<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>INVESTIGATION OF BRIDGE DECK PROTECTION SYSTEMS. FINAL REPORT</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/297448</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The study evaluated the effectiveness of various protection systems used for rehabilitation of existing salt contaminated bridge decks.  Protection systems placed and tested included a Stratfull design type cathodic protection; low slump and latex modified concrete wearing surfaces; sheet types Protecto Wrap M-400A and Heavy Duty Bituthene; and liquid types Gacoflex UWM-2811, and Superseal 4000LT membrane systems.  All protective systems were overlaid with asphaltic concrete except for low slump and latex modified concrete.  Each of the protective systems provided a relatively maintenance free overlay for a five to eight year period.  Rutting and shoving of the asphaltic concrete was minor but was the predominant problem with membranes and cathodic protection systems.  Low slump and latex modified concrete overlays provided the smoothest riding surfaces. Membrane systems protected the deck concrete from ingress of chloride ions.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 1989 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/297448</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>MOISTURE RETENTION TESTS AND AGITATION FOR MEMBRANE-FORMING CURING COMPOUNDS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/277810</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Discussed in this paper are the relative merits of Texas specifications (Tex-219-F) and ASTM specifications (ASTM C 156-80) for the testing of moisture retention by liquid membrane-forming curing compounds.  A comparison of the effectiveness of four motorized agitation devices to be used through drum bungholes is also presented.  Preliminary work toward the development of a new moisture-retention test to replace Tex-219-F and ASTM C 156-80 is also outlined, in addition to suggestions for the direction of continuing research.  Recommendations are presented concerning the 6-month curing compound shelf life in effect at the time of the study and the possibility of extending this shelf life. Research is also reported on the effects of altering application rates and pattern on moisture retention.  In addition, the use of optical reflectance as a measure of application rate is examined.  Finally, findings on the usefulness of in-line testing samples compared with samples from stored drums are presented.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 1987 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/277810</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BEARING CAPACITY OF THREE CLOSELY-SPACED FOOTINGS ON SAND</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/210972</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Closely-spaced footings may be encountered on cohesionless soils in the form of grillage foundations and railway ties. Close spacing is known to permit higher loads than can be carried by similar isolated footings.  This effect is due to interference between failure zones in the sand, and may increase the capacity by 150% when the angle of shearing resistance equals 35 degrees and the centreline separation of the footings is approximately twice the footing width B. The method of stress characteristics has been used to calculate the theoretical bearing capacity of a series of parallel footings, and these have been compared with laboratory tests on three parallel surface footings at various spacings on two different sands.  The testing programme also investigated the effects of footing roughness and load distribution.  When interference occurs, pre-failure settlements become larger, and post-failure behaviour more ductile.  The theoretical solutions show similar trends to the model tests, but suggest that interference stops at rather smaller spacings. (Author/TRRL)]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 1985 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/210972</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>THE SHIELD WITH LIQUID SUPPORT AT THE FACE</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/80405</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In difficult noncohesive terrain with water under pressure, traditional tunnelling methods have some serious disadvantages which cannot always be completely overcome by the use of the bentonite shield, even under pressure. But the shield technique when combined with the system of liquid support at the attacking face, provides new possibilities for satisfactory drilling in very difficult terrain.  This article outlines the basic principles of such a method, and describes some recent experience of its application in Japan, England and Germany. /TRRL/]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Dec 1978 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/80405</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MEMBRANE WATERPROOFING FOR CONCRETE BRIDGE DECKS</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/25564</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The assessment is reported of the effectiveness of waterproofing membranes in Ohio (almost exclusively of the liquid-applied type) which involved the laboratory testing of most all membranes and the collection of data on all new field installations of both liquid and sheet membranes. The effect of construction practices was noted, and the use of a sand asphalt mix between the membrane and the surface course of asphaltic concrete was studied. Samples of membranes were made and tested for loss of impermeability by a modified version of the resistivity testing apparatus. The impermeability of membranes in the field was measured by a recently developed electrical resistivity method. Evaluatory comments are made on liquid-applied membrane systems such as Firestone and Goodyear, Marbilistic liquid neoprene, etc., and sheet membranes. Two built-up systems (a coal-tar emulsion with fiberglass reinforcing mesh and a Type B membrane) and a rubberized sand-asphalt system are also discussed.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 1975 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/25564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>