|
i.
<br /> P
<br /> • 7k:" I. ,'e;'Zi..e'oa�'�S 4V,'A14 ..�E: -' '+:si w.t 15,000
<br /> ,91
<br /> V, ]Ay'7' t,� '.&%.-7y 1.. '.i
<br /> " • 'sl v t �r +v47�yj
<br /> q. 14,00 .ri,;*,-:...:%--"I's'i-Ai--• e
<br /> ;3tI
<br /> b,,':"' �4 3,4.6—'-';,.,•'y,;,»;7 4 13,000 /
<br /> ss zti
<br /> ?.. i
<br /> "r� YLS r �
<br /> r ; or v*A4. .zi;; 'i7^w -V c"` f � !ir •: H
<br /> 12,000
<br /> A
<br /> Ao.
<br /> 0
<br /> /
<br /> 11,000
<br /> �� .4' „1 = �,'4 dy7/
<br /> 0 —Plain?;.t: fi�uf e `si0..1 ..
<br /> 4m>tr 'i� ;+nL
<br /> :Y: va+n.aR ,sie' w + e.c„`E .. La
<br /> £s* ;,x' ��:- �
<br /> 2vy �4sa - �
<br /> • t � ] sv Z^ ,
<br /> } r•Ar* tisS .>^- .1 ,;;""" :•40 "";-N 4» 10,000
<br /> 2v 9,000et'.6
<br /> /1
<br /> •
<br /> 7-3.— 8,000 P/1
<br /> pI E —WWF
<br /> X —Fiber
<br /> m
<br /> esh
<br /> 0 —Failure
<br /> iz?(( .;. ft W z * Q 7,000s , ,t . q ~° il
<br /> s tom• € i :'--41rw ~
<br /> 6,000
<br /> • c fi Sf. r «f:: �tr r r 5,000 /��
<br /> { . �4=" " `z-, 6P` 4,000 ///
<br /> 3,000 it e
<br /> These accelerated test photos show a 2 000 �I/
<br /> comparison between the two slabs at 24
<br /> hours. The cracking. in the control slab 1,000 <
<br /> started at 2.5 hours.Most of the cracking P
<br /> patterns were developed at 4 hours. 0 10 20 30 40 50
<br /> .:.•k -',:7----- '. -.:: ; T- Average Net Deflections at
<br /> i t., A1,� ``s: Gages 6 and 7 (x0.001 in)
<br /> �It " ,<" 4 t 7 •
<br /> � 4 ..$ 4 ' .f Force-versus-deflection curves for the 3 slabs.
<br /> i• Y� 4 , .
<br /> • ' ,.
<br /> /. , Engineers Conclusion tions where there are impact or
<br /> ,. .� " seismic concerns for safety to life
<br /> D9 The load-deflection data indi-
<br /> I. ,i' and property.
<br /> 3
<br /> ¢ � • - cate that with respect to flexural
<br /> -`` �A ,--,e_ .-',4.4,..: :``Wresponse characteristics, Fiber :, 0��z� z I
<br /> F>� s er ' r .ri '� ria •x -a ^tis
<br /> `1.el: ,w.„., ay. ". as Yt- 'C �S„ -5 .t
<br /> �. 5 mesh fibers can be used as a :,,� s r ,� <T
<br /> It:t i �* practical alternative to welded 2 � xe: xt�,
<br /> :e�:t' '�` `a ' y, wire fabric which is commonly :::::,,.,. te''''.. .o r, §. 7 �'�. .1
<br /> used for shrinkage crack control „ ;
<br /> zs
<br /> �KM ' pR purposes in essentially unrein- 5':bv.:r4:::.:::,.•cti.:„..:::::::A.
<br /> -•
<br /> , 5 ;,-- -, -.„3forced concrete. r ,,,� , ,, tff Pet'
<br /> ,75.,..,.1-
<br /> lie/
<br /> `.-',4 Shatter Resistance Under Com r• `"`: €� .
<br /> � = ti" pressive Loading of FIBERMESH kjY ,��K�° !;'s: _'
<br /> ' a � Concrete Versus Plain Concrete ,��* `0,, ,, .<5i8 ,ate.,=4.4,,,..--- -4.,.
<br /> r w? 17 c s t .tea, . r 4 .•u, ti
<br /> r , a •,. 2 ct,�ryv✓{�,r ftp,F 717>-e S� Z?s o
<br /> ...v u"asm ,.. • .BYm r c pkv, r ��1. �.
<br /> This test program evaluated the .P, , .'4:alt,-
<br /> At 24 hours, and even after 28 days, the '«'r� -.? if ' .`t 4 '-+• -
<br /> v + shatter resistance of Fibermesh ty:�.. .. E, -� ,, ,,, ;t
<br /> Fibermesh slab had virtually no cracking. ` 4 'Y '� '
<br /> - concrete and plain concrete when �, '-'� '�''�36sL-�•"�.�;rr.��r-•;,���'
<br /> f . ' ?7.23: ••..,. ::,- ;:i4:,-;..7-1.4.-,-- 4..1.,.-,4 - °- 7 ;z- 3
<br /> exposed to crushingloads. The =
<br /> p u " n Ali i �• .i5 �:.e '' Q ^ [s '.
<br /> Static Load Test—continued specimens were 21 x 6 x 6 giv -� ,,,E��f-•-j,•_ , ;
<br /> ing a height/thickness (HIT) ratio - p-
<br /> Pd The results of the study indi- of 3-1/2 to 1 in order to simulate Research engineer removes Fibermesh
<br /> cate that substituting Fibermesh a column in a high rise building. specimen after test ended. Column was
<br /> in place of welded wire fabric atAll columns were tested in a stars compressed nearly 10% and still re•
<br /> a rate of 1.5 lbs. per cubic yard ofdard compression strength ma mained intact.
<br /> concrete yields: chine. The rate of compression
<br /> — Equivalent flexural strength was .025" per minute and was Water Migration/Permeability of
<br /> capacity of the slab. automatically documented on an FIBERMESH Concrete
<br /> — Equivalent load-deflection X-Y recorder. The Von Test method was used
<br /> relationship. Results show the ability of Fi- to make this comparison at San
<br /> bermesh concrete to sustain itself Jose State University. Migration
<br /> ® The flexural .capacity of the and not shatter after more than of water rates indicated reduction
<br /> - —Nab containing Fibermesh was 2 10% compression as compared to in concrete permeability of ;,_„_,
<br /> lj =rcent higher than the slab con- plain concrete which shattered 33-44% at 1 lb. of Fibermesh per =�* -;`�
<br /> taining welded wire fabric and 8 completely shortly after first crack. cubic yard and as high as 79% at
<br /> percent higher than the plain con- This characteristic of Fibermesh 2 lbs. per cubic yard.
<br /> crete slab. concrete is important to applica- (See chart at top of next page.)
<br /> t
<br /> g
<br /> a
<br />
|