PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF AGGREGATES WITH SHREDDED PLASTIC AND RUBBER IN

CONCRETE HOLLOW BLOCKS.

BETHUEL KIPROP KURUI

BTCE/111J/2017
A PROJECT PROPOSAL SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

PROJECT SUPERVISOR: MS ESTER NJOKI

DECLARATION.
I declare that this proposal is my original work. Therefore, the materials quoted in this proposal, which are
not ours have been duly acknowledged.

Bethuel Kiprop Kurui BTCE/111J/2017

Signed……………………………………….Date …………………………

The above-mentioned research project was duly carried out as per the norms of the college and
statutes of the university, under my supervision.
Signed………………………………………. Date …………………………….

Ms Ester Njoki
Project Supervisor
Department of building and civil engineering
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Almighty God for the chance and guidance to partake the project in good health, I also
thank my parents for financial support, my sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor Ms Ester Njoki who
dedicated her time to guide and inspire me during the entire project period. I would like to also thank the
Civil Engineering department and staff who assisted me with lab work as well as my colleagues for
supporting me throughout my studies and in accomplishing this research work.

3
 1 Table of Contents
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................................... 10

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 10

1.1 Background Information .................................................................................................................. 10

1.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................................................ 11

1.3 Problem Justification ........................................................................................................................ 12

1.4 Research Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 14

1.4.1 Main Objective....................................................................................................14

1.4.2 Specific Objectives .............................................................................................14

1.5 Scope of study .................................................................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................................... 15

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 15

2.2 Concrete hollow blocks .................................................................................................................... 15

2.2.1 Cement ................................................................................................................15

2.2.2 Water ...................................................................................................................15

2.2.3 Plastic ..................................................................................................................15

2.2.4 Rubber .................................................................................................................16

2.3 Use of recycled materials ................................................................................................................. 16

2.3.1 Recycling demolished concrete as aggregates in fresh concrete. .......................16

2.3.2 Recycling waste glass in concrete mixes. ...........................................................17

2.3.3 Recycling Rubber waste in concrete blocks .......................................................18

2.3.4 Recycling Plastic waste in concrete blocks ........................................................19

CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................................... 22

4
3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 Collection and preparation of samples. ............................................................................................ 22

3.2.1 Plastic ..................................................................................................................22

3.2.2 Rubber .................................................................................................................22

3.2.3 Cement ................................................................................................................23

3.2.4 Sand.....................................................................................................................23

3.3 Material Testing ............................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.1 Sieve analysis ......................................................................................................23

3.3.2 Specific Gravity ..................................................................................................23

3.4 Concrete Mix Design ....................................................................................................................... 23

3.5 Tests on Fresh Concrete ................................................................................................................... 27

3.5.1 Slump Test ..........................................................................................................27

3.5.2 Test on Hardened Concrete .................................................................................27

3.6 Tests on Hollow Blocks ................................................................................................................... 27

3.6.1 Preparation ..........................................................................................................27

3.6.2 Moisture absorption test ......................................................................................28

CHAPTER FOUR ......................................................................................................................................... 29

4 RESULTS, DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION......................................................................... 29

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 29

4.1.1 Sieve Analysis of Rubber and Plastic aggregates ...............................................29

4.1.2 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates ..................................................30

4.2 Specific gravity. ............................................................................................................................... 31

4.3 Workability....................................................................................................................................... 32
5
 4.2 Concrete Mix Design and Compressive Strength ............................................................................ 33

4.3 Moisture absorption.......................................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................................... 36

5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................. 36

5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 36

5.2 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................ 36

5.3 Recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 37

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 38

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix A: Standard Procedures .............................................................................................................. 40

APPENDIX B: MATERIAL TEST RESULTS ......................................................................................... 42

Appendix B2: Slump Test Results .............................................................................................................. 43

Appendix B3: Compressive Strength Test Result ...................................................................................... 44

6
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 CONCRETE MIX DESIGN COMPUTATION .............................................................................................. 24
TABLE 2 MIX PROPORTIONS FOR COMPRESSIVE TEST. ..................................................................................... 25
TABLE 3 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF RUBBER ........................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 4 SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF PLASTIC ........................................................................................................... 31
TABLE 5 GRAPH OF VARIATION OF SLUMP WITH DIFFERENT MIX PROPORTIONS ............................................. 33
TABLE 6 WATER ABSORPTION RUBBER PLASTIC BLOCKS ................................................................................. 34
TABLE 7 WEIGHT OF THE RESULTANT HOLLOW BLOCKS .................................................................................. 35

7
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 THE DANGERS OF PLASTIC TO OUR ENVIRONMENT........................................................................... 12
FIGURE 2 INFLUENCE OF COARSE AND FINE PLASTIC AGGREGATES ON THE CONCRETE SLUMP ......................... 20
FIGURE 3 SAMPLE OF SHREDDED PLASTIC. ....................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 4 RUBBER AGGREGATE GRADING CURVE ............................................................................................. 29
FIGURE 5 PLASTIC AGGREGATE GRADING CURVE ............................................................................................. 30
FIGURE 6 FINE AGGREGATE GRADING CURVE .................................................................................................. 30
FIGURE 7 COARSE AGGREGATE GRADING CURVE. ............................................................................................ 31
FIGURE 8 MEASUREMENT OF SLUMP ................................................................................................................ 32
FIGURE 9 COMPRESSIVE TEST OF CUBES .......................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 10 COMPARISON OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS ................................................................................... 34

8
ABSTRACT
Plastic and rubber have become an incredibly important part of our daily lives. Usage of plastic has increased
by 20 times from 50 years ago. Both plastic and rubber disposal, however, is very difficult and they have a
lower rate of recyclability compared to other types of materials such as glass and paper. Sustainable
development has become quite the slogan in the 21st century, spear headed by the sustainable development
goals (SDGs), (United Nations development programme, 2018). These are geared towards building on the
success of the millennium development goals. For there to be growth, there must be development. This
research project stems from the need to actualise some of these goals, notably, SDG 9, 11 and 13.
Crushed stone, quarry dust and sand are still the main constituents of most cement bound building materials
which are quite prevalent most especially in Kenya. This is exerting quite a strain on our natural resources
and as we speak, we are currently running out of river sand and gravel. This has led to a soaring increase in
their prices from 350 Ksh in 2003 to 2500-3000 Ksh in 2019, in the case of gravel (Thuita.P, 2017). This has
made building and development quite expensive and impractical.
Annually, 300 million tonnes of plastic are produced worldwide. This is almost equivalent to the weight of
the entire human population. Ultimately, 79% of all this plastic ends up polluting our environment. It is
projected that if this trend continues, by 2050 we might have more plastic than fish in our oceans. The only
economically viable option, as opposed to incinerating this waste is recycling it (UN, 2017).
This study therefore aims to alleviate the strain on our natural environment and its resources by using plastic
waste infused with rubber as part of our building materials while simultaneously reducing the cost of housing,
furthering development, and propagating the general wellness of our middle- and lower-class communities.

9
 CHAPTER ONE
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
1.1 Background Information
The succession of scientific discoveries and innovations in the field of construction has caused changes in
public economic systems for several developed countries. The demand for sustainable construction
materials at low cost is growing as social, economic, and environmental issues evolve in today’s society.
Concrete is the most widely used substance on earth after water. If the cement industry was categorised as
country it would be the third largest carbon dioxide emitter in the world with up to 2.8 billion tonnes, the
material is the foundation of modern development, putting roofs over the heads of billions, fortifying our
defences against natural disaster and providing a structure for healthcare, education, transport, energy and
industry (The Guardian, 2019). Over the years concrete production has continually put a strain on our natural
resources and our pockets, and ways to reduce this burden saw the development of hollow blocks. The first
hollow blocks were made of clay but technology later saw the development of concrete hollow blocks. Hollow
block is a type of rectangular concrete masonry unit used in building and construction. A hollow block slab
is a type of composite flooring or suspended slab system. It is a floor formed over t-beams filled with filling
material. The hollow blocks are placed between these t-beams, after which a layer of concrete (the
compressive layer) is poured over the combination of hollow blocks and the t-beam. Concrete hollow blocks
are innovative building products that are used as substitutes for traditional bricks in building. Hollow blocks
reduce the overall weight of a slab by reducing the amount of concrete below the neutral axis. This results to
a reduction in the structure’s overall weight and as a consequence less reinforcement is used hence the cost
reduction at the end of the project is quite significant. Hollow blocks improve the acoustic properties of the
slab as well.
Initially the clay hollow bricks were made of kneaded units of clay-bearing soil, containing sand and lime or
cement, which were usually fire hardened or air dried and then used in construction later came the hollow
concrete blocks which are concrete blocks having core void area larger by 25% of the gross area. They are
advantageous because they offer rapid execution of work. Increased floor areas, reduced construction cost,
better insulation properties, more durability and good bonding of mortar & plaster (suryakanta, 2015).
Although conventional concrete hollow blocks have come a long way in reducing the amount of concrete
used in construction and ultimately reducing the cost of development the housing shortage in Kenya stands
10
almost 2 million and continues to grow, there is a proliferation of informal settlements in urban areas
with 61 percent of the urban population living in slums in overcrowded homes typically with only one
room and no adequate ventilation, families are at high health risk of diseases such as malaria, respiratory
infections, and jigger infestation. The vulnerable, in particular women, children, persons living with
disabilities, the elderly, and orphans, are affected the most. (humanity, 2018). The search for a better
future using sustainable materials continues. More has to be done to reduce the cost of building and
construction in the country.
Bearing the concept of sustainable development in mind and the menace plastic pollution has become, the
recycling of shredded plastic waste and rubber into viable hollow building blocks could be the solution to our
housing deficit. Coupled with proper quality control rubber infused plastic hollow blocks could house our
homeless and build proper social amenities such as schools and hospitals in our rural areas while
simultaneously eradicating plastic pollution.
1.2 Problem statement
Housing is increasingly becoming a challenge as the population continues to grow each year. This deficit is
mainly a result of the soaring cost of construction and development. The continual depletion of Kenya’s
natural sands and gravels has led to an increase in the cost of concrete.
About 20,000 tons of PET plastic waste is created in the country each year with less than half of this waste is
recycled and the rest is disposed in to the environment which has detrimental effects. (mjenzi, 2017) Like
many developing nations, Kenya has no recycling infrastructure; private companies collect unsorted
household rubbish and truck it to enormous dumps. (Rueters, 2019). Kenya requires a more lucrative
economic incentive to enhance the management of plastic waste.
When compared to other traditional building supplies, concrete blocks add a considerable expense to a home
construction. To start with, they are quite expensive and usually cost up to two times more than the standard
quarry stones. Moreover, concrete blocks are difficult to insulate and have longer warming and cooling cycles.
(k, 2015) While the price of materials varies from region to region, the blocks may not be affordable by all.
(Keith, 2018)

11
Figure 1 The Dangers of Plastic to our environment
1.3 Problem Justification
As the construction boom continues in the country some key challenges including failed construction
structures, financial constraints, inadequate skill among workers, inadequate construction material and
machinery and poor project management contribute to the slow growth in the sector. Financial challenges
however, are a major impediment to Kenya’s construction industry (Nduire J. , 2018).
The choice of building materials to use in a construction is determined by factors such as availability, cost,
tenacity and durability (Nduire J. , 2017). Masonry is one of the most popular materials for housing
construction due to its useful properties such as durability, relatively low cost, good sound and heat insulation,
acceptable fire resistance, adequate resistance to weathering and attractive appearance (S. Krishnaiah, 2016).
Hollow concrete bricks are also advantageous in the sense that they offer rapid execution of work. Increased
floor areas, reduced construction cost, better insulation properties, more durability and good bonding of
mortar & plaster. (suryakanta, 2015). However, the global interest about the environment and with
skyrocketing prices of building materials, especially sand, iron sheets, bricks and stones, developers are trying
to look for the alternative materials to reduce the cost of construction (Wanzala, 2013).
The pollution menace in the world in general is growing by the day, plastic waste being the major contributor
to this vice. Most countries do not have a proper system set up to recycle their plastic waste hence the waste
ends up in landfills and largely in our oceans. It is projected that by 2050 there will be more plastic waste
than fish on our oceans (UN, 2017). This waste is dumped in rivers upstream and transported by the river
currents all the way down stream and ultimately in to our oceans. The same properties that rendered plastic
useful are the same properties that make them a nuisance when it comes to waste management. Plastic waste
doesn’t decompose it only disintegrates to smaller and smaller particles ultimately to microscopic particles

12
which are then consumed by human beings and animals and thereby penetrating the food chain causing
adverse health effects (UN, 2017).
Hollow blocks made of concrete have been instrumental in reducing the cost of building. They have, increased
floor areas, reduced construction cost provided better insulation properties, more durability and good bonding
of mortar & plaster (suryakanta, 2015). However, this is not enough as the general infrastructure deficit grows
by the day as well as the need to clean up our environment. Several researches have been done to recycle
plastic waste in to building material and most have succeeded.
To reduce the weight of buildings the EPS panel system has also been adopted but the material is very
expensive and has rendered any costs saved in reinforcement and concrete obsolete. Researchers have been
trying investigate the viability of plastic in concrete mix designs. Some have also created wall and paving
tiles from plastic waste by infusing it with sand, stabilised soil and recycled oil. Plastic bottles have also been
used to create concrete hollow blocks; they were used to create voids at equal distance between them in the
masonry units. Then concrete was placed around each bottle to encase it in the masonry units (Amani Al-
kabani, 2016). The study utilized 500-mL plastic bottles placed inside concrete masonry units and analysed
the compressive strength. Results from this study were deemed reasonable due to the testing of concrete
cylinders as a control of compressive strength for the concrete blocks from the local market. This study shows
57% difference in the strength by using plastic bottles compared to local concrete blocks. (Amani Al-kabani,
2016).
Hence proof of the necessity for further research regarding concrete mix design, amount of cement and
properties of local concrete blocks as well as other technical and non-technical aspects to determine the
appropriate mix design and feasibility in the production industry. It also shows that there is a possibility that
natural material such as crushed stone can be eradicated from concrete mix designs, hence our project. The
reuse of plastic and rubber has the potential to limit the amount of waste being disposed of into the
environment.
This research project aims at determining if plastic waste mixed with rubber can be used as an alternative to
aggregates in the concrete mix for the production of hollow blocks for use in slabs and infill walls.

13
 1.4 Research Objectives
1.4.1 Main Objective
The main objective of this research is to investigate the use of shredded plastic and rubber as partial
replacement of aggregates in making concrete hollow blocks.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
1. To investigate the material properties of shredded plastic and rubber when used as aggregates in a
concrete mix.
2. To determine the optimal concrete mix for the concrete hollow blocks.
3. To investigate the effect of shredded plastic and rubber on the material properties of the concrete mix
for the production of concrete hollow blocks.

1.5 Scope of study

The project will involve the study of the material properties of concrete hollow blocks having used shredded
plastic and rubber as the constituent aggregates. These include, the moisture absorption, density, flexural and
compressive strength. The research will use shredded plastic and rubber sourced from Diani kwale. The study
will be limited to PET plastic waste i.e. plastic bottles as it is the most readily available and prevalent plastic
waste material.

14
 CHAPTER TWO
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
The chapter presents existing research work done by other scholars specifically on use of waste material in
concrete and their recommendation and findings on how the material affects the performance of concrete
when used in construction works.
2.2 Concrete hollow blocks

2.3 Cement
Cement is the most common binder in concrete Blocks. Cement is manufactured through a closely controlled
chemical combination of calcium, silicon, aluminium, iron and other ingredients. Common materials used to
manufacture cement include limestone, shells, and chalk or marl combined with shale, clay, slate, blast
furnace slag, silica sand, and iron ore. These ingredients, when heated at high temperatures form a rock-like
substance that is ground into the fine powder that we refer to as cement. Cement in the presence of water
undergoes an exothermic reaction and continually sets to forma hardened material. Hence its prevalent use in
concrete to bind various aggregates together. Ordinary Portland cement of grade 32.5 will be used in this
study.
2.4 Water
The quantities of cement and water to be are determined from tests. The water serves two purposes: it is
necessary for hydration of the cement binder that hardens and binds the plastic and rubber into a solid mass
it is also used in the curing of the blocks for 7 days after casting works.
2.5 Plastic
Shredded plastic from a waste plastic miller will be used in this project. The main plastic type will be from
PET Bottles which is a form of high-density polyethylene (HDPE). A sieve analysis test will ensure that the
various sizes of the plastic shreds will be taken in to account and various size distribution tested to determine
their influence on the overall properties of the blocks produced.
A challenge that limits the recyclability of plastics to make other post-plastic waste materials is the difference
in chemical composition of the waste plastics. The plastic waste disposed in landfills has to be sorted first
before recycling processes begin. For instance, there are industries which require Polyethylene Terephthalate
15
(PET) waste which differs in mechanical properties from High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), another type
of plastic. In the use as a building material, the plastic doesn’t have to be sorted into various types. They are
simply collected, cleaned and dried and thereafter shredded into flakes.
2.6 Rubber
There are four types of scrap rubber particles available which are classified in accordance to their particle size
and the texture. These types consist of slit tyre particles in the form of slits which are halved in two halves.
Apart from the slit rubber particles, there are shredded rubber particles which have been known to be utilized
in concrete as a replacement of aggregate in the concrete. The particle size varies from 300 to 400 millimetres
long and 100-200 millimetres wide. There is also ground type of rubber available for the utility in research
work which is cut in the sizes of 19mm to 0.15 mm. The crumb rubber used in the concrete has to be having
a nominal size passing standard sieve dimension of 4.75 mm. In this project I intend to use rubber as a
replacement of fine aggregates in hollow blocks. Rubber is mainly used to improve the ductile and toughness
of the resulting concrete hollow blocks. (Nouman, 2015)
2.7 Use of recycled materials
This section reviews literature on the use of waste and low energy materials in concrete mixes hence
ultimately in concrete blocks. The most influential factor in determining whether or not a waste material or a
by-product is used is the economic cost in comparison with the alternative natural material in a particular
application. These costs are primarily made up by handling, processing and transport but the social benefits
of using a waste.
2.7.1 Recycling demolished concrete as aggregates in fresh concrete.
The early phases of many construction projects involve the demolition of concrete foundations, sidewalks,
driveways, and other concrete structures, which can leave a contractor with a sizable volume of heavy, dense
materials to deal with. Fortunately, research has led to the recycling of this old concrete. The process involves
crushing or pulverizing the concrete rubble near the demolition or building site. Choose of methodology often
depends on the size and shape of the concrete pieces to be recycled. (Rodriguez, 2019)
Reusing concrete can be a good way to reduce construction costs while providing some benefits to the
environment by extending the life of landfill (John, 2015). Recycled concrete also replaces other materials
such as gravel that must otherwise be mined and transported for use. This practice also saves builders disposal
or tipping fees and reduces transportation costs because concrete can often be recycled in areas near the

16
demolition or construction site. In some instances, new employment opportunities arise in a recycling activity
that would not otherwise exist (D, 2017).
Concrete is recycled by using industrial crushing equipment with jaws and large impactors. After the concrete
is broken up, it is usually run through a secondary impactor and is then screened to remove dirt and particles
and to separate the large and small aggregate (D, 2017). Additional processes and equipment, such as water
flotation, separators, and magnets, may also be used to remove specific elements from the crushed concrete.
An alternative method is to pulverize the concrete, but this is not the always the best option, as it makes it
harder to complete the separation process and may leave more contamination from smaller byproducts
(Rodriguez, 2019).
2.7.2 Recycling waste glass in concrete mixes.
Due to the excellent characteristics of glass, such as optical transparency, chemical inertness, high intrinsic
strength and low gas permeability, glass containers are the most commonly used form for packaging
beverages. Waste glasses that are not possible to be recycled can be used in concretes as a pozzolan and
coarse aggregate. (Lu and Poon, 2019)
Research has been done to investigate the possibility of using glass as a pozzolana and as an aggregate in
concrete mixes. In the first instance waste glass is considered as a fine aggregate in a concrete mixture (Lu
and Poon, 2019). The used waste glass is reduced to 5–12 mm in size corresponding the proportions of 0%–
50% in the production of CEM I type cement. The other instance waste glass powder (WGP) are ground and
incorporated into concrete with the levels of 5%, 15% and 30% by the weight of binder. The experimental
results indicate for the group I; using WGA as aggregate doesn’t have marked effects on the workability of
concrete (Lu and Poon, 2019). For group II; the experimental results indicate that the mixtures which are
ground with 5% waste glass as a pozzolan and 10% waste glass as fine aggregate gave compressive strength
performance similar to the reference mixture. Higher percentage of waste glass (15%) replacement yielded
lower strength values. (Kilicoglu and Çoruh, 2017)
Ultimately the compressive strength values of all waste glass powder concrete mixtures tend to decrease
below the values for the reference concrete mixtures with increasing the waste glass powder ratio all curing
ages. Compressive strength has been observed to decrease the proportion of W/C ratio in concrete which
produced increased. As a result, w/c ratio was a significant important value of concrete mixture design.
Expansions of less than 0.10% are indicative of non-deleterious expansion. It is seen that the use of waste

17
glass powder supplemented with 5% can be used to reduce the expansion. It can be concluded that the waste
glass powder can be used as a pozzolan and fine aggregate for the production of concrete. Though waste and
recycling management plans should be developed for any construction project prior to the start of work in
order to sustain environmental, economic, and social developed principles. In addition, using industry waste
product in the manufacture of concrete converts it into an eco-efficient material, as it reduces the accumulation
of residues and exploits incorporated energy. (Kılıçoglu and Çoruh, 2017)
2.7.3 Recycling Rubber waste in concrete blocks
Rubber is produced excessively worldwide every year. It cannot be discharge off easily in the environment
as its decomposition takes much time and also produces environmental pollution. In such a case the reuse of
rubber would be a better choice. In order to reuse rubber wastes, it has added to concrete as fine aggregate
and its different properties like compressive strength, Tensile strength and ductility among other properties
were investigated and compared with ordinary concrete.
As a result, research has found that rubberized concrete is durable, less ductile, has greater crack resistance
but has a low compressive strength when compared with ordinary concrete. The compressive strength of
rubberized concrete can be increased by adding some amount of silica to it. Furthermore, research on using
rubber as aggregate in concrete has led to the conclusion that when rubber is used instead of aggregates in
concrete it shows less compressive strength when compared with ordinary concrete. But it also shows some
ductile behaviour before failure. Rubberized concrete also shows reduction in density of concrete when
compared with control concrete specimen. (Nouman, 2015).
On another research done to substitute fine aggregates in concrete at 0% to 100% to crushed sand in concrete
mix with recycle crumb rubber results showed that up to 25% replacement to the crushed sand gives a good
compressive strength and also results in 8% decrease in density of concrete whereas the ductility of concrete
increases therefore suitable in shock resisting elements. (Camille A. Issa, 2013)
It has also been determined that concrete made of crumb rubber as fine aggregate shows much strength when
compared with concrete made of chipped rubber as coarse aggregate. No appreciable increment in the
compressive strength of concrete density by using different percentage of rubber as fine aggregates in
concrete. It is recommended to use silica fume in rubberized concrete to increase its compressive strength.
They also find it recommendable to use rubberized concrete in small structures like road curbs and non-
bearing walls. (Alam, 2015)

18
2.7.4 Recycling Plastic waste in concrete blocks
Researchers in the construction sector have sort to tame the menace that is plastic waste. Studies have
presented methods of reducing the amount of plastic waste by recycling plastic containers in construction
work. Non-load-bearing concrete blocks for safe and efficient use can be manufactured using plastic flakes
as an alternative material aggregate. Studies have developed such blocks and tested them for compressive
strength integrating four major factors: (1) the cement to aggregate ratio, (2) the water to cement ratio, (3) the
size of plastic flakes used and (4) the proportion of plastic flake that replaced sand. The findings revealed that
using a ratio of 1:3 cement to aggregate, where the aggregate mix comprised of 20% small and medium sized
(combined at 1:1) plastic flakes plus 80% sand and a water to cement ratio of 0.5, provided the optimal
compressive strength to form a concrete block that can be used to construct a non-load bearing wall. (Marzouk
et al,e 2005)
The use of plastic bottle waste as a substitution for sand aggregate in composite materials for building applications
has been studied before. It was seen that PET waste affected the compressive strength and density of concrete. The
density and compressive strength significantly decreased when the PET aggregates exceeded 50% by volume of
sand. (Marzouk et al, 2005).
An investigation on the effects of waste PET bottles aggregate on the properties of concrete. The waste plastic
could reduce the weight by 2 to 6% of normal weight concrete. However, the compressive strength reduced by up
to 33% compared to the normal concrete mix design. (Choi, 2005)
Likewise, from the results of another study a decrease of compressive strength with increase in plastic content
proportions was evident. For a mix with 20% sand, the compressive strength was reduced by about 70% in
comparison to that of normal concrete. (M. Batayneh Marie I., 2007)
A study on the development of Concrete Blocks containing PET plastic bottle flakes indicated that the
concrete blocks, with plastic flakes replacing sand in the mortar mix at a ratio of 20% by weight, can be used
in the construction of non-load-bearing walls. (Waroonkun, 2017).
Another study was done to determine possibility of using plastic aggregate as coarse aggregate in concrete.
The researcher found that the modified concrete mix, with addition of plastic aggregate replacing conventional
aggregate up to certain 10% gives strength with in permissible limit. (Arivalagan.S, 2016)
Various researchers have investigated and reported the influence of waste plastics as fine and coarse
aggregates on the workability of concrete. The slump test is used to determine the workability of the fresh

19
mix. Factors such as particle size grading, the shape of particles, the water-cement ratio, and the amount of
plasticizer in the mix are directly related to the concrete workability.
The water-cement ratio (w/c) and the amount of cement paste also influenced the slump of concrete since the
mobility of particles depends on these factors. Research findings have shown varying performances and
results of concrete workability due to the use of waste plastic aggregates, as illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2 Influence of coarse and fine plastic aggregates on the concrete slump

2.5 Summary and Research Gap

Due to its versatility, light weight and cost-effective nature, global production of plastics has surged from 15
million tonnes in 2004 to 311 million metric tonnes in 2018, as of 2021, about 2 million waste tyres are
generated in Kenya this is according to a presentation by Kenya Motor Industry (KMI) on Waste Tyre
Management in Kenya. The rapid growth of the consumer society poses a further danger to the environment.
Beyond the consequences to the environment, most of the plastics and rubber on landfills could be reused and
repurposed, which means that this huge amount of waste has a negative economic impact. The building
material made from rubber infused plastic should be lower in weight and density compared to the blocks
currently on the market. A study revealed that a cement to aggregate ratio of 1:3 where the aggregate mix
comprised of 20% small and medium sized plastic flakes 1:1 plus 80% sand, and a water to cement ratio of
0.5 provided the optimal compressive strength to form a concrete block that can be used as a non-load bearing
wall. (Waroonkun, 2017) Research has also shown that rubberized concrete is durable, less ductile, has low
20
compressive strength compared to ordinary concrete. (Nouman, 2015). This research therefore focused on the
effects on the material properties of the standard concrete hollow blocks when both aggregates are replaced
partially with rubber and plastic flakes.

21
 CHAPTER THREE
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
The research methods covered the various ways through which the objectives of the study were
accomplished. There are standard procedures that will also be used to check the engineering properties of
the materials that make up the hollow blocks which will be derived from the British Standards. The Kenyan
Building Code also contains specifications and guidelines for the material properties of concrete hollow
blocks.
3.2 Collection and preparation of samples.
3.2.1 Plastic
The plastic used in this research was obtained from the Eldoret plastic plus collectors. A sieve analysis test
was conducted to know the individual particle size distribution of the collected plastics. The figure 3 below
shows sample of shredded plastic used in the research work.

Figure 3 Sample of shredded plastic.

3.2.2 Rubber
Shredded rubber was obtained from Bridgestone Mombasa. The shredded rubber will help increase the
volume of mortar hence makes mortar more economical.

22
3.2.3 Cement
The type of cement used was pozzolanic cement of class 42.5 in accordance to the BS12 (1996). The Portland
cement used was purchased from a local hardware in Mombasa town. Consistency and soundness tests will
be conducted to check the quality of the cement.
3.2.4 Sand
The sand in the concrete mix will offer a requisite surface area for the film of binding material (cement paste)
to adhere and spread. The sand also plays the role of adding to the density of the mortar and concrete thus
preventing excessive shrinkage of the mortar or concrete.
3.3 Material Testing
3.3.1 Sieve analysis
Sieve analysis is important for analyzing materials because particle size distribution can affect a wide range
of properties, such as the strength of concrete. The sieve analysis determines the gradation or the distribution
of the shredded rubber and plastic particles, by size, within a given sample in order to determine compliance
with design, and verification specifications. This also helps to meet control requirements for individual mix
designs. The particles are sieved in accordance to BS 812-103 Part 1.
3.3.2 Specific Gravity
The Specific gravity of the material is a key property that aids in making other computations for mix design
and proportioning, bulk density, absorption and voids analysis. Gilson’s Specific Gravity equipment will be
used since it yields accurate results. The procedures followed will meet the specifications of BS 812-2: 1995.

𝑀2−𝑀1
Specific Gravity = (𝑀2+𝑀4)−(𝑀1+𝑀3)

M1= Weight of the pycnometer (g)

M2= Weight of Pycnometer + Aggregate (g)
M3= Weight of Pycnometer +Aggregate + Water (g)
M4= Weight of Pycnometer + Water (g
3.4 Concrete Mix Design
The purpose of concrete mix design is to determine the most optimum proportions of the constituent materials
that are necessary to fulfill the desired minimum strength in the hardened state. The design process will also
aid in obtaining the desired workability of the concrete in the plastic stage and to help produce a concrete mix
23
as economically as possible. The table1 below shows the concrete mix design computation used in the
research work
Table 1 Concrete mix design computation

DESIGN OF NORMAL CONCRETE MIX

REFERENCE
B.R.E Design of Combined Rubber Plastic Concrete Mix
MANUAL
2ND EDITION Design for class- 20 N/mm2
Date of full strength- 28 days

Proportion defective
The proportion of defective depends on type of work K=1.64
For general use, select 5% defective
For 5% defective level k=1.64

Figure 3 Standard deviation, s =8

Margin M= (s x k)= (8x1.4)=13.12
Target mean strength (fm) Fm=33.12N/mm2
Fm=fc + M (20+13.12) = 33.12 N/mm2
Cement strength grade 42.5

Table 2 Aggregate type- crushed

Date of full strength – 28 days
At free water to cement ratio 0.5
Approximate compressive strength = 49 N/mm2

Figure 4 Free water to cement ratio= 0.62 w/c=0.60

Maximum free water to cement ratio =0.6
Select the least

Table 3 Slump value required 30-60

Select 45mm as target slump value =230 kg/m3
Maximum aggregate size= 10mm
Free water content(kg/m3)= 230kg/m3

Cement content
𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 230 =383.33 kg/m3
Cement content= 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜= 0.60

Concrete density
Figure 5
For free water content= 230 kg/m3
For S.G of wet density pf concrete= 2380 kg/m3

24
 =1766.67 kg/m3
Total aggregate content
= concrete content-[water content+ cement]
(2380-613.33)
Figure 6
Percentage passing 600µm sieve = 71% F.A=671.33kg/m3
% percentage of fine aggregate= 38%
F.A= total aggregate x proportion of fine aggregate
( 1766.67 x 0.38)
C.A=
1095.34kg/m3
Coarse aggregate content
Total aggregate content – fine aggregate content
(1766.67-671.33)

Table 2 Mix Proportions for Compressive test.

Weight in Kilograms Weight in grams (g)

or 1m3 Mix (kg/m3) For 0.006 M3 mix
(A) 20% plastic/0% rubber
Water content 230 1380
Cement content 383.33 2300
Fine aggregates 671.33 4028
Coarse aggregate 1095.34 (6572-1314)= 5258
Plastic - 1314
Rubber - 0

(B) 20% plastic/ 5% rubber

Water content 230 1380
Cement content 383.33 2300
Fine aggregates 671.33 (4028-201.40)=3826.6
-Coarse aggregate 1095.34 5258
Plastic - 1314
Rubber - 201.40

(C) 20% Plastic/ 10% rubber

25
Water content 230 1380
Cement content 383.33 2300
Fine aggregates 671.33 (4028-402.8)= 3622.2
Coarse aggregate 1095.34 5258
Plastic - 1314
Rubber - 402.8

(D) 20% plastic/ 15% rubber

Water content 230 1380
Cement content 383.33 2300
Fine aggregates 671.33 (4028-604.2)= 3423.8
Coarse aggregates 1095.34 5258
Plastic - 1314
Rubber - 604.2

(E) 20% plastic / 20% rubber

Water content 230 1380
Cement content 383.33 2300
fine aggregates 671.33 (4028-805.6)= 3222.4
Coarse aggregate 1095.34 5258
Plastic - 1314
rubber - 805.6

20% plastic / 25% rubber

Water content 230 1380
Cement content 383.33 2300
fine aggregates 671.33 (4028-1007)= 3021
Coarse aggregate 1095.34 5258
Plastic - 1314
rubber - 1007

Water content 230 1380

Cement content 383.33 2300
Fine aggregates 671.33 4028
Coarse aggregates 1095.34 6572

Weight in Kilograms Weight in grams

for 1m3 Mix (kg/m3) for 0.0114m3 Mix (g)
Water Content 230 2622
Cement Content 383.33 4370
Fine Aggregate Content 671.33 (7650-1530)= 6120
Coarse Aggregate Content 1095.34 (12486-2497.2)=9988.8
26
 Plastic 20% - 2497.2
Rubber 20% - 1530

Table 3.2 Control Hollow Block Mix Proportions.

Weight in Kilograms Weight in grams
for 1m3 Mix (kg/m3) for 0.0114m3 Mix (g)
Water content 230 2.622
Cement content 383.33 4.370
fine aggregates 671.33 7650
Coarse aggregate 1095.34 12486

3.5 Tests on Fresh Concrete

3.5.1 Slump Test
The concrete slump test was done to measure the consistency of fresh concrete before it set. It was performed
to check the workability of the freshly made concrete, and therefore the ease with which concrete flowed.
Slump test was also used as a method of measuring the consistency of concrete.
3.5.2 Test on Hardened Concrete
Compressive Strength Test
Compressive strength of concrete is one of the most important and useful properties. As a construction
material, concrete is employed to resist compressive stresses. The ultimate compressive strength of a material
the maximum stress or imposed load that can be applied on the surface of the material without undergoing
failure through cracking or deflection. Various concrete mix designs will be prepared and tested for strength;
this test will be done in accordance to BS EN 12390-3:2019. This test will help determine the quality of the
hollow block infused with rubber and plastic
3.6 Tests on Hollow Blocks
3.6.1 Preparation
After determination of the required strengths for the 7, 14 and 28 days of concrete hollow blocks with concrete
mix design consisting of the shredded plastic and rubber the dry materials (shredded plastic, rubber and
cement) were initially mixed until a uniform mixture was produced. Water was then added gradually as
mixing continued. This was done until a homogeneous mix was obtained. The mixed sample was then placed

27
into prepared moulds and manually compacted in order to remove air voids. The mix was then allowed to set
inside the mould and later extruded after 24 hours. The dimensions of the hollow blocks were 380mm x
200mm x 150mm.
3.6.2 Moisture absorption test
The water absorption test determines the water holding capacity of the rubber and plastic particles. The main
objective of this test is to, determine the hollow blocks ability to hold water and how the water affects the
long-term strength and quality of the blocks

28
 CHAPTER FOUR
4 RESULTS, DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses in detail, the laboratory test results obtained from the project. The investigations on
the engineering properties of the materials and the concrete mix will be of great importance in understanding
the resulting rubber and plastic concrete hollow blocks.
4.2 Sieve Analysis of Rubber and Plastic aggregates

SIEVE ANALYSIS OF RUBBER

120%
CUMULATIVE % OF AGGREGARES

100%

80%
PASSING

60%

40%

20%

0%
0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 5 10
SIEVE SIEZE

Lower limits upper limits rubber

Figure 4 Rubber aggregate grading curve

29
 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF PLASTIC
120%
CUMULATIVE % OF AGGREGARES

100%

80%
PASSING

60%

40%

20%

0%
0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 5 10
SIEVE SIEZE

Lower limits upper limits plastic

Figure 5 Plastic aggregate grading curve

4.3 Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates

SIEVE ANALYSIS OF SAND

120%
CUMULATIVE % OF AGGREGARES

100%

80%
PASSING

60%

40%

20%

0%
0.15 0.3 0.6 1.18 2.36 5 10
SIEVE SIEZE

Lower limits upper limits sand

Figure 6 Fine aggregate grading curve

30
 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF COARSE AGGREGATE
120%
CUMULATIVE % OF AGGREGARES

100%

80%
PASSING

60%

40%

20%

0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-20%
SIEVE SIEZE

Lower limits upper limits coaese aggregate

Figure 7 Coarse aggregate grading curve.

From the graphs, it was seen that the particle distribution curves of the plastic aggregates falls beyond the
standard limits according to ASTM C33/AASHTO M6), however the material can be used either way since
rubber and plastic are relatively new materials in regards to the production of concrete mixes and grading
curve specifications for plastic and rubber aggregate for use in lightweight concrete mixes grading curves
are not unavailable.
4.4 Specific gravity.
Table 3 Specific gravity of rubber
Trial Number 1 2
Weight of the pycnometer (g)M1 45 45
Weight of Pycnometer + Rubber (g)M2 56 65
Weight of Pycnometer + Rubber + Water (g)M3 131 123
Weight of Pycnometer + Water (g)M4 144 144
Specific Gravity 0.46 0.49
Average 0.48
Table 4 Specific gravity of plastic
Trial Number 1 2
Weight of the pycnometer (g)M1 45 45
Weight of Pycnometer + plastic (g)M2 52 54
Weight of Pycnometer + plastic + Water (g)M3 143 144
31
 Weight of Pycnometer + Water (g)M4 144 144
Specific Gravity 0.90 1.0
Average 0.95

4.5 Workability.
By increasing the rubber content in concrete, the slump is expected to increases because of less absorption
of water. The shape of the rubber and plastic aggregates also influence workability. Figure 4.4 shows the
slump obtained from the shredded plastic and rubber design

Figure 8 Measurement of slump

32
 50
46 47
45
43
40 40 41
38
35 36

30
SIEVE SIZE

25

20

15

10

0
CN 20/0 20/5 20/10 20/15 20/20 20/25
slump values 36 38 40 41 43 46 47
RUBBER AND PLASTIC PROPORTION

Table 5 Graph of variation of Slump with Different Mix Proportions

4.2 Concrete Mix Design and Compressive Strength

A reduction in the compressive strength of the mix in comparison to the ordinary concrete mix was
obtained. The use of concrete made of crumb aggregates showed much lower strength when
compared to the concrete made of normal coarse aggregate and sand as fine aggregates. From the
study, an increase in the amount of rubber proportion in the mix led to a decrease in compressive
strength of the composite cube. It can be concluded that the higher the amount of rubber in the
concrete mix, the lower the compressive strength.
Figure 9 Compressive test of cubes

33
 COMPARISON OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHS
35
COMRESSIVE STRENGTH N/MM2

30

25

20

15

10

0
20/0 20/5 20/10 20/15 20/20 20/25 CONTROL
7 DAYS 11.42 10.43 9.49 6.57 4.04 1.9 14.24
14 DAYS 15.42 11.62 11.16 9.97 6 2.7 19.79
28 DAYS 29.64 23.35 16.56 14.24 9.77 5.49 32.87
RATIO OF PLASTIC TO RUBBER

7 DAYS 14 DAYS 28 DAYS

Figure 10 Comparison of compressive strengths

4.3 Moisture absorption

The average moisture absorption from the three samples was found to be 1.79% as shown in the Table 4.2
below.
Table 6 Water absorption rubber-plastic blocks

Moisture Absorption
Serial Oven Dry Average
No Saturated Surface Dry Weight Weight Moisture Absorption, (%) (%)
D1 1524.5 1494 2.04
D2 1440 1418 1.55 1.79
D3 1468.5 1442.5 1.80

Moisture Absorption
Serial Oven Dry Average
No Saturated Surface Dry Weight Weight Moisture Absorption, (%) (%)
D1 1524.5 1494 2.04

34
 D2 1440 1418 1.55
D3 1468.5 1442.5 1.80 1.79

Table 7 Weight of the resultant hollow blocks

Weight of Rubber/Plastic Hollow Block (kg) Weight of Concrete Hollow Block (kg)

HR1 15.9 HC1 23.6

HR2 17.3 HC2 24.6
HR3 16.2 HC3 25.9
HR4 17.2 HC4 23.8
HR5 16.3 HC5 24.7
HR6 16.4 HC6 25.9
Average Weight 16.55 Average Weight 24.75

35
 CHAPTER FIVE
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Introduction
This chapter lays out the conclusions and the recommendations drawn from the analysis carried out on the
results obtained from laboratory tests in line with the objectives of this project.
5.2 Conclusion.
Material properties of shredded plastic and rubber when used as aggregates in a concrete mix.
From the sieve analysis experiment carried out in the project it can be concluded that shredded rubber can
performs as fine aggregate in the concrete mix because the rubber sieve grading curve lies within the limits
according to ASTM C33/AASHTO M6, this also conforms to the geometric requirements according to BS
812. Because rubber cannot meet all material properties of aggregates like physical requirement which entails
durability, resistance to fragmentation and particle density and water absorption according to BS 812 it can
therefore be concluded that rubber can only be used to partially replace the fine aggregate in any concrete
mix.
Optimal concrete mix for the plastic-rubber hollow blocks.
From the tests carried out on hardened plastic- rubber concrete blocks it can be concluded that the optimum
ratio of rubber to plastic aggregates in the concrete mix is 2:2 for any given class of concrete prepared to be
used in production of concrete hollow blocks. The mix ratio gives a necessary strength of 4.04, 6.00, 9.77 at
7, 14 and 28 days respectively which are much higher as required by Grade A concrete hollow blocks. Grade
A specifies strengths of 3.5, 5.5 and 7.0 N/mm2 for 7, 14 and 28 days respectively, therefore the concrete mix
can be used sufficiently in preparation of concrete hollow blocks of Grade A.
Effect of shredded plastic and rubber on the material properties of the concrete mix for the
production of hollow block
From the test carried out on hardened plastic-rubber concrete hollow blocks there is a significant reduction in
strength, when the strengths of concrete mix ratio of 2:2 rubber to plastic was used to cast the modified
concrete hollow blocks and compared to the control concrete hollow blocks, strengths reduced by 71.6%,
69.7%, 70.3% for 7, 14, and 21 days respectively, this is because both the shredded plastic and rubber
aggregates provides weaker inter-particle bonding with the other constituent materials of the mix. Therefore it
can be concluded when rubber when used as fine aggregate leads to reduction in concrete strength.
36
Tests done on water absorption of the modified concrete hollow blocks with the shredded plastic and rubber
gives lower percentages compared to the control, therefore concrete hollow blocks made of shredded plastic
and rubber can therefore be used in areas where water proofing is required, also because of lower specific
gravities of plastic and rubber, when this materials are used in concrete hollow blocks there is reduction in
total weight. Therefore it be concluded when plastic-rubber concrete hollow blocks are used in design of
ribbed slabs it results in overall reduction of weight of the building which may save on reinforcement and
overall cost.
Environmental effects due to the use of plastic rubber hollow blocks.
It can be concluded that plastic–rubber hollow blocks are a solution to the garbage menace of plastic and
rubber the environment. They are a cheaper environmental-friendly solution to the housing deficiency while
also providing a clean environment as an incentive.
5.3 Recommendation
In view of the above conclusions I recommend that;
1. Design of different classes of concrete mixes should be carried out to find out the properties
of the hardened plastic- rubber concrete cubes in comparison to stone and sand concrete
cubes.
2. More experiments should be carried out with plastic and rubber samples having different
particle size distribution in an effort to determine the appropriate grading limits for rubber
and plastic aggregates for optimal performance.
3. Different compaction techniques should be used to test the impact of compaction
procedures on the weight and other physical properties of the plastic rubber hollow block.
4. Design and analysis of a whole story building using plastic- rubber hollow blocks and the
hollow blocks present in the market should be carried out to compare the economic
performance.

37
 REFERENCES
1) Amani Al-kabani, s. s. (2016). Use of recycle plastic waste bootles in concrete block.
2) Arivalagan.S. (2016). The Utilisation of Shredded PET as Aggregate .
3) bambo. (2018, june 5). The dangers of plastics to enviroment.
4) Camille A. Issa, G. S. (2013). Utilization of recycled crumb as fine. 48-52.
5) Choi, Y. W. (2005). Effects of waste PET bottles aggregate on the properties of concrete. pp.
10,38,39.
6) D, A. (2017). Tips on how and where to reuse concrete.
7) E. Obonyo, J. E. (2010). Durability of compressed earth bricks: assessing erosion resistance using
the modified spray testing. J. Sustain.
8) Evans, K. (2015). Disadvantages of Concrete Blocks in Building Houses. Building and Remodeling
https://www.hunker.com/13401639/, p. 1.
9) G, J. (2015). Retrieved from Tips for Reusing Old Concrete: https://www.proest.com/tips-for-
reusing-old-concrete/
10) Hornbostel, C. (1991). Construction Materials. Chicago: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
11) humanity, h. f. (2018). the housing need in kenya. Retrieved from https://www.habitat.org/where-
we-build/kenya
12) J, B. (2018, june 5). The Standard Digital. Retrieved from The Dangers of plastics to Enviroment:
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article
13) k, E. (2015). Advantages and disadvantages of concrete block homes. Retrieved from
https://www.hunker.com/13401639/disadvantages-of-concrete-blocks-in-building-houses
14) M. Batayneh Marie I., A. I. (2007). Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes.
15) mjenzi. (2017). investigation of construction failure in kenya for enhancement of development
control. Retrieved from https://nca.go.ke/investigation-of-construction-failures-in-kenya-for-
enhancement-of-development-control/
16) Nduire, J. (2017, February Saturday). Building Materials. The most commonly used construction
materials in Kenya.
17) Nduire, J. (2018, october). Commonly used construction materials in Kenya. Construction Kenya,
II(4), pp. 67-80.

38
18) Nouman. (2015). use of rubber as aggregate in concrete.
19) Rodriguez, J. (2019). ways to recycle and reuse concrete.
20) S. Krishnaiah, a. P. (2016). Effects of Clay on Soil Cement Block. International Association for
Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics. Goa: pp. 4362-4368.
21) suryakanta. (2015). civil blog. Retrieved from what are the advantages of hollow concrete block?
22) Thuita.P. (2017). The country may soon be forced to start importing gravel since the country is fast
depleting its quarries. Retrieved from https://www.constructionkenya.com/4639/kenya-gravel-
shortage/
23) UN. (2017). UN Enviroment Annual Report. Retrieved from
https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/un-environment-annual-report-2017
24) Wanzala, J. (2013, September Thursday). Reduce construction cost by 30 per cent.
25) Waroonkun, T. (2017). The Development of a Concrete Block Containing PET Plastic Bottle .
Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 10, No. 6, 188-191.

39
 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Standard Procedures
Sieve Analysis
The purpose of this test is to determine the relative proportions in the various plastic sizes as they are
distributed. A sample of 1000g will be used for the test. The test will be done in accordance to the BS 812-
103.1 (1985)
Procedure
Test Procedure:
1. A 1000g representative sample is weighed and then oven dried.
2. The mass of each sample is determined accurately and recorded as Wt (g).
3. A stack of sieves is prepared with sieves having larger opening sizes (lower numbers) placed above the
ones having smaller opening sizes (higher numbers).
4. Ensure the sieves are clean, and in the case of stuck particles in the openings, they are poked out using wire
brushes.
5. All individual sieves are then weighed and the pan weighed separately and the values recorded.
6. The sample is then poured into the stack of sieves and covered. The stack is shaken for about 10-15 minutes.
7. After shaking, the mass of each sieve together with the retained aggregates is measured and recorded.
8. The measured values are then recorded in a sample table.

Compressive Strength Test

Before conducting this test, the cubes are left to cure or in water for 7, 14 and 28. During testing they are
inspected for cracks. The cubes should not have cracks visible to the naked eye.
Procedure
1. The specimen is centered between the plates of the press, so that the geometric center of the loaded
surface is located on the axis of the plate to the nearest ± 1mm:
2. Ensure that the specimen is centered by checking on all the four sides, the distances between the
edges of the specimen and the sides of the plates. This can be done using a ruler.
3. The load is then applied at a constant rate of 0.02mm/s, or a rate corresponding to an increase in
pressure of between 0.15 and 0.25MPa/s until the specimen fails completely.

40
 4. The maximum load at which the specimen fails is then recorded.
Moisture absorption test
The main objective of this test is to, determine the hollow blocks ability to hold water and how the water
affects the long-term strength and quality of the blocks,
Procedure
1. The specimen is dried to a constant mass in the oven at a temperature of 115oC. It is then cooled.
Each specimen is then weighed accurately.
2. Immediately after weighing, the 5 samples are placed in one layer inside a tank of water for 24
hours. A gap of about 10mm between the blocks is maintained. This ensures that water circulates
freely through all the sides of the blocks.
3. The blocks are then removed from the tanks and weighed

Calculation
The water absorbed by each specimen will be calculated. A, is expressed as a percentage of the dry mass,
using the following expression.
(wet mass – dry mass) x 100
A= ………………………………………… (Equation 3.3)
dry mass

41
 APPENDIX B: MATERIAL TEST RESULTS

Appendix B1: Sieve Analysis Test Results

a) Sieve analysis of shredded Rubber

Seive Size (mm) Retained Weight Cumulative % Cumulative %

Weight (g) Passing (g) Passing Retained

2.36 77 925 92.5 7.7

1.18 106 819 81.9 10.6
0.85 117 702 70.2 11.7
0.60 128 574 57.4 12.8
0.425 326 248 24.8 32.6
0.3 160 88 8.8 16.0
0.212 54 34 3.4 5.4
0.150 27 7 0.7 2.7
PAN 7 0 0
Total Mass (g) 1002

b) Sieve analysis of shredded Plastic

Seive Size (mm) Retained Weight Cumulative % Cumulative %

Weight (g) Passing (g) Passing Retained
10 5 989 99.5 0.5
5 723 266 26.8 72.7
2.36 121 145 14.4 12.2
1.18 123 22 2.0 12.3
0.85 11 11 1.1 1.1
0.60 6 5 0.5 0.6
0.425 2 3 0.3 0.2
0.300 1 2 0.2 0.1
0.212 1 1 0.1 0.1
0.15 1 0 0 0.1
Pan 0 0 0
Total mass (g) 994

c) Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates (Sand)

42
 Seive Size (mm) Retained Weight Cumulative % Cumulative %
Weight (g) Passing (g) Passing Retained
2.36 2 996 99.8 0.2
1.18 15 981 98.3 1.5
0.85 56 925 92.7 5.6
0.60 221 704 70.5 22.2
0.425 457 247 24.7 45.8
0.3 175 72 7.2 17.3
0.212 53 19 1.9 5.3
0.150 12 7 0.7 1.20
Pan 7 0 0 0.7
Total Mass (g) 998

d) Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregates

Seive Size (mm) Retained Weight Cumulative % Cumulative %

Weight (g) Passing (g) Passing Retained

10 7 990 99.3 0.7

5 519 471 47.2 52.6
2.36 191 280 28.1 19.2
1.18 170 110 11.0 17.1
0.85 49 61 6.1 4.9
0.60 26 35 3.5 2.6
0.425 19 16 1.6 1.9
0.300 8 8 0.8 0.8
0.212 5 3 0.3 0.5
0.15 2 1 0.1 0.2
Pan 1 0 0 0.1
Total weight (g) 997
Appendix B2: Slump Test Results
MIX Serial No
P:R Ratio (%) Slump Value (mm)
CN 0/0 36
A 20/0 38
B 20/5 40
C 20/10 41
43
 D 20/15 43
E 20/20 46
F 20/25 47
Appendix B3: Compressive Strength Test Result
Compressive Strength Test Results
R:P Average
Cube Serial
Ratio Age Mass Date casted Load at Strength Strength
No
(%) (Days) (g) Failure (kN) N/mm2 N/mm2
CN1 7 1904 129.3 12.93 14.24
CN2 7 1922 155.5 15.55
CN3 0/0 14 1942 209.2 20.92 19.79
CN4 14 1902 15/09/2021 186.60 18.66
CN5 28 1911 318.84 31.84 32.87
CN6 28 1917 339.0 33.9

A1 7 1835 116.1 11.61 11.42

A2 7 1831 112.3 11.23
A3 20/0 14 1836 16/09/2021 150.2 15.02 15.42
A4 14 1852 158.2 15.82
A5 28 1833 301.3 30.13 29.64
A6 28 1847 291.5 29.15

B1 7 1789 107.60 10.76 10.43

B2 7 1740 101.0 10.10
B3 20/5 14 1731 17/09/2021 114.60 11.46 11.61
B4 14 1693 117.60 11.76
B5 28 1690 251.17 25.17 23.35
B6 28 1757 215.30 21.53

C1 7 1701 85.10 8.51 9.49

C2 7 1714 104.7 10.47
C3 20/10 14 1704 20/09/2021 116.1 11.61 11.16
C4 14 1702 107.1 10.71
C5 28 1716 162.30 16.23 16.56
C6 28 1720 168.90 16.89

D1 7 1697 65.0 6.50 6.57

D2 7 1619 66.40 6.64
D3 20/15 14 1652 23/09/2021 89.70 8.97 9.97

44
D4 14 1691 109.70 10.97
D5 28 1687 129.2 12.92 14.24
D6 28 1604 155.60 15.56
Jhhhhhhh hhjj

E1 7 1557 44.20 4.42 4.04

E2 7 1524 36.60 3.66
20/20
E3 14 1567 68.0 6.80 6.00
E4 14 1574 04/10/2021 52.0 5.20
E5 28 1601 91.10 9.11 9.77
E6 28 1580 104.30 10.43

F1 7 1472 21.0 2.10 1.90

F2 7 1398 17.0 1.70
20/25
F3 14 1478 06/10/2021 22.0 2.20 2.70
F4 14 1395 32.0 3.20
F5 28 1374 57.0 5.70 5.49
F6 28 1397 52.8 5.28

45