DDP_thesis_report

STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF POLYMER
MODIFICATION IN WATERPROOFING MORTARS
THESIS
submitted by
DEVARSH KUMAR
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the award of the degree of
DUAL DEGREE (B.Tech & M.Tech)
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
INFRASTRUCTURAL DIVISION
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS
MAY 2015

THESIS CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project entitled Effectiveness of Polymer Modification in
Waterproofing Mortars, submitted by Devarsh Kumar, to the Indian Institute of Technology
Madras for the award of the degree of Dual Degree (B.Tech & M.Tech), is a bonafide record of
the research work done by him under my supervision. The content of this thesis, in full or in parts,
have not been submitted to any other institute or university for the award of any degree or diploma.
Prof. Meher Prasad A. Prof. Ravindra Gettu
Professor and Head Professor and Research Guide
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Indian Institute of Technology, Madras
Chennai 600 036 Chennai 600 036
Date: 06th
May, 2015

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My earnest thanks to Prof. Ravindra Gettu, for his support throughout the study. It is through his
guidance that the project has gained structure in such a short span of time. His foresight and
expertise has helped me make the right choices in the project and otherwise. I am thoroughly
indebted to him for the amount of time he has spent in reviewing my analyses and report. I thank
him for his belief in my potential in carrying out the tasks involved. I consider it a privilege to be
working under his guidance. I also owe my gratitude to Mr. Ajay Krishnan and Dr.Priya S.Nair
for his valuable inputs on the status of repair works in IIT Madras. I take this opportunity to thank
T. Sakthivel, Sivakumar, S. Jose, Bahurudeen, Indhuja, Praveen, Deepika and Madhuri for the help
offered by them during experiment and casting. I would also like to acknowledge all the other
project staff of the Building Technology and Construction Management, IIT Madras.
A special thanks to Dr. P. Solanki, A. Basu, Ms. N. Alexander and M.Manikandan for
providing me with research material and Dr. Arun Menon for giving me an opportunity to work
on restoration of Madras High Court Complex. This research would not have started without
encouragement from Prof. Marek Novotný, faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University
and making me familiar with several insulation systems in construction of flat / inclined roofs and
insulation materials used in central Europe. Translation of Hydroizolace Plochych Střech –
Poruchy Střešních Pláštu (Waterproofing of flat roof – failure of roof decks) written by Novotný
et al., into English was made available by Michal Šida, Slovenská Technická Univerzita (Slovak
Technical University). Finally, I am grateful to my parents and friends for their moral support.
Devarsh Kumar

ii
ABSTRACT
Keywords : polymer modified cement mortars (PCM), unmodified cement mortar (UCM),
compressive strength, flexural strength, drying shrinkage, surface water permeability, SBR latex,
ASTM mixing procedure, curing conditions.
The present study is conducted to check the effectiveness of styrene-butadiene rubber
(SBR) latex polymer modified cement mortars (PCM) used in waterproofing industry at varying
curing conditions. The results of this study are analyzed from tests like compressive strength,
flexural strength, total shrinkage strain and surface water permeability performed on PCM
specimens and comparing it with reference specimen of unmodified cement mortar (UCM).
Synthetic polymer latexes such as styrene – butadiene rubber (SBR) latex is compatible with the
base concrete and thereby improves the mechanical and physical properties of the system against
corrosion and water permeability. All PCM specimens are mixed adopting ASTM standard
procedure with a constant water/cement mass (w/c) ratio of 0.45, cement to sand mass (c:s) ratio
of 1:3, polymer to cement (p/c) mass dosage of 4.5% is adopted during the experiment as
recommended from the manufacturer and that of 10% for uniform polymer film formation in the
matrix. Each specimen is subject to change in curing conditions of 1 day, 7 days and 28 days and
comparing the results obtained with UCM reference mortar is reported.
This work also contains a detailed condition assessment and technical specification for
waterproofing of Madras High Court heritage building from the non-destructive and partially-
destructive investigations. All the inferences from the assessment and recommendations, followed
by the items and specifications identified in the waterproofing works is covered in this report. The
new waterproofing treatment is based on a clear understanding of the original layers of the roof

iii
slab. An attempt has been made to increase the watertight nature of the roof slab elements by
prescribing an additional layer of mortar improved by the addition of a chemical compound
immediately above the brick jelly lime concrete (BJLC) layer. As a deviation from the original
cross section, one layer of terracotta tiles above one layer of flat brick tiles may replace the existing
two layers of flat brick tiles. The gaps between the tiles should be filled with cement mortar with
hydrophobic compounds to make them watertight.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT i
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives and scope of the work 3
1.3 Structure of the thesis 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE SURVEY 5
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Basic waterproofing principles 5
2.3 Types of waterproofing systems 6
2.3.1 Below grade waterproofing system
2.3.2 Above grade waterproofing system
6
7
2.4 Polymer admixture used in waterproofing 8
2.5 Recent studies in SBR latex polymer modified cement mortar 10
2.6
2.7
Testing procedures adapted for evaluating the SBR latex modified mortars
Conclusions
11
12
CHAPTER 3: EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS 13
3.1 Materials used and their specification
3.1.1 Cement
3.1.2 Fine aggregate (sand)
3.1.3 SBR latex polymer as a waterproofing material
13
13
18
22
3.2
3.3
Fabrication of the mortars
Experimental techniques and procedures
3.4.1 Flow table
3.4.1 Compressive strength
3.4.2 Flexural strength
3.4.3 Total shrinkage strain
3.4.4 Water permeability
22
24
24
25
26
27
28
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF TESTS ON SBR LATEX
MODIFIED MORTARS
29
4.1 Introduction 29
4.2 Mechanical properties of UCM cement mortars and SBR modified cement
mortars with constant water cement ratio of w/c = 0.45
29
29

v
33
36
48
4.3 Conclusions 50
CHAPTER 5: MADRAS HIGH COURT 51
5.1 Introduction 51
5.2 Methodology used 52
5.3 Non – destructive and partially – destructive testing 53
5.3.1 infrared thermography
5.3.2 core extraction
5.3.3 borehole endoscopy
53
54
55
5.4 Recommendations 57
5.4.1 waterproofing treatment
5.4.2 storm (rain) water drainage system
57
59
5.5 Specifications 60
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
64
6.1
6.2
General conclusions
Specific conclusions
64
64
6.3 Recommendation for further research 65
REFERENCES 66
APPENDIX A 70
APPENDIX B 72
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
75
78
86

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1.1 Preliminary survey of important buildings in IIT Madras 2
2.1 Standard tests used for characterization of mortars used for waterproofing 11
3.1 Chemical properties of Penna 53 grade OPC 13
3.2 Specific gravity of 53 grade OPC 14
3.3 Standard consistency of 53 grade OPC 16
3.4 Initial and final setting time of 53 grade OPC 18
3.5 Observations / calculations for specific gravity test on fine aggregate 20
3.6 Sieve analysis on fine aggregate 20
3.7 Specifications of SBR latex used 22
3.8 Amount of SBR latex and water added in each type of sample used 23
4.1 Compression strength mean values at 7 days of UCM and PCMs 29
4.2 Compression strength mean values at 28 days of UCM and PCMs 31
4.3 Flexural strength mean values at 7 days of UCM and PCMs 33
4.4 Flexural strength mean values at 28 days of UCM and PCMs 34
4.5 Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 1 day curing 36
4.6 Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 7 days curing 39
4.8 Water permeability mean values of each specimen type at 28th
day 48
4.9 Quality requirement of polymer latex as specified in JIS A 6203 50
5.1 Sequence of work 60
Appendix A 70
Appendix B 72
Appendix C 75
Appendix D 78
Appendix E 86

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3.1 Particle size distribution of fine aggregate 21
3.2 Apparatus used in flow table test 24
3.3 Universal testing machine used for compression strength test 25
3.4 Universal testing machine used for flexural strength test 26
3.5 Measurement setup for total shrinkage strain 27
3.6 Setup for determination water permeability 28
4.1 Compression strength mean result at 7 days of UCM and PCMs 30
4.2 Compression strength mean result at 28 days of UCM and PCMs 32
4.3 Flexural strength mean result at 7 days of UCM and PCMs 34
4.4 Flexural strength mean result at 28 days of UCM and PCMs 35
4.5 Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 1 day curing 38
4.7 Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 28 days curing before drying
condition
44
4.8 Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 28 days curing after drying
condition
44
4.9 Total shrinkage strain of UCM 45
4.10 Total shrinkage strain of S-SBR with 4.5% p/c 46
4.11 Total shrinkage strain of S-SBR with 10% p/c 46
4.12 Total shrinkage strain of F-SBR with 4.5% p/c 47
4.13 Total shrinkage strain of F-SBR with 10% p/c 47
4.14 Water permeability mean result of each specimen type at 28th
day 49
5.1 Infrared thermography images in (a) advocate chambers’ room and (b)
verandah showing seepage stains and dampness
54
5.2 IR thermography images in (a) establishment section and (b) 2nd
floor
corridor showing seepage stains and dampness
54
5.3 Schematic 3D view of the Madras terrace roof construction 55
5.4 Reconstruction of cross section of the roof from the extracted 50 mm
diameter core and borehole endoscopy
56
5.5 Original cross section (320 mm thick) of the Madras terrace roof. 56
5.6 Proposed cross section for the waterproofing treatment 59

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The study shown in this report is to study the effect of adding SBR latex polymer in an unmodified
cement mortar (UCM) and observe the effect of different curing conditions. Studying the
mechanical properties of different brands of SBR latex polymer modified cement mortar (PCM)
will showcase the effectiveness of the repairing material and waterproofing systems which can be
used in the construction. My internship with Prof. Marek Novotný, Czech Technical University,
gave me an opportunity to learn about the growing need for better waterproofing systems serving
both above and below grade conditions for roof, basement and toilets. This laid a strong foundation
for me to understand the problems associated with infrastructure projects especially bridges and
underground canals and ways to enhance its durability.
The survey conducted for various buildings in IIT Madras shows that the common water
leakage problems. Table 1.1 lists the different waterproofing treatments proposed for the problems
associated with these buildings.

2
Table 1.1 – Preliminary survey of important buildings in IIT Madras.
Name of the
building
Problem
identified
Method of
treatment
Present condition
Hospital
building
leakage in
roof
polymer
modified
cementitious
system
dampness in sealing mold formation
Central
library
seepage in
basement
floor
reconstruction
of drainage
system and
grouting with
waterproofing
Water leakage in basement
floor
IC Engine
Lab
Rain water
gutters are
under size
and over
flowing
Reconstructing
gutter with non
shrink grout
and laying APP
modified
waterproofing
membrane water leakage from rain
water gutters
H.T.T.P.
Lab
leakage
through
expansion
joint and
gutter
Treating the
expansion joint
with
polysulphate
sealant and
covering gutter
with aluminium
sheet
water leakage from rain
water gutters

3
Availability of a wide range of waterproofing products makes it a challenging task for an
engineer to decide a unique remedy for different problems encountered. So studying on a material
by varying external conditions will provide an overall understanding of the effectiveness of that
material.
1.2 Objectives and scope of the work
This research work focuses on commercially available SBR latex polymer for modification of
cement mortars under different curing conditions. The effectiveness of available polymers are
decided based on compression strength, flexural strength, shrinkage and water permeability test
results.
The specific objectives of the thesis are to assess SBR latex polymer in unmodified cement
mortar with a dosage as recommended by the manufacturer and the minimum requirement of
polymer content for complete film formation. Each specimen is subjected to three types of curing
conditions and the one performing better gives the optimum condition. This study opens a stage for
further research in selecting other cementitious waterproofing polymers for complete evaluation.

4
1.3 Structure of the thesis
Chapter 1 starts with the background and motivation to proceed forward in this research work.
Chapter 2 gives a detailed survey on various work published on polymer modification of cement
mortar
Chapter 3 discusses the testing standards and procedures used for evaluation of mechanical
properties of cement mortars. The following tests were used in this work: compressive and flexural
strength test, total shrinkage and water permeability test.
Chapter 4 presents the test results for unmodified cement mortars and SBR latex modified cement
mortars for constant water cement ratio and different polymer dosage content and curing conditions.
This chapter also includes the inferences derived from the test results.
Chapter 5 addresses the water seepage problem of Madras High Court heritage building at the roof
level by condition mapping of roofs of the structure by visual inspection and non-destructive
evaluation. This is continued with the identification of the cross-sectional details of the existing roof
slab, preparation of recommendations and specifications for the waterproofing works.
Chapter 6 gives the general and specific conclusions of this research work, safety precautions to be
taken care during laboratory experiments and suggestions for further research in this niche. This is
followed by the list of references used during this work and appendices showing test results of
individual specimen used in the experiment.

5
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE SURVEY
2.1 Introduction
With the advancement in science and technology, it is possible to design complex structures provided
its long term durability is taken care off. Often waterproofing problems are encountered not due to
lack of effective waterproofing products but the condition in which such materials are used. In civil
engineering, water is said to be the most destructive weathering element of building material and to
avoid frequent repair works and water ingress problems the building envelope must be prevented
from surface water, groundwater and rainwater.
2.2 Basic waterproofing principles
To ensure a watertight structure, a building should incorporate following steps in the design phase
(Kubal, 2000):
a) Identifying predominant sources of water for which waterproofing is being designed for.
b) Designing a system that restricts the flow of water from the above identified sources can be
categorized as :
i. Barrier systems – act as a protective shield for water infiltration (e.g., urethane
membrane, glass cladding, etc.)

6
ii. Diversion systems – redirecting the incoming water before it gets absorbed into the
substrate (e.g., adequately sloping of roof decks). A general practice of 2% slope on
the terrace should be incorporated to drain the extra water away from the structure.
iii. Drainage systems – though water gets absorbed through the substrate, yet it diverts
back out to the exterior prior to any leakage (e.g., hollow masonry walls).
c) Adequately selecting the material and by following the prescribed technique for proper
execution will safeguard the structure from waterproofing problems because 90% of all the
water intrusion problems occur within 1% of the total building exterior surface area.
2.3 Types of waterproofing systems
Based on the area of the structure where the problem is associated with, waterproofing system can
be broadly classified into following categories:
2.3.1 Below grade waterproofing system
This type of waterproofing system requires a material that can withstand high hydrostatic pressure
from adjacent water table. Capillary action, which is an upward movement of ground water through
voids present in soil from lower wet areas to higher dry areas, helps the ground water to move in the
basement of a structure, cause dampness and mold formation. Very porous materials, like sand, are
generally used to prevent capillary rise of water from ground by filling a layer below the base
concrete. Material used should be a good water repellent and prohibit leakage of water into the
structure. As mentioned in the previous section, this can take barrier or diversion systems in the
designing. There are two ways of installation in below grade waterproofing system :

7
a) Positive-side waterproofing – the material to be used as a waterproofing layer is applied to
the side with direct exposure to hydrostatic pressure head.
b) Negative-side waterproofing – this system is applied to the side that is opposite to the
pressure head, i.e. interior of the wall. Care should be taken to apply a non-breathing coating
to restrict negative vapor transmission from soil present on the other side of the wall.
2.3.2 Above grade waterproofing system
This type of system is designed to withstand adverse weathering effects from ultraviolet light.
Gravitational force, surface tension and wind loads directed on the structure accelerate the water
ingress. Low air pressure inside a room can accelerate the water transmission. However
airconditioning has no effect on water seepage because it causes very minute pressure difference
that is proportional to mass flow rate so not much vapor will come from outside. It is the water
(liquid) that comes through pores (capillary action) that gets condensed on the inside of the wall,
which is seen as dampness. Airconditioning decreases the partial pressure inside the room without
altering water ingress as a source of water leakage. Most of the materials used in this systems are
breathable to allow moisture condensation from interior surfaces to pass through the wall to the
exterior and avoid blisters formation.

8
2.4 Polymer admixture used in waterproofing
Admixtures are used in building materials, like masonry and concrete, to improve the quality of
cementitious product performance, including workability, mechanical strength, shrinkage strain
reduction, better waterproofness by reduction in water absorption, water permeability and water
vapor transmission, and as a result durability of the material increases (Bureau et al., 2001). Polymer
concrete or mortar is a modified mixture formed by adding natural or synthetic chemical compound
separately into the concrete or mortar paste. These days such polymer modified mortars are popular
because of their better cost-performance balance compared to unmodified cement mortars. Polymer
based admixtures are classified into following types (Ohama, 1998):
a) Polymer latex
i. Elastomeric latexes (e.g., styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), natural rubber )
ii. Thermoplastic latexes (e.g., polyacrylic ester (PAE), polyethylene-vinylacetate
(EVA), polystyrene-acrylic ester (SAE).
iii. Thermosetting latexes (e. g., epoxy resin)
iv. Bituminous latexes - rubberized asphalt, paraffin and asphalt
b) Redispersible polymer powder
i. Poly (ethylene-vinylacetate) (EVA)
ii. Poly (styrene - acrylic ester) (SAE)
iii. Poly (Acrylic Ester) (PAE)

9
iv. Polyvinyl acetate (PVA)
c) Water-soluble polymer
i. Liquid Polyvinyl alcohol
ii. Polyacrylamide
iii. Lignosulphonates
d) Liquid polymer
i. Epoxy resin
ii. Unsaturated polyester resin
The commercial polymers widely used in practice are styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR),
chloroprene rubber (CR), polyacrylic ester (PAE) and ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymers
(Elyamany et al., 2014). Latex-modified concrete or mortar provide an improved workability over
conventional cement concrete or mortar because of ‘ball bearing’ action of polymer particles along
with entrained air in the polymer latexes. Research in the area of redispersible polymer powder has
started in recent years to improve its quality over latex polymer, liquid polymer is not cost effective
compared to latex modified cement mortar. Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) latex modified cement
mortars have demonstrated acceptable performance because of its compatibility with the base
concrete. Compressive strength of wet cured unmodified mortar is slightly higher than dry cured
unmodified mortar whereas the acrylic modified mortars has a lower compressive strength value
with respect to the reference mortar (Mirza et al., 2002). The decrease in compressive strength is
due to higher mechanical capacity of cement mortar compared with latex but the reduction of w/c
ratio compensates and maintains the compressive strength (Barluenga and Olivares, 2004).

10
Cementitious systems are excellent materials for use with civil and infrastructure projects, both
above and below-grade, using both positive and negative applications.
2.5 Recent studies in SBR latex polymer modified cement mortar
Polymer to cement mass (p/c) ratio can vary from 0% to 20 % depending on the requirement for a
constant water to cement mass (w/c) ratio, compressive strength decreases with the increase in SBR
latex polymer in the mortar and increases with age whereas flexural strength remains constant with
the change in SBR latex polymer and increases with age. The ratio of compressive strength to
flexural strength reduces if the p/c ratio increases from 10% or more (Wang et al., 2005). The value
of compressive strength decreases in the presence of SBR latex polymer because it is influenced by
the bonding forces influenced by the hydration reaction of cements (Hwang and Ko, 2008). Polymer
modification improves workability of the mortar at a lower w/c ratios.
Microstructure analysis shows that with a p/c ratio of 10% or more coherent, polymer films
are observed in polymer modified cement mortar (PCM). The chemical resistance, polymer film
distribution and ease of handling aqueous modified cement mortar are much better than in powdered
modified cement mortar (Afridi et al., 2003). To increase the concentration of polymer in the
interfacial zone pre-enveloping mixing method is adopted by homogeneous mixing of sand and latex
followed by addition of cement and water. The advantage of pre-enveloping method is observable
with p/c ratio of 10% or below. Properties like water absorption, resistant to freeze thaw cycle and
permeability remain unaltered by the type of mixing method (Zhang et al., 2002). To reduce the
amount of entrained air in the fresh mortar, pre-wetting mixing process is used where water, cement
and sand is mixed initially followed by addition of latex. Addition of polymer leads to decrease in

11
elastic modulus and an increase in toughness (Li and Ma, 2013). Recent study of modifying calcium
aluminate cement (CAC) mortar with SBR latex as repair mortar with constant w/c mass ratio of
0.45 and different curing conditions shows that compressive strength decreases with increase in
polymer content for similar curing type and increases with an increase in curing days for same p/c
ratio (Ukrainczyk and Rogina, 2013).
2.6 Testing procedure adopted for evaluating the SBR latex modified mortars.
The relevant standards widely followed for testing the cement mortar are given below in Table 2.1
Table 2.1 – Standard tests used for characterization of mortars used for waterproofing
Properties evaluated Standard code
Moulds used in tests of cement and concrete IS : 10086 – 1982 (reaffirmed 2008)
Specification for 53 grade Ordinary Portland Cement IS : 12269 – 1987 (reaffirmed 2004)
Chemical analysis of hydraulic cement IS : 4032 – 1985 (reaffirmed 2005)
Determination of specific gravity of cement IS : 2720 – part 3
Determination of consistency of standard cement paste IS : 4031 – part 4
Determination of initial and final setting time for
hydraulic cement
IS : 4031 – part 5
Test for aggregates for concrete IS : 2386 – part 3
Compressive strength test IS : 4031 – part 6 – 1988 (reaffirmed
2005)
Flexural strength test IS : 4031 – part 8 – 1988 (reaffirmed
2005)
Total shrinkage strain ASTM C 596 - 2007
Water permeability test DIN 1048 – part 5

12
2.7 Conclusions
It is more important to properly install the correct waterproofing system because most of the
failures are either due to human installation negligence or using wrong waterproofing system
comprising material, technique or its execution in the wrong place.

13
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
3.1 Materials used and their specification
3.1.1 Cement
Ordinary portland cement (OPC) of 53 Grade conforming to IS : 12269 – 1987 (reaffirmed 2004)1
is used in this work. The chemical properties of the cement are shown in Table 3.1
Table 3.1 – Chemical properties of Penna 53 grade OPC
National Test House (Southern Region)
Method(s) used for test – IS : 4032 - 1985 (reaffirmed 2005)2
OPC 53 grade Penna Cement
Test Name Test Result Limit (IS : 12269)
Total chloride (as Cl) % by mass 0.02 < 0.05
Magnesia (as MgO) % by mass 1.96 < 6
Sulphuric Anhydride (as SO3), % by mass 2.25 < 2.5
Ratio of % of alumina to that of iron oxide 0.87 > 0.66
Sodium oxide (as Na2O), % 0.07 < 0.6
Potassium oxide (as K2O), % 0.48 -
Physical properties of the cement are found by the following tests:
1
IS 12269 : Indian Standard specification for 53 Grade Ordinary Portland Cement
2
IS 4032 : Indian Standard method of chemical analysis of hydraulic cement

14
a) Specific Gravity
The ratio between the weight of a given volume of cement and the weight of an equal
volume of water is defined as the specific gravity of cement.
i. Apparatus used are:
 Le Chatelier’s flask standard flask
 Weighing balance (accuracy upto 0.1 g)
ii. Procedures (IS : 2720 Part 3 – 1980 )3
:
 Le Chatelier’s standard flask was rinsed with kerosene and filled to a point
between 0 ml and 1 ml mark. This gives the initial reading (V1) ml
 Known weight of 64 g (W) of cement was added in the flask without any
splashing and avoiding adherence of cement to the sides of the flask.
 The cement is allowed to disperse in kerosene and new liquid level is noted
as the final reading (V2) ml.
iii. Result:
Specific gravity of cement = W ÷ (V2-V1)
Table 3.2 - Specific gravity of 53 grade OPC
Trial Weight (g) Initial Reading Final Reading
Specific
Gravity
1 64 0.8 20.6 3.23
2 64 0.8 20.6 3.23
This experiment was carried out at 25°C.
3
IS 2720 : Indian Standard determination of specific gravity of cement

15
b) Standard consistency
The procedure to find the percentage of water by weight of dry cement required to prepare
cement paste of standard consistency is used to find normal consistency of the cement.
Standard consistency is defined as that consistency that will permit a Vicat plunger having
10 mm diameter and 50 mm length to penetrate to a depth of 5 to 7 mm from the bottom
of the vicat mould (or 33 to 35 mm from top of the mould).
i. Apparatus used:
 Vicat apparatus as shown in IS : 5513 – 1976 (reaffirmed 2005)4
 Gauging trowel confirming to IS : 10086 – 1982 (reaffirmed 2008)5
 Balance of capacity 1 kg and accuracy upto 1 g
 Measuring cylinder
 Enamelled tray
 Glass plate
ii. Procedure (IS : 4031 (Part 4) – 19886
):
 500 g of cement (C) was taken and thoroughly gauged with 145 g of distilled
water (W) by weight on a tray in 3 to 5 minutes.
 Cement paste is filled inside the Vicat’s mould placed over a glass plate
with smooth surface of the paste from the top.
 Trial pastes with varying percentages of distilled water in used until the
amount of water necessary for making the standard consistency is achieved.
4
IS 5513 : Indian Standard Vicat apparatus - specification
5
IS 10086 : Indian Standard specification for moulds for use in tests of cement and concrete
6
IS 4031 (4) : Indian Standard methods of physical tests for hydraulic cement (Part 4 – Determination of
consistency of standard cement paste)

16
iii. Result:
The percentage of water = W/C × 100
Table 3.3 - Standard consistency of 53 grade OPC
Trial Water (g) Penetration (mm)
1 145 4
2 140 6
This experiment was carried out at 25°C and relative humidity of 65% to give 28% as
normal consistency.
c) Initial and final setting time of cement
i. Apparatus used:
 Vicat apparatus as shown in IS : 5513 – 1976 (reaffirmed 2005)7
 Gauging trowel confirming to IS : 10086 – 1982 (reaffirmed 2008)8
 Balancy of capacity 1 kg and accuracy upto 1 g
 Measuring cylinder
 Enamelled tray
 Glass plate
 Stop watch
ii. Procedure (IS 4031 (Part 5) – 19889
):
7
IS 5513 : Indian Standard Vicat apparatus - specification
8
IS 10086 : Indian Standard specification for moulds for use in tests of cement and concrete
9
IS 4031 (5) : Indian Standard method of physical tests for hydraulic cement (Part 5 – Determination of initial and
final setting times)

17
 500 g of cement is gauged thoroughly with 0.85 times the distilled water
required to give a paste of standard consistency between 3 to 5 minutes on
an enamelled tray. Note this time as (T1)
 The cement paste is filled inside the Vicat’s mould placed over a glass plate
with smooth surface of the paste from the top. The cement block thus
prepared is called test block.
 For initial setting time:
o Place the test block confined in the mould and resting on the glass
plate under the rod bearing the needle.
o Lower the needle gently until it comes in contact with the surface of
test block and quick release, allowing it to penetrate into the test
block.
o In the beginning the needle completely pierces the test block. Repeat
this procedure i.e., quickly releasing the needle after every 2 minutes
till the needle fails to pierce the block for about 5 ± 0.5 mm
measured from the bottom of the plate. Record this time (T2)
 For final setting time
o Replace the needle of the Vicat’s apparatus by the needle with an
annular attachment.
o The cement is considered finally set when upon applying the final
setting needle gently to the surface of the test block, the needle
makes an impression while the attachment fails to do so. Record this
time (T3)

18
iii. Result:
Initial setting time = T2 – T1, and Final setting time = T3 – T1
Table 3.4 – Initial and final setting time of 53 grade OPC
Trial Initial setting time (min) Final setting time (min)
1 265 330
2 200 260
3.1.2 Fine aggregate (sand)
The aggregate used in this study is locally available river sand, passing through IS sieve of 4.75 mm,
with the grain size distribution shown in Figure 3.1. Physical properties of the cement are found by
following tests as shown under:
a) Specific gravity and water absorption
i. Apparatus used:
 Balance
 Oven
 Pycnometer
 Tray
The vessel used for this test shall be capable of holding 1 kg of material and capable of
being filled with distilled water to a constant volume. Either of the following two vessels
is suitable. Glass vessel (called pycnometer) of 1 litre capacity having a metal conical screw
top with a 6 mm diameter hole at its apex. The screw top shall be watertight. A wide mouth

19
glass vessel of 1.25 litres capacity with a flat ground lip and a plane ground glass to cover
it, giving virtually a watertight fit.
ii. Procedure (IS 2386 (Part III) -1963 reaffirmed 2002)10
:
 Place a sample of 500 gm in a tray and cover it with distilled water.
 Remove the air entrapped by gentle agitation. The sample shall remain for
24 hours. Drain the distilled water from the sample by decantation through
a filter paper. Expose the aggregates to a gentle current of warm air to
evaporate the surface moisture with gentle stirring until no free surface
moisture can be seen. The material is now in a saturated surface dry
condition.
 Determine the empty weight of the pycnometer (Weight A).
 Place the saturated surface dry sample in the pycnometer so that it occupies
about three-fourths of the volume of the pycnometer, and obtain the weight
of the pycnometer with the sample (Weight B).
 Fill the pycnometer containing the aggregate, with distilled water up to the
brim taking care to see that no air bubbles are entrapped.
 Weigh the pycnometer with aggregate and distilled water as filled (Weight
C).
 Then empty the pycnometer and dry the sample in an oven for 24 hours and
determine its dry weight (Weight D).
10
IS 2386 (Part III) : Indian Standard methods of test for aggregates for concrete (Part 3 – specific gravity, density,
voids, absorption and bulking)

20
 Clean the inside of the pycnometer and fill it up with distilled water up to
the brim eliminating any entrapped air bubbles.
 Now, determine the weight of pycnometer with distilled water (Weight E).
iii. Result
Table 3.5 - Observations/calculations for specific gravity test on fine aggregate
Parameter
Fine
aggregate
Empty weight of the pycnometer (A) 655.00
Weight of the pycnometer with the sample (about 3/4 filled in pycnometer) (B) 1466.00
Weight of the pycnometer with aggregate and distilled water as filled (C) 2010.00
Weight of the aggregate taken above in oven dry condition (D) 786.00
Weight of pycnometer with distilled water (E) 1539.00
Weight of the saturated surface dry aggregate (g) (B – A) 811.00
Weight of distilled water in equal volume to that of aggregate (g) (E- A) – (C – B) 340.00
Specific gravity of the aggregate D/ (E- A) – (C – B) 2.31
water absorption % ((B-A)-D)/D *100 3.18
b) Sieve analysis
Table 3.6 – Sieve analysis on fine aggregate
IS sieve
size
weight
retained
(g)
cumulative
weight
retained (g)
Cumulative
weight
retained %
cumulative
weight
passing %
Percentage
passing for
Grading Zone 1
4.75mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 90 - 100
2.36mm 34.00 34.00 6.78 93.22 60 - 95
1.18mm 141.00 175.00 34.91 65.09 30 - 70
600 µm 219.00 394.00 78.60 21.40 15 - 34
300 µm 69.00 463.00 92.36 7.64 5 - 20
150 µm 30.00 493.00 98.34 1.66 0 - 10
75 µm 4.30 497.30 99.20 0.80 -
pan 4.00 501.30 100.00 0.00 -

21
Figure 3.1 – Particle size distribution of fine aggregate
c) Fineness modulus
Cumulative weight retained = 6.78 + 34.91 + 78.60 + 92.36 + 98.34 = 310.99
Fineness modulus of sand = 310.99 / 100 = 3.11, i.e., it is a coarse sand (2.9 – 3.2)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
4.75mm2.36mm1.18mm600 µm300 µm150 µm75 µmpan
PercentagePassing
IS Sieve Size
Sand used in experiment Grading Zone 1 upper limit Grading Zone 1 lower limit

22
3.1.3 SBR latex polymer as a waterproofing material
As mentioned earlier, SBR latex polymer is used in this study as a waterproofing material to modify
the cement mortar. Specifications of different SBR latexes used as supplied by the manufacturer is
shown in Table 3.7
Table 3.7 – Specifications of the SBR latex used
Notation Specifications given by the supplier
F – SBR
Milky white latex
Solid polymer content = 45%
recommended dosage = 4.5% (p/c)
S – SBR
Milky liquid
Solid polymer content = 44%
Recommended dosage = 4.5% (p/c)
3.2 Fabrication of the mortars
This work is done taking a constant water to cement ratio of 0.45, which is required for effective
coating of waterproofing layer, and cement to sand mass ratio of 1:3. Further, two types of dosage
of SBR polymer are used. They are:
a) 4.5% polymer to cement mass ratio, which is recommended by the manufacturer for
waterproofing repair works.
b) 10% polymer to cement mass ratio, which is the minimum value for the uniform film
formation, according to the literature.

23
Along with unmodified cement mortar (UCM), polymer modified cement mortars (PCM) has
undergone three types of curing condition to come up with the optimum condition for its usage. They
are:
a) Curing condition I (1 day curing) – Taking the specimen out from the mould after 1 day, it
is kept in controlled condition of 25°C and relative humidity of 65%. This is equivalent to
dry curing.
b) Curing condition II (7 days curing) – Taking the specimen out from the mould after 1 day
and keeping it in the mist room for 6 days followed by either testing it for 7th
day test or
keeping it in controlled condition of 25°C and relative humidity of 65% for carrying out 28
days tests.
c) Curing condition III (28 days curing) – Taking the specimen out from the mould after 1 day
and keeping the same in mist room for 27 days and finally testing at the 28th
day.
Table 3.8 – Amount of SBR latex and water added in each type of sample used
Type of
sample
used
Solid
polymer
content
Latex polymer added in 50
kg cement
Water added in 50 kg cement to
make constant w/c = 0.45
4.5 % p/c 10 % p/c 4.5 % p/c 10 % p/c
F-SBR 45 % 5.0 kg 11.11 kg 19.75 kg 16.39 kg
S-SBR 44 % 5.11 kg 11.36 kg 19.64 kg 16.14 kg
UCM 0 % - - 22.50 kg

24
3.3 Experimental techniques and procedures
3.3.1 Flow table
ASTM procedure of mixing:
a) Place distilled water in Hobart mixer and add cement to mix it at lower speed (around 140
rpm) for 30 seconds.
b) Add dry sand (at room temperature) for another 30 seconds and stop the mixer.
c) Start the mixer at medium speed (around 285 rpm) and mix for 30 seconds and stop the
mixer.
d) Let the mortar stand for 90 seconds (first 15 seconds scrape the mortar from side and other
75 seconds cover the bowl with lid).
e) Start mixer at medium speed for 120 seconds.
Figure 3.2 – Apparatus used in flow table test.

25
Procedure (IS : 4031 (Part 6) – 198811
reaffirmed 2005):
a) Care was taken to ensure that mixing is done uniformly as per ASTM standard.
b) The mould (i.e., 50 mm cube) was then filled with the mortar, which is tamped with a
rod to eliminate entrained air and compacted by vibration at the specified speed of about
12000 vibrations per minute.
c) The loading rate of 1000 N/s are applied on two parallel moulded faces.
Figure 3.3 – Universal testing machine used for compression strength test
11
IS 4031 (Part 6) : Indian Standard methods of physical tests for hydraulic cement (Part 6 – Determination of
compressive strength of hydraulic cement other than masonry cement)

26
Procedure (IS : 4031 (Part 8) – 198812
reaffirmed 2005):
a) Samples were prepared as per the procedure described earlier for the compression test with
dimensions of 40mm × 40 mm × 160 mm.
b) During the test, the specimen was mounted on two rollers of 10mm diameter and spaced
100 mm apart, and a third roller of the same diameter was used to apply the load at midspan.
c) The loads are applied on two parallel moulded faces of the specimen (i.e., the specimen is
rotated 90° about its longitudinal axis from the casting position).
d) The loading rate adopted was 50N/s.
e) The maximum flexural load is measured and flexural strength is calculated from the elastic
beam formula, i.e., σmax = (M × ymax) ÷ I
where, σmax = maximum bending stress along the beam, M = bending moment, ymax =
distance from neutral axis to the outer edge of the beam, I = moment of inertia.
Figure 3.4 – Universal testing machine used for flexural strength test
12
IS 4031 (Part 8) : Indian Standard methods of physical tests for hydraulic cement (Part 8 – Determination of
transverse and compressive strength of plastic mortar using prism)

27
Procedure (ASTM C 596 - 200713
):
a) After 7 days of curing, small holes were drilled in the middle of the two end faces of the
specimen and stainless steel balls were fixed in the holes with epoxy.
b) The end faces of the specimens were covered with aluminium foil to ensure loss of water
only from the four longer faces.
c) Calibrate the apparatus using an INVAR (nickel - iron alloy) bar.
d) The reduction in the length of the specimens due to shrinkage was measured every 24 hours
from 7th
day till 57th
day and the strain developed was calculated.
e) Specimens were subjected to different curing conditions of 1, 7 and 28 days followed by
keeping them in controlled condition of 25°C and 65% relative humidity.
Figure 3.5 – Measurement setup for total shrinkage strain
13
ASTM C596 : Standard test method for drying shrinkage of mortar containing hydraulic cement

28
The surface water permeability test gives a measure of the resistance of concrete against the
penetration of water exerting pressure. It shall normally be carried out when the age of the concrete
is 28 to 35 days. The procedure as per DIN 1048 (Part 5)14
is as follows:
a) A concrete specimen shall be exposed either from above or below to a distilled water pressure
of 0.5 N/mm2
acting normal to the mould – filling direction, for a period of three days.
b) This pressure is kept constant throughout the test.
c) Immediately after the pressure is released, the specimen shall be removed and split down the
centre with the face which was exposed to water facing down.
d) The maximum depth of penetration in the direction of slab thickness shall be measured in
mm.
e) The mean of the maximum depth of penetration obtained
from three specimens thus tested shall be taken as the test
result.
Figure 3.6 – Setup for determination
water permeability
14
DIN 1048 (Part 5) : EN-Testing concrete; determination of water permeability (specimens prepared in mould)

29
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS OF TESTS ON
SBR LATEX MODIFIED MORTARS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the test results obtained at different curing conditions on SBR latex modified
cement mortars and comparing them with similar treated unmodified cement mortars having a
constant water to cement mass ratio of 0.45 and cement to sand mass ratio of 1:3 (1 part of cement
and 3 parts of sand) throughout the experiment.
4.2 Mechanical properties of UCM cement mortars and SBR modified cement mortars with
constant water cement ratio of w/c = 0.45
This section covers the mechanical test results obtained for the reference cement mortar (UCM)
along with 4.5% p/c and 10% p/c of F-SBR and S-SBR.
Table 4.1 – Compression strength mean values at 7 days of UCM and PCMs
Curing (days) Type Mean strength (MPa)
1 day curing
UCM 23.81 (± 1.02)
S-SBR (4.5%) 25.45 (± 0.87)
S-SBR (10%) 2.93 (± 0.28)
F-SBR (4.5%) 23.08 (± 0.51)
F-SBR (10%) 2.94 (± 0.35)

30
7 days curing
UCM 35.83 (± 0.77)
S-SBR (4.5%) 29.71 (± 0.83)
S-SBR (10%) 2.54 (± 0.43)
F-SBR (4.5%) 27.57 (± 0.72)
F-SBR (10%) 2.44 (± 0.60)
Figure 4.1 – Compression strength mean result at 7 days of UCM and PCMs
UCM (0%
polymer)
S-SBR
(4.5% p/c)
S-SBR
(10% p/c)
F-SBR
(4.5% p/c)
F-SBR
(10% p/c)
The 7th
day compressive strength of polymer modified cement mortar is less than the reference
unmodified cement mortar for all curing conditions. For a polymer dosage of 4.5%, the strength
attained is comparable with UCM but increasing the p/c ratio to 10% has a significant decrement
23.81
25.45
2.93
23.08
2.94
35.83
29.71
2.54
27.57
2.44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 day curing 7 days curing
meancompressivestrength(MPa)
different curing conditions

31
in early strength attained. 7 days curing gives higher strength than 1 day curing, except for PCMs
with 10% p/c.
Table 4.2 – Compression strength mean values at 28 days of UCM and PCMs
1 day curing
UCM 26.33 (± 0.73)
S-SBR (4.5%) 29.67 (± 1.72)
S-SBR (10%) 8.01 (± 0.07)
F-SBR (4.5%) 28.87 (± 0.69)
F-SBR (10%) 8.64 (± 0.43)
7 days curing
UCM 51.41 (± 2.69)
S-SBR (4.5%) 34.19 (± 1.42)
S-SBR (10%) 25.6 (± 1.32)
F-SBR (4.5%) 33.9 (± 1.39)
F-SBR (10%) 27.31 (± 0.48)
28 days curing
UCM 53.82 (± 2.07)
S-SBR (4.5%) 47.8 (± 0.91)
S-SBR (10%) 23.36 (± 2.53)
F-SBR (4.5%) 48.13 (± 1.09)
F-SBR (10%) 23.96 (± 0.44)

32
Figure 4.2 – Compression strength mean result at 28 days of UCM and PCMs
unmodified cement mortar(0% polymer)
S-SBR (4.5% p/c)
S-SBR (10% p/c)
F-SBR (4.5% p/c)
F-SBR (10% p/c)
The reference mortar always attains a compressive strength value at 28 days that is much higher than
the corresponding PCM except in the case of dry curing. The strength in the case of UCM and 4.5%
p/c PCM is higher when curing is prolonged but for 10% p/c, the maximum strength is attained when
it is wet cured for 7 days and kept in dry condition (i.e., 25°C and 65% relative humidity) than in a
26.33
29.67
8.01
28.87
8.64
51.41
34.19
25.6
33.9
27.31
53.82
47.8
23.36
48.13
23.96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1 day curing 7 days curing 28 days curing
meancompressivestrength(MPa)

33
mist room. This is explained by the latex hydrolysis phenomenon that occurs if the mortar is wet
cured for 28 days (Elyamany et al., 2014).
Table 4.3 – Flexural strength mean values at 7 days of UCM and PCMs
1 day curing
UCM 5.64 (± 0.03)
S-SBR (4.5%) 5.01 (± 0.27)
S-SBR (10%) 0.52 (± 0.01)
F-SBR (4.5%) 4.28 (± 0.75)
F-SBR (10%) 0.48 (± 0.07)
7 days curing
UCM 6.21 (± 0.04)
S-SBR (4.5%) 5.3 (± 0.15)
S-SBR (10%) 0.44 (± 0.10)
F-SBR (4.5%) 4.72 (± 0.34)
F-SBR (10%) 0.51 (± 0.10)

34
Figure 4.3 – Flexural strength mean result at 7 days of UCM and PCMs
The flexural strength of PCM with 4.5% p/c is similar to the reference UCM in the case of 1 day
and 7 days of curing. Early flexural strength development of PCM with 10% p/c is very poor. Even
physical observation of specimen with 10% p/c shows the softness compared to other specimens.
Table 4.4 – Flexural strength mean values at 28 days of UCM and PCMs
1 day curing
UCM 5.71 (± 0.20)
S-SBR (4.5%) 6.72 (± 0.68)
S-SBR (10%) 2.06 (± 0.12)
F-SBR (4.5%) 5.73 (± 0.31)
F-SBR (10%) 2.23 (± 0.19)
UCM (0%
polymer)
S-SBR
(4.5% p/c)
S-SBR
(10% p/c)
F-SBR
(4.5% p/c)
F-SBR
(10% p/c)
5.64
5.01
0.52
4.28
0.48
6.21
5.3
0.44
4.72
0.51
0
3
6
9
12
1 day curing 7 days curing
meanflexurestrength(MPa)

35
7 days curing
UCM 8.71 (± 0.49)
S-SBR (4.5%) 8.72 (± 0.44)
S-SBR (10%) 5.8 (± 0.36)
F-SBR (4.5%) 8.26 (± 0.58)
F-SBR (10%) 6.06 (± 0.23)
28 days curing
UCM 10.51 (± 1.17)
S-SBR (4.5%) 8.97 (± 1.02)
S-SBR (10%) 5.27 (± 0.33)
F-SBR (4.5%) 8.91 (± 0.71)
F-SBR (10%) 5.69 (± 0.23)
Figure 4.4 – Flexural strength mean result at 28 days of UCM and PCMs
5.71
6.72
2.06
5.73
2.23
8.71 8.72
5.8
8.26
6.06
10.51
8.97
5.27
8.91
5.69
0
3
6
9
12
meanflexurestrength(MPa)

36
S-SBR (4.5% p/c)
S-SBR (10% p/c)
F-SBR (4.5% p/c)
F-SBR (10% p/c)
The flexural strength attained for PCMs is more than the corresponding strength gained in
compression with respect to reference UCM. However, for the PCM with 10% p/c, 7 days curing
gives an optimum result compared with other curing conditions of similar specimens.
The strain values are taken from 7th
day after the UCM and PCMs are subjected to 1, 7 and 28 days
curing. In the case of 28 days curing, specimen were taken out from mist room for measurement and
again kept back till it attains 28 days of age.
Table 4.5 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 1 day curing
Age at testing UCM S-SBR 4.5% S-SBR 10% F-SBR 4.5% F-SBR 10%
8 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
9 0.00003 0.00003 0.00002 0.00003 0.00004
10 0.00005 0.00005 0.00005 0.00008 0.00006
11 0.00011 0.00008 0.00008 0.00012 0.00009
12 0.00016 0.00009 0.00010 0.00016 0.00012
13 0.00019 0.00013 0.00011 0.00018 0.00013
14 0.00022 0.00017 0.00013 0.00022 0.00015
15 0.00023 0.00020 0.00014 0.00025 0.00016
16 0.00025 0.00022 0.00016 0.00027 0.00018
17 0.00027 0.00023 0.00017 0.00028 0.00019

37
18 0.00029 0.00025 0.00018 0.00030 0.00021
19 0.00031 0.00026 0.00019 0.00031 0.00023
20 0.00032 0.00027 0.00020 0.00031 0.00024
21 0.00034 0.00028 0.00020 0.00032 0.00025
22 0.00035 0.00028 0.00021 0.00033 0.00026
23 0.00035 0.00030 0.00022 0.00034 0.00027
24 0.00036 0.00030 0.00023 0.00035 0.00027
25 0.00037 0.00031 0.00023 0.00035 0.00028
26 0.00038 0.00031 0.00024 0.00035 0.00029
27 0.00038 0.00032 0.00025 0.00035 0.00029
28 0.00039 0.00032 0.00025 0.00036 0.00029
29 0.00040 0.00032 0.00026 0.00036 0.00030
30 0.00040 0.00033 0.00026 0.00036 0.00030
31 0.00041 0.00033 0.00027 0.00037 0.00030
32 0.00042 0.00034 0.00028 0.00037 0.00030
33 0.00042 0.00034 0.00028 0.00037 0.00031
34 0.00042 0.00028 0.00037 0.00031
35 0.00043 0.00028 0.00037 0.00032
36 0.00043 0.00028 0.00038 0.00032
37 0.00043 0.00028 0.00038 0.00032
38 0.00043 0.00029 0.00038 0.00032
39 0.00043 0.00029 0.00039 0.00032
40 0.00043 0.00029 0.00039 0.00032
41 0.00044 0.00029 0.00039 0.00032
42 0.00044 0.00030 0.00039 0.00032
43 0.00044 0.00030 0.00039 0.00033
44 0.00044 0.00030 0.00039 0.00033
45 0.00044 0.00030 0.00039 0.00033
46 0.00044 0.00030 0.00040 0.00033
47 0.00044 0.00030 0.00040 0.00033

38
48 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00033
49 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00033
50 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
51 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
52 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
53 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
54 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
55 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
56 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
57 0.00045 0.00031 0.00040 0.00034
Figure 4.5 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 1 day curing
unmodified cement mortar (0% polymer)
F-SBR (4.5% p/c)
S-SBR (4.5% p/c)
F-SBR (10% p/c)
S-SBR (10% p/c)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)

39
Curing for 1 day, i.e., keeping the specimen in mist room for a day and then under controlled
condition of 25°C and 65% relative humidity leads to high shrinkage values because water present
in the mortar matrix gets evaporated leading to high shrinkage strains and water is not consumed in
the hydration reactions. The shrinkage in the PCMs is less than the UCM especially at higher p/c.
Table 4.6 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 7 days curing
8 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
9 0.00003 0.00005 0.00002 0.00004 0.00002
10 0.00007 0.00007 0.00003 0.00008 0.00006
11 0.00010 0.00010 0.00006 0.00009 0.00009
12 0.00014 0.00012 0.00008 0.00012 0.00011
13 0.00017 0.00015 0.00010 0.00014 0.00013
14 0.00021 0.00017 0.00011 0.00016 0.00015
15 0.00023 0.00020 0.00012 0.00018 0.00016
16 0.00025 0.00021 0.00013 0.00020 0.00017
17 0.00028 0.00021 0.00014 0.00021 0.00018
18 0.00029 0.00022 0.00015 0.00022 0.00019
19 0.00031 0.00023 0.00015 0.00023 0.00019
20 0.00033 0.00024 0.00016 0.00025 0.00020
21 0.00034 0.00024 0.00016 0.00026 0.00020
22 0.00035 0.00025 0.00017 0.00027 0.00020
23 0.00036 0.00026 0.00018 0.00028 0.00021
24 0.00037 0.00027 0.00018 0.00028 0.00021
25 0.00037 0.00027 0.00018 0.00029 0.00022
26 0.00038 0.00028 0.00018 0.00030 0.00022
27 0.00038 0.00028 0.00019 0.00031 0.00022
28 0.00038 0.00028 0.00019 0.00031 0.00023
29 0.00039 0.00029 0.00019 0.00032 0.00023

40
30 0.00039 0.00029 0.00020 0.00032 0.00023
31 0.00040 0.00029 0.00020 0.00032 0.00024
32 0.00040 0.00030 0.00020 0.00033 0.00024
33 0.00041 0.00030 0.00020 0.00033 0.00024
34 0.00041 0.00020 0.00033 0.00024
35 0.00042 0.00020 0.00033 0.00024
36 0.00042 0.00021 0.00033 0.00024
37 0.00042 0.00021 0.00034 0.00024
38 0.00043 0.00021 0.00034 0.00024
39 0.00043 0.00021 0.00034 0.00024
40 0.00043 0.00022 0.00034 0.00024
41 0.00043 0.00022 0.00034 0.00025
42 0.00043 0.00022 0.00034 0.00025
43 0.00043 0.00022 0.00034 0.00025
44 0.00043 0.00022 0.00035 0.00025
45 0.00043 0.00022 0.00035 0.00025
46 0.00043 0.00022 0.00035 0.00025
47 0.00043 0.00023 0.00036 0.00025
48 0.00043 0.00023 0.00036 0.00025
49 0.00043 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
50 0.00043 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
51 0.00043 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
52 0.00043 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
53 0.00043 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
54 0.00044 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
55 0.00044 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
56 0.00044 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026
57 0.00044 0.00023 0.00036 0.00026

41
Figure 4.6 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 7 days curing
F-SBR (4.5% p/c)
S-SBR (4.5% p/c)
F-SBR (10% p/c)
S-SBR (10% p/c)
The 7 days of curing gave lower shrinkage strains than 1 day curing, where higher polymer content
bridges the microstructure allowing minimal shrinkage to take place. Specimens with no polymer
(UCM) had the maximum strain values and PCMs with 10% p/c had the least shrinkage.
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)

42
Table 4.7 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 28 days curing
8 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
9 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00001 -0.00001 0.00000
10 0.00000 -0.00002 0.00000 -0.00001 0.00001
11 -0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 -0.00001 0.00000
12 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00001 -0.00001
13 0.00000 0.00000 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00000
14 0.00000 -0.00001 0.00000 -0.00001 0.00000
15 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
16 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001
17 0.00002 0.00000 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00001
18 -0.00002 -0.00002 -0.00002 0.00001 0.00000
19 0.00002 -0.00001 0.00000 0.00001 0.00001
20 0.00002 -0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00000
21 0.00002 0.00000 0.00002 0.00002 0.00001
22 0.00003 0.00000 0.00002 0.00003 0.00002
23 0.00003 0.00001 0.00001 0.00003 0.00003
24 0.00004 0.00000 0.00002 0.00004 0.00004
25 0.00004 0.00001 0.00001 0.00005 0.00004
26 0.00005 0.00003 0.00003 0.00004 0.00005
27 0.00007 0.00004 0.00003 0.00005 0.00006
28 0.00009 0.00006 0.00004 0.00006 0.00006
29 0.00012 0.00008 0.00006 0.00007 0.00008
30 0.00014 0.00010 0.00008 0.00008 0.00009
31 0.00017 0.00012 0.00010 0.00008 0.00010
32 0.00021 0.00016 0.00012 0.00012 0.00012
33 0.00023 0.00018 0.00014 0.00015 0.00014
34 0.00027 0.00016 0.00018 0.00015
35 0.00030 0.00016 0.00021 0.00016

43
36 0.00033 0.00016 0.00023 0.00016
37 0.00034 0.00017 0.00025 0.00017
38 0.00034 0.00017 0.000256 0.00018
39 0.00035 0.00017 0.00027 0.00018
40 0.00036 0.00017 0.00027 0.00018
41 0.00037 0.00017 0.00028 0.00018
42 0.00037 0.00017 0.00028 0.00019
43 0.00037 0.00017 0.00028 0.00019
44 0.00037 0.00018 0.00029 0.00019
45 0.00038 0.00018 0.00029 0.00019
46 0.00038 0.00018 0.00030 0.00019
47 0.00038 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
48 0.00038 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
49 0.00038 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
50 0.00038 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
51 0.00038 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
52 0.00039 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
53 0.00039 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
54 0.00039 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
55 0.00039 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
56 0.00039 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020
57 0.00039 0.00018 0.00030 0.00020

44
Figure 4.7 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 28 days curing before drying condition
Figure 4.8 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM and PCMs for 28 days curing after drying condition
F-SBR (4.5% p/c)
S-SBR (4.5% p/c)
F-SBR (10% p/c)
S-SBR (10% p/c)
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)

45
The behavior of different brands of SBR latex used are similar in case of same curing condition
and p/c ratio. There is an irregular behavior of UCM and PCMs from the age of 7 days till nearly
28 days because the specimen was kept in mist room. Soon after the specimen is brought in a
controlled room condition of 25°C and 65% relative humidity there is an observable shrinkage in
the first 10 days and soon the strain values becomes constant.
Figure 4.9 – Total shrinkage strain of UCM
For UCM undergoing 1 day and 7 days curing the total shrinkage strain remains almost the same
but 28 days curing reduces the strain value.
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)

46
Figure 4.10 – Total shrinkage strain of S-SBR with 4.5% p/c
S-SBR with 4.5% p/c is still under testing
Figure 4.11 – Total shrinkage strain of S-SBR with 10% p/c
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)

47
The specimens kept in mist room for 28 days has undergone more hydration than 1 and 7 days curing
period. This has resulted in less evaporation of water present inside the mortar matrix and thereby
decreasing the shrinkage strain value.
Figure 4.12 – Total shrinkage strain of F-SBR with 4.5% p/c
The addition of polymer reduces the shrinkage strain than corresponding UCM while specimen
subjected to 28 days of curing shows optimum result than 1 and 7 days.
Figure 4.13 – Total shrinkage strain of F-SBR with 10% p/c
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)

48
The least total shrinkage strain is observed in the case of PCMs with 10% p/c comparison to no
polymer and 4.5 % p/c ratio. Carefully curing the specimen for 28 days results in least shrinkage
strain when observed for 57 days of experiment period.
This test was performed of 150mm × 150mm × 150mm cube on 28th
day after wet curing it for 1,
7 and 28 days in mist room followed by keeping the specimens in controlled condition of 25°C and
65% relative humidity.
Table 4.8 – Water permeability mean values of each specimen type at 28th
day
Curing (days) Type Depth of penetration (mm)
1 day curing
UCM 120 (± 1.0)
S-SBR (4.5%) 55 (± 1.53)
S-SBR (10%) 36 (± 2.52)
F-SBR (4.5%) 55 (± 1.53)
F-SBR (10%) 35 (± 1.15)
7 days curing
UCM 82 (± 1.0)
S-SBR (4.5%) 19 (± 1.15)
S-SBR (10%) 13 (± 2.0)
F-SBR (4.5%) 20 (± 1.53)
F-SBR (10%) 11 (± 1.15)
28 days curing
UCM 75 (± 1.15)
S-SBR (4.5%) 15 (± 0.58)
S-SBR (10%) 10 (± 0.58)

49
F-SBR (4.5%) 13 (± 1.0)
F-SBR (10%) 9 (± 1.53)
Figure 4.12 – Water permeability mean result of each specimen type at 28th
day
S-SBR (4.5% p/c)
S-SBR (10% p/c)
F-SBR (4.5% p/c)
F-SBR (10% p/c)
The most significant effect of polymer addition in the properties of PCM is observed in water
permeability test that reflects the waterproofing ability of the material used. With the increase in p/c
120
55
36
55
35
82
19
13
20
11
75
15
10
13
9
0
30
60
90
120
150
depthofpenetration(mm)

50
ratio in the PCM there is a corresponding decrease in the water permeability value. By increasing
the curing period, the microstructure gets compact by bridging all the pores present in the mortar
matrix. Water infiltration that happens due to capillary action gets significantly reduced providing
system that can be used in both below and above grade waterproofing systems.
4.3 Conclusions
The mechanical strength parameters namely, compressive and flexural strength shows significant
less early age strength values. However as the curing period increases the strength values exceeds
the requirement as specified in JIS A 6203 - 200815
and shown in Table 4.9 air-entrainment during
mixing can be a reason for decrease in strength value which further opens the need for using pre-
enveloping mixing method than ASTM method of mixing. Usage of anti-foaming agent or SBR latex
with higher solid polymer content is usually done in practice to avoid unnecessary entrainment of
air and sufficient strength values.
Table 4.9 – Quality requirement of polymer latex as specified in JIS A 6203
Type of test Observed (28th day) Requirement
Compressive strength 26 MPa Not less than 15 MPa
Flexural strength 6 MPa Not less than 5 MPa
Water absorption 6 % Not more than 15 %
15
JIS A 6203 : Quality requirement for polymer dispersions and redispersible polymer powders for cement
modifiers

51
CHAPTER 5
MADRAS HIGH COURT HERITAGE BUILDING
5.1 Introduction
Heritage buildings in the High Court Complex on Rajaji Salai in Chennai are of prime importance
from the jurisdictive history of the erstwhile Madras Presidency and the State of Tamil Nadu. These
buildings are also pioneering examples of the Indo-Saracenic architecture experimented in the end
of the 19th
century before being spread across Colonial India. For the current phase of work regarding
waterproofing interventions in Madras High Court heritage buildings, IIT Madras has carried out
visual, non-destructive investigations, namely Infra-Red Thermography (IRT) and partially
destructive investigations, namely, Borehole Endoscopy and Core Extraction and Examination,
which are described in detail in the ensuing sections.
The overall condition of the Madras High Court Building is fairly good except for some areas
with extensive water seepage from the roof. This has resulted in staining/discoloration of the soffits,
including false ceiling, where present, plaster damage, and structural damage, such as timber
deterioration, corrosion in steel members, and cracks in the slabs and load-bearing walls. Dampness
in drainage outlets have invited vegetation growth, which can cause serious structural damage to
buildings. There have apparently undertaken repair works and waterproofing treatment in 2012 in
the High Court Building, which included epoxy-based chemical waterproofing treatment and brick
coba layer with waterproofing coat over old Law Chambers, and Establishment Section with
verandahs and court halls.

52
The inspection results in the form of condition survey maps and assessment reported in the
ensuing sections. Further, recommendations and specifications for the proposed waterproofing
works are explained.
5.2 Methodology used
It is essential to find solutions that are compatible with original materials and systems but attempt
improvements through modern technology. To identify the root cause of the water seepage inside
the building and propose the best possible solution, an integrated methodology has been
implemented which involves the following steps:
Phase I: Detailed visual survey of the building - Conducted to have a complete knowledge about the
building, identify major distresses and their symptoms, and possible causes for the different
distresses.
Phase II: Identifying the current state of damage and extent of water seepage with condition
assessment - Condition mapping of the building was carried out with visual surveys, drawing records
and conversation with the occupants (particularly in locations where the false ceiling could not be
removed for examination).
Phase III: Understanding and identification of faulty locations and materials with NDT (non-
destructive testing) techniques - In addition to visual examination, condition mapping and
photographic documentation, infra-red thermography was used to identify locations of dampness in
the ceiling and supporting masonry walls, discernible due to different surface temperatures and

53
radiation quality. Limited laboratory tests were also conducted on brick samples (used in the terrace
repair) to identify their permeability and water absorption properties.
Phase IV: Understanding and identification of the original construction materials and system with
PDT (partially-destructive testing) techniques - Core extraction and examination, and borehole
endoscopy were conducted at selected locations to identify the original cross section of the roof slab,
the materials used, the thickness of individual layers, and later addition as part of repairs.
Phase V: Recommending strategies and solutions for urgent and necessary issues - This phase
involved integration of all the information collected and proposing recommendations for
waterproofing and related issues such as structural damage, drainage system and conservation
planning.
Phase VI: Proposing the water proofing solution - The concluding phase involved drawing up
specifications for the proposed waterproofing interventions with the sequence of work and material
specifications.
5.3 Non – destructive and partially-deestructive testing
5.3.1 Infrared thermography
The basis of IR thermography is that differences in surface radiation quality are detectable using IR
thermographs or images due to the different temperatures of the surfaces studied. IR thermography
imaging was conducted on internal surfaces (walls and ceilings) of the building to identify the
locations of water seepage and dampness. These were corroborated with the observations from visual

54
examination. Temperature variations on surface affected by water seepage are expected due to the
presence of moisture, in contrast to dry locations.
Figure 5.1 – Infrared thermography images in (a) advocate chambers’ room and (b)
verandah showing seepage stains and dampness
Figure 5.2 – IR thermography images in (a) establishment section and (b) 2nd
floor
corridor showing seepage stains and dampness
5.3.2 Core extraction
One core of 50 mm diameter was extracted from a location in the terrace above a corridor, and where
the original work was apparently preserved. The core showed no signs of damage / dampness. The
purpose of core extraction was to detect the existing condition of the materials, to identify the
original cross section, including dimensions and construction typology.

55
5.3.3 Borehole endoscopy
In-situ video endoscopy using a borescope was conducted through the roof slab. This was achieved
with a hole of 16 mm diameter drilled from terrace, all the way to the ceiling plaster. The images
captured from the streaming video were correlated with coring data in order to detect any new layers
or materials in other parts of the roof slab. Thereby, destructive interventions during investigations
were minimized.
Figure 5.3 - Schematic 3D view of the Madras terrace roof construction

56
Figure 5.4 – Reconstruction of cross section of the roof from the extracted
50 mm diameter core and borehole endoscopy
Figure 5.5 – Original cross section (320 mm thick) of the Madras terrace roof

57
5.4 Recommendations
Based on the condition survey, investigations and assessment the recommendations for the roof
repair work in the High Court heritage buildings are discussed below:
5.4.1 Water proofing treatment
a) The proposed repair works have been conceived as a “renewal” of the waterproofing layer
over the roof of the heritage buildings in question. Considering their status as Grade-1
heritage buildings, and considering the important aspect of compatibility of new materials
with the original and existing materials, the proposed interventions should rely upon time-
tested methods. A minimum deviation from the original with the inclusion of new materials
and technology is warranted when their benefits could be significant in reducing
deteriorating.
b) It is therefore prescribed that the existing layers of the roof slab, in locations identified, have
to be removed up to the Brick Jelly Lime Concrete (BJLC) layer. The repair works will
rebuild the removed layers as identified in the original construction.
c) A new waterproofing layer, about 15 mm thick, composed of Styrene-butadiene Rubber
(SBR) polymer-based cement modified mortar is being prescribed just above the original and
existing BJLC layer. Provision of this second layer of defense will increase resistance to
water penetration and improve durability. Synthetic polymer latexes such as SBR are
compatible with the base concrete, and improve the physical properties of the system against
water permeability. It is also noted here that the BJLC layers examined in the extracted cores
show the presence of lime putty lumps (which is non-carbonated lime), which can easily be
pulverized. In the ideal condition, most of the lime in the concrete should have undergone

58
carbonation. This is another reason why a secondary layer of defense (polymer-modified
mortar layer) will be beneficial.
d) The SBR polymer-modified mortar layer is to be applied for a thickness of 15-20 mm after
consolidating the BJLC. This consolidating coat would help binding the unreacted/leached
lime in BJLC and remove undulations. One layer of flat brick tiles (150x70x25mm) should
be laid to slope (1:48) as prescribed in IS 2119 (2001) above the polymer-modified mortar
layer. The finishing layer should be executed with 150mm × 150mm × 25mm terracotta tiles
with pointing in cement mortar with hydrophobic compound. Bricks and tiles used for these
layers should be conforming to IS 3495 (Part 2): 1992. Sampling and testing of the specimens
should be done as recommended by standards and approved.
e) Brick Bat Coba (BBC) treatment in the Madras High Court building is a weathering course
but cannot be considered as a waterproofing layer because the bricks used in BBC are porous
i.e. it readily absorbs water (as shown in water permeability and absorption tests) and over a
period of time result in water leakage. Hence these treated areas could also be integrated with
polymer-modified mortar in the future.
f) Terrace repair works should be done in the dry season. Carrying out repair works in
monsoons is certainly not advisable as moisture and dampness present is a risk for the
structural members.
g) All the repair works should be carried out after adequate propping of the roof slab from the
floors below with steel modular props. A propping plan should be generated before the
commencement of the work and a sequence of propping and roof slab repair should be
developed to reduce the downtime of areas where the waterproofing work is being carried
out.

59
5.4.2 Storm (rain) water drainage system
a) Rainwater drainage system in the building needs to be revamped with regular inspection and
maintenance. The terraces should be checked for required drainage slopes with minimum of
2%. Broken window glasses and ventilators that causes water infiltration into the rooms
should be fixed.
b) Damaged and missing rainwater downtake pipes should be fixed with sealed connections and
drainage outlets must be provided with metal mesh. Blocked outlets and missing rainwater
pipes are leading to inadequate rainwater drainage and subsequent ponding. The rain water
pipes for roof drainage should be fixed or replaced as prescribed by National Building Code,
Part 9 – Drainage and Sanitation, Table 9 : 2005. In addition, a regular maintenance protocol
needs to be drawn up to keep the rainwater drainage system healthy.
Figure 5.6 – Proposed cross section for the waterproofing treatment

60
5.5 Specifications
Following are the identified items of work with specific material to be used in the current project
proposal with sequence of work in conformation with adequate code of practice.
Table 5.1 – Sequence of work
Sl. No. Description
A Propping
A1 Modular steel propping with adequate bracing should be provided to support the roof
slab from the ceiling below the terrace level at the locations where dismantling work
is proposed. Propping should remain till the roof is reconstructed and ponding test is
completed.
B Dismantling
B1 Dismantling has to be done with extreme care with no damage to the existing
material. The use of heavy duty power tools such as mechanical chisels or jack
hammers should be avoided and handheld angle grinder may be used to break down
elements into smaller units by creating grooves in them and then dislodging carefully
using manual means.
B2 Dismantling weathering course tiles including base mortar, two layers of terracotta
tiles and bitumen sheet (if existing), up to the original layer of Brick Jelly Lime
Concrete (BJLC) including carrying away debris from site as per the direction of
Engineer-in-charge. All demolition to be undertaken in a careful manner with
minimum disturbance to prevent any damage to other parts or to the rest of the
building.
B3 Dismantling flashing tiles including base mortar along edge of the wall including
carting away debris from site as per the direction of Engineer-in-Charge. All

61
demolition to be undertaken in a careful manner with minimum disturbance to
prevent any damage to other parts or to the rest of the building.
B4 Dismantling loose BJLC layer using hand held chisel or angle grinder and carrying
away debris from the site under supervision of Engineer-in-charge. Using heavy duty
power tools such as mechanical chisels or jack hammers is strictly prohibited. All
demolition to be undertaken in a careful manner with minimum disturbance to
prevent any damage to other parts or to the rest of the building.
C Terrace Works
C1 Application of Brick Jelly Lime Concrete where a layer of lime broken brick
aggregate
concrete of mix 1: 2.5 (slaked lime: broken brick aggregate, by volume) shall be laid
and spread to achieve the original thickness of 100 mm. After the lime concrete is
laid, initial ramming shall be done with a wooden rammer of weight not exceeding 2
kg. After this the consolidation shall further be done with the hand beater for at least
7 days. During compaction by hand beating, the surface shall be wetted by either
sprinkling lime water and sugar solution (the sugar solution may be prepared in the
northern parts of this country by mixing about 3 kg of jaggery and 1) kg of ‘bael’ fruit
to 100 litres of water) or a solution prepared by soaking in water the dry nuts (The
dry nuts shall be broken to small pieces and allowed to soak in water. The general
practice is to have a proportion of 60 g of kadukaior ararh, 200 g of jaggery and 40
litres of water for 10 m2
work. The solution is brewed for 12 to 24 hours. The resulting
liquor is decanted and used for the work) or a solution of jaggery (gurshall be broken
to pieces and allowed to soak in water. The general practice is to have a proportion
of 50 g of gur, 50 g of gugaland 40 litres of water for 10 m2
work). All work should
be executed as per the direction of Engineer-in-Charge confirmed with IS 2119 –
2002.
C2 Consolidating the existing BJLC using fine lime mortar made from lime paste and
very fine sand 1:1 and kudukka ijaggery solution in liquid form to be spread across

62
the top surface of the terrace several times until total absorption. All works should be
undertaken under the supervision of Engineer-in-charge.
C3 Providing waterproofing layer of thickness 15 mm in the form of SBR latex
polymer
(approved) mixed with cement: sand (1:3). Sand used is passing through IS sieve of
4.75 mm under the supervision of Engineer-in-charge.
C4 Providing one layer of flat bricks of size 150x70x25mm(1") thick conforming to
water absorption and flexural strength mentioned inIS 2690 (Part 1) – 1993 (2002) in
Lime Mortar (1:2) over the polymer modified mortar layer under the supervision of
Engineer-in-charge.
C5 Providing one layer of weathering course tiles of size 150x150x25mm(6" x 6")
country tile (nattu odu) conforming to water absorption and flexural strength
mentioned in IS 2690 (Part 1) – 1993 (2002) set in Lime Mortar (1:2) and pointing in
Cement Mortar of 1:3 with SBR polymer based cement modified chemical
(approved). The tiles should be laid from the edge of the parapet wall after removing
the flashing tile under the supervision of Engineer-in-charge.
C6 Providing Flashing Tiles of size 150x150x25mm (6" x 6") square country tiles in
lime mortar (1:2) by cutting a groove in the joint of the parapet brickwork and
inserting and packing the underside of the tiles ensuring that no pockets are formed.
C7 Plastering parapet wall above the flashing tiles and top surfaces with a slight inward
slope in lime mortar 1:2 (though originally of exposed brickwork) as per the direction
of Engineer-in-Charge.
C8 Providing and fitting all necessary fitments such as collars etc. and joints in lead of
rain water drainage pipe.

63
C9 Providing 300mm square khurra near drainage outlets, to be laid with 1:2:4 cement
concrete with coarse aggregate not greater than 4.75 mm finished with 12mm cement
mortar (1:3) as per approved design and direction of Engineer-in-Charge.
D Test
D1 Ponding Test should be done to check the effectiveness of horizontal waterproof
surface under ponded water with a short-term hydrostatic head measuring not more
than 100 mm. However no testing should be performed during the first 24 h following
installation of system materials and the test should confirm with ASTM D5957 –
1998 (2013).

64
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7.1 General conclusions
The most prominent and easy to observe problem associated with buildings is deterioration of
structure due to water seepage through building envelope in both above and below grade
waterproofing systems. A vision to come up with a suitable way to check the effectiveness of the
waterproofing material for varying external environment is met by using three curing conditions for
each testing specimen was performed. Polymer modified cement mortar has significant change in
mechanical properties than compared with unmodified cement mortars. With this research work a
layer of SBR latex PCM can be laid on top of existing structure to prevent it from further damage.
Presently cementitious waterproofing mixtures are widely preferred in the construction site due to
its ease in application and cost control, yet proper curing of such system in the need of an hour to
maximize the desired output of better waterproofness of the system.
7.2 Specific conclusions
Styrene – butadiene rubber (SBR) latex polymer used in this research work as a modifier in the
cement mortar has shown following results:

65
a) Compressive strength and flexural strength test is maximum when the specimen is wet cured
for 7 days followed by dry curing for the rest of its life period. Increase in polymer content
beyond its optimum content leads to decrease in the strength values
b) Shrinkage strain is least for 28 days curing period and uniform film formation at 10% p/c
allows minimum evaporation from the mortar matrix and gives an optimum result
c) Water permeability observed for the specimen was least with 10% p/c and 28 days curing
period.
Now depending on the requirement of the problem affected area, one can choose the optimum
dosage content and curing period to solve the water infiltration problem.
7.3 Recommendation for further research
Research in the field of redispersible polymer powder is happening by improving its quality over
latex polymer specific to film formation which gives a direction of performing similar tests on
popular material like polyacrylic ester (PAE), ethylene – vinyl acetate (EVA) and styrene – acrylic
ester (SAE). One can predict to get even better total shrinkage and water permeability results.

66
REFERENCES
A. Krishnan (2014) Study of the effectiveness of polymer-modified cement-based repair materials.
Master of Science thesis, Building Technology and Construction Management Division, IIT Madras.
A. Muthadhi, S. Kothandaraman (2014) Experimental investigations on polymer-modified
concrete subjected to elevated temperatures. Materials and Structures, 47, 977-986.
ASTM C596 (2009) Standard test method for drying shrinkage of mortar containing hydraulic
cement, American Society of Testing and Materials, USA.
B. Muhammad, M. Ismail, A.A. Yussuf, A.R.B. Muhammad (2010) Elastomeric influence of
natural rubber latex on cement mortar at high temperatures using thermal degradation analysis.
Construction and Building Materials, 25, 2223–2227
DIN 1048 Part 5:1991 EN – Testing concrete – Determination of water permeability with specimens
prepared in mould.
E.Z. Kordatos, D.A. Exarchos, C. Stavrakos, A. Moropoulou, T. Matikas (2012) Infrared
thermographic inspection of murals and characterization of degradation in historic monuments.
Construction and Building Materials, 48, 1261 – 1265.
F. Xu, M. Zhou, J. Chen, S. Ruan (2014) Mechanical performance evaluation of polyester fiber
and SBR latex compound modified cement concrete road overlay material. Construction and
Building Materials, 63, 142–149.

67
G. Barluenga, F.H. Olivares (2003) SBR latex modified mortar rheology and mechanical
behaviour. Cement and Concrete Research, 34, 527–535.
H. Ma, Z. Li (2013) Microstructures and mechanical properties of polymer modified mortars under
distinct mechanisms. Construction and Building Materials, 47, 579–587.
IS 10086:1982 (reaffirmed 2008), Indian Standard specification for moulds for use in tests of
cement and concrete.
IS 12269:1987 (reaffirmed 2004), Indian Standard specification for 53 grade Ordinary Portland
Cement.
IS 2386 Part 3:1963 (reaffirmed 2002), Indian Standard methods of test for aggregates for concrete
– Determination of specific gravity, density, voids, absorption and bulking.
IS 2720 Part 3:1980, Indian Standard determination of specific gravity of cement.
IS 4031 Part 4:1988, Indian Standard methods of physical tests for hydraulic cement –
Determination of consistency of standard cement paste.
Determination of initial and final setting times.
Determination of compressive strength of hydraulic cement other than masonry cement.
Determination of transverse and compressive strength of plastic mortar using prism.
IS 4032:1985 (reaffirmed 2005), Indian Standard method of chemical analysis of hydraulic cement.

68
IS 5513:1976 (reaffirmed 2005), Indian Standard Vicat apparatus specification.
JIS A 6203:2008, Quality requirement for polymer dispersions and redispersible polymer powders
for cement modifiers.
J. Mirza, M.S. Mirza, R. Lapointe (2002) Laboratory and field performance of polymer-modified
cement-based repair mortars in cold climates. Construction and Building Materials, 16, 365–374.
L. Bureau, A. Alliche, P. Pilvin, S. Pascal (2001) Mechanical characterization of a styrene –
butadiene modified mortar. Materials Science and Engineering, 233–240.
J.Y. Petit, K.H. Khayat, E. Wirquin (2005) Coupled effect of time and temperature on variations
of yield value of highly flowable mortar. Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 832–841.
K.R. Wu, D. Zhang, J.M. Song (2002) Properties of polymer-modified cement mortar using pre-
enveloping method. Cement and Concrete Research, 32, 425–429.
M. Ramli, A.A. Tabassi (2012) Effects of polymer modification on the permeability of cement
mortars under different curing conditions: A correlational study that includes pore distributions,
water absorption and compressive strength. Construction and Building Materials, 28, 561–570.
M. Ramli, A. A. Tabassi, K. W. Hoe (2013) Porosity, pore structure and water absorption of
polymer-modified mortars : an experimental study under different curing conditions. Composites
Part B: Engineering, 55, 221–233.
M.R. Labiadh, M. B. Ouezdou, B. T. Hajjem, R. Mensi (2007) Characterization of waterproof –
covering mortars on Ottoman monuments of “Ghar El Melh” (Tunisia). Construction and Building
Materials, 23, 423 - 433.

69
M. Singh, S. Waghmare, S.V. Kumar (2013) Characterization of lime plasters used in 16th century
Mughal monument. Journal of Archaeological Science, 42, 430 – 434.
M.U.K. Afridi, Y. Ohama, K. Demura, M.Z. Iqbal (2002) Development of polymer films by the
coalescence of polymer particles in powdered and aqueous polymer-modified mortars. Cement and
Concrete Research. 33, 1715–1721.
N. Ukrainczyk, A. Rogina (2013) Styrene–butadiene latex modified calcium aluminate cement
mortar. Cement and Concrete Composites, 41, 16–23.
R. Wang, P.M. Wang, X.G. Li (2004) Physical and mechanical properties of styrene–butadiene
rubber emulsion modified cement mortars. Cement and Concrete Research, 35, 900–906.
R. Wang, X.G. Li, P.M. Wang (2006) - Influence of polymer on cement hydration in SBR-modified
cement pastes. Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 1744–1751.
S. Zhong, Z. Chen (2002) Properties of latex blends and its modified cement mortars. Cement and
Concrete Research, 32, 1515–1524.
Y. Ohama, S. Takahashi, M. Ota (2005) Effect of accelerated curing condition on strength
properties of PMM with SBR latex and hardener free epoxy resin. Material Science, 54, 804-809.
Z. Yang, X. Shi, A.T. Creighton, M. M. Peterson (2008) Effect of styrene–butadiene rubber latex
on the chloride permeability and microstructure of Portland cement mortar. Construction and
Building Materials, 23, 2283–2290.
Z. Yang, X. Shi, A.T. Creighton, M.M. Peterson (2008) Comparison of mechanical and physical
properties of SBR-polymer. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 14, 644–650.

70
APPENDIX A
Various combination of water to cement ratio tried before decided a constant w/c = 0.45 used in
this research work.
c:s w/c p/c ratio % flow
1 :3 0.35 0
collapsed
1:3 0.45 0
135 mm
1:3 0.50 0
149 mm

71
1:3 0.45 10
197 mm
1:3 0.50 10
207 mm
1:3 0.45 4.5
168 mm

72
APPENDIX B
Three samples of each specimen were tested on 7th
and 28th
day result of which is shown below
along with standard deviation.
23.81
26.33
35.83
51.41
53.82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
compressive strength
(unmodified | 0% polymer)
25.45 29.67
29.71
34.19
0.00
47.80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
(S-SBR | 4.5% p/c)

73
2.93
8.01
2.54
25.60
23.36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
(S-SBR | 10% p/c)
23.08
28.87
27.57
33.90
48.13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
(F-SBR | 4.5% p/c)

74
2.94
8.64
2.44
27.31
23.96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7d 28d
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
(F-SBR | 10% p/c)

75
APPENDIX C
Three samples of each specimen were tested on 7th
and 28th
day result of which is shown below
along with standard deviation.
5.01
6.72
5.30
8.72 8.97
0
3
6
9
12
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
flexural strength
(S-SBR | 4.5% p/c)
5.64 5.716.21
8.71
10.51
0
3
6
9
12
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
flexural strength
(unmodified | 0% polymer)

76
0.52
2.06
0.44
5.80
5.27
0
3
6
9
12
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
flexural strength
(S-SBR | 10% p/c)
4.28
5.73
4.72
8.26
8.91
0
3
6
9
12
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
flexural strength
(F-SBR | 4.5% p/c)

77
0.48
2.23
0.51
6.06 5.69
0
3
6
9
12
7 28
meanstrength(MPa)
age (days)
flexural strength
(F-SBR | 10% p/c)

78
APPENDIX D
Two samples of each specimen were tested from 7th
day. Care should be taken to minimal disturb
the apparatus while taking the reading.
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (unmodified | 1 day curing)
mean specimen 1 specimen 2
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (unmodified | 7 days curing)

79
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (unmodified | 28 days curing)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
S-SBR
age (days)
total shrinkage (sika 4.5% p/c | 1 day curing)

80
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (S-SBR 4.5% p/c | 7 days
curing)
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (S-SBR 4.5% p/c | 28 days
curing)

81
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (S-SBR 10% p/c | 1 day
curing)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (S-SBR 10% p/c | 7 days
curing)

82
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (S-SBR 10% p/c | 28 days
curing)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (F-SBR 4.5% p/c | 1 day
curing)

83
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (F-SBR 4.5% p/c | 7 days
curing)
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (F-SBR 4.5% p/c | 28 days
curing)

84
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (F-SBR 10% p/c | 1 day
curing)
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (F-SBR 10% p/c | 7 days
curing)

85
-0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63
strain
age (days)
total shrinkage (F-SBR 10% p/c | 28 days
curing)

86
APPENDIX E
Three specimen of each type of mortar were tested for water permeability as shown below
Specimen 1 Specimen 2 Specimen 3 (Type)
Mean
121 mm 120 mm 119 mm
(UCM | 1
day curing)
120 mm
83 mm 82 mm 81 mm
(UCM | 7
days curing)
82 mm
76 mm 76 mm 74 mm
(UCM | 28
days curing)
75 mm
56 mm 53 mm 55 mm
(S-SBR |
4.5% p/c | 1
day curing)
55 mm

87
18 mm
20 mm
20 mm
(S-SBR |
4.5% p/c | 7
days curing)
19 mm
16 mm 15 mm 15 mm
(S-SBR |
4.5% p/c |
28 days
curing)
15 mm
33 mm 36 mm 38 mm
(S-SBR |
10% p/c – 1
day curing)
36 mm
15 mm 13 mm 11 mm
(S-SBR –
10% p/c – 7
days curing)
13 mm
10 mm 9 mm 10 mm
(S-SBR –
10% p/c –
28 days
curing)
10 mm

88
57 mm 55 mm 54 mm
(F-SBR –
4.5% p/c –
1 day
curing)
55 mm
19 mm 20 mm 22 mm
(F-SBR |
4.5% p/c | 7
days curing)
20 mm
12 mm 13 mm 14 mm
(F-SBR |
4.5% p/c |
28 days
curing)
13 mm
34 mm 36 mm 36 mm
(F-SBR |
10% p/c | 1
day curing)
35 mm
12 mm 10 mm 10 mm
(F-SBR |
10% p/c | 7
days curing)
11 mm

89
11 mm 9 mm 8 mm
(F-SBR |
10% p/c |
28 days
curing)
9 mm
120
82
75
0
30
60
90
120
150
1 7 28
meandepthofpenetration(mm)
curing days
surface water permeability
(unmodified | 0% p/c)

90
55
19 15
0
30
60
90
120
150
1 7 28
curing days
surface water perpeability
(S-SBR | 4.5% p/c)
36
13 10
0
30
60
90
120
150
1 7 28
curing days
(S-SBR | 10% p/c)

91
55
20
13
0
30
60
90
120
150
1 7 28
curing days
(F-SBR | 4.5% p/c)
35
11 9
0
30
60
90
120
150
1 7 28
curing days
(F-SBR | 10% p/c)

DDP_thesis_report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to DDP_thesis_report

Similar to DDP_thesis_report (20)

DDP_thesis_report