FLOOD04055 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b. A solid circular length of rubber (an O-ring) was placed against the plastic and snapped into the cut tube, making a seal at the base of the building. ro, roBe PLASTIC SOLID CIRCULAR LENGTH OF RUBBER. 20. Deflection data for wall 2 are presented in Figures 10-18. It can be seen from these data that the safe water head on the block wall is approx- imately 2 ft, the same as that for the brick-veneer wall. 21. The tubular seal was judged to be inadequate since leaks occurred in tests 2 and 3. The reasons for this inadequacy were: a. Even though the solid circular rubber O-ring component fit tightly into the cut tube, if started, it easily came out, failing the seal. b. The cut tube became more flexible as it was used causing a greater possibility of the solid rubber cylinder pulling loose. c. The solid O-ring was difficult to turn around 900 bends. The solid rubber cylinder had to be cut at 450 and fit together at the 900 bends. This left a small space at the intersection of the 450 cuts which had to be sealed. 22. An aluminum seal (Figure 20) was used in test 4. There was some leakage with the aluminum seal, and there was some difficulty in fitting the rubber O-ring against the plastic and into the L-shaped aluminum extrusion. The O-ring could be fitted into the aluminum extrusion, but the process was slow. Results 23. In Figures 10-18, it can be seen that the safe water head on a block wall is approximately the same as that for a brick-veneer test wall; i.e., approximately 2 ft. By comparison, a house has more wall support and can withstand about 3 ft of water head. The tubular seal was inadequate; however, the aluminum L-shaped seal may be satisfactory if a faster method for snapping the seal can be developed. 10