05.03.2013 Views

A Self-Learning Manual - Institution of Engineers Mauritius

A Self-Learning Manual - Institution of Engineers Mauritius

A Self-Learning Manual - Institution of Engineers Mauritius

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A <strong>Self</strong>-<strong>Learning</strong> <strong>Manual</strong><br />

Mastering Different Fields <strong>of</strong> Civil Engineering Works (VC-Q&A Method) Vincent T. H. CHU<br />

concrete. Since the test is very sensitive to the presence <strong>of</strong> aggregates and<br />

voids at the concrete surface, it is necessary to take more than 10 readings<br />

over the area <strong>of</strong> test. However, it should be noted that Schmidt hammer<br />

test measures surface hardness only but not the strength <strong>of</strong> concrete.<br />

Therefore, it may not be considered a good substitute for concrete<br />

compression test.<br />

6. In carrying out compression test for concrete, should test cubes or<br />

test cylinders be adopted? (T1)<br />

Basically, the results <strong>of</strong> compression test carried out by using cubes are<br />

higher than that by cylinders. In compression test, the failure mode is in the<br />

form <strong>of</strong> tensile splitting induced by uniaxial compression. However, since<br />

the concrete samples tend to expand laterally under compression, the<br />

friction developed at the concrete-machine interface generates forces<br />

which apparently increase the compressive strength <strong>of</strong> concrete. However,<br />

when the ratio <strong>of</strong> height to width <strong>of</strong> sample increases, the effect <strong>of</strong> shear on<br />

compressive strength becomes smaller. This explains why the results <strong>of</strong><br />

compression test by cylinders are lower than that <strong>of</strong> cubes. Reference is<br />

made to Longman Scientific and Technical (1987).<br />

7. Is slump test a good test for measuring workability? (T3)<br />

Though slump test is originally designed as a measure <strong>of</strong> workability, it<br />

turns out to be an indicator <strong>of</strong> excessive water content in concrete only.<br />

Slump test is not considered as a measure <strong>of</strong> workability because:<br />

(i) There is no connection between the test results <strong>of</strong> slump test and<br />

workability;<br />

(ii) The test results exhibit large random variations which is greater than<br />

that due to observed differences in workability;<br />

(iii) Concrete <strong>of</strong> different workability may have the same slump.<br />

8. In “High strength concrete” in buildings, 56 or 91-day compression<br />

test results are sometimes adopted instead <strong>of</strong> 28-day compression<br />

test results. Why? (T1)<br />

In normal concrete structures, 28-day test results are <strong>of</strong>ten adopted.<br />

However, in the construction <strong>of</strong> high-rise buildings using “High strength<br />

concrete”, compressive strengths based on 56 or 91-day compression test<br />

results are commonly used instead. Since the process <strong>of</strong> construction <strong>of</strong><br />

89

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!