Current Moisture Test Requirements for Installing Flooring and coating Materials - all effort, no progress

I have been speaking privately with several representatives from large flooring manufacturers where they have been sharing tales of frustration and feeling as though they are "running-in-place". Unfortunately, it is even worse than that - they are inadvertently running backwards .

In both testing and claims, I have watched manufacturers roll-over as to not upset a large client, absorbing costs NOT of their doing, as those who have either added one of the "miracle silicate admixtures", or have relied on testing, such as RH probes (which DO NOT measure concrete moisture content) or using Calcium Chloride methods (which are consistently done incorrectly and as a result, are of no value) where a problem comes up and they simply roll over and pay for a new floor. THEN these same manufacturers turn right around and complain how much expense there is with these claims.

I have solid and ample proof that silicate admixtures do NOT reduce moisture, or increase density when in fact, these do just the opposite (decades of information exists which contradict any and all claims of silicate admixtures improving the water-tightness or density of treated concrete). Having formulated silicate products since 1979, I do have some experience in this and understand what they will and will NOT do.

Since the mid 1990's, moisture-related claims have tripled, to where moisture claims now make up approximately 10% of the total market share of flooring installations (claims currently estimated at 3 billion per year and the total market in flooring is estimated at 27-30 billion per year). The total floor market data is from "Statistica" and the claims estimate comes from several different sources in flooring.

To prove this trend can be reversed, I have worked with a handful of flooring installers, to where each installer has reduced their moisture-related claims by MORE than 90%, yet when I share this information with the flooring manufacturers, no response, since most feel they are "trapped" into remaining with the herd and not changing what isn't working.

There are consistent reasons (excuses really) why they are afraid to change, citing ASTM and other industry "standards" and the insistence upon following these "standards".

The Tail Wagging the Dog

What many of these folks do not understand is that it is the MANUFACTURER the sets their own standards, NOT ASTM. In virtually every situation, the manufacturer's requirements will prevail over ANY standard.

Standards, as with Testing are to reflect what is needed by a given manufacturer, and if such standard does not satisfy those requirements, then that standard is inappropriate and should NOT be used...yet many are STILL used even when the standard does NOT test or measure what is stated or expected by the manufacturer. NOTE: In the majority of cases, the manufacturer states they use ASTM F 2170, since it “measures” concrete moisture content. F 2170 says no such thing…the salesman who TOLD you it measures concrete moisture content either claimed this by ignorance or intentional deception. READ THE STANDARD…It ONLY measures the relative humidity, NOT moisture content!

NOTE: ALL ASTM Standards are given a title/designation to what is actually being tested and are NOT to be extended beyond what the standard SPECIFICALLY states. ANYTHING outside of what is SPECIFICALLY stated is NO LONGER IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT STANDARD! Read that again......so those manufacturers who REQUIRE F 2170 as a test for concrete moisture content are doing so at their own risk. Worse, if a group of people decided to get together and sue after being damaged following a requirement that does NOT cover what was represented, they would likely prevail. Ignorance is NOT a defense.

Testing of concrete moisture is supposed to REDUCE claims, NOT increase them. There is even a narrative where it's been stated claims are more frequent and more expensive because more people are aware of the problem...that is absolute and utter fabrication and manipulation of fact. On the contrary, those who are taught the how, why and when of testing are NOT having these problems.

Example: I asked a manufacturer's rep why they insist on RH Probes to qualify a concrete surface for adequate dryness. I was told they use RH probes because they follow the ASTM F 2170 Standard measuring the moisture content of concrete. To which I replied; actually F 2170 doesn't claim ANYWHERE in the standard that it measures the moisture content of concrete, that is a sales pitch and a non-factual claim at that. I then challenge them to find anywhere in that standard where it states it measures "concrete moisture content"...it doesn't.

What F 2170 DOES say is that it measures the relative humidity in concrete..that is NOT concrete moisture content. If someone were to measure the RH over the surface of a lake, would that be considered measuring the moisture content of the lake? Assuming RH probes measure the moisture content of concrete is every bit as far fetched, yet as the adage goes, stating a lie loud enough and long enough, becomes accepted as truth.

NOTE: when measuring RH; you CANNOT measure a solid, only air space. Worse, any moisture in liquid form is undetectable using ANY form of humidity measuring...even worse; several studies have indicated that currently used sensors are unreliable when humidity levels are between 90-100%.

Bottom Line

Flooring installers that have learned to not only test, but interpret the data correctly, have reduced their claims by more than 90%.

Flooring installers that dutifully follow the current "standards" have watched their claims increase by 300%.

Case in Point

Several years back, I was brought in to a high tech facility where there were twelve rooms, with each room handling delicate and expensive equipment that could potentially cost upwards of one million per day, if a shutdown were to occur. As a result, the owners wanted to be certain that the concrete floors would not become an issue.

A consultant was brought in, tested the concrete and determined a moisture mitigation product was a necessity, which would have added an additional 30-60 days to the project schedule and costs estimated between 500,000-1,000,000.

Another consultant was brought in and felt the mitigation was unnecessary and brought me in to evaluate the concrete.

Without going into detail, I made the determination that ALL of the moisture was being introduced by the ambient conditions and suggested we monitor what the installer did and the materials used to confirm this hypothesis.

All rooms were unconditioned and before the installation began, the RH of each room was 52%, but as the adhesive was spread, the humidity within the room climbed to 90%, to which I stated the failure was inevitable and would essentially mirror the prior/initial problem where the floor experienced a "moisture failure" within hours of installation.

Predictably the floor failed and I brought in a Tramex Concrete Encounter (with a real-time humidity, temperature and dew point read-out), an infrared Thermometer, fans and small dehumidifier.

Using the Meter, once the concrete moisture level was brought down to 4.5%, and the room humidity returned to 52%, the installation began with fans moving the air (not aimed directly at the concrete) and the dehumidifier maintaining the humidity between 50-60%, the installation using the exact same products, the exact same crew ended up with a flawless installation. The floor so well bounded, it would not peel off the concrete without tremendous effort.

This procedure was maintained throughout the remainder of the installation, and even in a non-acclimated environment, the floors did not experience any issues...saving the client at least a month in scheduling and at least 500k in what amounted to a completely unnecessary moisture mitigation expense.

Think about this: IF the expensive moisture mitigation had been used..it would have chalked up yet another "successful" installation with no one being the wiser, but adding to a negative pattern of continuing to repair what doesn't need repairing..IF you don't know what to look for.

How many times has this scenario been repeated, creating a false narrative of mitigation necessity? How many millions, if not billions have been spent, with damaged reputations and even some being driven out of business by misunderstood information, misapplied testing where a number or figure was reached with essentially no context to that assigned "moisture problem"?

This has GOT to stop, yet it won't stop if current patterns are left unchanged.

Postscript: One of the wildcards in all this is how much concrete has changed (multiple times) since the 1950's, but presented/assumed as an "unchanging" material, being evaluated by methods that have not recognized these changes; subsequently these evaluation methods have become further detached from reality.