{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01868131868131868, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027472527472527475, 'mean_word_length': 5.172881355932203, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Performance Comparison of Hot Rubber Crack Sealants to EmulsifiedAsphalt Crack Sealants

This is the final report from the Center for Transportation Research on Project 4061. It presents the results, findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on the surveys, lab tests, and information collected on test sections for the 4-year study. Sealing and filling cracks has always been an important consideration in pavement maintenance. Hot rubber asphalt has been the most commonly used material for this purpose, providing good performance in most cases. Some Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) districts have been using cold pour asphalt emulsion crack sealants because of the ease of use. However, cold pour crack sealant requires longer setting and curing time, especially in areas of high humidity. The performance history of these cold sealants is not known or not well documented in comparison to the performance of hot pour crack sealants. Furthermore, the cost associated with the use of this material versus hot pour rubber asphalt is not well documented or determined. The intent of this research project is to compare the cost-effectiveness, performance, and life-cycle costs for hot pour rubber asphalt crack sealant and cold pour asphalt emulsion crack sealant. The comparison includes seven different crack and joint sealants: three cold pour and four hot pour. Eight different roads in five districts were selected for comparison of the sealants, for a total of thirty-three different test sections. The survey and field study results indicate that hot pour sealants performed better than cold pour sealants. In addition, hot pour sealants had lower average annual cost values than cold pour sealants. Modifications to the specifications for crack sealants currently used at TxDOT were suggested.