst possible rating, is obtained when both the debris retention and water infiltration are rated as high severity. The results of this observation were summarized in Table 1. 2.4.2. Water infiltration Water infiltration was measured as a percentage of the overall crack Jength where water can bypass the sealant and enter the crack either through complete adhesion or cohesion failure. Adhesion and cohesion failures were determined through the visual inspection method. The visual cracks, splits or openings in the sealant or between the sealant and asphalt or concrete were examined and the depth of the opening was determined using a thin blade spatula. The percentage of cracks that allows water infiltration was determined by the Equation 2. AL. Lf | Ltot.) +100 2 where %L = percent length of the crack allowing water infiltration; L/= total length of the crack sealant field evaluation section allowing the infiltration of water (m); and Lrot. = total length of the crack sealant field evaluation section (m).. 1f0<%L-S 1 no water infiltration; 1 <%L < 10 low severity water infiltration; 10.<%L $30 medium severity water infiltration; %L > 30% high severity water infiltration. The results of this observation were summarized in ‘Table 1 231Table 1, Field observation results. Adhesion/Cohesion/Infiltration Section Dateoftest LL, Log Le Severity SCN component 1 2008 64 64 100 High 3.0°(1) 2008 0033.0 001 No 0.01 3 2008 43 44 98 High 3.0") Stone/Debris retention SCN Section Date of test Severity component Section SCN Comments and failure reason(s) 1 2008 High 3.0%) 6.0 Cohesion failure, already this sealant type (SJS,) does not comply with the requirements and the laboratory tests confirm that 2 2008 No 00 0.01 2 Comply with the requirements and the laboratory tests confirm that ‘Adhesion failure. This sealant was installed at temperature below 23°C 3 2008 High 3.0%) 6.0 24.3 Debris or stone retention Stone or debris retention was rated as follows: No Debris Retention: No stones or debris are stuck to the top of the sealant or embedded on the surface of the sealant /hot mix asphalt (HMA) interface, Low Severity: Occasional stones and Jor debris are stuck to the top of the sealant, or debris embedded on the surface of the sealanVHMA interface. Medium Severity: Stones or debris are stuck to the sealant and some debris is deeply embedded in the sealant or material embedded between the sealant and the crack face but not entering the crack below the sealant. High Severity: A large amount of stones and debris is stuck to and deeply embedded in the sealant or filling the crack, or a considerable amount of debris is embedded between the sealant and the crack face and entering the crack below the sealant. The results of this observation are summarized in Table 1. It can be seen that section I has sustained the con- tinental climate (i. a wide temperature difference between summer and winter) and passed the requirements for field observation evaluation (i.e. SCN = 0.01, %L= 0.01, and No debris retention). Whether sections 2 and 3 failed SCN test and the reasons for failure were men- tioned in Table 1 244 Example SCN calculation Section 3 was inspected and it was noted that there was a considerable amount of debris embedded between the sealant and the crack face. Some was entering the crack below the sealant and approximately 4.3 m exhibited adhesion failure that would allow water infiltra- tion through the crack. From this information, one would calculate the total percentage of water infiltration from %L = (L,/L,,) * 100 or %L. = (4.3/4.4) « 100 = 98%, Therefore, this section would have the SCN equal to 6, which represents the worst possible rating. 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The effect of ST contents on the physiochemical and mechanical properties of the ST joint sealant is shown in Table 2 and Figure 5. To investigate the novel improvement of the properties of the SIS, the results were compared with (ASTM, 2000; SHRP, 1999; Maine, 2006; Joint sealing, 2005; Pacific, 2005). 2323.1 Physiochemical properties Examining Table 2 indicates that sample SJS, of joint sealant complies with ASTM D1191, 1D6690-06a, and D3405 requirements of hot applied joint sealant, for Portland cement con- crete and asphalt concrete pavements. However, this joint sealant sample is resistant to water, fuel, oil and most other liquids and chemicals in a range of conditions and provides a high level of sealing properties for extended periods of time. In addition, the field evaluation observations also revealed that this sealant is a reliable material for crack treatment, which is one of the most common maintenance activities performed on pavements (See Table 1). It is therefore recommended for sealing horizontal and inclined joints on highways, airport runways, bridges, driveways, and for interior uses including sealing joints in industrial floors, garage floors, and airplane hangar floor without using primer for installation. The results also revealed that SJS, reduced the safe heating and application temperature by 12% and 12.5%, respectively, when compared with hot rubber asphalt crack sealant (see Table 3). 3.2. Uniaxial tension test Tensile strength is important for joint sealants, in that greater strengths would enable the sealants to resist the thermal stresses and movements that cause cracking. Increased tensile strength is only a part of preventing this cracking; sealants that allow an increased amount of deformation before the maximum tensile strength is obtained (reduced stiffness) will also help prevent cracking from occurring The laboratory-cured samples of each sealant were evaluated with three specimens of each type in the uniaxial test. Difficulties encountered during specimen preparation and in set- ting up and testing. Table 2 shows the maximum tensile strength (stress), and deformation that were achieved during the uniaxial test for three percentages of ST-joint sealant. Table 2 includes data for each sealant evaluated, at 25°C and -19°C at 0.22 and 8.33E-04 mm/s dis- placement rate. Load versus deformation tests, when run at a constant displacement rate, provide an indication of the relative stiffness of the sealer mixtures. Mixtures that achieve their maximum tensile strength (stress) with the least amount of deformation (steeper slope) are relatively stiffer mixtures. One method of quantifying the type tensile failure that the mixtures exhibit is to determine a secant modulus for each sealant at the point of maximum strength, using Equation 3 St= TID GB) where S1 = stiffness at time ¢ (kPa); T= maximum tensile strength (maximum stress) (kPa); and D = deformation at maximum stress (mm). The lower the secant modulus, the lower the stiffness of the sealant as shown in Figure 5 From this Figure, it can be observed that the tensile strength and secant modulus for SJS, sealant sample at 25°C (water immersion) and ~19°C are 152.1 kPa and 2.6174 kPa, and 70.689 kPa and 12.763 kPa, respectively. 3.3. Field performance Sealants with good ficld performance should maintain adequate adhesion strength with pavement and have sufficient strength to resist the penetration of incompressible materials. The most severe conditions that may cause adhesion failure to sealants exist in winter at low temperatures, where sealants are subjected to high tensile stresses. On the other hand, the most severe conditions that may cause infiltration of incompressible materials to sealants exist in summer at high temperatures, where sealants become softer with warmer temperatures. Manitoba Infrastructure and Transportation (MIT) requires that the failure rate of crack sealant does not exceed 7% after one year of sealant application, and 10% after two years (Soliman et al, 2008). Sealants can be classified into three groups according to their failure rates in the field, shown in Figure 4, after one and half year: 233Table 2, Test results of gelled joint sealant samples. Property orc 25°C orc 25°C Softening point, °C 60°C Cc Before aging After aging (168 b, 70°C) Before aging After aging(168 h, 70°C) Flexibility ‘Compatibility Density, gm/em? Stress, kPa, 25°C, water immersion, 12.7 mm/minutes Elongation, %, 25 Stress, KPa, ~19°C 19°C, 0.05 mm/min. Elongation, %, -19°C, Stress, KPa, 25°C, 4 h, Fuel (Benzene) immerssion, 12.7 mm/minutes Elongation, %, 25°C, 4h Fuel (Benzene) immersion HCL, 1000 h NaOH, 1000 h 24 brs, Jp-4 immersion Hydrulic, 168 h immersion Glycol/water (50/50), 168 h immersion Safe Heating temperature, °C Recommended pouring temperature, °C Recommended extended heating Sealer type SIs, SIS, SIs, Cone penetration at: Before aging 8.0 16 4 44 33 41 After aging (168 h, 70°C) 3.0 10 18 7 37 27 63 90 98 Flow, 5 hrs, 75 41°, mm at: 43.0 0.0 00 NIA 0.621 00 Recovery, 25° 28 44 38 38 un 8 Initial ball pentretion, 25°C 50 10 6 os 53 3.0 pass pass pass Comp. Incom. _Incom. 1.7640 1.7003 1.4490 Tensile adhesion to concrete 92.413 1521 132.759 227 sell 423.0 NIA 70.689 48.966 NIA 55385 25.576 NIA 3.897 0.6897 NIA 17954 6.308, Chemical resistant, % loss NIA 0.857 1.023, NIA 0.410 0.609 Fuel resistant, Yoloss 0.6525 0.6554 0.7059 0.503 o4it 0.382 0 0 0 175 184 210 168, 15 198 sh220 minutes Specifications Bis <90 or $70 216.6 or 265.5, 10 a 8 6 4 2 o 5 . 3 8 a 8 3 6 6 Sealant type Figure 5. Secant modulus of sealer. Table 3. Starch joint sealant benefits summary. Hot rubber Benefit (% Property sis, sealant reduction) Safe heating temperature (°C) 184 206-212 12 Recommended application 75 195-200" 125 temperature (°C) “Recommended for cold climate + Group 1: good performance, percent transverse failure after one and half year less than 10%; * Group 2: satisfactory performance, percent transverse failure after one and half year from 10% to 35%; and * Group 3: poor performance, percent transverse failure after one and half year greater than 35%. A rating system was developed in SHRP project H-106 SHRP (1991) to rank sealants according to the percent of sealant failures. In this rating system, sealants were classified into five groups (from excellent to very poor performance), and a 35% failure rate was the bound- ary between fair and poor performance. The 35% failure rate was adopted in this study to distinguish between satisfactory and poor performance based on the SHRP rating system, From Figure 4, it can be seen that percent transverse failure after one and half year for sec- tions 2 (SIS, type) and 3 (SJS, type) is 0% and 87%, respectively. 2354 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION A laboratory evaluation of prepared joint and crack sealants in cold climates is performed according to ASTM test methods, which are commonly used for characterizing joint sealants ‘The results of a limited study and a field evaluation conducted in a cold climatic zone led to the following findings: 1, Penetration, softening point, percentage recovery, flexibility, compatibility and flow properties are within the ASTM D1191, D6690-06a, and D3405 specification limits when using starch as a modifier in the manufacture of gelled hot applied sealant. 2. Uniaxial tension testing showed that increasing the amount of starch in a mixture up to 30%, resulted in an increase in maximum tensile stress; decrease in secant modulus, and less brittle tensile failure. Decreased temperature resulted in decreased maximum tensile stress and increase in secant modulus for all mixtures. Penetration and flow test results indicated that the starch joint sealant provides a firm, smooth, non-tracking surface in summer and retains flexibility in winter. 4. The chemical and fuel laboratory test results showed that SIS, and SJS, conforming to the limits of Pacific Polymers International sealant commission specifications. Therefore it can be used in special paving construction such as fuel station. 5. Form field study, it was found that the percent length of the crack, sealant condition number and the percent transverse failure after one and half year for section 2 (SIS, type) are 0.01%, 0.01 and 0%, respectively. Based on SHRP rating system, it is clear that this sealant in a good performance. 6. The field observations indicated that SJS, should not be installed when temperature is below 23°C. 7. It was found in this research that 30% starch is a good content to produce gelled hot applied sealant, which is used to seal and fill cracks and joints in both asphalt and Port- land cement concrete pavements in moderate to cold climates, and the field observations insure this result. 8. Based on the laboratory tests and the field evaluation observations, SJS, sealant type is a reliable material for crack treatment. It is therefore, recommended for sealing horizontal and inclined joints on highways, airport runways, bridges , driveways, and for interior uses including sealing joints in industrial floors, garage floors, airplane hangar floor without using primer for installation. 9. SIS requires no caulking gun or special metering equipment, and blends with a slow- speed drill, and 10. SIS, reduced the safe heating and application temperature by 12% and 12.5%, respee- tively, when compared with hot rubber asphalt crack sealant. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘The authors would like to extend their appreciation to the Bituminous Laboratory/School of Transportation Science and Engincering/Harbin Institute of Technology, National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC) and the Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (RFDP) of China for technical assistance and the various companies that pro- vided materials used in this study. Special thanks go to Dr. Wu Si-gang and Jasim A.A with- out whom this study would not have been completed. REFERENCES Annual Book of ASTM Standards. 2000, Section 4, Vol. 04-03 Brigitte, O. & Nii, A. 2006. Sealing system selection for jointed concrete pavements—A review. Con- struction and Building Materials (20): 591. 602. Donald, etal. 2004. Standard practice for sealing joints and cracks in rigid and flexible pavements. Unified facilities criteria (UFC), UFC 3-250-08FA. 236James, E. & Tere, A. 2007. Material Properties of Coal-Tar Enmulsion Sealers. Mater Civil Eng. 19(4) 305-312. James, M. 1980. The albumen and salted paper book; Published by Light Impressions Corporation. Joint Sealing-Asphalt to concrete. 2005, Standard Specification of asphaltirubber joint sealant, Section 508. Lynch, L.1996 Rheological analysis of silicone pavement joint sealants. Technical rep.No. GL-96-4, US. ‘Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. Morian, D. & Stotfels,S. 1998. Joint seal practices in the United States. Transportation Research Record ‘No, 1627. Pavement and Winter Maintenance: 7-12. ‘Maine Department of Transportation, 2006. Longitudinal joint treatment. Transportation research divi- sion, technical report 00-18. Pacific Polymers International. 2005, Jet Fuel Resistant Joint Sealant, Elasto—Thane 200, Ine.12271 Mon- arch St.Garden Grove, CA92841, Technical Data, USA. SHRP. 1999. Materials and procedures for sealing and filling cracks in asphalt-surfaced pavements-manual of practice, Strategic Highway research program (SHRP). FIZWA. Report No. FHWA-RD-99-147. Soliman, et al. 2008. Performance evaluation of joint and crack sealants in cold climates using DSR and BBR tests. Mater Civil Eng. 20(7): 470-477. SHRP. 1991. Transverse joint resealing in concrete pavements: Evaluation and analysis plan. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), National Research Council: Washington, D.C. 237