See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/306200383

Spray Applied Waterproofing Membranes-Key Success Factors and

Development of Efficient Sprayed Concrete Tunnel Linings

Conference Paper · September 2011

CITATIONS READS

5 2,100

3 authors, including:

Jiang Su
Ramboll
22 PUBLICATIONS   96 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Tideway Central Section Design Contract C410 View project

The performance of composite sprayed concrete lined tunnels using sprayed waterproofing membrane in soft ground View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jiang Su on 26 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SPRAY APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANES:KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
AND DEVELOPMENT OF EFFICIENT SPRAYED CONCRETE TUNNEL LININGS

Ross Dimmock,
Tam-Normet, Europe and Middle East
Bethan Haig,
Tam-Normet, UK
Jiang Su,
Southampton University and Mott MacDonald, UK

This technical paper provides a thorough review of the critical success factors for spray
applied waterproofing systems adoption in modern sprayed concrete tunnel linings. The
critical review is based on the experience of the authors in the design and construction of
sprayed concrete tunnel linings using spray applied waterproofing membranes on recent high
profile projects both in the UK and internationally. Furthermore, through the authors’ role in
compiling the specifications for the Crossrail project in London and British Tunnelling
Society Specification, insight into up to date material requirements to provide an assured
outcome on tunnel sites is provided. Property requirements described include physical
performance, substrate condition and also safety considerations and quality regimes.

Through research and development between Mott MacDonald design engineers and
Southampton University, the paper gives an update on the design of permanent sprayed
concrete tunnel linings, and the potential benefits possible through understanding of spray
applied waterproofing membrane systems. The paper highlights the unique properties and
testing that is required to optimise the important physical interface between spray applied
waterproofing membranes and concrete linings.

WHY SPRAY APPLIED MEMBRANES?

The technology of spray applied waterproofing membranes has developed in order to respond
to the demands of tunnel designers, constructors and, most particularly owners. It is an often
repeated fact that the costs of constructing a tunnel are but a small percentage of the costs of
running and maintaining the structure over the course of its life, particularly when battling the
ingress of water.

Sheet waterproofing membranes allow the movement of water behind a lining, w hich has
several knock on effects:

 The source of a leak can be hard to trace, even with compartmentalisation, and
treatment may have to be over a large area to ensure it has been found
 The new structure, whilst dry inside, can become a conduit for the transfer of water to
where it is not wanted; particularly an issue for shafts and inclined tunnels such as
escalators, bringing water from a higher aquifer through lower impermeable strata.

By using a waterproofing membrane that bonds to both the substrate, often the primary
sprayed concrete lining, and to the subsequent concrete layers, this movement of water can be
avoided, making it easier to maintain the structure and minimise the impact on the
groundwater profile local to the structure in the long term.
With cities all over the world realising the advantages of using underground space as a
solution for public and private transport and utilities, there has been an increase in the use of
sprayed concrete technologies for the construction of complex structures, with regularly
changing geometry such as stations, crossovers, cross passages and various tunnel junctions
[1, 2]. The construction of such assets is often restricted for time and space, and increasingly
these days, using limited resources of skilled labour. The use of spray applied waterproofing
membranes has been found to be a benefit with respect to many of these dr ivers during
construction.

The robotic spraying rigs used for the installation of the sprayed concrete primary lining can,
[3] with additional training to adapt to the differences in materials and thicknesses, be used
by the same construction team that is already working in the tunnel to install spray applied
waterproofing membranes. This reduces the amount of equipment that needs to be invested in
and brought into the working area; minimising the health and safety risks associated with
large plant movements in these comparatively congested sites while increasing flexibility in
the management of construction and reducing dead time. The application of the membrane is
not impacted by complex geometry, and so a seamless membrane can be installed around
corners and at junctions and intersections, often where the performance of a waterproofing
system is most critical.

When assessing the risks of tunnel design and construction, as with all forms of construction,
one of the main aims is to reduce the number of falls from height, which remains the number
one source of major injury and fatalities in the industry. Use of robotic spraying equipment
reduces the amount of time that must be spent at height significantly, and completely
removes the need to handle heavy equipment and carry out work such as welding and shot
firing at height. For membranes that require a visual inspection, the need for personnel to be
at height cannot be completely removed, but they need carry no more than surveyor paint,
using similar equipment as will have been used to install surveying targets during primary
lining construction.

The key final advantage of the spray applied waterproofing membrane is the facilitation of
the use of sprayed concrete for the internal, secondary lining of the structure. The complex
geometries that prove problematic for sheet membrane installation are also unsuited to the
use of large shutters and cast in situ secondary linings. The spray applied waterproofing
membrane however, being bonded to the primary lining, forms the perfect stable substrate for
a sprayed lining, which again uses the same equipment and personnel that are already on site,
increasing flexibility and efficiency during the construction process.

The use of a sprayed secondary lining,[4] that can follow the form of the primary lining
without the need for additional shutter tolerances or the need to minimise the number of
shapes to reduce the cost of bespoke shuttering, can allow for the maximum efficiency in
lining shape and thickness. In addition there are the possibilities of the primary and secondary
linings working together as one permanent, composite lining, reducing the costs of
excavation and installation of the lining.
WATERPROOFING PERFORMANCE

Before trying to achieve its potential to produce more efficient tunnel linings, the spray
applied waterproofing membrane must first be an effective tool to preventing water ingress
inside the structure. Well installed sprayed concrete will often have a permeability to water of
less than 50mm. The ingress of water is often at the joints between construction advances or
at the junctions between structures, particularly if those structures settle differently over time.
As with the flow of water in rock, water travels through the cracks in a primary lining rather
than through the material itself, and that is why an additional waterproofing membrane is
required.

The membrane must therefore, as a minimum:

 Bond sufficiently to the substrate

 Be impermeable to water
 Be capable of bridging lining cracks, both those present before its installation and
those that may develop over the life of the structure
 Be safe to install in the tunnel environment.

The bond to the substrate is required to prevent water pressure behind the membrane pushing
it up from the substrate and allowing the free movement of water behind the membrane. It
also allows for the construction of the sprayed secondary lining, as when the freshly applied
concrete is installed, the weight should not be able to pull the membrane a way from the
substrate. A typical bond strength of 0.5MPa [5] is considered to be the minimum required
from pull-off testing to ensure that these requirements can be met, if the secondary lining is to
be installed a not significant amount of time after the installation of the membrane.

The nature of the bond between the membrane and a sprayed concrete substrate will depend
upon the materials and application method of each particular product. In the case of Ethylene
Vinyl Acetate membranes (also known as EVA), based on the copolymer of ethylene and
vinyl acetates, the bonding performance to cementitious substrates is in part due to the
chemical interaction between the two materials. The acetate groups of the EVA copolymer
may undergo alkaline hydrolysis and interact with calcium ions (present in both fresh and
hardened concrete) to form calcium acetate salt [6]. This may lead to an organic- inorganic
bond between the acetate in the polymer and calcium in the sprayed concrete substrate and
correspondingly to any cementitious layer subsequently added over the top of the membrane
also.

The permeability of the membrane to water should be zero and should be tested at pressures
representative of the conditions that shall be experienced in the structure in-situ. If there is
likely to be significant variation in the thickness of the installed membrane, or a change in the
thickness of the membrane over the course of its life, it is important to ensure that the
membrane at its thinnest installed thickness still performs to the required standard.
 Spray applied
membrane

Figure 1: BS EN 12390-8:2000 test method altered for examining the performance of spray
applied waterproofing membranes

The ability of the cured membrane to bridge lining cracks that may appear due to movements
consequential to the curing process, settlement and thermal effects is critical to the long term
impermeability of a structure. Although the development of these cracks should be minimised
during design and construction, and should never reach 2mm [5], this has been found to be a
suitable value to demonstrate the crack bridging properties of the membrane in a static tensile
test or similar. Care should again be taken to ensure that if the thickness of the membrane is a
critical factor in the membranes’ ability to reach this requirement, that the thickness is
reflected in the construction process.

Figure 2: A 2.16mm thick sample of TamSeal 800 Spray Applied waterproofing membrane
bridging a 2mm crack in its substrate. The crack was introduced post curing of the membrane
and could be increased to 4mm without rupturing the membrane.
The design should consider areas of the underground structure that are prone to cracking,
such as changes in profile or at structure intersections. In these locations additional measures
to limit crack widths should be detailed and, for additional confidence additional thicknesses
or types of membrane to cater for cracking of the lining structure during the operational life
should also be put forward.

In addition to safety, which will be tackled in the next section of this paper, there are some
additional requirements which will help with the selection of the most s uitable tunnel
membrane, including:

 Ability to deal with water ingress

 Requirements for tunnel conditions during application
 Speed of installation and curing
 Method for rectifying problems and repairing damage.

Almost all spray applied waterproofing membranes available for use in tunnels at this time
require that the substrate not have active water ingress during installation of the lining.
Methods for achieving this include use of drainage strips, grouting [7] and application of
alternative fast curing material to provide short term relief. The spray applied membrane that
is installed must therefore be compatible with these techniques. It should also be noted that
the amount of active water ingress expected sho uld be carefully assessed before adopting a
spray applied waterproofing membrane solution, as the conditions may dictate the use of
systematic pre- injection with micro-cements or be more suited to a sheet membrane solution
[8].

The quality of the installed membrane will be dependent on the preparation of the substrate
and the conditions in the tunnel during application, as will be discussed in further detail later
in this paper, but the limits on how well this can be achieved need to be recognised when
choosing a suitable membrane. If the membrane cannot be installed unless the substrate
surface has been smoothed to a plaster, or float, finish, the time and effort involved could be
considered as disproportionate to the benefits of a spray applied waterproofing membrane
solution, particularly if the safety of working at height is taken into account. Likewise, if the
requirements for cleanliness are such that the area awaiting membrane installation must be
isolated from the rest of the worksite and/or additional ventilation is required, this will reduce
the flexibility that the use of a spray applied membrane can introduce. By their very nature
tunnels require the movement of people and materials through them on an almost constant
basis during construction, so a membrane that can cope with this will be better suited to
installation on site.

The speed of installation of the waterproof membrane will directly impact the critical path of
activities on site. Membranes that can be installed robotically over a large area will take less
time to install. The requirements for time to carry out quality control methods should also be
considered, as the lining cannot be considered as in place until these checks have been carried
out so must be included in the programme. Once installed the spray applied membrane must
then cure before the installation of a secondary lining. The integrity of the membrane is most
at risk during this period of time that it is exposed, so the shorter this can be, the greater the
chance of success and the minimisation of disruption to the workflow.

If there is damage to the membrane or quality control processes identify areas that are non-
compliant, the method for rectifying these situations needs to be as simple and robust as
possible. If the membrane needs to be completely removed, or large areas need be over-
sprayed if a fault is found, this will be impractical and costly. A good spray applied
membrane system should allow for repairs by simple over-spraying or even re-painting with a
brush, with a suitable overlap between subsequent layers to ensure a fully watertight solution.
The nature of the membrane should result in a seamless solution, even if the membrane is
installed in parts.

SAFETY

It has already been highlighted that the use of spray applied membranes can be beneficial
with respect to health and safety if robotic application results in reduced working at height
and manual handling. It should be noted that not all spray applied membranes are alike in
physical or chemical properties, and that the safe and safety aspects of differing membrane
types can also be very different. The safety factors that must be considered in a risk
assessment for spray applied membrane selection include:

 Fire and explosion risk during spraying and as a cured exposed material
 Occupational health during spraying
o Toxicity
o Sensitisation
 Installation of secondary linings

In order to be considered safe for application, a spray membrane should not support
combustion during the spraying process in case of an accidental ignition source and evidence
of this should be provided by membrane suppliers. EVA polymer membranes are formed
from powdered polymers mixed with water, and so theoretically the air can become saturated
with powder that could pose combustion risks. However, the actual concentrations in the air
needed to cause a fire would result in visibility being reduced to less than approximately
0.5m. These concentrations would never develop in a tunnel with standard tunnel ventilation
systems.

All spray membrane systems once cured have no influence on the environment. However
care should be taken with the transport, site use when spraying and storage of materials and
disposal of products, as per all materials used in construction. Two component reactive resin
based products need to be handled particularly carefully as the component parts can be toxic
and might adversely affect the local environment and safety of operatives. Risk assessments
should be carried out to define appropriate mitigation measures and responsibilities for all
products.

It is common for spray membrane systems to be used for bridge decks, car park decks and
basement tanking, but consideration needs to be given to the adoption of the same
technologies in the confined space of a tunnel. Appropriate methodologies must and can of
course be adopted depending on the product used, but choosing materials that are considered
as the least hazardous at all stages of construction, should be considered as best practise.
Removing the risk at source, rather than relying on the provision of appropriate protective
equipment and the adoption of appropriate measures at all times, is the more effective safety
measure for the construction team as a whole.
During construction of primary linings the rules for keeping away from freshly installed
sprayed concrete are relatively easy to enforce, as the newly sprayed material is at the tunnel
face, where there are combined risks of falls from the face and movement of equipment. In
turn, care is taken when removing a shutter from cast- in-situ concrete linings, and the
stability of the material is carefully calculated to minimise the chances of personnel being
crushed. The safety of freshly installed sprayed secondary linings must also be considered, as
material falling from the crown would easily prove fatal to those below. Exclusion zones
under freshly applied material should be maintained. If the sprayed concrete is able to attach
to the membrane, in the same way that sprayed concrete attaches to the ground or other layers
of concrete, this will facilitate the installation of this lining. If there is no bond on this face, it
may be necessary to install mesh and girders to provide a suitable support for the fresh
concrete. Full scale trial evaluation is therefore recommended to assess the stability of
sprayed secondary linings applied overhead to spray applied waterproofing membranes.

ENSURING QUALITY

Although spray applied membranes are still considered relatively new technology, they have
been used on many different projects around the world and lessons have been learnt on how
best to maximise the quality of their installation. The key lessons can be summarised as:

 Preparing the substrate

 Installation in accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines
 Insurance of full coverage and thickness
 Plan and programme for the quality regime on site

The degree of substrate preparation required before installation of a membrane varies

considerably between the different spray membrane systems available and the advice of the
manufacturers/suppliers. However, all substrate surfaces should be free from dust and other
contaminants including curing membranes that may impair bonding. High pressure jet
washing is the normal method employed and has proved effective.

Substrate texture and the presence of fibre reinforcement in the primary sprayed concrete
lining are the key issues that define the process of substrate conditio ning to allow successful,
economical spray membrane applications. Whilst spray applied waterproofing suppliers have
demonstrated that it is possible to apply a spray membrane over an “as sprayed” primary
lining surface containing both micro synthetic and also steel and plastic structural fibres with
some membrane types, the recommendation to do so should be carefully considered for future
projects. Using a smoothing/regulating coat of finer aggregate, fibre free material to even out
the primary lining surface allows the membrane to be installed as efficiently as possible, and
minimises the problems of unseen holes in the material. It is should be considered that the
application of a thinner spray applied waterproofing membrane over a regulating layer, has
proven to be a more cost effective solution than applying the membrane at a greater
thickness.
 “As sprayed” finish of a primary
sprayed concrete lining including
structural fibres. Spray applied
membranes are available that can be
installed directly onto this surface, but
the quality and the thickness of the
membrane may be more difficult to
regulate, resulting in high consumption
of materials and a less efficient
membrane.

Using a regulating layer of finer

aggregate materials will facilitate
installation of a high quality membrane
and reduce material consumption,
whilst still allowing for interlock
between the layers of materials.

A completely smooth finish is required

before the installation of some
membranes. This may be impractical
for large tunnels, where the
methodology for creating a sufficiently
smooth surface could be difficult and
involve men working at height.

Figure 3: Surface roughness variation. A Barton Comb, typically used for the classification
of the roughness profile of rock surfaces can be used to assess the surface of a sprayed
concrete lining and assign values for when a regulating layer should be applied

As mentioned previously, for almost all spray applied waterproof membranes it is not
possible to apply the membrane effectively in areas with active water ingress through the
substrate. Quite low rates of seepage can result in hydrostatic pressure developing at the
concrete/membrane interface causing it to fail before it has cured sufficiently to achieve
adequate adhesion. Where active water inflow is present this must be pre-sealed or a suitable
temporary or permanent drainage system used to channel away the water inflow. Options that
have been successfully employed in the past include:

 Sealing crack with polyurethane resin and mineral grouts.

 Using a very fast curing membrane material (both cementitious and polymer
based products) to block seepages on the surface.
 Collecting water inflow via hoses fixed into the sprayed concrete, then
subsequent to the installation of the secondary lining the same hoses can be
used to inject grout to seal the water ingress.
 Installing dimple drainage strips to the surface of the primary lining, sealing
edges with fast setting materials and overspraying with the waterproofing
membrane.

It is important to have considered the methods that will be used to deal with active water
ingress as early as possible.[9] If a methodology has not been pre-prescribed before the team
arrives to install the membrane, it is much more likely that the process will be approached
haphazardly, with the quality of the result varying accordingly.

The membrane manufacturer should be able to provide suitable specifications and method
statements for the installation of the membrane, includ ing restrictions on air and substrate
temperature, and relative humidity during the spraying process. Instructions and restrictions
related to the equipment that can be used, along with the methodology for preparing it should
also be available. For some membranes it may be that only the manufacturer’s approved
applicators are permitted to install it, but for all membranes specific training should be
carried out before spraying starts in the tunnel structure.

It is recommended that a level of competency required with respect to the installation of the
membrane be identified and an assessment be employed for both installers and assessors. If
possible an area dedicated to installation and assessment of membranes should be made
available, preferably in an area of the works that are not subject to the same watertightness
criteria as the whole; i.e. an area that will not have public access. A standardised check and
approval system should be set up prior to commencement of the works and then
systematically employed to each area of the works treated. There are several key points when
these checks should be carried out:

 Prior to installation of the membrane. Verification that running water has been treated
and that any regulating material has been installed. A degree of surface roughness
required prior to installation of the lining, if specified should be verified. A check for
cleanliness and removal of dust and debris should also be included.
 During application of the membrane. Installers shall have a proven level of
competency. Equipment shall be in proper working order, clean and well maintained.
Any evidence of problems during the spraying process, or inconsistency in the
materials provided shall be reported. The quantity of material needed to apply the
prescribed thickness of membrane over the area should be pre-calculated and then the
use of the correct quantity verified in some manner.
 Post spraying of the membrane. The manufacturer will identify the test procedures
appropriate to the materials, including:
 o Visual inspection of coverage, which may or may not be facilitated by the use
of pigments or other colour indicators
o Dip film tests, to ensure the membrane has been installed to the correct
thickness. The number and spread of these tests should be pre-defined.
o Spark testing, only applicable to certain membrane types.
o Patch tests, destructive tests that take a sample from the membrane for testing,
leaving areas that must be subsequently repaired.
 Post any remedial works. A check should be carried out to check that these have been
carried out with sufficient care and attention.
 Immediately prior to installation of any internal concrete or reinforcement. The
membrane will preferably be covered within a short time after its installation, to
minimise the risk of damage. The condition and the cleanliness of the membrane
should be checked prior to any further works being installed, as any repair to the
membrane will be significantly more difficult after this point.

Figure 4: Measuring the thickness of installed membrane using a simple gauge. By including
a pigment and applying the membrane in 2 layers 1 to 3mm thick, TamSeal 800 facilitates
visual inspection of coverage.
It is important that the quality of the membrane installation be considered as carefully as the
construction of the primary and secondary linings. The level of supervision and independent
checking should not be any less than any other part of the works, as despite being hidden
away, as the impact of a poorly installed membrane will be easily visible in the long term.

EFFICIENT TUNNEL DESIGN

Tunnel lining design, particularly in soft ground, has progressed rapidly in recent years, and
the move from considering sprayed concrete primary linings as only temporary support to the
adoption of permanent sprayed concrete lining has been made on a number of projects
including the Jubilee Line Extension, Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Heathrow Airport Tunnels
and A3 Hindhead road tunnels [10]. The materials and equipment technology has sufficiently
developed for there to be confidence in the durability of these linings in the long term case.
The next challenge is then to reduce the overall thickness of these linings, and the most
obvious method to do that is to make the primary and secondary linings work as efficiently as
possible with each other.

In recent years tunnel design and verification has been carried out largely using numerical
modelling techniques. It can be considered therefore, that a way to improve the design is to
improve the accuracy of input data and the choice of assumptions used in the numerical
models. The main areas that control the results of these are: the constitutive model for
ground, the constitutive model for sprayed concrete, and the understanding of the interfaces
between layers of materials. [11,12]

It could be argued that for ground strata such as London Clay the constitutive models that
have been developed by Industry and academia, based on back analysis and calibration, are
now at a point where increasing the time and resource input significantly to tweak them may
only improve the results very slightly.[13]

Variations in SCL mix design and workmanship affect the strength and stiffness development
significantly, and so universal parameters, such as those used for cast- in situ concrete, cannot
be so easily applied. Tests on sprayed concrete at both early and final ages have been carried
out on various projects, leading to a range of equations being raised. While a unifying
criterion for design of fibre reinforced sprayed concrete linings has not yet been universally
accepted, a designer can use criteria from different standards together to form their design
criterion for design [14 and 15]. Whichever combination is selected, it is important that all
design assumptions should be verifiable during pre-construction trials and testing.

Once constitutive models have been clearly defined for the ground and sprayed concrete, a
3D model with the correct construction sequence is relatively straightforward for modellers
and the results should be fairly accurate. The number of uncertainties associated with the
excavation and spraying process, and the variability between the modelled and actual ground
conditions, mean that there will always be a need for a certain degree of tolerance in the
lining design thicknesses, particularly the primary linings. The understanding of the
requirements in thickness of a primary lining is therefore reaching a plateau.
Despite the primary lining being a more easily understood and controlled substrate than the
ground, the design of the secondary lining often poses just as many difficulties, as there are
still significant unknowns and choices to be made [16,17]:

 The requirements on the secondary lining with respect to fire safety [18], aesthetics
and internal load carrying can be diverse.
 The assumptions about the transfer of lining loads from the ground and groundwater
through the primary lining to the secondary lining are complex.
 The behaviour of the secondary lining during installation and curing and the impact of
restraint provided by the underlying layers on the development of crack inducing
stresses needs to be understood.

Numerical modelling techniques often have to be adapted at the point of modelling the
secondary lining, often to a more structural approach than adopted when modelling the
ground. This is in part to cope with the larger number of load cases that standards require to
be considered, that would be prohibitively long to analyse in a complex ground structure
modelling programme. Time and energy is often spent on the development of spring
stiffnesses, representing the combined behaviour of the ground and primary lining. In the
absence of enough information conservatism will inevitably be introduced.

In order to improve this process more data needs to be gathered about the interface between
materials. It is not enough to assume that the confinement of a ring will be sufficient to make
the linings work together. Very small relative movements, related to loading or curing or long
term differential loading, could prevent sufficient shear transfer to the secondary lining for
the two linings to be considered as acting as one. To understand whether composite action
will apply, an understanding of the physical properties of the waterproof membrane,
specifically its shear and tensile strength when bonded to concrete and its young's modulus
and poisson's ratio need to be available. As with all aspects of sprayed concrete this data
needs to be understood both in the long and short terms, and the requirements of each of these
stages may not be the same.

It is worth pursuing this information as once these parameters have been understood it should
be possible to save significant amounts on the thickness of the secondary lining, speeding up
construction and improving the sustainability of the solutions. Until this data is available
designers will be forced to continue with the current conservative assumptions in their
designs; that while linings may be able to share load, they do not work together as one
composite lining.

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

While the technologies of spray applied waterproofing membranes c urrently on the market
indicate a large step forward there are still developments required [19]. The testing to allow
confidence in composite action is underway but the solution will be limited in applicability
while the membranes can only be applied in restricted conditions:

 If the ground conditions are such that significant water ingress through the primary
lining is expected, then a spray applied waterproofing solution may not be
appropriate.
  If an as-sprayed finish on the secondary lining would be inappropriate then a cast in-
situ solution, that is harder to optimise due to the shutter tolerances and shape
restrictions, may still be the preferred solution and the reduction in thickness offered
by a composite solution may be negated.

The ability of membranes to cope in wetter conditions is therefore an important factor in their
adoption being more widespread. This could be through developing faster curing times, or
development if products to be used alongside the membrane that can be quickly and easily
applied without disruption to the spraying cycle.

The quality assurance processes associated with spray applied membranes also require
improvement. Reliance on spot checks can only be considered to verify completeness of
application to a certain point. Coordination with surveying techniques and robotic
applications can help reduce the risks, but the cost of measuring a layer of material only a
couple of millimetres thick over a large surface area needs to be balanced against the cost of
repair. This is particularly the case for double bonded membranes, where water cannot travel
behind a membrane so a leak requires the improbable trifecta of a source in the primary lining
being directly over a hole in the membrane, leading directly to a route through the secondary
lining in order to be apparent to those inside the tunnel.

The ultimate aim could be considered to be the removal of the interfaces between layers of
membrane completely.[20] If the waterproofing membrane could be applied on the outside of
a structure, rather than between the primary and secondary layers then the lining efficiency
could be increased yet further. Difficulties in installing a continuous membrane in the
conditions typically experienced at a tunnel face make this difficult, and efforts to increase
the safety of tunnel construction by removing men from the tunnel face could be
compromised when going down this route.

Putting a waterproofing membrane on the inside of the primary lining, with no need for a
secondary lining would also be a possible avenue. Standards are currently relatively
prescriptive about where the long term water pressure is considered to act relative to the
waterproof membrane, and it may be difficult to convince all owners that a bonded
membrane is sufficient in the long term case; though this method is quite typical in mining
situations. Any attempts to remove the secondary lining will need to take into account the
need to install fixings into the lining and any fire proofing measures that are typically
accommodated in this layer, along with surface finish restrictions.

Spray applied waterproofing membranes can therefore be considered as the next best step in
improving the efficiency and performance of tunnel linings. With further testing to improve
the understanding of the interface between materials, the benefits of this system can only be
set to increase in the coming years.

CONCLUSIONS

 Spray applied waterproofing membranes offer a waterproofing solution that is

effective, cost and time efficient.
 The choice of spray applied waterproofing membranes should be made considering
safety, efficiency and practicality as factors.
  Waterproofing membranes must be installed correctly and a thorough quality control
regime implemented to maximise their benefits.
 With additional research the design of composite sprayed concrete linings using spray
applied waterproofing membranes could allow for the reduction in lining thicknesses,
making tunnelling solutions more sustainable and efficient.

REFERENCES

1 Celestino, T.B. (2005) “Sprayed concrete And Waterproofing for Operational

Tunnels”, Proceedings of ITA Workshop on Waterproofing, Sao Paulo 2005,
www.ita-aites.org.

2 HOLTER K G & DIMMOCK R, (2007). “Unique waterproofing solutions for

underground structures with complex geometry”. Concrete Engineering International
journal, published by Palladian Publications, London. Spring 2007. pp12-13.

3 DIMMOCK R & THOMAS A, (2009). “Advances in Sprayed Concrete Lining

technology and practices”. Paper presentation at Tunnels & Tunnelling Conference
2009, Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, September 2009.

4 Franzen, T., Garshol, K.F. & Tomisawa, N. (2001) “Sprayed concrete for final
linings: ITA working group report”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
Vol. 16, pp 295 - 309.

5 BTS-ICE Specification for Tunnelling, 3rd Edition, 2010. Published by Thomas

Telford. London. April 2010.

6 D. A. Silva, H. R. Roman and P. J. P. Gleize, (2002) “Evidences of chemical

interaction between EVA and hydrating Portland cement”, Cement and Concrete
Research, 32, pp 1383-1390

7 KG Holter (2011) “Design and construction of waterproof sprayed concrete tunnels

employing pre- injection and spray applied waterproofing membranes”. Proceedings of
the WTC Training Course, Helsinki 2011. Published by the ITA, May 2011.

8 B. Haig (2011) “Spray Applied Waterproofing Membranes and Sprayed Secondary

Concrete Tunnel Linings”, Proceedings of International Conference and Exhibition on
Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology, 1 – 3 March, 2011, Malaysia, ITA, AGSSEA

9 D. Naylor, P. Salak, S. Stephenson (2011) “Practical experiences with Sprayed

Waterproofing Membrane on three tunnelling projects in the UK”, Proceedings of
Underground Construction Conference and Exhibition 2011, 29-30 June 201, Earls
Court, London, BTS, ITA AITES
 10 Jones, B. D., Thomas, A. H., Hsu, Y. S. & Hilar, M. (2008). “Evaluation of innovative
sprayed-concrete- lined tunnelling”. Proc Inst. Civ. Engrs Geotech. Engng 161, 137-
149

11 Potts, D. M. & Zdravkovic, L (1999) “Finite element analysis in geotechnical

engineering, vol. 1: Theory.” London: Thomas Telford.

12 Potts, D. M. & Zdravkovic, L (2001) “Finite element analysis in geotechnical

engineering, vol. 2: Application”. London: Thomas Telford.

13 Jardine, R. J., Potts, D. M., Fourie, A. B. & Burland, J. B. (1986). “Studies of the
influence of non- linear stress-strain characteristics in soil-structure interaction”.
Géotechnique 36, No. 3, pp 377-396

14 RILEM TC 162-TDF (2003) "Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced
concrete", Materials and Structures Vol 36, pp 560 - 567.

15 DBV (2001) “Steel fibre reinforced concrete”, Code of Practice, Deutscher Beton-
und Bautechnik- Verein

16 Thomas, A.H. (2008). “Sprayed Concrete Lined Tunnels. 264pp. Abingdon: Taylor
and Francis Publishing.

17 Golser, J. & Kienberger, G. (1997) “Permanente Tunnelauskleidung in Spritzbeton -

Beanspruchung und Sicherheitsfragen”, Felsbau, Issue 6, pp 416 – 421.

18 DIMMOCK R, (2007). “Spray applied solutions for fire protection of new and
existing tunnels”. Proceedings of the IECA-STMR conference “Proteccion del
hormigon frente al fuego. Aplicacion a tuneles”. Published by the Instituto Espanol
del Cemento y sus Aplicaciones (IECA). February 2007.

19 DIMMOCK R, (2011). “Sprayed Concrete – Best Practice and Future Potential”.

Proceedings of the WTC Training Course, Helsinki 2011. Published by the ITA, May
2011.

20 DIMMOCK R, (1998) “Final Report - Single Pass Tunnel Linings”, UK Highways

Agency - TRL report on the design and construction of economical sprayed concrete
tunnels, June 1998.

View publication stats