000			02841nam a22003257a 4500
003			OSt
005			20250206151818.0
008			250206b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aTUPM _bEnglish _cTUPM _dTUPM _erda
050			_aBTH TH 438 _bC36 2023
100			_aCanon, Mark Thed N. _eauthor
245			_aDevelopment of alternative composite roof tile using waste plastics and coir fibers/ _cMark Thed N. Canon, Cheska E. Dilan, Daniel D. Escolano, Aljohn A. Loterte, Mezzia Faye C. Rabano, and Maxinne Y. Silvestre.--
260			_aManila: _bTechnological University of the Philippines, _c2023.
300			_aix, 84pages: _c29cm. _e+1 CD-ROM (4 3/4in.)
336			_2rdacontent
337			_2rdamedia
338			_2rdacarrier
500			_aThesis (undergraduate)
502			_aCollege of Industrial Technology .-- _bBachelor of Engineering Technology major in Construction Technology: _cTechnological University of the Philippines, _d2023.
504			_aIncludes bibliography
520			_aThe research study developed an alternative composite roof tile by utilizing waste plastics such as polypropylene as a binder of fine perlite as fine aggregates and dried coir fibers as reinforcement fibers that aims to address environmental problems and the death of marine mammals caused by solid waste and plastic pollution and to provide roofing material that can be used as a substitute for concrete roof tile in terms of flexural strength, compressive strength, and water absorption. The prototype, with dimensions of 35.56 cm x 30.48 cm and a weight of 2500 grams, was developed by melting polypropylene, mixing it with fine perlite and dried coir fibers, and molding it into a metal molder, which was then cured for 3-4 days. The study used two mixtures: A with PP 96.5%, fine perlite 2%, and dried coir fibers 1.5%; B with PP 96.5%, fine perlite 1.5%, and dried coir fibers 2%. Mixtures A and B both achieved passing results in the flexural strength, compressive strength, and water absorption tests using the standards of ASTM D790, ASTM D695-15, and ASTM C406. However, mixture A achieved higher compressive and flexural strength while obtaining less water absorption than mixture B. The prototype was evaluated by 18 individuals, including civil engineers, CET students, and staff from two hardware stores. It was deemed highly acceptable in aesthetics, workability, functionality, economy, safety, and efficiency, indicating its potential as a roofing material.
650			_aConstruction technology
650			_aConstruction materials
700			_aDilan, Cheska E. _eauthor
700			_aEscolano, Daniel D. _eauthor
700			_aLoterte, Aljohn A. _eauthor
700			_aRabano, Mezzia Faye C. _eauthor
700			_aSilvestre, Maxinne Y. _eauthor
942			_2lcc _cBTH CIT _n0
999			_c29284 _d29284