Talk:Ferrocement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
