Titebond III Does not Perform

[joey]

[J T]

Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 5:35pm (EDT+4) [e-mail] (Leon) says: READ THE ARTICLE

I'm not buying a magazine, just to read it.

I just checked Titebond.com. It does say Titebond III is waterproof. Then it also says: Limitations Not for continuous submersion or for use below the waterline.

I've seen glues saying they were waterproof too, and weren't even water resistant. Ad people. Probably in conjnction with Clinton's lawyers, to make claims like that.

Now, if they'd made some chairs, and left them outside for a year or two, and they pulled apart pretty easily, then I'd say they might have a real-life test. But, just drowning them in water, I don't think so. Maybe if they'd let the glue cure for a month or two before they tried it. Or, did they? I haven't read the article.

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

[Edwin Pawlowski]

The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that it was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them on an

18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.

I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period. The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I would. Ed [e-mail]

[Edwin Pawlowski]

The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a bogus test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20 setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and editors of Wood magazine. Ed [e-mail]

[Jay Pique]

I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.

I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and separated by measured force.)

Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged. And why did T2 fare better?

JP

************** T1 user 98% of the time...the other two reserved for CA on my wounds!

[RKON]

Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......

In case one forgot what waterprrof means:

wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.

I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making a bold claim and they are fair game. If they can't even compete then maybe they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best regardless.

It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming unglued in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims. You don't use Titebond by chance do you?

Rich

[David]

[Edwin Pawlowski]

On the label of the glue it reads: Passes ANSI/HPVA Type 1 Water Resistance

I'll agree that water proof and water resistance are different according to the dictionary. Given that though, the label gives a specification so testing should be done in compliance with the intended use.

The following was found in a forum on

is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II water-resistance specification? Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing the specimens while they are wet. Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3" specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145°F oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while wet, and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to pass the Type I specification.

Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5" specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120°F oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification.

Looks like a 4 hour test is OK, not a 24 hour test.

I recently bought some for a couple of outdoor furniture projects. I used TB II the last time and it is holding up well, so this time I tried the TB III. I expect it will take the exposure typical of outdoor furniture, but I have no plans to use in in anything submersed. I'd use epoxy for that. I don't think the 24 hour test if fair to any adhesive. OK, you may want to try it just for the fun of it, but I'd not make poor performance claims for something not made to endure the particular test. Ed

[RKON]

This is how they cover their dupa's:

Found at the bottom of their web page:

?prodcat=1Important Notice: Our recommendations, if any, for the use of this product are based on tests believed to be reliable. Since the use of this product is beyond the control of the manufacturer, no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to such use or effects incidental to such use, handling or possession or the results to be obtained, whether in accordance with the directions or claimed so to be. The manufacturer expressly disclaims responsibility therefore. Furthermore, nothing contained herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with existing laws and/or patents covering any material or use.

1.) Our recommendations, if any, for the use of this product are based on tests believed to be reliable. - *** Translates to we tested it looks okay by our standards..

2.) Since the use of this product is beyond the control of the manufacturer, no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to such use or effects incidental to such use, handling or possession or the results to be obtained, whether in accordance with the directions or claimed so to be.

***They don't stand behind their product because it doesn't work as their marketing says.

3.) The manufacturer expressly disclaims responsibility therefore. Furthermore, nothing contained herein shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with existing laws and/or patents covering any material or use.

*** If it doesn't work and you followed the directions to the letter you are SOL and they are covered.

They are scamming you with their marketing. The tests by Wood prove that they are not the " The Best Wood Glue Ever". Their Glue probably works very well for most glue-ups. I love the article because it exposes them for what they are worth. Next Months issue will probably have some half ass clarification and the Titebond ad will be still on the back page.

Rich

[Leon]

Still it was done past the capacity of both materials and TB2 out performed TB3.

[Leon]

The front label on TB III says WATER PROOF.

[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.

[Leon]

Yes the test was severe. But one would think that TB3 would do better than TB2. That's it.

Wrong or not, if the results are correct, why does a water resistant glue do better than a water proof glue when soaked in water?

The results would be the same. The TB2 was tested way farther than its design limits than the TB3 was and it held up better.

What do you think the results would chang to? I could see how there would be a problem if the TB2 failed miserably against other water proof glues in the PVA catagory because it is not sold as water proof. What reason could the TB2 have done better in this water test against TB3. Neither glue was designed to be used to this extreme but the glue that should have done better, did not.

[Leon]

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?

[Edwin Pawlowski]

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.

[Leon]

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.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Disagree.

We don't know hte shole story.

We don't know that for sure.

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

[Leon]

Yes I think that the results would be different and both of the glues would probably hold up under higher pressure. Still, both were tested eually and it only seems logical that the glue designed to be used around "X" amount of water would do better than a glue that was designed to be used in less than "X" amount of water. This was not really a test of, does the glue pass the test or not, both certainly did, but the under dog did better.

IIRC, 1 for each glue type and test. And that may be the problem. Although the tests were used with pieces of wood from the same board and the glue was applied in an equal manner, the results could have been a fluke. Perhaps best 5 of 8 tests or best average of 3 testings would have indicated different results.

True, and very likely. Or Wood Magazine matched the results to the wrong glue. While I still believe that as long as the test was consistant for both glues, TB3 was tested closer to its intended usage than TB2 was. A larger sampleing, and I hope for Franklins sake, hopefully would yield better results with TB3 than TB2 on this particular test.

Yeah, That is what I am thinkng. But given the results, Wood Magazine or Franklin has some serious explaining to do.

They also state that the same board was used in the

"IIRC" the maple board had consistant grain.

I am not sure what Type I or II mean, but if Type II means that it will hold up better under wet conditions than Type I, the test would indicate that TB2 probably easily passes the Tpye II specs also.

ANYWAY.. ;~) LOL.. I did send an email to Franklin asking their view on the test results, in the magazine that they bought a full page add for the back cover.

[Leon]

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.

Absdolutely true but these results will equally factor in on the conclusion.

In your other post you use a comparison of two bolts.

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 55°F. 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 45°F. Store product below 75°F. 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.

[Leon]

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.