Show simple item record

contributor authorL. Bogue Sandberg
date accessioned2017-05-08T21:16:39Z
date available2017-05-08T21:16:39Z
date copyrightNovember 1991
date issued1991
identifier other%28asce%290899-1561%281991%293%3A4%28278%29.pdf
identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl/handle/yetl/45267
description abstractA two‐year aging study was presented for four sealants: a low‐modulus silicone, a medium‐modulus silicone, a one‐part polyurethane, and a two‐part polyurethane. A specimen, with red granite substrates, is used. The four aging exposures are: ordinary room conditions; outdoors in Houghton, Michigan; outdoors near Hilo, Hawaii; and aging in a Q‐Panel (QUV) weathering unit. Following an initial six‐week cure, room‐ and outdoor‐aged specimens are tested at zero‐, six‐, 12‐, and 24‐month intervals. The QUV‐aged specimens are tested after 0, 500, 1,000, and 5,000 hours. In the postaging tests, specimens are given 20 displacement cycles at the sealant's rated movement capacity and elongated to failure. Reported data include nominal stresses at 25%, 50%, and 100% elongation, the ultimate tensile strength, and the corresponding elongation. Additionally, observations are given for surface cracking and dirt pickup. Adhesion to the substrates is good for all four sealants. Results of a pilot study combining QUV exposure with a displacement cycle are also reported. The overall findings indicate that the silicones' performance is superior to that of the urethanes.
publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
titleComparisons of Silicone and Urethane Sealant Durabilities
typeJournal Paper
journal volume3
journal issue4
journal titleJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering
identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1991)3:4(278)
treeJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering:;1991:;Volume ( 003 ):;issue: 004
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record