Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: CONCRETE: Weird Spec Citation?

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Bill,

NCHRP 244 is somewhat of a standard for performance testing for penetrating sealers. AASHTO also has a standard, but it requires abrading the surface to simulate wear. The NCHRP 244 does not require abrading. The NCHRP standard limits the intended usage for non-traffic bearing surfaces. But that does not prevent manufactures to claim effectiveness for parking surface decks which get worn over time. Currently there is no standard specifically for parking decks so the NCHRP 244 is the favorite for claiming effectiveness for penetrating sealers.

If you are specifying a sealer for a parking garage, the NCHRP 244 is considered the standard. I would also specify a Rilem tube test for the field evaluation. I can't remember what the ASTM is, but you should be able to search for it.

Regards,
Harold Sprague




From: "Polhemus, Bill" <bill.polhemus(--nospam--at)tyson.com>
Reply-To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: CONCRETE: Weird Spec Citation?
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:52:40 -0500

I came across a reference to "NCHRP 244" in an old concrete spec I'm
editing. This wasn't familiar to me so it was to Google I went.

Interestingly, lots of manufacturers of concrete sealers reference
"NCHRP 244," leading me to believe that it is used industry-wide, at
least, but none of them tell you what it is.

I finally came to the conclusion that it was a reference to a book
titled "Concrete Sealers for Protection of Bridge Structures" by Pfeifer
and Scali, published in 1981 by the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program in association with the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) and the National Research Council (ISBN 0309034094).
As old as that document obviously is, and considering that it was
apparently published by the taxpayers, I figured I could get a copy of
it from SOMEWHERE online. I was wrong. In fact, NO ONE carries it, not
even the off-the-beaten-path book resellers that lurk in the dark
corners of the 'net.
My questions are:
1) With this not being any sort of official standard, why is it
referenced so much by manufacturers of concrete sealers?
2) Are the "tests" mentioned in citing this report now existent in the
guise of some ASTM or AASHTO standard?
3) Should I just forget about it and delete the reference since I'm not
doing a bridge anyway?
Thanks for your insights.


This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, then you have received this email in error and any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of your unintended receipt by reply and then delete this email and your reply. Tyson Foods, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates will not be held liable to any person resulting from the unintended or unauthorized use of any information contained in this email or as a result of any additions or deletions of information originally contained in this email.


_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
* Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********