Gooding, D and Thomas, T (1997) Soilcrete blocks. Building Research & Information, 25(4), pp. 202-209. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper presents research conducted to determine the relationship between compaction pressure, cement content and cured compressive strength for soilcrete building blocks (soil-cement, cement stabilized or sandcrete). This relation is then used as the basis for a simple economic model to evaluate the economics of manual compaction to 2 and 10 MPa. Other authors have shown that higher compressive strengths result from increased compaction pressure. However, for a given compressive strength it is more usual to be interested in trading increased compaction pressure for reduced cement content so that maximum economy is achieved. This paper describes experimental work carried out to determine an empirical relation which uses compaction pressure and cement content to define cured strength. The relationship presented in this paper suggests that cured strength is more dependent on cement content than it is on compaction pressure for a well-cured block. The economic model suggests that low pressure manual compaction using increased quantities of cement is a more economic method of block production unless the cost of high pressure compaction machinery can be reduced.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | block-making compaction pressure; cement content; economics; soil-cement |
| Index terms: | compressive strength, economic model |
| Subjects: | modelling and simulation, material analysis and testing |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Construction Materials |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CA |
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