Current money: 9225

Good day, before we start, we would like to thank the panelist for acknowledging our presentation and
to our thesis adviser, Engr. Diaz, in guiding us from the start in our study.

To start, we would like to present to you a recap of our study and what has happened since then. So our
study aimed to observe the effects of the incorporation of varying percentages of pineapple leaf fiber in
concrete which has replaced 2% of its cement with nano silica on the compressive and flexural strength
of the concrete as well as its physical failures.

We lagged a bit during the month of January, but we were able to finish the design mix, preparation,
mixing, and casting by February 20, 25 and 27. Curing was supposed to be 28 days, but because of the
quarantine, we were forced to cure it for 87 days. Curing longer doesn’t have a negative effect on
concrete but to be more accurate, it would have been favorable to cure the samples for 28 days. After
curing, we went to the testing center, tested the samples and gathered the data, and analyzed and
tabulated them.

To see if the result proved that PALF did have an effect on the concrete samples, they were analyzed
using ANOVA with a significance level of 0.05. For the ANOVA of Flexural Strength, we attained a p-value
of 0.16593 which is greater than 0.05. This means that the results failed to reject the null hypothesis
which was that the PALF didn’t have an effect on concrete.

The ANOVA for Compressive strength however was able to reject the null hypothesis, which means that
PALF did have an effect on the compressive strength of concrete. This warranted it to have a post hoc
test Tukey HSD test to see where the difference lies between the results.

The mean averages for each of the batches were attained and compared to one another and grouped
with each other if they have very little difference. We can see that batch 1 and 2 are labelled as group A
and 3 and 4 was labelled group B. The means for batch 1 and 2 is similar to each other, the same goes
for batch 3 and 4 as you can see. However, both batch 1 and 2 have a very significant difference to
batches 3 and 4. Here is a graph of the means for each the batches.

Observing the physical failures for the samples, we can see that there is a trend. The highest
compressive strength achieved for each of the samples had a type 2 fracture aside batch 3. The weakest
out of each sample yielded a type 6 failure aside from batch 4. And another common type of failure
observed during testing was type 5.
Next in our objectives was to determine which among the PALF samples had the highest compressive
and flexural strength. We can see from the means for each batch that batch 2 containing 0.25% yielded
both the highest compressive and flexural strength.