Titebond III Does not Perform

Page 3 of 5  
On 11 Jul 2004 15:07:40 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

I know I should use it Charlie, but I really hate working with that stuff and it is expensive. I'm going to use a TiteBond, I just don't know with one.<g>

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian, Try epoxy.
If you buy a 'quart kit' of WEST Epoxy {by Gueogeon Brothers} from a local West Marine {NOT the same company}, it may seem expensive - due to the small quantity. HOWEVER, it has SO MANY uses and abilities you will probably wonder how you got along without it.
There are several 'mail order' sources as well. I use RAKA, from the company of the same name in Florida. I am a 'small user' and get quantities of 3 gallons at a time. Another good outfit is System Three - they have an EXCELLENT free booklet on the 'theory & practice' of using epoxies. Well worth contacting them for it.
Regards & Good Luck, Ron Magen Backyard Boatshop {PS - I also use Titebond II in many places where epoxy is either not necessary, or I want something to simply 'squirt, smear, & clamp'. I use it for the 'garden projects' & 'Nautically Themed' planters, etc. that stay outdoors throughout the year. I've yet to have a 'glue failure'. }
(Charlie Self) wrote:

and it

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gorilla or Elmer's ProBond Polyurethane will work well as the test indicated these to be 4 times stronger in strength than TB3.
Keep in mind also that TB3 did not fail the water test.!!!!!! It simply was outperformed in strength by its sister TB2. The point of my original post was to point out that TB2 seems to be stronger in a water application than TB3 and much cheaper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@excite.net wrote:

In order of preference, resorcinol, epoxy, polyurethane. There are some others that will work well but are harder to find.
Or make them in such a manner that they hold together without glue.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lets compare this in another way.
Lets take 2 different bolts that are manufactured by the same company bolts and are tested the same by applying torque to them until they break and record the torque reading.
Bolt TB2 is sold as a Premium Quality bolt, is 1/4" in diameter and breaks at 750 foot pounds. Cost 25 cents. Bolt TB3 is sold as an Extra Strong Premium Quality bolt, is 1/4" in diameter and breaks at 500 goot pounds. Cost 40 cents
While the testing may not reflect normal torque applied to the bolts, which one would you buy?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

than
Disagree.
do
We don't know hte shole story.

We don't know that for sure.

in
could
What were the results after 4 hours? Ten hours? 30 hours?
After reaching a certain point beyond design limits, the results can easily be changed or nulled. In your other post you use a comparison of two bolts. Lets add another factor.
What if both bolts are exposted to a salt spray for ten years in you boat trailer stored at the shore? Would the results be the same or would the higher priced bolt made from a different alloy hold up better after a long period of time while the first bolt would have let your suspenion fail 500 miles ago?
The 40 bolt may be plated or have alloys better suited for my use. If my use requires they hold up the 300 pounds of torque it will not fail. If the 25 bolts rusts away, it certainly was no bargain if damage occurred or had to be replaced at 25 plus labor.
All we know is that the test was done beyond the product design. Give me results that matter under the condition that I'm going to use a product. Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since those tests were not performed, that would be hard to say. But in this particular case, the under dog came out ahead. This is what will have to be addressed by Wood or Franklin. It seems to me that Wood Magazine would have wanted this to be as fare as possable in that the back cover of the magazine was supported paid for by Franklin. "Perhaps" this test was done under advisement of all the glue companies being represented, or not. If I were working at Wood Magazine, I think I would want the test of a clients product to be "fair" in that clients eyes. It seems to me also that Franklin would want to know the results of the tests before having their large back page ad on that particular issue. The article and the back page ad condradict each other greatly and the article effectively nulifies the back page ad. I imagine there are going to be "mad" red faces and "embarrased" red faces on both sides that we may never know about.

easily
Absdolutely true but these results will equally factor in on the conclusion.
In your other post you use a comparison of two bolts.

the
had
I see what you are saying here, and to compare to the glue test, the bolt that failed the test would be the one that also had the extra protection against corrosion. Remember, the WATER PROOF glue was the one with the added water protection to make it water proof and it performed worse that the glue with out the added water protection.
The glue test results go against my way of thinking. I was greatly suprised.

Unfortunately, these are the only test results that I know of that include the names other makers of glues. Your boss tells you to buy a PVA glue that will be exposed to water and sometimes submerged in water. You want documentation to back up your decision in case the glue you choose does not perform adequately. TB2 and TB3 are your only choices. So, with this limited information which do you choose? The glue that says that it is water proof, or the glue that did better in a water test. What makes it really frustrating is that Franklin was both the winner and looser in this test. The test indicates that Franklin glues are being labeled incorrectly at the factory.
NOW...
Take a look at what Franklin says about the limitations of TB2 and TB3.
Titebond II Premium Wood Glue passes Type II water-resistance tests. Do not use for joints below the waterline or continuous submersion. Do not use when temperature, glue or materials are below 55F. Freezing may not affect the function of the product but may cause it to thicken. Agitation should restore product to original form. Because of variances in the surfaces of treated lumber, it is a good idea to test for adhesion. KEEP FROM FREEZING. KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN.
Titebond III Not for continuous submersion or for use below the waterline. Not for structural or load bearing applications. Use when temperature, glue and materials are above 45F. Store product below 75F. Storage above this temperature may cause product to thicken and reduce the usable shelf life. If thickened, shake vigorously by firmly tapping bottle on a hard surface until product is restored to original form. Because of variances in the surfaces of treated lumber, it is a good idea to test for adhesion. KEEP FROM FREEZING. KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN.
TB II has less limitations than TB III except for low temperature use. TBIII can be used above 45 degreesF and TB II can be used above 55 degreesF.
TB III says not to use for structural or load bearing applications. TB II does not have that limitation.
While neither should be used below the waterline, a water line is normally a constant and use in that condition would probably result in failure. Also neither should be used in continuous submersion. I read that the joint can be submerged but not for an on going period, continuous period of time. I believe that the purpose of stating not to be used below a water line AND stating not for continuous submersion is to indicate that there is a difference in the two. If the glue should never be used under water, that limitation should be the only one stated concerning applications that will be subjected to water.
The test on both Titebond glues lasted approximately 73 hours. 72 hours before being submerged and for curing and 1 hour being submerged. Of the 73 hour life of both joints, 72 out of water and 1 hour under water, the submerged time was not constant. With the test limitations indicated by Titebond, the test was valid.
I find it odd that Titebond 3 has the same and more limitations than Titebond 2. This would seem to substantiate Wood Magazines test results. Neither joint failed because neither was constantly kept below a water line and neither joint failed because it was continuously submerged. The test indicated that the TB 3 joint proved weaker than TB 2, backing up the limitation that TB 3 should not be used for structural or load bearing surfaces.
Titebonds stated limitations are quite interesting and contradictory when comparing the TB2 and TB 3 capabilities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The submerged time was 24 hours and considerably longer than the 1 hour that I indicated.
IHMO however, a Water Proof glued joint being submerged for 1 day during a 4 day test is not beyond the manufacturers stated limitations of continuiously being submerged or use below a water line like a glue aplication on a boat bottom.
I guess we should ask Franklin what their definition of Water Proof is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

It would make this sort of discussion much more fruitful if people would actually read the bloody label on the bloody product before commenting. From the label: "Not for continuous submersion or for use below the waterline". Also "Not for structural or load-bearing applications".
The "water-proof" claim I believe is based on ANSHI/HPVA Type I tests, which are aimed at the glues used to bond together the plies in plywood, rather than at glues for general-purpose bonding. As such, the use of that rating is IMO a bit misleading.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

which
That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page. The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was shopping for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should not be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of the term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.
While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have to also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

shopping
not
to
Now... we are on the same page Edwin. The glue is simply marketed to be something that it is not, unless defined by its "standards" tests. Most people do not realize that the Water Proof label does mean Water Proof by common knowledge definitions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

No web page search is required unless you want to know the details of the testing. If you expect them to put the whole ANSI spec on each bottle then expect to pay about 40 bucks a bottle because the spec is copyrighted and ANSI charges for each copy.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

then
I think what Edwin is indicating here is that the WaterProof label in this instance should be clarified on the bottle front label as not really being water proof as a common person would define it and that it is more of a description of the ANSI spec.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this
Right, Leon.
I just took an unscientific poll from a group of one person. I asked my wife about the glue from what she saw on the label.
Would you use the TB3 for outdoor furniture? Yes
Would you use the TB3 for a boat or pool device? Yes
Showed her the label of TB2 and asked the same questions. Answer was yes, no. The difference being waterproof versus water resistant.
I then asked her to read the back of the label. What is the ANSI spec? Of course she had no idea as do most of us at least until this discussion made me look it up. Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I believe that Franklin is using smoke and mirrors here. ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I went to Franklins site and read the limitations of both glues.
Both the WATER PROOF labeled TB3 and the WEATHER RESISTANT labeled TB 2 have the same limitation of not using below a water line and both should not be submerged for continued periods of time.
What is considered continuiously submerged? Since not to be used below the water line would suggest that the joint would not hold up well if it would never be out of the water, I have to believe that not continiousely submerged would be short of used below the water line, like on an application on the bottom of a boat that stays in the water for months on end. Not Continuiously submerged could mean less than 1 week or 2 weeks, or 1 day. Who knows? Additionally the limitation on TB3 indicates to not use the TB3 on a structural or load bearing application. TB2 does not have this limitation. TB3 can be used in 10 degree F lower temperature that TB2.
Anyway, The TB 3 passes the Type 1 shear test after the test piece was soaked in boiling water 2 times and dried out 2 times. TB 2 passes the Type 2 shear test after the test piece was soaked 3 times and driedout 3 times.
Titebond really does not indicate which glue is better when used around normal and likely water exposure situations. It does indicate which glue should not be used for structural or load bearing applications.
With all that information and the Wood Magazine test results, when would TB3 be a better choice over TB2? The only time that I see that TB3 would be a better choice over TB2 is if you are going to use the project in boiling water and will assembly of the project will be in 10 degree F colder temperatures than TB2 can be use at.

which
Very misleading indeed, along with the Water PROOF claim on the front label.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 3:25pm (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@swbell.net (Leon) asks: <snip> Not Continuiously submerged could mean less than 1 week or 2 weeks, or 1 day. Who knows? <snip>
I do, I do. LMAO
Based on an article I read some time in the past, and forget the article, and where I read it, I think the "usual" meaning, is for a boat taken out of the water after each use, and stored dry. Trailer it to the water, use it, trailer it back home, and let it sit until the next time. Sounds like a reasonable enough interpretation to me.
However, you'd have to be careful to keep the boat well covered while sitting, to keep rain out of it. Fresh water (rain) getting to the wood, would not be good. However, some people keep a few cloth bags of salt in the bilges (bottom) of their boat, because salt water won't rot wood. I think that's used mosely in small sail boats. Sounds like a pretty good idea tho, just in case.
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Leon)

You are totally missing the point here. TB3 claims "Water Proof" TB2 claims merely weather resistant. A reasonable person would expect TB3 to out perform TB2 when water is introduced in the equation. As the test indicates, TB2 holds up better than TB3 in water testing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Based on a test that should not have been done in the manner it was. If you get past the marketing hype, I wonder if the results would be different under more realistic conditions. If they were both given a spray of water similar to rainfall, followed by sunshine, then some morning dew, etc. .
How many samples were tested? If could also be an anomaly if only one test piece was done. If the results were the same in repeated testing I'd be far more concerned. They also state that the same board was used in the testing. We all know that wood can vary quite a bit over a few feet of length. Could be a factor if only one sample was done and each type was from a different section of the wood. .
There is no doubt the poly glues performed much better under the conditions and I'd expect them to do so. I have to imagine that Franklin would have done some testing to establish that TB3 is stronger than TB2 under normal conditions or real use. FWIW, Franklin specs state that the TB2 meets the Type II specs while the TB3 meets Type I specs.
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.