Comparative Study On The Compressive Strength and Production Cost of Hollow Concrete Block (HCB) With and Without Red Ash in Tepi Town, Ethiopia

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882

64
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND


PRODUCTION COST OF HOLLOW CONCRETE BLOCK (HCB) WITH
AND WITHOUT RED ASH IN TEPI TOWN, ETHIOPIA

Tewodros Getachew Gobeze1, Dinesh.S2, Kirubakaran.K3


1
(Head, Department of Construction Technology and Management, Assosa University, Assosa, Ethiopia.
Email:teddyglass24@gmail.com)
2
(Lecturer, Department of construction technology and management, Assosa University, Assosa, Ethiopia.
Email: dineshsmart19@gmail.com)
3
(Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Nadar Saraswathi College of Engineering and Technology, Theni, India.
Email: kirubakarance93@gmail.com)

ABSTRACT the hollow blocks, combined strip- and slab foundation


and others (GTZ, 2005). The key natural lightweight
Construction materials in construction and technology aggregates are diatomite, pumice, scoria, volcanic
focuses improving the quality, cost, ease of using cinder, and tuff. Except for diatomite, all are volcanic
materials in different form, increasing performance in origin. Pumice and scoria are more widely used for
and so on. But if improving cost is considered, quality hollow and solid concrete block production in Ethiopia
should not be compromised. The culture of using (Abebe Dinku, 2005). The use of scoria (red ash) as a
alternative ingredients to produce materials is weak in construction material will help conserve energy (as
Ethiopia. The main objective of this study was to heat insulating material) and will provide low cost
compare the compressive strength and production cost cement and lightweight concrete (Khandaker M.
of hollow concrete blocks with and without red ash in Anwar Hossain, 2006). And also the journal claims
Tepi Town. Specifically, it focused in determining the that the pozzolanic activity tests indicate that finely
compressive strength of both blocks, to compare the ground scoria is pozzolanically active and has
cost of production and to determine the optimum cementitious characteristics to be used as cement
replacement of red ash for crushed aggregate. additive. This experimental study was conducted by
According to this study, the HCB without red ash preparing two types of HCB test samples. The first test
achieved 3.72Mpa mean compressive strength and the sample of HCB was produced by using mix proportion
HCB with 30% red ash achieved 3.60Mpa mean 1:3:2:1 of cement, sand, gravel 00 and crushed
compressive strength. The optimum replacement was aggregate respectively as a control group. The second
obtained at 30% red ash. The production cost of all sample HCBs were produced with red ash by using
HCBs with red ash was found lower than the HCB cement, crushed aggregate and red ash (scoria). The
without red ash. According to the weight comparison ratio of cement to aggregate used was 1:6. Out of the
made, the HCBs with red ash were found lighter than six parts of aggregate, the aggregate was replaced with
HCB without red ash. The hollow concrete blockwith 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%
red ash in this study has achieved a better cost and 100% amounts of red ash by volume.
reduction in production cost, higher reduction in
weight and a smaller reduction in compressive strength
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS OF
than hollow concrete blocks without red ash. The study
further recommended to the micro and small HCB RESEARCH
producers to increase the production of HCB with red
ash, for the contractors and clients of Tepi Town to use 2.1. Study setting or area
this product instead of importing HCB. This study was conducted in Tepi Town which is
located at 609 km from Addis Ababa and found in
Keywords- Compressive strength, crushed aggregate,
southern part of Ethiopia in Sheka Zone,
hollow concrete blocks, production cost and red ash.
coordinates:7o 12’N 35o27’E /7.2000N 35.4500E,
I. INTRODUCTION found at an altitude of 1,097m above sea level and a
population of 19231
Recently in Ethiopia, the introduction of different 2.2. Sample size and sampling procedure
concrete blocks was carried out in the low- cost The sampling procedure needs to be conducted in
housing projects. This includes new hollow block size,
order to select samples that are representatives for the
u shaped blocks, reinforcement for columns inside of

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.

Table 2.2: Different samples with 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

Figure 3.1 (c).The 28th mean compressive


strength versus redash content (%)

Table 3.2. Mean compressive strength of HCB without red ash

Testing day Mean compressive strength(average of 6 HCB) in MPa


7th day 2.19
14th day 3.10
28th day 3.72

Figure3.2. Compressive strength graph for HCB without red ash

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

28th day’s mean


compressive
Type of HCB
strength(Mpa)
produced

HCB without red


3.72 Mpa
ash

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

IV. CONCLUSION AND If it is properly produced, with a small difference


in compressive strength but with large amount of cost
ECOMMENDATION and weight reduction HCB can be produced from red
ash. Therefore, it is recommended that the micro and
4.1 CONCLUSIONS small producers of hollow concrete blocks in Tepi
The main objective of this study was to compare the
town should increase the production of HCB with red
compressive strength and production cost of HCB
ash and crushed aggregate. Since other lightweight
without and with red ash in Tepi town. During
aggregates are not available around Tepi, it is
conducting this study, it is concluded that the
recommended that producers of HCB use red ash as
compressive strength of the HCB without red ash was
light weight aggregate alone with crushed aggregates
greater than the HCB with red ash. But cost wise the
in the production of HCB. The contractors shall
HCB without red ash incurred very higher direct cost
produce or buy HCB with red ash instead of using
of production than the HCB with red ash. While
HCB without red ash, which has higher cost of
meeting the specific objectives of the study, the red
production and self-weight than the red ash HCB.
ash amount which gives a higher strength was
They are also recommended to use red ash HCB
achieved at 30% red ash content, which is the optimum
instead of importing HCB from other town to reduce
replacement of red ash for crushed aggregate that gives
the cost of construction.
a higher compressive strength than the rest red ash
replacement contents. During The replacement of For other Towns in Ethiopia where red ash is
different percentage of red ash, the 30% red ash abundantly available
hollow concrete blocks have achieved a 28th day mean For other Towns in Ethiopia where red ash is
compressive strength which is only 3.3% smaller than abundantly available, it is recommended that HCB
that of HCB without red ash. On the other aspects of producers should adopt the use of red ash alone with
production cost and self-weight, the 30% red ash HCB crushed aggregate in HCB production.
has achieved 32.77% cost and 19.23% weight
reductions. Therefore, the 30% red ash HCB can be For construction materials research centers
used in place of HCB without red ash. According to The governmental and non-governmental
the 28th day mean compressive strength test results, materials research centers are recommended to
hollow concrete blocks produced without red ash and conduct further studies on red ash as a hollow concrete
with red ash except 90% and 100% red ash HCBs, all block production material, in areas where red ash is
were Class C according to Ethiopian standards. The abundantly available.
90% and 100% red ash HCBs were out of Class
according to Ethiopian Standard. According to ASTM, V. REFERENCES
the 30% red ash HCBs and HCB without red ash in
terms of individual requirements, were non-load [1]. Abebe Dinku, construction materials laboratory
bearing hollow concrete blocks. Generally, it is manual. Addis Ababa University (2002).
concluded that, by using red ash as an aggregate a [2]. Abebe Dinku, (2005). The need for standardization
higher reduction in cost of production, higher of aggregate for concrete production in Ethiopian
reduction in weight and a small reduction in construction industry.
compressive strength than the HCB without red ash [3]. American Society for Testing and Materials
were achieved. (ASTM C29/29M). Standard test method for
4.2 Recommendations unit weight and voids in aggregate.
According to the study conducted on the comparison [4]. American Society for Testing and Materials
of compressive strength and production costs of HCB (ASTM C33). Standard Specification for Concrete
with and without red ash, the following Aggregates.
recommendations were made for concerned bodies. [5]. American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM C90-70). Hollow load bearing Concrete
For Tepi Town Administration Office Masonry Units.
The construction units of Tepi Town [6]. American Society for Testing and Materials
Administration should create awareness to the users of (ASTM C 125-93). Standard terminology related
HCB about the use of red ash HCB. The construction to concrete and concrete aggregates.
unit should also encourage the micro and small HCB [7]. American Society for Testing and Materials
production enterprises for their contribution in (ASTM C129-70). Hollow non- load bearing
production of cost effective hollow concrete blocks. concrete masonry units.
[8]. Ethiopian Standard (ES 596:2001). Specification
For contractors and micro and small HCB for concrete masonry units.
production enterprises

www.ijsret.org
International Journal of Scientific Research Engineering & Technology (IJSRET), ISSN 2278 – 0882
70
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2019

[9]. American Society for Testing and Materials


(ASTM C136-93). Sieve analysis of fine and
coarse aggregates.
[10]. American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM C142-78). Standard test method for clay
lumps and friable particles in aggregates.
[11]. American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM C331-94). Standard specification for light
weight aggregates for concrete masonry units.
[12]. Benjovsky T.D. and Clippinger D.M., (1945).
Natural light-weight building block materials of
New Mexico. Socorro, New Mexico.
[13]. British Standard (BS 882:1992). Specification for
aggregates from natural sources.
[14]. British Standard (BS 812: part 2:1995). Method
of determination of density.
[15]. British Standard (BS 812-105.1: 1989). Method
of determination of particle shape.
[16]. BMTPC (Building Materials and Technology
Promotion Council), 2014. Techno economics
feasibility report on concrete hallow and solid
blocks. Ministry of housing and urban poverty
alleviation government of India, New Delhi, India.
[17]. Calin M., Kan P. and Nuntapong O., (2003).
Estimating building costs. New York.
[18]. CCI (Cement and Concrete Institute), 2006. How
to make concrete bricks and blocks.
[19]. Concrete Block Association, Aggregate concrete
blocks; a guide to select and specification 2007.
[20]. Clippinger D. M., Building Blocks from Natural
Lightweight Materials of New Mexico. New
Mexico bureau of mines and mineral resources;
SOCORRO, New Mexico 1946.
[21]. Dirk H., Appropriateness is a Moving Target: The
Re-invention of Local Construction Technologies
and Materials in Ethiopia, Journal of African
Technology Development Forum 2010. 7(2):41-
43.
[22]. Duggal S. K,Building materials. 3rd ed.
Allahabad: New Age international limited 2008.
[23]. Ethiopian Ministry of Federal Affairs, GTZ Low
Cost Housing Technical Manual Volume I (2006).
[24]. Ethiopian Standard (ES C. D3. 301).
Specification for concrete masonry units.
[25]. Ethiopian Standard (ES C. D4.001). Compressive
strength test method for hollow concrete blocks.
[26]. Evans E.J., Inglethorpe S.J. and Wetton P.D.
Evaluation of pumice and scoria samples from
East Africa as lightweight aggregate (1999).

www.ijsret.org

You might also like