On Sunday, 11/16/2025, my dad and I finished with the yard stuff for the moment. Got everything tilled, trenches filled and roughly leveled out. It will resume in the spring with some fresh tilling, fresh top soil and planting grass. Waiting until spring also lets the trenches settle (I figure dips will form and can be fixed in the spring).

Next will be some work on the inside. I am currently thinking the mezzanine and getting network wire out (some of which for security cams) are the next projects.

 

Back in 2024 when this started, I decided to use the Rustoleum RockSolid floor coating product. after the first bit was coated, I saw a problem and contacted support, they claimed it appeared the concrete absorbed too much product it and a second coat would be required. Ultimately, I put a second coat in the areas that had that odd issue and it all seemed to work.

Now in 2026, very limited vehicle traffic, I have areas where the material is bubbling, chipping, pealing. I reached out to support about this and they said:
Since concrete is porous and they claimed it absorbed too much product, I would expect for this to bubble/chip, it needs to pull concrete with it; instead it is bare concrete which tells me the etch product did not work as expected. I feel I should have done a full grind on the floor.

Rustoleum is resolving this issue in the only manner I think they realistically can. Unfortunately, leaves me with a floor coating that has problems. Not sure where to go from here.

 

Ugh - VERY sorry to hear that! That's got to be the worst fear of anyone doing this job. I totally get how much effort youve got into that job - has to be frustrating.

Any commonality to the spots you had issues with etching originally?

I do think their reason is pretty hokey. IIRC that stuff is near 100% solids - and given the concrete beneath is bare, it's clear that it didnt soak in at all there. Im with you - it looks like not enough soaked in / that it just dried sitting on top.

Im interested to see what you think for next steps.

 

So far, I don't have any idea on a commonality to the areas with issues. Support mentioned to do an adhesion test to determine my next options. That test is to take a razor blade and strike an X in an area, lay duct tape down. If 25% or more of the product peels up, it needs recoated! I am NOT a fan of this. Even if it doesn't peal, did I deliberately compromise the coating? If any of it peeled, then this means it did not soak in. I know some spots, this stuff did soak in when I applied it. Example, I did not think about the product leaking off an old roller, out of a box on to the floor. I had to chisel the box off the floor and it took a thin layer of concrete, it clearly bonded.

Observational Theory: I think they rely on a combination of bonding AND thickness. It should bond to say 75% of the concrete and where it did NOT bond, it should be thick enough that nothing happens. Some chunks I had that dried in the buckets I used or brushes, insane how strong it is when thick enough! Such as, if it is thick enough, it will not bubble, it can't (which means whatever caused bubbling will have to find a different exit). And when I see videos about professionals, they tend to lay a base application and so much flake, it is like two layers. Dry, remove the loose flake and then apply a clear on top, essentially 2-3 layers. Knowing all this, it sounds to me like Rustoleum is selling kits that must work for most (other wise, I would suspect they would adjust this product). I think either their math is wrong or perhaps something on my situation is a bit off from their testing. Bottom line, I am wondering if this is a 2-3 coat job to get a solid application. Knowing what I know now, I wish I would have done two full coats and NOT the spot checks I did originally. BUT.... One of the damaged areas does have two full coats (it was so bad, it did not justify spot checking). So that kinda debunks that theory of two coats.

Current Thought: Keep doing things I need to do, like build my mez and such. Once done, survey the damage. Possibly take a wire wheel on an angle grinder to clear loose/chipping/exposed spots (which might be enough to put a light etch/grind on the concrete). It does appear this product bonds to itself good and see if I can do touch ups (and apply the touch ups a bit thick). See if that can salvage the situation at a low cost. Otherwise, it may be best to have a company come in sometime in the future, grind it and re-do it.

 

Ah, yep ASTM D3359. Im unfortunately very familiar with that test from work. I agree, a 25% loss of product would be a terrible result on that test - one of the worst possible grades outside of yanking off the whole chunk, lol.

The typical procedure would include some kind of post test touch up to re-seal the base material. But without you having any kind of small touch up can, that'll be tricky. TBH even if you did, it looks hideous touched up. Makes it even more obvious IMO, but at least restores the protective functionality.

I think the bond mechanism there is the extreme surface profile / surface roughness of a bunch of flake edges. They're laid into a wet coat, the loose ones removed, then the new coat goes over top of the equally rough top surface. Lots and lots of surface area for the epoxy to latch onto / into.

It's like grinding / sanding before top coating - gives it lots of places to dig its fingers into.


Sounds like a good plan - will be interesting to see how things progress! It's just so strange, there's tons of good reviews on that stufd across the various forums. Maybe you'll get lucky and it was just a few spots of dud product or something?

 

Where are the problem areas, all over, close to perimeter or?

 

They seem to be random. Some inches from the perimeter of the square/relief cut and others closer to the center.

 

Okay, I was just trying to understand the moisture content of the soil under the slab. Perimeter would get more moisture, the coating may be prevent moisture from escaping as it attempts to escape and water will find a way out. I put a membrane down around a rather large residential pool deck. A nearby spalsh pad was letting excess moisture get under the pool slab. And after about a month started getting blisters forming and causing my membrane coating to release. Thats when I found out about hydrostatic pressure, water is powerful and it had no where to go but up.

Just didn't know if you had a period of constant rain before or after the coating was applied or if soil is reguarly moist. Close to the cuts, perhaps the vapors are escaping there, chemical is in cuts, so it's blistering by the path of least resistance. If the slab is crowned a bit, the membrane creates an imperable umbrella type effect, the moisteure wicks it's way up hill under the crown and then when it can't go anywhere else, the slab gets saturated and eventually causes the bond to fail. Anyway, just a thought. Know you want a solution, good to ponder other aspects than a chemical product bonding failure. If this is an "a ha" moment you could always remove a affected patch and use a moisture meter, see how that reads.

 

Related to the rain / ground moisture thought- youve got vapor barrier under the concrete, right?

 

I went back to the pictures to confirm, there is a definitely a vapor barrier under the concrete. If I recall, Rustoleum suggests 30 days after a fresh concrete pour, I was months past that. My gut is telling me that etch Rustoleum provides did not do a great job, it's clear where the coating is pealing it did not adhere to the concrete. Perhaps if the coating was thicker, it may not matter as much (as it would then rely on thickness to the next locations where it actually did adhere to the concrete.