You are on page 1of 89

PROPERTY CHARACTERIZATION OF ABACA FIBER REINFORCED

CEMENT-BONDED BOARD WITH PULVERIZED


GREEN MUSSEL SHELLS

A Project Study
Presented to the Faculty of
The Civil Engineering Department
Technological University of the Philippines
College of Engineering

In Partial Fulfillment of the Course Requirements


for the Degree of Bachelor of Science
in Civil Engineering

Thesis By:
Carbonel, Maikko Neil T.
Lucero, Shaira Joy M.
Nuestro, Kimberly Mae B.
Obregoso, George Jr. B.

Engr. Juanito H. Neric Jr.


Project Adviser

MANILA
March 2014
i

APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled PROPERTY CHARACTERIZATION OF ABACA FIBER
REINFORCED CEMENT-BONDED BOARD WITH PULVERIZED GREEN MUSSEL
SHELLS prepared by:

CARBONEL, Maikko Neil T.


LUCERO, Shaira Joy M.
NUESTRO, Kimberly Mae B.
OBREGOSO, George Jr. B.
In partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in
Civil Engineering is hereby approved and accepted.
___________________________
Engr. Juanito H. Neric Jr.
Project Adviser
___________________________
Dr. Melito A. Baccay
Panel Member
___________________________
Engr. Jesus Ray M. Mansayon
Panel Member
___________________________
Engr. Mark G. Costelo
Panel Member

___________________________
Engr. Edmundo C. Dela Cruz
Panel Member
___________________________
Engr. Ma. Analin C. Pajaro
Panel Member
___________________________
Engr. Anthony T. de Castro
Panel Member

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the degree of Bachelor of
Science in Civil Engineering.

___________________________
Engr. Edgardo S. Legaspi
Head, CE Department
___________________________

___________________________
Engr. Lyndon R. Bague
Dean, College of Engineering
___________________________

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This research would not been made possible without the help of several
individuals who in one way or another contributed to the successful completion of this
study. The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the following:

To their adviser, Engr. Juanito H. Neric, for his immense knowledge, supervision,
encouragement, and remarkable staying control during the course of this research.

To their thesis professor, Dr. Melito A. Baccay, and to the Civil Engineering
faculty as they helped collaborate upon this study and provided advices and guidance
including: Engr. Edmundo C. Dela Cruz, Engr. Jesus Ray M. Mansayon, Engr. Ma.
Analin C. Pajaro, Engr. Mark G. Costelo and Engr. Anthony T. de Castro.

To Sir Reynaldo Baarde and Engr. Jassine Garna, of Integrated Research and
Training Center, and Engr. Juancho Pablo S. Calvez, of Metallurgical Technology
Division Mines and Geosciences Bureau, as they allowed the authors to use the main
facilities for the completion of the tests required for the study.

To their families, especially their parents, for their unconditional love, undying
support and timeless considerations as they allowed them to take concentrations in prior
to this study and turned any uncertainties of failure into aspirations to succeed.

iii

Above all, the authors praise and thanks goes to Almighty God for the
overflowing blessings undeservingly bestowed upon them.

iv

ABSTRACT

The use of environmental-friendly alternative building materials has remarkably gained


its importance in the construction industry. As development of eco-friendly and sustainable
construction materials continues, cement-bonded composites are no exemption. The study
concentrates on the characterization and development of Cement-Bonded Board comprising
Abaca Fiber as reinforcing material and Pulverized Green Mussel Shells as filler.

Aiming for new potential source of raw materials for Cement-Bonded Board, it is
hypothesized that abaca fiber as reinforcing material and pulverized mussel shells as filler will
have effects on the mechanical and physical properties of the board. In accordance to the ASTM
standards, Water Absorption and Thickness Swelling test, and Moisture Content and Specific
Gravity determined the physical properties while Static Bending Test and Direct Screw
Withdrawal Test characterized its mechanical properties. The tests were conducted at the
Integrated Research Technology Center Laboratory, Technological University of the Philippines,
Manila.

On the physical tests, the results have shown that the expectation of a varying specific
gravity with the water:cement ratio is not achieved , considering the cement:abaca fiber ratio is
constant in all of the specimens, because of the improper distribution of fibers. From the test
results, it is being verified that the cement bonded board of least water:cement ratio and least
PGMS:sand ratio have least water absorption. It also is been verified that the board which is of
most water:cement ratio and least PGMS:sand ratio have least thickness swelling. From these

tests, PNS 230:1989 requirement for water absorption and thickness swelling of wood-wool
cement boards (type C) of less than 30% and of less than 10% respectively were met by all the
specimens.

Due to the improper distribution of fiber on the boards, the results did not show any good
trend between the MOR and the water:cement ratio. The trends the same was observed on the
results of MOE. It shows that the lesser the PGMS content, the higher the MOR value. On the
other hand, specimens with water:cement ratio of 0.6 has higher MOR value at higher PGMS
content. The results also showed that at lesser PGMS content, the lesser the water absorption and
thickness swelling, and increased MOR and MOE. Moreover, the amount of PGMS as filler
influences the resistance of screw withdrawal that each specimen encompasses resulting the
more PGMS content the lesser the direct screw withdrawal strength.

In general, it can be concluded that the strength of the specimens is dependent on the
arrangement and proper distribution of fibers. Thus, the poor arrangement and improper
distribution of fibers affect significantly the physical and mechanical properties of the specimens
particularly the MOR and MOE.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Approval Sheet

ii

Acknowledgement

iii
v

Abstract
Table of Contents

vii

List of Figures

xi

List of Tables

xii

Chapter 1: THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING


1.1

Introduction

1.2

Statement of Objectives

1.2.1 General Objective

1.2.2 Specific Objectives

1.3

Scope and Delimitations

1.4

Significance of the Study

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES


2.1

Related Literature and Studies

2.1.1 Cement-Bonded Composites

2.1.2 Compositions of Cement-Bonded Board

vii

2.1.2.1 Cement as Binder

2.1.2.2 Abaca Fiber as Reinforcing Material

2.1.2.3 Green Mussels as Filler

11

2.2 Conceptual Framework

14

2.3 Definition of Terms

17

Chapter 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY


3.1. Preparation of Materials

20

3.1.1. Abaca Fiber

20

3.1.1. Pulverized Green Mussel Shells or PGMS

21

3.1.1. Binder and Admixtures

22

3.2 Mix Design Proportions

23

3.3 Specimen Fabrication

24

3.3.1 Mixing of Raw Materials

24

3.3.2 Moulding

25

3.3.3 Cold Pressing

25

3.3.4 Curing and Conditioning

26

3.3.5 Trimming of Samples

26

3.4 Test Methods


3.4.1 Physical Tests

27
27

3.4.1.1 Moisture Content and Specific Gravity Test

28

3.4.1.2 Thickness Swelling and Water Absorption Test

29

3.4.2 Mechanical Tests

30

viii

3.4.2.1 Static Bending Test

30

3.4.2.1 Direct Screw Withdrawal Test

31

Chapter 4: PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF


DATA
4.1 Physical Properties

32

4.1.1 Moisture Content and Specific Gravity

32

4.1.2 Water Absorption and Thickness Swelling

35

4.2 Mechanical Properties

38

4.2.1 Stiffness and Flexural Strength

38

4.2.2 Results of Modulus of Rupture and Modulus of Elasticity Test

39

4.2.3 Direct Screw Withdrawal Resistance

42

Chapter 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


5.1 Conclusions

44

5.2 Recommendations

45

REFERENCES

46

ix

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A List of Abbreviations and Symbols

49

APPENDIX B List of Formulas

51

APPENDIX C Tables of Results from Physical and Mechanical Tests

52

APPENDIX D Documentation

60

APPENDIX E Detailed Computations

65

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

Page

Figure 2.1

Perna Viridis

12

Figure 2.2

Conceptual Framework

16

Figure 3.1

Commercially available Abaca Fibers

21

Figure 3.2

Hammered Green Mussel Shells

21

Figure 3.3

Calcination of Green Mussel Shells

22

Figure 3.4

Cold Pressing of Specimen

26

Figure 3.5

Trimming of Specimens

27

Average Moisture Content of the


Figure 4.1

33
Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards
Specific Gravity of the

34

Figure 4.2
Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards
Average Water Absorption of the
Figure 4.3

36
Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards
Average Thickness Swelling of the

Figure 4.4

37
Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards

Figure 4.5

Load-Deflection curve for SBT of Specimens

39

Figure 4.6

28th Day Modulus of Rupture

40

Figure 4.7

28th Day Modulus of Elasticity

40

Average Load from DSWT of the


Figure 4.8

42
Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards

xi

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title

Page

Table 2.1

Chemical Compostion of Mussels and Commercial CaO 3

13

Table 3.1

Properties of the Materials

52

Table 3.2

Mix Proportions

52

Table 4.1

Philippine National Standards for Medium Density Board

52

Table 4.2

Moisture Content of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board

53

Table 4.3

Specific Gravity of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board

54

Table 4.4

Water Absorption of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board

55

Table 4.5

Thickness Swelling of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board

56

Table 4.6

Modulus of Rupture of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board

57

Table 4.7

Modulus of Elasticity of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board

58

Table 4.8

Direct Screw Withdrawal Resistance of Cement-Abaca

59

Fiber-PGMS board

xii

CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

1.1.

Introduction

The environmental responsiveness has changed the customs of material designing


as designers become environmental-considerate on the specifications of their products.
Among the engineering sectors, the promising movement nowadays was by the
renewable resources utilization. The use of environment-friendly alternative building
materials has remarkably gained its importance in the construction industry. Such
materials that offer unique strength, stability and versatility in its applications have
significantly become a necessity in product selection.

As development of eco-friendly and sustainable construction materials continues,


cement-bonded composites are no exemption. Fibre cement was probably amongst the
latest materials on the market to have contained large quantities of asbestos (Hardie,
2003). In recent decades, governmental regulations have banned the use of asbestos due
to its harmful effects. Therefore, attempts have been made to find replacement for
asbestos (Morteza et al., 2010). The most commonly used fibers are steel, glass, carbon,
and graphite which contribute high strength and modulus for structural applications.
However these fibers have relatively high cost compared to natural fibers. Cellulose
fibers appeared to be the most promising material because they are inexpensive and are
abundantly available in most of the developing countries (Pablo, 2011).

In the Philippines, a natural fiber namely abaca fiber is very abundant. In fact, the
country is the world's leading abaca producer, where the plant is cultivated on 130,000
hectare by some 90,000 small farmers. This abundance opens opportunities for
explorations on its uses in more value added engineering properties (FAO, 2009).

Abaca fiber, valued for its strength, flexibility, buoyancy, and resistance to
damage in saltwater, is chiefly employed for potentials in boat/ship building industries,
aeronautics as well as in construction business especially for high-rise building. A good
ecological balance combined with its excellent technical properties cited by ChryslerDaimler paved way to the use of abaca as underbody protection of car. The development
of this new end-use for abaca fiber in composite applications for the automotive industry
contributed to increasing the demand for the fiber. Pablo (2011) studied the use of abaca
fiber along with sisal fiber as reinforcements in cement mortar matrices in the form of
meshes. Because of its improved overall performance of the plain mortar plates makes it
a good potential for use as reinforcements in cement-based materials.

Material selection boasts of being able to recover and utilize waste materials
reduce its emissions during manufacturing operations, conserve and preserve the
environment through the efficient utilization of water, energy and other resources. Here
in our country, one of the sectors that needs to further be maximized its efficiency is the
sector of the aquaculture. As countrywide target on food security, income generation, and
employment are being evidently contributed by the aquacultural sector, voluminous
wastes are being emitted. The green mussels are one of the species of molluscs farmed

considerably in the Philippines for food. Consequently, as demands boost because of its
affordability in the market, waste from mussels is accumulated in the form of shells.
These days, productions of green mussel are 13,500 tons a year (Oger, 2012). As invasive
species, research teams come across alternative recycling procedures for the green mussel
shells to diminish its volume as wastes and moreover to generate these as a substitute
construction materials securing the need of construction industry in the near future.

Past research documents the incorporation of waste shell into concrete products as
coarse aggregates, sand or cement mortar (Barnaby, 2004). Compressive strength tests
investigate the applicability of these shells as an alternative material for sand. Based on
the results obtained, Yoon et al. (2003) drawn conclusion that mussel shell is a good
supplement material when sand sources are insufficient.

In promoting further studies and developments on the engineering properties of


renewable resources in Agricultural and Aquacultural sectors, this research investigates
the potentials of abaca fiber as reinforcing material and pulverized green mussel shell as
filler respectively for fabrication of cement-bonded panel board.

1.2. Statement of the Objectives

1.2.1. General Objective:

To characterize the properties of abaca fiber reinforced cement bonded board with
pulverized green mussel shells.

1.2.2. Specific Objectives:

Specifically, the study aims to determine the following:


a. To determine the physical properties of the Cement-Bonded Board with
Abaca Fiber and Pulverized Green Mussel Shells such as moisture content,
specific gravity, water absorption and thickness swelling.
b. To determine the mechanical properties of the Cement-Bonded Board with
Abaca Fiber and Pulverized Green Mussel Shells such as stiffness, flexural
strength and direct screw withdrawal resistance.

1.3.

Scope and Delimitations

The study concentrated on the development and characterization of CementBonded Board comprising Abaca Fiber as reinforcing material and Pulverized Green
Mussel Shells as filler.

Aiming for new potential source of raw materials for Cement-Bonded Board, the
study aims to carry out physical and mechanical properties of the board containing abaca
fiber and green mussel shells in accordance to the ASTM standards. Water Absorption
(WA) and Thickness Swelling (TS) test, and Moisture Content (MC) and Specific
Gravity (SG) determined the physical properties while Static Bending Test (SBT) and
Direct Screw Withdrawal Test (DSWT) characterized its mechanical properties. The
testing will be conducted at the Integrated Research Technology Center Laboratory,
Technological University of the Philippines, Manila.

Due to equipment and time constraint, investigation and analyses of chemical


composition and microstructure of abaca fiber and green mussel shells as raw material for
the panel board were not quantified in this research. Costing of the panel fabrication was
not also included in this study.

1.4

Significance of the Study

Specifically, this study is significant to the following:

To the Civil Engineers, this will provide data to those professionals who are
interested in the advancement of researches in discovering new sustainable materials for
construction applications which can offer unique strength, stability, versatility,
affordability, and safety to both users and environment.

To the Construction Industry, this will give them supplementary information on


meeting the market standards and on building establishments with complete advantages
while preserving the natural beauty of the environment.

To the Community, this will give them insights about prospective sources of
livelihood by collecting and selling agricultural and aquacultural products like abaca fiber
and pulverized green mussel shells to construction material producers as they
simultaneously maximize the natural resources.

To the Future Researchers, this will serve as their reference for the future
studies using other agricultural and aquacultural wastes as a potential source of raw
materials that could be used in concrete fabrications and applications.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW TO THE RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the different foreign and local studies related to this research.
Concepts, methodologies, subjects and instrumentations used that are significantly
connected to the present work are also examined. Furthermore, comparisons from
previous studies are discussed and the framework of concept to be conducted are
illustrated and explained.

2.1 Related Literature and Studies

2.1.1 Cement-Bonded Composites

Composites are combinations of two or more than two materials in which one of
the materials, is reinforcing phase (fibres, sheets or particles) and the other is matrix
phase (polymer, metal or ceramic) (Saxena et al., 2011). Fiber cement is a composite
material made of filler, cement and cellulose fibers. A material for reinforcing cement
sheet products containing fibers other than asbestos, clay and thickener have been
developed, in which fiber cement product consisting essentially by weight of a
Portland cement binder in the amount of between about 40% and 80%, natural and/or
synthetic fibers in an amount of between 1% and 15%, clay in an amount of between
about 2% and 15%, and thickener in an amount of between about 0.03% and 0.5%.

The product may also contain silica and/or filler in an amount of between about 10%
and 40% by weight (Morteza et al., 2010).

Application of natural fibers to replace asbestos because of their availability in


the tropical and subtropical parts of the world has been explored. Natural cellulose
fibers have been produced either as a full or partial substitute for asbestos because
they have similar characteristics such as high aspect ratio, high tensile strength,
toughness, flexibility and above all, the buoyancy of the fiber in the cement. The
reasons for putting these fibers into cement-based materials are generally agreed to be
as follows:
1. Improvement of flexure (bending strength)
2. Improvement of impact toughness
3. Control of cracking and change in failure behavior to give post-crack loadbearing capacity, and
4. Change in the flow characteristics of the fresh material (Pablo, 2011).

2.1.2. Compositions of Cement-Bonded Board

The cement bonded board comprises primarily of fibers, fillers, cement and
admixtures (Morteza et al., 2010). Admixtures are used to alter the properties of
certain mixes to obtain desired characteristics. Chemical admixtures such as
accelerators counteract the adverse effect on cement hydration (Sudin et al.,
UNDATED).
8

2.1.2.1. Cement as Binder

Portland cement is the most common type of cement used in the world
due to the materials versatility (Bonilla, 2012). Type I Portland cement is
known as common or general purpose cement. It is generally assumed unless
another type is specified.

2.1.2.2. Abaca Fiber as Reinforcing Material

Addition of fibers to cement-bonded board imparts a number of


attributes that are important to the application and serviceability of the
composite. Utilization of natural fibers as reinforcement of composites is
economical for increasing their certain properties; for example, tensile
strength, shear strength, toughness and/or combinations of these (Ali, 2012).
Among all the natural fiber-reinforcing materials, abaca appears to be a
promising material because it is inexpensive and abundantly available
(Ramadevi et al., 2012).

Abaca fiber, known worldwide as Manila hemp, is obtained from the


leaf sheath of the abaca, Musa textilis Nee. Abaca is indigenous to the
Philippines grown in 56 provinces with Catanduanes as its leading abacaproducer. Total production as of 2011 is 73,274 metric tonnes of abaca. It is
similar to banana in appearance except that the leaves are upright, pointed,
narrower and more tapering than the leaves of the banana. The length of the
9

fiber varies from three to nine feet or more, depending on the height of the
plant (FIDA, 2012). The color of the fiber ranges from ivory white to light and
dark brown (Pablo, 2011).

Abaca is considered the strongest of natural fibers being three times


stronger than cotton and two times stronger than sisal fibers. The official
standard grades of abaca fiber are divided into three (3) classes depending on
the manner of extraction, namely: hand-stripping, spindle-stripping and
decortication. Residual grades are standard grades for hand- and spindlestripped grades potentially used in fiber boards such as roofing tiles, floor
tiles, hollow blocks, boards, reinforcing fiber concrete and asphalt (FIDA,
2012).

Abaca fiber, valued for its strength, flexibility, buoyancy, and resistance
to damage in saltwater, is chiefly employed for potentials in boat/ship building
industries, aeronautics as well as in construction business especially for highrise building. Pablo (2011) studied the use of natural organic fiber meshes as
reinforcements in cement mortar matrices namely, abaca and sisal fibers. It
was found that the use of such fibers as reinforcements in cement mortar
matrices has considerably improved the overall performance of the plain
mortar plates. Hence, such fiber reinforcements possess very good potential
for use as reinforcements in cement-based materials.

10

2.1.2.3. Green Mussels as filler

The typical cement board may comprise of about silica and/or filler in an
amount between 10% and 40% by weight (Morteza et al., 2010). Aggregates
in these mixes are used as fillers and strength enhancers.

Perna viridis, commonly identified as Asian Green Mussel or Tahong,


is a mussel often growing at lengths from 80-100mm to 165mm. These
aquatic species as shown in the Figure 2.1 are among the number of bivalvia
and phylum mollusc.

Figure 2.1 Perna viridis (Benson et al., 2006)

The Asian Green mussels are bivalve mussel widely distributed to AsiaPacific region including Persian Gulf to the Philippines, East China Sea, and
North and South to Indonesia. Peak reproducing activities normally happen
perennially however the mussels living in the Philippines and Thailand are
known to spawn all year round. Approximately 13,500 tons a year are
harvested locally (Oger, 2012).
11

There is a high content of calcium carbonate in green mussels which is


given as 95% (Hamester, 2012). However, mussel shells contain not only
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) but minerals that drawn together and are seldom
getting laid down in the shell from the environment are also obtained.
Minerals such as lead, cadmium and zinc, or organophosphate pesticides and
petroleum by-products are easily detected. These impurities and accumulation
in the shell serve as a warning of contamination in the environment. By this,
health of an ecosystem is biologically monitored.

Table 2.1 presents the chemical composition of commercial CaCO3 and


mussel. The green mussel shell presents a slightly lower, although not
significant, amount of calcium oxide (CaO) than commercial calcium
carbonate. There are differences in chemical composition because the mussels
are water filterer.
Table 2.1 Chemical Compostion of Mussels and Commercial
CaO3 Source: Hamster, et al. (2012)

Oxides
CaO
K2O
SiO2
SrO
Fe2 O3
SO3
MgO
Al2 O3

Mussels
(%)
95.7
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4

CaCO3
99.1
0.4
-

12

These past years, green mussel shells or tahong shells have been
studied as a raw material for construction. Hamester et al. (2012) conducted a
comparative study of oyster shells and green mussel shells by obtaining
calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) from the said species as they are incorporated as
filler in the Polypropylene (PP). No significant difference on Youngs
modulus, yield strength and impact strength is observed from PP with
commercial CaCO3 and those obtained from oyster and green mussels. In
summary, it states that CaCO3 can be obtained from oyster and mussel shell
and is technically possible to replace the commercial CaCO 3 despite the great
difference in particle size and its distribution.

As being same mollusc species, Yoon et al. (2003) conducted a study on


the mechanical characteristics of crushed oyster shell. It is analysed that a
decrease in compressive strength is obtained as the amounts of oyster shell
were increased except for the 40% dosage of shell that yielded an unexpected
increase in compressive strength. Based on these results, they concluded that
crushed oyster shells are a good alternative material for sand.

In the paint industry, Musico (UNDATED) conducted a study that


utilizes the calcium carbonate contained in green mussel shells as an extender
or additive in the production of paints. It is concluded that there is similarity
on the physical properties of the commercial calcium carbonate and the
calcium carbonate from the green mussel shells. He had seen that fineness and
13

white color of the calcium carbonate from green mussel shells were the same
from commercial calcium carbonate.

Shells, along with eggs, snails, and other marine organisms, contain a
chemical called calcium carbonate, a common substance found around the
world. Common minerals and rocks where calcium carbonate exists are in
chalk, limestone, marble, and travertine. It's also the active ingredient that
causes hard water conditions in many households (Sciencefairadventure,
2007).

2.2. Conceptual Framework

Figure 2.4 shows the input, process and output of the research. It illustrates how the
concept of the research flows. It started by identifying the problem and end up obtaining
the results from the tests undertaken on the process. These results were used to satisfy the
objectives of the research.

Researchers believed in the potential of using abaca fiber as reinforcement and


pulverized green mussel shells as filler to produce a cement-bonded board. These two
materials must perfectly bond as it is combined with the Portland cement. Physical and
mechanical tests will be required to characterize the properties of the samples. In this
study, these properties only refer to the moisture content, specific gravity, thickness

14

swelling, water absorption, stiffness, flexural strength and direct screw withdrawal of the
fabricated board.

Utilization of these agricultural and aquaculture waste for the reduction of


voluminous waste is one of the reasons why the technology behind abaca fiber and
pulverized green mussel shells are combined by the researchers. Promoting sustainable
green construction from disregarded solid waste will lead to production of new and
innovative building material.

15

INPUT
1. Environmental Issue
1.1 Reduction of
Aquaculture and
Agricultural Waste
2. Concept
2.1 Utilizing recyclable
waste to produce
sustainable cementbonded composite
board
3. Resources Requirements
3.1 Abaca fiber
3.2 Pulverized green
mussel shells
3.3 Portland Cement
3.4 Calcium Chloride
3.6 Sand
4. Instruments
4.1 Universal Testing
Machine (UTM)
4.2 Calcination Furnace

PROCESS
1. Material Preparation
1.1 Fabrication of
cement-bonded
composite sample
boards using abaca
fiber and pulverized
green mussel shells
2. Determination of the
Physical Properties
2.1 Moisture Content
2.2 Specific Gravity
2.3 Thickness Swelling
2.4 Water Absorption
3. Determination of the
Mechanical Properties
3.1 Stiffness
3.2 Flexural Strength
3.3 Direct Screw
Withdrawal
Resistance

OUTPUT
1. Physical Properties
Tests Results
1.1 Moisture Content
1.2 Specific Gravity
1.3 Thickness
Swelling
1.4 Water Absorption
2. Mechanical Properties
Test Results
2.1 Stiffness
2.2 Flexural Strength
2.3 Direct screw
Withdrawal
Resistance

Figure 2.2 Conceptual Framework


16

2.3 Definition of Terms


Abaca fiber is known worldwide as Manila hemp and the Philippines premier fiber
which is originally used for making ropes.
Accelerators are added to concrete either to increase the rate of early strength
development or shorten the time of setting, or both.
Aggregates make up the bulk of a concrete mixture.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) an organization engaged in the
standardization of specifications and testing methods and in the improvement of
materials.
ASTM D 1037 contains standard test methods prepared by ASTM in determination of
the physical and mechanical properties of wood-base fiber and particle panel materials
(ASTM).
Bivalvia is the class of freshwater and marine mollusc which green mussel shells are
included (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bivalvia).
Calcination is the process used to obtain calcium carbonates from a substance by
driving off the carbon dioxide (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/calcination).
Cement is a binder, a substance that sets and hardens independently and can bind other
materials together.
Dimensional Stability refers to the ability of the material to remain its original
dimensions

while

being

subjected

to

its

intended

purpose

(http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/dimensional-stability.html).
Elasticity is the property of a material that enables it to return to its original size and
shape after a force is removed.

17

Fabrication refers to the construction or manufacture.


Filler particles added to a matrix material to improve its properties.
Fracture Toughness is the ability of the material to resist the propagation of cracks
which leads to fracture.
Modulus of Elasticity (MOE) a measure of stiffness of material; is the ratio of stress
to strain but only in the elastic region.
Modulus of Resilience is the product of stress and strain.
Modulus of Rupture defines the ability of the material to resist deformations under
load (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexural_strength).
Moisture Content is the amount of water contained in the material.
Morphology is the branch of bioscience studies the form and structures of plants and
animals.
Natural Cellulose Fiber is the fiber recognizable as being from a part of the original
plant due to they are only processed to clean the fiber to use.
Pulverize - refers to ground or crush.
Resilience is the ability of a material to recover to its original size and shape after
being deformed by an impact load.
Specific Gravity refers to the ratio of the mass of solid or liquid to the mass of an
equal volume of distilled water. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/specific+ gravity)
Sustainability refers to the meeting the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
Type I Portland Cement General Purpose. For use when the special properties
specified for any other types are not required.

18

Thermal Resistance is the resistance to the flow of heat.


Universal Testing Machine (UTM) is the equipment that can be use to test the
flexural strength, stiffness and direct screw withdrawal resistance of a cement-bonded
composite board.
Water Absorption is the property of a material to absorb water at specified conditions.
Youngs Modulus also called Modulus of Elasticity.

19

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methods and procedures used in the fabrication of the
actual specimens, and the testing of the specimens in accordance to ASTM D 1037-99.

3.1 Preparation of Materials

The raw materials used are the abaca fiber and pulverized green mussel shells
(PGMS).

3.1.1 Abaca Fiber

The abaca fiber utilized in this study was commercially available in the market
as shown in Figure 3.1. The purchased abaca fibers are washed with tap water to
remove unnecessary particles that affect the bonding with the other main materials.
These were air dried for about 24 hours. The cleaned abaca fibers were cut to desired
lengths of 30 mm and soaked with clean water for at least 24 hours before bringing
the SSD (Saturated Surface Dry) condition.

20

Figure 3.1 Commercially available abaca fibers

3.1.2 Pulverized Green Mussel Shells or PGMS

Green mussels were collected from a local producer of tahong chips, Ocean
Fresh Tahong Chips, which were contacted to obtain access to their waste records.
The shell condition is after-cooked. It was cleaned by brush, washed with tap water
and sun dried for at least a day. Manual hammering was done to reduce the size of
green mussel shells to approximately 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm as shown in Figure 3.2. to
avoid pieces from scattering, cloth are used.

Reduced mussel shells size were placed on crucibles and were calcinated inside
a furnace as in shown in Figure 3.3 at >900C for 2-3 hours. Calcinated shells were
given the time to let them cool down and then pulverized it using a mortar and pestle.
PGMS that passed through 200-mesh sieve were used for the fabrication of
specimens.

21

Figure 3.2. Hammered Green Mussel Sheels

Figure 3.3. Calcination of Green Mussel Shells

3.1.3 Binder and Admixtures

Ordinary Portland Cement (Type I) were used as the binder while 2-3% of
reagent grade calcium chloride (CaCI2) and superplasticizer were used as cement

22

setting accelerator and water-reducer respectively. Ordinary sand screened to pass 16mesh sieve were used in all boards.

3.2 Mix Design Proportions

The proportion of raw materials used in each mix design was based on the
cement-bonded composite board with a target medium density board of 1.2 g/cc.

(3.1)

All measurements were carried out on weight proportion basis. The methodology
utilized to calculate the materials for fabrication of the cement-bonded board is based on
cement: sand of 2:1, cement: abaca fiber ratio of 100:25 (Xiong et al.), 20% and 40% of
sand replaced by pulverized green mussel shell (Yoon et al., 2002) and three watercement ratios of 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6.

Three different mix design proportions were used to further investigate the effects
of the abaca fiber as reinforcing material and pulverized green mussel shell as filler. The
mix proportions of the materials used in this study are shown in Table 3.1.

23

Table 3.1. Mix Proportions


Specimen

Cement, g

A
B

412.7142
421.9714

C
D

412.7142
421.9714

E
F

412.7142
421.9714

Abaca Fiber,
g
W/C = 0.4
165.0857
103.1786
168.7886
105.4929
W/C = 0.5
206.3571
103.1786
210.9857
105.4929
W/C = 0.6
247.6285
103.1786
253.1828
105.4929
Water, g

Sand, g

PGMS, g

165.0857
126.5914

41.2714
84.3942

165.0857
126.5914

41.2714
84.3942

165.0857
126.5914

41.2714
84.3942

3.3 Specimen Fabrication

Mixing of raw materials, moulding, cold-pressing, curing and conditioning, and


trimming are the processes used for the fabrication of the specimen.

3.3.1 Mixing of Raw Materials

Water-cement ratios used are from 0.4 to 0.6 based on the specimen to give a
workable paste that can support cement hydration. Levels of calcium chloride and
superplasticizer were maintained to a state that improves workability of the mix.

24

3.3.2 Moulding

The mixture was placed in a 250mm x 250mm mould to maintain the uniform
size and volume of the specimen.

3.3.3 Cold Pressing

The mats were pressed separately to 9 mm thickness using a Universal Testing


Machine (UTM) and left under pressure of 1.23MPa for 24hours as shown in Figure
3.4.

Figure 3.4. Cold Pressing of Specimen

25

3.3.4 Curing and Conditioning

The consolidated mats were removed from the press, taken out of the mould,
placed on a table and cured completely for 28 days in a controlled room maintained at
21C and 65% relative humidity.

3.3.5 Trimming of Samples

After curing, the boards were trimmed or cut to required test specimen sizes as
shown in Figure 3.5. The cement-bonded boards were trimmed to a final dimension
of 250mm x 250mm x 9mm. From the fabricated board, 3 samples were cut 50mm x
50mm for Moisture Content and Specific Gravity Test; 3 samples of 60mm x 60mm
for Thickness Swelling and Water Absorption Test; 3 samples of 50cm x 100mm for
Static Bending Test; and 3 samples of 50mm x 75m for Direct Screw Withdrawal
Test.

26

Figure 3.5. Trimming of Specimens

3.4. Test Methods

The test methods were based from ASTM D1037 standards characterizes the
physical and mechanical properties of each specimen of each mix proportion.

3.4.1 Physical Tests

The physical tests for this study comprise of Moisture Content and Specific
Gravity Test, and Thickness Swelling and Water Absorption Test.

27

3.4.1.1 Moisture Content and Specific Gravity Test

The specimen used have a required dimensions of 50mm x 50mm.


Moisture content and specific gravity were calculated using equation 3.2 and
3.3, respectively.

Where:
MC = moisture content, %
W = initial weight, g
F = final weight when oven-dry, g
w = width of specimen, in. (mm)
t = thickness of specimen, in. (mm)
L = length of specimen, in. (mm)
K = 1, when SI units of weight and measurement are used; or 0.061, when
SI units of weight and inch-pound units of measurement are used.

28

3.4.1.2 Water Absorption and Thickness Swelling Test

Diverse blends of cement-bonded material have several effects on the


dimensional stability of the fabricated material. Water absorption and thickness
swelling tests therefore is followed in accordance with the American Society
for Testing Materials D 1037 (ASTM 1999) with some modifications.

A sample of 60mm x 60mm was cut from fabricated board as based from
ASTM D1037. Thickness Swelling and Water Absorption Test were carried
out to bear out the amount of water the board absorbed when submerged to
moisture and the thickness that the board take after a specific period of
submersion. To know the gradual water absorption behavior of our specimens,
we chose Method A specifically 2 plus 22hr period of submersion. Values of
water absorption and thickness swelling were reported in percentage as
calculated by the equations 3.4 and 3.5, respectively.

(3.4)
(3.5)

where:
WA= water absorption percent after 24 hours
WAas = weight of sample after soaking for 24 hours (grams)
WAbs = weight of sample before soaking for 24 hours (grams)
29

Tf = final thickness
Ti = initial thickness

3.4.2 Mechanical Tests

The mechanical tests for this study comprise Static Bending Test and Direct
Screw Withdrawal Test.

3.4.2.1 Static Bending Test

Static Bending Test is the testing conducted to determine the strength


against bending using UTM. Force was applied uniformly and perpendicularly
to the sample by using a load specimen support. Load capacity was determined
based from the reading in the UTM.

From these test, Modulus of Rupture and Apparent Modulus of Elasticity


for each specimen are calculated using equations 3.6 and 3.7, respectively.
(3.6)
(3.7)

Where:
P = maximum Load
P1 =load at proportional limit, lbf (N)
30

b = width of specimen, in. (mm)


d = thickness (depth of specimen), in. (mm)
E = stiffness (apparent MOE), psi (kPa)
L = length of span, in. (mm)
y1 = center deflection at proportional limit load, in. (mm)

3.4.2.2 Direct Screw Withdrawal Test

Direct Screw Withdrawal Test (DSWT) is the testing used to determine


the resistance of the cement-bonded to withdrawal of screw in a plane normal
to the face. Samples were screwed a two inch No. 10 Type AB sheet metal
screws then being subjected to the Compression Machine, load capacity of the
board was determined based from the reading in the Compression Machine.

(3.8)

where:
L1= Load on trial 1
L2= Load on trial 2
L3= Load on trial 3

31

CHAPTER 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis and interpretation of data gathered using the
Universal Testing Machine (UTM). The result are presented using the tabular
presentations (use of statistical table), graphical presentation (use of graphs), and textual
presentations (use of statements or sentences).

4.1 Physical Properties

4.1.1 Moisture Content and Specific Gravity

The moisture content (MC) and specific gravity (SG) are two properties which
significantly have influence on the physical and mechanical properties of a material.
Taking nothing else into relation, these variables ought to consider always when
material, specifically wood-based fiber material, is being tested to evaluate its
efficiency.

32

Specimen A

Specimen C

Specimen E

9.00

6.80

8.23

Specimen B

Specimen D

Specimen F

5.47

4.56

Specimens of W/C of 0.4 Specimens of W/C of 0.5

7.24

Specimens of W/C of 0.6

Figure 4.1. Average Moisture Content of the Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards

Figure 4.1 shows the average %MC of the specimens indicating their
water:cement ratio specifically 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 respectively. Comparing specimens of
the same water:cement ratio, the specimen of higher PGMS:sand ratio possesses the
lower %MC. The partly replacement of amount of PGMS to sand have effects on the
moisture content of the specimen. The amount of PGMS affects the amount of
moisture that each specimen encompasses resulting the more PGMS content the
lesser moisture content.

33

The values of moisture content are not totally affected by the water:cement
value. This is due to the fiber dispersion on the specimens. Overall, Specimen D had
the lowest moisture content which means that it is the best mix proportion in terms of
moisture content.

Specific Gravity

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Specimen
Ave

Trial 1

Trial 2

Trial 3

Figure 4.2. Specific Gravity of the Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards

As shown in Fig.4.2, specimen D has the highest specific gravity of 1.47 among
all of the specimens and specimen E has the lowest specific gravity. The figure only
shows that the value of water-cement ratio and PGMS content could not take its effect
on the specific gravity due to the poor dispersion of fibers. Occurrence of pores
makes an effect on the specific gravity of the specimens.

The fibers are less dense than the other material in the specimens which also
means that improper distribution of the fibers makes the board result in inconsistency
34

on its specific gravity. Poor dispersion of abaca fibers affects the definite occurrence
of pores in the specimen. Porosity has a significant effect on the specific gravity and
density of the specimen. The effect of the PGMS as filler could not determine on its
specific gravity because of the formation of clumps of the abaca fiber.

4.1.2 Water Absorption and Thickness Swelling

The dimensional

stability

of

the

board is associated

to

its physical

properties including the water absorption (WA) and the thickness swelling (TS)
performance. Conducting the test, Water Absorption and Thickness Swelling
(WATS) Test, for this can verify the performance of cement-bonded boards when
used under state of severe humidity.

Water Absorption (%)

25
20
15
10
5
0
A

Note: 30 % and
lesser water
absorption to
pass PNS

Specimen

Figure 4.3. Average Water Absorption of the Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards (After
2 plus 22hours submersion)

35

Figure 4.3 shows that specimen F contains the highest percent of water
absorption of 24.66%. Generally, specimens does not correlate the effect of its
water:cement ratio to its water absorption due to lack of trends on the values . The
specimens with 40% of sand replaced by PGMS have higher water absorption than
the specimens with 20% of sand replaced by PGMS which proves that PGMS content
affects the amount of water absorption of the boards. The variation of the water
absorption of the boards could not create any increasing or decreasing relation with
the water:cement ratio due to the poor fiber dispersion. Poor dispersion of fibers tends
to form clumps and cling to one another. By this, not all abaca fibers are completely
coated by cement paste and thus tend the water to absorb more by part of the
uncoated fibers. Based on the figure, high water:cement ratio increases the water
absorption of boards having same PGMS replacement. Also, high PGMS content
increases the water absorption.

Overall, it was verified that specimen A with the least water:cement ratio and
least PGMS:sand ratio showed least water absorption. From

this

study,

PNS

230:1989 requirement for WA of wood-wool cement boards (type C) of less than


30% was met by all the specimens.

36

Thickness Swelling (%)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Note: 10 % and
lesser thickness
swelling to pass
PNS

Specimen

Figure 4.4. Average Thickness Swelling of the Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS boards


(After 2 plus 22hours submersion)

The thickness swelling (TS) of the specimens adhere to the similar trend with
%WA. Aside from the fiber content that tends to spring back after submersion, the
enhancement of the water absorption of the specimens merely influenced the
performance in the %TS. The presence of voids in the specimens has allowed internal
swelling. Apart from geometry of the specimen, the %TS of the specimens were also
influenced by the sand replacement by PGMS in which the lesser amount of PGMS
the lesser the %TS of the specimens as shown in the Fig.4.4. Swelling were also been
experienced by the specimens because of the not fully encapsulated by the cement
thus low bonding and more absorption of water. Overall, it is being verified that the
specimen E which is of most water:cement ratio and least PGMS:sand ratio have least

37

thickness swelling. From this study, PNS 230:1989 requirement for TS of woodwool cement boards (type C) of less than 10% was met by all the specimens.

4.2 Mechanical Properties

4.2.1 Stiffness and Flexural Strength

Figures 4.5 shows the typical load deformation curves of a cement-bonded


board obtained by measuring the deflection of the bottom of the specimen at the
center by means of transducer-type gages and read and plotted simultaneously against
load.

By producing different samples consisting of different mix proportions, it was


observed that Specimen B which has a PGMS:sand replacement ratio of 40% yielded
the highest bending strength. Result analysis indicate that higher PGMS:sand
replacement ratio with lower moisture content had an effect on the performance of the
boards with respect to its strength. The interfacial bonding between the fiber and the
cement matrix is influenced by the moisture content. With lower moisture content,
higher value of flexural strength is observed.

38

18
16
14

12

Specimen A
Specimen B

Load, kgf

10

Specimen C
8

Specimen D
Specimen E

Specimen F

4
2
0
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1

Deflection, mm

Figure 4.5. Load-Deflection curve for SBT of Specimens

4.2.2 Results of Modulus of Rupture and Modulus of Elasticity Test

Figure 4.6 shows samples A, B, C, D, E and F passing strength


requirements. Based from the figure, it can be seen that all specimens failed the
modulus of rupture test. See Appendix C for detailed results.

39

50.00
45.00
40.00
35.00
MOR, kg/cm2

30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
Average
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3

A
37.69
47.34
49.40
16.32

B
26.55
21.78
21.53
36.33

C
19.63
21.48
17.05
20.35

D
17.38
23.64
17.16
11.32

E
22.87
20.47
18.98
29.15

F
31.35
42.61
31.74
19.71

Note: 40 kgf/cm2 and greater MOR to passed PNS

Figure 4.6. 28th day Modulus of Rupture

600.00
500.00

MOE, MPa

400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00

Average
Specimen 1
Specimen 2
Specimen 3

A
431.19
551.76
501.74
240.06

B
292.91
367.07
220.72
290.96

C
239.59
111.52
201.94
405.31

D
279.60
439.67
225.71
173.43

E
225.53
99.80
68.21
508.58

F
344.61
560.86
382.14
90.82

Figure 4.7. 28th day Modulus of Elasticity


40

Figure 4.6 shows that water:cement ratio does not affect the variation of the
modulus of rupture of the specimens. Due to the improper distribution of fiber on
the boards, results dont show any trend between the MOR and the water:cement
ratio. The reason why all of the specimens failed the modulus of rupture test is
due to the poor fiber arrangement that somehow gave consistent values of MOR.
Even on the results of MOE shown in Figure 4.7, there were no good trends
observed on the obtained data.

Based on Figure 4.6, specimens having a water:cement ratio of 0.4 and 0.5
are alike in terms of the effects of PGMS on MOR. It shows that the lesser the
PGMS content, the higher the MOR value. On the other hand, specimen with
water:cement ratio of 0.6 increased in MOR value when higher content of
PGMS. As shown from Figure 4.7, the variation in the values of MOR and MOE
are alike. For specimens having water:cement ratio of 0.5 and 0.6, higher content
of PGMS results to higher value of MOE. Conversely, specimen with
water:cement ratio of 0.4 have lesser MOE value when the amount of PGMS
decreases. Generally, specimens with water:cement ratio of 0.4 and 0.6 are
consistent in the relation of the results of MOE and MOR. Considering the
values of MOR and MOE from these specimens, specimen A exhibited the
highest value of MOE and MOR which means that it is the best mix proportion
in terms of static bending test. As for specimen A with lesser PGMS content, the
water absorption and thickness swelling were generally lower but resulted to
higher MOR and MOE.

41

4.2.3 Direct Screw Withdrawal Resistance


The resistance to withdrawal in a plane normal to the face of the board can
be measured by Direct Screw Withdrawal Test (DSWT). Significantly, this test
defines the board of its capacity to be used for exterior applications which most
of the time is required to be screwed.

117.75
120
Load, kg

100

83.8

63.59

80

60

61.44

40

36.65

18.59

20
0
A

Specimen

Note: 40kgf and greater load from DSWT to pass PNS

Figure 4.8. Average Load from DSWT of the Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board

From Figure 4.8, like the results of MOE and MOR, no good trends
between the water:cement ratio and screw holding resistance were observed. Due
to the poor dispersion of fiber, specimens with water:cement ratio of 0.4 and 0.6
shows that the one with lower PGMS content possesses the higher load. Only the
water:cement ratio of 0.5 shows that the specimen with higher PGMS content
have lower load. Changes in water:cement ratio became insignificant as the
result shows low performance at 0.5 water:cement ratio. Specimens with
42

water:cement ratio of 0.4 apparently obtained higher screw holding strength


value even without considering the effect of PGMS content to all of the
specimens. In terms of the varying water:cement ratio, the specimens with
water:cement ratio of 0.4 exhibited the best mix proportion among the three
ratios tested showed higher resistance to screw withdrawal.

The average screw withdrawal strength of specimens A, B, D and E ranged


from 61 kg to 117 kg. These values compared favourably with cement
composites standard for direct screw withdrawal strength. According to
Philippine National Standards, the direct screw withdrawal strength value
required for material to pass ranged from 40 kg load.

Specimen A was the best among all the specimens in terms of direct screw
withdrawal strength based on the results. Considering the effect of the PGMS
content, specimen A showed better result which makes the best mix proportion
in terms of screw holding strength. The amount of PGMS as filler influences the
resistance of screw withdrawal, the more PGMS content the lesser the direct
screw withdrawal strength.

43

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

Based on the result of the study, the following conclusions were derived:

1. The moisture content of boards, of the same water:cement ratio, containing


higher PGMS:sand replacement ratio of 40% exhibited lower moisture content
ranging from 4.56% to 7.24%. The boards with higher PGMS:sand
replacement ratio had increased its specific gravity but did not give any good
trend with respect to its water;cement ratio. Furthermore, these boards have
higher water absorption ranging from 20.87% to 24.66%. The thickness
swelling of the boards was observed to have the same trend with its water
absorption in terms of PGMS content. From this study, PNS 230:1989
requirement for water absorption and thickness swelling of wood-wool
cement boards (type C) of less than 30% and 10% respectively was met by
all the specimens.

2. The Modulus of Rupture and Modulus of Elasticity of the boards did not give
any good trend based on the test results observed. The average Modulus of
Rupture ranged from 17.38 kgf/cm2 to 37.69 kgf/cm2. These values fell short of
the MOR of cement-bonded board based on the Philippine National Standards

44

as attributed to the improper distribution of fiber on the boards. The direct


screw withdrawal test results compared favorably with cement composites in
accordance to the Philippine National Standards for material to pass the direct
screw withdrawal strength requirement of 40 kg load. Futhermore, the board
containing water:cement ratio of 0.4 and PGMS content of 20% showed the
highest strength.

5.2 Recommendations

To further improve this study, the proponents would like to propose the following
recommendations:

1. To use other pre-treatments of natural fibers for the enhancement of cement pastefiber bonding.

2. To develop better distribution, arrangement and length of natural fibers for the
good fabrication of cement bonded board.

3. To investigate the potential use of the pulverized green mussel shells in the
cement and concrete industry.

45

REFERENCES:

ASTM (2006). ASTM C150 / C150M 12 Standard Specification for Portland Cement.
Retrieved from http://www.astm.org/Standards/C150.htm

Barnaby, C. (2004). An Investigation to the Reuse of Organic Waste Produced by the


New Zealand Mussel Industry. Department of Applied Science. Master of Applied
Science thesis, Auckland University of Technology: 80-109.

BFAR-PHILMINAQ (2007). Managing Aquaculture and Its Impacts: A Guidebook for


Local Governments. Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)PHILMINAQ Project, Diliman, Quezon City, 80p.

Bonilla, E. (2012). The Composition of Fiber Cement Board Siding. Retrieved from
http://sidingmagazine.com/siding-information/the-composition-of-fiber-cementboard-siding/

FAO

(2009).

Natural

fibres.

Retrieved

from

http://www.naturalfibres2009.

org/en/fibres/abaca.html

Gianluca C., Giuseppe C., Giuseppe R. & Alberta L. (2010). Composites Based on
Natural

Fibre

Fabrics,

Woven

Fabric

Engineering.

Retrieved

from

http://www.intechopen.com/books/woven-fabric-engineering/composites-based-onnaturalfibre-fabrics
46

Hamester, M. R.R, Balzer, P. S., Becker, D., (2012). Characterization of Calcium


Carbonate Obtained from Oyster and Mussel Shells and Incorporation in
Polypropylene.

Materials

Research,

15(20),

204-208.

doi:10.1590/S1516-

14392012005000014

Hardie, J. (2003,July 1). Tell me more about Fibre Cement. Retrieved from
http://www.infolink.com.au/c/James-Hardie/Tell-me-more-about-Fibre-Cementn755412

Meikhtila T. (February, 2009). CE 1022 Building Material and Construction. Ministry of


Science and Technology: 2-4.

Morteza, K., Eshmaiel G., & Abolhassan V. (2010, September 16). Method and Material
for

Manufacturing

Fiber

Cement

Board.

Retrieved

from

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100234491#ixzz2er2f4QYG

Moslemi, A. (2008). Technology and Market Considerations for Fiber Cement


Composites. University of Idaho, Madrid, Spain. Presented to 11 th International
Inorganic-Bonded Fiber Composites Conference.

Mussel Shell to be Used as Raw Material in Hollow Block Making. (2013). Retrieve
from http://leytesamardaily.net/2013/03/mussel-shell-to-be-used-as-raw-material-inhollow-block-making/

47

Natural

Aquaculture

Sector

Overview.

(2013).

Rerieved

from

http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_philippines/en

Obillo, A. (2013, June). Green Mussel (Perna Viridis) Shells as an Additive Component
in

Hollow

Block

Making.

Studymode,

p5.

Retrieved

from

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Green-Mussel-Perna-Viridis-Shells-As1741796.html

Overview

of

Philippine

Aquaculture.

(1999).

Retrieved

from

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6943e/x6943e06.html

Rules and Regulations Governing the Culture of Mussels (Tahong). ( 1982, January 15).
Retrieved from http://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/pages/legislation/FAO/fao138.html

Saxena M., Pappu A., Sharma A., Haque R., & Wankhede S. (2011). Composite
Materials from Natural Resources: Recent Trends and Future Potentials, Advances in
Composite Materials - Analysis of Natural and Man-Made Materials. Retrieved from
http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-composite-materials-analysis-ofnatural-andman-made-materials/composite-materials-from-natural-resources-recenttrends-and-future-potentials

Sciencefairadventure, (2007). Composition of a Shell. Retrieved


http://www.sciencefairadventure.com/ProjectDetail.aspx?ProjectID=172

from

48

APPENDIX A
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ASTM

- American Standards and Testing Methods

- width of specimen, in. (mm)

- thickness (depth of specimen), in. (mm)

DSWT

- Direct Screw Withdrawal Test

- stiffness (apparent MOE), psi (kPa)

- final weight when oven-dry, g

- 1, when SI units of weight and measurement are used


or 0.061, when SI units of weight and inch-pound units of measurement are
used.

- length of specimen, in. (mm)

- length of span, in. (mm)

L1

- Screw hold capacity trial 1, kg

L2

- Screw hold capacity trial 2, kg

L3

- Screw hold capacity trial 3, kg

MC

- Moisture Content

MCSGT - Moisture Content and Specific Gravity Test


MOE

- Modulus of Elasticity

MOR

- Modulus of Rupture

- maximum Load

P1

- load at proportional limit, lbf (N)

49

PGMS

- Pulverized Green Mussel Shells

PNS

- Philippine National Standards

- modulus of rupture, psi (kPa)

SBT

- Static Bending Test

SG

- Specific Gravity

SSD

- Saturated Surface Dry

- thickness of specimen, in. (mm)

Tf

- final thickness

Ti

- initial thickness

TS

- Thickness Swelling

UTM

- Universal Testing Machine

- initial weight, g

- width of specimen, in. (mm)

WA

- Water Absorption

Was

- weight of sample after soaking for 2 plus 22hours (grams)

WATST - Water Absorption and Thickness Swelling Test


Wbs

- weight of sample before soaking for 2 plus 22hours (grams)

y1

- center deflection at proportional limit load, in. (mm)

50

APPENDIX B
LIST OF FORMULAS
Board Mass
(3.1)
Moisture Content
(3.2)
Specific Gravity
(3.3)
Water Absorption
(3.4)
Thickness Swelling
(3.5)
Modulus of Rupture
(3.6)
Modulus of Elasticity
(3.7)
Face-Screw Hold Strength
(3.8)

51

APPENDIX C
TABLES OF RESULTS FROM PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL TESTS

Table 3.1. Properties of the Materials*


MATERIAL
Ordinary Portland
Cement
Abaca Fiber*
Pulverized Green
Mussel Shell

DENSITY, g/cc
1.82

SOURCE
ASTM Test

0.49

PTRI-DOST
Bironite: A New Source of Nuclei by
2.8
Snow
Inflence of Abaca and Banana Fiber on
Ordinary Sand
1.48
the Physical and Mechanical Property of
Ferrocement by Medrano et al.
*Note: Abaca Fiber is a commercially available thus no Grade of the material has been
provided
Table 3.2. Mix Proportions*
Specimen

Cement, g

A
B

418.605
418.605

C
D

400.000
400.000

Water, g

Abaca
Fiber, g

W/C = 0.4
167.442
104.651
167.442
104.651
W/C = 0.5
200.000
100.000
200.000
100.000
W/C = 0.6
229.787
95.745
229.787
95.745

Sand, g

PGMS, g

167.442
125.581

41.861
83.721

160.000
120.000

40.000
80.000

382.979
153.192
38.298
E
382.979
114.894
76.596
F
*Note: All the specimens are computed with based on cement: sand of 2:1, cement: abaca
fiber ratio of 100:25; varying PGMS: sand ratio of 20:100 and 40:100; and three
varying water-cement ratios of 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6.
Table 4.1. Philippine National Standards for Medium Density Board*
Physical Properties
Water Absorption
Thickness Swelling
30% and lesser
10% and lesser

Mechanical Properties
Modulus of Rupture Face Screw Hold g
40kgf/cm2 and
40kgf and greater
greater

52

Table 4.2. Moisture Content of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board*

Specimen

Trial
1
2
3

WEIGHT, g
after 24-h
Initial
oven-drying @
103 2C
29.90
27.40
26.20
24.40
28.10
25.40
AVE

MC, %
9.12
7.38
10.63
9.04

1
2
3

29.30
34.40
38.70

27.50
32.50
37.20
AVE

6.55
5.85
4.03
5.47

1
2
3

31.40
30.70
35.50

29.60
29.40
32.30
AVE

6.08
4.42
9.91
6.80

1
2
3

34.00
34.30
32.30

32.40
32.60
31.20
AVE

4.94
5.21
3.53
4.56

1
2
3

34.10
32.30
36.30

31.90
29.60
33.40
AVE

6.90
9.12
8.68
8.23

1
2
3

24.60
25.80
23.60

22.60
24.00
22.40
AVE

8.85
7.50
5.36
7.24

*Note: All were tested in accordance to the ASTM D 1037-99 with


curing days of 28.

53

Table 4.3. Specific Gravity of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board*

Specimen

1
2
3

Weight
after 24-h
oven-drying @ 103
2C
27.40
24.40
25.40

1
2
3

27.50
32.50
37.20

47.40
50.40
52.80

48.10
50.10
50.00

10.20
9.78
9.85
AVE

1.18
1.32
1.43
1.31

1
2
3

29.60
29.40
32.30

46.80
48.35
47.40

47.00
48.08
48.60

10.20
9.70
10.08
AVE

1.32
1.30
1.39
1.34

1
2
3

32.40
32.60
31.20

48.85
47.55
49.40

48.85
47.40
48.85

10.13
9.14
8.76
AVE

1.34
1.58
1.48
1.47

1
2
3

31.90
29.60
33.40

50.85
48.10
51.45

49.45
52.40
51.45

9.40
9.60
9.75
AVE

1.35
1.22
1.29
1.29

1
2
3

22.60
24.00
22.40

49.80
50.00
49.20

47.00
48.00
48.60

7.25
7.48
6.53
AVE

1.33
1.34
1.44
1.37

Trial

DIMENSION, mm
SG

Length

Width

Thickness

49.95
48.95
48.75

49.85
51.50
49.80

8.05
7.81
7.55
AVE

1.37
1.24
1.39
1.33

*Note: All were tested in accordance to the ASTM D 1037-99 with curing days of 28

54

Table 4.4. Water Absorption of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board*


Weight
Specimen Trial

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

Initial

after
2hrs
soaking

41.00
40.00
45.00

47.40
44.70
50.30

42.10
43.00
47.20

47.60
47.90
52.60

53.20
48.80
49.10

51.00
50.30
52.50

31.00
35.00
28.30

50.20
50.30
55.90

54.40
54.40
60.60

62.90
58.10
58.70

59.30
57.30
60.20

37.50
42.90
33.50

WA, %

Evaluation

after
2plus
22hrs
soaking
48.70
45.40
51.20
AVE

after
2-h

after 2
plus
22-h

15.61
11.75
11.78
13.05

18.78
13.50
13.78
15.35

<30 PASSED

51.30
51.70
57.20
AVE

19.24
16.98
18.43
18.22

21.85
20.23
21.19
21.09

<30 PASSED

55.10
55.30
61.60
AVE

14.29
13.57
15.21
14.35

15.76
15.45
17.11
16.11

<30 PASSED

63.80
59.20
59.60
AVE

18.23
19.06
19.55
18.95

19.92
21.31
21.38
20.87

<30 PASSED

60.20
58.00
61.10
AVE

16.27
13.92
14.67
14.95

18.04
15.31
16.38
16.58

<30 PASSED

38.60
44.40
34.70
AVE

20.97
22.57
18.37
20.64

24.52
26.86
22.61
24.66

<30 PASSED

Based from
PNS 230:1989

*Note: All were tested in accordance to the ASTM D 1037-99 specifically Method A: 2
plus 22h Submersion Period with curing days of 28.
55

Table 4.5. Thickness Swelling of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board*

Specimen

Trial

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

THICKNESS, mm
TS, %
after
after
after 2
2plus
Initial
2hrs
after 2-h plus 2222hrs
soaking
h
soaking
6.80
6.88
6.94
1.18
2.03
7.20
7.35
7.23
2.08
0.35
7.20
7.35
7.91
2.08
9.90
AVE
1.78
4.09
9.68
9.40
9.98

9.28
9.39
9.99

10.53
9.00
10.08

9.63
8.69
8.16

6.16
6.68
5.83

10.08
9.81
10.31

9.59
9.43
10.48

10.74
9.43
10.10

9.65
8.81
8.49

6.18
7.40
6.08

Evaluation
Based from
PNS 230:1989

<10 PASSED

10.23
10.65
10.53
AVE

4.08
4.39
3.33
3.93

5.63
13.30
5.46
8.13

<10 PASSED

9.54
9.63
10.75
AVE

3.37
0.37
4.88
2.87

2.83
2.50
7.63
4.32

<10 PASSED

10.83
10.24
10.88
AVE

2.02
4.72
0.25
2.33

2.85
13.75
7.94
8.18

<10 PASSED

9.71
8.94
8.66
AVE

0.26
1.45
3.98
1.90

0.91
2.88
6.13
3.30

<10 PASSED

6.24
7.61
6.33
AVE

0.24
10.88
4.29
5.14

1.26
14.04
8.58
7.96

<10 PASSED

*Note: All were tested in accordance to the ASTM D 1037-99 specifically Method A: 2
plus 22h Submersion Period with curing days of 28.
56

Table 4.6. Modulus of Rupture of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board*

DIMENSION, mm
Speci
men

Trial

99.80
99.80
99.40

48.90
50.50
50.50

9.70
9.60
9.75

1
2
3

98.80
98.80
97.40

47.70
50.70
53.00

9.30
11.48
9.75

1
2
A

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

49.80
101.00
99.30

99.70
97.90
97.20

103.20
103.80
104.30

121.00
110.70
110.20

49.50
48.60
46.60

49.40
46.70
48.80

49.30
48.60
51.00

47.80
49.60
49.20

10.25
9.80
10.39

9.10
9.03
8.00

8.63
8.66
8.75

7.83
7.73
7.43

LOAD, kgf
@propor maxim
tional
um
limit, P1 load, P
12.13
14.55
13.34
15.36
7.00
5.25
AVE
5.66
9.30
12.93

13.74
7.68
9.70

6.06
4.04
2.02

4.04
2.83
6.87

6.06
5.25
1.62

MOR
Evaluation
R=
Based from
3PL/
PNS 230:1989
2bd
47.34
49.40
16.32
37.69 >40 FAILED

6.06
9.70
12.53
AVE

21.78
21.53
36.33
26.55 >40

FAILED

14.95
5.25
6.87
AVE

21.48
17.05
20.35
19.63 >40

FAILED

6.47
4.45
2.43
AVE

23.64
17.16
11.32
17.38 >40

FAILED

4.85
4.45
7.28
AVE

20.47
18.98
29.15
22.87 >40

FAILED

6.87
5.66
3.23
AVE

42.61
31.74
19.71
31.35

FAILED

>40

*Note: All were tested in accordance to the ASTM D 1037-99 specimens soaked before
test for 24-hour period.

57

Table 4.7. Modulus of Elasticity of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS board*

DIMENSION, mm
Specimen Trial

Length Width

LOAD, kgf

Height

@propor
tional
limit, P1

maxim
um
load, P

y
Deflecti
on, (in
mm)

MOE
E=
PL/4
bdy

1
2

99.80
99.80

48.90
50.50

9.70
9.60

12.13
13.34

14.55
15.36

1.20
1.45

551.76
501.74

99.40

50.50

9.75

7.00

5.25

1.50

240.06

1
2
3

98.80
98.80
97.40

47.70
50.70
53.00

9.30
11.48
9.75

5.66
9.30
12.93

6.06
9.70
12.53

0.95
1.30
2.05

367.07
220.72
290.96

1
2
3

49.80
101.00
99.30

49.50
48.60
46.60

10.25
9.80
10.39

13.74
7.68
9.70

14.95
5.25
6.87

0.70
2.10
1.10

111.52
201.94
405.31

1
2
3

99.70
97.90
97.20

49.40
46.70
48.80

9.10
9.03
8.00

6.06
4.04
2.02

6.47
4.45
2.43

0.90
1.20
1.05

439.67
225.71
173.43

1
2
3

103.20
103.80
104.30

49.30
48.60
51.00

8.63
8.66
8.75

4.04
2.83
6.87

4.85
4.45
7.28

3.45
3.60
1.10

99.80
68.21
508.58

1
2
3

121.00
110.70
110.20

47.80
49.60
49.20

7.83
7.73
7.43

6.06
5.25
1.62

6.87
5.66
3.23

2.05
2.00
2.90

560.86
382.14
90.82

*Note: All were tested in accordance to the ASTM D 1037-99 specimens soaked before
test for 24-hour period.

58

Table 4.8. Direct Screw Withdrawal Resistance of Cement-Abaca Fiber-PGMS


board*
Load 1,

Load 2,

kg

kg

kg

kg

Evaluation
Based from
PNS 230:1989

137.42

119.64

96.2

117.75

>40 PASSED

40.42

92.15

58.2

63.59

>40 PASSED

16.17

26.68

12.93

18.59

>40

54.16

71.14

126.11

83.8

>40 PASSED

51.74

64.67

67.9

61.44

>40 PASSED

48.5

28.29

33.14

36.65

>40

Specimen

Load 3, Average

FAILED

FAILED

*Note: All were tested in accordance to the ASTM D 1037-99 specifically Method A: 2
plus 22h Submersion Period with curing days of 28

59

APPENDIX D
DOCUMENTATION

I.

Gathering of the Materials

Purchasing Green Mussel Shells and Abaca Fiber

Cleaning the Green Mussel Shells


(Eliminating other elements on the shell using knife)

60

Washing the Green Mussel Shells with detergents

Calcination of the Green Mussel Shells

61

II.

Fabrication of the Specimens

Construction of the molder

Fabrication of the specimens

62

Curing of the specimens

III.

Testing of the Specimens

Trimming of the Specimens

63

Physical Tests including WATST and MCSG

Mechanical Tests including SBT and DSWT


64

APPENDIX E
DETAILED COMPUTATIONS

Computation of Mix Proportion of Specimen A


Target board mass, m = 675 g

for Cement material,


675 g ( ) = 385.7143 g
for Abaca fiber,
675 g ( ) = 96.4286 g
for Non-cement material (Sand and PGMS),
675 g ( ) = 192.8571 g
for Sand,
192.8571 g ( ) = 154.2857 g
for PGMS,
192.8571 g ( ) = 38.5714 g

For total mass computed,

65

562.5000 cc
526.7466 cc
35.7534 cc

(7 % of 526.7466)

Increase each of the materials volume by 28.2 % to maintain the target volume.
211.9309 cc
1.82
CEMENT
412.7142 g
0.49
ABACA FIBER 196.7931 cc
103.1786 g
x 1.07 x
=
104.2471 cc
1.48
SAND
165.0857 g
13.7755 cc
2.8
PGMS
41.2714 g

for water-cement ratio of A which is 0.4:


WATER = 412.7142 g (0.4) = 165.0857 g
For Admixtures,
*2% Cement for Calcium Chloride and
5% of Superplasticizer
CALCIUM CHLORIDE = 412.7142 g (0.02) = 8.2543 g
SUPERPLASTICIZER = 412.7142 g (0.05) = 20.6357 g

66

Computation of Mix Proportion of Specimen B


Target board mass, m = 675 g

for Cement material,


675 g ( ) = 385.7143 g
for Abaca fiber,
675 g ( ) = 96.4286 g
for Non-cement material (Sand and PGMS),
675 g ( ) = 192.8571 g
for Sand,
192.8571 g ( ) =115.7143 g
for PGMS,
192.8571 g ( ) = 77.1428 g

For total mass computed,

562.5000 cc
514.4603 cc
48.0397 cc

(9.4 % of 514.4603)

67

Increase each of the materials volume by 28.2 % to maintain the target volume.
211.9309 cc
1.82
CEMENT
421.9714 g
0.49
ABACA FIBER 196.7931 cc
105.4929 g
x 1.094 x
=
78.1853 cc
1.48
SAND
126.5914 g
27.5510 cc
2.8
PGMS
84.3942 g

for water-cement ratio of B which is 0.4:


WATER = 421.9714 g (0.4) = 168.7886 g
For Admixtures,
*2% Cement for Calcium Chloride and
5% of Superplasticizer
CALCIUM CHLORIDE = 421.9714 g (0.02) = 8.4394 g
SUPERPLASTICIZER = 421.9714 g (0.05) = 21.0986 g

68

Computation of Mix Proportion of Specimen C


Target board mass, m = 675 g

for Cement material,


675 g ( ) = 385.7143 g
for Abaca fiber,
675 g ( ) = 96.4286 g
for Non-cement material (Sand and PGMS),
675 g ( ) = 192.8571 g
for Sand,
192.8571 g ( ) = 154.2857 g
for PGMS,
192.8571 g ( ) = 38.5714 g

For total mass computed,

562.5000 cc
526.7466 cc
35.7534 cc

(7 % of 526.7466)

69

Increase each of the materials volume by 28.2 % to maintain the target volume.
211.9309 cc
1.82
CEMENT
412.7142 g
0.49
ABACA FIBER 196.7931 cc
103.1786 g
x 1.07 x
=
104.2471 cc
1.48
SAND
165.0857 g
13.7755 cc
2.8
PGMS
41.2714 g

for water-cement ratio of C which is 0.5:


WATER = 412.7142 g (0.5) = 206.3571 g
For Admixtures,
*2% Cement for Calcium Chloride and
5% of Superplasticizer
CALCIUM CHLORIDE = 412.7142 g (0.02) = 8.2543 g
SUPERPLASTICIZER = 412.7142 g (0.05) = 20.6357 g

70

Computation of Mix Proportion of Specimen D


Target board mass, m = 675 g

for Cement material,


675 g ( ) = 385.7143 g
for Abaca fiber,
675 g ( ) = 96.4286 g
for Non-cement material (Sand and PGMS),
675 g ( ) = 192.8571 g
for Sand,
192.8571 g ( ) =115.7143 g
for PGMS,
192.8571 g ( ) = 77.1428 g

For total mass computed,

562.5000 cc
514.4603 cc
48.0397 cc

(9.4 % of 514.4603)

71

Increase each of the materials volume by 28.2 % to maintain the target volume.
211.9309 cc
1.82
CEMENT
421.9714 g
0.49
ABACA FIBER 196.7931 cc
105.4929 g
x 1.094 x
=
78.1853 cc
1.48
SAND
126.5914 g
27.5510 cc
2.8
PGMS
84.3942 g

for water-cement ratio of D which is 0.5:


WATER = 421.9714 g (0.5) = 210.9857 g
For Admixtures,
*2% Cement for Calcium Chloride and
5% of Superplasticizer
CALCIUM CHLORIDE = 421.9714 g (0.02) = 8.4394 g
SUPERPLASTICIZER = 421.9714 g (0.05) = 21.0986 g

72

Computation of Mix Proportion of Specimen E


Target board mass, m = 675 g

for Cement material,


675 g ( ) = 385.7143 g
for Abaca fiber,
675 g ( ) = 96.4286 g
for Non-cement material (Sand and PGMS),
675 g ( ) = 192.8571 g
for Sand,
192.8571 g ( ) = 154.2857 g
for PGMS,
192.8571 g ( ) = 38.5714 g

For total mass computed,

562.5000 cc
526.7466 cc
35.7534 cc

(7 % of 526.7466)

73

Increase each of the materials volume by 28.2 % to maintain the target volume.
211.9309 cc
1.82
CEMENT
412.7142 g
0.49
ABACA FIBER 196.7931 cc
103.1786 g
x 1.07 x
=
104.2471 cc
1.48
SAND
165.0857 g
13.7755 cc
2.8
PGMS
41.2714 g

for water-cement ratio of E which is 0.6:


WATER = 412.7142 g (0.6) = 247.6285 g
For Admixtures,
*2% Cement for Calcium Chloride and
5% of Superplasticizer
CALCIUM CHLORIDE = 412.7142 g (0.02) = 8.2543 g
SUPERPLASTICIZER = 412.7142 g (0.05) = 20.6357 g

74

Computation of Mix Proportion of Specimen F


Target board mass, m = 675 g

for Cement material,


675 g ( ) = 385.7143 g
for Abaca fiber,
675 g ( ) = 96.4286 g
for Non-cement material (Sand and PGMS),
675 g ( ) = 192.8571 g
for Sand,
192.8571 g ( ) =115.7143 g
for PGMS,
192.8571 g ( ) = 77.1428 g

For total mass computed,

562.5000 cc
514.4603 cc
48.0397 cc

(9.4 % of 514.4603)

75

Increase each of the materials volume by 28.2 % to maintain the target volume.
211.9309 cc
1.82
CEMENT
421.9714 g
0.49
ABACA FIBER 196.7931 cc
105.4929 g
x 1.094 x
=
78.1853 cc
1.48
SAND
126.5914 g
27.5510 cc
2.8
PGMS
84.3942 g

for water-cement ratio of F which is 0.6:


WATER = 421.9714 g (0.6) = 253.1828 g
For Admixtures,
*2% Cement for Calcium Chloride and
5% of Superplasticizer
CALCIUM CHLORIDE = 421.9714 g (0.02) = 8.4394 g
SUPERPLASTICIZER = 421.9714 g (0.05) = 21.0986 g

76

You might also like