1

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Name: Reynold R. Reyes

Birthdate: January 5, 1998

Birthplace: Lucena City

Permanent Address: 1416 Pleasantville Lucena City

Contact Number: 0939-298-8519

Email Address: reynoldreyes84@yahoo.com

Educational Background:

School/University Inclusive Years Honor/Award

Magill Memorial School 2003-2010 With Honors

Quezon National High School 2010-2014

Southern Luzon State University 2014-present

Academic Affiliations:

SLSU Mechanical Engineering Student Society (SMESS) Member (2014-2017)

Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME) Member (2016-2019)

 2

Name: John Anthony E. Sioco

Birthdate: November 22, 1997

Birthplace: Quezon City

Permanent Address: 1A Mabini St. Brgy. San Diego Zone 4 Tayabas City

Contact Number: 0917-662-7263

Email Address: aj22sioco.jmr06@gmail.com

Educational Background:

School/University Inclusive Years Honor/Award

Tayabas East Central School I 2003-2010

Luis Palad National High School 2010-2014 Mr. Paladian 2013

Southern Luzon State University 2014-present

Academic Affiliations:

SLSU Mechanical Engineering Student Society (SMESS) Member (2015-2017)

Representative (2014-2015)

Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME) Member (2016-2019)

CHED Tulong Dunong 1st District of Quezon Scholar (2017-2018)

 3

Name: Phoebe Danielle B. Surquia

Birthdate: January 29, 1998

Birthplace: San Juan Metro Manila

Permanent Address: Brgy. Talaan Sariaya Quezon

Contact Number: 0999-649-4124

Email Address: surquia.phoebe@yahoo.com

Educational Background:

School/University Inclusive Years Honor/Award

Talaan Elementary School 2003-2010 With Honors

St. Joseph’s Academy 2010-2014

Southern Luzon State University 2014-present

Academic Affiliations:

SLSU Mechanical Engineering Student Society (SMESS) Member (2014-2015)

Representative (2016-2017)
Representative (2017-2018)
Philippine Society of Mechanical Engineers (PSME) Member (2016-2017)
Board of Director (2017-2018)
VP- Internal (2018-2019)
 4

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

We hereby affirm that this submission is our own effort and that, to the best of our

intellect and certainty, it include no previously published material or written by another person

nor material to which a substantial extent has been acknowledge for the award of any other

degree or diploma of a university or other high-learning institute, except where the due

acknowledgement is made in the text.

We also affirm that the intellectual content of this thesis is the fruit of our own work,

even we have received assistance from others on language expression, presentation and style.

REYNOLD R. REYES

Researcher

PHOEBE DANIELLE B. SURQUIA

Researcher

JOHN ANTHONY E. SIOCO

Researcher
 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

SCOPE AND DELIMITATION

DEFINITION OF TERMS

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

RELATED LITERATURE

RELATED STUDIES

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

SYNTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH LOCALE

RESEARCH APPARATUS

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

RESEARCH DESIGN
 6

PROCEDURES AND DATA GATHERING

MATERIAL SELELCTION PROCEDURE

FABRICATION AND ASSEMBLY

OPERATION

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

REFERENCES CITED

APPENDICES
 7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

Table 1. Plastic Identification, Types of Plastic and Common

Packaging Application 10

Table 2. Blade details and Machine Specification 27

Table 3. Average Mass Recovered and Rated Output 28

Table 4. Average result of size of output, mass and time of

re-shredding for unpass plastic, shredding time and mass recovered 28

Table 5. Shredding Time, Percentage Recovered and Percentage Loss 29

Table 6. Size of Output, Unpassed Plastic, Shredding Time and

Mass Recovered 29

Table 7. Machine and Blade Specification 34

Table 8. Average Mass Recovered and Rated Output comparison 35

Table 9. Blade Position Set No.1 for average result of size of output, mass

and time of re-shredding for unpass plastic, shredding time

and mass recovered 36

Table 10. Blade Position Set No.2 for average result of size of output, mass

and time of re-shredding for unpass plastic, shredding time

and mass recovered 38

Table 11. Percent Mass Recovered and Percent Mass Loss comparison 39

Table 12. The significant difference on the average time, mass and output size 40

Table 13. Difference of average mean, average distance result vary from

the mean and total number of test results 41

 8

Table 14. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.1 for

Polyethylene Terephthalate-PET) 50

Table 15. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.1

for High-Density Polyethylene-HDPE) 50

Table 16. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.1

for Low-Density Polyethylene-LDPE) 50

Table 17. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.1

for Polypropylene-PP) 51

Table 18. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.2

for Polyethylene Terephthalate -PET) 51

Table 19. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.2

for High-Density Polyethylene-HDPE) 51

Table 20. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.2

for Low-Density Polyethylene-LDPE) 52

Table 21. Based on a 100g of input mass (Blade Position Set No.2

for Polypropylene-PP) 52

Table 22. Shredding Time, Percent Recovered and Percent Loss comparison

for Polyethlene Terephthalate (PET), based from 100g input mass 53

Table 23. Shredding Time, Percent Recovered and Percent Loss comparison

for Polyethlene High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE),

based from 100g input mass 53

Table 24. Shredding Time, Percent Recovered and Percent Loss comparison

for Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), based from 100g input mass 54

 9

Table 25. Shredding Time, Percent Recovered and Percent Loss comparison

for Polypropylene (PP), based from 100g input mass 54

Table 26. Service Factor, Nsf 66

Table 27. Standard V-Belt Lengths; Horsepower Constants 68

Table 28. Small Diameter Factors 69

Table 29. Arc of Contact Factors 69

Table 30. Length Correction Factors 70

Table 31. Machine Tools Efficiency Factor, E 71

Table 32. Costs of Materials and Labor used for the Prototype 83
 10

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Pages

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Figure 2. Belt Sections from Horsepower and Speed

Figure 3. Plagiarism Result

 11

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX Pages

Appendix A. Statistical Analysis

Appendix B. Tables for the Gathered Data

Appendix C. Formulas to be used

Appendix D. Computation

Appendix E. Tables used for Computation

Appendix F. Three-Dimensional Design of Prototype

Appendix G. Development of Actual Prototype

Appendix H. Materials Billing

Appendix I. Gantt Chart

Appendix J. Certification of English Critic

Appendix K. Plagiarism Result

 12

ABSTRACT

This research study “Multi Plastic Type Shredder” is aimed to design a plastic shredder

blade that can shred multiple type of plastic waste and analysis of construction and mechanism

of the prototype machine.

The general objectives of the research study are to determine the factors to be considered

for designing the rotating blades to shred the different type of plastic. The shredding machine is

mainly consist of the following main components: top hopper, drive shaft, frame, electric motor,

shredding chamber, shredding stationary blades, shredding rotating blades and output container.

In the development of the cutter blades of the shredder, the following factors considered

in this study are the thickness of blade, type of steel, recovered mass, rated output, the number of

pieces and mass of the shredded plastic that falls on the mass ranges. There were two positions of

plastic shredder blade that were considered for the machine shredding namely Blade Position Et

No. 1and Blade Position Set No. 2.

Based from the gathered data, the researchers accumulated the time of shredding, mass

recovered, rated output and average size of output. For the Blade Position Set No. 1,

Polyethylene Terephthalate(PET), the data are: 44.92s, 93.17g, 124.45 grams/min and 4.895 sq.

in. respectively, for High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), the data are: 50.58s, 97.33g, 115.46

grams/min and 4.388 sq. in. respectively, for Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), the data are:

43.97s, 96.27g, 131.37 grams/min and 4.605 sq. in. respectively and for Polypropylene (PP), the

data are: 53.34s, 94.7g, 106.50 grams/min and 4.158 sq. in. respectively. For the Blade Position

Set No. 2, Polyethylene Terephthalate(PET), the data are: 68s, 91.33g, 55.92 grams/min and

4.890 sq. in. respectively, for High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE), the data are: 108s, 94.57g,
 13

52.54 grams/min and 4.384 sq. in. respectively, for Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE), the data

are: 95s, 94.3g, 59.56 grams/min and 4.353 sq. in. respectively and for Polypropylene (PP), the

data are: 109s, 93.6g, 51.52 grams/min and 4.073 sq. in. respectively.

This research study used the experiment method of operating efficiency and the

performance of the designed blade for the plastic shredder. The researchers considered the

different types of plastics for application.

In the actual development of prototype, the researchers determined that from the

comparison between the two blade designs, Blade Position set No. 1 is more effective to shred

plastics in terms of time of shredding, mass recovered and output size results.

The factors that must be considered in developing the plastic shredder are the size of the

plastics to be shred, volume reduction, minimizes human intervention, high capacity of the

machine, easy maintenance and materials especially on the blade designs to be used.

The researchers recommends the following: appropriate clearance of the rotating blades.

Keywords: shredding, plastic, rotating blade, stationary blade,