Sie sind auf Seite 1von 339

Ferro-Cement for Canadian

Fishing Vessels
Compiled and Edited by
W.G. Scott, C. Eng., P. Eng.
for
Industrial Development Branch, Fi sheries Service,
Department of the Environment
Ottawa
August 1971
This Report includes work contracted by
the Industrial Development Branch of the
Fisheries Service,
Department of the Environment,
and other related information
the originators of which have
kindly allowed us to reproduce.
Industrial Development Branch,
Fisheries
Department of the Environment,
Ottawa,
Canada
I N D E X
SECTION A - Foreword by W.G. Scott
SECTION B - Reports of the Work Undertaken by the
British Columbia Research Council:
Part I - Project 1968-69
Part II - Project 1969-70
Part III - Technical Supplement
SECTION C - Illustrations of Reinforcing Materials Studied
SECTION D - Regulatory Aspects of Ferro-Cement Vessel
Construction:
Part I - W.E. Bonn, Ministry of Transport,
Ottawa.
Part II - Lloyds Register of Shipping
SECTION E - Papemand Discussions on Ferro-Cement from the
Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction
Materials, Montreal, 1968.
SECTION F - Special Bibliographies:
Part I - Bigg, Delaney, Wood.
Part II - British Columbia Research
Council

,.
"
FOREWORD
Early in 1966 the rapid upsurge of interest in ferro-cement
for fishing vessel construction prompted the Industrial Development
Branch of the then Department of Fisheries of Canada to begin examination
of this newer medium in some depth.
Our basic objectives were to produce quantitative data on the
physical and mechanical characteristics of ferro-cement which could lead
to the boats of that material being certified by the Board of Steamship
Inspection of Canada's Ministry of Transport.
important for vessels exceeding 15 gross tons.
This was especially
The other significant objective was ~ o provide usable and
practical information on acceptable construction techniques. Many
fish boat owners provide their own labour in constructing vessels to
defray actual construction cost in dollar t e r ~ s to them and many
smaller boatyards require guidance on acceptable engineering and
production steps.
Ferro-cement was considered as an excellent contender in the
smaller boat construction field which usually does not have the
engineering and production support inherent in larger vessel building
concerns. It uses a construction technique which can be carried out with
little training; it is economic in material costs, in the sense that there
is little or no scrap; it has important possibilities for these areas
where good boat -building woods (until now the traditional material for
hulls) are hard to come by; and above all vessels, once designed, can
be quickly constructed thus allowing them and their owners to pursue their
intended purpose - fishing.
This particular project was conducted in a way typical of our
usual method of working, whereby we contacted a group who were interested
- 2 -
in initiating our studies. In this instance, the British Columbia
Research Council was chosen, and a program, as outlined in this
publication, was commenced.
Throughout the project we invited and obtained, very close
co-operation from the Headquarters and Regional staffs of the Marine
Regulations Branch of the Ministry of Transport.
As the project progressed, close attention was paid to any
published material on ferro-cement and a detailed bibliography has
been developed.
There were also many national and international authorities,
who provided useful comment to assist us, and to them we extend our
thanks.
Mention should also be made of the many provincial authorities
who helped us in this activity, in particular the Federal Provincial
Atlantic Fisheries Committee which sponsored the "Conference on Fishing
Vessel Construction Materials" in Montreal in October, 1968. All of
the pertinent papers (or comments) on ferro-cement from that conference
have been included in this report.
In Canada, interest and k n o w ~ h o w in ferro-cement exists in
greater strength in British Columbia than elsewhere. Various companies
(and individuals) are engaged in ferro-cement construction not only for
high displacement-length vessels such as fishing vessels, but for other
marine uses.
These groups, being commercial enterprises, have every right
to safeguard their construction processes as they have borne development
costs ..
Our initial aim was to find out what this new medium offered
in strength values, and how it could be economically worked to reproduce


- 3 -
lab test figures consistently, by people working by themselves, remote
from engineering consultation.
The construction style itself is appealing, certainly in so
far as support equipment is concerned. Much of the equipment is only
used for a short period; rental can well overcome the cash outlays and
problems of ownership. John Samson's and Geoff Wellens', "How to build
a Ferro-Cement Boat" is one piece of literature which lists everything
in detail required to construct a boat of ferro-cement.
To the best of the writer's knowledge, scantling lists "per se"
have not yet been developed for the various hull parts of a ferro-cement
boat. Lloyd's Register of Shipping, appearing in print as the most
frequently mentioned authority, does not have rules such as are published
for steel, glass or wooden vessels. We understand, however, that Lloyd's
is prepared to assess plans of proposed vesseLs and outline corrections
and alternatives.
Lloyd's has a set of tentative requirements which recommend
on the type of facility required; what steps must be taken during
construction; what basics it believes advisable in quality control of
materials and techniques. Of most importance in the Lloyd's measures
is the listing of various tests required and how these should be done.
The Canadian Ministry of Transport have adopted a considerate
position which is well explained in the paper read by Mr. W.E. Bonn at
the "Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials" held in Montreal
in 1968. Basically, Canadian Steamship Inspection will certify on an
"experimental hull" basis, any unit exceeding 15 gross tons. The procedure
from design through delivery to the owner is similar to Lloyd's, however,
once a vessel enters service the surveys are more frequent than occur with
- 4 -
other materials.
It should be emphasized that anyone contemplating a
construction in ferro-cement, if it is of a tonnage certifiable under
the Canada Shipping Act or if it is intended that it be built to a class
survey, should contact the respective authorities before any commitments
are made. In essence, don't ask for approval after it's done, find out
about it before you start. All Regulations change, often in a direction
which is less onerous and therefore cheaper.
In ferro-cement, there are several claims to "magic potions"
which enhance the material's possibilities and there are alternative
construction styles offered, each one claiming a particular advantage.
However, ferro-cement is a matter of developing a structural material
by human efforts, i.e. it has to be made as you go, comprising of mortar
and reinforcement to produce (if properly mixed and cured) a medium the
characteristics of which under test show tendencies approaching a
homogeneous material such as steel or aluminum.
It should not be confused or equated to reinforced concrete,
as many people would think, since it is not oriented the same way and
is therefore dissimilar.
We have to recognize that some reinforced concrete technology
is applicable to ferro-cement and with general construction forming a
field for continuing progress in our society, on should look forward to
gleaning new technical information from that environment.
The actual theories are more akin to thin shells of reinforced
concrete and not to the massive structures we see as pillars, girders,
floors', etc., in buildings.
,
- 5 -
The writer's first experience in the material was when he
was privileged to see a variety of marine craft constructed of
ferro-cement during a visit to Vancouver. During that trip the
writer met numerous people from the ' local ferro-cement industry,
and was given a three day "immersion" course in ferro-cement boat
construction.
This visit really initiated the project report which
follows and which we believe has established factual information
and performance data on ferro-cement. The project is continuing
and additional reports will become available as progress is made
In our approach we purposely insisted that the methods
and materials should represent the style one could obtain from a
limited facility, low quality control operation using commercially
available, cheap and common material.
We did not look for excellent lab results with which
to "boost" the medium, and which could never be produced in reality
without considerable plant, specialist labour and other cost
escalators. Our view was to quantify the expected standards which
a modest production venture could achieve.
A number of people have helped put this publication together;
Professor G. Bigg of Carleton University, Ottawa, together with some of
his students prepared the bibliography; the mesh photographs are
by H. Schade of the Department's photographic unit; Lloyd's Register
of Shipping, Montreal, has kindly allowed us to incorporate its list of
tentative requirements.
Last, but not least we gratefully acknowledge the effort,
interest and enthusiasm of the British Columbia Research Council.
- 6 -
In the beginning Art Kelly and Tom Mouat and more recently Bill English
and A.W. Greenius, put a lot of effort into this project and it is hoped that
the pages which follow will be helpful to readers.
W.G. Scott
30/4/71
Reports of the Work
Undertaken by the British Columbia
Research Council
Part I - Project 1968-1969
Part II - Project 1969-1970
Part III - Technical Supplement
I N D E X
CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT:
The present report consists of the following parts:
Part 1. A summary of the information derived from the literature
survey and from the limited testing program, and its
significance to f i s h i n ~ vessel construction.
Part 3. Recommendations for action to ensure orderly progress in
the utilization of ferro-cement in fishing vessel
construction.
Appendix 1. The scope of the project initiated in March,
1968, of which this report constitutes the
Final Report.
Appendix 2. The paper "Ferro-cement as a Fishing Vessel
Construction Material" by A.M. Kelly and
T.W. Mouat, which contains most of the results
of this project.
Appendix 3. Results of the freeze-thaw tests, carried out
under Bub-contract at the University of Alberta
and a discussion of the effect of 1/4" reinforcing
rods and of 1114 gauge 1" square mesh hardware
cloth. '
Appendix 4. Bibliography.
I
FERRO-CEMENT AS A FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
INTRODUCTION:
4
REPORT - PART I
To
Industrial Development Service
Department of Fisheries of Canada
In March, 1968, the British Columbia Research Council
contracted with the Department of Fisheries of Canada, Industrial
Development Service, to carry out a study of ferro-cement as a fishing
vessel construction material. The scope of the study is indicated in
Appendix 1. Its objectives were:
1. To collect and collate as much as possible of currently
available information on the properties of ferro-cement and
on its use as a boat-building material.
2. To carry out a limited program of testing to determine the
physical and mechanical properties of ferro-cement, as
fabricated by conventional techniques.
The main results of the study were presented to the Conference
on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials held in Montreal October 1 - 3,
1968, in the paper "Ferro-cement as a Fishing Vessel Construction
Material" by A.M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat (Appendix 2). The freeze-thaw

tests, which were sub-contracted to the University of Alberta, were not
completed in time for the above paper, and are now included as Appendix 3,
along with a short discussion of the effect of reinforcing rods or heavy
mesh.
- 3 -
PART 1. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION DERIVED FROM LITERATURE SURVEY
AND LIMITED TEST PROGRAM AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE TO FISHING
VESSEL CONSTRUCTION.
Ferro-cement is an old boat-building material - its history
goes back a hundred years. Its modern impetus started with Professor
P.L. Nervi during World War II, with the encouragement of the Italian
Navy. Construction of four vessels of 150 tons and over was started
but not completed. After the war, Professor Nervi built a l65-ton
motor sailer, and a 38-foot ketch, which appear to have been very
successful.
In the 1960's ferro-cement construction of motorboats and
yachts was taken up in England and New Zealand, and since then the
popularity of ferro-cement has been growing at an ever increasing rate.
The main centers of commercial activity at the present time are England,
New Zealand, Florida, California and British Columbia. There is also
evidence of substantial activity in the Communist world.
A striking feature of the present ferro-cement boat-building
industry is its emphasis on "trade secrets". There is very little
published information on the relationship bet,-1een the final properties
of the ferro-cement and such factors as cement mix, type and disposition
of reinforcing, and lay-up and curing procedures. There has been a
brisk trade in licenses involving the transt'er of "secrets", in which
Sea crete Ltd., Norfolk, U.K., and Ferro-Cement Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand,
have been particularly active. There is very meagre information on
quality control, the effect of stress concentrations, vibration and
fatigue, or on the effect of adverse environmental conditions. This
lack of reliable information poses a serious obstacle to the rational
application of ferro-cement construction to vessels over 15 tons.
It was the lack of basic information on ferro-cement which
led to the modest series of tests which have been done by the B.C. Research
Council in parallel with the literature survey. It is significant that,
despite their limited scope, they are already being quoted by boat-
builders - mainly in the sense that the builders' (secret) method gives
a better result - but factual data in support of such statements is
virtually non-existent.
It should be made clear
samples made and tested under the
the best that could be produced.
standard of "amateur" production,
Marine Design Enterprises Limited
with this in mind. There were no
vision of panel fabrication. The
made are described in Appendix 2.
at this point that the ferro-cement
BCRC program were never intended to be
Rather they were to represent a minimum
and the contractor who made them,
of Vancouver, was chosen and instructed
engineering controls or on-site super-
different types of samples which were
- 4 -
The test program on the samples comprised tension, compression
and shear (sample size 1 3/4" x 12") transverse'bending (5 3/4" x 12")
membrane tests, both compressive and impact (12" x 12") and freeze-thaw
cycling (4" x 16"). All samples were 3/4" thick. Mesh content was 1
to 12 layers of 1/2" hexagonal galvanized aviary wire and some samples
contained 1/4" mild steel reinforcing bars on 2" centers, or one layer
of 1114 gauge 1" square mesh hardware cloth.
Detailed results of the tests are given in Appendix 2 and
Appendix 3. Briefly, they are as follows:
Tension:
Tensile strength increased almost linearly with the number of
meshes. There was no evidence of levelling off, so presumably an
even higher ratio of steel to cement would have been advantageous.
There was little difference between panel directions. The maximum
tensile strength (12 mesh layers) was 950 p.s.i., which is about
twice the value for unreinforced concrete but below the values
quoted by others for ferro-cement. Some commercial producers -
e.g. Seacrete Ltd. - quote "ultimate tensile strength" in the{
5000 p.s.i. range. This is believed to be derived tensile
strength, from bending measurements, but no firm information is
available.
Compression:
Compressive strength varied from 5000 to 9500 p.s.i. with
little dependence on number of meshes. The value for unreinforced
concrete is about 7000 p.s.i. The type of failure observed
(splitting between meshes) indicates that cross-bonding of meshes
is desirable, and good penetration is essential. Seacrete Ltd.
quotes values from 7200 to 12,200 p.s.i., depending on time since
fabrication.
Shear (across panel):
Shear strength varied roughly linearly with number of meshes
from a mean of 50 p.s.i. to a mean of 100 p.s.i.
Transverse Bending:
Tests were in accordance with ASTM Designations A438-62 and
C293-64, with allowances for sample thickness (3/4" instead of the
3" - 5" in the ASlM Specification). The modulus of rupture derived
from these tests varied nearly linearly with number of mesh layers
from a reean of 700 p.s.i. to a mean of 2500 p.s.i. In one panel,
trowelled from both sides and not vibrated, the deleterious e f f ~ c t
of incomplete penetration was illustrated by shearing along the
middle, neutral, axis.
- 5 -
Membrane Test (compressive):
In this test a 12" x 12" panel was loaded cyclically by a
1" diameter piston, until failure occurred. The maximwn load borne
varied from about 500 lbs (1 mesh layer) to as much as 2000 lbs
(10 or 12 mesh layers). The panels were consistently more resistant
to loads applied to the front, trowelled face.
Membrane Test (impact):
This was similar to the compressive test, with a falling
weight substituted for the piston. The results of this test are
more qualitative than quantitative, since the point of "failure"
is difficult to define. Impact resistance was less than expected.
Failure for panels with 2 - 4 layers of mesh was typically by
cracking at from 27 to 200 inch-lbs. Failure for panels with six
layers or more was typically by punching shear at from 36 to
300 inch-lbs. The high values of resistance were nearly all for
impact on the front, trowelled face.
Freeze-tha'-T :
Eight samples from each of three panels containing one, six
and twelve layers of mesh respectively.,,,ere cycled as far as
possible in accordance with ASTM C 291-67. Electronic vibration
equipment could not be used to determine mechanical condition
because the thickness of the samples (3/4") was below the range of
the equipment (3" - 5"). Instead, weight loss was determined
12 times for each sample during the passage from 0 to 309 freeze-
thaw cycles. Weight loss in this kind of cycling is known to be
correlated to resistance to natural weathering under freeze-thaw
conditions. Loss of weight varied linearly with the number of
cycles. The six-layer and twelve-layer samples proved satisfactorily
resistant, with average weight losses after 309 cycles of 20% and
4% respectively. The only one-layer sample which survived to 309
cycles without disintegrating had lost 44% of its weight.
Although these tests must be considered preliminalY, it looks
as if the resistance of good ferro-cement to natural freeze-thaw
cycling should be very high.
Reinforcing Bars and Heavy Mesh:
The effect of 1/4" mild steel reinforcing bars on 2" centers
at the median plane was explored in three panels, and the effect
of a median layer of #14 gauge square mesh hardware cloth in one
panel. With 1/4" rods t,,,o panels were made in the horizontal
position, one trowelled on both sides, the other plywood-backed
and trowelled on the top face, and one panel was made in the
- 6 -
vertical position, trowelled on both sides. The panel with hardware
cloth was made horizontally on a plywood backing, and trowelled
on the top face. The last three panels were roughly twice as
strong as a horizontally made. plywood-backed panel containing the
same number of fine mesh layers, but no heavy reinforcing. It
would be wrong, in our opinion, to attribute this increase in
strength directly to the heavy reinforcing. Rather, we believe it
is due to a better distribution of the fine mesh, which is held
away from the median plane by the rods or heavy mesh, and is thus
more effective. These test panels, and also the previous ones
without heavy show the importance and the difficulty
of ensuring that the fine mesh aviary wire reinforcing is in the
right place in the panel to do its job.
General Comments on Tests:
The variability of the test results, and the low strength
values from some samples - samples from flat panels which might be
thought easier to make well than a boat hull - illustrate a vital point
with ferro-cement.
It has been widely stated that ferro-cement lends itself to
non-professional construction, and that relatively unskilled labour can
be employed. This is essentially true, but nevertheless some phases of
the operation - for example the securing of the mesh, the cement
mix, and the plastering - are very critical, and adequate craftsmanship
is vital to success. As hull sizes increase, good quality control, with
sound design and good construction techniques, will become more and more
important.
Ferro-cement for Fishing Vessels:
The praises of ferro-cement have been sung so widely in recent
months that we will limit ourselves here to a brief recapitulation.
1. The raw materials are widely available and cheaper than other
boat-building materials. (A ferro-cement hull is estimated
to cost in the order of 15% to 30% less than one in steel or
wood, depending on size and construction method.) Of course,
the hull is only part (on the average, about 60%) of the cost
of the vessel.
2. Very little highly skilled labour is involved - although as
noted earlier there are some critical steps that require care
and experience.
3. Ferro-cement is well suited to "one-off" construction, since
no expensive building, fixtures, or tools are required. The
total capital investment can be very low.
- 7 -
4. Ferro-cement should require very little maintenance. It is
immune to rot and marine-borer attack. It becooles stronger
with age, and shmvs no evidence of corrosion in sea water.
As stated elsewhere it appears, from the limited data avail-
able, to be very resistant to freeze-thaw cycling. It is
resistant to abrasion.
5. The material is fire-proof, and is substantially more
resistant to heat from a fire on board than fibreglass or
aluminum or, under some conditions, even steel.
6. Ferro-cement boats are claimed to give some 10% more useful
inside space (due to the absence of frames) than a wooden
hull of the same overall dimensions. In some small vessel
designs of about 40' overall length this is doubtless true.
It is also claimed that condensation does not occur with
ferro-cement. This is definitely not true under all typical
conditions, and the lining necessary to prevent it will then
encroach on the 10% extra space.
7. The acoustic properties of a ferro-cement hull, because of
extra mass and panel stiffness, should be superior to other
materials. tVhile this aspect has not been documented, it
could lead to improved fish location and perhaps to more
effective catching.
Some "question marks" in ferro-cement vessel construction
are the following:
1. It is claimed that ferro-cement suffers less damage in a
severe impact than wood or fibreglass, and that repair of
the damage is quicker and cheaper. No quantitative data is
available on the strength of such a repair, or on the long-
term integrity of the bond between the patch and the undamaged
ferro-cement. A similar situation occurs when the plastering
of a hull, normally done in one continuous operation, is
unavoidably interrupted. There are "recipes" for assuring
a good bond of th"e new cement to the old, but no published
measurements on the short- or long-term characteristics of
the joint.
2. How strong is ferro-cement? One finds phrases in the liter-
ature such as "innnensely strong", "comparable to wood",
"as strong as steel". Comparison with other materials is
difficult and misleading, because "strength" in the ship-
building sense is a combination of a number of physical
properties such as resistance to tension, shear and bending,
ability to distribute localized stresses without failing,
- 8 -
resistance to vibration and fatigue, etc. The strength
required is also a function of the design, and the optimum
design for ferro-cement is certainly different from that for
wood or steel, and in fact has probably not yet been evolved.
An important factor in the subjective estimation of the
strength of ferro-cement stems from the fact that the material
cannot be produced much thinner than 3/4". For vessels up to
about 40' long this gives a very strong, rather heavy hull,
and because of the shell strength a minimum of internal
support is required. The vast majority of the ferro-cement
vessels built so far have been far under the 100' size for
which longitudinal bending moments start to become appreciable.
For this class of vessel ferro-cement is certainly adequately
"strong". The real question is what happens in vessels large
enough so that racking and bending moments are significant.
Here the properties of the material will have -a major influence
on the design of the vessel - and it is just these properties
which at present are mysterious and ill-defined.
3. Quantitative information is needed on the effect of stress
concentrations in ferro-cement, and the best method of distri-
buting stress by additional stiffening, which usually would
also be of ferro-cement.
4. There is no published data on the resistance of ferro-cement
to vibration and fatigue. While it is not suggested that
ferro-cement is deficient in this respect, the necessary data
for design purposes must be available if over- and under-design
of engine and machinery supports are to be avoided. With the
continually increasing horsepower of main engines, and the
increasing use of auxiliary pm.,er machinery, this factor will
grow in importance as time goes on.
- q -
PART l.. ACTION NEEDED.
To ensure orderly progress in the utilization of ferro-cement
in fishing vessel construction, research is needed to establish the
properties available in the material, and how to get and to use these
properties to best advantage. This vital information must be made
available to commercial shipbuilders and to individual fisherman-
builders in a form which will meet their needs and will encourage
sound economical construction.
Research on Ferro-cement:
The aspects of ferro-cement on which present information is
inadequate and on which we believe research is needed are summarized
below. Each item must be approached in two ways -one for the "shipyard",
where a fair amount of and specialization may pay dividends;
the other for the "back-yard", i. e. the individual fisherman-builder who
wants to use common materials and straightforward techniques.
1. Material:
2. Design:
3. Construction:
4. Operation:
To minimize cost for a specified strength
Cement additives or substitutes
Better sand sizing and control of mix
Improved reinforcing, amount, type, treatment
(galvanized or
Placing of reinforcing, cross tying
Material specification
Most economical design for necessary strength
Scantling tables and other design information
Stiffening of edges and openings
Engine and machinery bearers
Installation of tanks in ferro-cement
Control of cost and quality
Lay-up methods, curing
Obtaining and testing of material samples
Effect of joints and interrupted plastering
Check points during construction
Inspection and non-destructive testing of
critical elements of hull, e.g. keel, engine
bearers, deck fittings (some development or
adaptation of existing non-destructive testing
methods will be required)
Efficiency and economy
Noise, vibration, condensation, water-tightness
Low maintenance construction and finish
- 10-
5. Studies on stress concentration
J
vibration and fatigue effects
and other accelerated environmental testing,
e.g. freeze-thaw, concentrated brine
6. Laboratory testing of hull sections and components
7. Strain-gauging of new or existing hulls
It is clear that a very worthwhile research program, extending
over several years, could be set up to provide the basic information on
the properties and use of ferro-cement which is now lacking. We are
convinced that such a program would make a major contribution to the
effective and safe utilization of ferro-cement in fishing vessel con-
struction.
Certification of Ferro-cement Vessels:
For the would-be builder of a vessel over 15 tons, the
burning question is how to obtain certification by the Canadian Department
of Transport, without excessive expenditure or risk. In a paper,
"Regulatory Aspects of Traditional and New Construction Materials",
given at the Montreal Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials, .
October 1968, W.E. Bonn, Superintendent, Hulls and Equipment Division,
Marine Regulations Branch, outlined the requirements which would lead
to provis;i.onal certification for Home Trade "class III (not more than
20 miles offshore and not more than 100 miles from a port of refuge).
In addition to the economic penalty imposed by this limitation
on operations, there are other serious problems which arise from lack
of knowledge of the capabilities of the material, and from lack of
experience in quality control. Appropriate scantling tables, such as
are available for wood, steel, aluminum and fibreglass, do not exist.
Suitable testing and inspection procedures have still to be evolved,
and better guidelines for design and construction are urgently needed,
especially by the individual fisherman-builder.
Until these needs are met, and full certification can be
reasonably assured before construction is undertaken, ferro-cement will
suffer a major disadvantage in relation to established materi.als. Many
builders feel this is unfair, because of the extensive experience with
ferro-cement going back to World \-Jar II. But in view of the lack of
quantitative data and documentation on this experience, it is hard to
see how the Department of Transport, in discharging its responsibilities
to ensure safety at sea, could proceed otherwise at the present time.
The problem of certification must be resolved as quickly as
possible, and this can only be done through the cooperation of all
concerned. The leadership and initiative of the Department of Fisheries
- ,,-
Industrial Development Service is playing, and will play, a . vital role
in providing the mechanism for this cooperation. We feel that the time
is ripe for a significant joint effort by the commercial ferro-cement
shipbuilders towards the of design, construction and quality
control in ferro-cement. Needless to say a corresponding effort by the
public agencies is also required, and this must safeguard the interests
of the fisherman-builder, whose means and needs are different, though
not always radically different, from those of the commercial builder.
WNE/cz
.

W.N. English, Head
Division of Applied Physics
APPENDI.X 1.
BRITISH COLUMnl/.\ l1ESf:ARCH COUNCIL
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
VANCOUVER 8, B. C.
J<'ebru.wy 9, ] 968
PROJEC'l' PHOPOSAL
To: Industrial DL!velopment Branch
Dep3rtment of Fisheries
Sir Charles TUPPC:l' Building
River-siue Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
Subject: FERRO-CEM;i:NT BOATS
A. OBJECT
1. To collect and collate as much as possihle of currently
available infornntion on t11'2 properl;ies of "ferro-cement"
and its usc RS a bontbuilding material.
2. '1'0 carry out a limHcd of testing to det.ermine the
physical and mcchatdCRl properties of ferro-cement, as fabricated
by conventional
B. BACKGROUND
Tmrards the close of Horld Hur II, Dr. Pier Luigi Nervi,
of the Italian firm of Nervi and Bartoli, Engineers, developed a
technique for fabricatin,:; bO,ltS from a cheap, strons, durable,
lieht,,,eieht form of reinforc'=d concreee. Bauic8.lly, Nervi's method
consisted of a steel wire mesh in the desir2d form and
impree;nating it ,,,ith a mortar made of Portland ceme nt Hnd fine sand.
Pipe fram:=s and bars used to nnintCl in ttw shape!
before plast.Jring and to provide lonsitudlnal stiffeninG of the
finlshed hull. The r,::;sultinS rratcri8.l, in Nervi's words, "d5.d not
behave like reGular concrete, but presented all th,:! mechanical
characteristics of a new material". He named this rrateriRI "Ferro-
Cemento" j it is usually referred to in _e;nc;lish as "Ferl'o-Cem::mt".
Since that timc=., th,"!re ha<J been some VTork
carried out; by ;)nu taur borttb1lildcrs, but very 1 i or[!;aniz(;d
reSearch appenr.:; to 113ve been done. Y-=t, the of th'=
TTlL'ltcrial ne,211S good, especially in with steel. Th2
IT'3.terbl is [;8ic1 to exceed \food in its and stiffnesf3-
to-\.re ir:b i; yet b.:; thc:w \lood or steel by up to 60;G.
It is v:i.rttully of rot, corrosion ;)nd electrolysis and appears
quite durubl:. (Indc.::d .. it is said to 2:1'0\1 st.rOD[.;er ,'lith age and
-2-
Department of 1o'18heries February 9, 1968
water immersion.) The skills required to build.boats from this
material are rather less than required when using more conventional
materials, so savings in labour costs should also be attainable.
At a recent meeting in Ottawa bet"Teen Messrs. L. S. Bradbury,
J. Frechet and VT. Scott of the Department of Fisheries and A. M.
Kelly of the Council, the Department expressed interest in the
subject. Suboequently, Messrs. Frechet and Scott" during a visit
to Vancouver, inspected tim ferro-cement boats, one completed,
one incomplete. They also met with Mr. John Samson, of Marine
Design Enterprises, who was instrumental in introducing the material
to Canada. This proposal is a result of these meetings.
C. PROCEDURE
The project will be carried out in two phases: data collection
and testing.
Phase I
A literature search will be conducted, covering the period
194tl- to the present, to determine what has been publlshed in the
professional journals relating to ferro-cement. Particular attention
will be paid to the Marine and Civil Engineering journals.
Concurrently, ive will enter into correspondence "dth all
known Naval Architects, Marine EngIneers and professional builders
who are engaged in the desie;n and/or constructlon of ferro-cement
boats and other structures and as 11'any an19.teur builders as pOGsible
within time and bu.dgetary constraints. It is hopedthat a good deal
of useful information can be obtained economically in this rna,nner.
In addition, those designers and builders "Tho are in or reasonably
near the Vancouver area (including those in the North-ilestern U.S.A.)
will be visited and interviewed at length.
The gathered in this phase will be collated
and written up as a "state-of-the-art" revie",.
Phase II
A scheclule of tests, ou.tlined in the follmring sections,
will be carried out. The test schedule should be consldered to be
flexible and subject to modificat.ion as test results are accumulated.
The procedures are based on assumed and practical
strength valu::!s that have been estimated from verbal reports of
actual service pcrfOrJi}':lOc8 of the materj.al. The propos ed tests
are intended to produce data as a basis for the desic;n
of useful structures and of more sophisticated tests. In
-3-
Dep3rtment of Fisheries February 9, 1968
tests 1, 2, 3 and !j. are intended to roake dlrect compo.risons betvTeen
ferro-cement and steel in such a 'my that formulas appl:i.cable to
steel constructi.on can be acl:::\pted for use ld.th ferro-cement through
substHution of appropriate factors. 'l'csts 5 and 6 are desie;ned
to produce dnta for general structural desi.c;n and the determj.nation
of conditions under ,rhich ferro-cement methods may reasonably be
used.
For these preliminary tests, the selection of materials
will be limited to at most three cement mixes and three confj.8Ul'ations
of "\-Tire and reinforcing, makinc; a total of nine possible
combinations.
He '-Till arrange to have a number of of about
4 feet by 8 feet constructed to our spccificatjons by Mr. John
Samson. These panels \,ill then be cut. into test sections of
the requir3d sizes. This procedure ,Till ensure that each set
of test sections has essentj.ally uniform characteristics. Before
testing, the Height and volume of each section ,rill be determined.
'l'he follmring tests \vill then be performed, for each confic;uration
of mIx/reinforcinG.
1. Tensile
Two adjoinint; sCJ..uare samples of 12-inch edge length,
cut at leAst 6 inches from the side of the original panel
shall each cut into 6 strips approxhilately 1-3/
1
+ inches
in '<ddth by 12 inches in length, the strips from one sample
beine; oriented at 90 de3rees to those from the other j.n respect
to the "grain" direction of the original sample.
Each strip shall be tested to destruction in tension
in accordance with A.S.T.M. Designations E8-61T, and A370-61T
insofar as they apply.
2. Compressive
Two square samples similar to those of 1. above (12 in.
by 12 in.) shall be cut in the same manner as required in
1. to produ.ce SIJccimens for tests.
Each shall be tested in accordance ""ith the
procedure for A.S.T.M. DesiGnation E9-61.
Foul' s!3.r.lp1es sirnilar to those of 1. above shall
each b::: cut into 2 Sl)ecimens appro::dmately 5 - inches in
" 1t
\dclth; t',ro r.amplcs are to be cut parallel to the e;raln,
the t,",'iQ, Iterr.::ndicul::lr to ti'l2 "2:rninu"
Department of Fisheries February 9) 1968
Each specimen is to :be tested in bending, t'\vo longitudinal
and tvTO cross face up, the remaining four specimens
face dmTn. All tests are to be in accordance with the procedures
of DesiGnation and Designation C293-64 insofar
as applicable.
Diaphragm or Flat Plate Bending
Four samples the same as required in 3. above
are each to be .simply supported on a square fixture having
cylindrical contact surfaces of 1/4 inch radius, and initial
contact lene;ths of 10 inches for each side of the square.
Two specimens' are to be tested face up and two face down.
Each is to be loaded centrally on an area 1 inch in diameter.
Load is to start at 100 pounds, and is to be increased
in 100-palmd to 600 pounds, then in 200-pound
increments to 1600 pounds, then in 400-pound increments to
ultimate. The lea d is to be removed after each increase.
Deflections loaded and unloaded for each step are to be observed
and recorded.
5. Impact
Four square samples, similar to those of 3. above are
to be tested for impact resistance while resting on the fixture
of 4. above by dropping onto each a 'chilled-iron grinder-ball
approxiwately 4 inches in diameter and of spherical shape,
so as to strike the specimen ,\fith an energy of 150 foot-pounds.
If no evidence of failure appears, successive impacts each
50 foot-pounds greater than its predecessor shall be applied
until evidence of failure appears.
6. Freeze -Tha'\-T
Eight specimens 4 inches by 16 inches shall be cut and
tested in accordance with A.S.T.M. Designation C29l-61T and
Designation C215-60.
APPENDIX 2
Reprinted from: Proceedings of the Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials, Montreal, Canada,
October 1 - 3, 1968.
Ferro-Cement as a Fishing Vessel
Construction
Material
by
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
British Columbia Research Council,
Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. Kelly Mr. Mouat
Mr. Kelly was born in St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1930. He earned his diploma in engineering
and his B.Sc. in mathematics at St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, N.s., in 1957. He obtained his
M.Sc. in geology and geophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., in
1963. He did further post-graduate study at McGill University, Montreal, from 1964 to 1966. From
1951 to 1956 Mr. Kelly served in the Canadian Army. Between 1957 and 1964 he was Lecturer and
Assistant Professor at St. Francis Xavier University; in 1966 and 1967 he was with the Unica Research
Company, Montreal, and from 1967 to date he has been Assistant Head of Operations Research at the
British Columbia Research Council. He has had a lifelong interest in boats and naval architecture is his
hobby.
Mr. Mouat was born in Nelson, B.C, in 1912. He obtained his B.Sc. degree in mechanical
engineering from the University of British Columbia in 1934, and his M.Sc. degree in electrical
engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1939. From 1934 to 1938he was employed
by Cemco Manufacturing Company; from 1940 to 1946 he was with the Electrical Engineering Section
of the National Research Council, heading the section before he left to become Project Engineer at
the University oJ British Columbia, a position he held until 1949, when he assumed his present duties
with the Division of Engineering of the British Columbia Research Council. Since 1949 Mr. Mouat has
done a considerable amount of materials research and testing, including work on wood, metals, soils
and concrete.
ABSTRACT
The material is described and a brief history of its usage
given, including the results of some of the research which
has been performed in the past. The current "state of the
art" is then surveyed, with emphasis on three points: Costs
of Construction; Strength and durability, and Design
considerations. Finally, the results of a series of strength
tests, made on flat panels of various confIgurations, are
presented.
INTRODUCTION
"Ferro-Cement" is the name given by Dr. P. L. Nervi, of
Italy, to a material consisting essentially of a number of
layers of wire mesh impregnated with a mortar made of frne
sand and Portland cement. Nervi (I956) showed that the
resulting material did not behave like ordinary reinforced
concrete but, in his words, "exhibited all the mechanical
properties of a new material". The reasons for this
behaviour appear to depend fundamentally on two things:
136
1. TIle ratio of reinforcement to mortar, by weight,
2. The dissemination of the reinforcement through-
out the matrix of mortar.
\ The material is easy to fabricate into complex shapes
without the use of fonns or moulds; it has good strength to
weight and stiffness to weight ratios; it is waterproof; it is
corrosion resistant, and it is relatively inexpensive. These
properties lead to the conclusion that it ought to be a
useful material for marine applications; indeed, many such
applications have been made. The increasing interest in the
material on the Pacific Coast reached a level some months
ago such that the Industrial Development Service of the
Department of Fisheries of Canada commissioned the British
Columbia Research Council to carry out a study of
ferro-cement as a boatbuilding material. This report is the
outcome of that study.
The stated aims of the project were:
1) To collect and collate as much as possible of
currently available infonnation on the properties
of ferro-cement and its use as a boatbuilding
material, and
2) To carry out a limited program of testing to
detennine the physical and mechanical properties
of ferro-cement, as fabricated by conventional
techniques.
HISTORY OF FERRO-CEMENT
The invention of ferro-cement, as defmed above, is
generally credited to Nervi and dates from the work he did
in the years 1942-43. It is of interest to note, however, that
similar methods were in use by Lambot, in France, as early
as 1849 (Cassie, 1967). In fact, Lambot took out French
and Belgian Patents, on what he called "Fen;:iment" in
1856. He caused several rowing boats to be built of the
material. One of these was apparently still afloat in 1949,
nearly 1 00 years later. In 1955, this and another were
found in the mud on the bottom of the pond where the
first had been kept; the older one is currently on display in
a museum in Brignoles, France. Cassie reports that it is still
in surprisingly good condition.
In 1887, the year of Lambot's death, a similar boat was
constructed in Holland. This vessel, now 81 years old, is
still afloat on the Pelican Pond at Amsterdam Zoo (Morgan,
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
1968a). Gabellini, in Rome, also built boats by this
method, around the turn of the century.
No evidence of true ferro-cement construction in the
period 1888 to 1942 was found, although many reinforced '
concrete vessels were built in this period. In the United
States alone, during World War II, 104 vessels, ranging in
displacement from 4,000 tons to 12,750 tons were con-
structed (Tuthill, 1945).
One of the first sea-going reinforced concrete :;hips was
the 356 ton "Namsenfjord", launched in Norway in August
1917. In March 1919, the SS "Armistice", 1,150 tons, was
launched in Great Britain (Taylor, 1961). Morgan (1968)
reports that this vessel is still in active service, 49 years
later. Nine old concrete vessels have been converted for use
as a floating breakwater at Powell River, B.C. The oldest of
these is the "Peralta", 6,065 gross tons, built in 1916. The
first of these were installed in 1947 and 1948 and all are
still in good condition.
In 1941-1943, Dr. P. L. Nervi, the noted Italian architect
and engineer, began a series of experiments on what he
christened "Ferro-cement". His work led to the acceptance
of tlle material by the Italian Naval Registry and the
Department of Marine Engineering of the Italian Navy. As a
result, in 1943, construction was started on a 40().ton
freighter and three 150-ton naval vessels, all of ferro-
cement. The work was abandoned in September 1943
because of the exigencies of war. In 1945, a 165-ton motor
sailer, "Irene", was built by the fmn of Nervi and Bartoli
for their own use. Nervi reports that the total weight of this
vessel was approximately 5% less than an equivalent
wooden ship; its cost was 40% less (Nervi, 1951). This
vessel was subsequently wrecked in 1957. However, Nervi
(1951) stated "After five years of hard and regular use in
the Mediterranean, the boat is as good as the day it was
launched and has never required any maintenance what-
ever". In the same paper, he reports that the vessel had two
serious accidents during that period, but sustained only
minor damage. In 1948, he had built for his own use a
38-foot ketch, the "Nennele". The vessel has a skin
composed of seven layers of mesh with one layer in
1/4-inch reinforcing bars on 2-inch centers. The total skin
thickness is only I/2-inch (Nervi, 1956). Morgan (1968)
reports that this vessel is still in regular service and is in
excellent condition.
There seems to have been little, if any, ativity from
1949 to 1960. In 1961, however, the renaissance of the
A. M. K e l ~ l ' all(/ 7: HI. /IIoliat
method started in New Zealand and in England. In new
Zealand, a Mr. Manning built a 24-foot yacht in that year;
this started a boom ill amateur yacht building using
ferro-cement, which is still going on. ]n the sallle year,
Windboats Limited, of England, began producing motor
.boats, 34 feet long. Tell of these were produced in the first
18 months of operation.
Shortly after this, interest spread to North America,
where tlle metllod has been widely adopted. ]n British
Columbia, for example, fishing vessels, work-boats, barges,
yachts and otller marine structures are now being built of
ferro-cement. In fact, the material has become the basis of a
thriving industry in the province-there are now four firms
engaged full time in the construction of ferro-cement
vessels, together with a finn specializing in their design. In
addition, at least threc prominent naval architects are now
producing designs for this medium.
Comparable activity is taking place in the United States,
mostly in California and Florida. An interesting develop-
ment is the Wusih factory in China, not far from Shanghai,
which has been producing ferro-cement boats since 1963.
The plant employed 600 people in 1 %6, 20 per cent of
whom are women. They produce six different models,
although most of their output consists of 3 and 5 tonners
(Anon., 1966). The article cited does not give production
figures; however, one of the accompanying photographs
shows a part of a production line, with more than 25 boats
under construction.
THE MATERIAL
As outlined in the introduction, ferro-cement consists of
a number of layers of wire mesh impregnated with a rich
mortar made of of Portland cement and fine sand. As Nervi
has pOinted out (1956), the principle involved is that
concrete can wit hstand large strains in the neighbourhood
of the reinforcement and that the magnitude of these
strains is proportional to the distribution and subdivision
of the reinforcement throughout the mass of concrete.
Specifically, when the amout of reinforcing material ex-
ceeds about 15% of the total weight of the material, the
strength increases dramatically compares to unreinforced
mortar. This percentage amounts to about 30 to 40 pounds
of reinforcement per cubic foot.
In order to avoid having to use forms, the usual practice
is to construct an armatu re of reinforcing bars to which the
mesh is attached. Conventional practice is to use eight
]37
layers of 20 gauge, I/2-inch hexagonal mesh, four on each
side of the reinforcing bars, which are usually 1/4-inch maid
or hard-drawn steel. This will be explained in greater dctail
in the next section.
The mesh covered arn13ture is then impregnated with
mortar. The mortar is made with a sand-cement ratio
varying from 1.5:1 to 2:1, dependiJlg on the builder. Type
5 Portland cement .. an alkali resistant type, is commonly
used, although some builders prefer the so-called "high-
early" cement, which requires less curing time. Five to
fifteen percent of tlle cement is replaced by pozzolan, again
depending on tlle builder. This substance absorbs the free
lime produced by the setting reaction of the cement and
also makes the resulting mortar more dense. The sand used
is a sharp, fine grade. Grading curves vary, but in general all
sand passes a number 8 sieve, willi 10 to 15% passing a
number 100 sieve. Between these two, the grades are
uniformly distributed. The aim here is to have a dense,
impenneable mortar, with the grains of aggregate well
packed and evenly coated with cement. The amount of
water added should, in the opinion of most builders, be just
sufficient to make the mix workable. ApprOximately 4 to 4
1/2 gallons per bag of cement is often used.
After the mesh has been thoroughly impregnated the
surfaces which will be left exposed can be given quite a
smooth finish by trowelling. This is best done by a
professional plasterer or swimming pool finisher. The
trowelling has the effect of floating some of tlle filler
materials to the surface, which becomes, after curing, almost
as smooth as a finished plaster wall. It must be done with
care, however, as too much separation of the aggregate will
weaken tlle ferro-cement. This procedure also ensures that
no mesh remains exposed where it could corrode.
The material is then allowed to set until it becomes hard
enough for grinding and sanding; this process takes about
eight to twelve hours. At the end of this time, surfaces
which require finishing are ground, using carborundum
stones and carborundum sandpaper. This smoothing process
done, the material is then cured for 21 to 28 days. During
this period, tlle structure is kept uniformly wet at all times.
The temperature should be maintained well above freezing
and the stmcture should not be exposed to draughts or
direct sunlight, which would cause uneven evaporation or
uneven temperature distribution or both.
On completion of the curing process, exposed surfaces
can be etched with muriatic acid and neutralized with
138
caustic soda to provide a good key for the fmal finish. Most
builders then apply several coats of epoxy based paint. The
paint is used solely to improve the appearance, as the
ferro-cement is waterproof and corrosion-resistant by itself.
\ The resulting material varies from 3/4" to 1 1/4" in
thickness, depending on the armature, and has a density of
about 1 SO Ibs/cu. ft; this is equivalent to a weight/unit area
of 9.5 to IS p.s.f.
The specific gravity of 2.4 seems high when compared to
1.6 for fibre glass and 0.9 for wood (including fastenings)
(James, 1967). However, the absence of heavy internal
frames reduces the weight of a ferro-cement hull sufficient-
ly that for boats over about 30 feet long, the weigllt is 5 to
15% less than an equivalent wooden hull. In addition a gain
of 11 % in internal volume is realized (James, 1967).
Some of the foregoing figures are general and imprecise,
because of the numerous lay-up methods and mortar mixes
in current use. Each of the manufacturers believes his
product to be superior; understandably, none would divulge
their specific sand/cement or water/cement ratios or their
sand grading curves. However, in a later section of this
report, specific values will be given for the test panels which
were made. These are representative of typical amateur
construction, and specify a useful point of departure for
future work.
The few strength figures which are reported in the
literature are mentioned only casually. The methods of
arriving at these figures are not given. However, these
sources plus verbal infornlation from local builders plus the
results of our own tests (given later in detail) indicate
compressive strength in excess of 6000 p.s.i. and tensile
strengths between 500 p.s.i. and better than 10,000 p.s.i.
We have so far been unable to explain this seemingly
excessive range of tensile strengths. No informa tion was
available on the type of tests perfonned other lhan our
own, which gave results of 450 to 900 p.s.i. These lower
figures are consistent with the reports of Nervi (1956) and
Byrne and Wright (1961) but are an order of magnitude less.
than those reported by James (1967) and by several British
Columbia builders who prefer not to be identified. It may
be that the higher figures are derived from flexure tests;
calculations based on our own flexure tests indicate
strengths ranging from 2000 to 3000 p.s.i. James (1967)
also reports on two other interesting tests. First, test panels
were subjected to temperatures of 1,700 degrees centigrade
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
for 1 1/2 hours, with no effect. * Second, a sample strip 21
5/8 inches x 5 inches x 5/8 inches was tested for fatigue
in flexure. A stress alternating between 600 and 700 psi
was applied 8 1/2 inches from one support point; the
sample survived 2 million cycles without fracture.
BOA TBUILDING METHODS
There are three methods of boat construction in current
use. They will be referred to as the "pipe-frame" method,
the "welded armature" method and the "wooden plug"
method.
1. The Pipe-Frame Method
This is the oldest method. In its basic fonn, it appears to
date back to the earliest use of ferro-cement. As is usual for
all boat building, it starts with the lofting of the lines. At
this point, station moulds are construted of iron pipe, bent
to conform to the station shapes, instead of wood. Usually,
1/2-inch i.d. pipe is used. The stem, keel, stern post, tran-
som and deck beams are Similarly made of pipe. These parts
are' then assembled and welded together after the usual
plumbling; levelling, squaring and fairing. This structure
is supported by being hung from an overhead framework.
The keel is shored up - this is the only support from below.
After the pipe-frame structure has been {aired, longitu-
dinal reinforcing bars, usually 1/4-inch diameter, are
attached on 2 to 3 inch centers. If required, transverse
reinforcing, on 3 to 6 inch centers is also installed. These
members are usually tied to the pipe frame and each other,
as welding is said to disturb the structure.
The wire mesh is then fastened to the framework. Eight
layers of 20 gauge, 1/2 inch hexagonal mesh (four inside,
four outside) is the general practice. The mesh is pulled
tight and attached by wire ties or "hog-ring" type staples.
Some builders also lace the mesh in such a way as to pull
the outer and inner layers together in the interstices
between reinforcing bars. This practice is questionable on
theoretical grounds, as it tends to concentrate the mesh on
the neutral axis of the section, where it is least necessary. In
addition, it leads to a "quilted" surface on the finished
product if the plastering technique is imperfect.
* (This is probably Ilame temperature and not panei'temperature,
as 1700
0
C is above the melting point of most steels and many sands).
A. /II. KellyallCI T. W. Moltat
The resul ting structure is then plastered from the inside,
with the mortar being forced through and trowelled from
the outside to give a smooth finish. It is then cured as
described earlier. The finished hull thickness is from
% -inch to 1 . -inches, with the pipe frames, covered by
mesh and mortar, standing proud inside the vessel.
\
2. The Welded Armatllre Method
After lofting, wooden moulds are fabricated and erected
in the nomlal manner. They stand on a keel section made
of channel iron. The false work is faired as usual. The next
step has several variations. In one, longitudinal reinforce-
ment, on 2-inch centers, is attached temporarily to the false
work and welded to a prefabricated stem and transom, the
fonner being of pipe or steel rod. Transverse reinforcing,
appropriately spaced, is then installed by welding to the
longitudinal bars, usually on the inside. Deck beams
(tee-section) are welded in place, as well as floors, flanges
for bulkheads, etc. The false work is then removed, leaving
a strong but elastic armature. The fairness of the annature
is checked; if necessary welds can be broken or individual
members cut and re-welded to make the armature fair. The
mesh is installed as before and the hull plastered and cured
in the conventional manner.
The second approach is to fasten wooden ba ttens to the
station moulds, followed by installation of the transverse
reinforcing, outside the battens. The longitudinal rein-
forcing is then welded on, outside the transverse. Propo-
nents of this method claim that the resulting armature does
not Have to be faired after assembly. The false work is then
removed. Installation of mesh and plastering is carried out
as before.
Although there are no data to substantiate it, it would
appear that the welded annature method is superior, as the
welding of the reinforcing into a monolithic structure
should result in a great areal distribu tion of stresses. Oberti
(1968), who has been working with ferro-cement since
1943, concurs with this opinion.
3. The Wooden Plug Method
This method also requires wooden station moulds. In
this case, they are erected upside down. After fairing, the
structure is sheathed with cedar or some such soft wood. A
mortar barrier of plastic or tar paper is applied to the
resulting plug. Four layers of mesh, transverse reinforcing,
longitudinal reinforcing and fmally four more layers of
139
mesh are nailed and/or stapled to the plug. The mortar is
then applied and cured. After curing, the hull must be
turned over and the falsework stripped out.
The advantages claimed for this method are that the
resulting hull is fairer and more quickly constructed, the
latter being because the reinforcing bars and mesh can be
put in place more rapidly. The first claim appears to have
some validity, although proper bracing and dimensional
control should ensure fairness with the welded armature
method. The second appears a dubious advantage, as the
tin1e and materials required to construct the plug could
very easily offset any economic advantage gained by more
rapid installation of mesh and reinforcement. In addition,
as the reinforcing bars are not attached to each other, great
stress concentrations could occur in the completed hull.
Precise measures of labour required were not available
for any of the construction methods. Reliable estimates for
the welded armature and wooden plug methods indicate
that between 600 and 800 man hours are required to
complete the hull and deck of a vessel between 40 and 45
feet overall.
In summary, the welded annature method seems
superior, especially for the professional builder.
ECONOMICS
Materials lists were obtained for three different hulls
constructed by different builders. The hulls were of
comparable size, ranging from 42 to 45 feet overall, with
displacements from 12 to 15 tons, approxima tely. The lists
Table I
Materials Lists For Three Sample Hulls, Including Decks
Hull A Hull B Hull C*
Pipe (Y.." I. D.
Iron)
900 ft. 800 ft. Nil
Reinforcing Bar
(.") 9000 ft . 12000 ft . 12000 ft.
Wire Mesh' (Y..",
20 gal
15750 sq. ft . 15000 sq. ft. 65000 sq. ft.
Cement (Portland 6500lbs (75 5100lb5 (58 (less than 7
Type 5) bags) bags) cu. yds. of
mortar)
Sand
1 2000lbs (130 10200lbs (115
bags) bags)
Angle or Strap
Iron 100 ft. Nil 700 ft.
--
*Includes bulkheads and other internal structures.
140
are generally consistent, the variations being accounted for
by differences in hull design and building techniques. Some
of the builders are understandably reluctant to reveal
precise details of costs; accordingly, the materials lists
shown in Table I do not include identification of specific
vessels.
..
Specific costs for these materials are not given, due to
regional variation, differences between suppliers, wholesale
and retail, and economies of scale realizable by larger
commercial builders. However, as an indication of costs,
these material lists, evaluated at average current Canadian
prices, range from $1,400 to $2,000 approxinlately.
As mentioned before, the labour involved for hulls of
this size varies from 600 to 800 man hours. Furthermore,
this labour, according to the builders, is mostly of a
relatively low level of skill and hence less costly than a
skilled shipwright would be. If one estimates the average
cost of tlus labour to be $5.00 per hour, including
overhead, (tius is probably a high estimate), the labour
costs would range from $3,000 to $4,000. The overall cost
of a hull of comparable size to those mentioned would
range then from a minimum' of $4,400 to a maximum of
$6,000, the average being $5,200. Although the cost of the
hull is only one-tllird or less the cost of a completed vessel,
it would appear that substantial savings can still be realized
with the use of ferro-cement, especially when one considers
that these estimates include the deck and, in the higher
ones, such interior structures as bulkheads, engine bearers,
etc.
THE TESTING PROGRAM
Because of tile appeal of this material to amateur
builders, the test panels were fabricated in a manner
believed to be representative of what a relatively unskilled
amateur would produce. No efforts were made to impose
strict control on materials, mixtures or crafstmanship. The
resulting strengths should then be the minimum that could
be expected.
An exploratory program of tests was planned to obtain
some preliminary experience with ferro-cement and to
provide a firmer basis for tile planning of more comprehen-
sive future tests. This program included tension, compres-
sion, shear, and bending tests, membrane tests on square
samples under compressive and under impact loading, and
freeze-thaw tests.
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
In selecting these tests the intention was to produce, if
possible, data wluch could be compared with corresponding
known values for steel or aluntinum, and to set preliminary
stress levels for use in designing willi ferro-cement. The
compressive membrane tests were intended for comparison
with similar tests on metals. The impact membrane tests
were expected to provide qualitative insight only into the
damage to be expected under accidental impact in use. The
freeze-thaw tests were considered vital since Canada's
eastern and western sea coasts are subjected to many cycles
each winter of freezing and thawing weather which boat-
building materials would have to withstand.
Description of Sample Material (Figures 1 to 4)
Panels measuring four feet in width, six feet in length
and three-quarters inch in thickness (nominal dimensions)
were made up following fabrication procedures that would
presumably be used by amateur boat-builders. Four groups
were prepared as follows:-
Group 1 Seven panels containing respectively 1,2,4,6,8,
10 and 12 layers of I/2-inch hexagonal galvanised
wire mesh, each made in down-hand position on
a 3/4-inch plywood backing. The mortar was
trowelled on by hand and mechanically vibrated
to ensure penetration. The top surface was
smoothed by hand trowelling. Quantities of
ingredients for each panel are detailed. in the
appendix.
Group 2 One panel containing one layer of hardware cloth
having No. 14 gauge wires on a one-inch by
one-inch mesh overlayed on each side with four
l a ~ e r s of I/2-inch hexagonal galvanised wire
mesh, made in a down-hand position on a
3/4-inch plywood backing. The mortar was
trowelled on by hand. A vibrator was used to
ensure complete penetration. The top surface was
smoothed by hand trowelling. The quantity of
ingredients is detailed in tile appendix.
Group 3 One panel similar to that of Group 2 except that
I/4-inch ntild steel reinforcing bars on 2-inch
centers, running in the long direction of the panel
only were substituted for the hardware CIOtll.
Group 4 No panel in this group was constructed. This
group was intended to involve the "gunite"
method of application and was deleted from the
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
\
experiment (it is a professional's method) and
replaced by Group 5 which was considered more
directly related to the other groups and con-
sequently more meaningful for the purpose of
this explora tory program.
Group 5 Two panels similar to Group 3 except made
without plywood backing and consequently
trowelled from both sides. One panel was plas-
tered down-hand, the other in a vertical attitude.
No vibrator was used. The panets were fmished
on both sides by hand trowelling. Quantities of
ingredients for each panel are detailed in the
appendix.
All panels were kept moist by spraying for 21 days.
Following the curing period the panels were surface dried,
marked for identification and cut to provide test specimens
according to the cutting schedule in the appendix. Each
piece was numbered when cut to identify its source panel
and its orientation in the structure of that panel.
In addition to the panels, from each batch of mortar used
in making up Groups 1, 2, and 3, three 2-inch cubes were
made for compressive tests.
Tension Tests
From each panel in Group 1, twelve sample pieces were
tested in tension. Wedge grips were applied directly to the
specimen in a way sinnlar to that used for testing of metals.
A tensile load was applied and gradually increased. First
indications of cracking were noted and the loading was
continued until it appeared that further straining would not
produce additional useful data.
Results
The specimens first developed a simple crack through
the mortar, followed by elongation of the wires of the
reinforcing mesh, followed by a second crack more or less
parallel to the first, separated from it by a small distance,
typically one-half inch. Further straining produced
additional cracks. Four specin1ens showing tIns cracking
appear in the photographs Al and A2 in the appendix. A
chart giving the range of tensile strength values, as
determined from these tests, appears in the appendix. It can
be seen from the chart that tensile strength increases almost
linearly with the number of layers of mesh.
14J
Compression Tests
From each panel in Group 1, twelve sample pieces were
tested in compression. The end surfaces as cut were flat
and reasonably smooth so they were not capped prior to
testing. A self-aligning head was used in the testing machine
to accommodate any lack of parallelism in the specimen
ends. A compressive load was applied and increased
gradually until either maximum load was reached and
passed or it appeared that further crushlng would not
produce additional useful data.
Results
Typical compressive failures occurred in nearly all cases.
As can be seen from the photographs A3 and A4 in the
appendix, one or two shear planes developed; if two, the
resulting wedge then penetrated the opposing part of the
specimen splitting it more or less cen trally. The presence
of the wire mesh appears to have guided these splits but
otherwise had little effect on the results of tl1e tests. A
chart showing the range of compressive strengths as
determined from these tests appears in the appendix.
Shear Tests
Twelve sample pieces from each panel in Group 1 were
tested in double shear, six with the trowelled face upward,
six with the trowelled face downward. Tests were made
using the natural panel surfaces in contact with the anvils of
the test apparatus. The shearing force was applied and
continuously increased until shearing occurred. Overtravel
was restricted to the minimum practicable amount.
Results
Photographs A5 and A6 in the appendix show the results
of the shear test on specimens from panels with 2 layers of
mesh and 10 layers respectively. In the testing of specimens
having one layer of mesh, complete separation of parts
occurred in some cases. For panels with two or more layers
of mesh the photographs are typical of the appearance after
testing. The shear strengths as calculated from the test
results show increasing strength approximately linearly
related to the number of layers of mesh.
Transverse Bending Tests
Eight samples from each panel were tested in transverse
bending, four with trowelled face upward, four with
142
trowelled face downward. Tests were in accordance with
ASTM Designations A438-62 and C293-64 insofar as
applicable.
Results
\ In each case cracks fonned on the tension face near
mid-length. Following formation of an initial crack a small
decrease of load occurred, then the load built up to a
greater value than that at which the crack formed. Next a
second crack fonned with a decrease in load followed by a
further increase, then by further cracking. In no case did
the test result in breaking of a specimen into major
components. Some crumbling occurred along the edges of
the cracks. Some samples from Group 5 (trowelled from
both sides - not vibrated) which showed incomplete
penetration, particularly around the 1/4-inch diameter
reinforcing rods, failed by shearing along the neutral axis.
The photographs A 7 and A8 in the appendix show
typical results of the bending tests. The photograph A9
shows one of the test pieces which sheared longitudinally.
A chart giving the range of values of modulus of rupture, as
determined from the results of these tests appears in the
appendix.
Panel Tests (Compression)
Four samples from each panel in Group I were tested as
point loaded flat plates. Each panel was placed on a test
fIXture in the fonn of a square of half-round bars of
1/2-inch diameter with a mean side length of ten inches. A
one-inch diameter anvil was placed on top of the panel at
its center and load was applied to the anvil by a testing
machine.
Each panel was loaded and released repeatedly, with
increasing values of load until a sudden increase in
deflection was noted, when the panel was considered to
have failed.
Results
Each panel reacted elastically to its initial loading, then
as loads increased developed cracks and pennanent deflec-
tion which increased with load. Finally a load was reached
that caused a disproportionate increase in deflection which
was taken as indication of failure.
Failure resulted in a type of punching shear beginning at
the perimeter of the I-inch anvil and spreading as a shallow
CONfERENCE ON rISJIING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
cone to 3 or 4 inches diameter on the underside of the
panel. The material within the cone showed considerable
fracturing, but was retained by the mesh. The photographs
AIO, All, A12 and Al3, in the appendix show the front
and rear appearance after testing of panels with eight and
ten layers of mesh. A table of values of maximum applied
load for each panel appears in the appendix.
Panel Tests (Impact)
Four samples from each panel in Group 1 were subjected
to impact tests. Two of these four samples were impacted
on the trowelled face, the other two on the reverse side.
Each panel was supported on the square fIxture described
under Panel Tests (Compression) and subjected to impact
by a falling weight dropped through progressively increasing
distances. Variability in resistance to impact and in the
nature and extent of the resulting damage made recognition
of the point of failure uncertain.
Results
Impact resistance was less than expected. As a result the
frrst two specimens tested were completely shattered by
their initia,! impacts of 30 ft. pounds and 8 ft. pounds
respectively. The photographs A14 and AIS show typical
cracking type failure that occurred in panels with four layers
of mesh or less. Photographs A 16 and A 17 show the type
of punching shear that occurred in panels having six or
more layers of mesh. A tabulation in the appendix details
the maximum impact applied to each panel. .
Freeze- Thaw Tests
Owing to the complex special equipment needed for
freeze-thaw testing, arrangements have been made with
University of Alberta, where test facilities were available.
The test results are not yet available.
CONCLUSIONS
The variability in the test results demonstrates the
importance of craftsmanship in working with ferro-cement.
Ostensibly symmetrical samples produced widely differing
results when tested in flexure face up and face down
because the distribution of reinforcing mesh was non-
unifonn.
The failure to reach and pass maximum strength to
weight ratios as reported by Oberti (1949), even with use of
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
twelve layers of mesh, indicates that a heavier gauge mesh
should be used. Multiple fractures of the matrix in tensile
tests and on the tension face in flexure tests showed that
bond strength between wire and mortar was adequate,
indicating that larger diameter wire could be used without
4isadvantage. Compression tests showed very little con-
tribution to the strength of the composite material by the
steel. Larger diameter wires would be expected to be more
effective in compression. On the other hand if the wire
diameter is increased too much, the mesh would be difficult
to handle and the area available for adhesion is diminished
to the point of inadequacy.
Many of the compressive strength tests resulted in
splitting of the specimen between the layers of mesh. This
suggests that more attention should be given to cross-
bonding of the meshes and possibly to development of
another type of mesh having some inherent cross-bonding
characteristic. Some type of expanded metal lath would
serve this purpose.
It is. evident that each aspect of the materials, mixing,
and application could be improved and that ferro-cement
would become more attractive as a boat-building product as
each improvement is made. .
RECOMMENDATIONS
There is considerable scope for improvement in ferro-
cement as a boat construction material and in fabrication
procedures in the use of ferro-cement for the building of
boats. Both these fields need intensive development so that
reasonable levels are reached before the reputation of
ferro-cement is damaged.
In the field of amateur boat building, comprehensive
instruction manuals are needed which will contain step-by-
step operating procedures, suggestions for optimizing the
results, and thorough background discussions explaining the
143
properties of ferro-cement, suitable methods of use, sources
of difficul ty and ways to avoid them.
In conducting future development work and tests more
attention should be given to:-
1) Craftsmanship - to ensure that products and test
specimens will be as specified.
2) Control of Ingredients - sand particularly' should
be of suitable grading and grading should be
uniform throughout each test series.
3) Control of Mixture - the real water-cement, and
cement-sand ratios must be maintened at the
specified values.
4) Control of Testing - efforts must be made to
avoid or at least explain all inconsistencies in tests.
Methods of measurement, both for specimen
dimensions and for deflection or distortion result-
ing from testing, depend largely on the surface
texture of samples. Excessive roughness and pro-
jecting or loose particles must be given very special
attention to minimize their influence on the test
results.
5) Control of Mixing - considerable variation of final
properties can result Jrom slight variations of
mixing procedure, timing, ingredient condition,
particularly water temperature, mixing time, and
hold time between mixing and emplacement.
Finally, development work in the short term should be
aimed at gaining appropriate government certification of
this material for use in offshore fishing vessels of small and
medium sizes. This is the major step required to give
encouragement to professional builders who can then be
depended upon to press forward with improvements to the
material and the fabrication methods.
144
Figure 1
Figure 2
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
PanelS
PanelS
Detail
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
Figure 3
" "."'.
Figure 4
Panel 9
Ready for Mortar
4, (, ~ l'': .:
! ~ . " .
Panel 9
Detail
145
146
REFERENCES
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Morgan, R.G. (1968a) Letter to the Editor, Concrete,
March, p. 128.
NOTE: The following list contains only those references cited in
Nervi, P.L. (1951) "Ferro-Cement: Its Characteristics
and Potentialities", Translated
from the Italian; L 'Ingignere, No. I,
S.L.A. Translation Center.
, this paper. An expanded bibliography, containing approx-
imately 100 references, is in preparation and will be
available to interested persons within a month.
Anon., (1966) "Chinese Build Concrete Boats",
Concrete Products, vol. 69, No. 12,
pp 36-37.
Nervi, P.L. (1956)
Oberti, G. (1949),
"Structures", F.W. Dodge Corpo-
ration, New York, pp 50-62.
Byrne, J.G. & W. Wright (1961) "Reinforced Cement Mortar Con-
struction - An Investigation of
Ferro-<::ement Using Expanded
Metal", Concrete and Construc-
tional Engineering, vol. LXI, No.
12, pp 429-433.
Oberti, G. (1968)
Taylor, R. (1961)
"Experienze SuUa Deformabilita 'e
Resistenza a Trazione di Provini in
Ferro-<::ementato" ("Some Con-
clusions about Deformability and
Resistance in Tension of Ferro-
Cement"), unpublished manuscript.
Personal Communication
Cassie, W.F. (1967)
James, T.L. (1967)
Morgan, R.G. (1968)
Panel No.
"Lambot's Boats - A Personal
Rediscovery", Concrete, No-
vember, pp 380-382.
"A New Boat Building Material",
Ship and Boat Builder Interna-
tional, April, pp 34-36.
Personal Communication
Tuthill, L.H. (1945)
APPENDIX I
CUtting Schedule
"Concrete Ships", letter to the
Editor, The Architect and Building
News, June, p. 852.
"Concrete Operations in the Con-
crete Ship Program", J. A mer.
Cone. Inst., vol. 16, No.3, pp
137-177.
1. 12 pieces 1 3/4" by 12" long, cut with the 12" dimension in the direction of the panel's 6 'ft. length, 6 of these
are for tensile test bearing identification numbers 100 to 105 incl., the other 6 numbered 106 to 111 incl. to be
cut centrally to 5 3/4" length. Half for compressive tests and mating halves for double-shear tests.
2 to 7
incl.
8
12 pieces as above except cu t across the panels' 6 ft. length, tensile test pieces numbered 120 to 125 incl., others
numbered 130 to 135 incl. re-cut for compressive and double-shear tests.
8 pieces,S 3/4" by 12" half with and half across the direction of the panel's 6 ft . dimension, numbered 140 to
143 incl., and 150 to 153 incl. respectively for transverse bending tests.
8 pieces 12" by 12" for plate tests, 4 for compression tests numbered 164 to 167 incl. and 4 for impact tests
numbered 160 to 163.
8 pieces, 4" by 16" fOr freeze-thaw tests, numbered 170 to 177 incl.
Cut same as above. Identification numbers are similar except first digit of each number is same as panel
number.
12 pieces, 1 3/4" Wide by 12" lo'ng, half with and half across the'direction of the panel',s 6 ft. length, for tensile
tests.
Identification numbers 800 to 805 incl. and 810 to 815 incl.
8 pieces 5 3/4" Wide by 12" long half with and half across the direction of the panel's 6 ft. length, for transverse
bending tests. Identification numbers 820 to 823 incl. and 830 to 833 incl.
9, 10, 11 8 pieces from each panelS 3/4" wide by 12 loilg, half with and half across the direction of the reinforcing bars,
for transverse bending tests. Identification numbers 900 to 903 incl. and 910 to 913 incl., 1000 to 1003 incl.
and 1010 to 1013 incl., and 1110 to 1113 incl.
Note: Cuts parallel to re-bars are to be approximately centered between adjacent bars.
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
Table of Ingredients
Panel Numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
I Weight of Material in Pounds
Sand 184 200 210 211 195 190 204 199 189 195 195
Cement 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Pozzolan 13% 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Water 40 49% 49 56 64 36 52% 53 52 56 56
Reinforcement, Nature and Quantity
Number of Layers
V ... in. galv. No. 22 ga 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 8 8 8 8
Hexagon mesh
I-in. pitch No. 14 ga
Hardware Goth. See x
Note (a)
~ - i n . dia. mild steel
rods on 2-in. centers. x x x
See Note (b)
NOTES: (a)
(b)
1 layer of hardware cloth, I-inch square mesh, No. 14 ga wires with 4 layers of galv. mesh on each side.
In central plane, lengthwise of panel, mild steel rods ~ - i n . dia. on 2-in. centers, 4 layers of galv. mesh on
each side.
Derived Data
Panel Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Water/Cement Ratio 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.52 0.60 0.34 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.52 0.52
Cement/Sand Ratio 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.51 0.55 0.56 0.52 0.54 0.57 0.55 0.55
Average Compressive
Strength 'Of 28 days
6910 7140 7300 6250 7210 7650 7560 7260 7690 - -
from 2-in. cubes,
pounds per sq. inch
Weight in pounds of
reinforcement per sq. 0.11 0.22 0.43 0.64 0.85 1.07 1.28 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.85
ft. of panel
Average Density of
panel material, pounds 131 145 147 145 148 154 165 152 151 - 140
per cubic foot
NOTES: 1) In calculating ratios above pozzo!an was included as cement.
2) Sand was reputed to be oven dry but moisture content was not tested.
3) A sand analysis from a sieve test of a 100-gram sample showed:-
Screen size 3/16" No.7 No. 14 No. 25 No. 50 No. 100 in Pan
Percentage Retained 0 2 3 10 55 22 8
4) Compressive strength tests were made by Warnock-Hersey International Limited, Coast Eldridge Professional
Services Division.
147
148
CONFFRF.NCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
o
OF TEST VALUES
Speclrra0ns cui ICfD@iht':1ise of
o cut crosswise of panGI-aaCDD-
o
co
o
o
I'-
o
o

o
o
I
I
i
I
I

I

D
I
I
I
J .
)

.2
l
o .. - ---r6= - T2
NUMBER OF MESHES
A. M. Kelly and T W. Mouat
5
A-I
A-2
Tensile Specimens
After Test
Tensile Specimens
After Test
149
150
0
0
0
m
0
0
0
OJ
_0
.- 0
u;0
0..1'-
-
J:o
I- 0_
(!)o
ZW
W
0::0
1-0
-
(f)o
WLO
::::0
(f)o
(f)o
w
Q:
a..

0
0
of/)
0
0
0
N
0
0
0
I
I
,I
I
I
,g

:1
1
I
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
- 36 -
I
I
I
I
!
I

a
I
,I
I
m
'I
it I

is
9
I
I
i 1
I
I

,i



3
0
a

I
I
a
D
I
I
I
I

RANGE OF TEST VALUES
Specimens cut lengi;'t'Jise of panel
Specimens cut crosswise 01

I



B
I
Q
I
I
I
I
'I
1." .... __ .1.. Ai .. _._.J-.......-J ____ L.. ,..,...,t_. _J
I 2 4 6 8 10 12
NUMBER OF MESHES
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
a
A-3
A-4
Compression Specimens
After Test
Compression Specimens
After Test
151
152
---
rio'
,,-
<!
Id
:t:
tJ)
o
w
o

o
N
. ;3
,9
la
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
RANGE OF l-ES1' VALUES
Spccimentl cut Icngiht"Jiso 01 panel-""''"'"'
cut crosst"Jise or ponol
lQ
I
I
a G
I
I
a
I Q
i

I



G
a

I
'J

,3
8
.' ,


I
, .
;1
I
.J
D
J
a
.8


I
I

A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
AS
A6
Shear Specimens
After Test
Shear Specimens
After Test
153
154
o
o
o
V
0
0
~ o
ott)
fI)
.
0.
-....
LtJ
0::
:l
f-
Cl..O
=>0
0::0
I.!..(\J
0
en
::>
..J
::::>
0
00
~ o
0
I
I
I
I
I
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
RANGE OF TEST VALUES
Specimens cut lengtht"ise of panel- -
Specimens cut crosst1ise of panel----

I
I
I
I
I
I
e
13
.J

, ~
)
,
. ~ ~
1
I
!
'8
I
;]
r
I
I
I
I
,
. ~
;1
I ~
l
l
....-..--s._-'-__ --'-__ -J ___ ..!-___ ..L__ . .J
o 2 4 6 8 10 12
NUMBER OF MESHES
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
A-7
A-8
Flexure Specimen
After Test
Tension Side
Flexure Specimen
After Test
Tension Side
155
156
A-9
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Flexure Specimen
After Test
Sheared Longitudinally
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat 157
Panel Tests - Compression
Layers Specimen Maximum
Point Load Applied on
of Mesh Code Load
Trowelled Face Back
164 630 x
1
165 563 x
166 570 x
167 300 x
264 1400 x
2
265 1080 x
266 765 x
267 567 x
364 1870 x
4
365 1850 x
366 650 x
367 490 x
464 1600 x
6
465 1410 x
466 1000 x
467 765 x
564 2050 x
8
565 1960 x
566 1000 x
567 1090 x
664 2240 x
10
665 1850 x

666 1110 x
667 1100 x
764 1500 x
12
765 1750 x
766 1150 x
767 1260 x
158
A-lO
A- ll
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Panel Specimen
Compression
After Test
Panel Specimen
Compression
Mter Test
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
A-12
A-13
Panel Specimen
Compression
After Test
Panel Specimen
Compression
After Test
159
160
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Panel Tests - Impact
Specimen Layers
Impact on
Max. Impact
Remarks
Code of Mesh
Trowelled Face Back
Inch - Pounds
160 1 x - Completely shattered by 30 ft.-lb.
161 x -
Completely shattered by 8 ft.-lb.
162 x 20 Quartered; mesh intact
163 x 14 Halved; mesh intact
260 2 x 45 Halved; mesh intact
261 x 45 Quartered; mesh intact
262 x 36 Cracked in quarters to mesh
263 x 27 Cracked in quarters to mesh
360 4 x 205 Cracked in half to mesh
361 x 108 Quartered; mesh intact
362 x 27 Quartered; mesh intact
363 x 36 Quartered; mesh intact
460 6 x 73 Quartered; cracks follow mesh
461 x 215 Center punched through; cracks
462 x 143 Punching shear-type failure
463 x 63 Halved; crack opened progressively
560 8 x 215 Punching shear; quartered
561 x 54 Quartered; cracks opened progressively
562 x 215 Cracks follow mesh
563 x 45 Quartered; parallel cracks showed
660 10 x 332 Cracks follow mesh; opened slowly
661 x 89 Quartered
662 x 322 Center punched through; spalled
663 x 90 Cracks center to 3 edges
760 12 x 36 Cracks opened spal\ed
761 x 322 Center punched; mesh bulged; spaJled
762 x 143 Cracks; center to 3 edges
763 x 322 Center punched; mesh bulged; spalled
NOTES: Tensile, Compressive, Shear, Flexure and Panel tests were performed by Golder, Brawner and Associates
A. M. Kelly and T. W. Mouat
A-14
A-I5
Panel Specimen
Impact
After Test
Panel Specimen
Impact
After Test
161
162
A-16
A-1?
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Panel Specimen
Impact
After Test
Panel Specimen
Impact
After Test
APPENDIX 3.
FREEZE-THAt-l TESTS ON FERRO-CEMENT SAHPLES: EFFECT OF REINFORCING RODS
OR HEAVY MESH. (The method of making the samples is discussed in Appendix 2)
Freeze-Thaw Tests
Winter weather likely to affect the durability of concrete will
be experienced along the entire length of Canada's sea coasts and on its
inland waterways. A review of the literature reveals that the temperature
at which destructive freezing of concrete begins may be assumed to be
15F. It should be considered then that an exposed structure would
experience a number of freeze-thaw cycles roughly equal to the number
of times that a temperature of 15F or colder is followed by a temperature
of 32 or warmer. Only rarely will this exceed ten times a year. A
reasonable average for design purposes would be half this number, or five
cycles per year.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation in its Concrete Manual
terminates the freeze-thaw test when 25 per cent of original weight has
been lost from a specimen or when one thousand cycles of freezing and
tha\o1ing have occurred. Material which survives five hundred cycles is
considered acceptable.
The American Concrete Institute sets a limit of three hundred
cycles for the test, but uses loss of physical properties as indicated
by a vibration measurement, or by substantial disintegration, as criteria
of failure. The Institute's Manual states that the test is more severe
than is natural exposure. The three-hundred-cyc1e limit is basic also
to the ASTM tests.
Specimens and Procedure
Eight samples from each panel in Group 1 were prepared for
freeze-thaw tests. Because of equipment limitation and costs of testing,
only the specimens from panels 1, 4 and 7 were tested. Tests were in
accordance with ASTM C29l-67 as far as possible but the dimension of
the specimen in the direction of the panel thickness was approximately
3/4 inch while the test equipment was intended for a test specimen
dimension in the range of 3 to 5 inches. Consequently the electronic
vibration equipment could not be used. The tests were conducted on the
basis of weight loss. Measurements were taken at intervals of approx-
imately 25 freeze-thaw cycles for a total of 309 cycles except for those
specimens whose condition had deteriorated excessively before 300 cycles
had been completed.
Results
The weight loss from each specimen was recorded on completion
of 22, 44, 73, 103, 125, 156, 176, 205, 227, 257, 279, and 309 cycles of
freezing and thawing except for samples numbered 170, 171, 172, 174, 175,
- 2 -
and 177 which did not survive to the end of the planned 300 cycles.
The average weight loss as a percentage of initial weight was computed
for surviving specimens and is shmvn in Fig. 1. The percentage weight
loss is shown in Fig. 2 on a base of number of freeze-thaw cycles for
the averages of the samples from each panel. A strong inverse relation-
ship is evident between the number of reinforcing meshes and the loss
of weight.
Significance of Test Results
Repeated freezing and tha\ving under the continuously wet
conditions of testing results in water gradually filling the minute
voids and cracks that are inherent to a concrete material. As the voids
become filled the expansion of the contained water upon freezing exerts
disruptive forces on the material causing extension of existing cracks
and formation of new ones. When adjoining cracks some particles
separate from the mass and falloff, initiating the weight loss indication.
The rate of weight loss relates to the control of crack propa-
gation which has been shown to be affected by the reinforcing, and
particularly by its dispersion. Also, the rate of weight loss has been
shown to correlate with durability; more durable concrete in resistance
to natural weathering shows a smaller loss when subjected to freeze-thaw
testing.
On the basis of total weight loss at 300 cycles of freezing
and the material reinforced with 6 layers of mesh, and that
with 12 layers, would be adequately durable. The beneficial effect
of adequate reinforcing is strikingly evident from the attached plot
of weight loss against number of freeze-thaw cycles, for three different
amounts of reinforcing.
Transverse Bending Comparison Tests - Effect of Rods or Heavy Mesh
The panels of Groups 2, 3 and 5 were prepared to explore the
effect of heavier reinforcing material, used in addition to the fine
mesh, and also to get information on application procedure and trowelling.
Each of these panels contained eight layers of fine mesh, the same
number as in Panel 5 of Group 1.
Panels 5 of Group 1, 8 of Group 2, and 9 of Group 5 were
mortared in the downhand position against a: 3/4-inch plywood backing.
Panel 10 of Group 5 was mortared in the vertical position, and trowelled
on both sides. Panel 11 of Group 5 was mortared from both sides; mortar
was trowelled to about half depth from the underside and allowed to set
for 7 days, follO\ved by thorough trO\velling of the mortar applied from
the top to complete the build-up to the required thickness. No bonding
agent was used between the two layers of the mortar.
- 3 -
Eight test specimens 5 3/4.inches by 16 inches were cut from
each panel, half in the long dimension of the panel and half across it.
All specimens were tested in transverse bending, half of the specimens
of each orientation from each panel being loaded on one face, the other
half, on the other. The results of these tests appear in Fig. 1.
Results
Considerably larger values of modulus of rupture were observed
for the specimens containing rod or heavy mesh reinforcement on the
mid-plane than for specimens with an equal number of layers of fine mesh
but without additional reinforcement. As the heavier reinforcement was
near the neutral axis, it could contribute relatively little to the
bending strength directly. He believe that it acted to position the
fine mesh in locations where it was more effective, by preventing the
cross-tying from pulling it towards the neutral plane.
There is in virtually all the panels which ,olere mortared in
the horizontal position, whether containing heavy reinforcement or not,
a significantly greater resistance to loads applied to the top
("trowelled") face than to loads applied to the underside ("back").
We believe this to be caused by an assymetry in the reinforcement
distribution - that is, more fine mesh and/or heavy reinforcement
belmY' the median plane than above it, and not to a difference in the
quality of the mortar. One panel (No. 11 of' Group 5) which was
mortared horizontally in two stages any bonding agent) failed
consistently along the boundary bet\Y'een the two layers, indicating
that the bond was poor.
T.W. Mouat
Division of Applied Physics
TWM/cz
Fig. 1. Loss of weight in freeze-thmv cycling.
Loss of Height - Grams
Initial Number of Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Specimer. Height
Number ' Grams 22 44 73 103 125 156 176 205 227 257
170 1745 0 0 5 15 105 185 345 486
171 1696 0 2 6 57 125 168 256 304
172 1750 0 0 0 59 150 278 350 650
173 1900 0 0 0 71 99 163 255 292 311 524
174 1942 0 0 0 2 12 380 437 443 455
175 1715 0 7 13 63 150 286 395 500 515 591
176 1809 0 0 6 98 181 237 409 584 661
177 1923 0 0 0 142 203 363 443 560 669
Totals 14480 9 32 507 1025 2060 2885 3819 2611 1115
Average 1810 1 4 63 126 258 361 477 522 558
Percent Average ,3.5 7.0 14.3 20.0 26.4 28.8 30.8
470 1870 0 0 6 52 90 170 190 250 260 294
471 1895 0 0 23 71 75 104 147 173 235 275
472 1703 0 24 48 64 71 120 173 190 261 303
473 1825 0 13 15 50 73 95 120 187 205 246
474 1850 0 0 31 45 46 88 131 188 208 278
475 1642 6 7 22 44 72
203 .
237 262 310 329
476 1809 0 0 9 159 187 214 358 404 485 519
477 1832 0 0 4 32 33 93 203 272 290 363
Totals 14426 6 44 158 517 627 1087 1559 1926 2254 2607
Average 1803 1 5.5 20 65 78 136 195 241 282 326
Percent Average 1.1 3.6 4.3 7.5 10.8 13.4 15.6 18.1
770 1945 0 0 0 5 8 15 25 30 45 85
771 1830 0 0 0 .0 11 15 28 28 41 68
772 1758 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 28 33
773 1687 1 2 2 4 8 8 8 9 17 39
774 1659 8 1 2 10 10 10 21 31 39 66
775 1627 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 19 32
776 1618 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 18 38 42
777 1703 0 0 0 3 3 3 7 13 15 34
Totals 13827 9 3 4 22 40 51 89 162 242 399
Average 1728 1 0 0 3 5 6 11 20 30 50
Percent Average 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.7 2.9
Note: The 'first figure in the specimen is the 'pane1 number.
Specimens 170 to 177, inclusive, contain a single reinforcing mesh;
specimens 470 to inclusive, contain 6 layers of mesh; specimens
770 to 777,inc1usive, contain 12 layers of mesh. All specimens are in
Group 1 (made in horizontal position on plywood backing, vibrated, and
trowelled on top face).
,---- -
279 309
640 805
640 805
640 805
35.3 44.5
-
330 430
289 363
341 449
263 263
288 321
346 420
530 539
372 382
2759 2867
345 358
19.1 19.8
89 101
71 74
38 43
57 69
79 81
47 51
46 48
43 83
470 550
59 69
3.4 4.0
,....

c:
Cl)
u
...
Q)
Fig. 2.
Q.. 30
.........
en
(f)
9
I- 20
:J:
(!)
-
Freeze-thaw cycling - average loss of weight of eight samples versus number of cycles.
v I layer of mesh
o 6 layers of mesh
x 12 layers of mesh
v
" 0 -X"
,.-


-x-
0' 150 =x-" 2JX; 7- 250- I 360 350
"I=" - TWAW
Fig. 3. Transverse bending comparison tests.
. . . Modulus of rupture (p s i )
Specimen
a) Heavy reinforcement Specimen length Specimen length
code
1 Group
parallel to panel length across panel length
b) Mortaring position
Trowe11ed
2 2
Trowelled
2
Back
2
Back
540 1 a) None 1470
541 1800
542 810
543 650
550 b) Horizontal, p1y- 2240
551 wood backed 2203
552 961
553 926
820 2 a) 1114 gauge I-in. 3260
821 square mesh on 2860
822 mid-plane 1430
823 1870
832 b) Horizontal, p1y- 666
833 wood backed 869
900 3 a) 1/4-in. dia. rods 4200
901 on 2-in. centres 4070
902 lengthwise of 2310
903 panel on mid- 2710
910 plane 2256
911 2135
912 b) Horizontal, ply- 1163
913 wood backed 1336
1000 5 a) Same as Group 3 2470
1001 3030
1002
2620
1003 2450
1010
1659
1011 b) Vertical, trow- 1905
1012 e1led both 1445
1013 sides 1232
1100 5 a) Same as Group 3 1750
1101 1380
1102
930
1103
1230
1110 b) Horizontal, mor- 1186
1111 tared from above, 1280
1112 trowelled both 933
1113 sides
865
---.--
1 The first figure in the code is the panel number.
2
Face to which bending load was applied. In 1100 series "back" is surface trmvelled
from below. In 1000 series there is no "back".
APPENDIX 4.
BIBLIOGRAPIIT
The references are arranged in three lists as follows:
List 1 - The main references used. Virtually all of the really useful
references which were are contained in this list.
List 2 - Secondary references, some of which repeat or confirm the
references of List 1, but many of which are of very limited
value.
List 3 - References which could not be obtained in Vancouver, or from
the National Research Council Library in Ottawa. Only a
few of these would likely add anything to the information
available in List 1. Some are mainly of historical interest.
Assistance in obtaining the references in Lists 1 and 2 can
be furnished by the British Columbia Research Council.
- 2 -
Bibliography - List 1
Anon., "Seacrete Stern Trawlers", Fishing News International, May 1967.
Anon., "Plasterers Work Full Shift on Unique Concrete Boat", Plastering
Industries, March 1967.
Anon., "Concrete Barges Hultip1y in Gulf", Concrete Products, January 1967.
Anon., "Chinese Build Concrete Boats", Concrete Products, December 1966.
Anon., "Concrete-Hulled Pilot Launch for Bahrain", Shipbuilding and
Shipping Record, 29 September 1966.
Anon., "Ferro-Cement", Concrete Construction, September 1966.
Anon., "A Remarkable Concrete Boat", Building, 29 July 1966.
Anon., "The First New Zealand Made Concrete Boat", New Zealand Concrete
Construction, 12 February 1963.
Anon., "Thin Shell Reinforced Concrete", Engineering, 8 February 1963.
Anon., "Ferro-Cement Boats", New Zealand Concrete Construction, 12 February
1963.
Anon., "Concrete Ahoy", Corrosion Technology, October 1961.
Anon., "Concrete Freighter Shows Amazing Durability", Concrete Products,
September 1961.
Anon., "Concrete Ship to Bridge a Gap", The New Scientist, 24 July 1958.
Anon., "Une La Barque de Lambot", Batir, 47,- Page 9,
1955.
Anon, "Canadian Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials
Attracting Interes t", Fisheries of Canada, August
1968.
Anon., "Ferro-Cement Boats", Concrete Information, Cement and Concrete
Association of Australia, Leaflet C. 39.
Anon., "Progress in Ferro-Cement", Yachting Monthly (London), September
1967.
Anon., "Ferro-Cement Tug Hull is 110 Percent Cheaper", Wes tern Fisheries,
January 1968.
Abner, "Reinforced Concrete Ship"', The Architect and Building News, June
1961.
- 3 -
Burgess, John, "Seacrete Ncthod Developed by Progressive British Yard",
Fishing Nc\Vs Intcrnational, May 1968.
Cassie, W. Fisher, "Lambot's Boats", Concrete, November 1967.
Fondriest, F.F., and D.L. Birkimer, "Control of Cracking in Concrete",
Battelle Technical R e v i e ~ v , Volume 17, September-October 1968.
GardJler., John, "\.Jide Interes t Shmvn in Ferro-Cement Boats", National
Fisherman, September 1967.
Gardner, John, "Ferro-Cement is Hottest Thing in Boatbui1ding",
Nationa1 ' Fishcrman, June 1967.
Gardner, John, "Ferro-Cement makes Strong Hull: Microballoons Help Lick
Resin Sag", National Fisherman, March 1967.
Gibson, Peter, "Fishboats in Ferro-Cement", 1.Jestern Fisheries, January
1968.
Harper, Ross, F. Carius and L. Chase, Boat Building in Ferro-Cement
(Pamphlet)
lorns, Martin, "Ferro-Cement Advice From an Expert", National Fisherman,
June 1967.
lorns, Martin, "Cement Boatbuilding Problems Aired", National Fisherman,
May 1967.
Morgan, Roland, "Lambot's Boats", Concrete, Page 128, March 1968.
Nervi, P.L., "II Ferro-Cemento e la Prefabbricazione Strutt:urale",
In: Colonetti, G., Sciense Delle Costruzioni, Volume III,
Page 13, Torino, Scientifica Einaudi, 1957.
Nervi, P.L., "Ferro-cemento", Structures, F.H. Dodge Corporation, 1956.
Nervi, P.L., "Concrete and Structural Form", Engineering, October 28,
1955.
Nervi, P.L., "Ferro-Cement: Its Characteristics and Potentialities",
L'lngegnere, 1951, Number 1 (Translation).
Nervi, P.L., "Thin Reinforced Concrete Members Form Turin Exhibition
Halls", Civil Engineering, January 1951.
Nervi, P.L., "Precast Concrete Offers N e ~ v Possibilities for Design of
Shell Structures", Journal of the American Concrete Institute,
February 1953.
Oberti, Guido, "La Condotta Forzata di Castelbello", L'Energia Elettrica,
Volume XXX, Number 5, 1953 (Translation available).
- 4 -
Oberti, Guido, "Some Conclusions about Deformability and Resistance in
Tension of Ferro-Cement", Milan, December 1949 (unpublished
manuscript)
Rath, Dick, "Concrete Boats - Are They For Real?" Boating, October 1967.
Samson, John, and G. Wellens, A Manual of Ferro-Cement Boat Building,
Samson Marine Design Enterprises Ltd., Ladner, B.C., Canada,
1968.
Stevenson, H.I., "Use of Concrete Ships for the Log Pond Breakwater at
Powell River", September 1964 (unpublished manuscript).
raylor, R., "Concrete Ships", The Architect and Building Ne,vs, 28 June
1961.
Taylor, W.H., "Ferro-cement fabrication", In: Concrete Technology and
Practice, New York, American Elsevier, 1965, pp. 552-554 .
. Tuthill, Lewis H., "Concrete Operations in the Concrete Ship Program",
Journal of the American Concrete Institute, January 1945.
Tyson, John F., "Ferro-Cement Construction for Fishing Vessels",
Fishing Ne\l1s International, June 1968.
Tyson, John F., "Ferro-Cement Construction for Fishing Vessels",
Fishing News International, April 1968.
- 5 -
Bibliography - List 2
Anon., "Concrete Boats", Machine Design, April 11, 1968.
Anon., "Ferro-Cement: Tomorrow's Homemade Boat Boom?" Boating Journal,
February/March 1968.
Anon., "Cement For Sail", G.A.H. on Yachting, Ontario Edition, January
1968.
Anon., "Ferro-Cement Boats", The Boating Industry, September 1967.
Anon., "Cement Yacht is Lot of Boat for Honey", National Fisherman, June
1967.
Anon., "New Fiberstee1 for Docks and Boats", Bay and Delta Yachtsman,
January - February 1966.
Anon., "Awahnee Makes History", Sea Spray, August 1965.
Anon., "Marire - A Matangi Design Built in Ferro-Cement", Sea Spray,
April 1965.
Anon., "Featherstone Ahoy", Concrete Construction, July 1963.
Anon., "Concrete Racing Yawl", Mechanix Illustrated, July 1963.
Anon., "Rubb a Dubb Dubb - 3 Men in a Concrete Tub", Concrete Products,
June 1963.
Anon., "A Ferro-Cement Boat", Concrete and Constructional ,Engineering,
March 1962.
Anon., "Consolidation - In Concrete?" The Economist, January 6, 1962.
Anon., "Reinforced Concrete Hull for 34 Foot Boat", Engineering,
10 November 1961.
Anon., "Construction of an 18 M Ferro-Cement Hyperbolic Shell",
U.S. Joint Publications Research Service, 8 November 1960
(Engineering Construction, Number 9, pp. 33-35, Peiping,
May 15, 1960).
Anon., "Hearts of Concrete" for Russia", The New Scientist, 20 February
1958.
Anon., Cefer Designs Ltd. (Brochure), Vancouver.
'Anon., "Cement Boats - Building Instructions", Marine Design Enterprises
Ltd., Vancouver.
- 6 -
Anon., "Cement Boats", Harine Design Enterprises Ltd., Vancouver.
Anon., "Three New Designs in Ferro-Cement", Marine Design Enterprises
Ltd., Vancouver.
Anon., "Valeo, 55' Design Series for Ferro-cement Construction", Sea and
Pacific Hotor Boat, Page' lf6, 1967.
Anon.,_ "Value of Boats Built in B.C.", D.B.S. Otta\-la Reports.
Chapin, William, "Out to Sea - In Cement", San Francisco Chronicle,
March 18, 1968.
Gardner, John, "Fly Ash for Ferro-Cement Could Help Utilities",
National Fisherman, December 1967.
Hacking, Norman, "After Subsidy, What?" The Province, Vancouver, January 16,
1968.
Hacking, Norman, "Tug Hade of Cement and Hire Launched by Lulu Island Yard",
The Province, Vancouver.
Hacking, Norman,"Concrete Goes to Sea Quite Confidently", The Province,
Vancouver.
Lysaght, John, "Shiver He Timbers - Nm-l Concrete Hulls for Private Yachts",
The Atlantic Advocate, November 1967.
Nervi, P.L., "Precast Concrete Offers Ne\-l Possibilities in Design of
Shell Structures", Civil Engincerin_&, February 1953.
Rath, Dick, "Ferro-Cement Details", Boatin&, February 1968.
Ross, Stanley, "Concrete Floats: Smooth Sailing Ahead", Concrete Products,
Page 69, October 1963.
Samson, John, "Concrete Boats", Boating_, February 1968.
Tyrell, Don, "Dr. Bob Griffith", (Circumnavigation of Globe in Ferro-
cement Boat), The Sun, Vancouver.
Wellens, Geoff., "Pioneer \-1ill Soon Be Rolling Stone", 111e Province,
Page 18, May 10, 1968.
Wellens, Geoff., "Sailor of Fortune's Tales are Stranger than Fiction",
The Province, Page 15, Vancouver, November 15, 1967.
Wellens, Geoff., "Builder in a Hurry", The Province, Vancouver,
October 13, 1967.
Wellens, Geoff., "Paradise in a Trimaran", The ProvincC':, Vancouver .
Wellens, Geoff., "The A\vahnee: ~ . J h e n all the tvorld was a t.Jatery Stage",
The Province, Vancouver.
- 7 -
Bibliography - List 3
Anon., "Progress in Ferro-Cement", ' Yachting 'H6nthly, London, September
1967.
Anon., "Building in Ferro-Cement", Yachting 'Monthly, London, April ' 1967.
Anon., "Ferro-Cement Boats", Concrete Construction, Vol. 10, No.9,
page 159, New Zealand, 12 September 1966.
Anon., "The History of Windboats, Ltd." The East Anglia Life, England,
May 1965.
Anon., "American Concrete Yacht, 'Featherstone', Proves Herself Sea-
worthy", Concrete Construction, Vol. 7, No. 11, page 206,
New Zealand, 12 November 1963.
Anon., "Shipbuilding in Concrete", The Blue ' Circle, Vol. 17, No.2,
1963, pages 8-9.
,
Anon., "Reinforced Concrete Ship", The Architect ' and Building News,
Vol. 219, No. 24, page 779, 14 June 1961.
Anon., "Concrete Ships", The Architect ' and Building News, Vol. 219,
No. 26, page 852, 28 June 1961.
Anon., "New Splash,for Concrete", Concrete Construction, Vol. 5, No. 11,
page 326, November 1960.
Anon., "Making a Concrete Punt", The Sphere, Vol. 233, No. 3034, page 295,
24 May 1958.
Anon., "Concrete and Structural Form", Engineering, October 1955.
Anon., "Le Costruzioni Navali in Ferro-Cemento", Industria Italiana Del
Cemento, No. 7-8, 1950.
Anon., "Pioneering Prestress", American Concrete Institute, pages 22-27,
1945.
Anon., Concrete Information - Ferro-Cement Boats, Ref. C. 39, Cement and
Concrete Association of Australia.
Anon., "Notes in Regard to' the Physical Properties of Seacrete", from
Windboats Ltd., Wroxham, Norfolk, England.
Byrne, loG. and Wright, W., "Reinforced Cement Hortar Construction -
An Investigation of Ferro-Cement Using Expanded Metal",
Concrete and Constructional Engineering, Vol. LXI, No. 12,
pages 429-433, December 1961.
- 8 -
Collen, L.D.G., "Some Experiments in Design and Construction with Ferro-
Cement", Trans. Inst. C.E. of Ireland, Vol. 86, page 40.
Collen, L.D.G., and Kirwan, R.W., "Some Notes on the Characteristics of
Ferro-Cement", Civil Engineering and Public Works Review,
pages 195-196, February 1959.
Collen, L.D.G., and Kin,ran, R.W., "The. Mechanical Properties of Ferro-
Cement", Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, December
1958.
\
Colvin, T.E. "Colvin Tries Ferro-Cement: Describes Results", National
Fisherman.
Cox, Eric, "It's an E'asier Way", Yachting Monthly, pages 294-295,
London, December 1966.
Gardner, John, "John Gardner Lists Sources of Information", National
Fisherman.
Gardner, John, "To Sea in a Stone", The Skipper, December 1967.
Huxtable, A.L., Pier Luigi Nervi, George Bragilleu, Inc., New York,
1960, 128 pages.
James, T.L., "A New Boat Building Material", Ship and Boat Builder
International, pages 34-36, April'1967.
Manning, A., "The First New Zealand Made Concrete Boat", Concrete
Construction, Vol. 7, No.2, page 23, Ne\17 Zealand, 12 February
1963.
Nervi, P.L., Aesthetics and Technology in Bui1din&, Howard University
Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1965, 200 pages.
Rogers, Ernesti, The Works of Pier Luigi Nervi, Frederick A. Praeger,
New York, 1957, 142 pages.
Salvadori, G.M. Structures by Pier Luigi Nervi, McGraw Hill, New York,
1956, 118 pages.
Verney, Michael, "Concrete Keels", Yachting Honth1y, pages 314-317,
London, June 1963.
FERRO-CEMENT AS A FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
REPORT - PART II
to
Industrial Development Branch
Fisheries. Service
Department of Fisheries and Forestry
March 31, 1970.
I N D E X
INTRODUCTION 1
OBJECTIVES 2
PREVIOUS WORK 2
PRESENT PROGRAM 3
FERRO-CEMENT MATERIALS USED 5
MIXING EQUIPMENT 9
PREPARATION AND TESTING FERRO-CEMENT PANELS 10
INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS 18
STRAIN MEASUREMENTS - PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 20
REPAIRS TO FERRO-CEMENT HULLS 21
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS 33
THE PRESENT STATUS OF FERRO-CEMENT 35
REFERENCES 38
APPENDIX I - Tables 40
APPENDIX II - Tests on Ferro-cement Panels
Report to Ferro Cement Industries Ltd.,
Nanaimo, B.C. Nov. 1969.
, I
B. C. RES EARC H 3650 w b,ook C, cenl, Voncouve, 167, Canada.
. PhOM (60""""" ' Cob" "'''''CHIC' T ... , 0'"'0"<1
The Development of Ferro-Cement for Fishing Vessel Construction
Final Report to
Industrial Development Branch
Fisheries Service
Department of Fisheries and Forestry
March 31, 1970
INTRODUCTION.
There has been a remarkable upsurge in the last two years
of interest and activity in the use of the wir.e-mesh/cement material
known as ferro-cement, for boat-building and other marine applications.
This activity is, on two fronts - commercial building and "back-yard" ,
owner building. The commercial building, which is in small or meqium
' size yards, 'has, resulted in a ,considerable development of propriety
'methods and materials and also in vigorous promotion of the supposed
advantages of one method or formulation over another.
\ The commercial builders are now vitally interested in
obtaining certification for ferro-cement vessels over 15 tons. The
regulatory authority is faced with deciding what constitutes safe and
acceptable construction in the almost complete absence of unbiased
factual data on the properties of the material for ship-building
purposes.
_ ,The individual fisherman-builder is in an even more
c;1ifficult position, since he cannot afford to buy the "secrets"
' carefully guarded by the commercial builders, nor can he afford the
experimentation necessary to sift out reliable information from the
promotion literature and poorly documented advice
available to him.
It is clear that the orderly, economic development of
as a fishing vessel construction material requires the
collectiQn and dissemination of factual data on best materials and
fabrication techniques, and on the steps and precautions necessary
to produce a sea-worthy durable hull at a reasonable cost.
'Technical Operation of 'h. BRITISH COLUMBIA RESEARCH COUN<;:ll, Q Nonprofi, Indu.'riol R earch Soci,Iy
OBJECTIVES.
69-4125
- 2 -
The obj ectives of t ,he present program are:
(a) To accumulate infonnation for dissemination to
the fishermen builders of ferro-cement boats the
best advice possible on materials selection and
construction methods for vessels to participate
in Canada's fisheries.
(b) To establish recommended quality control criteria
and acceptable construction procedures which will
allow vessels constructed of this medium to receive
certification by the Canadian Board of Steamship
Inspection and other legislative requirements.
This is especially important for vessels exceeding
15 gross tons.
The program fully recognizes the need of the fisherman-
builder for simplicity in methods and economy in materials - but these
must be such as to ensure a durable hull of adequate strength for use
in Canada's fisheries.
PREVIOUS WORK.
The voluminous literature on ferro-cement was analyzed
in the report "Ferro-Cement as a Fishing Vessel Construction Material"
submitted on January 16, 1969. In addition to an extensive bibliography,
the report covers an exploratory test program on eleven 6' x 4' x 3/4"
panels containing from 1 to 12 layers of 1/2-inch #22 gauge hexagonal
mesh galvanized aviary wire. Four panels contained, in addition, 1/4"
diameter mild steel rods or #14 gauge heavy square mesh. Type 5 Portland
cement, with 15% of the cement replaced by Pozzo1an, was used in all
panels.
The most significant results of the exploratory tests
were as follows:
(a) There was considerable ' variation between ostensibly
identical and symmetrical panels. The positioning
of the mesh in the panel is critical and careful
control of fabrication is necessary to obtain
quantitative comparison of difficult materials and
methods.
69-4125
- 3 -
(b) Even the twelve layers of aviary mesh, which is
close to the maximum which can be placed in a 3/4"
sla?, failed to reach and pass the maximum strength
to"weight ratio observed by Oberti (1949), in
laboratory tests. It is clear that this type of
mesh is not optimum.
(c) Cross-bonding between mesh layers is required if
the compressive strength is to be raised appreciably
above that of the cement
(d) Panels containing six or more layers of mesh showed
adequate resistance to freeze-thaw cycling.
The exploratory tests covered only one type of mesh,
and one type of cement and sand.
PRESENT PROGRAM.
The overall plan of the present program covered virtually
all aspects of ferro-cement under the following headings:
1. Mortar and Reinforcing.
2. Shell Quality.
3. Patches and Bonding.
4. Hull Construction.
5. Sea Testing of a Complete Hull. '
6. Accelerated Environmental Testing.
In setting up an efficient test schedule, account had to
be taken of the interdependence of many of the elements under the above
main items. Our approach has been to systematically reduce the very
large number of possible combinations of ingredients and methods, to
manageable proportions. The 30-day curing t,ime of most cements precludes
rapid reorientation of the direction of attack.
There are a few fundamental questions which must be
answered before any realistic optimization of vessel construction is
possible. The most of these are: what kind of mesh, what kind
of cement, and what kind of mortar mix. It is equally important to ask:
what are we trying to optimize? "Strength" - which itself has many
different aspects - is one characteristic; durability, with low up-keep, '
is equally important and much harder to measure. Unga1vanized high
tensile mesh will certainly give greater strength than galvanized mild-
69-4125
- 4 -
steel mesh.
c
But if this added strength is gained at the expense of
durability it could be a poor bargain.
The initial test schedule resulting from the above
considerations was to compare six substantially different wire meshes,
using the same mortar, then five different sands and five different
cements using in each case the same wire mesh - #22 gauge 1/2"
hexagonal mesh, galvanized. This mesh was chosen because of its ready
availability everywhere, and its use in previous comparison tests.
Meanwhile suitable testing procedures, both for the test panels and
for ultimate use in controlling hull quality, were being evolved, and
information from the literature was assembled on the other items of the
program such as layup and fastening of reinforcement, glues and
admixtures, and possible methods of assessing durability.
A certain amount of information was obtained from local
builders, but this was in most cases either or contradictory.
While the builders undoubtedly know a great deal about what will work
in practice and what will not, their procedures and preferences are
rarely documented and disinterested. Thus it was essential to prepare
our own panels, under closely controlled conditions. With the results
from these as a foundation, it will be possible to broaden the base
of the study by using test results on panels made by others, even where
all the details of the preparation are not available. One such series
of tests is reported in Appendix II.
From the beginning we have been seeking a realistic and
practical method of accelerated environmental testing. Three possible
procedures have been devised, one of which looks very promising, but
none have been able to yield results in the short time that cured panels
have been available. The question of repairs and patching has been
,gone into fairly extensively, using the first samples broken in the
bend and impact testing. This is a much more critical and complex
subject that the brief references to it in the literature would
In the sections which follow our fabrication and testing
procedures and results are described in considerable detail, so that
anyone interested can compare them on a quantitative basis with the
results of his own tests. This is followed by a discussion of the
significance of our results to fishing vessel construction, and by an
indication of the gaps in knowledge which still exist.
FERRO-CEMENT MATERIALS USED.
THE MORTAR MIX.
69-4125
- 5 -
The possible combinations of cements, sands, water and
additives are legion and only ones considered important from a
practical point of view have been covered. This part of the work was
based on using easily available materials and proportions recognized
as favouring an adequate compromise of such properties as workability,
strength, water-tightness, etc., for the purpose of assessing types of
reinforcing materials and other attributes.
(a) Sands.
It was the intent to use combinations of "standard" sands
of rather narrow mesh sizes but a strike in the industry forced a
change of plans. A quantity of Evco Dry Mortar sand was available
and became the "standard" sand for the tests. Other sands used
included Evco Dry Concrete Sand and Del Monte No.8, ,No. 20,
and No. 30. Typical screen sizes are provided in Table 1 of the
Appendix.
Long experience with concrete and mortar has shown that
changes of sand gradings over even an extreme range have no material
effect on compressive strength of mortar specimens when the water-
cement ratio and the slump are held constant. Changes in grading
under the above constant conditions will require the cement content
to vary inversely with the fineness modulus of the sand. However,
the effect of the fineness modulus of the sand on the cement content
is known to be relatively small. Because of this, the cement/sand
ratio by weight was maintained at 1:2 for the mixes used .
to compare types of steel reinforcement and other variables. The
grading of sand, however, affects the workability and finishing
quality of the mortar and will be significant in hull plastering.
Trial tests using closely-packed layers of reinforcement
to make "tile" specimens with the various sands showed that mortars
containing "8-mesh" sands could penetrate the reinforcing layers.
It is generally considered by mortar and concrete authorities that
a clean, strong, sharp sand carefully graded and passing 8-mesh
is required.
(b) Cements.
North American Portland cements are produced in five
major types (Types I to V) which are adapted for use under specific
conditions. The types differ in their proportions of the four
main chemical compounds, namely, tricalcium silicate, dicalcium
silicate, tricalcium aluminate, and tetracalcium alumino-ferrite.
69--4125
- 6 -
Type I is used in general construction work when the special
properties of the other kinds are not required. The U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation "Concrete Handbook" states that Type I cement is
as durable as Type II under freezing-thawing conditions it if is
air-entrained. Some of the additives for Type I cement act to
increase the air entrainment. Type II is a cement used where
moderate sulphate attack may occur. Its low trica1cium silicate
content provides good resistance to sulphate solutions. Type III
cement develops high early strength which is an advantage in some
applications. Type IV cement generates less heat and at a slower
rate and finds its use in massive structures. This type would
appear to have no application in the ferro-cement boat industry.
Type V cement has much greater sulphate resistance than do the
other types. All five types have approximately equal strengths
after two months but after several years Types ' II, IV, and V
seem to surpass Types I and III. In addition to the above five
types, which have tricalcium silicate (or dicalcium silicate)
as their chief component, there is another kind of cement known
as aluminous cement. This cement has mono-calcium aluminate as
its chief component and, since free lime is not present, has
good resistance to attack by seawater and aggressive ground waters.
Its strength in 24 hours is claimed to be as high as the strength
developed with ordinary cement in 28 days.
Various cement/sand' mixes have been used in the
manufacture of ferro-cement boats. Nervi himself is said to
have used 50 to 60 lb cement to 1 cu ft sand. The following list
gives some of the ratios reported by various sources:
Portland cement ' Association(l), cement/sand 1:1 1/2 or 2
by ,.,eight.
J.F. Fyson(2), cement/sand 1:1 3/4 ("parts")
Sampson and loJellens(3) , cement/sand 1:2 (by bags).
Hartley(4), cement/sand 1:2 by volume.
Hurd(5) , ' cement/sand 50 to 65 lb cement to 1 cu ft sand.
Kaiser Cement Special Report T-19(6), sand/cement 1:1 1/2
by weight.
"YM and Ferro,,(7), cement/sand 1:2 by volume.
(c) Water-Cement Ratio.
The most important constituents in concrete (and mortar)
are the water and the cement. The sand-aggregate is a relatively
69-4125
- 7 -
inert filler. The function of the water is to form a solution of
electrolytes and apply a coating of hydration products on the
particles. Low water-cement ratios favour resistance of concrete
and mortar to sulphate increased water-tightness, increased
compressive strength, increased erosion resistance, lower permea-
bility, and lower shrinkage on setting and drying. American
Concrete Institute specifications require that the water-cement
ratio for concrete which will be subject to potentially destructive
exposure such as freezing and thawing, severe weathering, or
chemicals, shall not exceed 0.5 by weight.
Tests done in the present study showed that mixes with
a water-cement ratio of 0.4 could be satisfactorily worked into the
layers of mesh reinforcement with the aid of a vibrating trowel.
Some cements, notably Type III, required a slightly higher ratio
(more water) for adequate workability. However, even though the
weight proportions of sand, cement, and water were closely controlled,
a considerable variation in "feel" and slump was observed. The
cause of this variation may be attributed to variations in the
sand and/or to differences in the amount of entrained air.
(d) Admixtures.
Admixtures (additives) have not been pursued at this
time although it is recognized' that admixtures can be of some
benefit when used as air-entraining agents, set-retarders,
accelerators, water-reducing agents, and workability improvers.
The Division of Building Research NRC(8) points out, however,
that these benefits are contingent on proper use and a knowledge
of side effects which may be harmful. We conclude that if it is
possible to do a first class job without the aid of admixtures
that it is better to avoid them. This removes the necessity of speci-
fying sometimes secret and formulations and simplifies
the mortar making operation in areas where the admixture is not
readily available. Pozzolan is one material in common use by
makers of ferro-cement boats. Pozzolan combines with any free lime
in the cement and is reported to reduce the water/cement ratio and
to increase the workability. Its effect on the strength and
durability of the ferro-cement has not yet been adequately documented.
TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT.
69-L1125
- 8 -
The kinds of steel ,reinforcement which it is possible
to use are almost limitless. Mesh size, mesh shape, wire gauge, wire
strength, expanded metal (both as-expanded and as-flattened), perforated
metal, woven wire, welded wire, twisted wire, linked wire, galvanized
before weaving, galvanized after weaving, black wire, bright wire,
and plated wire, are some of the possible variations which may be
encountered. Early in the study it was realized that only a few of
the many combinations could be studied. It was therefore resolved to
use a representative variety of kinds readily available which had a
relatively similar mesh size, i.e., openings of about 1/2 inch. The
kinds used in, the various test panels of this study are as follows:
1. 2.5 lblsq yd expanded metal lath galvanized before
slitting.
2. 1/2-inch, #16 U.S. Steel W.G., (0.0625 in.), welded
square mesh, galvanized after welding.
3. As in 2 above but with zinc coating removed.
(Ungalvanized mesh not available locally.)
4. 1/2-inch, #22 gao (0.027'in.) hexagonal mesh
(aviary wire) galvanized before weaving - wiped
matte or possibly electrogalvanized finish.
5. l/2-inch, #22 gao (0.024 in.) hexagonal mesh
(aviary wire) galvanized after weaving - bright
hot-dip finish - Belgian or vJest German.
6. 1/2-inch, #22 gao (0.024 in.) hexagonal mesh
(aviary wire) galvanized after - grey to black
flat finish - Japanese.
7. 1/2-inch, 1119 gao (0.033 in.) hardware cloth.
8. l/4-inch coil, #19 gao (0.036 in,) black and oiled
firescreening (fireplace curtains) - oil removed in
naphtha.
9.. As in 8 - oil not removed.
10. 3/8-inch, 1120 gao (0.034 in.) wc,1ded square mesh
ungalvanized (type used in one r,oprietary construc-
tion method).
...
.-
69-4125
- 9 -
It was not possible to purchase loose-woven 1/2-inch
screening locally at the time of the study. High-tensile drawn or oil
tempered woven screens were available but appeared too stiff and too
expensive to be practical. Some 1/4-inch 1121 gao (USHG) welded square
mesh was purchased but this material has not yet been used.
Larger mesh sizes and heavier gauges obviously impart
properties to ferro-cement not obtainable from the smaller meshes used
alone. the study at this stage concentrated on assessing and
comparing the strengths of panels made with one kind of mesh reinforce-
ment. The strength of panels with composite construction is a separate
subject.
As mentioned earlier in this report, all mesh layers
in a panel were oriented in the same direction so that any directionality
characteristics would be made apparent.
With the exception of the firescreen mesh and the 3/8"
#20 gao welded square mesh, it was not possible to obtain suitable
material without a galvanized coating. For future comparison of
corrosion attack, the welded square mesh sheets for one panel were
stripped free of zinc in 50-percent hydrochloric acid, then thoroughly
washed.
The breaking strengths of the in several of the
reinforcements are shown in Table 2. Except for the square mesh material,
the strength obtained from single wires from a mesh docs not represent
the strength of the mesh itself, either alone or incorporated into
mortar. This is because of the mesh geometry and interlocking and
bonding characteristics.
MIXING EQUIPMENT.
A used bread dough mixer (200 lb flour capacity)
was modified for use as an economical mortar mixer. (Identical
machines are used in a local iron foundry for mixing cold-set core
sand and in a local pottery workshop for mixing clay.) The mixer speed
was reduced from 59 to 30 rpm and a scraper attachment added to the mixer
arms. Figures I and 2 show the mixer and the scraper attachment. The
dough mixer performed very satisfactorily. The normal size was
75 lb of dry ingredients and 10 lb water but a 90-lb batch of dry
ingredients plus water was mixed on one occasion without difficulty.
AND TESTING FERRO-CEMENT PANELS.
PANEL MOULDS.
69-4125
- 10 -
Four moulds were made from 32 x 32 inch sheets of
1/2-inch plywood. Stock 1 x 1 inch was nailed to each sheet to make
a 30 x 30 inch panel mould. Each panel was lined with a sheet of
4 mil plastic 36 x 72 inches stapled into the form. The free portion
of the plastic sheet was used to fold over the mould to prevent dirt
falling into the reinforcement layers and to reduce moisture loss
during the two-day period prior to stripping of the cast panel.
The procedure of panel mould preparation was
as follows:
(a) The selected reinforcement material was cut into sheets
measuring about 29 1/2 x 26 1/2 inches.
(b) The sheets of reinforcement material cut from rolls were
passed through a 3-roll sheet metal former to straighten
and flatten the sheets.
(c) The reinforcement sheets were laid layer upon layer until
a thickness of 1/2 inch was obtained. Each layer was
"randomly" staggered to avoid geometrical interlocking
and channeling and impeded sidewise movement of the mortar.
The 29 1/2 x 26 1/2 inch reinforcement was laid so as to
leave a three-inch strip on one side of the panel without
reinforcement. The orientation of each layer of the
reinforcing material in the panel was the same with
reference to directionality characteristics of the material,
if any.
(d) The layers of reinforcing material were held in position
in the bottom half of the mould by means of 7/B-inch roofing
nails. The nails were spaced in such a way as to avoid
critical areas in the several bending, impact, and corrosion
specimens to be cut from the panels.
Figures 3 and 4 show a typical panel-making process
with vibrating trowel and hand finishing.
"
METHOD OF MAKING PANELS.
69-4125
- 11 -
The following procedure, with minor modifications, was
used for all test panels:
(a) Dry sand and cement were weighed out.
(b) Samples from the bags of sands and cements were taken from
time to time for future use as required.
(c) Dry ingredients were mixed in the mixer for two minutes.
(d) A quantity of water weighed to the nearest 0.1 lb was added.
(e) Mixing was continued for an additional three minutes.
(f) A slump test was performed on each batch and three 2-inch
cube specimens were made from most batches after the first
few.
(g) The mortar was placed on the mould laid in a horizorttal
position and was worked intq the reinforcement by means of
a vibrating "trowel". (The trowel was a 5 x 12 inch piece
of 1/4-inch plate with a rod to the plate. This
welded rod was inserted into a small pneumatic chipping gun
as shown in the photograph of Figure 3.) It required about
five minutes to work _the mortar thoroughly into all parts of
the panel.
(h) The panel was immediately smoothed by hand-trowelling and
covered by the plastic sheet on cross-supports. No further
trowelling was done.
(i) The surface was wetted .after 24 hours and the plastic sheet
placed in contact with the panel surface.
(j) The panel was stripped after 48 hours, rewetted, placed in a
rack, and wrapped in plastic sheeting.
(k) The panel was cured by rewetting every two or three days and
keeping wrapped for one month in. the p.1astic sheeting. The
room was about 65F.
69-4125
- 12 -
Table 3 in the Appendix lists the details of the
reinforcement, mortar mix, slump values obtained, the 7- and 28-day
compression strength test results on 2-inch cubes, and the modulus
of rupture of the unreinforced edge test specimens. The slump
values of mortar in all panels used for subsequent tests except
Panels 25 and 26 ranged from 4 1/2 to 7 1/2. Panel 25 with Type II
cement and Del Monte sand and Panel 26 with Type I cement and Evco Dry
Mortar Sand had slump values of 3 1/2 inches. The average of all
values was 5 1/2 inches.
The average 7-day compression strength value on Type
II-Evco Dry Mortar Sand combinations obtained to date is 5,840 psi,
and the average 28-day strength value is 8,175 psi. Other mixes
generally provide single values and are also shown in Table 3. The
average 28-day modulus of rupture value of 14 paneis of Type 11-
Evco Dry Mortar Sand combinations obtained to date is 960 psi. The
single values range from 705 to 1,300 psi.
It should be mentioned that t , ~ o of the panels, 8 and
16, developed large flat blisters and small gas holes during the
setting period. See Figures 5 and 6. The cause of these defects is
not definitely known. A chemical reaction between the mortar and
the galvanized coating is considered to be a possible cause.
The test panels u s ~ d to evaluate the various reinforce-
ment materials are Type II Cement-Evco Mortar Sand combinations.
These include Panels 2 to 16 inclusive, some of which are duplicates
for control purposes.
The test panels used to evaluate the various cements
are the 1/2 in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh panels Type II - 5, 14; Type I -
17, 26; Type III - 18, 19, 22; Type V - 23; aluminous - 24, some of
which are duplicate controls.
The test panels used to evaluate the various sands
are Type II Cement - 1/2 in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh panels 5, 14, and
25.
The test panels for evaluation of the effect of a
galvanized coating are the 1/2 in. 16 gao welded square mesh panels
4, 12, and 9. Additional panels are desirable to augment their
comparison using galvanized and ungalvanized wire of finer gauge.
The first group is essentially a strength comparison.
The other three groups chiefly pertain to the resistance of the mortar
69-4125
- 13 -
and reinforcement to corrosive attack but will provide strength compari-
sons also.
METHODS OF TESTING PANELS - TEST RESULTS.
After a month curing time the panels were laid out, as
shown in Figure 7, for test specimens. Specimens A and Bare 15-inch
square specimens for drop-impact tests; Specimen C is for bend tests of
unreinforced material; Specimens D and E are for longitudinal and
transverse tests (depending on the directionality of the reinforcement
material; and Specimens F and G are specimens for corrosion, exposure,
and any other tests. The panels were sectioned by means of a diamond
saw.
1.. Drop-Impact Tests.
Various investigators of ferro-cement and laminate
hull materials have used various impact test methods. Nervi dropped
a 550-lb weight from heights which were gradually increased up to
about 10 ft (5,500 ft-1b). Nervi's slabs reportedly ranged in thickness
from. 2.4 to 4 inches and contained. bars from 0.24 to 0.40 inch with
many layers of mesh .
The relative impact resistance of laminates with various
reinforcements has been determined by Gibbs and Cox, Inc. (9) using
a test to simulate actual service conditions as nearly as possible. A
cylindrical impacter with a hemispherical head 3 inches in diameter
was dropped down a smooth seamless tube 20 feet long. The impacter
could be varied in weight from 7 to 150 lb. Damqge was evaluated by
leakage tests. In another study by H.W. an iron ball
25 cm in diameter, 61 kg in weight, suspended from a steel wire 5.80 M
(19 ft) in length was lifted 5.00 M (16 ft-5 in.) from its bottom position
and set free. The ball hit the 70 x 70 cm (27 x 27 in.) test panel on
a bearing 62 x 62 cm clear .with an energy of 174 kg-M (1,280 ft-1b).
A Russian study(ll) compared the impact strength of
reinforced concrete and "ferro concrete" plates 5 em thick. A 50-cm
diameter sphere weighing 25 kg was dropped onto ribbed specimens
90 x 50 cm. The impact strength was considered to equal the sum of
the products of the weight p times the height of fall H times the
number of impacts n from the given height of fall, Le., EpHn, at the
time of the appearance of developed cleavage cracks. The opening of
cracks was then related to the value EpHn.
69-4125
- 14 -
In our assessment of the panels provided by Ferro-Cement
Industries Ltd., Nanaimo, which is attached as Appendix II, comparative
impact resistance was obtained by means of a drop test in which an
almost spherical ball with a centre hole was dropped down a 1/2-inch
pipe onto a panel specimen. The panels, about 15 inches square, were
supported in a frame with a 10-inch hole in the centre. The weight
of the ball was 26.4 lb and the dropping height was 20 feet. Several
drops of the ball (528 ft lb per drop) were required to produce
substantial damage to the panels. The panels tested were nearly two
inches thick and contained two layers of 0.192 inch steel rods on two-
inch centres in the centre of the panel. On each side of this centre
reinforcement were laid two layers of 2-inch 12 gao galvanized welded
square mesh, one layer of I-inch 16 gao hexagonal mesh, and four
layers of l/2-inch 22 gao hexagonal mesh.
The present test panels are, of course, of much lighter
construction. It was felt after careful consideration of the literature,
and of our results in the Ferro-Cement Industries' tests that the best
impact test would be a single blow impact of such force as to provide a
quasi-quantitative comparison of the various reinforcements. Thus any
test should just damage the strongest panel specimen and not completely
destroy the weakest.
This kind of impact. test should reasonably simulate a
collision with a "deadhead" at a typical ship speed (15 knots). It
does not, however duplicate such factors as hull curvature, the energy
absorption of a relatively large panel (membrane), the inertia effect
of a "typical" deadhead, or the possible resilience of the "deadhead".
In the improved test the round bottom half (about 9-inch
radius) of a 6 7/8-inch diameter oxygen tank of the kind used by divers
was filled with steel balls to make a weight of 50 lb. A frame was
constructed to guide the dropped weight to the target area of the 15-
inch panel specimen which is supported on a 3/4-inch plywood frame with
a centre hole of l2-inch diameter. A disc of 1/4-inch plywood 6 inches
in diameter sits in the centre of the target area to cushion the impact
very slightly. Figures 8, 9, and 10, show the set-up. The drop height
in the present study was reduced to a 10-ft drop from the 20-ft drop
formerly used. This substantially reduces the velocity of impact from
about 36 fps to 25 fps, equivalent to a boat speed of about 15 knots.
The energy absorbed per impact is 50 x 10 ~ 500 ft lb.
The damage sustained under the 500 ft-lb drop-impact
load has been measured both quantitatively and qualitatively. The
69-4125
- 15 -
concavity of the top surface and the convexity of the bottom surface
after impact was measured by means of a straight-edge. It \vas not
meaningful to measure the v:idth of crack openings mving to the very
great differences in failure characteristics, e.g., fine radial cracks,
concentric cracks, spa11ing, and disintegration of the several kinds
of meshes.
The photographs of the top and bottom surfaces of the
panel specimens after being subjected to the 500 ft-lb drop-impact
test are sho\.;rn in pgures 11 to 17 inclusive. Inspection of the panel
specimens shown inthe photographs allowed a visual rating of impact
resistance. The visual rating and the convexity-concavity displace-
ment measurements are presented in Table 4. The panels containing the
firescreening and expanded metal lath were very severely damaged.
The panels containing the l/2-inch hexagonal mesh were moderately
damaged. The l/2-in. #19 gao hardware cloth and, more especially,
the l/2-in. #16 gao welded square mesh and t.he 3/8-in. /120 gao welded
square mesh were only slightly damaged. The visual observations and
the displacement measurements rate the panels for their impact
resistance in the same order.
It should be noted that all panels had a standard half
inch thickness of reinforcement. The weights of the reinforcements
per square foot of panel varied considerably. Equal weights per square
foot would tend to equalize the strengths of the several panels.
However, this would result in thinner panels (and lower total panel
weights) for the stronger reinforcements. Also, the effect of even
one layer of heavy square mesh or rod reinforcement in the centre of
the panels would likely effect a marked improvement and equalization
of the impact resistance of the several panel constructions. These
variations merit further consideration.
2. Flexural Strength - Modulus of Rupture.
The flexural strength as modulus of rupture is measured
under third-point loading. The test specimens used \.;rere 2 1/2 to 3
inches wide, 12 inches long. The span used \vas 10 inches. One each
of the bottom supports and the top loading points is a steel ball to
ensure that forces applied to the beam \vill be vertical only and applied
without eccentricity in the manner described in ASTM Designation
C78-64: Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-
Point Loading).
69-4125
- 16 -
The deflection. of the test specimen under load was
measured at increasing load increments until the maximum load was
attained. This allows a measure of work performed to ultimate failure
to be determined. Figure 18 shows typical curves. The load at the
first sign of cracking in the bottom.of the specimen and again at the
first sign of a side crack was usually recorded. The use of a mirror
under the specimen greatly facilitates observation of the first crack.
The manner of failure and the presence of broken wires was also
recorded. The modulus of rupture at the maximum load held was cal-
culated on the basis of
where W = load, b = breadth and d = depth (thickness) of specimen.
The modulus of rupture values for the panels containing
the various reinforcements in a "standard" Type II Cement-Evco Dry Mortar
Sand mortar are provided in Table 5. The values for the longitudinal
and transverse directions are listed separately.
The average value for the modulus of rupture obtained
from three panels with 1/2-in. #16 gao welded square mesh as reinforce-
mentis 6,580 psi. The single value for the 3/8-in. #20 gao welded
square mesh is 5,000 psi. The average obtained from two panels of
1/2-in. #19 gao hardware cloth is 3,560 psi. The other reinforcements
gave lower values or values that varied greatl"y with the orientation
of the wire.
the modulus of rupture values for the several cement-
sand combinations in panels containing the "standard" l/2-in. 1122 gao
hexagonal mesh reinforcement are sho,Yn in Table 6.
The top and bottom views of typical specimens after
loading to a deflection of at least 0.5 inch are shown in Figures
19 to 22 inclusive.
3. Exposure Tests.
Justifiable concern is felt for the long-term durability
of ferro-cement boats in a salt water environment both inside the hull
from brine refrigeration tanks in fishing boats and outside the h ~ l l
from the seawater. Seawater is well known to attack some Portland
cements and the reinforcing materials when not adequately covered with
a thick layer of concrete. In fact recent evidence is that even the
reinforcing covered with the recommended several inches of sound
*Modulus of Rupture R in bending is the be.nding moment at "fracture"
divided by the section modulus.
69-4125
- 17 -
concrete will ultimately oxidize and damage the concrete. Some
authorities claim that galvanized reinforcing materials should not be
used in ferrocement boat construction. Others claim that all reinforcing
should be galvanized. Certainly, 'galvanized steel is finding, increasing
use in construction in certain corrosive environments. Zinc gives
cathodic protection to steel under certain chloride ion concentrations
and potentials. However it is known that zinc can be dissolved as
zincate ion when galvanized steel is placed in fresh concrete. The
galvanizing coating would then provide less cathodic protection to
the steel. Chemical and electrochemical treatments have been tried
to control the initial corrosion of the galvanized coatings under
conditions of potentially high alkali content. The initial attack by
the alkali released on hydration is not considered to be progressive.
It has been pointed out that corrosion of reinforcement
can be prevented by producing truly impermeable concrete but that this
is generally impractical. Ferro-cement mortar with 'properly graded
sands and a trO\velled finish would be expected to be less permeable
than poured foundations, piers, and the like. However, the depth
of cover will be very much less. Any fine cracks and porosities will
allow access of salt solution to the reinforcement mesh.
The case for not using galvanized reinforcement is
sometimes stated to be that the mortar-reinforcement bond will be
poorer. Work on plain galvanized and black bars(l3) suggests that
the bond is not appreciably diminished by galvanizing. A reaction
between the zinc and the alkaline liquid of freshly placed mortar will
produce bubbles of hydrogen which can adversely affect the bond strength
(a's may be the case in panels 8 and 16 of the present study). A
chromate dip reportedly prevents the hydrogen-producing reaction.
The sulphate resistance of concrete and mortar made with
various cements has been the subject of many investigations. The long
time required to obtain significant results is a major problem. One
authority(14) has developed automatic equipment in which concrete test
cylinders are soaked in a 2.1 percent solution of sodium sulphate for
16 hours at 73 F and then dried for 8 hours at a temperature of 130 F.
A I-year exposure in this equipment is equivalent to 6 years of
continuous soaking at 73 F in an identical solution. Soaking in a
la-percent solution of sodium sulphate at 73 F is reported to be approxi-
mately equal in severity to that of the automatic testing equipment.
Another authority(15) stores bars of mortar in a 5-percent sodium
sulphate solution and periodically observes changes in length, modulus
of elasticity, porosity, and comp,ressive strength. Many samples and
treatment by statistical analysis is required.
69-4125
- 18 -
No exposure tests have been undertaken in this study
to date although it is planned to use specimens from the panels
already made. Even more accelerated tests are required for the assess-
ment of the corrosion resistance of the imbedded in the
various mortars and of the resistance of the mortars to the salt water
or brine environments. When the test panels have all cured one month
it is intended to immerse and dry on a cyclic basis small test specimens.
An electro-chemical method of testing will also be used. These tests
would apply chiefly to the possible corrosion of the reinforcement
materials rather than to sulphate attack of the mortar itself. Comments
by some authorities in regard to the preferred type of cement are
interesting and useful. The Kaiser Cement Special Report T-19 states
that Type V cement, manufactured especially to resist sulphate attack
should be the builder's first choice and that Type II cement will provide
moderate protection from seawater attack. The Portland Cement Association
report Ferro-Cement Boats states that Type II should be used for boats
to be used on salt water or any water with a high sulphate content.
Type -I may be used for boats to be used on fresh water lakes and rivers
with no dissolved sulphates (less than 150 ppm). Until further evidence
is available, it would appear that the preference of most of the local
builders for Type V cement is wise.
INTERPRETATION OF TEST RESULTS.
The which looked interesting because of
its 3-dimensional property appears patently unsuitable as a reinforcing
material. Its longitudinal and transverse properties are quite different.
Its spring-like construction in one direction and its link-like
construction in the other -direction allows none of its inherent strength
to be utilized until very large deflections have occurred. The large
deflections result in deep cracks in the mortar and the breaking of the
mortar into coarse pebble-shaped pieces. A panel reinforced with
firescreen mesh would probably offer substantial resistance to complete
penetration by a striking object but serious leakage would result from
the severe mortar damage. -
Expanded metal lath contributes considerable strength
to the mortar in one direction but the properties are highly directional.
It distributes the load over a fairly wide span in one direction but the
strength of the panels in its weak direction is little better than the
mortar itself. The metal lath material tears readily. The mortar
tends to crumble into coarse pebbles. In addition, it was more difficult
to obtain good penetration of the mortar into the metal lath reinforce-
ment during Although one California builder has been
69-4125
- 19 -
reported as using metal lath successfully, the general o p ~ n ~ o n of the
local builders that it is unsuitable appears justified, at least as
far as ordinary plaster lath is concerned.
The l/2-inch hexagonal mesh reinforcement contributes
significantly to the strength of the panels and distributes the load
over a fairly wide span. However it is much weaker in one direction
than the other and laying the mesh alternately in its longitudinal
and transverse direction would be necessary to develop uniform prop-
erties in both directions. This mesh offered moderate resistance to
impact loads. The failure under impact loads appears to be shear-
type. Penetration of the mortar into the mesh during plastering is
relatively easy.
The l/2-inch hardware cloth adds considerable strength
to the panel. The strength in both directions is almost identical.
Hardware cloth distributes the load and cracks in the mortar over
a quite wide span. Penetration of the mortar into the mesh during
plastering is relatively easy.
The 3lB-inch #20 gao welded square mesh used provided
slightly higher strength than l/2-inch hardware cloth. The aistribution of
load imparted by this reinforcement is also good. Plaster penetration
is satisfactory.
The l/2-inch welded square mesh used provided the highest
panel strength. In other respects, its behaviour was similar to the square
meshes discussed above.
It is interesting to.note that the reinforcement meshes
used, regardless of kind (with the exception of firescreening which
exhibits unusual properties) show a fairly linear relationship between
panel modulus of rupture (in the stronger direction) and weight of mesh
packed into the half-inch thickness of reinforcement. This relation-
ship is shown in Figure 23. A somewhat similar relationship holds
between the modulus of r u p ~ u r e and the total breaking load for the wires
per inch across the bend test specimen. This relationship accommodates
differences in the tensile strength of the wires making up the various
meshes.
STRAIN MEASUREMENTS - PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
69-4125
- 20 -
In addition to the strength performance tests carried
out on ferro-concrete hulls while on land with artificial loading,
actual tests while at sea will be necessary to complete the investi-
gation of this type of load construction. Due to the possibility of
unsymmetrical reinforcing about the centre line of the material section,
and the need to separate and to determine both axial and bonding
deformation, it will be necessary to measure strain on both surfaces
of the section, both inboard and outboard. It is therefore essential
that the strain measuring devices must operate continuously and
accurately for reasonable periods of time while immersed in seawater
and subject to the erosion effects of the relative water velocity.
Our experience in the laboratory has shown that quick
setting adhesives such as Eastman 910, used whenever possible to bond
electrical resistance type strain gauges to test pieces, are not suitable
for immersion in water. While adequate water proofing may effectively
seal off moisture from the outer surface of the gauge, migration of
moisture through the outer part of the ferro concrete will bypass the
water proofing on both inboard and outboard surfaces.
Some water resistance adhesives are available but the strain
gauge mounting procedures are involved and the life of the gauges is
uncertain. The major problem is holding the gauge correctly in position
during the prolonged curing period and the correct controlling of the
artificial heat needed complete the cure of the adhesive.
Another potential problem may be the need to measure
separately both strain on the concrete material and on the steel
reinforcing. When the reinforcing material becomes exposed on the
surface of the concrete, but is undetected, different strain measurements
may be recorded to the case where the reinforcing is well buried in the
concrete.
One possibility is the sheathing of a resistance type
gauge in a very ductile material so that it and its connection to the
wires is completely water proof, then place them on the surface of the
critical sections during the last stages of surfacing the concrete hull.
Another possibility may be the use of Linear Voltage
Differential Transformers (LVDT) mounted between pairs of pins projecting
out from the surface of the hull structure both inboard and outboard.
If the distance between the LVDT centre line and the surface of the hull
is accurately measured, measurement of strain by a pair of LVDT's will
69-4125
- 21 -
enable the axial and bonding stresses to be determined. However, this
method will be a more costly installation than the normal electrical -
resistance strain gauges.
It is clear that the problem of strain-gauging a ferro-
cement hull is not simple and unless a suitable technique can be
discovered in our continuing search of the ferro-cement and concrete
literature, a fair amount of development work will be required to solve
it.
REPAIRS TO FERRO-CEMENT HULLS.
A vital consideration in the appraisal of a material or
construction method for boatbuilding is the problem of repair. The
resistance of a hull to damage must be compared with the difficulty
and cost of repair. These are major factors in establishing insurance
rates and influence the availability of financing for a new boat
construction. -
The cost and availability of repair materials, the cost
of labour, the level of skill required, the permanence of the repair
and any special conditions necessary for the repair will all influence
the expense and ease of repair. Obviously, a hull that cannot be
satisfactorily repaired, even though it may be very resistant- to d a m a g e ~
is not acceptable.
Objectives of a Repair.
The principal objectives in repairing a hull are:
1. To restore a watertight condition. This is the first essential.
2. To restore strength.
3. To restore appearance.
4. To increase strength at weak or vulnerable points which may show
up after continued use.
5. Preventative maintenance. This is frequently tied to point 3.
Surface damage to the hull must be repaired to prevent water
reaching the reinforcing steel and causing long-term deterioration.
69-4125
- 22 -
One repair undertaking may be required to satisfy more
than one of the above objectives.
Classes of Repairs.
1. Repairs during manufacture.
These repairs are to correct flaws and mistakes discovered
during construction, damage due to accidents, or to incorporate design
changes. The hull is new and unexposed to salt water, the concrete
may not be fully cured, and the environment can usually be varied
over wide ranges to achieve optimum conditions. This class of repair
would be expected to remain sound and trouble-free for the life of
the vessel.
2. Temporary Repairs.
These are short-term repairs undertaken to enable the
vessel to remain in service until more lasting repairs can be made,
until better conditions prevail, or to prevent the loss of seasonal
income. In the extreme case, emergency repairs may be required to
prevent the loss of the vessel. The primary object of these repairs
is to restore the hull to a watertight condition. The strength of
the hull may be restored with temporary shores and braces or bolted
on stiffeners.
Temporary repairs will be made under the most severe
conditions of temperature and moisture (even under water) and
must be made using readily available materials that are generally
found on boats or which can be carried as an emergency repair kit.
The last criterion eliminates materials with a limited shelf life.
Lastly it is to be preferred that the temporary repair
does not increase the cost or difficulty of subsequent permanent
repairs.
3. Permanent Repairs.
Repairs in this class are undertaken to restore the vessel
to the "good as new" condition, and the repair should be expected
to last for the life of the vessel with no maintenance other than
that required by the undamaged hull.
Methods of affecting a permanent repair may require more
skilled labour, more expensive materials and a longer time. It may
be necessary to take the vessel out of the water.
69-4125
- 23 -
The , hull will be well aged, have been exposed to sea
water for an extended time, and sea water and marine growth may have
penetrated all breaks and cracks.
The interior of the hull could have been exposed to
any combination of water, oil, fish slime, cleaning solutions, and
various paints and primers. However, some choice of environment
is possible.
In some cases it will be preferable to attempt repairs
entirely from the outside of the hull rather than remove obstructing
machinery, insulation of special linings.
Types of Damage.
Three categories of damage will be considered.
1. Surface Damage.
This includes scrapes, ' gouges and spalling. Since the
outer reinforcing is protected by only a thin skin it is essential
that surface damage be repaired to keep water from attacking the
reinforcing. The patching material must be at least as waterproof
as the original cement, have good adhesion, and be able to withstand
extremes of temperature and moisture without lifting, even when
featheredged. The patching material must have a hardness and abrasion
resistance comparable to the original hull surface.
2. Cracking.
This may occur on the inner surface from impact, the
outer surface, or go completely through the skin. Cracks that are
visible may not leak excessivly, or at all. However, any crack can
allow water to penetrate to the steel, and neglect or poor repairs
could subsequently result in more extensive repair being required.
Cracks can occur with only minimal damage to the reinforcing
and in some cases it should be satisfactory to repair cracks by
filling and sealing only.
If cracks occur in normal service, repair may include the
provision of additional strengthening or stiffening to prevent
further ' cracking.
3. Extensive Damage.
69-4125
- 24 -
The damage extends completely through the skin resulting
in damaged reinforcing, massive leakage, permanent deformation or
possibly large areas of weakened hull.
EVALUATION OF DAMAGE TO FERRO-CEMENT HULLS.
It is relatively easy to assess damage to a wood or
steel hull . Bent and broken framing can be visually detected and
extensive damage to the skin shows on the interior. Unfortunately, with
ferro-cement construction the main structural reinforcing is hidden in
the skin and large areas without framing are common. Some general
guidelines are essential to relate surface indications of damage to that
suffered by the reinforcing material. Some evaluation of the condition
of the steel will be possible from observations of the size, number and
patterns of cracks, permanent distortions in the skin and rust streaking
or corrosion products, possibly aided by tapping, hammering, or loading
the suspect areas while observing deflections.
More sophisticated techniques such as ultrasonic
inspection, radiography or dye penetrant inspection will give much more
information but may not always be available or usable.
An attempt will be made later to produce general rules
to allow the boat O\-lner to safely estimate the seriousness of, damage
and the extent of the necessary repairs without having to pay for an
educated guess by an "expert". These rules will require revision as
more documented experience with ferro-cement hull repairs is obtained.
PAST EXPERIENCE IN REPAIRING FERRO-CEMENT.
The majority of articles on ferro-cement construction
cite ease of repair as an important characteristic of the material.
Unfortunately, few sources give any description of repair procedures.
The following procedure was outlined by T.M. Hagenbach(l2)
of Seacrete Ltd., Norfolk, England:
1. Chip away the damaged area until sound and undamaged
material is reached.
69-4125
- 25 -
2. Hammer broken or damaged reinforcing back into its
original position or in exceptional circumstances
replace it.
3. Apply ferro-cement mix to both inside and outside,
leaving the surface slightly proud.
4. Grind surface off flush.
Mr. Hagenbach makes no mention of any surface treatment
or bonding agent, or of any special treatment during curing.
In the Russian publication "Ship Hulls made of Reinforced
Concrete" by V.F. Bezuk1adov et a1(11), mention is made of two repairs.
The first was a repair to a launch built by the British firm Windboats
which uses the "Seacrete" process. In a collision, an area 30 x 24
inches was damaged, resulting in a permanent deformation of 1.6 inches.
The publication states that the area was pushed out with a jack to its
original shape, at which time "only minor cracking was found", and the
damaged area was "repaired in 30 minutes with a cement-sand mixture".
The other mention was of the Russian yacht "Opyt" which
had been driven onto rocks, left for the autumn, frozen into the ice
over the winter, and finally recovered in the spring. Repairs were
made in one day by four men. Both these accounts are sketchy, implying
that no special care was taken, and no mention is made of the durability
of the repairs. Until evidence on this vital aspect is produced, they
would have to be classed as "temporary repairs".
Patching of Concrete Structures.
Virtually all modern building and structures involve the
extensive use of concrete and many years experience in the repair
of ordinary concrete is available. Much of the available informa-
tion will apply in part to ferro-cement and a brief examination
of the literature is warranted.
1. Surface Preparation.
All sources stress the need for adequate surface prepara-
tion. All unsound and contaminated material must be removed leaving
clean, sound. cement. This may be accomplished by pneumatic chipping
tools, wire brushes (power preferred), sandblasting, or an etch
with muriatic acid (10-15%) followed by brushing and flushing off
with water. However, some authorities consider acid etching to be
unre1iable(3) and advocate only mechanical cleaning methods.
69-4125
- 26 -
The dense reinforcing material in ferro-cement makes it
difficult to remove the broken or contaminated concrete without
producing further damage to the wires. Also, an acid etch may react
with any galvanizing on the mesh, or corrode the reinforcing.
2. Repair of Cracks.
Many methods of crack repair in conventional concrete
involves some form of routing out along the crack and sealing.
The nearness of the reinforcing steel in ferro-cement limits the
use of these techniques.
Another method which may be more useful is that of
grouting the crack with cement or injecting with an epoxy cement.
This method requires sealing the surface over the crack except for
a few ports along its length. The crack may be flushed if
necessary. Finally the grouting material or epbxy is injected under
pressure into one port. When the material reaches the next port
the first is sealed and injection started at the second. This
procedure is carried out until all ports are sealed and the crack
filled. After the grout sets the surface seal is removed and the
surface may be ground flush. In ferro-cement the tendency appears
to be to form many fine cracks rather than one or more large cracks.
This may limit the use of the cracks injection since the cracks may
be too fine for effective penetration and too many to allow attention
to each individual crack. Also, if the crack is on the outside of
the hull, the crack will have filled with seawater and drying
without effective flushing may leave the salt behind. A description
of epoxy injection to repair cracks is given in reference (17).
To penetrate fine cracks with an injector or trowel
on cement mortar would probably require an excessively thin mix
giving poor bonding.
3. Surface Defect Repairs and Bonding New Concrete to Old.
The American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete
Practice, Part 2, 1967, (ACI 301-66), specifies the following
procedure for patching surface defects:
"902 - Defective areas.
"(a) All honeycombed and other
removed down to sound concrete. The
area at least 6 in. wide surrounding
prevent absorption of water from the
defective concrete shall be
area to be patched and an
it shall be dampened to
patching mortar. A bonding
69-4125
- 27 -
grout shall be prepared using a mix of approximately 1 part cement
to 1 part fine sand passing a No. 30 mesh sieve, shall be mixed to
the consistency of thick cream, and shall then be well brushed into
the surface.
"(b) The patching mixture shall be made of the same material
and of approximately the same proportions as used for the concrete,
except that the coarse aggregate shall be omitted and the mortar
shall consist of not more than 1 part cement to 2 1/2 parts sand
by damp loose volume. White portland cement shall be substituted
for , a part of the gray portland cement on exposed concrete in order
to produce a color matching the color of the surrounding concrete,
as determined by a trial patch.
"(c) The quantity of mixing water shall be no more than
necessary for handling and placing. The patching mortar shall be
mixed in advance and allowed to stand with frequent manipulation
with' a trowel, without addition of water, until it has reached
the stiffest consistency that will permit placing.
"(d) After surface water has evaporated from the area to be
patched, the bond coat shall be well brushed into the surface.
When the bond coat begins to lose the water sheen, th,e premixed
patching mortar shall be applied. The mortar shall be thoroughly
consolidated into place and struck off so as to leave t h ~ patch
slightly higher than the surrounding surface. To permit i,nitia1
shrinkage, it shall be left undisturbed for at least 1 hr before
beinf finally finished. The patched area shall be kept damp for
7 days. Metal tools shall not be used in finishing a 'patch in a
formed wall which will be exposed."
This method should be applicable to surface repairs
or ferro-cement hulls, particularly if the concrete is fresh.
primarily
and old.
dependent
the fresh
The bond between old concrete and new concrete is
a mechanical bond depending on keying between the new
Thus, the strength of the joint will be extremely
on the preparation of the surface, the consistency of
cement and the method of placement.
Concrete exhibits two types of shrinkage, setting
shrinkage during the initial setting of the concrete, and drying
shrinkage, a long-term shrinkage which occurs as a result of
chemical reactions during hardening of the concrete. Shrinkage
69-4125
- 28 -
from any cause produces stresses when the fresh cement is restrained
as in a patch. The well dispersed reinforcing wires used in fer-rQ-
cement construction would help prevent the formation of shrinkage
cracks. On the other hand, there will be less drying shrinkage with
a stiffer mix, but forcing the mortar into the mesh will be more
difficult, and a reduction in contact between old and new material
can be expected reducing keying and bond strength. Setting shrinkage
can be reduced by allowing the patching mortar to sit as long as
possible after mixing before placement.
Chemical bonds are generally of a much higher order than
physical bonds. With Portland cement the chemical bond is of a
very low order, but epoxy compounds show a very high order chemical
bond and.are the basis for many of the strongest adhesives.
Normally epoxies are considerably stronger than concrete and exhibit
coefficients of thermal expansion many times higher. Patches made
with these resins eventually fail from thermal stresses in the
concrete near the bond. Fortunately, epoxy compounds modified by
the addition of a polysulfide, polyamide or a coal tar have been
developed. These additives make the resulting material more flexible,
reducing the thermal stresses in the concrete. Polysu1fides and
polyamides also reduce the susceptibility of the bond to moisture,
a valuable feature for a boat repair material.
There are two methods of using epoxies in concrete
First, the epoxy, which is a two component cement and
therefore does not depend on air drying, can be painted onto the
old concrete before a Portland cement patching mortar is applied.
The epoxy must be slow curing to give the mortar time to set first.
The epoxy then bonds the new cement to the old. Second, for small
patches a mortar can be prepared by mixing sand with the epoxy and
using this as the patching material. The expense of the epoxy
material limits the use of epoxy mortars to small patches, but the
resulting patch is considerably stronger than the original concrete.
It should be noted that in surface patching the epoxy film acts
as a vapour barrier which may produce curling in thin Portland
cement mortar patches due to drying on one side only. One
disadvantage of most of the commercially epoxy concrete
bonding and patching materials is that the lower temperature limit
at which these materials will successfully cure is around 60F.
Other materials such as polyvinyl. acetate are sometimes used
as a bonding agent or an additive to Portland cement mixes. These
compounds are reported to improve workability of the mix, promoting
better wetting of the old cement by the new allow the use
of less water in the mix, and improve the prope'rties of the patch
69-4125
- 29 -
by reducing the effect of the relative humidity during the cure.
No study of their advantages and disadvantages in patching a
material such as ferro-cement has been found so far. They may
well have an important role fo play, but as is pointed out by
Swenson(8) the use of admixtures ("additives") in concrete can
produce undesirable side effects, and those must be ascertained
and controlled.
PRELIMINARY PATCHING - EXPERIMENTS AND RESULTS.
Preparation for Patching.
These preliminary experiments were made on broken samples
which became available from "the mechanical tests.
The first sample, from an impact test, contained 1/4"
dia. rods on 2 1/2 inch centres with layers of coarse hexagonal mesh
on either side and layers of fine hexagonal mesh near the surface.
The damaged area was approximately 10 inches in diameter. It was
observed that the cement was broken into pieces roughly the size of
the mesh. This meant that the layer pieces were in the centre trapped
by the finer outer mesh. Initially, attempts were made to break up
the loose pieces with a hammer. This only resulted in shaking out
the very fine debris and distorting the reinforcing. An air powered
chipping tool was then tried, first with a blunt point to prevent
unnecessary damage to the mesh and later with a chisel point. The
object was to break up the coarse pieces so they could pass through the
mesh. This was unsuccessful as most of the particles were free to
bounce around and give with the blmV's. The chisel point resulted in
cutting and weakening the reinforcement. Finally, the finer meshes
were cut back close to the edge of the damage and the chisel point
applied at a shallow angle between the layers of mesh to remove the
broken and cracked material remaining. ' ~ e n the air tool reached sound
cement only fine particles were produced which blew clear. Also, the
broken pieces near the ~ d g e were held more firmly and were ,more easily
picked up. The result was that sound cement was reached, the coarse
reinforcing was intact, but only about one inch of the finer mesh was
left around the edges. Replacement of the damaged mesh would be
required.
The second sample contained only one size of hexagonal
mesh. The result was that there was less trapping of the debris and
preparation took less time with less damage to the reinforcing.
Patching Materials.
69-4125
- 30 -
Samples were obtained of materials readily available
frQm local suppliers. Some further materials were available but
could only be purchased in large quantities and it was felt that
this would eliminate their use by the boat owner for all but very
large repairs.
The materials obtained were:
1. A polyvinyl acetate emulsion. The manufacturer's
directions recommended painting the broken
surfaces before patching with a Portland cement
mix and as an additive.
2. A n.aterial described by the manufacturer as a vinyl
copolymer latex. It was to be used as a bonding
agent and as an additive replacing part of the
water for patches under 1/2 inch.
3. An epoxy-polysu'lfide bonding agent.
4. A "just add water" type concrete patching material.
This was an extremely fast setting mix.
5. An epoxy base marine patching compound.
6. An epoxy floor patching material.
of an epoxy and hardener. Sand was
. after ~ i x i n g to produce a mortar.
The kit consisted
to' be added
Preliminary tests were made with unreinforced cement
to eliminate the effect of the reinforcement and become familiar
with the material. The samples were beams cut from one slab and were
broken in bending, the fresh break was patched, and the specimen
re-broken. The loads required to break the original samples was
extremely variable in spite of the fact that all were cut from one
slab. Thereforei it was felt that the load at failure of the patched
specimen was not significant compared to the location and type of
failure.
Repairs were made with Portland cement mortar alone,
using materials 1, 2, and 3, as a bonding agent for Portland cement
mortar, and using materials in 5 and 6 as patching mortars, and also
using material 3 mixed with sand as a mortar. All patches were
69-4125
- 31 -
allowed to sit at room temperature and humidity for 7 days before
breaking.
All Portland cement patches and that done with material
4 were enclosed on three outside surfaces but were exposed to the air
on the top. All showed fine cracks on the surface froln shrinkage.
This was the compression side during bending.
With both materials 5 and 6 the break occurred in the
original material.
The patch using material 3 mixed with sand as a mortar
failed at the edge of the joint. A strong smell was evident on the
broken surface. It is likely the material contained a solvent to reduce
the viscosity. When the material was used as a bonding agent this
solvent would evaporate, but was trapped in the larger volume of the
patch.
The patch made with material 4 broke at the middle of
the patch at a very low load.
The breaking load of all the remaining specimens was low
with failure starting at the bond. The sample patched with just mortar
using no bonding agents or additives broke. before it could be set up
in the testing machine. It is realized that curing conditions for these
samples were far from ideal but it would not always be easy to ensure
better conditions for a boat repair. The reinforcing found in ferro-
cement would have had a substantial influence on the success of these
repairs, reducing shrinkage stresses and distributing the load.
The sample patched with material 3 failed at the bond.
The break again had a strong smell although the manufacturer's
recommendations about the length of time between painting the break
and placing the mortar was adhered to.
Discussion.
The surface has only been scratched on the problem of
repairing ferro-cement.
Some of the areas to be considered are:
1. The effect of the age of the material to be repaired.
2. The effect of exposure of the damaged area to sea
water both above and below the waterline.
69-4125
- 32 -
3. The use of emergency repair materials including
epoxy formulations which can be applied to wet
surfaces, marine caulking compounds and tar or
pitch.
4. Surface cleaning and preparation prior to patching.
5. The use of a reinforced overlay on the inside of
the hull as an alternative to breaking out and
repairing severely damaged reinforcing.
6. The effect of various curing methods, including
the use of additives.
7. The problem of shrinkage of the. patching material.
8. The performance of the patch cycles of tempera-
ture, load, and moisture.
9. The influence of the type of reinforcing on the
repair method.
An effort be made to obtain case histories and to
inspect patches or repairs on ferro-cement boats now in service.
Since ferro-cement construction is relatively new to North America,
many of the case histories will have to be obtained by correspondence
without first-hand inspection. However, these records will give a
valuable back-up to laboratory tests which will rely on artificial
conditions and accelerated deterioration.
Test panels should be prepared for long-term exposure
under natural conditions both under water and in the splash zone.
Observation of these panels over the years will allow a continual
up-dating of the value of different repair methods, and may give advance
warning of problems to be encountered in hulls already repaired.
As stated at the beginning of this section, the difficulty
and cost of repairs to ferro-cement hulls is a vital part of the cost-
effectiveness picture for the material, and more factual information
in this area is badly needed.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS.
69-4125
- 33 -
The present development program could not hope
toprovide all the information needed by the fisherman-builder of a
ferro-cement fishing vessel. What it has succeeded in doing is to
provide, for the first time, carefully controlled and fully documented
quantitative test data on the combinations of cement, reinforcing mesh
and, to a lesser extent sand, which are likely to be used. Some
preliminary data on glues and patching has been obtained, and considerable
consideration has been given to impact testing, accelerated environmental
testing, and strain gauging. This basic data will permit the interpre-
tation of a considerable amount of other uncontrolled or incompletely
specified test results, and by a judicious extrapolation some useful
conclusions can be drawn, despite the gaps in know+edge which will be
discussed in a later section. These conclusions, which will undoubtedly
be subject to modification in the light of further testing and experience,
are as follows: .
Reinforcing and Mortar.
Welded square mesh is superior to hexagonal mesh aviary
wire from a strength point of view but the latter is satisfactory
"for vessels under fifty feet, and probably, with suitable heavy
reinforcement, for even larger vessels." The optimum number of
mesh layers is the maximum number that can be accommodated in the
panel. Suitable fastening is important here, and extens.l.ve cross
bonding of meshes is necessary if the compressive strellgth of the
ferro-cement is to be raised appreciably above that of the mortar.
Steel rods and heavy welded square mesh can be used
to increase the shell strength to the desired value. The bond
strength between heavy reinforcing and the cement is small compared
to the strength of the reinforcing, and at least four layers of
mesh, preferably more, should be used on each side. The heavy
reinforcing improves the effectiveness of the mesh when it keeps
it out near the surfaces where it is most needed.
At the present state of knowledge galvanized mesh should
be used it seems to offer more potential advantages than
disadvantages. The mesh should be free of oily residues. A
preliminary small test panel should be made to test for chemical
reaction between the galvanizing and the mortar, especially with
new shiny wire. If gas is evolved the wire should be left to
weather, or treated with a passivating agent such as chromic acid
and tested again. One authority(13) claims that chromate-treated
galvanized steel should be used with all cements.
69-4125
- 34 -
Type V sulphate resistant cement is recommended, with
Type II as second choice. The sand should be a clean, sharp,
well-graded, preferably dry, mortar sand with most of the sand
passing through #8 mesh. It ~ h o u l d be tested for its effect on
the workability of the mortar. The ratio of water to cement is
of paramount importance since it largely controls strength and
porosity. If the sand is not dry, this ratio is hard to determine
with the necessary accuracy. Additives, with the possible exception
of a small percentage of pozzolan, are not recommended. They can
decrease the required water to cement ratio and effect improvements
in workability and permeability but sufficient experience in
possible side effects and long-term durability has not been acquired.
Slump tests from each batch are very useful in checking mortar
characteristics.
Shell Quality.
Several test panels at least 30 x 30 inches should be
made during construction of the hull. These panels should be of
the same materials and the lay-up, plastering, and curing, should be
identical to that of the hull. A few test specimens should be made
as attached coupons at convenient locations on the hull, to enable
verification of satisfactory hull curing. These coupons should be
about 3" x 12". The important tests to be carried out on the
panels are for modulus of rupture (bending test) in two directions,
impact resistance and resistance to environmental deterioration.
The coupons should be tested in bending, to verify that the test
panel is representative of the hull. Triplicate 2-inch cubes of
mortar should be made from batches on a routine basis'. All tests
will be performed after 30 days of curing, or as appropriate for
quick setting cements.
Patches and Bonding.
Only very preliminary recommendations can be made in
this area. The best guide is to follow the instructions in
American Concrete Institute Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 2,
1967 (ACI 301-66) as far as possible and to make sure that
damaged mesh and concrete is clean and that adequate reinforcing
strength is provided, by adding new mesh or bars if necessary.
In using proprietary compounds and additives, careful attention
must be given to curing conditions and shrinkage effects, and
test samples should always be made if these are not clearly
established. We are not able, at this stage, to recommend one
preparation or class of compounds over another.
Hull Construction.
69-4125
- 35 -
It would be premature to attempt to deal with
construction and quality control procedures, outside of the
recommendations which have been made in the other sections.
Sea Testing.
Extensive experience in the strain gauging of a steel
hull over the past year leads us to expect little difficulty in
obtaining meaningful data on hull strains at sea, once the
difficulties of applying the strain gauge to a pervious non-
homogeneous material like ferro-cement have been resolved.
Accelerated Environmental Testing.
The lack of adequate, unbiased dataon the long-term
(10-20 year) durability of ferro-cement and the difficulty of
obtaining even comparative data in a reasonable time, has
resulted in little attention being paid to this factor and most
of the attent:i.on has been focussed on the more easily determined
mechanical properties. We hope to reduce this deficiency by
using one of several accelerated testing methods which we have
devised, but have not yet proven.
There seems little point in trying to optimize ferro-
cement for the other environmental parameters until the best way of
making it highly resistant to deterioration by sea water, brine,
fuel, etc., has been established.
THE PRESENT STATUS OF FERRO-CEMENT.
Ferro-cement is a complex chemical-mechanical system.
It would be nice to know exactly how each element of the system
reacts with every other, and how they combine to produce a useful
construction material. But such a complete understanding is not
feasible in terms of time or expense and is not necessary from a
practical point of view. What is necessary is a body of knowledge
on the mechanical properties of the material, and the possible
changes in those properties under appropriate environmental conditions.
Such a body of knowledge has been acquired for glass reinforced
plastics and for aluminum alloys during the past decade or so, and
those two materials are now firmly established as ship-building
materials. Ferro-cement must follow a similar path.
69-4125
- 36 -
Some remarks on the adequacy of present knowledge,
under the headings covered by thi,s project, are given below:
, The Material.
The question of best mesh configuration, from a
performance and from a cost-effectiveness point of view still
requires some investigation, and whether it should be galvanized
or not is still open. More work on sand selection is needed.
The basic cement types have nm" been investigated to a reasonable
degree, but a considerable amount of work needs to be done on
admixtures or additives. In all future work, close attention
must be paid to the durability factor, and not, just to short-
term mechanical properties.
Shell Quality.
As soon as the basic parameters for the material have
been established, a schedule of tests for hull specimens can be
worked out in consultation with the regulatory authorities.
Patches and Bonding.
This neglected area needs to be intensively investi-
gated. Proprietary bonding agents and additives will usually
be involved, and usable information on how to choose between
the great variety available, and how to apply them to ferro-
cement, is badly needed. Here, even more than for the hull
material itself, long-term durability must be given at least as
much attention as high early strength.
Hull Construction.
The whole area of reinforcing, stress concentration
and sound and economical construction requires a substantial
amount of work, and consultation with builders and with
regulatory authorities should be pursued.
Environmental Testing.
There is a need for mechanical testing, especially
abrasion and impact testing, on reasonably large hull elements,
and for strain gauging and other measurements on a vessel over
69-4125
- 37 -
50' long, at sea. This aspect of the resistance of ferro-cement
to the environment it will encounter in a fishing vessel is
important but relatively straightforward. The question of long-
term corrosion and other deterioration resulting from continual
exposure to sea water, brine solutions, fuel, fish juices, etc.,
is much harder to answer. As has been stated earlier, it must
be answered, and the perfecting of accelerated testing methods
should be given high priority.
/ '.
.
W.N. English
Head, Division of Applied Physics
AWG/mc
A.W. Greenius
Division of Engineering
REFERENCES.
69-4125
- 38 -
1. Anon'
J
Ferro-Cement Boats Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, Illinois, 1969.
2. Fyson, J.F., Ferro-cement Construction for Fishing Vessels, FAO
Regional Office, Bangkok, Thailand, ca 1968.
3. Sampson, J. and G. Wellens, How to Build a Ferro-Cement Boat,
Samson Marine Design Enterprises Ltd., Ladner, B.C., 1968.
4. Hartley, R.T., Boat Building with Hartley, 3rd Edit., Auk1and,
N.Z., 1967.
5. Hurd, M.K., Ferro-Cement Boats, ACI Journal, pp 202-4, March 1969.
6. Anon., Ferro-Cement Sea-going Architectural Concrete, Kaiser
Cement Special Report T-19, California, U.S.A., undated.
7. Anon., YM and Ferro, Yachting Monthly, undated.
8. Swenson, E.G., Admixtures in Concrete, Division of Building
Research, N.R.C. Technical Paper No. 181, Ottawa, Canada.
9. Gibbs and Cox, Inc., Marine Design Manual for Fiberglass Re-
inforced Plastics, Book Company, Inc., New York, 1960.
10. Wimmers, H.W., Consideration of the Design and Construction of
Larger Glass Fibre Reinforced Polyester Ships, The 4th RFP
Conference, London, 1964.
11. Bezukladov, V.F., et aI, Ship Hulls made of Reinforced Concrete,
Design, Strength, and Construction Technology, Shipbuilding
Publishing House, Leningrad, 1968, Navship translation #1148
(Clearinghouse AD 680042).
12. Hagenbach, T.M., Ferro Cement Boats. Canadian Fisheries Report
#12, Procedings Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction
Materials, Montreal, Canada, Oct 1968.
13. Anon., Zinc-coated Reinforcement for Concrete, Digest 109,
Research Station, Watford, England, Sept 1969.
14. Bellport, B.P., Combating Sulphate Attack on Concrete on Bureau
of Reclamation Projects, Perfonmance of Concrete, pp 77 to 92,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, 1968.
References (cont'd)
69-4125
- 39 -
15. Mather, B., Field and Laboratory Studies of the Sulphate Resistance
of Concrete, Performance of Concrete, pp 66 to 76, University
of Toronto Press, . Toronto, Canada, 1968.
16. Schutz, B.J., Epoxy Resin Adhesives for Bonding Concrete to Concrete,
American Concrete Institute, Publication SP-2l, Paper SP 21-4.
17. Gaul, R.W., and E.D. Smith, Effective and Practical Repair of
Cracked Concrete, Paper SP 21-5, American Concrete Institute,
Publication SP-2I.
69-4125
APPENDIX I. - 40 -
TABLE 1. Typical Screen Analysis of Sands used in Test Panels.
Percent Passing Mesh Size
Evco Dry Evco Dry Del Monte
Mesh Size Concrete Mortar
Openings/in. Sand Sand "8" 1120"
"30"
4 99 100 100 100 100
8 88 100 99 100 100
16 67 92 36 100 100
30 41 66 0.3 57 99
50 15 26 5 38
100 4 7 10
L
200 1
TABLE 2. Breaking Strength of Wires from Various Reinforcements
Breaking Strength of ,]ires
Wire dia 1b/in.
Reinforcement in. 1b
psi
access panel
I/2-in. 19 gao hardware
cloth 0.033 58 68,000 1,050
l/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal
mesh (galv. Belgian,
I
\ves t German) 0.024 20 44,000 475
I
I/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal
mesh (galv. Japanese) 0.024 27 60,000 650
1/2-in. 16 gao welded
square mesh 0.0624 219 70,000 2,150
Ditto (but across sheet) 175 58,000
3/8-in. 20 gao welded
I
square mesh
0.034 58 64,000 1,080
TABLE 3. Summary of Test Panel Construction Data.
Cement-
Sand
Panel Reinforcement. Weight
No. Material Cement Sand ratio
l' 2.5 lb expanded metal Type II Evco Dry 1:2
lath, galvanized Concrete
8 layers Sand
2 2.5 lb expanded metal Type r;r Evco Dry 1:2
lath, galvanized
8 layers Sand
3 2.5 Ib expanded metal Type II Evco Dry 1:2
I lath, galvanized Mortar
5 layers Sand
4 1/2-in. 16 gao welded Type II Evco Dry 1:2
square mesh, Mortar
galvanized, 5 layers Sand
5 1/2-in. gao hexagonal Type II Evco Dry 1:2
mesh-galvanized Mortar
after weaving Sand
12 layers
I
I
6 1/2-in. gao hexagonal
Type II Evco Dry 1:2
mesh-galvanized
Mortar
before weaving
Sa.nd
12 layers
7 1/4-in. gao fire- : Type II Evco Dry 1:2
washed Mortar
in naphtha Sand
2 layers
a 1/2-in. gao hardware Type II Evco Dry
1:2
cloth, galvanized Hortar
9 layers Sand
I
Water- Compression
Cement Strength, 2-in.
Iveight Slump cubes si
ratio in. 7-day 28-day
0.37 1 1/2 no tests
0.38 2
"
'.
0.40
"
0.40 6 1/2
"
0.40 7 1/2
"
0.40 5 1/2
"
0.40 5 1/2
"
0.40 4 1/2
"
Modulus of
Rupture, psi
(unreinforced)
no tests
"
,
1106
906
1060
978
1125
1100
742
I
890
865
810
10l.0
1120
69":'4125
- 41 -
Remarks...
Hesh not fully
penetrated. Panel
discarded.
n
Mortar appeared to
work in well
" "
"
"
"
"
" "
"
"
TABLE 3 (cont'd)
C w ater- I
Panel I Reinforcement
,
I Sand I Cer:lent
I I
I\o. ,Material Cement Sand
9 1/2-in. 16 gao welded Type II Evco Dry 1:2 0.40
square mesh, Mortar
galvanizing removed Sand
5 layers
10
I
3/8-in. 20 gao welded Type II Evco Dry 1:2 0.40
square mesh, Mortar
galvanized Sand
7 layers
11 l/2-in. gao hardware Type II Evco Dry 1:2 0.40
cloth, galvanized
I
Mortar
9 layers Sand
I 1/2-1n. 16 gao we1dedl 12 Type II Evco Dry 1:2 0.40
square mesh, Mortar
I galvanized, 5 layers Sand
13 2.5 lb expanded metal Type II Evco Dry 1:2 0.40
lath, galvanized 110rtar
I
5 layers Sand
14 l/2-in. gao hexagonal Type II Evco Dry 1:'2 0.40
mesh, galvanized .
I
Mortar
after ,.eaving
I
. Sand
12 layers
15
I
1/4-in. gao fire- Type II Evco Dry 1:2 0.40
,
screening, oil coat Mortar
not removed Sand
2 .layers
I I
\
I
I !
Compression
Strength, 2-in.
Slump cubes, psi
in. 7-day i 28-day
5 1/4 no testE
6 1/2 6050 7100
(11
, days)
7 1/2 no test 7420
7 1/4 5400 7950
I 9875
5 1/4 5950 7200
7500
6 1/2 6200 7600
7250
5 1/2. 5600 8150
7675
Modulus of
Rupture, psi
(unreinforced)
1300
1230
905
705
ll80
990
840
-
895
725
792
890
-
830
960
69-4125
- 42 -
Remarks
IClam-like breathing
holes and blisters
appeared, mortar
appeared to work in
,satisfactorily
" "
1
1
Mortar a?peared to
work in well.
like holes and
'blisters appeared
Mo!tar appeared to
Iwork in well
I " "
I
,
I
I
" "
I
I "
"
I
*
TABLE 3 (cont'd)
p - In . -
Cement-
Sand
I Weight
I rfaterial Cement Sand ratio
I
16 l/2-in. gao hexagonall Type II Evco Dry 1:2
mesh, galvanized . Mortar
before weaving Sand
12 layers
17 l/2-in. gao hexagonal Type I Evco Dry 1:2
I
mesh, galvanized Mortar I
after Sand
12 layers
18 l/2-in: gao hexagonal Type III
I
Evco Dry 1:2
mesh, galvanized I Mortar
I
I
after weaving Sand
I
12 layers
I
I
19 1/2-in. 22 gao Type III Evco Dry 1:2
I hexagonal mesh, Mortar
I galvanized after Sand I
t ,.eaving, 12 I
20 I 1/2-in. gao Type III Evco Dry 1:2
I hexagonal mesh, Mortar
galvanized after Sand
weaving, Japan
I
9 lavers
21 I l/2-in. 22 gao Type V Evco Dry 1:2
hexagonal mesh, Mortar
galvanized after Sand
weaving, Japan
9 layers
I
I
I
I
Water-
I Compression
Cement Strength, 2-in.
Weight Slump cubes, psi
ratio in. 7-day 28-day
0.40 6 1/2 5830 9450
9875
1
0.40 5 5040 5875
6175
0.45 4 1/2 6400 8325
I
I
0.47 5 5150 8450
7750
0.47 5 1/2 6930 curing
0.44 7 1/2 5280 curing
I I
I
,
..
I
69-4125
- 43 -
Xodulus of I
Rupture, psi I
(unreinforced) Remarks
760 IMortar appeared to
820 work . in well
1050
" "
960
no tests made Difficult to work
in mortar,
incomplete
Ipenetration noted
later
t
590 IMortar appeared to
560 work in well
I
I
I
:
!
, .
I
I
1
TABLE 3 (cont'd)
Panel Reinforcement
~ o . Haterial Cement Sand
22 . l/2-in. 22 gao
..
Type III Evco Dry
hexagonal mesh, Mortar
galvanized after Sand
weaving, West Germ.
12 layers
23
" "
. Type V Evco Dry
Mortar
1
Sand
,
24
" "
Aluminous Evco Dry
Mortar
Sand
25 " "
Type II Del
Monte
8: 20: 30::
1:2:1
26
" "
Type I Evco Dry
-
Mortar
Sand
\
I
cement-, \V'ater-
Sand Cement
Weight Weight Slump
ratio ratio in.
1:2 0.45 5
1:2 0.41 5 1/4
1:2 0.36 4 1/2
1:2 0.40 3 1/2
1:2 0.41 3 1/2
Compression
Strength, 2-in. Modulus of
cubes. Dsi Rupture, psi
7-day 28-day (unreinforced)
curing curing
curing curing
curing curing
curing curing
curing curing
69-4125
- 44 -
Remarks
On stripping it was
found that mortar
had not penetrated
well
Mortar penetrated
well
Mortar penetrated
well
. Slightly difficult
Ito trowel smoothly
- tears
" "
,
~
-
TABLE 4. Results of Drop-Impact Tests on Specimens Containing Various Kinds of Reinforcement
(All specimens from panels made with Type II Cement and Evco Dry Mortar Sand)
69-4125
- 45 -
Reinforcement Displacement at
Panel lb/ft
Z
centre of impact, 1116 in.
No. Kind of panel Top Bottom Description of Mode of Failure
3 2.5 lb expanded metal 1.23 14 16 Open major cracks in top surface. Major X-shaped
lath, galvanized opening in bottom surface. Metal reinforcement torn.
5 layers
4 l/2-in. 16 gao welded 2.B5 5 7 No cracks observed in top surface. Fine star-shaped
square mesh, c ~ a c k i n g in centre of bottom. Fine closed cracks
galvanized - 5 layers radiating to edges.
5 l/2-in. 22 gao 1.35 11 11 Open major ring crack in top surface. Shear spa11ing
hexagonal mesh,
and open radial cracks in bottom surface. No broken
galvanized after
wires observed.
weaving - 12 layers
6 l/2-in. 22 gao 1.29 13 13 Similar to No. 5 abolle but more complete ring of shear
hexagonal mesh,
spalling in bottom_surface.
galvanized before
I weaving - 12 layers
7 l/4-in. 20 gao fire- 1.20 19 19 Extremely severe major ring cracks in top surface. Wide
screening, black -
open radial cracks and mortar crumbling in bottom
2 layers
surface.
10 3IB-in. 20 gao welded 1.59 6 6 Fine ring crack in top surface. Slightly open
square mesh, not
r -ectilinear cracks and fine radial cracking in bottom
galvanized - 7 layers
surface.
11 1/2-in. 19 gao hard- 1. 79 5 6 No cracks (other than clamp-down corner cracks) observed
ware cloth, square
in top surface. Slightly open rectilinear cracks in
mesh, galvanized -
bottom surface.
9 layers
--
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5. Results of Flexural Bend Tests on Specimens containing Various Kinds of Reinforcement
(All specimens from panels made with Type II Cement and Evco Dry Mortar Sand)
69-4125
- 46 -
Reinforcement Modulus of Rupture, psi
I
Panel lb/ft
l
Orientation of wire
:io. Kind of panel longit. transv. Description of Mode of Failure
3 2.5 lb expanded metal 1.23 3730 830 Transverse specimens cracked with more or less single
13 lath - 5 layer 3650 870 crack whereas longitudinal specimens cracked over a
Av. 3690 850 wider space. Mesh broke.
4 l/2-in. 16 gao welded 2.85 5900 6130 Both transverse and longitudinal specimens cracked at
12 square mesh - 6850 5700 II-inch intervals over wide span. ~ o wires broke. Top
9 5 layers 7000 6300 surface showed considerable compression spalling.
--- ;
6040 Av. 6580
5 l/2-in. 22 gao 1.35 2900 1360 Top surfaces did not contain an open crack. Transverse
14 hexagonal mesh, 2420 1610 specimens cracked with more or less single cracks
I
I
Av. galvanized after 2660 1485 whereas longitudinal specimens cracked over a wider span
,-leaving - 12 layers \.]ires broke.
6 1/2-in. 22 gao 1.29 2980 1280 As above.
16 hexagonal mesh, 3100 1270
I
Av. galvanized before 3040 1275
i
weaving - 12 layers
7 1/4-in. 20 gao fire- 1.20 1900 1000 Major crumbling in local zones in both transverse and
15 screening, black 890 900 longitudinal specimens. One or two major cracks.
Av. - 2 layers 1395 950
I
8 l/2-in. 19 gao hard- 1. 79 3520 3530 Both transverse and longitudinal specimens cracked at
11 ware cloth, square 3600 3600 Ill-inch intervals over wide span. Slight spalling of
Av. mesh, galvanized - 3560 3565 top surface. Wires broken in B.
9 layers I
10 3/8-in. 20 gao welQ.ed 1.59 5000 4460 Top surface showed some spalling. Both transverse and
square mesh, not
longitudinal specimens cracked at 3/8-inch intervals
galvanized - 7 layers
over wide span. No wires broken.
I
TABLE 6. Results of Flexural Bend Tests on Specimens with Various Cements and Sands.
(All specimens from panels having 12 layers of 12 in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh,
galvanized after weaving 1.35 lb of mesh/sq ft of panel)
69-4125
- 47 -
Modulus of Rupture, psi
Panel Cement Orientation of wire
No. Type Sand longit. transv. Description of Mode of Failure
17 Type I Evco Dry 2910 1665 Both specimens showed single crack in top surface.
Mortar Sand Longitudinal showed bottom cracking over wide span,
transverse less so. Wires broken in both.
5 Type II Evco Dry 2900 1360
as in 17.
14 Mortar Sand 2420 1610
18 Type III Evco Dry panel discarded
19 Mortar Sand 2430 I 1585 Spa11ing of top surface. Bottom cracking over wide
22 curing span. Wires broken.
23 Type V Evco Dry curing
Mortar Sand
24 Aluminous Evco Dry. curing
Mortar Sand
25 Type II Del Monte curing
8:20:30::
1:2:1
26 Type I Evco Dry curing
Mortar Sand
--
69-4125
Fig. 1
Hubbard mixer used for mortar.
Fig. 2
Modified paddles in mixer.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Mortar placement in panel mould with
vibrating trowel.
Finishing of panel by hand trowelling.
69-4125
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
View of blisters and cracking in
Panel 8.
View of gas hole in Panel 8.
69-4125
SPECIMENS" A" &. "B
SPECIMEN "e"
SPECIMENS ''0'' &. "E"
SPECIMENS .oF' &. "G"
D
A
G
C
for ct.ro p - impQct tests
E
F
B
5 I
, ~ I I I"
CQ e. /8 "
for flexural strength tests on unr-elnforced
portion of panel.
for flexural sttengthstests on reinforced
portion of panel
for other tests (exposure, durCibiLi ty, corros ion.)
FIG.7 LAYOUT OF PANEL FOR TEST SPECIMENS
Fig. 8 View of drop-impact
test fixture.
69-4125
Fig. 9 Close-up view of drop-
impact test fixture at
point of impact.
50 It> drop wei9ht SLlspendecl __
(0 ft above tesi speci men.
I Gin. sq,.uQre frQme. of 4)( 4
Qngle iron with '0 in. diCl .
hole. in centre
15 in. ferro cement
test panel.-------
lOin. diQ. support pipe.

II
II
..
II
..
II
o
II
.
II
.
II
.
II
6uspending Rope
4- lin angle Iron guide
frome I2.H hi9 h contained
by weld rin9s at 4 ft
Ihterva Is
Ir
Y4 in plywood pod
Gin. dlQ.
stee.l plate wi th
7'n. dio hole, welded
to verlicQI guides.
3/4 in. plywood.. .support
ring with 12in.dia.hole
rU------.-.u... _____ 2 in. planking support
..- pad.
'----------'
FIG.fO SKETCH OF DROP-IMPACT TEST
GUIDE FRAME ASSEMBLY.
, .
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
69-4125
Top and bottom views of impact test specimens containing
5 layers of 2.5 lb/sq yd expanded metal lath.
Top and bottom views of impact test specimens containing
5 layers of 1/2 x 16 gao galvanized welded square mesh.
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
69-4125
Top and bottom views of impact test specimens containing
12 layers of 1/2 in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh; galvanized
after weaving.
,"
Top and bottom views of impact test specimens containing
12 layers of 1/2 in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh; galvanized
before weaving.
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
69-4125
Top and bottom views of impact test specimens containing
2 layers of 1/2 in. 20 gao firescreening.
I,Of>
Top and bottom views of impact test specimens containing
7 layers of 3/8 in. 20 gao unga1vanized welded square mesh .
Fig. 17
69-4125
Top and bottom views of impact test specimens containing
9 layers of 1/2 in. 19 gao galvanized hardware cloth.
:0
.J
3000 ,...,---,-------
2500 =-
in.IG 9'" welded mesh.
__ 120
2000
1500 -
.-
:l 1000 '-
10 E
3/8 in. 20gQ. welded sq,uare mesh'
c:(
::>
..J
14D
ve in. 2290. heXQgonal mesh
__ .....".,.=t''''''''''''''''''' ............. =J
o 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
DEFLECTION - INCHES
FIG.18 LOAD-DEFLECTION CURVES FROM
TYPICAL FLE)<URAL STRENGTH SPECIMENS
,
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Top view of modulus of rupture specimens loaded
longitudinally and transversely with respect to
orientation of bottom wires
.i". 16 '1""
~ . - 228\01",
HEXA4IIio..a M'lM
Bottom view of specimens shown in Fig. 19 above.
69-4125
Fig. 21
Fig. %2
Top view of modulus of rupture specimens loaded
longitudinally and transversely with respect to
orientation of bottom wires.
2'i!"f9 'I".
CurTH
Bottom view of specimens shown in Fig. 21 above.
69-4125
cI)
a..
1000
6000
5000
.c
+-'
0
(3
4-
(l)
E-
"0
Q)
"
C
0
0..
)(.
al
.n
-
\(l

-5)
v
E
q)
I.-
C1
~
11\
~
QJ
:Y
~
~
d
(p
0
N
C
.-
~
If)
0
o
o

.r:
I/)
QJ
g
LU
0:: 4000 -
N
~
l-
n.
~
r:r
0-
3000
0
cI)
:>
.J
~
o 2000
0
:;!
1000
0
0
c:
0
0
0
.c::
+-
0
....:
c
(l)
E
\)

Q.l
Y
'-
(3
..r!
~
I/)
-c1
Q)
u
....
..g
s:::
IU
J-
~ L
E
0
..c
0
c
......
0
(1
c: <:n
0
<1-
t;1')
0
b
X
C
ClJ
...c
(\\
ti ~
en
N
N
t:
.-
~
2
REIN FORCEMENT
LB./SQ,FT. PANEL
FIG. 23 RELATIONSHIP MODULUS OF
-----
RUPTURE vs WEIGHT OF VARIOUS REINFORCE-
MENT MATERIALS IN STRONGEST DIRECTION
. -

APPENDIX II
. I
B.C. 3650 Wo.brook Cro,eenl, Vaneouver 167, Canada
I -> Phone (604) 224-4331 Coble 'RESEARCHBC' Telex 04507748
PROJECT REPORT November 7, 1969
To: Ferro Cement Inpustries Ltd.,
P.O. Box 231,
Nanaimo, B.C.
Subject: 1-4127 Tests on Ferro-cement Panels
A. OBJECT:
To perform such mechanical tests on ferro-cement panels
as required by the Steamship Inspector with a view to provisional
approval of ferro-c('ment hull construction for a commercial
54-foot length.
B. MATERIALS AND BACKGROUND:
The Sponsor submitted two panels for tests. One panel,
marked C, was approximately 26 x 20-3/8 x 1-1/2 inches. The other,
marked D, was approximately 26 x 20-3/8 x 2 inches. (Part of the
extra thickness of D is reported to be due to an extra thi.ck facing
layer of concrete.)
Other panels, identified as A, B, E, F and G, were
submitted at the same time but are outside the scope of this test
report.
The description of the structure, number and kinds of
mesh and rod reinforcement cement mix, additive, and curing provided
by the Sponsor, is included as Appendix 1.
Briefly, the construction is as follows:
Panel C.
Two layers of 6 gauge (0.192 in.) rods spaced at
2 inches laid at right angles in the centre of the panel
section.
One layer of heavy (0.056 in.) galvanized.hexagon-
mesh (1-in. menh) laid on each side of the 6 gauge rods.
Operation 01 Ihe BRITISH COlUMBIA RESEARCH a Non-profit Industrial Reseorch SCKioly
1-4127
- 2 -
Four layers of light (0.025 in.) galvanized hexagon-
mesh (l/2-inch mesh) laid on the I-inch mesh.
A trowelled top coat (lIB-inch thick) overlies the
l/2-inch mesh on one side.
The panels are r e p o r t e ~ to have been cured for 30
days at the time of receipt.
Panel D.
Two layers of 6-gauge (0.192 in.) rods spaced at 2
inches laid at right angles in the centre of the panel section.
Two layers of heavy 2-inch welded square mesh (12
gauge wire) laid on each side of the 6-gauge rods in such a
manner that the mesh wires lie between the rods'.
One layer of heavy (0.056 in.) galvanized hexagon-
mesh (l-lnch mesh) laid each side of the above square mesh.
Four layers of light (0.025 in.) galvanized hexagon-
mesh (1/2-inch mesh) laid on the I-inch 6-gauge mesh.
A trowelled top coat (1/4-inch thick) overlies the
l/2-inch mesh on one side.
The same cement mix was reportedly used in both
panels and is described in Appendix 1.
C. TEST PROCEDURE:
The two panels were cut up with a diamond saw
according to the plan shown in Figures 1 and 2. The following
test specimens were obtained.
C-l, D-l Transverse bend tests with trowelled face in
compression side of specimen. Mesh twist is in long
direction of specimen. Width of specimens is 4 in.
Span is 10 in. centre loading.
C-2, D-2 Transverse bend tests with trowelled face in tension
side of specimen. Mesh twist is in long direction of
specimen. Width of specimens is 4 in. Span is 10 in.
centre loading.
C-3, D-3 Transverse bend tests with trowelled face in compression
side of specimen. Mesh twist at right angle to long
direction of specimen. Width of specimen is 4 in.
Span is 10 in. centre loading.
C-4, D-4
C-5, D-5
C-6, D-6
C-7, D-7
C-8, D-8
1-4127
- 3 -
Compression tests with test load on cut faces of
specimen and at right angle to mesh twist. Dimensions:
width, 4 in.; height, 4 in.; thickness, 1-1/2 in.,
2 in.
Compression tests with test load on cut faces of
specimen and in line with direction of mesh twist.
Dimensions: width, 4 i n . ~ height, 4 in.; thickness,
1-1/2 in., 2 in.
Impact tests in which 26.4 lb cylinder 5 inches in
diameter with round ends was dropped from height
of 20 feet onto the centre of IS-inch square panel
specimen supported in frame with a centre hole
10 inches in diameter. The drops were repeated
until failure from the point of view of water-tight
integrity judged to have occurred. The weight/
height relationship was chosen on the basis of drop
tests on a "2 x 6" board (1-5/8 x 5-5/8 in.). Two
drops produced failure of a 2 x 6 board supported
in the frame described above. Figure 3 shows the
frame set-up.
Test specimens 4 x 6 inches, not used except for
calculation of the density of panels.
Tensile specimens (width 2 in., length 15 in.,
thickness 1-1/2, 2 in.) were tested by clampjng
gripping hanger plates to the specimens. The distance
between the grips, the effective gauge length, was
four inches. The loading direction was in line
with.the twist of mesh. Each specimen had one rod
down its centre axis. Specimen D-8 had four longi-
tudinal strands from the 2-inch welded square-mesh
screen.
The tensile strength of the 0.192-inch diameter
spacing rod taken from test specimen C-8 was also
determined.
D. TEST RESULTS:
1. Panel C.
(a) Modulus of Rupture - from transverse bend test.
Spec C-l (trowelled side up - mesh twist longit.) 3950
" C-2 (trowelled side down - mesh twist longit.) 3650
" C-3 (trowelled side up - mesh twist across) 2970
psi
psi
psi
1-4127
- 4 -
(b) Compression Strength.
Spec C-4 (load at right angles to mesh twist)
" C-5 (load in lin,e with mesh twist)
4830 psi
7010 psi
(c) Impact Test-Drop Test - 26.4 lb ball dropped 20 feet onto
IS-inch square panel C-6 supported over 10-inch diameter
ring - 530 ft-Ib.
First drop
Second drop
Third drop
Fourth drop
- slight crack and depression in top surface.
- cracking along line of mesh over a 5-inch
square in bottom surface.
- depression 1/4-inch deep over ball contact
area.
- cement spalled from bottom surface over
an area 9 inches in diameter.
- three layers of mesh exposed in bottom
surface.
- depression 3/4-inch deep over ball contact
area.
four layers of mesh exposed in bottom
surface.
- panel failure assumed.
- depression l-l/4-inch deep over ball
contact area.
- no cracks observed outside of contact
area in top surface.
- heavy hexagonal wire exposed in top
surface and two top layers of mesh
contained broken wires.
- heavy hexagonal wire exposed in bottom
surface and outer two layers of mesh
contained broken wires.
(d) Density - Specimen C-7 (Approx 4 x 6 x 1.5 inch and
containing three rods in one direction and two rods
in other direction) = 0.098 lb/cu in.
(e) Tensile Test - C-S.
First transverse crack observed at 675 psi.
Maximum tensile load held 975 psi.
(f) Tensile Test - 0.192-inch diameter spacer rod from
Specimen C-S.
Breaking load
U.T.S .
Elong. % in 8 ,in.
R.A.
2. Panel D.
(a) Modulus of Rupture.
Spec D-l (trowelled side
2650 Ib
90,800 psi
5.5 percent
61. 3 percent
up - mesh twist longit.)
1-4127
- 5 -
3690
"
D-2 (trowelled side down - mesh twist (longit.) 3280
"
D-3 (trowelled side up - mesh twist across) 3320
(b) Compression Strength.
psi
psi
psi
Spec D-4 (load at right angles to mesh twist)
- " D-5 (load in line with mesh twist)
6650 psi
7280 psi*
*load limit of testing machine reached before ultimate failure.
(c) Impact Test - Drop Test - 26.4 lb ball dropped 20 feet
onto IS-inch square panel D-6 supported over lQ-inch
diameter ring.
First drop
Second drop
Third drop
Fourth drop
Fifth drop
- top surface barely marked.
- cracking along line of mesh over as-inch
square in bottom surface.
- top surface barely marked.
small portion of cement spalled from bottom-
surface to expose mesh.
- slight depression in top surface.
two to three layers of mesh exposed in
bottom surface.
depression formed in top surface.
- four layers of mesh exposed in bottom
surface.
top surface c r u m D ~ y in contact area.
- depression about 3/4-inch deep.
- Eenel failure assumed.
1-4127
- 6 -
Sixth drop - top surface depression 1-1/8-inch deep.
- four mesh layers exposed in bottom.
(d) Density - specimen D-7 (approx 4 x 6 x 2 inch) and
containing three rods in one direction and two in
other direction) = 0.096 lb/cu in.
(e) Tensile Test - D-8
First transverse crack observed at 500 psi.
Maximum tensile load held 995 psi.
D. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The surfaces exposed by the diamond saw showed no
significant voids or internal discontinuities in the cement
matrix portion of the panels.
2. The rods, which are not galvanized, are rusted.
There. is no significant bonding between rods and cement matrix
but since the rods are on the neutral axis the lack of bond
may be unimportant.
3. The modulus of rupture values in both panels range
from about 3,000 to about 4,000
4. The difference in the values of modulus of rupture
found for Panels C and D is probably not significant.
5. The modulus of rupture values for Panel D calculated
for a thickness of l-3/4-inch (that is, removing the stated
extra l/4-inch surface trowelled coat) are much higher than
the corresponding values for Panel C.
6. strength values range from 4830 to 7300 psi.
The compression strength of Panel D is superior to Panel C.
7. The tensile breaking strengths of the two specimens
C-8 and D-8 are 975 psi and 995 psi, respectively.
8. The ultimate tensile strength of the spacing rod
specimen is 90,800 psi. The rod did not contribute significantly
to the ultimate breaking strength of the ferro-cement specimen
because the bond between rod and cement matrix allowed the rod
to slip before the ultimate load was applied. In the hull
itself the rod has a long contact length and the ends are
tied into the structure so that the of the rod will
contribute to the ultimate breaking strength of the composite
matrix. How much it will contribute depends on the elastic
modulus of the rod and on the "effective elastic modulus"
of the mesh/concrete matrix.
9. Although some surface damage was sustained by both
panels when subjected to two drops of the dropping ball
(26.4 lb from a height of 20 feet, 530 ft-lb), the damage was
much less serious than that sustained by a 2 x 6 inch (1-5/8 x
5-5/8) fir plank subjected to two drops of the ball. One
drop deformed 0.2-inch thick checker floor plate to a depth
of about 1/2-inch.
10. Estimated failure of Panel C was assumed after three
drops of the ball and of Panel D after five drops of the
ball.
11. The test results reported herein appear to warrant
further development of this means of construction in
shipbuilding such as is proposed by the Sponsor.
Greenius
Division of Engineering

W.N. English
Head, Division of Applied Physics
AWG/mc

APPENDIX 1.
Dr. EnSl j.sh
B .0. He seD.rch
November 3, 1969
P.o. Box 231
Nane.imo, B.O.
RE: Description of Test Panels
All panels \,:ere cODstrlJ.cted by laying reinforcinc material
on a flat surface and stapled in position. Ooncrete is then
B.C, Resear
Notes.*
vibre.ted throuGh the panels froD the open surfo.,ce. -_ .. (1)
The concretel:1ix is ic1ent:ical for all p::.no15 "lith the ex-
eception of panel (A) vhich has G. hi[;her \';ator c:Jntent. The r.lix
. is as follo':.Js.
1 ba3 (94 Ibs.) type 5 Portland Cemont
1
7
:.::; ClJbl' c fe
o
+. >"Ie-! - ... ---------.----... - .. ------------ .. ----.-.-- - -.--- -------.. - -- -
-" v ."" .
6 lbs Pozolen
4% water tJ cement by weicht
R9infor:cins m[lteria1 in thof:"e panels is of mild steel con-
struction i'.'ith the exception of paneln 0 and D. Specifica.ti
for E!ateri2.1s are as fol10',,;5.
Oornmon r'hterie,ls
1/2 inch 1118Sb, 22 cue.ge, ---.-----.
linch hezLl.{;onal mesh, 16 GU8.Ge, Go.lve.nized -.
IlL! inch \;ovon mesh, ILl [uace (panel G only)
Panels 8 G D
0.192 inch hiSh tensile rod S.A.E. 10-10 carbon
minimum 1000,OGO psi -_________ ._ . ___ . __________ . ____ _ .
o in '11 "..." 1 0" rna o'n S" 1<' 10 - 1::" c" Y'b 'n ILl cu '--e L.. \.... dv __ .. ..... 0, .... , . .......,. _'.J '. "A .... J, r 0 ,
galv8.ni Led.
-- --_. _. --- _ .. . -- ., ,"' - '-' .. --
Panels A o.nel :a are of identice.J. construction the ex-
ceptilHl of tl18 viator c =nte:tt.
Note:
Panel A
Panel B J+;'; ','Tater
*See next page.
(2)
(5)
(6) , (7)
Appendix 1 (cont'd)(2)
November 3', 1969
Pa:lels C and D are of similo.r dupllcat1ns
sections of a hull presently under construction.
Panels E,F, and G are of the same size e.nd sha.pe \'lith
different types of reinforcing em,ployed.
!
E) 1/2 inch hexagonal mesh 22 guase
F) 1 inch hexaGonal mesh 16 gU2.5e
, G) 1/4 inch ';[oven lilesh guclse
*B.C. Research Notes:
(1) Sponsor reported by telephone that Panels C and D cured more than
30 days under cover - open - kept moist.
(2) Sponsor reported by telephone that sand used is Ocean Cement
coarse sand (Victoria sand). '
(3) Wire diameter stripped free of zinc measured 0.025 in. which is
slightly smaller than 22 ga (Steel Wire Gauge).
(4) Wire diameter stripped free of zinc measured 0.056 in. which is
slightly smaller than 16 ga (Steel Wire Gauge).
(5) Should read 100,000 psi. The value determined by test is 90,800
(6) Only Panel D contained 2-inch weld mesh. Panel C did not contain
2-inch weld mesh.
(7) Wire diameter stripped free of zinc measured 0,104 in. which is
close to 12 ga (Steel Wire Gauge).

(6)
t.
J
"I (I

\.
(J
. '-
() (,-1'
-1, \)
;-. _ i r, I I I \ . i . I ! \" .1
I I I / I 1\"" I
, : I I I I I , : I
:- - _-1- - - '1 - J. - - - - - - I- - - -. -!- J - J - - - - 1 .
,I ' /: : I I I I J I ;
! / , I 1 / , ' I I I :
1- t - - -/- - - --,- -- 1_ - -1- - -1-- --+ - --1- ---+ - -; .
! I t I I ' I I I I I ;
I J.:. ___ __ , ___ __ L __ __ ____ 1 ___
I I I I I I I I
i I I _ I I I I (j) I I . I
, j - - - - - -'- r- -, - .- - - - 4- - - - - -- + - - - - - - - --
I : I : I 1 : 1 I . I
I I : I I I I I I
- f- - I- -1 - - - - - -- - _. - - - - - - - L - - - t- - - - - - -1 - - - -
: I 1 . , , 1 1 , I
J I : : ' I I i I :
- -i - - - + --l - -,'- '- - l- - - 1 - - -,-- - - '1 - -- -! - -- -; - -- -f-
1 _1_ I 1 I I I ! I
I I I ' 'I I I .
-,- - .. - -. - - - - -. - -1 - - - r _. - -,-- - -.1-- -- -- 1 - -- l - - -- L - - --
' I : : . I. I I i I ! 1
--:-- --:---:-
: : I I :J--' /11"7: 'lnl '
, j- -i--+- __ + __ __ ! __ + __
I I I I I _l-__ _ __ ;_'----l-- / __ ----'-_1
1_ r - t- - - - . - - t - - _. - -:- - - -- -- - ._. - -
i I I I 1 I I I I , I
; . I I 1 I to , I I
;- -r -I- -1-- - -,- -,- - - r - - ...!- - - -i- - - t - - -,- - -1- - :--
I 'f... ----l.--1 I I , I I
I I I I ' / I I I I
--+-00-
1
-- -I- ---;- _-J ---
I I I I , I , I I I
i J I I I : I - I t I I
, I ,. I I '---'
",'l

()
't
o
r)
\-.-
\j)
y-
o
-1--

(;
>.
CS
---l
-
\J
.-
69-4127
G ." ~ i .2
Figure 2. Layout of Panel Specimens after Tests
. .
Figure 3. Frame and Ball used in Impact Test.
I
B.C.
I>
3650 Wesbrook Crescent, Vancouver 167, Canada.
Phone (604) 224-4331 Cable 'RESEARCH8C' Telex 04-507748
TIlE DEVELOPHENT OF FERRO-CEt1ENT FOR FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION
TECHNICAL SUPPLEl1ENT to PART II
This is a technical supplement to the Final Report
presented to the Industrial Developmc=nt Branch of the Fisheries
Service. At the time of writing the final report" certain test
results were incomplete because some test panels were still curing.
The panels have since cured and additional hend, impact, short-
term exposure, and patching tests have now been In
addi.tion, 'ole have taken advantage of the opportunity to observe
and comment on some of the practical problems encountered in the
conf,truction of a 45-foot ferro-cement boat under back-yard
construction near our laboratory.
These tests and observations comprise this Technical
Supplement to our Final Report dated March" 31, 1970. Some of the
tables of the March 31 report have now been updated by the inclusion
of new material, and we have identified these tables by their
original number plus the letter S, e.g. Table 3-S, to indicate that
they are to be found in the Supplement. We refer to tables \\Thich
have not been affected by the new work by their original number,
e.g. Table 4, and such tables are to be found in the Harch 31,
1970 report.
INDEX
Technical Supplement.
Mesh Reinforcement' ......... ......................
Cement and Sand .............................................
Water/Cement ratio II
Bond Strength between Mortar and Mesh .... .. . ......... ,
Exposure Tests ................................... .
Patching Ferro-cement .......................................
Observations of ~ Hull under Construction ...................
General Conclusions and Recommendations
References. ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Appendix III (Tables of Test Results) ........................
69-4125
Page
1
3
5
6
8
9
15
18
22
23
MESH REINFORCEHENT.
69-4125
- I -
This supplement contains additional tests on reinforce-
ment materials previously reported. The additional drop-impact test
results are included in Table 4-S. The drop-impact tests on inch-
thick panel specimens containing a half-inch total thickness of the
several reinforcement meshes rate them in decreasing order of impact
resistance as follows:
1. l/2-in. 16 gao welded sq mesh (5 layers, 2.S5 lb/ft
2
panel) .
2. 3/S-in. 20 gao welded sq mesh (7 layers, 1. 59 lb/ft
2
panel)
,
1. 79 1b/ft
2
3. l/2-in. 19 gao hardware cloth (9 layers, panel)
4. l/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh (12 layers, 1.35 lb/ft
2
panel).
S. 2.5 1b expanded metal lath (5
" 2
layers, 1.23 lb/ft panel).
6. l/4-in. 20 gao firescreening (2 layers, 1.20 1b/ft
2
panel).
The values for modulus of rupture in bending, as shown
in Table 5, rate the panels with the several reinforcements in the
same relative order.
It will be noted in the above rating that although
the total thickness of mesh in all one-inch thick panels is approxi-
mately one-half inch, the weights of reinforcement per square foot of
panel vary from 1.20 to 2.S5 lb per sq ft panel.
Four panels 30-inch square (Panels 27 to 30 incl) were
made with approximately equal weights of reinforcement mesh, viz.
1.15 lb per sq ft. The mortared thickness of these panels was about
l/2-inch, a small variation being caused by the springiness of some
of the meshes. The four panels respectively contained 3 layers of
l/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh above and 2 layers below I layer of
"1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh, 10 layers of l/2-in. hexagonal
mesh, 2 layers of l/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh, and 6 layers of
l/2-in. 19 gao hardware cloth. Type II cement and "Del Monte" sand
were used in the four panels. (Cement/sand ratio 1:2) The drop-
impact. tests (50 lb from a height of 5 feet) for the four panels are
shown in Table 7-S. The panel with 2 layers of l/2-in. 16 gao
welded square mesh was markedly superior to the other panels in drop-
impact resistance. Figures 24 to 27 inclusive show the top and
bottom surfaces after testing.
69-4125
- 2 -
The values of modulus of rupture for the longitudinal
and transverse directions of these same panels are shown in Table
8-S. The panel reinforced with 2 layers of 1/2-in. 16 gao welded square
mesh has a higher modulus of rupture than the other panels tested and
a markedly higher modulus of rupture than the panel containing
1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh alone. The test specimens from the
combination mesh panel (Panel 27) and from the hardware cloth panel
(Panel 30) gave more uniform cracking on the bottom tensi.on side of
the specimens and both held the load over a much greater deflection
than did the test specimens from Panel 29 (2 layers of 1/2-in. 16 gao
weld mesh). The specimen from Panel 28 (hexagonal mesh reinforcement)
also held its load over a much greater deflection but, of course,
at a much lm-ler level. The load-deflection curves of Figure 18 shmv
the two characteristic conditions described.
Comparison of the modulus of rupture values of these
panels does not give a completely fair assessment of the panels. The
rather abrupt drop in load at deflection in the case of Panel 29
(2 layers 1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh) is caused by compression
failure of the mortar before there is any yielding of the steel
reillforcement. Within the limitations imposed by the non-uniform
distribution of the mesh this type of failure may be classified as
an over-reinforced beam. A detailed explanation of this is outside
the scope of this study but Muhlert(18) provides a good analysis of
bending failures in botll over-reinforced arid under-reinforced beams.
Panels reinforced with 1/2-in. 16 gao welded square
mesh have been shmvn to be markedly stronge'): in drop-impact resistance
and marginally stronger in flexure than panels reinforced with an
equal weight of 1/2-in. 19 gao hardware cloth and with an equal
of the 1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh/1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal
mesh combination. Hmvever, the effect of spacer rods in the panel
has not yet been assessed. Undoubtedly rods, in either a common
hot-rolled grade or a high tensile grade, should substantially increase
the drop-impact resistance of any panel.
It is interesting to note that the cost of reinforcement
for the four panels 27 to 30, containing equal welBhts of the three
different meshes and one tl>lo-mesh. combina.tion, :.:-angccl from ahout
60 to 70 cents per square foot of panel. The reinforcement materials
used in this study were bought through both retail Dnd wholesale
channels in small quantities and in some instances the price included
federal sales tax. The costs are_therefore only approximate h'lt do
indicate that the difference between the several reinforcements is
not great on an equal-",eight basis. (The 3/B-in. 19 gao material
'vas supplied gratis and the cost was not availahie.)
69-4125
- 3 -
It is recognized that high stresses may also occur
in the diagonal direction of boat hulls. As shown in Table 5, some
of the reinforcement meshes tested showed a considerable difference
between longitudinal and transversa strengths in bending. Diagonal
test specimens ,,,rere therefore prepared from Panels 4, 5, 8, and 10
(1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh, 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh,
1/2-in. 19 gao hardware cloth, and 3/8-in. 20 gao welded square
mesh, respectively). Figure 7-S shm"rs specimen location.
The values of the modulus of rupture are shown in
Table 9-S with the corresponding values from the longitudinal and
transverse tests. It will be observed that the modulus of rupture
of specimens in the diagonal is somewhat lm"rer than that
for specimens in either the longitudinal or transverse direction
for reinforcement mesh of square construction. The value of the
modulus of rupture in the diagonal specimen from the 1/2-in.
hexagonal mesh panel lies between the longitudinal -and transverse
values.
The characteristic directional properties were
further assessed by "slmV' impact" tests which also sho,V'ed the effect
of the velocity of impact on the mode of failure. The tup (striking
head) from the drop-impact tests was used in a compression machine to
load IS-inch square specimens supported on I-inch plywood with a
l2-inch hoie (as in the drop-impact tests): The maximum load held
and the mode of failure were recorded in Table 10-S. There is a good
straight-line relationship between these slow-impact values and the
average of the longitudinal and transverse values for the modulus of
rupture of the panels as shown in Table 9-S. The characteristic
modes of failure are not very different to those obtained in the
50-lb 10 ft drop-impact tests.
CEMENT AND SAND.
The curing and subsequent testing of panels 23 to 26,
inclusive, since the Final Report have provided additional test
results on the effect of the various cements and sands on the strength
of ferro-cement panels. The additional drop-impa2t displacement
values for specimens cured at least 28 days and the description as
to the mode of failure are presented in Table 4-S. Drop-impact test
results for comparison of various cements and sands are presented
in Table ll-S. The additional modulus of rupture values of the
unreinforced portions of the panels are shown in 3-S and of
the reinforced portions in Table 6-S. A direct comparison of the
69-4125
- 4 -
values of the modulus of rupture for the unreinforced specimens
made with the several cements is provided in Table l2-S. The calculated
modulus of rupture values are undoubtedly affected by such factors
as the speed of applying the bending load; unevenness of bearing
surfaces; inherent variation in the sand, cement, and mixing; and
the sensitivity of the equation M = to small differences in the
thickness lid". bd
It should be noted that only the panels made with
Type II cement offer a reasonable repl,ication of specimens for a
valid comparison, viz. 14 panels with 27 values. The other test
specimens with Types I, III, V and aluminous cement are from only
one or two panels. The values for modulus of rupture of specimens
with Type II cement range from 705 ,to 1300 psi and average 946 psi.
It will be observed in Table '12-8 that the average
values for the modulus of rupture for unreinforced specimens from
panels made with Types I, III, V, and aluminous cements do not
appear to differ greatly from the average value of the specimens
made with Type II cement. It should also be noted here that a cement/
sand ratio of 1:2 and a water/cement ratio of about 0.4 have been
used for all panels. These ratios may not be the optimum ratio
to produce the strongest mortar with all cements but we do not feel
that significant improvement is to be expected from such optimization.
The values for the modulus of rupture of the reinforced
specimens ma.de with the several cements are shown in Table 13-8. The
modulus of rupture of aluminous cement specimen in the longitudinal
direction was higher than that of the other specimens but the value
for the transverse specimen was not markedly different.
The one "standard" panel in 'vhich Del Monte sand was
used showed a value for the modulus of rupture of the unreinforced
specimen within the range determined for the unreinforced specimens
of the naturally graded dry mortar sand used. The value 'vas, hO\vever,
considerably below the average value of these specimens as shown in
the lower portion of Table l2-S. The values of the modulus of rupture
obtained with Del Monte sand in the reinforced specimens are similar
to the corresponding values obtained with the E v c ~ Dry Mortar Sand.
As before, cognizance should be taken of the points
presented above as to the effect of several variables on the test
results obtained. Also, the present test with Del Monte sand used
8-mesh, 20- mesh, and 30-mesh sand'in the ratio of 1:2:1 by weir,ht.
This ratio, the cement/sand ratio of 1:2, and the water/cement ratio
of 0.4 may not yield a mortar of maximum strength.
69-4125
- 5 -
The grading of the sands is known to have an important
effect on mortar strength and other properties. The Evco Dry Mortar
Sand is reported to have a natural particle size gradation as obtained
from the pit with the exception that the +8 mesh material is scalped
off. The particle size gradation and the angularity of the grains
are shown in Figure 28. Figures 29, 30, and 31, respectively, show
the 8-mesh, 20-mesh, and 30-mesh Del Monte sands used in Panel 25.
The sharper nature ' of the grains may be observed in the photographs
at a printed magnification of about 4 times. It is generally agreed
that sharp sands make a better mortar than do rounded sands for
applications of this kind. Sands of an angularity or sharpness similar
to the Evco Dry Mortar Sand used should be satisfactory for ferro-
cement work provided the contents of clay, silt, and other constituents
are acceptably lm-l.
\-TATER/ CEMENT RATIO.
No further tests have been undertaken as to the effect
of the ratio and slump on workability of the mortar.
Experience in making the 30 panels showed that variations in slump
and workability were obtained 'vith the water/cement ratio held at 0.4.
Even though dry sand was used and sand, cement and water '-lere carefully
weighed, differences in sand fineness, mixing variations, wetting of
the mixer, and other unknown factors produced variations in the mixture.
Larger batches should tend to minimize the effect of some of the
variables but field conditions in general would be less conducive to
accuracy and control of the components and would tend to allow wider
variations in the mortar. For the controlled cement/sand ratio used
throughout this study, the slump test provided a good guide to the
'vorkability of the mortar. A slight amount of additional '-later '-las
sometimes required to obtain a slump of about 3 1/2 inches, the
minimum slump , found necessary for adequate workability. One experienced
builder in New Zealand(l9) considers that the slump should not be
much greater than 2 1/2 inches but 've believe that the critical slump
'must be established for the raw materials used. It is worth mentioning
that a U.S. Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory report(20) on ferro-
cement panels states that slump is not a reliable control to use with
mortar. We have found it is a useful aid to achieving consistency
between batches.
A test was conducted to see how much of the total \-later
addition could be contributed by wet sand. A I-kg sample of dry
mortar sand thoroughly wetted, drained, weighed, and subsequently
69-4125
- 6 -
dried and reweighed was found to hold 150 gm of wAter. The total
water requirement witll a cement/sand ratio of 1:2 and a water/cement
ratio of 0.4 is 0.4 x 500 = 200 gm. It is evident that wet sand could
provide up to three-quarters of the total water requirement in the
present tests. Attention is also dra\vn to the hulking effect of damp
sand which makes batching on a volume basi s Jess sati.sfactory than
batching on a weight basis and making due allowance for the moisture
content of the sand. Bagged dry sand has considerable virtue and
should be used where possible.
BOND STRENGTH BEn-mEN HORTAR AND HESll.
No rigorous tests hqve yet been undertaken to determining
whether galvanized or ungalvanized reinforcement provides the better
bond. There may be no simple answer to tIle question. If galvanized,
the reinforcement may also have a protective phosphate or chromate
conversion coating to prevent whi.te rust storage stains. If the
reinforcement is not galvanized, it may be covered with a black scale,
in various stages of flaking and rusting, or it may be pickled clean
with a partial coating of light rust. Testing of the effect of the
galvanized zinc coating on the bond has been confined to a comparative
qualitative examination of specimens from a panel containing galvanized
1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh and from a panel containing the same
1/2-in. 16 gao square mesh with its galvanized coating removed in
50-percent hydrochloric acid. First it may be poinled out that no
significant difference in the modulus of rupture values was obtained
from galvanized and stripped 1/2-in. 16 gao reinforced panels -
compare Panel 9 with Panels 4 and 12 in Table 5. Secondly, separation
of the lower layer of mesh from the specimens from Panels 9 and 4
was accomplished \-lith substantially equal difficulty. Examination of
the wire grooves in the mortar lying immediately above the wire did,
hmvever, shmJ a textural difference. The grooves of the Panel 4
specimen containing galvanized wire mesh had a somewhat spongy appearance
whereas tJIOSC of the Panel 9 specimen containing stripped ~ i r e mesh
had a smooth appearance. It has not bt'!en established whether or not
the spongy appearance is the result of a zinc-cement-water reaction,
but this is a possibility.
There is no conclusive evidence to show that the bond
strength between wire mesh and mortar in the early life of the panel
(before being subjected to a corrosive environment) is dependent on
whether i.t is gAlvanized or not. In any case, the mechanical keying
at the wire cross-overs will provide a satisfactory bond to prevent
differential Hire/mortar movemenL under tensile stresses. Even in
69-4125
- 7 -
the absence of cross-over point keying it seems likely that even a
few inches of wire/mortar bond will be enough to break the wire in
tension.
The strength of the bond between wire mesh and mortar
after exposure of the' mortared reinforcement to an aggressive
environment is another question. The benefit of galvanized coatings
on the reinforcement is considered in the section on Exposure Tests.
The 'surface areas of the reinforcing mesh (the bond
areas) have been computed for several panels with various reinforcement
meshes to look for a relationship between bond area and specimen
strength. The bond areas per square inch of panel surface for four
panels with a half-fnch thick packi,ng of reinforcement and the
corresponding values of modulus of rupture are as follows:
5 layers 1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh 4.2 sq in. 6300 psi
9 layers 1/2-in. 19 gao hard't-lare cloth 4.3 sq in. 3560 psi
7 layers 3/8-in. 20 gao welded square mesh 4.2 sq in. 4700 psi
12 layers 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh 4.8 sq in. 2000 psi
The above panels show no clear relationship.
Panels 27 to 30 with equal weights of reinforcement
showed an inverse relationship between the.computed bond area and the
average modulus of rupture as fol1mvs:
Panel 27 - 3 layers 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh
1 layer l/2-in. 16 gao welded sq mesh
Panel 28
Panel 29
Panel 30
2 layers 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh
10 layers 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh
2 layers 1/2-in. 16 gao welded sq mesh
6 layers l/2-in. 19 gao hardware cloth
2.8 sq in. 3850
4.0 sq in. 2150
1.8 sq in. 4930
2.8 sq in. 3230
It is believed that this apparent in-verse relationship
'reflects the inter-relationships bet'veen wire diameter, wire flexibility,
and modulus of rupture in bending rather than between bond area and
strength. Variations in the strength of the several kinds of wire
in the meshes, mechanical keying bond at twists and cross-over joints,
uneven load-carrying by the mesh layers at various distances from
the neutral axis, and bond areas much greater than the critical minimum
bond area to prevent slipping obscure any significant bond areal
strength relationship.
psi
psi
psi
psi
EXPOSURE TESTS.
69-L1125
- 8 -
Coupons, approximately 3 x.4 inches, were cut as shown
in Figure 7-S, from piece F of 11 panels for exposure tests. The
Sa\VD edges and any edge spalling \vere coated with two layers of a
two-component epoxy floor patching material to prevent ingress of
corrodents through the cut edges.
Duplicate coupons -F-l, and -F-6 from the panels
listed in Table lLf":"S \vere immersed in a plastic tank (5-ga1. capacity)
of filtered sea\vater (obtained from the Vancouver Public Aquarium).
A small flow of air from a submerged air hose aerated and gently
circulated the sea\vater. The temperature was ambient about 68F.
The pH of the sea\,,"ater at the start of the test was 7.85. Measurements
during the tests showed little change. The exposure cycle was 8 hours
immersion follmved by 16 hours (overnight) of drying in an exhaust-
hooded fume cupboard. Changes in appearance were noted during the
IS-cycle periods completed at the time of writing .. The "observations
are recorded in Table l4-S. In brief, the coupons reinforced with
1/2-in. 16 gao ungalvanized welded wire mesh (original galvanized
coating had been removed with HCl) (9-F-l, 9-F-6) showed evidence of
red rust ori the bottom surface after two exposure cycles, the rusting
becoming more severe as the number of cycles increased. The coupons
with 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh galvanized before weaving
(6-F-l, 6-F-6) shoued rust staining after 10 exposure cycles. The
rest of the coupons still shmved no rust after 15 cycles. None of
the coupons shmved any evidence of rusting through the top side which
is protected bi the thicker layer (up to about 1/2-inch) of mortar.
Figure 32 shows the bottom surface of one of each pair of coupons
exposed in the seawater.
A single coupon -F-3 from the panels listed in Table
l5-S were immersed in a 5-percent solution of sodium sulphate, a .
standard accelerated test medium to assess the resistance of concrete
to sea,.,ater. No aeration or circulation was used. The exposure
cycling was otherwise as described for the seawater tests. The
observations made during the 15 exposure cycles completed are presented
'in Table 15-S. In brief, the drying of the first cycle produced a
white effluorescence on the top surface of several coupons, presumably
from seepage of the solution from a porous surface. The aluminous
cement coupon (24-F-3) had the heaviest coating. The effluorescence
did not reappear after the first few cycles. The bottom surface of
several coupons exhibited a white effluorescence which outlined
the mesh pattern, presumably from-seepage of the solution from
microcracks. Coupon 2
l
l-F-3 (aluminous cement) showed the most
prominent outline. Subsequent cyclings diminished the amount of
69-4125
- 9 -
effluorescence outlining the mesh pattern. Figure 33 shows the bottom
surfaces of the exposed coupons after 15 cycles of immersion and
drying.
Scratch testing of ' exposed and control coupons indicated
no detectable softening or deterioration of the coupons after 15 cycles
of exposure.
It may be argued that the corrosion of the mesh lying
just below the bottom surface of the test coupon is more vulnerable to
attack than the top layer which is covered with a mortar layer and
thus protected from the corrosive environment encountered by the
exterior of the hull. In practice, however, it is not possible to
place a uniformly thick cover coat of mortar over the top layer of
reinforcement because of lack of fairness in the mesh. Grinding of the
finished mortar to improve fairness and surface finish can expose the
reinforcing mesh. Figures 34 and 35 show exposed mesh on the hull
of a boat built by an amateur but plastered by a professional cre,.,.
Heavy white rust of the galvanie:ed coating and red rust of the steel
wire is evident. In addition to exposure of mesh from the finishing
operation, fine cracks in the hull appear to be unavoidable. Such
cracks will allow access of corrodents into the hull skin. The
interior of the hulls plastered over a mould or frames will also have
exposed mesh where complete mortar penetration is difficult or impossible.
Uncovered mesh, whether in fishing craft o ~ in pleasure craft, will be
subjected to various corrodents.
To date it has not been proved that galvanized mesh
will in fact extend the life of a hull but it is believed that the
use of galvanized material is good practice, both on general electro-
chemical grounds, and because it is recognized to be beneficial in
reinforced concrete exposed to seawater. Galvanized coatings appear
to provide an adequate bond betvleen reinforcement and mortar and to
delay the onset of unsightly and perhaps dangerous corrosion.
PATCHING FERRO-CEMENT.
In this phase of the investigation all experiments
used clean, dry ferro-cement specimens, patches were done under ideal
conditions, and all patches were cured under moist conditions.
While these conditions were idealized and would
only be found with a very ne,., boat, it was felt that the experiments
would yield a practical upper limit to the strengths attainable by
the patching techniques employed. Also, the results would give a
69-4125
- 10 -
basis for comparison when experiments are carried out with specimens
which have been soaked in seawater or otherwise contaminated.
of three types:
The specimens used in these patching experiments were
(a) Bend test specimens, nominally 1" x 2 1/2" xlI".
(b) Impact specimens, 15" x 15".
(c) Impact specimens, 30" x 30".
All specimens \V'ere reinforced with either hexagonal
mesh or rectangular steel mesh.
Only one 15" x 15" impact panel. was repaired, Panel
4-B (1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh), as ~ t was 'found that the damage
in the hexagonal mesh panels of this size extended to the edges and
cleaning and patching was very difficult.
Three 30" x 30" panels with
mesh were repaired, Panels 20, 21, and 22.
had major cracks running to the edges.
1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal
Even this size of panel
The most effective device tried for cleaning out broken
ferro-cement, opening out cracks, and roughening the surface was the .
pneumatic needle gun. This device is similar to the air-powered
chipping and scaling tools, but uses a bundle of small diameter steel
rods. The tool used here has two interchangeable sets of rods; one
containing 29 flat ended rods of 2 mm diameter, the other 13 chisel
pointed rods of 3 mm diameter. The needle gun with the small rods
in place is shmm in Figures 36 and 37.
The rods easily penetrated the opening in the mesh
with a minimum of damage to the wires. Also, the rods will break up
the mortar around a crack without seriously attacking sound mortar.
The smallest rods were the most effective in this respect. The
result is that the tool will selectively open out cracks and remove
broken mortar. This is also illustrated in Figures 36 and 37. In
Figure 36 the horizontal crack and the circular cracks have been
opened out with the tool. Before patching, the cracks were opened
up further until mesh was exposed to help anchor the patch. Figure 37
shows the back of the same panel. On the right side of the damaged
area a crack has been cleaned out to below the first layer of mesh.
Most of the loose fragments at the location of the major impact damage
have been broken out. Note that the mesh is relatively undamaged at
this stage.
69-4125
- 11 -
It was possible to clean all the broken material out
of the specimens reinforced with the 1/2-in. 16 gao square mesh without
causing excessive wire damage. Also, the wires were generally intact
after failure of the panel.
On' the other hand, the specimens with 1/2-in. 22 gao
hexagonal mesh sustained damage to the mesh and further distortion and
damage resulted during preparation for It was necessary
to compromise between leaving some debris in the mesh and causing further
damage to the wires. For the specimens it was somewhat easier to
clean out the damaged area of the impact panel than the breaks in the
bend test specimens.
The preparation of bend test specimens varied from
attempts to completely remove all mortar the ?amaged area to
only widening out the cracks.
Two types of patches were made. In the majority of
specimens the patch was made using only a Portland cement mortar.
Five bend test s'pecimens were repaired using epoxy-base patching
materials.
The Portland cement mortar used a mix of one part cement,
two parts sand and 0.4 water by weight. The first patches were
made using ' Evco Dry mortar sand. It was discovered that the larger
particles prevented trowelling out the patch to a feather edge.
Later patches were made using a 1:1 mixture of Del Monte 20 and 30
sand.
Whenever possible a vibrator was used to force the mortar
through the mesh. The area around the patch was wetted down prior to
patching, the mortar being applied while the surface was damp but not
wet.
The specimens patched with Portland cement mortar were
covered with damp paper towels and cured under plastic sheets.
Two types of epoxy patching materials were tried,
materials 5 and 6, page 30 of the Final Report. One material was an
epoxy marine patching compound. The resin came with all fillers
mixed in and only required the addition of the hardener.
The other material was an epoxy floor patching compound.
The resin and hardener were mixed -together, then sand was added to
form a mortar. ' Some of the mixed resin, without 'sand, was applied to
the old concrete before forcing in the mortar.
69-4125
- 12 -
All bend test specimens patched with epoxy base
materials received the minimum of preparation. Three specimens were
only chipped out along the cracks enough to allow the patching material
to penetrate easily> Hhile t,.,o received no preparation at all. For
these the epoxy \lIas forced into the open cracks before straightening.
After the epoxy had set the other side of each specimen was patched
with the marine patching compound without added filler or the epoxy
floor patch containing Del Monte 30 sand> \lIhichever had been used
on the first side.
After a suitable curing time of about 21 days for
the mortar patches and 7 days for the epoxy patches the specimens
were retested to compare the strength of the patched specimen and the
type of failure with the results for an intact specimen. The patching
experiments are summarized in Table l6-S.
1. Specimens patched \.Ji th Portland cement' mortar.
The bend test specimens reinforced with 1/2-in. 16 gao
welded square mesh typically failed at 80% or better of their
original strengths. The type of failure was generally the same
for the patched specimen as for the original. Figure 38 shO\IIS
specimen 9-E after patching and retesting. This should be
compared 'llith specimen Lf-E sho\Yl.'l. in Figures 19 and 20. The
failure is identical for both and is characterized by the fine
transverse cracks on the tension face and failure of the
mortar in compression on the compression side.
One specimen, 12-E, shown in Figure 39, failed in
shear between a loading point and end support.
Specimen 9-E-2 was prepared for patching by only
chipping out around the cracks. On the other hand, specimen
9-E from the same panel was prepared by removing all the mortar
from the damaged area. The patched strength of 9-E was
significantly higher.
The bend test specimens reinforced with 1/2-in. 22 gao
hexagonal mesh only regained between 50 and 70 percent of their
original strength. This lower strength is attributed to two
causes. These specimens shm17ed more reinforcement damage
during the original failure, it was almost impossible to remove
the broken mortar without causing further damage and distortion
to the reinforcement.
It should be noted that specimen 5-E-2 which had most
of tIle loose mortar clesned out regained approximately 50 percent
69-4125
- 13 -
of its original strength, while 6-E-2 ,.,hich received the
minimum of chipping out regained approximately 70 percent of
its original strength. Specimen 6-E-2 is shmvn in Figure 40
after patching and
The only 1/2-in. 16 gao square mesh impact specimen
patched is shown in Figure 41 after retesting ,.,hile the same
panel after its original impact test is shown in Figure 12.
The behaviour under impact was the same in both cases. It
should be mentioned that the was subjected to a second
impact after the first test to increase the amount of damage
before patching.
All impact panels reinforced with 1/2-in. 22 ga .
hexagonal mesh were extensively damaged in the original impact,
with cracking extending to the edges. After cleaning out the
broken cement and patching, the panels tended to crack along
the original breaks ,.,hen retested. The cra'cks in the patched
panels were more open and more visible damage resulted than
in the original test. Panel 21 is shown in Figures 36 and 37
during preparation for patching, and Figure 43 after patching
and retesting. In all cases the deflections were greater
than those in the original tests. The bond between the old
material and the 'patch generally seemed to be good with little
spalling around the edges of the patch. However, ,.,here the
patch was feathered out the new mortar could be spalled off
with a hammer, although this was not easily done.
2. Specimens patched with epoxy materials.
All the epoxy-patched specimens contained welded square
mesh; one was reinforced with 1/2-in. 16 gao welded square
mesh, two with J/8-in. 20 gao welded square mesh, and two with
1/2-in. 19 gao hardware cloth.
The specimen with the 1/2-in. 16 gao mesh (Figure 44)
reached its full original strength before it failed in shear
between a loading point and an end support in a similar fashion
to l2-E (Figure 39). Except for specimen" ll-E, which along
with had received no preparation before patching, all
the epoxy-patched specimens regained virtu'ally all their
original strength with failure occurring outside the epoxy
material. The lower strength of ll-E appeared to be due to
a lack of penetration intb a crack.
The failures in all the lighter reinforcement (19 and
20 ga.) resulted in the breakage of most of the reinforcement
wires.
l I
.69-4125
- 14 -
In summary, the specimens reinforced with 1/2-in. 16 gao
welded square mesh were much easier to clean out and patch than those
with 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh, and regained a greater percentage
of their , original strength when repair to the reinforcement was
attempted for either type. With the heavier gauge wire the mortar
failed before the wire was damaged and the wire withstood the abuse
of mechanically removing the damaged mortar.
The smaller wires of the hexagonal mesh are easily
damaged and if extensive chipping out .is required the results would
indicate the repair of the reinforcement is required if most of the
original strength is to be regained.
None of the specimens tested contained heavier rods.
If rods were included it is possible that the in strength from
the damage to the light gauge mesh would be "masked somewhat by the rods.
Under the conditions of the experiment the Portland
cement mortar performed well as a patching material. It is indicated
that a patch with this material should not be feather edged. Perhaps
if feather edging cannot be avoided, an epoxy filler could be used
on the feather edge to avoid spalling.
Although the literature indicates that the bond between
old mortar' and new mortar is weaker than either material, this
weakness did not appear to contribute greatly to the failure of the
specimens. Where the failure after patching occurred along the line
of the original this could be attributed to damage to the reinforce-
ment both from the first and from mechanically removing the
broken and cracked mortar. The weakness at the bond may have less
effect than the hairline cracks shown in Figures 34 and 35.
Both epoxy materials were able to make very
repairs and neither \-1as obviously superior to the other. The marine
patching compound was the most expensive but could be trowelled out
to a feather edge due to the fact that the filler was finer than the
30-mesh Del Honte sand used \-1ith the epoxy floor patch material.,
It also gave a smoother surface and according to the label could be
sanded. The floor patching compound containing sand could be difficult
to grind or finish.
Although two bend test specimens were patched with
no preparation, it is obvious that some preparation would be required
in practice to remove dirt from the cracks. The high strength of
one specimen and the relatively 10\-1 strength of the other ltl0ulcl
indicate that chipping out is required for reliable patching.
69-4125
- 15 -
The idealized conditions under which all patches were
made must be kept in mind. It is expected that repairs to older,
more contaminated ferro-cement under less than ideal conditions would
not be as successful. Also, further testing must be done to evaluate
the long-term performance of these patching materials under severe
weathering, cyclic loading, repeated impact loads, and chemical and
biological attack.
There are many more materials and combinations of
materials still to be tried as well as-methods of repairing reinforcing
to be investigated.
Tests must also be done with panels containing larger
rods and, in the case of the hexagonal mesh, with reinforced
edges to prevent the spreading of cracks.
OBSERVATIONS OF A HULL UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
The construction of a 45-ft ferro-cement vessel
nearby presented a valuable opportunity to observe some of the
problems associated with this type of construction.
The frames and supports were set up and the reinforcing
was placed by the boat owner. The actual mixing and plastering were
done by a crew of professionals ,.,ho have plastered many of the
backyard-constructed boats in Vancouver. Subsequent finishing is to
be done by the boat owner. The plastering was done with the hull
inverted, allowing the deck. to be plastered over a mould at the same
time as the hull.
Temporary wood frames, supports and stringers were
set up first. This provided a frame'-1ork to hold the first layers of
1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal reinforcing mesh and a form over which the
1/4-in. diameter reinforcing rods could be bent. The
stringers were removed after all reinforcement was in place and tested
together. Wooden forms were set up at the location of the built-in
ferro-cement frames. These frames were plastered the same time as the
hull and deck. The transom and bow sections were 'plastered over
wooden moulds.
The hull was examined after it had been cured and turned
over, and the wooden frames and fQrms stripped out.
There were numerous areas where the reinforcing mesh
was exposed on the surface. Typical areas are shown in Figures 34
and 35. The branching white lines seen in Figure 35 follow very fine
69-4125
- 16 -
cracks in the cement. These hairline cracks seemed to be along the
lines of the vertical reinforcing rods.
In the interior of the hull it was evident that there
was poor penetration against the forms for the integral frames
where the temporary supports touched the hull and in areas not easily
accessible. Figure 46 shows a typical frame as seen from the form
side. The exposed reinforcing rods and mesh are clearly visible.
The lines running around the hull are where the temporary supports
were located. One of these is shown in Figure 47.
The bottom of another frame and the top of the keel
are shown in Figure 48. Again a lack of penetration is evident.
Also, note the exposed mesh in the hull just over the top of the
keel as shown in the close-up photograph of" 49. Up to 5 layers
of exposed mesh are visible. This photograph gives an indication
of the excess cement over the mesh in some areas of the hull. The
owner felt that there was generally an excessive thickness of mortar
over the reinforcing on the inside of the hull and that there were
probably several areas of poor penetration \l7hich had been plastered
over leaving voids.
Lack of penetration appeared to be a problem mostly
on vertical surfaces where one side was inaccessible. The deck, which
was plastered over a form,showed adequate penetration. Possibly the
plasterers could use a mix with greater slump on horizontal surfaces
thus ensuring more complete penetration.
The owner
penetration with mortar.
The patches were covered
curing.
been filling in the areas of poor
No special bonding agents were employed.
with plastic taped down at the edges during
In this case the poor penetration in the frames themselves
may not be very critical as their function seems to be mainly to provide
attachment points for the wooden bulkheads. The hull is well rounded and
the frames are few in number and light in comparison to the hull so
their effect on stiffness would be small. on a hull having
relatively flat areas the framing would be much more important. Of
"greater importance is the effect of the poor penetration in the hull
at the junction of the frames and the hull, and at the locations of
the temporary supporting frames. Weaknesses at these points could
produce a notch effect and be a logical place for cracks to start.
The reinforcing from the frames runs into the hull and the resulting
extra steel may adequately strengthen this spot. There is no extra
reinforcement at the locations of the temporary frames. Moreover,
69-4125
- 17 -
it can be seen that the temporary frame has been used as a convenient
spot to locate a joint in one layer of mesh. These areas will be
closely observed to spot early any sign of trouble. Since not all
temporary frames showed such a lack of penetration, it must be
concluded that sufficient care during plastering and improved methods
of quality control are necessary and could be effective.
The preceding comments also apply to the areas in the
hull just above the keel as shown in Figure 49. The problem is
mostly evident on one side indicating that greater care during
plastering is required. In this area the mesh from both sides appears
to be overlapped resulting in a greater number of layers of mesh and
more difficulty in obtaining penetration and therefore requiring
more attention and inspection. .
Figure 50 shows one of the forward engine mounts.
The engine is connected by a resilient mount to a short piece of heavy
steel angle. This angle is bolted to a ferro-cement longitudinal
plate with a steel washer plate under the nuts. There is a similar
ferro-cement plate on the other side of the engine. The spaces
between the plates, and the plates and the hull are filled with
concrete. This concrete anchors the plates to the keel and the hull.
One of the propeller shaft bearings is shown in Figure
51. This is a self-aligning pillow block bolted to a steel angle
which is in turn bolted to a ferro-cement web approximately 1/2-inch
thick. The shaft passes through a hole in the web.
In both the above cases it is essential to prevent
any motion of the bolts or plates. Any slack which a11mved the
bolts to move in their holes due to engine or shaft vibration could
result in the gradual wearing and enlargement of the holes. Also,
the area of ferro-cement under the angles and washer plates must
be strong enough to carry loads. Some unanswered questions include:
1. Can shear loads be considered as carried by friction between
the plates and the ferro-cement if the bolts are sufficiently
tight, or must they be considered carried by the bearing
area of the bolt itself?
2. Is the answer the same for static and dyn.;l.mic loads?
3. Is epoxy bonding between the plates and the ferro-cement an
advantage?
4. What size of washer plate is required for a given bolt size?
CONCLUSIONS AND RECONHENDATIONS.
Mesh Reinforcement.
69-4125
- 18 -
The tests undertaken to date indicate that welded square
mesh (including hardware cloth) has much to recommend it as a reinforce-
ment material for ferro-cement boat construction. On an equal-weight
basis the square mesh reinforcements provide higher strengths in
flexure and greater resistance to impact forces than does 1/2-inch
hexagonal mesh. Welded square mesh allows greater ease in cleaning out
the broken mortar from areas damaged under the conditions of impact
and bending of this study. The wires, especially the heavier 16 gao
wires, are less liable to breakage, both under load and during removal
of broken mortar. Also there appears to be no great difference in
the cost of the meshes incorporated into the mortar on an "equal-
weight" basis. On an "equal-strength" basis', the 'l/2-inch "7elded
square mesh would be cheaper than 1/2-inch hexagonal wire. The effect
of using rods (approximately 1/4-inch diameter) int'o the structure
has not yet been tested. It seems likely that the rods will carry
most of the loads applied to the panels or hull so that the main
function of the mesh will then be to hold the mortar together. The
necessary load-carrying capacity of the mesh should therefore be small
and 1/2-inch hexagonal mesh should be adequate. On the other hand,
the use of 16 gao square mesh should allow greater rod spacings or
make rods unnecessary. In the event that cracks or damage allmoJ'
corrodents to come in contact with the reinforcing mesh, the thicker
wire of the 16 gao welded square mesh will not fail so quickly. The
number of layers of mesh and the degree of isolation or separation
of the layers will likely also affect the seriousness of corrosion
attack. Hexagonal mesh is easy to shape and form but is more difficult
to hold flat and rigidly in place especially when mortar is being
vibrated into the structure.
Galvanized vs Ungalvanized Mesh.
Galvanized coating is recognized as an effective way
of protecting steel from corrosion. The present tests showed that mesh
with no galvanized coating or only a very thin galvanized coating
rusted quickly in semoJ'ater producing an unsightly 'stain. Long-term
tests are required to show whether galvanizing will extend the life
of a hull appreciably but it would appear to be good practice to use
galvanized steel. Any difference in bond between mortar and galvanized
or ungalvanized material appears unimportant.
Cement and Sand.
69-4125
- 19 -
The tests to date have not shmm any real differences
in the strength of mortar made with the various types of cement or
in the resistance of the various 'types of cement to seawater and
sodium sulphate solution. However, the use of Type II cement, with
its resistance to moderate sulphate action, or Type V which has somewhat
more resistance, is advised for seawater environments in accordance
with the recommendations of such authorities as the Portland Cement
Association.
The masonry mortar sand used in this study produced
a mortar of good strength. It does not appear necessary to use a
very sharp, highly angular sand toget adequate strength. A masonry
mortar sand conforming to ASTM Designation C144-66T and obtainable
from reputable producers across the country 'should be acceptable.
The main criteria are that the sand should be washed, clean, well
graded with nearly all passing a No. 8 sieve and l ~ s s than 10 percent
passing a No. 200 sieve. Purchase of dry bagged sand is recommended
to facilitate control of the water content. If this is not obtainable
the water content of the sand must be allowed for
. Patching.
Provided the reinforcement mesh is not badly damaged
both cement/sand mortar and epoxy-base materials can substantially
restore the strength of a damaged area under ideal conditions. No
patching tests on damaged areas contaminated by a marine environment
have yet been undertaken. Cleaning of broken mortar from the mesh
and enlarging cracks can be' effectively accomplished with a pneumatic
needle-gun equipped with a bundle of needle-rods (2 and 3 mm diameter).
Shell Quality.
Based on the tests which we have carried out, the
many references which we have consulted, and on the discussions we
have had with others, our recommendations for the steps to be taken
to ensure shell quality are as follows:
1. The mesh and reinforcing structure should be inspected before
plastering to ascertain that:
the mesh is securely fastened (about every 4 inches) so
that it will not move-during plastering or cause excessive
thickness, and that all heavier reinforcing is welded or
securely tied at all intersections to give a rigid
structure that will not deflect and lose its fairness
under the heavy load of mortar which is to be applied.
, (This weight is seven tons on a local 45-foot boat.)
69-lll25
- 20 -
the mesh is free of any oily or greasy contamination.
adequate provision has been made to allow the plasterers
to get at all parts of the hull without straining the
plastered structure or working in unnecessarily awkward
positions. This is particularly important in such areas
as the keel and bow \-lhich can be difficult areas to
reach.
the \-lho1e structure is on a foundation that will not
settle when the weight of the mortar is added.
2. The mortaring should be dane by an experienced crew of an
adequate number of men with whom the mix ,to be used
has been discussed and agreed upon. It is recommended that
a panel l-lith a mesh construction identical with that of the
hull be before the hull plastering is started
so that adequate 'workability of the mortar is verified.
The ingredients should be proportioned by weight and the sand
should be dry or else have had its moisture content measured
and allowed for. During plastering the closest possible
inspection for voids and poor penetration should be continuously
carried out so that these faults can be made good before the
mortar sets. An ultrasonic void detector would be very
useful but as far as we know a suitable one has not yet been
developed. The inspection of the work in progress should be
done by at least one person whose sole function is to check
the work as it is done. Another inspector should be employed
to continuously monitor the weighing and mixing 'of the mortar,
oversee the preparation of test samples; and perform tests
(such as slump test) on the mortar before it is applied.
3. The following samples should be made for later tests:
a representative sample of the sand used of at least
25 lb from each batch of sand. Where bagged sand is
used a handful should be taken from each bag. This
should be visually inspected to ensure that all bags are
the same type of sand.
one unopened bag of the Portland cement used.
three test panels 30
w
x 30" with construction to be
identical to the hull. These panels should be made at
the beginning, middle, and end of plastering and should
be left in the hull for curing.
69- 4125
- 21 -
three mortar cubes 2 x 2 x 2 inches should be made at
the time 01; each of the above test panels.
at least 4" "coupons 3" x 12" or larger made as part of
the hull and cut off curing is complete. These
can be projections at edges or can be made in openings
such as hatches and deadlights. These should be at
widely spaced areas of the hull.
A slump test (or equivalent) should be done on each batch
of mortar to aid in detectini mixing errors and to ensure
uniformity.
4. The follmving tests should be made on the ferro-cement
samples after the hull has cured:
30" x 30" Panels.
Impact tests on 24" x 24" sample from first and last
panels.
Bend test to determine modulus of rupture and observe
mode of failure on 3" x 12" (or 6" x 24" depending on
panel thickne"ss) samples cut from the above panels in
two directions at right angles;
The third panel would only be tested in case of dubious
or conflicting results from the other two.
Hull Coupons.
Bend tests on approximately 3" x 12" samples for comparison
with panel samples.
Mortar Cubes.
Compression tests on all nine cubes.
Sand and Cement Samples.
These would be used to" make test batches of mortar in the
event that the other tests showed possible problems in
this area.
W.N. English
Head, Division of Applied Physics
J.D. Smith, Consultant to
Division of Applied Physics
-: " ; <
A.W. Creenius
Division of Engineering
REFERENCES.
69-4125
- 22 -
18. Muhlert, H.F., Analysis of Ferro-cment in Bending, The
University of Michigan, Paper No. 043, January 1970.
19. Jackson, G.W. and W. Morley Sutherland, Concrete Boatbui1ding,
George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1969.
20. Lin, T.Y. and Associates, Consulting Engineers, Ferro Cement
Panels, Vol. 1, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, U.S.
Department of the Navy, Port. Hueneme, California, November
1968.
69-4125
APPENDIX III
(Tables of Test Results)
TABLE 3-S.-;1 Summary of Test Panel Construction Data.
?a:l.el I
No. I Hateria1 Cement
1 . 2.5 Ib e>..-panded metal I TyPe II
lath, galvanized
8 layers
2 2.5 1b expanded metal I Type
lath, galvanized
3'
4
5
6 ,
7
a
8 layers
2.5 1b expanded metal I Type II
I
lath, galvanized
5 layers
I
1/2-in. 16 gao welded I
square mesh,
galvanized, 5 I
l/2-in. 22 gao
hexagonal mash-
ga1vanized' after
weaving '12 layers
.1
Type II
Type II
l
1/2-in. 42 gao
hexagonal
galvanized
"' . Type II
weaving 12 layers
1/4-in. 20 gao fire:-. r Type II
washed
in naphtha
2.1ayers
Il/2-in. 19 ga. ' . Type II
cloth,
I galvanized
9 layers
I
I
I
I
Sand
Cement-
Sand
Weight
ratio
Evco Dry 11;2
Concrete
Sand
. Evco ,Dry 11;2
Mortar
Sand
I Evco Dry 11;2
l10rtar
, Sand
Evco Dry I 1;2
Mortar
Sand
Evco Dry I 1;2
Mortar
Sa:l.d
1
Eveo Dry I l:2
Mortar
Sand
I
Evco DrY I 1:2
Mortar
Sand '
Evco Dryj 1:2
Hortar
Sand
1
Water-
Cement
rleignt
ratio
0.37
0.38
-.
0'. '40
'0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40 , '
ICe'" -
13::: ' 1
Slump .IS.:':.? .-
l. n' 17- .... ",
. T --.- ..
I
1 1/2 ! Q:) ." .-
2
6 1/2
7 1/2 '
I
:,
I
I
5 1/21
i
,
I
I
5 1/21
I
. !
4 1/2 '
I
!
I
,
I
,I

69':'4125
- 23 -
"
IMOdUIUS of
" Rupture, psj.
1
no' tests' IHesh not f\11'l-y
"
1106
906
lQ60
978
1
1125
'
, 1100
I
742
890
865
810.
1
1010
1120
. i
F
' etra.ze<i. ...Panel
" carc.ecl..
'1 "
Mortar to
. tork in ven
I " "
1
I ' "
II
I
I,
I II ..
II II
"
II
CABLE 3-S (cont'd)

:0. ::2.
9 .
LO
Ll
L2
13
!
weldedl l/2-in. 16 ga.
square mesh,

5 layers
I
I
I
gao welded,'
.. e",n, not
galva:1ized
7 laye:-s
1/2-i.:1. 19 gao
care,Jare cloth,
ga1v,anized 9 layers,
I
I
I
!
i
!
!
I
1/2-i:1. 16 gao welded!
square r:;.ash, !
galvanized, 5 layers I

I
2.5 10 expaildeci metall
lath, galvanized I
5 layers

Type II
Type, II
Type II
Type II
Tpe II
L4 1/2-in. 2,2 ga;
cash,
galva!"'.izec. after
,Jeav:':1.g 12 layers
.j Type II
1/ .-i"::,. 20 fi-re-
screening, oil coat
r.o:: re:::oved
2 .1ayers
I
Type II
Sand.
I EVco Dryj
! Mortar I
! Sand . .
I I
I
I
I
I
I
.,
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
Evco Dry!
Mortar I
Sand . I
!
i
Evco Dry ' I
Mortar
Sand
Evco Dry
Mortar
Sand
Evco Dry
Hortar
Sand
Evco Dry
Mortar
Sand
,
cer:;.ent-I
Sand
Height I
I
Wat.e'!:"-
Canent

ratio
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:'2
I. 0.40
0.40
1.
0

40
I
I 0.40
I
I 0.40
I
1
0.40
I
I
I
Evco Dryj 1:2
I
0.40
Sand
I
I '
I
I Strength,
I
S1uwp cubes,
in. 17-cay I 28-cay
I i
5 1/4 InO tests;
I
6 1/2 16050 7100
(11
days)
7 1/21no test I 7420
7 1/415400 7950
5
I
.1
6 1/216200
5 1/2.15600
9375
7200
7500
7600.
7250
8150
7675'
69.;..4125
- 24 -
I
"
""0';,1"5 0: I ..1 ......... _\06 _
I
RU?i:ure, psi. 1
.,.. 0 ...... ,. -,"c

11300 I Cla:::-l:'ke b:::-ec:.th:'ng
l
1230

-0
1 Co._ II,,;. I.,. ..... ........
isatisfactorily
'<90S 1 II II
705 !
1180
990
840
895
725
792
890
830
960
<
1
J
--n---c' -0 . .... _ .. e I,.
Well. C1=
llike holes a:-.c
J?eared
.
to
in wall
j
i II
i
j
,
1 II
I
j
1
! II
I
I
I
!
II
II
II
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd)
?a::.el

, r
_0
17
18
19
20
21


1/2-in. 22 gao
nexago:J.a1 mesh, .
galvanized before
weaving 12 layers
1/2-in. 22 g'a.
.' 1 .
::lesC"...,
galvan:'zed after
weaving layers
1/2-in: 22 gao
hexagonal .
galvanized after
>-leaving 12 layers
1/2-in. 22 gao
hexagonal :::esn,
galvanized after
weav:'ng, 12
l/2-in. 22 gao
ne:-::ag o:'..al :::es:-.,
galva::.:'zed after
vleavi::.g, Japan
9 ,layers
1/2-:'n. 22 gao
nexa6ona1 !:lesh,
galva:-.:'zed after
'iJeavi:J.g, Japa:J.
9 layers
Ce:':lent 'Sand
-_I Type II
I Type I 'I
-: I
I I
1 Type III I
! I
i I
Evco Dry
Mortar
Sand
EVCO'Dr
y
/
Xortar
Sand 1
I
I
Evco Dryi
)for tar
Sand
I I I
I Type III Evco Dry
'j , I
I
I " I
, I
!
Type III I Evco Dry I
I
I I
I 'I' I
; . !
'I Type V Evco Dry!
Mortar I
I Sand i
1
i I
! I
I
I
,
!
Ce:::ent-
Sand
Weight
ratio
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
1:2
I-I",,:er-
Ce::.ent
Weight
ratio
0.40
0.40'
! 0.45
I
j'
0.47
0.47
0.44
I
Co:::nression
I
Strengtn, 2-in.
cubes, usi
in. I 7-day ! 28-day
61/2!15830 9450
9875
5
1
5040
4 1/216400
5
(5150
I
5 1/2 16930
1
7 1/215280
I
1
' /
5875
6175
8325
8450
7750
9900
11400
9175
10975
V " - i,
I
.. 0:
psi I
I (
........ e.;.,;: I
1..-..... .... .... _0 ... '- "- I
,
69-4125
- 25 -
Re:::arks
760
820
Ivo ... t-.,.. -0
, .... G. ... G.... ...
1050
960
11320
I "1280 .
!
590
560
;work in well
!
!
,
I
I II "
i
1
1
I
to work
I
;n -0"'--"- .-.. .. J
i inco::1p1e te
l par.etration
'JIater
1
1
1
-0
, ............. Q ... 0.... G..
in well
1
1
!
!
, ,
I
Not determined Incomplete
(whole panel 11
iused for-a mortar
I drop-impac t "
test)
of the
I
(as above) (as above)
TABLE 3-5 (cont'd)
!
I
I "'a"'-':o--:o.-en- ... co. .... _ I :.... _ ... _ .... ,,-c.;;... ..I.-
Xo.
I
I ::a:arial Ce!:'.ent
22 _ I/2-in. 22 gao Type III
hexagonal :::ash,
galvanized after
,-leaving, West Germ.
12 layers
23 " "
Type_ V
-,
24
! " "
Aluminous
I
!
i
i
i
I
25 I "
" I Type II
I
I
I
- I
26 I " "
I. Type I
I
I
I I
I
,-
I-
I
-I
I
I
I
cerr.ant-I I
Sand Cer:ent
I Co:::pression
1 !
69-4125
- 26-
I Strength, 2-in.
I
Slump \
MOdulus of I
J> Rupture) psi !
I (unreinforced) I Ra:::arks Sand. ra1:1.O :-at1.0 in. !7-day.
I 0.45
I
Evco Dry! 1:2 5
I
8000
Mortar I
i
I
I
Sand
I"
I
I
Evco Dry I 1:2 I 0.41 5 1/41 7575
}10rtar I
Sand
Evco D=y1 1:2
I 4 1/21
0.36 9150
Hortar I
Sand
I
Del : 1:2
I 0.40 3 1/21
5700
Honte I
8: 20: 30::
I 1:2:1
Evco j 1:2 j- 0.41 3 1/2j-
6850
Hortar
Sand
\.
I
Lb-ca
I
7000 i
I 7800
10000
10700
7250
6280
1
'6390
5780
8110
9450
I
- i
not sCri?ping it was
1 (whole panel :::ortar
used for a droPlnaa not penetrated
impact test) - lwell
I
-I
932
843
1028
'792
635

855
738
i
I
!xortar penetrated
Iwe11
i

j
jXortar penetrated
iwell
!
i
1Sligh:ly difficult
jto trowel
i- tears
j
I
I
I
" "
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
!
I
I
TA3LE 4-S. of results of drop-icpact tests on IS-in. square specimens
various kinds of reinforcements. (All specimens from panels made with Type II
cerr.ent and Evco Dry Mortar Sand. Drop 50 Ib from 10 ft.)
69-4125
- 27 -
)= -:: -: I

3
1
-oJ
4
9
12
5
14
7
'..5
3.21 .. : o:-ce::.en-:

2.5 Ib expanded metal
lati, galvanized,
5 layers
. .l..s in 3 above
1/2-in. 16 gao welded
sc,uare :::esh,
galvanized, 5 layers
As in 4 above but
galvanized coating
scri?ped
.:..s in 4 above
1/2-in. 22 gao
taxagonal mesh,
after
12 layers
As in 5 above
20 gao fire-

2 layers
.':"'s 7 a.bova
?
Ib/;;t-
of oanel
1. 23
1.23
2.85
"
"
1.35
"
1. 20
11
Displace:::ent at
centre of impact, 1/16
I I 30::0::1
14 16
20 24
5 7
2 3
3 3
11 11
. 19
21
19 i9
24 26
in.
Descrintion of YLoce 0:
Open major cracks in top surface. Kajor
opening in bottom surface. Metal reinforcemant torn.
Open ring and transverse cracks in top Larbe
diagonal cracks and broken mesh in bottom surface.
So cracks observed in to? surface. Fine sta:- shaped
cracking in centre of bottom. Fine closed cracks
radiating to edges.
No cracks in top surface. Slight rectilinear
cracking in bottom surface.
No cracks observed in top ?urface. Slight rectilinear
cracking in bottom surface.
Open major ring crack in top surface. Snear spalling
and open radial cracks in bottom surface. broken
T,yire's observed.
Large open ring cracks. Snear spalling, radial
exposed mesh, and broken wires in bottom surface.
severe major ring in to? suriace.
open radial cracks and mortar crumbling in
surface.
Large open ring, spalling, and sr.atter in to?
Large diagonal cracks, botto=
TABLE 4-S. (cont'd)

Rainrorcer:.a:lt
I
6
I
!
8

l/2-in. 22 gao
hexagonal mesh,
galvanized before
vleaving, 12 layers
galvanized, 7 l 'ayers
19 gao
nard':.:are cloth,
galvanized, 9 layers
li ' As in 8 above
I

of nanel
1.29
I
1.59
I
I
1. 79
II
_ _ Displacement at
centre of 1/16 in.
Top Botto:n
13
.
13
I
!
I
6 6
I
12 13
5 6
I
:
69-4125
- 28 -
Descrintion of Mode of Failure
! Similar to No. 5 above, but more complete ring of shear
! spalling in bottom surface.
I
;
I
--
j
\
,
1 Fine ring crack in top surface. Slightly open
1 rectilinear cracking and fine radia1 cracking -in bottom
surface.
Moderately open ring in top. Moderate rectilinear
cracking in bottom.
No cracks (other than clamp-down corner cracks) observed
in top surface. Slightly open rectilinear cracks in
bottom surface.
:ASLE 6-S. :.\e.Si.:l:s 0: Flexi.:ra1 Bend' Tests on SoeciDens Various CeDents and Sar.ds.
(A:l panels having 12 layers of 12 in. 22 gao hexagonal
after weaving 1.35 Ib of cesh/sq it of panel)
69-4125
- 29 -
_ ...... I
- .... \,;;;- :
x.:;.
17
:;
::.s,
22
, .

2t,.
25
?,.
_0
I Xodulus of Rupture, psi
I Orientation of wire
:'y?e , longi t. I transv.
:'y?e I
:y?e
':j"?e
:":/?2 V
.. !.::'-..:.= .. :':"' ..
:y?c.
'::'J?e I
Jry
::or-:ar Sar..d

Xortar Sand
Eveo Dry
Sand
Evco Jry
Sane
:::vco Jry
Sa.::c
Jel
8:28:30::
::2:1
Zvco Dry
::o:-:a::.- Sand
i
.,
2910
2900
2420
1665
1360
1610
panel ciisca=ded
2430 1585
determined
2960 1735
3500 1810
2490 1660
2700 1830
Description of of
":'- -: ... ".
...c::. ___ ,-_\.::;.
in to? si.:r:ace.
Longitudinal showed over s?ar.,
transverse leSS so. WireS in
/
in 17. ' Generally as
Spalling of to? surface. over
span. r..!ires broKe;:-
co;npression spalling en to? surfaCe.
over wide span. Wires
cracking over 3 to 4 inches with a
crack. broken.
Slight 0:
cainly over 2 to 3-inch spEn
failed one support.
Slight spalling of
3 to 4-inch span.
top surface.
I-!ires
Bot tOi.; OV2::"
TABLE 7-S. Comparison of results of drop-impact tests on IS-in. square specimens containing
equal weights of reinforcement mesh. (All panels made with Type II cement, Del
Monte sand (8:20:30::1:2:1)). Drop 50 lb from 5 ft.
69-4125
- 30 -
Reinforcement
I
I
lb/ft
2
Displacement
Panel at centre of
~ o . Kind of panel impact, 1116 in. ! Description of Mode of Failure
I 3 layers of l/2-in. 22 gao
I
27 1.14 14 1 Top - moderate ring cracking.
I hexagonal mesh above and 2 layers
1
Bottom - radial cracking over about l2-inch area,
I below 1 layer of l/2-in. 16 gao exposed mesh, broken wires.
I welded square mesh. i
J
~
28 I 10 layers of l/2-in. 22 gao 1.15 16
i
Top - moderately severe ring cracking.
'.
! hexagonal mesh.
';
Bottom - some shear spalling, radial cracking ove
I
, l2-inch area, broken wires.
29 I 2 layers of l/2-in. 16 gao I 1.14 7
I
Top - fine part ring crack. [
! welded square mesh. .
I
I
Bottom - moderate rectilinear cracking over about
j
I I
3-inch area.
i
,
i Top - moderate ring cracking.
30 I 6 layers l/2-in. 20 gao 1.19 15
I
! hardware cloth.
I Bottom - radial and rectilinear cracking over
I
1'8 to l2-inch area.
--.
TA3L:: 8-S. of results of values of modulus of rupture on specimens from panels
equal weights of reinforcement mesh. (All panels made with Type II
cerr.2.nt, Del :lonte sand (8: 20: 30: : 1: 2: 1))
69-4125
- 31 -
I Reinforcenent
Modulus of Rupture, psi
I , ..
I
lb/ft
2
:> .......... ,
Orientation of Wire _ c.. .... ..
::0.
I
of nanel I Transv. ! Description of Xoie of Failure I I
I
I
I
?"'
I 3 layer3 of 1/2-in. 22 gao
I 1.14 4130 3600
I
Longit. - bottom cracks over 4-incn s?an. -I
I
hexagonal above and
I
Transv. - bottom cracks over 4-incn s?an. I
I
I 2 layers jelow 1 layer of
!
I
j l/l-in. 16 gao welded square
i
!
, :::esh.
I I
j
I
I
;
?C
v 18 l&yers of 1/2-in. 22 gao 1.15 2640 1650 Longit. - over 4-incn
:1axa:;onal :::esn. Transv. concentrated in joc:c:::.
')0
-.-' 2 layers of 1/2-in. 16 gao 1.14 5350 4520 Lo::gi t. - single crack in
square Transv. - single crack in Dot:C:::.
30
!
6 layers of 1/2-in. 20 gao 1.19 3460 2990 Longit. botto::: cracks over 3-incn s?a::.
narc.';lare clo th. Transv. cracks oVer s?an.
69-1.125
- 32 -
TABLE 9-S. Comparison of values for modulus of rupture in
the diaeonal, longitudinal, and transverse
directions (Type II cement, Eveo Dry Mortar Sand).
Panel Modulus of Rupture, ]lsi
No. Reinforcement Diagonal Longitudinal Transverse
4 1/2-in. 16 gao welded 4700 5900 6130
square mesh, 5 layers.
5 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal 1950 2900 1360
mesh, 12 layers.
8 1/2-in. 19 gao hardware 3140 3520 3530
cloth, 9 layers.
10 3/8-in. 20 gao welded 3720 5000 4460
square mesh, 7 layers.
l
,
I
/
r
I
I
T . .:.B:E 10-S. Cooparison of "Slow-Impact" load tests on 15-in. square specimens of
differing constructions. (Type II cement. Evco Dry Mortar Sand)
69-4125
- 33 -
f
I Rei!:l.force:nent:
? a::al

!;
5
...
.::.
10
liZ-in. 16 gao welded square
. -,
:::e5.:1.. :l ... ayers.
::'/2-:'n.. 22 gao hexagonal mesh,
12 layers.
1/2-b . 19 gao hardware cloth,
9 layers.
3/3-b. 2C ;;a. welded square
:::<:5h, 7 layers.
lb/ft
2
of panel
2.85
1.35
1. 79
1.59
:!ax load
held. lb
8600
4000
6560
6870
Description of ;:{oce of Failure
Ring shear spalling 12-in. dia. on
rectilinear cracking in of botto::: surface. :op
surface showed a centre tup.
Part ring shear l2-in. dia. on
in hexagonal pattern in centre of O?en
cracking in top surface.
Ring shear spalling 12 in. dia. on botto:::,
rectilinear cracking in centre of bott03 sur&ce, To?
surface showed .a crusn tU?
Ring shear 12 dia. on botto:::,
cracking in of botto::: surface. :O?
surface showed a centre crush uneer tU?
'ABLE ll-S.
'anell Type of
No. I Cement
,
17
I
I
I
26
I
11
!
5
i
i
II
I
i
14
i
"
I
19 III
,
23 I V
I
I
t
Comparison of results of drop-impact tests on l5-inch square specimens made
from various cements and sands. (All reinforcement is 12 layers of 1/2-in.
22 gao hexagonal mesh.)
69-4125
- 34 -
Displacement of Centre
Type of of ImEact, 1/16 in. l
Sand Top Bottom , Description of Mode of Failure

Evco Dry 16 19

Large open ring crack in top. Shear spalling, radial cracking,
Mortar I exposed mesh, and broken wires in bottom surface. ,
Sand
!
I
"
24 26
I
Severe shattering of top surface. Severe diagonal cracking
I
I
,
and many broken wires in bottom surface.
I i
I
"
I
I
I
11
I
11
I
Open major ring crack in top surface. Shear spalling open
i
I
i
radial cracks in bottom ' surface. No broken wires observed.
I
I
I
t
I
11
19 21
i
Large open ring cracks in top surface. Shear spa1ling, radial
I
i
cracks, exposed mesh, and broken wires in pottom surface.
I !
I
11
22 23
I
Open ring crack in top surface. Shear spalling and open radial
1
I
I cracks in bottom surface. Broken 'vires. I
I
I
1
I
11
11 9 Open ring crack in top surface. Shear spalling and open radial
I
cracking in bottom surface. Broken wires. I
i
I
I - -------- _._----_. -- -_._-- ----- --- -----
24 Aluminous
11
18 26 Moderate shattering of top surface. Moderately severe diagonal
cracking and many broken wires in bottom surface.
I
5 II
' I
I
I
I
,
I
25 II
Evco Dry
}iortar
Sand
Del Monte
i
8:30:30 mesh I
1:2:1 ratio
!
11
13
11 Open major ring crack in top surface. Shear spalling and open
radial cracks in bottom surface. No broken wires observed.
15 . I Open major ring and radial crack in top surface. Shear
radial cracking to specimen edge, and broken wires in bottom
, surface.
,
I
I
TABLE 12-5. Comparison of the modulus of rupture values obtained from
unreinforced bend test specimens made with various cements
and with various sands.
Type of Type of
I
No. of Tests
Panels Cement Sand Panels I Specimens
17, 26 I Evco Dry 2 4
Mortar Sand
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II
"
14 27
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
18, 19 III " 2 4
23
V .
"
1 2
24 Aluminous
"
1 2
I
I
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II Evco Dry 14
I
27
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Mortar Sand I
I
I
25 II Del Monte 1
I
2
Sand
- . !
69-4125
- 35 -
Modulus of Rupture, psi I
Range Average I
738-1060 901
705-1300 946
.-
560-1320 940
843-932 890
792-1028 910
!
705-1300 946
635-782 708
--- - - .- - .- ------
TABLE l3-S.
Type of
I
Cement
I
II
III
V
,
Comparison of modulus of rupture values of bend
test specimens from reinforced panels made with
various cements and sanels. (12 layers of 1/2-in.
22 gao hexagonal mesh. Evco Dry Mortar Sand.)
69-4125
- 36 -
Panel Modulus of Rupture, psi
r
Type of Sand No. Longitudinal TransverS"el
Evco Dry 17 2910 1665
Mortar Sand 26 2700 1830
"
5 2900 1360
14 2420 1610
" 19 2430 1585
"
23 2960 1735
Aluminous I " 2/. 3500 1810
II Eveo Dry 5 2900 1360
Mortar Sand 14 2420 1610
II Del Monte Sand
I
25 2700 1830
8:20:30:1:2:1
14-S. of exposure tests in seayater.

CC;"':?O:: Xo.
, - , -6
:.,-=--,
5-?-1,-6
6-=- 1 ,-5
... -.. ".
.j-.--..l,-0
9-?-1,-v
17-:-1,-6
19-=-l,-6
23-::-1,-6
2L.-:-1,-6

26-;-1,-6
Jescription
1/2-in. gao welded cesh, galvanized,
Ty?e. II ce:::.a:1.:.
:'/2-:"-: .. 22 gao hex. :::esh,
Ty?a II
22 ga. heX. galvanized
II ce.:::ent.
:/2-:"n. 19 gao cloth,
Typa II
:"n 4, ga:vanized coat stri?ped,
':y?e I:.
As 5, Ty?a I ca=er.t.
As :":1. 5, Type
ITT
.. ce::e:lt .
' - r.::. in .5, but Type V ce:::ent.
As j, but Aluwinous. cecant.
As in .5, but Del Sand.
As :...:. 17.
Observatior:s
69-4125
- 37 -
After 2 Cycles____ 10 fycle_s__ I 15 Cyc:.ss
Ho change No Significant change XO significant ..
Slight outlining of I
fine
"
Slight greying
exposed mesh in
of rust spots
bottoml
,.
change
Perce?tible rusting
of wire. in bottom
of
fine bottom cracks
No
I
I
INo significant change
I
IConsiderable rusting
jof wire in bottom
!
iKO significant change
I
I
I
It
Slight greying of !
exposed mesr. in
II
Sli;nt outlining of
fine bottom cracks
Slight greying of
exposed mesh in bottom
11
I
I
I II
I
,
!
i
II
II
"
:-lore rust S?ots
Xo significant cJ-.a:"'.I.;2.

of \vi.re in bo t to::-.
Xo signi:iccut
"
It
"
"
II
TABLE 15-S. Results of exposure tests in 5-percent sodium sulphate.
69-4125
- 38 -
Pa:lel
Coupon
4-F-3
5-F-3
6-F-3
8-F-3
9-F-3
17-F-3
'19-F-3
23-F-3
24-F-3
2.5-F-3
26-F-3
Description
1/2-in. gao welded mesh, galvanized,
Type II ce:uent.
1/2-in. 22 gao hex. mesh, galvanized
after weaving, Type II cement.
1/2-in. 22 gao hex. mesh, galvanized
befora 't-leaving, Type II cement.
1/2-i:l. 19 gao hardware cloth,
galvanized, Type II cement.
.4.s in 4, but galvaniz'ed coat stripped,
Type II.
As in 5, but Type I cement.
As in 5, but Type III cement.
As in 5, but Type V cement.
As .in 5, but Aluminous cement.
As in 5, but Del Monte Sand.
As in 17.
Observatior.s
After 2 Cy<::l_es__ 10 S;ycle:_s_ After 15 Cycles
Mesh cracks in bottom IMesh pattern outlined on bottom surface,
outlined in white little effluorescence.
I
with top
As in 4
t
[
II
I
effluorescence
f
[
t
t
I
I
Similar to 4
I 4
Sim-ilar t ,o
, I
As in 5 lMesh pattern
!surface.
I
clearly
i
outlined on bottom
Little change
As in 5
As in 5
Slight effluorescence
on top and bottom
Heavy effluorescence
on top bottom
As in 5
As in 5
i
I
I
I
l
i
I
Similar to 8
I
!
I
Similar to 4
I
Similar 4
I
Similar
I
to 4
Similar
I
to 4
Similar
I
to 4
Similar to 8
16-S. Summary of rerro-cement tests.
69-4125
- 39 -
In. _ I Original
Mortar
El..

c:
md
,st

,nd
,st

/ 1/2-i6 gao
I tveldeci sq
; ;;!esh,0alv 'd.,
1 5 layers
I
"
"
,1]) !
:nd I
"
,SI:
-2-1
ad
st
i
!
"
I
i Type II
I Evco dry
I

Sand
I
,I
!
"
"
"
"
Preparation and
Condition
I
, Patch
Material
" and
! Cure (days)
Chipped out below first i As
layer of mesh for surface; 21
patch. Mesh distorted i
but unbroken I
original
days
Some distortion of
mesh. broken wires.
Chipped out.
Chipped out around
cracks only
All loose mortar
removed. Wires
distorted. No breaks
i
I
l As
i 23
j
,
i
I
!
I
i
original
days
"
' : As original
f 21 days
Test on
Patching Technioue jPatch
Test Res"Jlts
ecicen ?atched
Mortar tamped and
trowe11e4. Kept
moist during cure
Vibrating trowel.
Kept moist
during cure.
"I Mortar tamped and
trowelled. Kept
lAS I A-E-l Mod. of
l
ori gina1 i Rupture = 5900 psi
I
bend test! Top - compression
. spalling. I
i - crac:dng
I '
I
" ! over ,span.
I broken wires.
" IMod. of rupture
1= 6300 psi
I Top - ) as
Bottom -) above
"
of rupture -
4695 psi.
Top - compression
spalling.
Eottcc - patch
separated from
of rupture =
5985 psi.
Top - compression
spalling.
Bottom - tension
cracking, some
spa11ing of patch.
Fig. 33
Mod. of rupture =
4630 psi.
moist during' curing.
Hod. of rupture
"\ = 5700 psi
Top": ) as Top - compression
spalling.
" "
1 Bottom -) above
Bottom - transverse
ct'acking.
I
Mod. of rupture Mod. of rupture -
= 6850 psi 5630 psi
Top - ) as Top - compression
"jBottom -) above spalling.
I Bottom - break at edge
I of patch - broken
i wires - perhaps due
to cleaning.
I
Loose mortar removed. A . 'na1 Vibrating trowel. " I Mod. of rupture
, s ' . d '
Wires distorted - one 23 days KeP7 mOl.st url.ng I - 5700
longit. wire and one cUrl.ng. Top _ ) as
transverse wire broken. I Bottom -) above
I
}!od. of ru,? tu:-e
5340 psi
Failure outside of
patched area. Fig. 39.
I
16-S.
\
I
.. : Original.
. ::.:>. ! Xorcar
rE!.
i 1/'1-'1'1 "'a :ype I! .-
J - -- ;:>
.5c::,i
: I dry
, ::lesn, galv d'i ,',ortar.
. 12 lay_ers Sand
'" ;z.
"
i
:'e::.d
I
I
,
"
i
4 -6
; 1/2-16 gao
5 x 15" i Ivelced sC;
.Jro?-
i:::?act
est
2.0
30 x 3i)"
::lro?-

,.;anel
:::esh
5 layers
1/2-22 C;a.
hexagonal
'galv'd,
9 layers
I
I
i
11
I
I
I
i
I :ype
Sand
Type I!
Evco dry
:!ort.ar
Sand
Type III
E:vco dry

Sand
Preparation and
Condition
Most loose cortar
removed - some lumps
trapped. not
repaired.
I
I chipped out
around two main
I breaks.
I :fesh
ttempt to repair
mesh.
!.fortar chipped out
to 5-incn cia. Some
radial left.
Little to
wires.
Badly cracked and
loose mortar chipped
out but stopped
before mesh badly
damaged.
I
I.
I
I
I
. i
I
.j
I
I
I
Patch
Material
69-4125
- 40 -
and Test on Test Res".llts
Cure (days) Patching Technique Patch Original Soeci:::e::.
As original :10rtar tamped and I As I 5-E-1 Mod. of
21 days trowelled. Kept original i rupture = 2900 psi
1Ol0ist during I bend test: Bottom cracks over
curing. I span. \hresbroken.!
As original
II II
6-E-l Mod. of .
21 days I rupture oz 2980 psi.
I
As in 5-E-l above. .
I I
I !
Type II Vibrating trowel.
- .. - ..
sand. i during cure.
(equal. partsl
20,'30 mesh) I
23 days .
I I
As original I Mortar and! As iTop - no cracks
21 days '1 trowelled. Kept 'original i Bottom - fine radial
. d . I d I k
i cure. I rop-. ! crac S.
I impact I Deflection - 5/16"
I test I
Type II! Del!
Monte sand 1
(equal parts!1
20,30 mesh)
16 days I
Vibrating trowel.
Kept moist
during cure.
i 50 Ib- I
110 ft
I
I
Broke across panel.
Deflection - 21/32"
"
I
?atcheci Speci.;;-.e::.
. of rupture '"
1380 psi. Ero;-e at
original location.
badly da:::a .. ec.
':od. 0: rupture z
2025 ?si. Broke
at edge of patch.
'Fig. 40.
p
broken.
Top - no cracks
- fine radial
cracks.
;)eflection - 5/16"
Fig. 41
Top - Major cracks.
Some fine cracks oefore
impact cid :1.01.: c.pen <.;?
further.
Bo teom - So!::!:
material broke out
i but patch walL
___ L__ bonded to old !::.:>r:ar.
' .-.BLE 16-S. (cont I d)
I,
I
J
:!l
I
12
"
1.
n
>peCi::len
Xv.
11
o x 30"
:op-
"pact
anel

() x 30"
rop-
npact
anel
.;-:::-1
' end
est
Original Preparation and
Rei::force:::ent Condition
1/2-22 gao Type V I Loose mortar chipped
hexagonal Evco dry out but stopped before
mesh, ga1v
'
d, Mortar I mesh badly damaged.
o 9 layers Sand I
1 I I
I I
! I !
1 1/2-22 gao I Type III
I hexagonal , I Evco dry
! mesh, ga1v
l
d' i
i 12 layers I Sand
1
0
1/2-16 gao
I "elded sq
4.lesh.
5 layers
1
Type II
Evco dry
110rtar
Sand
: Original mortar had
I poor penetration. Host
; loose mortar in 6 in.
\ dia. removed. Cracks
I chipped out 1/8-3/16"
chipping with
needle gun to open up
cracks and remove
loose mortar
3/8-20 gao
end ,,,elded sq
.. est nesn
.:end
'test

7 layers
Patch
Material
and
Cure (days) Patchin!/; Technique
As original Vibrating trowel.
23 days Kept moist
during cure.
Type III "
Monte Sand
(equal partsl
20.30 mesh) I
16 days I
I
patching cracks by
Test on
Patch
As
original
drop-
I
impact
test
50 1b-
10 ft
I
"
I
I
I
69-4125
- 41 -
Test Results
Original Speci::len Patched
Broke across Top - ring cracks
mesh exposed in with major radial
bottom. crack.
Deflection - 9/16" Bottom - centre pushed
l Fig. 42 out, fine radial
cracks. Fig. 43.
I
I
i Deflection - 11/16"'1 Top - ring cracks.
i ! Botton - radial cracks
I I fro::: centre (sone
! large) hut no patch
I i mortar spal1ed out.
: Deflection - 7,/4"
I As Xod. of rupture - Harine epoxyl' Forced into
compound , trowelling I
original I 5900 psi
, bend test Top - compression
I 0 spalling.
of rupture -
5995 psi. Broke out-
side of patch area.
Fig. 44 7 days j ,
Epoxy floor
patch
material
7 days
Marine epoxy!
patching
compound
7 days
Bottom - cracking
over wide span.
No broken wires.
Mod. of rupture
5000 psi. Cracking
over wide span.
I Mod. of rupture -
psi. Cracking
over wide span.
of rupture -
4520 psi. Broke at
ne", site. I,ires
broke.
Mod. of rupture -
4430 psi. Broke in
mortar - not in epoxy.
:10st wires broken.
,sLE 16-5. (cont' d)
).;!ci:r:en !
Patch
Xaterial
Original Preparation and and
! Reinforce:nent Condition Cure (days) Patching Technique
-D
I
1/2-19 gao Type II I No preparation Epoxy floor Epoxy forced into
.nd I hardware Evco dry patch bottom cracks
.sc
i
cloth, :1ortar
I
material before straighten-
I
I
galv'd, Sand !
7 days ing. Specimen
9 layers i
straightened, set.
I
I
!
Top side then
I filled with epoxy/
! !
I sand mix.
-2
I
"
I
"
j
"
I
Marine epoxy\ "
nd
I
I
I
patching
st
I
i compound
,
I
I
7 days ! 0 0
I
i
! I
!
I "
0
I i
I -
Test on
Patch
As
original
bend tes
I
I
I
!'
I
I
I
69-4125
- 42 -
Test Results
Original Specimen I
Patched
Mod. of rupture,= Xod. of rupture =
3560 psi. 3754 psi.
Top - compression Break not in epoxy.
spalling. Fig. 45
Bottom - cracks .
over wide span.
Mod. of rupture = of rupture =
3600 psi. 2030 psi.
Top - compression ' Crack not in patching
spalling.
I
material.
I
Bottom - cracks
over wide span.
-
I ~
-_.
E
_ ...
D
t-?
'/
---- --1
- - ~ ~ - - - - ~ :_>
SPEC!t,,1ENS ~ A" &. -B"
SPECI MEN "C"
' ~ A ~
.:'-. '
G
C
B
~
5 I
l.l" ,"
co e /8
for cLrop- impQct tests ("11- diClqoI'l0'/ +a ....,A"'"
for flexural strength tests on unr-eJnforced
portion of panel.
SPECIMENS ''0'' &. -E" for flexural strengthstests on reinforced
portion of panel
SPEC I M ENS .oF" &. -G II for other tests (exposure, durQbiLi ty. corros ion.)
FIG. 7-5. L/-\YOUT ()F PANEL FOR TEST SPECIMENS
Fig. 24 Top and bottom surfaces of 1/2-inch thick specimen from Panel 27
containing 3 layers of 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh above and
2 layers below 1 layer of 1/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh.
After drop-impact test.
Fig. 25 Top and bottom surfaces of 1/2-inch thick specimen from Panel 28
containing 10 layers of 1/2-in. 22 gao hexagonal mesh. Af ter
drop-impact test.
Fig. 26 Top and bottom surfaces of l/2-inch thick specimen from Panel 29
containing 2 layers of l/2-in. 16 gao welded square mesh.
After drop-impact test.
Fig. 27 Top and bottom surfaces of l/2-inch thick specimens from Panel 30
containing 6 layers of l/2-in. 19 gao hardware cloth. After
drop-impact test.
69-4125
Fig. 28 Natural particle size gradation of Evco Dry Mortar Sand.
Mag. 4X.
Fig. 29 Del Monte 8 Sand.
Mag. 4X.
69-4125
Fig. 30 Del Monte 20 Sand. Mag. 4X
"
Fig. 31 Del Monte 30 Sand. Mag. 4X
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Bottom surface of coupons after 15 8-hr cycles
immersion in seawater.
Bottom surface of coupons after 15 8-hr cycles
immersion in 5-percent sodium sulphate solution.
69-4125
Fig. 34 Exposed rusted mesh in hull over rod stringers and water
creeping from fine cracking at the stringers.
Fig. 35 Exposed mesh near keel with white and red rust.
69-4125
69-4125
Fig. 36 Opening crack and cleaning loose mortar from mesh
with pneumatic chisel.
Fig. 37 Cleaning loose mortar from mesh with pneumatic chisel.
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
Top and bottom view of 9-E patched with mortar
and retested.
. '.
Bottom and side view of 12-E patched with mortar
and retested.
69-4125
.
.. " .. ,
. ~ . ' .
Fig. 40 Top and bottom of 6-E-2 patched with mortar and
retested.
69-4125
Fig. 41 Top and bottom of 15-inch impact specimen 4B patched
with mortar and retested.
Fig. 42 Top and bottom surface of 30-inch Panel 21 after
impact test.
69-4125
Fig. 43 Top and bottom of 30-inch Panel 21 patched with
mortar and retested.
69-4125
Fig. 44
Fig. 45
Bottom and side view of 4-E patched with an epoxy-
base marine patching compound and retested.
Top of 11-D patched with sand/epoxy mix and bottom
patched with epoxy only and retested.
69-4125
Fig. 46 Typical frame-web in hull .
. . . - - ~ - - - - -
Fig. 47 Exposed mesh at location of temporary
supporting frame.
69-4125
69-4125
Fig. 48 Exposed mesh in frames in bilge aft of engine.
Fig. 49 Close-up of exposed mesh in bilge.
69-4125
Fig. 50 Engine bed from forward end.
Fig. 51 Shaft bearing and bracket.
THE FOLLOWING SECTION ILLUSTRATES'
SOME OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF
STEEL REINFORCING THAT HAVE BEEN
INVESTIGATED FOR SUITABILITY IN
FERRO-CEMENT CONSTRUCTION
1/2" 22 GA. HEXAGONAL MESH - GALVANIZED AFTER WEAVING
1/2" 22 GA. HEXAGONAL MESH - GALVANIZED BEFORE WEAVING
1/2" 20 GA. FIRESCREENING
1/2" 19 GA. HARDWARE CLOTH
J
I
'0 ..
I
I
,
,
-
-
1/2" 16 GA. WELDED SQUARE MESH (GALVANIZED)
T
-.
3/8" 20 GA. WELDED SQUARE MESH (NOT GALVANIZED)
7
lIlllllllllll ! 1,1 111 1
1
, III,! IIIIJ I! ! 1IIIjlllllllJ [ 11I1I1I1I1I1I !J 111I111I11II ! IIJ 1[1'1111]111111
2.5 LB/SQ. YD. EXPANDED METAL LATH (GALVANIZED)
1 I .I l J. J J.
1]11111
4
7 8
l8F 1I!!i!!!fIi.ljl!!l!!illyt!' .. 11IIi' g"'!fi'I','liIg Ifpn;I!II HI!l!i
fll
P"l"i
INDICATION OF COMPARATIVE SIZE OF VARIOUS MESH TESTED
The Regulatory A s p e c t ~ of Ferro-Cement
Part I - Regulatory Aspects of Traditional
and New Construction Materials -
W.E. Bonn. Ministry of Transport.
Ottawa.
Part II - Tentative Requirements for the
Construction of Yachts and
Small Craft in Ferro-Cement -
Lloyds Register of Shipping.
,
Reprinted from: Proceedings of the Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials, Montreal, Canada,
October r - 3, 1968.
Regulatory Aspects of Tradi ti onal
and New Construction
Materials
by
Warren E. Bonn,
Superintendent, Hulls and Equipment Division,
Marine Regulations Branch.
Mr. Bonn Department of Transport, Ottawa
Mr. Bonn matriculated from Dartmouth High School in 1940. He joined Halifax Shipyards Limited
and received diplomas in mechanical engineering in 1944 and Naval Architecture in 1946, from Nova Scotia
Technical College and M.l. T. respectively.
He held various positions of responsibility with Halifax Shipwards, Limited, including Chief Draftsman.
Estimator and Ship Manager.
He joined the Steamship Inspection Service of the Department of Transport in 1955 and served on
the Headquarters Technical Staff for two years. He then moved to Toronto, surveying ships on the Great
Lakes for a period of some 5 years. In 1961 he was promoted to Senior Inspector, Montreal, which post he
held until 1964 when he moved to Halifax to the position of Divisional Supervisor in charge of the Atlantic
Division.
In 1964 he moved to Headquarters in Ottawa to assume the duties of Supervisor, Hulls and
Equipment and was later appointed Projects Officer. He was then promoted to a position heading the Hulls
and Equipment Section entitled Superintendent, HuUs and Equipment.
Mr. Bonn is a member of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. He is Chainnan of
their HS-1-1 Panel on Great Lakes Waves and serves on a number of their other technical committees.
He is also a member of the American Boat and Yacht Council and several other professional groups
associated with the Marine Industry.
ABSTRACT
This paper describes the broad outline of the Steamship
Inspection Service's approach to plan approval, inspection
and certification of fishing vessels, with the emphasis on
safety of life at sea.
All the necessary steps to be observed by owners, naval
architects, builders and operating personnel are clearly
pointed out to satisfy whatever aspects of the inspection
process are involved.
Scantlings for structural parts and advice on good
building practice are also highlighted in this presentation. In
addition, the Steamship Inspection Service offers
recommendations in respect of non-traditional construction
materials, which are still essentially in a developmental
stage.
74
INTRODUCTION
In today's world we see new materials being introduced
in all aspects of life, especially in the construction and
engineedng fields.
\. Most of us at this Conference are of the marine
fraternity and I think we all feel that as far as the building
of commercial ships and boats is concerned our approach is
very traditional and conservative. Indeed our only accepted
major "breakthroughs" in the past three decades have
been the change over from riveting to welding in the
construction of steel vessels and the introduction, mainly
on large vessels, of aluminum deckhouses.
This often leads one to sit back and wonder "how can I
assist in developing modem and new approaches to the ship
and boat building industry?"
As expressed by a number of our associates we find new
construction materials have already been tested on smaller
type boats with great success. These materials will, I am
sure, inevitably find their place in the construction of large
and small fishing vessels and eventually on large vessels of
all types. .
With the above in mind I feel that regulatory bodies
must play their part and keep an open mind on new
developments within our industry. As a member of the
Department of Transport, I can say that the Government is
most anxious to provide as much encouragement as possible
to the progress and development of new materials and
building techniques in the shipbUilding and marine engi-
neering field. As the Government's regulatory body, the
Board of Steamship Inspection will give full consideration
to all proposals submitted to them.
The object of this paper is not to explain how to build
vessels of new or traditional materials; this area of the
Conference is admirably covered by a number of experts. It
is merely an attempt to give a broad outline of the
Steamship Inspection Service approach to the approval,
inspection and certification of fishing vessels from the point
of view of safety of life at sea.
REGULATORY ASPECTS
In the preparation of this section on "Regulatory
Aspects" the paper is divided into six parts which are as
follows:
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
ALL FISHING VESSELS.
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
2. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO VESSELS
CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD.
3. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO VESSELS
CONSTRUCTED OF STEEL.
4. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO VESSELS
CONSTRUCTED OF ALUMINUM.
5. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO VESSELS
CONSTRUCTED OF GLASS RE-INFORCED
PLASTIC.
6. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO VESSELS
CONSTRUCTED OF FERRO-CEMENT.
, PART 1- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE
TO ALL FISHING VESSELS
Notification of Proposed Construction
The owner or the builder of the vessel should advise
the Steamship Inspection Service of the proposed con-
struction, size of vessel, nature of service, type of material
of which it is to be built and the extent of the voyages for
which it is required.
Submission of Plans
Prior to commencement of construction the plans and
information listed in Appendix I of this paper should be
submitted to the nearest Steamship Inspection Service
Office for approval and should the owner or builder
require any particular infonnation relative to requireme.nts
for the type of construction he is proposing the Board
will be pleased to provide all possible advice and
assistance within their jurisdiction.
Inspection During Construction
During construction a Steamship Inspector will carry
out regular inspections to check that the vessel is being
built in accordance with the approved plans and that the
materials and workmanship are to the required standards.
In addition to the hull construction he will witness aU
necessary hose testing and tank testing and will examine
and test the machinery installation, piping installations
and steering arrangements. He will also check the life-
saving, firefighting and navigating appliances and other
statutory requirements.
Sea Trials
On completion of construction the Steamship In-
spector shall be present during the sea trials to ensure
,
Warren E. Bonn
that the machinery and all essential services are function-
ing properly and that the vessel is operating in a safe and
satisfactory manner.
Certification
On completion of the "First Inspection" the Steamship
Inspector will issue an appropriate Inspection Certificate
for the voyages on which the vessel will be engaged. The
period of validity of the certificate will normally be
(i) one year for vessels of more than 150 gross tons,
(ii) one year for vessels that are steam driven, regard-
less of their tonnage, or
(iii) four years for vessels that are not steam driven
and not more than 150 gross tons.
Periodical Inspection and Certification
Periodical inspections will be carried out by a Steam-
ship Inspector when renewal of an Inspection Certificate is
required and in accordance with the requirements of the
Large and Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations, the
appropriate sections of which are added as Appendix II to
this Paper.
It should always be remembered that it is the respon-
sibility of the owner, operator or master to have his vessel
inspected and certificated in accordance with the require-
ments of the Canada Shipping Act. That is to say he
should advise the local Steamship Inspection Office when
the vessel is due and ready for inspection and in the case
of new construction, the builder should advise when he
wants any particular inspection or test etc. carried out.
PART 2 - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO VESSELS
CONSTRUCTED OF WOOD
Shipbuilder
The builders, past standards of construction and the
physical conditions under which the vessels are built are
considered by the Steamship Inspector and the Board
when approval of a vessel is given. Acceptable ship-
building practice must be followed in all aspects of
construction and selection of materials to be used.
Strength
Although strength standards for wooden vessels are not
laid down "hard and fast" each vessel shall have s'trength
characteristics acceptable to the Board.
75
These are based on the type of construction with
particular attention being given to good detail design and
the use of local area building materials.
The following scantling tables have been compiled over
the years and have proved satisfactory in service. They are
provided as a guide to designers and builders and they are
acceptable to the Board.
Periodic Inspection
Periodic inspection of the hull structure will be carried
out at intervals specified in the Large and Small Fishing
. Vessel Inspection Regulations, the appropriate sections of
which are added as Appendix II to this paper.
At the underwater inspection visual examination will
normally give the Inspector a good idea of the areas where
deficiencies can be expected. Distorted planking, pulled
butts, cracking, wetness or weeping are likely indications of
deteriora tion.
Where rotting is suspected internal ceiling may have to
be removed, core drilling carried out to check the condition
of the wood and fastenings, joints, fittings and caulking wilt"
be all carefully examined.
PART 3 - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE
TO VESSELS CONSTRUCTED OF STEEL
Shipbuilder
Close attention is given to the building plant and
conditions under which steel vessels, especially the larger
type vessels, are constructed.
Construction should be carried out in accordance with
acceptable shipbuilding practice and care must be taken
with all facets of the operation such as preparation of
material, burning, fitting, fairing, welding, riveting, etc.
Strength
The strength requirements for a steel vessel are that the
modulus of the midship section and the stresses in the
structural mcmbers shall be acceptable to the Board.
Calculations for the scantlings may be carried out from
fIrst principles or the Board will normally accept scantlings
derived from acceptable Classification Society Rules.
GUIDE TO SCANTLINGS FOR EAST COAST FISHING VESSELS
<M:R 10 OVER 15 OVER 20 pVER 25 !oVER 30 CM:R 35
TONNAGE 10
UP TO 15 UP TO 20 UP TO 25 UP TO 30 UP TO 35 UP TO 40
SOG MLD SOG MLO SOG MLO SOG MLO SOG AlLO SOG AlLO SOG AlLO
STEM Hi 7' 5' 7'h.'
5'.
B' If 6' <5' 6'/1; 8)( 6'12' 8'1z'
KEEL 4r,' 7' 5' 7Y; 51>' 8' 5-." 8' 6' 8' BY; 6V;
81"
STERN POST 'tY' 7' 5' 7'1-, 51>' 8' 5'!, S' 6' B" 6Y, 8Y'; 6'12' ay,'
KEELSON 't'h' +'Iz' 5" 5" 5'1'; Sy,'
5'" 6' 6' 6',. 6'!-z' 6'h' l'
SISTER KEELSON
FRAMES (SAWN) 2' 3' 2'h )'12' !I'
,,' 3'h' 't"l 't' s 4' 5'
PLANKING I' IYa I:t.' I 'It- l'f. I"a' Z'
CElUNG >f8' r IY6 1'/. IY' I.,., 1'1.. '
BILGE CEIUNG 1'/1:
If
I'/t' 16' I'li IB' I'V. 20' Pfi 20' Z 2z" Z' 22'
Nt OF STRAKES 2 - 2011 3 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 -
CLAMPS I'h' 57. 6' 2' 71z' 2'1. S ZY. 10' Z'iz' 11' Zy,' W
Nt OF STRAKES I - I - I - I - I - lo,f Z lOll 2
SHELF 2Y':' 4" 2'''' "'Iz' l' .'1:. 3:4' 3)2' 5-
3"",
5'"
Nt OF STRAKES
,.
- I - I - I -
I
I - I - I
-
BEAMS 2' 2"i 2'1i 3" 4-'
3'"
3'lz' 4'11' ".-
H\.
SPACING CR, TO CII 3D' 3D' 30' 30' 30' lQ' 30'
DECKING, THKS. 1'1. l'Iz' 1'1. ' 1'1,' Z' Z Z'4"
FRAME SPACING II' IZ' 1+" 1Hz' /5' 16' n"
'-- -'---- - -

NOTE, SCANTLINGS ARE BASED ON VESSEL'S UNDER DECK TONNAGE
COMPUTED FROM '!liE FORMULA LIB. D I ,7lI
100
..
PIER 40 <M:R 45
UP TO 45 UP TO 50
SOG AlLO SOG MLO
7' 8' 7" 8'
T S r 8'
T 8' l' 8'
6"'.
6"'.
7'h'
't'h' Sl'l
4'!'
5t.
Z'/8' 2'/8'
I'ls'
Z.,.' 2',1;
- + -
2"'; It;'
2".
16"
IIX t 2 -
+' H.
I - I -
"ill.' 5' 'ti'z.' 5 ....
30' 30'
Zy .. '
ZY'
n", lB'
OVER 50 OVER 55 OVER 60 OVER 65 OVER 70 lOVER 75 OVER eo
UP TO 55 UPTO 60 UP 65 UPTO 70 UP TO 75 UP TO 80 UP TO 85
SOG MLO SDG AlLO SOG MLO SDG MLO SOG AlLO SOG MLO SOG AlLD
7Y,' g' 7'h.' g'lz' 7ft' 9'/,' 7'1'.-
9f'
8' 10' s' 10' II'
7'1i 9' 7r.' 9)\' 71,: 9Jr
]f.
9f: S' 10' a' /0' ar; I/"
ni g' 7r; 9'12' TN 9'12' 7'1. 9'1. 8' /0' B' 10'
8'l' I/"
7' 7'1; 7'1l 8' 7'n B'/i 7Yt" BY,' 8' g' B' g' B'''' 9 'h.'
It,,' 7Y; S'fz' BY,' Sif 8'12' 6' 9' 6" 9' 6'1t' g'
S' 6" S' 6' 5'/0.' 6'1z' S'h' 6'/, 5'h' 6!i' SY1' 6,y,' 6' 6'/i
ZY<: Zr.;
lY'
ZlIa' a' Z'It' Z",'
z' 2" Z' 2' 2Yi 2'10' 11.
2'h' Zt,.' 27,' 2t,. 2'1i 2t,.' 26' 3' 26' 3'/i'- 2&' 28'
- 4- - - 4- - ,-
- -
3' IB 3' IS' 37;' 20' 3'12' 22" 3V.' Z2' 2' Jr. 2'1'
Z - Z - 2 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 -
+l'.'
5"
s- 5'/; 5' 6-
s o 5'; 6'11' $'1. S'lz' G.'
I - I - I -
,
- I - I - I -
.. 14 51'!' \olj; S'h' 5' 5'1>' $" 6" 5'h. 6'1>' 5'1z' 6'lz' sw r.?f.'
3D' 3D' 35' 35' 4-0' 4-0' 4,5'
t'l'
IB'Il' 19'1z' 20' ZO'll' 21' V'll"
L LENGTH IN FEET OF VESSEL ON LOAD WATERUNE.
B' BREADTH AMIDSHIPS IN FEET INSIDE CEILING,
OVER 85 ,0000H SO
UP TO 100
SOG MLD SOG MlD SOG MLD
BY,'
lI'l 8t" 11'1; 9' 12'
s'li II!I.' B'Y' 1I'f. 9' 12'
BY; 1I'h' 8l'
"".
g' 11'
8Y; g' 10' g' 10'
6'12' g'/:' 6>).'
9""
7' 10'
6' 6:r,
6Y: 7' 6Y; T
Zff; zsli
Zl'
2Y4' 2'1,
26' 3Yi 2B' 3i11 28'
- It - -
)r.
2'.-
' ..
H' 2.'
:3 - 3 - :5 -
s'li 61'. 6l" sr.'
6".:1
I - I - I "
5"; 7- 7'
"5' +5" ,"S'
Z2' ZZy,' 23'
D DEPTH AMIDSHIPS IN FEET FROM TOP OF BEAM AT CENTRE LINE TO TOP OF CEILING
ON FLAT BOTTOM,
--J
0\
8
z
"!"l
W
::0
r:;
Z
(')
r:;
o
Z
"!"l
v.;
::c
Z
Cl
<
r:;
en
en
r:;
r
(')
o
Z
en

:;0
c::

o
z
::
>

r:;
::0
):
r
en
Warren E. /301111 77
GUIDE TO SCANTLINGS FOR WEST COAST FISHING VESSELS
LENGTH O.A.
421
48
1
54
1
60
1
65
1
69
1
I

- -

-
...
MLD SOG MLO SOG MLD SOG MLO SOG MLO
1--.
STEM 6" I 10"
I
6. 'It" II '/z" 7" 11'/:" 12" a 12" 9'/z' /3'
-
KEEL 7- 8' 7'/z' 9'1z- 8'/z" 10" 9"
1/.
91z /I 'h II 13"
STERNPOST 7" 9" r
9 I
7 'Iz' 9'/z " 8" 9" /0" 9'1t' 11
-
KEELSON S' 7" 6- 9" 7- /0' 7'11.' 1/" B" 11'1:" 9" 13'/t'
--
SISTER KEELSON 7'h..- IIYt" a '1/ /3"
FRAMES (BENT) I
/318" 2'1z' /7JIl" 2%' 2" 3'A" 2' 3'11'
2]/8" 3)/,,,-
2
3
/,,' )7/8'
PLANKING

II',
5tCo.
-/0


I ..

-to

5 '1?;::;d
/- -tD" 3:/i- !:Z- -10'
CEILING /" 6' ,'/s" 6" 1'/,,: 6" 5" I.'/t" G: ,!l11J " G"
BILGE CEILING lflt" 5" 2'1,..' sYz" 27a 5'1," 2'1. 5'/%" 2-'1,.." 572 3" 5 '/z"
W! OF STRAKES 3 4-
+
6 6 6
CLAMPS, 1
ST
STRAKE 13/,. 7' 2" 7" 2'1.
B
2 '/z" a" 3" s" .3'1," 9"
CLAMPS,
- -
1-'".
7' 2' 7" 2 '/ ....
,.
2'/z' a 3" a"
SHELF 10/.' 5" Z'/,, li" Z'l, T 2:1/+ " 7" Y 7" 3!'z" 8'
HATCH BEAMS 4-'12 " 4-" 5'1,' 4-
1
/ .. " 6'/2" 4-0/". 7Y.t" 5'1"," a" s'lz 6'
BEAMS 3" 4-" 30/ .. + 0/ .. " '/I."

5';'" 5'!z' 6" 6
SPACING CR. TO CR. 20' z," zz 22' 23"
2"'"
ce:CKING, THKS. 1
3
/8" I 'It"
1%
FRAME SPACING /0
/0.
/0
Materials
The Board requires that steel used in the construction
shall be of an approved shipbuilding grade for which mill
certificates should be available.
Although to date the new high strength steels have not
been used for fishing vessel construction in Canada these
steels acceptahle to the Board who will consider a
corresponding reduction in the vessel's scantlings.
Connections
Connections of welding and riveting are acceptable to
the Board and details of all main hull connections should
be submitted for approval before construction is started.
Where a vessel is to be of welded construction a
"Welding Schedule" should be prepared to ensure that
locked-in stresses are minimized. Modem welding tech-
niques are encouraged and only qualified welders should
/9a
/If". 2
JI" /z- /2"
be employed. During inclement weather adequate pro-
tection as far as reasonable and practicable should be
prOVided for the welding operation - i.e. the work should
be protected against rain, snow and also chilling winds
during freezing temperatures. The welding rods used must
be suitable for the materials being connected and proper
protected storage facilities shall be provided for these
rods.
First Inspection Procedures
In addition to the general requirements of Part I the
Steamship I nspector, during his regular inspections, will
give particular attention to main hull connections and
local high stress areas.
Where a vessel is of welded construction he will check
that the approved "Welding Schedule" is being followed.
Visual" examination of the welding will be carried out but
the inspector may request that non-destructive testing
methods, such as X-rays, be employed in way of main
hull connections.
78
In certain cases weld samples may be requested for
mechanical testing and in way of local high stress areas
such as around the bossings and stem of a vessel pre-heat-
ing may also be required. The Inspector will also ensure
that welded lugs used for prefabrication, fairing and
staging, etc., are removed in a manner that will not
produce stress raisers or cause damage to the structure.
Periodic Inspection
Periodic inspections of the hull structure will be
carried out at intervals specified in the Large and Small
Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations, the appropriate
sections of which are added as Appendix II to this paper.
At underwater inspections the external and internal
condition of the hull will be examined by the Inspector
and where he notes heavy corrosion he may require that
drill testing be carried out. He may also call for internal
examination and hydrostatic testing of tanks where he
feels this is required.
Where repairs are necessary these must be completed
to the satisfaction of the Inspector.
PART 4 - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE
TO VESSELS CONSTRUCTED OF ALUMINUM
ShipbUilder
Construction of aluminum vessels shall be carried out
at a plant where the personnel are properly trained and
familiar with the type of work which they are to perform
and close attention will be given to the conditions under
which the vessels are being constructed.
Strength
An aluminum vessel is required to have an equivalent
factor of safety to that of a steel vessel of similar size and
design and the modulus of the midship section and the
stresses in the structural members shall be acceptable to
the Board.
Calculations for the required scantlings may be carried
out from first principles or the Board will normally
accept scantlings derived from acceptable Classification
Society Rules for steel vessels that are converted to
equivalent strength aluminum alloy
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
When carrying out structural design calculations the
following general conversion formulae are usually ade-
quate:
PLATING: tal = Fst X tst
FaJ
STlfFENERS(I) =(1) X F
BEAMS Y al Y st
GIRDERS Fal
PILLARS AND
MEMBERS SUBJECT Ial = 3 X 1st
TO BUCKLING
Material
where tal = thickness aluminum
tst = thickness steel
Fal = yield stress aluminum
F st = yield stress steel
(
I) = section mod. alum.
Yal
(
I) = section mod. steel
Y st
Ial = Inertia aluminum
1st = Inertia steel
All materials used in the main structure of the vessel
must be of an approved grade aluminum alloy for which
mill certificates should be available. Pure aluminum is not
strong enough to be used to structural advantage, therefore
careful attention must be given to the selection of a suitable
aluminum alloy.
The alloying elements affect the physical and mechanical
properties of the aluminum and cause the alloys to fall into
two distinct groups.
The first group, which is commonly referred to as heat
treatable alloys, contains alloys that obtain their strength
from heat treatment and therefore are generally not
recommended for welded structures; however, these may be
incorporated into welded structures, in which case the
Board will consider each specific application.
The second group, known as non-heat-treatable alloys,
contains alloys that obtain their strength from the alloying
elements and strain hardening and are suitable for welding
and other types of fastenings.
The aluminum companies have developed a wide range
.of alloys that are suitable for a variety of applications;
however, construction alloys containing magnesium have
been found most useful for marine structures due to their
- adequate strength qualities and their resistance to corro-
sion.
The following tables contain details of some marine
alloys manufactured in Canada and the United States, all of
which are acceptable to the Board. Other grades of
aluminum alloys will be considered by the Board on receipt
Warren E. Bonn 79
Table of Mechanical Properties of Aluminum Alloys
A1can
Tensile Strength Shear Strength
U.S.A.
Description Temper
Alloy
ULT.(K) Yield (K) % Elong. ULT.(K) Yield (K)
Equivt.
-
50s Heat-Treatable T5 22 17 8 13 10
A1um-Magnesium- T6, T6c 26 21 8 16 13 6063
-Silicon Alloy. Welded 17 10 ]0 6
Non-Heat-Treat. HIlA 32 18 8 19 7
B53s A1um.-Magnesium H32 36 26 8 22 16 5454
Alloy with H34 39 29 6 23 17
Manganese Added Welded 30 15 18 9
Non-Heat-Treat. HllA 40 24 12 24 13
0545 Alum-Magnesium HUB, H31A 44 31 10 26 19
Alloy with H32 45 34 8 27 20 5083
Manganese Added H34 50 39 6 30 23
Welded 38 18 23 11
Non-Heat-Treat. H32 31 23 7 19 14
575 Alum-Magnesium H24, H34 34 26 6 20 15 5052
Alloy. Welded 25 10 15 6
Heat Treatable T4 26 16 16 16 10
658 Alum-Magnesium- T6 38 35 10 23 21 6061
Silicon Alloy. Welded 24 16 15 10
Heat-Treatable T4A 42 26 10 25 16
74s Alum-Zinc- T6A 47 40 8 28 24 X7004
Magnesium Alloy T6 47 40 8 28 24
Welded 40 24 25 16
Table of Temperature Effects on Aluminum Alloys
Approx. Effect of Temperature on the Mechanical Properties of
Aluminum Alloy - Given as a Percentage of the Room Temperature Values
A1can
Approx.
Melting - 300F -lOOoF + 200F + 300F + 400F + 600F
Alloy
Range OF
50s 1110 - 1200
Ultimate Strength 130 110 95 65 20 10
Yield Strength 115 105 95 65 20 10
B538 1110 - 1190
Ultimate Strength 150 110 100 80 65 25
Yield Strength 115 105 95 85 70 20
D54s 1075 - 1180
Ultimate Strength ]40 115 95 70 50 20
Yield Strength 120 115 95 70 55 10
57s 1100 - 1200
Ultimate Strength 140 105 95 80 60 20
Yield Strenl:(th 115 100 95 80 40 15
65s 1075 - 1200
Ultimate Strength 130 110 95 70 40 10
Yield Strength 135 105 95 75 40 5
All Above
Elastic Modulus 110 105 100 95 90 70
Alloys
8()
of full particulars of proposed use, strength and chemical
properties, etc.
Connections
" The strength of any structure is directly related to the
efficiency of the connection provided, therefore it is
essential that all connections be carefully considered when
choosing the type of alloy to be used.
Welding, riveting and bolting are acceptable but details
of all main connections must be submitted for approval
before construction is started.
In way of bi-metallic connections riveting and bolting
are acceptable and care must be taken with the design of
the connection to prevent galvanic corrosion being set up.
This is usually accomplished with adequate gasketing
arrangements and stainless steel bolts. Aluminum bolts or
rivets are not recommended as, should they be fitted,
frequent replacement will most likely be necessary.
A recent development for connecting aluminum deck-
houses to steel decks, is the use of a vertical glass
re-inforced plastic strip separating the steel foundation bar
and aluminum deckhouse plating.
Concerning welding of aluminum, this in itself is a
subject on which a lengthy paper can be written and I do
not propose to deal with it in this presentation. The
aluminum companies have published many excellent man-
uals that are readily available and the methods described are
acceptable to the Board. Included in these manuals are the
MIG & TIG welding procedures that should be adopted for
the various grades of aluminum and the type of preparation
required.
Fire Protection
One of the disadvantages of using aluminum for main
hull structures is its low melting point and the adverse
effect of heat on its strength characteristics.
With this in mind the Board has decided that for
fishing vessels constructed of aluminum and operating on
exposed voyages the following A-30 standard structural
fire insulation should be provided:
(i) in machinery spaces:
all shell plating from the deckhead to the
light waterline,
CONFERENCE ON FISIIING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
all deckheads and supporting structure,
boundary bulkheads on the machinery space
side for the full height,
oil tank bulkheads.
(ii) outside machinery spaces:
oil tank bulkheads adjacent to spaces, such as
a galJey or paint locker, where a fire hazard
exists.
When using insulation on aluminum structures care
should be taken by the builder to ensure that a suitable
type of insulation is chosen that is compatible with
aluminum. In way of bilges suitable protection against oil
, and water seepage shall be provided for the insulation.
First Inspection
TIle inspector will carry out regular inspections
throughout the bUildit1g of the vessel with careful atten-
tion being given to connections, especially to the details
and gasketing arrangements in way of bi-metallic con-
nections.
In way of welded construction the inspector will
ensure that the approved "Welding Schedule" is being
followed .. Visual examination of the welding will be
carried out but the inspector may request that non-de-
structive testing methods, such as X-rays, be employed in
way of main hull connections.
In certain cases, especially when prototype vessels are
being constructed weld samples may be required for
mechanical testing.
Periodical Inspection
Following completion of the sea trials and the "First
Inspection" special attention will be given to the vessel at
each subsequent inspection. The underwater inspection
periods will normally be the same as the requirements laid
down in the Large and Small Fishing Vessel Regulations,
the appropriate sections of which are added in Appendix
II to this paper. However, should accelerated corrosion be
noted, then more frequent inspections may be required.
PART 5 - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
VESSELS CONSTRUCTED OF GLASS
RE-INFORCED PLASTIC
Shipbuilder
Glass reinforced plastic moulding is a specialized chemi-
cal process and must be carried out at an approved
establislunen t.
Warren E. Bonn
Approval of the establishment necessitates that the
personnel engaged in the construction must be properly
trained for the type of work which they arc to perform.
Workshops used for the moulding should be
(a) protected from the weather, adequately lighted and
ventilated but free from draughts and direct sun-
light,
(b) maintained in the temperature range 60F - 70F
at a low humidity level, both readings being recorded
regularly,
(c) clean and dust free, and
(d) provided with adequate dry and draught free storage
spaces for the raw materials.
Strength
The modulus of the midship section and the stresses in
the structural members shall be acceptable to the Board.
Calculations for the required scantlings may be carried
out from first principles or the Board will generally approve
scantlings derived from acceptable Classification Society
Rules.
Materials
The resins and glass fibre reinforcements lIsed in the
moulding processes should be of types recommended by
the manufacturers for marine use and atc td be approved by
the Board.
The resins should be suitable for laminates that may be
stressed when in a temperature range of -22F to + 150F
and formulated to have a gel time of generally less than 1
hour.
Surfaces of the moulding that will be exposed to the
atmosphere or to liquids must be provided with a gel coat
and surfaces that may be walked upon shall have a good
non-slip finish.
Laminate must be free of voids, air bubblcs or other
similar faults that may effect their strength and details of
wood or metal inserts should be submitted to the Board for
approval.
81
Connections
Care should be takcn in the design of all connections
throughout the construction and special attention should
be given to the main huU connectIOns such as the decks to
the shell, bulkhead bOllndaries, deckhouses to the main hull
etc.
The following methods of connection are acceptable to
the Board:
(a) Bonding: the surfaces must be and
thoroughly cleaned, the gel coat shall be removed in
way of the surface and the total thickness of fillet
bonding strips should be approximately equal to the
thickness of the thinner parts being joined.
(b) Riveting: Rivets should be cold driven and dipped in
resin or other' suitable sealant to seal the fibres
within the hole. Washers or metal strips should be
fitted in way of the heads and points to prevent
damage to the laminate. The minimum distance
between the centre of the rivet hole and the edge of
the laminate should be three times the diameter of
the rivet; the holes are to be drilled neat. Where a
joint is required to be watertight a suitable sealant
should be used.
(c) Bo/ting: Bolts should be of non-corrodible metal,
other than copper or its alloys, and should be dipped
in resin or other suitable sealant to seal the fibres
within the holes. To prevent damage to the laminate,
washers or metal strips should be fitted in way of
the heads and points. Bolt holes are to be drilled
neat . and the minimum distance between the centre
of bolt hole and thc edge of the laminate should
be three times the diameter of the bolt.
(d) Screwing: Screwing is only for the
connections of items of relatively truhot ittlpottll11ce
and only where a bettcr type of connection cllhiidt
be readily used.
COl1stmction of Tanks
Tanks for oil or water may be COllstructed as independ-
ent units or moulded as an integral part of the vessel's
structure.
Adequate supporting structure is to be provided in way
of all tanks and through bolting and riveting should be
avoided wherever possible. Longitudinal divisions shall be
82
fitted in wide tanks to reduce the effect of free surface
liquids.
Machinery Seatings
Due to induced stresses from the vibrations and weight
of the machinery special attention should be given to the
design and construction of machinery seatings and the
adjacent structure.
Fire Protection
Ordinary polyester resins will bum even when the
source of ignition is removed leaving the glass reinforce-
ment limp and unsupported. With this in mind, and with
a view to the probable growth of the G.R.P. boatbuilding
industry, the Board is investigating the effect of elevated
temperatures on plastic laminates.
Pending the completion of these investigations the
Board requires that within the machinery space and galley,
and other similar spaces where there exists a fire hazard,
the shell, decks, bulkheads, and load bearing structures
should be constructed of approved fire retardant resins and
insulated to A-30 standards.
Fire Inspection
Althougll, in Canada, a large number of small G.R.P.
pleasure craft are manufactured each year only a few
commercial vessels have been constructed in fibreglass.
For this reason G.R.P. is still considered to be a new
method of construction in this country. This being the
case the inspector will carry out more than the usual
n umber of inspections during all phases of the
construction and random checks will be made of the
resins, the lamination reinforcement materials and also the
readings for the temperature and humidity in the building
sheds.
The inspector will check the gel coat prior to the
lay-up of the laminations and he will be present during at
least part of the lay-up of the main hull. He will also
check attachments of all main stiffening members and will
be present when the mould is removed. Special attention
will be given to the joining of main sections of the hull
such as the deck to the shell, bulkheads boundaries,
deckhouses to the main hull etc.
During the course of construction test specimens
should be prepared for main hull materials. These are to
CONFERENCE ON FISIIING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
be prepared concurren t with the building of the hull and
at a time when the inspector is present.
The number of test specimens and the tests that are to
be conducted will be decided upon by the Board for each
individual vessel depending upon its size, design character-
istics and other relevant features. Tests will generally be
made for tensile and compressive qualities, flexural stress,
water absolption etc. These tests may be carried out at a
testing laboratory recognized by the Board and they
should be witnessed by an inspector.
Provisional Requirements for Inspection and Certification
The Board has decided that for vessels constructed of
G.R.P. the following provisional requirements shall apply
for periodical inspection and certification:
(a) the vessel will be inspected externally and inter-
nally after the first year of operation, and
(b) following the fust underwater and internal
inspection, and provided the vessel is found in
satisfactory condition, then normal inspections will
be carried out in accordance with the requirements
of either the Large or Small Fishing Vessel
Inspection Regulations as applicable.
PART 6 - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO
VESSELS CONSTRUCTED OF FERRO-CEMENT
Shipbuilder
Construction should be carried out at an approved
builders, where the personnel are properly trained and
familiar with the type of work which they are to perform.
Strength
The modulus of the midship section and the stresses in
the structural members should be acceptable to the Board.
Calculations for the reinforcements should be made from
fust principles.
Care should be taken to ensure that the reinforcements
- form continuous strength members and discontinuities and
that local high stress areas are avoided.
Materials
The strength of the ferro-cement hull is obtained from
the homogeneous qualities of the cement and the grid
Warren E. Bonn
re-inforcements which bind together to form a solid
structurc. The requirements [or the materials are as folIows:
(a) Cement - The cement although contributing to the
strength of the vessel's hull hns the primary function
of giving rigidity to the re-infon:ements. For the
cement the 130ard stipula tes the following require-
ments:
(i) it should be of the Portland or equivalent-
type, should be recommended by the manu-
facturer for marine use and should be appro-
ved by the Board.
(n) the water used for mixing should be clean
fresh water and free of impurities and chemi-
cals that may effect the concrete mix,
(ill) the aggregate of the mix should be of a
suitable type and as recommended by the
manufacturer and approved by the 130ard.
The water/cement ratio should be controlled
as low as possible to give a good quality and
workable material.
(b) Reinforcements - The reinforcing pipes, rods, bars
and wire mesh used are to be of an approved grade
of steel for which certificates should be available.
The steel should be clean and free of scale, oil,
grease or other similar con tamination.
Connections
Welding, lacing and clipping of all main hull re-inforce-
ments should be cHrried out with care and completed to the
satisfaction of the Steamship Inspector.
Constmction of Tanks
Tanks for oil or water may be constructed of steel or
ferro-cement that has been treated with a suitable sealer.
Adequate supporting structure should be provided in
way of all tanks and through bolting should be avoided
wherever possible. Longitudinal divisions shall be fitted in
wide tanks to reduce the effect of free surface liquids.
Machinery Seatings
Due to induced stresses from the vibrations and weight
of the machinery special attention should be given to the
design and construction of machincIY seatings. Carc should
be taken that hard notches and corners are eliminated and
the continuity o[ strength maintained.
83
inspectioll
During the construction regular inspections will be
carried out by a Steamship Inspector with particular
attention being given to the following stages:
(a) whcn the steelwork reinforcement is half complete,
(b) when the steelwork re-inforcement is completc,
(c) during the application of the cement m.ixture,
(d) at the removal offorms or moulds,
(e) at completion of the huH prior to curing,
(f) at completion of the hull after curing, and
(g) on completion of the vessel and during the running
of the sea trials.
Testing Procedures
At the present time the 130ard of Steanlship Inspection is
participating in a research program, instituted by the
Industrial Development Service of the federal Department
of Fisheries and being underta.ken by the British Columbia
Research Council, to determine the qualities and suitability
of ferro-cement as a shipbuilding material. We hope that
results will be forthcoming from tllis program in the near
future that will provide clear guidelines into the construc-
tion, testing and inspection procedures wllich we should
follow.
However, pending the completion of the above men
tioned research program the Board has decided that the
following testing procedures should be adopted:
(a) During the course of construction the Steamship
Inspector will cany out standard slump tests on the
concre te mix to ensure that the mixture is a good
quality and workable material.
(b) There should be prepared, concurrent with the hull
plastering, test specimens of the main hull struc-
tures, the preparation of which should be witnessed
by the Steamship Inspector.
(c) Tests will be required for tensile, compressive,
flexural and impact strengths. These tests should be
carried out a t a recogn izcd laboratory and witnessed
by the Steamship InsJlector. For vessels built in
Canada to datc these tests have been carried out at
the Department of Public Works testing laboratories
in Ottawa.
(d) The number of test spccimens will be decided upon
by the Board for individual vessels gellerally depcnd-
ing upon their size, type of construction and
whether the vessel is or a prototype design.
84
Provisiollal Requirements for Periodical
Inspections and Certification
Special attention wiIl be given to a vessel of ferro-cement
construction for the fIrst four years of operation and
provisional inspection and certification will be as follows:
(a) the vessel will be limited to Home Trade Class III
Voyages - i.e. not more than 20 miles off shore and
not more than 100 miles between ports of refuge,
(b) inspection will be made of the vessel afloat every six
months, and
(c) underwater inspection will be carried out annually.
CONFERENCE ON [-lSI liNG VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Following the fIrst four-year period and provided the
vessel is found in satisfactory condition, the normal
inspections will be carried out in accordance with the Large
or Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations as appli-
cable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the use of publica-
tions issued by L10yds Register of Shipping, The Aluminum
Company of Canada and The Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers.
APPENDIX I
Submission and Approval of Plans and Data
The information contained in this Appendix is extracted directly from:
(a) The Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations that are applicable to fishing vessels not exceeding 80 feet
registered length that do not exceed 150 tons, gross tonnage; and
(b) The Large Fishing Vessel impection Regulatiolls that arc applicable to fishing vessels exceeding 80 feet
registered length or 150 tons, gross tonnage.
The section numbers referred to are those of the Small or Large Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations.
CANADA SHIPPING ACT.
Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations.
FISHING VESSELS EXCEEDING FIFTEEN TONS,
GROSS TONNAGE
Submission and Approval of Plans, etc.
5. (1) Subject to section 6, before construction of any fishing
vessel is begun, the owner thereof sllllll submit in triplicate to the
steamship inspection office for the arca where it is proposed to
construct the fishing vessel the scantlings, information and data set
forth in Schedule A concerning propelling machinery, pumps,
piping, fuel tanks, steering arrangcments and the hull of the vessel.
(2) Before construction of a subsidized vcssel is begun, the
owner thereof shall submit in triplicate a lines plan of the hull to thc
steamship inspection office for the arca where it is proposed to
construct the fishing vessel.
(3) Before construction of any fishing vessel is begun, the owner
thereof shall submit to the steamship inspection office for the area
where it is proposed to construct the fishing vessel detailed plans
and data of any of the following equipment with which it is
equipped, namely : its main, auxiliary and heating boilers (other
than hcating boilers having a working pressure not exceeding fifteen
pounds per square inch), steam pipes, boiler mountings and air
receivers.
6. (1) Where, under subsection (I) or (2) of section 5, any
scantlings, infonnation, data or plans are submitted to a steamship
inspection office, an Inspector may approve them if, in his opinion,
(0) the scantlings, infonllation, data or plans conform with the
requirements of sections 8 to 26 where those sections are
applicable; and
(b) the vessel, if constructcd in accordance with those scant-
lings, informa tion, data or plans, will be :;afe and suitable for
the voyages for which it is intended.
(2) Where, under subsection (3) of section 5, plans and data are
submitted to a steamship inspection office respecting any equip-
ment mentioned in that subsection, that office shall send them to
the Chainnan who may approve or reject them.
7. No inspection certificate shall be issued in respect of a fishing
vessel unless
(a) the scantlings, information, data and plans required to be
submitted under section 5 have been suhmitted under that
section and have becn approved under section 6;
(b) the vessel is constructed in accordance with
(i) such scantlings, infonnation, data and plans, and
(ii) the requirements of these Regulations; and
(c) the vessel is in the opinion of an Inspector safe and suitable
for the voyages for which it is intended.
Warren E. Bonn
Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations
Schedule A.
The scantlings, infonnation and data respecting machinery and
hull required to be submittcd in accordance with section 5 are as
follows:
(a) Propelling Machinery.
Number of engines
Manufacturer's name
Diesel, gasoline or steam
Cycle
Number of cylinders, diameter and stroke (if diesel or steam)
Brake or indicated horsepower at continuous rating
Engine revolutions per minute at continuous rating
Maximum indicated pressure (if diesel)
Mean indicated pressure (if diesel)
Weight of flywheel (if diesel or steam)
Diameter of flywheel (if diesel or steam)
Reduction gear manufacturer
Reduction gear ratio
Diameter and material of intermediate shaft
Diameter and material of tailshaft
Particulars of tailshaft liner
Propeller diameter
Propeller pitch
Type of stern bearing
(b) Air Receivers.
(c)
(d)
Manufacturer's name
Number on board
Intemal diameter
Type of construction
Shell thickness
Head thickness
Radius of heads of circular section
Depth of heads of semi-elliptical section
Are heads dished in or out?
Is a safety valve or fusible plug fitted on each receiver?
Working pressure
Bilge Pumps and Pipi'lg.
Number and capacities of bilge pumps driven by
(i) main engine,
(il) auxiliary engine, and
(iii) hand
Number of suctions in
(i) machinery space,
(ii) hold spaces, and
(iii) crew and other spaces
Internal diameter of bilge piping
Fire.Pumpsand Pipi1lg.
Number and capacities of Cue pumps
Internal diameter of hydrant piping
Number of outlets
(e)
(f)
Number of tanks
Description
Fuel Tanks.
Capacity of each in gallons
Thickness of plate
Steering Gear.
Steam, hydraulic, electric or hand
Diameter of chain, wire or rod
Diametcr of rudder stock
Area of rudder
Average distance between trailing edge of rudder and
centre line of rudder stock
, (g) Hull.
Name of ship and official num ber
Year built
Name and address of builder
Name and address of owner
Type ofvesscl (open or closed construction)
Type of fishing for which vessel is designed
Material (wood or steel)
85
Registered length (that is to say. the length from the fore-
most part of the stem of a fishing vessel to the after side
of the head of its stern post, or if it has no stern post, to
the forward side of the rudder stock at the deck)
Breadth (extreme over planking)
Depth (top of beam at side amidships to rabbet line on keel)
Number and location of watertight bulkheads
Length and height of deck-houses
Location of engine room
Number and sizes of engine room entrance and emergency
exits
Location of crew accommodation and total number of crew
Height of bulwarks
Height of sills of doors giving access to main hull
Hatches, number and size
Hatch coamings, height and thickness
Hatch fore and aCters, vertical and horizontal dimensions
Hatch covers, type and thickness
(hI Details of Materials
Item
Finished
Material
Spacing Details of
dimensions (centres) fastenings
Keel
Stem
Sternpost
Keelson
Frames
Deck beams
Hanging knees
Lodging knees
Hatch carlings
Clamps
Shelfs
Bilge ceiling
Floors
Plank o ~ plate
Deck
Engine Foundations
NOTE: the above information and scantlings may be submitted as
a list, or in the form of plans, or as 8 combination of both
methods.
86
CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Large Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations
Submission and Approval of Plans, etc.
\ "6. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), before construction
of any fishing vessel is begun, the owner shall submit for approval,
in triplicate, the plans and data set forth in Schedule A con-
cerning boilers, superheaters, economizers, air receivers, propclling
m3chinery, pumps, piping, fuel tanks, steering gear, rudder and
hull."
(2) Plans of the following are not required to be submitted:
(a) heating boilers having a pressure not over 15 pounds per
square inch,
(b) diesel engines not exceeding 75 brake horse power, con-
tinuous rating, unless of unusual design,
(c) gearing for main engines and electric pr.opulsion motors
not over 300 brake horse power, continuous rating,
(d) gasoline engines unless of unusual design, or
(e) parts that are found by an Inspector to agree wHh plans
already approved .by the Chairman.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2) the Board may require t,hat
plans and data of parts not listed in Schedule A shall be
submitted.
"(4) Where under this section plans and data are submitted to
a Divisional Supervisor, one copy of each submission approved by
the Divisional Supervisor for the Chairman shall be forwarded to
the Chairman by the Divisional Supervisor."
(5) No inspection certificate shall be issued in respect of a
fishing vessel unless
(0) The plans and data submitted under this section have been
approved by the Chairman,
(b) the vessel is constructed in accordance
0) with such plans and data, and
(ii) with the requirements of these regulations, and
(c) the vessel is in the opinion of an Inspector safe for the
voyages for which it is intended.
Large Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations
"Schedule A
I. The plans and data respecting machinery and hu\1 required to
be submitted for approval in accordance with section 6 are as set
out in this Schedule.
"2. (1) Where a fishing vessel does not exceed 100 feet in length
(a) The plans for the following equipment and parts of the
vessel shall be submitted to the Board:
(i) new air receivers,
(ii) boilers having a working pressure of 15 pounds or
over per square inch,
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
(iii) diesel engines over 500 B.H.P.,
(iv) gearing for all engines over 500 B.H.P.,
(v) lifeboats, life rafts and buoyant apparatus, and
(vi) aluminum superstructures; and
(b) the plans for the following equipment and parts of the ves-
sel shall be submitted to the Divisional Supervisor who may
approve those plans for the Board or forward them to the
Board for approval:
(i) new boiler mountings,
(ii) steam turbines over 500 B.H.P.,
(iii) reciprocating steam engines over 500 B.H.P.,
(iv) general arrangemcnt of ship,
(v) midship section,
(vi) longitudinal section and deck plans,
(vii) rudder,
(viii) electric circuits and protective devices, and
(ix) such other equipment and parts of the vessel as the
Divisional Supervisor may consider necessary.
(2) Where a fishing vessel exceeds 100 feet in length
(a) the plans for the following equipment and parts of the
vessel shall be submitted to the Board:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
new air receivers,
sprinkler and foam pressure tanks,
boilers, main, auxiliary and heating, superheaters and
economizers,
boiler mountings,
electric circuits and protective devices,
. steam turbines over 500 B.H.P.,
diesel engines over 500 B.H.P.,
reciprocating steam engines over 500 B.H.P.,
gearing for aU engines over 500 B.H.P.,
general arrangement of ship,
midship section,
longitudinal section and deck plans,
subdivision details and data if required by owner,
unusual cargo gear,
sprinkler system if required by owner,
fire-resistant bulkheads if required by owner,
lifeboats, life rafts and buoyant apparatus, and
aluminum superstructures; and
(b) the plans for the following equipment and parts of the ves-
sel shall be submitted to the Divisional Supervisor, who may
approve those plans for the Board or forward them to the
Board for approval:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
general arrangement of machinery,
stern tube, stcrn b u ~ h or bearing,
shafting, including thrust, propeller, intermediate
shafting and couplings,
diagram arrangement of feed water, oil fuel and
cooling system s,
compressed air systems,
existing boiler mountings,
existing air receivers,
arrangement of steam pipes,
propane gas installations,
bilge and ballast pumping and piping,
fuel oil tanks separate from hull,
main and auxiliary steering arrangements with details
of quadrant and tiller,
Warren E. Bonn
(xiii)
(xiv)
(xv)
(xvi)
(xvii)
(xviii)
(xix)
(xx)
(xxi)
(xxii)
(xxiii)
(xxiv)
(xxv)
(xxvi)
(xxvii)
(xxviii)
fixed fire extinguishing equipment as outlined in
section 6 of the Fire Detection and Extinguishing
Equipment Regulations,
rudder
stem, sternpost or sternframe,
pillars and girders,
shell expansion,
\V.T. and D.T. bulkheads,
engine and boiler seatings,
shaft brackets and bossing,
schemes of riveting and welding,
list of fastenings in the case of wooden ships,
sea chests,
boat arrangement,
natural and mechanical ventilation,
usual cargo gear,
fresh and salt water systems, and
scuppers and dischargers."
3. In the case of reciprocating steam engines, the fonowing
data shall be supplied with the plans:
(1) Designed indicated horsepower
(2) Revolutions per minu te
(3) Number of cylinders, diameter and stroke of pistons
(4) Diameter and weight of flywheel (if fitted)
87
(5) Diameter of propeller
(6) Physical properties of principal forgings and castings.
4. In the case of diesel engines, the fonowing data shall be
supplied with the plans:
(1) Designed brake horsepower
(2) Revolutions pcr minute
(3) Two or four cycle
(4) Maximum and mean indicated pressure
(5) Balance weights (weight and number) and radius of gyration
(6) Number of cylinders, diameter and stroke of pistons
(7) Diameter and weight of flywheel
(8) Diameter of propeller
(9) Physical properties of principal forgings and castings.
5. In the case of gears in excess of 300 brake horsepower, the
, following data shall be supplied with the plans:
(1) Designed shaft horsepower
(2) Revolutions of each pinion and gear
(3) Number of teeth, pitch and pitch circle diameter in each gear
and pinion .
(4) Length and thickness of teeth
(5) Helix and pressure angles
(6) Physical properties of principal forgings and castings.
APPENDIX II
First and Periodic Inspections
The infonnation contained in this Appendix is extracted directly from:
(a) The Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations that are applicable to fishing vessels not exceeding 80 feet
registered length that do not exceed 150 tons, gross tonnage; and
(b) The large Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations that are applicable to fishing vessels exceeding 80 feet registered
length or 150 tons, gross tonnage.
The section numbers referred to are those of the Small or Large Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations.
CANADA SHIPPING ACT.
Small Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations.
FISHING VESSELS EXCEEDING FlrTEEN TONS,
GROSS TONNAGE
First Inspection of New Construction.
41. (1) Every fishing vessel shall be inspected during construc-
tion at such times as the Inspector deems advisable.
(2) The owner of a fishing vessel shall notify the Inspector at
least one week in advance of
(a) the commenccment of framing;
(b) the commenccment of planking or plating;
(c) the launching; and
(d) the dock and sea trials.
(3) An Inspector may accept machinery in respect of which
plans are not required to be submitted under these Regulations even
though it has not been inspected during construction without its
being opened for inspection if he is satisfied that it is safe and
suitable for the purpose for which it is intended.
(4) Inspection and construction of boilers. steam pipes, boiler
mountings and air rcceivers of fishing vessels for which plans are
required to be submitted under these Regulations shall be in
accordance with the Steamship Machillery Inspection Regulations
and the Steamship Machinery Construction-Regulations.
(5) Dock trials and sea trials of a fishing vessel shall be held in
the presence of an Inspector, at which time the bilge and fire pumps
shall be tested, the speed in knots estimated, the stcering and
stopping powers of the vessel tested and the launching arrangcments
- for the lifeboats, boats, dories or skiffs tried out, and sueh further
tests shall be made as the Inspector considers necessary to satisfy
himsclf that the vessel is safe and suitable for the purpose for which
it is intended.
Periodic Inspection.
42. Every fishing vessel propelled by stcam shall havc the
following parts inspected annually by an Inspector :
88
(a) boilers, boiler mountings and steam pipes;
(b) life saving equipment; and
(c) fIre extinguishing equipment.
. 43. (1) Subject to subsection (2), every fishing vessel shall be
inspected once evcry four years as follows:
(a) Air reccivcrs shall be tested by hydraulic pressure to one and
one-half times the working pressure but the Inspector may
waive this test if the air receiver has a manhole or other
opening that permits a thorough examination of the interior
and he is satisfied that it is in a safe and sound condition;
(b) an engine trial shall be held and if the engine is found in
good operating condition the Inspector may accept it
without opening it up for inspection; but where the running
trial is not to the satisfaction of the Inspector he may
require that the engine, or any part thereof, be opened up
for inspection; the owner shall notify the Inspector when-
ever the engine is opened up for overhaul so that the
Inspector may have an opportunity of examining the engine;
(c) the hull shall be examined inside and out by the Inspector
while the vessel is in dry dock or while beached;
(d) fire and bilge pumps shall be tested by trial and overhauled
if necessary;
(e) the rudder shall be examined in place, the weardown of the
taUshaft measured and all sea connections opened up for
inspection;
(j) all life saving, fire extinguishing and navigating equipment
shall be inspected;
(g) tailshafts shall be inspected in accordance with section 44;
and
(II) air compressor relief valves and air receiver relief valves shall
be set to blow off at the assigned working pressure.
(2) The periodic inspection required by paragraph (a) of
subsection (1) in respect of a new air receiver shall commence eight
years after the date of the first inspection of the air receiver.
44. Tailshafts of a fishing vessel shall be inspected as follows:
(a) carbon steel tailshafts, where used in salt water, shall be
completely withdrawn for inspection and the propellor
removed at least once every four years; in order to facilitate
such inspection the owner shall notify the Inspector when-
ever the tailshart is withdrawn and the propellor removed;
and
(b) bronze, monel, stainless steel or other non-corrosive tail-.
shafts used in salt or fresh water and carbon steel tailshafts
used in fresh water shall, if considered necessary by the
Inspector, be partially or completely withdrawn for inspec-
tion once every four years and the propellor shall, if
considered necessary by the Inspector, be removed once
every four years; in order to facilitate such inspection the
owner shall notify the Inspector whenever the tailshaft is
withdrawn.
45. An Inspector may, in addition to any inspection or test
required by these Regulations, conduct any inspection or require
any test to be made to satisfy himself that anything on a fishing
vessel that may affect its seaworthiness is safe and suitable for the
purpose for which it is intended.
46. (1) Notwithstanding the requirements for periodic inspec-
. tion prescribed in this Part, an Inspector may issue or extend an
inspection certificate for a period not exceeding
(a) two months beyond the due date of periodic inspection; or
(b) five months beyond the due date of periodic inspection if
authorized to do so by the Divisional Supervisor.
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
(2) Prior to issuing or extending an inspection certificate under
this section the Inspector shall satisfy himself from such inspection
of the hull, machinery and equipment, as is possible afloat, and
without opening up any machinery except boilers and boiler
mountings, that the fishing vessel is in a seaworthy condition.
(3) An inspection certificate issued or extended to the maxi-
mum period allowed under this section shall not be renewed or
further extended without the permission of the Board.
47. Any alterations affecting the seaworthiness of a fishing
vessel shall be equivalent to the standards of these Regulations and
to the satisfaction of an Inspector.
CANADA SHIPPING ACf
Large Fishing Vessel Inspection Regulations,
First Inspection of New Construction
23. (1) Every fishing vessel shall be inspected during construc-
tion at such times as the Inspector deems advisable.
(2) The owner of a fIshing vessel shall notify the Inspector at
least one week in advance of
(a) the commencement of framing,
(b) the commencement of planking or plating,
(c) the launching, and
(d) the dock and sea trials.
(3) Dock trials and sea trials of a fishing vessel shall be held in
the presence of an Inspector, at which time the bilge and fire
pumps shall . be tested, the speed in knots estimated, the steering
and stopping powers of the vessel tested and the launching
arrangements for the lifeboats, boats, dories or skiffs tried out,
and such further tests shall be made as the Inspector considers
necessary to satisfy himself that the vessel is safe and suitable for
the voyages intended.
Periodic Inspection of Hulls of Wooden Fishing Vessels
31. (1) Every wooden fishing vessel over 150 tons, gross
tonnage, if operating in salt water, shall be dry docked and
inspected every two years.
(2) Every wooden fishing vessel over 150 tons, gross tonnage,
if operating in fresh water, shall be dry docked and inspected
quadrennially.
(3) Every wooden fishing vessel not over 150 tons, gross
tonnage, shall be dry docked and inspected quadrennially.
(4) The hull inspection shall be carried out as follows:
(a) the Inspector shall examine the hull externally and inter-
nally in order to satisfy himself as to the condition; such
parts of the ceiling shall be removed as the Inspector may
require in order that the condition of the hull, timbers,
floors, etc. may ' be ascertained; fastenings and sheathing
shall be removed where considered necessary by the In-
spectator; boring shall be carried out where and as consi-
dered necessary by the Inspector;
(b) hatchways, ventilators, doorways and other deck openings
with their closing and opening appliances, superstructure
bulkheads with their closing appliances, hatch coamings
and door sills shall be inspected;
(c) such further opening up shall be done as the Inspector
may require in order to satisfy himself that the hull is in
good condition;
Warren E. Bonn
(d) all repairs and renewals shall be carried out to the satisfac-
tion of the Inspector; and
(e) any alterations made to the vessel since the previous
inspection shall be reported in detail by the Inspector to
the Chainnan.
Periodic Inspection of Hillis of Steel Fishing Vessels
32. (1) Every steel fishing vessel over 150 tons, gross tonnage, if
operating in salt water, shall be dry docked and inspected every two
years.
(2) Every steel fishing vessel over 150 tons, gross tonnage, if
operating in fresh water, shall be dry docked and inspected
quadrennially.
(3) Every steel fishing vessel not over 150 tons, gross tonnage,
shall be dry docked and inspected quadrennially.
(4) The hulls of steel fishing vessels not over 145 feet in length
shall be inspected as follows:
(a) the Inspector shall examine the hull externally and internally
in order to satisfy himself as to the condition; such parts of
the ceiling shall be removed as the Inspector may require in
order that the condition of plating, frames, floors, tank tops
etc., may be ascertained; drill testing of the plates shall be
carried out where and as considered necessary by the
Inspector;
(b) hatchways, ventilators, doorways and other deck openings
with their closing and opening appliances, superstructure
bulkheads with their closing appliances, hatch coamings and
door sills shall be inspected;
(c) where considered necessary by the Inspector fore and after
peaks, bunkers, double bottom tanks and bilges shall be
cleaned and examined;
(d) steel shall be cleaned and exposed for
where considered necessary by the Inspector;
(e) where considered necessary by the Inspector double bottom
tanks shall be tested by a head of water at least to the light
waterline but not less than 8 feet above the inner bottom,
and peak tanks used for water ballast shall be tested to a
head of water not than 8 feet above the crown of the
tank;
(j) such further opening up shall be done as the Inspector may
require in order to satisfy himself that the hull is in good
condition;
(g) all repairs and renewals shall be carried out to the satisfaction
of the Inspector; and
(h) any alterations made to the vessel since the previous
inspection shall be reported in detail by the Inspector to the
Chairman.
(5) The hulls of steel fishing vessels over 145 feet in length shall
be inspected as required by the Hull Inspection Regulations.
Periodic Inspection of Sea Connections, Windlass, Rudder,
Steering Gear, Anchors and Anchor Cables
33. (1) All sea suction and discharge valves and cocks situated
below the load water line or which exceed 2 inches in internal
diameter shall be opened up for inspection at least every four years.
89
(2) On every occasion that a fishing vessel is dry docked in
compliance with these regula tions the sca connection fastenings,
windlass, rudder, steering gear and anchors shall be given a general
examination by the Inspector, who may request any opening up
that he deems to be necessary.
(3) Anchor cables shall be ranged eight years after construction
of the vessel and every four years thereafter; where the chain is so
worn that the mean diameter at any part is reduced to the mininmm
size shown in Schedule E as requiring renewal, that part shall be
renewed.
(4) Steering chains so wom that the mean diameter at any part
is reduced to the minimum size shown in Schedule E as requiring
renewal shall be renewed at that part.
Periodic Inspectioll of Screw S/lOftsand Tube Shafts
34. (1) Fishing vessels over 150 tons, gross tonnage, making
voyages in salt water, shall have the screw shafts and the tube shafts
withdrawn for inspection at least once every two years, except that
shafts of the foUowing types need be withdrawn for inspection only
once every three years in the case of single Sl.TeW fishing vessels, and
one every four years in the case of fishing vesscls having two or
more screws:
(a) shafts fitted with a continuous liner in way of the stern tube,
and in way of outside bearings where fitted;
(b) shafts fitted with approved glands or other approved
at the after end to permit of their being
effic.iently lubricated;
(c) shafts of bronze, monel metal, or other approved non-cor-
rosive material;
(d) shafts that are fitted with non-<:ontinuous liners and that are
completely covered between the liners with rubber or
neoprene that has been applied and bonded by an approved
method.
"(la) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a single screw
fishing vessel has a shaft of a type described in any of paragraphs (a)
to (d) of SUbsection (1), the shaft need only be for inspection
once every four years if
(a) the by way, if fitted, has well rounded ends or is of the sled
type, has an adequate root radius and has rounded edges at
the shaft surface; and
(b) at each inspection, the shaft between the after end of the
liner, or the after end of the stern tube if no liner is fitted,
and a position one third of the length of the taper from the
large end, is examined by an efficient crack detection
method and found free from defects."
(2) Fishing vessels not over 150 tons, gross tonnage, making
voyages in salt water, shall have the screw shafts and the tube shafts
withdrawn for inspection at least once every four years.
(3) Fishing vessels making voyages in fresh water shall have the
screw shafts and the tube shafts withdrawn for inspection at least
once every four years.
(4) When a screw shaft Or tube shaft is withdrawn for the
inspection required by this section it shall be completely removed
from the stern tube and bearings and the propeller shall be taken off
the shaft.
90
(5) When a fishing vessel is inspected in dry dock and the shafts
are not withdrawn for periodic inspection, the propellers and stern
bearings shall be examined in place and the wear-<lown of the stern
bearings shall be noted and reported.
Postponement of Inspection
35. (1) The Board may authorize the requirements of the
quadrennial inspection of the machinery and hulls of fishing vessels
over 150 tons, gross tonnage, to be postponed from the due date,
either wholly or in part, for a period not exceeding twelve months
from the due date if the annual inspection requirements have been
carried out.
(2) The Board may authorize the requirements of the annual or
quadrennial inspection of the hulls of all fishing vessels to be
postponed from the due date, either wholly or in part, for a period
not exceeding six months from the due date.
"(3) Notwithstanding the requirements for the periodic inspec-
tion of hull and machinery prescribed in these Regulations, an
Inspector may issue or extend an inspection certificate for a period
not exceeding
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
(0) two months beyond the due date of periodic inspection; or
(b) five months beyond the due date of periodic inspection if
authorized to do so by the Divisional Supervisor.
(4) Prior to issuing or extending an inspection certificate under
this section the Inspector shall satisfy himself from such inspection
of the hull, machinery and equipment, as is possible anoat, and
without opening up any machinery except boilers and boiler
mountings, that the fishing vessel is in a seaworthy conditon.
(5) An inspection certificate issued or extended up to the
maximum period allowed under subsection (3) shall not be renewed
or further extended without the permission of the Board."
Continuous Inspection
36. The quadrennial inspections may be carried out on a
continuous basis if all parts subject to inspection are inspected at
least once every four years; where this method of inspection is
adopted the owner shall furnish a chart for recording the inspections
carried out; this method of inspection, however, shall not exempt
any fishing vessel from the annual inspection required by these
regulations.
LLOYDS REGISTER OF SHIPPING
Yacht Technical Office
Tech. Note: FC/REQ/l
Date: January 2, 1967.
Tentative Requirements for the Construction
of Yachts and Small Craft in Ferro-Cement
Part 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Survey During Construction
101. Where ferro-cement is used in yachts and small craft proposed for
classification or to b ~ built under supervision, it shall comply with these
requirements.
All new boats intended for classification are to be built under the
Society's Special Survey and when classed will be entitled to the distinguish-
ing mark inserted before the character of classification in the Register of
Yachts or the Register of Ships, as appropriate. In the case of boats wholly
or mainly constructed of this material, the class shall have the notation
"Experimental - Ferro-Cement Hull", and shall be subject to annual survey.
Works
102. The boat is to be constructed under the survey of a Surveyor to
the Society in an establishment where the facilities, equipment, etc., are
such that acceptable standards can be obtained both for the construction of
the hull and for the installation of any machinery and/or electrical equipment
to be fitted.
The boatyard should be staffed by competent tradesmen and supervised
by a management familiar with this material, and capable of carrying out the
production of high quality work.
Inspection
103. The boat is to be built under a rigid inspection system employed
by the builder, the inspection being made at regular intervals and stages of
construction by a responsible official of the firm. A satisfactory record
of these inspections is to be maintained for the Surveyor's inspection.
The construction will normally be inspected by the Surveyor at the
following main stages:
1. When the steel reinforcement is half completed.
2. When the steel reinforcement is completed.
3. During the application and compaction of the mortar.
4. At the stripping of any major formwork.
5. At the end of the curing period.
- 2 -
The above visits are intended only as a general guide and the
actual number will depend on the size of the construction and the degree to
which ferro-cement is being used, and will be arranged between the boatyard
and the Surveyor. The boatyard are to keep the Surveyor advised as to the
progress of the construction.
Part 2 - MATERIALS
Cement
201. The cement is to be Ordinary Portland Cement of a type complying
with a suitable specification, such as B.S. 12, and is to have good water-
tightness properties. Other types of cement will be considered but no mixing
of the various types should be carried out.
The cement is to be of the type specified, and is to be fresh and
of uniform consistency; material containing lumps and foreign matter is not
to be used. The cement is to be held in storage for as, short a period as
possible, under dry conditions and properly organized as regards turnover of
material, etc.
Aggregates
202. The aggregates are to be of suitable types with regard to strength,
durability and freedom from harmful properties. The material is to be of
uniform and of a grade which will readily give a satisfactory minimum cover
of the reinforcement without risk of segregation and use of excessive water.
Water
203. The water used in the m1x1ng is to be fresh and free from harmful
materials in solution which will affect the strength and resistance of the
mortar. Salt water is not to be used.
Batching and Mixing of the Concrete Materials
204. The proportions of cement and aggregates are to
concrete equivalent to the basis material (see para.
of the materials are normally to be determined by weight,
aggregates may be determined by volume where so desired.
be such as to give
). The quantities
although the
The water/cement ratio is to be controlled as low as possible to
give a material consistent in quality and workability. '
Reinforcement
205. The rods, bars and wires are to be ,of steel ,having a satisfactory
yield stress, ductility, tensile strength and other e s s e n t ~ a l properties and
complying with a suitable specification such as B.S. 18 or B.S. 785.
The wire mesh is to be formed of a suitable diameter steel wire, '
laid up in such a manner as to preserve as much of the strength properties
of the basic wire as possible. A sample of the mesh is to be submitted along
with the material data.
- 3 -
The reinforcement is to be clean and free of millscale, oil,
grease, paint or other contamination.
Part 3 - DESIGN ~ ~ D CONSTRUCTION
Scantlings
301. These requirements envisage the hull and other structures built
in ferro-cement, being a form of reinforced concrete in which a high steel
content is sub-divided widely throughout the material that the structures
will act when under stress as though produced from a homogenous material.
In view of only a limited number of builders at present using this
material and also until such times as a common practice is established, the
scantlings of the structures will be based on the representative strength
figures referred to below, and on an examination of the design and construc-
tion methods to be employed. Each case will be examined individually and
considered on its merits.
Basis strength properties of representative panels laid up using
the same mix and mesh reinforcement as are proposed for the structures, are
to be determined as given in Part 4. However, where such representative
properties have been previously established by an acceptable authority, these
may be considered by the Society and the need for these tests may be dispensed
with.
Submission of Plans and Data
302. Plans, in triplicate, are to be submitted for approval for each
design before construction is commenced. These plans shall show the arrange-
ment and detail of the reinforcement of the hull and other structures. Such
other plans as may be necessary to define the structural arrangements are to
be submitted.
A data sheet is to be submitted giving details of the materials,
mixes, curing procedure, etc. of the ferro-cement construction.
Steel Reinforcement
303. The steel content of the ferro-cement is to be as high as practicable,
and the disposition of the rods and mesh to be consistent with the production
of void-free material. The rods and mesh are to be correctly disposed and
shaped to form, with sufficient transverse members to maintain the form of
the hull, and to be securely wired and welded to avoid movement during the
placement of the mortar.
The keel centreline member, longitudinal girders, floors, etc.,
are to be formed with rods and mesh and may incorporate rolled steel sections,
but the build-up of reinforcement should not prevent satisfactory penetration
of the mortar. Two or more layers of mesh forming the member are to be
worked into the hull form, due regard being paid to the sharpness of curvature
to avoid large voids within the base of the member.
- 4 -
Any discontinuities in the strength of the reinforcement are to
be avoided and the ends of members are to be properly faired into the adjoining
structure. The wires of the mesh layers can be orientated to suit the
arrangement of lay-up but should not unduly affect the panel strength and pre-
vent penetration of the mortar. The'edges of the mesh layers forming the
overlaps along the hull centreline, transom boundary, etc., are to be staggered
back to permit the reinforcement to be neatly formed and allow satisfactory
mortar penetration. Butts in the mesh reinforcement should be correctly
arranged and suitably staggered.
The welding of rods and bars is to be carried out by a skilled
operator, care being taken to avoid the burning through of the reinforcement
on account of excessive heat generation.
Formwork
304. The structures are assumed to be normally built-up by the application
of mortar to one side of the reinforcement and trowelled to a finish on the
other, however, production using formwork can be employed provided void-free
material can be achieved.
Where formwork is used, it should be dimensionally accurate and
have adequate stability and strength to resist the weight of the pour. The
panelling should be well fitting and free from joints and cracks liable to
leak. Free water and debris are to be r e m o v e ~ before a pour commences. The
forms may be hosed down prior to pouring to remove any settled dust.
Concrete
305. The various practices for the mixing, handling, compaction and
curing of the concrete should be consistent and closely supervised to ensure
high quality material. The practices should comply with paragraphs 306 - 308
and the builder should be guided by established Codes of Practice, such as
CP 114 (1957) of the B.S.I.
Handling
306. The mortar should normally be placed within 1-1/2 hours of adding
the mixing water, and with continual agitation during the waiting period.
During handling and placing of the mortar, care is to be taken to avoid
segregation of the mix and if this is seen to be occurring, remedial steps
are to be taken.
If the mortar is transported in barrows or skips, these are
to be clean and smooth inside and free from leaks.
Compaction
307. ' The material must be thoroughly compacted during placing to ensure
the absence of voids around reinforcements and in the corners of any forms.
Formless ferro-cement shells are to be compacted by applying the mortar from
o ~ e side of the reinforcement only and then hand trowelling the opposite side.
V1brators and hand rodding are to be used in the thicker sections between
forms.
- 5 -
Although the m1n1mum amount of mortar coverage over the
reinforcement is desirable, this amount is not to be less than
that consistent with the satisfactory protection for the steel.
Curing
308. The various structures are to be properly cured and the
set concrete is to be kept wet for a period which will depend on the
type of cement being used and the ambient conditions. The method
of cur:i.ng should normally be by water spray but other methods which
prevent evaporation of the residual water will be considered.
Where formwork has been used, it should be kept in position
for as long as practicable. Due regaFd is to be paid to the ambient
conditions, the type of concrete and the position of the structure
before the formwork is stripped.
Items not particularly Specified
309. If the decks, deckhouse, superstructure, bulkheads etc.,
are of materials other than ferro-cement, the construction is to
be in accordance with the Society's Rules applicable to the particular
material being used.
Where special reference is not made ~ e r e i n to specific
requirements, the construction is to be efficient for the intended
service and is to conform to good practice.
Part 4 - TESTING
General Requirements
401. The following tests, or equivalent tests as agreed by the
Surveyor, are to be carried out on sample panels, the mortar mix and the
placed concrete structure. Other tests may be required as necessary at
the discretion of the Surveyor.
Sample Representative Panels
402. Sample panels laid up from the same materials and mix, and
reinforced with the same number of layers of wire mesh as are proposed
for the hull, are to be prepared and tested to determine the typical
mechanical properties of the ferro-cel'lent. The tests are to be carried
out by a recognized laboratory and the results submitted to the Society,
however, in certain circumstances, test results by the builder may be
considered.
The flexural and the impact strengths are to be. determined
on reinforced panels, but the tensile and the compressive strengths
may be otained from the un-reinforced material.
Slump Testing of the Concrete Mixes
403. A selection of mixes are to be tested in the standard slump
- 6 -
cone for workability and water content and are to show a minimum slump
consistent with reasonable workability.
Compression Testing of Concrete Samples
404. A suitable number of standard test cubes or cylinders are
to be taken during the course of application of the concrete as
representative of the material being used in the construction. The
samples are to be selected and filled in the presence of the Surveyor
and are to be suitably indentified.
The samples are to be cured under standard conditions (such
as given in B.S. 1881) and the compressive strength determined
after 7 days and 28 days' cure. The tests are to be witnessed by the
Surveyor, or if done by a testing laboratory, the certified results
are to be submitted to the Surveyor.
Watertightness of the Structure
405. The hull and other surfaces which are intended to be watertight,
are to be closely inspected for surface faults after completion of trowelling,
or when formwork is first stripped when applicable. A smooth, sound
appearing surface will normally be presumed watertight until tested by hose,
by filling or afloat. Spot checking by air testing may require to be
done at the discretion of the Surveyor.
Papers and Discussions on Ferro-Cement
from the
Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials
Montreal, 1968
I . New Thinking on the Use of Materials in
the Construction of Fishing Vessels -
Traung & Gulbrandsen
I I. Ferro-Cement Boat Construction -
Samson
III. Ferro-Cement Boats -
Hagenbach
IV. Comments - Muh1ert
V. Estimated Hull Work and Material Content
for 100 Ft. Combination Fishing Vessel
in Different Materials - Fraser
Reprinted from: Proceedings o/the Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials, Montreal, Canada,
October r - 3, 1968.
New Thinking on the Use of Materials
Mr. Traung
in the
Construction
of Fishing Vessels
by
Jan-Olof Traung
Assistant to the Director,
Fishery ResouJCes and Exploitation Division,
Department of Fisheries,
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome
and
(/)yvind Gulbrandsen
Naval Atchitect, Fishing Vessel Section,
Mr. Gulbrandsen
Fishing Vessels and Engineering Branch, I
Fishery ResouJCes and Exploitation Division,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Mr. Traung was born in 1919 in Goteborg, Sweden, and started his career as a naval architect in
1940 in a boatyard at Sverre. During his time at Sverre, until he joined FAO, he designed and supervised
the construction of some 60 fishing vessels for Sweden, Iceland, France and Colombia, as well as
hundreds of yachts and small working boats.
In 1947 he organized and acted as Secretary for the Nordic Countries Fishing Boat Congress in
Goteborg, Sweden, and in 1948 received a fellowship to study fishing vessels and fishing methods in the
U.S.A. From 1948 to 1950 Mr. Traung acted as Consultant Naval Architect to the Royal Swedish Board
of Fisheries in connection with research vessels. He joined the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations in Rome in 1950.
During his time with FAO, he has supervised technical assistance projects in the boat, harbour and
fisheries engineering fields in Chile, Dahomey, India, Iraq, Pakistan, Senegal, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia,
Turkey, UAR and the West Indies. He is the author of many papers on fishing vessels and fishing
methods.
He organized and was Secretary of the 1953 FAO 1nternational Fishing Boat Congress in Paris and
Miami, the FAO Second World Fishing Boat Congress in 1959 in Rome and the Third FAO Technical
Meeting on Fishing Boats in Goteborg in 1965, and edited the proceedings "Fishing Boats of the World"
( 1955), "Fishing Boats of the World: 2" (1960) and "Fishing Boats of the World: 3" (1967).
6
CONfERENCE ON fiSHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Mr. Gulbrandsen graduated from the Technical University of Norway, Trondheim, as q Naval
Architect and Marine Engineer in 1961. He spent two months working as a fisherman on board a purse
seiner off the coast of Norway during the herring season in February-March 1962. From April of that
year he worked under the Norwegian Naval Architect, Jan Herman Linge, on designs of small power
boats, sail boats, and fast marine craft ill wood and fibreglass.
In October 1962 the Norwegian Agency for International Development initiated an associate
expert scheme similar to the ones operated by several other European countries. Mr. Gulbrandsen applied
and was accepted as one of the first five Norwegian associate experts to be sent out. He started working
for FAO on September 15, 1963.
Mr. Gulbralldsen worked for four years and two months as an associate expert under the trust
fund arrangement set up between NORAD and FAO until his contract expired on November 15, 1967.
From that date he has been employed by FAO and is at present working at its headquarters in Rome.
Jall-()fo/ Trilling ami fjJ)'JIilld Gulhralldsen
ABSTRACT
The cost of material plays a rather minor role in the
total cost of flShing enterprises, and very large differences
in hull costs are necessary to show up as profit. The wise
selection of constmction methods might make possible the
choice between more space, more carrying capacity, lower
construction cost, higher speed or less fuel consumption.
Some materials have specific qualities, e.g., wood and steel
pennit a greater amount of versatility. As yet little is
known abou t strength requirements for fishing vessels and
about the optimum distribution of materials.
The general conclusion is that the choice of material is
not so important in the economy as a reduction in the
number of crew or the selection of a material which
increases the efficiency of acoustic fish-detection instru-
ments. Perhaps the ideal fishing vessel will not be construct-
ed of a single material, but a combination of materials
suitable for variolls places in the hull. Much should also be
expected in the future from new materials, such as rubber.
INTRODUCTION
The success of fishing operations is becoming increasing-
ly dependent upon the quick detection, catching and
keeping of fish. Indeed, one important trend in the design
of modem fishing vessels is to improve facilities for the
location and detection of fish. At the same time larger and
heavier nets are being developed for more effective catch-
ing. These nets in tum require more sophisticated winches
and other handling arrangements to save labour and to
make work easier. In fact, so much has been happening in
the fields of fishing methods and gear lately that any astute
investor in new fishing craft will be most careful to have the
craft designed so that it can easily be adapted for new
developments in methods of catching. Further, since the
costs of labour are rising more quickly than fish prices,
difficulties are encountered in attracting clever and intel-
ligent men of the type so necessary for the efficient
conduct of fishing operations. More attention to crew
comfort is therefore necessary - in particular, appoint-
ments of crew quarters, seakindly motions of the ship,
protection against weather, and the hazards of deck
machinery. With the increasing complications of modern
fishing vessles, the whole unit has to be made more reliable
since the breakdown of only one small component due to a
fault in design or materials could lead to a loss rather than a
profit over the whole operation.
7
The traditional way to look upon materials for fishing
vessels is frrst expenditure for material, labour cost,
depreciation time and maintenance costs, thus arriving at a
quasi-economic efficiency of hull cost per value fish landed.
Most people recognize, in addition, that the various
materials have specific advantages for certain sizes of vessel.
Often it is suggested that a diagram be developed, like Fig.
1, from which one could easily select the most advantage-
ous material for a given size - and, for example, for a given
locality. The diagram given is only a hypothetical one -
and both the slope of the curves and their magnitude arc
selected at random. It is difficult in itself to develop a tme
diagram since it would require many studies for various
. sizes of fishing vessels like the one for lOO-ft vessels which
it is anticipated that Fraser will present to this Conference.
However, the point is that this traditional way to look upon
materials would not produce the most efficient
vessel for harvesting fish from the waters.
The new thinking necessary is to consider the fishing
craft much more as a complicated machine comprising
many integrated components of very specialized functions,
requiring careful tuning in order to work with maximum
efficiency and effectiveness.
Quite apart from the instmmentation aspect, considera-
tion must be given to the constmction of the vessel itself. A
hull material transmitting so much noise that it is scaring
fish away or is limiting the range of acoustic fish-detection
instruments is certainly not economical, however low its
initial cost - or upkeep - happens to be.
CONSTRUCTION OF FISHING VESSELS
Size distribution
In 1965 Canada caught some 1.2 million tons of fish.
This quantity of fish was landed by about 40,000 boats
ranging in length from 25 to 160-ft. and representing a total
value of around $100 million. Most of these vessels were
small (Fig. 2, prepared from Proskie's [1965] data) . The
"value distribution" (Le., the number of boats multiplied
- by the mean value of each boat) has its peak somewhat
toward5 the bigger boats, but perhaps not as much as could
be expected. The most important size range, as regards
investn;ents in fishing vessels, is still from 20 to 60-ft. The
same pattern of fishing boat size and value distribution
would probably be found if investigated on a world-wide
scale . Although there has been a tremendous development
8
during the last tcn years towards bigger and more sophisti-
ca ted fish ing vessles, those below 60-ft. are still the most
important producers of fish.
Bllilding costs
The approximate cost of longliners and small trawlers
built of wood in Canada is shown in Fig. 3 (Proskie, 1965).
Whcn comparing building costs in other countries (Hamlin,
1967), as in Fig. 4, it seems that Canadian-built wooden
vessels compete favourably with steel vessels built else-
where. This is in contrast to the relatively high costs for
larger steel vessels built in Canada. Fig. 5 (prepared from
Proskie's [1966] data) shows percentage distribution of
average capital investment in fishing boats from the Nova
Scotia area, and a similar distribution is found in other
provinces. As the size of vessel increases, so does the
importance of hull cost, which varies between 45 per cent
for the smallest to 77 per cent for the largest. As an average
it can be said that 60 per cent of the total vessel cost can be
attributed to the hull. Well worth noting, however, is that
the hull cost is low when there is a choice of building
materials, but high when steel is the only possible material.
If by various means one could reduce the cost of hull
construction by 50 per cent - a rather drastic amount and
hardly possible - it would represent a saving of 30 per cent
in the total cost of the fully equipped vessel. What is the
inlportance of such a saving? How would it influence the
early expenditure of the fishing vessel? Proskie (1967) has
given the average distribution of total expenditure of no
less than 102 vessels and this is shown in a graphical form in
Fig. 6. The parts influenced by cost of construction are the
fIxed charges (assuming that the hull maintenance will be
unchanged). A 30 per cent reduction in cost of construc-
tion will correspond to about the same reduction in fixed
charges. Since the fixed charges are approxima tely 18 per
cent of the total yearly expenditure, cutting the cost of hull
construction in half would, therefore, result in a 6 per cent
reduction in total yearly expenditure. While a reduction of
this amount in a profitable fishing operation means
comparatively little, it makes a lot of difference in a
marginal case. If the profit is 3 per cent, a 6 per cent
reduction in expenditure means a three fold increase in
profit. A 6 per cent reduction in yearly expenditure cannot
therefore be neglected but it requires that there must be a
rather drastic reduction in the hull cost before it appreci-
ably influences the total yearly expenditure. Although an
effort to decrease building costs is still worthwhile, it is
evident that a variation of the order of 10 per cent in the
CONrERENCE ON FISIIING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
cost of hull material wiII have only a very low effect on the
yearly running costs.
Volume or weigIJt?
Fig. 7 shows panels of a 55-ft. fishing vessel built of
various materials, and the corresponding weight per square
foot. The reduction in wood volume between the sawn
frame and the laminated frame is considerable and the low
material volume of the bent frame version is also remark-
able.
All fishing vessels have some kind of inner lining in the
'fish.holds, which is placed inside the frames to make a
surface which can be c1eaned easily. In metal craft some
kind of insulation must also be provided, otherwise the heat
transfer from the sea w.ould be too great. Larger wooden
vessels have a ceiling running along the entire length.
Therefore, in comparing the space required by various types
of construction, one has to add to the thickness of the
planking or plating and the height of the frames, the
thickness of the lining or ceiling and the possible insulation.
On the matter of insulation, materials like wood have
advantages over metal. The total wall thickness of various
constructions do, in fact, influence to an appreciable extent
the hold capacity, and often a construction with bent
frames turns out to be far more space-saving than one with
laminated frames, even if bilge stringers are required,
because they can be built into the lining (ceiling).
While the height of frames influences the space available
in holds for fish and the determination of how far aft or
forward machinery can be placed, the cost of frames is
certainly only a very small part of the cost of the fishing
unit. Therefore, the frequent proposals to mass-produce
frames for fishing vessels in a central place and ship them to
local builders have very little chance of leading to greater
economy. In cases where the volume of the fishhold is a
limiting factor, space-saving should be considered. A vol-
ume-saving construction means a smaller boat and, there-
fore, less investment for the same capacity. The gain can be
measured in lower fixed charges but, once again, the
economic outcome does not show any remarkable varia-
- tions without drastic changes in the volume.
The same argument applies to weight in cases where
weight is the limiting factor,. but economy can be obtained
in other ways. A glance at the weight figures in Fig. 7 shows
that fibreglass gives very low hull weight. (Aluminium
would give an even lower figure but since very few fishing
Jall-Olo[ Trallllg and (/)YIJilld Glllbrandscll
boats of this size arc built of alull1iJiium, it has been left out
of this comparison) . A fibreglass hull can be about half the
weight of a steel or ferro-wncrete hull. Since the weight of
machinery and equipment remains the same, the total
weight saving is in the range of 30 per cent. Such a saving in
the case of a 55-ft steel fishing boat of 47 tons di splace-
ment would, with the same engine, result in an increase in
speed of about 4 per cent (Fig. 8). If speed were kept
constant, the corresponding savings in fuel consumption
would be about 30 per cent, as shown in Fig. 9.
If the catching capacity is assumed to be directly
proportionate to the fishing time, Le., total length of the
trip less the steaming time, the increase in catch due to
higher speed as a function of the ratio between steaming
and trip length varies according to the curves in Fig. 10. A
similar curve can also be drawn in the case where the speed
is kept constant and a smaller engine is installed, thus
showing the savings in fuel costs. It is believed, although
without verifying data, that it is more favourable to have
increased speed than a low fuel consumption in cases when
the steaming time is long compared with fishing time, since
the ratio fuel cost to total cost is relatively stable. The main
point thus is that reduction in weight can either be utilized
for higher speed or for lower engine power, but the choice
depends on the type of fishery.
USE OF MATERIALS
Which material?
The basic constructional materials are limited to fishing
vessels of certain lengths (Fig. II). No single material can
be said to offer distinct advantages over the others. Each
material has its advantages and disadvantages and it would
be a waste of time to become involved in heated discussions
about what is the only or most economic boatbuilding
material. More important is a summary of the recent
development that has taken place in each of the five main
boatbuilding materials and an investigation of the possibili-
ties for an even more rapid development in the future . It is
necessary to know all the fundamental characteristics of
these materials and how they most economically can be
shaped into a boat hull. Since most fisheries are changing
constantly, fishing vessels are continually being modified
and rebuilt. Winches are replaced by more modern types,
net drums and cleats are added, bollards and blocks are
shifted about on the deck to make fishing operations as
9
practical and less back-breaking as possible. Certain materi-
al s are more suitable than others for changes which
generally take place on deck. Wood has the advantage of
being easily screwed and nailed into and, with the ease of
welding, steel also is an easy material to deal with for
modifications and changes. Similar changes are far more
difficult to achieve with materials such as fibreglass
reinforced plastic anti ferro-concrete.
In Europe few fishing boats above 80-ft. are built of
wood, and the fact that in Canada wooden boats up to
120-f1. compete very favourably with steel shows that it is
necessary to be very careful when generalizing on a
,world-wide scale on the preference of one material to
another. The cost of material and labour differs so much
from one country to a'nother that no grounds for a general
conclusion exist .
In wooden boat construction the manufacturing tech-
niques of lamination should be studied in order to cut
down present high labour costs. Possibly labour savings
could be made by using newly developed types of 'marine
glue which give good quality laminations without too strict
requirements as to pressure and temperature. Parallel with
tltis analysis of strength requirements, there must be an
analysis o( the labour required to put a wooden boat
together. Complicated and technically sophisticated struc-
tures often require too much skilled labour. The additional
investment in yard machinery might be offset by reduction
in labour costs.
The introduction of new fibreglass reinforced plastic
(FRP) has been the greatest breakthrough in small plea-
sure-boat construction since the war. Its popularity can be
noticed at the annual boat shows in such centres as
London, Paris and New York, where FRP boats increasingly
outnumber boats made of wood and aluminium. FRP will
certainly be used more and more for fishing boats below
40-ft. which can be standardized and produced in very great
numbers, but it is still not clear to what extent it will be
used for bigger boats.
In the 40 to 70-ft. range FRP wiII probably meet hard
competition from ferro-concrete, another newcomer in the
boatbuilding field. Use of ferro-concrete can result in , a
major reduction in building costs and the material. has
already proved itself in strength and longevity, so the road
seems open for a basic change in fishing boat construction.
Here again there is a great lack of research on the best use
of this material. Fyson (1968) and many others have given
descriptions of basic manufacturing me thods.
10
What strength?
Although the task is difficult, it is necessary to establish
how much strength is really required in a fishing boat.
Boats obviously have to be strong enough but the question
is - how strong? The surveys made by Gnanadoss (1960)
and Pedersen (1967) show that there are discrepancies
between the regulations of different Classification Societies
as to how strong wooden boats have to be. These
regulations are the result of age-old practices and do not
rest on a scientific basis. The same can be said for many of
the regulations for steel fishing vessels.
There are some encouraging signs that successful re-
search is being undertaken towards a rational assessment of
the strength of wooden boats. The Technical University of
Norway, in co-operation with Det norske Veritas, has, by
means of a computer, calculated the stresses in a 55-ft.
wooden boat and also made practical full-scale tests of
construction details (Fredriksen, Moe, 1967; Fredriksen,
Pedersen, Moe, 1967). Considerable saving in materials has
been achieved while maintaining the same strength.
For a fishing vessel of length under 1 OO-ft., travelling on
a sea influenced by wave action, the longitudinal bending
moments are negligible. What has to be detennined under
these conditions is the pressure on the shell in various
places along the hull and the stresses set up. Very few
actual stress measurements on fishing boats have been
made, and here is a field which should attract much
attention in the future. With knowledge of the stresses,
material can be distributed in the most efficient way. More
tests will be required to obtain data regarding various types
of fastenings and how the shear stresses between the planks
can best be managed. In this respect the traditional caulking
method for wooden boats is far from satisfactory, and new
methods have to be evolved in order to give maximum
contact between the planks while retaining the ease to
change planks needing repair. What is known of the influ-
ence of vibration from those large oversized engines used in
fishing vessels on ferro-concrete and FRP structures?
NEW THINKING
Rational [actors
In previous sections it was noted that the various
measures for improving the construction or design by
choice of building material have only a small effect on the
economy of the fishing operation. Fig. 6 gives the relative
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
importance of the different cost items. It appears that a
much more marked change in the magnitude of expenditure
can be achieved by the reduction in the number of the crew
rather than by a change in the cost of the material.
Considerable work is being done by makers of fishing
winches and designers of fishing vessels to reduce the
number of crew by increasing automation. The powered
blocks and synthetic twines, combined with acoustic
fish-detection instruments, have certainly revived purse
seining which, not many years ago, was dying out as a
fishing method due to its high crew costs. The introduction
of pre-cooked food, as on aircraft, caused laughter during
the 1966 Montreal Fishing Vessel Conference but could
.easily make more difference to the total expenditure than
any possible changes in materials. Also such a thing as
improving the hull fonn towards less resistance, giving
higher speed or lower fuel costs, might be more profitable
than a practically possible reduction of construction cost.
TItis, of course, does not mean that one should neglect the
possible reductions in fixed charges but merely emphasizes
that these are only a part of the total cost. One should also
remember that the aim is to produce economical boats and
that different materials and construction methods are the
means to achieve this. A true picture of the influence of
materials and methods can be obtained only if it is 'studied
in a complete cost model.
The qualities of different materials and ways of utiliza-
tion can be expressed in costs, volumes and weights.
Together with known factors such as relations between
speed and power, distance to fishing grounds and assumed
catch rates, a complete cost analysis will give the most
favourable combination. The results will vary with country,
area and type of fishery and in one case one might get a
light and expensive vessel and, in another, a cheap and
heavy one, and the speed could be either low or high.
Studies of this kind, of which so far there have been too
few, will put the fishennan in a better position to select the
right material for his boat. It would also clean the market
of quasi-economic and misleading cost calculattons now
provided by manufacturers of materials and boats, who
always claim that their own product is universally superior
to all others.
Irrational [actors
Unfortunately, the choice of material can seldom be
made on the bases of entirely rational or fairly well-known
factors. TlIere are many aspects that require good predic-
tions and guesses to get good economic operations. Such a
fan-Olof Traung and f/Jyvind Gulbrandsen
factor is the versatility mentioned above, while another
problem, steadily increasing in importance, is that of the
production of noise. It has lately been established that
noise does scare away certain fish by causing them to dive
and escape the fishing gear. It has also been established that
noise reduces the range of acoustic fish-detection instru-
nents, such as asdic. It has been stated that comparatively
small reductions in noise level might double the range of
such instruments.
What creates noise? Certain propellers (particularly
controllable pitch ones when not working at designed
pitch) are great generators of noise but it should be possible
to choose blade profiles of propellers which create less
noise than others. TIle uneven wake field behind a ship
creates unsteady propeller forces which are also sources of
noise, especially if propeller and rudder shaft bearings do
not have the correct tolerances. A small propeller, perhaps
driven by the trawl winch motor, placed on top of the main
propeller shaft and in front of the main propeller, helps to
equalize the wake field - and will decrease noise and
vibrations at the same time as it increases propulsion
efficiency (Munk, Prohaska, 1968). A further important
source of noise is reciprocating machinery, especially if
unbalanced and directly bolted to the hull. The way to
minimize machinery noise is to isolate the engine from the
hull shell by installing it on flexible mountings. While much
airborne noise can be absorbed and damped by felt-type
materials or perforated plates, the transmission of noise to
water can really only be stopped by such dense materials as
lead plates or stone. Recently a Canadian journal reported
that the machinery of a small fishing boat was isolated by
lead plates and the machinery noise then became very
"comfortable" for the crew. In future the same type of
isolation of engine noise might have to be used in order to
protect the fish and the fish-detection instruments rather
than tlle fishermen from the noise. Here also heavy
materials, such as ferro-concrete, might play an important
role.
Further causes of noise might be hull generated and
while it is likely that a hull with comparatively little wave
resistance may have less noise than one having much, this
has by no means been established. Strictly, hull generated
noise has little to do with the choice of materials - but
designs involving materials like wood and steel often result
in unfaired stems and keels which create turbulence.
Similarly scoops for water inlets and transducers for echo
sounders increase the noise level.
11
Unfortunately, in spite of the research which has been
done by the navies in various countries, the results are
considered so secret that very little has been published
about underwater noise. This is somewhat surprising be-
cause there does exist quite considerable interchange of
technical information in the hydrodynamics field between
navies of the world and between navies and the merchant
marine. However, this is not so when it comes to the
problem of noise and the possibilities of increasing fish
production might be enhanced if such available information
could be released.
Future
Any country striving to increase its fish production
needs inexpensive and'longlasting fishing craft which can be
built locally by unskilled people and modified easily for
future needs. In many countries the fish industry is
experiencing heavy depression, due partly to unduly high
labour costs and partly to high investment in their craft.
Millions of dollars are spent on developing new materials
such as petrochemicals (plastics), while the research on
traditional materials, such as wood, for fishing craft is
comparatively non-existent. However, research resulting in
new paint-$ystems might do much to revive the importance
of wood for fishing craft.
Ferro-concrete seems to offer great advantages in cutti
down costs, and it seems a matter of the utmost urgency to
clarify all its technical problems so that it can be
introduced on a large scale. It should not be necessary' to
wait another 20 years for a complete answer concerning the
longevity because Nervi's first boat is still intact after 24
years. A research program involving accelerated testing of
new materials for fishing craft construction, similar to the
testing made with new aircraft, when the whole lifespan of
the aircraft can be compressed into a short period of time,
is still called for.
Some years ago a firm on the U.S. West Coast was
building boats with the midship section of steel, and
wooden ends. While perhaps not so successful in its frrst
attempt, it revealed' a considerable amount of logical
_ thinking in order to use material to its best advantage in
various places in the hulL In the future one must decide
whether it is really necessary to make a fishing vessel hull of
one material only. Certainly many materials which nobody
has thought of to-day will, be used for fishing craft in the
future. Couldn't small fishing boats be built like Greenland
kayaks of some kind of wooden framing with nylon cloth
12
sheeting (instead of sldn), and why should not rubber be
used more? The sllccess during the last ten years of
Zodiaktype rubber rafts certainly proves that with rubber
one can create a sturdy, reliable, seakindly and fast craft.
For mother ships, one could probably well consider the use
of inflatable catcher craft.
In order to stimulate discussion, why not consider a
fishing vessel with a wooden bow for ease of construction,
lead plating under the machinery and lead engine bulkheads
This paper reflects the authors' views and not necessarily those of
FAO.
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
to suppress engine noise, steel plating in the midship
section for ease of construction and in the stem for best
water flow to the propeller, aluminium top sides for
stability, steel deck for ease of welding, and aluminium for
the superstructure again to ensure stability? The new
thinking could extend to equipment also. Various types of
rubber containers could be used for holding water, fuel and
catches. Perhaps even inflatable fishholds could be con-
structed; they could be shipped or towed home as soon as
full - and new ones created by inflation!
Jan-Olof Trallng and f/Jyvind Gulbrandsen
Fredriksen, K.E.
1967
Fredriksen, K.E.
1967
Fyson, J.
1968
REFERENCES
and J. Moe StyrkeunderS<j>kelser av Trefartcpyer
Del I. Trondheim, Norges Tekniske Hcpgskole.
G. Pedersen and J. Moe. Strength of Wooden
Ships Part II. Trondheim, Norges Tekniske
Hq,gskole.
Ferro-cement Construction for Fishing Vessels.
Fishg News illt. 7(4)(5)(6).
Gnanadoss, D.A.S. Comparison of Wooden Scantlings Regulations.
1960 Fishing Boats of the World: 2. London, Fishing
News (Books) Ltd.
Hamlin, C.
1967
Fishing Vessel Construction Costs and the U.S.
Fishing Vessel Construction Differential Sub-
sidy. Kennebunk, Maine, Ocean Research Cor-
poration.
Munk, T.
1968
Pedersen, G.
1967
Proskie, J.
1965
Proskie, J.
1966
j>roski e, J.
1967
Ridgely-Nevitt, C.
1967
13
and C.W. Prohaska. Unusual Two-propeller Ar-
rangements. 7th Symposium on Naval Hydro-
dynamics, Rome.
Wood for Fishing Vessels. Fishing Boats of the
World: 3. London, Fishing News (Books) Ltd.
Economic Aspects of Small-Boat Fishing. Con-
ference on the Design, Construction and Opera-
tion of Small Fishing Vessels. St. John's,
Newfoundland, College of Fisheries, Navigation,
Marine Engineering and Electronics.
Some Economic Considerations Relating to
Canadian Atlantic Offshore Fishing Vessels.
Proceedings Canadian Atlantic Offshore Fishing
Vessel Conference. Ottawa, Department of
Fisheries of Canada.
Costs and Earnings of Selected Fishing Enter-
prises Atlantic Provinces 1964. Ottawa, Depart-
ment .of Fisheries of Canada.
The Resistance of a High Displacement-Length
Ratio Trawler Series. New York, Trans. SNAME
Vol. 75".
14
4
/
... ____ 3
--h
""" .... .---..... . ........... ... .. ___ _ _______ 2
'. ---::;::0-......... ------ -
- - . ~ : . : . .
Figure I - If one makes 5 or 6 designs of fishing vessels of
various sizes and calculates the cost of hulls built out
of various materials, such as wood, steel, fibreglass
reinforced plastic and ferro-concrete, and calculates
the factor of the hull cost (depreciation cost + main-
tenance + interest) per value of fish landed, one
might get a number of curves with quite different
characteristics, some of them showing specific mini-
mum costs. It would seem simple from such a diagram
to select the most economical material for a given
size but unfortunately this type of calculation would
not take into account the tishing effectiveness, versa-
tility, reliability and crew comfort of the individual
materials.
CONFERENCE ON fiSHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
t
I
o
j
.
z
NUMBER OF VESSELS
TOTAL VALUE OF VESSELS
o
Loa jft It -.....
Figure 2. - Approximate distribution of number and value of
fishing vessels in Canada (Proskie, 1965)_
Jan-Olof alld $Yl'ind Gulbrandsen
en
'-

(5
"U
....
0
en
"U
c
0
11/
';:)
0

c
-
en
0
U

110

90
80
70
60
50
40
30

10

30 40 50
Loo in ft
Figure 3. Building costs in Canada (proskie, 1965).
60 10
15
16
lit
...
.!!
'0
"0
15
..
"0
c:
0
lOt
::)
2
-
.!:
-
..
0
U
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

900

700
STEEL SIDE
TRAWLERS
CANADA
600
STEEL STERN
TRAWLERS
STEEL VESSELS
CANADA
US

400
GERMANY
NORWAY
UK
HOLLAND
300
WOODEN SIDE
TRAWLERS
CANADA
200
100

70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Loa in ft.----.
Figure 4. Building costs in Canada according to Proskie (1965) compared with building costs in U.S.A.
and elsewhere (Hamlin. 1967).
DANISH STERN SCALLOP WOODEN STEEL
VESSEL
SEINERS DRAGGERS DRAGGERS TRAWLERS TRAWLERS
AVERAGE LOA 60 57 96 115 120
AVERAGE COST $ 31.348 57.604 166.179 300.868 547. 209
Per cent
1v"v'Vr- ENGINE
80-+-----1
I- HULL
40-1-----1
30-+-----1
.
20-+-----1
10-1-----1
O ~ ___ __ ______ ______ __ L_ ___ - - - & - - - - - - A - - ~
Figure S. Distribution of average capital investment in fishing vessels of Nova Scotia (proskie, 1966).
The figure indicates that the proportion of the hun cost is larger for larger vessels and thus, for
larger vessels when steel is the only possible material, there are slight possibilities of getting
large changes in total expenditure due to material selection.
17
18 CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Per cent
100
HULL
ENGINE
MAINTENANCE
90
EQUIPMENT AND
REPAIR
GEAR
80
FUEL
70
OTHER
OPERATING
ICE
EXPENSES
PROVISIONS
60
WHARFAGE MISC.
INSURANCE
50
TAXES INTEREST.
FIXED
CHARGES
DEPRECIATION
40
~ o
20
CREW SHARE
10
O ~ - - - - ~ - - - - - - L - - - - - - - - - ______ _
Figure 6. Average distribution of total expenditwe of 102 vessels, Atlantic Coast, -Canada (Proskie,
1967). The figure indicates that compared with the cost for the hull and fixed charges relating
to the hull cost, the crew share is considerable and that a reduction of one man of the crew
might mean considerably more than a large difference in hull cost.
Ja1l-Olo/ Troung and f/Jyvind Gulbrandsen
TRADITIONAL
DNV
Rules 1957
LAMINATED
Proposed D N V
Fir
Fir
31/8" X 5 I/Z"

. 21/4"x4"
BENT FRAME I Nr'
U.S. WEST COAST
(Bilge stringer
essential) " _ I
Fir '"
STEEL
U.S. WEST COAST
FRP
LLOYD'S
[
IE
c:
15"

3"x 2"x 1/4"
i

FERROCONCRETE
{!'ZZXZZZZZZZ2/ZXz
WEIGHT
14,5
1b
/ft
2
8 l%t
2
12.5 1 bitt 2
Figure 7. Shell panel proposals for a 55-ft fishing vessel built of various materials. When studying these
sketches one should rem em ber that a lining is necessary in the fishhold for all vessels, that larger
wooden vessels have to have a ceiling and that steel vessels 1nave to be insulated in the fishhold.
Thus the insulating properties of wood have a certain advantage over metal construction.
19
20
,
10
' ...... " ... ,,
~
, ... , ...
:--... ... ,
:--...::-..... ' ...
"
.....
~ ~
~
' ...
......
..................
<D.
.........
A , t.".
_______ Til .....
_ . _ a "not.
___ ellftO"
Figure 8. - The necessary power to drive a 55-ft. vessel
with various displacements was calculated and this
diagram was plotted, using the displacement of 47
tons as a basis. If the displacement is reduced by,
say, 30 percent, the speed will increase by about 4
per cent in the 8 to 9 knots range, and if the
displacement is increased by 25 per cent, the speed
loss will be about 3.5 per cent. This diagram then
shows that large differences in displacement mean
comparatively small differences in speed. The dia-
gram was calculated from Ridgely-Nevitt (1967).
+ 20'1\.
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
910
J j'O
I 0
1 '0
i<D1O
So
J
h-
L ~ ~
~
, ~ ~
L
~ '
, ~ /
~
~ /
" ..
-':.?..-"
o :::r_'/'"
00
eo
.50\1, .... '1\. 0.47 tOM
_______ 7 kIlO"
__ eknot. ___ 1 knot.
Figure 9. - If the displacement of the 55-ft vessel in Fig. 8
were modified and the speed kept constant one
would obtain larger or smaller fuel consumption.
Thus, if the displacement were decreased by 30 per
cent, the change in .fuel consumption would amount
to about the same value. Similarly, it would increase
by 25 per cent if the displacement were increased by
this amount.
Jan-O/o! Troung and (/JYJlilld Gu/brandsell
21
'"
:J
C
'" >
'"
'-
.=
CII
II>
o
:!
u
.5
CII
00
o
C
CII
~
CII
Cl.
25
20
1<:1-- sptl! incIVos,d by 5 ~
15
10
5
o 10 20 30 40 50 70 eo
Percentage steaming of the entire fishing trip
Figure 10. - The preceding Figs. 8 and 9 show that one could choose between a comparatively small increase in speed
or a large decrease in fuel consumption, if one is changing the displacement. For cases where the steaming time
is comparatively long, a reduction in steaming time might mean that the fishing vessel can spend more time on
the fishing grounds and thus a small speed increase might mean comparatively large increase in revenue.
22 CONFERENCE ON FISHING Y ESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
WOOD
........ ------.... ------.... --.... ----.... ----.... ----.............. ..
STEEL
........ ____ .. __ a. ______ .... __ .............. ______ .... __________ .... ____ .... ..
ALUMINIUM
-----------------------------
FRP
-------.. _------------------------
FERROCONCRETE
o
Boot lenath ___ ft .
Figure 11. - Approximate sizes when some typical boat building materials are used to advantage.
Reprinted from: Proceedings of the Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials, Montreal, Canada,
October 1 - 3, 1968.
Ferro-Cement Boat Construction
by
John Samson,
President, Samson Marine Design Enterprises Ltd.,
Vancouver, B.C.
Mr. Samson
Mr. Samson was born on the Canadian prairies in 1937 and joined the Royal Canadian Navy when he
was 17. He later spent six years overseas working in various boatyards around the Pacific. He started his
own boatyard in Richmond, British Columbia, in 1966. Mr. Samson has made several trans-Pacific crossings
in sail boats and power boats. Much of his boat yard work has been on the building, repair and mailltenance
of fishing boats.
ABSTRACT
In this paper Mr. Samson, a pioneer of ferro-cement
boat construction, discusses in detail the construction of a
ferro-cement hull through from lofting to completion of
plastering. He does not touch on the merits or dis-
advantages of this relatively new medium, but rather
confines himself to construction techniques.
He takes as an example the construction of a 44-foot
salmon troller designed in the S.M.D.E. office specifically
for ferro-cement.
Mr. Samson covers the recently developed building
technique which involves web frame construction, and
this is probably the technique which will be used in the
construction of fishing vessels up to the 100-foot mark.
The paper contains the latest information on bUilding
materials and mixtures, etc.
OUTLINE OF METHOD
Any description of ferro-cement boat construction
could run into lengthy chapters but the follOWing is a
concise outline of the method which will most probably be
adopted in the building of a fishing vessel.
We will refer to this method as the web framework
technique - a method which should be found to be most
suitable for medium to large size fisl>ing vessels. Other
techniques now being Widely used in the industry are the
pipe framework and cedar mold methods. Many im-
provements in ferro-cement building technique lie ahead
and this web framework method serves as an example of
this. The many refinements it presents would not have
been possible without the earlier efforts.
At the outset it must be made clear that the web
framework technique is for one-off construction. It was
evolved to bring about improvements in structural con-
struction techniques, and not to illustrate production
methods. And, while it does streamline construction, the
end product is the same, the building materials are the
s$l1l1e. The basics of wire mesh, reinforcing bar and mortar
have not been cast aside.
A 44-foot West Coast troller, recently designed by
Samson Marine Design Enterprises in Vancouver, will
serve as the demonstration vehicle in this discussion.
Construction of this vessel is taken through from the very
first stages.
The first consideration is the structure which will
support the hull throughout construction - and this can
268
also serve as the structure which will shelter the hull. Too
much emphasis cannot be placed on this structure and
l11ustration No. 111 details a suitable type of building in
which lofting can be carried out under good conditions.
It should also be pOinted out at this stage that in this
44-foot troller design the fish pens and bulkheads have all
been designed on stations for ease of construction (see
Illustration No. 1104).
After the lofting is complete 1/4-inch plywood pat-
terns are cut for the webs and bulkheads and on these are
carefully marked the waterlines, diagonals and buttocks.
This will aid in setting up the hull.
Two layers of 1/2-inch 22 gauge chicken wire are now
lightly stapled to one face of the plywood patterns. The
inside edges are neatly trimmed off with shears while the
outside edge is allowed to run wild for 6 inches. This
overlap will later join into the hull and to achieve this on
the curved areas darts must be cut at 6-inch intervals on
the overlap.
While the patterns are still lying on the workshop floor
one-inch by one-eighth-inch strap iron should be attached
to the neatly trimmed inside edges and to any edges
which will not later mate with mortar. These strap edges
will give a neat finish and can be attached in position
with nails..
The strap edges are applied where bulwark stanchions,
access cut-outs and fish pens occur together with all areas
of framing which are not joined with the hull. These form
screeds which give the plasterer a landing for his trowel.
A length of 1/4-inch cold-rolled reinforcing bar is now
spot welded into the corner formed by the strap edge and
the mesh-covered plywood pattern. A second length of
1/4-inch reinforcing bar is now stapled to the outside
edge of the mesh-covered pattern, giving a true outline of
the mold. Continuous lengths of re-bar are then filled in
on the pattern on approximately 2-inch centres with
shorts welded into areas which form the keel, bulwark
braces and engine bed braces.
Short lengths of the 1/4-inch reinforcing bar are cut in
readiness for positioning across these continuous lcngths
of rod. They are welded in place on 6-inch centres and
odd ones should be attached at 45-deg. anglcs for bracing.
CONFERENCE ON F1SIHNG VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
These shorts are allowed to protrude for about one foot
beyond the outside edge (see Drawing No. 106).
Two more layers of the 1/2-inch 22 gauge chicken wire
are now stapled on top of this re-bar framework with the
inside edge again trimmed off neatly with the shears. And
again, darts must be cut into the outside edge at 6-inch
centres, the outside again being allowed to overlap for 6
inches.
In the medium-sized fishing vessel, these' now pre-
formed webs would not be plastered at this stage. In the
larger vessel, however, it might be considered advisable to
. plaster at this point and provide stiffening for the vessel
during the remainder .of the construction. In this case, the
strap iron screeds would be replaced by three-quarter-inch
by one-inch wooden .screeds or whatever thickness of
bulkhead is designed into the vessel. These web patterns
would then 'be plastered right on the workshop floor.
Returning now, however, to our 44-foot troller we are
ready to commence the setting-up of the vessel. Using
waterline "A" as our guide, lengths of 2 x 12" lumber are
attached to the frame patterns, and these are hung in
position as' shown in II1ostration No. Ill.
The next step is to shore-up a length of channel iron
which will run along the straight length of the keel. This
serves a number of purposes and provides an ideal ground-
ing shoe. Sharp corners of mortar are inclined to chip and
the channel iron eliminates this danger. The bottom of
the keel has also proven a difficult area in which to
achieve perfect penetration. The channel, iron helps pro-
vide the finish and is further a good stiff member to assist
in the set-up and reduce movement throughout con-
struction. When shored-up in place this channel iron is
welded to the web frames to ensure against shifting
during construction (Diagram No. 108).
The channel iron is used along the straight length of
the keel and where the sweep of the bow commences a
length of one-inch cold rolled steel rod is substituted.
This is allowed to run wild beyond the sheer line and can
be secured overhead for further stiffening.
The shaft log is now set-up as shown in Illustration
No. 119 and when this is complete the stem assembly can
be set up.
After ensuring the hull is fair the task of welding in
place the longitudinal lengths of l/4-inch reinforcing rod
Johll SalllSOIl
can begin. It will be found s i l l l p l e ~ t to spot weld the
longitudinals first along the water lines and then fill in
with lengths on 2-inch centres. Quarter-inch re-bar ribs
C:.lI1 now be spot-welded into place vertically on 6-inch
centres. Extra rods should be pl:Jced in the stem area,
parallel to the stem and about one-inch apart for re-
inforcement.
Short rods arc bent around the inside of the stem and
welded in place as shown in Illustration No. 111.
The wire Illesh which was left protruding frum the web
frames '.""ill now of course have becn bent over to allow
placemclll of the longitudinais, two layers in each direc-
tion and the short rods protrud ing from these frames can
also now be bent at right angles and welded into place.
These should all be bent longitudinally, fore and aft
alternately.
It should perhaps also be pointed out at this stage that
as the deck is constructed in the same llJanner as the hull
the vertical rods fonning ribs in the hull should be lapped
in and welded to rods running athwartships on the deck.
The re-bar on the deck should follow the contour on
two-inch centres. All beds and joints should have a
minimum of a five-inch radius.
I-latch coamings, etc. should also be finished off at this
stage and edged with one-inch strap iron screeds.
While the over-all thickness of the hull and deck will
ideally va!)' little over three-quarters of an inch, the
one-inch screed is used to ensure that all stray ends of
mesh can be well buried in the mortar.
The engine beds are next framed up before the 2 x 12
lumber braces are removed. These lumber braces are
removed one at a time and transferred to an overhead
position, see Illustration No. 111. The hull is then braced
to these lengths of lumber by lengths of re-bar attached
to the deck.
The hull is now ready to receive the wire mesh - eight
layers of the 1/2-inch 22 gauge chicken wirc. Four layers
are attached to each side of the rods. Mesh obtained in
lengths 3' x 150' will be found the ea'.lest to work with.
Desired lengths can be doubled and suspended from the
sheer, ensuring that the joints are lapped. On the inside,
the wire mesh must lap over the mesh on the web frame.
269
The llIesh must be laced as tightly as possible, using tic
wires or hog ring fasteners.
When the mesh is tightly laced, the 1/4-inch wooden
plywood pattems can be freed from the staples and the
mesh secured on the webs. And, when the wire mesh is
tightly laced all over, 3/4-inch plywood wooden blanks
can be positioned for any through-hull fittings, deck
fittings, limber holes etc.
Now is the time to put braces under the bilges to
eliminate any danger of distortion when the wet mortar is
. applied. The hull framework can now be well hosed to
oxydize the mill-scale off the reinforcing bars.
Scaffolding must nQw be rigged in preparation for the
plastering.
The mix to be used on this hull is as follows:
200 Ibs. sand All sand must pass a No. 8 sieve with
10 per cent passing a No. 100 sieve.
There must be an even grading curve
of the inbetween sizes, see Illustration
No. 451. The sand should be sharp and
ingenious in origin ..
87 1/2 lbs. Type 5 Portland Cement. Sulphate resistant.
15 Ibs. Pozzolan or fly ash.
4 1/2 imperial gallons of water or sufficient to allow
penetration.
The first part of the hull to be plastered is the keel, using
a vibrator to ensure penetration. TIns is followed by the
underside of the decks and the webs.
The mortar is then applied to the inside of the hull and
is squeezed through as thoroughly as possible, with the
finish applied from the outside.
The top of the deck should be plastered one week later
using a latex bonding' agent. The coat applied to the
underside will provide the necessa!), form for this.
It can normally be expected that a hull of this size will
take 14-18 hours to plaster with an,eight to ten man crew.
Two shifts would be advisable.
270
The outside of the hull should be given a trowel finish.
The temperature for the plastering work should be between
50-80 degrees and the wetting dowll process should begin
after 24 hours. This will be carried Ollt continuously for
three weeks.
After this curing period, the outside of the hull should
be etched with muriatic acid and well rinsed. Two coats of
a tar based epoxy are then troweled on to protect any stray
ends of wire mesh which may be protruding. The hull can
then of course be painted to suit, again using an epoxy
paint on the topsides and vinyl anti-fouling.
The wooden cabin is to be through-bolted into position
and aU deck-fittings wi.ll be bolted into place using
hardwood backing blocks.
The fish hold will be insulated with sheet styrofoam
glued onto the ,inside of the hull. One layer of wire mesh
can be applied over this and plastered, allowing the inside
of the hold to be easily cleaned.
The fuel tanks and water tanks will be constructed from
mild steel.
The forepeak of the vessel can also be lined with the
styrofoam covered with a white vinyl. Spruce sparring can
be placed over this to provide a warm, clean foc'sle.
In summary, the fishing boat hulls already in service
appear to withstand impact reasonably well. While damage
has been encountered it has been quickly and inexpensively
repaired. The damaged areas have been pounded out using a
dolly on the inside and a pin mall outside. After pulverizing
the area the rod and mesh is straightened and new plaster
applied.
CONFERENCE ON nSIIING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIA
The hulls in service have to date reported no damage
through electrolysis. Corrosion is minimal providing the
hull exterior is well sealed and maintenance is low.
Seepage is nil and cement has proved a good material for
absorbing engine vibration. Steel and cement have very
compatible expansion co-efficients.
While all these factors point to the practicability of
ferro-cement construction it should be pointed out that
light high speed planing hulls are not suitable to the
medium. However, large hulls are only limited in size by
relation to the thickness of reinforcing through which the
, mortar can be successfully forced.
Another factor weighing in favor of ferro-cement is its
ductability which is lower than steel, aluminum or fibre-
glass. And of course, ferro-cement appears to improve with
age. It should also be pointed out that the medium achieves
its waterproofing properties from the high percentage of
fines present in the mixture and not from additives.
As we said at the outset, this has been little more than a
very brief outline of one construction method which can be
used with the ferro-cement medium. There are other
methods and other techniques which can be successfully
applied in fishing boat construction. Now that more
attention is being paid to the ferro-cement medium it is
almost a certainty that even more improvements will be
made-probably quite rapidly.
Perhaps it is well to remember the words of one leading
ship builder who said: "It is a matter of economics. When
initial construction and maintenance become too expensive,
new materials will be found to take their place".
.fo/m Samson
271
"
~
/
~
~
~
:s:
~
.---
~
~
R
~
..
~
'. ~
STEP

1- .
I
</
"-- , ' /
'/
'i
"- " / 3 __
/">""
,, / II -::::-.
/ / II
STeP #1/
TYP/C A.L rHAME SET VP
.. - ' . r_
'NV/.JiY'; --.J
N4i7_ I

.,I.s:.
tJ
. R "p J
.AC.y_; 7Z#AU7'iT
TYPICAL r"oN s;r4AU -'fl....,
TO
St:'-t'FEZ>
SrA-'7TJ' _S .... LVN; 1M.
T"O A.<'IIWI:
IN ArT"
DETA/L a..-
/N' WA Y qr ;../., B
SAMSON .-.uR/NE
LT;).
'Z,/s-"""" .:r. SAMSoV
,T.S'AVAro..t
T".rr"u
BUL Z'TAM.
cavSra' ME.nvOI>
rYPI JE

7
sa..u
YO.N
GIN(;
lOt:
N
-..l
N
'i
C
z

;;
z
(")
r=:
o
z
.,
c;:;
..,..
z
C'l
<
ti;

r
8
z

'"
c::
Q
o
Z
3:
>
-'

:>
r
cr.
Jo/III SIIIIISO/l
-- -,, -
, .'<1
I - ~
i
I
f - ~
i
I
273
274
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
t
-4- ...
r -.
- . ,
_J

.,
I


i


.. 'it;\
J ..
..
"
" ...

-.
. ' "":,0
i _.
j"
.
1

'I

V-
I '-II
I
I


Ai -
...
h -, _.
(f)
I ", It
..
.. \)1
i
.'. ,
" I
\

Ii
I
'.i
-l-
."
Gl
I
I
I
Si


-"
"
, I
i
'I:\: 'i
I
. '-----1
II

l
I-


-J
"
-L ...

itt'
.

l
l!

-..
.

a

to

I!
..
101m Samson
:{fIt:;,
I
o!._
IDl_
2.07._
100J.-
SIf:.VC SIZe:..
#:30
I
#50
I
(fIOO
I
- -+_. -.. -- --.-
-+--
-SIeVE. ANALY51S
GRAPH
- 100 1. TO PA:55 rile -tt [3 Slue;.
- 10 - 15 i. TO ?AS5 Tile. #/00 S/e.Ve..
:- Cl/Dv GRAOIN6 .CURVe ON .IN- BeTWeeN sizes .
.... SNARP -SAN!) n?ol'1 IGNLOUS RocK...
275
276
/
/1
/ "
~
./ W V
/ "
/
.-
,
~ - -
--.
,
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
"
=
)
!
.
,
,
,
,
,
i
\
\
\
I
\
\
i
~ :
:"
,
,
,
j l
"
-e--
~
;
~ l \
" ~
.:1
~
~ !
g
K
~ ~ I
.
.
~
.

i
":
:!
~
" ~
~
John Samson
277
= ~
It w
i : f
... ;; ..
rL-
\
\
: ;
278
,---------_._--
,I
r
I.:
r ~
. - . : : t ~ .
CONFERENCE ON FISIIING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
i ~ .
I
,
John Samson
"
,


!
I 'l
, '
'J
,,'

279
j
F
"
" f .; :
If L .

Reprinted from: Proceedings of the Conference 011 Fishing Vessel Construction Materials, Montreal, Canada,
October 1 - 3, 1968.
Ferro-Cement Boats
Mr. Hagenbach
by
T.M. Hagenbach,
Managing Director, Seacrete Ltd.,
Wroxham, Norfolk, England
Mr. Hagenbach (M.A. Cantab) the 58-year old Managing Director of Seacrete Ltd. and Windboats
Ltd., Wroxham, Norfolk, England, took an honours degree in Law at Cambridge University and
subsequently qualified and practised as a lawyer in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Feeling that "Boats were
a more congenial way of making a living" he acquired a Norfolk Broads boatyard in 1946, which soon
gained a national and later an international reputation. Starting the manufacture offerrocement (Seacrete)
boats some nine years ago, his company is now regarded as the world leader in this sphere. (Editor'S Note:
The author prefers the use of "ferrocement" as one word.)
ABSTRACT
After tracing the history and development of ferro-
cement as a boatbuilding material and drawing comparisons
with the physical properties of competitive materials, the
author contends that ferro cement - of which "Sea crete" is
a specialized form - is the logical material from which to
build fIShing and commercial craft for the following main
reasons:
1. The ability to build hull, decks, bulkheads, floors and
engine bearers, fish tanks and bulwarks in one piece,
resulting in a monolithic structure of immense strength
which actually increases in strength with age.
2. Due to low cost of raw materials and the type of
labour that can be employed, a ferro cement hull will
generally cost less than an equivalent hull in other
material.
3. Because it has great resistance to abrasion, will not
corrode, has proven aging properties and is immune
to marine borers, maintenance costs with a ferro-
cement hull are less than any other.
4. The ease with which a ferrocement hull can, in the
event of damage, be repaired by unskilled labour in
any climatic conditions except freezing.
Brief details will be given in the paper of approximately
150 ferro cement craft built by the Seacrete company and
acceptance of the material by Lloyds Register of Shipping,
Bureau Veritas, the United Kingdom White Fish Authority
and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations in Rome.
FERROCEMENTBOATS
It is my intention today to present to you the case for
ferrocement boats. Whilst these are frequently and popular-
ly referred to as "Concrete Boats" nothing is really further
from the truth.
It is of course true that in both cases sand, cement,
water and steel reinforcement are used, but beyond that
there is a real and fundamental difference, which I will
explain later.
First let me point out that using concrete in the marine
field is certainly not new. Between 1917 and 1922, due to
the shortage of steel during and just after World War I, over
150,000 tons of concrete shipping was built on both sides
of the Atlantic. The vessels ranged in size from 7,500 ton
oil tankers to small tugs and lighters, and the hull thickness
was usually between 4 inches and 6 inches.
366
The main point that I wish to make in regard to these
old concrete craft is that in the light of tests carried out
recently on panels cut from them, it was found that they
are stronger today than when they were built. This is a
normal characteristic of almost any cement product - it
increases in strength with age.
\
The material that we shall discuss is ferrocement.
Probably the inventor of the technique was M. Jean Louis
Lambot, a Frenchman who was born in Montford in 1814.
In the Museum at Brignoles, France, there is a ferrocement
boat built by Lambot over 120 years ago. The boat is 11
feet 8 inches long and 4 feet 4 inches across the beam. The
sides are approximately 1 3/8 inches thick and there is a
bulwark of approximately 2 5/8 inches in breadth with an
iron strip on top. It is still in fairly good condition and the
metal pins to be used as rowlocks are still in position.
The name "ferrocement" was coined by Professor Pierre
Luigi Nervi, to describe a new material consisting of cement
mortar and reinforcement in multiple layers of light mild
steel mesh.
Nervi showed that if there was a high percentage of mild
steel evenly distributed throughout the cement mortar, the
result was a marriage of the steel and mortar, resulting in a
waterproof homogeneous material with a high degree of
elasticity and a high resistance to cracking.
This is the vital difference between concrete and
ferrocement. In the case of reinforced concrete there is no
marriage of the metal to a concrete mix and nonnally
reinforced concrete is not waterproof.
Nervi made slabs of up to 2 1/2 inches thick without
losing any of the particular qualities of ferrocement. In
1943 ferrocement as a hull material was accepted by the
Italian Naval Register and the Department of Marine
Engineering of the Italian Navy.
Following this various craft were built in ferrocement in
Italy, including a 165-ton motor yacht "Irene" - with a
hull thickness of 1 3/8 inches, a 20-ton crane pontoon
"Toscana", a trawler "S.Rita", and a 41-foot ketch
"Nennele" .
So far as the marine field was concerned, the data and
technique appeared to lie donnant until 1959 when Mr.
Paul Hagenbach, D.I.C., A.M.I.C.E., A.M.LE.Aust.,
A.M.I.Struct.E., at Civil Engineer who had taken degrees
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
both in Zurich, Switzerland, and in London, England,
persuaded me, his uncle, with the boatbuilding company of
Windboats Ltd of Wroxham, Norfolk, England, to embark
on ferrocement boat construction.
Many of you hearing this paper may be sceptical. Believe
me, positively no-one was more sceptical than me. I
regarded concrete as something that one used for making a
garden path and which cracked if anything dropped on it.
My nephew was a very persuasive young man, so we got
underway.
With the knowledge that I now have, perhaps the most
remarkable thing about ferrocement is the length of time
that it has taken for interest in it on a worldwide scale to be
aroused to its present pitch. However, to those who know
the world of ships and, boats and the nature of the people
who buy them, this is not altogether surprising.
A boat of any size represents to the buyer, particularly if
he is a fishennan or commercial user, a sizeable long tenn
investment. He is, therefore, naturally somewhat conserva-
tive in his outlook, with a strong leaning towards materials
with which he is familiar and whose qualities - even if
some of them are undesirable - he knows well.
I confess that it took some time for me to become
absolutely convinced that ferrocement was logically right.
Immensely strong, maintenance free, easy to repair and
economical to build. I realised however that there was
bound to be incredible prejudice against it.
We developed our own specialised fonn offerrocement,
called it "Seacrete" and fonned a company, Seacrete Ltd.,
especially to develop it. The first three hulls were made by
Seacrete Ltd. for their parent company, Windboats Ltd, for
use in Windboats' Fleet of Norfolk Broads hire craft. There
were three reasons for this, apart, of course, from the fact
that at that time it would have been practically impossible
to find any other buyer.
The first was that a Norfolk Broads Holiday Hire Fleet is
as good a testing ground as you will find for materials
whose claims for attention include touglmess and durabili-
ty. A cruiser let for 25 'Yeeks each season will have many
holiday skippers, most of them inexperienced and liable to
submit a boat to !llore ill-treatment in a week than a
professional wQuld in a year.
The second was that it would enable us to compare the
wear and tear suffered by the Seacrete boats with that to
T. M. Hagenbach
craft of traditional construction - including glass fibre - in
exactly similar circumstances. Thirdly, we wished to gain
firm first hand experience of the material in use, knowing
that our chances of selling craft made of Sea crete would
depend entirely on our ability to put before potential
buyers irrefutable evidence of its properties.
Our first season with the Sea crete cruisers out on hire
satisfied us that Sea crete was everything that we had hoped
it would be and more followed into our holiday fleet. The
boats had a tough time during those early years. One was
rammed by a two ton yacht travelling at around 5 knots.
Another was struck amidships by a 3 1/2 ton sloop travelling
at around 10 1/2 knots. A third suffered an explosion
which blew the cabin top 50 feet into the air and the mast
200 yards, while during the winter of 1962/3 two cruisers
were locked in 18 inches of ice for over two months.
Whilst at the time we did not enjoy seeing our boats
subjected to this sort of thing, we were delighted with the
evidence the mishaps they suffered produced. The ice-
bound boats suffered no damage at all; while those
subjected to ramming and the explosion incurred damage so
minor in character, compared with what would have
happened to them 'had they been made of any other
material, that the merits of Seacrete were proved beyond all
doubt.
It is not by accident that the facts obtained during those
early years, coupled with a straightforward statement of
the physical properties of Sea crete as established by
independent laboratories, still fonns the basis of our sales
literature today.
A major breakthrough was obtaining the approval of
Lloyds Register of Shipping - after two years of tests -
and the building of a cruiser classed 100 A.I. by Lloyds. In
January 1967 Lloyds produced their own rules for ferro-
cement craft, thus giving the material international recogni-
tion. Sea crete is now also approved by Bureau Veritas, is
accepted for grants by the United Kingdom White Fish
Authority and is approved by the Food and Agricultural
Organisation of the World Health Organisation in Rome.
In the light of experience gained in building over 150
ferro cement hulls I make the contention that ferrocement -
of which Seacrete is a specialised form - is the logical
material from which to build fishing and commercial craft,
for the following main reasons:
367
1. Monolithic Structure.
The ability to build hull, decks, bulkheads, floors,
and engine bearers, fjsh tanks and bulwarks in one
piece, resulting in a monolithic structure of immense
strength which actually increases in strength with age.
This is only possible in ferrocement.
Photograph A shows a 46-ft. trawler with all those
items listed built in one piece in Seacrete.
2. Ease of Construction.
Ferrocement craft can be built without highly skilled
labour. This is 'not so in the case of timber or steel.
No expensive plant is necessary, which is the case
with steel constfuction and to a lesser extent with
timber construction.
It is not necessary to use a mould for ferrocement
construction, as in the case of building in glassfibre,
and no temperature controlled shop is necessary.
The process and technique lends itself readily to "one
off' construction and also to local manufacture in
less sophisticated countries.
3. Raw Materials.
The raw materials necessary for ferrocement
construction' (with the exception of the steel mesh)
are cheap :md usually readily available in most
countries. is a dearth today of good quality
seasoned boat building quality timber almost every-
where. Many countries are without steel plants. The
materials for glassfibre construction are relatively ex-
pensive and sometimes require special storage facil-
ities.
4. Initial Cost.
Much misleading data has been published, usually by
amateurs, on ' the low cost of manufacturing
ferrocement hulls. There is a vast gulf between an
amateur bUilding a boat for himself and a commercial
manufacturer bUilding and guaranteeing his product.
Generalisations are always dangerous but a ferro-
cement 11ull may be expected to cost 20 to 25 per
cent less than a similar hull in timber or steel, but this
is only half the story. The engine, stern gear
368
ment and superstructure, of course, will cost the
same.
Over-all saving may not be more than 4 to 7 per cent,
but this is great because you also get a better boat.
To give an indication: the materials and man hours to
construct the 46-ft. trawler in photograph A, inclu-
ding hull, floors, engine bearers, bulkheads, fish
tanks, decks and bulwarks were as follows:
Materials U.K. prices, cost 545
Man hours, 2752
Figures for the 30-ft. boat hull in photograph B were as
follows:-
Materials, U.K. prices, cost 191
Average man hou rs, 1051
5. Maintenance.
Unlike steel, ferrocement is immune to rust and corro-
sion. Unlike timber it will not rot and is immune to
marine borers. Unlike glassfibre, ferrocement has
proven ageing qualities. Ferrocement does not require
painting except to enhance appearance.
6. Strength.
The ultimate tensile strength of Seacrete is 5340 psi,
and because a mesh reinforcement is used it will have
this tensile strength in all directions. The tensile
strength of wood is approximately 4000/10,000 psi
along the grain and negligible across the grain. The
tensile strength of a wooden hull is also diminished
considerably by the fastenings and the fact that the
grain often runs out. In ferrocement hulls there are
no fastenings and the tensile strength is accordingly
unifonn.
Compressive strength of the material without rein-
forcement is about 7200 psi after 7 days, and 12,225
psi after 28 days, and continues to increase with age
far in excess of wood.
Any fishing vessel must be strong enough to with-
stand rough treatment in harbour, where it will
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
inevitably be subjected to buffeting by and rubbing
against neighbouring craft or the quayside.
Seacrete craft being used off the beach in Kenya have
demonstrated the material's enormous resistance to
abrasion. This would appear to be the great weakness
of glass fibre.
7. Weight.
The specific gravity of the ferrocement is 2.6, that of
glass reinforced plastic 1.6, and that of a wooden
hull, including fastenings, 0.9. Whilst in craft of less
than approximately 40-ft. length over-all, a ferro-
cement hull with a 7/8 inch skin is generally heavier
than a hull built in other materials. In the case of
craft over 40-ft. over-all, when skin thickness of other
materials must be'increased, a Seacrete hull compares
favourably in over-all weight with most wooden, glass
reinforced plastic and steel hulls, particularly because
no heavy internal frames are required.
Photograph B shows a 30-ft. Seacrete hull with
a beam of 13 ft. with engine installed, as supplied to
Keny'a for completion locally into a shrimp trawler.
Notice that the hull maintains shape without cross
bracing.
Due to the built-in framing and inherent strength of
the material, it is quite possible to obtain 11 per cent
more useable space than in a similar sized c r a f ~ witl! a
hull constructed in some other material.
8. Ease of Repair.
Another advantage over other fonns of hull material
is ease of repair. Should a hull be danlaged in a
collision it can be repaired, in any climatic conditions
except below freeZing, in much less time and with
less tools than in the case of any other hull material.
Photograph C shows a 34-ft. Seacrete hulled cruiser
after she had been struck amidships by a 3 1/2-ton
sloop travelling at 10 1/2 knots. Notice that the hull
is only damaged at the point of impact. The repair
including repainting,' took 21 man hours.
The proct:dure is as follows:
The danlaged skin area is chipped away until the
surrounding material is sound and undamaged. It
T. M. Hagenbach
should be remembered that damage to a Seacrete hull
is completely localized and confined to the area
where impact took place. Once the broken ferro-
cement has been removed, any broken or damaged
mesh reinforcement should be hammered back into
its original position, and in exceptional circumstances
replaced. Ferrocement mix can then be applied both
to the interior and exterior of the damaged section.
The exterior is left slightly proud and finally ground
off. Normally a repair can be effected in one working
day. Even in tropical conditions it is comparatively
sin1ple to repair a ferrocement hull, humidity being a
help rather than a hindrance.
9. Non-absorbent and Odourless.
Ferrocement hulls do not absorb moisture, and
therefore there is no risk of contamination by fish in
fishing boats. Moreover the material is a very good
insulator having a thermal conductivity of 68.88
btu/sq.ft/deg/F/hr. Consequently there is little or no
risk of condensation in such hulls which are in
addition completely odourless.
May I, in conclusion, give brief details of over 150
ferrocement craft built by my company.
369
These have been exported to ten countries and have
ranged in size from a 20-ft. dumb barge to be used in
connection with oyster fishing, thirty-six 26-ft. cruisers for
Norfolk Broads charter work, three 30-ft. open fishing
boat hulls with a beam of 13 ft. for use in Kenya, nineteen
34-ft. hulls for use in Norfolk Broads charter work, five
35-ft. pilot boat hulls for use in the Arabian or Persian
Gulf, thirteen houseboat hulls some 37 ft. in length, one
40-ft. tug for Guiana, one 45-ft. motor launch hull for use
in the British Solomon Islands, and three 47-ft. fishing
trawlers for use in Aden and Somalia.
Even this extensiye experience will be suppJemented
in the very near future, as licensing agreements for the
manufacture locally of "Sea crete" boats have been con-
cluded with fim1s in the States of California, Maine and
Washington in the U.S.A., British Columbia in Canada, Iran,
South Africa and Spain, and there will be a complete
pooling of knowledge between us and our licensees.
If you are not now convinced of the outstanding
advan tages. of ferrocement for fishing and commercial craft,
write me off as a poor advocate, but do not write off
ferrocement; the demand will grow and grow world-wide -
it is so logically right.
370
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Photograph A. 46-ft. trawler in which the hull, decks, bulkheads, floors and engine bearers, fish
tanks and bulwarks are built in one piece of Seacrete ferrocement.
Photograph B. A 30-ft. Seacrete ferrocement hull with
engine installed, as supplied to Kenya for completion
locally into shrimp trawler. The hull maintains shape
without cross bracing.
T. M. Hagenbach
Photograph C. A 34-ft. Seacrete ferro cement hulled cruiser after she had been struck
amidships by a 3 ~ t o n sloop travelling at IOYl knots. The hull is damaged only at the
point of impact. The repair, including painting, took 21 man hours.
371
RC(Jrillfed from: PJ'Oceedillgs of the Conference 011 Fishing Vessel Constructioll Materia/s, Montreal, Canada,
October r - 3, 1968.
Comme nts by Hans F. Muhlert
iIIr. f1ans F Mult!ert, studcllf in the Department Architectllre al/d Marine HI/gil/eering at the
University of Michigan, pruvided the /ollolVillg written cumments un Mr. Hagel/bach's paper un
ferro-cemel/t boats:
My principal criticism of th is paper, indeed of most papers Ull /erru-cet//ent that Illl/IIe encountered, is
tile lack of qual/titatil'' il/formatio/l. I ('{[I/I/ot help but belielle that, ulltil the properties ofIerro-cement arc
accurately determillcd, and ul/til ratiunal ltllu(l'sis al/d syntllCsis methods fire discol'C'red or devised, tile
desil(n of ferro-cemellt stn/ctl/res lVill be a haphazard and approximate l/ndertaking. We mllst begill to
express 0111' knolVledge in terms 0/ nUllibers. '
The resllits of a lack of understanding of this particular material are tlear. Stnu..' tures designed by
"experience" or "eyeball" are in danger of being either IInderdesigned and unsafe, or m'erdesigned and
wastefid of manpower and materials. III either case, a poor irwestment is the result. Therefore, I suggest the
following approach (figure 1):
First, the material properties of the components are to be determined. III this case these would be the
mortar, the wire mesh, the rods, etc.
Then a rational method of synthesizing these components and of analysing any gh'en compositIon
should be either adapted from existing techllology or devised from scratch
Having done the foregoing, one is in a position to design the stmcture. Then a feasibility study can be
conducted and ultilllate(v tlte stn/cture can be fabricated.
It is my belief that all too often the foregoing flow diagram (figure I) is, in effect, entered somewhere
in the middle rather than at tlte top, or that the steps are not taken in order.
For the first step, the following values were obtained from tests at The University of Michigan by N.
Jergovich, J. Coleman, and myself'
The second step illpolves a rational analysis and synthesis techniqllc of the composition. The
following technique is one that I am clIrrently investigating:
Two basic assumptions are made:
I) ferro-cement is a lIOn-homogeneous material
2) standard reillforced concrete techlliques are applicable
"Proceeding on these assumptions the cross section of ferro-cement member is studied in detail. rile
neutral axis is foulld by assuming that the mortar is only effective in compression and by taking into
account the exact location and amount of steel. Then, assuming strains are equal ill the mortar and steel at
a given distance from the neutral axis, the stress can be found at any distance from the neutral axis both in
the mortar and in the steel.
"Using this method, I predicted the stress for failllre for a number offerro-cement specimens to be
that stress at which the outer steel Jlbers would fail in tension. Keeping in mind that the ultimate tensile
stress of tlte wire mesh is 107, 000 psi please observe figure 3 showing the results oFthree bending tests.
"With this technique the stnlclural design can be approached. I feel that in this area milch can be
learned from fiberglass construction techniques, for ferro-cement is I'ery similar to fiberglass. Both consist
of a network offibers hc:/d together and made impervious to water with.an adhesive.
"The last two steps follow ill order, and there is no need to elaborate on them except to emphasize,
as Mr. Hagenbach lias, that all costs, including labor alld ol'erhead, should be accollllted for in the feasibility
study. Also the study should encompass the life of the vessel, not just its construction.
"In conc/usion, I want to say tltat I respect the time and effort that Mr. Hagenbach lias Pllt into this
interesting paper, and that I acknowledge his authority on this SUbject, stemming from his extensive
practical experience, which I, unfortunately, callI/at claim to have. "
DETERMINE MATERIAL PROPERTIES
OF COMPONENTS
r
PRODUCE RATIONAL ANALYSIS AND
SYNTHESIS TECHNIQUES OF COMPOSITION
,
DESIGN STRUCTURE
,
STUDY FEASIBILITY
,
BUILD STRUCTURE
FIGURE I
MATERIAL PROPERTIES OF COMPONENTS
Mortar
Composition used:
cement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.51bs
pozzolan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.51bs
salld . . . .. ...... . . . . . . . .. 30.0 Ibs
water .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3500.0 cc
Ultimate compressive stress:
= 4,760 psi (after 7 days)
p. .
Steel Rod Reinforcing
1/4 in. hot rolled steel rods (no deformations):
Yield stress:
0/JY 39,800 psi
Ultimate tensile stress:
0p.= 62,600 psi
3/16 in .. :old rolled steel rods (no deformations):
Ultimate tensile stress:
p. = 90,800 psi
Wire Mesh
19 gage 1/2 in. x 1/2 in. galvanized hardware cloth:
Yield stress:
0p.= 91,800 psi
Ultimate tensile stress:
0p.= 107,000 psi
Figu're 2
413
120
100
~ ' ?
...JQ
ILl" 80
ILl --
... c
fI),
3 ' : ~
......
fI)
~ a: "0
a: ILl Q
... ~
fl)1L.
ILl ILl
...J2
-ILl
fl)a:
z ...
~ ~ 40
20
400
10" SPECIMEN
L ~ ~ OF WIRE MESH
------
SEPTEMBER 26. 1968
HANS F.MUHLERT
10185" SPECIMEN
TENSILE STRESS IN STEEL AT
EXTREME FIBER PLOTTED AS
A FUNCTION OF CENTER POINT
FORCE ON BEAM
_t
Rt.. 235" ~ R
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
CENTER POINT FORCE ON BEAM (lb . )
FIGURE 3
~
-
()
o
z
~
t'!'!
~
~
o
z
Cii
== z
Ci
<
t"l
I:n
I:n
t"l'l
r
8
z
I:n
'""
:;:tl
R
'""
(5
z
3:
>
'""
t"l'l
:;:tl
;;
r
I:n
..
Reprinted from: Proceedings of the Conference on Fishing Vessel Construction Materials, Montreal, Canada,
October 1 - 3, 1968 .
stimated Hull Work and Material
Content for 100 ft.
Combinaton Fishing
Vessel in Different
Materials
Mr. Fraser
by
D.l. Fraser, C. Eng.,
Naval Architect,
Commercial Marine Services Limited,
Montreal
Mr. Fraser came to Canada in 1967 with the specific object of working in the gap between
research and practical application. After military service he was for 13 years in the Commercial Branch
of the Ship Divison, National Physical Laboratory, as an experimental officer, and undertook work on
the hull form on powering of ships in general with special emphasis on fishing vessel development using
statistical analysis and computer techniques to predict performances and economics.
In 1965 he was loaned to the Fishing Vessel Section of F.A.O. to join the editorial team for the
Fishing Boat Conference and to work on "Fishing Boats of The World, III. "
Since coming to Canada Mr. Fraser has held a position as Naval Architect with Commercial Marine
Services Limited, Montreal. He is an Associate Member of the Royal Institution of Naval Architects and
a Member of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.
ABSTRACT
The construction materials considered are steel, alumi-
num, wood, plastic and concrete and the vessel is a 100
ft. LOA X 24 ft. breadth moulded X 13 ft. moulded
depth. The general arrangement is for a typical one and
half partial shelter deck combination vessel with bridge
and engine room forward and fish hold aft.
Lloyd's Rules are used to derive the scantlings where
applicable but the particular properties of each material
are not ignored. It is considered that steel and aluminum
are best suited to conic sections, whilst the other
materials as used require a conventional round bilge
construction. The normal methods of construction
employed in Eastern Canada are followed even though
more advanced techniques are now available.
Any large differences in some of the other ship
constructional items caused by the variation of the basic
hull material are taken into account before carrying out
an analysis of the hull structural weight, material costs
and man hours required for the completion of the hull in
each material. These estimates are adjusted as far as
possible for geographical price variations.
306
INTRODUCTION
The construction materials considered are steel, alumi-
num, wood, plastic and reinforced concrete for a 100 ft.
LOA combination vessel. Lloyd's Rules are used to derive
the scantlings where applicable but account is taken of
the particular properties of each material. Each material is
used for as much of the construction as possible even
though the incorporation of another material may well
have more advantages structurally and economically. The
nomlal methods of construction employed, or easily
feasible, at present in Canada are followed even though
more advanced techniques are rapidly being introduced by
many shipbuilders.
Differences in ship constructional items caused by the
variation in the basic hull material are taken into account
before estimating the hull structural weight, material costs
and hours required for the completion of the basic hull.
These estimates are for single geographical area so that
the relative values may be compared.
THE VESSEL
After surveying existing data, the vessel's main
dimensions are taken as 87'-6" LBI' ; 24' - 0" Beam and
13' -0" Depth. These dimensions concur with the trend
toward deeper and beamier vessels now considered good
design practice. The fish hold capacity would be of the
order of 6,500 Ft.
3
for stowage of wet fish in ice, giving
a displacement of approximately 500 tons loaded depar-
ture from the grounds, and an all up equipped lightship
weight in the order of 375 tons.
The engine room is forward, the fish hold aft with a
shaft tunnel under to the propeller. There is a raised
' ' "
1.0 C s Ie and a partial shelter deck on the port side. The
winch would be mounted to operate athwartships and the
vessel is capable of undertaking most modes of fishing
with minor changes in deck gear.
MATERIALS
The hulls are considered to the sanle standard, that is
to basic classification with no adjustments for ice re-
inforcement.
Steel
This vessel is constructed on the ring frame system (I)
and the form is double chine, conic sectioned. The loss in
CONr EREN('E ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
hydrodynamic performance of this form is marginal and
would be more than offset by permitting boat yards with
limited facilities to undertake construction. The building
costs for all yards would be reduced by keeping frame
and plate bending to a minimum.
Aluminum
The hull form in this material is the sanle as for steel
for the same reasons but also because great care must be
exercised when attempting to bend aluminum, as cracking
can easily occur and the accuracy of the overbending
must be high because of the lower resilience of the alloys
recommended for shipbuilding. The method of conversion
of scantlings to give' an adequate strength level are those
recommended in (2). Each member was isolated and an
attempt made to ascertain the mode of loading each
structural member is required to support.
Wood
In all fairness this material is considered as though
using Canadian practice. That is, natural timbers
have been used for the most part and not manufactured
laminates. Much of the construction now undertaken is
on a semi-professional basis with at times only semi-
skilled labour. This does not imply that the vessels are
poorly constructed but, due to the higher factor of safety
required when using natural timber, they are heavily
constructed and the techniques used are for ' straight
forward construction, From the data contained herein
the individual fisherman may be able to gauge the cost
differential should he undertake some or all the construc-
tion on a semi-skilled basis.
The hull form for this and the remaining materials
considered is round biJge.
Reinforced Plastic
This is single skin fibrcglass reinforced construction
layed up in a female mould and adheres as far as possible
to the recommendations in (3). Certain alterations are
incorporated over , and above the proposed
additional 1011,gitudinal framing in the bottom and some
modification and additional material in that most
awkward constructional region in this material; the point
attachment of the shell, deck framing, deck and bulwarks.
D. J. Fraser. C. Eng.
Fe/To-Cement
This material required quite a period of development
being a comparatively recent innovation as a boat con-
struction material for fishing vessel hulls. Entire reliance
on shell strength members seemed rather unrealistic for a
vessel of 100 Ft. in length when vessels presently built in
tIns material are little more than half this length. It was
considered that a shell thickness of about 1-1/4" and the
addition of a reasonable number of ring frames and a
substantial steel keel member is more in order. Certain
amounts of pre-stressing of the reinforcement in the deck
beams would also avoid excessive tensile stresses in the
cement. The pre-cast ring fran1es when jigged up also act
as supports for the reinforcing framework thus ensuring a
good hull shape and a homogeneous construction.
l/Iustrations
Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 give details of the proposed
midship sections which together with a shell expansion
are the basis for the calculation of hull material content
and weight. It was found easier to calculate the weights
by dividing the hull into units as is shown in Table 1.
This made a comparisoll of results easier to check and
any large errors in a particular unit were eVident, thus
reducing the checking.
Limits
Before proceeding to the results, the limits of the
investigation undertaken must be stated:
(a) Deckhouses have not been considered because of the
range of material and construction methods available.
(b) The engine seats have been constructed in a
material suited and compatible with the main hull
structure material.
(c) Sonic insulation or translation of vibration has not
been considered.
(d) The powering and hence the engine room size and
equipment is considered constant.
(e) The cost of the hull construction ONLY is given
and the choice of a hull material should not be
decided on this criterion alone.
WEIGHT
The total weight of the hull as constructed is illus-
trated in Fig. 6 wInch shows the distribution of weight by
307
units. The units are basically the after end, fish-hold,
engine room and forward end and they arc 20.7%, 33.3%,
27.0% and 19.(}OJ, of the length over all respectively. Four
of the weight curves follow a similar line but the
heavy engine seats in the wooden vessel in Unit 3 are
evident.
When comparing published data the fibre-glass re-
inforced plastic weight would seem somewhat low but
most of the available data is for a hull in a more
advanced constructional stage than is now envisaged.
MATERIAL COSTS
These are given in Tables 7-12. The ''wastage
allowance", variable with each material is an estimate of
the scrap material on Ref. 4,5 with modifications
to fit good modern practice. With conic sections and a
"ring frame" system of construction, the normal steel and
aluminum allowance of 15% should be reduced to about
8%. The wood waste is taken as 20%. The wastage quoted
by some sources for FRP construction can be as high as
20% but with a production method using such high
quality and production control the factor has been taken
as 10%. .
The cost per unit weight of material is the current cost
from the manufacturer or supplying agent in the quantity
specified, without cartage and the discount obtainable on
the quantity required for a single vessel production. The
material cost of the FRP mould is taken as an extra
material cost and is estimated from that required for a
110 ft. stern trawler (Ref. 5).
HULL TOTAL COSTS
The hull cost is given in Tables 13A-13E and an overall
comparison in Table 14. Great difficulty has been met in
trying to establish a reasonable work-rate; if the work
rates published are used, it is difficult to see how known
vessels could have been constructed for their selling
prices. There is also a marked interaction between work
rate, pay rate, overheads and depreciation. Published
costing systems are few. and are almost always estimates
and not actually based on costing after the ship has been
constructed.
Finally the' following method is proposed: that there
should be two overheads, one applicable to material costs,
the other labour overhead. The material overhead is that
308
portion of the material cost of loft moulds, templates,
drawing office work, yard management, foremen, indirect
and sundry labour, tank experiments, docking, travelling,
tools, power, light, ironworker's stores, gas, water, oil,
coke, coal and electrical sundries that may be allotted to
the hull construction. This figure for steel construction is
\
about 5% for a material cost of $2,000,000 decreasing to
about 4% for the present vessel.
The labour overhead includes the labour involved in
the items composing the material overhead plus a
proportion of establislunen t charges, holiday pay, social
insurance, etc. This is about 74% for a material cost of
$2,000,000 and about 95% for the vessel now being
considered. A work rate of 162 man hours/ton for steel is
given in Ref. 7, but with good construction procedures, a
flgtJre of 140 should be obtainable. The rate of working
aluminum is difficult to assess as most yards are
unfamiliar with it for large hull construction, but a total
number of man hours equivalent to 90% of that for steel
has been assumed. This gives a man hour/ton rate of 312.
The rate of working with wood is more obscure but
for superstructures, figures of 100 man hours/ton are
quoted therefore a figure of 120 is taken. The cost of
direct labour for FRP construction is taken as 1/3 of the
material cost which when converted is reasonably close to
the 13 Ibs./man hour taken on large hull construction.
This would give 172 man hours/ton. For ferro-cement
construction the man hours required is taken the same as
for steel. When considering these work rates, it has been
borne in mind that these work rates are for the hull alone
and would therefore be somewhat higher than for the
overall ship where other items such as piping and electrics
tend to have lower work rates.
The yard overhead is varied by 10% as the overheads
are dependent on the yard equipment and the preparation
necessary for production.
For single hull production, the ferro-cement hull is
88% and the FRP 143% of the steel hull cost. The cost of
the wooden hull is very similar to that in steel and
aluminum, some 35% more expensive. For a series
production of 5 and 25 hulls, the percentage decrease in
cost per number of ships is taken the same for all hulls
but in the FRP hull, the cost of the mould is also divided
between the number of ships built. This may be a little
biased in favour of the FRP hull, but series production
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
certainly favours this mode of construction. These results
are given in Table 13 and represented graphically in
Fig. 7.
COMPARISON WITH PUBLISHED DATA
The comparison with published and other data is
represented in Figs. 8 and 9. Both the hull weights and
total costs are in reasonable agreement with those now
obtained. Some of the cost data is somewhat higher being
Naval and thus constructed to a higher standard than is
usual in civil construction.
CONCLUSIONS
It must be remembered that the hull cost considered
represents only about 35% of the total initial investment
therefore the percentage cost range for total ship costs is
approximately +15% to -4% of total ship cost for single
hull production.
I'n days of rising borrowing interest rates, however,
these variations are not to be ignored, steel and aluminum
appear to have no further production cost reduction
-possibilities open to them that will not also be available
to the other materials. Wood with the good use of
laminates should close the gap with steel in this size of
vessel.
FRP with its high quality control and production
methods and at the moment at least constant raw
material costs and improving techniques should be more
than competitive on series production basis, but it is
difficult to visualize a single production being so.
Ferro-cement, on paper looks extremely attractive
price-wise, but scantlings can only be assessed. Too light or
too heavy, who knows? Only by building, research and
testing will its true economics be known.
Finally, the hull construction as presented is only one
item in the economics of-fishing vessel design. Changes in
fish hold insulation _ and capacity are directly affected and
so is the fish weight carried because of the variation in the
hull weight in what is a displacement limited regime.
Economics can only be generated if a fair assessment of
each component part is known and that has been the object
of this paper.
D. J. Fraser. C. Eng.
REFERENCES
1. "The Design Construction. and Operation of a Close of Twin
Screw Tugs" Corlett. Venus and Gibson R.I.N.A. May 1958.
2. "Strength of Aluminum". Aluminum Company of Canada
Limited 2nd Edition 1965.
3. "Provisional Rules for the Application of Glass Reinforced
Plastics to Fishing Craft". Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
4. "Fibreglass - Reinforced Plastic Minesweepers" Spaulding and
Della Rocca S.N.A.M.E. 1965.
5. "A 110 ft. Fibreglassed Reinforced Plastic Trawler" Della
Rocca Fishing Boats of the World 3 1965.
6. "Comparision Between Plastic and Conventional Boat Building
Materials" Verweij-Fishing Boats of the World 3 1965.
7. "An Analysis of U.S. Fishing Boats - Dimensions. Weights and
Costs" Benford and Kossa-Fishing Boats of the World 2 1960.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is considerably indebted to Mr, A.D. Milne
for his contribution in this paper.
Table 1
Summary of Steel Weight
Unit No. & Weight (Tons)
Item
I
-
2 3 4
Keel & stern bar 0.11 0.35 0.29 0.25
Skeg 0.80 0.42
Rudder & stern frame 2.02
Shell Plating 6.56 10.74 8.36 5.00
Floor 0.98 1.80 1.45 0.19
Shaft Tunnel Plating 1.70
Shaft Tunnel Stiffeners 0.22
Store Flats Plating 1.43 0.34
Store Flats Beams 0.11 0.06
Store Flats Girders 0.06
Main Deck Plating 2.84 4.42 3.42 1.15
Main Deck Bca ms 0.50 0.92 0.70 0.20
Main Deck Girders 0.20 0.58 0.47 0.10
Bottom Shell Stiffeners 0.18 0.29 0.32
Bulkheads Plating 3.85 1.58 2.60 1.40
Bulkhead Stiffeners 1.11 0.59 0.66 0.33
Main & Crant Frames 0.59 1.76 1.42 0.84
Chine & Transom Bar 0.63 0.64 0.52 0.15
Bulwark Rail 0.27 0.29 0.07
Fo'c's'le Deck Plating 0.80 2.95 1.72
Fo'c's'le Beams 0.13 0.54 0.37
Fo'c's'le Girders 0.06 0.15
Fo'c' s'le Bulkheads Pit. 0.76 4.19 0.57
Fo'c's'le Stiffeners 0.07 0.61 0.09
Bkts, Brcasthooks etc. 0.64 0.32 0.34 0.31
Main & Aux. Engine scats 4.81
Tota I Weight 22.88 28.44 33.72 13.22
8% Allowances 24.71 30.72 36.42 14.28
-
Weight
Total
Tons
1.00
1.22
2.02
30.66
4.42
1.70
0.22
1.77
0.17
0.06
11 .85
2.32
1.35
0.79
9.43
2.69
4.61
1.94
0.63
5.47
1.04
0.21
5.52
0.77
1.61
4.81
98.26
106.12
Table 2
Summary of Aluminum Weight
Unit No. & Weight (Tons)
Item
1 2 3
Keel & Stem Bar 0.06 0.21 0.17
Skeg 0.38 0.20
Rudder & Stern rramc 0.99
Shell Plating 2.97 4.78 3.84
Floors 0.54 0.99 0.69
Shaft Tunnel Plating 0.76
Shaft Tunnel Stiffeners 0.07
Store Flats Plating 0.64
Store Flats Beams 0.05
Store Flats Girders 0.02
Main Deck Plating 1.17 1.99 1.54
Main Deck Beams 0.23 0.45 0.34
Bottom Shell Stiffeners 0.06 0.10 0.11
Bulkheads Plating 1.76 0.71 1.16
Bulkheads Stiffeners 0.41 0.24 0.30
Main & Cant Frames 0. 26 0.78 0.65
Chine & Transom Bar 0.22 0.23 0.19
Bulwark Rail 0.09 0.10 0.03
Fo'c's'le Deck Plating 0.35 1.28
Fo'c's'le Beams 0.05 0.19
Fo'c's'le Girders 0.02
Fo'c's'le Bulkheads PIt. 0.34 1.84
Stiffeners 0.03 0.24
Bkts. Breasthooks etc. 0. 29 0.14 0. 16
Main & Aux. Engine Scats 2.25
Total Weight 10.21 12.74 15.14
8% Allowa nces 11.03 13.76 16.35
Table 3
Summary of Wood Weight
4
0. 15
2.75
0.11
0.15
0.03
0.53
0.10
0.62
0. 16
0.38
0.05
0.79
0.18
0.05
0.25
0.04
0.15
6.03
6.51
Unit No. & Weight (Tons)
Item
1 2 3 4
Decks 1.20 2.91 3.31 1.62
Shell and Keel 2.80 7.74 7.56 3.09
Bulkheads 4.18 0.46 1.34 0.46
Deck Beams 1.21 3.03 3.66 1.41
Rudder Steel 1.25 - - -
Frames 1.02
. 3.78
9.73 3.69
Flats 0.65 - - -
Flat Beams 0.20 - -
-
Stringers 0.17 0.30 0.24 -
Stern Post 3.53 - - -
Transom frames 0.35 - - -
Cant Frames 0.26 - - -
Bulkhead StiffC
s
. 0.36 0.21 2.16 0.23
Bulwark 'Stays 0.19 0.28 0.06 -
Bulwark Rail 0.26 0.29 - -
Whale 0. 24 0.25 0.05 -
Waist 0.46 0.48 0.15 -
Bilge Ceiling 0.72 1.99 1.14 0.20
309
=
Weight
Total
Tons
0.59
0.58
0.99
13.84
2.33
0.76
0.07
0.79
0.08
0.D2
5.23
1.12
0.27
4.25
1.11
2.07
0.69
0.22
2.42
0.42
0.07
2.43
0.31
0.74
2.25
44.12
47 .65
Weight
Total
Tons
9.04
21.19
6.44
9.31
1.25
18.22
0.65
0.20
0.71
3.53
0.35
0.26
2.96
0.53
0.55
0.54
1.09
4.05
310
Table 3 (Cont'd)
Unit No. & Weight (Tons)
Item
I 2 3 4
'Shelf, Clamp + Lodger 1.08 3.58 2.92 2.34
Shaft Tunnel - 1.54 - -
F.O. Bunker - - 4.54 -
Eng. Seat+ Keelson, Wood - 1.45 3.15 1.29
Chocks 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Chain Locker Flat - - - 0.14
Fo'c's'le Bhds - - 1.47 -
Fastenings 5% 1.01 1.44 2.08 0.72
Weight 2l.l8 29.77 43.60 15.23
Table 4
Summary ofF.R.P. Weight
Unit No. & Weight (Tons)
Item
1 2 3 4
Decks 1.24 3.02 3.80 1.76
Shell 3.24 5.34 5.47 2.33
Bulkheads 0.50 0.22 0.62 0.17
Deckbeams 0.22 1.18 1.40 0.46
C Girder+ Floors 0.39 - - 0.15
Frames 0.46 1.47 1.54 1.01
Flats Beams 0.24 - - -
Transom Frames 0.14 - - -
Cant Frames 0.06 - - -
Beams+ Webframes 0.20 0.74 0.74 0.10
Bulkhead Stiffeners 0.66 0.31 2.19 0.45
Skeg+ Keel 0.95 - - -
Rudder+ Stern Frame 1.61 - - -
Girders 0.58 1.04 0.86 0.34
Bulwark Stays 0.08 0.26 0.04 -
Bulwark Rail 0.09 0.10 0.02 -
Stringer Angle 0.26 0.27 0.22 0.08
Angles 2.02 1.54 2.23 0.66
Shaft Tunnel+ Floors - 0.82 - -
Stringer - 0.03 0.09 0.08
F.O. Bunker 0.98 - 0.54 -
Double Skin Deck 1.29 - 0.76 0.57
Engine Scat - - 1.75 -
Bulkheads (Accommod.) - - 0.44 -
Wood Bottom Chain Locker - - - 0.13
Brackets 0.03 - - -
Gel Coat 0.24 0.25 0.35 0.13
P.V.A. 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.D3
Epoxy-Grit 0.02 0.D3 0.04 :>.01
Total Weight 15.90 16.97 23.17 8.46
Weight
Total
Tons
9.91
1.54
4.54
5.89
0.16
0.14
1.47
5.25
109.78
Weight
Total
Tons
9.82
16.38
1.51
3.26
.0.54
0.46
0.24
0.14
0.06
1.78
3.61
0.95
1.61
2.82
0.38
0.21
0.83
6.45
0.82
0.20
1.52
2.62
1.75
0.44
0.13
0.D3
0.97
0.20
0.10
64.20
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Table 5
Summary of Ferro-Cement Weight
Unit No. & Weight (Tons)
Item
I 2 3
Keel and Stem Bar 0.07 0.24 0.20
Skeg 1.53 - -
Rudder and Stern Frame 2.02 - -
Shell Plating 8.63 12.93 10.64
Floors 0.78 0.89 1.72
Shaft Tunnel - 1.80 -
Store Flats 1.17 - -
Bottom Shell Stifer
s
. - 0.51 0.47
Main Frames/Cant Frames 0.82 1.75 1.25
Intermediate Frames 0.06 0.13 0.11
Bulwark Rail 0.18 0.19 0.05
Main Deck 3.08 4.92 3.86
Fo'c'le Deck - 0.87 2.94
Bulkheads 6.97 3.11 4.35
Deck House Bulk
ds
. - 0.83 4.80
Bkts., Breasthooks, etc. 0.18 0.41 0.73
Main Engine Seats - - 3.97
Aux. Engine Seats - - 1.68
Main Web Frames - 3.39 2.25
Total Weight 25.49 31.97 39.02
Table 6
COMPARISON OF WEIGHTS
4
0.32
-
-
6.31
0.17
-
0.15
-
0.63
0.05
-
1.40
1.56
2.17
0.66
0.42
-
-
-
13.84
Weight
Total
Tons
0.83
1.53
2.02
38.51
3.56
1.80
1.32
0.98
4.45
0.35
0.42
13.26
5.37
16.60
6.29
1.74
3.97
1.68
5.64
110.32
Material
Total
Weight
Percentage of
Steel Weight
Steel
Aluminum
Wood .
F.R.P.
Ferro-Cement
106.2 T 100%
47.65 T. ' 45%
109.78 T. 103%
64.20 T. 60.5%
110.32 T. 1'04%
---------' - - - - - . - ~ . - . - - -
MATERIAL COSTS BREAKDOWN
Table 7 '
Ordered Steel .Weight + Material Cost
Material FOr/it Wastage Allowance Weight S/LBS. Cost S
Sections +8% 31.10 0.10 6,966
Plating +8% 75.50 0.08 13,530
Castings' - 1.50 0.15 504
Welding + Gas 5% of hull weight 5.00 0.21 2,361
Gas 1'h% total cost
S23,361
"\
D. J. Fraser, C. Eng.
Table 8
Ordered Aluminum Weight and Material Cost
Material Form Wastage Allowance Weight $/LBS.
Sections ., +8% 8.67 0.725
plating +8% 38.80 0.545
Welding + Gas 5% of hull weight 2.20 1.60
Table 9
Ordered Wood Weight and Material Cost
Material Form Wastage Allowance Weight $/LBS.
Steel Casting - 1.50 0.75
Steel Plate -
4.54 0.08
Fastenings - 5.31 0.25
Oak +20% 85.27 0.12
Fir +20% 25.75 0.20
Birch +20% 7.09 0.20
Table 10
Ordered FRP Weight and Material Cost
Wastage
Material Form Allow- Weight $/LBS.
ance
FRP Mat 10% 7.89 0.46
FRP Woven Roving 10% 8.55 0.56
Poly Urethene 10% 1.06 1.00
Resin (Polyester) 10% 48.42 0.25
Wood (Oak) - 3.01 0.129
Gel Coats (2) - 0.97 0.39
P.Y.A. - 0.20 0.40
Epoxy-Grit - 0.10 10.00
Female Mould (Material Only)
Total Material (One Hull)
Table 11
Ferro-Cement Material Cost
Wastage
Material Form
Allow- Weight $/LBS.
ance
Cement + 10% 25.96 25/T.
Aggregate +10% 46.86 0.65 T.
Chickenwire + 10% 6.39 0.18
Hardward Cloth +10% 4.94 0.54
Reinforcing Rods + 5% 8.40 0.Q7
Pipes + 5% 12.84 0.16
Tying Wire
Cost $
14,080
47,367
7,885
$69,332
Cost $
504
814
2,974
22,921
11,536
3,172
$41,921
Cost $
8,130
10,725
2,374
27,116
809
847
179
2,240
$52,420
$45,330
$97,750
Cost $
674
30
2,576
5,975
1,317
4,602
100
$15,274
Steel
Aluminum
Wood
-
PRP
HULL COSTS
Table 12 (A)
Weight of Hull
Man Hours at 140/ton
Wages at $3/hr.
Overhead 95%
Ma terial Cost
Material Overhead 4%
Total Building Cost
Profit 10%
Purchase Price
Table 12 (B)
Weight of Hull
Man Hours at 90% Steel
Wages at $3/hr.
Overhead 95%
Material Cost
Material Overhead 4%
Total Building Cost
Profit 10 %
Purchase Price
Table 12 (e)
Weight of Hull
Man Hrs. at 120/T.
Wages at $ 3/hr.
Overhead 85%
Material Cost
Material Overhead 3%
Total Building Cost
Profit 10%
Purchase Price
Table 12 (0)
Weight of Hull'
Wages at $3/hr.
Overhead 85%
Material Cost
Material Overhead 3%
'Total Building Cost
Profit 10%
Purchase Price
3]]
106.2 tons
14,R68 Ius.
$44,604
42,374
23,361
934
$111,273
11 ,127
$122,400
47.65 tons
13,381
$40,143
38,136
69,332
2,573
$150,184
15,018
$165,202
109. 78 tons
13,174
39,522
$33,594
41,921
~
116,295
11,630
127,925
64.20 tons
$31,758
26,994
97,750
2,933
$159,435
15,944
$175,379
312
Table 12 (E)
FerroCement Weight of Hull
Wages at $3/hr.
Overhead 85%
Material Cost
Material Overhead 3%
Total Building Cost
Profit 10%
Purchase Price
110.32 tons
$44,604 (as steel)
$37,914
15,274
458
$98,250
9.825
$108,075
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Material
Steel
Aluminum
Wood
FRP.
Ferro
Cement
Table 13
Comparison of Purchase Prices
$ PURCHASE PRICE
1 Hull % 5 Hulls % 25 Hulls
122,400 100% 111 , 100 100% 97,500
165,202 135% 150,000 135% 131,200
127,925 104% 116,100 104% 101.200
175.379 143% 111,300 100% 87,720
108,075 88% 99,200 88% 86,000
%
100%
135%
104%
90%
88%
ADDENDUM
The following items have been revised anc incorporated
in the text in the light of information and discussions since
reading the paper.
Wood Construction
The construction suggested in the original text contained
virtually an allowance in the scantings for ice reinforcement
and a more accurate assessment is incorporated with the
appropriate reduction in weight and cost.
Conclusion
On re-estimation of the huH cost as a percentage of the
total ship cost a figure of 35% is substituted for the original
40%.
The Vessel
The displacement should be SOO tons.
Note:-
All weights are Long Tons (2240 lbs.)
All costs are Canadian Dollars.
r
BULWARK i
V. THK.
4" UPSTAND
SHELL t.
T
.
GARBOARD - 30x 3/8
RE MAiNDER - 5/16
DECK STRINGER I!!
24" x IV32" FOR .. L.. TO
9132 AT ENDS.
OF OECK- 9/yr
CFTSHIP
z -c!
=:::::::I
-+--
Et- --- 6CAM'BER
- - -- 1 , _1_ -
DEPTH
t.t OU LDE D
I' o I
T
4-3"
BEAM KNEE I
. vi' x 6 V2" x 9/Yt'
(LAp SIzE) If 2" xfl. O.A
SPACED IS
MAIN FRAMES
3" x 2 V2" x SlI'" I . A.
SPACED .. " I
CHINE BAIIIS
i' OIA S_III .
I
ALUMI!lWIII
5" x 3"x !V16
M
I.O.A.
urTO SUIT
BOTTpJI! IrONGIt.
/
--=- I
I.O.A.
<!{ROERS
(/'X 31/2"x I.
FISH Itt OLq I
CHIONI
MOULD E D HALF BREADTH
I\)

SHAFT TUNNEL
5oIt,"1..'

WT. TOP
R! IN SU ITABLE
LENGTHS.
.. FIG.I-MIDSHIP SECTION FOR lod STEEL COMBINATION FISHING VESSEL.
!:'


s::a

f'l


1M
-1M
BULWARK I.'
Ir- THK.
4" UPSTAND ---:"1
SH ELL FlT
GAR BOARD _ 30"J,1 M
BOTTO'"' SHELL - ~ ..
SIDE SHELL - i
ALLOY-DATA
PLATING: ALCAN 054 S
EXTRUSIONS: ALCAN B 51 S
DEPTH
MOULDED
13' - 0-
T
4'-3"
,
Of t SHIP
DECK STRINGER I.'
24-.a- fOR '4L m TOr AT
NOS. REMAINDER aF DECK 1
0
BEAM KNEE
.6fJ,6flll\"
(LAP SIZE)
I
I BEAM
-I- -.1"
"a3 ' .. I .O,A,
SPACED 18-
MAX. SPAN ,'-3-
I I
z'-d'
----t
j
FISH
ALUMINUM FI H HOLD
10 MAIN FRAMES
I .4"J,3"J,'\ " I.O.A.
SPACED IS"
'" BKT.
HOLD
STANCHi:ONS
PI)
\()
SHAFT TUNNEL
a" t
~ It. " .. ,L'
STifF MI . 3 at l( .r.aA.
I W.T. PORTABLE TOP
R.' IN SUITABLE
LENGTHS .
I BASE LINE
")T'
24"
.L
_ b. r?'t""'= ---'---
MOULDED HALF BREADTH 12' - o
FIG. 2- MIDSHIP SECTION FOR iOOD ALUMI NUM COMBINATION FISHING VESSEL
r
w
~
;)
o
Z
."
~
;.:l
r.l
Z
('")
m
o
Z
or,
v;
::;
z
Cl
<
~
en
en
r.l
t""
('")
o
z
~
;.:l
c
~
(3
z
::
~
r.l
;.:l
;;
t"'
en
BULWARK STAY a -.
BUlWMIC 1L'.-50- ---=-.1 :; -
(5 lilt. + I M.l J .0
STRINeER AN6LE
TYP (lZ)(4 f.tatJ ... -
ABBREVIATIQHS
t:M. - "FABMAT ALTE_ATE
PLIES OF: 3+5". 5rJ'
I - 24 oz/SQ. YD. WOWN (ef.y.+114.l
2 - Z QUsa. fT. MAT
N. - t.fAT:- 2 OZ./SQ. FT. MAT
p.u. - POLYURETl4N& FOAM
2 U$./Cu. FT.
OEJTH
ltOULOEO
13
1
- 0"
T
I
BULWARK RAIL

REtatAIr400 OF DECK
4,D C5f.K)


BEAMS SMCE 10-
.-x zf. '38- f C nscs.T\- wtnt E a fAA!S
(2 F. M . I fA). I aI
STRIPlitf FACE P.U. CORE 1
"'NUM fISH HOLD STANCHIONS
I tM9.t fRAME SIPACED IS- ! HOLD
5"x3"x..o
N
FAe THKS . .fIo-
(2F.1l+ IMJ +IEER OF \MOIRECTI AL
ROVING STRIP IN FACE P.U. CORE I

fRAMES. SPACING ,:..0- I


10 ... 7x '50 F/tCE TtG(!!""L
\ INTERCOSTAL tOTTOY a SlOE LON'" td
S"1L3"x23 (2 F. + I at.)
BASE LINE
+ I LAYER Of
ROVI,G STRIP IN FACE

8
0
1''''<2#
($ I:Itt $/() S/Jo..
.,. '1Jt.) :S:J
DaJBl.E ANGLE
TYPE (3")(2 F.M.+IM,) = 23-
\.oJ
o
SHAFT TlJNNEL
FACES 21"THK.
(2 F.IL+ 1M) WITH
2" THK.P.U.CORE
Ft.OOR 41,1
(4 F.lt 1M.)
Sf'ACED IS"
FIG.3- MIDSHI P SECTION FOR 100' FIBERGLASS COMBINATION FIStNG VESSEL



I:l
'"
.....
n
tlj

w
-VI
! RAIL STRINGER , at" OAK.
WNST PLAHlCING .. BU..WARI( STANCH OAK or BACH
._ .. II ..
2t OAK. 3'-3" S = 6 W: 1 at 0fC1( 5 at TOP. SLL _ OAK
GALVQ. F. 8. "-4" S -5"
OF I SHIP
STEEL HATCH
COAMING.
WALE - OAK FR - - I
10" X 3" DECKHG - --
" 6" II
BEAMS-OAK 111=9 5= 6 C
SHELF - (W( or FIR r-
W=6 5 = IS IN 3 S ES 7 _
L.OCI( STRAKE .. = 1"
SET I" INTO BEAMS
DEPTH
13' - 0"
T
-I FRAME: .. ;--....
. SfWlNG
A' CR. TOCH. DOOBLE
SAWN Q;\\I( SIDED
j
t1 -II AT KEEL 7i -AT BILGE
AND -St AT [CI(
LINE I _ ________ _
FISH ; HOLD
HOLD
\J.J
to-'
OAI( 5"12" W=14"
SHOE 3" OAK
HALF BREADTH
., FIG.4- MIDSHIP SECTION FOR 100 WOODEN COMBINATION FISHING VESSEL
w
-0\
(')
o
z

;::::l

z
(')

o
Z
"'l
:;;
::t
Z
o
<:
to:
til
til
!:"=":
r
8
Z

::e
c:
(')
-l
5
z
::::
:>

r-l
"
;;
r
til
BlLWMK
Ir DIA. PIPE
RERODS.* - DIA. 5.R. on 2" CRS.
REMESH. 4 LAYERS of CHIO<BI
WIRE.
SHELL
WOOD FENDER f-

1st LAYER - HARDWARE CLOTH.
l1N '3 LAYERS of CHICKEN. WIRE
INSIDE 8 OUTSIDE

LONGIT:-'}- 01A. S.R. TO T\M (IF BILGE
1- DIA. S.R. ABOVE. DEPTH
WELDED TO FRAMES
SPACED 3" CRS. MCXJLOED
TRANS:- I.e. INTERNED. FRAMES
1."
4 OIA. S.R.FROM KEEL
13'-0"
TO BULWARK. TIED TO
LONGIT. RODS. SPACED 6"CRS.
MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
RAIL
f. B. WI1"H OAK RAIL CM
J
OF Is.-
CC*ST. OF
II ...... _. COAII8II
TO
3-
t 8--------
- 6 b g TUNNEL
,.----
BEAM KNEE .
I
I QECK LONGn: I L!:!!.ECAST R_ FRAME
II" DIA. PIlE 2 CIA. PIPE SMCEO
REROOS a REMESH SMeED 24- I TO StJT.
I
, AS FOR SILL. I I I
MAIN FRAMES SPACED t8" F ISH H 0 L 0
, 2f -DiA. PIPE TO UPPER I r
\
TURN Of' BILGE a 2" DIA. ' I
PIPE CARRIED UP Tol jLUMlNlII1 01 ST
fEL
fl3H NOLO STANOfIONS... \.-.)
FORM BULWARK I I I\)
WELDED SCARPH. 1
StIAEI TUNfIIEL
. If DIA. PI PE SPACED 18"
FLOORS SPACED Itt' REROes. r DlA. 5.R. 4f CRS.
, . TOP PI If DIA. I REMESH. I LAYER of
____ RERODS * DIA. SR. 2"CRS WARDIIME CLOTH a
- _ ,EMESH 6 LAYERS fII . 6 LAYERS of Ct:ICEN WIRE.
"uICKEN WIRE\ I r 1 !
PIPES - NOM. DIA. SCH. 40
S.R. RODS - HIGH TENSILE STEEL
HARDWARE CLDT.H - r GAL WI SPACE SCREEN
CHCKEN WIRE -',fGAUGE 20 GAL
vd
'INTERCOSTAL LC*GITS
DlA. PI PE
HALF BREADT
FIG. 5 - MIDSHIP SECTION FOR 100' FERRO-CEMENT COMBINATION FISHING VESSEL




o


IN
--.J
318 CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
UNIT WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION FIG 6

HULL
WEIGHT
TONS

. ____ . . ,c-"
.-- .....
- --.- - - - ..............
------- --- .... .
........ "!
-----------
--------
. ................. ,
........
2 3
UNIT NUMBER
.....
.......
.........
4
D. J. Fraser, C. Eng. 319
180
160
140
HULL
COST
SxlO
l
120
fOO
80
, ~
COST COMPARI SON SER I ES
PRODUCTION 100 FT LOA HULL
\""'"
\
....
' ...
...... , ............
\
....
...... -
--
---
.
FIG 7
~ \
---------
1---------
~
t-
"",

- - - - - . ~ - -
'""
------==
-"'-
- ....
"'-
i'- ..................
~ -
~
~ .
.
-
5 10 15 ' 20' 25
NUMBER OF VESSELS
ALUMINUM
WOOD
STEEL
FRP
FERRO-
CEMENT
320
CONFERENCE ON FISHING VESSEL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
WEIGHT COMPARISON
FIG 8
KEY
STEEL

WOOD
+ + +.
ALUMINUM
)( lC )C.
F.R.P. 4)00
FERRO-CEMENT ..... "
140



HULL
WEIGHT
TONS
BENFOR
__

",.K
... "
"
",
.-
/
,
,.
/
/
/
/
,.
...
2 3
4
LOA x B x 0 xlO
. 4
5
D. J. Fraser. C. Eng.
300

200
COST
SxIO!

100
321
COST COMPARISON FIG 9
KEY
&TEEL G@
WOOD ... +
ALUMINUM
)( X )(
f.R.P. 000
FERRO -CE MENT ....
;
I'
I;
I
'(I'
I
,IV
I :
, ,
II
/,/
STEEL
VI
)
. ,
'j!
//1. /;
/',' 'J

, V' /,1
/
,,/
./ . ./
c

..?
...
0
2

FERRO CEMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Compiled By:
Compiled For:
G. W. Bigg
J. Delaney
T. Wood
Carleton University
Vessels & Engineering Division
Industrial Development Branch
Department of Fisheries & Forestry
January 15, 1971
,
Notes on the Ferro-Cement Bibliography
This bibliography is in addition to the quantified
bibliography provided to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry
by the British Columbia Research Council.
Included are some of the papers on concrete ships which
are of historical interest. No attempt has been made to include
many appropriate supplemental references on concrete, thin shell
theory, epoxies, vessel design, etc., which would be useful to
the design of ferro-cement vessels but which do not mention
ferro-cement explicitly.
PART A
This list has been quantified as follows:
Column Symbols Quantity
1 X Hard Information )
) Narrative
0 Soft Information )
2 X Tables
3 X Diagrams and Figures
4 X Scale Drawings
Sa X Strength and Stress Analysis )
)
5b X Construction Methods )
) Performance
Sc X Detail Design )
)
5d X Materials )
6 X Photographs
7 X Costs
- 2 -
Column Symbols Quantity
8 F Fishing Boats )
) Relevance to
0 Other Boats ) Fishing Vessels
)
X Supplemental Information)
PART B
This bibliography lists sources which were unavailable on
short notice. For a variety of reasons it is felt that these refer-
ences would be worth pursuing to complete an assessment of the state
of the art in ferro-cement. It is believed in particular that the
Russian literature is rich in technical information on ferro-cement.
PART C
This list contains references to ferro-cement which were
unavailable and which are deemed to be of.limited value.
..
PART A
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
1 2 '3 4 5 678
a b c d
"Paint and Waterproofing American Concrete Institute,
Applied to Concrete Ships" June 1943
0 X
ACI Committee 506 "Shotcreting" ACI Pub SP-14, 1966, pp. 219-243
Proposed ACI Standard Recom-
X X X X
mended Practice for Shotcreting
Blue Circle Group "Ferro-cement boat hulls" Technical Note 68-5 Cement
Marketing Co. Ltd. Portland X X F
House Stag Place, London SW7
iiA Remarkable Concrete Boat" Building, 29 July, 1966.
0 0
Article about the tug "Cefer" Canadian Fisherman; June 1968,
0 0
page 54.
"Concrete Boat Construction" Commercial Fishing (July 1967).
0 X F
page 13
"Shale Aggregate Mix" Concrete pp. 5-8 Jan. 1954
X X X X X X
(Lightweight aggregate)
"The Hull of a 34 ft. Motor Concrete and Constructional
Cruiser". Engineering Vol. 56, No. 12 0 X 0
pp. 432-433
Khaydukov "Roofs- Ferro-cement folded Beton i Zhelozobeton (Concrete
Units" and Ferro-concrete), No'. 1, 1964
X X X X ? X X
- - - -
(In Russian)
)
"Featherstone Ahoy" Concrete Construction, July 1963 0 X 0
I ~ '----
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
1 2 3 4 5 673
abc d
r--
"Ferro-cement," Concrete Construction, Vol. II, 9
September 1966, pp. 355 0 X X
Rolt, H. Engineer; July 18, 1941, pp. 35 0 X 0
"Reinforced Concrete Hull Engineering, 10 November 1961 0 X 0
for 34 Foot Boat"
"Concrete Barges And Ships Engineering News Record pp. 36, 0 X
Built by Great Britain" August 28, 1941
Design and Construction of Engineering News-Record 1918
Reinforced Concrete Ships. July 25, pp. 167 X X X X X X X X X X
Complete design and Construction Dec. 12, pp. 1058
of Concrete Ships up to 3500 tons Nov. 28, pp. 986
July 4, pp. 17
Problems occurr.ing in Concrete Engineering News-Record 1918
Ships Dec. 2, pp. 1089
Articles Include --Moisture Dec. 5, pp. 1019 X X X X X X X X X
Seepage Problems -- (Gas & Water) July 25, pp. 167
DurabilitY--Weight and Strength July 4, pp. 958
Problems
Development of Aggregates for Engineering News-Record 1918
Use in Concrete Shipbuilding July 18, pp. 136 X X X
Development of Light weight July 11, pp. 67
Aggregate also - use of sieve
I
analysis
__ L
- ---- - -- -- - - - ----- -- --- ----- ---------- ---- ------- --- - ~ - ~ ~ - ~ -
AUTHOR TITLES PUBLICATION
I
"Testing on Reinforced Concrete Engineering News - Record 1918
, with Particular Interest in July 4, pp. 48
I
Problems with Concrete Ships" Nov. 14, pp. 903
Shear as a critical Design Dec. 5, pp. 1019
Criteria - hogging and sagging Dec. 2, pp. 1089
wave Pressures on Ships - T i g h t ~
ness of Hulls with particular
interest in oil and water
seepage
"Down to Sea in Cement" Life Magazine, Sept. 11 1970
HFerro-Cement Boats" Marine West, January & Feb.
1968
Metal Lathe Centering Techno- Metal Lathe Manufacturing Assoc.
logical Bulletin No. 6 Engineering Building, Cleveland
Show 4 types of Metal Lathe. Ohio, September, 1953
"Cement Yacht is Lot of Boat National Fisherman, June 1967
for Money"
"Plasterers Work Full Shift on Plastering Industries March
Unique Concrete Boat" 1967
Reinforced Concrete Review
December 1956, page 251
Sporting Boats with Concrete Schiffbautechnik, III, Vol. 13
Hulls (In German) pp. 163-164, 1963
- - -- -- ---- -
1 2 3 4
X
0
0
0 X
X X
0
X
0
- ,-- -
5
abc d
678
I
X
X 0
I
X X F
X X
X X X 0
X F
X
v
0
"
X
X 0
-- -- '--- -
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
Concrete Hulled Craft Shipbuilding and Shipping
Record Vol. 100 No. 23
pp. 733-4, 1962
"Concrete Cruiser for France" Shipbuilding and Shipping
Record Vol. 102, No. 11
pp. 356, 1963
"Ferro-Cement Tug Hull is 40 Western Fisheries, Jan. 1968
Percent Cheaper
"Notes in Regard to the Physical Windboats, Ltd.; Wroxham, Norwich
Properties of Seacrete" Norfolk, Nor 03Z, England
"Seacrete Hull-Only Prices" Windboats, Wroxham, Norwich
Prices for Fabricated Hulls. Norfolk
Success of Concrete Boats World Fishing No. 1, pp. 6-7
1965
"Concrete hulls for Fishing World Fishing Vol. II, Jan. 1962
Boats" pp. 83
Abeles, Paul William Article about Prestressed wire Journal of the American Concrete
in Concrete Beams analysed with Institute Vol. 16, No. 3
interest in Cracking Jan. 1945, Detroit pp. 181-213
I Alexander and Poore "A Technical Review of Ferro- Commercial Fishing August 1967
Consulting Engineers cement Construction" pp. 11
in Aukland
--- - -- - ----- -
I
1 2 3 4
0 X
0
0
X
0 X
0
X X X
X X X X
5
abc d
X
X
X X
678
X F
0
X 0
X F
X F
X
X
X F
X F
X
F
AUTHOR PUBLICATION
1 2 345 678
abc d
TITLE
Ame1'yanovich, K.K. "Features of Estimation of Sudostroyeniye (Shipbuilding)
Antipov, V.A. Strength of Ship Designs of No. 12, 1964. (in Russian) X X 0
Lapin, Yeo I, and Prestressed Concrete and
Stinsov, G.M. Reinforced Concrete"
Ame1'yanovich, K.K. Reinforced Concrete - Sudostroyeniye, No. 12, 1964
and Shipbuilding Material. X X X F
Verbitskiy, V.D.
Bonn, W.E. Supt. "Regulatory Aspects of Proc. Con.on Fishing Vessel
Hulls & Equipment Traditional and New Construct- Construction Materials, X X X X XX F
Division, ion Materials" Montreal, Oct. 1968, pp.74-90 X
Marine Regulations Br.
D.O.T.
Bruhn, E. F. Analysis and Design of Flight Cincinnati: Tri-State Offset X X X X X
Vehicle Structures Company.
I
Byrne, J. G. and "An Investigation of 'Ferro- Concrete and Constructional
Wright, W. Cement' Using Expar'.kd Metal" Engineering, Vol. LXI, 12 X X X X X 0
December 1961 pp. 429-432
Brochure Cefer Designs Ltd.
899 River Road, Richmond, B.C.
0 X X
Phone 278:-8240
I
Collen, L.D.G. and "Some Notes on the Character- Civil Engineering and Public
Kirwan, R. W. , istics of Ferro-Cement" Work R e v i e ~ v , (February 1959) X X X X X X
Trinity College, pp. 195-96
Dublin
Collins, John, F. "Tensile Strength of Mesh- Term Project -- M.I.T. May
Reinforced Mortar" 1968, 1. 46 X X X X X X
- - ~ - - - -
AUTHOR
1 2 3 4 678
PUBLICATION TITLE
b d u ... ~
Colvin, Thomas, E. Detail design sketches and National Fisherman, Feb. 1968
X X F
N.A. Miles, Virginia Letter pp. 6-8
Dunham, Clarence W. Pages 63 and 134 The Theory and Practice of
Mention wire mesh reinforcement Reinforced Concrete, 1st and
X X
4th eds., New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co.
English, W. J. General comments on the use of Conference on Fishing Vessel
Pres. EV Assoc. Ferro-cement in the construct- Construction Material.
0 F
ion of fishing vessels. Part Montreal, Canada. Oct. 1968
of a discussion with a panel
Ferguson, P.M. Nothing directly related to Reinforced Concrete Fundamentals
Ferro-cement New York: John Wiley and Sons,
X X
March 1966
Fraser, D. J. Civil "Estimated Hull Hark and Proc. Con. on Fishing Vessel
Eng. Naval Architect Material Content for 100 ft. Const. Materials
X X X X X X F
Commercial Marine Combination Fishing Vessel in Montreal, Oct. 1968 pp 305-321
Services Ltd .. Different Materials."
Hontrea1
Gardner, John, "Ferro-Cement is Hottest Thing National Fisherman (June 1967)
0 X F
in Boatbui1ding"
Cardner, John, Wide Interest Shown in Ferro- National Fisherman (Sept. 1967)
0 X X F
Cement Boats. pp. 8A
Gardner_, John, "To Sea in a Stone" The Skipper,(December 1967)
0 0
Gardner, John, "The Future of Ferro-Cement" National Fisherman (1968)
0 X F
,
-
..
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
1 2 3 4 5 678
/
abc d
52 Gardner, John Ferro-cement moves from back- National Fisherman (Oct. 1968) 0 X
X X F
I
yard to shop
53 Gardner, John Need for Ferro-cement back- National Fisherman (March 1969) 0 X 0
I
ground stressed.
54 Gardner, John From trunnels to Ferro-cement National Fisherman (March 1969) 0 X
I
55 Gardner, John Interest in Ferro-cement National Fisherman (Aug. 1968)
burgeons. Careful tests of
0'
X X X X F
materials needed
56 Gardner, John "Ferro-Cement Features Spark National Fisherman (July 1969)
I
Differing Views"
0 X 0
I
X
57 Goldfein, S. Fibrous reinforcement for Modern Plastics (April 1965) X X X X X X X X
I
portland cement I
I
58 Harper, Walter R. Concrete Ships Constructed by ACI Proceedings Vol. 18 pp. 83,
X X X X X 0
U.S. Shipping Board 114, 1922
;9 Hartley, Richard "Designing For Ferro-Cement" Sea Spray Oct. 1967 pp. 48-51 X X X X X 0
I
I
Hartley's Boat Plans
I
Ltd. Box 30, 094
I
Takapuna, North, N.Z.
iO Hedges, Leonard Designs of Yachts Marine and Industrial Design I
ARINA and Fishing Boats" 60 Caringbah Rd. 0 X X X X X 0
Data Sheets Caringbah N.W.S. Australia
-- - -- - -- - '--- -
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
61 Hedges, Leonard, and "Ferro-Cement Fishing Vessels" Con. on Fishing Vessel Const.
Perry, E., Naval Materials, Montreal 1968
Architects and Civil pp. 427-9
Eng.
Caringbah, N.S.W.
Australia
62 Jackson, Gainor "Future with a Promise for Part I Concrete Construction
Concrete Boat Building" Sept. 1969 pp. 344-346
Part II Concrete Construction
Oct. 1969 pp. 331-383
63 Jackson, Gainor Concrete Boat Building Today Reprinted from Sea S p ~ a y
64 James, T.L. "A New Boatbuilding Material" S h ~ p and Boat Building
International (April 1967)
65 A. Kamasundara Rao "A Study of Behaviour of Ferro- Cement and Concrete (India -
C. S. Kallappa cement in Direct Compression" New Delhi) Vol. 10 No. 3
Gowder
Oct. Dec. 1969 A SARU Cement
Service Magazine pp. 231-237
66 Kelly, A.M. and "Ferro-Cement as a Boat Building Vancouver, British Columbia:
Mouat, Material"
British Columbia Research
Included in final report to DOF Council Sept. 1968
67 Lachance, L. Ferro-shotcrete: a promising Ocean Industry Nov. 1970 pp.
Dept. of Civil Eng. Material
60-62
Laval University
Quebec City, P.Q.
68 La Belle, N. Short history oti Nervi and his Engineering News-Record
accomplishments
V166 April 27, 1961 pp. 58-64
..
1 2 3 4
X X
0
0
0
X X X X
X X X
IX
p
5
abc d
I
X
X
678
F
X 0
X X X
0
X X X X X
X X pc F
IX IX IX
pc
10
Ix
X X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
69 McLaughlin, R.E. "Powered Concrete Ships of WII" Engineering News-Record
Oct. 19, 1944 page 4721
70 Morgan, Roland "Lambot's Boats" Concrete page 128 March 1968
71 Muhlert, H. Ferro-Cement trawler, design Department of Naval Architecture
Jergovich, N. and report, Unpublished report. and Marine ENgineeering. The
Coleman, J.F. University of Michigan 1968
72 Neal, John, A. Seminar Notes: Fibre Reinforced Dec. 1967 pp. 1-9
Prof. of Eng. Concrete
UNY at Buffalo
73 Nervi, P.L. "Structures" Publisher- F.W. Dodge Co. N.Y.
pp. 50-62;69, 86. 1956
74 Nervi, P.L. Small craft construction in Shipbuilding and Shipbuilding
ferro-cement. Record Vol. 88 No. 12, 1956
75 Nervi, P.L. Ferro-Cement in building The Builder Vol. 192 No. 5939
construction 1957
76 Nervi, P.L. Aesthetics and Technology in Cambridge, Hass.: Harvard
Building University Press (1965)
pp. 200
77 Norris, C.F. Why not Marine Technology Jan. pp. 43
- 47 1969
78
See also SNAME, Pacific NW
Section Undated. Same title
1 2 3 4
X X X X
0
X X X
X X
X X X
0
X X
0
X X X X

5
abc d
- -
X X X X
X X
X X
X X X X
I
678
X X
I
X F
1
X X F
X
X F
I
X F
I
X
pc X
X F
\
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
1 -2 3 4 5 6 7 8
abc d
I
79 Ens. D. A. Perry,
"Ferro-Cement - Its Potential for Naval Ship Engineering Center
X X X X X X X F
USNR and J.E. Pinto Naval Craft (A State of its art Hyattsville Maryland. Report
study)
July, 1969
I
80 Reyner, A.N. and Reinforced Concrete Yacht Shipbuilding, No.6, 1966
0 X X X 0
Fro1ov, N.A. "Dream ("Mechta")
(In Russian)
81 Riley, G.
"Chinese Build Concrete Boats" Concrete Products December 1966
0 X F
I
I
;
82 Romua1di, J.P.
"The Behavior of Reinforced Proceedings, ACI, Vol. 60
0 and Concrete Beams With Closely June, 1963
X X X X X X X
Batson, G.B.
Spaced Reinforcements" X
83 Romua1di, J.F.
"Tensile Strength of Concrete Proc. ACI Journal Vol. 61, No.
X X X X X X X
I
and
,
Affected by Uniformly Distributed 6, 1964
Mandel, J.A.
and Closely Spaced Short Lengths
of Wire Reinforcement"
84 Samson, John
Ferro-cement boats construction
Conference on fishing vessel
construction materials.
X X X X X F
Montreal, Canada. Oct. 1968
I
85 Samson, John
"Concrete Boats"
Letter to Editor Boating
0 X 0
Feb. 1968
1
86
Ferro-cement Boat Construction
Samson Marine Design Enter-
F
SUPPLEMENTS 1910 10 to date
prises, Box 98, Ladner, B.C.
X X X
Dc IX
X X
IX
X 0
5 for $5. Most material Dc
alternately incorporated into
Editions of Samson's Book
I
I
.
-.
..
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
1 2 345 678
abc d
87 Shepard, E.R. Concrete Gasoline Tanks for ACI April 1944 XX X X X X X X X
Military Use
88 Smith, Jack What do you know about ferro- Yachting April 1969
X X X F
cement? Guniting emphasized pp. 84-
89 Smith, J.D. and The Development of Ferro-Cement Technical Supplement May 31
Greenius, A.W. For Fishing Vessel Construction 1970 Report to Ind. Dev. Br. X X X X X X X F
DOF by B.C.R.C.
90 Sutherland, Morley "Ferro-Cement Boats" Sea Spray Annual (1966) X X X F
91 Talbot, M.R. "Cement Hull Cuts Building Fishing Gazette January
Costs" 1968 pp 12
0 X F
92 Taylor, W. H . Concrete Technology and
Practice American Elsevier X X 0
Publishing Co. Inc., Chap. 35 X
93 Traung, J .0. and' "New Thinking on the Use of Proc. Con on ~ i s h i n g Vessel
Gulbrandsen, o. Materials in the Construction CJnstruction Materials 0 X F
Fishery Resources' of Fishing Vessels" Montreal, Oct. 1968 pp. 5-22 X
Department of Fisheries
FAO Rome
94 Wishwanath, Teka1 "Test of a Ferro-Cement Precast Journal of the Structural
Folded Plate" Division, Proceedings of the I
I
American Society of Civil X X X X
XI
Engineers Dec. 1965
AUTHOR TITLE PUBLICATION
95 Waddell, R. L. and "Ferro-Cement has Arrived" "Gam on Aug-Sept
Beckett, T. W. 1968 pp. 3-6
Saga Tech Associated
96 Waddell, R. L. "Fabricating in Ferro-Cement" Gam on Yachting Oct.-Nov.
Good critique of Male Mold 1968 pp. 6-9
97 Waddell, R. L. "Fabricating in Ferro- Gam on Yachting Jan.
Suspended Hull" 1969 pp. 7-8
98 Wellens, Geoff "Ferro-Cement -- Revolutionary Western Fisheries; April
Development for the Amateur 1968 pp. 30
Fishboat Builder"
99 Wig, R. J. Method of Construction of ACI Proceedings Vol. 15
Concrete Ships. Most Complete pp. 241-288 1918
article on 1918 Concrete Ships.
100 Frolov, LA. & Yachts made of Reinforced Shipbuilding (In Russian)
Reyner -Concrete No. 10, 1961
101 Kelly, A.M. and Ferro-cement as a fishing Report .to rnd. Dev. Br.
English, W. N. vessel construction material of D.O.F. March 1970
B.C.R.C.
Includes ref. 63 as an
appendix.
l02 Anonymous Aussies Outline Boat National Fisherman Oct. 1967
Building in Fer.ro-Cement
-

,
.
t 2 3 4
0
X
X
0 X
X
Pc
X X
0 X
) ) }
X X X
,
5
abc d
678
X X 0
X X 0
X Pc P
X
X X
Pc
X
Pc Pc Dc
Pc
0
X X X X X F
X X X 0
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PART B
Anonymous, "Build Yourself a Ferro-cement Boat-A manual" Fairfibre Prod. Ltd. Victoria, B.C.
" "
" "
"
."
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Beletskiy, V.F.
Benford, Harry,
Benford Harry,
Benford, Harry
&
Kossa, Miklos,
Benford, Jay R.
"
______ " Appears to be an important Russian magazine",
Betoni Zhelozobeton (Concrete and Ferro-cement) No. 12, 1961, No.9, 1961.
Collection, "Reinforced Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Design" Gosstroyizdat 1962.
Collection, "Reinforced Concrete Spatial Designs", Gosstroyizdat, 1961.
"Le Costruzioni Navali in Ferro-Cemento," Industria Italiana Del Cemento, No. 7-8, 1950
"Tentative Requirements for the Construction of Yachts and Small Craft in Ferro-Cement"
Lloyd's Register of Shipping, Yacht Technical Office, January 2, 1967.
"Fibrous Reinforcements for Portland Cement Concrete," Ohio River Division, U.S.
Corps of Eng., Tech., Report, May 1965, pages 2-40.
"Reinforced Concrete Instead of Wood," Stroitel (Builder), No.2, 1960.
"General Cargo Ship Economics and Design," Ann Arbor: College of Engineering,
The University of Michigan, August 1965.
"Fundamentals of Ship Design Economics," Ann Arbor: Department of Naval Architecture
and Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, August 1965.
"An Analysis of U.S. Fishing Boats--Dimensions, Weights and Costs," Paper presented
before the Second World Fishing Boat Rome, Italy, 1959.
"Practical Ferro-cement Boatbuilding--Construction Manual", Box 456-J Friday Harbour,
Wash. 98250, $10.00, 180 pages.
Biryukovich, K.L. "Small Ships Made of Glass Concrete and Reinforced Concrete," Sudostroyeniye, 1965.
Biryukovich, Yu.L.
and
Biryukovich, D.B.
Bonduryankiy, Z.P. "Seagoing ferroconcrete ships," (Hull Design) Shipbuilding Publishing House, NAVSHIPS
Translation No. (Abtract only) 1966, 199 pages.
Collen, L.D.G.
and
Kirwan, R.W.
"The Mechanical Properties of Ferro-Cement," Civil Engineering and Public Works Review,
December 1958.
Collen, Lyal D.G., "Some Experiments in Design and Construction with Ferro-Cement," The Institution
of Civil Engineers of Ireland, Trinity College, Dublin, Jan. 1960, Vol 86 pp. 39-58.
Corten, H.T.
Fusch, K.
Kudryavtsev, A.A.
Mikhaylov, N .. V.
Moavenzadeh, F.,
Kuguel, R., and
Keat, L.B.
Pospelov, V.I.
Pospelov, V"I.
Protopopov, V.B.
"Micliromechanisms and Fracture Behaviour of Composites," Modern Composite Materials,
Addison-Wesley, 1967.
"Impact Strength of Fiber-reinforced Neat Cement Paste," ,Unpublished term project
report, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Mass. Inst. of Technology.
"On the question of the Impact Strength of Reinforced Concrete and Thin Ferro-concrete
Plates, II In the collec.: "Reinforced Concrete and Reinforced Concrete Designs,"
published by editors of Journal: "Bulletin of Technical Information," Glavleningradstroya,
1959.
"Basic Principles of New Technology of Concrete and Ferro-concrete," Gosstroyizdat,
1961.
"Fracture of Concrete," Research Report R68-5, Department of Civil Engineering,
School of Engineering, Mass. rn,st. of Technology, March 15, 1968.
"Allowance for Flexibility in Strength Calculations of Marine Ferro-concrete Elements,"
Abstract Journal (NAVSHIPS translation No. ,1176. Abstract only.)
"Investigating the Strength of
by Flexures -and Compression,"
Abstract only).
Marine Ferro-concrete plates at Independent Load
Abstract Journal (NAVSHIPS Translation No. 1177.
Experimental Study of Impact Strength of Reinforced Concrete Platings. Trans. of
Gorky I n s t i t u t ~ of Engineering Water Transport, No. 45, 1962
Rassbach, W.
Samoy10v, B.N.
Savinov, O. A. ,
Lavrinovich, Yeo V.
and
Tsukerman, N. Ya.
Shah, S.P.
Spratt, G.W.
Yunin, V.P.
"An Introduction to Ferx.:o-Cement in Presented to the Pacific North-
west Section of the Society of - Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, March 1, 1969.
Calculation of Elements of Reinforced Concrete Designs and of Ferro-Concrete Designs
with Disturbed Reinforcement. Pub1. of Kuybyshev Engineering - Construction
Institute, 1964.
"Contribution to the Question of The Reinforcement of Thin-walled Ferro-Concrete
Designs," In the co11ec.: "Steric (Spatial) Designs in the USSR," Stroyizdat, 1964
"Ferrocement as a New Engineering Material," Presented-Precast Concrete and New
Advances in Concrete Materials Course, Canadian Capital Chapter, ACI, Ottawa, Dec. 1970.
"Research and Development in Ferro-cement Usuage," Seminar: Ferrocon Industr.
Vancouver, B.C., Canada. March 1963.
"Investigating the Effect of Various Patterns of Reinforrnment on the Strength
Characteristics of Shipbuilding Reinforced Concrete," Trans. of Gorky Inst. of Eng.
Water Transport, No. 45, 1962.
.,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
..,

PART C
"Une Relique La Barque de Lambot," Batir, 47, 1955, page 9.
"New Fibersteel for Docks and Boats," Bay and Delta Yachtsman, January - February 1966
''Shipbuilding in Concrete," The Blue Circle, Vol. 17, No.2, 1963, pages 8-9
Concrete Cruiser," Boating, August 1967.
"Ferro-cement Boats," The Boating Industry, September 1967.
"Ferro-Cement: Tomorrow's Homemade Boat Boom?" Boating Journal, February - Uarch 1968.
"Concrete" page 18 July 1921 and page 2 May 1942.
"A Ferro-Cement Boat," Concrete and Constructional Engineering, March 1962.
"New Splash for Concrete," Concrete Construction, November 1960, page 326.
"Ferro-cement Boats," New Zealand Concrete Construction, February 12, 1963.
"Ferro-cement boats," Concrete Construction, Vol. 10, No.9, New Zealand, September 12, 1966.
"American Concrete Yacht, 'Featherstone' Proves Herself Seaworthy," Concrete Construction,
Vol. 7, No. 11, New Zealand, November 12, 1963, page 206.
"Concrete Freighter Shows Amazing Durability," Concrete Products, September 1961.
"Rubb a Dubb Dubb -- 3 Men in a Concrete Tub," Concrete Products, June 1963.
"Concrete Ahoy," Corrosion Technology, October 1961.
"Value of Boats Built in B.C.," D.B.S. Ottawa Reports.
"History of Windboats, Ltd.," East Anglia Life, May 1965.
"Consolidation -- In Concrete?" The Economist, January 6, 1962.
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymot- ,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
Anonymous,
"Concrete and Structural Form," Engineering, October 1955, page 601.
"Announcement to Marine Builders," Fibersteel Co., December 5,1967.
"Cement for Sail," Gam on Yachting, . Ontario Edition, January 1968.
"Cement Boats," Macleans Magazine, 1966.
Marine Review; September 1918, page 373.
Maritime Review, September 1918, page 419.
Mechanical Engineer, Volume 49, November 1927, page 1195.
"Concrete Racing Yawl," Mechanix Illustrated, July 1963.
Ship, July 1942, page 108.
Modern Boating (New Zealand), July 1966, August 1966.
Nautical Gazette, November 1942, pages 33 and 39, (Non-typical ship), April 1943, page 20.
"Concrete Ship to Bridge a Gap," The Ne\v Scientist, July 24, 1958.
"Hearts of Concrete for Russia," The New Scientist, February 20, 1958.
"Valeo .. 55' Design Series for Ferro-cement Construction," Sea and Pacific Hotor Boat,
August 1967.
"Awahnee 11akes History" Sea Spray, August 1965.
"Marire -- A Matangi Design Built in FerrO-Cement," Sea Spray, April 1965.
Shipbuilder, July 1929, page 20.
"Making a Concrete Punt," The Sphere, Vol. 233, NO. 3034, May 24, 1958, page 295.
"Seacrete, " Windboats, Ltd., Wroxham, Norwich, Norfolk, Nor. 032, England, 1962.
Anonymous,
Abner,
Chapin, William,
Cox, Eric,
Curry, R.,
Dique, Nigel,
" "
,
Freeman, J. E.
Gardner, Joh1;l,
C>

"The Seacrete Hull," Windboats Ltd., Wroxham. Norwich, Norfolk, Nor 032, England.
"Reinforced Concrete Ship," The Architect and Building News, Vol 219, No. 24, June 14,
1961, page 779.
"Out to Sea-- In Cement," San Francisco Chronicle, March 18, 1968.
"It's an Easier Way," Yachting Monthly, December 1966, pages 294-95.
"Prestressed Concrete Barges," American Bureau of Shipping, August 1966.
"Just Add Water and Mix," Seacraft, May 1966.
"A Report on Fer-ro-cement Boat Building and other Construction," E.V. Associates inc.
Miami, Florida, Oct. 1968.
"Development of Concrete Ships and Barges," Proceedings, ACI Vol. 14, 1918.
"Fly Ash for Ferro-cement Could Help Utilities," National Fisherman, Dec. 1967.
Griffith, Nancy H. "The Building of AWAHNEE". Boating Part II March, 1969.
Hacking, Norman,
Hacking, Norman
Huxtable, A.L.
Irons, Martin E ..
Kallappa Gowdar,
C. S.
"After Subsidy, What?" The Province, Vancouver, January 16, 1968.
"Tug Made of Cement and Wire Launched by Lulu Island Yard," The Province, Vancouver.
Pier Luigi Nervi, George Bragilleu Inc., New York, 1960 128 pages.
"Ferro-cement Advice from an Expert," National Fisherman June 1967, pages 7-B, 23B, 24B.
. Technology of Ferro-cement:, Thesis, Mysore University, 1968
Kamesundara Rao, A. "A method of design for ferrocement elements", Thesis, Mysore University, 1968
Lysaght, 1.
Manning, A
"Shiver-me-Timbers - Now Concrete Hulls for Yachts." Atlantic Advocate 1967.
"The First New Zealand Hade Concrete Boat" Concrete Construction, Vol 7, No.2,
page 23, New Zealand, 12 February 1963.
Maynard, John A.
Mishutin, V.A.
Nervi, P.L.
Noble, H. Morgan,
Rath, Dick,
Robinson, H.,
Ross, Stanley,
"Sea-going Concrete," Seacraft, vol. 32, Nc. 2, pp. 28-30, March 1964.
"Investigation of shipbuilding concretes." Shipbuilding Publishing House, Leningrad.
(NAVSHIPS Translation No. 1174. Abstract only.)
"II Ferro-Cemento e la Prefabbricazione Struttural," In: Colonetti, G.,
Sciense Delle Construzioni, Vol. III Page 13, Torino Scientifica Einaudi, 1957.
"Concrete Pontoons for Marinas, "Noble Harbour Engineering, Newport Beach, Calif.
"Ferro-Cement Details," Boating, February 1968.
"Researchers Find New Ways to Wed Sheet Metal, Concrete," Financial Post, Feb. 16, 1963.
"Concrete Floats" Smooth Sailing Ahead," Concrete Products, Vol. 66, p. 29-32,
October 1963.
Salvardori, G. & M. Structures by Pier Luigi Nervi, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. p. 118 1956
Scavino, G. L.
Skinner, G.,
Small, G.
Tonge,- P.
Tyrell, . D.
Vasta., J.
Verney, M.
Verney, M.
. Wellens, G.
Weilens, G.
J
"Use of Reinforced Concrete in Building Naval Ships," The Italian Cement Industry, 35,
No.2, pp. 191-200, 1965.
"World Cruise Concrete Yacht," Modern Boating, January 1968.
"A concrete suggestion" World, pp. 136-139, March 1968.
"Launch It, Leave It Boating Approach," Christian Science Monitor, March 8, 1968.
"Dr. Bob Griffith," (Circumnavigation of Globe in, Ferro-cement Boat,) The Sun, Vancouver.
"The Concrete Ship Program of World War II," Paper presented before the Chesapeake Section
of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, May 8, 1952.
"Concrete Keels," Yachting Monthly, pp. 314-317, June 1963.
"Plastering Industries," An Account of 44-ft. ferrocement fishing trawler building by
Gordon W. Ellis, Victoria, British Columbia, March 1967.
"Pioneer Will Soon be Rolling Stone," The Province, Page 18, May 10, 1968 .
"Sailor of Fortune's Tales are Stranger than Fiction," The Province, Vancouver, November 15,1967.
Wellens, G.
Wellens, G.
Wellens, G.
.,
"Builder in a Hurry," The Province, Vancouver, October 13, 1967.
"Paradise in a Trimaran," The Province, Vancouver.
"The Awahnee': When all the World was a Watery Stage," The Province, Vancouver,
c

..
Compiled By:
Compiled For:
r
FERRO-CEMENT BIBLIOGRAPHY
British Columbia Research Council
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Vessels & Engineering Division
Industrial Development Branch
Department of Fisheries & Forestry
April 21, 1971.
.

. <ll til
til <J .c
<ll OM eo t:: P-
f.. BOOKS AND REPORTS. - 1 - :> ....
6
til til
OM a I-<
.u til I-< eo
<11 <ll

<ll 0 0
Journal and Citation
I-< r-l r-l 1.1-1 .u
I-< ..0 til til I-< 0
Author and Affiliation Title (volume. date. paging)
III III OM <J <ll .c
No. z E-I Q U) p.. p..
l. Saga Technical Associates Bibliographic introduction to Toronto, Saga 1969? x x x x x x
(designers, publishers) ferrocement.
2. Bezakladov, V. F. et al. Ship hulls made of reinforced Leningrad, 1968 x x x x x x
Shipbuilding Publishing House, concrete. Translation pub. by CFSTI
Leningrad. AD680 042, 1968
3. Canby, Charles D. Ferro-ceme.nt, with particular Ann Arbor, 1969 x x x x
U. of Michigan, Dept. of Naval reference to marine applications. Departmental No. 014
Architecture & Marine EngineerinK
4; Lin, T.Y. & Associates, Ferro-cement panels v. 1 Report No. CR 69.008 x x x x x
Consulting Engineers (For U.S. CFSTI AD850630, 1968
Naval Civil Engineering Lab., Calif)
5. Geymayer, H.G. Strain meter & stress meters for Tech. Report No. 6-811 , U.S. Army x x x x x
U.S. Corps of Engineers. embedment in models of mass Engineer Water-Ways Exper. Station
concrete structures. Vicksburg, Mass.
6. Use of epoxy or polyester resin Tech. Report No. C-69-4, U. S . Army x x x x X
r
in tensile zone of composite Engineer Water-Ways Exper. Station
concrete beams. Vicksburg, Mass.
7"':"' Gibbs & Cox, Inc. Marine design manual for New York, McGraw Hill 1960 x x x x x
Fiberglass reinforced plastics.
8. Harper, Ross et al Boatbuilding in ferro-cement The Authors, Vancouver, B. C. , x x
Consultants. 1967(?)
9. Hartley, R.T. :Soatbuilding with Hartley Aukland, N. Z. , the author, 1967. x x x x x
Builder 3rd ed.
10. Jackson, G.W. & W.M. Sutherland. Concrete boatbuilding. London, Allen & Unwin, 1969 x x x x x x
11. Mowat, Dallas N. Flexural testing of ferr-cement H.Sc. Thesis, 1970. x x x x x
Univ. of Calgary,. Dept. of Civil planks
Engineering. .
12. 11uhlert, Hans F. Analysis of ferro-cement in Ann Arbor, 1970 x x x x
Univ. of Michigan, of Naval bending. Departmental No. 043
Architectur & i1arine Engineering.
l3. Samson, John and How to build a ferro-cement boat. Vancouver, Samson Marine Design x x x x
Samson Marine Design Enterprises Enterprises, . l968. .
Ltd.
I
Ul
.\ Q)
Ul
,.
bO Ul C)
- 2 -
Q) "r'l bOt:: 0-
;>
6
C\l C\l
B. ARTICLES & PAMPHLETS.
..-f e
Jj
Ul
eo
C\l Q) Ul Q) 0 o u;
Journal and Citation
r-! bO'r-!
.0 C\l C\l o u:
(volume, date, paging)
C\l C\l
..-f C) Q) c
No. Author and Affiliation Title Z H 0
(/)

14. Anon Chinese build concrete boats Concrete Products v. 69(12) x x x
Dec 66 p. 36"'37.
15.
"
Concrete barges multiply in Gulf. Concrete Products v. 70 x x
Jan. 1967 p. 56-58.
16.
"
Concrete-hulled pilot launch for Shipbuilding & Shipping Rec. 1966 x x x
Bahrain. v. 49:437.
17. Anon Construction of an IBM ferro- U.S. Joint Publications Res. x x
cement hyperbolic hull - Communist Service.
China. JPRS 4167, 1960
18.
"
Ferrocement Concrete construction 1966,
-
x
v. 11:355
19.
"
Ferro-cement: does it have a The Work Boat. Feb. 1969. x x x x
future in the work boat field?
20. " Progress in ferro-cement. Yachting Monthly.
Sept. 1967 p. 120-124. x x x x
2l. " Seacrete stern trawlers. Fishing News International x x x
v. 7, 1967, p. 69-70
22.
I
Thin-shelled reinforced concrete Engineering 1963 x x
------...- in the U.K. 8 Feb. 232-3.
J.
I
YM and Ferro Report from Yachting Monthly 1969? x x x x
24.- Allen, R.T.L. & Terrett, F.L. Durability of concrete in coastal Conference on coastal engineering. x x
Cement and Concrete Assoc. protection work 1968. Chap 75 : 1200-1207.
25. Barnes, Sam. Concrete boats. l1achine Design. April 1968, p 44-45 x x
26. Bellport, B.P. Combating sulphate attack on In: Symposium on of x pc x pc
U.S. Reclamation concrete on Bureau of Reclamation Concrete. University
projects. Press 1968, p 77-92.
27. Burgess, John . Seacrete Method developed by Fishing News International x
IX
x pc
British yard. v. 8, May 1968: 44-45.
28. Cassie, W. F:isher. Lambot s boats. Concrete (London) v.l 1967; 380-82. x

29. Cement & Concrete Assoc. of Ferrocement boats. Concrete Information No. C-39, x
IX
pc
Australia. 9 pp 1968?
30. Fondriest, F.F. & Control of cracking in concrete. Battelle Technical Review x :x pc
Birkimer,Donald L. Sept/Oct 1968: 3-9.
31. Fyson, John F. Ferro-cement construction for Fishing News Internat. v.8,
Supr. of Boatbui1ding fishing vessels Pts 1-3. April 1968; 51-55, May 39-43,
pc
FAO Regional OR Bangkok. June (or FAO reprint).
32. 9au1, R.W. & E.D. Smith Effective & practical repair of In: Epoxies with concrete. Am . x x

cracked concrete. Concrete Inst. Pub. SP-2l, 1968
p. 29-36.
33. Gardner, John.
Ferro-cement makes strong huLL; March 196/, x
IX
Tech. Editor.
micro-balloons help lick resin sag. p. 8a

...J
,
.
-.
I
~
. aJ Ul
- 3 -
Ul u ..c
aJ . ~ 00 C c.
:> ;:...
~
CC C1l
B ARTICLES & PAMPHLETS (cont'd)
'r-l e $-4
.j..I Ul
~ $-4 00
C1l aJ Ul aJ 0 0 Ul
Journal and Citation
$-4 r-I 00 r-I ~ .j..I .j..I
$-4 ..0 C1l C1l $-4 0 Ul
Affiliation Title (volume, date, paging)
C1l C1l .r-l U aJ ..c 0
No. Author and z H 0 tr.l ~ p.. c..:>
34. Gibson, Peter. Fishboats in'Ferro-cement. Western Fisheries 1968. January
Correspondent. 25, 26, 28. x x
35. Gt. Brit. Building Research Station Zinc-coated reinforcement for Digest 11109. Watford 1969. x x x
concrete.
36. Hagenbach, T.M. Ferro-cement boats. Conf. on fishing vessel constrn . 'jX x
~ .
Seacrete Ltd. Mat'ls. Hontreal, 1968. p 365-371.
37. Hurd, N.K. Ferro-cement boats. Am. Concrete lnst. J. x x
I
Am. Concrete Inst. 1969: March p 202-4.
38. lorns, Martin. Fibersteel Corp. Cement boatbuilding problems aired. National Fisherman. Hay 1967. x
39. Ferro-cement advice from an National Fisherman. June 1967, x x
expert. June 1967, p 7B, 23B, 24B.
40. Kaiser Cement. Ferro-cement seagoing architectural Oakland, Cal. Kaiser x x
.
concrete. undated. 7 pp.
4l. Kelly, A.M. & Mouat, T.W. Ferro-cement as a fishing vessel Paper presented at Conf. on Fishing x x x x
~
B.C. Research, Vancouver. construction material. . Construction Materials. Montreal,
I
1968.
42. Kristinsson, G.E. The growing acceptance of Ferro- Sea Harvest Ocean Sci. x x
Commercial Marine Services, Ltd. , cement as a first-class boat- Dec 69/Feb 70. 32-34.
I
Montreai. , building material.
43. 1
2p
Construction of a ferro-shotcrete L'Ingenieur, March 1970. v. 56. x x
~ ?c.
Lachance, L. & , Fugere.
motor-sailer hull. (translation available)
lLaval University. 2Consulting Eng.
44. Hather, B. Field & laboratory studies of the In: Symposium on the performance x x
~
sulphate resistance 'of concrete. of concrete. Toronto', Univ. Press
1968. p 66-76.
45. Hathews, S.T. Main hull girder loads on Great Soc. Naval Architects & Harine x x x
~
Ship Division N.R.C. Lakes bulk carrier. EnKineers. Spring Meeting, 1967.
Proceedings Paper No. II.
46. Horgan, Rowland G; Underwater concrete. Underwater Science & Technol. J2, x x l{
U. of Bristol. 1970, June, 74-80.
47. Concrete as a shipbuilding material International Harine & Shipping x x
Conf. (London) 1969. Section 11,
Materials. p 9-14.
48. Nervi, Pier Luigi. Conc.rete and structured form. Engineering, 1955. 601-603. x II.
Nervi & Bertoli (Rome)
49. Ferro-cement: its characteristics L lngegnere 1951 (trans.) x
~
pc
& potentialities.
50. Ferro-cements: chapter 4 of McGraw Hill, 1956 x x pc pc
his Structures.
1
I
.
en (l) en
bO en <J ..c
- 4 -
~ I
OM bO C P.
~ ~ C\l ('j
OM 0
'"
'"'
(cont'd)
.u en
~
'"'
bO
B. ARTICLES & PAHPHLETS C\l (l) en (l) 0 0 en
Journal and Citation
'"'
r-i co r-i <+-l .u .u
'"'
,.c CiS CiS
'"'
0 IJl
Title (volume, date, paging)
C\l C\l OM <J (l) ..c a
No. Author and Affiliation z E-I 0
tf.) p., p., u
51. Nervi, Pier Luigi, Precast concrete offers new American Concrete Institute J. x x
Ix
Nervi & Bertoli (Rome). possibilities for design of shell v. 25: 537-548, 1953.
structures.
52. Thin reinforced concrete members Civil Engineering 1951, x x
from Thorn exhibition hall. v. 46:25-31.
53. Oberti, Guido. Prof. The penstock of Castelbello Energia Elettrica 1953. v. XXX x x IX x
(Trans I. ) No. 5. 17 p.
54. Some conclusions about Undated paper (Transl.) x x
Ix
deformability & resistance in
tension ferro-cement.
55. Rath, Dick. Concrete boats - are they for real? Boating Oct 1967. 37-42. x
Ix
x
56. Romualdi, J.P. Two-phase concrete and steel U.S. Patent 3,429,094 x x x x
Battelle Development. material. Feb 25, 1969.
57. Ross, Stanley. Concrete floats: smooth sailing Concrete products. v. 66, 1963 x
Ix
ahead. Oct: 29-32.
58. Schutz, B.J. Epoxy resin adhesives for bonding In: Epoxies with concrete Am. x x
Ix
concrete to concrete. Concrete Inst. Pub. SP-21.
Detroit, 1968 p. 19-28.
59. Stevenson, H.1. , Use of concrete ships for mill log Unpublished notes. 1964 . .
~
pond breakwater at Powell River.
60. Swenson, E.G. Admixtures in concrete National Research Council x
Div. Building Res., N. R.C. NRC Tech. Paper No. 18l. Ottawa.
6l. Tuthill, Lewis H. Concrete operations in the concrete Am. Concrete Inst. J. x x
IX ~
x
U.S. Reclamation Bureau. ships program. 1945 v. 16: 137-180.
0
I
and Discussion & closure. Supp. Nov. 1945
Ix
Coff, L. lSO-l - lSO-5.
Collen, L.D.G. Some Notes on the Civil Engineering and Public
Trinity College., Dublin
Characteristics of Ferro- Works Review (U. K. ) v.54:l95-
.
Cement
196, Feb. 1959 x x x x
Collen, L.D.G. Some Experiments in Design Bulletin of the Institution of
-
and Construction with Ferro- Civil Engineers of Ireland.
-
x x x x x
Cement
v.86: 39-58, Jan. 1960.
--'
.'
<
, -' .
..

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen