Case Study on Comparison of Joint Sealant Adhesive Properties Tested in Laboratory and In Situ


Article Preview

The main objective of this case study is to compare whether standardized test methods are able reliably prognosticate the performance of joint sealants and adhesives after installation in a construction. The authors of presented study believe that existing testing procedures intended for testing of bonded and sealed joints do not fully reflect the weather changes exterior surfaces have to withstand. Based on previous experiences a unique geometry of testing sample was used for this purpose allowing the testing of a so-called real joint. A group of test samples was subjected to two normalized test procedures that may influence the resulting behavior of the joint in the exterior. The second group of test samples was exposed to the external environment for a particular period. The obtained results of tests show that the standardized methods are able to simulate an outdoor environment, however, only to a certain level. Unfortunately, these methods do not consider the possibility that the sealed or bonded joint might be damaged already during the application itself. While laboratory environment is clean and often dust free, it is not possible to ensure the same conditions in situ. Moreover, in some cases it was monitored that some of the selected sealants tested in an external environment aged rapidly compared to the ones cured and stored in the laboratory. In some cases, the difference between monitored failure modes for indoor and outdoor environment was substantial. The predominant type of sealant failure observed in-situ was adhesive while mainly cohesive failure was monitored in laboratory.



Edited by:

Ulrich Pont, Matthias Schuss and Ardeshir Mahdavi




B. Nečasová et al., "Case Study on Comparison of Joint Sealant Adhesive Properties Tested in Laboratory and In Situ", Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 887, pp. 72-79, 2019

Online since:

January 2019




* - Corresponding Author

[1] M. Y. L. Chew, X. Zhou, Enhanced resistance of polyurethane sealants against cohesive failure under prolonged combination of water and heat, Polym. Test. 21 (2002) 187-193.


[2] M. Y. L. Chew, Retention of movement capability of polyurethane sealants in the tropics, Constr. Build. Mater. 18 (2004) 455-459.

[3] S. H. Ding, D. Z. Liu, Durability evaluation of building sealants by accelerated weathering and thermal analysis, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006) 878-881.


[4] S. H. Ding, D. Z. Liu and L. L. Duan, Accelerated aging and aging mechanism of acrylic sealant, Polym. Degrad. Stabil. 91 (2006) 1010-1016.


[5] T. Yun, O. Lee, S. W. Lee, I. T. Kim and Y. Cho, A performance evaluation method of preformed joint sealant: Slip-down failure, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 1677-1684.


[6] J. Mirza, M. A. R. Bhutta and M. M. Tahir, In situ performance of field-moulded joint sealants in dams, Constr. Build. Mater. 41 (2013) 889-896.


[7] A. Pantaleo, D. Roma and A. Pellerano, Influence of wood substrate on bonding joint with structural silicone sealants for wood frames applications, Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 37 (2012) 121-128.


[8] T. Ihari, A. Gustavsen and B. P. Jelle, Sealant aging and its correlation with facade reflectance, Constr. Build. Mater. 69 (2014) 390-402.


[9] M. Y. L. Chew, Curing characteristics and elastic recovery of sealants, Build. Environ. 36 (2001) 925-929.

[10] A. T. Wolf, Durability Testing of Sealants, The Trouble with Sealants – Sealant Technology Conference, Oxford Brookes University, School of Technology, (2004).

[11] Czech Standards Institute (1983), Test for Resistance of Surface Finish of Building Structures to Temperature Variations (ČSN 73 2581), Retrieved from

[12] Czech Standards Institute (1981), Test for Frost Resistance of Surface Finish of Building Structures (ČSN 73 2579), Retrieved from

[13] S. Ch. Pattanaik, Repair of Active Cracks of Concrete Structures with a Flexible Polyurethane Sealant for Controlled Movement, Retrieved from (2013) 154-158.

[14] B. Nečasová, P. Liška, M. Šimáčková and J. Šlanhof, Test of Adhesion and Cohesion of Silicone Sealants on Façade Cladding Materials within Extreme Weather Conditions, Advanced Materials Research 1041 (2014) 23-26.


[15] B. Nečasová, P. Liška, M. Šimáčková and J. Šlanhof, Case Study on Determination of Tensile Properties of Construction Sealants at Variable Temperatures, Applied Mechanics and Materials 824 (2016) 18-26.


[16] J. Šlanhof, P. Liška, B. Nečasová and M. Šimáčková, The Suitability of Sealants for Use with Concrete Structures, Applied Mechanics and Materials 1122 (2015) 131-134.


[17] J. Šlanhof, P. Liška, B. Nečasová and M. Šimáčková, Verification of Sealing Possibilities of Cement – Based Structures without Additional Surface Treatment, Applied Mechanics and Materials 824 (2016) 164-171.


[18] B. Nečasová, P. Liška and J. Šlanhof, Adhesion and Cohesion Testing of Joint Sealants after Artificial Weathering – New Test Method, Proceedia Engineering vol. 109 (2017) 140-147.


[19] Czech Standards Institute (1995), Adhesives. Designation of main failure patterns (ČSN ISO 10365), Retrieved from

[20] ASTM International (2012), Standard Practice for Classifying Failure Modes in Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic (FRP) Joints (ASTM D 5573 99(2012)), Retrieved from

[21] M. Y. L. Chew, L. D. Yi, Elastic Recovery of Sealants, Build. Environ. 32 (1997) 187-193.

[22] R. Lacombe, Adhesion Measurement Methods: Theory and Practice, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, (2006).