Hinze, J and Nelson, A (1996) Enhancing performance of soundless chemical demolition agents. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(2), pp. 193-195. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Soundless chemical demolition agents (SCDAs) have been used in a variety of circumstances where other more conventional means of demolition were not feasible. When compared with conventional explosives, SCDAs are not yet economically competitive. Research was conducted on SCDAs to examine the possibility of adding an inert material (sand) to the SCDA in order to extend the material. Results show that although the expansive pressure generated by the SCDA is reduced by adding sand, reduction is not commensurate with the amount of sand added. Research was also conducted in order to determine if the workability of the SCDA slurry could be improved by adding a superplasticizer. These tests were conducted at water contents below levels where conventional mixtures were too stiff to effectively deposit them in a borehole. Results show that a superplasticizer can effectively improve SCDA workability and that the resultant expansive pressure is greater than that which is possible without the superplasticizer.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | workability, agent, superplasticizer, sand, borehole |
| Subjects: | materials science, building materials, design methods, water management, practitioner |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Roles and Professions, Construction Materials, Sustainability, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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