## 5 Evaluation of Six Waterproofing Membranes Using the Proposed Testing Method
### Expected Trend of Performance on Dry and Wet Surface Installation per Movement Widths  
The averaged leaked cycle numbers of each type of specimen were taken and separately analyzed between the results derived from the dry surface specimens and the wet surface specimens. The results of the dry surface conditioned specimens represent the expected performance results based on the requirements of the standard installation procedure. The results of the wet surface conditioned specimens represent the expected performance results based on the humidity conditions closer to the below-grade construction sites. Refer to the graphs shown in Figure 10.  
The graphs show that the average performance of wet surface conditioned specimens is lower than that of dry surface adhered specimens. The following conclusions can be made: (1) waterproofing membranes perform below the expectation when installed on a wet concrete surface; (2) proper workmanship should include plans to ensure proper installation on a wet concrete surface; and (3) waterproofing membrane systems that innately possess strong wet surface adhesion properties should be favored.  
Estimation Method for Determining Successful Installation/Performance Rate for Waterproofing Membrane Systems  
The occurrence numbers of each failure type were plotted in a bar graph. The bar graph expresses an estimation for determining the successful installation rate of each tested waterproofing membrane. The graph on the left is from dry surface conditioned specimen test results and the graph on the right is from the wet surface conditioned specimens. The occurrence rate of each failure type across different movement widths (from 2.5 mm to 10.0 mm) is compared to the number of specimens that completed the 300 displacement cycles. Refer to Figure 11 for details.  
Tensile failure of waterproofing membranes shows a clear connection between membrane durability and concrete joint load behavior. For adhesion and overlap failures, the cause could be low material quality and/or poor workmanship. In the case of systems A and D, some of the specimens were able to withstand all 300 cycles of movement for all movement widths for both surface conditions. This indicates that the membranes meet the bar for below-grade waterproofing construction. The occurrence rates of specific failure types in dry surface conditioning ((a) in Figure 11) and wet surface conditioning ((b) in Figure 11) were compared. It was clear from the occurrence rate of overlap failure (OF) and adhesion failure (AF) that the humidity affected the material adhesion on mortar surfaces. For wet surface conditioning, seven specimens for System A and six specimens for  
Figure 10: Comparison of specimen movement cycle leakage on dry and wet surface specimens; (**a**) estimated performance trends of dry surface installed specimens; (**b**) estimated performance trends of wet surface installed specimensSystem D were able to complete the 300-cycle regime. This suggests that the respective systems may have adequate wet surface adhesion properties, but also suggests that workmanship planning and/or adhesion property on a wet surface could still be improved.  
Based on the results outlined above, a decisive evaluation of the tested waterproofing membranes cannot be made. The above graph is designed to only introduce the model. It is expected that with repeated testing over a larger sample pool, more reliable data can be produced in the future and assessing the workability of waterproofing membranes will become feasible with this test method.