One of Meon's most competitive products in our line of reinstatement materials is HardMaster W672 Surface Reinstatement Concrete. In this video we put it to the test alongside one of the best products in the industry - Instarmac QC6. What we’re going to look at in this test is how the 2 products compare to each other based on pure facts and stats.
The descriptions of both products on their respective websites are as follows:
"HardMaster W672 is a fibre reinforced, non-shrink, rapid setting concrete designed for surface reinstatement around street ironwork and general reinstatement in concrete roads, drives and surfaces. Typical applications include the filling of 'picture frames', concrete road and path repairs, and surface reprofiling. HardMaster W672 is perfect for any application that requires high early strength gain and a quick return to service time. It's rapid set and high early strength development help reduce construction and road closure times, making it ideal for both planned and emergency repairs. HardMaster W672 is compatible for use with concrete, brick and stone substrates."
"Instarmac QC6 is a non-shrink concrete designed for the surface reinstatement of 'picture frames' of fillets around access covers and surface areas around street furniture. This shrinkage compensated reinstatement concrete has an excellent workability and sets in just 15 minutes, thus difficult to deface, improving public image and limiting asset liability."
As you can see, both products are used for the same purpose and primarily for reinstating ironworks and access covers.
The packaging for W672 clearly shows what the product is and what it's used for from the wording that is used. When turning to the back of the product, we have a detailed section that talks us through the process of using the product step-by-step. These steps are preparation, mixing, application, and clean-up. You also have clear guidelines for storing the packaging and health and safety advice on the product used. As well as this, it signposts the product's hazards, which is critical for these types of products.
With QC6, there are some key differences between the products, the packaging, and the information that is given. The branding colour of the QC6 is grey across the packaging. This sits well with the theme for the reinstatement of concrete across the industry.
The logo and three key product features are visible on the front of the packaging, which gives a quick glimpse into what the product does. When you move to the back label, this has been split into two parts: The health and safety warning, and instructions on preparing, mixing, and applying the product. Also, as a little extra point on the back, it tells you about other products in the range, which is a nice touch if you don't know what else they do. Another key element to the bucket is that it clearly states that the packaging contains recycled material and is fully recyclable.
We examined the technical data sheets for both QC6 and W672 and put them side by side to see the difference between the two products. When we look at this side-by-side breakdown, there isn't much difference between the two products, but what we are looking at in this test is how true the data is, and most importantly, how easy it is to use for the consumer. One key data element when looking at both products is the open-to-traffic times.
W672 is able to be opened to traffic at 90 minutes, and QC6 is 4 hours. In this comparison, we won't be able to test the strength of both these products as this needs to be tested at a laboratory level. As you can see from the Performance Data on screen, there is not much different between the two products. Regarding compressive strength, the industry benchmark to active is 20 N/mm, which can be opened to traffic. It can be seen here that the QC6 product overachieves the highways benchmark target after one day, however W672 surpasses the benchmark after the 28 days.
After looking at each product side by side with all the key information you need, we put both products side-by-side in an application test for your benefit. As we discussed before, this test is non-biased. We put both products through two very different mixing methods to replicate how this will be done out on site. These two methods are - mixing both products with a mixing drill and mixing paddle, and the second mixing method is with a spade.
Both of these methods were conducted at the same room temperature, humidity, water volume to bind the product together while mixing, and temperature of the water used.
The first mixing and application process is with a spade. The amount of product that was used for both brands was 1/3 of a bucket of W672 and QC6.
The temperature that this application was performed at was 22 degrees.
The humidity was at 77%.
The amount of water used was 1 Litre.
The water temperature was at 22 degrees.
As you can see in the video, the mixing process shows that when using a spade, both products are easy to mix.
The QC6, however, mixed a lot quicker than the W672. It took 2 minutes 20 for the QC6 to be fully mixed, whereas the W672 took 3 minutes 40 to mix fully.
Both products are placed with a trowel by both operators. Both products are easy to apply, as the video shows. One thing that the applicator noticed about the QC6 was that it was setting quicker than the W672, which means that you have limited time for the product to be applied before it sets. You can see this from the numbers in the data on the workability times, which is 5-10 minutes, whereas the W672 workability time is 10-20 minutes.
With this in mind, when using the QC6 product for larger applications you might find yourself struggling to finish the job within the set times due to the product having a quick set time.
A positive of the QC6 set time is how long you must stay with the product so that it doesn't get defective after the application has been laid. The QC6 is perfect for this, with a set time of 15 minutes, whereas W672 is a little longer at 40 minutes.
To finish off the look of both products, we used an edging trowel around both. This is to prevent the product from cracking at the edges.
After 20 minutes of set time, we tested the strength of each product with a controlled hammer test. The tests show that there is a smaller dent in the QC6 compared to the W672, which had a larger dent. We feel that the W672 had a more significant dent due to its set time.
The second mixing and application process was done with a paddle mixer.
The tools used for this process were a Collomix Twin Handle Mixing Drill, and a mixing paddle attachment. The amount of product that was used for both brands was 2/3 of a bucket.
The temperature that this application was performed at is 22 degrees.
The humidity was at 81%.
The amount of water used was 2 Litres.
The water temperature was at 22 degrees.
As you can see, both products, when using a paddle mixer, mixed with ease and both mixed by 2 minutes 30.
Both products are placed with a trowel by both operators. Both products are easy to apply as can be seen in the video. With a deeper infill, the QC6 requires you to work a lot quicker, which comes down to the set times between each product. With the W672, you have a lot more time to apply the product into bigger applications. If you make a mistake, you can also take the product back out and start applying again, if need be, making this product easier to apply, and without rushing.
After putting both products to the test and showing two different ways of mixing the products, we can analyse both products from a data point of view and a practical point of view. It now comes down to you to make your choice on which is the best product for you and the projects you have. With all this information and the comparison of both products side by side, the most important question to really ask yourself is,
"What is the most important aspect to you?"
If you would like to know more about HardMaster W672 for your projects, then please get in touch today by calling us on 023 9220 0606 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.