Waterproofing membranes are commonly used to protect structures against hydrostatic pressure. The idea behind them is simple. They keep the water outside the structure (in the case of a basement or tunnel) or inside the structure (in the case of a water tank or canal) by using a physical barrier.

There is no doubt that membranes add adequate protection to the structure in this regard. And sometimes, using special types in specific applications is a must.

The problem, however, is that the quality of the concrete is sometimes overlooked in favor of how well membranes can protect it instead. While that can be seen as a tempting shortcut to deal with any issues the concrete has, it’s not the best approach to determining whether these membranes are worth using. To see why, let’s explore some of the common approaches to waterproofing membranes, what makes them particularly ineffective, and how to handle waterproofing membranes more effectively.

The Less Effective Ways to Approach Waterproofing Membranes

To start, here are some of the more common approaches to using waterproofing membranes that are less effective.

A Waterproofing Membrane’s Crack-Bridging Ability Is Sometimes Overly Relied Upon

Many waterproofing stakeholders stress on the fact that membranes have the advantage of covering cracks. The term for this for both sheet- and liquid-applied membranes is the crack-bridging ability. As they assume that the physical barrier will prevent water from reaching the cracks and penetrating the concrete, they tend to give less consideration to concrete placing, curing, and other best practices recommended by international codes and standards.

The same logic is used to argue that by using membranes, less attention should be given to the concrete pouring sequence and to the provision of control joints. Again, in this argument, they consider the best-case scenario that the membrane system will not fail. That leaves them vulnerable to any potential worst-case scenarios that occur.

Keep reading this blog on Kryton.com