HAO vs HDO: Arclin tests overlays for durability, performance

To evaluate the performance and long-term durability of HDO and HAO panels, Arclin asked Nox-Crete to test four overlays to see how each stood up to tough conditions similar to those in the field.

The panels were drilled for multiple fasteners, damaged by drill bits, gouged, not fully sealed on the edges, left un-cleaned, re-oiled with release agents and used in pours with reactive concrete admixtures.

Then the panels were checked for de-lamination, grain raise and swelling, cracking and overall deterioration.

What did we find?

Of the overlays tested—

  • Arclin 252 100-lb HDO on Douglas Fir face
  • Arclin 252 120-lb HDO on Douglas Fir face
  • Arclin 2600 HAO on Douglas Fir face
  • Arclin 2600 HAO on hardwood face (African Celtis)

—the 2600 HAO product on Douglas Fir and hardwood face veneer far surpassed the performance of the 100- and 120-lb HDO. Overlay durability and concrete appearance were consistently better with the HAO system.


The results
After 21 pours against the 100-lb HDO panel:

  • The overlay surface began to show signs of internal bond failure at pour 21.
  • Significant grain swelling was visible across the entire panel surface at the completion of pour 2.
  • Uniformity in the concrete color was inconsistent from pour to pour.

After 30 pours against the 120-lb HDO panel:

Cracks began to appear at pour 11

Heavy grain swelling and general deterioration were noticeable around the overlay system penetrations

After 30 pours against the HAO panels:

  • Grain raise and damage were well contained throughout the testing.
  • The overlays on both panels were still in very usable condition,
  • The hardwood-faced panel did not perform any better than the Douglas Fir-faced panel.


The details
The panels were treated with two heavy applications of Nox-Crete Edge-Flex 645 edge seal ; the bottom edges were left unsealed.

W.R. Meadows Duogard II form oil was used to oil the panels before the pours.

During the pour, a special funnel was used to divert the concrete directly against a portion of each test panel to simulate conditions that regularly occur on jobsites. An internal vibrator with a one-inch head was used to vibrate the concrete placed against all test panels.

The concrete was left to harden against the test panels at a controlled temperature range of 65 to 75 degrees F for 24 hours.

The test panels were then removed from the concrete, and the concrete was allowed to air dry for approximately two hours, and then reviewed and photographed.

The test panels were placed in a room online casinos where the temperature was kept at 140 degrees F and less than 10% humidity for 48 hours.

Next, the test panels were removed from the heated room and allowed to cool at room temperature for approximately two hours, at which time they were reviewed and photographed.

Finally, the panels were re-oiled—but not cleaned—to prepare them for a subsequent pour.

The following concrete mix was used for the duration of the testing:

  • Cement (Type I/II)                                                                          940 lbs
  • Sand                                                                                              1,009 lbs
  • Gravel                                                                                            1,800 lbs
  • Water                                                                                             330 lbs
  • Water reducing agent (ASTM C 494 Type A/D)                             38 fl oz
  • High range water reducing agent (ASTM C 494 Type F/G)           113 fl oz
  • Water to cement ratio                                                                     0.33
  • Slump in inches                                                                              6 /- 1
  • Concrete unit weight in pounds per cubic foot                             151.4
  • Total concrete volume in cubic feet                                               27

Leave a Reply