———Per cent Voids in———
Passing a ring of2.4"1.6"0.8"RoundBroken
Held by a ring1.6"0.8"0.4"Pebbles.Stone.
Parts10040.053.4
"01038.851.7
"00141.752.1
"11035.850.5
"10135.647.1
"01137.940.5
"11135.547.8
"41134.549.2
"14136.649.4
"11438.148.6
"80234.1....

Table IV gives the voids in broken stone as determined by various engineers; it requires no explanation. Table V, taken from Feret's tests, shows the effect of changes in granulometric composition on the amount of voids in both broken stone and gravel. Considering the column giving voids in stone it is to be noted first how nearly equal the voids are for stone of uniform size whatever that size be. As was the case with sand a mixture of coarse and fine particles gives the fewest voids; for stone an L1M0F1 mixture and for gravel an L8M0F2 mixture. Tamping reduces the voids in broken stone. Mr. Geo. W. Rafter gives the voids in clean, hand-broken limestone passing a 2½-in. ring as 43 per cent. after being lightly shaken and 37½ per cent. after being rammed. Generally speaking heavy ramming will reduce the voids in loose stone about 20 per cent.

It is rare that gravel has less than 30 per cent. or more than 45 per cent. voids. If the pebbles vary considerably in size so that the small fit in between the large, the voids may be as low as 30 per cent. but if the pebbles are tolerably uniform in size the voids will approach 45 per cent. Table V shows the effect of granulometric composition on the voids in gravel as determined by Feret. Mr. H. Von Schon gives the following granulometric analysis of a gravel having 34.1 per cent. voids:

Retained on 1-in. ring, per cent.10.70
Retained on ⅜-in. ring, per cent.23.65
Retained on No. 4 sieve, per cent.8.70
Retained on No. 10 sieve, per cent.17.14
Retained on No. 20 sieve, per cent.21.76
Retained on No. 30 sieve, per cent.6.49
Retained on No. 40 sieve, per cent.5.96
Passed a No. 40 sieve, per cent.5.59
Passed a 1½-in ring, per cent.100.00

As mixtures of broken stone and gravel are often used the following determinations of voids in such mixtures are given. The following determinations were made by Mr. Wm. M. Hall for mixtures of blue limestone and Ohio River washed gravel:

Per cent. Stone.Per cent. Gravel.Per cent. Voids in Mix
100with048
80"2044
70"3041
60"4038½
50"5036
0"10035

The dust was screened from the stone all of which passed a 2½-in. ring; the gravel all passed a 1½-in. screen. Using the same sizes of gravel and Hudson River trap rock, the results were:

Per cent. Trap.Per cent. Gravel.Per cent. Voids in Mix.
100with050
60"4038½
50"5036
0"10035

The weight of a cubic foot of loose gravel or stone is not an accurate index of the percentage of voids unless the specific gravity is known. Pure quartz weighs 165 lbs., per cu. ft., hence broken quartz having 40 per cent. voids weighs 165 × .60 = 99 lbs. per cu. ft. Few gravels are entirely quartz, and many contain stone having a greater specific gravity like some traps or a less specific gravity like some shales and sandstone. Tables VI and VII give the specific gravities of common stones and minerals and Table VIII gives the weights corresponding to different percentages of voids for different specific gravities.

Table VI.—Specific Gravity of Stone. (Condensed from Merrill's "Stones for Building.")

Trap,Boston, Mass.2.78
"Duluth, Minn.2.8 to 3.0
"Jersey City, N. J.3.03
"Staten Island, N. Y.2.86
Gneiss,Madison Ave., N. Y.2.92
Granite,New London, Conn.2.66
"Greenwich, Conn.2.84
"Vinalhaven, Me.2.66
"Quincy, Mass.2.66
"Barre, Vt.2.65
Limestone,Joliet, Ill.2.56
"Quincy, Ill.2.51 to 2.57
Limestone, (oolitic)Bedford, Ind.2.25 to 2.45
"Marquette, Mich.2.34
"Glens Falls, N.Y.2.70
"Lake Champlain, N. Y.2.75
Sandstone,Portland, Conn.2.64
"Haverstraw, N. Y.2.13
"Medina, N. Y.2.41
"Potsdam, N. Y.2.60
"(grit) Berea, O.2.12

Table VII.—Specific Gravity of Common Minerals and Rocks.

Apatite2.92-3.25
Basalt3.01
Calcite, CaCO32.5-2.73
Cassiterite, SnO26.4-7.1
Cerrusite, PbCO36.46-6.48
Chalcopyrite, CuFeS24.1-4.3
Coal, anthracite1.3-1.84
Coal, bituminous1.2-1.5
Diabase2.6-3.03
Diorite2.92
Dolomite, CaMg (CO32.8-2.9
Felspar2.44-2.78
Felsite2.65
Galena, Pbs7.25-7.77
Garnet3.15-4.31
Gneiss2.62-2.92
Granite2.55-2.86
Gypsum2.3-3.28
Halite (salt) NaCl2.1-2.56
Hematite, Fe2O34.5-5.3
Hornblende3.05-3.47
Limonite, Fe3O4 (OH)63.6-4.0
Limestone2.35-2.87
Magnetite, Fe3O44.9-5.2
Marble2.08-2.85
Mica2.75-3.1
Mica Schist2.5-2.9
Olivine3.33-3.5
Porphyry2.5-2.6
Pyrite, FeS24.83-5.2
Quartz, SiO22.5-2.8
Quartzite2.6-2.7
Sandstone2.0-2.78
"     Medina2.4
"     Ohio2.2
"     Slaty1.82
Shale2.4-2.8
Slate2.5-2.8
Sphalerite, ZnS3.9-4.2
Stibnite, Sb2S34.5-4.6
Syenite2.27-2.65
Talc2.56-2.8
Trap2.6-3.0

Table VIII.—Showing Weight of Stone with Different Percentages of Voids for Different Specific Gravities.

Weight in Lbs. per cu. yd. when Voids are
Specific Gravity.Weight in Lbs. per cu. ft.Weight in Lbs. per cu. yd.30%35%40%45%50%
1.062.3551,6841,1781,0941,010926842
2.0124.73,3672,3572,1872,0201,8521,684
2.1130.93,5362,4752,2982,1211,9451,768
2.2137.23,7042,5932,4082,2222,0371,852
2.3143.43,8722,7112,5172,3232,1301,936
2.4149.74,0412,8282,6262,4242,2222,020
2.5155.94,2092,9462,7362,5252,3152,105
2.6162.14,3773,0642,8452,6262,4082,189
2.7168.44,5463,1822,9552,7272,5002,273
2.8174.64,7143,3003,0642,8282,5932,357
2.9180.94,8823,4183,1742,9292,6852,441
3.0187.15,0513,5363,2833,0302,7782,526
3.1193.35,2193,6533,3923,1312,8712,609
3.2199.55,3883,7713,5023,2322,9632,694
3.3205.85,5563,8893,6113,3333,0562,778
3.4212.05,7244,0073,7213,4343,1482,862
3.5218.35,8934,1253,8303,5353,2412,947

In buying broken stone by the cubic yard it should be remembered that hauling in a wagon compacts the stone by shaking it down and reduces the volume. Table IX shows the results of tests made by the Illinois Highway Commission to determine the settlement of crushed stone in wagon loads for different lengths of haul. The road over which the tests were made was a macadam road, not particularly smooth, but might be considered as an average road surface. The wagon used was one with a dump bottom supported by chains, which were drawn as tight as possible, so as to reduce the sag to a minimum. It will be noticed that about 50 per cent. of the settlement occurs within the first 100 ft., and 75 per cent. of the settlement in the first 200 ft. Almost all of the settlement occurs during the first half mile, as the tests showed practically no additional settlement for distances beyond. Some of the wagons were loaded from the ground with shovels, others were loaded from bins, the stone having a 15-ft. drop, which compacted the stone a little more than where loaded with shovels, so that there was somewhat less settlement. But at the end of a half mile the density was practically the same, whatever the method of loading. The density at the beginning and at the end of the haul can be compared by the weight of a given volume of crushed stone. For convenience, the weight of a cubic yard of the material at the beginning of the haul and at the end was computed from the known contents of a wagon.

Table IX.—Showing Settlement of Broken Stone due to Different Lengths of Haul on Ordinarily Good Road in Wagons.

Per cent Settlement for Hauling. Weight per Cu. Yd. in Lbs.
Size. Method of Loading.100'200'300'400'500'600'700'½ Mile1 Mile At start. At finish.
Screenings15 ft. drop.... ....................... 11.5 11.5 2,518 2,840
Screenings15 ft. drop.... ....................... 12.6 12.62,518 2,886
Screenings15 ft. drop 7.3 8.3 8.9 9.2 9.510.110.1 11.2 ....2,450 2,770
Screenings15 ft. drop 5.0 9.610.210.210.410.410.4 12.4 ....,425 2,780
1½ inch15 ft. drop ........................... 11.5 11.5[C]2,305 2,600
1½ inch15 ft. drop 5.3 6.2 7.1 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.3 9.2 ....2,380 2,625
1½ inch15 ft. drop 2.6 3.7 4.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 ....2,450 2,600
1½ inchShovels 3.5 4.1 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.7 6.5 7.25 ....2,270 2,445
1½ inchShovels ........................... 12.6 12.62,305 2,642
3 inch15 ft. drop ........................... 10.1 10.12,376 2,638
3 inch15 ft. drop 3.5 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 ....2,360 2,505
3 inch15 ft. drop 0.5 2.5 2.5 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.9 ....2,470 2,595
3 inchShovels ........................... 12.6 12.62,270 2,601
3 inchShovels 5.0 5.6 6.5 6.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 7.1 ....2,335 2,510

[C] —Same per cent of settlement for two-mile haul.

THEORY OF THE QUANTITY OF CEMENT IN MORTAR AND CONCRETE.—All sand contains a large percentage of voids; in 1 cu. ft. of loose sand there is 0.3 to 0.5 cu. ft. of voids, that is, 30 to 50 per cent. of the sand is voids. In making mortar the cement is mixed with the sand and the flour-like particles of the cement fit in between the grains of sand occupying a part or all of the voids. The amount of cement required in a mortar will naturally depend upon the amount of voids in the particular sand with which it is mixed and since a correct estimate of the number of barrels of cement per cubic yard of mortar is very important, and since it is not always possible to make actual mixtures before bidding, rules based on various theories have been formulated for determining these quantities. In this volume the rule based on the theory outlined by one of the authors in 1901 will be followed. The following is a discussion of the authors' theory:

When loose sand is mixed with water, its volume or bulk is increased; subsequent jarring will decrease its volume, but still leave a net gain of about 10 per cent.; that is, 1 cu. ft. of dry sand becomes about 1.1 cu. ft. of damp sand. Not only does this increase in the volume of the sand occur, but, instead of increasing the voids that can be filled with cement, there is an absolute loss in the volume of available voids. This is due to the space occupied by the water necessary to bring the sand to the consistency of mortar; furthermore, there is seldom a perfect mixture of the sand and cement in practice, thus reducing the available voids. It is safe to call this reduction in available voids about 10 per cent.

When loose, dry Portland cement is wetted, it shrinks about 15 per cent, in volume, behaving differently from the sand, but it never shrinks back to quite as small a volume as it occupies when packed tightly in a barrel. Since barrels of different brands vary widely in size, the careful engineer or contractor will test any brand he intends using in large quantities, in order to ascertain exactly how much cement paste can be made. He will find a range of from 3.2 cu. ft. to 3.8 cu. ft. per barrel of Portland cement. Obviously the larger barrel may be cheaper though its price is higher. Specifications often state the number of cubic feet that will be allowed per barrel in mixing the concrete ingredients, so that any rule or formula to be of practical value must contain a factor to allow for the specified size of the barrel, and another factor to allow for the actual number of cubic feet of paste that a barrel will yield—the two being usually quite different.

The deduction of a rational, practical formula for computing the quantity of cement required for a given mixture will now be given, based upon the facts above outlined.

Letp=number of cu. ft. cement paste per bbl., as determined by actual test.
n=number of cu. ft. of cement per bbl., as specified in the specifications.
s=parts of sand (by volume) to one part of cement, as specified.
g=parts of gravel or broken stone (by volume) to one part of cement, as specified.
v=percentage of voids in the dry sand, as determined by test.
V=percentage of voids in the gravel or stone, as determined by test.

Then, in a mortar of 1 part cement to s parts sand, we have:

n s=cu.ft.ofdry sand to 1 bbl. of cement.
n s v="""voids in the dry sand.
0.9 n s v="""available voids in the wet sand.
1.1 n s="""wet sand.
p - 0.9 n s v="""cement paste in excess of the voids.

Therefore:

1.1 n s + (p - 0.9 n s v) = cu. ft. of mortar per bbl.

Therefore:

2727
N=————————————=——————————
1.1 n s + (p - 0.9 n s v)p + n s (1.1 - 0.9 v)

N being the number of barrels of cement per cu. yd. of mortar.

When the mortar is made so lean that there is not enough cement paste to fill the voids in the sand, the formula becomes:

27
N = ———
1.1 n s

A similar line of reasoning will give us a rational formula for determining the quantity of cement in concrete; but there is one point of difference between sand and gravel (or broken stone), namely, that the gravel does not swell materially in volume when mixed with water. However, a certain amount of water is required to wet the surface of the pebbles, and this water reduces the available voids, that is, the voids that can be filled by the mortar. With this in mind, the following deduction is clear, using the nomenclature and symbols above given:

ng=cu.ft.ofdry gravel (or stone).
ng V="""voids in dry gravel.
0.9 ng V=""""available voids" in the wet gravel.
p + n s (1.1 - 0.9 v) - 0.9 ng V=excessofmortarover the available voids in the wet gravel.
ng + p + n s (1.1 - 0.9 v) - 0.9 ng V=cu.ft.ofconcrete from 1 bbl. cement.
27
N=———————————————————————
p + n s (1.1 - 0.9v) + ng (1 - 0.9 V)

N being the number of barrels of cement required to make 1 cu. yd. of concrete.

This formula is rational and perfectly general. Other experimenters may find it desirable to use constants slightly different from the 1.1 and the 0.9, for fine sands swell more than coarse sands, and hold more water.

The reader must bear in mind that when the voids in the sand exceed the cement paste, and when the available voids in the gravel (or stone) exceed the mortar, the formula becomes:

27
N = ———
ng

These formulas give the amounts of cement in mortars and concretes compacted in place. Tables X to XIII are based upon the foregoing theory, and will be found to check satisfactorily with actual tests.

In using these tables remember that the proportion of cement to sand is by volume, and not by weight. If the specifications state that a barrel of cement shall be considered to hold 4 cu. ft., for example, and that the mortar shall be 1 part cement to 2 parts sand, then 2 barrel of cement is mixed with 8 cu. ft. of sand, regardless of what is the actual size of the barrel, and regardless of how much cement paste can be made with a barrel of cement. If the specifications fail to state what the size of a barrel will be, then the contractor is left to guess.

Table X.—Barrels of Portland Cement per Cubic Yard of Mortar.

(Voids in sand being 35%, and 1 bbl. cement yielding 3.65 cu. ft. of cement paste.)
Proportion of Cement to Sand1 to 11 to 1½1 to 21 to 2½1 to 31 to 4
  Bbls. Bbls. Bbls. Bbls. Bbls. Bbls.
Barrel specified to be 3.5 cu. ft. 4.22 3.49 2.97 2.57 2.28 1.76
     "      "      "      3.8     "      4.09 3.33 2.81 2.45 2.16 1.62
     "      "      "      4.0     "      4.00 3.24 2.73 2.36 2.08 1.54
     "      "      "      4.4     "      3.81 3.07 2.57 2.27 2.00 1.40
Cu. yds. sand per cu. yd. mortar 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0

Table XI.—Barrels of Portland Cement per Cubic Yard of Mortar.

(Voids in sand being 45%, and 1 bbl. cement yielding 3.4 cu. ft. of cement paste.)
Proportion of Cement to Sand1 to 11 to 1½1 to 21 to 2½1 to 31 to 4
  Bbls. Bbls. Bbls. Bbls. Bbls. Bbls.
Barrel specified to be 3.5 cu. ft. 4.62 3.80 3.25 2.84 2.35 1.76
     "      "     "      3.8      "      4.32 3.61 3.10 2.72 2.16 1.62
     "      "      "      4.0      "      4.19 3.46 3.00 2.64 2.05 1.54
     "      "      "      4.4      "      3.94 3.34 2.90 2.57 1.86 1.40
Cu. yds. sand per cu. yd. mortar 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

If the specifications call for proportions by weight, assume a Portland barrel to contain 380 lbs. of cement, and test the actual weight of a cubic foot of the sand to be used. Sand varies extremely in weight, due both to the variation in the per cent. of voids, and to the variation in the kind of minerals of which the sand is composed. A quartz sand having 35 per cent. voids weighs 107 lbs. per cu. ft.; but a quartz sand having 45 per cent. voids weighs only 91 lbs. per cu. ft. If the weight of the sand must be guessed at, assume 100 lbs. per cu. ft. If the specifications require a mixture of 1 cement to 2 of sand by weight, we will have 380 lbs. (or 1 bbl.) of cement mixed with 2 × 380, or 760 lbs. of sand; and if the sand weighs 90 lbs. per cu. ft., we shall have 760 ÷ 90, or 8.44 cu. ft. of sand to every barrel of cement. In order to use the tables above given, we may specify our own size of barrel; let us say 4 cu. ft.; then 8.44 ÷ 4 gives 2.11 parts of sand by volume to 1 part of cement. Without material error we may call this a 1 to 2 mortar, and use the tables, remembering that our barrel is now "specified to be" 4 cu. ft. If we have a brand of cement that yields 3.4 cu. ft. of paste per bbl., and sand having 45 per cent. voids, we find that approximately 3 bbls. of cement per cu. yd. of mortar will be required.

Table XII.—Ingredients in 1 Cubic Yard of Concrete.

(Sand voids, 40%; stone voids, 45%; Portland cement barrel yielding 3.65 cu. ft. paste. Barrel specified to be 3.8 cu. ft.)
  1:2:4 1:2:5 1:2:6 1:2½:5 1:2½:6 1:3:4
Bbls. cement per cu. yd. concr't 1.46 1.30 1.18 1.13 1.00 1.25
Cu. yds. sand      "          "      0.41 0.36 0.33 0.40 0.35 0.53
Cu. yds. stone      "          "      0.82 0.90 1.00 0.80 0.84 0.71
Proportions by Volume. 1:3:5 1:3:6 1:3:7 1:4:7 1:4:8 1:4:9
Bbls. cement per cu. yd. concr't 1.13 1.05 0.96 0.82 0.77 0.73
Cu. yds. sand      "          "      0.48 0.44 0.40 0.46 0.43 0.41
Cu. yds. stone      "           "      0.80 0.88 0.93 0.80 0.86 0.92

Note.—This table is to be used where cement is measured packed in the barrel, for the ordinary barrel holds 3.8 cu. ft.

It should be evident from the foregoing discussions that no table can be made, and no rule can be formulated that will yield accurate results unless the brand of cement is tested and the percentage of voids in the sand determined. This being so the sensible plan is to use the tables merely as a rough guide, and, where the quantity of cement to be used is very large, to make a few batches of mortar using the available brands of cement and sand in the proportions specified. Ten dollars spent in this way may save a thousand, even on a comparatively small job, by showing what cement and sand to select.

It will be seen that Tables XII and XIII can be condensed into the following rule:

Add together the number of parts and divide this sum into ten, the quotient will be approximately the number of barrels of cement per cubic yard.

Table XIII.—Ingredients in 1 Cubic Yard of Concrete.

(Sand voids, 40%; stone voids, 45%; Portland cement barrel yielding 3.65 cu. ft. of paste. Barrel specified to be 4.4 cu. ft.)
Proportions by Volume.1:2:41:2:51:2:61:2½:51:2½:61:3:4
Bbls. cement per cu. yd. concr't 1.30 1.16 1.00 1.07 0.96 1.08
Cu. yds. sand      "          "      0.42 0.38 0.33 0.44 0.40 0.53
Cu. yds. stone      "          "      0.84 0.95 1.00 0.88 0.95 0.71
Proportions by Volume.1:3:51:3:61:3:71:4:71:4:81:4:9
Bbls. cement per cu. yd. concr't 0.96 0.90 0.82 0.75 0.68 0.64
Cu. yds. sand      "          "      0.47 0.44 0.40 0.49 0.44 0.42
Cu. yds. stone      "          "      0.78 0.88 0.93 0.86 0.88 0.95

Note.—This table is to be used when the cement is measured loose, after dumping it into a box, for under such conditions a barrel of cement yields 4.4 cu. ft. of loose cement.

Thus for a 1:2:5 concrete, the sum of the parts is 1 + 2 + 5, which is 8; then 10 ÷ 8 is 1.25 bbls., which is approximately equal to the 1.30 bbls. given in the table. Neither is this rule nor are the tables applicable if a different size of cement barrel is specified, or if the voids in the sand or stone differ materially from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent. respectively. There are such innumerable combinations of varying voids, and varying sizes of barrel, that the authors do not deem it worth while to give other tables. The following amounts of cement per cubic yard of mortar were determined by test: