SCEBs - University of Colorado Boulder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 5.1: Full Block in 3-Point Bending Test Set-up .................................................... 59 Figure 5.2: Block half after 3-Pt. Test .............................................................................. 59 Figure 5.3: Block half after being cut ............................................................................... 59 Figure 5.4: Block half being tested in compression ......................................................... 59 Figure 5.5: UMU 1:3 Soil Mix; UCS/MOR Correlation .................................................. 60 Figure 5.6: UMU 1:1 Soil Mix; UCS/MOR Correlation .................................................. 60 Figure 5.7: Schmidt Hammer ........................................................................................... 61 Figure 5.8: Test set-up ...................................................................................................... 61 Figure 5.9: UCS Value vs. Schmidt Hammer Rebound Value ........................................ 62 Figure 5.10: UMU Sample #11; 1:1 Soil Mix Cylinders ................................................. 64 Figure 5.11: Soil Cylinders; Before and During Testing ................................................. 64 Figure 5.12: UMU 1:1 Soil Mix; Large Block vs Cylinder UCS ..................................... 65 Figure 5.13: Aspect Ratio Test, Five block prism ............................................................ 67 Figure 5.14: Aspect Ratio Test, Four Block Prism .......................................................... 67 Figure 5.15: Aspect Ratio Test, Three Block Prism ......................................................... 68 Figure 5.16: Aspect Ratio Test, Two Block prism ........................................................... 68 Figure 5.17: Aspect Ratio Test, One Block ...................................................................... 69 Figure 5.18: Variation of prism UCS with the aspect ratio. ............................................. 69 Figure 5.19: Variation of prism E value with the aspect ratio.......................................... 71 Figure 5.20: Prism Consisting of Four Stacked Mini-Blocks .......................................... 72 Figure 5.21: Variation of prism UCS with the aspect ratio. ............................................. 72 Figure 5.22: Variation of prism E value with the aspect ratio.......................................... 73 Figure 5.23: MOR test performed in shop press .............................................................. 75 Figure 6.1: Mortar Bond Strength Test Set-up ................................................................. 82 Figure 6.2: Mortar Shear Strength Test Set-up ................................................................ 83 viii
1. Introduction The demand for sustainable building materials at low cost is growing as social, economic, and environmental issues evolve in today‟s society. Stabilized compressed earthen block (SCEB) technology offers an alternative to traditional building practices that is relatively inexpensive, uses local resources, and in some cases, has been found to last several millennia (ASTM E2392). Although earthen building is not a new concept, the documentation regarding best practices for SCEB production is limited or inconsistent. Often soils used in SCEB production are conveniently mined in proximity to the project site lending to a wide variety of soil types and properties from project to project. The uncertainty behind selecting a suitable soil for SCEB production presents the need for a systematic approach to implementing and guaranteeing a successful project. This report emphasizes the importance of standardization by: (i) providing a suggested best practice procedure for selecting suitable soils; (ii) developing a suite of material quality tests; and (iii) introducing adapted field testing procedures. Throughout this report, SCEBs refer to blocks that are comprised of a mixture of angular sand aggregate (40-70%), clayey soil (30-60%), water (~10%), and Portland cement (5-6%). This predetermined soil mix is added to a block mold and pressed, either manually or hydraulically, to form a block. Due to the geographic locations of the case studies presented (Southern CO and Southern MT), Portland cement was added to stabilize the blocks which were used as samples for this report. The addition of cement is intended to minimize any swelling characteristics of the clayey soil and to reduce the amount of moisture that the blocks can retain, therefore reducing the effects of freeze/thaw cycles experienced in cold climates.
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: Table of Figures Figure 2.1: World
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 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?