Concrete Admixture "Barrier 1"

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

Author Message Y. Lynn Jolley AIA CSI CCS CCCA Senior Member Username: lynn_jolley Post Number: 24 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 04:48 pm:    Has anyone had experience with “Barrier 1” What I have been told thus far is: This concrete admixture can eliminate the problems associated with moisture migration in concrete and it's adverse affects on flooring. The cost is 70 - 80 cents per SF up front. While this is a substantial amount of money, it is significantly less than the $3.50 to $5.50 per SF Owner's have had to pay for topical solutions before flooring can be installed over noncompliant concrete. What are your real life, time-tested experiences with this product? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 947 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 05:00 pm:    I have been approached by these guys. There info and test result is sketchy. I am not going to specify their system or other systems like it. The main problems are how to ensure that this admixture is added and what to do when the slab cracks....and it will crack. Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 05:37 pm:    Yeah, I got a meeting with them guys to. There telling me that there stuff is better than they're cometitor's stuff, and I am not to sure I believe that. If I can get better information, I might put there stuff in my spec, but until then I am just going with what I got in their now. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 582 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 06:08 pm:    Announcement: The preceding post was a grammar test for all you specifiers out there. How many errors did you find? Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 - 06:21 pm:    I am thinking David Axt didn't find many ;) Russ Hinkle, AIA, CCS Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 38 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 07:40 am:    Just had a lunch presentation from INSTALL Internation Standards & Training Alliance. They made a strong case that these "Magic Bullet" products are not the cure all, end all. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 241 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 02:13 pm:    So what does this system do for you that a concrete densifier doesn't? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 948 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2007 - 02:26 pm:    I too was approached by the guys selling Barrier 1 products. I found their information and test results sketchy at best. Because of the lack of good solid technical information and test results, among other things, I will not specify their products or other comparable systems. One of the main deficiencies to these types of products is quality control. How does one to ensure that the admixture was actually added in the proper quantity at the batch plant? Another problem is what to do when the concrete slab will inevitably crack. Since these admixture products are not crack bridging, there will be a gap in the system that will allow water vapor to transmit. It is best to stick with an underslab vapor barrier. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 9 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 04:44 am:    If you are woried about whether the admixture was added in the proper quantity then you should be equally worried about the other concrete admixtures. One strategy to deal with this concern is to have the inspector verify the concrete batch tickets that the driver is given at the batching plant. Another one is to have an inspector at the batch plant to verify no problems with the batching as DSA and OSHPD require in California. You might try xypex which should acomplish the same thing and which has some ability to heal cracks. My bias would be to use these systems as backup if you have free water under the slab. Tests have shown that well consolidated concrete will not allow any significant amount of moisture to flow through the slab. Thus the moisture that supposidly causes problems with flooring failures dosen't come from the soil under the slab, except in maybe rare circumstances. Rather the moisture comes from the air in the room or the moinsture in the concrete voids due to mix water and curing water. Anonymous   Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 01:05 pm:    Mark, you are lumping bulk water and moisture in the form of vapor into the same category. Moisture in the soil under slabs on grade ABSOLUTELY contribute to floor covering failures in every region of the US. This is a basic law of physics - look up vapor pressure as it relates to buildings. Crystalline waterproofing (Xypex and others) is not effective in controlling moisture migration through the slab in the form of vapor. It is a good water proofing solution for water in liquid form. Check the manuf literature. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 674 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 02:10 pm:    Xypex also will "heal" only hairline cracks. their literature gives the dimension, but they admit that the product is not useful if there is real slab movement. I would agree that the crystalline methods are secondary methods, at best. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 11 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 03:13 am:    Anonymous I appreciate that moisture travels through concrete and I know the difference between vapor and liquid water. I will admit that there are some circumstances where the moisture flow from the soil to the building is significant. The point that I was trying to make is that most of the floor failure problems that occur early in the life of the building are not due to moisture in the subgrade. They are due to problems with the PH of the concrete surface, normal moisture in the surface of the concrete, or potentially due to the humidity in the room. The reality is that the moisture flows reported by the standard moisture done tests cannot be supplied by vapor flowing through well consolidated concrete. Check out http://www.kenbondy.com/professional.htm. I did check out the xypex web site and while they touted the product for use in resisting hydrostatic water pressure I did not see any disclaimer that it would not help limit moisture transfer. The reality is that for most concrete the interior voids are filled with water thus preventing vapor from flowing through without a phase change. Thus I do not see how by filling the voids we are not limiting the flow of moisture. In any case I have asked Xypex for clarification. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 12 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 10:14 am:    Anonymous I appreciate that moisture travels through concrete and I know the difference between vapor and liquid water. I will admit that there are some circumstances where the moisture flow from the soil to the building is significant. The point that I was trying to make is that most of the floor failure problems that occur early in the life of the building are not due to moisture in the subgrade. They are due to problems with the PH of the concrete surface, normal moisture in the surface of the concrete, or potentially due to the humidity in the room. The reality is that the moisture flows reported by the standard moisture done tests cannot be supplied by vapor flowing through well consolidated concrete. Check out http://www.kenbondy.com/professional.htm. I did check out the xypex web site and while they touted the product for use in resisting hydrostatic water pressure I did not see any disclaimer that it would not help limit moisture transfer. The reality is that for most concrete the interior voids are filled with water thus preventing vapor from flowing through without a phase change. Thus I do not see how by filling the voids we are not limiting the flow of moisture. In any case I have asked Xypex for clarification. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 242 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 01:40 pm:    Mark: I would appreciate your thoughts on my earlier post on Dec 7th post: <<So what does this system do for you that a concrete densifier doesn't?>> Also, please clarify for me my understanding of the use of vapor barriers under slabs-on-grade. I have always had the understanding that the plastic sheet "vapor barrier" was intended primarily for keeping moisture in the concrete until after the curing process has been completed. Investigations of old installations have shown that the previously used 6-mil poly has deteriorated and is either non-existant or deteriorated beyond it's useful purpose; hence the recent use of "high performance" products such as 10-mil, internally reinforced, puncture and tear resistance polyethylene laminates. The use of a stone subcourse provides the capillary break for any upward moisture migration. Is there anything I am missing? Anonymous   Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 06:05 pm:    Mark, Ron, Reasons floor coverings fail over slabs on grade are due to moisture migration, in the form of vapor, through the slab, sometimes* from moisture in the slab. The moisture that exists in the concrete after the pour and prior to the installtion of the floor covering has to be at a level acceptable to the floor covering manufacturer before the floor covering is installed, and *most manufacturers and specs have requriements for various tests that measure the moisture level. We don't allow contractors to install floor coverings over slabs on grade until moisture levels are where they are required to be, or the contractor applies a surface vapor retarder product - hope you guys are doing the same on your projects. Are you with me Disco Stu? OK, then. The vapor retarder is there to prevent moisture migration from the soil/subbase through the slab, causing failure of the floor covering. There are several articles that you NEED to read to edify yourselves about this important phenomenon, a few are as follows: http://www.concreteconstruction.net/industry-news.asp?sectionID=718&articleID=259135 ftp://imgs.ebuild.com/woc/c980427.pdf http://www.concreteconstruction.net/industry-news.asp?sectionID=718&articleID=483112 ftp://imgs.ebuild.com/woc/c980603.pdf The use of a vapor retarder has nothing to do with keeping moisture in the slab until after curing. Not sure where the heck that came from. A blotter layer (sand layer) used to be used for this purpose but it is NOT advisable to do so any longer - see article above on that. Hope that helps. Anon Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 585 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - 11:28 pm:    The CSI Phoenix Chapter developed a Green Sheet on "Moisture Vapor Emmission & Concrete Slabs" about 3 years ago. Copies are still available. If anyone is interested, please go to the Phoenix Chapter website at this link. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 13 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 01:20 am:    I got a response back from Xypex regards the ability of xypex to reduce vapor transmission. They state that it will completely stop the flow of liquid water but will only reduce the amount of vapor by 50 percent. What this tells me is that while xypex will stop the flow of liquids it will not stop the flow of all moisture since the small amounts of moisture that get through can evaporate into the interior space and thus are not normally perceived. Rember few materials have a permiability of o.o. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 14 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 01:44 am:    Ron First a disclaimer. I share the statement in one of the ACI publications that good quality concretetypically dosen't need densifiers. Thus I do not specify these products unless the Architect feels the need for them. Checking some manufacturers literature densifiers fill the surface voids in the concrete. Xypex used as an admixture will help fill the voids for the full thickness of the concrete. Also xypex has some healing properties. To benefit from this I recomment a fair amount of reinforcing to keep the cracks small. Vapor barriers under slab are not needed to cure concrete. the old practice of placing sand between the membrane and the slab was partially intended to allow moisture to leave the slab from the bottom thus balancing that lost from the top thus minimizing curling. ACI 302 now recommends placing the membrane immediately below the slab to reduce moisture problems. To control curling you need to be more careful about curing of the top of slabs in dry windy weather. Some may add reinforcing to deal with this but good curing should control the problem. The membrane of today needs to be able to deal with the PH of concrete and the chemicals in the soil. In addition it needs to be tough to resist the construction process. The only thing that I would suggest is that you become familiar with the recommendations of ACI 302 regards membranes under slabs on grade. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 15 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 02:10 am:    Anonymous It would be appreciated if you would identify yourself. When I post on this forum I risk making a mistake and making a fool of myself. I appreciate it when the other parties on the forumn are taking the same risk. i also like to understand something about the other posters to help understand where they are comming from and what their biases may be. I am sure you know many of mine. Please also note that when communicating without hearing or seeing the other person it is easy to leave the wrong impression. I think there is a line between forcefully disagreeing with someone and being condecending. I hope that I do not cross the line. It is also a good idea to not use cute phrasings such "Are you with me Disco Stu?" since they might be taken the wrong way. Maybe I am just lucky that I don't know what you are trying to communicate. For the record none of the reference recently posted contain any fundamental information that I was not at least aware of, even if not knowing all the details. Mark Gilligan John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 817 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 09:02 am:    Anon's postings bother me as well, but so much because they're anonymous, but because she or he takes a condescending and snarky approach to posting. The readers of this forum are highly knowledgeable in many areas, and don't need admonitions to read more on a topic that we've all read plenty about (slab moisture vapor transmission). The citations anon gives are interesting, but nothing new, and not particularly well-sourced. Anon's contributions would be fine anonymously if they proceeded like an adult discussion, rather than like a lecture given to a teenager who stayed out too late. This particular person is using their anonymity to hide behind so they can be obnoxious, which other anon's in this forum have not done. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 586 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 10:02 am:    Hear, Hear! John, regarding Anon's posts. Also, another thing to consider with flooring failures over concrete substrates is alkalinity. Even with low moisture, a high pH level can dissolve many flooring adhesives. Along with moisture content, the pH level should also be tested prior to flooring installation. Additionally, the calcium chloride test is not error-free. In-situ probe testing that penetrates at least 1/3 the slab depth will provide a much more accurate figure on the amount of moisture to expect. However, if you're relying solely on the calcium chloride test, have the building A/C system fully operational and running at least 24 hours before the test. Moisture moves from high humidity to low humidity, and if the A/C is not running to draw out the interior humidity to a level that the building will operate at, there will be little to no moisture movement through the slab during the test. Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 259 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 10:43 am:    Civility costs nothing and buys everything. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu English letter author & poet (1689 - 1762) Hear, Hear John! Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 16 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:54 am:    There have been references to other means of measuring slab moisture other than the moisture dome tests. I see two difficulties with this. First I am not aware of data relating the alternative moisture test results to performance of the flooring. It is this lack of data that is at the source of a lot of the problems. Is there such data tied to the moisture dome test or have the manufacturers just provided us with their requirements. Second, It is my understanding that the flooring manufacturers specify their acceptance criteria in terms of the moisture dome test. Thus if you want to maintain the warrenty you need to play by their rules. Hopefully somebody will clarify my understanding. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 224 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 12:00 pm:    I have not read all the reference materials and links posted here, but I did read the first one posted by Anon (http://www.concreteconstruction.net/industry-news.asp?sectionID=718&articleID=259135) I wanted to point out that it appears that the Calcium Chloride moisture dome test has been scientifically debunked (though flooring mfr's still cling to it). There are some interesting articles on that topic posted here: http://www.kenbondy.com/professional.htm Particularly: - "Vapor Transmission Through Concrete Slabs: Facts and Fictions" - "Moisture Dome Tests - What Do They Measure?" - And the conclusive "Moisture Migration in Concrete Slabs-on-Ground" pdf presentation paper (direct link: http://www.kenbondy.com/images/ProfessionalArticles/VETTalkCGEA.pdf) Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 225 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 01:16 pm:    I read the ACI 302.2R-06 (2006) report cited by Mark Gilligan. It's pretty much a direct quote from the 1998 article by Suprenant and Malisch that was referenced earlier: ftp://imgs.ebuild.com/woc/c980427.pdf In my casual perspective, this ACI report doesn't seem to really make a specific reccomendation other than to say you do different things for different conditions, and then lists the pro's and con's of each. Here is a partial reprint of the section on casting the slab directly against the vapor retarder: "7.2.2 Benefits of concrete placed directly on vapor retarder/barrier—Research has demonstrated that concrete specimens isolated from a moisture source at the bottom of the specimen dry faster than specimens exposed to water or water vapor at the bottom (Brewer 1965). Floor covering and coating installations can thus proceed sooner and at less risk of failure where the concrete slab is placed directly on a vapor retarder. If the vapor retarder effectively reduces moisture inflow from external sources, only water in the concrete pores needs to exit the slab. The often-required MVER of 3 lb/1000 ft2/24 h (1.5 kg/100 m2/24 h) should be reached faster under these conditions. The uncovered vapor retarder may also act as a slip sheet, reducing slab restraint and, thus, reducing random cracking. Placing concrete directly on a vapor retarder also eliminates a potential water reservoir in the blotter layer (Section 7.2.3). Because more subgrade soil is removed to accommodate the additional 3 to 4 in. (76 to 100 mm) thick blotter layer, that layer is more likely to be placed below the finished-grade level, thus increasing the chance of its holding water. Specifiers who require concrete to be placed directly on the vapor retarder cite these advantages: • Reduced costs because of less excavation and no need for additional granular material; • Better curing of the slab bottom because the vapor retarder minimizes moisture loss; • Less chance of floor moisture problems caused by water being trapped in the granular layer; and • Less radon gas infiltration. These specifiers recommend using a low-w/c concrete and water-reducing admixtures to reduce bleeding, shrinkage, and curling of concrete placed directly on the vapor retarder. They believe that higher-quality concrete and better curing reduce cracking and produce a better floor."