Comparative Study On The Compressive Strength and Production Cost of Hollow Concrete Block (HCB) With and Without Red Ash in Tepi Town, Ethiopia
Comparative Study On The Compressive Strength and Production Cost of Hollow Concrete Block (HCB) With and Without Red Ash in Tepi Town, Ethiopia
Comparative Study On The Compressive Strength and Production Cost of Hollow Concrete Block (HCB) With and Without Red Ash in Tepi Town, Ethiopia
64
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019
www.ijsret.org
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882
65
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019
study. The sampling procedure used in this research 2.3 Material preparation
was purposive sampling. For compressive strength Generally red ash, ordinary Portland cement, crushed
test, a total of 6 HCB was prepared. For HCB without aggregates, gravel 00 and sand were materials used in
red ash, a total of 18 samples were prepared which this study. But they were also divided in to two. These
were tested at 7, 14 and 28 days of curing. For HCBs were materials for HCB with red ash and materials for
with red ash 10 different sample were prepared with HCB without red ash.
different percentage of red ash.
Sample ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Redash(%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2.4 Materials for hollow concrete blocks without the six boxes. The calculation conducted to prepare the
red ash box was: The volume of one box which is
20cmx40cmx50cm= 0.04 m3. Then the volume for 6
DANGOTE Ordinary Portland cement(OPC),
boxes is 0.04x6=0.24 m3. Therefor, 10% of 0.24=
Crushed aggregate, Sand and Gravel 00.
0.024 m3, 0.024 m3 =20cmx30cmx40cm. Therefor a
2.5 Materials for hollow concrete blocks with box with 20cm height, 30 cm width and 40 cm length
redash was prepared to measure the 10% red ash for the
DANGOTE Ordinary Portland cement(OPC), hollow blocks with red ash. The study also separately
Crushed aggregate and, Red ash (scoria). The red conducted the proportioning for the two types of
ash was extracted from Meti quarry site which is hollow concrete blocks as follows;
located at 17 km from Tepi town.
a) Proportioning for HCB without red ash
In Tepi town the micro and small HCB
enterprises use 1:3:2:1 ratio of cement, sand, gravel 00
and crushed aggregate respectively for producing HCB
without red ash. The study was also conducted by
using this proportion to produce the blocks.
b) Proportioning for HCB with red ash
The proportion used by micro and small enterprise
in Tepi to produce HCB with red ash is 1:4:2. That is
cement, red ash and crushed aggregate proportion. But
the study used 1:6 cement aggregate ratios. And out of
the six part of aggregate it replaced the amount of
crushed aggregate with different percentage of red ash
Figure 2.4. shows the red ash quarry site in Meti. with a constant interval of 10% and increased up to
100%. This was done in order to determine the
2.6 Proportioning the materials maximum replacement of red ash for crushed
The two most widely used cement to aggregate aggregate.
ratios are 1:6 and 1:8 for hollow concrete blocks 2.7 Mixing process
production (SRCCD, 2008). The study was conducted
by using 1:6 mix proportions for both type of HCB. The mixing process was conducted in two steps.
The proportion 1:6 indicates 1bag of cement to 6 boxes The first step was dry mix of aggregates and cement
of aggregate. The proportioning box used was the box on the floor by hand and the second step was wet
which is commonly used for HCB proportioning, that mixing of aggregates and cement inside electrically
is 20cmx40cmx50cm (height, width and length). There operated mixer.
was a need to prepare another box to measure the 10% The first thing for mixing water determination was
incremental of red ash which is 10% of the volume of selecting water cement ratio. The selected water
www.ijsret.org
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882
66
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019
cement ratio for the HCB without red ash was 0.5, was added by following the same procedure. For 70%
which is between (0.49-0.55) that was recommended -60% the water amount 26.5kg was found enough. But
by GTZ Low Cost Housing Manual Volume I. while determining the 50%-30% mixes, the mixes
attained their optimum mixing water at 25kg. But the
Then the optimum mixing water was checked by
20% and 10% red ash mixes at 24.5kg.
rubbing a shovel against the mix as stated by (CCI,
2006) and a ripple mark was observed at the back of III. RESULT
the shovel. The water amount added is 25 Kg. The
next step was determining mixing water for the HCB 3.1 The optimum red ash content for this study is
with red ash. The first mix considered was 100% red the red ash content that gives the maximum
ash and 25kg of water were added slowly by checking compressive strength up to that content and any further
the optimum mixing water at some intervals. But due increase in the content results a decrease in
to absorption of the red ash the mix was very dry and compressive strength. The optimum content was
the optimum mixing water checked and no ripple determined on the 28th day mean compressive strength
marks were observed. Then by continuously adding
and clearly plotted in the table 3.1.
water and checking for the ripple marks, the water
amount was determined and recorded as 27.5 kg. As
going down to 90%-80%, the same amount of water
Table 3.1:The 28th, 14th, 7th, day mean compressive strength of HCB with red ash
Red ash content (%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
28th MCS(Mpa) 2.01 3.11 3.60 2.95 2.7 2.60 2.19 2.18 1.84 1.48
14th MCS(Mpa) 1.77 2.74 3.26 2.66 2.41 2.32 2.04 1.95 1.72 1.30
7th MCS(Mpa) 1.28 2.05 2.27 1.95 1.78 1.72 1.46 1.37 1.14 0.86
As shown in the Figure 3.1, as the red ash amount in the hollow concrete blocks increases up to 30% the
compressive strength also increases from 2.01MPa to 3.6MPa. But after 30% to 100% the compressive strength
decreases from 3.6MPa to 1.48MPa. The decrease in compressive strength is due to further replacement of crushed
aggregates with relatively weak red ash aggregate.
Figure 3.1 (a). The 7th mean compressive Figure 3.1 (b). The 14th mean compressive
strength versus red ash content (%) strength versus red ash content (%)
www.ijsret.org
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882
67
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019
Table 3.3: Direct unit cost of HCB without and 30% red ash HCB
Type of HCB Direct unit cost (birr)
HCB without red ash 19.34
30% red ash HCB 13.001
www.ijsret.org
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882
68
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019
Figure 3.4. Compressive strength of HCB Table 3.4. Compressive strength of HCB
without without red ash versus 30% redash HCB
red ash versus 30% redash HCB
Figure3.5. Cost comparison between HCB without red ash and 30% red ash HCB
Table 3.5 Direct unit cost of HCB without and 30% red ash HCB
Type of HCB Direct unit cost (birr)
HCB without red ash 19.34
30% red ash HCB 13.001
Table 3.6 Unit weight of 30% red ash HCBs and HCBs without red ash
28th day unit weight of the HCBs
sample no
30% red ash HCB(Kg/m3) HCB without red ash(Kg/m3)
1 909.375 1053.125
2 912.5 1106.25
3 890.625 1078.125
4 906.25 1050
5 903.125 1078.125
6 887.5 1084.375
3
Average 901.5625 Kg/m 1075 Kg/m3
www.ijsret.org
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882
69
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019
www.ijsret.org
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882
70
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019
www.ijsret.org