This project evaluated alternative low-cost waterproofing materials for small construction sites in Northern Province, Sri Lanka. Three cement-fevicol mix tanks and three lime-fevicol mix tanks were constructed and subjected to ponding, durability and bonding tests. Results found the lime-fevicol mix tanks performed better with minimal leakage observed and a protective lime layer forming on the water surface over three days, indicating potential as an effective and affordable waterproofing solution. Cost analysis found the lime-fevicol mix cost Rs. 690 per square meter compared to over Rs. 1,000 for standard materials, suggesting it can help encourage waterproofing in small northern constructions.

1. ADVANCED
TECHNOLOGICAL
INSTITUTE - JAFFNA
Higher NATIONAL diploma in ENGINEERING ( Civil )
• P.Nirojan - JAF/CE/2014/F/0041
• S.Srisaisoruban - JAF/CE/2014/F/0046
• K.Vidyatharan - JAF/CE/2014/F/0054

2. Project coordinator : Mr.V.Pirathaparan
Project Location : Nothern Province

3. 1 - Introduction
Water proofing is very necessary in the surface which are in touch with water. If
we don’t do the waterproofing, the leakage and absorption of water more
harmful to the surface.
Nowadays waterproofing materials are available in markets but rate is very high.
Although in the higher constructions they use but in the small construction site
and small contractors In villages they want to avoid spend lot of money for the
water proofing work in nothern province and other areas also.
AIM AND OBJECTIVES
•To reduce cost for waterproof material in construction
•To find out the suitable alternative materials which are easily available for
water proofing
•To encourage waterproofing work in small construction work too

4. Master seal
K 11
Fair mate
Water guard liquid
standard water
proofing materials
ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL
SELECTION
Fevicol adhesive
O.P.C Cement / lime
Water
We decided these following alternative
materials for water proofing
Generally These Materials Are Used
For Waterproofing work

5. 2 - Literature Review
Mr.Rymond (2000) reported on water proofing materials usage and
alternative material selection for waterproofing. In his paper, he reported
standard waterproofing materials has ability to make molecules layer on
pores of surface to reduce the permeability. Above ability should be
when the selection of alternative material for waterproofing.
Mr.Prudip (2006) carried out some studies on waterproofing. By the
introduction of suitable alternative material, can reach the lower cost with
best quality expectation for waterproofing.
Any suggestions to the alternative material didn’t proceed yet. They
only recommended the require characteristic to the alternative
material selection. We choose the alternative materials to satisfy
their statement.

6. 3 - Comparison
STANDARD MATERIAL
(master seal 540)
ALTANATIVE
MATERIAL
Cost Per 𝑚2
(SLS) High Low
Durability Minimum 10 Years (On Process)
Availability Depend on market Easily Available
Colour White Gray and White
Flexibility Easy Easy
Safety Measures High Low

7. 4 – Progress Chart
ITEM
June July
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
Material Tools Arrangement
Construction Of Tanks
Curing Of Tanks
Allow To Dry
Water Pouring
Leakage Identify
Allow To Dry
1st Coat Water Proof Apply
2nd Coat Water Proof Apply
Water Pouring
Observation

8. 5 - Methodology
The waterproof material divided in two part. first part A in liquid stage then second part B in
powder stage. The identified the suitable substitutes materials for waterproof.
part A : Fevicol, Margo Adhesive, Tar
Part B : Cement, Lime, Mud,
 Identification Of Substituent Material
 Availability Of Substituent Material
Above mentioned materials are available in northern province widely. So can get materials
required manner.
Finally we decided to use the fevicol adhesive as part A and cement or lime
as part B with required amount pure water for the testing.

9. Material Arrangement
Material Total Quantity
Bricks 240 Nos
Sand ( River Sand ) 2 bags ( 50 kg )
Cement ( Nippon ) 16 kg
Lime 4 kg
Fevicol ( Synthetic Resin Adhesive ) 1 kg
Water ( Pure Water ) Required amount

10. Tools
 Mason Trowel
 Level bar
 Plumb bop
 Sprit level
 Try square
 Hoe
 Shovel
 Maniyas
 Bucket
 Polythene
 Measuring tape
 Coating brush
 Sieve

11. 1. CONSTRUCTION WORK OF TANKS
• Materials were bought and Tools were arranged.
then those were transported to our work site
• Impurities and other large particles were removed
from Fine aggregate ( Sand ) by sieve, Working place
was cleaned
• Cement sand Mortar was mixed thoroughly in ratio 1:5 for brick construction
• Polythene sheet was placed over the surface to avoid
bonding between the surface and mortar, Then tank
bed was prepared in 15 mm thickness and size of 400
mm X 400 mm, Then brick construction was started
by stretcher bond on the above bed size in height of
450 mm with the brick thickness 100 mm.

12. • When do the construction we had to maintain the internal surface as smooth for
easy apply of material.
• Checked the alignment of tanks by using plumb bop, level bar and sprit level.
Internal right angle were maintained using setsquare, tank top was leveled by
mortar
• Well curing was done to the tanks for 3 days. Tanks were named as I, II, III, IV, V,
VI.

13. 2. IDENTIFY THE LEAKAGE
For our water proofing test, firstly we had to ensure the leakage in the tanks. Then
only we can find out the possibility of our proceeded alternative water proof
material to reduce the leakage amount
After the curing the tanks were allowed to fully dry (for easy to identify the
leakages). Then Water fully filled into the tanks when filling the we had to fill
without any spill of water on the tank’s external surface.
Tank open area was covered tightly to prevent the evaporation, field
temperature was measured
observations were recorded

14. 3. SURFACE PREPARATION
CEMENT : FEVICOL : WATER = 3 : 1 : 2
LIME : FEVICOL : WATER = 3 : 1.5 : 2
4. MIXING OF WATER PROOF MATERIALS
Remaining water in the tank was removed and tanks
were allowed to dry
The internal surfaces of every tanks were cleaned and fillet
application was done to all corners with cement : sand
motor
We analyzed with our coordinator to select the possible mixing ratio of the water
proof materials and decided the following ratio by volume

15. 4. APPLICATION
First 3 tanks were applied with cement fevicol mix (tank I, tank II and tank III)
Other tanks ( tank IV, tank V and tank VI ) were applied with lime fevicol mix
Application of mix was done to cover whole area smoothly with two coat of
application by
 vertical apply  horizontal apply

16. 6 - Cost Analysis
In the planning stage of a project or work, we have to choose in economical way
with higher quality to reach success. When we proceed a alternative material for
standard one, checking and analyzing in cost vice is help to recommendation of the
proceeded material.

17. Description unit Rate Quantity Amount(Rs)
Material
Cement (Nippon) bag 900 0.08 72
Fevicol (Adhesive) kg 580 0.5 290
Wastage - 10% 36.20
Labour
Skill Labour hr 200 0.75 150
Unskill Labour hr 150 1.25 187.50
Tools and machineries 10% 33.75
Overhead and profit - 14% 107.72
Total Amount 877.17
Analyzing for cement fevicol application( 𝑚2
)
• Applied area = ((230x435x4)+(230x230)) x 3
= 1.359 m2
• Cost for 1.359 m2 = Rs 877.17
• So, Cost for 1 m2 = 877.17/1.359 = Rs 645.45
= Rs 646.00

18. Analyzing for Lime fevicol application(𝑚2
)
Description unit Rate Quantity Amount
Material
Lime bag 900 0.13 120
Fevicol (Synthetic Resin
Adhesive)
kg 580 0.5 290
Wastage 10% 41
Labour
Skill labour hr 200 0.75 150
Unskill labour hr 150 1.25 187.50
Tools and machineries 10% 33.75
Overhead and profit - 14% 115.11
Total Amount 937.36
• Applied area = ((230x435x4)+(230x230)) x 3
= 1.359 m2
• Cost for 1.359 m2 = Rs 937.36
• So, Cost for 1 m2 = 937.36/1.359 = Rs 689.74
= Rs.690.00

19. Analyzing the Alternative material with Standard
Description Unit Amount
Water proofing treatment by using flexible Polymer cement
slurry according to manufacturer's specifications. ( Master
seal 540 or equivalent approved product including
preparation of surface) (Rate from BSR-2016)
𝑚2 Rs 1,187.00
Water proofing treatment by using
Cement : fevicol : water mix in ratio of 3 : 1 : 2
𝑚2 Rs 646.00
Water proofing treatment by using
Lime : fevicol : water mix in ratio of 3 : 1.5 : 2
𝑚2
Rs.690.00

20. 7 - Tests Carried Out
 Ponding test
To identify the water leakage through the water proof applied
surface
 Bonding test
To ensure the bonding between applied material and surface
 Durability test
To determine the expecting life time without failure

21. Testing procedure
 PONDING TEST
The tank were ensure free from moisture (to early
identify the leakages after water filling)
Water fully filled into the tanks (fill the water carefully
into the tanks without any spill of water to the outside)
Open areas of every tanks were covered tightly by using
regiforms to avoid the evaporation, field temperature was
measured.

22.  DURABILITY TEST
Durability is a Maximum life time of a material without losing of property. We
checked Durability of applied material with time duration.
• Ability of water reserve
compare the first and last day leakage amount (water
depth). From the different, we can expect the durability of material.
• Colour change
Colour change affects the durability of materials. Inspected
any colour changes in the surface and water in the tanks with the time period.
 BONDING TEST
Test carried out by visual observation. Observed any changes arise in the
material applied surface in the regular time period.

23. 8- Observations
In the tank I,II,III there is no significant change in colour but in tank IV,V,VI
able to identify the floating white (lime) layer on the water surface with
minimum leakage.
 VISUAL OBSERVATIONS
In the tanks IV,V,VI there is a ‘ scaly ’ formed in the
white surface but in the tanks I,II,III there no change
in the applied surface.

24. Date Time
Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Tank I Tank II Tank III Tank IV Tank V Tank VI
12th June
11.00 a.m. 36 42 29 43 26 31
3.00 p.m. 58 57 48 52 42 38
7.00 p.m. 75 88 70 69 51 47
13th June
7.00 a.m. 118 126 107 119 89 73
11.00 a.m. 128 137 116 134 98 86
3.00 p.m. 134 142 122 148 109 93
14th June 7.00 a.m. 152 166 149 180 127 107
Location : Ariyalai Water pouring Date : 12 June 2017
Temperature : 31℃ Water pouring time : 7.00 a.m
1. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) –BEFORE WATER PROOFING

26. Location : Ariyalai Water pouring Date : 19 June 2017
Avg.Temperature : 30℃ Water pouring time : 7.00 a.m
Date Time
Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Cement Fevicol mix Lime Fevicol Mix
Tank I Tank II Tank III Tank IV Tank V Tank VI
20th June
11.00 a.m - - - - - -
3.00 p.m - - - - - -
7.00 p.m - - - Approx. 2 - -
21st June
7.00 a.m - Approx. 2 - Approx. 2 Approx. 2 Approx. 2
11.00 a.m Approx. 2 Approx. 3 - Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3
3.00 p.m Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3
22nd June 7.00 a.m Approx. 3 Approx. 4 Approx. 3 Approx. 4 Approx. 3 Approx. 4
2. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) - AFTER WATER PROOFING

27. Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Cement Fevicol mix Lime Fevicol Mix
Date Tank I Tank II Tank III Tank IV Tank V Tank VI
23rd June 3 5 4 6 4 4
25th June 5 8 6 9 11 10
27th June 8 12 10 15 17 16
29th June 11 15 13 21 19 21
1st July 15 17 17 25 23 27
3rd July 18 20 21 29 29 35
5th July 22 24 25 34 34 38
7th July 26 29 28 38 40 42
9th July 28 30 31 42 44 47
11th July 30 32 33 49 49 51
13th July 32 33 34 54 52 53
15th July 33 34 35 57 55 56
3. FIND OUT AVERAGE LEAKAGE PER 2 DAY - AFTER WATER PROOFING

28. Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Cement Fevicol mix Lime Fevicol Mix
Date Tank I Tank II Tank III Tank IV Tank V Tank VI
17th July 32 35 36 58 56 58
19th July 33 36 37 59 57 60
21st July 34 38 40 61 58 64
23rd July 35 39 41 62 60 68
25th July 36 40 42 66 64 71
27th July 38 42 43 69 67 75
29th July 41 43 45 71 72 78
31st July 42 45 46 74 76 81
2nd August 44 47 48 78 80 85
4th August 45 48 51 81 83 89
6th August 47 51 53 85 87 95
CONTINUE ……

29. 9. Calculations
Date Time
Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Tank I Tank II Tank III Average Tank IV Tank V Tank VI Average
12th June
11.00 a.m. 36 42 29 35.7 43 26 31 33.3
3.00 p.m. 58 57 48 54.3 52 42 38 44.0
7.00 p.m. 75 88 70 77.7 69 51 47 55.7
13th June
7.00 a.m. 118 126 107 117.0 119 89 73 93.7
11.00 a.m. 128 137 116 127.0 134 98 86 106.0
3.00 p.m. 134 142 122 132.7 148 109 93 116.7
14th June 7.00 a.m. 152 166 149 155.7 180 127 107 138.0
1. FIND OUT AVERAGE LEAKAGE - BEFORE WATER PROOFING

30. Date
Time
Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Cement Fevicol mix Lime Fevicol Mix
Tank I Tank II Tank III Average Tank IV Tank V Tank VI Average
20th
June
11.00 a.m - - - 0 - - - 0
3.00 p.m - - - 0 - - - 0
7.00 p.m - - - 0 Approx. 2 - - 0.6
21st
June
7.00 a.m - Approx. 2 - 0.6 Approx. 2 Approx. 2 Approx. 2 2
11.00 a.m Approx. 2 Approx. 3 - 1.6 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 3
3.00 p.m Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 Approx. 3 3
22nd
June
7.00 a.m Approx. 3 Approx. 4 Approx. 3 3.3 Approx. 4 Approx. 3 Approx. 4 3.6
2. FIND OUT AVERAGE LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) - AFTER WATER PROOFING

31. Date
Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Cement Fevicol mix Lime Fevicol Mix
Tank I Tank II Tank III Average Tank IV Tank V Tank VI Average
23rd June 3 5 4 4.0 6 4 4 4.7
25th June 5 8 6 6.3 9 11 10 10.0
27th June 8 12 10 10.0 15 17 16 16.0
29th June 11 15 13 13.0 21 19 21 20.3
1st July 15 17 17 16.3 25 23 27 25.0
3rd July 18 20 21 19.7 29 29 35 31.0
5th July 22 24 25 23.7 34 34 38 35.3
7th July 26 29 28 27.7 38 40 42 40.0
9th July 28 30 31 29.7 42 44 47 44.3
11th July 30 32 33 31.7 49 49 51 49.7
13th July 32 33 34 33.0 54 52 53 53.0
15th July 33 34 35 34.0 57 55 56 56.0
3. FIND OUT AVERAGE LEAKAGE PER 2 DAY - AFTER WATER PROOFING

32. Date
Depth of water level from tank top ( mm )
Cement Fevicol mix Lime Fevicol Mix
Tank I Tank II Tank III Average Tank IV Tank V Tank VI Average
17th July 32 35 36 34.3 58 56 58 57.3
19th July 33 36 37 35.3 59 57 60 58.7
21st July 34 38 40 37.3 61 58 64 61.0
23rd July 35 39 41 38.3 62 60 68 63.3
25th July 36 40 42 39.3 66 64 71 67.0
27th July 38 42 43 41.0 69 67 75 70.3
29th July 41 43 45 43.0 71 72 78 73.7
31st July 42 45 46 44.3 74 76 81 77.0
2nd August 44 47 48 46.3 78 80 85 81.0
4th August 45 48 51 48.0 81 83 89 84.3
6th August 47 51 53 50.3 85 87 95 89.0
CONTINUE ….

33. Calculation for Durability Test
 CEMENT FEVICOL TANKS :
Total leakages for 48 days = last leakage Avg.reading – First leakage Avg.reading
Total leakages for 48 days = 50.3 – 4.0
= 46.3 mm
 LIME FEVICOL TANKS :
Total leakages for 48 days = 89.0 – 4.7
= 84.3 mm
leakages amount = 46.3/48
= 0.95 mm/day
leakages amount = 84.3/48
= 1.75 mm/day

34. 10 - Graphing
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (hr)
1. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) –BEFORE WATER PROOFING
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (hr)
Average leakage of Tank – I , II , III Average leakage of Tank – IV , V , VI

35. -0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (hr)
2. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) –AFTER WATER PROOFING
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm) Time (hr)
Average leakage of Tank – I , II , III Average leakage of Tank – IV , V , VI

36. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (day)
3. WATER LEAKAGE (PER 2 DAY) –AFTER WATER PROOFING
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (day)
Average leakage of Tank – I , II , III Average leakage of Tank – IV , V , VI

37. 11 - Comparing And Analyzing
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (hr)
BEFORE
AFTER
1. AVERAGE WATER LEAKAGE BEFORE AND AFTER OF WATER PROOFING TO
CEMENT FEVICOL MIX

38. -20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (hr)
BEFORE
AFTER
2. AVERAGE WATER LEAKAGE BEFORE AND AFTER OF WATER PROOFING TO LIME
FEVICOL MIX

39. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leakage(mm)
Time (Day)
CEMENT
LIME
3. AVERAGE WATER LEAKAGE BETWEEN LIME FEVICOL MIX AND CEMENT
FEVICOL MIX

40. 12 - Result
From Ponding Test
When analyzing before and after waterproofing, the amount of leakage
reduced large amount by the application
When comparing the cement fevicol application and lime fevicol application,
cement fevicol mix application showed less amount of leakage than lime
fevicol mix application. So, cement fevicol mix application showed better
application method for waterproofing
From Bonding Test
We identified white floating on the water surface and scaly formation on the
applied surface on lime fevicol mix applied tanks. It showed less bonding
property on the lime fevicol application method. But there is no significant
change identified cement fevicol mix application. It showed, better bonding
property then lime fevicol application

41. Cement fevicol application method showed less amount of leakage per day. So
cement fevicol application method is durable than lime fevicol application
From Durability Test
Cement fevicol mix Lime fevicol mix
0.95 mm/day 1.75 mm/day
From cost analysis
Description Unit Amount
Water proofing treatment (Rate from BSR-2016) 𝑚2
Rs 1,187.00
Water proofing treatment by using Cement : fevicol : water
mix
𝑚2
Rs 646.00
Water proofing treatment by using Lime : fevicol : water mix 𝑚2
Rs.690.00

42. Lime fevicol mix application method cost is higher than cement fevicol mix
application method, but quality and durability is less compare with other
By comparing the cost of BSR and cement fevicol mix rate, cement fevicol
application became nearly half of the BSR. Comparatively cement fevicol
application is economical but we have to think about the quality and
durability.

43. 13 – Conclusion And Recommendation
From our observation, we observed some leakage on the tanks through the
cement fevicol mix application because we used brick construction. Which
tank surface was constructed by brick work. If we apply to block work or
concreted surface the leakage maybe reduce
By increase the fevicol ratio in the mix the result of bonding test, ponding
test and durability test maybe show better.
For our testing tanks we didn’t apply Plastering work to the surface. If we
apply the waterproof with plastering surface the effectiveness of alternative
waterproofing maybe increase.