Citation
Mechanical Properties of Non-Metallic Reinforced Stucco Wall Systems

Material Information

Title:
Mechanical Properties of Non-Metallic Reinforced Stucco Wall Systems
Creator:
ABI-NADER, GUY G. ( Author, Primary )
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Cements ( jstor )
Compressive stress ( jstor )
Fiberglass ( jstor )
Hydraulic cements ( jstor )
Plywood ( jstor )
Specimens ( jstor )
Structural deflection ( jstor )
Warps ( jstor )
Weft ( jstor )
Wire cloth ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Guy G. Abi-Nader. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2016
Resource Identifier:
658216654 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF NON-METALLIC REINFORCED STUCCO WALL SYSTEMS By GUY G. ABI-NADER 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 Guy G. Abi-Nader

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my committee chairman Dr. Larry Muszynski, my co chair Dr. R. Raymond I ssa, and Dr. Leon Wetherington for their support and encouragement. Dr. Muszynski pr ovided feedback and guidance. Dr. Issa provided vision and feedback. Dr. Wether ington provided interest and patience. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Patrick Murra y, who assisted me and helped me in preparing the samples and testing them. We made a good team. I am grateful to my father Georges an d mother May for their encouragement, support and unconditional love. I thank my br other Walid who recently got his Ph.D. in law for his encouragement and support, as we ll as my pharmacist brother Ralph and my little law student sister Lea for their constant encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank my friends for their total support and understanding. This research is one of my best achievements and I could not have accomplished my goals without the support and encourag ement of the above mentioned people.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Three Coat Stucco System............................................................................................1 One Coat Stucco system...............................................................................................1 Benefits of Stucco.........................................................................................................1 Weakness of Stucco......................................................................................................2 Research Objectives......................................................................................................3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................4 Introduction................................................................................................................... 4 Fiber Reinforced Concrete............................................................................................4 Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete..................................................................................6 Stucco......................................................................................................................... ..7 Previous Testing.........................................................................................................12 3 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................16 Mix Design.................................................................................................................21 Cutting the Samples....................................................................................................23 Testing Procedure.......................................................................................................24 4 RESULTS AND IN TERPRETATIONS....................................................................27 Load Vs Deflection: Concrete in Compression (Samples 1a 11a)..........................27 Load Vs Deflection : Wood in Co mpression (Samples 1e to 11e).............................37 Stress Calculation.......................................................................................................47 Concrete in Compression....................................................................................47

PAGE 5

v One-coat stucco specimens..........................................................................47 Three-Coat stucco specimens.......................................................................49 Wood in Compression.........................................................................................51 One coat stucco specimens...........................................................................51 Three-coat stucco specimens........................................................................52 Length of Cracks.........................................................................................................55 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................57 Conclusions.................................................................................................................57 Recommendations.......................................................................................................58 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE...............................................................................................................60 B DRAWINGS OF THE SAMPLES.............................................................................61 C PICTURES OF CRACKS..........................................................................................66 D STRAIN CALCULATION FOR ST UCCO COMPOSITE MATERIAL..................70 E MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF PLYWOOD.......................................................74 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................76 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................77

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Tests done by Sto Corporation on Fiber Reinforced Stucco....................................13 2-2 Tests done by RADCO on Cementitious Exterior Wall Coatings and on PermaLath................................................................................................................13 2-3 Impact Test Resistance of Stucco wi th PermaLath Vs Metal Lath (Degussa Construction Systems)..............................................................................................14 2-4 PermaLath and Metal Netting (Stress/ Strain Study), and Alkali Resistance Testing for Glass fiber ( by Sa int-Gobain Technical Fabrics)................................14 3-1 Flexural Testing and Sampling Strategy..................................................................17 4-1 Specimen 1aPermaLath, Weft Direction, 1-coat stucco........................................27 4-2 Specimen 2 aPermaLath 1000 (3/4”) in Weft direction.........................................28 4-3 Specimen 3aPermaLath 3/8”, Wa rp Direction – 1-coat stucco.............................28 4-4 Specimen 4a – PermaLath 1000 (3/4”), Warp direction..........................................29 4-5 Specimen 5a –Metal Lath 2.5#, 1-coat Stucco.........................................................30 4-6 Specimen 6aMetal Lath 3.4#, 3-coat stucco..........................................................30 4-7 Specimen 7aMetal Lath 2.5#, 3-coat stucco..........................................................31 4-8 Specimen 8aWire Cloth 20 gauge -1 coat stucco..................................................32 4-9 Specimen 9aWire Cloth 17 gauge, 3-coat stucco..................................................32 4-10 Specimen 10aMetal Lath 2.5#, 1-coat stucco (joints in both directions)...............33 4-11 Specimen 11 aMetal Lath 3.4#/ 3 coat stucco (joints in both directions)..............34 4-12 Specimen 1ePermaLath, Weft Direction, 1-coat stucco........................................37 4-13 Specimen 2 ePermaLath 1000 (3/4”) in Weft direction........................................38

PAGE 7

vii 4-14 Specimen 3ePermaLath 3/8”, Wa rp Direction – 1-coat stucco.............................38 4-15 Specimen 4e – PermaLath 1000 (3/4”), Warp direction..........................................39 4-16 Specimen 5e –Metal Lath 2.5#, 1-coat Stucco.........................................................40 4-17 Specimen 6eMetal Lath 3.4#, 3-coat stucco..........................................................40 4-18 Specimen 7eMetal Lath 2.5#, 3-coat stucco..........................................................41 4-19 Specimen 8eWire Cloth 20 gauge -1 coat..............................................................42 4-20 Specimen 9eWire Cloth 17 gauge, 3-coat stucco..................................................42 4-21 Specimen 10eMetal Lath 2.5#, 1-coat stucco (joints in both directions)...............43 4-22 Specimen 11 eMetal Lath 3.4#/ 3 coat stucco (joints in both directions)..............44 4-23 Stresses calculations for Concrete in Compression..................................................50 4-24 Stresses calculations for Wood in compression.......................................................54 4-25 Length of cracks for Concrete in Compression.......................................................55 4-26 Length of cracks for wood in Compression............................................................55

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 The 13 AMP table saw.............................................................................................18 3-2 Galvanized Caps.......................................................................................................19 3-3 PermaLath Sheathing...............................................................................................19 3-4 Metal Lath Sheathing...............................................................................................20 3-5 Wire Cloth Sheathing...............................................................................................20 3-6 Metal Lath Sheathing Join ts in 2 directions...........................................................21 3-7 Scratching the first laye r of Three coat Stucco........................................................23 3-8 A cut through the wood............................................................................................24 3-9 Third Point Flexure Test..........................................................................................25 3-10 Testing Machine Setup.............................................................................................25 3-11 LVDT installed at the bottom of the sample to measure deflection.........................26 4-1 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 1a.................................................................27 4-2 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 2a.................................................................28 4-3 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 3a.................................................................29 44 Load vs. Deflection Curve for Sample 4a................................................................29 4-5 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 5a.................................................................30 4-6 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 6a.................................................................31 4-7 Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 7a..................................................................31 4-8 Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 8a..................................................................32 4-9 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 9a.................................................................33

PAGE 9

ix 4-10 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 10a...............................................................33 4-11 Load Vs Deflection curve for sample 11a................................................................34 4-12 Load Vs Deflection curves for the va rious 1-coat stucco samples where the concrete is in compression.......................................................................................35 4-13 Load Vs Deflection curves for the va rious 1-coat stucco samples where the concrete is in compression.......................................................................................36 4-14 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 1e.................................................................37 4-15 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 2e.................................................................38 4-16 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 3e.................................................................39 4-18 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 5e.................................................................40 4-19 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 6e.................................................................41 4-20 Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 7e..................................................................41 4-21 Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 8e..................................................................42 4-22 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 9e.................................................................43 4-23 Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 10e...............................................................43 4-24 Load Vs Deflection curve for sample 11e................................................................44 4-25 Load Vs Deflection curves for the va rious 1coat stucco samples where the wood is in compression............................................................................................45 4-26 Load Vs Deflection curves for the va rious 1coat stucco samples where the wood is in compression......................................................................................................46 4-27 Actual and transformed test specimen s ections for One Coat Stucco for concrete in Compression.........................................................................................................47 4-28 Actual and transformed test specimen s ections for three coat stucco for concrete in compression..........................................................................................................49 4-29 Actual and transformed test specimen sections for One Coat Stucco for wood in compression..............................................................................................................51 4-30 Actual and transformed test specimen s ections for three coat stucco for wood in compression..............................................................................................................53

PAGE 10

x 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 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF NON-METALLIC REINFORCED STUCCO WALL SYSTEMS By GUY G. ABI-NADER May 2006 Chair: Larry Muszynski Cochair: R. Raymond Issa Major Department: Building Construction Traditional stucco is a cement mixture us ed for exterior residential walls. The cement is combined with water, Portla nd cement and sand and other proprietary materials. Usually, wooden frame walls are covered with felt paper and wire cloth or galvanized metal lath prior to the stucco application. In th is study a fiberglass reinforced stucco wall is studied that is intended to repl ace the wire cloth and metal lath that can rust over time. This fiberglass reinforcement is called PermaLath and is produced by Degussa Wall Systems for stucco construction. This research emphasis is to compare the stucco reinforced by PermaLath to both metal lath and wire cloth reinforcement, and to evaluate current test methods. For this purpose a third point flexure test was initially performed on the PermaLath reinforcement, the metal lath reinforcement, and wire cloth for the one-coat stucco (3/8” thick) and three-coat stucco (3/4” thick) application.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Stucco is a common construction material used as a finish stucco on wood frame and masonry walls. It is made with cement, wa ter, and fine sand with or without hydrated lime. It serves two functions: a smooth appe arance and protection from the elements. Stucco allows a variety of shapes, de signs, and textures. A good stucco base material stucco is incombustible, termite -proof, and exhibits excellent insulating properties. There are two types of stucco sy stems: 1-coat and 3-coat stucco systems. Three Coat Stucco System The application of the 3-coat stucco system consists of a scratch coat, a brown coat and a finish coat with a combined thickness of 3/4”. The system is usually reinforced with metal reinforcement such as metal lath. One Coat Stucco system One-coat stucco, a newer version of the tr aditional stucco syst em, consists of a factory pre-blended mix of Portland cement, fi bers and other proprie tary chemicals that improve strength and resist cracking. The stucco base is applied in a single application to a thickness of 3/8” or ”. Also this type of stucco is traditionally reinforced by metal lath. Benefits of Stucco There are many reasons for the increase in th e use of stucco as an exterior cladding system in recent times: It can be applied in an almost limitless variety of textures, finishes and colors:

PAGE 12

2 It is weather resistant; and stucco finishes are highly resistant to water penetration when properly mixed, so water does not pass through it. It is also fire resistant providing up to one hour of fire resistance and has low maintenance costs. Weakness of Stucco Traditional stucco has two major weaknesse s: cracks and the corrosion of the metal lath. Portland cement plaster as stucco can develop cracks unless precautions are taken in the project’s design stage (as well as during the furring, lathing, and stuccoing operations). While it is not known how to ma ke absolutely crack-free Portland cement stucco for ceilings and walls, design professionals can employ certain tools and strategies to prevent most cracks (Pruter, 2005). There is no simple or sure formula for this, as there are many causes for crack development and not all of them are si mple to control. However, when the architect/engineer (A/E), general contractor (GC), subcontractor, and supplier each does their part well, the results can be satisfactory (Walter, 2005). Indeed, stucco cracks are simply a form of stress-relief due to the fact that the material used was unable to tolerate the m ovements and stresses imposed upon it. Cracks are usually brought to the archit ect’s attention afte r the building owner has complained to the builder, subcontractor, or materials supplie r. Although the stucco is the most visually apparent element, it is still only a single part of a composite system—the best stucco work is only as good as lathing which, in tur n, is directly affected by the framing or furring (Pruter, 2005).

PAGE 13

3 In order to minimize cracks and get rid of the potential rust problem, a new material, fiberglass reinforcement, is used in this research as a substitute for the metal lath. Research Objectives This study emphasizes the use of fiberglass reinforcement (PermaLath) for stucco wall systems instead of metal lath or wire cloth. This study utilized the Third Point Flexural Load Test (Determination of the Fle xural Strength of Concrete by the Use of a Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading) taken from the ASTM C78, to compare various properties of PermaLath fiberglass reinforced to metal lath and wire cloth in one and three-coat stucco applications. Chapter 2 will discuss existing literature related to stucco wall systems and fiberglass, metal lath and wire cloth reinforcement. Chapter 3 will illustrate the methodology and the performance of the test s generated. Chapter 4 will elaborate the results and interpretations of the performed tests. Chapter 5 will conclude the study and state the recommendations.

PAGE 14

4 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction In 1824, English inventor, Joseph Aspdin invented Portland cement, which has remained the dominant cement used in concre te production (Black, 2005). Later, in 1849, Joseph Monier invented Reinfor ced Concrete, which is a com posite material consisting of concrete that and an embedded metal, usua lly steel (Black, 2005) . Steel reinforced concrete is durable and strong, performing well throughout its service life. However, sometimes it does not perform adequately du e to corrosion of the steel. Later, fiber reinforced concrete was invented. 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 are maintained (Black, 2005). Fiber Reinforced Concrete As a result of metal corrosion and the fact that fiber reinforcement in concrete has performed so well, it seems promising to sear ch for new fibrous materials to substitute for the metal mesh used in Portland cement st ucco applications. These materials can be made out of continuous and discontin uous glass and/or organic fibers.

PAGE 15

5 In civil engineering appli cations, four types of fibers dominate. These are carbon, aramid, glass, and organic fibers. Continuous fi ber such as carbon fiber, aramid fiber and glass fiber have been accepted as a substitu te for conventional st eel 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 make one more suitable than the other for different purposes. For strengthening purposes carbon fibers are the most suitable. All fibers have generally highe r stress capacity than ordinary steel and are linear elastic until failure. The most important properties that differ between fiber types are stiffness and tensile strain (Anders, 2003). Carbon: Carbon fibers do not absorb water and are resistant to many chemical solutions. They withstand fatigue excellently, do not stress corrode and do not show any creep or relaxation, having less relaxation co mpared to low relaxation high tensile prestressed steel strands. Car bon Fiber Composites are used to increase the Flexural Capacity of Reinforced C oncrete Bridges (Anders, 2003). Aramid: A well-known trademark of aramid fibe rs is Kelvar but there exist other brands too, for example, Twaron, Technora, a nd SVM. Aramid fibers are sensitive to elevated temperature, moisture and ultra vi olet radiation and are therefore not widely used in civil engineering applications (Anders, 2003).

PAGE 16

6 Glass: Glass fibers are considerably cheaper than carbon fibers and aramid fibers. Therefore glass fiber composites have become popular in many applications. In order to clarify the content of this study a brief revi ew of glass fiber reinforced concrete will follow (Anders, 2003). Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete Much of the original res earch performed on glass fiber reinforced cement paste took place in the early 1960’s. This work us ed conventional borosilicate glass fibers (Eglass) and soda-lime-silica glass fibers (A glass). Glass compositions of E-glass and Aglass, used as reinforcement, were found to lo se strength rather qui ckly due to the very high alkalinity (pH 12.5) of the cement-based matrix. Consequently, early A-glass and E-glass composites were unsuitable for longterm use. Continued researched, however, resulted in the development of a new alkali re sistant fiber (AR-glass fiber) that provided improved long-term durability. This system was named alkali resistant-glass fiber reinforced concrete (AR-GFRC). In 1967, sc ientists at the United Kingdom Building Research Establishment (BRE) began an inves tigation of alkali resistant glasses. They successfully formulated a glass compositi on containing 16 percent zirconia that demonstrated high alkali resistance. The National Research Deve lopment 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 th e 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 1 975, Nippon Electric Glass (NEG) Company introduced an alkali resistan t glass containing a minimum of 20 percent

PAGE 17

7 zirconia. In 1976, Owens-Corning Fiberglas a nd 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-licen se was agreed upon. Subsequently, OwensCorning Fiberglas stopped production of AR-glass 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. Within the last decade, a wide range of applications in the construction industry ha s been made. Fiberglass Reinforced Stucco Wall is one of these applications. Stucco Stucco has been used since ancient times. Still widely used throughout the world, it is one of the most common of traditional building materials. Up until the late 1800s, stucco, like mortar, was primarily lime-base d, but the popularization of Portland cement changed the composition of stucco, as well as mortar, to a harder material (Grimmer, 2006). Stucco is applied directly, without lath, to masonry substrates such as brick, stone, concrete or hollow tile. But on wood structur es, stucco, like its in terior counterpart stucco, must be applied over lath in order to obtain an adequate ke y to hold the stucco. Thus, when applied over a log structure, st ucco is laid on horizontal wood lath that has been nailed on vertical wood furring strips at tached to the logs. If it is applied over a wood frame structure, stucco may be applied to wood or metal lath na iled directly to the wood frame; it may also be placed on lath that has been attached to furring strips. The furring strips are themselves laid over bu ilding paper covering the wood sheathing. Wood lath was gradually superseded by expanded metal lath introduced in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century (Grimmer, 2006).

PAGE 18

8 As current applications of Glass Fi ber reinforcement, Quikrete Company introduced Quikwall Fiberglass Reinforced Stucco a nd Plaster Glass Stucco Exterior Wall Covering Systems. Quikwall Fiberglass Re inforced Stucco and Plaster Glass Stucco are proprietary cementitious mixes for use as an exterior cementitious wall coating reinforced with wire fabric or metal lat h. Quikwall fiberglass reinforced stucco with reinforcement is applied to substrates of expanded polystyrene (EPS) insulation board, gypsum sheathing, fiberboard or plywood on exterior walls of wood or steel stud construction. Plaster Glass stucco system consis ts of the reinforced stucco applied to an EPS substrate on exterior walls of wood stud construction. The product is available in two form s designated as Quikwall Fiberglass Reinforced Stucco Sanded and Quikwall Fi berglass Reinforced Concentrated. Quikwall Fiberglass Reinforced Stucco Sanded is a f actory-prepared mixture of Type I or II Portland cement complying with UBC Standard 19-1 (Part I), lime, alkali-resistant glass fibers, proprietary chemical additives and sand. Quikwall Fiberglass Reinforced Stucco Concentrated is the same as Quikwall Fiberg lass Reinforced Stucco Sanded, except the concentrated mix lacks sand. The Plaster Glass Stucco System is compos ed of a factory-prepared mixture of Type I Portland cement complying with UBC St andard 19-1, Type E glass fibers, lime, sand and proprietary chemical additives. Another fiberglass reinforced Portland cem ent base is the Classic Cement Stucco Base. It is a fiberglass reinforced cement stucco utilizing alkali resistant fibers and proprietary cementitious admixtures used in Dyrvit’s Classic Cement Stucco Systems. Classic Cement Stucco Base is applied to expanded metal lath, welded wire lath or

PAGE 19

9 woven wire lath, installed over a secondary weather barrier and over wood sheathing, or concrete substrates to provi de an exterior wall covering. In addition to the Fiber Reinforced St ucco walls, a new technology has been introduced for exterior Insulation called Exteri or Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) or synthetic stucco. EIFS refers to a multi-layered exterior finish that has been used in European construction since shortly after Worl d War II, when contractors found it to be a good repair choice for buildings damaged duri ng the war. The majority of repairs to European buildings were to structures cons tructed of stone, concrete, brick, or other similar, durable materials. North American builders began using EIFS in the 1980s, first in commercial buildings, then applying it as an exterior finish to residences--mostly wood frame houses--using the same techniques that had been successful in Europe (Wickell, 2005). There are three layers to EIFS: Inner Layer: Foam insulation board that's s ecured to the exterior wall surface, often with adhesive. Middle Layer: A polymer and cement base co at that's applied to the top of the insulation, and reinforced with glass fiber mesh. Exterior Layer: A textured finish coat. EIFS layers bond to form a covering that does not breathe. That is fine when no moisture is present behind the covering, but if moisture seeps in it can become trapped behind the layers. With no place to go, constant exposure to moisture can lead to rot in wood and other vulnerable materials within the home. What had worked well as an exterior shell for concrete and stone b ecame a problem when used on wood. Moisture related problems lead to indi vidual and class action lawsuits by consumers. Synthetic

PAGE 20

10 stucco is soft and sounds hollow when tapped; on the other hand, traditional stucco is hard and brittle, and sounds solid when tapped (Wickell, 2005). Several companies in the United States of American are currently manufacturing traditional, synthetic or their own propriet ary stucco products. These companies include Dryvit Systems, Teifs wall Systems, Pare x Inc., Sto Corp., Degussa Wall Systems , and so on. TEIFS Wall Systems is a company that ma nufactures its own one-coat and three coat stucco cement concentration. The one-coat stucco concentrate is a fiber reinforced, factory prepared concentrate that is mi xed with Portland cement, sand and water It is available in three formulations: Sta ndard, Polymer-Modified and Water Resistant. TeifsOne-Coat Standard Concentrate: A f actory prepared mixture of fibers and other proprietary ingr edients that is simple and easy to use. TeifsOne-Coat Stucco Polymer-modified C oncentrate: A factor y prepared mixture reinforced with acrylic polymers to enhance its mechanical strength. TeifsOne-Coat Water-Resistant Stucco Con centrate: A mixture of acrylic polymers, fibers and other proprietary ingredients with superior water resistance-absorbing less than half the water as standard stucco. Teifs One-Coat Stucco Concentrate is mixed with Portland cement, which may cause cracking and efflorescence to occur. Such cracking or effloresce nce is not a defect in the product and; therefore, is not cove red by this warranty. Teifs One-Coat Stucco Water Resistant Concentrate is guaranteed as water resistant, but not waterproof. Teifs Scratch & Brown is a factory blende d, cement based, fiber reinforced scratch and brown coat designed to be used in a 3coat stucco system conforming to ASTM C926. It is a blend of Portland cement, fibers and proprietary ingredients formulated to produce a cohesive material with consistent workability and strength to reduce surface cracking. Teifs Scratch & Brown is intended for use as a stucco base over galvanized

PAGE 21

11 expanded metal lath, including paper backed la th. It can also be used over solid bases such as concrete and masonry. Installation over these surfaces shall be in accordance with ASTM C-926 and local building codes. One of the largest companies in stucco wall construction is the STO Corp. This company introduced the STO Powerwall Stucco, which combines engineered fiberreinforced cement stucco with technologically advanced elastomeric finishes to create a stucco cladding that consists of field-mixe d sand, lime and cement. The STO Powerwall Stucco system is highly dur able and impact resistant. The method used for installing Stucco wall still includes metal lath, whic h is susceptible to corrosion in coastal environments. Therefore, weather protection to prevent moisture intrusion is required. STO uses glass fiber fabric treated with alkaline resist ant coating as a reinforcing mesh for “Foam Build-Outs,” but not as a metal lath substitute. Parex Inc. is another manufacturer of st ucco cement one and three-coat systems. Parex one-Coat Stucco System is proprietary mixture of Portland cement, sand, glass fibers and proprietary ingredients inst alled over wire fabric or metal lath. Parex Fiber-47 is factory ble nded 3-coat stucco that meet s all code requirements for stucco. With the added benefits of factory added fibers, Fiber-47 is more resistant to cracking than field mixes as well. With Fi ber-47, only sand and water are added on the jobsite, ensuring the quality of the end product. As a stuc co base, Parex Fiber-47 over metal lath, including paper backed lath, over masonry and concrete. A new non-metallic stucco lath has been recently introduced by Degussa Wall Systems. The PermaLath reinforcement for cement stucco wall systems is a patentpending, non-metallic lath reinforcement that is an alternative to metal lath and stucco

PAGE 22

12 netting. It was designed specifically for use in th e 3/8to 1/2-inch th ick (one-coat) stucco systems. Since the product is pliable and has no sharp edges, it’s sa fer to handle and cut, and its ease of handling reduces in stallation costs. It is also al kali resistant to ensure longterm durability and performance. Its ope n, 3-D weave, self-f urring design provides numerous solutions to issues encountered w ith metal lath or stucco netting. It is nonmetallic, so it won’t rust. It is packaged in lightweight rolls for efficient handling and shipping, and the wide width gi ves better coverage with fe wer overlapping joints. There are no new fastening methods to learn since conventional fastening can be used, and the product is non-directional so it can be applie d horizontally or vertically (Degussa Wall Systems, 2004). Previous Testing As shown in Tables 2.1-4, several tests we re done on Stucco walls in the past two years: STO Corporation had made five tests on fiber reinforced stucco (Table 2-1). RADCO had made tests on Cementitious Ex terior Wall Coatings and PermaLath (Table 2-2). Degussa Construction Systems had made tests on PermaLath and Metal Lath (Table 2-3) Saint-Gobain Technical fabrics had ma de tests on PermaLath and Metal Lath (Table 2-4).

PAGE 23

13 Table 2-1: Tests done by Sto Corporation on Fiber Reinforced Stucco Test Method Criteria Result Accelerated Weathering ASTM G 26 2000 hours No chalking, cracking, checking, crazing, or erosion Freeze-Thaw ICBO AC 11 10 cycles No cracking, checking or crazing Surface Burning ASTM E 84 Flame spread of less than 25, Smoke Developed of less than 450 Flame Spread: < 5 Smoke Developed: < 10 Fire Resistance ASTM E 119 One hour fire resistive rating Pass, refer to SBCCI PST & ESI Report No. 9838B and ICBO ES Report No. 3899 for listed assemblies Wind Loads ASTM E 330 Allowable design pressure Pass, Refer to SBCCI PST & ESI Report No. 9838B for assemblies Source: STO Guide Specification, Sto Specifi cation S 501, Section 09220, Atlanta, March 2004. Table 2-2: Tests done by RADCO on Ceme ntitious Exterior Wall Coatings and on PermaLath Test Method Criteria Result Accelerated Weathering Test ASTM G155 2000 hours NO cracking, checking, erosion or chalking Freeze Thaw Test AC 11 10 cycles NO cracking, checking, erosion or crazing Transverse Load Tests ASTM E 330 Allowable design pressure Pass, Refer to RADCO RAD3601 Report Tensile Strength ASTM Sodium Hydroxide Conditioned PermaLath Tested exceeds Test on PermaLath E 2098 Specimen and Control specimen maintained at same environmental condition prior to testing the minimum requirements per section of the ICC ES Sources: RADCO Test Report No. RAD-3601 & RAD-3624 Project No. C9419, Lab No. TL2479, May 2005.

PAGE 24

14 Table 2-3: Impact Test Resistance of Stucco with PermaLath Vs Metal Lath (Degussa Construction Systems) Test Method Criteria Result Impact Resistance Test EIMA 101.86 Ultra High Impact Resistance : 160 inch-lbs No Broken Reinforcement visible for PermaLath and for Metal Lath Source: Heyda, Ben, Stucco Base reinforced w ith PermaLath and Metal Lath, July 2004 Table 2-4: PermaLath and Metal Netting (S tress/Strain Study), and Alkali Resistance Testing for Glass fiber ( by Sa int-Gobain Technical Fabrics) Test Method Criteria Result Tensile Test Very close to ASTM 2098 but using Instron tester PermaLath mesh compared to 17 and 20 gauge metal wire PermaLath has higher tensile rigidity, and higher load to failure Saturated Cement Solution Test CCMC, Class PB, Master format section 07240 AR Glass Vs E Glass AR Glass undergoes negligible degradation in the stucco solution sodium. E Glass retains about half of its original tensile strength 5% Sodium Hydroxide Test EIMA 105.01 AR Glass Vs E Glass It is not obvious that mesh from AR glass undergoes less degradation than mesh made from E glass. Strand in Cement ( SIC) test GRCA S 0104/0184 AR Glass Vs E Glass AR glass fiber have a higher % strength retention and higher stress to failure than E glass, but both glass types are affected by the alkaline medium Sources: ( ) Newton, Marc, PermaLath and metal ne tting stress/strain study, July 2004. ( ) Newton, Marc, Consideration on Glass Fi ber Type and Durability, March 2004

PAGE 25

15 This study compared the PermaLath reinfor ced stucco to the me tal lath and wire cloth reinforced stucco. The comparison includ ed the one 1-coat stucco and the 3-coat stucco. Samples of different types and thic knesses were made in order to test and evaluate them. The third point flexure test was done for these three types of stucco in order to compare and contrast their mechanical properties.

PAGE 26

16 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY The scope of the project is to provide su fficient scientific information, to compare various properties of PermaLath fiberglass rein forced to metal lath and wire cloth in 1coat and 3-coat stucco applications. In order to compare the materials two se ries of Third Point Flexure tests were performed. This test method allows for the de termination of the fl exural strength of concrete by the use of a simple beam with third-point loading. The simply supported beam is supported on two outer points, and de formed by driving two concentrated loads. The maximum stresses are located at the loads. This test methodology is derived from th e ASTM C78 Standard test method for Flexure Strength of Concrete (Using a Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading). It is close to that Standard but not similar. The Schedule of the testing procedure from preparing the samples and testing them is provided in Appendix A. In order to perform the tests, eleven differe nt samples of stucco were prepared (See Appendix B).

PAGE 27

17 Table 3-1 : Flexural Testing and Sampling Strategy Materials\Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 PermaLath Warp X PermaLath Weft X PermaLath 1000 Warp X PermaLath 1000 Weft X Metal Lath 2.5# XX X Metal Lath 3.4# X X Wire Lath 1” x 20ga X Wire Lath 1 ” x 17ga X Tyvek XXXXXXXXXX X 1 Coat Stucco (3/8”) XX X X X 3 Coat Stucco (3/4”) XX XX X X 3/8” Plywood XXXXXXXXXX X NB: Samples 1 to 9 are jointed in the di rection of the face-grain of the plywood Samples 10 and 11 are join ted in both directions Preparing the samples The samples were prepared using several steps and then tested in the testing laboratories of Rinker School of Building C onstruction at the University of Florida. Step 1: Cut a 1/2 inch 8’x 4’ sheet of plywood to 2 (4’x4’) Cut the 4’x 4’ sheet of plywood to 3’x3’ and the remaining pieces to be disposed of as waste. A 13 amp table saw, as shown in Figure3-1, with a 7 1/7” tooth finish blade was used for the cutting process.

PAGE 28

18 Figure 3-1. The 13 AMP table saw Step 2: Installation of Tyvec wrap: The word Tyvec on the wrap should be r unning perpendicular to the direction of the face-grain of the plywood. The Tyvec is attached by stapling it into the wood. The cut lines were marked on the Tyvec pape r with a black pen so that it was clear where to put the screws to attach th e lathing and the Tyvec to the board. Step 3: Trim pieces were installed at the edges and attached to the Tyvec and the wood using galvanized caps (See Figure 3-2) that will be screwed into the board.

PAGE 29

19 Figure 3-2. Galvanized Caps Step 4: Install lathing or sheathing w ith the appropriate overlaps. The lathing is attached to the trims, Tyvec and wood with the ga lvanized caps shown in Figure 3-2.. Figure 3-3. PermaLath Sheathing

PAGE 30

20 Figure 3-4. Metal Lath Sheathing Figure 3-5. Wire Cloth Sheathing

PAGE 31

21 Figure 3-6. Metal Lath Sheathing Joints in 2 directions Mix Design After the frames were ready, it is time to apply the stucco mortar into the forms.. Each bag of stucco is enough for 2 layers of 3’x 3’ samples. One bag for the three coat stucco. Half a bag for one coat stucco. Step 1 Slowly add one bag of sanded Stuccobase into the mixer. Spray one to one and a half gallons of wa ter into the mixer. Water is added until proper workability is achieved As for stucco, a slump test is not requir ed to measure workability. Workability can be defined as the ease with which a fresh c oncrete mix can be handled from the mixture to the final structure. At present there does not exist a pr ocedure to measure the workability quantitatively. But a non-workable mixture can ea sily be identified from its inability to

PAGE 32

22 satisfy one or more of the concreting tasks: mixing, transporting compacting, and finishing. (Somayaji, 1995). The three primary characteri stics of workability are: Consistency Mobility Compatibility Step 2 Mix for five minutes at normal mixing speed The mixture is ready to be poured into the samples. Step 3 Troweling the stucco: Trowel the stucco into place at a level of ” for the 1 coat stucco samples, and 3/8” for the first layer of the 3 coat stucco samples. Step 7 Wait around 10-15 minutes to scratch the sc ratch layer of the 3-coat stucco as shown in Figure 3-7. The scratches were made perpendicular to the direction of the facegrain of the wood. Step 8 After 24 hours, the 2nd layer is troweled onto the 1st layer for the 3-coat stucco samples. Water curing the 1-coat sy stem is also required at this time Step 9 Water cure the samples after 24 hours form time of placing and troweling stucco.

PAGE 33

23 Figure 3-7. Scratching the first layer of Three coat Stucco Cutting the Samples After seven days of curing, each specimen was cut from one 3’x3’ samples into 5 (6”x 36”) samples. A 13 amp table saw was used to cut each sample. Two kinds of blades were used: 1. Wood Blade: 7 1/7” finish saw blade 36 tooth. 2. Concrete blade: 7” dry/wet diamond blade First the wood blade should be installed at a level of ” to just cut the wood. Then the blade has to be changed to cut the concrete secti on (See Figure 3-8). For initial testing purposes, each type of blade was used by itself to cut through the whole sample but it did not yield the de sired result. The diamond blade burned the plywood, and the wood cutting blade cracked the concrete instead of cutting it. Accordingly, changing from the wood blade to the concrete blade and vice versa for each line of cut was required.

PAGE 34

24 Figure 3-8. A cut through the wood Testing Procedure As mentioned previously th e test performed was the Third Point Flexure Test, ASTM C-78, (See Figures 3-9 and 3-10). It c overs the determination of the flexural strength of concrete by the use of a si mple beam with third-point loading. The tests were performed in two ways: The first one was when the concrete wa s in compression (Samples 1a to 11a). The second one was when the wood was in compression ( Samples 1e to 11e). This meant that the samples in the second series were tested upside down. In this test, the load was applied on the sample until reaching a deflection of 0.8-in.

PAGE 35

25 Figure3-9. Third Point Flexure Test Figure 3-10. Testing Machine Setup As shown Figure 3-11, a Linear Variable Displacement Transducer (LVDT) was located in the middle of the sa mple to measure the deflection. For every 0.1-in. increment in deflection a reading of the load in lbs. was taken. Next the results will be analyzed and interpreted in Chapter 4. LVDT Controller Load Reader P: Applied Load (Lbs.) L: span of 30 in

PAGE 36

26 Figure 3-11. LVDT installe d at the bottom of the samp le to measure deflection

PAGE 37

27 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS Load Vs Deflection: Concrete in Compression (Samples 1a 11a) The results of the Third Point Flexure test are discussed in this chapter. Samples 1a-11a were loaded using this test with th e top of concrete bei ng put in compression. Table 4-1. Specimen 1aPermaLath, Weft Direction, 1-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 80 200 110 300 140 400 165 500 185 600 210 700 235 800 255 Figure 4-1. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 1a Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 1a)y = 247.62x + 61.071 R2 = 0.9962 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs)

PAGE 38

28 Table 4-2. Specimen 2 aPermaLat h 1000 (3/4”) in Weft direction Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 70 200 110 300 145 400 190 500 215 600 245 700 270 800 310 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 2a)y = 333.93x + 44.107 R2 = 0.9939 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-2. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 2a Table 4-3. Specimen 3aPermaLath 3/8” , Warp Direction – 1-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 80 200 120 300 150 400 185 500 210 600 240 700 270 800 295

PAGE 39

29 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 3a)y = 303.57x + 57.143 R2 = 0.9966 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-3. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 3a Table 4-4. Specimen 4a – PermaLath 1000 (3/4”), Warp direction Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 80 200 130 300 170 400 215 500 250 600 270 700 305 800 340 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 4a)y = 360.71x + 57.679 R2 = 0.9891 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lb s Figure 44. Load vs. Deflection Curve for Sample 4a

PAGE 40

30 Table 4-5. Specimen 5a –Metal Lath 2.5#, 1-coat Stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 90 200 125 300 155 400 190 500 220 600 255 700 280 800 305 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 5a)y = 310.71x + 62.679 R2 = 0.9975 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-5. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 5a Table 4-6. Specimen 6aMetal Lath 3.4#, 3-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 105 200 145 300 185 400 220 500 250 600 275 700 295 800 310

PAGE 41

31 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 6a)y = 295.83x + 90 R2 = 0.9764 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-6. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 6a Table 4-7. Specimen 7aMetal Lath 2.5#, 3-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 95 200 150 300 195 400 235 500 275 600 305 700 335 800 370 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 7a)y = 383.33x + 72.5 R2 = 0.9898 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-7. Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 7a

PAGE 42

32 Table 4-8. Specimen 8aWire Cl oth 20 gauge -1 coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 65 200 95 300 115 400 135 500 155 600 170 700 185 800 210 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 8a)y = 196.43x + 52.857 R2 = 0.9919 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs ) Figure 4-8. Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 8a Table 4-9. Specimen 9aWire Cloth 17 gauge, 3-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 110 200 150 300 185 400 220 500 245 600 265 700 280 800 315

PAGE 43

33 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 9a)y = 279.76x + 95.357 R2 = 0.9816 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-9. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 9a Table 4-10. Specimen 10aMetal Lath 2.5#, 1coat stucco (joints in both directions) Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 50 200 75 300 90 400 110 500 125 600 140 700 160 800 170 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 10a)y = 170.24x + 38.393 R2 = 0.9936 0 50 100 150 200 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-10. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 10a

PAGE 44

34 Table 4-11 Specimen 11 aMetal Lath 3.4#/ 3 coat stucco (joints in both directions) Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 100 200 135 300 170 400 180 500 200 600 210 700 230 800 240 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 11a)y = 189.88x + 97.679 R2 = 0.9556 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-11 Load Vs Deflection curve for sample 11a

PAGE 45

35 Figure 4-12 compares the different Load ve rsus Deflection curves for the various 1coat stucco samples. Load Vs Deflection 1 coat Stucco0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 00.20.40.60.81 DeflectionLoad Sample1a: Permalath Weft Sample3a: Permalath Warp Sample5a: Metal Lath 2.5# Sample 8a: Wire Cloth 20 Gauge Sample 10a: Metal Lath 2.5# ( joint in 2 directions) Figure 4-12 Load Vs Deflection curves for the various 1-coat stucco samples where the concrete is in compression

PAGE 46

36 Figure 4-13 shows a comparison for the diffe rent Load vs. Deflection curves for the various 3-coat stucco samples. Load vs Deflction 3 Coat Stucco0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 00.20.40.60.81 DeflectionLoad Sample2a: Permalath 1000 Weft Sample4a: Permalath 1000 Warp Saple6a: Metal Lath 3.4# Sample7a: Metal Lath 2.5 # Sample11a: Sample9a:Wire Cloth 17 Gauge Metal Lath 3.4# (Joints in both directions) Figure 4-13 Load Vs Deflection curves for the various 1-coat stucco samples where the concrete is in compression From the results shown above, it is concl uded that when the concrete is in compression, the Load Vs deflection curves fo r the 1-coat and for the 3-coat are linear with R> 0.9 for all the sample tested in this series. The samples were reacting to load like th ey are made from one material due to the reinforcement installed at the bottom of cement . This is justified by the linearity of the curves. In addition it was recorded that: The PermaLath in warp direction for 1and 3coat stucco is stiffer than in the weft direction. Metal lath 2.5# for 3-coat stucco is stiffer than Metal lath 3.4#. Metal lath 2.5#, 3-coat stucco is the stiffest of all the other samples. Metal lath 2.5#, 1-coat stucco is the stiffest one coat stucco.

PAGE 47

37 Metal lath 2.5#, 1-coat stucco ( joints in both directions) is the weakest in stiffness Metal lath 3.4#, 3 coat stu cco and PermaLath 1000 (3/4”) Weft direction have the same stiffness. Load Vs Deflection : Wood in Co mpression (Samples 1e to 11e). The following are the results of the Third Point Flexure test. The samples e” through e” were been bended by this test where the top of wood is in compression. Table 4-12. Specimen 1ePermaLath, Weft Direction, 1-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 60 200 75 300 100 400 125 500 155 600 175 700 205 800 225 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 1e)y = 245.24x + 29.643 R2 = 0.9964 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-14. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 1e

PAGE 48

38 Table 4-13. Specimen 2 ePermaLat h 1000 (3/4”) in Weft direction Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 50 115 100 65 200 85 300 115 400 145 500 175 600 150 700 180 800 200 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 2e)y = 153.71x + 74.331 R2 = 0.8124 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection (inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-15. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 2e Table 4-14. Specimen 3ePermaLath 3/8” , Warp Direction – 1-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 50 200 75 250 80 300 95 400 135 450 125 500 145 600 175 700 195 800 225

PAGE 49

39 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 3e)y = 249.45x + 22.736 R2 = 0.9887 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-16. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 3e Table 4-15. Specimen 4e – PermaLath 1000 (3/4”), Warp direction Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 50 105 100 50 200 70 300 105 350 110 400 85 500 110 600 120 700 140 800 155 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 4e)y = 101.33x + 64.469 R2 = 0.6706 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-17. Load vs. Deflection Curve for Sample 4e

PAGE 50

40 Table 4-16. Specimen 5e –Metal Lath 2.5#, 1-coat Stucco. Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 45 150 70 200 65 300 90 350 80 400 105 500 130 600 150 700 180 800 200 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 5e)y = 212.68x + 24.761 R2 = 0.9766 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-18. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 5e Table 4-17. Specimen 6eMetal Lath 3.4#, 3-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 50 70 100 50 200 70 300 85 400 110 500 125 600 110 700 125 800 140

PAGE 51

41 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 6e)y = 108.65x + 54.271 R2 = 0.879 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-19. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 6e Table 4-18. Specimen 7eMetal Lath 2.5#, 3-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 50 90 75 105 100 65 200 100 250 125 300 100 400 120 500 145 600 170 650 160 700 175 800 200 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 7e)y = 146.29x + 73.2 R2 = 0.8913 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-20. Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 7e

PAGE 52

42 Table 4-19. Specimen 8eWire Cloth 20 gauge -1 coat Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 50 30 100 40 200 55 300 70 400 90 500 110 600 125 700 140 800 155 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 8e)y = 168.92x + 22.048 R2 = 0.9982 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-21. Load vs. deflection curve for Sample 8e Table 4-20. Specimen 9eWire Cl oth 17 gauge, 3-coat stucco Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 100 65 150 95 200 90 300 115 325 120 330 115 400 130 450 125 500 130 600 150 700 170 800 200

PAGE 53

43 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 9e)y = 174.03x + 53.566 R2 = 0.9446 0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs ) Figure 4-22. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 9e Table 4-21. Specimen 10eMetal Lath 2.5#, 1coat stucco (joints in both directions) Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 50 40 100 50 150 65 200 60 300 70 400 85 500 95 600 105 650 110 700 105 800 120 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 10e)y = 100.6x + 41.577 R2 = 0.9702 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-23. Load vs. Deflection curve for Sample 10e

PAGE 54

44 Table 4-22 Specimen 11 eMetal Lath 3.4#/ 3 coat stucco (joints in both directions) Deflection Load (lb) (1/1000 inch) 75 80 100 65 200 100 300 60 400 75 500 95 600 105 700 120 800 130 Load Vs Deflection ( Sample 11e)y = 73.971x + 61.946 R2 = 0.6791 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 00.20.40.60.81 Deflection ( inch)Load ( Lbs) Figure 4-24 Load Vs Deflection curve for sample 11e

PAGE 55

45 Figure 4-25 compares the different Load ve rsus Deflection curves for the various 1coat stucco samples. Load Vs Deflection 1 coat Stucco0 50 100 150 200 250 00.51 DeflectionLoad Sample 1e: Permalath Weft Sample 3e: Permalath Warp Sample 5e: Metal Lath 2.5# Sample 8e: Wire Cloth 20 Gauge Sample 10e: Metal Lath 2.5# ( joint in 2 directions) Figure 4-25 Load Vs Deflection curves for the various 1coat stucco samples where the wood is in compression

PAGE 56

46 Figure 4-26 shows a comparison for the differe nt Load vs. Deflection curves for the various 3-coat stucco samples. Load vs Deflction 3 Coat Stucco0 50 100 150 200 250 00.20.40.60.81 DeflectionLoad Sample 2e: Permalath 1000 Weft Sample 4e: Permalath 1000 Warp Saple 6e: Metal Lath 3.4# Sample7e: Metal Lath 2.5 # sample 9e: Wire Cloth 17 Gauge Sample 11e: Metal Lath 3.4# (Joints in both directions) Figure 4-26 Load Vs Deflection curves for th e various 1coat stucco samples where the wood is in compression From the results shown above, it is conc luded that when the wood is in compression, the one coat stucco reacts very di fferently than the three coat stucco. As for the one coat stucco, the Load Vs Deflection curv e is linear with an R> 0.9 for most of the sample, which indicates that the wood and concrete are acting as they are one material. On the other hand, for the three coat stucco samples, the Load Vs Deflection Curve is wavy, which indicates that the sample is acting as it is made from different material and which is true. The interpretation for this wavy curve is th at the concrete is strong is compression and weak in tension. So the tension side of the concrete is exposed to a high stress, and knowing that this layer of concrete is not re inforced, it will crack prior to the other layer.

PAGE 57

47 After the first layer cracks, the second layer wi ll follow but because it is reinforced with PermaLath, metal lath or wire cloth, this la yer will react as if it is a one material with the wood. . In addition, it is recorded if the wood is in compression and the bottom side of concrete is in tension, the one coat PermaLat h (Warp and Weft directions) is stiffer than either the metal lath or the wire cloth. Stress Calculation Concrete in Compression The samples are made from concrete ( cement) and wood. To find the maximum bending Stresses in the concrete and wood, it is required to transform either the concrete into wood or wood into concrete (Cernica, 1966). One-coat stucco specimens Using the ratio (n) for the Moduli of Elasticity of wood and concrete, the wood section can be transformed into its concrete e quivalent section as shown in Figure 4-27. (a) Actual Section (b) Actual Transformed Section Figure 4-27 Actual and transformed test spec imen sections for One Coat Stucco for concrete in Compression. (b) Transformed section

PAGE 58

48 The calculations performed for 1-co at stucco were as follows: n= E wood/ E conc.= 1.5x10^6 psi = 0.5 3.0x 10^6 psi For the transformed section of the 1-coat sp ecimens, the neutral axis is located at y distance from the bottom where: = 6 x 0.5 x 0.75 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 0.25 = 0.58 in 6 x 0.5 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 The moment of inertia of the transformed sectioned is: I = 6 x 0.5 + 6 x 0.5(0.17) + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 0.33 12 12 I = 0.3438 in^4 Knowing that the maximu m moment, M max = P.L ; 6 where M max is in in-lb ; P is the max load in lb; and L is the span length in inches. The maximum compressive stress of the concrete is: max = M c = P x L x c = P x 30x 0.42 I 6x I 6x 0.3438 => The maximum tensile stress of the Concrete is: max = n x M c = n x P x L x c = 0.5 x P x 30x 0.08 I 6x I 6x 0.3438 => The maximum tensile stress of the Wood is: max(conc. in Compression.) = 6.108 P max( conc. in Tension.) = 0.582 P

PAGE 59

49 max = n x M c = n x P x L x c = 0.5x P x 30x 0.58 I 6x I 6x 0.3438 => Three-Coat stucco specimens The preceding procedure shown a) is used to determine the maximum stresses for 3-coat stucco. (a) Actual section (b) Transformed section Figure 4-28. Actual and transformed test sp ecimen sections for three coat stucco for concrete in compression The calculations performed for the 3coat stucco were as follows: n= E wood/ E conc.= 1.5x10^6 psi = 0.5 3.0x 10^6 psi For the transformed section of the three coat specimens, the neutral ax is is located at y distance from the bottom where: max( Wood. In Tension.) = 4.218 P

PAGE 60

50 = 6 x 1 x 1 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 0.25 = 0.85 in 6 x 1 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 The moment of inertia of the transformed sectioned is: I = 6 x 1 + 6 x 1 (0.15) + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 0.6 12 12 I = 1.206 in^4 The maximum compressive stress of the concrete is: max = M c = P x L x c = P x 30x 0.65 I 6x I 6x 1.206 => The maximum tensile stress of the concrete is: max = n x M c = n x P x L x c = 0.5 x P x 30x 0.35 I 6x I 6x 1.206 => The maximum tensile stress of the wood is: max = n xM c = nx P x L x c = 0.5x P x 30x 0.85 I 6x I 6x 1.206 => Table 4-23 .Stresses calculati ons for Concrete in Compression 1-Coat Specimens Max Load Max Stress for Max Stress for Max Stress for Sample number for 0.8in deflection Concrete in compression Concrete in tension wood in tension 1a: PermaLath Weft 255 1,557.54 148.41 1,075.59 3a: PermaLath Warp 295 1,801.86 171.69 1,244.31 5a: Metal Lath 2.5# 305 1,862.94 177.51 1,286.49 8a: Wire cloth 17 gauge 210 1,282.68 122.22 885.78 10a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 170 1,038.36 98.94 717.06 max(concrete in Compression.) = 2.695 P max(conc. in Tension.) = 0.726 P max( Wood. In Tension.) = 1.762 P

PAGE 61

51 Table 4-23. Continued 3-Coat Specimens Max Load Max Stress for Max Stress for Max Stress for Sample number for 0.8in deflection Concrete in compression Concrete in tension wood in tension 2a: PermaLath Weft 310 835.45 225.06 546.22 4a :PermaLath Warp 340 916.30 246.84 599.08 6a: Metal Lath 2.5# 310 835.45 225.06 546.22 7a: Metal Lath 3.4# 370 997.15 268.62 651.94 9a: Wire cloth 20 gauge 315 848.93 228.69 555.03 11a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 240 646.80 174.24 422.88 Stress : psi ; Load: lbs ;Span L=30-in. Wood in Compression One coat stucco specimens Assuming the transformation of wood into conc rete, the transformed section is shown in Figure 4-29. (a) Actual section (b) Transformed section Figure 4-29. Actual and transformed test specimen sections for One Coat Stucco for wood in compression The calculations performed for the 1coat stucco were as follows: n= E wood/ E conc.= 1.5x10^6 psi = 0.5 3.0x 10^6 psi

PAGE 62

52 For the transformed section of the one coat specimens, the neutral ax is is located at y distance from the bottom where: = 6 x 0.5 x 0.25 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 0.75 = 0.42 in 6 x 0.5 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 The moment of inertia of the transformed sectioned is: I = 6 x 0.5 + 6 x 0.5(0.17) + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 0.33 12 12 I = 0.3438 in^4 The maximum compressive stress of the wood is: max = n x M c = n x P x L x c = 0.5 x P x 30x 0.58 I 6x I 6x 0.3438 => The maximum tensile stress of the wood is: max = n x M c = n x P x L x c = 0.5 x P x 30x 0.08 I 6x I 6x 0.3438 => The maximum tensile stress of the concrete is: Concrete, tension: max = M c = P x L x c = P x 30x 0.42 I 6x I 6x 0.3438 => Three-coat stucco specimens The same procedure as in a) is used to determine the maximum stresses max( Wood. in Compression.) = 4.218 P max( Wood. in Tension.) = 0.582 P max( Concrete. In Tension.) = 6.108 P

PAGE 63

53 (a)Actual Section (b) Transformed section Figure 4-30. Actual and transformed test sp ecimen sections for three coat stucco for wood in compression The calculations performed for 3-co at stucco were as follows: n= E wood/ E conc.= 1.5x10^6 psi = 0.5 3.0x 10^6 psi For the transformed section of the 3-coat sp ecimens, the neutral axis is located at y distance from the bottom where: = 6 x 1 x 0.5 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 1.25 = 0.65 in 6 x 1 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 The moment of inertia of the transformed sectioned is: I = 6 x 1 + 6 x 1 (0.15) + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 + 0.5 x 6 x 0.5 x 0.6 12 12 I = 1.206 in^4 The maximum compressive stress of the wood is: max =n x M c = n x P x L x c = 0.5 x P x 30x 0.85 I 6x I 6x 1.206 => max( wood in Compression.) = 1.762 P

PAGE 64

54 The maximum tensile stress of the wood is: max = n x M c = n x P x L x c = 0.5 x P x 30x 0.35 I 6x I 6x 1.206 => The maximum tensile stress of the concrete is: Concrete , tension : : max = M c = P x L x c = P x 30x 0.85 I 6x I 6x 1.206 => Table 4-24. Stresses calculati ons for Wood in compression One Coat Specimens Max Load Max Stress for Max Stress for Max Stress for Sample number for 0.8in deflection Wood in compression Wood in tension Concrete in tension 1e: PermaLath Weft 225 949.05 130.95 1,374.30 3e: PermaLath Warp 225 949.05 130.95 1,374.30 5e: Metal Lath 2.5# 200 843.60 116.40 1,221.60 8e: Wire cloth 17 gauge 155 653.79 90.21 946.74 10e: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 120 506.16 69.84 732.96 Three Coat Specimens Sample Max Load Max Stress for Max Stress for Max Stress for number for 0.8in deflection Wood in compression Wood in tension Concrete in tension 2e: PermaLath Weft 200 352.40 145.20 539.00 4e :PermaLath Warp 155 273.11 112.53 417.73 6e: Metal Lath 2.5# 140 246.68 101.64 377.30 7e: Metal Lath 3.4# 200 352.40 145.20 539.00 9e: Wire cloth 20 gauge 200 352.40 145.20 539.00 11e: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 130 229.06 94.38 350.35 Stress : psi ; Load: lbs ;Span L=30-in. max( conc. in Tension.) = 0.726 P max( Wood. In Tension.) = 2.695 P

PAGE 65

55 Length of Cracks After testing the specimen the length of the cracks were measured (See Appendix C for Pictures of the cracks). Table 4-25. Length of cracks for Concrete in Compression 1-Coat Specimens Max Load (Lb) Number of No. cracks in Middle Third Length of Sample number for 0.8in deflection Cracks Inside Outside Cracks ( inch) 1a: PermaLath Weft 255 2 2 0 12.0 3a: PermaLath Warp 295 2 2 0 12.0 5a: Metal Lath 2.5# 305 NO 0 0 0.0 8a: Wire cloth 17 gauge 210 NO 0 0 0.0 10a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 170 1 1 0 6.5 Three Coat Specimens Sample Max Load (Lb) Number of No. cracks in middle third Length of number for 0.8in deflection Cracks Inside Outside Cracks ( inch) 2a: PermaLath Weft 310 2 2 0 12.0 4a :PermaLath Warp 340 2 1 1 6.5 6a: Metal Lath 2.5# 310 1 1 0 6.5 7a: Metal Lath 3.4# 370 2 1 1 6.5 9a: Wire cloth 20 gauge 315 2 1 1 6.5 11a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 240 3 2 1 12.0 Cracks outside the Middle third are not counted because these cracks are caused by shear and tension and not only from tension only. Table 4-26. Length of cracks for wood in Compression One Coat Specimens Max Load (Lb) Number of No. cracks in Middle Third Length of Sample number for 0.8in deflection Cracks Inside Outside Cracks ( inch) 1e: PermaLath Weft 225 4 2 2 12.50 3e: PermaLath Warp 225 4 2 2 13.00 5e: Metal Lath 2.5# 200 3 1 2 6.25 8e: Wire cloth 17 gauge 155 3 1 2 8.00 10e: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 200 3 2 1 12.50

PAGE 66

56 Table 4-26. Continued For Three Coat Specimens Sample Max Load (Lb) Number of No. cracks in Middle Third Length of number for 0.8in deflection Cracks Inside middle third outside middle third Cracks ( inch) 2a: PermaLath Weft 200 2 1 1 7.00 4a :PermaLath Warp 155 2 1 1 6.50 6a: Metal Lath 2.5# 140 2 1 1 6.50 7a: Metal Lath 3.4# 200 3 1 2 7.00 9a: Wire cloth 20 gauge 200 3 2 1 14.00 11a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions 130 3 1 2 7.00 Appendix D shows the calculations of th e Modulus of Elasticity of the stucco composite material. A stucco composite mate rial is composed of: Stucco, Plywood, Tyvec, and reinforced with Permalath, Metal Lath or Wire Cloth. Appendix E shows the calculations of th e Modulus of Elasticity of Plywood. A third point Flexure test for Plywood was pe rformed. The modulus of elasticity of plywood was calculated in order to veri fy the consistency of this test.

PAGE 67

57 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The purpose of this study was to find out if the PermaLath reinforced stucco is equivalent or better than the ex isting metal lath stucco system. Due to the lack of ASTM standards for te sting the mechanical properties of this material, a modified ASTM C 78 standard was developed to test the samples on both sides. The tests indicated that when the c oncrete was in compression, the metal lath reinforced stucco was the stiffest in one and three coat stucco applications. The curves of load Vs deflection were so linear that the tw o materials (concrete a nd wood) appeared to act as one. On the other hand, for the tests performed where the wood was is compression, the PermaLath in the warp and weft directions were stiffer than for the metal lath, and the wire cloth in the 1-coat stucco system. It is important to mention that stiffer does not necessarily mean better, but it only indicates th at the material needs more load to deflect. In the three coat stucco the graphs of the load vs. deflection were nonlinear The interpretation for these nonlin ear curves is that the concre te is strong is compression and weak in tension. So the tension side of the concrete is exposed to a high stress, and since this layer of concrete is not reinforced, it will crack prior to the other layer. After the first layer cracks, the second layer wi ll follow, but because it is reinforced with PermaLath, metal lath or wire cloth, this layer will r eact as if it is a one material with the wood.

PAGE 68

58 In addition, data about when and at wh at load first cracking occurred was not collected. For example, while performing th e test with the top surface of wood in compression, the metal lath reinforced sample needed more load than the other samples to deflect 0.8 in. This result just shows that PermaLath is stiffer but not necessary better because in both cases no data was collected about when or at what load the first crack occurred. From these series of tests and their re sults, it is impossible to come up with a conclusion about which of the rein forcing materials is better. Recommendations In order to know which of the materials is better as reinforcement for stucco, sufficient scientific information, utilizing bot h mechanical and environmental testing, to compare various properties of PermaLath fiberg lass reinforcement to metal lath and wire cloth in 1and 3-coat stucco applications, mu st be collected. One way to modify this test to be more suitable for testing stucco would be to mark the top of the stucco with a line of conductive paint and conn ect this to an electr ical circuit. In that way, when the first crack occurs the current will be broken, the resistance will go up, and both the load and deflection can be determined at that moment. The following list contains the mechanical and environmental tests that should be performed so that a better comparison can be made between the metal lath, PermaLath, and wire cloth: Impact Test (ACI 544): The test can be used to compare the relative merits of different fiber-concrete mixt ures and to demonstrate the improved performance of FRC compared to conventional concrete. It can also be adapted to show the relative impact resistance of different material thickness.

PAGE 69

59 Tensile Adhesion Testing (Electom eter testing and ASTM E 2134-01) These two tests ( Impact an d Tensile Adhesion tests) ar e solely mechanical and will determine the bond strength and crack resistance of PermaLath reinforcement as compare to metal lath reinforcement st ucco. Environmental tests should also be performed: Plastic Shrinkage Cracking, which is the Restrained shrinkage cracking test that will determine the amount of shrinkage cr acking of a more flexible reinforcing material (PermaLath) to that of a rigid re inforcing material (metal lath) in stucco systems. Thermal cracking: a) Cracking due to thermal gradients. b) Thermal shock. These two tests will determine the amount of cracking of PermaLath to metal lath and to wire lath exposed to various temper atures gradients in stucco systems. Chemical Compatibility Test to determine the effect of Potable-water vapor transmission and salt-wat er vapor transmission. Windborne Missile Impact Test ASTM E 1996. Finally the alkali resistance of the fibergla ss reinforcement in stucco walls and the minimum properties required for non-metallic reinforcement to be used as a replacement of metal lath in ½-inch and ¾-inch thick stucco should be determined. After performing these tests, it will be much easier to determine if the PermaLath fiberglass reinforcement performs as well or be tter than the metal lath and wire cloth in both one coat and three coat stucco wall systems.

PAGE 70

60 APPENDIX A SCHEDULE February 2006 MO Tu W Th Fr Sa Su 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 March 2006 MO Tu W Th Fr Sa Su 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Preparing samples Pouring the samples Cutting samples Painting Samples Testing all the "1a" Samples. ( Third Point Flexure TestTop of concrete in compression) Testing all the "1e" Samples. ( Third Point Flexure TestTop of wood in compression)

PAGE 71

61 APPENDIX B DRAWINGS OF THE SAMPLES Figure B-1. PermaLath Weft Direction of the roll of Permalath

PAGE 72

62 Figure B-2. PermaLath Weft ( need to change warp above to weft). Direction of the roll of Permalath

PAGE 73

63 Figure B-3.Metal Lath

PAGE 74

64 Figure B-4. Wire Cloth

PAGE 75

65 Figure B-5. Metal Lath ( Joints in both directions)

PAGE 76

66 APPENDIX C PICTURES OF CRACKS One Coat Stucco (Top Surface Of Concrete in Compression) Figure C-1. Permalath warp cracks FigureC-2. Permalath weft cracks Figure C-3. No crack for metal Lath Figure C-4. No cracks for wire cloth Figure C-5 Metal lath (joints in both directions) cracks

PAGE 77

67 3-Coat Stucco Top Surface Of Concrete in Compression Figure C-6. Permalath warp cracks Figure C-7. Permalath weft cracks FigureC-8. One crack for metal Lath 2.5# Figure C-9. Metal Lath 3.4# cracks Figure C-10 Wire cloth cracks Figure C-11 Metal lath (joints in both directions) cracks

PAGE 78

68 Cracks One Coat Stucco Top Of Wood in Compression Figure C-12 Permalath warp cracks FigureC-13. Permalath weft cracks Figure C-14 Metal Lath cracks Figure C-15 . Wire cloth cracks Figure C-16 Metal lath (joints in both directions) cracks

PAGE 79

69 Cracks 3-coat Stucco Top Of Wood in Compression Figure C-17. Permalath warp cracks Figure C-18 Permalath weft cracks Figure C-19. One crack for Metal Lath 2.5# Figure C-20. Metal Lath 3.4# cracks Figure C-21. Wire cloth cracks Figure C-22. Metal lath (joints in both directions) cracks

PAGE 80

70 APPENDIX D STRAIN CALCULATION FOR ST UCCO COMPOSITE MATERIAL = L – C Equation 1 C L= (R ) Equation 2 180 C= 2 ( (2R)) Equation 3 C²= 2R²-2R² Cos ( ) Equation 4 Where: L: Length of the samp le after deflection in inch C: length of the sample before applying the load in inch. : Strain caused by th e load applied : Angle of the Deflected sample in degrees R: Radius of curvature of the neutral axis in inch : Deflection in inch Figure D1: Typical Deflection of the sample

PAGE 81

71 From Equation 3: C= 2 ( (2R)) => 30= 2 ( 0.8(2R-0.8)) => From Equation 4: C²= 2R²-2R² Cos ( ) => 30²= 2(141.025)²-2(141.025)² Cos ( ) => From Equation 2: L= (R ) = (141.025 x 12.212) 180 180 => From Equation 1: = L – C = 30.0569-30 C 30 => R= 141.025 in = 12.212º L= 30.0569 in = 1.897 x 10 ³

PAGE 82

72 Modulus of Elasticity Knowing that E = Where: E: Modulus of elasti city of the sample in psi : Stress on top of th e concrete in psi : Strain Modulus of Elasticity Calculation Concrete in compression For One Coat Specimens Max Load Max Stress for Modulus of Sample number for 0.8in deflection Concrete in compression Elasticity E (psi) 1a: Permalath Weft 255 1,557.54 821,054.30 3a: Permalath Warp 295 1,801.86 949,847.13 5a: Metal Lath 2.5# 305 1,862.94 982,045.33 8a: Wire cloth 17 gauge 210 1,282.68 676,162.36 10a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions ) 170 1,038.36 547,369.53 For Three Coat specimens Max Load Max Stress for Modulus of Sample number for 0.8in deflection Concrete in compression Elasticity E (psi) 2a: Pemalath Weft 310 835.45 440,405.90 4a :Permalath Warp 340 916.30 483,025.83 6a: Metal Lath 2.5# 310 835.45 440,405.90 7a: Metal Lath 3.4# 370 997.15 525,645.76 9a: Wire cloth 20 gauge 315 848.93 447,509.23 11a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions) 240 646.80 340,959.41 Stress : psi Load:lbs L= 30in

PAGE 83

73 Modulus of Elasticity Calculation Wood in compression For One Coat Specimens Max Load Max Stress for Modulus of Sample number for 0.8in deflection Concrete in tension Elasticity E (psi) 1e: Pemalath Weft 225 1,374.30 724,459.67 3e: Permalath Warp 225 1,374.30 724,459.67 5e: Metal Lath 2.5# 200 1,221.60 643,964.15 8e: Wire cloth 17 gauge 155 946.74 499,072.22 10e: Metal Lath (joints in both directions) 120 732.96 386,378.49 For Three Coat Specimens Max Load Max Stress for Modulus of Sample number for 0.8in deflection Concrete in tension Elasticity E (psi) 2a: Pemalath Weft 200 539.00 284,132.84 4a :Permalath Warp 155 417.73 220,202.95 6a: Metal Lath 2.5# 140 377.30 198,892.99 7a: Metal Lath 3.4# 200 539.00 284,132.84 9a: Wire cloth 20 gauge 200 539.00 284,132.84 11a: Metal Lath (joints in both directions) 130 350.35 184,686.35 Stress : psi Load: lbs L= 30in

PAGE 84

74 APPENDIX E MODULUS OF ELASTICITY OF PLYWOOD Third Point Flexure Test was performed on thr ee (1/2”, 6” x 30”) Plywood sample sheets. Sample 1: Deflection (in) Load (Lb) 0.1 50 0.2 65 0.3 80 0.4 95 0.5 115 0.6 130 0.7 150 0.8 160 The maximum Stress is calculated from: max = M c = P x L I b d² Where: P: Maximum applied load ; L :30 in length of the sample b: 6 in width of sample ; d: 0.5 in thickness of sample => max = M c = P x L = 160 x 30 = 3200 psi I b d² 6 x 0.5² Knowing that E = Where = 1.897 x 10 ³ from = L – C = 30.0569-30 C 30 E = 3200 = > 1.897 x 10 ³ E (Plywood) = 1.69x 10^6 psi

PAGE 85

75 Sample 2: Deflection (in) Load (Lb) 0.1 30 0.2 45 0.3 60 0.4 75 0.5 90 0.6 105 0.7 125 0.8 140 max = M c = P x L = 140 x 30 = 2800 psi I b d² 6 x 0.5² E = 2800 = > 1.897 x 10 ³ Sample 3: Deflection (in) Load (Lb) 0.1 50 0.2 60 0.3 75 0.4 95 0.5 110 0.6 125 0.7 145 0.8 160 max = M c = P x L = 160 x 30 = 3200 psi I b d² 6 x 0.5² E = 3200 = > 1.897 x 10 ³ If we take the average of the th ree Modulus of elasticity we get: E (Plywood) = 1.48x 10^6 psi E (Plywood) = 1.69x 10^6 psi E (avg) = 1.62 x 10^6 psi

PAGE 86

76 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). Bellis, Mary, The History of Concrete and Cement, Inventors (2005). Black, Sara, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Coming on Strong, Composites and Concrete (2005). Cernica, John, Strength Of Materials, Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc. (1966). Degussa Wall Systems, PermaLath, Product Bulletin 1027195, Degussa Walla Systems Inc. (2004). Grimmer, Anne, The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stucco, The New York Times Company (2006) Pruter, Walter, Crack Control in Portland Cement Plaster, The Construction Specifier (2005). Reed Construction Data, Parex StuccoStucco Guide, Use of FirstSourceONL.com (2005). Somayaji, Shan, Civil Engineering Materials, Prentice Hall, Inc. , New Jersey (1995). SPEC-DATA, Quikrete, Portland Cement Plaster 09220, Reed Construction Data (2005). STO Guide Specification, Portland Cement Plaster/Stucco Fiber Reinforced Portland Cement Stucco for Concrete, Masonry and Frame Construction, Sto Specification S 501,Section 09220, Atlanta (2004). TIEFS Wall Systems, One-Coat Stucco/Exterior Insula ted Plaster Systems & Plaster Products , Systems and Products, Section 09220, San Antonio, Texas. Ueda, Tamon, and Sato, Yasuhiko, New Approach for Usage of Continuous Fiber as Non-Metallic Reinforcement of Concrete, Advanced Materials, Japan (2002), pp111-116. Wickell, Janet, EIFS, Synthetic Stucco. About, Inc., New York Times Company (2005).

PAGE 87

77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Guy G. Abi-Nader was born on May 28th, 1981, in Abdelli, Lebanon. He was the third son and third child born to Georges Ab i-Nader and May Salloum. He received his high school diploma from Zahrat El Ihsan School in Lebanon in 1999. He received his Bachelor of Engineering from the Lebanese American University in 2004. In August 2004, he moved to Gainesville, Florida, as a graduate student in the M.E. Rinker, Sr., School of Building Construction at the Univers ity of Florida. Guy expects to graduate with an MSBC in May 2006 and will continue on to work on his Ph.D. in construction management.