1

CONCRETE QUALITY IS IMPROVED WITH COFFOR

BECAUSE OF THE RAPID ELIMINATION OF EXCESS WATER
COFFOR eliminates naturally and rapidly the excess water. It is well known that excess
water has a negative impact on concrete quality. Excess water generates:
- bleeding or water rise, resulting in a less resistant concrete on surface and heterogeneous,
- water accumulation under the aggregates, resulting in bonding defects, micro fissures
between the paste and the aggregates, ice formation in case of frost,
- water accumulation under the rebars resulting in corrosion risk
- increase of shrinkage and creep,
- porosity increase resulting into less resistance against all external aggressions (frost,
aggressive water, possible corrosion of rebars due to rapid carbonation).
The elimination of excess water improves the intrinsic characteristics of concrete. Several
tests demonstrated that the COFFOR concrete quality* is greater than concrete poured in
traditional waterproof formwork.
* A maximum of 2% of concrete goes through the COFFOR grids during the pour. Tests
show that this has no negative effect on resistance of COFFOR.

SHRINKAGE TESTS
In June 1994, tests were made at CERAM (Centre d'Enseignement et de Rechercghe en
Analyse des Matriaux), the Research Center of Ecole Nationake des Ponts et Chausses,
Paris France, to control concrete shrinkage of COFFOR walls compared to walls poured with
traditional waterproof formwork.
The results are given in the following page.
The exhibit shows that immediate concrete shrinkage with COFFOR is less than 3 microns,
i.e. 20 times lower than with traditional waterproof formwork.

01.09.2010

IMMEDIATE CONCRETE SHRINKAGE

08/06/1994

-20

-25

Formwork vibrated

00/03:15

-15

00/03:04

-10

00/02:52
00/02/14
00/02/29
00/02/18
00/02:06
00/01:55
00:01:43
00:01:32
00/01:20

Traditional waterproof
COFFOR non vibrated
COFFOR vibrated

00/01:09

Time in days/hour:mm
-30

00/00:57
00/00:45
00/00:34

01.09.2010

00/00:23
00/00:11
00/00:11
00/00:00
00/00:00

-5

COMPRESSION TESTS
In February 1996, tests were made at CSTB (Centre Scientifique et Technique du Btiment),
Paris, France, to compare compression strength of COFFOR walls with walls poured with
traditional waterproof formwork.
Five samples were poured with the same concrete, 4 with COFFOR and 2 with traditional
waterproof formwork..
The results were as follows:
No

Nature of
tests

A
(mm2)
123 200
123 200
123 200
123 200

Load Fmax in
kN resulting in
breaking
3 170
2 200
2 250
2 480

Loading in
N/mm2 at
breaking point
25.7
17.9
18.3
20.1

Young
(elasticity)
module
-36 831
36 095
41 615

Type of
breakin
g
R1
R2
R2
R2

1
2
3
4

Compression
test on
COFFOR
Walls

5
6

Compression test
on tradtional
waterproof formwork

106 400
106 400

2000
1770

18.8
16.6

31 128
23 748

R3
R3

R1: concrete breaking in lower part

R2: concrete breaking in higher part
R3: concrete breaking in higher part
The results show that COFFOR walls have a compression strength 10% greater and a Young
(Elasticity) Module 30 % greater than concrete walls built with traditional waterproof
formworks.

DEFLEXION TESTS
1. In November 1999, a test was made at the Laboratoires d'Essai des Matriaux et Structures
of the Ecole des Ingnieurs de Genve, Geneva, Switzerland, to examine resistance under
deflexion of a COFFOR panel.
A 2900 cm x 73 cm x 15 cm COFFOR panel was used. A press with 2 points was applied
125 cm apart
Under deflexion, the COFFOR panel broke under a load of 35.5 kN (3.55 T)
2. In November 2002, a similar test was made at CSTB, Paris, France

01.09.2010

A 2000 cm x 122 cm x 15 cm COFFOR panel was used. A press with one point was applied
in the center
Under deflexion, the COFFOR panel broke under a load of 48 kN (4.8 T)
TRACTION TEST
In November 2002, traction tests were made to control the bonding of the COFFOR C profile
with concrete.
All tests made with C profile anchored in 30 cm concrete (or more) showed a 100% bonding,
as the C profile broke under traction.
On 5 tests made with C profiles anchored in 20 cm concrete (and without any support from
the zigzag COFFOR loop), 3 C profiles broke under traction, and 2 C profiles slided through
the concrete, but at their elasticity limit.
These tests show an excellent bonding of the C profile with concrete.
Complete report on these tests are available under request.
Additional tests are under way to determine an equivalence between steel content in COFFOR
and hard steel rebars.
.

01.09.2010