huangyhg

concrete sealant for secondary containment
hello, i need help in finding a concrete joint sealant for a secondary containment structure. the sealant will be used on horizontal slabs and on vertical walls, so a self-leveling sealant will not work. the structure will serve as secondary containment for fuel tanks, so it must be fuel resistant. the structure will be outdoors in kansas, so it must be able to handle a wide variety of temperatures. i would like a sealant that is easily applicable, so that the owner may easily inspect and maintain the joints. some of the joints will be expansion/contraction joints, so the sealant cannot be brittle.
in summation, i need a sealant that has the following properties:
-non-self leveling (for use on horizontal and vertical concrete surfaces
-fuel resistant
-wide range of service temperatures
-easily applicable
-flexible
thanks for any input, it is appreciated!
envirolastic polyurea produced by sherwin-williams might be a good move, we have used it on the north slope in a facility with high vibration so it may handle your expansion joint. otherwise they have alot of other similar products.
i believe there is a federal regulation (40 cfr sec. 265.193) that requires the use of chemical resistant waterstop in all joints.
i don't think a sealant will cut it. if the concrete is poured, you'll probably have to line it.
look up pecora corporation. they market a product called synthecalk gc2+ that may meet your requirements.
jed....i believe part 265 of 40 cfr deals with solid hazardous wastes....in my case i would just have to be in accordance with part 112 with deals with oil pollution prevention. i am doing this containment structure as part of an spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plan at a site in kansas in which the groudwater table is shallow and soils are fairly pervious. i think that part 112 allows for compacted earth berms so long as they are sufficiently impervious, which i cannot do in my location....hence a concrete structure.
am i understanding the requirements of 40 cfr correctly??
some nice waterstop salesman made an excerpt of the section i cited above. it seems to me very clearly addressing liquid containments.
i'll research this further.
sorry, i think i previously misspoke (mistyped). 40 cfr part 265 deals with "hazardous wastes".....while cfr part 112 deals with "oil prevention pollution". after looking at these, i believe that part 112 is not nearly as stringent as part 265. part 112 requires some type of secondary containment such as curbs, depressions, berms, vaults, pits, double wall tanks, etc...that acts impervious for 72 hrs...theoretically long enough for a spill to be spotted by the owner. like part 265, part 112 recommends that any type of secondary containment be able to fully contain the volume of the largest container in the facility and also the 25-year 24-hr rainfall event.
let me know if this is not how anybody else interprets it.
with that said, if i am under the part 112 requirements, than i don't necessarily need a chemical resistant water stop or a impermeable liner on the concrete surface. i may still use a water-stop, but i thought that if i use a key-way between my wall and slab along with l-bars, if i have then use a joing sealant than my structure should be impervious for 72 hrs.
any other thoughts?
the problem is that all it takes for one yahoo to interpret it as hazardous waste to make your life miserable. if you put in waterstop, you're pretty much done. with coatings and sealants, there's applicator's skill involved, uv damage, other weather damage, etc.
i shy away from coatings whenever possible. many more bad experiences than good.
very true jed....i'll probably throw in a water-stop. thanks for your input!

__________________
借用达朗贝尔的名言：前进吧，你会得到信心!
[url="http://www.dimcax.com"]几何尺寸与公差标准[/url]