No hacking waterproofing is another type of waterproofing method that does not require complicated hacking or removal of tiles. The typical materials used is epoxy flakes. It is commonly used on floor and wall surface to provide an anti-slip protection and waterproofing.
Usage of No Hacking Waterproofing
The most common usages of the no hacking waterproofing include:
Benefits of No Hacking Waterproofing
No hacking waterproofing has many benefits. Some of them are:
TUV tested, 100% slip resistant even with contact with soap, shampoo or oil.
Epoxy Flake – The 3 layer coating provides waterproofing effect which protects the floor/wall from water damage.
Enhances the look & feel of your place, no more dirty groove lines visible.
Fast and effective 1 day installation for toilet floors. Ready to be used the next day.
Due to its seamless finishing, cleaning is so much easier. No special maintenance is required.
Fast and effective 1 day installation for toilet floors. Ready to be used the next day.
Overlay surface without hacking of existing floor/wall tiles. Not messy or dusty during installation.
The overlay provides a permanent surface. Color will not fade overtime.
Suitable for indoor areas like toilet, kitchen, living room, etc.
1. How long does it take to install?
Typically for a toilet floor, it would take 1 day for complete installation. (Half day installation, another half day drying period) As for toilet wall and floor, it would take about 3 days for complete installation.
2. Are there any warranty?
Yes, we provide 1 year warranty against defect on materials and workmanship.
3. How long does it last?
Our high quality epoxy flake material provides a permanent surface that cannot be removed easily. Should there be any damage to the epoxy, it can be easily repaired.
4. Does it work on any surface?
Our product can be applied on any permanent/solid surface such as:
– Tiles (slate, ceramic, homogeneous, granite, etc)
– Wood Decking
EXCEPT – PVC, Plastic and Rubber.
5. How is it installed?
The epoxy mixture (two part epoxy resin) is applied onto the floor/wall surface using plastering technique. Our professional workers have gone through trainings so as to ensure a fine workmanship.
6. Can it be removed?
Once installed, the epoxy flake is permanently bonded with the surface beneath it and can only be removed via hacking method.
Free On-Site Inspection and Troubleshooting.
Protect your home and office with our Waterproofing Solutions.
EPOXY COAT is a 100% solid; solvent free, two components, pre-filled pigmented epoxy coating, produces a slip resistant and chemical resistant surface.
EPOXY COAT can be applied onto concrete substrate or ceramic tile surface with appropriate primer or base coat @ thickness 0.1-0.12 mm by using a paint roller, follow by 1-2 coat of top Coat @ approx. thickness 0.15-0.20 mm of Top Coat.
Field of Application
Pot Life 150g @ 25°C 45-50 minutes
Initial cure : 6 hours
Full traffic : 24 hours
Solids content : 100%
Mixed SG : Approx 1.35
Tensile Adhesion Strength: > 1.5 1,1/mm2 (Concrete failure)
Shore D Hardness 85/7 days
Surface preparation is important prior to application of EPOXY COAT.
All surfaces must be clean, sound and free from any laitance, oil, grease and any of contaminants. All form oil, grease, wax, curing compound and contaminations must be removed by using industrial detergent follow by scrubbing. The concrete surface must be shot-blast, scarifying or grit blasting followed by vacuum cleaning. Any irregularities, blowholes, cracks etc must be repaired using solvent free epoxy repair product..
Use low speed mixer.
On concrete substrate required a coat of Epoxy Primer R.
Ensure primer has cured to tack free state prior to apply 2-3 coats of EPOXY COAT.
On ceramic tile finish required a coat
PLUS BASE COAT and 1-2 coat of EPOXY COAT
Available in 5kg set. Other pack sizes are
available upon on request.
Part A 3.75 kg/pail
Part B 1.25 kg/pail
Clean immediately after use with thinner. Hardened material can be removed mechanically.
EPOXY COAT contents certain chemicals which can cause skin irritation if exposed and respiratory reaction if inhaled. Wear gloves, mask and protector coating, wash thoroughly after handling.
While Table 2 lists the three principal Australian pedestrian slip resistance standards, architects and should only need to be familiar with Standards Australia Handbook 197, An introductory guide to the slip resistance of pedestrian surface materials. This deals with the selection of products based on the wet slip resistance classifications that are obtained according to the test methods that are published in AS/NZS 4586, Slip resistance classification of new pedestrian surface materials. HB 197 was also written to help with the transition from AS/NZS 3661.1, Slip resistance of pedestrian surfaces -Requirements. The major differences are summarised in Table 3. Some important implications of AS/NZS 4663, Slip resistance measurement of existing pedestrian surfaces, have been published in http://www.infotile.com.auitiletoday/issues/pdf/34article.pdf.
An overview of the new suite of Australian Slip Resistance Standards
|AS/NZS 4586||Testing of new products and floors||Manufacturers, Test Houses|
|AS/NZS 4663||Testing of existing floors||Slip auditors, forensic investigators
Architects, Specifiers, Merchants
|HB 197||Selection of products|
Differences between AS/NZS 3661.1 and AS/NZS 4586
|AS/NZS 3661.1: 1993||AS/NZS 4586: 1999|
|Scope||Measured both new pedestrian surface materials and existing surfaces.||Only classifies new pedestrian surface materials|
|Test Methods||Dry Floor Friction Test||Dry Floor Friction Test||F,G|
|Wet Pendulum Test||Wet Pendulum Test||V,W,X,Y,Z|
|Wet/Barefoot Ramp Test||A,B,C|
|Oil Wet Ramp Test||R9 — R13|
|Compliance Requirements||Coefficient of Friction, Wet or Dry, >0.4, No value less than 0.35.||None, Pendulum now reported in BPN Units.|
AS/NZS 4586 introduced the ramp tests due to concerns about the suitability of the pendulum for measuring the slip resistance of highly profiled surfaces and resilient materials. The relevance of walking on a ramp to walking on
the level has been questioned, recognising that a natural gait pattern becomes different at high slopes. However, the intention is to reliably determine the available traction, rather than to replicate a walking-onthelevel gait. Very short half-steps are used during ramp tests, because
the coefficient of friction is a function of the step length. Such testing yields a measure of the available friction of the test surface when it is installed as a horizontal floor. The tangent of the critical ramp angle gives the available coefficient of friction of the tested shoe-bottom/floor-surface combination
when used on a level floor.
Dry floor friction test results of new stone tiles are of dubious value, as there is no contamination, unlike the real world. Clean Four S rubber tends to adhere to very smooth flat surfaces such as float glass, due to a very high degree of contact between the surfaces. The measured
coefficients of friction on such surfaces are significantly higher than rougher surfaces that provide far greater traction when there is some form of dry soiling. Although pedestrian surface materials are classified according to the dry floor friction test, there is no notional interpretation of each class. While there are very few new pedestrian surfaces that would have a dry mean coefficient of friction of less than 0.4, they would make a high contribution
to the risk of slipping. However, it would be inappropriate to assume that all products that have high coefficients of friction would make a very low contribution to the risk of slipping when dry.
Dry floor friction tester classification
|Classification Floor Friction Tester, Mean Value
Notional interpretation of wet pendulum classes
|Class||Rubber||Contribution of the floor to risk of slipping when wet.|
|W||45 — 54||40 – 44||Low|
|X||35 — 44||Moderate|
|Y||25 — 34||–||High|
The most common form of slip resistance testing in Australia is the wet pendulum test. The associated classifications (Table 5) are used for classification purposes (Table 6). There is an obvious need to fill in the blanks in Table 5, since one should be able to classify a product after it has been tested. However, when products are tested with both rubbers, a
significant scatter of results occurs. When potential classification boundaries are considered, the correlation is poor. This provides evidence that the
type of soling material has an influence on the slip potential.
Transport authorities measured the skid resistance of roads using the pendulum with TRRL rubber before it was widely used for measuring
slip resistance. This led to the brick paver and concrete paving industries adopting TRRL rubber. Four S rubber was developed later for measuring the slip resistance of marginal internal floor surfaces. Manufacturers were expected to use one rubber or the other for testing their products, as
appropriate for their primary market. The initial withholding of classes X,
Y and Z has forced some manufacturers to use Four S rubber. Recent CSIRO research suggests that TRRL rubber provides a better indication of wet barefoot slip resistance than Four S rubber, so some manufacturers might elect to test with both rubbers.
If one presumes that the interpretation for new products includes a factor of safety allowing for some loss of slip resistance (in the more slip resistant products) with time, then there are some potential difficulties in applying the same interpretation to existing surfaces. However, these notional interpretations were intended to be indicative rather than definitive.
Recommendations extracted from Table 3 of HB 197
|Pendulum Classification||Ramp Classification|
|Hotel Entry Foyer||X||R10|
|Communal Change Rooms||X||A|
|Ensuites in Hotels, Hospitals, Aged Care||X||A, R10|
|Serving areas behind bars in public hotels and clubs||W||R11|
|Swimming pool surrounds||W||B|
able 6 includes both pendulum and ramp classifications. If one regards slip resistance results as being indicative, and recognises the probability that some results will underestimate or overestimate the available friction, then it is easy to appreciate the benefit of relying on two methods of classification rather than one. It is quite possible to get a product that has X and R9 or Y and R10 classifications, but a product with X and R10 classifications is likely to perform better than some that are selected just on the basis of an X or an R10 classification. Since slip resistance test methods have inherent limitations, some test methods will be more appropriate for specific circumstances. For instance, since rubber is a poor surrogate for human skin, the wet barefoot ramp test should provide the best indication of slip resistance for areas such as bathrooms.
Table 3 of HB 197 provides basic guidance, which might be considered
as recognised best practice. The text indicates that some recommendations may be onerous and others lenient, and draws attention to other design factors that architects should consider. The handbook thus permits variations (probably one class), which should be based on either
existing practice/experience or considered reasoning, logically based on an appropriate risk minimisation strategy. Tables 4 and 5 of HB 197 report the more detailed German requirements, and Committee BD/94 cannot modify these.
The HB 197 recommendations do not cover all locations, for instance, balconies. The handbook was not intended to outlaw products that have a track record of successful use in specific locations. Individual manufacturers (or importers or retailers) may make claims about the suitability of specific products for particular applications. It is up to architects to assess individual situations to determine what other design considerations apply (i.e., they should read clause 3 of HB 197). Given knowledge of products that have been traditionally used to fulfil a function, the architect can specify products they consider appropriate. If they choose not to comply with the HB 197 recommendations, it would seem sensible to document the basis for their selection.
There may not be a lot of difference in the slip resistance of a product at the top of the R11 classification and another product at the bottom of the R12 classification, but there is a significant difference in performance between products at the bottom of the R9 and the bottom of the R10 classifications. Unfortunately too few manufacturers publish the actual mean corrected angles. Tables 7 and 8 give the angles that pertain to each classification.
Classification of pedestrian surfaces according to the wet oil ramp test
The wet barefoot ramp test is technically equivalent to DIN 51097. The actual classification is dependent on the angles attained on the calibration boards, which have nominal angles of 12, 18 and 24 degrees. If the walkers obtain an angle of 26 degrees for the C board, the walkers have to obtain an equal or better result in order for a product to receive a C classification.
The oil wet ramp test is technically equivalent to DIN 51130. Despite this, CSIRO has been unable to obtain some of the ramp classifications
that have been accorded to some imported products. Since batch-to-batch variations occur, consumers are advised to test a representative sample, particularly on large projects. The question of whether to recognise foreign results is considered in
A few products have been tested that have a corrected mean angle of less than 3 degrees. Such products should be suitable where class Z and R9 products are recommended for dry locations.
Richard Bowman’, Geoff Quick, David Devenish and Carl Strautins CSIRO MIT Sustainable Slip Resistance and Tiling Systems