Georgia Pacific verified that it is the same product as DensShield. It is labeled in the photos as DensGuard as that’s the name the product is sold under in Lowe’s stores in my area. The gypsum-based tile backer board we tested was Georgia Pacific’s DensShield, which is advertised as having a “moisture resistant core” with “fiberglass mats and a unique heat-cured acrylic coating.” We knew any wicking that occurred would not be visible on the side with the acrylic coating, so the test was conducted with the yellow fiberglass mat side visible. As you can see, the fat mud sample wicked almost no water during the test period, a result I found rather surprising. metal lath reinforcement used in such construction. It was made a half-inch thick to approximate the same physical characteristics as the other boards and contains the usual 2.5lb. The wall mud or “fat mud” sample was made with an off-the-shelf mortar mix readily available in the home center outlets. There is no line on the Sheetrock as it was completely saturated after the first week of the test as evidenced by the darker color. You can see that there are significant differences in the wicking action in the different types of backer board. Dark lines were drawn on each sample at the end of the test period to make the maximum wicking level of each sample more visible in the photo. The test mockup was in a covered, but not conditioned, space, and the testing was monitored for a period of one month with the trough being continuously filled with water during that period. Holes in the side of the trough keep the water from going above the design level, allowing it to cover each of the samples to the same depth. To test the wicking action of the various types of backing material, we constructed a test mockup with a trough that could be filled to a consistent depth of about 3/4 in. We also included a sample of Sheetrock® as an example of why gypsum boards are no longer recommended for use in wet areas. The only exception being the wall mud sample, which is unlikely to be used by the casual shower builder, but which has been the benchmark for shower construction for decades, and even that was made from pre-bagged material similarly available. The test materials were chosen for variety and their availability in local home center outlets, those that would be commonly available to the retail buyer. In an earlier article we looked at the potential problem with water wicking, or water migration, up the walls of tile showers with traditionally built mud/liner/mud “pans” or receptors.Īlong those same lines I wanted to test the difference in the likelihood and extent of such wicking among some of the more common materials used for the construction of such tile shower walls, such as CBUs, Fiber/Cement boards, and other backing materials specified for the application in one form or another. “Wicking,” – Water Migration in Tile Shower Wall Backing Materials – Part II
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |