Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11681/31450Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Rosenfield, Walter J. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Lechner, James A. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Bailey, David M. (David Michael), 1957- | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Foltz, Stuart D. | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (U.S.) | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-01-23T19:49:04Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-01-23T19:49:04Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 1995-12 | - |
| dc.identifier.govdoc | USACERL Technical Report 96/24 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11681/31450 | - |
| dc.description | Technical Report | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | The U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (USACERL) has recently completed a 10-year field exposure study of the performance of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) roofing membrane materials. Membranes from three manufacturers were installed at Chanute Air Force Base, IL, Dugway Proving Ground, UT, and Fort Polk, LA. A major difference in the roof constructions was that, at Chanute, the membranes were ballasted whereas, at Dugway and Fort Polk, they were mechanically attached except for one case which was fully adhered. The intent of the USACERL study was to compare the results of laboratory tests of membrane properties with field performance. Periodically over the ten years, CERL visually inspected the roofs to evaluate their performance and removed samples for laboratory characterization of selected mechanical and physical properties. The performance was generally satisfactory at Dugway and Fort Polk, whereas problems related to membrane shattering and splitting occurred at Chanute. Statistical analysis of the ten-year data set was conducted. Because of the less-than-satisfactory performance at Chanute, the data analysis was focused on determining whether changes in any of the measured properties were consistently different for samples from Chanute than for samples from Dugway and Fort Polk. The results did not discriminate between the performance of the PVC membranes at Chanute and those at Dugway and Fort Polk. For example, it was observed that all samples at the three sites lost plasticizer during the exposure period. Two of the three membrane samples from Chanute did not lose significantly more plasticizer than those from Dugway or Fort Polk. | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | This study was conducted for Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Project 4A162784AT41, "Military Facilities Engineering Technology"; Work Unit A-044, "Improved and New Roofing for Military Construction. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | SF 298 ............................................................ 1 Foreword .......................................................... 2 List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O Approach .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Mode of Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Metric Conversion Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 Description of Test Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Description of Test Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ASTM Categorization of PVC Membranes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Test Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3 Visual Inspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4 Analysis of Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Treatment and Presentation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Plasticizer Content and Plasticizer Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Tensile Strength ................................................ 24 Elongation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Tear Strength .................................................. 28 Ply Adhesion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Abrasion Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Thickness ..................................................... 30 Specific Gravity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Water Vapor Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Water Absorption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Dimensional Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Seam Shear Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Seam Peel Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 5 Conclusions and Commentary .................................... 47 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 Final Comment ................................. . . . . . . . . . . . 48 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Appendix: Variability in the Descriptors for the Measured Properties ............ 51 Distribution | - |
| dc.format.medium | PDF/A | - |
| dc.format.medium | 60 pages / 7.630Mb | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (U.S.) | en_US |
| dc.relation.ispartofseries | Technical Report (Construction Engineering Research Laboratories (U.S.));no. 96/23 | - |
| dc.rights | Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited | - |
| dc.source | The ERDC Library created this digital resource using one or more of the following: Zeta TS-0995, Zeutcehl OS 12000, HP HD Pro 42-in. map scanner, Epson flatbed | - |
| dc.subject | Roofs | en_US |
| dc.subject | Polyvinyl chloride | en_US |
| dc.title | Long-Term Field Test Results for Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Roofing | en_US |
| dc.type | Report | - |
| Appears in Collections: | Technical Report | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| USACERL Technical Report 96-23.pdf | 7.81 MB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |