|
|
WWR applications indicate lower installation times. Two independent studies performed time comparison between WWR and reinforcing steel in different applications.
This information is described below.
|
|
|
|
|
| For all rebar and WWR sizes, WWR is significantly faster to install, even for
two layers of WWR. Productivity on
some flat slabs can be increased by 250%. |
|
On average, the productivity of one-way slab increases by 15 man-hours/t of steel when using WWR instead of traditional rebar. (1:2 in slabs, 1:3 in columns, 1:4 in walls) |
|
This was reported in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
June, 1992, in a paper titled "Potential gains through welded-wire fabric reinforcement",
authored by Leonhard Bernold and Peter Chang |
|
|
|
| |
| Time trials were performed using three different reinforcement types: |
A. Typical Loose Rebar
B. WWR Single Directional mat Installed by Hand.
C. WWR Two Directional mat Installed by Crane.
|
|
| Results were: |
|
A. 298 bars, weighting 1.8 tons, were installed in 5.75 hours.
B. Single directional mats, weighting 2 tons, were installed in 1.5 hours.
C. Two directional mats, weighting 2.2 tons, were installed in 0.5 hours.
|
|
|
|
| |
| A 26 ft. long beam cage was assembled using: |
A. Typical Loose Rebar
B. WWR Cage
|
|
| Results were: |
|
A. Assembly time – 20 minutes.
B. Assembly time – 10 minutes.
|
| |
A study performed by the British Cement Association produced the article, “ Economic Assembly of Reinforcement ,” written by Bennet, D. and MacDonald, L. |
|
| |
