Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PRODUCTION OF COMMERCIAL
HOLLOW BLOCK
MARICEL P. DULNUAN
ROMELYN P. SERAFIN
April, 2011
i
NVSU RDD FORM NO. 3
ACCEPTANCE SHEET
ADORNADO C. VERGARA
Chair, Agricultural Engineering Department
24 March 2011
Date
SALUD A. MANGACCAT
Dean, College of Engineering
25 March 2011
Date
ii
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
Personal Data
Educational Background
iii
Bontok, Ifugao, Member, 2003-2005
Benguet,Apayao, Member, 2007-2011
Kalinga (BIBAK)
Organization
Seminar Attended
______________
Signature
iv
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
Personal Data
Educational Background
Extra-curricular Activities
v
Society of Future Member, 2007-2011
Engineers (SFE)
Seminar Attended
______________
Signature
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher wishes to extend her heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the
following:
Engr. Jyrus Jyles D. Cadiente, her thesis adviser, who gave his full attention and
support, for his kindness and also for sharing his knowledge during the conduct of the
study;
Engr. Sony P. Aquino, her research critic, for his encouragement, comments, and
for his advice, comments and suggestions during the editing of the manuscript;
Engr. Salud A. Mangaccat, Dean of the College of Engineering, for the support
Engr. Edgardo De Guzman, owner of the Buildhaus Centre, and his staff for their
Engr. Noel B. Adducul, Engr. Edwin C. Olarte and Engr. Eduardo J. Onato Jr., for
allowing them to test their samples in the CMT laboratory at the Provincial Capitol of
Nueva Vizcaya;
To her husband, Mr. Julius A. Puhig for his moral and financial support;
Heartfelt thanks to her parents, Mr. Alfonso P. Dulnuan and Mrs. Elma P.
Patnaan; her siblings, Joel, Gemma, Zennie, and Moises and also to her daughter,
vii
Above all, the Almighty God, for His blessings and guidance in achieving her
goals.
M.P.D.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researcher wishes to extend her most profound gratitude to the following:
Engr. Jyrus Jyles D. Cadiente, her thesis adviser, for sharing his time, knowledge
Engr. Sony P. Aquino, her research critic, for his guidance and suggestions for the
and Engr. Salud A. Mangaccat, College Dean, for their comments, suggestions and
Engr. Edgardo De Guzman, Mr. Victor Reyes, Mr. Romeo Mercado, Mr. Joey
Banhan, Mr. Sherwin Pascua of the Buildhaus Centre, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya for their
Engr. Noel B. Adducul, Engr. Edwin C. Olarte, and Engr. Eduardo J. Onato Jr. for
allowing them to test their samples in the CMT laboratory at the Provincial Capitol of
Nueva Vizcaya;
Her parents, Mr. Roberto L. Serafin and Mary T. Pantaleon for their love,
R. P. S
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE i
ACCEPTANCE SHEET ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS x
ABSTRACT xiv
INTRODUCTION
The Problem 1
Significance of the Study 2
Objectives of the Study 2
Scope and Limitation of the Study 2
Time and Place of the Study 3
Definition of Terms 3
Cylindrical Samples 11
Rice Hull Blocks 13
Concrete Hollow Blocks 13
Cost Analysis 14
x
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
LITERATURE CITED 17
APPENDICES 18
PICTORIAL PRESENTATION 28
PVC Molders 29
RHB 33
Measuring RHB 37
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX PAGE
xiii
ABSTRACT
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
Using different ratios, cylindrical samples of Rice Hull Block (RHB) were
prepared, cured, dried then tested for compression at the Construction Materials
Hollow Block (CHB) mix prepared by known local supplier were also prepared, cured,
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 (RHB) were machine made using the same procedures and equipment
for producing 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 CHB is 1:13:2. However, Rice Hull Block (RHB) is slightly
stronger than Concrete Hollow Block (CHB) by 0.09Mpa or 4.62%. Rice hull block is
xiv
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 or P1.62 % or
P 0.10.
xv