SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.10. Durability Testing The durability of the blocks has been assessed at the University of Colorado by determining the effect of repeated wetting and drying on their unconfined compressive strength values. Repeated wetting and drying of the blocks can alter the soil structure and create concentrated weaknesses through cracking and the infiltration of water. Typically, at least six blocks are tested for durability. A curing period of 28 days is allowed before testing. SCEBs are cured in a controlled environment (~92.5% relative humidity, ~72º F). The blocks are submerged in water for approximately 24 hours immediately prior to UCS testing. The procedure involves saturating all of the blocks, and subjecting a desired number of them to UCS testing. The remaining blocks are then allowed to lose moisture content over a minimum of two days. The saturation process is repeated for all of the blocks and the next set of blocks is subjected to UCS testing. This process is repeated for the remaining blocks. A minimum value of 300 psi block‟s UCS is required. During the saturation and drying cycles, each block is carefully examined for any observable cracking or degradation effects. Figure 3.16 shows mini-blocks soaking in water and Figure 3.17 shows the detrimental effects of several saturation cycles. Despite the fact that Section I 14.7.4.23 of the New Mexico Earthen Building Materials Code allows for shrinkage cracks provided that “these cracks do not jeopardize the structural integrity of the blocks”, any observable cracking at this level of testing should cause concern and warrant amending the soil mixture used. 28
Figure 3.16: SCEBs soaking in water 29 Figure 3.17: SCEBs after several saturation cycles
Page 1 and 2: A Proposed Best Practice Method of
Page 3 and 4: Krosnowski, Adam Davis (M.S., Depar
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: 3.9. Modulus of Rupture: Three-Poin
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?