Download the thesis (PDF) - Ferguson Structural Engineering ...

) Results from UAB compressive strength tests on 4-in. (102 mm) cubes for
three grades from three different manufacturers (Hebel, Ytong and
Contec), conducted according to ASTM C1386 (Fouad et al., 2002). UAB
reported the moisture content (MC) of the AAC when those strengths were
evaluated, and the dry density of the AAC from which those strengths
were obtained. Using that information, it was possible to calculate the
“1386 density” of the AAC (what the density would have been at the
UAB-reported moisture content, which always fell within the 5 - 15%
range required by C1386). This information was found to be internally
very consistent.
c) Results from UT Austin compressive strength tests for 6 sets of cores from
different manufacturer shipments (aspect ratio of 2:1) (Tanner, 2003 and
Varela, 2003). The dry density of the cores is available and the density
within 3 days of testing is available for 5 groups of specimens. Internal
consistency for UT Austin data points corrected to a calculated MC of
10% is not very good, because the moisture content was not tightly
controlled. The external consistency between combined data from UAB
and UT Austin is good.
3.2.2 Discussion of Results for Compressive Strength of AAC
Results for the compressive strength and density for UT Austin and UAB
data are presented in Table 3.1. ASTM C1386 gives requirements for average
and minimum compressive strengths for 4-in. (102 mm) cubes tested in the dry
condition (Figure 3.1). A high percentage of the data points fall below the
15