Test Report weber.sys protec Bond Strength onto Drainage Unit
DESCRIPTION | TEST | SUMARRY | CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
| Unit supplied by: |
Neil Copping of Water World Solutions |
| Description of unit: |
Stainless steel drainage channel + drain for wet rooms |
| Product: |
weber.sys protec tanking system |
| Test to include: |
Tensile bond strength to check compatibility of weber.sys protec with supplied drainage channel |
| Test conditions: |
EN Testing laboratory - 40% to 60% RH, 23°C ± 2°C |
Test Description
In preparation, the stainless steel test piece was split in to 2 pieces. On the first piece scores were made every 3-5mm using a Stanley knife to provide a mechanical key. On the second piece the stainless was left as supplied.
weber.sys protec membrane was then applied by brush to the test pieces, allowed to dry for 1 hour and then a second coat applied at 90° to the first coat as per bucket instructions.
The test pieces were then left in the laboratory for 20 hours over. After 20 hours, 12 x 50x50mm fully vitrified winkleman tiles were bonded onto each of the test pieces using epoxy adhesive. This is a slight modification of BS EN 1384:1999 (part of BS EN 12004) for which the test time have been altered. All other aspects and equipment are the same. Note: Epoxy adhesive was chosen to bond tiles to weber.sys protec and dollies to tiles as it was fast curing and we wanted to test the weber.sys protec bond, not the tile adhesive strength which we already know is over 1N/mm.
At 24 hours a Hydrajaws tensile testing machine with 0-5kN gauge was used to test 4 of the test tiles on each prepared stainless steel background. The same test was carried out at 3 days and 4 of the remaining 8 tiles from each stainless steel piece were tested. At 5 days, the final 4 tiles were tested.
Go on the top.
Test Results
| |
24hr (kN) |
24hr (n/mm) |
72hr (kN) |
72hr (n/mm) |
5d (kN) |
5d (N/mm) |
| Keyed 1 |
2.2 |
0.88 |
1.9 |
0.76 |
1.6 |
0.64 |
| Keyed 2 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
1.8 |
0.72 |
| Keyed 3 |
1.8 |
0.72 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
2.3 |
0.92 |
| Keyed 4 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
1.8 |
0.72 |
2.4 |
0.96 |
| Average |
2.0 |
0.80 |
1.925 |
0.77 |
2.025 |
0.81 |
| |
24hr (kN) |
24hr (n/mm) |
72hr (kN) |
72hr (n/mm) |
5d (kN) |
5d (N/mm) |
| >Plain 1 |
1.7 |
0.68 |
2.2 |
0.88 |
2.1 |
0.84 |
| Plain 2 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
| Plain 3 |
2.1 |
0.84 |
1.8 |
0.72 |
1.7 |
0.68 |
| Plain 4 |
1.9 |
0.76 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
2.2 |
0.88 |
| Average |
1.925 |
0.77 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
2.0 |
0.80 |
Go on the top.
Summary of Results
The tensile strength for keyed and plain stainless steel was both very high. The difference between the two was negotiable. In both these cases, the force of the debond was such that the tiles smashed. The forces needed were approx. 0.8N/mm and the failure method was mainly (80%) cohesive failure of the weber.sys protec system. To give an idea of the force exerted for failure, 0.8N/mm is theoretically approx. 7200kg of force on a 300x300mm tile. The difference between 24h, 72h and 5d was very small indicating that the product has gained ultimate strength on initial drying.
Go on the top.
Conclusion/Recommendation
From the results summary, I would recommend that weber.sys protec was used directly onto clean and non-greasy stainless drainage fixtures to maximize bond. Any traces of contamination should be removed prior to application of the membrane. I see no issues or problems in compatibility and feel the 2 different products would make a very compatible solution to all interior wet room needs. The strengths needed for the weber.sys protec to fail were so strong that failure due to debonding was negotiable providing the membrane is allowed to dry prior to tiling and that the correct application techniques, as indicated on all data sheets and packaging, are followed. If you would like to discuss or query any of this report, please feel free to contact me in the first instance.
James Mead Product Manager
Tile Fixing weber Building Solutions
Go on the top. |
