Hi, I'm David welcome to Tramex talks. Today we have joining us the North American Technical Manager for Tarkett Sports William Thornton, thanks for joining us, William.
William: Good morning gentlemen how are you?
David: Very good.
W: It's a pleasure to be here.
D: Pleasure to have you joining us on Tramex Talks. I was wondering, William, if you could tell us a little bit about your history in the flooring industry.
W: Yeah, thank you for asking. I've been with Tarkett since January of 2009. Prior to that, I was the North American technical manager director for a competing manufacturer. I've been in the industry for a little over 38 years. So, I'm approaching four decades. I started out as a flooring installer, became a contractor, was an educator for numerous years. Also did work with the IBPAT that's the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, as an educator for them, with the local in the midwest, in Kansas City actually, and then I'm also part of the ASTM in multiple divisions, ASTM F06 for resilient flooring, I chair the FOA52 for miscellaneous playing services, I'm engaged with the MFMA Maple Flooring Manufacturers Association, and I spend a lot of time within my position with Tarkett now as an educator, I do quite a few training events, given the situation that we have right now, we're spending more time doing online education, which is interesting you know, letting technology advance, how we get things done, and even having this talk is interesting how easily that we can put information together and broadcast it out to the masses. So, this is encouraging. I work on product development, moisture obviously, moisture testing concrete, designing construction, I teach also the interconnectivities between concrete and floor coverage, various types. And I stay very busy.
D: It sounds like. With four decades in the industry, William, can you give us a little bit of your knowledge of the history of moisture testing and its evolution?
W: Yeah, it's pretty fascinating actually, you know, being in the industry for this long, and having friends that have been in it as long, if not longer, looking back at how things used to be done and how things are being done today, it's really interesting. We used to do, you know, calcium chloride testing, even when that wasn't as popular, that's been around for, oh good grief, late 40s early 50s I think, I think one of the big ones that came out was Kentile back in 19, I think 1963. In fact, I still think I have that installation guideline in my library. But we used to do crazy things also, even like table salt. Was a really funky one that we used to do back then. You take a teaspoon of table salt, throw it on the concrete, take it a glass turn it upside down, and put plumber's putty around the outside of it, you come back 24 hours later. If it's hard you didn't install the job, if it was still, you know, unaffected, then okay, you're good to go. That was your pass-fail [Laughter] okay,
D: We've come a little ways since then.
W: A little, yeah. sometimes I'd like to go back to that because it was so simple. But obviously, that's not a good test, so somehow we've got to get to a simpler way. But, and then, you know, the map test, you know, where you put the plastic down on top, you tape it down, you put a heat lamp on it, we've had that, even testing relative humidity in the air, I don't know if many would recall, the old sling psychrometer, you probably played with that one when you were in high school.
D: Yeah yeah.
W: Where you're swinging that thing around. That's a David and Goliath type thing.
D: Yeah.
W: So, we've gone to the moon and back since we quit that one, and then obviously we have, you know, the in-situ probe test into the F2170. So, as of today, we have and they've been around for quite a long time. ASTM F1869, which is the calcium chloride test been around a very very long time, and then the probe testing, the mat testing, the salt trick, we don't use that one anymore, so we're consolidated now to the calcium chloride and probe testing primarily, and then also the non-invasive surface meter, which has been around, as a matter of fact, I think I still have my original Tramex from, I don't know, mid-90s I think, I still have it.
D: Wow.
W: In fact, about a year ago I put that on my calibration plate and it's still calibrated.
D: Amazing.
W: That is amazing.
D: So William, what do you find are the differences, the big differences, between these tests and the and the results that you get?
W: Well that's an interesting question, I get asked often "does one test correlate with the other test?" We know the calcium chloride test does, it measures moisture vapor emission rate that's coming out of the surface of the concrete and that's completely different than what the in-situ probe test does, which measures the relative humidity within the concrete at approximately 40 percent depth, depending on the concrete.
D: Right.
W: How it's designed, how it's located, but generally, you know, 90% of everything you're doing is at about 40% depth, and again, that's telling you the relative humidity within an airspace that's drilled, so it's really not telling you moisture content of the concrete, it's just telling you that in that hole, with that sleeve, with that chamber, that's properly acclimated, what is the relative humidity. So, how much water vapor has consolidated within that space.
D: Right.
W: Vapor emission, the calcium chloride test, the reason that the results are in pounds, which is not always well understood, is the formula that you use for that. You're basically converting the gain weight of the grams of the anhydrous calcium chloride into pounds, which is equivalent to the weight of liquid water. So, let's say you get a result for just around eight pounds. Well, we know that a gallon of water is approximately eight pounds, right?
D: Right.
W: Right around there, just a little bit over, so what that's telling you is that, okay, within one thousand square feet you're getting a gallon of water emitting out of that 1,000 square feet in 24 hours. Now, that doesn't sound too impressive but when you, let's do the math, let's say you have 10,000 square feet of space, yeah, and you have a gallon of water coming out of that concrete every 1,000 feet in 24 hours, in 24 hours and 10,000 feet, how many gallons of water would that be?
D: You got some, you got some too many gallons of water.
W: It'd be ten, it'd be ten. So, 10 gallons of water in 10,000 feet in a 24-hour period. Now multiply that by 30 days. So, that would be 300 gallons of water.
D: Right.
W: So, I didn't realize that back when I was doing, you know, calcium chloride testing in the 80s, didn't realize that but, you know, obviously when I get on the technical side I started thinking about things, it's like, wait a minute that's a lot of water!
D: Yeah. For sure.
W: So, obviously we have the non-invasive meter that's been around for an exceptionally long period of time, and we use that too. And that gives us the moisture content of the concrete at the surface.
D: So, why do you find moisture testing important?
W: Ah, it's an interesting question.
D: It's a loaded question [Laugh].
W: [Laugh] It's a loaded question. But it's a good one.
D: Yeah.
W: The, I mean, look, I mean, you go back 30, 40 years, 50 years, you know there wasn't a whole lot of moisture testing done back then. Back then, we only had calcium chloride and the mat and salt test. And then came along, you know, the surface meters and probes afterwards. And we also had different adhesives back then.
D: Right.
W: You know, with the new regulations, you know, getting rid of solvents, you know, safety, health, and welfare, the solvents are gone, and so now we've got different adhesives, and those adhesives can be affected by moisture and alkalinity differently than some of the old solvent-based adhesives that we used to have. We have faster track construction today than what we had before. I was working with a hospital group, in Florida, this goes a number of years ago, and it was absolutely amazing to me that they could build a 250-bed hospital in 13 months.
D: Yeah.
W: Where 20, 30 years ago, you know something like that would take years to build.
D: Right.
W: So, faster track construction, understanding the nature of the concrete, the connectivity of the adhesive that you're using with the floor covering that you're applying, testing is more important now than it was before. What's interesting, however, is I did a study on this a number of years ago, looking at testing that was coming in our way, and the majority, about 91, 92% of all the tests out there were actually probe-test, with the calcium chloride, waning, again technology advancing, right, because you can't make calcium chloride or salt, or the mat test, you know, all the old archaic systems, you can't make them any better, they are what they are. But, testing is so vital, especially with what we're dealing in the construction industry today, moving so quickly. They want it built, they want to get it open, and they want to make a profit, you know, with the building that they have.
D: Yeah for sure. Do you find William that these different tests that you've mentioned, obviously now we're, you know, basically the calcium chloride, the RH probe test, the surface test, is there a correlation between the tests?
W: Well, we tried that, even on the ASTM level. We have what's called ILS studies, Independent Lab Studies, there was a lot of effort put into that, and it's definitely peer-reviewed by some of the best of the best that are out here in the industry, that does testing, and very involved, not only with the testing but also the concrete designing construction, the nature of concrete, how water moves blah blah blah blah. There is little to almost no correlation from, like the calcium chloride test to the probe test, almost, you got in the middle there somewhere, and it was looking pretty good and then it just went prrr.
D: Wow.
W: So, there is no correlation between the two.
D: So, is it that the tests are giving you different bits of information.
W: Absolutely. They're giving you different bits of information, and you'll find a lot of manufacturers out there that will recommend to do both, the calcium chloride test and the probe test, right, both, to try to get, okay, we get this information about the water coming out, and we get this information about what the moisture vapor is, you know, within the body of the concrete, and the reason that's set at 40% on the probe, by the way, it's designed to give you a predictable means of once the concrete is covered with a floor covering, especially one that's "encapsulatory", what that ultimately would be, you know, when that concrete reaches equilibrium.
D: Right.
W: In basics, that's what that does. But none of them can correlate with each other and that's a bit of a problem. A lot of manufacturers will recommend that you do both tests. But when we look at the reality of it, that doesn't happen very often, at all. It's rare, in the past 20 years, on my end, you know, that I've been on, the 18 years, right around there, whatever, that I've been on the technical side and I've reviewed these things, it's rare that I see both tests actually being done. It's either one or the other, even though manufacturers recommend it.
D: Would you say that one of these tests is better than another or preferable?
W: That's, well, I mean, with technology, that's a good question, with technology we're seeing more of the probe testing, obviously, right? The caveat, and probably even more so with that, because the calcium chloride is still set that you have to prepare the top of the concrete, and I'm gonna get into this on the question about is one better than the other, the issues that you have, like with calcium chloride, you generally have to grind the top of the concrete to open it up, you got to make sure that it's sealed correctly, you have to monitor the temperature and humidity while the test is being run, you have to wait between 60 to 72 hours to go back and weigh it.
D: There's a lot of opportunity for error.
W: Exactly. Every time you add an additional step or you add a caveat to a particular testing mechanism, you have any one of those could cause a problem and give you false results, and the same thing can happen with the probe test also. It's just a little bit harder to do. You got a little bit less steps there. Now...
D: Right.
W: ..we got rid of the, I got rid of the calcium chloride test in my department about six years ago, and converted our testing regimen to be with the non-invasive surface meter in lieu of calcium chloride and probe testing also, so which I think is, up until now, that was a far better way to go.
D: You're of the mindset that multiple tests should be done, although you said it doesn't happen very often?
W: It doesn't happen very often. Do I think that multiple tests should be done? Yes, because it's, you know, Solomon obviously the smartest guy on the planet...
D: Yeah.
W: ..when he was alive, you know, I'm going to paraphrase this but, I hold it close to my heart, it's good to understand the nature of God, right, not to get religious or anything, but I look at that as like it's good to understand the nature of things, it's good to understand the nature of the concrete. If you can see what's going on below or in the middle, and you can see what's going on top, you get a much better picture on what's happening.
D: It makes sense, it's like the tests are giving you different snapshots.
W: They are. The problem is that you've got two entirely different tests, they're not integrated, they don't correlate. So, how do you take the data from one particular test that gives you an entirely different result against the other test that gives you a different type of result, and I run also into even dealing with some contractors that, okay, they'll take the better one of the two [Laugh].
D: [Laugh]
W: If one doesn't work, if that one didn't work, well, they'll go try the other one, if they get a better number on that, then they'll just report that one.
D: That's convenient huh?
W: So that's a challenge also and then, you know, looking at that study I mentioned, because of the complexities of the testing, I'm looking, you know, I saw about 60 of the projects that were being installed, were not tested.
D: Yeah, that's a bigger problem.
W: And I'm sure that still exists today, that you've got plenty of projects out there that are just not tested.
D: And as, you know, as a test is more complex I think the likelihood of not testing is increased, obviously.
W: Well, correct. One advantage at least with the probe test, right, now F2170, is at one time the duration of that test was considerably longer, which throws another kink in the line, and now, at least, it's, you know, 24 hours. My point with ASTN back then, is we have to allow technology to advance. How to make these tests, if we can do multiple tests we can accomplish that goal. But make it easier faster, where they do correlate, and it's extremely reliable.
D: Right.
W: If we could get to that point, where we made it easier, faster, and more reliable, and we could get that kind of data, I can see us in the future that we're going to have, you know, less issues out there.
D: So, you think that proper testing can provide long-term predictability?
W: That's a good one. You're asking hard questions. That's a good one, you know, right now, like the RFCI, has a white paper out on that, Resilient Floor Covering Institute, there's a white paper on that, I think it was updated in, I don't know, right around 2013, 2014, that no, even though you do the testing many times, you can't say that testing is predictable unless you can validate that the concrete is stable.
D: Okay.
W: How do you do that? On older concrete, you know, we have ASTM F710, which is, I'm going to paraphrase it, I may get it to word for word right, but the standard practice for the preparation of concrete slabs to receive resilient floor covering, we recommend in there, and you also have ACI 302.2R, which is the designing construction of concrete slabs to receive moisture-sensitive floor covering, I think I got that right, that was a collaborative effort between the American Concrete Institute and ASTM F06, it was interesting that we got, you know, people together and there, were some really good minds that actually wrote that document, but you want to have a vapor retarder or a vapor barrier in direct contact with the concrete below it, right, but it has to be effective, right? It has to work. And that's supposed to offer some preventative means of getting, you know, outside, you know, underside sources of water, you know, getting up into the slab. But then you have crazy things where people are putting the vapor retarder down, they take a piece of rebar and they start punching holes in it to let the water out, and there's other crazy things that can happen, and that can be really tough to analyze. Now, on new concrete, that's a little bit easier to do. You probably have better predictability, so long as the concrete's being designed correctly.
D: Right.
W: But as a general means, those that are doing the testing should be very careful that the results that they have would be considered a long-term result.
D: Yeah. So, I guess that would lead me to my next question is, you know, who performs these tests, generally?
W: Thank you. That's a good question. The problem that we've had with testing in general, number one the complexities of doing so, the opportunities of doing them incorrectly, getting false data, and then, you know, making decisions to install flooring that probably shouldn't have been installed, you know, because the data that they were receiving to make those decisions was actually wrong, and then you get into liabilities and risks, so, you know, you have a lot more contractors that are more savvy today than what we were 20 years ago, 25, 30 years ago, right?
D: Yeah.
W: The problem is, even the RFCI back in the 90s, I believe, they wrote a white paper, back then, that really there should be independent trained professionals to do that testing. There's a difference between, and I'm using the word forensics in the wrong way but it's the best word that I can come up with, there's a difference between, you know, a flooring contractor that just goes out and performs some, you know, moisture testing on the concrete, and then you have those on the other hand that are really investigative and forensic concrete analysts, where they'll dig a lot deeper into the concrete to figure out hey what's going on here, what's going on there, how's the design, how's this, how's that.
D: Right.
W: In my view, so that was put out in the 90s, but it really, it was a bomb, because really nobody paid attention to it. It was really great when it was written, it's like yay we're going to get somebody else to do all this stuff, but in general, it would, you know, general contractors and construction managers, you know, they started to see this stuff, it was getting put into architectural specifications, that you had to have an independent third party do it, even though there are engineering firms out there that do do it, I won't say that they're certified to do it, but hey they can do it. so, the problem is when all that came out, all the hoopla came out, the general contractors, and construction managers, and owners of buildings, they would come back to the flooring contractor and just say, I've had it, as a matter of fact, I had it happen to me many times, hey if you want this job then you're going to do the testing. Well [laugh], when you got a quarter million, or a half-million-dollar, one million dollar contract, you're looking at the project manager and he's like well okay we'll do it. So, it was a great idea but it bombed. So, I think there should be a separation about what is the responsibility of a flooring contractor to do versus a real concrete forensic analyst, what they do, and there are professionals that do that.
W: So, what do you think about, obviously when using the surface meter there's the simplicity of testing there, what is your feeling about testing time, whether time of installation or because obviously, things can change on the job site?
D: Well, absolutely and there are topics of discussion even today amongst a group of peers here about, you know, what are the alternatives, you know. Number one you want reliable data, that's number one. You want to make sure that the data you're getting is accurate, so you're making the right decisions on what to do forward, right?
D: Right.
W: And that is a bit of a challenge even today because with the test that we have, are they good tests? Is the calcium chloride test a good test? Yes, it is, it's been around for a long time. Is the in-situ probe test for relative humidity a good test? Yes, it is, it's been around for a long time. A lot of installation guidelines and adhesive specs, and technical with the adhesives and how they're used, they are built around those. But again, we go back because one doesn't correlate to the other, you don't always get the total picture, and that makes it a little bit challenging because you're not getting the right data, potentially not getting the right data, you may. The reason that I moved towards the surface meter, about I think I said what five or six years ago, maybe it could be seven, but right around there, the reason I did that is I want technology to advance forward and I've been working with non-invasive meters for a big chunk of my you know career, and I find them extremely accurate and extremely reliable.
D: Do you think technology can improve on where we're at now? I mean obviously, it brought us from calcium chloride to RH probe testing, and you would think that technology
marches on, so to speak.
W: Technology marches on and there's actually with technology we can actually do more testing than what we would that we normally did in the past. Get more information, get it faster, it's reliable, you can test the same day, which would be epic, and this is something that I'm really proud of Tramex, that the whole Tramex team, I'm really super proud, I'm excited in fact that now there's a means to use one testing method and obviously, everyone should know that gravimetric testing is far out, it's used more outside of floor covering than just about any other way to test, and so we know that is, that's kind of the gold standard of testing, right?
D: Yeah, that's our baseline.
W: But it really hasn't, again, letting technology do its work, and so now we have the opportunity here, and I'm really looking forward to it, especially working with the Tramex team, to have a system where we can do surface testing and, you know, in the concrete testing at the same time, in the same day, and both numbers correlate.
D: So, when you're talking about in the concrete testing William, you're talking about RH or you're talking about something different?
W: Well, that's interesting. So, we're evaluating moisture concrete and if we can evaluate the surface moisture content, you know, up to about three-quarters of an inch, or an inch, at the surface and we let's say, we had a system that would engage with the same type of testing beater, and get into the body of the slab at whatever depth that we needed to get to, depending on that concrete, we're getting the same evaluation, we're getting the same result but it's being evaluated the same way.
D: Meaning that you're taking a percentage of moisture content reading at the surface and then through a probe down into the slab as well, so two correlated...
W: And you have two correlating numbers, so there's really not an argument, right? You can't debate one over the other, you're getting two solid pieces of data. Now, and I actually have one, and this is one of the easiest things in the world to use, far less, in my view, of an opportunity in risk of actually getting a wrong number, right? And isn't that one of the ideals of technology anyway?
D: Yes.
W: Number one, we want to see more testing, so how do we do that? If we know that or we suspect that, you know, maybe 50, 60% of the jobs aren't being tested out there, and we've discussed why. Right? The complexities of it, the lack of desire to do it, not everyone's actually getting paid to do it [laugh], you know, they're out there.
D: Yeah, cost is there for sure.
W: Yeah, cost for sure. So, we have this system now that we're intending to launch here shortly before the end of the year, where we have a cradle system like this, we have our meter like this is the CMEX5. I also have the CMEexpert-II, love this thing, this is the latest one that I'm looking at to use (CMEX5) and put in our presentation and instructions.
D: That one is the CMEX5, the digital.
W: Yep, correct, CMEX5. This one has more features and I want to talk about that when we get through this part here, so here it's simple enough that I can use this, get this on top of the slab, I'm going to get a number, in moisture content. I can use the same unit with this cradle, I can attach a probe and these are reusable, which is fantastic, no more plastic sleeves, right? This thing is reusable time and time again. I think the last number that we've gotten so far was right around 250 on one probe.
D: Amazing!
W: It is amazing! You're not so concerned about the depth because you have a conductive ring, and so...
D: And that probe is adjustable for depth as well.
W: You bet it is. They come apart, we have the metal tubes, it goes together so quick, and I got multiple depths that I can achieve, multiple sleeves.
D: And that fits into this same hole as a standard 2170 RH test.
W: Yup. It fits into the same hole. There's very little maintenance on these. You want to make sure that your contacts, you do have contacts on the end, you want to make sure that those are clean, just make sure there's no dust on them, or any contaminant, now I've got this! So this can go right into the hole, I've got the cradle and this will fit right into it.
D: So, that's going to give you the same type of reading, a quantitative moisture content, that you're getting at the surface but you're dropping it whatever depth you set that probe into the slab.
W: You bet because you have this whole assembly right here where you've got the same method is being transmitted down into a lower body of the concrete and coming back up and giving you the reading.
D: And is there a, generally difference between the number at the surface and the number say three inches or so into the slab?
W: And that's the interesting part and that's part of the analysis, so let's say for example and we're gonna... That's a really good question David because we're gonna talk about another thing that this CMEX5 does, which hasn't been on older models, it's not on my older models, but it's such really good information, we were talking about getting good data, so you can make decisions on how to move forward, right?
D: Right
W: Whether it be a moisture mitigation system or maybe just drying out the top of the concrete but this is the really interesting part is now I understand what's happening below and I understand what's happening on top. For example, let's say I have readings in the body of the concrete that are high but I have readings on the top of the concrete that are lower.
D: Yeah.
W: That's important information. What if I have lower readings in the bottom of the concrete or in the middle, in the body of the concrete, but higher on the top? That's interesting information, and that leads me to the other thing that this particular CMEX5 does, from Tramex, it also gives me dewpoint, which is an important topic that has not been discussed enough, and I'm sure that in your Tramex Talks, you're going to have some other people coming in to discuss dewpoint, and why that's an important thing to pay attention to.
D: Yes.
W: Again, I've got a timeline of history of here of using these meters, and I'm and I'm so very happy about it, and that's why I approached Andrew at Tramex, what five years ago, I believe, right around then, it was interesting karma, is like I had this idea, it's like man what if we could do both, you know, what if we could do both, and Andrew at Ttramex came back and said: you know what, we've been working on that. I was like oh no-brainer, this is awesome.
D: [Laugh] Timing is everything.
W: It was everything, and so what I like about this Tramex CMEX5, it does so much more than just a surface meter. We've got it down to surface, we can do the probe, I can get temperature, I can get relative humidity, it actually does come with an ambient relative humidity meter, it also comes with an insert that I could do 2170 testing if I
wanted to, which we're going to keep for at least for now, for the interim we're going to keep that also.
D: Right.
W: But the amazing thing, the amazing thing, I did a presentation last year, a training presentation, I was writing about moisture testing in concrete, and I had a customer send me moisture test results on a used paper plate with barbecue sauce on it.
D: [Laugh]
W: I got the picture, a matter of fact I may have that in my office still, and it's like wow, this is the kind of stuff that you're seeing happening, and not only do we have the technology to give reliable results but Tramex also come up with Apps that can be used on your phone or your iPad where the information is sent directly to it, gets a report, you don't have an eraser on that, and if you understand what I mean eraser, is that you can have people do it, you can have people do a test or not do a test, and just write something down on a piece of paper and say "oh yeah we did that", in a paper plate.
D: Yeah, that's the nice feature in the App of the geotag, so it'll geotag your test result.
W: So, not only does the testing have to be reliable, the reporting has to be reliable.
D: Yes.
W: And that so I'm really super happy about the App system. I know that if someone sends reports to me using this system, nobody's monkeyed with it, I know what's going on, I see good data, and if I'm asked to make a comment I can make a comment. Oftentimes I'm not asked to make a comment because we already have, you know, we have tolerances on our installation guidelines, but sometimes I do so.
D: Yeah. Yeah, well that's excellent.
W: So, I see this, so, if we take this whole picture we're getting, we're kind of, we're basically getting the best of everything, not only can we can see what's happening in the body of the slab, we can see what's happening on the top of the slab, we can understand whatever our ambient conditions are, temperature and humidity, we can see dew point, which isn't part of our talk today I don't think, but that is something that we deal with.
D: That has to be considered yeah.
W: Oh, it absolutely should be considered. Yeah, I mean, even with some installation types that are really affected by humidity, especially at the top of the slab, so that should be something discussed as well and I'm sure you'll have some other talks on that, but then, so we put those two things together, we have technology that with one unit that can do multiple different functions at one time, we don't have to wait 24 hours, 60 hours, 72 hours to do the test. Fantastic! That's going to lead people to do more testing, hopefully, and then that combined with the App system, as of today what system could be better as a total package than that?
D: And simple and reliable.
W: Simple and reliable, cost savings also, once you have the equipment, again the probe last, and last, and last, and last, so you're not having to replace those, and so forth and so on. You can double-check your equipment, you provide also, as part of the package, a calibration check plate, which I keep with me religiously, and it's so much easier to, it's just a, to me it's a total package.
D: Yeah. Well it's a pleasure speaking with you William, and just to get a refreshing look at moisture testing in the flooring industry, and just to pick your brain a bit, and absorb your decades of knowledge, we appreciate you appreciating Tramex, and the new technology, and introducing the what we like to call the Determinator today.
W: Yep [Laugh]. The Determinator, yep.
D: The impedance probe. Excellent. Well, thank you for joining us William and we'll check back with you again.
W: Thank you for your time and I look forward to my continuing to work with Tramex here. Very excited about what's coming down the pike here very soon.
D: Excellent.
W: Thank you.
D: Take care. Thanks for joining us we'll see you next time.