Titebond III Does not Perform

Page 1 of 5  
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gee! Next time I build an underwater cabinet I'll remember not to use it
Vic

II
guess
as
about
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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....
Rich

II
guess
as
about
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Leon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
did you do any destructive tests on any joints glued up with the Extend?
Mike in Mystic wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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!

that
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The TB II Extend did not do well in the test.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
good! I'm not crazy after all! (I'm leaving myself open with that one. <g> )
dave
Leon wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

II
guess
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 snipped-for-privacy@snet.net http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

to
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

many
a
it
is
60%
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

drying
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.

the
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 300PSI and TB3 was 200 PSI. A few more tests could show TB2 at 100 PSI and TB3 still at 200PSI

One
marathon
II
situation
on
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..

Weather
Why?
bar
be
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..)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
oops cut and pasted failed previous post read down in that one

sounds
TB
magazines
up
TB2?)
so
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
If your indicating that perhaps a larger sampling would give different results, I agree. Like best 5 out of 8.
This could have been a fluke in that a lesser glue did better than a better glue. Either way, in this particular test, neither glue had the advantage as both test pieces were taken from the same board with IIRC consistent grain.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not what I meant but yes more samples would be better but I think their test method doesn't tell the whole story. The idea I was trying to convey in previous post is to try and determine deteroration rate over repeated exposure the elements. In my hypothetical test results TB2 while having a stronger initial strength then TB3 TB2 after repeated exposure to water and drying didn't maintain its strength as well as TB3 BTW I wonder what the difference of 200, 300 or 1000PSI really translates to. The difference of being hit by a pickup, 18 wheeler or a train

better
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

test
after
Yeah,....but your example was hypothetical, it did not really happen. I under stand that under a different circumstance the out come could be different. But could be is not yet fact. The testing reviled results that one would not expect from a glue sold as superior and marketed as water proof. Until there are other tests by another third party, you have nothing other than the Wood Magazine tests to base a good decision on when considering which of the 2 glues to use if these are your only choices.
Further more, reading Franklins limitations on the 2 glues on their web page indicates that there are more limitations on the TB3 glue than the TB2 glue when it comes to using it in an application that require strength. Both glues have the same limitations as far as being used around water. With those facts why would one be labeled water proof?
The reason that TB3 is called water proof is that it passes shear tests after the glue was soaked in boiling water on 2 occasions and dried out. TB2 passes shear test on soakings on 3 occasions and dried out.
Which one sounds like the one that would hold up to "normal and common" exposure to water to you?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.