Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

WWR or WWF? (WAS: Capillary Breaks)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Speaking of correct technical terms…

 

Are engineers using WWF or WWR for calling out slab reinforcing these days?  It seems to me that “Fabric” is an old term that is being phased out in place of “Reinforcement” in newer publications.

 

Any comments?

 

Eli Grassley

 

-----Original Message-----
From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com [mailto:GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 3:12 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Capillary Breaks

 

In a message dated 2/9/2005 5:23:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, rgarner(--nospam--at)moffattnichol.com writes:

The material we used under the building slabs on our last Navy project was "Porous Fill".  I'm trying to find the specs on it.  In my memory, it was a coarse granular material with no fines.  Like a very coarse sand but not quite gravel.  I think some people call this torpedo sand.  It doesn't compact per se but does o.k. if confined.  The slabs came out beautiful - not a single crack, nicely steel troweled finish.  Concrete don't get no better than these slabs.  No vapor barriers were used on this project as the floors remained exposed concrete.

 

Bob Garner

I'd be interested to see the specs,  if you can find them.   However,  I think this is what would typically be called a base course layer,  that possibly also serves as a capillary break. Was this a situation where a capillary break was necessary - i.e. silty soils?

 

But since you DIDN'T use a vapor barrier (the correct technical term now being vapor retarder),  it still doesn't answer my question,  why would someone put a capillary break over a vapor retarder?

 

Gail Kelley