Effect of orientation and specific surface of reinforcement on compressive strength of ferrocement

Dr. Sunil Kute Professor Prasad Kulkarni U.G. Student Rajendra Waghmode U.G. Student Pallavi Joshi P.G. Student

Department of Civil Engineering K.K.W. Institute of Engineering Education and Research Nashik, University of Pune, Pune.

Abstract
Ferrocement differs from conventional reinforced concrete or prestressed concrete primarily on the basis of nature, placing and load sharing of reinforcement. The wire mesh and expanded metal mesh are used as reinforcement in Ferrocement. The mesh reinforcement offers the high specific surface and close spacing of the layers of mesh reinforcement arrests the cracks. Hence, the width and spacing of cracks in Ferrocement will be less than that of conventional concrete at service loads. The clause 4.2.3 of ACI 549.1R-93 reapproved 1999, states that transverse component of the reinforcement can contribute additional strength when square or rectangular wire meshes are used, while expanded mesh contributes virtually no strengthening beyond that achieved by the mortar alone. The code is silent on, Effect of hexagonal mesh on compressive strength of Ferrocement. Effect of orientation of hexagonal mesh on compressive strength of Ferrocement. Effect of specific surface on compressive strength of Ferrocement.

Hence, the investigation is proposed on Effect of orientation and specific surface of reinforcement in Ferrocement. The present investigation highlights ten different combinations of orientations and layers of hexagonal mesh reinforcement and its effect on compressive strength of Ferrocement. The

Ferrocement cubes were cast with single, double, three, four and eight layers of reinforcement placed in transverse, vertical and diagonal plane. It is revealed from the results that when the number of layers of reinforcement is increased, the compressive strength increases in each group of orientation. Also, the reinforcement placed in horizontal plane offers more compressive strength than that of vertical plane. However, the reinforcement placed in diagonal plane, results into optimum compressive strength than that of in horizontal and vertical planes. The confinement and the surface area offered by reinforcement improves the load carrying capacity of ferrocement. The orientation and specific surface of hexagonal mesh reinforcement has significance in load carrying capacity.

Keywords: Ferrocement, Hexagonal mesh, Volume fraction of reinforcement, Specific surface.

1. Introduction:
Ferrocement is a form of reinforced concrete using closely spaced multiple layers of mesh and/or small diameter rods completely infiltrated with, or encapsulated, in mortar(1). The reinforcement mesh used in ferrocement may be square, expanded or hexagonal in shape. The compressive strength of ferrocement is governed by the volume fraction of reinforcement. The volume fraction of reinforcement is the volume of reinforcement per unit volume of ferrocement. The compressive strength of ferrocement is also, governed by the specific surface which is the bonded surface area of ferrocement per unit volume of ferrocement (2). The orientation of reinforcement which is the angle in degrees between the reinforcement mesh and the direction of applied stress, has also, a significance related to compressive strength of ferrocement. The mesh provides the form and support the mortar in its green state. In the hardened state, it absorbs the tensile stresses on the structure. Thus, the mechanical behavior of ferrocement is highly dependent upon the type, quality, orientation and strength properties of the mesh and reinforcing rod (3). Many researchers have attempted to investigate different properties of ferrocement Naaman, A.E. and Shah, S.P. (4), Nanni, A. and Zollo, R.F. (5) have worked on tensile behavior of ferrocement and its reinforcement. The flexural design of ferrocement is investigated by Balguru, P.N. and Naoman, A.E. (6) and Johnston, C.D. and Mowat, D.N. (7). Atcheson, M. and Alexander, D. have reported the works on Fibrous ferrocement (8). The effect of expanded metal on ferrocement has been investigated by Byrne, J.G. and Wright, W. (9). The behavior of ferrocement in tension and compression is reported by Johnston, C.D. and Mattar, S.G. (10). No significant literature is available on effect of orientation and number of layers of reinforcement on compressive strength of ferrocement. Also, the clause 4.2.3 of ACI 549.1 R-93, reapproved 1999 (1) is silent on effect of hexagonal mesh, its orientation and number of layers on compressive strength of ferrocement. Hence, the present work attempts to investigate the relation between orientation, specific surface of reinforcement and compressive strength of ferrocement.

2. Experimental program
2.1 Materials: Fine aggregates: Locally available sand confirming to I.S.383:1970 was used in preparing the ferrocement in present investigation. The result of preliminary tests on fine aggregate are shown in the Table 1. Table 1: Physical properties of fine aggregates Sr.No. 1. 2. 3. Particulars Specific gravity Fineness modulus Water absorption Test results 2.7 3.95 0.45%

Cement: Ordinary Portland Cement of grade 53 confirming to I.S.12269-1987 was used in experimental program. The preliminary tests were conducted on this cement for determination of its physical properties. Table 2 shows the results of these tests Table 2: Physical properties of cement Particulars Fineness Initial setting time Final setting time Soundness by Le Chatelier Specific gravity Standard consistency Compressive strength 3 days 7 days 28 days Requirements as per Test results I.S.12269:1987 Min. 0.1 0.04 Min. 30 minutes 78 minutes Min. 600 minutes 380 minutes Max. 10mm 8mm 3.15 3.15 29 35.00 N/mm2 47.00 N/mm2 57.50 N/mm2

Sr.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Hexagonal mesh: The hexagonal mesh of opening size of 13mm with wire diameter of 0.7mm was used. The weight of mesh per unit area was 0.58kg/m2 with the steel content of 410 kg/m3. The 22 gauge mesh was provided in the size of 150mm x 150mm in the cube moulds in 1,2,3,4 and 8 layers for different orientations. The specific surface thus, varied from 0.0133 mm2/mm3 to 0.1 mm2/mm3. Also, the volume of mesh as percentage of reinforcement varied from 1% to 8%, correspondingly. The geometrical details of the mesh are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Geometrical details of hexagonal mesh. 2.2 Mix proportion: The ferrocement mix was prepared with the cement : sand proportion of 1:3 by weight. The water cement ratio adopted was 0.35.

2.3 Curing condition: All the cubes were demoulded 24 hours after casting and placed in curing tank having potable water at room temperature in the range of 250 to 330C. All specimens were cured for 28 days and then dried at room temperature for 24 hours before testing. 2.4 Specimen and testing details: The cubes of 150mm size with cement : sand proportion of 1:3 were cast with 9 different designations of ferrocement. One additional set of cubes was cast as control specimen without any mesh. The particulars of these 10 sets of specimen are provided in Table 3. Table 3: Details of specimens. Sr.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Designation M.C.S. C-1V C-2V C-3V Orientation of mesh Particulars Mortar Control Specimen One mesh, vertical at centre Two meshes, vertical at centre Three meshes, vertical at equal spacing One mesh, horizontal at centre Two meshes, horizontal at centre Three meshes, horizontal at equal spacing Four meshes, horizontal at centre Eight meshes, horizontal at centre One mesh, placed diagonally.

5. 6. 7.

C-1H C-2H C-3H

8. 9. 10.

C-4H C-8H C-1D

All the specimens were tested in 300 tonne calibrated compression testing machine till ultimate failure. The load at ultimate failure was noted for each specimen to calculate the compressive strength. The average of three cubes was considered as the compressive strength of particular designation of the specimen set.

3. Test results and discussions:

All the cured specimens were tested in compression testing machine. The % volume of mesh reinforcement and specific surface of all the specimens were noted. Table 4 shows the details of tested specimen. Table 4: Test results Sr.no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Designation CS C1V C2V C3V C1H C2H C3H C4H C8H C1D Specific surface Volume of mesh mm2/mm3 reinforcement % 0.0133 1 0.026 2 0.04 3 0.0133 1 0.026 2 0.04 3 0.0533 4 0.1 8 0.0133 1 Compressive strength MPa 28.88 30.22 32.10 36.44 34.67 35.55 35.56 48.88 52.31 39.11

The mesh reinforcement was placed with horizontal, vertical and diagonal orientation with respect to the axis of loading. The results show the significance of orientation on compressive strength. The compressive strength has increased by 4.43%, 10.03% and 20.75% for 1%, 2% and 3% of volume of mesh respectively with respect to control specimen when the mesh was placed in vertical plane i.e. parallel to axis of loading. This indicates that as the % volume and specific surface of reinforcement increases, the compressive strength of ferrocement increases. The horizontal orientation of mesh reinforcement i.e. transverse to axis of loading resulted into still better performance than that of vertical orientation of mesh. The % increase in compressive strength was found 16.70, 18.76, 18.78, 40.91 and 44.80 for 1%, 2%, 3%, 4% and 8% of mesh reinforcement volume, respectively as compared to control specimen. This trend shows that the compressive strength increases with % volume of reinforcement and specific surface of reinforcement for horizontal orientation of reinforcement. Also, these results indicate the significance of orientation of reinforcement with compressive strength. If compared with vertical orientation of reinforcement, it is clear that the horizontal orientation of reinforcement has resulted into more compressive strength in total. A single layer horizontal orientation of mesh resulted into increase by 12.27% in compressive strength than that of single layer vertical orientation of mesh. It can be observed from the results that the compressive strength of ferrocement increases by 29.07% and 33.72% for 4% and 8% volume of reinforcement, respectively as compared to 1% volume of reinforcement in horizontal or transverse mesh.

The diagonal placement of reinforcement with 1% volume of reinforcement indicates 11.35% and 26.15% increases in compressive strength as compared to single layer of horizontal orientation of reinforcement and control specimen, respectively. The trends of variation of compressive strength with % volume fraction of reinforcement for vertical and horizontal orientation of hexagonal mesh is shown in Figure 2(a) and (b). Also, the trend of variation of compressive strength with specific surface of reinforcement is shown in Figure 3(a) and (b) for vertical and horizontal orientation of mesh.

Vertical Orienatation
Compressive strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa)

Horizontal orientation
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 8

40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3
Total volume fraction of reinforcement (%) Vertical Orienatation

Horizontal orientation

Total volume fraction of reinforcement (%)

Figure 2 (a): Variation of compressive strength with % volume of reinforcement

Figure 2 (b): Variation of compressive strength with % volume of reinforcement

Vertical Orientation
Compressive strength (MPa)

Horizontal orientation
Compressve strength (MPa)

40 30 20 10 0 0.0133 0.026 0.4

Specific surface (mm2/mm3) Vertical Orientation

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Horizontal orientation

Specific surface (mm2/mm3)

Figure 3(a): Variation of compressive strength with specific surface

Figure 3(b): Variation of compressive strength with specific surface

Conclusions:
1. The compressive strength of ferrocement increases with increase in total volume fraction of reinforcement (%) and specific surface of reinforcement (mm2/mm3) for horizontal and vertical orientation of hexagonal mesh. 2. The horizontal orientation of reinforcement i.e. transverse to axis of loading offers more compressive strength than that of vertical orientation i.e. parallel to axis of loading. 3. The trend of increase in compressive strength with specific surface indicates the perfect bond between matrix of mortar and reinforcement and their homogeneous confinement in sharing the compressive load.

References:
1. Guide for the design, construction, and repair of ferrocement, ACI 549.1 R-93 (Reapproved 1999) pp 549.1R-2. 2. State of the art report on Ferrocement, ACI 549 R-97. pp 549 R-8. 3. Paul, B.K. and Pama, R.P., Ferrocement, International ferrocement information centre, A.I.T. Bangkok, 1978, pp.10. 4. Naaman, Antoine E. and Shah, Surendra P., Tensile tests on Ferrocement, ACI Journal, proceedings, Vol.68, No.9, Sept.1971, pp 693-698. 5. Nanni, A. and Zollo, R.F., Behavior of ferrocement reinforcement in tension, Report No.86-101, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Miami, Nov.1986. 6. Balguru, P.N., Naoman, A.E., and Shah, S.P., Analysis and behavior of Ferrocement in flexure, Proceedings, ASCE, Vol.103, ST10, Oct.1977, pp 1937-1951. 7. Johnston, C.D. and Mowat, D.N., Ferrocement-Material behavior in flexure, Proceedings, ASCE, Vol.100, ST10, Oct 1974, pp 2053-2069. 8. Atcheson, M. and Alexander, D., Development of fibrous ferrocement, Ferrocementmaterials and Applications, SP-61, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1979, pp 81101. 9. Byrne, J.G. and Wright, W., An investigation of ferrocement using expanded metal, Concrete and Construction Engineering (London), Vol.56. No.12, Dec.1961, pp 429-433. 10. Johnston, C.D. and Mattar, S.G., Ferrocement behavior in tension and compression, Proceedings, ASCE, Vol.102, ST5, May 1976, pp 876-889.