Concrete and Concrete Aggregates Citation Levine, Ernest (1931) Concrete and Concrete Aggregates. Master's thesis, California Institute of Technology. doi:10.7907/dck6-bj68. https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechTHESIS:09092024-224804551 Abstract No abstract. Item Type: Thesis (Master's thesis) Subject Keywords: (Civil Engineering) Degree Grantor: California Institute of Technology Division: Engineering and Applied Science Major Option: Civil Engineering Thesis Availability: Public (worldwide access) Research Advisor(s): Unknown, Unknown Thesis Committee: Unknown, Unknown Defense Date: 1 January 1931 Record Number: CaltechTHESIS:09092024-224804551 Persistent URL: https://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechTHESIS:09092024-224804551 DOI: 10.7907/dck6-bj68 Default Usage Policy: No commercial reproduction, distribution, display or performance rights in this work are provided. ID Code: 16707 Collection: CaltechTHESIS Deposited By: Benjamin Perez Deposited On: 10 Sep 2024 16:29 Last Modified: 10 Sep 2024 16:42 Thesis Files PDF - Final Version See Usage Policy. 23MB Repository Staff Only: item control page

CONCRETE AND CONCRETE AGGREGATES THESIS by ER.NmST l,"N ,J?ARTI.AL FULFILLMENT 0.1!1 DEGREE MAS~JR OF CALIFORNIA 11~V.IIE THE, REQUIREM!:~NTS Oli1 IN~TI TOTE PA.$4,DENA , 1931 FOR SOIENO'E OF TECHNOLOGY CALIFORNIA THE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE llf~ODUCTIO.N ...•••.••••• • ••• " •• • • • •••••• • • ••.•.••.•.•• • l MATERIAI,S ••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • 2 GENERAL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY••••••••••••••••••·••••••••••• 3. PHYSIC.AL & GEOLOGIC.AL SURVEY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 3 TE ST FOH PHYSICAL STRllNGTH O.b' STONES UNIT WEIGHTS OF MATERIALS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •· • • • • • • • 9 SPEOIFIO GRAVITY OF STON.E:S ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 PER CENT VOIDS IN 3/4 11 STONE.S • ••• •. • •• • ••• • • •••••••• •.. ll DlSI.NT.EGRATION TEST •••••••••••••••••••••••••• •......... 12 SIEV-.8 .ANALYSIS •••• • ••••• •. • •••• •. •..................... 14 Ii'INENf£S~ MODULU3 OF SflUiDS • •••• • •• • ••• • • ••• •. • •••• •. • •• • 19 ♦ CE11:E NT • • • ••• • • ••••••••• • ••••• • •••••• • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 CJ~1fE 1IT-SAND SPECIMENS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24 CONCRETE - FIXJ:!:D RATIO JPOR AGGRl~GATES •.•••••• •.......... 27 CONCRETE "" DE TE RMI Nr~D BY FULLI~R' S CURVES • ••••••• •....... 36 TA.BLE OF RESULTS••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 52 DISCUSSIONS••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••·• 54 NO. INTRODUOTION The primary purpose in ohoosing eoncrete and conoretll3 aggregates for this thesis was to give the writer a more complete knowledge of these materials. especially for this immediate vicinity. at the start of this experiment the fixed objeotive was to determj.ne the relative strengths of some of the important stones that are loeat~d in Los Angeles and Vicinity. This partioular problem was brougl).t to the wri ter\s attention after it was found that r:aton Canyon • ' ' materials that were used i.u a reoent addition to the Rose Bowl ga.•e concrete that was far inferior to the concrete that was being prepared under the supervision of Mr. Byron Hill at the Institute, these latter ' ' • ' ' • I - materials being secured from san Gabriel. After some investigation the differenoe in str.fgth of these two oonoretes were found to be 1' partially due to -the aggregates. . ' After the experiment was started various tests and experiments somewhat Mturo.lly followed in poeeaeion. Some stones. for example·. might be far superior in strength and hardness to stones from another souroe• yet the grading of these stones might be euoh as to give a 1'$lative weak oonorete u.nder . some fixed ,mix. Or, as was .also found, certain stones may be preferred under different oond.itions of use or preparation of the oonorete. This report is on the whole somewhat interrelated .and it would hardly be fair to quote too strongly any particular small section of the experiment. The laek of consiatenoy in certain phases . of this .experiment has left the writer with a dubious feeling as to the precise validity ; ; of oertatn parts. It is hoped that oertain parts ot this report shall eneoura.ge further work-for , a. oheok' on· the reeult·s · presented here and a oontinu.ation of a field of endeavtr that has hardly been touched. MATERIALS Sand and atonea were obtained from each of the foll owing 4 sources; Eaton Canyon, oan $ernando, 0a.n Gabriel, and Catalina. - Long Beach. From this last source sand waa obtained at and atones at Catalina. Long Beach These 4 sources of materials were choaen because they were considered the most representative for Los Angeles, Pasadena., and vicinity. concrete sand and both 3/4 inch a nd l½ inch crushed rocks were des ired. In some case a where 3/4 inch and l½ inch rock could not be obtained, it was necessary to substitute l inch rock for the 3/4 inch and 2 inch rock for the l½ inch rC:>ck. ln some cases it was also necessary to substitute gravel for crushed rock. The Ea.ton canyon sand and l inch crushed rock were obtained from a Pasadena City construction job, and the l½ inch gravel was obtained from a bin at the ~aton Canyon plant. San Fernando sand, l inch gr a vel, a nd 2 inch crushed rock we~e obtained from the bins a t the San Fernando plant of Graham Bros. San Gabriel sand, l inch gravel, a nd l½ inch gra vel were obtained fro m the bins of Graham Bros.' San Gabriel :plant. The Long .Beach sand and Catalina l and 2 inch crushed rocks were sent to the Institute through the courtesy of' R. w. Livingston who was at the time connected with Graham Bros., Inc. GE M8~RAL GEOLI GICAL SURVEY When all of the materials 1,vere on hand, a general geological observation was made with the as~iistance of David Scharf• a graduate geolcigist at the Institute. The Eaton Canyon rock had a co mpa r a tively l arge a mount of' mica which was very cle avable. A good many of the rocks were gneissic, i.e. , the mi nerals were a rranged in bands or l a yers. The Catalina rock was fine grained a nd compa ct with practically no bands or layers. The crushing s urf~ces were l a rge a nd very smooth and fl a t. After several months of weathering the rocks seemed to become somewhat darker on the surfaces. The San .B'ernando rock was sornewhcJ, t less gneissic a nd mic a ceous than t:aton Ca nyon rock but there was, however, a noticible amount present. There were s 0100 decom_pos ed :pe ebbles present tha t o ould. be broken with the ha nd. 'lhe [;an Gabriel rock was finer grained and much less gneissic or micaceous than the rocks of i:aton canyon or :.J an .h'ernando. It conta ine d a few pebbles of deco mposed rock. The clas : :; ificat ion in strength I fr om a ge ological study of the rocks, is Cata lina first, 3an Gabrie 1 and San Fernando about tbe same, and Baton Canyon by f'ar the weakest. PHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SU11V1i.iY To carry the geological study of the rocks a little further, some rocks from each source were broken f.md the interior of the rocks were observed~ The method of breaking the rocks gave an a pproximate r, rela tive measure of the strength of the four rocks~ The :pciture on page .I,_ illustra tes the method of breaking.. The s ame testing machine tha t was used for testing specimens was used but the ma.ximum cape.city was reduced to 15,000 pounds a ni the minimum scale d ivision was then one pound. The rate at which the cross-head moved was about .05 inches per minute, the same as is required for the standard compressive tests of concrete cylinders and which was used throughout. The individual rock that was to be tested was placed on a three quarter inch board that was laying on the weighing table and the load was applied through a steel bolt head that measured one balf' inch thick. or crushed. one and one quarter inches across and 'l'he load wae applied until the rock cracked, broke, The board was ·used in order to give a large bearing area. on the bottom. The r 'ocks that were to be tested had to be carefully selected to be sure that the load was applied by the bolt head on only one flat surface of contact and also that the bottom of the rock had a good resting area directly beneath the point where the load wae applied. Approxim3.tely eight pounds of a3.ch of the four larger rocks were taken andtt-om these the specimens were chosen. There were three rocks tested from each source as expla tned above and then three more were tested but strip instead of the three quarter inch board a 3/4 inch aqua.re woodAwas used. RESULTS OF BREAKING STRENGTH WITH 3/4 INCH BOARD BASE Brea.king load j.n BOUA9;8 Thickness in 1nohes 2,140 0.5 Denae crystalline structure. 1,829 1.1 Very fine structure. Partly decomposed. l,487 Pa.rtly decomposed rock. Uniform throught,ut. San Fernando l,706 o.s Dense. Large crystals. Large amount quartz. 1,625 l.O No.banding. composed. Slightly de- San Jfernando (Con.} .Brea.king Load in pounds Thickness in inches Renarkti Cracked a t '9,000 #o 1,793 Mica San Gabriel 1,418 0. '1 Dense. Fine structure. Mica. 946 1.0 :M.ica. (1,390 1.1 Supporting block failed, not the speci• men.) Eaton Canyon 719 0.6 Fine structure, Mica, 906 1,0 Granite. Decompos it\.l~xi. 902 o.a, l'artly decomposed throughout. Catalina 1 ., 830 Lbs. San :s'ernando 1,710 San Ga·briel 1,400 ti Eaton Canyon 900 ti R"ESUL'l'S OF BREAKING STRIENGTH Vi ITH 3/4 INCH STRIP AS BASE Ca talina Breaking load in pound_! Th ickness in 2,377 0.7 Geological Heport Inches Compact i mpal a ble rhyolitic,. Apparently not decomposed. 4,993 1.1 Comµ1 ct i mpalable rhyolitic rock. Slightly decomp ose.d along breal:. Catalim (Con.) Breaking Load in pounds 'I'hickriess in Geologic.a l Report Inches 4,062 Same kind of rook. Break along a. plane of slig b.t decomposition. Eaton Canyon 961 Jline grained mica sehist, quartz, and feldspar. .Break almost par- allel , to schistosity. Mediwn grained, roughly branded, 660 quartz, feldspar, and mica. De- composed condition accounts for weakness, Break normal to plane. 986 Q.uartz and .f els par mw!h more than mica. Relatively fresh. ~o banding. San Fernando 6,198 1.0 Very coarse grained quartz. feldspar• and mi ca. No banding. Vezy fresh. 1,800 o.a Coarse grained quartz, felds par, .M.ica, and a little hornblende. No banding. 1.921 o.? ~lightly decomposed. coarse grained quartz and felspar. No Banding. San Gabriel 2,430 o.9 Gueiesic medium grained. ~uartz, felspar, and mica arranged in bands which are plane a of weakness1 but brea.l ocoured almost norzral to these bands. l'he load was applied parallel to the bands. Brea.king San Gabriel _ (Con;) Load In pounds 'l'hickness in Inches ueological Report 2,242 o.9 11.e dium grained granite, slightly a.l tered. toward a gneiss. Iuuch more quartz and fe lspa r than mica. Hica a rranged in bands ·but to a much less degree than above rock. Part of break across and part along plane of mica. 0.9 ~uartz, felspar, and mica approx- imately equal in amount; uniformly distributed with flakes of mica generally p:trallel to each other. No~ banding. Co1u,IRrative freshness of rock and absence of banding or sebistosity accounts for high strength. J:iliIBESENTATIVE BREAKING VALUES Catalina 4,060 San Gabriel 2,430 San .ilernando l,920 Ea ton Canyon 960 Since there were few suitable specimens from the 8 lbs. of rook samples in each group, tho s e first chosen ::md used with the fla t board test gave better a nd more representative results as the range indicates. 7- ; -STI m HYSICAL 'TRENGTH UNIT Vi'E IGHT S 02 1SATERIALS t>and ( Dried) Wt. of 0.10 cu.ft. wt. of l cu.ft. Eaton Canyon 10.53 105.3 8an Fernando 11.36 113.6 San Gabriel ll .03 110.03 Long Beach 10.12 Check on above. wt. of l/2 cu.ft. wt. of l cu.ft. Eaton Canyon 51.2 102.4 San 1i'ernando 56.4 San Gabriel 54.0 107.9 Long Beach 48.8 97 Sanda arrayed by v; e ight San .b'ermndo iJan Gabriel Ea ton Gan yon Long Beach 9. 3/4 INCH STONE ) wt. of 1/2 ou,ft. N·e t Wt. l cu.ft. Ea ton Canyon 49 .69 San Jlernar.do 51.46 102.9 %an Gabriel 02·, 77 . 105.5 Catalina 46.79 Arrayed by weight oan Ga;t.>.ri el san .Ifernand o Eat on CEWyon Catalina_, • l•l/2 INJH STONE Wt. 1/2 cu.ft. wt. l cu. ft. ~a ton Canyon 49.03 98.l San Fernando 48.0 96.0 San Gabriel 53,6'7 107.3 Ca talina 46.82 93.6 Arrayed by weight San Gabriel Ea ton Canyon San .iferna.ndo Catalina. SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF ROCKS The apparent specifc gra vity of the a tones from each of' the four sources were determined by the standard A. s. T. rr. method. Each of the four small groups selected by a representative me thod were first weighed dry, indicated in the follo wtng table by A. After 24 hours soaking in wa ter they were :again weighed after being blotted dry • B. The soaked rocks were then submerged in water and the net weight is indicated below by C. Catalina Eaton canyon sa.n .l!'ernando San Gabriel A 1.47 1.04 l.2'1 1.32 B l.485 1.05 1.28 1.34 C .935 .661 .8106 .634 B•C .560 .399 .469 .506 2.67 2.605 2.71 2.61 Specific Gravity ~~~ ARRAYED SPEC IJ.nC GHAVIT IES San J!'ernand o Catalina San Gabriel Ea ton Canyon Pl~R CENT VOIDS IN 3/4 INCH HOCK - -- -- San Fernando 2.71 X 62.4 102.9 2.71 X 62.4 39.l Ca talina 2.6? X 62.4 43.85 San Gabriel 2.61 X 62.4 -100.0 2.61 X 62.4 2.605 X 62.4 95.3 2.605 X 62.4 Ea tom Canyon 93.6 2.67 X 62.4 - -- 35.2 -- 41.4 ARRAYED ACCORDING TO GR,l\.DING BY VOIDS San Gabriel San Ferna.ndo Eaton Canyon Catalina ,Z DlS.Ili~GRATIO.N TEST Ii . i . ,. I I QR . J t , , I . q; & . iP,:AJfjl ,.t . ~-,tml:· Six lagge rooks were ehosen from eaeh of the 4 source.a at random~: 'l'hese stones were tested for disintegration by soaking them in a saturate4_ eolution of a.odium sulphate for about 12 hours and then drying them at about 100 degrees centigrade for the same length of time. ,Ul rooks were kept in the same solution and oven and treated exactly the same. The fau1t wi t h this t -e st is the );)Qrsonsl element in 3udging the extent of disintegration. Some of the stones ore.eked in half. others disi.ntegrated to various extents~ while some were not e-tien effeoted. After about 10 complete oyoles .• the following order gi.ves the resistanoe · to disintegration. ARRAYJ!;D A.CEORD!NG 'l'O RESISTANCE TO WEATHb::RING. san Gabriel Catalina &ln Fernando Eaton Canyon w OH I on SIEVE ANALYSIS OF MATERIALS Representative samples were secured by quartering about 1/2 cubic foot of each material. '1'he sand v.aa oven dried a t a bout 100° c. The free moisture in the sand was measured but baa been omitted. because of its lack of i mportance. sand Sieve Ana.l.;:t;sts Ea.ton Canyon - Long Beach - Sieye ·200 lOQ 48 .28 Wt. Pa s s ing .02 .14 .58 l.56 .61 4,26 1,.6 4?.4 ·$:.hsJd.ng 3.14 2.86 Wt• J?a.a s a.ng % Passing San Gabriel ~ V, t. Passing 'tJt. Passing San ]'ernanda- %Passing .oa .3o 1.66 2.94 4.61 .21 l.66 7.26 34.5 61.0 95.6 .40 1.10 1.a1 2.94 .01 .01 .oa 92.2 3/4 Inch otone Llieve Analysis Sieve Eaton Canyon- wt. Passing % Passing {crushed) Catalina a 4 .3?1 .525 .?42 l.05 .11 .16 .53 l.72 3.46 4.8 2.2~ D.3~ 11.0 35.8 72.l 100 Wt. Passing (Crushed) % Passing .20 .20 5.ll 21.4 58.0 98.l San Gabriel Wt. Passing .14 •. 30 i.55 ' 3.66 4.75 6.05 2.77 6.94 30.? 72.6 94.0 100 {Gravel) San Fernando Wt. Passing .06 .13 .96 2.39 3.81 5.0 (Gravel) % Passing 1.2 2.6 19.2 47 .8 76.2 100 .._ ~\] 1-1/2 Inch Stone Sieve Ana lysis Sieve Eaton Canyon- Wt. Passing ( Grave 1) Catalina (Crushed) San Gabriel %Passing Wt. Passing % Passing Wt. Passing .371 .525 .742 1.05 1.6 .12 .54 2.50 5.96 2.01 C"4. 00 9.06 42..9 100 .01 .01 .02 .02 3.l3 10.34 .97 .97 1.93 1.93 30.22 100 .32 • .63 1. 12 4.33 8.45 .24 2.0 ( Gravel) % l:,asaing 3.78 6.27 13.26 51.2 100 San Fernando Wt. Passing .02 .02 .02 .68 4. 93 5.84 (Crushed) % Passing .34 .34 .34 1.17 84.5 100 "' ~N~ l-:.: I-It~;:; ' ...-++ ... :t1 ,.,_ i -J: ':j: ·• OO&r: l ~ 'Yl ~I ~ ' ~ !)' ~ '-'-... '-- ~ ~ ~ 'i '1{_ "' ', '-- ·• ~ \ •I S: H- :t :1+1 i-i .... g fftj~ TT .) _:iE~ t:: +r :FF I r 1 ·••; ffl FINENESS MODULUS OF SAND Steve 200 Opening Per cent sand .Vassini b~ We1e;h1 100 48 28 , 14 , 8 4 .0029 .0058 .Ollo .9232 .046 .093 .185 Eaton C~nyon ~61 4.25 l'l.6 4'1.~ 76. 95.C> 99.7 341.06 San Fernando .31• 2.53 l2 .52 . . . 36 •• 56.V . '12.6 . 92.2 273.16 San Gabriel .21 l.66 ,.2, 34.5 61.0 78.2 96.6 278.43 Long Beach .35 2.oa 10., 41.8 '17.l 94.5 98.9 325.43 . } • r' FINENESS MODULUS .:. Ea.ton Canyon 3.59 san .1terna.ndo • 4.2? Sa.n Gabriel 4.22 Long .Bea.ch • ARRAYED 'FINENJ!; ss MODUIJJS San Fernando San Gabriel Long Bea.ch Eaton Canyon le$s than above .s1neEJ the 200 mee,h is e.onunonl.1 omitted CEMENT The cement that was used was secured from the various construction jobs that were in progress at the Institute during the time of the experi100nts. All of the cement, which was of the Riverside Portland brand, came from the same sources but in different shipments. To check the consistency in method of testing and strength of the cement, 4 sacks were teated. 1'he neat cement mixtures were all thoroughly mixed by hand in a g:lazed pan that was approxirrs.tely 12 inches in diameter and 4 inches deep. li'or reference• the sacks were numbered. After the specimens were l da.y old they were then placed in the water curing tank in the testing :craterials la.boratQry. in the curing tank was 13<\, C• specimens. The temperature of the water Oiled metal forms were used for all the All compression tests were nade on the Tinius Olson Testing Ma chine w1tJ;L 150,000 lbs. rraiximwn capacity and a minimum scale division of 10 lbe. CE:ME11T .F I .X. TURES Sa.ck #l Grose wt. Cement • l2 .41 Pan • 1.34 ' Net = ll.0'7 ' Net Vo. water • ~cc. w/c Ratie • • .382 by Volume. Lbs. " 2.86 gal. per cu • ft. Cement. CEMENT MIXTURES (CON.) Sack #2 - 10.3? Lbs. • l.32 Net • 9.05 Net. Vo. wa ter • • 1040 cc . • 2.86 gal./ c. ft • Gros a wt. Cement l?a.n w/c Sack #3 - Gross Wt. Cement Pan Net • Net Vo. water Water Cement Ratio • n Sack #4 ll . . .382 by volume eenent. 9.33 Lbs. 1,33 8.00 . 920 cc. .382 by volume. 2.86 gal. Gross Wt. Cement • 9. 33 Lbs. Pan • ~ Net • a.oo • • Water Cement Ra tio • . • " " 9.20 cc • Net Vo. water 3.82 by volume. 2.86 gal . Combination of above four sacks. Gross Wt,. Ce n:rant • -• Pan Net :Net vol. \ia ter Water cement r a tio n n -• . • l2.41 Lbs. 1.34 ll.07 u 12?3 co. • 382 by volume. 2.86 gal • 28 JJAY CEMENT TESTS :Brea king Strength Ave r age Unit Blrkg. ~trength 26,820 L½" x 3n Cyl inders-Sa ck# l Sudden breaking of small p iece s. Ceme nt d_u st in cent er 4,050 22,960 Chi pped with firs t app lic a tio n oJf load ing. . _ Sudden f a ilure. 20,230 Area. ■ 1.7? Remarks 10,450 Sack#2 16,690 Ch ipped a nd broke a cross ne a r t he bottom. 6,270 Botto m was untrue. Felt used. 5,930 Sack//3 14,690 9,860 Sack#4 8,810 Chipped early and continuously; lo ad s till increa sed. 21,460 nbination of above 20,980 21,250 .,., ... 14 950 .----- Breaking Strength Average Un it Brks. Strength Rem.a rks 46,500 3" x 6" c ylinders-Sack#l Area • 7.07 8,330 71,330 Little early chipp ing. 58 ,,150 oud,den .t.c'a ilure. Sudden li"a ilure Sack#2 8,250 58,630 Felt Used. 41.750 Much e a rly chi pp ing. Sack#3 6,500 50,000 St a rte d ch ipp ing a t about 14 1 000 Ll3s . 28 DAY CEMKNT TESTS {\CON.) Brea.king Strength Average Unit Brkg. ~trengtb Re1ra.rks Chipping at 26,000 Lbs. 49,900 Sa.ck #4 7,370 54,200 38 • 370 Combine. tion 49,930 6,960 Chippiue; at 36 ,ooo L}Js. . First Chipping at 32,000 Ls Ran Gros s•head too f a. st. •• Chipping a t 37,000 Lbs. 38,230' Chipped at 33,000 Lba. and 38 1 000 Lbs, Brea.ki.ng Lead Unit Strength 2" Cubes Sack #1 20,250 '1,560. Area• 4 Sack #2 32,0~0 8,010 Sa.ck #3 24,650 6,140 Sack l/4 19 ,50.0 4,880 14,600 3,650 Combination Briquette Sack #1 800 Sack #2 6i4 sack #3 555 Sa.ck #4 856 Combination 478 SAND C1£.11E NT SPECIMENS ,; Exactly 1000 c.c. l2.2 Lbs.) of water and 4.7 lbs. \0.05 cu. ft.) of cement were added to 0.10 cu. ft. of each of the 4 sands. were room dried. W'h en the specimens were 27 days old they ...ere moved from Institute Laboratory curing tank. All sands re• The specimens were teated from 18 to 2:3 hours a fter bei ng re moved from the curing tank. 'l'he temperature of tbe curing ~later was approximately 130 c. during the curing period. ~Hnce a.11 rne t a l forms we r·e used. the folliwung areas represent the differnet apecimenat the 1t11 x 3" molds ~rea • 2.01; the 2" cubes area,. 4,0; the~,. x 6" cylinders area• ?.,09; and unity for tbe bri quettes. .B~ATON CAh'YON Breaking ]'orce a ._340 7,050 10,340 2'2,730 2G .-700 26,080 Unit Yi.ax. Stress 4,150 3,5).Q 5,150 6,930 6,680 6,520 Average(Arith) 4,270 6 • 7,10 Median 4,150 6,680 3tt e6" Cylin.dere 39.,,,.290 ~.3 , 960 .3'1 ,~'6:20 ., Unit :Ma x. Strees i,5:.50 ;4,'190 i., .3 10 Brea.king Force Ar 1. th Average 6,220 Median 5,310 J3r igue ttes 435 SAN :b""'ERNANDO Breaking Force • '1,140 4,820 9,810 23,800 2•1 Cubes 27,480 Unit irax.. Stress 3,560 2,400 4,880 6.950 6,870 Ari th.Average 3,610 5,880 :Median 3,660 6,950 3" x 6" Cylinders Breaking For9e 38,290 Unit Max.. Stress 5,400 - 19,260 4,810 Bri9.uettes 38,770 445 5,460 6,430 Ari th.Average Median SAN GABRIEL lj-" x 3• C~linders . Brea.king Force - 2" Cubes 25.660 25,460 6,420 • 60370 9,420 10;620 9,370 Unit Ma.;x:. Stress 4;680 b,230 4,66() Arith. Average 4,860 Jtedian 4i680 - 3 11 x 6" Cylinders .Briqu~ttea Breaking Force 39,660 38; 160 42,330 Unit J\lax. Strese 5,600 b,380 5, 9"/0 Arith. Average 5~650 T:ledian 5,600 - 6,390 390 LONG BEACH Brea.king Force 1§" x ,2 ct,1inders 9,52 ,oo 6,536 2" Cubes 18,200 21,106 23,036 4,550 6,280 5,?60 Unit Max. Strees 4,'730 4,480 Arith. Average 4, l!f>O 6,200 Median 4,480 5,280 3• x 6° CYS1nder~ 34,520 34,78 • 31,530 :Urique ttes Breaking Force Unit Max. Stress 4,"Sit 4,900 Ari th. Avera.ge 4,740 t iedian 4,8'10 3,250 - 4,460 RESULTS OF COMPRESSIVE TESTS FOR CEMENT-SAND SPECiliENS lCylinders and cubes weighed alike) Arith. Averages Ari th. Averaite of Medians. Eaton Canyon · 5,400 5,380 sa.n Ferrando 4,900 4,980 San Gabriel 6,970 6. 560 Long Beach 4,680 4,880 ARRAYED SAND TEST RESULTS San Gabriel Eaton Canyon San JI'ernand.0 Long Beach CONCRETE SH1CI:MEllS Two series of cylinders were ·prepared and tested,. One of the series was where the aggregate ratio.~. were fixed, aa.ci., the other was where the aggregate ratios for each set o:t: materials were determined by use of Fuller's Curve for ma.ximwn density. M.LY~S WITH FIXED RATIOS For the mu:es with the fixed ratios an attempt was made to make the break go through the rock, the purpose being to get the relative strength of the rooks. For this reason a . rocky mix was chosen. The water, cement, silt, and sand were constant for all of the mixes. San Gabriel silt and r sand were used. with water in it. The silt was the only a ggregate Since this was such a small quanity and constant for all mixes, it was neglected. All con..crete for the fixed ratio s :peoimens were mixed by hr-1nd in the Institute Testing Laboratory. '1 he mixing waa done in a large 1 zoo ta.l mixing box; which was cleaned and dampened for eaoh individual mi:x. The materials were first thoroughly mixed dry and then the water was -c arefully added and again the mixture was thoroughly mixed. The specimens were numbered for each set. Number one was where the spec hoon form was of cardboard with a tin bottom. had only a very light para.fin coat. The cardboard Nunmer two, three, and four were cardboard forms that were well parafined throughout. number two had a ut.~chined metal plate pla-ced in its bottom to save later capping on one end. It was, immedia tely after Specimen number five -waa of metal preparation, placed in the 1-to•Ta.p .Ma.chine tba t is used for shaking sieves for twenty two co mplete shakes or about ten seconds. half 1·n eh of concrete was shaken out ef the form. About one The water lost or brought to the top was ne gliga~~• CONSTANTS FOR SPECIMENS \UTH 3/4 INCH S_TONE. - 15,6 - .315 .15'1 .324 1.0 o.50 1.0~ Water Cement Wt. in Lbs. 16,15 , 29.6 Vo lune in cu.ft. .264 Ratio by Vol. .838 Sand Silt 35.0 WT. l?EH CUBIC FOO'!' OF CONS1'ANT.S Cement Water S.G. Sand S.G. Silt 107.9 94.0 3/4 INCH STONES San Catalina Eaton p~nyog Fernando Gabriel Wt. in Lbs. 88.5 ~0.~8 97.2 99.7 Vol. in cu. li't, .946 .945 .945 .945 3. 0 ~.o 3.0 3,0 natio by Vol. Mic (by VO lUllli! ) >. San 1.00 : 0.50 I l.03 I W/C • 6.29 u.s. gallons per cu.rt. cement • o.84 by volwm, 3.0 Catalina Ea ton canyon · San Ferna.nd.o San Gabriel Type of Stone crushed crushed c;rave l Gravel Wt. :per CU,ifte 93.6 ~e .a 102.9 105 .. 6 Flow 173 210 235 230 Slump 3½ o¾ '7 ·} et MIXES WITH BOTH srzgs OF STONES Wa ter - Saud Ce~enl ~ilt l?,'16 9 . 36 21 . 0 ,1585 · 0189 • ~Q9'3:3 ,. l 1944 .838 · l <! 0 .60 1.03 Wt, in Lbs, WT .. P:n;R CUBIC FOOT OF CONSTANTS Wa ter Ce•at 62.5 .9 4.0 107.9 99 .2 3/ 4 INCH STONES Q!.nYOP, San Fernando Gabriel 17.7 18,0 19.5 20.0 Vol. in cu. Ft. .189 .. l,89 .189 .189 Ratio by Vol. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .11.i aton Wt. Cataline. in Lb s• ~ n l•l/2 INCH STONES Cata11Pi Ea.ton 9a nyon., Fernando ga briel Vol . in Lbs. 36.4 37 , 1 36>.3 40.6 Vol. in ou. ft. ,3?8 .3"18 .378 .378 Ra tio by Vol. 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Mix (by volune) 1.0 w/c • 6.29 cataJ.iD,! Type of L arge Stone Crushed Wt. of Large Rock 93.6 Flow • san s 0.50 San t . ? I l.03 s 1.0 t 2.0 u.s. gal, per cu • .flt. ceme nt. • Eaton sa.n Canyop J'ernana.o pan Gab:r.ii.e l ., Gravel Crushed Gravel 96.0 10?.3 230 230 230 ) Gra. ve l 260) Wa ter 7½ Slump Rerw. rka 5¼ Very; wet. wet. wet . We ttest. Separa tion ot a ggr ega. tea, 28 DAY COWJ?RE! SS ION TE ST swa Gabriel ~/4" Stone l. 61.200 Break thru very few rock, 2. 60,300 Very fe w breaks. 3. 56,400 Pr a ctically no roc.k breaks. 4. 55,800 II 5. 63,200 Oecomposition. Few Breaks. 3/4" and l•l/2" Stone l. Less tha n 20 ,ooo Lbs. :Poor 1\!l atrix. Cement washed out. 28 DAY COMPRESSION TEST (CON.) 3/ 4• and l•l/2tt stone 2. Less than 20,000 I.jbs, 3. Less than 20,00Q • Notea .H.ooke l.oo.s e. llo. ro;.ck breaks. Poor natri~. Poor bond thru-out. ~J¼.!Rie.2!,Il:~!I, 3/4tt Stone 1. 62 .000 Many rock breaks, 2. 51,000 Poor bearing surface. 3, 54,700 Break thru several rocks. 4. 66.,100 Break thru still .fewer rocks, 5. 58,900 li! any rook bre.a k:s. Much mica exposed. " Much mica exposed. 3/4•1 and 1 ... 1/2 11 Stone Break thru several rocks: around big ones. l. 50,600 2. 46,600 " II " " II II 3. 52,600 n l1 n " n . Note, . " iranr rocr,.s broken. SSfL,lt: rna 9(\0 1 3/4" Stone l • . 57,700 Break thru few rocks. 2. ' 62.700 same. 3. 65,000 4, . 64,500 5, 65,700 .Mica and deoompos i tion. . . ,3'/. 28 DAY COMPRESSION' TES1' (CON .) l. 47,900 .Bre ak thru few . .I\U ca and · decompoe i ti on. 2. 69,000 Bre-ak thru few. Mica only, 3. 39,500 Break thru severa l,. )<'.: Note: Mostly mica. Some coa rse grained rocks .. No tei Poor bond, Very fe w rock breaks. 3/4" Stone • 1, 65.500 .Break thr•.: several rocks . 2, 73,200 Few bre a ks. 3. ?0,0Q0 Break thru usny rocl<:s. .H.ocks showed deco mposition. Mostly de co mposed rocks •. Wh.ile r ock looks strorig ~nd fine grained and light in color• the breaks were dark a nd coarse grained, .ll'ew of the bre a ks looke d strong l ike the exterior. 4. 69,600 Bre a.k thru several rocks, 5. 61,000 Hre ak thru few rocks. .Hock showed decomposition . About 1/2 deco mposed. Note: A,.,:. specimen era.eked at damp top at 50 ,ooo. Broken upper ha lf. 3/4" and 1-1/2 11 Stone 1. 43 .QOO Broke thru several big rocks a. rid severa l s mall ones. Some of tb.e big rooks appeared deco mposed on the interior only. Note: Cra cked a t 42,000. 28 DAY COMPRESSION TEST (CON.) Q_aU,i,.i a, , 3/4" a.nd l•l/2" Stene 2. 39,200 .Broke tr1ru and around several large rocks. Broke thru few amal l ones. 3. 36,300 Broke thru several big rocks. Some of the broken rocks looked strong while most of the breaks showed deomm.positinn., RESULTS OF 28 DAY COMPRESSION TESTS Baton Elanion San Ferxiando San • Gabr.i el l 62;500 5'11.700 61~200 65~500 2 51~000 62;700 56~400 73~-200 3 54,700 55_-000 60-100 7o;ooo 4 66100 64-500 63-200 69.600 6 58,900 65~'100 55,800 01·- 000 Arith. 68•600 63:, 100 59~300 67,900 Aver. - Catalina • 69~600 Aver. 22:, 600 StrElsa 24,500 3/4'' and l-1/2" Stone 1,Specimens. Eaton CartVOJ! Son Fernando Catalina Gtbriel l 50~600 47,900 No cement. 39,200 2 46;·500 59~000 Speoimena 31-700 3 52~600 39~500 failed be- 36,300 low 20~-000 44~000 4 5 - - - 43~400 Arith. 49~900 Ave.r. 48:,.800 za:.-900 ?isdian 50~600 47t.900 39~ZOO Aver. 19~400 Stress 20.soo 1s:-.ooo ORDER l.N MAGNI TUD:B; OF ST.Rl~NGTH FOR SJ?ECil.!ENS WI TH 3/4" STONES. Catalina ( Crushed stone. Flat surfa ces~ San Fernando ( Gravel ) San Gabriel (Graivel) Eaton Canyon ( Crushed stone ' ORDER IN AIAGNI TUD:G 01!1 STRE NGTH l!1 0 R SPECIMENS WITH 3/4" AND l-1/2n siONES . -,-,,-,-~• .,-..~,.. ,-:-,v,, , .• ' " ,•: .,.,~ , ,-,,• ,• ••.. • ~•,.-., • r< , •..i,'+,►. ••,.s • • ,, ••- • ,, , ,t • , ,-_..,.,., ~, ., . .. ,,,~ ,¥,, ..,.,.,,"~•,v ,,.v,.,., ..., .,.., Ea ton Canyon ( Gravel) San Fe rnand.o ( Crushed atone) Catalina { 6ru.s hed stone. San Gabriel ( Gravel) Flat surfaces) ORDER IN MAGNITUDE OF TEST}W SP.F;CI 1re.NS WITH GREATEST NUTulB~R OF BROKEN STO NE~. Eaton Ca¥yon Catalina San Fernando - San tabriel ORDEH I M MAGNI TU-.DE OF TE STRD SPltCI Ml!,NS Eaton Canyon Cata.l i.na {3/4H ) San Gabriel !.UXES DE TEfilUNED B:Y FULLER ' S CURVES .lor t he mixes determined by .B'ullers' Curves an a tte mpt was made to ge t the mos t pr a ctical mi x for t h e field with ea ch of the four sets of na terials. Al l 'l'he water a nd cement we l~ e kept constant for til l mixes. of the concrete in this test was mixed b y means of a smalJ. gasoline mixer , the same a s is very co mmonly used on small construction work. The drum was three feet i n di ameter a nd had three sets of paddl es for mix ing . It revo l-ved at a rate of about e i gh teen revolutions per minute; its pe:riphe r a l speed being about 170 feet pe r minute.All.l. mixes t were mixed fo'X- t wo minutes. into a wheelba rrow. The concrete was placed in the spe ci men forms a ccord i ng to A.s.'1'. M. for ms while a 'l'he concrete was dumped from the mixer One man placed concrete by thirds in e a oh of the second man followed up with the t amp ing. The day after prepara tion the specimens were sttipped. The speci- mens were prepared a nd cured on the Institute campus b enea th one of t he large oa k trees. The IM t hree days fol l owing t he prepa r a tion of the specime ns they were ligh tly sprinkled each a fternoon. The following. mixes we r e finally decided upon a. a the mos t pr a ctica l., These mixes were chosen a fter muc h l a bor a.nd with the a s s i,stan ce of Byron Hill wh o was a t the time connected with the Institute Civil Engineering De partment. D ·-------------------- .b'ULLI~R ' S GUHVl rn Sa.n Fernando 1,1a ter ials Volume \~ e i g·~1t. e Weight Cement l 94 l5o0 Sand 1-l 198 31.6 ~/4" Store Z>¾ ~ M.d. 626 100.0 rota.l Sieve gQ.Q. 100 !§. _g§_ li 15.0 15 .. o 15 oO 15.0 15. 0 0.1 0.8 4.0 11.6 17.9 0 . 0 19.0 0 0 0 15 .1 1573 . 3/8 u2 ML l 15. 0 15. 0 15. 0 15. 0 15. 0 15 .o 22.9 29 .2 31.6 31.6 31.6 31 .. 6 1.4 10o3 ~ - 40.7 87.3 5Zi.4 .1. it ! .§. 0.6 32.9 38.5 4576 26.6 25o5 72.l Volume weight io Weight Cement l 94 15 .3 3and l¾ 198 32. 3 3/ 4 11 Stone l 3/8 141 23.0 1½11 Stone .1. ?LB. 1.§Q 29.4 613 100.0 Sieve - 100 • 28 14 3Lf3 1/2 ;/L4 15 .3 15 .. 3 15.3 l5o3 15 . 3 15.3 15 o3 15 .3 15.3 15 .,3 4.l 11.8 18.3 23.4 29.9 32.3 32~3 32$3 32.3 32.3 32.3 0 0 4.5 11 .. 0 17. 5 23 .. 0 23,.() 23.,0 0 _Q_ 0.1 0 .. 1 --9..!..! __o. ~ 25. o 29 .5 19e4 27. l - 58.7 65 .2 '70.9 95.6 lOOol 200 lQ.Q. 48 l5t3 15 .3 15 .3 0.1 o.a 0 0 _Q_ _Q_ 15.4 16 .. l - 0 - 0 8 ! 0.3 0.6 0 0 ----=-- - ---- 33.6 39 .o 45.,8 52.2 & + + f::~ + t ... +i: +t .:.:.: + - ---.. ,- u j } : + t ~tt:ttt11:!:lttt±tl 7 Ff[ ,_ I t ·, r -Hi:H l+ • q ~ I+ - ~ ~ l T ·r·? ,' 't -+ I I I . 1; t -:- .rr J + +' .: - -f I - fl .. ::i -J-l -:1:: r 3i tH EH t® + +1-1- _,_, S-, i t r: ·+-'-' l~ r ~ k I ,_,_ t -If -1- ..11 :- j: : - ~ :t. r.... ' _w~ ... ... + ~ '+! +tt [ ~ -t-1-t "ti t--1-4- t t ..... ~ ,-, . +t VJ' - -J, H- J - t .l ~ I- i + I- +- +' tt +~ CJO/ - O()Z, 7 l+f:j::· ..... f . ~ + .j .. -l-1 t tt :4 ~ ~1 ~ f 1t ·, lnJLIJ~R 1 S CURVES Long Bea.oh a.nd C?,t&Una MatarialL Volume Weight %We~gh.1 Cement l 94 16.5 Sand 1¾ 1111 so.1 ¾" Stone 3¼ 304 -569 ---=-- ~otal 53.4 100.0 Cement 48 14 n8 3/8 1/2 i 16.5 16.5 . 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 Sand 0.1 o.6 30.1 zo.1 30el 3/4/' - 0 .............. 0.1 ~ 2.7 ~ _Q_ 17.l 19.7 29.l 39.7 45 46.4 49.3 11!4 31 •.0 58.0 77.6 Sieve 2?0 0 16.6 100 28 --:-- ~ . . 12.6 3.2 0 ~ 3/4 ":""- 23.2 28.4 29.8 ~ l "'e'"' 16~5 30.1 62.4 ~ 99.0 =====·=••· ··.. ··=·===•·=========·===============•=·=:=·==-====:========:=:,=·==·====== - · Volume Weighj, %we~ght Cement l 94 16.5 Sand 11/4 122 21.5 3/4" Stone l 7/8 176 31.0 l 1/2" Stone 1 7/8 - - 31.0 1'16 100.0 568 -- - 16.5 . 16.5 16e5 16.5 16.5 Jj_2 ~L4 ! 1.1.. 3/8 ! ! ~ ~ 16.5 16.5 16.5 . 16.5 . 16.5 . 16.5 . 16.5 16.5 - Sand 0.1 o.5 2.3 9.0 16.6 20.3 . 21.2 21.5 . 21.5 3/4" 0 0 0 0 0 11/2" 0 Sieve ....... Cem. 2?0 16.6 l~O _Q_ !§. -9.- 14 28 - 0 0 0.1 0 ~ 0.1 0 ~ 1.6 6.6 o.z 0.3 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 17.9 30o4 3lo0 . 3l e0 ' 0.6 o.6 9~4 31.0 r1.o 18.8 25.5 33.l 36.9 37 .8 39.9 44.9 56.5 69.0 78.4 100.0 / ·:-:t it -+ J + ~ +- ·h. fr ~ri .:__t t t I l II t 4 ,_ - =m ! 1" . If ~ _,_ ,_ -· r -~ I :t= ~ - + -1-- . -t- + ·! +' : -1-, ti +[ + :,'' j n i t++ i ... + :-: -+++ :JI f ,+ ~1iJ::t H-- ·- ·'+Lt _; ·i-i 1•< ,I -- , -, i ± t i I L J + 51''/ I' I• 'T"1 - +- I ... H I + ·t- - 'T i±1 rt-, -! , I-+ • -;:i:rw + ·~ t.. 1-- t I++ + i ~ ... ·+· - t+ +t+-f+tt+t+H+t-t-,:: ~ + z. -i. t '; + :i:t -, r El V _, '+::t-- 1-h- ri J - - tt 1- ;1 L -I• :t I+ • + I+ ....·• t+\: '=± 1c ~ - ;- I ++ . i :t: H· t+ l lI 1H +- • :t + ,; 1-1 1-t- . iti ::_, ·l; - - [-/ ~ I +-~ i t[ -t-t 1 . _, ,-• T< I+ '" + I; r -i r~ ' h' r I :t t +I ,1 ' )i 'Ii )I -U :.,'1 1-1 ~ \ -H - _,_. tflf [ .,. L _'1-t i/ t- - +~ t- mt ' - I ' t- ... m l. 't ,_ - + ' T + + -r- + t- -- _,_ ' f i _,. -, + \ + ·+ .__ +H .µ . ,-,-__ ._, j.'.t t.1 - ·+ ~+ ++ -U ±t• ·+ . t+ t-+ -+ - .. H++- -tr .!J:l -~ r+ '"t -"-I-'--'- .+ ,_._ i:;T,- + r tt ::r,-1- f+ H- JNJLLL lt I S CURVES Volume Weight %Wa ip;11,t cement l 94 16.2 Sand ll 154 26.;5 Bn &~- - 334 57;3 5.$2 100.0 ♦ sione Total 3/8 ~/2 3/ 4 l ..... 16.2 1 6.2 16~2 16.2 16o2 16.2 16.2 20.2 25.3 26.4 26'o5 26~5 26.5 26.5 ...l.i! l,; 6.3 20.5 41L3 s~,~ 49.0 84.0 100;. o l~O :- 48 lli1 -:- Cement 16.2 16.2 16.2 16.2 Sand 1.1 4.7 12.6 0 --- ~ 3/4" 0.2 0 ' •" ~ ,. l§..i lo/.3 b 20.9 0 28.8 4 14 .lli2Q Sie~ - .§. ~ 0 36.4 42.8 4406 63.2 Volume Weight J¥ Weight cement l 94 16.0 81)nd l 1/4 128 21.8 3/4" 1 5/8 155 26.5 1 l/2n 2 1/8 ~ 35.7 586 100.0 Sieve - - - 3/8 1/fl 3/4 16.0 16.0 16.0 l6o0 16.0 16.0 16.0 2b.8 21.7 21.s 21.8 2le8 21.8 21.a 0 o.6 o.9 2.9 9.4 • 19e2 26.5 2.6,.5 0 0 0 0.7 1.5 3 .2 15 0 --!.... 3,5 .7 . . 26.2 32.6 3'7 . 4 - 41.4 48.7 60.2 79:.3 100.0 14 200 100 ~ Cem. 16.0 16o0 16.0 16.0 16.0 sand 0.2 0.9 3.8 10o2 16.6 3/41' 0 0 0 0 l 1/2n_Q_ ---9-. 0 16.,2 16.9 19.8 28 .. ~ , ~ 8 4 0 38.6 - - - l ;t ~ () lo 2o .30 Q: 40 II) 'so I') ~ ~ 6() ;,o t ~ t±t:t:1± . I t • it ~ l • ,.,H-,, .. ~~~ ~~~ ,~~ .. t g I ·; ;: cl - t - t++t ~ + ·-t +++++ l.l.S . :_U'l • ~tr"r".'J~ -+·+- tt+++++ j.f+H t l;h rr t!ttH+tt+ er i' ·H ,:H bf, ';t+ r . ~ ,n -a.+ + A / f . • (::l: ,1 ::rt: Hff H- :g:mm -++-+-·++--+-+ -• - - - - - --+-r L ':} ~ T ,.,. +ffi] -+ .~ :t r -· ·t CL 1±±1 ~tt::H m~ i T c r l •t H ft--,-- tt+t+ f ~L 't tu~+Ht' itir, i' rr ++t+; f-tt~ ; ;·i , l_ tL.. T t 1 -+- rr -r~•- ·:n + . @i- :t.. ! ' lli:_J:_j:,.' ...,. t,• ~+r t'+-+ Orr ff t..ftt if -++I-+ j ·r+tt+-4 :~J..~,.c·_t t:.t-f:t-t}l ,. H ,-:.J..lli:±.·. l'±tttt:tt f •. tt'Ht +-;t+- t-~~ij '}f'"' mffi:rtttnttmtth1Jm11m1 r11 +H +m rm··n;:;w t I .,.'t~I ~ __ -4. t+'r , ~~- I ~"'} ·~ "f I ,mn=m- ~1: ± q:i-fr: m:J!fh Ht. m ;: .... ~ l J: ' l:tllfBfllilf~'"'''~ itrtH;h •. ••. ta~u1ntn=:tt~J1r;tt S/EV.6" p ~ : ~' 4r ~~ ~ !J, ~ ■Ii n,n.m l~ ut!t ,tillt:lt·. J~ .a: ~ h f t+'-t-+t+tr"" -'-itltrtt1rni:t:l-+m1_Jt J.:l:j }-1-l-:1-+t-H:t~:ttttt:t:ttl:m:~~ 1 4 fj. HttJ:!:.t-ttW.- tr.' i.-. ~f+- - k ~- I ttitlrn • tH , ~ d '1 ii-----111-■ -Wl~~l:i:itttttI~tt:l:t:tH' ~ r:r . ➔ A~~ j .. '!" . . £. ~ t ~ ■~ ti - R- tt r ;.-1. ' ~ ,,. . , ' L 1f J+t H~ ffiffrn=a=mttffltt~Hfil®•l±m lH nmffl!l-WJ!milffl=g_ffl.lfffilmill~l) H+l llf Bo 90 • H+ttttttiffltt1tmtmi!Hrnuruw ttw unnumw-- ·.~;;;.J~·~~~~~ I > t - t + t - +~ i I 'I E. ~ l_ / :; :; ) Ji! .... :µ ! -- + I- ilti!LU. ··- ~ :~ . f.;t-t-i--i--i--i--H-t++ri-i--i--i--1-r· .,.. r ... -~ :t: st~ =i= i+ 'j A 1:1 t . t-•· -+ ...r + - '\ + ++ ' + ~ 00/ +H .:j: ~ r f p: -, µ 1 i m T .!-J., I .. I:+ +-t- ' ... + ~lrtJilMLtiLlt 1i1tT.LIJtH 1 S CURVl~S Volume Weight 26 Wei ght Cement 1 94 15.1 Sand 2-; 238 38 .3 Z/4" Stone 2~4, - 290 48e6 622 100.0 Total - 3/8 36 .8 38 . 3 . Cement 15.1 - 15-1§..1 15.1 15.1 15.l 15.l 15. 1 15.1 15.l 15.l 15.1 . Sand 0.1 0 o.7 13. 3 30 .0 3/4" 0 ~ :t'f .! 15.8 . Sieve 100 lli2Q. 2.8 14 fill 23. 4 4 .§. ~ f?a_ 1/2 3D . 3 38 . 3 2.7 17.9 0 0 0 28.4 38 .5 1. 3 46 e4 54.6 l . - · 38.3 lcli.4 33.9 43 i.8 48.6 67 .8 87 . 3 9 11\, 2 100.0 - -·-, - ~ - -· - - -· < Volume Weight jf Waight Cement l 94 15.0 Sand l 1/2 162 25.8 3/4" Stone 1 5/8 171 27.2 1 l/2n Stoma 1 7/8 201 32 .0 628 100.0 - - - 1/2 3/4 L a 15.0. 15.0 15 .0 1 5 .,0 15.0 1.9 8. 9 15. 7 20.2 24. 7 25 . 8 25. 8 25.D 25 . 8 25.8 0 0 0 0 o.7 1.6 8. 4 19. 7 25 . G 2·1.2 27 .2 0 _Q_ 48G Cem. 15.0 15.0 15.0 Sand 0.1 o. 4 Z/4" 0 200 1 1/2"____,Q._ - - - 15.0 15.0 15 .0 15.o 100 p_!eye l ',&:~.l 1 5 . 4 16.9 28 14 - 0 0 23 . 9 3 0. 7 ~ 4 __Q_ _Q_ 35 . 9 41.3 3 ls_ - 1.2 ~ _.hl 16.4 50. 4 62 . 5 70. 6 84 . 4 - 32 .0 100.0 - / t . . fttt ffi r r :tt H ' t+ , t.....•+=l •f-l .... t ~--:.'TH....... ~~! • 'bl -i .~ ;; - • +H:t:!:l:W{ tri ~ -r-P r . . ~ H-+ ' -1- CT tt l=1 :t ~ ·- ;'i ~~ ~-· ±ti ,.... :;-rrtt:' ·t •~ ~ ~ l-tiT 't t' I .... .,.. ·:··t-t-:.i:r:-tt?""-::rrr.:.:.., H- "· :1+ _, . ......._ +H-, h H--Hj:t1-++-u-++H f~..__. . ~~ r ;r f:tt '±'[+ i 1 rtµ: ~ ~. -':-;-: +- 1 IH!I :..! I T ti ,- ·" ;.: .t +!+ " ~ ,- t 1 -!, ~ ) ' . .s-,,...d - 1nm '!fr'IL,!' • :): ~ ~ -fr 1-f t+- +-· r -,:'='.:: t ·t-· .. l -+- r :--t . I-+ ;.i -,, f~ t ~ Ef ,--,- :t -~L :n: RbSULTS OF 28 D.AY COMPRltSSION T:i~STS 3/4 11 stone Specimens. Eaton San 1!,e rna.ndo San Gariel Catalina l 36.000 57,; 600 64;900 43~800 2 44~300 46,000 671. 300 47,900 3 39~'100 63;ooo 74~"700 50~400 40'., 000 55.500 69,000 47,400 Median 39i'l00 57.600 67.300 47.900 Aver. Stress 15\400 21;aoo 25,900 l0i400 canzon Ari th. Aver. 3/4Tf and l•l/2" Stone Specimens. Eaton San Fernando San Oatal:Lna C!W,Yon 1 35~500 40';.800 43:. 700 43~800 2 41\600 48;,100 37.900 47,900 3 3'l;, 600 45:.200 37·, 100 50i400 Arith~ Aver. 38,200 44~'700 39;600 47,. -400 Median 37\600 45~·200 37,900 47t; 900 14,-600 Aver. Stress. 17:,300 14.900 18~400 Gabriel T STED p l' D ORDI G TO PECI I ULLER ' S CORVES ':ABLE Notation! OF lWSUL TS Catalina ••·•·····Oat. an F rnando .....• s . F. - Eaton Canyon ••••• • .o. Note: The water-cement ratio of all oonorete specimens was 0.84 by volume. Units used are pounds and inohae. l 3 t..c. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 112.S lo"'f:'9 102.4 Unit Weights of Sands Fineness Modul.11 of 2 s.F. s.G. ands ............ .... ~ E. c. Unit Strengths of Cement-Sand Specimens•••• 5Sso S • • L.:S. 4980 4880 Oat. Unit Weights of 3/4" Stone 93.6 ••••••••••••••• I Unit Weights o:f' l-1/2" Stones c. 98.l ••••••••••••• • . F. 96.0 Cat. 93".6 , .c. Specific Gravities of tones 2.605 •••••••••••••• G. Per Cent Voids in 3/4" Stone a ••••••• • • ••• • 3 .2 SF. 39.l E C. Cat. 41.4 4 .85 ~ Resietanoe to ieathering •••••••••.•••••••. Ge ol ogi oal Clasei:f'i oa ti on of Stones Physical trengtps of Stones ••••••• •••••••••••••• . E. C.. ~ S. 1!'. Ct. - 1W· S. G. $ . F. 1'110 T£_ 9 0 • l 2 3 Oat. S,F. -- 4 Unit Strength of Concrete Speoimena ••••• 3/4" Stones l3oth Stones (3/4",1-1/2") 26,400 24,500 E.o • 0 22;600 Fuller I s Curve e ~.i, ,F, Cat, E.G • ....•.. 25,900 2 .aoo 18,400 15,400 Ful1er' s Ourv'8 s Cat. • Ji& :e.c. 18,400 17.300 l~O l ,ioo Flow of Oonor&t~ for 3/4'' atones Fixed .Ratio •••••••••• c. Oat • S"F. ~ i~' I: .. 210 173 S.G~ $,b'. a-o Cat • 210 . W 00 ~ a~ S,F. 'E .C. Cat. ,r S.G. s. • Ct. E.c. 4 Tested Speo1mens with Least Broken Stones •. S.G. - s.F. Dat. Tested Specimens With Least Loos but U:nbroken Stones ••••• • .••••.•.• E c. Cat. Fuller's Cur-yes • • • • • • fl5 .' ' Slump of Concrete for 3/4n st~nes •••••• Fixed Ra.ti o • • ••.••••••• Fuller' e Curves ••••••• Zi- tJ 2 4 S.F. - 8, G. 2Rc .LII,:II'lA.HY :DI3SCUSIO.U. The. results given in this report should not be aooepted too :fully for s.e veral r (rn.sons. First, th® results indicate that t he aoour- aoy was not vary good.· :E'or e:r:..ample, in determining the uni.t weights of the sands with 2 different Sized measuring devices there was a maximum variation of 3.6%. Incidentally, this .·variation wa s consistent throughout th(~ 4 sets of measurements. Seoond, -and most of importap.t of all is the faot that the materials at the bins vary greatly from time to time. The writer made a sieve analysis of the San Gabriel 3/4" ston'9 at ~ differe.nt times and the grading v~ried about a s much as any 3 of the different 3/4n stones listed in this report. It oan easily be seen how the grading can var;r.: even in a given bin. Likewise, but not to auoh an extent, there is the probability in variation in strength and other ohara.cteristics of a. m.;1.terial from a given source~ Beoause of these ·p ossible variations th~, results of suah experiments as here reoorded oan only be fully aocepted after a aeries of duplicate experiments had been. oonduated a.t di ffe rent periods« Throughout this e.)tper:i.ment an attempt was made to se cur.:-1 only comparative values • .&1 0:r this r<:3~son tho author has felt justified in diverging from eommon praotioe or the A.S.T. u . standards. For example\ the finess moduluse~ .here recorded are not standard because the Tyler standard set of sievs wore not available,neverthelass . th8 results are suitable for the purpose of t:tjis r ep9rt., ThGn there are the em1):i.rioal scales used for some of the curves; .t he :purpose being to better 111 ... u s trate the resul·ts • \r- . The watar-oement ratio has been too high trough- .,..... out and the curing ha sbeen very poor~.yet the order and magnitude of the results a.re sa. ti sfaoto r y except in a :few instances were oonorete was prepared with l-1/2" stone. DISSCUSION. The original test used for measuring the hardness of stones by crushing them ind1.vidua.lly on the testing machine is a,ppe.,rently a good method of mea$llring the hardness of stones. lt would be int"" ereiti,ng to oheok the results of a series of tests ma.de on (].ifferent stones by this method and by the standard rattler test. ObViously it ia l;J.ece saary to test 3 or more indi Vi dual stones and use as ·the repre se1$t:l ve value the mtdfan rather .t Mn· the art tbmet1 e average• Inoi-d entally~ it is in.terest1.ng to note th~ almost negli.g!ble vartat~ ion 'between the median and the arithmetio average for tho break.Lng etresa~s of the oonorete epeoimens. The median is favored tve r the ar1tlunet1e average beoause l freak specimen does no'b throw the fill$l l"G$Ul,t off • . !he primary object of this experiment was to measure the re-lative stra.rigl.ha of thf1 differe nt stone s~ he r e pr e sented, When the eenerete epecimtns that were arbitrarily designed W1 th fixed ratios wl're tasted the stones were graded aa(lerding to their rrwnber of broken ' .-wrta.oes ~-n d the bond t0 thf matr:tx. The order in magnj.tu.de of brok$.r;i. • ,t-.r stones depentts upon the strength of the J,nat.l i.x and 1 ts adhesion to the . stones and the strength of the · stones. · ?he adhesion of the matrix to the atone a is deptnde.nt upon the poroi:11 ty of the stones( eonsite·:riq,,(,; ·, here dried stones) and the roughness of the su.rfaoe of the stcu1es. The line of failure in a Gonerete speo1men may ooour through the mat .. rixi tl,irough the ftitones, a.long the surfaoe of the stones.or, as is ' ' 1 :. most generally t he case , through a oombi.nation of the above 3 possj.bi1$:Pies • The specimens with the 1.1/2 ~ 11 stones gave low strengllhs bacau~e of the weakness of the matrix 1 tself and the poor bond between the . \' -J.Ss, __ . _::,..:.,.:,...~ matrix and the stones. The water oement wa s the same as t he water and . cement for the specimellS, with the 3/4" stones. In the latter specf ,..t,; l mens. however, more water was used by the stones for absorption and the damjening of the surfaces' since there was more stone su.rfa.e es than wh•re the 1-1/2" stones were used. The matrix was weak in the speeim~ns with the large stone beoause the oement was washed out. In the mixes with the smalle r stone if the break oecured along the surfaoes of the stones the expected order in strength for the oonorete specimens would be;l, Eaton Canyon: 2, Catalina; 3, San Fernando; 4, San Gabri'el1 this being the order of adhesion based on roughness. With regards to the surfaoe the rooks may be olassed in the following manner: Eaton Canyon roc,k was su.bangular stream gravel mixed with angular eruahed rook: Catalina was irregular crushed gravel with flat surfaoes: San Fernando rock was su.b-angular stream gravel; a nd. the San Gabriel stone was sub-angular a.nd sub-rounded stream gravel. If the break was through the roolt the t>rder given in the above paragraph would no t necessarily hold but would pr obably hold if the stones were of the same strength and al l other factors, exoept the amoothneErn of the su.rfaoes.we r e the same. From aetual observation the order for magni t ude of number of broken stones in the ,tested a:peoimens was: 1, :Eaton Canyon; 2, Cata lina; 3, San 1?,ernando: f,San Gabriel. This is the same order as the degree of aurfaoe roughness a.s given above ·;. •\ whioh indioa.tea that the number of broken stones varies direotly as the surface roughness of the stones. A brief and complete summary of the geological sarvey of the etones 1 s given on page #3 of thi e report. lt ia interesting to note that the geological ola.s siftoation of the stone a, whioh was made with no knowledge of the sources o:t the . stones at the time, and the rook hardness test that was dertsed by the writer as a substitute for the rattler test because of the laok of equipment, gave axaotly the same results • .Also, this same order was obtained from the concrete specimens that were prepared aooordi.ng to the fixed ratio of 1.0: 0.50: 1.03: 3.00 by volume. rortland oemen·t, San Gabriel si.lt, Ban Gabriel sand. and tho 3/4H •. stone s were used. The water-oement ratio was 0.84 by volume. The Eaton Canyon stone proved to be the weake1:rt in the hardness test and the poorest from a geological standpoint.\It also gave the weakest oonorete in both -the fixad ratlho mixes a.net the mixes deterr.fiinod by Jiuller' s (.m:rve a. Its speoific gravity und its resistance to weathering were also the lowest. In the broken concrete speoimens the Eaton Canyon stones had more breaks than the stones of any other source. Obviously there :i.s no question but what tho 1,~ aton Canyon atone is inferior to the others in all rGspeots. The Catalina stone , whieh was the ha.rdest and strongest, butt the poorest g1~adea.• made the strongest oonorete for tho rioh mix of the ftxed pro1)ortio!l...al aggregates. For the praotioal mJx as determined by J?u.ller' s cu:rve the Catalina. stone gave concrete that was nsxt to }(a ton Canyon's in weakness. Thero fore, it seems that in a rich mix a hard strong stone is rnore important than the grading of the stone, while in a practical field mix the grading of the stone is more important than thE1 kind of stone. lnr; thEi weatherj_ng test, where thG stowl::lwere soaked in a con- centrated sodium sulphate solu.t:ton and th~3n thoroughly dried, the San Gagriel stone proved to be far superior to ·the others. Therefore, where the oonorete was to be subject to hard weathering} suoh as in a furnace or piers for a wharf, the San Gabriel stone would be ohosen. The speaifio gravities of the 3/4" stones we:re so oloae that the per oent voids were praotioally a dir{¼}Ct funotion o:f: the unit we:t.ghts, the relation of course being 'inverse. There we re no tests made on the sands for silt, loam, or organi o matter. In the first plaoe all of the sands were washed at the plants,, and seoond, they were brought to the Institute at different periods and were allowed to remain in the open some time before actual tasting was started.- These sands, unlike the stones. are known to approximately i ·the same strengths,- and sinoe it is customary ·bf, purchase sand and :rook from the same plant, little a.ttenti.on wa s given to the sands._- From a close inspeetion of the sands they were classified in the following order for weak and elea.\table grains: Long Bea.oh sand had the ihesst. ~an Gabrial and San Ferria.ndo appeareril to be in about 'the same class. and the 1·,aton Canyon sand hac:1. tho most number of weak and oleava.ble grains. It is noted that tAe above grading of sands follows the olassifioation of stones from a standpoint of r texture and oomposi tion. The Eaton Canyon, Ban Gabriel• and san Fernando sands wei'.'EI angular to su.bangular, and the Long Bea.oh was subrounded and the:1~e:fore being least de sireable in this respect for concrete. The results sh:l>w tha-t tpe Long Bea.oh sand made the weakest oementsand speoimana. By aomparing the unit weights of the sand s and the fineness modulii of the sands it oan be seen that the densitiea of the sands are about the same for Ban :Pernando, San Gabriel~· and Long Bea.oh. The Baton Canyon sand had a fair unit weight with a low fineness modulus whi oh indicated a high density. $e eement•sand specimens were treated alike throughout the preparation, ouring, and tei:iting. The results indicated that the strength of th~se specimens was not direetly relatedto the finenes~ modulus of the different sand.ii. Ii:!r . Newberry, who is in oharge of the San Fernando distriot fo:r Graham Bros. informed the writer that the best fineness modulus for the p~rtioular sands here tested was from 2.85 to 3.oo. San Gabriel and San Fernando were above thi$ while Ea ton Canyon and Long Beach we r e be1ow this range. San Gabrial, which was oloaest t o this range,had thegreatest unit strength for its oement-sand speoimens.