Ce Proj 1 Siga Nicolas

i
HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE THERMOPLASTIC WASTE AS PARTIAL
REPLACEMENT TO AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE HOLLOW BLOCKS
A Thesis
Presented to the Civil Engineering Department
Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges
General Santos City
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
HAM SOBRECAREY SIGA

MARY MAXINNE ALARCON NICOLAS
December 2022
ii
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All gratefulness belongs to Almighty God for without His graces and blessings,
this study would not have been possible.
Immediate appreciation and deepest gratitude for the help and support are
extended to these people who, in one way or another, have contributed in making this
study possible.
Engr. Elesio F. Camiller III, MEng, research head, who exerts his best and pours
his patience in guiding us all throughout the endeavor.
Engr. Fernamel Chris N. Vergara, research adviser, for his support, words of
encouragement, valuable comments, substantial suggestions as we tried to complete and
achieve the success of this study.
Our parents, Siga and Nicolas family, for their tender love, care, and unending
support in terms of financial, emotional, and physical support. This journey will not be
possible, especially since the Nicolas family, who provided the shelter and offered their
space for the conduct of the experiment.
Researchers, Ham Sobrecarey Siga and Mary Maxinne Alarcon Nicolas, for
surviving the bumpy road. The success of this study also belongs to us, who did not quit
but instead rose above every circumstance.
God bless you all.
HSS & MMN

iv
ABSTRACT
There have been a production of 400 million tons of plastic every year and only
15% is recycled. Since the Philippines is one of the biggest contributors of plastic wastes,
this study focused on high-density thermoplastic wastes as partial replacement to
aggregate in concrete hollow blocks.
An experimental procedure was conducted to produce at least 75 samples.
Universal Testing Machine (UTM) was also utilized as the research instrument to obtain
the average compressive strength of samples with different design mix and High-Density
Polyethylene (HDPE) content. The statistical tool of this study is two-way Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA). This study concluded that there is no significant difference in the
average compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks with pure aggregate and concrete
hollow blocks with HDPE as partial aggregate replacement.
Keywords: High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste, Aggregate, Universal
Testing Machine, Two-way ANOVA, Concrete Hollow Blocks, Partial Replacement

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE ....................................................................................................................... i

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ....................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT.................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction ..........................................................................1
Statement of the Problem .....................................................3
Significance of the Study .....................................................4
Scope and Delimitation ........................................................6
Definition of Terms..............................................................7
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Conceptual Framework ........................................................8
Theoretical Framework ......................................................10
Related Literature and Studies ...........................................11
Synthesis ............................................................................26
CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Research Design.................................................................28
Research Design Matrix.....................................................30
Locale of the Study ............................................................31
Research Procedure............................................................32
Data Gathering Procedure ..................................................32
Mix Proportion and Production of Concrete Hollow Block
Sample……………………………………………………33
Statistical Treatment .........................................................35
CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS,

AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Result of Pure Concrete Hollow Blocks ............................39
Result of Concrete Hollow Blocks with HDPE in Different
Design Mix.........................................................................41
Analysis of Variance ..........................................................43
Comparative Summary .....................................................44
Level of Acceptability........................................................48
CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Findings.........................................................50
vi
Conclusions ........................................................................52
Recommendations ..............................................................53
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................54
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................61
Appendix A. Letter of Request to the Laboratory In-Charge of Ramon Magsaysay
Memorial Colleges of General Santos City ...........................................................61
Appendix B. Universal Testing Machine Request Form ......................................62
Appendix C. Design Mixtures of Samples for HDPE Replacement .....................63
Appendix D. Documentation of Research Procedure ............................................64
Appendix E. Compressive Test of Pure Concrete Hollow Blocks ........................69
Appendix F. Compressive Test of 2% Shredded HDPE Thermoplastic Waste ....74
Appendix G. Compressive Test of 4% Shredded HDPE Thermoplastic Waste ....79
Appendix H. Compressive Test of 6% Shredded HDPE Thermoplastic Waste ....84
Appendix I. Compressive Test of 8% Shredded HDPE Thermoplastic Waste .....89
Appendix J. ANOVA: Two- Factor with Replication ...........................................94
Appendix K. Graphs ..............................................................................................95
CERTIFICATE OF GRAMMARIAN ..............................................................................97
CURRICULUM VITAE ...................................................................................................98

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Conceptual Framework………......………………………...………… 9
2 Research Design……….........……………………………...……….…29
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 Design Mixtures of Samples for HDPE Replacement…………...…....34
2 Average Compressive Strength Results for Concrete Hollow Blocks

with 100% Aggregate……………………….……………...…………39
3 Average Compressive Strength Results for 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% High-

Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste as Partial Aggregate
Replacement in CHB ………………………...…………...……….…..41
4 Average Compressive Strength of Concrete Hollow Blocks ……..…..45
5 ANOVA Result for Pure Aggregate and HDPE as Partial Replacement

of Aggregate…………………………….……………...……….……..47
HDPE Thermoplastic Waste as Partial Replacement to Aggregate in CHB 1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
Introduction
Plastic waste is one of the commodities that contribute to the largest amount of
polluting waste. Based on the United Nations (UN) Environment Programme, people
produced about 400 million tonnes of plastic waste every year. This is inseparable from
the nature of the plastic because it is practically used and relatively cheap in production.
Most of these are types of disposable plastic. For example, the use of HDPE plastics as
product packaging. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is a thermoplastic polymer made
from petroleum. As one of the most versatile plastic materials around, HDPE plastic is
used in a wide variety of applications, including plastic bottles, milk jugs, shampoo
bottles, bleach bottles, cutting boards, and piping.
Meanwhile, quoted from the World Economic Forum, 12 million tons of plastic,
mostly single-use, enter into the sea from land annually. The Philippines is third among
the countries with the highest plastic waste inputs into the ocean (Jambec et al., 2015)
although the country has yet to establish what type of plastics are most abundant in
plastic waste litter, since local plastic pollution studies including marine litter reporting
are limited (Abreo, 2018; Schneider et al., 2018). Plastic production is expected to
increase by 40% in the next decade, making it nearly impossible for waste management
and recycling schemes to cope with it.
On the other hand, concrete is the most widely used material next to water.
Aggregate occupies approximately 65–80% of the concrete volume and it has a great
influence on the concrete properties such as, strength, permeability, volume stability,
workability and durability.
On the contrary, Naik (2008) argued that despite being the world’s most used
construction material, the sustainability of concrete is a major concern confronting the
global construction industry. The exploitation of aggregates for construction results in
negative consequences such as noise pollution, air pollution and the destruction of the
habitats of flora and fauna, damages to landscape, loss of land, reduction in water quality
and displacement of inhabitants (Omosanya & Ajibade, 2011).
Moreover, to mitigate the negative impacts in the abovementioned, the use of
waste materials in preparing concrete can eliminate large quantities of waste materials.
The benefits of this recycling can be economically advantageous, due lower costs of
removing the waste and the reduction of pollution and contamination (Dhir Newlands
Csetenyi, 2003). This approach can address environmental concerns related to aggregate
mining and waste disposal and solve problems involving the lack of aggregates in
construction sites.
Pešić, et al., (2016) explored the mechanical and serviceability properties of
concrete reinforced with HDPE fibers and also explored any subsequent advantages.
Hence, in this experimental paper, HDPE plastic waste will be used in the shredded form
with a length of 5 mm, a width of 4 mm, and a maximum thickness of 2 mm. In its
utilization, it is expected that the substitution of shredded plastic waste to fine aggregate
in the concrete mixture can have a good effect on the compressive strength of concrete.
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to determine the acceptability of Concrete Hollow Blocks
(CHB) with HDPE thermoplastic as partial replacement of fine aggregate.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the compressive strength of pure concrete hollow blocks with the
following design mix:
1.1 1:5 Cement-sand Ratio;
1.4 1:8 Cement-sand Ratio; and
1.5 1:9 Cement-sand Ratio?
2. What was the compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks with HDPE partial
substitution in aggregates at 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8% weight, with the following
design mix:
2.4 1:8 Cement-sand Ratio; and
2.5 1:9 Cement-sand Ratio?
3. Was there a significant difference in the compressive strengths of pure concrete
hollow blocks with their design mixtures and HDPE as a partial substitution for
aggregate?
4. What was the level of acceptability of HDPE thermoplastics as a partial
substitution for aggregate in concrete hollow blocks?
Hypotheses of the Problem
Sub-problem number 1 and 2 are hypothesis-free. However, sub-problem number
3 has the following hypotheses:
Ho : There is no significant difference in the average compressive strengths of

3
concrete hollow blocks with pure aggregate and concrete hollow blocks with 2%,
4%, 6%, and 8% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement.
Ha : There is a significant difference in the average compressive strengths of

3
concrete hollow blocks with pure aggregate and concrete hollow blocks with 2%,
4%, 6%, and 8% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement.
Significance of the Study
The outcome and recommendations of this study on "High-Density Polyethylene
Thermoplastic Waste as Partial Replacement to Aggregate in Concrete Hollow Blocks"
aimed to help the following:
To the Contractors of Horizontal Projects. The findings of this study will
hopefully help the contractors of different construction firms, especially those companies
based in General Santos City, gain knowledge as to how shredded plastic can be a
substitute for fine aggregate. The findings of the study will also provide them with ideas
on how they can utilize plastic waste and make it beneficial for them.
To the Materials Engineers. The findings of this study will provide information to
the site engineers, material engineers, or the engineers as a whole to better understand the
characteristics of plastics and how it could possibly replace some of the proportion in the
mixture of concrete. The findings of this study will also help them compare the
compressive strength of the concrete hollow block with shredded plastic as aggregate to
that of conventional hollow blocks.
To the Producer of CHB in General Santos City. The outcome of this study will
raise awareness among the producers of CHB, especially those whose target market is in
General Santos City, with regard to the new approach of producing concrete hollow
blocks that have an environmental good effect.
To the Waste Management Office (WMO) of General Santos City. This initiative
will expand WMO's awareness of the need of transforming massive quantities of waste
materials, particularly HDPE thermoplastic, into both economic and environmental
advantages.
To the Academic Institution of Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges BSCE
Program’s Instructors and Staffs. This research will help them better understand how
shredded plastic can become a substitute for aggregate and produce concrete hollow
blocks and how it could help both the country’s environment and economy. This study
will also motivate them to research more about plastics and the possible usage of it in
construction.
To the future Civil Engineering and STEM student Researchers. This study’s
findings will help them realize how shredded plastic can be a substitute for aggregate in
producing concrete hollow blocks, which will lead to more data gathering and study
exploration.
To the Students of Civil Engineering program in different Colleges and
Universities. This study will allow students, especially the engineering students of
Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges of General Santos City, to comprehend the
characteristics of plastic and give them further information as to how it can affect the
compressive strength and the mass of concrete.
Scope and Delimitation
The scope of the study, “High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste as
Partial Replacement to Aggregate in Concrete Hollow Blocks", was to obtain the
compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks with pure aggregate and concrete hollow
blocks with HDPE thermoplastic wastes. This study was limited to utilizing waste HDPE
thermoplastics as fine aggregates and how it gives significance difference in the
compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks only. Since plastics are very diverse and
have different types, the findings of this study cannot be generalized. The HDPE
thermoplastic, which served as the model for this study, does not represent all types of
plastic in general.
With respect to the volume of fine aggregate in the mixture of cement, some
volume, with a design mix of 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9 were substituted with an amount of
0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8% of shredded HDPE thermoplastic. This determined whether the
weight of HDPE thermoplastic added as a substitute to fine aggregate have a significant
difference in the compressive strength of the CHB.
To determine the compressive strength difference between conventional CHB (4”
non load bearing) and CHB with shredded HDPE thermoplastic aggregate, a compressive
test was done with the help of a universal testing machine. The specimen will be
subjected to seven days of curing.

Definition of Terms
The researchers conceptually and operationally defined these terms to better grasp
the concepts that the researchers used throughout the study.
Fine Aggregate. Conceptually referred to any natural sand particles won from the
land through the mining process. Fine aggregates consist of natural sand or any crushed
stone particles that are ¼” or smaller. This product is often referred to as 1/4’” minus as it
refers to the size, or grading, of this particular aggregate. These guidelines are set by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). Operationally referred to the
shredded HDPE thermoplastic waste with a length of 5 mm, a width of 4 mm, and a
maximum thickness of 2 mm.
High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic. Conceptually, this plastic is
commonly used in manufacture, known for its strength, durability and lightweight
(Irvine, 2022). Operationally referred to the plastic sample as partial replacement of
aggregate in concrete hollow blocks.
Replacement. Conceptually referred to the act of partially replacing one thing
with another (Vocabulary, n.d.). Operationally referred to the partial replacement of
shredded HDPE plastic in respect to its weight for aggregate.
Concrete Hollow Block (CHB). Conceptually referred to as a block made of
concrete that has hollow spaces between its walls (Hessam, 2022). Operationally referred
to the samples added with HDPE thermoplastic wastes and which were tested for its
compressive strength.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter comprised literature and studies that are relevant and valuable to the
current research. This review of related literature included published materials and
online sources relevant to the present study.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study displayed in Figure 1 comprehend how
the researchers used waste materials and concrete hollow block components, a logical
framework was provided. It included diagrams and data that illustrate how HDPE is
substituted for sand, in terms of weight, at a certain design mix ratio.
The study is eager to determine if the weight of the shredded HDPE plastic affects
the compressive strength of the produced CHB. There are four different percentages of
replacement per HDPE plastic and each percentage has three concrete hollow blocks
samples. The mixture will be molded in rectangular hollow molds and will be treated for
seven days. The study will use average mean and two-way analysis of variance.
Theoretical Framework
Concrete structures expert Orr (2018) from the University of Bath led the study in
partnership with researchers from Goa Engineering College, India. Their results,
published in the journal Construction and Building Materials, showed that replacing sand
with similarly sized and shaped waste plastic particles from ground up plastic bottles
produced concrete that was almost as strong as conventional concrete mixtures.
Some of the authors, like Almeshal (2020), argued plastic wastes such as HDPE
can be used in the concrete production at certain replacement rates. This approach helps
conserve natural resources such as sand. Some studies have also shown that waste
materials can be successfully used in all kinds of existing and future concrete structures,
by replacing cement, sometimes up to 70%. They provided environmentally safe, stable,
and more durable and low-cost construction materials.
On the other hand, according to the United States Bureau of Reclamation’s
Engineering Geology Field Manual, sand is defined as rock particles that pass through a
No. 4 ASTM sieve (4.75 mm) sieve and are retained by a No. 200 (0.75 mm) sieve. Fine
sand passes through a No. 40 (425-µm) sieve and is retained by a No. 200 (0.075 mm or
75-µm) sieve. Medium sand passes through a No. 10 (2.00 mm) sieve and is retained by a
No. 40 (425-µm) sieve. Weight of sand per m3: - average density of sand is 1620 kg per
m3 (Gere, Mechanics of Material, SE 2001).
On the contrary, The UN estimates that 4.1 billion tons of cement is produced
every year, driven primarily by China, which constitutes 58% of today’s sand-fueled
construction boom. The global use of sand and gravels has been found to be 10 times
higher than that of cement. This means that, for construction alone, the world consumes
roughly 40 to 50 billion tons of sand on an annual basis. That’s enough to build a wall 27
meters high by 27 meters wide that wraps around the planet every year.
Environmentalists and governments are paying close attention to the pollution and
health risks, particularly those connected to the concrete, cement, and clay-brick sectors,
as environmental consciousness at all societal levels grows. In particular, Kenya-based
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released a new report with
recommendations for avoiding a sand-shortage crisis. This summary follows a 2019
UNEP awareness report in which the organization says the sand crisis has been
overlooked.
Review of Related Literature and Studies
Concrete Hollow Blocks Specification
Concrete blocks are frequently built using 1:3:6 concrete with aggregates no
larger than 10 mm in size or a cement-sand mixture in the ratios of 1:7, 1:8, or 1. These
combinations, when properly cured, provide concrete blocks a compressive strength far
more than what is necessary for a one-story construction. These building blocks can be
solid, cellular, or hollow. While the voids in hollow blocks pass through, those in cellular
blocks have one end that is closed. Occasionally, lightweight aggregate like broken
pumice stone is used (Bengtsson, 2018).
All masonry units were conforming to the requirements specified in Section 702
of National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP, 2016) in which Concrete Masonry
Units shall meet and conform to the following American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) standards and requirements: 1) ASTM C55-11, Concrete Building
Brick. 2) ASTM C 90-85, Hollow & Solid Load-Bearing Concrete. 3) ASTM C 129,
Non-Load Bearing Concrete Masonry Units. 4) ASTM C 140, Sampling and Testing
Concrete Masonry Units and, 5) ASTM C 426, Standard Test Method for Drying
Shrinkage of Concrete (National Structural Code of the Philippines, 2016).
The American Society of Testing and Materials C126-71 defines Concrete
Hollow Blocks (CHB) as a unit consisting of cement, water, and suitable mineral
aggregate with a core area of 40% to 50% of gross area that offers air space in the
concrete hollow block walls (ASTM 90 and Philippine National Standard). Concrete
hollow blocks can be divided into load-bearing and non-load-bearing categories. Load
Bearing CHBs are those that can handle superimposed loads, dead loads, and living
loads, whereas Non-Load Bearing CHBs can be utilized to construct interior walls above
grade. Concrete Hollow Blocks can also be split into three weight categories: regular
weight, lightweight, and heavyweight. ASTM 90 requires 500 psi as the minimal
compressive strength for non-load bearing materials. Furthermore, each unit of concrete
hollow blocks has a 300 psi non-load bearing capacity, as per Philippine National
Standard.
The height of the blocks should not be greater than either its length or six times its
breadth in order to prevent misunderstanding with slabs and panels. Solid concrete blocks
are made from aggregate, cement and sand. They are used in the load-bearing walls as
well as the non-load bearing walls. They are the standard sized rectangular hollow blocks
made of cast concrete of high or low density. For high-density blocks, cement and
aggregate, usually sand and fine gravel are used as a raw material. For low density
blocks, industrial wastes, such as fly ash or bottom ash are used as the primary raw
materials and are often called cinder blocks /breeze blocks in different parts of the world
(Patel, 2020).
There are two types of concrete hollow blocks: load bearing and non-load
bearing. Blocks that are utilized to carry a load, the load bearing blocks whose thickness
is between 15 and 20 cm. Non-bearing blocks, on the other hand, are those with a
thickness between 7 and 10 cm that are used to support walls, partitions, fences, dividers,
and the like in addition to their own weight. Three void cells and two half cells are
present at each end of the typical hollow block. These hollow cells come in a variety of
sizes since different producers use various molds (Fajardo, 2021).
The determination of suitable amounts of raw materials needed to produce
concrete of desired quality under given conditions of mixing, placing and curing is
known as proportioning. As per Indian Standard specifications, the combined aggregate
content in the concrete mix used for making hollow blocks should not be more than 6
parts to 1 part by volume of cement. If this ratio is taken in terms of weight basis this may
average approximately at 1:7 (cement: aggregate).
In support, the Humanitarian Supporting Group (2014) also stated that for CHBs:
Mix Proportion 1:7, as per structural engineer’s specification. Non-load bearing walls are
4” CHBs.
Concrete blocks are available in modular sizes, which vary by nation. In
comparison to units used for bonding, like a half-block, concrete blocks are rectangular
concrete masonry units that can either be solid or hollow (open or closed cavity).
However, they will be manageable because of their size and mass.

The Concrete Hollow Blocks should be covered with a plastic sheet or tarpaulin
and kept moist and shaded for at least 7 days after being taken out of the mold in order to
properly cure. It is possible to accomplish this by continuously misting them with water
or by keeping them submerged in tanks. An effective curing procedure produces concrete
that is stronger, harder, denser, and more durable with fewer cracking (Department of
Public Works and Highways, 2016).
Weight or volume can also be used to determine the proportion. The most typical
approach is by volume (for example, using a bucket). For CHBs, mix in a ratio of 1:7, as
specified by the structural engineer. It must utilize tap water and must not exceed 28 liters
per 40 kilos of cement per bag, and shall not exceed 10 cm in the ASTM C-143 slump
test (Humanitarian Working Shelter Group, 2014).
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has prescribed
Department Order no. 230, Series of 2016 with Subject: DPWH Standard Specification
for Item 1046 – Masonry Works which provides effective standard specification in the
implementation of various infrastructure projects and view of the need for setting a
standard specification for masonry works using Concrete Hollow Blocks. The planning
Engineer can revise and indicate said strength on the General Notes of Construction Plans
using 500 psi for Load Bearing Concrete Hollow Blocks and 300 psi for Non-Load
Bearing Concrete Hollow Blocks.
In the study by Singh et al. (2015), the effect of water/cement (w/c) ratio on the
mechanical properties such as compressive strength and split tensile strength of cement
mortar cylinders and cubes was investigated experimentally for 28 days curing period as
per IS standard. Based upon the experimental results, empirical equations have been
developed to predict the strength of cement mortar mixes with various w/c ratios. It is
observed that Abrams’ law is applicable for the cement mortar also. The cement mortar
contains varying proportions of cement and river sand such as 1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8
with different w/c ratios. An empirical equation has been developed between split tensile
strength and compressive strength of cement mortar. Results show that compressive
strength and split tensile strength of cement mortar decreased with an increase in the w/c
ratio. It is observed that the minimum w/c ratio required to make the cement mortar
workable is 0.5.
Different ratios of sand and cement give the different values of compressive
strength. DPWH have standard specifications on CHB but the Planning Engineer can
revise and indicate said strength on the General Notes of Construction Plan using 500 psi
for load bearing CHB and 300 psi for non-load bearing CHB. Design Mixtures used in
the study are 1:4, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9 and 1:10 for both load and non-load bearing CHB.
On the basis of results obtained, only the design mixtures of 1:4, 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7 of both
load and non-load bearing CHBs have met the required standards. With results of 545.57
psi, 524.92 psi, 509.34 psi and 500.73 psi for load bearing. The 328.79 psi, 318.56 psi,
309.75 psi, 300.99 psi for non-load bearing results the 1:4 design mixture obtained the
highest compressive strength for both non-load bearing and load bearing CHB. It
concluded that the compressive strength decreases as the amount of sand increases
(Racadio & Insular, 2017).
The study of Musalamah et. al. (2016) specified that the wall as one of non-
structural parts in a building is usually considered to be light material based. Concrete
block and clay block are still chosen to be one of the most selected materials so that the
strength can be fulfilled to support the loading even though the self-weight of the wall
cannot be considered light at last. However, concrete hollow blocks have been one of the
solutions to fulfill both strength and weight in Indonesia since many earthquakes have
attacked in recent years. The absence of clear requirements on SNI 03-0349-1989 for
gaining a certain quality of hollow concrete block had created many failures in trials for
reaching the target compressive strength. This paper will do comparative study on the
proportion of hollow concrete blocks in order to help the producer, researcher, and public
to get the target strength easily (Quality I of required compressive strength) based on the
determination of fine aggregate quality and water cement ratio. The proportion of cement
and fine aggregate was selected to be 1:1 to 1:6 and 0.5 for water cement ratio. The result
refers that the proportion or 1:5 (cement to sand) was the minimum proportion to reach
the no. 1 quality compressive strength target of hollow concrete block. Meanwhile, the
absorption can be handled accurately below 25 per cent for the whole comparative
proportion tested until the proportion of 1:6 (cement to sand).
Recycling and Reusing of Plastic Wastes
The problem of waste products is of major concern around the globe. However,
plastic waste is a material which has potential for recycling in various products (Pappu et
al., 2007; Siddique et al., 2008). Worldwide plastic production in 1950 was 1.7 Mt, but
this had jumped to 313 Mt in 2014, which is approximately a 184-fold increase (Statista,
2014). Polyethylene based products form the largest percentage of waste from this, at
about 29% of total waste plastic (DG Environment, 2011). These include low density
polyethylene (LDPE), linear low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and high-density
polyethylene (HDPE). Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene amount to

20% and 18% respectively of global plastic waste, and other polymer types represent
about 33% (DG Environment 2011). Plastic wastes are divided into two categories; i.e.,
recyclable and non-recyclable, and only 7% of these wastes are recycled in the UK,
whereas 8% are directly burned and 80% sent to landfill (Siddique et al. 2008; Statista
2014). In fact, the recycling percentage for plastic is very low, due to environmental,
economic and social impacts.
A number of researchers (Al-Manaseer, A.A., and Dalal, T.R., 1997; Gongming
Zhou, et al 2007.; Parviz S. et’al. 1993.; Malek B., et’al., 2006.; Bandodkar, L. R. et al.
2011) have proposed on how to utilize the waste materials produced. Mechanical
recycling methods to make plastic products and feedstock recycling methods that use
plastic as a raw material in the chemical industry have been widely adopted, and
awareness has also grown recently of the importance of thermal recycling as a means of
using plastics as an energy source to conserve petroleum resources. However, one of the
main goals of sustainable solid waste management is to maximize the ability of its
recycling and reusing waste materials. With increasing environmental pressure to reduce
waste pollution, the concrete industry has started adopting a number of methods to
achieve these goals (Sear, 2005).
Rapid industrialization and the development of a throw-away culture has led to
waste handling and disposal problems. Rapid growth is impacting on virgin materials,
which are available only in limited quantities. This pressure on finite resources and
burdensome waste is leading to both economic and societal pressures, driving the need to
recycle waste (Pappu et al. 2007).

In order to facilitate development of a culture where sustainable use of materials
is synonymous with development, increasing political pressure is brought to bear on
manufacturers through national standards, incentivizing the use of waste and secondary
materials (Pappu et al. 2007; Siddique et al. 2008).
For instance, burning polymers results in toxic gas emissions including CO2, CO,
CH3, HC’s, HCN, CIO2, NO and NO2, which pollute the environment (Junod, 1976).
Furthermore, the cost of products incorporating waste plastic can be more than those
produced from virgin plastic due to the additional cost of recycling. It is worth noting that
the quality of recycled plastic may not be compatible with virgin plastic after passing
through various recycling processes. These further limits opportunities to incorporate
such materials into products. Similarly, contaminated plastic products cannot be recycled
due to their potential hazards and harmful gasses which can have serious implications for
society (Statista 2014).
Additionally, sending waste plastic to landfill or burning it is not an efficient
solution because the evolution of toxic and hazardous gasses can cause serious issues for
surrounding areas. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore various ways of utilizing
waste plastic products in an efficient and economical manner. One of the options in this
regard is to utilize this plastic waste in the form of aggregates in the production of
concrete. Plastic has been used in concrete shredded or has been mixed with other
materials to form an artificial or synthetic aggregate. It should be noted that aggregates
amount to about 60-70% of the total mass of concrete, and replacing natural aggregates
either partially or fully with waste plastic aggregates will help preserve natural resources.
This argument is emphasized by the fact that global consumption of aggregate is

expected to exceed 48.3 billion metric tons by 2015 (Fredonia, 2012). Since plastics have
lower density than most natural materials, they can therefore be readily used to form
lightweight aggregates which may replace naturally existing aggregates of similar
density.
The demand of natural sand in the construction industry has increased a lot
resulting in the reduction of sources and an increase in price. Thus, an increased need to
identify a suitable substitute, that is eco-friendly and inexpensive quarry dust being
extensively used as an alternative to the sand in the production of concrete. In this paper
an attempt has been made to determine the properties of hollow concrete blocks produced
by replacing sand by quarry dust. Both partial (i.e.,50%) and complete replacement has
been tried with and without admixtures. Four different proportions have been considered.
In two proportions studies have been made by considering different W/C ratios (Kumar,
2014).
From the study of Danigelis (2018), plastic waste is a viable partial replacement
for sand in structural concrete, according to a new study by researchers from the UK and
India. Their findings could help businesses in India dealing with a sand shortage while at
the same time addressing the country’s immense plastic waste problem.
Concrete structures expert Orr (2018) from the University of Bath led the study in
partnership with researchers from Goa Engineering College, India. Their results,
published in the journal Construction and Building Materials, show that replacing sand
with similarly sized and shaped waste plastic particles from ground up plastic bottles
produced concrete that was almost as strong as conventional concrete mixtures.

The researchers calculated that replacing 10% of sand in concrete with the plastic
waste could save 820 million metric tons of sand a year. They tested the approach on
concrete tubes and cylinders using five types of plastic particles in a variety of sizes.
Ground up recycled plastic bottles that were graded to match the sand had the best
performance.
Every day, 15,000 tons of plastic gets dumped in the country’s streets due to a
lack of suitable recycling facilities. At the same time, a booming construction sector and
rapidly growing urban population in India are causing demand for sand in India to
skyrocket, according to the researchers. The cost of sand is also rising, to the point where
unregulated extraction from riverbeds is an enormous problem.
Additionally, environmental concerns arising from the over-dredging of sand have
led to restrictions on its extraction across India, with direct economic impacts on concrete
construction. A suitable environmentally friendly alternative to sand must be found to
match the huge demand from the concrete construction industry. At the same time, waste
plastic is rarely recycled in India, with as much as 40% left in landfill. The dumping of
such materials which degrade at extremely low rates meaning they persist in the
environment is a long-term environmental concern.
To tackle both issues, it is proposed to process waste plastic to create a partial
replacement for fine sand in a novel mix for structural concrete. In this paper eleven new
concrete mixes are evaluated to study five plastic material compositions, three groups of
particle sizes, three different aspect ratios, and two chemical treatments and establish an
appropriate choice of material to act as partial replacement for sand.

The results show that replacing 10% sand by volume with recycled plastic is a
viable proposition that has the potential to save 820 million tonnes of sand every year.
Through suitable mix design the structural performance of concrete with plastic waste
can be maintained. This preliminary work was sup-ported through funding from the
British Council under the UKIERI (United Kingdom India Educational Research
Initiative) programme for the project ‘Development of structural concrete with the help of
plastic waste as partial replacement for sand’ (Thorneycroft et al., 2018).
Liguori and Iucolano (2014) used some artificial aggregates based on recycled
plastic materials, mostly polyolefin and polyethylene terephthalate waste. These wastes
were employed as partial replacement of natural aggregates for manufacturing hydraulic
mortars. Recycled plastic substitution enhances the open porosity with an increase in
water vapour permeability. Nevertheless, the presence of plastic aggregate leads to a
significant reduction in thermal conductivity, which improves the thermal insulation
performances of the mortar.
Compressive Strength of Concrete with Plastic as Aggregate
Rahmani et al., (2013) examined the mechanical properties of concrete mixed by
shredded PET waste. In this examination, 5%, 10%, and 15% of the PET mixture were
used respectively to replace the total weight of sand. The positive results indicated that
the replacement of sand by 5% to shredded PET increases the compressive strength by
8.86% and 11.97%. Meanwhile, in the study of N. Nursyamsi et al (2021)., identified that
the average tensile strength of briquette mortar with a mixture of 10% and 20% of
shredded HDPE plastic replacing the fine aggregate could be 9.743 kg / cm2. In addition,
N. Nursyamsi et al., also noted that a mixture of 20% LDPE shredded plastic can produce
a briquette mortar tensile strength of 9.99 kg / cm2.
Lakshmi and Nagan (2010) investigated the effects of e-plastic waste on the
properties of concrete and found out that a significant decrease in strength occurred when
the plastic content was more than 20%. They recommended that 20% of e-waste
aggregate can be incorporated as replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete without any
long-term detrimental effects.
Praveen et al. (2013) concluded that at a replacement of 20% of conventional
coarse aggregates by recycled plastic, the compressive strength of concrete increased by
about 27.4% compared to the control concrete, while at a temperature of 400oC, the
compressive strengths of normal aggregate concrete and recycled plastics concrete
reduced by 33% and 75% respectively.
Elzafraney et al. (2006) established that the incorporation of recycled plastics into
concrete provides higher levels of energy efficiency and comfort in buildings compared
to concrete without plastics. Rahman et al. (2010) reported that the incorporation of
expanded polystyrene in concrete decreased water absorption while the compressive
strength decreased with increase in polymer content due to the lower strength of
expanded polystyrene. Raghatate (2012) found out that 1% of plastic in concrete caused
20% reduction in compressive strength after 28 days of curing.
Rebeiz (1996) investigated the strength properties of un-reinforced and reinforced
polymer concrete using an unsaturated polyester resin based on recycled polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic waste. The results showed that the resins based on recycled
PET can be used to produce a good quality of precast concrete. However, it was reported
by Naik et al. (1996) that compressive strength decreased with an increase in the amount
of the plastic in concrete, particularly above 0.5% plastic addition to total weight of the
mixture.
Sangita et al. (2011) studied the use of plastics in road construction and concluded
that the binding properties of polymer improved the strength of bituminous mixes.
Chavan (2013) reported that the incorporation of plastic waste in bituminous mixes
increased strength and performance and reduced the need for bitumen by about 10%.
However, the use of plastics as aggregate in concrete significantly reduce its
workability and strength properties dependent on the replacement level (Rahman et al.
2012; Yazoghli-Marzouk et al. 2007; Ismail and Hashmi 2008; Saikia and de Brito 2014;
Rahmani et al. 2013; Hannawi et al. 2010; Albano et al. 2009; Saradhi Babu et al. 2005;
Akçaözoğlu et al. 2010; Wong 2010; Batayneh et al. 2007; Al-Manaseer and Dalal 1997).
For example, many researchers (Saikia and de Brito 2014; Rahmani et al. 2013; Albano
et al. 2009; Ismail and Hashmi 2008) found that reductions in workability and 28-day
compressive strength vary from 43% to 95 % and from 9 % to 62 % respectively, as the
percentage replacement of shredded PET plastic with sand increases from 0% to 20%.
Hannawi et al. (2010), together with other researchers (Yazoghli-Marzouk et al. 2007;
and Akçaözoğlu et al. 2010) found that reductions in 28-day compressive and flexural
strength vary from 50 % to 90 % and from 17.9 % to 88 % respectively when increasing
the replacement percentage of PET from 0 % to 100 %. Moreover, the lower replacement
levels of WPET of 5% have caused insignificant reduction in both compression and
splitting tensile strength (Frigione 2010). Other work (Wong 2010; Batayneh et al. 2007;
Al-Manaseer and Dalal 1997) has found that reduction in 28-day compressive strength
varies from 11 % to 72 % as the percentage replacement of mixed waste plastic with sand
or aggregate increases from 0 % to 50 %. Rahman et al. (2012) and Babu et al. (2005)
demonstrate that reduction in 28-day compressive strength varies from 77 % to 94 %
corresponding to increasing Expanded Polystyrane (EPS) as an aggregate replacement
from 0 % to 95 %. Meanwhile, Panyakapo and Panyakapo (2008) found that 28-day
compressive strength was reduced by 24 % as the replacement percentage of melamine
waste with sand was increased from 0.5 % to 1 %.
In the study “Replacement of Sand with Shredded Plastic in Cement Concrete”
Khandelwal (2016), focused towards the change in various properties of concrete when
partially replacing with shredded plastic. Concrete with 0.5%, 1.0%, 2%, 4% and 6 %
shredded plastic is prepared. Specific gravity, fineness, setting time, sieve analysis,
fineness modulus tests on cement, coarse and fine aggregates are performed in this study.
As per IS 10262-2009 mix design code, mix design is done. Cubes and beams are cast for
M20 grade concrete with and without shredded plastics and tests on concrete are
conducted. The standard mechanical properties of concrete like compressive strength,
flexure and strength are tested and compared with the results of standard specimen.
Higher compressive and flexural strength were observed on 4 % replacement of fine
aggregate with shredded plastic.
Fahad et al. (2015) attempted to produce recycled plastic aggregate (RPA) using
waste plastic and red sand as filler. It was observed that 100% replacement of
conventional lightweight aggregate (LWA) with recycled plastic aggregate (RPA) caused
about 13% reduction in chloride penetration. Compressive strength was reduced;
however, the achieved strength was between 12 and 15 MPa which is useful for non-
structural elements such as low side building, cementitious backfill, pavements and
others. Saikia and Brito (2013) reported the strength behavior of concrete containing
three types of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) aggregate. The compressive
strength development of concrete containing all types of PET-aggregate behaves like in
conventional concrete, though the incorporation of any type of PET-aggregate
significantly lowers the compressive strength of the resulting concrete. The PET-
aggregate incorporation improves the toughness behavior of the resulting concrete. This
behavior is dependent on PET-aggregate’s shape and is maximized for concrete
containing coarse, flaky PET-aggregate. The splitting tensile and flexural strength
characteristics are proportional to the loss in compressive strength of concrete containing
plastic aggregates.
A thorough analysis of the usage of several types of plastic trash in concrete was
reported by Sharma et Bansal (2016). It was described how waste plastic flakes,
polyethylene terephthalate particles (PET), high density polyethylene waste (HDPE),
PET waste, shredded polyethylene bag fibers, PET bottle fibers, granulated plastic trash,
and PVC pipe could be used. There is no information in the literature regarding the
recycling of waste polyolefin aggregate in concrete.
Overall, the inclusion of plastic aggregate causes a decrease in the performance of
concrete, which is mostly caused by the weak link between the inorganic matrix and
organic particles. Evaluation of the composite concrete's fire behavior is necessary due to
the usage of an organic constituent. In fact, a number of studies have examined how
temperature affects the mechanical strength of concrete based on a number of variables,
including the proportioning of the concrete mix (cement type, water to cement ratio, type
and amount of aggregates), the type of structures (dimension, shape, homogeneity of
concrete), and the rate of thermal load. The deterioration of the aggregate and binder
matrix as well as spalling are the main causes of the mechanical performance loss.
In earlier studies, the polymeric fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW) was
plasticized and densified to create the fine fraction of a plastic waste, which was then
utilized to partially replace silica sand in the production of hydraulic lime mortars. First,
the evaluation of physical, mechanical, and thermal performance. Thermal,
morphological, and FTIR analyses were used to look into the link between recycled
plastic aggregates and lime matrix in order to understand how the plastic aggregate
affected the ultimate performances of the composite mortars. Cone calorimeters have also
been used to determine how each composite mortar reacts to fire. Therefore, as there is
very limited research on waste polyolefin aggregates in literature, an interesting challenge
can be given by this research to extend the strong potential of this kind of plastic waste in
the field of lightweight concrete.
Synthesis
Having trouble managing and disposing of garbage is a result of rapid
modernization and the rise of a throw-away society. Continued advancement is having an
influence on virgin resources, which are hardly accessible. Due to the strain on scarce
resources and the weighty waste stream, recycling garbage is becoming more and more
important on an economic and societal level. It is inefficient to dispose of waste plastic in
landfills or burn it since the release of poisonous and dangerous gas might have harmful
impacts on the environment. Therefore, it is essential to look into other approaches of

using waste plastic. One of which is utilizing and turning it into construction material,
which would pave the way to a more productive economy and healthy environment.
Plastics, such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE), Polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), low density polyethylene (LDPE) and other kinds of plastic, when shredded, can
be possibly good substitute for fine aggregate in the mixture of concrete. Various
literature and studies have shown the mechanics and properties of concrete when mixed
with shredded plastics. After several experiments, it is concluded that plastics, such as
PET, when replaced on some of the weight of aggregate, can change the compressive
strength of concrete. Due to expanded polystyrene's lower strength, expanded polystyrene
in concrete reduced water absorption while increasing the compressive strength caused
the compressive strength to fall.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presented the research methodology of the study. It comprised
research design, research locale and subjects of the study, instrumentation, data gathering
procedure, and treatment and analysis of data.
Research Design
This study applied experimental research design, in which the researchers were
able to manipulate one independent variable and then apply it to one or more dependent
variables to measure their effect on the latter. Experimental research determined a
relationship between two variables. After completing an experimental research study, a
correlation between a specific aspect of an entity and the variable being studied is either
supported or rejected (Harland, n.d.).
Moreover, this study determined, through experimental research design, to prove
if shredded HDPE plastic as a fine aggregate has significant difference in the
compressive strengths of pure concrete hollow blocks with their design mixtures. There
are four different percentages of replacement per HDPE plastic and each percentage has
three concrete hollow blocks samples. After seven days of curing period of concrete
hollow blocks samples, its compressive strength was evaluated using the Universal
Testing Machine (UTM). The data gathered was subjected for statistical treatment to
analyze the changes in concrete capacity for compression.

Research Design Matrix
The figure 2 represented the ordered structure of research design and
methodology of the study. The production of testing samples was conducted at the
Malayang Nayon Subdivision Barangay Mabuhay, General Santos City. HDPE plastics
was collected at landfill, commercial buildings, and residential houses in General Santos
City.
After which, the production of concrete hollow blocks (CHB) samples with
shredded HDPE plastic and conventional concrete took place. The samples were
subjected to seven days of curing period. RMMC Universal Testing Machine was utilized
to measure the compressive strength of the samples.
The study used Average Mean and Two-Way ANOVA. The compressive
strengths of different percentages added as substitutes will be calculated with respect to
seven days of curing. The results of testing undergone data analysis. For the data
analysis, the compressive strength of CHB with different percentages of shredded HDPE
plastics were compared to one another and to the conventional concrete with 100%
ordinary cement. The calculation determined whether there is a significant difference in
the different percentages of shredded HDPE plastic as a fine aggregate in terms of
compressive strength.
Research Locale
The research locale of the study was at Malayang Nayon Subdivision Barangay.
Mabuhay, General Santos City. The city of General Santos located within the
SOCCSKSARGEN region. The researcher will create samples in this area.
Figure 3. Location of Malayang Nayon Subdivision, Barangay Mabuhay, GSC
The testing of rectangular concrete hollow blocks samples were conducted within
the laboratory premises at the Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges (RMMC)
Engineering Laboratory at Pioneer Avenue, General Santos City. (RMMC) is a private
higher educational institution in General Santos City.
Figure 4. Location of Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges

Research Procedure
There are five steps in conducting this research. The procedures for the
experiments were as follows: (1) Gathering of Materials and Tools; (2) Collection and
Shredding of HDPE Plastics; (3) Production of Concrete Hollow Blocks and Mix
proportion; (4) Molding; and (5) Curing of Concrete Hollow Blocks; (6) Actual Testing
of Concrete Hollow Blocks. The researchers gathered the necessary tools and materials
needed in the experiment. The basic tools were shredder, shovel, pail and concrete hollow
block molder. The main compositions of the samples are cement, shredded HDPE plastic,
water and sand.
Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers gathered data through an experimental process. Below are the
detailed steps in the conduct of the said experiment:
First Step: The researcher collected HDPE plastics from landfills and various
establishments such as beauty salons and parlors. Collected plastics will be shredded by a
machine which produces a product of 2 mm in thickness.
Second Step: Production of CHB Samples and Mix Proportion.
Third Step: Sample was molded to a four inches mold.
Fourth Step: Researchers will now cure the samples. Curing is the process of
maintaining a satisfactory moisture content, concrete was sprayed with water for 7 days.
Fifth Step: The researchers tested the samples using the compressive test machine
that follows the standard testing of non-load bearing concrete masonry units in ASTM
C129. The testing should be initiated seven days after the curing method.
Mix Proportions and Production of Concrete Hollow Block Samples
All concrete hollow block samples were considering the mix design ratio of 1:5,
1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9, 1:10 and water binder ratio of 0.5. The mixtures poured on concrete
molders with four inches CHB molder and subjected to a 7-day curing period. Three
samples each for 0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8% sand replacement.
Table 1.
Design Mixtures of Samples for HDPE Replacement
Crushed HDPE Crushed HDPE

Design Cement Water Sand
Plastics w/c Plastics
Mix (kg) (kg) (kg)
Replacement (kg)
0% 9.00 0
2% 8.82 0.18
A 1:5 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 8.64 0.36
6% 8.46 0.54
8% 8.28 0.72
0% 10.80 0
2% 10.58 0.22
B 1:6 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 10.37 0.43
6% 10.15 0.65
8% 9.94 0.86
0% 12.60 0
2% 12.35 0.25
C 1:7 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 12.10 0.50
6% 11.84 0.76
8% 11.6 1.00
0% 14.40 0
2% 14.11 0.29
D 1:8 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 13.82 0.58
6% 13.54 0.86
8% 13.25 1.15
0% 16.20 0
2% 15.88 0.32
E 1:9 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 15.55 0.65
6% 15.23 0.97
8% 14.90 1.30
Statistical Treatment
The study identified and analyzed the characteristics or quality of the concrete
hollow block in terms of compressive strength. The compressive strength test data was
subjected to statistical analysis for further evaluation. To find the average compressive
strength, the researcher used average/mean. The mean (average) of a data set is calculated
by summing all of the numbers in the set, then dividing by the total number of values in
the set. This identified the average compressive strength of each variation by partial
cement replacement and design mix ratio.
The F-test with Two-Way ANOVA method was used to determine whether at
least one batch differed from the control. ANOVA is a statistical test used to analyze the
difference between the means of more than two groups. A two-way ANOVA is used to
estimate how the mean of a quantitative variable changes according to the levels of two
categorical variables (Bevans, 2020). The statistical tool determined whether there are
statistically significant differences in compressive strength between the various
percentages of partial aggregate replacement. For the control variable was pure concrete,
considered an independent variable. On the other hand, dependent variable was the
compressive strength with plastic ash as partial aggregate replacement. From there,
conclusions were made on the acceptability of the HDPE plastic waste as a partial
aggregate replacement in CHB.
Formula:
(Σ𝑥1 )2 (Σ𝑥1 )2 (Σ𝑥1 )2 (Σ𝑥𝑡 )2
𝑠𝑠𝑏 = + + − (Eq.1)
𝑁1 𝑁2 𝑁3 𝑁𝑡
(Σ𝑥𝑡 )2
𝑠𝑠𝑡 = Σ𝑥12 − 𝑁𝑡
(Eq.2)
𝑠𝑠𝑤 = 𝑠𝑠𝑡 − 𝑠𝑠𝑏 (Eq.3)
𝑑𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 = 𝑘 − 1 (Eq.4)
𝑑𝑓 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 = 𝑁𝑡 − 𝑘 (Eq.5)
𝑆𝑆𝑏
𝑀𝑆𝑏 = 𝑑 (Eq.6)
𝑓𝑏
𝑆𝑆𝑤
𝑀𝑆𝑤 = 𝑑 (Eq.7)
𝑓𝑤
𝑀𝑆
𝐹 = 𝑀𝑆 𝑏 (Eq.8)
𝑤
𝑥2 −𝑥1
𝐶= 𝑥 100 (Eq.9)
𝑥1
Where:
F – Variance Ratio
𝑀𝑆𝐵 – Mean squares between groups
𝑀𝑆𝑤 – Mean squares within groups
𝑆𝑆𝑏 – Sum of squares for between-group variability
𝑆𝑆𝑡 – Sum of squares for total variability
𝑆𝑆𝑤 - Sum of squares for within-group variability

𝑑𝑓 – Degrees of freedom
𝑁𝑡 – Number of cases combined across all groups
𝑛 – Number of participants in each group
𝑘 – Number of Groups
𝐶– Percentage Increase
𝑥1 – Compressive strength of pure concrete hollow blocks
𝑥2 – Compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks with HDPE

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter demonstrated how the data that produced answers for each of the
study's specific problems were presented, analyzed, and interpreted.
Specifically, this chapter presented the test results of the compressive strength of
concrete hollow blocks with different HDPE thermoplastic wastes as partial aggregate
replacement with varying design mix ratios. The results were obtained from the trial
basis. The researchers conducted three trials for every percentage (0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%)
of HDPE thermoplastic waste as partial aggregate replacement with different design mix
ratios of 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9. A 1:0.5 water-cement ratio is consistent in every design
mix ratio. Appendix A presents the test results of the compressive strength of seven (7)
days old concrete hollow blocks evaluated using the Universal Testing Machine (UTM).
Furthermore, the results of the two-way ANOVA were also presented to evaluate
the mean differences between groups of dependent variables that have been divided based
on two independent variables. It was used to determine whether the compressive strength
varied significantly across various design mix ratios and HDPE aggregate replacement
percentages. The analysis utilized a significance level of 0.05.
The design mix ratio mainly focused on the materials; the parts of cement to sand.
The design mixes: 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, 1:9 was utilized in the study. This design mix ratio is
one of the independent variables of the study. Based on these proportions, the concrete
hollow block sample was tested. To determine if the compressive strength of HDPE as
partial aggregate replacement in the various design mix ratios was acceptable,
compressive strength of 100% pure aggregate CHB was identified. Hence, the
compressive strengths of pure aggregate CHB was needed as the control variable of the
study. The results of the compressive test on hollow blocks made entirely of pure
aggregate were tabulated and provided in this section. With three trials for each design
mix ratio, it displayed the compressive strengths of pure aggregate CHB.
Table 2.
Average Compressive Strength Results for Concrete Hollow Blocks

with 100% Aggregate.
Design Mix Average (MPa) Average (psi)
1:5 2.226 322.855
1:6 1.376 199.572
1:7 1.370 198.702
1:8 1.539 223.213
1:9 1.388 201.313
The collected data on the compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks samples
with 100% aggregate were calculated and are shown in Table 2. As observed in the table,
three (3) trials were used for each design mix: 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9. The average
compressive strength of three samples in SI units were 2.226 MPa, 1.376 MPa, 1.370
MPa, 1.539 MPa, and 1.388 MPa respectively. The average compressive strength of three
samples in English units were 322.85 Psi, 199.572 psi, 198.702 psi, 223.213 psi, and
201.313 psi, respectively.
After analyzing the obtained numbers, comparing the following data with the
conventional design mix ratio of 1:7. According to the structural engineer’s specification,
the design mix for CHB is automatically 1:7 (National Building Code of the Philippines
and National Structural Code of the Philippines, NSCP). On the table shown, 80% of the
design mix has higher average compressive strength compared to that of 1:7, which only
has 1.370 MPa or 198.702 psi. Among the five design mixes used, the 1:5 mixture for
concrete hollow blocks has the highest average compressive strength of 2.226 MPa or
322. 855 psi.
On the table shown, results for compressive strength differ from each other. It is
because different ratios of sand and cement give different values of compressive strength.
Musalamah et al. (2016), the binding between each cement granular is limited due to the
decreasing strength of the compressive strength for different proportions as more sand is
added. This is because cement requires more work to bond a large volume of sand. As a
result, the concrete hollow block specimen’s reduced capacity for handling loads as a
result of compression testing. Therefore, the compressive strength of concrete hollow
blocks is inversely proportional with the amount of sand in the mixture.
Results of Concrete Hollow Blocks with HDPE in Different Design Mix
The levels of aggregate replacement used in the study were 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%. The
results of the compressive test on samples of concrete hollow blocks were tabulated and
given in this section. It displayed the compressive strengths of concrete hollow blocks
when HDPE was substituted for aggregate to varying degrees.
To determine if the compressive strength of concrete with HDPE as a partial
aggregate replacement would have a significant change to that of concrete hollow blocks
with pure aggregate, the compressive strength of the concrete hollow blocks samples was
measured. Hence, concrete hollow blocks with HDPE as partial replacement of aggregate
were one of the independent variables.

Table 3 below showed the average compressive strength of the three trials for
concrete hollow blocks with 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement in
different design mixes.
Table 3.
Average Compressive Strength Results for 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% High-Density

Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste as Partial Aggregate Replacement in CHB
High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste-Aggregate Replacement
Design 2% 4% 6% 8%
Mix Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average
(MPa) (psi) (MPa) (psi) (MPa) (psi) (MPa) (psi)
1:5 1.540 223.504 2.114 306.610 2.114 306.610 1.485 215.381

1:6 1.510 219.007 2.210 320.534 1.783 258.603 2.157 312.847
1:7 1.520 220.458 1.404 203.633 1.156 167.664 1.364 197.832
1:8 1.166 169.114 1.030 149.389 1.957 283.839 1.621 235.107
1:9 1.824 264.549 0.564 81.801 1.130 163.893 1.036 150.259
with 2% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and are shown in Table 3.
As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete hollow block specimen
with 2% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement with the design mixes: 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8,
and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in MPa were 1.540 MPa,
1.510 MPa, 1.520 MPa, 1.166 MPa, and 1. 824 MPa respectively. The average
compressive strength of three samples in psi were 223. 504 psi, 219. 007 psi, 220.458 psi,
169.114 psi, and 264.549 psi, respectively.
Furthermore, the collected data on the compressive strength of concrete hollow
blocks samples with 4% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and shown
in Table 3. As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete hollow block
specimen with 4% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement with the design mixes: 1:5,
1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in MPa are
2.114 MPa, 2.210 MPa, 1.404 MPa, 1.030 MPa, and 0.564 MPa respectively. The
average compressive strength of three samples in psi were 306.610 psi, 320.534 psi,
203.633 psi, 149.389 psi, and 81.801 psi, respectively.
Moreover, the collected data on the compressive strength of concrete hollow
blocks samples with 6% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and are
shown in Table 3. As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete
hollow block specimen with 6% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement with the design
mixes: 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in
MPa are 2.114 MPa, 1.783 MPa, 1.156 MPa, 1.957 MPa, and 0.130 MPa respectively.
The average compressive strength of three samples in psi were 306.610 psi, 258.603 psi,
Finally, the collected data on the compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks
samples with 8% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and are shown in
Table 3. As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete hollow block
1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in MPa were
After analyzing the obtained data in the Table 3, among the following CHB
samples in terms of design mixes with 2% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement, the
1:9 design mix ratio had the highest average compressive strength for its three units with
1.824 MPa or 264.549 psi. For 4%, 1:6 has the highest average compressive strength of
2.210 MPa or 320.534 320.534 psi. The design mix of 1:5 in the 6% HDPE replacement
has the highest average compressive strength of 2.114 MPa or 306.610 psi. Lastly, in 8%
HDPE replacement, 1:6 has the highest compressive strength of 2.157 MPa or 312.847
psi.
The concrete hollow block with the same design mix ratio had recorded different
compressive strength. This is entirely due to the rise of HDPE content in the concrete
hollow block sample. Based on Mir Concrete Block Company (2022), the compressive
strength of concrete hollow block also varies depending on various factors such as the
mix proportion of concrete, properties of ingredients of concrete, curing time, its physical
dimension and how it is loaded (flat or on edge), wall thickness and height (slenderness
ratio), age, temperature, type of mortar and masonry bond type.
The Acceptability of High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste as Partial
Replacement of Aggregate in Concrete Hollow Blocks
Analysis of Variance
Two-way ANOVA was employed in this experiment to analyze the data. The
two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), often known as the two-way F-test, evaluated
the mean differences between groups that have been divided based on two independent
variables. It determined whether the compressive strength varied significantly across
various design mix ratios and HDPE aggregate replacement percentages.
The statistical hypotheses were formulated to be the basis of the result for the
Two-way ANOVA. There was no significant difference between the Pure Cement (0%
HDPE) and High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste as Partial Replacement of
Aggregate (2%, 4%, 6%, 8%). There was significant difference between the Pure Cement
(0% HDPE) and High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste as Partial Replacement
of Aggregate (2%, 4%, 6%, 8%).
Comparative Summary
A Universal Testing Machine was utilized in this investigation to measure the
compressive strengths of the concrete hollow block sample. Sample blocks made in
accordance with HDPE in place of aggregate were also examined in the percentage of
2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%. Also, the compressive strength of pure CHB was determined. The
blocks were cured for seven days.

The Table 4 below displays the compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks
with pure CHB and HDPE aggregate replacement in the varying design mix ratio and
undergoes seven days of curing time. This table was used in the process of finding the
results for the two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance).
Table 4.
Average Compressive Strength of Concrete Hollow Blocks
0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
Design
Mix Average Average Average Average Average
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1:5 2.226 1.540 2.114 2.114 1.485
1:6 1.376 1.510 2.210 1.783 2.157
1:7 1.370 1.520 1.404 1.156 1.364
1:8 1.539 1.166 1.030 1.957 1.621
1:9 1.388 1.824 0.564 1.130 1.036
with 2% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and are shown in Table 3.
As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete hollow block specimen
with 2% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement with the design mixes: 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8,
and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in MPa were 1.540 MPa,
1.510 MPa, 1.520 MPa, 1.166 MPa, and 1. 824 MPa respectively. The average
compressive strength of three samples in psi were 223. 504 psi, 219. 007 psi, 220.458 psi,
169.114 psi, and 264.549 psi, respectively.
Furthermore, the collected data on the compressive strength of concrete hollow
blocks samples with 4% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and shown
in Table 3. As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete hollow block
1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in MPa are
Moreover, the collected data on the compressive strength of concrete hollow
blocks samples with 6% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and are
shown in Table 3. As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete
hollow block specimen with 6% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement with the design
mixes: 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in
MPa are 2.114 MPa, 1.783 MPa, 1.156 MPa, 1.957 MPa, and 0.130 MPa respectively.
Finally, the collected data on the compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks
samples with 8% HDPE partial aggregate replacement were calculated and are shown in
Table 3. As observed in the table, three trials were used for each concrete hollow block
1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9. The average compressive strength of three samples in MPa were
After analyzing the obtained data in the Table 3, among the following CHB
samples in terms of design mixes with 2% HDPE as partial aggregate replacement, the
1:9 design mix ratio had the highest average compressive strength for its three units with
1.824 MPa or 264.549 psi. For 4%, 1:6 has the highest average compressive strength of
2.210 MPa or 320.534 320.534 psi. The design mix of 1:5 in the 6% HDPE replacement
has the highest average compressive strength of 2.114 MPa or 306.610 psi. Lastly, in 8%
HDPE replacement, 1:6 has the highest compressive strength of 2.157 MPa or 312.847
psi.
The concrete hollow block with the same design mix ratio had recorded different
compressive strength. This is entirely due to the rise of HDPE content in the concrete
hollow block sample. Based on Mir Concrete Block Company (2022), the compressive
strength of concrete hollow block also varies depending on various factors such as the
mix proportion of concrete, properties of ingredients of concrete, curing time, its physical
dimension and how it is loaded (flat or on edge), wall thickness and height (slenderness
ratio), age, temperature, type of mortar and masonry bond type.
The Table 5 below showed the result for the two-way ANOVA test for the
compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks with RHA cement replacement and
different design mix ratio on seven days of curing time.
Table 5
ANOVA Result for Pure Aggregate and HDPE as Partial Replacement of Aggregate
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Sample 4.993445 4 1.248361 6.563096 0.000251 2.557179

Columns 0.35208 4 0.08802 0.462753 0.762689 2.557179
Interaction 7.285164 16 0.455323 2.3938 0.009634 1.850315
Within 9.510461 50 0.190209
Total 22.14115 74
In the interaction with a significant level of 0.05 for evaluated F value, p-value
and F critical value were 2.3938, 0.009634, and 1.850315, respectively. The computed F
value is greater than F critical, 2.3938 > 1.850315. Also, the p value is greater than the
alpha level, 0.009634 > 0.005. Thus, this means that there is no significant difference in
the compressive strengths in terms of HDPE aggregate replacement. Thus, it was
observed that the source of variation within groups has no significant difference in the
compressive strengths of concrete hollow blocks with pure aggregate and concrete
hollow blocks with 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8 % HDPE as partial aggregate replacement.
Therefore, null hypotheses is accepted in the above-mentioned hypotheses. In general,
interaction effects indicated the relationship between an independent variable and a
dependent variable changes based on the value of another variable.
The F-test with Two-Way ANOVA method was used to determine whether at
least one batch differed from the control. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) is a statistical
test used to analyze the difference between the means of more than two groups. A two-
way ANOVA is used to estimate how the mean of a quantitative variable changes
according to the levels of two categorical variables (Bevans, 2020).
Level of Acceptability
Based on the DPWH standard, which was retrieved from specification item no.
ASTM C129, on non-load-bearing concrete hollow blocks for an average of three units,
the minimum compressive strength is 300 psi or 2.068 mPa. On Table 4, with 0% HDPE,
it is observed that only the cement-sand ratio of 1:5 has 322.855 psi. Meanwhile, on the
4% HDPE replacement, the 1:5 and 1:6 design mixes have 306.610 psi and 320.534 psi,
respectively. Also, for 6%, only 1:5 has 306.610 psi, while 8% has 312.847 psi in a 1:6
ratio. This means that the mentioned design mix and quantity have passed the DPWH
standard for 4" non-load-bearing concrete hollow blocks. In total, only 1:5 and 1:6 design
mix ratios achieved the acceptable average compressive strength that is widely used in
the Philippines. Only the 2% replacement ratio had not passed the standard (American
Society for Testing and Materials).

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter contained a summary of the study's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. The actual test results of the compressive strength test of the concrete
hollow blocks made with various design mix ratios served as the basis for this study's
conclusions, and HDPE replacement served as the basis for its conclusions and
recommendations were also included. The results of the investigation were discussed in
accordance with the problem statements.
Summary of Findings
Based on the gathered and analyzed results, the researchers observed that upon
subjecting the ASTM test of masonry units, the average compressive strength of three
samples for pure aggregate in SI units are 2.226 MPa, 1.376 MPa, 1.370 MPa, 1.539
MPa, and 1.388 MPa respectively. The average compressive strength of three samples in
English units are 322.85 Psi, 199.572 psi, 198.702 psi, 223.213 psi, and 201.313 psi,
respectively.
Furthermore, for CHB with HDPE as partial aggregate replacement in the
following design mix ratio, 1:5, 1:6, 1:7, 1:8, and 1:9, we’re as follows; for 2%, the
average compressive strength of three samples in MPa are 1.540 MPa, 1.510 MPa, 1.520
MPa, 1.166 MPa, and 1. 824 MPa respectively. The average compressive strength of
three samples in psi were 223. 504 psi, 219. 007 psi, 220.458 psi, 169.114 psi, and
264.549 psi, respectively. For 4%, the average compressive strength of three samples in
MPa were 2.114 MPa, 2.210 MPa, 1.404 MPa, 1.030 MPa, and 0.564 MPa respectively.
203.633 psi, 149.389 psi, and 81.801 psi, respectively. For 6%, the average compressive
strength of three samples in MPa are 2.114 MPa, 1.783 MPa, 1.156 MPa, 1.957 MPa, and
0.130 MPa respectively. The average compressive strength of three samples in psi are
306.610 psi, 258.603 psi, 167.664 psi, 283.839 psi, and 163.893 psi, respectively. For
8%, the average compressive strength of three samples in MPa were 1.485 MPa, 2.157
MPa, 1.364 MPa, 1.621 MPa, and 1.036 MPa respectively. The average compressive
strength of three samples in psi were 215.381 psi, 312.847 psi, 197.832 psi, 235.107 psi,
and 150.259 psi, respectively.
Based on the two-way ANOVA, a degree of freedom 4, calculated F value, P
value and F critical value for the varying design mix ratio with significant levels of 0.05
were 6.563096, 0.000251, 2.557179, respectively. In terms of design mix ratio, the
calculated F is greater than F critical, following 6.563096 > 2.557179. Meanwhile, the P-
value is lesser than the alpha level of 0.05, following 0.000251 < 0.005. This means that
there was a significant difference in the different design mix ratios. On the other hand, in
terms of HDPE aggregate as partial replacement, a degree of freedom 4, calculated F
value, P value and F critical value for the varying design mix ratio with significant level
of 0.05 were 0.462753, 0.762689, and 2.557179, respectively. The calculated F is lesser
than F critical, following 0.462753< 2.557179, which stated no significant level. The p-
value is 0.762689 than the alpha level of 0.05, following 0.762689 > 0.05. This also
means no significant difference in the level of HDPE replacement to aggregate.
In accordance with the DPWH standard, which was retrieved from specification
item no. ASTM C129, on non-load-bearing concrete hollow blocks for an average of
three units, only a few have met the standard strength, namely, 1:5 and 1:6 with a total of
5 out of 25 average samples.
Conclusions
Based on the summary of findings, the following conclusions were drawn.
1. On the pure concrete hollow blocks, it is shown that when the design mix
increases, the compressive strength decreases. This is because the water-
cement ratio was consistent and the sand was increasing, which means the
cement must do more work to bond a large amount of sand. As a result, the
load capacity of the hollow concrete block specimens were reduced.
Therefore, the compressive strength of hollow concrete blocks was inversely
proportional to the amount of sand in the mixture.
2. The compressive strengths of concrete hollow blocks with the same design
mix ratio varied. This was entirely due to the rise in HDPE content in the
concrete hollow block sample. The incoherence of the results demonstrated
human errors are unavoidable. Failure of samples manifested due to the
properties of the ingredients in concrete, curing time, temperature, and type of
masonry bond.
3. Based on the standard shown, the researcher concluded that the design
mixtures of 1:5 and 1:6 have recorded the strongest compressive strength
compared to other mixtures.
4. In the two-way ANOVA, it shows that the design mix ratio has no significant
difference in the individual compressive strengths of concrete hollow blocks
with pure concrete and concrete hollow blocks with partial aggregate
replacement. On the other hand, results have shown that in terms of HDPE
replacement and its compressive strength, such as 2%, 4%, 6%, and 8%, there
was no significant difference. Thus, researchers conclude such percentages of
HDPE content is accepted as an additive but not as a partial replacement.
Recommendations
The researchers recommended the following actions, based on the results:
1. HDPE thermoplastic waste can help lower the cost of materials used for CHB
when proportioned correctly and can meet the standard strength. The researchers
suggested that other scholars and project engineers can focus their scope on cost
analysis.
2. Moreover, future researchers or other scholars can use other percentages higher
than the percentage of HDPE used in this study, such as 10%, 15%, 20%, and
more.
3. Furthermore, due to human error that occurred during the procedure, future
researchers or scholars can resort to machines in the making of concrete hollow
blocks for better and uniform compaction.
4. In addition, future researchers or scholars can also widen the usage of plastic
waste as a partial replacement by using it in other samples, such as concrete
cylinders.
5. Consequently, future researchers or scholars can incorporate other plastics, such
as PVC, LDPE, and many more, as a partial replacement for aggregate in concrete
hollow blocks.
6. Also, future researchers or scholars can use curing other than that of the usual 7
days curing, such as 14 and 28 days.

REFERENCES
Abreo, N. A. (2018). Marine Plastics in the Philippines: A Call for Research. Retrieved
from https://philsciletters.net/2018/PSL%202018-vol11-no01-p20-
21%20Abreo.pdf
Al-Manaseer and Dalal. (1997). Production of Recycled Plastic Aggregates and its
Utilization in Concrete . Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309473290_Production_of_Recycled_Pl
astic_Aggregates_and_Its_Utilization_in_Concrete
Al-Manaseer, A.A., and Dalal. T.R. (1997). “Concrete containing Plastic Aggregates”,
Concrete International . 47-52. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/44426212/Use_of_Waste_Plastics_in_Cement_Based_
Composite_for_Lightweight_Concrete_Production
Alqahtani, Fahad; Khan, Mohammad Iqbal; Ghataora, Gurmel; Dirar, Samir. (n.d.).
Production of Recycled Plastic Aggregates and its Utilization in Concrete.
Retrieved from
Barbara Liguori and Fabio Iucolano . (2014). Employment the plastic waste to produce
the light weight concrete. Retrieved from
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277910/1-s2.0-S1876610219X0003X/1-s2.0-
S1876610218311299/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-
Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEFEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIHCl121ehxzCV
mgm%2FsOfbUHaMeDvzPG%2BwJMHi%2F2DWJWHAiBeZ%2FzwULuwfG
%2Btz8l7nhPn9vmbFpt%2BhP1i
Batayneh. (2007). Production of Recycled Plastic Aggregates and its Utilization in

Concrete. Retrieved from
Bengtsson, L. (2018). Fao/Sida Cooperative Programme. Rural Structures in East and

South-East Africa Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/s1250e/S1250E09.htm
Canono, F. K. (2020). Compressive Strengthd of the Hollow Blocks with an Additive of

Dog's Manure and Polystyrene. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340865566_Compressive_Strengths_of
_the_Hollow_Blocks_with_an_Additive_of_Dog's_Manure_and_Polystyrene
Danigelis, A. (2018). Waste Plastic a Viable Sand Replacement in Structural Concrete.

Retrieved from https://www.environmentalleader.com/2018/09/waste-plastic-
structural-concrete/
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) (2016). ASTM C-129 for Non-
loadbearing Concrete Hollow Blocks and Louver Blocks. Retrieved from
https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/DPWH/sites/default/files/issuances/DO_230_s2016.pdf
Dhir, R. K., Newlands, M. D., & Csetenyi, L. J. (2003). Role of Concrete in Sustainable
Development - Proceedings of the International Symposium - Celebrating
Concrete: People: Preface. Retrieved from
https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/role-of-concrete-in-sustainable-
development-proceedings-of-the-in
Elzafraney, M. (2006). Development of Energy-Efficient Concrete Buildings Using

Recycled Plastic Aggregates. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245492224_Development_of_Energy-
Efficient_Concrete_Buildings_Using_Recycled_Plastic_Aggregates
Fahad Alqahtani, Mohammad Iqbal Khan, Gurmel Ghataora, Samir Dirar. (2015).
Production of Recycled Plastic Aggregates and its Utilization in Concrete.
Retrieved from https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/production-of-
recycled-plastic-aggregates-and-its-utilization-in-Concrete
Fajardo, M (2000). Simplified Construction Estimate Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Simplified-Construction-Estimate-2000-Ed-M-B-
Fajardo-Jr.pdf
Falk Schneider, Sophie Parsons, Sally Clift, Andrea Stolte and Marcelle C. McManus.
(2018). Collected marine litter — A growing waste challenge. 128, 162-174.
Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X18300146
Harland, D. J. (n.d.). An Introduction to Experimental Research. Retrieved from

https://cemast.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/hsrs/types_of_research.pdf
Humanitarian Shelter Working Group (2012). Shelter and Settlement Working Group.
Retrieved from https://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/resource/shelter-and-
settlement-working-group-0
Ibrahim Almeshal, Bassam A.Tayeh, Rayed Alyousef, Hisham Alabduljabbar,
Abdeliazim Mustafa and Mohamed. (2020). Eco-friendly concrete containing
recycled plastic as partial replacement for sand. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2238785420302817
Iucolano. (2013). Potential use of recycled plastic and rubber aggregate in cementitious
materials for sustainable construction: A review. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356291446_Potential_use_of_recycled_
plastic_and_rubber_aggregate_in_cementitious_materials_for_sustainable_constr
uction_A_review
J. Thorneycroft, J. Orr, P. Savoikarc, R.J. Ball. (2018). Performance of structural concrete

with recycled plastic waste as a partial replacement for sand. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323027927_Performance_of_structural_
concrete_with_recycled_plastic_waste_as_a_partial_replacement_for_sand
Jambec, J. (2015). Plastic Waste Inputs From Land Into the Ocean. 347(6223), 768-771.
Retrieved from https://www.scienceintheclassroom.org/research-papers/plastic-
waste-inputs-land-ocean
Junod, T. L. (1976). Gaseous Emissions and Toxic Hazards Associated with Plastics in
Fire Situations- A Literature Review. Retrieved from
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA305577.pdf
Khandelwal, V. (2016). Replacement of Sand with Shredded Plastic in Cement Concrete.

08. Retrieved from https://www.ijert.org/replacement-of-sand-with-shredded-
plastic-in-cement-concrete
Lea Janine Gajardo. (2022). Disentangling Microplastic Pollution on Beach Sand of

Puerto Princesa, Palawan Island, Philippines: Abundance and Characteristics.
Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/22/15303
Musalamah, S. R. (2016). Comparative Study on Proportion of Hollow Concrete Block to

Its Compressive Strength. Retrieved from
https://www.worldresearchlibrary.org/up_proc/pdf/199-14564635241-
3.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1HiqQ7gWDSrTl5IiaHsvG5XYp9MN
Nabajyoti Saikia and Jorge de Brito. (2013). Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate as an

Aggregate in Concrete. Retrieved from
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Waste-polyethylene-terephthalate-as-an-
aggregate-in-Saikia-Brito/9c84efbdbd27e794790c12e128d1f8bfaa985a87
Naik, T. (2008). Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction &

Sustainability of Concrete Construction.. 13, 98-103. Retrieved from
https://ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/%28ASCE%291084-
0680%282008%2913%3A2%2898%29
National Structural Code of the Philippines (2016). Association of Structural Engineers

of the Philippines, Volume 1. Retrieved from National Structural Code of the
Philippines Volume 1: Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines
Quezon City, Philippines 2016, pp. 948-950
Nursyamsi Nursyamsi and Khoirun Adil . (2021). The Effect of Shredded Plastic Waste
PET and HDPE Substitution on Concrete Characteristics. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350936756_The_effect_of_shredded_pl
astic_waste_PET_and_HDPE_substitution_on_concrete_characteristics
Omosanya, K.O. and Ajibade O.M. (2011). “Environmental Impact of Quarrying on

Otere Village, Odede, South Western Nigeria. Ozean”. Retrieved from
http://www.sciepub.com/reference/239979
Orr, P. J. (2018). Waste plastic in concrete research wins award for potential impact
worldwide. Retrieved from http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/news/waste-plastic-
concrete-research-wins-award-potential-impact-worldwide
Pappu, A. (2007). Solid Wastes Generation in India and their Recycling Potential in
Building Materials. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817225_Solid_Wastes_Generation_i
n_India_and_Their_Recycling_Potential_in_Building_Materials
Racadio and Insular (2017). Compressive Strength of Concrete Hollow Blocks with
Different Design Mixtures. Retrieved from Compressive Strength of Concrete
Hollow Blocks with Different Design Mixtures, RMMC 2017
Thorneycroft, J. Orr, P. Savoikarc, R.J. Ball. (2018). Performance of structural concrete
with recycled plastic waste as a partial replacement for sand. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323027927_Performance_of_structural_
concrete_with_recycled_plastic_waste_as_a_partial_replacement_for_sand
Patel, H (2020). Hollow Concrete Blocks: All You Need to Know. Retrieved from
https://gharpedia.com/blog/hollow-concrete-blocks-basic-information/,Hemali
Patel, Hollow Concrete Blocks: All You Need to Know! 13th February, 2020
Pešić, N., Živanović, S., Garcia, R. et al. (2016). Mechanical properties of concrete
reinforced with recycled HDPE Plastic Fibers. Retrieved from
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/99874/1/Pesic%20et%20al%202016%20-
%20Mechanical%20properties%20of%20concrete%20reinforced%20with%20rec
ycled%20HDPE%20plastic%20fibres.pdf
Praveen. (2013). Experimental Investigation on Recycledplastics as Aggregate in

Concrete. Retrieved from
http://www.ijscer.com/uploadfile/2015/0421/20150421032556899.pdf
Raghatate, A. (2012). “Use of plastic in aconcrete to improve its properties”,International

Journal of AdvancedEngineering Research and Studies, . 1(3), 109. Retrieved
from
Rahmani, E. (2013). On the mechanical properties of concrete containing waste PET

particles. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095006181300559X
Rvindra Sondalagere Lakshmi and S. Nagan. (2010). Studies on Concrete containing E-

plastic waste. Retrieved from http://environmentportal.in/files/e-
plastic%20waste.pdf
S.B.Singh. (2015). Role of water/cement ratio on strength development of cement mortar.

4, 94-100. Retrieved from
https://www.sefindia.org/forum/download.php?id=11548&sid=b292f35fcc54ce5e
9dd84d4bb4eff0d6
Sear. (2005). “Towards Zero Waste.” Concrete. 39, 50-52. Retrieved from
Sharma. (2016). Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete – a review. Retrieved
from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652615011324
Siddique, R., Khatib, J. and Kaur, I., . (2008). “Use of recycled plastic in concrete: A
Review", Waste Management. 28(10), 1835-1852. Retrieved from
Singh, S., Munjal, P., & Thammishetti, N. (2015). Role of water/cement ratio on strength
development of cement mortar. Journal of Building Engineering, Pages 94-100.
Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710215300231
Statista. (2014). Production of Recycled Plastic Aggregates and its Utilization in

Concrete . Retrieved from
Wong. (2010). Production of Recycled Plastic Aggregates and its Utilization in Concrete.
Retrieved from
APPENDICES
Appendix A.
Letter of Request to the Laboratory In-Charge of Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Colleges
of General Santos City

Appendix B.
Universal Testing Machine Request Form

Appendix C.
Design Mixtures of Samples for HDPE Replacement
Crushed HDPE Crushed HDPE

Design Cement Water Sand
Plastics w/c Plastics
Mix (kg) (kg) (kg)
Replacement (kg)
0% 9.00 0
2% 8.82 0.18
A 1:5 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 8.64 0.36
6% 8.46 0.54
8% 8.28 0.72
0% 10.80 0
2% 10.58 0.22
B 1:6 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 10.37 0.43
6% 10.15 0.65
8% 9.94 0.86
0% 12.60 0
2% 12.35 0.25
C 1:7 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 12.10 0.50
6% 11.84 0.76
8% 11.6 1.00
0% 14.40 0
2% 14.11 0.29
D 1:8 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 13.82 0.58
6% 13.54 0.86
8% 13.25 1.15
0% 16.20 0
2% 15.88 0.32
E 1:9 4% 0.5 1.8 0.9 15.55 0.65
6% 15.23 0.97
8% 14.90 1.30
Appendix D.
Documentation of Research Procedure
The wastes were collected in beauty salons and spas. Plastic wastes were also
collected from the nearby residences.
The shredding of sample. HDPE plastics were shredded at Cordero Subdivision,
Barangay Mabuhay, General Santos City.

Sample retained in #10 was obtained. The shredded HDPE plastic wastes
collected had a total weight of 16.82 kg.
The weighing process. Researchers weighed the shredded HDPE plastics, sand,
cement and water.

The mixing process. The researchers mixed first the dry ingredients before adding
water.
The making of samples. The researchers used 4” molder for non-load bearing
CHB.
The curing of samples. Researchers accumulated a total of 80 samples and were
cured for seven days.

The Compressive strength testing. All CHB samples were tested using RMMC
Universal Testing Machine according to Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) Standard Specification for Item 1046-Masonry Units explains the ASTM C-129
or the 1046.2.6.2 Non-loadbearing Concrete Hollow Blocks and Louver Blocks shows
the basic requirements for the standard specification of non-load bearing concrete
masonry units.
Appendix E.
Compressive Test of Pure Concrete Hollow Blocks

Appendix F.
Compressive Test of 2% Shredded HDPE Thermoplastic Waste
Appendix G.
Appendix H.
Appendix I.
Appendix J.
ANOVA: Two- Factor with Replication
Anova: Two-Factor with Replication
SUMMARY 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Total

1:5
Count 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sum 6.677379 4.624128 6.340922 6.340922 4.454462 28.43781
Average 2.225793 1.541376 2.113641 2.113641 1.484821 1.895854
Variance 0.190095 0.176913 0.275777 0.086931 0.152694 0.232842
1:6
Count 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sum 4.129507 4.52923 6.631368 5.348805 6.470328 27.10924
Average 1.376502 1.509743 2.210456 1.782935 2.156776 1.807283
Variance 0.001723 0.041737 0.026929 0.120233 0.096987 0.160956
1:7
Count 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sum 4.109377 4.560863 4.212903 3.468096 4.092123 20.44336
Average 1.369792 1.520288 1.404301 1.156032 1.364041 1.362891
Variance 0.114174 0.145549 0.084982 0.104223 0.244884 0.113972
1:8
Count 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sum 4.618377 3.496853 3.091379 5.872182 4.862811 21.9416
Average 1.539459 1.165618 1.03046 1.957394 1.620937 1.462773
Variance 0.047446 0.409483 0.001897 0.431026 0.427544 0.306216
1:9
Count 3 3 3 3 3 15
Sum 4.164016 5.47246 1.690912 3.965592 3.108633 18.40161
Average 1.388005 1.824153 0.563637 1.321864 1.036211 1.226774
Variance 0.03739 0.779484 0.019459 0.48821 0.249465 0.410851
Total
Count 15 15 15 15 15
Sum 23.69866 22.68353 21.96748 24.9956 22.98836
Average 1.57991 1.512236 1.464499 1.666373 1.532557
Variance 0.171794 0.268672 0.483021 0.320974 0.311903
Appendix K.
Graphs
Average Compressive Strength Results for 0%, 2%, 4%, 6% and

8% High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste as Partial
Aggregate Replacement in CHB
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
1:05 1:06 1:07 1:08 1:09
0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
1:05 1:06 1:07 1:08 1:09
0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
Appendix L.
Certificate of Grammarian
HAM SOBRECAREY SIGA
Prk. Lower Putting Bato, Brgy. Calumpang, G.S.C
Contact No.: +63 099 136 4976
E-mail Address: hamsiga3@gmail.com
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Ham Sobrecarey Siga

Age : 22
Sex : Male
Birthdate : January 14, 2000
Citizenship : Filipino
Religion : Jehovah’s Witnesses
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Tertiary: Bachelor of Science of Civil Engineering 2022-Present

Pioneer Ave., General Santos City
Secondary: Irineo L. Santiago National high School of 2018-2019

Metro Dadiangas
Niyog St. Extension, general santos City
Elementary: Ireneo L. Santiago Elementary School 2012-2013

Niyog St. Extension, general santos City
MARY MAXINNE ALARCON NICOLAS
Blk. 29 Lot 3 Malayang Nayon, Brgy. Mabuhay, G.S.C
Contact No.: +63 927 485 4268
E-mail Address: marymaxinnealarconnicolas1600@gmail.com
PERSONAL DATA
Name : Mary Maxinne Alarcon Nicolas

Age : 22
Sex : Female
Birthdate : November 16, 2000
Citizenship : Filipino
Religion : Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Tertiary: Bachelor of Science of Civil Engineering 2022 - Present

Secondary: Bachelor of Science of Civil Engineering 2018 - 2019

Elementary: Dadiangas East Elementary School 2012-2013

Laurel St., Brgy. East, General Santos City

Ce Proj 1 Siga Nicolas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ce Proj 1 Siga Nicolas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE THERMOPLASTIC WASTE AS PARTIAL

REPLACEMENT TO AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE HOLLOW BLOCKS

HAM SOBRECAREY SIGA

this study would not have been possible.

his patience in guiding us all throughout the endeavor.

encouragement, valuable comments, substantial suggestions as we tried to complete and

achieve the success of this study.

space for the conduct of the experiment.

but instead rose above every circumstance.

God bless you all.

HSS & MMN

this study focused on high-density thermoplastic wastes as partial replacement to

aggregate in concrete hollow blocks.

An experimental procedure was conducted to produce at least 75 samples.

hollow blocks with HDPE as partial aggregate replacement.

Keywords: High-Density Polyethylene Thermoplastic Waste, Aggregate, Universal

Testing Machine, Two-way ANOVA, Concrete Hollow Blocks, Partial Replacement

TITLE PAGE ....................................................................................................................... i

CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS,

CHAPTER V SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND

CERTIFICATE OF GRAMMARIAN ..............................................................................97

CURRICULUM VITAE ...................................................................................................98

1 Design Mixtures of Samples for HDPE Replacement…………...…....34

2 Average Compressive Strength Results for Concrete Hollow Blocks

3 Average Compressive Strength Results for 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% High-

4 Average Compressive Strength of Concrete Hollow Blocks ……..…..45

5 ANOVA Result for Pure Aggregate and HDPE as Partial Replacement

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

product packaging. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) is a thermoplastic polymer made

bottles, bleach bottles, cutting boards, and piping.

and recycling schemes to cope with it.

workability and durability.

construction material, the sustainability of concrete is a major concern confronting the

global construction industry. The exploitation of aggregates for construction results in

and displacement of inhabitants (Omosanya & Ajibade, 2011).

Moreover, to mitigate the negative impacts in the abovementioned, the use of

Pešić, et al., (2016) explored the mechanical and serviceability properties of

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the acceptability of Concrete Hollow Blocks

(CHB) with HDPE thermoplastic as partial replacement of fine aggregate.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

following design mix:

1.1 1:5 Cement-sand Ratio;

1.2 1:6 Cement-sand Ratio;

1.3 1:7 Cement-sand Ratio;

1.4 1:8 Cement-sand Ratio; and

1.5 1:9 Cement-sand Ratio?

2.1 1:5 Cement-sand Ratio;

2.2 1:6 Cement-sand Ratio;

2.3 1:7 Cement-sand Ratio;

2.4 1:8 Cement-sand Ratio; and

2.5 1:9 Cement-sand Ratio?

3. Was there a significant difference in the compressive strengths of pure concrete

4. What was the level of acceptability of HDPE thermoplastics as a partial

substitution for aggregate in concrete hollow blocks?

Hypotheses of the Problem

Sub-problem number 1 and 2 are hypothesis-free. However, sub-problem number

3 has the following hypotheses:

Ho : There is no significant difference in the average compressive strengths of