• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH?

#11
Stephen,
I am one of those who abhor F1869, but my disgust comes from the misapplication of a viable test seen in the field.

Believing that the MVER calculated under wildly varying conditions and then believing that the MVER of a concrete slab indicates the suitability for moisture sensitive flooring is flawed reasoning. We know better than that now.

I do believe calcium chloride is a desiccant, I do believe it can be used to absorb moisture, and I do believe under laboratory conditions it can be used for determining certain conditions of state. For E96 testing it is fine. But for use by a flooring installer this is physics that looks great on paper being pawned for an improper purpose. There are far too many contributing factors that skew the MVER readings to believe the test results.

Further more, the purpose of E96 is to measure moisture permeance through a barrier. The purpose of F1869 is the same, but most don't use it for that! The results harvested are used for a completely different reason.

CaCl does the same thing in both cases, yes, but in one case we learn the permeance of a product and in the other we learn the long term propensity for a successful floor installation? I don't think so.
JD Grafton
Concrete Answers for Flooring Problems
[email protected]
Reply

#12
" But for use by a flooring installer this is physics that looks great on paper being pawned for an improper purpose. There are far too many contributing factors that skew the MVER readings to believe the test results."

I am stealing this phrase for my boilerplate cacl rejection letter.
Reply

#13
(11-08-2011, 09:43 AM)eaadams Wrote:  " But for use by a flooring installer this is physics that looks great on paper being pawned for an improper purpose. There are far too many contributing factors that skew the MVER readings to believe the test results."

I am stealing this phrase for my boilerplate cacl rejection letter.

Copyright 2011, CC Solutions, all rights reserved Tongue
JD Grafton
Concrete Answers for Flooring Problems
[email protected]
Reply

#14
(11-08-2011, 07:27 AM)CC Solutions Wrote:  Stephen,
I am one of those who abhor F1869, but my disgust comes from the misapplication of a viable test seen in the field.

Believing that the MVER calculated under wildly varying conditions and then believing that the MVER of a concrete slab indicates the suitability for moisture sensitive flooring is flawed reasoning. We know better than that now.

I do believe calcium chloride is a desiccant, I do believe it can be used to absorb moisture, and I do believe under laboratory conditions it can be used for determining certain conditions of state. For E96 testing it is fine. But for use by a flooring installer this is physics that looks great on paper being pawned for an improper purpose. There are far too many contributing factors that skew the MVER readings to believe the test results.

Further more, the purpose of E96 is to measure moisture permeance through a barrier. The purpose of F1869 is the same, but most don't use it for that! The results harvested are used for a completely different reason.

CaCl does the same thing in both cases, yes, but in one case we learn the permeance of a product and in the other we learn the long term propensity for a successful floor installation? I don't think so.

Oh but I must agree to disagree, although you did not touch base on the point I was trying to make. If E96 uses it to measure the perm rating of a film, and the F-1869 is supposed to do the same, and both use the same dessicant for the test, why can't it measure the permeance of a film over concrete in the field if the ambient temp and rh are within the labs guidleines? In this I am not talking about the dish being directly over a slab? Therein lies the collusion I'm talking about.

If E96 is only for lab purposes then it should be the same for any topical film over concrete. Being that it is impossible to guarantee your applied film is the same exact thickness and conditions onsite are exactly the same. If so then I should be able to perform a Cacl test over a troweled on vapor retarder or even some six mil plastic that would give me complete attestation the product is performing to spec.

Besides, I don't anywhere in E96 that that is a designated test for films applied to the surface of concrete and or floorcovering in general. So I still do not understand why everyone refers to this standard.

I think someone was wandering through the ASTM library one day and said, oh look...a permeance standard. Lets apply it to floorcovering because it sounds neat and no one would ever question an ASTM standard. Unless of course that standard was not applicable to floorcovering. Ho Ho

And how one ever gets from E96 using the dessicant...[[which BTW I don't recall it ever being used for any test like that prior to the formulation of F 1869]], then the lbs/24hr/1000sf formula and end up with an Rh percentage for the limit of "moisture content" in a slab is beyound me. It all sounds like pure conjecture.

Stephen Perrera dba
Top Floor Installation Co.
http://www.tucsonazflooring.com
http://www.floorsavior.com
Reply

#15
I'm not sure if I understand your point, but testing a film and testing a film that has been applied to an unknown substrate under unknown conditions is vastly different.

I have not said you cannot test an MMS as it sits on the floor. As far as I'm concerned it would be just fine. What you would learn from such a test may be questionable though. Are you seeking to quantify the MVER? We have seen readings of a half pound or more MVER when a test is placed on a glass plate. Are you seeking to determine if the slab is ready for flooring? We know it is because we have a warranty sheet in our file and the MMS manufacturer guarantees the job.

In the lab the film being tested has a clearly defined and controlled vapor pushing against it. In the field on a cement slab? No. More variables. I am also not sure if the chemicals used in any MMS would skew MVER readings.

So I would say if you do test MVER on membranes, when it comes to interpreting the test results you may be forging new ground. The best way to make sense of your tests may be to document MVER readings, RH readings, ambient conditions and then calculate those against lab E96 rates for the product you are using.... But isn't that what the MMS companies have already done?
JD Grafton
Concrete Answers for Flooring Problems
[email protected]
Reply

#16
Quote:We have seen readings of a half pound or more MVER when a test is placed on a glass plate

We have? Have you tried the test yourself? Under what conditions, in a lab or outside when it was raining and they left the dish open while they prepped the slab? Big Grin I don't believe it, sorry.

I believe ASTM says CaCl tests on top of films are invalid. So I guess your stuck believeing the product is performing to specifications.

If the coating/film is cured what chemicals would there be to skew the readings?
Stephen Perrera dba
Top Floor Installation Co.
http://www.tucsonazflooring.com
http://www.floorsavior.com
Reply

#17
Yes the ASTM invalidates F1869 on moisture mitigation membranes. You should ask the committee for their reason why.

I have conducted tests on MMS. They have all been below 1lb calculated. I did these for clients that just wanted to see what would happen.

I have not done a CaCl on a glass plate. CTL has and has published the data. I do not need to do my own test to confirm or deny, I will trust Howard on this because there are a lot bigger fish to fry out there. Dodgy

I do believe the films I apply are working 100% of the time. I have tested them extensively and installed them perfectly. I have no reason NOT to believe. I have had zero failures in 15 years. No voodoo condensation showing up, no freak moisture attacks. No excuses. I don't use marginal products or products made for other purposes in an improper application. I always color within the lines.
JD Grafton
Concrete Answers for Flooring Problems
[email protected]
Reply

#18
(11-09-2011, 07:20 AM)CC Solutions Wrote:  Yes the ASTM invalidates F1869 on moisture mitigation membranes. You should ask the committee for their reason why.

I have conducted tests on MMS. They have all been below 1lb calculated. I did these for clients that just wanted to see what would happen.

I have not done a CaCl on a glass plate. CTL has and has published the data. I do not need to do my own test to confirm or deny, I will trust Howard on this because there are a lot bigger fish to fry out there. Dodgy

I do believe the films I apply are working 100% of the time. I have tested them extensively and installed them perfectly. I have no reason NOT to believe. I have had zero failures in 15 years. No voodoo condensation showing up, no freak moisture attacks. No excuses. I don't use marginal products or products made for other purposes in an improper application. I always color within the lines.

I think I already know why the committee voted they way they did. And I am not trying to fry anyone. Just answering questions brought up in this thread and giving others a different perspective to think about.

As an installation contractorfor 20 years and being in the biz for 35 years and not having a failure either I have trained myself to question everything. I have seen the others take for granted what some manufacturers claim their products will do and have massive failures.

I also take anyones data with a grain of salt if they have a vested interest in seeing that the results favor the product they are selling.

Not eveyone can afford the top shelf products you use, and not all of them will be willing to pay for everything should there be a failure
Stephen Perrera dba
Top Floor Installation Co.
http://www.tucsonazflooring.com
http://www.floorsavior.com
Reply

#19
Agreed. A very small percentage of the facilities use the products I install. Usually they have either had a massive expensive failure or they have an area that is so delicate they cannot afford a failure.

My repeat business percentage is very high, so that is pleasing. Heart
JD Grafton
Concrete Answers for Flooring Problems
[email protected]
Reply

#20
Thank you Stephen, JD and Evan- always informative (and a little entertaining... )

I knew it would eventually re-open the MVER/ RH can of worms over which you guys have been sparring for a while.

JD, your comments in post #11, would I be close if I parahprased them, in below-layman's terms, thus: MVER tests show how much moisture may emit through the top of the slab. RH testing show what actually will, when floor coverings are applied.

I posted this originally, as I said, to guage the depth of importance of accurate moisture testing, since many contractors here will view a vapour barrier as a panacea to the whole thing. I'm probably still not clued up enough on the variables between the vapour barrier products to fully understand it. We don't even get the Koster

JD: "I have not said you cannot test an MMS as it sits on the floor. As far as I'm concerned it would be just fine. What you would learn from such a test may be questionable though. Are you seeking to quantify the MVER?"

We're just having that debate here with a vapour barrier manufacturer, and on a thread in Linkedin. Most manufacturers do their own testing for their spec-sheets, obviously. One with whom we deal actually suggests that contractors do RH hood tests before and after application of the barrier "just to be sure".
The problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money.
- Margaret Thatcher

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Who Says Rapid Rh Reads High? Ernesto 3 9,290 08-20-2012, 07:07 PM
Last Post: CC Solutions
  High Rapid RH readings?? ddemento 49 80,847 12-08-2011, 06:03 PM
Last Post: Ernesto
  high rh in concrete chas04344 2 8,888 09-11-2009, 07:33 PM
Last Post: chas04344

Digg   Delicious   Reddit   Facebook   Twitter   StumbleUpon  


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)