STRENGTH OF SHREDDED PLASTIC CUPS WITH CRUSHED GLASS BOTTLES AS BRICK
A Research Requirements
By
MARIZ ANNE D. AGUILAR
ANGELIKA M. JULIAN
CHARLOTTE U. MIRASOL
REIAL NISA LAIDIA V. NERA
BEA BIANCA P. SALES
Isabela State University
Jones Campus
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Submmited to;
KRISTINE C. SADANG
Subject Professor
2nd SEMESTER 2023 - 2024
STRENGTH OF SHREDDED PLASTIC CUPS WITH CRUSHED GLASS BOTTLES AS BRICK
A Research Requirements
By
MARIZ ANNE D. AGUILAR
ANGELIKA M. JULIAN
CHARLOTTE U. MIRASOL
REIAL NISA LAIDIA V. NERA
BEA BIANCA P. SALES
Isabela State University
Jones Campus
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Submmited to;
KRISTINE C. SADANG
Subject Professor
2nd SEMESTER 2023 - 2024
TITLE PAGE 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
ABSTRACT 2
INTRODUCTION 3
OBJECTIVES 4
DISCUSSIONS AND RESULT 6
Water Absorption Rate 6
Observation 7
Compressive Strength Test 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11
Summary 11
Conclusion 11
Recommendations 12
REFERENCES 13
REFLECTION 14
ABSTRACT
Plastic waste has become a significant global problem, necessitating innovative solutions to
address its accumulation. In this study, researchers have explored the utilization of crushed glass
bottles and shredded plastic cups as alternative aggregates for bricks, specifically for perimeter fencing
purposes. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of incorporating these materials into bricks,
using a control group of cement and sand for comparison. Through data analysis, significant
differences were observed between the control group and the other treatments, indicating that the
addition of crushed glass and shredded plastic had a notable effect on the compressive strength of the
bricks. Interestingly, Treatment one (25% cement and 75% sand) and Treatment two (25% cement,
40% sand, 34% crushed glass, and 1% shredded plastic cups) exhibited equivalent average
compressive strengths. These findings suggest that utilizing 34% crushed glass and 1% shredded
plastic cups as alternative aggregates can be a viable approach to produce bricks with comparable
strength to the control group. However, further research is necessary to explore the scalability of this
method and assess additional crucial properties, such as durability and environmental impact, before
considering widespread implementation. By finding practical applications for plastic waste, this study
contributes to addressing the persistent challenge of plastic pollution while promoting sustainable
practices in the construction industry.
INTRODUCTION
This study explores the use of plastic waste, specifically plastic cups and glass bottles, as a
replacement for natural coarse aggregates in brick production. Plastic, particularly polymer plastic cups,
is dangerous and difficult to decompose, and their widespread production poses a threat to life on
Earth. Recycling waste from our surroundings can lower production costs, reduce waste generation,
and maintain a clean environment.
High-priced industrial materials are a major crisis, and recycling wastes like plastic polymers, plastic
bottles, and glass bottles can be used as a main component in making bricks as an alternative to
concrete bricks. Plastic bricks are cheaper than commercial bricks because they are made from pure
waste.
The study aims to solve the issue of increasing waste plastic polymers and improper disposal of glass
bottles by employing these materials to create alternate industrial demands, particularly bricks for
perimeter fencing rather than home construction. This can reduce plastic trash generation and allow for
polishing and distinctive flooring designs.
The main objective of the study was to determine the impact of crushed glass bottles and shredded
plastic cups on the compressive strength of bricks. The research questions proposed were:
1. Is there a significant difference between the compressive strength of a traditional concrete brick and
a brick made of shredded plastic cups and crushed glass bottles?
2. What is the brick's compressive strength at various levels of shredded plastic cups and crushed
glass bottles?
3. Does the brick's efficacy depend on absorption rate.
OBJECTIVES
Material optimization: Explore different ratios of shredded plastic cups to crushed glass bottles to find
the optimal combination for maximizing strength and durability.
Thermal properties: Investigate how the composite material insulates against heat and cold, and how it
affects the energy efficiency of buildings.
Fire resistance: Evaluate the material's ability to resist fire and its performance in fire safety tests.
Compatibility with existing construction methods: Determine if the composite material can be
seamlessly integrated into current building practices without requiring significant modifications or
specialized equipment.
Regulatory compliance: Ensure that the material meets relevant building codes, standards, and
regulations for use in construction projects.
Public perception and acceptance: Assess the willingness of stakeholders, including architects,
builders, and homeowners, to adopt this alternative building material.
Long-term viability: Consider the scalability and long-term availability of the raw materials required for
producing the composite bricks, as well as potential challenges in scaling up production for widespread
use
Strength under different loading conditions: Investigate how the composite material performs under
various loading scenarios, including compression, tension, and shear forces.
Resistance to environmental degradation: Assess the material's resistance to factors such as UV
exposure, moisture absorption, and chemical degradation over time.
Life cycle analysis: Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the environmental impact of the composite
material throughout its entire life cycle, including raw material extraction, manufacturing, use, and
disposal.
Comparison with alternative materials: Compare the performance, cost, and environmental impact of
the composite material with other sustainable building materials, such as recycled concrete, bamboo, or
compressed earth blocks.
Technological advancements: Explore opportunities for further improving the strength, durability, and
other properties of the composite material through advancements in manufacturing techniques,
additives, or reinforcement methods.
Community engagement: Involve local communities in the development and implementation of projects
using the composite material, and gather feedback on its performance, usability, and acceptance within
the community.
DISCUSSION AND RESULT
In this chapter the data and results we obtained from testing the water absorption rate and
compressive strength are presented.
A.Water absorption rate
The researchers test the water absorption rate of all the brick samples in every treatment and
replication. The data are obtained using the formula: dry weight = (mass2 - mass 1)/mass 1. Saturated
weight = (mass2 minus mass1)/mass2. The data is presented below.
Figure 3. Brick samples are soaked in water for 24 hours.
This is the process to determine if the brick will absorb water and how much water the brick can absorb.
Table 8. The overall result of water absorption test.
Treatment Mass 1 Results Mass 2 Results
(Dry) (Saturated)
1 1,750g 2.86% 1,800g 2.70%
1,700g 2.94% 1,750g 2.86%
1,800g 2.8% 1,850g 2.7%
1,700g 2.94% 1,750g 2.85%
1,500g 6.66% 1,600g 6.25%
1,550g 3.22% 1,600g 3.12%
2 1,650g 0 1,650g 0
1,700g 5.88% 1,800g 5.55%
1,800g 2.7% 1,850g 2.7%
1,600g 6.25% 1,700g 5.88%
1,700g 2.94% 1,750g 2.85%
1,650g 3.03 1,700g 2.94%
3 1,500g 6.66% 1,600g 6.25%
1,700g 2.94% 1,750g 2.86%
1,700g 0 1,700g 0
1,450g 3.45% 1,500g 3.33%
1,650g 3.03% 1,700g 2.94%
1,450g 17.24% 1,700g 14.71%
4 1,650g 0 1,650g 0
1,450g 3.45% 1,500g 3.33%
1,600g 3.12% 1,650g 3.03%
1,600g 6.25% 1,700g 5.88%
1,700g 0 1,700g 0
1,650g 3.03% 1,600g 3.12%
Table 9. The summary of the result of the water absorption test.
Total samples Number of Bricks that do Number of Bricks that
not absorb water absorb water
24 4 20
Table 9 displays the combined data on the water absorption rate of the brick samples
throughout all treatments and replications. The results show that in a total of 36 brick samples, 4 of the
bricks do not absorb water. The gathered information reveals that 89% of all brick samples absorb
water within 24 hours, while 11% of all brick samples do not.
RESULTS
Descriptive Comparison
Homogeneity Cases df F p w²
Correction
Welch group 3.000 0.427 0.738 0.00
Residual 10.538
Table 10. Summary of the bricks’ water absorption rate.
The researchers also want to know the water absorption of each brick and if there is a significant
difference in the water absorption rate of each sample. All the brick samples were tested during the
water absorption test. The one-way anova was also used to determine if there is a significant difference
between the brick samples in every treatment. The result stated that there is no significant difference in
the water absorption of the brick samples F (3,10.5) =0.427, p=0.738.
The p value is greater than 0.05 so this result indicates that the water absorption of the brick samples is
statistically the same.
Observation
1. Occurrence of the brick in water absorption- More pores on the brick indicate that it will absorb
more water.
2. Quality of the brick- it shows that the more water the brick absorbs it may weaken the strength
of the brick.
3. The brick that is more compact absorbs less water.
A. Compressive Strength Test
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
Replication 1 5.28mPa 9.72mPa 6.39mPa 3.89mPa
5.56mPa 8.33mPa 6.11mPa 1.67mPa
Replication 2 11.11mPa 8.33mPa 4.17mPa 5.56mPa
4.17mPa 4.17mPa 4.17mPa 3.33mPa
Replication 3 12.2mPa 4.44mPa 8.89mPa 2.78mPa
9.72mPa 13.05mPa 5.28mPa 1.39mPa
Table 11. The bricks’ Compressive Strength Results
Anova -Strength
Homogeneity Cases Sum of df Mean F p w²
correction squares square
Welch Group 97.469 3.000 32.490 5.918 0.012 0.310
Residu 141.681 10.629 13.330
al
Table 12. The bricks’ Compressive Strength Results using ANOVA.
Post Hoc Test
95%bca+ cl 95%Ci for Cohen's d
M.D Lowe Uppe SE Bias t Cohe Lowe Uppe Ptuke
r r n's d r r y
1 4 4.843 2.098 8.402 1.521 -0.28 3.191 1.842 - 3.735 0.022
0.051 *
2 4 4.940 1.961 7.819 1.497 -0.30 3.191 1.842 - 3.735 0.022
0.051 *
Table 13. The bricks’ Compressive Strength Results in Post Hoc Test.
The study was conducted to determine if there is a significant difference between the strength
of traditional brick (consisting of only cement and sand) and the brick consisting of shredded plastic
cups and crushed glass bottles. There are 4 treatments including the control which is the treatment 1
(consisting only 25%cement and 75 %sand) T2 (25 % cement, 40% sand ,34% CGB, 1% SPC) T3
(32%CGB,3%SPC) and T4 (30% CGB and 5% SPC). ONE-WAY ANOVA was utilized to determine if
significant
differences exist between the 4 treatments. Result shows that there are significant differences
in the strength of the 4 treatments. F (3,10.6) =5.918, p= 0.012. Tukey's HSD was used as POST-HOC-
TEST. The independent variable accounts for 40.8 % of the variance in strength of the treatments.
It reveals that the strength of brick samples has a significant difference between Treatment
one(M=8.007) and Treatment four(M=3.103), p = 0.022. Moreover, there is also a significant difference
between Treatment two(M=8.007) and Treatment four (M= 3.103), p=0.022.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, the summary, conclusion, and recommendation are presented.
Summary of Findings
This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of crushed glass bottles and
shredded plastic cups as components of brick. There are four treatments, including the control, which
only consists of cement and sand and is used to test the water absorption and compressive strength of
brick. For the total of 24 brick samples, the researchers found out that there are only four brick
samples that don't absorb water. However, on the 20 brick samples absorbing water, the water
absorption rate for each brick is less than 12% so according to taffese et al 2020, this kind of bricks are
included as high class.
The One-Way ANOVA was utilized to determine if there is a significant difference to the strength
of the brick sample between the control (consisting cement and sand only) and the bricks consisting
shredded plastic cups and crushed glass bottles.
Based on the result of One-Way ANOVA, there is a significant difference between the brick
samples F (3,10.6), =5.918, p= 0.012. Moreover, the result of Tukey's HSD POST HOC TEST indicates
that there is a significant difference between Treatment one and Treatment four p=0.022 and between
Treatment two and Treatment four p= 0.022.
Conclusions
Based on the data gathered and analyzed, the researchers found that there were significant
differences between the control and the other treatment.
Based on the result of anova, the water absorption rate of all the brick samples are statistically
the same. Among the 24 brick samples, there are only 4 samples that don't absorb water. The
research observed that the brick with more pores has the high-water absorption and lower compressive
strength.
Based on the results of the study, the average compressive strengths of T1 (25% cement and
75% sand) and T2 (25% cement, 40% sand, 34% crushed glass, and 1% shredded plastic cups) are
statistically the same.
Therefore, crushed glass bottles and shredded plastic cups can be used as alternative
aggregate for brick using the right percentage of the materials which is 34% crushed glass and 1%
shredded plastic 25% cement and 40% sand.
Recommendations
1. Future researchers should utilize a strainer to acquire the same sizes of broken glass bottles,
and the plastic cups should likewise be finely shredded. It is also advised that non-recyclable
glass bottles be used in this study.
2. It was suggested that metal or stainless-steel molds be used instead of wooden molders so
that the molder does not absorb water from the brick. Future researchers can also use PVC
pipe as a molder to obtain a cylindrical shape.
3. The brick's shape and surface must be cylindrical and flat in order for the force to be delivered
correctly throughout the brick.
4. This study recommends that future researchers must utilize a net when soaking the bricks in
water for 24 hours.
REFERENCES
A, Parashar, "Augmentation of Compressive Strength of Bricks Made of Various Materials by Adding
Molten Plastic Waste", Volume-8 Issue-10, August 2019, https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.j1182.0881019
Aman Kumar, “A Study of Manufacturing Bricks Using Plastic Wastes”, Volume 7, Issue 8, August
2020, https://sg.docworkspace.com/l/sIOO_sMCzAdPcpKAG?sa=e1&st=1t
Anant L. Murmu, “Towards sustainable bricks production: An overview”, Volume 165, 20 March 2018,
Pages 112-125, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.038
Aneke Frank Ikechukwu, “Strength and durability performance of masonry bricks produced with
crushed glass and melted PET plastics”, Volume 14, June 2021, e00542,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00542
Arif Rahman Wahid, “More than Just a Material Perfection: Preserved Human-Environment
Relationship in Traditional Brick-Making Scenarios”, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume
1655, 11-13 September 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1655/1/012125
Cayla R Cook, “Ecological and health issues of plastic waste”, Plastic waste and recycling, 2020, 513-
527, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817880-5.00020-7
REFLECTION
The researchers discovered that there were notable distinctions between the control and the other
treatment based on the data they had collected and examined. The water absorption rate of each brick
sample is statistically equal, according to the Anova finding. There are just 4 brick samples out of the
24 that do not absorb water. According to the research, bricks with larger pores absorb more water and
have a lower compressive strength. The study's findings indicate that T1's (25% cement and 75% sand)
and T2's (25% cement, 40% sand, 34% crushed glass, and 1% shredded plastic cups) average
compressive strengths are statistically equal. Consequently, shredded plastic cups and shattered glass
bottles can be utilized as an alternate aggregate for brick employing the proper ratio of the components,
which is 25% cement, 40% sand, 1% shredded plastic, and 34% crushed glass.
TITLE PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
DISCUSSIONS AND RESULT
Water Absorption Rate
Observation
Compressive Strength Test
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendations
REFERENCES
REFLECTION
