SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This rate was maintained until failure occurred, as evidenced by the stress-strain curve output from the Instron machine. Failure was defined as the ultimate stress achieved by compressed earth blocks behaving in a brittle manner. 4.1.3. Results Displayed below are the results of the Unconfined Compression Strength durability tests. Figures 4.3 - 4.5 show the UCS values of the blocks taken at one week intervals during the initial four week curing phase. One can see that after seven days the SCEBs have reached nearly full strength. Figures 4.6 – 4.8 show the UCS values of the blocks after each saturation cycle. These results did not show an obvious trend of decreasing strength with repeated saturation cycles. To address the issue of scale effects, a corrected unconfined compressive strength was calculated based on the analysis performed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.2.1. The mini-blocks tested had an aspect ratio of approximately 0.4. The UCS values are corrected for a specimen with an aspect ratio of 2. In nearly every case, the soil mix with a higher proportion of clayey soil was superior. Figure 4.9 shows a typical example of deterioration of a SCEB made from 25% Amsden clay by mass after five wetting/drying cycles. 36
UCS [psi] UCS [psi] 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Amsden Actual and Corrected UCS Values vs Time 0 10 20 30 Initial Curing Period [days] Figure 4.3: Amsden UCS values during curing phase DMC 01 Actual and Corrected UCS Values vs Time 0 10 20 30 Initial Curing Period [days] Figure 4.4: DMC 01 UCS values during curing phase Amsden 25% Amsden 35% Corrected Amsden 25% Corrected Amsden 35% DMC 01 30% DMC 01 40% Corrected DMC 01 30% Corrected DMC 01 40% 37
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 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: one week intervals during the initi
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?