tewodros getachew

Jimma University
School of Graduate Studies

Jimma Institute of Technology
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Construction Engineering and Management Stream
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

AND PRODUCTION COST OF HOLLOW CONCRETE BLOCK
(HCB) WITH AND WITHOUT RED ASH IN TEPI TOWN,
ETHIOPIA.
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Jimma University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
(Construction Engineering and Management Stream)
By: TEWODROS GETACHEW
September, 2016
Jimma,Ethiopia
Jimma University
School of Graduate Studies
Jimma Institute of Technology
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Construction Engineering and Management Stream
ETHIOPIA.
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Jimma University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Civil Engineering
(Construction Engineering and Management Stream)
By: Tewodros Getachew
Advisor: Engr. Elmer C. Agon
Co- Advisor: Engr. Getachew Kebede
September, 2016
Jimma,Ethiopia
JIMMA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
JIMMA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT CHAIR

ETHIOPIA.
By: TEWODROS GETACHEW
APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS:
1. / /
Main Advisor Signature Date
2. / /
Co-advisor Signature Date
3. / /
External Examiner Signature Date
4. / /
Internal Examiner Signature Date
5. / /
Chairman Signature Date
Declaration
I, the undersigned, declare that this thesis entitled “Comparative Study On The
Compressive Strength And Production Cost Of Hollow Concrete Blocks (HCB)
With And Without Red ash In Tepi Town, Ethiopia.” is my original work, and has not
been presented by any other person for an award of a degree in this or any other
University, and all sources of material used for these have been dually acknowledged.
Candidate:
Mr. Tewodros Getachew
Signature :
As Master research Advisors, we here by certify that we have read and evaluate this Msc
research prepared under our guidance, by Mr. Tewodros Getachew entitled:
“Comparative Study On The Compressive Strength And Production Cost Of Hollow
Concrete Blocks (HCB) With And Without Red ash In Tepi Town, Ethiopia”
We recommend that it can be submitted as fulfilling the MSc Thesis requirements.
Eng. Elmer C. Agon
Advisor Signature Date
Engr. Getachew Kebede
Co-Advisor Signature Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
My first gratitude goes to my advisor and lecturer Eng. Elmer C. Agon and my co-advisor
Eng. Getachew for their endless supports for this research. My second gratitude goes to
Tepi university project office; GIZ officers, Tepi TVET College, Tepi Town Micro and
Small Enterprises, Meti municipality, DHL block producers and JIT Construction
Materials Laboratory technicians who helped me in the process of the research. And also
I would like to thank my friends and family for supporting me all the times in terms of the
advice, knowledge and resources they have contributed. Finally I would like to thank
Ethiopian Road Authority for sponsoring this post graduate program in construction
engineering and management.
i
ABSTRACT
Construction materials in construction and technology focuses improving the quality,

cost, ease of using materials in different form, increasing performance and so on. But if
improving cost is considered, quality should not be compromised. The culture of using
alternative ingredients to produce materials is weak in Ethiopia.
The main objective of this study was to compare the compressive strength and production
cost of hollow concrete blocks with and without red ash in Tepi Town. Specifically it
focused in determining the compressive strength of both blocks, to compare the cost of
production and to determine the optimum replacement of red ash for crushed aggregate.
This experimental study was conducted by preparing two types of HCB test samples. The
first test sample of HCB was produced by using mix proportion 1:3:2:1 of cement, sand,
gravel 00 and crushed aggregate respectively as a control group. The second sample
HCBs were produced with red ash by using cement, crushed aggregate and red ash
(scoria). The ratio of cement to aggregate used was 1:6. Out of the six parts of aggregate,
the aggregate was replaced with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% and
100% amounts of red ash by volume.
According to this study, the HCB without red ash achieved 3.72Mpa mean compressive
strength and the HCB with 30% red ash achieved 3.60Mpa mean compressive strength.
The optimum replacement was obtained at 30% red ash. The production cost of all HCBs
with red ash was found lower than the HCB without red ash. According to the weight
comparison made, the HCBs with red ash were found lighter than HCB without red ash.
The hollow concrete block with red ash in this study has achieved a better cost reduction
in production cost, higher reduction in weight and a smaller reduction in compressive
strength than hollow concrete blocks without red ash. The study further recommended to
the micro and small HCB producers to increase the production of HCB with red ash, for
the contractors and clients of Tepi Town to use this product instead of importing HCB.
Keywords: Compressive strength, Crushed aggregate, hollow concrete blocks,

production cost and red ash.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENT ..................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................ 1
1.2. Statement of the problem. ......................................................................................... 3
1.3. Research questions .................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Objective ................................................................................................................... 4

1.4.1. General objective ................................................................................................ 4
1.4.2. Specific objectives .............................................................................................. 4
1.5. Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 4
1.6. Scope and limitation of the study .............................................................................. 4
CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................. 6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................................. 6
2.1. Concrete blocks ......................................................................................................... 6
2.2. Hollow Concrete Blocks (HCB) ............................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Different types of hollow concrete blocks ........................................................... 7
2.2.2. Classification of hollow concrete blocks in different standards ......................... 9
2.2.3. Ingredients for hallow block production .......................................................... 12
2.2.4. Redash (scoria) Light weight aggregate for hollow concrete blocks ............... 15
2.2.5 Physical property requirements of red ash as hollow concrete materials .......... 18
2.2.6. Hollow concrete block (HCB) production process ........................................... 19
iii
2.3. Production cost ........................................................................................................ 21
2.3.1 Direct cost of production ................................................................................... 21
2.3.2 Indirect cost of production ................................................................................. 23
CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................... 24
MATERIALS AND METHODS OF RESEARCH ........................................................... 24
3.1. Study setting or Area ............................................................................................... 24
3.2 Study Population ...................................................................................................... 24
3.3. Sample size and sampling procedure ...................................................................... 24
3.4. Study variables ........................................................................................................ 26
3.5. Research Strategy and Design ................................................................................. 26

3.5.1. Material preparation ......................................................................................... 26
3.5.2. Determining engineering property of materials................................................ 28
3.5.3 Production of different hollow blocks ............................................................... 29
3.5.4 Compressive strength test and production cost calculation ............................... 35
3.6. Research approach................................................................................................... 35
3.7. Data processing and analyzing ................................................................................ 36

3.7.1. Analyzing the compressive strength ................................................................. 36
3.7.2. Method of production cost analysis .................................................................. 36
CHAPTER FOUR.............................................................................................................. 40
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................................... 40
4.1 Physical Properties of Materials ............................................................................... 40

4.1.1 Physical property tests on red ash (scoria) ........................................................ 40
4.1.2 Physical property tests on crushed aggregate, sand and gravel ......................... 43
4.2 Comparisons of compressive strength results .......................................................... 47

4.2.1 The determined compressive strength of HCB without red ash ........................ 47
4.2.2 Comparison of compressive strength of HCB with and without red ash .......... 49
4.3 Determination of the Optimum red ash replacement ............................................... 62

4.3.1 Comparison of HCB without red ash and the optimum red ash HCB ............... 63
4.4 Comparison of produced HCBs with different standards ........................................ 64
iv
4.4.1 With Ethiopian standards (ES C.D3.301) .......................................................... 64
4.4.2 With ASTM, (ASTM C90-70) and (ASTM C-129-70) .................................... 66
4.5 Unit weight comparisons of the hollow concrete blocks ......................................... 67
4.6 Direct production cost comparisons ......................................................................... 68

4.6.1 Direct unit costs of HCB without red ash. ......................................................... 68
4.6.2 Direct unit costs of HCB with red ash ............................................................... 69
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................... 75
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................. 75
5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 75
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 76
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 77
APPENDIX ONE............................................................................................................... 80
Laboratory Data Sheets for physical properties ................................................................. 80
APPENDIX TWO .............................................................................................................. 94
Compressive strength test results ....................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX THREE ........................................................................................................ 111
Direct unit cost analysis data sheet .................................................................................. 111
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.2.2(A1) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks at 28th days (ES C.D3.
301) ...................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2.2.2(A2) Nominal dimensions of hollow concrete blocks (ES 569:2001) ............. 10
Table 2.2.2(B) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks (ASTM C90-70) and
(ASTM C-129-70). ............................................................................................................ 11
Table 2.2.2 (c). Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks (IS: 2185- 1979) ......... 12
Table 2.2.5(a) Grading requirements for lightweight aggregates for concrete masonry
units (ASTM C331-94) ...................................................................................................... 18
Table 2.2.5(c) Unit weight requirements of lightweight aggregates for concrete masonry
units (ASTM C331-94). ..................................................................................................... 19
Table 3.3(a1) Different samples with different percentage of red ash .............................. 24
Table 3.3(a2) Sample size for HCB with red ash .............................................................. 25
Table 3.3(a3) Sample size for HCB without red ash ......................................................... 25
Table 3.5.2 Property tests and test methods ....................................................................... 28
Table 3.5.3.1 Different percentages of red ash and crushed aggregates used ................... 31
Table 3.5.3.2. Mixing water for HCB with red ash ........................................................... 33
Table 3.7.2.1(a) Quantities of materials for HCB without red ash .................................... 37
Table 3.7.2.1(b). Quantities of materials for HCB with red ash ........................................ 38
Table 4.1.1.1 Red ash sieve analysis versus (ASTM C331-94)......................................... 40
Table 4.1.1.2 Clay lumps content of fine and coarse red ash aggregates .......................... 41
Table 4.1.1.3 Unit weight of red ash used versus ASTM maximum ................................. 42
Table 4.1.1.4 Other physical properties of red ash ............................................................ 42
Table 4.1.2.1(a) Sieve analysis for crushed aggregate versus ASTM limits ..................... 43
Table 4.1.2.1(b) Sieve analysis of gravel 00 versus ASTM limits .................................... 44
Table 4.1.2.1(c) Sieve analysis of sand versus ASTM C33 limits .................................... 45
Table 4.1.2.2 Unit weight of used aggregates .................................................................... 46
Table 4.1.2.3 Bulk specific gravity (SSD) and absorption ................................................ 46
Table 4.1.2.4 Moisture content and silt content ................................................................. 47
Table 4.2.1(a) Mean compressive strength of HCB without red ash ................................. 48
Table 4.2.1(b) Percent increase .......................................................................................... 49
Table 4.2.2.1 Mean compressive strength of 10% red ash HCB ....................................... 49
vi
Table 4.2.2.2. Mean compressive strength of 20% red ash HCB ...................................... 51
Table 4.2.2.6. Mean compressive strength of 60% red ash HCB ...................................... 56
Table 4.2.2.10 Mean compressive strength of 100% red ash HCB ................................... 61
Table 4.3 The 28th day mean compressive strength of HCB with red ash ......................... 62
Table 4.4.1(a) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks at 28th days (ES C.D3.
301) .................................................................................................................................... 65
Table 4.4.1(b) Class of HCB produced according to Ethiopian standard (ES C.D3. 301) 65
Table 4.4.2 (a) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks (ASTM C90-70) and
(ASTM C-129-70). ............................................................................................................ 66
Table 4.4.2(b) Individual 28th day compressive strengths of HCB without and 30% red
ash HCB ............................................................................................................................. 67
Table 4.5 Unit weight of 30% red ash HCBs and HCBs without red ash ......................... 67
Table 4.6.1(a) Direct material unit cost of HCB without red ash ...................................... 68
Table 4.6 .1(b) Direct labor unit cost of HCB without red ash .......................................... 68
Table 4.6.1(c) Direct equipment unit cost of HCB without red ash .................................. 69
Table 4.6.2(a) Direct material unit cost of 10% red ash HCB ........................................... 69
Table 4.6 .2(b) Direct labor unit cost of 10% red ash HCB............................................... 70
Table 4.6.2(c) Direct equipment unit cost of 10% red ash HCB ....................................... 70
Tables 4.6.2(d) Summarized direct unit costs of HCB with red ash.................................. 71
Table 4.6.3(b) Direct unit cost of HCB without and 30% red ash HCB............................ 72
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.2 Hollow concrete blocks (SRCCD, 2008) ........................................................... 7

Figure 2.2.1(a) Full HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006). ........................... 7
Figure 2.2.1.(b) Half HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006)........................... 8
Figure 2.2.1.(c) U-shaped HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006)................... 8
Figure 2.2.1.(d) Column HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006). .................... 8
Figure 2.2.1.(e) Slab HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal Affairs, 2006). ......................... 9
Figure 2.2.6 (a). Batching and mixing (SRCCD, 2008) .................................................... 20
Figure 2.2.6 (b) Manually molding machine (SRCCD, 2008) .......................................... 20
Figure 2.2.6(c) Egg-laying" mobile machines (SRCCD, 2008) ...................................... 21
Figure 3.5.1(a) Meti red ash quarry site ............................................................................. 27
Figure 3.5.1(b) Picture of sieving and crushing red ash .................................................... 28
Figure 3.5.3.1(a) 10% proportioning box(20cmX30cmX40cm) ....................................... 29
Figure 3.5.3.1(b) 20cmx40cmx50cm proportioning box ................................................... 30
Figure 3.5.3.2(a) Dry and wet mix ..................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.5.3.3 Molding of HCB ......................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.5.3.4 Blocks under shade ..................................................................................... 34
Figure 3.5.4 Compressive strength test on samples ........................................................... 35
Figure 4.1.1.1 Red ash gradation curve ............................................................................. 41
Figure 4.1.2.1(a) Gradation curve for crushed aggregate .................................................. 43
Figure 4.1.2.1(b) Gradation of gravel 00 ........................................................................... 44
Figure 4.1.2.1(c) gradation curve of sand .......................................................................... 45
Figure 4.2.1 Compressive strength graph for HCB without red ash .................................. 48
Figure 4.2.2.1 HCB without red ash versus 10% red ash HCB ......................................... 50
Figure 4.2.2.2. HCB without red ash versus 20% red ash HCB ........................................ 51
Figure 4.2.2.7. HCB without red ash versus 70% red ash HCB ....................................... 58
viii
Figure 4.2.2.10. HCB without red ash versus 100% red ash HCB .................................... 61
Figure 4.3 The 28th mean compressive strength versus red ash content (%) ..................... 63
Figure 4.3.1 Compressive strength of HCB without red ash versus 30% red ash HCB .... 64
Figure 4.6.3(a) Cost comparison between HCBs with red ash .......................................... 72
Figure 4.6.3(b1) Cost comparison between HCB without red ash and 30% red ash HCB 73
Figure 4.6.3(b2) Cost comparison between HCBs with red ash and without .................... 73
ix
ACRONYMS
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BMTPC Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council
BS British Standard
CCI Cement and Concrete Institute
CMU Concrete Masonry Units
ES Ethiopian Standard
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft Internationale Zusammenarbeit
gm Gram
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit
HCB Hollow Concrete Block
HCBs Hollow Concrete Blocks
IS Indian Standard
Kg Kilo Gram
MPa Mega Pascal
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PPC Portland Pozzolana Cement
Sqm Square meter
SRCCD Swiss Resource Center and Consultancy for Development
x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Building materials improvement has an important role to play in this modern age of
construction technology. Although their most important use is in construction activities,
no field of engineering is conceivable without their use. Also, the building materials
industry is an important contributor in one‟s country national economy as its output
governs both the rate and the quality of construction work (S. K. Duggal, 2008).
The construction materials used for different sectors are different in all aspect. Among
these sectors, building sector consumes construction materials abundantly. Some of the
construction materials include cement, sand, aggregates; steel, timber, stones and blocks
are included in the list.
Nowadays, hollow concrete blocks and bricks are becoming very popular. These blocks
are being widely used in construction of residential buildings, factories and multi-storied
buildings. These hollow concrete blocks are commonly used in compound walls due to
their low cost. They are more useful due to their lightweight, ease of ventilation and
application. The blocks are made out of mixture of cement, sand and stone chips. Hollow
concrete block wall construction provides facilities for concealing electrical conduit and
water pipes. It saves cement in masonry work, bringing down cost of construction
considerably.
1.1 Background of the study
A concrete block is primarily used as a building material in the construction of walls. It

sometimes called a concrete masonry unit (CMU). A concrete block is one of several precast
concrete products used in construction. The first hollow concrete block was designed in
1890 by Harmon S. Palmer in the United States. After 10 years of experimenting, Palmer
patented the design in 1900. Palmer's blocks were 8 in (20.3 cm) by 10 in (25.4 cm) by 30 in
(76.2 cm), and they were so heavy they had to be lifted into place with a small crane. By
1905, an estimated 1,500 companies were manufacturing concrete blocks in the United
States. These early blocks were usually cast by hand, and the average output was about 10
blocks per person per hour. (BMTPC, 2014).
1
In Ethiopia, 85 percent of the urban population lives in inhuman, unhygienic and confined
conditions. Their housing situation lacks infrastructure and is dominated by “chicka” type of
construction (traditionally construction methods with mud and wood). The population
growth of 2.8 % per year and the accelerated migration to urban centers (6 % and more per
year) have dramatically increased the demand for affordable, decent housing. Cost efficiency
is one of the most crucial points of low-cost housing. It can mainly be achieved by
standardization of building elements and reducing the number of different items needed. Pre-
fabrication and the use of machines and special tools to produce these standardize elements
maximize productivity, resulting in lower cost per unit. The construction cost obtained so far
vary between birr 500 and birr 800 per sqm, depending on the soil condition, availability of
building materials earthquake zone and housing type (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal Affairs,
2006).
Recently in Ethiopia, the introduction of different concrete blocks was carried out in the low-
cost housing projects. This includes new hollow block size, u shaped blocks, reinforcement
for columns inside of the hollow blocks, combined strip- and slab foundation and others
(GTZ, 2005).
The main natural lightweight aggregates are diatomite, pumice, scoria, volcanic cinder,
and tuff. Except for diatomite, all are volcanic in origin. Pumice and scoria are more
widely used for hollow and solid concrete block production in Ethiopia (Abebe Dinku,
2005).
The use of scoria ( red ash) as a construction material will help conserve energy (as heat
insulating material) and will provide low cost cement and lightweight concrete
(Khandaker M. Anwar Hossain, 2006). And also the journal claims that the pozzolanic
activity tests indicate that finely ground scoria is pozzolanically active and has
cementitious characteristics to be used as cement additive.
2
1.2. Statement of the problem
The quality and the cost of any construction depend on the quality of the materials used and
the cost of producing the material. To improve the construction end product, we need to
improve not only the methods but also the construction materials applied.
In HCB productions, there are two distinct but equally important activities. One is related to
material and the other is the related to the process involved in its production. In order to
produce good quality of products, care has to be taken for both steps (Tesfaalem Kahsay,
2014).
The major problem of improving construction materials is its difficulty to reduce cost
without compromising quality. But these need to be addressed both parameters if improving
material qualities is the required outcome.
There is an acute lack of affordable houses in Africa. This is largely due to the high cost of
the conventionally processed construction materials. The desire generated for these materials
has a negative impact, leading reduced value and perceived inappropriateness of locally
available materials (Humphrey D., 2013).
The culture of using locally available ingredients for the construction materials is weak in
Ethiopia and also the culture of using alternative construction materials other than the
conventional one (Dirk Hebel, 2010). This culture should be improved by conducting
experimental researches on locally available materials.
Since hollow concrete blocks need to be light in weight, the use of light weight aggregates in
production plays an important role in weight reduction. Around the study area, the only
available light weight aggregate is red ash or scoria which is most of the time used for road
construction. Most contractors import light weight HCB from Jimma and Addis Ababa
produced by using pumice. They only consider the light weight aspect and the quality is in
question. According to (Evans E.J. et.al, 1999), red ash is heavier but stronger than pumice.
Instead of using red ash for HCB production, importing HCB from Jimma and Addis Ababa,
is resulting extra cost in construction due to high cost of transportation.
3
1.3. Research questions
This research answered the following points while meeting its objectives:
 What are the compressive strengths of HCB with and without red ash?
 What is the cost of production of each HCB?
 What is the optimum red ash replacement that will give maximum compressive
strength?
1.4. Objective
1.4.1. General objective
The general objective of this research was to compare the compressive strength and
production cost of hollow concrete blocks with and without red ash in Tepi.
1.4.2. Specific objectives

 To determine the compressive strength of both hollow blocks with red ash and
without red ash.
 To compare the cost of production between the two blocks.
 To determine the optimum replacement of red ash for crushed aggregate.
1.5. Significance of the study

The availability of ingredients nearly or locally for any construction materials makes the
material cost lower than other ingredients which are not available. Since red ash (scoria)
is nearly and abundantly available to Tepi town, this study contributes to the use of red
ash in the production of HCB both in terms of cost and strength in the study area. This
study will also use as a baseline data in those areas in Ethiopia where red ash is available.
And also this study will contribute information about using red ash in HCB production for
further studies to be conducted in the future.
1.6. Scope and limitation of the study

The research addressed the objective and tried to compare the compressive strength and
production costs of HCB with and without red ash in Tepi town. And the research focused
on the two distinct types of hollow concrete blocks currently produced in Tepi by micro and
small enterprises. The two types of blocks used in this study are hollow concrete blocks
without red ash (cement, sand, gravel 00 and crushed aggregate 01) and hollow concrete
blocks with red ash (cement, red ash and crushed aggregate 01).
4
The mix proportion for both hollow concrete blocks was taken from the trend of the micro
and small enterprise in Tepi town. The production cost used for comparison is only the direct
unit cost of production due to lack of data on the indirect production costs.
In this study, only the physical properties of the red ash used were determined. But the
chemical composition of the red ash used was not determined due to the lack of laboratory
for such tests in Jimma University.
5
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Concrete blocks

Concrete blocks are also known as concrete masonry units and have become increasingly
important as a construction material. Technological developments in the manufacture and
utilisation of the units have accompanied the increase in their use. Concrete masonry
walls, correctly designed and constructed, will satisfy a variety of building requirements
including fire resistance, durability, aesthetics and acoustics (Mortar Industry
Association, 2013).
Dense concrete blocks, which may be hollow, cellular or solid in form, are manufactured
from natural dense aggregates including crushed granite, limestone and gravel. Medium
and lightweight concrete blocks are manufactured incorporating a wide range of
aggregates Including expanded clay, expanded blast furnace slag, sintered ash and pumice
(Lyons A., 2008).
2.2. Hollow Concrete Blocks (HCB)

According to (ES 596:2001) HCB is an alternative wall and floor making material in the
building construction having one or more large holes with the solid material between
50%- 75% of the total volume of the block calculated from the overall dimensions. On the
other hand according to (Concrete Block Association, 2007), blocks which contains one
or more formed voids which are fully penetrate the block, decrease in density, thus
decreasing the end-product weight.
6
Figure 2.2 Hollow concrete blocks (SRCCD, 2008)
2.2.1 Different types of hollow concrete blocks

In Ethiopia, during the low cost housing project, different types of hollow concrete blocks
were introduced (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006).
a) Full HCB: the full hollow block has a size of L=32cm x W=16cm x H=19cm. the
size of the HCB is reduced in comparison to the usual sizes used in Ethiopia. The
new size of hollow blocks reduces the production materials and makes the HCB
easier to handle, this reduces labour and material costs.
Figure 2.2.1(a) Full HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006).
b) Half HCB: it has a size of L=16cm x W=16cm x H=19cm and represents exactly
half of one full HCB.
7
Figure 2.2.1.(b) Half HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006)
c) U- Shaped HCB: the u-shaped HCB has the same size as the full HCB, L=32cm
x W=16cm x H=19cm. it is used as a formwork for ring beams and lintels and at
the same time as a part of the wall.
Figure 2.2.1.(c) U-shaped HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006).
d) Column HCB: the column HCB has a size of L=32cm x W=16cm x H=19 cm. It
is used as a formwork for columns and at the same time as part of the wall.
Figure 2.2.1.(d) Column HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal affairs, 2006).
e) Slab HCB: this slab construction system, introduced by the low-cost housing
project, avoids formwork, reduces requirements of skilled manpower and time.
The slab HCB is done in the same way as production of wall HCB.
8
Figure 2.2.1.(e) Slab HCB (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal Affairs, 2006).
2.2.2. Classification of hollow concrete blocks in different standards

A) Based on Ethiopian standard (ES C.D3. 301).
According to ES 596:2001 hollow concrete blocks shall meet four classes depending on
their compressive strength, as class A, class B, and class C
 Class A: are load bearings
 Class B :are also load bearings
 class C: are used for non-load`
Their minimum compressive strength is listed in Table 2.2.2 (A1). The minimum
compressive strength in the Table 2.2.2(A1) to classify the blocks in each class is listed
for both individual units and for average of 6 units in N/mm2.
Table 2.2.2(A1) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks at 28th days (ES C.D3. 301)
Type of hollow Class Minimum compressive strength (N/mm2)
concrete block
Average of 6 unit Individual units
Load bearing A 5.5 5.0
`B 4.0 3.2
Non load bearing C 2.0 1.8
9
Table 2.2.2(A2) Nominal dimensions of hollow concrete blocks (ES 569:2001)
Length(l) mm Breadth(b) mm Height (h) mm
400 100 200
150
200
500 100 100
120 150
150 200
200 250
600 100 100
120 150
150 200
200 250
The standard also list nominal size of hollow concrete blocks in terms of length, breadth
and height as shown below in Table 2.2.2(A2). For each length class the standard list
possible breadth and heights. Among the listed dimensions the length class 400mm is
only considered as modular with different breadth (100mm, 150mm and 200mm) and a
height of 200mm.
B) Based on American Society for Testing and Materials
According to ASTM C90-70 and ASTM C129-70 hollow concrete blocks are mainly
classified as load bearing and non- load bearing in terms of compressive strength. The
classification is listed in Table 2.2.2(B) as shown below.
10
Table 2.2.2(B) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks (ASTM C90-70) and (ASTM C-
129-70).
Type of hollow concrete Grade Minimum compressive
block strength (N/mm2)
Average Individual
of 3 units units
Load bearing Type N (I and II) 6.9 5.5
Type S (I and II) 4.8 4.1
Non load bearing (type I and type II) Average Individual

of 5 units units
3.5 3.0
As shown in Table 2.2.2(B), ASTM classify hollow concrete blocks as load bearing and
non-load bearing. There are two grades under load bearing these are type N and type S.
grade N are used for general use such as in exterior walls below and above grade level.
Grade S are used only above grade level.
Both grades have two types such as moisture controlled units known as Type I and non-
moisture controlled units known as type II. The non-load bearings are also grouped under
type I and type II.
C) Based on Indian Standard
According to Indian Standard (IS: 2185-1979) hollow concrete blocks are classified as
Class A, B and C. Class A and Class B are load bearings whereas Class B is non-load
bearing and they are classified based on minimum compressive strength and density of
blocks as shown in Table 2.2.2(c).
11
Table 2.2.2 (c). Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks (IS: 2185- 1979)
Type of hollow Class Density of Minimum compressive strength
concrete block blocks kg/m3 (N/mm2)
Average of 8 units Individual

units
Load bearing A Not less than 3.5 2.8

1500
4.5 3.6
5.5 4.4
7.5 5.6
B 1000-1500 2 1.6
3 2.4
5 4
Non load bearing C 1000-1500 1.5 1.2
2.2.3. Ingredients for hallow block production

Since the ingredients of concrete can be of very different types and qualities, not only
depending on their local availability but also on the desired properties of blocks,
equipment and production method. It is not possible to give detailed recommendation
on materials and mix proportions, other than very general guidelines. It is up to the
manufacturer to select the most suitable materials and design of mixes by trial and
error (GTZ, 2011).
2.2.3.1 Cement for hollow concrete blocks
Most widely used cement for hollow concrete production are ordinary Portland cement
(OPC), Portland pozzolana cement (PPC) and special cements. (SRCCD, 2008).
Type I, or ordinary cement, is used where extended curing periods are no handicap,
or where blocks can be yarded for 7 to 28 days, allowing time for the blocks to attain
specification strength. Different brands may vary somewhat in color, ranging from
yellowish to slate gray, and may affect slightly the color of the finished products
12
when various brands are used. The color of two dry cements can be compared by
placing small quantities of each close together and pressing a piece of glass down
over them so they run together. Small differences in color will be quite noticeable at
the line of contact. Of equal importance to the color conscious producer are changes
in the amount of extremely fine material in the aggregates and changes in the
processing. Type II cement is generally darker than Type I. It is therefore preferred in
some localities where darker units are more popular. It may set and harden somewhat
slower than Type I. Type III (high early strength) cement is being used more and
more for concrete products. This cement is ground to greater fineness and produces a
paste of greater coating capacity. The mix is reported to be able to carry more water,
and responds more under vibration or compaction, forming denser units. This cement
hardens rapidly so normal curing and storage periods are reduced and units are ready
for marketing sooner. Some plants use this type of cement exclusively, finding that
the small extra cost is offset by the advantages it offers (Lyons A., 2008).
2.2.3.2 Aggregates for hollow concrete blocks
The aggregates used will consist of sand, gravel, crushed stone, slag, cinders or other
inert materials or combinations of them. They must be free from excessive amounts
of dust, soft flaky particles or shale, or other deleterious materials (Lyons A., 2008).
All the aggregates also should be free from frost or lumps of frozen materials. Where
stationary aggregate bins are provided, a coil of steam pipes should be arranged
around the outlet of the bin to thaw out frozen lumps. This heating' will' also aid in
the early hardening of the concrete in cold weather. Aggregates are usually classified
by an arbitrary division of fine and coarse (Michael S. and John P., 2006).
In general practice the No.4 screen is taken as the line of demarcation between the
course and the fine material. The maximum and minimum sizes of aggregate used
will be governed by the process of manufacture, the desired surface effects and the
type and dimensions of the manufactured units (Lyons A., 2008).
As described by (Lyons A., 2008), the importance of fineness and gradation makes it
obvious that the use of pit-run or crusher-run materials undesirable, since in the handling
13
of such aggregates segregation of sizes always occurs and the proper proportioning of
fine to coarse will be impossible to control.
a) Fine aggregates
According to (ASTM C 125-93) fine aggregates are aggregates passing the 9.5mm sieve
and almost entirely passing 4.75-mm (No. 4) sieve and predominantly retained on the 75-
µm (No.200).
The amount of moisture contained in the sand is important since it bulks when damp and
then weighs less per cubic foot than dry sand. In proportioning mixes this has an
important effect on the resulting concrete and the sand should be dry if volume
measurements are used, or the amount of moisture should be determined and corrections
made for it. If this is not considered, a mixture richer than necessary may result (Michael
S. and John P., 2006).
According to (James, A., 2004), Small amounts of silt, clay or loam may not be
objectionable. Where the cement supplies sufficient fine material, silt introduced with
sand will result in a loss of strength.
b) Coarse aggregates
According to (ASTM C 125-93), aggregate predominantly retained on the 4.75-mm

(N0.4) sieve or portion of an aggregate retained on the 4.75-mm (No.4) sieve.
The maximum size will be limited by the dimensions of the unit to be produced. The
largest pieces should not exceed one-third the thickness of the thinnest web of the units.
The maximum size of aggregate should be 10 mm (SRCCD, 2008).
Gravel, since it occurs widely, is largely used. It must, of course, be clean and durable
and free from soft, flat or elongated pieces and should be evenly graded from the
minimum to the maximum sizes (James, A., 2004).
Crushed stone is an excellent coarse aggregate, although slate and shales are not
recommended and some forms of sedimentary rocks may be lacking in durability. Density
is an important requirement; soft and easily-abraded stone is to be avoided. It is also very
important that the stone be free from dust, and washed material should be obtained if
14
possible. Tolerances the same as those in the case of gravel are allowable (James, A.,
2004).
Aggregates used for hollow concrete blocks are divided in to two according to the
weight of hollow concrete blocks they produce. Well-graded sand, gravel and
crushed stone are used to manufacture normal–weight units and they are called
normal weight aggregates. Whereas lightweight aggregates such as pumice, scoria,
cinder, expanded clay and expanded shale are used to manufacture light weight units
(Michael S. and John P., 2006).
Cement- aggregate ratio:
 Suitable proportion of aggregate to cement must be found by testing

 Common ratios are 1:6, 1:8
 Test the quality of block produced (SRCCD, 2008).
2.2.3.3 Water for hollow concrete blocks
The mixing water should be free from injurious amounts of oils, acids, strong alkalies,
organic matter or factory wastes. Water that is fit to drink is usually satisfactory. The
water is used not only to make the mixture plastic and easy to mold, but is essential in the
hydration of the cement. Any impurities present may seriously lower the strength of the
concrete units and may cause undesirable acceleration or retardation of the setting time of
the cement. It should not be colder than 600 F. Since temperatures much lower than this
tend to retard the setting time and early hardening of the block and, unless it is clean,
stains on the finished units may result (Michael S. and John P., 2006). Water cements
ratio: .According to (Ethiopian Ministry of Federal Affairs, 2006), GTZ Low-Cost
Housing Manual volume I recommended water- cement ratio is 0.49-0.55.
2.2.4. Red ash (scoria) Light weight aggregate for hollow concrete blocks
Red ash (Scoria), or volcanic sinter, is a natural basic glass. Like pumice, it was deposited
by eruption upon the earth's surface. However, the cellular construction is larger and the
walls of the cells are thicker. The scoria is slightly heavier and in itself stronger than the
pumice. The color varies from red to black (Benjovsky T. D. et.al, 1945).
15
The study also stated some of the advantages of light weight concrete blocks;
 They are easy to handle and transport,

 the weight of the structure is reduced,
 higher thermal and fire resistance properties and
 Lower sound resistance than normal weight units.
According to the above advantages Light weight concrete are the most common concrete
units used in construction of masonry (Michael S. and John P., 2006).
Scoria has excellent insulating qualities against heat, cold, and sound, and is practically
fireproof. These characteristics are to a large extent maintained in concrete blocks
properly fabricated from them and properly cured. Moreover, a well-made block is
strong, moisture-resistant, and light-weight, being at least 40% to 50% lighter than a
sand-concrete block. Facility of handling, speed of construction, resistance to weathering,
fire, age, and wear, and a moderate initial cost, show pumice and scoria blocks to be one
of the most economical of building materials for a permanent comfortable structure. They
lend themselves to innumerable types of designs and buildings. They are rough enough to
take plaster or stucco with no further preparation, yet smooth enough to be painted if
desired. Nails may be driven into the walls and the blocks may be cut or channelled
without breakage (Benjovsky T. D. et.al, 1945). Building walls that are constructed
with light weight aggregate hollow concrete blocks will have less dead weight
imposed on the structure. A building constructed of pumice or scoria concrete blocks is
literally a house of glass (Benjovsky T. D. et.al, 1945).
Scoria is a highly vesicular cindery material occurring on the surface of volcanic flows of
any composition. The samples studied ranged in composition from that of basalt to that of
basic volcanic glass. In general scoria has larger cells and thicker cell walls than pumice.
This makes Scoria is generally stronger than pumice (Clippinger D. M., 1946).
Scoria has porous nature as stated by (Lo, T.Y. and Cui, H.Z., 2004), this porous nature
enhance interlocking sites for the cement to infiltrate and this form dense interfacial zones
between the aggregates which will compensate for the strength lost in aggregates and
increases bonding.
16
According to (Tesfaalem Kahsay, 2014), in all production areas of the Addis Ababa
low cost housing projects they use aggregates like crushed aggregate( 00 and 01
size), sand which are normal weights and also they use natural light weight
aggregates such as pumice and redash( scoria).
According to (Abebe Dinku, 2005) scoria is produced from quarries by simple digging or
bulldozing as it is soft material. The different size produced mainly depends on digging or
bull dozing.
2.2.4.1 Scoria or redash for concrete.
Scoria is pyroclastic ejecta and irregular in form and generally very vesicular and has the
basic composition of basalt (Khandaker M., 2006).
Scoria rock can be used to replace up to 50% of cement; however, scoria powder demand
increased as Scoria rock content increased. The target compressive strength of 50 MPa at
28 days was achieved with all replacement levels. High performance concrete mixture
containing 20% scoria rock has good performance of compressive strength with low
chloride ion penetrability. Microstructural analysis revealed that the presence of 20%
scoria rock in high performance concrete mixture leads to the formation of advanced geo-
polymeric structures. These results are encouraging and show good potential for the use
of scoria rock as a non-traditional local source for pozzolanic material. This will lead to a
reduction in cement consumption and contribute to more sustainable concrete
construction in the region (Galal Fares, et al., 2014).
Structural lightweight concrete has its obvious advantages of higher strength/weight ratio,
lower co-efficient of thermal expansion and superior heat and sound insulation
characteristic due to air voids in the lightweight aggregate (Khandaker M.. 2006).
2.2.4.2. Scoria as cement additive
The pozzolanic activity tests indicate that scoria is pozzolanically active and has
cementitious characteristics to be used as cement additive. The study recommends the use
of 20% scoria as a cement additive in blended cement production (Khandaker M., 2006).
To make scoria concrete (SC) with 50% to 100% scoria aggregate (SA) as replacement of
coarse crushed gravel aggregate (GA) by volume, a range of slump between 60 and 80
mm would provide satisfactory workability (Khandaker M., 2006).
17
2.2.5 Physical property requirements of red ash as hollow concrete materials
According to (ASTM C331-94) red ash as a lightweight aggregate should meet the
following requirements;
a) Grading- grading shall conform to the requirements in the Table 2.2.5(a)
ASTM C331 also described grading requirement of lightweight aggregates used for
concrete masonry units. The grading requirements were for different lightweight
aggregates such as fine, coarse and combined (fine and coarse) aggregates.
Table 2.2.5(a) Grading requirements for lightweight aggregates for concrete masonry units
(ASTM C331-94)
Size Percentage (by weight) passing sieves having square openings
designation
¾in. ½ in. 3/8 in. No.4 No.8 No.16 No 50 No 100
(19.0
(12.5 (9.5 (4.75 (2.35 (1.18 (300 (150
mm)
mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) µm) µm)
Fine …… ….. 100 05- ….. 40-80 10-35 5-25

aggregate 100
(4.75mm) to
0
Coarse 100 90- 40-80 0-20 0-10 ……. ……. …….

aggregate 100
(12.5 to
4.75mm) …… 100 80-100 5-40 0-20 0-10 …… ……
(9.5 to
2.36mm)
Combined
fine and
coarse
aggregate 100 95- ……. 50-80 ….. …… 5-20 2-15
(12.5mm) to 100
0
(9.5mm)
……. 100 90-100 65-90 35-65 …… 10-25 5-15
to 0
18
b) Clay lumps- the amount of clay lumps shall not exceed 2% by dry weight.
c) Unit weight (loose) - unit weight of lightweight aggregate shall conform to
the requirements in Table 2.2.5(c).
According to the Table 2.2.5(c), the unit weight of different aggregates described by
ASTM C331-94. The test methods for the above properties are also listed in (ASTM
C331-94). For clay lumps, test method (ASTM C142) and for unit weight test
methods ASTM (C29/29M) were used.
Table 2.2.5(c) Unit weight requirements of lightweight aggregates for concrete masonry units
(ASTM C331-94).
Size Designation Dry loose weight, max, Ib/ft 3 (kg/m3)
Fine aggregate 70(1120)
Coarse aggregate 55(880)
Combined fine and coarse aggregate 65(1040)
2.2.6. Hollow concrete block (HCB) production process

The production process is carried out in three steps: batching and mixing, molding,
and curing (GTZ, 2011).
 Batching and mixing:
Aggregates can be batch by volume or by weight, but the latter is more accurate. For
this reason, cement should only be batch by weight, or preferably by using only
whole bags of 50 kg. Since concretes begin to set within 30 to 60 minutes, depending
on the type of cement and ambient temperature, only so much concrete must be
prepared as can be used up before that happens. In hot climates, the fresh mix must
be shaded from the sun to avoid premature setting.
In case of hand mixing, it must be done on a level, smooth, hard surface (e.g.
concrete slab or steel plate). Because of the relatively low cement content of the
concrete and the need for a cohesive mix, thorough mixing is essential. Thus the best
mixes are obtained with mechanically operated mixers. The quality of concrete
blocks depends largely on the type of mixer and period of mixing. The free fall,
19
revolving drum type mixers are not suitable, because of the semi-dry nature of the
mix. Pan mixers have a quick moving action and are thus recommended.
Figure 2.2.6 (a). Batching and mixing (SRCCD, 2008)
 Molding
Concrete blocks can be molded by several methods, ranging from manually tamping
the concrete in wooden or steel mold boxes to large scale production with „egg-
laying‟ mobile machine and fully automatic stationary machine. “Egg-laying" mobile
machines are designed for medium-scale production, either on-site or in a factory.
The name was given to these machines, because they leave the blocks to dry where
they are produced on a flat production surface and move a short distance away to
produce the next batch of blocks, and so on.
The quality of blocks generally increases with the degree of mechanization, but
medium standards are normally adequate for most construction purposes.
Figure 2.2.6 (b) Manually molding machine (SRCCD, 2008)
20
Figure 2.2.6(c) Egg-laying" mobile machines (SRCCD, 2008)
 Curing
The blocks are either left to set and harden where they were molded, or carried away
on pallets to the curing place. In all cases it is important to keep the concrete moist,
for example, by regularly spraying with water, until the concrete has obtained
sufficient strength. However, in developing countries, steam curing is unlikely to be
implemented, because of its high cost and sophistication. Keep the concrete blocks moist
by keeping under water in tanks or by regularly spraying with water for 7 days and Store
for 2 weeks before usage (SRCCD, 2008).
2.3. Production cost

Production costs according to (Lucac C., et al., 2008) are costs consumed or used to reach
a final goal. They also classify production costs in to two based on two classification
principles. In relation and reference to the final object, direct cost of production and
indirect cost of production. And in relation to behaviour, as variable and fixed cost.
2.3.1 Direct cost of production

According to (Lucac C., et al., 2008), direct costs are costs that are traceable. They are
costs related only to that product. They can be direct cost of materials, labor and
equipment that are directly involve in the production process. Direct costs are costs that
can be specially booked with an activity (Calin M., et al., 2003).
21
2.3.1.1 Direct cost of materials
Those costs, referring to the cost of materials, consumables and components used for
executing an activity (Calin M., et al., 2003).
Direct unit cost of materials: is the total cost of materials required to perform a unit of
activities in a project. Material costs are obtained by getting quotations from suppliers,
generally in a unit price of dollars per unit of measure of a specified material. Many unit
prices may be provided for the same material depending on the volume of purchase at a
given time. (Calin M., et al., 2003).
2.3.1.2 Direct cost of labor

Labor costs in construction are determined by two factors: monetary and productivity.
The monetary factor is related to hourly wage rates, wage premiums, insurance, fringe
benefits, and taxes. Estimating the components of the monetary factor is more difficult in
construction than in any other US industry. This is due to the variety of work involved in
construction, as well as the many types of trades involved. The problem is further
complicated by the presence of the unions with their craft structures and collective
bargaining processes. Although the computational process of this component seems
complex and tedious, it is only a matter of accounting as the needed numbers (such as
wage rates, fringe benefits, and insurance) are readily available. The second factor, which
is much more difficult to deal with, is productivity. In the most general sense,
productivity is the ratio of input versus the respective output (Calin M., et al., 2003).
According to (Calin M., et al., 2003) productivity = quantity of work produced/ time
duration. Utilization factor= 1/ crew production (output). And labor unit cost = utilization
factor times wage rates (daily or hourly).
2.3.1.3 Direct cost of equipment
Initial Cost: The initial cost is the total cost a contractor pays to purchase a piece of
equipment and have it shipped to a jobsite or equipment yard. This initial cost is the basis
for determining other costs related to ownership as well as operating costs (Calin M., et
al., 2003).
22
Cost of Renting Equipment: Renting construction equipment is an increasingly popular
procurement method. The primary advantage in renting equipment is the ability to
procure the right piece of equipment for the job when the unit is needed. Renting allows
for more specific equipment selection as more choices are usually available from renters
than the contractor‟s presently owned fleet. Using owned equipment also encourages
inefficiency through use of the wrong size or type of unit for a given job. Renting can
eliminate that problem. Equipment rental rates vary throughout the country with larger
cities normally having lower rates. Most rental companies calculate their rates on a
monthly basis. Monthly rental rates vary from 2 to 5% of the cost of equipment (Calin
M., et al., 2003).
According to (Calin M., et al., 2003), direct unit cost of equipment is the product of
number of equipment used, the utilization factor and rental rates (monthly or daily).
Direct unit cost of equipment= number of equipment* utilization factor* rental rates
Utilization factor according to (Calin M., et al., 2003) is 1/equipment output (annual or
daily).
2.3.2 Indirect cost of production

According to (Lucac C., et al., 2008), indirect costs of production are common cost.
According to (Calin M., et al., 2003), they are all costs which cannot be directly booked
under a specific activities but they are required to keep the whole projects operational.
This are also called overhead costs, head office and site overhead costs.
23
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS OF RESEARCH
3.1. Study setting or Area

This study was conducted in Tepi Town which is located at 609 km from Addis Ababa
and found in southern part of Ethiopia in Sheka Zone, coordinates: 7o 12‟N 35o27‟E
/7.2000N 35.4500E, found at an altitude of 1,097m above sea level and a population of
19231.
3.2 Study Population

The population of this experimental study was HCB with and without red ash.
3.3. Sample size and sampling procedure

The sampling procedure needs to be conducted in order to select samples that are
representatives for the study. The sampling procedure used in this research was purposive
sampling. The sample size was determined accordingly to the test specimen number
required to conduct compressive strength test for HCB and to meet the objectives of the
study.
For compressive strength test, a total of 6 HCB was prepared. For HCB without red ash, a
total of 18 samples were prepared which were tested at 7, 14 and 28 days of curing.
For HCBs with red ash 10 different sample were prepared with different percentage of red
ash. These samples are listed below in Table 3.3(a1).
Table 3.3(a1) Different samples with different percentage of red ash

Sample ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Redash(%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
For each percentage replacement, 6 samples were selected for each testing days (7th, 14th
and 28th). A total of 6 samples x 3days x 10 sample kinds = 180 samples were prepared.
For both HCB with and without red ash a total sample size selected was tabulated below
in Table 3.3(a2) and Table 3.3(a3).
24
Table 3.3(a2) Sample size for HCB with red ash
For HCB with red Number of samples for Total
ash
7th day 14th day 28th day
10% 6 6 6 18
20% 6 6 6 18
30% 6 6 6 18
40% 6 6 6 18
50% 6 6 6 18
60% 6 6 6 18
70% 6 6 6 18
80% 6 6 6 18
90% 6 6 6 18
100% 6 6 6 18
Total 1 60 60 60 180
Table 3.3(a3) Sample size for HCB without red ash

For HCB No. of samples Total 2
without red ash
For 7th day test For 14th day test For 28th day test
6 6 6 18
Total sample size= total sample for HCB with red ash + total sample for HCB without red
ash. Therefor total sample size for this study was 198 HCBs. These samples were used to
conduct compressive strength test and analysis of production cost to meet the research
objectives.
25
3.4. Study variables
 Dependent variable:
- Hollow concrete blocks (HCB)
 Independent variable
- Compressive strength
- Cost of production
- Percentage of red ash
3.5. Research Strategy and Design

The study was experimental study on hallow concrete blocks with and without red ash.
The study was conducted in different steps. These include material preparation,
determining engineering property of materials and production of different hollow blocks,
compressive strength test and production cost calculation.
3.5.1. Material preparation

Generally red ash, ordinary Portland cement, crushed aggregates, gravel 00 and sand were
materials used in this study. But they were also divided in to two. These were materials
for HCB with red ash and materials for HCB without red ash.
a) Materials for hollow concrete blocks without red ash
Materials used to produce HCB without red ash were:
 DANGOTE Ordinary Portland cement(OPC)

 Crushed aggregate and
 Sand
 Gravel 00
Sources of materials:
a) Cement- local market

b) Crushed aggregate- local market
c) gravel 00- local market
d) Sand- local market
26
b) Materials for hollow concrete blocks with red ash
Materials used to produce HCB with red ash were:
 DANGOTE Ordinary Portland cement(OPC)

 Crushed aggregate and
 Red ash (scoria)
Sources of materials:
a) Cement- local market

b) Crushed aggregate- local market
c) The red ash was extracted from Meti quarry site which is located at 17 km from
Tepi town. Figure 3.5.1(a) shows the red ash quarry site in Meti.
Figure 3.5.1(a) Meti red ash quarry site
After the extraction of red ash from the quarry, it was sieved with 10mm opening site
sieve to fix the maximum size of aggregate to 10mm (SRCCD, 2008). The retained
aggregates were crushed by using crusher from HCB production site as shown in Figure
3.5.1(b). Since the crushed aggregate was produced with a crusher and a 10mm sieve,
production site sieving was not conducted.
27
Figure 3.5.1(b) Picture of sieving and crushing red ash
3.5.2. Determining engineering property of materials

The engineering property of all materials necessary for describing the type of materials
used and also properties that can affect the production of HCB were determined prior to
production. The test methods used for the aggregates are listed below in Table 3.5.2
Table 3.5.2 Property tests and test methods

Property tests Test methods
Sieve analysis( sand, crushed aggregate ASTM C136,

and red ash, gravel 00)
Unit weight (sand, crushed aggregate, red ASTM C29

ash, and gravel 00)
Clay slumps( for res ash) ASTM C142
Silt content( sand and gravel 00) ASTM C117
Flakiness index( crushed aggregate) BS 812-105.1: 1989
specific gravity and absorption (sand, ASTM C127, BS 812:part 2:1995

crushed aggregate, red ash, and gravel 00)
Moisture content (sand, crushed ASTM C 566

aggregate, red ash, and gravel 00)
28
Test for cement was not conducted because DANGOTE standard cement with strength
grade of 42.5 was used. The samples for the property test were taken from the production
site by using quartering method. And the results for the tests are presented in the data
sheets in Appendix one.
3.5.3 Production of different hollow blocks

Producing the hollow concrete blocks was conducted by following different production
steps.
3.5.3.1 Proportioning the materials
The two most widely used cement to aggregate ratios are 1:6 and 1:8 for hollow concrete
blocks production (SRCCD, 2008). In the study area which is Tepi town the micro and
small enterprises use cement to aggregate ratio of 1:6. Therefor the study was conducted
by using 1:6 mix proportions for both type of HCB.
The proportion 1:6 indicates 1 bag of cement to 6 boxes of aggregate. The proportioning
box used was the box which is commonly used for HCB proportioning, that is
20cmx40cmx50cm (height, width and length). There was a need to prepare another box to
measure the 10% incremental of red ash which is 10% of the volume of the six boxes.
The calculation conducted to prepare the box was:
The volume of one box which is 20cmx40cmx50cm= 0.04 m3. Then the volume for 6
boxes is 0.04x6=0.24 m3. Therefor, 10% of 0.24= 0.024 m3, 0.024 m3
=20cmx30cmx40cm. Therefor a box with 20cm height, 30 cm width and 40 cm length
was prepared to measure the 10% red ash for the hollow blocks with red ash.
Figure 3.5.3.1(a) 10% proportioning box(20cmX30cmX40cm)
29
Figure 3.5.3.1(b) 20cmx40cmx50cm proportioning box
The study also separately conducted the proportioning for the two types of hollow
concrete blocks as follows;
a) Proportioning for HCB without red ash
In Tepi town the micro and small HCB enterprises use 1:3:2:1 ratio of cement, sand,
gravel 00 and crushed aggregate respectively for producing HCB without red ash. The
study was also conducted by using this proportion to produce the blocks.
b) Proportioning for HCB with red ash
The proportion used by micro and small enterprise in Tepi to produce HCB with red ash
is 1:4:2. That is cement, red ash and crushed aggregate proportion. But the study used 1:6
cement aggregate ratios. And out of the six part of aggregate it replaced the amount of
crushed aggregate with different percentage of red ash with a constant interval of 10%
and increased up to 100%. This was done in order to determine the maximum
replacement of red ash for crushed aggregate.
The proportion for the HCB with red ash was prepared by using the 20cmx30cmx40cm
box as follows:
100% red ash means 6 box of red ash by using 20cmx40cmx50cm box. Since the volume
of six boxes of 20c mx40cmx50cm is 6(0.04m3) = 0.24 m3 which is also equals to the
volume of 10 boxes with 20cmx30cmx40cm (i.e. 10(0.024 m3) = 0.24 m3, 0.024 m3 is the
volume of 20cmx30cmx40cm box). The different percentages of red ash and crushed
aggregates which were used are tabulated in Table 3.5.3.1.
30
Table 3.5.3.1 Different percentages of red ash and crushed aggregates used
Sample No. of (20cmx30cmx40cm) box Percent
ID
Red ash Crushed aggregate Red ash Crushed aggregate
1 1 9 10% 90%
2 2 8 20% 80%
3 3 7 30% 70%
4 4 6 40% 60%
5 5 5 50% 50%
6 6 4 60% 40%
7 7 3 70% 30%
8 8 2 80% 20%
9 9 1 90% 10%
10 10 0 100% -
After proportioning of the red ash and crushed aggregates, the materials were placed in
bags and labeled with the % of red ash contents.
3.5.3.2 Mixing process
The mixing process was conducted in two steps. The first step was dry mix of aggregates
and cement on the floor by hand and the second step was wet mixing of aggregates and
cement inside electrically operated mixer.
The first thing for mixing water determination was selecting water cement ratio. The
selected water cement ratio for the HCB without red ash was 0.5, which is between (0.49-
0.55) that was recommended by GTZ Low Cost Housing Manual Volume I.
31
Figure 3.5.3.2(a) Dry and wet mix
And the optimum mixing water was checked by rubbing a shovel against the mix as
stated by (CCI, 2006) and a ripple mark was observed at the back of the shovel. The
water amount added is 25 Kg. The next step was determining mixing water for the HCB
with red ash. The first mix considered was 100% red ash and 25kg of water were added
slowly by checking the optimum mixing water at some intervals. But due to absorption of
the red ash the mix was very dry and the optimum mixing water checked and no ripple
marks were observed. Then by continuously adding water and checking for the ripple
marks, the water amount was determined and recorded as 27.5 kg. As going down to
90%-80%, the same amount of water was added by following the same procedure. For
70% -60% the water amount 26.5kg was found enough. But while determining the 50%-
30% mixes, the mixes attained their optimum mixing water at 25kg. But the 20% and
10% red ash mixes at 24.5kg. The amount of water used and their water cement ratio
were listed in Table 3.5.3.2 below.
a) Mixing water for HCB with red ash
Since the red ash content for every mix is different the right moisture content was fixed
based on the above method and the mixing water is listed below in table 3.4.3.2.
b) Mixing water for HCB without red ash
The same procedure was followed for the HCB without red ash. The mixing water fixed
for HCB without red ash was 25kg with water-cement ratio of 0.5.
32
Table 3.5.3.2. Mixing water for HCB with red ash
Sample ID Redash(%) Mixing w/c
water(lit)
1 10% 24.5kg 0.49
2 20% 24.5 kg 0.49
3 30% 25 kg 0.5
4 40% 25 kg 0.5
5 50% 25 kg 0.5
6 60% 26.5 kg 0.53
7 70% 26.5kg 0.53
8 80% 27.5 kg 0.55
9 90% 27.5kg 0.55
10 100% 27.5 kg 0.55
3.5.3.3 Molding process
After the preparation of the mix the mix was delivered to the electrically operated
vibratory mold and the mix was placed inside the mold. Then after vibration was applied
to compact the hollow blocks for about 50 seconds, for a free space inside the mold
another mix was added to fill the mold and another vibration was applied for additionally
10 seconds. A total of 60 seconds vibration was conducted as specified by GTZ Low Cost
Housing Manual volume I.
33
Figure 3.5.3.3 Molding of HCB
3.5.3.4 Curing process
Since molding was carried out under the shade, after molding the hollow concrete blocks
were kept for 24 hours before starting spraying water. Just after 24 hours the concrete
blocks were regularly cured by spraying water for 7 days (SRCCD, 2008).
Figure 3.5.3.4 Blocks under shade
34
3.5.4 Compressive strength test and production cost calculation
Compressive strength test was carried out on the blocks prepared to compare the
compressive strength of the hollow blocks with and without red ash. Compressive
strength test of 7th, 14th and 28th days were conducted according to ES C.D4.001 after
regularly cured by spraying water for 7 days.
The production cost calculation was conducted based on direct unit production costs for
both hollow concrete blocks with and without red ash in order to compare the production
costs.
Figure 3.5.4 Compressive strength test on samples
3.6. Research approach

In order to achieve the objective of the research, information was gathered through
literature review, compressive strength test on the samples prepared and also reviewing
the HCB producers cost data and analyzing the production costs of the samples produced.
a) Literature review: this part was carried out in order to have a clear idea and
information on the materials used to produce hollow concrete blocks and also how
to produce hollow concrete blocks. After conducting literature review the
production of hollow blocks was carried out.
b) Compressive strength test on the samples: this test was carried out on the
blocks prepared to compare the compressive strength of the hollow blocks with
and without red ash. Compressive strength test of 7th, 14th and 28th days were
conducted according to ES C.D4.001.
35
c) Reviewing the HCB producers cost data and analyzing the production costs:
to compare the production cost of producing HCB with and without red ash the
producers direct cost breakdowns were reviewed the direct cost of producing the
blocks were calculated and analyzed.
Finally all the data from the study were analyzed based on the objectives and in ways that
are relevant to draw conclusion and recommendations.
3.7. Data processing and analyzing

To meet the research objectives, this part was conducted in two steps: the first step was
computing the compressive strength the second step was analyzing the direct cost of
producing the hollow concrete blocks.
3.7.1. Analyzing the compressive strength

The compressive strength of both HCB without and with red ash was conducted by taking
the mean of six HCBs as stated in the procedure of Ethiopian standard (ES C.D4.001).
The mean compressive strengths of HCB without red ash were compared with each HCB
with red ash. Further the data found were computed with different standards.
According to ASTM(C 90-70) and (ASTM C-129-70) average of 3 and 5 HCBs are
required. Therefore, the means were computed and compared according to Ethiopian
standard (ES. C.D3.301) and individually with ASTM. The results were analysed and
presented in tables and graphs.
3.7.2. Method of production cost analysis

The direct cost of producing both blocks was analyzed by considering only direct unit
cost of production. This is due to lack of data and lack of a proper way of calculating the
cost of production.
3.7.2.1 Direct unit cost of production

The direct unit cost of production analyzed in this study includes direct unit cost of
materials, direct unit cost of labor and direct unit cost of equipment.
Direct unit cost of materials: the materials cost data from the current market in Tepi
town were analyzed by considering the quantity to produce one hollow concrete block as
follow.
36
 One quintal of cement produces 40 hollow concrete blocks with 40x20x20
dimensions.
 to produce 40 blocks, quantities of aggregates used was obtained by using the
ratio of cement to aggregate and by considering the dimension of gaging
box(20x40x50cm). The cement aggregate ratio considered was 1:6. For the HCB
without red ash the ratio considered was 1:3:2:1, one bag cement, 3 box of sand, 2
box of gravel 00 and 1 box of crushed aggregate.
 But this ratio is only with one bag cement. The analysis was conducted by
considering 2 bags (1 quintal), therefor Multiplying the aggregates part by 2 is
necessary. And the ratio becomes 1 quintal cement: 6 box sand: 4 box gravel 00
and 2 box crushed aggregate.
 Quantity of aggregates for 40 blocks= number of box for each aggregates X
volume of one box.
 The box has a volume of 0.04m3. quantity of sand for 40 blocks would be
0.04x6=0.24m3, for gravel 0.04x4=0.16m3 and for crushed aggregate
0.04m3x2=0.08m3
 To analyze direct unit cost the quantities of each materials to produce 40 blocks
were divided by 40. Therefor the quantities are listed in the table 3.6.2.1(a)
below.
Table 3.7.2.1(a) Quantities of materials for HCB without red ash

qunt. For 1
type of materials qunt. 40 HCB(A) HCB=A/40
sand 0.24 0.006
gravel 00 0.16 0.004
crushed aggregate 0.08 0.002
 For the HCB with red ash the same procedure was followed except to incorporate
the percentages the volume of six box was considered. If the block has 10% red
ash it also means that it has 90% crushed aggregate.
 The volume of the 6 box=0.24m3, which can be used with one bag of cement but
for one quintal the volume was multiplied by 2. Quantity of red ash was
37
determined for each percentage of red ash by multiplying % red ash with volume
of the box. The same procedure was also followed for the crushed aggregate. The
quantities of red ash and crushed aggregates for one block are listed below in
Table 3.7.2.1(b).
 The quantity of cement for both types was 1 quintal but for one block it would be
1/40=0.02
 Direct material unit cost=
Table 3.7.2.1(b). Quantities of materials for HCB with red ash

Crushed agg.
Red ash(%) Crushed agg. (%) Red ash quantity (m3) quantity (m3)
10% 90% 0.0012 m3 0.0108 m3
20% 80% 0.0024 m3 0.0096 m3
30% 70% 0.0036 m3 0.0084 m3
40% 60% 0.0048 m3 0.0072 m3
50% 50% 0.006 m3 0.006 m3
60% 40% 0.0072 m3 0.0048 m3
70% 30% 0.0084 m3 0.0036 m3
80% 20% 0.0096 m3 0.0024 m3
90% 10% 0.0108 m3 0.0012 m3
100% 0% 0.012 m3 0 m3
Direct unit cost of labor:The direct unit cost of labor was analyzed by considering
utilization factor, daily wage and number of labor used to produce.
Utilization factor (uf)= 1/crew daily production. The crew daily production in Tepi for
producing HCB is 1200 blocks per day.
Direct labor unit cost=
3.7.2.3 Direct unit cost of equipment
The direct unit cost of equipment was analyzed by considering daily rental cost, number
of equipment used and utilization factor.
Utilization factor (uf) =1/machine daily production. The daily production considered is
1200 blocks per day.
Direct unit cost of equipment=
38
Direct unit cost of production was analyzed by using a format which is in appendix three
part of this thesis.
Total unit cost of production=
Whereas,
MDUC= material direct unit cost
LDUC= labor direct unit cost
EDUC= equipment direct unit cost.
39
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Physical Properties of Materials

To specify the type of materials used in this research and to check whether the materials
used are recommended by available standards and documents regarding to hollow
concrete blocks production, physical properties tests of materials were conducted and the
detailed data sheets with results are attached on appendix one of this thesis.
4.1.1 Physical property tests on red ash (scoria)
4.1.1.1 Sieve analysis of red ash (scoria)

The test method used was (ASTM C 136) and the detailed result obtained is attached on
appendix one.
Table 4.1.1.1 Red ash sieve analysis versus (ASTM C331-94)

Sieve size Cumulative percent pass ASTM(C331-94)standard
(%) for percent pass
minimum maximum
19mm 100 100 100
12.5mm 96 95 100
4.75mm 58.5 50- 80
300µm 17 5 20
150µm 10.75 2 15
pan 0 0 0
According to (ASTM C331-94) Standard Specification for Light Weight Aggregates for
Concrete Masonry Units, the passing percentage requirements for combined aggregates
(fine and coarse) are given in the Table 4.1.1.1 in terms of minimum percentage and
maximum percentage pass for every sieve size listed.
40
The results of the sieve analysis were tabulated and compares according to ASTM C 331-
94 (Standard Specification for Light Weight Aggregates for Concrete Masonry Units).
The test results were satisfactory because the passing percentages were within the limits
of the specification.
100.0%
100%
96.0%
80%
Percent Pass
58.5%
60%
40%
17.0%
20%
10.75%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sive Opening
ASTM max sample's gradation ASTM min
Figure 4.1.1.1 Red ash gradation curve
For elaborative presentation, the results were also presented in Figure 4.1.1.1, the upper
and the lower limits were presented in broken lines, with that of the red ash is presented
as the solid line.
4.1.1.2 Clay lumps for red ash
The other property red ash as lightweight should fulfill is that the maximum clay lumps
content. The test method used was ASTM C142, and the complete test results are
attached on appendix one in data sheet for clay lumps.
Table 4.1.1.2 Clay lumps content of fine and coarse red ash aggregates
Aggregate red ash Clay lumps content (%)
Fine red ash 1.75%
Coarse red ash 1.69%
41
According to (ASTM C331-94), clay slumps content should not be greater than 2% for
lightweight aggregate for concrete masonry units. As shown in Table 4.1.1.2, both the
fine and coarse aggregates are less than 2%. Therefore, the aggregate can be used for
concrete masonry unit production.
4.1.1.3 Unit weight of red ash
The other property red ash as lightweight should fulfill is unit weight. Table 4.1.1.3,
showed the unit weight result for the red ash used and (ASTM C331-94) recommended
maximum unit.
Table 4.1.1.3 Unit weight of red ash used versus ASTM maximum
The red ash used ASTM (C331-94) max loose weight,
Ib/ft3 (kg/m3) for Combined fine and
coarse aggregate.
894.4kg/m3 65(1040)
As shown in the Table 4.1.1.3, the red ash used is below the maximum loose unit weight
of ASTM recommendation. Therefore the red ash is acceptable for concrete masonry
units.
4.1.1.4 Others physical properties determined
Other properties discussed here were not covered in ASTM (C331-94), but determined to
specify the property of the red ash used.
Table 4.1.1.4 Other physical properties of red ash

Physical properties of red ash Determined values
Moisture content 0.92%
Specific gravity 2.94
Absorption 13.48%
42
From Table 4.1.1.4, 0.92%, 2.94 and 13.48% are the moisture content, specific gravities
and absorption of the red ash used respectively. Since red ash like other lightweight
aggregates it absorbs the mix water, this indicates that while mixing water adjustments
should be used.
4.1.2 Physical property tests on crushed aggregate, sand and gravel

The normal weight aggregates for making hollow concrete blocks needs to have property
of concrete aggregate.
4.1.2.1 Sieve analysis
a) Crushed aggregate: the maximum size of coarse aggregates used was 10mm.
Table 4.1.2.1(a) Sieve analysis for crushed aggregate versus ASTM limits
sieve Cum. % ASTM limits

Remark
Size pass Min Max
19 100.0% 100% 100% ok

12.5 100.0% 90% 100% ok
9.5mm 52.0% 40% 70% Ok
4.75mm 1.5% 0% 15% Ok
2.36mm 1.0% 0% 5% Ok
pan 0.0%
100%
80%
Percent Pass
60%
40%
20%
0%
1 10
Sive Opening
ASTM max sample's gradation
Figure 4.1.2.1(a) Gradation curve for crushed aggregate
43
Both from the Table 4.1.2.1(a) and Figure 4.1.2.1(a), it is shown that the aggregate has
fulfil the requirement of ASTM C33 as hollow concrete block material.
b) Gravel 00
The “00” in the gravel indicates that the gravel is fine and used as fine aggregate in
construction.
Table 4.1.2.1(b) Sieve analysis of gravel 00 versus ASTM limits
sieve Cum. % ASTM limits

Remark
Size pass Min Max
9.5 100.0% 100% 100% ok

4.75 97.8% 95% 100% ok
2.36 86.5% 80% 100% ok
1.18 63.0% 50% 85% ok
0.6 44.0% 25% 60% ok
0.3 18.5% 10% 30% ok
0.15 6.5% 2% 10% ok
pan 0.0%
FM=2.84
Since the gravel 00 is used as fine aggregate it should fulfil the gradation requirement
specified for fine aggregates by ASTM C33. According to the test result, the fineness
module was 2.84 which is within the ASTM C33 limits (2.3-3.1).
100%
80%
Percent Pass
60%
40%
20%
0%
0.1 1 10
Sive Opening
Sample's gradation ASTM min ASTM max
Figure 4.1.2.1(b) Gradation of gravel 00
44
Both from Table 4.1.2.1(b) and Figure 4.1.2.1(b), the gravel gradation is between the
ASTM C33 limitations. Therefore, the aggregate can be used for concrete making. Since
hollow concrete blocks are also concrete the aggregate is suitable for HCB in terms of
gradation.
c) Sand
Table 4.1.2.1(c) Sieve analysis of sand versus ASTM C33 limits

Sieve Cumulative ASTM limits
Remark
Size (mm) % pass Min Max
9.5 100.0% 100% 100% Ok
4.75 96.0% 95% 100% Ok
2.36 84.5% 80% 100% Ok
1.18 70.8% 50% 85% Ok
0.6 40.3% 25% 60% Ok
0.3 22.0% 10% 30% Ok
0.15 4.8% 2% 10% Ok
FM=2.82
pan 0.0%
According to ASTM C33 fine aggregates should have fineness modules between 2.3 and
3.1; the sand used has fineness modules of 2.82, this means it is within the ASTM limits.
100%
80%
Percent Pass
60%
40%
20%
0%
0.1 1 10
Sive Opening
Figure 4.1.2.1(c) gradation curve of sand
Both from the Table 4.1.2.1(c) and Figure 4.1.2.1(c), it is shown that the sand is within
the ASTM C33 limits. Therefore, the sand can be used in terms of gradation.
45
4.1.2.2. Bulk Unit weight
Table 4.1.2.2 showed the test results of unit weight of crushed aggregate, sand and gravel
00.
Table 4.1.2.2 Unit weight of used aggregates

aggregates Bulk Unit weight
Crushed aggregate 1657.7kg/m3
sand 1675.8 kg/m3
Gravel 00 1670kg/m3
ASTM C33 limits the bulk unit weight from 1200-1760 kg/m3, as it is shown from Table
4.1.2.2, the unit weights are within the limits. Therefore, the aggregates fulfill
specification.
4.1.2.3 Specific gravity and absorption
Table 4.1.2.3 Bulk specific gravity (SSD) and absorption

Aggregates Bulk specific g.(ssd) Absorption
Crushed aggregate 2.6 1.9%
sand 2.64 1.6%
Gravel 00 2.7 1.5%
According to ASTM C33, the limitation for bulk specific gravity (SSD) is from 2.4 to 3.0.
Accordingly the aggregates are within ASTM limitations. And absorption from 0.2% to
4%, for coarse aggregates and 0.2 to 2% for fine aggregates.
From Table 4.1.2.3, the crushed aggregate as coarse aggregate is between 0.2% and 4%.
And both sand and gravel 00 are within the limits of fine aggregates.
46
4.1.2.4. Moisture content and silt content
Table 4.1.2.4 Moisture content and silt content

Aggregates Moisture content (%) Silt content (%)
Crushed agg. 1.01% -
sand 1.21% 2.1%
Gravel 00 1.15% 2.75%
According to ASTM C33, silt content should not be greater than 3%. Both gravel and
sand fulfil this requirement. And the moisture contents should be within 0.5% to 2%. All
aggregates are within the limits.
4.1.2.5. Flakiness index of crushed aggregate
According to (BS 882:1992), the flakiness index of the combined coarse aggregate shall
not exceed 50 for uncrushed gravel and 40 for crushed rock or crushed gravel. Since the
used aggregate is crushed aggregate with a flakiness index of 30.82%. This is within the
limit of (BS 882:1992).
4.2 Comparisons of compressive strength results

To meet the objectives of this research, the compressive strength of each blocks produced
was conducted according to ES C.D4.001 after regularly cured by spraying water for 7
days. The compressive strength test results for each sample are listed on Appendix Two.
In terms of comparing compressive strength the two kinds of HCBs produced mainly
HCB with and without red ash were computed. Since the HCB with red ash samples were
produced by considering different percentage amount of red ash, from 10% up to 100%
each of them were compared with the HCB without red ash.
4.2.1 The determined compressive strength of HCB without red ash

As shown in the Table 4.2.1(a) the mean compressive strength of The HCB which was
produced by mix ratio of 1:3:2:1, one bag of cement, 3 box of sand, 2 box of gravel 00
and 1 box of crushed aggregate 01 was determined for 7th, 14th and 28th testing days and
the average for each testing days or the mean compressive strength were determined.
47
Table 4.2.1(a) Mean compressive strength of HCB without red ash
Testing day Mean compressive strength(average of 6

HCB) in MPa
7th day 2.19
14th day 3.10
28th day 3.72
A mean strength of 2.19 MPa for the 7th days, 3.10 for the 14th and 3.72 were obtained
from the compressive strength tests on each day samples. The incremental in compressive
strength from 7th up to 28th day is easily observed in the Figure 4.2.1 below.
From the graph in the Figure 4.2.1, it is easy to observe that, as the days increase the
compressive strength also increases this is mainly due to curing of concrete. The hollow
concrete blocks attained a compressive strength 3.72 MPa at 28th day which is the
maximum compressive strength from the rest days.
HCB without red ash

4
3.5
3.72
mean compressive strength(MPa)
3
3.1
2.5
2
2.19
1.5
0.5
0
Figure 4.2.1 Compressive strength graph for HCB without red ash
At the 7th day the blocks attained 58.8% of the 28th day compressive strength and at 14th
day the blocks attained 83.3% of the 28th day compressive strength.
48
Table 4.2.1(b) Percent increase
From Change in compressive Percent increase
strength (MPa)
7th to 14th day 0.91 MPa 41.55%
14th to 28th 0.62 MPa 20%
From the above Table 4.2.1(b), there is a 41.55% increase as the curing date increases
from the 7th day to 14th day and a 20% increase in compressive strength as the curing date
increases from 14th day to 28th day.
4.2.2 Comparison of compressive strength of HCB with and without red ash
For the HCB with red ash the compressive strength was determined for all samples with
different red ash contents and they are discussed prior to comparison with HCB without
red ash here.
4.2.2.1 HCB without red ash and 10% red ash HCB
The determined compressive strength of the 10 % red ash HCB is listed below in Table
4.2.2.1. From Table 4.2.2.1 the mean compressive strength of the 7th, 14th and 28th day
compressive strengths are 1.28, 1.77 and 2.01 MPa respectively. And the comparison of
compressive strength with HCB without red ash is plotted on the graph in Figure 4.2.2.1.
Table 4.2.2.1 Mean compressive strength of 10% red ash HCB

HCB) in MPa
7th day 1.28
14th day 1.77
28th day 2.01
49
mean compressive strenght(MPa)
HCB Without redash VS 10% red ash HCB
4
3.5
3 10 % redash HCB
2.5
2 HCB without
1.5 redash
1
0.5
0
Figure 4.2.2.1 HCB without red ash versus 10% red ash HCB
From Figure 4.2.2.1, the upper line indicates the mean compressive strength of the HCB
without red ash. The percent increase was calculated by using . The
compressive strength when compared with 10% red ash HCB, the 7th day increased with
71.1%, the 14th day increased with 75.14% and the 28th day increased with 20% when
compared with the respective days of the 10% red ash HCB. This means the 7th day
compressive strength of HCB without red ash is 71.1% larger than the 7th day of 10% red
ash HCB; the 14th day is 75.14% and 28th day is 20% larger than the respective days of
10% red ash HCB. From compressive strength result the HCB without red ash has better
strength than the 10% red ash HCB. This is mainly because the nature of materials used
and the proportions used. Regarding to the nature of materials, the HCB without red ash
has sand and gravel 00 as a fine aggregate which are relatively stronger than the fine
aggregates that are obtained from the red ash. And regarding to the proportion the HCB
without red ash has sufficient fine aggregates to fill the voids between coarse aggregates
whereas, the 10% red ash HCB has very small amount of fine aggregates which is
obtained from the 10% red ash.
The compressive strength for the 7th,14th and 28th days are listed in the following Table
4.2.2.2. From Table 4.2.2.2, 2.05MPa, 2.74MPa and 3.11MPa are the 7th, 14th and 28th
day‟s compressive strengths respectively. The comparison of compressive strength with
HCB without red ash is plotted in Figure 4.2.2.2.
50
Table 4.2.2.2. Mean compressive strength of 20% red ash HCB
HCB) in MPa
7th day 2.05
14th day 2.74
28th day 3.11
As shown in Figure 4.2.2.2, the upper line indicates the mean compressive strength of the
HCB without red ash. The compressive strength when compared with 20% red ash HCB,
the 7th day increased with 6.82%, the 14th day increased with 13.13% and the 28th with
19.61% when compared with the respective days of the 20% red ash HCB. This means
the 7th day compressive strength of HCB without red ash is 6.82% larger than the 7th day
of 20% red ash HCB; the 14th day is 13.13% and 28th day is 19.61% larger than the
respective days of 20% red ash HCB.
HCB without redash Vs 20% red ash HCB

3.5
2.5
2 20% redash HCB

HCB without redash
1.5
0.5
0
Figure 4.2.2.2. HCB without red ash versus 20% red ash HCB
From compressive strength result the HCB without red ash has better strength than the
20% red ash HCB. This is mainly because the nature of materials used and the
proportions used. Regarding to the nature of materials, The HCB without red ash has sand
51
and gravel 00 as a fine aggregate which are relatively stronger than the fine aggregates
that are obtained from the red ash. And regarding to the proportion the HCB without red
ash has sufficient fine aggregates to fill the voids between coarse aggregates whereas, the
20% red ash HCB has very small amount of fine aggregates which is obtained from the
20% red ash.
The determined compressive strengths for the 7th, 14th and 28th days are listed in the
Table 4.2.2.3.From Table 4.2.2.3, the mean compressive strength 2.27MPa, 3.26MPa
and 3.66MPa are the 7th, 14th and 28th day strength respectively. The comparison of
compressive strength with HCB without red ash is in figure 4.2.2.3.
Testing day Mean compressive strength(average of 6 HCB) in MPa
7th day 2.27
14th day 3.26
28th day 3.60
HCB without red ash Vs 30% red ash HCB

4 3.72
mean compressive strength (MPa)
3.5
3
3.1
2.5
2 HCB without redash

2.19
30% redash HCB
1.5
0.5
0
7th 14th 28th
52
As shown in Figure 4.2.2.3, the labeled line indicates the mean compressive strength of
the HCB without red ash. The compressive strength when compared with 30% red ash
HCB, there is a percent decrease in compressive strength. The 7th day decreases with
3.52%, the 14th day also decreases with 4.91% and the 28th increased with 3.3% when
compared with the respective days of the 30% red ash HCB.
This means the 7th day compressive strength of HCB without red ash is 3.52% smaller
than the 7th day of 30% red ash HCB; the 14th day is 4.91% smaller this is mainly due to
the 30% red ash HCB cured more than the HCB without red ash. But the reason for the
28th day of HCB without red ash 3.33% larger than the respective day of the 30% red ash
HCB is more of the nature of materials used and the proportions used. Regarding to the
nature of materials, The HCB without red ash has sand and gravel 00 as a fine aggregate
which are relatively stronger than the fine aggregates that are obtained from the red ash.
And regarding to the proportion the HCB without red ash has sufficient fine aggregates to
fill the voids between coarse aggregates whereas, the 30% red ash HCB has very small
amount of fine aggregates which is obtained from the 30% red ash.
The determined compressive strengths for the 40% red ash hollow concrete blocks are
listed in Table 4.2.2.4 below. In the Table 4.2.2.4, the mean compressive strength of the
7th, 14th and 28th day compressive strength results are 1.95MPa, 2.66MPa and 2.95MPa
respectively.

HCB) in MPa
7th day 1.95
14th day 2.66
28th day 2.95
The comparison of compressive strength with HCB without red ash is plotted in Figure
4.2.2.4. As shown in Figure 4.2.2.4, the upper line indicates the mean compressive
strength of the HCB without red ash. The compressive strength when compared with 40%
53
red ash HCB, the 7th day increased with 12.31%, the 14th day increased with 16.54% and
the 28th increased with 26.10% when compared with the respective days of the 40% red
ash HCB.
This means the 7th day compressive strength of HCB without red ash is 12.31% larger
than the 7th day of 40% red ash HCB; the 14th day is 16.54% and 28th day is 26.10%
larger than the respective days of 40% red ash HCB. From the results of compressive
strength and the percentage increase, the HCB without red ash has larger strength than the
40% red ash HCB.
HCB without red ash VS 40% red ash HCB

4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5 40% redash HCB
0.5
0
As observed in the previous sections as the red ash amount increases from 10% to 30%
the compressive strength was increased. This is because in regards to nature of materials,
weaker red ash amount was increasing but the compressive strength was increasing this
shows that the contribution of the red ash for the strength in terms of its natural strength
was insignificant up to 30%, instead the red ash was contributing fine aggregates for the
mix. But at 40% the compressive strength was decreased this shows that when compared
to HCB without red ash, the 40% red ash HCB compressive strength is smaller mainly
because of the nature of red ash than the need of fine aggregates of the blocks.
54

Testing day Mean compressive strength(average of 6 HCB) in MPa
7th day 1.78
14th day 2.41
28th day 2.7
In the above Table 4.2.2.5, the mean compressive strength of 50% red ash hollow
concrete blocks for 7th, 14th and 28th days are listed. The 7th day strength of 1.728MPa,
14th day Strength of 2.41MPa and 2.7Mpa strength of 28th days are obtained from the
compressive strength tests. And the comparison of compressive strength with HCB
without red ash is plotted in Figure 4.2.2.5.

4
3.5
3
2.5
2 50% redash HCB
1.5 HCB without redash
1
0.5
0
the 7th day increased with 23.03%, the 14th day increased with 28.63% and the 28th
increased with 37.77% when compared with the respective days of the 50% red ash HCB.
55
strength, the HCB without red ash has greater strength than the 50% red ash HCB. This is
mainly due to the weaker red ash aggregates.
The mean compressive strength of the hollow concrete blocks for the 60% red ash was
also determined for 7th, 14th and 28th days and presented in Table 4.2.2.6. From Table
4.2.2.6, the 7th, 14th and 28th compressive strengths are 1.72, 2.32 and 2.60 respectively.
And the comparison of compressive strength with HCB without red ash is plotted in
Figure4.2.2.6.
Table 4.2.2.6. Mean compressive strength of 60% red ash HCB

HCB) in MPa
7th day 1.72
14th day 2.32
28th day 2.60

4
3.5
3
2.5
2 60% redash HCB
1
0.5
0
56
the 7th day increased with 28.82%, the 14th day increased with 33.62% and the 28th
increased with 43.07% when compared with the respective days of the 60% red ash HCB.
The mean compressive strength of the hollow concrete block with 70% red ash for the 7th,
14th and 28th day are listed in the Table 4.2.2.7 below.

Testing day Mean compressive strength(average of
6 HCB) in MPa
7th day 1.46
14th day 2.04
28th day 2.19
The determined compressive strengths, 1.46MPa, 2.04MPa and 2.19MPa are the 7th, 14th
and 28th days mean compressive strengths respectively. And the comparison of
compressive strength with HCB without red ash is plotted in Figure 4.2.2.7.
57
mean compressive strenght(MPa) HCB without red ash VS 70% red ash HCB
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 70% redash HCB

1
0.5
0
the 7th day increased with 50%, the 14th day increased with 51.96% and the 28th increased
with 69.86% when compared with the respective days of the 70% red ash HCB.
This means the 7th day compressive strength of HCB without red ash is 50% larger than
the 7th day of 70% red ash HCB; the 14th day is 51.96% and 28th day is 69.86% larger
than the respective days of 70% red ash HCB. From the results of compressive strength,
the HCB without red ash has greater strength than the 70% red ash HCB. This is mainly
due to the weaker red ash aggregates.

HCB) in MPa
7th day 1.37
14th day 1.95
28th day 2.18
As shown in Table 4.2.2.8, the mean compressive strength of the 7th, 14th and 28th days
compressive strengths are 1.28MPa, 1.77MPa and 2.18 MPa respectively. And the
58
comparison of compressive strength with HCB without red ash is plotted in Figure
the 28th increased with 70.6% when compared with the respective days of the 80% red
ash HCB.
HCB without red ash VS 80 % red ash HCB

3.5
2.5
2 80% redash HCB

HCB without redash
1.5
0.5
0

HCB) in MPa
7th day 1.14
14th day 1.72
28th day 1.84
59
In the above Table 4.2.2.9, the mean compressive strength of 90% red ash hollow
concrete blocks for 7th, 14th and 28th days are listed. 7th day strength of 1.14MPa, 14th
day strength of 1.72MPa and 1.84Mpa strength of 28th days are obtained from the
compressive strength tests.
The comparison of compressive strength with HCB without red ash is plotted in figure
the 28th with 102.17% when compared with the respective days of the 90% red ash HCB.
larger than the respective days of 90% red ash HCB.
From the results of compressive strength, the HCB without red ash has greater strength
than the 90% red ash HCB. This is mainly due to the weaker red ash aggregates.

4
3.5
3
2.5
90% redash HCB
2
HCB without redash
1.5
1
0.5
0
60
The determined compressive strengths for the 100% red ash hollow concrete blocks are
listed in Table 4.2.2.10 below. In the Table 4.2.2.10, the mean compressive strength of
the 7th, 14th and 28th day compressive strength results are 0.86MPa, 1.30MPa and
1.48MPa respectively. The comparison of compressive strength with HCB without red
ash is plotted in Figure 4.2.2.10.

HCB) in MPa
7th day 0.86
14th day 1.30
28th day 1.48

3.5
2.5
2 100% redash HCB

HCB without redash
1.5
0.5
0
As shown in Figure 4.2.2.10, the upper line indicates the mean compressive strength of
the HCB without red ash. The compressive strength when compared with 100% red ash
HCB, the 7th day increased with 173.75%, the 14th day increased with 138.46% and the
28th with 151.35% when compared with the respective days of the 100% red ash HCB.
61
larger than the respective days of 100% red ash HCB.
From the results of compressive strength, the HCB without red ash has greater strength
than the 100% red ash HCB. This is mainly due to the weaker red ash aggregates.
4.3 Determination of the Optimum red ash replacement

The optimum red ash content for this study is the red ash content that gives the maximum
compressive strength up to that content and any further increase in the content results a
decrease in compressive strength. The optimum content was determined on the 28th day
mean compressive strength and clearly plotted in the Figure 4.3.
Table 4.3 The 28th day mean compressive strength of HCB with red ash
Red ash content
(%) 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
28th MCS(Mpa) 2.01 3.11 3.60 2.95 2.7 2.60 2.19 2.18 1.84 1.48
Note; MCS: mean compressive strength.
In the Table 4.3, the mean compressive strength of the different red ash content HCBs are
listed. From the above Table 4.3, the maximum compressive strength is 3.6MPa which is
obtained from the 30% red ash content and the minimum compressive strength is
1.48MPa which is obtained from 100% red ash content. The graph in Figure 4.3 shows,
the mean compressive strength versus red ash content in percent.
As shown in the Figure 4.3, as the red ash amount in the hollow concrete blocks
increases up to 30% the compressive strength also increases from 2.01MPa to 3.6MPa.
But after 30% to 100% the compressive strength decreases from 3.6MPa to 1.48MPa.
The decrease in compressive strength is due to further replacement of crushed aggregates

with relatively weak red ash aggregate.
62
4
28th day mean compressive strength 3.6
3.5
3.11
2.95
3 2.7 2.6
2.5 2.192.18
2.01
2 1.84
mean compressive
1.48
strength
1.5
0.5
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
redash amount(%)
Figure 4.3 The 28th mean compressive strength versus red ash content (%)
But up to 30% the relative weakness of aggregate was compensated by the formation of
dense zone and also the hollow concrete blocks need for fine aggregate was decreased
because red ash used was a combined aggregate. The dense zone according to (Lo, T.Y.
and Cui, H.Z., 2004) is formed when cement infiltrates inside the porous of scoria or red
ash and also it increases bonding.
4.3.1 Comparison of HCB without red ash and the optimum red ash HCB
The comparison was in terms of the 28th day mean compressive strength results of the two
blocks. From Figure 4.3.1, the compressive strength of HCB without red ash only
increased with 0.12MPa, this means 3.33% increment in compressive strength.
HCB without red ash compressive strength is 3.33% larger than the 30% red ash HCB.
This shows that the 30% red ash HCB has achieved a compressive strength that is close to
the HCB without red ash. According to the study of (Benjovsky T.D. et.al, 1945), a well-
made block which is produced by using scoria is stronger than sand-concrete block.
Even the crushed aggregate and red ash which has weaker strength was used for the 30%
red ash HCB, the difference in compressive strength was smaller than the difference
between the other red ash HCB and HCB without red ash. This is mainly due to at 30%
red ash content the relative weakness of red ash was highly compensated by the formation
63
of dense mass due to cement paste penetration in the pores of red ash. Since red ash or
scoria has pozzolanic nature even in fine form used as a cement replacement or additives,
this pozzolanic nature also contributed for the small difference in compressive strength
between the HCB without and 30% red ash HCB.
HCB without red ash Vs 30% read ash HCB

28th day mean compressive
3.74
3.72
strength (MPa)
3.72
3.7
3.68
3.66
3.64 HCB without HCB without redash
3.62 redash
3.6 30% redash HCB
3.6
3.58 30% redash
3.56 HCB
3.54
HCB TYPES
Figure 4.3.1 Compressive strength of HCB without red ash versus 30% red ash HCB
4.4 Comparison of produced HCBs with different standards

Since the compressive strength was conducted according to Ethiopian standard (ES
C.D4.001) and (ES C.D3.301) the mean compressive strength was determined by
considering six HCBs. But ASTM uses average of 5 blocks and 3 blocks. Therefor the
mean compressive strengths were compared with Ethiopian standard and individually
with ASTM only.
4.4.1 With Ethiopian standards (ES C.D3.301)

According to Table 4.4.1(a), 5.5, 4.0 and 2.0 are the minimum compressive strength for
Class A, B and C respectively. According to Ethiopian Standards (ES C.D3. 301), Class
A and Class B type of hollow concrete blocks are load-bearing whereas Class C hollow
concretes are non-load bearings according to the minimum compressive requirements.
64
Table 4.4.1(a) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks at 28th days (ES C.D3. 301)
Type of hollow Class Minimum compressive strength (N/mm2)
concrete block
Average of 6 unit Individual units
Load bearing A 5.5 5.0
`B 4.0 3.2
Non load bearing C 2.0 1.8
Table 4.4.1(b) shows, the Classes of the produced hollow concrete blocks according to
the Class requirement of Ethiopian standard (ES C.D3. 301). Accordingly all the
produced hollow concrete blocks were Class C except 90% and 100% red ash HCB. The
90% and 100% red ash HCB were found to be out of the Class requirements of Ethiopian
Standard. This shown that, According to the study and Ethiopian standard, red ash can
replace up to 80% of crushed aggregate in the production of HCB with red ash.
Table 4.4.1(b) Class of HCB produced according to Ethiopian standard (ES C.D3. 301)
Type of HCB produced 28th day’s mean Class of HCB according to(ES
compressive C.D3. 301)
strength(Mpa)
HCB without red ash 3.72 Mpa Class C
10% red ash HCB 2.01 Mpa Class C
90% red ash HCB 1.84 Mpa Out of class
100% red ash HCB 1.48 Mpa Out of class
65
4.4.2 With ASTM, (ASTM C90-70) and (ASTM C-129-70)
The ASTM classification of HCB with minimum compressive strength requirements in
terms of average and individual units are listed in Table 4.4.2(a). ASTM classifies HCB
as load bearing and non-load bearing types and with grades as type N and type S.
Since the blocks mean compressive strength was determined by using average of six
units, and ASTM recommends only 3 for load bearing and 5 for non -load bearing, it is
better to consider individual compressive strength of blocks.
From the appendix two compressive strength test results, the individual compressive
strengths that fulfill ASTM are 30% red ash HCB and HCB without red ash only. They
have all individual 28th day‟s compressive strengths greater than 3MPa as shown in Table
4.4.2(b).
Table 4.4.2 (a) Compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks (ASTM C90-70) and (ASTM C-
129-70).
Type of hollow concrete Grade Minimum compressive
block strength (N/mm2)
Average Individual
of 3 units units
Load bearing Type N (I and II) 6.9 5.5
Type S (I and II) 4.8 4.1
Non load bearing (type I and type II) Average Individual

of 5 units units
3.5 3.0
66
Table 4.4.2(b) Individual 28th day compressive strengths of HCB without and 30% red ash HCB
sample the 28th day individual compressive strength (N/mm2)

no. 30% red ash HCB HCB without red ash
1 3.71 3.64
2 3.7 3.76
3 3.62 3.69
4 3.64 3.72
5 3.50 3.66
6 3.44 3.86
According to Table 4.4.2 (a) and table 4.4.2(b), the 30% red ash HCB and HCB without
red ash are non-load bearing hollow concrete blocks.
4.5 Unit weight comparisons of the hollow concrete blocks

The unit weights of each sample in Table 4.5 were calculated by dividing the weight by
the volume of each hollow concrete blocks. Their weight is listed in appendix two with
their corresponding compressive strengths.
As shown from Table 4.5, the average unit weights of the HCB without red ash and the
30% red ash HCB there is 173.438 Kg/m3 unit weight difference this indicates that 30%
red ash HCB in this study are 19.23% lighter than the HCB without red ash.
Table 4.5 Unit weight of 30% red ash HCBs and HCBs without red ash
sample 28th day unit weight of the HCBs

no 30% red ash HCB(Kg/m3) HCB without red ash(Kg/m3)
1 909.375 1053.125
2 912.5 1106.25
3 890.625 1078.125
4 906.25 1050
5 903.125 1078.125
6 887.5 1084.375
Average 901.5625 Kg/m3 1075 Kg/m3
Since 10% up to 80% red ash HCBs are Class C according to Ethiopian standard (ES
C.D3.301), if they are to be used there will be a maximum unit weight reduction at 80%
red ash which is 39.5%. This was due to the fact that the heavier crushed aggregate was
only 20% and the light weight aggregate red ash takes the majority section of the HCB.
67
4.6 Direct production cost comparisons
The direct cost of producing both types of HCB considered is unit cost of production. The
major components of the unit cost are, direct unit cost of materials, direct unit cost of
labor and direct unit cost of equipment.
4.6.1 Direct unit costs of HCB without red ash.

a) Direct material unit cost: a format as shown in table 4.6.1(a) was used to calculate
the direct material unit cost.
Table 4.6.1(a) Direct material unit cost of HCB without red ash
Material Cost (DMUC)
Type of Material Unit Qty * Rate Cos/ Unit
00 Gravel (m3) 0.004 1200 4.8
Crushed agg. (m3) 0.002 500 1
River sand (m3) 0.006 1,000 6
Red ash (m3) 0 350 0
Cement Qnt 0.025 267 6.675
total materials cost/block 18.475
As shown from Table 4.6.1(a) the materials cost is 18.475 birr for the HCB without red
ash.
b). direct labor unit cost: a format as shown in Table 4.6.1(b) was used to calculate the
direct labor unit cost.
Table 4.6 .1(b) Direct labor unit cost of HCB without red ash
Labor Cost (DLUC)

Labor by Trade No. UF Daily wage cost/unit
Forman 1 0.00083 80 0.0666667
Orator 2 0.00083 60 0.1
D/L 11 0.00083 40 0.3666667
total labor cost/block 0.53
As shown from Table 4.6.1(b) the direct labor unit cost is 0.53 birr for the HCB without
red ash.
c). direct equipment unit cost: the direct cost of equipment is also calculated using the
same format.
68
Table 4.6.1(c) Direct equipment unit cost of HCB without red ash
Equipment Cost (DEUC)

Type of
Equipment No. UF rent/day cost/unit
mechanical mixer 1 0.00083 200 0.16667
HCB machine 1 0.00083 200 0.16667
total equipment cost/ block 0.33333
Total unit cost of production= .
Where,
DMUC= direct material unit cost
DEUC= direct equipment unit cost and
DLUC= direct labor unit cost.
The HCB without red ash cost: 18.475+0.53+0.33=19.34 birr
4.6.2 Direct unit costs of HCB with red ash

The direct unit cost of producing all HCB with red ash is calculated as shown below as
the 10% red ash HCB;
Direct material unit cost: a format as shown in Table 4.6.2(a) was used to calculate the
direct material unit cost.
Table 4.6.2(a) Direct material unit cost of 10% red ash HCB
Material Cost
Type of Material Unit Qty * Rate Cos/ Unit
00 Gravel (m3) 0 1200 0
Crushed agg. (m3) 0.0108 500 5.4
River sand (m3) 0 1000 0
Red ash (m3) 0.0012 350 0.42
Cemnet Qnt 0.025 267 6.675
total material cost/block 12.495
As shown from Table 4.6.2(a), the direct material unit cost is 12.495 birr for the 10% red
ash HCB.
Direct labor unit cost: a format as shown in Table 4.6.2(b) was used to calculate the
direct labor unit cost.
69
Table 4.6 .2(b) Direct labor unit cost of 10% red ash HCB
Labor Cost
Labor by Daily
Trade No. UF wage cost/unit
Forman 1 0.00083 80 0.06667
operator 2 0.00083 60 0.1
D/L 11 0.00083 40 0.36667
total labor cost/block 0.53333
Direct equipment unit cost: the direct cost of equipment is also calculated using the
same format.
Table 4.6.2(c) Direct equipment unit cost of 10% red ash HCB
Equipment Cost
Type of Equipment No. UF rent/day cost/unit
mechanical mixer 1 0.000833 200 0.16667
HCB machine 1 0.000833 200 0.16667

total equipment cost/ block 0.33333
Total unit cost of production= . Where, DMUC= direct material

unit cost, DEUC= direct equipment unit cost and DLUC= direct labor unit cost.
The direct cost of producing 10% red ash HCB= 12.495 +0.53+0.33=13.361 birr
For all HCBs with red ash the direct unit production costs were calculated by using the
same format and are attached in appendix three of this paper.
Table 4.6.2(d) below shows the summarized direct unit costs for all percentage of red ash
HCB. As shown in Tables 4.6.2(d), the direct material cost is very high comparing to the
other costs of production. The cost of labor and equipment are constant as observed in
Tables 4.6.2(d). They also have less cost than cost of materials. From this one can
conclude that in producing hollow concrete blocks majority of the cost goes to materials.
70
Tables 4.6.2(d) Summarized direct unit costs of HCB with red ash
Type of HCB with total

red ash DMUC(birr) DLUC(birr) DEUC(birr) cost/block(birr)
10% red ash HCB 12.495 0.533 0.333 13.361
20% red ash HCB 12.315 0.533 0.333 13.181
30% red ash HCB 12.135 0.533 0.333 13.001
40% red ash HCB 11.955 0.533 0.333 12.821
50% red ash HCB 11.775 0.533 0.333 12.641
60% red ash HCB 11.595 0.533 0.333 12.461
70% red ash HCB 11.415 0.533 0.333 12.281
80% red ash HCB 11.235 0.533 0.333 12.101
90% red ash HCB 11.055 0.533 0.333 11.921
100% red ash HCB 10.875 0.533 0.333 11.741
Where,
DMUC= direct material unit cost
DEUC= direct equipment unit cost
DLUC= direct labor unit cost.
4.6.3 Comparison of production costs
A) Cost comparison between HCBs with red ash: the direct unit costs for the HCBs
with different red ash content are presented in Figure 4.6.3(a). As shown in Figure
4.6.3(a), the cost of production decreases from 13.361 birr to 11.741 birr as the red ash
percentage increases from 10% to 100%. This is mainly due to the cost of materials and
the amount used.
In Tepi Town, 1m3 red ash costs 350 birr and 1m3 crushed aggregate costs 500birr.
Therefore, as the content of cheapest material which is red ash increases the content of
crushed aggregate decreases this intern reduces the production cost.
71
cost vs %red ash
13.5 13.361
13.181
13.001
13 12.821
12.641
12.461
12.5 12.281
cost (birr)
12.101
11.921
12
11.741
11.5
11
10.5
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Figure 4.6.3(a) Cost comparison between HCBs with red ash
B) Cost comparison between HCBs with red ash and without: Since the 30% red ash
HCB has higher strength than the other percentage and very small difference with that of
HCB without red ash, the cost of productions also compared. Table 4.6.3(b) shows the
cost of both HCBs.
Table 4.6.3(b) Direct unit cost of HCB without and 30% red ash HCB
Type of HCB Direct unit cost (birr)
HCB without red ash 19.34
30% red ash HCB 13.001
As shown in the Table 4.6.3(b), 19.34birr and 13.001birr are the cost of HCB without
and 30% red ash HCB respectively. The comparison is shown in Figure 4.6.3(b1).
As shown in Figure 4.6.3(b1), the direct unit costs of producing HCB without red ash is
higher than the cost of 30% red ash HCB. A 6.339 birr change in cost is observed
between the two blocks. The cost decrement in percent is 32.77%.
72
25
19.34
COST(BIRR) 20
15
13.001
HCB without
red ash 30% redash HCB
30% red ash
5 HCB
Figure 4.6.3(b1) Cost comparison between HCB without red ash and 30% red ash HCB
This means the cost of producing 30% red ash HCB decreases by 32.77% from the cost of
HCB without red ash. The decrease in cost is due to that, the HCB without red ash was
produced by using three different aggregates which are sand, gravel and crushed
aggregates. The cost of sand and gravel is expensive, on the other hand the 30% red ash
HCB contains only red ash and crushed aggregate which are cheaper than sand and
gravel.
25
19.34
20
cost of production (birr)
13.361 HCB without

15 11.741
red ash
10% redash HCB
10 without redash HCB
10% red ash 100% redash HCB
HCB 100% red ash
5
HCB
0
HCB
DIFFERENT TYPE OF HCBs
Figure 4.6.3(b2) Cost comparison between HCBs with red ash and without
73
In the chart from Figure 4.6.3(b2), the cost comparison between the red ash with
maximum cost (10%), red ash with minimum cost (100%) and without red ash was also
conducted. There is also 30.9% difference in cost between the HCB without red ash and
10% red ash HCB. This indicates that the 10% red ash HCB cost is 30.9% lower than that
of HCB without red ash.
And also there is a 39.29% cost difference between the minimum cost and the HCB
without red ash. This very high cost reduction is due to that the HCB with red ash is only
produced by using crushed aggregate and red ash but the HCB without red ash is
produced with sand, gravel and crushed aggregates which are very expensive.
Since according to Ethiopian standard (ES C.D3. 301), the hollow concrete blocks with
40% to 80% red ash are classes C. if cost is the major concern and the required class of
HCB is class C there is higher cost reductions for 80% red ash HCB which is 37.43%.
74
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusions
The main objective of this study was to compare the compressive strength and production
cost of HCB without and with red ash in Tepi town. During conducting this study it is
concluded that the compressive strength of the HCB without red ash was greater than the
HCB with red ash. But cost wise the HCB without red ash incurred very higher direct cost
of production than the HCB with red ash.
While meeting the specific objectives of the study, the red ash amount which gives a
higher strength was achieved at 30% red ash content, which is the optimum replacement
of red ash for crushed aggregate that gives a higher compressive strength than the rest red
ash replacement contents.
During The replacement of different percentage of red ash, the 30% red ash hollow
concrete blocks have achieved a 28th day mean compressive strength which is only 3.3%
smaller than that of HCB without red ash. On the other aspects of production cost and
self-weight, the 30% red ash HCB has achieved 32.77% cost and 19.23% weight
reductions. Therefore the 30% red ash HCB can be used in place of HCB without red ash.
According to the 28th day mean compressive strength test results, hollow concrete blocks
produced without red ash and with red ash except 90% and 100% red ash HCBs, all were
Class C according to Ethiopian standards. The 90% and 100% red ash HCBs were out of
Class according to Ethiopian Standard. According to ASTM, the 30% red ash HCBs and
HCB without red ash in terms of individual requirements, were non-load bearing hollow
concrete blocks.
Generally it is concluded that, by using red ash as an aggregate a higher reduction in cost
of production, higher reduction in weight and a small reduction in compressive strength
than the HCB without red ash were achieved.
75
5.2 Recommendations
According to the study conducted on the comparison of compressive strength and
production costs of HCB with and without red ash, the following recommendations were
made for concerned bodies.
a) For Tepi Town Administration Office
The construction units of Tepi Town Administration should create awareness to the users
of HCB about the use of red ash HCB. The construction unit should also encourage the
micro and small HCB production enterprises for their contribution in production of cost
effective hollow concrete blocks.
b) For contractors and micro and small HCB production enterprises
If it is properly produced, with a small difference in compressive strength but with large
amount of cost and weight reduction HCB can be produced from red ash. Therefore, it is
recommended that the micro and small producers of hollow concrete blocks in Tepi town
should increase the production of HCB with red ash and crushed aggregate.
Since other lightweight aggregates are not available around Tepi, it is recommended that
producers of HCB use red ash as light weight aggregate alone with crushed aggregates in
the production of HCB.
The contractors shall produce or buy HCB with red ash instead of using HCB without red
ash, which has higher cost of production and self-weight than the red ash HCB. They are
also recommended to use red ash HCB instead of importing HCB from other town to
reduce the cost of construction.
c) For other Towns in Ethiopia where red ash is abundantly available
For other Towns in Ethiopia where red ash is abundantly available, it is recommended
that HCB producers should adopt the use of red ash alone with crushed aggregate in HCB
production.
d) For construction materials research centers
The governmental and non-governmental materials research centers are recommended to

conduct further studies on red ash as a hollow concrete block production material, in
areas where red ash is abundantly available.
76
REFERENCES
 Abebe Dinku, (2002).construction materials laboratory manual. Addis Ababa

University.
 Abebe Dinku,(2005). The need for standardization of aggregate for concrete
production in Ethiopian construction industry.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C29/29M). Standard test
method for unit weight and voids in aggregate.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C33). Standard Specification
for Concrete Aggregates.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C90-70). Hollow load
bearing Concrete Masonry Units.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C 125-93). Standard
terminology related to concrete and concrete aggregates.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C129-70). Hollow non- load
bearing concrete masonry units.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C136-93). Sieve analysis of
fine and coarse aggregates.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C142-78). Standard test
method for clay lumps and friable particles in aggregates.
 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM C331-94). Standard
specification for light weight aggregates for concrete masonry units.
 Benjovsky T.D. and Clippinger D.M., (1945). Natural light-weight building block
materials of New Mexico. Socorro, New Mexico.
 British Standard (BS 882:1992). Specification for aggregates from natural
sources.
 British Standard (BS 812: part 2:1995). Method of determination of density.
 British Standard (BS 812-105.1: 1989). Method of determination of particle
shape.
 BMTPC (Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council), 2014. Techno
economics feasibility report on concrete hallow and solid blocks. Ministry of
housing and urban poverty alleviation government of India, New Delhi, India.
 Calin M., Kan P. and Nuntapong O., (2003). Estimating building costs. New
York.
77
 CCI (Cement and Concrete Institute), 2006. How to make concrete bricks and
blocks.
 Concrete Block Association, (2007). Aggregate concrete blocks; a guide to select
and specification.
 Clippinger D. M., (1946). Building Blocks from Natural Lightweight Materials of
New Mexico. New Mexico bureau of mines and mineral resources; SOCORRO,
New Mexico.
 Dirk H. (2010). Appropriateness is a Moving Target: the Re-invention of Local
Construction Technologies and Materials in Ethiopia, Journal of African
Technology Development Forum. 7(2):41-43.
 Duggal S. K. (2008). Building materials. 3rd ed. Allahabad: New Age international
limited.
 Ethiopian Ministry of Federal Affairs, (2006). GTZ Low cost Housing Technical
Manual Volume I.
 Ethiopian Standard (ES C.D3. 301). Specification for concrete masonry units.
 Ethiopian Standard (ES 596:2001). Specification for concrete masonry units.
 Ethiopian Standard (ES C.D4.001). Compressive strength test method for hollow
concrete blocks.
 Evans E.J., Inglethorpe S.J. and Wetton P.D. (1999). Evaluation of pumice and
scoria samples from East Africa as lightweight aggregates.
 Galal fares, Abdullrahman Alhozaimy, Abdulaziz A- Negheimish, and Omer
Abdalla Alawad (2014). Effects of powdered scoria rock on the fresh and
hardened properties of high performance concrete. Athense journal of technology
and engineering; X(Y).
 GTZ, (2011). Concrete blocks producing equipment.
 GTZ, (2005). The implementation of Low cost housing projects in Ethiopia.
 Humphrey D. (2013). Building House with Locally Available Materials in Ghana:
Benefits and Problems, International Journal of Science and Technology.
2(2):225-231.
 Indian Standard (IS 2185-1979). specification for concrete masonry units
 James, A., (2004). Suitable fine and coarse aggregates for sand concrete blocks.
 Khandaker M. Anwar Hossain (2006). Blending cement and light weight concrete
using scoria; mix design, strength, durability and heat insulation characterstics.
Journal of physical science: 1(1). PP. 005-016
78
 Lo, T.Y. and Cui, H.Z., (2004). Effect of porous lightweight aggregates on
strength of concrete.
 Luca C., Sonia M., Filippo A., Michele D., Maria G.C., (2008). Cost of
production.
 Lyons A., (2008). Materials for Architects and builders. 4th ed. Elsevier Ltd.
United Kingdom.
 Michael S. and John P., (2006). Materials for civil and construction engineers.2nd
ed. New Jersey; Pearson prentice hall.
 Mortar Industry Association, (2013). Brick and block production. Essential
materials sustainable solutions. Mineral Products Association Ltd. UK, London.
 (SRCCD) Swiss Resource Center and Consultancy for Development, (2008).
Concrete blocks. Switzerland.
 Tesfaalem Kahsay, (2014). Study on the effectiveness of quality control for the
production of reinforced concrete and hallow concrete blocks. Addis Ababa
University.
79
APPENDIX ONE
Laboratory Data Sheets for physical properties
PLACE Jimma university
DEPARTMENT Civil engineering department
LABORATORY Construction materials laboratory
Sample description: Red ash
Test method: ASTM C136
1. sieve analysis
Cumulative
Mass retained ASTM
Cumulati percent pass
Mass (%) standard
Sieve ve mass (%)
retained( for per Remark
size retained
kg)(1) cent
(2)=((1)/ (%)(3)
(4)=100-(3) pass
MT)*100
19mm 0 0 0 100 100 ok

12.5mm 0.08 4 4 96 95-100 ok
4.75mm 0.75 37.5 41.5 58.5 50-80 ok
300µm 0.83 41.5 83 17 5_20 ok
150µm 0.125 6.25 89.25 10.75 2_15 ok
pan 0.215 10.75 100 0 0 ok
100.0%
100%
96.0%
80%
Percent Pass
58.5%
60%
40%
17.0%
20%
10.75%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sive Opening
80
2. Unit weight
Description Measurements
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Weight of container (A) 0.57kg 0.57kg 0.57kg
Weight of container +sample(B) 3.25 3.2 3.31
Weight of sample(B-A)=(D) 2.685kg 2.63 2.74
Volume of container(C) 3lt 3lt 3lt
Unit weight= 893.3kg/m3 876.6 913.3
Mean unit weight 894.4
3. Specific gravity and absorption

Description Var. Weight in kg

samples S1 S2 S3
Weight of oven dry sample in air A 1.985 1.97 1.98
Weight of saturated-surface dry sample in air B 2.245 2.245 2.245
Weight of wire in water C 0.260 0.260 0.260
Weight in water ( of (SSD) sample +wire D
1.745 1.74 1.74
basket)
Weight in water of SSD=D-C E 1.4850 1.480 1.48
Bulk Sp.gr.(SSD)= SG 2.95 2.93 2.93
Mean bulk sp. Gr. 2.94
Absorption= Abs. 13.1% 13.95% 13.38%
Mean absorption 13.48%
81
4. Moisture content
Test method: ASTM C 566
Description Var. Weight in gm

samples S1 S2 S3
Weight of wet sample (tarred ) M1 2000 2000 2000
Weight of the oven dried sample (tarred ) M2 1980 1985 1980
Moisture content= 1.01% 0.75% 1.01
Mean moisture content 0.92%
5. Clay lumps
Clay lumps for fine redash aggregates between 1.18mm-4.75mm
samples Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
sample weight W 100 gm 100 gm 100 gm
Oven dry after wet sieve R 98.25 gm 98 gm 98.5 gm
% clay lumps and fabrics= p 1.75% 2% 1.5%
Mean clay lumps of fine aggregates in redash 1.75%
82
Clay lumps for coarse red ash aggregates
between 4.75mm-9.5mm
samples S1 S2 S3
sample weight W1 1000 gm 1000 gm 1000 gm
Oven dry after wet sieve R1 980 gm 975 gm 985 gm
% clay lumps and fabrics= P1 2% 2.5% 1.5%
Mean P1 2%
Between 9.5-19.mm
Sample weight W2 2000 gm 2000 gm 2000 gm
Oven dry after weight sieve R2 1965 gm 1980 gm 1972 gm
% clay lumps and fabrics= P2 1.75% 1% 1.4%
Mean P2 1.4%
% clay lump for coarse = %p 1.69%
83
Sample description: crushed aggregate 01
1. Sieve analysis
Mass Cumulative
retained per cent ASTM
Cumulative
(%) pass (%) standard
Sieve Mass mass
for per Remark
size retained(kg)(1) retained
cent
(2)=((1)/ (%)(3) (4)=100- pass
MT)*100 (3)
19mm 0 0 0 100 100 Ok

12.5mm 0 0 0 100 90-100 Ok
9.5mm 0.96 48 48 52 40-70 Ok
4.75mm 1.01 50.5 98.5 1.5 0-15 Ok
2.36mm 0.01 0.5 99 1 0-5 0k
Pan 0.02 2 100 0 0 Ok
100.0%
100% 100.0%
80%
Percent Pass
60%
52.0%
40%
20%
1.5%
1.0%
0%
1 10
Sive Opening
84
2. Unit weight
Weight of container (A) 0.57kg 0.57kg 0.57kg
Weight of container +sample(B) 5.480kg 5.6 kg 5.55 kg
Weight of sample(B-A)=(D) 4.910kg 5.03 4.98
Volume of conta iner(C) 3lit 3lit 3lit
Unit weight= 1636.6kg/m3 1676.6kg/m3 1660 kg/m3
Mean unit weight 1657.7kg/m3
3. Moisture content
Test method: ASTM C 566
Weight of sample(A) 2000gm 2000gm 2000gm
Oven dry weight(B) 1985 gm 1975 gm 1980 gm
Moisture (%) =( ) 0.75% 1.26% 1.01%
Mean moisture content 1.01%
85
Description Var. Weight in kg

samples S1 S2 S3
Weight of oven dry sample in air A 1.985 1.985 1.98
Weight of saturated-surface dry sample in air B 2.02 2.0 2.04
Weight of wire in water C 0.260 0.26 0.26
Weight in water ( of (SSD) sample +wire basket) D 1.540 1.48 1.5
Weight in water of SSD=D-C E 1.280 1.22 1.24
Bulk Sp.gr.(SSD)= BSG 2.73 2.5 2.5
Mean bulk sp.gr. 2.6
Absorption= Abs. 1.7% 1% 3
5. Flakiness index (FI)

Test method: BS 812-105.1: 1989
Sieve size Retained (kg) Pass(kg)
samples S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
63mm 0 0 0 10 kg
50mm 0 0 0 10 kg
37.5mm 0 0 0 10 kg
28mm 0 0 0 10 kg
20mm 0 0 0 10 kg
14mm 0 0 0 10 kg
86
10mm 0.65kg 0.5 0.5 9.35kg 9.5 9.5
6.3mm 8.45kg 9 9.2 0.9kg 0.5 0.3
Pan 0.9kg 0.5 0.3
Sample on tray discarding Retained weight(kg)

6.3mm
Sample from 10mm on the tray 0.65 0.5 0.5
M1(sum of sample on tray) 0.65kg 0.5 0.5
%retained=(sample from 10mm 100% 100% 100%

/M1)
M2 (sum of %> 5%) 0.65kg 0.5 kg 0.5 kg
Gauge Retained(kg) Pass(kg)
samples S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3
14 to 10mm 0.40 0.35 0.38 0.25 0.15 0.12
Total mass 0.40 0.35 0.5 0.25 0.15 0.12
M3=total mass pass gage 0.25 0.15 0.15
Flakiness index(FI)=(M3/M2)X100% 38.5% 30% 24%
Mean FI 30.8%
87
1. Sieve analysis
Sample description: Sand
Mass
siev Wt of retained
sample (%) Cum. Wt. Cum. % Cum. ASTM limits
e Remark
retained retained retained % pass Min Max
Size (2)=((1)/
(1)
MT)*100
9.5 0.0 0 - 0.00% 100.0% 100% 100% Ok

4.75 80.0 4 80.00 4.00% 96.0% 95% 100% Ok
2.36 230.0 11.5 310.00 15.50% 84.5% 80% 100% Ok
1.18 275.0 13.75 585.00 29.25% 70.8% 50% 85% Ok
0.6 610.0 30.5 1,195.00 59.75% 40.3% 25% 60% Ok
0.3 365.0 18.25 1,560.00 78.00% 22.0% 10% 30% Ok
0.15 345.0 17.25 1,905.00 95.25% 4.8% 2% 10% Ok
pan 95.0 4.75 2,000.00 100.00% 0.0%
Total mass=2000g FM=2.82
100.0%
96.0%
100%
84.5%
80%
70.8%
Percent Pass
60%
40.3%
40%
22.0%
20%
4.8%
0%
0.1 1 10
Sive Opening
88
Test method: (BS 812: part 2:1995)
Description Var. Weight(gm)
samples S1 S2 S3
Mass of saturated surface-dry sample A 500 500 500
Mass of pyknometer + water C 1544.25 1544 1550
Mass of pyknometer + sample + water B 1855 1854 1862

Mass of oven-dry sample D 490.50 490 495
Bulk Specific gravity(SSD)=𝐀 𝐀 𝐁 𝐂 BSG 2.64 2.63 2.66
Mean bulk sp.gr. 2.64
Absorption=( ) ABS 1.93% 2.04 1.01
3. Unit weight
Items measurement
Capacity of cylinder(A) 2 LIT 2 LIT 2 LIT
Weight of cylinder+sample(B) 4.20 kg 4.3 4.15
Weight of cylinder (C) 0.865 kg 0.865 0.864
1667.5kg/m3 1717.5 kg/m3 1642.5 kg/m3
Unit weight=(B-C)/A
Mean unit weight 1675.83 kg/m3
89
4. Moisture content
Weight of sample(A) 500gm 500 gm 500 gm
Oven dry weight(B) 494.5gm 494.5 gm 495 gm
Moisture (%) =( ) 1.1% 1.5% 1.01
Mean moisture content (%) 1.21%
5. Silt content
Description variable Mass(g)
samples S1 S2 S3
Original dry mass of the sample A 500gm 500 gm 500gm
Dry mass after washing B 489.5 485 485.35 g
Silt content (%) = S% 2.1% 3% 2.93%
Mean silt content (%) 2.67%
90
Sample description: gravel 00
1. Sieve analysis
Sieve Cum.
Wt of
size Wt. Cum. % Cum. % ASTM limits
sample Remark
retaine retained pass Min Max
retained
d
9.5mm 0.0 - 0.00% 100.0% 100% 100% ok
4.75mm 45.0 45.00 2.25% 97.8% 95% 100% ok
2.36mm 225.0 270.00 13.50% 86.5% 80% 100% ok
1.18mm 470.0 740.00 37.00% 63.0% 50% 85% ok
0.6mm 380.0 1,120.00 56.00% 44.0% 25% 60% ok
0.3mm 510.0 1,630.00 81.50% 18.5% 10% 30% ok
0.15mm 240.0 1,870.00 93.50% 6.5% 2% 10% ok
pan 130.0 2,000.00 100.00% 0.0%

Total FM=2.84
mass=2000gm
97.8% 100.0%
100%
86.5%
80%
63.0%
Percent Pass
60%
44.0%
40%
18.5%
20%
6.5%
0%
0.1 1 10
Sive Opening
91
Test method: (BS 812: part 2:1995)
Description Var. Weight(gm)
samples S1 S2 S3
Mass of saturated surface-dry sample A
500g 500g 500g
Mass of pyknometer + water C 1544.25g 1545 1540g

g
Mass of pyknometer + sample + water B 1860.5g 1864 1850g
g
491.5
Mass of oven-dry sample D 491.2g 495g
2g
Bulk Specific gravity(SSD)=𝐀 𝐀 𝐁 𝐂 BSG 2.72 2.76 2.63
Mean bulk specific gravity 2.7

1.72
Absorption=( ) ABS 1.8% 1.01%
%
Mean absorption (%) 1.51%
3. Unit weight
Items Measurement
Samples Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
Capacity of cylinder(A) 2 LIT 2 LIT 2 LIT
Weight of cylinder+sample(B) 4.215kg 4.2 4.2
Weight of cylinder (C) 0.865 kg 0.865 0.865
Unit weight= 𝐁 𝐂 𝐀 1675kg/m3 1667.5 kg/m3 1667.5 kg/m3
Mean unit weight 1670 kg/m3
92
4. Silt contain
Description variable Mass(g)
Original dry mass of the A 500g 500g 500g

sample
Dry mass after washing B 486.2 485.5 490
Silt content (%) = S% 2.75% 2.9% 2%
Mean silt content (%) 2.55%
5. Moisture content
Weight of sample(A) 500gm 500gm 500gm
Oven dry weight(B) 492.5gm 495.5 495
Moisture (%) =( ) 1.52% 0.9% 1.01%
Mean moisture content (%) 1.15%
93
APPENDIX TWO
Compressive strength test results
PLACE Jimma university
DEPARTMENT Civil engineering department
LABORATORY Construction materials laboratory
The seventh day (7th) compressive strength of HCB without red ash
Sample Casting date 30/05/2016
no Testing date 06/06/2016
Dimension(cm) Failure Compressive
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
L W H Load(KN) Strength(KN/M2 )
1 40 20 20 0.08 18.2 174.7 2.18

2 40 20 20 0.08 17.5 178.6 2.23
3 40 20 20 0.08 18.655 171.1 2.14
4 40 20 20 0.08 17.55 171.4 2.14
5 40 20 20 0.08 17.85 170.2 2.13
6 40 20 20 0.08 18.25 184 2.30
MEAN 2.19
94
The fourteenth day (14th) compressive strength of HCB without red ash
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
L W H Load(KN) Strength(KN/M2)
1 40 20 20 0.08 17.65 251.9 3.15

2 40 20 20 0.08 17.85 247.6 3.10
3 40 20 20 0.08 18.35 230.9 2.89
4 40 20 20 0.08 17.25 250.8 3.14
5 40 20 20 0.08 17.1 258.1 3.23
6 40 20 20 0.08 18.3 248.2 3.10
MEAN 3.10
The twenty eighth day (28th) compressive strength of HCB without red ash
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
1 40 20 20 0.08 16.85 291.2 3.64

2 40 20 20 0.08 17.7 301.1 3.76
3 40 20 20 0.08 17.25 295 3.69
4 40 20 20 0.08 16.8 297.7 3.72
5 40 20 20 0.08 17.25 292.6 3.66
6 40 20 20 0.08 17.35 308.4 3.86
MEAN 3.72
95
The seventh day (7th) compressive strength of HCB with 10% red ash
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
1 40 20 20 0.08 15.1 98.6 1.23

2 40 20 20 0.08 15.5 118.4 1.48
3 40 20 20 0.08 15.65 96.6 1.21
4 40 20 20 0.08 15.35 108.2 1.35
5 40 20 20 0.08 14.85 97.1 1.21
6 40 20 20 0.08 15.13 96 1.20
MEAN 1.28
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
1 40 20 20 0.08 14.76 164.6 2.06

2 40 20 20 0.08 15.18 175.7 2.20
3 40 20 20 0.08 15.5 144.2 1.80
4 40 20 20 0.08 14.25 150.6 1.88
5 40 20 20 0.08 15.55 179.6 2.25
6 40 20 20 0.08 15.36 168.9 2.11
MEAN 2.05
96
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
1 40 20 20 0.08 14.62 177.8 2.22

2 40 20 20 0.08 14.34 184.7 2.31
3 40 20 20 0.08 14.45 185 2.31
4 40 20 20 0.08 13.76 162.4 2.03
5 40 20 20 0.08 14.83 192 2.40
6 40 20 20 0.08 14.6 186.1 2.33
MEAN 2.27
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
1 40 20 20 0.08 14.8 141 1.76

2 40 20 20 0.08 13.06 163.2 2.04
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.26 149.2 1.87
4 40 20 20 0.08 13.4 160.4 2.01
5 40 20 20 0.08 14.3 160.8 2.01
6 40 20 20 0.08 13.56 161.1 2.01
MEAN 1.95
97
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
1 40 20 20 0.08 13.9 135.9 1.70

2 40 20 20 0.08 13.4 146.8 1.84
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.25 143.8 1.80
4 40 20 20 0.08 13.65 134.9 1.69
5 40 20 20 0.08 14.2 140.2 1.75
6 40 20 20 0.08 13.82 151.4 1.89
MEAN 1.78
Area(m2) Weight(kg)
1 40 20 20 0.08 13.5 141 1.76

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.5 132.6 1.66
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.2 133.2 1.67
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.43 135.4 1.69
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.67 142.4 1.78
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.84 140.2 1.75
MEAN 1.72
98
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.2 113.5 1.42

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.95 114.9 1.44
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.2 119.4 1.49
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.85 109.8 1.37
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.6 117.6 1.47
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.4 123.2 1.54
MEAN 1.46
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.29 101.2 1.27

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.98 113.4 1.42
3 40 20 20 0.08 12.015 112 1.40
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.34 116.9 1.46
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.5 104.4 1.31
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.4 110.6 1.38
MEAN 1.37
99
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 11.1 98.8 1.24

2 40 20 20 0.08 11.2 89.6 1.12
3 40 20 20 0.08 11.4 85.8 1.07
4 40 20 20 0.08 11.35 97.2 1.22
5 40 20 20 0.08 11.45 85.4 1.07
6 40 20 20 0.08 11.3 90.4 1.13
MEAN 1.14
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 10.55 73.4 0.92

2 40 40 20 0.08 10.1 66.2 0.83
3 40 40 20 0.08 11.2 68.7 0.86
4 40 40 20 0.08 10.35 74.2 0.93
5 40 40 20 0.08 10.4 65.1 0.81
6 40 40 20 0.08 10.35 63.7 0.80
MEAN 0.86
100
The fourteenth day (14th) compressive strength of HCB with10% red ash
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 15.12 137.7 1.72

2 40 20 20 0.08 15.6 165.6 2.07
3 40 20 20 0.08 15.75 136.2 1.70
4 40 20 20 0.08 15.35 136.4 1.71
5 40 20 20 0.08 15.05 135.1 1.69
6 40 20 20 0.08 15.2 138 1.73
MEAN 1.77
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 14.5 222.8 2.79

2 40 20 20 0.08 15.3 219.2 2.74
3 40 20 20 0.08 15.45 223.6 2.80
4 40 20 20 0.08 15.2 214.4 2.68
5 40 20 20 0.08 15.75 213.4 2.67
6 40 20 20 0.08 15.7 220.7 2.76
MEAN 2.74
101
The fourteenth day (14th) compressive strength of HCB with 30% red ash
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 14.75 257.8 3.22

2 40 20 20 0.08 14.65 251.6 3.15
3 40 20 20 0.08 14.1 262 3.28
4 40 20 20 0.08 14.75 264.7 3.31
5 40 20 20 0.08 14.8 256.5 3.21
6 40 20 20 0.08 14.5 271.7 3.40
MEAN 3.26
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 14.65 198.7 2.48

2 40 20 20 0.08 14.5 214.1 2.68
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.85 217.4 2.72
4 40 20 20 0.08 14.7 217.6 2.72
5 40 20 20 0.08 14.55 210.1 2.63
6 40 20 20 0.08 14.3 217.9 2.72
MEAN 2.66
102
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 13.8 187.4 2.34

2 40 20 20 0.08 13.35 204.2 2.55
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.75 200.1 2.50
4 40 20 20 0.08 14.3 183.2 2.29
5 40 20 20 0.08 13.7 191.1 2.39
6 40 20 20 0.08 13.65 189.2 2.37
MEAN 2.41
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.65 182.9 2.29

2 40 20 20 0.08 13.75 190.7 2.38
3 40 20 20 0.08 12.75 170 2.13
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.7 187.8 2.35
5 40 20 20 0.08 13.65 201.8 2.52
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.8 182.6 2.28
MEAN 2.32
103
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.3 153.2 1.92

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.85 165.2 2.07
3 40 20 20 0.08 12.75 170.1 2.13
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.8 162.7 2.03
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.35 162.6 2.03
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.55 166.4 2.08
MEAN 2.04
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.35 143.3 1.79

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.5 157.6 1.97
3 40 20 20 0.08 11.85 159.4 1.99
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.5 156.1 1.95
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.2 154.8 1.94
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.65 163.1 2.04
MEAN 1.95
104
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 11.35 158.8 1.99

2 40 20 20 0.08 11.5 138 1.73
3 40 20 20 0.08 11.65 135.1 1.69
4 40 20 20 0.08 11.3 134.2 1.68
5 40 20 20 0.08 11.35 130.6 1.63
6 40 20 20 0.08 11.6 130.9 1.64
MEAN 1.72
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 10.3 118.1 1.48

2 40 20 20 0.08 10.55 98.6 1.23
3 40 20 20 0.08 10.5 93.6 1.17
4 40 20 20 0.08 10.55 102 1.28
5 40 20 20 0.08 11.25 112.8 1.41
6 40 20 20 0.08 10.45 97.6 1.22
MEAN 1.30
105
The twenty eighth day (28th) compressive strength of HCB with 10% red ash
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 15.6 154.1 1.93

2 40 20 20 0.08 15.3 186.2 2.33
3 40 20 20 0.08 15.2 150.8 1.89
4 40 20 20 0.08 15.6 170.6 2.13
5 40 20 20 0.08 15.3 153.2 1.92
6 40 20 20 0.08 14.4 150.2 1.88
MEAN 2.01

2
Area(m ) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 15.5 253.2 3.17

2 40 20 20 0.08 14.65 277.1 3.46
3 40 20 20 0.08 14.75 240.3 3.00
4 40 20 20 0.08 14.6 234.7 2.93
5 40 20 20 0.08 15.25 223.8 2.80
6 40 20 20 0.08 15 261.6 3.27
MEAN 3.11
106

2
Area(m ) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 14.55 296.4 3.71
2 40 20 20 0.08 14.6 296 3.70
3 40 20 20 0.08 14.25 289.2 3.62
4 40 20 20 0.08 14.5 290.9 3.64
5 40 20 20 0.08 14.45 280.2 3.50
6 40 20 20 0.08 14.2 275.4 3.44

MEAN 3.60
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 13.3 220 2.75

2 40 20 20 0.08 13.4 243.6 3.05
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.45 235.2 2.94
4 40 20 20 0.08 13.35 246.8 3.09
5 40 20 20 0.08 13.45 236.1 2.95
6 40 20 20 0.08 13.4 235.6 2.95
MEAN 2.95
107
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 13.85 206 2.58
2 40 20 20 0.08 13.7 210.1 2.63
3 40 20 20 0.08 13.65 219.2 2.74

4 40 20 20 0.08 13.55 223.7 2.80
5 40 20 20 0.08 13.5 207.6 2.60
6 40 20 20 0.08 13.55 227.6 2.85
MEAN 2.70
The twenty eighth day (28th) compressive strength of HCB with 60% redash
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.65 207.4 2.59

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.45 207.1 2.59
3 40 20 20 0.08 12.7 196 2.45
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.35 213.6 2.67
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.67 217 2.71
6 40 20 20 0.08 13.2 209.1 2.61
MEAN 2.60
108
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.6 160.2 2.00

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.45 175.8 2.20
3 40 20 20 0.08 12.4 182.4 2.28
4 40 20 20 0.08 12.1 180.2 2.25
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.3 181.2 2.27
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.3 173.1 2.16
MEAN 2.19
The twenty eighth day (28th) compressive strength of HCB with 80 % red ash
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 12.55 162.5 2.03

2 40 20 20 0.08 12.65 177 2.21
3 40 20 20 0.08 12.2 178.6 2.23
4 40 20 20 0.08 12 177.2 2.22
5 40 20 20 0.08 12.25 178.9 2.24
6 40 20 20 0.08 12.4 174 2.18
MEAN 2.18
109
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 11.3 170.4 2.13

2 40 20 20 0.08 11.45 153.4 1.92
3 40 20 20 0.08 11.35 148.2 1.85
4 40 20 20 0.08 11.35 137.7 1.72
5 40 20 20 0.08 11.15 140.6 1.76
6 40 20 20 0.08 11.25 132.1 1.65
MEAN 1.84
Area(m2) weight
1 40 20 20 0.08 10.2 136.5 1.71

2 40 20 20 0.08 10.35 106.2 1.33
3 40 20 20 0.08 10.45 98.6 1.23
4 40 20 20 0.08 10.5 116.1 1.45
5 40 20 20 0.08 10.15 120.4 1.51
6 40 20 20 0.08 10.35 132.8 1.66
MEAN 1.48
110
APPENDIX THREE
Direct unit cost analysis data sheet
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121

tewodros getachew

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

tewodros getachew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jimma University

School of Graduate Studies

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Jimma University in Partial

By: TEWODROS GETACHEW

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Jimma University in Partial

By: Tewodros Getachew

Advisor: Engr. Elmer C. Agon

Co- Advisor: Engr. Getachew Kebede

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

By: TEWODROS GETACHEW

APPROVED BY BOARD OF EXAMINERS:

Mr. Tewodros Getachew

We recommend that it can be submitted as fulfilling the MSc Thesis requirements.

Eng. Elmer C. Agon

Advisor Signature Date

Engr. Getachew Kebede

Co-Advisor Signature Date

Construction materials in construction and technology focuses improving the quality,

Keywords: Compressive strength, Crushed aggregate, hollow concrete blocks,

TABLE OF CONTENT ..................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. vi

LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii

CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background of the study ............................................................................................ 1

1.2. Statement of the problem. ......................................................................................... 3

1.3. Research questions .................................................................................................... 4

1.4. Objective ................................................................................................................... 4

1.5. Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 4

1.6. Scope and limitation of the study .............................................................................. 4

CHAPTER TWO ................................................................................................................. 6

REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................................................................................. 6

2.1. Concrete blocks ......................................................................................................... 6

2.2. Hollow Concrete Blocks (HCB) ............................................................................... 6

CHAPTER THREE ........................................................................................................... 24

MATERIALS AND METHODS OF RESEARCH ........................................................... 24

3.1. Study setting or Area ............................................................................................... 24

3.2 Study Population ...................................................................................................... 24

3.3. Sample size and sampling procedure ...................................................................... 24

3.4. Study variables ........................................................................................................ 26

3.5. Research Strategy and Design ................................................................................. 26

3.6. Research approach................................................................................................... 35

3.7. Data processing and analyzing ................................................................................ 36

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...................................................................................... 40

4.1 Physical Properties of Materials ............................................................................... 40

4.2 Comparisons of compressive strength results .......................................................... 47

4.3 Determination of the Optimum red ash replacement ............................................... 62

4.4 Comparison of produced HCBs with different standards ........................................ 64

4.5 Unit weight comparisons of the hollow concrete blocks ......................................... 67

4.6 Direct production cost comparisons ......................................................................... 68

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................... 75

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................. 75

5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 75

5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 76

Laboratory Data Sheets for physical properties ................................................................. 80

APPENDIX TWO .............................................................................................................. 94

Compressive strength test results ....................................................................................... 94

APPENDIX THREE ........................................................................................................ 111

Direct unit cost analysis data sheet .................................................................................. 111

Figure 2.2 Hollow concrete blocks (SRCCD, 2008) ........................................................... 7

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BMTPC Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council

CCI Cement and Concrete Institute

CMU Concrete Masonry Units