DEPARTMENTOFCIVILANDENIVORNMENTALENGINEERING,UNIVERISTYOFUTAH

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacrete FacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments

TechnicalReportPreparedby

StevenF.Bartlett,Ph.D.,P.E.;AurelianC.Trandafir,Ph.D.;BrianJ.Higley
4/10/2009

Contents
ListofFigures................................................................................................................................................3 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................4 TestProceduresandResults.........................................................................................................................5 ExpandedPolystyrene ..............................................................................................................................5 . CompressiveStrengthofGigacreteTM.......................................................................................................6 InterfaceAxialExtensionAdhesionBondTests........................................................................................7 InterfaceBondDirectShearTests............................................................................................................9 InterfaceShearStrengthwithCyclicUnaxialCompression....................................................................11 ImpactStrengthofGigacreteTM..............................................................................................................18 SummaryandConclusions..........................................................................................................................26 References..................................................................................................................................................28 Appendix1..................................................................................................................................................29

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page2

ListofFigures
Figure1.UnconfinedUniaxialCompressionStressStrainCurvesforEPS1950mmcubicsamples (Bartlettetal.2000)......................................................................................................................................5 Figure2.Cylinderpreparationforunconfinedcompressivestrengthtests................................................6 Figure3.(a)UnconfinedcompressiontestingofGigacreteTMcylinder,(b)FailureofGigacretesample...7 Figure4.GigacreteTMcompressivestrengthgainasafunctionofcuretime..............................................7 Figure5.Laminatedmaterialsubjectedtotensilestressnormaltothelaminateplanetodetermine adhesionbondstrength................................................................................................................................8 Figure6.TensilefailureoflaminatedGigacreteTMEPSspecimens............................................................9 Figure7.Verticaldeformationversusloadforlaminatedsamples.............................................................9 Figure8.Laminatedmaterialsubjectedtoshearstressparalleltolaminateplanetodetermineshear bondstrength...............................................................................................................................................9 Figure9.UniversityofUtahdirectsheardevicemanufacturedbyELEInternational...............................10 Figure10.DirectsheartestresultsforGigacreteTMEPSbond...................................................................10 Figure11.SamplesofGigacreteTMEPSlaminatetestedindirectshear.EPSsampleislocatedontop andhasbeencompressedduringshear.Localshearfailurehasoccurredontheleadingedgeofthe sample.........................................................................................................................................................11 Figure12.Shearstressesintroducedatlaminateinterfacefromaxialcompressionandextension........11 Figure13.CyclicloadingwithintheEPSresultingfromthermalexpansioncontractionoftheEPSwall system.........................................................................................................................................................12 Figure14.CylindricalsampleofGigacreteTMandEPS19casttotestthebondstrengthforcyclicunaxial compression................................................................................................................................................12 Figure15.UniversityofUtahcyclictriaxialtestapparatus.......................................................................13 Figure16.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles0250.............14 Figure17.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles251500.........15 Figure18.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles501750.........15 Figure19.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles501750.........15 Figure20.Photographsofthetopofthesamplebefore(top)andafter(bottom)theapplicationof1000 loadingcycles.NodamagewasobservedattheEPSGigacreteTMinterface.........................................17 Figure21.Photographsofthebottomofthesamplebefore(top)andafter(bottom)theapplicationof 1000loadingcycles.NodamagewasobservedattheEPSGigacreteTMinterface.................................17 Figure22.TheGardnerStrikerUsedinImpactTesting.............................................................................19 Figure23.Photographsofthickglassfiberreinforced1x1and6x6samples.............................24 Figure24.Photographsofnylonreinforced1x1and6x6samples.............................................24 Figure25.Photographsofglassfiberreinforced1x1and6x6samples......................................25 Figure26.Photographsofnylonreinforced1x1and6x6samples.............................................25

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page3

Introduction
This report discusses the bonding and impact resistant of GigacreteTM used as a nonstructural permanent facing for Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) geofoam embankments. GigacreteTM is a mineral cement based proprietary product manufactured and distributed by GigaCrete Inc. of Scottsdale, Arizona. The intended use of this product is to deploy it as a spray on application (e.g., similar to shotcreting)forthepermanentfacingandprotectionoffreestandinggeofoamembankments. The exposed sides of a geofoam embankment must be covered to prevent longterm surface degradation of the EPS, mainly from UV degradation and to incidental damage of the geofoam from otherenvironmentalfactorsandfromimpact.TheBostonCentralArteryTunnel(BCAT)Project,known astheBigDigproject,deployedanExteriorInsulationandFinishingSystem(EIFS)tocoverandprotect theEPSgeofoam.Forthisproject,approximately10,000squarefeetofEPSblockswerecoveredusing dry mix process shotcrete (http://www.aulson.com/concreterepair.cfm). The EPS was prepared for shotcrete application by etching recessed notches with a heatwelding gun every 12 inches along the permanentfaceoftheEPSstructureinpreparationforshotcreteadhesion.Awiremeshwasfastened totheEPSfacewithglassfillednylonfastenersandhookboltswereusedtoattachthewiremeshtothe castinplaceconcretebarrieralongthetopoftheEPSwall.Subsequently,workersappliedatwoinch thick layer of dry mix process shotcrete at 400 feet per second along the EPS wall face creating an appearancesimilartorubbedconcrete. However, the application explored herein is the direct application of a GigacreteTM coating to the EPS withoutrecessednotches.Importanttothisapplicationisthebondstrengththatdevelopsbetweenthe EPS and GigacreteTM. Because EPS wall systems are relatively new in the U.S. and because shotcrete facing is a developing technology, no AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) guidelines or specifications exist for this application. An EIFS project specification was developed for the Big Dig project (Appendix 1), which can be used a guide for evaluatingthedesignandconstructionoffuturesystems.However,thisspecificationwasdevelopedfor aspecificprojectandproduct.Thus,partsoftheBigDigspecificationmaynotbeapplicabletoother productsandapplicationmethods. This report evaluates the bond strength of GigacreteTM when applied to EPS geofoam using test performance data performed by the University of Utah Departments of Civil and Environmental EngineeringandGeologyandGeophysics.TestdataweregatheredandevaluatedfortheGigacreteTM EPSinterfacefortension,shearandaxialcompression.Inaddition,testswereperformedontheaxial compressionstrengthofGigacreteTM.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page4

TestProceduresandResults
ExpandedPolystyrene
The density, stiffness and strength of the selected EPS are important consideration for roadway and embankment applications. EPS density is that primary factor that determines its weight, strength, compressibility and postyield behavior. Commonly manufactured EPS densities (kg/m3) are: EPS12, EPS15,EPS19,EPS22,EPS29,EPS39andEPS46,whereEPS12representsadensityof12kg/m3,etc.).For applications where EPS is placed under roadways, it is recommend that EPS19, or higher, be used to prevent overstressing and damaging of the EPS from wheel loads. For other areas, where trafficking atopthegeofoamwillnotberequired,lighterdensitiesofEPSmaybeused.However,careshouldbe takennottooverstressthegeofoam. The properties of EPS (dry density, compressive strength and flexural strength) are commonly determinedbyASTMC578.Theacceptancecriteriaareprojectspecific.Formostroadwayapplications, EPS19 (19 kg/m3), or higher density, is recommended. For the bonding and impact evaluations discussedinthisreport,EPS19wasused.ThepropertiesofEPS19werenotextensivelytestedforthis report,buttheyhavebeenpreviouslyevaluatedinBartlettetal.(2000).
140

120

100 Stress (kPa)

80

Compressive Strength @ 5% strain 84 - 111 kPa @ 10% strain 100 - 122 kPa Corrected Initial Modulus 2.9 - 5.1 MPa Density 18.7 - 19.4 kg/m3

60

40

20

0 0 5 10 Percent Axial Strain 15

Figure1.UnconfinedUniaxialCompressionStressStrainCurvesforEPS1950mmcubicsamples(Bartlettetal.2000).

Theinitialstrainlaginthesecurvesisduetounevencontactduringtestingandwasadjusted.Thesedata show that EPS19 reaches yield (i.e., plastic behavior) at axial strains of about 2 percent (Figure 2). The corrected initial Youngs modulus for the tests shown in Figure 1 ranges from 2.9 to 5.1 MPa. The compressivestrengthat5and10percentstrainwas,onaverage,97and111kPa,respectively. TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page5

at s ve ot EPS ments. It should be noted tha the results shown abov should no be used for design of E embankm oduliandunc confinedcom mpressivestre engthscalcula atedfromsm mall(i.e.,50m mm)cubesam mples Youngmo (Figure 1) are generally too low a do not reflect the p ) and properties of largesized E block us in EPS sed embankm mentapplicati ions.Testingonlargebloc cksamplespe erformedatS SyracuseUniv versity(Elragietal. 2000)sho owthatenda andedgeeffe ectsundulyin nfluencemod dulicalculated dfrom50mm mcubes.Elragiet al.(2000)reportYoung gmodulivalu uesofabout1 10MPafor2 foot(600mm m)cubesamp plesforEPS20 0.
M Compre essiveStre engthofGigacreteTM

ForEIFS,t thefacingma aterialisnot placedincompression,b becauseitisa anonbearing gstructuralfa acing. Thus the BCAT Project did not spe t ecify a perfor rmance criter rion for compressive strength of the f facing TM material. However, we performe three unconfined com w ed mpressive stre ength tests o GigacreteT for on comparat tivepurposeswithothersh hotcreteandstuccoprodu ucts. GigacreteTM samples were prep e pared in in ndoor conditions accord ding to the manufacturers e recommendations.The emixturewasplacedin4 inch(10cm) )diametermo oldsthatwer re8inches(20cm) high(Figu ure2)andcur redfor4,10,and12daysa at20degrees sCpriortoun nconfinedcom mpressiontes sting.

Figure2.Cylinde F erpreparationf forunconfinedc compressivestre engthtests.

After curi ing, the samp were pla ples aced in an ac ctuator (Figure 3a) and lo oaded to unt failure occ til curred (Figure3b b)inamanne ersimilartot thatrequired byASTMC39 9.Thecomp pressivestrengtha4,10and12 daycuret timeswere5220psi(36M MPa),7100ps si(49MPa)an nd8190psi(5 57MPa),resp pectively.Fig gure4 TM shows ho the compressive strength of Gigacrete increases as a func ow ction of cure time. Obvio e ously, higher strengths than those show in Figure 4 are possible with lon n wn e nger cure tim mes, but because determina ation of the compressive strength w not a primary object e was tive of this s study, we did not d performa additionaltes stsforlongercuretimes. TheBondStrengthand dImpactResistanceofGig gacreteTMFaci ingonExpand dedPolystyre eneforHighw way Embankm ments Page6 P

Figure3.(a)UnconfinedcompressiontestingofGigacreteTMcylinder,(b)FailureofGigacretesample.

60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 0 2 4 6 8 Cure Time (days) 10 12

, kPa

Figure4.GigacreteTMcompressivestrengthgainasafunctionofcuretime.

InterfaceAxialExtensionAdhesionBondTests
ForEIFSapplications,theamountofadhesionbondthatdevelopsbetweenthefacingmaterial andthe EPS is an important property for the longterm performance and durability of the permanent facing. TheBCATProjectacceptancecriterionforEIFSis:Nofailureintheadhesivebasecoatorfinishcoat. The insulation board shall fail cohesively except that 25 percent adhesive failure is acceptable. For testedvaluesofnineteen(19)psiorgreater,adhesivefailureupto100%isacceptable(Appendix1,p. 8).

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page7

ThetestmethodrecommendedbytheBCATprojectfordeterminingbondstrengthisASTMC297.This testmethodcoversthedeterminationofthecoreflatwisetensionstrength,orthebondbetweencore andfacingsofanassembledsandwichpanel.Thetestconsistsofsubjectingasandwichconstructiontoa tensile load normal to the plane of the sandwich (Figure 5). The tensile load is transmitted to the sandwichthroughthickloadingblocksbondedtothesandwichfacingsordirectlytothecore.

3inch(75mm)diameterby 2inch(50mm)highEPS19 samplesandwiched betweenGigacreteTMlayers.

Figure5.Laminatedmaterialsubjectedtotensilestressnormaltothelaminateplanetodetermineadhesionbondstrength.

WeevaluatedthebondstrengthbetweenEPSandGigacreteTMinamannersimilartoASTMC297.A3 inch(75mm)concretecylinderwasusedtomoldthelaminatedsample.Aneyeboltwasanchoredin thetoplayeroftheGigacreteTMandathreadedrodwasanchoredinthebottomlayer(Figure5).These wereusedtoattachtheweightstoapplythenormaltensileforce. Twosampleswerepreparedanallowedtocurvefor5and6days,respectively.Thespecimensfailedat atensilestressof39.6psi(273kPa)and39.5psi(272kPa),respectively.Figure6showsthefailureof specimens, which is a tensile failure of the EPS. In both cases, the bond between the EPS and the GigacreteTM did not develop an adhesion failure; instead a cohesive failure developed with the EPS. Thus, the GigacreteTMEPS laminate tested meets, or greatly exceeds, the requirements of the BCAT ProjectperformancecriterionforbondstrengthforEIFS(Appendix1).

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page8

Figure6.TensilefailureoflaminatedGigacreteTMEPSspecimens.

Inadditiontothepeaktensilestrength,wemeasuretheverticaldeformationofthesampleastheload wasapplied.ThesedataareshowninFigure7.ThesedatasuggestthatthetensilefailureintheEPS occurredat4and20percentaxialstrain.

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 0

Vertical Deformation (mm)

Sample 1 Sample 2 50 Total Added Mass (kg)

Figure7.Verticaldeformationversusloadforlaminatedsamples.

InterfaceBondDirectShearTests
TheshearbondthatdevelopsbetweenthefacingmaterialandEPSisalsoimportantforthelongterm durability of the permanent facing. Sufficient bonding in pure shear is required to prevent slippage between the facing material and the EPS when the stress is oriented parallel to the plane of the interface(Figure8). Leading edgeofEPS
Figure8.Laminatedmaterialsubjectedtoshearstressparalleltolaminateplanetodetermineshearbondstrength.

NointerfaceshearperformancecriterionortestswererequiredaspartoftheBCATprojectspecification (Appendix 1). However, this is a common test done in Geotechnical Engineering to determine the interface shear strength or bond between two dissimilar materials and is commonly performed in a direct shear device (Figure 9). We evaluated the shear bond strength of GigacreteTM and EPS in a mannersimilartoASTMD3080. Two2.5inch(62.5mm)diameterby0.5inch(12.5mm)GigacreteTMlayerswerepouredatopanEPS19 sample of identical dimensions. The GigacreteTM was allowed to cure for 9 days and then tested in directshearwithanappliednormalstressof2.2psi(15kPa).(Thisnormalstresswasselectedbecause it represents a typical normal stress that develops in the elastic range of the EPS.) The sample was subjectedtoahorizontaldisplacementrateintheshearboxthatcorrespondsto0.05inches(1.25mm) perminuteandtesteduntiladisplacementof0.5inches(12.5mm)wasrealized.Figure10showspeak shearbondstrengthsof51.3and55.2kPaforsamples1and2,respectively. TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page9

Figure9.UniversityofUtahdirectsheardevicemanufacturedbyELEInternational.

60 Shear Strength (kPa) 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Sample 1 Sample 2

Figure10.DirectsheartestresultsforGigacreteTMEPSbond.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page10

Afterthetestswereperformed,thesampleswerevisuallyinspected.Therewasasignificantamountof compressionoftheEPS,buttheinterfacebondwasnotbrokenbetweenthetwomaterials.Figure11 showsthelocaldeformationandshearthatdevelopedalongtheleadingedgeofthesample(Figure8); however,alongthetrailingedgeofthesample,thebondwasintact.Acarefulinspectionoftheleading edge of the sample showed beads of EPS were still embedded in the GigacreteTM suggesting that the failurewasalocalizedcohesivefailureandnotadhesivefailureoftheinterfacebond.

Figure11.SamplesofGigacreteTMEPSlaminatetestedindirectshear.EPSsampleislocatedontopandhasbeen compressedduringshear.Localshearfailurehasoccurredontheleadingedgeofthesample.

InterfaceShearStrengthwithCyclicUnaxialCompression
ShearstressesatGigacreteTM andEPSinterfacecandevelopfromcyclicaxialloadingoftheEPS.Such loadings can be a result of differential thermal expansioncontraction of the EPS block relative to the GigacreteTMfacingorcanbecausedbyseismicandtrafficloadings(Figure12).
Figure12.Shearstressesintroducedatlaminateinterfacefromaxialcompressionandextension.

GigacreteTM facing

EPSblocks undergoingaxial compressionand extensionfrom thermal,trafficor earthquakeloadings

Forexample,datagatheredfromtheI15ReconstructionProject(Figure13)showscyclicalaxialloading withintheEPSduetoseasonalthermalexpansionandcontractionoftheEPSwallsystem(Bartlettetal. 2001). These data suggest a seasonal cycling of about 2 psi (13.8 kPa). (Note that the initial vertical stress of about 5 psi (34.5 kPa) results from the initial placement of the load distribution slab and overlying pavement materials.) It should also be noted that the yield stress (i.e., stress at 2 percent TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page11

ely of wn strain) is approximate 80 to 100 kPa (Figure 1); thus the magnitude o the cyclic loadings show in heelasticrang geoftheEPS. Figure13arewithinth
6.0 5.0 4.0 Pressure (psi) 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 -1.0 Mar-99 Mar-00 Mar r-01 Mar-02 Mar-03

Figu ure13.Cycliclo oadingwithintheEPSresultingfromthermalex xpansioncontra actionoftheEPSwallsystem.

Wedevise edamodified dtestmethodtomeasure etheperform manceofthe GigacreteTM EPSbondfo orthe TM case of a EPS embankment wit Gigacrete placed in cyclic axial compressio an th e n onextension from environmental loading (e.g., thermal, seismic, etc). A 4in (100mm outside dia gs nch m) ameter cylind of der GigacreteTM was cast around a 3inch (75mm) outside diam e ) meter of EPS as shown in Figure 14 and S19 n 4 curedfor7days. Subseque ently in a ser ries of stress controlled c cyclic uniaxial tests, the E central co was plac in l EPS ore ced alternatin compressio ng onextension using a cycl triaxial de lic evice (Figure 15). The 3inch (75mm) end capsfort theloadfram mecompletely ycontactedt theEPScore, ,butdidnotcontactthe GigacreteTM outer ring.Inth hismanneron nlyverticalst tresswastran nsferredtoth heEPS(Figure e14).

Figure14.Cylindricals sampleofGigac creteTMandEPS1 19casttotestthebondstrengt thforcyclicuna axialcompressio on.

TheBondStrengthand dImpactResistanceofGig gacreteTMFaci ingonExpand dedPolystyre eneforHighw way Embankm ments Page12

InitialtestingofanEPS19cylinderwithouttheGigacreteTM coatingshowedthatcreepdeformationwas initiatedina3inch(75mm)EPS19samplewhenastaticaxialstressofabout30kPawasappliedtothe sample.DesignofEPSembankmentrequiresthattheallowableworkingstressintheEPSembankment tobeapproximately50percentoftheyieldstress,soweselectedaninitialaxialcompressivestressof 15kPaforthetesting. Onceitwasverifiedthatthesamplewasnotundergoingcreepunderthisaxialstress,additionalcyclic axialstressof11kPawasappliedtothesample.Thus,theamplitudeoftheaxialstressonthesample varied from +26 kPa to + 4 kPa, where + indicates compression. This is approximately twice the magnitudeofthethermalstresscyclingoccurringintheEPSembankment(Figure13). ThesampleinFigure14wassubjectto4setsof250cycleseachwithaninitialstaticaxialstressof15 kPAandanaxialcyclicstressof11kPaappliedatafrequencyof1Hz.Theresultsforthesetestsare showninFigures1619.

Figure15.UniversityofUtahcyclictriaxialtestapparatus.

(Intheseplots,theshearstressisplottedinsteadoftheaxialstressontheleftaxisofthefigures.The shearstressistheaxialstressdividedby2forthecaseofuniaxialloading.)Figure16showsthatslightly less than 0.2 percent inelastic (i.e., plastic) axial strain accumulated in the EPS sample during the first 250cycleloadingset.Thissuggeststhatthecombinationofinitialstaticandcyclicloadinghadslightly exceeded the elastic limit of the EPS. However, subsequent sets on the same sample showed less inelasticbehavior,suggestingtheinelasticdeformationdecreaseswiththenumberofcycles.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page13

Wenotethatthesamplewascompletelyunloadedaftereachsetof250cycles.(Thiswasdonesothat thesystemssolenoidcouldcooldownbeforethenextsetof250cycleswasapplied.)Becauseofthis, the permanent deformations shown in Figures 16 through 19 cannot be added to get the total permanentaxialstrainduring1000cycles.

Figure16.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles0250.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page14

Figure17.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles251500.

Figure18.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles501750.

Figure19.Plotsofshearstressversusaxialstrainforcyclicuniaxialstresstests,cycles501750.

Once1000cycleshadbeenappliedtothesample,weinspectedtheGigacreteTM EPSinterfaceforany signs of damage due to cycling. No debonding or damage was observed at this interface (Figures 20 and21). TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page15

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page16

Figure20.Photographsofthetopofthesamplebefore(top)andafter(bottom)theapplicationof1000loadingcycles.No damagewasobservedattheEPSGigacreteTMinterface.

Figure21.Photographsofthebottomofthesamplebefore(top)andafter(bottom)theapplicationof1000loadingcycles. NodamagewasobservedattheEPSGigacreteTMinterface.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page17

ImpactStrengthofGigacreteTM
Initially,squaresamplesofEPS19,measuring1footby1foot(0.3mby0.3m)and0.5ft(0.15m)thick, were coated with inch (12.5 mm) of unreinforced GigacreteTM for impact testing. A striker was constructed using a cylindrical shaped weight and a steel ball bearing. This striker was dropped from predeterminedheightsandimpactedtheGigacreteTMcoatingappliedtotheEPSbacking.Theseinitial impacttestsshowedthatevenatrelativelysmalldropheights,theunreinforcedsamplesonEPSbacking will fracture. After discussing the results of the initial impact tests with the manufacturer, it was decidedthatreinforcedsamplesshouldbepreparedforadditionalimpacttesting. Subsequently, two types of reinforcing meshes were used in the samples: glassfiber and nylon reinforcingmesh.TwelveEPS19samples,measuring0.5ftby0.5ft(0.15mby0.15m)and2in(50mm) thick, were prepared and coated with GigacreteTM for impact testing. Six of these samples were reinforced with glassfiber and six were reinforced with a nylon reinforcing mesh. In addition, an identicalsetofsampleswereprepared,butusingaGigacreteTMcoatingthicknessofinch(18.75mm). This was done to evaluate how the impact performance may improved as the thickness of the GigacreteTMisincreased.Itshouldbenotedthata2in(50mm)thicknessofEPS19waschosenforall testssothatthesamplespreparedwithaGigacreteTMcoatingcouldfitunderneaththestriker. Anadditiontothe0.5ft(0.15m)squaresamples,largersizedsquareEPS19sampleswerealsoprepared andtested. Thesesamplesmeasured1footby1foot(0.3mby0.3m)and2in(50mm)thick. One samplewaspreparedforeachthicknessofGigacreteTM(i.e.,12.5and18.75mmthickness)andforeach meshtypeforatotalof4samples. For all of samples, the reinforcing mesh was placed at middepth within the GigacreteTM coating. However,forthenylonmeshwitha12.5mmcoatingofGigacreteTM,thesmallmeshopeningsizemade preparationofthesesamplesdifficult.TheGigacreteTMcoatingwasbarelysufficienttofullycoverthe nylonmesh. Allsampleswerecuredforsevendaysandthentestedusingvariousimpactenergies.Afterimpacting, eachspecimenwasinspectedforcracks,breaks,depthofindentationandtoseeifthemeshhadbeen penetrated or broken by the impact. A Gardner Striker (ASTM D 5420) apparatus was used for the impact testing (Figure 22). This shape of head produces more concentrated impact than the larger diametersteelballsorweightedbagsadaptedfromothermethodsandproducesagoodcompromise betweenpuncturingandcrackingaction.Inthistest,thesamplerestsonabaseplateoveranopening. Animpactorsitsontopofthetestsampleandaweightisraisedtoapredeterminedheight,thenitis released to drop onto the top of the sample. The drop height, drop weight, and the test result are recorded.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page18


Figure22.TheGardnerStrikerUsedinImpactTesting.

The0.5ftby0.5ft(0.15mby0.15m)samplesweretestedfirst.Becauseoftheirsmallersize,itwas assumed that cracks would form at lower impact energies; therefore the objective of this part of the testing was to evaluate the approximate impact energy required to penetrate or break the mesh. Subsequently, the 1 foot by 1 foot (0.3 m by 0.3 m) samples were tested to find the impact energy requiredtocrackthecoating.TheresultsareshowninTable2below. Thetestresultsshowedthatforthethickfiberreinforcedsamples,theimpactstrengthrequiredto crackthesamplesisestimatedtobe280inlbs.Theimpactstrengthrequiredtopenetratethemeshis consistently higher than the maximum available of 320 inlbs energy delivered by the Gardner Striker (Figure23). Incomparison,thethicknylonreinforcedsamplesof1x1dimensionscrackedat200inlbs.Alsoat 304inlbs,thestrikerpenetratedthroughthemeshandintotheEPS(Figure24).Inaddition,atimpact energy of 200 inlbs, or more, the damage to the 6 x 6 samples was severe, including cracks that propagated into the EPS. Also, the bond between the EPS and GigacreteTM failed at the corners and edges(Figure24).However,thenylonmeshwasnotpenetrateduntilimpactsofover300inlbswere used. Whenthethick1x1sampleswithglassfiberreinforcementwasstruckwith200inlbs,smallcracks formed; but at the highest energy of 320 inlbs, the mesh was not ruptured (Figure 25). Also, it is interestingtonotethatforsample1ofthe6x6samplesdidnotcrackat200inlbsofimpactenergy

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page19

(Table 2). Furthermore, none of the 6 x 6 glassfiber samples were penetrated at the maximum impactenergyof320inlbs(Table2). Incomparison,thenylonreinforced1x1samplehadsmallcracksat240inlbsbutthemeshwas notpenetratedwhenstruckagainat320inlbs(seeFigure26).The6x6samplesalsocrackedatlower energies,butthemeshremainedunpenetratedatmaximumimpactor320inlbs. Table2.ImpactTestingResultsforGigacreteTMcoating, GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 Drop Energy(inlbs) 280 304 320* Drop Energy(inlbs) 152 200 200 224 224 280 304 320* 1/2" GlassFiber Indentation Depth(in) 0.184 0.386 0.201 Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N N Observations: 1smallcrack Crackedtoedges Crackedtoedges SampleSize: 1'x1' x2EPS 1/2" GlassFiber Indentation Depth(in) 0.162 0.015 0.078 0.171 0.177 0.080 0.037 Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N N N N N N N Observations: Nocracks Crackedtoedges,smallchips Nocracks,nochips Crackedtoedges,smallchips Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges SampleSize: 6"x6" x2EPS

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page20

GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 2 Drop Energy(inlbs) 320* 200 Drop Energy(inlbs) 200 248 320* 320* 320* 320* 320*

3/4" GlassFiber Indentation Depth(in) 0.013 0.013 0.010 0.038 0.022 3/4" GlassFiber Indentation Depth(in) 0.076 0.026

SampleSize:

6"x6" x2EPS

Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N N N N N N Observations: Nocracks Crackedtoedges,smallchips Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges

SampleSize:

1'x1' x2EPS

Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N Observations: Crackstoedges Crackstoedges

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page21

GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 Drop Energy(inlbs) 104 200 304 Drop Energy(inlbs) 248 200 152 120 96 280 320*

1/2" Nylon Indentation Depth(in) 0.024 0.045 0.008 0.012 0.005 1/2" Nylon Indentation Depth(in) 0.019 0.182

SampleSize:

6"x6" x2EPS

Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N N N N N Y Observations: LargeCrackstoedgesandintoEPS LargeCrackstoedgesandintoEPS Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges LargeCrackstoedgesandintoEPS LargeCrackstoedgesandintoEPS

SampleSize:

1'x1' x2EPS

Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N Y Observations: NoCracks Crackstoedges PenetratedintoEPS

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page22

GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 GigacreteTMthickness: Reinforcement: Sample Number 1 Drop Energy(inlbs) 240 304 Drop Energy(inlbs) 200 248 320* 320* 320* 320* 320*

3/4" Nylon Indentation Depth(in) 0.013 0.013 0.010 0.038 0.022 3/4" Nylon Indentation Depth(in) 0.016

SampleSize:

6"x6" x2EPS

Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N N N N N N Observations: Crackstoedges Crackstoedges,smallchips Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges Crackstoedges

SampleSize:

1'x1' x2EPS

Penetrated Mesh?(Y/N) N N Observations: Crackstoedges Crackstoedges,smallchips

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page23

Figure23.Photographsofthickglassfiberreinforced1x1and6x6samples.

Figure24.Photographsofnylonreinforced1x1and6x6samples.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page24


Figure25.Photographsofglassfiberreinforced1x1and6x6samples.

Figure26.Photographsofnylonreinforced1x1and6x6samples.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page25

SummaryandConclusions
TheimpacttestingresultsaresummarizedinTable3.Becauseofthesmallnumberofsamplestestedfor eachcase(i.e.,maximumofsixsamples),theresultsbelowarenotstatisticallyrobust,butdosuggest therelativeperformanceforeachcase. Table3.SummaryofImpactTesting Impactto PenetrateMesh (inlbs) >320 <304 >320 >320

GigacreteTM Thickness: 1/2" 1/2" 3/4" 3/4" Reinforcement GlassFiber Nylon GlassFiber Nylon

Impactto Crack(inlbs)* >280 200 >200 <240

Insummary,samplesreinforcedwitheithertypeofmesh(glassfiberornylon)haveimpactperformance that is significantly higher than the highest EIFS Industry Members Association (EIMA) classification, whichisLevel4(Table4). Table4.EIMAClassificationforImpactResistance

It should noted that samples with glassfiber reinforcement generally performed better than those reinforcedwithnylon.Inaddition,fortheglassfibermesh,increasingthethicknessoftheGigacreteTM coatingfromtodidnotsignificantlyimprovetheresistancetocracking(Table3).However,itis recommendedthatacoatingthicknessof,orgreater,beappliedtosufficientlycoverthemesh.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page26

ThetestresultsforthecompressivestrengthandbondstrengthsaresummarizedinTable5. Table5.Summaryofcompressiveandbondstrengthtests.
Test Compressive strength Compressive strength Compressive strength Tensile bond strength Tensile bond strength Direct Shear bond strength Direct Shear bond strength Cyclic loading bond strength Result (kPa) 3620 49000 56500 272 273 51 55 15 static + 11 cyclic Notes Gigacrete sample Gigacrete sample Gigacrete sample Bond did not fail; failed in EPS Bond did not fail; failed in EPS Bond did not fail; failed in EPS Bond did not fail; failed in EPS Bond did not fail; no damage to EPS Miscellaneous 4-day cure 10-day cure 12-day cure 6-day cure 5-day cure 9-day cure 9-day cure 7-day cure

ThesetestsresultsshowthatthetensilebondthatdevelopsbetweenGigacreteTMandEPS19meetsor exceeds the performance requirements adopted by the BCAT project for Exterior Insulation and Finishing Systems (EIFS). In addition, the bond strength was tested in direct shear and cyclic uniaxial compressionextension. The direct shear test results show that a cohesive shear failure developes withintheEPS,buttheinterfacebondwiththeGigacreteTMisnotbroken.Thecyclicloadingtestsshow that the interface bond is not broken or even apparently damaged after 1000 cycles of axial loading. This bond remains intact even though some inelastic deformation accumulated in the EPS. Thus, for cyclic loading, it appears that the interface bond will not be damaged as long as the cyclic loading amplitudeismaintainedwithintheelasticrangeoftheEPS.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page27

References
AST C39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International,WestConshohocken,PA,2005,DOI:10.1520/C0039_C0039M05E01. ASTM C297 / C297M, 2004, Standard Test Method for Flatwise Tensile Strength of Sandwich Constructions,ASTMInternational,WestConshohocken,PA,2004,DOI:10.1520/C0297_C0297M04. ASTM C578, 2008, Standard Specification for Rigid, Cellular Polystrene Thermal Insulation, ASTM International,WestConshohocken,PA,2008,DOI:10.1520/C057808. ASTM D080, 2004, Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions,ASTMInternational,WestConshohocken,PA,2004,DOI:10.1520/D308004. Bartlett,S.F.,Negussey,D.,Kimball,M.,2000,DesignandUseofGeofoamontheI15Reconstruction Project,TransportationResearchBoard,January9thto13th,2000,Washington,D.C.,20p. BartlettS.F.,Farnsworth,C.,Negussey,D.,andStuedlein,A.W.,2001,InstrumentationandLongTerm MonitoringofGeofoamEmbankments,I15ReconstructionProject,SaltLakeCity,Utah,EPSGeofoam 2001,3rdInternationalConference,Dec.10thto12th,2001,SaltLakeCity,Utah,23p. Elragi,A.F.,Negussey,D.andKyanka,G.,2000,SampleSizeEffectsontheBehaviorofEPSGeofoam, ProceedingsoftheSoftGroundTechnologyConference,ASCESpecialPublication112,theNetherlands.

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page28

Appendix1
Section909.300 ExteriorInsulationandFinishSystems(EIFS) Boston'sCentralArteryTunnelProject

TheBondStrengthandImpactResistanceofGigacreteTMFacingonExpandedPolystyreneforHighway Embankments Page29