Upload
qudsia-wahab-eit
View
36
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008
www.PosterPresentations.com
COMPUTATIONAL RESEARCH AND THEORY FACILITY
LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY
Ana Lua, Melissa Meikle, Peng Tieng, Qudsia Wahab
University of California, Berkeley
Style
The Computational Research and Theory
Facility at Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory is a facility
that will enable cutting-edge research to
be performed. DPR Construction is
responsible for managing the project,
which is expected to be completed in
December 2014. Some key features are:
• 140,000 gross-square-feet with 4 levels
• Computing level with supercomputers
requiring base isolation
• 100 yards from the Hayward fault
• 18 months dedicated to excavation work
• Aim for LEED Gold accreditation
The two main methods of placement used
were:
• Concrete pumps
• Pneumatic guns for shotcrete
Concrete was mostly placed into formwork
made of Douglas fir, which was reused 2-3
times. Metal formwork, Stay-form®, is
used to make a keyway pattern for the
next concrete pour to alleviate cold
joints.
Finishing requirements were described in
the specifications. These include:
• Broom finish
• Trowel finish
• Float finish
• Trowel and fine broom finish
• Rough / Smooth form finish
The centrally mixed concrete used in the
project were transported from:
• CEMEX Berkeley plant, 5 miles from site
• CEMEX Oakland plant, 11 miles from site
• Central Concrete San Jose, 46 miles
from site
The majority of mixes were from Berkeley
with an expected delivery time of 90
minutes.
MIXING & TRANSPORTATION PLACEMENT
FINISHING
Proximity to Hayward Fault
• Problem: Improper
consolidation, rebar
placement, and
inadequate concrete
cover
• Solution: Reduce
rebar, consult structural engineers
Timing of Trucks
• Problem: Trucks had to be turned away
• Solution: Use retarder to delay set time
Curing
• Problem: Water leakage after 7-days of
curing
• Solution: Traps installed to keep water
out
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
We would like to express great appreciation to Tim
Hart, Tim Kemper, Ian White, Rory Shortreed from
LBNL and Mike Miller from DPR Construction for
being accommodating during our site visits and
providing us details about the project. Also, many
thanks to Professor Monteiro for expanding our
knowledge of concrete materials and construction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Heavy reinforcement was required due to
facility’s proximity to Hayward fault.
These are not coated with epoxy. A 3 inch
concrete cover was maintained to prevent
corrosion issues.
REINFORCEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Consolidation was primarily done using:
• Internal vibrators
• Vibrating formwork for retaining
walls
28-day curing was typically specified.
Curing compounds were used to protect
fresh concrete from direct sunshine and
drying winds
Approximately 20 different mix designs
were incorporated into the building. The
table above displays the properties and
compositions of 4 mixes. Most of these
mixes contained:
• Cement: Type I, II, & V
• Aggregates: Mined from Pleasanton, CA
• Fly Ash: Class F Jim Bridger Fly Ash
• Chemical Admixtures: WRDA 64 (water
reducer), Recover® (water reducer and
retarder), Daravair 1000 (air entrainer)
MIX DESIGN
Properties
High Early
Strength
Concrete
Fiber
Reinforced
Concrete
Shotcrete
Controlled
Density
Fill
28-Day
Compressive
Strength(psi)
5,000
@ 3-days 3,000 5,000 100
w/c 0.39 0.55 0.42 0.86
Slump (in) 4 4 2 NA
Air Content
(%) 2.5 7.6 2.5 10
Clinker Composition (%)
C3S 60 64 61 60
C2S 15 11 13 14
C3A 4 8 4 4
C4AF 11 8 11 12
Mix Material Percentage of Total Weight (%)
Cement 19 6 17 1
Fly Ash Class
F 0 6 3 8
Coarse
Aggregate 42 40 21 43
Fine
Aggregate 33 41 50 39
Water 7 7 9 8
CONSOLIDATION & CURING