A Case Study of waterproofing Strategies

for a Typical Mat and Deep Foundation System

Andrea B. Bono, PE, LEED AP BD+C; and Stephen T. Bono, SE
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
The Landmark @ One Market, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-495-3700 Fax: 415-495-3550 E-mail: stbono@sgh.com
2 8t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d t R a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 14- 19, 2013 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 1 2 7





Abstract
Current construction methods such as piles, micropiles, and tiebacks permit building of
foundations at sites that were previously impossible or impractical. Coordination of a fully
integrated below-grade waterproofng design is required to ensure successful performance
of buildings employing these structural foundation systems. As the percentage of new
construction at sites with less-than-ideal soil increases, waterproofng detailing should be
considered during the schematic phase of a project and continue throughout construction.
This presentation will include waterproofng considerations for typical structural foundation
systems through several case studies where the waterproofng was considered independent
of the foundation.
Speakers
Stephen T. Bono, SE Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. - San Francisco, CA
STepHeN T. BoNo, Se, is a Senior Staff I at national engineering frm Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. His experience includes both performance-based and code-based
design, evaluation, and repair of steel, concrete, and masonry low- to high-rise structures
incorporating both linear and nonlinear techniques. He specializes in evaluation and reha-
bilitation of commercial and institutional facilities. He is a member of the existing Buildings
Committee, the Building ratings Subcommittee, and the Sustainable Design Committee of
the Structural engineers Association of Northern California (SeAoNC).
Andrea B. Bono, PE, LEED AP BD+C Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. - San Francisco, CA
ANDreA B. BoNo, pe, leeD Ap BD+C, is a Staff II at national engineering frm
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. She has experience in the design, investigation, and reha-
bilitation of commercial, healthcare, civic, and residential buildings related to below-grade
spaces, podium decks, exterior components and cladding, and roofs. Andrea works closely
with architects and consultants who specialize in the specifcation and design of roofng,
waterproofng, and exterior wall systems to design, analyze, and repair aspects of the build-
ing envelope. She is the branch secretary for the U.S. Green Building Councils Northern
California Chapter, San Francisco Bay Bridge Branch.
1 2 8 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 28t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d tR a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 1 4- 1 9 , 2 0 1 3









A Case Study of waterproofing Strategies
for a Typical Mat and Deep Foundation System
INTRODUCTION
A case study of a low-rise building is
presented to illustrate that coordinating
a fully integrated below-grade waterproof-
ing design among all disciplines of a proj-
ect team can protect the building and its
occupants from potentially adverse site
conditions. In particular, the coordinated
effort between the structural engineer and
waterproofng consultant is discussed. As
the percentage of new construction at sites
with less-than-ideal soil increases, struc-
tural and waterproofng integration should
occur in the schematic phase of a project
and continue throughout construction to
ensure successful building performance.
Uncertainties in Design
prior to any new development, a site
assessment is typically performed to eval-
uate a sites above-ground and subsur-
face characteristics, including its struc-
ture, geology, and hydrology. However, due
to size, quantity, and cost constraints of
sample collection, not all site conditions
can be discovered from a site assessment.
Designers should be cognizant of these
uncertainties and understand that potential
fndings during construction could impact
their design and the design of other dis-
ciplines. If variations of the conditions do
occur and design changes are made, collab-
orative coordination among all disciplines,
as well as input from the building owner,
are necessary to ensure the project objec-
tives are met.
To mitigate encountered design uncer-
tainties, a collaborative effort among all
disciplines generates the best solution to
protect the building and its occupants.
Figure 1 demonstrates how collaboration is
essential as modifcation to building sys-
tems becomes signifcantly more challeng-
ing and costly as construction begins and
access becomes restricted.
Common Means of Protecting Structure
Structural engineers can prolong the
service life of a building by designing the pollutants, and/or contaminants. Common
structure against poor soil conditions such structural protection methods include:
as the presence of high and variable water Sacrifcial (extra) steel
tables, liquefable soils, corrosive and dete- Increased concrete cover
riorating agents, hazardous substances, epoxy coatings
Figure 1 Below-grade waterproofng membrane under mat slab reinforcement
(shown horizontal) and concrete column reinforcement (shown vertical) with a rock
anchor centered in the column.
2 8t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d t R a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 14- 19, 2013 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 1 2 9

























Figure 2 Elevation view of a foundation wall with negative-side waterproofng
and a foundation wall with positive-side waterproofng.
passive or active cathodic protection
These means of protection are generally
intended to preserve only the structural ele-
ments of a building for a fnite amount of
time. However, waterproofng is a nonstruc-
tural means of protecting and extending the
life of structural elements, with the added
beneft of protecting occupants and interior
contents from uncontrolled water infltration
and consequential damage. Waterproofng
design strategies are implemented at either
the positive or negative side of the structure
as shown in Figure 2. positive-side water-
proofng protects a structure at the source
of hydrostatic pressure by placing a barrier
at the exterior face of the structure, whereas
negative-side waterproofng is applied at the
opposite side of the source of hydrostatic
pressure and permits water to pass through
the structure before meeting a barrier at the
interior space. Both strategies protect the
interior contents from damage; however, neg-
ative-side waterproofng does not protect the
structure in front of the membrane. Common
methods of positive- and negative-side water-
proofng include loose-laid or adhered sheet
membranes, liquid-applied or slurry-applied
coatings, and concrete admixtures.
These waterproofng strategies require
coordination with the structural engineer.
A well-integrated and well-designed water-
proofng system can protect the structure,
its occupants, and interior contents, thus
making the integration of structural compo-
nents and waterproofng systems critical for
both building durability and performance.
Integrating for Performance
In order to design a fully integrated
waterproofng system, it is important to
identify the key persons involved in the
design of a building. These persons include
an architect, a contractor, a geotechnical
engineer, an owner or tenant, astructural
engineer, and if hired, a waterproofng con-
sultant. Without a waterproofng consultant
on the design team, waterproofng systems
may be selected without the full consider-
ation of risk of water or vapor intrusion, and
the impact of water or vapor on occupants
and the intended use of interior spaces
or structural service life. Designers can
develop appropriate design criteria based
upon the site conditions, their previous
experience, and an owners interpretation
of acceptable or unacceptable performance;
however, all design considerations by key
personnel should be developed concurrently
in order to satisfy and manage owner or ten-
ant expectations of the fnal design.
Case Study
The following case study demonstrates
the importance of coordination and commu-
nication among the design team, with par-
ticular emphasis on the interaction between
the structural engineer and waterproof-
ing consultant. The subject building is a
six-story, steel-framed structure over two
levels of below-grade parking supported
by a concrete foundation. The two stories
below grade are within the water table.
The site is in an industrial area, and the
former site user contaminated the soil with
single-phase hydrocarbons (SpH) and heavy
Figure 3 Isometric view of foundation mat, piles, and rock anchors that support
the structure.
1 3 0 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 28t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d tR a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 1 4- 1 9 , 2 0 1 3



















metals. The site was excavated to remediate
petroleum-contaminated soils and back-
flled with granular material. Due to the
sites close proximity to a bay, the soil has
a high concentration of salts. The south-
ern edge of the site was previously used
as a shipping channel, creating additional
project challenges. originally, the shipping
channel was unsystematically flled with
granular material that included fll as large
as cobbles. This flled shipping channel acts
as a direct source for water into the site. The
bays tidal infuences and high water table
were also considerations in the below-grade
structural and waterproofng design.
below the basement
Figure 4 Steel HP members being driven into rock.
Figure 5 Shotcrete leveling layer with wire mesh
cast against secant auger-cast pile walls to address
out-of-plane variation and surface irregularities.
Foundation
Design
As the struc-
tural engineer
of record, we
designed a mat
foundation to
bear mostly on
soil, with the
remaining area
supported by
piles and rock
anchors socket-
ed into bedrock
structure. Figure 3
shows an isometric view of the foundation
mat, piles, and rock anchors and indicates
three general regions of the foundation. one
small region of the mat bears directly on
native rock. The largest region of the mat
bears on 2 ft. of engineered fll (competent
soil). The remaining region of the foundation
is supported on groups of piles at the for-
mer shipping channel, which are socketed
into native rock. piles are used to transfer
loads through the poor soil to the native
rock below. The piles used on this project
are 150-ton, nominal-capacity, Hp steel
members (also known as bearing piles).
(Figure 4 shows the equipment used to
drive the Hp members through the soil and
into the rock.) Groups of piles are placed
below basement shear walls and columns.
A thickened mat provides additional shear
and fexural resistance at the pile groups.
The remainder of the mat is nominally 2 ft.
thick. Supplemental rock anchors, used to
resist hydrostatic forces at regions of the
mat that are not supported on piles, prevent
the structure from uplifting.
During excavation of the site, secant
pile walls, with alternate piles reinforced
with steel W-section (wide fange) soldier
members, provided shoring to allow for
excavation of the site (shown in Figure
5). These secant pile walls also acted as
a dewatering cutoff to reduce the amount
of dewatering within the site. An interior
reinforced-concrete structural shear wall
was constructed inboard of the secant pile
wall and serves the following purposes:
transfer of superstructure loads to the
foundation, protection of the vertical below-
grade waterproofng membrane, and lateral
restraint of hydrostatic pressure due to the
elevation of the water table.
2 8t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d t R a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 14- 19, 2013 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 1 3 1

















Figure 6 Mat foundation supported on soil.
DESIGN PARAMETERS
Geotechnical Considerations and
Resulting Waterproofng Design
The elevation of the water table provided
by the geotechnical engineer indicated that
the subterranean concrete mat slab resides
in the water table. During construction, site
dewatering was required to lower the eleva-
tion of the water table until we determined
that the buildings self-weight could resist
the hydrostatic uplift pressure. Due to the
soil characteristics on-site and the elevation
of the water table, a secant auger-cast pile
wall was selected to shore the excavation.
Site dewatering was required to capture the
infow of groundwater into the excavation.
Structural Foundation Wall Construction
and Resulting Waterproofng Design
In general, every shoring system re-
quires treatment or modifcation to provide
a sound substrate for installation of water-
proofng. Unmodifed shoring systems lead
to high probability of water intrusion into
building structures. In our case, secant
auger-cast pile walls acted as vertical shor-
ing and would require a leveling layer for
placement of the waterproofng. We rec-
ommended the installation of a shotcrete
leveling layer to provide a smooth substrate
to compensate for the out-of-plane surface
irregularities, prior to application of the
waterproofng membrane (Figure 5).
prior to determination of the basement
shear wall construction, we discussed both
structural and waterproofng concerns with
the building contractor regarding a pre-
ferred construction method. Structurally,
the strength of either cast-in-place or shot-
crete is comparable as long as the concrete
is well consolidated. From the contractors
perspective, shotcrete is typically faster
and less expensive to install. From a water-
proofng perspective, use of shotcrete with
waterproofng is currently less reliable than
cast-in-place concrete with waterproofng.
1
When utilizing cast-in-place concrete, the
placement and vibration of plastic concrete
allows it to fll the majority of voids but does
require the use of one-sided forms in shored
excavations. In contrast, when shotcreting
foundation walls, waterproofng problems
can develop because of voids and shadowing
during the placement process and from bro-
ken penetration seals resulting from rebar
cage anchor vibration.
As the owners waterproofng consul-
tants, we defned the levels of risk for water
intrusion based on common
waterproofng product ser-
vice lives. Waterproofng per-
formance levels were defned
as expected system behav-
iora variable amount of
observable moisture inside
the building. For example, a
performance objective at the
highest performance level
would be negligible stain-
ing on structural surfaces,
whereas a performance
objective at a lower perfor-
mance level would be water
fow at isolated areas: a leak.
Understanding that well-
thought-out design can limit
building damage but cannot
eliminate it, we recommend-
ed a waterproofng system
that considered the design
water table, acceptable risk
of incident water intrusion,
and assumed construction
sequence for the foundation
and below-grade exterior
walls. The contractor priced
Figure 7 Mat foundation rebar.
the different combinations of structural
and waterproofng systems. The owner then
determined their acceptable risk/cost basis
for the waterproofng and structural sys-
tems, and we designed our waterproofng
system to the owner-accepted performance
level. At this site, the owner would accept a
level of risk for water intrusion resulting in
isolated staining.
MAT FOUNDATION SYSTEM
INTEGRATION
Mat foundations are a shallow founda-
tion system and generally encompass a
buildings entire footprint and consist of
heavily reinforced concrete. Mat founda-
tions are appropriate for the following site
conditions:
Soil types that are susceptible to
signifcant differential settlements or
expansion that could cause differen-
tial heaves
Unpredictable structural loads and
lateral loads that are not equally
distributed
lowest elevation of the foundation is
within the water table
Figure 6 shows a mat foundation bear-
ing directly on competent soil. In a mat
1 3 2 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 28t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d tR a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 1 4- 1 9 , 2 0 1 3





foundation, the loads from the superstruc-
ture are assumed to be evenly distributed
through the mat to the soil below. In the con-
dition where the mat foundation is in contact
with the water table, such as at this site,
waterproofng becomes an important consid-
eration when designing the mat foundation.
Mat Foundation Waterproofng
Recommendations
In below-grade construction, because the
waterproofng is placed below several feet of
concrete and layers of steel reinforcing, the
ability to make repairs to the waterproofng,
requiring soil excavation or concrete removal
for mitigation of leakage, is often infeasible
(as indicated by Figures 1 and 7). To mini-
mize leakage potential, we recommended
the following primary waterproof-
ing systems for blind-side, below-
grade waterproofng in hydrostat-
ic conditions: (1) loose-laid sheet
membrane, (2) fully adhered sheet
waterproofng, or (3) bentonite-
based systems. (See Figures 8-10 for
examples of each type of waterproof-
ing system.)
regardless of the below-grade
membrane type, we recommended
installation of an unreinforced mud
slab to provide a suitable substrate
for installation of the horizontal
below-grade membrane, similar to
the shotcrete applied to the auger-
cast piles. on top of the installed
waterproofng, we recommended a
4-in. reinforced protection slab to
Figure 8 Blind-side, below-grade
waterproofng: loose-laid sheet membrane.
Figure 9 Blind-side, below-grade
waterproofng: fully adhered
sheet waterproofng.
Figure 10 Blind-
side, below-grade
waterproofng:
bentonite-based
system.
2 8t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d t R a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 14- 19, 2013 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 1 3 3















prevent damage to the membrane dur-
ing construction from rebar placement,
stored materials, welding, and equipment.
The three below-grade waterproofng types
as presented to the owner, as well as
their advantages and disadvantages, are
described below. Ultimately, we designed
the waterproofng system based on the
cost/risk determination of the owner.
PRIMARY wATERPROOFING
SYSTEMS
Loose-Laid Sheet Membrane Systems
Traditional polyvinyl chloride (pVC) sys-
tems could not be used at this site due to
potential SpH contamination from adjacent
sites over the life cycle of the building. While
alternate materials exist that combine the
benefts of heat-welded seams, isolation
from substrate cracking, and large sheet
installation with hydrocarbon resistance,
it would have been cost-prohibitive when
compared to the other membranes. Also,
because of its loose-laid nature, water that
bypasses the membrane through minor
defects could migrate laterally behind the
membrane, making it diffcult to locate the
source of water entry.
Fully Adhered Sheet Waterproofng
Fully adhered membranes are installed
on cast-in-place concrete. The membrane
can either consist of rubberized asphalt with
a polyethylene carrier sheet for positive-side
applications or adhere to the concrete as
it is placed in blind-side applications. This
type of membrane consists of an inert high-
density polyethylene (HDpe) sheet with a
proprietary adhesive and acrylic binder that
bonds to plastic (wet) concrete. leaks in the
fully adhered membrane are localized so
that repair locations can be easily identifed.
However, this system has the risk that fail-
ures could occur at membrane seams due to
incorrect installation.
Bentonite-Based Systems
Sodium bentonite is a naturally occur-
ring mineral that, in the presence of uncon-
taminated water and confning pressure,
swells to form a waterproofng gel layer over
walls and under slabs, preventing water
infltration. The membrane consists of a
layer of bentonite surrounded by geotextile
fabric on either side to form a membrane.
There must be adequate coverage and con-
fning pressure for the water-gel reaction to
be effective in waterproofng. Bentonite does
not expand in the presence of saltwater.
However, products with additives are avail-
able that perform up to a given concentra-
tion of salt in the water.
Based on the above considerations for
each of the systems and the owners cost/
risk preference, we designed a bentonite-
based system for the mat foundations
waterproofng. As a condition of specifying
this product, we recommended that the
groundwater be tested for chloride content
to determine if bentonite-based systems
were appropriate.
SECONDARY (BACKUP)
wATERPROOFING SYSTEMS
Due to the cost-prohibitive nature of
repairs and system failures, we recom-
mended including redundancy into the
below-grade waterproofng system design.
The two recommended methods of backup
waterproofng included interior drainage
and concrete admixtures.
Interior Drainage
In lieu of a drainage feld below the
basement slab requiring an additional two
feet of excavation, the owner chose an
interior drainage system to collect water.
This bypasses the primary system and then
transports it to a sump location for removal
from the building. At basement slab-to-
exterior wall locations, we recommended a
trough (shown in Figure 11) to intercept and
collect any wall-water leakage.
Crystalline Waterproofng Admixtures
We also recommended crystalline water-
proofng admixtures for the mat foundation.
Crystalline waterproofng admixtures can
help minimize water migration by reacting
with water to grow crystals that block pas-
sage through the concrete pore structure.
The admixture helps the concrete resist
fuid fow of water through its own pores
and reduces the risk of interior leakage
and/or staining.
For hydrostatic conditions, we recom-
mend against concrete admixtures as
the primary waterproofng since concrete
admixtures are limited by the quality of the
concrete placement. Additionally, concrete
tends to crack due to shrinkage and/or
building movement, and if cracks widths
Figure 11 Perimeter waterproofng section.
1 3 4 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 28t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d tR a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 1 4- 1 9 , 2 0 1 3







exceed the waterproofng capabilities of
the concrete admixtures in the presence of
water, leaks can occur. Due to this possibil-
ity, we considered the admixture as second-
ary (backup) waterproofng. See Figure 11
for a detail indicating the structural and
waterproofng elements of the mat founda-
tion at a basement shear wall.
ROCK ANCHOR SYSTEM
INTEGRATION
Anchors are a deep foundation system
and are used to restrain foundations resist-
ing tensile forces or uplift due to hydrostatic
pressures, soil heave, or superstructure
loads. A rock anchor, shown in Figure 12,
is one type of anchor with a small-diameter,
high-capacity rod. rock anchors are con-
structed by drilling through the soil into
rock; placing the rock anchor into the hole;
grouting the anchor; tensioning the rod;
regrouting, if necessary; and locking the rod
into position. (Figure 13 shows rock anchors
resisting hydrostatic pressure in a mat
foundation.) The mat slab spans between
Photo 12 Rock anchors with lower mat reinforcing in place.
rock anchors and resists hydrostatic water
pressure from the underside of the mat. The
rock anchors transfer the hydrostatic water
pressure deeper into the soil, where the ten-
sion loads can be resisted and keep the mat
from lifting up.
Rock Anchor Waterproofng
Recommendations
In terms of waterproofng, rock anchors
create a bypass in the mat foundations
horizontal below-grade waterproofng sys-
Figure 13 Rock anchors in a foundation
resisting hydrostatic pressure.
tem (refer to Figure 12). rock anchors act
as straws reaching to below-grade depths,
into the water table, bringing perched water
to the surface from subsurface depths via
capillary force. With their irregular profle,
anchors can be diffcult to detail and require
coordination between the structural engi-
neer and the waterproofng consultant to
ensure both adequate bearing-plate embed-
ment and suffcient height to install water-
proofng to the anchor.
To seal any voids between the rock
2 8t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d t R a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 14- 19, 2013 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 1 3 5







Figure 14 3-D rendering of waterproofng at a rock
anchor including bentonite waterproofng membrane,
bentonite waterproofng membrane patch, bentonite mastic,
block waterstop, and injection tube waterstop.
Figure 15 Typical detailing around a rock anchor.
anchors and the mat foundation pour, we
recommended installation of injection tube
waterstops. These injection tube waterstops
are in addition to the block waterstops
normally detailed as part of a bentonite
waterproofng system. Injection tube water-
stops consist of wire tubing covered by a
reinforced membrane that is injected with
polyurethane grout. See Figures 14 and 15
1 3 6 Bo n o a n d Bo n o
for a detail indi-
cating the struc-
tural and water-
Figure 16 Installed detailing around a rock anchor prior to bentonite mastic,
block waterstop, and injection tube waterstop installation.
proofng elements
of the rock anchor. Figure 16 shows the
detailing of bentonite around the irregular
rock anchor penetration. In general, injec-
tion tube waterstops are injected after the
concrete mat slab has suffciently cured per
28t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n
the manufacturers requirements but prior
to decommissioning the site dewatering
wells. on this project, injection tube water-
stops were installed as a backup means in
the event of water intrusion. Currently, the
injection tube waterstops are not grouted
and are left in place as a supplemental
waterproofng measure.
PILE SYSTEM INTEGRATION
Another deep foundation system used
on the project was piles with pile caps.
piles are prefabricated structural members
made of wood, concrete, or steel (as in this
case) drilled or driven into the ground and
typically extended to depths on the order
of 50 ft. below the ground surface, but
that can also extend to depths of 150 ft.
or greater. The piles transfer loads from
the superstructure, through weak soil lay-
ers that cannot support the applied loads,
to competent layers of soil. Deep founda-
tions are used when competent soil layers
are located well below the surface, and it
is not practical to excavate down to their
elevation. (Figure 17 shows a pile-supported
mat foundation with piles bearing directly
on rock.) A pile cap is the reinforced con-
crete element that connects a column from
the superstructure to a group of piles,
a n d tR a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 1 4- 1 9 , 2 0 1 3





















Figure 17 Pile-supported mat foundation with piles bearing in rock.
tying them all together. Summarized from
Foundation Design: Principles and Practices,
when designing pile foundations, designers
must consider the following parameters:
2
Applied loads
required diameter
required length
Availability of pile type
Durability
Anticipated driving conditions
In the feld, the impossibility of deter-
mining assumed design strengths
Due to the above considerations, addi-
tional piles may need to be installed. This
can infuence construction time and cost,
along with altering building performance.
Consideration must also be given to the
waterproofng detailing of piles within the
water table.
Pile Waterproofng Recommendations
Similar to rock anchors and mat foun-
dations, piles are best detailed with collab-
orative efforts. Deep foundations, because
they transmit some or the entire applied
load to soils well below the ground surface,
are likely to penetrate the groundwater table
and bring water to the surface through cap-
illary force.
on this site, we recommended water-
proofng each individual pile along with the
pile caps. To prepare the piles for installa-
tion of waterproofng, three steel plates were
welded to the steel Hp membersone at the
top end of the pile and the two welded to
opposite fangesto form a metal cap. This
steel cap provided a suitable substrate for
installation of waterproofng at each piles
perimeter. See Figures 18-20 (the last of
these is a detail indicating the structural
and waterproofng elements of the typical
pile and pile cap).
SUMMARY OF wATERPROOFING
RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, we designed the water-
proofng system based on the following
site conditions and structural foundation
system:
Subterranean levels in the water
table
potential SpH contamination
potential saltwater contact
Auger-cast pile shoring wall
Mat foundation
rock anchors
piles and pile caps
Based on these design parameters, we
recommended the following installation:
Shotcrete skim coat over auger-cast,
pile-shoring wall to act as a water-
proofng substrate
Figure 18 3-D rendering of a pile and pile cap.
2 8t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d t R a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 14- 19, 2013 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 1 3 7












Figure 19 3-D rendering of waterproofng at a pile in a pile cap showing
bentonite waterproofng membrane, bentonite mastic, block waterstop, and
injection tube waterstop.
An unreinforced concrete mud slab
to provide a suitable substrate for
the sheet waterproofng
Welded steel plates at Hp members
to provide a suitable substrate to
terminate waterproofng
Waterproofng the subterranean
level with bentonite membrane with
lapped and fastened seams and
detailed penetrations
reinforced protection slab over the
horizontal below-grade waterproof-
ing to protect the waterproofng from
construction damage (not imple-
mented)
Crystalline waterproofng admixture
at mat slab and cast-in-place walls
Drainage channels
Supplemental injection tube water-
stops
These recommendations were based on
the waterproofng performance desired by
the owner, cost considerations from the con-
tractor, available construction techniques at
the time of construction, and past experi-
ence on similar below-grade local projects.
CONCLUSION
Design team coordination between the
structural engineer and the waterproofng
consultant led to a well-integrated structur-
al and waterproofng system. Without this
team effort, opportunities to select the best
waterproofng system for a building may not
have been possible once construction had
begun. However, even with coordination and
integration, conficts and errors may not be
eliminatedbut their severity is minimized,
providing the owner an economical and
suitable building that meets performance
expectations.
REFERENCES
1. D.G. Gibbons and J.l. Towle, Water-
proofng Below-Grade Shotcrete
Walls, The Construction Specifer, V.
62, No. 3, March 2009, pp. 48-55.
2. D.p. Coduto, Foundation Design:
Principles and Practices, second edi-
tion, prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
river, New Jersey, 2001.
Figure 20 Waterproofng at a typical pile cap.
1 3 8 Bo n o a n d Bo n o 28t h RCI In t e R n a t I o n a l Co n v e n t I o n a n d tR a d e Sh o w Ma R C h 1 4- 1 9 , 2 0 1 3