ISO 13007 tile setting methods

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

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1201 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, June 03, 2011 - 02:23 pm:    Has anyone started specifying tile setting methods with ISO 13007 in lieu of ANSI standards? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1322 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 - 04:25 pm:    Yes. I have used ISO to specify setting products, but not in lieu of ANSI. Careful review of manufacturer's is needed, as not all have tested to these standards. The reason I used them is they include criteria that ANSI does not include. I don't think there were any problems using both ANSI and ISO as they should not conflict (you should verify thought). Note that my recollection is the they are NOT installation standards--they are product standards. Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC, LEED Green Associate Senior Member Username: dale_roberts_csi Post Number: 85 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 - 04:59 pm:    My question is why? Why do you want to write an ISO spec? Is there a problem with the ANSI requirements that you have been using? A. ISO is not a better test method; most tile failures occur in shear which ANSI test for, ISO test for Tensile. We see very little failure in tensile. The EU and other countries like this test because it is very reproducible giving the same consistent values which scientist like. It also translates across several languages (the main benefit of this standard). B. ISO is an incomplete standard. There is no Backerboard or Membranes (crack Isolation, waterproofing & sound attenuation) Standards C. ISO has two levels of performance C1 & C2, ANSI has two levels of performance 118.1 & 118.4 D. Yes it does have designations for Fast Setting, Deformability, Non Sag, extended open time Have you ever had a problem with a mortar not setting up fast enough? Or sagging? Yes there are flexible or deformability standards; this is not going to stop cracks. Crack isolation membranes are the preferred method for preventing cracks from transferring thru the tile assembly. The one ISO spec I have seen listed C2ES2P2 and it must be tested by TCNA to be sure it meets all these requirements. This makes it more expensive for the owner. Sending mortar to TCNA, testing the mortar, as well as using the most expensive mortar when it was not necessary. There was no plywood on the job yet P2 was listed? There also was an ANSI crack isolation membrane listed so there was no need for a S2. Was the spec writing positive that an extended set mortar was necessary? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1327 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 13, 2011 - 06:10 pm:    Sorry I'm a bit late to respond to your post. One reason to use ISO is simply that it differentiates some models of mortar from others in ways that ANSI does not. As to having had project issues with things the ISO standard addresses; yes there have been issues. Your post (though it rambles a bit) seems to assume that a spec would rely only on ISO (or ANSI) to control the materials, would not specify a crack isolation membrane, and would not use TCNA, etc. This is not correct, because a good spec would still include all of that. Manufacturers of setting materials have supported using the ISO standard, so I'm not sure why there such a big problem including it, along with other important provisions, for some types of conditions when appropriate. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 247 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 05:09 pm:    There are a couple of manufacturers pushing the ISO standards. Their literature includes the ISO "secret codes" for their products. However, a web search of the manufacturers listed in MasterSpec shows that a majority of the manufacturers are not addressing the ISO standards, at least not publicly on their websites. So we have two similar, but slightly different standards. If we spec ANSI, most everyone complies. If we spec ISO, only a few have literature stating that they comply. So that leaves the need to include both in the spec and while the products are essentially the same, there are minor differences, that I probably would ignore in most cases. I know it's cheating, but if the tile sticks to the floor or the wall, and a latex-portland is used, it probably complies with the spec. Some of the differences in the ISO classifications, such as fast setting, extended open time and accelerated drying, seem to be things that would more times than not, be an installers preference or job-site requirement, rather than a spec requirement. All that being said, there is something about the clarity of the ISO standards and their "secret code" that I like. So, I will tread softly, use both, and do my best not to spec "galvanized stainless steel". Bottom line to my rant is...Does anyone have insight as to whether the manufacturers are adopting the ISO standards and using them or will we continue to have a "fractured" market? Dale Roberts CSI, CCPR, CTC, LEED Green Associate Senior Member Username: dale_roberts_csi Post Number: 89 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2011 - 06:50 pm:    Hi Don, Since ISO does not have standards for Waterproofing, Crack Isolation membranes, BackerBoards or Sound Attenuation underlayments there will always be a fractured market for standards. ISO only deals with adhesives and grouts. Unless you are doing international work? ANSI 108.2.7.1 clearly states if a specialized mortar is required with ANSI 118.4 “Standard Specifications for Latex-portland cement mortar” and the type of specialized mortar to be used. So instead of the “secret code” as you mentioned you can clearly state in plain English use a …Rapid Setting Mortar or Medium bed mortar. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1336 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 - 04:08 pm:    To reiterate my point: with some setting systems I have specified ISO standards in conjunction with ANSI standards where doing so does not create a conflict. I would not eliminate all references to ANSI--that just wouldn't make sense.