SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

achieved an average UCS value of 1,278 psi and an average MOR value of 153 psi. The standard deviation for UCS and MOR was 90 psi and 26 psi, respectively. Soil Sample ID # of Blocks Produced Soil Mix Ratio 1:3 Average Dry Density [pcf] Average UCS [psi] Average E [ksi] Average MOR [psi] Soil #11 22 128.0 1,140.7 48.0 134.8 Soil #15 18 133.0 1,278.0 51.2 153.4 Table 4.16: Soil Mix 1:3 Material Test Results Soil #11 achieved an average UCS value of 647 psi and an average MOR value of 74 psi. Based on the number of blocks tested, the standard deviation for UCS and MOR was 49 psi and 12 psi, respectively. Soil #15 achieved an average UCS value of 688 psi and an average MOR value of 67 psi. The standard deviation for UCS and MOR was 108 psi and 30 psi, respectively. Soil Sample ID # of Blocks Produced Soil Mix Ratio 1:1 Average Dry Density [pcf] Average UCS [psi] Average E [ksi] Average MOR [psi] Soil #11 19 123.6 647.0 31.5 73.6 Soil #15 19 125.2 688.3 32.4 67.0 Table 4.17: Soil Mix 1:1 Material Test Results 4.2.4. Discussion of Test Results Varying the soil mix ratio affects the material properties of the SCEB blocks produced. This behavior is illustrated using both full-scale and model-sized blocks. The large blocks produced from a 1:3 soil mix ratio showed no adverse effects, such as cracking, during the curing phase and achieved satisfactory dry density, UCS, and MOR values. The large blocks produced from a 1:1 soil mix ratio showed no signs of cracking and achieved a satisfactory dry density, but suffered significant reductions in UCS and MOR, making this specific soil mixture not optimal. 56
Clayey soil is often mined and transported to the project site, where it is then processed and amended before block production. This process contributes significantly to project costs. Therefore, minimizing the amount of clayey soil needed has a high potential for minimizing costs. Determining an optimal soil mixture requires methodical specimen production and testing procedures, such as described in this report. The various test results bring the author to the conclusion that both Soils #11 and #15 are suitable for SCEB production. A range of suggested target soil mixtures is 1:3 to 1:4 with a water content of approximately 10%. 57
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 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: Average UCS [psi] 2000 1600 1200 UM
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?