Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2134–2139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Comparative study on folded ferrocement and plain ferrocement panels

subjected to axial loading
Somasekhar, N. Jayaramappa, C. Venkata Sai Nagendra ⇑
Dept. of Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bangalore University, Bangalore, Karnataka 560056, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this research is to explain the performance of plain and folded ferrocement panels under
Available online 21 December 2021 axial stress and to assess their load bearing capacity. Both the panels were cast and tested using the same
dimensions and materials, with a length of around 3000 mm, a depth of 2700 mm, and a thickness of
Keywords: 30 mm. For both panels, a 1: 3 cement mortar with a water cement ratio of 0.45 is employed, double lay-
Ferro-cement panels ered chicken mesh and HYSD 8 mm bars are positioned at 200 mm c/c. Two-point loads were gradually
Ultimate load applied throughout the span of the panels, and the resulting deflection was measured for each load incre-
Deflection
ment. The maximal load-bearing capacity of both panels was compared in this research, as well as the
HYSD
ETABS and Flexural load
flexural load carrying ability, load–deflection relationship, fracture patterns, ultimate deflection, and
mechanism of failure of specimens. Finally, load deflection graphs and bar charts are plotted to compare
the results of both panels. The ETABS software is used to conduct the analytical investigation. Software is
used to build a Reinforced Concrete (RC) frame, and ferrocement panels are erected as wall components.
The structure’s behaviour is investigated, and load vs deflection is plotted for linear static analysis.
Finally, the analytical and experimental research outcomes are contrasted.
Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Innovation and Application in Science and Technology

1. Introduction Plates that have been folded offer a number of advantages, like
high-quality and long-lasting roofing.
One of the construction materials like ferrocement may be cap- Al-Kubaisy et.al., [1] explored the flexural behaviour of the
able of meeting the demand for light-weight buildings. It has stress (tension) zone cover made of ferrocement for an RCC ele-
proved to be an excellent building material as well as a good repair ment. The tests were conducted on 12 specimens which are casted
material. Ferrocement composites are made out of cement-sand using ferrocement cover. The results indicated that the ultimate
mortar and single or multi-layers of steel wire mesh to generate flexural load and crack behaviour (first crack load) increased for
thin components with excellent durability, resilience, and strength all the specimens with ferrocement cover. Mohammad N. et al.
and stiffness when appropriately shaped. The thin ferrocement [2] investigated the behaviour of various wire mesh layer counts
components may be moulded into structural components like on folded and flat ferrocement panels. The primary objective of
folded plates. Compared to conventional reinforced concrete, they his research is to investigate the impact of different wire mesh
are extremely durable, inexpensive, and flexible, with a tensile layer counts on folded and flat ferrocement panels flexural
strength-to-weight ratio at extremely high and improved cracking strength, as well as to compare the influence of different wire mesh
behaviour. Roofing structures made of folded plates are popular layer numbers on ductility and ultimate strength. Seven ferroce-
because they are both cost-effective and attractive. A folded plate ment components, with three and four flat and folded panels
structure is made up of a stack of flat plates that are linked along respectively, each with a horizontal projection of 600x380mm
their edges and is commonly used for long spans. Folded plate and a thickness of 20 mm, were built and tested. The results indi-
roofs are preferred by certain architects over curved shell roofs. cate that the quantity of wire meshes employed had little impact
on cracking stress, particularly in the case of folded panels. When
compared to a single layer, the flexural strength of a folded panel
⇑ Corresponding author. with two or three wire mesh layers increased by 37 and 90 percent,
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Venkata Sai Nagendra). respectively. However, utilizing a single layer increases the flat

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.650
2214-7853/Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Innovation and Application in Science and Technology
Somasekhar, N. Jayaramappa and C. Venkata Sai Nagendra Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2134–2139

panel’s ductility. Finally, doubling or increasing wire mesh layers 2. Materials and experimental methods
in both types of panels from one to triple substantially increases
their ductility and energy absorption capacities. For each test, the specific materials used in the fabrication of
Sirajul Muneer et al., [3] investigated the structural behaviour Elements made of ferrocement, such as wire mesh, cement, water
of ferrocement composite wall panels in which natural resources and fine aggregate are considered and tested in the laboratory
are substituted by waste from the manufacturing industry for envi- according to appropriate IS standards.
ronmentally friendly and cost-effective construction. Cement was
replaced with fly ash, phosphogypsum, and sludge, while sand
2.1. Cement
was replaced with copper slag and vermiculite. Because of the
tightly spaced and homogeneous distribution of reinforcement
Ordinary Portland cement with a grade of 43 was utilised in this
inside the material, ferro cement construction has excellent char-
investigation. To offer appropriate strength, density, and consistent
acteristics in terms of fracture control, impact resistance, and
consistency, it is fresh and devoid of lumps. The physical character-
toughness. The wall panel is 600x600x100 mm in size and is made
istics are listed below in Table 1.
of G.I mesh and chicken mesh. The intermediate 60 mm layer is
filled with a cement vermiculite layer to make it lightweight and
provide insulating characteristics. Overall, the results show that 2.2. Fine aggregate
ferrocement panels function well and may be used for construction
in both industrialized and developing nations. Eethar Thanon In concrete, normal weight fine aggregate that is free of organic
Dawood et. al., [4] studied the use of environmentally friendly, contaminants and harmful compounds from locally accessible
high-performance mortar in ferrocement production. The addition zones is employed. It is properly graded and can pass through a
of NSF enhanced the flexural behaviour of ferrocement units (Nat- sieve of 2.36 mm and the charcteristics are listed below in Table 2.
ural Sisal Fibers). The initial cost and as a roofing system, the roof
dead load of ferrocement panels were found to be 27 percent and
2.3. Water
83 percent lower, respectively, in a cost comparison between ferro-
cement panels and traditional reinforced concrete.
The water used to make cement mortar in ferrocement is clean
The application of ferrocement in enhancing the behaviour of
and suitable for construction. The water used in this study has a pH
RC slabs was explored by Kubaisy et al., [1]. The slabs were pro-
of 7 or above and is devoid of organic particles, silt, oil, chloride,
tected by thin ferrocement casings. They found that the slabs’
and acidic substances. For the production of concrete mix, potable
breaking behaviour had significantly improved. The ultimate load
water was acquired from the Civil Engg. Dept. Jnana bharathi’s
carrying capability and serviceability behaviour of ferrocement
water supply. The Physical Properties of the water are obtained
roof slab panels were investigated by A.W. Hago et al., [5]. Regard-
and are tabulated below in Table 3 as per Indian Standards.
less of the amount of steel layers utilized, using shallow monolithic
with the panels on the edge ferrocement beams significantly
enhances the ferrocement panels’ service and ultimate behaviour. 2.4. HYSD bars
Deepak et al., [6] investigated ferrocement slabs under flexural
stress. These slabs include between 1% and 2% basalt fibre in a The steel used was Fe500 and properties of Structural Steel are
matrix of high-strength cement. The results show that adding tabulated below in Table 4.
basalt fibres improved the capability for ferrocement member flex-
ural strength and energy absorption, as well as finding that
2.5. Chicken mesh
increasing the number of mesh layers improved the ferrocement
member’s strength. The structural behaviour of ferrocement panels
Chicken wire, also known as netting for poultry, is a wire mesh
of light weight employing expanded perlite-based mortar (EPBM)
widely used to keep poultry, such as hens, contained in a run or
was examined by Isikdag [7]. EPBM’s compressive strength
coop. It’s constructed of hexagonal gaps in thin, flexible galvanised
improved when the cement ratio was raised. It was explained that,
steel wire. 1 in. (2.5 cm), 2 in. (approximately 5 cm), and 1/2 in.
the use of expanded perlite as a filler has accelerated the develop-
diameters are also available (1.3 cm). Chicken wire comes in a vari-
ment of micropores in mortar. As a result of this, the strength and
ety of gauges, ranging from 19 gauge (1 mm wire) to 22 gauge
unit weight of expanded based perlite-based mortar were both
(0.7 mm wire). Although the thinness and zinc composition of gal-
reduced.
vanised wire makes it unsuitable for chewing animals and does not
Layers of wire mesh are closely spaced to increase ductility and
keep predators out, it is occasionally used to make cages for tiny
ferrocement fracture resistance, Kumar A, [8]. Wire meshes with a
animals that are not too pricey (or to protect property and plants
high specific surface cause substantial binding forces inside the
from animals). A 19 gauge about 1 mm wire was utilised to cast
mortar matrix, resulting in reduced fracture spacing and crack
the ferrocemnt panels in this investigation.
width [9–10]. Rahul Roy et al. [11] looked into the impact of min-
eral admixtures on the strength properties of geogrid and ferroce-
ment panels and foundry waste sand in his study and concluded 2.6. Mortar matrix
that Geogrid panels have comparable strength to ferrocement pan-
els and offer corrosion resistance and elasticity advantages over The molecular structure of cement, the kind of fine aggregate
ferrocement panels. In this research, an experimental attempt is (sand), the aggregate-cement and water-cement ratio are the most
made to calculate the ultimate load bearing capacity of the ferroce- important elements that impact the properties of cement mortar
ment plates subjected to axial static loading and to plot load vs mixes. The mortar matrix is made to have the right amount of
deflection curves. In addition to the experimental study, two com- strength, density, and impermeability, as well as enough workabil-
putational models for the linear static analysis of ferrocement ity to prevent map cracking and voids. In ferrocement, the cement
plates have been developed: a) Folded ferrocement plate and b) mortar functions as an excellent insulator, and the fortifying wire
Plain ferrocement plate. And these plates are analysed for maxi- mesh may prevent outer swelling superior than normal concrete.
mum load carrying capacity. A comparison is presented between A 1:3 cement mortar with a 0.45 water-cement ratio is adopted
analytical and experimental results obtained. in this work.
2135
Somasekhar, N. Jayaramappa and C. Venkata Sai Nagendra Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2134–2139

Table 1
Material characteristics of OPC.

Property Standard Consistency Fineness Initial Setting Final setting Specific gravity
time time
Test value 32% 2.83% 105 min 460 min 3.05

Table 2
Fine aggregate Parameters.

Property Specific Fineness Percentage Bulk Density Zone

Gravity modulus Bulking
Test 2.608 2.3 24.8% 1560 kg/m3 (Loose) II
value 1736 kg/m3 (Rodded)

Table 3
Analysis of Potable water.

S.No. Type of Test Conducted Results Permissible Limits Relevant BIS codes
1 pH value 7.00 Should not be less than 6 IS: 456–2000
2 Total Acidity 50 mg/l as CaCO3 Should be less than 50 mg/l as CaCO3
3 Total Alkalinity 110 mg/l as CaCO3 Should be less than 250 mg/l as CaCO3
4 Total dissolved solids & Organic Inorganic 160 mg/l & 260 mg/l Less than 200 mg/l
5 Chlorides 240 mg/l Should not be more than 500 mg/l for PCC and
not be more than 2000 mg/l for RCC
6 Suspended Solids 60 mg/l Should be less than 2000 mg/l

Table 4 Fig. 3, each sample is moulded. Although it is difficult, especially

Characteristics of HYSD bars with folded panels, great attention and effort has been made to
Properties Observed Required Value
ensure a consistent wire meshes distribution across the panel
Value as per IS :1786–2008 thickness.
The plates were plastered in two phases as shown in Fig. 4. A
Diameter(mm) 8 8
Sectional Weight (kg/m) 0.226 0.222 ± 8% thin coating is applied using paste made of cement mortar to the
0.2% of proof stress/yield stress (N/mm2) 510 500 steel mesh in the first step, followed by a two days of curing. The
Ultimate tensile strength(N/mm2) 580 545 structural specimen with planned cross-sections is finished in the
Elongation in % 14 12
second stage in two days, with both the front and rear surfaces fin-
ished according to the required specifications. The load is applied
by two jacks working in unison at a 10kN load interval as shown
3. Experimental & analytical program in Fig. 5, and the deformation measurements are recorded with
regard to loads until the first fracture occurs on the plate. The load
3.1. Geometry of specimens is then increased in tiny increments until the plate is crushed,
while the deflection at the panel’s centre is recorded throughout
The ferrocement elements that have been examined are plain the loading process until failure. As illustrated in Fig. 6, there is
panel and folding panel. The folded and plain panel sizes are cracking on the surfaces of plain and folded ferrocement panels.
depicted in Figs. 1 and 2. Both panels are 3000  2700 mm in size, The central-span deflection is measured with a dial gauge with a
with a total thickness of 30 mm for all parts. After removing the 0.01 mm precision. Throughout the loading procedure, cracking
folded panel from the mould, it failed along the longitudinal folds, was carefully examined, and the corresponding cracking load
As a result, the test results did not include the failure component. was recorded.
The panels are constructed using traditional ferrocement compo-
nents such as square wire meshes and cement mortar. 3.3. Model description (Analytical)

3.2. Test method A bare RC frame with two stories with infill system made of fer-
rocement is examined in this study. A folded plate and a ferroce-
The thickness of the ferrocement folding plate wall and plain ment plate made of simple plates with cement mortar systems
panel is around 30 mm, and the dimensions are are used. The linear static condition is used for analysis for these
3000  2700 mm. The reinforcing steel mesh is prepared according models. Beams and columns are 200x200mm in size for designing
to the design, with a 200 mm spacing c/c in both the vertical and an RC frame. The isometric views of the model are shown in
horizontal directions. Binding wire is used to tie the sheets Figs. 7a, 7b, and 7c and also the plate’s dimensions that are taken
together. After attaching the two layered chicken wire mesh in into account for analysis are listed below in Table 5.
centre position over the specimen’s thickness as indicated in
4. Results and discussions

4.1. Experimental

The flexural strength of two ferrocement plates, Plain ferroce-

Fig. 1. Sectional view of ferrocement Plain panel. ment and Folded ferrocement, is investigated in the present study,
2136
Somasekhar, N. Jayaramappa and C. Venkata Sai Nagendra Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2134–2139

Fig. 2. Cross section of Ferrocement folded panel.

Fig. 3. Wire meshing setup of plain and folded panels. Fig 6. Plain and folded panels after application of load.

Fig. 4. Plastering work of plain and folded panels.

Fig. 7a. Reinforced concrete frame.

to the plate’s self-weight. This difference in load is due to the

folded plate’s increased stiffness owing to the folds in the element.
Fig. 8 shows that the plain plate has a maximum deflection of
22 mm, but the folded plate only has a maximum deflection of
9 mm.

4.2. Analytical

The outcomes of the models’ linear static analysis are shown in

Fig. 5. Plain and folded panels before application of load.
Table 7. As shown in Fig. 9, a comparison is done between three
frame types, RC frame, RC frame with plain plates, and RC frame
with folded plates, in terms of ultimate load bearing capability of
and the results are presented in Table 6. The folded ferrocement the plates. It is observed that the folded plate can take a maximum
plate can handle a maximum load of 650kN, but the plain plate weight of 735kN, which is about three times that of the plain plate,
can only carry a load of 120kN, which is approximately equivalent which can only hold 225kN.
2137
Somasekhar, N. Jayaramappa and C. Venkata Sai Nagendra Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2134–2139

Table 6
Load vs deflection values of experimental test

S.NO. LOAD (kN) DEFLECTION (mm)

Plain plate Folded plate
1 0 0 0
2 10 3 0.6
3 20 5 0.9
4 30 6.6 1.5
5 40 7.4 2.0
6 50 8.7 2.2
7 60 9 2.9
8 70 9.5 3.2
9 80 10 4
10 90 12.6 4.15
11 100 13 4.3
12 110 18 4.8
13 120 22 5.0
14 130 – 5.2
15 140 – 5.7
16 150 – 5.95
17 250 – 7.1
18 350 – 7.5
19 450 – 8.0
Fig. 7b. Reinforced Concrete frame With Plain ferrocement panel. 20 550 – 8.3
21 650 – 9.0

Fig. 8. Load-deflection curves of ferrocement plates.

Table 7
Ultimate load carrying capacity of the different frames

Model ULTIMATE LOAD

Reinforced concrete frame 75 kN
RC frame with plain ferrocement panels 300 kN
RC frame with folded ferrocement panels 810 kN

Fig. 7c. Reinforced Concrete frame with Folded ferrocement panel.

Table 5
Properties of folded and plain plates

Property Folded plate Plain plate

Structure type Folded ferrocement Plain ferrocement plate
plate
Type of mortar mix Standard cement mortar Standard cement
mortar
Reinforcing steel Fe500 Fe500
grade
Height of the Plate 2.7 m 2.7 m
Plate length 3.0 m 3.0 m
Plate thickness 30 mm 30 mm
Plate width 60 mm –
Fig. 9. Ultimate load of RC, RC Plain & RC folded frames.

2138
Somasekhar, N. Jayaramappa and C. Venkata Sai Nagendra Materials Today: Proceedings 57 (2022) 2134–2139

5. Conclusions References

The load bearing capacity of ferrocement plates under static [1] M.A. Al-Kubaisy, M.Z. Jumaat, ‘‘Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete slabs
with ferrocement tension zone cover”, J. Construct. Build. Mater. 14 (2000),
loading conditions was investigated using an experimental and 245–252.
analytical approach in this work. The following are the conclusions [2] Mohamad N. Mahmood, Sura A. Majeed, ‘‘Flexural Behavior of Flat and Folded
drawn from this study, Ferrocement Panels” Al-Rafidain Engineering Volume: 17. (2009).
[3] M. Sirajul Muneer, Dr. M. Neelamegam. ‘‘Structural Behavior of Ferro cement
Composite Wall Panels”, Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5(6), (2016),
 The load taken by folded ferrocement plates is approximately 5 10442–10447.
times that of plain ferrocement plates, according to the results [4] Eethar Thanon Dawood, Abdalaziz Saad Shawkat, Mafaz Hani Abdullah,
Flexural performance of ferrocement based on sustainable high -
of the experimental test on ferrocement plates. performance mortar, Case Stud. Construct. Mater. 15 (2021), https://doi.org/
 When compared to plain plates, the deflection recorded in the 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00566 e00566.
experimental test for folded plates is approximately 55% lower. [5] A.W. Hago, K.S. Al-Jabri, A.S. Alnuaimi, H. Al-Moqbali, M.A. Al-Kubaisy (2005),
‘‘Ultimate and service behavior of ferrocement roof slab panels”, Construct.
 When these experimental data are compared to analytical
Build. Mater. 19 (2005), 31–37.
results, it is found that the load bearing capacity of plain and [6] M.S. Deepak, M. Surendar, B. Aishwarya, G. Beulah Gnana Ananthi, ‘‘Bending
folded ferrocement plates is improved by 50% and 25%, behaviour of ferrocement slab including basalt fibre in high strength cement
matrix” Mater. Today: Proc. 37 (2021), Part 2, 2356–2359. 10.1016/
respectively.
j.matpr.2020.08.074.
[7] Burak Isıkdag, Characterization of lightweight ferrocement panels containing
CRediT authorship contribution statement expanded perlite-based mortar, Construct. Build. Mater. 81 (2015) 15–23,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.009.
[8] A. Kumar, Ferrocement box sections-viable option for floors and roof of
N. Somasekhar: Writing – original draft. N. Jayaramappa: Con- multistorey buildings, Asian J. Civil Eng. 6 (6) (2005) 569–582.
ceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. C. Venkata [9] M. Arif, Pankaj, S.K. Kaushik, ‘‘Mechanical behaviour of ferrocement
Sai Nagendra: Writing – original draft. composites: An experimental investigation”, Cement Concrete Comp;21(4)
(1999), 301–12.
[10] M.L. Gambhir, ‘‘Concrete technology”, 3rd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill
Declaration of Competing Interest (2004).
[11] Rahul Roya, V. Sairam, ‘‘Effect of Silica Fume and Foundry waste sand on
strength characteristics of Geogrid and Ferro cement panel”, Mater. Today:
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan- Proc. 7 (2019), 362–372.
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The Research work has been carried out utilizing the computa-
tional laboratory setup at Civil Engineering, UVCE, Bangalore
University, Jnana Bharathi Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

2139