Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Influence of early water exposure on modified cementitious coating

Mazen J. Al-Kheetan , Mujib M. Rahman, Denis A. Chamberlain
Division of Civil Engineering, Brunel University London, Kingston Ln, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom

h i g h l i g h t s

 Comparison between crystalline cementitious coating and polymer cementitious coating.

 The effect of early exposure to water on both materials was assessed.
 Main tests includes pull-off strength and water quality.
 Water quality range was good to excellent at all curing times for both materials.
 Crystalline coating is better at preventing water ingress than the polymer coating.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Treating concrete surfaces with cementitious coating, especially those are used as a reservoir for potable
Received 24 November 2016 and recreational water, is increasingly gaining popularity as a safer and better alternative to conventional
Received in revised form 27 February 2017 coating material formulated from epoxies, urethanes, acrylics and polyureas. Despite good resistance to
Accepted 28 February 2017
weathering, scratches and loads, deficient curing of cementitious coating can lead to reduced perfor-
Available online 8 March 2017
mance and undesirable release of pollutants from the coating to water. In this study, the performance
of a dual crystalline cementitious coating, which combines hydroscopic (water combining) and
Keywords:
hydrophobic (water chasing) properties, for concrete protection was evaluated in an attempt to evaluate
Cementitious coating
Crystalline
whether water affinity of the material can overcome the issue of reduced performance. The results were
Polymer compared with a polymer modified cementitious coating. The influence of early exposure to water, after
Concrete 24 h of curing, was assessed by coating pull-off testing and level of pollutants for the first 21-days. The
Water quality water quality was found good to excellent according to World Health Organization (WHO) standard
Adhesion at all curing times for both materials with no surface cracking or other defects were noted. The crystalline
Pull-off strength coating needed 120240 h for optimum curing, whilst polymeric coating needed 72. In terms of pull-off
Swimming pools strength, the polymer coatings on the rough and smooth substrates yielded results greater than 1-MPa
Water tanks
after 120-h curing, while crystalline coating took 240-h. However, compared to polymeric coating, the
crystalline coating absorbed less water thought out the test duration, indicating that good overall
performance.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A layer of surface coating is an effective way of protecting and
enhancing the durability of new and existing concrete structures
[9,16]. The term coating is often used broadly to refer any liquid
or semi-solid material applied to cured concrete. However, it is
very difficult to choose the right type of protection material as
wide range of coating is available in the market and even similar
generic types can possess considerably different characteristics [1].
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Mazen.Al-kheetan@Brunel.ac.uk (M.J. Al-Kheetan), Mujib.
Rahman@Brunel.ac.uk (M.M. Rahman), Denis.Chamberlain@Brunel.ac.uk (D.A.
Chamberlain).
The most commonly used concrete coatings fall under or are
hybrids of four basic polymer categories: epoxies, urethanes,
acrylics and polyureas. Some of these variations may contain high
amount of volatile organic compound (VOC) and if not controlled,
can be potentially harmful. As an alternative, cementitious and
modified cementitious based waterproofing are gaining increasing
popularity as they provide better resistance against water, weath-
ering, scratches and loads as well as blends well with concrete. In
addition, cementitious coating is less susceptible to temperature,
and is suitable to apply in water retaining structures like water
tanks, wet rooms, swimming pools, reservoirs and as a protective
system for reinforced concrete, preventing reinforcement corro-
sion [17,2,11,6].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.159
0950-0618/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.J. Al-Kheetan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471
Despite the long history, cementitious protective coating often
shows variable performance due to inappropriate material selec-
tion, poor application method including insufficient curing, humid-
ity or a combination of all above [18,5,19,13,12]. Failure of coating
typically manifests itself as cracking in the coating material and/or
delamination of the substrate concrete, largely a consequence of
non-uniform volume changes under restrained conditions. The
performance of coatings also varies with the exposure conditions
and failure from within the coating, i.e. between the multiple coat-
ings that have been applied [10,4].
Reiterman and Paszderka [15] studied the effect of crystalline
treatment in construction joints. In the mentioned study, authors
were able to measure water absorption of treated samples at dif-
ferent points from the surface, and they were successful in bringing
down water absorption rates in the construction joints region. In
another recent research, Pazderka and Hajkova [14] studied the
time it takes a crystalline coating to start performing in an efficient
way. Water permeability of treated concrete was conducted at dif-
ferent periods from day 3 until day 28 from casting. The results
showed that the extreme efficacy of waterproofing starts after
12 days from casting.
2. Research objectives
Owner and operators of water tanks and swimming pools often
need to make a decision for an early commissioning of the facility
to avoid disruption, economic and social consequences. This raises
the possibility of inferior performance from the surface treatment
and undesirable release of water pollutants. The key question
raises that what should be the optimum time to open the facility
without compromising the performance of coating and quality of
water. Issues like coating performance, assessed by coating pull-
of testing, and water quality, assessed by the level of unacceptable
chemical and particulate content are key objectives of this
research. The latter is referenced to World Health Authority water
quality standards. The driver for this research is early delivery of
facilities to the client. Two modified cementitious coating, a crys-
talline and a polymeric variation, were applied on concrete speci-
mens and then submerged in water after 24 h of coating
application. The dispersion of pollutants, pull off strength of coat-
ing and water absorption up to 21 days, were determined. The
intensity of leachates was compared against the criteria set by
WHO.
3. Experimentation
3.1. Sample preparation
A C40 concrete was chosen as this grade concrete is normally
used in this type of application. In total, 24 concrete slabs
(225 mm  225 mm  40 mm) was manufactured. The specimens
were grouped into two groups (as shown in Table 1), 12 specimens
with rough surface (group A) and 12 with smooth surface (group
B). The rough surface was obtained by removing laitance of the slab
by a needle gun. The twelve slabs from groups A & B are then
divided equally for applying the polymer coating and the crys-
talline coating, i.e. 6A = polymer and 6A = crystalline, likewise with
Table 1
Sample preparation.
Material Surface finish
Rough
Crystalline (C) 6 Group A
Polymer (P) 6 6
65
group B. Specimens are identified as C1A1: crystalline coating with
rough surface preparation and so on.
3.2. Material description and application
Briefly, crystalline waterproofing is a non- hazardous mixture of
cement, fine treated silica, sand and an active proprietary chemical
mixed with water. Dual crystalline material combines hydroscopic
(water combining) and hydrophobic (water chasing) properties for
concrete protection. The combine action helps the coating more
tolerant to internal moisture, pressure damage and defends against
freeze-thaw attack. On the other hand, Polymer coating is a non-
toxic waterproofing applied as liquid dispersions or as a re-
dispersible powder in a dry mortar mixture. It is formed from syn-
thetic resins, silica sands, and cement. It is worth mentioning that
both materials are sensitive to temperatures lower than 5 C, so it
is better to apply them to surfaces with temperatures higher than
5 C.
The general properties and the application method of two
tested materials are shown in Table 2.
The quantity of polymer material was adjusted in the small area
of coverage required; 1/5th water was mixed with approximately
2.5 kg polymer powder, as per manufacturers instruction. The sub-
strate was cleaned thoroughly and then wet with distilled water
for approximately two hours prior the application of material.
The slurry was then applied by a brush to a thickness in the range
0.5 mm1.0 mm is achieved. The second coat was applied after
24 h to achieve a total thickness of approximately 2 mm. The mate-
rial was applied within 20 min to avoid setting and precaution was
taken to avoid contamination. A ratio to 3:1 crystalline powder and
distilled water were used to make the mixture to make 2 mm coat
for six slabs. The preparation and application process was similar
to polymer coating. The coated slabs are shown in Figs. 1a and
1b, where all the surfaces of the slabs are treated with the polymer
and crystalline coatings.
3.3. Testing
All 24 slabs were weighted and then submerged in individual
boxes filled with the same amount of water in each box. The test-
ing sequences involved, taking out four specimens (C1A, C1B, P1A
and P1B) after 24 h, measure water quality, dry up the specimen
and weigh again. Finally, perform pull-off test on a specimen for
coating properties. Similar sequences are followed at 72, 120,
240, 308 and 408 h.
3.4. Measurement
The effect of curing on water quality in terms of total dissolved
solids (TDS) was compared against the criteria set by the World
Health organisation (WHO) for drinking water [20]. TDS is a repre-
sentation of the total concentration of dissolved substances in
water consisting of inorganic salts and a small quantity of organic
matter. The inorganic salts contain a mixture of anions and cations.
Anions produce a negative charge and stem from compounds such
as carbonates, nitrates, bicarbonates, chlorides and sulphates.
Cations produce a positive charge, in the form of elements such
Smooth
6 Group B
66 M.J. Al-Kheetan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471

Table 2 Table 3
General description of the material. TDS quality rating [20].

Material Form Application Mixture Level of TDS (mg/l) Rating

texture
<300 Excellent
Crystalline Powder, gray (water added) Medium- Non-viscous 300600 Good
hard brush lump free 600900 Fair
liquid 9001200 Poor
Polymer 2 components slurry white Medium- Viscous lump >1200 Unacceptable
(liquid and powder) hard brush free slurry

total dissolved solids (TDS), salinity and temperature. When uti-

lised for water testing, the meter measures the electrical charge
emitted in the water sample, displaying the results in either
micro-Siemens (lS) or milli-siemens (mS). The correct method of
measuring the TDS in a water sample is to evaporate the water
to weigh particulate matter. However, because this is impractical
for the majority of the time, the EC meter converts the EC measure-
ments to TDS, which is measured in Parts per Million (ppm) for
three scales. The three scales are:

1. KCl Potassium Chloride, this is the international standard to

calibrate the instruments that measure conductivity. The
COM-100 is factory calibrated at 1413 lS.
2. 442TM it provides the ability to simulate natural water prop-
erties, such as lakes, wells, potable water and rivers. The combi-
nation characteristics are; 40% Sodium Bicarbonate, 40%
Sodium Sulfate and 20% Chloride.
3. NaCl Sodium Chloride, used in water whose properties resem-
ble NaCl e.g. seawater and brackish water and in water that is
dominated by NaCl ions.

The COM-100 has an inbuilt Automatic Temperature Compen-

Fig. 1a. Polymer coating. sation (ATC) to provide a true reading of what it would be at
25 C. The reason for this is the relationship between temperature,
EC and TDS is directly proportional, hence, as one raises so does the
other and vice versa (HM [8].
Other tests include the pull off test according to ASTM D4541
[3] to evaluate the pull off strength of the coating and moisture
measurement using Protimeter MMS2 moisture meter [7] to eval-
uate the surface and sub-surface drying process. The testing was
conducted over 31 days once the curing period is completed. The
moisture meter displays the %WME (Wood Moisture Equivalent)
when taking readings of surface moisture, by using the pins or
probes.

4. Result

4.1. Water quality

The EC and TDS values to be investigated are KCl, NaCl and

Fig. 1b. crystalline coating.
as calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium. The WHO recom-
mended values for TDS be shown in Table 3.
An assessment of the quantity of coating leached into the water
was tested using an electrical conductivity (EC) meter EC-100 to
442TM. The initial reading was taken with plain water to deter-
mine base level PPM and EC values. The values were measured
as KCL: 5.9, NaCl: 5.5, 442TM: 7.5, and corresponding EC: 1.2. Sub-
sequently, the testing was carried out on each specimen at differ-
ent stages of curing and the results from both groups X and Y are
presented in Figs. 2a2d.
The results showed that the TDS trend (KCl, NaCl & 442TM) fol-
lows the same pattern as the EC. This is because, as mentioned
before, TDS is calculated through an estimated conversion of the
EC value. For simplicity, in this section, KCl & NaCl are treated very
similarly, given there is only a maximum of 3.7% difference
between the two at any given time, hence 442TM will be compared
to them, which is the potable water reading.
It can be seen that irrespective of surface preparation, crys-
talline coating demonstrates a uniform decrease over time
(Figs. 2a and 2c). The 442TM reading, which is used for assessing
 M.J. Al-Kheetan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471 67

KCl NaCl 442 EC KCL NaCl 442 EC

700 700
Water Quality (PPM)

600 600

Water Quality (PPM)

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
24 72 120 240 308 408 24 72 120 240 308 408
Time (Hours) Time (Hours)

Fig. 2a. Trend in TDS over a period of 408 h for crystalline coating applied on Fig. 2d. Trend in TDS over a period of 408 h for polymer coating applied to smooth
laitance removed substrates. substrates.

KCL NaCl 442 EC for 442TM. This is a decrease of 61 ppm in comparison to crys-
700 tallines 31 ppm decrease in the same time frame.
It appears that, in the first 72 h, the crystalline coating cured
600 half the rate than that of the polymer coating. Between 72 and
Water Quality (PPM)

500 120 h, the 442TM change is very minimal (5 ppm decrease), but
when the hours doubled from 120 to 240, the ppm sharply
400 decreases again by up to 50 ppm. It is also from this point onwards
300 the gap between 442TM and KCl and NaCl narrows from 55 ppm
different at the start to 17 ppm difference in the end.
200 In terms of PPM, it can be seen that the values of ppm in poly-
100 meric coating are much lower than a crystalline coating. Another
way of looking at this difference is that the polymer coating
0 demonstrates lower ppm values ranging from a factor of 1.83.0
24 72 120 240 308 408
Time (Hours) over the course of testing. A level of 215 ppm of 442TM and even
lower values for KCl and NaCl after 24 h shows the polymer coating
Fig. 2b. Trend in TDS over a period of 408 h for polymer coating applied on laitance is a likely candidate in terms of opening the facility at an early
removed substrates. stage.

4.2. Curing period

KCL NaCl 442 EC
700
With regards to at which point significant decreases can be
600 seen, it is interesting to see that for the crystalline coating, the big-
Water Quality (PPM)

gest change happened at about half way through the test period of
500
120240 h. It is likely due to the nature of the processes involved in
400 the hydration of crystals into the substrate. The more time it has to
cure, the more pronounced the network of crystals would be in the
300
pores and capillaries. However, the polymer coating shows a sig-
200 nificant decrease in the early stages and in a faster time (2472 h).

100
0
24 72 120 240 308
Time (Hours)
Fig. 2c. Trend in TDS over a period of 408 h for crystalline coating applied to
smooth substrates.
the quality of potable water, was 384 ppm, was considerably
higher than KCl and NaCl by almost 100 ppm. This is true until
120 h. From this point onwards, the difference continues to
decrease to around 50 ppm at the end. Moreover, between 120
and 240 h, a large decrease in TDS can be seen of about 50 ppm.
From the outset, all readings are below 500 ppm. In contrast,
noticeably, for polymeric coating, the trend of TDS is generally a
considerably sudden decline as the curing time increases. The poly-
mer appears to have taken to the substrate rapidly in the first 72 h,
indicated by the substantial decrease from 215 ppm to 154 ppm
4.3. Effect of surface texture on water quality
408
For these tests 1litre water from the 24 simulation boxes were
passed through 150 mm diameter dry filter papers, representing
the difference in ppm over the 408-h period. Each paper was oven
dried before and after so the particulate mass can be calculated and
visually observed. The PPM results across the 408-h testing period
are shown in Figs. 3a and 3b. It can be seen that all values are
below 500 ppm, demonstrated that safe level of pollutants and
therefore the facility may be opened after 24 h.
It can be seen that irrespective of surface preparation, poly-
meric coating performed better than crystalline coating at all
stages of curing. In terms of surface preparation, at the initial stage
of curing, the smooth textured substrate has marginally higher
PPM for both materials, although the PPM values are similar to
increasing curing period.
It is important to note that the visual observation of the filter
paper showed that the amount of particulate matter in the crys-
68 M.J. Al-Kheetan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471

Crystalline Polymer Crystalline Polymer

200 3

Average Tensile Strength (MPa)

150.1 2.5
150 130.2
120.5 2.2
2
PPM

100 85.1 1.62 1.6

105.6 70 60.3 1.5 1.44 1.36
1.26
50 68.9 65.3 1 1.04
0.94
0.84
38.5 35.4 32.1 0.64 0.7
0.5
0 0.32
24 72 120 240 308 408
0
Time (hours) 24 72 120 240 308 408

Fig. 3a. PPM on rough substrate.

Time (hour)

Fig. 4a. Average tensile strength of crystalline vs polymer coating rough substrate.

Crystalline Polymer
200 180.4 Crystalline Polymer

151.9 3
150

Average Tensile Strength (MPa)

120.2 2.5
PPM

100 124 90.8

107.8 80.4 2
69.3
85.3 1.66
1.5 1.5
50 1.36
49.1 1.2 1.28
44.3 39.8 1.16
1 0.92 0.96
0 0.74 0.78
24 72 120 240 308 408 0.42
0.5 0.46
Time (hours)
0
Fig. 3b. PPM on rough substrate. 24 72 120 240 308 408
Time (Hours)

talline coating was less compared to polymeric coating and the Fig. 4b. Average tensile strength of crystalline vs polymer coating smooth
longest the coating has had to cure prior to the 24-h simulation, substrate.
the less the particulate matter is visible. In addition, more particu-
late matter can be seen in the rough substrate than the smooth
substrate. This may be due to the uneven texture of the rough sub- increasing farther at a slower but steady rate. Between 308 and
strate, creating points of inflexion on the coating, making it more 408 h, there is another sharp increase from 1.62 MPa to 2.2 MPa.
susceptible to break up from due to hydration. In general, polymer has stronger adhesion values than crystalline
and between 24 and 72 h, both materials show values below the
threshold value 1mpa on average and. It took approximately
4.4. Pull-off strength 120 h for polymer coating and 308 h for crystalline to achieve
one MPa. This indicates that a facility can resume service faster
This test consisted of five pull-off tests on each specimen for all with the polymer coating.
24 samples, to provide a reliable statistical average in terms of pull Analyses of Figs. 5a and 5b show a mixed set of results regard-
off strength and the type of failure at each interface through visual ing the type of interface failure on the crystalline and in polymer
assessment to evaluate how adhesion of the coating and substrate
changes over the 408-h period. The average tensile strength on
individual cases conducted at different stages of curing as shown
in Figs. 4a and 4b.
During the first 24-h curing time, crystalline coating has
strength of 0.64 MPa, twice that of the polymer. A possible reason
as to why the crystalline coating has given a better tensile strength
than the polymer after 24 h could be down to the reduction of
polymers elastic properties due to the viscous nature of the mate-
rial in wet condition. This may also explain the polymer pieces pre-
sent in the filter paper test. On the other hand, as mentioned
before, the crystalline coating requires moisture for it to work
effectively, thus, at depth, i.e. closer to the surface of the substrate;
there should have been some degree of crystallization in the capil-
laries and pores hence, the higher tensile strength.
However, from 72 h onwards the polymer coating surpassed the
crystalline with a sharp increase from 0.32 MPa to 0.94 MPa before Fig. 5a. Crystalline coating.
 M.J. Al-Kheetan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471 69

Fig. 5b. Polymeric coating.

coating. However, it would appear that the substrate-to-coating Fig. 6a. Crystallinity of crystalline coating after 1 day of application under 800
magnification.
failure is more prevalent in the polymer based system, and
coating-to-coating failure in the crystalline system.
By comparing the pull off strengths of the coatings on both
types of substrate, the results show the laitance-removed substrate
lends a higher degree of adhesion to the coating system. In partic-
ular, the polymer possesses a greater tensile strength than the
crystalline coating, perhaps due to its elastic nature, giving it a
plastic modulus, which the crystalline coating may not have or to
a much lesser degree. Finally, concerning interfacial failure, the
crystalline system exhibits coating-to-coating failure on a regular
basis because of its strength coming from the crystallization at
depth. Meaning the substrate-to-coating bonding is going to per-
form a lot stronger than the coating-to-coating interface where
the distance is further from the substrate and the main form of
adhesion would be the crystals interlocking outside of the pore
and capillary network.
On the other hand, a proposition as to why the polymer coating
commonly demonstrates substrate-to-coating failure, maybe
because the system acts as one once it has sufficiently cured, and
it would be more difficult for a thick slurry to cover as much sur-
face area as the less viscous crystalline coating does. Thus, acting
more as a uniform layer over the substrate, once all the polymer Fig. 6b. Crystallinity of crystalline coating after 30 days of application under 800
chains have interconnected there is effective adhesion within the magnification (White crystals).
system.

4.5. Crystallisation observing under scanning microscope

Crystalline and polymer coatings were observed under micro-

scope with an 800 magnification and under the Scanning Electron
Microscope (SEM) with a 1000 magnification. Both coatings were
observed after 1-day and the 30-day period, respectively, to check
for crystal formation on the surface of concrete after applying the
coatings. Concrete with crystalline coating after 1 and 30 days of
applying the coating is shown in Figs. 6a6c, where crystals can
be easily spotted after 30 days with rough texture on the surface.
On the other hand, polymeric coating (Figs. 6d6f) show a concrete
with more smooth surface but little evidence of crystallinity even
after 30 days of application. The study indicated that the crys-
talline coating contained more separate individual particles,
whereas the polymer coating was an amalgamated large coating
structure.
It is worth mentioning that this kind of analysis were carried
out for crystallising materials, previously, but with higher magnifi-
cations, between 10000X and 25000X, to study the shape of crys-
tals [14]. This study proved that treated concrete with crystalline Fig. 6c. Crystallinity of crystalline coating after 30 days of application under SEM
admixtures forms needle shaped crystals. 1000 magnification.
70 M.J. Al-Kheetan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471

Crystalline rough Polymer rough

5

Substrate Water Absorption (%)

4

0
24 72 120 240 308 408
Time (Hours)

Fig. 7a. Crystalline vs. polymer coating rough.

Fig. 6d. Polymer coating for concrete after 1 day of application under 800 Crystalline smooth Polymer smooth
magnification. 5

Substrate Water Absorption (%)

4

0
24 72 120 240 308 408
Time (Hours)

Fig. 7b. Crystalline vs. polymer coating smooth.

4.6. Substrate water absorption

Fig. 6e. Polymer coating for concrete after 30 days of application under 800
magnification.
Fig. 6f. Polymer coating for concrete after 30 days of application under SEM 1000
magnification.
All samples from group A and group B were weighed before and
after the water box simulation test. The purpose of this secondary
test is to provide indication which waterproof coating absorbs the
least amount of water when subject to hydrostatic head and water
repelling properties. Figs. 7a and 7b show the comparisons of the
mass of water absorbed between the crystalline and polymer sub-
strates with and without laitance removed, as well as the loss in
water from the water box as confirmation of absorption.
By the end of the final curing period, the crystalline coating has
absorbed 4 times less water than it did after 24 h and 6.5 times less
water than the polymer coating after 408 h. However, between 120
and 240 h crystallization appears to plateau. The polymer coating
managed to absorb 1.5 times less water than it did at the start. It
can also be seen that the mass of water lost after the 24 h sub-
merges exhibits a continuous decrease from test to test, confirming
both systems are maturing as time passes.
Fig. 7b illustrates the similar general trend, which shows com-
pared to polymeric coating; the performance of crystalline water-
proof is better. Again, by the end of the testing, the crystalline
coating has prevented almost 4 times ingress, as it did after 24 h,
and nearly 8 times less than the polymer coating after 408 h of cur-
ing. The polymer managed to prevent twice as much water ingress
as it did from the start to end of the testing for crystalline coating.
The loss in water mass test-to-test decreases in line with the
absorption results, as evidence of the coatings becoming stronger
as time passes. As aforementioned, laitance removal has an influ-
ence on the waterproof coating reaching its full potential. Both
the crystalline and polymer systems absorbed less water on the
 M.J. Al-Kheetan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 141 (2017) 6471
rough substrate. However, the difference between the two crys-
talline substrates are fairly small as it will always penetrate the
pore and capillary network, testament to this is the identical value
obtained of 0.012 kg of water absorbed by the end of the test.
Throughout, Fig. 7b shows the polymer coating bonded to the
smooth substrate absorbed more water than the rough substrate
as shown in Fig. 7a.
5. Conclusions
A number of conclusions on water quality and pull off strength
that are drawn from this investigation are listed below:
5.1. Water quality
1. At all curing hours, the polymer coating leaches significantly
less particulate into the water, this is true for both rough (with-
out laitance) and smooth (with laitance) substrate.
2. Irrespective of coating time, the value of TDS was below
500 ppm throughout testing, with the highest value
(433 ppm) stemming after 24 h of curing of the crystalline coat-
ing bonded to the laitance substrate. Based on the decrease in
ppm between 120 and 240 h, the crystalline coating demon-
strates significant crystallization; this is true for both surface
preparations.
3. In light of the above statement, after 308 h of curing, the TDS
emitted by the crystalline coating bonded to both substrates
is still higher than their respective polymer counterparts are
after 24 h of curing.
4. The effect of surface preparation hindered the polymer coating
more than the crystalline. On both substrates, the crystalline
coating exhibited very similar trends. Whereas the polymer
coating had a concaved shape for the first three tests, signaling
it was not as effective in taking to the laitance substrate as it
was to the laitance free.
5.2. Pull off strength
1. Apart from the first 24 h, the polymer coating exhibited greater
tensile properties for the remainder of the test. After 120 h of
curing both polymer coatings on the rough and smooth sub-
strates yielded results greater than 1 MPa. However, after
240 h of curing, (which is also the point of significant crystal-
lization,) the crystalline coating has a tensile strength greater
than 1 MPa.
2. Cohesive failure is more common in the crystalline system,
whereas adhesive failure is pronounced in a polymer system.
Crystalline coating is better at preventing water ingress than
the polymer, regardless of surface preparation.
3. The latency free substrate provides a greater degree of adhe-
sion, thus optimizing the waterproofing properties, because of
this, the lower ppm results are obtained from both coatings
compared to when the latency has been left on.
71
4. Despite providing adequate values for TDS after 24 h of curing,
qualitative evidence still suggests that the polymer coating is
not suitable to use at this stage, as the swelling and cracking
(resulting in coating-to-coating failure) is too significant. There-
fore, 72 h of curing appears sufficient, where promising TDS val-
ues of 154 ppm have been achieved and the average tensile
strength is 0.96 MPa, which is below the 1 MPa thresholds.
However, a maximum value of 1.2 MPa has obtained. Alterna-
tively, the projected trend indicates after 96 h of curing, the
average tensile strength would be greater than 1 MPa.
5. Crystals takes time to mature in the crystalline coating, it is
expected that the performance of this material will enhance
with when in contact with water for longer time.
References
[1] J. Aguiar, P.M. Moreira, P. Lukowski, L. Czarnecki, A. Cames, D.v. Gemert,
Ranking procedure for polymeric coatings and hydrophobic agents for
concrete protection, Restor. Build. Monuments 13 (4) (2007) 251264.
[2] A. Almusallam, F. Khan, S. Dulaijan, O. Al-Amoudi, Effectiveness of surface
coatings in improving concrete durability, Cem. Concr. Compos. 25 (4) (2003)
473481.
[3] D. ASTM, 4541, Standard Test Method for Pull-Off Strength of Coatings Using
Portable Adhesion Testers, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[4] L. Baltazar, J. Santana, B. Lopes, M.P. Rodrigues, J.R. Correia, Surface skin
protection of concrete with silicate-based impregnations: influence of the
substrate roughness and moisture, Constr. Build. Mater. 70 (2014) 191200.
[5] T. Biggins, Waterproofing Underground Concrete Structures, 1990.
[6] M. Diamanti, A. Brenna, F. Bolzoni, M. Berra, T. Pastore, M. Ormellese, Effect of
polymer modified cementitious coatings on water and chloride permeability in
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 720728.
[7] GE measurement and control, 2015, Protimeter MMS Available at: http://
www.ge-mcs.com/pt/protimeter-mms-2.html (Accessed: June/29 2016).
[8] HM Digital, I., Users Guide COM-100, EC/TDS/Temperature Meter, 2005.
[9] P. Kreijger, The skin of concrete composition and properties, Matr. Constr. 17
(4) (1984) 275283.
[10] H. Lutz, Waterproofing with Cementitious Slurries, 2005.
[11] M.K. Moradllo, M. Shekarchi, M. Hoseini, Time-dependent performance of
concrete surface coatings in tidal zone of marine environment, Constr. Build.
Mater. 30 (2012) 198205.
[12] P.M. Moreira, J. Aguiar, A. Cames, Systems for superficial protection of
concretes, 2006.
[13] D. Park, Carbonation of concrete in relation to CO2 permeability and
degradation of coatings, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (11) (2008) 22602268.
[14] J. Pazderka, E. Hajkova, The speed of the crystalline admixtures waterproofing
effect in concrete, Key Eng. Mater. 722 (2017) 108112.
[15] P. Reiterman, J. Paszderka, Crystalline coating and its influence on the water
transport in concrete, Adv. Civ. Eng. 2016 (2016) 18.
[16] RILEM, Technical Committee TC 116-PCD, Performance criteria for concrete
durability: state-of-the-art report prepared by RILEM Technical Committee TC
116-PCD, Performance of Concrete as a Criterion of its Durability, E & FN Spon,
London, 1995.
[17] H. Saricimen, M. Maslehuddin, A. Iob, O.A. Eid, Evaluation of a surface coating
in retarding reinforcement corrosion, Constr. Build. Mater. 10 (7) (1996) 507
513.
[18] A. Vaysburd, N. Carino, B. Bissonnette, Predicting the Performance of Concrete
Repair Materials, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Durham,
New Hampshire, 1999.
[19] J. Warner, Concrete Durability Lessons Learned From Past Performance,
Concrete 95 Toward Better Concrete Structures, 1995.
[20] World Health Organization, Guidelines for drinking-water quality, vol 2,
Health criteria and other supporting information, 2nd ed., World Health
Organization, 1996.