1

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

In constructing farm or housing structures, one of the most used construction

materials is Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) and due to its expensive cost, most of the

consumers can’t afford, particularly those who have inadequate budget for construction.

One of the world’s major rice producers is the Philippines and the major by-

products of rice milling are hull or the outer shell of the rice grain. Hull constitutes about

20 to 22 percent by weight of the grain. The hull is made of hard material to protect the

seed during the growing season, and is indigestible to humans. However, rice hull should

not be looked upon as a useless material. In the Philippines, rice hull is used as fuel for

drying purposes, hull briquettes used in domestic stoves as an alternative to liquefied

petroleum gas or LPG. It also serves as bedding or litter and as pillow stuffing in some

parts of the world.

But still, big portions of rice hull are not utilized because of its large volume. It is

even considered as waste dumped into open fields and waterways or burned in open

grounds.

Now, rice hull can be used as aggregate for Rice Hull Block (RHB), a substitute

for Concrete Hollow Block (CHB). Rice hull block is a combination of rice hull, cement

and sand. A wall composed of Rice Hull Block (RHB) units may not have the

compressive strength of ordinary CHB but RHB wall can provide the same function of

Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) wall of a common residential building or farm structure.

Yet it is cheaper and faster to build. (Mangmangon and Reyes, 2008)

 2

Results of this study may contribute to our economy particularly to the low-

income consumers in the sense that instead of using CHB, they may now use RHB which

have a similar compressive strength with that of CHB but at a significant lower cost.

Significance of the Study

Results of this study may benefit the following

1. Researchers and students, as their basis for future research on using different

materials such as biodegradable and/or non-biodegradable waste.

2. Farmers and suppliers of construction materials, as their reference in producing

RHB.

Objectives of the Study

This study was conducted to attain the following objectives:

1. Determine the proper ratio of the cement, sand and ground rice hull that will

produce a compressive strength equivalent with the common CHB.

2. Show the difference between common CHB and RHB in terms of weight and

unit cost.

Scope and Limitations of the study

This study was limited to the production and compressive strength testing of Rice

Hull Block (RHB) using different ratios of cement, sand, ground rice hull and water.
 3

Time and Place of the Study

This study was conducted from November, 2010 to February, 2011 at the College

of Engineering, Nueva Vizcaya State University, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. The

testing for RHB was conducted at the Construction Materials and Testing (CMT)

Laboratory of the Provincial Engineer’s Office of Nueva Vizcaya.

Definition of Terms

Aggregate. Inert material which is mixed with Portland cement and water to

produced concrete.

Compressive Strength. The capacity of a material to withstand axially directed

pushing forces.

Compression Testing Machine. A machine used to determine the compressive

strength of any solid object.

Curing. The process of becoming hard or solid by cooling, drying or

crystallization.

Foot pressure. Application of load equivalent to the average human weight or

about 70kg.

Ground Rice Hull. This is commercially available known as D3 or “TUYO”.

Lignin. A complex organic compound that binds to cellulose fibers and hardens

and strengthens the cell wall of plants.

Litter. Materials such as straw, used as bedding for animals.

Pyrolysis. The chemical process of decomposition under the effect of heat.

Rice hull. The hard protecting covering of rice grain.

 4

Silica. A white or colorless vitreous insoluble solids. Various forms occur widely

in the earth’s crust as quartz or cristobalite or tridymite or lechatelierite.

Sterile. Free from viable microorganisms.

 5

Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

About 20% of paddy consists of husks (hulls). In addition, there is about 5% of

dirt, dead grain and other extraneous matter; the miller may therefore expect to obtain

about 75% of rice and it’s by products. The following percentages are obtained by

milling and polishing: whole rice 50, points and broken rice 17, bran 10, meal 3, husk 30

(Grist, 1975).

Nicolas, 1995 states that 2-3million tons of rice hull materials are generated in the

Philippines annually. Of this total tonnage, a very conservative estimate is that only 5%

are utilized as fuel, and feeds, while the remaining balance (95%) is either dumped or

burned indiscriminately with no regard for environmental degradation. Rice hull is a

good source of energy. A ton of rice hull is equivalent to 318 liters of fuel. With a

heating value of 13,900 kilojoules per kilogram, rice hull can sum up to this volume

given ideal conditions.

Rice hulls are class A insulating materials because they are difficult to burn and

less likely to allow moisture to propagate mold or fungi. It was found out that rice hull

when burned produced amounts of silica. For these reasons it provides excellent thermal

insulation. Rice hulls are organic material and can be composted. However, their high

lignin content can make this a slow process. Sometimes earthworms are used to

accelerate the process. Using vermicomposting techniques, the hulls can be converted to

fertilizer in about four months (Wales, 2010).

 6

Some Filipino researchers have discovered rice hull ash (RHA) as a suitable

cement binder in the manufacture of hallows blocks. Adding 10%-20% ground gray or

white ash to ordinary Portland cement does not affect the strength of the construction

materials compared to 100% cement. This is because rice hull contains more than 87%

silica. Adding 30% RHA by weight or 50% RHA by volume to ordinary cement in the

manufacture of roof tiles makes the materials light, porous, and hard but brittle

(Tacio,2010).

Another product that is becoming increasingly popular is the Carbonized Rice

(CRH). CRH is crucial Ingredients of bokashi organic fertilizer and can be used in

composting toilets and animal bedding. CRH results from the incomplete combustion of

rice hulls under high heat and oxygen conditions (pyrolasis). To produce CRH, raw rice

hull is burned without air so that it will not turn into ash. CRH is sterile and is free from

disease organisms (Jensen et. al, 2006).

 7

Chapter III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials and Equipments

The materials used in this study were the following:

a. Ground rice hull

b. Screened sand passing ½-in screen

c. Portland cement

d. Potable water

e. Commercial 5-in concrete hollow blocks (5-in CHB)

f. Calibrated containers

g. Mixing board

h. Hand trowel

i. Fabricated PVC molder

j. Micrometer caliper

The equipments used in this study were the following:

a. Electronic weighing Scale

b. Compression Testing Machine

The standard weight of Portland Cement ( 40kg per bag) was divided into 80

equal parts which is 500gm and the standard volume of construction box (30x30x30cm =

27000cm3) was also divided into 80 equal parts which is 337.5cm3. All samples were

mixed with 500 gm (1 part) of cement and an initial 250 cm3 volume of water. However,
 8

if the mixture was too sticky for proper blending, water was added in increments of 500

cm3. A calibrated container with a volume of 337.5 cm3 was used as a measuring

container for sand and ground rice hull.

Ratios for Cylindrical Samples

For ease and simplicity of labor, cement was constant at 1 part and water at an

initial volume of 250 cm3. There were forty eight (48) ratios (cement: sand : ground rice

hull) considered in the study, where sand ranges from 2 to 13 parts and ground rice hull

ranging from one to four resulting to the following ratios.

a. 1 : 2 : 1 to 1 : 2 : 4 g. 1 : 8 : 1 to 1 : 8 : 4

b. 1 : 3 : 1 to 1 : 3 : 4 h. 1: 9 : 1 to 1 : 9 : 4

c. 1 : 4 : 1 to 1 : 4 : 4 i. 1 : 10 : 1 to 1 : 10 :4

d. 1 : 5 : 1 to 1 : 5 : 4 j. 1: 11 : 1 to 1 : 11 : 4

e. 1 : 6 : 1 to 1 : 6 : 4 k. 1 : 12 : 1 to 1 : 12 : 4

f. 1 : 7 : 1 to 1 : 7 : 4 l. 1 : 13 : 1 to 1 : 13 : 4

Procedure

1. Preparation of Cylindrical Samples

1.a. Mixing and Molding Process. Sand, ground rice hull, cement and water

was thoroughly mixed together on a clean mixing board using a hand trowel.

The mixture is then placed in the PVC molder with inside diameter of 70 mm

and a height of 110 mm in three layers and each layer was lightly tamped 8

times with a round tipped 6 mm plain steel rod to eliminate air voids. The
 9

molder was then lightly tapped on four sides to ensure that the mixture is

settled and would easily separate from the molder. The mold then was

loosened and moved vertically upward in a swift motion. The sample was kept

untouched for 30 minutes or until it is hard enough to be moved for curing.

1.b. Curing Process. The partially hardened cylindrical samples were

transferred to a flat stable surface that is covered from rain. To obtain the

sufficient compressive strength, the samples were kept moist by regularly

spraying with water for three days which is the same process and duration in

curing done by commercial CHB producer.

1.c. Sun Drying Process. Adapting the same number of days of exposing commercial

CHB under the sun, the samples were likewise totally exposed under the sun for four

days.

2. Preparation of the CHB Cylindrical Samples

To facilitate the comparison of the compressive strength of the samples with the

commercial Concrete Hollow Block (CHB). CHB mix were taken from a known local

CHB plant and made into cylindrical samples.

Compression Testing

All dried Rice Hull Block (RHB) samples were tested for compression using

human weight or foot pressure. All samples that cracked were eliminated and the

remaining samples together with the dried Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) cylindrical

samples from a known local manufacturer were brought to the Construction Materials

Testing (CMT) laboratory of the Provincial Engineering Office (PEO) to determine their

compressive strength
 10

Production of Rice Hull Blocks

In producing RHB, 1 bag (1 part) cement was used. And a standard 12”x12”x12”

(30x30x30 cm = 27000 cm3) mixing box was used as 1 part for the sand and ground rice

hull.

Adopting the ratio of the cylindrical sample with a compressive strength equal to

or slightly more than that of the cylindrical samples of Concrete Hollow Block (CHB),

rice hull blocks are then machine made using the same procedures and equipment for

producing Concrete Hollow Block (CHB). Then the dried Rice Hull Block (RHB)

products were brought to the Construction Materials Testing (CMT) laboratory for

compression testing.

For comparison, five samples of 5” Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) were bought

from a known local supplier and its average compressive strength and weight were also

taken at the CMT laboratory.

 11

Chapter IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cylindrical Samples

Table 1 shows the performance of the cylindrical samples under human weight or

foot pressure. Results showed that the mixture numbers 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 17, 21, 22, 25,

26, 29, 33, 34, 37, 41, 45 and 46 passed the foot pressure test. The remaining cylindrical

samples were then brought to the Construction Materials Testing (CMT) laboratory for

compression testing.

Table 1. Cylindrical Samples Under Foot Pressure

Mixture Ratio Foot Mixture Ratio Foot
No. (C:S:GRH) Pressure No. (C:S:GRH) Pressure
1 1:2:1 Passed 25 1:8:1 Passed
2 1:2:2 Failed 26 1:8:2 Passed
3 1:2:3 Failed 27 1:8:3 Failed
4 1:2:4 Passed 28 1:8:4 Failed
5 1:3:1 Passed 29 1:9:1 Passed
6 1:3:2 Failed 30 1:9:2 Failed
7 1:3:3 Failed 31 1:9:3 Failed
8 1:3:4 Passed 32 1:9:4 Failed
9 1:4:1 Passed 33 1:10:1 Passed
10 1:4:2 Failed 34 1:10:2 Passed
11 1:4:3 Failed 35 1:10:3 Failed
12 1:4:4 Passed 36 1:10:4 Failed
13 1:5:1 Failed 37 1:11:1 Passed
14 1:5:2 Failed 38 1:11:2 Failed
15 1:5:3 Failed 39 1:11:3 Failed
16 1:5:4 Failed 40 1:11:4 Failed
17 1:6:1 Passed 41 1:12:1 Passed
18 1:6:2 Failed 42 1:12:2 Failed
19 1:6:3 Failed 43 1:12:3 Failed
20 1:6:4 Failed 44 1:12:4 Failed
21 1:7:1 Passed 45 1:13:1 Passed
22 1:7:2 Passed 46 1:13:2 Passed
23 1:7:3 Failed 47 1:13:3 Failed
24 1:7:4 Failed 48 1:13:4 Failed
 12

Table 2 shows the compressive strength of three cylindrical samples taken from

the CHB plant. This showed that the mean compressive strength is 0.76 Mega Pascals.

This was used as the basis for selecting the ratio for making RHB.

Table 2. Mean compressive Strength of Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) Cylindrical

Samples
Sample Diameter Mean Load Comp. Strength Mean Comp.
(mm) (KN) (Mpa) Strength (Mpa)
1 71.1 0.76
2 71 3 0.76 0.76
3 70 0.78

Table 3 shows the ratios with its number of cylinders produced, diameter, mean

load, and mean compressive strength of the different cylindrical samples. Mixture

numbers 9, 21, 25, 34 and 46 have compressive strength equal to or greater than

0.76MPa. These ratios were used in the production of Rice Hull Blocks (RHB).

Table 3. Mean Compressive Strength of Rice Hull Block (RHB) Cylindrical Samples
Mixture No. Ratio Mean Mean Load Mean Comp. Remarks
Diameter Strength(Mpa)
1 1:2:1 71.65 3 0.74
4 1:2:4 71.6 1 0.25
5 1:3:1 71.37 2 0.50
8 1:3:4 70.73 1 0.25
9 1:4:1 70.73 3 0.77 > .76 Mpa
12 1:4:4 71.60 1 0.25
17 1:6:1 71.93 3 0.74
21 1:7:1 70.98 3 0.76 = .76 Mpa
22 1:7:2 72.00 3 0.74
25 1:8:1 70.53 3 0.77 > .76 Mpa
26 1:8:2 71.75 3 0.74
29 1:9:1 71.00 3 0.76
33 1:10:1 71.50 3 0.75
34 1:10:2 71.08 3 0.76 = .76 Mpa
37 1:11:1 71.53 2 0.50
41 1:12:1 70.63 2 0.51
45 1:13:1 71.50 3 0.75
46 1:13:2 70.73 3 0.76 = .76 Mpa
 13

Rice Hull Blocks

Table 4 shows the size, compressive strength, and weight of Rice Hull Block

(RHB). It shows that mixture 9 has the highest mean compressive strength but has the

lowest RHB produced. The mixture that will produce a compressive strength equivalent

with the common Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) is 1:13:2 or a mixture consisting of 1

bag Portland cement, 13 boxes of sand, and 2 boxes of ground rice hull. This table also

showed that RHB has a ratio of 1:13:2 having a mean weight of 11.28 kg per block.

Table 4: Compressive Strength and Weight of 5-in Rice Hull Blocks (RHB)
Mix. Ratio Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Comp. No. of Mean
No. Length Width Load Area Strength(Mpa) Blocks Wt.(Kg)
(mm) (mm) (KN) (mm2)
9 1:4:1 399.33 122.23 175.00 85904.00 6.11 15 11.47
21 1:7:1 400.00 119.75 76.67 28370.00 2.17 28 11.00
25 1:8:1 400.00 119.95 60.00 28394.00 2.11 38 11.87
34 1:10:2 400.00 119.95 60.00 28394.00 2.11 49 11.17
36 1:13:2 404.33 119.33 58.33 28536.67 2.04 54 11.28

Concrete Hollow Blocks

Table 5 shows the mean compressive strength and mean weight are 1.95 Mega

Pascals and 11.67 kg. Manufacturers use a ratio of 1:13 in producing an average of 50

pieces of Concrete Hollow Block (CHB). And this mean compressive strength of CHB

was the basis for making of Rice Hull Block (RHB) that shown in table 4.
 14

Table 5. Compressive Strength and Weight of Commercial 5-in Concrete Hollow

Block (CHB)
CHB Length Width Load Area Comp. Weight (Kg)
2
(mm) (mm) (KN) (mm ) Strength
(Mpa)
1 405 122 60 28890 2.08 11.62
2 404 120 55 28600 1.92 11.55
3 402 120 50 28500 1.75 11.78
4 407 121 60 28870 2.08 11.64
5 398 122 55 28540 1.93 11.77
Mean 1.95 11.67

Cost Analysis

Result of the Cost Analysis (Appendix F) shows that Rice Hull Block (RHB) is

cheaper than Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) by Php 0.10.

Table 6. Comparison of Direct Unit Cost of Rice Hull Block (RHB) and Concrete
Hollow Block (CHB)
Material Cost Material Unit Cost Labor Cost Direct Unit Cost
(per mix) (per piece) (per piece) (per piece)
CHB P 268.00 P 5.36 0.80 cent. P 6.16
RHB P 284.00 P 5.26 0.80 cent. P 6.06
 15

Chapter V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary and Conclusion

The purpose of this study were: a) to determine the proper ratio of the cement,

sand and ground rice hull that will produce a compressive strength equivalent with the

common Concrete Hollow Block (CHB); b) to show the difference between common

Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) and Rice Hull Block (RHB) in terms of weight and unit

cost.

Using different ratios, cylindrical samples of RHB were prepared, cured, dried

then tested for compression at the Construction Materials Laboratory (CMT) laboratory.

For comparison, cylindrical samples using Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) mix from a

known local supplier were also prepared, cured, dried then tested for compression at the

CMT laboratory.

Adopting the ratio of the cylindrical sample with a compressive strength equal to

or slightly more than that of the cylindrical samples of Concrete Hollow Block (CHB),

rice hull blocks were machine made using the same procedures and equipment for

producing Concrete Hollow Block (CHB). For comparison, commercial 5” Concrete

Hollow Block (CHB) were also bought. All blocks were brought to the CMT laboratory

for testing and weighing.

The ratio of cement, sand and ground rice hull that produced an equivalent

compressive strength with Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) is 1:13:2. However, Rice Hull

Block (RHB) is slightly stronger than Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) by 0.09 Mega
 16

Pascals or 4.62%. Rice hull block is lighter than concrete Hollow Block (CHB) by 0.39kg

or 3.34% and the direct unit cost of Rice Hull Block (RHB) is cheaper than Concrete

Hollow Block (CHB) by P0.10 or 1.62%.

B. Recommendations

Based on the results of study, the following are recommended:

1. Rice Hull Block (RHB) with a ratio of 1:13:2 is recommended as Concrete Hollow

Block substitute for wall of residential building and farm structures,

2. Study on the use of ground rice hull as an aggregate for reinforced concrete,

3. Study on the use of ground rice hull as additional raw material for plastering of

Concrete surfaces, ands

4. Study on the use of ground rice hull as an additional raw material for clay products.
 17

Literature Cited

Grist, Donald H.1975.Fifth Edition,”Rice”. Longman. London and New York.

Jensen, H.et. al.February, 2006.”Bokashi Nature Farming Manual Philippines”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15940714/Bokashi-Nature-Farming-Manual-
Phlippines.

Mangmangon, N. and Reyes, C. 2008. ”Investigation of Rice hull as Aggregate in the

Production of Concrete Hollow Block”. Unpublished BS Thesis. NVSU,
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.

Nicolas, Jose S.1995.”Abundance of Rice hulls Stirs Imagination”

http://www.greenstone.org/greenstone3/nzdl

Tacio, Henrylito D. March 7, 2010.”Rice hull Should Not go to

Waste”. http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/rice-hull-should-not-go-to-waste

Wales, J. 2010.”Rice hulls”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_hulls

.
 18

APPENDICES
 19

APPENDIX A

Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCE OF NUEVA VIZCAYA
Bayombong
-oOo-

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ENGINEER

TEST REPORT ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CYLINDRICAL

SAMPLES PASSING FOOT PRESSURE

Date of Test: January 7, 2011 Laboratory Billing No.______

Project: Thesis_________________________
Location: Nueva Vizcaya State University___
Contrator/ Client: Maricel P. Dulnuan and Romelyn P. Serafin
s

Sample/ Part of Structure Taken/ Diameter Length Area Load

Specimen Mark Station Taken (mm) (mm) (mm2) (KN)
Cement: Sand: Ground rice hull
1.1 1:2:1 72.1 110.10 4082.82 3
1.2 1:2:1 71.5 113.05 4015.15 3
1.3 1:2:1 71.34 110.15 3997.20 3
4.1 1:2:4 71.1 109.85 3970.35 1
4.2 1:2:4 72.35 111.55 4111.18 1
4.1 1:2:4 71.35 109.45 3998.32 1
5.1 1:3:3 70.9 108.25 3948.05 2
5.2 1:3:3 71.15 108.55 3975.94 2
5.3 1:3:3 72.05 108.75 4077.16 2
8.1 1:3:4 71.1 112.95 3975.94 1
8.2 1:3:4 70.3 112.65 3881.51 1
9.1 1:4:1 70.6 102.70 3914.71 3
9.2 1:4:1 70.1 112.10 3859.45 3
9.3 1:4:1 70.4 112.95 3892.56 3
12.1 1:4:4 71.75 111.65 4043.28 1
12.2 1:4:4 71.6 113.25 4026.39 1
12.3 1:4:4 71.45 111.65 4009.54 1
17.1 1:6:1 72.3 110.10 4105.50 3
17.2 1:6:1 71.4 109.95 4003.93 3
17.3 1:6:1 72.1 112.15 4082.82 3
21.1 1:7:1 70.1 111.00 4429.65 3
21.2 1:7:1 71.95 113.55 4065.85 3
21.3 1:7:1 70.9 110.40 3948.05 3
22.1 1:7:2 72.1 112.65 4082.82 3
22.2 1:7:2 72.0 112.10 4071.50 3
22.3 1:7:2 71.9 110.95 4060.20 3
 20

25.1 1:8:1 70.1 110.00 3859.05 3

25.2 1:8:1 70.3 108.95 3881.51 3
25.3 1:8:1 71.2 109.30 3981.53 3
26.1 1:8:2 71.2 112.05 3981.53 3
26.2 1:8:2 72.3 112.55 4105.50 3
29.1 1:9:1 70.0 110.45 3848.45 3
29.2 1:9:1 71.45 112.30 4009.54 3
29.3 1:9:1 71.55 112.10 4020.77 3
33.1 1:10:1 71.05 111.85 3964.77 3
33.2 1:10:1 71.95 112.15 4065.85 3
34.1 1:10:2 71.1 112.05 3970.35 3
34.2 1:10:2 70.4 110.15 3892.56 3
34.3 1:10:2 71.75 113.05 4043.28 3
37.1 1:11:1 71.6 109.95 4026.39 2
37.2 1:11:1 71.45 108.90 4009.54 2
41.1 1:12:1 70.45 111.80 3898.09 2
41.2 1:12:1 70.6 112.25 3914.71 2
41.3 1:12:1 70.85 112.20 3942.48 2
45.1 1:13:1 71.05 111.70 3964.77 3
45.2 1:13:1 71.95 112.15 4065.85 3
46.1 1:13:2 70.6 111.60 3914.71 3
46.2 1:13:2 70.85 112.00 3942.48 3
CHB 1 1:13 71.1 112.45 3970.35 3
CHB 2 1:13 71.0 109.55 3959.19 3
CHB 3 1:13 70.0 111.10 3848.45 3

Tested by: Evaluated by:

(Sgd) EDUARDO J. ONATO, JR. (Sgd) EDWIN C. OLARTE

Laboratory Technician II Engineering Assistant
 21

APPENDIX B

Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCE OF NUEVA VIZCAYA
Bayombong
-oOo-

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ENGINEER

TEST REPORT ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF RHB CYLINDRICAL

SAMPLES

Date of Test: January 7, 2011 Laboratory Billing No.______

Project: Thesis_________________________
Location: Nueva Vizcaya State University___
Contrator/ Client: Maricel P. Dulnuan and Romelyn P. Serafin

Mixture No. Ratio Diameter(mm) Load(KN) Compressive

Strength(Mpa)
1 1:2:1 72.1 3 0.73
1:2:1 71.5 3 0.75
1:2:1 71.34 3 0.75
4 1:2:4 71.1 1 0.25
1:2:4 72.35 1 0.24
1:2:4 71.35 1 0.25
5 1:3:3 70.9 2 0.51
1:3:3 71.15 2 0.50
1:3:3 72.05 2 0.49
8 1:3:4 71.15 1 0.25
1:3:4 70.3 1 0.26
9 1:4:1 70.6 3 0.77
1:4:1 70.1 3 0.78
1:4:1 70.4 3 0.77
12 1:4:4 71.75 1 0.25
1:4:4 71.6 1 0.25
1:4:4 71.45 1 0.25
17 1:6:1 72.3 3 0.73
1:6:1 71.4 3 0.75
1:6:1 72.1 3 0.73
21 1:7:1 70.1 3 0.78
1:7:1 71.95 3 0.74
1:7:1 70.9 3 0.76
To be continued……
 22

…….Continuation

22 1:7:2 72.1 3 0.73

1:7:2 72.0 3 0.74
1:7:2 71.9 3 0.74
25 1:8:1 70.1 3 0.78
1:8:1 70.3 3 0.77
1:8:1 71.2 3 0.75
26 1:8:2 71.2 3 0.75
1:8:2 72.3 3 0.73
29 1:9:1 70 3 0.78
1:9:1 71.45 3 075
1:9:1 71.55 3 0.75
33 1:10:1 71.05 3 0.76
1:10:1 71.95 3 0.74
34 1:10:2 71.1 3 0.76
1:10:2 70.4 3 0.77
1:10:2 71.75 3 0.74
37 1:11:1 71.6 2 0.50
1:11:1 71.45 2 0.50
41 1:12:1 70.45 2 0.51
1:12:1 70.6 2 0.51
1:12:1 70.85 2 0.51
45 1:13:1 71.05 3 0.76
1:13:1 71.95 3 0.74
46 1:13:2 70.6 3 0.77
1:13:2 70.85 3 0.76

Tested by: Evaluated by:

(Sgd) EDUARDO J. ONATO, JR. (Sgd) EDWIN C. OLARTE

Laboratory Technician II Engineering Assistant
 23

APPENDIX C

Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCE OF NUEVA VIZCAYA
Bayombong
-oOo-

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ENGINEER

TEST REPORT ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CHB CYLINDRICAL

SAMPLES

Date of Test: January 7, 2011 Laboratory Billing No.______

Project: Thesis_________________________
Location: Nueva Vizcaya State University___
Contrator/ Client: Maricel P. Dulnuan and Romelyn P. Serafin

Mixture No. Ratio Diameter(mm) Load(KN) Compressive

Strength(Mpa)
1 1:13 71.1 3 0.76
2 1:13 71.0 3 0.76
3 1:13 70.0 3 0.78

Tested by: Evaluated by:

(Sgd) EDUARDO J. ONATO, JR. (Sgd) EDWIN C. OLARTE

Laboratory Technician II Engineering Assistant
 24

APPENDIX D

Republic of the Philippines

PROVINCE OF NUEVA VIZCAYA
Bayombong
-oOo-

OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL ENGINEER

TEST REPORT ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF MASONRY UNITS

Date of Test: February 28, 2011 Laboratory Billing No: ______

Project: Thesis_________________________
Location: Nueva Vizcaya State University___
Contrator/ Client: Maricel P. Dulnuan and Romelyn P. Serafin

Sample Part of Structure Length Width(mm) Area(mm2) Load(KN)

/Specimen Taken/Station (mm)
Mark Taken
Cement: Sand:
Ground rice hull
RHB 1:4:1 390 122.5 28200 170
RHB 1:4:1 408 124.5 29340 185
RHB 1:4:1 400 119.7 28364 170
RHB 1:7:1 400 120.05 28406 80
RHB 1:7:1 400 119.4 28328 70
RHB 1:7:1 400 119.8 28376 80
RHB 1:8:1 400 119.7 28364 70
RHB 1:8:1 400 120.45 28454 50
RHB 1:8:1 400 119.7 28364 60
RHB 1:10:2 400 119.7 28364 70
RHB 1:10:2 400 120.45 28454 50
RHB 1:10:2 400 119.7 28364 60
RHB 1:13:2 400 118.0 28410 55
RHB 1:13:2 400 120.0 28650 65
RHB 1:13:2 400 120.0 28550 55
CHB 1:13 405 122.0 28890 60
CHB 1:13 404 120.0 28600 55
CHB 1:13 402 120.0 28500 50
CHB 1:13 407 121.0 28870 60
CHB 1:13 398 122.0 28540 55

Tested by: Evaluated by:

(Sgd) EDUARDO J. ONATO, JR. (Sgd) EDWIN C. OLARTE

Laboratory Technician II Engineering Assistant
 25

APPENDIX E

Cross Section of Hollow Blocks

30 mm 30 mm 30 mm 30 mm

25 mm

25 mm

C.S. = P/A

Where: C.S. = Compressive strength of hollow block

P = Load

A= (L x 50) + 120 (W-50)

L = Length of the hollow block

W = Width of the hollow block

 26

APPENDIX F

Computation of Cost Analysis

1. Prices of Raw Materials

Sand= P170/cu.m.

Volume of 12”x12”x12’ box = (0.305m)3 = 0.028 m3

Price per box = P170/cu.m. x 0.028 cu. m. = P4.82

Say P5.00 per box of sand

Ground rice hull = P3/kg

Weight of ground rice hull in 12”x12”x12” box = 2.6 kg

Price per box = P3/kg x 2.6 kg = P7.80

Say P8.00 per box of ground rice hull

2. Direct Unit Cost of 5” CHB

Using 1 bag of cement and 13 boxes of sand (1:13) at a production rate of 50

pieces per mix, computation of unit cost is below:

1 bag PorPtland cement= P203

13 boxes of sand = P65

Material cost = P268 per mix

Material unit cost = P268/50 pc. = P5.36 per piece

Labor cost was added direct unit cost is P6.16 per piece.
 27

3. Direct unit cost of 5” RHB

Using 1 bag of cement, 13 boxes of sand and, 2 boxes of ground rice hull (1:13:2)

at a production rate of 54 pieces per mix, computation of unit cost is shown below:

1 bag Portland cement = P203

13 boxes of sand = P65

2 boxes of ground rice hull = P16

Material cost = P284

Labor cost was added and the direct unit cost is P6.06 per piece.
 28

PICTORIAL PRESENTATION
 29

Front view

Top view

A photograph of PVC molders

 30

Compression Testing Machine

 31

Cylindrical samples under compression load

 32

A photograph of CHB mixer

A photograph of CHB molders

 33

Mixing the cement, sand, ground rice hull, and water in a mixer
 34

Forming a new RHB

 35

Newly molded RHB

 36

Fresh RHB ready for drying and curing

 37

Measuring the thickness and height of RHB before the compression testing
 38

CHB under compression load

 39

RHB under compression load