TECHNICAL INFORMATION Oil BUILDING MATERIALS

TIBM-9

EOR USE IN THE DESIGN OE LCW-COST HOUSING

>)! if

THE NATIONAL BUREAU OE STANDARDS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OE COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D. C.

May l

7

), 193&-

CONCRETE ELOOR TR EATMENTS

This is a digest of information found in Letter Circular 139?

"Report of Service Tests on Concrete Eloor Treatments", (October 28,

1920), - issued By the Bureau- of Standards.

A comparative study of 17 proprietary and 5 "home" treatments

was made, "based upon observations of treatments applied to corridor

panels 8 feet square which were all subjected to much the same foot

traffic conditions. The first treatments were applied about 5 months

after the corridor floors were completed, at which time they had begun dusting. Other treatments followed during the next 6 months.

While the results were not quantitative or necessarily conclusive,

they were generally indicative of what might be expected with regard

to service and behavior.

The summary following shoY/s that treatments A to E inclusive gave

generally good results but that further study was needed to determine

the proper strength of the magnesium fluo silicate solution and methods

of application. Treatment G gave excellent results. "Home" treatments

I and J proved very successful, were easily applied and inexpensive.

Instructions for their preparation and use are given on page o.

'''Obtainable without

Washington, D. C.

charge from the National Bureau of Standards,

051536

CONDITION AND APPEARANCE OP TREATED CONCRETE FLOOR PANELS

AT END OF SERVICE PERIODS

TreatmentComposition

and

Method of Application

Service

Period

Condition

and

Appearance

Remarks

A 15?o. solution magnesium fluosilicate,

applied 3 coats diluted as follows:

1 st coat-1 wart solution ;

2

parts water

2nd 11 -1 " ;1

‘ " "

3rd " -2 " " ;1 11

: "

2 yr.

&

3 mo.

Surface

quite hard.

A f ew smal 1 , soft, and

readily

scratched

areas show

signs of

wear.

Appears these

areas originally

received improper

amount of treatment.

B 8 . 7! solution magnesium fluosilicate,

applied 3 coats diluted same as Treatment A, regardless of weaker

solution.

1 yr.

&

9 mo.

Considerable

wear. Scratched in

many places.

Probable that

solution was too

weak.

C l 4 . 5/o solution magnesium fluosilicate,

applied copiously in 1 coat without

dilution.

2 yr.

&

2 mo.

Good condition.

Uniform in

appearance

No signs of

wear.

D 11 . 5$ solution magnesium fluosilicate,

applied 3 coats diluted same as Treatment A.

1 yr.

&

8 mo.

No definite

signs of

wear. Uniform

appearance

.

E 13% solution magnesium -fluosilicate

and small amount zinc fluosilicate,

applied 3 coats diluted same as Treatment A.

u •

CM No appreciable wear. Applied to a very

poor panel , i. e.

,

crumbling badly

at the surface.

F 7 * 3% solution magnesium fluosilicate,

containing 2 . 6j magnesium sulphate

and 4 . 5Jo free hydro—fluo silicic acid,

applied 3 coats diluted same as Treatment A.

1 yr.

&

11 mo.

Considerable

wear. Easily

scratched.

- 2 -
CONDITION AND APPEARANCE OP TPEATED CONCRETE FLOOR PANELS

AT END OP SERVICE PERIODS (Cont.-2)

TreatmentComposition

and

Method ox Application

Service

Period

Condition

and

Appearance

[ Remarks

G l6]o solution zinc sulphate with about

4.5io free sulphuric acid, applied 2

coats without dilution.

2 yr.

&

3 mo.

Very hard

and uniform

surface.

Darker than

original

concrete.

1st coat dried

4 hrs. Surface

then scnibbed

with hot water

and mopped dry [ before 2nd coat1 applied.

H 20Jo solution sodium silicate with

small addition of an organic acid,

applied 2 coats without dilution,

24 hours apart.

2 yr.

&

2 mo.

No signs of

wear. Surface hard

and uniform.

Slab covered wi

p1 ank until dry

brighter and

more uniform

appearance than

original

.

I* Sfo solution commercial sodium

silicate, applied 3 coats.

2 yr.

&

2 mo.

No signs of

wear. Very

hard surface

Uniform

appearance

,

lighter than

original

.

Each coat was ji preceded by

thorough scrubbing with water

. . - ------1~n

J* 15$ solution aluminum sulphat e

,

applied 3 coats diluted as follows:

1st coat-1 part solution; 2 parts water

2nd 11 -1 » " ; 1

" 11 3rd " -2 " " ; 1

" "

1 yr.

&

6 mo.

Not so hard

as other

panels but

quite satisfactory.

Applied liber- | ally with white

wash brush;

intervals of 24

hrs. Very eco- nomical home

treatment.

K Gray paint with pigment of basic lead

sulphate, siliceous matter and carbon

in tung oil resin varnish (mineral

spirits thinner), applied 2 coats,

24 hours apart.

2 yr.

&

2 mo.

Shows effect

of wear. Lacks

uniform

appearance

.

Surface thorough

ly swept. Plank over panel until

dry.

L China wood oil varnish, applied

2 coats, 24 hours apart.

2 yr.

&

1 mo.

Slight sur- face wear. Lew

scratches.

Lighter

color where

worn.

Ditto.

Indicates home treatments.

1
COEDITI OK AUD APPEARANCE OP TREATED CONCRETE PLOOF. PANELS

AS END OP SERVICE PERIODS (Cont.~3)

Treatment

Composition

and

Method, of Application

Service

Period

Condition

and

Appearance

Remarks

M Same as Treatment L. 2 yr.

&

2 mo.

Ko appreciable signs

of wear.

Surface

thoroughly

swept. Plank

over panel

until dry.

x! Thin bodied mineral spirits varnish,

applied 2 coats, 24 hours apart.

2 yr.

&

1 mo.

Signs of

wear denoted

by light

appearance.

Ditto. Panel

originally weak

and crumbling

badly/ hence

test quite

severe.

0 Gray paint with pigment of basic lead

sulphate, zinc oxide, barium sulphate,

siliceous matter, and carbon in

linseed oil, resin (and probably some tung oil) vehicle; mineral spirits

thinner. Panel swept clean—-1st coat

thinned with material called "reducer"

(a thin bodied varnish); 2nd coat

24 hours later without thinner.

1 yr.

&

5 mo.

ITo signs of

wear except

few

scratches

on wax-like

surface.

Hot especially

resistant to

scratching but

reasonably

durable under

foot traffic.

p Very thick paint consisting of pigment

r f zinc oxide, lithophonc and bone

black in varnish vehicle containing

resin-, applied in 1 coat, sufficient

for purpose.

1 yr.

&

b mo.

Thick film

marred by

small spots

blistered

and worn

off.

Pleasing to

walk on but has

not proven

durable. Directions called

for two coats.

0, Solution of heavy hydro-carbon wax in

light hydro-carbon oil, applied 2

coats, 24 hours apart.

2 yr.

&

3 mo.

Considerable

wear. This treatment

only to hold

dust down. Kcj

claims made as

to hardening

surface.

s Mixture of waxes applied in molten

condition. Surface heated before

and after application.

2 yr.

&

4 mo.

Shows con- siderable

wear; worn

through under. chad r s_j_

Treatment applied to 1

panel and 1

office room.

4 **
CONDITION AND APPEARANCE OP TREATED CONCRETE PLOOR PANELS

AT END OP SERVICE PERIODS (Cont.-4)

Treatment

Composition

and

Method of Amoli cation

Service

Period

Condition

and

Appearance

Remarks

Consisted mainly gf linseed oil with

small addition of citronella, applied

in 1 coat, kept covered until dry.

2 yr.

&

2 mo.

Not entirely

sati sfactory.

Not uniform.

Panel probably

should have had

2 coats.

Directions advised 1 coat fo new and 2 coats

for old worn

floors, hence

little weight

should be given

test.

Treatment consisted of 4 applications

raw linseed oil thinned with

turpentine.

2 yr.

&

2 mo.

Quite hard.

Resists wear

very well.

Results at firs'

not very satisfactory, but

appeared to

harden with age.

U* Frequent scrubbings with thick soap

solutions. **

1 yr.

&

6 mo.

v* Emulsion of fuel oil and soap, 3 qts

oil, 2 bars Ivory soap, and 4 gals.

of water, 10 applications were given.

Approximately

2 yr.

Greatly

improved

surface;

harder than

original

.

This treatment

not included in

a.bove- series but was applied more recently. Emulsion applied wit

mop at intervals

of week or two.

Applications

leave floor slip

pery for few h

hour s

.

^Indicates home treatments.

^•Treatment U: Concrete floors under actual use sometimes take on a polished

or wax-like appearance. To determine if precipitation of soar in the concrete

caused this, sections of floor were frequently scrubbed with a thick soap solution.

The polished condition did not occur in this case, probably due to .floor being

very porous, hence, the solid matter from treatment was not retained in the concrete. - 5 -
Instruc t ions, for making two of the, hone treatments :

(i) Sodium Silicate [Treatment: Dilute each gallon of commercial

sodium silicate with four gallons of water, which should cover approximately 1000 square feet, one coat, depending on porosity of floor to

lie treated. The solution should not "be mixed until ready for immediate

use and then applied with mop or hair broom, continuously brushing

surface for several minutes to obtain an even penetration.

Before applying treatment, all grease spots, plaster, etc., should

be thoroughly removed from the surface to be treated, scrubbed with

clear water and then dried several days.

Twenty-four hours should he allowed between applications, scrubbing, with clear water between each treatment. Three applications

should, in most cases, prove sufficient, but if saturation point does

not seem to have been completely reached, a fourth coat should be

applied.

(J) Aluminum Sulphate Treatment: Solution should be made in

wooden barrel or stoneware vessel. Estimate one gallon of solution

for each 100 square feet of area. To make solution, dissolve 2 l/2

pounds of powdered aluminum sulphate per gallon of water, acidulating

the water by adding 2 cc. (about 40 drops) of commercial sulphuric

acid. The solution should be stirred occasionally for a few days

until completely dissolved.

Thoroughly dry clean and scrub floor as directed in Treatment I.

After the surface has dried and at 24 hour intervals, apply 3 treatments, mixing for the 1st coat, 1 part solution to 2 parts water; 2nd

coat, 1 part solution to 1 part water; coat, 2 parts solution to

1 part water. Apply with mop or hair broom, brushing for several

minutes to secure uniform penetration. After Jvd. coat has dried, scrub

with hot water.

- o -