Underground Singapore 2014

Review of Waterproofing Systems for Underground

Structures
Y. Hu, K.H. Goh & D. Wen
Land Transport Authority, Singapore

ABSTRACT: This paper reviews the design considerations and various types of waterproofing system
for underground structures. The performance of waterproofing system is affected by various factors
such as construction method, structural form, space constraint, ground conditions and the characteris-
tics of various materials. In order to investigate the influences of these factors on the performance of
waterproofing system, a case study is presented on the waterproofing systems used in the tunnels of
Kallang – Paya Lebar Expressway. The study shows that ground condition and connection details play
important roles on the waterproofing performance of the tunnels. For instance, leakages normally ap-
pear at areas near to major water course or where water pressure is high. It was also found that tunnels
built in the Old Alluvium were relatively drier than tunnels built in the marine clay.

1 INTRODUCTION

Underground structures are subjected to hydrostatic pressures and potentially prone to leakages which
may carry corrosive substances into structure through construction joints or cracks. It may cause major
structural damage by affecting the durability and function in the long term, and could also affect the
durability of equipments used in underground infrastructures. Waterproofing is therefore essential to
protect underground infrastructures against groundwater infiltration and it is necessary to understand
the principles of waterproofing before selecting a suitable system based on site-specific conditions.
The first part of the paper presents a review on design considerations and waterproofing protection
systems for underground structures. The second part of the paper presents waterproofing systems used
in Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) in Singapore. Finally, observations made from KPE case
study are summarized.

2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AND WATERPROOFING PROTECTION TYPES

2.1 Design considerations

Provision of waterproofing is important for underground infrastructures to ensure its life-long function
and durability requirements and to minimise the high costs associated with maintenance. An efficient
waterproofing system is capable of maintaining the durability and integrity of a structure and protect-
ing the interior finishes and equipments. When selecting an effective and feasible waterproofing sys-
tem, a number of factors shall be considered including the structural system, construction method,
space constraint, soil and ground water conditions and the characteristics of different waterproofing
systems and materials. An effective waterproofing system should have characteristics such as resis-
tance to chemicals, ease of application, leak containment, effective bonding to substrate, etc.
2.2 Watertightness standard

It is difficult and expensive to provide a completely intact waterproofing system. Therefore it is impor-
tant to define owner’s expectation on watertightness. Performance level for waterproofing should be
related to the function and occupancy of the structure. Hence, it is useful to establish the level of wa-
tertightness against the designed performance level.

Table 1 compares four grades of watertightness for basements and the corresponding performance
level in accordance with BS8102 against the Land Transport Authority (LTA) standard. LTA requires
that all structural elements of underground structures shall be designed to be free from visible leakage,
seepage and damp patches. This is comparable with Grade 2 basement requirements in BS8102. Per-
manent diaphragm walls without internal facing wall shall be restricted to minor damp patches with no
visible film of water according to LTA standard which is comparable with Grade 1 basement accord-
ing to BS8102. The most stringent requirements according to LTA standard would be those critical
rooms that contain moisture sensitive equipments, such as communication and signal equipment rooms,
fare equipment room, supervisory control rooms, etc., where the moisture level shall be restricted us-
ing full-height cavity walls (or provisions for future cavity wall if the equipment room are slightly less
critical). These would be comparable to Grade 3 and Grade 4 basement types as defined in BS8102.

Table 1. Watertightness standards. (Adapted from BS8102, 1990 and LTA Civil Design Criteria for Road and
Rail Transit Systems, 2010.)
BS8102 requirement
Grade of
Performance level
basement
Grade 1 Some seepage and damp
patches tolerable
Grade 2 No water penetration
but moisture vapour
tolerable
Grade 3 Dry environment
Grade 4 Totally dry environment
LTA requirement
Structural element
Permanent diaphragm walls
without internal facing walls.
External walls, permanent dia-
phragm walls with internal fac-
ing walls, base slabs and roof
slabs. Any structural elements
that would affect the operation
of the railway, roadway.
Full height cavity wall or provi-
sions for future cavity wall.
Performance Level
Restricted to minor damp patches
with no visible film of water.
Free from all visible leakage,
seepage and damp patches.
Dampness shall be defined as
moist to touch with no visible
film of water.
Dry environment depending on
the type of moisture sensitive
equipment.

2.3 Waterproofing protection types

There are three types of waterproofing protection strategies for underground structures, as tabulated in
Table 2 and described in CIRIA Report 139 (1995). According to BS8102, all the three types can be
used to achieve dry environment (Grade 3) or totally dry environment (Grade 4). Furthermore, these
are used in Singapore underground infrastructures to various extents. In certain circumstances it may
be necessary to employ a combination of these methods in order to achieve the required internal envi-
ronment.

Type A protection is the most commonly used system in Singapore underground infrastructures, i.e.,
fully tanked system. External waterproofing protection at positive side is preferred to form a watertight
tanking system. Protection at negative side might be used when exterior of the structure is not accessi-
ble. Various waterproofing systems are available in the market to achieve a continuous protection.

Type B protection is sometimes used in underground infrastructures. Instead of fully tanked system,
base slab is protected by waterproof concrete, where admixtures are added to enhance the concrete
section and form a waterproofing barrier, whilst the tunnel walls and roofs are still coated with water-
proofing membranes.

In the event when diaphragm wall is adopted as a permanent retaining wall, a drainage system is nor-
mally provided beside the wall to drain away the leakage water because no waterproofing layer is pro-
vided except waterstops in between diaphragm wall panels. This is an application of Type C protection.
Recently, adding additives to the diaphragm wall concrete to enhance the permeability and waterproof-
ing performance are considered. Waterproofed internal facing wall (skin wall) may be provided for es-
thetical purpose.

Table 2. Types of waterproofing protection. (Adapted from CIRIA report 139, 1995)
Type Protection scheme Conceptual diagram
A Tanked protection

Protection is dependent on a continuous mem-

brane barrier system. The barrier system can be
external, internal or sandwich tanking.

B Structural integral protection

Structure itself is designed and constructed as a

water-resisting shell. Protection is provided by the
structure only.

Integral waterproofing using waterproofing ad-

mixtures may be required.

C Drained protection

Protection is provided by means of an internal

ventilated drained cavity. It can collect and drain
seepage water through the structure to a sump sys-
tem for removal.

3 WATERPROOFING MATERIALS AND APPLICATION

3.1 Waterproofing materials

Waterproofing materials are generally provided in the form of membrane. Waterproofing membranes
can be made from rubber, bitumen, silicate, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), etc. The product shall possess certain desirable properties such as tensile strength, elongation,
adhesion strength, resistance to hydrostatic water head, etc. to suit a harsh site environment. A water-
proofing membrane shall be able to accommodate substrate movements by bridging cracks, be chemi-
cally stable or resistant to hydrocarbon, sulphates and sulphide attack, and shall be robust to cater for
future loads and extension.

For membrane free application, concrete admixture is another possible measure to provide waterproof-
ing protection. Hydrophobic & pore-blocking ingredient type and crystallization type of concrete ad-
mixture are commonly used in Singapore.

Hydrophobic and pore-blocking ingredient will generate water repellent and pore blocking component
when subjected to hydrostatic pressure. However, the presence of voids is inevitable in actual concrete
structures, and the incomplete hydrophobic coating can greatly reduce the water resistance. It is there-
fore essential to have stringent requirement on concrete quality in terms of mix design and concrete
placing on site in order to minimize defects in the concrete (Report on Concrete Admixtures for Wa-
terproofing Construction, 1999). The alternative technology for waterproofing concrete is the use of
crystallization type additive which resists water penetration by filling and plugging the pores, capillary
and micro-cracks of concrete by growing crystals in its microstructure to reduce concrete permeability.

3.2 Waterproofing application and detailing

There are two common types of waterproofing membranes in terms of application method, i.e., pre-
formed bonded sheet membrane and spray applied liquid membrane. Preformed sheet membranes
come with adhesive layer which can be bonded to the structure. Due to limited size of each preformed
sheets, overlapping between adjacent sheets are unavoidable. On the other hand, spray applied liquid
membranes are directly applied on site to form a membrane sticking to the structure. There are lesser
joints for spray applied liquid membranes as compared to preformed sheet membranes. However, track
record and experiences regarding the waterproofing performance of spray applied membrane are not
well established.

Based on past experiences, most of waterproofing failures were attributed to inadequate attention to
detailing and poor workmanship. Hence, good detailing and workmanship are critical to successful wa-
terproofing. Design and application of waterproofing need to be carefully studied and detailed for each
type of construction. There are some critical areas of potential weakness for waterproofing treatment,
which are common to each type of construction such as construction joints, penetrations, etc. The de-
tailing of waterproofing treatment at these critical areas are essential to achieve watertightness as past
studies have shown that leaks are more likely to occur at these areas.

3.3 Waterstop and re-injectable grout tube

Other than the main waterproofing membranes or admixture applied to the external hull of the under-
ground structures, there are some ancillary components which are also essential to the final water-
proofing performance, such as waterstop and re-injectable grout tubes at each construction joint where
water leakages are more likely to happen.

A waterstop is an element embedded continuously through concrete joints to prevent water passages.
Waterstop can be made from PVC, rubber, polyethylene and steel. Hydrophilic waterstops are com-
monly used for underground infrastructures because they can swell in the presence of water/moisture
to seal the concrete joints.

Injection tubes for grouting of joints are provided as secondary backup system for waterproofing. The
system is designed to be as re-usable. Past experiences on other underground structures have shown
that most re-injectable grout tubes were blocked or difficult to access, and this made future
maintenance more difficult when water leakage appeared. Special design consideration shall be given
to the re-injectable grout tube system to ensure life-time accessibility. Furthermore, the grouting
material used should not block the tube so that the tube can be re-injectable in the future.

4 CASE STUDY OF WATERPROOFING SYSTEMS USED IN AN UNDERGROUND

INFRASTRUCTURE

The second part of this paper presents a case study on the waterproofing systems used in the tunnels of
Kallang - Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) in Singapore. It was built between 2001 and 2008 with a cost
of S$1.7billion. KPE is Singapore’s ninth expressway and connects East Coast Parkway (ECP) in the
south to Tampines Expressway in the north-east. It has a total length of 12km, of which 9km are un-
derground tunnels constructed by cut-and-cover method. Some of the underground crossings include
Geylang River, Nicoll Highway, Pan Island Expressway (PIE), Pelton Canal, Paya Lebar Road and
Airport Road. Beyond Defu Lane 3 along Airport Road, the KPE comes up to the ground surface and
carries on towards Tampines Expressway in a mix of at-grade and viaduct sections. The location map
of KPE is shown in Figure 1.
 Figure 1. Location map of Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway.

In terms of geological setting, the KPE runs through Kallang Formation along most of the route, ex-
cept for the section after Paya Lebar Road where it goes into the Old Alluvium. Figure 2 shows the
KPE superimposed onto the geological map of Singapore. The Kallang Formation is a recent deposit
of Holocene and late Pleistocene age, and has been laid down in valleys eroded into the underlying
rocks during periods of low sea level (Tan et al, 2003). The most prominent member is the marine clay
which is predominantly an unconsolidated or lightly consolidated blue-grey clayey mud but sometimes
mixed with peat and sand horizons, but other members also include the transitional member character-
ised by unconsolidated black to blue-grey estuarine mud, muddy sand or peaty sand with a higher or-
ganic content, and the alluvial member which is a variable terrestrial sediment ranging from pebble
beds through sand, muddy sand, and clay to peat. The Old Alluvium is an alluvial deposit that has
been variably cemented, often to the extent that it has the strength of a very weak or weak rock. It is
mainly found in the eastern and northwestern parts of Singapore, and was thought to be formed in the
early Pleistocene age possibly by a major braided river system. It is essentially sandy, semi-indurated
with cross bedding, scour marks, coarse gravel stringers and lenses of silt and clay (Chaim et al, 2003).
The upper zone of the Old Alluvium has typically been affected by weathering, and its weathering
classification is based on the results of SPT testing, although it should also be acknowledged that SPT
is also an indicator of depositional environment, degree of cementation and the equipment and method
used for the testing.

Tampines Expressway

Defu Lane 3

Paya Lebar Road

East Coast Parkway

Figure 2. KPE and the geological map of Singapore.

4.1 Study methodology and summary of observations

A review of the as-built records was carried out to understand different waterproofing systems adopted
at various sections of the KPE tunnel. Table 3 summarizes the type of construction, waterproofing ma-
terials adopted and the tunnel condition at the time of inspection for the five tunnel sections. All the
five tunnel sections were constructed using cut-and-cover method, either top-down or bottom-up, with
the same structural form of an in-situ box throughout the entire KPE. The main waterproofing strategy
is fully tanked protection, but there was also some flexibility for the base slab to adopt a structural in-
tegral protection using waterproofing admixture (i.e. Section A and Section E).

To understand the performance of KPE waterproofing systems after tunnel opening in 2008, site in-
spections were conducted between March and June 2011 during night time when the tunnel was closed
for inspection and maintenance. A summary of the tunnel condition observed at the time of inspection
is presented in Table 3, together with waterproofing materials corresponding to each section. The con-
dition of the tunnel is assessed in terms of leakage severity. The classification of leakage severity var-
ies from damp patch (discolouration of concrete surface), seepage (visible movement of water) to the
more severe conditions of standing drop, drip and continuous leak.

The next few sections present specific details of the waterproofing systems and observations on tunnel
condition at various sections in KPE tunnel.

Table 3. Summary of tunnel details and condition at the time of inspection

Type of
Section Waterproofing Materials Tunnel Condition at the time of inspection
Construction
Roof Wall Base Roof - damp patches and seepages were observed
A at a few areas, standing drops were found at isolat-
(ECP to ed areas.
Nicoll Cut & Cover/
Highway Top-Down preformed preformed waterproof- Roof/Wall interface - damp patches and seepages
– under membrane membrane ing admixture were observed at a few areas.
Geylang
river) Base – damp patches and serious seepages were
observed in a few areas.
B Roof Wall Base Roof - damp patches and seepages were observed
(ECP to at a few areas.
Nicoll
Cut & Cover/
Highway Roof/Wall interface - damp patches and seepages
Bottom-up preformed preformed preformed
– except were observed at a few areas.
Geylang membrane membrane membrane
river Base - damp patches and seepages were observed
crossing) at localised areas.
Roof Wall Base Roof - damp patches were observed at localised ar-
eas.
C
Cut & Cover/
(Nicoll Roof/Wall interface - damp patches and seepages
Bottom-up preformed preformed preformed
Highway were observed at a few areas.
to PIE) membrane membrane membrane
Base - damp patches were observed at localised ar-
eas.
Roof - damp patches were observed at localised ar-
Roof Wall Base
eas, standing drops were found at one location.
D
(PIE to Cut & Cover/ Roof/Wall interface - damp patches were observed
Paya Le- Bottom-up preformed preformed preformed at localised areas.
bar Road) membrane membrane membrane
Base - damp patches and seepages were observed
in a few places.
E Cut & Cover/ Roof Wall Base Roof - damp patches were observed at localised ar-
 (Paya Bottom-up eas.
Lebar
Road to preformed preformed waterproof- Roof/Wall interface - damp patches were observed
Defu membrane membrane ing admixture at localised areas.
Lane 3
Base - damp patches were found at localised areas.
Note: 1.. At the time of inspection, varying extent of grouting works had been done within the tunnels.
2. Tunnel walls were not inspected due to the presence of cladding.
3. Classification of Leakage
Damp Patch - discoloration of part of the concrete surface, moist to touch
Seepage - visible movement of a film of water across a surface
Standing Drop - water drop at a rate of less than 1/min
Drip - water drop at a rate of more than 1/min
Continuous Leak - a trickle or jet of water (Note: drips become a trickle when they fall at a rate of about 300/min)

4.2 Observations in KPE tunnel Section A

Tunnels in Section A are directly below Geylang River. Cut & cover top-down
down construction method
was employed through constructing cofferdams within the river. Soldier piles with sheet
sheet-pile lagging
were used for the cofferdam.

The tunnel roof and walls were waterproofed by preformed sheet membranes (coldcold applied & self-
adhesive, bituminous HDPE) bonded to the structure whilst the
he base slab was waterproofed by hydro-
phobic and
nd pore blocking admixture which was applied to the top 300mm concrete section.
section A typical
300mm overlapping was provided between membranes whilst 800mm overlapping was given between
membranes at external wall and the base slab.

Table 4 shows examples of leakage ages observed in Section A. In general, damp patches and seepages
were observed at a few areas. Standing
tanding drop was also observed at one location of the roof slab. There
were serious seepages observed at isolated
iso spots of the base slab. Most of the leakages were close to
the interfaces between roof/base slab and external walls.

Table 4. Photos of leaks in Section A at the time of inspection.

Section Tunnel photos
Roof Base

Damp patches and seepages at interface between roof

Serious seepages at base slab
slab.
and external wall.

4.3 Observations in KPE tunnel Section B

Section B refers to the rest of the KPE tunnels

tunnel between ECP and Nicoll Highway with the exception of
Geylang River crossing (Section A).. Cut
C & cover bottom-up construction method was employed
employed.

The whole tunnel box was protected by fully

f tanked system using preformed sheet memmembranes (cold
applied & self-adhesive,
adhesive, bituminous HDPE).
HDPE . The membranes were able to bond to the external walls
and roof slab but it was unable to bond upwards to the base slab. It was only able to bond to the lean
concrete below base slab for blind side application. A typical 300mm overlapping was provided bbe-
tween the membranes.
Table 5 shows examples of leakages observed in Section B. In general, damp patches and seepages
were observed at a few areas but not as serious as those in Section A. Most of the leakages were close
to the interfaces between roof/base slab and external walls.

Table 5. Photos of leaks in Section B at the time of inspection.

Section Tunnel photos
Roof Base

Damp patches and seepages at interface between roof

Damp patches at base slab.
and external wall.

4.4 Observations in KPE tunnel Section C

Section C refers to the tunnels between Nicoll Highway and PIE. Cut & cover bottom-up construction
method was employed by using a mix of diaphragm walls and sheet pile walls to retain the soil during
excavation.

Fully tanked system was adopted with similar waterproofing materials as Section B. A typical 300mm
overlapping was provided between the membranes.

Table 6 shows examples of leakages observed in Section C. In general, the tunnel condition was better
than Section A and B. Only damp patches were observed at a few areas on the roof slab and base slab,
with seepages at localised spots at the interface between roof and external walls.

Table 6. Photos of leaks in Section C at the time of inspection.

Section Tunnel photos
Roof Base

Damp patches and seepages at interface between roof

Damp patches at base slab.
and external wall.

4.5 Observations in KPE tunnel Section D

Section D refers to the tunnels between PIE and Paya Lebar Road. Most of the tunnels in this section
are directly below Pelton canal. Cut & cover bottom-up construction method was employed with dia-
phragm walls to retain the soil during excavation. Half-box construction method was adopted due to
the presence of Pelton canal which was temporarily diverted during construction.

Fully tanked system was adopted using preformed sheet membranes. For roof and external walls, the
membrane system is similar as that in Section A, B & C. Another type of membrane system which was
capable to bond upwards to the poured concrete was selected for the base slab (cold applied, HDPE
composite sheet membrane). During construction, the membrane was temporarily secured to the lean
concrete first and then it could bond upwards to the poured fresh concrete when base slab was built.
This capability enables the base slab membrane to be bonded to the structure side during blind side ap-
plication. In terms of fully tanked protection, membrane bonded upwards to the base slab is better than
membrane bonded downwards to the lean concrete. This is because of potential gap between base slab
and lean concrete which will cause water to track trough the interface, for the downward bonding
membrane. Similarly, a typical 300mm overlapping was provided between the membranes.

Table 7 shows examples of leakages observed in Section D. In general, damp patches were observed at
localised areas on the roof slab and roof/wall interface with standing drops at one location. Seepages
were observed at a few areas on the base slab.

Table 7. Photos of leaks in Section D at the time of inspection.

Section Tunnel photos
Roof Base

Damp patches at interface between roof and external

Damp patches and seepages at base slab.
wall.

4.6 Observations in KPE tunnel Section E

Section E refers to the tunnels from Paya Lebar Road to Defu Lane 3. Most of them are directly below
Airport Road. Cut & cover bottom-up construction method was employed using soldier pile walls to
retain the soil during excavation.

The tunnel roof and walls were waterproofed by preformed sheet membranes (torch-on styrene butadi-
ene styrene modified bituminous membrane) bonded to the structure whilst the base slab was water-
proofed by hydrophobic and pore blocking admixture applied to the top 300mm concrete section. The
system is similar to that in Section A. A typical 300mm overlapping was provided between mem-
branes whilst 800mm overlapping was given between membranes and the base slab.

Table 8 shows examples of leakages observed in Section E. The tunnel condition was the best as com-
pared to other sections. Only damp patches were observed in localised areas on the tunnel roof slab,
roof-wall interface and base slab.

Table 8. Photos of leaks in Section E at the time of inspection.

Section Tunnel photos
Roof Base

Damp patches at interface between roof and external

Damp patches at base slab.
wall.
5 DISCUSSION ON CASE STUDY

This section summarizes inferences made from the KPE case study and postulates how waterproofing
performance is affected by factors such as ground condition, water pressure and detailing.

5.1 Influence of ground condition and water pressure

As shown in Table 3, the waterproofing strategy for Section A and Section E is similar. Specifically,
the tunnel base slabs in Section A and E were both waterproofed by hydrophobic and pore-blocking
admixture, placed at the top 300mm of the base slabs. However, the observed waterproofing perform-
ance varied significantly between the tunnels in these two sections from site observation. The water-
tightness of the base slabs in Section E was generally much better than that in Section A. The number
of leakage points was similar but the severity of leakages in Section A was much worse.

The vertical alignment and ground condition at Sections A and E are compared in Table 9. Tunnels in
Section A were built in Marine Clay directly under Geylang River, whilst tunnels in Section E were
built in better ground (mostly Old Alluvium) without any major water course above the structure.
Higher soil overburden at Section A means greater groundwater pressure as compared to Section E.
Therefore, the poorer waterproofing performance at Section A might be due to higher water pressure
with direct hydraulic connection from Geylang River around the tunnel box, as compared to the better
waterproofing performance at Section E.

Table 9. Ground conditions at Sections A & E.

Section Vertical Profile Ground condition

Sections B & C have similar ground condition with marine clay at shallow ground followed by Old
Alluvium. The marine clay is thicker at Section D which is also under Pelton canal. The soil overbur-
den is around 2m only along Sections B & C, but 8m along Section D. Table 10 shows the schematic
ground conditions at Sections B, C & D.

As discussed in Section 4, the waterproofing performance of base slabs at Section B and C was gener-
ally better, e.g., only localised damp patches and seepages were observed. The number of leakage
points was more and the severity of leakage was worse at Sections A & D at the time of inspection.
Most of the leakages observed were under Geylang river and Pelton canal.

This is another evidence to support the inference that the proximity to major water course and the em-
bedding ground condition could be important factors that affect the waterproofing performance of un-
derground structures. Therefore, more stringent controls on waterproofing design and application
method should be emphasized for such conditions.
Table 10. Ground conditions at Section B, C & D.

Section B Section C Section D

5.2 Influence of waterproofing system and application

Different waterproofing systems were adopted for the base slabs at various KPE tunnel sections. As
mentioned in Section 4, waterproofing admixture was used for base slabs in Sections A and E. Con-
ventional preformed sheet membranes were used at Sections B and C. For Section D, an upward bond-
ing membrane which was capable to bond to the poured concrete was adopted.

At the time of inspection, the watertightness condition of tunnels in Section A was worse than that in
Section D, although the soil overburden was similar and both were directly below major water courses.
One possibility could be that Section D was fully tanked by preformed sheet membranes, whilst wa-
terproofing admixture was adopted for the base slab in Section A. It was observed that the watertight-
ness of areas protected by hydrophobic and pore-blocking admixture seemed to be worse than those
areas where preformed membrane system was adopted. This is also similarly observed in past projects
where hydrophobic and pore-blocking admixture was used. Only top 300mm of the base slab was pro-
tected by the waterproofing admixture while the rest was concrete section without any other additive.
It is postulated that water can find a path once the concrete cracks. In order to achieve an impermeable
and dense concrete to minimize potential water leakages, it is important to develop suitable concrete
mix design that can minimize early thermal cracking.

As such, the current method of structural integral protection using waterproofing additive alone may
not be reliable. New methods of such integral protection would need to be developed to enhance wa-
terproofing performance especially for underground infrastructures where the water pressure is high.
Such methods could be targeted at concrete mix design in reducing concrete permeability. Another
possibility is to develop a combination of structural integral protection using waterproofing additive
together with tanked protection in certain circumstances in order to achieve a more watertight envi-
ronment.

5.3 Detailing at interfaces between base/roof slab and external walls

For tunnels with similar type of waterproofing material and application, different waterproofing per-
formance was observed. For example, extensive water leakages were observed at interfaces between
roof slab and external wall for Sections A and B, whilst the interfaces at Section E were more water-
tight.

From the as-built records, a typical 300mm overlapping was provided between membranes for fully
tanked system, whilst 800mm overlapping was provided for integral structures where waterproofing
admixture was used for the base slab. Re-injectable grout tubes and waterstops were provided for each
construction joints. There are some differences in the location of the membrane overlapping with re-
spect to the construction joints. Table 11 summarizes the lapping design at the interfaces between roof
and external wall for all the tunnel sections in KPE. Similar detailing is applied to the interface be-
tween external wall and base slab where fully tanked system is adopted. The distance between the
membranes overlapping to the construction joint is longer in Sections D and E as compared to those in
Sections A, B and C. This coincides with the site observation that more leakages were found at the in-
terface at Sections A and B as compared to Section E.
This is not unexpected because both membrane
membranes overlapping and construction joints are the weakest
points
oints in a tanked protection system. Hence,
Hence, locating them further away from each other would een-
hance performance greatly. Furthermore, it should also be noted that workmanship in laying the memem-
branes and hydrophilic properties of the waterstop are also important factors that will affect the pe
per-
formance of waterproofing.

Table 11. Distance between membraness overlapping and construction joint.

Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel
Schematic of lapping detail
Section A Section B Section C Section D Section E

Distance between
membranes over-
300mm 300mm 300mm 1200mm 1200mm
lapping and con-
struction joint (X)

In order too enhance the watertightness at the interface areas, the

he membrane protection layers shall be
applied immediately after the membrane is cured to avoid damages
damage to the membrane termination area
and the overlapping. In addition, thehe membranes overlapping shall be located as far away from the
construction joint as possible to minimi
minimize potential water seepages.

5.4 Detailing at contract interfaces

Figure 3 shows an example of the membrane overlapping at tunnel roof in between two adjacent co
con-
tracts. According to as-built
built records, a minimum 550mm overlapping was provided and this
overlapping was at least 200mm away from the construction joint.

Construction joint

Figure 3. Membrane overlapping at contract interfaces

At the time of inspection, most of the contract boundary areas were in good condition. Therefore, the
typical detail shown in Figure 3 can be deemed as a good practice. Moreover, adjacent contract parties
shall coordinate with each other to ensure the compatibility of waterproofing systems. Membrane te ter-
mination shall be well protected before the next overlapping to ensure a watertight joint at the contract
interfaces.

6 CONCLUSION

Waterproofing is essential
ssential to underground infrastructures. In order to meet the watertightness require-
requir
ments, suitable
uitable materials and application methods
method shall be selected according to relevant standards.
standards
Moreover, special
pecial attention shall be given to critical areas such as construction joints and contract iin-
terfaces.

It was found in the case study of KPE tunnels that most of the leakages were isolated and limited to
damp patches. Serious leakages were only observed at the base slab in Section A which is directly un-
der Geylang river. Given the similar waterproofing strategy, tunnels
t in Section E were relatively drier
as compared to that in Section A.. Hence, the proximity to major water course and the embedding
ground condition could be important factor
factors that affect waterproofing performance. Therefore, it is
suggested that the ground condition and waterproofing design shall be carefully studied before site ap-
plication.
It was also observed that the current method of structural integral protection using waterproofing addi-
tive alone may not be reliable. New methods would need to be developed for such structural integral
protection to enhance waterproofing performance especially for underground infrastructures where the
water pressure is high. Such methods could be targeted at concrete mix design in reducing concrete
permeability. Another possibility is to develop a combination of structural integral protection using
waterproofing additive together with tanked protection in certain circumstances in order to achieve a
more watertight environment.

A majority of the leaks were observed at or near to the construction joints between external walls and
slabs. The review of the waterproofing details shows that improvements on connection details can be
made to achieve better waterproofing performance. In addition, attention must also be given to the de-
tailing of any penetrations through structural members such as king posts, pile and utility pipes.

REFERENCES

Chiam, S.L., Wong, K.S., Tan, T.S., Ni, Q., Khoo, K.S. and Chu, J. 2003. The Old Alluvium. Proc. conf. Under-
ground Singapore 2003: 408–427.
BS 8102. 1990. Code of Practice for Protection of Structures Against Water from the Ground. British Standards
Institution.
LTA Civil Design Criteria for Road and Rail Transit Systems. 2010. Engineering Group. Land Transport Au-
thority, Singapore
CIRIA Report 139. 1995. Water-Resisting Basement Construction – A Guide. Construction Industry Research
and Information Association.
Report on Concrete Admixtures for Waterproofing Construction. 1999. Structural Engineering Branch, Architec-
tural Services Department.
Tan, T.S., Phoon, K.K., Lee, F.H., Tanaka, H., Locat, J. and Chong, P.T. 2003. A characterisation study of Sin-
gapore Lower Marine Clay. Proc. Characterisation and Engineering Properties of Natural Soils, 1: 429-454.