Daniel Ledesma field testing on cgi roofing fixings

CLADDING AND FIXING CONFERENCE Luxembourg, 3 & 4 of September 2014 Danieltest Field Ledesma, on CGI and IFRC-SRU roofing Research fixings officer Daniel Ledesma (SRU)

Field testing o CGI and roofing fixings testing in Philippines Individual test

Model tested

2/18

Pull-off resistance Objective: Analyze the performance of different fixings by measuring the pull-of resistance of different roofing nails and screws.

Smooth roofing nail Twisted roofing nail Roofing screw

3/18

Pull-off resistance Data from the measured pull-of resistance of different roofing nails and screws FIXING

FIXING

Roofing nail with smooth body

Roofing nail with twisted body

White coconut 2"x3"

Pine 2"x3"

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the wood-fixing union

147

55

62

Loading capacity comparison (%)

Max recorded load

37%

42%

Red coconut 2"x3"

White coconut 2"x3"

Pine 2"x3"

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the wood-fixing union

176

55.7

87

Loading capacity comparison (%)

Max recorded load

Types of wood tested with the fixing

32%

49%

Types of wood tested with the fixing Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the wood-fixing union Loading capacity comparison (%)

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg)

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg)

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the wood-fixing union

250 200

200

250

200

50

0

0

33%

100

50

50

305 Max recorded load

150

100

100

69%

101

300

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the woodfixing union

250

150

150

210

350

300

300

Loading capacity of the fixing-wood unions (kg) Red coconut White coconut Pine 2"x3" 2"x3" 2"x3"

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg)

350

350

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the woodfixing union

Roofing screw

Loading capacity (kg)

Loading capacity (kg)

Red coconut 2"x3"

Types of wood tested with the fixing

FIXING

0

Loading capacity on Nails by different supports Average of maximum loading capacity (kg)

Roofing nail twisted body

White coconut 2"x3"

Pine 2"x3"

147

55

62

176

56

87

Loading capacity (kg)

Roofing nail smooth body

Average of loading capacity

The chart shows the ratio of the max. loading capacity in red coconut compared with the unit price(the bigger the ratio, the more efficient the fixing is)

200

Red coconut 2"x3"

150

Roofing nail smooth body

100

Roofing nail twisted body

Unit price (€) Ratio max. loading capacity / price /1000

Ratio max. loading capacity / price /1000 Loading capacity comparison %

84%

99%

72%

8.80 0.015 €

4.00

9.80

2.00

0

Red coconut 2"x3"

White coconut 2"x3"

Pine 2"x3"

8.00

6.00

Unit price (€)

50

0.023 € 10.00

% difference

90%

0.00

4/18

Pull-off resistance Objective: Measure the pull-off resistance of various supports and size with one fixing

FIXING

Roofing nail with twisted body Loading capacity (kg)

Types of wood tested with the fixing Average of max. loading capacity (kg) Loading capacity comparison (%)

White Red coconut coconut 2"x2" 2"x2"

154 83%

61 33%

Pine 2"x2"

Coconut Coconut 2"x3" flat 2"x3" edge

Coconut 2"x4" edge

Coconut 1"x4" flat

85

186

139

120.00

90.0

46%

Max recorded load

75%

65%

48%

Coconut 2”x3” flat during testing (Philippines)

Coconut 2”x2” during testing (Philippines)

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg) 200 180

160 Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

5/18

Anchorage length Objective: Measure the pull-off resistance of one fixing in to different deep and supports

20mm

40mm

FIXING

45mm

50mm

Roofing nail with head and twisted body Loading capacity (kg)

Types of wood and deep tested with the fixing

20mm deep in 2"x2" coconut

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the wood-fixing union

64

Loading capacity comparison (%)

46%

40mm deep 45mm deep 50mm deep in 2"x3" in 2"x3" in 2"x2" edge edge coconut coconut

20mm deep in 2"x2" Pine

40mm deep in 2"x2" Pine

119

138

31

38

86%

max value at 50mm deep

22%

27%

coconut

118 85%

Coconut 2”x3” flat during testing (Philippines)

Coconut 2”x3” edge during testing (Philippines)

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg) 200

180 Average of max. loading capacity (kg) of the woodfixing union

160 140 120

100 80 60 40 20

0

6/18

Tearing resistance Objective: Measure the tearing strength on different CGI Material

Corrugated Galvanized Iron-sheet (CGI) Loading capacity (kg) CGI 1 (0,25mm)

CGI 2 "Paper" (0,15mm)

CCGI 3 (0,5mm)

CGI 4 "Red" (0,45mm)

Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

4

2

57

48

Loading capacity comparison (%)

7%

4%

Max tearing recorded value

84%

Types of tested CGI

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg )

Tearing test setup (Philippines)

CGI 3 during testing (Philippines)

CGI 4 during testing (Philippines)

60 50 Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

40 30 20 10

0

7/18

Shear resistance Objective: Measure the shear strength on different CGI Loading capacity (kg) CGI 1 (0,25mm)

CGI 2 "Paper" (0,15mm)

CCGI 3 (0,5mm)

CGI 4 "Red" (0,45mm)

Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

44

34

170

160

Recorded capacity comparison (%)

26%

20%

Max shear recorded value

94%

Types of tested CGI

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg) 200 180

Tearing test setup (Philippines)

CGI 3 during testing (Philippines)

CGI 4 during testing (Philippines)

CGI 2 during testing (Philippines)

CGI 3 during testing (Philippines)

CGI 3 during testing (Philippines)

160 Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

140 120 100

80 60 40 20 0

8/18

“Uplift” resistance Objective: Measure the “uplift” resistance on the main part of the roof, through a model with different CGI and configurations.

Negative wind pressure (suction) at the main part of the roof

Testing table (Philippines)

Configurations of the testing models “tables” (3 tests for each)

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

9/18

“Uplift” resistance













10/18

“Uplift” resistance

11/18

“Uplift” resistance Data from “uplift resistance test” on the main part of the roof Loading capacity (kg) CGI 3 (0,5mm) Every 6 corrugations Every 4 corrugations Every 3 corrugations Every other corrugation Structure spaces between rafter at 60cm Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

173

173

180

180

280

280

347

347

Loading capacity comparison (%) with a 300km/h wind speed

107%

Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed Espected suction with a peack 300km/h wind speed

111%

173%

214%

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

162

162

162

162

162

162

162

162

CGI 2(0,15mm) Structure spaces between rafter at 60cm Average of max. loading capacity (kg) Loading capacity comparison (%) with a 200 km/h wind speed Loading capacity comparison (%) with a 300km/h wind speed Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed Espected suction with a peack 300km/h wind speed

Every 6 corrugations

Loading capacity (kg) Every 4 corrugations Every 3 corrugations Every other corrugation

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

53

53

60

60

70

70

147

147

63%

71%

82%

173%

33%

37%

43%

91%

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

85

162

162

162

162

162

162

162

162

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg) Espected suction with a peack 300km/h wind speed

350

300

250 Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg)

350

200

Espected suction with a peack 300 300km/h wind speed 250 Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

150

Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed

100

50

150

Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed

Broken head nails / nails slide or broken lumber

100

50

0

0

Observations:

200

Observations:

Shear CGI at joints with nails

12/18

“Uplift” resistance Objective: Measure the “uplift” resistance on the roof eaves, through a model with different CGI and configurations.

Negative wind pressure (suction) at eaves

Configurations of the testing models “tables” (3 tests for each)

Testing table (Philippines)

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

B

c

13/18

“Uplift” resistance Data from “uplift resistance test” on the eaves of the roof CGI 3 (0,5mm)

Nails every other corrugations at eaves. Lath at 60cm

Structure spaces between rafter at 60, 45 and 30cm at eaves

Loading capacity s (kg) Every other Nails Every corrugations corrugations Aditional lath 45cm Additional lath 45cm

Nails Every corrugation addional lath 30cm

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space C

Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

210

420

353

707

387

773

347

693

693

Loading capacity comparison (%)

130%

82%

218%

185%

239%

202%

214%

271%

271%

Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed Espected suction with a peack 300km/h wind speed

85

265

85

198

85

198

85

132

132

162

511

162

383

162

383

162

256

256

CGI 2(0,15mm)

Nails every other corrugations at eaves. Lath at 60cm

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Space C

90

180

153

307

160

320

180

360

360

Loading capacity comparison (%)

56%

35%

95%

80%

99%

84%

111%

141%

141%

85

265

85

198

85

198

85

132

132

162

511

162

383

162

383

162

256

256

Space B

Space C

Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed Espected suction with a peack 300km/h wind speed

Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

900

900

800

800

700

700

600

Espected suction with a peack 300km/h wind speed

500 400 300

Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed

200 100

Loading capacity (kg)

Loading capacity (kg)

Espected suction with a peack of 200km/h wind speed

Nails Every corrugation addional lath 30cm

Structure spaces between rafter at 60,45 and 30cm at eaves Average of max. loading capacity (kg)

Average of max. recorded loading capacity (kg)

Espected suction with a peack 300km/h wind speed

Loading capacity (kg) Nails Every corrugations Additional lath 45cm

Every other corrugations Aditional lath 45cm

600 500 400

300 200 100

0

Space A

Space B

Nails every other corrugations at eaves. Lath at 60cm

Space A

Space B

Space A

Space B

Every other corrugations Nails Every corrugations Aditional lath 45cm Additional lath 45cm

Space A

Space B

Space C

Nails Every corrugation addional lath 30cm

0 Space A

Space B

Nails every other corrugations at eaves. Lath at 60cm

Space A

Space B

Every other corrugations Aditional lath 45cm

Space A

Space B

Nails Every corrugations Additional lath 45cm

Space A

Nails Every corrugation addional lath 30cm

14/18

Coconut lumber Objective: Register density and flexion resistance on different examples of coconut lumbers Wood

Density average of the lumber examples

Coconut lumber 900

Lumbers

Density (kg/m3)

Red coconut 2"x2"

800

White Pine Coconut coconut 2"x2" lumber 2"x3" 2"x2"

Pine 2"x3"

Coconu 700 t 2"x5"

N째 of measures 1 790 714 428 882 360 710 2 871 436 421 745 342 870 3 837 487 315 403 357 572 4 848 267 482 965 372 5 755 364 483 701 344 6 868 530 480 971 352 Average ofdensity of the 6 828 466 435 778 355 717 examples per wood tipe Standard deviation* from a data 46 153 65 215 11 149 set of 6 test * Standard deviation of a data set is the square root of its variance. The bigger the worse, as it shows how much variation or dispersion exists from the average of the tests. Variance

600 500

400 300 200 100 0 White coconut 2"x2"

Red coconut 2"x2"

Coconut lumber 2"x3"

Coconut 2"x5"

Pine 2"x2"

Pine 2"x3"

Maximum perpendicular load to coconut lumber fibres Loading capacity (kg)

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) 600

Types of tested lumber

Coconut 2"x2"

Coconut 2"x3"

500 400

Average of max. loading capacity (kg) Standard deviation* from a data set of three test Loading capacity comparison (%)

203

497

119

121

41%

Max. recorded value

300 200

100 0 Coconut 2"x2"

Coconut 2"x3"

15/18

Findings Fixings

Smooth roofing nail and twisted roofing nail have similar performance on coconut lumber, 10% of difference in Pull-of resistance with coconut lumber.

CGI

The performance on the CGI “paper” (0,15mm) is much lower in comparison with the used CGI 3 (0,5mm); Shearing strength 20% and tearing strength 4%

Roof models

Main roof: CGI “paper” do not reach the expected suction for a 300km/h peak wind speed but the CGI 0.5mm exceed the expected suction in all the models Eaves roof: CGI “paper” only exceed the expected suction in the model with lath at 30cm and nails every corrugation but the CGI 0,5mm exceed the expected suction in all the models except in the one with lath at 60cm and nails every other corrugation.

Coco Lumber

There is not uniform quality in the coco lumber; in one big section, bigger quality differences.

The fixings in white coconut provide around 30% of pull of resistance, in comparison with red coconut.

16/18

17/18

Cecilia Braedt, Coordinator / cecilia.braedt@croix-rouge.lu T.: +352.27.55.89.02 Vincent Virgo, Research Officer / vincent.virgo@croix-rouge.lu Daniel Ledesma, Research Officer / daniel.ledesma@croix-rouge.lu T.: +352.27.55.89.03 IFRC-SRU, 10 CitĂŠ Henri Dunant, L-8095 Bertrange, Luxembourg