SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Average UCS [psi] Average UCS [psi] UMU 1:3 Soil Mix: Average UCS vs Average MOR 1400 1300 1200 1100 y = 4.0486x + 622.05 R 2 = 0.8472 1000 50 100 150 200 800 700 600 500 400 Average MOR [psi] Data Points Trend-Line Figure 5.5: UMU 1:3 Soil Mix; UCS/MOR Correlation UMU 1:1 Soil Mix: Average UCS vs Average MOR y = 3.3695x + 419.78 R 2 = 0.8744 Data Points Trend-Line 40 60 80 100 Average MOR [psi] Figure 5.6: UMU 1:1 Soil Mix; UCS/MOR Correlation A strong correlation between UCS and MOR implies that the results from the relatively inexpensive three-point bending test can be used to infer compressive strength characteristics, which are more costly to determine. The analyses results shown in Figures 5.5 & 5.6 suggest that the relationship between SCEB UCS and MOR values can be correlated. Linear regression analyses resulted in relatively high R 2 values (goodness of fit measure) of 0.85 and 0.87 for the two soil mixes tested. Additional testing of this 60
nature will increase the level of confidence associated with this correlation. Correlation between UCS and MOR values should not be extended beyond certain soil types and mixtures. 5.1.2. UCS vs. Schmidt Hammer Correlation A Schmidt Hammer, displayed in Figures 5.7 & 5.8, provides a non-destructive testing method that can be closely correlated to a material‟s unconfined compressive strength (UCS). Such correlations are commonly used on concrete (ASTM C805) and soft rocks (ASTM D5873). The spring-loaded device measures and records the rebound when applied to a surface. The rebound “R” is converted to compressive strength by using a conversion chart supplied by the hammer‟s manufacturer. A block‟s Schmidt Hammer compressive strength can then be compared to the actual compressive strength when tested in a lab to determine any correlation. This application provides a simple inexpensive method for quality assurance. Figure 5.7: Schmidt Hammer Figure 5.8: Test set-up The author performed a series of Schmidt Hammer (Model L/LR) tests on eight 7” x 14” x 3 3/4” full-sized blocks made with a 3 to 1 clayey soil to sand ratio and 5% 61
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 and 64: Average UCS [psi] 2000 1600 1200 UM
Page 65 and 66: Clayey soil is often mined and tran
Page 67: Figure 5.1: Full Block in 3-Point B
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?