Roadware Concrete Mender: Independent Testing, Research and Published Evaluations

Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender has been examined through independently executed laboratory testing, university research, state Department of Transportation field evaluations, and state DOT material-qualification programs.

Taken together, these sources provide published information about tensile and compressive properties, viscosity, penetration into concrete, bond characteristics, rapid curing, field application, bridge-deck crack sealing, and use as a localized concrete repair material.

The evidence comes from several distinct types of sources. These include mechanical testing performed by Element Materials Technology, laboratory testing associated with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, field evaluations conducted by the Wisconsin and South Dakota Departments of Transportation, technical guidance from the International Concrete Repair Institute, and approved or qualified material listings maintained by several state DOTs.

Evidence distinction: Independent laboratory testing, manufacturer-commissioned testing, agency-sponsored field research, technical guidance, and inclusion on an approved-material list are different forms of evidence. None should be interpreted as a blanket agency endorsement or proof that a product is appropriate for every concrete repair condition.

Summary of Findings

Engineering Property	Reported Result	Test/Evaluation	Source
Compressive strength, no aggregate	3,883 psi average	ASTM D695-15	Element
Compressive strength, aggregate-filled	6,681 psi average	ASTM D695-15	Element
Tensile strength	3,385 psi average	ASTM D638-14	Element
Tensile modulus	150.7 ksi average	ASTM D638-14	Element
Elongation at break	7.15% average	ASTM D638-14	Element
Slant-shear bond strength	Approx. 1,984 psi	ASTM C882-99	University testing

---

Roadware Concrete Mender: Quick Engineering Answers

Has Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender been independently tested?

Yes. Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender has been evaluated through laboratory testing and agency research programs. Sources presented on this page include testing performed by Element Materials Technology and research associated with University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and South Dakota Department of Transportation.

What is the tested compressive strength of Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender?

Element Materials Technology reported an average compressive strength of 3,883 psi for specimens without aggregate and 6,681 psi for aggregate-filled specimens under the ASTM D695-15 testing described on the page.

What is the tested tensile strength?

The Element Materials Technology tensile testing reported an average tensile strength of 3,385 psi, average tensile modulus of 150.7 ksi, and average elongation at break of 7.15% for five specimens tested under ASTM D638-14.

What bond testing has been reported?

Testing associated with University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reported an average ASTM C882-99 slant-shear bond strength of approximately 1,984 psi from three composite specimens tested after four days. The page appropriately cautions that this result should not be interpreted as a field pull-off measurement or proof of bond under every field condition.

Has Roadware Concrete Mender been evaluated on bridge decks?

Yes. The page documents separate bridge-deck evaluations by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and South Dakota Department of Transportation. The studies address crack sealing, installation, penetration and other field-performance observations under their respective study conditions.

Has Roadware Concrete Mender Been Evaluated for Airport Concrete Crack Repair?

Yes. A published 2002 engineering case history documented the evaluation of Roadware 10-Minute Concrete Mender during reconstruction of a Portland cement concrete runway at Allegheny County Airport in Pennsylvania. After evaluating repair alternatives and examining cores from test repairs, the project team reported that the Roadware material penetrated to the bottom of the evaluated crack. The article concluded by recommending consideration of Roadware 10-Minute Concrete Mender for hairline crack repairs.

Can Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender Be Used to Repair Concrete Delamination?

Published technical literature describes its use for this application. A July 2008 Concrete International article describes using 10 Minute Concrete Mender as a low-viscosity, two-part polyurethane for filling voids within delaminated concrete. The article describes a method in which the limits of the delamination are identified, core holes are used to verify the delamination and introduce resin, and the completed repair is subsequently evaluated by sounding or coring.

Can Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender Be Used in Cold-Storage and Freezer Floors?

Published trade literature documents cold-storage applications. A March 2017 Concrete Contractor article documented the use of Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender for a damaged cold-storage entrance threshold subjected to forklift traffic and subzero conditions. The article’s product information states that Concrete Mender can be used at working freezer temperatures below −20°F (−28°C), while also identifying 70°F (21°C) as the temperature associated with its nominal 10-minute cure.

What Is the Surface Tension of Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender?

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign laboratory testing reported a surface tension of 0.026 N/m for Concrete Mender Part A, 0.025 N/m for Part B, and 0.026 N/m for Concrete Mender 30–40 seconds after mixing. The testing used the laboratory’s Wilhelmy Plate Method standard practice. For comparison, water at 20°C was reported at 0.0729 N/m.

Why Does Concrete Mender Penetrate Small Cracks and Concrete Pores?

University of Illinois testing reported that Concrete Mender readily wets concrete surfaces, with a contact angle of 0°. The report considered the measured surface tension together with previously measured viscosity of approximately 10 cP and concluded that these physical properties allow the liquid material to be readily drawn into cracks and the pore structure of concrete by capillary action during the first minute after contact.

---

2020 Element Materials Technology Independent Laboratory Testing

Tensile and Compressive Strength Testing of 10 Minute Concrete Mender

• Laboratory: Element Materials Technology
• Client: Roadware Inc.
• Report: ESP034592P.1R0
• Report date: November 17, 2020
• Tensile test certificate: Element New Berlin Report ENB029346P
• Tensile certificate date: November 13, 2020
• Test methods: ASTM D695-15 and ASTM D638-14

In 2020, Element Materials Technology conducted tensile and compressive strength testing on cured samples identified by the client as 10 Minute Concrete Mender. Roadware commissioned the work and supplied the cured samples, while Element performed the laboratory testing and data analysis. The report states that its scope was limited to conducting tensile and compressive strength tests on the submitted samples and reporting the results. [1]

External source: Element Materials Technology — Materials Testing Services

Element Sample Preparation and Test Conditions

Element reported receiving samples identified by Roadware as “cured 10 Minute Concrete Mender” on November 3, 2020. Tensile specimens were machined from flat panels approximately 9 inches by 4 inches by 0.1 inch. Compressive specimens were sectioned from rods approximately 6.5 inches long and 0.5 inch in diameter. [1]

• ASTM D695-15 compression: Cylindrical specimens tested at 0.05 inch per minute.
• No-aggregate compression specimens: Five.
• Aggregate-filled compression specimens: Four.
• ASTM D638-14 tensile testing: Five Type I specimens.
• Tensile test speed: 0.2 inch per minute.
• Tensile load cell: 500 lbf.
• Elongation measurement: Two-inch extensometer.

The primary Element report states that specimens were conditioned at standard laboratory conditions of 73 ± 4°F and 50 ± 5% relative humidity for at least 88 hours before testing. The attached Element New Berlin tensile certificate states that the tensile specimens were conditioned for at least 40 hours at 23 ± 2°C and 50 ± 10% relative humidity. [1]

ASTM D695-15 Compressive Strength Results

Sample	Specimens	Average Compressive Strength	Average Modulus
No Aggregate	5	3,883 psi	127 ksi
Aggregate-Filled	4	6,681 psi	477 ksi

Element Materials Technology reported an average compressive strength of 6,681 psi for the aggregate-filled specimens tested in accordance with ASTM D695-15.

The reported standard deviation was 92 psi for the no-aggregate compressive-strength specimens and 523 psi for the aggregate-filled specimens. Modulus standard deviations were 2 ksi and 40 ksi, respectively. Under these laboratory conditions, the aggregate-filled specimens produced substantially higher average compressive strength and modulus than the no-aggregate specimens. [1]

ASTM D638-14 Tensile Results

Specimen	Modulus	Elongation at Break	Tensile Strength
1	150.2 ksi	7.17%	3,380 psi
2	149.3 ksi	9.92%	3,411 psi
3	150.5 ksi	7.07%	3,405 psi
4	150.4 ksi	4.57%	3,348 psi
5	153.0 ksi	7.01%	3,384 psi
Average	150.7 ksi	7.15%	3,385 psi
Standard Deviation	1.4 ksi	1.90%	25 psi

What the Element Testing Supports

The Element program provides independently executed, ASTM-based measurements of mechanical properties for the cured 10 Minute Concrete Mender samples supplied by Roadware. The testing documents ASTM D695 compressive strength and modulus and ASTM D638 tensile strength, tensile modulus, and elongation at break. [1]

What the Element Testing Does Not Establish

Tensile and compressive strength testing should not be interpreted as proof of every performance characteristic required for a concrete repair system.

Evidence-quality note: Element states that the reported data represent only the items tested. Roadware commissioned the work and supplied the cured samples, while Element independently performed the laboratory testing and data analysis. [1]

University of Illinois Laboratory Testing

Earlier laboratory work associated with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign evaluated additional characteristics of Concrete Mender, including viscosity, microscopic penetration, interface characteristics, shrinkage, elastic modulus, flexural behavior, surface tension, and ASTM C882 slant-shear bond. [4]

ASTM C882 Bond Testing

An ASTM C882-99 evaluation reported an average slant-shear bond strength of approximately 1,984 psi from three composite specimens tested after four days. [4]

This result provides laboratory evidence of bond under the specimen preparation and curing conditions evaluated. It should not be interpreted as a field pull-off result or as proof of bond under every substrate, moisture, temperature, or exposure condition.

Microscopic Penetration and Interface Examination

Microscopic examination documented an intimate interface between the repair material and cementitious substrate and penetration into the cement paste in the specimens examined. [4]

This laboratory observation supports the proposed mechanism of a very low-viscosity polymer wetting and entering the near-surface pore structure of cementitious material.

Viscosity, Shrinkage and Modulus

The university testing also examined viscosity and rheological behavior during the initial low-viscosity period, along with shrinkage and elastic modulus. These properties help characterize how the material behaves before and after polymerization and complement the later Element tensile and compressive testing. [4]

View the compiled Roadware ASTM and University of Illinois test reports →

University of Illinois Surface-Tension and Wetting Testing

Testing conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Civil Engineering evaluated the surface tension and wetting characteristics of Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender. The results were submitted by Prof. David A. Lange on September 16, 2002.

Wilhelmy Plate Surface-Tension Testing

The surface-tension measurements were conducted in accordance with the laboratory’s Wilhelmy Plate Method standard practice. The evaluation measured Concrete Mender Part A, Part B, and the mixed material shortly after combining the two components.

Fluid	Surface Tension
Water at 20°C	0.0729 N/m
Ethanol	0.0223 N/m
Benzene	0.0289 N/m
Glycerin	0.0634 N/m
Concrete Mender Part A	0.026 N/m
Concrete Mender Part B	0.025 N/m
Concrete Mender, 30–40 seconds after mixing	0.026 N/m

Wetting of Concrete Surfaces

The University of Illinois report concluded that Concrete Mender Parts A and B, both separately and together shortly after mixing, exhibited surface tension similar to ethanol or benzene. The report also stated that Concrete Mender readily wets concrete surfaces, with a reported contact angle of 0°.

Low Viscosity and Capillary Penetration

The report considered the surface-tension results together with previously measured viscosity of approximately 10 cP. According to the report, these physical properties describe a fluid capable of being readily drawn into cracks and the pore structure of concrete by capillary action during the first minute after contact.

The report further states that these physical properties are consistent with observed penetration of Concrete Mender into concrete substrates and identifies them as an important element in the material’s ability to bond with concrete repair surfaces.

Engineering Significance

The University of Illinois measurements provide quantitative physical-property data relevant to the behavior of low-viscosity Concrete Mender before polymerization. The combination of measured surface tension, wetting behavior, and previously measured viscosity provides a technical basis for evaluating how the liquid repair material enters cracks and pore structure during its initial low-viscosity period.

Evidence Classification

University laboratory testing. The September 16, 2002 report documents surface-tension measurements conducted by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Civil Engineering using its Wilhelmy Plate Method standard practice. The report also references previously measured viscosity data when discussing wetting and capillary penetration.

Source

Lange, David A. Surface-tension testing of Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Civil Engineering, September 16, 2002.

Wisconsin DOT Field Evaluation

Evaluation of Roadware 10-Minute Concrete Mender for PCC Bridge Deck Crack Sealing

• Agency: Wisconsin Department of Transportation
• Report: WI-02-04
• Research Study: WI-01-15
• Final Report: January 2004
• Evaluation Period: 2000–2003
• Author: Khader Abu Al-eis, P.E.

WisDOT conducted one of the most extensive published field evaluations specifically involving Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender. The study examined the product primarily as a PCC bridge-deck crack sealer. [2]

Roadware was used on bridges in multiple Wisconsin DOT districts. WisDOT evaluated application procedures, curing time, field performance, labor requirements, traffic-control implications, and cost relative to other crack-sealing materials being used by the agency. [2]

Principal WisDOT Observations

• Roadware was relatively easy to apply.
• The material could be installed using self-mixing cartridge equipment.
• It cured in approximately ten minutes under the conditions evaluated.
• The short cure allowed faster reopening to traffic than the comparison epoxy process.
• Reduced curing time lowered labor and traffic-control requirements.
• The product performed well as a bridge-deck crack sealer during the evaluation period.

One WisDOT district reported that bridge-deck crack-sealing production using Concrete Mender doubled and, in some cases, tripled compared with the TK-9000 epoxy process previously used. WisDOT also reported that higher material cost could be offset by reductions in labor and traffic-control time. [2]

Long-Term Maintenance Observation

The WisDOT study noted that cracks could continue to extend after treatment and reported that another application was generally required after approximately two to three years to address existing or newly developed cracking. [2]

This is an important distinction. Sealing an existing crack does not necessarily stop the underlying concrete from continuing to shrink, move, or develop additional cracks.

WisDOT Spall-Repair Observations

WisDOT also observed Concrete Mender in limited bridge-deck spall applications. Performance was reported as good on U.S. and state highway bridges but only average on higher-volume interstate bridges. The report therefore provides stronger evidence for bridge-deck crack sealing than for high-volume interstate spall repair. [2]

WisDOT expressly stated that publication of the research did not constitute endorsement or approval of a commercial product and did not establish a standard, specification, or regulation. [2]

Read WisDOT Report WI-02-04 →

South Dakota DOT Comparative Bridge-Deck Evaluation

Alternative Sealants for Bridge Decks

• Agency: South Dakota Department of Transportation
• Report: SD2001-04-D
• Final Report: September 9, 2003
• Study Period: April 2001–May 2002
• Prepared by: AEC Engineering, Inc.
• Author: Ariel Soriano, P.E.

The South Dakota DOT study provides another independent source because Roadware was evaluated alongside other bridge-deck crack-sealing technologies. The study identified the Roadware material as “Modified Polyurethane – Roadware.” [3]

SDDOT compared modified polyurethane, reactive methyl methacrylate, two-component epoxy, silane surface sealers, and other bridge-deck treatments. Field applications were conducted on three bridge decks, and the research included field installation, crack measurements, coring, petrographic examination, sealer-penetration observations, and water-penetration testing. [3]

SDDOT Penetration Findings

The SDDOT report estimated modified-polyurethane penetration at approximately 0.06 inch. The report estimated penetration of approximately 0.10 inch for the MMA and epoxy materials evaluated. The researchers also noted that application method could influence penetration. [3]

Bond and Water-Ingress Observations

The study reported that the crack sealers generally demonstrated good penetration and appeared to be well bonded to the crack walls. However, the study did not report a Roadware-specific quantitative pull-off or tensile bond measurement. [3]

SDDOT also found that sealing individual cracks did not necessarily prevent water from entering the surrounding concrete. Although cracks were sealed, water could still penetrate through the unsealed concrete surrounding the cracks. [3]

Bridge-preservation takeaway: Crack sealing and deck-surface protection perform different functions and may sometimes be complementary treatments.

Historical SDDOT Crack-Width Guidance

Crack Classification	Crack Width	Materials Identified by SDDOT
Fine	Less than 0.040 inch	MMA, modified polyurethane, epoxy
Medium	0.040–0.080 inch	MMA, modified polyurethane, epoxy
Wide	Greater than 0.080 inch	MMA, modified polyurethane

This historical guidance should not be interpreted to mean that Concrete Mender is appropriate for every moving or active crack. Current repair selection should consider the cause and expected movement of the crack.

Read SDDOT Report SD2001-04-D →

Low Viscosity and Concrete Crack Penetration

One of the important conclusions from the South Dakota research concerned viscosity. SDDOT recommended concrete crack-sealing materials with viscosities of approximately 15 centipoise or less for effective penetration into bridge-deck cracks. [3]

Current Roadware technical literature reports Concrete Mender viscosity at approximately 8 centipoise. Low viscosity can be particularly important when the objective is to allow a repair resin to enter narrow cracks through gravity or capillary action.

Actual penetration depends on crack width, crack depth, contamination, moisture, concrete porosity, material temperature, substrate temperature, application method, and available working time.

View current Roadware Concrete Mender technical data →

Current State DOT Material-Listing Precedents

In addition to laboratory testing and historical field research, Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender appears within approved, qualified, or accepted-material systems maintained by multiple state transportation agencies.

State DOT	Roadware Material Category / Status	Citation
Virginia DOT	Gravity Filled Polymers for Sealing Cracks in Hydraulic Cement Concrete — Urethane	[6]
Rhode Island DOT	Bridge Structures — Patching Mortar	[7]
Alabama DOT	Concrete Crack Sealers, Low Viscosity	[8]
Indiana DOT	PCC Sealer/Healers — Approval W028183	[9]
Wisconsin DOT	Low Viscosity Crack Sealers for Bridge Decks	[10]

Virginia Department of Transportation

VDOT lists Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender, manufactured by Roadware Incorporated, as a urethane under Gravity Filled Polymers for Sealing Cracks in Hydraulic Cement Concrete. The listing references VDOT Materials Division Manual of Instructions §2.1-252 and VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications §252.02. [6]

View the VDOT Materials Approved List →

Rhode Island Department of Transportation

RIDOT lists Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender, manufactured by Roadware Incorporated, within its approved-material framework under Bridge Structures — Patching Mortar. The RIDOT listing describes the material as a two-component hybrid urethane. [7]

RIDOT also distinguishes approved-material status from endorsement and places responsibility on the contractor to verify suitability and compliance with applicable specifications. [7]

View the RIDOT Approved Materials List →

Alabama Department of Transportation

ALDOT lists Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender within a Concrete Crack Sealers, Low Viscosity category. [8]

This classification is relevant to the South Dakota research because SDDOT identified low viscosity as an important characteristic for bridge-deck crack penetration. [3]

Visit the Alabama Department of Transportation →

Indiana Department of Transportation

INDOT’s PCC Sealer/Healers approved-products list includes Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender. [9]

• Manufacturer: Roadware Inc.
• Product: 10 Minute Concrete Mender
• Source Code: 9541
• Approval Number: W028183
• Material Code: 901M00160
• Specification References: 503.06(b), 722.12 and 901.06

View the INDOT PCC Sealer/Healers Approved Products List →

Wisconsin Department of Transportation Approved Product Listing

In addition to conducting the historical field evaluation, WisDOT lists Roadware, Inc. — 10-Minute Concrete Mender within its Low Viscosity Crack Sealers for Bridge Decks category. [10]

Wisconsin therefore provides two distinct forms of precedent:

1. a published DOT field evaluation [2]; and
2. a DOT approved-product-list precedent [10].

These should be treated separately. A research evaluation documents observed field experience, while an approved-product listing establishes qualification within a defined agency material category.

View the WisDOT Low Viscosity Crack Sealers for Bridge Decks list →

Current DOT Listings vs. Historical DOT Evaluations

Agency	Type of Evidence	Roadware Relevance	Citation
Virginia DOT	Current material listing	Urethane gravity-filled polymer crack sealer	[6]
Rhode Island DOT	Current material listing	Bridge Structures — Patching Mortar	[7]
Alabama DOT	Current material listing	Low-viscosity concrete crack sealer	[8]
Indiana DOT	Current material listing	PCC Sealer/Healer	[9]
Wisconsin DOT	Current material listing	Low-viscosity bridge-deck crack sealer	[10]
Wisconsin DOT	Historical field evaluation	Bridge-deck crack sealing and limited spall observations	[2]
South Dakota DOT	Historical comparative field evaluation	Modified-polyurethane bridge-deck crack sealer	[3]

Qualification versus endorsement: Inclusion on an approved or qualified materials list establishes precedent within a defined agency material category. It should not be described as an agency endorsement or as automatic approval for every project or repair condition.

ICRI 320.2R and Concrete Repair Material Selection

The International Concrete Repair Institute’s ICRI 320.2R, Guide for Selecting and Specifying Materials for Repair of Concrete Surfaces, provides a useful framework for interpreting laboratory and field data for concrete repair materials. [5]

ICRI 320.2R is not a Roadware product approval. It provides general guidance for selecting repair materials according to factors such as substrate condition, bond, dimensional compatibility, mechanical properties, thermal behavior, moisture and freeze-thaw exposure, repair geometry, service loads, durability, and constructability. [5]

This framework is important because compressive strength alone does not determine whether a repair material is appropriate for a particular concrete repair.

Visit the International Concrete Repair Institute →

What the Combined Published Evidence Supports

Taken together, the laboratory, field, and qualification evidence provides support for considering Roadware Concrete Mender where the repair objective involves:

• localized concrete cracks;
• low-viscosity crack penetration;
• rapid repair operations;
• short traffic or facility shutdown windows;
• dry, sound concrete;
• dormant or relatively stable cracking;
• localized concrete defects appropriate for polymer repair;
• bridge-deck crack sealing under appropriate conditions;
• PCC crack repair; and
• applications where rapid return to service is important.

This combined evidence includes laboratory mechanical-property testing [1], laboratory bond and material-characterization testing [4], DOT field evaluations [2] [3], and state DOT material-listing precedents [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

What the Combined Evidence Does Not Establish

The published research should not be interpreted as demonstrating that Concrete Mender is appropriate for every concrete repair.

• active structural cracks;
• expansion or isolation joints;
• continuously moving cracks;
• wet or saturated concrete;
• moisture-transmitting substrates;
• widespread bridge-deck deterioration;
• major structural section replacement;
• large overlays;
• severe delamination;
• every freeze-thaw or deicing exposure;
• every abrasion or wheel-impact condition;
• every high-volume traffic spall repair; or
• every structural load-sharing application.

Material selection should be based on the actual cause of deterioration, crack activity, substrate condition, exposure, repair geometry, traffic, moisture, environmental conditions, and applicable project specifications. This project-specific approach is consistent with general concrete-repair material-selection principles. [5]

Published Engineering Case History

Allegheny County Airport Runway Crack Repair Case History

An October 2002 engineering case history published in PB Network documented the investigation and repair of hairline cracking that developed in new Portland cement concrete runway pavement at Allegheny County Airport in West Mifflin, Pennsylvania. The project involved the reconstruction of Runway 13-31 with a new Portland cement concrete surface.

Hairline Cracking in New Concrete Pavement

During cleanup operations following saw cutting, the project team observed hairline cracks adjacent to transverse joints. The cracks were located directly above the dowel bars and appeared to range from approximately 4 to 12 inches in length.

Core samples indicated that the cracks extended approximately 1 to 1.5 inches into the concrete. At some locations, the cracks extended to the top of the dowels.

Evaluation of Crack Repair Methods

The project team determined that a crack repair method should be evaluated as an alternative to removing and replacing the affected concrete slabs. Two potential epoxy repair materials were evaluated, and manufacturers demonstrated their materials by repairing test cracks.

Post-injection evaluation included examination of cores taken from the test locations. Based on visual examination of material penetration, Roadware 10-Minute Concrete Mender was selected for further testing.

“It had penetrated to the bottom of the crack easily with its low coefficient of viscosity.”Peter Florian, “Lessons Learned on a Runway Reconstruction Project,” PB Network, No. 54, October 2002.

The published case history also reported that the Roadware material was applied with an application gun and did not require preparatory steps for the crack under the conditions of this project.

Engineering Significance

This case history is significant because the material evaluation involved an actual concrete pavement repair condition rather than laboratory specimens alone. The project team examined repair alternatives and evaluated penetration using cores taken from the test repair locations.

The published “Lessons Learned” section concluded with the recommendation:

“Consider using Roadware 10-Minute Concrete Mender™ for hairline crack repairs.”Peter Florian, PB Network, October 2002.

Evidence Classification

Engineering project case history. This source documents field investigation, evaluation of repair alternatives, core examination, and observations made during an airport runway reconstruction project. It should be distinguished from standardized ASTM laboratory testing and should not be interpreted as a general performance guarantee for all concrete pavement or crack-repair conditions.

Source

Florian, Peter. “Lessons Learned on a Runway Reconstruction Project.” PB Network, No. 54, October 2002, pp. 26–29.

Published Technical Literature: Concrete Delamination Repair

A July 2008 article published in Concrete International describes the use of Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender as a minimally invasive method for repairing delaminated concrete floors. The article, “Minimally Invasive Delamination Repairs,” was written by Nelson R. Tonet and addresses material flow, placement, repair verification, and the use of low-viscosity polyurethane to fill internal delamination voids.

Low-Pressure Flow Into Concrete Delaminations

The article describes 10 Minute Concrete Mender as a high-penetration, two-part hybrid polyurethane that fills voids and penetrates concrete surfaces at ambient pressure. According to the article, the resin has a viscosity similar to water and requires only 1 to 2 inches (25 to 50 mm) of head to move along a delamination gap.

The article further reports that the resin’s low surface tension allows it to wet the surfaces of the delamination and flow as far as 10 ft (3 m) from an injection point, even where the delamination has virtually no slope.

Reported Material Properties

• Material: Two-part hybrid polyurethane
• Set time: 10 minutes
• Reported tensile strength: Approximately 4,000 psi (28 MPa)
• Flow characteristic: Viscosity described as similar to water
• Reported head pressure: 1 to 2 in. (25 to 50 mm)
• Reported flow distance: Up to 10 ft (3 m) from an injection point under the conditions described

Repair Verification

The article describes two methods for evaluating the completed repair. After the resin cures, the repaired area can be checked by sounding. Cores can also be taken to evaluate the completeness of the injection. Where an unfilled void is identified, the article describes drilling and filling additional locations as required.

Resin Studs and Load Transfer

The article also describes the formation of “resin studs” where core holes extend below the delamination layer. According to the author, these resin-filled openings help bond the separated concrete sections and transfer shear across the delamination.

Evidence Classification

Published technical article. This source describes delamination-repair techniques, material characteristics, installation methods, and field verification practices involving 10 Minute Concrete Mender. It should be distinguished from an independent ASTM laboratory test report or government-agency research study.

Source

Tonet, Nelson R. “Minimally Invasive Delamination Repairs: Cutting Waste by Eliminating Partial or Full-Depth Replacement.” Concrete International, July 2008, pp. 50–51.

Conclusion

Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender has a substantial documented history for a specialty rapid concrete repair material.

The evidence reviewed includes 2020 ASTM tensile and compressive testing performed by Element Materials Technology [1], University of Illinois laboratory testing addressing bond, penetration, viscosity, and other material characteristics [4], Wisconsin DOT field evaluation of PCC bridge-deck crack sealing [2], South Dakota DOT comparative bridge-deck research [3], and state DOT material-listing precedents in Virginia, Rhode Island, Alabama, Indiana, and Wisconsin [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

The 2020 Element Materials Technology report adds independently executed ASTM tensile and compressive measurements to this evidence base. Its strongest contribution is precise mechanical-property data for the cured samples tested. [1]

The Element results complement rather than replace the University of Illinois interface and bond studies [4], Wisconsin and South Dakota DOT field evaluations [2] [3], current technical literature, and state DOT material-qualification precedents.

Together, the published evidence supports consideration of Roadware 10 Minute Concrete Mender as a low-viscosity, rapid-setting polymer repair material for appropriate concrete cracks and localized repairs, particularly where minimizing downtime or traffic disruption is important.

Responsible specification requires distinguishing between independent laboratory testing, manufacturer-commissioned testing, historical field evaluation, product qualification, and agency endorsement. A laboratory report documents performance under defined test conditions. A field evaluation documents observed performance under the conditions studied. An approved-material listing establishes qualification within a defined agency category. None of these, individually, establishes suitability for every concrete repair.

For engineers, owners, contractors, and transportation agencies evaluating Roadware Concrete Mender, the appropriate approach is to combine the published research with current technical data, project specifications, substrate evaluation, crack classification, environmental exposure, and project-specific acceptance requirements. [5]

---