Aridus

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

Author Message Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 598 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2012 - 03:55 pm:    Anyone have experience with, or thoughts about Aridus Rapid Drying Concrete? Aridus Related: Moisture Mitigation in Slabs Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 497 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2012 - 04:07 pm:    Stego is a distributor here in SoCal, and is busy getting plants online and LA City Research Report approvals for it. Seems pretty interesting, but I have not used or specified yet. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 524 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, December 07, 2012 - 05:50 pm:    On their web site I see hype but nothing that explains how this is acomplished. Why would a Research Report be needed? What code provisions are they violating that they believe requires approval by the building official as an alternate means of compliance? If they are not violating a code provision then there is no need for special approval. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 498 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2012 - 02:20 am:    Mark, that's not what LARR's represent. It's just another level of red tape that the City of LA uses to generate income. They require mfr's to submitt for testing and approval, identical to the process that generates ESR reports. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 525 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2012 - 04:42 am:    I appreciate that LARR's and ICC-ES ER's are about generating money. I contend that for products that are addressed in the building code the building department has no authority to require these reports. Evaluation reports are used by some firms to avoid making technical information available to architects and engineers. What I would like to understand is exactly what Aridus does and what are the tradeoffs when it is used. Steve Gantner (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 07, 2012 - 04:04 pm:    Sheldon, I had a presentation on it and, like you, am looking forward to hearing about real world experience. If you don't mind, I would like to expand your request to Concure and Barrier1 as well. All of them seem to be similar and the golden bullet for moisture in concrete but I am leary of asking one of my Owners to be a guinea pig. The Concure representative even went as far as saying you didn't need a vapor barrier underneath in a slab on grade scenario. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2012 - 12:08 pm:    i have no direct experience with the product but if you need some expert advise in the Chicago area I have often talked to Howard Kanare of the CTL Group. Not trying to promote anyone but if this is a situation where you need detailed information he may be a good place to start. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 526 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2012 - 01:55 pm:    The link provided by Sheldon suggests that the magic ingredient may be silica fume. Silica fume is a normal concrete ingredient. Silica fume doesn't cause the concrete to "dry" faster, rather it helps bind the water in the mix and fills up the voids making it more difficult for water to move through the concrete matrix. Silica fume can impact the finish of the concrete. Your engineer should look into the implications of the use of silica fume to understand its normal side effects. Having said that there is nothing controversial regarding the use of silica fume and it definitely does not require a research report. I am suspicious that part of the reason the manufacture is not specific regarding their magic sauce is because for the most part it is likely made up of conventional ingredients. Concure’s statement that a vapor barrier is not needed may be a reflection of the fact that the major source of the moisture is the moisture already in the concrete not from beneath the slab. Before omitting the vapor barrier verify the building code requirements regarding vapor barriers. Rather than specify a proprietary product consider specifying, with the assistance of your engineer, silica fume and water reducing admixtures and then setting aside an allowance to pay for any post placement treatments of the slab. I am suspiciously hopeful that shrinkage reducing admixtures might also help reduce the flow of moisture through the concrete. Since such admixtures would be addressed in the Cast-In-Place concrete specification your structural engineer should be consulted. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 600 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2012 - 02:09 pm:    Regarding silicate admixtures, see CTL Group's "Comments on Silicates as Concrete Admixtures". Some of the text will look familiar. A local structural engineer explained the way Aridus works (wish I had recorded it), and seems to think it will work as claimed. He's doing some testing on large slabs using Aridus; will try to remember to ask him about the results. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 523 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2012 - 11:58 am:    I am extremely leery of specifying a proprietary concrete mix; all I can see are $$$$ and VE "suggestions" from the Contractor. Whenever I see something like this for which the manufacturer will not disclose a reasonable explanation, it is usually accompanied by "it's proprietary." I simply cannot put a design professional's professional responsibility on the line for something that cannot be reasonably explained. I am not trying to reverse engineer this; I am simply trying to find out if this might be an appropriate product selection or simply another version of snake oil. D. Marshall Fryer, CSI, CCS, CCCA, Assoc. AIA Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 78 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2012 - 12:21 pm:    I also dislike encountering proprietary products. I sometimes advise the rep that my building design is also proprietary, and if they would like their proprietary product in my proprietary building, I would be happy to consider any non-disclosure agreement their legal department would like to whip up. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 527 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, December 09, 2012 - 06:48 pm:    If the product is already addressed in the code the designer needs to have access to the data that establishes code compliance. If the product is not addressed in the code and the product is being proposed as an alternate means of compliance the design professional, not the product manufacturer or the contractor, needs to make the case that the product use will satisfy the intent of the code. In order to make such a statement the designer needs access to the information he finds necessary. The building official can prohibit the use of a product if the necessary information to establish code compliance is not provided. Evaluation reports are used by some manufacturers to convince building officials to defer any decision related to the code to the issuer of the evaluation report and as a way to avoid having to disclose the information. The bottom line is the manufacturer of a product does not have a right to withhold information necessary to establish code compliance. This does not mean he has to give up all trade secrets and list all the components if code compliance can be established by physical tests or other means. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 206 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, December 10, 2012 - 09:06 am:    Our office position on BarrierOne is this: It's a waste of money, with zero scientific data or testing to support the performance claims. However, we haven't seen any adverse effects from its use, so if the structural engineer does not object, go ahead. We recommend that regular precautions, like an underslab vapor barrier, are still used. Construction managers seem to be pushing the use of BarrierOne in the Boston area. - ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 388 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, December 10, 2012 - 01:28 pm:    I too saw the presentation on Aridus and was impressed as well as confused. I can't wait to see what happens when other people use it and provide their findings. This is one of those things that I don't want to be the first kid on my block to have. Big differences exist between Aridus and the Concure/BarrierOne products. Aridus is a self-dessicating concrete that uses a replacement aggregate to promote actual drying of the concrete all the way through the placement. Concure and BarrierOne use silicate admixtures to supposedly create an internal barrier within the concrete. After hearing horror stories about these admixtures, including lack or workability and problems with floating and finishing, I'm not sure that there aren't any downsides. I've spoken with a number of silicate manufacturers who are adamant that silicates do not work as admixtures. I don't understand the physics, but they seem to. All I took away from my research was "Don't use them." No matter what, I would never eliminate the underslab vapor retarder. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, December 10, 2012 - 01:16 pm:    Our experience with the drying of concrete slabs was a bigger issue a few years ago when adhesives switched to water based mixes that required a max of 3 lbs in the slab to avoid failures. As the water based adhesives have improved (8-10 lbs typically today) this appears to have become less of a problem. I would review the motivation for the rapid drying concrete and see if upgrading the adhesives for the new flooring is an easier and cheaper way to eliminate the potential problems. I am not sure just what the objectives are in your practice so I may be off base but that is how we have attacked the problem resently. Obviously the real cure for slab curing issues is time but waiting is not always an option. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1280 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 05:09 pm:    with few exceptions, I still think that concrete drying time is a schedule issue, not a materials issue. I don't approve any additives (at additional cost) to "improve drying time" and I definitely don't approve the use of moisture mitigation coatings. If the contractor wants to use one of those, its on his(her) dime only. Exceptions: greater than 6" thick slab that has to be occupied in fewer than 6 months.