The use of concrete moisture suppression systems being used as an additive to the concrete pour or topically applied is getting a great deal of attention in the construction industry as the need to thwart the failure of flooring installations due to moisture issues escalates exponentially. General Contractors and Architects are beginning to cause these systems to appear in construction specifications. As a result flooring contractors are being coerced to accept the use of these systems and forced to guarantee the installation of their flooring materials over substrates where these products have been used. The suppression systems themselves are being warranted and even bonded to the extent that they guarantee no failures in critical situations. This leads the end user, GC and architect to believe there won’t be any flooring material or installation failures if one of these systems is used. There are several problems with these systems that present very dangerous situations for the end user and the flooring dealer or contractor.
There is no realistic means of authenticating the effectiveness of silicate based integral or topical moisture mitigation systems. They will not pass the calcium chloride test, RH test or hood test. The end user is stuck with accepting the effectiveness of these systems on the word and literature of the companies selling them. The warranties, like so many warranties in the flooring industry, don’t cover what the buyers thought they did and find a way not to implicate the system for any flooring failure that is sure to occur. Any failure is sure to be deemed the fault of the flooring material or flooring contractor.
These moisture mitigating systems limit concretes ability to facilitate a bond of flooring adhesive which is used to adhere flooring materials to the concrete substrate. As a result the flooring material cannot be successfully installed and will inevitably de-bond from the substrate in a very short period of time; 30 days would not be a surprise. The blame for the failure will be interpreted as being the fault of the installation firm or the flooring material or the adhesive manufacturer. In the quest to find a simple and easy bandage for a hemorrhage actual bloodletting will occur. The blood will be that of all parties other than the responsible one and the architect, GC and end user won’t believe it until convinced otherwise.
This lunacy must be stopped before it gets started. Flooring contractors are contacting us with increased frequency frustrated by being forced to accept the specs that obligate them to warrant the installations when moisture mitigation systems are specified. A suicidal move to be sure but no one today wants to refuse to do an installation.
When the installation fails, the fix is catastrophic. Normally an installation failure due to moisture can be mitigated by bead blasting or grinding the substrate, applying an appropriate moisture suppression system such as Koster and floating a new cementitious coating – an expensive and invasive proposition. When integral or topically applied moisture systems are used and the installation fails the entire slab may have to be replaced or ½ inch or more of the concrete surface removed. Saying this resolution is expensive and invasive is an understatement, it makes moisture mitigation look like child’s play. Let the lawsuits begin is the battle cry you’ll hear.
These integral or topical moisture suppression systems don’t have to be specified or used because there are installation systems which will work with high moisture levels in concrete. I’ll have more detail about this subject and what really works on high moisture slabs in a coming edition of the Commercial Flooring Report newsletter, which you can subscribe to at our website. If you need help, contact us.
Author: Lewis G. Migliore
LGM and Associates – The Floorcovering Experts