Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ferrocement For Canadian Fishing Vessels: - A Summary and Interpretation of Test Results-1969 - 1974
Ferrocement For Canadian Fishing Vessels: - A Summary and Interpretation of Test Results-1969 - 1974
r
~;;J..3
C!? -:3 /~-..
prepared by
Arnold W. Greenius
B.C. Research
Vancouver, Canada
for
Vessels and Engineering Division
Industrial Development Branch
Fisheries and Marine Service
Environment Canada
Project Officer
G.M. Sylvester
Division Chief
H.A. Shenker
March 1975
Page
A. I NTRODUCTI ON 1
1. Objectives 1
2. Historical Background 1
3. Scope of the Test Work 1969-1974 3
4. Applicability of the Test Results 4
B. DIGEST OF TEST RESULTS AND CONCLUSION~ 6
1. Mortars 6
2. Reinforcements 8
3. The Reinforced Mortar Composite 11
4. Bibliography 15
C. TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 16
1. The Component Materials - Mortars
and Steel Reinforcements 16
2. Evaluation of Various Mortars 21
3. Evaluation of Various Reinforcements 41
4. Evaluation of a Typical Ferrocement Construction 73
5. Bolting Tests 98
6. Design Considerations 101
7. Patching Ferrocement 101
8. Protective Coatings 104
9. Quality Assurance 113
D. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF FERROCEMENT LITERATURE 114
E. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 115
F. REFERENCES 116
G. APPENDIX 122
1. Development of Mathematical Model - J. D. Smith
2. Regulations for Construction of Ferrocement Boats
- Canada Transport Ministry
3. Guidelines for the Construction of Ferro-cement
Vessels - American Bureau of Shipping
4. Bibliography of Ferrocement Literature
1
A. INTRODUCTION
1. Objectives
Since 1968 the Industrial Development Branch of Fisheries
and Marine Services, Environmen~ Canada has funded a series of programs
at B.C. Research, Vancouver, B.C., to evaluate some of the properties
of ferrocement for fishing vessel construction. The objectives vf this
report are to summarize and interpret the findings obtained and documented
in five major reports during the last five years. This report pro¥ides
some measure of the strengths and shortcomings of the test data obtained
from programs designed to cover a wide range of properties and character-
istics at the expense of in-depth completeness.
2. Historical Background
Ferrocement is defined most simply as a thin cement mortar
shell highly reinforced with fine widely-di~tributed reinforcement.
This definition is general enough to include the most common composites
of steel mesh and rods in a matrix of Portland cement mortar, those which
contain short steel fibres or no reinforcing rods, and those which have
a matrix of polymer mortars. In its present state of practical develop-
ment for fishing vessels, ferrocement is a Portland cement mortar
containing a widely-distributed reinforcement of steel mesh of various
kinds generally with steel rods.
Various advan~ages have been stated for ferrocement as a
material of boat construction, e.g. good sound insulation, good thermal
insulation, fire-resistance, resistance to marine borers, ease of fabri-
cation, ease of repair, low cost, good abrasion resistance, good impact
strength, good corrosion resistance, and others. Some of these are
undoubtedly questionable.
Ferrocement as a boatbui1ding material has a long history
dating back some 125 years. Although the construction of ferrocement
boats in the years 1848 to 1896 by Lambot, Gabe1lini, and others is
of historical interest, the re-invention and naming of ferrocement and
the design and construction of several boats in the years 1941 to 1949
by P.l. Nervi mark the modern development of ferrocement. After a few
2
impact.
- Repair - the use of mortar and polymers for patching
was examined.
1970-1971 - The mortar mix - the use of admixtures was examined
for improvements to workability, strength, and durability
of mortar.
- The reinforcement - various kinds of mesh and rods
were evaluated on the basis of mortar penetration,
bond strength, bending and impact strengths.
- The effect of interrupted mortaring on strength was
observed.
- The attachment of fittings by powder-activated tools
was examined.
- The preliminary development of a mathematical model
for the behaviour of ferrocement was considered.
4
(f) Conclusions
The tests of mortars with various sands, cements, and
admixtures showed, in general, no real advantage for one type of sand or
cement over another and no real improvement from the addition of admixtures.
It appeared best to avoid coarse sands, to use a cement with at least some
sulphate resistance, and to avoid the use of admixtures. It was therefore
decided to use a "standard" mortar for all subsequent tests as follows:
- Dry bagged mortar sand (good tro\'/elling) 2 parts
- Type II cement (moderate sulphate resistance) 1 part
- Water/cement ratio, 0.4 to 0.5 (as close to 0.4 as
possible with acceptable slump values 3 to 6 in ..)
- Chromium trioxide (Cr03) 300 ppm of water was added
to prevent hydrogen gas problem when galvanized mesh used
with ungalvanized rod reinforcement.
The following average compressive and flexural strengths
were obtained for the many "standard" mortar batches (Type II cement, dry
mortar sand) over the several years:
Comrressive Strength:
ASTMC109, 2-in. cubes
7-day 5670 psi
28-day 7840 psi
ASTMC349, 1.575-in. prisms
28-day 10,070 psi
Flexural Strength:
ASTM C348, 1.575-in. prisms
28-day 1360 psi
2. Reinforcements
(a) Strength
Several mesh and rod reinforcements have been tested
alone and as components in a matrix of "standard" mortar, i.e. in
a ferrocement composite.
The following tensile strengths of the six kinds of rods
used were obtained:
9
matrix of Type II cement and dry mortar sand reinforced with 0.225-in. double-drawn
high-tensile A-S2 rods spaced at 2-in. centres and two layers each side
(Panel 207) or three layers each side (Panel 20S) of 1/2-in. 19-9a. galvanized
hardware cloth.
A single tensile specimen prepared from each panel was tested
but each specimen held a load only equal to the sum of combined strength of
the mesh wires and the rod/mortar bond strength. (Tensile test specimens
from panels containing rods do not adequately represent the strength of a
"semi-infinite" ferrocement plate because of the lack of rod. anchoring).
The following tensile strengths and the values of elastic modulus
obtained were obtained: 207 20S
No. of layers of mesh 4 6
No. of wires in section 16 23
Area of section, sq.in. 2 2
Load at first visible crack, lb. 1300 1450
Max. load held, lb. 1420 1900
Modulus of elasticity, psi x 10 6 1.1 0.9
~
E = € at Pfvc 0.9 1.3
at Pfvct2 0.7 1.3
4. Bibliography
The bibliographic listing of articles pertinent to ferrocement
vessel construction has been maintained and is presented in the Appendix.
16
m·,::: c~ t~ ~ e:
''' I ~( ! ~:1 ~ tI! IF
'rl
i ~~ c ;;::
c:: 1.
~
'''': p.~
~§
":;
t'
•
,;;J, . :; - I~
f§F= t:;: ,-
~' I"" t""E; F
: ~: 1-- ~ I:f.' I'"' b
,- P ' Ii:. H r... r-l' I:":
" .1
"S' I'"' f- I...
I.:;;. I:::~
; - F'- c ~ "'
E: I';· t,::;.!S '),
~
p. r ~' I-:-;~ .- ~ ~
h-
I,;; 1- t;;:; H
~~ -
u.s. U.S. Bureau Dry Bagged Dry Bagged Del Monte Silica Sand
Standard of Reclam- Concrete Mortar
Sieve ation * Sand Sand 8-mesh 20-mesh 30-mesh 1 :2:1**
4 0 1 · - - - .
8 0-5 11 · 1 . - -
16
3D
10-20
20-30
22
22
8
26
73
26
.
43
-
1
18
28
50 25-40 29 39 - 52 61 42
100 15-20 11 20 . 5 28 10
Pan 3-7 4 7 - - 10 2
TABLE 2. Workability and strength of Mortar with Various Cements. Sands. and Slumps.
(Panels contain 12 layers of 1/2 in. 22-ga. galvanized hexagonal mesh in a horizontal form mould.)
TABLE 4. Workability and Strength of Mortar in Panels Reinforced with Various Meshes.
(Panels made in horizontal form mould with Type TI cement and mortar sand.)
13 2.5 lb expanded 0.40 5" Easy Penetration 6.6 5950 7200 725
llletal lath. ga1v •• 7500 792
5 layers
14 1/2 i".-22 ga. 0.40 &Is Easy Penetration 7.0 6200 7600 890
hexagona 1 mesh.
galv. 12 layers
7250 -
15 1/4 1n.-20 ga. 0.40 SIs Easy Penetration 7.0 5600 8150 830
fire screening, 7675 960
2 l.yers
27
guide frame
call~d the modulus of rupture. Throughout this report, the term IImodu1us
of rupture has been reserved for the IIfibre stress calculated for :the
ll ll
maximum load held by the beam. The value is calculated not at the onset of
first visible brittle cracking of the mortar (unless otherwise stated) but
at the maximum load when mesh wires broke, rods slipped, or both.
shown in Table 5.
The average modulus of rupture values, 1~~, for unreinforced
panels of the two mortars is 823 psi for the mortar sanS mortars and 709 psi
for the Del Monte sand mortars. This latter value is lower than the flexure
31
TABLE 6. Summary of Strength Tests on All Mortars Made with Type II Sand and Dry Mortar Sand or Del Monte Sand.
TABlE 7. Results of Tests on Mortars Ind Plnels Using Two Types of Sand'
(Type II cement. 12 layers of 1/2-in. 22-ga. galy. hexagonal mesh.)
I
1 Simple beam, approx. 3 x 12 in., span 10 in., third-point loading
2 SO-lb tup with round base (9-in. radius), dropped 10 ft. onto 15-in. panel specimen.
TABlE 8. Results of Tests on Mortars and Panels Using Various Types of Cement
(Dry bagged mortar sand. 12 layers of 1/2-in. 22-ga. galv. hexagonal mesh.)
to give six freeze-thaw cycles per 24-hour day. The water temperature (and
coupon temperature) cycled from 10C to -4C and the air temperature from
25C to -12C. The cycling prpgram was continued for 350 cycles. The coupons
were observed regularly. At the end of the program the coupons were dried
at 200F and weighed.
The mortars tested, the visual observations, and the weight
loss from spalling are recorded in Table 10. The mortar sample which contained
the pozzolan addition disintegrated badly, that which contained the po1yviny1-
acetate emulsion showed some spa11ing and weight loss. In general, admixtures
did not confer improved resistance to freeze-thaw cycling. Fig. 7 shows four
coupons, one of which has disintegrated.
It has been shown that the presence of mesh affects the freeze-
thaw resistance of ferrocement. Eleven test coupons, 3 x 4 x 3/4-in., containing
12 layers of 1/2-in. 22-ga. galvanized hexagonal mesh reinforcement, were sub-
jected to 76 freeze-thaw cycles in a similar program. The coupons had a top
layer without reinforcement. The sawn edges of these reinforced specimens
were coated to prevent ingress of water at the sawn edges.
The specimens were examined after 36 and 76 cycles. The test
results are presented in Table 11. In general, the unreinforced portions of
the test coupons were disintegrated, often by delamination at the reinforced/
unreinforced interface, after 76 cycles of freezing and thawing; the reinforced
portions were sound. Fig. 8 shows typical specimens.
Although there were some inconsistencies in the test results,
the preliminary results indicate that mesh reinforcement (e.g. 1/2-in. 22-ga.
hexagonal mesh) improves the freeze-thaw durability of ferrocement mortars and
the kinds of cements, sands, and admixtures used appear to have little effect
on the freeze-thaw durability of ferrocement mortars.
ii. Seawater Exposure Tests
Test coupons, 3 x 4 ' in., were sawn from various panels containing
various mortars and meshes. The sawn edges were coated with an epoxy compound
to prevent entry of water through the sawn edges. The 24 test coupons were
inserted into slots in two wheels of an exposure apparatus. The apparatus
immersed the specimens in a bath of natural filtered seawater for one hour
and removed them for drying in front of a fan for three hours. The tests
were performed at ambient room temperature.
The condition of the test coupons after 350 cycles of seawater
immersion were evaluated by visual appearance and scratch and penetration hard-
ness compared with coupons not subjected to the wet-dry cycling.
37
Average.Compressive Modulus of
Panel Matxture Strength. pst Rupture. pst
No. (unretnforced)
7-day 28-day
31. 32 None 5100 6430 1025
33. 34 Pozzolan-replaced 25S of cement 4060 6560 760
35. 36 Water-reducing agent - 6.5 fl. oz./bag of cement 6780 5490 1060
37. 38 Air-entratntng agent - 3/4 fl. oz./bag of cement 5180 6110 785
39. 40 Polyvtnylacetate emulsion - pya/water is 1':1.44 2880 3460 820
.. F-4 ~J . .
• ~.• "" ,.! ..:~
TABlE 12. Assessment of Test Coupons of Various Mortars After 350 cycles
of Immersion in Seawater and Drying.
(coupons contained various mesh reinforcements)
i Js
1 pecfmen broke close to or outside of gauge marks.
2 SpeCimen broke at arc-weld •
J Specimen broke 1/2 in. from weld.
TABlE 14. Results of ,Rod/Mortar Bond Tests on Hairpin Specfmens of Various Refnforcing Rods.
cloth, 10 layers of 1/2-in. 22-ga. hexagonal me's'h (in both directions) and
6 layers of 3/8-in. 20-ga. black square mesh. These values are summarized
in Table 16.
111. Specific Surface
The specific surface of reinforcement, K, the total surface of
wire in contact with the mortar divided by the volume of the composite, is
often used as one of the parameters to define ferrocement. Bezukladov 19
claims that ferrocement must have a specific area of steel wire between 2.0 cm- 1
and 3.0 cm.- 1 (5.1 in.- 1 to 7.6 in.- 1 ). The specific surface, K = 2TT d n
where d=wire diameter, n=number of layers of mesh, a=wire spacing, at
and t=thickness of panel specimen has been calculated for equal weights of the
above mesh reinforcements in mortar ;,pecimens with a bare mortar cover and
with 1/16-in mortar cover on each side of the mesh layer~. The values are
shown in Table 17. If rods had been present, the surface area of the rods and the
volume of mortar encasing the rods would have been ignored.
The specific surfaces ranged from about 2.6 to 3.9 cm- 1 for
a bare cover and 1.7 to 3.20 cm.- 1 for 1/16-;n. cover. It is apparent that
the hexagonal mesh has the highest specific area of the three 1/2-in mesh
materials examined. In practice, it is not possible to compress the layers
of th~ hexagonal mesh uniformly to the "minimum" thickness and the specific
surface for this "effective" thickness will be somewhat lower.
It is a1lo apparent that the 1/2-in. 16-ga. galvanized welded
square mesh gives the least panel (hull) thickness for equal weight of mesh
reinforcement and the 1/2-in. 22-ga. galvanized hexagonal mesh the greatest
panel (hull) thickness.
1v. Workability
As shown in Table 4, the kind of mesh used, viz. 1/2-in. 16-ga.
galvanized welded square mesh, 1/2-in. 19-9a galvanized hardware cloth,
3/8-in. 20-ga. black welded square mesh, 1/2-in. 22-ga. galvanized hexagonal
mesh, 1/4-in. 20-ga. firescreening, and 2.5 lb/sq. yd. expanded metal lath,
presented no real problems of mortar penetration when the mortar was applied
into a horizontal form mould with vibration trowelling. The small holes of
the expanded metal lath used would make penetration of mortar difficult or
impossible where hand trowelling of a vertical panel was necessary.
v. Conformabi1ity
No formal tests on the conformability of the various meshes
to compound curves have been undertaken. The hexagonal mesh, because of its
48
TABLE 15. Summary of Typica' Strengths of the Several Meshes Used
TABLE 16. Unit ~'eights and Bond Areas of Three Meshes as Equal Weight
Reinforcements in Ferrocement Panels.
TABLE 18. Drop-Impact Resistance of Mesh-Reinforced Panels with and without Rod Reinforcement.
(mesh reinforcement 1 layer of 1/2-in. 16 gao galvanized welded square mesh on each side)
Pinel
Ho. Rod Reinforcement Dishing Max. circle Mode of Failure
in 1/16 in. of cracks,
in.
TABLE 19. Flexural Strengths of Mesh-Reinforced Panels with and without Rod Reinforcement.
(mesh reinforcement 1 layer of 1/2-in. 16-ga. galvanized welded square mesh on each side)
42A Double-drawn high-tensile 1300 2800 6050 Hain crack at a load point
AB2 rods at 2 in. Rod slip noted
42B spacing 1950 3240 7000 Fine cracks at load points
Rod slip noted
TABLE 20. Drop-Impact Resistance of Mesh-Reinforced Panels with Rods with 2-in. and 4-in. Spacing
(Mesh reinforcements 3 layers of 1/2 in. 19-9a. galvanized hardware cloth on one side, 2 layers on other)
TABLE 21. Flexure Strength of r~esh-Reinforced Panels with Rods with 2-in. and 4-1n. Spacing
(Mesh reinforcements 3 layers of 1/2 in. 19-91. galvanized hardware cloth on one side, 2 layers on other)
41A 0.225-in. double-drawn 1100 2240 3930 Main crack at load point.
high-tensile A82 rods spaced No rod slip apparent.
418 at 2-in. centres 1700 2900 5080 Main crack at load point.
Rod s 11 p noted.
53A As in 41A, 418 1100 1840 3230 Fine cracking.
a
No rod slip apparent.
538 1900 3080 5400 Main crack at load pOint.
No rod slip apparent.
54A 0.225-in. deformed A82 1000 1460 2560 Main crack at load point.
rods spaced at 4-in. Fine cracking between
centres load pOints.
Rod slip noted.
52
thickness of 1/2-in. was obtained. The overall, thickne~s was about 3/4 in.
The mortar (Type II cement 1 part, dry mortar sand 2 parts) was carefully
mixed and laid into the panel form mould with a vibrating trowel. The stripped
panels were wetted regularly and cured for 28 days under plastic sheeting.
The reinforcements used in these tests were:
2.5-lb. galvanized expanded metal lath
1/2-in. l6-ga. galvanized welded square mesh
1/2-in. 22-ga. hexagonal mesh, galvanized after weaving
1/2-in. 22-ga. hexagonal mesh, galvanized before we~ving
1/4-in. 20-ga. fire screening
1/2-in. 19-9a. galvanized hardware cloth
1/2-in. l6-ga. welded square mesh, galvanized removed
3/8-in. 20-ga. welded square mesh
The number of mesh layers and weight of mesh per square foot
of panel are given in Table 23.
The panels were sectioned, as shown in Fig. 3, to yield various
test specimens.
41A 0.225-in. double-drawn high-tensile 1100 2200 3930 Main crack at load point.
A82 rods spaced at 2-in. centres No rod slip apparent.
418 1700 2900 5080 Main crack at load pOint.
Rod slip noted.
52A • 1300 1870 3270 Uniform cracking.
No rod slip apparent. i
528 2000 2050 3600 Several fine cracks. I
No rod slip apparent.
54A
53A
Deformed 0.225-in. A82 rods
•
1000
1100
1460
1840
2560
3230
Major crack at load point.
Rod slip noted.
Fine cracking.
I
538 1900 3080 5400
No rod slip apparent.
Main crack at load point.
No rod slip apparent.
I
49A
498
1/4-in. galvanized C1020 rods 1300
1300
1530
2500
2680
4910
Main crack at load point.
No rod slip apparent.
Several fine cracks.
I
Rod slip noted.
50A 1/2-in. bright C1015 nail wire rods 1300 2350 4120 Main and fine cracks.
Rod sHp noted.
508 2320 2400 4210 Uniform crackinq.
Rod s 11 p noted.
51A 1/4-in. hot rolled C1020 900 2900 5080 Uniform cracking.
No rod slip apparent.
518 1500 3600 6310 Main crack at load point.
No rod slip apparent.
TABLE 23. Description of Panels Reinforced with Mesh Only and Used for Strength Evaluation of Mesh-Reinforced
Panels
(All mortars Type II cement - 1 part, dry mortar sand - 2 parts)
Panel N( I Weight
No. Mesh Reinforcement LIoyer:. . Mesh, 1bl
sq ft panel
Reinforcement
',nel Dishing
110. Description lblsq ft in Description of Mode of Failure
Pan~l 1/16 in.
4.t.12 1/2-in. 16-ga. galvanized 2.S5 3 No visible cracks in top surface. Some fine
welded square mesh radial and rectilinear cracking to ed~es of
bottom surface.
10 3/S-in. 20-ga. black 1.59 6 Five ring cracks in top surface. Slightly
welded ·square mesh open rectilinear and radial cracking in
bottom surface.
8.11 1/2-in. 19-9a. galvanized 1.79 9 Moderate open ring crack in top surface.
hardware cloth Slightly open ring cracking in bottom
surface .
6.16 1/2-in. 22-ga. hexagonal ' 1.35 15 Large open ring cracks in top surface.
mesh, galvanized after Shear spalling, open radial cracks,
weaving and some broken wires in bottom surface.
3.13 2.5-lb galvanized
expanded metal lath
1.23 . 17 Open ring and transverse cracks in top
surface. Large diagonal cracks and
torn mesh in bottom surface.
7.15 1/4-in. 20-ga . black 1.20 22 Extremely severe major rinq cracks in top
fire screening surface. Open radial cracks and mortar
crumbling in bottom surface.
2000
Load
1b 1/2-in. 19-9a. hardware cloth
llE
10E
1000 3IB-in. 20-ga. welded square mesh
14D
l/2-in. 22-ga. hexagonal mesh
o
o O. 1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Def1ecti on, in.
.~.')l IG <J<'l.
r o - . ... ..., • _V I ~ C
.1
'{
.) ~
t-
•
I~
If: \ -
.
ItSClJor.
O'ls.-en
IItSCIJ
O::SE .e-
N
.
en
c:"O
CT en
CIJ
E
or. .r- CIJ CIJ
<to> • "0 s.-
ItS co r - 10
r- ........ CIJ ::s
M3: CT
en
5000
r-
ItS
<to>
• "0
CIJ CIJ
E "0
r-
"0 CIJ
CIJ 3:
Modulus "0
c:
ItS
of Q.
><
CIJ
Rupture .Q
..-• c:
psi .•
U')
•
• .r-
N
I
........
r-
3000 •
••
or.
en
CIJ
E •
r-
ItS
c:
0
0'1 ItS
.
ItS 0'1
><
CIJ 0'1
I
or.
ItS
.
r-
c:
.
0'1 .r-
N • N
I
........
1000 N
• r-
-
N
c:
•
........
r-
o
o 1 2 3
Mash Reinforcement - lb/sq.ft. panel
TABLE 26. Drop-Impact Resistance of Panels Reinforced with Equal Weights of Mesh
27 3 layers 1/2-1n. 22-ga. hexagonal mesh 1.14 14 Top - moderate r1nq crack1n~.
1 layer 1/2-in. 16-ga. welded square mesh Bottom - radial crack1nq over
2 layers 1/2-1n. 22-ga. hexagonal mesh 12-in. area, exposed mesh,
broken wires.
28 10 layers 1/3-1n. 22-ga. hexagonal mesh 1.15 16 Top - severe r1n~ cracking.
Bottom - some sheer spalling,
radfal cracking over 12-1n.
area, broken wires.
29 2 layers 1/2-fn. 16-ga. welded square mesh 1.14 7 Top - fine part ring crack.
Bottom - moderate rectilinear
crackfnq over 3-1n. area.
30 6 layers 1/2-1n. Ig-ga. har.;~re cloth 1.19 15 Top - moderate ring cracking.
Bottom - radial and recti-
linear cracking over 10-in.
area.
TABLE 27. Flexure Strengths of Panels Reinforced with Equal Weights of Mesh
TABLE 29. Flexural Strength of Rod-Reinforced Panels With Equal Weights of Mesh Reinforcements
41A 3 layers 1/2-1n. 19-9a. hardware cloth 1100 2240 3930 Mafn crack at a load polnt.
lengthwise rods Several fine cracks.
transverse rods No rod slip apparent.
2 layers of 1/2-in. 19-9a. hardware cloth
418 3 layers 1/2-1n. 19-9a. hardware cloth 1700 2900 5080 Main cracks at load points.
transverse rods Rod slip noted.
lengthwl se rods
2 layers 1/2-1n. 19-9a. hardware cloth
42A 1 layer 1/2-1n. 16-ga. welded square 1300 2800 6050 Main crack at load pOint.
mesh Rod slip noted.
lengthwise rods
transverse rods
1 layer of 1/2-1n. 16-ga. welded square
mesh
428 1 layer 1/2-1n. 16-ga. welded square 1950 3240 7000 Fine cracks at load points.
mesh Rod sl1p noted.
transverse rods
lengthwise rods
1 layer 1/2-in. 16-ga. welded square
43A 5 layers of 1/2-1n. 22-ga. hexagonal 1800 2650 4740 Main crack at a load polnt.
mesh Fine crack at other polnt.
lengthwlse rods No rod slip apparent.
transverse rods
5 layers 1/2-1n. 22-ga. hexagonal
mesh
438 5 layers of 1/2-in. 22-ga. hexagonal 1400 2700 4740 Major crack at a load polnt
mesh Rod slip noted.
transverse rods
lengthwise rods
5 layers of 1/2-1n. 22-gl. hexagonal
IIesh
64
3000
42A 1/2-in. 16-ga. welded square
mesh
Load
1b
Beam - 12 x 24 x 1 in.
Span - 21 in.
Load - third-points
o
o 0.5 1.0
Deflection, in.
Fig. 15. Flexure strength of beams with equal weights
of three meshes.
65
3000
Load
43B 1/2-in. ?2-ga. hexagonal mesh
lb
2000
1000
Beam - 12 x 24 x 1 in.
Span - 21 in.
Load - third-point
o
o 0.5 1.0
Deflection, in.
',-
Orientation of Flexure Load at Modulus
Panel Specimen with Respect First Maximum of Rupture Mode of Failure
No. to Direction of Reinforcement Visible Load, lb psi
Crack, lb
41A Mesh and rods in same direction as 1100 2240 3930 Main crack under load
specimen. point.
No rod slip apparent.
41B ~leshand rods in same direction a~ 1700 2900 5080 Main crack under load
specimen. point.
Rod slip noted.
5eA Mesh at 45 degrees to and rods in 500 1220 2140 Fine cracks between
direction of specimen length. load points.
Rod slip noted.
58B Rods at 45 degrees to and mesh in 1600 180U 3150 Many cracks under load
direction of specimen length. points.
Rod slip noted.
- applying a protective insulating coating to the rods
- chemically pa~stvating or inhibiting the galvanic cell action
As they rightly point out, ungalvanized mesh would be threatened by rapid
corrosion in the marine environment, galvanic action might still occur between
galvanized rods and mesh, cold-drawn high-strength rods could not be galvan-
ized without some loss of strength, and the integrity of protective coatings
on rods could not be guaranteed. They showed that chromium trioxide prescribed
for passivating or inhibiting zinc in concrete was a simple effective cure
for the galvanic cell problem in ferrocement construction. The concentrations
of chromium trioxide used, 100 to 300 ppm by weight of water, effectively
passivated the zinc coating. As has already been pointed out, the Building
Research Station in the United Kingdom 16 states that 70 ppm chromium trioxide
in the cement paste (0.0035 percent in the dry cement, assuming a water/cement
ratio of 0.5) will inhibit the formation of hydrggen gas. In later tests,
Cornet et a1 20 showed that the mechanical properties of concrete, viz. compres-
sive strength and elastic modulus, were not impaired when chromium trioxide
was added to amoun~of 100, 200, and 300 ppm water.
Many normal Portland cements contain sufficient soluble chromium
trioxide. Others may not. It is therefore recommended that chromate-treated
galvanized steel should be used with all cements unless chromic acid additions
are made to the mix.
As a result of the problem and of the investigations performed
elsewhere, chromium trioxide (chromic oxide, Cr03) was added to the water for
the mortar mix at a concentration of 300 ppm (0.3g/1 or 0.3 lb/100 Imp. gallons
water) for all panels subsequently made in this laboratory.
v. Corrosion
o (no crack) 3 3 3 9
0.05 (hairline) 3 3 3 9
0.1 3 3 3 9
0.2 3 3 3 9
0.5 3 3 .3 9
Totals 15 15 15 45
1 0.5 no attack slight etch slight etch slight etch ring groove,
pit 0.001 in. 0.002 In. deep
2.0 110 attack slight etch sllght etch slight etch rlng groove,
shallow pit 0.003 ln deep
3.5 no attack no attack slight etch rlng etch ri ng groove,
0.004 In. deep
2 0.5 slight etch pits, rlng pits, ring plts, ring rl ng groove,
0.001 In. deep 0.001 In. deep 0.001 in. deep 0.003 in. deep
2.0 no attack pit., rlng rlng, plts, ring, pits, rlng,
0.01" in deep 0.002 In-. deep 0.002 in. deep 0.002 in. deep
3.5 no attack slight etch pits, pits, ring, ring groove,
0.001 in. deep 0.002 in. deep 0.008 in. deep
4 0.5 pits, plts, rlng, pits, plt, ring groove,
0.001 in. deep 0.001 In. deep 0.001 In. deep 0.005 In. deep 0.008 In. deep
2.0 slight etch pits, plts, slight etch rl ng groove,
-
0.001 In. deep 0.001 In. deep 0.006 in. deep
3.5 pits, pits, rlng, pits. plts. ring, ri ng groove,
0.001 in deep 0.001 in. deep 0.001 In. deep 0.001 in. deep 0.005 in. deep
8' 0.5 pits, rlng, rlng groove. half ring, ring groove,
0.002 in. deep 0.001 In. deep 0.004 In. deep 0.020 In. deep 0.010 in. deep
2.0 no attack no attack slight etch half rlng, half ring,
0.010 in. deep 0.020 ln deep
3.5 no attack plts,
0.001 in. deep 0.001 In. deep 0.010 in. deep 0.025 In. deep
TABLE 33 Breaklng strength of 0.105 In. dia. Wires ln Mortar Coupons with Cracks a to 0.5 nrn. wide and
with Mortar Covers of 0.5, 2.0, and 3.5 nrn. After Tidal Seawater Exposures (Average of triplicate
values).
.'
700
~
r--
~
~
~
en
c
600
v
~
~
~
en
c
.~
~
~
v
~
500
co
200
100
o 4 8
Exposure, months
Fig. 19. Wire strength vs Duration of exposure in tidal seawater
for various crack widths. Mortar cover 0.5 mm.
77
1000
Crack
width, nm.
0.1
900
800
700
,....
.0
.r:
.. 600
+"
0'1
C
f
+"
V)
0'1
C
.'-
~
ftS
500
Q)
s-
ec
200
100
a L -____ ~____~~__________~~________________________~
a 1 2 4 8
Exposure, Months
Fig. 20. Wire strength vs Duration of exposure in tidal seawater
for vari ous crack wi dths. ~1ortar cover 2.0 mm.
78
1000
Crack
width, mm.
o
900
0.1
0.05
800
700
.0
.....
..c
.
...., 600
0'1
C
f
....,
V')
0'1
C
.,....
.:.l
ItS
cu 500
'-
c:o
200
100
o
o 1 2 4 8
Exposure, Months
Fig. 21. Wire strength vs Duration of exposure in tidal seawater
for various crack widths. Mortar cover 3.5 mrn.
79
,...
OJ
.,...
CI)
c:
OJ
~
S-
O
I+-
CI)
OJ
>
S-
::s
u
c:
.,...
IU
S-
~
CI)
"-
CI)
CI)
OJ
S-
~
til
.a
IU
N
N
...
C'I
.,...
CI)
CI)
CI)
CI)
OJ q-.,.. OJ q- .,..
S-XCI) S-XCI)
~ Q. ~ Co.
V)
V)
82
Midspan ' -,
Load Deflection, D2 Dl;o3 -D2 Fibre Strain. Rellllrks
1b O.ODl in. 1n./1n.
0.001 in.
Specimen 207-1 (18 in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 37 3.5 0.00053
800 98 12.5 0.00170 First visible crack
1230 213' 25.0 Max1mum'load held,
Specimen 207-4 (18 in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 45 5.5 0.00056
800 100 14.5 0.00148 First visible crack
1100 156 23.5 Maximum load held
Specimen 207-5 (24 in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 38 4.5 0.00064
800 115 17.5 0.00217 First visible crack
1000 172 27.5 Maximum load held
Specimen 207-6 (24 in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 40 1.5 0.00045
1100 166 20 0.00252 First visible crack
1400 255 33.5 Maximum load held
SpeCimen 207-7 (36 in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 47 1.5 0.00068
900
1100
143
206 .
13.5 0.00235 First visible crack
Maximum load held
Specimen 207-8 (36-1n. long)
0 0 0 0
400 56 6.5 0.00088
800 110 15.0 0.00190 First visible crack
1500 280 47.5 Maximum load held
84
TABLE 35. Flexure Results - load. Midspan Deflection 02. Difference in Midspan
and Third-point Deflections. and Fibre Strain in 18-. 24-. and 36-in.
Specimens from Panel 208 on 18-in. span. (Abridged)
0 0 0 0
400 42 2.5 0.00066
1000 138 12.5 0.00276 First visible crack
1200 186 17.0 Maximum load held
Specimen 208-4 (18-in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 44 2.5 0.00066
1100 143 14.5 0.00266 First visible crack
1450 230 23 Maximum load held
Specimen 208-5 (24-in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 55 4 0.00090
900 140 13 0.00282 First visible crack
1700 395 42 Maximum load held
Specimen 208-6 (24-in. long)
0 0 0 0
400
1000
41
128
1
9
-
0.00060 First visible crack
1600 318 30 0.00226 Maximum load held
Specimen 208-7 (36-in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 43 0.5 0.00064
800 103 7.0 0.00152 First visible crack
1400 283 30.0 Maximum load held
Specimen 208-8 (36-in. long)
0 0 0 0
400 55 7.5 0.00080
1000 156 23.0 0.00280 First visible crack
1500 387 44 Maximum load held
85
TABlE 36. Flexure Strength and Effective Elastic Modulus at the Load .t
First Visible Crack (Pfvc), 400.1b (~ Pfvct2), and Maximum Load
(Pmax) (Flexural Strength only at Pmax) for Specimens from Panels 207 &208.
TABLE 37. Number of Cycles to First Visible Crack and ~ltimate Collapse
of Specimens under Unilateral Cyclic Flexure Loadings.
Panel
207 208
Layers of mesh on each
side of rods 2 3
Modulus of rupture at Pmax, psi 3700 4400
Flexure strength, psi
at load at first visible crack, Pfvc 2600 2900
at Pfvc f 2 1300 1450
Aver. midpoint deflection, in. ,
at load at first visible crack Pfvc 0.13 0.12
at P400 0.04 0.04
Elastic modulus, E = ~M, psi
at load at first visible crack Pfvc 1.46 x 10 6 1.61 X 10 6
at . Pfvc t 2, i.e. P '"' 400 1b 2.32 x 10 6 2.71 X 10 6
Elastic Modulus, E = ~, ' psi
at load of first isib1e crack, Pfvc 0.92 x 10 6 1.27 x 10 6
at . Pfvc t 2, i.e. P = 400 lb 0.74 x 10 6 1.25 X 10 6
(c) Behaviour Under Repeated Flexure Stresses.
It is recognized that materials in general subjected to repeated
tensile stresses can fail by the development and incremental extension of a
crack at stress levels well below the stress required to crack the material
in a single application of. the load. On the basis of early work by C1emmer 33
Older 34 , and Hatt 35 on repeated loading of concrete cylinders in compression
and of concrete beams, both reinforced and unreinforced, in bending, it
be~ame generally agreed that repeated stresses of about fifty percent of the
static failure stress will cause failure by fatigue. Yoshimoto et a1.36
and Hi1lsdorf and Kes1er 37 , more recently, have examined the effect of repeated
loading on concrete. In 1974, Committee 215 of the American Concrete Institute
discussed considerations for design of reinforced concrete subjected to fatigue
10ading. 38 Although the report applies particularly to reinforced concrete,
the tests on slabs reinforced with welded wire fabric and on welded wire fabric
alone are' of considerable interest in that they may provide a more macroscopic
view of the location of cracking (at cross-weld joints or between them), the
disturbance due to the welded intersection, and deterioration of the bond
between the smooth wire and concrete which can be applied to ferrocement.
Romua1di 39 and Romua1di et al. 4o have examined the fatigue
behaviour of concrete mortar reinforced with short pieces of thin steel wire.
Romualdi points out that the low tensile strength of concrete is due to the
87
900
ISpec i men 207-2 Soecimen 208-2
~r- 800
~,300 600
Load, ~ 500
lb.
40
a b
.r-
en
2000
Q.
en
. Initial
en
QJ Fibre
...,So-
V)
Stress, psi
QJ 1000 2600
-
S0-
n
2130
LL.
1990
1930
o ______ ..L--_ _ _- - ' -_ _ _ _-L-_ _ _--L._ _ _ _...L.-_ _ _ _ ,
100,000 200,000
Number of Load Cycles
Fig. 24. Characteristic fibre stress curves for beams from Panel 51
under repeated bending.
3000r-------------------------------------------------~
-.en
Q.
2000
Initial
en
en
QJ
Fibre
...,
So- Stress, psi
1340
V)
1000 49-7
QJ
S0- 49-1 2550
n
.r-
LL.
49-2 1060
49-3 2240
O~-----~----~~----~----~-------L------~
100,000 200,000 3.0 0,000
Number of Load Cycles
Fig. 25. Characteristic fibre stress curves for beams from Panel 49
under repeated bending
91
~
,/
4200 ,/
/'
/
/'
3600 /
/
/
3000
Fibre
stress
2400
psi
Fibre stress at load of
1800 first visible crack, Pfvc
1200
600
o
o 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midpoint Deflection 0.001 in.
Fig. 26. Static flexure tests for specimens from Panels 210 and 205.
93
'-
, .,'
I, "
Fibre
Stress
1500
psi
1000
----- ----- first visible crack
ultimate collapse
~ . no failure at 500,000 cycles
500
O~----~~-L------~~----
1 10 100
__ __1000 ______ 10,000______ 100,000
~ ~ ~~ __ ____
~ ~ ~~~
1,000,000
Fig. 29. Fatigue curves for specimens from Panels 210 and 205.
95
a b
a b
1320 psi. The endurance limit at . lOG or 10 7 cycles has not yet been
established and it i$ not yet known whether f~rrocement exhibits a
true endurance limit.
The examination of the fractures under the scanninq
electron microscope showed that, in general, the fractures of \'Iires
in specimens that failed under repeated bending loads were in the plane
of the major mortar crack or fracture, whereas those wires in specimens
that failed under a single-cycle bending load stood proud ot the major
mortar fracture. The broken wires in these specimens have fractures
which are characteristically tensile and which show no evidence of bending.
The scanning electron microscope showed that the' broken wires from
specimens subjected to repeated cycl~s of bending stress have the
striations uniquely characteristic of bending fatigue. The fatigue
crac~s developed on the "tensile" side of the wires and progressed
completely through the wire. The appearance suggests that the bond
between wires that fail in fatigue and the mortar matrix is still
intact (and probably with a bond stress distribution described by
Kar and ~al~~~that the crack width is very small, and that the wire
under the be"riding stress behaves in a "stiff" manner. ' The appearance
of the "tensile" fracture in specimens broken in a single-cycle load
suggests that the 'bond between wire and matrix has failed, that the
mortar crack is relatively wide at failure, and that the stress in
the wire at the point of fracture is almost pure tension.
5. Bolting Tests
Various brackets, bumper strips, chain plates, and
marine fittings must be ,attached to the hull and decks of ferrocement
boats. The bolts in those fittings which load the hull or deck as a
diaphragm can generally have substantial steel washers or bearing plates
to distribute the load. However, attachments which exert in-plane loads,
especially near a free edge, may be needed in areas not especially reinforced.
A preliminary examination of the behaviour of ferrocement It/hen steel
plates or bars carrying planar loads are attached to ferrocement panel
specimens has been made. The relationship between the marginal pitch
(the distance of a bolt hole from the edge) and the bolt hole pitch in
ferrocement panels of several constructions without special reinforcement
has been considered.
The ferrocement panel specimens were prepared from one-inch
thick panels of the following constructions:
1 layer of 1/2-in. l6-ga . galvanized welded square mesh on each
99
Panel Construction Specimen Load at First Max. load Mode of Fail ure
Type Visible Crack, lb. held, lb.
and forced into the cracks before these specimens were straightened.
When the specimens were straightened the excess epoxy squeezed out was
removed. The specimens were cured 21 days for the mortar patches,
7 days for the epoxy patches.
Flexure specimens reinforced with 1/2-in. 16-ga.
welded square mesh and patched with cement mortar regained about 80
percent of their original modulus of rupture values. Those reinforced
with 1/2-in. 22-ga. hexagonal mesh regained 50 to 70 percent of
their original strength owing to some prior damage to the wire mesh.
The several flexure specimens containing 1/2-in.
16-ga. welded square mesh, 1/2-in. E-ga. hardware 'cloth, and 3/8-in.
20-ga. welded square mesh were patched with epoxy patching components.
All well-penetrated epoxy-patched specimens regained virtually all
their original strengths.
It is concluded that cement/sand mortar can make a
reasonably strong repair but an epoxy filler at the edges might
prevent spalling at the fractured edges. The epoxy materials m:~c
strong repairs, virtually equal to the original strength, provided the
debris was removed. The effects of contamination with oils, weathering,
thermal expansion, and other factors have not been ascertained.
104
8. Protective Coatings
(a) General
Most concrete structures are not painted and there is little
recorded experience available to support the claim that paint can prevent
corrosion of steel in concrete structures. An investigation of 40
circular wire-wound prestressed concrete water reservoirs showed that
corrosion of the steel occurred in all reservoirs except two which had
been painted \t/ith a polyvinylacetate latex coating over a flood coat of
raw linseed oil 47~ It was concluded that sealing the exterior wall
surface reduced and equalized the oxygen supply to the wires. The only
substantial reference related solely t~ ~oatings for concrete is the
comprehensive guide prepared by the American Concrete Institute in 1966 48
The report identified 20 basic film-forming materials available for
coatings manufacture. However, minor variations in formulations can
affect the performance of the coatings. The report pointed out that
surface preparation, method of application, the environmental conditions
at the time of application, and the film thickness, are of prime importance.
Two more recent books 49, 50 provi de a broad survey of the many conventi.ona 1
and more recently developed organic coating systems for most materials,
1ncl~ding concrete.
TABLE 39. P.fnt Systems Applfed to Ferrocement Panels for Exposure Tests.
llA Primer seal coat - Polyvinylchloride-based enamel cut with 15 percent thinner. S
Top coats - Two coats polyvinylchloride-based enamel.
12A Primer seal coat - Inorganic two-component self-curing ethyl silicate zinc-rich. 6
Top coat - Two-component clear chemical-cured polyamiip. resin.
12B Primer seal coat - Inorganic two-component self-curing ethyl silicate zinc-rich. 6
Top coat - Polyvinyl chloride-based enamel cut with 30 percent vinyl thinner.
16B Primer seal coat - Chlorinated rubber-based enamel cut with 1'5 percent thinner. 4
Top coats - Two coats chlorinated rubber-based enamel.
107
-- -
Specimen Visual Appearance Separation Resistance Spall Resistance ~uge Resistance
No. (Lifting with razor blade) (Scoring with penknife) (Pointed tool)
-7 Fine craze cracking Separates easily and cleanly Spalls easily and cleanly. Poor
and flaking. at interface.
9A Fine craze cracking No separation at interface Spalls slightly. Debris Fair
Clean surface. flaking and crumbly.
98 Fine craze cracking No separation at interface Spalls slightly. Debris Fair
Clean surface. flaking and crumbly.
11A Good surface. Separates readily at inter- No spal1tng. Tough fl1m. Good
face in continuous film.
llB Good surface. Separates only with diffi- No spalling'. Tough film. Good
culty.
12A Fine craze cracking Separates readily at inter- Spalls easily and cleanly. Fair
face with spalling.
12B A few craze cracks No separation at interface Spalls slightly. Debris crumbl) Fair
14 Fine craze cracking Separates cleanly and Spalls easily and cleanly. Poor
and flaking easily at interface.
16A A few fine craze Separates easily and cleanly No spalling. Tough film. Good
cracks. at interface.
16B Craze cracking. Separates cleanly with Spalls easily and cleanly. Poor
curling, film loss. difficulty at interface.
109
3 Slime layer - otherwise No separation at interface. Slight spalling. Debris crumbly. Good
clean as origfnal.
, • Spalls with dffficulty. Spalls. Debrfs slightly crumbly. Fair
7 • • No separation at interface. No spalling. Debris slightly Good
crumly.
9A • • • Good
9. gyality Assurance
Many areas of construction must be controlled if the
ferrocement hull is to be of good quality. Various tests to verify
the strength of the mortar and reinforcement and that of the resul-
tant composite have already been outlined. Sands and cements of
recognized quality are readily obtainable. Controls, such as cement/
sand and water/cement ratios, slump, compressive, and flexure tests
for the mortar are strai ghtfor'lJard. Tests for the strength of the
steel reinforcements are also straightforward. It is important that
the details of mix, placement procedure, and properties of the mortar
be adequately specified. The kinds and lay-up configurations of the
steel reinforcements used are important. Specimens to determine the
strength and performance of the ferrocement composite must realistically
represent the properties of the hull.
It is very desirable that non-destructive tests be developed
td......assist in quality assurance. It has been eVident in the five-year
program that it is quite possible to w.ake substandard ferrocement even
when the panels are simple and made in the favourable environment of
the laboratory. Sectioning revealed unsoundness in panels of good outward
appearance. The construction of hulls with extra layers of mesh and
rod reinforcement in thick sections at the keel, ribs, bow, and stern poses
serious problems of mortar penetration. Our preliminary test using
ultrasonic techniques failed to detect unsoundness in a plane specimen.
It seems likely that tapping with a hammer may be the most effective
way to test plane sections at the present time. Heavy T-rib and keel
sections pose a different problem.
8igg 44 has outlined many of the important points
requiring attention in a quality control program. He has outlined problem
areas, and suggested parameters for judging its character.
The certifying bodies, viz. Marine Services Canada Ministry
of Transport and American Bureau of Shipping,nave not had to deal with many
requests for certification. Each body laid down certain general regulations,
requirements, and guidelines for the construction of ferrocement vessels
{generally available in mimeo only) ca 1968 when interest in ferrocement
construction was high. 51,52,53. For convemence these are presented in
the Appendix.
114
E. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
B.C. Research thanks the Fisheries and Marine Services.
Environment Canada. for the privilege of undertaking this work for it during
the past six years. It particularly appreciates the cooperation enjoyed
with Mr. L.S. Bradbury, Director of the Industrial Development Branch.
Mr. H.A. Shenker. Chief of the Vessels and Engineering Division of the
Branch. and Mr. G.M. Sylvester', Vessel Technologist and Project Officer
of the Division.
It is felt that the program, although it has not exhaustively
explored any of the properties of ferrocement, has provided a much better
"feel" for a wide range of properties of the material which will facilitate
design and construction of fishing and other vessels. However, much work
is required to bring the ferrocement to the same level of technology as
that of the other common construction materials.
~~ /'
A. W. Greenius
Division of Engineering Physics
Head, Physics
116
f. REFERENCES
G. APPENDIX
A. INTRODUCTION.
*Mr. John D. Smith was formerly associated with B.C. Research but is now
at Defence Research Establishment Pacific, Esquimalt, B.C.
124
1. A linear model in which both the mortar and steel are assumed to
behave in a linear fashion. The linear model should result in
the 'least complicated solutions. Since working loads will be
considerably lower than ultimate loads, it is probable that
non-linear effects will not be significant and that a linear
model will be adequate in this region. The analysis of natural
frequencies and resonances will be much simpler if a suitable
linear model can be used.
Linearized model.
&
e = (y - c) h' taking elongation as positive.
yaY...
h
.,
Therefore e = (Y - C)&
Linear steel.
I i
The force on the layer is given by
n (Yi - c)
Fs a it h EAiEs n anumb er 0f 1ayers
&Es
F a __
s h
However,
Define
128
£E
Ms - [1 s + (z - C)2As ] h
s
Linear mortar.
sm - - .£.
h
£Em where E - modulus of elasticity in
m compression for the mortar.
129
D _ c C
F (h tEm) 2
m
- ...
2
C tE h
2
m
2
M .. F (- - c)
m c 3
3 2
C E th
m
M D
m 3
2
F F CE
m
....!.+...!!.= Z - C E A --2-
h s s = 0
th th
2
CE
or
Z - C E A m
=--
h s s 2
1
s
M
8
- [ -2+ (Z - e)2 As ] eE s h
h
and
e 3Em eh 2
m•
M
3
Dividing both by eh
2 we get
1 A
[ -.!. + (Z - e) 2 -..!. ] E
h3 h s
and
e - e
f .. f [1 _ ( cu e)A]
e eu e
eu
where: f .. mortar stress
e
f .. ultimate mortar stress
eu
e .. ultimate mortar strain
eu
e .. mortar strain
e
). . 1.25
25
+ f e (psi)
131
·d f
Taking E c ___ c_
m de
c
ec - 0
E a 5.26 X 10 6 psi.
m
Since the steel is symmetrically arranged Z a 0.50 and
Z E A
6
: 8 T 0.539 x 10
2
CE
Z - C m
The functions h EsAs and -2-- are plotted in the top
half of Fig. 2A. The curves intersect at C = 0.293.
The curves for
Non-linear mortar.
Fma-af cu C
F
"'!!c:-af C
Eh cu
a .. a stress block factor defined as the ratio of
the average mortar stress to the ultimate
stress f •
cu
III
fe e
f - 1 - (1 - R». where R - ~
e will be used.
cu eu
This is plotted in Fig. 3A.
l.~--------r-----~-,
o ~~~~~------+----
o R 1.0
For a given R
f
a - average value of ~ between 0 and R.
cu
shaded area
-.;;..;,;==~~;;;,.
R
1 - (1 - R». + 1
This gives a = 1 - (A + 1) R and is plotted in Fig. 4A.
e
c
Now R a --- and e c - C £
e
cu
F
Therefore ~ = - Af C is now a function of £ as well as
£h cu
C and a separate curve can be plotted for each value of £. This is
done for £ = 0.01%, 0.2% and 0.4% in Fig. SA. It can be seen that
the height of the neutral axis increases as the total strain increases,
which is opposite to the trend shown in Fig. 1A for Mowat's specimen 3.9.
e 2 E
(tu) ~
& 2
-- E
2
m
]
M E
m a-
m
2 3
eh
When & » e
the force and moment approach those for
tu
the previous linear model. The height of the neutral axis now
decreases for increasing strain, approaching the value given by the
earlier linear model. This is demonstrated in Fig. 6A.
c. DISCUSSION ..
0.50 1000
·
c:s
0.40 800
'"..
u "Load for Linear Hodel
II)
oM
~ .0
lIS
.-4
lIS
0.30
. 600
r-I
-t:S
X
~
.&J
lIS
0
"""- C for Linear Hodel
::s
Q)
H
c:s
'H
0
.&J
,d
00
0.20 400
\c
'"
Q)
~
0.10 200
o o
o 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Strain, percent
Fig. lA. The derived height of neutral axis, C = c/h and derived loads
at various strain levels compared with measured values by
Mowat (Series 3, Plank 9)*
.05
•
.!t
_<'01
~ s:i
.
I ~ .10
~
I-
\0
o
- .-4
.15
.20
....
III)
III)
41
1.0
III)
~...
.a
41 0.8
!41
rot
='
......
CD
CD
...U
41 0.6
CD
...
•...
41
fc
-r- vs R
a cu
....0
41 0.4 f III 5000 psi
~ c
• (). III 4)
'W u~='u
0.2.
o
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
e
R" ~ III Ratio mortar ' strain/ultimate mortar strain.
e
cu
III
.,...
III 1.0
U
.,
III
]
....u::J 0.8
.......
III
.,...
III
U
III
...
CIS
u
... 0.6
g
.,
00
...OJ
CIS
~
0
0.4
ori
u
:!
•cs AD 4
0.2
o~------~--------~------~~------~------~
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
e
R D ~ = Ratio mortar strain/ultimate mortar strain
e
cu
1.0
0.8
& a 0.01%
0.6
A
(Z - C)E s
s-
h
\0
I
~ 0.4
tC
0.2
Ol~~~~ ______~______~______~____~____
F
Fig. SA. &~ vs C for Non-linear Mortar.
143
0.8
Assumed e ~ 0.02% £» e
tu tu
0.6 £ a 0.2%
A
s
(Z - C)E -
s h
0.2
o 0.3 0.4
c
F
Fig. 6A. £: vs C for Improved Linear Model.
144
Certification
On completion of the "First Inspection" the Steamship
Inspector will issue an appropriate Inspection Certificate for the
voyages on which the vessel will be engaged. The period of validity
of the certificate will normally be
i) one year for vessels of more than 150 gross tons,
ii) one year for vessels that are steam driven,
regardless of their tonnage, or
iii) four years for vessels that are not steam
driven and not more than 150 gross tons.
Periodical Inspection and Certification
Periodical inspections will be carried out by a
Steamship Inspector when renewal of an Inspection Certificate is
required and in accordance with the requirements of the Large and
Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations.
It should always be remembered that it is the respon-
sibility of the owner, operator or master to have his vessel inspected
and certificated in accordance with the requirements of the Canada
Shipping Act. That is to say he should advise the local Steamship
Inspection Office when the vessel is due and ready for inspection and
in the case of new construction, the builder should advise when he
wants any particular inspection or test etc. carried out.
Construction of Tanks
Tanks for oil or water may be constructed of steel or
ferro-cement that has been treated with a suitable sealer.
Adequate supporting structure should be provided in
way of all tanks and through bolting should be avoided wherever
possible. Longitudinal divisions shall be fitted in wide tanks to
reduce the effect of free surface liquids.
Machinery Seatings
Due to induced stres~es from the vibrations and weight
of the machinery special attention should be given to the design and
construction of machinery seatings. Care should be taken that hard
.notches and corners are eliminated and the continuity of strength
maintained.
Insl ~ction Procedures
During the construction regular inspections will be
car' 'ied out by a Steamship Inspector with particular attention being
given to the following stages:
(a) when the steelwork re-inforcement is half complete,
(b) when the steelwork re-inforcement is complete,
(c) during the application of the cement mixture,
(d) at the removal of forms or moulds,
(e) at completion of the hull prior to curing,
(f) at completion of the hull after curing, and
(g) on completion of the vessel and during the
running of the sea trials.
Testing Procedures
At the present· time the Board of Steamship Inspection is
participating in a research program, instituted by the Industrial Dev-
elopment Service of the federal Department of Fisheries and being
undertaken by the British Columbia Research Council, to determine the
qualities and suitability of ferro-cement as a shipbuilding material.
~/e hope that results will be forthcoming from this program in the
near future that will provide clear guidelines into the construction,
testing and inspection procedures which we should follow.
148
1.1 Classification
Vessels which have been wholly or primarily built of
ferro-cement, and which have been built under the special supervision
of the Surveyors to the Bureau, in accordance with these Guidelines,
or their equivalent and other relevant sections of the Rules, will be
consiaered for classification, and where approved by the Committee,
distinguished in the Record by the symbols + Al "Annual Survey. TheII
3. Material s
3.1 Cement
The cement shall be ordinary Portfand Cement, in
accordance with a suitable approved specification, such as ASTM
C 535-67T. Other cements will also be considered providing they
offer adequate water-tightness and uniform consistency. Cement should
be stored under dry conditions, and if the application of the mortar is
done in stages, a suitable turnover of. cement stock is to be arranged
to ensure consistent freshness. Any presence of lumps in the cement
renders it q~estionab1e for use, and it is to be sieved before mixing.
3.2 Aggregate
Aggregates are to have suitable strength and durability,
and are to be free of foreign materials, including chemical salts.
The aggregate is to normally include clean washed sand of a silicious
nature. The aggregate is·to comply with a suitable specification, such
as ASTM C 330-68T.
3.3 Water
Water is to be free from foreign materials that may im-
pair the strength and resistance of the mortar. It is to be free of
salts.
3.4 Mixing
Mixing is to be done in such proportions as to consistently
give the required strength, as determined by Section 4. The proportions
of the mix are to be by weight. The water-cement ratio is to be
controlled as low as possible to give the material a consistent quality
153
4. Testing
4.1 Mechanical Properties Testing
The mechanical properties tests, as listed below, are to
be performed on representative samples. Prior to commencement of
construction, preliminary tests are to be carried out on standard test
pieces, as described below, in order to determine that the proportions
of the mortar mixes and properties and arrangements of the reinforcements
will satisfy the deSign strength requirements of the vessel. The
preliminary test pieces are to be in accordance with a suitable
specification such as ASTM C 192-68, although curing may be done at an
accelerated rate. Preliminary tests are to be carried out satisfactorily
before construction is begun. During construction, test pieces, as
described below, are to be made from the same mortar batches used in
the actual hull construction, and the following tests are to be carried
out.
For each 50 cubic feet or fraction thereof, a minimum
of one each of the following tests: direct tensile, compressive,
flexural and impact tests"are to be made. At least three of each of
these tests are to be made for each.hull or structure. Hhere 1arger
unit hulls or structures are being built and large identical mixes of
mortar are used, one set of tests per batch of 10 cubic yards
(7.65 m3 ) or fraction thereof shall be carried out. A minimum of six
sets of tests are to be made for each unit of construction. These
154
4~
11 Identification Number.
All dimensions of the specimen.
Applied load that causes failure.
Curing history, and moisture condition of specimen
at testing.
5) Qefects of specimen and age.
6) Ambient conditions.
156
..,..tx:'4 libl10graphy Of ferracement Literature
8 Harper. R. l
protective potential. /AD850630.
Boltbuilding fn Ferro-cement. ;Book. The authors. Vancouver. B.C •• x
ea 1.67. pp 36. mimeo.
,x
17 Anon.
:Enterprises
p.68.
pp 136.
•• Vancouver.
I" '
I
nt Hyperbolic Shell. 'Construction) Peiping. No.9. 15
:May 1960. Trans, OTS U.S, Dept.
jCommerce. Washington 25. D.C ••
II', I I
I!
I,:,
I
63 Collen, L.D.G. some Experiments in Design The Institution of Civil Engineers !X!X;X IXtx! x
and Construction with Ferro-
Cement. : ~:n~1~~3~'3~~~~~" Vol. 86. No.2, II,' I I i I'
I
65 Anon. Portland
Cement Association,
Skokie, 111.
;Ferro-cement 80ats. CR OlO.OlG, Portland Cement Assoc-
tatton, Skokie, Ill. 1969, pp 13. i!x,:II xIxI x
66 Samson, J. Ferro-Cement 80at Construction Proc. Conf. on Fishing Vessel Con- IXI ix x !
struction Materials, Montreal. ' ,! I
Oct. 1-3, 19f9, Canadian Fisheries ! I
I I'
I,' ,I'I
Report No. 12, June 1964, 267-279.
67 Fraser, D.J. Estimate Hull Work and ibid., 305-311. xxx x x
Material Content for 100
Combination Fishing Vessel in
Different Materials.
68 Hedges, L. and IFerro-cement Fishing Vessels. ibid., 427-429 x
E. Perry
69 Gardner, J. ,Consultant Finds Ferro-Cement National Fisherman, Feb. 1970, x
;Has Limitation. 4-B, 5-B, 16-B. IX ,x
71 Daranandana, H. !Ferro-cement for Construction Research Report No. 21/14. Dept. x x x 'XiX x
I::·F:~""' """' ....."
'of Fisheries. rlinistry of Agricul t-
et al
ure, 8angkok, Thailand, 1969,
PP 27. i II
74 Collins, J.F. and
J.S. Claman
!Ferro-cement for Marine Presented to·New England section.
'Applications - an Engineer- The Society of Naval Architects and L": i ,11"
"
ing Evaluation. Marine Engineers. Boston, Mass.
March 1969, pp 68.
I '
,
n Benford, J.R. and Practical Ferro-cement Book, International ~arine Pub- x x x x: xx
H. Husen 8oatbuilding. lishing Co., Camden, role., 1970,
pp 176.
78 Romualdi, J.P. The Static Crackinq Stress and
Fatigue Strength of Concrete
Reinforced with Short Pieces
Proc. International Conference, The
Structure of Concrete, Sept. 1965,
London, Cement and Concrete
"" I,
or Thin Steel Wire. AsSOCiation, 190-201.
158
79 Whitener, J.R. Ferro-Cement Boat Book. Cornell Maritime Press, Inc., x x xl lxlx x
Construction. Cambridge, Maryland, 1971, pp 128. I'
81 Naaman. A.E. and ,Tensile Tests of Ferrocement American Concrete Institute J., x x xI
I x x
S.P. Shah Title No. 68-58, Sept. \971, I
693-698. I
I
82 Walkus. R. State of Cracking and
Elongation of Ferrocement
,Under Axial Tensile Load (1)
IBul. Inst. Polito Din lasi.
XIV(XVIII), 3-4. 1968, 653-664.
x x Xi
I I
\
X x,
I
x
92 Bi99, G.W.
I An Introduction to Design for
Ferrocement Vessels.
Project Report No. 52. Industrial
Development Bra;lch, Fisheries
:xlx Xllxix! x
I, I
I .I I I.
I,Boats
Environment, Jan. 1972. pp 224. II
I ' I! i I
17 Greenius. A.W. and The Development of Ferro- Ferro-cement for Canadian Fishfng xx x
J.D. Smith cement for Fishing Vessel Vessels, Vol. 2. Project Report No.
Construction-II, 'lay 31, 1971 48. Industrial Development Branch.
pp 113. Fisheries Service. Dept. of the
EnVironment., Ottawa. Jan. 1972.
pp 113.
IS Greenius. A.W. Ferrocement for Fishing ibid., Vol. 3, Project Report No. 55 x x x, I'X x x
Vessel Construction-III, Aug. 1972. pp 54.
une 1972, pp 54.
19 Greenius. A.W. Ferrocement for Fishing ibid •• Vol. 4. Technical Report. X.X x: !x x .x
Vessel Construction-IV.
une 1973. pp 57.
No. 64. Industrial Development I i i
I
I
'I Branch. Fisheries and r1arine Service
Environment Canada. Ottawa, 1973. pp I' ,',"! ,.
57.
Ie Xx ix
,I' x
115 Eyres. D.J. Survey of Ferro-Cement Fish- Seminar on the Desfgn and Construc- JX X, x X X
ing Boats Built in New Zeal- tion of Ferro-Cement Fishing Vessels ' I
and. mimeo, pp 30. Wellington. New Zealand, Oct. 9-13.
1972, F.A.O. of United Nations.
160
116 Larsen. H.J .• Jr. Study and Evaluation of Ferro~ Prepared by J. Blume &Associates xxx xxx x
cement for Use in Wind Tunnel for National Aeronautics and Space
Construction. Administration, Ames Research
Center. Moffatt Field. Ca.,
NASA-CR-l14501. JABE-ARC-07.
July 1972. pp 155.
117 Anon. The Concrete
Socfety
Ferroeement Vessel~ ~ A
Prelfmfnary Report 'o f The
Concrete Society Workfng
Naval Architect. No.4 (1973),
Oct •• p 115
x
Ix
Party. I
118 Greenius. A.W. IFerrocement for Fishing Not yet publish~d for distribution xxx IX xix x
IVessel Construction, V, by Industrial 9velopment Branch, t
10ct. 1974,-pp--.5J1. Fisheries and r rine Service,
Envtronment Can da. Ottawa. I
IiFerrocement - Material 1
119 Johnston, C.D. and
D.N. Mowat 'Behaviour in Flexure.
tProc. American /Society of Civil
Engineers, J. of the Structural Ii I
Division. V.100 No. St 10, 1I
October 1974. 2053-2069.
120' Roberts. W.H.
IGuide to Ferrocement Sail & Book, Baycrete Marine, Hamilton Xi
j I !
xxi IX x x
Ipower Boats and Design. ont. (Rapid Blue Print Limited,
l I
121 Smith. R.B.L.
1
I
:A Rationale for the Use and
,Development of Ferrocement.
:Hamilton, Ont.) 1970, pp llC .
' J. of Structural Engineering
(Roorkee) Vol. 2, No.4, Jan. 1975,
,I x
i
i
x
I I 1125-128.
I ,
I
l221Greenius, A.W. :Behaviour of Ferrocement I ibid •• 129-136. XX X X x:I x
!Under Repeated Stresses. i
i i
123 Surya Kumar, G.V. 'An Investigation into the !ibid., 137-144. x X x x
Flexural Behaviour of
II
:Ferrocement. i
i
i
I124! Raj ase ka ran. S., :Behaviour of Ferrocement ! ibid., 145-154. )xx x
et &1 ;specimens in Bending and
ICOmpression. ,
l
1,1251Rajagopolan, K. and
'V.S. Parameswaran
[ i
,Analysis of Ferrocement Beams. ; ibid., 155-164. xxx x t x
i
11261 Basavarajaiah, B.S., 'Experimental Study of the
i
1 ibid., 193-197. xxxxx x
I H.V. Venkatakrishna, Applicability of Ferrocement i
I and U.R. Raghotham ;for Precast Folded Plate
IElements.
i
I
1127 Troitsky. M.S. and 'The Design and Construction ! ibid., 199-202. x x x
D.R. Turner of Two Ferrocement Canoes. ;
128ISo".'. P.G. The Impact Resistanc~ of !M.SC. Thesis, Naval Architecture xxx x
Mo('lfied Ferrocement Panels. :and Marine Engineering,
!Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
,jnology, Sept. 1973, pp 77.
129,ISnyder. P.G. et al The Impact Resistance of 'Report No. MITSG 74-18. xxx x
Modified Ferro-cement Panels • . Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
Inology, Mar. 31, 1974, pp 74.
1301,,"", W.E., (,,",.. Regulatory Aspects of Traditio~ Conf. on Fishing Vessel Constructio X
Dept. of Transport. :nal and New Construction ; Materials, Montreal, Canada, Oct, '
Ottawa.? ~terials esp.Part 6. Require- ~ 1-3. 1968. Canadian Fisheries Report~
~ts applicable to Vessels : No.12 June 1969. 73-90
ronstructed of Ferrocement. '
1131 Anon •• Lloyd's 'Tentative Requirements for the mimeo, 1971, x
Register of Shipping, Application of Ferrocement to . pp.13
London ~'the Construction of Yachts and!
Small Craft Hull Requirements ' j .
132 Anon •• American ; uidel ines for the Construction mimeo. 1969. x
Bureau of Shipping 'of Ferrocement Vessels. pp.12