Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to the JLC Forums – Read-Only Edition

Please note that the JLC forums are now displayed read-only. New posts are no longer possible, but the collected work of building professionals sharing information remains available here as a resource to the JLC community.
See more
See less

No-caulk shower?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: No-caulk shower?

    dgbldr,
    Am I missing something here? Some stone tiles are so porous that they are unsuitable for anything except decorative (only) installations. I have consulted on many stone installations where the tiles cracked, spalled, conducted water, etc. Personally, if I know - after simple testing - that a particular stone allows the transmission of water, I will not use it in a wet-area application. That said, if the customer insists on a porous stone and is willing to sign a disclaimer absolving me of ANY problems with the installation or associated parts (enclosures and the like), I will install the stone tiles as selected.
    It is neither my intention nor desire to dispute your experience with porous tiles, or your abilitiy as an installer. When I first began installing stone tiles, I got many complaints from customers. That was a time when I was not very scrupulous about adhesive contact, grout density, or sealing. Once I became aware of the role of adhesive and grout, and once I had gained experience with sealers and impregnators, though, the complaints stopped.

    My question to you is: how long does it take for water applied to the surface of your marble or granite to soak through to the back? To put this in context, if it takes 24 to 48-hours for the water to soak through, and the shower will only be used for an hour or two each day, and the bathroom is adequately ventilated, I would not expect a problem. However, if the same installation is subject to so much water that it cannot completely dry out between uses, there will be a problem.

    Perhaps it is the way I finish porous stone tiles that makes a difference. This is assuming that the grout is very dense, and there are no adhesive voids behind the tiles. I will use my own shower for an example. The tiles used are relatively inexpensive "Indiian" slate. The wooden crate these tiles were shipped in was covered with a green mold - probably because wet (freshly cut) wood was used to construct the crate, or the crate was exposed to water during shipping, or while waiting for customs to clear the shipment, the tiles (and wet crates) were warehoused where there was insufficient ventilation for the water to evaporate. Some of the tiles making contact with the crate also presented some mold. I mention the mold because normally, I would not want to use such a stone. But I loved the look and was willing to take the risk that I could control moisture once the tiles were put into service.

    After the tiles were installed, I finished the tiles with a method I have used for over thirty years: After allowing the grout to fully cure and dry, I applied two coats of Watco penetrating oil, with the second coat applied approximately 48-hours after the first. 48-hours after the application of the second coat, I applied Miracle 511 as directed. Miracle is not designed as a waterproofing, but rather as a coating that helps resist staining. Both the Watco and the Miracle are applied to the grout as well as the tiles.

    Because the tiles have a rather coarse texture, I scrub the tiles with a stiff brush and some 409 about once every two months to prevent soap residue build-up. During the addition to the installation as mentioned in a previous post, I had the opportunity to examine both the tiles and the setting bed. Here is a tile I would never recommend to a customer, but I saw no evidence that moisture was soaking - or penetrating through - the tiles or the grout. As well, I have never seen a speck of mold growing on either the surface of the grout or the tiles. I did not use bleach or other substance to "sanitize" the original mold, but did use a stiff, dry brush to remove the mold.

    I should add to this that I applied a bead of clear silicone to the movement joint areas, and while the silicone was still wet and tacky, I dusted the silicone bead with grout powder (same shade as used to grout the tiles). No evidence of mold at the movement joints.

    I would not advise the use of Watco or any other penetrating oil for white marble or any other stone that might show yellowing: the one disadvantage when using such an oil over a translucent tile. But I highly recommend a good sealer for any tile in a wet area

    Finally, since this post started off as a discussion of weep holes or weep screeds, in my experience inspecting literally thousands of wet-area tile installations - regardless of the tile used - holes, cracks, grout voids, or any other such opening in the surface of the tiles - mold has been a problem.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: No-caulk shower?

      Michael, the gist of my argument is this:

      You say if everything is installed properly, then there should not be any need for weeps, grout or any form of drainage provisions at the bottom of a tub surround or shower wall (on plastic base).

      I say a good installation is certainly desirable. But I have seen enough good installs where water is still present behind the tile. I assume the industry and TCNA recognize that, and that's why there is a waterproofing requirement, either behind or (preferably) in front of the backer board. So it's not realistic to claim you'll never have water behind the tile.

      Once you accept that there's going to be water behind the tile, you have to provide a path for drainage.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: No-caulk shower?

        dgbldr,
        Assuming there is water behind the tiles in every shower installation so that an exit path for water is needed, how do you maintain sanitary conditions within that path.

        Everyone has their own experience with tile installation. As for TCNA methods and ANSI standards, both are minimum requirements - not recommendations. As I have said before, working to those standards is like telling your children that a D+ report card is OK. I stand by my claim, based on personal experience as well as industry testing, that porous grout or partially-filled grout joints allow water to easily penetrate the installation, and adhesive voids work to retain that water.

        I am not disputing the fact that moisture will penetrate most installations. My point is that with dense grout, no voids, and adequate time for dry-out between uses, that penetration should be minimal and extend only a fraction of an inch into the grout joint.

        As for water penetration through the tile, the suitability of a particular tile for wet area use should be determined before installation. As you know, many installations are finished with porous tiles. If the grout is tight and there are no adhesive voids, any retained moisture should only be found within the porous tile.

        One last point: as a voting member of ANSI (the source for TCNA methods), I have seen numerous requests by committee members and others to incorporate weep paths for wet area tilework. This issue has been brought up and voted down each time. The consensus has always been that retained moisture is caused by porous grout, adhesive voids, porous tiles. This conclusion has been reached by 60+ voting members.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: No-caulk shower?

          Look, the bottom line is that ANYTHING on a "Change-Of-Plane" in a shower needs to be caulked with 100% silicone caulk. The only exception to this rule is a SAM (Surface Applied Membrane) such as Kerdi as there is a bonding on all corners with Kerd Band....

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: No-caulk shower?

            I took the Schluter class recently and came away likeing the Dilex-EKE profile for change of plane applications. Limited colors though.

            http://www.schluter.com/4_13_dilex_eke_function.aspx

            - Rich

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: No-caulk shower?

              So where are we with this? I get the point that a weep hole has shown to not be a good idea but I have to assume that a caulk or silicone would only trap water with gravity drying. I cant say how long a person will shower or how frequently it gets a chance to dry nor can I tell how wellan installer adhered or grounted but this is why we use durable substrates and then waterproofing precautions.

              I have been avoiding silconing the bottom the last few years for this reason. Yes it will hairline crack but its not horrible.
              Tom

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: No-caulk shower?

                Instead of backer rod, I wonder if spray foam (door and window kind, which seems to have smaller cells and is more flexible) might be a good idea for filling the joint. Cut it off slightly under flush with a razor blade after cured.

                When I use spray foam around vinyl windows I cut it straight and then apply silicone over it before installing the trim inside, because it is porous. Without the silicone over it it lets moisture through.

                So in this tile-to-tub application the spray foam might let moisture through (if no silicone was applied). Then apply a thin layer of grout over it. Might be worth a try.
                Mike

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: No-caulk shower?

                  I was reminded of this thread today when I was watching some EIFS work. Very similar situation. The EIFS gets installed with a barrier behind. The face of it (the actual finish coat) is impermeable and continuous. Still, every manufacturer prohibits sealing the bottom. You have to use their plastic U channel, which has weep holes in the bottom.

                  That ought to be a hint:)

                  Sourdough,
                  Spray foam, the door and window type (spray can), is usually closed cell. So it won't pass moisture. I haven't seen any open cell.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: No-caulk shower?

                    Originally posted by dgbldr View Post
                    Sourdough,
                    Spray foam, the door and window type (spray can), is usually closed cell. So it won't pass moisture. I haven't seen any open cell.
                    Daptex is open cell spray foam.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: No-caulk shower?

                      Originally posted by brycenesbitt View Post
                      Daptex is open cell spray foam.
                      Yes it is and it's so fragile it will fall apart if you look at it the wrong way. Not suitable for any exposed use.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: No-caulk shower?

                        Originally posted by dgbldr View Post
                        I was reminded of this thread today when I was watching some EIFS work. Very similar situation. The EIFS gets installed with a barrier behind. The face of it (the actual finish coat) is impermeable and continuous. Still, every manufacturer prohibits sealing the bottom. You have to use their plastic U channel, which has weep holes in the bottom.
                        I think you are referring to water management EIFS, but that's a good system...
                        When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.

                        Theodore Roosevelt

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: No-caulk shower?

                          No caulk !!! but will it give long time warranty??

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X