DEVELOPMENT OF LIGHT TRANSMITING MORTAR

by

JASON LAMPTON

B.S., Texas A&M University, 2003

M.S., University of Colorado, 2017

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate School of the

University of Colorado in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Civil Engineering Program

2017
 © 2017

Jason Lampton

All Rights Reserved

ii
This thesis for the Master of Science degree by

Jason Lampton

has been approved for the

Civil Engineering Program

by

Frederick Rutz, Chair

Kevin Rens

Peter Marxhausen

Date: December 16, 2017

iii
Lampton, Jason (M.S., Civil Engineering Program)

Development of Light Transmitting Mortar

Thesis directed by Associate Professor Frederick Rutz

ABSTRACT

Translucent, or sometimes called transparent, concrete is a fairly new concrete based

building material with light-transmissive properties due to embedded optical fibers into

normal cement mix. This report takes this concept to the next level by successfully

developing Light Transmitting Mortar, or further referred to as LTM. Like translucent

concrete, where light is conducted through concrete blocks from one side to the other through

fiber optics, this idea lays optical fibers within the mortar of brick prisms to test the physical

and mechanical properties. Although the idea of LTM is thought to be mainly architectural,

tests demonstrate that it actually increases the strength of the overall assemblages pretty

substantially. This added benefit combined with many possible eye-catching patterns, once

lights are placed behind or within the cavity of brick veneer walls, will open the door to

many new and stimulating possibilities for future architects and engineers.

The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.

Approved: Frederick Rutz

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………..... 1

II. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………...... 3

2.1 Translucent Concrete: An Emerging Material…………………………… 4

2.2 LiTraCon - Light Transmitting Concrete…………………………............ 7

2.3 An Experimental Study on Light Transmitting Concrete………............... 10

2.4 Light Transmitting Concrete Panels – A New Innovation

in Concrete Technology………………………………………………….. 17

2.5 Mortar this than meets the eye: The 'transparent' cement

that lets daylight flood into a room………………………………………. 19

2.6 A preliminary study on light transmittance properties of

translucent concrete panels with coarse waste glass inclusions…............. 21

2.7 Experimental Study of Transparent concrete (translucent)……………… 23

2.8 Computational Modeling of Translucent Concrete Panels……………… 25

2.9 Development, Testing, and Implementation Strategy of a

Translucent Concrete-Based Smart Lane Separator for

Increased Traffic Safety………………………………………………… 27

III. PROBLEM STATEMENT……………………………………………….. 31

IV. EXPERIMENTAL PLAN…………………………………………………. 32

4.1 Properties of Light Transmitting Mortar…………………………............. 34

4.1.1 Fiber Volume Ratio………………………………………………….. 34

4.1.2 Optical Fibers………………………………………………………... 36

v
 4.1.3 Mortar Design Mixture………………………………………..…….. 38

4.2 Manufacturing Methods……………………………………………..…… 39

4.2.1 Setup and Preparation…………………………………………..…… 40

4.2.2 Building the Prisms…………………………………………...……… 41

4.2.3 Grinding and Polishing……………………………………...……….. 44

4.3 Testing Methods…………………………………………………………. 45

4.3.1 Light Transmittance Test…………………………………….............. 46

4.3.2 Compressive Strength Test………………………………………...… 48

4.3.3 Shear Strength Test…..……..…………………………………...…… 50

V. RESULTS………………………………………………………………….. 53

5.1 Light Transmittance …………………………………………………....... 53

5.2 Compressive Strength ……………………………………......................... 56

5.3 Shear Strength.………………………………………………..................... 58

VI. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………. 61

6.1 Manufacturing Methods…………………………………………………. 61

6.2 Light Transmittance …………………………………………………….. 62

6.3 Compressive Strength …………………………………………................ 63

6.4 Shear Strength…….……………………………………………................ 65

6.5 Final Thoughts…………………………………………………………… 66

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………….. 67

APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………… 69

A. Light Transmittance Test (Varying Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos………… 69

B. Light Transmittance Test (Equal Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos…………… 72

vi
C. Compression Test (Varying Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos……………….. 74

D. Compression Test (Equal Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos………………..… 77

E. Prism Compression Data – Varying Fiber Volumetric Ratio……………..…… 79

F. Prism Compression Data – Equal Fiber Volumetric Ratio……………..……… 91

G. Mortar Cube Compression Test – Photos……………………………………... 99

H. Mortar Cube Compression Data……………………………………………….. 100

I. Shear Test – Photos……………………………………………………….…... 102

J. Shear Test Data……………………………………………………………….. 106

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

4.1.1 Volumetric Ratio Design Table……………………………..……………... 35

4.1.3 Mortar type for some general applications…………………………............ 38

5.1 Light Transmittance Test Results………………………………………….. 54

5.2 Compressive Strength Test Results…………………………………........... 56

5.3 Shear Strength Results………………………………………………........... 60

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE

1 Light Transmitting Mortar………………………………………………… 2

2.1 Translucent Concrete used in art installations in museum exhibits………. 5

2.2.1 Components of Optical Fiber ……………………………………… …….. 7

2.2.2 Examples of Light Transmitting Concrete ……………………………….. 8

2.3.1 Types of Optical Fiber …………………………………………………….. 12

2.3.2 Compressive Strength…………………………………………………….. 14

2.3.3 Flexural Strength …………………………………………………... …...... 15

2.4 Lucem light transmitting concrete panels ………………………. ……….. 17

2.5.1 Outside view of Italian Pavilion for the Shanghai Expo……….................. 19

2.5.2 Tiny resin filled holes…………………………………………………….. 20

2.5.3 Inside of Italian Pavilion for the Shanghai Expo…………………….…..... 21

2.6 Light Transmitting Panel Built with Waste Glass………………………… 22

2.7 Schematic layout of a molded block with fixed

fiber composites within the framework…………………………..…........... 24

2.8 A computational model of transparent concrete panel ……………............. 26

2.9 Functional description of proposed smart lane separator …………............. 28

4.0 The making of mortar cubes………………………………………….......... 33

4.1.2 Optical Fiber Principles……………………………………………………. 37

4.2.1 Machine at Allcable, Inc. to cut fiber to length……………………………. 41

4.2.2-1 Building a typical mortar joint with fiber optics…………………………… 42

4.2.2-2 Keeping it consistent……………………………………………………….. 43

ix
4.2.3 Grinding & Polishing………………………………………………………. 45

4.3.1-1 Light Transmittance Test Box Diagram…………………………………… 46

4.3.1-2 Light Transmittance Test Box……………………...……………………… 47

4.3.2 Testing the Compression Strength of a Prism………………………………48

4.3.3-1 Shear Test Setup…………………………………………………………… 51

4.3.3-2 Shear Failure Patterns……………………………………………………… 52

5.1-1 Inside the Light Test Box………………………………………………….. 53

5.1-2 Light Transmittance vs. Fiber Volumetric Ratio…………………………... 55

5.1-3 Light Transmittance vs. Fiber Optic Diameter…………………………… 55

5.2-1 Compressive Strength vs. Fiber Volumetric Ratio……………………… 57

5.2-2 Compressive Strength vs. Fiber Weight Ratio………………………….. 57

5.2-3 Compressive Strength vs. Fiber Optic Diameter……………………… 58

5.3-1 Results of Shear Failure……………………………………………………. 59

5.3-2 Bond Shear Strength vs. Fiber Volumetric Ratio………………………… 60

6.3-1 Failure Mode in Brick Prism………………………………………………..64

6.3-2 Tensile Splitting during Compression testing……………………………… 64

x
 LIST OF EQUATIONS

EQUATION

2.3-1 Compressive Strength ……………………………………………………... 14

2.3-2 Flexural Strength ……………………………..……………........................ 15

4.1.1 Fiber Optic to Mortar Volumetric Ratio…………………………............... 34

4.3.1 Light Transmittance Percentage…………………………………………... 47

4.3.3 Bond Shear Strength…………………………………................................. 51

xi
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this thesis will be to analyze the mechanical performance and physical

properties of varying the diameter and volumetric ratios of optical fiber to mortar while

developing a method to manufacture Light Transmitting Mortar (LTM). Specifically, this

thesis analyzes the use of four different diameters of fiber optics (1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm,

and 3.0 mm) to determine such properties as light transmittance, compressive strength, and

shear strength. A control sample without the addition of fiber optics was also tested to serve

as a benchmark for the results.

There are two primary purposes for conducting this experiment. The first purpose is

to develop a new and innovative product where light can be seen through a wall along the

mortar joints. As it will further be discussed in the literature review section of this report,

Translucent Concrete was invented in 2001 and has been developed by commercial

companies over the past decade. However, there was no mention in the literature of this idea

ever being expanded into the mortar between the masonry units of masonry construction.

The main reason this has thought to be true is fact that mortar is typically applied onsite, or in

the field, and the process of stringing fiber optics effectively in cast concrete has only been

proven to be done in manufacturing plants or laboratories. I believe that after showing there

are positive properties in the process of laying individual short-length fiber optics in the

mortar between bricks, a fiber optic mesh can be created to make the process faster and

easier in the field. Although the main purpose of creating LTM is thought to be architectural,

it turns out there may be other beneficial properties as well.

1
 The second purpose of the experiment is to determine the mechanical performance

and physical properties of adding fiber optics specifically into the mortar between typical

clay brick masonry units. Through a literature review of translucent concrete, it was found

that adding fiber optics to concrete slightly increased the strength of the product. However,

this report will show that the addition of fiber optics substantially increases the compressive

strength to a completed masonry assemblage. Typically, a masonry assemblage is thought to

be stronger than its weakest component (mortar) and is weaker than its strongest component

(the brick units). With the addition of fiber optics to this new composite material, this idea

continues to be true but gives the added bonus of being able to transmit light through the

mortar.

Figure 1: Light Transmitting Mortar

2
 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review of this report is based mainly on the findings and usage of

translucent concrete as it is the most comparable product to LTM and no research could be

found on placing fiber optics into the mortar between masonry units. The term “translucent

concrete” has the potential to be somewhat misleading. The concrete itself is not actually

translucent, nor is it any different to conventional concrete. Translucent concrete simply

contains fiber optics which has the capacity to transmit light from one side to the other of the

pre-fabricated blocks. Perhaps a more suitable term could be “light transmitting concrete”.

It is important to differentiate this, as past attempts have been made to create an actual

translucent concrete. Such attempts have generally proven unsuccessful as the product

becomes fragile, and incapable of withstanding wind and rain (Goho, 2005). Thus, the

continuation and development of this idea has led to the creation of “Light Transmitting

Mortar”.

Aron Losonczi, first introduced the idea of light transmitting concrete in 2001, then

produced the first homogeneous translucent concrete block and named his company Litracon

in 2003. In his process, the translucent concrete blocks are manufactured by layering optical

fibers and concrete mix to form a truly homogenous material. It can be used for interior or

exterior walls, illuminated pavements or even in art and design objects. Litracon claims their

concrete has the same strength as regular concrete, if not even slightly higher, and will

continue to transmit light through walls up to twenty meters thick (Ali, 2014). Thousands of

optical glass fibers run parallel to each other between the two main surfaces of every block so

3
shadows on the lighter side will appear with sharp outlines on the darker one. Even the

colors remain the same. This special effect creates the general impression that the thickness

and weight of a concrete wall will disappear.

The idea of LTM uses many of the same ideas found in the journals and articles to

follow, as the concept is very similar to translucent concrete. Like translucent concrete,

LTM is thought to be best suited for interior walls or art and design objects such as benches

or an architectural accent wall. The basic idea behind LTM will be to place a LED wall wash

light-bar, often found in bars or night clubs, in a small cavity behind the brick wall or bench.

The use of spot lights to illuminate desired patterns and designs from an area on the opposite

side of an interior wall could also provide an interesting way to allow light to come through

its mortar joints. The hope is that this new material will transform the interior, and possibly

exterior, appearance of masonry construction by bringing them to life through illuminating

mortar joints with a multitude of colors, designs, and shapes.

2.1 Translucent Concrete: An Emerging Material (McGillivray, 2011)

In this article, Sara McGillivray dives into the idea, the history and the future of

translucent concrete. When you think of concrete, most likely, your mind conjures up

images of something solid, heavy, and monolithic. But what if concrete could be translucent

and transmit light into spaces, making them seem light and airy (McGillivray, 2011)? This

article states that by switching the ingredients of traditional concrete with transparent ones, or

embedding fiber optics; translucent concrete has become a reality.

Concrete has been called an “indispensable medium” and a “quintessential material”

for architects and engineers due to the vast sculptural and expressive possibilities that it can

4
achieve. Concrete has been used since Roman times, but its basic components have

remained the same. Three ingredients make up the dry mix: coarse aggregate, fine aggregate,

and cement (The Economist, 2001). By switching ingredients and adding new ones,

engineers have been able to create a multitude of interesting new products, one of which is

translucent concrete (Goho, 2005). In the early stages of creating translucent concrete, they

simply exchanged the traditional aggregates and the bonding material itself with transparent

alternatives to be able to transmit light through clear resins in the mix.

(Luxgineer/Wikimedia Common)
Figure 2.1: Translucent Concrete used in art installations in museum exhibits

A more modern and second approach discussed in this article is the combination of

optical fibers and fine concrete. This method of producing translucent concrete has been

more fully explored and is more common to date than the previous method. This method,

originally explored by the Hungarian Architect, Aron Losoncze, uses very fine aggregate to

encase optical fibers that allow light to transmit from one side of a block to the other.

However, the process is slow and done by hand in a long, narrow mold. The optical fibers

and concrete must be manually layered over each other to create a long beam that will

eventually be cut into blocks. The blocks from Losoncze’s approach can retain their strength

5
and bond because the proportion of the fibers is very small (4%) compared to the total

volume of the blocks (Ali, 2014). They are not reinforced in the traditional sense, since the

optical glass fibers form a matrix which creates an internal structure of reinforcement.

Losoncze’s optical-fiber concrete blocks claim a higher compressive strength of 7,252 psi

and a surprising tensile strength of 1,015 psi (Ali, 2014). His tests show that glass fibers do

not have a negative effect on the well-known high compressive strength value of concrete.

Rather, fiber reinforcing can make translucent concrete even stronger than traditionally

reinforced concrete.

It has also been found that translucent concrete can be an insulating material,

protecting against outdoor extreme temperatures while also letting in daylight. This makes it

an excellent compromise for buildings in harsh climates, where it can shut out heat or cold

without shutting the building off from daylight. In the next few years, as engineers further

explore this exciting new material, it is sure to be employed in a variety of interesting ways

that will change architecture and engineering as we know it.

The article did cover some of the negatives or down sides to translucent concrete and

currently the cost to manufacture these products tops the list. It was stated at the time of this

article that it could end up costing about five times as much to build a wall using translucent

concrete as opposed to the traditional type (The Economist, 2001). This is due to the rarity

of the product and its experimental nature. Currently, there are only a select few companies

around the world producing translucent concrete and the process is somewhat low-tech and

slow. At the time of this article, it was said that it can only be produced as pre-cast or

prefabricated blocks and panels. Thus, it is mostly being used in interior walls and as

decoration, but it is starting to make its venture into exterior structural walls.

6
2.2 LiTraCon - Light Transmitting Concrete (Ali, 2014)

In 2001, a light-transmitting concrete block was invented by Aron Losonczi, an

architect from Hungry. He named his invention “LITRACON”, short for light transmitting

concrete and has sold commercial grade precast manufactured translucent concrete blocks

since 2003. LiTraCon has become the leader in the translucent concrete development and

currently holds the patent on the material. This review is based on a slideshow/seminar

linked to LiTraCon’s website and outlined key points of their invention.

As most of us know, concrete is one of the world’s most widely used building

materials and builders have been using concrete for thousands of years. However, the

introduction of fiber optics into the concrete mix has given it a new dimension and we are

just at the beginning stages of the development of translucent concrete. To understand

Losonszi’s method of creating translucent concrete, we need to explore the basic component,

optical fibers, needed to create the matrix of fiber and cement within these light-transmitting

blocks. An optical fiber is a flexible, transparent fiber made up of glass or plastic and is

often as thin as a human hair. It transmits light between two ends of the fiber by process of

total internal reflection and does it so effectively that there is almost no loss of light

conducted outside the fibers. The optical fiber is made up of three components:

(http://www.webclasses.net/3comu/intro/units/unit02/sec04b.html)
Figure 2.2.1: Components of Optical Fiber

7
 1. CORE – (carries light signals) thin glass center of fiber where light travels

2. CLADDING – (keeps light in the core) made of a material which has a lower

refractive index than the core. (for light to pass from the core out through the

cladding, it would have to slow down. Instead, the light waves take the path

of least resistance by reflecting only in the core.)

3. COATING – (protects the cladding) Plastic coating that protects the fiber

from damage.

LiTriCon’s light-transmitting concrete is produced by adding 4% to 5% optical fibers

(by volume) into a concrete mixture (Ali, 2014). The fibers need to run parallel to each other

and the most important requirement for the success of the product is the assurance that the

fiber optic strands contact both surfaces; otherwise it loses the ability to transmit light. An

uninterrupted passage through the concrete is achieved by using long molds; which are filled

with a thin layer of cement, then strung layers of fiber optic strands atop the cement, then

more cement is added and the process is repeated until the mold is full. From the long molds,

the product can be removed and then cut to length accordingly to make the size of blocks

requested by the client.

(Ali, 2014)
Figure 2.2.2: Examples of Light Transmitting Concrete

8
 LiTraCon believes that light transmitting concrete or translucent concrete is an

emerging trend in concrete technology and has created a short list of its advantages,

disadvantages and applications that they have found over the years of production:

ADVANTAGES:

1. Less energy consumption.

2. Illuminated pavements and roads for safety.

3. Homogeneous in structure.

4. Finishing surface.

5. Routine maintenance not required.

DISADVANTAGES:

1. Very high cost (about EUR 1300/m2)

2. Laborers with technical skills are needed to use it.

3. It’s a factory product.

APPLICATIONS:

1. Sidewalks poured with translucent concrete could be made with lighting

underneath, creating lit walkways which would enhance safety, and also

encourage foot travel where previously avoided at night.

2. Translucent concrete walls on restaurants, clubs, and other establishments to

reveal how many patrons are inside.

3. Translucent concrete inserts on front doors of homes, allowing the resident to see

when there is a person standing outside.

9
 4. The use of translucent concrete in an outer wall of an indoor stairwell would

provide illumination in a power outage, resulting in enhanced safety.

5. Subways using this material could be illuminated with daylight.

Not only can translucent concrete be used in the applications above, but it’s also a

green building material because it can reduce the lightning cost during day time (Ali, 2014).

On top of this perk, it has been found to provide both an aesthetically pleasing appearance

and structural stability. The LiTraCon blocks claim to be able to be used as load bearing

walls up to 20 meters high (Ali, 2014). If the price of the product gets reduced, it is sure that

the future of the construction industry will be in the hands of Litracon.

2.3 An Experimental Study on Light Transmitting Concrete (Shanmugavadivu, et al,

2014)

This article was very helpful in giving specific numbers and explanations of what

exactly goes into “light transmitting concrete”. In the light transmitting concrete discussed in

this article, optical glass fibers were thought to form a matrix and run parallel to each other

between the two main surfaces of a block. The fibers mingle in the concrete because of their

insignificant size and they become a structural component as a kind of modest aggregate.

The material make-up of these blocks can be broken down into these 4 components:

1. CEMENT - As the optical fiber is only responsible for transmission of light, there

is no special cement required. So, ordinary Portland cement is typically used for

transparent concrete.

2. SAND - A naturally occurring granular material composed of finely divided rock

and mineral particles. The composition of sand is highly variable, usually in the

10
 form of quartz. Sand particles should pass through 1.18 mm sieve. (The sand

used should be free from impurities such as vegetation and gravels.)

3. WATER - When mixed with cement, it forms a paste that binds the aggregate

together. The water needs to be pure to prevent side reactions from occurring,

which could weaken the concrete. The role of water is important because the

water to cement ratio is the most critical factor in the production of "perfect”

concrete.

4. OPTICAL FIBERS - An optical fiber is a flexible, transparent fiber made of glass

(silica) or plastic to a diameter slightly thicker than that of a human hair. Optical

fibers are used most often as a means to transmit light between the two ends of the

fiber.

Light transmitting concrete is a combination of optical fibers and fine concrete that

are typically produced as prefabricated building blocks and panels. By arranging thousands

of Plastic Optical Fibers (POF) or big diameter glass optical fibers into concrete, it transmits

light so effectively that there is virtually no loss of light conducted through the fibers.

Because of their parallel position, the light-information on the brighter side of such a wall

appears unchanged on the darker side. The most interesting form of this phenomenon is

probably the sharp display of shadows on the opposing side of the wall. Moreover, the color

of the light also remains the same.

Light travels through the fiber core, bouncing back and forth and off the boundary

between the core and cladding. Because the light must strike the boundary with an angle

greater than the critical angle, only light that enters the fiber within a certain range of angles

can travel down the fiber without leaking out. This range of angles is called the acceptance

11
cone of the fiber. The size of this acceptance cone is a function of the refractive index

difference between the fiber’s core and cladding. Currently, there are three basic types of

optical fibers and each vary on how the refractive index between the core and cladding is put

together.

(www.cables-solutions.com)

Figure 2.3.1: Types of Optical Fiber

1. MULTI-MODE STEP-INDEX FIBER - This fiber is called "Step Index" because

the refractive index changes abruptly from cladding to core. The cladding has a

refractive index that is somewhat lower than the refractive index of the core. As a

result, all rays within a certain angle will be totally reflected at the core-cladding

boundary. Rays striking the boundary at angles greater than the critical angle will

be partially reflected and partially transmitted out through the boundary. After

many such bounces, the energy in these rays will be lost from the fiber. The paths

12
 along which the rays of this step index fiber travel differ depending on their

angles relative to the axis.

2. MULTI-MODE GRADED-INDEX FIBER - In graded index fiber there are many

changes in the refractive index with larger values towards the center. Light

travels faster in a lower index of refraction. So, the farther the light is from the

center axis, the greater is its speed. This means that each layer of the core refracts

the light with a different refractive index. Instead of being sharply reflected as it

is in a step index fiber, the light is now bent or continuously refracted in an almost

sinusoidal pattern. In theory, those rays that follow the longest path by traveling

near the outside of the core have a faster average velocity and the light traveling

near the center of the core has the slowest average velocity. As a result, all rays

tend to reach the end of the fiber at the same time. That causes the end travel time

of different rays to be nearly equal, even though they travel different paths.

3. SINGLE-MODE STEP-INDEX FIBER - Another way to reduce modal

dispersion is to reduce the core's diameter, until the fiber only propagates one

mode (ray) efficiently. The single mode fiber has an exceedingly small core

diameter of only 5 to 10 m. Standard cladding diameter is 125 m. Since this

fiber carries only one mode, model dispersion does not exist. A multimode fiber

can propagate hundreds of light modes at one time while single-mode fibers only

propagate one mode as shown above.

The properties of light transmitting concrete are determined by conducting various

experiments like compressive strength and flexural strength tests. A typical transparent

13
concrete block, in the testing of this article, is shown below with mix proportions and

dimensions as follows: (Shanmugavadivu, et al, 2014)

• Cement – 360 kg
• Sand – 560 kg
• Fiber – 4.5 kg
• Water – 190 liter
• Size: 150mm x150mm x 150mm

The compressive strength of a material is that value of uniaxial compressive stress

reached when the material fails completely. The compressive strength is usually obtained

experimentally by means of a compressive test and using the following equation:

Compressive Strength = P / A <eq. 2.3-1>

Where:
P = Load applied
A = Area of prism

(Shanmugavadivu, et al, 2014)

Figure 2.3.a: Compressive Strength

14
 (Shanmugavadivu, et al, 2014)
Figure 2.3.b: Flexural Strength

The compressive strength and flexural strength of the conventional concrete and light

transmitting concrete in 7, 14 and 28 days is shown in Figure: 2.3.a and 2.3.b respectfully.

The flexural strength of the concrete was determined by conducting the test on a prism by

way of two-point loading and using the following equation.

Flexural Strength = Pl/bd2 <eq. 2.3-2>

Where:
P – Load
l – Length of the specimen
b – Width of the prism
d – Depth of the prism

After the compressive and flexural strength results of the decorative concrete were

correlated with the results of ordinary plain cement concrete, the results show that the

performance of light transmitting concrete is slightly higher than ordinary cement. Hence,

15
the application of optical fiber will make the concrete structurally efficient as well as

decorative. Thus, the study concludes that the transparency of light is possible in concrete

without affecting its compressive strength and the optical fibers can act as a fiber

reinforcement, thereby enhancing the strength as well as the appearance. This article also

listed some other notable properties of the light transmitting concrete found through different

tests: (Shanmugavadivu, et al, 2014)

1. Permits the passage of light through the set concrete; permitting colors, shapes

and outlines to be seen through it.

2. Having compressive strength of 7,250 – 32,000 psi

3. Having maximum water absorption of 0.35%

4. Having a maximum oxygen index of 25%

5. Having a thermal conductivity of 0.21 W/m °C

6. Having a flexural strength of 1.1 ksi

7. Having an elastic limit greater than 8,700 psi

8. Having a density from 130 to 150 lb/ft3

9. Having a Young's Modulus from 400 ksi to 500 ksi

10. From its characteristics and composition, it can be a conductor of electricity.

11. From its mechanical and optical characteristics, it can be used for purposes that

are both architectural and aesthetic, as well as structural.

16
2.4 Light Transmitting Concrete Panels – A New Innovation in Concrete Technology

(News Desk, 2013)

This article talks about how German concrete manufacturer, Lucem Lichtbeton, is

thought to be one of the other leading companies involved in the production of light

transmitting concrete. In conjunction with Aachen-based architects, Carpus & Partner,

Lucem produced 150cm by 50cm concrete panels containing optical fibers and placed them

along a wall; forming a total area of 30m wide by 4m high with 136 panels. Each panel was

fitted with color-changing technology and controlled using an internet-based DMX

technology system. The technology controlling the lights opens new boundaries for design

and architecture as the light panels are made with red, green and blue chips to allow more

than 16 million color options. In fact, all the panels can be controlled independently meaning

the entire facade can become a large display screen. The light shows on the wall can be

controlled via the internet or a mobile device and interactive elements as well as text and

logos can be displayed on this wall (News Desk, 2013).

(www.lucem.com)
Figure 2.4: Lucem light transmitting concrete panels at RWTH Façade, Aachen

17
 According to the Lucem website, there are currently three different types of Lucem®

Lichbeton panels, which offer different effects and aesthetics for the user. These panels have

various uses including, but not limited to: facades, interior walls, claddings, flooring systems,

room dividers and bars. With the Lucem® Label panels, light transmitting fibers are

arranged individually so that clients can display design logos, images, names, signatures and

icons on the panels. Some additional application areas and examples of Lucem mentioned in

this article were (News Desk, 2013):

1. CLINIC GENK – (surgical clinic, partition wall) The new building of an oral

surgery clinic presents a large-sized Lucem wall used as a room divider. A

brightly illuminated waiting area induces an interesting shadow play on the part of

the offices.

2. NESSELANDE, ROTTERDAM, OUTSIDE ILLUMINATION – (promenade at

overpark) In Rotterdams district Nesselande, a local recreation area was created.

Long bands of concrete were integrated into the landscape enclosing the greenery

on the one side and being a bench on the other side.

3. SIGNAL IDUNA – (Extension of the main administration building of Signal

Iduna insurances, Dortmund) Lucem light transmitting concrete panels were used

as accents for the entrance hall and the executive suite. The Lucem Line panels

have been designed as floor to ceiling wall claddings utilizing free space behind

the panels for a light supply.

18
2.5 Mortar this than meets the eye: The 'transparent' cement that lets daylight flood

into a room (Bates, 2011)

In this article, a team of architects have created a new way of making transparent

cement panels that lets light pour into a room so that the walls look like giant windows.

These Italian architects operate under the company name Italcementi and believe that their

research is a strategic asset aimed at creating innovative projects that follow up new market

trends. In 2010, they took up the challenge to build the Italian pavilion for the Shanghai

Expo because they wanted to find a creative, efficient solution for a cement material to be

able to transmit light. They called their invention “i-light” and it’s formed by bonding

special resins inside of dozens of tiny holes to let light through without compromising the

structural integrity. The design is to appear to have its surface transparent from a far, but up

close the tiny resin filled holes that make up the panels can be seen.

(www.italcementigroup.com)
Figure 2.5.1: Outside view of Italian Pavilion for the Shanghai Expo
19
 I-light® SHANGHAI gets its namesake from its original purpose for the invention,

the Italian pavilion. Italcementi used i-light for around 40% of the 18-metre high Expo

pavilion. Three thousand seven hundred and seventy-four transparent and semi-transparent

panels were made from 189 tons of the product.

(www.italcementigroup.com)
Figure 2.5.2: Tiny resin filled holes

There are approximately 50 holes in each transparent panel, leading to about 20%

transparency. Its transparent characteristic is not only able to transmit natural and artificial

light, but also allows the human eye to see images and objects placed behind the panel.

During the day, external light seamlessly filters into the building creating a new and

suggestive atmosphere as the sunlight intensity varies throughout the day. At night the effect

becomes magical, with internal light seeping back through the panels and making the

building become alive. Thanks to this, the architectural structure itself creates a show that

has never been seen before.

20
 (www.italcementigroup.com)
Figure 2.5.3: Inside of Italian Pavilion for the Shanghai Expo

Previous attempts at a similar feat had been tried using fiber optic cables, but

Italcementi claims its version is better. Enrico Borgarello, Italcementi Group Innovation

Director, said: “The transparent cement made from plastic resins is much cheaper than the

one made from optical fibers. Moreover, the ability to capture light is greater, since the

resins contain a wider visual angle than optical fibers (Bates, 2011).” The technology used to

build i.light® panels guarantee a degree of light angle of incidence higher than optical fibers.

The cost of i.light® is also at least 10 times lower than the same material obtained using

optical fibers.

2.6 A preliminary study on light transmittance properties of translucent concrete panels

with coarse waste glass inclusions (Pagliolico, et al, 2015)

This paper investigated the use of coarse glass waste imbedded in cement to make

precast translucent concrete panels. Waste pieces of glass that were found to have flat and

21
coarse physical properties were enclosed and surrounded with a concrete mix to extend from

one side to the opposite side of the panel, enabling light transmission through the wall.

(Pagliolico, et al, 2015)

Figure 2.6: Light Transmitting Panel Built with Waste Glass

The panels were designed as non-load bearing panel prototypes and thought to be

used as interior walls to transfer natural light and lower energy costs required to illuminate a

room. The panels were manually prepared, positioning the glass inclusions to make sure the

glass ran the width of the panels. When they were arranged to the author’s satisfaction

inside the mold, self-compacting mortar was added all around the flat glass scraps. The

mortar mix consisted of a white cementitious high performing binder, dry siliceous sand,

potable water, superplasticizer and a de-foamer.

After the panels were constructed, an array of 16 miniaturized illuminance-meters

was used to measure the illuminance distribution across the panel. Measurements were taken

with and without the panel to form a basis for the data on both light transmission and energy

around the testing area. Although the authors noted the best way to measure the light

22
transmission of the panels would be to employ the use of a photo-goniometer, they stated this

kind of equipment would be used at a future stage of the research. From the equipment they

had access to and the tests that were conducted on these panels, it was determined that the

glass inclusions were classified as non-reactive under the accelerated Alkali-Silica Reactivity

(ASR) test. Furthermore, the light transmission tests resulted in a range of 1.3% to 4.9% of

light allowed through the wall (Pagliolico, et al, 2015).

Computer simulations were also carried out to compare the light transmission in a

sample room with two sided internal walls. They came up with a similar value of light

transmission topping out at 5%. However, the energy demand for lighting inside the room

still decreased in a range of 12.7% to 16% because the amount of natural light that was let in

due to these panels (Pagliolico, et al, 2015).

2.7 Experimental Study of Transparent concrete (Sabhapathy, 2014)

Many kinds of tests were done in this article to evaluate the effectiveness of a “smart”

transparent concrete. This included a white light test (to determine the amount of light

transmission), freezing-thawing test and chloride ion penetration test (to determine long-term

durability), and stress elasto-optic effect test (to determine self-sensing properties). In a nut

shell, the experiments results show that the smart transparent concrete has good transparency,

mechanical, and self-sensing properties. Many of the properties of fiber optics, listed below,

contributed to the success of these tests and why they are used in other industries as well

(Sabhapathy, 2014).

• The life of fiber is longer than copper wire

• Handling and installation costs of optical fiber is very nominal

23
 • It is unaffected with electromagnetic interference

• Attenuation in optical fiber is lower than coaxial cable or twisted pair.

• There is no necessity of additional equipment for protecting against grounding

and voltage problems, as it does not radiate energy.

• Any antenna or detector cannot detect it, hence it provides signal security

With the help of fiber optics, concrete is no longer the heavy, cold and grey material

of the past; it has become beautiful and lively. By research and innovation, newly developed

concrete has been created which is more resistant, lighter, white or colored, and now

transparent. It can be used to better the architectural appearance of the building and even

used where light cannot reach with appropriate intensity. This new kind of building material

can integrate the concept of green-energy-savings with the usage of self-sensing properties

and promises to be the building material of the future.

(Fathima, 2015)

Figure 2.7: Schematic layout of a molded block with fixed fiber

composites within the framework
Transparent concrete works based on “Nano-Optics” and brings a whole new use to

an industry never thought to need it. Optical fibers pass as much light as tiny slits when they

24
are placed directly on top of each other. Hence, optical fibers act like the slits and carry light

throughout the concrete, but maintain the compressive strength of normal concrete without

the voids or slits weakening the product. On top of this, the manufacturing process of

transparent concrete is almost the same as regular concrete. The only difference being that

small layers of fibers are infused into the concrete as the fine concrete mix is poured into the

mold and on top of each layer of fibers. Fibers and concrete are alternately inserted into

molds at intervals of approximately 2 mm to 5mm. This allows the transparent concrete to

have good light guiding properties and should be noted that the ratio of optical fiber volume

to concrete is proportion to the transmission of light.

2.8 Computational Modeling of Translucent Concrete Panels (Ahuja, et al, 2015)

This study investigated a novel building envelope material that consists of optical

fibers embedded in concrete. A computational model of how light and heat is transferred

through them was also done to further their research. The fibers in the sample case were used

to channel solar radiation into the building to reduce the dependence on artificial lighting,

especially during peak time of the day and year. In their research on such material, it was

found that the introduction of effective daylight responsive systems can reduce the operating

costs of conventional lighting systems by 31% on an annual basis.

Under their literature review, they found four notable steps in the history of

translucent concrete that were worth mentioning. In 2001, Hungarian architect Aron

Losonczi invented LiTraCon, the first commercially available form of translucent concrete.

The University of Detroit Mercy also developed a process to produce translucent panels

made of Portland cement, sand and small amounts of chopped fiberglass. These panels,

25
which were only 2.5 mm thick at their centers, were it was thin enough to be translucent

under direct light. Then, during the 2010 World Expo in Shanghai China, Italy modeled its

pavilion out of translucent concrete using approximately 4,000 blocks created by

Italecementi and later named them i-light. Another form of translucent concrete featured

larger plastic fibers arranged in a grid and was developed by Bill Price of the University of

Houston to further his research on translucent concrete. He named his work Pixel Panels and

is known for research of translucent concrete rather than commercial manufacturing.

This study utilized the design of the Pixel Panels as a basis for their computation and

conclusions drawn below. Their paper presented a geometrical ray-tracing algorithm to

simulate light transmission properties of the proposed translucent concrete panel. For

simulation purposes, a translucent concrete panel was modeled as a cuboid with dimensions

0.3 x 0.3 x 0.1 meters. The transparency of the translucent concrete panel was varied by

changing the volumetric ratio of optical fibers embedded in the concrete. After coming up

with the best transparency results with a fiber volumetric ratio of 10.56%, it was then

simulated for multiple tilt angles from 0 degrees to 60 degrees (in intervals of 5 degrees) to

compute an angle that would transmit maximum light for the whole year. It was then

concluded that a tilt angle of 30 degrees transmits the maximum luminous flux.

(Ahuja, et al, 2015)

Figure 2.8: A computational model of transparent concrete panel

26
 It was also discussed and worth mentioning that as light travels through the core of

the fiber optics, it suffers two types of intrinsic losses:

1. Light scattering due to fluctuation in density and composition of material.

2. Light absorption from electronic transitions between the excited and the ground

states.

Light absorption leads to heating up of the optical fiber, where as the radiation dissipated via

the scattering process is rejected by the optical fiber. In their experiments and because the

length of the selected optical fiber was small, the reduction in transmittance ratios across

different spectra primarily was due to absorption. They could then conclude that a

translucent concrete panel admits more heat than a high-performance window during the

year; which is helpful in reducing heating loads during winters, but potentially increases the

cooling load for the air conditioning unit of the building during summer months (Ahuja, et al,

2015).

2.9 Development, Testing, and Implementation Strategy of a Translucent Concrete-

Based Smart Lane Separator for Increased Traffic Safety (Saleem, et al, 2017)

This paper detailed the development, testing, and real-world application strategy for a

new translucent concrete-based lane separator. The proposed device would be embedded

into the road surface and can be used for transferring real-time information to the road users.

The developed device can transmit colored light by embedding plastic optical fibers in the

self-compacting concrete. The self-compacting concrete was prepared based on its increased

workability, which allowed it to flow in corners and small areas around the optical fibers

placed in the mold. Cube specimens were also cast to check the compressive strength of the

27
developed concrete and to evaluate the percentage of light passing through the fibers. The

minimum compressive strength requirement was set at 35 MPa to account for large trucks

driving over the roadway. The self-compacting concrete was made per the following

specifications (Saleem, et al, 2017):

• ASTM C150 ordinary Portland cement (Type I was used as a binding material)

• Dune sand was used as fine aggregate

• Crushed limestone was used as coarse aggregate with a maximum size of 9.5 mm

• Polycarboxiate ether-based superplasticizer was added to the mix as 0.5% by

volume of cement in order to give the mix the desired workability

• The mix constituent contained ordinary Portland cement, fine aggregate, and

medium aggregate of a 1, 1.7, and 2 ratios, respectively

• The cement content was 370 kg/m3, and water to cement ratio was 0.4

(Saleem, 2015)
Fig 2.9: Functional description of proposed smart lane separator

Plastic optical fibers (POF) were wound into tendons, of which each tendon was

composed of 12 optical fibers wound together into a single piece. The tendons were then

28
placed through the predrilled holes of the molds and were secured in place by adhesive glue.

It was found that the volume of optical fiber in the concrete was proportional to the light

transmitting capability of concrete and would be determined through trial-and-error. Various

samples, for compressive strength testing, were prepared by replacing different percentages

of fibers to that of concrete. From trial-and-error approach, 3% volume replacement was

noted to be the optimal percentage because it resulted in the least loss of strength while

giving the desirable translucency. Loading was applied parallel to the POF tendons during

testing in order to simulate the real-world application condition. There was found to be an

11.14% reduction in strength, which is considerably lower than that reported in their

literature research of approximately 35% (Saleem, et al, 2017). They believe they achieved

this by roughing the surface of the POF tendon so the bond between the tendons and concrete

could be improved, which leads to the increase in compressive strength. A light

transmissibility test was also performed using a light meter, TECPEL 530, to calculate the

percentage of light passing through the POF tendons. Keeping in mind the extreme

temperatures that the road surface is subjected to during its life cycle, it was also decided to

conduct a detailed temperature testing of the cast specimens. It was seen that the specimens

were successfully able to sustain high temperatures, and the optical fibers did not melt, even

after being exposed to 225°C for a long period of time. Because the operational temperature

of the road is between 60 and 80°C, it can be concluded that the proposed device is suitable

for road implementation (Saleem, et al, 2017).

This article is very thought provoking because it takes the idea of translucent concrete

and turns it on its side, literally. This idea uses the fiber optics in a vertical setting and in

sense places a light behind them to allow illumination from the ground up. Furthermore, the

29
article talks of how the fiber optics can withstand weathering and even the weight of vehicles

with cyclic loading. It is interesting how different ideas are coming out of the development

of translucent concrete, not only for an eye-pleasing architecture but road safety as well.

This idea could be expanded into the idea of LTM too. Perhaps placing emergency lights

behind a wall with “light transmitting mortar” strategically integrated within the joints could

be used for fire escapes and lighted pathways or even warning signs in the case of an

emergency.

30
 CHAPTER III

PROBLEM STATEMENT

A multitude of articles and publications regarding translucent concrete, or light

transmitting prefabricated concrete blocks, has generated interest by architects since the

invention in 2001. Although translucent concrete has emerged as a new construction

material, there has been little to no discussion or claims on work towards a light transmitting

mortar and the development of it will be the first goal in this experiment. The second goal of

this report is to analyze the mechanical performance and physical properties of several

different diameters and volumetric ratios of optical fiber to mortar in typical masonry

assemblages. Tests used unjacketed end-glow fiber optics that were commercially

manufactured and readily available. Two concurrent assessments were made to determine

the best diameter and volumetric ratio. The first assessment was done by varying the

volumetric ratios, of fiber optics to mortar, from 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, 10% and 15%. The second

assessment used equivalent volumetric ratios, but vary the fiber optics diameter of 1.0 mm,

1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, and 3.0 mm. The selection of the best diameter and volumetric ratio was

based on the results of the light transmittance, compressive strength, and shear tests between

these two assessments. The mortar design mixture remained unchanged for each fiber

volumetric ratio and a control sample of 0% fiber volume ratio was tested to serve as a

benchmark for current masonry work and to validate the results.

31
 CHAPTER IV

EXPERIMENTAL PLAN

For this experiment, four sets of solid prisms consisting of five standard modular clay

bricks with type N mortar and fiber optics were assembled and tested. The joint thickness of

all prisms was specified to be ½-inch thick in order to fit the varying sizes and quantities of

fiber into the mortar across both tests. Bricks for the prisms were collected from the same

stockpile and it was assumed that the bricks used all possessed similar compressive strengths

individually. The mortar mix was made using a 3:1 mix of clean, all-purpose sand and

typical mortar cement as is specified to prepare Type N mortar. The sand-to-mortar mix ratio

will remain the same throughout all batches and verified by weight. The water was supplied

by the taps within the laboratory, which provide potable water from the local water authority,

Denver Water. Initial water contents were the same by measurement, but water was added

on an as needed basis to achieve the desired mortar workability. The prisms were all

assembled in the laboratory at the civil engineering department of the University of Colorado

– Denver and created under normal temperature, atmospheric pressure, and humidity relative

to Denver, Colorado in the month of August 2017. Upon completion, all prisms were stored

in the same area of the lab and let to cure at room temperature for 14 days prior to testing.

In order to confidently test the mechanical and physical properties as outlined in the

problem statement of this report, four specimens from each volumetric ratio were made and

tested. The first assessment of a given set is based on the maximum number of fiber optics

that could physically fit in a ½-inch joint and varying volumetric ratios. This maximum was

achieved by laying two rows of the fiber optics per joint. It should be noted that the fiber

32
optic diameters and quantities varied in this group to produce volumetric ratios of 2.5%, 5%,

7.5%, 10% and 15%. The second assessment, within this same set, is based on four different

sized diameter fiber optics of 1.0 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, and 3.0 mm with similar volumetric

ratios of about 5%. A control sample without the addition of fiber optics, or volumetric ratio

of 0%, was also built to serve as a benchmark for the results.

A set of three-brick prisms were then made to test the shear strength and evaluate the

location of failure when lateral forces may be applied to the masonry assemblages. These

prisms were created in the same way as above, but only used three bricks so they could be

turned on their side and placed in a 3-point bending setup. This set of prisms was created

based solely on varying volumetric ratios and the maximum amount of fiber optics that could

be placed in a given joint because it was thought the best chance of failure due to the fiber

optics would be achieved when the most fibers optics possible were put into a joint.

Figure 4.0: The making of mortar cubes

Mortar cubes, without fiber optics, were also cast from each batch throughout the

process to verify that the mortar’s compressive strength remained relatively similar over each

33
set of prisms. This was done by placing mortar within a 2” x 2” x 2 ¼” opening made from

laying four bricks together as illustrated in Figure 4.0. To replicate water absorption that

would be expected to occur if the mortar were used in prisms (or in the field), paper towels

were used in lieu of any other bond release agent to facilitate the removal of the cubes from

the brick forms.

4.1 Properties of Light Transmitting Mortar

4.1.1 Fiber Volume Ratio

The components that make up LTM consists simply of a mortar mix and optical

fibers. This idea is achieved by laying optical fibers into the mortar mix so that the fiber

optics reach from one side of the brick to the other. This allows light to be transmitted from

one side of a wall to the other through the fiber optics. Commercially developed fiber optics

can come in a variety of types, but typically are made of either plastics and glass. The basis

for many of the tests in this experiment are based on volumetric ratios of fiber to an

individual joint. This volume ratio, Vf, is found by taking the total volume of fibers and

dividing it by the overall volume of the composite mortar.

Vf = (vf/vc) x 100% <eq 4.1.1>

Where:
Vf = Volume Ratio of Fibers
vf = volume of fibers
vc = volume of composite mortar

The fiber optic volumetric ratio for LTM will be used throughout the experiment as

the controllable variable. This will not only pertain to the ability of the mortar to transmit

34
light, but also to test physical qualities like compressive strength as well. It should be noted

that several manufacturers have stated that the addition of the plastic or glass optical fibers

has also increased the tensile and flexural capacity of concrete products, but these properties

are beyond the scope of this report and were not tested on the LTM (Illston, 2010). The first

assessment of prisms was sought to test varying volumetric ratios to find the effects of

increasing the amount of fiber optics within the mortar. The volumetric ratios of fiber to

mortar were selected based on limiting spacing requirements for the fibers within a ½” joint.

It should be noted that to achieve the larger volumetric ratios, one must increase the diameter

of the fiber optics as well as the quantity of them. The second assessment of prisms were all

specified to have equal volumetric ratios in order to find differences in increasing diameters

of the fiber optics. The calculations of the volumetric ratios and the number of fiber optic

pieces are show in the table below.

Table 4.1.1: Volumetric Ratio Design Table

35
4.1.2 Optical Fibers

Fibers can be used in either multifilament or monofilament arrays. Multifilament

fibers will consist of a bundle or grouping of fibers where individual filaments may or may

not be in contact with the mortar mix. Some designers will use this characteristic of bundles

to allow the bundles to remain flexible in the core of the grouping where fibers are not

bonded with the mortar, adding additional ductility to the reinforcing fibers. Monofilament

fibers consist of a single fiber allowed to fully bond with the surrounding mix. For the

purposes of this study we will be examining the behavior of monofilament plastic polymer

fibers cut to a length of 5 inches and placed within the mortar joint of the prism. In order to

explain the basic principles that allow these small fibers to transmit light so efficiently we

must first understand the components of a typical light guiding optical fiber. The main body

of the fiber is made up of the core and is typically manufactured by extrusion of a silica glass

or polyethylene melted into a liquid form which is then pulled into the desired diameter.

These fibers are then dipped into a cladding mixture which will have a lower refractive index

than the inner core. This allows incandescent light waves on the inner core to propagate

along the length of the fiber continuously reflecting against the cladding. This leads to total

internal reflection which allows the light to travel relatively large distances with little to no

power loss. A general example of the entrance and reflectance of light in an optical fiber can

be seen in Figure 4.1.2.

Some typical light guiding fiber optics can allow light to travel over 1 km with

approximately 3.6% power loss. Most people see this application in everyday fiber optic

cable television transmission. For the application of LTM, we are less concerned with the

amount of light loss as the transverse distances traveled are relatively small in comparison.

36
The numerical aperture of a fiber is a value ranging from 0 to 1 and is used to quantify the

incident angle of light able to enter the face of the core. The cone traced out by this

acceptance angle is known as the acceptance cone.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Optical-fibre.png)
Figure 4.1.2: Optical Fiber Principles

Light entering the core within the acceptance cone propagates the length of the fiber,

whereas light entering the core at an angle greater than the acceptance angle is only guided

along a very short distance along the fiber where it continuously reflects and eventually

dissipates. A refractive index describes the ability of the material in which the light is

traveling to propagate incandescent light. Cladding will have a lower refractive index than

the core it encloses which allows light to efficiently be reflected through the core. If the

cladding had a larger refractive index the light traveling through the core would pass through

the cladding and lead to less efficient light transfer. This study used Polymethyl-

Methacrylate Resin fibers without a cladding. The use of a cladding would provide for more

efficient optical fibers, but for the relatively short transverse distances of the width of bricks

used in this experiment unsheathed optical fibers were selected.

37
4.1.3 Mortar Design Mixture

Mortar is a workable paste used to bind building blocks such as stones, bricks,

and concrete masonry units together. Cement mortar becomes hard when it cures, resulting

in a rigid aggregate structure; however the mortar is intended to be weaker than the building

blocks and can be a sacrificial element in the masonry. Mortars are typically made from a

mixture of sand, a binder or cement, and water.

The ASTM Standard C270 (Mortar for Unit Masonry) provides the basis for

specifying cement-lime mortars. This specification provides the basis for five different

mortar types (Type M, S, N, O, and K) depending on the strength of mortar needed for an

application. (These type letters are taken from the alternate letters of the words "MaSoN

wOrK"). Type M mortar is the strongest, and Type K the weakest. The Appendix of ASTM

C270 provides a reference to which mortar type should be used in some general applications

and an adapted version of this list is shown in Table 4.1.3.

Table 4.1.3: Mortar type for some general applications

Location Use
Exterior, above grade Load-Bearing Wall
Non-Load Bearing Wall
Parapet Wall
Exterior, at or below grade Foundation Wall or Retaining Wall
Pavements, Walks or Patios
Interior Load-Bearing Wall
Non-Load Bearing Partitions
Mortar Type
Recommended Alternative
N S or M
O N or S
N S
S N or M
S N or M
N S or M
O N

From the table above, and availability at a local hardware store, Type N mortar was

selected for this experiment as a realistic application for a wall with LTM. For a basic mortar

mix, it was prescribed to mix essentially three parts of sand for every one part of cement

38
used. That means if mixing up a whole 70-pound bag of cement, the prescribed amount will

use three times that of sand and will result in a large batch of mortar mix. Due to the time it

takes to individually lay the fiber optics into the joints, only 6 pounds of cement and 18

pounds of sand where mixed per batch. Although it has been said that the measurement

doesn’t need to be precise as a baking recipe, it was kept equivalent from batch to batch for

the integrity of the experiment. At most work sites, when mixing large amounts, the amount

of sand is usually given in "shovels full" per bag of mortar mix, which usually works out to

somewhere between 15 and 18 scoops, depending on how large the shovel scoops are.

4.2 Manufacturing Methods

It is essential that methods of creating test prisms and the tests themselves remain

equivalent as possible to limit eccentricities and anomalies that could be found later. It is

also vital in the experimental process that all variables are controllable and only one variable

is changed at a time. This way it is clear what is affecting the results. In saying that, great

measures were taken to make sure the only variable in this experiment that was changed was

the volumetric ratio of fiber optics to mortar within each joint. Further research shall be done

to test other variables such as the direction or spacing of the fiber optics. A freeze-thaw test

or heat testing could also be done in the future to test the durability of the fiber optics in

harsh weather conditions. For this thesis, one person mixed every batch of mortar, laid each

fiber optic individually, and placed every brick across all specimens to limit the number of

uncontrollable variables. The bricks were obtained from the same stock pile and the fiber

optics were ordered from the same distributor. Each set of prisms were created one-after-

another on individual days, but allowed exactly the same amount of time to cure before

testing them. Meaning if the first set was created on a Monday, it was tested two weeks later

39
on a Monday around the same time. The testing apparatuses and data acquisition programs

were also the same amongst every test and loaded by the same individual. The following

manufacturing methods were closely followed to produce the LTM prisms studied in this

report and attention to every detail was well documented.

4.2.1 Setup and Preparation

The fiber optics came in rolls of 4,920 feet for the 1.0 mm diameter fiber; 2,296 feet

for the 1.5 mm diameter fiber; 1,148 feet for the 2.0 mm diameter fiber; and 492 feet for the

3.0 mm diameter fiber. These were needed to be cut down to lengths of 5 inches to allow the

fiber optics to extend past the width of the brick. The calculation of number of fiber optics

needed were shown in Table 4.1.1 of the previous section and tracked as some pieces were

cut by hand and others were sent off to be cut commercially.

After a few trial and error attempts to cut this many pieces by hand, the services of

Allcable, Inc. was enlisted to have the fiber optics cut mechanically by a large machine seen

in Figure 4.2.1. They were able to take the spools and load them into large machines that

would then send the fiber optics through rollers to measure out exactly 5 inches and

simultaneously slice the pieces into a hopper. This dramatically reduced the amount of time

it took to do by hand and actually helped straighten the pieces a bit from the inherent curve

that was created from being on the spools. The only other step that was done by hand was

separating the fibers into bags with the quantities specified by the volumetric ratio

calculations; this way one bag could be used per joint as the prisms were built.

40
 Figure 4.2.1: Machine at Allcable, Inc. to cut fiber to length

It is noted that for future tests a manufacturer will be found to produce a mesh of fiber

optics with the same spacing and lengths in order to reduce even more variables. Not much

time was spent looking for a manufacturer to cut the pieces to length because it was thought

cutting them by hand would not be an issue. This proved to be the first major road block of

the manufacturing process, but opened up new ideas for future testing and how enlisting the

services of an established manufacturer can help in many ways.

4.2.2 Building the Prisms

Once the fiber optics were put into individual bags, it was easy to make sure the exact

number of fibers specified were placed inside each joint. To build an individual test prism, it

41
is best to set everything up in a smart workable area, meaning all the bricks for each prism

are easily accessible and the bags of fiber optics for the 4 joints are ready to be used. A batch

a mortar shall be mixed per the specifications discussed in the previous section and kept

moist for good workability. To make test prisms, the steps below were followed:

Figure 4.2.2-1: Building a typical mortar joint with fiber optics

1) Make sure the first brick is level (it will be crucial for testing that the bottom

surface is parallel to the top surface)

2) Then a thin layer of mortar should be placed and troweled over the top of the first

brick (make sure the top part of the brick is completely covered)

3) A layer of fiber optics can now be laid on top of the thin layer of mortar

4) Trowel another thin layer of mortar on top of the fiber optics

5) Place the next brick of this prism on top of the composite bed of mortar

6) Tap the brick down with the butt of the trowel to sit in the mortar

42
 7) Take measurements to make sure the joint thickness is ½ inch throughout as

specified (It is also crucial to make sure the top brick is still level and aligned with

the brick below)

Figure 4.2.2-2: Keeping it consistent

8) Repeat steps 1-7 until a 5-brick prism is complete

9) Once the prism is complete, label it with the date created, the diameter and the

number of fiber optics used in said prism

10) Set the prism in a secure area of the lab to let cure.

Once a prism was complete for a given diameter of fiber optics, the process was repeated for

the next diameter of fiber optics before the same specimen was repeated. A set of specimens

consisted of the following diameter and quantities of fiber optics per joint:

• Mortar only

• 3.0 mm diameter with 20 fibers

• 2.0 mm diameter with 40 fibers

43
 • 1.5 mm diameter with 70 fibers

• 1.0 mm diameter with 150 fibers

• 3.0 mm diameter with 50 fibers

• 2.0 mm diameter with 75 fibers

• 1.5 mm diameter with 100 fibers

• 1.0 mm diameter with 75 fibers

It is noted that the “mortar only” and “1.0 mm diameter with 150 fibers” prisms were

only done once per set, but the data was used for both assessments. Three batches of mortar

were needed to complete each set and a complete set was done by one individual in about 3

to 4 hours straight through. Four sets of specimens were constructed the same way on

different days to limit the variables within a set. A set of 3-brick prisms were created in the

same way for shear testing.

4.2.3 Grinding and Polishing

After a week of letting the prisms cure, the mortar was strong enough to come back

and grind off the excess fiber and mortar. This was done to give the wall a clean and flush

look that would normally be seen with brick masonry, but also to make sure that the fiber

optics reached completely from one side to the other and the ends were not covered with dry

mortar. If fiber optics were exactly the width of the brick, it is possible that the mortar could

cover the ends of the fiber, thus not allowing light to transmit through the wall. Grinding or

flush cutting the fiber optics also allowed for a new smooth end to have a better acceptance

cone of the source light. Grinding was done with a typical 4” angle grinder with a masonry

disk and seen in Figure 4.2.3a and 4.2.3b:

44
 a) b) c)
Figure 4.2.3: Grinding & Polishing

During testing, it was thought that using a heat gun would melt the ends of the fiber

optics and polish them over to improve light transmission as well. Testing was done before

and after the heat gun and although to the naked eye it didn’t make much of a difference, the

results outlined in further sections show it does make an improvement of the measured

lumens transmitted through the mortar. The heat gun was turned on high and run along the

joint at about a rate of 1 inch per 2-3 seconds as shown in figure 4.2.3c. It was noticed that

when using the heat gun, the fibers start to melt and pulled back into the voids of the mortar.

However, because the solid mortar acted as a sort of cladding it appeared that it was not

possible to over melt the fiber optics at the rate used in this experiment.

4.3 Testing Methods

The prisms were all tested for light transmission, compression strength, and the

whereabouts of shear failure. Light transmitting data as well as load to deflection data was

collected and analyzed in subsequent sections.

45
4.3.1 Light Transmittance Test

The light transmittance test will measure the illuminance of light transmitted through

the LTM by way of the plastic optical fibers. Illuminance measures the luminous flux per

unit area. In this report all measurements of illuminance will be in Lux units. Luminous flux

is the unit of measurement used in lighting photometry that describes the amount of power

produced by a lighting source. Prior to testing, the samples were cleaned to remove any

debris left over from the grinding process. The light transmittance test is a nondestructive

test and as such, the specimens from this test were re-used for compression tests. The light

test was carried out after 7 days of curing and the excess fiber and mortar was ground

smooth. A second light transmittance test was conducted after the use of a heat gun to melt

the ends of the fiber optics, essentially polishing them to theoretically allow a larger cone of

light acceptance.

Figure 4.3.1-1: Light Transmittance Test Box Diagram

To test the LTM, each test prism was placed inside a box that measures 8” wide by

13” tall by 28” deep as seen in Figure 4.3.1. One side of the box was left open, so the prisms

could be loaded in the middle and a halogen light source can be placed exactly 12 inches

46
away from the face of the test prism. The other side of the box was enclosed as to not allow

any external light inside, but had circular cut outs in order to place a light meter at

predetermined heights. A light meter was used on both sides of the box to measure

illuminance levels. On the light source side of the box, measurements were taken at 7” (from

the bottom of the box), but directly in front of the masonry prism. On the output side,

measurements were taken at 2.5”, 7” and 11.5” from the bottom but at the end of the box

which was exactly 12 inches from the back face of the masonry prism.

Figure 4.3.1-2: Light Transmittance Test Box

The equation for calculating transmittance can be found below and results are to be

tabulated in the results section of this report:

𝑇 = (𝐼/𝐼𝑜) 𝑥 100 <eq. 4.3.1>

Where:
T = Transmittance percentage
I = Transmitted Illuminance
Io = Source Illuminance

47
4.3.2 Compressive Strength Test

Compression testing of the prisms was performed after a 14-day curing time. The

prism tests were performed using a 220-kip capacity, Material Testing System test frame in

the UCD Structures Lab with a rotating spherical head that allowed for uniform loading even

if the ends of the prisms were slightly out of parallel. The procedure began with installing

the prisms into the MTS testing machine to be compressed at a constant rate of 0.003-inches

per second by a hydraulic ram. The samples were loaded until failure occurred. During the

test, the load and displacement data of the displaced plate was recorded using a computer-

based data acquisition system to calculate the compressive strength. Subsequent to the

testing of the final prism, a single brick was also compression tested, which provided for a

baseline strength of the units.

Figure 4.3.2: Testing the Compression Strength of a Prism

Because the bricks were obtained from an un-labeled stockpile that was stored just

outside of the CU Denver, Civil Engineering Testing Laboratory, their compressive strengths

were unknown. However, as will be indicated in the results section of this report, the tested

48
compressive strength of a single brick was approximately 4300 psi. According to the TMS-

602 (Masonry Standards Joint Committee, 2013), a prescriptive masonry strength can be

derived and should be approximately 1500 psi for a unit strength of 4150 psi and Type N

mortar. This is true provided that mortar joint widths do not exceed 5/8 inch, as was the case

for all of the test prisms.

The capacity of masonry assemblages is dependent on the masonry compressive

strength, f’m, defined as the maximum compressive force resisted per unit of net cross-

sectional area of masonry (Masonry Standards Joint Committee, 2013). This fundamental

material property for a masonry assemblage can be determined by an empirical method

where compressive strength is expressed as a function of the material properties of the

individual components of the assembly (units, mortar and grout). Additionally, the

compressive strength of masonry can be determined through testing of masonry prisms in

accordance with ASTM C1314, (Standard Test Method for Constructing and Testing

Masonry Prisms Used to Determine Compliance with Specified Compressive Strength of

Masonry).

In addition to the relevant data of comparative compressive strengths of the various

prisms, and those compressive strengths relative to that which is prescribed in TMS-602,

given the number of data points, it was also possible to derive an approximate modulus of

elasticity of the prisms. It is prescribed in TMS-602 that the modulus of elasticity of clay

masonry assemblages is 700 times f’m. If the prescriptive f’m equals 1500 psi and is

assumed to be valid, then the modulus of elasticity would be approximately 1050 ksi. The

slope of the stress/strain curves was approximated for each prism using data points at which

49
the curves were most linear and compared to the prescribed elasticity, based upon the tested

f’m value.

Like the brick prisms, the mortar cubes were allowed to cure for 14 days in the

laboratory at normal humidity levels. The mortar cubes were then compression tested using

a 20-kip rated MTS test frame. The cubes were compressed at a constant rate of 0.001-

inches per second until failure.

4.3.3 Shear Test

There are no proper code specifications for testing shear bond strength of masonry

assemblages. Hence, a setup was made as shown in Figure 4.3.3-1 particularly to test the

shear bond strength of the three-brick prisms. Since the specimen should be inserted into the

testing machine in such a manner that the load acts parallel to the mortar joint, the test prism

was turned on its side and compression tested in a 3-point bending setup. This was done

using a 20-kip rated MTS test frame after a 14 day curing period as well. A small steel plate,

roughly the size of the end of a single brick, was placed under a spherical head on the MTS

ram in order to move the point of load application to a point as near the joint as possible in

order to minimize the bending moment. The center brick was then compressed by this steel

plate and piston at a constant rate of 0.001-inches per second as the outer bricks were simply

supported, allowing failure to occur in a slip format.

It was thought that by laying the fiber optics parallel to only one axis and basically

side-by-side along the whole length of the joint, a slip plane would be created inside the

mortar joint and along the fiber optics. However, as it will be reported in the results section,

shear failure occurred along the bond of the brick and the composite mortar joint.

50
 Figure 4.3.3-1: Shear Test Setup

The bond shear strength was determined as the arithmetic mean of all successful

individual tests. A test was regarded as not successful and discarded if the brick unit crushed

during the test. The bond shear strength τo was determined in the absence of normal stresses

perpendicular to the mortar joint and by the following equation:

τo = F / (A1 + A2) <eq 4.3.3>

Where:
τo = the bond shear strength
F = the maximum force applied by the test machine
A1 = the area of the upper joint
A2 = the area of the lower joint

The characteristic failure patterns shown in Figure 4.3.3-2 were also recorded keeping

in mind that intermediate patterns are possible. It is noted that the failure of a typical

masonry assemblage usually occurs in the unit/mortar interface, being distributed either on

one or on two sides of the unit (Rilem, 1996). This type of failure is illustrated as failure

pattern (a) in the figure below. It was thought that by adding a row of fiber optics inside the

mortar, it would cause a failure pattern (b) as illustrated in the figure below. This would
51
mean that the addition of fiber optics could cause a critical shear failure of LTM masonry

assemblages not typically found in masonry assemblages without fiber optics. Failure

pattern (c) illustrated in the figure below demonstrates an extreme bond strength between the

mortar and brick unit. This typically indicates an inferior strength of a brick unit itself and

the measured value is considered the shear strength of the brick, not the bond shear strength.

(Rilem, 1996)
Figure 4.3.3-2: Shear Failure Patterns

The failure patterns were visually inspected throughout all shear test specimens and

documents in the results section of this report. These failure patterns proved to be the main

purpose of the shear test because bond shear strength can vary greatly and without reason

from test to test. Although the bond shear strength was calculated and tabulated in the results

section, pictures were also taken and presented in the results section to be compared to the

failure patterns in Figure 4.3.3-2.

52
 CHAPTER V

RESULTS

5.1 Light Transmittances

Although the transmitted measurements of the light transmittance tests were low by

comparison to the source, the effect was pronounced when seen by the naked eye. Examples

of the halogen light beam striking the faces of the prism can be seen in Figure 5.1-1a and the

light transmittance through the fiber optics on the output side can be seen in Figure 5.1-1b.

Even a flash light from a basic smart phone illuminated the fiber optics within the mortar

joints and could be seen in the daylight. However, the idea of light transmitting mortar is

expected to achieve its full effect in the night or in low light settings. In stating this, the

results of the measurements taken did behave as expected in the sense that the higher the

fiber volumetric ratio, the higher the light transmittance.

a) b)
Figure 5.1-1: Inside the Light Test Box

When the volumetric ratio was kept equivalent at about 5% then the best light

transmittance on average was 42 lux from the 2.0 mm diameter fiber optics. A summary of

53
the data collected can be found in Table 5.1: Light Transmittance Test Results. This data can

vary due to the grinding and polishing procedures used during the fabrication of the prisms

and is expressed as the averages over 4 sets of tests. A rougher finished surface causes light

to be transmitted in a diffuse pattern which is less efficient than a clean smooth finish and in

turn could decrease the transmittance levels. It should also be noted that the fibers were laid

individually and the curvature from the spool could have changed the angle at which the light

was transmitted, effecting the readings at the point the light meter was placed.

Table 5.1: Light Transmittance Test Results

54
 The most interesting thing that the testing revealed was that after applying the heat

gun, transmittance increased anywhere from 142% to 284% with the smaller diameter fibers

showing the most benefit from the heat gun. A graph of the increasing transmittance vs. the

fiber volume ratio can be found in Figure 5.1-2 and a second graph of varying the diameter of

the fiber optics vs. the light transmittance ratio can be found in Figure 5.1-3.

Fiber Optic Volumetric Ratio

vs. Light Transmittance

Percentage of Light Through Prism

0.250%
Before Heat Gun After Heat Gun 0.215%
0.200%

0.134% 0.150%

0.089% 0.100%
0.069%
0.031% 0.042% 0.051% 0.050%
0.010% 0.011% 0.020%
0.000%

Mortar Only 2.43% 4.87% 7.30% 9.73% 14.60%

Ratio of Fiber optics to Mortar in Joint (by Area)
*Diameter of Fiber Optics Vary

Figure 5.1-2: Light Transmittance vs. Fiber Volumetric Ratio

Fiber Optic Diameter (Equal Volumetric Ratio)

vs Light Transmittance
Percentage of Light Through Prism

Before Heat Gun After Heat Gun 0.119%

0.120%
0.100%
0.074% 0.080%
0.063%
0.060%
0.042%
0.040%
0.031% 0.030%
0.003% 0.017% 0.020%
0.011%
0.003% 0.000%

Mortar Only 1.0 mm: 1.5 mm: 2.0 mm: 3.0 mm:
Diameter of Fiber Optics (Equal CSA)
*Fiber Optics Cross Sectional Area is about 5% of Joint

Figure 5.1-3: Light Transmittance vs. Fiber Optic Diameter

55
5.2 Compressive Strength

A summary of the data collected can be found in Table 5.2: Compressive Strength

Test Results. This data can vary slightly due to the inexperience of masonry work and

fabrication of the prisms, but all prisms were created by the same person and believed to be

made as equivalents.

Table 5.2: Compressive Strength Test Results

A graph of the compressive strength vs. the fiber volume ratio can be found in Figure

5.2-1 and a second graph of the compressive strength vs. the fiber weight ratio can be found

in Figure 5.2-2. These graphs are based on the averages over four sets of testing. It appears

if any ratio of fiber optic is added to a mortar joint, it substantially increases the maximum

compression strength of the prism.

56
 Fiber Optic Volumetric Ratio
vs Compressive Strength
80.00
69 72 74
68 69
70.00

Max Compression Force (Kips)

55
60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00
20.00
10.00

Mortar 0.00
2.43%
Only 4.87%
7.30%
9.73%
14.60%

Ratio of Fiber Optics to Mortar in Joint (by Volume)

*Diameter of Fiber Optics Vary

Figure 5.2-1: Compressive Strength vs. Fiber Volumetric Ratio

Weight Ratio vs Compressive Strength

74 80.00
72
69 68 69
70.00 Max Compression Force (Kips)

55 60.00

50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
Mortar Only 1.12% 2.39% 2.84% 4.04% 6.11%

Ratio of Fiber Optics to Mortar in Joint (by Weight)

*Averaged over 4 tests

Figure 5.2-2: Compressive Strength vs. Fiber Weight Ratio

57
 A graph of the assessment with equal fiber volumetric ratios, but varying the diameter

of the fiber optics vs. the maximum compressive strength can be found in Figure 5.2-3. This

graph was used to determine the best diameter of fiber optics that should be used based on

the maximum compressive strength.

Fiber Optic Diameter vs Compressive Strength

(Fiber Optics Volumetric Ratio is about 5% of Joint)

80.00

76 70.00
69 69

Max Compression Force (Kips)

68
60.00

55 50.00

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
Mortar Only 1.0 mm: 1.5 mm: 2.0 mm: 3.0 mm:
Diameter of Fiber Optics (Equal Volumetric Ratio)

Figure 5.2-3: Compressive Strength vs. Fiber Optic Diameter

5.3 Shear Strength

The results of the shear tests seem to have little variation depending on whether fiber

optics were added to the joint or not. The failure pattern of each test prism can be seen in

Figure 5.3-1 and all categorized as failure pattern (a) from Figure 4.3.3-2 in the previous

section. All tests were categorized as this because the failure was along the bond between

the brick and mortar, even though a couple cracks went directly through the mortar and

continued along the bond line. In order to achieve failure pattern (b) and support the theory

58
that the addition of fiber optics had anything to do with the failure, the crack would need to

propagate entirely inside the mortar joint and not along the bond line.

a) No Fiber Optics b) 1mm Dia. Fiber Optics c) 1.5mm Dia. Fiber Optics

d) 1.5 Dia. Fiber Optics e) 2mm Dia. Fiber Optics f) 3mm Dia. Fiber Optics
Figure 5.3-1: Results of Shear Failure

The results of the shear strength test and calculations of the bond shear strength are

tabulated in Table 5.3 and shown in Figure 5.3-2. The values of specimen 1 were not

included in the graph of Figure 5.3-2 because they came from a batch of mortar mix that had

less water content and the joints measured to be 5/8” instead of the ½” specified. The prisms

59
created in Specimen 1 were the very first set created and was originally used more to

determine the maximum number of fiber optics that could fit in a joint. The subsequent

prism sets and batches of mortar were believed to have a more refined masonry work as the

learning process went along. However, the prisms from specimen 1 were also shown to fail

in the same pattern and the results were believed to be applicable and worth showing.

Table 5.3: Shear Strength Results

Bond Shear Strength vs. Fiber Volumetric Ratio

90
80
Shear Bond Strength, psi

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Mortar Only 2.43% 7.30% 9.73% 14.60%
Volumetric ratio, %

Figure 5.3-2: Bond Shear Strength vs. Fiber Volumetric Ratio

60
 CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

Light Transmitting Mortar is now an exciting and new innovation for the masonry

industry. LTM doesn’t only create a completely new architectural lighting effect, that will

undoubtedly bring life to the idea of an old brick and mortar wall, but it has been shown to

increase the structural properties to the overall assemblage as well. This added benefit might

actually bring light to new possibilities of masonry construction and take brick walls out of

being a just a veneer as they have seemed to become. A summary and conclusions from this

experiment, as well as a few recommendations for future research, can be found below for

each section of the report.

6.1 Manufacturing Methods

The fabrication process was extremely laborious and time consuming when

completed by hand, but there are a couple ideas that could address this issue. A fiber optic

Light Transmitting Mesh could be created in standard sizes or rolls to allow masons to

simply lay directly into the mortar as they carry on with their normal work. An automated

process to straighten, cut, lay these pieces side by side (with about 2mm between each piece)

and glue them together would be a wise investment in terms of time savings and quality

control.

The hardest thing to deal with during this experiment was by far the slight curvature

inherent in the 5-inch pieces. This was because the amounts of optical fibers ordered were

delivered on large spools. Due to the fact that the manufacturer wound them onto spools as

the plastic was extruded, it left a permanent curvature in the fibers that was still seen during

the process of pulling them off the spool and cutting them to such short lengths. If a straight
61
fiber was to be used, it would not only produce a better arrangement along the length of the

brick, but would also create a more uniform line of light transmittance on the other side of

the wall.

The grinding process used a normal 4” angle grinder with a masonry disk that had no

problem cutting off the excess fibers and mortar through most sized diameters of the fiber

optics. However, the 3.0 mm diameter fiber was quite a bit more difficult than any other size

because it made the grinder jump from fiber to fiber as it cut through each one and caused

marks to be left on the brick units. Any size smaller than the 3.0 mm diameter fiber optics

cut extremely smooth with the masonry disc.

6.2 Light Transmittance

The light transmitting mortar performed as expected during the light transmittance

tests with an increase in light transmittance as the fiber volumetric ratio increased. Further

improvements could be made by using higher grade optical fibers and a better way to polish

the ends to reduce the number of imperfections on the exposed faces of the fibers. Although

it was a little surprising the light meter gave as low values of light transmittance as was

recorded, tests were double checked and spot checked on different days to verify the results.

It was only surprising because the effect seen by the naked eye was quite a bit better than

expected. Even before the ends were ground smooth and with excess mortar partially

covering the ends, visible light was seen and gave a twinkling effect. This leads me to the

conclusion that even during weathering and harsh outdoor conditions, LTM will continue to

give the desired effect over long periods of time. Although it was not tested during this

62
report, it is believed that the fiber optic elements would stand up to cleaning and power

washing procedures just as well as brick and mortar does on current walls.

Even though it was demonstrated that increasing the fiber volumetric ratio increased

the light transmittance, it was also shown that simply increasing the quantity of the same

diameter fiber optics did not necessarily increase the light transmittance linearly. Since this

is thought to be true, there does not seem to be any benefit in packing in large quantities of

fiber optics into a single joint. When equal volumetric ratios were tested based solely on

varying the diameter of the fiber optics, it appears that the best selection to be used in a final

product would be the 2.0 mm diameter fiber optic. This conclusion is based solely on the

light transmittance test.

6.3 Compressive Strength

The results from the compressive strength tests showed that the addition of any size

or quantity of fiber into a mortar joint substantially increases the compressive strength of the

overall assemblage. This is thought to be true because the added tensile strength of fiber.

During a compression test of the masonry assemblages, failure occurs due to the

development of tensile stress in the masonry unit or bricks. Bricks and mortar will sustain

both axial and transverse deformation when compressed. Poissan’s Ratio (v) is defined as

the ratio of transverse deformation, or strain, to axial deformation, and is higher for mortar

than it is for the bricks. Therefore, when the assemblage is compressed, the transverse

deformation of the mortar is resisted by the bricks; putting the mortar into triaxial

compression and the bricks into bilateral tension. Since all actions have equal and opposite

reactions, transverse tensile stresses develop in the bricks because the brick’s tensile strength

63
is lower than the compressive strengths of the whole assemblage. Thus, tensile splitting of

the prism is the controlling failure mode as shown in Figure 6.3-1. The addition of the fiber

optics in this composite material is thought to be were the LTM got its additional strength.

Since fibers have superior tensile strength, it was believed that they acted as reinforcement to

the overall composite assemblages when the brick units experienced the critical tensile

stresses.

Figure 6.3-1: Failure Mode in Brick Prism

Figure 6.3-2: Tensile Splitting during Compression testing

In all tested specimens, tensile splitting of the bricks was observed. Moreover, the

tensile splitting occurred at the approximate locations of the cores, which was expected due

64
to the reduced cross-sectional area of brick at those locations. This type of failure is

illustrated in the photographs above. It should be noted that the surfaces of the prisms tested

during this report were not always completely parallel to each other and could help explain

why there was variation in compressive strength results. This was the reason that 4 sets of

tests were carried out for each volumetric size and variation of diameter in the fiber optics.

On average, the results proved to be consistent, with fiber reinforced mortar leading to an

increase in prism compressive strength. However, the maximum compression values do not

substantially increase as the fiber volumetric ratio was increased. Moreover, from the results

of varying the diameter of the fiber optics only and keeping the fiber volumetric ratio the

same, it appears that the best selection to be used in a final product would be the 1.5 mm

diameter fiber optic. This conclusion is based solely on the compression test.

6.4 Shear Strength

From the results of the shear test, it was evident that all test prisms failed in the

bonding of the mortar to brick. It was not seen that the addition of any quantity of fiber

optics in a joint of mortar weakened the assemblage an any additional way. This is believed

to be true given the small diameter of the fiber optics and the fact mortar was allowed to

encapsulate the fiber completely. It is thought that if fiber optics were laid side-by-side,

touching continuously from end to end of a joint, the possibility of shear failure could occur

along this plane, but did not prove this effect to be true. However, it is recommended that at

least a 1.0 mm space be left between each piece of fiber optic.

65
6.5 Final Thoughts

Combining this information with the conclusion sections above, it is thought that

either the 1.5 mm or 2.0 mm diameter fibers are more than suitable for the design of LTM

and the final selection should be based on personal preference for the look and quantity of

light pixels the architect or owner desires. It is recommended that if the 1.5 mm fiber optic is

chosen, then 70 pieces should be used per joint and 40 pieces for the 2.0 mm fiber optics.

Based on these numbers, the more economical choice would be the 1.5 mm diameter because

there is 2,296 feet on a spool and a manufacturer would be able to make 79 joints worth of

material. Whereas, the 2.0 mm diameter fiber optics comes in spools of 1,148 feet and 69

joints could be made per spool. Each spool was purchased for $105 no matter the size at the

time of this report.

In conclusion, the development of translucent concrete has paved the way for fiber

optics in other materials such as mortar. The fact that the addition of fiber optics not only

substantially increases the strength, but also allows for light to be effectively transmitted

through mortar, I believe a product like this will be useful to architects and engineers alike.

66
 REFERENCES

Ahuja, Aashish, Mosalam, Khalid M., Zohdi, Tarek I. (2015) “Computational Modeling of
Translucent Concrete Panels” Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 21, Issue 2, June
2015: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29AE.1943-
5568.0000167#sthash.EkTAK31Z.dpuf

ALI, ABID (2014) “LITRACON Light Transmitting Concrete” Oct, 20th, 2014
https://es.slideshare.net/abidalimahar52/original-litracon

Bates, Daniel (2011) “Mortar this than meets the eye: The 'transparent' cement that lets
daylight flood into a room” DailyMail.com, January, 5th 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1344383/Transparent-light-cement-lets-light-
flood-room.html#ixzz4o972a9Qk

Fathima, S., Tech B., (2015) “Light Transmitting Concrete Seminar Report-2015” T.K.M
Institute of Technology https://www.slideshare.net/SahlaFathima/seminar-report-53878460

Goho, A. (2005). Concrete Nation: Bright future for ancient material. Science News, Vol.
167, No. 1, p. 7, Jan. 1, 2005 http://www.concretewashout.com/downloads
/Concrete_Nation__Science_News_Online,_Jan._1,_2005.pdf

Hamid, D. A. “Masonry Structures Behavior and Design,” 3rd Ed. Boulder, CO: The
Masonry Society

Italcementi Group. Available: http://www.italcementigroup.com/ENG/Medi

a+and+Communication/News/Corporate+events/20100322.htm

LitraCon. Available: http://www.litracon.hu/projects.php

Lucem. Available: http://www.lucem.de/index.php?id=156&L=1

Illston, D. a. (2010). “Construction Materials: Their Nature and Behaviour”. New York :
Spon Press.

Masonry Standards Joint Committee (2013) “Building Code Requirements for Masonry
Structures (TMS-402)” Longmont, CO

Masonry Standards Joint Committee (2013) “Specification for Masonry Structures”

Longmont, CO

McGillivray, Sara (2011) “Translucent Concrete: An Emerging Material”, December 9th,

2011 http://illumin.usc.edu/245/translucent-concrete-an-emerging-material/

67
News Desk (2013) “Light Transmitting Concrete Panels – A New Innovation in Concrete
Technology,” September 30, 2013 http://www.masterbuilder.co.in/light-transmitting-
concrete-panels-a-new-innovation-in-concrete-technology

Pagliolico, Simonetta L., Lo Verso, Valerio R.M., Torta, Annalisa., Giraud, Maurizio.,
Canonico, Fulvio., Ligi, Laura. (2015) “A Preliminary Study on Light Transmittance
Properties of Translucent Concrete Panels with Coarse Waste Glass Inclusions” Energy
Procedia Volume 78, November 2015, Pages 1811-1816
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.317

RILEM MS-D.6 (1996) – In situ measurement of masonry bed joint shear strength. RILEM
TC 127-MS: Tests form masonry materials and structures, Volume 29, October 1996, pp.
459-475.

Sabhapathy, K.S. (2014) “Experimental Study of Transparent concrete (translucent)” APR

27TH, 2014 https://www.slideshare.net/sabadinesh/transparent-concrete-translucent

Saleem, (2015) “System, method and apparatus for providing lane separation and traffic
safety,” U.S. Patent No. 14/878,583 (2015)

Saleem, Muhammad, Elshami, Mostafa Morsi, Najjar, Muhammad (2017) “Development,

Testing, and Implementation Strategy of a Translucent Concrete-Based Smart Lane
Separator for Increased Traffic Safety” Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 143, Issue 5, May 2017
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0001240#sthash.N7RQNryD.dpuf

Schariff, R. (1989) “Workshop Math” Sterling Publishing Company

Shanmugavadivu, P.M., Scinduja, V., Sarathivelan, T., Shudesamithronn, C.V (2014) “An
Experimental Study On Light Transmitting Concrete”: IJRET: International Journal of
Research in Engineering and Technology, Volume: 03, Special Issue: 11, June 2014

The Economist. (2001) “How to see through walls: Transparent concrete is encouraging
architects to rethink how they design buildings.” Sept. 20, 2001 http://www.economist
.com/node/779421

68
 APPENDIX

Appendix A: Light Transmittance Test (Varying Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos

Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure A.1 – No Fiber Optics

Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure A.2 – 1 mm Dia. Fiber Optics (75 per Joint)

69
Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure A.3 – 1mm Dia. Fiber Optics (150 per Joint)

Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure A.4 – 1.5 mm Dia. Fiber Optics (100 per Joint)

70
Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure A.5 – 2mm Dia. Fiber Optics (75 per Joint)

Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure A.6 – 3mm Dia. Fiber Optics (50 per Joint)

71
Appendix B: Light Transmittance Test (Equal Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos

Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure B.1 – 1.5mm Dia. Fiber Optics (70 per Joint)

Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure B.2 – 2mm Dia. Fiber Optics (40 per Joint)

72
Light Source Before Heat gun After Heat Gun

Figure B.1 – 3mm Dia. Fiber Optics (20 per Joint)

73
Appendix C: Compression Test (Varying Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos

Figure C.1 – No Fiber Optics

Figure C.2 – 1 mm Dia. Fiber Optics (75 per Joint)

74
 Figure C.3 – 1mm Dia. Fiber Optics (150 per Joint)

Figure C.4 – 1.5 mm Dia. Fiber Optics (100 per Joint)

75
Figure C.5 – 2mm Dia. Fiber Optics (75 per Joint)

Figure C.6 – 3mm Dia. Fiber Optics (50 per Joint)

76
Appendix D: Compression Test (Equal Fiber Volumetric Ratio) – Photos

Figure D.1 – 1mm Dia. Fiber Optics (150 per Joint)

Figure D.2 – 1.5mm Dia. Fiber Optics (70 per Joint)

77
Figure D.3 – 2mm Dia. Fiber Optics (40 per Joint)

Figure D.4 – 3mm Dia. Fiber Optics (20 per Joint)

78
Appendix E: Prism Compression Data – Varying Fiber Volumetric Ratio

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) No Fiber 49.71 kips 1,798.38 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.1 – Stress Strain Curve for No Fiber Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) No Fiber 52.40 kips 1,895.65 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.2 – Stress Strain Curve for No Fiber Prism

79
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) No Fiber 53.84 kips 1,947.98 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.3 – Stress Strain Curve for No Fiber Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) No Fiber 64.59 kips 2,336.88 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.4 – Stress Strain Curve for No Fiber Prism

80
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 1mm 75 55.78 kips 2,017.92 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.5 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (75 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 1mm 75 70.53 kips 2,551.64 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.6 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (75 per Joint) Prism

81
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 1mm 75 67.84 kips 2,454.27 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.7 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (75 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 1mm 75 82.93 kips 3,000.13 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.8 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (75 per Joint) Prism

82
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 1mm 150 63.35 kips 2,291.81 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.9 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 1mm 150 55.29 kips 2,000.38 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.10 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

83
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 1mm 150 72.41 kips 2,619.80 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.11 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 1mm 150 79.11 kips 2,862.23 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.12 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

84
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 1.5mm 100 65.84 kips 2,381.94 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.13 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (100 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 1.5mm 100 60.54 kips 2,190.21 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.14 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (100 per Joint) Prism

85
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 1.5mm 100 68.29 kips 2,470.48 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.15 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (100 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 1.5mm 100 91.92 kips 3,325.58 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.16 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (100 per Joint) Prism

86
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 2mm 75 64.35 kips 2,327.95 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.17 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (75 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 2mm 75 61.13 kips 2,211.56 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.18 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (75 per Joint) Prism

87
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 2mm 75 71.91 kips 2,601.69 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.19 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (75 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 2mm 75 78.29 kips 2,832.56 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.20 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (75 per Joint) Prism

88
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 3mm 50 69.46 kips 2,512.84 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.21 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (50 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 3mm 50 70.33 kips 2,544.46 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.22 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (50 per Joint) Prism

89
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 3mm 50 76.59 kips 2,771.08 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.23 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (50 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 3mm 50 81.22 kips 2,938.35 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60%
Strain (in/in)

Figure E.24 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (50 per Joint) Prism

90
Appendix F: Prism Compression Data – Equal Fiber Volumetric Ratio

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 1mm 150 63.35 kips 2,291.81 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500
3000
2500
Stress (psi)

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.1 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 1mm 150 55.29 kips 2,000.38 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.2 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

91
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 1mm 150 72.41 kips 2,619.80 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.3 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 1mm 150 79.11 kips 2,862.23 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.4 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

92
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 1.5mm 70 71.05 kips 2,570.34 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.5 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (70 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 1.5mm 70 67.82 kips 2,453.53 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.6 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (70 per Joint) Prism

93
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 1.5mm 70 83.54 kips 3,022.54 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.7 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (70 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 1.5mm 70 79.76 kips 2,885.61 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.8 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (70 per Joint) Prism

94
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 2mm 40 14.70 kips 531.91 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.9 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (40 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 2mm 40 65.46 kips 2,368.32 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.10 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (40 per Joint) Prism

95
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 2mm 40 69.40 kips 2,510.91 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.11 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (40 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 2mm 40 68.08 kips 2,462.87 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.12 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (40 per Joint) Prism

96
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) 3mm 20 48.69 kips 1,761.70 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.13 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (20 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) 3mm 20 58.59 kips 2,119.88 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.14 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (20 per Joint) Prism

97
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) 3mm 20 65.08 kips 2,354.68 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.15 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (20 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) 3mm 20 73.65 kips 2,664.51 psi

Stress vs Strain
3500

3000

2500
Stress (psi)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% 1.60% 1.80%
Strain (in/in)

Figure F.16 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (20 per Joint) Prism

98
Appendix G: Mortar Cube Compression Test - Photos

Figure G.1 – 1st Batch of Mortar

Figure G.2 – 3rd Batch of Mortar

99
Appendix H: Mortar Cube Compression Data

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-7) Mortar Cube 6.29 kips 1,573.09 psi

Stress vs Strain
2000
1800
1600
1400
Stress (psi)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
Strain (in/in)

Figure H.1 – Stress Strain Curve for 1st Mortar Cube

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-9) Mortar Cube 3.26 kips 815.86 psi

Stress vs Strain
1000
900
800
700
Stress (psi)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
Strain (in/in)

Figure H.2 – Stress Strain Curve for 2nd Mortar Cube

100
Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-11) Mortar Cube 5.47 kips 1,080.79 psi

Stress vs Strain
1200

1000

800
Stress (psi)

600

400

200

0
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
Strain (in/in)

Figure H.3 – Stress Strain Curve for 3rd Mortar Cube

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-12) Mortar Cube 8.94 kips 1,765.35 psi

Stress vs Strain
2000
1800
1600
1400
Stress (psi)

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 6.00%
Strain (in/in)

Figure H.4 – Stress Strain Curve for 4th Mortar Cube

101
Appendix I: Shear Test – Photos

Figure I.1 – No Fiber Optics

Figure I.2 – No Fiber Optics

102
 Figure I.3 – 1mm Dia. Fiber Optics (150 per Joint)

Figure I.4 – 1.5 mm Dia. Fiber Optics (100 per Joint)

103
Figure I.5 – 1.5 mm Dia. Fiber Optics (100 per Joint)

Figure I.6 – 2mm Dia. Fiber Optics (75 per Joint)

104
Figure I.7 – 3mm Dia. Fiber Optics (50 per Joint)

105
Appendix J: Shear Test Data

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-15) No Fiber 2.93 kips 106.10 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.1 – Stress Strain Curve for No Fiber Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(10-3) No Fiber 3.87 kips 140.17 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.2 – Stress Strain Curve for No Fiber Prism

106
Specimen Max Force Max Stress
(10-3) 1mm 75 4.68 kips 169.46 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.3 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (75 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(9-15) 1mm 150 0.96 kips 34.80 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.4 – Stress Strain Curve for 1mm (150 per Joint) Prism

107
Specimen Max Force Max Stress
(9-15) 1.5mm 100 2.08 kips 75.21 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.5 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (100 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(10-3) 1.5mm 100 4.64 kips 168.00 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.6 – Stress Strain Curve for 1.5mm (100 per Joint) Prism

108
Specimen Max Force Max Stress
(10-3) 2mm 75 2.99 kips 108.27 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.7 – Stress Strain Curve for 2mm (75 per Joint) Prism

Specimen Max Force Max Stress

(10-3) 3mm 50 4.65 kips 168.22 psi

Stress vs Strain
180
160
140
120
Stress (psi)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40%
Strain (in/in)

Figure J.8 – Stress Strain Curve for 3mm (50 per Joint) Prism

109