Granite- Reasonable dimensional stability, Good wear resistance, Better internal damping. Difficult to be machined, scarce, high price, low conductivity, absorbs coolant.
Granite has some major flaws, like the ones which are listed below.
• It is difficult to machine this material into required size andshape
• Its scarcity and price
• Low thermal conductivity leading it to heat concentration andeventual cracking,
Ceramics- Stiffness, strength, corrosion resistance, dimensional stability, good surface finish. Brittle and expensive, low conductivity.
Polymer Concrete- Low Young’s Modulus, low thermal conductivity, high damping properties. Tensile and impact strengths lower, creep more under sustained load
Polymer-Impregnated Concrete (PIC)- …show more content…
(1990) designed and fabricated supporting legs for a center lathe using ferrocement and its properties were compared with cast iron legs. The fabricated legs contains, sand: cement: water = (2 : 1 : 0.45). The Ferrocement legs were made of wire mesh with steel reinforcement cage . The static test results revealed ferrocement head-end and tail-end had 0.040 mm/KN, 0.58 mm/KN deflection unlike the corresponding values for the cast iron were 0.20 mm/KN, 0.21 mm/KN respectively being almost double the number in both cases. The damping ratio of ferrocement was also much higher than that of cast iron. Rahman et al. (1993).They assembled the lathe machine tool with a ferrocement bed and wanted to test its dynamic performance through a cutting test. The new lathe had a 50% deeper cut and the dynamic tests indicated that the new ferrocement lathe had greater natural frequency and damping ratio than a conventional lathe.
Rahman et al.as well as Hawlader et al. (1990), Kane (1991), Kobischek (1991) and Ow (1993) made detailed studies on the tool wear comparison of both the ferrocement bed and the cast iron lathe bed .The tests allowed them to conclude that the ferrocement bed had better dynamic properties than cast iron …show more content…
(1987) presented comparative results on mechanical properties of cement concrete (1:1.6:2.4 by weight) cement : sand : aggregate, water cement ratio (0.55) with two different types of polymer concretes, prepared with two different types of binders (epoxy and polyester resin) with same aggregates (crushed quartzite and silica sand. The coarse aggregates comprised of crushed quartzite of sizes ranging from 10 mm to 2.36 mm. The fine aggregates comprised siliceous sand of sizes ranging from 1.18 mm to 150 μm. And also the samples contained CaCo3 microfiller (94:6) with in the (88%) of aggregates proportion by weight. Two types of polymeric binder were used; Epoxy resin (GY-257) added in polyamide hardener (HY-840) and the resin: hardener ratio was (1:0.5). Polyester resin was (Crystic-196 general purpose resin) added to a catalyst (50 % solution of dimethyl phthalate in methyl ethyl ketene peroxide), and the accelerator (1 % solution of cobalt naphthanate in styrene). Both the catalyst and accelerator were added to (2 % by weight of resin). The analysis revealed that polymer concrete gave higher compressive, split-tensile and flexural strength by a factor of 2-4 and 3-6 than cement concrete. And the author concluded that the effect of microfiller was more pronounced in the case of epoxy- concrete than the
Granite has some major flaws, like the ones which are listed below.
• It is difficult to machine this material into required size andshape
• Its scarcity and price
• Low thermal conductivity leading it to heat concentration andeventual cracking,
Ceramics- Stiffness, strength, corrosion resistance, dimensional stability, good surface finish. Brittle and expensive, low conductivity.
Polymer Concrete- Low Young’s Modulus, low thermal conductivity, high damping properties. Tensile and impact strengths lower, creep more under sustained load
Polymer-Impregnated Concrete (PIC)- …show more content…
(1990) designed and fabricated supporting legs for a center lathe using ferrocement and its properties were compared with cast iron legs. The fabricated legs contains, sand: cement: water = (2 : 1 : 0.45). The Ferrocement legs were made of wire mesh with steel reinforcement cage . The static test results revealed ferrocement head-end and tail-end had 0.040 mm/KN, 0.58 mm/KN deflection unlike the corresponding values for the cast iron were 0.20 mm/KN, 0.21 mm/KN respectively being almost double the number in both cases. The damping ratio of ferrocement was also much higher than that of cast iron. Rahman et al. (1993).They assembled the lathe machine tool with a ferrocement bed and wanted to test its dynamic performance through a cutting test. The new lathe had a 50% deeper cut and the dynamic tests indicated that the new ferrocement lathe had greater natural frequency and damping ratio than a conventional lathe.
Rahman et al.as well as Hawlader et al. (1990), Kane (1991), Kobischek (1991) and Ow (1993) made detailed studies on the tool wear comparison of both the ferrocement bed and the cast iron lathe bed .The tests allowed them to conclude that the ferrocement bed had better dynamic properties than cast iron …show more content…
(1987) presented comparative results on mechanical properties of cement concrete (1:1.6:2.4 by weight) cement : sand : aggregate, water cement ratio (0.55) with two different types of polymer concretes, prepared with two different types of binders (epoxy and polyester resin) with same aggregates (crushed quartzite and silica sand. The coarse aggregates comprised of crushed quartzite of sizes ranging from 10 mm to 2.36 mm. The fine aggregates comprised siliceous sand of sizes ranging from 1.18 mm to 150 μm. And also the samples contained CaCo3 microfiller (94:6) with in the (88%) of aggregates proportion by weight. Two types of polymeric binder were used; Epoxy resin (GY-257) added in polyamide hardener (HY-840) and the resin: hardener ratio was (1:0.5). Polyester resin was (Crystic-196 general purpose resin) added to a catalyst (50 % solution of dimethyl phthalate in methyl ethyl ketene peroxide), and the accelerator (1 % solution of cobalt naphthanate in styrene). Both the catalyst and accelerator were added to (2 % by weight of resin). The analysis revealed that polymer concrete gave higher compressive, split-tensile and flexural strength by a factor of 2-4 and 3-6 than cement concrete. And the author concluded that the effect of microfiller was more pronounced in the case of epoxy- concrete than the