Graded_DBT_Smith_Dougan_Fischer_Wienckowski

Graded_DBT_Smith_Dougan_Fischer_Wienckowski - Abstract3/5...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Abstract  3/5 Introduction/Background (Objectives, contest rules, 7.5 lbs cement)  3/5  - Design approach (ok in background)   5/5  - Beam Geometry  (ok in results)  3/5  - Mix Design  (ok in results)  5/5  - Building Formwork  5/5  - Pouring Concrete  5/5  - Prediction methods   0 7 /10  - Cylinder Strength  2/2   - Load deflection curve   3 /5  - Strength ratio  3/5  - Failure modes  5/5  - Comparison to predictions 4/5  - Placement among groups  0/3 Conclusions  3/5 6 /10 Report Grade = 75 Project Work = 88 Design, Build, Test Project CE 206-C (Group MKAT) Conducted: 2/25/2010 and 3/18/2010 Submitted to Prof. Brown: 3/25/2010 Matthew Smith
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Andrew Dougan Kyle Fischer Tom Wienckowski Table of Contents Topic: Page Number: Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Background 4 Methods and Procedures 5 Results and Discussion 7 Conclusion 12 References 14 Appendix I 15 2
Background image of page 2
Abstract: The objective of the lab was to design the geometry and a mix design to create a concrete beam with an optimal strength to weight ratio. Using the geometry, mix design, and seven day cylinder break strengths, the load at 0.25 in deflection and the ultimate strength of the beam was to be accurately predicted. After conducting this experiment we believe that both the mix design and beam geometry were well chosen. The failure of Beam 1 is indeterminate based on the type of fracture. Looking at the results of Beam 2, it can be seen that the beam pre per formed well under load, by achieving a strength/weight ratio of 81.4 , with the exception of a bond failure before a bond failure occurred . As far as the predictions for this experiment, we were slightly off, excluding Beam 1 due to an unexplainable beam failure. Looking at the ¼” deflection load prediction, and looking at the results of all groups, we conclude that the calculations for this prediction, in general, give a higher result than the actual value. Looking at the ultimate load prediction, and once again excluding Beam 1, our prediction was fairly close. We predicted that the beam would carry a load of 2641.95 lbs and it actually failed, due to bond failure, at a load of 2230 lbs. If not for the bond failure, the beam could very well have carried the full predicted load. 3
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Introduction: In designing a structure, the strength and weight are taken into consideration. If the structure is taller, the weight needs to be limited while still supporting. Concrete is a common building material in structures, such as buildings, bridges, roads, and foundations. Concrete is a durable and corrosive corrosion resistant material with a high compressive strength. Mixes of concrete can vary between lightweight, normal weight, and heavyweight. The mix designs vary in the types of materials that make it up
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 19

Graded_DBT_Smith_Dougan_Fischer_Wienckowski - Abstract3/5...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online