Replacement Waterproofing Materials for Less Cost

ADVANCE TECHNIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE 1
Repalcement For Water Proofing Materials
CHAPTER 01 : 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.
As a civil engineering student, we know very well about the importance of
waterproofing in the construction industry. So we had decided to select a Project title for
our final year Project based on some available alternative materials for waterproofing in
northen province. For that, we decided to think the alternative materials used in the
application of waterproofing work as fevicol with cement or lime and choose the title as
“Replacement of water proofing materials”.
1.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Waterproofing plays the key role in construction part which are touch in water.
Demand of application of waterproofing material increase in works like as tanks, balcony,
roof slab, bathroom areas and etc.
In nothern province, availability of standard waterproofing material in less amount
on the whole market area due to the higher cost and less amount of usage. Availability of
material in village site is very less amount.
For the standard waterproofing application require special experience team and
their cost is relatively high.
Although the contractors used standard material for waterproofing with higher
amount of money but they expect alternative, simple, economical way to waterproofing
material.

1.2. DEMAND FOR CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
When we think about standard waterproofing material, the demand of material is
less due to the higher cost and less amount of usage and for only some amount of brands
are available in town side. This cause to less satisfaction on clients by identification.
Alternative material for waterproofing with less cost, the demand maybe rise and can
enhance the usage in the small construction also.
1.3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This research shall flow on the application of water proof material on the
constructed tanks inner surface by considering factor as:
 By changing binding material with suggested ratio of other ingredients.
 Water ratio :
Workability and quality of mix may change with the amount of water
add to the mix. If it increase, workability will be high but quality will
affect (low). If it decrease, workability will be low and quality will
affect (low).
By identify the suitable amount of water to mix, can get quality mix to apply.
 Cost benefit analysis :
A cost benefit analysis study was done on each application method,
this is to establish the cost of each material proportion so as to
ascertain whether it will be more economical in terms of cost and can
lead to select a more economical mix to the water proofing
application.

1.4. TIME SCHEDULE FOR OUR PROJECT PLANNING
Description Expected Duration
Project title selection
1 -Nov-2016
Heading approval from our coordinator (3 to 30) -Nov-2016
Collection of relevant data’s based upon our
project title
(30-Nov to 31-Dec) -2016
Present 1st
presentation (Introduction) (2 to 21) -Jan-2017
Deciding our methodology with available and
suitable procedure.
(1 to 4) -June-2017
Selection of experimental study materials (5,6 - June) -2017
Construction Of tanks (6 to 16) – June -2017
Begins Experimental test (20 June to 6 August) -2017
Collection of results from experiments -Do-
2
nd
presentation (95% Complete in project) 17 – July - 2017
Arrangement for data’s (20 June to 17 July) -2017
Finalize the project presentation & Project
report
(24 July to 4 August) -2017
Attends final presentation 8 – August -2017
Project report submission 8 – September -2017
Table 1 : Time Schedule

1.5. PROGRESS GANTT CHART
Figure1:ProgressChart

CHAPTER 02 : 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 the pores of surface to reduce the
permeability. Above ability should be consider when the selection of alternative material
for waterproofing.
Mr. Pradip Manjrekar and Rathi (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. He says that the waterproofing
admixtures are pore filling and porosity reducing materials.
Asthana et al (2003) analyzed about the problems and solutions for Waterproofing in
building. This paper says that one of the chronic problem in the construction industry is
obtaining a defect free work, avoiding ingress of Moisture in the buildings. If such seepage
is allowed to continue, then unhygienic conditions will prevail and also the building may
deteriorate to the extent that ultimately it becomes uninhabitable. In many cases the
durability of the structure itself is seriously affected .Ingress of water or dampness or
atmospheric pollution in the RCC structures results in corrosion of steel and spalling of
concrete. It should be the deep of concern of every construction engineer to ensure that
buildings are free from unwanted moisture or water. From that study it was observed that
integral waterproofing admixtures fill up the pores in concrete preventing the passage of
water into it thus increasing the strength and durability of concrete.

CHAPTER 03 : WATER PROOFING MATERIALS
3.1. STANDARD MATERIALS
3.1.1. MasterSeal® 540 (Formerly known as Barralastic)
MasterSeal 540 is a two part, prepacked system, consisting of a liquid polymer as
Part A and a premixed powder as Part B. The two parts on mixing yield a brushable,
smooth slurry with excellent bond to most substrates. The product is based on selected
synthetic resins and cements.
MasterSeal 540 is in compliance with Bureau Verities Portability test for used in
drinking water reservoirs or tanks. Surface Spread of Flame test: - BS 476:Pt.7:71(passes
Class 1).
3.1.1.1. Recommended Uses
MasterSeal 540 is designed to be used as an effective waterproofing membrane
on a variety of substrates. Applications include:
 Waterproof coatings to the internal faces of water tanks,
sumps, reservoirs, planter boxes etc., before tiling or other surface finishing;
 Treating terraces, balconies, kitchen and toilet floors as a
sandwich treatment, to prevent water ingress.
 Treating bridge & flyover decks before wearing course to
protect concrete from rainwater ingress.
Figure 2 : Master Seal 540

3.1.1.2. Features And Benefits
Polymer modified - Improved bond strength on a variety of substrates.
 Permeable to water vapours - Allows surface to breath, preventing buildup of
moisture in structure, reducing maintenance.
 Flexible - Can withstand moderate movement of hairline cracks. Bridges cracks up
to 0.3mm in width, reducing maintenance.
 Weather resistant - Suitable for use in exposed conditions.
 Brushable consistency - Easily applied by brush or spray.
 Non-toxic – Can be applied onto surfaces in contact with drinking water.
3.1.1.3. Typical Performance Data
Criteria Results
Pull off bond strength ~1MPa
Water penetration (0.5kg/cm²) < 0.1mm
Coefficient of permeability
(3kgf/cm²)
2.27 x 10-¹³m/s
QUV accelerated weathering
test (ASTM G53:93, type A)
Gray scale:
4-5 (1000 hours)
2-3 (2000 hours)
(Gray Scale 1 denotes severe
discolouration; 5 denotes mild
or no discolouration.)
3.1.1.4. Properties
Part A Part B
Supply Form Liquid Powder
Colour White Grey
Working Time
@ 20°C
@ 30°C
1 hour (approx.)
0.5 hour (approx.)
Application
Temperature
>5°C
Table 2 : Typical Performance Data
Table 3: Properties

3.1.1.5. Application
 Surface Preparation :
Correct substrate preparation is critical for optimum performance.
Surfaces should be structurally sound direct tensile strength of more than 1.5 MPa via a
pull off tester with a load rate of 100N/s, clean, and free from laitance, loose particles, oil
and grease, old coatings, curing compounds or any other contaminants. Remove oil or
grease and wax contaminants by scrubbing with industrial grade detergent or degreasing
compounds before mechanical preparation. Cement laitance, loose particles, mold release
agents, curing membranes and other contaminants must be removed from the surface by
shot-blasting, grinding or scarifying followed by vacuum cleaning. Prior to priming use
MasterEmaco® repair mortars to achieve a smooth and level surface by filling holes and
irregularities.
 Mixing :
Mechanical mixing is necessary. A slow speed (300 rpm), heavy duty
electric drill with a wing type paddle is recommended. Place approx. 75% of Part A of the
pack in a clean pail. Keeping the mixer running, add the Part B slowly. Mix for at least 3
minutes to get a lump-free homogenous mix. While continuing to mix, add all of the
remainder of Part A if applying on a horizontal surface, or a part of it if applying on
vertical surfaces till the required consistency is obtained. Allow to stand for 2-3 minutes
and remix before application.
 Placing :
It is extremely important that the area being treated is shaded from
direct sun and wind to prevent rapid drying of the coating.
3.1.1.6. Curing
MasterSeal 540 must be protected against rapid drying due to direct sun
exposure, high temperatures or wind. Curing by wet burlap, polyethylene sheet or a curing
compound such as MasterKure 181 or 128 is recommended.
3.1.1.7. Cleaning
Clean tools using water and rags before the resin system hardens. Hardened
material can only be removed mechanically.

3.1.1.8. Estimating Data
The recommended coverage of MasterSeal 540 is 1 kg/m² per coat to obtain an
approximate wet film thickness of 0.8 mm (± 0.08mm). Actual coverage depends upon
the method of application, the texture and porosity of the surface. Therefore material
requirement is approximately 2 kg/m² for a total dry film thickness of 1 mm (± 0.1mm) in
two coatings. Note: use only complete pack.
3.1.1.9. Packaging
MasterSeal 540 is available in 18 or 36 kg packs 5 or 10 kg of Part A in a plastic
container 13 or 26Kg or Part B in a paper bag
3.1.1.10. Shelf Life
MasterSeal 540 can be kept for12 months in original unopened packing when
stored indoors. Do not store in direct sunlight and avoid allowing the material to freeze
which will render the material unusable.
3.1.1.11. Precautions
For detailed Environmental, Health and Safety information, please consult and
follow all instructions on the product Material Safety Data Sheet.
 The following application should not be done until the waterproof layer is
entirely dry and cured.
 Application temperature is above 5. Do not apply when the moisture level is
too high and ensure the ventilation is good.
 Do not re-mix the dried-out mixture with water.

3.1.2. K11 High Flexible Waterproofing Slurry
All of the parameters are same as above standard material (Master Seal 540)
excepting colour, Mixing ratio, Technical data and Packing.
3.1.2.1. Technical Data (Typical)
Test details Test Standard Test Results
Dry solid content (%): ≥ 70% 70
Tensile
Strength:
Initial setting time, h: ≤ 4 1
Final setting time, h: ≤ 8 3
Initial strength %:v ≥ 1,2 1,4
Resistance to heat %: ≥ 80 90
MPa
Elongation:
Resistance to Alkaline %: ≥ 60 122
Resistance to UV %: ≥ 80 100
Initial strength %: ≥ 200 270
Resistance to heat %: ≥ 150 185
Resistance to Alkaline %: ≥ 150 170
Resistance to UV %: ≥ 150 175
Damp substrate adhesive strength (MPa): ≥ 0,5 1,2
Water permeability, 0.3 MPa, 30 min.: Waterproof Waterproof
3.1.2.2. Colour
Grey
3.1.2.3. Mixing
Mixing ratio: powder: additive: water = 11.6: 8.4: (0-0.5).
Pour additive into a clean container and slowly add in the powder with
constant stirring until the lump-free mixture is achieved.
Table 4: Technical Data
Figure 3 : K11

3.1.2.4. Packaging
 43 kg/set:
25 kg powder (bag) + 18 kg additive (drum)/ set;
 20 kg/set:
11.6 kg powder (bag) + 8.4 kg additive (drum)/ set.
3.1.3. WATERGUARD A
Polymer modified cementitious waterproof coating. All of the parameters are same
as above standard material (Master Seal 540) excepting Packing.
3.1.3.1. Packing And Coverage
18kg powder + 10 ltr. liquid 16.5m² to 25m²
9kg powder + 5 ltr. liquid 8.25m² to 12.5m²
0.81kg powder + 0.45 ltr. liquid 0.75m² to 1.15m²
3.1.4. WATERPROOF PADDLOY CEMENT
A Portland cement interground with a water-repellent material such a stearate (e.g.,
sodium or aluminum); reduces capillary water transmission under little or no pressure but
does not completely stop water-vapor transmission.
This cement use for inner outer floors, Water proof washrooms, slabs, swimming
pools, kitchens and walls. But this method can’t use for major water proofing purpose.
Figure 4 : Waterguard A

3.2. IDENTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUENT MATERIAL
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 : Margo Adhesive, Tar, Synthetic Adhesive
3.2.1. MARGO ADHESIVE
Known as neem tree glue can obtain from neem barks. Neem glue has adhesive
properties. It also we as a natural gum.
By mixing the neem glue with binding material maybe apply to the surface. But
getting vast amount as neem glue from neem barks is not simply and difficult to melt and
mixing the glue for the applicant in vast amount.
It is a mixed substance made up of organic liquids. That are highly sticky, viscous and
water proof
It sometimes use in slab roof water proofing by applying tan maybe proof of water
Figure 5 : Hega Paddloy Cement

3.2.2. SYNTHETIC ADHESIVE (FEVICOL SH)
If we want to join similar or dissimilar surface together we want a paste to join that
surface. Now a days we have Fevicol type of gum which are used to joint the surfaces.
The Fevicol types of gums are based on synthetic resins which are made from polyvinyl
acetate resins. Polyvinyl acetate in solid state is a clear, odourless, tasteless, non-toxic,
thermoplastic resin. They do not melt, but soften over a temperature range. The resin is
unaffected by sunlight, ultraviolet light and air. Further more, it will absorb a small of
water. Polyvinyl acetated is neutral and non-corrosive. The resin is not appreciable soluble
in the following solvents viz., animal fats, linseed oil, turpentine, naphtha, vegetable oils
and waxes.
The characteristics of this type of adhesives are:
(a) They use to joint the similar or dissimilar surface.
(b) The components joined maintain the structural integrity.
(c) Provide liquid and vapour tight joints.
Figure 6 : Margo Tree Figure 7 : Margo Adhesive

3.2.2.1. Market
Polyvinyl acetate emulsions / adhesives are now easily adaptable to high speed
machinery in paper conversion and packaging fields and find place as wood adhesives
also. It is now used in adhesives for various applications as mentioned below :
1. Book Binding industry.
2. Manufacturing of Envelopes, Paper Bags, Gummed Tapes, Paper
Tubes, Drinking Straws, Multi wall Shopping Bags, Folding type Lunch Boxes,
Sticking Labels, Films and Foils, Paper boards, Milk Cartons etc.
3. Automobile Upholstery.
4. Manufacturing of Cigarette Tips.
5. Pencil Industry.
6. Leather binding & Wood assembly works.
7. Manufacturing of Tile cements.
8. For Lamination works and for joining two or more plies of material
into a new composite.
9. For binding of cement paints to masonry walls.
Due to its multifarious applications the demand for this type of Adhesives has
been increasing sharply in recent years
3.2.2.2. Manafacturing Process
The manufacture of adhesive from synthetic resin is simple and can be started
with very little investment.
Figure 8 : Fevicol Adhesive

The process consists of:
1. Dispersion
2. Polymerisation
3. Addition of other ingredients
4. Packing
The main equipment consists of a Mixing Kettle made of Stainless steel with
an Agitator, M.S. Jacket, and Temperature controllers etc. The kettle is heated by passing
steam through the jacket. A bottom outlet is provided for draining the water from steam
condensate. The various steps in the manufacturing process are described below :
 Dispersion :
The monomers or polymers are added to the water in the kettle and small
amount of soap is added to the mixture and the stirring started. The quantities added are
adjusted in such a way as to get an emulsion of 55% solids.
 Polymerisation
This step is necessary only when a monomer is used. A catalyst (like Benzyl
Peroxide) is added and no heating is started. With the thermostat set at some suitable
temperature, the stirring is started when the required temperature has been reached.
Further heating is then stopped and the excess heat of reaction is removed by the
circulation of cooling water through the jacket till the whole reaction is complete.
 Addition of other ingredients
While the emulsion is still quite hot, other ingredients as required depending on
the type of Adhesive being manufactured, are added and stirred well. Some of these
Ingredients are :
1. O-Phenyl Phenol (Preservative)
2. Formaldehyde (40%)
3. Ammonia
4. Calcium Carbonate
5. Bleach solution
6. Colouring Agents

 Packing
The adhesive is finally cooled and taken out from the bottom opening valve.
Next the adhesive is packed in plastic containers of 1/2, 1, 2, 5, 10, 25, 50 kgs capacity as
per customer's requirements and stored in a cool place before despatch.
3.2.2.3. Raw Materials
• Vinyl acetate monomer
• Poly vinyl alcohol
• Dibutyl Pthalate
• Octanol
• Maleic Anhydride
• Calcium Carbonate
• ButylAcrylate
• Ethyl acetate
• Emulsifier
Part B : Cement, Lime, Mud
3.2.3. MUD
Mud is a liquid or semi-liquid mixture of water and any combination of different
kinds of soil (loam, silt, and clay). It usually forms after rainfall or near water sources.
In the construction industry, mud is a semi-fluid material that can be used to coat,
seal, or adhere materials.
Mixture of subsoil and water possibly with the addition of stones, gravel, straw,
lime, and/or bitumen. This material was used a variety of ways to build walls, roofs and
floors.
3.2.4. LIME
Lime is a calcium-containing inorganic material in which carbonates, oxides, and
hydroxides predominate. In the strict sense of the term, lime is calcium oxide or calcium
hydroxide. It is also the name of the natural mineral (native lime) CaO which occurs as a

product of coal seam fires and in altered limestone. The word lime originates with its
earliest use as building mortar and has the sense of sticking or adhering.
These materials are still used in large quantities as building and enginee0ring
materials (including limestone products, cement, concrete, and mortar), as chemical
feedstocks, and for sugar refining, among other uses.
Effective proportions of hydrated lime for water-tight concrete were found to be as
follows: One part Portland cement ; 2 parts sand ; 4 parts stone ; add 8 per cent hydrated
lime
When the term is encountered in an agricultural context, it usually refers to
agricultural lime, which is crushed limestone, not a product of a lime kiln. Otherwise it
most commonly means slaked lime, as the more dangerous form is usually described more
specifically as quicklime or burnt lime.
3.2.5. PORTLAND CEMENT
A cement is a binder, a substance used in construction that sets, hardens and adheres
to other materials, binding them together. Cement is seldom used solely, but is used to
bind sand and gravel (aggregate) together. Cement is used with fine aggregate to produce
mortar for masonry, or with sand and gravel aggregates to produce concrete.
cement, in general, adhesive substances of all kinds, but, in a narrower sense, the
binding materials used in building and civil engineering construction. Cements of this kind
are finely ground powders that, when mixed with water, set to a hard mass.
Figure 9 : Limestone Powder

Setting and hardening result from hydration, which is a chemical combination of the
cement compounds with water that yields submicroscopic crystals or a gel-like material
with a high surface area. Because of their hydrating properties, constructional cements,
which will even set and harden under water, are often called hydraulic cements. The most
important of these is Portland cement.
3.3. SELECTION OF SUBSTITUENT MATERIAL
Above mentioned materials are available in northen province widely. So can get
materials required manner.
Figure 10 : Ordinary Portland Cement

CHAPTER 04 : METHODOLOGY
4.1. 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
Figure 11 : Brick Figure 12 : Sea Sand
Figure 13 : Fevicol Figure 15 : Limestone
Powder
Figure 14 : Ordinary
Portland Cement
Table 5: Material Details

4.2. TOOLS
Mason Trowel, Level bar, Plumb bop, Sprit level, Try square, Hoe, Shovel,
Maniyas, Bucket, Polythene, Measuring tape, Coating brush, Sieve.
4.3. 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
Figure 16 : Tools Set
Figure 18 : Bed PreprationFigure 17 : Cement sand mixing

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.
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 and VI.
Figure 19 : 90o
Checking Figure 20 : Vertical Checking
Figure 21 : Tanks Construction
Figure 22 : Tanks Curing

4.4. 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
4.5. SURFACE PREPARATION
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
Figure 23 : Water Pouring
Figure 24 : Tanks Covered by Regiform

4.6. MIXING OF WATER PROOF MATERIALS
We analyzed with our coordinator to select the possible mixing ratio of the water
proof materials and decided the following ratio by volume
 Cement : Fevicol : Water = 3 : 1 : 2
 Lime : Fevicol : Water = 3 : 1.5 : 2
4.7. 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.
Figure 25 : Water Removing
Figure 26 : Adding Fevicol Figure 27 : Mixing

Figure 28 : Vertical Application
Figure 29 : Horizontal Application

CHAPTER 05 : 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.
5.1. ANALYZING FOR CEMENT FEVICOL APPLICATION (m2
)
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
• Applied area = [(230 × 435 × 4) + (230 × 230)] × 3
= 1.359 m
2
• Cost for 1.359 m
2
= Rs 877.17
• So, Cost for 1 m
2
=
877.17
1.359
= Rs 645.45
= Rs 646.00
Table 6: Analyzing For Cement Fevicol Mix

5.2. 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 = [(230 × 435 × 4) + (230 × 230)] × 3
= 1.359 m
2
• Cost for 1.359 m
2
= Rs 937.36
• So, Cost for 1 m
2
=
937.36
1.359
= Rs 689.74
= Rs.690.00
Table 7 : Analyzing For Lime Fevicol Mix

5.3. 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
Cement : fevicol : water mix in ratio
of 3 : 1 : 2
𝑚2 Rs 646.00
Lime : fevicol : water mix in ratio of
3 : 1.5 : 2
𝑚2 Rs.690.00
Table 8 : Analyzing The Alternative Material with Standard material

CHAPTER 06 : TESTS CARRIED OUT
6.1. PONDING TEST
To identify the water leakage through the water proof applied surface
6.1.1. PONDING TEST PROCEDURE
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.
Figure 30 : Tanks Before Water Pouring (free from moisture)
Figure 31 : Water Pouring After Waterproofing Figure 32 : Covered Tank

6.2. BONDING TEST
To ensure the bonding between applied material and surface
6.2.1. BONDING TEST PROCDURE
Test carried out by visual observation. Observed any changes arise in the material
applied surface in the regular time period.
6.3. DURABILITY TEST
To determine the expecting life time without failure
6.3.1. DURABILITY TEST PROCEDURE
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.

CHAPTER 07 : OBSERVATIONS
7.1. VISUAL 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.
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.
Figure 33 : Identify The Floating White Layer
Figure 34 : Identify Scaly Form

7.2. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) –BEFORE WATER PROOFING
ADVANCE TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE – ATI
Sri Lanka Institute Of Advance Technological Education – SLIATE
Higher National Diploma in Engineering (Civil)
Final Year – Project Observation Sheet
Location : Ariyalai Temperature : 31℃
Water pouring Date : 12 June 2017 Water pouring time : 7.00 a.m
Group Members : P.Nirojan, S.Srisaisoruban, K.Vidyatharan
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
Table 9 : Water Leakage (Time Base For 3 Days) –Before Water Proofing

7.3. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) - AFTER WATER PROOFING
Date Time
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
Table 10 : Water Leakage (Time Base For 3 Days) –After Water Proofing

7.4. WATER LEAKAGE PER 2 DAY - AFTER WATER PROOFING
Date
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
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
Table 11 : Water Leakage Per 2 Day - After Water Proofing

Figure 35 : Measuring the Depth of Water Leakage
Figure 36 : Tanks

CHAPTER 08 : CALCULATION
8.1. FIND OUT AVERAGE LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) –BEFORE
WATER PROOFING
Final Year – Project Calculation Sheet
Date
Time
Tank I Tank II Tank III Average Tank IV Tank V Tank VI Average
12thJune
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
13thJune
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
14thJune
7.00 a.m. 152 166 149 155.7 180 127 107 138.0
Table 12 : Average Water Leakage (Time Base For 3 Days) –Before Water Proofing

8.2. FIND OUT AVERAGE LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) - AFTER WATER
PROOFING
Date
Time
Tank I Tank II Tank III Avg Tank IV Tank V Tank VI Avg
20thJune
11.00 a.m. - - - 0 - - - 0
3.00 p.m. - - - 0 - - - 0
7.00 p.m. - - - 0
Approx.
2
- - 0.6
21stJune
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
22ndJune
7.00 a.m.
Approx.
3
Approx.
4
Approx.
3
3.3
Approx.
4
Approx.
3
Approx.
4
3.6
Table 13 : Average Water Leakage (Time Base For 3 Days) –After Water Proofing

8.3. FIND OUT AVERAGE LEAKAGE PER 2 DAY - AFTER WATER PROOFING
Date
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
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
Table 14 : Average Leakage Per 2 Day - After Water Proofing

8.4. CALCULATION FOR DURABILITY TEST
Total leakages for 48 days = last leakage Avg.reading – First leakage Avg.reading
8.4.1. CEMENT FEVICOL TANKS
 Total leakages for 48 days = 50.3 – 4.0
= 46.3 mm
 leakages amount = 46.3/48
= 0.95 mm/day
8.4.2. LIME FEVICOL TANKS
 Total leakages for 48 days = 89.0 – 4.7
= 84.3 mm
 leakages amount = 84.3/48
= 1.75 mm/day

CHAPTER 09 : GRAPHING
9.1. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) –BEFORE WATER
PROOFING
AverageleakageofTank–I,II,IIIAverageleakageofTank–IV,V,VI

9.2. WATER LEAKAGE (TIME BASE FOR 3 DAYS) –BEFORE WATER
PROOFING

9.3. WATER LEAKAGE (PER 2 DAY) –AFTER WATER PROOFING

CHAPTER 10: COMPARING AND ANALYZING
10.1. AVERAGE WATER LEAKAGE BEFORE AND AFTER OF WATER
PROOFING TO CEMENT FEVICOL MIX

10.2. AVERAGE WATER LEAKAGE BEFORE AND AFTER OF WATER
PROOFING TO LIME FEVICOL MIX

10.3. AVERAGE WATER LEAKAGE BETWEEN LIME FEVICOL MIX
AND CEMENT FEVICOL MIX

CHAPTER 11: RESULT
11.1. 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
11.2. 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.
11.3. FROM DURABILITY TEST
Cement fevicol application method showed less amount of leakage per day. So
cement fevicol application method is durable than lime fevicol application
11.4. FROM COST ANALYSIS
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.
Cement fevicol mix Lime fevicol mix
0.95 mm/day 1.75 mm/day

CHAPTER 12: 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.

REFERENCES
 https://www.google.com
 Building Schedule Of Rates For Of Construction Works Government Buildings –
2016 - Department of Buildings

Replacement Waterproofing Materials for Less Cost

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Replacement Waterproofing Materials for Less Cost

Similar to Replacement Waterproofing Materials for Less Cost (20)

More from Vj NiroSh

More from Vj NiroSh (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Replacement Waterproofing Materials for Less Cost