Titebond III Does not Perform

[Leon]

Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.

In a water resistant test, glued joints were submerged in water for 24 hours. Surprisingly Titebond III scored worse than Titebond II. The TB II joint held up to about 300 PSI. TB III failed at about 200 PSI. So I guess you should save your money. TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB II.

There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the TB III compared to Polyurethanes for water resistance. Polyurethanes win. In the same test as mentioned above, the Elmer's ProBond and Gorilla Glue Polyurethane joint held up to almost 1000 PSI. TB III held up to 200 PSI.

I think I will send an email to Franklin and see what they have to say about this article.

[Vic Baron]

Gee! Next time I build an underwater cabinet I'll remember not to use it

Vic

[RKON]

Leon:

I read the article today while at a beautiful beach. It was an excellent article and they were pretty methodical and consistent in their testing. I was impressed with the performance of the Good Ole Elmers. It just shows what marketing can do. Oh BTW, did you see what was on the back cover of the issue? " The Best Wood Glue Ever" Ouch....

[Leon]

Reading at the beach.... hummm kicking back are you. Well, I went to see Simon & Garfunkle in concert Wednesday night... That was a real treat.

Anyway... Best wood Glue ever... Yeah I saw that. I do believe that Titebond is a good glue but apparently not the best. I have been using the Titebond and Elmer's ProBond equally for the last umpteen years. I did indeed send an email to Franklin and it will be interesting to see if Wood got all the results mixed up or not. Titebond III claims vastly stronger than polyurethane on that back cover. We'll see. I guess advertising heavily on the back cover did not buy a fovorable review this time.

[David]

and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a project because it's so weak. I just glued up some table legs yesterday with regular Titebond II. The glue bonds are tenacious. Franklin's tech support tested a sample of the glue from my bottle and claim it's ok. sigh.

dave

Le> Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand

[Mike in Mystic]

That's interesting. I've used the Titebond II Extend numerous times and have had absolutely no problems with it. I also saw a little note in a recent magazine (can't find it right off hand, but I'll look for it) that did a similar comparison of glues (doing things like keeping glue-ups submerged, microwaving them, etc.) and the Titebond III did very well, comparable to polyurethane glue. I think the magazine might have been woodworkers journal, but I'm not certain.

Mike

[Leon]

The TB II Extend did not do well in the test.

[David]

did you do any destructive tests on any joints glued up with the Extend?

Mike >>and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I

[David]

good! I'm not crazy after all! (I'm leaving myself open with that one. )

dave

Le> The TB II Extend did not do well in the test.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

After reading the article, I wondered how realistic the test is. How many joints get submerged for 24 hours? How does the submerged joint compare to one with possibly a finish on the pieces and subjected to some rain over a few days? How would it be if the pieces were allowed to dry out for a couple of days?

I don't expect it to hold up submerged, but I do want to know how well it hold up in typical outdoor furniture uses. Sometimes magazine testing is not at all comparable to real life situations. Ed [e-mail]

[Leon]

I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost 60% more and was out performed by TBII.

[B a r r y]

But it's one better!

Barry

[Leon]

LOL Yeah. So It must be, according to its name.

[joey]

Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test sounds like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and drying out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time. One glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at a lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a marathon runner. Materials in my line of work are tested by repeated exposure to hot/cold/humidity cycles I haven't read the article I will get it I just glued up some outdoor bar stools with TBIII and am curious. I choose it over GG because GG would be hard to clean up in some of the tight areas, I did use GG for gluing up the seat blanks Joe

[Mike in Mystic]

Ok, now I found what I remembered, it's from the most recent Popular Woodworking (Aug. 2004), on page 25.

They compared Titebond III with Elmer's interior grade carpenters wood glue, as well as Gorilla's polyurethane glue. They glued up panels with all three and then ran them through dishwasher cycles. The Elmer's failed during the first cycle, but neither the Titebond III or Gorilla's failed after 5 additional cycles. That sounds like a winner in my book, especially with a

10 minute open time and 47 degree minimum working temperature. I'll look forward to reading the Wood comparison as well, though.

Mike

[Mike in Mystic]

Hi David,

I did a very rudimentary test the first time I used it. I face glued a piece of ash about 3/4" thick and maybe 2 inches wide to a wider piece of ash. I used about 8 inches of length and had about 4 inches extending past one edge. I did the same thing for an edge joint, still 3/4" thick and probably 6 inches of length and about 4 inches extending past one edge.

I let the joints cure overnight and the next day (approx. 24 hours later, really) I tried to pull the joints apart. I really put a lot of force into it and all I ended up doing was breaking the 3/4" edge joint piece, but the glue joint didn't fail. I was sufficiently confident after that in the Titebond II extend's ability to form strong glue joints.

I've used it on several projects, including gluing the edging around my son's high chair tray. That thing get's more abuse than I ever imagined, and more often than not is cleaned by taking a dripping wet soapy sponge and scrubbing it. This happens 2-3 times a day and has been going on for about

3 months now. There isn't any sign of failure. I also used this glue to face glue layers of MDF for my workbench, and several other projects where I needed more time to get things aligned before clamping.

What was your experience that made you so worried about using it? I still have about a gallon of it and would like to know if I've been making a poor choice by using it.

Thanks!

[Leon]

No glue really failed the test, so much as TB III was out performed by TB II and TB III is suppose to be warer proof and TB II is not. I thought about different senerios, but this was IMHO a worst case situation for testing water resistance. The TB II certainly would do just as well on a lessor test.

The TB II should do even better in a test like that as it is labeled Weather Resistent.

TB III did so poorly compared to TB II in the area that it should have shined. I really have suspicions that the article got the spec's on the glues mixed up.

[J T]

Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) [e-mail] (Leon) claims: I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost

60% more and was out performed by TBII.

Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted, epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain without paint? Not too many.

If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out - for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the saturated wood just peeled off.

And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was clamped, and so on. I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e., paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying about it holding..

Details, more details.

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want.

- Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work.

- JOAT

[Leon]

Again regardless of the condidtion, the better glue performed worse than the lessor glue in the area that the better glue should have stood out as being better.

Apparently you have not read the article. I was not going to reprint the article here, just giving the results of the article where the TB III water proof glue should have done better than the non water proof glues. Again, the joint on TB III did not fail, it simply was out performed by TBIII.

And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was

READ the article. The joints were clamped for the time recomended by the maker and allowed to cure for 72 hours.

I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never

The same for me. But after reading the article, I probably never would TB III at all. If I need water proof I'll stick with Poly.

READ THE ARTICLE

[joey]

Ok the way I might have tried the test was test a pair of borad TII and T3 same glu up etc then test the bonding strenth say TB2 was 400 PSI and TB3

200 PSI. Then do the magazines test on anohter pair of boards if TB2 was

You might very well be right andI need to get the article they may have taken into account what I would have done I might have tried the test this way ...test a pair of boards TII and T3 same glue up etc then test the bonding strength to establish a baseline... say the results were TB2 was 400 PSI and TB3 200 PSI. Then do the magazines test on another pair of boards cut from the same glue up and the results were as you stated from their article TB2 was 300PSI and TB3 was still at

200 PSI. Repeat tests on these same boards could show TB2 at 100 PSI and TB3 still at 200PSI etc..

Why?

BTW I made a pair of these same stools about 12 years ago with (TB or TB2?) and only recently did the seat glue ups and MT joints fail(So California so not much rain etc..)