SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to produce the mini-blocks tested for this analysis. The exact proportions are displayed in Table 4.10. Soil Mix Ratio 1:2.5 Soil Mix Ratio 1:3 Material Mass % Mass Material Mass % Mass Sand [g] 2,000.2 67.4% Sand [g] 2,100.9 70.8% Clay [g] 800 26.9% Clay [g] 700.6 23.6% Cement [g] 168.6 5.7% Cement [g] 168.7 5.7% Water [g] 273.7 8.4% Water [g] 274.5 8.5% Soil Mix Ratio 1:3.5 Soil Mix Ratio 1:4 Material Mass % Mass Material Mass % Mass Sand [g] 2,177.1 73.3% Sand [g] 2,240.0 75.5% Clay [g] 622.8 21.0% Clay [g] 560.0 18.9% Cement [g] 168.4 5.7% Cement [g] 168.4 5.7% Water [g] 274.1 8.5% Water [g] 274.2 8.5% Table 4.10 Mini-blocks were produced in accordance with the detailed description in Section 3.6 for durability testing. The exact composition of the soil mixes used in mini- block production is shown in Tables 4.11 & 4.12. Soil #11: Soil mix used for mini-block production: Soil #11Mini-Block Composition Material Mass % Mass Soil #15: Sand [g] 4201 64.6% Clay [g] 1400.7 21.5% Cement [g] 336.6 5.2% Water [g] 569.1 8.7% Table 4.11 Soil mix used for mini-block production: Soil #15 Mini-Block Composition Material Mass % Mass Sand [g] 4200.2 64.2% Clay [g] 1400.0 21.4% Cement [g] 336.0 5.1% Water [g] 606.7 9.3% Table 4.12 46
Large blocks were produced from two soil mixtures to compare their compressive and flexural strengths. The soil mixes were amended with approximately 6% Portland cement for stabilization. Exact material quantities are reported in Tables 4.13 & 4.14. The “% Mass of Total Dry Soil Mix” was calculated to show the amount of each individual material in relation to the total mass of the dry soil mixture. After the dry materials were thoroughly mixed, water was added to reach a target range of 10-12% water content. A sample from each soil mixture was taken during block production to determine the actual water content which is reported in Tables 4.13 & 4.14. Material Soil #11: 1:3 Large-Block Composition Soil #15: 1:3 Large-Block Composition Dry Mass [lb] % Mass of Total Dry Soil Mix Material Dry Mass [lb] 47 % Mass of Total Dry Soil Mix Sand 383.1 70.8% Sand 279.0 70.8% Clayey Soil 127.7 23.6% Clayey Soil 93.0 23.6% Cement 30.6 5.7% Cement 22.3 5.7% Water Content 11.3% Water Content 10.0% Table 4.13 Soil #11: 1:1 Large-Block Composition Soil #15: 1:1 Large-Block Composition Material Dry Mass [lb] % Mass of Total Dry Soil Mix Material Dry Mass [lb] % Mass of Total Dry Soil Mix Sand 187.1 47.2% Sand 172.7 47.2% Clayey Soil 187.1 47.2% Clayey Soil 172.7 47.2% Cement 22.5 5.7% Cement 20.7 5.7% Water Content 12.8% Water Content 12.5% Table 4.14 4.2.2.3. Test Block Production The mini-blocks made from the soil mixes displayed in Table 4.11 & 4.12 ejected cleanly from the AECT Small Block Press and were immediately placed in a controlled environment after recording their initial weight and dimensions. The mini-blocks were observed 2-3 times per week during the initial 4 week curing period. No effects due to
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 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: the sample and not the entire soil
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?