CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Concrete has a vital role in the construction and improvement of civil engineering
works. Concrete manufacturing involves consumption of ingredients like cement,
aggregates, water and admixtures. It is strong in compression, as the aggregate efficiently
carries the compression load. However, it is weak in tension as the cement holding the
aggregate in place can crack, allowing the structure to fail. To increase its tensile strength,
reinforcements are added. Reinforced concrete adds either steel reinforcing bars, steel
fibers, glass fibers, or plastic fibers to carry tensile loads. However, the most common
reinforcement is the use of steel bars. Concrete production has become expensive over the
years due to increased demand of construction. If the concrete uses steel bars as
reinforcement, this will also be an additional cost. In this study, the use of welded wire
mesh (WWM) as reinforcement is being studied.

Welded wire mesh or steel matting is a prefabricated steel product which replaces
traditional steel cutting and fixing. As concrete reinforcement, it is by far the most potential
and most efficient alternative to be conventional method of tying loose steel bars. In an
environment of increased on site-labor cost, it provides developers, designers, engineers
and contractors a convenient and economical steel reinforcement for concrete structures
(Supersonic Manufacturing, Inc., 2010).

According to Loftin et al. (1995), the WWM is a metal wire screen that is made up
of low carbon steel wire or stainless steel wire. It is widely used in agricultural, industrial,
transportation, horticultural and food procuring sectors. It is also used in mines, gardening,
machine protection and other decorations. Weld mesh is the term given to the kind of barrier
fencing that is manufactured in square or rectangular mesh from steel wire, welded at each
intersection. WWM is also sometimes used in reinforced concrete, notably for slabs.

Reinforced concrete slab is a common structural element of modern buildings.

Thick slabs are most often used to concrete floors and ceilings, while thinner slabs are also
used for exterior paving (Garber, 2016). Concrete slab is commonly reinforced with steel
bars. Due to high cost, this study is conducted to find an alternative steel reinforcement to
concrete slab using WWM. It focuses on the determination of flexural strength of this
concrete slab and compare this to the concrete slab reinforced with steel bars.

1
1.2 Statement of the Problem
During construction, the process of setting up the reinforcement system takes a lot
of time and effort since the steel bars need to be properly placed and tied. They are not
welded together so there is a risk of missing bars and misplacing a single unit. They need
to be secured to prevent displacement when laying the concrete. With the help of tie wires,
the movement of bars is avoided. To ensure that conditions are met, rebar cutters and
benders are utilized on site.
To prevent these common rebar problems, this study was conducted to investigate
the effects of using WWM as concrete reinforcement. The main purpose of this study was
to find an alternative to rebars that has similar or close properties with the traditional steel
bars.

1.3 Significance of the Study

For many years, concrete has been widely used as building material. It is because
of its durability. Concrete builds durable, long-lasting structures that will not rust, rot, or
burn. Life spans for concrete building products can be double or triple those of other
common building materials (Balogh, 2017). Concrete is brittle in tension, but relatively
tough in compression. To compensate for this imbalance, reinforcements are added to carry
tensile loads. Steel bars are the most common concrete reinforcements. There are numerous
benefits of steel-reinforced concrete like increasing the speed of construction, substantial
economy, excellent fire resistance and flexibility in design (Steel Reinforcement Institute
of Australia, 2016).
This study was made to find a sustainable alternative to steel as concrete
reinforcement. Some researchers have already conducted tests to check if various materials
can be substituted to steel bars. According to Brownell (2015), two natural rebar
alternatives for concrete are basalt fiber and bamboo strips. In this study, the material tested
as an alternative to steel bars was WWM. This study would benefit people since WWM is
affordable and accessible. It also required less labor compared to using steel bars as
reinforcements. It also required less time because there is no need to tie and secure the
steels bars to prevent them from moving. The result of this study would provide information
to the practicing civil engineers regarding the performance of WWM as an alternative
reinforcement for slab construction.

2
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study was to investigate the effects of the WWM used as
concrete reinforcement. More specifically, this study aimed to:

1. Determine the flexural capacities of the following types of concrete slabs with:
a. 6 mm diameter steel bars
b. 8 mm diameter steel bars
c. Welded wire mesh
2. Compare the actual values of the load carried by each type of concrete slabs
3. Conduct economic analysis of the specimens reinforced with WWM and steel
bars.

1.5 Scope and Limitations

This study focused on determining the flexural capacity of 60 mm thick concrete
slabs reinforced with WWM that has a diameter of 3.5 mm and 2-inch mesh opening. The
length and width of the concrete slabs are both 500 mm. The WWM used was taken from
Krisland Commercial Corporation, Iligan City.
There were three types of reinforcement used in this study. First was the concrete
slab reinforced with 6 mm diameter steel bars. Second was the concrete slab reinforced
with 8 mm diameter steel bars. Third was the concrete slab with 3.5 mm diameter WWM.
The fine and coarse aggregate used was taken near Mandulog River, Hinaplanon, Iligan
City. The cement used was Type 1 Portland cement from Holcim. All materials used should
conform to ASTM Standards before creating the slabs.
Three tests were conducted in this study namely compressive strength test, tensile
strength test and most importantly, flexural capacity test. Also, an economic analysis of the
specimens reinforced with WWM and steel bars was conducted. The analysis focused only
on the direct costs of the specimens which includes the material costs. Labor costs and other
indirect costs were not considered.

3
 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Concrete
Concrete is a composite material composed of coarse aggregate bonded together
with a fluid cement that hardens over time. Most concretes used are lime-based concretes
such as Portland cement concrete or concretes made with other hydraulic cements, such
as ciment fondu. In its simplest form, concrete is a mixture of paste and aggregates, or
rocks. The paste, composed of Portland cement and water, coats the surface of the fine
(small) and coarse (larger) aggregates.
When aggregate is mixed together with dry Portland cement and water, the mixture
forms a fluid slurry that is easily poured and molded into shape. The cement reacts
chemically with the water and other ingredients to form a hard matrix that binds the
materials together into a durable stone-like material that has many uses. Through a
chemical reaction called hydration, the paste hardens and gains strength to form the rock-
like mass known as concrete. Within this process lies the key to a remarkable trait of
concrete: it's plastic and malleable when newly mixed, strong and durable when hardened.
These qualities explain why one material, concrete, can build skyscrapers, bridges,
sidewalks and superhighways, houses and dams.

2.2 Composition of Concrete

Many types of concrete are available, distinguished by the proportions of the main
ingredients below. In this way or by substitution for the cementitious and aggregate phases,
the finished product can be tailored to its application. Strength, density, as well chemical
and thermal resistance are variables.
Concrete is made up of three main ingredients: water, Portland cement, and
aggregates. The ratio of the ingredients changes the properties of the final product, which
allows the engineer to design concrete that meets their specific needs. Admixtures are
added to adjust the concrete mixture for specific performance criteria (Li Zongjin, 2011).

2.3 Reinforced Concrete

This is composed of concrete in which steel is embedded in such a manner that the
two materials act together in resisting forces. The reinforcing steel absorbs the tensile,
shear, and sometimes the compressive stresses in a concrete structure. Plain concrete does

4
not easily withstand tensile and shear stresses caused by wind, earthquakes, vibrations, and
other forces and is therefore unsuitable in most structural applications. In reinforced
concrete, the tensile strength of steel and the compressive strength of concrete work
together to allow the member to sustain these stresses over considerable spans
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 2008).
Reinforcement is provided mainly to resist internal tensile forces calculated from
analysis. Also, reinforcement is provided in compression zones to increase the compression
capacity, enhance ductility, reduce long term deflections or increase the flexural capacity
for beams. In addition, reinforcement is required to prevent excessive cracking resulting
from shrinkage or temperature changes in restrained structural elements. Lateral
reinforcement (stirrups, ties and hoops) are used to provide resistance to principal tensile
stresses resulting from shear. Lateral reinforcement in highly stressed areas of compression
zones of columns beams and joint provides confinement.
It is important to provide the adequate area of reinforcement required to resist
internal tensile or compression forces required to attain the design section strength. The
fundamental requirement for development of reinforcing bars is that a reinforcing bar must
be embedded in concrete a sufficient distance on each side of the critical section to develop
the peak tension or compression force in the bar at the section. The reinforcement may be
developed by embedment length, hooks, mechanical anchorage devices, headed deformed
reinforcement, or a combination of these methods (Portland Cement Association, 2016).

2.4 Steel
Steel is an alloy of iron and other elements, primarily carbon, that is widely used
in construction and other applications because of its high tensile strength and low cost.
Some of its important properties are strength, ductility, and durability. Yield strength is the
most common property that the designer will need as it is the basis used for most of the
rules given in design codes. Ductility is a measure of the degree to which a material can
strain or elongate between the onset of yield and eventual fracture under tensile loading as
demonstrated in the figure below. A further important property is that of corrosion
prevention due to durability. The most common means of providing corrosion protection to
construction steel is by painting or galvanizing. The type and degree of coating protection
required depends on the degree of exposure, location, design life, etc. In many cases, under
internal dry situations no corrosion protection coatings are required other than
appropriate fire protection.
5
2.5 Welded Wire Mesh (Steel Matting)
Welded wire mesh, or welded wire fabric, or "weldmesh" is an electric
fusion welded prefabricated joined grid consisting of a series of parallel longitudinal wires
with accurate spacing welded to cross wires at the required spacing. Machines are used to
produce the mesh with precise dimensional control. The product can result in considerable
savings in time, labor and money (Merritt, Loftin and Ricketts, 1995).
After the Second World War, Europe was in complete ruin. Whole nations had to
be rebuilt quickly. Conventional methods were sound yet slow. Welded wire reinforcing
found a foothold in the building process because of the speed in which it could be placed.
This proved to speed the rebuilding process across battered Europe. The advantages to
using Welded Wire Reinforcement in lieu of rebar in post war Europe are the same today.
Not only can your project move towards completion faster, WWR can reduce your grade
60 steel weights by utilizing the higher tensile strength of grade 80.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO, has recognized the advantage of higher tensile in producing prestressed concrete
bridge girders. This has resulted in a reduction of steel weights in producing bridge
elements while still maintaining the same steel areas and strength (Wire Mesh Corp, 2010).
As concrete reinforcement, it is by far the most potential and most efficient
alternative to the conventional method of tying loose steel bars. In an environment of
increased on site-labor cost, it provides developers, designers, engineers and contractors a
convenient and economical steel reinforcement for concrete structures (Supersonic
Manufacturing, 2010).
Welded Wire Reinforcement (WWR) is a prefabricated reinforcement consisting of
a series of parallel longitudinal wires with accurate spacing welded to cross wires at the
required spacing. The welding of the wires is achieved by electric resistance welding with
solid-state electronic control and all the spacing are controlled by an automatic mechanism
of high reliability. There is no foreign metal added at the joint and the intersecting wires
are actually fused into a homogeneous section thereby ensuring permanency of spacing and
alignment in either direction.
The wires used in the reinforcement are cold drawn from controlled quality mild
steel wire rods with carbon content generally less than 0.15%. The cold drawing through a
series of tungsten carbide dies results in a high tensile strength and increased yield strength
material of accurate dimensions. Further, each section of the wire gets inherently tested by
the process itself for its characteristic physical properties thereby offering a systematic
6
reliability of material. The wires conform to IS: 432-Pt II/1982 which specifies an ultimate
tensile strength of 570 N/mm2 and a characteristic strength of 480 N/mm2.
WWR is manufactured conforming to IS: 1566-1982 with long and cross wire
spacing varying from 25 mm to 400 mm. Each of the rigidly welded intersection is capable
of withstanding shear stresses up to 210 N/mm2 (IS: 4948/1974) on the reference area of
the longitudinal wire.

2.6 Advantages of Using Welded Wire Mesh

1. WWM is more economical since it is easy to handle and install. Steel waste can
also be reduced since there will be no fabrication of bars.

2. It is available in a wide range of styles to meet accurate design requirements

(BRC Industrial Limited, 2014).

3. Because bars are welded in a mat, the bars do not move when concrete is placed,
ensuring bars are in their proper position and preventing misplacement.

4. It is safe because the mesh is formed by electro welding versus the alternative
methods.

5. It provides proper distribution of steel reinforcement throughout the concrete

slab. It has smaller steel members that are closely and uniformly spaced, and
accurately placed at all points of maximum stress.

2.7 Applications of Welded Wire Mesh

Welded wire mesh is a product that is easily noticeable in screen doors and window
screens for heavy-duty use. It is also used in fencing, dividing rooms and for shelving. It
can also be used behind the scenes in walls, plumbing and ceilings. If you are planning to
do some renovations in your house, you will find out that welded wire mesh can be very
helpful to your project.
Welded wire mesh is also used in various heavy-duty applications. The wires are
welded together at cross sections to create a sturdy frame for the product. In most
commercial and industrial applications, heavier gauges are used. These create effective

7
barriers for security purposes. You can also use the same in your compound as fencing
material (Ferrier Design, 2015).
Welded mesh is used as an alternative to woven mesh and typically has larger weave
openings per linear inch. Welded mesh offers a flat surface which maintains a firm structure
and can provide support or protection to other goods. Common uses for welded wire mesh,
or steel mesh include: fencing panels, wire partitions, wire container panels, wire baskets,
animal cages, enclosure works, screens, security panels, shelving, signage,
stairways/treads, fishing traps and concrete reinforcement.
Steel and stainless steel are popular in many applications due to the strength and
durability of steel, as well as its heat resistance. Furthermore, stainless steel is corrosion
resistant which allows the material to be used in applications where exposure to moisture
is a factor. Compared to the other types, stainless steel wire mesh is the most expensive but
also the strongest and longest lasting option. It is mostly used in industrial settings, and
makes up the majority of material used for fencing systems (Wire Cloth, 2017).

2.8 Other Materials Used as Concrete Reinforcement

Rust remains one of the major problems associated with traditional reinforcement
methods. The last four decades have witnessed a great deal of research to develop
corrosion-free construction solutions capable of extending the service life of civil
engineering structures, enhancing the performance of infrastructures under severe
environmental and loading conditions. Extensive research has been carried out to develop
modern construction materials with improved durability and environmental resistance such
as fibers, steel, fiber reinforced polymer, and others materials.
Fiber reinforced concrete improves toughness and ultimate elongation in flexure
and tension. The compressive strength is hardly affected by addition of fibers. In direct
tension, the strength is increased markedly up to 50%. In flexure, the increase is even
greater, up to 70% (ACI, 2002). Steel fibers can effectively substitute shear stirrups and
secondary reinforcement (Nordlund, 2004) while glass fiber has been used for façade
panels and complex geometry applications. On the other hand, basalt fibers are produced
from the common rock. Dispersed in concrete, the workability and balling resistance is
slightly better than with steel fibers (Ramakrishnan et al., 1998). Synthetic fibers are tailor-
made human designed materials produced from organic polymers such as Acrylic, aramid,
carbon, nylon, polyester, polyethylene, polyolefin, polypropylene and polyvinyl alcohol
(PVA). Several of them have low durability in concrete and are only functional in fresh
8
concrete by reducing plastic shrinkage cracking. Cellulose fibers has a tensile strength that
can be as high as 6400 MPa. One of the more promising natural fibers is linen with a
Young’s modulus of 100 GPa and ultimate tensile strength of 1000 MPa (ACI, 2002).
Steel is a remarkable reinforcement material as it combines high strength, modulus
of elasticity, homogeneity and a relatively low price. (Al-Emrani et al., 2011). The main
downside to using ordinary steel is its expansive corrosion behavior. Ordinary steel, or
carbon steel, is by far the most used reinforcing material in concrete. Because of its high
density, steel is heavy to handle and transport. Mining implies large environmental
disturbance, both for ecosystems and people close to the mine (Olson, 2014). Epoxy coating
is a way of passively protecting the steel surface from a potentially harmful environment
(Sederholm, 1996). With regard to mechanical properties, except for bond to the concrete,
epoxy coated steel bars can be designed in the same manner as carbon steel, as steel is the
only load bearing component of the product (Kahhaleh et al. 1998, Sederholm 1996).
Structures with galvanized steel has a prolonged service life since the initiation of steel
corrosion in concrete is postponed (Nürnberger 1996, Yeomans 2004). To be called
stainless, a steel alloy must contain more than 12% chromium. With up to 30% other
materials than iron in stainless steel, the mechanical behavior is affected. However, through
research and development strength, ductility and other important properties has been
developed alongside with durability. Because of this, most stainless steels have properties
as good as or better than ordinary carbon steel (Nürnberger, 1996).
The most remarkable differences between steel and fiber reinforced polymer
reinforcement is that FRP does not yield, but stays linearly elastic up to failure and also
that its density is so much lower, namely about 20 - 30 % of that of steel. Tensile strength
is, with a few exceptions, higher than for steel whereas modulus of elasticity is lower, also
this with some exceptions. Deformations and cracking will therefore be the decisive limit
state more often with FRP than with steel (ACI, 2006). Another difference in FRP
compared to steel reinforcement is that the diameter of the bar influences strength and
stiffness, with smaller diameters performing better. A doubling of bar diameter can
decrease the tensile strength between 2 – 40 %. The effect behind this phenomenon is shear
lag, i.e. that the center of the bar is less stressed than the surface due to the way the force
distributes within the bar. For this reason, FRP bars over 25 mm diameter are not
recommended without prestressing (ACI 2006, Zoghi 2013).

9
2.9 Other Reinforcement Materials
Apart from the above treated reinforcement materials, attempts have been made
with several others like bamboo, aluminum, and titanium.
Bamboo, as other plants, absorbs water and responds by expanding and later
contracting when the moisture is let go. According to a test performed by Terai and Minami
(2012), providing surface coatings can improve bond strength by about twofold. Compared
with steel, the coated bamboo rods had about twice the bond of plain bars and half that of
ribbed bars according to the tests.
Aluminum often replaces steel because of its light weight and relatively high
corrosion resistance in open air environments. It is also comparatively cheap like other
metals. Both its density and modulus of elasticity are about one third steel’s equivalent.
Titanium is about ten times more expensive than steel and more complicated and
energy demanding to produce. It is about equal to steel in strength, but with about half the
density and modulus of elasticity. It has been proven to be very corrosion resistant in many
media, including concrete.

2.10 Past Studies

Various researchers focused on the design of slabs reinforced with different kinds
of reinforcements such as G.I. sheet, weaved bamboo strips, and wire mesh. They
performed several tests to evaluate its flexural and compressive strengths.
Legaspo (2009) studied the flexural strength of concrete slab using No. 26 G.I. sheet
as reinforcement. Four types of reinforcements were used: the first one is the control group
with typical steel bar reinforcements, the others were composed of G.I. sheet folded strips
with different cross-sectional areas. This study also investigated the effect of the variation
of cross-sectional area to the flexural strength of the concrete slab using third-point loading.
With a cement-aggregate ratio of 1:2:4 and a water-cement ratio of 0.48, the study showed
that the flexural strength of concrete slab increases with increasing cross-sectional area of
G.I sheet strips reinforcement.
A similar study about the flexural strength of reinforced concrete slab with G.I.
sheets was conducted by Bahan (2009) where the types of G.I. sheets were varied instead
of its cross sectional area. The reinforcements used were no. 26 G.I. fabricated rib-type
deck and no. 26 G.I. corrugated sheet deck with 6 mm Ø steel bars. Based on the results
obtained, the mean flexural strength of reinforced concrete slab with 26 G.I. corrugated
steel deck is higher than using no. 26 G.I. fabricated rib-type steel deck.
10
 Along with evaluating the flexural strength, Ares, et al. (2015) also evaluated the
compressive strength of concrete slab. He used a different kind of reinforcement, weaved
bamboo strips, where he varied the strip spacing particularly 80 mm, 120 mm, and 180 mm.
Statistical analysis shows that there is no significant difference among the mean flexural
strengths and hardness. Compared to unreinforced concrete slab, the flexural strength of
the slab with bamboo reinforcement is noticeably higher. An increase of 3.85%, 12.80%,
and 20.28% for bamboo strips spacing of 80 mm, 100 mm, and 120 mm is observed. The
study showed that for economic purposes and less complicated construction, it is
advantageous to select the slab with 120 mm bamboo strip spacing as prototype of concrete
reinforced with weaved bamboo strips.
Unlike other studies which focused on flexural strength, Li, et al. (2007) did an
experimental and numerical study on steel wire mesh reinforced concrete slab under contact
explosion. In this study, a composite slab design aiming at high level blast resistance was
investigated. In the matrix of high strength self-compacting concrete, besides conventional
rebars serving as primary reinforcement, steel wire meshes were embedded and served as
secondary reinforcements. Moreover, on the concrete cover layer where the tensile cracks
locate, steel fibers were added to provide micros crack-bridging effect. Composite slab with
optimal design were field tested under 1 kg TNT contact detonation, and the results were
compared with slabs made of conventional and ultra-high performance concrete without
steel wire meshes. The results demonstrate that slab with steel wire mesh reinforcement
developed localized membrane effect when subjected to blast loads and showed better blast
resistant capability as compared to the slabs without steel wire meshes.
A similar study dealing with wire mesh as reinforcement, Elavarasan, etc. (2016)
evaluated the performance of concrete slabs enhanced with ferrocement, but against impact
and fire exposure. The plain cement mortar of 1:3 mix ratio reinforced with two types of
reinforcing wire meshes was studied. Steel meshes with wire woven hexagonal openings
and galvanized iron mesh were compared with their performance against impact and fire
exposure. The testing program included impact load testing, projectile impact test using
projectile (steel ball) of a diameter of 12.5 mm and impact load testing done after subjecting
the slabs to heat in oven reaching a temperature of 110 degrees Celsius for 24 hours. The
main findings showed that the use of the ferrocement as a reinforcement to concrete slabs
enhanced the perforation resistance and reduce the heat transfer through the thinner
thickness of the steel mesh reinforced cement matrix.

11
 In addition to all these past studies, the main reference of this study was the design
and behavior analysis of prefabricated modular ferrocement floor slab system for interior
application which focused on creating a new interior floor slab system conducted by Opon
(2014) since he evaluated the flexural strength of concrete slabs reinforced with wire mesh,
which is very similar to what this study is about.
A water-cement ratio of 0.485 and cement-sand ratio of 1:2.75 was applied. The
wire mesh reinforcement used was a galvanized square welded mesh with ¾” x ¾” opening
of 0.95 mm thickness due to economical purposes. A 600 mm x 600 mm with a computed
thickness of 40 mm was the final design output, with 8 mm skeletal steels that served as
connection studs to joist. Two layers of 0.95 mm square welded wire mesh was the result
of the calculation using the basic occupancy rating for residential loads.
Based on the results, the behavior of the ferrocement modules to applied loading
conforms to the theoretical formulations for ferrocement modules and the flooring system
loads computed by the author. The carrying capacity of the slabs is observed to have
doubled than what was expected. All requirements for serviceability and flexural strength
were attained substantially. There was also a 7.47% cost saving in terms of material cost,
labor cost, and equipment cost. The cost savings were further supplemented by the
additional cost savings because of the reduction of the dead weight of the slab system. This
reduction in dead weight likewise reduces the requirement for the sizes of beams, columns,
and footing.
The results showed that ferrocement is an excellent and safe technology for an
interior prefabricated modular slab design and there is economic savings in the ferrocement
slab system.

2.11 Theoretical Framework

For concrete slabs, there are many designs to increase the strength-to-weight ratio.
It can be designed as a corrugated slab, ribbed slab, one-way, or two-way. For construction,
it may be precast, pre-stressed, or fabricated on site. There are also varying parameters such
as the type of materials to be used. For this study, the researchers designed the slab as two-
way, precast, and non-prestressed. The materials used in this study were cement, water,
fine and coarse aggregates.
Another parameter is the selection of the type of reinforcement. There are several
types of materials that can be used as reinforcement such as steel, fibers, and bamboo.
Among these reinforcements, the most commonly used is steel. There are also variances in
12
the types of steel that can be used. Aside from the traditional steel bars, there are also G.I
sheets and wire mesh like chicken wires. In this study, the researchers introduced the use
of welded wire mesh as reinforcement in concrete slab.
Many tests can be done in order to evaluate the structural capacity of the concrete
slab. Some test methods can be completely nondestructive and some are slightly
destructive. Tests can be done to evaluate the compressive strength, flexural strength, blast
resistance, impact resistance, and fire resistance. This study aimed to evaluate the effects
of welded wire mesh to concrete slab in terms of its flexural capacity by conducting
compressive and flexural tests.

𝑇𝑦𝑝𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑙𝑎𝑏

𝑆𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑛
𝑅𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑑

𝐸𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙
𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦

Figure 2.1 Theoretical Framework

13
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the selection of the materials and the procedure in production
adopted in the study herein are described. The materials used in the investigation are
described with respect to their sources and physical properties of constituent materials, and
the flexural capacity of welded wire mesh concrete slab. The general procedure was to
design a step by step methodology and would be followed by the researcher in this study.
See Figure 3.1.

𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠

𝐷𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛 𝑃ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝐹𝑎𝑏𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑃ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑃ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑃ℎ𝑎𝑠𝑒

𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑠

𝐸𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝐴𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑠

Figure 3.1 Flowchart of the Study

14
3.1 Preliminary Tests
Laboratory tests for cement, fine aggregates (sand), coarse aggregate (gravel),
reinforced steel bars (6 mm Ø and 8 mm Ø) and WWM must be performed to determine
the mechanical properties. The following ASTM Standards were used to test the materials
in the study.

3.1.1 Cement
In this investigation, all trials and final mixes were conducted using Type I
Portland Cement that conforms to the ASTM C150-859 Standard specifications.
The unit weight and fine modulus of cement were obtained.

3.1.2 Water
The water used in the preparation of all mixes was an ordinary tap water
which was free from any organic and harmful solutions. The water source was
obtained from Iligan City Water Work System through the MSU-IIT’s distribution
line.

3.1.3 Aggregates
The physical properties of aggregates for the sand and gravel were
determined. The aggregates were clean, free from organic matter and relatively free
from silt and clay. The sand was a fine aggregate which passes Sieve No. 4. The
gravel was a normal weight coarse aggregate with a maximum size of 12.5 mm
(passing No. 1/2 Sieve and retaining in No.4 Sieve). The sand and gravel were
obtained from Mandulog River quarry, made commercially available by a local
construction outlet in Brgy. Hinaplanon, Iligan City. ASTM C29, ASTM C127,
ASTM C128, ASTM C117, ASTM C136 and ASTM C566 were used in
determining the absorption, moisture content, unit weight and fineness modulus of
aggregates.

3.1.4 Reinforcing Steel Bars

Steel bars were used for both longitudinal and transverse direction of the
slab. The steel bars used were 6 mm Ø and 8 mm Ø deformed steel bars which was
cut at 500 mm. The bars were subjected to tensile strength test (ASTM E8) to
characterize its mechanical properties, which were used in the analysis of the study.
One test sample for every diameter of steel bar was subjected to tensile test using

15
the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) at Megatesting Center, Inc at Gusa, Cagayan
De Oro City. The outputs obtained from the tests were used to evaluate the yield
strength (fy) of the steel bars.

3.1.5 Welded Wire Mesh

Square welded galvanized mesh 2”x2”x1/8” gauge was used as
reinforcement for the concrete slab. The choice of this particular type of mesh is
decided by one of the professors and the researchers because of its economic value
and availability. The mesh was obtained from one of the local construction outlets
available in Iligan City. It was purchased from Krisland Hardware. Three (3) test
samples were subjected to tensile test using UTM at LYL Development
Corporation. The average result of the three samples were used to evaluate the yield
strength (fy) of the WWM.

Figure 3.2 Welded Wire Mesh

3.1.6 Concrete Mix Design

The concrete mix proportion was determined by the results obtained from
the physical properties of the materials used. It was determined by weight to ensure
consistent quality and workability. After obtaining the concrete mix proportion,
ASTM C143 was conducted to determine the workability of the fresh concrete. And
for the hardened concrete, the unit weight and the compressive strength (f’c) were
obtained by the used of cylinder samples.

16
3.2 Design Phase
In this study, the concrete slab design was based on the NSCP 2015 requirements.
The slab assumes the typical square area with 500 mm x 500 mm on each side shown in
Fig. 3.3 on the next page. However, the basis of the design of the slab thickness was based
on the requirement of strength presented in the Table 3.1. The concrete cover was also
determined based on the specified concrete cover requirements in NSCP 2015 which is also
shown in Table 3.1.
There were three types of reinforcements used in this study. For the square welded
wire mesh reinforcement, its openings must not exceed 50mm. For 6 mm Ø deformed steel
bars and 8 mm Ø deformed steel bars, the spacing of reinforcements was 150 mm. Dead
and live loads were determined assuming the basic occupancy rating and including the dead
weight of the slab. The design ultimate moment was calculated in accordance with the load
factors requirement.
The details of the design of concrete slab specimens are shown in Table 3.2.

Table 3.1 NSCP 2015 Requirements for Concrete Slab Design

NSCP 2015 Code Specifications Requirements Provided

For non-prestressed slabs without

interior beams spanning between
supports on all sides, having a
Minimum slab thickness (Section 408,
maximum ratio of long-to-short t = 60 mm
Table 408.3.1.1)
span of 2, overall slab thickness t
shall not be less than the limits in
Table 408.3.1.1

Concrete exposure for slabs,

Specified concrete cover requirements joists, and walls not exposed to
for non-prestressed cast-in-place weather or in contact with
cc = 20 mm
concrete members (Section 420, Table ground with reinforcements of
420.6.1.3.1) 36 mm Ø bars and smaller (6
mm Ø and 8 mm Ø)

17
3.2.1 Sketches of Slab Specimen

All dimensions are

expressed in mm.

Figure 3.3 Reinforced Steel Bars for 6mm Ø and 8mm Ø

All dimensions are

expressed in mm.

Figure 3.4 Reinforced WWM Concrete Slab

18
Table 3.2 Design of the Slab Specimen
Length of specimen 500 mm

Width of specimen 500 mm

Thickness of specimen 60 mm

Clear concrete cover 20 mm

Diameter of concrete spacer 25 mm

Height of concrete spacer 20 mm

Spacing of 6 mm ∅ bar 150 mm

Spacing of 8 mm ∅ bar 150 mm

Number of 6 mm ∅ required 6 pcs.

Number of 8 mm ∅ required 6 pcs.

Age of concrete 28 days

W/C ratio 0.44

Cement/Sand/Gravel ratio 1.00 : 2.54 : 2.39

3.3 Fabrication Phase

This involves the preparation of materials needed, fabrication of molds, and
fabrication of specimens that were used in this study. The preparation for reinforcements
for specimens, the 6 mm Ø deformed steel bars, 8 mm Ø deformed steel bars, and WWM
which were used in the study. The fabrication of molds was made by a skilled carpenter.

3.3.1 Preparation of 6 mm Ø Reinforcements

Steel bars were used for both longitudinal and transverse direction of the
slab. Steel reinforcement used was a 6 mm Ø deformed steel bars which was cut at
500 mm. Steel bars were tied using 16 – gauge tie wire of 300 mm long each, in
order for the bars to remain in its desired position during the application of the
concrete mix. A total of eighteen (18) bars was cut at the specified dimension, six
(6) bars for every specimen, a total of three (3) slab specimen reinforced with steel
bars were used for this test, with a slab thickness (t) of 60 mm.

3.3.2 Preparation of 8 mm Ø Reinforcements

Steel bars were used for both longitudinal and transverse direction of the
slab. Steel Reinforcement used was an 8 mm Ø deformed steel bars which was cut

19
at 500 mm. Steel bars were tied using 16-gauge tie wire of 300 mm long each, in
order for the bars to remain in its desired position during the application of the
concrete mix. A total of eighteen (18) bars was cut at the specified dimension, six
(6) bars for every specimen, a total of three (3) slab specimen reinforced with steel
bars were used for this test, with a slab thickness of 60 mm.

Figure 3.5 Cutting of Steel Bars

3.3.3 Preparation of Welded Wire Mesh

A total of three (3) plain square welded galvanized mesh 2” x 2” x 1/8”
gauge was cut at 500 mm x 500 mm dimension. A total of three (3) slab specimen
reinforced with WWM were used in the study, with a slab thickness of 60 mm.

Figure 3.6 Cutting of Wire Mesh

20
3.3.4 Preparation of Mold for Slab Specimen
The molds for the slab samples were made of 3 mm thick marine plywood
and framed with a 50 mm x 50 mm lumber, having a dimension of 500 mm x 500
mm x 60 mm. A total of twelve (12) molds were made; three (3) samples for slab
specimen with no reinforcement, three (3) samples for slab specimen with 6 mm Ø
reinforcement, three (3) samples for slab specimen with 8 mm Ø reinforcement and
three (3) samples for slab specimen reinforced with WWM. Proper care and
handling must be observed in fabricating the forms or molds of slab to minimize
errors.

Figure 3.7 Mold for Specimens

3.3.5 Preparation of Concrete Slab Specimen

The concrete slab specimen was a WWM reinforced concrete slab with a
thickness of 60 mm. A total of three WWM reinforced concrete slab specimens
were made, three specimens for every different variation which would be compared
to the reinforced steel bars concrete slab.

21
Table 3.3 Designation of the Slab Concrete Specimens

Type of
Slab Designation No. of Samples Type of Test
Specimen

S-1
No Rebars S-2 3 Flexural Capacity
S-3
S-4
6 mm Ø DSB S-6 3 Flexural Capacity
S-7
S-9
8 mm Ø DSB S-10 3 Flexural Capacity
S-11
S-13
WWM
(2” x 2” x 1/8” S-14 3 Flexural Capacity
gauge)
S-15

3.3.6 Mixing
The concrete mix proportion was obtained by weight of cement, fine
aggregate and coarse aggregate which was handled by the use of a concrete mixer
which must conform to ASTM C192 Standards. The constituent materials were
accurately weighed to ensure the water-cement ratio was kept. During initial mix
80 percent of the water was added, while the remaining 20 percent was used in the
final mixing process.

Figure 3.8 Concrete Mixing

22
3.3.7 Casting
A total of twelve (12) slab specimens were made to perform the tests, three
specimens for plain concrete slab, six specimens for reinforced steel bars concrete
slab and three reinforced WWM concrete slab with a slab thickness of 60 mm. The
inside portions of the molds were oiled using a paint brush to ensure easy
demolding. The fresh concrete mix was placed in the mold using a scoop, trowel
and a shovel to prevent segregation during the molding of the specimens. The
concrete was distributed with the use of a tamping rod prior to start of consolidation.
It was placed into the mold into three layers and tamped with 25 blows. In placing
the final layer, small amount of concrete was added to completely fill the mold.
Proper finishing was also recommended to ensure good surface finish of the
concrete slab specimen. For cylinder specimens, a total of three (3) cylinders was
made with a 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height standard cylinders for cylindrical
compressive strength, three layers of concrete was placed in the mold and were
tamped with 25 blows every layer.

Figure 3.9 Casting of Slab Samples

3.3.8 Demolding
After allowing the fresh concrete to harden for 24 hours, the slabs were then
sufficiently safe for the demolding process. Extra care was observed to minimize
damage and disturbance of the samples while progressively attain the required
strength.

23
 Figure 3.10 Removal of Molds

3.4 Curing Phase

The concrete slab specimens were covered with non-absorbent and durable plastic
to prevent evaporation of water from unhardened concrete. Once the concrete slab
specimens and cylinder specimens have been set for 24 hours in the mold, remove the
specimens from their mold then store for about 28 days. The curing technique used in this
study was a moist curing technique, keeping the specimens in contact with a water source
for almost 28 days until the day of testing. For the curing of cylinders, after the samples
were air-dried for 24 hours, they were brought to CET – Material Testing Laboratory for
capping of cylinders using the method of Sulphur capping.

Figure 3.11 Curing of Specimens

24
3.5 Load Testing

3.5.1 Tensile Strength of Reinforcements

The cut reinforced steel bars and square welded wire mesh were brought to
LYL Development Corporation in Cagayan de Oro to obtained its designated tensile
strength. The test was conducted in accordance to ASTM E8. One (1) steel bar for
every diameter (6mmØ and 8mmØ) cut at 500mm and three (3) WWM test samples
were subjected to a tensile test using UTM. The outputs obtained from the test
would be used to evaluate the yield strength (fy) by the average results of the three
samples of the deformed steel bars and WWM.

Figure 3.12 Tensile Testing

3.5.2 Compressive Strength

For concrete strength requirement according to ASTM C39, all 3 cylinder
specimens were cured for 28 days old. After 28 days of curing process, the unit
weight of the concrete cylinder test specimen was determined by carefully weighing
and measuring. Using the Universal Testing Machine, compressive load was
applied to the specimen. The total maximum load as indicated by the testing
machine were recorded.

The compressive strength can be calculated using the formula:

𝑃
𝜎𝑐 = (𝐸𝑞. 3.1)
𝐴
where:
𝜎𝑐 = compressive strength of concrete cubes (MPa)
P = applied force (N)

25
 A = cross sectional area of the concrete cubes (mm2)

Figure 3.13 Compressive Strength Testing of Cylinders

3.5.3 Flexural Capacity

3.5.3.a Theoretical Load

To be able to get the theoretical load, the compressive strength of
concrete and tensile strength of steel reinforcement were obtained first. We
assumed that the load was a central point load or a concentrated load on a
simply supported rectangular plate or slab, to be able to incorporate the
Theory of Plates and Shells (Timoshenko, 1989). In Fig 3.14 shows the
geometry under consideration.

Figure 3.14 Simply Supported on All Edges with Central Load

26
 Using Navier’s method to be able to get the deflection and bending
moments of a simply supported on all edges with a central point load. From
the equations and table given there, in the case of a load P applied at the
center of the plate, for the maximum deflection, we can get the value of the
numerical factor ⍺ for the value of the ratio 𝑏/𝑎 for 1 which is ⍺ = 0.0364
and also to get the bending moments 𝑀𝐴 and 𝑀𝐵 for concentrated load, since
𝑏 = 𝑎, then 𝑀 = 𝑀𝐴 = 𝑀𝐵 = ⍺P = 0.0364P (Timoshenko, 1959). After
obtaining the bending moment, other parameters are then calculated using
the equations below which conforms to NSCP 2015 requirements for
concrete slab design. Note that the unsupported length is 420 mm since the
platform supports both sides of the slab of about 40 mm.

First, steel ratio (𝜌) is obtained by using this equation:

𝐴𝑠
𝜌= (𝐸𝑞. 3.2)
𝑏𝑑

where:

𝐴𝑠 = tension steel area, mm2

𝑏 = width of the slab, mm
𝑑 = effective depth of the slab, mm

Second, tension reinforcement index (𝜔) is calculated by using this

equation:

𝑓𝑦
𝜔= 𝜌 (𝐸𝑞. 3.3)
𝑓′𝑐

where: 𝑓𝑦 = tensile strength of reinforcement, MPa

𝑓′𝑐 = compressive strength of concrete, MPa

Third, coefficient of resistance (𝑅𝑢 ) is attained by using this equation:

𝜔
𝑅𝑢 = 𝜔 𝑓′𝑐 (1 − ) (𝐸𝑞. 3.4)
1.7

Fourth, the value of the ultimate moment capacity (𝑀𝑢 ) is obtained by using
this equation:

𝑀𝑢 = ∅ 𝑅𝑢 𝑏𝑑2 (𝐸𝑞. 3.5)

27
 To get the theoretical load (P), the value of 𝑀𝑢 is substituted to the
obtained equation below, from the Theory of Plates and Shells:

𝑀𝑛 = 0.0146𝑃 (𝐸𝑞. 3.6)

Figure 3.15 Design for Flexural Capacity Testing for Slabs

Figure 3.16 Flexural Capacity Testing for Slabs

28
3.6 Statistical Test

3.6.1 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models used to
analyze the differences among group means and their associated procedures.
ANOVA tests the hypothesis that the means of two or more populations are equal.
ANOVA assesses the importance of one or more factors by comparing the
response variable means at the different factor levels. ANOVA assumes that all
population involved follow a normal distribution and have equal variance. Also
samples are randomly selected and independent of one another.

The following steps for the application of ANOVA are provided:

Step 1: State the null and alternative hypothesis.

H0: all sample mean is equal
H1: at least one mean is different.
Step 2: Compute the observed F value using the formula given below.
a. Sample Mean (𝒙
̅) – is the ratio of each data of sample and the total number
of samples. Mathematically,
𝑥
𝑥̅ = (𝐸𝑞. 3.7)
𝑛
b. Population Mean (μ) – is the ratio of each data of sample and the total
number of population.
𝑥
μ= (𝐸𝑞. 3.8)
𝑁
where: x = each data of sample
n = total number of samples

c. Sample Standard Deviation (s) – is the amount of dispersion of sample

from average.

∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )2
s=√ (𝐸𝑞. 3.9)
𝑛−1

where: xi = represents each value in the population

𝑥̅ = mean value of the sample
n = number of values in the sample

29
d. Population Standard Deviation (σ) – is the square root of variance

∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − μ)2
σ= √ (𝐸𝑞. 3.10)
𝑁

where: xi = represents each value in the population

μ = mean value of the population
N = the total number of population

e. Total Sum of Squares (SST) – is the total variation in the data. It is the
sum of the squares between and within variation.
2
SST = ∑𝑟𝑖=1 ∑𝑐𝑗=1(𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥̅ ) (𝐸𝑞. 3.11)
where: r = number of rows in the table
c = number of columns in the table
𝑥̅ = grand mean
𝑥𝑖𝑗 = ith observation in the jth column
∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑗
𝑥̅ = (𝐸𝑞. 3.12)
𝑁
where:
N = total number of population
f. Treatment Sum of Squares (SST) – it is the variation in the data between
in the different samples.
𝑟
2
SSTR = ∑(𝑥𝑗 − 𝑥̅ ) (𝐸𝑞. 3.13)
𝑗=1

where: rj = number of rows in the jth treatment

𝑥̅𝑗 = mean of the jth treatment

g. Error of Squares (SSE) – it is the variation in the data from each

individual treatment.
2
SSE = ∑ ∑(𝑥𝑖𝑗 − 𝑥̅𝑗 ) (𝐸𝑞. 3.14)

SST = SSTR + SSE (𝐸𝑞. 3.15)

30
 h. Total Mean Squares (MST) – it is the average total variation in the data.
SST
MST = (𝐸𝑞. 3.16)
𝑁−1

i. Mean Square Treatment (MSTR) - it is the average between variations.

SSTR
MSTR = (𝐸𝑞. 3.17)
𝑐−1

j. Mean Square Error (MSE) – it is the average within variation.

SSE
MSE = (𝐸𝑞. 3.18)
𝑁−𝑐
Note: MSE ≠ MSTR + MSE

k. Statistical Test of ANOVA (F) – it is the ratio of MSTR and MSE.

MSTR
𝐹= (𝐸𝑞. 3.19)
MSE

Step 3: Compute the critical F value (FCV)

To find the critical value from the F distribution you must know the
numerator (MSTR) and denominator (MSE) degrees of freedom, along with the
significance level. FCV has dfi and df2 degrees of freedom, where dfi is the numerator
degrees of freedom equal 𝑐 − 1 and df2 is the denominator degrees of freedom equal
𝑁 − 𝑐. The vaule is obtained using F-tables.

Step 4: Decision Rule

Reject the null hypothesis if the observed F value is greater than the critical
F value.

Step 5: Determine which mean(s) is/are different.

In rejecting the null hypothesis, a common technique called Least
Significant Difference Test is used to determine which mean(s) is/are different.
Least Significant Difference for a balanced sample:

2(𝑀𝑆𝐸)(𝐹1,𝑁−𝑐 )
LSD = √ (𝐸𝑞. 3.20)
𝑟

where: r = number of rows in each treatment

31
 If the absolute value of the difference between any two treatment means is
greater than LSD, then they are not statistically equal.

3.7 Economic Analysis

The cost analysis of this study was obtained based on the comparison of the
reinforced steel bars of 6 mm Ø DSB or 8 mm Ø DSB concrete slab vs. WWM (2” x 2” x
1/8” gauge) concrete slab fabrication costs. For the cost estimate, only the material cost
was included to make the study more specific. The labor cost and the cost of formworks
were neglected in the calculation because of their great variability in relation to the
manpower needed, length of time to finish the fabrication, availability and type of
formworks needed, and other related factors. All material requirements were listed, counted
and valued according to the price by which they were obtained. Material estimation include
cement, gravel, sand and reinforcements with a concrete mix design of 1.00: 2.54: 2.39
cured for 28 days to attain its strength requirement. Units for cement, gravel and sand were
all in kilograms (kgs.). And for the reinforcements were all in meters (m) or square meters
(m2). All are in metric units.

This section also presents the evaluation of the viability of the slab concrete design
in terms of cost per strength capacity. The concept of the analysis of cost per strength
capacity can be explained as follows. Lower cost and lower strength capacity simply mean
that the design has a poor quality, while higher cost and higher strength capacity indicate
that the design has a good quality. However, higher cost and lower strength capacity signify
that the quality was being sacrificed. Fortunately, lower cost but higher strength capacity
will produce the best design in terms of safety and economy. Therefore, the design with the
lowest cost to strength capacity ratio would be more economic and must be selected
(Cantila, 2015).

32
 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the results obtained from the preliminary tests and
experimental tests. It also discusses the interpretation of data.

4.1 Quality Testing of Constituent Materials

All materials used in this research went through preliminary tests to make sure that
they pass the minimum requirements specified in several codes.

4.1.1 Quality Test for Fine Aggregate

The sand used in this study was taken near Mandulog River, Hinaplanon,
Iligan City. A sample was taken by the researchers to conduct preliminary tests.
Table 4.1 shows the result from the tests that were made.

4.1.2 Quality Test for Coarse Aggregate

The gravel used in this study was also taken near Mandulog River,
Hinaplanon, Iligan City. The researchers took a representative sample to conduct
some preliminary tests. Table 4.1 shows the result from the tests that were made.

Table 4.1 Quality Testing of Aggregates

FINE AGGREGATE (SAND)

Test Results
Sieve Analysis ASTM C 33
% Passing REMARKS
(Sieve Size) Requirement
3/8" 100 100 PASSED
No. 4 95-100 100 PASSED
No. 8 80-100 69 FAILED
No. 16 50-85 41 FAILED
No. 30 25-60 22 FAILED
No. 50 5-30 7 PASSED
No. 100 0-10 3 PASSED
No. 200 n/a 1
Pan n/a

33
Table 4.1 (cont’d)
FINE AGGREGATE
Fineness Modulus 3.58
Moisture Content 8.46
Bulk Specific Gravity 2.67
Absorption 5.26
COARSE AGGREGATE

Bulk Specific Gravity 2.33

Moisture Content 4.33 %
Absorption 2.04 %
Bulk Density (Loose) 1547.97 kg/m3
Bulk Density (Dry-rodded) 1697.56 kg/m3

As observed in Table 4.1, the sieve analysis for the fine aggregate did not
pass all the requirements. Three of the sieve sizes were not able to reach the range
that the ASTM C33 requires. Despite of the results, the sand tested was still used as
the fine aggregate of the concrete mix. According to the study of Balitsaris (2012),
slump of concrete is significantly affected by deviations in fine aggregate gradation.
His study also concluded that greater workability can be expected for fine aggregate
distributions that are rich in coarse sand. It was also observed that changes in
gradation slightly influenced the compressive strength of concrete.

4.1.3 Steel Bars

In this study, two kinds of reinforcement bars were used, namely 8mm
diameter bar and 6mm diameter bar. One test sample for every diameter was tested.
The test results represented the actual yield strength of the rebar. As observed in
Table 4.2, the results of the yield strength and ultimate strength of 6 mm Ø bars
were greater than the 8 mm Ø bars.

Table 4.2 Tensile Test Results of Steel Bars

Type of Reinforcement Yield Strength, fy (MPa) Ultimate Strength, fu (MPa)
6 mm Ø 796 1432
8 mm Ø 424 920

34
 4.1.4 Welded Wire Mesh (WWM) Reinforcement
In this study, a welded wire mesh with diameter of 3.5 mm and 2-inch mesh
opening was used as a reinforcement in the concrete slab. Three single strands as
representative samples were tested and the average value of the results represented
the actual yield strength of the single strand. Table 4.4 below shows the results of
the tests done for the WWM using a single strand.

Table 4.3 Tensile Strength Results of WWM using a Single Strand

Test No. Ultimate Strength, fu (MPa)
1 913
2 915
3 1101
Average 976.33

Compared to the results of steel bars in Table 4.2, the average ultimate
strength of WWM was bigger. According to the LYL Development Corporation,
there were no data obtained for its yield strength.

4.1.5 Cylinder Specimens

To obtain the compressive strength of the concrete, the standard test method
for compressive strength of cylinders (ASTM C39) was used. Three cylinders were
casted and were cured for 28 days. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show the data of the
specimens.

Table 4.4 Unit Weight of Concrete Test Result

Diameter of Mold, d = 0.1524 m Height Mold, h = 0.3048 m
Sample Weight (kg) Volume (m3) Unit Weight (kg/m3)
C1 12.42 0.00549 2261.90
C2 12.60 0.00554 2273.68
C3 12.60 0.00551 2287.13
Average 2274.24

35
Table 4.5 Compressive Strength of Concrete Result
Load at Yield, Py Area, A Compressive
Sample
(kN) (mm2) Strength, f’c (MPa)
C1 387.63 18122 21.39
C2 378.51 18110 20.90
C3 321.28 18122 17.73
Average 20.01

Table 4.5 shows the average unit weight of concrete which is 2274.24 kg/m3
using the cylinder specimens. The result was acceptable because it ranged from 140
pcf to 175 pcf. It was classified as normal concrete (Jamal, 2017). Table 4.6 shows
the average compressive strength of concrete which is 20.01 MPa. It passed the
minimum requirement in the NSCP 2015 which is 17 MPa.

C1 C2 C3
Figure 4.1 Compressive Strength Test of Cylindrical Molds

The figure above shows the types of fracture when the cylinders were tested
for compressive strength. All of the specimens showed a cone–shear type of
fracture. According to the Concrete Producer (2018), concrete with high sand
contents may fail in the shear mode. This was proven true because the concrete mix
ratio used showed that the sand content is greater than the gravel content.

4.2 Prototype Load Test Result

4.2.1 28-day old Concrete Slab Specimens
There were a total of twelve concrete slab specimens tested using a
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) by applying a central load to the slabs induced
by the plate of the UTM. The specimens were divided into four groups. The first

36
 group was the slabs with no rebars, the second group was the slabs with 6 mm
diameter rebars, the third group was the slabs with 8 mm diameter rebars and the
last group was the slabs with welded wire mesh. All the samples were tested to
determine their 28th day strength. Table 4.7 shows the ultimate central load that each
slab can carry and its crack patterns.

Table 4.6 Load Testing Results and Crack Patterns of Different Concrete Slabs
Sample Designation Load at Yield, Py (kN) Crack Patterns
S-1 35.53 Flexural Cracks
No Rebar

S-2 34.03 Flexural Cracks

S-3 27.94 Flexural Cracks
Average 32.50
S-4 45.72 Flexural Cracks
6 mm Ø

S-6 43.00 Flexural Cracks

rebar

S-7 44.00 Flexural Cracks

Average 44.24
S-9 45.00 Flexural Cracks
8 mm Ø

S-10 46.00 Flexural Cracks

rebar

S-11 44.00 Flexural Cracks

Average 45.00
S-13 63.00 Flexural Cracks
S-14 63.00 Flexural Cracks
WWM

S-15 54.00 Flexural Cracks

Average 60.00

70
60
60
50 44.24 45
LOAD (KN)

40
32.5
30
20
10
0
No Rebars 6mmØ 8mmØ WWM
TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT

Figure 4.2 Average Actual Loads of Concrete Slab Specimens

37
 As shown in the Figure 4.2, the WWM reinforced concrete slab had the
biggest average load capacity. It was then followed by the 8mm Ø reinforced
concrete slab, 6mm Ø reinforced concrete slab and lastly, the non-reinforced
concrete slab. It was observed that reinforcements increase the strength of concrete
specimens. It was also seen that WWM can be a good substitute to steel bars as
reinforcement in concrete slabs.

4.2.2 Flexural Capacity

In obtaining the theoretical flexural capacity, the compressive strength of
concrete and tensile strength of reinforcements used were the average results
obtained during the testing. Other parameters like steel ratio, tension reinforcement
index, coefficient of resistance were also obtained.
The results showed that the theoretical loads of 8 mm Ø and WWM
reinforced concrete slabs were similar. Also, it can be observed that WWM
reinforced concrete slabs had both the greatest actual and theoretical loads among
the three.

Table 4.7 Average Actual and Theoretical Loads of the Concrete Slab Specimens
Types of Reinforcement Actual Load (kN) Theoretical Load (kN)
6 mm Ø 44.24 12.29
8 mm Ø 45 13.91
Welded Wire Mesh 60 13.90

As seen in Table 4.7, the actual and theoretical loads had large differences
with each other. They cannot be compared directly because the theoretical load is
the load at yield while the actual load is the ultimate load carried by the slab.

4.2.3 Behavior of Cracks

As seen in the tables above, the crack patterns of the twelve slab specimens
were similar. All the slabs showed flexural cracks after testing. Appendix F shows
the images of the crack patterns of the top and bottom of the 28-day old concrete
slab specimens with and without reinforcements. It was observed that the first group
of specimens showed severe and large crack sizes both in the top and bottom. This

38
 was because there are no reinforcements that could prevent too much cracking. The
last three groups of specimens did not show clear cracks in the top portion but
showed very visible crack sizes in the bottom. A study showed that when the bottom
of the slabs displayed more severe and larger crack sizes, it is because the bottom
part is under tensile forces. (Opon, 2014) It was also seen that the WWM reinforced
concrete slabs showed less crack compared to the other groups.
It was also observed that the slabs with reinforcement were still unseparated
from each other, even though large cracks were seen. This was mainly because of
the presence of the reinforcements.

Figure 4.3 Sample Specimen with Cracking Patterns

4.3 Comparing the Actual Loads Among the Samples

This study also aimed to compare the actual values of the load carried by each type
of concrete slabs. The average value of the actual capacities of each type of reinforcement
was used.
ANOVA was used to evaluate the equality of the average capacity values among
groups of samples (see Appendix G). In using this test, the null hypothesis is accepted when
the calculated F-value is less than the critical F-value. Otherwise, the null hypothesis is
rejected. However, in rejecting the null hypothesis, the common test called Least
Significant Difference (LSD) is used to verify which mean(s) is/are different. If the absolute
value of the difference between any two treatment means is greater than LSD, then they are
not statistically equal.

39
 As shown in the results (Appendix G, Table 2), the calculated F-value (33.1) was
greater the critical F-value (4.07). Hence, the null hypothesis which states that “All groups
of slab samples have similar actual capacities” was rejected. However, in rejecting the null
hypothesis, the LSD test was employed, the results of which are presented in Table G.3.

Table 4.8 LSD Test Results for Comparison of Actual Capacities

Comparison |x̄1 - x̄2| LSD Comment
None vs 6mm : 11.74 > 6.39 Not equal
None vs 8mm : 12.5 > 6.39 Not equal
None vs WWM : 27.5 > 6.39 Not equal
6mm vs 8mm : 0.76 < 6.39 Equal
6mm vs WWM : 15.76 > 6.39 Not equal
8mm vs WWM : 15 > 6.39 Not equal

First, in comparing the absolute difference between None vs 6 mm reinforced

samples, the average actual capacities at failure between these groups of samples are not
equal because the calculated LSD value of 11.74 was greater than the theoretical LSD value
of 6.39. Second, in comparing the absolute difference between None vs 8 mm reinforced
samples, the average actual capacities at failure between these groups of samples are not
equal because the calculated LSD value of 12.5 was greater than the theoretical LSD value
of 6.39. Third, in comparing the absolute difference between None vs WWM reinforced
samples, the average actual capacities at failure between these groups of samples are not
equal because the calculated LSD value of 27.5 was greater than the theoretical LSD value
of 6.39. Fourth, in comparing the absolute difference between 6 mm vs 8 mm reinforced
samples, the average actual capacities at failure between these groups of samples are equal
because the calculated LSD value of 0.76 was less than the theoretical LSD value of 6.39.
Fifth, in comparing the absolute difference between 6 mm vs WWM reinforced samples,
the average actual capacities at failure between these groups of samples are not equal
because the calculated LSD value of 15.76 is greater than the theoretical LSD value of 6.39.
Finally, in comparing the absolute difference between 8 mm vs WWM reinforced samples,
the average actual capacities at failure between these groups of samples are not equal
because the calculated LSD value of 15 is greater than the theoretical LSD value of 6.39.

40
4.4 Direct Cost Analysis

The direct cost analysis was based on the bill of materials for the fabrication of the
floor concrete slab specimen of about 0.50 m x 0.50 m x 0.060 m with reinforcements
varying from 6mm Ø, 8mm Ø and 2”x2”x1/8” gauge WWM. The cost of materials was
based on the prices at the time the materials were brought for the purposes of this research.
The researchers noted that these prices may constantly change which would greatly affect
the results presented in this particular section.
Table 4.8 is the program of work used to construct the floor concrete slab
specimens. It can be seen that the following items of work should be materialized in order
to construct the conventional system: structural concrete works, steel works, formworks
and removal of forms. The prices of materials used in the cost evaluation were the prices
at the time of purchase of the material for the fabrication of slab concrete samples.
As what the name implies, this cost analysis only included direct costs which are
the material costs. It did not include indirect costs like labor costs.

120
102.16
100 96.79
85.16
TOTAL COST (PHP)

80

60 53.38

40

20

0
No Reinf 6mmØ 8mmØ WWM
TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT

Figure 4.4 Cost Analysis of the Concrete Slab Specimens

As observed in the figure below, the cost of 8mm diameter reinforced concrete slab
was the highest. It was followed by the cost of WWM reinforced concrete slab, then the
6mm diameter bar reinforced concrete slab and lastly, is the non-reinforced concrete slab.
It was obvious that the non-reinforced slab had the lowest cost because it does not have
reinforcements in it.

41
Table 4.9 Material Cost Evaluation of the Concrete Slab Specimens

Material/Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

Cement 3.00 kgs. 0.78 /kg. ₱ 2.33
Reinforced

Gravel 7.18 kgs. 0.88 /kg. ₱ 6.28

Non-

Sand 7.62 kgs. 5.88 /kg. ₱ 44.77

Cost of Non-Reinforced Concrete per slab (0.015m3): ₱ 53.38
Cement 3.00 kgs. 0.78 /kg. ₱ 2.33
6mmØ Reinforced

Gravel 7.18 kgs. 0.88 /kg. ₱ 6.28

Sand 7.62 kgs. 5.88 /kg. ₱ 44.77
6mmØ DSB 3.00 m 8.58 /m ₱ 25.75
#16 Gauge Tire Wire 0.27 m 22.33 /m ₱ 6.03
Cost of 6mmØ Reinforced Concrete per slab (0.015m3): ₱ 85.16
Cement 3.00 kgs. 0.78 /kg. ₱ 2.33
8mmØ Reinforced

Gravel 7.18 kgs. 0.88 /kg. ₱ 6.28

Sand 7.62 kgs. 5.88 /kg. ₱ 44.77
8mmØ DSB 3.00 m 14.25 /m ₱ 42.75
#16 Gauge Tire Wire 0.27 m 22.33 /m ₱ 6.03
Cost of 8mmØ Reinforced Concrete per slab (0.015m3): ₱ 102.16
Cement 3.00 kgs. 0.78 /kg. ₱ 2.33
WWM Reinforced

Gravel 7.18 kgs. 0.88 /kg. ₱ 6.28

Sand 7.62 kgs. 5.88 /kg. ₱ 44.77
WWM
0.25 m2 173.61 /m2 ₱ 43.40
(2”x2”x1/8” gauge )
Cost of WWM Reinforced Concrete per slab (0.015m3): ₱ 96.79

42
 COST PER STRENGTH RATIO
2.5
2.27

2 1.92
1.64 1.61
1.5

0.5

0
No Rebars 6mmØ 8mmØ WWM
TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT

Figure 4.5 Cost per Strength Analysis of the Concrete Slab Specimens

From the results stated above, the cost to strength capacity ratio of non-reinforced
concrete slab was 1.64. On the other hand, the 6 mm Ø reinforced concrete slab cost to
strength capacity ratio was 1.92. For the 8 mm Ø reinforced concrete slab, its cost to
strength capacity ratio was 2.27. Finally, for the WWM reinforced concrete slab, its cost to
strength capacity ratio was 1.61. It can be observed that the 8 mm Ø reinforced concrete
slab had the highest cost to strength capacity ratio which signifies that the quality was being
sacrificed. While for the WWM reinforced concrete slab, it showed lowest cost to strength
capacity ratio which signifies that it has the best design in terms of safety and economy.

43
 CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

This study is concerned with the determination of flexural capacities of reinforced

concrete slabs, comparison of the actual loads carried by the concrete slabs and economic
analysis of the slab specimens. There were three types of reinforcement used in this study
namely, 6 mm Ø steel bar, 8 mm Ø steel bar and WWM. All tests performed in the study
were in accordance with the American Society for Testing Material (ASTM). The list of
procedures can be found in Appendix A.

The basis of the design was according to National Structural Code of the Philippines
(2015). The researchers confirmed that the design of the slab was not less than the minimum
requirements stated in the code. Following the code produces safe, efficient and economic
design.

For testing, there were four groups of slab specimens, each group having three
samples: First group was the concrete slabs with no reinforcement, second group was the
concrete slabs reinforced with 6 mm Ø steel bar, third group was the concrete slabs
reinforced with 8 mm Ø steel bar and last group was the concrete slabs reinforced with
WWM.

Based on the results, the first group of specimens (no reinforcement) had the lowest
load capacity. It was followed by the second group of specimens (6 mm Ø steel bar) and
then followed by the third group of specimens (8 mm Ø steel bar). The last group of
specimens (WWM) had the greatest load capacity.

All the slabs showed flexural cracks after testing. It was observed that the first group
of specimens showed severe and large crack sizes both in the top and bottom. This was
reasonable because the first group had no reinforcements. All the remaining groups showed
visible cracks but the last group of specimens had less cracks compared to the second and
third groups.

In this study, statistical methods namely ANOVA and LSD were used to compare
the average actual flexural capacity of slabs. Also, economic analysis was conducted to
compare the cost per strength ratio of the slabs.

44
5.2 Conclusions

With the data presented, the following are the conclusions of this study:

1. Welded wire mesh reinforced concrete slabs had the highest average actual load
capacity among all groups of specimens. The difference between the actual steel
areas of the reinforcements had major effect in increasing the load capacity of
the concrete slabs.
2. Using ANOVA, there were significant differences in the values of actual
capacities among groups of samples. And also by using LSD, there were
significant differences in the values of actual capacities except in the
comparison between 6mm and 8mm.
3. For the economic analysis, it was concluded that the 8 mm Ø rebar reinforced
concrete slab had the most expensive material costs, followed by the WWM
reinforced concrete slabs. And for the cost per strength ratio, the WWM
reinforced concrete slab had the least value which signifies that it could be a
good substitute to steel reinforcement bars.

5.3 Recommendations

With the conclusions drawn from the results of the study, the following are
recommended for future studies:

1. Decrease the size of sample specimens and make sure that there are available
machines that can accommodate it.
2. Compare the effects of other alternative reinforcements to the strength of
concrete slabs.
3. Compare the flexural capacities of the concrete slabs but with the same actual
steel ratios.
4. Use the same Universal Testing Machine (UTM) for testing the tensile strength,
compressive strength and flexural strength of the specimens.
5. Use another concrete mix ratio for the casting of the specimens.
6. Use the same actual steel area in comparing their flexural capacities.
7. Vary the thickness of the slabs to check if it can affect the actual load carried by
each specimen.

45
 REFERENCES

“Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures” CE IIT, Kharagpr. Online. 10 May 2017.

http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105105109/pdf/m2l11.pdf.

“Approximate Analysis of Statically Indeterminate Structures” CivilEngineering.Course

Online. Online. 10 May 2017. http://www.sut.ac. the/engineering/Civil/Course
Online/430332/pdf/09Approximate.pdf.

“Approximate Methods for Analysis of Indeterminate Structures.” Engineering.purdue.

Online. 11 April 2017. https://engineering.purdue.edu/~aprakas/CE474/CE474-
Ch4-ApproximateMethods.pdf.

Arp, A. “Approximate Lateral Analysis of Multi-Storey Buildings.” Brighan Young

University. 23 July 1983. Online. 22 April 2017. https://ceen.et.byu.edu/sites/
default/files/snrprojects/216-andrew_p_arp-1983-rjg.pdf.

ASTM C29: Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (Unit Weight) and Voids in
Aggregate. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2009.

ASTM C31: Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Field. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2012.

ASTM C39: Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylinder Concrete
Specimen. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2003.

ASTM C117: Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-μm (No. 200) Sieve in
Mineral Aggregates by Washing. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International, 2017.

ASTM C127: Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), And
Absorption of Coarse Aggregates. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International, 2001.

ASTM C128: Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), And
Absorption of Fine Aggregates. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM
International, 2001.

ASTM C136: Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2001.

ASTM C138: Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International,
2009.

ASTM C143: Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete. West
Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2003.

46
ASTM C150-859: Standard Specifications for Portland Cement. West Conshoocken, PA,
USA: ASTM International, 2007.

ASTM C192: Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Laboratory. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2002.

ASTM C566: Standard Test Method for Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregate
by Drying. West Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2013.

ASTM E8: Standard Test Method for Tension Testing of Metallic Materials. West
Conshoocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2015.

Besavilla, V. 2007. Structural Analysis (Theory of Structures). #2 Saint John Street, Don
Hosco Village, Punta Princesa, Cebu City: pp.467-500.

Cantila, K. (2015). Structural Efficiency and Deflection Characteristics Precast Reinforced

Concrete Slab Strip Notched at Tension Zone. Masteral Thesis. Iligan City,
Philippines: School of Graduate Studies, Mindanao State University – Iligan
Institute of Technology.

“Cantilever Method.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Online. 8 April 2017.

http://www.engineeringwiki.org/wiki/Cantilever_Method.

“Concrete.” ReinforcingSteelContractors.Online. 4 May2017.http://www.reinforcingsteel

contractors.co.za/index.php/concrete.

“Deflection (Engineering).” India Institue of Technology. Online. 25 April 2017.

http://web.ncyu.edu.tw/~lanjc/lesson/C3/class/Chap06-A.pdf.

Elliot, Russ. “Deflection of Beams”. Clag Org UK. 2011. Online. 8 April 2017.
http://www.clag.org.uk/beam.html.

Gere, James M. “Deflection (Engineering)” Wikipedia. Online. 8 April

2017.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflection(engineering).

Kanpur. “Engineering Mechanics” NPTEL. Online. 10 May 2017. http://www.nptel.

ac.in/courses/Webcoursecontents/IITKANPUR/engg_mechanics/ui/Course_home
10.htm.

Kumar, S., et al. “Analysis of Lateral Loads.” Indian Institute of Technology Madras. 11
June 2010. Online. 18 April 2017. http://nptel.ac.in/courses/105106113/3multi
storey/ 4_lateral_loads.pdf.

“Lateral Load Distribution of Frame Building.” The Constructor Civil Engineering Home.
2015. Online. 22 April 2017. https://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/analysis/
analysis-of-moment-resisting-frame-lateral-load-distribution/1720/.

MacRae, G. “Lateral Load Resisting Systems.” Slides of Profs. 12 May 2009. Online. 18
April 2017.http://www.iitgn.ac.in/seismicdesign/files/GAM_LateralLoadResisting
Systems.pdf.

47
Maruthupandian, G., et al. “A Study on Bamboo Reinforced Concrete Slab.” Akshaya
College of Engineering and Technology. 11 June 2016. Online. 5 May 2017.
http://jchps.com/issues/Volume%209_Issue%202/jchps%209(2)%2054%20Marut
hupandian%20(vr).pdf.

“Methods of Analysis of Frames” The Constructor Civil Engineering Home. 2015. Online.
11 April 2017. https://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/analysis/methods-of-
analysis-of-frames/1701/.

Opon, J. (2014). Design and Behavior Analysis of Prefabricated Modular Ferrocement

Floor Slab System for Interior Application. Masteral Thesis. Iligan City,
Philippines: School of Graduate Studies, Mindanao State University – Iligan
Institute of Technology.

“Portal Frames” SteelConstruction.info. Online. 22 April 2017. http://www.steel

construction. info/Portal_frames.

“Portal Method of Approximate Analysis” The Constructor Civil Engineering Home.

Online. 11 April 2017. https://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/analysis/portal-
method-of-approximate-analysis/3777/.

“Relative Strength of Wire Mesh Vs Rebar for Reinforcing Concrete Slab.”

EnginneringStackExchange. Online.5 May 2017. https://engineering.Stackexcha
nge.com/questions/12705/relative-strength-of-wire-mesh-vs-rebar-for-reinforcing
-a-concrete-slab.

“Simply Supported on All Edges with Central Point Load.” StructX. Online. 12 May 2018.
http://structx.com/home.html.

Sivakumar M.S. “Mechanics of Materials”. Online. 25 November 2016.

http://nptel.ac.in/courses/IIT-MADRAS/Strength_of_Materials/Pdfs/5_1.pdf

“Standard Welded Wire Mesh Fabric for Concrete Reinforcement.” Domoplex. Online. 5
May 2017. http://www.domoplex.com.cy/p1_concrete.htm.

“Structural Analysis I” Site.Iugaza. Online. 10 May 2017. http://site.iugaza.edu.ps/marafa/

files/2010/02/Chapter_7.pdf.

“Structural Analysis II” Anam. 2011. Online. 8 April 2017. http://www.uapbd.edu/ce/anam/

Anam_files/Structural%20Engineering%20II.pdf.

Timoshenko, S. “Theory of Plates and Shells.” 24 July 1989. Online. 10 May 2018.
http://www.caprecifal.com/ccs_files/articles/cuveaqua1_denisio/Timoshenko_The
ory_of_plates_and_shells.pdf.

Verterra, Romel. “Mechanics and Strength of Materials” Mathalino. 25 November 2016.

http://www.mathalino.com/reviewer/mechanics-and-strength-of-materials/chapter-
6-beam-deflections.

48
“Welded Wire Fabric Reinforcement.” CocreteConstruction. Online. 4 May 2017.
http://www.concreteconstruction.net/how-to/welded-wire-fabric-reinforcemento.

“Welded Wire Mesh.” BRCSteel. Online. 4 May 2017. http://www.brc.com.sa/steel/Wire

Mesh.html.

“Welded Wire Mesh Fabric Reinforcement.” Reinforcing&MeshSolutions. Online. 4 May

2017. https://www.rms-sa.co.za/product-types/mesh-wire.

49
 APPENDIX A
Laboratory Test for Coarse and Fine Aggregates

A.1 Unit Weight of Aggregates (ASTM C29)

Introduction : Determining the bulk density or unit weight is necessary for selecting
proportions for concrete mixtures. The bulk density also may be used
for determining mass or volume relationships for conversions in
purchase agreements.

Purpose : To determine the loose and dry-rodded bulk unit weight of aggregates

Materials : Coarse and fine aggregate samples

Apparatus : 1 metal volumetric measure (0.10 and 0.50 ft3), 1 tamping rod, 1
measuring tape, 1 weighing scale

Procedure :

A. Compacted Weight Condition

The volumetric flask was filled by three equal volumes, each
volume was levelled and tamped 25 times uniformly dispersed over the
surface. In tamping, the rod penetrated only the layer being filled. The
excess particles were obtained and the surface of the aggregate was
flattened. Then, the weight of the aggregate and the capacity of
measures were obtained. The unit weight was calculated by dividing
the weight by its volume.

B. Dry-rodded Weight Condition

The volumetric measure was filled to overflowing using a scoop.
The aggregate was released from a height about 50 mm from the top of
measure. The excess particles were obtained and the surface of the
aggregate was flattened. The weight of aggregate and capacity of
measure were obtained. The unit weight was then calculated by
dividing the weight by its volume.

50
 APPENDIX A (cont’d)

A.2 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Coarse Aggregates (ASTM C127)

Introduction : Relative density or specific gravity is the ratio of mass of an aggregate

to the mass of a volume of water equal to the volume of the aggregate
particles. It is also expressed as the ratio of the density of the aggregate
particles to the density of water. Absorption is used to calculate the
change in the mass of an aggregate material due to water absorbed in
the pore spaces.

Purpose : To determine the specific gravity and water absorption of coarse

aggregate using gravimetric method

Materials : Coarse aggregate sample

Apparatus : Water bucket, weighing scale, tamping rod, wire basket

Procedure :

The representative sample of coarse aggregate was obtained then

approximately 5 kg of the sample was passed through a 1/2-inch sieve.
The representative samples were soaked in water at 20°C and after 24
hours, the sample was wiped using an absorbent material after being
obtained from the water. The sample was then allowed to dry until it
maintained constant mass. The weight of the saturated surface dry
(SSD) sample was obtained.
After that, the sample was placed in a basket and the bottom of
the balance was attached. The basket with the sample was made sure to
be completely submerged and did not come into contact with the sides
of the container. The weight of the sample in water was then obtained
after the container was shaken to remove entrapped air.
Finally, the aggregate was removed from the water and was dried
in an oven at 110°C. After oven-drying, the sample was removed and
the oven-dry weight of sample was obtained. Then, the specific gravity
and percent absorption was able to be calculated.

51
 APPENDIX A (cont’d)

B
Specific Gravity, Gs =
B−C
B−A
Absorption = X 100%
A
where:
A = weight of oven-dried sample, g
B = weight of SSD sample, g
C = weight of sample in water, g

52
 APPENDIX A (cont’d)

A.3 Specific Gravity and Absorption of Fine Aggregates (ASTM C128)

Introduction : Relative density or specific gravity is the ratio of mass of an aggregate

to the mass of a volume of water equal to the volume of the aggregate
particles. It is also expressed as the ratio of the density of the aggregate
particles to the density of water. Absorption is used to calculate the
change in the mass of an aggregate material due to water absorbed in
the pore spaces.

Purpose : To determine the specific gravity and water absorption of fine

aggregate using gravimetric method

Materials : Fine aggregate sample

Apparatus : 1 specific gravity cone, 1 tamping rod, 1 volumetric flask, 1

graduated cylinder, 1 thermometer, 1 pan

Procedure :

About 1kg of representative sample of fine aggregate was soaked

in distilled water for 24 hours. After soaking, the excess water was
thoroughly removed to eliminate loss of particles. The sample was
stirred uniformly and dried slowly using an electric fan. It was tested
if it had reached the SSD condition then the conical mold was filled
with sample to overflowing and was tamped 25 times by allowing the
tamper to fall freely for each drop. Then, the excess material was
removed and the mold was slowly lifted vertically. If surface moisture
was still present in the sample, the fine aggregate would have retained
the molded shape and additional drying would be required until the
sample reached SSD state. The pycnometer was then filled with
distilled water and 500 g of SSD sample was added. After that, more
water was added up to the calibration mark of the flask. The flask was
rolled and agitated several times for about 15 to 20 minutes to
eliminate air bubbles. Then the pycnometer was removed from the
water bath after being placed at 23°C for an hour.

53
 APPENDIX A (cont’d)

Finally, more water was added up to the calibration mark of the

flask and the flask with sample and water inside were weighed. The
sample was then removed from the flask and was transferred in the
pan. The sample was weighed after being oven-dried at a constant
temperature of 110°C. The pycnometer was weighed after being
cleaned and filled with water up to the calibration mark. Then, the bulk
specific gravity (SSD) and absorption was calculated as follows:

D
Specific Gravity, Gs =
B − (C − D)
D−A
Absorption = X 100
A
where:
A = weight of oven-dried sample, g
B = weight of pycnometer and water, g
C = weight of pycnometer filled with sample and water, g
D = weight of SSD sample, g

54
 APPENDIX A (cont’d)

A.4 Materials Finer than No. 200 Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing (ASTM
C117)

Introduction : Separating silts and clays from sand and gravels can be done by either
washing with plain water or with a wetting agent. The former is the
best way to separate these particles and is the procedure that shall
always be used unless when directed by the agency for which the work
is being performed.

Purpose : To determine the amount of material finer than No. 200 sieve

Materials : Fine aggregate sample

Apparatus : Pans, oven, balance and weights, sieve No. 10 and No. 200

Procedure :

The sample was oven-dried to constant mass at about 110°C then

was cooled for several minutes and weighed using a balance. After
that, the sample was placed in a big wash container where water was
added, and then the sample was agitated. Only wash water was
dispensed in No. 10 and No. 200 sieves. This procedure was repeated
until wash water became clear.
The washed sample was dried for several minutes and was
placed into an oven at 110°C. It was weighed after being dried and the
material finer than No. 200 sieve by washing was calculated as
follows:
B−C
A= X 100
B
where:
A = percent material finer than No. 200 sieve, %
B = original dry mass of the sample, g
C = dry mass of the sample after washing, g

55
 APPENDIX A (cont’d)

A.5 Sieve Analysis (ASTM C136)

Introduction : A sieve analysis is a procedure used to assess the particle size

distribution of a granular material. The size distribution is often of
critical importance to the way the material performs in use.

Purpose : To determine the grading of materials proposed for use as aggregates

Materials : Coarse and fine aggregate sample

Apparatus : Oven, weighing balance, sieves No. ¾, ½, 3/8, 4, 8, 16, 30, 50, 100
and 200, mechanical sieve shaker

Procedure :

A. Sieve Analysis for Coarse Aggregate

The sample was oven-dried to constant mass at about 110°C then
cooled for several minutes and weighed using a balance. It was passed
over a series of predetermined wire mesh sieves (No. ¾, ½, 3/8, 4, 8
sieves). The set of sieves was agitated properly using mechanical sieve
shaker to ensure complete separation of materials. The amount of
materials retained on each sieve was then weighed and the cumulative
percentage passing of material was determined.

B. Sieve Analysis for Fine Aggregate

The sample was oven-dried to constant mass at about 110°C then
cooled for several minutes and weighed using a balance. It was passed
over a series of predetermined wire mesh sieves (No. ¾, 4, 8, 16, 30,
50, 100 and 200 sieves). The set of sieves was agitated properly using
mechanical sieve shaker to ensure complete separation of materials.
The amount of materials retained on each sieve was then weighed and
the cumulative percentage passing of material was determined.

Total Cumulative Percentage

Fineness Modulus =
100

56
 APPENDIX A (cont’d)

A.6 Total Evaporable Moisture of Aggregates by Drying (ASTM C566)

Introduction : Since aggregates contain some porosity, water can be absorbed into
the body of the particles or retained on the surface of the particle as a
film of moisture. Moisture content is the quantity of water in a
material.

Purpose : To determine the percentage of evaporable moisture in a sample of

aggregate by drying both surface moisture and moisture in the pores
of the aggregate.

Materials : Coarse and fine aggregate sample

Apparatus : Weighing balance, hair blower, sample containers

Procedure :

Based on Table 1 of AASHTO T255, a sample of 500 g was

obtained in a manner which assures that it had a moisture content
representative of the aggregate source. The mass of the sample was
determined to the nearest 0.1% in the moist condition then the sample
was oven-dried and successive readings were made to assure that the
sample had dried sufficiently. These successive readings showed less
than 0.1% additional loss in mass which indicated that the sample was
dry. The sample was then allowed to cool and its mass was determined.
Finally, the total evaporable moisture was determined as follows:

W−D
P= X 100
D
where:
P = total evaporable moisture content, %
W= mass of original sample, g
D = dry mass of the sample after drying, g

57
 APPENDIX B

Laboratory Test for Portland Cement

Introduction : Portland cement was tested and performed at the concrete plant to
verify whether the sample met the standards and specifications set by
PNS 63:2006. The acceptance of cement was achieved through
certification from the manufacturer.

T Y P I C A L A N A L Y S I S
ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT

Date Issued : July 9, 2014 Reference Number : QA-140719

Results ASTM C150, TYPE I
I. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
SiO2, % 20.0 - 21.5
Al2O3, % 4.8 - 5.3
Fe2O3, % 2.6 - 2.9
CaO, % 63.5 - 65.5
MgO, % 0.8 - 1.2 6.00 max
SO3, % 1.8 - 2.3 3.50 max
LOI, % 1.8 - 3.0 3.00 max
IR, % 0.40 - 0.75 0.75 max
Alkali, % 0.50 - 0.95
Free Lime, % 0.50 - 1.80
II. PHYSICAL ANALYSIS
Fineness
2
Blaine, cm /g 3300 - 3600 280 min
Autoclave Expansion, % 0.80 max
Time of Setting, Vicat Test
Initial Set, minutes 110 - 180 45 min
Final Set, minutes 280 - 360 375 max
Normal Consistency, %
Compressive Strength, MPa
3 days 20.0 - 26.0 12.0 min
7 days 26.0 - 32.0 19.0 min
28 days 38.0 - 42.0 28.0 min

Remarks:
This report shall not be reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the QA
Manager.

Wenifredo C. Circulado
Quality Assurance Manager

58
 APPENDIX C

Test for Concrete

C.1 Slump Test for Concrete by Hand Mixing (ASTM C143)

Introduction : The concrete slump test measures the consistency of fresh concrete
before it sets. It can be used as an indicator of an improperly mixed
batch.

Purpose : To check the workability of freshly made concrete and to ensure

uniformity for different loads of concrete under field conditions.

Materials : Coarse and fine aggregate sample

Apparatus : Weighing balance, hair blower, sample containers

Procedure :

A sample of fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, cement and water

was obtained based from the calculated trial mix. It was then mixed
together with a shovel until it was of even color throughout. The
mixture was spread out and the coarse aggregate was spread on its top.
A hollow was made in the middle of the mixed pile then three
quarters of the total quantity of water required was added while the
materials are turned in towards the center with a shovel. The remaining
water was added and the whole mixture was turned over and over
again until a uniform color and consistency was obtained throughout
the pile.
The slump test mold was dampened and placed on a flat, moist,
non-absorbent, rigid surface like a steel plate. The mold was filled
about 1/3 full by volume of sample and the bottom layer was rodded
evenly with 25 spaced strokes. Then, the mold was filled about 2/3 full
by volume of sample and the second layer was rodded evenly with 25
spaced strokes. After that, the mold was filled with sample to
overflowing and the top layer was rodded evenly with 25 strokes
where the top of the second layer was penetrated.

59
 APPENDIX C (cont’d)

The excess fresh concrete at the topmost layer of the mold was
removed by using a tamping rod as a screed. The mold was carefully
lifted in a vertical direction with slow and even motion. This took
about five to ten seconds then the mold was immediately inverted and
placed beside the slumped concrete and the rod was placed
horizontally across the mold. Finally, the slump was measured.

60
 APPENDIX C (cont’d)

C.2 Making and Curing Cylinders (ASTM C31)

Introduction : Most commonly, the compressive strength of concrete is measured to

ensure the concrete delivered to a project meets the requirements of
the job specification and for quality control. For testing the
compressive strength of concrete, cylindrical test specimens of size
4x8-inch or 6x12-inch are cast and stored in the field until the concrete
hardens.

Purpose : To be able to make and cure cylinder specimens from representative

samples of fresh concrete for a construction project.

Materials : Fresh concrete sample

Apparatus : 6x12-inch cylindrical moulds, tamping rod, mallet, shovel, trowel

Procedure :

The first layer of concrete was added about 1/3 of the total
volume of the cylindrical mold then the scoop was moved around the
outside perimeter of the mold for even distribution. The layer was
rodded 25 times throughout its depth without forcibly striking the
bottom of the mold. The outside of the mold was tapped 10 to 15 times
with a mallet and the second layer of the concrete was added about 2/3
its depth.
After that, the second layer was rodded 25 times, making sure to
penetrate the first layer by about 1 inch. The sides of the mold were
tapped 10 to 15 times and the third and final layer was added, filling
the mold. Then the third layer was rodded 25 times, making sure to
penetrate the second layer by about 1 inch and the sides of the mold
were tapped 10 to 15 times.
Then the cylinder specimens were sealed identified, protected,
and was stored for 24 hours. They were immersed in a container with
no holes or any leakage. The samples were completely submerged and
they were stored for 28 days.

61
 APPENDIX C (cont’d)

C.3 Unit Weight of Concrete (ASTM C 138/ AASHTO T 121)

Introduction : The unit weight of concrete test was conducted to obtain the weight of
concrete contained in a standard volumetric measure.

Purpose : To determine the unit weight of concrete

Materials : Fresh concrete sample

Apparatus : Scoop, weighing scale, standard tamping rod, volumetric measure,

strike-off plate

Procedure :

Prior to testing, the weight and the capacity of the standard

volumetric measure was obtained. A representative sample from two
or more regular intervals was obtained during the discharge of the
mixer. Taking samples at the start or end of discharge was avoided.
The slump test mould was dampened and placed on a flat, moist, non-
absorbent, rigid surface like a steel plate. The mould was then filled
about 1/3 full by volume of sample and the bottom layer was rodded
evenly with 25 spaced strokes.
After that, the mould was filled about 2/3 full by volume of
sample and the second layer was rodded evenly with 25 space strokes.
The mould was filled with sample to overflowing and the top layer
was rodded evenly with 25 strokes penetrating the top of the second
layer. The excess fresh concrete at the topmost layer of the mould was
removed by using the tamping rod as a screed. Then, the sample and
the volumetric measure were weighed. Finally, the unit weight of the
sample was calculated by dividing the weight of the sample by the
capacity of the volumetric measure.

62
 APPENDIX C (cont’d)

C.4 Compressive Strength Test for Concrete (AASHTO T22/ ASTM C39)

Introduction : Compressive strength test is done to estimate the capacity of concrete

in compression.

Purpose : To obtain the capacity of the concrete in compression.

Materials : 3 cylindrical moulds (150 mm x 300 mm)

Apparatus : Universal Testing Machine (UTM)

Procedure :

The plain (lower) bearing block was placed, with its hardened
face up on the table or plate of the testing machine directly under the
spherically seated (upper) bearing block. The bearing faces the upper
and lower bearing block and of the test specimens were cleaned. The
test specimen was then placed on the lower bearing block. The axis of
the specimen was carefully aligned with the center of the thrust of the
spherically seated block and was rotated gently prior to testing to
assure uniform seating.
After that, the load was applied continuously and without shock
at a constant rate until the specimen failed and the maximum load
carried by the specimen during the test was recorded. Finally, the
compressive strength of the specimen was calculated by dividing the
load carried by the specimen during the test by the average cross-
sectional area.

63
 APPENDIX D

Tension Test (ASTM E8/ AASHTO T68)

Introduction : Tension test plays a vital role in evaluating the engineering properties
of steel bars. It is used to provide information on the strength of
materials and is an acceptance criterion whether or not it meets the
specifications of materials.

Purpose : To obtain the yield strength of steel bars.

Materials : 5 samples for 8 mm and 12 mm Ø DSB with 50 mm gauge length

Apparatus : Universal Testing Machine (UTM)

Procedure :

Prior to testing, the nominal diameter of each steel bar was measured
using a Vernier caliper. The UTM was set to zero before the specimen was
inserted in the grips. The load was applied into the specimen until failure.
From this test, the yield strength was obtained by dividing the load at
yielding by the original cross-sectional area of the steel bar.

64
 APPENDIX E
ACI Absolute Volume Method of Concrete Mix Design
Table E.1 Data of Materials
Coarse Aggregate Fine Aggregate

Specific gravity (SSD) 2.33 Specific gravity (SSD) 2.67

Moisture content 4.33% Moisture content 8.46%

Water absorption 2.04% Water absorption 5.26%

Loose unit weight 1547.97 kg/m3 Fineness modulus 3.58

Dry-rodded unit weight 1697.56 kg/m3 Cement

Specific gravity 3.15

Table E.2 Slump Ranges for Specific Applications

Slump
Type of Construction
(mm) (inches)
Reinforced foundation walls and footings 25 - 75 1-3
Plain footings, caissons and substructure walls 25 - 75 1-3
Beams and reinforced walls 25 - 100 1-4
Building columns 25 - 100 1-4
Pavements and slabs 25 - 75 1-3
Mass concrete 25 - 50 1-2

Since this research deals with slabs, the design slump ranged from 25 mm to 75 mm.

Table E.3 Maximum size of aggregates according to ACI Limits

1/3 of slab depth 20 mm

¾ of the minimum clear space between bars/form 37.5 mm

1/5 minimum dimension for non-reinforced member 100 mm

1 ½ inches 38.1 mm

According to ACI Limits, the maximum size of aggregates was 20 mm where the
slab depth was 60 mm.
65
 APPENDIX E (cont’d)

Table E.4 Approximate Mixing Water and Air Content Requirements for Different Slumps
and Maximum Aggregate Sizes
Mixing Water Quantity in kg/m3 (lb/yd3) for the listed
Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size
12.5 37.5
9.5 mm 19 mm 100
mm 25 mm mm 50 mm 75 mm
Slump (0.375 (0.75 mm
(0.5 (1 in.) (1.5 (2 in.) (3 in.)
in.) in.) (4 in.)
in.) in.)
Non-Air-Entrained PCC
25 - 50 207 199 190 179 166 154 130 113
(1 - 2) (350) (335) (315) (300) (275) (260) (220) (190)
75 - 100 228 216 205 193 181 169 145 124
(3 - 4) (385) (365) (340) (325) (300) (285) (245) (210)
150 - 175 243 228 216 202 190 178 160
-
(6 - 7) (410) (385) (360) (340) (315) (300) (270)
Typical
entrapped air 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.3 0.2
(percent)
Air-Entrained PCC
25 - 50 181 175 168 160 148 142 122 107
(1 - 2) (305) (295) (280) (270) (250) (240) (205) (180)
75 - 100 202 193 184 175 165 157 133 119
(3 - 4) (340) (325) (305) (295) (275) (265) (225) (200)
150 - 175 216 205 197 184 174 166 154
-
(6 - 7) (365) (345) (325) (310) (290) (280) (260)
Recommended Air Content (percent)
Mild Exposure 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0
Moderate
6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0
Exposure
Severe Exposure 7.5 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0

Since a maximum aggregate size of 16.67 mm was not found in the table, the
previous aggregate size was used. Therefore, the maximum aggregate size was 12.5 mm.
The PCC used was non-air-entrained. According to the table above, the mixing water
quantity in kg/m3 was 199. For the recommended air content, the slabs had mild exposure.
Therefore, there was 4% of air content.

66
 APPENDIX E (cont’d)

Table E.5 Water-Cement Ratio and Compressive Strength Relationship

28-Day Compressive Strength Water-cement ratio by weight

in MPa (psi) Non-Air-Entrained Air-Entrained
41.4 (6000) 0.41 -
34.5 (5000) 0.48 0.40
27.6 (4000) 0.57 0.48
20.7 (3000) 0.68 0.59
13.8 (2000) 0.82 0.74

Since the selected design compressive strength was 27.6 MPa, the recommended
water-cement ratio was 0.57 for non-entrained PCC.

Table E.6 Volume of Coarse Aggregate per Unit Volume of PCC for Different Fine
Aggregate Fineness Moduli for Pavement PCC (after ACI, 2000)

Nominal Maximum Aggregate Fine Aggregate Fineness Modulus

Size 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00
9.5 mm (0.375 inches) 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.44
12.5 mm (0.5 inches) 0.59 0.57 0.55 0.53
19 mm (0.75 inches) 0.66 0.64 0.62 0.60
25 mm (1 inches) 0.71 0.69 0.67 0.65
37.5 mm (1.5 inches) 0.75 0.73 0.71 0.69
50 mm (2 inches) 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.72

Since the fineness modulus was not in the table, extrapolation was needed.
2.8 − 3.0 0.55 − 0.53
=
2.8 − 3.58 0.55 − x
x = 0.472
Therefore, the volume of coarse aggregate per unit volume of PCC was 0.472 after ACI.

67
 APPENDIX E (cont’d)

Table E.7 Concrete Proportion

Material Mass Volume (in 1 m3)

Cement 349 kg 0.111 m3

Water 199 kg 0.199 m3

Air --- 0.040 m3

Coarse Aggregate 801.25 kg 0.344 m3

Fine Aggregate 817.02 kg 0.306 m3

Table E.8 Adjustment for Moisture

Material Mass Volume (in 1 m3)

Cement 349 kg 0.111 m3

Water 155 kg 0.155 m3

Coarse Aggregate 836 kg 0.359 m3

Fine Aggregate 886 kg 0.375 m3

Table E.9 Trial Batch

Cement 3 kg

Coarse Aggregate (SSD) 7.18 kg

Fine Aggregate (SSD) 7.62 kg

Water (includes surface moisture on wet aggregate 1.33 kg

TOTAL 19.13 kg

2,225.32 kg/m3
Yield = = 116.33 batches/m3
19.13 kg/batch

68
 APPENDIX F
Crack Patterns

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure F.1 The Crack Patterns of the Top and Bottom of the 28-day old Non-
Reinforced Concrete Slab Specimens (a) sample 1(b) sample 2 (c)
sample 3

69
 APPENDIX F (cont’d)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure F.2 The Crack Patterns of the Top and Bottom of the 28-day old 6mmØ
Reinforced Concrete Slab Specimens (a) sample 1(b) sample 2 (c)
sample 3

70
 APPENDIX F (cont’d)

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure F.3 The Crack Patterns of the Top and Bottom of the 28-day old 8mmØ
Reinforced Concrete Slab Specimens (a) sample 1
(b) sample 2 (c) sample 3

71
 APPENDIX F (cont’d)

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure F.4 The Crack Patterns of the Top and Bottom of the 28-day old day WWM
Reinforced Concrete Slab Specimens (a) sample 1
(b) sample 2 (c) sample 3

72
 APPENDIX G
Statistical Analysis
Table G.1 Critical F-values
f0.05 (ν1 , ν2 )
ν2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 161.45 199.50 215.71 224.58 230.16 233.99 236.77 238.88 240.54
2 18.51 19.00 19.16 19.25 19.30 19.33 19.35 19.37 19.38
3 10.13 9.55 9.28 9.12 9.01 8.94 8.89 8.85 8.81
4 7.71 6.94 6.59 6.39 6.26 6.16 6.09 6.04 6.00
5 6.61 5.79 5.11 5.19 5.05 4.95 4.88 4.82 4.77
6 5.99 5.14 4.76 4.53 4.39 4.28 4.21 4.15 4.10
7 5.59 4.74 4.35 4.12 3.97 3.87 3.79 3.73 3.68
8 5.32 4.46 4.07 3.84 3.69 3.58 3.50 3.44 3.39
9 5.12 4.26 3.86 3.63 3.48 3.37 3.29 3.23 3.18
10 4.96 4.10 3.71 3.48 3.33 3.22 3.14 3.07 3.02
11 4.84 3.98 3.59 3.36 3.20 3.09 3.01 2.95 2.90
12 4.75 3.89 3.49 3.26 3.11 3.00 2.91 2.85 2.80
13 4.67 3.81 3.41 3.18 3.03 2.92 2.83 2.77 2.71
14 4.60 3.74 3.34 3.11 2.96 2.85 2.76 2.70 2.65
15 4.54 3.68 3.29 3.06 2.90 2.79 2.71 2.64 2.59
16 4.49 3.63 3.24 3.01 2.85 2.74 2.66 2.59 2.54
17 4.45 3.59 3.20 2.96 2.81 2.70 2.61 2.55 2.49
18 4.41 3.55 3.16 2.93 2.77 2.66 2.58 2.51 2.46
19 4.38 3.52 3.13 2.90 2.74 2.63 2.54 2.48 2.12
20 4.35 3.49 3.10 2.87 2.71 2.60 2.51 2.45 2.39
21 4.32 3.47 3.07 2.84 2.68 2.57 2.49 2.42 2.37
22 4.30 3.44 3.05 2.82 2.66 2.55 2.46 2.40 2.34
23 4.28 3.42 3.03 2.80 2.64 2.53 2.44 2.37 2.32
24 4.26 3.40 3.01 2.78 2.62 2.51 2.42 2.36 2.30
25 4.21 3.39 2.99 2.76 2.60 2.49 2.40 2.34 2.28
26 4.23 3.37 2.98 2.74 2.59 2.47 2.39 2.32 2.27
27 4.21 3.35 2.96 2.73 2.57 2.46 2.37 2.31 2.25
28 4.20 3.34 2.95 2.71 2.56 2.45 2.36 2.29 2.24
29 4.18 3.33 2.93 2.70 2.55 2.43 2.35 2.28 2.22
30 4.17 3.32 2.92 2.69 2.53 2.42 2.33 2.27 2.21
40 4.08 3.23 2.84 2.61 2.45 2.34 2.25 2.18 2.12
60 4.00 3.15 2.76 2.53 2.37 2.25 2.17 2.10 2.04
120 3.92 3.07 2.68 2.45 2.29 2.18 2.09 2.02 1.96
∞ 3.84 3.00 2.60 2.37 2.21 2.10 2.01 1.94 1.88
*Reproduced from Table 18 of Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, Vol. I. by permission of E.S. Pearson and the Biometrika Trustees.
(Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists by Sharon Myers Keying Ye Walpole, pp. 766-767)

73
 APPENDIX G (cont’d.)

Table G.1 (Contd.)

f0.05 (ν1 , ν2 )
ν2 10 12 15 20 24 30 40 60 120 ∞
1 241.88 243.91 245.95 248.01 249.05 250.10 251.14 252.20 253.25 254.31
2 19.40 19.41 19.43 19.45 19.45 19.46 19.47 19.48 19.49 19.50
3 8.79 8.74 8.70 8.66 8.64 8.62 8.59 8.57 8.55 8.53
4 5.96 5.91 5.86 5.80 5.77 5.75 5.72 5.69 5.66 5.63
5 4.74 4.68 4.62 4.56 4.53 4.50 4.46 4.43 4.40 4.36
6 4.06 4.00 3.94 3.87 3.84 3.81 3.77 3.74 3.70 3.67
7 3.64 3.57 3.51 3.44 3.41 3.38 3.34 3.30 3.27 3.23
8 3.35 3.28 3.22 3.15 3.12 3.08 3.04 3.01 2.97 2.93
9 3.14 3.07 3.01 2.94 2.90 2.86 2.83 2.79 2.75 2.71
10 2.98 2.91 2.85 2.77 2.74 2.70 2.66 2.62 2.58 2.54
11 2.85 2.79 2.72 2.65 2.61 2.57 2.53 2.49 2.45 2.40
12 2.75 2.69 2.62 2.54 2.51 2.47 2.43 2.38 2.34 2.30
13 2.67 2.60 2.53 2.46 2.42 2.38 2.34 2.30 2.25 2.21
14 2.60 2.53 2.46 2.39 2.35 2.31 2.27 2.22 2.18 2.13
15 2.54 2.48 2.40 2.33 2.29 2.25 2.20 2.16 2.11 2.07
16 2.49 2.42 2.35 2.28 2.24 2.19 2.15 2.11 2.06 2.01
17 2.45 2.38 2.31 2.23 2.19 2.15 2.10 2.06 2.01 1.96
18 2.41 2.34 2.27 2.19 2.15 2.11 2.06 2.02 1.97 1.92
19 2.38 2.31 2.23 2.16 2.11 2.07 2.03 1.98 1.93 1.88
20 2.35 2.28 2.20 2.12 2.08 2.04 1.99 1.95 1.90 1.84
21 2.32 2.25 2.18 2.10 2.05 2.01 1.96 1.92 1.87 1.81
22 2.30 2.23 2.15 2.07 2.03 1.98 1.94 1.89 1.84 1.78
23 2.27 2.20 2.13 2.05 2.01 1.96 1.91 1.86 1.81 1.76
24 2.25 2.18 2.11 2,03 1.98 1.94 1.89 1.84 1.79 1.73
25 2.24 2.16 2.09 2.01 1.96 1.92 1.87 1.82 1.77 1.71
26 2.22 2.15 2.07 1.99 1.95 1.90 1.85 1.80 1.75 1.69
27 2.20 2.13 2.06 1.97 1.93 1.88 1.84 1.79 1.73 1.67
28 2.19 2.12 2.04 1.96 1.91 1.87 1.82 1.77 1.71 1.65
29 2.18 2.10 2.03 1.94 1.90 1.85 1.81 1.75 1.70 1.64
30 2.16 2.09 2.01 1.93 1.89 1.84 1.79 1.74 1.68 1.62
40 2.08 2.00 1.92 1.84 1.79 1.74 1.69 1.64 1.58 1.51
60 1.99 1.92 1.84 1.75 1.70 1.65 1.59 1.53 1.47 1.39
120 1.91 1.83 1.75 1.66 1.61 1.55 1.50 1.43 1.35 1.25
∞ 1.83 1.75 1.67 1.57 1.52 1.46 1.39 1.32 1.22 1.00
*Reproduced from Table 18 of Biometrika Tables for Statisticians, Vol. I. by permission of E.S. Pearson and the Biometrika Trustees.
(Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists by Sharon Myers Keying Ye Walpole, pp. 766-767)

74
 APPENDIX G (cont’d.)

Table G.2 ANOVA Results for Actual Capacities among Groups of Samples
Hypotheses Statements:
H0: All groups of slab samples have similar actual capacities.
H1: All groups of slab samples have different actual capacities.
6 mm Rebar 8 mm Rebar
No Reinforcement WWM Reinforced
Diameter Slab Diameter Slab
Slab Samples Slab Samples
Samples Samples
35.53 45.72 45 63
34.03 43 46 63
27.94 44 44 54
x̅ = 32.5 x̅ = 44.24 x̅ = 45 x̅ = 60

Testing Hypothesis
Number of conditions c=4
Number of samples in each condition n=3
Total number of samples N = 12
∑ xij
Grand Mean: x̿ = x̿ = 45.435
N
r
2
Treatment Sum of Squares: SSTR = n ∑(x̅j − x̿) SSTR = 92.1
i=1
2
Error Sum of Squares: SSE = ∑ ∑(xij − x̅j ) SSE = 1143.21
Total Sum of Squares: SST = SSTR + SSE SST = 1235.31
SST
Total Mean Squares: MST = MST = 112.3
N−1
SSTR
Mean Square Treatment: MSTR = MSTR = 381.07
c−1
SSE
Mean Square Error: MSE = MSE = 11.51
N−c
MSTR
Statistical Test of ANOVA: F= F = 33.11
MSE
Critical F value (From Table) Fcr = Fc−1,N−c Fcrit = 4.07
Comment: F > Fcr Decision: Reject Ho
Conclusion: There are significant differences in the values of actual capacities among
groups of samples.

75
 APPENDIX G (cont’d.)

Table G.3 Testing Inequality Using Least Significant Difference (LSD)

2 ∙ MSE ∙ F1,N−c
Least Significant Difference: LSD = √ LSD = 6.39
r
If the absolute value of the difference between any two treatment means is greater than
LSD, then they are not statistically equal.

Comparison |x̄1 - x̄2| LSD Comment

None vs 6mm : 11.74 > 6.39 Not equal
None vs 8mm : 12.5 > 6.39 Not equal
None vs WWM : 27.5 > 6.39 Not equal
6mm vs 8mm : 0.76 < 6.39 Equal
6mm vs WWM : 15.76 > 6.39 Not equal
8mm vs WWM : 15 > 6.39 Not equal

76
 APPENDIX H
Compressive Strength Test Results
Test No. 1

77
 APPENDIX H (cont’d)

Test No. 2

78
 APPENDIX H (cont’d)

Test No. 3

79
 APPENDIX I
Tensile Strength Test Results
Test No. 1 (4 mm)

80
 APPENDIX I (cont’d)

Test No. 1 (6 mm)

81
 APPENDIX I (cont’d)

Test No. 1 (Welded Wire Mesh)

82
 APPENDIX I (cont’d)

Test No. 2 (Welded Wire Mesh)

83
 APPENDIX I (cont’d)

Test No. 3 (Welded Wire Mesh)

84
 APPENDIX J
Flexural Capacity Test Results
For S-5 to S-13:

85
 APPENDIX J (cont’d)

For S-14 to S-16:

86
SITTIE NORHAYDA R. MACARAMBON
4th East Rosario, Tubod, Iligan City
Email Add.: [email protected]
Mobile Number: 0995 986 46 74

Career Objective
Focused individual looking for a civil engineering position in a fast-paced organization
where excellence is relevant. Coming with the ability to analyze and solve building design
complexities.

Qualifications
Graduate: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, 2018
Personal Qualities: Hardworking, Determined, Responsible, Trustworthy, Fast Learner,
Highly Motivated

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name : Sittie Norhayda R. Macarambon

Civil Status : Single
Date of Birth : October 14, 1997
Age : 20
Citizenship : Filipino
Place of Birth : Iligan City
Current Address : 4th East Rosario, Tubod, Iligan City
Height : 5’7”
Weight : 52 kg
Religion : Islam

87
EDUCATION:

June 2003 – March 2009 : Iligan Capitol College. Valedictorian

June 2009 – March 2013 : La Salle Academy. Third Honorable Mention

Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of

June 2013 – June 2018 :
Technology (BSCE)

SKILLS:

- Capable with CE softwares like AutoCAD, Sketch Up, Grasp, STAAD, and
Lumion
- Cost Estimator
- Proficient with MS Office
- Computer literate
- Good communication and writing skills
- Able to work and cope well under pressure
- Can work with minimum supervision

WORK EXPERIENCE:

Engr. Carlito P. Talaboc Construction (June 2017 – July 2017)

Tino Badelles St. Ubaldo de Laya, Iligan City

• Assistant Structural Designer

• AutoCAD Operator

I certify that all information above is true and correct, to the best of my
knowledge.

SITTIE NORHAYDA R. MACARAMBON

88
KIMBERLY FAITH D. PANAL
Prk. 16, Canaway, Tibanga, Iligan Citu
Email Add.: [email protected]
Mobile Number: 09653490142

Career Objective
To continuously learn from future endeavors to increase professional knowledge and
training, to hone communication skills to improve work processes and relationships, and to
embrace new experiences and achieve personal development.

Qualifications
Graduate: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, 2018
Personal Qualities: Passionate, hardworking, team player, critical thinking skills

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name : Kimberly Faith D. Panal

Civil Status : Single
Date of Birth : April 19, 1997
Age : 20
Citizenship : Filipino
Place of Birth : Maranding, Lanao del Norte
Current Address : Prk. 16, Canaway, Tibanga, Iligan City
Height : 5’5”
Weight : 54 kg
Religion : Roman Catholic

89
EDUCATION:

June 2003 – March 2009 : Iligan City East Central School

June 2009 – March 2013 : Integrated Developmental School

Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of

June 2013 – June 2018 :
Technology

SKILLS:

- Cost Estimating
- Perform some engineering laboratory test
- Operate AutoCAD, Google SketchUp, Lumion, Code Blocks, Scilab, Grasp,
STAAD, Microsoft Office, Visual Basic
- Computer literate
- Able to work and cope well under pressure
- Can work with minimum supervision

WORK EXPERIENCE:

Talaboc Construction
Tino Badelles St, Ubaldo de Laya, Iligan City
• Assistant Structural Designer
• Field Supervisor

I certify that all information above is true and correct, to the best of my
knowledge.

KIMBERLY FAITH D. PANAL

90
GESSELLE ANNE E. TAPDASAN
Prk. Mauswagon, Pob., Lugait, Mis. Or.
Email Add.: [email protected]
Mobile Number: 0935 640 0617

Career Objective
To achieve high career growth through a continuous process of learning and to work in an
environment that challenges me to improve and constantly thrive for perfection in all the
tasks allotted to me to become a successful civil engineer.

Qualifications
Graduate: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, 2018
Personal Qualities: Hardworking, Committed, Responsible, Trustworthy, Fast Learner,
Well Motivated, and able to perform duties and responsibilities of a civil engineer.

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

Name : Gesselle Anne E. Tapdasan

Civil Status : Single
Date of Birth : October 6, 1995
Age : 22
Citizenship : Filipino
Place of Birth : Cagayan De Oro City
Current Address : Prk. Mauswagon, Pob., Lugait, Misamis Oriental
Height : 5’3”
Weight : 51 kg
Religion : Seventh Day Adventist

91
EDUCATION:

June 2001 – March 2007 : Lugait Central School. With Honors

June 2007 – March 2011 : Lugait National High School. With Honors

Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of

June 2011 – March 2014 :
Technology (CET)

June 2014 – June 2018 : Mindanao State University – Iligan Institute of

Technology (BSCE)
SKILLS:

- Cost Estimating
- Perform some engineering laboratory test
- Operate AutoCAD, Google SketchUp, Lumion, Google Earth,Code Blocks,
Grasp, STAAD, Microsoft Word, Excel, Project and PowerPoint
- Computer literate
- Able to work and cope well under pressure
- Can work with minimum supervision

WORK EXPERIENCE:
Dicon Builders Corporation (November 2013 – March 2014)
Bauhina Orchid St., San Miguel Village, Pala-o, Iligan City
• Assistant Surveyor
• Project Assistant
• Time Keeper
• Estimator

Trine Construction and Metal Industries Corporation (June 2017 – July 2017)
Prk. Masilakon I, National Highway, Lugait, Misamis Oriental
• Assistant Surveyor
• Project Assistant
• Office Assistant
• Estimator

I certify that all information above is true and correct, to the best of my
knowledge.

GESSELLE ANNE E. TAPDASAN

92