Appropriate ASTM for Joint Sealants in Expansion Joints - ASTM C920 or ASTM D1850

[oengineer]

I am creating a detail for an expansion joint detail and on the detail I am trying to provide the appropriate ASTM for joint sealants & associated sealant works.

I have seen on an old drawing a reference to ASTM D1850, but in the PIP STS03001 Plain and Reinforced Concrete Specification it states "Joint sealant shall be in accordance with ASTM C920, unless otherwise
specified in contract documents."

Which is the appropriate ASTM for Joint Sealants in Expansion Joints? Is it ASTM C920 or ASTM D1850? It seem like ASTM D1850 may be outdated.

Suggestions/comments are appreciated.

 

[masonrygeek]

ASTM D1850 has been withdrawn so I wouldn't use that standard. I have always seen ASTM C920 specified for sealant joints. There are also a variety of Grades and Types in C920 which are used in specific applications so they should probably be included in any spec.

 

[oengineer]

ASTM D1850 has been withdrawn so I wouldn't use that standard. I have always seen ASTM C920 specified for sealant joints. There are also a variety of Grades and Types in C920 which are used in specific applications so they should probably be included in any spec.

Would calling out ASTM C920 be able to insure that the contractor obtain a pour-in-place silicone like Dow Corning 902 (equal or better) silicone to seal the joint that will last about 5-10 years? Or even a non-silicone joint sealant that could last 5 to 10 years? I do not have access to ASTM C920.

 

[Rabbit12]

Could you just specify the product you want and put approved equal?

 

[oengineer]

Could you just specify the product you want and put approved equal?

I am not oppose to that, but it seems to me that specifying an ASTM spec on the detail is what is standard for this situation to cast a wide net on obtaining a suitable joint sealant. Also, I am not really familiar with the various specific joint sealants & associated sealant works. I am just familiar with the Dow Corning 902 because someone else mentioned it in another post in the forum.

 

[oengineer]

I also just came across the following ASTM spec:

ASTM D5893 / D5893M - 16
Standard Specification for Cold Applied, Single Component, Chemically Curing Silicone Joint Sealant for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements

Would this be a better ASTM spec to call out for a joint sealant for an expansion joint between a foundation & pavement?

It appears that ASTM D5893 is the replacement for ASTM D1850.

I say this because ASTM D1850 is titled "Specification for Concrete Joint Sealer Cold-Application Type".

 

[oengineer]

I just found this document which appears to show that either ASTM D5893 or ASTM C920 is acceptable to obtain a quality joint sealant:

 

[r13]

Abstract

This specification covers two types of cold applied, single component, chemically curing silicone sealants that are based on polymers of polysiloxane structures, and are intended for use in sealing joints and cracks in Portland cement concrete highway and airfield pavements. This specification does not address the properties required of sealants for use in areas of Portland cement concrete pavements subject to jet fuel or other fuel spillage, such as vehicle or aircraft refueling and maintenance areas, or a combination thereof. Type NS (non-sag) sealant resists sagging after application in horizontal joints and requires tooling or forming into the joint to achieve the desired application configuration. Type SL (self-leveling) sealant, on the other hand, has sufficient flow characteristics to form a smooth and level surface in horizontal joints without tooling or forming after application. Specimens shall be sufficiently sampled for testing, and shall conform accordingly to the following requirements: cure evaluation; rheological properties; extrusion rate; tack-free time; effects of heat aging; non-immersed, water-immersed, and oven-aged bond characteristics; hardness; flow characteristics; rubber properties in tension such as ultimate elongation and tensile stress; and effects of accelerated weathering.

Specification for Concrete Joint Sealer Cold-Application Type (Withdrawn 1989)

ASTM C920 is a testing specification for "Elastomeric Joint Sealants". A manufacturer provided reference is linked for information. Otherwise, it cost you $44 to obtain a copy from ASTM. Link

 

[oengineer]

ASTM C920 is a testing specification for "Elastomeric Joint Sealants". A manufacturer provided reference is linked for information. Otherwise, it cost you $44 to obtain a copy from ASTM. Link

Based on the information provided in the Link, it appears that ASTM C920 would be appropriate to be called out on the detail. I say this because of the following in the link attachment:

ASTM C 920 is the Standard Specification for Elastomeric Joint Sealants that are cured single or multi-component, cold applied elastomeric sealants.

Is this what you are trying to imply?

 

[r13]

I would agree that it seems C920 is more appropriate choice, unless your application is highway/runway pavement related, which was indicated in the title of the D5893 specification, and in the abstract provided.

 

[r13]

Listed below is the ASTM letter designation for future reference.

A = Iron and Steel Materials
B = Nonferrous Metal Materials
C = Ceramic, Concrete, and Masonry Materials
D = Miscellaneous Materials
E = Miscellaneous Subjects
F = Materials for Specific Applications
G = Corrosion, Deterioration, and Degradation of Materials

 

[Ron]

C920 is the appropriate standard. C1850 is a predictive weathering standard for sealant materials, not a standard for joint types, profiles, etc.

 

[cvg]

most sealants for pavement are hot poured

https://www.wrmeadows.com/hi-spec-hot-applied-polymeric-pavement-joint-sealant/#ds

 

[r13]

Ron,

You miss the D for C. D1850 - STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR CONCRETE JOINT SEALER, COLD-APPLICATION TYPE, published 1974, and withdrawn 1989 without list of replacement.

 

[r13]

I think ASTM C1193 will help on this matter. It is worthy a read. Link

 

[Ron]

OOPS! Thanks retired13.

 

[r13]

Not a problem. Glad your confirmation on C920. Always get lost in ASTM designation and its vast specifications.