Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile

Welcome to John Bridge / Tile Your World, the friendliest DIY Forum on the Internet


Advertiser Directory
JohnBridge.com Home
Buy John Bridge's Books

Go Back   Ceramic Tile Advice Forums - John Bridge Ceramic Tile > Tile & Stone Forums > Professionals' Hangout

Sponsors


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Unread 06-09-2001, 02:35 PM   #16
kalford
Tennessee Tile Man
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newbern,Tn.
Posts: 343
Send a message via Yahoo to kalford
AMEN!! Backer board will never be the substrate that a quality mudbed is.Like you said John,a mudbed isn't dependent on the floor under it like backer is which only goes to reenforce what we've said about bonding backer.By itself it is not rigid enough to fall within the deflection guidelines necessary to support a tile floor.If this were not true there would be no problem going over particle board.Backer boards are not self supporting.That's why I did my bathroom like I did.Had I chosen to use a mudbed the first sheet of plywood could have even been thinner and there wouldn't be a second layer.

Hey John,two houses side by side.One has mudbed system one has ply and backer........FLOOD!! Which one will need the most repair?

[Edited by kalford on 06-09-2001 at 04:40 PM]
__________________
Keith Alford
"I didn't do it...even if I did,you can't prove it"
kalford is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2001, 05:21 PM   #17
Bud Cline
Tile Contractor -- Central Nebraska
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Nebraska
Posts: 7,567
I think the myriad of ideas that may or may not substantiate an idea as to the benefits of one system (mudbed) as opposed to another system (CBU's) cames from the fact that so many installation practices can be regional.

Mudbed when I was living in Texas was the "cats meow" but it was also all there was for a long time. I don't argue that it is still the best system depending on who does it and the practices they follow and the materials they use. I agree with John that a mud bed is stronger structurally. I also think a mudbed can be more suseptible to cracking under the right conditions, but I can't really prove it.

CBU's are prevelant in this part of the country. In Texas I participated in many redo's that were originally mudbed. Here a lot of the redos are found to be on plywood. This area must have subscribed to "plywood only" for a long time because I'm just not seeing the old mudbeds.

I don't know if the talent just wasn't here or what. Unfortunately I am still seeing a lot of failures originally installed on particle board also. So that method must have been very popular for a long time also. You know it took particleboard many years to prove its uselessness as a subflooring in many cases.

In this town of 25K there were for many years only two full-blown tileguys and they had most of the work for a long time. One was an independent that sold tile out of his garage and the other was an installer for what has been the only real flooring installer in town for 30+ years.

When I arrived eight years ago tile was booming, there was a shortage of qualified tile installers, it was a gold mine. They were at that time using CBU's but I don't think anyone knew why. My mention of TCA or ANSI brought questionmarks to most faces. Now that I have been here eight years and torn out a lot of work I can see that someone must have really been cleaning up as far as shortcuts.

My mention that I attempt to subscribe to a particular philosophy of installation governed by organizations such as TCA and ANSI generally brings the response; "sure, doesn't everybody"? Well I can tell you "NO" they don't and haven't.

I think I would rather carry cut and fit CBU's than mix, carry and finish mud these days. Just seems easier getting everything to the job and all. I also firmly believe that 1/2" CBU's DO IN FACT OFFER ADDITIONAL STRUCTURAL BENEFIT to a floor when set in thinset. I'm not so sure about 1/4", I think 1/4" creates problems of its own.
Bud Cline is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2001, 06:36 PM   #18
chip
Travelin' Salesman
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,088
Hey all,

I don't know who started all this talk, but he should have his head examined. Oh wait a minute it was me, and they did that and said there was nothing to be found.

I have said it before and will say it again, the traditional mud bed method is the "best" way to set tile and or stone.

CBU is the 2nd.

With the lack of tradesman who are capable of mudding a job, at least they have a product that has qualities similar to the mud method.

No it is not designed to add to the structural integrity of the dwelling.

But it is concrete, not plywood, osb, particle, luan, gypsum etc.

One more time "mud bed is the best way to tile"!!!!!!!!!!!

take good care,

Art Phenis
__________________
Never did it, just know what I read or was told.
chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2001, 06:38 PM   #19
John Bridge
Mudmeister
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rosanky, Texas
Posts: 68,125
Send a message via AIM to John Bridge
Uh, how was the beach, Art?
John Bridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2001, 06:58 PM   #20
chip
Travelin' Salesman
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,088
John,

I couldn't have planned it better.

As soon as she got home, it started to rain.

So I had to stay in and watch the college World series and then of course got some shut eye in as well.

Any body know who won, USC was ahead 6-3 the last I knew.

Tommorow another day in the mines. Bonnie Tile my largest customer is having their annual golf outing.

Work, Work, Work.

good night,

Art
__________________
Never did it, just know what I read or was told.
chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2001, 08:41 PM   #21
Tom
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 30
Hi, everybody,
John, in response to your question, I have a small handyman business in Long Island, NY. I used to give tile work to a tilesetter who I sometimes worked with, and I've been doing some tile work on my own for a few years (I first used mud after reading your book). I don't have the same level of experience as the professionals here, but when I use cbu I use Hardibacker, which according to the manufacturer has the same strength in 1/4" or 1/2". The 1/2" size is used only to make the transition to sheetrock. This could be different with other brands.
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-09-2001, 11:16 PM   #22
kalford
Tennessee Tile Man
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newbern,Tn.
Posts: 343
Send a message via Yahoo to kalford
Cool From the Horse's mouth

According to the Hardibacker website:Hardibacker(1/4") and Hardibacker 500(1/2")exhibit typical "flexural" strengths of 2100 and 1700 psi so whoever said that 1/4" was as strong as 1/2" just flat out lied.The "compressive" strengths are close at 7000 and 6500 psi but so what.A sheet of paper has some pretty impresive compressive strength too but I don't want to set tile on it.

Now for installation.On the Spec/Data sheet under Hardibacker Installation Instructions titled:Floor Installation paragraph 3: Attach sheets to subfloor:
Apply minimum of 3/32" thick
Dry-set mortar OR MODIFIED
THINSET to subfloor.

under,Finishing with Natural Stone:
In ADDITION to fasteners,ADHERE sheets to the subfloor with a MODIFIED THINSET MORTAR.

But that can't be! A leading underlayment manufacturer and MEMBER of TCA advocating a BOND be made between the backer board and the subfloor!?!?!?!?! Not only that but indicating that it will be STRONGER and help PREVENT cracks!!! So according to Hardibacker, Bonding is better!
__________________
Keith Alford
"I didn't do it...even if I did,you can't prove it"
kalford is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 06:00 AM   #23
chip
Travelin' Salesman
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,088
Kalford,

Yes it's true, Hardie backer does recomend either.

Why? Sitting on the fence?

Any one had any problems with this product?

Art
__________________
Never did it, just know what I read or was told.
chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 07:38 AM   #24
John Bridge
Mudmeister
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Rosanky, Texas
Posts: 68,125
Send a message via AIM to John Bridge
Hi again, Tom.

Your input is as welcome as anyone's. As you can see, there is confussion on this issue. I hope that in some small way this forum enables us to arrive at some conclusions.

Okay, we have two guys from Lon Giland, NY, now. Jim "flatfloor" is also from there. Y'all don't be gangin' up on us, hear?

I've always liked the looks of the Hardie product myself. Recently, though, I ran across a piece of the stuff made by USG -- Perma Base. It looks pretty consistent throughout, which cannot be said of some of the other cement backers. What do you guys think?

John Bridge is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 07:48 AM   #25
chip
Travelin' Salesman
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,088
John,

It's made by National Gypsum.
USG makes Durock.
Permabase was formerly made in Canada, by the company that makes Ski doo's. I can't remember what it was called then.

Unifix, I think.

The styrene pellets are the tell tale recognition factor.

All I know is the product when introduced by it's former owner, reaked havoc on the margins all manufacturers were able to maintain. Something about the US $ going back to Canada,These ecomomic things have always confused me.

Art
__________________
Never did it, just know what I read or was told.
chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 08:22 AM   #26
Tom
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 30
http://www.hardibacker.com/
If I choose a product and then click on product specs, the flexural strengths for hardbacker(1/4") and hardibacker500(1/2") are both given at 2100 psi. There could even be confusion on this from the horse's mouth
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 08:47 AM   #27
Tom
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 30
In the previous post I hadn't seen the PDF ten point spec sheet from the hardibacker web site. Here it does show the 1/4" as being stronger than the 1/2" board in flexural and compressive strength. Click on technical information.http://www.hardibacker.com/
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 09:35 AM   #28
LDavis
Texas Floor Man
 
LDavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Canyon Lake, Tx
Posts: 296
I'm getting a headache. Interesting how an "apparently" simple question/discussion can lead down such a "winding" path. The simple explanation I've received from CBU manufacturers in the past has been, 1/4" on floors and countertops, 1/2" for wall applications.

In this area, I've seen CBU's applied to floors with everything from construction adhesive and fasteners to just fasteners. Lay the CBU on the floor and nail it. Nothing between the CBU and existing subfloor.

For me, the "bottom-line" remains, follow each manufacturers instructions to the letter. There are differences. Wonderboard says you don't fill/tape CBU joints for floor applications.(Fill joints as you set tile, but no mesh tape) Hardibacker says fill/tape CBU joints for floor applications. Use modified thinset, use non-modified thinset.

At some point, it will all come out in the wash. Until then I'll follow specific instructions for each and keep THEM covering my ass! Now, let's go do some mud work!
LDavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 10:01 AM   #29
kalford
Tennessee Tile Man
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Newbern,Tn.
Posts: 343
Send a message via Yahoo to kalford
one last Horse

On USG's site under; Underlayment;Installation......PDF
1. Lamination

Laminate 5/16" DUROCK brand underlayment
to minimum 5/8" thick exterior grade plywood
using ADHESIVE or mortar suitable for BONDING cement backer board to plywood.Apply adhesive with 5/8" V-notched trowel,mortar with 1/4" square-notched trowel.

There you have it guys.The top two manufacturers of cementious backers advocating BONDING the backer to the plywood and one of those suggesting the use of adhesive,such as MASTIC,is a suitable alternative to mortar when installing their product to floors.

I've beat this Horse all I'm going to.Let's talk about something else.



__________________
Keith Alford
"I didn't do it...even if I did,you can't prove it"
kalford is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-10-2001, 10:07 AM   #30
LDavis
Texas Floor Man
 
LDavis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Canyon Lake, Tx
Posts: 296
John, it appears you are venturing into the world of CBU's as a possibility for some of your future jobs? Anyway, here is my 2 cents. I've used some of just about everything out there at one time or another. However, I've used tons (literally) of the Hardibacker product. Primarily the 1/4" for floor applications.

I don't know whether or not its any "BETTER" than some of the other brands available, but I know for a fact it is lighter and easier to cut/handle than most of the others I've dealt with.

I work alone 95% of the time. The largest floor installation I've done invloving CBU was 1250sf in a condo in Aransas Pass. (Upstairs) I was very glad to be carrying Hardibacker and not one of the other heavier products up those stairs. This particular condo is 20+ years old and the subfloor was "suspect" in terms of existing support.

To make a long story short, this installation has been down for 2 1/2 years now and "holding toghether". I do have some faith in the "Hardi" product.
LDavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Stonetooling.com   Tile-Assn.com   National Gypsum Permabase


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:58 AM.


Sponsors

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2018 John Bridge & Associates, LLC