Cost Effectiveness of Scheffe’s Optimized Five-Component-Concrete with Mound Soil as a Mix Component

Abstract:

The paper examined the cost benefit of optimized five-component-concrete mix. Mound Soil randomly selected from Iyeke-Ogba in Benin City was used as a case study of a fifth component in the concrete mix. The work applied Scheffe’s optimization technique to obtain concrete mix proportions. A mathematical model for the optimizing concrete of five components namely; cement, fine aggregate, mound soil, coarse aggregates and water/cement (w/c) ratio, was developed. Cube samples measuring 150mm x 150mm x 150mm were made with the developed mixes and compared with the results of a standard 1:2:4 mix. The samples were tested at 7, 14 and 28 days for compressive strength. The costs of producing a unit volume of the concretes were determined and compared. The results showed that the standard mix gave a 28^th day maximum strength of at a w/c of 0.5 and the theoretically optimized design mix gave a mix proportion of 1.00:1.59:0.46:3.34:0.53 and a compressive strength of. This mix was tested experimentally and it gave, representing an increase of 15.33%. The cost benefit analysis showed that Scheffe’s optimized mound soil concrete, MSC was 15% more economical than the standard mix plain concrete.

• Periodical: Advanced Materials Research (Volume 367)
• Pages: 33-40
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.367.33
• Online since: October 2011
• Authors: O.U. Orie, N.N. Osadebe
• Keywords: Admixture, Concrete, Economy, Mound Soil Concrete, Optimization, Strength

References

[1] Code of Practice BS 8110, part 5: Structural use of conc., (1985).

[2] S. Genedij, B. Juris, Conc. mix design and opt., 2nd Int. Symp. in Civil Eng., Budapest (1998).

[3] D. Mohan, M. Muthukumar, M. Rajendran, Opt. of mix prop. of mineral agg., using Box Jenken design of exp. Elsevier Applied Sc., 25 (2002) 751 – 758.

[4] M. Simon, Conc. Mix. Opt. using statistical methods, Federal Highway Administration. Maclean V. A (2003).

[5] C. Lech, G. Andrzej, L. Pawel, R. C. James, Opt. of polymer conc. composites, U. S Dept. of Com. Tech. Admin., National Inst. of Standards and Tech., 6361 (1999).

[6] L. Czarnecki,. A. Garbacz, P. Piela, P. Lukowski, Mat. opt. system, users Guide, Warsaw University of Technology (1994).

[7] D. K. Nordstrom, J. L. Munoz, Geochemical. thermo., Blackwell Sci. Pub., Boston (1994).

[8] N.T. Ukamaka, Static analysis and design of laterized conc. cylindrical shells for farm storage, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Nigeria, (2007).

[9] S. O. Obam, Mathematical models for opt. of some mech. properties of concrete made from rice husk ash, PhD Thesis, Univ. of Nigeria, (2007).

[10] O. U. Orie, Recycled waste conc.: An alternative to natural mineral agg. J. Sci. Tech. Research, 7 (2008) 57 – 61.

[11] F. U. Felix, O. C. Alu, J. Suleiman, mound soil as a constr. mat., J. Mat. Civil Eng., 12 (2000) 205 – 211.

[12] N. Jackson, Civil eng. Mat., RDC Artser Ltd., Hong Kong, (1983).

[13] H. Scheffe, Exp. with mixtures, J. Royal Stat. Society, Ser. B, 20 (1958) 344 - 360.

[14] Code of Practice BS 3148: Test of water for making conc., (1980).

[15] O. U. Orie and N. N. Osadebe, Opt. of the com. stren. of five-comp. -conc. mix using Scheffe's theory – A case study of m. s. conc., J. Nig. Ass. Math. Physics, 14 (2009) 81- 92.

[16] O. O. Victor, Reinforced concrete design, Asros Limited, Lagos, (2001).

[17] Commi., Uprooting the hurdles in the exec. of contracts, Univ. of Benin, Benin City, (2008).