Laminated Ferrocement: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''LFC Tests on panels''' | '''LFC Tests on panels''' | ||
6-13-2011 by Abe Connally, [http:www.velacreations.com] | |||
6-13-2011 by Abe Connally, [http://www.velacreations.com] | |||
'''Panel 1''' - 1 layer 3/8" hardware cloth, 36.5" X 20.75" - 757 si, 5.26 sf | '''Panel 1''' - 1 layer 3/8" hardware cloth, 36.5" X 20.75" - 757 si, 5.26 sf | ||
5/16" - 3/8" thick | * 5/16" - 3/8" thick | ||
Cured for 3 days | * Cured for 3 days | ||
17lbs, 3.23 lbs/sf | * 17lbs, 3.23 lbs/sf | ||
'''Panel 2''' - 2 layers 3/8" hardware cloth, 36.5" X 20.375" - 744 si, 5.17 sf | '''Panel 2''' - 2 layers 3/8" hardware cloth, 36.5" X 20.375" - 744 si, 5.17 sf | ||
3/8" - 7/16" thick | * 3/8" - 7/16" thick | ||
Cured for 3 days | * Cured for 3 days | ||
22lbs, 4.25 lbs/sf | * 22lbs, 4.25 lbs/sf | ||
'''Tests''' - panels were placed on bricks, spaced 14" apart. Weight was placed in center of panel, between brick supports. | '''Tests''' - panels were placed on bricks, spaced 14" apart. Weight was placed in center of panel, between brick supports. | ||
Test 1 - 1 gallon water @ 8lbs on 2.25 si, 3.55 psi | * Test 1 - 1 gallon water @ 8lbs on 2.25 si, 3.55 psi | ||
Test 2 - 1 gallon water @ 8lbs on 1.5 si, 5.33 psi | * Test 2 - 1 gallon water @ 8lbs on 1.5 si, 5.33 psi | ||
Test 3 - human @ 173 lbs on 46 si, 3.76 psi | * Test 3 - human @ 173 lbs on 46 si, 3.76 psi | ||
'''Results''' | '''Results''' | ||
Test 1, panel 1 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | * Test 1, panel 1 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | ||
Test 1, panel 2 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | * Test 1, panel 2 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | ||
Test 2, panel 1 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | * Test 2, panel 1 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | ||
Test 2, panel 2 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | * Test 2, panel 2 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks | ||
Test 3, panel 1 - troweled side down - visible sag but no cracks | * Test 3, panel 1 - troweled side down - visible sag but no cracks | ||
Test 3, panel 2 - troweled side down - slight visible sag but no cracks | * Test 3, panel 2 - troweled side down - slight visible sag but no cracks | ||
Test 3, panel 1 - troweled side up - extreme sag and panel snapped along brick support | * Test 3, panel 1 - troweled side up - extreme sag and panel snapped along brick support | ||
Test 3, panel 2 - troweled side up - visible sag but no cracks | * Test 3, panel 2 - troweled side up - visible sag but no cracks | ||
Troweled side has 1/8" less concrete on mesh | Troweled side has 1/8" less concrete on mesh | ||
'''Conclusions''' | '''Conclusions''' | ||
Both panels survived psi ratings for tank design (3.44 psi), however because troweled side has less concrete, it is a weaker side of panel in compression. Suggest using formed side as inside of tank, so that the troweled side will be in greater tension (more mesh, less concrete). | Both panels survived psi ratings for tank design (3.44 psi), however because troweled side has less concrete, it is a weaker side of panel in compression. Suggest using formed side as inside of tank, so that the troweled side will be in greater tension (more mesh, less concrete). | ||
Panel 2 with 2 layers of mesh seem to be stronger in all tests. | Panel 2 with 2 layers of mesh seem to be stronger in all tests. | ||
I think these would do just fine as roof tiles or panels, especially if shaped to take advantage of concrete's compression strength. For a water tank, although they survived the psi required for an 8ft tall tank, I think more testing is required. | I think these would do just fine as roof tiles or panels, especially if shaped to take advantage of concrete's compression strength. For a water tank, although they survived the psi required for an 8ft tall tank, I think more testing is required. | ||
'''More Information''' | '''More Information''' | ||
Latest revision as of 22:08, 13 June 2011
LFC
LFC Tests on panels
6-13-2011 by Abe Connally, [1]
Panel 1 - 1 layer 3/8" hardware cloth, 36.5" X 20.75" - 757 si, 5.26 sf
- 5/16" - 3/8" thick
- Cured for 3 days
- 17lbs, 3.23 lbs/sf
Panel 2 - 2 layers 3/8" hardware cloth, 36.5" X 20.375" - 744 si, 5.17 sf
- 3/8" - 7/16" thick
- Cured for 3 days
- 22lbs, 4.25 lbs/sf
Tests - panels were placed on bricks, spaced 14" apart. Weight was placed in center of panel, between brick supports.
- Test 1 - 1 gallon water @ 8lbs on 2.25 si, 3.55 psi
- Test 2 - 1 gallon water @ 8lbs on 1.5 si, 5.33 psi
- Test 3 - human @ 173 lbs on 46 si, 3.76 psi
Results
- Test 1, panel 1 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks
- Test 1, panel 2 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks
- Test 2, panel 1 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks
- Test 2, panel 2 - troweled side up - no visible sag or cracks
- Test 3, panel 1 - troweled side down - visible sag but no cracks
- Test 3, panel 2 - troweled side down - slight visible sag but no cracks
- Test 3, panel 1 - troweled side up - extreme sag and panel snapped along brick support
- Test 3, panel 2 - troweled side up - visible sag but no cracks
Troweled side has 1/8" less concrete on mesh
Conclusions
Both panels survived psi ratings for tank design (3.44 psi), however because troweled side has less concrete, it is a weaker side of panel in compression. Suggest using formed side as inside of tank, so that the troweled side will be in greater tension (more mesh, less concrete). Panel 2 with 2 layers of mesh seem to be stronger in all tests.
I think these would do just fine as roof tiles or panels, especially if shaped to take advantage of concrete's compression strength. For a water tank, although they survived the psi required for an 8ft tall tank, I think more testing is required.
More Information