applied

sciences
Article
Technical Evaluation Method for Physical Property
Changes due to Environmental Degradation of
Grout-Injection Repair Materials for
Water-Leakage Cracks
Bo Jiang 1,2 , Kyu-hwan Oh 3 , Soo-Yeon Kim 4 , Xingyang He 5 and Sang-keun Oh 6, *,†
1 School of Civil Architecture and Environment, HuBei University of Technology, Wuhan 432200, China;
jiangbo15@126.com
2 Department of Architecture of Graduate School, Seoul National University of Science and Technology,
Seoul 01811, Korea
3 Department of Railway Construction Engineering, Seoul National University of Science & Technology,
Seoul 01811, Korea; kyuhwan.oh@seoultech.ac.kr
4 Waterproofing Technology Research Center, Seoul National University of Science & Technology, Seoul 01811,
Korea; ksr1115@empal.com
5 School of Civil Engineering and Environment of HuBei University of Technology, Wuhan 432200, China;
hxycn@126.com
6 School of Architecture, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul 01811, Korea
* Correspondence: ohsang@seoultech.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-2-970-6559
† Chutian Scholar of Province of Hubei.




Received: 20 March 2019; Accepted: 23 April 2019; Published: 26 April 2019


Abstract: Leakage in below-grade concrete structures are repaired using various types of
grout-injection materials, but the selection of optimal material types with a consideration of the
environmental degradation factors are not conducted. Different degradation factors can act on the
waterproofing membranes or grout-injection materials simultaneously. Especially in the early stages
of installation, the injected grout materials in the cracks for leakage repair or for reforming damaged
waterproofing layers are subject to complex forms of degradation factors. In such cases, physical
property changes to the materials can reduce the waterproofing performance of the grout-injection
materials. In this study, a technical evaluation regime is proposed for selecting the optimal repair
material to be used in underground concrete structure leakage cracks. In this study, six environmental
degradation factors (thermal stress, chemical corrosion, erosion due to ground water flow, hydrostatic
pressure, substrate movement, and humidity on concrete surface) are identified. Corresponding
evaluation methods based on the ISO TS 16774 test method series were used for each factor to assess
the performance evaluation of four different types of grout-injection materials (acrylic resin, epoxy
resin, polyurethane foam, and synthetic polymerized rubber gel). Based on the test results, a new
comprehensive evaluation regime is presented that allows a quantitative performance comparison
between each type of grout-injection material.

Keywords: grout injection material; environmental degradation factors; physical property change;
water leakage crack; leakage repair; concrete structure

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Background and Objectives

The grout-injection method is used to repair leakage problems caused by concrete cracks. As
waterproofing membranes are installed in the positive side of the below-grade concrete wall, the

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740; doi:10.3390/app9091740 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 2 of 20

The grout-injection method is used to repair leakage problems caused by concrete cracks. As
membrane layermembranes
waterproofing is nonexposed. are installed in thewhen
In such case, positive side of the below-grade
the waterproofing membraneconcreteis damaged wall,and
the
membrane layer is nonexposed. In such case, when the waterproofing
allows the ingress of water into the interior of the concrete structures, the waterproofing layer is not membrane is damaged and
allows the
directly ingress of
accessible forwater
repairs into theTherefore,
[1]. interior ofgrout
the concrete
injection structures,
is used tothe waterproofing
ensure the leakage layer is not
crack is
sealed or to fully reform the waterproofing layer in the positive side of the wall. However, numerousis
directly accessible for repairs [1]. Therefore, grout injection is used to ensure the leakage crack
sealedshow
cases or tothat
fullywhen
reform thethe waterproofing
grout-injection layer in are
materials the applied
positivein side of the wall.concrete
below-grade However, numerous
structures, a
cases show that when the grout-injection
reopening of the leakage and defects can occur [2]. materials are applied in below-grade concrete structures, a
reopening of the leakage and defects can occur [2].
Some of the main causes are a continuous exposure to humidity, water flow, the hydrostatic
pressureSome of underground
from the main causes water,arethe
a continuous
thermal stress,exposure
chemical to corrosion,
humidity, and water
theflow, the hydrostatic
substrate movement
(six types of degradation) from the surrounding environment. While cases are rare the
pressure from underground water, the thermal stress, chemical corrosion, and where substrate
all of
these factors are simultaneously present with enough degree to affect the structure durability, where
movement (six types of degradation) from the surrounding environment. While cases are rare these
all of these factors are simultaneously present with enough degree to affect
environmental degradation factors affect the structural integrity of the concrete structure simultaneously the structure durability,
these
and environmental
their individual effects degradation factors
are difficult affect and
to predict the assess
structural
[3]. Tointegrity
compensateof the forconcrete structure
this predicament,
simultaneously and their individual effects are difficult to predict
the materials selected for repair should be evaluated to ensure that they possess the individual and assess [3]. To compensate for
this predicament,
resistance or response the property
materialstoselected
each of for
the repair
possible should be evaluated
degradation factors.to ensure that they possess
the individual resistance or response property to
In underground spaces such as basements, tunnels, and below-grade each of the possible degradation factors.the existing
structures where
In underground
waterproofing system orspaces suchsource
the defect as basements, tunnels,
causing leakage andexposed
is not below-grade structures
and accessible for where the
facilitated
existing waterproofing system or the defect source causing leakage is
repair, this is particularly problematic. If suboptimal repair materials that are easily susceptible not exposed and accessible for
facilitated repair, this is particularly problematic. If suboptimal
to physical properties change are used, the waterproofing performance can be affected during the repair materials that are easily
susceptible and
installation to physical
early stages properties
of theirchange
lifetimeare[4].used,
Refertheto waterproofing
Figure 1 below performance
for an illustrated can be affected
concept of
during the installation and early stages
the six types of degradations in below-grade structures. of their lifetime [4]. Refer to Figure 1 below for an illustrated
concept of the six types of degradations in below-grade structures.

Figure 1. The
Figure 1. six
Thetypes of degradations
six types applied
of degradations to waterproofing
applied membranes
to waterproofing in below-grade
membranes structures.
in below-grade
1.2. Degradation Mechanism Causing Physical Property structures.
Changes to Grout-Injection Materials
Using only data
1.2. Degradation based on
Mechanism the physical
causing Physicalproperty
Property changes
Changes of grout-injection Materials
to Grout-Injection materials, it is difficult
to assess whether the grout-injection materials will be able to withstand the deterioration conditions
Using only data based on the physical property changes of grout-injection materials, it is difficult
and to maintain a stable waterproofing performance [5]. To address this issue, a new comparative
to assess whether the grout-injection materials will be able to withstand the deterioration conditions
evaluation criterion is proposed in this study through a technical evaluation criterion that will allow
and to maintain a stable waterproofing performance [5]. To address this issue, a new comparative
a facilitated degradation factor resistance performance comparison for the selection of an optimal
evaluation criterion is proposed in this study through a technical evaluation criterion that will allow
type of grout-injection repair material in compliance to ISO TR 16475:2011 Guidelines for the Repair
a facilitated degradation factor resistance performance comparison for the selection of an optimal
of Water-Leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures [6]. This standard identifies the required performance
type of grout-injection repair material in compliance to ISO TR 16475:2011 Guidelines for the Repair of
criteria of grout-injection materials’ responses to the six types of degradation in below-grade concrete
Water-Leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures [6]. This standard identifies the required performance
structures. Refer to Figure 2 below for the details of the six degradation factors.
criteria of grout-injection materials’ responses to the six types of degradation in below-grade concrete
structures. Refer to Figure 2 below for the details of the six degradation factors.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 3 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 20

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

FigureFigure
2. The2. six
Thetypes
six types of expected
of expected degradation
degradation conditions
conditions in the
in the below-grade
below-grade environment;(a)
environment; (a)the
thecyclic
cyclic thermal stress on concrete and waterproofing membrane, (b) a chemical attack
thermal stress on concrete and waterproofing membrane, (b) a chemical attack on the waterproofing, on the
waterproofing, (c) erosion due to hydrostatic pressure or water flow, (d) a membrane wet surface due
(c) erosion due to hydrostatic pressure or water flow, (d) a membrane wet surface due to humidity,
to humidity, (e) hydrostatic pressure damage to the waterproofing membrane, and (f) the zero-span
(e) hydrostatic pressure damage to the waterproofing membrane, and (f) the zero-span tension and
tension and shear stress applied on a waterproofing membrane.
shear stress applied on a waterproofing membrane.
Currently there are six separate test methods (thermal resistance, chemical resistance, washout
Currently there are six separate test methods (thermal resistance, chemical resistance, washout
resistance, wet surface adhesion strength, hydrostatic pressure resistance, and substrate behavior
resistance, wet surface in
resistance) outlined adhesion strength,
the ISO TS hydrostatic
16774 Test Methods forpressure resistance,
Repair Materials and substrate
for Water-Leakage behavior
Cracks in
resistance) outlined in the ISO TS 16774 Test Methods for Repair Materials for Water-Leakage Cracks in
Underground Concrete Structures [7]. In reference to these existing test methods, a technical evaluation
Underground Concrete
regime that Structures
independently [7]. In reference
measures to these
the physical existing
property changestestofmethods,
four typesaof technical evaluation
grout-injection
regimematerials due to six environmental
that independently measuresdegradation factors
the physical is proposed.
property Thisof
changes evaluation
four typesregime addresses
of grout-injection
the aforementioned
materials concerns anddegradation
due to six environmental proposes a new comparison
factors regime
is proposed. based
This on the test
evaluation results
regime of
addresses
the aforementioned concerns and proposes a new comparison regime based on the test results of
three different products for each of four types of grout-injection materials (acrylic resin, epoxy resin,
polyurethane foam, and synthetic polymerized rubber gel).
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 4 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 20

three different products for each of four types of grout-injection materials (acrylic resin, epoxy resin,
2. Grout-Injection Materials and Test Specimen Products
polyurethane foam, and synthetic polymerized rubber gel).
2.1. Installation Methods and Exposure Conditions of Grout-Injection Materials
2. Grout-Injection Materials and Test Specimen Products
Conventionally used grout-injection materials for concrete crack repairs include acrylic resin,
2.1. resin,
epoxy Installation Methods and
polyurethane Exposure
foam, and Conditions of Grout-Injection
synthetic polymer Materials
rubberized gel (SPRG). In this paper, these four
types ofConventionally
grout-injection repair
used materials were
grout-injection tested
materials for for their performance
concrete in compliance
crack repairs include to the ISO
acrylic resin,
epoxy resin, polyurethane foam, and synthetic polymer rubberized gel (SPRG). In this
TS 16774 Test Methods for Repair Materials for Water-Leakage Cracks in Underground Concrete Structures.paper, these
four types
Injection of grout-injection
methods repaircategorized
can be broadly materials were tested
into twofor their (1)
types: performance in compliance
a direct injection to the crack
for leakage
ISO TS 16774 Test Methods for Repair Materials for Water-Leakage Cracks in Underground
sealing (installation into the crack) and (2) a backfill injection for the repair/reformation of a damaged Concrete
Structures. Injection methods can be broadly categorized into two types: (1) a direct injection for
existing waterproofing layer (drilling at the adjacent side of the crack and injection) [8]. In the case of
leakage crack sealing (installation into the crack) and (2) a backfill injection for the repair/reformation
a direct injection method, a low-pressure injection is required to ensure localized cracking near the
of a damaged existing waterproofing layer (drilling at the adjacent side of the crack and injection) [8].
crack is prevented.
In the Referinjection
case of a direct to Figure 3 below
method, for an illustrated
a low-pressure concept
injection of a to
is required grout-injection
ensure localized repair of
waterproofing membranes.
cracking near the crack is prevented. Refer to Figure 3 below for an illustrated concept of a grout-
injection

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 3. 3. Groutinjection
Grout injection in
in a below-grade
below-gradeconcrete
concrete structure for the
structure for repair of a waterproofing
the repair layer: layer:
of a waterproofing
(a) (a)
thethe direct
direct injectionmethod
injection method and
and (b)
(b)the
thebackfill
backfillinjection method.
injection method.

TheThe levelof
level of exposure
exposure totothethe
different types
different of theof
types sixthe
degradation factors with
six degradation the types
factors withof grout-
the types of
injection materials can differ based on the methods (or locations) of installation and the material
grout-injection materials can differ based on the methods (or locations) of installation and the material
property at the initial stages of installation (prior to curing). Most cases of a direct injection are subject
property at the initial stages of installation (prior to curing). Most cases of a direct injection are subject
to a high influence from a continuous hydrostatic pressure even after complete installation but are
to anot
high influence from a continuous hydrostatic pressure even after complete installation but are not
commonly affected by thermal stress (as is shown in Table 1). Due to the difference in the below-
commonly affectedenvironment
grade structure by thermal stress
and the(as material
is showntypes
in Table 1). Duethe
in Korea, to expected
the difference in thelevel
exposure below-grade
of
structure environment and the material types in Korea, the expected exposure level of degradation
factors in leakage cracks only takes into account the study results obtained for the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) statistics data in Korea [9]. Refer to Table 1 for details.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 5 of 20

Table 1. The expected degree of exposure to degradation factors in accordance to grout-injection

material repair methods in leakage cracks (analytic hierarchy process (AHP) statistics data in Korea).

Repair Expected Exposure Level of Degradation Factors

Material Type
Method Water Wet Surface Substrate
Thermal Chemical Hydrostatic
Flow Adhesion Behavioral
Stress Exposure Pressure
Erosion Strength Stress
Acrylic Resin Direct
  
Grout injection
Epoxy Resin Direct
  
Grout injection
Polyurethane Direct
  
Foam injection
Synthetic Polymer
Back Fill
Rubberized Gel  
Grouting
(SPRG) Grout
Note: Expected Degree of Exposure : High : Moderate : Low

Based on the above three types of expected exposure levels (: High, : Moderate, and : Low)
outlined in Table 1, the following grout-injection repair materials were selected as specimens for
assessing the physical properties change (waterproofing performance). The grout-injection material
properties and specifications are introduced in the following Section 2.2.

2.2. Properties of Test Specimen Products

2.2.1. Acrylic Resin Grout (Water-Based Acrylic Gel Grout)

Most acrylic resin grouts used as leakage crack repair materials in below-grade concrete
structures are commonly composed of acrylic acid polymer hydrophilic with a low viscosity and have
high-hydrostatic-pressure resistance properties. The types of acrylics grout materials include acrylics,
acrylates, and acrylate ester. Based on different application requirements and mixture ratios, the curing
time can vary. Acrylic resin grout seals leakage cracks through their hydrophilic swelling behavior
after contact and a reaction with water, but the pressure is not sufficient enough to cause localized
cracking in the concrete after curing. The materials are normally injected or applied on the leakage
crack immediately after mixing in order to prevent premature hydration and/or curing outside of the
crack [10]. The specifications of the three types of acrylic-resin injection-grout materials tested in this
study are outlined in Table 2 below.

Table 2. The acrylic-resin injection-grout material properties.

Product Number Components Properties

Metal hydroxide aqueous solution + acrylic
acid + methacrylic acid), persulfate, amine
1
(redox polymerization catalyst, acrylic acid
salts, cross-linking agent.
Acrylic acid metal salt, acrylamide,
2 triethanolamine, glycerin, potassium
femicyanide, sodium persulfate
Sodium polyacrylate, acrylamide- sodium
acrylate,
3
Water, hardener (sulfate compounds, water),
accelerant (triethanolamine, water)
(1) Mixed viscosity: Less than 5 cps
(2) Acrylate-based water-stop agent
(3) Volume expansion: 400%
(4) Curing time: 120 s
(1) Mixed viscosity: Less than 3 cps
(2) Acrylate-based water-stop agent
(3) Volume swelling: 200%
(4) Elongation: 70% after condensation
AG-3
(1) Mixed viscosity: less than 20 cps
(2) Acrylic seal grouting agent
(3) Solubility: Soluble in water
(4) Boiling point/melting point: 100 ◦ C/−10 ◦ C
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 6 of 20

2.2.2. Hydrophilic Epoxy Resin Grout

Epoxy resins have relatively high tensile and compressive strengths. The low viscosity of pre-cured
epoxy resin injection grouts allows an easier installation into concrete cracks. Epoxy resin grouts
require thorough mixing with the main agent and a curing compound (hardener), such as an amine or
a polyamide. This material is commonly mixed while being injected through separate high-pressure
hoses that are connected to a single nozzle head. This is to prevent premature curing; thus, the
installation time should be set relatively shorter [11].
Hydrophilic epoxy resins have a low tensile strength but, in general, have a higher adhesion
performance on concrete substrate surfaces [12]. The specifications of the three types of epoxy-resin
injection-grout materials tested in this study are outlined in Table 3 below.

Table 3. The epoxy-resin injection-grout material properties.

Product Number Components/Ratio Properties

(1) Non-shrinking low-viscosity epoxy resin
Epoxy resin + amine
1 (2) Pot life: 90 ± 5 min (20 ± 1 ◦ C)
Main Agent: Hardener = 2:1
(3) Cure time: About 8 h (30 ± 5 ◦ C)
(1) Two-component low-viscosity wet-type grout
Epoxy resin + polyamide amine;
2 (2) Pot life: 60 ± 2 min (25 ± 1 ◦ C)
Main Agent: Hardener = 2:1
(3) Cure time: 24–36 h(25 ± 1 ◦ C)
(1) Two-component epoxy elastic sealing grout
Elastic epoxy sealant
3 (2) Pot life: 60 ± 2 min (21 ± 1 ◦ C)
Main Agent: Hardener = 1:1
(3) Cure time: 24–36 h (21 ± 1 ◦ C)

2.2.3. Polyurethane Foam Resin Grout

Polyurethane foam resin injection grout reacts with water to provide protection against leakage
cracks in concrete structures. Their short reaction time with water transforms the resin into a foam
structure inside the crack. Polyurethane foam grouts consist of a polyurethane resin that reacts with
water to form a closed-cell foam layer or gel (hydrophilic types) inside the water leakage crack when
injected. Polyurethane grouts are mainly used as a temporary measure to stop water-leakage, and a
secondary injection installation of a reinforcing repair material is commonly applied afterwards [13].
The specifications of the three types of polyurethane foam injection grout materials tested in this study
are outlined in Table 4 below.

Table 4. The polyurethane-foam injection-grout material properties.

Product Number Components Properties

(1) Single-component rapid-curing elastic
Reaction type polyurethane polyurethane
1 polymers (2) Solubility: Insoluble
Xylene: 4% (3) Specific gravity (20 ◦ C): 1.26
(4) Flashpoint: 65 ◦ C
(1) Double-component high-strength
polyurethane
Hydrophobic rigid Polyurethane
2 (2) Viscosity: 532(resin) cps/23.1 ◦ C
foam
(3) Initial/complete cure pot life: 60 min/24 h at
room temperature
(1) Single-component polyurethane foam
Polyurethane resin, Acetone (2) Solubility: 1.3 g/100 mL
3
(CH3CoCH3) and other additives (3) Specific gravity (20 ◦ C): 1.37
(4) Viscosity: 200–500 cps/25◦ C
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 7 of 20

2.2.4. Synthetic Rubber Polymer Gel Grout

Synthetic rubber polymer gel (SPRG) grout is a mixture of a specialized macromolecular resin,
including rubberized polymer gel, and asphalt compounds. These types of materials have a strong
adhesive bond to wet substrate surface. This repair material also has a high response property to
the concrete joint or crack movement due to the naturally high elastic property of the rubberized
gel component [14,15]. SPRG displays a high performance in both low and high temperatures and
humidity conditions. The specifications of the three types of SPRG injection-grout materials tested in
this study are outlined in Table 5 below.

Table 5. The Synthetic rubber polymer gel (SRGP) injection grout material properties.

Product Number Components/Ratio Properties

Acrylamide, persulfate (mixed with
1 one or two kinds of sodium,
ammonium, and potassium), asphalt
Asphalt, inorganic fillers, asphalt
modifier, strengthening agent,
2 heat resistance agent, adhesion
reinforcement agent, curing additives,
rubberized polymer etc.
Asphalt, bentonite, oil, rubber, water
3
soluble, polymer resin, etc.
(1) Solids: 85–90%
(2) High-viscosity + low-viscosity non-curable
composite aqueous gel
(1) Solids: 95–99%
(2) High-viscosity non-curable mastic asphalt
(3) Polar covalent bond structure of hydrophilic
and lipophilic groups
(1) Solids: 90–95%
(2) Highly adhesive non-curable bentonite

3. Evaluation Methods of Grout-Injection Material

Physical property change assessments of grout-injection materials with the regimes presented
in the ISO TS 16774 test methods can only be conducted in a technical matter, as laboratory results
and the test designs will not be able to realistically simulate the actual site conditions. It should be
noted that the degree and length of degradations that are applied in the following test regimes are
exclusive to the standards in Korea and that the subsequent results serve only as a demonstration of
the technical evaluation method.
Under these conditions, the physical properties of the grout-injection materials (loss of mass,
adhesion strength, and impermeability) are first measured, and based on the measurement results,
property change ratios are calculated within the range of 100%. A higher change ratio of a given
property indicates a higher risk of waterproofing performance deterioration, and a lower change ratio
indicates a stable waterproofing performance. Based on the prescribed degree of degradation, property
change ratios can exceed the 100%. To account for such cases, maximum change ratios must be given to
establish a comparison parameter. For this demonstration, individual test method variables were set in
compliance to the environmental degradation testing conditions outlined in KS F 4935 [16]. Specimen
assembly, the six test methods, and ratio calculation methods are as follows.

3.1. Specimen Structures

For the testing of the grout-injection material properties in relation to the subject degradation
conditions, specialized specimens were designed. In the thermal stress resistance, hydrostatic pressure
resistance, and substrate behavioral stress resistance testing methods, the specimen of Figure 4
was used.
F 4935 [16]. Specimen assembly, the six test methods, and ratio calculation methods are as follows.
variables were set in compliance to the environmental degradation testing conditions outlined in KS
F 4935 [16]. Specimen assembly, the six test methods, and ratio calculation methods are as follows.
F 4935 [16]. Specimen assembly, the six test methods, and ratio calculation methods are as follows.
3.1. Specimen Structures
3.1. Specimen Structures
3.1. Specimen Structures
For the testing of the grout-injection material properties in relation to the subject degradation
For thespecialized
conditions, testing of the grout-injection
specimens material properties
were designed. in relation
In the thermal to the
stress subject degradation
resistance, hydrostatic
Appl. Sci. the 9,testing
For2019, 1740 of the 8 of 20
grout-injection material properties in relation to the subject degradation
conditions, specialized specimens were designed. In the thermal stress resistance,
pressure resistance, and substrate behavioral stress resistance testing methods, the specimen hydrostatic
of
conditions, specialized specimens were designed. In the thermal stress resistance, hydrostatic
pressure resistance, and substrate behavioral stress resistance testing methods, the specimen of
pressure resistance, and substrate behavioral stress resistance testing methods, the specimen of
Figure 4 was used.
Figure 4 was used.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 4.
4. The (a) for
The specimen
specimen for thermal
thermal stress
stress resistance,
resistance, hydrostatic
hydrostatic pressure (b)
pressure resistance,
resistance, and
and substrate
substrate
Figure 4. The
behavioral
behavioral specimen
stress
stress fortesting:
resistance
resistance thermal
testing: (a)stress
(a) resistance,
specimen
specimen concepthydrostatic
concept and
and (b) pressureinner
(b) specimen
specimen resistance,
inner and substrate
structure.
structure.
Figure 4. The specimen for thermal stress resistance, hydrostatic pressure resistance, and substrate
behavioral stress resistance testing: (a) specimen concept and (b) specimen inner structure.
behavioral stress resistance testing: (a) specimen concept and (b) specimen inner structure.
In the
In the chemical
chemical exposure
exposure resistance
resistance andand water
water flow
flow erosion
erosion resistance
resistance testing,
testing, grout-injection
grout-injection
In
material is
material the chemical
is placed
placed in exposure
in aa petri
petri dish,resistance
dish, which
which is and water
is subsequently flow erosion
subsequently covered
covered withresistance
with aa nonwoventesting,
nonwoven fabric grout-injection
fabric layer. This
layer. This
In the chemical exposure resistance and water flow erosion resistance testing, grout-injection
material isisisplaced
specimen
specimen insidein
inside acontainer
petri dish,
aa container which
filled
filled with
withis asubsequently
a mixed covered
mixed chemical
chemical with and
solution
solution aand
nonwoven
aa water fabric
water flow layer. This
flow simulation
simulation
material is placed in a petri dish, which is subsequently covered with a nonwoven fabric layer. This
specimenrespectively.
chamber
chamber is inside a container
respectively. Refer to
Refer filled
to the
the with
below
below a mixed
Figure
Figure 5 forchemical
details. solution and a water flow simulation
specimen is inside a container filled with a mixed chemical solution and a water flow simulation
chamber respectively. Refer to the below Figure 5 for details.
chamber respectively. Refer to the below Figure 5 for details.

Figure 5. The specimen for chemical exposure resistance and water flow erosion resistance testing.
Figure 5. The specimen for chemical exposure resistance
resistance and
and water
water flow
flow erosion
erosion resistance
resistance testing.
testing.
Figure 5. The specimen for chemical exposure resistance and water flow erosion resistance testing.
In the test method for wet surface adhesion strength testing, a specimen structure comprised of
In
In the
the test
two acrylic test method
method
substrate for
parts wet
foris
wet surface
surface
used, whereadhesion
adhesion strength
strength
the grout testing,
injectiontesting, aa specimen
material specimen structure
structure
is injected comprised
comprised
in between the twoof
of
two In the test
acrylic method
substrate for wet
parts is surface
used, adhesion
where the strength
grout testing,
injection a specimen
material is structure
injected in comprised
between the of
two
two acrylic substrate parts is
parts. Refer to Figure 6 for details. used, where the grout injection material is injected in between the two
two acrylic substrate parts
parts. is used, where the grout injection material is injected in between the two
parts. Refer to Figure
Figure 66 for
for details.
details.
parts. Refer to Figure 6 for details.

Figure 6. The specimen for wet surface adhesion strength testing.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The specimen for wet surface
surface adhesion
adhesion strength
strength testing.
testing.
Figure 6. The specimen for wet surface adhesion strength testing.
3.2. Grout-Injection Materials Property Change Evaluation Regime

3.2.1. Evaluation for Property Changes Due to Thermal Stress

The specimens from Figure 4 in Section 3.1 are placed under thermal stress cycling in a temperature
chamber. With one cycle consisting of a 1-h placement in 20 ◦ C temperature, 2 h in 60 ◦ C, and 1 h in
−20 ◦ C condition, each specimen is placed under 20 cycles of thermal stressing. Afterwards, changes
3.2. Grout-Injection Materials Property Change Evaluation Regime
3.2. Grout-Injection Materials Property Change Evaluation Regime
3.2.1. Evaluation for Property Changes due to thermal Stress
3.2.1. Evaluation for Property Changes due to thermal Stress
The specimens from Figure 4 in Section 3.1 are placed under thermal stress cycling in a
Appl. The specimens
Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 from Figure 4 in Section 3.1 are placed under thermal stress cycling 9in a
of 20
temperature chamber. With one cycle consisting of a 1-h placement in 20 °C temperature, 2 h in 60
temperature chamber. With one cycle consisting of a 1-h placement in 20 °C temperature, 2 h in 60
°C, and 1 h in −20 °C condition, each specimen is placed under 20 cycles of thermal stressing.
°C, and 1 h in −20 °C condition, each specimen is placed under 20 cycles of thermal stressing.
Afterwards,
to changes performance
the waterproofing to the waterproofing performance
to the specimens to the specimens
is inspected is inspected through
through a permeability testing ofa
Afterwards, changes to the waterproofing performance to the specimens is inspected through a
permeability
Figure 7 for 60testing of Figure
min, and the minute7 forinterval
60 min,at and theleakage
which minuteoccurs
interval at whichRefer
is recorded. leakage occurs
to the belowis
permeability testing of Figure 7 for 60 min, and the minute interval at which leakage occurs is
recorded.
Figure 7 forRefer to the below
an illustration testFigure 7 for an illustration test method.
method.
recorded. Refer to the below Figure 7 for an illustration test method.

Figure 7. The test method outline and apparatus.

Figure 7. The test method outline and apparatus.
Figure 7. The test method outline and apparatus.
The waterproofing property changes with respect to impermeability due to thermal cycling due
The waterproofing property changes with respect to impermeability due to thermal cycling due
to thermal stress is calculated
The waterproofing property into a ratiowith
changes to provide
respect atowaterproofing
impermeability property change cycling
due to thermal index for
duea
to thermal stress is calculated into a ratio to provide a waterproofing property change index for a
relative
to comparison.
thermal The impermeability
stress is calculated into a ratio failure ratio ofathe
to provide grout-injection
waterproofing repair material
property change is measured
index for a
relative comparison. The impermeability failure ratio of the grout-injection repair material is
with the comparison.
relative following equation based on the results
The impermeability failureofratio
the hydrostatic pressure resistance
of the grout-injection repair testing
materialafter
is
measured with the following equation based on the results of the hydrostatic pressure resistance
measured with the following equation based on the results of the hydrostatic pressure resistance
thermal stressing.
testing after thermal stressing.
testing after thermal stressing. (T − ti )/T × 100% = Tts (1)
(T – ti)/T X 100% = Tts (1)
where T is the Test duration (60 min as in(T – ti)/T X 100%
accordance to KS=FT4935);
ts ti is the average number of minutes (1)
wherebefore
taken T is the Test duration
leakage occurred(60during
min ashydrostatic
in accordance to KS testing
pressure F 4935);(min);ti is the average
and T ts is number
the of minutes
impermeability
where T is the Test duration (60 min as in accordance to KS F 4935); ti is the average number of minutes
taken before ratio
degradation leakage(%). occurred during hydrostatic pressure testing (min); and Tts is the impermeability
taken before leakage occurred during hydrostatic pressure testing (min); and Tts is the impermeability
degradation ratio (%).
degradation ratio (%).
3.2.2. Evaluation Method for Property Change Due to Chemical Exposure
3.2.2. Evaluation Method for Property Change due to Chemical Exposure
3.2.2.The
Evaluation
specimens Method
from for Property
Figure Change3.1
5 in Section duearetoused
Chemical
for thisExposure
testing. The mass of the specimens
before The specimens
testing from
are measured Figure
and then 5 in Section
placed in 3.1 are used for this testing. The mass ofsolutions
the specimens
The specimens from Figure 5 in Section 3.1containers
are used forfilledthiswith mixed
testing. Thechemical
mass of the specimens (0.1%
before
HCl, testing
0.2% H are
SO measured
, 0.2% HNO and , then
3% placed
NaOH, in
andcontainers
3% NaCl).filled with
After 72mixed
h of chemical
exposure solutions
in each (0.1%
of the
before testing are measured and then placed in containers filled with mixed chemical solutions (0.1%
2 4 3
HCl, 0.2% H
containers, 2SO4, 0.2% HNO3, 3% NaOH, and 3% NaCl). After 72 h of exposure in each of the
the specimens are removed from the container and dried in desiccators until they reach
HCl, 0.2% H2SO4, 0.2% HNO3, 3% NaOH, and 3% NaCl). After 72 h of exposure in each of the
acontainers,
containers,
the specimens
constant mass. The massare
the specimens
are removed
ofremoved
the specimens from the
from the
container andtodried
is calculated
container upand dried two in in desiccators
decimal until
placesuntil
desiccators
they reach
in grams (or the
they reach
a
a
constant
percentage mass.
of the The mass
remaining of the specimens is calculated up to two decimal places in grams (or the
constant mass. The mass of material in the container).
the specimens is calculated Refer
uptotothe two below Figure
decimal 8 forin
places angrams
illustration
(or the of
percentage
test method. of the remaining material in the container). Refer to the below Figure 8 for an illustration
percentage of the remaining material in the container). Refer to the below Figure 8 for an illustration
of test method.
of test method.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 8. The test method apparatus: (a) exposure to the chemical solution and (b) the mass
measurement after exposure.
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2019,
2017, 9,
7, 1740
x FOR PEER REVIEW 10
10 of 20
of 20

Figure 8. The test method apparatus: (a) exposure to the chemical solution and (b) the mass
measurement
The after exposure.
waterproofing property change with respect to a mass loss due to corrosion or a chemical
reaction with the mixed solutions is calculated into a ratio to provide a measurement index for a
Thecomparison.
relative waterproofing
The property
mass losschange
ratio of with respect to a mass
the grout-injection loss is
material due to corrosion
measured with or
theafollowing
chemical
reaction with the mixed solutions is calculated into a ratio to provide a
equation based on the results of the chemical exposure resistance test results. measurement index for a
relative comparison. The mass loss ratio of the grout-injection material is measured with the
following equation based on the results of×the
{w/(m mltchemical = Cl resistance test results.
exposure
)} × 100%(!) (2)

where m is the mass of the grout-injection {w / (mmaterial

X mlt)} Xbefore
100%(!) = Cl (g); m is the mass loss threshold
testing (2)
lt
percentage
where m is(the the mass
mass lost
of theshould not be more
grout-injection than 15%
material as intesting
before accordance
(g); mto
lt isKS F 4935
the massstandard); w is
loss threshold
the average (the
percentage lost mass
mass of the
lost injection
should notmaterial
be moreduring theas
than 15% chemical solutiontoexposure
in accordance KS F 4935 (g); and Cl is w
standard); theis
the average lost mass of the injection material during
mass loss ratio relative to the standard mass loss threshold (%). the chemical solution exposure (g); and C l is the
mass loss ratio relative to the standard mass loss threshold (%).
3.2.3. Evaluation Method for Property Changes Due to Water Flow Erosion
3.2.3. Evaluation Method for Property Changes Due to Water Flow Erosion
Specimens from Figure 5 in Section 3.1 are placed in a water flow simulation chamber. The mass
of theSpecimens
specimensfrom Figure prior
is measured 5 in Section 3.1 are placed
to the immersion in theinwater
a water
flowflow
chambersimulation
(up tochamber.
two decimal The
mass of
places in the specimens
grams). is measured
The specimens are prior to the
exposed immersion
to 0.2 m/s of waterin the water
flow for 48 flow chamber
h. After the (up to two
test cycles,
decimal
the places are
specimens in grams).
removed The specimens
from areflow
the water exposed to 0.2 m/s
apparatus andofare
water flow
placed in for 48 h. Afteruntil
a desiccator the test
the
cycles, thereaches
specimen specimens are removed
a constant from the water
mass. Afterwards, flowofapparatus
the mass and are
the specimens placed indown
is measured a desiccator
to two
until theplaces
decimal specimen reaches a(or
and recorded constant mass. Afterwards,
the percentage the mass
of the remaining of the
material in specimens is measured
the container). Refer to
down
the belowto two
Figuredecimal
9 for anplaces and recorded
illustration of the test(or the percentage of the remaining material in the
method.
container). Refer to the below Figure 9 for an illustration of the test method.

(a) (b)
Figure 9.
Figure 9. The
The test
test method
method apparatus:
apparatus: (a) the specimen placement and (b)
(b) the
the water
water flow
flow testing.
testing.

The
The waterproofing
waterproofingproperty
propertychange
changewith
withrespect
respecttotothe
themass
massloss due
loss to to
due erosion from
erosion exposure
from to
exposure
the water
to the flow
water or hydrostatic
flow pressure
or hydrostatic is calculated
pressure into into
is calculated a ratio to provide
a ratio a measurement
to provide indexindex
a measurement for a
relative comparison.
for a relative The mass
comparison. Theloss
massratio of ratio
loss the grout-injection material is
of the grout-injection measured
material with the following
is measured with the
equation
followingbased on the
equation results
based of the
on the washout
results of theresistance
washout test results.test results.
resistance

{w / (m
{w/(m ×m× m)}lt)}××100%(!)
100%(!)==W
Wl (3)
(3)
lt l
where m is the mass of the grout-injection material before testing (g); mlt is the mass loss threshold
where m is the
percentage (themass
massoflost
theshould
grout-injection
not be morematerial before
than 15% testing
as in (g); mlttoisKS
accordance theFmass loss threshold
4935 standard); w is
percentage
the lost mass (the
of mass lost should not
the grout-injection be more
material than
after the15% as in
water accordance
flow cycle (g); to
andKSWFl is
4935
thestandard); w is
mass loss ratio
the lost mass
relative of the grout-injection
to standard (%)after the water flow cycle (g); and Wl is the mass loss ratio
material
mass loss threshold
relative to standard mass loss threshold (%)
3.2.4. Evaluation Method for Wet Surface Adhesion Strength
3.2.4. Evaluation Method for Wet Surface Adhesion Strength
Specimens from Figure 6 in Section 3.1 are installed on the wet surface adhesion testing
Specimens
apparatus to measurefrom Figure 6 in Section
the adhesion 3.1 are installed
maintenance on of
duration thethe
wet surface adhesion
grout-injection testing
repair apparatus
materials. The
to
specimen adhesion on a wet concrete surface is tested by letting the weight of the bottomspecimen
measure the adhesion maintenance duration of the grout-injection repair materials. The concrete
adhesion
substrate onpart a wet
exertconcrete
its weightsurface
on theis tested
repair by lettingadhesion
material the weight of the
at the bottomon
interface concrete
the wetsubstrate
concrete
part exert its weight on the repair material adhesion at the interface on
surface. The duration for which the material can maintain adhesion or cohesive strength the wet concrete surface.
is
The duration
measured upforto which the material
a maximum of 60 can maintain
s. The point at adhesion
which an or cohesive
adhesionstrength is measured
or cohesion upthe
failure of to
material occurs is measured and recorded. Refer to Figure 10 for an illustration of the test method.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 11 of 20

a maximum of 60 s. The point at which an adhesion or cohesion failure of the material occurs is
measured and7,recorded.
Appl. Sci. 2017, x FOR PEERRefer
REVIEWto Figure 10 for an illustration of the test method. 11 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure10.
Figure 10.The
Thetest
testmethod
methodapparatus:
apparatus:(a)
(a)the
thespecimen
specimeninstallation
installationonto
ontothethewet
wetsurface
surfaceadhesion
adhesion
strength
Figure
strength10.testing
The test
testing apparatus
method
apparatus and
and (b)removing
removing
apparatus:
(b) (a) thethe
the bottomplatform
specimen
bottom platform andonto
installation
and initiating
the wet
initiating testing.
surface adhesion
testing.
strength testing apparatus and (b) removing the bottom platform and initiating testing.
The
Thewaterproofing
waterproofing property change
property withwith
change respect to adhesion
respect performance
to adhesion due to adue
performance humid
to asurface
humid
installation
surface of the grout-injection
The installation
waterproofingof theproperty material is calculated
changematerial
grout-injection with respect into a ratio
intotoa ratio
to adhesion
is calculated provide a measurement
performance due
to provide index
to a humid
a measurement
for a relative
surface
index for comparison.
installation
a relative of The adhesion
the grout-injection
comparison. or cohesion
material
The adhesion failure
is calculated
or cohesion ratio of
intoratio
failure the
of grout-injection
a ratio to provide
the material
a measurement
grout-injection is
material
measured
index for awith
is measured the the
relative
with following
comparison.equation.
following The adhesion or cohesion failure ratio of the grout-injection material
equation.
is measured with the following equation.
(T (T
− t–i )/ti)/ 100%==AAifif
× ×100% (4)
(4)
(T – ti)/ × 100% = Aif (4)
where T is the Test duration (60 s as in accordance to KS F 4935); ti is the average number of minutes
where T is the Test duration (60 s as in accordance to KS F 4935); ti is the average number of minutes
taken Tbefore
where is thean adhesion/the
Test duration (60cohesion failure occurred
s as in accordance to KS Fduring
4935); hydrostatic
ti is the averagepressure
numbertesting (s); and
of minutes
taken
A is before
the an adhesion/the
adhesion cohesion
degradation ratio failure
indicating occurred
how during
quickly hydrostatic
the material pressure
fails
taken before an adhesion/the cohesion failure occurred during hydrostatic pressure testing (s); and
if
testing
(%). (s); and Aif
is
Aifthe adhesion
is the adhesiondegradation ratio
degradation indicating
ratio indicatinghowhow quickly the the
quickly material
materialfailsfails
(%).(%).
3.2.5. Evaluation Method Property Changes Due to Hydrostatic Pressure
3.2.5. Evaluation Method Property Changes Due to Hydrostatic Pressure
3.2.5. Evaluation Method Property Changes Due to Hydrostatic Pressure
The specimen from Figure 4 in Section 3.1 is placed in a permeability testing chamber filled with
The specimen from Figure 4 in Section2 3.1 is placed in a permeability testing chamber filled with
1L ofThe specimen
water. An airfrom Figure
pressure of 40.2
in N/mm
Section is
3.1applied
is placed in a permeability
through testing
a pressure inlet chamber
located filled
at the with
top of the
1L of water. An air pressure of 0.2 N/mm22 is applied through a pressure inlet located at the top of the
1L of water.and
chamber, An the
air pressure
specimenofis0.2 N/mm is
subjected toapplied through
hydrostatic a pressure
pressure for 60inlet
min.located at the top
The minute of theat
interval
chamber, and the specimen is subjected to hydrostatic pressure for 60 min. The minute interval at
chamber, and the
which leakage specimen
occurs is subjected
is measured. Refertotohydrostatic pressure
the below Figure for illustration
11 for 60 min. Theofminute
the testinterval
method.at
which
which leakage
leakage occurs
occurs is
is measured.
measured. Refer
Refer to
to the
the below
below Figure
Figure 11
11 for
for illustration
illustration of
of the
the test
test method.
method.

.
.
Figure11.
Figure 11.The
Thetest
testmethod
methodapparatus:
apparatus:hydrostatic
hydrostaticpressure
pressuretesting.
testing.
Figure 11. The test method apparatus: hydrostatic pressure testing.
The
Thewaterproofing
waterproofingproperty
propertychanges
changeswith
withrespect
respecttotoimpermeability
impermeabilitydue duetotohydrostatic
hydrostaticpressure
pressure
The waterproofing
isiscalculated
calculatedinto ratioproperty
intoaaratio totoprovide
providechanges with respect
aawaterproofing
waterproofing to impermeability
property
property change
changeindex due
index fortoaahydrostatic
for relative pressure
relativecomparison.
comparison.
isThe
calculated into a ratio
impermeability to provide
failure ratio ofathe
waterproofing property
grout-injection repairchange
materialindex for a relative
is measured with comparison.
the following
The impermeability
equation failure
based on the ratioofofthe
results thehydrostatic
grout-injection repair
pressure materialtesting.
resistance is measured with the following
equation based on the results of the hydrostatic pressure resistance testing.
(T – ti)/T X 100% = Thp (5)
(T – ti)/T X 100% = Thp (5)
where T is the test duration (60 min as in accordance to KS F 4935); ti is the average number of
 Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 12 of 20

The impermeability failure ratio of the grout-injection repair material is measured with the following
equation based on the results of the hydrostatic pressure resistance testing.

(T − ti )/T × 100% = Thp (5)

where
Appl. T is the
Sci. 2017, test duration
7, x FOR (60 min
PEER REVIEW as in accordance to KS F 4935); ti is the average number of 12 minutes
of 20
taken before a leakage occurred during hydrostatic pressure testing (min); and Thp is the impermeability
minutes takenratio
degradation before a leakage occurred during hydrostatic pressure testing (min); and Thp is the
(%).
impermeability degradation ratio (%).
3.2.6. Evaluation Method for Property Changes Due to Substrate Behavioral Stress
3.2.6. Evaluation Method for Property Changes Due to Substrate Behavioral Stress
The specimen from Figure 4 in Section 3.1 is subjected to a behavioral stress of 600 movement
cycles ofspecimen
The a 10-mm from Figure 4 at
displacement in aSection
rate of 3.1 is subjected
50 mm/min to aa universal
using behavioraltesting
stress machine
of 600 movement
apparatus.
cycles
Afterwards, changes to the waterproofing property to the specimens are inspectedapparatus.
of a 10-mm displacement at a rate of 50 mm/min using a universal testing machine through a
Afterwards,
permeabilitychanges
testing to the waterproofing
(hydrostatic pressure property to theforspecimens
of 0.2 N/mm) are the
60 min, and inspected
minutethrough
interval aat
permeability
which leakage occurs is recorded. Refer to the below Figure 12 for an illustration of the testatmethod.
testing (hydrostatic pressure of 0.2 N/mm) for 60 min, and the minute interval which
leakage occurs is recorded. Refer to the below Figure 12 for an illustration of the test method.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure12.
12.The
Thesubstrate
substratebehavior
behaviorresistance
resistancetest
testmethod:
method:(a)(a)the
thesubstrate
substratebehavioral
behavioralmovement
movement
cycling
cyclingprocedure
procedureand
and(b)
(b)the
thepermeability
permeabilitytesting
testing(hydrostatic
(hydrostaticpressure
pressuretesting).
testing).

The waterproofing
The waterproofing property
propertychanges
changeswith respect
with to impermeability
respect to impermeabilityafter theaftersubstrate behavioral
the substrate
movementmovement
behavioral is calculated into a ratio
is calculated to aprovide
into ratio toaprovide
waterproofing property property
a waterproofing change index change forindex
a relative
for
a comparison. The impermeability
relative comparison. failure ratio
The impermeability of the
failure SPRG
ratio of theis SPRG
measured with thewith
is measured following equation
the following
based onbased
equation the results
on the ofresults
the hydrostatic pressure pressure
of the hydrostatic resistanceresistance
testing after subjection
testing to substrate
after subjection to
behavioral
substrate movement.
behavioral movement.
(T − ti )/T × 100% = Tsb (6)
(T – ti)/T × 100% = Tsb (6)
where T is the test duration (60 min as in accordance to KS F 4935); ti is the average number of minutes
where T is the test duration (60 min as in accordance to KS F 4935); ti is the average number of minutes
takenbefore
taken beforeleakage
leakageoccurred
occurredduring
duringhydrostatic
hydrostaticpressure
pressuretesting
testing(min);
(min);andandTTsbsbisisthetheimpermeability
impermeability
degradationratio
degradation ratioindicating
indicatinghow
howquickly
quicklymaterial
materialfailure
failureoccurred
occurred(%). (%).

4.4.Evaluation
EvaluationResults
Results

4.1. Property Change to the Four Types of Grout-Injection Materials after Degradation Effects
4.1. Property Change to the Four Types of Grout-Injection Materials after Degradation Effects
The following tables present the technical evaluation results of the four respective grout-injection
The following tables present the technical evaluation results of the four respective grout-
materials assessed in compliance to the respective evaluation methods outlined in the six test methods.
injection materials assessed in compliance to the respective evaluation methods outlined in the six
Refer to the below Tables 6–8 for details.
test methods. Refer to the below Tables 6 to 8 for details.

4.1.1. Acrylic-Resin Grout-Injection Material

The evaluation results on property change of the acrylic-resin grout-injection material are
displayed below in Table 6.

Table 6. The evaluation results of the acrylic-resin grout-injection material.

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 13 of 20

Table 6. The evaluation results of the acrylic-resin grout-injection material.

Specimens Water Wet Surface Substrate

Thermal Chemical Hydrostatic
Flow Adhesion Behavioral
Stress Erosion Pressure
Erosion Strength Stress
Materials No. (Leakage (Mass (Leakage
(Mass (De-Bonding (Leakage
Time, min) Loss, %) Time, min)
Loss, %) Time, s) Time, min)
1 30 8.9 40.76 60 29 0
Acrylic 2 25 9.1 48.43 60 22 0
A 3 27 5.7 51.57 60 52 0
Avg 22 7.9 46.92 60 34 0
1 34 6.7 24.19 54 60 0
Acrylic 2 21 5.2 20.19 46 52 60
B 3 42 7.9 54.02 39 60 60
Avg 32 6.6 32.80 46 57 40
1 60 5.9 39.76 45 60 60
Acrylic 2 23 4.8 22.05 60 14 60
C 3 60 5.8 29.00 49 60 60
Avg 48 5.5 30.27 60 60 60

Table 7. The evaluation results of the epoxy-resin grout-injection materials.

Specimens Water Wet Surface Substrate

Thermal Chemical Hydrostatic
Flow Adhesion Behavioral
Stress Erosion Pressure
Erosion Strength Stress
Materials No. (Leakage (Mass (Leakage
(Mass (De-Bonding (Leakage
Time, min) Loss, %) Time, min)
Loss, %) Time, s) Time, min)
1 60 12.1 1 60 60 43
Epoxy 2 60 9.8 9 60 60 60
A 3 60 11.2 1 60 60 24
Avg 60 11.0 4 60 60 42.33
1 44 10.4 5 60 60 51
Epoxy 2 51 9.5 3 60 60 27
B 3 42 10.0 3 60 60 29
Avg 46 10.0 4 60 60 35.67
1 53 8.0 6 60 54 0
Epoxy 2 36 9.0 7 60 23 0
C 3 49 7.8 6 60 47 0
Avg 46 8.2 6 60 41.33 0

Table 8. The evaluation results of the polyurethane-foam grout-injection material.

Specimens Water Wet Surface Substrate

Thermal Chemical Hydrostatic
Flow Adhesion Behavioral
Stress Erosion Pressure
Erosion Strength Stress
Materials No. (Leakage (Mass (Leakage
(Mass (De-Bonding (Leakage
Time, min) Loss, %) Time, min)
Loss, %) Time, s) Time, min)
1 12 15.5 4 14 15 3
Urethane 2 9 14.9 10 2 23 0
A 3 34 17.0 15 6 14 1
Avg 18.33 15.8 10 7.33 17.33 1.33
1 5 16.9 8 0 10 4
Urethane 2 7 17.2 8 1 9 0
B 3 8 15.8 4 6 6 3
Avg 6.67 16.6 7 2.33 8.33 2.33
1 6 15.2 20 2 5 0
Urethane 2 14 16.3 21 31 26 2
C 3 3 17.0 23 13 43 14
Avg 7.67 16.2 21 15.33 24.67 5.33
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 14 of 20

4.1.1. Acrylic-Resin Grout-Injection Material

The evaluation results on property change of the acrylic-resin grout-injection material are displayed
below in Table 6.

4.1.2. Epoxy-Resin Grout-Injection Material

The evaluation results on property change of the epoxy-resin grout-injection material measurement
results are displayed below in Table 7.

4.1.3. Polyurethane-Foam Grout-Injection Material

The evaluation results on property change of the polyurethane-foam grout-injection material
measurement results are displayed below in Table 8.

4.1.4. SPRG Grout-Injection Material

The evaluation results on property changes of the SPRG grout-injection material measurement
results are displayed below in Table 9.

Table 9. The evaluation results of SPRG grout-injection materials.

Specimens Water Wet Surface Substrate

Thermal Chemical Hydrostatic
Flow Adhesion Behavioral
Stress Erosion Pressure
Erosion Strength Stress
Materials No. (Leakage (Mass (Leakage
(Mass (De-Bonding (Leakage
Time, min) Loss, %) Time, min)
Loss, %) Time, s) Time, min)
1 60 3.1 5 14 60 52
SPRG 2 46 4.8 4 12 41 43
A 3 60 3.0 7 36 60 60
Avg 55.33 3.7 5 20.67 53.67 51.67
1 36 2.1 3 60 60 60
SPRG 2 37 0.6 5 60 60 39
B 3 42 2.7 7 60 60 49
Avg 38.33 1.8 5 60 60 49.33
1 48 3.4 21 24 60 60
SPRG 2 60 2.4 7 32 60 60
C 3 35 3.1 1 6 60 60
Avg 47.67 3.0 10 20.67 60 60

4.2. Grout-Injection Material Physical Property Change Measurement Comparison Results

In order to provide an easier relative comparison, ratios derived from the test methods results
of the respective test methods were calculated into percentage index (out of 100%) based on the
performance criteria outlined in the national standard test methods through Equations (1)–(6). Refer to
the following Table 10 for details.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 15 of 20

Table 10. The physical properties change measurement comparison results of grout-injection materials.

Specimens Properties Change Ratios

Wet Surface Substrate
Thermal Chemical Water flow Hydrostatic
Material Adhesion Behavioral
No. Stress (%) Exposure (%) Erosion (%) Pressure (%)
Type Strength (%) Stress (%)
(Tts ) (Cl ) (Wl ) (Thp )
(Aif ) (Tsb )
A 63 52.6 313 0 43 100
Acrylic
B 47 44.0 219 23 5 33
Resin
C 20 36.8 202 0 0 0
A 0 73.6 27 0 0 29
Epoxy Resin B 24 66. 27 0 0 41
C 23 55.0 40 0 31 100
A 69 105.2 67 88 71 98
Polyurethane
B 89 110.8 47 96 86 96
Grout
C 87 107.8 140 74 59 91
A 8 24.4 33 66 11 14
SPRG B 36 11.9 33 0 0 18
C 21 19.8 67 66 0 0

A radar chart for the respective grout-injection material type physical properties measurement was
derived to allow a comprehensive comparison of the independent property changes after subjection to
the six degradation conditions. The variation in the index of each axis indicates the degree of expected
properties change with respect to each degradation factors. A higher percentage indicates a greater
degree of physical properties change due to exposure to the specific degradation condition. In the case
of chemical exposure resistance testing and water flow erosion resistance testing results, a mass loss
ratio determined to be more than 100% relative to the standard mass loss threshold was not expressed
past the 100% maximum in the final results to establish a regime for a relative comparison with the
Appl. Sci. 2017,
other properties. A7,higher
x FOR PEER REVIEW in the radar axis indicates a greater degree of physical property
percentage 16 of 20

changes, which subsequently indicates the risk of waterproofing performance deterioration. Refer to
behavioral stress. Product C, in particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products with
the following
regardsradarto thecharts belowfactors.
degradation from Figures
Refer to13–16 for details.
the below radar chart in Figure 13.

Figure 13. The physical property changes of the acrylic-resin grout-injection material.
Figure 13. The physical property changes of the acrylic-resin grout-injection material.

4.2.2. Epoxy-Resin Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different epoxy-resin grout-injection specimens were
mutually compared. The results are shown that the three epoxy resin products are all relatively
susceptible to physical property changes under the effect of chemical exposure and substrate
behavioral stress. Product A, in particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products with
regards to the material degradation factors. Refer to the below radar chart in Figure 14.
 4.2.2. Epoxy-Resin Grout-Injection Material
The physical property changes of the three different epoxy-resin grout-injection specimens were
mutually compared. The results are shown that the three epoxy resin products are all relatively
susceptible to physical property changes under the effect of chemical exposure and substrate
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 16 of 20
behavioral stress. Product A, in particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products with
regards to the material degradation factors. Refer to the below radar chart in Figure 14.

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20

4.2.3. Polyurethane-Foam Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different polyurethane grout-injection specimens
were mutually compared. The results are shown that the three polyurethane products are susceptible
to a large degree of physical property changes under all degradation factors. Refer to the below radar
chart in Figure 15.

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20

4.2.3. Polyurethane-Foam Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different polyurethane grout-injection specimens
were mutually compared. The results are shown that the three polyurethane products are susceptible
to a large degree of physical property changes under all degradation factors. Refer to the below radar
chart Figure The
14.15.
Figure
in Figure 14.physical property
The physical changes
property changesofofthe
the epoxy-resin grout-injection
epoxy-resin grout-injection material.
material.

.
Figure 15. The physical property changes of the polyurethane-foam grout-injection material.

4.2.4. SPRG Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different SPRG grout-injection specimens were
mutually compared. The results are shown that the three SPRG products were somewhat susceptible
to physical property changes with regards to wet surface adhesion strength and water flow.erosion.
Product B, in particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products. Refer to the below
Figure 15.15.The
Figure Thephysical
physical property changes of the polyurethane-foam grout-injection material.
radar chart in Figure 16. property changes of the polyurethane-foam grout-injection material.

4.2.4. SPRG Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different SPRG grout-injection specimens were
mutually compared. The results are shown that the three SPRG products were somewhat susceptible
to physical property changes with regards to wet surface adhesion strength and water flow erosion.
Product B, in particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products. Refer to the below
radar chart in Figure 16.

.
Figure 16. The
Figure physical
16. The properties
physical change
properties changeof
ofthe
the SPRG grout-injection
SPRG grout-injection material.
material.

.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 17 of 20

4.2.1. Acrylic-Resin Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different acrylic resin grout injection specimens were
mutually compared. The results are shown that the three acrylic resin products are all relatively
susceptible to physical property changes under the effect of water flow erosion and substrate behavioral
stress. Product C, in particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products with regards to
the degradation factors. Refer to the below radar chart in Figure 13.

4.2.2. Epoxy-Resin Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different epoxy-resin grout-injection specimens were
mutually compared. The results are shown that the three epoxy resin products are all relatively
susceptible to physical property changes under the effect of chemical exposure and substrate behavioral
stress. Product A, in particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products with regards to
the material degradation factors. Refer to the below radar chart in Figure 14.

4.2.3. Polyurethane-Foam Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different polyurethane grout-injection specimens were
mutually compared. The results are shown that the three polyurethane products are susceptible to a
large degree of physical property changes under all degradation factors. Refer to the below radar chart
in Figure 15.

4.2.4. SPRG Grout-Injection Material

The physical property changes of the three different SPRG grout-injection specimens were mutually
compared. The results are shown that the three SPRG products were somewhat susceptible to physical
property changes with regards to wet surface adhesion strength and water flow erosion. Product B, in
particular, showed a higher stability than the other two products. Refer to the below radar chart in
Figure 16.

4.3. Inclusive Comparison of the Four Types of Grout-Injection Materials

Based on the above presentation of four types of grout-injection materials, a complete comparison
of the physical property (waterproofing performance) changes are provided in the total radar chart of
Figure 17.
The comparison results showed that the polyurethane-foam grout injection had a more significant
performance degradation (physical change) in six degradation factors than the other types of materials.
In the case of SPRG grout-injection materials, their performance change was minimal relative to
the changes displayed in other materials types. For acrylic-resin grout-injection materials, their
performance change with respect to substrate movement and exposure to continuous water flow were
shown to be high. For epoxy-resin grouts, property changes to chemical exposure were relatively high.
For polyurethane-foam grouts, all products showed a high degree of property changes after exposure
to all degradation factors.
For the purpose of demonstration, a conclusion could be made based on the comprehensive
evaluation results that the SPRG material overall had the least physical property changes (relative
to the performance standard regimes and environmental degradation degree variables compliant to
the KS F 4935 standard), but it is advised that, in construction sections where a constant presence
of water or humidity, a usage of this material is not recommended. Similarly, acrylic-resin injection
materials are subject to properties change where substrate behavioral stress is present, indicating that
repairs with these materials in areas where a reopening of cracks due to settlement or vibrations is not
recommended. Epoxy-resin grout usage should be avoided in areas where chemical substances are
expected to be present. Polyurethane grout-injection materials are generally not recommended to be
used for repair in below-grade concrete structures as a standalone material.
 Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 20

4.3. Inclusive Comparison of the Four Types of Grout-Injection Materials

Based on the above presentation of four types of grout-injection materials, a complete
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 18 of 20
comparison of the physical property (waterproofing performance) changes are provided in the total
radar chart of Figure 17.

Figure 17.AAcomprehensive
Figure17. comprehensiveevaluation
evaluationresult
resultofofthe
thefour
fourtypes
typesofofgrout-injection
grout-injectionmaterials.
materials.

AThe
decisive conclusion
comparison cannot
results be readily
showed that made on the performancegrout
the polyurethane-foam of these repair materials
injection had a more in
this particular paper, as the evaluation was conducted using product specimens
significant performance degradation (physical change) in six degradation factors than the other types from Korea that were
already expected
of materials. to have
In the case certain
of SPRG types of results, asmaterials,
grout-injection a means totheir
demonstrate
performance this change
technicalwas
evaluation
minimal
method. If other materials from different companies or countries were to be used,
relative to the changes displayed in other materials types. For acrylic-resin grout-injection materials, different results
may be expected for the respective types of material products (although
their performance change with respect to substrate movement and exposure to continuous water not significantly different).
The
flowpriority of this paper
were shown is to propose
to be high. this technical
For epoxy-resin grouts,evaluation
propertyand its functionality
changes to chemicalinexposure
being able to
were
measure the different ratios of property changes for any given types of injection-grout
relatively high. For polyurethane-foam grouts, all products showed a high degree of property repair material.
The resultsafter
changes presented
exposure in this demonstration
to all do not yet have substantial data to be able to conclude that
degradation factors.
a particular
For thetype of materials
purpose is best in different
of demonstration, situations.
a conclusion could be made based on the comprehensive
In this regard, it must be noted that
evaluation results that the SPRG material overall had the tested specimens
the least in this study
physical have changes
property all been limited
(relativetoto
samples manufactured
the performance standard in Korea;
regimes thus,
andthe comparison degradation
environmental results in thisdegree
studyvariables
alone is not sufficient
compliant to
to the
claim that one material type is undoubtedly superior over the other types. However,
KS F 4935 standard), but it is advised that, in construction sections where a constant presence of water the technical
evaluation
or humidity, model can be
a usage ofapplied to different
this material is notnational productsSimilarly,
recommended. and material types based
acrylic-resin on the materials
injection relevant
national standard
are subject or specifications
to properties change where to control the variables
substrate behavioral in the testing
stress regimes
is present, to establish
indicating thatarepairs
more
objective comparison outcome.
with these materials in areas where a reopening of cracks due to settlement or vibrations is not
recommended. Epoxy-resin grout usage should be avoided in areas where chemical substances are
5. Conclusions
expected to be present. Polyurethane grout-injection materials are generally not recommended to be
usedThe
for demonstration of this concrete
repair in below-grade technicalstructures
evaluation as method that compares
a standalone material. the physical property
changes due to environmental
A decisive conclusion cannotdegradation factors
be readily madeinonbelow-grade conditions
the performance of concrete
of these structuresin
repair materials
and
this particular paper, as the evaluation was conducted using product specimens from Korea thattype
a facilitated comparison between (1) different products of the same grout-injection material were
and (2) different
already expected types of grout-injection
to have certain types of materials is made
results, as a meanspossible. As such, through
to demonstrate this evaluation
this technical evaluation
(ISO TS 16774
method. Testmaterials
If other method) andfromandifferent
objectivecompanies
comparison or of the advantages
countries were toand disadvantages
be used, different of the
results
respective materialfor
may be expected types/products
the respectivecan be quantitatively
types distinguished.
of material products (although not significantly different).
TheThe demonstration
priority of this paperof is
this
to evaluation
propose thisregime has evaluation
technical also shownand thatits
grout-injection
functionality inmaterial typesto
being able
have different response performance levels to the common degradation effects in below-grade
measure the different ratios of property changes for any given types of injection-grout repair material. concrete
structure environments and that the degrees at which these levels differ can be visually represented.
The study and analysis results in this paper presents only the data that reflects the environmental
conditions and material types most common in Korea, which limits the validity of the conclusions about
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 19 of 20

the performance of the respective material types. Nevertheless, it is hoped that this evaluation model,
or a similar regime, can be applied in future selection processes of grout-injection repair materials.

Author Contributions: B.J., X.H., and S.-k.O. conceived and designed the experiments; B.J., K.-h.O., S.-Y.K., and
X.H. performed the experiments and analyzed the data; B.J., S.-Y.K., K.-h.O., and S.-k.O. wrote the paper.
Funding: This research was funded by Residential Environment Research Program as part of Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government, grant number 19RERP-B082204-06.
Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a grant (19RERP-B082204-06) from the Residential
Environment Research Program funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of the South
Korean government.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the
decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations:
ISO International Standard Organization
KS Korean Industrial Standards
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BS EN British Standard
JIS Japanese International Standard
GB Guo Biao (Chinese International Standard)
SPRG Synthetic Polymer Rubber Gel
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

References
1. Chang, S.J. Advanced Technology of Waterproofing. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2005, 49, 57–60.
2. Oh, S.K.; Shim, J.S. Maintenance for Leakage due to Cracking in Concrete Structures-Guidelines for Repair
of Water-Leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2011, 23, 47–52.
3. Kim, D.B.; Lee, H.R.; Seo, H.J.; Park, J.S.; Oh, S.K. A Study on Guidelines and Selection Methods of Adequate
Materials for Repair of Water-Leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures. J. Korea Concr. Inst. 2011, 5, 611–612.
4. Lee, J.-H.; Song, J.-Y.; Oh, S.-K. Leakage Situation and Main Leakage Areas of Domestic Residential Building
Underground Parking Lots. J. Korean Recycl. Constr. Resour. Inst. 2016, 4, 496–503.
5. Oh, S.-K. A Study on Guidelines for the Repair of Water-Leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures. J. Korean
Inst. Constr. 2010, 10, 97–107. [CrossRef]
6. International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 71 Subcommittee 7 Working Group
3. ISO TR 16475:2011 Guidelines for the Repair of Water-leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
7. International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 71 Subcommittee 7 Working Group 3.
ISO TS 16774:2011 Parts 1–6, Guidelines for the Repair of Water-leakage Cracks in Concrete Structures; International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
8. Oh, S.K. Cause Analysis and Leakage Repair Material and Method Selection for Leakage Crack Repair.
Constr. Manag. News 2012, 4, 74–81.
9. An, K.W.; Kim, S.R.; Oh, S.K. Development and Study on the Future Employment of Waterproofing Design
Guideline for Leakage Prevention of Residential Underground Structure. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2017, 37,
1073–1074.
10. Lee, H.J.; Lee, J.H.; Kwak, K.S.; Oh, S.K. The test investigation regarding an efficiency on Leaking Repair
Materials into Injection for Water Expansion Acrylic Resin System. J. Archit. Inst. Korea 2007, 27, 643–646.
11. Bean, D.L. Epoxy-Resin Grouting of Cracks in Concrete. Department of the Army—Final Report. 1985. Available
online: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164306.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2019).
12. Korea Land & Housing Corporation. Establishment of Measures to Improve Quality of House Waterproofing
Methods for Zero Defects in Quality Management; Public Housing Project Office: Seoul, Korea, 2017; pp. 1–3.
13. Pro, Ó. Water Control using polyurethane resins. In Proceedings of the 9th International Mine Water
Association Congress, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain, 5–7 September 2005; pp. 289–293.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 1740 20 of 20

14. Ahn, D.S. A Study on the Physical Properties Change of Synthetic Rubber Polymer Gel by Using Stirring
Screw Mixer. Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University of Science and Technology, Seoul, Korea, 2015.
15. Ahn, D.S.; Oh, K.H.; Park, J.S.; Oh, S.K. Viscosity and Waterproofing Performance Evaluation of Synthetic
Polymerized Rubber Gel (SPRG) after Screw Mixing. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1989. [CrossRef]
16. Park, W.G.; Kim, S.D.; Kim, D.B.; Park, J.S.; Kim, B.I.; Oh, S.K. Error Analysis and Improvement of KS F
4935 Sealer of Injection Type for Water Leakage Maintenance of Adhesive Flexible Rubber Asphalt Series
Testing Method—Focus on Wet Substrate Surface Adhesion Performance Testing. Reg. Assoc. Archit. Inst.
Korea 2017, 19, 131–138.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).