My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD04190
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
FLOOD04190
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:45:34 PM
Creation date
10/5/2006 12:24:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Statewide
Community
State of Colorado
Stream Name
All
Basin
Statewide
Title
Flood Proofing Tests: Test of Materials and Systems for Flood Proofing Structures
Date
8/1/1988
Prepared For
US Army Corps of Engineers
Prepared By
US Army Corps of Engineers
Floodplain - Doc Type
Educational/Technical/Reference Information
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Test FindinKs <br /> <br /> <br />System Tests on Concrete-Block Walls <br /> <br />During the testing of the block walls explained in Part II, the tubular <br /> <br />seal was tested while determining the structural integrity. <br /> <br />The second block wall test evaluated vinyl sheeting attached with a tubu- <br /> <br />lar seal and determined the deflected shape of the wall. The third test on <br /> <br />Block Wall 2 was to again test the effectiveness of the tubular seal. <br /> <br />The tubular seal was judged to be inadequate since leaks occurred in <br /> <br />Tests 2 and 3. The reasons for this inadequacy were: <br /> <br />. Even though the solid circular rubber O-ring component fit tightly into <br />the cut tube, if disturbed, it came out easily, failing the seal. <br /> <br />. The cut tube became more flexible with use causing a greater possibil- <br />ity of the solid rubber cylinder pulling loose. <br /> <br />. The solid O-ring was difficult to turn around 90-deg bends. The solid <br />rubber cylinder had to be cut at 45 deg and fit together at the 90-deg <br />bends. This left a small space at the intersection of the 45-deg cuts <br />which had to be sealed. <br /> <br />An aluminum seal (Figure 43) was used in Test 4. There was some leakage <br />with the aluminum seal, and some difficulty in fitting the rubber O-ring <br />against the plastic and into the L-shape aluminum extrusion. The O-ring could <br />be fitted into the aluminum extrusion, but the process was slow. <br /> <br />As a result of testing, the following conclusions were reached: <br /> <br />o The common brick-veneer wall leaks excessively. <br /> <br />o The wall can be protected against excessive flow of water through it by <br />using a thick coating with body. This type coating must be applied <br />with great care, otherwise leaks will still exist. This solution was <br />not successfully tested in the laboratory experiments. A water barrier <br />which is durable, impermeable, and placed permanently between two lay- <br />ers of brick by a reliable placement technique will protect the wall <br />from the penetration of water. <br /> <br />. For a closure to be watertight, it must have gasket material and be <br />bolted at its connection to the sidewalls and bottom. The connections <br />for the closure at the sidewalls and floor must be continuous and <br />sealed securely to the walls and floor. <br /> <br />. Water will flow freely through a brick wall and along a water barrier <br />in the wall. <br /> <br />42 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.