Case Study: PV Plant

Concrete Cabins
Presented by:

Justin Kretzmar
Rocla (ISG)
ISG – Infrastructure Specialist Group
Justin Kretzmar BSc Eng (Civil)

• Started at Rocla in 2010

• New product development, marketing and sales

Jason Roberts BTech (Civil)

• Started at Rocla in 2012
• Research, development and implementation of
SCC at Rocla
Self-compacting Concrete (SCC)
What is SCC?
SCC refers to a Self-compacting concrete, that:

• fill air voids,

• without segregation
• and excessive bleeding, *

• without vibration.
Self-compacting Concrete (SCC)
Goals recognised for moving towards SCC

• Time and Cost Savings

• Zero Vibration (Energy Saving)
• Less-Engineered Moulds
• More Complex Product Designs
• Improved Safety and Work Environment
• Labour Efficiencies*
• Improved Concrete Quality
SCC Required for New Products
REBLOC
Alfabloc
Wingwalls
• New
Portable
Improves
roadSecurity
Inlet
barrier
and
system
and
outlet
retaining
licensed
hydraulics
wall
from
blocks
to a
Austria
pipeline

Mini Alfabloc
2.1m in Height

584 liters of Concrete Required

Cast Time: 132 seconds

400
200
Initial Challenges and Problems
Initial Challenges Recognised

• Old traditional pan mixers installed

• SCC traditionally sensitive and
repeatability is difficult
• Ideal SCC is designed around a
holistic approach

• Assisted by CCE lab using M&R ARC

technology

• Transport complications*
• Discharge complications
Initial Challenges and Problems
Initial Problems Encountered
• Insufficient Mixing Energy
• Poor Repeatability with various Chemical Suppliers
• Average Quality and Strengths

Where to from here?

Preliminary Successes
Roodepoort
Preliminary Successes
Virginia
Preliminary Successes
Reasons for Success

• Understanding how SCC works

• Trying different mould release oils
• Minimising vibration during transport
• Maintaining a constant cast rate
• Ensuring that the moulds were properly clean*
• Educating the labour about this new concept
Initial Failures
Polokwane

• Repeatability was an issue

• Old pan mixers have a tendency to leak, causing paste loss
• Aggregates not ideal for SCC
• Method of transportation*
• Method of discharge
Concrete Cabins Solar Project

• 128 Cabins
Cabins
MW on in Total
(130,000
Site houses)
Concrete Cabins Solar Project

• Switchgear
Transformer
Inverters
Concrete Cabins Solar Project
Cabin Size
• 8.7m x 2.6m x 3.1m

Volume and Mass (individual)

• Shell: 18 Tons

Volume and Mass (complete)

• Complete Cabin: 28 Tons

Mass Delivered
• Electronics included: 38 Tons
Concrete Requirements
Strength Requirements
• 40MPa at 7days
• Minimum of 18MPa at 16 hours

Quality Requirements
• Provide concrete testing certification
• Architectural finish

Production Schedule Requirements

• One complete cabin per day

Challenges
• Highly reinforced thin walled sections
• Wall thickness ranged from 40 – 100mm
Updated SCC Requirements
• Pumped SCC

• High early strengths at

18MPa for stripping

• Entirely eliminate
honeycombing and
requirement for
patching/painting

• Glass-like finish
First Cabin Cast
Problems Encountered

• Pump blockages
• Pinholes and Blowholes
• Pullouts
• Bleeding and Segregation
• Low Early Strengths
Back to the Drawing Board
• Design a more robust SCC

• Changed the aggregate proportions

• Increased the cementitious content
• Reduced the additive content

• Manage the pumping rate to avoid segregation of

the mix
• Reduce stripping time
• Overall quality improvements were required
The Outcome
• Minor pump blockages
• Pipeline maintenance and layout is critical

• Still low early strengths

• Pinholes and Blowholes

• Pullouts
Mix Design III
• Introduced a hardening accelerator from Mapei at
1.5% of the cementitious content

The Outcome
• Consistency of the SCC seemed to have changed
• Stripping strengths at 16hours were achieved
• Product quality reduced
• Pinholes and Blowholes still visible
• Pullouts still occurred
Mix Design IV
• Reduced the accelerator to 1% in hope to
improve product quality

The Outcome
• The workability seemed to have improved
• Stripping strengths reduced, causing delays
• Pinholes and Blowholes still visible
• Pullouts still occurred
• Introduced steam curing
Mix Design V
• Called in CCE Laboratory to analyse the SCC
design and to comment on site procedures

The Outcome
• Increased the filler sand and reduced the stone
• Cast from two positions only
• Near perfect product achieved
• Pullouts still occurred
• Areas of minor honeycombing occurred
Final Changes Introduced
• Experimented with 4 different
mould oils and 3 methods of
application

• Mould modifications and

maintenance to reduce pullouts

• Adjusted spacers and

placement to eliminate
honeycoming

• More stringent moisture checks

with mixer operator
The Outcome