Modelling of Waterproofing Properties of Water-based Polyurethane

Membrane on Portland Cement Concrete and Fly-ash-based Geopolymer

Concrete using Varying Thickness

Elline Joy U. Fernando1, Cristal Haze A. Victoria1, Melizza Dane T. Viñas1

1
School of Civil, Environmental, and Geological Engineering,
Mapua University, Muralla St.,Intramuros, Manila, 1002 Philippines

*Corresponding author E-mail:

Abstract

Exposure to high temperature rise and water seepage influence the behavior of concrete
roof slabs. In this study, a water-based polyurethane membrane is selected to be applied
on Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete and Geopolymer Concrete to assess its
effectiveness. Seventy-two concrete samples were tested for Saltwater Absorption and
Surface Temperature Reading. The relationship among the thickness of the slab,
number of coatings applied, temperature change, water absorption, and hours of
immersion were analyzed. Results show that the greater thickness of concrete exhibits
lower heat transmission from the exposed face to the covered face. However, as the
number of coatings increase, the tendency of heat reflection also increases dramatically
but the concrete manifests a decrease in heat transmission. With regards to saltwater
absorption, thickness and number of coating varies inversely with its percentage of
absorption. The results show that the most effective and optimum thickness and number
of coatings that they have obtained, is to use 130 mm thickness and 2 coatings of
waterproofing for the OPC and to use 130 mm thickness and 4 coatings of
waterproofing for the GPC. Thus, if the thickness is subjected to change due to the
design constraints of the thickness of the slab, the number of coatings shall be
determined using the said mathematical models.
Keywords: waterproofing, polyurethane membrane, Portland cement, geopolymer
1. Introduction
Concrete is known to be
evidently prone to tension failures,
cracks and voids. Corrosion of steel
reinforcement happens when water
seep through the concrete with high
permeability. While concrete is one of
most durable manmade materials, it
becomes permeable after it hardens.
Chloride attack is one way that could
possibly cause damage to it. This
happens when a poor quality concrete
had contact with such substance that
allows its passage, which leads to the
breakdown of the protection of the
steel reinforcement bars that
accelerates the corrosion of the steel
and eventually causes concrete failure.
Porosity is often mistaken to
permeability. The former is the
measure of voids in concrete while the
latter is the rate of flow of a fluid in
these pores.
On the other hand, concrete is a
composite material that has thermal
properties. Its behavior is influenced
by several factors and one of it is the
rate of temperature rise. When exposed
to high temperatures, deterioration
happens in its compressive strength,
tensile strength, modulus of elasticity,
bond with reinforcements, etc.
Concrete undergoes changes in its
chemical composition, physical
structure and water content
demonstrated by cracks and explosive
spalling due to the buildup of steam
pressure. It indicates that high
temperature has a negative effect on
the workability of concrete.
As a result, waterproofing is
utilized in order to keep a concrete roof
water-tight. Proper design of the roof
slab must be considered to effectively
utilize the full effects of the waterproof
coatings. It must have flow paths that
directs water to suitable discharge
points. Otherwise, water ponding on
flat roof would occur which will cause
thermal differences to the wet and dry
side of the slab. It is also important to
choose the suitable waterproofing
membrane in accordance to the
environment, area of the roof slab, cost
and other parameters.
Without waterproofing that
keeps the moisture out, the concrete
will be prone to expansion leading to
the cracking of concrete, the formation
of rust from the water reacting with
impurities or reinforcing metals in the
concrete, aggregate expansion, and
bacterial corrosion. Waterproofing of
concrete ensures that almost all
moisture is kept out of the material. It
provides a great deal of benefit to
concrete such as added strength,
reduced maintenance costs and keep
the concrete water-tight since they are
exposed to the weather.
However, polyurethane
compounds have attracted scientific
interests due to its extraordinary
features. It has been widely used as a
coating to protect the concrete from its
corrosive environment. UV-curable
coating’s one auspicious area is the
water-based polyurethane membrane
that constitutes safety to the
environment [1]. Thus, this membrane
particularly concerns its thermal
reflection as well as the water
penetration capabilities in concrete.
2. Methodology
This study is focused in
assessing the effectiveness of a water-
based polyurethane membrane on
Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete
and Fly-ash-based Geopolymer
Concrete with each material varying
from thickness and the number of
coatings applied. The researchers will
conduct two laboratory tests which are
Saltwater Penetration Test and Surface
Temperature Reading Test. The
Saltwater Penetration Test shall be
conducted in accordance to ASTM
D6489-99 and the Surface Heat Test
shall be in accordance to ASTM E
1862 – 14.
The conduction of tests of this
study consists of seventy-two concrete
specimens. Ordinary Portland cement
and Geopolymer concrete are used as
the two classification of samples. Each
concrete specimen varies from number
of coatings applied and thickness.
Thirty-six ordinary concrete samples
are casted, twenty-four of which are
coated with liquid applied
waterproofing while twelve of them
are control specimens. Similarly,
twenty-four Geopolymer concrete are
coated while twelve of these thirty-six
samples are control. Tests are carried
out using blocks of 200mm x 200mm
in which the thickness varies. An
interval of 30mm per thickness is used
to gather a more distinctive result.
Since roof slabs do not
experience very high water head
throughout its lifespan, the test for the
absorption of saltwater to the concrete
does not require a pressurized test.
Coatings vary from zero to four to
further assess its importance and
effectivity. Three concrete samples are
casted per coat and thickness to collect
accurate results by getting their means.
Ordinary Portland cement is a
usual material in the building
construction as one of the concrete mix
composition. The type of Portland
cement that is used in this study is in
conformance to ASTM Type 1. In
making the thirty-six ordinary concrete
blocks, the total volume of the mix is
initially computed. ACI Method is
used to compute for the concrete mix
ratio. Table 1 shows the details of the
mix.
Table 1. Mix Details per 1m3
The concrete mixing is divided
into parts due to time and space
constraints. A slump of 15cm, 13cm
and 15cm are obtained for each batch,
respectively. After the specimens are
removed from the formworks, the
specimens are submerged under water
for 20-day curing process.
Aside from the Ordinary
Portland Cement Concrete,
Geopolymer is another kind of
concrete specimen tested. It is
currently being studied that sets forth
to the future of cement alternative. Its
sample size will be the same as that of
ordinary concrete with various
thickness and coat. The making of the
Geopolymer concrete blocks was made
simultaneously with the ordinary
concrete. The mix details of
Geopolymer concrete are shown in
Table 2.
Material Ratio
Fly-ash 1.2 kg
Gravel 3 kg
Sand 2 kg
NaOH
3.2 L
Activator
Table 2. Geopolymer Concrete Mix
Details
Maxelastic Pur HW
Thermocoat is a water-based
polyurethane membrane which is
formulated to provide low thermal
conductivity that is suitable for all
kinds of flat roofs especially concrete
roof slabs. Initially, all concrete
samples except the control specimens
are coated with a primer prior to the
application of the waterproofing
compound. All coated specimens were
applied using a brush. Careful
application and consistency of the
coatings are maintained and with the
guidance of the experts in application.
In the conduction of absorption
test, the saltwater is replaced by a
substitute water mixed with salt. In
reference to several studies and salinity
data of the Philippine ocean, a
percentage of salt on water was
decided. According to Philippine
Statistics Authority, marine water and
body of ocean in the Philippines has a
salinity that ranges from 30,000 to
40,000 ppm (part per million). These
include the seawater environment, bay,
gulf and channels. To elaborate
further, the mean seawater salinity in
Samar, Philippines is 32,130 ppm in
reference to a study conducted by E.H.
Cebu and R. L. Orale. In this study,
32,000 ppm of salinity is used. For
every cubic meter of water used, there
will be 3.2% of that volume of water
already converted in kilograms. This is
to mimic the mixture and
concentration of salt in the marine
environment.
As a preparation for the surface
temperature test, the researchers set up
a stand for the artificial heat source and
the specimen in such a way that the
surface of the specimen will have
constant height from the heat source.
The researchers used Halogen Flood
Lamp of 500 watts as a heat source. As
for the setup of the test, the height of
the halogen spot lamp to the surface of
the blocks is maintained at 17 cm for
more accurate results.
Due to time, space and equipment
constraints, the testing of the
specimens are tested with five
specimens per batch. The Halogen
Spot Lamp is then turned on for 1 hour
to let the heat penetrate the concrete.
After an hour passed, the halogen spot
lamps are turned off and the specimens
are removed from the stand to ensure
that the heat reading will purely come
from the surface and not from the heat
residue from the halogen spot lamp.
The temperature reading is recorded
using a device called Infrared
Radiometer Camera that takes a
picture of the specimen that also shows
the surface temperature of the surface.
The temperature of the top and bottom
surface are recorded immediately after
removing it from the stand to ensure
accurate data.
The specimens are oven dried
and air dried after curing and are
placed faced down on the container.
The face of the concrete is the side
wherein there is a waterproofing
coating. To ensure that no water will
penetrate on exposed sides of concrete,
the researchers have also applied
coating onto the 4 sides of each
samples. Saltwater is free to circulate
around the specimens since PVC pipes
were placed at the bottom. OPC and
GPC are soaked for 24 hours and their
weights are measured thereafter. The
specimens are returned to the container
and weighed after 48 hours. Figure 1
shows the setup of the saltwater
absorption test.
Figure 1. Set-Up for the Salt-Water
Absorption Test
3. Results and Discussions
3.1 Surface Temperature Test
Surface Temperature Test is
the first test prior to conducting
saltwater absorption test. All
specimens are subjected to around
100°C, measuring the temperature on
the exposed side and the covered side.
The exposed side of the concrete is the
face of the specimen with
waterproofing. In the case of control
specimens, the smoother face is treated
as the exposed side. The measurement
of the temperature is done using an
infrared radiometer camera, which also
takes photos of the subject with the
temperature reading.
Table 3. Temperature Reading Results of Portland Cement Concrete Specimens
Figure 2
Data obtained from the
temperature reading of ordinary
concrete is given in Table 3. The table
shows the average temperature
obtained from the top and bottom
surfaces of the specimens including
their changes in temperature. Based
from the results, it can be seen that
control specimens have higher
temperature readings compared to
specimens with waterproofing. To
further compare the results of the
temperature between the top and
bottom of each specimen, Figures 2, 3,
4, 5. are given below.
Figure 3
 Figure 4
Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 shows the
results of OPC specimens in each
thickness. The graphs display identical
representation that shows a decreasing
temperature on the top surface as
number of coatings applied increases
due to the reflective capabilities of the
waterproofing, in which causing the
heat be reflected, thus lowering the
Figure 6.
Figure 8
Figures 6, 7, and 8 shows the
graphical representation of the OPC
specimens with various coatings
applied. As shown in the graph, the
specimens with 0 coating has reached
a top surface temperature ranging from
85 ℃ to 95 ℃ while specimens with 4
coatings has a range temperature of
60 ℃ to 75 ℃. From the graph shown,
the top surface temperature is uniform,
Figure 5
surface temperature, whereas the
number of coatings applied increases,
the top surface temperature decreases.
However, the bottom surface shows a
uniform temperature in each thickness
shows that the number of coating does
not affect the bottom surface
temperature.
Figure 7
in which shows that the thickness of
the specimen does not affect the top
surface temperature. Meanwhile, the
bottom surface temperature evidently
shows that the temperature decreases
as the thickness of the slab increases
due to the properties of heat
conduction where heat transfer will
occur slower to thicker slabs that
thinner slabs.
 Figure 9. Graphical Representation of the Change in Temperature of Ordinary
Portland Concrete with respect to its Thickness.

Figure 9 shows the graphical mm specimen. The main reason for

representation of the change in
temperature between the top surface
and bottom surface of the specimens
with different thickness. As seen from
Figure 3 that there is an increase in the
change in temperature as the specimen
becomes thicker. It is shown in table 1
that the highest obtained change in
temperature is 51. 45 ℃ from the 130
this change in temperature is that the
temperature at the bottom surface is
lesser in the 130 mm specimens
compared to the bottom surface
temperature of the 40 mm specimens.
Thus the bigger the thickness, the less
heat will penetrate at the bottom
surface of the specimen.

Figure 10. Graph of Linear Regression based on Temperature Difference and

Thickness of Portland Concrete

Figure 10 shows the graphical Table 4 shows the experimental

representation of the linear regression
of the temperature difference with
varying thickness for 0 coat, 2 coats
and 4 coats of Portland Concrete.
Where x is the thickness of the
Portland Concrete and y is the change
in temperature. The equation are as
follows:
0 Coat: 0.4151x + 0.1578
2 Coats: 0.2564x + 5.4189
4 Coats: 0.2108x + 4.2422
results of Geopolymer Concrete
Specimens obtained from the Surface
Temperature Test. Top Surface and
Bottom Surface Temperature of the
specimens were gathered to compare
the change in temperature in various
coating and different thickness of the
slab. Graphical Representations are
presented to thoroughly distinguish the
relationship among the temperature,
thickness of the specimen, and the
number of coatings applied.
 Table 4. Temperature Reading Results of Geopolymer Concrete Specimens
Figure 11.
Figure 13.
Figures 11, 12, 13, and 14
shows the results of GPC specimens in
each thickness. The graphs display
identical representation that shows a
decreasing temperature on the top
surface as number of coatings applied
increases, due to the reflective
capabilities of the waterproofing, in
Figure 12.
Figure 14.
which causing the heat be reflected,
thus lowering the surface temperature.
However, the bottom surface shows a
uniform temperature in each thickness
which shows that the number of
coating does not affect the bottom
surface temperature.
 Figure 15 Figure 16

Figure 17.

Figures 15, 16, and 17 temperature ranging from 85 to 93, and

represents the graphical representation
of the different number of coatings of
the GPC specimens with respect to the
surface temperature versus its
thickness. As shown on the graph, the
top surface shows a uniform
temperature in each thickness, this
shows that the varying number of
coatings had an effect to the
temperature, although the top surface
temperature is uniform for the different
number of coatings, they have different
ranges of temperature. Whereas the
controlled specimen had a top top
surface temperature ranging from 89
℃ to 103 ℃, while for the specimens
with 2 coatings had a top surface
lastly the specimens with 4 coatings
had a top surface temperature ranging
from 78℃ to 84℃. Which shows that
the different number of coatings had an
effect to the top surface temperature,
where the controlled specimens had a
higher temperature range, whilst the
specimens with 4 coatings had lower
temperature range. As for the bottom
surface temperature, the graphs display
identical representation that shows a
decrease of temperature due to the
increasing thickness of the specimen
due to the properties of heat
conduction where heat transfer will
occur slower to thicker slabs that
thinner slabs.

Figure 18. Graph Representation of the Change of Temperature of Geopolymer

Concrete with respect to its Thickness
 Results of the Geopolymer
Concrete are the same with the
Portland Concrete specimens that there
is an increase in the change in
temperature as the specimen becomes
thicker. The change in temperature
between the top surface and the bottom
surface of the specimen is significantly
Figure 19. Graph of Linear Regression based on Temperature Difference and
Thickness of Geopolymer Concrete
Figure 19 shows the graphical
representation of the linear regression
of the temperature difference with
varying thickness for 0 coat, 2 coats
and 4 coats of Geopolymer Concrete.
Where x is the thickness of the
Geopolymer Concrete and y is the
change in temperature. The equation
are as follows:
0 Coat: 0.2642x + 20.524
2 Coats: 0.2934x + 11.616
4 Coats: 0.2979x + 5.2361
3.2 Saltwater Absorption Test
Two types of concrete
compositions were used to test the
behavior and properties of one type of
waterproofing. All ordinary concrete
samples were tested subsequent to
oven drying procedure while all
Geopolymer concrete samples were
subjected to air drying procedure.
lower in the 40 mm thickness than that
of the specimens with higher thickness.
The maximum change in temperature
achieved is 52.83 ℃ in the controlled
specimens with 130 mm thickness.
This means that the bigger the
thickness, the less heat will penetrate at
the bottom surface of the specimen.
Since another non-destructive
test was conducted in this study, all
samples were reused in Water
Absorption Test after carrying out
Surface Temperature Test. Each
distinct specimens had been tripled to
come up for more accurate results. All
procedures were carried out following
the standard of ASTM D1141-98.
Test results of Ordinary
Concrete and Geopolymer Concrete
are given in Table 5 and 6. These tables
show the mean of the three proceeding
weights and their mean percent of
water absorbed. It can be distinguished
that all specimens with waterproofing
have performed better than the control
specimens. It can also be seen that all
samples that has 4 coatings had given
the best results. However, Geopolymer
concrete, in comparison with the
ordinary concrete, has exhibited more
absorbed water.
 Table 5. Water Absorption Test Results for Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete

Table 6. Water Absorption Test Results for Geopolymer Concrete

Graphical representations to coatings, and hours of immersion to

distinguish the relationship among the saltwater are given in Figures 20 and
percentage of absorption, thickness of 21.
concrete, number of waterproofing

Figure 20. Graphical representation of average water absorption test results for
ordinary concrete in 24-hour immersion to saltwater

Figure 21. Graphical representation of average water absorption test results for
ordinary concrete in 48-hour immersion to saltwater
 Figures 20 and 21 above show
that as the thickness of concrete
becomes greater, its percentage of
water absorption lessens. In a constant
thickness of concrete, a greater number
of waterproofing coating manifests a
better performance in resisting water
absorption. A considerable difference
in the absorption of concrete with and
Figure 22
Figure 24
In Figure 22, the results show
an identical percent absorption for 24-
hour and 48-hour immersion.
However, the trend of lesser water
absorption to more coating is still
exhibited in the data. In Figure 23, it
shows a notable difference in the
absorption of water in the time interval
for the control specimen. Yet, the
absorption for the specimens with 2-
coatings 4-coatings has given an
unnoticeable and an almost similar
without coating signifies the
importance of waterproofing. To
compare the test results with respect to
the relationship of the 24-hour and 48-
hour immersion with the percent
absorption in concrete of various coat
and constant thickness, Figure 22, 23,
24, and 25 are given below.
Figure 23
Figure 25
result. Figure 24 and 25 show an
evident result that the water has
penetrated the concrete between the
time intervals. It can also be
distinguished that the penetration of
water onto the concrete with respect to
time gives a significant difference in
only greater thicknesses. Graphical
representation of data for Geopolymer
concrete are given in Figures 26 and
27.
 Figure 26. Graphical representation of average water absorption test results for
Geopolymer concrete in 24-hour immersion to saltwater

Figure 27. Graphical representation of average water absorption test results for
Geopolymer concrete in 48-hour immersion to saltwater

Figures 26 and 27 manifest However, it can be seen in Figure 26

similar result with that of ordinary
concrete. However, in Figure 27, it can
be seen that the percent absorption
between 0-coat of 70mm and 100mm
has fluctuated. It changes the trend of
lesser absorption to greater thickness.
This result is due to a factor that the
researchers have rejected two of the
samples of 70mm and excluded them
in testing, leaving only one sample to
get datum from. Geopolymer shares
the same trend of relationships of
variables to ordinary concrete but the
latter has a more prominent results.
that 4-coat concrete samples have a
very distinct low water absorption in
every thicknesses than in the transition
of 0-coat to 2-coat. Figure 27 also has
the same trend of graph except that of
the 2-coat concrete specimens in each
thicknesses, as seen in a red line graph.
Although having an unnoticeable
difference in the graph, they have still
shown a variation of result which are
4.99%, 4.91%, 4.88% and 4.74% for
40mm, 70mm, 100mm, and 130mm,
respectively.

Figure 28 Figure 29
 Figure 30 Figure 31

Figure 28 shows that there is a differences in water absorption for 4-

significant difference in the water
absorption of 0-coat concrete samples
between 24-hour and 48-hour interval,
but has an almost uniform result for 2-
coat and 4-coat. Figures 29 and 30
shares a similar trend of graph as the
others but there are no significant
coated concrete samples between the
time intervals. In the Figure 31, the
water absorption is lesser for greater
number of coatings, and the graph
shows a significant result in each coats
between the 24-hour and 48-hour
immersion.

Figure 32. Water Absorption vs thickness of Geopolymer and ordinary concrete in 24-
hour immersion

Figure 33. Water Absorption vs thickness of Geopolymer and ordinary concrete in 48-
hour immersion

The two figures above that GP concrete gives a higher percent

showsthe comparison between the data absorption that PC. This is because the
on GP and PC concretes. It is shown GP concrete mixing was done only
once, and the researchers have no
indicator for good concrete quality.
The mixture for the activator was given
by the sponsoring company. Also, this
study had just a limited time for
experiments, and the components of
GP concrete was unattainable and
costly. However, the trend of
relationships of the two concrete was
similar.

Figure 34. Linear Regression of % Absorption vs thickness of ordinary concrete in 24

hours of immersion

Figure 34 shows the graphical immersion. Where x is the thickness of

representation of the linear regression the Portland Concrete and y is the
of the percent absorption with varying change in temperature. The equation
thickness for 0 coat, 2 coats and 4 coats are as follows:
of Portland Concrete for 24 hours of
0 Coat: -0.0217x + 3.4705

2 Coats: -0.0209x + 2.6628

4 Coats: -0.0169x + 1.9903

Figure 35. Linear Regression of % Absorption vs thickness of ordinary concrete in 48

hours of immersion

Figure 35 shows the graphical representation of the linear regression of the

percent absorption with varying thickness for 0 coat, 2 coats and 4 coats of Portland
Concrete for 48 hours of immersion. Where x is the thickness of the Portland Concrete
and y is the change in temperature. The equation are as follows:
0 Coat: 0.0122x + 3.1777

2 Coats: 0.0153x + 2.3901

4 Coats: 0.0134x + 1.98472

Figure 36. Linear Regression of % Absorption vs thickness of Geopolymer concrete in

48 hours of immersion

Figure 36 shows the graphical can significantly reduce its heat

representation of the linear regression
of the percent absorption with varying
thickness for 0 coat, 2 coats and 4 coats
of Geopolymer Concrete for 48 hours
of immersion. Where x is the thickness
of the Geopolymer Concrete and y is
the change in temperature. The
equation are as follows:
0 Coat: 0.0356x + 9.8693
2 Coats: 0.002x + 5.0432
4 Coats: 0.0188x + 4.5631
4. Conclusions
Four different thicknesses of
slabs were applied with distinct
number of water-based polyurethane
waterproofing coatings and were tested
for surface heating and water
absorptivity. It was found out that the
use of right amount of coatings with
regards to the thickness of a roof slab
transmission and water absorption.
Based from the experimental
results of Surface Temperature
Reading, greater thickness of concrete
exhibits lower heat transmission from
the exposed face to the covered face.
However, as the number of coatings
applied to concrete becomes higher,
the tendency of heat reflection also
becomes higher but the concrete
manifests lower heat transmission.
Thermal reflection is the amount of
heat from the source that the surface of
concrete rejects.
From the gathered data from
Saltwater Absorption Test, the results
reveal that all waterproofed samples
have performed better than those raw
samples. Also, thickness of the
concrete and number of coating varies
inversely with its percentage of
absorption. It was also found out that
the absorptivity of concrete takes
noticeable effect after 48 hours only
for 100mm and 130mm. In a large waterproofing for the OPC and to use
scale, coatings are significant in the 130 mm thickness and 4 coatings of
actual condition and are useful for the waterproofing for the GPC. However,
lifespan of the structure. if the thickness is subjected to change
The laboratory results of this due to the design constraints of the
study only shows that the application thickness of the slab, the number of
of waterproofing coating can coatings shall be determined using the
significantly reduce the heat said mathematical models.
transmitted inside a structure. Determining the relationship of
Furthermore, thickening the concrete the number of waterproofing coatings
of a slab will not be practical, since the and the thickness of the slab to the
application of waterproofing is more amount of energy that could be saved
effective. This is not only beneficial in can be important to determine the most
reducing thermal conduction and water economical method for the design and
absorptivity, but also in the application of waterproofing on the
environment. Selecting waterproofing roof slab. Therefore, the researchers
instead of adding thickness to the slab recommend to conduct a further study
is a more efficient choice and that will the relationships of the waterproofing
mean lesser Portland Cement will be coatings and the thickness of the slab
used, since the manufacturing of PC to the amount of energy saved.
involves extremely high temperatures
ranging from 1400 to 1500°C and it
involves extraction of raw materials
from natural resources and not only the
emission of carbon dioxide, but also
nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere
prompt researchers to study new
alternatives.
Addressing the issues caused
by roof slab with no waterproofing is
really costly. Waterproofing prevents
these over and over maintenance
repairs, thus providing extra benefits.
However, these conclusions are based
on the water absorption test and
surface temperature test carried out on
waterproofed specimens. More
comprehensive tests should be done to
check the effectiveness of
waterproofing systems under different
exposure conditions.
Ultimately, the most effective
and optimum thickness and number of
coatings based from the mathematical
model that they have obtained, is to use
130 mm thickness and 2 coatings of
Acknowledgments
The researchers would like to express
their sincerest gratitude to Tertex
International, Inc. for their assistance
and support in terms of materials and
finances all throughout the study. Also
to Engr. John Paul D. Carreon, for
providing guidance and advices
regarding this study. To our family and
friends as well, we would like to thank
them for being encouraging and
supportive. Most importantly, this
study will not be possible without the
wisdom and strength given by our
faithful God.
References
[1] Aguirre-Guerrero, A., Robayo-
Salazar, R., & de Gutiérrez, R.
(2017). A novel geopolymer
application: Coatings to protect
reinforced concrete against
corrosion. Applied Clay Science,
135, 437-446.
[2] Aldea, C.-M., Shah, S., & Karr, A.
(1999). Effect of cracking on water
and chloride permeability of
concrete. Journal of materials in
civil engineering, 11(3), 181-187.
[3] Al-Zahrani, M., Al-Dulaijan, S.,
Ibrahim, M., Saricimen, H., &
Sharif, F. (2002). Effect of
waterproofing coatings on steel
reinforcement corrosion and
physical properties of concrete.
Cement and Concrete Composites,
24(1), 127-137.
[4] ASTM E1862 - 14. (2014).
Standard Practice for Measuring
and Compensating for Reflected
Temperature Using Infrared
Imaging Radiometers.
[5] ASTM International. (2014).
Standard Test Method for
Compressive Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens.
ASTM C39 / C39M - 14.
[6] ASTM Standard D 6489-99.
(2012). Standard Test Method for
Determining the Water Absorption
of Hardened Concrete Treated
With a Water Repellent Coating.
[7] Baby, A., & Mathew, J. (2016).
Studies on properties of concrete
with various Waterproofing
compounds. Studies on properties
of concrete with various
Waterproofing compounds(IOSR
Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ).
[8] Broomfield, J. (2003). Corrosion
of steel in concrete: understanding,
investigation and repair. CRC
Press.
[9] Chong-qi, S., Song, L., & SHANG,
P. (2007). Review of Water Based
Polyurethane [J]. Science and
Technology of Overseas Building
Materials, 4.
[10] Coppola, L., Coffetti, D., &
Crotti, E. (2018). Innovative
carboxylic acid waterproofing
admixture for self-sealing
watertight concretes. Construction
and Building Materials, 171, 817-
824.
[11] Coull, S. (2016). 5 Ways Water
Attacks Concrete Structures.
Retrieved from Kryton Smart
Concrete:
https://blog.kryton.com/2016/02/5
-ways-water-attacks-concrete-
structures/
[12] Duleeka, K. (2015). Study on
waterproofing methods of roof top
slabs.
[13] Elsaid, A., Badr, M., & Selim,
M. (2013). Environmental friendly
polyurethane coatings based on
hyperbranched resin. International
Journal of Materials Science and
Engineering, 7(8), 224-230.
[14] Fan, F., Liu, Z., Xu, G., Peng,
H., & Cai, C. (2018). Mechanical
and thermal properties of fly ash
based geopolymers. Construction
and Building Materials, 160, 66-
81.
[15] Feiteira, J., Lopes, J., & de
Brito, J. (2011). Mechanical
performance of liquid-applied roof
waterproofing systems. Journal of
Performance of Constructed
Facilities, 27(3), 244-251.
[16] Fernandez-Jimenez, A.,
Palomo, A., & Lopez-Hombrados,
C. (2006). Engineering properties
of alkali-activated fly ash concrete.
ACI Materials Journal, 103(2),
106.
[17] Hager, I. (2013). Behaviour of
cement concrete at high
temperature (Vol. 61).
[18] Hardjito, D., Wallah, S.,
Sumajouw, D., & Rangan, B.
(2004). On the development of fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete.
Materials Journal, 101(6), 467-
472.
[19] Hurst, J. (1975, 8 19).
Waterproofing means and method.
Google Patents.
[20] IAQ, I. (2013). Moisture
Control Guidance for Building
Design, Construction and
Maintenance.
[21] Jumper, C. (1931). Tests of
integral and surface
waterproofings for concrete.
American Concrete Institute
Journal, 3(4), 209.
[22] Kalinina, N., Kostromina, N.,
Osipchik, V., Kravchenko, T.,
Serbin, S., & Sakina, A. (2017).
Polymer modifiers for bituminous
waterproofing materials. Polymer
Science, Series D, 10(4), 326-329.
[23] Konečný, P., & Lehner, P.
(2016). Durability assessment of
concrete bridge deck considering
waterproof membrane and epoxy-
coated reinforcement. Perspectives
in Science, 7, 222-227.
[24] Konopacki, S., Gartland, L.,
Akbari, H., & Rainer, L. (1998).
Demonstration of energy savings
of cool roofs. Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab., Environmental
Energy Technologies Div., CA
(United States).
[25] Lea, F. (1970). The Chemistry
of Cement and Concrete. 3rd edn,
E. Arnold, London.
[26] Mathew, G., & Joseph, B.
(2017). MICROSTRUCTURAL
ANALYSIS OF FLY ASH
BASED GEOPOLYMER
EXPOSED TO ELEVATED
TEMPERATURES. Acta Technica
Corviniensis-Bulletin of
Engineering, 10(2).
[27] Mohd, A., Jamaludin, L.,
Hussin, K., Binhussain, M.,
Ghazali, C., & Izzat, A. (2013).
Study on fly ash based geopolymer
for coating applications. Advanced
Materials Research. 686, pp. 227-
233. Trans Tech Publ.
[28] Muhammad, N., Keyvanfar,
A., Majid, M., Shafaghat, A., &
Mirza, J. (2015). Waterproof
performance of concrete: A critical
review on implemented
approaches. Construction and
Building Materials, 101, 80-90.
[29] Naus, D. (2006). The Effect of
Elevated Temperature on Concrete
Materials and Structures-a
Literature Review. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL).
[30] Neville, A. (1995). Chloride
attack of reinforced concrete: an
overview. Materials and
Structures, 28(2), 63.
[31] Petry, K. (2014). THE
IMPACT OF COOL ROOFS IN
DIFFERENT CLIMATIC
REGIONS: A QUANTITATIVE
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS.
University of Maryland.
[32] Pisello, A., Fortunati, E.,
Fabiani, C., Mattioli, S., Dominici,
F., Torre, L., . . . Cotana, F. (2017).
PCM for improving polyurethane-
based cool roof membranes
durability. Solar Energy Materials
and Solar Cells, 160, 34-42.
[33] Rezaei, A., Akhavan Kazemi,
K., & Eren, Ö. (2015). Some
mechanical properties of normal
and recycled aggregate concretes
(Vol. 22).
[34] Saija, L. (1995).
Waterproofing of portland cement
mortars with a specially designed
polyacrylic latex. Cement and
concrete research, 25(3), 503-509.
[35] Schwerin, A. (1908).
Impermeability of concrete.
University of Illinois.
[36] Smoak, G. (2002). Guide to
concrete repair. The Minerva
Group, Inc.
[37] The History of Liquid
Waterproofing. (2016). Retrieved
from
http://www.ppcoatings.co.uk/liqui
d-waterproofing/
[38] THE HISTORY OF
WATERPROOFING. (n.d.).
Retrieved from
https://www.citywidegroup.com/b
log/the-history-of-waterproofing
[39] Walter, A., de Brito, J., &
Lopes, J. G. (2005). Current flat
roof bituminous membranes
waterproofing systems, 233-242.
[40] Xu, Q., Zhou, Q., Medina, C.,
Chang, G., & Rozycki, D. (2009).
Experimental and numerical
analysis of a waterproofing
adhesive layer used on concrete-
bridge decks. International
Journal of Adhesion and
Adhesives, 29(5), 525-534.