| ||Format||Pages||Price|| |
|PDF (140K)||8||$25||  ADD TO CART|
|Complete Source PDF (15M)||1014||$83||  ADD TO CART|
In the comparison of national specifications many areas of similarity are found. This is true in the test methods and the acceptance standards. In the areas where the acceptance standards are different, no specification is better or worse than another. The differences arise because of emphasis on different aspects of the construction application (perimeter joints versus glazing) or the idea of hitting a medium point in performance where the sealant should be able to perform in both applications.
None of the specifications address the concept of modulus as means of differentiating between sealants for glazing and those for perimeter seals. Our work finds the determination of modulus, along with adhesion and durability, a key indicator of a sealant's ability to perform acceptably in the various construction applications.
building materials, durability, national specifications, modulus, silicone construction sealants, sealant screening tests, durability tests, perimeter seals, structural glazing sealants, slump, strain, adhesive failure, cure rate, chemical stability
Senior specialist, Construction Sealants, Technical Service and Development, Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, Mich.