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