Talk:Ferrocement

Improvement

This article has the potential to grow substantially due to the variety of uses for ferrocement, its varying definitions, and the variety of technologies directly and indirectly involved. It would be good to arrive very early at consensus regarding critical points, e.g. definition(s), and critical decisions, e.g. limitation of scope, to form a sound root for what grows from it. Definitions are readily found which include non-ferrous reinforcement and the case where the reinforcement is exclusively short fiber technology, i.e. fibers of typically less than 25mm length distributed uniformly. Bamboo reinforcement seems accepted by some, but wattle-and-daub is never given as a primitive example. In short, we need consensus as to what ferrocement is, what it isn't, and what are variants which do or may fit the definition but will not be treated in a primary article. Some thoughts:

Ferrocement (FC) has been traditionally distinguished from conventional reinforced concrete (RC) by the mechanical arrangement of the reinforcement. In FC, relatively light reinforcement is widely distributed, so also distributing stresses; in RC, relatively few but heavy section reinforcing elements concentrate strength and stresses. The actual percentage of reinforcement may be the same, but FC typically uses less due to sharply higher efficiency. The logical limit for FC is short fiber reinforcement, but that smacks more of a composite material than a composite structure. Should a distinction be made, bearing in mind that we have boats built both ways which are recognised as FC? Exotic materials are accepted as "concrete" in the concrete canoe competitions. They don't seem to have any place in an introduction to ferrocement, which a first page here should be, and it's hard to justify much space, if any, in later ones. On the other hand, the term "concrete canoe" is surprusingly well known, and hence a likely search target. Further, much of what was exotic to the point of ribaldry in those craft may prove of major significance for the ferrocement of the future.

One approach would be to start, "Historically, Ferrocement...", defining FC only by contrast to RC and explaining the basic principles and methods only within the steel-and-mortar domain, using outstanding exmples to introduce main branches like thin shell and marine. Once the principles and variety of application have been established, it would then be timely to put something like, "Definitions of Ferrocement have changed with time. Modern materials and applications have...". If we can come to a consensus, that's then the place for a formal definition, with referenced authorities. If we can't reach consensus, then it's a good place to punt by noting that non ferrous modern materials are becoming accepted under the concept and name of FC and, arguably, to bite the bullet and introduce fibers and strange ideas like concrete which bends or floats. Optionally, one could then treat the concrete canoe and similar as just mentions in passing, perhaps with illustrations, or with expansion as subsections.

This article reads like an advertisement for ferrocement. It does not sound objective nor cite sources. It should be merged with the article on reinforced concrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.219.239 (talk) 05:37, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the paragraph immediately above. Ferrocement does appear to be distinct. However the comments made in the second paragraph seem to be spot on.. Baronmaxi (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV cleanup

This article needs a lot of work, starting with cleanup of links, adding references, and re-writing the rather pro-ferrocement tone of the article. If the article is to be believed, ferrocement is a miracle material and most of the world is wrong for not using it. 216.9.11.173 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this article has moved way too far in the negative direction. It sounds like it is written by an American (in the USA there is little sympathy for this kind of thing). When I read it I was struck, 1. by how gloomy it was, and 2. how there are no examples given of ferrocement structures apart from a vague reference to Maillart and 200mm. There really ought to be some description of ferrocement written by someone who is knowledgeable about architecture. Currently there is no mention of either Pier-Luigi Nervi (and his boat) or Felix Candela -- some pictures of their work would be nice, too.JO 24 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is is agreed that the main distinction between Ferrocement and Reinforced Concrete lies mainly in the actual process of applying the cement mix? Reinforced concrete is made by pouring a fluid cement-aggregate mixture over the reinforcement in some kind of mold, whereas Ferrocement is made by plastering a much drier cement mixture over a wire armature. Due to the lower water content of the ferrocement mortar, it does not flow and hence does not need to be contained by a mould as it sets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainradon (talk • contribs) 05:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does need a very great deal of work. I've tried to make a start, by having an attempt at the definition and removing what I saw as some confusion of concepts. The previous definition, which included the words "Ferrocement is a composite material ... often called a thin shell in North America" mixed a material and a form of construction. It was like saying "wood is a natural material - often called balloon frame in North America". There was the same problem with "does not blow down in storms". Again, in the discussion of curing time, it said that curing time depends on the span or the applied load. But the curing time is the curing time - it depends on chemistry. I think what was meant was that if the span and the load are small enough, you can get away with using the material before it is fully cured. Of course standard Portland cement is not 100% cured after 28 days, it goes on indefinitely, but for all practical purposes 28 days is OK - unless you use quick-setting cement! Perhaps the 28 should come out? Amoorland (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing improvement discussion

I started researching ferrocement because of some confusion I had reading the current lead. I see there has been a lasting sense that the article needs improvement. Here is part of the issue as I see it: Ferrocement was a general term used early in the history of reinforced concrete (armored concrete) but here it is being used as a specific construction technique, not a general term. Also, many dictionaries draw a distinction between cement (a strong mortar) and concrete (cement with stone or gravel aggregate added), but ferro-cement and ferro-concrete here are used synonymously. I need to do more research to see if ferro-cement is still used to mean ordinary reinforced concrete. I am thinking the distinction between 19th century and modern usage of ferrocement and the common meaning of concrete vs. cement should be addressed in the article. Jim Derby (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferrocement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100216203637/http://www.flyingconcrete.com:80/index.htm to http://www.flyingconcrete.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]