<![CDATA[Concrete Moisture Measurement Forums - Moisture Measurement in Concrete]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/ Thu, 17 May 2012 01:55:01 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Adhesive/Vapor Retarding Membranes. ]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=262 Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:27:05 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=262
http://www.bostik-us.com/files/tdsfiles/Vapor-Lock.pdf

Quote:Quote Bostik "For substrates that have an MVER of greater than 15 lbs or an RH
greater than 85% or for substrates where a vapor retarder is not
used or is not functioning below slab, use Bostik Ultra-Set® Single-
Step™or Bostik MVP4/Bostik Adhesive System."

Hmmm, what-a-da-yas-think?]]>
http://www.bostik-us.com/files/tdsfiles/Vapor-Lock.pdf

Quote:Quote Bostik "For substrates that have an MVER of greater than 15 lbs or an RH
greater than 85% or for substrates where a vapor retarder is not
used or is not functioning below slab, use Bostik Ultra-Set® Single-
Step™or Bostik MVP4/Bostik Adhesive System."

Hmmm, what-a-da-yas-think?]]> <![CDATA[ASTM E1907 ?!?]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=260 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:31:17 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=260
Can anyone give me some background on it?

I read it was withdrawn and replaced by F710. So.... what should I think?

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1907.htm]]>
Can anyone give me some background on it?

I read it was withdrawn and replaced by F710. So.... what should I think?

http://www.astm.org/Standards/E1907.htm]]> <![CDATA[How thick is your floor? ]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=259 Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:23:03 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=259
I was called in and tested a few locations using the same Rapid RH (is there anything else? Tongue ) and concurred with the flooring sub that the floor was too wet for the flooring they were installing.

The floor was put in anyway, using a latex sealer and 'special' glue. It is failing just a few months later.

I was called in again and asked to evaluate the slab, starting with RH. This is where things get more serious. We have a failure so now we have to ramp it up a bit. Even though I am being told the slab is 4" thick, I need to verify that it really is. Well guess what?

It isn't.

I drilled depth holes approximately 8" from my new test holes and measured the slab between 4" and up to 8" thick.

Now that there is a problem, I am rethinking my original testing. I did say the slab was too wet so I am kind of safe there, but if they go off my original readings and based their sealer on that, was I off? Either way, my readings were over 90% and even the Wagner can vary by 3% at that high of RH so we could have been at 94% to 97% easily.
I sure never said the slab was at or below 90%. And we were looking for 75% so if my probes were too shallow and reading 90%, going deeper would have been even wetter.

Perhaps there are grade beams in the ground that were not noted. Maybe there are grade beams down low, then vapor retarder was installed and the top 4" is separated from the thicker concrete. If that is the case my new readings could be erroneous because I have some at 3.2" deep!

It's too early to tell, but there will be a lot of questions asked in the near future. Slabs on grade are notoriously uniform in my experience, unless there was something buried or beefed up. No concrete installer wants to pay for extra slab thickness and no GC is going to let him pour less than he bid. Slabs just don't tend to vary more than half an inch on grade and a good sprinkling of readers will catch any discrepancy.

It could be that all the original probes were put in 4" concrete and I just happened to hit the thick parts now because I am installing along supporting walls to stay out of the way.

I'll let you know what comes out in the wash.]]>
I was called in and tested a few locations using the same Rapid RH (is there anything else? Tongue ) and concurred with the flooring sub that the floor was too wet for the flooring they were installing.

The floor was put in anyway, using a latex sealer and 'special' glue. It is failing just a few months later.

I was called in again and asked to evaluate the slab, starting with RH. This is where things get more serious. We have a failure so now we have to ramp it up a bit. Even though I am being told the slab is 4" thick, I need to verify that it really is. Well guess what?

It isn't.

I drilled depth holes approximately 8" from my new test holes and measured the slab between 4" and up to 8" thick.

Now that there is a problem, I am rethinking my original testing. I did say the slab was too wet so I am kind of safe there, but if they go off my original readings and based their sealer on that, was I off? Either way, my readings were over 90% and even the Wagner can vary by 3% at that high of RH so we could have been at 94% to 97% easily.
I sure never said the slab was at or below 90%. And we were looking for 75% so if my probes were too shallow and reading 90%, going deeper would have been even wetter.

Perhaps there are grade beams in the ground that were not noted. Maybe there are grade beams down low, then vapor retarder was installed and the top 4" is separated from the thicker concrete. If that is the case my new readings could be erroneous because I have some at 3.2" deep!

It's too early to tell, but there will be a lot of questions asked in the near future. Slabs on grade are notoriously uniform in my experience, unless there was something buried or beefed up. No concrete installer wants to pay for extra slab thickness and no GC is going to let him pour less than he bid. Slabs just don't tend to vary more than half an inch on grade and a good sprinkling of readers will catch any discrepancy.

It could be that all the original probes were put in 4" concrete and I just happened to hit the thick parts now because I am installing along supporting walls to stay out of the way.

I'll let you know what comes out in the wash.]]> <![CDATA[World of Concrete 2012]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=255 Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:40:42 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=255
Are they supposed to be secret?]]>
Are they supposed to be secret?]]> <![CDATA[improper probe depth]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=249 Thu, 23 Feb 2012 20:00:40 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=249 My training consisted of verbal instruction from a co-worker who had performed tests initially, and is no longer with the company, to reading the directions that came with the early readers. "Drill your holes 1 3/4 - 2" deep", he said.
From what I have learned in the last two days of research, on my own time and of my own initiative, is that I have been doing the tests correctly in every step, except for this one.
Now my superiors at my company are blaming me for not doing the tests correctly. Even though I was never given adequate instruction, I feel my job is in jeopardy. I do tests when asked to (infrequently), and I'm an installer (35 years experience, 17yrs. w/ company) primarily. This lapse has cost us a lot of money, not to mention unreliable results. Since I am not certified, and our company, not wanting to be held legally responsible for giving a go ahead for installation after high readings, another testing company is being brought in to verify our results. More time and money spent!
I want to be proficient at testing, and feel I am close, thanks to the information I have gained here. I will plead my case to my superiors for more education/knowledge/certification and see what happens. You guys really are Concrete Gurus!
Now to my question: having drilled holes 2" deep in a slab that is 3" thick, poured over a corrugated pan appox. 1/8" thick (according to some field measurements taken), what would the correct depth of holes be for the probes? .6" or 1.2" 20% or 40%? Also, if drilling .6", won't the probes stick out 1" above the slab? Is this normal, and how do you prevent them from damage from lifts, bakers, etc.?
I need to know where I made my mistake,for my own piece of mind, so hopefully, this will not occur ever again.]]> My training consisted of verbal instruction from a co-worker who had performed tests initially, and is no longer with the company, to reading the directions that came with the early readers. "Drill your holes 1 3/4 - 2" deep", he said.
From what I have learned in the last two days of research, on my own time and of my own initiative, is that I have been doing the tests correctly in every step, except for this one.
Now my superiors at my company are blaming me for not doing the tests correctly. Even though I was never given adequate instruction, I feel my job is in jeopardy. I do tests when asked to (infrequently), and I'm an installer (35 years experience, 17yrs. w/ company) primarily. This lapse has cost us a lot of money, not to mention unreliable results. Since I am not certified, and our company, not wanting to be held legally responsible for giving a go ahead for installation after high readings, another testing company is being brought in to verify our results. More time and money spent!
I want to be proficient at testing, and feel I am close, thanks to the information I have gained here. I will plead my case to my superiors for more education/knowledge/certification and see what happens. You guys really are Concrete Gurus!
Now to my question: having drilled holes 2" deep in a slab that is 3" thick, poured over a corrugated pan appox. 1/8" thick (according to some field measurements taken), what would the correct depth of holes be for the probes? .6" or 1.2" 20% or 40%? Also, if drilling .6", won't the probes stick out 1" above the slab? Is this normal, and how do you prevent them from damage from lifts, bakers, etc.?
I need to know where I made my mistake,for my own piece of mind, so hopefully, this will not occur ever again.]]> <![CDATA[Ardex promotes the Wagner Rapid RH probe! ]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=237 Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:08:34 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=237

If you have never been to an Ardex plant (there are two in the states now) I can heartily recommend the experience. Ardex hires top shelf personnel, and trains them extensively. And the company sticks behind them, which is important so that what you are told in the field is what they will honor.

Anyway, I was sitting in a conference room with one of their new guys, Jeff, and was going through the moisture testing part of their training. Jeff pulled out his Wagner Rapid RH box and said, "We don't get paid to show these, and I have no affiliation with this company, but I like these probes".

Jeff then showed us how to use the probes (too briefly for my tastes, and I kept interjecting important tidbits of knowledge that would help these new recruits on the front lines i.e. Jeff would brush and vacuum the hole while I would triple and quadruple brush and vac, and I explained the reason we drill 40% or 20%, why we check for fluted decks and the concept of equilibration..... I've been working with these guys for 16 years.... they KNOW I'm going to jump in at these classes Big Grin ) anyway, I couldn't resist and had to ask Jeff if Ardex relied exclusively on RH testing for their slab moisture readings. Jeff said yes. Then I said I know Ardex prefers Wagner Rapid RH, but do they exclude other manufacturers? Unfortunately he said they do not at this time. As long as the test method follows the ASTM, Ardex will accept it.

While I was disappointed to hear that news, it did open the door for me to jump in again and explain the differences in probe design and the troubles inherent with sleeves and leapfrogging readers, along with calibration confirmation requirements. By the time I was done I think I had everyone convinced that for the low introductory price of a reader, and then the speed and accuracy of each probe, using anything but a Wagner would be ludicrous! Tongue

I made some believers, but really when I pitch Wagner I help myself and all of us working in this business. Accurate RH readings are vitally important, and the more Rapid RH testing we do and the more everyone see the Wagner and knows about it, the better off we all are. RH testing is seen as voodoo by some, and I have to believe it is because of poor testing equipment and unqualified and/or uncaring testers performing these tests. We are changing that with every Wagner we use.]]>

If you have never been to an Ardex plant (there are two in the states now) I can heartily recommend the experience. Ardex hires top shelf personnel, and trains them extensively. And the company sticks behind them, which is important so that what you are told in the field is what they will honor.

Anyway, I was sitting in a conference room with one of their new guys, Jeff, and was going through the moisture testing part of their training. Jeff pulled out his Wagner Rapid RH box and said, "We don't get paid to show these, and I have no affiliation with this company, but I like these probes".

Jeff then showed us how to use the probes (too briefly for my tastes, and I kept interjecting important tidbits of knowledge that would help these new recruits on the front lines i.e. Jeff would brush and vacuum the hole while I would triple and quadruple brush and vac, and I explained the reason we drill 40% or 20%, why we check for fluted decks and the concept of equilibration..... I've been working with these guys for 16 years.... they KNOW I'm going to jump in at these classes Big Grin ) anyway, I couldn't resist and had to ask Jeff if Ardex relied exclusively on RH testing for their slab moisture readings. Jeff said yes. Then I said I know Ardex prefers Wagner Rapid RH, but do they exclude other manufacturers? Unfortunately he said they do not at this time. As long as the test method follows the ASTM, Ardex will accept it.

While I was disappointed to hear that news, it did open the door for me to jump in again and explain the differences in probe design and the troubles inherent with sleeves and leapfrogging readers, along with calibration confirmation requirements. By the time I was done I think I had everyone convinced that for the low introductory price of a reader, and then the speed and accuracy of each probe, using anything but a Wagner would be ludicrous! Tongue

I made some believers, but really when I pitch Wagner I help myself and all of us working in this business. Accurate RH readings are vitally important, and the more Rapid RH testing we do and the more everyone see the Wagner and knows about it, the better off we all are. RH testing is seen as voodoo by some, and I have to believe it is because of poor testing equipment and unqualified and/or uncaring testers performing these tests. We are changing that with every Wagner we use.]]> <![CDATA[new wagner product]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=230 Tue, 06 Dec 2011 01:39:57 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=230 http://www.wagnermeters.com/news.php?a=d...XU.twitter

1st to post. Nener nener.

Time for Jason to do a video on dew point with this new tool.]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/news.php?a=d...XU.twitter

1st to post. Nener nener.

Time for Jason to do a video on dew point with this new tool.]]> <![CDATA[MMS- Are some unreliable with high RH?]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=221 Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:24:13 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=221
We recently consulted on a timber flooring installation moisture-related failure, where a vapour barrier was applied.

The manufacturer subsequently changed their spec sheets to stipulate that, if the moisture content was above a certain level (yes, I said content, not RH- the standards here still make it optional to use either criteria), two coats of their barrier are required instead of the previously stipulated one.

This was an admission of non-performance by the manufacturer and, to their credit, they copped a six-figure sum in remedial expense.

Is there a point where some MMS's will not guarantee performance where the RH is too high? Even if they wouldn't admit to it, do some installers here use a sort of "best-practice discretion"?]]>
We recently consulted on a timber flooring installation moisture-related failure, where a vapour barrier was applied.

The manufacturer subsequently changed their spec sheets to stipulate that, if the moisture content was above a certain level (yes, I said content, not RH- the standards here still make it optional to use either criteria), two coats of their barrier are required instead of the previously stipulated one.

This was an admission of non-performance by the manufacturer and, to their credit, they copped a six-figure sum in remedial expense.

Is there a point where some MMS's will not guarantee performance where the RH is too high? Even if they wouldn't admit to it, do some installers here use a sort of "best-practice discretion"?]]> <![CDATA[High Rapid RH readings??]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=220 Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:13:30 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=220 Conditions:
-New 2500sq.ft. slab 6" thick installed over vapor barrier over 12" gravel foundation.
-trowel finished with no other products added (no sealer or other)
-installed 3 RH probes at 40% depth after 1 month of pour. Sensors read 97% after 1 hour and 99% ever since.
-Its now been almost 3 months since the end of the water cure and still 99%RH from all 3 probes
-The RH in the gym was about 50% and is now 30% for about a month already. Temp. of gym has been around 70 F
Questions:
-Is it normal to still have 99% while other test types have shown a drop?
-Are the probes malfunctioning and should I have waited longer prior to installing them?
-Should I go ahead and install another probe to be sure of the readings?

Thanks.]]> Conditions:
-New 2500sq.ft. slab 6" thick installed over vapor barrier over 12" gravel foundation.
-trowel finished with no other products added (no sealer or other)
-installed 3 RH probes at 40% depth after 1 month of pour. Sensors read 97% after 1 hour and 99% ever since.
-Its now been almost 3 months since the end of the water cure and still 99%RH from all 3 probes
-The RH in the gym was about 50% and is now 30% for about a month already. Temp. of gym has been around 70 F
Questions:
-Is it normal to still have 99% while other test types have shown a drop?
-Are the probes malfunctioning and should I have waited longer prior to installing them?
-Should I go ahead and install another probe to be sure of the readings?

Thanks.]]> <![CDATA[I learned something new today...]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=218 Thu, 03 Nov 2011 04:09:09 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=218
I freaked out and said oh no oh no henny penny the sky is falling. I now feel pretty dumb.

After some research the GC pointed out that the side of the gym that is reading high has a masonry wall. On that side of the room, the concrete is 14" thick to support the masonry wall. So duh it isn't dry.

Anyway, I have to figure out how to read walls now before bid. Not sure how but I will have to pull out this projects plans and teach myself a new skill.

Learn something new every day. Shows why we have GC's. They do have the whole building in mind. Smile

Now I have to find out if the sealing company can do the whole bead blast and seal and top coat 12' of concrete without having to level the whole floor.]]>
I freaked out and said oh no oh no henny penny the sky is falling. I now feel pretty dumb.

After some research the GC pointed out that the side of the gym that is reading high has a masonry wall. On that side of the room, the concrete is 14" thick to support the masonry wall. So duh it isn't dry.

Anyway, I have to figure out how to read walls now before bid. Not sure how but I will have to pull out this projects plans and teach myself a new skill.

Learn something new every day. Shows why we have GC's. They do have the whole building in mind. Smile

Now I have to find out if the sealing company can do the whole bead blast and seal and top coat 12' of concrete without having to level the whole floor.]]> <![CDATA[check it out]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=217 Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:10:23 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=217 www.sportsbuilders.org/events/presentations/pontevedra_4dcraig.pdf

It doesn't make enough of a deal about sand under slabs.

Look at page 111 - now that is a lot of probes.

Look at page 113. What is that?

Look at page 119 - shows how to get a low reading.]]> www.sportsbuilders.org/events/presentations/pontevedra_4dcraig.pdf

It doesn't make enough of a deal about sand under slabs.

Look at page 111 - now that is a lot of probes.

Look at page 113. What is that?

Look at page 119 - shows how to get a low reading.]]> <![CDATA[Walgreen's Slabs]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=210 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 22:04:50 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=210 <![CDATA[Questioning the results of RH probes]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=209 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 20:06:41 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=209
While this sounds good and appears to be doing what the concrete does over time under the right conditions, the part that scares me about the validity of the RH testing is that this will be typical on my jobs where the slab was poured 8 months ago just the same as slabs that were poured 20 years ago.

Yes I know that the slab poured 20 years ago may have been covered immediately back then and never dried out, had some recent problems where the concrete was wet or some other strange occurrence to make the concrete have a higher RH again but it is a regular occurrence that they start off with high RH values and slowly lower over weeks or months of testing.

The main point is that I have not seen a slab that is initially at a reasonable RH and has already stabilized. It always seems to be starting it’s drying out process the moment I start to monitor it.

Any thoughts?]]>
While this sounds good and appears to be doing what the concrete does over time under the right conditions, the part that scares me about the validity of the RH testing is that this will be typical on my jobs where the slab was poured 8 months ago just the same as slabs that were poured 20 years ago.

Yes I know that the slab poured 20 years ago may have been covered immediately back then and never dried out, had some recent problems where the concrete was wet or some other strange occurrence to make the concrete have a higher RH again but it is a regular occurrence that they start off with high RH values and slowly lower over weeks or months of testing.

The main point is that I have not seen a slab that is initially at a reasonable RH and has already stabilized. It always seems to be starting it’s drying out process the moment I start to monitor it.

Any thoughts?]]> <![CDATA[Ambient humidity vs. RH]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=205 Wed, 05 Oct 2011 04:29:55 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=205
Question, and apologies if it has been asked a million times: I note the instructional video on temperatures having little effect on the RH of the slab. What about the ambient humidity of the area?

A major adhesives manufacturer rep mentioned to me that the highest number of moisture-related flooring failures occurred in a state which is known for its hot, dry climate. This is particularly telling as this area is a much smaller market than the eastern states, with areas known for their higher humidity.

Pardon my ignorance, does this imply that the inherent slab moisture (roughly the same in all locations, give or take differing mixing techniques between concrete layers) will translate to greater RH at the floor covering area, when exposed to a drier hot climate, as opposed to a more humid environment?

Or should it mean that the RH of the slab in a drier, hotter area will decrease more quickly?

Cheers
Pat of Oz]]>
Question, and apologies if it has been asked a million times: I note the instructional video on temperatures having little effect on the RH of the slab. What about the ambient humidity of the area?

A major adhesives manufacturer rep mentioned to me that the highest number of moisture-related flooring failures occurred in a state which is known for its hot, dry climate. This is particularly telling as this area is a much smaller market than the eastern states, with areas known for their higher humidity.

Pardon my ignorance, does this imply that the inherent slab moisture (roughly the same in all locations, give or take differing mixing techniques between concrete layers) will translate to greater RH at the floor covering area, when exposed to a drier hot climate, as opposed to a more humid environment?

Or should it mean that the RH of the slab in a drier, hotter area will decrease more quickly?

Cheers
Pat of Oz]]> <![CDATA[Self consolidating concrete (SCC)]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=191 Sat, 17 Sep 2011 21:07:51 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=191 If it is true that SCC has lower permeability than normal concrete, does this mean it dry's slower?
Question Thus resulting in less curling? Or are shrinkage reducing admixtures still greatly needed?

Certainly looks to me that SCC can't be used over a sand blotter layer... which seems like a very good thing for Div 9 people.

Question Is SCC to be tested differently for moisture?

Question Do moisture sealing companies treat SCC differently?

Question Any other things I should know?



Amazing stuff to see on YouTube about SCC.

I think concrete construction is doing an issue on it. That is the current poll on: http://www.concreteconstruction.net/]]> If it is true that SCC has lower permeability than normal concrete, does this mean it dry's slower?
Question Thus resulting in less curling? Or are shrinkage reducing admixtures still greatly needed?

Certainly looks to me that SCC can't be used over a sand blotter layer... which seems like a very good thing for Div 9 people.

Question Is SCC to be tested differently for moisture?

Question Do moisture sealing companies treat SCC differently?

Question Any other things I should know?



Amazing stuff to see on YouTube about SCC.

I think concrete construction is doing an issue on it. That is the current poll on: http://www.concreteconstruction.net/]]> <![CDATA[Do you use contracts for jobs anymore? ]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=173 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:44:04 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=173
This job is a 5 hour drive and I asked if they checked with a big mitigation contractor in the area. They did, but the contractor didn't return 3 calls.

I gave them a price and they jumped at it. When I called my foreman and told him we have a change of plans for Tuesday he said maybe they don't pay their bills and that's why the big local guy won't work with them.

That made me think. What if they don't pay, or if they make a big fuss? I had one job last year that I had a contract with the GC, otherwise I had no contracts at all. Guess which job I had the most problems with?

Oh, I used to use contracts all the time. I had mine and the client always has theirs. Bigger clients demand you use theirs, that kind of sucks, I like mine because it protects me! But most companies I work for (even ones that had contracts and paperwork) ignore paperwork and just call and I go do the work and they pay the bill. And I'm talking about pretty good sized jobs..... my largest no contract job was $430,000.00! Yep, no contract, monthly billing, no problems at all. Most of my jobs are under $50,000.00 though.

My attorney tells me a verbal contract is definitely a contract, and I keep emails and am sure to spell out details. I guess a contract works both ways, it can hang you or help you, but lately nobody seems concerned. The Tuesday job is $10,000.00 and the company seems legit, so I'll just do it. Maybe just doing the work, no fussing, endears my company to clients, who knows??? Big Grin]]>
This job is a 5 hour drive and I asked if they checked with a big mitigation contractor in the area. They did, but the contractor didn't return 3 calls.

I gave them a price and they jumped at it. When I called my foreman and told him we have a change of plans for Tuesday he said maybe they don't pay their bills and that's why the big local guy won't work with them.

That made me think. What if they don't pay, or if they make a big fuss? I had one job last year that I had a contract with the GC, otherwise I had no contracts at all. Guess which job I had the most problems with?

Oh, I used to use contracts all the time. I had mine and the client always has theirs. Bigger clients demand you use theirs, that kind of sucks, I like mine because it protects me! But most companies I work for (even ones that had contracts and paperwork) ignore paperwork and just call and I go do the work and they pay the bill. And I'm talking about pretty good sized jobs..... my largest no contract job was $430,000.00! Yep, no contract, monthly billing, no problems at all. Most of my jobs are under $50,000.00 though.

My attorney tells me a verbal contract is definitely a contract, and I keep emails and am sure to spell out details. I guess a contract works both ways, it can hang you or help you, but lately nobody seems concerned. The Tuesday job is $10,000.00 and the company seems legit, so I'll just do it. Maybe just doing the work, no fussing, endears my company to clients, who knows??? Big Grin]]> <![CDATA[City Supervisors Meeting]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=171 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:25:15 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=171
I have to explain what moisture is and why their floor is failing. I tested it and it came out at 99% rH. Went outside and in the dessert w/ no watering for the summer, it looks like marsh land, 4' tall green weeds. So I am concluding that it is moisture intrusion to the slab and it is probably spreading under the slab through a sand blotter layer.

Ray, can you point me to some good summation articles you might have done?

I think I will use this as a base: http://www.concreteconstruction.net/conc...sture.aspx

I feel like I am playing telephone with concrete moisture and it makes me feel uneasy.]]>
I have to explain what moisture is and why their floor is failing. I tested it and it came out at 99% rH. Went outside and in the dessert w/ no watering for the summer, it looks like marsh land, 4' tall green weeds. So I am concluding that it is moisture intrusion to the slab and it is probably spreading under the slab through a sand blotter layer.

Ray, can you point me to some good summation articles you might have done?

I think I will use this as a base: http://www.concreteconstruction.net/conc...sture.aspx

I feel like I am playing telephone with concrete moisture and it makes me feel uneasy.]]> <![CDATA[Floor Covering Installer]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=170 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:11:53 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=170
One, shows them doing what I suspect is a sealing job and then telegraphing sand from an Ardex P-82 bucket. Seems to me there is a nice contradiction there. P-82 and using sand to provide a grab. Also, I'd love to know a 'silicate' per page 32 that works / holds up vs the 'court consultants'.

Also Ray has an article on sheet vinyl installation with epoxy. What is difference between Epoxy and Urethane adhesives? We don't back roll urethane, can't speak to epoxies. We do back roll our pressure sensitive latex adhesives.]]>
One, shows them doing what I suspect is a sealing job and then telegraphing sand from an Ardex P-82 bucket. Seems to me there is a nice contradiction there. P-82 and using sand to provide a grab. Also, I'd love to know a 'silicate' per page 32 that works / holds up vs the 'court consultants'.

Also Ray has an article on sheet vinyl installation with epoxy. What is difference between Epoxy and Urethane adhesives? We don't back roll urethane, can't speak to epoxies. We do back roll our pressure sensitive latex adhesives.]]> <![CDATA[Self-leveling concrete - My bonehead mistake]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=167 Sun, 21 Aug 2011 15:20:48 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=167
The work began and I noticed right away that the material didn't self heal like normal. I had a shortened flow time between pours to blend the joints. The material set up really fast in the sunlit areas. Not until the entire 100 bags were down did it dawn on me that the hose running across the roof was warming the water. Luckily the roof was white rubber, but the green hose still absorbed radiant heat.

The job turned out not as good as we normally do, and I felt terrible. I talked with the flooring sub and asked him to evaluate the underlayment and let me know what his guys have to do to make it right. This bonehead move will cost me some money, but worse than that is it hurts my reputation. Sad]]>
The work began and I noticed right away that the material didn't self heal like normal. I had a shortened flow time between pours to blend the joints. The material set up really fast in the sunlit areas. Not until the entire 100 bags were down did it dawn on me that the hose running across the roof was warming the water. Luckily the roof was white rubber, but the green hose still absorbed radiant heat.

The job turned out not as good as we normally do, and I felt terrible. I talked with the flooring sub and asked him to evaluate the underlayment and let me know what his guys have to do to make it right. This bonehead move will cost me some money, but worse than that is it hurts my reputation. Sad]]> <![CDATA[Rhspec.com]]> http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=166 Sat, 20 Aug 2011 03:35:19 +0000 http://www.wagnermeters.com/concreteforum/showthread.php?tid=166
http://www.rhspec.com/manufacturers-spec...ty-testing

I liked the article http://www.rhspec.com/dont-power-trowel-...te-blindly the most.

I got one of those crazy questions about that. If power troweling inhibits drying from the surface, does that mean there is very little emission rate?]]>
http://www.rhspec.com/manufacturers-spec...ty-testing

I liked the article http://www.rhspec.com/dont-power-trowel-...te-blindly the most.

I got one of those crazy questions about that. If power troweling inhibits drying from the surface, does that mean there is very little emission rate?]]>