EFFECT OF COMBINED SILICA AND CRUSHED LIMESTONE ON

CONCRETE HOLLOW BLOCK AS PARTIAL REPLACEMENT

ON FINE AGGREGATES

A Thesis Proposal
Presented to the Department of Civil Engineering
Cebu Institute of Technology – University
Cebu City, Philippines

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

By

Kenneth Roy C. Guadalquiver

Kresshia Monica F. Lawas
Errol Kcin Lucob
John Paul D. Lumen
Isabela Andrea L. Onque
Joey B. Sta. Cruz Jr.

JUNE 2022
 ii

APPROVAL SHEET

This thesis proposal entitled, “EFFECT OF COMBINED SILICA AND

CRUSHED LIMESTONE ON CONCRETE HOLLOW BLOCK AS PARTIAL
REPLACEMENT ON FINE AGGREGATES”, prepared and submitted by
Kenneth Roy C. Guadalquiver, Kresshia Monica F. Lawas, Errol Kcin Lucob,
John Paul D. Lumen, Isabela Andrea L. Onque, Joey B. Sta. Cruz Jr. in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering is hereby recommended for approval.

Engr. Richard C. Mendoza

Adviser
Date: _____________

Engr. Ma. Carmen Polancos Engr. Charlene Ebora

Panelist Panelist
Date: _____________________ Date: __________________

This thesis proposal is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.

Engr. Effe B. Laspiñas Engr. Suzette B. Pacaña

Thesis Coordinator Char, Civil Engineering Department
Date: __________________ Date: __________________

Dr. Evangeline C. Evangelista

Dean, College of Engineering and Architecture
Date: __________________
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Completing this research paper was indeed tough due to the pandemic.
However, it was a proud moment for our research that we had progressed this far.
It required much more time and effort to finish this research paper, given our
present state of health in the world. This study would not have been possible
without specific individuals' endless support and guidance. The researchers would
like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to all those who have been helping us achieve
our goal and who helped us put this research paper into reality and their unfading
contributions and encouragements. The people mentioned below are the people
who imparted their knowledge and skills to us as we complete this endeavor.

First and foremost, to our family and friends for the never-ending love,
encouragement, and comforting presence as we complete our paper.

Engr. Effe B. Laspiñas, our thesis coordinator, for her endless support
and guidance throughout the whole process of this academic journey. The
researchers genuinely appreciate the time and effort she has shared with us
despite her busy schedule. Her unwavering understanding and constant
encouragement paved the way for us to complete this paper, and we are
immensely thankful for that.

Engr. Richard C. Mendoza, our research adviser, always gives us the

direction and assistance we need. His knowledge and expertise in this field-
assisted us in better grasping different aspects of our study and made this all
possible. Thankful for the continuous support and advice he has shared throughout
this journey.

Mr. Rexjhan A. Capuyan, out statistician, for enlightening us about the

significance of our research journey and imparting his knowledge and skills in
understanding the data interpretation and wisdom helped us push through and find
strength in completing this paper despite the difficulties we have encountered
along the way.
 iv

Engr. Ma. Carmen L. Polancos and Engr. Charlene C. Ebora,

panelists, for guiding us in our direction in providing sincere and objective feedback
and comments about our study.

Above all, to the Almighty Father, who has been always there with us
since the beginning of this endeavor. We are forever indebted to His gift of wisdom,
strength, and peace throughout this whole journey. He made all things possible in
His time and grace.

The Researchers
 ABSTRACT

Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB) is the commonly used material in building in

its interior and exterior partition in the walls and other purposes it may use. The
study was conducted to determine the effect of combined silica and crushed
limestone as partial replacement of fine aggregates on CHB. The study aims to
determine the sieve analysis and moisture content of aggregates, and the water
absorption and compressive strength of CHB admixtures.
The composition of different mixtures are CHB 6” Mixture 1 (1 part of
cement, 5 parts of conventional aggregate, 1 part of silica sand, 1 part of crushed
limestone, and ½ part of water, CHB 6” Mixture 2 (1 part of cement, 3 parts of
conventional aggregate, 2 parts of silica sand, 2 parts crushed limestone, and ½
part of water), and CHB 6” Mixture 3 (1 part of cement, 1 part of conventional
aggregate, 3 parts of silica sand, 3 parts of crushed limestone, and ½ part of
water). Considering the curing of 7 and 14 days, only 4 samples out of 6 samples
of the sample mixtures have undergone a compressive test and the rest have
undergone water absorption tests that are credible on ASTM C140. The CHB was
subjected to compression stress using the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) which
determined the value of load application and respective displacement of the
sample. The aggregates were tested in E.B. Testing Center Inc. located at
Ramona Briones Comp. Unit#304 A&B, Sikatuna St.,Cebu City and CHB were
tested in Mega Testing Center Inc. located at 219 Dionisio Jakosalem St, Cebu
City, 6000 Cebu. The moisture content of the limestone acquires the highest
percentage which is 9.59% due to its quite low porosity. On the water absorption
test results, only the CHB 6” Mixture 2 acquires the highest percentage of water
absorption for both 7 and 14 days of curing that has 9.65% and 8.87%,
respectively.
The compressive strength of CHB 6” Mixture 1 has a significant difference
of mean from the CHB 6” Controlled Mixture. As the data result shows, CHB 6”
Mixture 1 acquires the optimum compressive strength. The study concluded that
CHB 6” Mixture 1 is the best mixture among the design mixtures and can be used
as an alternative mixture for CHB.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale 1
1.2 Conceptual Framework 3
1.3 Problem Statement 4
1.4 Hypothesis of the Study 4
1.4 Significance of the Study 4
1.5 Scope and Limitations 5
1.6 Definition of Terms 6
CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 8
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design 37
3.2 Research Environment 38
3.3 Research Intrument/Equipment 39
3.3.1 Cement 40
3.3.2 Fine Aggregates 41
3.3.3 Water 42
3.4 Research Procedure 42
3.5 Data Analysis 42
CHAPTER 4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, 43
AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Findings 52
5.2 Conclusion 53
5.3 Recommendations 54
BIBILIOGRAPHY 55
APENDIX A TIMETABLE OF ACTIVIES 58
APENDIX B TIMETABLE OF EXPERIMENTATION 59
APPENDIX C RESEARCH BUDGET 60
APPENDIX D DETAILED RESEARCH PROCEDURES 61
APPENDIX E TEST REPORT ON AGGREGATES SAMPLE 69
APPENDIX F ABSORPTION TEST REPORT 72
APPENDIX G COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST REPORT 74
APPENDIX H COMPUTATION (t-Test) 76
APPENDIX I COMPUTATION (ANOVA) 80
APPENDIX J DOCUMENTATION 83
APPENDIX K CURRICULUM VITAE 91
 viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Groupings of Batches Using DMRT with Compressive 9

Strength as Response Variable

2 CHB Production Using Various Percentages of 10

Post-Treated Coconut Fiber
3 Data of Difference Between and Within Groups 11

4 Pre-Hoc T-Test of CHBs at 1.2 and 3% Coconut 12

Coir Fiber at 6 cm Length
5 Sieves Commonly Used for Sieve Analysis of 13
Concrete Aggregates

6 Ranges in Physical Properties for Normal-Weight 14

Aggregates Used in Concrete

7 Physical Properties of Coarse Aggregates 15

8 Physical Properties of Fine Aggregates 16

9 Physical and Chemical Properties of Silica Sand 17

10 Compressive Strength of Silica Sand 19

11 Lightweight Brick Composition for 1m3 20

12 Physical and Chemical Properties of Limestone 22

13 Physical and Mechanical Properties of 23

Crushed Limestone Aggregates

14 Mix Design Proportions (kg/m3 ) for the 26

Six Concrete Mixes
 ix

15 Compressive Strength Test Results 29

on Lightweight Concrete

16 Lightweight Concrete Blended with Leca (kg/m2 ) 33

17 Lightweight Concrete Blended with 33

Pumice (kg/m2 )

18 Results of the Compressive Test Blended 34

with Leca

19 Results of the Compressive Test Blended 35

with Pumice

20 Results of Compressive Strength Test of 46

Different Sample Mixtures (7 and 14 days cured)

21 T-test Analysis Results Between the 48

Compressive Strength of CHB 6” Mixture 1
and Control Mixture (7 and 14 days cured)
22 T-test Analysis Results Between the 48
Compressive Strength of CHB 6” Mixture 2
and Control Mixture (7 and 14 days cured)
23 T-test Analysis Results Between the 49
Compressive Strength of CHB 6” Mixture 3
and Control Mixture (7 and 14 days cured)
24 ANOVA Results Between CHB 6” Mixture 1 50
and Control Mixture

25 ANOVA Results Between CHB 6” Mixture 2 50

and Control Mixture

26 ANOVA Results Between CHB 6” Mixture 3 51

and Control Mixture
 x

27 Ranking of CHB Mixtures in Relation to its 52

Compressive Strengths in Different Curing
Period (7 and 14 days cured)
 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Conceptual Framework of the Study 3

2 Particle Size Distribution for Coarse Aggregates 14

3 Particle Size Distribution for Fine Aggregates 15

4 Free Compressive Strength Comparison Graph 21

5 Particle Size Distribution Curve of Aggregates 25

6 Compressive Strength Results for CM, EM, and 27

MM Concretes for Grade C30

7 Compressive Strength Results for CM, EM, and 27

MM Concrete for Grade C40

8 Limestone Effects on Compression 29

9 Compression Strength Development Curve 30

10 Concrete Hollow Block 6” 37

11 Production Making of the Study: Jee-Em 38

Enterprises located at Pooc, Talisay City,
Cebu

12 Testing Center: 38
E.B. Testing Center Inc., Ramona
Briones Comp. Unit #304 A&B,
Sikatuna St, Cebu City, 6000
13 Testing Center: 39
Megatesting Center Inc., 219 Dionisio
Jakosalem St, Cebu City, 6000

14 CGM Block Making Machine 40

 xii

15 Compression Test Machine 40

16 Drying Oven 40

17 Weighing Scale 40

18 Sieve Analysis Apparatus 40

19 Type I Portland Cement 41

20 Silica Sand 41

21 Crushed Limestone 41

22 Ordinary Sand 41

23 Crushed Stones (4.75 mm to 1.5 mm) 41

24 Particle Size Distribution Curve of the Aggregates 42

25 Moisture Content on Different Aggregates 43

26 Average Water Absorption of 44

CHB admixtures (7 and 14 days cured)
27 Average Weight Absorption of 45
CHB admixtures (14 and 14 days cured)

28 Data Gathering Procedure 61

 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale
Concrete hollow block (CHB) is commonly used in construction industry due
to its lightweight, easy to install and relatively low cost when compared to other
types of walling. It is used to install different types of walls, such as non-load-
bearing walls, load-bearing walls, retaining walls, etc. The production of CHB is
energy-intensive and consumes a great number of natural resources. CHB plays
a major role in structural and construction management because of its durability,
flexibility, structural integrity, and abundance. In the Philippines, various CHB are
used as load bearing walls or external walls. As time goes by, they may experience
complications throughout its structural design that will lead to a poor compressive
strength. Therefore, unconditioned CHB affect the capability in its compressive
strength and the major ground of failure is cracking.
Another type of failure that occurs on CHB is face shell separation, leaking,
and degradation that mostly happened on load bearing walls. Failures of CHB
develops in many ways, but there are characteristics to be considered since the
structural integrity depends on its strength and components. Load bearing block
walls are common in structural design since it signifies the importance of
compressive strength. Various CHB undergo compressive strength test for
compressive load analysis and analyzing the capability on its structural design.
Compressive failures of CHB will occur when the compressive load exceed its
maximum compressive strength. Structural loads such as dead and live loads are
the common loads that usually appeared in load bearing walls. It is necessary to
understand the causes of stress to carry out a design which will accommodate the
anticipated movements.
Metro Cebu is one of the Philippines largest cities and known as a fast-
growing economy. For that reason, infrastructure developments were raised for
economic growth. Hence, the demand of aggregates is rapidly increasing and the
risk in a supply constraint will constantly arise.
 2

Moreover, CHB that are exposed in water has a big impact on its
compressive strength. Too much exposure from water will create greater moisture
within the voids. The resulting inadequate compaction reduces its compressive
strength.
CHB design mixtures is becoming increasingly popular across a wide
spectrum of the construction industry. One of the reasons is to improve its
structural design since various CHB experienced complications over their lifetime.
Silica sand is one of the most widely used kind of sand in the planet. In
Cebu, silica sand quarry can be found in San Fernando about 21 kilometers from
the TCIP’s Cement Plan. It can absorb moisture created by the many small pores
present in it, creating an extremely large surface area. It can absorb up to 40% of
its own weight in moisture without swelling. It is a high compression strength,
durability, and elasticity. Silica can prolong the natural form of CHB due to its
resistance to weather, wear, and corrosion.
Limestone in the construction industry has increased due to its advantages
as an aggregate. Some of these advantages include good compressive strength,
low likelihood of reaction with alkaline silica, reduced drying shrinkage in concrete,
and body. In the Philippines, limestones can be found in various locations such as
Cebu, Bohol, and Guimaras Island. It is one of the most durable options of all
building materials. Fewer pores make the stone more difficult to break, allowing it
to withstand abrasion, freezing and thawing. It is also weather resistant, which
makes it stronger when combined with quartz sand, making it a perfect choice for
exterior walls.
Concrete based on combined silica and crushed limestone aggregates with
relevant proportions will contribute to the improvement of its mechanical
characteristic that leads to a stronger structural design. In this contribution, the
study focused on the compressive strength of combined silica and crushed
limestone on CHB as a partial replacement on fine aggregates. The advancement
of the built-up workmanship structure for CHB as a load bearing wall with a decent
seismic presentation and straightforward development is vital.
 3

1.2 Conceptual Framework

INPUT

➢ Gather related studies

➢ Deliberate sample’s proportion of mixture 1, mixture 2, and mixture 3
➢ Acquire aggregates and materials to be used

PROCESS

➢ Test the aggregates using moisture content determination and particle

size distribution analysis
➢ Make the samples (CHB 6”)
➢ Test the samples using water absorption and compressive strength
test

OUTPUT

➢ Effect of combined silica sand and crushed limestone on the

compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks as partial replacement
on fine aggregates

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

 4

1.3 Problem Statement

This research aimed to determine the effect of combined silica sand and
crushed limestone on CHB as partial replacement on fine aggregates. Specifically,
this answers the following sub-questions:
1. What are the particle size distribution curve and moisture content of silica,
crushed limestone, and conventional aggregate (combined ordinary sand
and crushed stones)?
2. What are the water absorption and weight of CHB on each sample mixture?
3. What are the compressive strengths of CHB 6” Control Mixture, CHB 6”
Mixture 1, CHB 6” Mixture 2, and CHB 6” Mixture 3 when cured for 7 and
14 days?
4. Is there a significant difference between the mean of the compressive
strength of CHB 6” design mixtures to its control mixture considering the
curing of 7 and 14 days?
5. Which among the different mixtures acquires the optimum compressive
strength on CHB?

1.4 Hypothesis of the Study

The study aimed to test the following null hypothesis:
1. There is no significant difference in compressive strength between the
mean of the control mixture and CHB with combined silica sand and
crushed limestone as partial replacement on fine aggregates from the
1:7 mixture.
2. Combination of silica sand and crushed limestone will pass as a partial
replacement to the fine aggregates in producing concrete hollow blocks.

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study was carried out with the knowledge that there are tons of CHB in
the locality that needs improvement. Hence, the outcome of this study would be
beneficial to the following:
 5

Construction Industry. The fact that the Philippines is one of the world's
mineral resource-rich countries. This would be a best option particularly in the
province of Cebu, where the silica sand quarry is in San Fernando and limestone
is in San Remigio. Manufacturers of CHB can assess whichever mixture will be
used in the production and demonstrate efficient CHB on the individuals.
Researchers. The result of this study will gain knowledge to the
researchers and may further improve the study in the future professions.
Future Researchers. This can give additional knowledge on the design
mixture of CHB. They can enhance analysis and conduct further experimental
study to verify reliability.
Civil Engineers. This will enhance their knowledge on the structural design
of CHB. Whenever they have construction projects, they can quickly grasp the
materials they must employ to increase comfort and high durability.
Government. This will control the risk on the supply constraint of
aggregates. This will inform them on the significant use of combined silica and
limestone in the production of CHB.

1.6 Scope and Limitation

This study focused on the effects of combined silica sand and crushed
limestone on the compressive strength of CHB as a partial replacement on fine
aggregates. The data collection was done through an experimental process. The
combined silica sand and crushed limestone was used to produce three different
mixtures with 6 samples each which separated into 2 groups, 2 samples for water
absorption test and 4 samples for compressive strength test. The CHB mixture
design was composed of cement, conventional aggregates (combined ordinary
sand and crushed stones), tap water, and combined silica sand and crushed
limestone. Conventional aggregates on CHB were from Jee-Em Enterprises
located at Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu while silica sand and crushed limestone were
from V.B. Cabahug Road, Mandaue City and Danao City, respectively. The
mixtures underwent 7 and 14 days of curing period and a sequence of water
absorption and compressive strength test were conducted at the testing center. In
 6

addition, the unit weight, specific gravity, and water absorption test on aggregates
were not included. At last, the cost and return of investment of CHB were not
provided in the study.

1.7 Definition of Terms

The researchers define the following terminologies:
Admixture - A material that is added in small amounts during the mixing process
to change the properties of a mixture.
Aggregates - Granular material made from crushed rock, gravel, sand, or
metallurgical slag and mixed with cement and water to make concrete or mortar
Cement – a building material that hardens, sets, and adheres to other materials to
hold them together.
Concrete Hollow Block – a concrete block with hollow spaces between its walls
that is used to construct various types of walls for various purposes such as
retaining walls, decorative walls, classic walls, and so on.
Conventional Aggregate - is a broad category of coarse to medium grained
construction particulate material.
Compressive Strength - is the maximum compressive stress that a given solid
material can withstand under a gradually applied load without fracture.
Compressive Strength Test - a mechanical test used to determine the maximum
compressive load that a structure can withstand before fracturing.
Cracking - a complete or partial separation of concrete or masonry into two or
more parts caused by breaking or fracturing.
Crushed Limestone – a small, whitish-colored rock which is used for building and
for making cement.
Curing – providing sufficient moisture, temperature, and time for the concrete to
achieve the desired properties for its intended use.
Degradation – defined as any change to the material or the geometric properties
affecting the structural performance.
Durability - is the resistance of products, materials, buildings, and other built
assets to degradation over time.
 7

Face Shell Separation – separation of a hollow concrete masonry unit's side wall
Fine Aggregates – natural sand or crushed stone, with the majority of particles
passing through a 3/8-inch sieve.
Leaking – caused by cracked, defective plumbing, rainwater draining down inside
the walls, and a leaky foundation.
Load Bearing Wall – natural sand or crushed stone, with the majority of particles
passing through a 3/8-inch sieve
Moisture Content – the amount of water removed from soil by heating at 105-110
degrees Celsius, expressed as a percentage of the dry mass of soil.
Optimum Compressive Strength – The mixture with the highest compressive
strength among the other mixtures and the best for the study
Particle Size Distribution Curve – a method of determining a granular material's
particle size distribution with macroscopic granular sizes.
Silica Sand - is the primary structural component in a variety of building products.
It is employed to enhance structural design.
Soil Classification – It is a classification system for aggregates that is used to
group soils based on their performance under a given set of physical conditions.
Water Absorption - defined as the amount of water absorbed by a material.
Water Absorption Test - a test to determine a sample's moisture content as a
percentage of its dry weight.
 CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Harmon S. Palmer created the first Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) in 1890.
In 1900, after ten years of experimentation, he patented the hollow block concept.
The size of the CHB was 8-inch x 10-inch x 30-inch and were heavy. In this 21st
century, CHB have their own standard sizes based on National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP) 2015. Based on Archtoolbox, the standard sizes of CHB
are 4”, 6”, 8”, 10”, and 12”. Load bearing walls or external walls are extremely
popular due to its structural performance and CHB 6” is one of the sizes for external
walls. According to Global Shelter Cluster, load bearing concrete masonry units is
based on ASTM C90. CHB are mainly classified into many types such as the
concrete stretcher block, corner block, pillar block, jamb block, partition block, lintel
block, frogged brick block bullnose block, etc. The most common CHB that being
used in construction industry is stretcher block since it is applicable mostly on all
structural design. They are made from cement mixture, sand, and stone chips.
Sound management, the least dead load, fire resistance, enough strength,
excellent thermal insulation, economy growth, extremely durable, environmentally
eco-friendly, reduced mortar consumption, faster and easier building technique,
and better architectural characteristics are all advantages.
One of the most important properties in structural design is the compressive
strength of CHB. A variety of factors influence the strength of CHB, including its
unit weight, mortar strength, grouting, grout strength, block geometry, bedding
mortar, and the type of bonding and bedding arrangements used. (Varshney,
2016). Curing is one of the most influential methods in CHB production since it has
a great influence on strength, development, and durability. As to DPWH Standard
Specification for ITEM 1046 – Masonry Works, CHB shall be covered with a plastic
sheet or tarpaulin and kept damp and shaded at least 7 days to effectively cure.
Based on ASTM Specifications for Concrete Masonry Units, the maximum water
absorption is 15 lb/ft3 (240 kg/m3). In accordance with ASTM C 140, Standard
Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units
 9

and ASTM C 426, Standard Test Method for Linear Drying Shrinkage of
Concrete Masonry Units that there must be sampling and testing for CHB before it
will be demonstrated. According to DPWH Order No. 230 series of 2016 following
the ASTM C 90 that the compressive strength on the estimated net area per unit
of Concrete Hollow blocks have a mean compressive strength of 500 and 600 psi
in 3 units for non-load bearing blocks. According to the National Structural Code
of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015, the average minimum compressive strength of a
load-bearing hollow block concrete is 10.3 MPa (1,493 psi).
In a related study in 2017 by Lasco, Madlangbayan, and Sundo entitled
“Compressive Strength and Bulk Density of Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB) with
Polypropylene (PP) Pellets as Partial Replacement for Sand,” it stated that there
were 5 specimens per batch with 5 mix proportions respectively which were 0%,
10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. To determine whether at least one batch differed from
the control mixture, the One-Way ANOVA technique was used, as well as Mean
Comparison using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) to determine which pairs
of data were different.

Table 1. Groupings of Batches Using DMRT with Compressive Strength as Response Variable
Batch Replacement (%) Mean (MPa) DMRT
A 0 2.26 B
B 10 3.58 A
C 20 1.73 BC
D 30 1.52 BC
E 40 1.05 C

As seen in Table 1, batch B was the best blend, according to the tabulated
results, because it has the maximum compressive strength. When compared to
the control specimen, it possesses a substantially higher compressive strength
(58.4 percent higher). As the percentage of sand replaced by PP pellets increases,
the compressive strength of CHB decreases. According to the researchers, the
 10

percent replacement of PP pellets was inversely proportional to the compressive

strength of CHB.
Based on a previous study in 2019 by Baguhin and Cabahug entitled
“Investigation on Load-Bearing Concrete Hollow Block Reinforced with Coconut
Coir Fiber,” there were ten mixtures on pre-treated coconut fiber, including a
control mixture with three samples, it was stated. The pre-treated coconut fiber
was investigated in the production of concrete hollow blocks at 0 percent (control
mix), 1, 2, and 3 percent additions, by weight of cement, at a specified design
mixture of cement, sand, aggregate (choker), water-cement ratio, and pre-treated
coconut coir fiber lengths of 1:1.5:3:0.51 and 3, 4.5, and 6 cm, respectively, at a
specified design mixture of cement, sand, aggregate (choker), water-cement are
listed.

Table 2. CHB Production Using Various Percentages of Post-Treated Coconut Fiber

Description Test Samples
0 percent Post (Control Mix) 3.0
1 percent Post 3 centimeters 3.0
2 percent Post, 3 centimeters 3.0
3 percent Post, 3 centimeters 3.0
1 percent Post, 4.5 centimeters 3.0
2 percent Post, 4.5 centimeters 3.0
3 percent Post, 4.5 centimeters 3.0
1 percent Post, 6 centimeters 3.0
2 percent Post, 6 centimeters 3.0
3 percent Post, 6 centimeters 3.0
Total 30.0

The results of compressive strength tests were plotted on a graph for a 28-
day curing test. A single factor ANOVA or one-way ANOVA was used to determine
whether the average compressive strength values differed statistically from one
another. The mean compressive strengths of CHB samples with 1, 2, and 3
 11

percent coconut coir fiber modifications for lengths of 3, 4.5, and 6 cm are shown
in Table 2. As shown in the table, two percent coconut coir fiber 4.5 cm long and
one percent coconut coir fiber 6 cm long outperformed the mix proportion's 1493
psi compressive strength by 15.2 and 8.3 percent, respectively.

Table 3. Data of Difference Between and Within groups

Description SS df MS F P-value Fcrit
3.0 - centimeter

In Between 458,953 2 229,476 2.33 0.178 5.143

Groups

Within Groups 590,925 6 98,488

4.5-centimeter Length

Between 752,449 2 376,224 3.26 0.110 5.143

Groups
Within Groups 692,507 6 115,418

6-centimeter Length

Between 621,668 2 310,834 10.02 0.012 5.143

Groups
Within Groups 186,085 6 31,014

The exact F-values of 2.33 and 2.36 for 3 and 4 cm coconut coir fiber
lengths, respectively, are far less than the essential F-value of 5.143, as shown in
the tabulated results. However, P-values of 0.178 for 3 cm and 0.110 for 4 cm
coconut fiber lengths are greater than 0.05. The null hypothesis Ho is not rejected
because there is no significant variation between sample means. As a result, there
is no post-hoc t-test. Furthermore, the F-value of the 6cm long coconut coir fiber is
10.02, which is greater than the critical F-value of 5.143, and the P-value is 0.012,
 12

which is less than 0.05. As a result, the method's application may differ
significantly. As a result, the method's application may vary greatly.

Table 4. Pre-hoc T-Test of CHBS at 1.2 and 3% Coconut Coir Fiber at 6 cm Length
Description 1% vs. 2% 1% vs. 3% 2% vs. 3%
Mn 1,617 1,116.67 1,617 1,016 1,116.67 1,016
Variance 21,451 51,914.3 21,451 19,677 51,914.33 19,677
Obs. 3 3 3 3 3 3
Pooled Var 36,682.67 20,564 35,795.67
Hypo. Mn 0 0 0
Diff.
df 4 4 4
Stat 3.199445 5.132941 0.651653
One-Tail 0.016459 0.003412 0.275086
t Critical 2.131847 2.131847 2.131847
Two-Tail 0.032918 0.006825 0.550171
t Critical 2.776445 2.776445 2.776445
Pooled Var. 36,682.67 20,564 35,795.67

As a result, seen in Table 4, the null hypothesis Ho is rejected, and the

results of a post hoc t-Test on CHB are shown in the table below. The Pre-hoc t-
Test was used to compare CHB samples with 1, 2, and 3 percent coconut coir fiber
at 6 cm length and to determine the significance of sample averages in the
previous table. Only 2% vs 3% of the test samples have no significant variation
between sample means. The researchers reported that addition 1% of 6 cm length
coconut coir fiber, CHB enhanced compressive strength than that of the control
mixture of CHB. The test achieved its maximum compressive strength since it
surpassed the 1,493 psi or 10.3 MPa limit set by the National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP). Therefore, as an outcome, Type N Mortar is highly
suggested for overall above-grade applications including such reinforced interior
and exterior load-bearing walls that experience typical loading.
 13

Conventional aggregate or concrete aggregate is used in concrete mixtures

to provide strength, thermal and elastic properties of concrete, dimensional
stability, and volume stability (Bisby and Terrasi, 2017). The resulting concrete can
be used in its natural state or crushed, according to its use and application. It is
also included in the composition of CHB, and it is highly demand on its production.
Aggregates can be categorized as natural or artificial, depending on their source
and technique of preparation, according to the American Concrete Institute. ASTM
C 33 is a widely accepted standard for fine and coarse aggregate in concrete.

Table 5. Sieves Commonly Used for Sieve Analysis of Concrete Aggregates

Standard Sieve Designation (ASTM E 11) Nominal Sieve Opening
Coarse Sieves
Standard Alternate
75 millimeters 3 inches 75 millimeters 3 inches
63 millimeters 2-1/2 inches 63 millimeters 2.5 inches
50 millimeters 2 inches 50 millimeters 2 inches
37.5 millimeters 1-1/2 inches 37.5 millimeters 1.5 inches
25 millimeters 1 inch 25 millimeters 1 inch
19 millimeters 3/4 inch 19 millimeters 0.75 inch
12.5 millimeters 1/2 inch 12.5 millimeters 0.5 inch
9.5 millimeters 3/8 inch 9.5 millimeters 0.375 inch
Fine Sieves
4.75 millimeters No. 4 sieve 4.75 millimeters 0.1870 inch
2.36 millimeters No. 8 sieve 2.36 millimeters 0.0937 inch
1.18 millimeters No. 16 sieve 1.18 millimeters 0.0469 inch
0.6 millimeters No. 30 sieve 0.6 millimeters 0.0234 inch
0.3 millimeters No. 50 sieve 0.3 millimeters 0.0117 inch
0.15 millimeters No. 100 sieve 0.15 millimeters 0.0059 inch
Finest Sieve Normally used for Aggregates
0.075 millimeters No. 200 sieve 0.075 millimeters 0.0029 inch
 14

Table 6. Ranges in Physical Properties for Normal-Weight Aggregates Used in Concrete

Property Typical Ranges
Fineness modulus of fine aggregate 2 to 3.3
9.5 to 37.5 millimeters
Nominal maximum size of coarse aggregate
(3/8 to 1-1/2 inches)
Absorption 0.5 to 4 percent
Specific gravity in bulk (relative density) 2.3 to 2.9
1280 to 1920 kg/m3 (80
Bulk density of coarse aggregate when dry-rodded
to 120 lb./ft3)
Coarse Aggregate 0 to 2 percent
Surface moisture content
Fine Aggregate 0 to 10 percent

In a related study in 2019 by Kabubo, Oni, and Mwero entitled

“Experimental Investigation of the Physical and Mechanical Properties of Cassava
Starch Modified Concrete,” to determine the suitability of coarse and fine
aggregates for use in concrete, the particle size distribution of coarse and fine
aggregates was measured in accordance with BS EN 933-1:2012. Other physical
parameters were calculated using the standard code of practice shown in the table
below, and the results were checked for compliance with the BS EN 197-1:2011
standards.

Figure 2. Particle Size Distribution for Coarse Aggregate

 15

Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution for Fine Aggregates

The coarse and fine aggregate particle size distributions are depicted
above. According to the particle size distribution for CA shown above, 91.29
percent of CA was detected between 5 mm and. The aperture is 25 mm wide.
According to BS 882:1992, the envelope must be between the upper and lower
boundaries. A properly graded aggregate ensures workable concrete and lowers
the likelihood of segregation, bleeding, and plastic shrinkage cracking.
On the other hand, the grading of fine aggregates is within the permitted
limitations set out in BS 882:1992A well-graded fine aggregate ensures that the
mixed aggregate within concrete packs tightly. This decreases the likelihood of
concrete flaws such as honeycombs.

Table 7. Physical Properties of Coarse Aggregates.

Properties Values Specifications (ASTM C33 Limit)

Specific Gravity 2.41 2.4-2.9
Unit Weight (Bulk Density) 1473.86 1200–1750 kg/m^3
Water Absorption 3.11% <4%
Voids in Aggregate 35.62% 30-45%
Moisture Content 3.69% 0-4%
 16

Table 8. Physical Properties of Fine Aggregates.

Property Value Specification (ASTM C33 Limit)
Specific Gravity 2.41 2.4-2.9
Unit Weight (Bulk Density) 1513.2 1200–1750 kg/m^3
Water Absorption 2.81% <4%
Voids in Aggregate 36.25% 30-45%
Silt Content 4.87% <5%
Moisture Content 3.62% 0-4%
Fineness Modulus 2.4 -

They are important material factors in the design and proportioning of high-
quality concrete mixes, as shown in the table of coarse aggregate physical
properties. They are within acceptable limits, indicating that it is suitable for use in
normal-weight concrete.
Fine aggregate material qualities were recorded and confirmed on the other
table to ensure their suitability for use in normal-weight concrete. The discovered
silt percentage was 4.87 percent, which was less than the specified 5 percent.
While no single aggregate feature is responsible for concrete's mechanical
behavior, aggregate voids, moisture content, and absorption all influence the
binding strength between the aggregate and the cement paste.
Silica or silicon Silica or silicon dioxide (SiO2) is a synthetic compound
comprising of one silicon and two oxygen particles. Quartz is a typical mineral with
a similar compound structure, yet quartz and silica are not equivalents. Quartz is
made of silica yet so are likewise cristobalite, tridymite and barely any different
minerals (polymorphs of silica). They are all things considered alluded to as silica
minerals. Quartz is the most widely acknowledge sand-framing mineral.
Nonetheless, it isn't the most widely recognized mineral in the outside layer. That
honor goes to feldspars. On the off chance that the specific sand store contains
barely anything yet quartz, we regularly call it a silica sand (Egger, 2006). The
enduring system has already separated other stone framing minerals, leaving only
the super-safe quartz as a buildup in such sand stones. Silica sand is a mineral
 17

asset. It is dug for the most part for glass-production. One more significant
utilization of sand is a substantial conception, yet that needn't bother with sand to
be as unadulterated.
Based in a previous study in 1988 by Flower and Hurd entitled “In situ
growth and structure of fractal silica aggregates in a flame,” the particles'
development and aggregation were studied as a function of flame height. Although
the data are too limited to calculate D with precision, the scattered intensity looked
to be compatible with a fractal aggregate structure with a 1.49 fractal dimension
(lower than the ex-situ observations of fumed silica reported.). The growth trend
appeared to deviate from free-molecular behavior during long residence times
based on the dynamic light scattering measurements, which were compensated
for polydispersity.

Table 9. Physical Properties of Silica Sand

Physical Properties of Silica Sand
Sp.gr. 2.65
Color Brown to grey
Bulk Density 1.56 g/cm3
(1.6 max.)
Hard-ness 6 (7 max.)
Chemical Composition of Silica Sand (%)
(SiO2) + Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) + Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 99.53

(CaO) 0.11
S (SO3) 0.17
(KO) 0.04
(CI) 0.02
(MgO) 0.07
Loss of Ignit. 1
(Na2O) 0.10
 18

It is indicated in Table 9, the properties of silica incorporate both physical

and compound properties like hardness, shading, softening, and the verge of
boiling over. Silica is a strong solidified mineral under ordinary states of
temperature and strain and is somewhat hard. Unadulterated silica is dry; however,
it could be hued assuming impurities are available in an example of quartz. Silica
has extremely high softening and limits as 3,110 °F, and 4,046 °F. To make glass,
it takes a major hot heater to dissolve silica. Silica is being used in construction
industry as a material which is mainly called as silica sand or silica fume. Silica
sand is the main structural component in several construction products. In the
construction sector, whole grain silica is utilized in a variety of products, including
flooring compounds, specialty cements, mortars, and even asphalt mixtures. In
sealants, caulks, and epoxy-based products, ground silica works as a functional
extender to improve durability and anti-corrosion qualities (PFS Aggregates,
2021).
Modern silica sand is mined from sandstones happening in segments of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Illinois. According to Minnesota Issues
Resources Guides, frigid float and other bedrock layers generally exist on top of
the sandstone in Minnesota. Three sandstone arrangements have potential for
creating great indus‐ preliminary silica sand. The Jordan and Wonewoc sand‐
stones are the most pursued sources followed by the St. Peter sandstone. In the
Philippines, silica sand quarry is found in various regions such as in NCR and
Central Visayas. According to Solid Earth Development Corporation (SEDC)
located in 6000 Cebu S Rd, Antuwanga, Cebu City, Cebu that silica sand quarry
region is situated around 21 kilometers from the TCIP's Cement Plan in San
Fernando. The quarry is arranged at a height of 60m to 270m above ocean the
area guide of the quarry site. Silica sand with particle sizes ranging from 1.18mm
to 600 microns can be utilized to partially substitute fine aggregate in concrete
mixes. The sand can be dried after processing, and some applications require it to
be processed in a ball mill to generate extremely fine materials. Iron oxide gives it
a white, brown, or reddish tint. Silica sand has a myriad of uses in construction
today, as it's highly useful for making quality concrete and mortars.
 19

In related study in 2015 by Chaudrary, Harison, and Srivastava entitled as

the “Use of Silica Sand as Cement Replacement in PPC Concrete,” the sieve
analysis, slump test, and compressive and tensile strength tests were used in the
experimental investigation. To investigate the effect of silica sand as a partial
replacement for cement in concrete, 81 cubes and 54 cylinders were cast in the
laboratory. To cast cubes (150mm x 150mm x 150mm) and a cylinder, a normative
mix (1: 1.667: 3.33) with a water cement ratio of 0.5 was used (radius 75mm x
height 150 mm). The compressive strength of silica sand concrete was measured
after 7, 28, and 56 days of curing.

Table 10. Compressive Strength of Silica Sand

Sample Cube Comp. Stength(N/𝐦𝐦𝟐 ) % Age of
No. Designation 7-Days 28 Days 56 Days Silica
Sand
1.0 A1- 11.9- 24.4- 25.7- 0.0
2.0 A2- 12.4- 25.30- 26.40- 3.0
3.0 A3- 13.1- 25.80- 28.7- 6.0
4.0 A4- 12.70- 24.42- 26.2- 9.0
5.0 A5- 11.10- 23.80- 25.80- 12.0
6.0 A6- 10.20- 22.3- 24.2- 15.0
7.0 A7- 9.33- 20.70- 23.10- 18.0
8.0 A8- 8.70- 20.00- 22.20- 21.0
9.0 A9- 6.90- 19.60- 21.30- 24.0

The addition of silica sand, as shown Table 10, it increases strength up to

a certain replacement level (12 percent), after which it decreases. The workability
of silica sand-based concrete decreases as the replacement amount increases.
Compressive strength increases with replacement level (up to 12%), whereas
maximum compressive strength is achieved in other age categories at 6%
replacement level. The ideal percentage of cement to silica sand replacement is
 20

6%. Concrete costs around 5% less than standard concrete at a 12-percent

replacement level. As a result, the concrete has no chance of increasing the silica
sand replenishment level.
Another related study in 2021 by Jusi, Maizir, and Fadil entitled “Effect of
Adding Silica Fume for Lightweight Concrete Brick in Terms of Strength Criteria,”
the lightweight concrete mix was composed of Portland cement, water, fine
aggregate, foam agent, and silica fume. It focused on the Unconfined Compression
Test (UCT), which is commonly used to determine the free compressive strength
of soil but can also be used to light brick. This study compares the Mortar-foam
Light Weight Hoarding Technology Planning Module for the 2014 Pusjatan Road
to the conventional lightweight brick composition. The addition of silica fume to the
mix design is intended to increase compressive strength while using less cement.
The cement water factor was 0.5, the sand:foam agent ratio was 20:80, and the
silica fume additions were 5%, 10%, and 15% of the cement weight, respectively.

Table 11. Lightweight Brick Composition for 1 𝑚3

Materials Normal Concrete (kg) Silica Fume Blend Variation

5.0%. 10.0% 15.0%

Water- 300.0 285.0 270.0 255.0

Cement- 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0

Fine aggregate- 385.0 385.0 385.0 385.0

Foam agent- 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0

Silica fume- -.0 15.0 30.0 45.0

The free compressive strength of light bricks can be determined at 7, 14,

and 28 days by incorporating silica fume into the light brick mixture, as shown in
the tables and graphs above. Silica fume increases light brick free compressive
strength and efficient compressive strength by 5%, while it decreases free brick
 21

light compressive strength. The graph below depicts the UCT on lightweight
concrete brick.

Figure 4. Free Compressive Strength Comparison Graph

As shown in Figure 4, only 28 curing days of lightweight concrete result in

a significant increase in compressive strength. After 7 days, the addition of 5%
silica fume increased free compressive strength by 41% when compared to normal
light brick compressive strength. When compared to typical light bricks, the
compressive strength of light-free bricks with 5% silica fume added increased by
57 percent after 14 days and by 41 percent after 28 days.
The findings show that incorporating a variety of silica fume equal to 5% of
the cement used results in the best free compressive strength of light brick with a
silica fume combination. At 7 and 14 days, free compressive strength increased by
41% and 57%, respectively, while it increased by 41% at 28 days for a typical light
brick. As a result, longer curing days with a 5% silica fume replacement will
improve the structural integrity and durability of light brick.
A sedimentary stone made mostly out of calcium carbonate, ordinarily as
calcite or aragonite. It might contain significant measures of magnesium carbonate
(dolomite) as well as dirt, iron carbonate and feldspar. Most limestone have a
granular surface; constituent grains range in size from 0.001 mm (0.00004 inch) to
 22

noticeable particles. Most limestones are made up of marine skeletal fragments

like corals, bubbles, and mollusks. Limestone accounts for roughly 10% of all
sedimentary rocks in terms of bulk. In Karst environments, where water erodes
limestone over hundreds of thousands of years, limestone absorption and acid
reaction vulnerability are no longer present. Most cave systems are found in
limestone. Limestone is possibly the most used rock. Most limestone is used in
construction as dressed limestone blocks. It's used in road construction, railroad
ballast, and concrete (Earle and Panchuk, 2019).
According to the Arvind Construction Company (ARVICON) which is a
company with a progressive and professional approach aiming at undertaking civil
construction works in India as well as abroad, that they determined the physical
and chemical properties of limestone. Physically, limestone is quite impervious,
hard, compact, fine to very fine-grained calcareous rocks of sedimentary nature.
Chemically, limestone is siliceous calcium carbonate rocks.

Table 12. Physical Properties of Limestone

Physical Properties of Limestone
Hard-ness 3 to 4 on Moh’s Scale
Dens. 2.5 to 2.65 kg/m3
Comp. Strength 1800 to 2100 kg/cm2
Water Absorp. Less than 1%
Poros-ity Quite Low
Weather Impact Resistant
Chemical Properties of Limestone
(CaO) 38 – 42%
(SiO2) 20 – 25%
(Al2O3) 2 – 4%
Other Oxides 1.5 to 2.5%
(LOI) 30 – 32%
 23

Crushed limestone, on the other hand, is typically obtained through the

mining of limestone or dolomite rock deposits. The process involves breaking of
collected rocks down to the specific sizes with the help of different rock
crushers/machines. It’s mostly used in driveways and as a pathway material. The
large percentage of fines makes it a good base material for under or between
paving stones and sidewalk blocks. Crushed limestone alters soil in a variety of
significant ways. It provides large portions of calcium, an important plant nutrient,
and dolomitic limestone additionally components of magnesium. (World of Stones,
2020). Lime will increase the supply of different critical minerals, along with
phosphorus, copper, and zinc.
In a previous study in 2011 by Marar and Eren entitled "Effect of cement
content and water/cement ratio on fresh concrete qualities without admixtures,"
the properties of crushed limestone were established through a series of tests.

Table 13. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Crushed Limestone Aggregates

Property Type of Crushed Limestone Aggregates
Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 British
(20 mm) (15 mm) (10 mm) (<5 mm) Standards
Limits
(SSD) 2.68-- 2.67 2.68- 2.68-- -
(Dry) 2.57- 2.65- 2.65 2.62 -
Absorp. 0.65 1.00- 1.01- 1.20-- -
Sp.gr. 2.70- 2.71-- 2.73- 2.80- -
Imp. Val. 19.87- - - - Max. 25-
Crush Val. 25.38- - - - Max. 30-
Dust um (%) -- - - 13

Limestones are mostly found in shallow ocean areas between 30 degrees

north and 30 degrees south latitude. They are forming in the Caribbean Sea, the
Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Ocean, and the
Indonesian archipelago. According to the United States Geological Survey
 24

(USGS), much of the United States has extensive deposits of marine limestone of
varying ages, from a few thousand to more than 350 million years. Some deposits
have chemical laws of up to 95% CO3. The limestone deposits in the Philippines
cover nearly 1,800 hectares, with the mining area located on Guimaras Island. On
March 3, 1993, the Philippine government approved the mining area through a
Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA). Bohol Island is also rich in
limestone and is exported to the ASEAN region and other parts of the world. This
Bohol limestone product is used in a variety of applications such as steelmaking
aids, neutralizers, chemical applications, and aggregates.
Limestones are widely used in the construction industry in the twenty-firs
century because they have advantages as an aggregate such as good strength, a
low possibility of alkali-silica reaction, and a reduction in drying shrinkage in
concrete. Since limestone aggregates are crushed before being used as an
aggregate, they are also known as crushed limestones. Even though the strengths
of cements containing limestone can be optimized by grinding to an appropriate
particle size distribution, an optimized Portland cement containing up to 5%
limestone can exhibit improved workability when compared to a cement without
limestone. (Carlos et al., 2010). Crushed limestone offers several significant
advantages over river gravel as a concrete aggregate. For starters, crushed
limestone concrete has a 10% strength advantage over cement concrete. This
strength advantage stems from the fact that cement attaches to limestone more
tightly than it does to slick/smooth gravel, as well as the strength generated from
the crushed aggregate's sharp angular faces. (Texas Crushed Stone Company,
2012). Many studies were influential on the effect of limestone in the production of
concrete that there were significant changes in its structural strength.
In a related study in 2020 by Farraj et al. entitled “Crushed Limestone Sand:
An Effective Alternative to Natural Sand in Concrete,” two concrete classes are
investigated in terms of compressive and flexural strength. The crushed sand was
angular limestone sand from Lebanese limestone quarries, whereas the natural
sand was spherical siliceous sandstone Apart from chemical content, physical
properties such as fines percentage, absorption, and specific gravity distinguish
 25

the two types of sand. The coarse aggregates, which have sizes of 10 mm and 20
mm, were derived from the same parent rock as the crushed sand. All concrete
mixtures contain ordinary Portland cement with a 28-day compressive strength of
48.9 MPa. The graph below depicts the aggregate curve's particle size distribution.

Figure 5. Particle Size Distribution Curve of Aggregates

Natural rounded sand and typical crushed sand have distinct gradations, as
shown in the graph, and both violate the ASTM C33 (2016) gradation restrictions.
The Lebanese construction industry combines crushed and natural sand to meet
these conventional gradation limits. In concrete mixtures, three distinct types of
fine aggregates are tested, and their particle size distribution is depicted in red. To
meet the ASTM particle size gradation, the "Control Mix Combination" reference
sand mix used in the Lebanese concrete industry has equal mass proportions of
the two types of sand, 50 percent natural sand and 50 percent crushed sand, with
a fines percentage of 4.79 percent. To investigate the effect of total sand
replacement with crushed sand and to limit the effects of gradation, a laboratory-
built experiment was conducted.
Three different combinations were being tested to see how crushed
limestone aggregate affects the mechanical properties of concrete when used in
place of natural sand. The Control Mix "CM" concrete is like a commonly used mix
 26

in Lebanon, consisting of "Control Mix Combination" and an equal mix of natural

and crushed sand. In Equivalent Mix "EM" concrete, the only fine aggregate is
"Equivalent Crushed Sand.". The only fine aggregate in Modified Mix "MM"
concrete was "Modified Crushed Sand." There were two concrete grades
conducted in the study with 3 types of design mixture for each one, an overall of
six concrete mixes.

Table 14. Mix Design Proportions (kg/𝑚3 ) for the Six Concrete Mixes
Effective Equivalent Modified Medium Coarse
Mix Cement Natural Crushed
Water W/C Admixture Crushed Crushed Aggregate Aggregate
Type (C) Sand Sand
(W) Sand Sand (10 mm) (20 mm)

CM-30 350 175 0.5 2.47 406 406 0 0 427 566

EM-30 350 175 0.5 1.01 0 0 802 0 427 566

MM-
350 175 0.5 0 0 0 0 802 427 566
30

CM-40 300 120 0.4 10.38 448 448 0 0 471 624

EM-40 300 120 0.4 6.90 0 0 884 0 471 624

MM-
300 120 0.4 5.99 0 0 0 884 471 624
40

The concrete curing days were 3, 7, and 28 days for compressive strength
and only 28 days for flexural strength. Three specimens were used to determine
the compressive strength of each concrete mix and both concrete grades as shown
in Table 15. The graph below shows the compressive strength of Control Mix (CM),
Equivalent Mix (EM), and Modified Mix (MM) concretes in Grade C30 and Grade
C40.
 27

Figure 6. Compressive Strength Results for CM, EM, and MM Concretes for
Grade C30

Figure 7. Compressive Strength Results for CM, EM, and MM Concretes for
Grade C40

When the standard deviation is considered, the compressive strengths of

the three Grade C30 concrete mixes are similar at 3 and 7 days, according to the
 28

graph above. After 28 days, the values are also comparable. Despite the fact that
modified crushed sand has the best ASTM size distribution, the MM has slightly
lower values (7 percent lower) than the other two mixes. Overall, it appears that
natural sand substitution has little effect on the compressive strength values and
strength growth kinetics of this concrete grade. The compressive strengths of
grade C40 are also the same regardless of concrete age. The composition has no
effect on the hydration kinetics of fine aggregates. There is a small variation in (3
percent to 7 percent) at 3 and 28 days, with the EM producing the best results. MM
has the lowest Grade C30 value at 3 and 28 days. Using well-graded crushed sand
has no effect on compressive strength.
The study found that substituting limestone crushed sand for natural sand
had no effect on the compressive strength of concrete grades C30 and C40. As a
result, crushed sand or crushed limestone aggregates that meet the grading
requirements of ASTM C33 (2016) can be used in concrete instead of natural
rounded sand.
In a related study in 2018 by Onchiri entitled “Structural Performance of
Limestones as an Aggregates for Lightweight Concrete,” on the partial
replacement of natural aggregates with crushed limestone at proportions ranging
from 0% (Control Mix), 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% by natural aggregate weight.
The mix ratio of the concrete was 1:2:4 (1 part of cement, 2 parts of fine
aggregates, and 4 parts of coarse aggregates) by weight/volume. In the standard
concrete mix, a class 20 mix proportion was used, which is the cast mix for slabs.
The mechanical characteristics established through vane shear tests, flexural
testing, and compression strength tests at 3, 7, 14, and 28 days were important in
analyzing the results of this work's experiments. The results of the tests in the study
were crucial in determining the mechanical properties obtained by tensile splitting
tests, flexural tests, and compressive tests after three, seven, fourteen, and
twenty-eight days of curing. Each design mixture's compressive strength values
were determined using a compressive strength machine in accordance with Kenya
Standards for compression testing KS 594 -7: 1986.
 29

Table 15. Compressive Strength Test Results on Lightweight Concrete

Mix No. Replacement Compression Strength (kN/𝐦𝟑 )
Percentage
3 Days 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days

M0 0% 11 15 18 21

M25 25% 12 15 16 19

M50 50% 11 14 16 19

M75 75% 16 18 19 21

M100 100% 11 12 15 18

Figure 8. Limestone Effects on Compression

 30

Figure 9. Compression Strength Development Curve

Only the 28th day of concrete maturity obtained the highest compressive
strength, as seen in the graphs and table above. The curve demonstrated a trend
of high strength values at 75% replacement, but the results after 28 concrete
maturity days were nearly identical, as shown in table 15. The compression
strength curve revealed that the strengths increased with age while staying within
the specifications of concrete class 20. Maximum strengths were observed within
the maturity four stages' allowed limits.
According to the findings, crushed limestone aggregate concrete has a
lower density than regular concrete aggregates. The concrete density decreased
by up to 8.1 percent when limestone replaced 100 percent of the coarse aggregate
in the sample mix M100. This results in a significant reduction in product weight,
which reduces the overall dead load of concrete structures, resulting in smaller
dimensions when used in construction. Crushed limestone is recommended for
 31

use as a natural aggregate in lightweight concrete manufacturing, however 75-

percent substitution will offer the greatest results in terms of strength.
According to Lehigh Hanson, limestone is a naturally occurring mineral
complex that contains varying quantities of quartz (crystalline silica). The level of
crystalline silica in limestone is normally, but not always, around 2%, but it is
typically below 5% in marble, though it can reach 30%. Based on Stoneworkers,
when crystalline silica-containing stones are cut, polished, or otherwise handled,
the dust created contains respirable crystalline silica (RCS).
Limestone and silica combination in the production of concrete has a
significant change in its mechanical characteristics since both materials can
increase the strength of the concrete (Zareei et al., 2017). In addition to small silica
fume particles reacting with lime in cement, adding limestone to concrete may
reduce its initial and final setting times, as well as its porosity. The addition of
micro-silica through powdered limestone concrete has been determined to prevent
strength loss. Bricks can be made from materials like silica, limestone, and sand
when mixed with water in the right proportions. Because of their longevity, bricks
have been used to construct countless structures for many thousands of years.
The reason bricks become such a durable material is because when fired in a kiln
at temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees, the clay unit undergoes a vitrification
process that fuses the clay particles together. Unlike other materials, brick is very
easy to use and maintain, creating energy efficient buildings but also serving
various functions. Hydrated limestone, sand, and water are mixed in the proper
proportions to make silicate-limestone bricks. They are pressed at high pressures
to produce the desired size of bricks/blocks, and then autoclaved for a
predetermined amount of time, temperature, and pressure to harden the green
bricks. Silicate limestone bricks have many benefits, including (a) good sound
insulation; (b) high heat insulation because they breathe (this distinguishing feature
adds value to a better interior climate and inhibits inconveniences caused by molds
and humidity); (c) they also generate and release heat (this ensures that the
interior of the building has a pleasant atmosphere regardless of season); and (d)
they are fire-resistant materials due to silicate.
 32

Creating useful substantial blends with less conventional Ordinary Portland

Cement (OPC) has been one of the vital targets of the 21st century manageability
development. While the provisions of numerous options in contrast to OPC (like fly
debris or slag) might be restricted, those of limestone and silica powders delivered
by squashing rocks appear to be essentially perpetual. The current review inspects
the substance and actual impacts of these powders on the rheology, hydration,
and setting of concrete-based materials by means of investigations and three-
layered microstructural displaying. It is shown that both limestone and silica
molecule surfaces are dynamic layouts (destinations) for the nucleation and
development of concrete hydration items, while the actual limestone is additionally
solvent, prompting the arrangement of carbo aluminate hydration items. The
simultaneous combined effect of limestone powder and micro-silica (silica powder)
as partial replacements of cementitious materials in lightweight concrete was
investigated in varying amounts with a constant w/c ratio of 0.37. There were also
studies prevailed on the effect of silica-limestone sand as an aggregate in the
production of concrete. The study presented below is one of the previous studies
of combined silica and limestone in the production of concrete.
In a previous study in 2017 by by Zareei, et al. entitled “Partial Replacement
of Limestone and Silica Powder as a Substitution of Cement in Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete,” the study's primary goal was to investigate the mechanical
and durability properties of lightweight aggregate concrete after 7 and 28 days of
curing with varying amounts of limestone powder (LP), micro-silica (MS), pumice,
and leca as partial replacements in cement. In the study, ordinary cement, sand,
coarse aggregates of leca and pumice, powdered limestone, and micro-silica were
used. In terms of lightweight aggregate use on concrete performance, five mixtures
using an artificial lightweight aggregate and five mixtures using a natural
lightweight aggregate were provided. After 24 hours, the samples were demolded
into cube, cylindrical, and beam shapes and fully saturated in a water tank at 23°C
for 7 and 28 days to test compressive strength, impact resistance, water
absorption, and acid resistance. Based on the conventional mixture, mix
proportions for lightweight concrete were developed.
 33

Table 16. Lightweight Concrete Blended with Leca (kg/𝑚2 )

Micro-
Mix Limestone Coarse Ordinary Super-
W/b Cement Silica Water
Plan Powder (%) Aggregates Sand Plasticizer
(%)

LM0
= 0 450
CTL

LM5 5 430

LM10 0.37 10 410 10 184 360 540 10

LM15 15 390

LM20 20 370

Table 17. Lightweight Concrete Blended with Pumice (kg/𝑚2 )

Mix W/b Limestone Cement Micro- Water Coarse Ordinary Super-
Plan Powder (%) Silica Aggregates Sand Plasticizer
(%)

PM0 0 450
= CTL

PM5 5 430

PM10 0.37 10 410 10 184 360 540 10

PM15 15 390

PM20 20 370
 34

In Table 17 results, the proportions of lightweight concrete blended with leca

and pumice. The w/b ratio was kept constant at 0.37 in all mixes using two control
mixtures and eight with varying concentrations of mineral additives. Six 10x10x10
mm cube samples were tested for compressive strength, bending strength, impact
resistance, water absorption ratio, chloride ions penetration, and tensile strength
for each mix plan. The three examples were cured at 7, 14, and 28 days after
hardening for half an hour. Tensile strength tests were performed seven and
twenty-eight days after curing on two concrete columns (10x10x50 mm) derived
from each mix plan. The tensile strength of concrete of various ages of concrete
has been tested several times. After cold water curing at 23 °C, the necessary dry
weight and short-term water absorption calculations were computed. Figure 3
shows how a hydraulic jack is used to determine compression strength. The
loading procedure is governed by the hydraulic jack specification (ELE ADR-Auto
V2.0 2000 standard compression). The tables below show the compressive
strength test results for lightweight concrete blended with leca and pumice.

Table 18. Results of the Compressive Test Blended with Leca

Mixtures Compressive Compressive Density (kg/𝐦𝟑 )

Strength at 7 Days Strength at 28 Days
of Curing (Mpa) of Curing (Mpa)

LM0 24.47 35.74 1570

LM5 23.39 33.82 1434

LM10 20.62 28.21 1446

LM15 22.36 30.71 1502

LM20 25.97 37.23 1558

 35

Table 19. Results of the Compressive Test Blended with Pumice

Mixtures Compressive Compressive Density (kg/𝐦𝟑 )
Strength at 7 Days Strength at 28 Days
of Curing (Mpa) of Curing (Mpa)

PM0 48.82 54 1870

PM5 36.52 44.87 1778

PM10 26.62 36.61 1788

PM15 34.48 40.6 1832

PM20 35.26 42.3 1846

The Compressive test results for blended Leca and Pumice are shown in
Tables 19 and 20, it can be concluded that increasing the limestone powder
incorporation at 7 and 28 days of curing reduced the compressive strength of both
types of leca and pumice concrete by 10%, with a significant increase after
increasing the limestone powder incorporation (excluding 20-percent incorporation
of limestone powder in leca based concrete that cause high levels of the
compressive strength compared to the reference sample and growing rate may be
expected for this type of concrete). Size had no effect on the compressive strength
of lightweight aggregate concrete samples. Excess limestone powder addition
(greater than 20%) increases the number of fine particles to the point where
cement paste loses its ability to coat all fine and coarse particles, resulting in a
decrease in the reactive clinker portion and significant physical changes to the
material.
In the findings, using high-strength light-weight concrete with limestone
powder and micro-silica yields the greatest economic and environmental benefits.
The simultaneous partial replacement of cement with 5% powdered limestone and
the same amount of micro-silica results in mechanical and durability properties that
are satisfactory. In terms of durability, the ideal partial substitute for leca-based
 36

lightweight concrete was 20%. The compressive strength of pumice concrete with
micro-silica and up to 20% powdered limestone decreased by 21%, while the
compressive strength of leca concrete increased by 4%. When exposed to acidic
solutions, the concrete strength did not differ significantly, with an ultimate strength
loss of up to 12% when compared to normal solutions, according to the durability
tests. When the compressive strength of samples subjected to temperatures above
200°C was measured, it was discovered that the samples' strength decreased by
up to 50% when compared to normal temperature (23°C).
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

This study utilized experimental research, which strives for a scientific
approach based on a complete randomized design of a size (16” x 8” x 6”) on load
bearing CHB having 3 different design mixtures which were Mixture 1 (1 part of
cement, 5 parts of conventional aggregate, 1 part of silica sand, 1 part of crushed
limestone, and ½ part of water); Mixture 2 (1 part of cement, 3 parts of conventional
aggregate, 2 parts of silica sand, 2 parts of crushed limestone, and ½ part of
water); Mixture 3 (1 part of cement, 1 part of conventional aggregate, 3 parts of
silica sand, 3 parts of crushed limestone, and ½ part of water) with 4 replications
for compressive strength test and 2 replications for the water absorption test on 7
and 14 days of curing, respectively. Under the National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP, 2015), 1 mixture with 6 replications of control mixture for CHB
6” were tested to have its own data results for comparison purposes on 7 and 14
days of curing, respectively. The main purpose of this research was to make use
of combined silica sand and crushed limestone as a design mixture that can be
beneficial in the compressive strength of CHB. Through this design, the accuracy
of the study was to consider and answer the objective and the problem statements.

Figure 10. Concrete Hollow Block 6”

(Sources: SketchUp Pro 2020)
 38

3.2 Research Environment

The production of the study and gathering of aggregates and materials were
at Jee Em Enterprises located at Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu 6115, and brought to a
testing center of E.B. Testing Center Inc. located at Ramona Briones Comp.
Unit#304 A&B, Sikatuna St., Cebu City for aggregates and Megatesting Center
Inc. located at 219 Dionisio Jakosalem St, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu for CHB samples.

Figure 11. Production Making of the Study: Jee-Em Enterprises

located at Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu (Sources: Google Map)

Figure 12. Testing Center: E.B. Testing Center Inc. located at Ramona
Briones Comp. Unit#304 A&B, Sikatuna St., Cebu City (Sources: Google Map)
 39

Figure 13. Testing Center: Megatesting Center Inc. located at 219 Dionisio
Jakosalem St, Cebu City, 6000 Cebu (Sources: Google Map)

3.3 Research Instrument/Equipment

The main materials that were used in this study are as follows: cement,
ordinary sand, crushed stones, silica sand, crushed limestone, and water. The
research instruments or equipment used to perform this study were: Compression
Test Machine (CTM), CGM Block Making Machine, Drying Oven, Weighing Scale,
and Sieve Set. Compression Testing Machine (CTM) to determine the overall
strength properties of the material when compressed by the machine. This
machine works by placing the test sample (concrete hollow block) in between two
plates or specific installation and pushing both plates towards the test sample
thereby compressing or crushing the test sample in between. CGM block making
machines are designed to produce vibratory pressed hollow blocks that help
researchers produce CHB. Drying oven was used to dry the sample to get the
result of water absorption on CHB and moisture content on aggregates as well.
The weighing scale was used to determine the weight of the aggregates and CHB
samples before and after drying in the oven. Sieve Set was used to have a sieve
analysis or to graph a particle distribution curve based on the respective
aggregates.
 40

Figure 14. CGM Block Making Machine Figure 15. Compression Test Machine
(Sources: Google) (Sources: Google)

Figure 16. Drying Oven Figure 17. Weighing Scale

(Sources: Google) (Sources: Google)

Figure 18. Sieve Analysis Apparatus

(Sources: Google

3.3.1 Cement
Type I Portland Cement was used in the study for binder material in
porous concrete. The Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) was acquired from
Jee Em Enterprises located at Pooc, Talisay City, Cebu 6115. The cement
was stored at the same place in a cool dry area and place above the ground
surface to avoid the material from getting contaminated, moisten or even
saturated.
 41

Figure 19. Type I Portland Cement

(Sources: Google)

3.3.2 Fine Aggregates

The fine aggregates used in the study were silica sand, conventional
aggregate, and crushed limestone, that range from 4.75 mm to 0.075 mm
in particle size.

Figure 20. Silica Sand Figure 21. Crushed Limestone

(Sources: Google) (Sources: Google)

Figure 22. Conventional Figure 23. Crushed Stones

Aggregate (Sources: Google) (Sources: Google)
 42

3.3.3 Water
Tap water was used in the study since its chemical composition is
known and well-regulated that will have a good result to the design mixture.

3.4 Research Procedure

Researchers thoroughly follow the steps systematically to achieve the
results and for the purpose of this study. The ASTM provisions were followed when
it came to quality test materials, the procedure for constructing and curing concrete
hollow blocks, and the compressive strength test. For the specific relationship of
the CHB, the researcher also followed the NSCP 2010/2015 to approximate the
standard form of concrete in Filipino environments. From collecting all the
aggregates and materials, and particle size distribution analysis and moisture
content determination of silica, crushed limestone, and conventional aggregate
until to the proportioning of the samples. The next step was to mix them,
compacting or CHB making, to curing stage for 7 and 14 days. Afterwards, the
samples were tested for its water absorption and compressive strength. (See
Appendix E for Detailed Research Procedures)

3.5 Data Analysis

To support the credibility research findings, the researcher provides and
performed statistical analysis with the aid of Statistics tool beta. The results
collected through the test were subjected to statistical treatment determining its
central tendency and standard deviation. To further understand as to whether the
average result has statistically significant differences, the inferential statistical tool
specifically T-test Paired Two Sample for Means, and One-Way ANOVA was
administered. In T- test procedures compared the means of two variables and
computed the differences between values of variables, either to accept or reject
having p value greater than the significance level 0.05. On the other hand, One-
way ANOVA was used to take a single independent variable or factor and examine
whether variations or different levels of that factor have a measurable effect on a
dependent variable.
 CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter demonstrates data presentation, analysis, and interpretation.

This study is to determine the effect of combined silica and crushed limestone on
the concrete hollow block as a partial replacement on fine aggregates. The
researchers use the experimental method since data collection and analysis are
relevant. The presentations are organized in accordance with the sequence of
methods.

Particle Size Distribution Curve and Moisture Content of the Aggregates

Particle Size Distribution Curve

100.00
Percent Retained (%)

80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
75 62.5 50 37.5 25 19 12.5 9.5 4.75 2.99 1.495 0.425 0.15 0.075
Diameter Opening (mm)

Conventional Aggregate Crushed Limestone Silica Sand

Figure 24. Particle Size Distribution Curve of the Aggregate

These conventional aggregates or also known as concrete aggregates have

a gradation that ranges from 19 mm down to 0.075 mm. The size of the
conventional aggregates that is 9.5 mm is often the most frequent size utilized in
construction. In most cases, the greater dimension is used for bulk concrete.
However, the only particle size range of 4.75 mm to 0.075 mm or particle size
retained on 2.99 mm down to 0.075 mm which was 15.8% and being considered
in the production of samples.
 43

Limestone has a grain size that can range from 25 mm down to 0.075 mm.
In addition, it has the highest particle size retained among the other aggregates
with 1.6% retained on 19 mm diameter opening. The surface of most limestone is
granular, and constituent grains range in size from 0.001 millimeters (0.00004 inch)
to particles that are easily apparent. For this aggregate, only the 15.4% retained
diameter opening of 2.99 mm was considered in the production of samples.
Silica sand has a grain size that can range from sieve size 1.495 mm down
to 0.075 mm with a highest percent retained on the 0.15 mm diameter opening
which has 79.3% retained. Silica sand falls in a particle size range of 4.75 mm
down to 0.075 mm which considered as a fine aggregate, then13% retained on the
diameter opening of 0.425 mm down to 0.075 mm was used in the production of
samples.

Moisture Content
Silica Sand
Limestone
Conventional Aggregate

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000

Conventional Aggregate Limestone Silica Sand
% of Moisture 1.300 9.590 0.040

Figure 25. Moisture Content on Different Aggregates

Based on the results shown above, limestone has the greatest moisture
content with a value of 9.590 % as compared to that of Conventional aggregate
and Silica sand with a corresponding value of 1.30 % and 0.040 %. This result
suggests that a limestone used as partial aggregate could contribute fairly on the
quality of the concrete produced such that, too much of it could weaken the
structure of the CHB. Thus, the combination of limestone and silica in the
production of concrete has a significant change in its mechanical characteristics
since both materials can increase the strength of the concrete (Ochiri, 2018).
 44

Average Water Absorption and Weight of CHB per Mixtures Corresponding

on 7 and 14 days

Water Absorption (kg/m^3)

Accumulated Average Water Absorption of
CHB Admixtures
15.000

10.000

5.000

0.000
CHB 6" Mixture 1 CHB 6" Mixture 2 CHB 6" Mixture 3 Control Mixture
Sample Mixtures

Average Water Absorption during 7 days curing

Average Water Absorption during 14 days curing

Figure 26. Average Weight and Waster Absorption of CHB admixtures (7 days cured)

As shown in the figure above, for a period of 7 days of curing, CHB 6"
Mixture 2 acquires the highest average of water absorption among 2 (Mixture 1,
Mixture 3) other design mixtures and 1 control mixture. Giving the results of 9.650
kg/m^3 represent that the aggregates present in this mixture have a proportion of
1 part of cement, 3 parts of conventional aggregates (combined ordinary sand and
crushed stones), 2 parts of silica sand and crushed limestone, respectively, and a
1 ½ part of water.
For 14 days curing period, still, the CHB 6" Mixture 2 acquires the highest
water absorption among other mixtures of this study. From the curing days of 7, it
results as 9.560 kg/m^3, and for the 14 days of curing, it decreases but is still the
highest among the group and gives the result of 8.870 kg/m^3. The longer curing
days affect the water absorption results of all the mixtures because some of the
water has already been drained and evaporated.
In accordance with ASTM Specifications for Concrete Masonry Units, all the
results of the sample mixtures were lesser than the maximum water absorption of
 45

CHB, which is 240 kg/m^3 signifying all the sample mixtures passed ASTM
Specifications.

Accumulated Average Weight of CHB Admixtures

Water Absorption (kg/m^3)

150

100

50

0
CHB 6" Mixture 1 CHB 6" Mixture 2 CHB 6" Mixture 3 Control Mixture
Sample Mixtures

Weight (kN) during 7 days curing Weight (kN) during 14 days curing

Figure 27. Average Weight and Waster Absorption of CHB admixtures (14 days cured)

In 7 days of curing period, CHB 6" Mixture 1 with a proportion of 1 part of

cement, 5 parts of conventional aggregate (combined ordinary sand and crushed
stones), 1 part of silica sand and crushed limestone respectively, and a 1 ½ part
of the water result as the highest weight among all mixtures including the control
mixture. Due to the large proportion of conventional aggregates in the CHB 6"
Mixture 1 acquisition, the highest weight was 102.5 kN.
For 14 days of curing, still, the CHB 6" Mixture 1 acquires an average weight
of 126.5 KN and remains the highest among the other mixtures. Due to the
chemical reaction of the combination of cement and water, the interior of the
concrete dries by hydration, causing self-drying that creates significant interstitial
stresses within the structure.
 46

Compressive Strengths of the CHB per Mixtures

Table 20. The Results of Compressive Strength Test of Different Sample Mixtures (7 and 14 Days Cured)

Cured for 7 days

Sample Description Compressive Strength (psi) Average Interpretation
> Control
CHB 6" Mixture 1 563 470 446 445 481.00
Mixture
> Control
CHB 6" Mixture 2 398 376 469 329 393.00
Mixture
< Control
CHB 6" Mixture 3 376 235 282 329 305.50
Mixture
CHB 6" Control
351 445 235 282 328.25 ---
Mixture
Cured for 14 days
Sample Description Compressive Strength (psi) Average Interpretation
> Control
CHB 6" Mixture 1 704 563 540 563 592.50
Mixture
< Control
CHB 6" Mixture 2 516 376 423 376 422.75
Mixture
> Control
CHB 6" Mixture 3 656 516 634 539 586.25
Mixture
CHB 6" Control
587 516 376 563 510.50 ---
Mixture

Based on ASTM C140, the results were identified. For the 2-phase period
of curing which are the 7 and 14 days, the results of the different design mixtures
were compared to the control mixture whether the design mixtures are greater or
lesser than the result of the control mixture.
For 7 days of curing, only CHB 6” Mixture 3 did not pass the average
compressive strength result of the control mixture or lesser than the result of the
control mixture. It indicates that CHB 6” Mixture 3 has failed to meet the required
amount of compressive strength from the control mixture when cured in 7 days.
At 14 days of curing shown in the tabulated results above, CHB 6” Mixture
2 did not pass the average compressive strength result of the control mixture or
lesser than the result of the control mixture. With that, CHB 6” Mixture 3 and 2 has
 47

no potential in meeting the required amount of compressive strength from the CHB
6” Control Mixture when cured for 7 and 14 days, respectively.
The average minimum compressive strength of a load bearing hollow
structural concrete block, according to NSCP (2010/2015), is 10.3 MPa or 1493
psi. Based on the results tabulated on the average compressive strength of design
mixtures corresponding on 7 and 14 days of curing period, CHB admixtures did
not achieve the minimum average compressive strengths for a hollow structural
concrete block.
Due to undesired circumstances on storing and delivering the samples, the
samples gain a result that was lower than expected. The samples were stored and
cured in a patio roof where the samples can easily moisturize due to a continuous
heavy rain since there was a low-pressure area at that time. Then, the day before
the delivery and testing, there was a heavy rain and resulting to inaccuracy of the
results. In addition, the location of the testing center was approximated 12.1 km
away from the production of the samples resulted to a changed in condition of the
samples.

T-Test and Analysis of Variance: Single Factor of CHB’s Compressive

Strength Between the CHB Admixtures and Control Mixture

All the data below are indicated that each 3 different mixtures on CHB 6”
are compared to the CHB 6” control mixture. It is to determine using the statistical
tool (T test sample and proceed to a One-Way Analysis of Variance) whether each
mixture has a significant difference on designed control mixture, and whether to
accept or reject the null hypothesis of the mean compressive strengths between
CHB admixtures and control mixture.
 48

Table 21. T-test Analysis Results Between the Compressive Strength of CHB 6” Mixture 1 and
Control Mixture (7 and 14 Days Cured)
CHB 6" Mixture 1 vs. CHB 6" Control Mixture
7 days curing
Std.
Description Mean sig t Interpretation
Dev.
CHB 6" Mixture 1 481.000 55.870
0.018 2.860 Reject Ho
CHB 6" Control Mixture 328.250 91.260
14 days curing
Std.
Description Mean sig t Interpretation
Dev.
CHB 6" Mixture 1 592.500 75.120
0.113 1.360 Accept Ho
CHB 6" Control Mixture 510.500 94.390

In Table 21, the T-test result on 7 days of curing of CHB 6” Mixture 1 and
the Control Mixture rejected the hypothesis due to its low significance value of
0.018 that is lesser than the 0.05 and stated that there’s a significant difference of
mean compressive strength between the CHB 6” Mixture 1 and Control Mixture.
Therefore, while for 14 days the significance value rises to its limit of 0.113, there
is no significant difference between the sample means of the mixtures.

Table 22. T-test Analysis Results Between the Compressive Strength of CHB 6” Mixture 2 and
Control Mixture (7 and 14 Days Cured)
CHB 6" Mixture 2 vs. CHB 6" Control Mixture
7 days curing
Description Mean Std. Dev. sig t Interpretation
CHB 6" Mixture 2 393.000 58.270
0.142 1.200 Accept Ho
CHB 6" Control Mixture 328.250 91.260
14 days curing
Description Mean Std. Dev. sig t Interpretation
CHB 6" Mixture 2 422.750 66.000
0.092 -1.520 Accept Ho
CHB 6" Control Mixture 510.500 94.390

In Table 22. The T-test result between the CHB 6” Mixture 2 and Control
Mixture, showed that the mean compressive strengths of both mixtures have no
significant difference for 7 and 14 days of curing having a significant value of 0.142
and 0.092, respectively. It indicates that the mean compressive strength between
the CHB 6” Mixture 2 and Control Mixture did not vary significantly.
 49

Table 23. T-test Analysis Results Between the Compressive Strength of CHB 6” Mixture 3 and
Control Mixture (7 and 14 Days Cured)
CHB 6" Mixture 3 vs. CHB 6" Control Mixture
7 days curing
Std.
Description Mean sig t Interpretation
Dev.
CHB 6" Mixture 3 305.500 60.680
0.347 -0.420 Accept Ho
CHB 6" Control Mixture 328.250 91.260
14 days curing
Std.
Description Mean sig t Interpretation
Dev.
CHB 6" Mixture 3 586.250 69.070
0.123 1.300 Accept Ho
CHB 6" Control Mixture 510.500 94.390

In Table 23. The T-test result between the CHB 6” Mixture 3 and Control
Mixture, presented that the mean compressive strengths of both mixtures have no
significant difference for 7 and 14 days of curing having a significant value or p-
value of 0.347 and 0.123, respectively. It specifies that the mean compressive
strength between the CHB 6” Mixture 3 and Control Mixture did not vary
significantly.
In overall results of T-test, only the CHB 6” Mixture 1 and Control Mixture
has a significant difference between its compressive strength means. It indicates
that among the other mixtures corresponding on 7 and 14 days of curing period,
only CHB 6” Mixture 1 and Control Mixture with 7 days of curing period that vary
significantly between compressive strength means.
 50

One-Way Analysis of Variance

Table 24. ANOVA Results Between CHB 6” Mixture 1 and Control Mixture
CHB 6” Mixture 1 vs CHB 6” Control Mixture
7 Days of Curing
Source of variation ss Fs P value Fcrit Interpretation
Between groups 46,665.13 8.151 0.029 5.99
Reject Ho
Within groups 34,348.75
14 Days of Curing
Between groups 13,448.00 1.848 0.223 5.99
Accept Ho
Within groups 43,658.00

In Table 24, the ANOVA Result Between CHB 6” Mixture 1 vs. Control
Mixture, presented that the compressive strength of CHB 6” Mixture1 and Control
Mixture (with 7 days curing) has a significant difference with a p-value of 0.029, as
compared to that Mixture cured for 14 days with a p-value of 0.223. Suggesting
that a CHB 6” mixture cured for 7 days varies significantly with respect to their
compressive strengths.

Table 25. ANOVA Results Between CHB 6” Mixture 2 and Control Mixture
CHB 6” Mixture 2 vs CHB 6” Control Mixture
7 Days of Curing
The Source of ss Fs P value Fcrit
Interpretation
variation
Between groups 8,385.13 1.431 0.277 5.987
Accept Ho
Within groups 35,168.75
14 Days of Curing
Between groups 15,400.13 2.322 0.178 5.987
Accept Ho
Within groups 39,795.75
 51

In Table 25, the ANOVA Result Between CHB 6” Mixture 2 vs. Control
Mixture, showed that the compressive strength between CHB 6” Mixture 2 and
Control Mixture (with 7 days curing) and that of the CHB 6” Mixture 2 and Control
Mixture (with 14 days curing) has incurred no significant differences, having a p-
value of 0.277 and 0.178 respectively. This indicate that the value of the
compressive strength of CHB 6” Mixture 2 did not differ significantly from each
other.

Table 26. ANOVA Results Between CHB 6” Mixture 3 and Control Mixture
CHB 6” Mixture 3 vs CHB 6” Control Mixture
7 Days of Curing
Source of variation ss Fs P value Fcrit Interpretation
Between groups 1,035.13 0.172 0.692 5.987
Accept Ho
Within groups 36,027.75
14 Days of Curing
Between groups 11,476.13 1.678 0.243 5.987
Accept Ho
Within groups 41,041.75

In Table 26, the ANOVA Result Between CHB 6” Mixture 3 vs. Control
Mixture, showed that the compressive strength between CHB 6” Mixture 2 and
Control Mixture (with 7 days curing) and that of the CHB 6” Mixture 2 and Control
Mixture (with 14 days curing) has incurred no significant differences, with a p-value
of 0.277 and 0.178 respectively. This indicate that the value of the compressive
strength of CHB 6” Mixture 2 did not vary significantly from each other.
 52

The Optimum Compressive Strengths on CHB

Table 27. Ranking of CHB Mixtures in Relation to its Compressive Strengths in Different Curing Periods

Cured for 7 days

Sample Description Compressive Strength (psi) Average Rank
CHB 6" Mixture 1 563 470 446 445 481.00 1
CHB 6" Mixture 2 398 376 469 329 393.00 2
CHB 6" Mixture 3 376 235 282 329 305.50 4
CHB 6" Control Mixture 351 445 235 282 328.25 3
Cured for 14 days
CHB 6" Mixture 1 704 563 540 563 592.50 1
CHB 6" Mixture 2 516 376 423 376 422.75 4
CHB 6" Mixture 3 656 516 634 539 586.25 2
CHB 6" Control Mixture 587 516 376 563 510.50 3

Based on the tabulated results above, CHB 6” Mixture 1 acquires the

highest rank on the average compressive strength for 7 and 14 days of curing
period which have 481 psi and 592.5 psi, respectively.
For 7 days of curing, only CHB 6” Mixture 3 has the lowest average
compressive strength and much lower than the CHB 6” Control Mixture.
For 14 days of curing, the CHB 6” Mixture 2 acquires the lowest average
compressive strength while the CHB 6” Mixture 3 increased in big number from
305.5 psi to 586.25 psi. But, still the CHB 6” Mixture 1 has the highest average
compressive strength and the best mixture among the other design mixtures.
As the time span increases for the sample mixtures, all the sample mixtures
on the compressive strength test result also increases, their relationship between
time duration and the test results varies directly proportional.
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary of Findings

The study was carried out to determine the effect of combined silica and
crushed limestone as a partial replacement of fine aggregates on Concrete Hollow
Blocks (CHB). After analyzing the data gathered from the test results of aggregates
and CHB samples, the following findings are listed below.

• The result of the sieve analysis of silica, limestone, and conventional

aggregate varies on its particle distribution curve since they have different
particle sizes. Conventional aggregate that has a particle size range of 19
mm to 0.075 mm, followed by limestone that has a range of 25 mm to 0.075
mm, and silica sand in 1.495 mm to 0.075 mm. Only the percent retained of
2.99 mm down to 0.075 mm was used in the production of the samples.
• According to the results of the moisture content, only limestone acquires the
highest percentage which has 9.59% due to its quite low porosity.
• Based on the results of the water absorption tests performed on each sample
mixture for 7 and 14 days of curing, only CHB 6" Mixture 2 has the highest
percentage of water absorption for both 7 and 14 days of curing, with 9.65
percent and 8.87 percent, respectively. Therefore, CHB 6” Mixture 2 has
much water that can be absorbed than the other sample mixtures due to its
proportion of 1 part of cement, 3 parts of conventional aggregate, 2 parts of
silica sand, 2 parts of crushed limestone, and ½ part of water.
• The weight of the CHB samples based on each sample mixture, only CHB
6” Mixture 1 acquires the highest weight among 3 sample mixtures for both
7 and 14 curing days that has 102.5 kN and 126.5 kN, respectively. Weight
and curing days of the sample mixtures are directly proportional as they
increase at the same time.
• For test results corresponding to 7- and 14-day curing, only the compressive
strength of CHB 6” Mixture 1- and 7-day cure control mixture shows a
 53

significant difference between their mean, with a significant value of 0.018

indicating sufficient is evidence to infer their significant difference.
● On the ANOVA results based on 7 and 14 days of curing period, still CHB 6”
Mixture 1 corresponding on 7 days curing period and the Control Mixture has
a significant difference between the sample means since there’s enough
evidence to conclude its significant difference between compressive
strength means of CHB 6” Mixture 1 and CHB 6” Control Mixture when cured
in 7 days.
● According to the ASTM C140 standard, the test was carried out using the
Universal Testing Machine (UTM). Only CHB 6” Mix 1 achieves the optimum
compressive strength yielding a result of 481 psi and 592.5 psi for 7- and 14-
day curing, respectively. In addition, CHB 6-inch mixes 3 and 2 did not meet
the compressive strength results of the controlled CHB 6-inch mix when
cured at 7- and 14-days, respectively. Therefore, only CHB 1 Mixture 1 has
the potential to surpass the compressive strength of the CHB 6” Control
Mixture.

5.2 Conclusion

In study calculations and results, only CHB 6" Mix 1 shows a significant
difference from the compressive strength mean of the CHB 6" Control Mixture and
has the optimal compressive strength for 7 and 14 days of cure, which was 481
and 592.5 psi, respectively. As observed, the weight, compressive strength, and
curing days of the sample mixtures were directly proportional as both increases
regardless of the design mixtures. On the other hand, only CHB 6” Mixture 2
acquires the highest water absorption due to its proportion and aggregates. Based
on the physical properties of both silica and limestone in the previous study, the
combination of the hardness of silica and limestone which were 6 to 7 and 3 to 4
Moh’s Scale, respectively, has a significant effect on the compressive strength of
the CHB 6”. The combination of silica sand and crushed limestone will have an
effect as a partial replacement in the production of concrete hollow blocks.
Therefore, CHB 6” Mixture 1 with a proportion of 1 part of cement, 5 parts of
 54

conventional aggregate, 1 part of silica sand, 1 part of crushed limestone, and ½

part of water is the best mixture among the other design mixtures.

5.3 Recommendations

Based on the results of the data collected, the researchers determined that
the study needed more testing, curing days, and samples. The following
recommendations have been made to improve the study.

● Aggregates must undergo a water absorption test to determine the

percentage of absorption for each aggregate type and the effect of water
absorption of aggregate on CHB production.
● Extend further study on the slump test of each CHB sample mixture.
● Include a thermal stress test on CHB corresponding on the sample
mixtures.
● Increase the curing days on each CHB sample mixtures since it was
concluded that compressive strength and curing days are directly
proportional as both increases at the same time.
● Increase the number of samples on each mixture to improve the results of
the study.
 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Published Thesis
Farraj F. A. et al. (2020). Crushed Limestone Sand: An Effective Alternative to
Natural Sand in Concrete. Proceedings of International Structural
Engineering and Construction. Lebanon.
Hurd, J. and Flower, L. (1988). In situ growth and structure of fractal silica
aggregates in a flame. U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Scientific and
Technical Information. United States of America.

Journals
Baguhin I. A. et al. (2019). Investigation on Load-Bearing Concrete Hollow Block
Reinforced with Coconut Coir Fiber. Mindanao Journal of Science and
Technology. Philippines.
Chaudhary, J. et al. (2015). Use of Silica Sand as Cement Replacement in PPC
Concrete. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
(IJRET). India.
Lasco, J. D. et al. (2017)). Compressive Strength and Bulk Density of Concrete
Hollow Blocks (CHB) with Polypropylene (PP) Pellets as Partial
Replacement for Sand. Civil Engineering Journal. Philippines.
Marar, K. and Eren, Ö. (2011). Effect of cement content and water/cement ratio on
fresh concrete properties without admixtures. International Journal of
Physical Sciences. 6. Turkey.
Onchiri R. O. (2018). Structural Performance of Limestone as An Aggregate for
Lightweight Concrete. International Journal of Engineering and Technical
Research. Kenya.
Oni, D. et al., (2019). Experimental Investigation of the Physical and Mechanical
Properties of Cassava Starch Modified Concrete. The Open Construction
and Building Technology Journal. Kenya.
Varshney, H. (2016). A Review Study on Different Properties of Hollow Concrete
Blocks. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology. India
 56

Zareei S. A. et al. (2017). Partial Replacement of Limestone and Silica Powder as

a Substitution of Cement in Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. Civil
Engineering Journal. Iran.

Books
Eager, A. (2006). The Silicate Minerals. Visionlearning. United States of America.
Earle, S. and Panchuk K. (2015). Physical Geology – 2nd Edition. BCcampus.
Canada
Maluk, C. et al., (2017). Effects of polypropylene fibre type and dose on the
propensityfor heat-induced concrete spalling. Engineering Structures.
Pergamon Press. United Kingdom.

Internet Sources
Archtoolbox, Concrete Block (CMU) Sizes, Shapes, and Finishes
https://www.archtoolbox.com/cmu-sizes-shapes-finishes retrieved on May
2, 2022
Arvicon, Lime Black – Arvicon International https://arvicon.com/limestone/lime-
black retrieved on May 23, 2022
Civil Engineering Portal, Testing of Concrete Blocks
https://www.engineeringcivil.com/testing-of-concrete-blocks.html retrieved
on February 4, 2022
Global Shelter Cluster, Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB)
https://sheltercluster.s3.eu-central
1.amazonaws.com/public/docs/Key%20Messages%20CHB%20V1.1.pdf
retrieved on April 27, 2022
Greenspec, Aggregates for Concrete https://www.greenspec.co.uk/building-
design/aggregates-for-concrete/ retrieved on April 25, 2022
Lehigh Hanson, Safety Data Sheet Limestone
https://www.lehighhanson.com/docs/default-source/safety-data-
sheets/sds-
 57

limestone.pdf?sfvrsn=d2abbd1c_4#:~:text=Limestone%20is%20a%20natu
rally%20occurring,not%20a%20known%20health%20hazard
retrieved on May 26, 2022
National Concrete Masonry Association, Sampling and Testing Concrete
Masonry Units https://ncma.org/resource/sampling-and-testing-concrete-
masonry-units/ retrieved on May 20, 2022
PFS Aggregates, Brady Brown Round to Sub-Round Silica Sand In-Bulk Supplier
https://www.pfsaggregates.com retrieved on June 16, 2022
Stoneworkers, Health and Safety Executive
https://www.hse.gov.uk/stonemasonry/faqs.htm?fbclid=IwAR2Mcx_VNSO
u21ZuYdoLtFIcVHySKCG09c5FibR2lUNARpWbVTM2iEZ7GUY retrieved
on April 24, 2022
Texas Crushed Stone Company, Crushed Limestone Concrete Aggregate
http://www.texascrushedstoneco.com/2012/03/crushed-
limestoneconcreteaggregate-2/ retrieved on September 17, 2021
 58

APPENDIX A
TIMETABLE OF ACTIVITIES

Research Components Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION

Rationale
Conceptual Framework
Problem Statement
Hypothesis of the Study
Significance of the
Study
Scope and Limitation
Definition of terms

CHAPTER 2:
THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND

PROBLEM
FORMULATION AND
HEARING

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH
METHOD

Research Design
Research Environment
Research Instrument/
Equipment
Research Procedures
Statistical Tool

CHAPTER 4:
PRESENTATION,
ANALYSIS, AND
INTERPRETATION
OF DATA

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY
OF FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings
Conclusion
Recommendations
 59

APPENDIX B
TIMETABLE OF EXPERIMENTATION

March April May

Experimentation
Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk Wk
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Gathering of
Materials

Mixing &
Compacting

Sieve Analysis
& Moisture
Content

Curing (7 days)

Curing (14
days)

Absorption Test
(7 days curing)

Absorption Test
(14 days curing)

Compressive
Strength Test
(7days curing)

Compressive
Strength Test
(14 days curing)
 60

APPENDIX C
RESEARCH BUDGET

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (PHP)

SILICA SAND 10,152.00

LIMESTONE 1,200.00

CONVENTIONAL AGGREGATE 577.50

PORTLAND CEMENT 480.00

DELIVERY FEE 2,900.00

FUEL 1,000.00

LABOR 1,000.00

ABSORPTION & COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST 6,600.00

SIEVE ANALYSIS 1,200.00

RESEARCH ADVISER 2,000.00

STATISTICIAN 3,500.00

PANELISTS 2,000.00

WORKPLACE 16,698.00

TOTAL RESEARCH COST 49,307.50

 61

APPENDIX D
DETAILED RESEARCH PROCEDURES

GATHERING OF
MATERIALS

CONVENTIONAL CRUSHED SILICA

AGGREGATE LIMESTONE SAND

PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

MOISTURE CONTENT
DETERMINATION

PROPORTIONING

MIXING

COMPACTING

TESTING

COMPRESSIVE
ABSORPTION TEST
STRENGTH TEST

Figure 28. Data Gathering Procedure

 62

Gathering of Materials
The first step that the researcher did was to collect the materials needed in
the study. The OPC and conventional aggregates was brought in a local hardware.
The silica sand and crushed limestone were brought in a local supplier from V.B.
Cabahug Road, Mandaue City and Danao City, respectively. All the materials were
separated to each other to avoid contamination before proceeding to the other
steps of the study.

Silica Sand, Crushed Limestone, and Conventional Aggregate

Silica sand has already on its homogenous sizes, which means this material
was all set to proceed on the next procedure of the study. On the other hand,
crushed limestone and conventional aggregate were in different size particles and
need to be sieved to attain the range particle size of 4.75 mm and below.

Particle Size Distribution Analysis

Silica sand, crushed limestone, and conventional aggregates (A combined
ordinary sand and crushed stones) have undergone to a particle size distribution
curve that credible on ASTM C136 – 01. This method used to determine the
granular substance’s particle size distribution is retaining through the different
series of sieve with a decreasing mesh size and having the total mass of material
stock on each sieve as a percentage of the total weight.

Equipment/Materials:
1. Sieve set with pan
2. Weighing scale (0.1g accuracy)
3. Drying oven with accurate temperature control

Process:
At a temperature of 115 degrees Celsius, 500 g of silica sand, crushed
limestone, and conventional aggregates respectively were oven dried. Then, test
sieves were arranged from the largest to the smallest opening. Beneath the test
 63

sieves was the pan that collected all the sample passed through the 0.075 mm
sieve. After the test sieves being shook, samples on each retained sieve were
weighed. Afterwards, the total weight of all retained samples on each test sieve
and the initial sample weight of the sample were compared. In condition, a loss of
more than 2 percent of the soil sample is considered unsatisfactory. Therefore, the
experiment must be repeated. The loss of soil is the difference between the original
weight used and the total weight of the soil retained in the sieves.

Calculations:

Based on the oven drying of the initial sample, the mass of the sample for
each sieve was divided by the total dry mass and multiplied by 100 to determine
the percent retained. The cumulative percentage retained was then determined by
the percentage retained on each sieve, starting with a value at the first percent
retained on the sieve and adding the first cumulative percent retained to the
second percent retained on the sieve and then repeating the pattern with the other
sieves. The accumulated percent retained on each sieve was subtracted from the
100 percent to yield the aggregate’s cumulative percent passing rate. The percent
retained and passing rate was calculated to the nearest 0.1%.

𝑊
Percent Retained = 𝑊𝑠𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 (100%)
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙

Cumulative Percent Passing = 100% - % accumulated percent retained

Moisture Content Determination

This process determines the natural content of the given sample according
to ASTM D2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil, Rock, and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures. Moisture content
(MC) is the ratio of the mass of water in the sample to the mass of solids in the
sample, expressed as a percentage. For conventional aggregates, the sample
used in the test was in the particle size range of 4.75 mm to 0.075 mm to compare
the result with the previous fine aggregate study.
 64

Equipment/Materials:
1. Moisture can
2. Gloves
3. Spatula
4. Drying oven with accurate temperature control
5. Weighing scale (0.1g accuracy)

Process:
The representative samples were taken from silica sand, crushed
limestone, and conventional aggregates that weighed 20 – 25 g, respectively.
Moisture cans without lid were weighed and recorded. After being weighed, moist
representative samples were placed to the moisture cans and the moisture cans
recorded again containing the sample. Afterwards, they were placed in a drying
oven set at a temperature of 115 degrees Celsius and leaved at the drying oven
until 16 hours. After being dried, the moisture cans with the samples were removed
from the drying oven and weighed on weighing scale. Then all data was recorded
accordingly, and all equipment was used properly and safely.

Calculations:
The difference between the weight of moist sample + moisture can without
the lid and the weight of dry sample + moisture can without the lid is the weight of
water 𝑊𝑤 that was present in the sample. The difference between the weight of dry
sample + moisture can without the lid and the weight of moisture can without the
lid is the weight of soil 𝑊𝑠 . Then the moisture levels for both silica sand and crushed
limestone were calculated using the formula below.

𝑊
Moisture Content (MC) = 𝑊𝑤 (100%)
𝑠

Proportioning
Hence the study is for a load bearing concrete hollow block, the proportion
process is based on the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP, 2015).
 65

Indicated as 1 part of cement: 7 parts for fine aggregates: ½ part of water which
considered as the control mixture of the study. This proportion is a unitless
therefore it is a pure ratio or percentage of two or more numbers which must have
the same units. The size for all samples is the same (16” x 8” x 6”).

MIXTURE 1 = 1 part of cement, 5 parts of conventional aggregate (combined

ordinary sand and crushed stones), 1 part of silica sand and crushed limestone
respectively, and a ½ part of water
MIXTURE 2 = 1 part of cement, 3 parts of conventional aggregate (combined
ordinary sand and crushed stones), 2 parts of silica sand and crushed limestone,
respectively, and a ½ part of water
MIXTURE 3 = 1 part of cement, 1 part of conventional aggregate (combined
ordinary sand and crushed stones), 3 parts of silica sand and crushed limestone,
respectively, and a ½ part of water

Mixing
The goal was achieved in sharing the exact proportion of the sample
mixtures that they thoroughly combined until everything was heterogeneous.

Compacting
A CHB with a dimension of (16” x 8” x 6”) with its respective ratio was form
in a concrete hollow block molder. Using the CGM Block Making Machine, the
mixture of the CHB was compacted due to its high density of vibration pressed.

Curing
For effective curing, the CHB samples were covered with a light bag and
kept moist and shaded for 7 and 14 days respectively. This may be accomplished
by continuously spraying them with water or by keeping them submerged in tanks.
A proper curing process results in fewer cracks and stronger, harder, denser, and
more durable blocks.
 66

Testing
The samples were transferred to the test center set up by the researchers.
By the help of the operator, the CHB samples were undergone absorption test and
compressive strength test based on ASTM C-140 with their respective mixtures,
and the results were identified.

Water Absorption
For every mixture considering the curing of 7 and 14 days, we only taken 2
samples for every 6 samples of the mixture that underwent to a water absorption
test that credible on ASTM C140. Based on National Concrete Masonry
Association (NCMA), this method was used to determine the mass of each CHB
samples.

Note: Instead of testing water absorption for the aggregates, only CHB 6”
undergone a water absorption test due to limited time and budget.

Equipment:
1. Oven (with temperature control up to 115 deg. Celsius)
2. Balance (sensitive within 0.5% of the weight)
3. Container for saturating samples

Process:
The sample is dried in a ventilated oven at a temperature of 100-115
degrees. Celsius for 24 hours at constant weight and get the dry weight. Then,
obtain the mass of each sample and record as “Dry Mass”. Next, completely
immerse the test sample in the container water for 24 hours. Then, weigh samples
while suspended from a rope and fully submerged in water record as “Immersed
Mass”. Then remove the sample from the container and wipe away any visible
water on the surface with a damp cloth and immediately weigh it and record it as
the "wet mass.
 67

Calculations:
Based on the formula and the measured absorbance of each sample, it is
calculated as the mass gain on immersion expressed as a percentage of the mass
of the dry sample. A correction factor corresponding to the sample length results
from the curve. The product of this correction factor and the measured absorbance
is called the corrected absorbance, as this is the equivalent absorbance of a 75mm
long core. Results are expressed to the nearest 0.1%.

𝑘𝑔 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑊𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑏𝑠𝑜𝑟𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, = 𝑥100
𝑚3 𝑂𝑟𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑊𝑎 −𝑊𝑜
𝑊𝑔 = 𝑥 100
𝑊𝑜

Compressive Strength Test

For every mixture considering the curing of 7 and 14 days, we only taken 4
samples for every 6 samples of the mixture then undergone to a compressive test
that credible on ASTM C140. Based on National Concrete Masonry Association
(NCMA). This method used to determine the ultimate loads of each CHB.

Equipment/Materials:
1. Universal Testing Machine (UTM)
2. Gloves

Process:
Place the concrete hollow blocks one by one in the compression space of
the Compression Test Machine (CTM). The two clamps hold the object, and the
pressures are released gradually or quickly depending on the load parameters.
CTM provides the respective displacement and load application value. Then,
record all the given result for each CHB in kilonewton (KN) and convert it to Pounds
per Square Inch (PSI).
 68

Calculation:
With the data collected in the test procedure, The cross-sectional area is the
basis for specifying the compressive strength of any hollow concrete block. Unit
specifications require the block to have a minimum net area compressive strength.
The net area is described by the solids fraction in the cross section and is
measured by the ratio of the net volume of the unit to the gross volume of the unit.
The net cross-sectional area represents the average net area of the unit.
𝑀𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝐻𝐵
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝐻𝐵 =
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝐻𝐵
 69

APPENDIX E
TEST REPORT ON AGGREGATES SAMPLE: CONVENTIONAL AGGREGATE
 70

TEST REPORT ON AGGREGATES SAMPLE: LIMESTONE

 71

TEST REPORT ON AGGREGATES SAMPLE: SILICA SAND

 72

APPENDIX F
ABSORPTION TEST (7 days)
 73

ABSORPTION TEST (14 days)

 74

APPENDIX G
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST (7 days)
 75

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST (14 days)

 76

APPENDIX H

COMPUTATION (t-Test)

FORMULA FOR T-test

T-test for Paired Sample Means

𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛1 − 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛2
𝑡 − 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 =
1 1
𝑠𝑝 ∗ √𝑛1 + 𝑛2

where,

(𝑛1 − 1) ∗ 𝑣𝑎𝑟12 + (𝑛2 − 1) ∗ 𝑣𝑎𝑟22

𝑠𝑝 = √
𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2

where n1 and n2 are the number of records in each sample set.

and, 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑜𝑚 = (𝑛1 + 𝑛2 − 2)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB MIXTURE 1 vs CONTROL MIXTURE (7 days)

 77

COMPUTATION (t-Test)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB MIXTURE 2 vs CONTROL MIXTURE (7 days)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB MIXTURE 3 vs CONTROL MIXTURE (7 days)

 78

COMPUTATION (t-Test)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB MIXTURE 1 vs CONTROL MIXTURE (14 days)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB MIXTURE 2 vs CONTROL MIXTURE (14 days)

 79

COMPUTATION (t-Test)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB MIXTURE 3 vs CONTROL MIXTURE (14 days)

 80

APPENDIX I
COMPUTATION (ANOVA)

FORMULA FOR ANOVA (Single Factor)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB 6” MIXTURE 1 vs CHB 6” CONTROL MIXTURE

 81

COMPUTATION (ANOVA)

COMPUTATION FOR CHB 6” MIXTURE 2 vs CHB 6” CONTROL MIXTURE

 82

COMPUTATION (ANOVA)
COMPUTATION FOR CHB 6” MIXTURE 3 vs CHB 6” CONTROL MIXTURE
 83

APPENDIX J
DOCUMENTATION

GATHERING OF MATERIALS

SILICA SAND CONVENTIONAL AGGREGATE

CRUSHED LIMESTONE PORTLAND CEMENT

 84

DOCUMENTATION

PRODUCTION OF CHB (7 and 14 days)

CONTROL MIXTURE MIXTURE 1

 85

DOCUMENTATION

MIXTURE 2 MIXTURE 3
 86

DOCUMENTATION

TEST OF AGGREGATES: PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

1. Preparing basins for each 2. Get the weight of each

aggregate sample aggregate sample (Original
weight)

3. Put in the oven for 24 hours 4. Get the weight of the

aggregates (Dry weight-1)
 87

DOCUMENTATION

5. Wash the aggregates 6. Put back in the oven after

wash

7. Get the weight of the 8. Start sieving the aggregates

aggregates (Dry weight-2)

9. Get the weight of sample retained on each sieve

 88

DOCUMENTATION

TEST OF AGGREGATES: MOISTURE CONTENT DETERMINATION

1. Preparing basins for each 2. Get the weight of each

aggregate sample aggregate sample (25 g)
(Original weight)

4. Get the weight of the

3. Put in the oven for 24 hours aggregates (Dry weight)
 89

DOCUMENTATION
WATER ABSORPTION TEST OF CHB (7 days and 14 days)
1. Get the weight of 2 CHB 6” sample 2. Put the CHB 6” samples in the
per mixture (Original weight) oven

3. Get the weight of each CHB 6” 4. Submerge the CHB 6” for 24 hours
after air dry (Dry weight)

5. Get the weight of the CHB 6” while submerged in the water (Immersed weight)

6. Get the weight of the CHB 6” after wiping (Wet weight)

 90

DOCUMENTATION
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST

CHB 6” with 7 days of curing CHB 6” with 14 days of curing

 91

APPENDIX K
CURRICULUM VITAE

Kenneth Roy C. Guadalquiver

kenroooy2468@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09514882144

Personal Background
Home Address : Purok Gugma, Balangasan, Pagadian City,
Zamboanga del Sur
Present Address : Purok Gugma, Balangasan, Pagadian City,
Zamboanga del Sur
Date of Birth : March 07, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Attainment
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
2018 – Present
Upper Secondary : Holy Child’s Academy
Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
2016 – 2018
Lower Secondary : Holy Child’s Academy
Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
2012 – 2016
Elementary : Balangasan Central Elementary School
Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
2006 – 2012
 92

Kresshia Monica F. Lawas

krshaatml@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09052310611

Personal Background
Home Address : Block 8 Lot 14, Housing, Canduman,
Mandaue City
Present Address : Block 8 Lot 14, Housing, Canduman,
Mandaue City
Date of Birth : June 18, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Attainment
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
2018 – Present
Upper Secondary : University of Cebu – Banilad
Gov. M. Cuenco Ave., Cebu City
2016 – 2018
Lower Secondary : San Isidro Parish School
Talamban, Cebu City
2012 – 2016
Elementary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
2004 – 2012
 93

Errol Kcin Lucob

Noglory35@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09231392602

Personal Background
Home Address : Purok Camansi, Yati, Liloan, Cebu
Present Address : Purok Camansi, Yati, Liloan, Cebu
Date of Birth : December 22, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Attainment
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
2018 – Present
Upper Secondary : Saint Louis College – Cebu
M.D. Echavez, Mandaue City, Cebu
2016 – 2018
Lower Secondary : Saint Louis College – Cebu
M.D. Echavez, Mandaue City, Cebu
2012 – 2016
Elementary : Yati Elementary School
Yati, Liloan, Cebu
2006 – 2012
 94

John Paul D. Lumen

jhnpllumen@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09566200383

Personal Background
Home Address : Odevilas Subdivision, Tisa, Cebu City
Present Address : Odevilas Subdivision, Tisa, Cebu City
Date of Birth : October 28, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Attainment
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
2018 – Present
Upper Secondary : University of San Carlos – Talamban
Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City
2016 – 2018
Lower Secondary : Salcedo National High School
Salcedo, Eastern Samar
2012 – 2016
Elementary : Salcedo Central Elementary School
Salcedo, Eastern Samar
2006 – 2012
 95

Isabela Andrea L. Onque

belaonque890@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09186434233

Personal Background
Home Address : Sitio Lupot, Sabang, Danao City, Cebu
Present Address : Sitio Lupot, Sabang, Danao City, Cebu
Date of Birth : September 14, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Attainment
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
2018 – Present
Upper Secondary : University of San Carlos – Talamban
Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City
2016 – 2018
Lower Secondary : University of San Carlos – South Campus
J. Alcantara St., Cebu City
2012 – 2016
Elementary : San Roque Child Department School
Cebu North Rd, Liloan, Cebu
2006 – 2012
 96

Joey B. Sta. Cruz Jr.

joeystacruz0@gmail.com
Mobile No.: 09467635656

Personal Background
Home Address : Block 2 Lot 46, Dumlog, Talisay City, Cebu
Present Address : Block 2 Lot 46, Dumlog, Talisay City, Cebu
Date of Birth : June 12, 1999
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic

Educational Attainment
Tertiary : Cebu Institute of Technology – University
N. Bacalso Avenue, Cebu City
2018 – Present
Upper Secondary : University of Cebu – METC
Alumnos St., Cebu City
2016 – 2018
Lower Secondary : Holy Child’s Academy
Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
2012 – 2016
Elementary : Balangasan Central Elementary School
Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur
2006 – 2012