skim coat

nullnull WeiKem Chemical Co. 致为化工有限公司Yang tao R&D Departmentnull skim coat application comparison nullCement formula of cement skim coatnullskim coat test report of larfarge cement base nullskim coat test report of Tasek cement base nullcomparison of different item water demand Conclusion: 1) Tasek cement has more water demand than Larfarge cement. WeKcelo cellulose ethers has more water demand than Tylose MH 60001P6 and Metlose PMC 30U.nullInitial tensile adhesion strength comparison Conclusion: 1）We can see that WeKcelo has good performance in both of cement. 2）WeKcelo MET 1931 and Tylose MH60001P6 have good performance in Tasek cement.nullFinal tensile adhesion strength comparison Conclusion: 1）Wekcelo MET 1931 and Tylose MH 60001P6 have similar performance. 2）WeKcelo MAT 552 has better performance in larfarge cement than others. nullcompressive strength of 28 days comparison Conclusion: 1）We can see from above chart that MET 1931 has better performance in Tasek cement than others, have same performance with Tylose MH 60001P6 in larfage cement. 2）MAT 552 has good performance in larfage cement.nullwater retention comparison Conclusion: 1) All of the products have good performance in water retention, MET 1931, MAT 552 and MH 60001P6 have good work in larfage cement than tasek cement. 2) PMC 30U has better work in Tasek than other products. nullaverage shrinkage comparison Conclusion: 1）HEMC has good performance in average shrinkage than HPMC. Summary: MET 1931, MAT 552 and MH60001P6 have good performance in Larfage cement and tasek cement.nullGypsum formula of gypsum plasternullIllustration: 1) According to standard ASTM C472-99, it is asked that there is no retard agent in the mortar when test setting time and compressive strength, but if there is no retard agent, it will not work. So we add 0.02% and 0.1% retard agent in the mortar to test setting time and compressive strength respectively. nullplaster test report of AOL gypsum base nullplaster test report of samudra gypsum base nullplaster test report of gyproc gypsum base nullwater demand comparison Conclusion: 1) Judging from above data, all of the products have similar effect in AOL and gyproc gypsum. 2) Samudra need more water. nullinitial tensile adhesion strength comparison Conclusion: No matter what kind of gypsum, MET 1937, MHS 60000YP4, MH60009P4 , both of them have good performance. nullcomparison of final tensile adhesion strength nullcomparison of compressive strength 28 days Conclusion: 1）MH 60009P4 has good performance in both of gypsum. 2）MET 1937 and MHS 60000YP4 have similar performance.nullwater retention comparison Conclusion: 1）In general, both of the products have good performance in gyproc ypsum. 2）MET 1937 has good performance in all of the gypsum. Summary: MET 1937, MHS 60000YP4 and MH 60009P4 have good performance in all of the gypsum.nullIllustration: Because of the experiment operation, some data can’t reflect the real application of the product. Because of the different formulation, some data can’t reflect the real application of the product. So, All above are only for reference.nullThanks again for all support from the friends here , thanks for your understanding and cooperation . Thanks for everything .