mor ON y,

Technical @
nonss NOWG

: LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE USING POLYMER-FILLED
title: aAccREcATE FoR OCEAN APPLICATIONS - AN
EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION

author: Harvey H. Haynes and Wulf V. Eckroth

date: December 1979

Sponsor: Director of Navy Laboratories

program nos: 2F61-512-001-083

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY

NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER
Port Hueneme, California 93043

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) .
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BER CEO C ORM

1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION nol 3 RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
TN-1565 DN987004
4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE USING POLYMER-FILLED | Final, Sep 78 - Sep 79

AGGREGATE FOR OCEAN APPLICATIONS — AN
EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) AI 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)

H. H. Haynes and W. V. Eckroth

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORESS 10 FE Re EN Ne Sap TASK
CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
Naval Construction Battalion Center ZF61-512-001-083

Port Hueneme, California 93043 [
11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT OATE

DIRECTOR OF NAVY LABORATORIES oe 1979
1

Department of the Navy 3. NUMBER OF PAGES

: 26
Washineton 0360
14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(i/ different from Controlling Office) | 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

Unclassified

1Sa. DECLASSIFICATION DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered in Block 20, if different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)

Lightweight concrete, lightweight aggregate, polymer concrete, polymer, compressive
strength, unit weight, specific gravity, saturation, ocean applications

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)

A lightweight concrete specially suited for deep ocean applications was tested for its
strength properties and compared to similar regular lightweight concrete. The new concrete
used lightweight aggregate particles (expanded shale) which were filled with a polymeric
material. The polymer-filled aggregate (PFA) was conventionally mixed with portland cement
and water to make the lightweight concrete. Four concrete mixes were tested. In general,
the PFA concrete, compared to regular lightweight concrete, has an equal unit weight in a

DD , ORM 1473. ~— EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 1S OBSOLETE

OCT

0 0301 OO40e1

Un
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

Unclassitied
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)

seawater saturated condition and exhibited increases in compressive strength of 26%,

split tensile strength of 4%, elastic moduli of 4% and an equal Poisson’s ratio. The
strongest mix for PFA concrete had a compressive strength of 6,580 psi, compared to
5,200 psi for regular lightweight concrete, at an age of 28 days under continuous fog
curing. Both mixes have a weight savings of 40%, compared to that of normal weight
concrete in a submerged, saturated condition. A discussion of cost is presented and shows
that the in-place structural cost of PFA concrete would be about 30% greater than normal
concrete.

Library Card

Civil Engineering Laboratory |

LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE USING POLYMER-FILLED |

AGGREGATE FOR OCEAN APPLICATIONS — AN

EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION (Final), by H. Haynes

TN-1565 26 pp illus December 1979 Unclassifiedl
1. Lightweight concrete 2. Polymer concrete I, ZF61-512-001-083

|
|
strength properties and compared to similar regular lightweight concrete. The new concrete |
used lightweight aggregate particles (expanded shale) which were filled with a polymeric |
material. The polymer-filled aggregate (PFA) was conventionally mixed with portland |
cement and water to make the lightweight concrete. Four concrete mixes were tested. In |
general, the PFA concrete, compared to regular lightweight concrete, has an equal unit
weight in a seawater saturated condition and exhibited increases in compressive strength of |
26%, split tensile strength of 4%, elastic moduli of 4%, and an equal Poisson’s ratio. A |
discussion of cost is presented and shows that the in-place structural cost of PFA concrete |
|
|
|

|
|
|
|
A lightweight concrete specially suited for deep ocean applications was tested for its
8 8 P y P PP
|
|
|
|
|
| would be about 30% greater than normal concrete.

|

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Data Entered)

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .
SCOPE

MATERIALS

Regular Lightweight Aggregate
Polymer-Filled-Aggregate (PFA)
Conerewey Vis Men tee ee es

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

TEST RESULTS

Strength Results
Unit Weights

DISCUSSION .
FINDINGS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Page

FwWwNhH

ee
Maat
deat

INTRODUCTION

The first application for lightweight concrete, in 1919, was for a
concrete ship 434 feet long named the USS SELMA. During World Wars I
and II, hundreds of ships and barges were made of lightweight concrete.
More recently, normal weight concrete has found considerable application
in energy-related offshore structures, such as oil drilling and produc-
tion platforms. Proposals abound for other applications, such as sub-
merged oil production enclosures, seafloor fuel storage tanks, and even
liquefied natural gas transport ships. In any one of these applications,
a construction material lower in unit weight than normal weight concrete
would be beneficial to the designer in planning a structure of less
draft or higher payload capacity.

An application with major economic implications for the United
States is related to future structures for ocean thermal energy conver-
sion (OTEC). OTEC uses the temperature difference between the warm
surface water and the cold deep ocean water to evaporate and condense a
liquid for driving a turbine to generate electricity. Not only is a
massive floating platform required to support the hardware on the surface,
but an enormous cold water pipe that may be on the order of 60 feet in
diam and 2,000 feet long is also required. The pipe must be "flexible"
to reduce bending moments during periods of rough weather. Hence, it
would be helpful if the construction material had a low elastic modulus.

Regular lightweight concrete is a candidate construction material
for OTEC. Compared to normal weight concrete, lightweight concrete
potentially can save weight of 40% while maintaining a compressive
strength of 5,000 psi and better.

This study investigated a material that would also have a weight
saving of 40%; but possibly with a compressive strength greater than
that of regular lightweight concrete. This material, a lightweight
portland cement concrete, used specially prepared aggregate. The special
aggregate was regular lightweight aggregate that had its void volume
filled with a polymeric material.

There were several reasons for filling just the aggregate and not
the entire concrete material:

1. The specific gravity of polymer is approximately equal to that
of seawater. Hence, aggregate filled with polymer would have approxi-
mately the same weight as seawater-saturated regular lightweight aggre-
gate. This means that the in-water unit weight of concrete saturated
from deep ocean exposure would be the same if polymer-filled aggregate
(PFA) or regular lightweight aggregate were used.

2. The compressive strength of PFA concrete should be greater than
that of regular lightweight concrete because the individual aggregate
particles are stronger. Concrete strength is usually controlled by the
strength of the aggregate particles. Regular lightweight aggregate
particles have about 50% void volume, which is the cause of a relatively
weak particle strength. PFA particles have the void volume filled with
polymer which imparts added strength to the particles and should result
in higher compressive strengths for lightweight concretes.

3. The elastic moduli for PFA and regular lightweight concrete
will be similar. This is beneficial for applications which require a
relatively low elastic modulus and a nonlinear material response near
ultimate conditions.

Polymer impregnation techniques are available for filling ail the
voids in the concrete (i.e., the cement voids and the aggregate voids),
but this method causes the elastic modulus to increase to about twice
that of nonimpregnated concrete and the material exhibits brittle behavior
at near ultimate load conditions. These are undesirable characteristics
in some cases. The desirable features of impregnating the concrete with
polymer are that three- to four-fold increases in compressive strength
and two-fold increases in tensile strength can be expected. Research on
polymer impregnated concrete is reported elsewhere.* This report was
concerned with determining the strength properties of PFA lightweight
ConGrnerer

SCOPE

In this test program four mix designs of PFA concrete and correspond-
ing control specimens of regular lightweight concrete (same aggregate
but not polymer-filled) were investigated. Fifteen specimens 4 inches
in diameter by 8 inches long were made for each batch of concrete. Six
specimens were tested in compression, of which three were instrumented
for strain to obtain elastic moduli and Poisson's ratio data; five
specimens were tested in split tension; and two specimens each were
placed in a 30% relative humidity (RH) environment and a pressure vessel
at 500 psi to obtain unit weight data.

MATERIALS

Regular Lightweight Aggregate

Regular lightweight aggregate for structural grade concretes is
typically a manufactured product made by using heat to expand naturally
occurring shales, clays, and slates and industrial by-products such as
clay and pelletized fly ash. In all cases, the aggregates are light in
weight because of an internal cellular structure of the individual
aggregate particles.

*American Concrete Institute. ACI SP-58: Polymers in Concrete - Inter-
national Symposium. Detroit, Mich., 1978, 426 pp.

The only difference between lightweight concrete and normal weight
concrete is that some or all of the "hard rock" sand, gravel, or crushed
rock is replaced by lightweight aggregate. Typically, the unit weight
of normal weight concrete is 150 pcf while lightweight concrete ranges
from 90 to 120 pcf.

This study used expanded shale lightweight aggregate manufactured
under the brand name of Rocklite (Ventura, Calif.). Five aggregate
sizes - 1/2-inch, 3/8-inch, 5/l6-inch, coarse sand, and fine sand - were
used (Figure 1). A sieve analysis for the aggregate is given in Table
1; Table 2 gives some physical properties of the aggregates. Of interest
are the data that show that the void volume ranged from 47% to 54% for
the aggregate sizes from coarse sand to 3/8 inch, respectively. The
internal structure of an aggregate particle is shown in Figure 2.

Prior to mixing the regular lightweight concrete, the aggregate was
batched according to weight and then saturated with freshwater. In the
saturation procedure, air was evacuated from the aggregate for 20 minutes,
and then the aggregate was submerged in water for about 24 hours. At
this stage, the aggregate was placed in a pressure vessel and subjected
to 10,000 psi for 15 hours which gave assurance that saturation was
complete.

It is highly unlikely that the hydrostatic pressure harmed the
aggregate. The void volume is interconnected and easily accessible to
water under pressure. A pilot study on saturation gave the data shown
in Figure 3. Soaking the aggregate after evacuation was not sufficient
to saturate the particles; however, as soon as 250 psi overpressure was
applied the aggregate became completely saturated in 48 hours. The
coarse sand and 5/16-inch aggregate showed the same behavior as that of
3/8-inch aggregate (see Figure 3), except for different maximum water
absorption values.

Polymer-Filled Aggregate (PFA)

Regular lightweight aggregate was impregnated with polymeric mate-
rials to make PFA. Brookhaven National Laboratory performed the impreg-
nation. This organization has conducted similar work on impregnating
poor quality "hard rock" aggregate.*

The impregnation process used a monomer (liquid) to impregnate the
voids in the aggregate and then, by using heat, to polymerize the liquid
into a solid. The monomer system was, by weight, 83% methyl methacrylate
(MMA), 5% trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate (TMPTMA), and 12% polymethyl
methacrylate (PMMA). The aggregate was oven-dried at 150°C for 24 hours
to remove free moisture from the pores. The aggregate was then placed
in a chamber and evacuated for 18 hours; at that point monomer was
introduced into the chamber.

*Brookhaven National Laboratory. Report No. BNL-25396: Improvement of
wear-resistance properties of natural aggregates by materials impreg-
nating, by R. P. Webster and J. J. Fontana. Upton, N.Y., Sep 1978,

34 pp.

Impregnation occurred for 3 hours at 15 psig overpressure. Excess
monomer was drained and hot water (85° to 95 C) was introduced into the
chamber to initiate polymerization of the monomer. After 4 hours the
aggregate was removed to an oven for heating overnight at 110 C to
assure complete polymerization.

Table 3 shows that after the first impregnation the percentage
weight gain of polymer loading in the aggregate could be increased by a
second impregnation. A second impregnation was conducted, which brought
the polymer loading values closer to that calculated as the maximum.

The data showed that a certain portion of the void volume (about 7.5%,
8.6%, and 12.7% by volume for the coarse sand, 5/16-inch and 3/8-inch
aggregate, respectively) remained empty after the second impregnation.
Figure 4a shows a scanning electron microscope photograph at 15 times
magnification of a PFA aggregate particle. Polymer in many of the voids
is separated from the wall of the void as if shrinkage occurred during
the polymerization process. For comparison, Figure 4b shows a regular
lightweight aggregate particle.

Concrete

Table 4 gives the mix designs for the concrete. The basis for the
designs of Mix no. 1 through 3 was manufacturers’ technical literature.*
Mix no. 4 was a modification of Mix no. 3 in which a greater proportion
of large aggregate was used. The aggregate sizes were blended to meet
ASTM specifications C-33 for grading of concrete aggregates.

The aggregate proportions in Table 4 are for regular lightweight
particles in a dry or "as received" condition from the manufacturer.

The manufacturer packages oven-dry material in paper sacks, but moisture
is picked up by the aggregate during storage. The aggregate weights
used during batching were from the slightly moisture-laden aggregates.
Without having the oven-dry weights, the quantity of PFA to use in each
batch could not be calculated using weighing methods. Therefore, a
volume batching method was used.

Slump was used to control the quantity of water added to each batch
of concrete. The significantly different water-to-cement ratios between
PFA and regular lightweight concrete resulted from using the totally
saturated condition of the regular aggregate and the nonsaturated condi-
tion of the PFA. The quantity of water added to the mixes was the
amount used in calculating the water-to-cement ratio.

All specimens were fog-cured for 28 days prior to testing for
strength or before placement in other environmental conditions for unit
weight measurements.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

The compressive strength tests were conducted on 4 by 8-inch
cylinders in accordance with ASTM C-39, and splitting tensile strength

*Lightweight Processing Co. Technical reference manual for rocklite con-
crete. Glendale, Calif., 1966.

tests in accordance with ASTM C-496. The modulus of elasticity and
Poisson's ratios were obtained using the standard procedure in ASTM
€-469.

In an attempt to obtain air-dry unit weights for the concrete, two
specimens of PFA and regular lightweight concrete were placed in a
30% RH environment. Unit weights for saturated concrete were also
desired, so two specimens of each were placed in a pressure vessel at
500 psi for periods of 14 to 17 days.

TEST RESULTS
Strength Results

Table 5 presents the results from the compressive and split tensile
tests. In compression, the concrete mixtures increased in strength as
the cement contents increased from 460 to 710 lb/cu yd (Mix no. 1 through
3). The cement content was the same for Mix no. 3 and 4 at 710 Ib/cu yd,
and the compressive strengths are essentially equal.

For the regular lightweight concrete, the maximum compressive
strength f' averaged 5,200 psi. Failure was caused by rupture of the
aggregate particles. For the PFA concrete, the maximum f' was 6,530
psi - an increase of 26% over that of regular concrete; failure in this
case was caused by failure of the bond between the aggregate and cement
matrix. Thus, the strength of the PFA concrete will increase with
continued fog-curing while the regular concrete had attained its maximum
strength limit. Figure 5 shows a photograph of the different types of
failure modes. Even though the specimens in Figure 5 are from split
tension tests, the same appearance was found for compression specimens.
Thus, it is important to state that the strength difference between
regular and PFA concrete will increase with age beyond the present 26%.

For split tensile strengths, the PFA concrete showed an average
increase of only 4% over that of regular lightweight concrete. This was
surprising because the failure modes are different (Figure 5); however,
the test results are quite consistent. A split tensile strength of 500
psi appeared to be the limit for the concretes.

The elastic modulus for the PFA concrete was also 4% greater than
that of the regular concrete. The stress-strain behavior for the con-
cretes was quite similar (Figures 6 through 9). For the higher strengths,
both types of concrete showed little nonlinear behavior before failure.
The specimens showed predominantly vertical cracking behavior at failure.

The stronger aggregate particles of the PFA concrete probably
contributed to a greater ultimate strain, which was an average
3,300 pin./in., compared to 2,750 win/in. for the regular concrete. The
ultimate strain values were also quite consistent.

Poisson's ratio varied considerably from test to test, which is
typical for concrete. However, the overall average for the PFA and the
regular concrete was the same at 0.25.

Unit Weights

Various unit weights for the concretes were obtained. Figures 10
through 13 show the unit weights as bar charts in comparing PFA and
regular lightweight concrete. The environmental storage condition of
30% RH for 17 days after fog curing for 28 days did not produce a uni-
formly dry concrete throughout the specimens, so these unit weights have
little meaning. The manufacturer's mix design information indicated
that the approximate air-dry weights for the regular lightweight concrete
would be 92, 94, and 95 pcf for Mix no. 1, 2, and 3, respectively. It
was estimated that Mix no. 4 would be about 92 pcf because of the large
proportion of coarse aggregate.

The air-dry unit weights for the PFA concrete were about 103, 106,
108, and 110 pcef for Mix no. 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

The freshly mixed unit weights averaged about 112 pcf for the
regular lightweight concrete where the aggregates were totally saturated
before the concrete was mixed, while the PFA concrete had an average
109 pef. The PFA was not water-saturated prior to mixing the concrete,
which explained the lower densities; air voids had remained in the
aggregate and about 10% of the original void volume was not filled with
polymer.

The in-air unit weights for saturated concrete are shown in Figures
10 through 13. In the saturation procedure pressure was 500 psi for 14
to 17 days. On the average, the PFA concrete showed a unit weight
increment of 0.7 pcf greater than that of the regular lightweight concrete.
Theoretically, the increment should have been from 0.8 to 1.3 pcf because
the specific gravity of polymer is 7.5% greater than that of seawater.
In any event, the unit weight differences between the materials were
small.

In summary, the unit weights for the regular lightweight concretes
changed from about 94 to 114 pcf when going from the air-dry condition
to the water-saturated condition. The high strength PFA concrete (Mix
no. 3 and 4) showed unit weights that changed from 109 to 115 pcf when
going from the air-dry to the water-saturated condition.

DISCUSSION

The significance of the test results is clear when compared to
similar data for normal weight concrete. The advantage of using light-
weight concrete in the ocean is to save weight. In a saturated condition,
regular lightweight and PFA concrete have the same unit weight, so can
be considered as lightweight concretes having a saturated unit weight of
IIS) [XCIE.

Normal weight concrete has an air-dry unit weight of about 145 pcf
(without steel reinforcement) and a saturated unit weight of about 150
pef. If lightweight concrete is used in place of normal weight concrete
for such applications as the hull and superstructure of a floating
platform, the weight saving is about 30% (using 145 pcf for normal

weight concrete and an estimated 100 pcf for moisture-laden regular
lightweight concrete). If the application is for submerged structural
elements, such as beams, columns or shells (cold water pipe to OTEC), then
the weight saving is 40% (saturated-in-seawater unit weights are 150 - 64 =
86 pcf for normal weight concrete and 115 - 64 = 51 pcf for lightweight
concrete). This is a significant weight saving.

When comparing material strengths, the properties of normal weight
concrete can vary considerably, depending on the mix design and type of
aggregate. One mix design used recently by CEL and obtained from a
local transit mix company used 658 lb/cu yd of portland type II cement,
water-to-cement ratio of 0.46, and river gravel of 1 inch maximum size.
The 28-day properties were: compressive strength, 6,060 psi; elastic
modulus, 3.2x10® psi; and Poisson's ratio, 0.22. In comparison, the
high strength regular lightweight concrete and the high strength PFA
concrete had compressive strengths of 5,200 and 6,580 psi, respectively;
and the elastic moduli were one-third lower. In essence, the strengths
of PFA concrete and normal weight concrete were comparable. However,
normal weight concretes can be designed for strengths of 8,000 to 9,000
psi, which appears to be beyond the capability of PFA concrete.

Cost is also important. Table 6 gives estimated costs for the
aggregate, concrete, and in-place concrete costs. The PFA cost is about
54 times that of normal weight aggregate and 13 times that of regular
lightweight aggregate. The added cost is that of polymer at about
$1.00/1b, plus 20% for manufacturing. PFA concrete costs about 9 times
as much as normal weight concrete and 6 times as much as regular light-
weight concrete.

The most important cost parameter for comparison, however, is the
in-place concrete cost. This cost is obtained by dividing the total
structure cost by the total quantity of concrete. Typically, for an
offshore concrete structure the in-place cost is about $1,000/cu yd.

For simplicity, Table 6 shows the concrete material cost added to $1,000/
cu yd to obtain the in-place concrete cost. For this case, PFA concrete
costs 1.30 times that of normal weight concrete and 1.27 times that of
regular lightweight concrete.

For certain applications, the material selection can have a major
impact on life cycle cost through weight savings. For example, a struc-
ture such as OTEC would be a moored, floating platform which could
benefit by a lighter-weight construction material for the hull and cold
water pipe. The outside dimension of the hull is sized by the required
displacement to support the hull, internal hardware, and cold water
pipe. By reduction of the weight of the hull and cold water pipe, the
outside dimension of the hull can be reduced. A considerable volume of
material would be saved, which reduces first cost. In addition, the
smaller sized hull will produce lower drag forces that will reduce the
mooring forces. The mooring lines and anchors can be reduced in size
for a major cost savings. Over the life of the structure, several
mooring lines - and possibly anchors - will be required so the cost
savings accumulate.

In summary, the in-place cost of PFA concrete is about 30% greater
than that of normal weight concrete while the weight saving is 40%.
Only an economic analysis of individual projects can show whether the
use of PFA concrete is cost beneficial.

FINDINGS

1. The maximum compressive strength after 28 days of fog curing
was 6,580 psi for PFA concrete as compared to 5,200 psi for regular
lightweight concrete. This high strength mix design of PFA concrete was
26% stronger than that of regular lightweight concrete.

2. The maximum splitting tensile strength of PFA concrete was
520 psi or 4% greater than that of regular lightweight concrete.

3. The failure mode in compressive and tension for PFA concrete
was a bond failure between cement and aggregate while the regular light-
weight concrete had the aggregate particles fail. Thus, strength in-
creases with age can be expected from the PFA concrete while the regular
lightweight concrete had attained its limit.

4. The elastic modulus of PFA concrete was, on the average, 2.1x10®
psi which was 4% greater than that of regular lightweight concrete. A
Poisson's ratio of 0.25 was essentially the same for both types of
concretes.

5. Both PFA and regular lightweight concrete have a saturated unit
weight averaging about 115 pcf. For undersea applications, a weight
saving of 40% is realized if either of these concretes replace normal
weight concrete. Although PFA concrete costs about nine times that of
normal weight concrete, the in-place structural cost is only about 30%
higher.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The assistance of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and in par-
ticular Mr. Ron Webster, for impregnating the aggregate is acknowledged.
Also, the assistance of our colleague, Mr. Robert Rail, is appreciated.

Table 1. Aggregate Sieve Analysis

Percent Retained on Each

Sieve for Following Aggregate Sizes --

Coarse

Sand

“Handbook values.

Table 2. Aggregate Physical Properties

Dry Unit

Weight of Void Volume

Individual of Aggregate

Aggregate Particles

Particles (A)
(pcf)

Aggregate Dry Loose
Size Unit Weight
(in.) (pcf)

1/2

3/8

5/16

Coarse Sand
Fine Sand

“Handbook value.

Table 3. Polymer Loading in Aggregate

Specific Gravity of Polymer = 1.10

Percent Void

7 0, -
Aggregate Polymer Loading (% by Weight)

Size

(in. )

Volume Empty
After Second

Calculated 3
f Impregnation
Maximum (%)

First Second
Impregnation Impregnation

Lyf 2 29.1 38.1
3/8 31.8 38.4
5/16 28.4 34,9
Coarse Sand 29.5 =

Fine Sand = co =

“Not available.
Doand was not reimpregnated.

“Not impregnated.

Table 4. Mix Designs

Cement: Portland Type III, High Early Strength
Water Reducer: Pozzolith 300 N at Rate of 3 oz/sack

Cement/Sand/ | Cement a ee
Coarse Aggregate Content y 8

5 3
its Ua ie

WY 2o22y We All
If SS //tl 51
1/1.77/0.94
WYO > 73/1 Al

a : : 5 : :
Proportions are for regular lightweight materials in a dry or
"as received" condition from manufacturer. Material contained
some moisture from environment. Aggregate sizes were blended as

follows:
Parts Coarse Parts
Sand (by weight) Aggregate (by weight )
Coarse Sand 2 WY 2 alin. 3
Fine Sand 1 3/8 in. il
5/16 in. iL

10

(OOT)

“UONBLIA JO JUDIIIJJIOD |

Izpnsoy
iepnsoy - VAd

= QdUdIIITIP %

P

“suatuioads aay JO ade1IAV |

“suouttoads dary Jo EOIN

“suautloads xIs Jo aseiaaVy

v

5

£01 vt cea
Inc 617 Ob+
vit €°8 00 6S we L?é ¢
$70 v1 80°C Cyt 00s Me Gar 0049 O8T‘s
09 00 BE Le eG eT LES z
AKO) £0°C 961 00S v9Ct+ Or6'S 00L‘Y
00 891 Oo? vv NE os Me 2 V I
LL 7 61- Ico 970 BL 1 BLT e+ Ofr Och 8 ST+ Osh y Ors'é
DOUdIIF FIG Sad (enon ddUdIITTIG wie || ano adUdIaTTIG ae reteoe ddUIIIIFIG as meaty
% % % 7% :
B ON
asd 01 x) (isd) (isd) oe
oney S,uOossiog 7 ® :
I {SuINpow snse[q qussuens atisuay yds puasuads aatssardurop
=

snsay sry, “Ss a1qeL

11

Table 6. Cost Data for Three Types of Concrete

re Fo

Cost of Following Materials

($/yd3)
In-Place
Concrete
1,040
350 1,350

Type of
Concrete

Aggregate Concrete

Regular
Lightweight

Polymer-Filled
Aggregate (PFA)

12

sok eS

Figure 1. Regular lightweight aggregates 1/2, 3/8, and
5/16 inch in size and coarse and fine sand.

Figure 2. Internal structure of regular lightweight
aggregate particle (x 600).

13

008

poo

OOZL

0c

Bisd 000°

G

Sisd 000'

"oqesois3e VUSTOMIYSTT
Te[nset youT-g/E TOF AOTAeYSq UuoTAdAOSqe 197eM

(ay) ow
009 00s OOF OOE
S
(-)
(+)
(*)
(*) O O ©) (*)

— Bisd QSz

“€ oansTy

00C OOT

IY J 105
UINNSPA

sisd Q

aduanbas Surproy ainssaig

sisd Q

or

OF

am Aq %) a1eda188y Aq paqiosqy 101%,

14

(b) Regular lightweight.

Figure 4. Aggregate particle at 15 times magnification.

. ALS)

4 6

8 10 V5 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY © NCBC, PORT HUENEME. CA 93043

Figure 5%

Sections from splitting tensile test specimens
showing bond failure for PFA concrete and
aggregate failure for regular lightweight
concrete.

16

*suowtoods 90147 WOLF SJeEP FO oseioAe 94d ST 9AANO YOey

‘OU XTW TOF AOTAPYSG UTeAIS-Ssoe1qS “9g JINSTYy

*SZepurpTAO a3eTDUOD YOUT-9gxXF T

(Cul/uty) ures
000'€- 000'7- 000'T- 0 O0OS+ 000°1+

91919u09
C

iySramiysr] rejnBa1 Se
x

fo
000‘t x,

000'¢

wn

< x
Si

4 \
7)

a

~

ao}

a)

=

000°S

IL7/

*suowtoods oe1u} WOAF PREP JO 9BeAOAe OY ST DAAND Yoey
*SLOpurTAD 99eTDUOD YOUT-gxXy Z “OU XTW TOF AOTAeYOq ULeAIS-SseIlqS “/ sANsTy

(uryury) urea

000‘C- 000'T- (0) 00s+ 000'T+

000° €-

a,

ye 000'Z \

Vi 000'E
9}91DUO0D fe
1ysIomiysI] 1ejNBa.1

ZG :
000 + ©)

(isd) ssa1ag

° Vs
000'S

x7 000'9

18

000'€-

*suoUtoeds 9014} WOTZ SREP FO VBeATSAe OY} ST OAAND YoeR|

*SoOpuTTAD 9}391DU0D YOUT-gxy € *OU XTW TOF AOTAeYaq UTeIAS-Sso9I1}5

(ul/-uryy) uel
000‘T- 000'T- 0

Xx

9391905 Me

1ysiamiysty izjnsaI =e
7
ce) 000+

(isd) ssaag

is

ae 000‘S
91919U09 Wild
ae x ¢

ee 000'9

°9 o1n3 Ty

oost+

000'T+

19

7

O8ss‘9

“siop

000° €-

007s O

xX?

FO

a

*suowitoeds oe1y, Worf eJeEP FO sB8eTIAe JY} ST DAAND YoeY
ufTAo oJeLOUOD YOUT-gxh 4 “OU XTW AJOJ AOTAePYSeq UTe1IqS—-sse1q45S

(uryutr) uel

000°C- 000'T- (0)

92019 U05

WysIoMIYSI] IvpnsoI a

ye e | 000‘
Je

a Va
Es 9101909 Wd ais

(isd) ssaias

000'9

"6 emn3Ty

ooOs+

000°T+

20

150

VZZ Pra
Ee Regular lightweight

in-air
weight

Unit Weight (pef)

in-seawater

50 weight

0)
30% RH for Freshly mixed Saturated concrete,
17 days after concrete, with 14 days at 500 psi
28-day fog cure aggregate saturated after 28-day fog cure

Figure 10. Comparison of unit weights for Mix no. 1 concretes.

150
VU, * PFA
el Regular lightweight
in-air
106.7 weight
100
a
2}
&
=
aod
v
=
&
50 in-seawater
(0)
30% RH for Freshly mixed Saturated concrete,
17 days after concrete, with 17 days at 500 psi
28-day fog cure aggregate saturated after 28-day fog cure

Figure 11. Comparison of unit weight for Mix no. 2 concretes.

dal

v
Bo}

z
-
a
v
a
E

ob
a)
S

Se) in
S On

i . ee GL bce

(god) 14s19 4 11 (god) aysiom uA

DISTRIBUTION LIST

AFB CESCH, Wright-Patterson

ARCTICSUBLAB Code 54, San Diego, CA

ARMY BMDSC-RE (H. McClellan) Huntsville AL

ARMY COASTAL ENGR RSCH CEN Fort Belvoir VA

ARMY COE Philadelphia Dist. (LIBRARY) Philadelphia, PA

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MRD-Eng. Div., Omaha NE; Seattle Dist. Library, Seattle WA

ARMY CRREL Library, Hanover NH

ARMY ENG WATERWAYS EXP STA Library, Vicksburg MS

ARMY ENVIRON. HYGIENE AGCY Water Qual Div (Doner), Aberdeen Prov Ground, MD

ASST SECRETARY OF THE NAVY Spec. Assist Energy (Leonard), Washington, DC; Spec. Assist Submarines,
Washington DC

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (J Graham), Denver, CO; G. Smoak, Denver CO

CINCLANT Civil Engr. Supp. Plans. Ofr Norfolk, VA

CNO Code NOP-964, Washington DC; Code OPNAV 22, Wash DC; Code OPNAV 23, Wash DC; OP-23 (Capt J.H.
Howland) Washinton, DC; OP987J (J. Boosman), Pentagon

COMSUBDEVGRUONE Operations Offr, San Diego, CA

DEFENSE DOCUMENTATION CTR Alexandria, VA

DNA (LTCOL J. Galloway), Washington, DC

DOE (D Uthus), Arlington, VA; (G. Boyer), Washington, DC; (W. Sherwood) Washington, DC; Dr. Cohen

DTNSRDC Code 172 (M. Krenzke), Bethesda MD

DTNSRDC Code 522 (Library), Annapolis MD

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Dr. R Dyer), Washington, DC

MARINE CORPS BASE PWO Camp Lejeune NC

MARITIME ADMIN (E. Uttridge), Washington, DC

MCAS Facil. Engr. Div. Cherry Point NC

NAF PWO, Atsugi Japan

NAS Dir. Util. Div., Bermuda; ENS Buchholz, Pensacola, FL

NATL RESEARCH COUNCIL Naval Studies Board, Washington DC

NAVCOASTSYSTCTR Code 713 (J. Quirk) Panama City, FL; Code 715 (J. Mitthkeman) Panama City, FL; Library
Panama City, FL

NAVCOMMAREAMSTRSTA SCE Unit 1 Naples Italy

NAVCOMMSTA Code 401 Nea Makri, Greece

NAVEDTRAPRODEVCEN Tech. Library

NAVEODFAC Code 605, Indian Head MD

NAVFACENGCOM Code 042 Alexandria, VA; Code 043 Alexandria, VA; Code 044 Alexandria, VA; Code 0451
Alexandria, VA; Code 0453 (D. Potter) Alexandria, VA; Code 0454B Alexandria, Va; Code 04B (M. Yachnis)
Alexandria, VA; Code 04B5 Alexandria, VA; Code 1113 (T. Stevens) Alexandria, VA; PC-2 Alexandria, VA; PC-2
Alexandria, VA

NAVFACENGCOM - CHES DIV. Code FPO-1 Wash, DC; FPO-1 (Spencer) Wash, DC; FPO-1 Wash, DC

NAVFACENGCOM - LANT DIV. RDT&ELO 102, Norfolk VA

NAVFACENGCOM - NORTH DIV. (Boretsky) Philadelphia, PA; CO; Code 1028, RDT&ELO, Philadelphia PA

NAVFACENGCOM - PAC DIV. Code 402, RDT&E, Pearl Harbor HI; Commander, Pearl Harbor, HI

NAVFACENGCOM - SOUTH DIV. Code 90, RDT&ELO, Charleston SC

NAVFACENGCOM - WEST DIV. Code 04B San Bruno, CA; RDT&ELO Code 2011 San Bruno, CA

NAVOCEANO Code 1600 Bay St. Louis, MS

NAVOCEANSYSCEN Code 31 San Diego, CA; Code 4473 Bayside Library, San Diego, CA; Code 52 (H. Talkington)
San Diego CA; Code 5204 (J. Stachiw), San Diego, CA; Code 93, San Diego, CA; Tech. Library, Code 447

NAVPGSCOL (Dr. G. Haderlie), Monterey, CA; D. Leipper, Monterey CA; E. Thornton, Monterey CA

NAVPHIBASE CO, ACB 2 Norfolk, VA; Harbor Clearance Unit Two, Little Creek, VA

NAVSEASYSCOM (R. Sea), Washington, DC; Code 00C-DG DiGeorge, Washington, DC; Code 0353 (J. Freund)
Washington, DC; Code OOC (LT R. MacDougal), Washington DC; Code SEA OOC Washington, DC

NAVSEC Code 6034, Washington DC

NAVSTA PWO, Mayport FL

NAVSUPPACT LTJG McGarrah, SEC, Vallejo, CA

NAVSURFWPNCEN J. Honaker, White Oak Lab, Silver Spring, MD

23

NAVWARCOL President, Newport, RI

NAVWPNCEN Code 2636 (W. Bonner), China Lake CA

NAVWPNSTA PW Office (Code 09C1) Yorktown, VA

NCBC CEL AOIC Port Hueneme CA; Code 10 Davisville, RI; Code 155, Port Hueneme CA; Code 156, Port Hueneme,
CA

NOAA (Dr. T. Mc Guinness) Rockville, MD; (M. Ringenbach), Rockville, MD; Library Rockville, MD

NORDA Code 410 Bay St. Louis, MS; Code 440 (Ocean Rsch Off) Bay St. Louis MS

NRL Code 8400 Washington, DC; Code 8441 (R.A. Skop), Washington DC; Rosenthal, Code 8440, Wash. DC

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T.C. Johnson, Washington, DC

NUSC Code 131 New London, CT; Code EA123 (R.S. Munn), New London CT; Code $332, B-80 (J. Wilcox)

OCEANAV Mangmt Info Div., Arlington VA

OCEANSYSLANT LT A.R. Giancola, Norfolk VA

ONR (Dr. E.A. Silva) Arlington, VA; Code 481, Arlington VA; Code 481, Bay St. Louis, MS; Code 700F Arlington
VA; Dr. A. Laufer, Pasadena CA

PHIBCB | P&E, Coronado, CA

PMTC Pat. Counsel, Point Mugu CA

PWC CO, (Code 10), Oakland, CA; Code 120, Oakland CA; Code 30C, San Diego, CA; Code 420, Oakland, CA

SUBRESUNIT OIC Seacliff, San Diego; OIC Turtle, San Diego

UCT TWO OIC, Norfolk, VA; OIC, Port Hueneme CA

PETRO MARINE ENGINEERS

U.S. MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY Kings Point, NY (Reprint Custodian)

US DEPT OF INTERIOR Bureau of Land MNGMNT - Code 733 (T.E. Sullivan) Wash, DC

US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (F Dyhrkopp) Metairie, LA; (R Krahl) Marine Oil & Gas Ops, Reston, VA; Off. Marine
Geology, Piteleki, Reston VA

USNA Ocean Sys. Eng Dept (Dr. Monney) Annapolis, MD; Oceanography Dept (Hoffman) Annapolis MD

BROOKHAVEN NATL LAB M. Steinberg, Upton NY

CALIF. MARITIME ACADEMY Vallejo, CA (Library)

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY LONG BEACH, CA (YEN); LOS ANGELES, CA (KIM)

CATHOLIC UNIV. Mech Engr Dept, Prof. Niedzwecki, Wash., DC

CLARKSON COLL OF TECH G. Batson, Potsdam N Y

DAMES & MOORE LIBRARY LOS ANGELES, CA

DUKE UNIV MEDICAL CENTER B. Muga, Durham NC

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE (Dr. S. Dexter) Lewes, DE

FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY Boca Raton FL (Ocean Engr Dept., C. Lin); Boca Raton FL (W. Hartt); Boca
Raton FL (W. Tessin); Boca Raton, FL (McAllister)

FLORIDA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (J Schwalbe) Melbourne, FL

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Atlanta GA (School of Civil Engr., Kahn)

HOUSTON UNIVERSITY OF (Dr. R.H. Brown) Houston, TX

INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES Dir, Port Aransas TX

WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INST. Woods Hole MA (Winget)

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV Rsch Lib, Baltimore MD

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY BETHLEHEM, PA (MARINE GEOTECHNICAL LAB., RICHARDS); Bethlehem PA
(Fritz Engr. Lab No. 13, Beedle); Bethlehem PA (Linderman Lib. No.30, Flecksteiner)

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON, DC (SCIENCES & TECH DIV)

MAINE MARITIME ACADEMY CASTINE, ME (LIBRARY)

MIT Cambridge MA; Cambridge MA (Rm 10-500, Tech. Reports, Engr. Lib.)

NATL ACADEMY OF ENG. ALEXANDRIA, VA (SEARLE, JR.)

NORTHWESTERN UNIV Z.P. Bazant Evanston IL

OKLAHOMA STATE UNIV (J.P. Lloyd) Stillwater, OK

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY (CE Dept Grace) Corvallis, OR

MUSEUM OF NATL HISTORY San Diego, CA (Dr. E. Schulenberger)

SCRIPPS INSTITUTE OF OCEANOGRAPHY San Diego, CA (Marina Phy. Lab. Spiess)

SEATTLE U Prof Schwaegler Seattle WA

SOUTHWEST RSCH INST King, San Antonio, TX; R. DeHart, San Antonio TX

STANFORD UNIVERSITY Engr Lib, Stanford CA; STANFORD, CA (DOUGLAS); Stanford CA (Gene)

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK (Dr. H. Herman) Stony Brook, NY

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY College Station TX (CE Dept. Herbich); College Station, TX Depts of Ocean, & Meteor;
W.B. Ledbetter College Station, TX

24

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY, CA (CE DEPT, GERWICK); Berkeley CA (B. Bresler); Berkeley CA
(D.Pirtz); Berkeley CA (Dept of Naval Arch.); Engr Lib., Berkeley CA; La Jolla CA (Acq. Dept, Lib. C-075A); M.
Duncan, Berkeley CA; P. Mehta, Berkeley CA

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE Newark, DE (Dept of Civil Engineering, Chesson)

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII Honolulu HI (Dr. Szilard)

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Metz Ref Rm, Urbana IL; URBANA, IL (DAVISSON); URBANA, IL (LIBRARY);
URBANA, IL (NEWMARK); Urbana IL (CE Dept, W. Gamble)

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS (Heronemus), Amherst MA CE Dept

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Ann Arbor MI (G. Berg); Ann Arbor MI (Richart)

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LINCOLN Lincoln, NE (Ross Ice Shelf Proj.)

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DURHAM, NH (LAVOIE)

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME Katona, Notre Dame, IN
U
U
U
U

NIVERSITY OF SO. CALIFORNIA Univ So. Calif

NIVERSITY OF TEXAS Inst. Marine Sci (Library), Port Arkansas TX

NIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Austin, TX (Breen)

NIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH (Dr. R.L. Yuan) Arlington, TX

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON (Dr. N. Hawkins) Seattle, WA; Dept of Civil Engr (Dr. Mattock), Seattle WA;
SEATTLE, WA (APPLIED PHYSICS LAB); Seattle WA (E. Linger)

WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INST. Doc Lib LO-206, Woods Hole MA

AGBABIAN ASSOC. C. Bagge, El Segundo CA

ALFRED A. YEE & ASSOC. Honolulu HI

AMERICAN BUR OF SHIPPING (S Stiansen) New York, NY

AMETEK Offshore Res. & Engr Div

APPLIED TECH COUNCIL R. Scholl, Palo Alto CA

ARVID GRANT OLYMPIA, WA

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. DALLAS, TX (SMITH)

AUSTRALIA A. Eddie, Victoria

BECHTEL CORP. R. Leonard, San Francisco CA; SAN FRANCISCO, CA (PHELPS)

BOUW KAMP INC Berkeley

BRAND INDUS SERV INC. J. Buehler, Hacienda Heights CA

BROWN & CALDWELL E M Saunders Walnut Creek, CA

BROWN & ROOT Houston TX (D. Ward)

CANADA Library, Calgary, Alberta; Lockheed Petro. Serv. Ltd, New Westminster B.C.; Lockheed Petrol. Srv. Ltd.,
New Westminster BC; M. Malhotra, Ohawa, Canada; Surveyor, Nenninger & Chenevert Inc., Montreal;
Trans-Mnt Oil Pipe Lone Corp. Vancouver, BC Canada

CF BRAUN CO Du Bouchet, Murray Hill, NJ

CHAS. TL MAIN, INC. (R.C. Goyette), Portland, OR

CHEVRON OIL FIELD RESEARCH CO. LA HABRA, CA (BROOKS)

COLUMBIA GULF TRANSMISSION CO. HOUSTON, TX (ENG. LIB.)

CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY CORP. TACOMA, WA (ANDERSON)

CONRAD ASSOC. Van Nuys CA (W. Gates)

CONTINENTAL OIL CO O. Maxson, Ponca City, OK

DENMARK E. Wulff, Svenborg

DILLINGHAM PRECAST F. McHale, Honolulu HI

EXXON PRODUCTION RESEARCH CO Houston, TX (Chao)

FRANCE (J. Trinh) ST-REM Y-LES-CHEVREUSE; (P Ozanne), Brest; Dr. Dutertre, Boulogne; L. Pliskin, Paris; P.
Jensen, Boulogne; P. Xercavins, Europe Etudes; Roger LaCroix, Paris

GERMANY C. Finsterwalder, Sapporobogen 6-8

GULF RAD. TECH. San Diego CA (B. Williams)

ITALY M. Caironi, Milan; Torino (F. Levi)

JAPAN (Dr. T. Asama), Tokyo; M. Kokubu, Tokyo; S. Inomata, Tokyo; S. Shiraishi, Tokyo

LIN OFFSHORE ENGRG P. Chow, San Francisco CA

LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE CO. INC. L. Trimble, Sunnyvale CA; Sunnyvale, CA (K.L. Krug)

MARATHON OIL CO Houston TX

MC CLELLAND ENGINEERS INC Houston TX (B. McClelland)

MEXICO R. Cardenas

MOBIL R & D CORP (J Hubbard), Dallas, TX

NEW ZEALAND New Zealand Concrete Research Assoc. (Librarian), Porirua

25

NOBLE, DENTON & ASSOC., INC. (Dr. M Sharples) Houston, TX

NORWAY A. Torum, Trondheim; DET NORSKE VERITAS (Library), Oslo; DET NORSKE VERITAS (Roren) Oslo;
E. Gjorv, Trondheim; F. Manning, Stavanger; I. Foss, Oslo; J. Creed, Ski; Norwegian Tech Univ (Brandtzaeg),
Trondheim; R. Sletten, Oslo; S. Fjeld, Oslo; Siv Ing Knut Hove, Oslo

OCEAN ENGINEERS SAUSALITO, CA (RYNECKI)

OCEAN RESOURCE ENG. INC. HOUSTON, TX (ANDERSON)

OFFSHORE POWER SYS (S N Pagay) Jacksonville, FL

PACIFIC MARINE TECHNOLOGY Long Beach, CA (Wagner)

PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOC. (Dr. E. Hognestad) Skokie, IL; SKOKIE, IL (CORLEY; Skokie IL (Rsch & Dev
Lab, Lib.)

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE INST C. Freyermuth, Chicago IL

RAYMOND INTERNATIONAL INC. E Colle Soil Tech Dept, Pennsauken, NJ

SANDIA LABORATORIES (Dr. D.R. Anderson) Albuquerque, NM

SCHUPACK ASSOC SO. NORWALK, CT (SCHUPACK)

SEATECH CORP. MIAMI, FL (PERONI)

SHELL OIL CO. Houston TX (R. de Castongrene); I. Boaz, Houston TX

SOUTH AMERICA B. Contarini, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; N. Nouel, Valencia, Venezuela

SPAIN D. Alfredo Paez, Algorta

SWEDEN Cement & Concrete Research Inst., Stockholm; GeoTech Inst; K. Christenson, Stockholm; Kurt Eriksson,
Stockholm

THE NETHERLANDS Ir Van Loenen, Beverwijk; J. Slagter, Driebergen

TIDEWATER CONSTR. CO Norfolk VA (Fowler)

TRW SYSTEMS REDONDO BEACH, CA (DAI)

UNITED KINGDOM (D. Faulkner) Glasgow, Scotland; (Dr. F.K. Garas), Middlesex; (Dr. P. Montague) Manchester,
England; (H.W. Baker) Glasgow, Scotland; (M E W Jones) Glasgow, Scotland; (M J Collard), London, (W.F.G.
Crozier Slough Bucks; A. Denton, London; Cambridge U (Dr. C. Morley) Cabridge, GB; Cement & Concrete
Assoc Wexham Springs, Slough Bucks; Cement & Concrete Assoc. (Lit. Ex), Bucks; D. Lee, London; J.
Derrington, London; Library, Bristol; P. Shaw, London; R. Browne, Southall, Middlesex; R. Rudham Oxfordshire;
Sunderland Polytechnic (A.L. Marshall), Great Britain; T. Ridley, London; Taylor, Woodrow Constr (Stubbs),
Southall, Middlesex; Univ. of Bristol (R. Morgan), Bristol; W. Crozier, Wexham Springs; Watford (Bldg Rsch Sta,
F. Grimer)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. Annapolis MD (Oceanic Div Lib, Bryan)

WESTINTRUCORP Egerton, Oxnard, CA

WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS PLYMOUTH MEETING PA (CROSS, III)

BROWN, ROBERT University, AL

BULLOCK La Canada

DOBROWOLSKI, J.A. Altadena, CA

GERWICK, BEN C. JR San Francisco, CA

LAYTON Redmond, WA

NORWAY B. Nordby, Oslo

R.F. BESIER Old Saybrook CT

WESTCOTT WM Miami, FL

WM TALBOT Orange CA

26

Ww ‘
i Hay

lame eh) ar

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

CIVIL ENGINEERING LABORATORY
NAVAL CONSTRUCTION BATTALION CENTER POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA 93043 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

ee DoD-316
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

2 - 823.001 - 339

pe |
Document Library LO*200 . |
woods Hole Oceanograpnic Institution

Woods Hole, MA 02543