“A study of peat moss as an additive to fine aggregate in concrete hollow blocks”

Abstract

The production of construction materials mixed with peat moss as an additive to fine
aggregate as it has been through several investigations.

Peat moss is a dead fibrous material that forms when mosses and other living
material decompose in peat bogs. Gardeners use peat moss mainly as a soil
amendment. Peat moss improves soil structure, increases water retention in light sandy
soils and it can retain up to 20 times its weight in water.

Researchers came up with a study which its main purpose is to determine if the
hollow block mixed with partial component of peat moss can exceed the required
compressive strength of a non-load bearing concrete hollow blocks. For this purpose, a
proportion of 1:3 by volume were used and the fine aggregate was partially replace by
5%, 10%, 20% of peat moss and was subjected to compression test in order to
determine its compressive strength compared to the standard strength of a normal
Concrete Hollow Blocks. Different variables influencing the performance of peat moss
mixture were being studied. These variables include the percentage of peat moss that
can be added in the mixture.

Result shows that when the concrete hollow blocks were cured for 7 days, its
compressive strength decreases as the percentage of peat moss added increases.
When the age of the hollow blocks were 14 days, the differences in average
compressive strength significantly lessen with the different mixtures. For the final testing
where the hollow blocks were cured for 28 days, the mixtures with peat moss additive
surpass the compressive strength of the conventional mix hollow blocks. The highest
recorded average compressive strength was the 5% peat moss additive to hollow
blocks with 6.14 Mpa compared to 5.65Mpa of conventional mix hollow blocks.
Conclusion and suggestions were formulated by the researchers based on the results.
 Introduction

Construction industry is one of the fastest growing sectors in our country. Rapid
construction activity and growing demand of houses have led to the short fall of
traditional building materials. Cement, sand and wood are now becoming scarce
materials. Demand of good quality of building materials replaces the traditional
materials and the need for cost effective and durable materials for the low cost housing
has necessitated the researchers to develop variety of new and innovative building
materials. Construction materials of special requirements for the houses in different
geographical regions to overcome the risk of natural hazards and for protection from
severe climatic conditions have also emphasized the need for development of
lightweight, insulating, cost effective, and durable and environment friendly building
materials. (CLC Construction, Labors and Contractors, 2016)

Agusan Marsh, one of the largest marshlands in the country, may hold the
largest area of peatland in the Philippines, with two areas of peatland confirmed. The
first is in Caimpugan, Agusan del Sur, which exhibits the characteristics of a peat dome.
The other is in Bunawan. Peatlands are wetland ecosystems characterized by the
accumulation of organic matter called “peat” derived from dead and decaying plant
materials submerged under high water saturation conditions. Peatlands may be
naturally forested, or naturally open and vegetated with mosses or shrubs. Peat moss
improves soil structure, increases water retention. Peat moss can retain up to 20 times
its weight in water. And It improves soil buffering capacity because peat moss is highly
tolerant to pH variations.

Since the Philippines is in a third world country, economic issues in the utilization
of waste should be considered in order for a study to become more appealing to
researchers. Concrete hollow block (CHB) were chosen as the primary subject of this
paper because in our country, concrete hollow blocks are the most used partitions,
firewalls, and in load bearing-wall due to this issue the researchers would like to study
the suitability of peat moss as a partial substitute to sand in the production of concrete
hollow blocks. (DENR)
 Materials and Methods

Peat Moss

.The peat moss we used on this study are ordered through online. We purchased
enough to sustain our needs in our study. The material are cut into tiny pieces since it
cannot be pulverized because the stem are being stuck on the blades. The cement and
sand are both available on nearby hardware. After putting the cement and sand
together with the water on a mixing pan, the cut pieces are then mixed with the formula
depending on how much required admixture percentage. The finished product are now
cured on different days to test its maximum strength capacity.
 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The researchers selected paired t-test as this study’s statistical analysis to

compare all of the mixtures or percentage of peat moss additive to non-load bearing
concrete hollow blocks which has 3 trials each. The variables differentiated are its
compressive strength from the conducted UTM compression test. Result is as follows

TABLE 4.13: Paired T-Test of Conventional Mix and 5% Peat Moss added.

SPECIMEN Conventional 5% Peat Moss Difference

Mix (MPa) Added (MPa)
7 DAYS 3.14 2.52 -0.62

14 DAYS 4.81 4.59 -0.22

28 DAYS 5.65 6.14 0.49

∑ = -0.35

d= -0.1167

Standard Deviation = 0.5922

Standard Error = 0.3419

t = -0.3413

Table 4.13 shows that between conventional mixture hollow blocks and 5% peat moss
added; it did produce a mean difference of -0.1167 from three trials that have been
taken. A value of ‘t’ which is -0.3419 proves that there is a significant difference from the
values presented above. Compressive strength of 5% added peat moss significantly
produces a relatively lower values compared to the conventional mix hollow blocks
TABLE 4.14: Paired T-Test of Conventional Mix and 10% Peat Moss added.

SPECIMEN Conventional 10% Peat Moss Difference

Mix (MPa) Added (MPa)
7 DAYS 3.14 2.38 -0.76

14 DAYS 4.81 4.49 -0,32

28 DAYS 5.65 5.94 0.29

∑ = -0.79

d= -0.2633
Standard Deviation = 0.5273
Standard Error = 0.3044
t = -0.8650

Table 4.14 shows that between conventional mixture hollow blocks and 10% peat moss
added; it did produce a mean difference of -0.2633, a greater absolute value compared
to 5% added peat moss, from three trials that have been taken. A value of ‘t’ which is -
0.8650 proves that there is a greater significant difference from the values presented
above compared to the previous table. Compressive strength of 10% added peat moss
gave a mix of negative and positive differences which lead to a lower absolute value of
summation of difference.
TABLE 4.15: Paired T-Test of Conventional Mix and 20% Peat Moss added.

SPECIMEN Conventional 20% Peat Moss Difference

Mix (MPa) Added (MPa)
7 DAYS 3.14 2.09 -1.05

14 DAYS 4.81 4.35 -0.46

28 DAYS 5.65 5.71 0.06

∑ = -1.45

d= -0.4833

Standard Deviation = 0.5554

Standard Error = 0.3027

t = -1.507

Table 4.15 shows that between conventional mixture hollow blocks and 5% peat moss
added; it did produce a mean difference of -0.4833 from three trials that have been
taken, the greatest difference above all mixtures. A value of ‘t’ which is -1.507 proves
that there is a significant difference from the values presented above.
GRAPH 4.n: Comparison of paired t-test results of all added percentage mixture.

0.5

0.3419 0.3044 0.3027

0
5% 10% 20%
-0.3413

-0.1167 -0.865000000000001
-0.5

-1.507

-1 -0.2633

-1.5

-0.4833

-2

-2.5

difference t standard error

Discussion

The T test shows the statically difference between the conventional and admixture
percentage.This summarize and shows that the 20% added peat moss to non-load
bearing hollow blocks gave the least amount of standard error of mean, but does
produce the greatest value of mean difference and t-value among the three mixtures
paired with the conventional mix hollow blocks.
CONCLUSION

This study was conducted the use of peat moss as an addition to fine aggregate
in concrete hollow blocks significantly increases in compressive strength when cured for
28 days. The results satisfy the objective as;

 The maximum compressive strength reached by each mixture are presented as

follow;

o Conventional mix: 5.65 Mpa

o Mix 1: 6.14 Mpa

o Mix 2: 5.94 Mpa

o Mix 3: 5.71 Mpa

 Results show that when the concrete hollow blocks are cured for 28 days, its
compressive strength increases as the percentage of peat moss added also
increases.

 The highest average compressive strength recorded was 6.14Mpa on the

concrete hollow blocks with 5% added peat moss.

 The compressive strength of each mixture increases as its age also increases.

 All of the mixtures cured for 28 and 14 days passed the ASTM requirement for
non-load bearing hollow blocks of 4.14 MPa.
RECOMMENDATION

With the help of this study, the researchers can give, based on the conclusions
and results, the following recommendations and suggestions;

 Cost analysis and deterioration properties regarding this material and completely
cured hollow blocks should be included for the future continuation of this
research.

 Water absorption and moisture content test should also be included for future
continuation of this research.

 Other mechanical properties of peat moss hollow blocks such as shrinkage and
flexural strength are not tested in this study and should be included for further
study of this topic.

 The peat moss that will be added to aggregate should be pulverized to avoid
unbalance distribution of peat moss in each concrete hollow block.

 The hollow blocks with 5% peat moss additive is suggested for non-load bearing
purposes such as partitions, garden walls, etc.
 References

How to Use Sand and Peat Moss for Cement Containers. (Allonsy, A., 2013)
homeguides.sfgate.com/use-sand-peat-moss-cement-containers-65043.html

Effect of Peat in Physicomenical Properties of Cemented Brick. (Binici, H.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005051/#B12

Testing of Concrete Masonry Blocks for Compressive Strength. (Islam, S.,

2014)theconstructor.org/practical-guide/compressive-strength-concrete-blocksmasonry-
units/13966/

Load Carrying Capacity of Hollow Concrete Block Masonry Wall. (Maroliya,

M.K., 2012) www.ijera.com/papers/Vol2_issue6/BF26382385.pdf

Species in Sphagnum. (ThePlantList, 2013)

http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/browse/B/Sphagnaceae/Sphagnum/

Don’t Confuse Sphagnum Moss with Peat Moss. (Hood, G., 1995)
http://eol.org/pages/47595/details

Peat Moss – Sphagnum. (Corteau, J.,2012) http://eol.org/pages/47595/details

Brief Summary: Peat Moss. (Anderson, E., 2009) http://eol.org/pages/47595/details

Does Peat Moss Have a Place in the Ecological Garden?. (Priesnitz, 2015)
http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/0712/asknlpeat.html
The Truth About Peat Moss. (Trail, J., 2013) https://theecologist.org/2013/jan/25/truth-
about-peat-moss

Polarity of Peat Moss. (Shaw, J., 2013) http://www.amjbot.org/content/90/12/1777.full

The Future of Research in Canadian Peat Lands. (Gorham, E., 1993)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03160657

Standard Test Method for PH of Peat Materials. (ASTM D2976, 2015)

https://www.astm.org/Standards/D2976.htm

Development of Strength Models for Prediction of Unconfined Compressive

Strength of Cement/ Byproduct Material Improved Soils. (Abbey, S., 2017)
https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/JOURNALS/GEOTECH/PAGES/
GTJ20160138.htm

Concrete Hollow Blocks Made With Recycled Coarse Aggregate and Recycled
Water “Green Blocks”. (Elgaali, E., 2013)
https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC26900.pdf

A Mix Design Methodology for Concrete Block Units. (Frasson, A., 2012)
http://www.hms.civil.uminho.pt/ibmac/2012/2B1.pdf

The Microstructure of Dry Concrete Products. (Marchand, 1996)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008884696850307

Physical-Chemical Properties and Sorption Characteristics of Peat. (Delicato,

1996) http://doras.dcu.ie/18494/
Concrete Hollow Blocks, Pre-Cast Concrete and Cast In Place. (Cadalin, L, 2015)
condohousenlotphilsblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/concrete-hollow-blocks-pre-
cast-concrete-and-cast-in-place/

Concrete Hollow Block.(Global Shelter Cluster,2014)

www.sheltercluster.org/sites/default/files/docs/Key%20Messages%20CHB
%20V1.1.pdf

Philippines Trade Standard Specification For Concrete Hollow Blocks. (Amistad,

A., 2008)

Non Bearing and Load Bearing Concrete Hollow Blocks. (Fajardo, A., 2000)

A Comparative Study of the Compressive Strength of Concrete Hollow Blocks Using

River and Sea Sands. (Guiall, A., 2017)
http://www.gmferd.com/journalcra.com/sites/default/files/21932.pdf

Concrete Masonry Unit. (Beall, B., 1987)

A Preliminary Study on the Compressive Strength of Concrete Hollow Blocks

Made from Sand, Cement, and Rice Hull Ash. (Mata, J., 1984)

Hollow Concrete Building Blocks Made With Natural Aggregate. (Lemass, S.,
1953)

A Mix Design Methodology For Concrete Block Units. (Frasson, A., 2012)
 TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
1338 ARLEGUI ST., QUIAPO, MANILA

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

SOIL MECHANICS
CE 401- CE41FA1

FINAL REQUIREMENT
MANUSCRIPT

“A study of peat moss as an additive to fine aggregate in

concrete hollow blocks”

SUBMITTED TO:
__________________________
ENGR. ARIEL MORALES

March 10 2018