SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Portland cement. The blocks originated from the Crow Tribe. The blocks were tested in the flat position and completely dry. The Schmidt Hammer rebound value (R) was recorded at the center of each block. Twelve rebound tests were performed on each block and the results are presented in Appendix 8.2.2. The eight blocks were then immediately tested in compression using the 1,000 kip MTS Machine in the Structures Lab provided by the University of Colorado. The recorded UCS values were plotted versus the corresponding R values (Figure 5.9). A linear regression analysis was carried out to determine the trend between the two parameters. This trend can then be used to predict the unconfined compressive strength of CEB blocks from R measurements conducted in the lab or in the field. It should be noted that this trend is unique for specific CEB mixtures. UCS [psi] 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 UCS vs Schmidt Hammer Rebound Value "R" y = 87.973x + 1475.3 R 2 = 0.5637 15 18 21 24 27 30 Schmidt Hammer "R" Value Data Points Trend-line Figure 5.9: UCS Value vs. Schmidt Hammer Rebound Value The linear regression analysis offers a relatively low R 2 value of 0.56. Although a trend between the two values can be recognized, the results are not sufficiently correlated to suggest a strong relationship between Schmidt Hammer rebound and UCS values at 62
this point of testing. The testing described in this section should continue to further investigate the relationship between rebound and UCS values, paying special attention to the water content of the SCEB during sampling. Also, the Schmidt Hammer used for this analysis is intended to test hard concrete surfaces. It is likely that a more sensitive Schmidt Hammer would produce better results. 5.1.3. Cylinder Tests During the production of the UMU large blocks described in Sections 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.3, the author set aside a portion of each of the soil mixes to prepare cylindrical specimens (pictured in Figures 5.10 & 5.11). The soil was compacted into plastic molds in a similar method to the specifications for a Proctor Test (ASTM D698 or D1557). This process involves adding a layer of soil to the mold and using a metal rod as a ram to manually compact the soil. This process was repeated adding layer after layer of soil until the mold was full. The specimens were cured with the large blocks in the same environmental conditions for the same amount of time. Following curing, the specimens were tested under uniaxial compression. Figure 5.12 shows the relationship between the large block UCS and the corresponding cylinder UCS. 63
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 and 68: Figure 5.1: Full Block in 3-Point B
Page 69: nature will increase the level of c
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?