International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and ConstructionVol 9, No 1, March 2020, 12020004, 1-8

Comparative Analysis of Properties of PolytheneTerephthalate and Traditional Concrete Blocks

for BuildingsZakari Mustapha∗, Donald Kwabena Dadzie, Nyope Gabriel and Amenano Cephas

Department of Building Technology, School of Engineering, Cape Coast Technical University,P. O. Box DL 50, Cape Coast, Ghana

Abstract: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic waste bottles generation has become the fastest growing areas in economicdevelopment for many countries. In Ghana, PET plastic waste bottles are generated from the consumption of water and otherbeverages. Plastic waste bottles when used as an alternative material for aggregate serves as non-load-bearing concrete blockswhich are safe and efficient. The paper presented a means of reducing large amount of plastic waste bottles on the environment,by mixing them in concrete mixture. Comparative analysis of properties of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or plastic wastebottle concrete block (PWBCB) and traditional concrete blocks (TCB) were carried out. An aggregate mixture of 20 kg ofcement, 66.8 kg sand, and 162 kg of gravel in a ratio of 1:3:6 was used in the experiment. In addition to 18 liters of water(combined at 1:1) 12 voltic plastic bottles of water and a water to cement ratio of 0.65 for moulding and curing of the concretefor a period of 21 days, after subjecting the concrete to compressive strength test. Findings show that the compressive strengthof PET concrete blocks was below the minimum British Standard (BS 6073) requirement of 2.8 N/mm2, but the TCB exceededthe minimum when plastic was not replaced in the concrete.

Keywords: Compressive strength, plastic waste bottles, non-load-bearing, lightweight aggregate

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7492/IJAEC.2020.004

∗Corresponding author. E-mail: mustapha.zakari.@cctu.edu.gh

1 INTRODUCTION

The world’s yearly consumption of plastic materials hasincreased drastically (United Nations Environmental Pro-gramme (UNEP) 2009). The rate of production and saleof polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic waste bottlefar exceed the rate of recycling thereby increasing land-fill site (Raut et al. 2015). Plastic waste PET plasticwaste bottles generation as posited by Charudatta andThosar (2017) is one of the fastest growing areas in theworld. The disposal of plastics waste PET bottle in anenvironment is considered to be a biggest problem due toits very low biodegradability and presence in large quanti-ties. Burning of such waste release toxic fumes into the at-mosphere, posing health risks and contributing to climatechange (Wienaah 2007). This makes plastics extremelydifficult to get rid of in an ecologically sound manner.Restaurants, bars, club house, sport stadiums, hotel, of-fice and individual homes in Ghana generate a lot of PETplastic bottles and these bottles curse a huge challenge tothe environment. Approximately, 20 million of PET plas-tic bottle per day are thrown out in Ghana making it moredifficult for waste management department and compa-

nies to control (Ghansah et al. 2015). Maxime Lambert(2017) posited that only an estimated 2% of PET plas-tic bottles generated are were recycled in the country bya popular fashion boutique that creates clothing and ac-cessories from plastic waste. The other 98% finds itselfeither in the hands of waste management company, likeZoomlion. Others are found in the streets, drain and wa-terbodies, polluting urban areas and clogging drainagesystems. Research on waste management “are just ly-ing on ledge of universities and research bodies” (Monney2014). Even though, the effect of plastic waste is visiblein Ghana, but individuals have other issues. This articlesought to presents a comparative properties of PET wastebottles and traditional concrete blocks to determine theirsuitability as an alternative material for aggregate andnon-load-bearing concrete blocks for buildings.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Plastics have become an integral part of our lives and theannual quantity has been growing steadily. Its low den-sity, strength, user-friendly designs, fabrication capabili-

12020004-1

Mustapha et al. / International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 12020004

ties, long life, lightweight, and low cost are the factors be-hind such phenomenal growth. Plastics have been used inpackaging, automotive and industrial applications, medi-cal delivery systems, artificial implants, other healthcareapplications, water desalination, land/soil conservation,flood prevention, preservation and distribution of food,housing, communication materials, security systems, andother uses. With such large and varying applications,plastics contribute to an ever-increasing volume in thesolid waste stream (Siddique et al. 2008). Quantities ofwaste plastic have been rising rapidly during the recentdecades due to the high increase in industrialization andthe considerable improvement in the standards of living,but unfortunately, the majority of these waste quanti-ties are not being recycled but rather abandoned causingcertain serious problems such as the waste of natural re-sources and environmental pollution (Ahmed 2015). Is-mail and Al-Hashmi (2007) presented the possibility of us-ing various plastic wastes, containing approximately 80%polyethylene and 20% polystyrene, as fine aggregates, upto 4.75 mm in concrete. By increasing the plastic wastecontent, the compressive tests showed the tendency forcompressive strength values of plastic waste concrete todecrease below the reference concrete at each curing age.The concrete with 10% of plastic waste displayed the low-est compressive strength at 28 days curing age, about30% lower than that of the reference concrete mixture.Also the study found 5%, 7%, and 8.7% lower densitiesof concrete mix containing 10%, 15%, and 20% plasticaggregates respectively.

The types of plastics that are most commonly re-processed are polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP),polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polystyrene (PS), andpolyvinyl chloride (PVC) (Siddique et al. 2008; UnitedNations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 2009). Choiet al. (2005) studied the effects of polyethylene tereph-thalate (PET) bottles lightweight aggregate (WPLA) onthe density of concrete. Mixture proportions of concretewere planned so that the water/cement ratios were 45%,49%, and 53%, and the replacement ratios of WPLAwere 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% by volume of fine aggre-gate. Density of concrete mixtures decreased with theincrease in WPLA content. In their study the influenceof polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles lightweightaggregate (WPLA) on the splitting tensile strength ofconcrete was observed. Mixture proportions of concretewere planned. The water/cement they concluded that: (i)splitting tensile strength of concrete mixtures decreasedby 19%, 31%, and 54% with the increase in PET ag-gregates by 25%, 50%, and 75% respectively; and (ii)for a particular PET aggregate content, splitting tensilestrength increased with the reduction in w/cm ratio. Alsothe study investigated the effect of polyethylene tereph-thalate (PET) bottles lightweight aggregate (WPLA) onthe modulus of elasticity of concrete. According to theauthors, modulus of elasticity of concrete mixtures de-creased with the increase in PET aggregates. Jalaluddin

(2017) PET is used for high impact resistant container forpackaging of soda, edible oils and Peanut butter and etc.Use for cereal box liners, Microwave food trays. Use inmedicine for plastic vessels and for implantation. Plasticis heat resistant and chemically stable. PET is resistantto acid, base, some solvents, oils, fats. PET is difficultto melt and transparent and other properties. Plastichave many good characteristics which include versatil-ity, lightness, hardness, and resistant to chemicals, waterand impact. Plastic is one of the most disposable ma-terials in the modern world. It makes up much of thestreet side litter in urban and rural areas. It is rapidlyfilling up landfills as choking water bodies. Plastic bot-tles make up approximately 11% of the content landfills,causing serious environmental consequences (Jalaluddin2017). Marzouk, Dheilly and Queneudec (2007) reportedthe bulk density of cement mortar mixes prepared by re-placing 0–100% in volume of sand by two different sizes ofPET aggregates. Their results showed that the reductionof bulk density remained small when the volume occupiedby aggregates varies between 0% and 30%, regardless oftheir size. However, when this volume exceeded 50%, thecomposite bulk densities started to decrease until reach-ing a value 1,000 kg/m3. They also found that for thesame volumetric percentage of substitution the bulk den-sity decreased with decreasing particle size.

2.1 Application of Plastic Bottles in Construc-tion

The first bottle house was constructed in Tonopah; Nevdamainly for aesthetic reasons. Whiles, the first plastic bot-tle house construction project in Africa was in Ugandaby Butakoola Village Association for Development (BU-VAD) in 2010 in Cayuga district. The idea followed aBUVAD community survey in 2009 that revealed thatmany farmers in Kayunga were experiencing low cropyields due to poor soil fertility, which was as a result ofpresence of waste plastics, such as recycled PET plastic.This development led to the construction of honeycombshaped bricks for a boat-shaped exhibition hall, called theEco-ARK (Figure 1). This was built for Taipei’s flowershow, Eco-ARK and the first bottle house constructionin Tonopah; Nevda (Figure 2).

Plastic aggregates used in many studies prepared fromplastic waste obtained from different sources. An ex-ample is the grinding of plastic bottles in grinding ma-chine and sieved to get the suitable size fraction (Frigione2010; Saikia and Brito 2014). Adam and Agib (2011)posited that stabilized compressed earth blocks (SCEB)are denser than several concrete masonry products, suchas aerated and lightweight concrete blocks. Moreover,various types of bricks have densities within their samerange e.g. Clay and concrete bricks. The high densityof SCEB may be considered as disadvantage when theblocks have to be transported over a long distance (Adam

12020004-2

Mustapha et al. / International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 12020004

Figure 1. Eco-ARK in Taipei (Simanshu et al. 2017)

Figure 2. First bottle house construction (Simanshu etal. 2017)

and Agib 2011). The ASTM standard C55 (2011) furtherclassified the lightweight building block or brick if the drydensity is lesser than 1,680 kg/m3, while medium weightis 1,680 to 2,000 kg/m3, and normal weight is greaterthan 2,000 kg/m3.

Compressive strength of stabilized compressed earthbuilding blocks (that is, the amount of pressure can re-sist without collapsing) depends upon the soil type, typeand amount of stabilizer and the compaction. Maxi-mum strengths are obtained by proper mixing of suitablematerials and proper compacting and curing (Debouchaand Hashim 2011). Adam and Agib (2011) asserted thattypical wet compressive strengths for compressed stabi-lized earth building blocks may be less than 4 N/mm2.Whiles some soil when stabilized with hydrated high cal-cium lime give wet compressive strengths in the rangeof 6-8 N/mm2, strength suitable for many building pur-poses. Deboucha and Hashim (2011) posited that theBritish Standard requirements of 2.8 N/mm2 is suitablefor precast concrete masonry units and load bearing firedclay blocks and of 5.2 N/mm2 for bricks. Compressivestrength of concrete depends on many factors, such aswater-cement ratio, cement strength, quality of concretematerial, quality control during production of concreteetc. Compressive strength of blocks is a measure of theblocks’ resistance to axial load application. The recom-mended strength by BS 2018 (1985) is mean strength of10 blocks = 3.45 N/mm2 lowest individual strength =

2.59 N/mm2 (Cement and Concrete Institute 2011). Thestandard (nominal) size of a concrete block (stretcherblock) is 8′′ × 8′′ × 16′′, the actual size is 7 5/8′′ × 7

5/8′′ × 15 5/8′′ the block is produced to this size to ac-count for mortar joints. The block itself is slightly shorterin order to accommodate the mortar used to secure it inplace. The hard wood (Wawa) formwork of size 520 mm× 400 mm × 125 mm was used as Traditional Solid Con-crete blocks samples. The interior of the formwork willfirst be lubricated with oil to prevent the materials fromstriking to the side so as to give the concrete blocks asmooth surface and enable easy remove of the concreteblock mould from the formwork after moulding. Also thedemoulding or removing of the formwork shall be donewith care so as to obtain the fresh concrete blocks fromdamage. The fresh concrete block was prevented fromrain and rapid dry, under shield. The metal sheet form-work of size 90 mm × 90 mm × 350 mm will be insetin the same wooden formwork as PET Waste Concreteblocks samples. The interior of both formworks was lu-bricated with oil to prevent the materials from striking tothe side so as to give the concrete blocks a smooth sur-face and enable easy remove of the concrete block mouldfrom the formwork after moulding. Where the 12 mmdiameter bar for plastic bottle to sit. During demouldingor removing, the reinforcement bar was removed followedby the metal formwork. It was done with care so as toprevent concrete blocks from damage immediately aftercasting. The wooden formwork was dismounted after the24 hours (Cement and Concrete Institute 2011).

Water was sprinkled on the green samples of blocks attwice a day for the 21 days to ensure proper curing of theblocks. Blocks were removed from the production slob orpallets and stored in the stacking area a day after pro-duction and the next stage was curing (Cement and Con-crete Institute 2011). The method of curing employed cansignificantly affect the properties of the concrete blocks.Being a concrete product, strength can only be gainedif blocks are subjected to condition in which moisture isretained long enough for the setting of the cement. Afterthe initial setting of blocks which precedes the casting,the blocks were kept moist by wetting until 21 days whensufficient strength was gained. A very effective methodconsists of covering the blocks as soon as they are pro-duced, with a plastic or the new bricks should be wet forat least seven days (Kerali, Mwakali and Okure 2007).

2.2 Sources of Plastic Wastes in Ghana andTheir Impact

Plastic has been considered as one the commonly usedmaterials in our daily life due to its unique propertiessuch as light in weight, flexibility and durability. How-ever, it has bad side; the effect of plastic wastes on theenvironment is a huge problem that people face. Theplastic wastes generation in Ghana comes from differentways or sources such as metropolitan, municipal, districtwaste, commercial waste and industrial waste accordingto (Abota 2012). In Ghana, the ministry of local gov-ernment and rural development (MLGRD) is responsible

12020004-3

Mustapha et al. / International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 12020004

for managing waste, since it is that government institu-tion which supervises the decentralized of metropolitan,municipal and district assemblies (MMDAs). The MM-DAs work alongside their private partners such as Zoom-lion. They collect the wastes including plastic from resi-dential areas, streets, parks, waste collection points andwaste dump site popularly called “Boola” in Ghanaianlanguage. The amount of plastic wastes keeps on increas-ing due to the increase of population and lifestyle of thepeople. In Ghana, since the introduction of drinking wa-ter packaged in the sachet and bottle termed ‘pure water’and the use of plastic as packaging material when he/shebuys a product from the market or shops led to the in-crease in PET plastic bottles. The sachets or the emptybottles are thrown away into the streets with impunity.About 20 million people actively involved in daily activ-ities, out of this population each individual throws outone sachet or plastic bottle per day. The indiscriminatedisposal of sachet and plastic bottles find their way intogutters which then block the flow of water whenever itrains and causes flooding (Abota 2012).

From sustainability perspective, there is the need for usto reduce consumption of products that generate wastematerials which contributes to long period of decomposi-tion of waste materials in landfills LeBlanc (2018). Plasticwastes find their way into the water bodies thus pollutingthe water. The plastics then float on the surface of thewater bodies, thus preventing direct sunlight for the wa-ter organisms. Water animals are killed by plastic wastethat finds their way in water bodies as they mistakenlyeat plastics as food. Since plastics are indigestive materialand stay inside them, then cause pains and this leads todeath. After the decay of the animal, the ingested plasticis freed back to the environment to continue causing prob-lems. Plastic wastes are non-degradable substances andmade of toxic chemicals that pollute the air. Poisonoussubstances, such as toxins are release to the air when plas-tic wastes are burned are harmful and this causes respi-ratory problems and cancer as they are inhaled. Smokethat comes out as a results of burning solid wastes, in-cluding plastics produce carbon monoxide (CO), carbondioxide (CO2) affect the environment in general (Abota2012).

3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Materials

This section presents the materials used (Table 1) andprocedures in conducting the laboratory experiment forthe determination of comparative properties of polyethy-lene terephthalate (PET) waste bottles and traditionalconcrete blocks (Figure 3). The materials and quanti-ties used for the experiment are presented, as well as thelocations they were obtained.

Table 1. Materials used in the experiment

Material Quantity Unit Cost GH₡Cement 20 kg 14.03Sand 66.8 kg 6.6810 mm Gravel 162 kg 20.04Water 18 liters 0.50Plastic Waste Bottle 12 No. Free

3.1.1 Ordinary portland cement (GHACEM superrapid 32.5R) – 20 kg

The cement was kept in air tight packages and store in-side the laboratory to prevent it from being exposed tomoisture and hardened before usage.

3.1.2 Fine aggregate – pit sand – 66.8 kg

The fine aggregate was obtained from Wiamua in theAbura Asebu Kwamankese Districts in the Central Re-gion. The sand was free from dirt and other organic mat-ter of any verbal description. It was further sieved toremove any unwanted materials and to fulfill the require-ment of 100% passage through the 4.75 mm sieve.

3.1.3 Coarse aggregate – 10 mm size – 162 kg

The coarse aggregate was obtained from GN Quarry sitein the Komenda Edina Eguafo Abrem Districts in theCentral Region. It was free from dirt and other organicmatter of any verbal description. It was obtaining bysieving in order to fulfill the requirement of 100% passagethrough the 10 mm sieve and also to remove the unwantedmaterials.

3.1.4 Waste plastic voltic water bottle of one liter –12 bottles

It was selected from Cape Coast Technical Universitycampus hostel. The selection of the plastic waste bot-tle was based on capacity of usage, availability and alsothe most common use in the market shear.

Water use for the entire experiment will be free fromany visible impurities. This was supplied by Ghana WaterCompany Limited (GWCL) in the Central Region, andits quantity satisfiers the BS 12 (1996) requirements. 18liters of water was used for the mixing of the concrete.

3.1.5 Formwork design

Before the design of the formwork, a sketch in Plate Thebottle was placed at a stable position and upright to en-able the concrete cast inclusive of the empty plastic wastebottle(Figure 4 and Figure 5).

3.2 Experiments

An aggregate mixture of 20 kg of cement, 66.8 kg sand and162 kg of gravel in a ratio of 1:3:6 was used in addition, 18

12020004-4

Mustapha et al. / International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 12020004

Figure 3. Vertical cross-section view of the both tradi-tional and PET concrete blocks

Figure 4. Vertical cross-section of timber formwork

Figure 5. Vertical section of the metal formwork

liters of water (combined at 1:1) 12 voltic plastic bottlesof water and a water to cement ratio of 0.65 were used forthe moulding and curing of the concrete for 21 days, aftersubjecting the concrete to compressive strength test.

The batching process was done by weight batching witha ratio of 1:3:6 process at the laboratory. An electricalmixer machine with shovel was used for the mixing dur-ing the mixing process. Concrete mixer was placed ina drum with water. Cement, sand and coarse aggregatewere placed in the portable concrete mixer in a requiredproportion. The dry material was mixed in the mixingmachine and specified quantity of water was added grad-ually, while the machine was in motion. The concrete wasmixed for minimum of two minutes after all materials arein the drum. The concrete mixer after unloading fromthe mixer was remixed due to segregation.

Figure 6. Moulding process for PET concrete block

Figure 7. Moulding process for Traditional concreteblock

Sample Moulding (Figure 6 and Figure 7): The hardwood (Wawa) formwork of size 520 mm × 400 mm ×125 mm was used for the as traditional solid concreteblocks samples. The interior of the formwork was firstlubricated with oil to prevent the materials from strikingto the side, to give the concrete blocks a smooth surfaceand enable easy remove of the concrete block mould fromthe formwork after moulding. Also the demoulding or re-moving of the formwork shall be done with care so as toobtain the fresh concrete blocks from damage. The freshconcrete block was prevented from rain and rapid dry,under shield. The metal sheet formwork of size 90 mm× 90 mm × 350 mm will be inset in the same woodenformwork as PET waste concrete blocks samples. Theinterior of both formworks will also be Lubricated withoil to prevent the materials from striking to the side so asto give the concrete blocks a smooth surface and enableeasy remove of the concrete block mould from the form-work after moulding. Where the 12 mm diameter barfor plastic bottle to sit. During demoulding or removing,the reinforcement bar was removed followed by the metalformwork. It was done with care so as to prevent con-crete blocks from damage immediately after casting. Thewooden formwork was dismounted after the 24 hours.

Sample details: Three blocks each were produced per

12020004-5

Mustapha et al. / International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 12020004

mix design. This comprises of three number of size520 mm × 400 mm × 125 mm blocks that will be crush at21 days for the strength test. In all 6 numbers of blockssample was mould for the study. The curing process wasadequately done to ensure sufficient hydration of the ce-ment and to gain its maximum strength. The concreteblocks samples after casting were left under open shedfor a period of 21 days before they were taken to the lab-oratory for test. During this time, water was sprinkled onthe green samples of blocks, twice a day for the 21 daysto ensure proper curing of the blocks.

Testing samples: After the 21 days of curing, the prop-erties of the two concrete unit blocks were determinedwith emphases on weight, density, and strength. An elec-tronic weighing scale was used to weigh the blocks sam-ples. The density of the various samples was determinedafter 21 days dry period. In order to determine the den-sities for the volume of the block to be calculated. Themass of the blocks obtained from the weighed test warused to calculate the densities (ρ) from base on the for-mula. All the three specimens for each mix proportionwere crushed using the digital compressive strength testmachine at the Department of Building Technology Ma-terials Laboratory of Cape Coast Technical University.The compressive strength was calculated for each blocksamples.

The unit cost of blocks was determined by measur-ing each sample of materials mix ratio of 1:3:6 for massconcrete (one head-pan of cement to three head-pan ofsand to six head pan of chippings). The quantities, unitand cost of ordinary portland cement, pit sand, chippings(gravel) and pet waste bottle, per market survey within

Cape Coast Metropolis (Table 3).

4 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the results obtained from the ex-periments conducted at the laboratory. Tables 2 to 4presents the weights, average densities and compressivestrengths for both polyethylene terephthalate (PET) orplastic waste bottle concrete block (PWBCB) and tradi-tional concrete blocks (TCB). TCB has both its weightsand average densities higher than PET, with percent dif-ferences of 14.50 and 13.44 respectively. Whiles, the re-sult for TCB was also found to be higher than that ofPET, with percent difference of 42.08.

Table 5 shows that the average weight for plastic wastebottle concrete block (PWBCB) and traditional concreteblock (TCB) for 21 days of testing was 37.12 kg and48.82 kg respectively. The average percentage sampleweight difference was 14.5% for TCB to that of PWBCBafter 21 days of curing under laboratory condition.

Table 6 shows that the average weight of PWBCB was1,430 kg/m3 less than 1,680 kg/m3 as minimum required.Whiles, the average weight of TCB was 1,870 kg/m3,which is within the medium weight (1,680 kg/m3 to2,000 kg/m3). The average percentage sample densitydifferences were 13.44 % for TCB to that of PWBCB af-ter 21 days of curing, under laboratory condition.

Table 7 shows that the average compressive strength forthe 21 days of testing was 1.37 N/mm2 for PWBCB as aminimum British Standard requirement of 2.8 N/mm2 forprecast concrete masonry units and 3.36 N/mm2 for TCB

Table 2. Average weight of PWBCB and TCB

Average weight (PWBCB) Average weight (TCB) % difference36.12 48.56 12.44 42.65% 36.12 48.56 12.44 57.35% 14.69%36.81 48.65 11.84 43.07% 36.81 48.65 11.84 56.93% 13.85%36.44 49.25 12.81 42.53% 36.44 49.25 12.81 57.47% 14.95%Average 42.75% 57.25% 14.50%

Table 3. Average density of PWBCB and TCB

Average density ((PWBCB) Average density (TCB) % difference1.39 1.86 0.47 42.77% 1.39 1.86 0.47 57.23% 14.46%1.42 1.87 0.45 43.16% 1.42 1.87 0.45 56.84% 13.68%1.48 1.89 0.41 43.92% 1.48 1.89 0.41 56.08% 12.17%Average 43.28% 56.72% 13.44%

Table 4. Average compressive strength of PET and TCB

Average compressive strength (PET) Average compressive strength (TCB) % difference1.26 3.32 2.06 27.51% 1.26 3.32 2.06 72.49% 44.98%1.39 3.35 1.96 29.32% 1.39 3.35 1.96 70.68% 41.35%1.46 3.4 1.94 30.04% 1.46 3.4 1.94 69.96% 39.92%Average 28.96% 71.04% 42.08%

12020004-6

Mustapha et al. / International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 12020004

Table 5. Weight comparison of PWBCB and TCB

Sample No Weight of PWBCB (Kg) Weight of TCB (Kg) Difference in weight % difference in weight01 36.12 48.56 12.44 14.69%02 36.81 48.65 11.84 13.85%03 38.44 49.25 10.81 14.95%Average 37.12 48.82 11.70 14.50%

Table 6. Density comparison of PWBCB and TCB

Sample No Density of PWBCB (kg/m3) Density of TCB (Kg/m3) Difference in weight % difference in weight01 1.39 1.86 0.47 14.46%02 1.42 1.87 0.45 13.68%03 1.48 1.89 0.41 12.17%Average 1.43 1.87 0.44 13.44%

Table 7. Compressive strength comparison of PWBCB and TCB

Sample No Compressive strengthof PWBCB (N/mm2)

Compressive strengthof TCB (N/mm2)

Difference inCompressive strength % difference in

Compressive strength01 1.26 3.32 2.06 44.98%02 1.39 3.35 1.96 41.35%03 1.46 3.40 1.94 39.92%Average 1.37 3.34 1.99 42.08%

as the recommended strength by British Standard 2018(1985) of 3.45 N/mm2. The average percentage sample ofcompressive strengths differences was 42.08% for TCB tothat of PWBCB after 21 days of curing, under laboratorycondition.

5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The study reveals that the properties of concrete blockproduced with polyethylene terephthalate (PET) wastebottles has total average weight of 37.12 kg, density 1.43and compressive strength of 1.37 N/mm2, after 21 daysof testing. This was below the minimum Standard re-quirement of 2.8 N/mm2 for precast concrete masonryunit as compared to traditional concrete block. The PETwaste concrete bottle has average weight of 48.82 kg, den-sity 1.87 kg/m3 and compressive strength of 3.36 N/mm2

which was almost to the minimum recommended strengthby British Standard 2018 (1985) of 3.45 N/mm2. Tra-ditional concrete blocks have the highest compressivestrength as compared to that of the PET waste bottleconcrete blocks.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHERRESEARCH

The paper examined the comparative analysis of proper-ties of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or plastic wastebottle concrete block (PWBCB) and traditional concreteblocks (TCB). It was very clear from the findings that

there was not much difference in weight, density and com-pressive strength for both PWBCB and TCB from pre-vious research results. This confirms that masonry unitswhen determined to be adequate can be fabricated on theconstruction site and allowed to cure before being placedin the structure and same applies to concrete mixer.

The study should include testing different categoriesof masonry unit, besides weight, density and compres-sive strength. Thermal conductivity of the masonry unitshould also be carried out.

REFERENCESAbota, C. A. (2012). Recycling of plastics waste in Ghana:

A way to reduce environmental problems / pollu-tions. Arcada-Nylands svenska yrkeshögskol. Unpub-lished BSc thesis, Plastics Technology.

Adam, E. A., and Agib, A. R. A. (2011). Compressed sta-bilized earth block manufacture in Sudan. Printed byGraphprint for the United Nations Educational, Scien-tific and Cultural Organization. Paris, France.

Ahmed, Y. (2015). Development association for renew-able energies, Kaduna, Nigeria. Yahaya Ahmed ofNigeria & #39, Development Association for Renew-able Energies. Available at: www.Throughthesand-glass.typepad.com (Accessed on 2019/10/15).

Cement and Concrete Institute. (2011). Sustainable con-crete. Available at: http://www.cnci.org.za, (Accessedon 2019/10/14).

Charudatta, P., and Thosar, M. H. (2017). Reuse of plas-tic waste as replacement of sand in concrete. Interna-

12020004-7

Mustapha et al. / International Journal of Architecture, Engineering and Construction 12020004

tional Journal of Innovative Research in Science, En-gineering and Technology, 6(1), 789–794.

Choi, Y.-W., Moon, D.-J., Chung, J.-S., and Cho, S.-K.(2005). Effects of waste PET bottles aggregate on theproperties of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research,35(4), 776–781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.014.

Deboucha, S., and Hashim, R. (2011). A review on bricksand stabilized compressed earth blocks. Scientific Re-search and Essays, 6(3), 499–506. https://doi.org/10.5897/SRE09.356

Frigione, M. (2010). Recycling of PET bottles as fineaggregate in concrete. Waste Management, 30, 1101–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.030.

Ghansah, B., Mahunu, G. K., Ansah, E. K., and BenuwaB. B. (2015). Impact of PET bottles disposals and man-agement mechanisms in selected urban cities of Ghana.Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science andTechnology (JMEST), 2(6), 1289–1297.

Ismail, Z. Z., and Al-Hashmi, E. A. (2007) Use of wasteplastic in concrete mixture as aggregate replacement.Waste management, 28, 2041–2047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.08.023.

Jalaluddin, M. (2017). Use of plastic waste in civil con-structions and innovative decorative material (Eco-friendly). MedCrave Online Journal of Civil Engineer-ing, 3(5), 82. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojce.2017.03.00082.

Lambert, M., and Sabutey, V. K. (2016). Local aware-ness the key to solving Ghana’s plastic waste manage-ment. Available at: https://www.newsghana.com.gh(Accessed on 2019/10/15).

Kerali, G. A., Mwakali, J. A., and Okure, M. E. (2007).Development and application of construction materialsin Uganda. Fountain publisher, Kampala, Uganda.

LeBlanc, R. (2018). How long will it take that bag oftrash to decompose in a landfill? Available at: https://www.thebalancesmb.com (Accessed on 2019/10/14).

Marzouk, O.Y, Dheilly, R. M., and Queneudec, M.(2007). Valorization of post-consumer waste plastic incementitious concrete composites. Waste Management,27, 310–318.

Monney, I. (2014). Ghana’s #39 solid waste manage-ment problems: The contributing factors and the wayforward. Available at: https://www.modernghana.com(Accessed on 2019/10/16).

Raut A., Patel, M. S., Jadhwar, N. B., Khan, U., andDhengare, S. W. (2015). Investigating the applicationof waste plastic bottle as a construction material- Areview. Journal of Advanced Research in Mechemicaland Civil Engineering, 2(3), 89–89.

Saikia, N., and Brito, J. (2014). Mechanical propertiesand abrasion behavior of concrete containing shreddedPET bottle waste as a partial substitution of naturalaggregate. Construction and Building Materials, 52,236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.049.

Siddique, H. R., Sharma, A., Gupta, S. C., Murthy, R.C., Dhawan, A., Saxena, D. K., and Chowdhuri, D.K. (2008). DNA damage induced by industrial solidwaste leachates in Drosophilamelanogaster: A mecha-nistic approach. Environmental and Molecular Mutage-nesis, 49(3), 206–216.

Simanshu, D. K., Dwight V., Nissley, D. V., and Mc-Cormick, F. (2017). RAS proteins and their regulatorsin human disease. Cell, 170(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.009

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).(2009). Converting waste plastic into a resource, com-pendium of technology, Division of Technology, Indus-try and Economics International Environmental Tech-nology Centre, Osaka/Shiga, Japan.

Wienaah, M. M. (2007). Sustainable plastic waste man-agement – A case of Accra, Ghana, The Royal Instituteof Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

12020004-8