EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS TAYWOOD © ENGINEERING © LIMITED CRM Tose u acentoTechnical Report ReponNo, 13081980115 age of 18 Title EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF FORMTEX CPF ON TRE SURFACE PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE, Report Number T3ONOSTIOLIS & Date of Issue JUNE 1998, ML - Author(s) DACullen fies TE Job No. 6589 Technical Aporoval: ioweegateeriatere) Technical Approval iaiorsna sins: ALL, PBBunfoth External Distribution (auhosingSston) Ais RMeAnoy Distribution ~1 copy information Cen fr archival purposes (© Toxford (EEE) Mitenviksen (Fibretex A/S) Author Abstract ‘The use of Formlex Formwork liner has been shown to greatly enhance the performance ofthe concrete surface in a series of durability related tests Taywood Engineering Ltd TEL Technology Division —“Taywood Enginceing Limited Report Na, 13068810015 Page 2 ot 16 ‘CONTENTS: 1. INTRODUCTION. 3 2. PRODUCTION OF TRIAL PANEL. 4 3. TEST PROCEDURE. 7 3.1 PANEL TESTING 7 3.2. CORE TESTING 7 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. 8 4.1 VISUAL APPEARANCE. 8 4.2 CURE TESTS, 8 4.3 PANEL TESTS, D 43. ISAT. 8 4.3.2 Surface Hardness (Schmidt Hammer), ° 4.33 Surface Tensile Strength 10 4.4 CORE TESTS. 10 4.4.1 Sorptvity. 10 4.42 Casbonation Resistance u 4.43 Chloride Diffusion, 5 4.44 Resistance to Pros Atack. 4 SUMMARY OF RESULTS - FORMTEX CPP TRIAL PANEL. Is 5. CONCLUSIONS APPENDIX A APPENDIX APPENDIKC APPENDIKDReport Na 13040115 Page of “Tayoed Engineering Limited INTRODUCTION ‘The objective ofthe test program was to asses the use of Formtex controlled permeability ormwork liner (CPF) to enhance durability of concrete in addition to improved surace appearance,‘Taywood Enginering Lied Report Na 130498710115, Page 416 2, PRODUCTION OF TRIAL PANEL Formwork for ¢ trial panel of dimensions 70mm x 750mm x 150mm as produced in plywcod. The large vertical fies were coated witha polyurethane varnish to represent resin coated ply or other impermeable formwork Immediately prior to production ofthe tral panel, and following detailed instsction from the representative (Charles Tuxford) of the supplier of the Formtex material (Euro Erosion Enginsering), one of the 750mm x 7SOmm vertical faces was covered with Fermtex CPF and tensioned in accordance wit the manufacturers recommendations, ‘The asembled panel mould, with CPF in place, is shown in Photograph 1 Photograph 1. Trial panel mould immediatly before casting ‘A C35 concrete (0.1m batch) was produced (see Table 1 for mix design details) in = ‘Cumilow? type forced action pan mixerTeyod Engisrng Limited Report No 13049870115, Table Concrete Mix Proportions (all at SSD condition) Cement (BCI Nortilee) Gant) [ 340 20am (Thames Valley, Radler PA) (kein?) 793 TOmm (Thames Vale, Radlet Pit) (kg/m) 397 ‘Sand (Thames Valley, Radlet Pit) (gin) 5) Water (kg/m?) 180 ree Water Cement Ratio 053 Concrete temperature of 25.7°C and intial slump (BS 1881 Part 102: 1983) of 75mm were recorded {6 No. 100mm cubes were cast (BS 1881 Part 108: 1983). 3 each No. ofthese were tested for compressive strength (BS 1881 Part 116: 1983) at 7 and 28 days, ‘The concrete was placed inthe tril panel in 3 equal layers, each compacted using an intern (pokeri vibrator, Care was taken to ensue thatthe poker did not come into contact with the formwork liner, Photoggagh 2 shows completed pane] immediately after casting Photograph 2, Trial panel at completion of easing“Taywood Englacring Lined Report 8, aDURLOL1S Page 60616 ‘The formwork was removed after 24 hours and the panel was subjected to a fuer three days ste simulated curing by wrapping the panel in wet essian and polythene shesting Following this the panel was stored inthe laboratory uni the stat of testing at 28 days,“Teywond Engineesing Limited Report No. 304980115 age 716 3. 34 32. TEST PROCEDURE The test programme was designed to provide a direct comparison between the properties of ‘the concrete cast against the Formtex CH andthe impermeable form face PANEL TESTING ‘The following tests were carried out within the mile two-thirds of the eight cf the pane and atthe same height for each fice in order to minimise the effects of verical variations in concrete properties, ‘+ ntial Surface Absorption ISAT) BS 1881 Part 208: 1983, ‘+ Surface Hardness (Rebound Numbet) BS 1881 Part 202: 1983 ‘+ Surface Tensile Strength (Pull OM) BS 1881 Part 207: 1992 CORE TESTING Following completion ofthe test work on the panel fices, nominal 100mm diameter cores were ‘illed through the fll thickness of th panel and the following tests were undertaken on both the CPF and non-CPF surfaces of the core + Somptvity of Oven Dried Specimens to TEL in house test procedure. AG TM9S/01/asue 1 “Water Sorption Test ‘© Acceleraed Carbonation top EN 104-839 “Carbonation resistance” ‘© Chloride Diffusion to Test procedure 1 in accordance with TEL proforma. Ref 1303S/MAWOOL/IM issue |. ‘+ Resistance to Frost Attack to Rilem Recommendation CDC 2 : 1977,“Taswood Engacering Limited Reporte WPBIONIS Pager 16 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 41 VISUAL APPEARANCE Visual appearance ofthe CPF face is greatly improved with an almost complete elimination of blowholes, when compared with the face cast aghast the impermeable formwork, 42 CUBE TESTS 5 No, 100mm cubes were made, cured at 20 + 2°C in water, and tested for compressive strengths according to the requirements ofthe relevant pats of BS 1881, Results are given in Table 2 below: ‘Table 2 Results of Compressive Strength Tests ‘Strength (MPa) Results Mean 14 365 380 385 39.0 284 440 455 410 465 ‘The mean hardened density ofthe concrete (BS 1881 Part 114: 1983) was 2360 kon?“Teyweod Baginerng Limited 43a 432 PANEL TESTS ISAT Reporte BO¥BSiOLIS Pas Results forthe Initial Surtice Absorption Test ave ited in Tale helo ‘Table 3 Results of Initial Surface Absorption Tests Form ISAT mints 10min 30min 60min Formtex CrP | Test 1 0023 . . Test? 0.028 . Test3 0x3 . Mean 0.028 * = ‘Non-CPF ‘Test 1 0.186 0101 0.082 Test2 ots 0.036 0.082 Test3 oss 0.084 0.086 Meas 181 0.034 0060. © No measurable absorption Surface Hardness (Schmidt Hammer) 0016 20 No. vetical readings were taken on each face, contained in a 200 x 150mm grid. Each measurement was taken at 50-4 Smm ffom the previous test, end no nearer than Sonam from any edge or sharp discontinuity ofthe panel, Results are given in Tale 4 below These results sre quoted in terms of rebound rumber with no atempt to cortelate this wi compressive strength ‘Table 4 Results of Surface Hardness Tests CPE Face | Mean (of 20No.) 48875 Sample Std, Dev. 2533 Range 44.53 Non-CPF Face | Mean (of20 No ) 37.550 Sample Std. Dev. 2.460 Range 3448“Toye Eaginernginited Report No. ROUDEIIONS aa 44 saa Surface Tense Strength 6 No, pull off tests were also carried out on each face of the trial panel. This is reported in etal in Agpendix A but a summary is presented in Teble 5 below: ‘Table S. Results of Pull OM Tests Location CPF Face Non-CPF Face Pullot Strength (MPa) | Pull-off Strength (MPa) 1 295 Ls3 2 234 174 3 262 163 4 351 163 5 329 1a 6 38 163 ‘Mean Pultoft Strength 34 16 Notes/Conments __| Failures occured well int the | Failures occured in layer of body ofthe concrete approx. | surface litence (approx 15t0 25m) 2mm) and up to 10mm into body of concrete ‘CORE TESTS Sorptiviy ‘Water sorption tests were eartied out on the CPF and non-CPF faces of 1 No. core. Ths fvecll scrptvity of the CPF fice was 0.15 mm/min, and the non-CPF face was mm/min. Details of increments ete ace presented in Appendix B“Tewood Engen Limited Report No 1308980115, Page 1 of 16 ‘Cartonation Resistance CCarbonation resistance of the CPF and non-CPF faces was measured by an accelerated Ieborstory tes in general accordance with pv EN 104-839-1997 ‘The results are given in tables 6.1 and 6.2 for CPF and non-CPF faces respectively. Photograph 3 shovis the non-CPF face and photograph 4 the CPF face, each atthe time of carbonation measurement. Please note that the depth of carbonation, in cach case, was ‘measured ffom the exposed face, (Le the lower face as seen inthe photographs) ‘Table 62. NON CPF Face (SIN 12300911) READING 123 45 67 8 MEASUREMENT (mm) 14 14 12 19 16 14 15 13 MEAN (om) 9 z SAMPLE No. 123009/1 8 NON-CPF. Photograph 3Report No, 0498/0115, “Taywood Hoping Limited Page 12016 TableG.l CPF Face (IN 12300912) sme wre READING eae) ‘MEASUREMENT (mm) 5 A564 0 5 8 MEAN (am) 39 g SAMPLE No. 123009/2 8 CPF Photograph 4 443. Chloride Difusion ‘Bulk lorie difusion coefficients were determined on both fices in duplicate, Results are shownin Table 6 below ‘Table? Chloride Diffusion cer Non-CPF Coefficient Sample 696% 10" 138x10" 2° Sample 617x 10% 1.2010" Mean 56x 10% L2oxi0® For futher details see Appendix C.Toywood Engineering Lieted Report No, OWENS Page 12616 ‘THA Resistance to Prost Attack ‘The formed CPF and non-CPF faces 3 No, cores were subjected to 25 cycles of = 15-17 hs @ -20:27°C (5% NaCl solution) + 78 bes @+2042%C (aboratary ait) Results are summarised in Table 7, and 2 ll photographie record is given in Agpenix D,‘Tayeo! Eagiacerng Linited Report, 1300810015 venus eas statue | “0sSteaiam) | oo Aust STANDARD ‘After 20 cycles: “ "Loss an. ‘on AUSTRIAN STANDARD a= = [ele] 9 j= menrinicasion Seton | “'t08Sempman” | “ound. |S ? | gustan sraxDaKD ae BR) Be |e a‘Taywood Engineering Limited Report No. 130488710115 Page 1016 45 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FORMTEX CPF TRIAL PANEL Tet CPF Face [Nom-CPF Face P fisar 10 mins 0028 mil?) 0.181 ali(nts) A. | (weanof3 Na). 30mins None 0.094 mins) N 0 mins None 0.060 mils) E L Rebound Nunber ” ans 1 | (mean of 20 No) E s T | Surface Tensil> 3.LMPa 16MP S| (mean of 6No) c | Somtiviy 0.15 mma 031 mminin® ° R E_ | Carbonaton Resistance carbonation depth Carbonation depth (ean of No readings) 38am 139mm t E 8. | chore dituson 6.56x 10 aPeQ2ore 1.29 x 10" ms@20°C 1 | (mean of2 No) s Snmary- weight os (mg/m?) | Sursmary - wight oss (nga) Frezettaw —10eyeles_| Nosurce damage atall- 0.00 | Considerable urace damage -0 07 resistance 2Deyeles_| No sure damage - 001 Sovere surface damage = 141 GNo.samples) eles | Basically undanaped-001 Very severe surfs dae 221‘Toywocd Engin Limited Report No, 3049810815 Page of 16 8. CONCLUSIONS While only one concrete mix was tested, the results and observations described inthis report show quit clearly that there are sigiicant durability benefits to be guned from the use of Formtex CPF liner as opposed to impermeeble formwork. ‘The range 2f test work wat designed to eset the ability ofa “ypical” concrete to resist the ‘most common mechanisms that lend to deterioration of concrete structure in tke UK. In all eases, the use of Formtex CPF liner was found to significantly enhance surface properties ofthe concrete ‘As itis widely accepted that it is these surface properties that affect concrete durability performance, it can be reasonably assumed that the use of this material would provide considerable advantages with respect to eg. Increased lifetime of steeture Reduced repair costs Enhanced appearance“Taywod Engnering Limited Report No, 104810115 Append § APPENDIX A Surface Tensile Strength Test, Construction . nM Materiats : Manacement Telephon: Fax Tae 12a7 7oeas BOND-TESTING ON CONCRETE PANELS ‘TO INVESTIGATE THE EFFICIENCY OF CONTROLLED PERMEABILITY FORMWORK. SITE: ‘TAYWOOD LABORATORIES, SOUTHALL ‘TAYWOOD ENGINEERING LIMITED cTT005.97.4 25th SEPTEMBER 1997PART 4 PART 2 APPENDIXA APPENDIX CONTENTS: Introduction Bond-Testing & Summary of Tost Results Photographs Bond-Test Result Sheets. Paget Page2 Pages Page?44 PART! INTRODUCTION ‘Taywood Ergineering Lid requested that a series of Bond-Tests be carried out by Construction Materials Management on @ concrete trial panel in order to investigate the efficiency of controlled permeability formwork (CPF) when compared with conventional plywood. These tests form part of a more comprehensive study into CPF being tndertaken by Taywood Engineering,TESTING 2a EL DETAIL: ‘Acconcrete panel with the properties given below had been cast in the workshops of ‘Taywood Engineering at Southal: + Dimensions: 1750 x 750 x 180mm. + Concrete Mix Nominally 35 with flint gravel and natural sand aggregates + Ageattime of test: 28 days. + Formwork: |) Controlled permeability formwork (CPF) liner on (one ofthe 750 x 750mm faces, 1) Vamished plywood formwork on the ther 750 x ‘750mm face, 22 THE BOND-TEST SYSTEM ‘The Bond-Test is used to determine the direct tensile strength of concrete or the adhesion strength betwoen two layers, e.g. concrete repairs. The conorste surface is prepared and wire brushed to ensure a plane and dust free surface. In this case, being under controlled conditions, only wire brushing was necessary. A 75mm diameter stzel disc (in accordance wih BS 1881: Part 207:1982) is gued to the Concrete surface with rapid setting epoxy adhesive. In order to clearly define the ‘area of test the concrete is cored around the steel disc to the required depth. As the propertias ofthe surface layer of the panel faces were to be compared, a coring depth of besween 2 and Smm wes selected AA pul-bolt is connected to the steal disc and a circular steel counterpressure unit is placed around the dise so that it bears an the conerote surface outside ofthe cored zone, The hydraulic pullmachine is connected to the pulk-bolt and loading ‘commenced. When the failure load is reached, the value on the dial gauge Is noted ‘and the bond strength calculated and reported. Photographs showing the position of the steel discs and the Bond-Tes: equipment are included at Appendix A.23° BOND-TESTING ‘The testing was carried out on 4th September 1997 at Southall. The postions of the steel dises for bond testing were erranged to accommodate 3 pairs of tests on each ff the twa test faces and to slow for any strength variation eaused by casting height, The fact that other tests vere to be carried out on the same face was also taken into account The steal disc positions were also atranged so that the tests on the CPF side and Non-CPF sdas of the panel were back to back so that direct comparison for each test could be made thus minimising any effect that could occur due to positioning, 24 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS ‘A summary table of Bond-Test results is given below. TEST [PANEL] BOND | TEST | PANEL] BOND NO. | FACE | STRENGTH| NO. | FACE | STRENGTH MPa MPa T_) OFF [284 7_| NON 153, 2 284 2] opr 174) 3 262 3 1.63, 4 351 4 1.63 5 325) 5 1.42 a 3.18 6 1.63 MEAN VALUE 3.1 MPa WEAN VALUE 1.6 MPa “The Bond-Test result sheets are included at Appendix B. 25 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS It can be seen from the summary table above that the OPF face has produced a surface layer with an average bond strength almost twice the value of the Non CPF face, + In-addition the zone of flue in the concrete found during the bond tests wes ‘consistently much deaper, approx. 15mm, on the CPF face, conpared with 2mm an the other face + This indicates that the water/cement ratio reducing effect of the CPF on the surface layer has been effective. Date: er SeAcoeee. L107,AAL APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHSHirorsuuc Puuaacine Iv Posn Bovo-TestAPPENDIX B i) BOND-TEST RESULT SHEET - CPF FACE li) BOND-TEST RESULT SHEET - NON-CPF FACE' Construction MM Marenais Manacement IN-SITU CONCRETE PULL-OFF STRENGTH BOND-TEST REPORT cuIENT: Taywood Engineering Limited REF. No: CTT927-97-1/1 sive: Taywood Laboratories, Southall STRUCTURE: Controlled Permeablity Formwork (CPF) Test Panel - CPF Side DATE OF TEST: | 4th Soptomber 1997 AGE OF CONCRETE: | 28 days CONCRETE TYPE: | C35. OPC. Aggregates: 20mm NS gravel & natural sand TEST POSITIONS: CPF Venical/Morizontal Coring. xx Test | locaton Dial ] Bond | Depth | Core ‘Comments No. Reading {Strength | Driled | Length kN | pe | mm | mm 7 735_| 2.95 | 4 | Approx __ 2_| Seodiagram | 130 | 284 | 3 | 15 — 3 | above 120 | 262 | 2 | to |Loss coarse aggregate a | roo | 381 | 2 | 25 | 5 160 | 320 | 2 @ vas | ate | 2 IMEAN BOND STAENGTH MPa [3.1 Notes: Failures occurred wall into body of concrete lapprox.15 to 25mm, Instrument No: 17-2980 Caliration Date: 05.02.97 Operator signawue: Li yf—Operator Name: Worters Date: 4th Sopt.1997Construction MM Mareniats Manacement L-OFF STRENGTH BOND-TEST REPORT. CuIENT: ‘Taywood Engineering Limited REF. No: CTT027-97-1/2 site: ‘Taywood Laboratories, Southall STRUCTURE: Controlled Permeability Formwork (CPF) Test Panel - Non CPF Side DATE OF TEST: | 4th Soptomber 1997 JAGE OF CONCRETE: | 28 days JCONCRETE TYP: | C35. OPC. Aggregates: 20mm NS gravel & natural sand ‘TEST POSITIONS: NON-CPF Vertical/Horizontal Coring x x Test | Location Dial] Bond | Depth | Core Comments No. Reading |Strength | Drilled | Length kN | ma | mm | mm 7 70 | 1.88 _| 3 [Approx 2_| Seediagrm | a0 | 1.74 [4 2 | | 3 abeve [75 | 163 [ 3 | t @ 75 | 163 | 3 | 10 5 es | 1a | s | 6 78 | 163 [3 MEAN BOND STRENGTH MPa | 1.6 Notes: Failures occurred between layer of surface laltence (approx.2mm) and up ‘0 10mm into body of concrete, Instrument No: 11-2980. Calibration Date: 05.02.97 Operator Signature: ‘Operator Name: Worters Date: 4th Sept.1997“Taywood Engineesing Lied Report Na 15089810115 ‘Appendix APPENDIX B ‘Water Sorption Tests“Taywood Engincing Limited Regen 8. 10W9810115 Aapendix 8 WATER SORPTION TEST Sample: 123007/1 (REPEAT) TestDate: 10/10097 Age at Test: Approximately 5 woske Tested By: Hasjt Sohal (Cross Sectional Area (A): 2371.09 mm Sample Weight (Wa): 37824 "Notes: Non-CPF ‘MEASUREMENTS, TIME T Grins) Tse [so] we WEIGHT Wi) Wa | uy [Heo [zed | Ree | SST [STAT We Wa) om [27 | am | 3a | | oa i (omni?) 7 [Las [tas [are] 230 | 308] am ‘tmin) CE ES amp o] 3 3p 7 pa pop HetcuT RIse | FRONT [Tamm|@ |? [2 | 5 [tos] tas as atgivendistance | FACE [Bémm| @| 2 [2 [33 [3 [3 = ‘rom each face 36mm fp © | 3 [fee (om) Gam) 0) 7 [7] 7 | 9s | os | 8s pack [Timmpe[ 3} 3 [3] # | | Face [Bimm[ 0]? [2 [6 | 7 | 7 ® Simm 0 | # [4 fs | 2 |e |e MEAN Ta [aI eae] a8 | Bae] oe“Taye Engineering Lined Report. 10480115 Append 8 WATER SORPTION TEST Sample: 123007/2 TestDate: 10/1097 Agent Test Approninutely Seeks ‘Tested By: Hast Johal (Cross Sectional Area (A): 3947.51 mm? Sample Weight (Wé): 687.95, Notes: ¢PF ‘MEASUREMENTS TIME T (mins) CO a WG W@) We] wesse | cones | ra | Ga | was | ES We Wa) oie [aa | a | as | er | ta | Team) a emia) Dae [sie | sae [ae | os |e tmp of = ps ps ps neigatrise | Front [ismm[e [3 [3 [33 | 33 [33 | 38 atgivendistance | FACE [Z0mm] ©] 25 [23 [| [* | * ftom ech face ‘tml op p> pos ts ps] (om) tam es ps ps ps Ps pack [mmf oe]? [2 > [3s [> | Face [30mmp@[ 13 [0s | 2 [2 |? | 2 Game}? [3 ts Ps MEAN aap asp sa | at [tp at x10? mmm? /mm for water sorption ‘SORPTIVITY = 0.15 mm/min! 3 510 30 60 120 240 i. Hmm“ay Engineering Limited Report H. 1045810115 Apentin€ APPENDIX C Chloride Diffusion TestsTuy rowi Bighicing nied Repon No. 1308BBH0115 Appencis © esr et auatysis OF cwonioe rors“Taywood Engineering Lied Report, 15089810115 spent‘Toywocd Eraacdng Lite | ns Reporte, 1S08S8!0115 Appendix‘Tysood Engineering Limited Report Ho 130498/10815 Arne [eterna“Teywood Engineering Limited Report Na. 130498110815 Arpendxd 1 APPENDIX D Freeze Thaw Tests,Trywood Eapinering Limited Report Mo. 304 9RHO11S Appendix D No.2 Nen-CPF (123002/1): Before TestTaywood Engineering Liked Report Ho 13045810115, ‘Append D No.3 ‘Non-CPF (123002/1): After Test No.4 Non-CPF (1230021): After Test"ywood Engineng Limited Report No 3045HI0115 AT TAT No.6 Non-CPF (123003/1}: Before TestTeed Eoginening Limited Report Mo, 0498/0115, No.7 Non-CPF (123003/1): After Test No.8 Non-CPF (123003/1): After TestTaywod Engen Lined Report No, 3049810115 No.9 Non-CPF (123004/1): Before Test No.10_NomCPF (123004/1): Before Testnywood Bagneing Linked ReporeNo. 3049810115 No.1 Non-CPF (123004)1): After Test No.2 Non-CPF (1230041): After Test“Tyo Enginerng Lined ~ Reportho, OWOHIONIS No.13- CPF (123002/2): Before Test No.14 CPF (123002/2): Before TestTaywood Eagineing Limited Report Wo, 304980115 a Oana No.5 CPP (123002/2): After Test No.16 CPF (123002/2): After TestTaywood Ensinedng Limited . Report Ns 13009810115 No.17 CPF (123003/2): Before Test No.18 CPF (123008/21) Before TestTayod Engng Lied : ReportNa 13009810115 Arps D No.19 CPF (123003/2) After Test No.20 CPF (123003/2): After TestTaywood Englweing Lino : Report Wo, oUBerO11S No.2 CPF (1230042): Before Test No.22 CPF (123004/2): Before TestTaywood Bngining Limited > Report No. 13045810115 RANT oxnaM No.23 CPF (123004/2): After Test No.24 CPF (123004/2): After Test