Caporado III, Armando R.

Repatacodo, Shanie Niña B.

Villamor, Kamille Viktoria Jhoie G.
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
■ Solid waste is a major pollutant in developing countries.

■ Plastic and rubber wastes are deemed to be reused for its

flexibility, light weight, vitality ingestion and help with water
absorption, impact resistance and bore resistance.

■ The investigation limit itself on clear PET bottles and soft-type

scrap rubber used for shoe in-sole. Consequently, this study did not
address other parts of PET bottles such as caps or labels.
Similarly, other types of rubber such as hard and semi-hard
varieties were not utilized.

■ The results of this study would be of great help to the construction

industries in terms of providing alternative materials in
manufacturing concrete bricks, moreover, it will add up on the pool
of knowledge for the students and future researches.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Problem 1:
o What are the compositional ratio of the manufactured
concrete pavement bricks?

Table 4.1 Compositional Ratio of the

Prototype Concrete Bricks Compositional Ratio of Protoype Bricks
Concrete Bricks Rubber PET Material
Additiv Additives Con.(%) 20
18
es (%) (%)
16
RCB 20 0 20 14
(Rubber 12
Concrete Brick) 10
PCB 0 20 20 8
(PET Concrete 6
Bricks) 4
MCB 10 10 20 2
(Mix Concrete 0
RCB PCB MCB
Bricks)
CCB 0 0 0 Rubber Additives (%) PET Additives (%) Material Concentration (%)

(Control
Concrete Figure 4.1 Compositional Ratio of
Bricks) Prototype Bricks
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Problem 2:
o What are the physical dimensions of the manufactured
concrete pavement bricks?

Table 4.2 Physical Dimension of

Prototype Bricks
Dimension Measurements
Length 15.24cm
Width 7.62cm
Thickness 3.81cm
Weight:
CCB 921g Figure 4.2 Physical Dimension of
RCB 708g Prototype Bricks.
PCB 911g
MCB 794g
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Problem 3:
o What are the quantitative characteristics of the
manufactured prototype concrete bricks in terms of:
I. Water Absorption
Table 4.3: Water Absorption Index Controlled
and Experimental Bricks Prototype

Water Absorption

CCB PCB RCB MCB

R1 1.08 1.07 1.13 1.05
R2 1.07 1.07 1.11 1.13
R3 1.07 1.08 1.13 1.00
Figure 4.3 Water Absorption Indices of
1.07 1.07 1.12 1.06 Controlled and Experimental Bricks Prototype
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Problem 3:
o What are the quantitative characteristics of the manufactured prototype
concrete bricks in terms of:
II. Bore Resistance

Table 4.4: Bore Resistance of Controlled 1.8

and Experimental Bricks Prototype 1.6
1.59
1.49
1.4

CCB PBB RCB MCB 1.2

1.06
1 0.89

R1 0.55 0.44 1.71 1.03 0.8

0.55 0.57
0.66 0.65
0.6 0.51

0.4
R2 0.57 0.65 1.59 1.06 0.2

0
CCB PBB RCB MCB
R3 0.66 0.51 1.49 0.89 R1 R2 R3

Mean Figure 4.4 Bore Resistance Indices of

Values 0.59 0.53 1.60 0.99 Controlled and Experimental Bricks Prototype
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Problem 3:
o What are the quantitative characteristics of the manufactured
prototype concrete bricks in terms of:
III.Impact Resistance
Table 4.5: Impact Resistance of Controlled
and Experimental Bricks Prototype
900 870
839
800 786
Impact Resistance 700
600

CCB PCB RCB MCB 500 448 442

390 409
400 312
R1 31.36 442 1 390 300
200
31.36
R2 448 839 1 786 100 1 1 1
0
CCB PCB RCB MCB
R3 312 870 1 409 R1 R2 R3

Figure 4.5 Impact Resistance Indices of

263.79 717.00 1.00 528.33 Controlled and Experimental Bricks Prototype
METHODOLOGY FLOW CHART
Collection of Liberating
Waste rubber & Molding the Cured
PET bottles Bricks
Pouring wet mortar

Preparation of
into the molds.
Material
Curing and Drying
Waste rubber & Testing
PET bottles
Preparation Water Absorption
Washing of Bricks Wet
Drying Impact Resistance
Mortar
Shredding Weighing the Boring Resistance
Materials
Construction Mixing of Dry
materials Statistical
of Mold Treatment
Wet Mortar Mixing
Table 4.6: Inferential Statistic on Water Absorption of
Prototype Bricks Compared to Control
Statistical t-value p-value interpretation Decision
Grouping

ccb vs rcb 0 1 not statistically accept Ho

sig.

ccb vs pcb 0.76 0.49 not statistically accept Ho

sig.

ccb vs mcb 0.49 0.65 not statistically accept Ho

sig.
 Table 4.7: Inferential Statistic of Cross Comparison on
Water Absorption of experimental set-ups
Statistical t- p-value interpretation Decision
Grouping value

pcb vs rcb 0.74 0.499 not accept Ho

statistically
sig.
rcb vs mcb 0.16 0.88 not accept Ho
statistically
sig.
pcb vs mcb 0.49 0.65 not accept Ho
statistically
sig.
Table 4.8 : Inferential Statistic on Impact Resistance of
Prototype Bricks Compared to Control
Statistical t-value p-value Interpretation Decision
Grouping

ccb vs rcb 14.01 0.0002 extremely reject Ho

statistically sig.

ccb vs pcb 0.83 0.45 not statistically accept Ho

sig.

ccb vs mcb 6.43 0.003 very statistically reject Ho

sig.
 Table 4.9: Inferential Statistic of Cross Comparison on
Impact Resistance of experimental set-ups
Statistical t-value p-value Interpretation Decision
Grouping

pcb vs rcb 11.91 0.0003 extremely statistically reject Ho

significant

rcb vs mcb 7.43 0.0017 very statistically reject Ho

significant

pcb vs mcb 5.6 0.005 very statistically reject Ho

significant
 Table 4.10: Inferential Statistic on Bore Resistance of
Prototype Bricks Compared to Control
Statistical t-value p-value interpretation Decision
Grouping

ccb vs rcb 2.14 0.0988 not quite accept

statistically sig. Ho

ccb vs pcb 2.46 0.0699 not quite accept

statistically sig. Ho

ccb vs mcb 1.49 0.21 not statistically accept

sig. Ho
 Table 4.11: Inferential Statistic of Cross Comparison on
Bore Resistance of experimental set-ups
Statistical t-value p-value interpretation Decision
Grouping

pcb vs rcb 5.2 0.0065 very reject Ho

statistically sig.

rcb vs mcb 4.09 0.014 statistically sig. reject Ho

pcb vs mcb 1 0.374 not statistically accept Ho

sig.
CONCLUSIONS
Inferential statistics performed to analyze generated data lead to researchers to put
forward the following conclusions:
1. RCB exhibited not statistically significant difference compared to controlled
bricks in the water absorption test leading to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.
2. PCB exhibited not statistically significant difference compared to controlled
bricks in the water absorption test leading to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.
3. MCB exhibited not statistically significant difference compared to controlled
bricks in the water absorption test leading to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.
4. Cross comparison between PCB and RCB generated not statistically significant
difference in the water absorption test leading to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.
5. Cross comparison between RCB and MCB generated not statistically significant
difference in the water absorption test leading to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.
6. Cross comparison between PCB and MCB generated not statistically significant
difference in the water absorption test leading to the acceptance of the null
hypothesis.
CONCLUSIONS
7. RCB exhibited the highest water absorption index compared to all controlled and experimental
set-ups.
8. RCB exhibited extremely statistically significant difference compared to controlled bricks in
the impact resistance test leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
9. PCB exhibited not statistically significant difference compared to controlled bricks in the
impact resistance test leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis.
10. MCB exhibited very statistically significant difference compared to controlled bricks in the
impact resistance test leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
11. Cross comparison between PCB and RCB generated extremely statistically significant difference
in the impact resistance test leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
12. Cross comparison between RCB and MCB generated very statistically significant difference in
the impact resistance test leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
13. Cross comparison between PCB and MCB generated very statistically significant difference in
the impact resistance test leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
14. RCB exhibited the highest impact resistance index compared to all controlled and experimental
set-ups.
CONCLUSIONS
15. RCB exhibited not quite statistically significant difference compared to controlled bricks in
the bore resistance test leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis.
16. PCB exhibited not quite statistically significant difference compared to controlled bricks in
the bore resistance test leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis.
17. MCB exhibited not statistically significant difference compared to controlled bricks in the
bore resistance test leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis.
18. Cross comparison between PCB and RCB generated very statistically significant difference in the
bore resistance test leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
19. Cross comparison between RCB and MCB generated statistically significant difference in the bore
resistance test leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis.
20. Cross comparison between PCB and MCB generated not statistically significant difference in the
bore resistance test leading to the acceptance of the null hypothesis.
21. RCB exhibited the highest bore resistance index compared to all the controlled and experimental
set-ups.
22. RCB exhibited exemplary qualities of prototype bricks in terms of its water absorption, impact
resistance and bore resistance properties.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The researchers set forth the following recommendation for
the improvement of future researches.
1. Variety of higher concentration of materials additives may
be utilized in order for the researchers to come up with
various data and increases the validity of the results.
2. Shredding the material additives into smaller size might
also result to higher quality of the prototype.
3. Other material testing such as compression strength and
thermal expansion may be conducted.
4. The researcher can also increase the level of significant
to 0.01 since it is a scientific investigation.
5. Working on a functional laboratory and performing more
standardize methods of material testing of prototype can
increase the validity and accuracy of the investigation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. A.K Abdel-Gawad, “Compressive Strength of Concrete Utilizing
Waste Rubber”, (2010),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.014
2. Ahmadinia,E. et al., "Materials & Design Using waste plastic
bottles as additive for stone mastic asphalt" , (2011), .,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.06.016
3. Badhikari S. Maiti , “Reclamation and recycling of waste
rubber”, (2010), ., https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-
6700(00)00020-4Get rights and content
4. F.Pacheco,Torgal, ”Polymers & Durability of Concrete
containing polymers
waste”,(2012),.,hhtps//doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.11.0
47.
5. K.K Sague-Chentsil , “Performance of concrete made with
commercially produced coarse recycled concrete aggregate”,
(2011) , ., https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00476-2Get
rights and content
BIBLIOGRAPHY
6. MariaenricaFrigione, ”Recycling of PET bottles as fine
aggregate in co
ncrete”,(2010),.,hhtps://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.030
7. Masahide Nishigaki, Hsiu-Mai Hoa, Hung-Lung Chiang, A.I Arol
,“Producing permeable blocks and pavement bricks from molten
slag”, 2009, ., https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(99)00323-2
8. NabajyoriSakla, Jorge de Brito, ”Use of Plastic waste as
aggregate in cement mortar and concrete
preparation”,(2012),.,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.20
12.02.66
9. PhaiboonPanyakapo, MallikaPanyakapo, " Waste Management Reuse
of Thermosettiny Plastic Waste for Lightweight Concrete",
(2008),., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.006
10.Roberto Felicetti, "The drilling resistance test for the
assessment of fire damaged concrete," Cement and Concrete
Composites 28, no. 4 (2006): xx,
doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.02.009.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
11. S Akçaözoğlu, K Akçaözoğlu, CD Atiş, "Engineering Thermal
conductivity, compressive strength and ultrasonic wave velocity of
cementitious composite containing waste PET lightweight aggregate
(WPLA)", 2013, ., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2012.09.012G
12. Shemal Dave, Ankur Bhogayata, and Dr. N. Arora, "Impact Resistance
of Geopolymer Concrete Containing Recycled Plastic Aggregates,"
(n.d.), ., doi:10.29007/nwsh
13. Test Method for Dry and Wet Bulk Density, Water Absorption, and
Apparent Porosity of Thin Sections of Glass-Fiber Reinforced
Concrete," (n.d.), ., doi:10.1520/c0948-81r16
14. Thomas, B.S. et al , “Recycling of waste rubber tires as a primary
component mixed with concrete and an alternative for natural
aggregates compared to control-mix concrete”, (2008), .,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-053X(03)00031-X
15. TrilokGuptaaSandeepChaudharybRaviK.Sharma , “Assessment of mechanical
and durability properties of concrete containing waste rubber tire
as fine aggregate” ,(2014),.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.102.
 DOCUMENTATIONS

Collection of PET Collection of Waste Rubber Washing of PET Bottles Drying of PET Bottles

Shredding of PET Bottles Shredding of Waste Rubber Construction of Moulds Finished Moulder
 DOCUMENTATIONS

Weighing of Materials Mixing of Dry Material Mixing of Wet Mortar Pouring of wet mortar into
the moulds

Curing of the bricks Drying of the bricks Liberating of the bricks Water Absorption Test
DOCUMENTATIONS

Impact Resistance Test Bore Resistance Test

 PLAGIARISM TEST

Words 713 Date February

22,2019
Characters 4787 Exclude Url

0% 100 0 34
Plagiarism Plagiarized Unique Sentences
% Sentences
Unique

Content Checked For Plagiarism: Chapter I

Words 967 Date February

23,2019
Characters 6522 Exclude Url

0% 100 0 46
Plagiarism Plagiarized Sentences Unique Sentences
%
Unique

Content Checked For Plagiarism: Chapter II

 Words 869 Date February
22,2019
Characters 5354 Exclude Url

0% 100 0 40
Plagiarism Plagiarized Unique Sentences
% Sentences
Unique
Content Checked For Plagiarism: Chapter III

Words 993 Date February 26,2019

Characters 6922 Exclude Url

0% 100 0 52
Plagiarism Plagiarized Unique Sentences
% Sentences
Unique
Content Checked For Plagiarism: Chapter IV

Words 894 Date February 26,2019

Characters 6014 Exclude Url

0% 100 0 42
Plagiarism Plagiarized Unique Sentences
% Sentences
Unique
Content Checked For Plagiarism: Chapter V
 Research Budget
Expenses Cost (PHP)
1. Waste Rubber 200
2. Materials 1,500
(Cement, Sand, Wood,
Nails)
3. Printing 400
4. Book Binding 150
5. Transportation 200
Total 2,450
 GANTT CHART
Time Frame
Research Activity Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
1.Collection and Preparing
Waste Rubber and PET Bottles
2.Construction/Manufacturing
Concrete Bricks
3.Material Testing
4.Data Tabulation and Analysis
5.Manuscript Writing
6.Oral Defense
7.Bookbinding and Submission