Hinze, J and Brown, J (1994) Properties of soundless chemical demolition agents. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 120(4), pp. 816-827. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The traditional approach to demolish concrete structures or to reduce the sizes of large rocks or boulders has typically included the use of explosives. The resulting explosions are associated with the obvious risks posed by shock waves and fly rock. These, along with other detrimental side effects of using explosives, have increased an interest in the use of alternative methods to demolish rock and concrete structures. Soundless chemical demolition agents (SCDAs) have proven to be viable substitutes for the use of explosives. SCDAs are powdery materials that will expand considerably when mixed with water. This expansion, when occurring under confinement, generates significant expansive pressures. These pressures are sufficient to break up rock and concrete when the SCDA is confined in a borehole or a series of boreholes. Experiments have been conducted with SCDAs to learn more about those variables that tend to hamper or enhance SCDA performance. Results show that the amount of mixing water and the ambient temperature are the most important variables in influencing the generation of SCDA expansive pressures.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | borehole, concrete structure, agent, experiment, ambient temperature |
| Subjects: | water management, practitioner, environmental engineering, data collection methods, structural engineering |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here