Case 2: Ertfil Hollow Blocks Making

A Case Study

Submitted to :
Ms. Joy Mari Bautista

Department of Industrial Engineering

Brother Andrew Gonzales, Gokongwei College of Engineering

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course

Methods Engineering Laboratory

Submitted by:
Alegre, Mary Christiene Courtney B.
Cu, Jeffrey T.
Francisco, Kyle Louie K.
Mallari, Cristina Beatrice C.
Ong, Elizabeth Jill L.
Sy, Aaron William P.
Group 1

LBYIE3A - EC3
November 18, 2021
 I. Case/Company Background
Established in 1995, Ertfil Trading is a store located in Sto. Niño Avenue, Muntinlupa
City that deals in hollow blocks, sand, gravel, “escombro” (earth fill), and “lastillas” (mortar).
Among the products they sell, however, they manufacture only two of them, namely the louver
blocks and hollow blocks. The subject of this case study is the company’s manual production of
its in-house hollow blocks. With the process being very traditional and small-scale as opposed to
the industrial production of concrete blocks, the study aims to fully depict the process using
charting techniques in an attempt to determine points of improvement based on the
Eliminate-Combine-Rearrange-Simplify (ECRS) framework.

II. Present System

A. Process Scope
The process at study is limited to the manual production of concrete hollow blocks in
Ertfil Trading, which begins with the preparation of the cement mix and ends in the drying of the
hollow blocks. For the purpose of this study, the whole process is divided into three main steps,
namely the mixture of the raw materials, molding, and drying of the hollow block.
B. Process Objectives
As with any manufacturer of concrete blocks, the primary objective of Ertfil Trading’s
hollow block manufacturing process is to produce durable and lightweight hollow blocks with
uniform quality and at a minimal cost. Although the specific objectives or values of the company
are not publicly available, it can be assumed that Ertfil Trading ultimately considers efficiency,
cost minimization, and customer satisfaction in its hollow block manufacturing process.
Moreover, since the process takes place in a traditional cement manufacturing facility, which can
have hazards similar to those in construction sites, ensuring the safety of the laborers is said to be
an added objective of the process. Environmental concerns, especially dust pollution and the use
of carbon-heavy materials, must also be accounted for when pursuing process improvements.
C. Partitioning & Linkages
The raw materials of the hollow block manufacturing process include the Banaag soil,
white sand, cement, and water. Preparing the cement mix involves mixing these components
together in specific proportions to attain the desired consistency before molding. The Banaag soil
is composed of small sediments of rocks in clay-like substance, and is responsible for making the
hollow block more compact and long-lasting. White sand, on the other hand, is a collection of
fine grains of a white mineral, typically used to increase the product’s durability. Lastly, the
cement, which is made out of limestone, clay, and a small amount of gypsum, is added to the
mix, together with the water, to bond the materials in the production of hollow blocks.
To accommodate the required operations of the process, the facility consists of four main
workstations, namely the filling, mixing, molding, and drying stations. The filling station located
outside serves as the storage of the white sand, Banaag soil, and cement piles; it also houses the
wheelbarrows and shovels required in the transfer of the materials. On the opposite end of this
station is the mixing area where the mixing machine is placed and consequently, where the
preparation of the cement mix takes place. The cement and water station are presently located
near this station. The molding station, positioned between the filling and mixing stations, is
where the molding process occurs. As such, it includes the manual molding machine used by the
operators. Adjacent to this is the drying area where the nearly finished blocks are left for drying.

Figure 1. Current Layout of the Facility

In terms of manpower, the present system involves four laborers, which shall be referred
to as Operators A, B, C, and D for the purpose of the study. Operator A is responsible for
preparing the cement mix from the raw materials; Operator B inspects the output of the previous
operator and then transfers the inspected materials in the molders of Operators C and D;
Operators C and D take charge of the molding and drying process. As illustrated in Figure 2, in
the present system, all operators begin their task only once the previous operator has finished.

Figure 2. Flow Diagram of the Present Process

Tables 1 and 2 display the flow process charts for the preparation of the cement mix from
the perspective of the white sand and Operator A, respectively. The time for each step was
obtained by recording the elapsed time of the action, while the distances were derived from the
recorded time with the assumption that the average walking speed of the operators is 1.4 meters
per second considering no load (Hence, the distance between the filling and mixing stations was
calculated using Steps 8 and 9 where the operator was not carrying a wheelbarrow). The charts
indicate that the present system entails Operator A having to undergo 14 steps (9 transportations,
4 operations, and 1 delay) to complete his job. These yield a total time of 223 seconds and a total
traveled distance of 11.2 meters.

Table 1. Present Material-type Flow Process Chart for White Sand

Flow Process Chart (FPC)

Subject: White sand Activity: Preparation of the concrete mix

Seq. Time Distance

Description Type Remarks
# (sec) (m)

1 Shoveled into the wheelbarrow ⇨ 40 - Roughly 10 shovels

2 Brought to the mixing station ⇨ 17 11.2

3 Unloaded into the mixer ⇨ 1 -

4 Awaits the arrival of Banaag soil D 89 -

5 Combined with Banaag soil ◯ 1 - Mixed automatically

6 Awaits the arrival of cement D 16 -

7 Combined with cement ◯ 20 - Mixed automatically

8 Awaits the arrival of water D 2 -

9 Combined with water ◯ 18 - Mixed automatically

Mixed further with the other

10 ◯ 18 - Automated
components

11 Combined with more water ◯ 1 - Mixed automatically

Total 223 11.2

Table 2. Present Man-type Flow Process Chart for Operator A
Flow Process Chart (FPC)

Subject: Operator A Activity: Preparation of the concrete mix

Seq. Time Distance

Description Type Remarks
# (sec) (m)

Shovels white sand into the

1 ⇨ 40 - Roughly 10 shovels
wheelbarrow

Brings wheelbarrow to the

2 ⇨ 17 11.2
mixing station

Unloads white sand into the

3 ⇨ 1 -
mixer

Returns to the filling station

4 ⇨ 17 11.2
with the wheelbarrow

Shovels Banaag soil into the

5 ⇨ 55 - 15 shovels
wheelbarrow

Brings wheelbarrow to the

6 ⇨ 17 11.2
mixing station

7 Adds Banaag soil to the sand ◯ 1 -

Returns the empty wheelbarrow

8 ⇨ 8 11.2
to the filling station

9 Walks to the mixing station ⇨ 8 11.2

10 Adds cement to the mix ◯ 20 - 4 scoops

11 Walks to the water station ⇨ 2 2.8

12 Pours water into the mix ◯ 18 - 3 buckets

Waits for the machine to mix the

13 D 18 -
blend

14 Pours more water into the mix ◯ 1 - 1 bucket

Total 223 58.8

III. Problem Statement

1. Illogical arrangement of workstations

As illustrated in Figure 2, the supposed flow of the process begins from obtaining the raw
materials, followed by combining them to form the cement mix, and finally ends in molding the
hollow blocks. Hence, the workstations should ideally be lined up according to that sequence to
minimize travel time; that is, the filling station must be adjacent to the mixing station, and the
mixing station to the molding station. However, it is evident in Figure 1 that the present layout
does not follow this order. The raw materials are located farther from the mixing station and
closer compared to the block molding station. Because of this, Operator A is expected to travel
unnecessary distances when acquiring materials and preparing the cement mix, ultimately
increasing transportation waste, yielding suboptimal cycle times, and reducing overall costs.

2. Overly sequential workflow

It can be observed from Figure 2 that the activities of most operators in the process are in
series as opposed to occurring simultaneously. That is, at almost every point in time, there is only
one operator that is busy; the rest are simply waiting for the preceding operator to finish his
work. Although this is reasonable considering the nature of their assigned tasks (e.g. mixing the
components necessarily precedes molding and drying), a closer inspection of Operator A’s flow
process chart in Table 2 reveals that not all of his tasks must strictly be performed before
Operator B’s tasks (i.e. some activities are independent of each other in terms of time). For
instance, returning the wheelbarrow to the filling station does not have to be done before the
inspection process. As such, an opportunity to minimize operator idle times and boost the
efficiency of the workflow arises by performing some activities in parallel.

3. Very traditional and outdated system

Qualitatively, it can be observed that the materials and operations of the process are very
traditional and old-fashioned. The overall work environment lacks a sense of standardization and
accuracy, which can hamper the uniformity of the product’s quality and the productivity of the
operators who have to manually perform the task of quantification. Without innovation in its
materials and products, the company may also lag behind its competitors.
IV. Problem and System Analysis
To analyze the issues in further detail, the FPC for Operator A, who is the most affected
by the identified problems, is assessed by identifying potential areas of improvement every step
in terms of purpose, location, sequence, people, and method. The results of the analysis are
summarized in the dot-check matrix in Table 3. In light of the problems on layout and workflow,
the ECRS techniques proposed are mainly targeted at creating a more logical layout of the
workstations, maximizing the opportunity for parallel operations, and standardizing operations.
Beginning with Step 1 of the cycle, it was determined that the present method of
shoveling white sand was only based on estimated measurements, wherein the operator fills the
wheelbarrow with the material until it seems full. The amount of sand in each scoop was also not
uniform. Due to such variation, added costs in two forms arise: (1) an increase in task times since
the operator has to spend time approximating the correct amount and (2) the possibility of
producing concrete mixes with inconsistent proportions. As such, this step can be improved by
standardizing the measurement process, such as writing simple level marks in the wheelbarrow.
Although this does not directly involve a change in layout or sequencing, it effectively decreases
the cycle time of the process, which is the ultimate goal of both problems identified.
The main concern for Step 2 is one that is recurring across all steps that entail
transportation between the mixing and filling stations. As mentioned, the distance between these
two areas is not optimal since it unnecessarily requires passing through the molding station first.
To address this, a rearrangement in the layout may be done where the mixing and molding
stations are switched, thus bringing the former closer to the filling station and minimizing the
total distance traveled by the operators.
As for Steps 5 to 7, which involve acquiring the Banaag soil and adding it to the white
sand, it was observed that these steps are among those that can be said to be excessively
sequential, specifically with the steps to obtain the sand. Asking the question of when these tasks
are done leads to the realization that the sand does not have to be picked up and unloaded into
the mixer before the soil. Since other operators are idle at this point, it is also worth questioning
why Operator A is performing both tasks. With this, the process can be made more efficient by
combining Steps 5 to 7 with the first three through having Operators A and B work in parallel.
As a consequence of this modification, Step 4, a previously unproductive step, can be eliminated.
 A similar analysis can be made for Step 8, which is purposelessly placed before the actual
operations where in reality, the succeeding steps are not dependent on it. That is, returning the
wheelbarrow does not have to be returned before the cement is added; doing this will only be
wasteful since it involves a non-value-adding process consuming its own time. As seen in the
distances covered in Steps 8 and 9, the travel time required by the operator is also doubled
because if he returns the wheelbarrow to the filling station before preparing the mix, he must
carry out a round trip. Hence, an improvement of this step can be made by combining this step
with the delay at the end, Step 13. It can also be done simultaneously with the other operator’s
activities since Operator A is idle during the inspection and molding processes. Either of these
two options eliminates the need for Step 9. As a consequence of these changes, Step 10 is also
rearranged by doing it immediately after the soil is added by Operator B, which occurs around
the same time as Step 3.
Various steps can also be modified in the process of adding water to the mix. First, the
location of the water station is questioned in relation to Step 11. If the water station is placed just
right beside the mixer, walking to it, which consumes 2 seconds, may actually be omitted. It can
also be observed that the operator was only estimating the amount of water to pour in the mix
(i.e. pouring in small amounts until the desired consistency is reached). Because of this, delays
can occur similar to those in the shoveling of sand and soil, all of which lacking standard
measurements. It is also critical to be accurate with the proportions because the end properties of
the hollow blocks are highly dependent on them. If measurements are incorporated, pouring the
water can even be done in one go using a larger bucket, thus eliminating Step 14 and decreasing
process times.
Table 3. Dot-check Matrix for Evaluating Operator A’s FPC
Seq. Operator A What Where When Who How Remarks
# Activity

1 Shovels white ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ● Incorporate standard

sand into the measurements (S)
wheelbarrow

2 Brings ✓ ● ✓ ✓ ✓ Move mixing station

wheelbarrow to closer to filling station
the mixing (R)
station
3 Unloads white ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
sand into the
mixer

4 ● ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No need to return if the

Returns to the
Banaag soil can be
filling station
acquired by another
with the
operator at the same
wheelbarrow
time (E)

5 Shovels Banaag ✓ ✓ ● ● ● Make parallel to Step 1

soil into the by delegating to
wheelbarrow Operator B (C)

6 Brings ✓ ✓ ● ● ✓ Make parallel to Step 2

wheelbarrow to by delegating to
the mixing Operator B (C)
station

7 ✓ ✓ ● ● ✓ Make parallel to Step 3

Adds Banaag
by delegating to
soil to the sand
Operator B (C)

8 Returns the ✓ ● ● ✓ ✓ Combine with idle

empty times and put at last
wheelbarrow to (C, R)
the filling station

9 Walks to the ● ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ No need since Step 8 is

mixing station put last (E)

10 Adds cement to ✓ ✓ ● ✓ ✓ Do immediately after

the mix soil is added (R)

11 ✓ ● ✓ ✓ ✓ Move water station

Walks to the
right beside mixing
water station
station (E)

12 Pours water into ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ● Incorporate standard

the mix measurements (S)

13 Waits for the ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

machine to mix
the blend

14 Pours more ● ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Unnecessary if

water into the measurement in Step
mix 12 is accurate (E)
 Table 4 shows the resulting improved flow process chart of Operator A after applying the
ECRS strategies. As evident, the number of steps required for the operator had a significant
decrease, which can be attributed to the elimination of unnecessary travel times and the
combination of steps through performing some activities in parallel. From a total of 10
unproductive steps, consisting of transportation and delays, the proposed process involves only 4
transportation steps and no delays. It was also assumed that the changes in the arrangement of
workstations decrease the travel time between the filling and mixing stations by approximately
25%, and that having standard measurements in the pouring of water will lead to a time for that
task of only 3 seconds (pouring the specified amount in one go). As can be derived from Table 5,
all these modifications reduce the total travel by 59.87% and the total travel distance by 71.43%.
This reduction in process time and wasteful transportation ultimately increases the productivity
and efficiency of the process.

Table 4. Proposed FPC for Operator A

Flow Process Chart

Subject: Operator A Activity: Preparation of the concrete mix

Seq. Time Distance

Description Type Remarks
# (sec) (m)

Shovels white sand into the While Operator B

1 ⇨ 40 -
wheelbarrow shovels Banaag soil

While Operator B
Brings wheelbarrow to the
2 ⇨ 12.75 8.4 brings wheelbarrow to
mixing station
the mixing station

Unloads white sand into the Operator B adds soil to

3 ⇨ 1 -
mixer the sand afterward

4 Adds cement to the mix ◯ 20 -

5 Pours water into the mix ◯ 3 -

Returns the empty wheelbarrow While the machine

6 ⇨ 12.75 8.4
to the filling station mixes the blend

Total 89.5 16.8

Table 5. Summary of the Present versus Proposed FPCs for Operator A
Activity Present Proposed Saving

Operation ◯ 4 2 2

Transport ⇨ 9 4 5

Delay D 1 - 1

Inspection ▢ - - -

Storage ▽ - - -

Total Distance (m) 58.8 16.8 42

Total Time (sec) 223 89.5 133.5

Figure 3. Proposed Layout of the Facility

V. System Design and Recommendations

Table 6. Summary of Recommendations

Material (5) Product (5) Process and Work Area (10)

1. Pre-mix concrete 1. Product research 1. Proper lighting and ventilation

2. Set standard of 2. Use Taguchi 2. Safety PPE for workers so they
measurements for approach to work faster
proportions of enhance 3. Arrange layout so that filling
materials product's stations are closer to the mixing
3. Determining the precision station
optimal base mix machining and 4. Move molding station
of materials dependability 5. Lower the ramp
4. (Equipment) Use 3. Substituting part 6. Reduce Operator B turning
of wheelbarrows of the soil to 7. Assigning Operator A and B to
with bigger other materials work simultaneously (have
capacity 4. Expanding operator B obtain the Banaag
5. Higher capacity product line for soil)
molding hollow blocks 8. Remove the step of placing
machines(Hollow 5. Add products wheelbarrow in filling station
block machines) aside from after unloading before water and
hollow blocks cement
(Bricks) 9. Find optimal mixing
time/Standardizing the process
to enhance the workflow
10. Hollow block drying

A. Alternatives for change in Material

The raw materials are crucial to the company’s costs, efficiency, and quality—all of
which are ultimately related to the issues of the study and the process objectives.
As seen from the video, one of the possible causes for inconsistency in the hollow blocks
being produced by the business is the unequal distribution of the materials being mixed into each
batch where operator A appears to be approximating the amounts of sand, Banaag soil, cement,
and water. This means that there is no fixed amount of materials used per cycle. The act of
mixing cement to make concrete is usually done “by feel” when carried out in small-scale
operations that rely on operators. Taking these into account, the current system is likely to have
increased amounts of scrap material and unstandardized processing times, similar to the effect of
poor layout and workflow. Although it does not seem to affect the process’ efficiency at initial
inspection, unstandardized mixing of materials can result in faulty products, which can cause the
business an increase in delays and losses in profit. By standardizing the materials to be mixed,
the production will also be able to ensure uniformly produced hollow blocks.
The company can also make use of pre-mixed concrete to reduce the identified
inefficiencies stemming from the repetitive actions of operator A in retrieving the various
materials. By using pre-mixed concrete, the overall cycle time of the process is reduced and
inefficiencies are minimized, where the updated workflow of the whole process can be seen in
Figure 4.

Figure 4. Flow Diagram of the Recommended System

 Another recommendation in relation to materials is to determine the optimal mix of
materials in the production of hollow blocks. The optimal mix is intended to reduce mixing,
molding, and drying time, thus improving the overall workflow of the process.
Additionally, incorporating or upgrading equipment can ease various processes by
eliminating wasteful manual procedures. For example, the company can use a 2-way
self-dumping wheelbarrow with extra wheels to make it easier for the operator to transport
ingredients and even decrease fatigue; when the operator attempts to raise the load and balance
the wheelbarrow simultaneously, acquiring the new wheelbarrow will make it easier for the
operator to unload the weight (Wagner, K., 2013). In addition, the company should consider
investing in hollow block machines with higher production capacities and faster processing time.
By doing so, the discrepancies made due to human error during hollow block production will be
diminished.
B. Alternatives for Change in Product
To ensure that Ertfil Trading can handle the demand for their products and the changing
landscape of the industry, it would be beneficial for the company to spend resources on product
R&D. This will be able to help them determine potential changes to their current products, such
as redesigning them to be more cost-effective. As mentioned by Ikeagwuani et al. (2020), the
Taguchi approach is a quality assurance strategy used to enhance a product's precision machining
and dependability, while also lowering its lifetime expense and development time.
There are many courses of action that the company can take to make higher quality
products, such as filling hollow blocks with partial substitutes that will increase their
compressive strength. In addition to strengthening the product, it also lowers the cost of
production. Some of the options that strengthen the blocks are sawdust, which also reduces
weight, resulting in lighter blocks (Kumar et al, 2014), wood ash that can thermally insulate
(Prabagar et al., 2015); coconut shells and fibers as coarse aggregates can lower cost than
traditional materials due to the abundance of waste from other coconut industries (Ganiron et al.,
2017); plastic wastes which would aid in environmental causes and can result to blocks with four
times the strength (Lasco et al., 2017; Dionisio, 2018; Hanuseac et al., 2021); and even
pulverized oyster shells with a mix of non-biodegradable wastes give hollow blocks
water-resistant qualities (Hapinat & Montero, 2018). Furthermore, the Taguchi approach has
already been utilized to develop sustainable cement-based content for sand-crete structural
application utilizing coconut shell ash, since developing sustainable cement-based materials is
critical for the preventative measures of degradation of the environment and development of
sustainable technologies (Ikeagwuani et al., 2020).
Once the possible innovations to the hollow blocks have been determined, the company
may also consider expanding its current product line to accommodate a larger market (McLeod,
2018). As previously mentioned, there are many possible substitutions to the mix to make the
concrete hollow blocks that give them unique characteristics, such as water resistance, improved
strength, lighter weight, reduced cost, and eco-friendliness.
Aside from concrete hollow blocks, it is highly recommended for the company to make
inquiries into selling bricks. According to Udawattha and Halwatura (2017), hollow concrete
blocks were actually determined to be “the worst building materials in tropics” and had a
significantly higher carbon footprint as compared to the other materials evaluated in the study. It
was also ascertained that bricks, although having higher construction costs and embodied energy,
will be less costly in the long run (Udawattha & Halwatura, 2017).
C. Change in Process and Work Area
a. Work Area and Layout
Adequate lighting and ventilation are some of the most important prerequisites to a safe,
dust-free, and productive work environment. Given the outdoor nature of their jobs, the workers
must also be given protective gear against inclement weather and potential pollution. According
to Occupational Health and Safety Administration (2004), cement might cause irritation and
respiratory problems. All operators should wear gloves and wear respiratory protection. Proper
footwear and apparel should be worn to avoid accidents. This allows operators to have faster
processing times, higher productivity, and fewer chances of absenteeism due to ailments and
irritations (Assiri, 2016). The filling and drying stations must also have a shade or roof that
prevents water from getting into the area in the case of rain.
In terms of layout, several recommendations are made based on the analysis conducted.
First, it is recommended that the filling station be put closer to the mixing station to reduce travel
distance and time when preparing the cement mix. Furthermore, the molding station must be
placed closer to the mixing station. In essence, the layout should follow the process flow of the
company. This should reduce the inefficiencies brought about by the repeated motions of
Operator A. Aside from horizontal distances, heights also play a part in the travel time of the
operators. Currently, the ramp leading to the mixer is rather high, so utilizing leftover materials
like wood or cement to provide a lower lamp for easier transportation of the materials is
suggested. It is also recommended for the company to reduce the turning motion of operator B
when shoveling, as these can cause MSDs and injuries (Adeyemi et al., 2020). To tackle this
issue, the company can change the layout of the molding stations in such a way they both face
operator B when shoveling.
b. Process
The process can be enhanced primarily by having Operators A and B work
simultaneously in preparing the mix. To reduce the cycle time for Operator A, it will be faster if
Operator A shovels the sand while Operator B shovels the Banaag soil into respective
wheelbarrows. This could reduce the idle time of Operator B and improve the process workflow.
Moreover, there is an unnecessary step of returning the wheelbarrow to the sand filling station
first before going back to the mixing station to put in the cement and water. To resolve this, the
sand, soil, water, and cement should be put into the mixer in quick succession, then the
wheelbarrows could be returned to the respective stations while the components are mixing.
Finding the optimal mixing time will notably affect the productivity gains of the
company as well as reduce energy consumption, which subsequently reduces cost (Ngo et al.,
2017). Aside from standardizing the process to enhance the workflow, it can also affect the
compressive and tensile splitting strength or the overall quality of the hollow blocks (Urban &
Sicakova, 2018). Ensuring that the hollow blocks are properly placed in the drying area is a
critical part of the company’s operations. There should be a standardized height of the hollow
blocks in a specific pile and spacing between hollow blocks. This reduces the risk of possible
collapsing of the piles of hollow blocks.
VI. Reference List

Adeyemi et al. (2020). Sand shovelling and related injuries among sand mine workers in Nigeria.
Scientific African, 8, e00313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.e00313 ‌
Assiri, W. (2016). Risk Of loss of productivity in workplaces. International Journal of Scientific
& Technology Research, 5(5), 2277-8616.
https://www.ijstr.org/final-print/may2016/Risk-Of-Loss-Of-Productivity-In-Workplaces.
pdf
Ganiron, T. U., Ucol-Ganiron, N., & Ganiron, T. (2017). Recycling of waste coconut shells as
substitute for aggregates in mix proportioning of concrete hollow blocks. The Scientific
World Journal, 77(2), 107-123.
Hanuseac, L., Barbuta, M., Bejan, L., Rosu, R., & Timu, A. (2021). Experimental Study on
Hollow Blocks with Wastes. Proceedings, 63(1), 79.
https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2020063079 ‌
Hapinat, H., & Montero, E. (2018). Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Development of Concrete Hollow Blocks from Pulverized Oyster Shell (Crassostrea
iredalei) and Non-Biodegradable Materials. International Journal of Science and
Research (IJSR) ResearchGate Impact Factor. https://doi.org/10.21275/ART20196748 ‌
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257099368_Recycling_of_Waste_Coconut_She
lls_as_Substitute_for_Aggregates_in_Mix_Proportioning_of_Concrete_Hollow_Blocks
Ikeagwuani, C. C., Nwonu, D. C., Ugwu, C. K., & Agu, C. C. (2020). Process parameters
optimization for eco-friendly high strength sandcrete block using Taguchi method.
Heliyon, 6(6), e04276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04276
Kumar, D., Singh, S., Kumar, N., & Gupta, A. (2014). Low cost construction material for
concrete as sawdust. Global Journal of Researches in Engineering, 14(4), 2249-4596.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323203233_Low_Cost_Construction_Material
_for_Concrete_as_Sawdust
Lasco, J. D., Madlangbayan, M., & Sundo, M. B. (2017). Compressive Strength and Bulk
Density of Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB) with Polypropylene (PP) Pellets as Partial
Replacement for Sand. Civil Engineering Journal, 3(10), 821.
https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-030917 ‌
McLeod, C. (2018, April 17). When Does it Make Sense to Create Product Variations?
Ecomengine.com; eComEngine, LLC.
https://www.ecomengine.com/blog/when-to-create-product-variations ‌
Ngo, H.-T., Kaci, A., Kadri, E.-H., Ngo, T.-T., Trudel, A., & Lecrux, S. (2017). Energy
consumption reduction in concrete mixing process by optimizing mixing time. Energy
Procedia, 139, 810–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.11.293 ‌
Prabagar, S., Subasinghe, K., & Keerthi Fonseka, W. R. (2015). Wood ash as an effective raw
material for concrete blocks. International Journal of Research in Engineering and
Technology, 4(2).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272747682_WOOD_ASH_AS_AN_EFFECTI
VE_RAW_MATERIAL_FOR_CONCRETE_BLOCKS
Udawattha, C., & Halwatura, R. (2017). Life cycle cost of different Walling material used for
affordable housing in tropics. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 7, 15–29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.04.005 ‌
Urban, K. & Sicakova, A. (2018). The Effect of Mixing Technique and Prolonged Mixing Time
on Strength Characteristics of Concrete. https://www.mdpi.com/2504-3900/2/20/1290/pdf
Wagner, K. (2013). Powered wheelbarrow (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.
College of Engineering and Applied Science).