Berryman, C W; Jensen, W G and Zhu, J (2006) Maximization of fly ash in the manufacture of reinforced concrete pipe. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 2(3), pp. 209-216. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
Fly ash produced as a by-product of coal combustion in electric power plants is used in many commercial processes. The quantity of fly ash available, however, continues to outweigh its commercial applications. Current practice commonly specifies replacement of up to 25% of the required cement with Class C fly ash in the manufacture of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). RCP sections with higher percentages of Class C or Class F fly ash were manufactured using the "packerhead method" and were subjected to external load crushing strength tests using the three-edge bearing test method. Results indicate that RCP manufactured with 40% Class F fly ash and up to 65% Class C fly ash meet ASTM C 76M external crushing strength standards for Class I-III RCP.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | composite material; concrete pipe; concrete precast; fly ash; strength |
| Index terms: | maximization, reinforced concrete, replacement, composite, electric power plant, fly ash |
| Subjects: | infrastructure and transport systems, materials science, building materials, algorithms |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Digital Applications, Construction Materials |
| 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