CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The study was conducted to produce a concrete paving block using

Polystyrene Foam and to evaluate and differentiate its mechanical properties. There

were three treatments used with different masses of Polystyrene Foam mixed with

cement, treatment 1-0g, treatment 2-0.77g and treatment 3- 1.54g. The final output of

concrete paving blocks were tested for its compressive strength and water absorptivity.

The result of the test was investigated using one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

and least significant difference (LSD) for its mean comparison.

Testing of Compressive Strength

Given on the graph, treatment 1 which has the average Psi of 6.2 has the highest

level of workability and strength. It is due to its finer physical properties than the other

treatments which were added with Polystyrene Foam bits. It can be compacted, bound

and molded easily and effortlessly. On the other hand, treatment 2 which contains 0.77g

of Polystyrene Foam bits mixed with cement was found lighter and dries faster

compared to other treatments. Treatment 3 was the lightest among the other treatments

with the lowest compressive strength. This is because of the particles it contains are not

compacted properly due to its size. The mean compressive strength of the paving

blocks was shown on the graph.

 Compressive Strength
7
6.2
6

1
0.39
0.11
0
Treatment 1 Ttreatment 2 Treatment 3

Figure 1. Compressive Strength

Based on one-way ANOVA on compressive strength, it was found that there is a

significant difference between the three treatments that includes the control group. In

table 3, it shows that there is a very high significance on the three treatments (F=

7804.126, P= 0.000). This means that the addition of Polystyrene Foam bits greatly

affects the comprehensive strength of the concrete paving block.

Results also show that the control group has the highest mean with 6.2 Psi

compared to treatments 1 and 2 which only have means of 0.89 Psi and 0.11 Psi in

comprehensive strength.

29
 Table 3. Testing of Significant Difference on Comprehensive Strength

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 71.798 2 35.899 7804.126 .000

Within Groups .028 6 .005
Total 71.826 8

Testing of Water Absorptivity

Given on the graph are the percentages of absorption of water of the paving

block for 24 hours. As what observed, the absorption of water of different mixture of

cement is statistically significant at 0.01 level of significance. As being observed,

treatment 2 and treatment 3 are very close to each other that only vary in decimal

points. This means that the water they absorbed within 24 hours is not significant from

each other. Treatment 1 which was not mixed with Polystyrene Foam bits has the

lowest water absorptivity after submersion for 24 hours among other treatments.

Water Absorption
Water Absorptivity (%)

25
23.64 23.08
20

15

10

5 7.69

0
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

Figure 2. Water Absorption of Concrete Paving Block

30
 On one-way ANOVA on Water Absorptivity, results show that there is also a

significant difference between the three treatments. Table 4 shows a very high

significance on the three treatments (F= 191.815, P= 0.000). This means that the

addition of Polystyrene Foam bits on the mixtures highly affects the water absorptivity of

the concrete paving blocks.

In addition, treatment 1 (control group) shows the lowest water absorptivity with

the mean of 7. 68%. Treatment 2 and treatment 3 which have Polystyrene Foam bits

were found to absorb less water. Between the latter two treatments, there is no

significant difference found out.

Table 4. Testing on Water Absorptivity

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 491.788 2 245.894 191.815 .000

Within Groups 7.692 6 1.282

Total 499.480 8

According to ASTM C Water Absorption (2011), the ideal water absorption for

concrete paving block is greater than 5% with no sample greater than 7%. That is,

because higher percentage of water absorptivity means that the blocks are porous.

Porosity affects the strength of material. It implies that high porosity will have a lower

comprehensive strength(as cited from Dones, 2015).

31
Relationship between Comprehensive Strength and Water Absorption

In testing the mechanical properties of, comprehensive strength and water

absorption, there is a very strong negative correlation between the two mechanical

properties. In addition, data also shows a very high significance to each other

(P=0.000). This means that they are inversely proportional to one another. When the

concrete paving block which has Polystyrene foam mixed with it has low comprehensive

strength, it can have a greater water absorption percentage.

To simplify this correlation, it can be said that the higher the comprehensive

strength, the lower its water absorption. But, the lower the strength, the higher its water

absorbed. Given on Table 5, the correlation between the two mechanical properties. It

is seen on the data that they have a very strong negative correlation.

Table 5. Relationship between two Mechanical Properties

Strength vs. N r Description P

Water
9 -0.990 S
absorptivity
0.00

Somehow, there is an advantage of porous blocks, which is to allow for

the passage of water through the surface of the pavement especially for flood prone

areas. The use of porous paving block is recommended for passenger vehicle parking

lots, roadways, bike paths, and pedestrian walkways (Dones, 2015).

32
 As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the water absorptivity of the concrete blocks in

treatments 2 and 3 are higher which corresponds to their lower comprehensive strength.

These can only mean that these blocks are only applicable for pathways with no heavy

loads subjected as well as for parking areas but not for highways.

Cost Analysis

The estimated costs per concrete paving block were approximately Php. 4.4,

Php. 2.45 and Php. 3.95 for the three treatments, respectively. The table shows that

mixing Polystyrene Foam bits will lessen the cost of the blocks. the Polystyrene foam

that will be with no used and threw away can be gathered and be an additive for

cement. The cost per block will be lessened and can save large amount of money when

many blocks were produced. Recycling can be done in this brilliant way. The blocks

have lower production cost but comprehensive strength can be compromised. Hence, it

cannot be used in heavy duty applications.

33
 Table 5. Estimated cost of Material per Concrete Paving Block

Cost Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

(0 g) (20 g) (40 g)
(Php)

Cement 2.50 1.25 1.75

Sand 0.2 0.2 0.2

Water 0.7 1 1

Labor 1 1 1

Total 4.4 2.45 3.95

34