Author’s Accepted Manuscript

Experimental Development of A Plastic Bottle

Usable as a Construction Building Block Created
Out of Polyethylene Terephthalate: testing
PET(b)rick 1.0

Kateřina Nováková, Karel Šeps, Henri Achten

www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

PII: S2352-7102(16)30276-5
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.05.015
Reference: JOBE274
To appear in: Journal of Building Engineering
Received date: 5 November 2016
Revised date: 17 May 2017
Accepted date: 22 May 2017
Cite this article as: Kateřina Nováková, Karel Šeps and Henri Achten,
Experimental Development of A Plastic Bottle Usable as a Construction Building
Block Created Out of Polyethylene Terephthalate: testing PET(b)rick 1.0,
Journal of Building Engineering, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.05.015
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for
publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of
the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which
could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Experimental Development of A Plastic Bottle Usable as a Construction Building
Block Created Out of Polyethylene Terephthalate: testing PET(b)rick 1.0

a,* b c
Kateřina Nováková , Karel Šeps , Henri Achten
a
Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech
Republic
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech
Republic
c
Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech
Republic

Abstract

Consumer goods PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles are usually thrown away after
consumption. A huge number of them ends up somewhere in the environment. In many
developing countries PET bottles are used in construction, mainly as fill-in material in
concrete or adobe walls. Special purpose PET bottles have been designed and produced
earlier that can be stacked in wall systems. In our research we produced a special PET bottle
that fulfils the following conditions: (a) produced with blow-moulding technology; (b) good
stacking features to eliminate or minimize binding medium between PET bottles; and (c)
produced out of recycled PET. This special PET bottle resulted in a series produced and
patented brick called PET(b)rick 1.0. We subjected the PET(b)ricks to various tests as done
on regular building bricks: stress, pressure, and heat-freeze. PET(b)rick has reasonable
resistance to stress greatly dependent on the filling medium, low resistance to pressure, and
a small bandwidth of performance in heat-freeze. We have demonstrated stable and safe
application of PET(b)ricks in small seating objects. PET(b)rick does not seem suitable as a
self-standing wall, but can function as easily stackable fill-in material within a load-bearing
structure.

Abstract

Keywords: PET(b)rick, reuse, polyethylene terephthalate, recycling, architecture.

1. Introduction

PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) is the source material for packaging, mainly for bottles with
drinking consumables (water, milk, lemonades, and so on). From 2008 to 2013 there was an
annual growth rate of plastic water bottle consumption of 6,2% According to [1], in 2013 PET
takes up 39 billion units out of total 195 billion beverage packaging units sold in the US (20%)
and only about 12% of it is being recycled. A large proportion of plastic bottles is discarded
after first use. Recycling plastic still lags behind the production of plastic. In 2005 only 35% of
all PET bottles in Europe were recovered [2]. According to the statistical data presented by
Association of plastics manufacturers in Europe, there is a constant growth of production of
plastics since 50 years. The world production of 299 million of tons was reported in 2013.
According to same resource PET used for beverage containers represents 6,9% of plastic.
[3]
Initially, most plastic waste was dumped in landfill-schemes, but because of the explosive
growth of plastic waste volume, it became clear that this was not a feasible option.
Additionally, a large amount of plastic ends up in the environment [4]. Because of plastic’s
long lifespan this poses a considerable burden on the environment. Biodegradable plastics
are still not developed enough to provide a solution for this [5], with not much known about
their life cycle impact [6]. The earliest scientific attempts to study plastic (waste) production
are through Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) – see for example [7-9]; modern examples [10, 11].

More recently material/substance flow analysis [12] is used, which is one out of nine different
systems assessment tools for Solid Waste Management identified by [13]. Increasingly
research in recycling sees cooperation between the recycling domains and analytical
sciences [14], implying an increased uses of models to study recycling.
Many plastics, and PET in particular, have the advantage that they can be 100% recycled. In
terms of recycling, four routes of plastic treatment are distinguished: primary (re-extrusion;
high grade re-used and cleaned material for repeated application in production process),
secondary (mechanical; shredded pellets, flakes, or powders of varying lower grade quality),
tertiary (chemical; transformation to fuels or petrochemical feedstock), and quaternary
(energy recovery; incineration in kilns and reactors) [15]. Currently mechanical recycling and
chemical recycling are used the most [16]. Pyrolysis is a tertiary process seen as a viable
alternative to incineration that yields energy, fuel, and recyclable products such as char,
oil/wax, and combustible gases [17-19]. Other tertiary processes are glycolysis, aminolysis,
hydrolysis, alkalolysis, and alcoholysis [20].
It is widely noted that recycled plastic has different mechanical and chemical properties than
the same virgin plastic [21-25]. This means that recycled plastic does not interact with virgin
plastic of the same type. Because of this, low mixture amounts of recycled plastic (up to 5%
of recycled plastic) are typically investigated. Additionally, recycled plastic may have traces of
contamination or additives [26]. Recycled PET for food containers needs the highest grade
production of non-contaminated clean recycled PET. Even with advanced techniques (for
example [27]) such high grades are not easy to obtain. Processes to obtain near-same quality
as virgin PET are called super-clean recycling processes, and are used since 1991 in USA
[28] and 1998 in Europe [29].
The most dominant application of recycled PET in architecture is the mixing of recycled PET
strands in concrete (for example [30-36]), followed by application in asphalt ([37-39]. Other
applications are PET particles in polyurethane foams [40-41], in various composites [42-45],
thermal insulation [46], and panels [47]. In all of these cases, the recycled PET material is
added in a fragmented state.
As can be seen from the above overview, there are almost no applications of (r)PET in
products that can be used as such. Nevertheless, PET bottles are used quite a lot as fill-in
material in concrete and adobe walls, for example in Philippines, San Salvador, Nigeria,
Honduras, Guatemala and so on [48].
The review above leads to our main motivation for creating a custom-made bottle made out of
rPET. For architectural application in building products using recycled PET has a lot of
potential because of the following reasons:
1. Architectural products are not consumer goods; therefore, they can be made out of
lower-grade recycled PET material.
2. By increasing the amount of products in architecture that are based on recycled PET,
we can reduce demand for the production of architectural products based on new
materials.
3. By applying recycled PET for the production of architectural products the market for
recycled PET is expanded.
4. A purpose-shaped bottle which is easier to stack may widen the applicability of PET
bottles in constructions.
Based on these reasons, we will investigate the use of lower-grade recycled PET for use in a
so-called PET(b)rick. In this research project we use blow-moulding for the production of the
PET(b)rick. This is the most widely used production technique for bottles [49]. By applying the
same technology, we use a well-developed and economically cheap production process.

2. Material and methods: PET bottle production process

Polyethylene terephthalate is a chemical compound belonging into category of polymers. Its
features show perfect match with the packaging industry of food, but can be implemented in
rather broad field of products. It can be formed into various shapes and perform diverse
qualities: flexibility or rigidity, 1D fibres, 2D plates and 3D beverage containers or solid
products. It is rather stable in regular conditions, light, transparent and can be coloured into
various colours. The material is not toxic.

2.1 PET

PET can have many diverse names according to the company that produces it: Arnite®,
Diolen®, Hostadur™, Mylar™, Melinex®, Rynite™. On chemical basis it is always the same
polyethylene terephthalate, whether in form of fibers, film, solid or liquid. No matter in what
kind of form it is stored, the melting point of PET is 265 °C (538 K). The tensile strength is
1700 MPa. The PET production process has three phases. In the first phase terephthalic acid
is mixed with ethylene glycol under the pressure of 300 kPa and temperature around 250 °C
(523 K). The second phase is called trans-esterification, where dimethyl terephthalate is
reacted with EG at CCA 200 °C (473 K) and 100 kPa. The result of these two processes is bis
(hydroxyethyl) terephthalate. After that pre-polymerization and poly-condensation takes place
both at temperatures around 280 °C (553 K) and low and high pressure (2-100 kPa). In this
stage PET is applicable in fibers and sheets. In order to be able to produce bottles the
molecular weight of PET must be increased by solid state polymerization at 210 °C (483 K),
100 kPa through a process lasting 20 hours. [49]

The first polyethylene terephthalate bottle was designed by Nathaniel C. Wyeth in 1975. The
main advantage of PET bottle is that is provides a container of maximum volume with
minimum material. It took PET only two years to win the market over glass in the US. It was
produced from petrochemicals from the start, in contrast to other plastics which were mostly
produced from coal.

2.2 Bottle production processes

The main PET bottle production processes are extrusion (oldest), injection-molding and blow-
moulding, where preforms are created through injection-moulding process. The length of the
preform is approximately 1/2 - 1/3 of the resulting bottle. This is optimal ratio in order to
achieve a bottle with regularly distributed plastic after the blow. After the preform is cooled
down, it is collected with others to enter the production process of PET bottles, using
machines for blow-moulding. Whereas an injection-moulding machine can produce
approximately 4300 preforms per hour, a blow-moulding machine can produce up to 36 000
bottles per hour.

3. Recycling of PET Bottles

In 1998 the recycling rate for plastic was only 5 % in Europe [50-51], in 2012 it was 62% [2],
because of development of more cost effective recycling technology. By 1998 time, plastic
was the third largest component among MSW and the majority of PET waste come from
beverage containers. [28] In 2004 PET products constituted a major environmentally
unsustainable problem [2], but it took more than 10 years till secondary and tertiary recycling
of polyethylene tereftalate was introduced in 2013. [20] Postconsumer PET recycling industry
came into existence to meet the challenge of overproduction of waste, which needs to be
managed, in particular of PET which is not easily biodegradable. [4]
3.1 First, Second, and Third Life of PET

The recycling of PET bottles can be done chemically or mechanically. In addition to this,
bottles can be reused in various different applications. Through careful design we believe it is
possible to extend the life-span of PET and reduce amount of new virgin PET. In the Ideal
Cycle of PET (Figure 1) we define First, Second, and Third Life of PET. First Life is the
original PET bottle as produced for consumption. When they are discarded and used for
example as fill-in material in adobe or concrete walls, they are still in their First Life phase.
Collected PET bottles that have been mechanically recycled into preforms for next use as
bottles enter their Second Life. Again they function mainly as consumer goods containers.
After their initial use they can be applied to different function, for example as stacking material
in construction – this is their Third Life. Finally, after chemical recycling, they may return to
the main production of PET as rPET composite in new bottles.

Figure 1: Proposed Ideal Cycle of PET by authors.

3.2 Mechanical recycling

In the process of mechanical recycling PET bottles are sorted, cut, washed by degreaser and
finally dried. Contaminant removal is a big issue here, because contamination by other
materials causes big degradation of PET. One of the biggest problem in mechanical sorting is
contamination with PVC. Although manual sorting is still an effective method of separation
PET from other materials, nevertheless 90 % automatic separation of PET and PVC was
reported already in early 1990’ies [52]. PET flakes are washed with 2% NaOH solution and a
detergent at 80 °C (353 K) and next they are washed again with tetrachlorethylene. Drying
PET flakes is essential, because minimizing content of moisture reduces hydrolytic
degradation. The material must contain less than 50 ppm of water, which can be achieved by
drying at 170 °C (443 K) for 6 hours.
The process of mechanical recycling is relatively simple and cheap, but the material
undergoes degradation in form of scission of polymer chains and amount of contaminants
which cause an instability of the material. In order to solve this, stabilizers may be added such
as butyl tin mercaptide, antimony mercaptide and lead phthalate. The main disadvantage of
mechanical recycling is that the product has a low molecule weight and needs to be
regranulated. Additionally vacuum degassing results in rPET with higher MW.

3.3 Chemical recycling

The process of chemical recycling is more expensive than mechanical recycling. The most
recent method of chemical recycling is implementing microwaves. [53] There are multiple
phases of chemical de-polymerization such as hydrolysis, methanolysis and glycolysis. In the
first stage, the waste PET is mixed up with microwave absorbing activator and molten down
at 230 – 330 °C (503-603 K). In the second phase solvolysis is done together with the
catalyst. All of this is done under atmospheric pressure. The disadvantage of the chemical
recycling is its high cost, but the advantage is, that there are no contaminants, because the
original substances are also the output of the process: terephthalic acid and ethylenglycol.

4 Reuse

Apart from recycling, bottles can also be reused in the field of architecture, design and
building industry. Through reuse the value of the bottle is preserved, not only the value of raw
PET material.
We can identify several different ways how bottles can be reused. As stated above, the main
one is reuse of post-consumer bottles in buildings. This strategy makes sense in developing
countries, where there is not enough technology in order to recycle, but can also be found in
many other countries as well. Panels made of bottles and concrete exist, where the bottles
have the function of lost sheeting. [54-55] Used in this form, the bottles can no longer be
reclaimed, thus this form of reuse is irreversible. A second way of reusing PET bottles is
through artists and architects who build structures or sculptures out of PET bottles to show
the amount of production and to appeal on social behavior against plastic waste – examples
can be found in Netherlands, Czech Republic, USA, and so on [48].
Finally, a third strategy is innovation in design of the bottle itself to produce a bottle that can
have a Second Life and Third Life. This is in particular the strategy chosen within our
research.

4.1 Related designs of PET bottles for reuse

For consumer good PET bottles, the main function of the design is to use a minimum of PET
material that yields a stable bottle in an ergonomic and recognizable shape. Additional
requirement may be the possibility of decreasing the volume after consumption, so that
bottles are stackable in waste containers with little air left inside. Examples of this approach
are the pleated plastic container invented by Myung G. Jung in US in 1994. [56] (Figure 2)
and the container designed by Marie-Bernard Bouffand, (2014). [57]
Figure 2a, 2b: Self collapsible bottles and 2c: German patent of bottle brick 19620270

In Second Life design a bottle is designed in such a way that it can take on another function
after its original use. Figure 2c shows for example German patent n. 19620270 that consists
of bottles optimized for fitting next to each other with connection sticks [58], but the drawings
show unsolved material implementation task. Three-sided bottles were registered as well as
bottles with ribs and valleys, however without load bearing function [59, 60]. Even a bottle
design which looked like Lego blocks was registered in the Czech Republic, but the system
would not connect [61].

4.3 Related designs of PET bottles as building bricks

To the best of our knowledge there are only two examples of blow-moulded PET bottles that
have the function of a building brick – the so-called “united_bottle” and “Polli-brick.” Plus we
found an idea mock-up made by Tim Dubitzky, who tried to interconnect square plastic
bottles, generating a small wall. [62] In 2007 united_bottle was developed by a research
group from Switzerland. This bottle was intended to be filled with water and transported into
war/catastrophic regions, where the disposed bottles would serve as material for filling in
broken walls. The second PET bottle brick, “Polli-brick” was invented in 2010 in Taiwan by a
company called MINIWIZ. This bottle was not used as a beverage container, it only served as
a facade panel element. It was applied as façade material in several projects, the largest
being the so-called EcoARK in Taipei, 2010.

Figure: 3a Small wall by Tim Dubitzky, 3b Polli-brick, 3c united_bottle.

5 PET(b)rick 1.0

In our research we have developed a new type of PET bottle that can be used as construction
material – the so-called PET(b)rick. The first fully developed version is 1.0, which has been
used as test object in constructions and stress tests reported in this paper.
In our approach, the bottle can be produced with both clear hygienic virgin PET and also
semi-clean rPET. The difference in PET and rPET influences the use of the bottle (not all
rPET can hold fluids for consumption due to possible contamination). Additionally there is the
economic factor of price difference between virgin PET and rPET. Cleaning recycled PET to
the quality of virgin PET is quite expensive, and makes the cost of clean clear rPET come
close to the cost of virgin PET (the difference in price may vary from 100 Euro (112 US
Dollar) per ton to 250 Euro (280 US Dollar) per ton. This means that virgin PET can be by
25% more expensive than rPET on average. With such low margins in price difference in our
view all the work with rPET pays off only if we can prolong the life of the bottle by giving it
valuable useful design.
 In production with clear hygienic PET flakes or clean rPET granules we obtain a
beverage container with the special shape of a stackable brick. This container can be
used multiple times as container of fluids – most likely drink water. Because of its
shape, the bottle retains value of the material and the shape after its initial use. The
stacking feature allows it to be used in various ways, for example also as toys for
children (like large Lego blocks).
 In production with semi-clean recycled PET we obtain a container that can be directly
used in building and construction industry, thus skipping the phase of the bottle being
a beverage container. The main advantage here is the low cost of the material. If we
increase the product life time on the place of consumption (thus eliminating costly
transport) we may stabilize the highly fluctuating price for recycled PET by not being
dependent on season and transportation.

Figure 4: Recycling process: (1) Consumer bottle; (2) Collected and sorted waste PET
bottles; (3) Processed and granulated PET flakes; (4) rPET preform; (5) PET(b)rick.

5.1 PET(b)rick 1.0 prototype

The design of the PET(b)rick had to answer two main boundary conditions (apart from some
other, minor ones): (a) it had to be produced with regular blow-moulding technology, implying
the use of industrial preforms; and (b) it has to be stackable in at least two cardinal directions
with as much as possible dry-click connection. When designing the prototype of the PET brick
we viewed the problem as architects and developed the ultimate shape of the brick in close
communication with production professionals and specialists in PET bottle design to get as
close as possible to the limits of PET performance in the process of stretch blow-moulding
(Figure 5).
Figure 5: Design of PET(b)rick 1.0.

The fact that we were close to the material limits of PET material and production process was
testified in prototype production when 80% of the preforms actually exploded already in the
production process. The remaining 20% showed irregular material distribution yielding too
thin walls at some points, the PET material was no longer transparent and appeared more
“foggy”, and the dry-click connection did not perform well because shape tolerances were
exceeded. After a number of next design iterations, we obtained PET(b)rick version 1.0 which
had regular material distribution and dry-click connection properties. With this bottle we could
build small furniture objects and a wall.

6 Results

In order to know characteristics of the new developed PET(b)rick unit, we organized tests that
are usually implemented with regular bricks: the stress test, pressure test, and heat/freeze
test. We filled PET(b)brick 1.0 with sand, water, CO2 and we also left it empty, in order to find
out the differences in stability and shape deformation. Another important information we
wanted to get was the difference in load bearing ability when the bricks are combined into
assemblies. Because of the flexibility of the brick, we compared the results at 1 and at 10 mm
of diminution. Pressure tests we done in the combination with the stress tests, where we
pressed the brick by loading them with CO2 and consequently stressed them to se the impact
of the inside pressure versus the outside stress.

6.1 Stress tests

We started with pressing empty PET(b)rick bottles in FP 100 press machine. In the stress test
we were interested in vertical deformation of the shape of the brick and also in the decrease
of the overall height, when pressed regularly in vertical direction. According to our
expectation, the brick started decreasing size immediately and its’ decrease was directly
proportional to the load. In the three sample tests all PET(b)ricks behaved similarly and the
decrease of 10 mm was observed by with 0,080-0,100 kN load.
Graph 1: Stress test till 10 mm of height decrease.

Collapse is defined as the moment when the PET(b)rick releases air (through tearing walls or
loosening of the cap). We could observe that PET(b)rick does not collapse and release air at
1,1 kN load - it only loses height. In bigger range of decrease, all the three samples behave
the same with improving the quality of performance towards higher values of force. Collapse
with irreversible changes occurs at the load of 3 kN PET(b)rick undergoes irreversible
changes. Nevertheless, it would not release air until 3 kN load.

Graph 2: Stress test up to 1.2 kN.

For architects, the change of visual performance of the tested sample is important. We could
see from the stress tests (Fig. 6, 7), where the weakest points of our bottle-brick are and what
the deformations look like. This implies the changes in the shape of the bottle-brick of the
next generation of PET(b)rick 1.1. The major result of the tests was the irregular extension of
the walls to the outside, where they appeared to be larger close to the cap area, not the
bottom. Also the ribs flattened easier than expected.
Figure 6: The bottle performance with 0,2 kN to 1,2 kN of load.

Figure 7: PET(b)brick irreversible deformation after load of 3 kN.

Stress tests of the combination of bottles showed the importance of regular force distribution
among the multi-brick structure, where we could see that combining four bricks without the
load distribution had no positive effect, whereas an interconnected cube made of 72
PET(b)ricks (Fig. 8) performed much more effectively. The 72-PET(b)rick cube could be
loaded with 13 kN before it started changing shape. After that value, the whole structure
followed the same ratio of decrease versus force as the single brick.

Graph 3: The cube, the group of four PET(b)ricks and one brick.
Figure 8: 72 bricks, 4 bricks, 1 brick in the FP 100 press machine.

6.2 CO2 pressure tests

One of the approaches to raise the compression strength of the bricks was to pressurize them
with CO2. We filled the bottles with various amounts of solid CO2 (so-called “dry ice”). After
evaporation the gaseous CO2 puts regular pressure on the inside of the PET(b)rick. We
obtained best performance with 2 g CO2 per brick, which does not deform the brick, so the
interconnectivity was preserved. Bigger amounts of CO2 cause the wall profiles to become
more curved so that the dry-click of the PET(b)brick did not work anymore.
Graph 4 shows stress tests on empty PET(b)rick, filled with 1 g CO 2 and filled with 2 g CO2.
The graph overall shows the increased strength of the CO2-filled PET(b)brick as expected.

Graph 4: Test of brick filled with CO2.

The molar mass of CO2 is 44 g/mol. The conversion ratio of CO2 is

44.01 g CO2 = 22.4 liters. 2 g CO2 = 1.01 l.

This means that adding gaseous volume to the brick (empty it has 0.94 l) by 1.01 l doubles
the strength of the brick.

6.3 Heat and freeze tests

In the heat tests we found that stretch-blow-molded PET bottles suffer from deformation when
heated to temperatures over 70 °C (343 K). This deformation inclines to have expansive
tendencies, as if stretching continued. On the other hand, being heated up to such
temperatures, the structure of the walls changes from weaker flexibility to stable rigidity. The
bottle walls seem more stiff. According to our tests, with 70 °C (343 K) the changes were still
reversible when the brick cooled down, while they turned irreversible after having been
heated to 75 °C (348 K). Still the change of the shape has not influenced the function. With 80
°C (353 K) the brick wall was stiff and the shape changed in the way that the bottle brick lost
its properties: it changed the shape considerably and the walls were not transparent any
more. The volume of PET(b)rick heated up to 80 °C (353 K) changed from 940 ml to 980 ml.
We found that heated bottles are more stiff; nevertheless, under bigger stress they perform
worse in terms of stability, because the stiff walls are less flexible and more fragile.
Next to the heat test we also put the brick under 50 freeze cycles When we compare the
tested situations, we can see that the performance of PET(b)rick influenced by heat or freeze
is rather worse than behavior of the original samples which had not been subjected to heat
and freeze cycles. In graph 5 we can see that the results are second worst and the worst in
1mm decrease.

Graph 5: Heat and freeze test

Graph 6: Freezing cycles temperature development in 24 hours.

The samples were constantly heated in the oven to 60°C and consequently
70°C, 75°C. The temperature was kept for one minute. When cooled down, the
samples were pressed up to 0.14 kN (see the results in graph 5). We can see the
heated and frozen samples performed worse than the regular bottle-brick. The
conclusion is that the temperature changes have a negative impact on the
PET(b)rick behaviour: the higher temperature the worse. Temperatures below
zero also affect stress resistance in a negative way: worse than temperatures of
60°C and 70°C.

6.4 Test with filling with various media

We tested the bricks when filled with air, water, sand and CO 2 (Graph 6). It was interesting to
observe that the CO2 filled PET(b)rick performed better than the brick filled with water. The
brick filled with sand had the best overall result. Sand filling obviously means that the
PET(b)rick loses its transparency, which may be an unintended side-effect. However, it is
also possible to take advantage of this and obtain various material appearances of the
PET(b)rick with different color sand filling.

7 Discussion

We tested the bricks when filled with air, water, sand and CO2. We wanted to see the
comparison of tested samples under all conditions. In such a graph we can see how each
sample performs against the others (Graph 6). We wanted to have a look at the very small
decrease of 1 mm and acceptable decrease by this flexible unit, which was 10 mm. The
interesting result is that CO2 filled bottle-brick performed better than the brick filled with water.
The brick filled with sand had the best overall result as we expected, but being filled with
sand, the brick looses its transparency, which is one of the favored qualities. On the other
hand the pattern of the sand is visible, which may also be of designers intention. Through
placement of sand with various colors, art may be generated.

Figure 9: Sand, water and air filling after pressure.

Graph 7: Comparison of stress test with various media infill.

Until 1 mm decrease, we can see the advantage of CO2 fill against sand. The sand and
water-filled PET(b)ricks still allow for miniature deformation by small forces contrary to gas-
filled PET(b)rick where the gas is regularly distributed in the brick.

8 Conclusion

Application of PET bottles in the shape of PET(b)rick as building units is possible only under
defined conditions. We can see the best performance of the Bottle if filled with sand. This
means that using the original function of the bottle – being a container for various media -
makes sense in building industry as well. This result speaks for the possible use within
catastrophic scenarios, where a water container can secondly serve as solid/building material
container. Also its behavior under the temperature of 70°C – 80°C is not satisfactory. These
temperatures show big changes in the shape of the PET(b)rick, which is irreversible.
PET(b)rick 1.0 can be used safely for smaller temporary structures of furniture size. Although
the PET(b)rick can withstand big forces, the change of its shape is immediate starting with
relative small loads. Therefore the structure is not recommended for incorporation into other
precise constructions, only as a filling with no load. Because of its transparence and
lightness, it is likely to be used for mobile walls or dividing structures, with a primary load-
bearing structure to keep PET(b)ricks in place.
In a real-world application we have tested the PET(b)rick as a lighted seating structure
(Figure 10) called PET(ch)airs. We made a load test with the chair (72bricks) and we could
see that under first 13kN very small change was visible. These were installed and used at the
EXPO exhibition 2016 in Milano, where they were used by thousands of people throughout a
period of 6 months – no seating collapsed during this period.
When loaded, the structure made of PET(b)ricks makes noise. PET(b)rick also reacts on the
change of temperature by evolving noise as we could hear, when the brick was put in the
oven. It starts making noise by change of the temperature between 15°C and 30°C.

Figure 10: Use-case of PET(b)rick – EXPO installation in the Czech pavilion.

Finally, we can conclude that in the frame of Horizon 2020 – The new general environment
Action Program [63], we fulfill the condition to develop a building unit that is made of recycled
material together with that it prolongs life of a packaging product while preserving its material
value. The material of polyethylene tereftalate in the shape of PET(b)rick occurred to be very
instable and weak. Only combination of many units brought satisfactory results. Each brick on
its own appeared to be easily deformable under low forces such as 0,1kN. We conclude that
more research has to be done on the actual shape of the bottle in terms of its initial stability.
Also the basic question of the use of PET(b)rick must be researched in order to introduce this
type of a building block on the market. Apart of seating structures the building block could be
used in constructions under low pressures like bars, reception desks, division walls and small
tables. Its use in areas with thread of earthquakes is in question.
PET(b)rick is understood as a complementary strategy of recycling, not the solution to the
plastic waste problem of the planet.
Acknowledgement

We acknowledge financial support and well functioning cooperation of KMV a. s. and CTU
Prague. We are also thankfull to all faculties of CTU and Mr. Hájek from Academy of Science
ČR for consultation. During the EXPO installation the stuff of the Czech Pavilion was of a
great support.
References

[1] Kang, D., Auras, R. and Singh, J. (2017). Life Cycle Assessment of Non-Alcoholic Single-
Serve Polyethylene Terephthalate Beverage Bottles in the State of California. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 116 (2017), pp. 45-52.
[ad] Islam, J., Meherier, S. and Islam, A.K.M.R. (2016). Effects of Waste
[2] Plastics Europe (Association of Plastic Manufacturers). An Analysis of Plastics
Consumption and Recovery in Europe (2002-2003). Published in 2004. [Accessed 14.3.2015
from www.plasticseurope.org/cust/documentrequest.aspx?DocID=56794]
[3] Plastics - The facts 2014/2015, An analysis of European plastics production,
demand and waste data.
[4] Barnes, D.K.A., Galgani, F., Thompson, R.C. and Barlaz, M. (2009). Accumulation and
fragmentation of plastic debris in global environments. Philosophical Transactions of The
Royal Society 364(2009), pp. 1985-1998.
[5] Yates, M.R. and Barlow, C.Y. (2013). Life cycle assessments of biodegradable,
commercial biopolymers – A critical review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling
78(2013), pp. 54-66.
[6] Hottle, T.A., Bilec, M.M. and Landis, A.E. (2013). Sustainability assessments of bio-based
polymers. Polymer Degradation and Stability 98(2013), pp. 1898-1907.
[7] Craighill, A.L. and Powell, J.C. (1996). Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of
recycling: a case study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 17(1996), pp. 75-96.
[8] Song, H.-S. and Hyun, J.C. (1999). A study on the comparison of the various waste
management scenarios for PET bottles using the life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 27(1999), pp. 267-284.
[9] Shen, L., Worrell, E. and Patel, M.K. (2010). Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of
PET bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(2010), pp. 34-52.
[12] Huang, C.-L., Vause, J., Ma, H.-W. and Yu, C.-P. (2012). Using material/substance flow
analysis to support sustainable development assessment: A literature review and outlook.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 68(2012), pp. 104-116.
[13] Pires, A., Martinho, G. and Chang, N.-B. (2011). Solid waste management in European
countries: A review of systems analysis techniques. Journal of Environmental Management
92(2011), pp. 1033-1050.
[14] Varenne, A. (2013). Cooperation increases between analytical sciences and recycling.
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, vol. 48 (2013), pp. 22-29.
[15] Al-Salem, S.M. , Lettieri, P. and Baeyens, J. (2009). Recycling and recovery routes of
plastic solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Management 29(2009), pp. 2625-2643.
[16] Hamad, K., Kaseem, M. and Deri, F. (2013). Recycling of waste from polymer materials:
An overview of the recent works. Polymer Degradation and Stability 98(2013), pp. 2801-2812.
[17] Cunliffe, A.M.; Jones, N. and Williams, P.T. (2003). Recycling of fibre-reinforced
polymeric waste by pyrolysis: thermos-gravimetric and bench-scale investigations. Journal of
Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis 70(2003), pp. 315-338.
[18] Beneš, H.; Slabá, J.; Walterová, Z. and Rais, D. (2013). Recycling of waste poly(ethylene
terephthalate) with castor oil using microwave heating. Polymer Degradation and Stability
98(2013), pp. 2232-2243.
[19] Chen, D., Yin, L., Wang, H. and He, P. (2014). Pyrolysis technologies for municipal solid
waste: A review. Waste Management 34(2014), pp. 2466-2486.
[20] Roy, P.K., Mathur, R., Kumar, D. and Rajagopal, C. (2013). Tertiary Recycling of
Poly(ethylene terepththalate) Wastes for Production of Polyurethane-Polyisocyanurate
Foams. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 1 (2013): pp. 1062-1069.
[21] Loultcheva, M.K.; Proietto, M.; Jilov, N. and La Mantia, F.P. (1997). Recycling of high
density polyethylene containers. Polymer Degradation and Stability 57(1997), pp. 77-81.
[22] Cruz, S.A. and Zanin, M. (2003). Evaluation and identification of degradative processes
in post-consumer recycled high-density polyethylene. Polymer Degradation and Stability
80(2003), pp. 31-37.
[23] Santos, P. and Pezzin, S.H. (2003). Mechanical properties of polypropylene reinforced
with recycled-pet fibres. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 143-144(2003), pp. 517-
520.
[24] López, M. del Mar Castro; Pernas, A.I.A.; López, M.J.A., Latorre, A.L.; Vilariño, J.M.L.
and Rodríguez, M.V.G. (2014). Assessing changes on poly(ethylene terephthalate) properties
after recycling: Mechanical recycling in laboratory versus postconsumer recycled material.
Materials Chemistry and Physics 147(2014), pp. 884-894.
[25] Oliveux, G.; Dandy, L.O. and Leeke, G.A. (2015 – accepted manuscript). Current status
of recycling of fibre reinforced polymers: review of technologies, reuse and resulting
properties. Progress in Materials Science (2015), doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2015.01.004.
[26] Perou, A.L. and Vergnaud, J.M. (1997). Contaminant transfer during the co-extrusion of
food packages made of recycled polymer and virgin polymer layers. Computational and
Theoretical Polymer Science, Volume 7, No. 1, pp. 1-6.
[27] Mancini, S.D., Schwartzman, J.A.S., Nogueira, A.R., Kagohara, D.A. and Zanin, M.
(2010). Additional steps in mechanical recycling of PET. Journal of Cleaner Production
18(2010), pp. 92-100.
[28] Welle, F. (2011). Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling – An overview.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(2011), pp. 865-875.
[29] Welle, F. (2013). Is PET bottle-to-bottle recycling safe? Evaluation of post-consumer
recycling processes according to the EFSA guidelines. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, Volume 73 (2013), pp. 41–45.
[30] Rebeiz, K.S. (1995). Time-temperature properties of polymer concrete using recycled
PET. Cement & Concrete Composites 17(1995), pp. 119-124.
[31] Choi, Y.-W.; Moon, D.-J.; Chung, J.-S. and Cho, S.-K. (2005). Effects of waste PET
bottles aggregate on the properties of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 35(2005),
pp. 776-781.
[32] Siddique, R.; Khatib, J. and Kaur, I. (2008). Use of recycled plastic in concrete: A review.
Waste Management 28(2008), pp. 1835-1852.
[33] Won, J.-P.; Jang, C.-I.; Lee, S.-W.; Lee, S.-J. and Kim, H.-Y. (2010). Long-term
performance of recycled PET fibre-reinforced cement composites. Construction and Building
Materials 24(2010), pp. 660-665.
[34] Foti, D. (2013). Use of recycled waste pet bottles fibres for the reinforcement of concrete.
Composite Structures 96(2013), pp. 396-404.
[35] Ge, Z.; Huang, D.; Sun, R. And Gao, Z. (2014). Properties of plastic mortar made with
recycled polyethylene terephthalate. Construction and Building Materials 73(2014), pp. 682-
687.
[36] Islam, J., Meherier, S. and Islam, A.K.M.R. (2016). Effects of Waste PET as Coarse
Aggregate on the Fresh and Harden Properties of Concrete. Construction and Building
Materials 125 (2016): pp. 946-951.
[37]PET as Coarse Aggregate on the Fresh and Harden Properties of Concrete. Construction
and Building Materials 125 (2016): pp. 946-951.
[38] Ahmadinia, E., Zargar, M., Karim, M.R., Abdelaziz, M. and Shafigh, P. (2011). Using
waste plastic bottles as additive for stone mastic asphalt. Materials and Design 32(2011), pp.
4844-4849.
[39] Moghaddam, T.B., Soltani, M., Karim, M.R. (2015). Stiffness Modulus of Polyethylene
Terephthalate Modified Asphalt Mixture: A Statistical Analysis of the Laboratory Testing
Results. Materials and Design 68 (2015): pp. 88-96.
[40] Gürü, M.; Çubuk, M.K.; Arslan, D., Farzanian, S.A. and Bilici, İ. (2014). An approach to
the usage of polyethylene terphthalate (PET) waste as roadway pavement material. Journal
of Hazardous Materials 279(2014), pp. 302-310.
[41] Mello, D. de; Pezzin, S.H. and Amico, S.C. (2009). The effect of post-consumer PET
particles on the performance of flexible polyurethane foams. Polymer Testing 28(2009), pp.
702-708.
[42] Dai, J.-G.; Lam, L. and Ueda, T. (2012). Seismic retrofit of square RC columns with
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fibre reinforced polymer composites. Construction and
Building Materials 27(2012), pp. 206-217.
[43] Najafi, S.K. (2013). Use of recycled plastics in wood plastic composites – A review.
Waste Management 33(2013), pp. 1898-1905.
[44] Javier, C.S., Jorge, D.D., Sergio, A.R. and Roberto, Z.G. (2015). Optimization of the
Tensile and Flexural Strength of a Wood-PET Composite. Ingenieria Investigacion y
Technologia, volumen XVI(I), enero-marzo 2015: pp. 105-112.
[45] [ah] Lei, Y. and Wu, Q. (2012). High density polyethylene and poly(ethylene
terephthalate) in situ sub-micro fibril blends as a matrix for wood plastic composites.
Composites: Part A, 43 (2012): pp. 73-78.
[46] Ingrao, C.; Giudice, A. Lo; Tricase, C.; Rana, R.; Mbohwa, C. and Siracusa, V. (2014).
Recycled-PET fibre based panels for building thermal insulation: Environmental impact and
improvement potential assessment for a greener production. Science of the Total
Environment 493(2014), pp. 914-929.
[47] Gaggino, R. (2012). Water-resistant panels made from recycled plastics and resin.
Construction and Building Materials 35(2012), pp. 468-482.
[48] Nováková, K. and Achten, H. (2014). 150000 PET Bottles. A Book of PET Bottles in
Architecture. Faculty of Architecture, Czech Technical University in Prague, ISBN 978-80-
905693-1-7.
[49] Awaja, F. and Pavel, D. (2005). Recycling of PET. European Polymer Journal 41(2005),
pp. 1453-1477.
[50] http://www.livescience.com/32231-does-recycling-plastic-cost-more-than-making-it.html,
2012, seen 10, 2015.
[51] Parra, et al. High Value Carbon Materials From PET Recycling. Applied Surface Science
2004;238:304-308.
[52] Gottesman RT. Separation of poly(vinyl chloride) from poly(ethylene terephthalate) and
other plastics using automatic sortation devices. Makromol Chem, Macromol Symp
1992;57:133–43.
[53] Hájek M, Sobek J, Brustman J. Method for the Chemical Depolymerization of Waste
Polyethylene Terephthalate. US 20100133088 A1, 2007.
[54] Chinese patent CN103835428.
[55] Záruba J et al. Prefabricated element of Perimeter Masonry, Particularly for Dry Stone
Walling. CZ 294667. 2001.
[56] Jung Myung G. Pleated Plastic container. US 5584413. 1994.
[57] Bouffand MB, et al. Self Collapsible Blow-moulded Plastic Thin-walled Container.
WO 2014101956 A1. 2012
[58] Faltin G. Liquid Container. 000019620270. 1996
[59] Industrial model n. 34615.
[60] Industrial model n. 28247.
[61] Industrial model n. 33409.
[62] http://www.core77.com/posts/23643/building-a-bottle-brick-at-glasslab-a-case-study-by-
tim-dubitsky-23643.
[63] https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/

HIGHLIGHTS:
 Rich list of references
 Preview of existing bottle-bricks
 Test on usability of PET(b)rick – a building block made of polyethylene
tereftalate with the method of blow moulding.
 Pressure tests of the building unit done with evaporated dry ice - solid
CO2.
 Comparison of strength of the bottle filled with air, water, sand and CO2.