“7“
é
;
»\;~
5
a
fa \,
-1:
‘
§

\‘

:7;—
‘
,, Q
\
‘
_ E—
s
Q
g
‘
7‘

 

BULKING OF CONCRETE DUE TO
USING CEUTE SAND AS-AN

ADMIXTURE

Thesis for the Degree of B. S.
H. L- Workman
I 9 2 7

 

 

in.‘ ill.- NII'I‘II'I t. I

 

 

310 11c! .‘Illlul l I ll.|lu

. y l‘vl’ .Itllov
. .e I.

Bulking Of Concrete Due To Using Celite

Sand As An Admixture

A Thesis Sukmitted To The Fecultv
3f
"iehigen State College
193’

H .L .‘fior‘man

Wu.

Candidate For The Degree
Of

PacheWar W“ 3

O

ience

June 1927

THESlS

CULKIHG OF CONCRETE DUE TO USING CELITE
SAHD AS AN ADHIXTURE

The purpose of my work has been to determine
the added amount of concrete obtained due to adding
different quantities of Celite to the concrete mixture.
From this data, I have attempted to determine whether
it is economical to use Celite from the contractor's

viewpoint.

After considerable eXperimenting, I found that

the work required very accurate weighing, and also an
accurate measuring device. A sketch of this device is

shown on the next page.
The first step in my work was to design the
concrete mix. The data for said mix is as follows:

stimnm size of aggregate - %”
Stength - 20004 / sq. in. at 28 days
Water cewent retio - .9

Clump - 3" to h"

Fine asrrezete:
Fineness modulus ~ 2.66
Wt. of sand damp and loose - 100%
“ ” same sand dry ~ 97.18?
” / cu. ft. dry and rodded - 115#

Coerse aggregfite:
Fineness modulus - 6.MS
Vt./ cu. ft. damp and loose - 105?
" of same when dry - 103.75?
" / cu. ft. dry and rodded - 112.5”
Vt. of coebined egeregstes dry and rodded - 112.5?

Real Mix: 1:h.7

 

 

 

lull/yea

 

 

 

 

Me adv/My fit: was

 

 

(2)

Fineness modulus of mixed afgregnte - ”.9

Field mix:

v = __6.u8 "’ ,4.

6:us‘~ 2. : .uin

Percentage of sand : Ml.“
" ” stone = 55.6

.u14 cu. ft. of sand meLghing 115” / cu. ft. = #7. 6#

.586 ' " " stone ” 112. 5" / cu. ft.a 6 .8’
Total ‘rr%:¢t*

fit. of mixed aggregate - 125$

.llliiy a .908 volumes of mixed ageregrte to correspond

125 to one volume of the aggregate measured
separately.
The equivalent of the h.7 mix =._%6%__ 3 5.17 cu. ft.

of? are~stes measured separately
Pronortisns of netsriels to be used in the field:
Sand damp and loose a 5.17 x .hlu x 11; n 2.5
97.

Stone damp and 10083 8 5.17 x .586 x 112. ‘ 30}
153.75

Field mix a 1:2.5:3.3

Corrections for absorption and moisture:

Water cement ratio - 0.9
.9 x 7.48 c 6.73 gal. / sack of cement

4

Assume absorption of sand and stone = 1.

Absorption for sand a .01 x 2. 5 x 97.18 c 2. 425" a .29 gal.
" stone :.01 x 3. 3 x 103. 75 - 3. 425 a .91 “gal.
Total for each sack of cement = 0.7 gal.

hoisture content / cu. ft. of sand - 2.82#
I ” “ ' " . ” stone 3 1.25?

(3)

Deductions for moisture content:
2.82 x 2.5 2 1.055 a .845 gallons

1.25 x 3.3 = .1251 - .4 o n
Total / sack of cement - 1. 5 '
Net quantity of water to be added a 6.73 f .7 - 1.335
= 6.09_ga110ns

Of course with 4" x u" x 36” measuring device,
I was unable to use a full sack of cement. The pr0por-
tions that I used are as follows:
Cement - 5.025”
Sand - 12.633
Stone - 17.57?
Water — 3.08?
The results that I have obtained are as follows:

Pix i;of Celite/ sack Yield
of cement

 

 

0 1.0

1 1.001
2 1.002
P 1.008
1 1.015
2 1.0175
7

8

9

00
\N

O
\N

1.020
1.0 s
1.0 9
1.0 s
10 1.0 9
11 1.075
12 1.052
1 1.08
1 1.09
15 1.100

aasaazaaasasstam

From the above results it can be seen that the
first sporeciable increase in bulking occurs when 7? of
Celite per sack of cementerreadded. From the viewpoint
of the contractor, this would be the most favorable
amount to use. Thus, from the above data we can determine

whether it is economical for the contractor to use Celite.

(4)

C 2 11
C+S+G

C a Number of barrels of cement / cu. yd. of concrete.

C : 11 a 1.618 bbls. a 6.u72 sacks
1*205*303
Number of pounds of Celite / sack of cement = 7.
' " " ” " / cu. yd. of concrete : 7 F 6.U72

nest of Celite / ton = 2M5.oo

” " Cement / bb1.= $2.35

w . Gravel / yd. = “2.50
From the above data, the cost of materials for .038
cu. yds. of c ncrete can be determined. Also the cost of

Celite for .033 cu. yds. of concrete.

Cost of gravel - C x (5+0) §.§ x .038
37

. 1.613 (2.5+3.3).1.§ x .033 x i2.5o
2?

?.126 or 70.13
Cost of cement - 1.618 x “2.35 x .033.. fo.145 or e0.15
Cost of cement and gravel = 20.13 + 50.15 - +10.23

Cost of Celite = h”. 0” x 3H5.00 a 31.02
2000

From the above data it can be seen that the Celite
that is used in the concrete would cost $1.02. The cost
of cement and grave - 9.23. Thus, it would cost the
contractor 1.7M wore to use Celite. A graph showing the
increase in volume due to adding different quantities will
be shown in the back.

In conclusion I would like to say that my results

were very much different than those that I eXpected to

 

(5)

obtain. Celite was recovaended to me to bulk
concrete 5? after 33’ cf Celite per sack were added.
I do believe that Celite would be advantageous to
use in 1ntricrte forms where it would be hard to /
puddle the concrete 3 sufficient amount; also,

without a doubt, Celite makes a denser concrete.l

. bx V
Sfixfiflnvuxg §§Ni

o _

 

 

 

/ .
1 (ti v.53! . .

1‘

.

. .

 

 

 

 

H #7ij

‘36 I!

 

 

 

 

 

 

as

Ms dJfl/‘l/ij flc V/CC’

 

 

 

[f

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV

:IEH '; .11 1

31293 31

* BI I,
33!. .

Din-3n)

 

”71111171711911[11117111111111ES

78 5128