Is anyone familiar with BondTAC?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 163 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 09:45 am:    While I was away from the office yesterday a product representative left some information for BondTAC waterproof/anti-fracture membrane. Apparently it is manufactured in Canada. The on-line literature suggests the product complies with ASTM E 96-05 and ASTM C 1306-08 for water "vapour" (Canada remember) transmission and hydrostatic pressure resistance respectively. Unfortunately, a more in-depth look at the same literature suggests the testing was performed in-house, not by an independent testing agency. At least the company was honest about where the testing was conducted. [looking for the 'perplexed' emoticon]. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 53 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, June 19, 2015 - 11:28 am:    1. Were the inhouse tests witnessed by an independent source? 2. I kind of like that they have an inhouse lab. Having it, they can use it for QA/QC testing and research and development. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 165 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 07:53 am:    There is no indication the tests were independently witnessed. The literature is also very "hard sell" and that always sets off a few bells in my mind. In fact, more verbiage is spent pointing up the short-comings of polyurethanes than giving information about the BondTAC product. I could not find anything indicating the generic make-up of the product either. That also gives me pause. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 13 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 09:58 am:    What does "pass" ASTM E96 mean? This is a test that measures water vapor permeance and gives a value in terms of Perms - not a pass/fail result. The appropriate value for permeance will depend on the application. Similarly, ASTM C 1036 is a test method for determining the hydrostatic pressure to which a membrane can prevent water intrusion. There is no pass/fail - just a value for the pressure at which the membrane fails. Product literature that states simply a "pass" on these tests does not have credibility with me. They should state the values for permeance and hydrostatic pressure, so that the specifier can comparie those values to what is required for the application. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1320 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, June 22, 2015 - 11:11 am:    Greta: I agree. However, some products require compliance with an ASTM Standard Specification, which establishes thresholds for many of these secondary performance standards; thus, a "pass" would mean it met or exceeded the threshold established by the standard specification. Regardless, I would still like to know if it just barely crossed the threshold or far exceeded it so I can compare it to other products. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1631 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, June 23, 2015 - 03:29 pm:    Or, it could mean tested per the ASTM, but meets the threshold in the building code. Greta Eckhardt Senior Member Username: gretaeckhardt Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 10:34 am:    I basically agree with Ron and John, but want to give any manufacturers who may be reading this some idea of what specifiers are looking for. ASTM publishes several types of standards. ASTM Test Standards contain requirements regarding how testing will be conducted. Other ASTM standards define classifications, each with minimum performance values, each of which must be obtained by testing in accordance with an ASTM Test Standards. ASTM E96 and C1036 are simply Test Standards, and compliance with them only means that products have been tested appropriately - it says nothing about how well the products will perform. A separate standard, perhaps an ASTM classification standard or maybe a Code requirement, would need to be cited to indicate what minimum performance value must be achieved. If the manufacturer wants us to specify their product, they need to give us the performance value and/or the classification or other source of minimum requirement. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 918 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 10:55 am:    Greta, I'm going to suggest that a number of manufacturers read your post. You very succinctly summed up the matter. One additional request is that manufacturers cite appropriate standards when claiming compliance. When listing qualities of a sheet product, claiming compliance with a standard for fluid-applied material is meaningless. Let's hope the industry listens. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 591 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 11:51 am:    The information that is published in a manufacturer's literature is dependent on who has more authority over the content--the engineers and lab people, or the marketing people. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1321 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2015 - 11:59 am:    To expand on Greta's post, many people don't understand that ASTM International has many different types of standards: Classification, Guide, Practice, Specification, Terminology, and Test Method. You can tell which type of standard one is by looking at the actual standard title--it will state "Standard Specification for..." or "Standard Practice for...", etc. For example, PVC Roofing has ASTM Standard Specification D 4434. Within that standard specification, Section 2 lists all the other referenced documents (All ASTM test methods or practices,in this case, but other standards and documents may be referenced). Section 8 gets a little more specific about the test methods. The physical requirements for each type of PVC roofing is found in Table 1, which lists the thresholds that must be met based on the various test methods described in Section 8. So, when a manufacturer of Type III PVC roofing says "Pass" or "Complies" next to "Breaking Strength (ASTM D 751)," they may be saying that its breaking strength is at least 200 lbf/in. as required by ASTM D 4434, Table 1. However, I still would like to know what is that value, regardless. There may be another manufacturer out there with a Type III PVC roofing membrane that publishes a breaking strength exceeding the minimum even for a Type IV membrane (275 lbf/in.). How am I to compare that roof membrane to the one that only says "pass" or "complies"? Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 166 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Thursday, June 25, 2015 - 08:18 am:    While no one has yet answered the question this thread is based on many have given important insight especially regarding testing, test results, and the true value of those results. Unfortunately, the information available from this manufacturer does nothing to resolve the issue. For example, the two ASTM tests cited apparently have different "pass" thresholds depending on the substrate to which the product is applied. Nothing in the literature makes clear on which substrate(s) the product was tested. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 559 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, June 29, 2015 - 03:57 pm:    I've made it a practice to avoid specifying critical concealed materials such as roofing and waterproofing in the absence of an established manufacturer technical network. The presence of an occasional sales representative or distributor is not enough; I want an experienced tech rep from the manufacturer close enough to participate in preinstallation conferences, examine substrates, kick off the installation, and inspect before concealment. So - just having "heard of" a new manufacturer doesn't put them in our specs. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 167 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2015 - 07:54 am:    Obviously Phil is correct. To be clear, "heard of" does not implicitly mean "known to have a good reputation" and that is what we are looking for. Frankly, if no one of the august group has even heard of a manufacturer or its products then that manufacturer has quite a task ahead of it to establish both a network and a history of success.