Evaluation of Penetrating Sealers for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks

Evaluation of Penetrating Sealers for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks

An evaluation of sealers based on eight sets of laboratory tests was done. Five concrete sealer treatments were studied: D335, DCS, SS, R7, and CT40. These sealers were evaluated for three groups of concrete mixes: normal, fly ash, and old concrete. There were also control specimens that did not use...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Transportation research record 2009, Vol.2108 (1), p.86-96
Hauptverfasser: Mamaghani, Iraj H. P., Moretti, C., Dockter, B. A., Falken, L., Tonnenson, J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 96
container_issue 1
container_start_page 86
container_title Transportation research record
container_volume 2108
creator Mamaghani, Iraj H. P.
Moretti, C.
Dockter, B. A.
Falken, L.
Tonnenson, J.
description An evaluation of sealers based on eight sets of laboratory tests was done. Five concrete sealer treatments were studied: D335, DCS, SS, R7, and CT40. These sealers were evaluated for three groups of concrete mixes: normal, fly ash, and old concrete. There were also control specimens that did not use any type of sealer for comparison purposes. The test data were used to determine which sealer and concrete mix combination was the most adequate in improving resistance to the deterioration of concrete properties.
doi_str_mv 10.3141/2108-10
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_36317411</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.3141_2108-10</sage_id><sourcerecordid>36317411</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-b06b59a6e67f0f8172b4030491fa51afae84b25e18221b2b20bd5c245364af153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpl0EtLw0AUBeBBFKxV_AuzEF1F584ryVJrq0JB8bEeZpI7JTXN1JlE8N-bUneuDgc-LtxDyDmwawESbjiwIgN2QCYcdJlJpvghmTChIYOygGNyktKaMSFkLiZkMf-27WD7JnQ0ePqCHfZxrN2KvqFtMSbqQ6Sv2HRjVljTWeiqiD3Su9jUK6T3WH2mU3LkbZvw7C-n5GMxf589Zsvnh6fZ7TKrBIg-c0w7VVqNOvfMF5BzJ5lgsgRvFVhvsZCOK4SCc3DcceZqVXGphJbWgxJTcrm_u43ha8DUm02TKmxb22EYkhFaQC4BRni1h1UMKUX0ZhubjY0_BpjZ7WR2O41llBd7mewKzToMsRs_-Md-AXDyY-M</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>36317411</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of Penetrating Sealers for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Mamaghani, Iraj H. P. ; Moretti, C. ; Dockter, B. A. ; Falken, L. ; Tonnenson, J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mamaghani, Iraj H. P. ; Moretti, C. ; Dockter, B. A. ; Falken, L. ; Tonnenson, J.</creatorcontrib><description>An evaluation of sealers based on eight sets of laboratory tests was done. Five concrete sealer treatments were studied: D335, DCS, SS, R7, and CT40. These sealers were evaluated for three groups of concrete mixes: normal, fly ash, and old concrete. There were also control specimens that did not use any type of sealer for comparison purposes. The test data were used to determine which sealer and concrete mix combination was the most adequate in improving resistance to the deterioration of concrete properties.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0361-1981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2169-4052</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3141/2108-10</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Transportation research record, 2009, Vol.2108 (1), p.86-96</ispartof><rights>2009 National Academy of Sciences</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-b06b59a6e67f0f8172b4030491fa51afae84b25e18221b2b20bd5c245364af153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-b06b59a6e67f0f8172b4030491fa51afae84b25e18221b2b20bd5c245364af153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3141/2108-10$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2108-10$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4009,21799,27902,27903,27904,43600,43601</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mamaghani, Iraj H. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moretti, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dockter, B. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Falken, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tonnenson, J.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of Penetrating Sealers for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks</title><title>Transportation research record</title><description>An evaluation of sealers based on eight sets of laboratory tests was done. Five concrete sealer treatments were studied: D335, DCS, SS, R7, and CT40. These sealers were evaluated for three groups of concrete mixes: normal, fly ash, and old concrete. There were also control specimens that did not use any type of sealer for comparison purposes. The test data were used to determine which sealer and concrete mix combination was the most adequate in improving resistance to the deterioration of concrete properties.</description><issn>0361-1981</issn><issn>2169-4052</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpl0EtLw0AUBeBBFKxV_AuzEF1F584ryVJrq0JB8bEeZpI7JTXN1JlE8N-bUneuDgc-LtxDyDmwawESbjiwIgN2QCYcdJlJpvghmTChIYOygGNyktKaMSFkLiZkMf-27WD7JnQ0ePqCHfZxrN2KvqFtMSbqQ6Sv2HRjVljTWeiqiD3Su9jUK6T3WH2mU3LkbZvw7C-n5GMxf589Zsvnh6fZ7TKrBIg-c0w7VVqNOvfMF5BzJ5lgsgRvFVhvsZCOK4SCc3DcceZqVXGphJbWgxJTcrm_u43ha8DUm02TKmxb22EYkhFaQC4BRni1h1UMKUX0ZhubjY0_BpjZ7WR2O41llBd7mewKzToMsRs_-Md-AXDyY-M</recordid><startdate>2009</startdate><enddate>2009</enddate><creator>Mamaghani, Iraj H. P.</creator><creator>Moretti, C.</creator><creator>Dockter, B. A.</creator><creator>Falken, L.</creator><creator>Tonnenson, J.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2009</creationdate><title>Evaluation of Penetrating Sealers for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks</title><author>Mamaghani, Iraj H. P. ; Moretti, C. ; Dockter, B. A. ; Falken, L. ; Tonnenson, J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c313t-b06b59a6e67f0f8172b4030491fa51afae84b25e18221b2b20bd5c245364af153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mamaghani, Iraj H. P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moretti, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dockter, B. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Falken, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tonnenson, J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Transportation research record</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mamaghani, Iraj H. P.</au><au>Moretti, C.</au><au>Dockter, B. A.</au><au>Falken, L.</au><au>Tonnenson, J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of Penetrating Sealers for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks</atitle><jtitle>Transportation research record</jtitle><date>2009</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>2108</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>86</spage><epage>96</epage><pages>86-96</pages><issn>0361-1981</issn><eissn>2169-4052</eissn><abstract>An evaluation of sealers based on eight sets of laboratory tests was done. Five concrete sealer treatments were studied: D335, DCS, SS, R7, and CT40. These sealers were evaluated for three groups of concrete mixes: normal, fly ash, and old concrete. There were also control specimens that did not use any type of sealer for comparison purposes. The test data were used to determine which sealer and concrete mix combination was the most adequate in improving resistance to the deterioration of concrete properties.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.3141/2108-10</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0361-1981
ispartof Transportation research record, 2009, Vol.2108 (1), p.86-96
issn 0361-1981
2169-4052
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_36317411
source SAGE Complete
title Evaluation of Penetrating Sealers for Reinforced Concrete Bridge Decks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T05%3A33%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20Penetrating%20Sealers%20for%20Reinforced%20Concrete%20Bridge%20Decks&rft.jtitle=Transportation%20research%20record&rft.au=Mamaghani,%20Iraj%20H.%20P.&rft.date=2009&rft.volume=2108&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=86&rft.epage=96&rft.pages=86-96&rft.issn=0361-1981&rft.eissn=2169-4052&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141/2108-10&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E36317411%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=36317411&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.3141_2108-10&rfr_iscdi=true