1

TRADE PROJECT

TITLE: PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF PRECAST PLASTIC FLOORS IN

PLACE OF THE CURRENTLY USED IN-SITU CONCRETE

PRESENTED BY: MAINA VICTORIA LUCY WANJIRU

PRESENTED TO: KENYA NATIONAL EXAMINATION COUNCIL IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF DIPLOMA IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING AT THE NYERI NATIONAL POLYTECHNIC.

COURSE CODE: 2707

EXAM SERIES: JULY SERIES

INDEX NO: 2021150493

SUPERVISOR:Mr THUMBI
 2

Declaration
I declare that this project proposal is my original work and that it has never been in
existence and neither has been presented to Kenya national examination council KNEC
or any other examination body.

Candidate name: WAFULA N BENJAMIN

Index number: 5031112339

NAME……………………………………………
Signature………………………

Supervisor’s name: MR. SIKOTO JUMA

Date …………………………………..…………
Signature………………………

.
 3

Dedication
I dedicate this project proposal to my beloved family of Mr. Samuel Momo and all who
have supported in any part in compiling of the whole work to see it is successful. I also
dedicate this project proposal to all who have participated in one way be it moral support,
financial support and other support throughout my study at Kitale national polytechnic.
 4

Acknowledgement
I wish to acknowledge my sincere thanks to the almighty God for the gift of life and all
the favors that I continue receiving from him. I also wish to extend my gratitude to my
supervisor Mr. SIKOTO JUMA for his guidance and assistance in the writing of this
project proposal from the start to the final part and also seeing it is a success. In addition,
I also give thanks to all those who gave me moral and financial support through
compiling of the project including family, friends and more especially the Kitale national
polytechnic.

MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL

 5

Contents
Declaration...............................................................................................................2
Dedication................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgement...................................................................................................4
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION......................................................................9
1.1 Background of the Study................................................................................9
1.2 Problem Statement.......................................................................................10
1.3 Objectives of the Study................................................................................12
1.3.1 General Objective.....................................................................................12
1.3.2 Specific Objectives...................................................................................12
1.4 Research Questions......................................................................................12
1.5 Significance of the Study.............................................................................12
1.6 Scope of the Study.......................................................................................13
1.7 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................13
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................16
2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................16
2.2 Historical Development...............................................................................16
2.2.1 In-Situ Concrete Floors.............................................................................16
2.2.2 Precast Plastic Floors................................................................................16
2.3 Materials Used.............................................................................................16
2.3.1 In-Situ Concrete........................................................................................17
2.3.2 Precast Plastic...........................................................................................17
 6

2.4 Construction Methods..................................................................................17

2.4.1 In-Situ Concrete Flooring.........................................................................17
2.4.2 Precast Plastic Flooring.............................................................................17
2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages....................................................................18
2.6 Comparative Analysis..................................................................................18
2.6.1 Cost-Effectiveness....................................................................................18
2.6.2 Sustainability.............................................................................................19
2.6.3 Durability..................................................................................................19
2.6.4 Construction Speed...................................................................................19
2.6.5 Recyclability.............................................................................................19
2.6.6 Structural Performance.............................................................................19
2.7 Innovations and Trends................................................................................20
2.8 Gaps in the Literature...................................................................................20
2.9 Summary......................................................................................................20
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................23
3.1 Introduction..................................................................................................23
3.2 Research Design...........................................................................................25
3.3 Study Area....................................................................................................27
3.4 Population and Sampling.............................................................................29
3.4.1 Target Population......................................................................................29
3.4.2 Sample Size...............................................................................................30
3.4.3 Sampling Techniques................................................................................30
3.4.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria...............................................................31
3.4.5 Justification for Sampling Strategy...........................................................32
3.5 Data Collection Methods.............................................................................33
3.5.1 Primary Data.............................................................................................33
3.5.2 Secondary Data.........................................................................................35
3.7.2 Time Efficiency.........................................................................................36
[Link] Purpose of Time Efficiency Assessment...............................................36
[Link] Data Collection Methods.......................................................................36
 7

[Link] Parameters Measured.............................................................................37

[Link] Data Recording and Validation..............................................................37
3.7.3 Structural Performance.............................................................................38
[Link] Purpose of Structural Performance Testing...........................................38
[Link] Testing Standards and Guidelines..........................................................38
[Link] Specimen Preparation............................................................................39
[Link] Testing Procedures.................................................................................39
[Link] Data Collection and Recording..............................................................40
[Link] Summary................................................................................................40
3.8 Validity and Reliability of Data...................................................................41
3.8.1. Validity.....................................................................................................41
3.8.2. Reliability.................................................................................................41
3.9 Ethical Considerations.................................................................................43
3.10 Limitations of the Study.............................................................................43
3.11 Summary....................................................................................................44
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS.......................45
4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................45
4.2 Structural Performance Analysis.................................................................45
Figure 4.1: Structural Performance Comparison...............................................46
4.2.1 Material Strength and Load Capacity.......................................................46
4.2.2 Flexural Behavior and Cracking...............................................................46
4.2.3 Structural Robustness and Connections....................................................47
4.2.4. Fatigue, Durability, and Long-Term Behavior........................................47
4.3. Time Efficiency Analysis............................................................................49
4.4. Environmental Impact Analysis..................................................................53
4.4.1 Environmental Impact...............................................................................53
[Link] Water Usage...........................................................................................53
[Link] Construction Waste Generation.............................................................54
4..4.1.4 Energy Efficiency.................................................................................54
[Link] Recyclability and Circular Economy Compatibility..............................54
 8

[Link] Use of Non-Renewable Resources.........................................................55

4.4.2 Interpretation of Data................................................................................55
4.4.3 Environmental Impact Chart and comparison..........................................56
4.4.4 Summary...................................................................................................57
4.5 stakeholders’ perception analysis.................................................................58
4.5.1 Summary of Survey Results......................................................................58
4.5.2 Indicator-by-Indicator Analysis................................................................58
4.5.3 Perception by Stakeholder Category.........................................................60
4.5.6 Implications of Stakeholder Perception....................................................61
4.6 Cost Comparison..........................................................................................62
4.6.1 Initial Construction Cost Analysis............................................................62
4.6.2 Maintenance and Lifecycle Cost Analysis................................................63
4.6.3 Economic Evaluation Over Time..............................................................64
4.6.4 Other Economic Advantages of Precast Plastic Floors.............................64
Recommendations..............................................................................................68
References..........................................................................................................71
 9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

In-situ concrete has long been used in the construction industry for structural
flooring systems because of its high compressive strength, longevity, and
accessibility. Long curing times, labor-intensiveness, proneness to construction
errors, and environmental concerns due to high carbon emissions associated with
cement production are some of the drawbacks of in-situ concrete flooring.

Precast plastic floors are one of the alternative flooring systems made possible by
recent developments in material science and sustainable building technologies.
These are modular floor systems made from recycled, high-strength plastic off-
site, then delivered and put together on-site. Many advantages come with this
technology, such as shorter construction times, better quality control, lighter
weight, and increased environmental sustainability.

The viability of using precast plastic floors in place of conventional in-situ

concrete floors during building construction is investigated in this study. It seeks
 10

to evaluate the practicality, cost-effectiveness, environmental impact, and

structural integrity of implementing plastic-based floor systems in the building
industry, particularly in developing nations.
 11

1.2 Problem Statement

Traditional in-situ concrete flooring technologies have long been used in the
construction industry for both residential and commercial structures. Although
this approach has demonstrated its structural dependability and is well-known to
engineers and builders, it is not without problems. Using in-situ concrete flooring
has a number of drawbacks, such as lengthy building schedules, a high manpower
reliance, expensive formwork systems, and substantial environmental effects from
cement manufacture. Furthermore, in-situ concrete necessitates specialized labor
and ongoing supervision to guarantee adequate curing, leveling, and strength
development—all of which lead to inefficiencies in the construction process as a
whole.

In recent years, the growing urgency of environmental sustainability and the push
for innovative, time-efficient building technologies have brought alternative
construction methods into focus. Among these alternatives is the use of precast
plastic flooring systems. Precast plastic floors present a lightweight, modular, and
environmentally friendly solution that offers the potential to dramatically reduce
construction time, waste generation, and labor costs. Unlike in-situ concrete, these
systems are manufactured off-site under controlled conditions, ensuring consistent
quality and reducing on-site work to mere installation, thus minimizing errors and
delays.

However, despite the promising benefits, precast plastic floors are still
underutilized in mainstream construction, particularly in regions where
conventional concrete techniques dominate. A major barrier is the lack of
comprehensive evaluation and data regarding the structural performance, cost-
effectiveness, durability, and long-term environmental impact of such systems in
comparison to traditional concrete floors.
 12

This project proposes the construction and testing of precast plastic floors as a
viable replacement for in-situ concrete floors. The primary objective is to explore
the technical, economic, and environmental feasibility of this alternative flooring
system. The project will involve the design, fabrication, and installation of
prototype precast plastic flooring units, followed by comparative assessments
with standard in-situ concrete floors. Key considerations will include load-bearing
capacity, ease of installation, cost implications, recyclability, and overall
sustainability.

By addressing the shortcomings of in-situ concrete and demonstrating the

advantages of precast plastic alternatives, this project aims to contribute to the
development of more sustainable, innovative, and efficient construction practices.
It is a step toward rethinking traditional methods and embracing forward-looking
solutions that align with modern engineering challenges and environmental goals.
 13

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

To assess the feasibility and potential advantages of using precast plastic floors as
an alternative to in-situ concrete floors in building construction.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

To compare the structural performance of precast plastic floors and in-situ
concrete floors.

To evaluate the cost implications of adopting precast plastic floors.

To analyze the environmental impact of plastic flooring compared to concrete.

To determine the practical challenges and limitations of implementing precast

plastic floors in local construction practices.

1.4 Research Questions

What are the structural capabilities of precast plastic floors relative to in-situ
concrete?

How do the costs of constructing precast plastic floors compare with in-situ
concrete floors?

What environmental benefits can be derived from using recycled plastic in

flooring systems?

What challenges may arise in the implementation of precast plastic floors in

construction projects?

1.5 Significance of the Study

This study is significant in promoting innovation and sustainability in the
construction industry. By exploring the use of precast plastic floors, the research
contributes to the development of eco-friendly building solutions, particularly in
regions facing waste management and housing challenges. Additionally, this
project may provide insights for policymakers, engineers, and construction
 14

professionals seeking to reduce carbon footprints and adopt more efficient

building methods.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The study will focus on the comparative analysis of precast plastic floors and in-
situ concrete floors in the context of low-rise and mid-rise buildings. It will cover
aspects such as structural behavior, cost analysis, installation time, environmental
impact, and practicality of implementation. The research will be based on both
experimental testing and data collection from existing literature and case studies.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

The research may be constrained by limited availability of local data on plastic
flooring systems, high costs of prototype development, and regulatory
uncertainties regarding the approval of plastic-based construction materials.
Furthermore, variations in material quality and manufacturing processes may
affect the generalizability of the findings.
 15

References

Almeida, P., & Santos, M. (2022). Innovations in Modular Plastic

Flooring Systems: A Structural Analysis. Sustainable Construction
Review, 12(3), 89–97.

Kumar, R., & Patel, D. (2023). Sustainable Applications of Recycled

Plastics in Structural Components. Journal of Construction Materials and
Technology, 18(2), 125–134.

Mutiso, K., & Wanjohi, T. (2025). Environmental Impact Assessment of

Plastic

Ngugi, J. M., & Ochieng, A. (2024). Comparative Study of Precast and In-
Situ Concrete Floors in Mid-Rise Buildings. International Journal of Civil
Engineering Research, 29(1), 33–47.
16
 17

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
Traditional materials and techniques, especially in-situ concrete for floor systems,
have long been used in the construction business. But growing demands for cost-
effectiveness, sustainability, and speedier building have prompted research into
substitutes such precast plastic flooring. The literature on these two floor
construction techniques is reviewed in this chapter, which also examines their
materials, construction methods, historical development, benefits and drawbacks,
and performance attributes, such as cost, durability, sustainability, construction
speed, recyclability, and structural integrity.

2.2 Historical Development

2.2.1 In-Situ Concrete Floors

Since the early 20th century, in-situ concrete—also referred to as cast-in-place—
has been utilized extensively. Monolithic concrete slabs' high structural
performance and design flexibility account for their widespread use. Because in-
situ concrete floors may create irregular shapes and maintain structural systems,
they have historically been chosen.

2.2.2 Precast Plastic Floors

Although the idea of employing plastic in construction was first proposed in the
middle of the 20th century, its use was constrained by issues with strength and
fire. Fiber-reinforced polymers (FRP) and recycled plastics started to be used in
non-structural and semi-structural components as a result of developments in
composite materials and polymer science. Precast plastic flooring systems have
just been developed and proven in the last few decades, particularly in lightweight
constructions, temporary or modular construction, and green building designs.

2.3 Materials Used

 18

2.3.1 In-Situ Concrete

- Cement, sand, aggregate, and water are the main components.

- Often includes reinforcing steel bars or mesh.

- Additives like plasticizers, retarders, or fly ash improve workability or

performance.

2.3.2 Precast Plastic

- Common materials include polypropylene (PP), polyethylene terephthalate
(PET), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC), often recycled.

- Fiber reinforcements (glass, carbon, or natural fibers) may be used to improve

strength.

- Modular forms are designed and manufactured off-site under controlled

conditions.

2.4 Construction Methods

2.4.1 In-Situ Concrete Flooring

- Constructed by pouring concrete into formwork directly at the construction site.

- Requires curing time (typically 7–28 days).

- Heavy machinery, skilled labor, and temporary support structures (scaffolding

and formwork) are necessary.

- Weather conditions significantly affect curing and scheduling.

2.4.2 Precast Plastic Flooring

- Manufactured in factories using molds and automated systems.

- Transported to site and assembled with minimal labor.

- Typically employs modular interlocking mechanisms.

- No curing is needed on site, and construction is largely unaffected by weather.

 19

2.5 Advantages and Disadvantages

Feature In-Situ Concrete Precast Plastic

Advantages - High load - Lightweight

capacity - Fast installation
- Fire resistant - Recyclable
- Custom shapes - Sustainable

Disadvantages - Slow construction - Lower structural

- Labor-intensive strength (in some
- Weather- cases)
dependent - Fire resistance
concerns
- Limited long-span
use

2.6 Comparative Analysis

2.6.1 Cost-Effectiveness
In-situ concrete involves significant labor, formwork costs, and time delays.
Maintenance (cracks, corrosion) adds to life-cycle costs.

Precast plastic has a higher initial material cost but reduces labor and time,
leading to overall cost savings in repetitive, modular projects. Its lightweight
nature also lowers transport and foundation costs.
 20

2.6.2 Sustainability
Concrete production is carbon-intensive and consumes non-renewable resources.

Plastic floors made from recycled polymers reduce landfill waste and carbon
emissions. Reusability and lower embodied energy make them attractive for
sustainable construction.

2.6.3 Durability
Concrete is durable but prone to cracking, spalling, and corrosion of embedded
steel.

Plastics resist corrosion and chemicals but may degrade under UV exposure or
extreme heat unless properly treated. Fiber-reinforced plastics show promising
long-term durability.

2.6.4 Construction Speed

In-situ systems require on-site curing and formwork setup, causing delays.

Precast plastic floors can be installed rapidly, ideal for fast-track or emergency
construction.

2.6.5 Recyclability
Concrete is difficult to recycle, often down cycled into base materials.

Precast plastic floors, especially modular types, are easy to disassemble and
recycle, supporting circular construction principles.

2.6.6 Structural Performance

In-situ concrete excels in bearing loads and fire resistance.

Precast plastic floors may be used in non-load-bearing or light-duty applications,

although composite systems (plastic-concrete hybrids) are being researched for
better performance.

2.7 Innovations and Trends

Recent studies (e.g., Alwan et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020) explore the
integration of 3D printing and recycled thermoplastics to fabricate modular floor
 21

panels. Innovations in bio-based polymers and nanocomposite reinforcements are

also expanding the structural capabilities of plastic flooring systems. Hybrid
systems combining precast plastic modules with thin concrete toppings are being
tested for improved fire resistance and structural performance.

2.8 Gaps in the Literature

- Limited long-term performance data exists for plastic flooring in structural
applications.

- Standardized design codes for plastic floor systems are still under development.

- More research is needed on fire resistance, thermal performance, and acoustic

insulation of plastic floors.

2.9 Summary
The use of precast plastic flooring systems presents a viable alternative to
traditional in-situ concrete floors, especially in modular, temporary, or sustainable
construction. While in-situ concrete remains dominant for heavy-duty
applications, precast plastics offer significant benefits in speed, recyclability, and
environmental impact. Further research and code development are essential to
expand the use of plastic flooring in structural roles.
 22

References

1. Alwan, Z., Jones, P., & Holgate, P. (2018). Sustainability and

construction materials: Recycled polymers and hybrid systems. Journal of
Building Materials, 45(3), 210–218.

2. Zhang, Y., Li, M., & Song, J. (2020). Performance of fiber-reinforced

recycled plastic in precast floor panels. Construction and Building
Materials, 253, 119181.

3. Neville, A.M. (2011). Properties of Concrete (5th ed.). Pearson

Education.
 23

4. BSI. (2019). Precast concrete and plastic construction elements –

Performance standards. British Standards Institution.
 24

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction
The choice of an appropriate research methodology is crucial in achieving reliable and
valid results in any scientific investigation. This chapter outlines the detailed
methodological framework employed to assess the viability, efficiency, and overall
performance of precast plastic floors as an alternative to conventional in-situ concrete
flooring systems. The methodology is designed to provide a comprehensive
understanding of both the technical and practical implications of using precast plastic
floors in the construction industry.

Physical characteristics, financial ramifications, environmental impact, installation

techniques, and stakeholder views are just a few of the many data points that the study
collects by combining qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Triangulation is
made possible by this mixed-method technique, which raises the reliability and validity
of the results.

By carefully selecting research design, sampling techniques, data collection tools, and
analysis methods, this chapter ensures a systematic investigation that addresses the
research questions and objectives stated earlier. The chapter also discusses the
experimental setup for testing the structural and mechanical properties of both precast
plastic and in-situ concrete floors under controlled laboratory conditions. Furthermore, it
highlights how data will be analyzed and presented using charts, graphs, and tables to
facilitate clear interpretation.

To promote openness and guarantee compliance with academic research norms, the
study's limits, validity, reliability, and ethical considerations are also covered. This
methodological approach provides the groundwork for producing perceptive and useful
 25

findings regarding the viability and sustainability of utilizing precast plastic flooring in
modern building projects.
 26

3.2 Research Design

The research design outlines the overall strategy and approach adopted to systematically
investigate the feasibility, performance, and practicality of using precast plastic floors as
an alternative to traditional in-situ concrete flooring. Given the multifaceted nature of this
study, which involves both technical and socio-economic factors, a mixed-method
research design was employed. This design integrates both quantitative and qualitative
research methods to provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem.

Quantitative Research Component:

This component focuses on obtaining measurable data through experiments and surveys.
Laboratory testing was conducted to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of
precast plastic floors, such as compressive strength, flexural strength, load-bearing
capacity, and durability. These tests were compared against the corresponding properties
of conventional in-situ concrete floors. Additionally, quantitative data on cost,
installation time, and environmental impact (such as carbon emissions) were collected
and analyzed statistically. The quantitative approach enables objective comparison and
validation of precast plastic floors in terms of structural performance and economic
viability.

Qualitative Research Component:

To complement the numerical data, qualitative research methods were employed to

capture insights, opinions, and perceptions of industry professionals and end-users.
Structured interviews were conducted with civil engineers, project managers, contractors,
and suppliers to understand their experiences, challenges, and attitudes toward adopting
precast plastic flooring technology. Site observations were also made to examine
installation processes and identify practical constraints or advantages not captured
 27

through laboratory tests alone. This qualitative data enriches the study by providing
contextual understanding and stakeholder perspectives that influence adoption decisions.

Descriptive and Experimental Elements:

The research design combines descriptive research, which involves documenting and
summarizing existing practices and perceptions, with experimental research, which
involves hands-on testing and measurement of materials. Descriptive research helps
identify current trends, market acceptance, and knowledge gaps, while experimental
research validates the technical feasibility of precast plastic floors.

Case Study Approach:

Selected case studies of construction projects that have implemented precast plastic floors
provide real-world evidence of their performance. These case studies allow for detailed
examination of installation timelines, cost implications, and durability over time, offering
practical insights beyond laboratory conditions.

Overall, the research design is structured to produce balanced, reliable, and actionable
findings that address both the theoretical and practical aspects of replacing in-situ
concrete floors with precast plastic alternatives. By combining multiple methods, the
study aims to overcome limitations inherent in any single approach and provide a well-
rounded basis for recommendations.
 28

3.3 Study Area

The study was conducted in Nyeri Town and its surrounding areas, located in Nyeri
County, Kenya. This region was selected as the focal point of the research due to its
growing construction industry, diverse infrastructure projects, and accessibility to both
rural and urban development zones. Nyeri Town serves as the administrative and
economic hub of the county, offering a balanced mix of residential, commercial, and
institutional buildings, which makes it an ideal environment for investigating both
conventional and innovative construction practices.

Nyeri has witnessed rapid infrastructural development over the past decade, driven by
both government and private sector investments in housing, road construction, and public
facilities. As a result, there is an increasing demand for affordable, sustainable, and
efficient construction materials and techniques. The town is home to various construction
companies, hardware suppliers, consulting engineers, and artisans who are directly
involved in building projects. This ecosystem provides a fertile ground for conducting
comprehensive field investigations and collecting data from a wide range of industry
stakeholders.

Additionally, Nyeri’s proximity to major highways and its central location within the
Mount Kenya region makes it accessible to suppliers and manufacturers of precast and
plastic construction materials. The town also has several technical institutions and
colleges offering engineering and construction-related programs, whose faculty and
students formed part of the informed population consulted in the study.

Field visits were conducted at various construction sites within Nyeri Town and nearby
areas such as King’ong’o, Ruring’u, Skuta, Kamakwa, and Dedan Kimathi University
vicinity. These sites provided practical insights into the application of in-situ concrete
 29

flooring and the potential for substituting it with precast plastic flooring. Observations
from ongoing residential and commercial developments allowed the researcher to
document real-life challenges and opportunities associated with site-cast floors, including
labor intensity, curing times, material wastage, and environmental considerations.

Furthermore, Nyeri’s climatic conditions and soil characteristics—predominantly well-

drained red loam soils and moderate rainfall—are conducive for construction activities
year-round. These environmental factors made it feasible to monitor material behavior
and structural performance without extreme weather interruptions, thereby enhancing the
reliability of the experimental data gathered during the study.

In summary, Nyeri Town and its environs presented an optimal setting for this research
due to their active construction scene, availability of diverse stakeholders, accessibility of
materials, and relevance to current trends in sustainable building practices. The findings
from this region are expected to be reflective of similar urban centers in Kenya and
possibly other developing regions exploring cost-effective and sustainable construction
alternatives.
 30

3.4 Population and Sampling

In any research study, identifying the right population and selecting an appropriate
sample is critical to ensuring that the data collected is representative, reliable, and
relevant to the research objectives. This section outlines the target population, sample
size, and the sampling techniques employed in this study to assess the feasibility of using
precast plastic floors instead of in-situ concrete floors in Nyeri Town and its environs.

3.4.1 Target Population

The target population for this study comprises individuals and organizations actively
involved in or affected by construction activities in Nyeri County. This includes:

Construction professionals such as civil engineers, structural engineers, quantity

surveyors, and project managers.

Artisans and site workers involved in floor installation and general building works.

Contractors and developers who make material and design decisions.

Suppliers and vendors of construction materials, especially those dealing with concrete,
plastics, and precast systems.

Building owners and clients who influence construction preferences through demand for
cost-effective and durable solutions.
 31

These stakeholders were chosen because of their first-hand experience with floor
construction techniques, cost implications, installation challenges, and overall
performance of both precast and in-situ systems.

3.4.2 Sample Size

To ensure diversity and depth of information, a total sample of 40 respondents was
selected for the study, broken down as follows:

20 construction professionals, including engineers, architects, and contractors.

10 site workers and artisans, with practical knowledge of floor construction processes.

5 suppliers of construction materials, with insights into material availability and pricing.

5 building owners and clients, whose feedback offered an end-user perspective.

This sample size was considered adequate for a case-based exploratory study within a
focused geographic area, allowing the researcher to obtain both technical and experiential
data.

3.4.3 Sampling Techniques

The study employed a combination of purposive sampling and random sampling
techniques to select participants from the target population.

Purposive Sampling was used to select construction professionals and suppliers. These
individuals were deliberately chosen based on their qualifications, roles in the industry,
and relevance to the research questions. The goal was to ensure that responses came from
experienced stakeholders capable of providing expert opinions on the use of precast
plastic and in-situ concrete floors.

Random Sampling was used to select site workers and clients. This was done to reduce
bias and ensure that the sample represented a wide cross-section of opinions from the
 32

grassroots level. Workers were randomly selected from various active construction sites
across Nyeri Town and surrounding areas such as King’ong’o, Kamakwa, and Ruring’u.

3.4.4 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To further refine the sample and enhance data reliability, the following criteria were
applied:

Inclusion Criteria:

Participants must have at least one year of experience in the construction industry.

Participants must have been involved in projects where either precast or in-situ concrete
floors were used.

Participants must reside or operate within Nyeri County.

Exclusion Criteria:

Individuals with no practical knowledge of floor construction.

Respondents who were unavailable or unwilling to provide informed consent.

 33

3.4.5 Justification for Sampling Strategy

The combination of purposive and random sampling was chosen to balance depth and
breadth in data collection. While purposive sampling ensured expert input for technical
evaluation, random sampling increased the generalizability of the findings by including
views from the broader construction workforce and building users.

This diverse and targeted sampling framework allowed the study to collect rich, multi-
dimensional data necessary to analyze the comparative effectiveness, cost implications,
and adoption challenges of precast plastic floors versus in-situ concrete floors.
 34

3.5 Data Collection Methods

3.5.1 Primary Data

Questionnaires: Distributed to assess perception and practical experiences.

Structured questionnaires were distributed electronically and physically to a wider group

of stakeholders, including:

 Civil engineers

 Architects

 Project managers
 35

 Real estate developers

 Facility managers.

The survey covered topics such as:

 Preferences between precast plastic and in-situ concrete floors

 Perceived benefits and drawbacks

 Cost considerations

 Installation and labor requirements

 Long-term maintenance expectations

 Environmental sustainability concerns.

Responses were analyzed statistically to identify trends and general attitudes within the
industry.
 36

Structured Interviews: Conducted with 10 industry experts.

Laboratory Tests: Performed to measure physical properties.

Laboratory tests and small-scale prototype models were developed to evaluate:

 Compressive and flexural strength of precast plastic floor panels

 Load-bearing capacity under static and dynamic loads

 Fire resistance and thermal insulation properties

 Acoustic insulation performance

 Chemical and weathering resistance

 Weight and ease of transportation/installation.

The experimental results provided empirical evidence to support the technical viability of
the proposed flooring system.

3.5.2 Secondary Data

Existing literature, academic journals, technical specifications, and project reports.
 37

A thorough review of existing literature was conducted to collect background information

and establish a theoretical framework. Sources included:

 Academic journals and conference proceedings

 Technical manuals and design codes
 Government regulations and standards (local and international)
 Manufacturer’s product datasheets and brochures
 Industry reports on sustainable construction methods
 Previous research on alternative flooring systems.

The literature review provided insights into the material properties of plastics, structural
behavior of precast systems, environmental assessments, and comparative studies with
conventional in-situ concrete floors.

3.7.2 Time Efficiency

[Link] Purpose of Time Efficiency Assessment

Time efficiency was assessed to compare the overall construction duration required for
installing precast plastic floors versus in-situ concrete floors. Construction time is a
critical factor that affects project cost, scheduling, labor utilization, and overall project
delivery.

[Link] Data Collection Methods

Time efficiency data were collected using the following approaches:

 Direct Observation:
Site visits were conducted where both precast plastic and in-situ concrete floor
installations were observed. The duration of each construction activity was
recorded from start to completion.
 Interviews with Construction Professionals:
 38

Structured interviews were conducted with project managers, site engineers,

contractors, and supervisors to gather estimates of time requirements for various
stages of floor installation.
 Review of Construction Schedules and Reports:
Project schedules, daily reports, and contractor documentation were reviewed to
obtain recorded installation times.
 Experimental Simulations (if applicable):
In cases where full-scale projects were not available, small-scale experimental
setups were used to simulate both methods, and the time taken for each phase was
measured.

[Link] Parameters Measured

The following time-related parameters were recorded for both precast plastic and in-situ
concrete floors:

 Material preparation time

 Transportation time to site
 Installation time
 Curing time (for in-situ concrete)
 Finishing time
 Total floor system installation time

[Link] Data Recording and Validation

All recorded time data were logged using digital time-tracking devices and manually
verified by on-site supervisors to ensure accuracy. Where possible, multiple observations
were conducted to account for variations in work conditions, labor productivity, and
weather influences.
 39

3.7.3 Structural Performance

[Link] Purpose of Structural Performance Testing

Structural performance testing was conducted to assess the ability of precast plastic floors
to withstand applied loads and compare their performance with conventional in-situ
concrete floors. The key parameters evaluated included compressive strength, flexural
strength, and overall load-bearing capacity. These tests provide crucial information
regarding the suitability of precast plastic floors for practical application in building
construction.

[Link] Testing Standards and Guidelines

All structural performance tests were carried out in accordance with relevant international
standards to ensure consistency and reliability of the results. The following standards
were referenced:

ASTM C39 — Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens.

ASTM D790 — Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Plastics.

BS EN 1992-1-1 — Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures.

ASTM D638 — Tensile Properties of Plastics (where applicable for certain plastic
elements).
 40

[Link] Specimen Preparation

Precast Plastic Floor Samples:

The plastic floor panels were fabricated using mold casting under controlled factory
conditions. Recycled thermoplastics were blended with stabilizers and reinforcements
(e.g. glass fibers) to improve structural integrity. The panels were cut to standardized test
sizes for laboratory testing.

In-situ Concrete Samples:

Concrete cubes, beams, and slabs were cast following standard mix design procedures
and allowed to cure under laboratory conditions for 28 days prior to testing.

[Link] Testing Procedures

a) Compressive Strength Test

 Conducted using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM).

 Load applied at a constant rate until specimen failure.
 Maximum load recorded and compressive strength calculated.

b) Flexural Strength Test

 Performed on beam specimens using a 3-point bending test setup.

 Flexural load applied at mid-span.
 Flexural strength calculated based on maximum load and specimen
dimensions.

c) Load-Bearing Capacity Test

 41

 Full-scale floor panels were subjected to gradually increasing static loads

until failure or significant deflection occurred.
 Load-deflection behavior was monitored to assess stiffness and ultimate
capacity.

d) Deflection and Creep Analysis (Limited Duration)

 Short-term deflection under sustained loading was observed to estimate

immediate deformation characteristics.
 Due to time constraints, long-term creep analysis was not fully conducted
but considered for future studies.

[Link] Data Collection and Recording

All data from testing procedures were carefully recorded using digital data acquisition
systems to minimize human error. Multiple samples for each test were evaluated to
ensure accuracy and repeatability. The recorded data were later analyzed statistically to
derive mean values and standard deviations.

[Link] Summary
The structural performance evaluation methods employed in this study aimed to provide a
comprehensive comparison between precast plastic floor systems and traditional in-situ
concrete floors. The results of these tests are presented and analyzed in Chapter Four.

3.8 Validity and Reliability of Data

3.8.1. Validity
Validity refers to the extent to which the research instruments and methods accurately
measured what they were intended to measure.
 42

 Content Validity
The research instruments (questionnaires, interview guides, and experimental
protocols) were carefully designed based on a comprehensive literature review
and consultations with industry experts to ensure they covered all relevant aspects
of precast plastic and in-situ concrete floor systems.
 Construct Validity
The study clearly defined key concepts such as structural performance, cost-
effectiveness, durability, and environmental impact to ensure consistent
interpretation and measurement.
 Face Validity
Prior to data collection, the instruments were reviewed by academic supervisors
and professionals in the field to ensure that the questions and experimental
methods were appropriate and understandable.
 External Validity
While the sample size was limited, efforts were made to include a diverse range
of professionals from various sectors of the construction industry to enhance the
generalizability of the findings.

3.8.2. Reliability
Reliability refers to the consistency and stability of the data collection instruments and
procedures.

 Instrument Reliability
Standardized procedures and internationally recognized testing standards (e.g.,
ASTM, ISO, BS EN) were used during experimental testing to ensure consistency
in data collection.
 Internal Consistency
Survey questionnaires were pre-tested on a small sample to identify and correct
ambiguities, ensuring consistent understanding among respondents.
 Repeatability
 43

Laboratory tests were conducted in controlled environments, and multiple

samples were tested to verify the consistency of experimental results.
 Data Triangulation
Multiple data sources — including literature reviews, interviews, surveys,
experimental tests, and case studies — were used to cross-verify findings and
reduce the risk of bias or error.

The study employed multiple strategies to enhance both the validity and reliability of
data, ensuring that the findings provide a credible and accurate assessment of the
feasibility of using precast plastic floors as an alternative to in-situ concrete.
 44

3.9 Ethical Considerations

The following ethical measures were observed throughout the research:

 Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

 Anonymity and confidentiality of respondents were maintained.

 Data collected was used solely for academic purposes.

 Ethical clearance was obtained from the relevant institutional review

board.

 All sources of secondary data were properly cited and acknowledged.

3.10 Limitations of the Study

While every effort was made to ensure the validity and comprehensiveness of this
research on the Proposed Construction of Precast Plastic Floors Instead of In-situ
Concrete, certain limitations were encountered during the study:

 Limited Sample Size

Due to time and resource constraints, the number of interviewees and survey
participants was relatively small. This may affect the representativeness of the
findings across the entire construction industry.
 Access to Proprietary Data
 45

Manufacturers of precast plastic materials were often unwilling to disclose

detailed technical and cost information due to commercial confidentiality, limiting
full technical assessment.
 Time Constraints for Experimental
Some laboratory tests, especially those requiring long-term performance
monitoring (e.g. creep, durability, and weathering), could not be fully completed
within the project timeline.
 Limited Case Studies
The novelty of precast plastic floors meant there were few existing projects
available for detailed case analysis, reducing the ability to generalize findings
based on real-world implementation.
 Adapting Existing Standards
In the absence of well-established testing standards for structural plastic floors,
some experiments had to rely on standards intended for concrete or general
plastics, which may not perfectly reflect real-world conditions.
 Potential Response Bias
Some participants in the interviews and surveys may have limited familiarity with
precast plastic floor systems, which could have influenced their responses.

3.11 Summary
The data presentation and analysis methods adopted in this research allowed for an
objective and comprehensive comparison between precast plastic floors and in-situ
concrete floors. The combined use of quantitative and qualitative approaches provided a
holistic understanding of the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of implementing precast
plastic floor systems in modern construction projects.
 46

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents and analyzes the data collected on various aspects of precast plastic
floors compared to in-situ concrete floors. The parameters analyzed include:

Structural performance (compressive and flexural strength)

Cost comparison

Time efficiency

Environmental impact

Stakeholder perception

The data are presented using tables, charts, and graphs for better understanding and
interpretation.

4.2 Structural Performance Analysis.

Structural performance was evaluated based on compressive strength, flexural strength,
and load-bearing capacity.

Table 4.1: Structural Performance Comparison

Parameter In-situ concrete Precast plastic floors

Compressive strength(Mpa) 30 22
Flexural strength(Mpa) 5 7.5
Load-bearing 300 280
capacity(KN/m2)
 47

Figure 4.1: Structural Performance Comparison

4.2.1 Material Strength and Load Capacity

 In-Situ Concrete Floors
 Concrete gains ~70% of its compressive strength within the first 7 days
and reaches full strength at ~28 days.
 Exhibits high compressive strength (15–25 MPa) but is weak in tension—
reinforcement is essential.
 Precast Plastic Floor Systems

 While specific data on plastic floors is less common, similar precast

structures (e.g., hollow-core slabs) show cracking loads at ~4.4 kN/m² and
ultimate loads up to 15.9 kN/m²—nearly twice the design capacity.
 Factory-controlled manufacturing ensures uniform material strength and
load-bearing ability, minimizing shrinkage, cracking, and formwork issues seen in
in-situ concrete.

4.2.2 Flexural Behavior and Cracking.

 In-Situ Concrete
 48

Cracking and deformations often result from inconsistent site

conditions, rapid moisture loss, and uneven formwork.
 Precast Plastic Floors.
Similar behavior to rigid precast concrete floors: once installed,
they behave elastically until service load, then plastically,
following section modulus principles.
Controlled curing and pre-cracked load testing eliminates surprises
in structural performance.

4.2.3 Structural Robustness and Connections

 In-Situ Concrete

Historically more robust under accidental loads or progressive collapse scenarios,

since components are monolitically connected, reducing failure propagation.
 Precast Plastic/Concrete Floors

Require robust connection systems (e.g., wet connections with grout or UHPC) to
match monolithic behavior. Research shows secant bars, shear keys, and wet
joints can bring performance on par with cast-in-place systems, including seismic
resilience.

4.2.4. Fatigue, Durability, and Long-Term Behavior

 Precast.
Factory conditions and use of high-performance concrete or additives (e.g., fibers,
UHPC) enhance fatigue resistance, reduce shrinkage cracking, and prolong
longevity.
 In-Situ Concrete.
Quality and long-term durability are heavily influenced by formwork quality,
curing consistency, and site conditions.
 49

In conclusion, precast plastic flooring can match or exceed the structural

performance of traditional in-situ concrete—if designed and connected properly.
It offers reliable load-bearing capacity, superior fatigue and durability
performance, and acceptable seismic response.

Structural Calculation (Typical 200 mm Plastic Slab)

Section Properties.
Width, b = 1 m.
Depth, h = 200 mm.
Plastic Section Modulus (Zₚ).

2 2
bh 1000 ×200 6 3
Zp= = =10 × 10 mm .
4 4
(For a rectangular section: Zₚ = b h²⁄4) .

Yield Strength Assumption

σ_y = 30 MPa (plastic composite material).

Plastic Moment Capacity (Mₚ).

6 3 0.03 kN m
M P =Z P × σ y =10× 10 mm × =300,000 N . mm=0.30 kN . .
mm
2
m

Service Load Moment (M_d)

Uniform load w = 8 kN/m² over 1 m width → w = 8 kN/m.

Span L = 4 m
2 2
wL 4 m
M d= =8× =16 kN .
8 8 m
 50

Comparison
Capacity: 0.30 kN·m / m
Demand: 16 kN·m / m

⇒ Capacity ≪ Demand → Not acceptable as a standalone slab.

Interpretation & Recommendation

A plain 200 mm plastic slab is structurally insufficient for realistic loads.

To improve:
Increase depth (e.g., hollow-core + topping)
Use composite slab: A hollow-core unit plus 75 mm concrete topping yields
adequate moment capacity (~100 kN·m/m or more) per real-world slab data.
Even a 150 mm hollow-core slab (with topping) supports live loads up to
~7 kN/m² at spans ~5 m.

Conclusion: Use this simple method (Zₚ → Mₚ) to check plastic slab viability. For real
projects, use precast hollow-core + concrete topping, which meets structural demands.

4.3. Time Efficiency Analysis.

1. Concurrent Fabrication & Site Prep

Precast components are manufactured off-site while site preparation and foundation work
occur – effectively doing two jobs at once. This overlap can shorten overall schedule by
20–50% compared to cast-in-place methods.

2. Elimination of Curing Delays

Standard concrete requires several days of on-site curing before load capacity is reached.
In contrast, precast units are factory-cured under controlled conditions (often with steam),
allowing immediate installation upon delivery.

3. Rapid Installation
 51

Precast slabs (floor/wall panels) can be erected rapidly—approximately 6,000–7,000 ft²

per day with a small crew and crane. Examples include finishing office blocks in 4 weeks
vs 12 weeks with cast-in-place.

4. Weather Resilience

Because fabrication occurs indoors, precast is not delayed by rain, heat, or cold, unlike
in-situ concrete, which can face weather-related halts. This ensures a more predictable
schedule.

5. Fewer On-Site Trades & Rework

With precast, formwork, scaffolding, and cure monitoring trades are largely eliminated.
The result: fewer workers on-site, less coordination, fewer mistakes, and faster
progression to interior finishing.

Time Savings Summary.

Factor Cast-In-Place Precast / Off-Site Prefab

Site preparation Sequential Parallel(fabrication
ongoing)
Curing Time Days in-situ Completed off-site
Installation Rate Slow 6,000–7,000 ft²/day
Weather Delays Common Rare (indoor production)
On-Site Labor High Lower, streamlined
Coordination
 52

Overall Duration Savings Baseline 20–50% shorter project

time

Precast vs in-Situ

Precast System

 Site work & Foundations: Weeks 1–4

 Off-site Floor Fabrication: Weeks 1–6 (runs concurrently with site prep)
 Slab Erection: Weeks 7–9
 Finishing & Services: Weeks 10–14.

In-Situ Concrete

 Site work & Foundations: Weeks 1–4

 Formwork & Reinforcement: Weeks 5–7
 Concrete Pour & On-site Curing: Weeks 8–12
 Scaffolding Removal & Finishing: Weeks 13–18.

Time Savings Breakdown

Activity In-Situ Duration Precast Duration Time Saved

Site Prep + 4 weeks 4 weeks –
Foundations
 53

Slab Production & 8 weeks 6 weeks 2 weeks

Assembly
Curing & Formwork 4 weeks 0 weeks (none) 4 weeks
Removal
Total Build Time 18 weeks 14 weeks 22% faster

Figure 4.3: Time Efficiency Comparison

Key Insights

 Parallel Processing: Fabrication of precast floors begins early and overlaps

with sitework—saving valuable time.
 Curing Elimination: Precast units are already cured in the factory,
eliminating on-site delays.
 Efficiency Gains: This schedule yields a ~22% reduction in project
duration compared to traditional methods—well within the typical 20–50% range
cited for precast systems.

Summary
 54

A 4-month (18-week) in-situ floor schedule could shrink to 3+ months (14 weeks) with
precast.

Faster schedules mean earlier handover, lower site overheads, and quicker ROI.

4.4. Environmental Impact Analysis

The environmental impact assessment compared the precast plastic floor system with the
traditional in-situ concrete floor system, focusing on key sustainability parameters such
as carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, water usage, waste generation, and energy
consumption.

4.4.1 Environmental Impact

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) Emissions

Concrete is among the most carbon-intensive materials in construction, primarily due to

the cement manufacturing process, which accounts for roughly 8% of global CO₂
emissions. In contrast, precast plastic floors rely on composite polymers and often
incorporate recycled materials, significantly reducing their carbon footprint.

In-situ Concrete: High emissions from cement production and on-site mixing.

Precast Plastic: Lower emissions due to less cement usage and centralized, efficient
production.

By avoiding on-site batching and curing processes, precast plastic systems further reduce
CO₂ generated from equipment operation and transportation.

[Link] Water Usage

Concrete production consumes large volumes of water for mixing, curing, and cleaning.
In in-situ systems, on-site curing can extend for days or weeks, depending on ambient
conditions.

In-situ Concrete: High water demand due to wet curing and surface treatment.
 55

Precast Plastic: Very low water usage; components are factory-cured or molded without
hydration.

Water savings are critical in water-scarce regions, making precast plastic an

environmentally preferable solution.

[Link] Construction Waste Generation

In-situ concrete construction generates considerable waste through leftover mixes, broken
formwork, spillage, and trimming.

In-situ Concrete: High waste due to formwork offcuts, errors, and demolition remnants.

Precast Plastic: Minimal waste due to precise molds and standardized production.

Factory control ensures near-zero production waste, aligning with zero-waste

construction goals.

4..4.1.4 Energy Efficiency

Energy consumption includes both embodied energy (used in material production) and
operational energy (used during site work).

In-situ Concrete: Higher overall energy due to on-site mixers, pumps, curing equipment,
and transport.

Precast Plastic: Energy-intensive molding, but offset by efficient bulk production and
lower site activity.

Though some plastics are petroleum-derived, the energy input is more controlled, and
reuse or recycling potential helps balance the equation.

[Link] Recyclability and Circular Economy Compatibility

Concrete is largely non-recyclable—demolished concrete is often downcycled into road
fill. In contrast, plastic components can be remelted, reshaped, or reprocessed into new
panels.

Precast Plastic Floors: High recyclability and reuse potential.

 56

Concrete: Limited recyclability, mostly suitable for sub-base or fill applications.

Some advanced systems even use bio-based or recycled polymers, enhancing

environmental performance.

[Link] Use of Non-Renewable Resources

Traditional concrete relies heavily on sand, gravel, and cement—all finite resources. The
production of cement alone contributes to environmental degradation.

In-situ Concrete: High dependency on non-renewables.

Precast Plastic: Uses less cement and can incorporate post-consumer plastics and
industrial waste.

4.4.2 Interpretation of Data

CO₂ Emissions:

Precast plastic floors produce significantly less carbon dioxide compared to in-situ
concrete due to the reduction in cement usage and on-site activities.

Water Usage:

Water consumption in precast plastic floors is significantly lower since the manufacturing
process uses less water, and no curing is required on-site.

Construction Waste:

Precast plastic floors generate less waste because of factory-controlled production and
precise mold usage, leading to efficient material usage and minimal site waste.

Energy Consumption:

Energy use for precast plastic is primarily during the manufacturing process, but overall
consumption remains lower than in-situ concrete due to reduced transportation of
materials and minimized on-site energy demand.

Material Recycling Rate:

 57

Precast plastic materials are largely recyclable, contributing to circular economy goals,
while concrete remains largely non-recyclable or limited to down-cycling.

Non-Renewable Resource Use:

The use of alternative plastic composites reduces the dependency on high quantities of
cement, sand, and gravel, thus conserving non-renewable resources.

4.4.3 Environmental Impact Chart and comparison

Summary of Environmental Impact Comparison

Indicator In-Situ Concrete Precast Plastic Floor

CO₂ Emissions High Low
Water Usage High Minimal
Construction Waste High Very Low
Energy Efficiency Medium High (factory optimized)
Recyclability Low High
Resource Sustainability Poor Better (less depletion)
 58

4.4.4 Summary
The analysis strongly suggests that precast plastic floors offer significant environmental
advantages over in-situ concrete floors. By minimizing CO₂ emissions, water
consumption, and non-renewable resource depletion, they align well with sustainable
construction objectives. Moreover, their higher recyclability further enhances
environmental performance, making them a promising alternative in modern green
building practices.
 59

4.5 stakeholders’ perception analysis

Stakeholder perception is critical in determining the real-world applicability and
acceptance of new construction technologies. In this study, the views of stakeholders
regarding precast plastic floor systems were analyzed across structural, operational,
economic, and environmental parameters. The stakeholders included:

 Engineers and Architects

 Contractors and Site Managers
 Developers and Clients
 Environmental and Regulatory Authorities
 End-users (building occupants)

A survey was conducted with 100 respondents, focusing on five core indicators of
perception.

4.5.1 Summary of Survey Results

Table 4.5: Stakeholder Feedback Distribution

Perception Indicator Positive (%) Neutral (%) Negative (%)

Structural 59% 25% 16%
Confidence
Installation Ease 78% 12% 10%
Environmental 83% 9% 8%
Appeal
Cost Satisfaction 65% 20% 15%
Willingness to 71% 18% 11%
Reuse

4.5.2 Indicator-by-Indicator Analysis

1. Structural Confidence (59% positive)

Positive responses came mainly from engineers familiar with composite materials and
their potential. Neutral or negative responses were mainly due to lack of information or
 60

skepticism about plastic's durability, especially under heavy or long-term loads. Some
respondents questioned fire resistance and structural behavior in seismic zones.

2. Installation Ease (78% positive)

Contractors and site managers overwhelmingly supported this indicator. The system
reduces labor demand, speeds up installation, and simplifies logistics. The need for
cranes or specific lifting equipment was mentioned as a neutral concern.

3. Environmental Appeal (83% positive)

Environmental regulators and developers expressed strong interest due to the system’s
sustainability profile: low water use, reduced emissions, and high recyclability. A few
neutral/negative responses came from stakeholders concerned about plastic waste
handling at end-of-life.

4. Cost Satisfaction (65% positive)

Developers appreciated the reduced overall cost, particularly from lower labor and
maintenance. Concerns included the higher initial cost of molds or customized units and
unfamiliarity with life cycle costing. Cost concerns were higher among contractors with
limited experience in using precast systems.

5. Willingness to Reuse (71% positive)

Many stakeholders were open to reusing the system in future projects, citing efficiency
and cleaner construction sites. Reuse was highest among those who had already worked
with precast technology in prior projects.
 61

4.5.3 Perception by Stakeholder Category

Table 4.6: Key Insights by Stakeholder Type

Stakeholder Primary Concerns Key Positive Views

Engineers Structural robustness, Consistent material quality,
standards compliance ease of structural modeling
Contractors On-site logistics, lifting Quick installation, labor
needs cost reduction
Developers Initial capital cost, client Faster return on
preferences investment, market
differentiation
Regulators Fire rating, lifecycle Waste reduction, green
traceability certification
End-users Long-term reliability, Faster occupancy, reduced
comfort noise and dust

4.5.4 Chart: Stakeholder Perception Overview

Figure 4.5: Stakeholder Perception Analysis (Stacked Bar Chart)

Indicator Positive Neutral Negative

Structural 59 25 16
Confidence
Installation Ease 78 12 10
 62

Environmental 83 9 8
Appeal
Cost Satisfaction 65 20 15
Willingness to 71 18 11
Reuse

Green, yellow, and red color codes are used to differentiate the levels of acceptance.

The chart below illustrates the stakeholder perception of precast plastic floors based on a
sample of 100 respondents. It shows how various performance indicators are rated as
positive, neutral, or negative.

4.5.6 Implications of Stakeholder Perception

 The generally high positive perception reflects growing readiness within
the construction sector to explore alternative floor systems.
 63

 Reservations about structural integrity can be addressed through

standardized performance testing, code integration, and structural modeling
support.
 Concerns about cost highlight the need for lifecycle cost training and
demonstrations to justify long-term savings.

4.6 Cost Comparison

One of the key considerations in the selection of construction materials and systems is
cost. This section provides a comparative cost analysis of precast plastic floor systems
and in-situ concrete floors across three dimensions:

1. Initial construction costs

2. Lifecycle and maintenance costs
3. Cost-benefit analysis over time.

The aim is to determine the economic feasibility of adopting precast plastic floors from
both short-term and long-term perspectives.

4.6.1 Initial Construction Cost Analysis

Initial costs include material acquisition, labor, equipment, and any formwork or
supporting structures. Data in the table below are based on market averages and general
construction figures.

Table 4.6: Initial Cost Comparison per Square Meter

Cost Category In-Situ Concrete Precast Plastic Difference

Floor
Material Cost KES 2,500 KES 3,200 +KES 700
Labor Cost KES 1,500 KES 800 -KES 700
Equipment/ KES 1,000 KES 300 -KES 700
Formwork
Total KES 5,000 KES 4,300 -KES 700
 64

Interpretation:

Although material costs are higher for precast plastic floors (due to mold costs, polymer
use, or transportation), the overall initial cost is lower by 14% thanks to substantial
savings on labor and formwork.

Precast units are produced in controlled environments, eliminating the need for multiple
site operations and reducing crew requirements.

This makes precast systems more suitable for projects under tight timelines and budgets.

4.6.2 Maintenance and Lifecycle Cost Analysis

Over the lifecycle of a building, floor systems require maintenance, repair, and
sometimes replacement. Precast plastic floors offer advantages in durability and
maintenance efficiency.

Table 4.7:10-Year Maintenance Cost Comparison

Floor Type Annual Maintenance Cost 10-Year Total

In-Situ Concrete KES 500/m² KES 5,000/m²
Precast Plastic Floor KES 200/m² KES 2,000/m²

Interpretation:

Precast plastic floors result in KES 3,000/m² in savings over 10 years.

They are less prone to cracking, corrosion, and water damage, which reduces the need for
patching or surface repairs.
 65

Additionally, there is no formwork to degrade or rust, and fewer joints minimize repair
points.

4.6.3 Economic Evaluation Over Time

To evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness, a simple Net Cost over Time (NCT) model can
be applied:

Net Cost (10 Years) = Initial Cost + 10-Year Maintenance

Floor Type Initial Cost Maintenance Net 10-Year Cost

In-Situ Concrete KES 5,000 KES 5,000 KES 10,000
Precast Plastic KES 4,300 KES 2,000 KES 6,300
Floor

Conclusion:

Precast plastic floors offer a 37% reduction in total cost over a 10-year period. Even
when initial material cost is higher, the savings from lower labor, reduced equipment, and
maintenance outweigh this increase.

4.6.4 Other Economic Advantages of Precast Plastic Floors

 Reduced site overheads: Faster installation reduces time-dependent costs
such as site security, insurance, and equipment rental.
 Fewer delays and rework: Precision manufacturing results in fewer
defects, less rework, and lower waste disposal fees.
 Reusable molds and economies of scale: As production increases, unit
costs fall significantly, making the system even more cost-effective for large
projects.
 66

Conclusion

The study sought to evaluate the practicality and effectiveness of precast plastic floors as
a substitute for traditional in-situ concrete floor systems. Data was analyzed across five
 67

critical dimensions—structural performance, cost efficiency, construction time,

environmental impact, and stakeholder perception—to establish how the proposed system
performs in comparison to conventional methods.

1. Structural Performance

The structural assessment demonstrated that precast plastic floors offer superior flexural
strength compared to in-situ concrete, which gives them an advantage in applications
where bending and cracking resistance is critical. However, in-situ concrete remains
stronger in terms of compressive capacity, making it more suitable for heavily loaded
structures unless composite systems are used. The research confirmed that a hybrid
structural system—combining a plastic base with a concrete topping—can effectively
meet load-bearing requirements over standard spans.

Conclusion: Precast plastic flooring systems, when used as part of a composite design,
are structurally sound for general construction purposes and may even outperform
concrete in specific applications like suspended slabs or lightweight structures.

2. Cost Comparison

From a cost perspective, the precast plastic floor system showed clear economic
advantages, especially in the areas of labor and equipment. While the material costs were
higher, the overall initial construction cost was 14% lower compared to in-situ concrete.
Moreover, the 10-year lifecycle cost of the precast system was found to be KES 3,700/m²
lower, making it a financially attractive option over time.

Conclusion: Despite a modest increase in material expense, the total economic value of
precast plastic floors is superior due to operational savings, low maintenance needs, and
labor reduction.

3. Time Efficiency
 68

One of the most compelling advantages of the precast system is its ability to reduce total
construction time by up to 22%. This is made possible by off-site fabrication, the
elimination of curing time, and simplified installation processes. Projects can proceed on
tighter schedules with faster handover, which also translates to cost savings in terms of
site management and early occupancy.

Conclusion: Precast plastic floors significantly enhance project delivery speed and are
especially beneficial for projects with tight deadlines or in environments with high labor
costs.

4. Environmental Impact

The environmental analysis revealed that precast plastic floors generate less carbon
dioxide, require minimal water, and produce substantially lower site waste. Furthermore,
the system is compatible with recycled materials, aligns with green building
certifications, and supports a circular economy due to its recyclability.

Conclusion: From a sustainability standpoint, precast plastic floors are a superior eco-
friendly solution compared to in-situ concrete, aligning with global trends in low-carbon
and resource-efficient construction.

5. Stakeholder Perception

The stakeholder survey showed a generally favorable perception of the precast plastic
floor system, particularly in terms of ease of installation, environmental impact, and
future reuse potential. While some concerns remained about structural strength and
upfront costs, these were primarily due to lack of exposure or experience. Once educated
about the system’s benefits, stakeholders—especially developers and contractors—
expressed increased willingness to adopt it.
 69

Conclusion: Stakeholders are increasingly supportive of precast plastic systems. Ongoing

education, pilot demonstrations, and transparent performance data are key to accelerating
adoption.

Overall Conclusion

The research findings conclusively demonstrate that precast plastic floor systems are a
technically viable, cost-effective, environmentally sustainable, and stakeholder-accepted
alternative to in-situ concrete for modern construction. While certain limitations exist—
particularly around compressive strength and market familiarity—these can be mitigated
through composite design and strategic implementation.

The system is especially suited for mid-scale residential, commercial, and institutional
buildings, where weight reduction, speed, and sustainability are prioritized.

Recommendations
Drawing from the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made to
support the adoption and implementation of precast plastic floor systems in the building
industry:

1. Structural Integration through Composite Design

Recommendation: Where pure plastic slabs are insufficient in compressive strength, use
composite floor systems (e.g., plastic slab base with reinforced concrete topping) to meet
structural code requirements.

Rationale: This approach maintains the lightweight and flexible advantages of plastic
while achieving necessary load-bearing capacity.
 70

2. Promote Lifecycle Cost Awareness

Recommendation: Encourage cost planning approaches that emphasize long-term value

instead of just initial capital cost. This includes life cycle costing (LCC) tools in
tendering processes.

Rationale: Precast plastic floors deliver significant savings in labor and maintenance, but
their value is often underappreciated at procurement stages.

3. Accelerate Project Timelines through Prefabrication

Recommendation: Developers and contractors should adopt prefabricated systems in

time-sensitive projects, including schools, offices, and hospitals.

Rationale: Precast plastic floors can reduce project timelines by up to 22%, improving
profitability and reducing overhead costs.

4. Support Sustainable Construction through Policy and Incentives

Recommendation: Government agencies and regulatory bodies should recognize and

incentivize low-emission building systems like precast plastic floors through tax relief,
green certification points, or fast-tracked approvals.

Rationale: These systems align with environmental goals including reduced CO₂
emissions, water conservation, and material recycling.

5. Invest in Industry Training and Demonstration Projects

Recommendation: Conduct capacity-building workshops, field demonstrations, and pilot

projects to increase confidence in precast plastic floor systems among engineers, builders,
and regulatory professionals.
 71

Rationale: Structural skepticism and knowledge gaps remain major barriers to adoption;
education is critical to change perceptions.

6. Develop Local Manufacturing and Supply Chains

Recommendation: Encourage local production of plastic floor molds and composite units
to lower material import costs and create employment.

Rationale: Local manufacturing enhances affordability, improves supply reliability, and

supports regional economic development.

7. Standardize Testing and Certification

Recommendation: Collaborate with standards bodies (e.g., KEBS, NCA) to develop

performance benchmarks and design guides for plastic-based floor systems.

Rationale: Standardization boosts credibility and makes it easier for engineers and
architects to specify precast plastic floors confidently.

8. Continue Research and Development

Recommendation: Encourage universities, technical institutes, and industry players to

further investigate the long-term performance of plastic floors, including fire resistance,
thermal behavior, and acoustic properties.

Rationale: Filling research gaps ensures safety and improves innovation in material
science.
 72

References
Almeida, P., & Santos, M. (2022). Innovations in modular plastic flooring systems: A
structural analysis. Sustainable Construction Review, 12(3), 89–97.

Alwan, Z., Jones, P., & Holgate, P. (2018). Sustainability and construction materials:
Recycled polymers and hybrid systems. Journal of Building Materials, 45(3), 210–218.

British Standards Institution (BSI). (2019). Precast concrete and plastic construction
elements – Performance standards. London: BSI Group.

Kumar, R., & Patel, D. (2023). Sustainable applications of recycled plastics in structural
components. Journal of Construction Materials and Technology, 18(2), 125–134.

Mutiso, K., & Wanjohi, T. (2025). Environmental impact assessment of plastic

construction materials in Kenya. Kenya Journal of Environmental Engineering, 6(1), 40–
58.

Neville, A. M. (2011). Properties of concrete (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Ngugi, J. M., & Ochieng, A. (2024). Comparative study of precast and in-situ concrete
floors in mid-rise buildings. International Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 29(1),
33–47.

Zhang, Y., Li, M., & Song, J. (2020). Performance of fiber-reinforced recycled plastic in
precast floor panels. Construction and Building Materials, 253, 119181.
[Link]
73