CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS (with SPSS analysis) AND INTERPRETATION OF

FINDINGS

SIEVE ANALYSIS
Sieve analysis is a test or a procedure that commonly used to evaluate the grain size
distribution of the material by permitting the material to pass through a number of sieves that has
a variety of opening sizes. To perform the sieving process, the sample was placed to a pile of
sieves that start from the biggest opening size to the smallest opening size and subjected to a
horizontal and vertical movement.

Corn cob ash sample were prepared in accordance with the procedure in ASTM 136-98a
and sieve analysis was carried out. the results are presented in the table 1.1 below.

Presented in Table 1.2 are the results obtained from the sieve analysis from Table 1.1.
The sieve number 4, 16, 20, 50, 80, 100, and 200 from a 163g total weighted mass sample were
17.79 percent, 56.44 percent, 60.12 percent, 88.34 percent, 95.09 percent, 96.32 percent and
98.77 percent for percent retained, and 82.21 percent, 43.56 percent, 39.88 percent, 11.66
percent, 4.91 percent, 3.68 percent, and 1.23 percent for percent passing respectively.

mass retained cumulative mass cumulative mass %

Sieve # %passing
(g) retained (g) passing (g) Retained

4 29 29 134 17.79 82.21

16 63 92 71 56.44 43.56

20 6 98 65 60.12 39.88

50 46 144 19 88.34 11.66

80 11 155 8 95.09 4.91

100 2 157 6 96.32 3.68

200 4 161 2 98.77 1.23

PAN 2 163 0 100 0

TOTA
163
L

Table 1.1: Sieve Analysis of the Sample

1.2: Percent Passing and Percent Retained for Sieve Analysis

DETERMINATION OF CORN COB’S MOISTURE CONTENT

Moisture content or in other term, water content, of the aggregates is the number of water
contained in the aggregates. The moisture content that were contained on aggregates can be the
major cause of inconsistency in making the concrete. It can have an effect on the concrete
strength, durability and workability because it has a great impact on water/cement ratio.
Table 2 shows the data gathered to determine moisture content of the sample.

The weighted results obtained from a sample with two trials were 50g and 52g for moist
sample and container (W2), 48g and 50g for weight of oven dry sample and container (W3), and
26g and 28g for weight of container (W1). Based on these datum, the moisture content for the
sample with two trials are both 9.09 percent.
 TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2

Weight of moist sample and container, W2 (g) 50 52

Weight of Oven-dry sample and container, W3 48 50

(g)

Weight of Container, W1 (g) 26 28

MOISTURE Content (%) 9.09 9.09

Table 2: Moisture Content of the Sample

DETERMINATION OF UNIT WEIGHT AND DENSITY OF CORN COB ASH

The test covers the determination of unit weight in rodded or loose state. Unit weight is
the relationship of aggregates mass to its corresponding volume of container. The data in
weight/density are used in volumetric-gravimetric calculation.
Table 3 shows the results of the aggregates (rodded and loose) unit weight and density
using two trials.

The mass/weight of rodded aggregates from two trials were 66g and 70g, while, 58g and
60g for loose aggregates. The Unit weight/density for rodded aggregates were 66.298 kg/m^3
and 70.316 kg/m^3, while, 58.262 kg/m^3 and 60.271 kg/m^3 for loose aggregates. The weight
of container is 28 grams and the volume of container is 9.955x10^-4 m^3.

RODDED LOOSE

TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2

MASS/WEIGHT 66 g 70 g 58 g 60 g

UNIT WEIGHT/ 66.298 kg/m^3 70.316 kg/m^3 58.262 kg/m^3 60.271 kg/m^3
DENSITY

WEIGHT OF 28 g
CONTAINER
 VOLUME OF 9.955X10^-4 m^3
CONTAINER

Table 3: Unit Weight and Density of Aggregates

COMPUTED WEIGHT OF MATERIALS USED USING AMERICAN CONCRETE

INSTITUTE (ACI) METHOD
Table 4 shows the calculated weights of materials (water, cement, coarse and fine
aggregates) used for cylinders and beams using the American Concrete Institute (ACI) method.

The weights for cylinders were 0.933kg, 1.987kg, 5.961kg, and 3.974kg respectively, and
Beams were 2.153kg, 4.306kg, 12.918kg, and 8.612kg respectively. The ratio from these weights
were 0.5:1:3:2. The cylinders used has a volume of 339.29 in^3 each, while, 756 in^3 for the
beam.

Materials Computed Weight for Cylinder (Kg) Ratio

Water 0.993 0.5

Cement 1.987 1

Coarse Aggregate, (C.A.) 5.961 3

Fine Aggregates, (F.A.) 3.974 2

Materials Computed Weight for Beam (Kg) Ratio

Water 2.153 0.5

Cement 4.306 1

Coarse Aggregate, (C.A.) 12.918 3

Fine Aggregates, (F.A.) 8.612 2

 Table 4: Computed Weight for the materials used in concrete for Beams and Cylinders using
American Concrete Institute (ACI) Method

FAILURE LOAD AND COMPRESSIVE STRESS OF CONCRETE

Table 5.1 and 5. 2 shows the data results of failure loads and compressive stress of
cylinder A (no corn cob ash), cylinder B (with corn cob ash) and Beam using the universal
testing machine for cylinders in 7, 14,and 21 days, and beams in 14 and 21 days of concrete
curing.

At 7 days of concrete curing, the cylinder A got a 405.27 kN for failure load and 22.93
N/mm^2 for compressive stress. While for cylinder B, the result were 239.54 kN for failure load
and 13.56 N/mm^2 for compressive stress. At 14 days of concrete curing, cylinder A got 300.30
kN compressive stress and 183.82 kN for cylinder B. Beam A got 11.25 kN compressive stress
for 14 days of curing. At day 21 the cylinder A got 285.98 kN and 153.31 kN for cylinder B.And
13.99 kN for beam in 21 days it was cured. Based on the graph, the longer the days the cylinders
and beam were cured, the failure load decreases, day 7 got the highest values of load compare to
the other days.

For compressive stress. Cylinder A got 22.93 N/mm^2 and 13.56 N/mm^2 for cylinder B
in 7 days. In day 14 of curing, 16.64 N/mm^2 and 10 N/mm^2 for cylinder A and B and 0.48
N/mm^2 for beam. In 21 days of curing, cylinder A got 15.68 N/mm^2, 8.40 N/mm^2 for
cylinder B and 0.60 N/mm^2 for beam. Based on the bar graph the longer the concrete cured the
compressive stress decreases except to the beam that increases its compressive stress.

The researchers made a bar graph (Table 5.3 and 5.4) to compare the failure load and
compressive stress of concretes cured in 7, 14 and 21 days for cylinders and 14 and 21 days for
beams. Based on the graph, cylinder A got the higher value of loads in different days of curing,
day 7 was the best day for curing a cylinders. In table of comparative graph for compressive
stress, cylinder A got the the higher value of compressive stress in days of curing and day 7 was
better day for curing a cylinder.
 Load (KN)

Cylinder Day 7 Day 14 Day 21

A 405.27 300.30 285.98

B 239.54 183.82 153.31

Beam 11.25 13.99

Table 5.1: Failure Load of Beams and Cylinders using Universal Testing Machine

Compressive stress (N/mm^2)

Cylinder Day 7 Day 14 Day 21

A 22.93 16.46 15.68

B 13.56 10 8.40

Beam 0.48 0.60

Table 5.2: Compressive stress of Beams and Cylinders using Universal Testing Machine
 Table 5.3: Comparative Graph in Load of Cylinders

Table 5.4: Comparative Graph in Compressive Stress of Cylinders

FAILURE LOAD
Table 5.5 shows the type of fracture of cylinders cured for 7, 14, 1nd 21 days from the
Universal Testing Machine.
 In day 7, cylinder A was a shear fracture type having a fracture of sliding or tearing action
of shear stresses of the cylinder while cylinder B was a cone fracture type having a fracture or a
cracks at the side ends of the cylinder. In day 14 and 21, both cylinders were a shear fracture
type except to cylinder B that was a shear fracture type in 7 days of curing.Based on the graph,
there were a slight difference in the type of fracture.

Type of Fracture

Cylinder Day 7 Day 14 Day 21

A Shear Shear Shear

B Cone Shear Shear

Table 5.5: Type of Fracture of Cylinders using Universal Testing Machine