This topic keeps coming up in every motorcycle (and some auto) forums.
I recently replied to someone about personal experiences in trying to get copies of memos between Federal Highway Administration and State DOTs on proper application of PCS (See title). At the time, AMA was unresponsive. In this more recent post, I did a search and found that, in the 21st Century, FHWA (and the manufacturers) has made some of the reference material available on-line.
I thought it was a perfect type of post to pin; a reference to point back to every time the topic comes up.
...
"Plasticized Crack Sealant" application procedures are documented by the manufacturer and FHWA (Fed) to all state DOTs with cautions about improper/over application and the impact on safety. Has been since at least the 90s. I offered to give copies of memos sent between FHWA and Region 6's State DOTs to the AMA and they never bothered to respond.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/ppcl01.pdf
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/ppcl02.pdf
"Over band (overlap)" references over application beyond the crack proper. It's supposed to be limited as is total area coated (large patched areas aren't safe, etc.).
One example of manufacturer's application recommendation:
https://www.gripset.com/images/file_groups/6905/elastoproof_asphalt_crack_sealing_band_pds.pdf
...Personal opinion follows. The forum doesn't necessarily agree. CBS cares...
I've also seen documents that say not to use it on cases where the cracks run parallel to the flow of traffic.
From the manufacturers, to FHWA (the Fed) to State DOTs, to AMA, all know that the improper application of PCS and its use when contra-indicated is a safety hazard. State DOTs and/or their subcontractors continue to misuse it for cost savings reasons; playing the numbers game. Few affected vehicle operators are aware of the issues to try and seek compensation. Or that judgements from those who do seek legal recourse aren't costly enough to offset that savings.
I recently replied to someone about personal experiences in trying to get copies of memos between Federal Highway Administration and State DOTs on proper application of PCS (See title). At the time, AMA was unresponsive. In this more recent post, I did a search and found that, in the 21st Century, FHWA (and the manufacturers) has made some of the reference material available on-line.
I thought it was a perfect type of post to pin; a reference to point back to every time the topic comes up.
...
"Plasticized Crack Sealant" application procedures are documented by the manufacturer and FHWA (Fed) to all state DOTs with cautions about improper/over application and the impact on safety. Has been since at least the 90s. I offered to give copies of memos sent between FHWA and Region 6's State DOTs to the AMA and they never bothered to respond.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/ppcl01.pdf
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/ppcl02.pdf
"Over band (overlap)" references over application beyond the crack proper. It's supposed to be limited as is total area coated (large patched areas aren't safe, etc.).
One example of manufacturer's application recommendation:
https://www.gripset.com/images/file_groups/6905/elastoproof_asphalt_crack_sealing_band_pds.pdf
IOW: DON'T use PCS if the crack is wider than 0.39".
...Personal opinion follows. The forum doesn't necessarily agree. CBS cares...
I've also seen documents that say not to use it on cases where the cracks run parallel to the flow of traffic.
From the manufacturers, to FHWA (the Fed) to State DOTs, to AMA, all know that the improper application of PCS and its use when contra-indicated is a safety hazard. State DOTs and/or their subcontractors continue to misuse it for cost savings reasons; playing the numbers game. Few affected vehicle operators are aware of the issues to try and seek compensation. Or that judgements from those who do seek legal recourse aren't costly enough to offset that savings.
Last edited by a moderator:
