O
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Long overdue changes to BS 5385
- Thread starter Old Mod
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no more ply
Tilers Forums Official Sponsors
O
Old Mod
IMPORTANT CHANGES TO BS 5385-1 WALL AND FLOOR TILING
POSTED BY PHILIP JENKINS ON 20TH JULY 2018
As part of the five-year review of British Standards and reflecting changes within the tiling industry since 2009 – BS 5385 Part 1: 2018 has now been published.
One significant change made was to exclude the use of plywood as a background material for the direct fixing of ceramic wall and natural stone tiles.
A significant uplift in the use of tile backer boards – such as BAL Board – and a wide variation in quality of plywood available on the market has provided a solid case for the removal of plywood from the standards.
David Wilson, UK Head of Technical Services at BAL and member of the TTA Technical Committee said: “Previously it was recognised in BS5385 Part 1: 2009 that tiling direct to plywood was possible, providing this was restricted to small areas and be “installed in such a way that they provide a dimensionally stable and rigid background” the quality of plywood for tiling purposes has decreased significantly with cheaper imports flooding the market.
“While higher quality external grade plywood is still available – it is significantly more expensive.
“It is important to consider though that that wood is a hygroscopic material which means that its moisture content will change dependent upon any changes in the environmental conditions on site. Therefore, dimensionally stability of wood-based boards cannot be assured there is always a risk to installing ceramic or natural stone tiles onto plywood or other wood-based sheets,
Another technical consideration for wall tiling is weight restrictions. Plywood is deemed to have a maximum weight of tiling per m² of 30 kg compared to proprietary tile backing boards which generally are capable of supporting heavier weights per m² of tiling (As per table 3 of BS 5385-1: 2018 and the TTA Internal Ceramic Tiling to Sheets and Board Substrates document 2016).
“A competitive tile backing board market means that prices are more attractive to tile fixers and contractors. This combined with the additional features and benefits of providing background for tiling which are dimensionally stable and resistant to moisture and thermal movement. “
However, while plywood is not recommended as a background for direct wall tiling, it can still be used as a structural board when overlaid with a suitable tile backing board, particularly where installation of mechanical fixings is required e.g. for mesh backed natural stone where it is not possible to remove 75% or of the mesh backing.
Other changes to BS standards.
Previously in internal dry wall areas it was recommended that tile adhesive should cover a minimum of 50% coverage spread evenly over the back of the tile. However, driven by necessity, with the increase in the size and types of tiles i.e. larger formats and thin ceramic panels, now available of the market, BS 5385-1: 2018 advises: “Tiles with a surface area of less than 0.1 m², but which weigh more per square metre than 70% of the background’s capacity to carry the weight, should be solidly bedded e.g. the maximum weight of tile that can be supported by Gypsum plaster = 20 kg; whereas 9 mm thick porcelain tiles, which weigh approximately 18 kg/m², weigh more than 70% of 20 kg (14 kg) therefore, they should be solidly bedded regardless of their size”
Included within the scope of BS 5385-1: 2018 are large format ceramic tiles, ceramic panels i.e. tiles with a surface area >1m² (any edge length >1200 mm) and thin tiles i.e. ceramic tiles and panels with a panel thickness of ≤ 5.5 mm. To reflect this, additional changes have also been made in the minimum recommended grout joint width, dependent on the tile/panel size, e.g. the minimum grout widths vary by tile facial area – an example as follows:
For more information please contact BAL Technical Advisory Service on 03330 030160.
POSTED BY PHILIP JENKINS ON 20TH JULY 2018
As part of the five-year review of British Standards and reflecting changes within the tiling industry since 2009 – BS 5385 Part 1: 2018 has now been published.
One significant change made was to exclude the use of plywood as a background material for the direct fixing of ceramic wall and natural stone tiles.
A significant uplift in the use of tile backer boards – such as BAL Board – and a wide variation in quality of plywood available on the market has provided a solid case for the removal of plywood from the standards.
David Wilson, UK Head of Technical Services at BAL and member of the TTA Technical Committee said: “Previously it was recognised in BS5385 Part 1: 2009 that tiling direct to plywood was possible, providing this was restricted to small areas and be “installed in such a way that they provide a dimensionally stable and rigid background” the quality of plywood for tiling purposes has decreased significantly with cheaper imports flooding the market.
“While higher quality external grade plywood is still available – it is significantly more expensive.
“It is important to consider though that that wood is a hygroscopic material which means that its moisture content will change dependent upon any changes in the environmental conditions on site. Therefore, dimensionally stability of wood-based boards cannot be assured there is always a risk to installing ceramic or natural stone tiles onto plywood or other wood-based sheets,
Another technical consideration for wall tiling is weight restrictions. Plywood is deemed to have a maximum weight of tiling per m² of 30 kg compared to proprietary tile backing boards which generally are capable of supporting heavier weights per m² of tiling (As per table 3 of BS 5385-1: 2018 and the TTA Internal Ceramic Tiling to Sheets and Board Substrates document 2016).
“A competitive tile backing board market means that prices are more attractive to tile fixers and contractors. This combined with the additional features and benefits of providing background for tiling which are dimensionally stable and resistant to moisture and thermal movement. “
However, while plywood is not recommended as a background for direct wall tiling, it can still be used as a structural board when overlaid with a suitable tile backing board, particularly where installation of mechanical fixings is required e.g. for mesh backed natural stone where it is not possible to remove 75% or of the mesh backing.
Other changes to BS standards.
Previously in internal dry wall areas it was recommended that tile adhesive should cover a minimum of 50% coverage spread evenly over the back of the tile. However, driven by necessity, with the increase in the size and types of tiles i.e. larger formats and thin ceramic panels, now available of the market, BS 5385-1: 2018 advises: “Tiles with a surface area of less than 0.1 m², but which weigh more per square metre than 70% of the background’s capacity to carry the weight, should be solidly bedded e.g. the maximum weight of tile that can be supported by Gypsum plaster = 20 kg; whereas 9 mm thick porcelain tiles, which weigh approximately 18 kg/m², weigh more than 70% of 20 kg (14 kg) therefore, they should be solidly bedded regardless of their size”
Included within the scope of BS 5385-1: 2018 are large format ceramic tiles, ceramic panels i.e. tiles with a surface area >1m² (any edge length >1200 mm) and thin tiles i.e. ceramic tiles and panels with a panel thickness of ≤ 5.5 mm. To reflect this, additional changes have also been made in the minimum recommended grout joint width, dependent on the tile/panel size, e.g. the minimum grout widths vary by tile facial area – an example as follows:
- For tiles with a facial area of less than 0.1m² with no side > 600mm long, a minimum joint width of 2mm is required.
- Tiles with a facial area 0.1m² to 1m² with no side>1200mm long, a minimum joint width of 3 mm is required.
- Joints between ceramic panels should be increased pro-rata to panel size (e.g. for a 3m long ceramic panels the minimum required joint width between these panels is 5mm.
- Natural Stone Slabs i.e. stone which is more than 12mm thick,
- Agglomerate stone,
- Metal, plastic resin, mirror or glass tiles of a similar construction
For more information please contact BAL Technical Advisory Service on 03330 030160.
O
Old Mod
Would have been nice if they’d published wetroom regs too.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Dumbo
Just out of interest marc what joint size do you use and what gap between mitres .
O
One Day
Would have been nice if they’d published weteoom regs too.
Would be nice if they actually did something current too.
All the above sounds about 5 years late to me.
Oh, and how are those 5mm joints looking on your Magnums Marc? 😱
O
One Day
Just out of interest marc what joint size do you use and what gap between mitres .
The right size. Not "lab-test" size!
O
One Day
BAL board advert anyway.
Very thinly disguised.
I like Dave Wilson, heck I even like BAL - but funny how market forces drive British Standards isn't it?
Or is it my cynical imagination
Very thinly disguised.
I like Dave Wilson, heck I even like BAL - but funny how market forces drive British Standards isn't it?
Or is it my cynical imagination
D
Dumbo
Yes . Bal board been out how long when Marmox. Wedi .orbry and Jacko. Hardi.nmp to name just a few have been out for yearsBAL board advert anyway.
Very thinly disguised.
I like Dave Wilson, heck I even like BAL - but funny how market forces drive British Standards isn't it?
Or is it my cynical imagination
O
Old Mod
BAL board advert anyway.
Very thinly disguised.
I like Dave Wilson, heck I even like BAL - but funny how market forces drive British Standards isn't it?
Or is it my cynical imagination
It'll probably win innovative product of the year 2019 I’m sure! 😀
O
One Day
Yes . Bal board been out how long when Marmox. Wedi .orbry and Jacko. Hardi.nmp to name just a few have been out for years
BAL are big contributors to TTA.
It'll probably win innovative product of the year 2019 I’m sure! 😀
After the red BAL tile spacers!
O
One Day
Ah well, Ply is rubbish anyway. 😉
O
Old Mod
Would have saved me an argument or two at that Esher job with all the niches recently. 😛Ah well, Ply is rubbish anyway.
O
One Day
You should have had a green mdf wet tray like I had this year.Would have saved me an argument or two at that Esher job with all the niches recently. 😛
"but it's water proof mdf..."
😵
O
Old Mod
Not been that lucky, but I did have 10 ply niches all in the same house in Esher.You should have had a green mdf wet tray like I had this year.
"but it's water proof mdf..."
😵
And when I asked why they were built with ply, the best he could come up with was, well cos we always do it that way!
Well......... That’s ok then eh!!!!!
O
One Day
What did you do? Over board, replace or tank?Not been that lucky, but I did have 10 ply niches all in the same house in Esher.
And when I asked why they were built with ply, the best he could come up with was, well cos we always do it that way!
Well......... That’s ok then eh!!!!!
O
Old Mod
They were all overboarded with 4mm wedi and mechanically fixed.What did you do? Over board, replace or tank?
H
hmtiling
My thoughts exactlyBAL board advert anyway.
Very thinly disguised.
I like Dave Wilson, heck I even like BAL - but funny how market forces drive British Standards isn't it?
Or is it my cynical imagination
O
One Day
Just irritates me that it's so dressed up.My thoughts exactly
Like a cheap advertorial on the daily mail!
O
Old Mod
Did you see the tweet about the adhesive failures and the TTA independent tests Mark?Just irritates me that it's so dressed up.
Like a cheap advertorial on the daily mail!
O
One Day
No! Do tell...Did you see the tweet about the adhesive failures and the TTA independent tests Mark?
O
Old Mod
TTA TESTS AGAINST NON-CONFORMING PRODUCTS - ******** - http://www.********.co.uk/tta-tests-non-conforming-products/
O
One Day
TTA TESTS AGAINST NON-CONFORMING PRODUCTS - ******** - http://www.********.co.uk/tta-tests-non-conforming-products/
I think I can guess what (and who) is really driving this.
Answers on a postcard please?
D
Dumbo
Maybe the non complying adhesive company should sponsor the tta that will improve the quality.
D
Dumbo
Mind you who the hell are british standards any way . My guess the fact they are british standards would suggest they have been appointed so are probably getting some of our tax money . Then they come up with these standards and take the stance of we know something you dont know . But if you pay severall hundred pounds we will tell you . But its not even law. most of it they should be pushing for them to be incorporated into building regs so at least when we stand in front of a customer saying you should do this we would have a bit more credability.
H
hmtiling
Why are they not obliged to state which adhesive isn't meeting standards they advertise!?TTA TESTS AGAINST NON-CONFORMING PRODUCTS - ******** - http://www.********.co.uk/tta-tests-non-conforming-products/
O
One Day
Why are they not obliged to state which adhesive isn't meeting standards they advertise!?
Bluff and bluster?
Potential liabilities?
O
Old Mod
Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!Why are they not obliged to state which adhesive isn't meeting standards they advertise!?
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor 😉
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know? 🙄
O
One Day
Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor 😉
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know? 🙄
😱😱😱🙁
D
Dumbo
They probably cant say because as you say the adhesive company are disputing this and are blaming the test laboratory claiming the reason its failed is because they have taken it out of the packet and used it .Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor 😉
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know? 🙄
O
One Day
Well it makes you wonder where they stand in the eyes of the law tbh H!
If for instance one of us was to lay a £50k floor 😉
And it was a catastrophic failure, and the adhesive used was the unmentioned one in the article, where would the tta stand?
Cos the adhesive company has not been named, you would go back to them and in true adhesive company style, they’d blame us, unless we could prove different. However as the tta have that information and they haven’t divulged it, does that make them guilty of conspiracy to defraud? I think they’d be on dodgy ground tbh. But what do I know? 🙄
So, the tile association have full knowledge that there is potentially problematic adhesive being used out here by unwitting people (could be me, or anyone in here) and they don't share that knowledge?
Say you had evidence that Ford focus cars were faulty and rather than publish that info, you just had a quiet word with Ford (who probably pay you a lot of money each year) would you share guilt if there are accidents by unwitting focus drivers??
B
Bill
The article about the adhesive states that one of the four tested failed........ So, it could be a member of the TTA and that would really put a spanner in the works.
There are similar tiling threads here
T
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 126
T
P
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 110
P
P
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 115
P
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 605
A
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 267
A
Featured Threads
-
- F
- W
-
- I
-
-
-
Advertisement
Thread Information
Thread Tags
- Tags
- no more ply