Skip to main content
Fig. 1 | Journal of Infrastructure Preservation and Resilience

Fig. 1

From: Crack sealers for the preservation of concrete bridge decks: a synthesis of a national survey and literature review

Fig. 1

Map-based representation for survey responses. (a) Agencies that responded to the survey (Green – Responded to survey, Blank – Did not respond); (b) Agencies that responded to reseal cracks or not on a cyclic basis (Green – Reseal cracks cyclically, Red – Do not reseal cracks cyclically, Gray – Did not responsd to question); (c) Generic crack sealing products used by agencies (Green – Epoxy, Blue – MMA, Red – HMWM, Purple – Use other, Orange – Use Multiple Types, Gray - Did not responsd to question); (d) Agencies that responded that whether they have an approved product list (APL) (Green – Have crack sealer APL, Red – Do not have crack sealer APL, Gray – Did not responsd to question); (e) Methods that are used by agencies for contracting crack sealing projects – in-house vs. contract crews (Red – in-house crews, Blue – contract crews, Green – Use both crew types, Gray – Did not responsd to question); (f) Methods for that are used by agencies for performing crack sealing projects – crack chasing vs. flood sealing (Red – Flood deck only, Purple – Chase deck only, Green – Flood deck and chase deck, Blue – Neither, Gray - Did not responsd to question); (g) Surface preparation methods that used by agencies for crack sealing (Green – Compressed air, Blue – High-pressure water, Red – shotblasting, Purple – Route individual cracks, Orange – Use multiple methods, Gray - Did not responsd to question); and (h) Agencies that responded that whether they have a performance evaluation for APL (Green – Have performance evaluation for crack sealer APL, Red – Do not have performance evaluation for crack sealer APL, Gray - Did not responsd to question)

Back to article page