Let's Win the Concrete Floor Moisture Battle - Together

user-pic
Vote 0 Votes
Impervious flooring. Water-based adhesives. Fly ash and slag pozzolans. Vapor retarders. Extreme surface pH. Fast-track scheduling. All are coming together and creating flooring failures.

Heightened Emphasis
There seems to be an increased sensitivity to flooring and moisture problems. One of our clients is refusing to use sheet rubber flooring. Why? Not because of the flooring material. It's a moisture-related, adhesive failure because the flooring is impervious.

Does the client know the root cause of this failure? I don't know. The consequence - banning sheet rubber flooring - is reactionary, not a solution. Will an alternative sheet flooring product solve the problem? No. A different impervious flooring is likely to have the same issues.

What's the Current Situation?
Moisture in the floor slab seeking equilibrium is the issue. Impervious flooring traps moisture in the slab that may re-emulsify the flooring adhesives and cause blisters from the vapor pressure.

With today's speed of construction, new concrete floor slabs will likely have moisture content exceeding the flooring manufacturer's recommendations. For existing floor slabs, there is no guarantee the moisture content will be acceptable, just because the slab is old. There may be no way of knowing the underslab condition and if a vapor retarder is present and functional.

To meet the schedule, the general contractor will direct the subcontractor to begin installing the flooring. The sub can refuse citing unacceptable substrate conditions. When the GC insists the floor be installed, the sub will request a change order for the cost of mitigating the moisture plus a time extension to complete the work. The GC can counter with threatened back-charges for delaying the project. The architect may need to negotiate a solution. And the owner will ultimately pay the price.

Current guide specifications place the responsibility for substrate inspection, moisture and pH testing, and acceptance in each finish flooring specification. The specifications are written to the general contractor, but the GC assigns the work of the specification to the installer. There may be multiple installers required for the several, sometimes many, floor finishes on a particular project. Each installer is responsible for examining and testing the substrates affecting his work. The testing requirements and the acceptance criteria for each flooring manufacturer may be different. There is no coordinated approach to the entire project.

See Conspectus Tech Tips that discusses concrete slab surface prep and moisture tests.

So What Can be Done?
We can ignore the problem, assuming the general contractor has sufficient control of the project schedule and sequence to allow the floor slabs to sufficiently dry before installing the flooring. However, the owner sometimes dictates the schedule by setting the completion date. So, be prepared for a mitigation and time extension change order.

We can try to help resolve the situation recognizing moisture problems will likely exist because of some or all the conditions listed at the start of this blog. Accepting that premise we can:

  • Specify the required testing and surface preparation separately from the flooring spec sections.
  • Require that a single entity be responsible for all moisture testing and all surface preparation.
  • Require all flooring installers attend the same preconstruction conference to review and approve the testing and preparation procedures plus a uniform acceptance criteria that will accommodate all floor finishes throughout the project.
By specifying a uniform approach for the entire project, the requirements will be more easily enforced and monitored. To ensure the best results, require testing be started early. Track and analyze the data to help identify opportunities to adjust construction materials and processes to improve floor slab moisture content for the entire project.

After Testing
When testing finds excessive floor slab moisture, the slabs must be dried or must be remediated to prevent the moisture from causing adhesion problems. Drying takes time and money, and both are unpredictable. Mitigation takes money and limited time to install another material. Regardless the owner will pay with time (delayed opening) or money (unexpected costs), or both.

Be Proactive
The specifier can help remedy the situation by planning for the floor slab's potential excessive moisture content by including mitigation as part of the contract.

  • Select a method capable of working with all the expected floor finishes.
  • Ensure the flooring manufacturers certify compatibility with their adhesives to avoid affecting flooring warranties.
Require mitigation to be bid, but carried as a contingency allowance or as a unit price. Then, mitigation procedures would be used only when required. All costs for mitigation would be paid from the allowance or by unit price. When mitigation is required for only selected areas, the excess allowance money would be returned to the owner.

Adopting a proactive approach allows the entire team to plan and accommodate likely field conditions. The owner will know the ultimate price. The contractor will have a predetermined solution to a highly probable problem. The installers will have an acceptable substrate. The work can remain on schedule. And everyone will be happy.

Need Help Getting Started?
We developed two independent specification sections: one for moisture testing, and one for surface preparation. We will happily send these files to you for your use. Just email me to request your copy of our testing and prep specs.

Now It's Your Turn...
How do you deal with concrete floor slab moisture issues? Comments welcomed.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.conspectusinc.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/conspec/managed-mt/mt-tb.cgi/206

14 Comments

| Leave a comment

Seven years in as a sports flooring contractor and dare I say?!? things are getting worse. Jobs are being fast tracked, conditions are being overlooked and concrete moisture vapor emissions (MVER) are a concern on, if not every, over 80% of our jobs.
It's not just new construction either. It is common that we will renovate an existing facility that has VCT and after removal, relative humidity of a 40 year old concrete slab is still higher than full glue thresholds of 83% RH. Older slabs don't always have a vapor barrier, or intact vapor barrier, and VCT allows the slab to continue to breathe after installation. Owners and contractors can't (or aren't willing to) understand how their 40 year old facility has concrete moisture issues.
The industry is definitely moving away from the archaic calcium chloride testing of a concrete slab. It is getting more and more difficult to find someone to perform this testing. Further, we have come across multiple instances in the last year where a professional concrete testing company actually performs the tests incorrectly!
In-situ probe testing for relative humidity (ASTM F-2170) is the new norm and companies in the market are making it easier to do so. Even the Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association (MFMA) has gone from not accepting RH testing to ONLY accepting RH testing.
I like the idea to "Require mitigation to be bid, but carried as a contingency allowance or as a unit price" to be safe. I have even worked with architects that specify topical moisture mitigation systems on ALL concrete slabs that are to receive a finished floor. At more than $3 per SF, that's a tough pill to swallow, but it only takes one lawsuit or massive flooring failure to understand that is a viable solution.
Our manufacturer has a few options for concrete moisture issues. One is an on slab moisture barrier that allows up to 15 lbs per calcium chloride (ASTM F-1869) and 96% RH. Another option is a newly developed adhesive that allows up to 15 lbs and 92% for a full glue installation. The last option (and most price effective) is a 98% adhesive free installation that allows up to 15 lbs and 92% RH. Over 2 million square feet was installed in North America alone using this technique last year.
Having everyone on the same page is a great way to combat these issues. A clearly defined specification helps the battle. USA Architects has a straight forward "warning" in their specifications to try and combat MVER.
The issue is not going away and does seem to be getting worse. It would be great to hear from other flooring contractors as to how they handle the issue.

David, excellent post. In Canada we battle this problem as well. I attended an excellent presentation on concrete floor slabs at the CSC Conference in Ottawa in May by the Concrete Floor Contractors Association of Canada. I was amazed at the drying times for green concrete and how much of a difference small adjustments in the water to cement ratio can have on drying times.

Of course one of the biggest challenges with sheet flooring failures is the changing VOC regulations and the proliferation of more and more latex based adhesives; which is one of the biggest culprits for the increase we are seeing in sheet flooring failures. Although it doesn't protect us entirely, two-part polyurethane adhesives can go a long way in reducing the instances of sheet flooring failure/delamination issues.

The worst example I have seen was during the renovation of an existing facility we were doing an addition to. There turned out to be some underslab moisture issues due to a non-functioning weeping tile system, but the adhesive under flooring that had been installed over 3 years before was still tacky when you walked across the slab after the flooring was removed. This was in a part of the building that was over 20 years old!

No wonder it can be an Architect's and Owner's worst nightmare!

For moisture testing I always recommend an ICRI certified testing agent. It takes the responsibilty away from the flooring contractor and give an independent view. After establishing the moisture issue I prefer a one coat and done type system (epoxy) that has a perm rating of less than .1 and meets or exceeds ASTM-E-96
Three poducts come to mind Koster, AC TECH and Ardex.

Jim, thank you for the thoughtful comments and suggested process to help ensure success. There is resistance to including the mitigation coating as part of the contract documents, thinking this is really a means and methods issue controlled by the contractor.

Are you typically specifying the epoxy coatings as part of the project so the cost is included in the bids? Have you ever found it is not needed and then issued a change order to credit the cost back to the owner?

user-pic

Do we have any real evidence to show that the vapor retarder actually is related to the problem. A number of tests have shown that the moisture being identified is due to the local moisture in the slab. Other tests have shown that the rate of moisture transmission being assumed is less than what can be transferred through concrete.

Thank you Paul. It is great to hear what is happening in other parts of the world. You are right that problem is not limited to new work. A missing or inadequate vapor retarder under an existing slab can allow ground moisture migration and cause the same problems as newly placed slab.

Hi, Eric. Thank you for helping us understand the installer's point of view. The cost of the "fix" is certainly an issue. Simply requiring the fix for every job can be a costly decision if it is not necessary.

What sports flooring material are you suggesting can be installed without adhesive? Wood, sheet materials, liquid applied materials, or all three? Please tell us more about the application and materials you used. Hopefully others will contribute to the discussion, too.

Mark, thank you posing the question. I am sure that someone can offer real data to support the need for the vapor retarder to prevent ground moisture from trying to migrate through the slab on grade. I hope someone else can furnish a good data source.

Without the vapor retarder, ground moisture would constantly be seeking equilibrium and causing excessive vapor pressure if an impermeable floor covering is used over the slab. With the vapor retarder the vapor drive from the ground moisture is nearly eliminated, leaving only the moisture drive from the excess mix water in the concrete - something that we can control through water-cement ratio limits and water reducing admixtures.

We have used a separate spec. section for topically applied moisture-mitigation products. We put in DIV 09 but perhaps should be in DIV 07.

We have also used the DIV 01 Unit Prices, Allowances, and Alternates sections to include this item proactively as you suggest, but also allow the Owner some options on how/whether they want it included with base Contract Sum.

We have also tried to have our structural engineers add lines into DIV 03 Concrete section for coordination and pre-construction meetings that list this as an issue. We include similar lines in our DIV 09 flooring sections as well.

Thank you Michael. I believe the flooring surface prep belongs in Division 09 with the floor finishes, even though it is for moisture control.

How has the owner reacted to including the mitigation costs as part of your projects? This is a somewhat contentious concept.

I believe the problem to be more complex. The concrete mix may have a relatively higher water to cement (w/c) ratio. Even with a 0.45 to 0.50 w/c ratio, only half of that is needed for hydration. Even with a good vapor retarded sheet, there is a good deal of water that must be dealt with. Lightweight structural contains even more water, and when used with either a form deck or composite deck, this moisture has no place to go but up.

What I have heard for years is that the real problems result from the interactions between salts in the concrete, moisture, and adhesives. When the water-based latex adhesives began to fail, we looked to mitigate moisture. It was thought that epoxies would be superior, but these have shown to be problematic as well. What happens is that the adhesive breaks down and the floor delaminates. The resulting pockets can collect water, "bubble" the floor, or lead to the growth of mold. Even for "pervious" flooring materials (wood and carpet), there can be serious consequences. In addition to "thin membrane" floors discussed above, this can be a problem for certain resinous flooring and resinous terrazzo systems. Recent research has led me to wonder if urethane adhesives (similar to those used in some roofing assemblies) might successfully address these issues.

To a great extent, I consider this to be a "means and methods" issue, and I believe that Contractors will use the strategy of making the architect solve a problem that has been created by the contractor. There may be, however, factors beyond the contractor's control. Existing conditions or aggressive schedules set by the owner may not permit the contractor enough time to dry out the slab. Until we can identify moisture-tolerant adhesives' we will have to avoid impervious flooring materials or use moisture mitigation systems. Such systems may double the cost of the flooring system so architects (and contractors) would do well to consider that in any "value engineering" exercise.

As an ICRI Certified testing techician, I continue to see specifications ignored, testing done improperly, and misunderstanding of concrete hydration vs. curing, not to mention concrete finishing.

I would welcome at the very least, the addition of sub-sections to Div. 3 or 9, requiring third party testing for slabs. ACI and CFI have defined recommendations,and WFCA released a white paper years ago recommending the same.

I have been imersed in the subject long before I started my company, yet we are still just scratching the surface in building awareness of the seriousness of this industry challenge among architects, GCs, installers and owners.

I am looking forward to the Dec. 6 webinar.

Respectfully,
John K. Nixon, Owner
Concrete Restoration Services, LLC
Pittsburgh, PA

Sorry for the delayed response, Dave. I finally checked back into this blog post as I shared it with all of my coworkers in advance of your CSISPG webinar on 12/6.

You ask: "What sports flooring material are you suggesting can be installed without adhesive? Wood, sheet materials, liquid applied materials, or all three? Please tell us more about the application and materials you used."

Without going into proprietary tradenames, our primary flooring line is going 98% adhesive free in a 6.5mm and 8.3 cushioned sheet vinyl (096566 Resilient Athletic Flooring) while guaranteeing up to 15 lbs and 92% RH.
The manufacturer's on slab slip-sheet moisture barrier that allows 15 lbs and 96% RH is a bit more versatile and can be used underneath 4 thickness of cushioned sheet vinyl, a pad and pour polyurethane system (096766 Fluid-Applied Athletic Flooring) and multiple types of rubber athletic flooring we work with (normally 096566)
As for wood flooring systems, the norm is now a fixed fastener (barbed cleats or coated staples) instead of adhesive or a fully floating system. As wood is much more sensitive of a flooring system, the moisture thresholds are much lower (75% RH for fixed and 80% for floating). The MFMA's position statement on moisture barriers is here: http://maplefloor.org/faq/moistureBarriers.htm
Slab moisture is an issue too often to ignore and I look forward to the Specifying Practice Group webinar on December 6th!

I was hoping to listen in on the Dec 6 Webinar, but have now developed a conflict. As an inspection sevice my company deals with moisture related floor covering system failures across the U.S. almost daily. The issues that cause and/or contribute cross a variety of work scopes, which simply enhances the chance of failures. Owners need to know that concrete will take a certain amount of time to dry and discusssing curing of concrete has no value. Architects must recognize these facts and not discuss how quickly a tenant can occupy a new space unless costs for moisture control are included. Geo-techs typically have no expertise in plastics and having an architect suggest "refer to soils report" when indicating the need for a sub-slab vapor retarder is at best a very poor practice. High quality sub-slab moisture vapor retarders are imperative in new construction because modern resilient flooring and carpet tiles are themselves, excellent vapor retarders. Contractors want to get on top of finished concrete as soon as possible, encouraging the use of curing compounds that are often applied too thick and/or do not dissipate. While effective as a curing aid these membranes inhibit or prevent concrete drying. ACI recommends placing concrete directly on top of vapor retarders, a practice we see in some parts of the country. In other areas concrete is placed over sand, a practice that ACI and ASTM disavowed years ago. We see vapor retarders placed over prepared sub-grades and a layer of crusher run rock dropped over the plastic, with concrete placed over the rock. When floors fail people are shocked to learn that dropping sharp edged rock from a truck onto a sheet of plastic, has punched a million holes in the plastic! Testing for concrete moisture content and/or vapor emission is important. However, design and construction practices that deliver dry concrete in as timely a manner as possible is critical and recognizing that concrete will not dry when the surrounding air is wet should be common sense. All of these issues can be addressed, the question is - when and why? Too often we see owners, A & D people and contractors want to ignore or avoid these issues until a successful lawsuit has opened their eyes and ears.

I hope your webinar can affect some of these issues!

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by David Stutzman published on November 19, 2012 6:55 AM.

Need Help at 11th Hour? Join CSI was the previous entry in this blog.

What's Wrong with This Picture? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.