The difference is that the first sentence clearly states that the speaker has a lot of work which

they
specifically must do, while the second sentence is not really valid English as it mistakenly conjugates
the doing in the passive voice, as if it applies to the work rather than to the agent (I, in this example).
By de-emphasising 'the work', this should be made more clear.

I have (a lot of work) to do

From this we should see that

I have (a lot of work) to be done

makes far less semantic sense, and could possibly imply that there is a lot of work which needs to be
done on me, which is highly unlikely to be the intended usage, unless it were to be uttered during a
conversation about impending plastic surgery.
There is a lot of work to be done would be far more common usage, and makes it equally ambiguous
about who is expected to do the work.

If the speaker is a person whose job is to hand out tasks to others, then "I have a lot of work to be done"
makes complete sense. The work is theirs (in some sense) but it isn't going to be done by them

I have a lot of work to do" would communicate that the speaker is the person who will be doing the
work while the second sentence is incorrect as it should communicate that "the work to be done" is
more important than the person doing it. In other words, the "I have" in the second sentence "I have a
lot of work to be done" should be replaced by "there is".

The correct sentence then in the passive voice should be,

There is a lot of work to be done.

This sentence is used when the object work takes predominance over the subject "I" and the "I" is
understood. The first sentence you used communicates that you are responsible for the work to do and
the second, in the corrected form is more ambiguous because it could mean that someone else could do
the work and not necessarily you.

In English, both historically and in the present day, the combination 'have' + 'to do' has a meaning that
relates to something that hasn't happened yet, but is to come. At the same time, it also conveys the
sense of obligation on the part of the speaker to do something in some future time (usually, but not
necessarily, something imminent).

On the other hand, the expression 'to be done', even without the first verb 'have', focuses on the idea of
an event as an accomplished or achieved whole - totally done and dusted (hence termed the perfect
aspect), and not on the imminence of, or obligation to, an event that has not yet taken place. In
addition, it is in the passive, which means the actual 'doer' of the accomplishment may be left
unspecified.
This is the main reason combining 'have' + 'to be done' feels somewhat weird in this type of
construction. You're combining meanings in a non-logical way - both aspectual ideas of 'not yet
happened' and 'already complete' cause a meaning clash since reality doesn't operate quite that way.

The weirdness is solved by using other less confusing expressions to convey the idea that there is both
an obligation and that the event be an accomplished result. So instead of 'to be done', you use the
causative 'get' passive: 'to get done.'

Both these wordings can also be perceived in the context that the individual is simply not interested in
applying their time to anything else even if the context and ramifications outweigh their own minor
works at hand?

The first is ambiguous. It is immediately (wrongly?) interpreted as "I have work that I have to do." The
second is unambiguous only in that it leaves nothing for imagination -- it is clear in not mentioning the
actor, could be anyone

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/177443/any-difference-between-i-have-a-lot-of-work-to-
do-and-i-have-a-lot-of-work-to

The passive voice can be used in English for a number of reasons, some of which have been mentioned
already.

1) To emphasize the "patient" (the object becomes the subject). In my opening sentence for example, I
used the passive because we don't know who the agent of the verb is. Other Eurpean languages often
don't use the passive for this purpose because they have things called "reflexive verbs" (I washed
myself vs. I washed the car, I returned vs. I returned the library book). Furthermore, languages that use
word endings to mark subjects, objects, receivers, or objects of prepositions tend to have a much looser
word order than English.
In the example you gave, many languages might use - "It is possible to see the moon from anywhere in
the world" - I guess English doesn't use that because the phrase "it is possible" is very long and
awkward sounding.

In conversational English it is possible to use constructions that sound unusual to some foreigners like -
"You can use the passive voice for a number of reasons in English" - But this doesn't look good written
down, because the "you" is pronounced differently (jə) to communicate that I'm not talking to YOU!
Also it cannot be used in formal contexts. Which brings me to...

2) Tone. There are those of the opinion that only the passive voice should be used in academic
communication. I am ambivalent about that, because using it in unnatural contexts can make it very
difficult for readers to understand the sentence. Regardless, the passive can raise the tone of
communication from informal to formal, or from conversational to elevated or poetic.

3) Manipulation. Language can be used to manipulate people. If I ask our secretary where the new
books are and she says "they haven't been ordered yet", she is consciously shifting the blame away
from herself (cf. "I haven't ordered them."). This tactic DOES ACTUALLY WORK if the listener is
not primed, or even not concentrating (I've been caught out a few times, even though I'm familiar with
it). Just don't try it on English teachers or writers, because they'll figure you out. I had one colleague
who used to do it, and honestly, I was never able to trust anything she said afterwards because I knew
she was happy speak dishonestly. In fact, if I can give you some advice, don't use it at all, it's deceitful.
It's good to be aware that other people use it though so you can catch them out.

4) Meaning. There are examples where the meaning of a sentence can only be expressed clearly by the
passive voice. Consider - "Four languages are spoken in Switzerland" vs. "People speak four languages
in Switzerland." - The first example communicates the correct meaning, whereas the second implies
that EVERYONE in Switzerland speaks those four languages, which is not the case (as far as I'm
aware).

a) is very much more natural. Phrases like "easy to", "hard to", "complicated to" nearly always
take an active verb (focussing on the person doing it) rather than a passive.

a) This problem is easy to solve.

b) This problem is easy to be solved. (ungrammatical)
Short answer
Sentence (b) is ungrammatical. We need to use sentence (a) here. If the Subject of the main sentence
isn't the word it, we can't use passives after the adjective easy.

Full answer
The adjective easy belongs to a family of adjectives often called TOUGH adjectives. (The Cambridge
Grammar of the English Language describes them as adjectives which take hollow clauses).
Let's look at the grammatical example:

 This problem is easy to solve.

This sentence has a Subject this problem. The verb in the sentence is BE. This verb is taking an
adjective phrase easy to solve as a Complement.
Inside the adjective phrase easy to solve there is an infinitival construction to solve. This verb phrase is
a clause without any overt Subject. Notice that although the verb solve is usually transitive, we can't see
any Object here.
Adjectives like easy often take infinitival clauses like this. If we don't state what the subject of the
clause is, then we need to guess what it is from the context. Here we understand that the sentence
means:
 This problem is easy for people to solve.
But notice that we also understand that the verb solve has an Object in this sentence too. When
adjectives like easy have infinitival clauses like this, the Object of the verb in the infinitival is decided
by one of the noun phrases in the main clause. When the verb in the main clause is the verb BE, the
Object of the infinitival clause is decided by the Subject of the verb BE:
 This problem(i) is easy for people to solve ____(i) .
We understand the sentence like this:

 This problem is easy [ for people to solve this problem ].

Example (b)
The Original Poster's example (b) has a big problem. The infinitival clause is in the passive. This
means that it has no space for an Object any more. The writer of this sentence is trying to use the
adjective easy like the adjective keen. The adjective keen is not a tough adjective. When we use
adjectives like keen, the Subject of the infinitival clause is decided by the Subject of BE:
 Bob was keen to leave.

 Bob(i) was keen [ _____(i) to leave ].

 Bob was keen [for Bob to leave]
Now if the infinitival clause is passive with adjectives like keen , there is still a Subject space in the
infinitival clause:
 Bob was keen to be elected president.

 Bob(i) was keen [ _____(i) to be elected president ].

 Bob was keen [ for Bob to be elected president ].
However, as we said, easy is a tough adjective. It doesn't work like keen. The Subject of BE cannot
control the Subject of the infinitival clause. It must decide the Object of the infinitival clause. This is
impossible in the Original Poster's example (b), because there is no Object!
Here is what our brains try to do with example (b):

 This problem is easy [ for something to be solved this problem ].

This is completely ungrammatical. When we use tough adjectives like easy, the infinitival clause must
have a space for an Object after the verb. We can't use passive infinitival clauses after tough adjectives
like this.
This problem is easy (for people) to solve.

= It is easy for people to solve this problem.

= It is easy that people solve this problem.

Here, you can see 'People solve this problem. (O)' correct, but the below sentence doesn't make sense
and is not correct grammantically.

'People is solved this problem.' (X)

"This math problem is easy to solve."

However, I think logically, it should be "This math problem is easy to be solved." Right?

Is this a idiomatic usage or is there a certain grammar rule for this?

A similar case is:

"Concrete is produced to use for building purposes."

or
"Concrete is produced to be used for building purposes."

I think the issue is whether the verb is used transitive or intransitively. So, sentences similar to your
maths problem ones would be:

This book reads well (intransitive use of read)

Someone can read this book easily (transitive use of read) -> This book can
be read easily (passivisation) or This book is easy to read.

I prefer the original sentence ('... easy to solve') because it is more direct.

I don't like your sentences about concrete because 'use' seems unnecessary. I would say

Concrete is produced for building purposes

If you want 'use', I might turn it into a noun:

Concrete is produced for use in the building industry.

However, I think logically, it should be "This is math problem is easy to be solved." Right? I don't think
so, truthguy (not even once the errant 'is' has been removed).

For example, I usually see a sentence like: "This math problem is easy to solve." This would be one of
the natural ways of expressing this idea in English.

We also have, 'the m. problem is easily solved'.

nb. "This m. problem is to be solved." is usually an imperative (a command). eg. homework: 'The
problem is to be solved by next Monday.'

or more likely 'the solution is to be on my desk by next Monday.'