CEMENTITIOUS PATCH COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS

Information

  • Patent Application
  • 20160340251
  • Publication Number
    20160340251
  • Date Filed
    May 18, 2015
    9 years ago
  • Date Published
    November 24, 2016
    8 years ago
Abstract
A cementitious hydrating patch composition is provided with improved strength and abrasion resistance. The patch comprises Portland cement in the amount from 2% to 10%, Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate in the amount from 2% to 30%, Gypsum in the amount from 0% to 15%, Calcium Aluminate Cement in the amount from 15% to 40%, Calcium Carbonate in the amount from 0% to 40%, at least one filler in the amount from 1% to 30%; and at least one binder in the amount from 10% to 40%, wherein all amounts are based on dry weight of the composition. Methods of preparing and using the patch composition are provided as well.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to cementitious compositions for patching walls, flooring and ceiling, and methods of using these patch compositions.


BACKGROUND

A patching formulation can be used for patching of plywood or concrete flooring, walls, ceilings, block materials and concrete plank. Cementitious patching materials are used for a broad spectrum of applications. The state of the art technology in this type of patches is Calcium Alumina Cement (CAC), sometimes referred to as High Alumina Cement formulations (HAC).


Formulations described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,833,186 provide an abrasion resistant coating composition comprising alumina and silica. DE 2129058 discloses mortar mixtures based on cement, sand additives for plastering floors. U.S. Pat. No. 4,735,027 provides coating formulations with silica sand, cement and a particulate, non-fibrous filler.


Various parameters must be considered in choosing a patch formulation. Preferably, a patch formulation should adhere well to a surface over which it is applied. It is also important that after the patch sets, it should be easy to sand the patch surface and prepare it for receiving a coat of paint.


Many patch formulations currently available on the market harden by evaporating water. This may lead to cracking, loose fit and eventual dislodging of the patch from surface to which it is adhered.


There is a need for patching materials which are easier to trowel, have higher extensions in addition to being high-strength and self-drying. There is also a need for improvement of re-workability of patch products and longer pot life; so that patching materials can be applied with less waste and larger volumes can be made for deeper applications and/or larger areas.


SUMMARY

This and other needs are at least partially addressed by hydrating patch compositions provided by this invention. Some embodiments include a hydrating patch composition comprising: Portland cement in the amount from 2% to 10%, Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate in the amount from 2% to 30%, Gypsum in the amount from 0% to 15%, Calcium Aluminate Cement in the amount from 15% to 40%, Calcium Carbonate in the amount from 0% to 40%, at least one filler in the amount from 1% to 30%; and at least one binder in the amount from 10% to 40%, wherein all amounts are based on dry weight of the composition. At least in some of the embodiments, calcium sulfate hemihydrate is calcined synthetic gypsum spray-coated with diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid (DTPA). Various fillers can be used a present hydrating patch composition. At least in some embodiments, the filler is includes at least one from the following list: hollow borosilicate glass beads, a combination of borosilicate glass beads and lime, perlite, siloxane-coated perlite, a combination of sand and siloxane-coated perlite, and a combination of hollow borosilicate glass beads and silica flour.


In some embodiments, a hydrating patch formulation is prepared with hollow borosilicate glass beads with a crush strength from 250 to 6,000 psi and silica flour in the ratio between the hollow borosilicate glass beads and the silica flour is from 1:1 to 3:1.


Further embodiments include a hydrating patch composition formulated with hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime used in the amount from 0.0625% to 10% of the dry weight of hollow borosilicate glass beads.


Other embodiments include a hydrating patch formulation in which the filler is at least one of the following: perlite, a combination of perlite with aluminum oxide, and a combination of perlite, aluminum oxide and fibers. Various fibers can be used in these formulations, including polypropylene stealth fibers, acrylic fibers and cellulosic fibers.


Additional embodiments include a hydrating patch formulations in which the filler is siloxane-coated perlite used in the amount from 2% to 50%, based on the dry weight of the hydrating patch composition.


Further hydrating patch formulations include those formulated with hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose, magnesium aluminum silicate, diutan gum and any combination thereof. Additional embodiments provide hydrating patch compositions comprising at least one abrasive agent in the amount from 0.05% to 60% and wherein the abrasive agent is selected from the group consisting of: aluminum oxide brown, aluminum oxide white, garnet dust, stardust, copper slag, silica flour and any combinations thereof.


Various binders can be used in a hydrating patch composition, including, but not limited to, a binder is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylates, polyacetates and polyvinyl-acetates.


Further embodiments provide a kit for making a hydrating patch formulation. This kit may comprise a powder mixture of calcium aluminate cement, DTPA-coated caclined synthetic gypsum, gypsum, class C cement, calcium carbonate. The kit may further include hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime, and wherein the hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime are stored separately from the power mixture.


Methods for patching various surfaces are provided as well. Further embodiments also provide methods for controlling viscosity of a hydrating patch formulation. In these methods, at least the following compounds are mixed together: Portland cement in the amount from 2% to 10%, Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate in the amount from 2% to 30%, Gypsum in the amount from 0% to 15%, Calcium Aluminate Cement in the amount from 15% to 40%, Calcium Carbonate in the amount from 0% to 40%, hollow borosilicate glass beads in the amount from 1% to 30%; and at least one binder in the amount from 10% to 40%. The viscosity of the mixture is then controlled by adding to the mixture lime in the amount from 0.0625% to 10% based on the dry weight of the mixture.







DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention provides cementitious hydrating patch compositions useful for patching walls, flooring and ceiling. These patch compositions can be applied over various surfaces and are suitable to patching minor cracks as well as for repairing surfaces which are deeply damaged.


These patch compositions are especially useful for applying over concrete, but can be used over wood floor or surface as well. Unlike other patch formulations which set by evaporation, the inventive patch formulations set by hydration and consequently they do not shrink or shrink only minimally. As a result, the hydrating patch compositions adhere better to the surface, create a tight pluge and do not easily dislodge.


In some embodiments, a high-strength hydrating patch formulation comprises at least the following:


1. Portland Cement (2%-10%)

2. Calcium sulfate hemihydrate (2%-30%)


3. Gypsum (0-15%)
4. Calcium Aluminate Cement (15-40%)
5. Calcium Carbonate (0-40%)

6. At least one filler (1%-30%)


7. At least one binder and/or bond adhesion additive (10%-40%)


In further embodiments, a high-strength hydrating patch formulation may further comprise at least one of the following:


8. At least one rheological modifier (0.05%-10%)


9. At least one abrasive agent (0.05%-60%)


10. At least one set retarder (0.05%-1%)


Further embodiments include high-strength hydrating patch compositions which further comprise at least one abrasive agent in the amount from 0.05% to 60%. The amount of water for a high-strength hydrating patch composition ranges from 18 cc to 70 cc for every 100 parts of the composition. More preferred water demands range between 18 cc and 60 cc for every 100 parts of the composition, with the most preferred range being between 20 cc to 55 cc of water for every 100 parts of the composition.


Gypsum is a chemical reactant and/or contributing binder in the composition. Suitable gypsum sources include, but are not limited to, calcium sulfate anhydrous, natural anhydrite, natural gypsum (CaSO4X2H2O), calcium sulfate hemi-hydrate beta, synthetic gypsum, calcium sulfate hemi-hydrate alpha, continuous kettle stucco (calcined gypsum) and FST NOGO CKS stucco (synthetic calcined gypsum spray-coated with diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid (DTPA)).


Other reactant/binders include, but are not limited to, the calcium alumina cement, portland cements, and ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers. Various other suitable binders include, but are not limited to, polyacrylates, polyacetates and polyvinyl-acetates.


Suitable fillers include, but are not limited to, hollow borosilicate glass beads, coated and uncoated perlite, siloxane-coated perlite, calcium carbonate, lime, silica flour and sand. Fillers tend to expand the composition and can increase yield, but also pose a potential problem that has to be addressed: most of the fillers do not contribute to strength and therefore, they contribute to a softer surface and decrease the bond of the patch to the substrate or surface to which the patch is applied.


Suitable rheological modifiers include, but are not limited to, hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate, polycarboxylate, lime, clay and stabilizers.


The hydrating patch formulations may further comprise at least one abrasive agent. The abrasive agents include, but are not limited to, aluminum oxide (brown and white), garnet dust, stardust, copper slag and silica flour and combinations thereof. Adding an abrasive agent to a patch formulation is helpful for creating a patch which can be easily sanded without blowing the patch off the substrate. Thus, a patch with a smooth surface can be obtained easily. However, an abrasive agent can create grit and therefore, such patch formulations may not be suitable for some applications by a trowel due to scratching of the surface to which this patch is to be applied.


One embodiment provides a CAC-based patching product which utilizes synthetic calcined gypsum coated with diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid (DTPA). Methods for obtaining synthetic calcined gypsum coated with DTPA and formulations were described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/514,961. The use of DTPA-coated synthetic calcined gypsum aids in controlling rheology of a hydrating patch.


Table 1 below describes components of an embodiment for a high-strength hydrating patch composition.









TABLE 1







ADDITIVES AND FUNCTIONS IN HIGH STRENGTH HYDRATING PATCH








Component
Function





Calcium Aluminate Cement - known
CAC cement: reaction catalyzed by


as CAC, HAC or Fondu
lithium carbonate, the CAC reacts with


cement
the Portland cement and gypsum. A



balanced amount results a sold cast



material with positive expansion which



consumes large quantities of water during



the reaction.


Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate (FST NOGO
Strength development, reacts with


CKS stucco)
Portland and CAC, NOGO controls local



hydration around calcium sulfate hemi-



hydrate particles, reduces stiffening,



longer lubricity around particles.


Ground Gypsum such as but not
Reacts with cement and CAC


limited to Terra Alba ®


Gypsum


Class C cement - but not limited to
Hydration and strength development


the same. Portland cements I,


II, III, V, Class C


Calcium carbonate
Used as filler and plays some role in a



hydration reaction


Hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose
It imparts well-balanced properties,


(HEMC)
including open time, adhesion and shear



strength. WALOCEL ™ MT 30000 PV also



adds good workability and enhances water



retention


Hydrous magnesium aluminum
Provides gelling and rheological properties


silicate
used to thicken and stabilize aqueous



systems


Lithium carbonate, lithium sulfate
Used as set accelerator in CAC system.


and/or lithium hydroxide


Citric acid
Set inhibitor, viscosity stabilizer


Polycarboxylate - such as but not
Works in conjunction with rheology


limited to MELFUX 6681, 4930,
modifiers/stabilizer, provides ease of


2651, 2641, 5581, ethacryl G, M,
mixing, impacts vicat set, and Gilmore


viscocrete materials
initial an final set, strength rate gain


Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
Helps removing air from the mixture,



creating smoother surface, improves



strength


Stabilizer - Diutan gum, but not
Keeps the mixtures evenly distributed,


limited to the same.
provides for uniform reaction of reactants


Copolymer powder of vinyl acetate
Copolymer powder of vinyl acetate and


and ethylene (Vinnapas
ethylene and is dispersible in water


4021T)


Borosilicate glass beads (3M K-46
Glass Beads K46 have a density of 0.46 g/cc


beads)
and an isostatic crush strength of 6000 psi









Embodiments provide hydrating patch compositions for floor patching which are easy to mix, can be skim-coated or used for deeper patches, have moderate to high compressive strengths and can be sanded within hours after they are set. These hydrating patch formulations are creamy and smooth on the trowel or tools used for application and bond well to the substrate.


At least some of the present hydrating patch compositions consume all of the water during hydration and setting. This provides for a system in which items can be placed on patched floor sooner as the patch hardens faster.


The present hydrating patch formulations have bonds and compressive strength equal to or greater than that expected from materials used currently. At the same time, the present hydrating patch formulations demonstrate unexpectedly higher yields. Table 2 below provides hydrating patch compositions with synthetic calcined stucco coated with DTPA (NOGO FST CKS STUCCO).









TABLE 2







HIGH-STRENGTH HYDRATING CEMENTITIOUS PATCH


FORMULATION UTILIZING NOGO FST CKS STUCCO











Amount
Amount
Range/Preferred


Formula A: Components
(lbs)
(%)
Range (lbs)













Calcium Aluminate
752
28.46
700-800/725-775


Cement (CAC or


HAC)


Calcium Sulfate Hemi-
260
9.84
100-450/225-325


hydrate (FST


NOGO CKS


Stucco)


Gypsum
85
3.22
 0-400/50-100


Class C cement
130
4.92
 75-200/100-150


Calcium carbonate
600
22.71
 0-1000/400-800


Hydroxyethyl methyl
4
0.15
0-12/2-6 


cellulose (HEMC)


(Walocel)


Hydrous magnesium
8
0.30
0-12/6-10


aluminum silicate


(Mini-U Gel FG)


Lithium carbonate
4
0.15
1-8/2-6


Citric acid
0
0
0-5/0-3


Polycarboxylate Ether
4
0.15
0-12/2-8 


(Melflux 6681)


Defoamer (Vinapor
3
0.11
1-9/2-4


9010F)


Stabilizer premix (3 parts
2
0.08
0-8/1-4


HYDROCAL C-


Base Gypsum


Cement and 1


part Duitan Gum


by weight)


Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
330
12.49
 0-800/100-700


co-polymer (Vinnapas


4021T)


Hollow Borosilicate
460
17.41
100-750


Glass beads (K-


46 beads)





TOTAL
2642
99.99
4108









As can be appreciated from Table 2, some embodiments include the use of hollow borosilicate glass beads as a filler either in place of or together with sand and/or silica flour. The borosilicate glass beads lighten the weight of the resultant patching product and at the same time provide slip to the patch on the trowel when applied. The glass beads provide for a smoother, creamier less gritty, easy to trowel patch formulation.


It will be appreciated from Table 2B below that the present hydrating patch composition (Formula A as defined in Table 2) has a better compressive strength in comparison to a current patch technology. The following two control formulations are used for comparative analysis.









TABLE 2A







COMPARATIVE CONTROL FORMULATIONS












Control 1
Control 2



Components
Range (%)
Range (%)







Calcium Aluminate
30-60
10-30



Cement



(CAC or HAC)



Portland Cement
3-7
 5-10



Calcium Sulfate
 7-13
0



Vinyl Acetate Copolymer
10-30
0.5-10 



Calcium carbonate
30-60
0



Cellulose
1-5
0



Crystalline Silica
0.1-1  
0



Quartz
0
40-55



Slag
0
10-30










As can be appreciated from Table 2B, a hydrating patch composition defined by formula A in Table 2 has an improved compressive strength in comparison to a control formulation defined in Table 2A as control 1.









TABLE 2B







COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (50 cc mix design)
















28 Day







Low Tem-




7 Day Low
14 Day Low
perature
28 Day



24 Hour
Temperature
Temperature
Oven
Moist



Bench
Oven @ 110
Oven @ 110
@ 110
Cure in



Cubes
deg F.
deg F.
deg F.
Baggie



(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
















Formula A
1550
3450
3433
3008
1475


Current
958
2792
2650
2375
900


Patch


Technology


(Control 1)


Compressive
61.79
23.57
29.55
26.65
63.89


Strength %


Higher









The compressive strength of the present hydrating patch composition is on the average over 61% higher in the moist cure testing and 23-27% higher when the composition is oven or bench cured.


Table 2C demonstrates improvement in yield and lower weight for the present hydrating patch compositions. Formula A and current control patch were prepared as 50 cc mixtures in water. The mixtures were allowed to dry either at the room temperature, in an oven or in humidified environment. Dry densities of all samples were measured and recorded in Table 2C below.









TABLE 2C







DRY DENSITIES AND EXTENDED YIELD

















14 Day Low
28 Day Low




Wet Density
24 Hour
7-8 Day Low
Temperature
Temperature
28 Day



Original Out
Bench
Temperature
Oven @110
Oven @110
Moist Cure



of Molds
Cubes
Oven @110
deg F.
deg F.
in Baggie



(lbs/FT3)
(lbs/FT3)
deg (lbs/FT3)
(lbs/FT3)
(lbs/FT3)
(lbs/FT3)

















Formula A
65.63
65.56
51.93
52.21
51.59
64.04


Current
87.94
83.00
69.29
70.54
68.55
82.66


Patch


Technology


(Control 1)


Yield
33.99%
26.66%
33.42%
35.10%
32.87%
29.07%


Increase (%)









As can be appreciated from Table 2C, the yield improvement is consistently over 25% under all conditions tested. The most accurate measure of the true extension is expected to be the original, out of molds extension. In this case, the yield improvement is almost 34% with high strength.


A hydrating patch composition of Formula A also provides an improved yield and evaporation after it has been applied to a surface. Comparative data on evaporation for Formula A are presented in Table 2D below.









TABLE 2D







EVAPORATION PER CUBIC FOOT OF EXTENDED YIELD (evaporation at


each stage based on loss from original weight as measured in formulations with 50%


water)


















28 Day Low




Wet Density

7-8 Day Low
14 Day Low
Temperature
28 Day Moist



Original Out
24 Hour
Temperature
Temperature
Oven @110
Cure in



of Molds
Bench Cubes
Oven @110 deg F.
Oven @110 deg F.
deg F.
Baggie



(#/ft3)
(#/FT3)
(#/FT3)
(#/FT3)
(#/FT3)
(#/FT3)

















Formula A
65.63
65.56
51.93
52.21
51.59
64.04


Formula A
n/a
0.07
13.7
13.42
14.04
1.59


Evaporation


(#)


Current
87.94
83.00
69.29
70.54
68.55
82.66


Patch


Technology


(Control 1)


Current
n/a
4.49
18.65
17.4
19.39
5.28


Patch


Technology


(Control 1)


Evaporation


(#/ft3)


Evaporation
n/a
4.42
4.95
3.98
5.35
3.69


Higher


(#/ft3)









Further embodiments provide hydrating patch compositions with hollow borosilicate glass beads of various compressive strength and density. Suitable hollow borosilicate glass beads include hollow borosilicate glass beads with crush strength of at least 100 psi, at least 250 psi, at least 300 psi, at least 400 psi, at least 500 psi, at least 600 psi, at least 700 psi, at least 800 psi, at least 900 psi and at least 1,000 psi. In some embodiments, suitable hollow borosilicate glass beads have a crush strength in the range from 250 psi to 3,000 psi. In further embodiments, suitable hollow borosilicate glass beads have a crush strength in the range from 250 psi to 6,000 psi. Some suitable hollow borosilicate glass beads are listed in Table 3.









TABLE 3







HOLLOW BOROSILICATE GLASS BEAD DENSITY AND CRUSH


STRENGTHS










Hollow

Crush
Percent Crush


Borosilicate
True Density
Strength (90%
Strength of K-


Glass Beads
(g/cc)
survival, psi)
46













K-46
0.46
6,000
n/a


K37
0.37
3,000
 50%


K15
0.15
300
  5%


K1
0.10
250
4.2%









Some embodiments include hydrating patch formulations listed in Table 3A.









TABLE 3A







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH FORMULATIONS WITH


HOLLOW BOROSILICATE GLASS BEADS









Borosilicate Glass Bead Type











K-37
K-15
K-1



Formula B
Formula C
Formula D



Amount
Amount
Amount


Component
(#)
(#)
(#)













Calcium Aluminate Cement
752
752
752


(CAC or HAC or Fondu)


Calcium Sulfate Hemi-Hydrate (FST
260
260
260


NOGO CKS Stucco)


Gypsum (Terra Alba)
85
85
85


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
130
130
130


Calcium carbonate
600
600
600


Hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose
4
4
4


(HEMC) (Walocel)


Hydrous magnesium aluminum
8
8
8


silicate (Mini-U Gel FG)


Lithium carbonate (Ultra Fine)
4
4
4


Citric acid
0
0
0


Polycarboxylate Ether
4
4
4


(Melflux 6681)


Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
3
3
3


Stabilizer premix (Diutan Gum)
2
2
2


Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-polymer
330
330
330


(Vinnapas 4021T)





Subtotal all additives except Glass
2182
2182
2182


Beads


Hollow Borosilicate Glass Beads
400
165
152


TOTAL
2582
2347
2334









The bead changes in formulations of Table 3A were made by volume replacement rather than by weight. Hollow borosilicate glass beads can be used in various amounts. In some embodiments, the hollow borosilicate glass beads are used in the amount from about 5% to about 50%. In other embodiments, the hollow borosilicate glass beads are used in the amount from about 5% to about 40%. In some embodiments, the hollow borosilicate glass beads are used in the amount from about 5% to about 30%. In some embodiments, the hollow borosilicate glass beads are used in the amount from about 5% to about 20%. In some embodiments, the hollow borosilicate glass beads are used in the amount from about 5% to about 10%.


As can be appreciated from Table 3B below, formulations with hollow borosilicate glass beads listed in Table 3A can be formulated into a hydrating patch composition with high compressive strength.









TABLE 3B







COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF FORMULATIONS WITH HOLLOW


BOROSILICATE GLASS BEADS












28 Day Low
28 Day



24 Hour
Temperature
Moist



Bench
Oven @ 110
Cure in



Cubes
deg F.
Baggie



(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
















Formula A
1550
3008
1475



Current
958
2375
900



Patch



Technology



(Control 1)



Formula B
1233
2917
1392



Formula C
1242
2575
1167



Formula D
1233
2317
1050










Hollow borosilicate glass beads may rapidly increase the viscosity of a hydrating patch formulation, which is not desirable because it leads to thickening of the formulation prior to its application, and some of the thickened formulation may no longer be suitable for application or the drying time for this formulation may lengthen.


Other embodiments include hydrating patch formulations to which lime and/or similar type of material has been added. Suitable lime includes ivory lime. In further embodiments, lime can be used in combination with or instead of sodium hydroxide, magnesium hydroxide and/or ammonium hydroxide as alternatives to lime.


Surprisingly, adding lime such as, but not limited to, ivory lime stabilizes the viscosity of the hydrating patch formulation and prevents it from thickening. Lime can be used in different amounts for the purpose of stabilizing a hydrating patch formulation with hollow borosilicate glass beads. At least in some embodiments, lime is used in the amount from 0.25% to 5% of the dry weight of borosilicate glass beads. In other embodiments, lime can be used in the amount from 0.0625% to 10% of the dry weight of borosilicate glass beads. The most preferred amount for lime is 0.125% to 5% of the dry weight of borosilicate glass beads.


Further embodiments provide a method where a present hydrating patch formulation is premixed and can be stored on a shelf for a period of time prior to its use. At least in some of these embodiments, a premix for high-strength hydrating patch formulation can be prepared as shown in Table 4 below.









TABLE 4







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH COMPOSITION












Amount
Amount



Formula E: Components
(#)
(%)















Calcium Aluminate
1320
32.19



Cement (CAC or



HAC)



Calcium Sulfate Hemi-
460
11.22



hydrate (FST



NOGO CKS



Stucco)



Gypsum
150
3.66



Class C cement
230
5.61



Calcium carbonate
1050
25.60



Hydroxyethyl methyl
7
0.17



cellulose (HEMC)



Hydrous magnesium
14
0.34



aluminum silicate



Lithium carbonate
7
0.17



Citric acid
1
0.02



Polycarboxylate Ether
3.5
0.09



(Melflux 6681)



Vinapor 9010F
5
0.12



(defoamer)



Stabilizer premix (3 parts
3.5
0.09



HYDROCAL C-



Base Gypsum



Cement and 1



part Duitan Gum



by weight)



Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
750
18.29



co-polymer (Vinnapas



4021T)



Aluminum Oxide (white)
100
2.44



Glass beads (K-37
0
0



beads)





TOTAL
4101.50
100.01










The premix can be then further mixed with hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime prior to use. As shown in Table 4A below, further embodiments include a hydrating patch formulation of Table 4 to which borosilicate glass beads and lime are added. As further reported in Table 4A, adding lime stabilizes the viscosity of a hydrating patch formulation with hollow borosilicate glass beads.









TABLE 4A







THE USE OF HIGH STRENGTH HYDRATING PATCH PREMIX


WITH HOLLOW BOROSILICATE GLASS BEADS
















Brabender







Viscosity in






Brabender






Units (BU)






Note: the


Batch =
Hollow
Lime
Gilmore
lower the


900 lbs
Glass
Added
Set Time
number the


of Premix
Beads
per
Initial/
less


FORMULA
per Batch
Batch
Final
viscous the


E
(lbs)
(lbs)
(min)
mix
Comment















Batch
100
0
33/76
160
Thin


Control




Creamy


Batch 1
100
0
33/69
830
Thick







Pasty


Batch 2
100
0.25
29/55
740
Thick







Pasty


Batch 3
100
1.25
25/55
500
Creamy


Batch 4
100
1.75
25/52
350
Thin







Creamy


Batch 5
100
2.5
24/51
240
Thin







Creamy









In TABLE 4A, the Brabender test is run to determine the viscosity of a hydrating patch formulation. The lower the number, the lower is the viscosity. A small cylindrical container is filled to the top with the mix and then put in place on the Brabender apparatus. A spindle on a head is lowered into the slurry and then the machine is turned on. The spindle rotates and a measurement of the resistance of the spindle turning is made in what is referred to as brabender units. As shown in Table 4A, the more lime is added to the hydrating patch formulation, the lower the viscosity of the formulation is.


Unexpectedly, lime not only improves the rheology control of a hydrating patch composition, set control and drying rate, but surprising lime also improves the surface hardness and the flexural strength of the hydrating patch formula. TABLE 4B reports the unforeseen impact of lime on a hydrating patch composition with respect to surface hardness and flexural strength improvement.









TABLE 4B







THE USE OF HIGH STRENGTH PATCH PREMIX WITH BEADS


















Monotron









Surface





Dry
Hardness:




Ivory
Density
(Kg




Lime
(lbs/ft3)
load for
Increase in



Hollow
Added
(note: top to
0.1″
Hardness vs.

MOR Increase



Glass
per
bottom only
penetration
Formula
Flexural
vs. Formula


Batch = 900 lbs
Beads per
Batch
10% variation in
of 10 mm
E/Batch 1 with
Strength MOR
E/Batch 1 with


of Premix
Batch (lbs)
(lbs)
density)
ball)
NO LIME (%)
(PSI)
NO LIME (%)

















Batch
100
0
59.8
19.25
n/a
746
n/a


Control


Batch 1
100
0
61.6
20.75
n/a
781
n/a


Batch 2
100
0.25
65.7
26.50
27.70
1079
38.16


Batch 3
100
1.25
65.8
32.50
56.63
1249
59.92


Batch 4
100
1.75
66.6
35.50
71.08
1443
84.76


Batch 5
100
2.5
65.8
37
78.00
1569
100.25









As can be seen from Table 4B, the surface hardness and the flexural strength are improved when lime is added to a hydrating patch formulation. These improvements are observed when lime is used in the range from 0.0625% to 10% of the dry weight of borosilicate glass beads. The percentage of improvement over the range is as high as 78% improvement in surface hardness and over 100% improvement in Flexural Strength (MOR). Based on the data obtained, it is believed that the preferred range for lime is 0.125% to 5% of the dry weight of hollow borosilicate glass beads.


This improvement in surface hardness and flexural strength provides a significant advantage to the present hydrating patch formulation if used for repairing a floor which is constantly exposed to abrasion and loads.


Further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations with rheological modifiers omitted.









TABLE 5







HIGH-STRENGTH HYDRATING CEMENTITIOUS PATCH


PREMIX WITH 3 RHEOLOGY MODIFIERS OMITTED












Amount
Amount



Formula F: Components
(LBS)
(%)















Calcium Aluminate Cement
1320
28.46



(CAC or HAC)



Calcium Sulfate Hemi-
460
9.84



hydrate (FST



NOGO CKS



Stucco)



Gypsum
150
3.22



Class C cement
230
4.92



Calcium carbonate
1050
22.71



Walocel (hydroxyethyl
0
0



methyl cellulose



(HEMC)



Mini-U Gel FG
0
0



(hydrous magnesium



aluminum silicate)



Lithium carbonate
7
0.15



Citric acid
1
0



Polycarboxylate Ether
3.5
0.15



(Melflux 6681)



Vinapor 9010F (defoamer)
5
0.11



Stabilizer premix
0
0.00



Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-
450
12.49



polymer (Vinnapas 4021T)



Glass beads (K-37 beads)
0
0



TOTAL
3976.5
99.99










Further embodiments include hydrating patch formulations comprising Calcium Aluminate Cement, FST NOGO CKS Stucco, Gypsum, Class C cement, calcium carbonate, lithium carbonate, citric acid, polycarboxylate, at least one defoamer, ethylene-vinyl acetate co-polymer and hollow borosilicate glass beads. These compositions can be formulated with or without at least one rheological modifier. Surprisingly, omitting rheological modifiers results in a patch with stronger surface and stronger bond of the patch to the surface. Table 5A below reports bond strength results for formulations prepared with or without hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose, magnesium aluminum silicate or a stabilized premix.









TABLE 5A







SURFACE CHEMISTRY DIFFERENCES FOR HIGH STRENGTH PATCH


FORMULATIONS WITH HOLLOW BOROSILICATE GLASS BEADS DEPENDENT ON


THE USE OF A RHEOLOGICAL MODIFIER





















BYK Gardner









Abrasion after







Bond
Brabender
100 cycles







Strength
Viscosity in
with ACE 80







Bond Pull
Brabender
medium grit



Hollow



on
Units (BU)
paper after 24 hrs


Batch = 900 # of
Glass K37


Stabilizer
Plywood
Note: the lower the
(grams


Premix
Beads per
Walocel
Minugel
Premix
(PSI)
number the less
loss to


FORMULA F
Batch (#)
(#/Batch)
(#/Batch)
(#/Batch)
48 hours
viscous the mix
surface)

















Batch
100
1.5
3
0.75
70
900
1.82


Control


Batch 1
100
1.5
3
0
37.50
1000+
0.55


Batch 2
100
1.5
0
0.75
60.50
900
0.55


Batch 3
100
0
3
0.75
73
720
0.94


Batch 4
100
0
0
0
140
 90
0.18









It can be appreciated from Table 5A and other data provided in this disclosure that removing all three rheological modifiers may nearly double the bond strength of a hydrating patch formulation. The abrasion results also indicate that the hydrating patch has developed a tougher surface without the three modifiers. Accordingly, further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations in which the use of a rheological modifier is adjusted such that either no rheological modifier is used or only one rheological modifier is used.


Further embodiments provide a method in which bond strength and abrasiveness of a hydrating patch are controlled by omitting at least one rheological modifier and/or by altering the amount of the modifier used. At least in some embodiments, only hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose (HEMC) is used in a hydrating patch formulation which is prepared without magnesium aluminum silicate or a stabilizer premix (3 parts HYDROCAL C-Base Gypsum Cement and 1 part Duitan Gum by weight).


Further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations with a long shelf life and methods of making same. These hydrating patch formulations are prepared as a mixture comprising of Calcium Aluminate Cement, FST NOGO CKS Stucco or some other stucco, gypsum, class C cement, calcium carbonate, lithium carbonate, citric acid, defoamer and a polymeric binder. Hollow borosilicate glass beads, water and rheological modifiers are then added right before the hydrating patch formulation is to be used. Storing a hydrating patch formulation separately from the light-weight filler prevents loss of materials through the system and stratification of the formulation while on the self.


According to further embodiments, a hydrating patch formulation can be formulated such that to obtain a patch with a softer surface. While there may be applications where this is desirable, in other applications the surface hardness is a key to providing a solid patch with which to bond adhesives and/or materials which may be poured upon it. In some cases, the patch may be a serviceable area and has to have high hardness to resist wear. While it is generally accepted that adding a light-weight filler may decrease hardness of a resulting patch, this invention provides embodiments in which a light weight filler such as hollow borosilicate glass beads are used, yet the resulting hydrating patch can be sanded and it has a sufficiently hard surface. Further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations with different polymeric binders. Some of these formulations are listed in Table 7 below.









TABLE 7







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH FORMULATION WITH


ALTERNATE POLYMERS









Polymer Type But Not



Limited to the Same











Vinnapas
Vinnapas
Vinnapas



5111L
5025L
5012



Formula H
Formula I
Formula J



Amount
Amount
Amount


Component
(#)
(#)
(#)













Calcium Aluminate Cement (CAC or
600
600
600


HAC or Fondu)


Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate (FST
230
230
230


NOGO CKS Stucco)


Gypsum (Terra Alba)
85
85
85


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
175
175
175


Calcium carbonate
680
680
680


Walocel MK 30000PF
4
4
4


(hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose


(HEMC)


hydrous magnesium aluminum
8
8
8


silicate (Mini-U Gel FG)


Lithium carbonate (Ultra Fine)
4
4
4


Citric acid
0
0
0


Polycarboxylate Ether
2
2
2


(Melflux 6681)


Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
3
3
3


Stabilizer premix (Diutan Gum)
2
2
2


Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-polymer
330
330
330


Polymer Type But Not Limited to the


Same


Glass Beads
400
400
400


TOTAL
2523
2523
2523









As shown in Table 7A below, compressive strength of hydrating patch formulations prepared with different polymers is significantly improved over a control patch formulation.









TABLE 7A







COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF HYDRATING PATCH


FORMULATIONS PREPARED WITH DIFFERENT POLYMERS












28 Day Low




24 Hour Bench
Temperature
28 Day Moist



Cubes
Oven @110 deg F.
Cure in Baggie



(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)














Formula B
1233
2917
1392


Current
958
2375
900


Patch


Technology


(Control 1)


Formula H
1642
4100
1575


Formula I
1608
4083
1550


Formula J
1408
3575
1450









The present hydrating patch formulations also demonstrate greater abrasion resistance and reduced viscosity. As can be appreciated from Table 7B below, the present hydrating patch formulations are resistant to abrasion.









TABLE 7B







HIGH STRENGTH PATCH FORMULATIONS


DEMONSTRATE GREATER ABRASION


RESISTENCE AND REDUCED VISCOSITY













BYK Gardner





Abrasion after




Brabender
100 cycles




Viscosity in
with ACE 80


Note: all mixes

Brabender
medium grit


at 2 parts

Units (BU)
paper after 24 hrs


patch: 1
Gilmore Sets
Note: the lower the
(grams


part water by
(Initial/Final)
number the less
loss from


weight
(min)
viscous the mix
surface)





Current
36/66
780
1.43-1.78


Patch


Technology


(Control 1)


Formula H
20/66
180
1.0









Further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations to which abrasive agents have been added. Suitable abrasive agents include, but are not limited to, aluminum oxide (brown and white), garnet dust, stardust, copper slag and silica flour and combinations thereof. As can be appreciated from Table 8 below, a hydrating patch formulation can be prepared with various abrasive agents.









TABLE 8







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH FORMULATION WITH


ALTERNATIVE ABRASIVE AGENTS













Alumi-





num





Oxide





(White)



Garnet
Stardust
Formu-



Formula K
Formula L
la M



Amount
Amount
Amount


Component
(#)
(#)
(#)













Calcium Aluminate Cement (CAC or
752
752
752


HAC or Fondu)


Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate (FST
260
260
260


NOGO CKS Stucco)


Gypsum (Terra Alba)
85
85
85


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
130
130
130


Calcium carbonate
600
600
600


Walocel MK 30000PF
4
4
4


(hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose (HEMC)


hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate
8
8
8


(Mini-U Gel FG)


Lithium carbonate (Ultra Fine)
4
4
4


Citric acid
0
0
0


Polycarboxylate Ether
2
2
2


(Melflux 6681)


Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
3
3
3


Stabilizer premix (Diutan Gum)
2
2
2


Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-polymer
430
430
430


Vinnapas 4021T


Hollow Borosilicate Glass Beads (K37)
200
200
200


Abrasion Resistant Material
200
200
200


TOTAL
2678
2678
2678
















TABLE 8A







HYDRATING PATCH UTILIZING ALTERNATE ABRASIVE


AGENTS IS RESISTANT TO ABRASION










Note: all




mixes at 2



parts patch:
BYK Gardner Abrasion after 100 cycles with



1 part water
ACE 80 medium grit paper after 24 hrs



by weight
(grams loss from surface)







Current
1.43-1.78



Patch



Technology



(Control 1)



Formula H
1.0



Formula K
0.84



Formula L
0.84



Formula M
0.64










While some embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations with hollow borosilicate glass beads, other embodiments contemplate the use of other fillers. In some embodiments, perlite is used as a filler. Either coated or uncoated perlite is suitable. Perlite can be used in various amounts. At least in some embodiments, perlite can be used in the amount from 2% to 50%, based on the dry weight of the formulation.


Still further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations in which a filler comprises a combination of perlite and aluminum oxide. In these embodiments, perlite and aluminum oxide can be used in the 50:50 ratio.


Still further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations in which a filler comprises a combination of perlite, aluminum oxide and fibers. Various fibers are suitable for this application and include polypropylene stealth fibers, acrylic fibers and cellulosic fibers. At least in some embodiments, the combination filler comprises perlite, aluminum oxide and ⅛″ polypropylene stealth fibers. The amount of fibers may vary. At least in some embodiments, the useful range for fibers is from 0.1 to 2% by weight of total batch. At least in some embodiments, the preferred range for fibers is from 0.25-1%.


Embodiments for hydrating patch formulations comprising perlite, a combination of perlite with aluminum oxide and a combination of perlite with aluminum oxide and polypropylene stealth fibers include those listed in Table 9 below.









TABLE 9







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH FORMULATION WITH


ALTERNATE ABRASION RESISTANT ADDITIVES













Perlite




Perlite
Aluminum



Perlite
Aluminum
Oxide



Formula
Oxide
Fiber



N
Formula O
Formula P



Amount
Amount
Amount


Component
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)













Calcium Aluminate Cement (CAC or
1320
752
752


HAC or Fondu)


Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate (FST
460
260
260


NOGO CKS Stucco)


Gypsum (Terra Alba)
150
85
85


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
300
130
130


Calcium carbonate
1050
600
600


Walocel MK 30000PF
7
4
4


(hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose (HEMC)


hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate
14
8
8


(Mini-U Gel FG)


Lithium carbonate (Ultra Fine)
7
4
4


Citric acid
0
0
0


Polycarboxylate Ether
3.5
2
2


(Melflux 6681)


Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
5
3
3


Stabilizer premix (Diutan Gum)
3.5
2
2


Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-polymer
750
430
430


Vinnapas 4021T


Perlite (35/34 Siloxane treated perlite)
200
200
200


Aluminum Oxide (White)
0
200
200


Fibers (⅛″ polypropylene stealth
0
0
20


fibers) but not limited to the


same, fibers such as cellulose


and acrylic are suitable as well)



TOTAL
4270
4470
4490









As can be appreciated from Table 9A below, a hydrating patch formulation with perlite as a filler has an improved bond strength in comparison to a control formulation. This result is unexpected because it is generally believed that adding a filler decreases the strength of a resulting patch formulation. As can be also appreciated from Table 9A, combining perlite with aluminum oxide improves further the bonding strength and abrasion resistance. Further improvements in abrasion resistance are achieved if a filler is a combination of perlite with aluminum oxide and polypropylene stealth fibers.









TABLE 9A







COMPARATIVE ABRASION AND BOND PULL STRENGTH


OF HYDRATING PATCH WITH PERLITE












BYK Gardner






Abrasion after 100
Bond
Bond
Bond


Note: all
cycles with ACE
Pull on
Pull on
Pull on


mixes at 2
80 medium grit
Plywood
Plywood
Plywood


parts patch:
paper after 24 hrs
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)


1 part water
(grams loss
24 hours
48 hours
72 hours


by weight
from surface)
Average
Average
Average














Current Patch
1.43-1.78
140
125
133


Technology






(Control 1)






Formula N
2.00
153
179.5
171.5


Formula O
1.00
142
142.5
177.5


Formula P
0.93









Further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations with coated perlite. At least in some embodiments, a hydrating patch is formulated with perlite which is pretreated with siloxane. The amount of the siloxane-coated perlite to be used in a formulation may vary and depends on the application. In general from 5% to 20% of siloxane-coated perlite can be used. Formulations with higher amounts of siloxane-coated perlite are suitable for patching walls and ceilings, while formulations with lower amounts of siloxane-coated perlite are particularly suitable for patching floor and other surfaces with heavy traffic. Some of such hydrating patch formulations are listed in Table 10 below. These hydrating patch formulations show excellent shrinkage compensation control.









TABLE 10







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH


FORMULATION WITH PERLITE









35/34 Siloxane Perlite Type But



Not Limited to the Same











Perlite
Perlite
Perlite



Formula
Formula
Formula



Q
R
S



Amount
Amount
Amount


Component
(#)
(#)
(#)













Calcium Aluminate Cement (CAC or
1222
1222
1222


HAC or Fondu)





Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate (FST
400
400
400


NOGO CKS Stucco)





Gypsum (Terra Alba)
200
200
200


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
200
200
200


Calcium carbonate
950
950
950


Walocel MK 30000PF
6
6
6


(hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose (HEMC)





hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate
12
12
12


(Mini-U Gel FG)





Lithium carbonate (Ultra Fine)
5
5
5


Citric acid
1.5
1.5
1.5


Polycarboxylate Ether
0
0
0


(Melflux 6681)





Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
5
5
5


Stabilizer (Starvis 3003f) but not
4.25
4.25
4.25


limited to the same





Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-polymer
550
550
550


Vinnapas 4021T





Shrinkage reducing agent
50
50
50


Prevent C: (mineral oxide/glycol blend)





Perlite (35/34 Siloxane treated perlite)
640
400
200


TOTAL
4445.75
4205.75
4005.75









As can be appreciated from Table 10A below, a hydrating patch formulated with siloxane-coated perlite has an improved compressive strength in comparison to a current patch technology used as a control.









TABLE 10A







COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF HYDRATING PATCH


FORMULATED WITH SILOXANE-COATED PERLITE











Note: all






mixes at 2
1 Hour
3 Hour
7-8 Day Low
28 Day Moist


parts patch:
Bench
Bench
Temperature
Cure in


1 part water
Cubes
Cubes
Oven @110
Baggie


by weight
(PSI)
(PSI)
deg F. (PSI)
(PSI)














Current Patch
538
775
2792
900


Technology






(Control 1)






Formula Q
367
533
1742
825


Formula R
475
583
2075
875


Formula S
742
808
3117
1250









Additional advantages of hydrating patch formulations prepared with siloxane-coated perlite include the ease with which this formulation can be mixed. These formulations can also provide a high positive expansion and a significantly decreased viscosity. As can be appreciated from Table 10B below, hydrating patch formulations with siloxane-coated perlite have a much lower viscosity in comparison to a control patch. These formulations also expand more, which allows to save on materials and produce a larger amount of a patch formulation.









TABLE 10B







PERLITE FORMULATIONS DEMONSTRATE EASE


OF MIXING AND HIGHER POSITIVE EXPANSION











Note: all
Brabender Viscosity in




mixes at 2
Brabender Units (BU)
Linear Expansion



parts patch:
Note: the lower the
or Shrinkage



1 part water
number the less
(+/−)



by weight
viscous the mix
Percent






Current Patch
780
+0.018



Technology





(Control 1)





Formula R
260
+0.336



Formula S
240
+0.336









Additional advantages provided by a hydrating patch formulation with siloxane-coated perlite include an increase in yield. As can be appreciated from Table 100 below, such formulations increase the yield by at least 10% or higher, depending on the amount of siloxane-coated perlite used in the formulations.









TABLE 10C







PERLITE FORMULATIONS DEMONSTRATE


AN INCREASED YIELD










Note: all




mixes at 2




parts patch:
Wet Density Original



1 part water
Out of Molds



by weight
(lbs/ft3)






Formula R
67.24



Current Patch Technology
87.94



Yield Increase (%)
30.78



Formula S
79.73



Current Patch Technology
87.94



Yield Increase (%)
10.29









As can be appreciated by comparing table 10B with table 10C, the yield increase is also accompanied by the medium to high strength. This result is unexpected because the increase in yield usually leads to lower density and decreased strength.


Additional embodiments include hydrating patch formulations which use as filler a combination of hollow borosilicate glass beads and silica flour. These formulations can be prepared with hollow borosilicate glass beads of various compressive strength, including those with compressive strength from 250 psi to 6,000 psi. Silica flour with particles of different size can be used, including silica flour which can be passed through −200 mesh or −325 mesh. In some of these formulations, hollow borosilicate glass beads can be used in the amount from 5% to 50%, based on the dry weight of the formulation. The silica flour can be used in the amounts from 5% to 25%, based on the dry weight of the hydrating patch formulation.


At least in some formulations, the ratio between hollow borosilicate glass beads and silica flour is 1:1. In other formulations, the ratio between glass beads and silica flour is 2:1. In further formulations, the ratio is 3:1. Some of the hydrating patch formulations with a combination of hollow borosilicate glass beads and silica flour are listed in Table 11 below.









TABLE 11







HYDRATING PATCH FORMULATIONS WITH


HOLLOW BOROSILICATE GLASS BEADS


AND SILICA FLOUR IN COMBINATION











Silica
Silica
Silica



Fume −325
Fume −325
Fume −200



mesh
mesh
mesh



Formula
Formula
Formula



T
U
V



Amount
Amount
Amount


Component
(lbs)
(lbs)
(lbs)













Calcium Aluminate Cement
752
752
752


(CAC or HAC or Fondu)





Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate
260
260
260


(FST NOGO CKS Stucco)





Gypsum (Terra Alba)
85
85
85


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
130
130
130


Calcium carbonate
600
600
600


Walocel (hydroxyethyl
4
4
4


methyl cellulose (HEMC)





hydrous magnesium
8
8
8


aluminum silicate (Mini-U





Gel FG)





Lithium carbonate (Ultra
4
4
4


Fine)





Citric acid
0
0
0


Polycarboxylate Ether
4
4
4


(Melflux 6681)





Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
3
3
3


Stabilizer premix (Diutan
2
2
2


Gum)





Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
330
330
330


co-polymer (Vinnapas





4021T)





Subtotal all additives
2182
2182
2182


except Beads





Glass Beads
400
400
400


Mesh Silica Flour
200
100
200


TOTAL
2782
2682
2782









A filler prepared from a combination of hollow borosilicate glass beads and silicate flour increases compressive strength of a hydrating patch composition. This can be further appreciated from Tables 11A and 11B below, in which different combinations of hollow borosilicate glass beads with silicate flour are compared to a control formulation.









TABLE 11A







COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF HYDRATING


PATCH FORMULATION UTILIZING SILICA


FLOUR IN CONJUNCTION WITH HOLLOW


BOROSILICATE GLASS BEADS














8 Day
14 Day
28 Day




24
Low Tem-
Low Tem-
Low Tem-
28 Day



Hour
perature
perature
perature
Moist



Bench
Oven @110
Oven @110
Oven @110
Cure in



Cubes
deg F.
deg F.
deg F.
Baggie



(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)















Current
958


2375
900


Patch







Technol-







ogy (Con-







trol 1)







Formula T
1317
3008
3450
2900
1433


Formula U
1392
2967
2892
3150
1525


Formula V
1317
2833
2858
2875
1275









Despite being formulated as a low density composition with high yield, a hydrating patch formulation which comprises a composition of borosilicate glass beads and silica flour is also abrasion resistant, which makes this formulation well suited for patching areas with high traffic and loads, such as for example as flooring. As can be appreciated from Table 11B, these formulations perform well in the abrasion-resistance test as well as in the expansion test.









TABLE 11B







HYDRATING PATCH MATERIALS WITH SILICA FLOUR


AND HOLLOW BOROSILICATE GLASS BEADS











Formula T
Formula U
Formula V













Normal Consistency:
60
60
58


(cc)





Patty Size: (in)
3.72
3.75
3.88


Test Consistency: (cc)
50
50
50


BYK Gardner Abrasion
1.08
1.21
1.17


after 100 cycles with





BYK 80 grit paper after





24 hrs (grams loss from





surface)





Wet Density: (#/ft3)
70.59
70.31
70.18


Dry Density: (#/ft3)
56
56
55


(nearest 1.0#/ft3)





Maximum Expansion:
+0.229
+0.254
+0.053


(%)





Vicat Set: (min)
22
20
23









Even more unexpectedly, a hydrating patch formulation shows a positive expansion at very low dry densities of 55-56 lbs/ft3. The low density hydrating patch formulation demonstrates a 24-25% increase in the yield. Interestingly, a 50% loading level of a −325 mesh material provides equal to or greater abrasion resistance compared to the −200 mesh silica flour.


Typically, cementitious patch products known in the art have a short pot life which limits the size of the mix which can be used at a time. Once the setting action begins they cannot be rejuvenated, except in some cases by the addition of more water.


The present hydrating patch formulations incorporate a unique combination of rheology modifiers which allow for the re-working or re-tempering of the composition up to 3-4 times and which continues to be useful beyond the otherwise earlier stiffening. This makes the product easier to use, provides for less waste and larger batches can be pre-mixed. These formulations therefore, save time and resources.


Further embodiments include hydrating patch formulations with a plasticizer such as, but not limited to, polycarboxylate ethers which are used in conjunction with other rheology modifiers and provide for unexpectedly unique re-tempering under shear energy as compared to materials commonly used for this purpose. In these embodiments, citric acid or cream of tart can be used in combination with a polycarboxylate ether. As can be appreciated from Table 12, these formulations can be reworked several times.









TABLE 12







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH FORMULATION


COMPARING CITRIC ACID USAGE VS. CREAM


OF TARTAR IN A FORMULA WHICH CAN BE REWORKED


3-4 TIMES AFTER INITIAL MIX











Citric
Cream of
Cream of



Acid
Tartar
Tartar



Formula
Formula
Formula



W
X
Y



Amount
Amount
Amount


Component
(#)
(#)
(#)













Calcium Aluminate Cement (CAC or
600
600
600


HAC or Fondu)





Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate (FST
230
230
230


NOGO CKS Stucco)





Gypsum (Terra Alba)
85
85
85


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
175
175
175


Calcium carbonate
680
680
680


Walocel
4
4
4


(hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose (HEMC)





hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate
8
8
8


(Mini-U Gel FG)





Lithium carbonate (Ultra Fine)
4
4
4


Citric acid
1.75
0
0


Cream of Tartar (potassium bitartrate)
0
0.60
1.75


Polycarboxylate Ether (Melflux 6681)
2
2
2


Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
3
3
3


Stabilizer premix (Diutan Gum)
2
2
2


Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-polymer
330
330
330


(Vinnapas 4021T)





Hollow borosilicate glass beads (K37)
350
350
350


Aluminum Oxide
55
55
55


Ivory Lime
4.5
4.5
4.5


TOTAL
2533.25
2532.75
2532.5









As can be further appreciated from Table 12A, hydrating patch formulations have a longer pot life and can be reworked several times.









TABLE 12A







COMPARING CITRIC ACID USAGE VS. CREAM OF TARTAR IN A HYDRATING


PATCH FORMULA WHICH CAN BE REWORKED 3-4 TIMES AFTER INITIAL MIX


(BRABENDER VISCOSITY COMPARISON RETEMPERED VS. UNRETEMPERED)









Brabender Viscostiy (BU)



(The lower the BU, the thinner the mix)















Current



FORMULA W
FORMULA X
FORMULA Y
Patch



Citric Acid
Cream of Tartar
Cream of Tartar
Technology



1.75 lbs/batch
1.75 lbs/batch
0.60 lbs/batch
1 part patch



1 part patch to 0.55
1 part patch to 0.55
1 part patch to 0.55
to 0.55 parts



parts water by
parts water by
parts water by
water by


Brabender
weight
weight
weight
weight














Time (minutes)
Untempered
Retempered
Untempered
Retempered
Untempered
Retempered
Untempered

















3






560


5
290

240

200


6

320

240

240


8

300

250

280


10
210
300
160
240
190
280


12

290

220

300


14

280

260

360


15
190

180

220


16

260

220

520


18

260

260

680


20
170
250
200
320
440
1000+


22

270

440


24


25
160
280
260
600
1000+


26

360

980


28

460

1000+


30
230
600
540
1000+


32

920

1000+


34


35
350
1000+
1000+


36


38


40
1000+









Further embodiments provide hydrating patch formulations to which at least one set inhibitor is added. It was unexpectedly determined that combinations of lime/citric acid and/or lime/cream of tartar provide for a more optimal setting time, working time and strength and bond development. A lower viscosity for a hydrating patch formulation can be maintained while retempering the mix 3-4 and even more times depending on the level of citric acid or cream of tartar. This aspect is further demonstrated in Table 12B below. As can be appreciated from Table 12B, the present hydrating patch formulations utilizing the citric acid/lime and cream of tartar/lime combination have higher bond strengths and compressive strengths.









TABLE 12B







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH FORMULATION COMPARING


CITRIC ACID USAGE VS. CREAM OF TARTAR IN A FORMULA WHICH


CAN BE REWORKED 3-4 TIMES AFTER INITIAL MIX (Vicat Set,


Compressive Strengths and Bond Strength Comparison)












FORMULA W
FORMULA X
FORMULA X
Current Patch



Citric Acid
Cream of Tartar
Cream of Tartar
Technology



1.75 lbs/batch
0.60 lbs/batch
1.75 lbs/batch
(Control 1)



1 parts
1 parts
1 parts
1 parts



patch/0.55 part
patch/0.55 part
patch/0.55 part
patch/0.50 part



water by weight
water by weight
water by weight
water by weight














Vicat Set: (min)
38-43
26-27
36
22-24


Compressive
4017
4254
3733
2375


Strengths: (PSI)






(28 day 110 deg






F. Oven)






Bond Strengths:
127
100
92
84


(PSI) 24 hour






Bond Strengths:
119
104
97
92


(PSI) 48 hour









Further comparison of compressive strength at a ratio of 1 part high strength patch to 0.60 parts water is provided in Table 12C below.









TABLE 12C







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS PATCH FORMULATION COMPARING CITRIC


ACID USAGE VS. CREAM OF TARTAR IN A FORMULA WHICH CAN BE REWORKED


3-4 TIMES AFTER INITIAL MIX (Evaluation of higher water on strength


vs. current patch technology at lower water)












FORMULA W
FORMULA X
FORMULA X
Current Patch



Citric Acid
Cream of Tartar
Cream of Tartar
Technology



1.75 lbs/batch
0.60 lbs/batch
1.75 lbs/batch
(Control 1)



1 parts
1 parts
1 parts
1 parts



patch/0.60 part
patch/0.60 part
patch/0.60 part
patch/0.50 part



water by weight
water by weight
water by weight
water by weight





Compressive
3061
3317
3425
2375


Strengths: (PSI)






(28 day 110 deg






F. Oven)









Further embodiments provide hydrating path formulations specifically designed to be used as deep patches. Such deep patches include, but are not limited to, patches of 4 inches and deeper. In these deep patch formulations, a combination of at least two fillers is used. These fillers are selected from the group consisting of perlite, coated perlite, siloxane-coated perlite, sand, borosilicate glass beads and silica flour. At least in some embodiments, the combination for the filler is sand and siloxane-coated perlite. Suitable deep patch formulations include those listed in Table 13 below.









TABLE 13







HYDRATING PATCH FORMULATION


FOR DEEP-FILL APPLICATIONS









Deep Fill Patch Formula Z



Amount


Component
(lbs)











Calcium Aluminate Cement (CAC or
752


HAC or Fondu)



Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate (FST
260


NOGO CKS Stucco)



Gypsum (Terra Alba)
85


Portland Cement (Class “C”)
130


Calcium carbonate
600


Walocel MK 30000PF
4


(hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose (HEMC)



Hydrous magnesium aluminum silicate
8


(Mini-U Gel FG)



Lithium carbonate (Ultra Fine)
4


Citric acid
2.50


Polycarboxylate Ether
5


(Melflux 6681)



Defoamer (Vinapor 9010F)
3


Defoamer (foamaster CN)
4


Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-polymer
200


(Vinnapas 4021T)



Treated Perlite (35/34 perlite)
50


Sand (Oklahoma Sand)
1850


TOTAL
3957.50









Further properties of a deep fill formulation include those listed in Table 13A below.









TABLE 13A







PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF DEEP FILL FORMULATION


(Compressive Strength at 20 cc mix design)














8 Day
14 Day
28 Day




24
Low Tem-
Low Tem-
Low Tem-
28 Day



Hour
perature
perature
perature
Moist



Bench
Oven @110
Oven @110
Oven @110
Cure in



Cubes
deg F.
deg F.
deg F.
Baggie



(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)
(PSI)





Formula
3558
6025
6358
7450
5083


Z 20 cc









This invention will be explained in more detail below by the way of the following non-limiting examples.


Example 1
Yield Comparison

A hydrating patch formulation was prepared as listed in Table 2A Control patches 1 and 2 were prepared as well as shown in Table 2A. The same weight of each patch was weighed out and then mixed with the recommended amount of water and troweled down between standard 0.38″ keystock with a controlled width of 2.94″. The resultant length of troweled product represents the difference in yield at a defined thickness and width and is reported in Table A below.











TABLE A







% Greater Coverage



BAR LENGTH
of Described


Patch Description
(in)
Invention







High Strength Patch Invention
15.50″
n/a


Current Technology Patch
11″  
41


(Control 1) at 50 cc




Current Technology Patch
10.25″
51


(Control 2) at 25 cc









Example 2
Hydrating Patch Formulation with Long Shelf Life

A hydrating patch formulation was prepared according to formula G, but without hollow borosilicate glass beads added to it. The formulation has an excellent shelf life and can be used in combination with hollow borosilicate glass beads or any other filler disclosed above.









TABLE B







HIGH-STRENGTH CEMENTITIOUS


PATCH PREMIX (FORMULA G)












Amount
Amount



Formula G: Components
(lbs)
(%)














Calcium Aluminate Cement
1320
32.19



(CAC or HAC)





Calcium Sulfate Hemi-hydrate
460
11.22



(FST NOGO CKS Stucco)





Gypsum
150
3.66



Class C cement
230
5.61



Calcium carbonate
1050
25.60



Walocel (hydroxyethyl
7
0.17



methyl cellulose (HEMC)





Mini-U Gel FG (hydrous
14
0.34



magnesium aluminum silicate)





Lithium carbonate
7
0.17



Citric acid
1
0.02



Polycarboxylate Ether
3.5
0.09



(Melflux 6681)





Vinapor 9010F (defoamer)
5
0.12



Stabilizer premix
3.5
0.09



Ethylene Vinyl Acetate co-
750
18.29



polymer (Vinnapas 4021T)





Aluminum Oxide (white)
100
2.44



Glass beads (K-37 beads)
0
0



TOTAL
4101.50
100.01








Claims
  • 1. A hydrating patch composition, the composition comprising: Portland cement in the amount from 2% to 10%,Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate in the amount from 2% to 30%,Gypsum in the amount from 0% to 15%,Calcium Aluminate Cement in the amount from 15% to 40%,Calcium Carbonate in the amount from 0% to 40%,at least one filler in the amount from 1% to 30%; andat least one binder in the amount from 10% to 40%,
  • 2. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein calcium sulfate hemihydrate is calcined synthetic gypsum spray-coated with diethylene-triamine-pentaacetic acid (DTPA).
  • 3. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the at least one filler is selected from the group consisting of hollow borosilicate glass beads, a combination of borosilicate glass beads and lime, perlite, siloxane-coated perlite, and a combination of hollow borosilicate glass beads and silica flour.
  • 4. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is formulated as a deep patch formulation and where the filler is a combination of sand and siloxane-coated perlite.
  • 5. The hydrating patch composition of claim 3, wherein the hollow borosilicate glass beads have a crush strength from 250 to 6,000 psi.
  • 6. The hydrating patch composition of claim 3, wherein the hollow borosilicate glass beads have a crush strength from 250 to 6,000 psi and wherein the ratio between the hollow borosilicate glass beads and the silica flour is from 1:1 to 3:1.
  • 7. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the at least one filler is selected from the group consisting of hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime, and wherein the lime is used in the amount from 0.0625% to 10% of the dry weight of hollow borosilicate glass beads.
  • 8. The hydrating patch composition of claim 7, wherein the lime is ivory lime.
  • 9. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the filler is selected from the group consisting of perlite, a combination of perlite with aluminum oxide, and a combination of perlite, aluminum oxide and fibers.
  • 10. The hydrating patch composition of claim 9, wherein the fibers are selected from the group consisting of polypropylene stealth fibers, acrylic fibers and cellulosic fibers.
  • 11. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the filler is siloxane-coated perlite.
  • 12. The hydrating patch composition of claim 11, wherein the siloxane-coated perlite is in the amount from 2% to 50%, based on the dry weight of the hydrating patch composition.
  • 13. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the hydrating patch composition further comprises a compound selected from the group consisting of: at least one abrasive agent, at least one rheological modifier, at least one set retarder and any composition thereof.
  • 14. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the hydrating patch composition comprises at least one compound selected from the group consisting of hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose, magnesium aluminum silicate, diutan gum and any combination thereof.
  • 15. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the hydrating patch composition comprises at least one abrasive agent in the amount from 0.05% to 60% and wherein the abrasive agent is selected from the group consisting of: aluminum oxide brown, aluminum oxide white, garnet dust, stardust, copper slag, silica flour and combinations thereof.
  • 16. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the binder is selected from the group consisting of polyacrylates, polyacetates and polyvinyl-acetates.
  • 17. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the hydrating patch composition comprises at least one rheological modifier in the amount form 0.05% to 10% by dry weight of the composition, and wherein the rheological modifier is selected from the group consisting of magnesium aluminum silicate, polycarboxylate, lime, clay and stabilizers.
  • 18. The hydrating patch composition of claim 1, wherein the hydrating patch composition comprises hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime as a filler, and wherein the composition further comprises at least one compound selected from the group consisting of polycarboxylate ether, citric acid, cream of tartar or a combination thereof.
  • 19. A kit for making a hydrating patch formulation, the kit comprising a powder mixture of calcium aluminate cement, DTPA-coated calcined synthetic gypsum, gypsum, class C cement, calcium carbonate, and wherein the kit further comprises hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime, and wherein the hollow borosilicate glass beads and lime are stored separately from the powder mixture.
  • 20. A method for controlling viscosity of a hydrating patch formulation, the method comprising: mixing together Portland cement in the amount from 2% to 10%, Calcium Sulfate Hemihydrate in the amount from 2% to 30%, Gypsum in the amount from 0% to 15%, Calcium Aluminate Cement in the amount from 15% to 40%, Calcium Carbonate in the amount from 0% to 40%, hollow borosilicate glass beads in the amount from 1% to 30%; and at least one binder in the amount from 10% to 40%, andcontrolling the viscosity of the mixture by adding to the mixture lime in the amount from 0.0625% to 10%.