180° ROTATIONAL ECO-BRICKS MANUAL PRESSER

WITH INTERCHANGEABLE DIES AND MOLDS

____________________

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Mechanical Engineering Department

of the Bulacan State University

City of Malolos, Bulacan

_________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering

__________________

by:

REA T. AGNOTE

AARON CHOCO S. DE GUZMAN

CECILLE S. GAT-EB

LUNA MAE C. GUIDOC

AL CHRISTIAN P. PARUNGAO

May 2022
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.......................................................................................................................5

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND................................................................5

Introduction.................................................................................................................5

Statement of the Problem............................................................................................8

Significance of the Study............................................................................................9

Scope and Delimitations of the Study.........................................................................9

Definition of Variables.............................................................................................11

CHAPTER II....................................................................................................................13

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.................................................................................13

Relevant Theories.....................................................................................................13

Related Literature......................................................................................................16

Related Studies..........................................................................................................27

Conceptual Framework.............................................................................................32

Hypothesis of the Study............................................................................................33

Definition of Variables.............................................................................................33

CHAPTER III...................................................................................................................35

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................................................................35

Methods and Techniques of the Study......................................................................35

Population and Sample of the Study.........................................................................36

 3

Research Instrument..................................................................................................37

Data Gathering Procedure.........................................................................................41

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment................................................................42

CHAPTER IV..................................................................................................................45

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA....................45

Isometric View of the Device...................................................................................45

Design of the Device.................................................................................................48

Device Fabrication....................................................................................................51

General Assembly.....................................................................................................60

Safety Precautions.....................................................................................................97

Operation Process of the Device...............................................................................98

Maintenance Procedures.........................................................................................106

Troubleshooting......................................................................................................106

Set-up Experiment..................................................................................................107

Project Costing........................................................................................................119

Tabular Comparison................................................................................................120

Tabulated Data of Acceptability Test.....................................................................123

Summary of Interpretation of the Acceptability Test.............................................131

CHAPTER V..................................................................................................................132

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION.........132

 4

Summary.................................................................................................................132

Findings...................................................................................................................133

Conclusion..............................................................................................................134

Recommendation....................................................................................................134

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................136
 5

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

The construction industry is one of the significant contributors to the growing

economy of the Philippines. In the second quarter of 2021, this sector gained the highest

growth rate among the contributors at 25.7%, followed by 16.8% in the third quarter,

based on the data of the Philippine Statistics Authority. Its growth was mainly driven by

increased public and private construction, which helped sustain tourism, business process

outsourcing, and public-private relationships that resulted in expanded construction

facilities (Lugay et al., 2020). This increase implies that many construction materials will

be needed to satisfy the growing demand.

Concrete masonry unit, commonly known as brick or block, is one of the

construction industry’s mainly used materials. It is used to construct walls, paving, and

more complex features such as columns, arches, fireplaces, and chimneys (Designing

Buildings: The Construction Wiki, 2022). Typically, it comprises a mixture of Portland

cement, water, sand, and gravel, then compacted by high pressure and vibration, making

it very strong and resilient to severe load (Lugay et al., 2020). This material may be solid

or hollow-type and square or rectangular-shaped. Notably, bricks or blocks lower the

natural weight of masonry constructions and improve the physical properties of walls,

such as noise and thermal insulation (Binag, 2018; Jonaitis & Zavalis, 2013). However,

they are fragile against lateral loads unless reinforced inside steel bars horizontally and

vertically (Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB), 2014).

 6

Undeniably, the growing demand for construction materials such as these

concrete masonry units positively impacts the country’s economy. However, intensifying

local production is a challenge as the raw material supply, cost issues, and environmental

concerns hamper production (Hanuseac et al., 2021; Varshney, 2015; Onuamah &

Osadebe, 2014). On the other hand, studies on the integration of waste materials into

concrete and concrete masonry units have gained popularity throughout the decades as

waste management became more challenging (Dolores et al., 2017) and searched for

alternatives and development.

In 2017, Ganiron et al. found that coconut shell and fiber can be a partial

substitute as coarse aggregates for hollow concrete blocks. They concluded that a hollow

concrete block (HCB) with coconut shell and fiber exceeds the minimum strength of

commercial HCB at 28 days (Ganiron et al., n.d.). Meanwhile, a study conducted by

Binag in 2018 showed that when mussel and oyster shell wastes are transformed into an

ash cement, it can be used as a partial substitute for Portland cement in the production of

locally-based masonry cement mortar as block binder and bricks production at a mix

ratio of 5%, 10%, and 15% of either mussel or oyster shell ash cement and 95%, 90%,

and 85% Portland cement, respectively. Lastly, Lasco et al. (2017) assessed the potential

of CHB with Polypropylene (P.P.) pellets as a partial replacement for sand. They found

that compressive strength and bulk density decrease as percent replacement increases;

however, the compressive strength of the HCB with 10% P.P. replacement was higher

than HCB with 0% P.P. replacement.

In San Miguel, Bulacan, a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) is used to receive,

separate, and prepare solid wastes generated by its residents for recycling. This recycling
 7

facility is a project of its Municipal Environmental and Natural Resources Office

(MENRO), per the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, aiming to lessen

the solid wastes such as plastics and glass that pollute the environment through the

integration of plastic and glass in bricks production. The bricks termed “eco-bricks” are

produced on their two available brick molders, electric-powered and manually operated.

Regularly, they only use the manually operated brick molder, a screw press-type, because

the output of the electric-powered molder is substandard. After curing and drying, the

output has many gaps and cracks and can be damaged easily. This may be due to the

inefficient compaction system of the machine, as Madara et al. (2016) said that the level

of compaction directly correlates to the ultimate strength of the blocks, thus

recommending that the compression must be thorough.

Unfortunately, the screw press brick molder can only create one output per

process and is limited to one shape and dimension. Its operation takes five workforces,

and they can only generate an average of 300 to 350 bricks per day. This small

production of bricks per day accounts for the oversupply of unused crushed plastics, as

one of the workers claimed.

In this context, it can be implied that local machines and equipment available in

the market are designed only for a specific working medium and may not meet the

required parameters when utilized with others. Also, most previous works have been

limited and focused on conventional types of brick applications such as concrete and

earth block. With that, the researchers perceived the need to develop and modify the

design of the existing brick molders in the market to add a solution to the current gap in

the brick machine industry. This study will produce a manually operated eco-bricks
 8

molder. The presser of the device will be 180 degrees rotational to accommodate two sets

of interchangeable dies and molds, one at a time. The device will be designed to provide

versatility and production rate improvement for its end users.

Statement of the Problem

The general problem of this study is: “How to develop a 180° rotational eco-

bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds?”

Specifically, this study will find answers to the following questions:

1. How can the 180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable

Dies and Molds be designed?

2. What are the materials needed in fabricating the device?

3. How to fabricate the device?

4. What are the tests required to evaluate the performance of the device?

5. Will the device be beneficial to the end-users in terms of its:

5.1. Functionality;

5.2. Reliability;

5.3. Accuracy;

5.4. Efficiency and Effectiveness;

5.5. Safety; and

5.6. Maintenance and Cost?

 9

Significance of the Study

This study will improve eco-bricks production by developing a 180° rotational

eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds, and the results of this

study will be proven helpful to the following:

1. Central Material Recovery Facility (MRF) of San Miguel, Bulacan. It is a

recycling facility located at Biak-na-Bato that is used to receive, separate, and

prepare solid wastes such as plastics and glass generated by all barangays of San

Miguel for eco-bricks production. This study will help improve the facility’s brick

production because it will allow more brick design options, increase output,

handling improvement, and fewer production costs.

2. Micro to Small Brick/Block Manufacturer Owners. This study can benefit

them by providing a new design alternative brick molder that is low-cost,

efficient, and versatile.

3. Future Researchers. The study’s findings will serve as reference material and

guide future researchers who wish to conduct the same research or any research

related to the eco-brick presser.

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

This study covered the design, fabrication, tests, and evaluation of a single unit of

180° rotational eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds.

The unit was designed to have a 180 degrees rotational manual presser and

interchangeable dies and molds. Due to financial constraints, the unit will be a manual

hand press, and its main four components are the frame, a 180° rotating presser system,

molds, and an ejector system. Moreover, two molders and one die for a 20.5×20.5 cm and
 10

another set for a 9.5×20.5 cm eco-bricks are made. The molds and dies are detachable

from the table and the presser, respectively, by simply removing the bolts and nuts. In

addition, the table’s dimension is 44.5 cm in width, 95.3 cm in length, and 75 cm in

height. The table’s height was based on the average height of the Filipinos. The ejector

system was based on the concept of a slider-crank mechanism. The unit’s overall height

is 160 cm. It is made of a mild steel plate ranging from 6-12 mm, galvanized iron steel,

and cold-rolled steel. Lastly, the production rate may vary since the unit is operated

manually. The input work of the device operator dramatically affects it.

The gathering of raw materials for the unit testing was limited to the mixture used

by the Central Municipal Recovery Facility (MRF) of Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel,

Bulacan, in eco-bricks making. The brick mix is slightly moistened and comprises 40 kg

of cement, six cubic feet of white sand, and 1-2 kg of crushed plastics per batch.

An acceptability test evaluated the device's performance in terms of functionality,

reliability, accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness, safety, maintenance, and cost. Also, the

eco-brick output was subjected to the acceptability test in terms of physical properties

and appearance. The population involved in the acceptability test are the eco-brick

makers from the Central MRF and the Municipal Environmental and Natural Resources

Office (MENRO) head officer of San Miguel, Bulacan, and conveniently chosen

brick/block manufacturers in Bulacan.

The researchers had only two months to finish the designing, fabrication, testing,

data gathering, and evaluation of the proposed study.

 11

Definition of Variables

1. Bulk density – is the mass weighed in air and water per volume computed from

the quotient of weight and specific gravity of the hollow concrete brick (Dolores

et al., 2020). As used in this study, the term bulk density is one of the essential

physical properties of a concrete masonry unit because it significantly affects its

strength.

2. Coarse aggregates – are inert granular particles larger than 0.19 inches or in a

range between 3/8 and 1.5 inches in diameter used as an ingredient for concrete

(Portland Cement Association, 2019). As used in this study, the term coarse

aggregates refer to agricultural wastes such as coconut shell and fiber as a partial

substitute for coarse aggregate in hollow concrete block to enhance their strength

property.

3. Compressive strength – is the ratio of the force applied to the hollow concrete

block and its total area (Dolores et al., 2020). As used in this study, the term

compressive strength means the ability of a concrete masonry unit to resist loads

before failure.

4. Eco-brick – a low-cost construction material made from polyethylene

terephthalate (PET) bottle filled with mixed inorganic waste (Antico, Wiener,

Letelier, & Retamal, 2017). As used in this study, the term eco-brick refers to a

concrete brick integrated with processed waste materials such as crushed plastics

and pulverized glass.

5. Integration – a process wherein brick is integrated with waste materials such as

agriculture and other industries as a form of sustainable construction material

 12

(Lanante, et al., 2020). As used in this study, the term integration refers to using a

pre-treated or pre-processed waste material as an additive or replacement for a

conventional mixture or material to enhance a brick product’s physical and

mechanical properties.
 13

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter presents the relevant theories, related literature, related studies,

conceptual framework, hypothesis, and the definition of variables of the study.

Relevant Theories 

The researchers were guided by the following engineering theories in this

research study’s design:

I. Machine Design

Machine Design deals with the construction of new and improved machinery

and the improvement of the existing ones (Gupta & Khurmi, 2005). The success or

the failure of the machine reflects on the design of the machine. It is the responsibility

of the machine designer to mechanically describe the valuable outputs of the machine

and state the design consideration, such as the physical characteristics of the

components that are going to be used to avoid malfunction upon operation.

This theory served as a guide for the researchers to analyze the mechanical

behavior of the machine and determine its different mechanical parts and their

manufacturing process.

A. Compressive Stress

Compressive stress is defined as the amount of stress that is restored in a body

due to the force applied to a material with the intent of deforming (Compressive
 14

stress, 2022). The material is said to be under compression when it experiences

compressive stress. The value of it may differ depending on the properties of the

materials. Compressive stress is expressed in:

σ = F/A -- (1)

where σ is compressive stress, A is the unit area of a solid body, and F is the

compressive force. The researchers utilized this equation to determine the yielded

compressive stress of the presser to the brick mixture.

B. Bolts and Nuts

Bolts are threaded members with an external thread along their solid

cylindrical body and are usually called a male thread. Meanwhile, nuts are female

members, hollow cylindrical pieces with internal threads that conjugate with bolts

(Bolt, n.d.). Both are made from iron, steel, other metals, wood, and plastic.

The researchers used the concept of bolts and nuts to determine the proper

type and size to fasten, connect, or secure two or more links or components of the

device.

C. Shaft

A shaft usually refers to a mechanical component with a circular cross-

section used to transmit power through rotation from a driving part such as

sprockets, gears, pulleys, flywheels, and cams (Childs, 2014). Also, he noted that

the shaft could be stationary that only supports a rotating member.

The researchers used the principle of the shaft and employed it in the eco-

bricks presser to make it 180 degrees rotational.

 15

II. Material Science and Engineering

Materials Science and Engineering deal with studying materials that yield an

understanding of the materials’ novel properties, structures, and performance (Cornell

University, n.d.). This related theory served as a guide to properly utilizing the

different materials available and helped the researchers choose materials that possess

properties that suit the needs of the proposed device.

A. Mild Steel Plate

A mild steel plate is a type of low-carbon steel that contains a low percentage

of carbon, typically 0.05% to 0.25% depending on the weight or the requirement of

the steel (Velling, 2020). It is flattened steel with a typical minimum and maximum

thickness of 3 mm and 150 mm. It is widely used in the industrial and construction

industry.

This type of steel possesses physical properties such as being ductile, and

tensile and impact strength are relatively high (Velling, 2020).

The researchers used mild steel plates with a thickness of 6 mm, 8 mm, and 12

mm as the primary raw material for the fabrication of four molds, two die, a top of the

table frame, and several links of the proposed device.

B. Galvanized Iron Bar

Galvanized iron bar is a reinforced iron metal that has undergone the

process of galvanization, in which the iron bar is coated with a layer of zinc

(Galvanized Steel: Types, Uses, Benefits., 2019). This material is comparatively

durable, ensuring its reliability and corrosion resistance due to its protective

coating.
 16

The researchers used a galvanized iron tubular bar of 1×1 inch and 2×2

inches as material for the mold guides, mold lifter, eco-bricks ejector handle, and

mainframe of the machine.

C. Cold Rolled Steel

Cold rolled steel is essentially hot rolled steel that has undergone further

processing through another series of rolling in an ambient temperature that

improves its shape and properties (An Overview of Cold Rolled Steel, 2020). This

kind of steel has greater strength and is suitable for a high-stress application.

Also, it is a highly ductile material and has a smooth metal finish.

The researchers used the cold-rolled steel as a material for the shafting of

the presser pole.

Related Literature

In the conduct of design and fabrication of the research project, the researchers

will be guided by the following existing works of literature relevant to their topic. 

I. Integration of Non-Biodegradable Waste Material in Concrete Brick

In recent years there has been growing interest in the integration of waste

materials in concrete masonry units as part of the efforts in solid waste management

and the search for alternatives and development.

A 2018 study by Yaseen et al. evaluated the properties of cement bricks, paver

blocks, and curbs with inorganic wastes such as crushed low and high-density

polyethylene (LDPE & HDPE) plastic and glass with different proportions. The study

noted that a mix ratio of six cement parts and four parts of fly-ash could be effectively
 17

used as a brick mix with inorganic solid waste fractions. In 2019, Alighiri et al. used a

different approach and type of plastic for reinforcement in bricks. Polyethylene

terephthalate (PET) plastics were cut, melted, and mixed with other materials such as

Portland cement and siliceous sand type. They used four brick mix compositions. The

specimen with a 66 percent solid PET, 22 percent cement, and 12 percent sand

yielded properties that met the Indonesia National Standards and concluded that it

could be an alternative brick. This brick has zero percent water absorbency at a

dimension of 50×110×230 mm and 75 kg/cm2 compressive strength at a size of

52×115×240 mm. In 2020, Dolores et al. focused on investigating hollow concrete

blocks (HCB) with polypropylene (PP) plastics as a partial replacement for sand. The

materials used in this study are water, Type 1 Portland cement, white sand, and PP

pellets with sizes not more than 4.75 mm. They made five experimental HCBs, 0%,

10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% by volume PP replacement, while the water-cement ratio

was set at 0.50 and the cement-sand ratio was set at 1:5 by volume for the controlled

HCB. These specimens were molded and cured for 28 days. After testing, Dolores et

al. (2020) found that compressive strength and bulk density decrease as percent

replacement increases. However, it was observed that HCBs with 10% PP

replacement have a higher compressive strength than the HCBs with 0% PP

replacement.

Unlike the Alighiri et al. (2019) mix methods, Hanuseac et al. (2021) used 0 –

4 mm chopped polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic as an aggregate replacement

in one of their experimental samples. The replacement is fixed at 20% by volume.

Compared with the concrete without waste integration, it resulted in a 5.80% increase
 18

in split tensile strength and decreased compressive and flexural strength by 24.45%

and 4.40%, respectively. In the same year, Gungat et al. (2021) developed a paver

block containing PET plastic using the heating and compression method. The heating

method is somehow the same as the study of Alighiri et al. (2019), where PET

plastics were manually shredded, melted, and processed to make 0.6 mm fine powder.

This fine powder acts as partial sand replacement. They created five trial mixes for

the heating method and two mixtures with eight trials each in the compression

method to determine the suitable mixture ratio. After several standard testing, they

concluded that the best method for developing brick with integrated waste is the

compression method, while the optimum mix design was at 0% PET plastic

replacement. Yet, they suggested that up to 30% of replacement could be utilized for

economic consideration. Also, their study agreed with the analysis of Dolores et al.

(2020), wherein compressive strength gradually decreases as the replacement

percentage increases.

The investigations of Yaseen et al. (2018), Alighiri et al. (2019), Dolores et al.

(2020), Hanuseac et al. (2021), and Gungat et al. (2021) have helped the researchers

understand the effects of integration of non-biodegradable waste materials such as

plastics in the mechanical properties of concrete masonry unit, especially in its

compressive strength. These five pieces of literature implied an inverse relation

between plastic replacement and brick’s compressive strength, whereas this

implication agreed with the study’s end-users claims. Hence, the researchers used its

end-users standard eco-bricks mix in testing. The mixture comprises one bag of

cement, one cubic foot of white sand, and one to two kilograms of crushed plastics
 19

per batch. Moreover, the researchers considered Gungat et al. (2021) claim and

utilized the compression method in 180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Presser with

Interchangeable Molders.

II. Brick Making Machines

Many brick-making machine studies that utilize hydraulic systems have been

published, while very little on the studies that use vibration for compaction in recent

years.

A study in 2015 by Yakubu & Umar developed a semi-automated

multipurpose brick molding machine, shown in figure 1 below, that they claimed was

inexpensive, easy to be maintained and operate, and has a suitable quality control

mechanism. It comprises a feeder, hopper, mold, rammer, and ejector system.

Figure 1. Multipurpose Brick/Block Molding Machine by Yakubu & Umar (2015)

The machine utilizes a hydraulic system to compress a brick mix of soil, sand,

cement, and water. The resulting output per process is only one brick, and it has a size
 20

of 235×148×150 mm and was compressed at ten megapascals. After testing, Yakubu

& Umar (2015) observed that their brick has an average bulk density of 1818 kg/m3

and compressive strength of 2.78 N/mm 2 for wet and 7.19 N/mm2 for dry. With these

mechanical properties values, they claimed that the brick outputs meet the standards

such as the African Regional Standards for Compressed Earth Blocks ARS 674 and

Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute. Moreover, the recorded compression

ratio of the machine was 0.52, while for production rate was 277 bricks per hour.

Similarly, an electro-hydraulic brick-making machine was developed by

Okereka et al. (2017), shown in figure 2 below, to provide a low-cost alternative brick

machine that will produce the double size of the bricks locally available in their

country. The machine was designed as a semi-automatic type, like Yakubu and

Umar’s (2015) machine, and with two degrees of freedom. The first degree of

freedom allows the movement of the feeding box to fill brick mix into the molding

box along X-axis. At the same time, the second degree of freedom allows the pressing

and ejection process along Y-axis. The brick is compacted through the compression

done by a hydraulic ram on the mold with the brick mixture. It is ejected out of the

mold through the hydraulic ram’s retraction with an attached mechanism by the

operator handling the controls. For materials, Okereka et al. (2017) used mild steel

because it is not brittle and has a mechanical property of toughness. Material strength

was considered to avoid fatigue, buckling, and creep failures.

Static structural analysis was done using Ansys simulation software to

evaluate if the machine design of components will be effective and no failure during

operation through the determination of the stresses and total deflection at specific
 21

points. The results from the analysis were used by Okereka et al. (2017) to modify the

initial design of their electro-hydraulic brick-making machine. In the end, the

technical specifications of their machine are (a) 900 kg machine weight, (b) can be

operated by one to two people, (c) 16 megapascal hydraulic pressure and 2.1 MPa

compaction pressure, (d) 10-15 seconds per molding cycle, (e) 7.5 kW overall power,

and (f) capacity of one piece of brick per mold.

Figure 2. Electro-Hydraulic Brick Making Machine of Okereka et al. (2017)

In 2018, Ayyappan et al. designed a hybrid-powered automated compressed

stabilized earth block (CSEB) machine that overcame the laborious effort and low

productivity of manually made CSEB. Unlike Yakubu & Umar (2015) and Okereka

et al. (2017), their machine utilizes both solar and conventional grid power, making it

a hybrid-powered machine to address economic and environmental issues related to

the production of fired brick in their country, India. Ayyappan et al. 2018’s study is

limited only to the design of the machine and used simulation to evaluate its

performance and functionality. After the analyses, it is concluded that their design is
 22

feasible. The hybrid-powered automated CSEB machine is an automated machine

that uses a hydraulic system to compress the soil mixture, composed of laterite soil,

cement, lime, clay, sand, and water. It has a compression ratio of 1.65 to 1.83 and a

compaction force of 50 kN. The brick size is 230×110×76 mm, and the production

rate is one brick per 12 seconds.

Meanwhile, it can be concluded that the study of Yakubu & Umar (2015),

Okereka et al. (2017), and Ayyappan et al. (2018) are somehow similar to each other

in terms of production rate. All of them have only one brick capacity per cycle.

Machines of Yakubu & Umar (2015), Okereka et al. (2017), and Ayyappan et al.

(2018) can produce approximately one brick per 13 seconds, 10 to 15 seconds, and 12

seconds, respectively.

A study by Orhorhoro, Oyejide, & Atadious (2018) evaluated the performance

of their developed interlocking concrete tile blocks machine, shown in figure 3 below.

Unlike the studies of Yakubu & Umar (2015), Okereka et al. (2017), and Ayyappan et

al. (2018), their machine is a manual hand press yet utilizes a hydraulic system. It has

one degree of freedom of mechanism. The hand press has a cylindrical helical tension

spring that acts as a retraction mechanism for the compression piston of the hydraulic

system. However, this study is limited only to simulations like Ayyappan et al.

(2018). Orhorhoro et al. (2018) used SolidWorks 2017 to perform the failure analysis

of the machine. After the investigations, it is found that the machine can produce one

piece of 250×160×100 mm interlocking brick at 52.16 megapascals of compressive

strength and 2083.429 kilonewtons destructive force in an average production time of

12.21 seconds. This production rate is also approximately equal to the findings of
 23

Yakubu & Umar (2015), Okereka et al. (2017), and Ayyappan et al. (2018). On the

other hand, Orhorhoro et al. (2018)’s machine has no brick ejection system compared

to the three mentioned authors.

Figure 3. The interlocking tile block machine of Orhorhoro et al. (2018)

A promising study conducted by Premkumar, Devi, & Sowmya (2020)

focused on developing a smart IIoT (Industrial Internet of Things ) – an integrated

brick-making machine that produces bricks for low-cost housing in India. The

machine, shown in figures 4 & 5 below, is automated and comprises a low-cost

microcontroller, hydraulic system, induction motor, solenoids, compact display, and

other mechanical components. It is noise-free and compaction pressure adjustable,

depending on the bricks (clay brick, concrete brick, and fly ash brick) to be made or

raw material fed to the machine. It also has a replaceable mold for making different

bricks based on dimensions (Premkumar, Devi, & Sowmya, 2020).

In this smart IIot integrated brick making machine, the production rate

recorded is 450 bricks per hour, which is 38.46%, 20-46.67%, 33.33%, and 34.48%
 24

faster than the machine’s production rate of Yakubu & Umar (2015), Okereka et al.

(2017), Ayyappan et al. (2018) and Orhorhoro et al. (2018), respectively. Besides, the

compaction pressure can be adjusted up to 20 megapascals using a pressure relief

valve within the machine (Premkumar, Devi, & Sowmya, 2020).

Figures 4 & 5. The working prototype of a smart IIoT integrated brick-making

machine (Premkumar, Devi, & Sowmya, 2020).

As a smart machine, it can be specified what brick type and a particular

bricks count to be made, and it can be seen on a monitor. When set, the machine

automatically calculates the raw materials’ proportion to mixed, indicates the

shortage of specific material in the composition, and checks for the moisture content

(Premkumar, Devi, & Sowmya, 2020). In addition, the status of the machine could

also be monitored using a mobile application.

Furthermore, the use of vibration to compact brick mixture was carried out on

brick machines in 2014 and 2020 by Adejugbe et al. and Zemicheal & Houjun,

respectively.
 25

Adejugbe et al. (2014) designed a double mold vibration–compactor block

molding machine that at least one person can operate to reduce operational cost and

maximize production rate. Their machine, shown in figure 6 below, has an

interchangeable block molder to accommodate two different sizes of block and

machine guards to protect the user from possible hazards from the rotating parts. It is

noted that the compressive force that the machine can yield to compress the mix in

the mold box is 147.15 newton, while the compression pressure is 420.43 Pascal

(Adejugbe, Ukoba, Idowu, Oyelami, & & Olusunle, 2014). The recorded production

rate was 480 bricks per hour or one brick per 7.5 seconds. This rate is comparatively

faster than the previously discussed brick-making machines that use a hydraulic

system.

Figure 6. The double mold vibration – compactor block molding machine of

Adejugbe et al. (2014)

Meanwhile, Zemicheal & Houjun (2020) created a portable hollow concrete

block making machine, shown in figure 7 below, to solve the problems encountered
 26

in the existing concrete block-making machine. They did this by increasing the

production rate, minimizing damages of uncured blocks during transfer, minimizing

power consumption and operational costs, and making the machine light and easy to

use. Unlike the previously discussed related pieces of literature, the ejection system of

the Zemicheal & Houjun (2020) machine is a laying type. When the compaction is

done, four blocks of size 20×20×40 cm will be ejected downwardly and directly on

the surface of the working area for curing. The machine is then moved into another

clear space for another process. Despite having four blocks per cycle, it can only

produce 200 to 300 blocks per hour. Unfortunately, this recorded production rate, the

200 blocks per hour, is the lowest among the previously discussed related pieces of

literature.

Figure 7. The portable hollow concrete block-making machine of Zemicheal &

Houjun (2020).

Much work on the potential of hydraulic and vibration has been carried out in

recent years, yet some fields of interest still have not been studied. Among the related
 27

literature, no study had utilized a brick integrated or reinforced with waste materials

such as plastic. However, the researchers recognized that the brick-making machine’s

compaction pressure depends on what type of bricks will be molded.

On the other hand, only Zemicheal & Houjun’s (2020) machine has four

blocks molded per operation. Still, all of them are somehow equal in the production

rate.

The researchers adopted the Zemicheal & Houjun (2020) four bricks per

molder to increase the production rate and the molder interchangeability of Adejugbe

et al. (2014) and Premkumar, Devi, & Sowmya (2020) to accommodate two different

sizes of eco-bricks. The researchers adopted Okereka et al. (2017)’s use of mild steel

for the molders for the material used.

Related Studies

I. Screw Eco-Bricks Presser

A central material recovery facility (MRF) in Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel,

Bulacan is used to receive, separate, and prepare non-biodegradable wastes generated

by the residential sources for bricks production. This facility is managed by its

Municipal Environmental and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) and is done per

the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000.

In this facility, the produced bricks are called eco-bricks. The collected solid

wastes, such as unsorted plastics, undergo crushing to make aggregates with at least

five (5) mm. This raw material is mixed using a cement mixer with Republic-brand

blended cement, white sand, and a tiny amount of water. After mixing, a plastic
 28

cylinder is used to contain a particular volume of mixture that will be poured into a

20.5×20.5 cm molder with a base plate. The die is then put in on the molder’s upper

portion and positioned opposite where the screw goes down. When done, the

flyweights are rotated clockwise to allow compaction of the mixture. The die and

mold are removed afterward, leaving the compressed eco-bricks in the plate. The

finished product is then transferred to the drying area.

Moreover, the screw eco-bricks presser of MRF San Miguel, Bulacan, shown

in figure 8 below, is a manually operated press in which a screw drives the ram up

and down. Specifically, it has a T-shape component comprising two flyweights,

handles for rotation, a screw shaft, and a ram that when rotated clockwise, will create

a downward movement of the ram with a greater force. The two flyweights help

maintain the presser’s momentum and thrust, making operating easier.

Figure 8. The screw eco-bricks presser of Central Material Recovery Facility (MRF)

of San Miguel, Bulacan

 29

Furthermore, this screw eco-bricks presser of MRF San Miguel, Bulacan has a

one brick capacity per cycle with an average time duration of 23 seconds. According

to the workers, they can create 300 up to 350 bricks per day. The number of

workforces needed to operate the presser is at least five – two designated persons for

rotating the flyweights, one for the mix filling, one for handling the mold, and one for

transferring the finished product to the drying area.

The researchers adopted the dimension of their mold and design of their die,

shown in figures 9 & 10 below, as they will be the end-users of the 180° Rotational

Eco-Bricks Presser with Interchangeable Molders. This study compared the design of

the 180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Presser with Interchangeable Molders with the screw

eco-bricks presser in terms of performance and functionality.

Figures 9 & 10. The mold (left) and die (right) of the screw eco-bricks presser of

MRF San Miguel, Bulacan

II. Innovative Conceptual Design of Manual-Concrete-Block-Making-Machine

The manual concrete block-making machine shown in figure 11 below is

designed by Madara, Namango, & Arusei (2016). It is an innovative, low-demanding,

 30

stationary-operated machine that molds concrete blocks, four times less expensive

than powered-operated brick machines (Madara, Namango, & Arusei, 2016). Their

machine’s main components are the frame, movable mold, bearing casing, compactor

system, shaft, handle lever, and wooden palate.

To produce a concrete block in this machine, an operator will first fill the four

406×152×229 mm molds of the prepared mixture. Second, the handle of the

compactor plate will be ramped to the mold with the help of a deadweight attached to

the compactor frame to compress the poured mixture. Once the blocks have been

compacted to the desired level, the mold has to be vertically cleared to enable the

removal of the concrete blocks (Madara, Namango, & Arusei, 2016). The movable

mold will be lifted through the ejection handle, leaving the molded four bricks above

the wooden palate. After the ejection, the molded blocks are transfer ready in the

drying and curing area.

Figure 11. The manual concrete block making machine of Madara et al. (2016)
 31

Furthermore, the ejection system of Madara et al. (2016) is somehow the same

as the egg-laying type of Zemicheal & Houjun (2020) and is different from the rest

discussed pieces of related literature. This ejection system follows the lever system. It

consists of an ejection handle, shaft, bearings, and connecting links. Madara et al.

(2016) noted that the bearing at the lever arm and shafts allows smooth motion of the

ejection. They designed the mold with clearance from the blocks to enable ejection

easily. On the other hand, the mold was designed to be quickly withdrawn and

replaced by another mold to accommodate different types and sizes of blocks and

bricks.

According to the study, the whole working cycle is approximately five

minutes. The recorded production rate of the machine is a minimum of 200 blocks per

8-hour shift, with more than two blocks per press.

Notably, ergonomics considerations were applied to their machine, such as the

four-brick capacity of the mold. The operator’s four blocks’ total weight lifted and

transferred to the curing zones is acceptable and meets the recommended safe weight

of 16 to 55 kilograms of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

(Madara, Namango, & Arusei, 2016).

The researchers adopted the principle of the ejection system and

interchangeability of the molds of the manual concrete block making machine of

Madara et al. (2016) and applied it in the study. Moreover, the researchers considered

the OSH standard used by Madara et al. (2016).

 32

Conceptual Framework

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Infoware 1. Identification of
a) Machine the Research
Design Problem
b) Materials
Science and 2. Research of
Engineering Related:
a) Theories
Humanware b) Literature
a) Mechanical c) Studies
Engineer
b) AutoCAD 3. Design
Designer a) Initial Design 180° Rotational
c) Fabricator b) Design Eco-Bricks
d) Researchers Modifications Manual Presser
with
Technoware 4. Hypothesis Interchangeable
a) Raw Dies and Molds
Materials 5. Gathering of
(mild steel Materials
plate, GI a) Canvassing
steel, cold b) Cost Estimation
rolled steel,
bolts, and 5. Fabrication
nuts) a) Mechanical
b) Tools and Works
Equipment b) Parts Assembly
(welding c) Finishing
machine,
grinder, 6. Testing and
metal saw, & Analysis
drill) a) Troubleshooting
b) Acceptability
Testing
 33

Figure 12. The Paradigm of the Study 

Figure 12 above, the paradigm of the study, follows the Input-Process-Output

(IPO) model. It outlines the study’s input, process, and output that guide the researchers

in conducting the study.

The input consists of infoware, humanware, and technoware, and these

fundamental elements are needed to proceed with the process. Meanwhile, the process

comprises the research problem identification, review of related theories, literature, and

studies, design, hypothesis, material gathering, fabrication, and testing and analysis.

Identifying these proper processes is crucial and required to achieve the desired output of

the study.

Hypothesis of the Study

The “180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and

Molds” can be used as an alternative eco-bricks press molder for San Miguel, Bulacan’s

Central MRF eco-bricks production. It can produce either four bricks of 9.5 by 20.5

centimeters or two bricks of 20.5 by 20.5 centimeters per press with minimal work

required while the bricks meet the required standards. Lastly, the unit is acceptable to its

end-users as it is reliable, accurate, efficient, effective, low-cost and low-maintenance,

and safe.
 34

Definition of Variables

1. Humanware - the human skills needed to use hardware and infoware to carry out

the required activity or task (Alizadeh, 2012). As used in this study, the term

humanware refers to persons contributing to making the research feasible.

2. Hydraulics - the study of fluids, whether in motion or at rest (Bajpai, 2018). As

used in this study, the term hydraulics is a system or technology employed in a

brick-making machine for brick mixture compaction.

3. Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) - the combination of production technology

with smart digital technology, big data, and machine learning to create a novel

ecosystem for companies (Indrakumari, Poongodi, Suresh, & Balamurugan,

2020). As used in this study, the IIoT refers to the technology used by

Premkumar, Devi, & Sowmya (2020) to automate and control the process and

manufacturing of bricks in their brick-making machines.

4. Infoware - the knowledge and information of using hardware to carry out the

required activity or task (Alizadeh, 2012). As used in this study, infoware refers to

papers or records that guide or provide technical information to the researcher.

5. Technoware - the physical assets such as equipment or machinery used to carry

out a specific activity or task (Alizadeh, 2012). As used in this study, the term

technoware refers to the main components, tools, and equipment needed to

fabricate the machine

6. Vibration - oscillation, reciprocation, or other periodic motion of a rigid or elastic

body or medium forced from a position or state of equilibrium (Rayner, 1995). As

 35

used in this study, the term vibration is a process employed in a brick-making

machine for brick mixture compaction.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the methods and techniques, population and sample,

research instrument, data gathering procedure, and data processing and statistical

treatment of the researchers utilized in the conduct of the study.

Methods and Techniques of the Study

Research design ensures that the answers provided in the study are as valid as

possible and are discovered as efficiently as possible (Mello, 2021). This statement

implies that research design is used to have established appropriate procedures for

collection, analysis, interpretation, and data presentation anchored by the purpose and

problems of the study. And to address and validate the critical research problems

formulated, mixed methods are employed in this research – the applied research and the

descriptive method.

Pacione (2009) stated that applied research allows utilizing theories and methods

in the ultimate proving ground of the real world while enabling researchers to resolve

real-world problems. With that, the researchers used applied research to solve the existing
 36

manufacturing problem of the Central Municipal Recovery Facility (MRF) of San

Miguel, Bulacan in their eco-bricks production. The researchers identified the production

issues in MRF through observations and testimonies of the eco-brick makers. Along with

the theories, concepts, and methods related to the studies, their validations helped the

researchers design and develop a 180° rotational eco-bricks presser with interchangeable

molders that will effectively improve their current practices in eco-bricks production.

Meanwhile, the researchers used the descriptive method to evaluate the

performance of the proposed unit. According to Tanner (2018), the descriptive method

primarily describes a particular phenomenon’s current situation, properties, and

conditions. She also added that it answers mainly the ‘what’ than the ‘who,’ ‘when,’

‘where,’ ‘how much,’ ‘how many,’ and ‘how often’ questions. In this method, the

researchers measured the impact of the study’s proposed solution on the existing problem

of its end-users through a survey tool that contains crucial parameters that define the

study’s acceptance level in its target population.

Population and Sample of the Study

Table 1. Summary of the Target Population and its Size, Obtained Sample Size, and Total

Number of Respondents of the Study

Populatio Sample
Target Population
n Size Size
Central Material Recovery Facility – San Miguel, Bulacan 7 7
Eco-Brick Makers
Municipal Environmental and Natural Resources Office 1 1
Head – San Miguel, Bulacan
Brick/Block Manufacturers – Bulacan - 28
Total Respondents 36
 37

The primary respondents of this study are the eco-brick makers of the Central

Material Recovery Facility (MRF) of San Miguel, Bulacan, located in Brgy. Biak-na-

Bato, and the overall in charge of the MRF, the head of the Municipal Environmental and

Natural Resources Office of San Miguel, Bulacan. These groups of people are directly

involved with the study as they are the end-users of the proposed unit. Moreover,

secondary respondents are some of the brick/block manufacturers in Bulacan province.

These groups are indirectly involved with the study, yet they can still provide valuable

contributions as they have work experiences and practices in the brick manufacturing

process.

Table 1 above summarizes the study’s target population and its size, sample size,

and the total number of respondents. Given the population size of the primary

respondents is small, one hundred percent of its size is the sample size, and were asked to

participate in the study. It means that the researchers have no sampling technique used in

the study. Meanwhile, the researchers could not determine the total number of secondary

respondents or the brick manufacturers in Bulacan due to time constraints and had

decided only to interview at least ten conveniently chosen of them.

In this study, a total of 36 respondents participated. Most of the primary

respondents had a chance to use the proposed unit directly. These hands-on experiences

with the proposed unit allowed them to evaluate it more truthfully and less biased.

Meanwhile, the remaining respondents had only assessed the proposed unit through face-

to-face discussions and video presentations provided by the researchers.

 38

Research Instrument

The gathering of necessary data for the study was done through printed survey

questionnaires. The survey questionnaire was developed using the format used by the

Department of Mechanical Engineering of Bulacan State University in the course subject

ME Project Study 2.

Specifically, the survey questionnaire was the instrument of the researchers for

the study’s acceptability test. It consisted of 18 statements and was grouped accordingly

with the parameters assessing the research’s performance and acceptance level and

validating its hypotheses, such as the functionality, reliability, accuracy, efficiency and

effectiveness, safety, and maintenance and cost.

Furthermore, the developed questions are answered through the 5-point Likert

scale. This scale is a psychometric response scale in which responders specify their level

of agreement with a statement, typically in five points, as shown in Table 2 below

(Preedy & Watson, 2010).

Table 2. The 5-Point Likert Scale

Rating Scale Descriptive Equivalent

5 Strongly Agree
4 Agree
3 Moderately Agree
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree

Using the 5-point Likert scale in the acceptability test helped the researchers

easily measure and interpret the participants’ responses statistically. The test also

included a section for the survey participants’ technical comments, suggestions, and
 39

recommendations about the unit that the researchers may consider in improving the

project at the end of the questions.

Figures 13 and 14 below show the survey questionnaire formed by the

researchers.
 40

Figure 13. First Page of the Acceptability Test Survey Questionnaire

 41

Figure 14. Second Page of the Acceptability Test Survey Questionnaire

 42

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers chose equipment innovation with involvement in waste

management as a field of study. In a sector related to the field of study, the researchers

decided to visit the Municipal Environmental and Natural Resources Office (MENRO) of

San Miguel, Bulacan to conduct an informal one-on-one interview with their head officer,

Engr. Wilfredo P. Santos. Current practices were asked, followed by his workers’ typical

work-related problems while working on devices and equipment available in their

material recovery facility (MRF). The researchers also asked for information such as their

desired solution or improvement. To validate more, onsite visitation in the Central MRF

at Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan was also done to have a researchers’ perspective of

the work practices in the MRF and personal interviews with the workers.

Using the data gathered, the researchers concluded an existing problem with their

eco-bricks production and decided to conduct a study. The researchers also agreed that

the Central MRF of San Miguel, Bulacan will be the beneficiary of the study. Along with

the data gathered from interviews and observations, the researchers reviewed related

theories, literature, and studies to improve the proposed study further. Soon after, the

researchers proceeded to design, consultation, and fabrication of the proposed unit.

After fabrication, the researchers conducted an acceptability test wherein printed

survey questionnaire forms were utilized to gather needed data for the test. A section for

technical comments, suggestions, and recommendations was also included at the end of

the form. Upon approval of this research instrument, permission and consent to conduct

the survey had been secured from the MENRO office.

 43

A total of seven (7) workers from the office and central MRF were selected as the

primary respondents of the study. The researchers demonstrated and discussed the

device’s operating procedures, features, and functionality before giving respondents an

on-hand opportunity to inspect, try, and use the device. After these, the participants were

asked to answer the survey form. Meanwhile, the researchers conveniently selected brick

manufacturers in Bulacan as the secondary respondents and were able to survey twenty-

eight (28) brick/block workers. The low number of secondary respondents is due to

limitations brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. Unlike the primary respondents, the

secondary respondents had only watched the video presentations prepared by researchers

with side discussions before answering the survey form.

During the acceptability test, the researchers assured both respondents were

informed that the information gathered would be strictly for research purposes only and

kept with the utmost confidentiality. The average time given for the participants to

complete the survey was 10-15 minutes. When the respondents were done answering, the

researchers checked and collected the survey forms and analyzed the data gathered.

The data gathering for the acceptability test took place for three days in May

2022.

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment

Data processing and statistical treatment provide vital information on how the

collected data will be evaluated to achieve the study aims (Bartrum & Karp, 2018). In

this study, the responses from the primary and secondary respondents were tabulated in

Microsoft Excel and were later analyzed using descriptive statistics and interpreted to

determine if the study aims were attained.

 44

Hayes (2022) defines descriptive statistics as a set of descriptive coefficients that

summarize a data set, representing the population or samples from the population. The

utilization of descriptive statistical tools such as standard deviation and weighted mean

helped the researchers examine the respondents’ perception of the acceptability of the

study.

Standard deviation, as defined by Narkhede (2018), is the measurement of the

average distance between each quantity and mean and can be obtained by using the

equation:

√
2
Σ (x−x̅ ) -- (2)
σ=
N −1

Where σ refers to sample standard deviation, Σ is the “summation of”, x is each value in

the data set, x̅ is the weighted mean of all values in the data set, and N is the number of

values in the data set. This statistical tool is essential to the study as the calculated

standard deviation per acceptability test’s parameter reflects all respondents’ rating

homogeneity or heterogeneity. The calculated standard deviation should be close to the

expected value. Thus, this statistical tool will dictate the researchers to survey another set

of respondents.

Meanwhile, as Narkhede (2018) defined, the weighted mean is a central tendency

of the data or a single number that can estimate the value of the whole data set. It can be

obtained by using the equation:

Σx
X= -- (3)
N

Where X refers to the weighted mean, Σx is the summation of the x-values, and N is the

total number of items in the samples. This statistical tool enabled the researchers to
 45

summarize the data gathered and determine the average rating per parameter of the

acceptability test participated by the respondents. The calculated weighted means can

have qualitative interpretations using the 5-Point Likert Scale shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3. The 5-Point Likert Scale Qualitative Interpretation (Nyutu, Cobern, &

Pleasants, 2021)

Scale Scale Interval Descriptive Equivalent

5 4.21 to 5.00 Strongly Agree
4 3.41 to 4.20 Agree
3 2.61 to 3.40 Moderately Agree
2 1.81 to 2.60 Disagree
1 1.00 to 1.80 Strongly Disagree
 46

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the labeled isometric view of the research project, its design

and dimension, the detailed step-by-step fabrication procedures of the project, the safety

precautions, the methods on how to operate the project, maintenance and troubleshooting

procedures, set-up experiment and its results, project costing, tabular comparison

between the current project and used related projects, and tabular summary and

interpretation of the results of the acceptability test.

Isometric View of the Device

180° Rotating Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and

Molds

H
O
K G
J M P
E
C
L
A D

F N
 47

Figure 15. Isometric View of 180° Rotating Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with

Interchangeable Dies and Molds

Table 4. Legend for Parts of 180° Rotating Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with

Interchangeable Dies and Molds and its Dimensions and Descriptive Interpretation

Cod
Part Name Principal Dimension Description
e
95(top)×45×74.5 cm
The frame supports all other
142.5(bottom) ×45×74.5
A Frame components of the
cm
equipment.
(l × w × h)
95 cm × 45 cm × 6.2 cm The table explicitly holds
B Table
(l × w × h) the mold and pole.
44 cm × 22 cm × 10 cm The molds are container-like
C Mold 1
(w/o lifting guide) in which an eco-brick
44 cm × 22 cm × 10 cm mixture is poured and
D Mold 2
(w/o lifting guide) shaped.
47 cm × 25.5 cm × 5.6
cm
(w/ die frame)
E Die 1
20 cm × 9 cm × 5 cm
The dies shape, compress
(Die only)
and stamp the eco-bricks
mixture in the molds.
46.5 × 25.5 cm × 5.6 cm
(w/ die frame)
F Die 2
20 cm × 20 cm × 5 cm
(Die only)
The pole supports the
74.5 cm height
G Pole presser and enables it to
3.8 cm diameter
rotate 180 degrees.
The rotating and presser
Rotating and guide holds the presser
H 25.5 cm × 5 cm × 14 cm
Presser Guide handle, ram, die holder, and
die.
I Presser Handle 51 cmlength The presser handle allows
the movement of the ram
with an attached die holder
 48

and dies at the end along Y-

axis.
46.5 cm × 25 cm × 10.8
J Die Holder The die holder holds the die.
cm
39.5 cm height The ram supports the die
K Ram
1.91 diameter and its holder.
38 cm length (handle)
53.5 cm width
2.4 cm thickness handle
w/connecting rod)38 cm The molder lifter moves the
L Mold lifter length mold upward and allows the
53.5 cm width and molded eco-bricks to eject.
(driving shaft) 42 cm
height.

M Ejector Plate 1 42 cm × 20 cm × 12.5 cm The ejector plates help the

44 cm × 20.3 cm × 12.5 mold lifter to eject the
N Ejector Plate 2
cm molded eco-bricks quickly.
The pin serves as a stopper
7.5 cm × 5 cm
O Pin for the presser system not to
9 mm diameter
move downward.
44 cm × 23 cm × 2 mm
(tray) The tray carries the ejected
P Tray
23 cm × 13 cm × 8 mm eco-bricks.
(handle)

Eco-bricks

Figures 16 & 17. 20.5×20.5 cm (left) and 9.5×20.5 cm (right) molded eco-bricks using

the 180° Rotating Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds
 49

Design of the Device

The design of the 180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and

molds mainly consists of a frame, presser system, mold, and ejector system. The height of

the frame is based on half of the average height of Filipinos, allowing the mold on the

table at the operator’s arms level. The length and width of the table are 95 cm × 45 cm to

maximize the space of the components it holds, such as two 44 cm × 22 cm molds, a 24.5

cm length pole mount, and a total of 26.5 cm length of extra working space for the tray.

The equipment is intended for mass production and versatility. The dies and

molds were designed as interchangeable to accommodate different eco-brick sizes and

designs. The mold size with two partitions was based on the dimension of the eco-bricks

produced by the study’s end-users, while the size of the mold with four compartments

each was based on the locally available bricks.

The presser system was designed 180 degrees rotational for faster production,

allowing eco-bricks side-by-side output. Computations were done on the presser system

to determine the force required to lift the handle during operations and its applied

compressive stress to the eco-bricks mixture.

Figure 18 below presents the free-body diagram of the presser system. The F 2 is

calculated through the free-weight of the presser system and acceleration due to gravity.

Figure 18. The free-body diagram of the presser system

 50

The free-weight of the presser system was determined using a digital weighing

scale, and the data gathered are the following:

Die 1 (20.5 × 9.5 cm) = 18.518 kg

Die 2 (20.5 × 20.5 cm) = 16.482 kg

Presser system without die = 23.540 kg

The principles of Kinematics and Machine Design were considered, and the

calculations are as follows:

For die 1,

+↷ M A =0

−F 1 ( 0 m ) + F2 ( 0.13 m )−F3 ( 0.525 m )=0

−F 1 ( 0 m ) +ma ( 0.13 m )−F 3 ( 0.525 m ) =0

(
( 18.518 kg+23.540 kg ) 9.81
m
s
2)( 0.13 m )−F 3 ( 0.525m )=0

F 3=102.1649 N

Based on the calculations above, the force required to lift the presser handle with

attached 20.5 × 9.5 cm dies is 102.1649 N, equal to 10.4144 kg.

For die 2,

+↷ M A =0

−F 1 ( 0 m ) + F2 ( 0.13 m )−F3 ( 0.525 m )=0

−F 1 ( 0 m ) +ma ( 0.13 m )−F 3 ( 0.525 m ) =0

 51

(
( 16.482 kg+23.540 kg ) 9.81
m
s
2 )
( 0.13 m )−F 3 ( 0.525 m )=0

F 3=97.2192 N

According to the calculations above, the force required to lift the presser handle

with attached 20.5 × 20.5 cm dies is 97.2102 N, equal to 9.9102 kg.

Moreover, the calculations for the exerted compressive stress by the presser

system are as follow:

For die 1,

F ma
Sc = =
A lw

Sc =
( 18.518 kg+23.540 kg ) 9.81
( m
s
2 )× kPa

( 1001 mcm )
2
1000 Pa
(4 ) ( 20.5 cm ) ( 9.5 cm )

Sc =5.2964 kPa

For die 2,

F ma
Sc = =
A lw

Sc =
( 16.482 kg+23.540 kg ) 9.81
( m
s
2 )× kPa

( 1001 mcm )
2
1000 Pa
(2) ( 20.5 cm )( 20.5 cm )

Sc =4.6712 kPa

When using the 20.5×9.5 cm and 20.5×20.5 cm dies, the compressive stress for

every stamp is 5.2964 kPa and 4.6712 kPa, respectively.

 52

Device Fabrication

I. Materials for Component Fabrication

Table 5 below shows the researchers’ tools and equipment used to fabricate

the 180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds.

Table 5. List of Tools and Equipment Used During Fabrication

Name of Tool/Equipment Figure

Buffing Disc

Cut-off Machine

Grinder
 53

Inverter Welding Machine

Lathe Machine

Socket Wrench

Steel Tape Measure

Welding Electrode &

Welding Electrode Holder
 54

II. Detailed Step-by-Step Fabrication/Construction of the Device

This part presented the detailed step-by-step fabrication per component of the

180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds.

A. Frame

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 19. Frame Auto CAD

2. Preparation of Raw Materials

Use 2 × 2 inches galvanized iron steel bar.

Figure 20. Galvanized iron steel bar.

Use of welding rod.

 55

Figure 21. Welding electrodes.

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the 2 × 2 galvanized iron steel bars to create an upper

frame table with dimensions of 95 cm in length, 45 cm in width, and 5 cm in

thickness. Next is to cut the GI steel middle frame of 110 cm in length and

35.5 cm in width. Lastly is to cut the bottom feet with wide dimensions of

142.5 cm × 45 cm × 74.5 cm (l × w × h).

Figure 22. Cutting the GI steel bar

After cutting, proceed to attach and combine the upper table frame with 95

cm × 45 cm × 74.5 cm (l × w × h), and attach the bottom feet galvanized iron

 56

steel with a wide dimension of 142.5 cm × 45 cm × 74.5 cm by a welding

process.

Figures 23 & 24. Attachments of GI iron steel bar.

Set a primer paint into the frame.

Figure 25 & 26. Painted primer frame.

4. Final Output

Figure 27. The fabricated frame

 57

B. Table

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 28. Table CAD drawing

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use of 95 cm × 45 cm × 6.2 cm mild steel plate.

Figure 29. Mild steel plate.

Use of welding electrode.

 58

Figure 30. Welding electrodes

3. Preparation of raw materials

Measure and cut the mild steel plate with dimensions of 95 cm × 45 cm ×

6.2 cm and clamp it to the table frame.

Figure 31. Clamping of mild steel plate.

After clamping the mild steel plate, attach it to the table frame using the

inverter welding machine and rod.

 59

Figure 32. Attachment of mild steel plate.

4. Final Outputi

Figure 33. The fabricated table.

C. Mold 1

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 34. Mold 1 CAD drawing.

 60

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use an 8 mm mild steel plate.

Figure 35. Mild steel plate.

Use 1×1-inch galvanized iron steel.

Figure 36. Galvanized iron steel.

Use of welding electrodes.

Figure 37. Welding electrodes

 61

Use of washer, bolts, and nuts.

Figure 38. Washer, bolts, and nuts.

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the 6 mm mild steel plate. Next is to combine the 6 mm

mild steel plate to create molds with dimensions of 20.5 cm and 9.5 cm in

width. Next is to connect four molds with a size of 44 cm×22 cm ×10 cm (l ×

w × h).

Figure 39 & 40. Attachments of molds

Buff the surface of the mold and attach the lifting guide by using a buffing

disc grinder and inverter welding machine.

 62

Figure 41 & 42. Attachments and Buffing molds.

4. Final Output

Figure 43. Fabricated rectangular molds.

D. Mold 2

1. CAD Drawing
 63

Figure 44. Molds Auto CAD

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use an 8 mm thick mild steel plate.

Figure 45. Mild steel plate

Use of welding electrodes.

Figure 46. Welding Electrodes

Use of 1×1 galvanized iron steel.

 64

Figure 47. Galvanized iron steel

Use bolts and nuts.

Figure 48. Bolts and nuts

3. Fabrication

The first is to measure the mild steel plate and cut it into 22 cm and 44

cm-based plates. Next is to combine the 8 mm thick mild steel plates,

including the base, to create a square shape using the welding machine, with a

principal dimension of 44 cm × 22 cm × 10 cm.

 65

Figures 49 & 50. Cutting and welding of MS plate

After the assembly, cut the 1×1-inch galvanized iron steel into four parts

for the lifting guide of the molds at 33.5 cm height.

Figures 51 & 52. Fabrication of molds.

4. Final Output

Figure 53. Fabricated molds.

 66

E. Die 1

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 54. Rectangular Auto Cad molds

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use 6mm and 8mm thick mild steel plates.

Figure 55. Mild steel plate.

Use of welding electrode.

 67

Figure 56. Welding electrodes.

3. Fabrication

To build a frame first is to measure and cut the die frame with the

dimensions of 47 cm × 25.5 cm × 5.6 cm using a grinder.

Figure 57. Cutting of die frame and die.

Attach the mild steel plate using a welding machine to build the die with

the dimensions of 20 cm × 9 cm × 5 and attach the die to the frame using a

welding machine.
 68

Figure 58. Welding rectangular molds.

4. Final Output

Figure 59. The fabricated die 1.

F. Die 2

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 60. Die AutoCAD

 69

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use 6mm and 8mm thickness of mild steel plates.

Figure 61. Mild steel plate.

Use of welding electrodes.

Figure 62. Welding electrodes.

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the based plate die frame with dimensions of 46.5 × 25.5

cm × 5.6 cm and 20 cm × 20 cm × 5 cm (die only).

 70

Figure 63. Cutting of die frame and die.

After cutting off the plates in a square shape and their respective

dimension, attach the die to the frame plate using a welding machine. Next is

to make sure the corners are well buffed or smoothened using a grinder with a

buffing disc.

Figure 64. Attachments of the die.

4. Final Output
 71

Figure 65. The fabricated die 1.

G. Pole

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 66. Pole CAD drawing

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use 38 mm cold-rolled steel shafting and 6 mm thick mild steel plate.

 72

Figure 67 & 68. Cold rolled steel and Mild steel plate

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the 38 mm cold rolled steel and 6 mm thick mild steel

plate, with a height of 74.5 cm, and cut the 6 mm mild steel plate to

dimensions of 24 cm length and 7.4 cm width.

Figure 69 & 70. Cutting of CRS and Mild steel plate

After cutting, turn the 38 mm cold rolled steel using a lathe machine and a

grinder machine. Next, attached the 6 mm mild steel plate using a welding

machine.
 73

Figure 71 & 72. Turning of CRS and attachment of MS plate

4. Final Output

Figure 73. Fabricated pole

H. Rotating and Presser Guide

1. CAD Drawing
 74

Figure 74. Rotating & presser guide Auto CAD

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use a 6 mm mild steel plate.

Figure 75. Mild steel plate.

Use bolts and nuts.

Figure 76. Bolts and nuts.

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the mild steel plate into their respective sizes. 25.5 cm ×

5 cm × 14 cm (l × w × h). Next is to cut the lower handle frame with

dimensions of 13 cm × 5 cm × 8.5 cm.

 75

Figure 77. Mild steel plate

After cutting, weld the parts to attach the rotating presser guide.

Figures 78 & 79. Rotating presser guide

4. Final Output

Figure 80. Fabricated rotating presser guide.

 76

I. Presser Handle

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 81. Presser handle.

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use 27 mm shafting cold rolled steel plate.

Figure 82. Cold rolled steel.

Use 8 mm thickness of mild steel plate.

 77

Figure 83. Mild steel plate

Use washer, bolts, and nuts.

Figure 84. Washer Bolts & nuts

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the mild steel plate 12 cm in length and 2.5 cm in width.

Next is to cut the 27 mm cold-rolled steel into 51 cm length.

After cutting, attach the pole handle in a 12 cm length and 2.5 cm width

mild steel plate using the washer, bolts, and nuts. Lastly, attach a rubber grip

at the near-end handle.

Figure 85. Fabrication of presser handle

 78

4. Final Output

Figure 86. Fabricated presser handle

J. Die Holder

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 87. Die holder Auto CAD

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use a 6 mm mild steel plate.

 79

Figure 88. Mild steel plate

Use bolts and nuts.

Figure 89. Bolts and Nuts

3. Fabrication

First is to measure and cut the 6 mm mild steel plate for the top and based

frame, with dimensions of 46.5 cm in length and 25 cm in width. Next is to

cut the mild steel plates for the middle frame support with their corresponding

sizes. 33.9 cm × 20.5 cm × 9.8 cm (l × w × h).

 80

Figures 90 & 91. Cutting MS plate

4. Final Output

Figure 92. Fabricated die holder

K. Ram

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 93. Ram Auto CAD.

 81

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use 38 mm diameter of cold-rolled steel.

Figure 94. Cold-rolled steel

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the cold-rolled steel to 39.5 cm in height. Cut the end of

the CRS to create a sliding mechanism using a grinder.

Figure 95. Cutting of cold-rolled steel

 82

4. Final Output

Figure 96. Fabricated ram.

L. Mold Lifter

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 97. Molder lifter.

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use 1×1-inch galvanized iron steel.

 83

Figure 98. Cold-rolled steel

Use bolts and nuts

Figure 99. Bolts and nuts

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the 1×1-inch galvanized iron steel into 5 parts with their

respective dimensions, 38 cm in length and 53.5 cm in width, handle with

connecting rod. Next, it is to attach the two 42 cm in length GI iron steel

together with a 17 cm length of mild steel plate.

 84

Figures 100 & 101. Cutting fabrication

4. Final Output

Figure 102. Fabricated mold lifter

M. Ejector Plate 1

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 103. Ejector plate 1. Auto CAD

2. Preparation of raw materials

 85

Use 1 × 1 inch galvanized iron steel bar.

Figure 104. Galvanized iron steel bar.

Use 42 cm × 20 cm × 12.5 cm galvanize plain iron sheet.

Figure 105. Mild Steel Plate.

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the galvanized iron steel bar handle into four parts of 9.8

cm in length. Next, cut the galvanized iron plain sheet to 20 cm in length and

9 cm in width.
 86

Figure 106. Cutting the GI iron steel bar.

Proceed to combine the GI steel bar and GI plain sheet; next is to attach

the handle of the ejector plate.

Figure 107. An unattached handle on an ejector plate.

4. Final Output

Figure 108. Fabricated Ejector plate 1.

 87

N. Ejector Plate 2

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 109. Ejector plate 2.

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use 1 × 1 inch galvanized iron steel bar.

Figure 110. Galvanized iron steel bar.

Use of 44 cm × 20.3 cm × 12.5 cm steel plate.

 88

Figure 111. Steel Plate.

Use of welding electrodes.

Figure 112. Welding electrodes

3. Fabrication

Cutting the handle of the ejector plate using a grinder.

Figure 113. Cutting the GI iron steel bar.

Attaching the handle and buffing the edge using a grinder to remove

excess metal parts.

 89

Figure 114. Finishing the ejector plate

4. Final Output

Figure 115. Fabricated Ejector Plate2.

O. Pin

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 116. Pin.

 90

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use of round steel bar 9 mm diameter.

Figure 117. Round steel bar.

Use of welding electrodes.

Figure 118. Welding electrodes

3. Fabrication

Cutting of round steel bar 7.5 cm × 5 cm using the grinder.

 91

Figure 119. Cut round steel bar.

Attaching the rod using an inverter welding machine.

Figure 120. Attaching two round steel bars.

4. Final Output

Figure 121. Fabricated Pin

 92

P. Tray

1. CAD Drawing

Figure 122. Tray

2. Preparation of raw materials

Use of 44 cm × 23 cm × 2 mm steel plate.

Figure 123. Steel Plate.

Use of 23 cm × 13 cm × 8 mm square bar for handle.

 93

Figure 124. Square steel bar.

Use of welding electrodes.

Figure 125. Welding electrodes

3. Fabrication

Measure and cut the 2 mm thick mild steel plate, with dimensions of 44

cm in length and 23 cm in width. Next, attach the 8 mm square steel bar

handle with 23 cm in length and 13 cm in width.

Figure 126. Cutting the MS plate with the required measurements

 94

4. Final Output

Figure 127. Fabricated tray

General Assembly

The 180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds has

mainly consisted of a frame, presser system, mold, and ejector system. After fabrication,

the proper assembly of the components of the device is as follows:

1. Place the frame table in a level area. Carefully align the pole mounts in the middle

of the frame where the drill holes are. Secure the pole using bolts and nuts.

Figure 128. The frame table and the pole.

2. In the pole, attach the rotating and pressing guide.

 95

Figure 129. The rotating and pressing guide is attached to the pole.

3. Carefully insert the same preferred two molds on the lift guide on the side of the

table.

Figure 130. Installed mold system.

4. Attach the mold lifter links using bolts and nuts in the frame and the molds.
 96

Figure 131. Molds with the ejection system

5. In the rotating and pressing guide, carefully insert the die holder’s ram, attach

other components such as the handle and small link, and secure them using bolts,

nuts, and washers. See figure 132 below for reference.

Figure 132. Installed presser system

6. Slightly move the presser handle upward and insert the stopper pin. Then, place

the die in the mold.

 97

Figure 133. Position of the die and die holder before attachment.

7. Rotate the presser and align it in the mold.

Figure 134. Die and die holder alignment.

8. Remove the stopper pin to move downward, connect the die properly to its holder,

and tighten it using bolts and nuts.

 98

Figure 135. Attachment of die to the die holder

9. Move upward again the handle and insert the pin in the ram.

Figure 136. Inserted pin in the presser’s ram

10. Check all the components to see if they are working correctly.

Safety Precautions

Safety precautions are essential to know first before doing an operation. It will

help the operator be aware of and prevent the possible hazards and risks he may

encounter while doing the procedures.

 99

The following are preventive measures to observe before, during, and after using

the 180˚ eco-brick manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds:

1. Inspect the device first before operation. Check the device’s

components to see if they are working correctly and in the proper

condition.

2. Place the machine on a level and clear area to ensure both the device

and the operator are stable.

3. Wear hand gloves and other protective clothing and use proper tools

to protect the skin from possible chemical burns from wet concrete.

4. Use the presser properly and do not exert excessive force.

5. Do not place tools and hands under the presser to avoid injuries when

using the device.

6. Ensure the safety pin is inserted in the presser’s ram so the die will

remain stable and does not move downward while filling the mixture

on the mold and when not in use.

7. When rotating the presser on the opposite side, ensure no one is near

the handle and presser.

8. Keep the device clean and free from unnecessary materials.

9. Always ask for assistance and wear gloves when interchanging the die

and molds.
 100

Operation Process of the Device

The 180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds has

primarily five operational procedures to create eco-bricks.

I. Pre-Operation

1. Place the device in a flat area.

2. Decide what size of eco-bricks will be produced and attach its

corresponding mold size and die.

3. To install the mold, carefully insert its shafts into the mold holder and

connect it to the ejection system using bolts and nuts.

Figure 137. Inserting the mold into the lift guide

4. To attach the die, align the die holes to the corresponding holes of the die

holder and fasten them using bolts and nuts.

 101

Figure 138. Attaching the die in its holder using a socket wrench.

II. Eco-bricks Mixture Operation

1. Prepare the eco-brick mixture with the following percentage:

Cement 53.62%

White Sand 45.04%

Crushed Plastics 1.34%

Mix these raw materials thoroughly before gradually adding water.

Figure 139. Eco-bricks mixture.

2. Before filling, ensure the tray is inserted at the bottom of the molds.
 102

Figure 140. Inserting the tray under the mold.

3. Fill the molds from both sides of the mixture until complete using a

container. Do not compress the mixture.

Figure 141. Filling the mold with the eco-bricks mixture.

4. Remove medium to big stones, if any.

5. Level the mixture properly in the mold using a trowel.

 103

Figure 142. Leveling the filled eco-bricks mixture.

III. Eco-Bricks Production

1. On one side of the device, align the presser on top of the mold.

Figure 143. Aligning the presser into the mold.

2. Gently move the presser handle upward and remove the pin from the

presser’s ram.
 104

Figure 144. Removing the stopper pin.

3. Press the eco-brick mixture by pulling down the presser handle.

Figure 145. Pressing the eco-bricks mixture.

4. After pressing, stamp at least five of the mixture.

5. Move the presser handle upward, then insert the pin on the presser’s ram.

6. Rotate the lever on the opposite side of the machine for another batch of

production.
 105

Figure 146. Rotating the presser to the other side.

IV. Eco-Bricks Collection

1. Insert the ejector plate into the mold.

Figure 147. Insert the ejector plate into the mold.

2. While holding the mold, push the mold lifter until the molded eco-bricks

are ejected into the tray.

 106

Figure 148. Ejecting the molded eco-bricks.

3. Pull and hold the tray away from the mold.

Figure 149. Pulling the eco-brick tray under the mold.

4. Transfer the molded eco-bricks to the drying area.

V. After Operation

1. Remove the spilled mixture to the table.

 107

Figure 150. Cleaning the table.

2. Use a brush to clean the mold, die, ejector plate, and tray surfaces.

Figure 151. Brushing the inside surface of the mold to remove the mixed

residues.

Maintenance Procedures

Proper device maintenance is a must to ensure smooth operation when used again

and prolong its life. The researchers recommend the following maintenance procedures

for the 180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies and molds:

1. Regularly check the tightness of the bolts and nuts before operations.
 108

2. Periodically check if the device’s components are working correctly and in the

proper condition.

3. After usage, use a brush to remove dirt, sands, or dust from the table, mold, die,

ejector plate, and tray to prevent corrosion accumulation.

4. Regularly apply lubricant to the moving parts of the device.

Troubleshooting

Continuously using a device may bring up performance-related problems, and the

operator must know and employ the proper countermeasures to solve them. Table 6

shows troubleshooting for the 180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with interchangeable dies

and molds.

Table 6. Troubleshooting.

PROBLEM POSSIBLE CAUSE/S SOLUTION

The inside surface of the

Buff the inside surface of
molds is uneven.
the mold.
The compacted eco-
bricks stick in the mold The friction between the
Use an ejector plate to assist
during ejection. molded eco-brick and the
the molded eco-bricks in
molder inside surface is
sliding into the tray.
high.

The molded eco-bricks

The friction between the
stick on the tray during Put acetate plastic over the
molded eco-bricks and
transfer in the drying tray.
the tray surface is high.
area.

The presser makes Improper lubrication of Apply lubricant into the

noises during rotation. the shafting shafting.
 109

Set-up Experiment

The device output in this study is operated manually. To ensure that the

compaction of the eco-bricks mixture in the mold was enough, the researchers conducted

an experiment to determine how many stampings were needed to meet the acceptable

product.

In this experiment, the eco-bricks mixture used is the same as the mixture used by

the study’s end-users. The experiment was applied to both molds, but only one side of the

device was used. Also, one operator operated the two molds. The height of the filling

mixture was set at 8 cm, having an approximately 3362 cubic cm (20.5×20.5 cm molds)

and 1558 cubic cm (9.5×20.5 cm molds) starting volume point. For every stamp, the

researchers measured the volume decrease of the compressed eco-bricks and took

observations in terms of texture.

Table 7. Trials for the 20.5×20.5 cm molds

No. of
Trials Observation Illustration
Stamp
The poured mixture is still
0 0 ---
uncompressed.

The poured mixture is

compacted, and the
texture is smooth and
1 1 grainy.

The volume displacement

is 588.35 cm3.
 110

Same with trial 1.

2 2 The total volume

displacement compared to
trial 0 is 672.40 cm3.

Same with trials 1 & 2.

3 3
The total volume
displacement compared to
trial 0 is 756.45 cm3.

Same with the trials 1, 2,

& 3.

4 4
The total volume decrease
compares to trial 0 is
840.50 cm3.

5 5 No observable changes.
 111

Table 7 summarizes the trials done for the 20.5 by 20.5 cm molds. A 588.35 cm3

volume displacement was recorded in the first trial, followed by another 84.05 cm and

84.05 cm in the second and third trials. While in the fourth trial, the total volume

displacement reached 840.50 cm3 and remained unchanged until trial 5. Lastly, there are

no observable texture changes in the trials.

Table 8. Trials for the 20.5×9.5 cm molds

No. of
Trials Observation Illustration
Stamp
The poured mixture is still
0 0 ---
uncompressed.

The poured mixture is

compacted, and the
texture is semi-smooth
1 1 and grainy.

The volume displacement

is 253.18 cm3.

Same with trial 1 but

smoother and grainy.
2 2
The total volume
displacement compared to
trial 0 is 272.65 cm3.
 112

Same with trial 2 but

smoother grainy.
3 3
The total volume
displacement compares to
trial 0 is 311.60 cm3.

Same with trials 2 & 3.

4 4 The total volume

displacement compared to
trial 0 is 350.55 cm3.

5 5 No observable changes.

As shown in Table 8, the volume displacement in trials 1, 2, 3, and 4 increases,

but no recorded volume displacement changes in trial 5. Lastly, the smooth grainy texture

remains unchanged starting at trial 3.

When there is no volume displacement occurs, it means that the maximum

compression capability of the presser is reached.

I. Processing Time Requirement Test

 113

The speed test was applied to the 180˚ eco-bricks manual presser with

interchangeable dies and molds to determine the time needed to fill the molds, press

the eco-brick mixture, eject the molded eco-bricks, and perform one cycle.

The researchers conducted three whole cycle operations on the 20.5×20.5 cm

molds and the 20.5×9.5 cm molds. This experiment involves recording the processing

time per type of mold following the table below.

Table 9. Set Parameters for the processing time requirement test

The time record is from filling the

Filling Time : mold with the mixture until
complete and leveled.

The time record is from aligning the

presser into the mold to inserting the
stopper pin into the ram.
Molding Time :
The number of stamps is limited to
five.

The time record is from inserting the

Ejecting Time : ejector plate into the mold to
removing the tray under the mold.
Cycle Time : The time record is from filling both
molds, molding time, and ejecting
time for both sides of the device.

The number of operators was fixed at four (4) persons, two males that operate

the presser system and two females that help fill the mold with the mixture and assist

in the ejection. At the same time, the mixture used in this experiment is a replication

of the eco-bricks mix used by the end-users.

Table 10. Summary of time recorded in processing time requirement test

 114

using 20.5×20.5 cm molds.

Trial Filling Time Molding Time Ejecting Time Total Time

1 52 seconds 9 seconds 10 seconds 71 seconds
2 49 seconds 10 seconds 15 seconds 74 seconds
3 52 seconds 14 seconds 5 seconds 71 seconds
4 92 seconds 5 seconds 10 seconds 107 seconds
5 61 seconds 17 seconds 12 seconds 90 seconds
6 63 seconds 12 seconds 7 seconds 82 seconds
Averag
61.5 seconds 11.17 seconds 9.83 seconds 82.5 seconds
e Time

Table 10 above shows the tabulated time recorded during the processing time

requirement test using 20.5×20.5 cm molds on one side. It shows the filling time has

the most prolonged process, having an average time of 61.5 seconds. The molding

time averages 11.17 seconds, while ejecting time has an average duration of 9.83

seconds.

Table 11. Cycle time recorded in processing time requirement test

using 20.5×20.5 cm molds.

Trial Cycle Time

1 158 seconds
2 131 seconds
3 112 seconds
Average Time 133.67 seconds

As shown in Table 11 above, the average time to perform one cycle to

produce four 20.5×20.5 cm eco-bricks is 2 minutes and 23 seconds.

Table 12. Summary of time recorded in processing time requirement test

using 20.5×9.5 cm molds.

 115

Trial Filling Time Molding Time Ejecting Time Total Time

1 53 seconds 6 seconds 8 seconds 67 seconds
2 53 seconds 6 seconds 7 seconds 66 seconds
3 45 seconds 7 seconds 10 seconds 62 seconds
4 70 seconds 11 seconds 9 seconds 90 seconds
5 61 seconds 15 seconds 11 seconds 87 seconds
6 54 seconds 15 seconds 12 seconds 81 seconds
Average Time 56 seconds 10 seconds 9.5 seconds 75.5 seconds

Table 12 above tabulates the time recorded during the processing time

requirement test using 20.5×9.5 cm molds on one side. It shows the filling time has the

most prolonged process, having an average time of 56 seconds. While the molding and

ejecting time is approximately equal, having an average duration of 10 and 9.5 seconds,

respectively.

Table 13. Cycle time recorded in processing time requirement test

using 20.5×9.5 cm molds.

Trial Cycle Time

1 109 seconds
2 108 seconds
3 96 seconds
Average Time 104.33 seconds

Table 13 above reveals that the average time to perform one cycle to produce

eight 20.5×9.5 cm eco-bricks is 1 minute and 44.33 seconds.

II. Impact Test

In the impact test, bricks are dropped from at least one-meter height. A broken

brick after impact test indicates low impact value and is not acceptable for
 116

construction work, while an unbroken brick suggests a good quality (Cruz, et al.,

2018).

In this test, the eco-bricks produced from the trials above and the end user’s

eco-bricks undergo an impact test.

Test Procedures:

1. Prepare the eco-brick samples.

Figure 152. Study’s eco-brick (left) and end user’s eco-bricks (right)

2. Measure a height of one meter from the ground.

Figure 153. Measuring a height of one meter

3. Drop the sample bricks at the measured height.

 117

Figure 154. Pre-impact Test

4. Document and record the observations.

Figure 155. Post-impact Test

Table 14. Impact Test Results

Brick Sample After Observation

 118

Impact Test
The eco-brick was broken
into large and small parts,
and tiny particles were
End-user’s eco-brick seen scattered beside it. No
crack was detected in the
remaining large portion of
eco-brick.

Same with end-user eco-

Project’s eco-brick bricks, but a crack in the
middle was detected.

Both eco-bricks were broken after the impact test, as shown in Table 14. Both

have low impact value and are not acceptable for construction work, as Cruz et al. (2018)

noted. Yet, these eco-bricks are meant for pavement and plant box usage only.

III. Hardness Test

The hardness test determines the hardness of the bricks to deformation. In this

test, a harder material will be used to penetrate the brick surface. If it does not leave

any impression or scratches on the surface, it is considered good quality bricks (Cruz,

et al., 2018).

Test Procedures:

1. Prepare the eco-brick samples and the hard material.

 119

Figure 156. Study’s eco-brick (left) and end user’s eco-bricks (right)

2. Scratch the eco-brick samples’ surface.

Figure 157. Scratching the eco-brick samples

3. Document and record the observations.

Figure 158. Post-hardness Test

Table 15. Hardness Test Results

Brick Sample After

Observation
Hardness Test
 120

A scratch mark was left on

End-user’s eco-brick
the eco-brick.

Same with the end-users

Project’s eco-brick brick, a scratch mark was
left on the eco-brick.

As shown in Table 15, both eco-bricks had a scratch after being subjected to a

hardness test. This observation means that both eco-bricks have low hardness properties.

Project Costing

Table 16. Project costing

180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds

Resources Used Dimensions Quantity Unit Cost (₱) Total Cost (₱)
1×1 inches
Galvanized 2 pcs. 125 250
(length × width)
Iron Tubular
2×2 inches
Bar 2 pcs. 550 1,100
(length × width)
Galvanized Iron
4 mm thickness 2 pcs. 125 250
Plain Sheet
Mild Steel Plate 6 mm thickness 2 pcs. 1,000 2,000
3×4 ft of 8 mm
1 pc. 4,000 4,000
thickness
8 mm thickness 4 pcs. 1,500 6,000
 121

12 mm thickness 2 pc. 8,000 16,000

Cold Rolled 27 mm diameter 1 pc. 1,100 1,100
Steel Bar 38 mm diameter 1 pc. 1,500 1,500
Bolts and Nuts --- 22 pcs. 20 440
Washer --- 4 pcs. 15 60
Primer Paint --- 1 Liter 100 100
Enamel Paint 1 Liter 200 200
Welding
--- --- 600 600
Electrodes
Flap Disc --- --- 300 300
Grinder Disc --- --- 800 800
Buffing Disc --- --- 900 900
Sandpaper 400 400
18
Labor --- workday --- 26,000
s
Grand Total Cost ₱ 62, 000

The resources used and their dimension, quantity, unit cost, and total cost in

fabricating the device are shown in detail in table 16 above. The device has a total cost of

62,000 Philippine pesos. It is high because it is a single production.

Tabular Comparison

Table 17 below shows the tabulated comparison of the study’s output and existing

brick-making devices using different variables.

Table 17. Comparison of the current project and existing ones

Variable Project Output Existing

180° Rotational
Manual Concrete-
Eco-Bricks Manual Screw Eco-Bricks
Block Making
Name Presser with Presser of MRF San
Machine of
Interchangeable Dies Miguel, Bulacan
Madara et al. (2016)
and Molds
 122

Appearance

Mode of Manual Manual Manual

Operation
₱ 12,574
(240 USD as stated
Cost ₱ 62,000 --- and converted using
a rate of 1 USD =
PHP 52.39)
Size Medium Large Medium
Weight --- --- ---
4 bricks/cycle
Mold
(Using 20.5×20.5 cm 1 brick/cycle 4 brick/cycle
Capacity
molds)
8 bricks/cycle
(Using 20.5×9.5 cm
molds)
61.5 seconds
Filling Time (Using 20.5×20.5 cm 5 seconds --
molds)
56 seconds
(Using 20.5×9.5 cm
molds)
11.17 seconds
Molding
(Using 20.5×20.5 cm 5.75 seconds --
Time
molds)
10 seconds
(Using 20.5×9.5 cm
molds)
9.83 seconds
Ejecting
(Using 20.5×20.5 cm 2 seconds --
Time
molds)
9.5 seconds
(Using 20.5×9.5 cm
 123

molds)
No. of
4 persons 5 persons 1 person
Operator
108 bricks per hour
Production (Using 20.5×20.5 cm 157 bricks per hour
48 bricks per hour
Rate molds and assuming (Taking no rest)
no rest)
334 bricks per hour
(Using 20.5×9.5 cm
molds and assuming
no rest)
Maintenanc Uses lubricating oil Uses lubricating oil
--
e for the moving parts for the moving parts
Hazard Low risk Medium risk Low risk

Table 17 above shows the comparison between the “180° Rotational Eco-Bricks

Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” and the existing ones “Screw Eco-

Bricks Presser of MRF San Miguel, Bulacan” and “Manual Concrete-Block Making

Machine of Madara et al. (2016)” in terms of appearance, mode of operation, cost, size,

weight mold capacity, filling time, molding time, ejecting time, number of operator/s,

production rate, maintenance, and hazard.

In terms of production rate, the project’s device with installed 20.5×9.5 cm molds

has the highest rate since it has a maximum mold capacity of eight. Meanwhile, both

project’s device and the screw press molder of the study’s end-user have 20.5×20.5 cm

molds. Using this mold size, the end-user production rate is much higher than the

project’s device. The researchers believe that this is due to experimental limitations. The

recorded rate for the study’s end-users was based on the end-users operating the device,

while the rate for the project’s device was established from the operation of the

researchers.
 124

Table 18. Comparison between the eco-bricks output by the project and end-users.

180° Rotational
Eco-Bricks Manual Presser Screw Eco-Bricks Presser of
Variable
with Interchangeable Dies MRF San Miguel, Bulacan
and Molds

Appearance

Length 20.5 cm 20.5 cm

Width 20.5 cm 20.5 cm
Thickness 6 cm 4.2 cm
Mass 4.37 kg 3.33 kg
Texture Semi-smooth grainy Smooth grain

As shown in Table 18 above, both eco-bricks have the same length and width.

However, they are different in thickness, weight, and texture. The thickness and mass

usually differ because they depend on the mixture volume or weight filled in the molds.

Lastly, the eco-bricks are grainy, yet the end-user brick is smoother than the project’s

eco-brick.

Tabulated Data of Acceptability Test

A total of 36 respondents were surveyed and participated in the acceptability test

of the study. It comprises eight (8) participants from the end-users in the Central Material

Recovery Facility of San Miguel, Bulacan, and twenty-eight (28) participants from the

brick/block manufacturers in Bocaue, Pulilan, San Miguel, and Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
 125

These respondents evaluated the performance and acceptance level of the 180°

rotational eco-bricks presser with interchangeable molders in terms of functionality,

reliability, accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness, safety, maintenance, and cost. In

addition, the eco-brick outputs were also evaluated in terms of physical properties and

appearance. The weighted means and standard deviations per parameter were calculated

and interpreted using the 5-point Likert scale, shown in table 19 below.

Table 19. The 5-Point Likert Scale Qualitative Interpretation (Nyutu, Cobern, &

Pleasants, 2021)

Scale Scale Interval Descriptive Equivalent

5 4.21 to 5.00 Strongly Agree
4 3.41 to 4.20 Agree
3 2.61 to 3.40 Moderately Agree
2 1.81 to 2.60 Disagree
1 1.00 to 1.80 Strongly Disagree

The following tables are extracted and analyzed data from the printed survey

questionnaire or acceptability test.

Table 20. Tabulated Results for the Functionality Parameter

Functionality
Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The 180° REBMPIDM
can press and mold Strongly
26 7 3 0 0 4.64 0.64
according to the Agree
proponent’s target.
The 180°
REBMPIDM’s molder Strongly
29 6 1 0 0 4.78 0.48
and die are Agree
interchangeable.
The 180° REBMPIDM 29 7 0 0 0 4.81 0.40 Strongly
 126

is durable. Agree
The 180° REBMPIDM Strongly
26 7 2 1 0 4.61 0.73
is easy to operate. Agree
Strongly
Overall Functionality Mean 4.71 0.56
Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation

Table 20 shows the results summary for the device’s functionality test. Most of

the respondents strongly agree (5) with statements 1 and 4 (72.22% of the total

respondents) and 2 and 3 (80.56%). This claim is supported by the computed standard

deviation, 0.56, which is less than one, indicating that the respondents' response is

homogenous.

The respondents strongly agreed that the “180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual

Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” functions accordingly and serves its

purpose significantly. These include the researchers’ target of a durable device that can

produce eco-bricks, interchange die and mold, and be easily operatable. The computed

mean for each statement, ranging from 4.61 to 4.81, supports this claim with a

corresponding verbal interpretation of strongly agree.

Table 21. Tabulated Results for the Reliability Parameter

Reliability
Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The 180° REBMPIDM
Strongly
can meet/satisfy the 25 10 1 0 0 4.67 0.53
Agree
user’s needed output.
The 180° REBMPIDM
is reliable in terms of Strongly
23 12 1 0 0 4.61 0.55
capacity and Agree
performance.
Overall Reliability Mean 4.64 0.54 Strongly
 127

Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation

Table 21 reveals the results summary for the device’s reliability test. Same with

the functionality test, most of the respondents strongly agree (5) with statements 1

(69.44% of the total respondents) and 2 (63.89%). This claim is supported by the

computed standard deviation, 0.54, which is less than one, indicating that the

respondents' response is homogenous.

The respondents strongly agreed that the “180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual

Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” is reliable in capacity and performance,

considering it can meet or satisfy the user’s needed output. This statement is supported by

the computed mean on both statements, 4.61 and 4.67, with a corresponding verbal

interpretation of strongly agree.

Table 22. Tabulated Results for the Accuracy Parameter

Accuracy
Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The 180° REBMPIDM
can produce brick
Strongly
accurately in terms of 25 9 2 0 0 4.64 0.59
Agree
brick dimension and
strength.
The 180°
REBMPIDM’s die can
Strongly
easily fit into the 22 14 0 0 0 4.61 0.49
Agree
molder when the
handle is pulled down.
Strongly
Overall Accuracy Mean 4.63 0.54
Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation
 128

Table 22 shows the tabulated results for the device’s accuracy test. Along with

functionality and reliability tests, most of the respondents strongly agree (5) with

statements 1 (69.44% of the total respondents) and 2 (61.11%). This claim is supported

by the computed standard deviation, 0.54, which is less than one, indicating that the

respondents' response is homogenous.

Furthermore, the respondents strongly agreed that the die of the “180° Rotational

Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” can be easily fitted

into the molder when the presser handle is moved downward. Also, the device can

produce eco-bricks in terms of a particular dimension and strength accurately. These

claims agreed with the computed mean on both statements, 4.61 and 4.64, with a

corresponding verbal interpretation of strongly agree.

Table 23. Tabulated Results for the Efficiency and Effectiveness Parameters

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The 180° REBMPIDM
meets the user’s Strongly
24 11 1 0 0 4.64 0.54
objectives and Agree
requirements.
The 180° REBMPIDM
can be used to its Strongly
24 11 1 0 0 4.64 0.54
maximum design Agree
capacity.
Strongly
Overall Efficiency and Effectiveness Mean 4.64 0.54
Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation

Table 23 indicates the tabulated results for the device’s efficiency and

effectiveness test. Many of the respondents, 66.67% of the total participants, strongly
 129

agree (5) with both statements. This statement is supported by the computed 0.54

standard deviation, which is less than one, indicating that the respondents' response is

homogenous.

Also, the respondents strongly agreed that the “180° Rotational Eco-Bricks

Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” is efficient and effective because

it can meet the user’s objectives and requirements and be used to its maximum design

capacity. These claims agreed with the computed 4.64 mean on both statements with a

corresponding verbal interpretation of strongly agree.

Table 24. Tabulated Results for the Safety Parameter

Safety
Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The 180° REBMPIDM
Strongly
is safe to operate even 24 10 2 0 0 4.61 0.60
Agree
for beginners.
Strongly
Overall Safety Mean 4.61 0.60
Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation

Table 24 indicates the tabulated results for the device’s safety test. The majority

of the respondents, 66.67% of the total participants, strongly agree (5) that the “180°

Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” is safe to

operate even for beginners. This claim agreed with the computed standard deviation of

0.60, implying that the respondents' responses were homogenous because it is less than

one. Additionally, the overall calculated mean is 4.61, which has a verbal interpretation

of strongly agree.

Table 25. Tabulated Results for the Maintenance and Cost Parameters
 130

Maintenance and Cost

Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The 180° REBMPIDM
Strongly
can be used with 27 9 0 0 0 4.75 0.44
Agree
minimal maintenance.
The 180° REBMPIDM
Strongly
is affordable for the 21 12 3 0 0 4.50 0.65
Agree
local eco-brick makers.
Strongly
Overall Maintenance and Cost Mean 4.63 0.55
Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation

Table 25 displays the summary results for the device’s maintenance and cost tests.

75% of the total respondents strongly agree with statement number 1, while 58.33%

strongly agree with statement number 2. Both are the majority, and this claim is

supported by the computed overall standard deviation, 0.55, which is less than one,

suggesting that the respondents' response is homogenous.

Likewise, the respondents strongly agreed that the die of the “180° Rotational

Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” can be used with

minimal maintenance and is affordable for the local eco-brick makers. These claims

agreed with the computed mean on both statements, 4.75 and 4.50, with a corresponding

verbal interpretation of strongly agree.

Table 26. Tabulated Results for the Eco-Brick Physical Properties Parameter

Eco-Brick Physical Properties

Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The eco-bricks
produced by the 180° Strongly
22 14 0 0 0 4.61 0.49
REBMPIDM have an Agree
acceptable weight.
The eco-bricks 28 7 1 0 0 4.75 0.50 Strongly
 131

produced by the 180°

REBMPIDM have an Agree
acceptable hardness.
The eco-bricks
produced by the 180° Strongly
22 14 0 0 0 4.61 0.49
REBMPIDM have an Agree
acceptable texture.
Strongly
Overall Eco-Brick Physical Properties Mean 4.66 0.50
Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation

Table 26 shows the tabulated results for the eco-bricks physical properties

acceptance test. 77.78% of the total respondents strongly agree with statement number 2,

while 61.11% strongly agree with statements 1 and 3. All implies a majority, and this

claim is supported by the computed overall standard deviation, 0.50, which is less than

one, suggesting that the respondents' response is homogenous.

Furthermore, the respondents strongly agreed that the produced eco-bricks from

the “180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds”

have an acceptable weight, hardness, and texture. These claims agreed with the computed

mean on three statements, 4.61 and 4.75, with a corresponding verbal interpretation of

strongly agree.

Table 27. Tabulated Results for the Eco-Brick Appearance Parameter

Eco-Brick Appearance
Variable 5 4 3 2 1 Mean (X) SD (σ) VI
The eco-bricks
produced by the 180° Strongly
28 8 0 0 0 4.78 0.42
REBMPIDM have an Agree
acceptable shape.
The eco-bricks 30 6 0 0 0 4.83 0.39 Strongly
produced by the 180° Agree
 132

REBMPIDM are an
acceptable size.
Strongly
Overall Eco-Brick Appearance Mean 4.81 0.40
Agree
*SD = Standard Deviation, VI = Verbal Interpretation

Table 27 indicates the tabulated results for the eco-bricks appearance acceptance

test. Most of the respondents, 77.78% and 83.33% of the total respondents, strongly agree

with variables one and two. Both imply a majority, and this claim is supported by the

computed overall standard deviation, 0.40, which is less than one, suggesting that the

respondents' response is homogenous.

Likewise, the respondents strongly agreed that the produced eco-bricks from the

“180° Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” have

an acceptable shape and size. These claims are supported by the overall computed mean

of 4.81, with a verbal interpretation of strongly agree.

Summary of Interpretation of the Acceptability Test

All set parameters obtained a verbal interpretation of “strongly agree,” shown in

Table 28 below. Specifically, the study respondents strongly agree that the “180°

Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds” is

functional, reliable, accurate, efficient, effective, safe, easy to maintain, and affordable.

This statement agrees with the calculated overall mean, 4.64, which has a verbal

interpretation of strongly agree.

Table 28. Overall Tabulated Results of the Acceptability Test of the Device

Parameter Mean Verbal Interpretation

 133

Functionality 4.71 Strongly Agree

Reliability 4.64 Strongly Agree
Accuracy 4.63 Strongly Agree
Efficiency and Effectiveness 4.64 Strongly Agree
Safety 4.61 Strongly Agree
Maintenance and Cost 4.63 Strongly Agree
Overall 4.64 Strongly Agree

Additionally, the study respondents also strongly agree that the physical

properties and appearance of the eco-bricks produced from the study’s device are

acceptable, considering that the mean is 4.73, which has a verbal interpretation of

strongly agree.

Table 29. Overall Tabulated Results of the Acceptability Test of the Eco-Bricks

Parameter Mean Verbal Interpretation

Physical Properties 4.66 Strongly Agree
Appearance 4.81 Strongly Agree
Overall 4.73 Strongly Agree

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter summarizes the entire research project. It includes the findings,

conclusions drawn from the findings, and recommendations for further studies based on

the conclusions.
 134

Summary

The study aimed to develop a manually operated brick molder, particularly for

plastic-reinforced concrete brick. Expressly, the researchers set the “180° Rotational Eco-

Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds.” to help Central Material

Recovery Facility (MRF) at Sitio Balingcupang, Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan in

improving their eco-bricks production in terms of production rate, new eco-brick design

option, the workforce needed, safety, and working space. This study will also benefit

micro and small brick/block manufacturing owners and future researchers by providing a

new design brick molder that is low-cost and versatile, further improving the country’s

brick/block manufacturing industry.

The mechanical design of the project’s device is an eco-bricks manual presser

with interchangeable dies and molds composed of four main components made of mild

steel plate, galvanized iron steel, and cold rolled steel. These four main components

included the frame, presser system, mold, and ejector system and were fabricated with the

help of experienced machinists and fabricators.

The researchers tested the device to determine its capability to produce eco-

bricks, the same as the eco-bricks of the study’s end-users, and its comparability to the

end user’s screw eco-bricks presser and manual concrete block making machine of

Madara et al. (2016).

Meanwhile, the researchers evaluated the acceptance level of the device by

surveying a total of 36 respondents coming from the study’s end-users and brick/block

manufacturers in Bulacan in terms of its functionality, reliability, accuracy, efficiency

 135

and effectiveness, safety, maintenance, and cost. Also, the device’s eco-brick outputs

were subjected to an acceptability test in terms of physical properties and appearance.

The overall mean of the respondents’ response to the device is 4.64, while the eco-brick

is 4.73. Both verbally translate that they strongly agree with all statements written in the

acceptability test.

Findings

Based on the interviews, acceptability tests, and testing conducted by the

researchers, the following are the study’s findings:

Strengths

1. The central MRF eco-brick makers and MENRO head officer observed that the

project study’s device is safer than their screw eco-bricks presser.

2. The MENRO head officer said he is satisfied with the project’s outcome, and they

are willing to adopt the device and the 20.5×9.5 cm eco-brick size.

3. Some secondary respondents agreed that the project study’s device is more

affordable and lower maintenance than their brick/block-making machine.

Weaknesses

1. The force needed to lift the presser handle is relatively high.

2. End-users noted that the device’s compaction system was inadequate.

3. End-users mentioned that the device’s eco-bricks are thick compared to their eco-

bricks.

4. End-users point out that the mold drops automatically, and it is still necessary to

hold its lifter to prevent this from occurring.

 136

Conclusion

The following conclusions were drawn from the study’s findings, precisely the

weaknesses.

1. Length of more prolonged than the 65.5 centimeters will require less force to

move the presser handle upward.

2. The yielded compressive stress of the device is only approximately 5.2964 kPa

and 4.6712 kPa for dies 1 and 2, respectively.

3. The thickness of the compacted eco-bricks depends on the mass and volume filled

in the molds. In relation to conclusion 2, it also depends on the presser system’s

capability to compress the mixture.

4. The mold lifter has no mechanism not to allow the mold to stay elevated.

Recommendation

The following recommendations were based on the conclusions above and, as

stated by the end-users and block manufacturers during interviews and acceptability tests.

These recommendations are future modifications that may apply to the device, 180°

Rotational Eco-Bricks Manual Presser with Interchangeable Dies and Molds, considering

the parameters such as functionality, reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness to satisfy

the expectations of its end-users.

1. Increase the length of the presser handle to lessen the force that the operator must

exert to move it upward, considering that the handle is still reachable.

 137

2. As suggested by the respondents, the device can be motorized or equipped with a

hydraulic system instead of manually operating. These claims will ensure that the

compaction system will be enough.

3. As suggested by the end-users, the height of the die needs to be lengthened to

make it more able to enter the mold deeper. This claim will allow more volume

displacement, making the molded eco-bricks more compressed and thinner.

4. A stopper can be applied to the mold lifter mechanism so that every time it is

pushed down; it will stay elevated and prevents the molded eco-bricks from being

damaged.

REFERENCES

Adejugbe, I., Ukoba, O., Idowu, A., Oyelami, A., & & Olusunle, S. (2014). Development

of double mould vibration–compactor block moulding machine for developing

 138

countries. Physical Science International Journal, 4(10), 1358-1369.

doi:10.9734/psij/2014/5813

Alighiri, D., Yasin, M., Rohmawati, B., & Drastisianti, A. (2019). Processing of recycled

waste PET (polyethylene terephthalate) plastics bottle into for the lightweight and

reinforcement bricks. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1321, 022023.

doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1321/2/022023

Alizadeh, Y. (2012). Firm-level Technological Capability Assessment; A literature

review. International Technology Management Conference.

doi:10.1109/itmc.2012.6306361

Ameh, O. G., Andrew, A. O., & Temitope, O. A. (2017). Development of an Electro-

Hydraulic Brick Making Machine. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330113806_Development_of_Brick_Ma

king_Machine_Development_of_an_Electro-Hydraulic_Brick_Making_Machine/

Antico, F. C., Wiener, M. J., Letelier, G., & Retamal, R. G. (2017). Eco-bricks: a

sustainable substitute for construction materials. Revista de La Construccion,

16(3), 518-526. doi:10.7764/rdlc.16.3.518

Ayyappan, A., Milan, S., Sreejith, K. T., & Kanakasabapathy, P. (2018). Design of

Hybrid Powered Automated Compressed Stabilized Earth Block (CSEB)

Machine. 2018 3rd International Conference for Convergence in Technology

(I2CT), 1-6. doi:10.1109/I2CT.2018.8529408

Bagi, J. S., & Kamate, A. M. (2015). A Review on Design Analysis and Optimization of

a 20 Ton Hydraulic Press. International Journal of Engineering Technology,

 139

Management and Applied Sciences, 3, 86-89. Retrieved from

http://www.ijitr.com/index.php/ojs/article/view/743

Bajpai, P. (2018). Hydraulics. In P. Handbook of Pulp and Paper (3 ed., pp. 455-482).

Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-814238-7.00023-4

Bartrum, E. A., & Karp, B. I. (2018). Chapter 16 - Writing a Protocol. In J. I. Gallin, F. P.

Ognibene, & L. L. Johnson (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Clinical Research

(4 ed., pp. 219 - 229). Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-849905-4.00016-

Bharath, K. N., Manjunatha, G. B., & Santhosh, K. (2019). Failure analysis and the

optimal toughness design of sheep–wool reinforced epoxy composites. Failure

Analysis in Biocomposites, Fibre-Reinforced Composites, and Hybrid

Composites, 97-107. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-102293-1.00005-x

Binag, N. H. (2018). Utilization of shell wastes for locally based cement mortar and

bricks production: Its impact to the community. KnE Social Sciences, 3(6), 985.

doi:10.18502/kss.v3i6.2435

Bolt. (n.d.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/technology/bolt-fastener

Childs, P. R. (2014). Shafts. In Butterworth-Heinemann, & P. R. Childs (Ed.),

Mechanical Design Engineering Handbook (pp. 255-315). doi:10.1016/B978-0-

08-097759-1.00007-1
 140

Concrete Hollow Blocks (CHB). (2014, October). Global Shelter Cluster. Retrieved from

https://www.sheltercluster.org/typhoon-haiyan-2013/documents/key-messages-

chb-v11

Cornell University. (n.d.). Retrieved from Materials Science and Engineering:

https://www.mse.cornell.edu/mse/programs/undergraduate-programs/major/

discover-mse

Designing Buildings: The Construction Wiki. (2022). Retrieved from

https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Brick

Dolores, A. J., Lasco, J. D., Bertiz, T. M., & Lamar, K. M. (2020). Compressive strength

and bulk density of concrete hollow blocks (CHB) with polypropylene (pp)

pellets as partial replacement for sand. Civil Engineering Journal, 6(10), 821-830.

doi:10.28991/cej-2020-03091593

Ganiron, T. U., Ganiron, N. U., & Ganiron, T. U. (n.d.). Recycling of Waste Coconut

Shells as Substitute for Aggregates in Mix Proportioning of Concrete Hollow

Blocks. The Scientific World Journal, 77(2), 107-123.

Grob Inc. (2020, July 30). Retrieved from https://www.grobinc.com/blog/hot-rolled-

steel-vs-cold-rolled-steel/

Hanuseac, L., Barbuta, M., Bejan, L., Rosu, R., & Timu, A. (2021). Experimental study

on hollow blocks with wastes. Proceedings, 63(1), 79.

doi:10.3390/proceedings2020063079
 141

Hayes, A. (2022). Descriptive Statistics. Investopedia. Retrieved from

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/descriptive_statistics.asp

Indrakumari, R., Poongodi, T., Suresh, P., & Balamurugan, B. (2020). The growing role

of integrated and insightful big and real-time data analytics platforms. In P. Raj,

& P. Evangeline (Eds.), Advances in Computers (Vol. 117, pp. 165-186).

Elsevier. doi:10.1016/bs.adcom.2019.09.009

Jonaitis, B., & Zavalis, R. (2013). Experimental research of hollow concrete block.

Procedia Engineering, 57, 473-478. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.061

Khurmi, R. S., & Gupta, J. K. (2005). A Textbook of Machine Design: (SI Units). Eurasia

Publishing House (PVT.) Ltd.

Kosky, P., Keat, W., & Wise, G. (2013). Mechanical Engineering. In R. Balmer (Ed.),

Exploring Engineering, 259–281. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-415891-7.00012-1.

Lanante, F. D., Tambis, C. L., Bacunawa, G. C., Mendoza, M. A., Espinazo, J. A., &

Suliva, L. B. (2020). Performance and Properties of Eco-Friendly Cement Bricks

Added with Polyester Fabric Wastes. Journal of BIMP-EAGA Regional

Development, 6(1). Retrieved from

https://jurcon.ums.edu.my/ojums/index.php/BIMP-EAGA/article/view/3278

Lugay, C. I., Acierto, D. I., Camba, C. P., Gomez, R. V., & Ozaeta, M. I. (2020). A

comparative study of hollow concrete blocks with and without rice husk powder

as partial replacement to cement. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1529(3),

032045. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1529/3/032045
 142

Madara, D. S., Namango, S. S., & Arusei, D. (2016). Innovative Conceptual Design of

Manual-Concrete-Block-Making-Machine. Innovative Systems Design and

Engineering, 7(7), 41-52.

Mapa, D. S. (2021). GDP posted a growth of 7.1 percent in the third quarter of 2021.

Philippine Statistics Authority. Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/national-

accounts

Mello, P. A. (2021). Qualitative Comparative Analysis: An Introduction to Research

Design and Application. Georgetown University Press.

Narkhede, S. (2018). Understanding Descriptive Statistics. Towards Data Science.

Retrieved from https://towardsdatascience.com/understanding-descriptive-

statistics-c9c2b0641291

National Material Company L.P. (2019, October 11). Retrieved from

https://www.nationalmaterial.com/galvanized-steel-types-uses-benefits/

Nyutu, E. N., Cobern, W. W., & Pleasants, B. A.-S. (2021). Correlational Study of

Student Perceptions of their Undergraduate Laboratory Environment with respect

to Gender and Major. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science

and Technology, 9(1), 83-102. doi:10.46328/ijemst.1182

Okereka, G., Asiyanbola, O., & Oladiran, A. (2017). Development of an Electro-

Hydraulic Brick Making Machine. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330113806_Development_of_Brick_Ma

king_Machine_Development_of_an_Electro-Hydraulic_Brick_Making_Machine
 143

Onuamah, P. N., & Osadebe, N. N. (2014). Development of optimized strength model of

lateritic hollow block with 4% mound soil inclusion. Nigerian Journal of

Technology, 34(1), 1. doi:10.4314/njt.v34i1.1

Orhorhoro, E. K., Oyejide, J. O., & Atadious, D. (2018). Performance Evaluation of a

Designed Simple Interlocking Tile Blocks Machine. Innovative Systems Design

and Engineering, 9(2), 74-84.

Pacione, M. (2009). Applied Geography. (R. Kitchin, & N. Thrift, Eds.) International

Encyclopedia of Human Geography, 174-178. doi:10.1016/B978-008044910-

4.00663-5

Portland Cement Association. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.cement.org/cement-

concrete/concrete-materials/aggregates#

Preedy, V. R., & Watson, R. R. (2010). 5-Point Likert Scale. In Handbook of Disease

Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. Springer, New York, NY.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-78665-0_6363

Premkumar, M., Devi, G., & Sowmya, R. (2020). Design and implementation of brick-

making machine integrated with smart IOT Applications. International Journal of

Computing and Digital Systems, 9(3), 471-481. doi:10.12785/ijcds/090311

Rawat, S., & Saxena, J. (2019). Fiber-reinforced polymer: Applications in biomedical

engineering. Materials for Biomedical Engineering, 393–429. doi:10.1016/b978-

0-12-818431-8.00012-x
 144

Rayner, R. (1995). Vibration. In R. Rayner (Ed.), Pump Users Handbook (4 ed., pp. 203-

211). Elsevier Science. doi:10.1016/B978-185617216-5/50014-X

Tanner, K. (2018). Chapter 6: Survey Designs. In K. Williamson, & G. Johanson (Eds.),

Research Methods (2 ed., pp. 159-192). Chandos Publishing. doi:10.1016/B978-

0-08-102220-7.00006-6

Varshney, H. (2015). A Review Study on Different Properties of Hollow Concrete

Blocks. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 4(3).

Retrieved from https://www.ijert.org/research/a-review-study-on-different-

properties-of-hollow-concrete-blocks-IJERTCONV4IS03032.pdf

Vedantu. (2022). Retrieved from Vedantu:

https://www.vedantu.com/physics/compressive-stress

Velling, A. (2020, January 24). Fractory. Retrieved from https://fractory.com/what-is-

mild-steel/

Voland, G., Erisman, R., & Hindhede, U. (2003). Machine Design. In Encyclopedia of

Physical Science and Technology, 839-856.

Yakubu, S. O., & Umar, M. B. (2015). Design, Construction and Testing of a

Multipurpose Brick/Block Moulding Machine. American Journal of Engineering

Research, 4(2), 33-43. Retrieved from

https://www.ajer.org/papers/v4(02)/E042033043.pdf

Yaseen, M., H., P. M., Bandlekar, R. M., M., S. R., R., P. S., & R., S. V. (2018). Strength

Characterisitcs of Ecofriendly Cement Bricks Using Solid Waste Composites.

 145

International Journal for Science and Advanced Research in Technology, 4(5),

1697-1702.

Zemicheal, Y., & Houjun, Q. (2020, March). Design, Analysis and Development of

Improved Hollow Concrete Block Making Machine. International Journal of

Engineering Research and Technology, 9(3), 298-302.

doi:10.17577/ijertv9is030329