SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5.10: UMU Sample #11; 1:1 Soil Mix Cylinders Figure 5.11: Soil Cylinders; Before and During Testing 64
Average Large Block UCS [psi] 800 750 700 650 600 550 500 Figure 5.12: UMU 1:1 Soil Mix; Large Block vs Cylinder UCS Performing a linear regression analysis resulted in a relatively high R 2 value of 0.85. However, due to the limited number of tests performed, the results from the regression analysis are highly uncertain at this phase of testing. The author proposes that continuing the testing described in this section, using an adopted standard procedure for producing and testing stabilized soil cylinders, can lead to a strong correlation between cylinder and block strength properties. UMU 1:1 Soil Mix: Large Block vs Cylinder Strength y = 0.7029x + 564.63 R 2 = 0.8467 0 100 200 300 400 Cylinder UCS [psi] The average force at failure of the four tests performed was 1,300 pounds. The shop press described in Section 5.3.1 is easily capable of supplying the necessary failure load making the cylinder test an excellent candidate for on-site quality control evaluation. The ability to test soil cylinders at a low cost using a simple shop press load frame and confidently infer the actual compressive strength of the material has important implications to SCEB material evaluation Data Points Linear (Data Points) 65
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 and 70: nature will increase the level of c
Page 71: this point of testing. The testing
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?