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

By

PATRICK MURRAY

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006

Copyright 2006

by

Patrick Murray

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

to thank Gary Milam for his guidance and wisdom.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii

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

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1

Three-Coat Stucco Systems..........................................................................................1 One-Coat Stucco Systems.............................................................................................2 Lathing..........................................................................................................................2 Research Objectives......................................................................................................3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................4

Introduction...................................................................................................................4 Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Mortar, and Exterior Plaster.............................................5 Background of Glass Fiber Reinforcement in Concrete...............................................7 Portland Cement Stucco/Exterior Plaster .....................................................................8

Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco .....................................9 Non Metallic Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco...............9

3 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................11

Sample Combination ..................................................................................................11 Sample Preparation.....................................................................................................12

Frame Building....................................................................................................12 Step 1............................................................................................................12 Step 2............................................................................................................12 Step 3............................................................................................................13 Step 4............................................................................................................13

Mixing/Placing/Curing Stucco ............................................................................13 Step 1............................................................................................................13 Step 2............................................................................................................13 Step 3............................................................................................................13

v

Step 4............................................................................................................14 Step 5............................................................................................................14

Cutting Samples...................................................................................................14 Test Methods ..............................................................................................................15 Testing Procedures......................................................................................................16

Third-point Flexure Testing ................................................................................16 Initial Crack Test .................................................................................................17 Impact Test ..........................................................................................................18

4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................29

Initial Cracking Deflection Test .................................................................................29 Average B/D Overlapped ....................................................................................30 Average C/E Non-Overlapped ............................................................................30

Third-point Flexural Test............................................................................................31 Average Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations ...................................31 Average C/E Non-Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations....................32 Sample 10 and 11 Results and Interpretations (1 Longitudinal& 2 Transverse

Overlaps)..........................................................................................................33 Impact Test .................................................................................................................33 Individual Stucco Reinforcement Comparisons .........................................................34

Permalath® 1-Coat Comparison ..........................................................................35 Permalath® 3-Coat Comparison ..........................................................................35 Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison ...........................................................................35 Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison ...........................................................................35 Metal Wire 1-Coat Comparison ..........................................................................35 Metal Wire 3-Coat Comparison ..........................................................................36

“Real World” Stucco Product Comparisons...............................................................36

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

Conclusions.................................................................................................................63 One-Coat Systems ...............................................................................................63 Three-Coat Systems.............................................................................................64

Recommendations.......................................................................................................64

APPENDIX

A DRAWINGS OF THE SAMPLES.............................................................................66

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

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

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

E CRACK ANALYSIS DATA....................................................................................105

vi

LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................107

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

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table page 3-1: Flexure and Initial Crack Samples Layout .................................................................19

3-2: Impact Samples Layout ..............................................................................................20

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

4-2. Sample C Initial Crack Deflection..............................................................................38

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

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

4-5 Sample B/D Average Crack Area................................................................................41

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

4-7. Sample C/E Average Slope and R^2 ..........................................................................44

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

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

4-10. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2 ...................................................46

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

4-12. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2 ...................................................47

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

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

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

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

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

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

viii

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

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

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

4-22. Metal Wire 1-Coat Slope Comparison .....................................................................58

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

4-24. Metal Wire 3-Coat Slope Comparison .....................................................................59

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

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

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

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

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page 3-1. Warp v. Weft Diagram ...............................................................................................19

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

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

3-4. Impact Sample Frame.................................................................................................21

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

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

3-7. ¾” System Scratch Coat .............................................................................................23

3-8. Cut through plywood..................................................................................................23

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

3-10. ¾” Sample Section View in Tension........................................................................24

3-11. 3/8” Sample Section View in Tension......................................................................24

3-12. LSCT Controller .......................................................................................................25

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

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

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

3-16. Impact Testing Set-up Top View..............................................................................27

3-17. Impact Testing Set-up Model ...................................................................................27

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

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

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

x

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

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

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

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

4-7 Sample B/D Average Crack Area................................................................................42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4-15. 3/8” Impact samples, 160 in-lbs. ..............................................................................48

4-16. ¾” Impact Samples, 320 in-lbs.................................................................................49

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xi

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

COMPARISON OF NON-METALLIC TO METALLIC LATH REINFORCEMENT IN

STUCCO CLADDING SYSTEMS

By

Patrick W. Murray

August 2006 Chair: Larry Muszynski Cochair: R. Raymond Issa Major Department: Building Construction

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

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

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

½” to ¾” thick section. Lathing has traditionally been made from galvanized metal. The

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

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

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

This study shows how Degussas’ Permalath® Fiberglass lathing reinforcement

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

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

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

xii

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

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

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

or non-overlapped.

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

components to the systems.

There are many different proprietary blends of Portland cement based stucco

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

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

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

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

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

Three-Coat Stucco Systems

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

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

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

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

when using a three-coat system. The scratch coat is applied at approximately ½”

thickness and is scratched approximately ¼” deep before setting up. The scratches are

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

coat. The second coat is the brown coat which is ¼” thick. The brown coat is left

2

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

intended for aesthetic quality.

One-Coat Stucco Systems

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

coat. The brown coat is applied between 3/8” and ½” thick. The finish layer is the

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

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

Lathing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

system.

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

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

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

3

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

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

to handle than large sheets of metal lath.

Research Objectives

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

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

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

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

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

standards specific for stucco systems.

4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5

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

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

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

and other environmental factors, and decreased maintenance.

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

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

reinforcements for structures exposed to aggressive environmental conditions

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

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

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

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

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

(Balendran et al., 2002).

Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Mortar, and Exterior Plaster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and tensile strain (Carolin, 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

engineering applications (Carolin, 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

7

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

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

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

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

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

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

the desired outcome.

Background of Glass Fiber Reinforcement in Concrete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

investigation of alkali resistant glasses. They successfully formulated a glass

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

National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) and BRE discussed with

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

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

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

8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

glass fiber in 1984 (ACI, 1999).

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

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

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

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

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

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

a wide range of applications in the construction industry.

Portland Cement Stucco/Exterior Plaster

Various private companies in North America are currently manufacturing

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

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

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

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

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

The base coat for the one-coat system is generally 3/8” to ½” thick while the base coat for

the three-coat systems ranges from 1/2” to ¾”. Additionally, Portland cement

9

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

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

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

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

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

Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco

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

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

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

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

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

frame of the building. Staples 1 ½” or larger or screws with caps are the main means of

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

trowel or spray applied to the lath.

Non Metallic Reinforcement/Plaster Base for Portland Cement Stucco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10

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

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

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

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

transversely or vertically (Degussa Wall Systems, 2004).

11

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

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

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

thick (1-coat) and ¾” thick (3-coat) stucco applications.

Sample Combination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Figures A-1 through A-7).

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

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

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

12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

load but perpendicular to the tensile stresses.

Sample Preparation

Frame Building

Step 1

Flexural Samples

• Cut a 4’x 8’ x 15/32” sheet of plywood to 2 (4’x4’).

• Cut the 4’x 4’ sheet of plywood to 3’x 3’.

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

Impact Samples

• Cut a 4’ x 8’ x 15/32” plywood to 17” x 24” x 15/32”.

• All cuts in step 1 utilize a 13 amp table saw equipped with a 36 carbide tooth 7¼” finish blade.

Step 2

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

13

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

Step 3

• Attach metal trims to all four edges of sample using metal caps and #6 ½” wood screws for flexural samples. Refer to Figure 3-2 and 3-3 for layout on flexure samples and Figure 3-4 of impact samples.

Step 4

• Install lathing with the specified overlaps (Figures A-1 through A-6). Attach lathing with both staples and metal caps. Metal cap placement is crucial for both impact and flexural samples. Refer to Figures 3-2 through 3-7 for metal cap and staple placement.

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

Mixing/Placing/Curing Stucco

Step 1

• Add one bag of sanded Stucco Base to the mixer.

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

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

Step 2

• Trowel stucco onto sample frames using a metal float. Screed to a thickness of 3/8” for the 1-coat systems and a thickness of ½” for the 3-coat systems.

• 15 minutes after application of the scratch coat on the 3-coat systems, scratch the

surface to approximately ¼” depth (Figure 3-7).

Step 3

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

14

water takes more than 30 to 45 seconds for absorption. Trowel stucco onto the scratch coat to a finish level of ¾” thick.

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

Step 4

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

Step 5

• Samples cured on a horizontal, flat surface at an air temperature between 72° - 78°.

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

Cutting Samples

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

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

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

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

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

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

to cut the samples.

Using a 7 ½” 36 tooth carbide finish blade on the table saw, the blade depth was set

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

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

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

plywood (Figure 3-8). The blade was then changed to a 7 ¼” dry/wet diamond blade.

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

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

15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

keep from damaging the samples.

Test Methods

Various tests were performed on the different material combinations and

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

tests were needed since some materials perform differently under various testing

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

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

performed on the samples subjected to flexure loads.

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

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

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

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

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

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

circuit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Testing Procedures

Third-point Flexure Testing

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

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

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

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

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

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

17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Initial Crack Test

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

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

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

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

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

the breaking of the electrical circuit.

The middle 16” of each sample was painted with a ¼” wide strip of electro-

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

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

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

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

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

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

18

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

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

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

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

Impact Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

place they were tightened in a clockwise manor, ¼ of a rotation at a time. A Humboldt

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

D1557-02e1). Load criteria were determined using the impact resistance test for EIFS

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

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

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

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

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

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

discussed in Chapter 4.

19

Figure 3-1. Warp versus Weft Diagram

Table 3-1: Flexure and Initial Crack Samples Layout Materials\Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14Permalath® Weft X

Permalath® Warp X

Permalath® 1000 Weft X X Permalath® 1000 Warp X X

Metal Lath 2.5# X X X*

Metal Lath 3.4# X X*

Wire Lath 1” x 20ga X

Wire Lath 1 ½” x 17ga X X Tyvek® X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1-Coat Stucco (3/8”) X X X X X X X X 3-Coat Stucco (3/4”) X X X X X X

15/32” 3-ply Plywood X X X X X X X X X X X X X X * Samples have overlaps in 2 directions (2 transverse and 1 vertical)

20

Table 3-2: Impact Samples Layout Materials\Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Permalath® X

Permalath® 1000 X X

Metal Lath 2.5# X X

Metal Lath 3.4# X

Wire Lath 1” x 20ga X

Wire Lath 1 ½” x 17ga X X

Tyvek® X X X X X X X X X

1-Coat Stucco (3/8”) X X X X X

3-Coat Stucco (3/4”) X X X X

15/32” 3-ply Plywood X X X X X X X X X

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

21

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

Figure 3-4. Impact Sample Frame

22

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

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

23

Figure 3-7. ¾” System Scratch Coat

Figure 3-8. Cut through plywood

24

Figure 3-9. Third-Point Flexural Loading Diagram

Figure 3-10. ¾” Sample Section View in Tension

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

25

Figure 3-12. LSCT Controller

Figure 3-13. Electrical Circuit 2D Model Layout

Sample

26

Figure 3-14. Initial Crack Testing Set-up

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

27

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

Figure 3-17. Impact Testing Set-up Model

28

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

29

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

future testing.

Initial Cracking Deflection Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sample 8 - 20 gauge wire 3/8” thick, Sample 9 - 17 gauge wire ¾” thick, and

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

30

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

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

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

circuit was not broken immediately upon audible confirmation.

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

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

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

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

ease of reading and interpreting.

Average B/D Overlapped

Four sample combinations failed from the overlapped sections; Permalath® 1000

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

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

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

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

Average C/E Non-Overlapped

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

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

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

because the sample developed plastic shrinkage cracking. Five sample combinations

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

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

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

vertical) had the highest initial cracking deflection values.

31

Third-point Flexural Test

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

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

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

results for each sample section are contained in Appendix B.

Average Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations

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

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

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

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

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

of elasticity (MOE) or relative stiffness, and has the highest R^2, a linearity descriptor

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

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

the sample. The slope and the R^2 need to be looked at together to form conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32

a higher R^2 than either of the Permalath® 1000’s (Table 4-4). The load vs. deflection

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

sections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Average C/E Non-Overlapped Section Results and Interpretations

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

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

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

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

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

4-6), the steepest slope, and the highest R^2 value (Table 4-7).

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

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

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

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

warp and weft. Metal Lath, 2.5 lb., has the steepest slope and the highest R^2 value

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

33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact Test

Impact test samples were analyzed through a visual inspection of cracking

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

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

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

they are constructed from greater mass.

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

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

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

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

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

side (substrate side) of the sample.

34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

three-coat system.

When comparing the 3/8” thick to the ¾” thick samples, the differences are quite

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

specimen to a much greater extent than in the ¾” samples after 160 in-lbs. All samples

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

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

Sample 5a in Figure 4-16).

Individual Stucco Reinforcement Comparisons

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

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

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

analyzed was in fact reliable and valid.

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

the legend of each graph as well as the tables that include the slope and R^2 values.

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

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

35

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

of the sample.

Permalath® 1-Coat Comparison

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

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

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

Permalath® 3-Coat Comparison

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

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

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

Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison

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

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

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

Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison

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

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

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

Metal Wire 1-Coat Comparison

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

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

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

36

Metal Wire 3-Coat Comparison

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

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

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

“Real World” Stucco Product Comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

SAMPLE B and D Average (Overlapped Section) Deflection @

1st Crack (in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.)

Permalath® Weft 3/8" Sample 1b,d 0.1425 75 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b,d 0.097 100 Permalath® Warp 3/8" Sample 3b,d 0.1035 67.5 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b,d 0.0755 137.5 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b,d 0.1055 77.5 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b,d 0.071 115 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b,d 0.0635 87.5 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b,d 0.209 72.5 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b,d 0.1025 102.5 * Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,d 0.079 60 * Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d 0.174 95 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b,d 0.097 57.5 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b,d 0.1375 52.5 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b,d 0.216 55

* Transverse Overlaps

37

Sample B and D Average 3/8" Initial Crack

40

60

80

100

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b,dPermalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b,dMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample5b,dMetal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample8b,dMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,dPermalath 1000 Weft 3/8"Sample 12b,dPermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"Sample 13b,dMetal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample14b,dPass/Fail Line

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

Sample B and D Average 3/4" Initial Crack

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Pass/Fail Line

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4"Sample 2b,dPermalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b,dMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample6b,dMetal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample7b,dMetal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample9b,dMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d

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

38

Table 4-2. Sample C Initial Crack Deflection

SAMPLE C (Non-Overlapped Section) Deflection @ 1st Crack

(in.)

Load @ 1st

Crack (lbs.)

Permalath® Weft 3/8" Sample 1c 0.103 75 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c 0.069 130 Permalath® Warp 3/8" Sample 3c 0.12 65 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c 0.066 95 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c 0.102 80 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c 0.081 115 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c 0.043 130 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c 0.253 90 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c 0.121 65 **Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c 0.304 85 **Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c 0.214 110 * Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c,e 0.063 52.5 * Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c,e 0.108 40 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c 0.053 25

* Sample C/E Average ** 1 Longitudinal Overlap, 2 Transverse Overlaps

Sample C 3/8" Initial Crack

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1cPermalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3cMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample5cMetal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample8cMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10cPermalath 1000 Weft 3/8"Sample 12cPermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"Sample 13cMetal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample14cPass/Fail Line

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

39

Sample C 3/4" Initial Crack

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Pass/Fail Line

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4"Sample 2cPermalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4cMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample6cMetal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample7cMetal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample9cMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c

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

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

S

AM

PLE

B,D

Ave

rage

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t 3/8

"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

War

p 3/

8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

"

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/4

"

Met

al W

ire 2

0g. 3

/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/8"

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

40

3/8" Combined B and D Average

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath Warp

Permalath Weft

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Wire 17g.

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

3/4" Combined B and D Average

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 17g.

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

41

Table 4-4 Sample B/D Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE B and D Average Y R^2

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

Table 4-5 Sample B/D Average Crack Area

Sample Averages Overlapped (B,D)

Average Crack Area Inside Mid. 3rd (mm^2)

Average Crack Area Outside

Mid. 3rd (mm^2)

AVERAGE TOTAL CRACK

AREA(mm^2) Permalath® Weft 3/8" B,D 17.02 15.40 32.42 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" B,D 23.14 10.38 33.52 Permalath® Warp 3/8" B,D 14.92 14.51 29.43 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" B,D 18.26 16.89 35.15 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" B,D 16.77 14.55 31.32 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" B,D 24.45 3.85 28.30 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" B,D 11.66 1.94 13.61 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" B,D 17.74 10.68 28.42 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" B,D 36.45 2.66 39.11 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" B,D 14.07 17.91 31.98 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" B,D 9.08 5.23 14.30 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" B,D 90.04 34.93 124.96

42

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

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Permala

th Weft

3/8"

B,D

Permala

th 10

00 W

eft 3/

4" B,D

Permala

th Warp

3/8"

B,D

Permala

th 10

00 W

arp 3/

4" B,D

Metal L

ath #2

.5 3/8

" B,D

Metal L

ath #3

.4 3/4

" B,D

Metal L

ath #2

.5 3/4

" B,D

Metal W

ire 20

g. 3/8

" B,D

Metal W

ire 17

g. 3/4

" B,D

Permala

th 10

00 W

arp 3/

8" B,D

PermaL

ath 10

00 W

eft 3/

8" B,D

Metal W

ire 17

g. 3/8

" B,D

Are

a m

m^2

Inside Mid. 3rdOutside Mid. 3rd

Figure 4-7 Sample B/D Average Crack Area

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

S

AM

PLE

C,E

Ave

rage

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t 3/8

"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

War

p 3/

8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

"

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/4

"

Met

al W

ire 2

0g. 3

/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/8"

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

43

3/8" Combined C and E Average

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath Warp

Permalath Weft

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Wire 17g.

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

3/4" Combined C and E Average

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 17g.

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

44

Table 4-7. Sample C/E Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE C and E Average Y R^2

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

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

Sample Averages Non-Overlapped (C,E))

Average Crack Area

Inside Middle 3rd

(mm^2)

Average Crack Area Outside

Middle 3rd (mm^2)

AVERAGE TOTAL CRACK

AREA(mm^2) Permalath® Weft 3/8" C,E 15.37 7.09 22.47 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" C,E 29.68 5.27 34.95 Permalath® Warp 3/8" C,E 33.65 14.27 47.92 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" C,E 9.17 18.24 27.41 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" C,E 8.12 20.72 28.84 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" C,E 24.33 11.49 35.82 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" C,E 11.83 8.73 20.55 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" C,E 27.84 7.80 35.64 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" C,E 26.05 5.25 31.30 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" C,E 16.91 19.61 36.53 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" C,E 20.96 13.14 34.09 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" C,E 31.25 37.29 68.54

45

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

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Permala

th W

eft 3/

8" C,E

Permala

th 100

0 Weft

3/4" C

,E

Permala

th W

arp 3/8"

C,E

Permala

th 100

0 Warp

3/4" C

,E

Metal L

ath #2

.5 3/8"

C,E

Metal L

ath #3

.4 3/4"

C,E

Metal L

ath #2

.5 3/4"

C,E

Metal W

ire 20

g. 3/8"

C,E

Metal W

ire 17

g. 3/4"

C,E

Permala

th 100

0 Warp

3/8" C

,E

PermaL

ath 100

0 Weft

3/8" C

,E

Metal W

ire 17

g. 3/8"

C,E

Are

a m

m^2

Inside Mid. 3rdOutside Mid. 3rd

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

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

Sample # 10 11

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

Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 53 72 0.2 68 85 0.3 73 83 0.4 85 95 0.5 95 113 0.6 103 127 0.7 112 143 0.8 123 157

46

Sample 10/11 B,D,E Average

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

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

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

Table 4-10. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE B, D, E Average Y R^2

Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b,d 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b,d 123.21x + 53.929 0.9654

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

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

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

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

Area

mm

^2 Inside Mid. 3rd.Outside Mid. 3rd.

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

47

Table 4-11. Sample 10 and 11 C Load/Deflection Sample # 10 11

SAMPLE C Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps

Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 55 80 0.2 70 105 0.3 85 85 0.4 95 95 0.5 95 110 0.6 110 120 0.7 120 125 0.8 130 140

Sample 10/11 C

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.5 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

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

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

Table 4-12. Sample 10 and 11 B/D/E Average Slope and R^2 SAMPLE C Y R^2

Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c,e 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c,e 76.19x + 73.214 0.8265

48

Sample C Veritcal & 2 Horizontal Jointed Samples

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

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

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

Area

mm

^2Inside Mid. 3rd.Outside Mid. 3rd.

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

Figure 4-15. 3/8” Impact samples, 160 in-lbs.

49

Figure 4-16. ¾” Impact Samples, 320 in-lbs.

50

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

DE

SIG

N #

1 P

WT-

NO

1 P

WT-

LO

1 P

WP

-NO

1 P

WP

-LO

1 P

1WT-

NO

1 P

1WT-

LO

1 P

1WP

-NO

1 P

1WP

-LO

MA

TER

IAL

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t Non

-Ove

rlap

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t Ove

rlap

Per

mal

ath®

War

p N

on-O

verla

p

Per

mal

ath®

War

p O

verla

p

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft N

on-O

verla

p

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft O

verla

p

Per

maL

ath®

100

0 W

arp

Non

-Ove

rlap

Per

maL

ath®

100

0 W

arp

Ove

rlap

Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.)

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

51

Permalath 1-Coat Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

1 PWT-NO1 PWT-LO1 PWP-NO1 PWP-LO1P1WT-NO1P1WT-LO1P1WP-NO1P1WP-LO

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

Table 4-14. Permalath® 1-Coat Slope Comparison

DESIGN # Equation R^2

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

52

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

DE

SIG

N #

3 P

1WT-

NO

3 P

1WT-

LO

3 P

1WP

-NO

3 P

1WP

-LO

MA

TER

IAL

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft N

on-O

verla

p

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft O

verla

p

Per

maL

ath®

100

0 W

arp

Non

-Ove

rlap

Per

maL

ath®

100

0 W

arp

Ove

rlap

Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 65 83 53 800.2 93 115 75 1150.3 123 143 105 1450.4 125 173 100 1750.5 153 193 123 1580.6 153 200 140 1830.7 180 190 145 2100.8 200 208 163 215

53

Permalath 3-Coat Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.) 3 P1WT-NO3 P1WT-LO3 P1WP-NO3 P1WP-LO

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

Table 4-16. Permalath® 3-Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2

3 P1WT-NO 178.57x + 55.893 0.9696 3 P1WT-LO 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696 3 P1WP-NO 148.51x + 45.982 0.9619 3 P1WP-LO 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161

54

Table 4-17. Metal Lath 1-Coat Load v. Deflection Comparison

DE

SIG

N #

1ML2

-NO

1ML2

-LO

1ML2

-2T

1ML2

-2T1

L

MA

TER

IAL

2.5

lb M

etal

Lat

h

2.5

lb M

etal

Lat

h

2.5

lb M

etal

Lat

h

2.5

lb M

etal

Lat

h

Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 63 75 53 55 0.2 78 100 68 70 0.3 98 113 73 85 0.4 115 138 85 95 0.5 138 158 95 95 0.6 158 183 103 1100.7 185 200 112 1200.8 205 213 123 130

Metal Lath 1-Coat Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.) 1ML2-NO1ML2-LO1ML2-2T1ML2-2T1L

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

55

Table 4-18. Metal Lath 1-Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2

1ML2-NO 206.85x + 36.607 0.9952 1ML2-LO 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946 1ML2-2T 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946 1ML2-2T1L 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774

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

DE

SIG

N #

3ML2

-NO

3ML2

-LO

3ML3

-NO

3ML3

-LO

3ML3

-2T

3ML3

-2T1

L

MA

TER

IAL

2.5

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

2.5

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

3.4

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

3.4

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

3.4

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

3.4

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 75 80 58 65 72 80 0.2 105 108 73 85 85 1050.3 123 128 90 110 83 85 0.4 135 153 113 128 95 95 0.5 165 170 125 143 113 1100.6 175 195 110 143 127 1200.7 183 215 123 140 143 1250.8 213 223 138 150 157 140

56

Metal Lath 3-Coat Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

3ML2-NO3ML2-LO3ML3-NO3ML3-LO3ML3-2T3ML3-2T1L

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

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

57

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

DE

SIG

N #

1WC

20-N

O

1WC

20-L

O

1WC

17-N

O

1WC

17-L

O

MA

TER

IAL

20 G

auge

Met

al W

ire

20 G

auge

Met

al W

ire

17 G

auge

Met

al W

ire

17 G

auge

Met

al W

ire

Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 48 55 40 380.2 65 73 53 580.3 83 90 68 780.4 103 108 83 950.5 123 128 95 1130.6 143 143 113 1300.7 158 158 125 1500.8 173 173 140 165

Wire Cloth 1-Coat Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.) 1WC20-NO1WC20-LO1WC17-NO1WC17-LO

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

58

Table 4-22. Metal Wire 1-Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2

1WC20-NO 183.04x + 29.196 0.998 1WC20-LO 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982 1WC17-NO 144.05x + 24.554 0.9992 1WC17-LO 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991

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

DE

SIG

N #

3WC

17-N

O

3WC

17-L

O

MA

TER

IAL

17 G

auge

M

etal

Wire

17 G

auge

M

etal

Wire

Deflection (in.) LOAD (lbs.) 0.1 63 63 0.2 88 98 0.3 108 113 0.4 123 120 0.5 130 140 0.6 148 163 0.7 153 175 0.8 178 190

Wire Cloth 3-Coat Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

3WC17-NO3WC17-LO

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

59

Table 4-24. Metal Wire 3-Coat Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2

3WC17-NO 149.7x + 56.071 0.9755 3WC17-LO 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816

Table 4-25. “Real World” 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data

DE

SIG

N #

1 P

WT-

LO

1 P

WP

-LO

1P1W

T-LO

1P1W

P-LO

1ML2

-LO

1ML2

-2T

1ML2

-2T1

L

1WC

20-L

O

1WC

17-L

O

MA

TER

IAL

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t Ove

rlap

Per

mal

ath®

War

p O

verla

p

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft O

verla

p

Per

maL

ath®

100

0 W

arp

Ove

rlap

2.5

lb M

etal

Lat

h

2.5

lb M

etal

Lat

h

2.5

lb M

etal

Lat

h

20 G

auge

Met

al W

ire

17 G

auge

Met

al W

ire

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 73 63 58 53 75 53 55 55 380.2 95 90 68 65 100 68 70 73 580.3 115 113 95 75 113 73 85 90 780.4 138 133 115 90 138 85 95 108 950.5 165 158 140 105 158 95 95 128 1130.6 190 180 155 120 183 103 110 143 1300.7 203 205 178 140 200 112 120 158 1500.8 220 225 203 155 213 123 130 173 165

60

1-Coat Overlapped Comaprison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)1 PWT-LO1 PWP-LO1P1WT-LO1P1WP-LO1ML2-LO1ML2-2T1ML2-2T1L1WC20-LO1WC17-LO

Figure 4-23. “Real World” 1-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph

Table 4-26. “Real World” 1-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2

1 PWT-LO 216.96x + 52.054 0.9939 1 PWP-LO 230.95x + 41.696 0.9991 1P1WT-LO 210.71x + 31.429 0.9952 1P1WP-LO 147.92x + 33.75 0.9929 1ML2-LO 201.49x + 56.518 0.9946 1ML2-2T 96.032x + 45.952 0.9946 1ML2-2T1L 101.19x + 49.464 0.9774 1WC20-LO 169.64x + 39.286 0.9982 1WC17-LO 182.14x + 21.161 0.9991

61

Table 4-27. “Real World” 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Data

DE

SIG

N #

3 P

1WT-

LO

3 P

1WP

-LO

3ML2

-LO

3ML3

-LO

3ML3

-2T

3ML3

-2T1

L

3WC

17-L

O

MA

TER

IAL

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft O

verla

p

Per

maL

ath®

100

0 W

arp

Ove

rlap

2.5

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

3.4

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

3.4

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

3.4

lb. M

etal

Lat

h

17 G

auge

Met

al W

ire

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 83 80 80 65 72 80 630.2 115 115 108 85 85 105 980.3 143 145 128 110 83 85 1130.4 173 175 153 128 95 95 1200.5 193 158 170 143 113 110 1400.6 200 183 195 143 127 120 1630.7 190 210 215 140 143 125 1750.8 208 215 223 150 157 140 190

3-Coat Overlapped Comparison

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

3 P1WT-LO3 P1WP-LO3ML2-LO3ML3-LO3ML3-2T3ML3-2T1L3WC17-LO

Figure 4-24. “Real World” 3-Coat Stucco Comparison Load v. Deflection Graph

62

Table 4-28. “Real World” 3-Coat Stucco Slope Comparison DESIGN # Equation R^2

3 P1WT-LO 171.73x + 85.536 0.8696 3 P1WP-LO 180.36x + 78.839 0.9161 3ML2-LO 208.93x + 64.732 0.9903 3ML3-LO 116.96x + 67.679 0.8553 3ML3-2T 76.19x + 73.214 0.8265 3ML3-2T1L 123.21x + 53.929 0.9654 3WC17-LO 172.62x + 54.821 0.9816

63

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The main objective of this research was to compare the mechanical properties of

Permalath® reinforcement to other lathing options currently in use in stucco wall

cladding. After an objective review of all the tests and their results, there are a number of

important conclusions that can be formed.

One-Coat Systems

Permalath® performs just as well in either the warp or weft direction, regardless of

whether or not the material is overlapped longitudinally (that is the overlap occurs along

the direction transverse to the load and parallel to the stress). Permalath® performs better

than Permalath® 1000 in 1-coat systems. Permalath® 1000’s performance is independent

of whether or not the product is overlap longitudinally or not, and Permalath® 1000

appears to be slightly better in the weft direction than the warp. Metal lath 2.5 lb also

performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps, but performs very poorly having

either transverse overlap joints or both transverse and longitudinal overlap joints. Wire

cloth 20 gauge performed slightly better than 17 gauge reinforcement for 1-coat systems.

Permalath® in either the warp or weft direction performs at least as well as the 2.5 lb

metal lath having no or only longitudinal overlaps; performs better than both 20 gauge

and 17 gauge wire cloth; and performs much better the metal lath having transverse

and/or both transverse and longitudinal overlap joints.

64

Three-Coat Systems

Permalath® 1000 performs just as well in either the warp or weft direction, and

regardless of whether or not the material is overlapped longitudinally. Metal lath 2.5 lb

also performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps in the 3-coat system, and

performs better that 3.5 lb metal lath regardless of whether it has any overlaps or not.

Wire Cloth 17 gauge performs well with and without longitudinal overlaps. Permalath®

1000 in either direction performs at least just as well as 2.5 lb metal lath having no

overlaps or only longitudinal overlap joints; performs better than 17 gauge wire cloth;

and much better than 3.5 lb meal lath having longitudinal, transverse or both types of

overlap joints in 3-coat systems.

Crack areas were not as valid a measurement of performance as were the number

of cracks per sample due to the effects of inconsistencies of the plywood backing. Some

of the plywood had slight warping to it at the beginning of the sample making process

which had an effect on the crack area calculations since the elastic nature of the plywood

caused the cracks to close back up when the load was released.

Recommendations

Further testing needs to be carried out to provide more definitive results that

compare Permalath® stucco reinforcement to other metallic reinforcements. There are

many areas of testing that can be explored to help show this.

Windborne Impact test for Hurricane Force Winds will determine whether the

materials will meet building codes for regions zoned as hurricane prone. Tensile

Adhesion Test will determine the bonding strength and crack resistance of the sample.

Further revise current and develop new test methods to potentially achieve more valid

results and formulate better conclusions concerning the use of Permalath® reinforcement.

65

One-coat stucco systems are designed to be applied between 3/8” to ½” thick.

Future testing should be carried out to determine if ½” would perform better than 3/8”

one-coat stucco systems.

There was approximately a 0.01” or 12.5% margin of error in the initial cracking

test from human error which could translate into more samples passing the test if the

error was minimized. This margin of error was due to the lack of electronic control when

adjusting the compression/flexure machine during the set-up and adjustment of the

LVDT with each sample. Samples should be tested in a strain controlled bending

apparatus that would allow for the margin of error to be as small as 0.001”. The

compression/flexure machine used should also have a load rate system controlled

electronically. All components should be connected into a computer management system

to allow for the most precise results possible.

Third-point Flexure Testing and Initial Cracking Deflection test samples could be

made using the same process as impact samples to allow for separation of stucco from

plywood. These samples when tested would give the ultimate values of the stucco only

without the concern of the plywood skewing the results. Sample sizes would need to be

adjusted to allow for safe handling when cutting samples since they would not be

securely fastening to plywood after trim edge was removed. A size of 36” by 24” would

be the recommended size for trial purposes.

Third-point Flexure Testing and Initial Cracking Deflection test samples could

also be constructed using a smaller thickness of plywood, which would allow for a better

representation of the stucco performance. This would also require design keep the

samples from warping since thinner plywood has more of a tendency to warp.

66

APPENDIX A DRAWINGS OF THE SAMPLES

Figure A-1. Flexure - Permalath® Weft

Direction of the roll of Permalath®

Sample #12: Permalath® 1000 (3/8”)

67

Figure A-2. Flexure - Permalath® Warp

Direction of the roll of Permalath®

Sample #13: Permalath® 1000 (3/8”)

68

Figure A-3. Flexure - Metal Lath

69

Figure A-4. Flexure - Wire Cloth

Sample #14: Wire Cloth (3/8”)

70

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

71

Figure A-6. Impact Sample Layout

72

APPENDIX B FLEXURE DATA AND GRAPHS

Table B-1. Sample B Flexure Data Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

S

AM

PLE

B

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t 3/8

"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

War

p 3/

8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

"

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/4

"

Met

al W

ire 2

0g. 3

/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

" 2 la

ps

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

" 2 la

ps

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/8"

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 80 90 55 75 70 65 75 50 60 50 60 60 65 35 0.2 105 120 85 105 100 85 105 75 100 70 90 75 85 55 0.3 115 150 105 135 125 110 115 95 130 75 105 105 90 75 0.4 145 180 130 170 150 130 145 115 125 85 110 120 110 90 0.5 175 200 155 155 175 160 165 140 150 90 130 150 130 1050.6 205 215 175 175 200 160 195 155 180 100 150 175 145 1200.7 210 180 200 205 225 145 215 175 190 115 170 205 165 1350.8 225 195 210 230 240 155 225 190 210 125 190 240 180 150

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample B

y = 219.05x + 58.929R2 = 0.9783

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample B

y = 148.81x + 99.286R2 = 0.7189

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-1. Sample B-1 Graph Figure B-2. Sample B-2 Graph

73

Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample B

y = 225.6x + 37.857R2 = 0.9932

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample B

y = 201.19x + 65.714R2 = 0.9425

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-3. Sample B-3 Graph Figure B-4. Sample B-4 Graph

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample B

y = 245.83x + 50R2 = 0.9965

050

100150200250300

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample B

y = 132.14x + 66.786R2 = 0.7983

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-5. Sample B-5 Graph Figure B-6. Sample B-6 Graph

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample B

y = 221.43x + 55.357R2 = 0.99

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample B

y = 200.6x + 34.107R2 = 0.9958

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-7. Sample B-7 Graph Figure B-8. Sample B-8 Graph

Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample B

y = 199.4x + 53.393R2 = 0.9627

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample B

y = 98.81x + 44.286R2 = 0.9792

0

50

100

150

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-9. Sample B-9 Graph Figure B-10. Sample B-10 Graph

74

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample B

y = 174.4x + 47.143R2 = 0.9848

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample B

y = 255.95x + 26.071R2 = 0.9902

050

100150200250300

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-11. Sample B-11 Graph Figure B-12. Sample B-12 Graph

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample B

y = 165.48x + 46.786R2 = 0.9925

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample B

y = 161.31x + 23.036R2 = 0.9961

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-13. Sample B-13 Graph Figure B-14. Sample B-14 Graph

3/8" Sample B

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath Warp

Permalath Weft

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Wire 17g.

Figure B-15. Sample B 3/8” Comparison

75

3/4" Sample B

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 17g.

Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints

Figure B-16. Sample B ¾” Comparison Table B-2. Sample C Flexure Data

Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

S

AM

PLE

C

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t 3/8

"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

War

p 3/

8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

"

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/4

"

Met

al W

ire 2

0g. 3

/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

" 2 la

ps

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

" 2 la

ps

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/8"

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 75 65 60 55 80 65 85 55 60 55 80 55 30 40 0.2 80 100 80 80 90 75 110 75 85 70 105 70 40 50 0.3 90 130 90 105 105 95 145 95 100 85 85 85 60 70 0.4 115 105 120 115 125 115 150 115 115 95 95 110 80 85 0.5 140 130 145 135 145 125 185 135 130 95 110 130 95 95 0.6 165 155 165 160 165 110 180 160 145 110 120 155 115 1100.7 185 180 185 150 190 120 205 175 135 120 125 175 140 1200.8 190 200 210 170 210 135 225 190 155 130 140 185 165 140

76

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample C

y = 188.1x + 45.357R2 = 0.9712

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample C

y = 172.02x + 55.714R2 = 0.9074

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-17. Sample C-1 Graph Figure B-18. Sample C-2 Graph

Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample C

y = 217.26x + 34.107R2 = 0.9939

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample C

y = 159.52x + 49.464R2 = 0.9469

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-19. Sample C-3 Graph Figure B-20. Sample C-4 Graph

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample C

y = 191.67x + 52.5R2 = 0.9898

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample C

y = 91.667x + 63.75R2 = 0.8304

020406080

100120140160

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-21. Sample C-5 Graph Figure B-22. Sample C-6 Graph

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample C

y = 189.88x + 75.179R2 = 0.9632

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample C

y = 197.62x + 36.071R2 = 0.9971

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-23. Sample C-7 Graph Figure B-24. Sample C-8 Graph

77

Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample C

y = 126.79x + 58.571R2 = 0.9284

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample C

y = 101.19x + 49.464R2 = 0.9774

0

50

100

150

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-25. Sample C-9 Graph Figure B-26. Sample C-10 Graph

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample C

y = 76.19x + 73.214R2 = 0.82650

20406080

100120140160

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample C

y = 198.21x + 31.429R2 = 0.9927

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-27 . Sample C-11 Graph Figure B-28. Sample C-12 Graph

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample C

y = 193.45x + 3.5714R2 = 0.9903

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample C

y = 140.48x + 25.536R2 = 0.9941

0

50

100

150

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-29. Sample C-13 Graph Figure B-30. Sample C-14 Graph

78

3/8" Sample C

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath Warp

Permalath Weft

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Wire 17g.

Figure B-31. Sample C 3/8” Comparison

3/4" Sample C

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 17g.

Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints

Figure B-32. Sample C ¾” Comparison

79

Table B-3. Sample D Flexure Data

Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

S

AM

PLE

D

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t 3/8

"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

War

p 3/

8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

"

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/4

"

Met

al W

ire 2

0g. 3

/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

" 2 la

ps

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

" 2 la

ps

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/8"

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 65 75 70 85 80 65 85 60 65 60 90 55 40 40 0.2 85 110 95 125 100 85 110 70 95 75 65 60 45 60 0.3 115 135 120 155 100 110 140 85 95 75 85 85 60 80 0.4 130 165 135 180 125 125 160 100 115 85 100 110 70 1000.5 155 185 160 160 140 125 175 115 130 100 115 130 80 1200.6 175 185 185 190 165 125 195 130 145 105 125 135 95 1400.7 195 200 210 215 175 135 215 140 160 115 140 150 115 1650.8 215 220 240 200 185 145 220 155 170 125 150 165 130 180

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample D

y = 214.88x + 45.179R2 = 0.9972

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample D

y = 194.64x + 71.786R2 = 0.9459

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-33. Sample D-1 Graph Figure B-34. Sample D-2 Graph

Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample D

y = 236.31x + 45.536R2 = 0.996

050

100150200250300

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample D

y = 159.52x + 91.964R2 = 0.8424

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-35. Sample D-3 Graph Figure B-36. Sample D-4 Graph

80

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample D

y = 157.14x + 63.036R2 = 0.9796

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample D

y = 101.79x + 68.571R2 = 0.8665

020406080

100120140160

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-37. Sample D-5 Graph Figure B-38. Sample D-6 Graph

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample D

y = 196.43x + 74.107R2 = 0.9792

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample D

y = 138.69x + 44.464R2 = 0.9978

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-39. Sample D-7 Graph Figure B-40. Sample D-8 Graph

Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample D

y = 145.83x + 56.25R2 = 0.9819

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample D

y = 90.476x + 51.786R2 = 0.9823

0

50

100

150

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-41. Sample D-9 Graph Figure B-42. Sample D-10 Graph

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample D

y = 110.71x + 58.929R2 = 0.8744

020406080

100120140160

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample D

y = 165.48x + 36.786R2 = 0.9757

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-43. Sample D-11 Graph Figure B-44. Sample D-12 Graph

81

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample D

y = 130.36x + 20.714R2 = 0.9815

020406080

100120140

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample D

y = 202.98x + 19.286R2 = 0.999

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-45. Sample D-13 Graph Figure B-46. Sample D-14 Graph

3/8" Sample D

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath Warp

Permalath Weft

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Wire 17g.

Figure B-47. Sample D 3/8” Copmarison

82

3/4" Sample D

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 17g.

Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints

Figure B-48. Sample D ¾” Comparison Table B-4. Sample E Flexure Data Sample # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

S

AM

PLE

E

Per

mal

ath®

Wef

t 3/8

"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/4"

Per

mal

ath®

War

p 3/

8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

"

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/4

"

Met

al W

ire 2

0g. 3

/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/4"

Met

al L

ath

#2.5

3/8

" 2 la

ps

Met

al L

ath

#3.4

3/4

" 2 la

ps

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

eft 3

/8"

Per

mal

ath®

100

0 W

arp

3/8"

Met

al W

ire 1

7g. 3

/8"

Deflection (in.) Load (lbs.) 0.1 60 65 50 50 45 50 65 40 65 50 65 55 50 400.2 75 85 75 70 65 70 100 55 90 60 100 70 55 550.3 100 115 95 105 90 85 100 70 115 70 60 75 75 650.4 125 145 135 85 105 110 120 90 130 85 75 100 90 800.5 155 175 145 110 130 125 145 110 130 95 95 125 105 950.6 175 150 175 120 150 110 170 125 150 105 105 145 115 1150.7 205 180 195 140 180 125 160 140 170 105 120 160 130 1300.8 225 200 225 155 200 140 200 155 200 120 130 175 140 140

83

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample E

y = 245.24x + 29.643R2 = 0.9964

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample E

y = 185.12x + 56.071R2 = 0.9097

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-49. Sample E-1 Graph Figure B-50. Sample E-2 Graph

Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample E

y = 247.02x + 25.714R2 = 0.9935

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample E

y = 137.5x + 42.5R2 = 0.921

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-51. Sample E-3 Graph Figure B-52. Sample E-4 Graph

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" Sample E

y = 222.02x + 20.714R2 = 0.9967

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" Sample E

y = 118.45x + 48.571R2 = 0.8866

020406080

100120140160

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-53. Sample E-5 Graph Figure B-54. Sample E-6 Graph

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/4" Sample E

y = 176.19x + 53.214R2 = 0.9517

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 20g. 3/8" Sample E

y = 168.45x + 22.321R2 = 0.9976

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-55. Sample E-7 Graph Figure B-56. Sample E-8 Graph

84

Wire Lath 17g. 3/4" Sample E

y = 172.62x + 53.571R2 = 0.9673

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Metal Lath 2.5g. 3/8" 2 Joints Sample E

y = 98.81x + 41.786R2 = 0.9792

0

50

100

150

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-57. Sample E-9 Graph Figure B-58. Sample E-10 Graph

Metal Lath 3.4g. 3/4" 2 Joints Sample E

y = 84.524x + 55.714R2 = 0.6687

0

50

100

150

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample E

y = 181.55x + 31.429R2 = 0.9855

0

50

100

150

200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-59. Sample E-11 Graph Figure B-60. Sample E-12 Graph

Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample E

y = 135.71x + 33.929R2 = 0.99180

20406080

100120140160

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Wire Lath 17g. 3/8" Sample E

y = 147.62x + 23.571R2 = 0.9948

0

50

100

150

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Figure B-61. Sample E-13 Graph Figure B-62. Sample E-14 Graph

85

3/8" Sample E

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath Warp

Permalath Weft

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 20g.

Metal Lath 2.5g. 2 Joints

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Wire 17g.

Figure B-63. Sample E 3/8” Comparison

3/4" Sample E

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Warp

Permalath 1000 Weft

Metal Lath 3.4g.

Metal Lath 2.5g.

Metal Wire 17g.

Metal Lath 3.4g. 2 Joints

Figure B-64. Sample E ¾” Comparison

86

APPENDIX C PICTURES OF TENSILE FLEXURE CRACKS

A B

C D Figure C-1. Permalath® Weft 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample

C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

87

A B

C D Figure C-2. Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)

Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

88

A B

C D Figure C-3. Permalath® Warp 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample

C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

89

A B

C E Figure C-4. Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)

Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

90

A B

C D Figure C-5. Metal Lath 2.5 lb. 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample

C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

91

A B

C D Figure C-6.Metal Lath 3.4 lb. 3/4” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample

C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

A B

C D Figure C-7.Metal Lath 2.5 lb. 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B) Sample

C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

92

A B

C D Figure C-8. Metal Wire 20 gauge 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)

Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

93

A B

C D Figure C-9. Metal Wire 17 gauge 3/4” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)

Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

94

A B

C D

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

B) Sample B Overlapped, C) Sample C Non-Overlapped, D) Sample D Overlapped, E), Sample E Non-Overlapped, E)

95

A B

C D Figure C-11.Metal Lath 3.4 lb. 3/4” 2 overlaps Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped,

B) Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

96

A B

C D Figure C-12. Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)

Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

97

A B

C D Figure C-13. Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)

Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

98

A B

C D Figure C-14. Metal Wire 17 gauge 3/8” Crack Pictures. A) Sample B Overlapped, B)

Sample C Non-Overlapped, C) Sample D Overlapped, D), Sample E Non-Overlapped

99

APPENDIX D INITIAL CRACKING DEFLECTION/STRENGTH

Table D-1 Sample B (Overlapped) Initial Crack Deflection

SAMPLE B Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.)

Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.)

Permalath® Weft 3/8" Sample 1b 0.149 80 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b 0.124 60 Permalath® Warp 3/8" Sample 3b 0.124 65 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b 0.075 120 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b 0.09 75 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b 0.07 120 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b 0.058 100 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b 0.25 75 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b 0.144 110 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b 0.085 55 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b 0.166 95 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12b 0.092 60 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13b 0.11 65 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b 0.216 55

Sample B 3/8" Initial Crack

20

40

60

80

100

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1bPermalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3bMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample5bMetal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample8bMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10bPermalath 1000 Weft 3/8"Sample 12bPermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"Sample 13bMetal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample14bPass/Fail Line

Figure D-1. Sample B 3/8” Initial Crack Deflection

100

Sample B 3/4" Initial Crack

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Pass/Fail Line

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4"Sample 2bPermalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4bMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample6bMetal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample7bMetal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample9bMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b

Figure D-2. Sample B 3/4” Initial Crack Deflection

Table D-2. Sample C (Non-Overlapped) Initial Crack Deflection

SAMPLE C Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.)

Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.)

Permalath® Weft 3/8" Sample 1c 0.103 75 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c 0.069 130 Permalath® Warp 3/8" Sample 3c 0.12 65 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c 0.066 95 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c 0.102 80 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c 0.081 115 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c 0.043 130 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c 0.253 90 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c 0.121 65 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c 0.304 85 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c 0.214 110 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12c 0.042 40 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13c 0.086 30 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c 0.053 25

101

Sample C 3/8" Initial Crack

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1cPermalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3cMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample5cMetal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample8cMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10cPermalath 1000 Weft 3/8"Sample 12cPermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"Sample 13cMetal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample14cPass/Fail Line

Figure D-3. Sample C 3/8” Initial Crack Deflection

Sample C 3/4" Initial Crack

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Pass/Fail Line

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4"Sample 2cPermalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4cMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample6cMetal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample7cMetal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample9cMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c

Figure D-4. Sample C 3/4” Initial Crack Deflection

102

Table D-3. Sample D (Overlapped) Initial Crack Deflection

SAMPLE D Deflection @ 1st Crack (in.)

Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.)

Permalath® Weft 3/8" Sample 1d 0.136 70 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2d 0.07 140 Permalath® Warp 3/8" Sample 3d 0.083 70 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4d 0.076 155 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5d 0.121 80 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6d 0.072 110 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7d 0.069 75 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8d 0.168 70 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9d 0.061 95 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10d 0.073 65 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11d 0.182 95 Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12d 0.102 55 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13d 0.165 40 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14d N/A N/A

Sample D 3/8" Initial Crack

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1dPermalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3dMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample5dMetal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample8dMetal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10dPermalath 1000 Weft 3/8"Sample 12dPermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"Sample 13dPass/Fail Line

Figure D-5. Sample D 3/8” Initial Crack Deflection

103

Sample D 3/4" Initial Crack

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)Pass/Fail Line

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4"Sample 2dPermalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4dMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample6dMetal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample7dMetal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample9dMetal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11d

Figure D-6. Sample D 3/4” Initial Crack Deflection

Table D-4. Sample E (Non-Overlapped) Initial Crack Deflection

SAMPLE E Deflection @ 1st Crack (1/1000

in.) Load @ 1st Crack (lbs.)

Permalath® Weft 3/8" Sample 1e N/A N/A Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2e N/A N/A Permalath® Warp 3/8" Sample 3e N/A N/A Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4e N/A N/A Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5e N/A N/A Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6e N/A N/A Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7e N/A N/A Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8e N/A N/A Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9e N/A N/A Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10e N/A N/A Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11e N/A N/A Permalath® 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 12e 0.084 65 Permalath® 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 13e 0.13 50 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14e N/A N/A

104

Sample E 3/8" Initial Crack

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

0 0.05 0.1 0.15

Deflection (in.)

Load

(lbs

.)

Permalath 1000 Weft 3/8"Sample 12ePermaLath 1000 Warp 3/8"Sample 13ePass/Fail Line

Figure D-7. Sample E 3/8” Initial Crack Deflection

105

APPENDIX E CRACK ANALYSIS DATA

Number of Cracks SAMPLE B Inside Middle

3rd Outside Middle 3rd

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1b 2 3 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2b 2 1 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3b 2 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4b 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5b 2 1 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6b 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7b 2 0 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8b 2 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9b 2 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10b 2 4 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11b 1 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12b 3 2 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13b 3 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14b 3 2

Figure E-1. Number of Cracks B Samples

Number of Cracks SAMPLE C Inside Middle

3rd Outside Middle 3rd

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1c 1 1 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2c 2 0 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3c 2 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4c 1 2 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5c 2 1 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6c 2 0 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7c 2 1 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8c 2 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9c 2 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10c 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11c 1 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12c 2 2 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13c 2 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14c 2 2

Figure E-2. Number of Cracks C Samples

106

Number of Cracks SAMPLE D Inside Middle

3rd Outside Middle 3rd

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1d 2 1 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2d 1 1 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3d 2 2 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4d 1 2 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5d 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6d 2 0 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7d 1 2 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8d 2 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9d 2 0 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10d 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11d 1 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12d 2 4 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13d 3 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14d 2 3

Figure E-3. Number of Cracks D Samples

Number of Cracks SAMPLE E Inside Middle

3rd Outside Middle 3rd

Permalath Weft 3/8" Sample 1e 2 2 Permalath 1000 Weft 3/4" Sample 2e 1 1 Permalath Warp 3/8" Sample 3e 2 2 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/4" Sample 4e 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" Sample 5e 1 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" Sample 6e 1 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/4" Sample 7e 2 1 Metal Wire 20g. 3/8" Sample 8e 1 2 Metal Wire 17g. 3/4" Sample 9e 2 1 Metal Lath #2.5 3/8" 2 laps Sample 10e 2 2 Metal Lath #3.4 3/4" 2 laps Sample 11e 2 1 Permalath 1000 Warp 3/8" Sample 12e 2 2 PermaLath 1000 Weft 3/8" Sample 13e 3 1 Metal Wire 17g. 3/8" Sample 14e 2 2

Figure E-4. Number of Cracks E Samples

107

LIST OF REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute, Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete, ACI Committee 544- ACI 544.2R-89 (1999).

Anders, Carolin, Carbon fibre Reinforced Polymers for Strengthening of Structural

Elements, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden (2003). Balendran R.V, Maqsood T., Rana T.M, Tang W.C, Application of FRP Bars as

Reinforcement in Civil Engineering Structure, Structural Survey (2002) Vol, 20, Number 2, pp62-72.

Bellis, Mary, The History of Concrete and Cement, Inventors (2005). Black, Sara, Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Coming on Strong, Composites and Concrete

(April 2005). Degussa Wall Systems, Permalath®, Product Bulletin 1027195, Degussa Wall Systems

Inc. (2004). SPEC-DATA, Quikrete, Portland Cement Plaster 09220, Reed Construction Data

(2005). Ueda, Tamon, and Sato, Yasuhiko, New Approach for Usage of Continuous Fiber as

Non-Metallic Reinforcement of Concrete, Advanced Materials, Japan, (2002) pp111-116.

108

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Patrick W. Murray was born July 11, 1981 in Little Rock, Arkansas. He is the

second son of Walter Murray and Linda Young. He received his high school diploma

from Parkview High School in 1999. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Business

Management from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 2003. Patrick moved to

Gainesville, Florida in 2005 to pursue his Master of Science in Building Construction at

the University of Florida.