Tractor Talk Discussion Board |
Re: O/T cement question. Made for the old timers
[ Expand ] [ View Replies ] [ Add a Reply ] [ Return to Forum ]
Posted by Billy NY on July 23, 2006 at 04:45:59 from (152.163.100.74):
In Reply to: O/T cement question. Made for the old timers posted by old on July 22, 2006 at 21:27:15:
That is an interesting question. I remember the floors in our old barns, one them is still in-tact, and there were larger round stone in the mix it seems. It defintitely appears that in old buildings, things were done different, I wonder what the mix looked in in the Hoover Dam, in regards to aggregate size. I just dug up around the base of my foundation here, and it the footings were not trowelled, so you can see the round stone in the mix, it was poured in 1977. When in college, we studied strenghts and statistics of materials and we did a lot with concrete, creating our own mix design, testing same in cylinders and beams. Most of what we did in the design was out of ASTM C 104 - 106 or somewhere around there, from analyzing sieve sizes and specific gravity of the aggregates to acutally making mixes. I used to think it was fun, because most of these materials I 've hauled in a dump truck, but I never thought I'd be analyzing them. From what I can understand and based on all the things that comprised formulating a mix design to meet a certain compressive strength, it seems ASTM ( American Society of Testing Materials ) that one thing was important, the uniformity of the aggregate, of all the composite sizes from a source. It's all combined like a recipe, so much of each sieve size aggregate, in measured by weight increments, besides the cementitious material ( portland ) and water as well as admixtures used today. I believe this is what gives it it's compressive strength, uniformly, whereas if you were to place large aggregate into the mix, it could concentrate in an area, or a variety of things, including voids, hard to really say, but could jeopardize the strength in areas of the pour, creating weak spots. That is just a theory though, on a large pour like a bridge pier or column, or maybe not so, but if your using 6" aggregate on an 8" foundation wall, maybe it's an issue. Another thing that comes to mind, I see pea gravel and round aggregate still used in bag mixes, I don't see it in mixes made by the suppliers and delivered in trucks. I think that the majority of suppliers use a crushed stone aggregate, it has a rougher surface and I would think makes a better bond, vs. round aggregate. I'm sure when the footings were poured here, that the top had a layer of fines on it, and was gray, no stone showing, now after disturbing it, seems like that layer spalls a little easier, exposing the round aggregate inside. This would appear to also be even more prevalent if exposed or in areas where the concrete was around harsh elements, freezing, thawing, chemicals, salt like on roads. Concrete has capillaries and things can be absorbed into it, I would think the round stone may lose it's bond easier, but who is to day if that is correct, just an opinion here. ACI , is another reference standard for concrete, ( American Concrete Institute ) I recall using some of those journals for research papers I did as part of my class work, did one on the abrasiveness of concrete as used in highway applications, got an A on it, was always imaginative, no one in the class had any far fetched topics like this one I did, went out on a limb I recall, but those journals were more suited to engineers, not written so much in laymans terms if I recall. It seems that they test sections of slabs and also insert or put test sections on highways and analyze same for wear. In the lab there is a giant arm with a tire and all the pieces are a trapezoid shape, creating a circle, the wheel goes around in circles to simulate years of wear. From what I recall about that, is the harder the aggregate, and the stronger the mix design, the higher the abrasion resistance. It's a vast subject no doubt.
Replies:
Home
| Forums
Today's Featured Article -
When Push Comes to Shove - by Dave Patterson. When I was a “kid” (still am to a deree) about two I guess, my parents couldn’t find me one day. They were horrified (we lived by the railroad), my mother thought the worst: "He’s been run over by a train, he’s gone forever!" Where did they find me? Perched up on the seat of the tractor. I’d probably plowed about 3000 acres (in my head anyway) by the time they found me. This is where my love for tractors started and has only gotten worse in my tender 50 yrs on this “green planet”. I’m par
... [Read Article]
Latest Ad:
1964 I-H 140 tractor with cultivators and sidedresser. Starts and runs good. Asking 2650. CALL RON AT 502-319-1952
[More Ads]
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V. Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor HeadquartersWebsite Accessibility Policy |
|