<%BANNER%>

Comparison of Non-Netallic to Metallic Lath Reinforcement in Stucco Cladding Systems


PAGE 1

COMPARISON OF NON-METALLIC TO METALLIC LATH REINFORCEMENT IN STUCCO CLADDING SYSTEMS By PATRICK MURRAY A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Patrick Murray

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my committee for their continued guidance and support throughout the research process. Most of a ll I thank my family fo r their support while I was at the University of Florida. I would like to thank my brother Charles Murray for his dedication to the family which enabled me to pursue my degree. I thank Halbert Pipe & Steel Company for their assistance in fabricatio n of testing equipment. I would also like to thank Gary Milam for his guidance and wisdom.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Three-Coat Stucco Systems..........................................................................................1 One-Coat Stucco Systems.............................................................................................2 Lathing........................................................................................................................ ..2 Research Objectives......................................................................................................3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 Introduction...................................................................................................................4 Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Mo rtar, and Exterior Plaster.............................................5 Background of Glass Fiber Reinforcement in Concrete...............................................7 Portland Cement Stucco/Exterior Plaster.....................................................................8 Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco.....................................9 Non Metallic Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco...............9 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................11 Sample Combination..................................................................................................11 Sample Preparation.....................................................................................................12 Frame Building....................................................................................................12 Step 1............................................................................................................12 Step 2............................................................................................................12 Step 3............................................................................................................13 Step 4............................................................................................................13 Mixing/Placing/Curing Stucco............................................................................13 Step 1............................................................................................................13 Step 2............................................................................................................13 Step 3............................................................................................................13

PAGE 5

v Step 4............................................................................................................14 Step 5............................................................................................................14 Cutting Samples...................................................................................................14 Test Methods..............................................................................................................15 Testing Procedures......................................................................................................16 Third-point Flexure Testing................................................................................16 Initial Crack Test.................................................................................................17 Impact Test..........................................................................................................18 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................29 Initial Cracking Deflection Test.................................................................................29 Average B/D Overlapped....................................................................................30 Average C/E Non-Overlapped............................................................................30 Third-point Flexural Test............................................................................................31 Average Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations...................................31 Average C/E Non-Overlapped Secti on Results and Interpretations....................32 Sample 10 and 11 Results and Interpreta tions (1 Longitudinal& 2 Transverse Overlaps)..........................................................................................................33 Impact Test.................................................................................................................33 Individual Stucco Reinforcement Comparisons.........................................................34 Permalath 1-Coat Comparison..........................................................................35 Permalath 3-Coat Comparison..........................................................................35 Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison...........................................................................35 Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison...........................................................................35 Metal Wire 1-Coat Comparison..........................................................................35 Metal Wire 3-Coat Comparison..........................................................................36 Real World Stucco Product Comparisons...............................................................36 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................63 Conclusions.................................................................................................................63 One-Coat Systems...............................................................................................63 Three-Coat Systems.............................................................................................64 Recommendations.......................................................................................................64 APPENDIX A DRAWINGS OF THE SAMPLES.............................................................................66 B FLEXURE DATA AND GRAPHS............................................................................72 C PICTURES OF TENSILE FLEXURE CRACKS......................................................86 D INITIAL CRACKING DEFLECTION/STRENGTH................................................99 E CRACK ANALYSIS DATA....................................................................................105

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................108

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1: Flexure and Initial Crack Samples Layout.................................................................19 3-2: Impact Samples Layout..............................................................................................20 4-1. Sample B/D Average Initial Crack Deflection...........................................................36 4-2. Sample C Initial Crack Deflection..............................................................................38 4-3. Sample B/D (overlapped) Average Load/Deflection.................................................39 4-4 Sample B/D Average Slope and R^2...........................................................................41 4-5 Sample B/D Average Crack Area................................................................................41 4-6. Sample C/E (non-overlapped ) Average Load/Deflection..........................................42 4-7. Sample C/E Average Slope and R^2..........................................................................44 4-8. Sample C/E Average Crack Area...............................................................................44 4-9. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection..................................................45 4-10. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2...................................................46 4-11. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection.......................................................................47 4-12. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2...................................................47 4-13. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison................................................50 4-14. Permalath 1-Coat Slope Comparison.....................................................................51 4-15. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison................................................52 4-16. Permalath 3-Coat Slope Comparison.....................................................................53 4-17. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison.................................................54 4-18. Metal Lath 1-Coat Slope Comparison......................................................................55

PAGE 8

viii 4-19. Metal Lath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison.................................................55 4-20. Metal Lath 3-Coat Slope Comparison......................................................................56 4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison................................................57 4-22. Metal Wire 1-Coat Slope Comparison.....................................................................58 4-23. Metal Wire 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison................................................58 4-24. Metal Wire 3-Coat Slope Comparison.....................................................................59 4-25. Real World 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data........................59 4-26. Real World 1-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison......................................................60 4-27. Real World 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data........................61 4-28. Real World 3-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison......................................................62

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1. Warp v. Weft Diagram...............................................................................................19 3-2. Flexure Sample Frame (2 longitudinal overlaps).......................................................20 3-3. Flexure Sample Frame 2-way Overla ps (2 transverse and 1 vertical)........................21 3-4. Impact Sample Frame.................................................................................................21 3-5. Flexural Sample Scre w/Cap and Staple Layout.........................................................22 3-6. Impact Sample Screw/Cap and Staple Layout...........................................................22 3-7. System Scratch Coat.............................................................................................23 3-8. Cut through plywood..................................................................................................23 3-9. Third-Point Flexural Loading Diagram......................................................................24 3-10. Sample Section View in Tension........................................................................24 3-11. 3/8 Sample Section View in Tension......................................................................24 3-12. LSCT Controller.......................................................................................................25 3-13. Electrical Circuit 2D Model Layout.........................................................................25 3-14. Initial Crack Testing Set-up......................................................................................26 3-15. Initial Crack Testi ng Set-up (light-bulb)..................................................................26 3-16. Impact Testing Set-up Top View..............................................................................27 3-17. Impact Testing Set-up Model...................................................................................27 3-18. Impact Testing Set-up Transparent Model...............................................................28 4-1 Sample B/D 1-Coat Average Initial Crack Deflection................................................37 4-2. Sample B/D 3-Coat Average Initial Crack Deflection...............................................37

PAGE 10

x 4-3. Sample C 1-Coat Initial Crack Deflection..................................................................38 4-4. Sample C 3-Coat Initial Crack Deflection..................................................................39 4-5 Sample B/D (overlapped) 1-Co at Average Load vs. Deflection.................................40 4-6 Sample B/D (overlapped) 3-Co at Average Load vs. Deflection.................................40 4-7 Sample B/D Average Crack Area................................................................................42 4-8. Sample C/E (non-overlapped) 1-Co at Average Load vs. Deflection.........................43 4-9. Sample C/E (non-overlapped) 3-Co at Average Load vs. Deflection.........................43 4-10. Sample C/E Average Crack Area.............................................................................45 4-11. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection................................................46 4-12. Sample 10 & 11 B, D, E Average Crack Area Average...........................................46 4-13. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection.......................................................................47 4-14. Sample 10 & 11 C Crack Area Average...................................................................48 4-15. 3/8 Impact samples, 160 in-lbs...............................................................................48 4-16. Impact Samples, 320 in-lbs.................................................................................49 4-17. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph.....................................51 4-18. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph.....................................53 4-19. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph......................................54 4-20. Metal Lath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph......................................56 4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph.....................................57 4-22. Metal Wire 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph.....................................58 4-23. Real World 1-Coat Stucco Co mparison Load v. Deflection Graph......................60 4-24. Real World 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph.....................61

PAGE 11

xi Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Bu ilding Construction COMPARISON OF NON-METALLIC TO METALLIC LATH REINFORCEMENT IN STUCCO CLADDING SYSTEMS By Patrick W. Murray August 2006 Chair: Larry Muszynski Cochair: R. Raymond Issa Major Department: Building Construction Stucco/Plaster is a Portland cement based mi xture used for exterior wall cladding. Stucco is placed over traditional wood frame or CMU wall structures. A vapor barrier is first attached to the wall followed by lathing over which stucco is applied resulting in a to thick section. Lathing has traditiona lly been made from galvanized metal. The lathing is used as reinforcement for the st ucco. There are currently new, potentially superior lathing products coming to the mark et that could increas e the useful life of stucco cladding as well as decrease the la bor costs associated with installation. This study shows how Degussas Permalath Fiberglass lathing reinforcement compares to traditional metal wire lath and expanded metal lath as reinforcement for stucco wall systems. Tests performed in this study to make these comparisons were third-point flexural loading, initial cracking deflection, and impact testing.

PAGE 12

xii Results show that Permalath in both 1-coat and 3-co at systems perform as well as other metal lath options. Permalath performs equally as we ll in both the weft and warp directions. Permalath also performs well whether is it overlapped (longitudinally) or non-overlapped.

PAGE 13

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Stucco is a Portland cement based plaste r used as an exterior wall cladding in building construction. Lathing and stucco ar e the two main compone nts that comprise stucco wall cladding. Depending on the physical structure, there may or may not be more components to the systems. There are many different proprietary bl ends of Portland cement based stucco produced by many different suppliers. There ar e also a variety of la th options available for use in stucco cladding systems. There ar e different weights, ga uges, and patterns of traditional metal cloth and mesh used to pr oduce lathing. Combinations of different stucco blends and laths have an effect on th e thickness and number of coats required by the stucco system. There are currently 1-coat and 3-coat stucco systems. Three-Coat Stucco Systems Three-coat stucco is the traditional sy stem that has been used as cladding for many years. This is a very labor inte nsive method with relatively high costs. Three-coat stucco systems are comprised of three layers of st ucco and one layer of lathing. Scratch, Brown, and Finish coats comprise the three different coats applied when using a three-coat system. The scra tch coat is applied at approximately thickness and is scratched approximately deep before setting up. The scratches are intended to help in the forming of a mechan ical bond between the scratch coat and brown coat. The second coat is the brown coat wh ich is thick. The brown coat is left

PAGE 14

2 smooth after it is applied. The finish coat or third coat is less th an 1/8 thick and is intended for aesthetic quality. One-Coat Stucco Systems One-coat stucco systems consist of only two layers, a brown coat and a finish coat. The brown coat is applied between 3/8 and thick. The finish layer is the second coat in this process and is once ag ain for aesthetic purposes only. This new method is a streamlined and more economi cal process of stucco application. Lathing Stucco without reinforcement does not have the strength or bonding ability to stand alone. Lathing acts as a mechanical bonding agent to the wall making the stucco system act as one structure. Lathing has trad itionally been either metal wire or expanded metal. Metal wire is available in different gauges while expanded metal in available in different weights. Metal wi re gauges are a continuous gauge throughout the entire sheet of lath. Expanded metal lath weights are based per square yard of lath. Stucco can crack for many reasons, including shrinkage of cementitious materials as well as metal lath incompatibility. Crack ing is one of the major downsides of using stucco as an exterior claddi ng. Control of stucco cracking has been an issue with no answer for as long as stucco has been used in construction. Metal is also very susceptible to aggressive environmental conditions. In marine conditions, freeze/thaw areas, and high humidity areas metal lathing can corrode sa crificing many useful years of the stucco system. Permalath is a new Fiberglass lath material which is not rigid and not as susceptible to environmental conditions as meta l lath. Being that it is not rigid; cracking may become less of an issue. Permalath also helps contro l the degree that

PAGE 15

3 environmental conditions can affect the stucco system. Permalath is less labor intensive and safer to install than metal lath. Permalath is also bundled in a roll making it easier to handle than large shee ts of metal lath. Research Objectives The objectives of this research were to compare the structural properties of traditional metal lath applications and Permalath as a stucco reinforcement system. This research used three main test methods for study; third-point flexural loading, impact testing, and initial crack deflection. Devel opment of new testing methods for stucco systems has also become a secondary objective of this research, as there are no testing standards specific for stucco systems.

PAGE 16

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction In 1824, English inventor Joseph Aspdin de veloped Portland cement, which is a material that is now widely used in build ing construction as a co mponent in concrete, mortar, and exterior plaster. Later in 1849, Joseph Monier in vented reinforced concrete, which is a composite material consisting of concrete that incorporates an embedded metal, usually steel. Un-reinforced concrete is high in compressive strength; however, it has relatively low tensile pr operties. Consequently, th e addition of reinforcement significantly improves the ability of the mate rial to tolerate tensile forces. Steel reinforced concrete is over all durable, strong and expected to perform well throughout its service life; however, sometimes th e steel is subject to corrosion. In the 1970s, fiber reinforced concrete was invented. The fibers can be formed from a variety of materials such as steel as well as various fibrous products such as nylon, fiberglass, and polypropylene. Fiber rein forcements increase concrete's toughness and ductility (the ability to deform plastically without fracturi ng) by carrying a portion of the load in the case of matrix failure, and by a rresting crack growth. Dr. Victor Li of the University of Michigan has researched th e properties of high-performance fiberreinforced cementitious composites, a very high-performance subset of fiber-reinforced concrete. He believes that acc eptance of the material will grow, as long as performance, low cost, and ease of execution ar e maintained (Black, 2005).

PAGE 17

5 More recently, non-metallic reinforcing mate rials, such as plastic and fiberglass reinforcing bar, have been developed as an al ternative to traditional steel reinforcing bar. The advantages of these products include highe r tensile strength, resistance to corrosion and other environmental factors, and decreased maintenance. During the last two decades, government organizations, private industries, and universities have performed research to produce fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforcements for structures exposed to aggressive environmental conditions (freeze/thaw, marine conditions, chemicals) and mechanical overloading. The most common FRPs used are glass, aramid, and carbon. FRPs can be placed in different locations of a structure to achieve the followi ng: flexural strength, te nsile strength, shear strength, provide confinement, or ductility. With the many new technologies and materials available today, steel reinforcem ent is giving way to fiber reinforcement (Balendran et al., 2002). Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Mortar, and Exterior Plaster As a result of metal corrosion and the f act that fiber reinforcement in concrete has performed so well, it seems promising to sear ch for new fibrous materials to substitute for metal lath that has been historically used in exterior plaster (stucco). These materials could be made from continuous and disc ontinuous glass and/or organic fibers. In civil engineering applications, there are four dominate types of fibers utilized. These are carbon, aramid, glass, and organic fibers. Continuous fiber such as carbon fiber, aramid fiber and glass fiber have been accepted as a substitute for conventional steel reinforcement in specific applications. This is because of their good characteristics: high strength, lightness, anti-corrosiveness, an ti-magnetism and flexibility. For instance, Polyacetal Fiber (PAF) has previously been used as both external and internal

PAGE 18

6 reinforcement. Research studies and tests done at Hokkaido University in Japan have shown that PAF laminate sheets increase th e ultimate deformation of specimens of reinforced columns yielding in flexure (Ueda and Sato, 2002). Fibers have different properties, including price, which may make one more suitable than the other dependi ng upon the application or inte nded purpose. All fibers have generally higher stress capacity than or dinary steel and are linear elastic until failure. One of the more important properties that differ between fiber types are stiffness and tensile strain (Carolin, 2003). Carbon: Carbon fibers do not absorb wa ter and are resistant to many chemical solutions. They withstand fatigue excellentl y, do not stress or corrode and do not show any creep or relaxation. Car bon fibers have less relaxa tion than low relaxation, high tensile, pre-stressed steel strands. Carbon fiber composites are us ed to increase the flexural capacity of reinforced concrete bridges (Carolin, 2003). Aramid: A well-known trademark of aramid fibers is Kevlar, but there exist other brands (e.g., Twaron, Technora, and SVM). Ar amid fibers are sensitive to elevated temperature, moisture and ultra violet radiation and are therefore not widely used in civil engineering applicatio ns (Carolin, 2003). Glass: Glass fibers are considerably more economical than carbon fibers and aramid fibers. Therefore glass fiber composites have become popular in many applications such as fiber reinforced c oncrete, fiber reinforcement polymer bars, electronics, and many more applications. In order to clarify the c ontent of this study a brief review of glass fiber reinfor ced concrete follows (Carolin, 2003).

PAGE 19

7 Organic: Polypropylene, nylon, acrylic, polyethylene, and polyester are all organic synthetic fibers. These fibers can serve ma ny different purposes. These fibers can be used in small quantities to reduce plastic shrinkage cracking du ring the first 24 hours after a pour. They can also be used in larg er quantities to replace steel reinforcement in many applications. All of these fibers act differently. Some have low bonding strength, some are weak in tensile, and some have poor heat resistance. Fibe rs are chosen based on the desired outcome. Background of Glass Fiber Reinforcement in Concrete Much of the original res earch performed on glass fiber reinforced cement paste took place in the early 1960s. This work used conventional borosilicate glass fibers (uncoated E-glass) and soda-lime-silica glass fibers (A-glass). Glass compositions of uncoated E-glass and A-glass, used as reinforc ement, were found to lose strength rather quickly due to the ve ry high alkalinity (pH 12.5) of the cement-based matrix. Consequently, early A-glass and uncoated Eglass composites were unsuitable for longterm use. Continued research, however, resu lted in the development of a new alkali resistant fiber (AR-glass fibe r) that provided improved long-te rm durability. This system was named alkali resistant-glass fiber reinforced concrete (AR-GFRC). In 1967, scientists at the United Kingdom Building Research Establishment (BRE) began an investigation of alka li resistant glasses. They su ccessfully formulated a glass composition containing 16 percent zirconia that demonstrated high alkali resistance. The National Research Development Corporat ion (NRDC) and BRE discussed with Pilkington Brothers Limited the possibility of doing further work to develop the fibers for commercial production. By 1971, BRE and Pilki ngton Brothers had collaborated and the results of their work were licensed exclusiv ely to Pilkington for commercial production

PAGE 20

8 and distribution throughout the world. Since the introduction of AR-glass in the United Kingdom in 1971 by Cem-FIL, other manufacturer s of AR-glass have been established. In 1975, Nippon Electric Glass (NEG) Company introduced an alkali resistant glass containing a minimum of 20 percent zircon ia. In 1976, Owens-Corning Fiberglass and Pilkington Brothers, agreed to produce the same AR-glass formulation to enhance the development of the alkali resistant glass pr oduct and related market s. A cross-license was agreed upon. Subsequently, Owens Cor ning Fiberglass stopped production of ARglass fiber in 1984 (ACI, 1999). Alkali resistant-glass fiber reinforced c oncrete is by far the most widely used system for the manufacturing of GFRC products. However coated E-glass in used in an array of products. Coated Eglass is used to manufacture coated fiber mesh fabrics which are used to reinforce and waterproof cemen t, gypsum, bitumen, and plastics. Coated Eglass is also used in products intended to insulate exterior walls and in the manufacturing of fireproofing applications. W ithin the last decade, the use of fibers has been adopted in a wide range of applications in the construc tion industry. Portland Cement Stucco/Exterior Plaster Various private companies in North America are currently manufacturing factory blended Portland cement stucco/exter ior plaster products. These products are sometimes referred to as one or three-coat stucco systems and are available through companies such as Degussa Wall Systems, Dryvit Systems, Teifs Wall Systems, Parex Inc., Sto Corp., Magna Wall, etc. The products generally include a cementitious base coat followed by a finish coat. The base coat for the one-coat system is genera lly 3/8 to thick while the base coat for the three-coat systems ranges from 1/2 to . Additiona lly, Portland cement

PAGE 21

9 stucco/exterior plaster can also be proportioned and applied as a field mix per ASTM C 926. The ingredients for the base coat may include polymer modifiers, sand, Portland cement, lime, non-metallic fibers and, in the case of the factory blended products, other proprietary ingredients. The finish coats ma y be a field mixed cementious material or factory prepared material that typi cally is no greater than 1/8 thick. Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco Lath or wire is typically used as a plaster base and reinforcement for both onecoat and three-coat exterior plaster (stucco ) regardless whether the stucco is field or factory mix. Longstanding and common practice has been for lath or wire to be typically fabricated from galvanized metal that is av ailable in various configurations as well as weights. The lath or wire is mechanically attached to a substrate which is generally the frame of the building. Staples 1 or larger or screws with caps are the main means of mechanical fastening. The lath or wire serves as a mechanical key for the stucco which is trowel or spray applied to the lath. Non Metallic Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco A new non-metallic glass fiber lath has been recently introduced by Degussa Wall Systems. The Permalath reinforcement for cement plaster (stucco) wall systems is a patent-pending, non-metallic lath reinforcement that is an alternativ e to metal lath and stucco netting. Permalath was initially designed specifically for use in the 3/8to 1/2inch thick (one-coat) stucco systems however a Permalath 1000 will also be available for three-coat stucco applica tions. Since the product is p liable and has no sharp edges, its safer to handle, easier to cut to size, and its ease of handli ng reduces installation costs. It is also alkali resi stant to ensure longterm durability and pe rformance. Its open, 3-D weave, self-furring design provides numer ous solutions to issues encountered with

PAGE 22

10 metal lath or wire. It is non-metallic, so it wi ll not rust. It is packaged in lightweight rolls for efficient handling and shipping, and th e rolls wide width gives better coverage with fewer overlapping overlaps. Existing ap plication methods are used eliminating the need to learn new methods, and the product is non-directional so it can be applied transversely or vertically (Degussa Wall Systems, 2004).

PAGE 23

11 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The scope of the project was to provide sufficient scientific information for the comparison of Permalath fiberglass reinforcement to meta l lath and wire cloth in 3/8 thick (1-coat) and thick (3-c oat) stucco applications. Sample Combination Direction of lath placement, warp and weft has an effect on flexural testing but not on impact testing. Warp and Weft direct ion was applicable only to Permalath reinforcement in this research. Figure 31 shows the differences of warp and weft directions. The weft directi on of the roll runs parallel to the substrate grain. Warp direction of the roll is perpendicular to the grain of the plywood. The affects of warp and weft directions re quired that separate sample sets be made for the flexural tests and the impact tests. There were fourteen combinations of materials tested for flexural strength and initial cracking strength/defl ection (Table 3-1) and nine material combinations tested for the impact testing (Table 3-2). Sample layout designs for flexural samples are located in Appendix A. Impact samples utilized a continuous piece of lathing attached to the plywood. There were no overlaps in impact samples (Figure A-7). Sample layout design for fle xural and impact can be found in Appendix A (Figures A-1 through A-7). Flexural samples are broken into five usable sections, A through E. Sections A, C, and E are non-overlapped and sections B, D are overlapped sections. Overlapped sections are classified as tw o separate pieces of lathing coming together on the sample

PAGE 24

12 forming a longitudinal overlap. This is done to represent what happens in the field since the areas of a building require multiple pieces or rolls of lath to be used to cover the surface area. Non-overlapped sections are thos e that have on solid piece of reinforcement running through the sample (Figures A-1 thr ough A-5). Flexural samples 1 through 9 and 12 through 14 resemble Figure 3-2. These samples only have longi tudinal overlaps. A longitudinal overlap is perpendicular to the lo ad but parallel to the tensile stresses. Sample 10 and 11 are the exception to the preceding paragraph. Samples 10 and 11 are samples that have overlaps in both the longitudinal and transv erse (Figure 3-3). Sections B, D, and E all have two transverse overlaps. Section C has both two transverse overlaps and one continuous longitudinal overl ap. Transverse overl aps are parallel to load but perpendicular to the tensile stresses. Sample Preparation Frame Building Step 1 Flexural Samples Cut a 4x 8 x 15/32 sheet of plywood to 2 (4x4). Cut the 4x 4 sheet of plywood to 3x 3. Note which 3 x 3 sections came from th e same 4 x 8 sheet of plywood (this is to check for invalid results from plywood inconsistencies). Impact Samples Cut a 4 x 8 x 15/32 plywood to 17 x 24 x 15/32. All cuts in step 1 utilize a 13 amp tabl e saw equipped with a 36 carbide tooth 7 finish blade. Step 2 Attach vapor barrier (Tyvek House Wrap) to sample using 3/8 staples.

PAGE 25

13 Mark cut lines on Tyvek to ensure proper placement of metal caps. Step 3 Attach metal trims to all four edges of sample using metal caps and #6 wood screws for flexural samples. Refer to Figure 3-2 and 3-3 for layout on flexure samples and Figure 3-4 of impact samples. Step 4 Install lathing with the specified overlap s (Figures A-1 through A-6). Attach lathing with both staples and metal caps. Metal cap placement is crucial for both impact and flexural samples. Refer to Figures 3-2 through 3-7 for metal cap and staple placement. No screws/metal caps were used anywhere within the middle 18 of the impact samples. Screws and Caps were only used running parallel to the 17 side of the sample. 3/8 staples were used throughout the rest of the sample to allow for separation of the stucco from the plywood for testing. Mixing/Placing/Curing Stucco Step 1 Add one bag of sanded Stucco Base to the mixer. Add approximately one to one-and-one-half gallon of water to the mixer through a spray hose while simultaneously turni ng the mixer on. Proper water volume was determined by workability. If too mu ch or too little water was added a proper workability was not achieved which can be determined by being either too stiff or too soupy. Mix the stucco for five minutes; mixture is now ready for application onto sample frames. Step 2 Trowel stucco onto sample frames using a metal float. Screed to a thickness of 3/8 for the 1-coat systems and a thic kness of for the 3-coat systems. 15 minutes after application of the scratch coat on the 3-coat sy stems, scratch the surface to approximately depth (Figure 3-7). Step 3 24 hours after the application of the scratc h coat on the 3-coat system, follow step 1 again for mixing stucco. While stucco is mixing mist sample with water until

PAGE 26

14 water takes more than 30 to 45 seconds for absorption. Trowel stucco onto the scratch coat to a finish level of thick. 1-coat samples should also be misted with water at this time. Step 4 48 hours after the first coat of stucco is applied, all samples are to be misted again. Step 5 Samples cured on a horizontal, flat surface at an air temperature between 72 78. Samples were cured for 14 days before any testing was performed on them. Cutting Samples Samples were cut after seven days of curing following the layouts found in Appendix A. Flexure samples were cut from the 3 x 3 specimen into five 6 x 36 samples with two 3 x 36 pieces of waste from the sides. Impact samples were cut from the 17 x 24 specimen into three 6 x 17 sa mples with two 3 x 17 pieces of waste from the sides. All samples were cut usi ng a 13 amp table saw. To avoid compromising the integrity of the stucco portion of the samples, the following procedure was followed to cut the samples. Using a 7 36 tooth carbide finish blade on the table saw, the blade depth was set to 15/32 and the rip fence was adjusted to 15. The rip fence adjustment measurements were taken from the outside of the saw blade to compensate for the area that the blades removes when cutting. The samples firs t pass across the saw, cut only through the plywood (Figure 3-8). The blade was then ch anged to a 7 dry/wet diamond blade. The blade was then adjusted to cut through th e full thickness of the sample. This second pass across the saw completes the cut thr ough the stucco. The following process was

PAGE 27

15 repeated (rip fence measurements adjusted to allow for proper sample size) to cut the rest of the specimen into the designed size of samples according to layout (Appendix A). The process of changing the blade out after every cut was a time consuming process, but is necessary not to damage the samples. During the trial sample making and cutting process of this researc h, cutting through the entire samp le with both a finish blade and a diamond blade was attempted. The result was a sample with spawling stucco on the top portion. Blades were also burned up after one pass. There was an extra step needed for the cutt ing process of the impact samples. After cutting samples into proper sizes the stucco portion needed to be separated from the plywood. These samples were only attached with staples in the testing area (Figure 3-6), so they separated from the plywood with the s lightest amount of force using a flat bar to keep from damaging the samples. Test Methods Various tests were performed on the di fferent material combinations and thicknesses in order achieve sufficient data to form valid conclusions. Multiple types of tests were needed since some materials perform differently under various testing conditions. Third-Point Flexure, initial tens ile cracking strength/deflection, and impact tests were the three types of tests performed during this research. Crack analyses were performed on the samples subjected to flexure loads. Third-Point Flexure testing allowed for the de termination of the flexural strength of the samples. The simply supported beam (6 x 36 sample) is supported on two outer points, and loaded through the application of two concentrated loads. All contact points along the beam are located at equal distances wh ich are ten inches from each other. The maximum stress endured by the sample is loca ted at and between th e two concentrated

PAGE 28

16 loading points in the middle third of th e beam sample (Figure 3-9). ASTM C-78 Standard Test Method for Flexure Strength of Concrete was the basis for the design of this new test method. Samples were placed to allow for the maximum tensile forces to be transferred through the stucco portion of the samples (Figures 3-10 and 3-11). Initial Tensile Cracking Strength/Deflection Test was used to determine at what load and deflection samples would develop the first crack. Sample sections were outfitted with an electro-conductive paint a nd epoxy which formed part of a complete electrical circuit. Through th e use of Third-point Flexural loading, loads we re applied to samples until the samples developed their fi rst crack which would break the electrical circuit. Impact testing was used to determine if specified incremental impact loads would cause failure in the specime n which was determined through the breaking of the reinforcement and deformation area. Sample s were secured into the rigging to ensure that the maximum impact forces were transf erred to the sample and not displaced through the rigging. A series of impact loads were then performed using a 10 pound drop hammer capable of 18 inches of travel producing an impact energy of 180 in-lbs of force. Testing Procedures Third-point Flexure Testing Third-point Flexure testing took place using a Forney compression machine. A Humboldt 2310.10 Linear Strain Conversion Transducer (LSCT) connected to a Humboldt HM-2350 4 digit Transducer Readout was used to measure sample deflection. The LSCT was placed in the center of the middle third of the samples with equal distances on each side of the sample. Th e LSCT was accurate to 0.001 with a maximum deflection of one inch (Figure 3-12). The te st mimicked the ASTM C-78 standard as

PAGE 29

17 close as possible for the set up of the testing machine. Th e test was perf ormed with the stucco portion of the samples in tension (Fig ures 3-10 and 3-11). All B, C, D, and E samples were tested using this method. Sa mples were subjected to continuous loading until a deflection of 0.8 inches was reached. The load was recorded at every 0.1 inch increment of deflection. Samples were furt her analyzed after be ing loaded by taking a crack width measurement from three locations (left side, center, right side) using a Peak brand 25 power micrometer. The Peak 25 micr ometer was accurate to 0.005 millimeters. The lengths of each crack were also measur ed by tracing a nylon string along the crack and then stretching the string out on a ruler. Length measurements were taken to the nearest 1/32. Results from Flexure testing are discussed in Chapter 4. Initial Crack Test Initial cracking strength/deflection testing was done at the same time as the thirdpoint flexure test. All B, C, and D samples were tested using this method. Two E samples were testing for initial crack deflec tion. Samples were outfitted to allow an electrical current to flow across the stucco portion of the samples. Samples were subjected to third-point load ing until the first crack was i nduced which was indicated by the breaking of the elec trical circuit. The middle 16 of each sample was pain ted with a wide strip of electroconductive silver ink. Light gauge metal L-br ackets were then bonded to each end of the paint strip with a two part electro-conduc tive silver epoxy (Figure 3-13). The epoxy was allowed to cure for 24 hours before testi ng the samples to achie ve the epoxies full strength. When samples were placed in tes ting machine one L-bracket was attached to a 6 volt battery using a 16 gauge braided copper wi re with alligator clip s on both ends. The second L-bracket was attached to one post of a 6.3 volt light bulb with the bulbs other

PAGE 30

18 post connecting to the battery using the wire with alligato r clips completing the circuit (Figures 3-13, 3-14, 3-15). Samples were subj ected to a constantly increasing third-point flexural load until the electrical circuit was broken causing the light to turn off due to a crack at which time data was recorded. Results are discussed in Chapter 4. Impact Test Impact testing was performed on the 17 x 24 samples. Setup for the impact loading does not follow any published testing st andard since there ar e none that apply to the materials tested in this research. Figures 3-16, 3-17, a nd 3-18 show the setup for the impact testing. HSS Spacers were placed 22 on center with the C-Channel placed on top of the HSS spacers with equal overhang distances on each end. The roller blocks were then placed inside the C-Channel with the wood blocking centered on top of the rollers. Inside spacing between the wood blocks was 3. The stucco sample was then laid on top of the bottom wood block followed by the t op wood block. C-Clamps were lightly tightened just to hold them on until all four were in place. Once all 4 C-Clamps were in place they were tightened in a clockwise manor of a rotation at a time. A Humboldt 10 pound drop hammer was used as the impact tool (Modified Proctor Test ASTM D1557-02e1). Load criteria were determined using the impact resistance test for EIFS systems (EIMA E101.86). Since the hammer has an 18 inch shaft, the shaft was marked at 16 inches so each drop was only 160 in-lbs when dropped from the 16 marking. All one-coat samples were subjected to one drop of 160 in-lbs and all three-coat samples were subjected to two drops, each drop being 16 0 in-lbs for a combined total impact load of 320 in-lbs. The increased impact energy amount for the 3-coat samples was due to greater mass of stucco than with 1-coat sa mples. The results from these tests are discussed in Chapter 4.

PAGE 31

19 Figure 3-1. Warp versus Weft Diagram Table 3-1: Flexure and In itial Crack Samples Layout Materials\Combination 1 23456 7891011 12 13 14 Permalath Weft X Permalath Warp X Permalath 1000 Weft X X Permalath 1000 Warp X X Metal Lath 2.5# X X X* Metal Lath 3.4# X X* Wire Lath 1 x 20ga X Wire Lath 1 x 17ga X X Tyvek X XXXXXXXXX X X X X 1-Coat Stucco (3/8) X X X X X X X X 3-Coat Stucco (3/4) XX XX X X 15/32 3-ply Plywood X XXXXXXXXX X X X X Samples have overlaps in 2 directio ns (2 transverse and 1 vertical)

PAGE 32

20 Table 3-2: Impact Samples Layout Materials\Combination 1 23456789 Permalath X Permalath 1000 X X Metal Lath 2.5# XX Metal Lath 3.4# X Wire Lath 1 x 20ga X Wire Lath 1 x 17ga X X Tyvek X XXXXXXXX 1-Coat Stucco (3/8) X X X XX 3-Coat Stucco (3/4) X XX X 15/32 3-ply Plywood X XXXXXXXX Figure 3-2. Flexure Sample Fram e (2 longitudinal overlaps)

PAGE 33

21 Figure 3-3. Flexure Sample Frame 2-way Ov erlaps (2 transverse and 1 vertical) Figure 3-4. Impact Sample Frame

PAGE 34

22 Figure 3-5. Flexural Sample Screw/Cap and Staple Layout Figure 3-6. Impact Sample Sc rew/Cap and Staple Layout

PAGE 35

23 Figure 3-7. System Scratch Coat Figure 3-8. Cut through plywood

PAGE 36

24 Figure 3-9. Third-Point Fl exural Loading Diagram Figure 3-10. Sample Section View in Tension Figure 3-11. 3/8 Sample Section View in Tension

PAGE 37

25 Figure 3-12. LSCT Controller Figure 3-13. Electrical Ci rcuit 2D Model Layout Sample

PAGE 38

26 Figure 3-14. Initial Crack Testing Set-up Figure 3-15. Initial Crack Te sting Set-up (light-bulb)

PAGE 39

27 Figure 3-16. Impact Testing Set-up Top View Figure 3-17. Impact Testing Set-up Model

PAGE 40

28 Figure 3-18. Impact Testing Set-up Transparent Model

PAGE 41

29 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Results from third-point flexural load ing, initial crack de flection, and impact testing are included in this chapter. Samples te sted for flexure were sections B, C, D, and E of all combinations from Table 3-1. B/D (overlapped) and C/E (non-overlapped) sections of all samples except 10 and 11 were averaged to formulate more accurate results. Sections B, D, E were averaged for samples 10 and 11. Sample C was analyzed of sample 10 and 11 by itself because it has one longitudinal and two transverse overlaps. Samples tested for initial crack deflection were sections B, C, D, a nd select E sections. All samples from Table 3-2 were used for impact testing. All impact samples were nonoverlapped. Two sections, A and B from th e impact samples were tested using the impact method discussed in Chapter 3. Secti on C of impact samples was left intact for future testing. Initial Cracking Deflection Test Data were recorded for all samples subj ected to initial cracking deflection test (Table 4.1 and Table 4.2). Samples that su rpassed 0.08 of deflection before the first crack was induced were considered to have pa ssed this test. Samples that did not meet this criterion were considered to have faile d. This can be easily seen in Figures 4-1 through 4-4. Those samples that fall on the le ft side of the pass/fail line, cracked before reaching 0.08 of deflection and those to the right of the line passed. Sample 8 20 gauge wire 3/8 thick, Sample 9 17 gauge wire thick, and Sample 14 17 gauge wire 3/8 thick were the most difficult to obtain accurate results

PAGE 42

30 from due to a variety of factors. Some of the samples developed plastic shrinkage cracks in them, cracks from lathing being to close to the stucco surface, and cracks during the cutting process. During the testing process cracks were audibly heard, but the electrical circuit was not broken immedi ately upon audible confirmation. There was no need for a separation of samples 10 and 11 for analysis of initial crack deflection test because section E of only samples 13 an d 14 were tested using this method. Sample 10 C and 11 C are longitudina lly overlapped as well as transversely overlapped in 2 locations but were left in the same table as the rest of the C sections for ease of reading and interpreting. Average B/D Overlapped Four sample combinations failed from the overlapped sections; Permalath 1000 warp and weft 3-coat and 2.5 lb. metal lath in the one-coat and threecoat applications. Metal Wire 17 gauge and 20 gauge had the high est initial cracking deflection values of the one-coat system. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. with 2 overlaps (2 transverse and 1 longitudinal) had the highest initial cracking defl ection value of the 3-coat system. Average C/E Non-Overlapped Only samples 12 and 13 are the combined average of sections C and E. The rest of the samples in this section are only sample C data. This is because samples 1 through 11 were tested before the initial crack test was formulated. Sample 14 did not work because the sample developed plastic shrinka ge cracking. Five sample combinations failed from the non-overlapped sections. Permalath 1000 Warp and Weft 3-coat, Permalath 1000 Weft 1-coat, Metal wire 17 gauge one-coat, and 2.5 lb. metal lath threecoat. Metal lath, 2.5 lb., one-c oat and 3.4 lb. metal lath with 2 overlaps (transverse and vertical) had the highest initia l cracking deflection values.

PAGE 43

31 Third-point Flexural Test The samples tested in third-point flexure, were sections B, C, D, and E of all combinations from Table 3-1. B/D (overlappe d) and C/E (non-overlapped) sections were averaged (except samples 10 and 11) to formul ate more representative results. Individual results for each sample secti on are contained in Appendix B. Average Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations In the 1-coat systems there were three overlapped combinations that stand out above the others. Permalath Weft, Permalath Warp, and 2.5 lb. metal lath have the highest tensile strengths (Table 4-3). This is easily visual ized in Table 4-3 and Figure 45. Permalath Warp is however the overall best performer of the overlapped section 1coat samples. Permalath Warp has the steepest slope whic h is a function of its modulus of elasticity (MOE) or relative stiffness, and has the highest R^2, a linearity descriptor (Table 4-4). The higher the Y value (Table 4-4) the steeper the slope of the best fit line and the more elastic the sample. The steepne ss of this line is a f unction of the MOE of the sample. The slope and the R^2 need to be looked at together to form conclusions. The 3-coat stucco systems graphs are ve ry different than that of the 1-coat systems. They are undulating, which is a resu lt of them being constructed from multiple layers of stucco with the t op layer having no reinforcement. The top layer (brown coat) is subjected to the greatest tensile forces and cr acks before the base la yer (scratch coat). This is the reason for the non-linearity of the load versus deflection curves. In the 3-coat system there are three combinations that stand out above the rest, Permalath 1000 Warp, Permalath 1000Weft, and 2.5 lb metal la th (Figure 4-6). Both of the Permalath 1000 samples are very linear until 4/10 of deflection where they begin to show signs of failure from tensile forces. The 2.5 lb. metal lath has a steeper slope and

PAGE 44

32 a higher R^2 than either of the Permalath 1000s (Table 4-4). The load vs. deflection curve for the 2.5 lb. metal lath is also more linear than any of the other 3-coat overlapped sections. Crack area of the overlapped samples is th e second part of the flexure analysis (Table 4-5). Cracks outside the middle third were calculated and ar e graphed in Figure 47, but are a resultant of shear and tensile forc es which do not help in the determining the true tensile strength of the composite ma terial, but instead they should be looked at individually and not combined with othe r tests in overall analysis. Permalath Warp and Permalath 1000 Weft have the smallest crack area in side the middle third of the sample. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. with 2 overlaps has th e largest crack area of the samples. Average C/E Non-Overlapped Sectio n Results and Interpretations Results from the average flexure non-overl apped sections are very similar to that of the overlapped sections flexure results (Table 4-6). The same three combinations Permalath Warp, Permalath weft and 2.5 lb. metal lath ha d the highest tensile strengths from the 1-coat systems ( Figure 4-8). The Permalath Warp is the best performer of the 1-coat non-overlapped sections. Permalath Warp has the highest tensile strength (Table 4-6), the steepest slope, and the hi ghest R^2 value (Table 4-7). Results for the 3-coat system non-overlappe d samples are very similar to that of the overlapped 3-coat samples (Figure 4-9). There are once again highly non-linear load versus deflection curves as a result of the sa me reasons with the overlapped sections. The 2.5 lb. metal lath is the clearly the best performer followed closely by Permalath 1000 warp and weft. Metal Lath, 2.5 lb., has th e steepest slope and th e highest R^2 value (Table 4-7) indicating a higher MOE and stre ngth combination than the other samples.

PAGE 45

33 Metal Lath, 2.5 lb., and Metal Lath, 2.5 lb., with 2 overlaps (transverse and longitudinal) have the smallest crack area of the 1-coat non-overlapped sections. Permalath 1000 Warp and 2.5 lb. metal lath had th e smallest area of cracking from the 3-coat non-overlapped sections (Table 4-8 and Figure 4-10). Sample 10 and 11 Results and Interpretat ions (1 Longitudinal& 2 Transverse Overlaps) Samples 10 and 11 as mentioned earlier have a different lath layout which prescribes a different analysis section than the other samples which are all homogeneous in the layout of the lath and ove rlaps. Samples B, D, and E (2 transverse overlaps) were combined. Sample C (2 transverse, 1 longitu dinal overlap) was analyzed by itself since it is heterogeneous from all other sections. Results for sample sections 10 and 11 are located in Tables 4-9 through 4-12 and Figures 4-11 through 4-14. Impact Test Impact test samples were analyzed through a visual insp ection of cracking patterns, deformation/indentation, and broken reinforcement. One-coat and three-coat systems were analyzed separately since they were tested at different impact energies Figures 4-15 and 4-16). Greater impact energi es were used for the 3-coat samples since they are constructed from greater mass. Permalath was the best performing material in the 3/8 thick samples. The deformation on the back side of the Permalath samples was the smallest and there was no broken reinforcement observed. No sample s tested observed broken reinforcement. 20 gauge wire lath was the poorest performer of the 1-coat samples. It had the largest deformation area and there was stucco that wa s broken apart from the lathing on the back side (substrate side) of the sample.

PAGE 46

34 Three-coat samples all performed almost the same. The deformation on the back side of the samples was not visible to the naked eye which indicated none of the samples had broken reinforcement. Deformation from the impact on the top of the sample resulted in the slight main differences. Th ese differences would be more likely due to differences in the stucco mix than from the lathing. These differences were most likely because the stucco mix was field mixed to mimic as closely as possible what would happen in the field at the jobsit e. Metal lath 3.4 lb. was best performer in this test for the three-coat system. When comparing the 3/8 thick to the thick samples, the differences are quite noticeable. Top of sample indentation of the 3/8 samples was observed in every specimen to a much greater extent than in the samples after 160 in-lbs. All samples cracked through the center of the impact area (e x. Sample 6a in Figure 4-15) or through the edges of the impact area and spanned from one side of the sample to the other (ex. Sample 5a in Figure 4-16). Individual Stucco Reinforcement Comparisons This section is included to highlight some comparisons that are more easily visualized through graphs with fewer sample s included. This section makes comparisons of all the averaged data for six samples types It is just a check to make sure that data analyzed was in fact reliable and valid. In this section, design numb ers were used instead of the material combinations for the legend of each graph as well as the tables that include the slope and R^2 values. Design number descriptions can be found in the corresponding sections load versus deflection data table. The first number denot es 1-coat or 3-coat the second grouping of

PAGE 47

35 letters and numbers denotes th e material, and the last groupi ng denotes the overlap status of the sample. Permalath 1-Coat Comparison This section analyzes third-point flex ural loading and MOE of all Permalath used in 1-coat systems. Both overlapped and nonoverlapped average data are included in this section. Results are found in Tabl es 4-13, Table 4-14, and Figure 4-17. Permalath 3-Coat Comparison This section analyzes third-point flexur al loading and the MOE of all Permalath used in 3-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-15, Table 4-16, and Figure 4-18. Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison This section analyzes thirdpoint flexural loading and the MOE of all metal lath used in 1-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-17, Table 4-18, and Figure 4-19. Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison This section analyzes thirdpoint flexural loading and the MOE of all metal lath used in 3-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-19, Table 4-20, and Figure 4-20. Metal Wire 1-Coat Comparison This section analyzes thirdpoint flexural loading and the MOE of all metal wire used in 1-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-21, Table 4-22, and Figure 4-21.

PAGE 48

36 Metal Wire 3-Coat Comparison This section analyzes thirdpoint flexural loading and the MOE of all metal wire used in 3-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-23, Table 4-24, and Figure 4-22. Real World Stucco Product Comparisons Real World Comparisons are for the sake of comparing items that are frequently used in place of one another in the field. Th is section is broken down into 1-coat and 3coat comparisons and looks at load deflections curves and slopes (MOE). One-coat data can be found in Table 4-25, Table 4-26, and Figu re 4-23. Three-coat data is located in Table 4-27, Table 428, and Figure 4-24. Table 4-1. Sample B/D Averag e Initial Crack Deflection SAMPLE B and D Average (Overlapped Section) Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b,d 0.1425 75 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b,d 0.097 100 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b,d 0.1035 67.5 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b,d 0.0755 137.5 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b,d 0.1055 77.5 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b,d 0.071 115 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b,d 0.0635 87.5 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b,d 0.209 72.5 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b,d 0.1025 102.5 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,d 0.079 60 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d 0.174 95 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b,d 0.097 57.5 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b,d 0.1375 52.5 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b,d 0.216 55 Transverse Overlaps

PAGE 49

37 Sample B and D Average 3/8" Initial Crack 40 60 80 100 00.050.10.150.20.25Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b,d Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b,d Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b,d Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b,d Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,d Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b,d PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b,d Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b,d Pass/Fail Line Figure 4-1 Sample B/D 1-Coat Average Initial Crack Deflection Sample B and D Average 3/4" Initial Crack 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 00.050.10.150.2 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Pass/Fail Line Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b,d Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b,d Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b,d Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b,d Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b,d Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d Figure 4-2. Sample B/D 3-Coat Av erage Initial Crack Deflection

PAGE 50

38 Table 4-2. Sample C Initial Crack Deflection SAMPLE C (Non-Overlapped Section) Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c 0.103 75 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c 0.069 130 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c 0.12 65 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c 0.066 95 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c 0.102 80 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c 0.081 115 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c 0.043 130 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c 0.253 90 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c 0.121 65 **Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c 0.304 85 **Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c 0.214 110 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c,e 0.063 52.5 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c,e0.108 40 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c 0.053 25 Sample C/E Average ** 1 Longitudinal Overlap, 2 Transverse Overlaps Sample C 3/8" Initial Crack0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 00.050.10.150.20.250.30.35Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c Pass/Fail Line Figure 4-3. Sample C 1-Coat Initial Crack Deflection

PAGE 51

39 Sample C 3/4" Initial Crack45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 00.050.10.150.20.25Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Pass/Fail Line Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c Figure 4-4. Sample C 3-Coat Initial Crack Deflection Table 4-3. Sample B/D (overlapped) Average Load/Deflection Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 SAMPLE B,D Average Permalath Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Permalath Warp 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 73 83 63 80756580556358 53 38 0.2 95 115 90 11510085108739868 65 58 0.3 115 143 113 1451131101289011395 75 78 0.4 138 173 133 175138128153108120115 90 95 0.5 165 193 158 158158143170128140140 105 113 0.6 190 200 180 183183143195143163155 120 130 0.7 203 190 205 210200140215158175178 140 150 0.8 220 208 225 215213150223173190203 155 165

PAGE 52

40 3/8" Combined B and D Average0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Warp Permalath Weft Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 20g. Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Wire 17g. Figure 4-5 Sample B/D (overlapped) 1Coat Average Load vs. Deflection 3/4" Combined B and D Average0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Lath 3.4g. Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 17g. Figure 4-6 Sample B/D (overlapped) 3-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection

PAGE 53

41 Table 4-4 Sample B/D Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE B and D Average Y R^2 Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b,d 216.96x + 52.054 0.9939 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b,d 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b,d 230.95x + 41.696 0.9991 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b,d 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b,d 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b,d 116.96x + 67.679 0.8553 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b,d 208.93x + 64.732 0.9903 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b,d 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b,d 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b,d 210.71x + 31.429 0.9952 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b,d 147.92x + 33.75 0.9929 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b,d 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991 Table 4-5 Sample B/D Average Crack Area Sample Averages Overlapped (B,D) Average Crack Area Inside Mid. 3rd (mm^2) Average Crack Area Outside Mid. 3rd (mm^2) AVERAGE TOTAL CRACK AREA(mm^2) Permalath Weft 3/8" B,D 17.02 15.40 32.42 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" B,D 23.14 10.38 33.52 Permalath Warp 3/8" B,D 14.92 14.51 29.43 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" B,D 18.26 16.89 35.15 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" B,D 16.77 14.55 31.32 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" B,D 24.45 3.85 28.30 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" B,D 11.66 1.94 13.61 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" B,D 17.74 10.68 28.42 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" B,D 36.45 2.66 39.11 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" B,D 14.07 17.91 31.98 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" B,D 9.08 5.23 14.30 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" B,D 90.04 34.93 124.96

PAGE 54

42 Average Crack Area (mm^2) B,D Jointed Samples0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00P e r m a l a th We f t 3 /8 B,D P e r m ala t h 1 0 0 0 We f t 3 /4 B ,D P e rma l a th Wa r p 3 / 8 B,D P e rmala t h 1 0 0 0 Wa r p 3 / 4 B D M e tal L a t h # 2.5 3/ 8 B,D M e tal La t h # 3.4 3/ 4 B,D M e tal Lath #2.5 3/4" B,D Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" B,D Metal Wire 1 7g. 3/4" B,D Permal at h 1000 Warp 3/8" B,D P erma L a t h 1000 We f t 3/8" B,D M eta l Wir e 1 7 g 3 / 8 B DArea mm^2 Inside Mid. 3rd Outside Mid. 3rd Figure 4-7 Sample B/D Average Crack Area Table 4-6. Sample C/E (non-overlap ped) Average Load/Deflection Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 SAMPLE C,E Average Permalath Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Permalath Warp 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 68 65 55 53635875486355 40 40 0.2 78 93 78 757873105658870 48 53 0.3 95 123 93 10598901238310880 68 68 0.4 120 125 128 100115113135103123105 85 83 0.5 148 153 145 123138125165123130128 100 95 0.6 170 153 170 140158110175143148150 115 113 0.7 195 180 190 145185123183158153168 135 125 0.8 208 200 218 163205138213173178180 153 140

PAGE 55

43 3/8" Combined C and E Average0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Warp Permalath Weft Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 20g. Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Wire 17g. Figure 4-8. Sample C/E (nonoverlapped) 1-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection 3/4" Combined C and E Average0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Lath 3.4g. Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 17g. Figure 4-9. Sample C/E (nonoverlapped) 3-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection

PAGE 56

44 Table 4-7. Sample C/E Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE C and E Average Y R^2 Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c,e 216.67x + 37.5 0.9895 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c,e 178.57x + 55.893 0.9696 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c,e 232.14x + 29.911 0.9961 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c,e 148.51x + 45.982 0.9619 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c.e 206.85x + 36.607 0.9952 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c,e 105.06x + 56.161 0.8646 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c,e 183.04x + 64.196 0.9806 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c,e 183.04x + 29.196 0.998 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c,e 149.7x + 56.071 0.9755 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c,e 189.88x + 31.429 0.9908 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c,e 164.58x + 18.75 0.9953 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c,e 144.05x + 24.554 0.9992 Table 4-8. Sample C/E Average Crack Area Sample Averages NonOverlapped (C,E)) Average Crack Area Inside Middle 3rd (mm^2) Average Crack Area Outside Middle 3rd (mm^2) AVERAGE TOTAL CRACK AREA(mm^2) Permalath Weft 3/8" C,E 15.37 7.09 22.47 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" C,E 29.68 5.27 34.95 Permalath Warp 3/8" C,E 33.65 14.27 47.92 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" C,E 9.17 18.24 27.41 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" C,E 8.12 20.72 28.84 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" C,E 24.33 11.49 35.82 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" C,E 11.83 8.73 20.55 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" C,E 27.84 7.80 35.64 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" C,E 26.05 5.25 31.30 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" C,E 16.91 19.61 36.53 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" C,E 20.96 13.14 34.09 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" C,E 31.25 37.29 68.54

PAGE 57

45 Average Crack Area (mm^2) C,E Non-Jointed Samples 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00Per ma lath We f t 3 /8" C E Per ma lath 1000 W e f t 3 / 4 C,E P e r ma lath Wa r p 3/ 8 C E P e r ma lath 1 0 0 0 Wa r p 3 /4" C E Met a l L ath # 2 5 3/8" C E M e t a l L a t h # 3 4 3/4 C E Me t a l L a t h # 2 5 3/4 C E Me t a l Wir e 2 0 g 3 /8 C E Me t a l Wir e 1 7 g 3 /4 C E Pe r mal a th 1000 Warp 3/ 8 C E PermaLath 1 000 Weft 3/ 8 C E Me t al Wire 17g. 3/ 8 C EArea mm^2 Inside Mid. 3rd Outside Mid. 3rd Figure 4-10. Sample C/E Average Crack Area Table 4-9. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection Sample # 10 11 SAMPLE B, D, E Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 53 72 0.2 68 85 0.3 73 83 0.4 85 95 0.5 95 113 0.6 103 127 0.7 112 143 0.8 123 157

PAGE 58

46 Sample 10/11 B,D,E Average0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Figure 4-11. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection Table 4-10. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE B, D, E Average Y R^2 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,d 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d 123.21x + 53.929 0.9654 Average Crack Area (mm^2) B,D,E 2 Horizontal Jointed Samples0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 joints B,D,E Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 joints B,D,EArea mm^2 Inside Mid. 3rd. Outside Mid. 3rd. Figure 4-12. Sample 10 & 11 B, D, E Average Crack Area Average

PAGE 59

47 Table 4-11. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection Sample # 10 11 SAMPLE C Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 55 80 0.2 70 105 0.3 85 85 0.4 95 95 0.5 95 110 0.6 110 120 0.7 120 125 0.8 130 140 Sample 10/11 C0 50 100 150 200 250 00.51Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Figure 4-13. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection Table 4-12. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE C Y R^2 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c,e 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c,e 76.19x + 73.214 0.8265

PAGE 60

48 Sample C Veritcal & 2 Horizontal Jointed Samples0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 100.00Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 joints B,D,E Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 joints B,D,EArea mm^2 Inside Mid. 3rd. Outside Mid. 3rd. Figure 4-14. Sample 10 & 11 C Crack Area Average Figure 4-15. 3/8 Impact samples, 160 in-lbs.

PAGE 61

49 Figure 4-16. Impact Samples, 320 in-lbs.

PAGE 62

50 Table 4-13. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison DESIGN # 1 PWT-NO 1 PWT-LO 1 PWP-NO 1 PWP-LO 1 P1WT-NO 1 P1WT-LO 1 P1WP-NO 1 P1WP-LO MATERIAL Permalath Weft Non-Overlap Permalath Weft Overlap Permalath Warp Non-Overlap Permalath Warp Overlap Permalath 1000 Weft Non-Overlap Permalath 1000 Weft Overlap PermaLath 1000 Warp Non-Overlap PermaLath 1000 Warp Overlap Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 68 73 55 6355584053 0.2 78 95 78 9070684865 0.3 95 115 93 11380956875 0.4 120 138 128 1331051158590 0.5 148 165 145 158128140100105 0.6 170 190 170 180150155115120 0.7 195 203 190 205168178135140 0.8 208 220 218 225180203153155

PAGE 63

51 Permalath 1-Coat Comparison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 1 PWT-NO 1 PWT-LO 1 PWP-NO 1 PWP-LO 1P1WT-NO 1P1WT-LO 1P1WP-NO 1P1WP-LO Figure 4-17. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph Table 4-14. Permalath 1-Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 1 PWT-NO 216.67x + 37.5 0.9895 1 PWT-LO 216.96x + 52.054 0.9939 1 PWP-NO 232.14x + 29.911 0.9961 1 PWP-LO 230.95x + 41.696 0.9991 1P1WT-NO 189.88x + 31.429 0.9908 1P1WT-LO 210.71x + 31.429 0.9952 1P1WP-NO 164.58x + 18.75 0.9953 1P1WP-LO 147.92x + 33.75 0.9929

PAGE 64

52 Table 4-15. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison DESIGN # 3 P1WT-NO 3 P1WT-LO 3 P1WP-NO 3 P1WP-LO MATERIAL Permalath 1000 Weft Non-Overlap Permalath 1000 Weft Overlap PermaLath 1000 Warp Non-Overlap PermaLath 1000 Warp Overlap Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 65 83 53 80 0.2 93 115 75 115 0.3 123 143 105 145 0.4 125 173 100 175 0.5 153 193 123 158 0.6 153 200 140 183 0.7 180 190 145 210 0.8 200 208 163 215

PAGE 65

53 Permalath 3-Coat Comparison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 3 P1WT-NO 3 P1WT-LO 3 P1WP-NO 3 P1WP-LO Figure 4-18. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph Table 4-16. Permalath 3-Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 3 P1WT-NO 178.57x + 55.893 0.9696 3 P1WT-LO 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696 3 P1WP-NO 148.51x + 45.982 0.9619 3 P1WP-LO 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161

PAGE 66

54 Table 4-17. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison DESIGN # 1ML2-NO 1ML2-LO 1ML2-2T 1ML2-2T1L MATERIAL 2.5 lb Metal Lath 2.5 lb Metal Lath 2.5 lb Metal Lath 2.5 lb Metal Lath Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 63 75 53 55 0.2 78 100 68 70 0.3 98 113 73 85 0.4 115 138 85 95 0.5 138 158 95 95 0.6 158 183 103 110 0.7 185 200 112 120 0.8 205 213 123 130 Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 1ML2-NO 1ML2-LO 1ML2-2T 1ML2-2T1L Figure 4-19. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph

PAGE 67

55 Table 4-18. Metal Lath 1Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 1ML2-NO 206.85x + 36.607 0.9952 1ML2-LO 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946 1ML2-2T 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946 1ML2-2T1L 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774 Table 4-19. Metal Lath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison DESIGN # 3ML2-NO 3ML2-LO 3ML3-NO 3ML3-LO 3ML3-2T 3ML3-2T1L MATERIAL 2.5 lb. Metal Lath 2.5 lb. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. Metal Lath Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 75 80 58 657280 0.2 105 108 73 8585105 0.3 123 128 90 1108385 0.4 135 153 113 1289595 0.5 165 170 125 143113110 0.6 175 195 110 143127120 0.7 183 215 123 140143125 0.8 213 223 138 150157140

PAGE 68

56 Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 3ML2-NO 3ML2-LO 3ML3-NO 3ML3-LO 3ML3-2T 3ML3-2T1L Figure 4-20. Metal Lath 3-Coat Lo ad v. Deflection Comparison Graph Table 4-20. Metal Lath 3Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 3ML2-NO 183.04x + 64.196 0.9806 3ML2-LO 208.93x + 64.732 0.9903 3ML3-NO 105.06x + 56.161 0.8646 3ML3-LO 116.96x + 67.679 0.8553 3ML3-2T 76.19x + 73.214 0.8265 3ML3-2T1L 123.21x + 53.929 0.9654

PAGE 69

57 Table 4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison DESIGN # 1WC20-NO 1WC20-LO 1WC17-NO 1WC17-LO MATERIAL 20 Gauge Metal Wire 20 Gauge Metal Wire 17 Gauge Metal Wire 17 Gauge Metal Wire Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 48 55 40 38 0.2 65 73 53 58 0.3 83 90 68 78 0.4 103 108 83 95 0.5 123 128 95 113 0.6 143 143 113 130 0.7 158 158 125 150 0.8 173 173 140 165 Wire Cloth 1-Coat Comparison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 1WC20-NO 1WC20-LO 1WC17-NO 1WC17-LO Figure 4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Lo ad v. Deflection Comparison Graph

PAGE 70

58 Table 4-22. Metal Wire 1Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 1WC20-NO 183.04x + 29.196 0.998 1WC20-LO 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982 1WC17-NO 144.05x + 24.554 0.9992 1WC17-LO 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991 Table 4-23. Metal Wire 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison DESIGN # 3WC17-NO 3WC17-LO MATERIAL 17 Gauge Metal Wire 17 Gauge Metal Wire Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 63 63 0.2 88 98 0.3 108 113 0.4 123 120 0.5 130 140 0.6 148 163 0.7 153 175 0.8 178 190 Wire Cloth 3-Coat Comparison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 3WC17-NO 3WC17-LO Figure 4-22. Metal Wire 3-Coat Lo ad v. Deflection Comparison Graph

PAGE 71

59 Table 4-24. Metal Wire 3Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 3WC17-NO 149.7x + 56.071 0.9755 3WC17-LO 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816 Table 4-25. Real World 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data DESIGN # 1 PWT-LO 1 PWP-LO 1P1WT-LO 1P1WP-LO 1ML2-LO 1ML2-2T 1ML2-2T1L 1WC20-LO 1WC17-LO MATERIAL Permalath Weft Overlap Permalath Warp Overlap Permalath 1000 Weft Overlap PermaLath 1000 Warp Overlap 2.5 lb Metal Lath 2.5 lb Metal Lath 2.5 lb Metal Lath 20 Gauge Metal Wire 17 Gauge Metal Wire Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 73 63 58 53755355 5538 0.2 95 90 68 651006870 7358 0.3 115 113 95 751137385 9078 0.4 138 133 115 901388595 10895 0.5 165 158 140 1051589595 128113 0.6 190 180 155 120183103110143130 0.7 203 205 178 140200112120158150 0.8 220 225 203 155213123130173165

PAGE 72

60 1-Coat Overlapped Comaprison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 1 PWT-LO 1 PWP-LO 1P1WT-LO 1P1WP-LO 1ML2-LO 1ML2-2T 1ML2-2T1L 1WC20-LO 1WC17-LO Figure 4-23. Real World 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph Table 4-26. Real World 1-Co at Stucco Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 1 PWT-LO 216.96x + 52.054 0.9939 1 PWP-LO 230.95x + 41.696 0.9991 1P1WT-LO 210.71x + 31.429 0.9952 1P1WP-LO 147.92x + 33.75 0.9929 1ML2-LO 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946 1ML2-2T 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946 1ML2-2T1L 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774 1WC20-LO 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982 1WC17-LO 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991

PAGE 73

61 Table 4-27. Real World 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data DESIGN # 3 P1WT-LO 3 P1WP-LO 3ML2-LO 3ML3-LO 3ML3-2T 3ML3-2T1L 3WC17-LO MATERIAL Permalath 1000 Weft Overlap PermaLath 1000 Warp Overlap 2.5 lb. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. Metal Lath 17 Gauge Metal Wire Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 83 80 80 657280 63 0.2 115 115 108 858510598 0.3 143 145 128 1108385 113 0.4 173 175 153 1289595 120 0.5 193 158 170 143113110140 0.6 200 183 195 143127120163 0.7 190 210 215 140143125175 0.8 208 215 223 150157140190 3-Coat Overlapped Comparison0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) 3 P1WT-LO 3 P1WP-LO 3ML2-LO 3ML3-LO 3ML3-2T 3ML3-2T1L 3WC17-LO Figure 4-24. Real World 3-Coat Stu cco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph

PAGE 74

62 Table 4-28. Real World 3-Co at Stucco Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2 3 P1WT-LO 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696 3 P1WP-LO 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161 3ML2-LO 208.93x + 64.732 0.9903 3ML3-LO 116.96x + 67.679 0.8553 3ML3-2T 76.19x + 73.214 0.8265 3ML3-2T1L 123.21x + 53.929 0.9654 3WC17-LO 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816

PAGE 75

63 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The main objective of this research was to compare the mechanical properties of Permalath reinforcement to other lathing options currently in use in stucco wall cladding. After an objective revi ew of all the tests and their results, there are a number of important conclusions that can be formed. One-Coat Systems Permalath performs just as well in either th e warp or weft direction, regardless of whether or not the material is overlapped l ongitudinally (that is the overlap occurs along the direction transverse to the load a nd parallel to the stress). Permalath performs better than Permalath 1000 in 1-coat systems. Permalath 1000s performance is independent of whether or not the product is over lap longitudinally or not, and Permalath 1000 appears to be slightly better in the weft dire ction than the warp. Metal lath 2.5 lb also performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps, but performs very poorly having either transverse overlap joints or both tran sverse and longitudinal overlap joints. Wire cloth 20 gauge performed slightly better than 17 gauge reinforcement for 1-coat systems. Permalath in either the warp or weft direction performs at least as well as the 2.5 lb metal lath having no or only longitudinal ove rlaps; performs better than both 20 gauge and 17 gauge wire cloth; and performs much better the metal lath having transverse and/or both transverse and longitudinal overlap joints.

PAGE 76

64 Three-Coat Systems Permalath 1000 performs just as well in either the warp or weft direction, and regardless of whether or not the material is overlapped longitudinall y. Metal lath 2.5 lb also performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps in the 3-coat system, and performs better that 3.5 lb meta l lath regardless of whether it has any overlaps or not. Wire Cloth 17 gauge performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps. Permalath 1000 in either directi on performs at least just as we ll as 2.5 lb metal lath having no overlaps or only longitudinal ove rlap joints; performs better than 17 gauge wire cloth; and much better than 3.5 lb meal lath having longitudinal, transver se or both types of overlap joints in 3-coat systems. Crack areas were not as valid a measurem ent of performance as were the number of cracks per sample due to the effects of inconsistencies of the plywood backing. Some of the plywood had slight warping to it at the beginning of the sample making process which had an effect on the crack area calcula tions since the elastic nature of the plywood caused the cracks to close back up when the load was released. Recommendations Further testing needs to be carried out to provide more definitive results that compare Permalath stucco reinforcement to other metallic reinforcements. There are many areas of testing that can be explored to help show this. Windborne Impact test for Hurricane Force Winds will determine whether the materials will meet building codes for re gions zoned as hurricane prone. Tensile Adhesion Test will determine the bonding streng th and crack resistance of the sample. Further revise current and de velop new test methods to potentially achieve more valid results and formulate better conclusions concerning the use of Permalath reinforcement.

PAGE 77

65 One-coat stucco systems are designed to be applied between 3/8 to thick. Future testing should be carried out to determine if would perform better than 3/8 one-coat stucco systems. There was approximately a 0.01 or 12.5% ma rgin of error in the initial cracking test from human error which could translate into more samples passing the test if the error was minimized. This margin of error was due to the lack of electronic control when adjusting the compression/flexure machine dur ing the set-up and adjustment of the LVDT with each sample. Samples should be tested in a strain controlled bending apparatus that would allow for the margin of error to be as small as 0.001. The compression/flexure machine used should also have a load rate system controlled electronically. All components should be conn ected into a computer management system to allow for the most precise results possible. Third-point Flexure Testing and Initial Cracking Deflecti on test samples could be made using the same process as impact samp les to allow for separation of stucco from plywood. These samples when tested would give the ultimate values of the stucco only without the concern of the plyw ood skewing the results. Sample sizes would need to be adjusted to allow for safe handling when cutting samples since they would not be securely fastening to plywood after trim e dge was removed. A size of 36 by 24 would be the recommended size for trial purposes. Third-point Flexure Testi ng and Initial Cracking Defl ection test samples could also be constructed using a smaller thickne ss of plywood, which would allow for a better representation of the stucco performance. This would also require design keep the samples from warping since thinner pl ywood has more of a tendency to warp.

PAGE 78

66 APPENDIX A DRAWINGS OF THE SAMPLES Figure A-1. Flexure Permalath Weft Direction of the roll of Permalath Sample #12: Permalath 1000 (3/8)

PAGE 79

67 Figure A-2. Flexure Permalath Warp Direction of the roll of Permalath Sample #13: Permalath 1000 (3/8)

PAGE 80

68 Figure A-3. Flexure Metal Lath

PAGE 81

69 Figure A-4. Fl exure Wire Cloth Sam p le #14: Wire Cloth ( 3/8 )

PAGE 82

70 Figure A-5. Flexure Metal Lath (Overlaps in both directions)

PAGE 83

71 Figure A-6. Impact Sample Layout

PAGE 84

72 APPENDIX B FLEXURE DATA AND GRAPHS Table B-1. Sample B Flexure Data Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SAMPLE B Permalath Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Permalath Warp 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 80 90 55 75 70 65 75 50 60 50 60 60 65 35 0.2 105 120 85 105 100 85 105 75 100 70 90 75 85 55 0.3 115 150 105 135 125 110 115 95 130 75 105 105 90 75 0.4 145 180 130 170 150 130 145 115 125 85 110 120 110 90 0.5 175 200 155 155 175 160 165 140 150 90 130 150 130 105 0.6 205 215 175 175 200 160 195 155 180 100 150 175 145 120 0.7 210 180 200 205 225 145 215 175 190 115 170 205 165 135 0.8 225 195 210 230 240 155 225 190 210 125 190 240 180 150 Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample B y = 219.05x + 58.929 R2 = 0.9783 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample B y = 148.81x + 99.286 R2 = 0.7189 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-1. Sample B-1 Graph Figure B-2. Sample B-2 Graph

PAGE 85

73 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample B y = 225.6x + 37.857 R2 = 0.9932 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample B y = 201.19x + 65.714 R2 = 0.9425 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-3. Sample B-3 Graph Figure B-4. Sample B-4 Graph Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample B y = 245.83x + 50 R2 = 0.9965 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample B y = 132.14x + 66.786 R2 = 0.7983 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-5. Sample B-5 Graph Figure B-6. Sample B-6 Graph Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample B y = 221.43x + 55.357 R2 = 0.99 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample B y = 200.6x + 34.107 R2 = 0.9958 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-7. Sample B-7 Graph Figure B-8. Sample B-8 Graph Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample B y = 199.4x + 53.393 R2 = 0.9627 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample B y = 98.81x + 44.286 R2 = 0.9792 0 50 100 150 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-9. Sample B-9 Graph Figure B-10. Sample B-10 Graph

PAGE 86

74 Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample B y = 174.4x + 47.143 R2 = 0.9848 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample B y = 255.95x + 26.071 R2 = 0.9902 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-11. Sample B-11 Graph Figure B-12. Sample B-12 Graph Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample B y = 165.48x + 46.786 R2 = 0.9925 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample B y = 161.31x + 23.036 R2 = 0.9961 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-13. Sample B-13 Graph Figure B-14. Sample B-14 Graph 3/8" Sample B0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Warp Permalath Weft Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 20g. Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Wire 17g. Figure B-15. Sample B 3/8 Comparison

PAGE 87

75 3/4" Sample B0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Lath 3.4g. Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 17g. Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints Figure B-16. Sample B Comparison Table B-2. Sample C Flexure Data Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SAMPLE C Permalath Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Permalath Warp 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 75 65 60 55 80 65 85 55 60 55 80 55 30 40 0.2 80 100 80 80 90 75 110 75 85 70 105 70 40 50 0.3 90 130 90 105 105 95 145 95 100 85 85 85 60 70 0.4 115 105 120 115 125 115 150 115 115 95 95 110 80 85 0.5 140 130 145 135 145 125 185 135 130 95 110 130 95 95 0.6 165 155 165 160 165 110 180 160 145 110 120 155 115 110 0.7 185 180 185 150 190 120 205 175 135 120 125 175 140 120 0.8 190 200 210 170 210 135 225 190 155 130 140 185 165 140

PAGE 88

76 Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample C y = 188.1x + 45.357 R2 = 0.9712 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample C y = 172.02x + 55.714 R2 = 0.9074 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-17. Sample C-1 Graph Figure B-18. Sample C-2 Graph Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample Cy = 217.26x + 34.107 R2 = 0.9939 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample C y = 159.52x + 49.464 R2 = 0.9469 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-19. Sample C-3 Graph Figure B-20. Sample C-4 Graph Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample C y = 191.67x + 52.5 R2 = 0.9898 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample C y = 91.667x + 63.75 R2 = 0.8304 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-21. Sample C-5 Graph Figure B-22. Sample C-6 Graph Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample C y = 189.88x + 75.179 R2 = 0.9632 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample C y = 197.62x + 36.071 R2 = 0.9971 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-23. Sample C-7 Graph Figure B-24. Sample C-8 Graph

PAGE 89

77 Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample C y = 126.79x + 58.571 R2 = 0.9284 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample C y = 101.19x + 49.464 R2 = 0.9774 0 50 100 150 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-25. Sample C-9 Graph Figure B-26. Sample C-10 Graph Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample C y = 76.19x + 73.214 R2 = 0.8265 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample C y = 198.21x + 31.429 R2 = 0.9927 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-27 Sample C-11 Graph Figure B-28. Sample C-12 Graph Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample C y = 193.45x + 3.5714 R2 = 0.9903 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample C y = 140.48x + 25.536 R2 = 0.9941 0 50 100 150 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-29. Sample C-13 Graph Figure B-30. Sample C-14 Graph

PAGE 90

78 3/8" Sample C0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Warp Permalath Weft Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 20g. Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Wire 17g. Figure B-31. Sample C 3/8 Comparison 3/4" Sample C0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Lath 3.4g. Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 17g. Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints Figure B-32. Sample C Comparison

PAGE 91

79 Table B-3. Sample D Flexure Data Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SAMPLE D Permalath Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Permalath Warp 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 65 75 70 85 80 65 85 60 65 60 90 55 40 40 0.2 85 110 95 125 100 85 110 70 95 75 65 60 45 60 0.3 115 135 120 155 100 110 140 85 95 75 85 85 60 80 0.4 130 165 135 180 125 125 160 100 115 85 100 110 70 100 0.5 155 185 160 160 140 125 175 115 130 100 115 130 80 120 0.6 175 185 185 190 165 125 195 130 145 105 125 135 95 140 0.7 195 200 210 215 175 135 215 140 160 115 140 150 115 165 0.8 215 220 240 200 185 145 220 155 170 125 150 165 130 180 Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample D y = 214.88x + 45.179 R2 = 0.9972 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample D y = 194.64x + 71.786 R2 = 0.9459 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-33. Sample D-1 Graph Figure B-34. Sample D-2 Graph Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample D y = 236.31x + 45.536 R2 = 0.996 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample D y = 159.52x + 91.964 R2 = 0.8424 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-35. Sample D-3 Graph Figure B-36. Sample D-4 Graph

PAGE 92

80 Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample D y = 157.14x + 63.036 R2 = 0.9796 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample D y = 101.79x + 68.571 R2 = 0.8665 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-37. Sample D-5 Graph Figure B-38. Sample D-6 Graph Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample D y = 196.43x + 74.107 R2 = 0.9792 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample D y = 138.69x + 44.464 R2 = 0.9978 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-39. Sample D-7 Graph Figure B-40. Sample D-8 Graph Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample D y = 145.83x + 56.25 R2 = 0.9819 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample D y = 90.476x + 51.786 R2 = 0.9823 0 50 100 150 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-41. Sample D-9 Graph Figure B-42. Sample D-10 Graph Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample D y = 110.71x + 58.929 R2 = 0.8744 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample D y = 165.48x + 36.786 R2 = 0.9757 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-43. Sample D-11 Graph Figure B-44. Sample D-12 Graph

PAGE 93

81 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample D y = 130.36x + 20.714 R2 = 0.9815 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample D y = 202.98x + 19.286 R2 = 0.999 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-45. Sample D-13 Graph Figure B-46. Sample D-14 Graph 3/8" Sample D0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Warp Permalath Weft Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 20g. Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Wire 17g. Figure B-47. Sample D 3/8 Copmarison

PAGE 94

82 3/4" Sample D0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Lath 3.4g. Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 17g. Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints Figure B-48. Sample D Comparison Table B-4. Sample E Flexure Data Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SAMPLE E Permalath Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Permalath Warp 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 60 65 50 50 45 50 65 40 65 50 65 55 50 40 0.2 75 85 75 70 65 70 100 55 90 60 100 70 55 55 0.3 100 115 95 105 90 85 100 70 115 70 60 75 75 65 0.4 125 145 135 85 105 110 120 90 130 85 75 100 90 80 0.5 155 175 145 110 130 125 145 110 130 95 95 125 105 95 0.6 175 150 175 120 150 110 170 125 150 105 105 145 115 115 0.7 205 180 195 140 180 125 160 140 170 105 120 160 130 130 0.8 225 200 225 155 200 140 200 155 200 120 130 175 140 140

PAGE 95

83 Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample E y = 245.24x + 29.643 R2 = 0.9964 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample E y = 185.12x + 56.071 R2 = 0.9097 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-49. Sample E-1 Graph Figure B-50. Sample E-2 Graph Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample E y = 247.02x + 25.714 R2 = 0.9935 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample E y = 137.5x + 42.5 R2 = 0.921 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-51. Sample E-3 Graph Figure B-52. Sample E-4 Graph Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample E y = 222.02x + 20.714 R2 = 0.9967 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample E y = 118.45x + 48.571 R2 = 0.8866 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-53. Sample E-5 Graph Figure B-54. Sample E-6 Graph Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample E y = 176.19x + 53.214 R2 = 0.9517 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample E y = 168.45x + 22.321 R2 = 0.9976 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-55. Sample E-7 Graph Figure B-56. Sample E-8 Graph

PAGE 96

84 Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample E y = 172.62x + 53.571 R2 = 0.9673 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample E y = 98.81x + 41.786 R2 = 0.9792 0 50 100 150 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-57. Sample E-9 Graph Figure B-58. Sample E-10 Graph Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample E y = 84.524x + 55.714 R2 = 0.6687 0 50 100 150 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample E y = 181.55x + 31.429 R2 = 0.9855 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-59. Sample E-11 Graph Figure B-60. Sample E-12 Graph Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample E y = 135.71x + 33.929 R2 = 0.9918 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample E y = 147.62x + 23.571 R2 = 0.9948 0 50 100 150 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Figure B-61. Sample E-13 Graph Figure B-62. Sample E-14 Graph

PAGE 97

85 3/8" Sample E0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Warp Permalath Weft Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 20g. Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Wire 17g. Figure B-63. Sample E 3/8 Comparison 3/4" Sample E0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Warp Permalath 1000 Weft Metal Lath 3.4g. Metal Lath 2.5g. Metal Wire 17g. Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints Figure B-64. Sample E Comparison

PAGE 98

86 APPENDIX C PICTURES OF TENSI LE FLEXURE CRACKS A B C D Figure C-1. Permalath Weft 3/8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overla pped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

PAGE 99

87 A B C D Figure C-2. Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 100

88 A B C D Figure C-3. Permalath Warp 3/8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overla pped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

PAGE 101

89 A B C E Figure C-4. Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 102

90 A B C D Figure C-5. Metal Lath 2.5 lb. 3/ 8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overla pped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

PAGE 103

91 A B C D Figure C-6.Metal Lath 3.4 lb. 3/ 4 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overla pped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped A B C D Figure C-7.Metal Lath 2.5 lb. 3/ 8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overla pped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

PAGE 104

92 A B C D Figure C-8. Metal Wire 20 gauge 3/8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 105

93 A B C D Figure C-9. Metal Wire 17 gauge 3/4 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 106

94 A B C D E Figure C-10.Metal Lath 2.5 lb. 3/ 8 2 overlaps Crack Pictures A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample B Overlapped, C) Sample C Non-Overlapped, D) Sample D Overlapped, E), Sample E Non-Overlapped, E)

PAGE 107

95 A B C D Figure C-11.Metal Lath 3.4 lb. 3/ 4 2 overlaps Crack Pictures A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 108

96 A B C D Figure C-12. Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 109

97 A B C D Figure C-13. Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 110

98 A B C D Figure C-14. Metal Wire 17 gauge 3/8 Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Samp le D Overlapped, D), Sample E NonOverlapped

PAGE 111

99 APPENDIX D INITIAL CRACKING DEFLECTION/STRENGTH Table D-1 Sample B (Overlappe d) Initial Crack Deflection SAMPLE B Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b 0.149 80 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b 0.124 60 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b 0.124 65 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b 0.075 120 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b 0.09 75 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b 0.07 120 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b 0.058 100 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b 0.25 75 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b 0.144 110 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b 0.085 55 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b 0.166 95 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b 0.092 60 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b 0.11 65 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b 0.216 55 Sample B 3/8" Initial Crack 20 40 60 80 100 00.050.10.150.20.250.3Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b Pass/Fail Line Figure D-1. Sample B 3/ 8 Initial Crack Deflection

PAGE 112

100 Sample B 3/4" Initial Crack 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 00.050.10.150.2Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Pass/Fail Line Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b Figure D-2. Sample B 3/4 In itial Crack Deflection Table D-2. Sample C (Non-Overla pped) Initial Crack Deflection SAMPLE C Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c 0.103 75 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c 0.069 130 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c 0.12 65 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c 0.066 95 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c 0.102 80 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c 0.081 115 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c 0.043 130 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c 0.253 90 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c 0.121 65 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c 0.304 85 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c 0.214 110 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c 0.042 40 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c 0.086 30 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c 0.053 25

PAGE 113

101 Sample C 3/8" Initial Crack0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 00.050.10.150.20.250.30.35Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c Pass/Fail Line Figure D-3. Sample C 3/ 8 Initial Crack Deflection Sample C 3/4" Initial Crack45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 00.050.10.150.20.25Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Pass/Fail Line Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c Figure D-4. Sample C 3/ 4 Initial Crack Deflection

PAGE 114

102 Table D-3. Sample D (Overlappe d) Initial Crack Deflection SAMPLE D Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1d 0.136 70 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2d 0.07 140 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3d 0.083 70 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4d 0.076 155 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5d 0.121 80 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6d 0.072 110 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7d 0.069 75 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8d 0.168 70 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9d 0.061 95 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10d 0.073 65 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11d 0.182 95 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12d 0.102 55 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13d 0.165 40 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14d N/A N/A Sample D 3/8" Initial Crack30 45 60 75 90 105 120 00.050.10.150.2 Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1d Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3d Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5d Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8d Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10d Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12d PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13d Pass/Fail Line Figure D-5. Sample D 3/ 8 Initial Crack Deflection

PAGE 115

103 Sample D 3/4" Initial Crack0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.050.10.150.2Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Pass/Fail Line Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2d Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4d Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6d Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7d Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9d Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11d Figure D-6. Sample D 3/ 4 Initial Crack Deflection Table D-4. Sample E (Non-Overla pped) Initial Crack Deflection SAMPLE E Deflection @ 1st Crack (1/1000 in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.) Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1e N/A N/A Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2e N/A N/A Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3e N/A N/A Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4e N/A N/A Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5e N/A N/A Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6e N/A N/A Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7e N/A N/A Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8e N/A N/A Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9e N/A N/A Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10e N/A N/A Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11e N/A N/A Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12e 0.084 65 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13e 0.13 50 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14e N/A N/A

PAGE 116

104 Sample E 3/8" Initial Crack0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 00.050.10.15Deflection (in.)Load (lbs.) Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12e PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13e Pass/Fail Line Figure D-7. Sample E 3/8 Initial Crack Deflection

PAGE 117

105 APPENDIX E CRACK ANALYSIS DATA Number of Cracks SAMPLE B Inside Middle 3rd Outside Middle 3rd Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b 2 3 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b 2 1 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b 2 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b 2 1 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b 2 0 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b 2 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b 2 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b 2 4 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b 1 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12b 3 2 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13b 3 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b 3 2 Figure E-1. Number of Cracks B Samples Number of Cracks SAMPLE C Inside Middle 3rd Outside Middle 3rd Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c 1 1 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c 2 0 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c 2 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c 1 2 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c 2 1 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c 2 0 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c 2 1 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c 2 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c 2 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c 1 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12c 2 2 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13c 2 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c 2 2 Figure E-2. Number of Cracks C Samples

PAGE 118

106 Number of Cracks SAMPLE D Inside Middle 3rd Outside Middle 3rd Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1d 2 1 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2d 1 1 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3d 2 2 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4d 1 2 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5d 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6d 2 0 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7d 1 2 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8d 2 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9d 2 0 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10d 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11d 1 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12d 2 4 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13d 3 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14d 2 3 Figure E-3. Number of Cracks D Samples Number of Cracks SAMPLE E Inside Middle 3rd Outside Middle 3rd Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1e 2 2 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2e 1 1 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3e 2 2 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4e 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5e 1 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6e 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7e 2 1 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8e 1 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9e 2 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10e 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11e 2 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12e 2 2 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13e 3 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14e 2 2 Figure E-4. Number of Cracks E Samples

PAGE 119

107 LIST OF REFERENCES American Concrete Institute, Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete ACI Committee 544ACI 544.2R-89 (1999). Anders, Carolin, Carbon fibre Reinforced Polymers for Strengthening of Structural Elements Lulea University of Technology, Sweden (2003). Balendran R.V, Maqsood T., Rana T.M, Tang W.C, Application of FRP Bars as Reinforcement in Civil Engineering Structure Structural Survey (2002) Vol, 20, Number 2, pp62-72. Bellis, Mary, The History of Concrete and Cement Inventors (2005). Black, Sara, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Coming on Strong Composites and Concrete (April 2005). Degussa Wall Systems, Permalath, Product Bulletin 1027195 Degussa Wall Systems Inc. (2004). SPEC-DATA, Quikrete, Portland Cement Plaster 09220 Reed Construction Data (2005). Ueda, Tamon, and Sato, Yasuhiko, New Approach for Usage of Continuous Fiber as Non-Metallic Reinforcement of Concrete Advanced Materials, Japan, (2002) pp111-116.

PAGE 120

108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Patrick W. Murray was born July 11, 1981 in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is the second son of Walter Murray and Linda Young. He received his high school diploma from Parkview High School in 1999. He ear ned his Bachelor of Science in Business Management from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2003. Patrick moved to Gainesville, Florida in 2005 to pursue his Master of Science in Building Construction at the University of Florida.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015691/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of Non-Netallic to Metallic Lath Reinforcement in Stucco Cladding Systems
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015691:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015691/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of Non-Netallic to Metallic Lath Reinforcement in Stucco Cladding Systems
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015691:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










COMPARISON OF NON-METALLIC TO METALLIC LATH REINFORCEMENT IN
STUCCO CLADDING SYSTEMS















By

PATRICK MURRAY


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006








































Copyright 2006

by

Patrick Murray















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee for their continued guidance and support

throughout the research process. Most of all I thank my family for their support while I

was at the University of Florida. I would like to thank my brother Charles Murray for his

dedication to the family which enabled me to pursue my degree. I thank Halbert Pipe &

Steel Company for their assistance in fabrication of testing equipment. I would also like

to thank Gary Milam for his guidance and wisdom.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ...................... .. ..................................................................... iii

L IST O F T A B L E S ..................... .. ................................. ........ ... .. ............ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

T hree-C oat Stucco System s ....................................................................................
O ne-C oat Stucco System s.................................................. ............................... 2
L ath in g ...................................... ..................................... ................ .. 2
R research O bjectives.......... ................................................................... ........ .... .3

2 LITERA TURE REVIEW .......................................................... ..............4

Introduction ................................. .................................................
Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Mortar, and Exterior Plaster...........................................5
Background of Glass Fiber Reinforcement in Concrete.............................................7
Portland Cement Stucco/Exterior Plaster ................. .......... ........... ..............8
Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco...............................9
Non Metallic Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco...............9

3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ......... ................. ..................................................................... 1

Sam ple Com bination ........................................ ........... ................ 11
Sam ple Preparation ........... .... ........... .............. ..... ............. .......... 12
Frame Building .......................... ........ .... ........12
S te p 1 ................................................................1 2
S tep 2 ............................................................... 12
S te p 3 ............. ..... ............ ................. ........................................... 1 3
Step 4....................................... ...............13
Mixing/Placing/Curing Stucco .............. ......... ..... .........................13
S te p 1 ................................................................1 3
S tep 2 ............................................................... 13
Step 3 ......... ......... ............................................... ..................... ... 13









S tep 4 ............................................................... 14
S te p 5 ................................................................1 4
C cutting Sam ples............ ... ............................................................ ....... .. ...... 14
T est M methods ................................................................... 15
Testing Procedures .................. ........................................ .. .......... 16
Third-point Flexure Testing ........................................ .......................... 16
Initial Crack Test ................................................................. ......... 17
Im p a c t T e st ................................................................. .................................1 8

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 9

Initial Cracking D election Test ....................................................... 29
Average B/D Overlapped ................. ...............................30
Average C/E Non-Overlapped ................................ ............... 30
T hird-point F lexural T est...................... ... ....... ........... ..........................3 1
Average Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations.............................. 31
Average C/E Non-Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations.................32
Sample 10 and 11 Results and Interpretations (1 Longitudinal& 2 Transverse
O verlaps) ........................................................ .......................... . 3
Im pact T est ......................... ....................................... ..... 33
Individual Stucco Reinforcement Comparisons ................ .................. ......... 34
Permalath 1-Coat Comparison .............. ...................................35
Perm alath 3-C oat Com prison ............. ........................................... ............35
M etal Lath 1-Coat Com prison ................................ ......................... ....... 35
M etal Lath 3-Coat Comparison ................................ ......................... ....... 35
M etal W ire 1-Coat Comparison ........................................ ....................... 35
M etal W ire 3-Coat Comparison ........................................ ....................... 36
"Real World" Stucco Product Comparisons ........................................................36

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 63

C o n c lu sio n s ........................................................................................................... 6 3
O n e-C o at S y stem s ......................................................................................... 6 3
T hree-C oat System s............................................. ............... ............... 64
R ecom m endation s......................... ..................... ............... ................... 64

APPENDIX

A DRAW INGS OF THE SAM PLES........................................ ...................... ...66

B FLEXURE DATA AND GRAPHS .................................................................... 72

C PICTURES OF TENSILE FLEXURE CRACKS ............................................ 86

D INITIAL CRACKING DEFLECTION/STRENGTH ..........................................99

E CRACK AN ALY SIS DA TA ......................................................... ............... 105



v












L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......................................................................... ................... 107

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ..................108
















LIST OF TABLES

Table p

3-1: Flexure and Initial Crack Sam ples Layout............................................................. 19

3-2: Im pact Sam ples Layout ....................................................................... 20

4-1. Sample B/D Average Initial Crack Deflection................................... ... ..................36

4-2. Sam ple C Initial Crack D eflection....................................... ........................... 38

4-3. Sample B/D (overlapped) Average Load/Deflection ...............................................39

4-4 Sample B/D Average Slope and R 2............................................ ................... 41

4-5 Sam ple B/D Average Crack Area........................................ ............................ 41

4-6. Sample C/E (non-overlapped) Average Load/Deflection .......................................42

4-7. Sample C/E Average Slope and R2 ................................ ...............44

4-8. Sample C/E Average Crack Area........ ...... ............................ ......... ........ ... 44

4-9. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection ...............................................45

4-10. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R2 .................................................46

4-11. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection.................. ...... ........................ 47

4-12. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R2 ................................................47

4-13. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison ............................................. 50

4-14. Permalath 1-Coat Slope Comparison ........................................ ............... 51

4-15. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison .............................................52

4-16. Permalath 3-Coat Slope Comparison ........................................ ............... 53

4-17. M etal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison.............................................. 54

4-18. Metal Lath 1-Coat Slope Comparison.. .................... ......... ...............55









4-19. Metal Lath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison...............................................55

4-20. Metal Lath 3-Coat Slope Comparison.............. ................................ 56

4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison ...................... .............. 57

4-22. M etal W ire 1-Coat Slope Com prison ........................................ .....................58

4-23. Metal Wire 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison ..............................................58

4-24. M etal W ire 3-Coat Slope Com prison ........................................ .....................59

4-25. "Real World" 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data........................59

4-26. "Real World" 1-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison....... ........................................60

4-27. "Real World" 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data .....................61

4-28. "Real World" 3-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison..............................................62
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

3-1. W arp v W eft D iagram ....................................................................... ..................19

3-2. Flexure Sample Frame (2 longitudinal overlaps) ....................................... .......... 20

3-3. Flexure Sample Frame 2-way Overlaps (2 transverse and 1 vertical)........................21

3-4 Im pact Sam ple F ram e ............................................................................... ..... .... 2 1

3-5. Flexural Sample Screw/Cap and Staple Layout ............................... ............... 22

3-6. Impact Sample Screw/Cap and Staple Layout ................................. ............... 22

3-7. 34" System Scratch Coat ........................................................................ 23

3-8. C ut through plyw ood ..................................................................... ... ....................23

3-9. Third-Point Flexural Loading Diagram ........................................... ...............24

3-10. 34" Sam ple Section View in Tension................................. ......................... 24

3-11. 3/8" Sam ple Section View in Tension................................. ........................ 24

3-12. L SC T C controller ............. ..................................... .... ....... .... ...... 25

3-13. Electrical Circuit 2D Model Layout........................ ..........................25

3-14. Initial Crack Testing Set-up........... .... ............. ............... 26

3-15. Initial Crack Testing Set-up (light-bulb) ...................................... ............... 26

3-16. Im pact Testing Set-up Top V iew ........................................ .......................... 27

3-17. Im pact Testing Set-up M odel ............................................................................27

3-18. Impact Testing Set-up Transparent M odel .................................... ............... 28

4-1 Sample B/D 1-Coat Average Initial Crack Deflection............... ...... .............37

4-2. Sample B/D 3-Coat Average Initial Crack Deflection...................................37









4-3. Sample C 1-Coat Initial Crack Deflection........_... ................. ............. 38

4-4. Sample C 3-Coat Initial Crack Deflection........_... .............................. 39

4-5 Sample B/D (overlapped) 1-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection..............................40

4-6 Sample B/D (overlapped) 3-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection..............................40

4-7 Sam ple B/D Average Crack Area........................................ ............................ 42

4-8. Sample C/E (non-overlapped) 1-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection.........................43

4-9. Sample C/E (non-overlapped) 3-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection.........................43

4-10. Sample C/E Average Crack Area ............................ ............... 45

4-11. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection ..........................................46

4-12. Sample 10 & 11 B, D, E Average Crack Area Average........................................46

4-13. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection.................. ...... ........................ 47

4-14. Sample 10 & 11 C Crack Area Average........................................ ............... 48

4-15. 3/8" Im pact sam ples, 160 in-lbs. ........................................ ......................... 48

4-16. 34" Im pact Sam ples, 320 in-lbs.......................................... ........................... 49

4-17. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph ...................................51

4-18. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph ...................................53

4-19. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph.................................54

4-20. Metal Lath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph.................................56

4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph .............................. 57

4-22. Metal Wire 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph ...................................58

4-23. "Real World" 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph...................60

4-24. "Real World" 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph ............... 61















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

COMPARISON OF NON-METALLIC TO METALLIC LATH REINFORCEMENT IN
STUCCO CLADDING SYSTEMS

By

Patrick W. Murray

August 2006

Chair: Larry Muszynski
Cochair: R. Raymond Issa
Major Department: Building Construction

Stucco/Plaster is a Portland cement based mixture used for exterior wall cladding.

Stucco is placed over traditional wood frame or CMU wall structures. A vapor barrier is

first attached to the wall followed by lathing over which stucco is applied resulting in a

1/2" to 34" thick section. Lathing has traditionally been made from galvanized metal. The

lathing is used as reinforcement for the stucco. There are currently new, potentially

superior lathing products coming to the market that could increase the useful life of

stucco cladding as well as decrease the labor costs associated with installation.

This study shows how Degussas' Permalath Fiberglass lathing reinforcement

compares to traditional metal wire lath and expanded metal lath as reinforcement for

stucco wall systems. Tests performed in this study to make these comparisons were

third-point flexural loading, initial cracking deflection, and impact testing.









Results show that Permalath in both 1-coat and 3-coat systems perform as well

as other metal lath options. Permalath performs equally as well in both the weft and

warp directions. Permalath also performs well whether is it overlapped (longitudinally)

or non-overlapped.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Stucco is a Portland cement based plaster used as an exterior wall cladding in

building construction. Lathing and stucco are the two main components that comprise

stucco wall cladding. Depending on the physical structure, there may or may not be more

components to the systems.

There are many different proprietary blends of Portland cement based stucco

produced by many different suppliers. There are also a variety of lath options available

for use in stucco cladding systems. There are different weights, gauges, and patterns of

traditional metal cloth and mesh used to produce lathing. Combinations of different

stucco blends and laths have an effect on the thickness and number of coats required by

the stucco system. There are currently 1-coat and 3-coat stucco systems.

Three-Coat Stucco Systems

Three-coat stucco is the traditional system that has been used as cladding for

many years. This is a very labor intensive method with relatively high costs.

Three-coat stucco systems are comprised of three layers of stucco and one layer

of lathing. Scratch, Brown, and Finish coats comprise the three different coats applied

when using a three-coat system. The scratch coat is applied at approximately 1/2"

thickness and is scratched approximately 1/" deep before setting up. The scratches are

intended to help in the forming of a mechanical bond between the scratch coat and brown

coat. The second coat is the brown coat which is 1/" thick. The brown coat is left









smooth after it is applied. The finish coat or third coat is less than 1/8" thick and is

intended for aesthetic quality.

One-Coat Stucco Systems

One-coat stucco systems consist of only two layers, a brown coat and a finish

coat. The brown coat is applied between 3/8" and 1/2" thick. The finish layer is the

second coat in this process and is once again for aesthetic purposes only. This new

method is a streamlined and more economical process of stucco application.

Lathing

Stucco without reinforcement does not have the strength or bonding ability to

stand alone. Lathing acts as a mechanical bonding agent to the wall making the stucco

system act as one structure. Lathing has traditionally been either metal wire or expanded

metal. Metal wire is available in different gauges while expanded metal in available in

different weights. Metal wire gauges are a continuous gauge throughout the entire sheet

of lath. Expanded metal lath weights are based per square yard of lath.

Stucco can crack for many reasons, including shrinkage of cementitious materials

as well as metal lath incompatibility. Cracking is one of the major downsides of using

stucco as an exterior cladding. Control of stucco cracking has been an issue with no

answer for as long as stucco has been used in construction. Metal is also very susceptible

to aggressive environmental conditions. In marine conditions, freeze/thaw areas, and

high humidity areas metal lathing can corrode sacrificing many useful years of the stucco

system.

Permalath is a new Fiberglass lath material which is not rigid and not as

susceptible to environmental conditions as metal lath. Being that it is not rigid; cracking

may become less of an issue. Permalath also helps control the degree that









environmental conditions can affect the stucco system. Permalath is less labor intensive

and safer to install than metal lath. Permalath is also bundled in a roll making it easier

to handle than large sheets of metal lath.

Research Objectives

The objectives of this research were to compare the structural properties of

traditional metal lath applications and Permalath as a stucco reinforcement system. This

research used three main test methods for study; third-point flexural loading, impact

testing, and initial crack deflection. Development of new testing methods for stucco

systems has also become a secondary objective of this research, as there are no testing

standards specific for stucco systems.














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

In 1824, English inventor Joseph Aspdin developed Portland cement, which is a

material that is now widely used in building construction as a component in concrete,

mortar, and exterior plaster. Later in 1849, Joseph Monier invented reinforced concrete,

which is a composite material consisting of concrete that incorporates an embedded

metal, usually steel. Un-reinforced concrete is high in compressive strength; however, it

has relatively low tensile properties. Consequently, the addition of reinforcement

significantly improves the ability of the material to tolerate tensile forces. Steel

reinforced concrete is overall durable, strong and expected to perform well throughout its

service life; however, sometimes the steel is subject to corrosion.

In the 1970s, fiber reinforced concrete was invented. The fibers can be formed

from a variety of materials such as steel as well as various fibrous products such as nylon,

fiberglass, and polypropylene. Fiber reinforcements increase concrete's toughness and

ductility (the ability to deform plastically without fracturing) by carrying a portion of the

load in the case of matrix failure, and by arresting crack growth. Dr. Victor Li of the

University of Michigan has researched the properties of high-performance fiber-

reinforced cementitious composites, a very high-performance subset of fiber-reinforced

concrete. He believes that acceptance of the material will grow, as long as performance,

low cost, and ease of execution are maintained (Black, 2005).









More recently, non-metallic reinforcing materials, such as plastic and fiberglass

reinforcing bar, have been developed as an alternative to traditional steel reinforcing bar.

The advantages of these products include higher tensile strength, resistance to corrosion

and other environmental factors, and decreased maintenance.

During the last two decades, government organizations, private industries, and

universities have performed research to produce fiber reinforced polymer (FRP)

reinforcements for structures exposed to aggressive environmental conditions

(freeze/thaw, marine conditions, chemicals) and mechanical overloading. The most

common FRPs used are glass, aramid, and carbon. FRPs can be placed in different

locations of a structure to achieve the following: flexural strength, tensile strength, shear

strength, provide confinement, or ductility. With the many new technologies and

materials available today, steel reinforcement is giving way to fiber reinforcement

(Balendran et al., 2002).

Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Mortar, and Exterior Plaster

As a result of metal corrosion and the fact that fiber reinforcement in concrete has

performed so well, it seems promising to search for new fibrous materials to substitute

for metal lath that has been historically used in exterior plaster (stucco). These materials

could be made from continuous and discontinuous glass and/or organic fibers.

In civil engineering applications, there are four dominate types of fibers utilized.

These are carbon, aramid, glass, and organic fibers. Continuous fiber such as carbon

fiber, aramid fiber and glass fiber have been accepted as a substitute for conventional

steel reinforcement in specific applications. This is because of their good characteristics:

high strength, lightness, anti-corrosiveness, anti-magnetism and flexibility. For instance,

Polyacetal Fiber (PAF) has previously been used as both external and internal









reinforcement. Research studies and tests done at Hokkaido University in Japan have

shown that PAF laminate sheets increase the ultimate deformation of specimens of

reinforced columns yielding in flexure (Ueda and Sato, 2002).

Fibers have different properties, including price, which may make one more

suitable than the other depending upon the application or intended purpose. All fibers

have generally higher stress capacity than ordinary steel and are linear elastic until

failure. One of the more important properties that differ between fiber types are stiffness

and tensile strain (Carolin, 2003).

Carbon: Carbon fibers do not absorb water and are resistant to many chemical

solutions. They withstand fatigue excellently, do not stress or corrode and do not show

any creep or relaxation. Carbon fibers have less relaxation than low relaxation, high

tensile, pre-stressed steel strands. Carbon fiber composites are used to increase the

flexural capacity of reinforced concrete bridges (Carolin, 2003).

Aramid: A well-known trademark of aramid fibers is Kevlar' but there exist other

brands (e.g., Twaron, Technora, and SVM). Aramid fibers are sensitive to elevated

temperature, moisture and ultra violet radiation and are therefore not widely used in civil

engineering applications (Carolin, 2003).

Glass: Glass fibers are considerably more economical than carbon fibers and

aramid fibers. Therefore glass fiber composites have become popular in many

applications such as fiber reinforced concrete, fiber reinforcement polymer bars,

electronics, and many more applications. In order to clarify the content of this study a

brief review of glass fiber reinforced concrete follows (Carolin, 2003).









Organic: Polypropylene, nylon, acrylic, polyethylene, and polyester are all organic

synthetic fibers. These fibers can serve many different purposes. These fibers can be

used in small quantities to reduce plastic shrinkage cracking during the first 24 hours

after a pour. They can also be used in larger quantities to replace steel reinforcement in

many applications. All of these fibers act differently. Some have low bonding strength,

some are weak in tensile, and some have poor heat resistance. Fibers are chosen based on

the desired outcome.

Background of Glass Fiber Reinforcement in Concrete

Much of the original research performed on glass fiber reinforced cement paste

took place in the early 1960s. This work used conventional borosilicate glass fibers

uncoatedd E-glass) and soda-lime-silica glass fibers (A-glass). Glass compositions of

uncoated E-glass and A-glass, used as reinforcement, were found to lose strength rather

quickly due to the very high alkalinity (pH>12.5) of the cement-based matrix.

Consequently, early A-glass and uncoated E-glass composites were unsuitable for long-

term use. Continued research, however, resulted in the development of a new alkali

resistant fiber (AR-glass fiber) that provided improved long-term durability. This system

was named alkali resistant-glass fiber reinforced concrete (AR-GFRC). In 1967,

scientists at the United Kingdom Building Research Establishment (BRE) began an

investigation of alkali resistant glasses. They successfully formulated a glass

composition containing 16 percent zirconia that demonstrated high alkali resistance. The

National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) and BRE discussed with

Pilkington Brothers Limited the possibility of doing further work to develop the fibers for

commercial production. By 1971, BRE and Pilkington Brothers had collaborated and the

results of their work were licensed exclusively to Pilkington for commercial production









and distribution throughout the world. Since the introduction of AR-glass in the United

Kingdom in 1971 by Cem-FIL, other manufacturers of AR-glass have been established.

In 1975, Nippon Electric Glass (NEG) Company introduced an alkali resistant glass

containing a minimum of 20 percent zirconia. In 1976, Owens-Coming Fiberglass and

Pilkington Brothers, agreed to produce the same AR-glass formulation to enhance the

development of the alkali resistant glass product and related markets. A cross-license

was agreed upon. Subsequently, Owens -Corning Fiberglass stopped production of AR-

glass fiber in 1984 (ACI, 1999).

Alkali resistant-glass fiber reinforced concrete is by far the most widely used

system for the manufacturing of GFRC products. However coated E-glass in used in an

array of products. Coated E-glass is used to manufacture coated fiber mesh fabrics which

are used to reinforce and waterproof cement, gypsum, bitumen, and plastics. Coated E-

glass is also used in products intended to insulate exterior walls and in the manufacturing

of fireproofing applications. Within the last decade, the use of fibers has been adopted in

a wide range of applications in the construction industry.

Portland Cement Stucco/Exterior Plaster

Various private companies in North America are currently manufacturing

'factory blended' Portland cement stucco/exterior plaster products. These products are

sometimes referred to as one or three-coat stucco systems and are available through

companies such as Degussa Wall Systems, Dryvit Systems, Teifs Wall Systems, Parex

Inc., Sto Corp., Magna Wall, etc.

The products generally include a cementitious base coat followed by a finish coat.

The base coat for the one-coat system is generally 3/8" to 1/2" thick while the base coat for

the three-coat systems ranges from 1/2" to 34". Additionally, Portland cement









stucco/exterior plaster can also be proportioned and applied as a 'field mix' per ASTM C

926. The ingredients for the base coat may include polymer modifiers, sand, Portland

cement, lime, non-metallic fibers and, in the case of the factory blended products, other

proprietary ingredients. The finish coats may be a field mixed cementious material or

factory prepared material that typically is no greater than 1/8" thick.

Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco

Lath or wire is typically used as a plaster base and reinforcement for both one-

coat and three-coat exterior plaster (stucco) regardless whether the stucco is field or

factory mix. Longstanding and common practice has been for lath or wire to be typically

fabricated from galvanized metal that is available in various configurations as well as

weights. The lath or wire is mechanically attached to a substrate which is generally the

frame of the building. Staples 1 12" or larger or screws with caps are the main means of

mechanical fastening. The lath or wire serves as a mechanical key for the stucco which is

trowel or spray applied to the lath.

Non Metallic Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco

A new non-metallic glass fiber lath has been recently introduced by Degussa Wall

Systems. The Permalath reinforcement for cement plaster (stucco) wall systems is a

patent-pending, non-metallic lath reinforcement that is an alternative to metal lath and

stucco netting. Permalath was initially designed specifically for use in the 3/8- to 1/2-

inch thick (one-coat) stucco systems however a Permalath 1000 will also be available

for three-coat stucco applications. Since the product is pliable and has no sharp edges,

it's safer to handle, easier to cut to size, and its ease of handling reduces installation

costs. It is also alkali resistant to ensure long-term durability and performance. Its open,

3-D weave, self-furring design provides numerous solutions to issues encountered with






10


metal lath or wire. It is non-metallic, so it will not rust. It is packaged in lightweight

rolls for efficient handling and shipping, and the roll's wide width gives better coverage

with fewer overlapping overlaps. Existing application methods are used eliminating the

need to learn new methods, and the product is non-directional so it can be applied

transversely or vertically (Degussa Wall Systems, 2004).














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

The scope of the project was to provide sufficient scientific information for the

comparison of Permalath fiberglass reinforcement to metal lath and wire cloth in 3/8"

thick (1-coat) and 34" thick (3-coat) stucco applications.

Sample Combination

Direction of lath placement, warp and weft has an effect on flexural testing but not

on impact testing. Warp and Weft direction was applicable only to Permalath

reinforcement in this research. Figure 3-1 shows the differences of warp and weft

directions. The weft direction of the roll runs parallel to the substrate grain. Warp

direction of the roll is perpendicular to the grain of the plywood.

The affects of warp and weft directions required that separate sample sets be made

for the flexural tests and the impact tests. There were fourteen combinations of materials

tested for flexural strength and initial cracking strength/deflection (Table 3-1) and nine

material combinations tested for the impact testing (Table 3-2). Sample layout designs

for flexural samples are located in Appendix A. Impact samples utilized a continuous

piece of lathing attached to the plywood. There were no overlaps in impact samples

(Figure A-7). Sample layout design for flexural and impact can be found in Appendix A

(Figures A-i through A-7).

Flexural samples are broken into five usable sections, A through E. Sections A, C,

and E are non-overlapped and sections B, D are overlapped sections. Overlapped

sections are classified as two separate pieces of lathing coming together on the sample









forming a longitudinal overlap. This is done to represent what happens in the field since

the areas of a building require multiple pieces or rolls of lath to be used to cover the

surface area. Non-overlapped sections are those that have on solid piece of reinforcement

running through the sample (Figures A-i through A-5). Flexural samples 1 through 9

and 12 through 14 resemble Figure 3-2. These samples only have longitudinal overlaps.

A longitudinal overlap is perpendicular to the load but parallel to the tensile stresses.

Sample 10 and 11 are the exception to the preceding paragraph. Samples 10 and 11

are samples that have overlaps in both the longitudinal and transverse (Figure 3-3).

Sections B, D, and E all have two transverse overlaps. Section C has both two transverse

overlaps and one continuous longitudinal overlap. Transverse overlaps are parallel to

load but perpendicular to the tensile stresses.

Sample Preparation

Frame Building

Step 1

Flexural Samples

Cut a 4'x 8' x 15/32" sheet of plywood to 2 (4'x4').

Cut the 4'x 4' sheet of plywood to 3'x 3'.

Note which 3' x 3' sections came from the same 4' x 8' sheet of plywood (this is
to check for invalid results from plywood inconsistencies).

Impact Samples

Cut a 4' x 8' x 15/32" plywood to 17" x 24" x 15/32".

All cuts in step 1 utilize a 13 amp table saw equipped with a 36 carbide tooth 71/4"
finish blade.

Step 2

Attach vapor barrier (Tyvek House Wrap) to sample using 3/8" staples.









Mark cut lines on Tyvek to ensure proper placement of metal caps.

Step 3

Attach metal trims to all four edges of sample using metal caps and #6 1/2" wood
screws for flexural samples. Refer to Figure 3-2 and 3-3 for layout on flexure
samples and Figure 3-4 of impact samples.

Step 4

Install lathing with the specified overlaps (Figures A-i through A-6). Attach
lathing with both staples and metal caps. Metal cap placement is crucial for both
impact and flexural samples. Refer to Figures 3-2 through 3-7 for metal cap and
staple placement.

No screws/metal caps were used anywhere within the middle 18" of the impact
samples. Screws and Caps were only used running parallel to the 17" side of the
sample. 3/8" staples were used throughout the rest of the sample to allow for
separation of the stucco from the plywood for testing.

Mixing/Placing/Curing Stucco

Step 1

Add one bag of sanded Stucco Base to the mixer.

Add approximately one to one-and-one-half gallon of water to the mixer through
a spray hose while simultaneously turning the mixer on. Proper water volume
was determined by workability. If too much or too little water was added a proper
workability was not achieved which can be determined by being either too stiff or
too soupy.

Mix the stucco for five minutes; mixture is now ready for application onto sample
frames.

Step 2

Trowel stucco onto sample frames using a metal float. Screed to a thickness of
3/8" for the 1-coat systems and a thickness of 12" for the 3-coat systems.

15 minutes after application of the scratch coat on the 3-coat systems, scratch the
surface to approximately 1/4" depth (Figure 3-7).


Step 3

24 hours after the application of the scratch coat on the 3-coat system, follow step
1 again for mixing stucco. While stucco is mixing mist sample with water until









water takes more than 30 to 45 seconds for absorption. Trowel stucco onto the
scratch coat to a finish level of 3/" thick.

1-coat samples should also be misted with water at this time.

Step 4

48 hours after the first coat of stucco is applied, all samples are to be misted
again.

Step 5

Samples cured on a horizontal, flat surface at an air temperature between 720 -
780.

Samples were cured for 14 days before any testing was performed on them.


Cutting Samples

Samples were cut after seven days of curing following the layouts found in

Appendix A. Flexure samples were cut from the 3' x 3' specimen into five 6" x 36"

samples with two 3" x 36" pieces of waste from the sides. Impact samples were cut from

the 17" x 24" specimen into three 6" x 17" samples with two 3" x 17" pieces of waste

from the sides. All samples were cut using a 13 amp table saw. To avoid compromising

the integrity of the stucco portion of the samples, the following procedure was followed

to cut the samples.

Using a 7 1/2" 36 tooth carbide finish blade on the table saw, the blade depth was set

to 15/32" and the rip fence was adjusted to 15". The rip fence adjustment measurements

were taken from the outside of the saw blade to compensate for the area that the blades

removes when cutting. The samples first pass across the saw, cut only through the

plywood (Figure 3-8). The blade was then changed to a 7 1/" dry/wet diamond blade.

The blade was then adjusted to cut through the full thickness of the sample. This second

pass across the saw completes the cut through the stucco. The following process was









repeated (rip fence measurements adjusted to allow for proper sample size) to cut the rest

of the specimen into the designed size of samples according to layout (Appendix A).

The process of changing the blade out after every cut was a time consuming

process, but is necessary not to damage the samples. During the trial sample making and

cutting process of this research, cutting through the entire sample with both a finish blade

and a diamond blade was attempted. The result was a sample with "spawling" stucco on

the top portion. Blades were also burned up after one pass.

There was an extra step needed for the cutting process of the impact samples. After

cutting samples into proper sizes the stucco portion needed to be separated from the

plywood. These samples were only attached with staples in the testing area (Figure 3-6),

so they separated from the plywood with the slightest amount of force using a flat bar to

keep from damaging the samples.

Test Methods

Various tests were performed on the different material combinations and

thicknesses in order achieve sufficient data to form valid conclusions. Multiple types of

tests were needed since some materials perform differently under various testing

conditions. Third-Point Flexure, initial tensile cracking strength/deflection, and impact

tests were the three types of tests performed during this research. Crack analyses were

performed on the samples subjected to flexure loads.

Third-Point Flexure testing allowed for the determination of the flexural strength of

the samples. The simply supported beam (6" x 36" sample) is supported on two outer

points, and loaded through the application of two concentrated loads. All contact points

along the beam are located at equal distances which are ten inches from each other. The

maximum stress endured by the sample is located at and between the two concentrated









loading points in the middle third of the beam sample (Figure 3-9). ASTM C-78

Standard Test Method for Flexure Strength of Concrete was the basis for the design of

this new test method. Samples were placed to allow for the maximum tensile forces to be

transferred through the stucco portion of the samples (Figures 3-10 and 3-11).

Initial Tensile Cracking Strength/Deflection Test was used to determine at what

load and deflection samples would develop the first crack. Sample sections were

outfitted with an electro-conductive paint and epoxy which formed part of a complete

electrical circuit. Through the use of Third-point Flexural loading, loads were applied to

samples until the samples developed their first crack which would break the electrical

circuit.

Impact testing was used to determine if specified incremental impact loads would

cause failure in the specimen which was determined through the breaking of the

reinforcement and deformation area. Samples were secured into the rigging to ensure

that the maximum impact forces were transferred to the sample and not displaced through

the rigging. A series of impact loads were then performed using a 10 pound drop

hammer capable of 18 inches of travel producing an impact energy of 180 in-lbs of force.

Testing Procedures

Third-point Flexure Testing

Third-point Flexure testing took place using a Forney compression machine. A

Humboldt 2310.10 Linear Strain Conversion Transducer (LSCT) connected to a

Humboldt HM-2350 4 digit Transducer Readout was used to measure sample deflection.

The LSCT was placed in the center of the middle third of the samples with equal

distances on each side of the sample. The LSCT was accurate to 0.001" with a maximum

deflection of one inch (Figure 3-12). The test mimicked the ASTM C-78 standard as









close as possible for the setup of the testing machine. The test was performed with the

stucco portion of the samples in tension (Figures 3-10 and 3-11). All B, C, D, and E

samples were tested using this method. Samples were subjected to continuous loading

until a deflection of 0.8 inches was reached. The load was recorded at every 0.1 inch

increment of deflection. Samples were further analyzed after being loaded by taking a

crack width measurement from three locations (left side, center, right side) using a Peak

brand 25 power micrometer. The Peak 25 micrometer was accurate to 0.005 millimeters.

The lengths of each crack were also measured by tracing a nylon string along the crack

and then stretching the string out on a ruler. Length measurements were taken to the

nearest 1/32". Results from Flexure testing are discussed in Chapter 4.

Initial Crack Test

Initial cracking strength/deflection testing was done at the same time as the third-

point flexure test. All B, C, and D samples were tested using this method. Two E

samples were testing for initial crack deflection. Samples were outfitted to allow an

electrical current to flow across the stucco portion of the samples. Samples were

subjected to third-point loading until the first crack was induced which was indicated by

the breaking of the electrical circuit.

The middle 16" of each sample was painted with a /4" wide strip of electro-

conductive silver ink. Light gauge metal L-brackets were then bonded to each end of the

paint strip with a two part electro-conductive silver epoxy (Figure 3-13). The epoxy was

allowed to cure for 24 hours before testing the samples to achieve the epoxies full

strength. When samples were placed in testing machine one L-bracket was attached to a

6 volt battery using a 16 gauge braided copper wire with alligator clips on both ends. The

second L-bracket was attached to one post of a 6.3 volt light bulb with the bulbs other









post connecting to the battery using the wire with alligator clips completing the circuit

(Figures 3-13, 3-14, 3-15). Samples were subjected to a constantly increasing third-point

flexural load until the electrical circuit was broken causing the light to turn off due to a

crack at which time data was recorded. Results are discussed in Chapter 4.

Impact Test

Impact testing was performed on the 17" x 24" samples. Setup for the impact

loading does not follow any published testing standard since there are none that apply to

the materials tested in this research. Figures 3-16, 3-17, and 3-18 show the setup for the

impact testing. HSS Spacers were placed 22" on center with the C-Channel placed on top

of the HSS spacers with equal overhang distances on each end. The roller blocks were

then placed inside the C-Channel with the wood blocking centered on top of the rollers.

Inside spacing between the wood blocks was 3". The stucco sample was then laid on top

of the bottom wood block followed by the top wood block. C-Clamps were lightly

tightened just to hold them on until all four were in place. Once all 4 C-Clamps were in

place they were tightened in a clockwise manor, /4 of a rotation at a time. A Humboldt

10 pound drop hammer was used as the impact tool (Modified Proctor Test ASTM

D1557-02el). Load criteria were determined using the impact resistance test for EIFS

systems (EIMA E101.86). Since the hammer has an 18 inch shaft, the shaft was marked

at 16 inches so each drop was only 160 in-lbs when dropped from the 16" marking. All

one-coat samples were subjected to one drop of 160 in-lbs and all three-coat samples

were subjected to two drops, each drop being 160 in-lbs for a combined total impact load

of 320 in-lbs. The increased impact energy amount for the 3-coat samples was due to

greater mass of stucco than with 1-coat samples. The results from these tests are

discussed in Chapter 4.




























Figure 3-1. Warp versus Weft Diagram


Table 3-1: Flexure and Initial Crack Sam les Layout

Materials\Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Permalath Weft X
Permalath Warp X
Permalath 1000 Weft X X
Permalath 1000
Warp X X
Metal Lath 2.5# X X X*
Metal Lath 3.4# X X*
Wire Lath 1" x 20ga X
Wire Lath 1 1/2" x 7ga X X
Tyvek XXXXXXXXXX X X X X
1-Coat Stucco (3/8") X X X X X X X X
3-Coat Stucco (3/4") X X X X X X
15/32" 3-ply Plywood X X X XX X X X X X X X X
* Samples have overlaps in 2 directions (2 transverse and 1 vertical)









Table 3-2: Impact Samples Layout
Materials\Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Permalath X
Permalath 1000 X X
Metal Lath 2.5# X X
Metal Lath 3.4# X
Wire Lath 1" x 20ga X
Wire Lath 1 2" x 17ga X X
Tyvek X X X X X X X X X
1-Coat Stucco (3/8") X X X X X
3-Coat Stucco (3/4") X X X X
15/32" 3-ply Plywood X X X X X X X X X


;xure Sample Frame (2 longitu

































Figure 3-3. Flexure Sample Frame 2-way Overlaps (2 transverse and 1 vertical)


Figure 3-4. Impact Sample Frame











0 Waste 0 0n ?
Screw& 0 A 0 0
Cap- Staple 6//

Overlap D 6pe //

0 i0 00 1
0 c 0' o0
0 c0 0 0
Overlap D D /

0 i i 0 i 0
F: 6//

0 Waste 0 0 3//

Figure 3-5. Flexural Sample Screw/Cap and Staple Layout



ScrewS&2






L3_ 0 // 6 6 6 3 //J








Figure 3-6. Impact Sample Screw/Cap and Staple Layout
























Figure 3-7. 34" System Scratch Coat


Figure 3-8. Cut through plywood


-a























////


L=30'

L/3 L/3


Figure 3-9. Third-Point Flexural Loading Diagram


Scratch Coat 1/2"
PlyWood 15/32"


Finish Coat 1/8"
Brown Coat 1/4"


Figure 3-10. 3/4" Sample Section View in Tension


PlyWood 15/32"


Brown Coat 3/8"


Finish Coat


Figure 3-11. 3/8" Sample Section View in Tension


T. :)
///////


























figure J-12. LUsI Controller


Figure 3-13. Electrical Circuit 2D Model Layout


























figure 3-14. Initial Crack testing Set-up


Figure 3-15. Initial Crack Testing Set-up (light-bulb)































Figure 3-16. Impact Testing Set-up Top View


impact Area Stucco Sample 17"

/ Y C-Cla Loaction


Figure 3-17. Impact Testing Set-up Model


















Impact Area
------ -tucco Sample
Wood Block 3"


17"-------
SC-Cla p Loaction


Figure 3-18. Impact Testing Set-up Transparent Model














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Results from third-point flexural loading, initial crack deflection, and impact

testing are included in this chapter. Samples tested for flexure were sections B, C, D, and

E of all combinations from Table 3-1. B/D (overlapped) and C/E (non-overlapped)

sections of all samples except 10 and 11 were averaged to formulate more accurate

results. Sections B, D, E were averaged for samples 10 and 11. Sample C was analyzed

of sample 10 and 11 by itself because it has one longitudinal and two transverse overlaps.

Samples tested for initial crack deflection were sections B, C, D, and select E sections.

All samples from Table 3-2 were used for impact testing. All impact samples were non-

overlapped. Two sections, A and B from the impact samples were tested using the

impact method discussed in Chapter 3. Section C of impact samples was left intact for

future testing.

Initial Cracking Deflection Test

Data were recorded for all samples subjected to initial cracking deflection test

(Table 4.1 and Table 4.2). Samples that surpassed 0.08" of deflection before the first

crack was induced were considered to have passed this test. Samples that did not meet

this criterion were considered to have failed. This can be easily seen in Figures 4-1

through 4-4. Those samples that fall on the left side of the pass/fail line, cracked before

reaching 0.08" of deflection and those to the right of the line passed.

Sample 8 20 gauge wire 3/8" thick, Sample 9 17 gauge wire 34" thick, and

Sample 14 17 gauge wire 3/8" thick were the most difficult to obtain accurate results









from due to a variety of factors. Some of the samples developed plastic shrinkage cracks

in them, cracks from lathing being to close to the stucco surface, and cracks during the

cutting process. During the testing process cracks were audibly heard, but the electrical

circuit was not broken immediately upon audible confirmation.

There was no need for a separation of samples 10 and 11 for analysis of initial

crack deflection test because section E of only samples 13 and 14 were tested using this

method. Sample 10 C and 11 C are longitudinally overlapped as well as transversely

overlapped in 2 locations but were left in the same table as the rest of the C sections for

ease of reading and interpreting.

Average B/D Overlapped

Four sample combinations failed from the overlapped sections; Permalath 1000

warp and weft 3-coat and 2.5 lb. metal lath in the one-coat and three-coat applications.

Metal Wire 17 gauge and 20 gauge had the highest initial cracking deflection values of

the one-coat system. Metal Lath 3.4 lb. with 2 overlaps (2 transverse and 1 longitudinal)

had the highest initial cracking deflection value of the 3-coat system.

Average C/E Non-Overlapped

Only samples 12 and 13 are the combined average of sections C and E. The rest

of the samples in this section are only sample C data. This is because samples 1 through

11 were tested before the initial crack test was formulated. Sample 14 did not work

because the sample developed plastic shrinkage cracking. Five sample combinations

failed from the non-overlapped sections. Permalath 1000 Warp and Weft 3-coat,

Permalath 1000 Weft 1-coat, Metal wire 17 gauge one-coat, and 2.5 lb. metal lath three-

coat. Metal lath, 2.5 lb., one-coat and 3.4 lb. metal lath with 2 overlaps (transverse and

vertical) had the highest initial cracking deflection values.









Third-point Flexural Test

The samples tested in third-point flexure, were sections B, C, D, and E of all

combinations from Table 3-1. B/D (overlapped) and C/E (non-overlapped) sections were

averaged (except samples 10 and 11) to formulate more representative results. Individual

results for each sample section are contained in Appendix B.

Average Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations

In the 1-coat systems there were three overlapped combinations that stand out

above the others. Permalath Weft, Permalath Warp, and 2.5 lb. metal lath have the

highest tensile strengths (Table 4-3). This is easily visualized in Table 4-3 and Figure 4-

5. Permalath Warp is however the overall best performer of the overlapped section 1-

coat samples. Permalath Warp has the steepest slope which is a function of its modulus

of elasticity (MOE) or relative stiffness, and has the highest RA2, a linearity descriptor

(Table 4-4). The higher the Y value (Table 4-4), the steeper the slope of the best fit line

and the more elastic the sample. The steepness of this line is a function of the MOE of

the sample. The slope and the RA2 need to be looked at together to form conclusions.

The 3-coat stucco systems graphs are very different than that of the 1-coat

systems. They are undulating, which is a result of them being constructed from multiple

layers of stucco with the top layer having no reinforcement. The top layer (brown coat)

is subjected to the greatest tensile forces and cracks before the base layer (scratch coat).

This is the reason for the non-linearity of the load versus deflection curves.

In the 3-coat system there are three combinations that stand out above the rest,

Permalath 1000 Warp, Permalath 1000Weft, and 2.5 lb metal lath (Figure 4-6). Both

of the Permalath 1000 samples are very linear until 4/10" of deflection where they begin

to show signs of failure from tensile forces. The 2.5 lb. metal lath has a steeper slope and









a higher RA2 than either of the Permalath 1000's (Table 4-4). The load vs. deflection

curve for the 2.5 lb. metal lath is also more linear than any of the other 3-coat overlapped

sections.

Crack area of the overlapped samples is the second part of the flexure analysis

(Table 4-5). Cracks outside the middle third were calculated and are graphed in Figure 4-

7, but are a resultant of shear and tensile forces which do not help in the determining the

"true" tensile strength of the composite material, but instead they should be looked at

individually and not combined with other tests in overall analysis. Permalath Warp and

Permalath 1000 Weft have the smallest crack area inside the middle third of the sample.

Metal Lath 3.4 lb. with 2 overlaps has the largest crack area of the samples.

Average C/E Non-Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations

Results from the average flexure non-overlapped sections are very similar to that

of the overlapped sections flexure results (Table 4-6). The same three combinations

Permalath Warp, Permalath weft and 2.5 lb. metal lath had the highest tensile strengths

from the 1-coat systems ( Figure 4-8). The Permalath Warp is the best performer of the

1-coat non-overlapped sections. Permalath Warp has the highest tensile strength (Table

4-6), the steepest slope, and the highest RA2 value (Table 4-7).

Results for the 3-coat system non-overlapped samples are very similar to that of

the overlapped 3-coat samples (Figure 4-9). There are once again highly non-linear load

versus deflection curves as a result of the same reasons with the overlapped sections. The

2.5 lb. metal lath is the clearly the best performer followed closely by Permalath 1000

warp and weft. Metal Lath, 2.5 lb., has the steepest slope and the highest RA2 value

(Table 4-7) indicating a higher MOE and strength combination than the other samples.









Metal Lath, 2.5 lb., and Metal Lath, 2.5 lb., with 2 overlaps (transverse and

longitudinal) have the smallest crack area of the 1-coat non-overlapped sections.

Permalath 1000 Warp and 2.5 lb. metal lath had the smallest area of cracking from the

3-coat non-overlapped sections (Table 4-8 and Figure 4-10).

Sample 10 and 11 Results and Interpretations (1 Longitudinal& 2 Transverse
Overlaps)

Samples 10 and 11 as mentioned earlier have a different lath layout which

prescribes a different analysis section than the other samples which are all homogeneous

in the layout of the lath and overlaps. Samples B, D, and E (2 transverse overlaps) were

combined. Sample C (2 transverse, 1 longitudinal overlap) was analyzed by itself since it

is heterogeneous from all other sections. Results for sample sections 10 and 11 are

located in Tables 4-9 through 4-12 and Figures 4-11 through 4-14.

Impact Test

Impact test samples were analyzed through a visual inspection of cracking

patterns, deformation/indentation, and broken reinforcement. One-coat and three-coat

systems were analyzed separately since they were tested at different impact energies

Figures 4-15 and 4-16). Greater impact energies were used for the 3-coat samples since

they are constructed from greater mass.

Permalath was the best performing material in the 3/8" thick samples. The

deformation on the back side of the Permalath samples was the smallest and there was

no broken reinforcement observed. No samples tested observed broken reinforcement.

20 gauge wire lath was the poorest performer of the 1-coat samples. It had the largest

deformation area and there was stucco that was broken apart from the lathing on the back

side (substrate side) of the sample.









Three-coat samples all performed almost the same. The deformation on the back

side of the samples was not visible to the naked eye which indicated none of the samples

had broken reinforcement. Deformation from the impact on the top of the sample

resulted in the slight main differences. These differences would be more likely due to

differences in the stucco mix than from the lathing. These differences were most likely

because the stucco mix was field mixed to mimic as closely as possible what would

happen in the field at the jobsite. Metal lath 3.4 lb. was best performer in this test for the

three-coat system.

When comparing the 3/8" thick to the 34" thick samples, the differences are quite

noticeable. Top of sample indentation of the 3/8" samples was observed in every

specimen to a much greater extent than in the 34" samples after 160 in-lbs. All samples

cracked through the center of the impact area (ex. Sample 6a in Figure 4-15) or through

the edges of the impact area and spanned from one side of the sample to the other (ex.

Sample 5a in Figure 4-16).

Individual Stucco Reinforcement Comparisons

This section is included to highlight some comparisons that are more easily

visualized through graphs with fewer samples included. This section makes comparisons

of all the averaged data for six samples types It is just a check to make sure that data

analyzed was in fact reliable and valid.

In this section, design numbers were used instead of the material combinations for

the legend of each graph as well as the tables that include the slope and RA2 values.

Design number descriptions can be found in the corresponding sections load versus

deflection data table. The first number denotes 1-coat or 3-coat, the second grouping of









letters and numbers denotes the material, and the last grouping denotes the overlap status

of the sample.

Permalath 1-Coat Comparison

This section analyzes third-point flexural loading and MOE of all Permalath used

in 1-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included in this

section. Results are found in Tables 4-13, Table 4-14, and Figure 4-17.

Permalath 3-Coat Comparison

This section analyzes third-point flexural loading and the MOE of all Permalath

used in 3-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included

in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-15, Table 4-16, and Figure 4-18.

Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison

This section analyzes third-point flexural loading and the MOE of all metal lath

used in 1-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included

in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-17, Table 4-18, and Figure 4-19.

Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison

This section analyzes third-point flexural loading and the MOE of all metal lath

used in 3-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included

in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-19, Table 4-20, and Figure 4-20.

Metal Wire 1-Coat Comparison

This section analyzes third-point flexural loading and the MOE of all metal wire

used in 1-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included

in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-21, Table 4-22, and Figure 4-21.










Metal Wire 3-Coat Comparison

This section analyzes third-point flexural loading and the MOE of all metal wire

used in 3-coat systems. Both overlapped and non-overlapped average data are included

in this section. Results are found in Tables 4-23, Table 4-24, and Figure 4-22.

"Real World" Stucco Product Comparisons

Real World Comparisons are for the sake of comparing items that are frequently

used in place of one another in the field. This section is broken down into 1-coat and 3-

coat comparisons and looks at load deflections curves and slopes (MOE). One-coat data

can be found in Table 4-25, Table 4-26, and Figure 4-23. Three-coat data is located in

Table 4-27, Table 4-28, and Figure 4-24.

Table 4-1. Sample B/D Average Initial Crack Deflection

SAMPLE B and D Average (Overlapped
Section) Deflection @ Load @ 1st
1st Crack (in.) Crack (lbs.)
Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b,d 0.1425 75
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b,d 0.097 100
Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b,d 0.1035 67.5
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b,d 0.0755 137.5
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b,d 0.1055 77.5
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b,d 0.071 115
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b,d 0.0635 87.5
Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b,d 0.209 72.5
Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b,d 0.1025 102.5
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,d 0.079 60
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d 0.174 95
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b,d 0.097 57.5
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b,d 0.1375 52.5
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b,d 0.216 55
Transverse Overlaps













Sample B and D Average 3/8" Initial Crack


Permalath Weft 3/8"
Sample 1b,d
Permalath Warp 3/8"
Sample 3b,d
K Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample
80 5b,d

A Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample
A 8b,d
SMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps
o_ Sample 10b,d
60- Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8"
Sample 12b,d
PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"
Sample 13b,d
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample
40 ,14b,d
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25- Pass/Fail Line

Deflection (in.)

Figure 4-1 Sample B/D 1-Coat Average Initial Crack Deflection


Sample B and D Average 3/4" Initial Crack
150 -


- Pass/Fail Line

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4"
Sample 2b,d
a Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4"
Sample 4b,d
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample
6b,d
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample
7b,d
K Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample
9b,d
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps
Sample 11b,d


0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deflection (in.)

Sample B/D 3-Coat Average Initial Crack Deflection


x
X*


135


120

8 -O
105
0
-j
90


75


60


Figure 4-2.











Table 4-2. Sample C Initial Crack Deflection
Load @
Deflection 1st
SAMPLE C (Non-Overlapped Section) @ 1t Cack Cack
@ 1st Crack Crack
(in.) (Ibs.)
Pennalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c 0.103 75
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c 0.069 130
Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c 0.12 65
Permalalh- 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c 0.066 95
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c 0.102 80
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c 0.081 115
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c 0.043 130
Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c 0.253 90
Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c 0.121 65
"Melal Lalh #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c 0.304 85
"Melal Lalh #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c 0.214 110
Permalalh 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c.e 0.063 52.5
SPermalath' 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c.e 0.108 40
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c 0.053 25


* Sample C/E Average
** 1 Longitudinal Overlap,


2 Transverse Overlaps


* Permalath Weft 3/8"
Sample 1c
Permalath Warp 3/8"
Sample 3c
X Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample
5c
A Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample


Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps
0
60 Sample 10c
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8"
Sample 12c
30- PermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"
Sample 13c
15 -
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample
0 I- u 14c
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Pass/Fail Line

Deflection (in.)

Figure 4-3. Sample C 1-Coat Initial Crack Deflection


Sample C 3/8" Initial Crack


------ ---------------A--------
*













Sample C 3/4" Initial Crack
150

135

120

. 105

o 90

75

X
60

45
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25


- Pass/Fail Line

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4"
Sample 2c
a Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4"
Sample 4c
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample
6c
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample
7c
X Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample
9c
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps
Sample 11c


Deflection (in.)

Figure 4-4. Sample C 3-Coat Initial Crack Deflection


Table 4-3. Sample B/D (overlapped) Average Load/Deflection
Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14


00 -












(in.) Load (Ibs.)
0. 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 3
CD C M co c o C) C C O












0.3 115 143 113 145 113 110 128 90 113 95 75 78
w -^ '^ C) I- CD C )-

















0.7 203 190 205 210 200 140 215 158 175 178 140 150
0.8 220 208 225 215 213 150 223 173 190 203 155 165
Deflection
(in.)---- -Load (Ibs.)___
0.1 73 83 63 80 75 65 80 55 63 58 53 38
0.2 95 115 90 115 100 85 108 73 98 68 65 58
0.3 115 143 113 145 113 110 128 90 113 95 75 78
0.4 138 173 133 175 138 128 153 108 120 115 90 95
0.5 165 193 158 158 158 143 170 128 140 140 105 113
0.6 190 200 180 183 183 143 195 143 163 155 120 130
0.7 203 190 205 210 200 140 215 158 175 178 140 150
0.8 220 208 225 215 213 150 223 173 190 203 155 165






40



3/8" Combined B and D Average

250
-- Permalath Warp
200
-- Permalath Weft
150 Metal Lath 2.5g.
O Metal Wire 20g.
( 100 -
0 -_- Permalath 1000 Warp
50
50 --Permalath 1000 Weft

0 I I Metal Wire 17g.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-5 Sample B/D (overlapped) 1-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection



3/4" Combined B and D Average


250
--Permalath 1000 Warp
200 -
u -- Permalath 1000 Weft
2 150
Metal Lath 3.4g.
c 100 -
0 Metal Lath 2.5g.
50
-- Metal Wire 17g.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-6 Sample B/D (overlapped) 3-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection










Table 4-4 Sample B/D Average Slope and RA2
SAMPLE B and D Average Y RA2
Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1 b,d 216.96x + 52.054 0.9939
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b,d 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696
Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b,d 230.95x + 41.696 0.9991
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b,d 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b,d 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b,d 116.96x + 67.679 0.8553
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b,d 208.93x + 64.732 0.9903
Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b,d 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982
Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b,d 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b,d 210.71x + 31.429 0.9952
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b,d 147.92x + 33.75 0.9929
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b,d 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991

Table 4-5 Sample B/D Average Crack Area
Average AVERAGE
Sample Averages Overlapped Crack Area Average Crack TOTAL
(B,D) Inside Mid. Area Outside CRACK
3rd (mmA2) Mid. 3rd (mmA2) AREA(mmA2)
Permalath Weft 3/8" B,D 17.02 15.40 32.42
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" B,D 23.14 10.38 33.52
Permalath Warp 3/8" B,D 14.92 14.51 29.43
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" B,D 18.26 16.89 35.15
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" B,D 16.77 14.55 31.32
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" B,D 24.45 3.85 28.30
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" B,D 11.66 1.94 13.61
Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" B,D 17.74 10.68 28.42
Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" B,D 36.45 2.66 39.11
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" B,D 14.07 17.91 31.98
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" B,D 9.08 5.23 14.30
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" B,D 90.04 34.93 124.96












Average Crack Area (mm^2) B,D Jointed Samples
100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00 Inside Mid. 3rd
50.00 Oulside Mid. 3rd
40.00
30.00
20.00 L
10.00
0.00


Figure 4-7 Sample B/D Average Crack Area


Table 4-6. Sample C/E (non-overlapped Average Load/Deflection
Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14






C)(in.) Load (Ibs.)C
co -

0.6 170 153 170 140 158 110 175 143 148 150 115 113
<, 0 00 CU M -o CN o\ r-




0.7 195 180 190 145 185 123 183 158 153 168 135 125











0.8 208 200 218 163 205 138 213 173 178 180 153 140
< U o CU U o C nU i CD 3 U CU



Deflection
(in.) Load (Ibs.)
0.1 68 65 55 53 63 58 75 48 63 55 40 40
0.2 78 93 78 75 78 73 105 65 88 70 48 53
0.3 95 123 93 105 98 90 123 83 108 80 68 68
0.4 120 125 128 100 115 113 135 103 123 105 85 83
0.5 148 153 145 123 138 125 165 123 130 128 100 95
0.6 170 153 170 140 158 110 175 143 148 150 115 113
0.7 195 180 190 145 185 123 183 158 153 168 135 125
0.8 208 200 218 163 205 138 213 173 178 180 153 140


s







43




3/8" Combined C and E Average


250

200

. 150

c 100

50 _

0

0 0.2


--Permalath Warp
- Permalath Weft
Metal Lath 2.5g.
Metal Wire 20g.
--Permalath 1000 Warp
- Permalath 1000 Weft
- Metal Wire 17g.


0.4 0.6 0.8

Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-8. Sample C/E (non-overlapped) 1-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection



3/4" Combined C and E Average


--Permalath 1000 Warp

--Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

-) Metal Wire 17g.


0 0.2


0.4 0.6

Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-9. Sample C/E (non-overlapped) 3-Coat Average Load vs. Deflection


250

200

150

100

50


0.8










Table 4-7. Sample C/E Average Slope and RA2
SAMPLE C and E Average Y R^2
Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c,e 216.67x + 37.5 0.9895
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c,e 178.57x + 55.893 0.9696
Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c,e 232.14x + 29.911 0.9961
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c,e 148.51x + 45.982 0.9619
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c.e 206.85x + 36.607 0.9952
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c,e 105.06x + 56.161 0.8646
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c,e 183.04x + 64.196 0.9806
Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c,e 183.04x + 29.196 0.998
Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c,e 149.7x + 56.071 0.9755
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c,e 189.88x + 31.429 0.9908
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c,e 164.58x + 18.75 0.9953
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c,e 144.05x + 24.554 0.9992

Table 4-8. Sample C/E Average Crack Area
Average
Crack Area Average Crack AVERAGE
Sample Averages Non-
rInside Area Outside TOTAL
Overlapped (C,E)) Middle 3rd Middle 3rd CRACK
(mmA2) (mmA2) AREA(mmA2)
Permalath Weft 3/8" C,E 15.37 7.09 22.47
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" C,E 29.68 5.27 34.95
Permalath Warp 3/8" C,E 33.65 14.27 47.92
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" C,E 9.17 18.24 27.41
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" C,E 8.12 20.72 28.84
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" C,E 24.33 11.49 35.82
Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" C,E 11.83 8.73 20.55
Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" C,E 27.84 7.80 35.64
Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" C,E 26.05 5.25 31.30
Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" C,E 16.91 19.61 36.53
Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" C,E 20.96 13.14 34.09
Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" C,E 31.25 37.29 68.54











Average Crack Area (mm^2) C,E Non-Jointed Samples

100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00 Inside Mid. 3rd
50.00 Oulside Mid. 3rd
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00


Figure 4-10. Sample C/E Average Crack Area


Table 4-9. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection

Sample # 10 11
SAMPLE B, D, E Metal Lath #2.5 Metal Lath #3.4
3/8" 2 laps 3/4" 2 laps
Deflection (in.) Load (Ibs.)
0.1 53 72
0.2 68 85
0.3 73 83
0.4 85 95
0.5 95 113
0.6 103 127
0.7 112 143
0.8 123 157







46




Sample 10/11 B,D,E Average


250

200
()
S150

100
0 50
-J 50


--Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps
--Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8


Deflection (in.)



Figure 4-11. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Load/Deflection

Table 4-10. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2
SAMPLE B, D, E Average Y R^2
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,d 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d 123.21x + 53.929 0.9654


100.00
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00


Average Crack Area (mm^2) B,D,E 2 Horizontal Jointed
Samples


* Irnc1.3 r.:.o :',r.3
0 ,::oLl|:,3. r,13 :'r.3


Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 joints Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 joints
B,D,E B,D,E


Figure 4-12. Sample 10 & 11 B, D, E Average Crack Area Average










Table 4-11. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection
Sample # 10 11
SAMPLE C Metal Lath #2.5 Metal Lath #3.4
3/8" 2 laps 3/4" 2 laps
Deflection (in.) Load (Ibs.)
0.1 55 80
0.2 70 105
0.3 85 85
0.4 95 95
0.5 95 110
0.6 110 120
0.7 120 125
0.8 130 140


Sample 1011 C


250

200

150

100

50


--Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps
-u-Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps


Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-13. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection


Table 4-12. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and RA2
SAMPLE C Y R^2
Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c.e 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774
Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 1 lc.e 76.19x+ 73.214 0.8265








48




Sample C Veritcal & 2 Horizontal Jointed Samples


* Irln :1.P3.3 ":r.3
0 ,::'Li l E ,, l P1,3 :'r.3


Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 joints
B,D,E


Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 joints
B,D,E


Figure 4-14. Sample 10 & 11 C Crack Area Average


nlgure 4-1. 3I/" Impact samples, IOU in-lbs.


100.00
90.00
80.00
C 70.00
E 60.00
E 50.00
0 40.00
< 30.00
20.00-
10.00
0.00


I






































figure 4-10. /4- Impact Samples, 2zu in-ls.







50


Table 4-13. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison

0 0 0 0
z 0 0 0 0 z -j z -j
9z j z -j
w




> 0 0

>0 0

0 0 0 >
o 1 o 0 o


-0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
(iu CD C(D Cb
0.2 78 95 78 0 70 6

-C -C C D
j jco
E E E E E E E E


Deflection
(in.) _______ LOAD (lbs.) ______

0.1 68 73 55 63 55 58 40 53
0.2 78 95 78 90 70 68 48 65
0.3 95 115 93 113 80 95 68 75
0.4 120 138 128 133 105 115 85 90
0.5 148 165 145 158 128 140 100 105
0.6 170 190 170 180 150 155 115 120
0.7 195 203 190 205 168 178 135 140
0.8 208 220 218 225 180 203 153 155







51



Permalath 1-Coat Comparison


--- 1 PWT-NO
-- 1 PWT-LO
1 PWP-NO
1 PWP-LO
--1 P1WT-NO
-*-1P1WT-LO
-1P1WP-NO
1 P1WP-LO


250


200


S150


o 100
-1

50


0


Figure 4-17. Permalath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph


Table 4-14. Permalath 1-Coat Slope Comparison

DESIGN # Equation R^2

1 PWT-NO 216.67x + 37.5 0.9895
1 PWT-LO 216.96x + 52.054 0.9939
1 PWP-NO 232.14x + 29.911 0.9961
1 PWP-LO 230.95x + 41.696 0.9991
1P1WT-NO 189.88x + 31.429 0.9908
1P1WT-LO 210.71x + 31.429 0.9952
1P1WP-NO 164.58x + 18.75 0.9953
1P1WP-LO 147.92x + 33.75 0.9929


0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)










Table 4-15. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison




w





> O .0
o >>
o > z 0
z 0


0 o 0o o o







Deflection
(in.) LOAD (bs.)
0.1 65 83 53 80
0.2 93 115 75 115
0.3 123 143 105 145
0.4 125 173 100 175
0.5 153 193 123 158
0.6 153 200 140 183
0.7 180 190 145 210
0.8 200 208 163 215
u E -& -




Deflection
(in.) LOAD (lbs.)_
0.1 65 83 53 80
0.2 93 115 75 115
0.3 123 143 105 145
0.4 125 173 100 175
0.5 153 193 123 158
0.6 153 200 140 183
0.7 180 190 145 210
0.8 200 208 163 215







53



Permalath 3-Coat Comparison


--3 P1WT-NO
---3 P1WT-LO
3 P1WP-NO
3 P1WP-LO


0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-18. Permalath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph


Table 4-16. Permalath" 3-Coat Slope Comparison
DESIGN # Equation R^2
3 P1WT-NO 178.57x + 55.893 0.9696
3 P1WT-LO 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696
3 P1WP-NO 148.51x + 45.982 0.9619
3 P1WP-LO 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161


250


200


u 150

CO
o 100
-J


50


0


j











Table 4-17. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison
.j
z 0 0 I-
( Z) -J (N N N
w _1 _1 _1j _








0. 78 10 68 70
St- t- t- t-




0.4 115 138 85 95


Deflection
(in.) LOAD (lbs.)
0.1 63 75 53 55
0.2 78 100 68 70
0.3 98 113 73 85
0.4 115 138 85 95
0.5 138 158 95 95
0.6 158 183 103 110
0.7 185 200 112 120
0.8 205 213 123 130


Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison


250

200


. 150
V
-

o 100


50

0


-- 1ML2-NO
-1 ML2-LO
1ML2-2T
1ML2-2T1L


0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-19. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph











Table 4-18. Metal Lath 1-Coat Slope Comparison
DESIGN # Equation RA2
1ML2-NO 206.85x + 36.607 0.9952
1ML2-LO 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946
1ML2-2T 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946
1ML2-2T1L 101.19x+ 49.464 0.9774


Table 4-19. Metal Lath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison

z o o o o i-
0 Z -i Z -i CM C
(u) (N Cu Cu Cu Cu Cu


w -

N ( O CO CO C





Deflection
(in.) LOAD (Ibs.)
0.1 75 80 58 65 72 80
0.2 105 108 73 85 85 105
0.3 123 128 90 110 83 85
0.4 135 153 113 128 95 95
0.5 165 170 125 143 113 110
0.6 175 195 110 143 127 120
0.7 183 215 123 140 143 125
0.8 213 223 138 150 157 140







56



Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison


-- 3ML2-NO
-- 3ML2-LO
3ML3-NO
3ML3-LO
-- 3ML3-2T
--3ML3-2T1L


250

200

. 150
- ,,
S100

50

0


Figure 4-20. Metal Lath 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph


Table 4-20. Metal Lath 3-Coat Slope Comparison
DESIGN # Equation R^2
3ML2-NO 183.04x + 64.196 0.9806
3ML2-LO 208.93x + 64.732 0.9903
3ML3-NO 105.06x + 56.161 0.8646
3ML3-LO 116.96x + 67.679 0.8553
3ML3-2T 76.19x + 73.214 0.8265
3ML3-2T1L 123.21x+ 53.929 0.9654


0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)











Table 4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison
0 o 0 0
Z Z z _

o o r- r-


(in.) LOAD (bs.)









0.2 65 73 53 58
0.3 83 90 680 0




0.4 103 108 83 95r
Deflection
(in.) LOAD (Ibs.)
0.1 48 55 40 38
0.2 65 73 53 58
0.3 83 90 68 78
0.4 103 108 83 95
0.5 123 128 95 113
0.6 143 143 113 130
0.7 158 158 125 150
0.8 173 173 140 165


Wire Cloth 1-Coat Comparison


250


200


u 150
r

o 100
-I

50


0


-_-1WC20-NO
--1WC20-LO
1WC17-NO
1WC17-LO


0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-21. Metal Wire 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph







58


Table 4-22. Metal Wire 1-Coat Slope Comparison
DESIGN # Equation R^2
1WC20-NO 183.04x + 29.196 0.998
1WC20-LO 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982
1WC17-NO 144.05x + 24.554 0.9992
1WC17-LO 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991


Table 4-23. Metal Wire 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison
0 O
Z Z u

LU




< 0 0)
w

Ur- CU

Deflection
(in.) LOAD (Ibs.)
0.1 63 63
0.2 88 98
0.3 108 113
0.4 123 120
0.5 130 140
0.6 148 163
0.7 153 175
0.8 178 190


Wire Cloth 3-Coat Comparison


250

200

. 150
n

o 100
,-J

50

0


- 3WC17-NO
-- 3WC17-LO


Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-22. Metal Wire 3-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison Graph


W,"










Table 4-24. Metal Wire 3-Coat Slope Comparison
DESIGN # Equation R^2
3WC17-NO 149.7x + 56.071 0.9755
3WC17-LO 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816


Table 4-25. "Real World" 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data

o o0 0 0
_j -j 0 i- i- -




o o






(in.) Load (bs.)









0.2 95 90 68 65 100 68 70 73 58
> 0
















0.3 115 113 95 75 113 73 85 90 78
0 0 0
0.5 165 158 140 105 158 95 95 128 113















0.6 190 180 155 120 183 103 110 143 130


0.8 220 225 203 155 213 123 130 173 165
E EJ EJ EJ w
~ ~ ~ ~ C -r- ~
C14w C1 1 1














0.8 220 225 203 155 1213 1123 130 173 1651











1-Coat Overlapped Comaprison


-1 PWT-LO
-- 1 PWP-LO
--1P1WT-LO
---1P1WP-LO
-- 1 ML2-LO
1 ML2-2T
1 ML2-2T1L
1 WC20-LO
-1WC17-LO


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-23. "Real World" 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph


Table 4-26. "Real World" 1-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison
DESIGN # Equation R^2
1 PWT-LO 216.96x + 52.054 0.9939
1 PWP-LO 230.95x + 41.696 0.9991
1P1WT-LO 210.71x + 31.429 0.9952
1P1WP-LO 147.92x + 33.75 0.9929
1ML2-LO 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946
1ML2-2T 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946
1ML2-2T1L 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774
1WC20-LO 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982
1WC17-LO 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991


250


200


150


o 100
-5

50


0










Table 4-27. "Real World" 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data
0 0 0 0
z 0 O





Z
S >
> 0

o









(in.) Load (Ibs.)
0.1 83 80 80 65 72 80 63
0.2 115 115 108 85 85 105 98
0.3 143 145 128 110 83 85 113
0.4 173 175 153 128 95 95 120
0.5 193 158 170 143 113 110 140
0.6 200 183 195 143 127 120 163
0.7 190 210 215 140 143 125 175
0.8 208 215 223 150 157 140 190


3-Coat Overlapped Comparison


-3 P1WT-LO
--3 P1WP-LO
-- 3ML2-LO
-- 3ML3-LO
-- 3ML3-2T
3ML3-2T1L
- 3WC17-LO


Deflection (in.)


Figure 4-24. "Real World" 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph


250

200

u 150


o 100
-,







62


Table 4-28. "Real World" 3-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison
DESIGN # Equation R^2
3 P1WT-LO 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696
3 P1WP-LO 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161
3ML2-LO 208.93x + 64.732 0.9903
3ML3-LO 116.96x + 67.679 0.8553
3ML3-2T 76.19x + 73.214 0.8265
3ML3-2T1L 123.21x + 53.929 0.9654
3WC17-LO 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816














CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The main objective of this research was to compare the mechanical properties of

Permalath reinforcement to other lathing options currently in use in stucco wall

cladding. After an objective review of all the tests and their results, there are a number of

important conclusions that can be formed.

One-Coat Systems

Permalath performs just as well in either the warp or weft direction, regardless of

whether or not the material is overlapped longitudinally (that is the overlap occurs along

the direction transverse to the load and parallel to the stress). Permalath performs better

than Permalath 1000 in 1-coat systems. Permalath 1000's performance is independent

of whether or not the product is overlap longitudinally or not, and Permalath 1000

appears to be slightly better in the weft direction than the warp. Metal lath 2.5 lb also

performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps, but performs very poorly having

either transverse overlap joints or both transverse and longitudinal overlap joints. Wire

cloth 20 gauge performed slightly better than 17 gauge reinforcement for 1-coat systems.

Permalath in either the warp or weft direction performs at least as well as the 2.5 lb

metal lath having no or only longitudinal overlaps; performs better than both 20 gauge

and 17 gauge wire cloth; and performs much better the metal lath having transverse

and/or both transverse and longitudinal overlap joints.









Three-Coat Systems

Permalath 1000 performs just as well in either the warp or weft direction, and

regardless of whether or not the material is overlapped longitudinally. Metal lath 2.5 lb

also performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps in the 3-coat system, and

performs better that 3.5 lb metal lath regardless of whether it has any overlaps or not.

Wire Cloth 17 gauge performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps. Permalath

1000 in either direction performs at least just as well as 2.5 lb metal lath having no

overlaps or only longitudinal overlap joints; performs better than 17 gauge wire cloth;

and much better than 3.5 lb meal lath having longitudinal, transverse or both types of

overlap joints in 3-coat systems.

Crack areas were not as valid a measurement of performance as were the number

of cracks per sample due to the effects of inconsistencies of the plywood backing. Some

of the plywood had slight warping to it at the beginning of the sample making process

which had an effect on the crack area calculations since the elastic nature of the plywood

caused the cracks to close back up when the load was released.

Recommendations

Further testing needs to be carried out to provide more definitive results that

compare Permalath stucco reinforcement to other metallic reinforcements. There are

many areas of testing that can be explored to help show this.

Windborne Impact test for Hurricane Force Winds will determine whether the

materials will meet building codes for regions zoned as hurricane prone. Tensile

Adhesion Test will determine the bonding strength and crack resistance of the sample.

Further revise current and develop new test methods to potentially achieve more valid

results and formulate better conclusions concerning the use of Permalath reinforcement.









One-coat stucco systems are designed to be applied between 3/8" to 1/2" thick.

Future testing should be carried out to determine if /2" would perform better than 3/8"

one-coat stucco systems.

There was approximately a 0.01" or 12.5% margin of error in the initial cracking

test from human error which could translate into more samples passing the test if the

error was minimized. This margin of error was due to the lack of electronic control when

adjusting the compression/flexure machine during the set-up and adjustment of the

LVDT with each sample. Samples should be tested in a strain controlled bending

apparatus that would allow for the margin of error to be as small as 0.001". The

compression/flexure machine used should also have a load rate system controlled

electronically. All components should be connected into a computer management system

to allow for the most precise results possible.

Third-point Flexure Testing and Initial Cracking Deflection test samples could be

made using the same process as impact samples to allow for separation of stucco from

plywood. These samples when tested would give the ultimate values of the stucco only

without the concern of the plywood skewing the results. Sample sizes would need to be

adjusted to allow for safe handling when cutting samples since they would not be

securely fastening to plywood after trim edge was removed. A size of 36" by 24" would

be the recommended size for trial purposes.

Third-point Flexure Testing and Initial Cracking Deflection test samples could

also be constructed using a smaller thickness of plywood, which would allow for a better

representation of the stucco performance. This would also require design keep the

samples from warping since thinner plywood has more of a tendency to warp.



















APPENDIX A
DRAWINGS OF THE SAMPLES


Sample #12: Permalath 1000
(3/8")


Direction of the
roll of
Permalath I a





Figure A-1. Flexure Permalath Weft


iiiiiii iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i
iiiii iiiiiiii iiiiiii i
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i iT
iiii iiiiii iiiii i
iiiiiii iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i
iiiii iiiiiiii iiiiiii i

























Sample #13: Permalath 1000
(3/8")


Figure A-2. Flexure Permalath Warp






















uveriapi~

Sample #5 Metal Lath 2,5#/ --

cc
ample #6 Metal Lath 3,4#/ ( ")

ample #7 Metal Lath 2.5#/ (3") Overlap 7




Waste


Figure A-3. Flexure Metal Lath


















Sver/lp l/ b / // /
Sample : ire Cloth 20 gauge I )

Sample #9 Vire Cloth 17 gauge (4")


Samole #14: Wire Cloth (3/8")/ /


Figure A-4. Flexure Wire Cloth





















SampLe #11 Metal Lath 3,4 b, 3/4"




Overlap 15 '
















Direc



Figure A-5. Flexure Metal Lath (Overlaps in both directions)









71







---------2 4//-----





-d



U
0_ .
c cA

K-
hv

\/


Figure A-6. Impact Sample Layout


ample 1: Permnoath 3/8'

ampLe 2 Permalath 1000 3/4'
ample 3i Wire Cloth 20g. 3/8'

ample 4; Wire Cloth 17G. 3/4'

ample 5! Metal Lath 2.5 Ib. 3/4'

ample 6; Metal Lath 2.5 Ib. 3/8'

ample 71 Metal Lath 3.4 Ib. 3/4'

ample 81 Permalath 1000 3/8'
ample 9i Wire Cloth 17g, 3/8'




















APPENDIX B
FLEXURE DATA AND GRAPHS


Table B-1. Sam le B Flexure Data

Sample# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



7I C Ca I22
-.' .> .C-
,, ,.> > L
0 t o' >'- o' T '" a,
C 'I C C- o o










0.1 80 90 55 75 70 65 75 50 60 50 60 60 65 35
0.2 105 120 85 105 100 85 105 75 100 70 90 75 85 55
0.3 115 150 105 135 125 110 115 95 130 75 105 105 90 75
0.4 145 180 130 170 150 130 145 115 125 85 110 120 110 90
0.5 175 200 155 155 175 160 165 140 150 90 130 150 130 105
0.6 205 215 175 175 200 160 195 155 180 100 150 175 145 120
0.8 225 195 210 230 240 155 225 190 210 125 190 240 180 150
0.4 145 180 130 170 150 130 145 115 125 85 110 120 110 90
0.5 175 200 155 155 175 160 165 140 150 90 130 150 130 105
0.6 205 215 175 175 200 160 195 155 180 100 150 175 145 120
0.7 210 180 200 205 225 145 215 175 190 115 170 205 165 135
0.8 225 195 210 230 240 155 225 190 210 125 190 240 180 150


Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample B


250
200
150
( 100
0
50
0
-


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Deflection (in.)


Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample B


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-2. Sample B-2 Graph


250
200
150
0 100
50


, = 14 ,1 99
R1 : 0 71 9


0.8 1


P, 05. 5.3j 9
- : 0 9733,


Figure B-l. Sample B-l Graph














Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample B


200

S150
100
50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-3. Sample B-3 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample B

0 nn


250
. 200
150
0 100
50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 (
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-5. Sample B-5 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample B


250
200
- 150

0 100
50


0
0 I---------I-----I-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-7. Sample B-7 Graph



Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample B


250
200
" 150
S100
0
n50 -


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-9. Sample B-9 Graph


P= 0 991;


250
200
S150

0 100
50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-8. Sample B-8 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample B

150


S100


50 -
v = 9 l,
P- := o97
0-


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-10. Sample B-10 Graph


Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample B

250
200

S150
100
v = .01 19. + 65 714
50
R- = 09-425
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-4. Sample B-4 Graph



Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample B

200


S5100

S- ,j 15014 66736
R- = 0 7933
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-6. Sample B-6 Graph



Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample B


= 453. 50
P- : 0 9965


2 43. 55 357
RP = 0 99


S= .'0 ; 107
R- = 0 9953


- 199 4. 53 393
P- = 096:7


44 2:,6
9;-

















150

S100

J 50


Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample B







S= 1.4 4. 47 1 ?
P: = 0 923


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


250
S200
150
0 100
50


0.8 1


Figure B- 1. Sample B-l Graph


Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample B


150

, 100
-J 50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample B







v = 55 5 '26 071
P- = 0 9902


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-12. Sample B-12 Graph


Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample B


0.8 1


Figure B-13. Sample B-13 Graph


200

- 150

q 100

-J 50

0


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


0.8 1


Figure B-14. Sample B-14 Graph


3/8" Sample B


300

250

S200

150

0 100
-I


-- Permalath Warp

-- Permalath Weft

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

X Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints

-- Permalath 1000 Warp

- Permalath 1000 Weft

- Metal Wire 17g.


0 0.2


Deflection (in.)


Figure B-15. Sample B 3/8" Comparison


165 4=, 46 736
P- = 0 995)


161 1. 36
<" R" = 09961


yr













3/4" Sample B


--Permalath 1000 Warp

- Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

X Metal Wire 17g.

- Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints


0 0.2


Deflection (in.)

Figure B-16. Sample B 34" Comparison


Table B-2. Sam le C Flexure Data
Sample# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



Co U U CO
in = = ci, 2 5








SIn I Load Ifbs I
0.2 80 100 80 80 90 75 110 75 85 70 105 70 40 50











0.3 90 130 90 105 105 95 145 95 100 85 85 85 60 70
0.4 115 105 120 115 125 115 150 115 115 95 95 110 80 85
-< -FU -M -i -M O r1) c -i cu lu

E E E E r r E E ni


Deflection
lin I Load Iib I
0.1 75 65 60 55 80 65 85 55 60 55 80 55 30 40
0.2 80 100 80 80 90 75 110 75 85 70 105 70 40 50
0.3 90 130 90 105 105 95 145 95 100 85 85 85 60 70
0.4 115 105 120 115 125 115 150 115 115 95 95 110 80 85
0.5 140 130 145 135 145 125 185 135 130 95 110 130 95 95
0.6 165 155 165 160 165 110 180 160 145 110 120 155 115 110
0.7 185 180 185 150 190 120 205 175 135 120 125 175 140 120
0.8 190 200 210 170 210 135 225 190 155 130 140 185 165 140


250

200
-

. 150

" 100
0
50

0


~







:














Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample C


200

S150
100

50
0 -
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-17. Sample C-l Graph



Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample C

250

200 -

150

0 100 -


0
0-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)

Figure B-19. Sample C-3 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample C


250

200
150

0 100
50
-J


0-
0 I-------I---I----I-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-21. Sample C-5 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample C


200
150

0 100
o50


250
200
S150

0 100

50
n


Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample C








v 17; i 5 714
R- = 09074


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-18. Sample C-2 Graph



Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample C

200

150 -

100 -
0
-50 1R-9' 9-

0 -----
0-o ll


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)

Figure B-20. Sample C-4 Graph



Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample C


160
140
120
. 100
o 80
60
- 40
20
0


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-22. Sample C-6 Graph



Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample C

250
200
& 150o

M0 100
-j v5 .1976; 23
50


S91 667.= 63 -5
P- = 0 3304


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-23. Sample C-7 Graph


R- = 09971

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-24. Sample C-8 Graph


45 :;57


3- 107
39


49 464
69


v = 197 525
P: = 0 9F93


v R= 1,9 75 1796
R- = 0 963:


t6 071
















Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample C


200

S150




n
- 50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-25. Sample C-9 Graph



Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample C

160 T
140
120
S100 l
80]
S60
40= 76 19. +
20
P" = 0 3_


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-27. Sample C-11 Graph



Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample C

200 -

150 -

S 100 -

-j 50- =192-15 351

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-29. Sample C-13 Graph


150


0 100


o 50

n


Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample C








= 101 19 49 464
P- = 0 9774


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-26. Sample C-10 Graph



Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample C


2 100

50


U-!


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-28. Sample C-12 Graph



Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample C

150


" 100 -

0 0 10 104: .5
-J 0 = 0 9941

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-30. Sample C-14 Graph


-.' v 16 79 3 571
R- = 0 9;.C4


73 :.1
65


P- = 9:
a -: 0 9F17


5i36







78




3/8" Sample C


250
-- Permalath Warp
200 -- Permalath Weft
( Metal Lath 2.5g.
:2 150
S150 Metal Wire 20g.
S-- Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints
100
O0 -- Permalath 1000 Warp
50 -- Permalath 1000 Weft

0 Metal Wire 17g.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Figure B-31. Sample C 3/8" Comparison



3/4" Sample C


250
--Permalath 1000 Warp
,200 --- Permalath 1000 Weft

2 150 Metal Lath 3.4g.

Va 100 _1 Metal Lath 2.5g.

50 -- Metal Wire 17g.

-- Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)


Figure B-32. Sample C 34" Comparison













Table B-3 Sam le D Flexure Data

Sample# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



CO Cu Cu C0
4 2- M C

So 25

(in.) Load ( r bs.)

0.5 155 185 160 160 140 125 175 115 130 100 115 130 80 120
E E E E n n E E n


Deflection
(in.) Load (lbs.)

0.1 65 75 70 85 80 65 85 60 65 60 90 55 40 40

0.2 85 110 95 125 100 85 110 70 95 75 65 60 45 60

0.3 115 135 120 155 100 110 140 85 95 75 85 85 60 80

0.4 130 165 135 180 125 125 160 100 115 85 100 110 70 100

0.5 155 185 160 160 140 125 175 115 130 100 115 130 80 120

0.6 175 185 185 190 165 125 195 130 145 105 125 135 95 140

0.7 195 200 210 215 175 135 215 140 160 115 140 150 115 165

0.8 215 220 240 200 185 145 220 155 170 125 150 165 130 180


Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample D


Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample D


r v = 1946. 1 0 7,5
R- = 0 949


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


0.8 1


Figure B-33. Sample D-1 Graph


Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample D


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


0.8 1


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)

Figure B-34. Sample D-2 Graph


Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample D


250
200
- 150

S100
50
0


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


0.8 1


Figure B-35. Sample D-3 Graph


200
S150
0 100
50


250
200
J 150
0 100
50

0
0o


- = 1 45 179
R- =0 997


250
.0 200
S150
O 100
50


S:26 51. 45 36
P = 0 996


S159 5- 91 964
R- = 05-_'4


Figure B-36. Sample D-4 Graph
















c.uu

150

100

-J 50


Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample D







157 14 63 036
R- = 0 996


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-37. Sample D-5 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample D

"2n .


200

150

0 100
50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-39. Sample D-7 Graph



Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample D


200

150

100

- 50
n


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-41. Sample D-9 Graph



Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample D

160 -1
140 -
120
S0 -
40

20 -
0

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-43. Sample D-11 Graph


160
140
S120
n 100
S80
60
. 40
20
0


Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample D






101 79 6 571
R- = 0 .665


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-38. Sample D-6 Graph



Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample D

200

150o


0 Z, l69. 414 46 4
50
P- = 0997;


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-40. Sample D-8 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample D

150


100 -

Mv = 90 476. 517
0 50 o
Ssop- = 0923

0 -
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-42. Sample D-10 Graph



Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample D

200

150 -




5P = 09757
0
0 --
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-44. Sample D-12 Graph


v = 196 74 107
R- = 0 979:


S1 45 56 :5
R- = 0 9,-19


44


";,6


;i5












Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample D






1R = 0 9315
SR- =09315


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample D


200

S150

S100
0
- 50

0


0.8 1


Figure B-45. Sample D-13 Graph


0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Deflection (in.)


0.8 1


Figure B-46. Sample D-14 Graph


3/8" Sample D


300

250

200

150

100


-- Permalath Warp

- Permalath Weft
Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

-)- Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints

-- Permalath 1000 Warp

SPermalath 1000 Weft

---Metal Wire 17g.


50

0 0.2
0 0.2


0.4 0.6

Deflection (in.)


Figure B-47. Sample D 3/8" Copmarison


120
100
80
$ 60
2 40
20


R- = 0 999












3/4" Sample D


250

S200

2 150

100

50
50 -

0
0 0.2


- Permalath 1000 Warp

- Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 17g.

- Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints


0.4 0.6 0.8

Deflection (in.)


Figure B-48. Sample D 34" Comparison


Table B-4. Sam le E Flexure Data
Sample# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14



O O 5 4 m 0 0 5
0. 10 1 5 0 90 00 1 00 0 1 0 6 ) 7 6
7 7 2 5 0 1 1 10 'I 0 01 1
< o r o o o
CO) CN 8 8-


E E E E 7 7 F FO FO FO O E E F
0) a) a) ) 0

Deflection
(in.) Load (lbs.)
0.1 60 65 50 50 45 50 65 40 65 50 65 55 50 40
0.2 75 85 75 70 65 70 100 55 90 60 100 70 55 55
0.3 100 115 95 105 90 85 100 70 115 70 60 75 75 65
0.4 125 145 135 85 105 110 120 90 130 85 75 100 90 80
0.5 155 175 145 110 130 125 145 110 130 95 95 125 105 95
0.6 175 150 175 120 150 110 170 125 150 105 105 145 115 115
0.7 205 180 195 140 180 125 160 140 170 105 120 160 130 130
0.8 225 200 225 155 200 140 200 155 200 120 130 175 140 140













Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample E


200

S150
0 100
50 = 245_'4 4'9 6
P- = 0 996--
50

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-49. Sample E-1 Graph



Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample E


200
- 150
0 100
50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-51. Sample E-3 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample E


250
200
- 150

0 100
50


0 !-I I I-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-53. Sample E-5 Graph



Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample E


200
- 150

0 100
50


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-55. Sample E-7 Graph


250
200
J 150
0 100
50

n


Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample E







S13 1 56 071
R- = 0 909


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-50. Sample E-2 Graph



Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample E

200

150

S 100
S50 = 137 5
R- =
0


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-52. Sample E-4 Graph



Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample E


160
140
120
n 100
^ 80
60
40
20
0


I

S, 11 3 45: 4,3 51
R- = 0 SO66


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-54. Sample E-6 Graph



Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample E

200

150

; 1001

50 -0


r 'P = 0 9976
0-
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-56. Sample E-8 Graph


, = 0. 14
R- = 0 9935


:21


v- :2 0 .714
P = 0 9967


S9. 5 214
P = 09517













Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample E


250
200
- 150
S100
0
50 -


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-57. Sample E-9 Graph



Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample E

150


100




0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-59. Sample E-11 Graph



Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample E


140
120
. 100
S80
60
40
20


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-61. Sample E-13 Graph


150


S100

o 50

n


Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample E






+v o o I. 4 1 756
P- = 0 979-


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-58. Sample E-10 Graph



Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample E

200

150 -




P- = 0 K55
o 50111 5=0 91
0
0 --------------
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-60. Sample E-12 Graph



Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample E

150


100


o 50
14 = 0 994
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Deflection (in.)


Figure B-62. Sample E-14 Graph


R1>:." 53571
R = 0 96.3


55 71-1


429


v 12571. 32929G


6;1











3/8" Sample E


250
-- Permalath Warp
200 -/- Permalath Weft
5 -- Metal Lath 2.5g.
1 Metal Wire 20g.
S100 Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints
100
O -- Permalath 1000 Warp
-J
50 Permalath 1000 Weft

0 -Metal Wire 17g.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Figure B-63. Sample E 3/8" Comparison



3/4" Sample E


250
--Permalath 1000 Warp
200 -1- Permalath 1000 Weft

150 Metal Lath 3.4g.

a 100 Metal Lath 2.5g.
500
50 50 Metal Wire 17g.
Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)


Figure B-64. Sample E 34" Comparison














APPENDIX C
PICTURES OF TENSILE FLEXURE CRACKS


A I


Figure C-1. Permalath Weft 3/8" Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample
C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped


I` I
































Figure C-2. Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)
Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-
Overlapped































Figure C-3. Permalath Warp 3/8" Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample
C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped