SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This thesis entitled: A Proposed Best Practice Method of Defining a Standard of Care for Stabilized Compressed Earthen Block Production Written by Adam Krosnowski has been approved for the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering Bernard Amadei Abbie Liel John McCartney ii Date 5/27/2011 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, And we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable Presentation standards of scholarly work in the Above mentioned discipline
Krosnowski, Adam Davis (M.S., Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering) A Proposed Best Practice Method of Defining a Standard of Care for Stabilized Compressed Earthen Block Production. Thesis directed by Professor Bernard Amadei Abstract Earthen building has evolved with mankind and creates housing opportunities world-wide. Building with stabilized compressed earthen blocks (SCEBs) is becoming more popular due to the low cost, relative abundance of materials, and quality product performance. The need for a standardized method of soil selection, SCEB production procedure, and subsequent quality control is apparent. This thesis serves multiple purposes by: (i) contributing to the growing field of alternative building design; (ii) motivating the need for a standardized framework of production methods with associated quality standards; (iii) proposing a formal testing methodology or matrix for establishing a successful earthen block project; and (iv) introducing special topics that the author believes deserve additional attention. The proposed testing matrix is applied to soil samples provided by two Native American communities (Crow and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes). Developing a systematic design approach and testing regime validates earthen building technology as a reliable option for providing low-cost housing. iii
Page 1: A Proposed Best Practice Method of
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents 1. Introduction .
Page 7 and 8: Table of Figures Figure 2.1: World
Page 9 and 10: 1. Introduction The demand for sust
Page 11 and 12: soils must be defined to standardiz
Page 13 and 14: move more towards sustainable “gr
Page 15 and 16: 2.1. SCEB Technology Advantages The
Page 17 and 18: latent heat of vaporization. The ef
Page 19 and 20: sedimentation (jar) test, ball drop
Page 21 and 22: opportunities for water to alter th
Page 23 and 24: 3.2. Testing Methodology Flow Chart
Page 25 and 26: transported sealed in airtight five
Page 27 and 28: Figure 3.2: Gilson Testing Screen M
Page 29 and 30: infer the clay content. Figure 3.7
Page 31 and 32: potential for minimizing costs. Det
Page 33 and 34: calculate bulk unit weights of the
Page 35 and 36: 3.9. Modulus of Rupture: Three-Poin
Page 37 and 38: Figure 3.16: SCEBs soaking in water
Page 39 and 40: samples from the Dead Man‟s Curve
Page 41 and 42: previous experience, visual inspect
Page 43 and 44: one week intervals during the initi
Page 45 and 46: UCS [psi] UCS [psi] 1000 800 600 40
Page 47 and 48: UCS [psi] UCS [psi] 1000 800 600 40
Page 49 and 50: Lower Limit: 1 part cement, 1 part
Page 51 and 52: Percent Passing Soil #15: Hydromete
Page 53 and 54:
the sample and not the entire soil
Page 55 and 56:
Large blocks were produced from two
Page 57 and 58:
The large blocks produced were kept
Page 59 and 60:
decreased by 23-25% over the course
Page 61 and 62:
Figure 4.23: UMU Mini-Blocks; Five
Page 63 and 64:
Average UCS [psi] 2000 1600 1200 UM
Page 65 and 66:
Clayey soil is often mined and tran
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 5.1: Full Block in 3-Point B
Page 69 and 70:
nature will increase the level of c
Page 71 and 72:
this point of testing. The testing
Page 73 and 74:
Average Large Block UCS [psi] 800 7
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 5.13: Aspect Ratio Test, Fiv
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 5.17: Aspect Ratio Test, One
Page 79 and 80:
E [ksi] 35 30 25 20 15 10 y = 23.85
Page 81 and 82:
The equation of the trend-line was
Page 83 and 84:
of optimizing a soil mix design. Of
Page 85 and 86:
plasticity. They also do not offer
Page 87 and 88:
the SCEB strongly influence its com
Page 89 and 90:
specimens will be tested for compre
Page 91 and 92:
P f Pf [ psi] 2 A force at fail
Page 93 and 94:
Coduto, D. P. 1999. Geotechnical En
Page 96 and 97:
8.2. Crow Tribe Case Study Test Dat
Page 98 and 99:
8.2.2. Schmidt Hammer Test Data R V
Page 100 and 101:
UMU Sample #15 1:3 (6 x 12 x 3 5/8)
show all

SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

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

Delete template?

Save as template?