http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.

ca/irc

Thresholds identification and field validation of the performance

based guidelines for the selection of hot-poured crack sealants

NRCC-53261

Yang, S.-H.; Al-Qadi, I.L.; McGraw, J.;

Masson, J-F.; McGhee, K.

September 2010

A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans:

Transportation Research Record, 2150, pp. 87-95, September 01, 2010

The material in this document is covered by the provisions of the Copyright Act, by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international
agreements. Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without
written permission. For more information visit http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showtdm/cs/C-42

Les renseignements dans ce document sont protégés par la Loi sur le droit d'auteur, par les lois, les politiques et les règlements du Canada et
des accords internationaux. Ces dispositions permettent d'identifier la source de l'information et, dans certains cas, d'interdire la copie de
documents sans permission écrite. Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements : http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/showtdm/cs/C-42
 Thresholds Identification and Field Validation of the
Performance Based Guidelines for the Selection of
Hot-Poured Crack Sealants

Shih-Hsien Yang
Project Engineer
Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd.
501 Canal Blvd.,Suite I, Richmond, CA 94804
e-mail: syang@nce.reno.nv.us
(Former graduate student at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)

Imad L. Al-Qadi 1
Founders Professor of Engineering
Ilinois Center for Transportation, Director
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
205 N Mathews MC-250, Urbana, IL 61801
e-mail: alqadi@illinois.edu

Jim McGraw
Chemical Lab Director
Minnesota Department of Transportation
1400 Gervais Ave
Maplewood, MN 55109
e-mail: James.McGraw@dot.state.mn.us

J-F. Masson
Institute for Research in Construction
National Research Council of Canada
1200 Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0R6, Canada.
E-mail: Jean-Francois.Masson@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

Kevin M. McGhee
Senior Research Scientist
Virginia Transportation Research Council, VDOT
530 Edgemont Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903
E-mail: Kevin.McGhee@VDOT.Virginia.gov

1
Corresponding Author

1
ABSTRACT
Hot-poured bituminous crack sealing has been widely accepted as a routine preventative
maintenance practice, and with proper installation, it is expected to extend the pavement service
life three to five years. However, the current specifications for the selection of crack sealants
correlate poorly with field performance; hence, a set of new testing methods, which are based on
sealant rheological/ mechanical properties, were developed recently. Measuring the mechanical
properties of crack sealant at low temperatures is one of the criteria introduced as part of the
developed performance-based guidelines. The main purpose of this study was to identify and
validate the low temperature selection thresholds for the newly developed performance based
guideline for selecting hot-poured bituminous crack sealants. In this study, selection criteria for
crack sealant bending beam rheometer (CSBBR) and crack sealant direct tension tester (CSDTT)
tests are identified. Two performance parameters for CSBBR test are used for the selection
criteria: stiffness at 240s and Average Creep Rate (ACR). Both parameters were identified by
comparing laboratory testing results with known sealant field performance, obtained from a
long-term study in Canada. The selection criterion for the CSDTT test is extendibility, which is
based on field values reported in the literature. The recommended selection criteria were used to
predict the field performance of 12 sealants evaluated by the National Transportation Product
Evaluation Program (NTPEP). The results show good correlation between the proposed
selection thresholds and NTPEP field sealant performance.

Keywords: Crack sealant, Low temperature, thresholds, CSBBR, CSDTT

2
INTRODUCTION
For a material to provide acceptable performance as a hot-poured bituminous-based crack
sealant, it must resist adhesion, degradation, and cohesion failures in the range of service of
temperature at which it is expected to be used. In addition, the material should be easily and
effectively installed, and able to resist degradation from the surrounding environment. Because
of their chemical complexity, crack sealant specifications have been developed around physical
property tests that are thought relevant to their performance. The current crack sealant
specification system, found in ASTM D5329 and AASHTO M173, focuses on utilizing simple
empirical tests such as cone penetration and softening point to measure the ability of the material
to resist cohesive failures. Although the viscoelastic behavior of crack sealants is too
complicated to be described by simple empirical parameters, the used consistency tests have
served well over the years for specifying crack sealants and to ensure the consistency of sealant
properties (1).
As a result of increasing traffic, axle loading, and tire pressure, a new range of highly-
modified crack sealants have been introduced that can have quite complex behavior compared to
traditional sealant materials. The implementation of the current specification system on these
new classes of crack sealant materials revealed that the used consistency tests do not adequately
describe the linear viscoelastic properties that are needed to relate physical properties to
performance, to relate sealant chemistry to performance, and to develop a performance-related
crack sealant specification system. In addition, results of these tests were found to correlate
poorly with field performance. While some sealants provided superior field performance, they
were ranked equally to low performance sealants. The poor prediction of sealant performance
using the current specification system has been widely reported in the literature (2, 3, 4). In
summary, characterization of hot-poured crack sealants using the current specification system
does not ensure adequate or reflect actual field performance. Hence, an improved sealant
specification and selection system is urgently needed.
The key to improving sealant durability is to develop effective performance guidelines
for selection and application of sealants. This study makes use of the well-established methods
and equipment originally developed during the five-year Strategic Highway Research Program
(SHRP) as part of the Performance Grade (PG) system for asphalt binders. Because the
equipment utilized in the PG system are already owned by various pavement and State
transportation agencies, it makes it an attractive and economical choice to be adopted in this
research project. However, because of the high flexibility of crack sealants and the large
deformation experienced under loading, it was found that the original bending beam rheometer
(BBR) and direct tension tester (DTT) are not suitable to test crack sealant material. Therefore,
in order to use the equipment developed by SHRP, some modifications were necessary to allow
for testing hot-poured sealants (5, 6).
In addition, a unique feature of the SuperPaveTM binder specification system is that the
specified criteria of fundamental rheological properties of asphalt binder remain constant, but the
temperature at which the criteria must be met changes for the various PG grades. The tests are
performed at temperatures that are encountered by in-service pavements. The similar idea of
establishing selection threshold for crack sealant was also adopted for crack sealant bending
beam rheometer (CSBBR) test which has a specified criterion over the various sealant service
temperatures. However, for crack sealant direct tensile tester (CSDTT) test, the selection criteria

3
are varied with various sealants in service temperatures. This is due to the various loading
mechanisms between sealant and asphalt binder in the field. Therefore, this paper presents the
sealant low temperature selection thresholds and preliminary validation of these selection
thresholds using CSBBR and CSDTT tests.

OBJECTIVES
The objective of this paper is to identify the selection criteria of hot-poured crack sealant at low
temperature using CSBBR and CSDTT tests. Two performance parameters for CSBBR test are
used for the selection criteria: stiffness at 240s and Average Creep Rate (ACR). Both parameters
were identified by comparing laboratory testing results with known sealant field performance
obtained from a long-term study in Canada (7). The selection criterion for the CSDTT test is
extendibility, which is based on field values reported in the literature. The recommended
selection criteria were used to predict the field performance of 12 sealants evaluated with the
National Transportation Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). The sealants were installed in
Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota.

SEALANT MATERIALS
Fifteen laboratory-tested sealants —designated as PP, BB, AD, WW, AE, NN, MM, UU, DD,
EE, VV, AB, QQ, YY, and ZZ— five Montreal field sealants—designated A, B, E, G, and J —
and 12 NTPEP field sealants with varying chemical compositions were evaluated. The
laboratory-tested sealants were obtained from various North American manufactures and were
used to investigate the mechanical behavior of crack sealant. The laboratory-tested sealants
represent a wide array of rheological behaviors, and thus, they are expected to perform in various
environments with a low-temperature range of -4°C to -40°C. Variations in the rheological
properties can be attributed to various factors, including the source of the origin crude, the
refining and modification process, and the content of polymer, filler, and additives. There is no
field performance data available for the 15 laboratory-tested sealants. The five Montreal field
sealants were installed in the early 1990s in Montreal, Canada; they have detail performance
records and used to establish the sealant selection criteria.
Twelve types of crack sealants produced by seven manufactures were used in the study.
Sealants were installed in the U.S. Highway 169, at Delaware Avenue, between Belle Plaine and
Jordan, southwest of Minneapolis and St. Paul, in Minnesota. The sealants were installed on
September 14, 2005. The pavement condition was rated as “good” at the time of construction.
Some transverse cracks existed, but there were few longitudinal cracks. All cracks were
prepared by cutting a reservoir for the sealant using a router. Sealant installation was completed
between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Ambient temperature ranged from 61 to 75 °F.

SEALANT LOW TEMPERATURE TESTS

Crack Sealant Bending Beam Rheometer (CSBBR) Test
The bending beam rheometer (BBR) is used in most pavement laboratories nowadays to measure
binder stiffness at low temperature. A modified BBR test, a crack sealant bending beam
rheometer (CSBBR), was introduced to measure the flexural creep of crack sealants at

4
temperatures as low as -40°C. The development of this procedure is described in detail in a
supporting document (8). Two performance parameters were suggested for use in the
specification: stiffness at 240s and average creep rate (see Figure 1) [9].

50

40 -4°C -10°C -16°C -22°C

-28°C -34°C -40°C
Stiffness (MPa)

30

20

10

0
QQ ZZ AB UU AE NN PP
Sealant

(a)
0.5 -4°C -10°C -16°C -22°C
-28°C -34°C -40°C

0.4
Average Rate of Creep

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
QQ ZZ AB UU AE NN PP
Sealant

(b)
FIGURE 1 (a) Stiffness at 240s and (b) Average creep rate at various testing temperatures
for various sealants

Crack Sealant Direct Tension Tester (CSDTT) Test

When the temperature drops in the winter or at night, the pavement will contract and will induce
an opening of the crack. In the summer or daytime, the temperature increases, and therefore, the
pavement will expand and the crack will close. The crack opening distance during the
temperature cycle varies from 10 to 90% strain. Therefore, to investigate whether a sealant can
survive in a particular set of service conditions, the SuperPaveTM DTT was considered and
modified for crack sealants. The development of CSDTT is described in detail elsewhere (10).
The extendibility of the sealant was measured and used as a performance parameter (see Figure
2). Extendibility was found to be an appropriate criterion for identifying sealants and

5
distinguishing between various sealant types. In addition, it is worth noting that several sealants
in Figure 2 show extendibility of 90% without failure. The DT device housed in most
laboratories can only extend the material up to 92%. Therefore, it was determined to conduct the
test only up to 90% of strain, even if the specimen does not fail.

90

80

70 -22 -28 -34 -40

60
Extendibility (%)

50

40

30
20

10

0
DD MM WW NN AD PP BB
Sealant

FIGURE 2 Extendibility of various sealants at -22, -28, -34, and -40°C

MONTREAL FIELD PERFORMANCE

Five sealants (A, B, E, G, and J) installed in Montreal in the fall of 1990 were used in this study
to identify the crack sealant performance criteria for CSBBR test. The ASTM D6690 Type II
test results of the five sealants are reported in Table 1(a) [7]. Field samples were collected
during visual surveys at the first and ninth years after installation. Masson (11) noted that the
sealants were not always installed at the recommended pouring temperature and that the air
temperature and weather conditions varied [see Table 1(b)]. Hence, installation conditions need
to be considered when sealant laboratory testing results are correlated to their corresponding
sealant field performance.
The first and second performance surveys of the installed sealants were obtained after
three and six months of installation, and the lowest temperatures were -5°C and -35°C,
respectively. The short-term performance was most affected by installation conditions and
sealant characteristics. The performance of the five sealants is presented in Table 1(c). For
example, sealant G had 3% of the installed length de-bonded and less than 1% pull-out after one
year. The de-bonding is identified as sealant loses adhesion to the crack wall, and the pull-out is
identified as sealant is completely absent from the crack. After the first winter, the de-bonding
percentage of sealant G increased to 24%, and the pull-out percentage increased to 3%.
A long-term sealant performance survey was conducted four years after installation [see
Table 1(c)]. The long-term performance was mainly affected by the sealant weathering and
stiffening. A performance index (PI) was suggested based on the level of de-bonding and pull-
out. The PI is calculated as follows (7):

6
 PI = 100-(D+nP) (1)
where,
PI = sealant performance index;
D = percent de-bonded length of the sealant;
P = percent pull-out length; and
n = an integral that accounts for the effect of pull-out over de-bonding on performance

TABLE 1 (a) Montreal Sealant Standard Test Results; (b) Field Sealant Installations; (c)
Short- and Long-Term Sealant Performance (Failure Lengths, %) [7]
(a)
Penetration Flow Resilience Bond
Sealant (<90 dmm)*,
(<3 mm)* (>60%)* (3 cycles)*
†
A 86 0.5 57 No
B 68 0.5 64 Yes
E‡ 104 1 73 Yes
G 50 0.5 51 No
J 66 6 48 Yes
*ASTM D3405 requirements.
†1 dmm = 0.1 mm.

(b)
Temperature (°C) Air Temperature
Sealant at Start of Installation
Recommended Measured
(°C)
A 190-205 205 Overcast and -6
B 170-200 215 --
E 185-195 195 Overcast and 7
G 170-180 175 Overcast and 7
J 185-195 -- Overcast and 3

(c)
Before First Winter After First Winter After Four Years Performance
Sealant De- De- De- Index after
Pull-out Pull-out Pull-out
bonding bonding bonding Four Years
A 1 <1 12 9 11 14 33
B 5 <1 5 <1 22 1 74
E 1 <1 11 1 20 2 72
G 3 <1 24 3 36 14 8
J 1 <1 8 6 13 12 39

The n value was assigned as four in the Masson’s study (7). The suggested value was
based on the assumption of that a loss of one meter of sealant might allow the intrusion of water,
sand, and stone into the pavement, which could damage the pavement during its expansion and

7
contraction (12). This damage is more critical than de-bonding over the same length. A higher
PI value is indicative of better sealant performance. For example, the PI for sealant A was 33
and the performance was classified as “poor,” while sealant E had a PI of 72 and a performance
classification of “good.”
The five Montreal sealants were subsequently tested in the laboratory. According to the
LTTPBind, the low temperature PG of binder with 98% reliability in the region is -40°C, so all
sealants were tested at -34°C (6°C higher than the temperature grade). Sealants were tested at
four conditions: virgin (before installation), after accelerated weathering (vacuum oven aging),
after one, three, five, and nine years of field weathering. Figure 3 and Figure 4 present the
CSBBR and CSDTT test results for the five Montreal sealants.

200

150
Stiffness (MPa)

100

50

0
Virgin Oven Aged 1 yr W 9 yr W
Sealant A 21 17 42 74
Sealant B 22 25 44 28
Sealant E
Sealant G 126 120 148 176
Sealant J 602 521 115

(a)
0.4
Average Creep Rate

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Virgin Oven Aged 1 yr W 9 yr W
Sealant A 0.30 0.33 0.29 0.28
Sealant B 0.31 0.28 0.29 0.34
Sealant E
Sealant G 0.23 0.19 0.21 0.20
Sealant J 0.16 0.16 0.28

(b)
FIGURE 3 (a) Stiffness at 240s and (b) Average creep rate of Montreal field sealants

8
 25

Extendibility (%)
20
15
10
5
0
Virgin Oven Aged 1 yr W 9 yr W
Sealant A 11.3 23.1 9.5 2.0
Sealant B 21.2 92.7 2.7 16.5
Sealant E 93.0 94.4 92.5 93.5
Sealant G 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3
Sealant J 0.7 0.3 0.4

FIGURE 4 Extendibility of Montreal field sealants

The results presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4 show that in general, vacuum-oven-aged
sealants exhibit a softer behavior (lower stiffness value) in the CSBBR test compared to 1- and
9-year field weathered sealant and higher extendibility in the CSDTT test. For sealant A, the
Montreal field-aged sealant showed stiffening compared to the virgin sealant. However,
vacuum-oven-aged sealant A showed slight softening. For sealants B and G, vacuum-oven-aged
and the Montreal field-aged sealants showed similar stiffening with aging. For sealant J,
vacuum-oven-aged results show softening compared to the virgin sealant, and a similar trend was
observed for the Montreal field-aged samples.
This variation between vacuum-oven-aged and field-aged of some sealants could be due
to the fact that the samples obtained from the field had a high content of fine particles. Although
significant effort was spent to remove the fine particles, complete removal might not have been
achieved. In addition, a limited amount of material was collected from the field, so sealant
samples were used for more than one test. Multiple heating and cooling cycles might have
contributed to sealant softening. It is recommended that a comprehensive field survey and
testing of field-aged sealant be conducted.

SEALANT TESTS PARAMETER THRESHOLDS SELECTION

An expert group of representatives from 26 transportation agencies and manufacturers discussed
the most appropriate approach given the limited field data from Montreal and the rationale to
identify selection thresholds for CSBBR and CSDTT tests. For the CSBBR test, two
performance parameter thresholds were identified: stiffness at 240s and average creep ratio
(ACR). Sealant B and sealant E performed the best in the Montreal study. The stiffness at 240s
of sealant B varied from 22MPa at an un-aged state to 44MPa after one year of field weathering.
For sealant E, the material was too soft for the procedure to accurately evaluate. The ACR for
sealant B varied from 0.28 to 0.34mm/mm/s. The expert group recommended the use of 25MPa
for the stiffness at 240s and 0.31mm/mm/s for the ACR as preliminary selection criteria. The

9
recommended selection criteria were applied to the 15 laboratory-tested sealants, as shown in
Figure 5. Most of the sealants pass the threshold at two testing temperatures, with the exception
of the very stiff sealant, QQ.

50 2 C -4 C -10 C -16 C
45 -22 C -28 C -34 C -40 C
40
35
Stiffness (MPa)

30 S(-10 C)=85MPa
25
20
15
10
5
0
QQ
EE
ZZ
YY
AB
VV
UU
DD

NN
AD

BB
AE

WW
MM

PP
Sealant
(a)

2 C -4 C -10 C -16 C
0.5 -22 C -28 C -34 C -40 C
Average Rate of Creep

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
QQ
EE
ZZ
YY
AB
VV
UU
DD

NN
AD

BB
AE

WW
MM

PP

Sealant
(b)
FIGURE 5 (a) Stiffness at 240s and (b) Average creep rate of 15 laboratory-tested sealants
Researchers have shown that the maximum crack opening distance in the field can be as
high as 90% of the original crack width (13, 14, 15). The factors that affect crack opening
include pavement type, pavement location, crack configurations, and, most importantly,
pavement temperature. A pavement crack in the northern region of the North America is
generally subjected to larger crack opening distance. On the other hand, the pavement in the
southern region is generally subjected to only a few days of subzero temperature. Given these
environmental differences, the expert group suggested the selection criteria of the sealants based
on in-service temperature and corresponding extendibility, as shown in Table 2. After the

10
proposed selection thresholds were applied to the 15 laboratory-tested sealants (Figure 6), only
three sealants did not pass the criterion under the testing conditions.

TABLE 2 Threshold for Extendibility at Various Lowest Pavement Service Temperatures

Temperature (°C) -4 -10 -16 -22 -28 -34 -40
Extendibility (%) 10 25 40 55 70 85 85+

-4 C -10 C -16 C -22 C -28 C -34 C -40 C

90
80 -40 and -34 C Grade

70
-28 C Grade
Extendibility(%)

60
50 -22 C Grade

40
-16 C Grade
30
20 -10 C Grade

10
-4 C Grade
0
QQ EE ZZ YY AB VV UU DD AE MMWWNN AD PP BB
Sealant
FIGURE 6 Extendibility of 15 laboratory-tested sealants

THRESHOLD VALIDATION USING NTPEP FIELD STUDY RESULTS

In 2005, the NTPEP conducted a program to study the installation and field crack sealing
materials. Minnesota served as the host state and the Minnesota DOT (MNDOT) was
responsible for locating the site for the installation, coordinating supplier participation,
overseeing the experimental installation, and providing traffic control for the experimental
installation as well as for the 2006 field evaluation. Using the selected sealant thresholds for the
CSBBR and CSDTT parameters, the field performance of several sealants installed in Minnesota
was used to validate the proposed low temperature selection criteria for crack sealants. The
laboratory evaluations of the tested sealants were conducted at the MNDOT laboratory as well as
at the Advanced Transportation Research and Engineering Laboratory (ATREL) of the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Field Survey Results

Visual inspection was performed by the MNDOT staff during winter months. Two evaluations
were scheduled and carried out during early October 2006 and mid-February 2008. Two distress
evaluations were reported for each testing site: the percent length of adhesion /cohesion
/infiltration and the present of stone/debris retention. The sealants showed evident signs of
distress during cold weather when compared to the performance in the summer.

11
 Adhesion and cohesion failures were determined through visual inspection. The percent
length of adhesion/cohesion/infiltration is used to evaluate water infiltration. The percentage of
cracks that would allow water infiltration, measured as the percentage of the overall crack length
where water could bypass the sealant and enter the crack either through complete adhesion or
cohesion failure, was determined by the following equation:

Lf
%L = (2)
Ltotal

where,
%L = Percent length of the crack allowing water infiltration;
Lf = Total length of the crack sealant field evaluation section allowing the Infiltration of
water (inches);
Ltotal = Total length of the crack sealant field evaluation section (inches).

The present of stone/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/ HMA interface.
• Low Severity: Occasional stones and/or debris are stuck to the top of the sealant, or debris is
embedded on the surface of the sealant/HMA interface.
• Medium Severity: Stones or debris are stuck to the sealant and some debris is deeply
embedded in the sealant, or material is embedded between the sealant and the crack face, but
does not enter the crack below the sealant.
• High Severity: A large quantity of stones and debris are stuck 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 the field inspection and the associated performance index (PI), which was
based on the level of adhesion/cohesion/infiltration, were calculated using the method presented
by Masson (7). The results are presented in Table 3. It is worth noting that the NTPEP study did
not separate the percentage de-bonding and pullout failure. Therefore, the calculated PI values
are generally higher than those of the Montreal study. In this study, a PI value greater than 70
was defined as good performance (passed the standard). In general, all of the sealants performed
satisfactorily during the first winter. Obvious distresses were observed during the second
inspection, which was performed 29 months after installation. Only three sealants showed a PI
less than 70% (Roadsaver 515MN, D-3405, and Beram 3060 LM).

Laboratory Test Results

Sealants were tested in the laboratory in accordance with the crack sealant performance grade
specifications and ASTM specification D6690 type II material. Table 4(a) shows the results of
two low temperature tests developed in this study. In addition, results of ASTM D6690 are also
shown in Table 4(b). According to the results of the low temperature tests of crack sealants
presented in this study, nine sealants were graded as “pass.” The three sealants graded as “fail”
were D-3405, Beram 3060LM, and Elastoflex 63LM.

12
 According to the ASTM specifications, three sealants were predicted to pass (3405, D-
3405, and Beram 195) and nine sealants were predicted to fail. If one compares the ASTM
specification prediction to the field performance survey, only three predictions were correct
(Meadows 3405, Roadsaver 515MN, and Beram 3060LM). On the other hand, using the
proposed test corresponding parameters, their thresholds correlate well with sealant field
performance. It has to be noted that the results are based on sealants installed at one climatic
region. To further validate the proposed tests and the selection thresholds, performance data of
sealants installed at various climatic regions are needed.

TABLE 3 Sealant Field Inspections Results and Performance Index

Adhesion/Cohesion/ Stone/Debris Performance
Distress Inspection
Infiltration (%) Retention Index
1st winter 0 No 100
Deery 101ELT
2nd winter 7 No 93
1st winter 0 No 100
Deery 3723
2nd winter 24 No 76
1st winter 0 No 100
Meadows 3405-M
2nd winter 9 No 91
1st winter 0 No 100
Meadows 3405
2nd winter 22 No 78
1st winter 0 No 100
Roadsaver 522
2nd winter 9 No 91
1st winter 0 No 100
Roadsaver 515MN
2nd winter 38 No 62
1st winter 0 No 100
Dura-Fill 3405
2nd winter 21 No 79
1st winter 0 No 100
Dura-Fill 3725
2nd winter 24 No 76
1st winter 0 No 100
Right Pointe D-3405
2nd winter 40 No 60
1st winter 0 No 100
Beram 195
2nd winter 29 No 71
1st winter 0 No 100
Beram 3060 LM
2nd winter 38 No 62
1st winter 0 No 100
Elastoflex 63LM
2nd winter 27 No 73

13
 TABLE 4 Laboratory Test Results of NTPEP Sealants
(a)
Standard Crack Sealant Performance Grade
S 240 ACR 
Criteria Result
<25 MPa >0.31mm/mm/s >85%
Temp (oC) -34 -34 -34
Deery 101ELT 5 0.44 >90 Pass
Deery 3723 7 0.45 >90 Pass
Meadows 3405-M 6 0.38 >85 Pass
Meadows 3405 23 0.37 >85 Pass
Roadsaver 522 6 0.4 -- Pass
Roadsaver 515MN 13 0.43 >85 Pass
Dura-Fill 3405 12 0.39 >85 Pass
Dura-Fill 3725 8 0.34 -- Pass
Right Pointe D-3405 17 0.38 26 Fail
Beram 195 16 0.33 >85 Pass
Beram 3060 LM 13 0.37 2.47 Fail
Elastoflex 63LM 26 0.33 2.36 Fail

(b)
Standard ASTM D6609 Type II
Cone Penetration Flow Resilience Bond
Criteria Result
(<90 dmm)*, † (<3 mm)* (>60%)* (3 cycles)*
Temp (C) 25°C 60°C 25°C -29°C
Deery 101ELT 103 2 55 P Fail
Deery 3723 87 3 58 P Fail
Meadows 3405-M 131 1 59 P Fail
Meadows 3405 86 0 62 P Pass
Roadsaver 522 90 5 49 P Fail
Roadsaver 515MN 64 2 52 P Fail
Dura-Fill 3405 79 2 57 P Fail
Dura-Fill 3725 109 0 52 P Fail
Right Pointe D-3405 73 0 73 P Pass
Beram 195 76 0 60 P Pass
Beram 3060 LM 112 1 47 P Fail
Elastoflex 63LM 103 0 56 P Fail

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The parameter thresholds for low temperature sealant selection criteria, using the CSBBR and
CSDTT tests, were identified using field data from Montreal. The study recommends stiffness at
240s of 25MPa and ACR of 0.31mm/mm/s for CSBBR test results and extendibility criterion for
the CSDTT test results to be used at the lowest pavement in-service temperatures. The selection
criteria were used with 12 field sealants, used in the NTPEP study, for validation. The result

14
shows good correlation between low temperature performance grade sealant specification and
field performance. This study clearly shows the validity of the proposed tests and selection
criteria for hot-poured crack sealants at low temperature.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is based on work supported by the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S.–
Canadian Crack Sealant Consortium under pool fund award # TPF5 (045). Virginia serves as the
leading state; the Virginia Transportation Research Council of the Virginia Department of
Transportation managed the project. The contribution of the participating states, industries, and
provinces is greatly appreciated. The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who
are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the pool fund-participating departments of
transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This paper does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. Special thanks are extended to Jim McGraw and MNDOT for
providing field performance survey of NTPEP sealants.

REFERENCES
1. Zanzotto, L. Laboratory Testing of Crack Sealing Materials for Flexible Pavements. Final
Report. Transportation Association of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1996.
2. Belangie, M.C., and D.I. Anderson. Crack Sealing Methods and Materials for Flexible
Pavements. Final Report No. FHWA-UT-85-1, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt
Lake City, UT, 1985.
3. Smith, K.L. and A.R. Romine. LTPP Pavement Maintenance Materials: SHRP Crack
Treatment Experiment. FHWA-RD-99-143, Final Report. FHWA, Washingtion, DC, 1999,
pp. 163.
4. Masson, J.-F. Bituminous Sealants for Pavement Joints and Cracks: Building the Basis for a
Performance-Based Specification. In Durability of Building and Construction Sealants. A.
Wolf, Ed., RILEM, Paris, 2000, pp. 315-328.
5. Al-Qadi, I.L., A. Loulizi, S. Aref, J-F Masson, and K.M. McGhee. Modification of Bending
Beam Rheometer Specimen for Low-Temperature Evaluation of Bituminous Crack Sealants.
In Transportation Research Record: Journal of theTransportation Research Board, No.
1933, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005,
pp. 97-106.
6. Al-Qadi, I. L, S-H Yang, S. Dessouky, J-F Masson. Low Temperature Characterization of
Hot-Poured Crack Sealant Using Modified SHRP Direct Tensile Tester. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of theTransportation Research Board, No. 1991, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 109-118.
7. Masson, J.-F., P. Collins, and P.P. Légaré. Performance of Pavement Crack Sealants in Cold
Urban Conditions. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 26, n. 4, 1999, pp. 395-401.
8. Al-Qadi,I.L., S.-H.Yang, S. Dessouky, J.-F. Masson, A. Loulizi, and M. Elseifi.
Development of Crack Sealant Bending Beam Rheometer (CSBBR) Testing to Characterize
Hot-Poured Bituminous Crack Sealant at Low Temperature. Journal of the Association of
Asphalt Paving Technologists, Vol. 76, 2007, pp. 85-122.

15
9. Al-Qadi, I.L., S.-H. Yang, J.-F. Masson, M. Elseifi, S. Dessouky, A. Loulizi, and K.M.
McGhee. Characterization of Low-temperature Creep Properties of Crack Sealants Using
Bending Beam Rheometry. Final report submitted to the Virginia Transportation Research
Council, VDOT, Charlottesville, VA, 2008.
10. Al-Qadi, I.L., S.-H. Yang, J.-F. Masson, S. Dessouky, A. Loulizi, M. Elseifi, and K.M.
McGhee. Characterization of Low-temperature Mechanical Properties of Crack Sealants
Utilizing Direct Tension Test. Final report submitted to the Virginia Transportation Research
Council, VDOT, Charlottesville, VA, 2008.
11. Masson, J.-F and M.A. Lacasse. Considerations for a Performance-Based Specification for
Bituminous Crack Sealants. In Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation and Maintenance, ASTM
Special Publication STP1348. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998.
12. Petesen, J.C. Chemical Composition of Asphalt as Related to Asphalt Durability; State of the
Art. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of theTransportation Research Board, No
999, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 1984, pp.
15-23.
13. Cook, J. P., F.E. Weisgerber, and I.A. Minkarah. Evaluation of Joint and Crack Sealants.
Final Report, FHWA/OH-91/007, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, 1990.
14. Smith, K. L., and A.R. Romine. Innovative Materials Development and Testing Volume 3:
Treatment of Cracks in Asphalt Concrete-Surfaced Pavements. SHRP-H-354. Strategic
Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1993.
15. Linde, S. Investigations on the Cracking Behavior of Joints in Airfields and Roads: Field
Investigations and Laboratory Simulation. SP Report 1988:23. Swedish National Testing
Institute, Borås, Sweden, 1988.

16