Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and concrete

preparation: A review
Nabajyoti Saikia a,1, Jorge de Brito b,⇑
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal
b
ICIST Research Institute, Instituto Superior Técnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A substantial growth in the consumption of plastic is observed all over the world in recent years, which
Received 12 October 2011 has led to huge quantities of plastic-related waste. Recycling of plastic waste to produce new materials
Received in revised form 21 January 2012 like concrete or mortar appears as one of the best solution for disposing of plastic waste, due to its eco-
Accepted 25 February 2012
nomic and ecological advantages. Several works have been performed or are under way to evaluate the
Available online 5 April 2012
properties of cement-composites containing various types of plastic waste as aggregate, filler or fibre.
This paper presents a review on the recycling plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and concrete
Keywords:
productions.
Plastic waste
Aggregate
For better presentation, the paper is divided into four different sections along with introduction and
Concrete conclusion sections. In the first section, types of plastics and types of methods used to prepare plastic
Cement mortar aggregate as well as the methods of evaluation of various properties of aggregate and concrete were
Mechanical property briefly discussed. In the next two sections, the properties of plastic aggregates and the various fresh
Durability and hardened concrete properties of cement mortar and concrete in presence of plastic aggregate are
discussed. The fourth section focus on the practical implications of the use of plastic waste in concrete
production and future research needs.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
2. A look on the materials and method sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
2.1. Preparation of plastic aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
2.2. Evaluation of properties of plastic aggregate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
2.3. Types and amount of substitution of natural aggregate by plastic aggregate in cement mortar/concrete mixes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
2.4. Preparation and curing of cement mortar/concrete using plastic aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
2.5. Evaluated properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
3. Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
3.1. Properties of plastic aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
3.2. Fresh concrete properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
3.2.1. Slump value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
3.2.2. Unit weight/fresh density/dry density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
3.2.3. Air content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
3.3. Hardened concrete properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
3.3.1. Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
3.3.2. Splitting tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
3.3.3. Modulus of elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
3.3.4. Flexural strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
3.3.5. Toughness/Poison’s ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
3.3.6. Failure characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
3.3.7. Abrasion resistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 218419709; fax: +351 218497650.

E-mail addresses: saikianj@gmail.com (N. Saikia), jb@civil.ist.utl.pt (J. de Brito).
1
Tel.: +351 218418372; fax: +351 218497650.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.066
386 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401

3.4. Durability performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

3.4.1. Permeability behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
3.4.1.1. Water absorption and water accessible porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
3.4.1.2. Gas permeability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
3.4.1.3. Chloride migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
3.4.2. Carbonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
3.4.3. Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
3.4.4. Freezing and thaw resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
3.5. Other properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
3.5.1. Fire behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
3.5.2. Thermo-physical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
4. Practical implications of the results so far and future developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

1. Introduction as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle [1–8], poly vinyl chlo-

ride (PVC) pipe [9], high density polyethylene (HDPE) [10], thermo-
Plastic, one of the most significant innovations of 20th century, is setting plastics [11], shredded and recycled plastic waste [12–14],
a ubiquitous material. A substantial growth in the consumption of expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) [15,16], glass reinforced plastic
plastic is observed all over the world in recent years, which also in- (GRP) [17], polycarbonate [18], polyurethane foam [19,20], poly-
creases the production of plastic-related waste. The plastic waste is propylene fibre [21] as an aggregate, a filler or a fibre in the prep-
now a serious environmental threat to modern civilisation. Plastic is aration of concrete.
composed of several toxic chemicals, and therefore plastic pollutes A review on the use of plastic waste in preparation of cement
soil, air and water. Since plastic is a non-biodegradable material, mortar and concrete preparation is already available [22]. How-
land-filling using plastic would mean preserving the harmful mate- ever, several important properties such as toughness, failure
rial forever. The hazards that plastics pose are numerous. They may characteristics, thermo-physical properties, durability perfor-
block the drainage system of a city. The blocked drains provide mance of cement mortar and concrete containing plastic as
excellent breeding grounds for disease-causing mosquitoes and aggregate were not discussed before due to lack of available
water borne diseases besides causing flooding. Plastic garbage can information. Data were provided only for some of properties,
reduce the rate of rain water percolating and deteriorate the soil fer- where plastic was used as fibre in concrete and therefore the
tility if it is mixed with soil. Plastic waste dumped into rivers, amount incorporated was very low in comparison to its use as
streams and seas contaminates the water and marine life. Aquatic aggregate or filler. Moreover, information that appeared in sev-
animals can consume plastic waste, which can damage their health. eral works that have been published recently provided a clearer
Some marine life has been found with plastic fragments in the stom- picture on the properties of concrete containing plastic as aggre-
achs and plastic molecules in their muscles. gate, filler or fibre (granular additive) in the preparation of ce-
The ‘‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’’ mainly consists of plastic ment mortar and concrete and therefore, from the authors’
waste and it is believed to constitute 90% of all rubbish floating point of view, a new review is needed to look at the latest devel-
in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in opment on the evaluation of this material as granular additives
2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of in the preparation of cement-based mixes. Therefore, in this pa-
floating plastic. More than one million sea birds and approximately per, a thorough review on the use of plastic waste as a partial or
100,000 sea mammals die each year after ingesting or becoming full replacement of natural aggregate in cement mortar or con-
entangled in plastic debris. The threat of plastic waste seems to crete preparation is presented. Several plastic wastes are also
be ever increasing. Many countries have restricted the use of plas- used in the preparation of polymer concrete [22]. However in
tic bags and many are in the process of doing so. this review, the behaviour of this type of materials is overlooked
Land-filling of plastic is also dangerous due to its slow degrada- due to size limitations of the manuscript. For a better presenta-
tion rate and bulky nature. The waste mass may hinder the ground tion, the paper is divided into four different sections along with
water flow and can also block the movement of roots. Plastic waste the introduction and conclusion sections.
also contains various toxic elements especially cadmium and lead,
which can mix with rain water and pollute soil and water.
Recycling plastics is a possible option. As plastic is an organic 2. A look on the materials and method sections
hydrocarbon-based material, its high calorific value can be used
2.1. Preparation of plastic aggregates
for incineration or in other high temperature processes. But, burn-
ing of plastics releases a variety of poisonous chemicals into the air, The majority of plastic aggregates used in different studies were prepared from
including dioxins, one of the most toxic substances. Plastic waste plastic waste obtained from different sources. In general plastic bottles were grinded
can also be used to produce new plastic based products after pro- in the laboratory by using a grinding machine and then sieved to get the suitable size
fraction [6,9,23,24]. Different types of crusher like propeller crushers or blade mills
cessing. However it is not an economical process as the recycled
are used to grind the plastic waste. However in some studies, plastic waste with suit-
plastic degrades in quality and necessitates new plastic to make able sizes was collected from plastic waste treatment plants or plastic manufacturing
the original product. plants [1,13,25]. In this case, sieving into suitable size range was done at the labora-
Although these alternatives are feasible except for land-filling, tory [18–20,25]. In some studies a washing stage is adopted to remove impurities
recycling of plastic waste to produce new materials, such as ce- present in the plastic wastes [1,6,26]. Separate grinding steps are also adopted after
normal shredding to increase the cement paste–plastic aggregate bonding. For exam-
ment composites, appears as one of the best solution for disposing ple, Remadnia et al. shredded plastic pieces in one more stage using a propeller
of plastic waste, due to its economic and ecological advantages. A crusher in order to control size limit with crushing and to facilitate matrix-aggregate
vast work has already been done on the use of plastic waste such adhesion due to the irregular shape and rough surface texture [26].
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401 387

In plastic waste treatment plants, several steps are adopted to recycle the waste of plastic aggregate, decomposition temperature, melting and initial degradation
plastic. Saikia and de Brito [27] reported the use of three types of plastic aggregate temperatures and melt flow index (MFI), heat capacity, and thermal conductivity
(flaky waste PET aggregate with two different size ranges and a pellet-shaped prod- were also reported.
uct) directly collected from waste PET treatment plant as aggregate in concrete. The
two types of aggregates were obtained after mechanical grinding of PET waste. The
2.3. Types and amount of substitution of natural aggregate by plastic aggregate in
washing of waste PET was done before and after grinding by using alkaline solu-
cement mortar/concrete mixes
tions. Stirring of ground PET in a clean water bath and centrifugation of grinded
PET waste were also done to remove impurities. Several impurities such as paper,
Plastic aggregates are generally produced from big sized plastic waste materi-
dust, PVC, ground glass and glues were removed during these treatment steps.
als. Therefore both coarse and fine sized natural aggregate can be replaced by plas-
The grinding of PET waste generated flaky PET particles in the size range of 10–
tic aggregates. Both partial and full substitutions of natural aggregates by plastic
14 mm with small amount of fine particles. These fine PET particles were removed
aggregates were reported in various references. In several studies, fine natural
by using a de-dusting system. The pellet-shaped PET-waste fraction was produced
aggregate of cement mortar and concrete was replaced by coarse sized aggregate
from coarse plastic flakes in a reactor according to predetermined conditions. The
too [2,13]. Table 1 highlights the types and amounts of substitution of natural
heating and melting of the heated material is performed in such a way that allows
aggregate by plastic aggregate in the preparation of cement mortar and concrete.
the extraction of volatile contaminants. The extrusion process is relatively short,
which limits the occurrence of secondary reactions during the melting stage. After
passing through a spinneret, the melt is collected in a cooling bath that solidifies the 2.4. Preparation and curing of cement mortar/concrete using plastic aggregate
polymer before being granulated in a rotary cutter in water. The mixture of water
and grains of polymer is subjected to a vibratory separator and then the grains of Generally, the design, preparation and casting of concrete mix containing plas-
polymer (plastic pellets) are centrifuged to remove excess water. tic aggregate are similar to the normal concrete/mortar mix design and done
Modifications of plastic waste by heating, by mechanical means, by soaking in according to various standard specifications. However, designing and/or curing of
water, melting followed by mixing with other materials and other techniques were some concrete mixes containing plastic aggregate were done by slightly different
also done to improve the quality of plastic waste for using as aggregate in concrete approaches than for normal concrete mix design [2,6,13,15,20,28]. Some types of
[3,4,15,16,28]. Choi et al. prepared two types of plastic aggregates by mixing gran- plastic aggregate such as plastic foam can consume water that is necessary for hard-
ulated pet waste bottle with powdered river sand and blast furnace slag at 250 °C ening and therefore concrete specimens containing these types of plastic aggregate
[3,4]. After air-cooling the mixtures, the prepared aggregates and remaining pow- at certain replacement amount cannot be completely hardened after 24 h of normal
dered fractions were screened by using a 0.15 mm sieve. The schematic diagram curing before demoulding the specimens [19].
to produce a typical PET aggregate according to Choi et al. is presented in Fig. 1 [3].
Kan and Demirboğa prepared an aggregate from expanded polystyrene (EPS)
foams waste. This modified expanded polystyrene (MEPS) waste aggregates were 2.5. Evaluated properties
prepared by melting EPS foams waste in a hot air oven at 130 °C for 15 min [15,16].
The slump and density/unit weight of fresh concrete and different strength
properties and elasticity modulus of hardened concrete are normally evaluated
along with some durability properties and some other special properties like fire
2.2. Evaluation of properties of plastic aggregate behaviour, thermal insulation properties, microstructure and reactivity of plastic
in alkaline solution (Tables 2 and 3). The evaluation of properties was done using
The properties of plastic waste to be used as an aggregate in concrete prepara- the normal procedures adopted for conventional concrete and mortar.
tions such as size distribution, bulk density, specific gravity, and water absorption
were generally evaluated in the majority of the reported studies. The evaluation of
size distribution of plastic aggregates was generally done by standard sieving meth- 3. Results
ods [6,9,11,13,23–25]. However, in some studies, slightly different approaches were
adopted [2,20]. 3.1. Properties of plastic aggregates
From the author’s experiments, it can be stated that the standard procedures
used to evaluate properties like bulk density, specific gravity, and water absorption
of coarse and fine natural aggregates can be used to evaluate these parameters in
As the chemical nature of plastic aggregate is completely differ-
plastic aggregate with slight modifications [25]. On the other hand, some other ent from that of natural aggregate i.e. one is organic and the other
properties such as hardness (tensile and compressive strengths, elastic modulus) is inorganic and therefore a big difference in aggregate properties

Fig. 1. Manufacturing process of sand coated PET aggregate [3].

388 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401

Table 1
Types of substitution of natural aggregate by plastic aggregate in cement mortar/concrete.

Reference Types of composite Types and amounts of substitution Origin of plastic waste
[2] Concrete Fine aggregate 10 and 20 vol.% PET-bottle
[24] Concrete Fine aggregate 5, 10, 15, 20 vol.% –
[13] Concrete Fine aggregate 10, 15, 20 wt.% Plastic containers (80% polyethylene and 20% polystyrene)
[9] Light-weight aggregate Fine aggregate 5, 15, 30, 45 vol.% PVC pipe
concrete
[6] Mortar Fine aggregate 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50, 70, PET-bottle
100 vol.%
[11] Non-load-bearing lightweight With sand fraction in aerated concrete Melamine waste
concrete
[19] Concrete Coarse aggregate 34, 35, 45 vol.% of Waste polyurethane foam collected after destruction of insulation panels used
concrete in building industry
[23] Concrete Fine aggregate 5 wt.% PET-bottle
[26] Mortar Fine aggregate 30, 50, 70 vol.% PET-bottle
[18] Mortar Fine aggregate 3, 10, 20, 50 vol.% A mixture of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polycarbonate Industrial
waste
[15] Concrete Fine and coarse aggregate 25, 50, 75, Waste packaging materials composed of expanded polystyrene foams
100 vol.%
[20] Mortar With fine aggregate 13.1–33.7 vol.% of Waste polyurethane foam collected after destruction of insulation panels used
concrete in building industry
[1] Mortar With fine aggregate 50 and 100 wt.% PET-bottle
[3,4] Mortar and concrete With fine aggregate 25, 50, 75, 100 vol.% PET-bottle

Table 2
Fresh and hardened mechanical properties of concrete reported in the literature.

Reference Slump Density Compressive strength Tensile strength Flexural strength Elasticity modulus S–S curve Pulse velocity
Fresh Dry
p p p p p p
[2]
p p p
[23]
p p p p p
[13] (Toughness)
p p p p
[6]
p p p p p p
[9] (Poison’s ratio)
p p p p p
[24]
p p
[11]
p p p p
[1]
p p p p p p
[15]
p p p p
[20]
p p p p
[27]
p p p p p
[3,4]
p p p p p
[19]
p p p p
[26]
p p p p
[18] (Toughness)

Table 3
Durability-related and other properties of concrete reported in the literature.

References Shrinkage Water Water Gas Carbonation Cl Fire AEa Microstructure Thermal Freeze–thaw
absorption sorptivity permeability migration behaviour properties resistance
p p p
[2]
p
[23]
p p p
[6] (Steam
water)
p p
[9]
p p p
[1]
(Porosity)
p
[15]
p p
[20] (Mass
loss)
p p p p p
[19]
p p
[26]
p p p
[18]
(Porosity)
p
[3,4]
p p
[27]
a
AE: activation energy.

is generally observed. The properties of some types of plastic used The use of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as aggregate was
as an aggregate in concrete are presented in Table 4. studied extensively compared to other types of plastic aggregates.
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401 389

Table 4
Properties of some types of plastic used as an aggregate in concrete.

Reference Type of plastic Particle size/shape Density/specific gravity⁄/apparent Water Other properties
bulk density# absorption
[2] PET 0.26 and 1.14 cm (average – – MP: 248 °C
size of two fractions)
Initial degradation temperature:
412 °C MFI: 70 g/10 min
[24] Plastic waste 0.15–4.75 mm – – –
#
[13] 80% Length: 0.15–12 mm 386.7 kg/m3 0.02% CS: poor
polyethylene + 20%
polystyrene
Width: 0.15–4 mm/Flakes TS: 5000 psi
[6] PET Type A: 60.5 cm Type A: #326 kg/m3 – –
Type C: 60.2 cm Type C: #345 kg/m3
Type D: 60.1 cm Type D: #408 kg/m3
#
[26] PET 64 mm/thin 327 kg/m3 0 TS: 75 MPa
MP: 249–271 °C
TC: 0.13 W/mK
MHC: 1.1–1.3 kJ/kg K
[1] PET 0.25–4 mm ⁄
1.27 g/cm3
#
[18] PET 1.6–10 mm 547 kg/m3/⁄1.36 Colour: white
MP: 255
YM: 1700–2510 MPa
#
[18] PC 65 mm 646 kg/m3/⁄1.24 – Colour: transparent
MP: 230–250
YM: 2700 MPa
[4] PET (coated with slag) Round and smooth 1.39 g/m3/#844 kg/m3 0 FM: 4.11
[3] PET (coated with sand) 0.15–4.75 mm/round and 1.39 g/m3/#844 kg/m3 – FM: 4.11
smooth
[23] PET Thickness: 1–1.5 mm – – –
Size: 0.1–5 mm
[9] PVC 65 mm/granular 1400 kg/m3/#546 kg/m3 – CS: 65 MPa
⁄
[11] Melamine waste <10 mm 1.48 5.6% TS: 60 MPa
Temperature resistance: 300 °C
[19] Rigid polyurethane 8–20 mm ⁄
45 kg/m3//#21 kg/m3 13.9% Porosity: 98%
foam
CS: 174 kPa
YM: 5.6 MPa
[20] Rigid polyurethane <10 mm 45 ± 2 kg/m3 (apparent density)/2191 kg/m3 – Porosity: 98%
foam (density without porosity)

MP: melting point; MFI: melt flow index; CS: compressive strength; TS: tensile strength; TC: thermal conductivity; MHC: mass heat capacity; YM: Young modulus; FM:
fineness modulus; SGF: specific gravity factor. ⁄ and # indicate specific gravity and apparent bulk density of plastic aggregate respectively.

The PET has very low thermal conductivity (0.13–0.15–

0.24 W m1 K1) compared to two common concrete aggregate,
limestone (1.26–1.33 W m1 K1) and sandstone (1.7 W m1 K1).
Again the specific heat capacity of PET (1.0–1.1 kJ kg1 K1) is high-
er than those of limestone (0.84 kJ kg1 K1) and sandstone
(0.92 kJ kg1 K1).
PET consists of polymerised units of the monomer ethylene
terephthalate with repeating C10H8O4 units and therefore the
Fig. 2. Molecular structure of PET.
molecular formula of PET can be represented as (C10H8O4)n. The
molecular structure of PET is presented in Fig. 2.
Highly alkaline concrete pore fluid can degrade PET [7]. The ions
present in pore fluid, Ca2+, Na+, K+, and OH can attack the C–O
bonds of PET and split the polymer into two groups: the group of
100
the aromatic ring and the group of aliphatic ester. The alkali ions
can interact with aromatic rings and form Ca, Na, and K-terephtha- 80
lates. On the other hand, hydroxyl ion can form ethylene glycol by [A] fine
Slump (cm)

reacting with the aliphatic ester group. 60 [A] coarse

[A] mix (1:1)
40
[B]
3.2. Fresh concrete properties
20 [C]

3.2.1. Slump value

The slump is used to measure the workability or consistency of 0
0 5 10 15 20
fresh concrete mix. Being an important property, the slump of con-
Substitution amount (%)
crete and cement mortar mix containing plastic aggregate was
studied extensively. Some typical results observed in various stud- Fig. 3. Slump value of concrete mix containing plastic aggregate: [A] [2]; [B] [13];
ies are presented in Fig. 3. [C] [24].
390 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401

There are two parallel views on the workability behaviour of Table 5

concrete containing plastic aggregate. In the majority of the stud- Water/cement ratio and slump values of concrete containing modified expanded
polystyrene foam as aggregate [15].
ies, a lower slump value of fresh concrete due to the incorporation
of several types of plastic aggregates than that of the conventional MEPS/ Fine fraction of MEPS/ Fine fraction of NA/ W/C Slump
concrete mix was observed and an increasing addition of plastic NA coarse fraction of MEPS coarse fraction of NA value value
ratio
aggregate further lowers the slump value [2,9,13,23,24]. The rea-
sons for the lower slump value of the concrete mix containing plas- 100/0 50/50 – 0.38 25
75/25 25/50 25/0 0.39 30
tic aggregate are the sharp edges and angular particle size of plastic 50/50 0/50 50/0 0.42 30
aggregate. 50/50 50/0 0/50 0.42 30
On the other hand, in a few studies, an increase in the slump va- 50/50 25/25 25/25 0.42 40
lue due to the incorporation of plastic aggregate is also reported 25/75 25/0 25/50 0.43 50
[3,4,12], the increase of the slump of concrete mixes due to the
incorporation of plastic aggregates is due to the presence of more
free water in the mixes containing plastic than in the concrete
aggregates [15,19,20]. The slump values of various concrete mixes
mix containing natural aggregate since, unlike natural aggregate,
containing modified expanded polystyrene foam aggregate is pre-
plastic aggregates cannot absorb water during mixing [12]. Choi
sented in Table 5.
et al. reported an increase in the slump value of concrete with
increasing content of two types of treated PET-bottle aggregate
in concrete (Fig. 4) [3,4]. The aggregates were spherical in shape. 3.2.2. Unit weight/fresh density/dry density
According to the author, this trend is due to the spherical shape Irrespective of the type and size of substitutions, the incorpora-
of the PET aggregate as well as the slippery surface texture, which tion of plastic as aggregate generally decreases fresh and dry den-
decreases the inner friction between the mortar and the PET aggre- sities of the resulting concrete due to the lightweight nature of
gate and therefore increases the slump value. plastic aggregate [3,4,6,9,12,13,18,25]. Some results are presented
Saikia and de Brito found two types of workability behaviour in in Fig. 5.
concrete mixes containing two differently shaped PET aggregates Ismail and Al-Hashmi reported the fresh density of concrete
[25]. In this work, a pellet-shaped PET aggregate with very smooth containing plastic as fine aggregate [13]. Their results indicated
surface texture and two different size fractions of a flaky PET that the fresh density of concrete containing 10%, 15%, and 20%
aggregate were used to partially replace coarse and fine sized nat- plastic aggregate as a replacement of fine aggregate tends to de-
ural aggregates. All the PET aggregates were obtained from the crease by 5%, 7%, and 8.7% respectively, below the reference con-
same type of plastic waste materials. crete. Al-Manaseer and Dalal also found 2.5%, 6% and 13% lower
To achieve a constant slump value, the concrete mix containing densities of concrete mix containing 10%, 30%, and 50% plastic
pellet plastic aggregate required a slightly lower w/c value and the aggregates respectively [12].
concrete mixes containing the two flaky plastic aggregates with Saikia and de Brito observed a reduction of the density of fresh
different particle size required much higher w/c values than that concrete with increasing volume of embedded PET aggregates [25].
required by the concrete mix containing natural aggregate. On The authors found a trend of this density reduction for three differ-
the other hand, a substantially higher w/c value was obtained for ent types of PET aggregates used in this investigation: pellet plastic
the concrete mix containing coarse flaky PET aggregate than that aggregate < fine fraction of flaky plastic aggregate < coarse fraction
observed for the concrete mix containing fine flaky PET aggregate. of flaky plastic aggregate.
This clearly indicated that the addition of pellet PET aggregate in- Marzouk et al. reported the bulk density of cement mortar
creased the slump value of the resulting concrete mix, due to its mixes prepared by replacing 0–100% in volume of sand by two dif-
spherical nature and smooth surface texture. On the other hand, ferent sizes of PET aggregates [6]. Their results showed that the
the decreasing slump values due to the addition of fine and coarse reduction of bulk density remained small when the volume occu-
flaky plastic aggregates are attributed to the fact that these PET pied by aggregates varies between 0% and 30%, regardless of their
aggregates have sharper edges compared to natural aggregate size. However, when this volume exceeded 50%, the composite
(NA). Moreover in comparison to NA, these flaky aggregates are bulk densities started to decrease until reaching a value 1000 kg/
angular and non-uniform in nature. m3. They also found that for the same volumetric percentage of
The addition of some types of plastic aggregate such as rigid substitution the bulk density decreased with decreasing particle
polyurethane foam waste or heat-treated expanded polystyrene size.
foam (MEPS) decrease the slump value of the resulting concrete Fraj et al. observed a significant reduction in fresh density and
mix due to the presence of large amounts of surface pores in these 28-day air-dried density of concrete containing coarse rigid

2.5
Density (×103) (Kg/m3)

2.3
[A]
2.1 [B]
[C] coarse
1.9
[C] fine
1.7 [C] pellet

1.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Substitution amount (%)

Fig. 4. Improvement of workability due to the addition of slag coated PET Fig. 5. Fresh density of concrete due to the incorporation of various types of plastic
aggregate, WPLA [4]. aggregate: [A] [13]; [B] [9]; [C] [25].
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401 391

Table 6
Mix proportions and density values of the concrete mixes [19].

Mix code Mix proportions (kg/m3) PUR foam volume content (%) w/c ratio Density (kg/m3)
Cement Water Sand Normal aggregates PUR foam aggregates SP Fresh Dry
NWC 397 220 824 867 – – 0 0.55 2327 –
LWAC-1 397 220 824 – 15.1 – 34 0.55 1791 1699
LWAC-1sat 397 220 824 – 15.1 – 34 0.55 1779 1679
LWAC-2sat 415 183 862 – 15.8 1.405 35 0.44 1776 1678
LWAC-3sat 353 156 734 – 20.1 1.196 45 0.44 1656 1538

polyurethane (PUR) foam waste aggregate due to the lower density
of the PUR foam aggregates (Table 6) [19]. According to the
authors, the fresh densities of different concrete mixes containing
dry and water saturated PUR foam aggregate can be considered as
lightweight concrete and these values were 27–33% lower than the
control concrete’s density. The density values decreased as foam
proportioning increased.
Hannawi et al. reported the fresh and dry densities of concrete
containing PET waste and polycarbonate (PC) waste as aggregate
[18]. Their results showed that there was a decrease in the fresh
and dry densities as the plastic aggregates content increased. The
dry density decreased from 2173 kg/m3 for mixes containing 0%
of plastic aggregates to 1755 and 1643 kg/m3, respectively, for
mixes containing 50% of PET and PC plastic aggregates. These val-
ues were lower than 2000 kg/m3, the minimum dry density re-
quired for structural lightweight concrete according to RILEM
LC2 classification. The 50% replacement of fine aggregate by PET
and PC reduced the dry density by up to 19% and 24% of that of nor-
mal concrete, respectively, which is mainly attributed to the lower
specific weight of the plastic.
3.2.3. Air content
No report is available on the evaluation of air-content of cement
mortar or concrete mixes containing untreated plastic waste as
aggregate. Choi et al. reported the air content of concrete contain-
ing sand stone coated PET as partial replacement of fine aggregate
(Table 7) [3]. An air-entrainment agent was used during prepara-
tion of concrete. The air-contents of concrete mixes containing
PET aggregate were slightly lower than that of the control concrete
for the same w/c ratio and a reducing trend was observed with
increasing PET content in concrete.
3.3. Hardened concrete properties
3.3.1. Compressive strength
The compressive strength of concrete and cement mortar is a
fundamental property that is thoroughly studied in almost all re-
search works related to plastic aggregate. In all of these studies it
was found that the incorporation of plastic as aggregate decreased
the compressive strength of the resulting concrete/mortar [1–
4,6,9,11,13,15,18,19,23–26].
Fig. 6 shows some of the reported results of 28-day compressive
strength performance of concrete containing plastic waste as par-
tial substitution of fine and coarse natural aggregates. The factors
that may be responsible for low compressive strength of concrete
containing plastic aggregate are: (1) the very low bond strength
between the surface of the plastic waste and the cement paste;
(2) the hydrophobic nature of plastic waste, which can inhibit ce-
ment hydration reaction by restricting water movement.
Albano et al. reported that concrete with 10% of recycled PET
exhibits a compressive strength that meets the standard strength
values for concrete with moderate strength (between 21 and
30 MPa for a curing age of 28 days) [2]. According to the authors,
the compressive strength at the age of 28 days is near the values
for 60 days. They recognised several factors such as the type of fail-
ure and the formation of honeycombs, low workability, particle
size, which are responsible for lower compressive strength of con-
crete containing PET aggregate than concrete containing natural
aggregate. The reduction in compressive strength was more pro-
nounced in concrete containing larger flaky PET aggregate than
smaller one. Saikia and de Brito [25] observed similar trends in
compressive strength for concrete containing fine and coarse flaky
PET aggregate, which was mainly due to the loss of workability of
the concrete mix due to the shape of the PET aggregate, especially
for larger particles. The results obtained in both studies were pre-
sented in Fig. 6.
Batayneh et al. also observed a reduction in the compressive
strength of concrete due to the addition of plastic waste as a partial
substitution of fine aggregate [24]. For 20% replacement compres-
sive strength shows a sharp reduction up to 72% of the original
strength and for 5% replacement the compressive strength drops
23%. Ismail and Al-Hashmi reported that the compressive strength
of concrete prepared by replacing 10%, 15% and 20% of fine natural
aggregate by PET aggregate are higher than the minimum com-
pressive strength required for structural concrete, which is

Table 7
Air content of fresh concrete [3].
45
Compressive strength (MPa)

w/c Sand replaced by Air content (%) Control [A]

PET aggregate (%) Coarse [A]
35
0.53 0 4.5 Fine [A]
25 4.2
Control [B]
50 4.1 25
75 4.1 Coarse [B]
0.49 0 5.0 Fine [B]
15
25 4.5
[C]
50 4.3
75 4.2 [D]
5
0.45 0 5.0 0 10 20 30 40
25 4.8 Substitution amount (%)
50 4.0
Fig. 6. Compressive strength of concrete containing plastic aggregate: [A]: [25]; [B]:
[2]; [C]: [24]; [D] [9].
392 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401
17.24 MPa, even though the values are lower than the compressive
strength of concrete containing only natural aggregate [13].
Frigione reported that the compressive strength of concrete
prepared by replacing 5% in weight of natural fine aggregate by
PET waste aggregate (PETW) is slightly lower (not lower than 2%)
than that of concrete containing natural aggregate [23]. According
to the author, the compressive strength of PETW concrete increases
from 28 to 365 days similarly to what is observed for the speci-
mens without PETW. The big differences in strength between con-
crete containing PETW aggregate and that containing natural
aggregate was observed for low cement content and, most of all,
for high values of the w/c ratio. According to the author, this is
due to the higher content of bleeding water in concrete mixes con-
taining PETW than in the conventional concrete mix. This water in
the concrete mix containing PETW is located mostly around the
aggregate particles of PETW and produced a weaker bond between
the cement matrix and PETW.
Kou et al. reported that the compressive strength of concrete
containing PVC granules derived from scraped PVC pipes decreased
with the increase in PVC granules content [9]. The reduction in 28-
day compressive strength of the lightweight concrete mixes pre-
pared by replacing 5%, 15%, 30% and 45% of natural fine aggregate
by PVC granules were respectively 9.1%, 18.6%, 21.8% and 47.3%
with respect to the control mix. The lower elastic modulus of
PVC aggregate compared to normal fine aggregate, higher particle
size of PVC aggregates than natural fine aggregate, and low bond-
ing strength between PVC aggregate and cement paste due to
internal bleed water from the fully saturated lightweight aggre-
gates that accumulated and surrounded the waste PVC granules
are the reasons behind the strength reduction.
Hannawi et al. reported the 28-day compressive strengths of ce-
ment mortar containing PET and polycarbonate (PC) aggregates
prepared by replacing 3%, 10%, 20% and 50% of sand [18]. A de-
crease in compressive strength was observed when the plastic
aggregates in mortar content increased. For the same substitution
rate, the reduction in compressive strength of the mortar contain-
ing PET aggregate was greater than that of the mortar containing
PC aggregate. A decrease in compressive strength of 9.8%, 30.5%,
47.1% and 69% for mixes with, respectively, 3%, 10%, 20% and 50%
of PET aggregates, and of 6.8%, 27.2%, 46.1% and 63.9% for mixes
containing, respectively, 3%, 10%, 20% and 50% of PC-aggregates
was observed. The compressive strength of the mortar was propor-
tional to their dry unit weight.
Marzouk et al. reported that the 28-day compressive strength of
mortar containing plastic aggregate decreased slightly, by 15.7% in
comparison with the reference mortar when the sand volume re-
placed by aggregates increased from 0% to 50% [6]. However when
the rate of substituted aggregate exceeded 50%, the mechanical
properties including compressive strength fell sharply. Akcaozoglu
et al. investigated the utilisation of shredded waste polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) bottle granules as a lightweight aggregate in
mortar preparation using two types of binders: normal Portland
cement (NPC) and a 50:50 mixture of blast furnace slag (bfs) and
NPC [1]. The authors found that the compressive strength of mortar
containing PET aggregate is higher for the binder prepared by using
NPC-bfs than the same property for only NPC mortar.
Panyakapo and Panyakapo reported that the concrete contain-
ing melamine waste aggregate as a partial replacement of natural
fine aggregate and fly ash as a partial replacement of normal Port-
land cement met most of the requirements for non-load bearing
lightweight concrete according to ASTM C129-05 Type II standard
though strength decreased with the introduction of plastic waste
in concrete [11].
Fraj et al. detected 57–78% lower 28-day compressive strength
values of concrete containing rigid polyurethane (PUR) foam with a
size of 8–20 mm as aggregate compared to the control concrete,
due to the lightweight nature of the concrete as well as the low
mechanical properties and the high porosity of PUR foam aggregate
[19]. Pre-wetting the PUR foam aggregate further lowers the com-
pressive strength due to the increase of the mortar porosity. On the
other hand the addition of superplasticizer along with an increase
in cement content increases compressive strength. The use of
superplasticizer made it possible to decrease cement content by
15% and to increase PUR foam content by 33% compared, with an
acceptable reduction (15%) of compressive strength. The concrete
containing dry PUR foam aggregate almost satisfied the criteria
of structural lightweight aggregate concrete as defined in ACI
318 and ASTM C 330.
Mounanga et al. reported that water curing of concrete contain-
ing PUR foam aggregate and normal aggregate slightly improved
the compressive strength compared to the corresponding value
after dry-state curing [20]. For normal lightweight concrete the in-
crease in strength was about 69% and this improvement for con-
crete containing 13.1%, 21.2% and 32.7% in volume of PUR foam
aggregate was 39%, 34% and 5% respectively.
Kan and Demirboğa reported that lightweight concrete contain-
ing heat-treated expanded polystyrene (MEPS) waste aggregate
exhibited 40% higher compressive strength than concrete contain-
ing vermiculite or perlite aggregate at equal concrete density [15].
However, the compressive strength of concrete containing MEPS
aggregate decreased with increasing incorporation of aggregate.
The development of compressive strength of concrete containing
100% MEPS aggregate after 7 day with respect to 90 day strength
was about 83% whereas the same for concrete containing 25%
MEPS aggregate was 69%, which might be due to the high hydra-
tion heat of the former type of concrete because of low specific
thermal capacity of the MEPS aggregate. The compressive strength
of concrete containing coarse MEPS aggregate was lower than that
of the concrete containing fine MEPS aggregate as the coarse MEPS
aggregate had higher porosity and was therefore more brittle and
weaker than the fine MEPS aggregate.
Laukaitis et al. found that the compressive strength of the com-
posite prepared by using crumbled recycled foam polystyrene
waste as well as spherical large and fine blown polystyrene waste
as granular additive depends on the density of the composite and
the type of granules used [28]. The order of compressive strengths
of the composite at equal density was: fine granules > large gran-
ules > crumbled granules. According to the authors, the higher
compressive strength of composite containing fine granules was
due to the formation of uniform monolithic bulk structure with
uninterrupted pores where the fine polystyrene granules were
evenly spread. On the other hand, the structure of the composite
containing large granules was damaged, and the pores were par-
tially disintegrated.
3.3.2. Splitting tensile strength
Similarly to the behaviour of compressive strength, the incorpo-
ration of any type of plastic aggregate lowers the splitting tensile
strength of concrete. The causes for the reductions observed in
splitting tensile strength reported in various references were sim-
ilar to those used to explain the decrease in compressive strength
due to the incorporation of plastic aggregate. Some results on the
tensile strength behaviour of concrete and mortar containing var-
ious percentages of different types of plastic aggregates are pre-
sented in Fig. 7.
Frigione found lower values of splitting tensile strength in con-
crete containing PET aggregate prepared using high w/c value than
in a similar mix prepared at low w/c value [23]. Kou et al. reported
that the splitting tensile strength was reduced with an increase in
PVC content in a manner similar to that observed for compressive
strength [9]. According to them, the splitting tensile strength of
concrete is influenced by the properties of the interfacial transition
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401
4
Spl. tensile strength (MPa)
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30
Substitution amount (%)
Fig. 7. Splitting tensile strength of concrete containing plastic waste aggregate
containing plastic aggregate: [A]: [25]; [B]: [2]; [C]: [24]; [D] [9].
zone (ITZ) and therefore the smooth surface of the PVC particles
and the free water accumulated at the surface of PVC granules
could cause a weaker bonding between the PVC particles and the
cement paste. According to Albano et al. the decrease in splitting
tensile strength was due to the increased porosity of concrete
caused by the incorporation of PET aggregate as well as the in-
crease in w/c ratio [2]. Kan and Demirboğa also reported that the
splitting tensile strength of concrete containing heat-treated ex-
panded polystyrene (MEPS) aggregate decreases with its increasing
content in concrete, due to the generation of more porosity be-
cause of the incorporation of MEPS [15]. Batayneh et al. reported
that the decreasing trend of splitting tensile strength was not as
prominent as that for compressive strength [24]. Saikia and de Bri-
to also reported lower 28-day tensile strength of concrete contain-
ing three differently shaped PET aggregates [25]. The authors
reported that the concrete cylinders containing flakier PET aggre-
gate did not split into two fractions after determination of tensile
strength, which is generally observed for cylinders containing nat-
ural and pellet plastic aggregates, since the flaky-shaped plastic
aggregate can act as a bridge between the two split pieces.
Kou et al. found an excellent correlation between the 28-day
splitting tensile strength and the 28-day compressive strength of
concrete containing PVC aggregate as replacement of fine natural
aggregate, which follows a linear relationship [9]. Choi et al. also
ð1=3Þ
found an expression, fst ¼ 0:23  fc , for the relationship between
the 28-day compressive strength and the splitting tensile strength
of concrete containing PET aggregate and an expression,
fst = 1.40  (fc/10)(1/3), for a similar relationship for conventional
Fig. 8. Relationship between the compressive strength and the splitting tensile strength of concrete containing plastic aggregate.
393
Control [A] concrete [3]. Fig. 8 shows the relationship between splitting tensile
and compressive strengths.
Coarse [A]
Fine [A]
3.3.3. Modulus of elasticity
Pellet [A]
According to ASTM C 469, the modulus of elasticity is defined as
Control [B]
a stress to strain ratio value for hardened concrete. The type of
Coarse [B] aggregate influences this modulus, since the deformation produced
Fine [B] in concrete is partially related to the elastic deformation of the
Mix (1:1) [B] aggregate. The effect of plastic waste aggregate on the behaviour
[C]
of concrete’s modulus of elasticity is reported in a few publications
40 and some results are presented in Fig. 9.
[D]
From their study on the use of three size fractions of PET waste
aggregate in the preparation of concrete, where concrete was pre-
pared at two w/c ratios and with two natural fine aggregate
replacement levels, Albano et al. concluded that: (1) a higher mod-
ulus was achieved with 10% of PET at a fixed particle size than with
the 20% of PET in concrete since PET is less resistant than sand and
would deform less when an equivalent stress is applied; (2) for the
same amount of PET, the particle size had no detrimental effect on
the modulus of the concrete; (3) at both w/c values, the trends ob-
tained were similar for the three particle sizes and for the two PET
contents; (4) a higher modulus of elasticity was observed for con-
crete prepared at w/c of 0.50 then for that prepared at w/c of 0.60,
due to the greater porosity in the concrete prepared at higher w/c
value; (5) the observed modulus of elasticity of concrete contain-
ing PET aggregate met the requirement as described in ‘‘American
Manual of Reinforced Concrete’’ (1952) except the concrete com-
position prepared by using 20% large sized PET aggregate at w/c
of 0.60 [2].
Frigione plotted the stress–strain curves (r–e curve) during
determination of compressive strength of the reference as well as
a PET containing concrete prepared at w/c of 0.45 with cement
content of 400 kg/m3 [23]. The strain values corresponding to the
maximum stress for the concrete containing PET aggregate and
the reference concrete were 0.0018 and 0.0020 respectively. The
elastic modules calculated from the r–e curve were 48.1 and
41.8 GPa for the reference concrete and the concrete containing
PET, respectively.
Marzouk et al. reported that the modulus of elasticity values (as
determined by the ultrasonic method) decreased as PET quantity
increased [6]. Compared with the modulus of elasticity of reference
mortar (27.94 MPa), a 50% reduction was observed for the mortar
prepared by replacing 50% of fine natural aggregate by PET aggre-
gate. The reduction in modulus of elasticity was due both to the
reduction of mortars bulk densities and to the presence of plastic
394 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401
40
Elastic modulus (GPa)
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40
Substitution amount (%)
Fig. 9. Elasticity modulus of concrete and cement mortar with plastic aggregate:
[A]: [18]; [B] [6]; [C] [2].
aggregates, which decreased the velocity of wave by disturbing the
ultrasonic wave propagation.
Hannawi et al. found that the increasing plastic content in con-
crete decreased the resulting elastic modulus, probably due to the
low values of elastic modulus of PET and PC plastics as well as the
poor bond between the matrix and plastic aggregates [18]. Saikia
and de Brito also found lower modulus of elasticity for concrete
containing three differently shaped PET waste aggregates than that
for concrete containing natural aggregate [25]. According to them,
the lowering of modulus of elasticity of concrete due to incorpora-
tion of PET aggregates is due to the lower modulus of elasticity of
PET aggregate than that of the natural aggregate as well as to the
generation of higher porosity due to a higher w/c value.
Compared to compressive strength, Fraj et al. observed a less
significant effect on the modulus of elasticity due to the incorpora-
tion of fine expanded polyurethane (PUR) foam aggregate in light-
weight concrete [19]. The same authors found an increasing linear
correlation between air-dry density and dynamic modulus of elas-
ticity. As the PUR foam had a low elastic modulus due to its high
porosity, increasing the content of PUR foam in concrete reduced
the elastic modulus of resulting concrete. Pre-wetting of PUR foam
aggregates, improving the cementitious matrix properties by using
super plasticizer and decreasing the w/c ratio did not have influ-
ence on the modulus of elasticity.
Increasing the replacement amount of fine aggregate by PVC
granules in concrete also reduced the resulting elastic modulus
[9]. The replacement of 5%, 15%, 30% and 45% of fine aggregate
by PVC granules reduced the elastic modulus by 6.1%, 13.8%,
Fig. 10. Relationship between compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete containing plastic aggregate.
18.9% and 60.2%, respectively, when compared to that of the con-
trol concrete. According to the authors, the major causes of this
[A]
reduction were (1) lower elastic modulus of PVC granules than that
[B] type A
of the cement paste; (2) lower compressive strength of the con-
[C] type C crete containing PVC than that of the normal concrete. They also
[B] type D reported that the prediction of the modulus of elasticity of concrete
[C] fine containing PVC granules by using the equation suggested by ACI
[C] coarse
318-83 over-estimated the modulus of elasticity of concrete
(Fig. 10).
[C] mix (1:1)
Choi et al. reported that the increasing incorporation of granu-
50 lated blast furnace slag coated PET aggregate in concrete decreased
the resulting elastic modulus [4]. In another study, Choi et al. com-
pared the relationship between the 28-day compressive strength
and the 28-day elastic modulus of concrete containing various pro-
portions of sand coated PET aggregate as a replacement of fine nat-
ural aggregate with CEB-FIP model code (CEB Bulletin Information
No. 213/214: Comité Euro-international du Béton, 1993) and ACI
code (ACI 318M-05: Building code requirements for structure con-
crete and commentary; ACI Manual of concrete practice, 2005) [3].
The relationship between the compressive strength and elastic
modulus of concrete containing plastic aggregate was in close
agreement with the relationship suggested in ACI 318-05, in which
the concrete’s density was taken into consideration (Fig. 10).
Laukaitis et al. determined the elastic modulus of composites
prepared by using three types of polystyrene waste beads [28].
Their results indicated that the modulus of elasticity depended
on the density of composite and the type of beads.
3.3.4. Flexural strength
Flexural strength is defined as the material’s ability to resist
deformation under flexural load and is measured in terms of stress.
It represents the highest stress experienced within the material at
the collapse load. The transverse bending test is most frequently
employed, in which a specimen with either a circular or rectangu-
lar cross-section is bent until fracture using a three or four point
flexural test technique. Fig. 11 presents a few typical results of flex-
ural strength of concrete and mortar containing various amounts of
plastic aggregate.
Akcaozoglu et al. determined the ratios between flexural
strength and compressive strength values of cement mortar, pre-
pared using various conditions [1]. The authors found average val-
ues of flexural strength similar to those of normal weight mortar.
Batayneh et al. also reported a decreasing trend of flexural strength
with increasing plastic waste aggregate content in the concrete
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401
Flexural strength (MPa) 6 three various types of polystyrene waste granules followed a pro-
4 PET [A]
PC [A]
Coarse [B]
2
Fine [B]
Pellet [B]
0 in Fig. 12. They show the arrest of propagation of microcracks due
0 10 20 30 40 50
Substitution amount (%)
Fig. 11. Flexural strength behaviour of cement mortar and concrete containing
plastic aggregate: [A] [18]; [B] [25].
[24]. However, this reduction was not as significant as for compres-
sive strength. Ismail and Al-Hashmi reported the flexural strength
of concrete containing 10%, 15% and 20% of plastic waste as a
replacement of fine natural aggregate [13]. Their results showed
that the flexural strength of plastic waste concrete mixes at each
curing age was prone to decrease with the increase of the plastic
waste ratio in these mixes. Saikia and de Brito also found lower
flexural strength values for concrete containing PET aggregate than
for concrete containing natural aggregate only [25].
Hannawi et al. reported they did not find significant changes in
the flexural strength of mortar specimens containing up to 10% of
PET aggregates and up to 20% of PC aggregates compared to a con-
trol mix [18]. However, a decreased of 9.5% and 17.9% for mixes
with, respectively, 20% and 50% of PET aggregates was observed.
For mixes with 50% of PC aggregates a decrease of 32.8% was mea-
sured. According to the authors, the elastic nature and the non-
brittle characteristics under loading of the plastic aggregate might
have an effect on the observed flexural strength. The flexural
strength of cement composites prepared by Laukaitis et al., using
Fig. 12. Load–deflection curves of concrete prepared by replacing fine aggregate by (A) 0% plastic waste (reference); (B) 10% plastic waste; (C) 15% plastic waste and (D) 20%
plastic waste [13].
395
portional relationship with their density [28].
3.3.5. Toughness/Poison’s ratio
Ismail and Al-Hashmi plotted the load–deflection curves of the
reference concrete and of concrete mixes prepared with 10%, 15%,
and 20% plastic waste as fine natural aggregate replacement at the
curing ages of 3, 7, 14, and 28 days [13]. The curves are illustrated
to the introduction of plastic waste particles in concrete. The
authors also evaluated the toughness indices for concrete compo-
sitions containing plastic waste aggregate at the curing ages of 3,
7, 14, and 28 days (Table 8).
For all concrete mixes at 14 and 28 days curing ages, the tough-
ness indices of those containing plastic waste aggregate for all
replacement levels complied with the plastic behaviour according
to ASTM C1018, desirable for many applications that require high
toughness. Frigione plotted the stress–strain curves (r–e curve)
during determination of compressive strength of the reference as
well as PET containing concrete [23]. Compared to the reference
mix, a higher strain value corresponding to the maximum stress
was registered for the concrete containing PET waste aggregate.
The peak shapes of the two curves also suggested that the concrete
containing PET waste aggregate is less brittle than the reference
concrete. The failure modes registered for concrete containing
PET waste aggregate indicated that this type of concrete could
withhold a larger deformation while still keeping its integrity
(Fig. 13).
Kou et al. observed an increasing Poisson’s ratios with increas-
ing contents of PVC waste aggregate in concrete [9]. As the higher
Poisson’s ratios meant higher ductility, the incorporation of PVC
improved the ductility of the resulting lightweight aggregate con-
crete, due to the elastic nature of PVC.
Hannawi et al. plotted the flexural load–deflection curves of
concrete containing various percentages of PET and PC waste
396 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401

Table 8
Toughness indices for concrete containing various percentages of plastic wastes as a replacement of fine aggregate [13].

Percentages of plastic in concrete mixtures (%) Toughness indices at curing ages

3-days 7-days 14-days 28-days
I5 I10 I10:I5 I5 I10 I10:I5 I5 I10 I10:I5 I5 I10 I10:I5
10 – – – 8.3 11.6 1.4 4.3 8.6 2.0 2.5 7.5 3.0
15 3.0 11.0 3.7 4.5 9.5 2.1 4.2 8.4 2.0 8.0 16.1 2.0
20 6.8 13.7 2.0 7.3 14.8 2.0 5.2 11.5 2.1 5.7 11.6 2.0

Fig. 13. Stress–strain curves for reference concrete (plain line) and concrete
containing PET waste aggregate (dotted line) [23].
natural aggregates (Fig. 14) [2]. As the smooth surface of the PVC
particles and the free water accumulated at the surface of PVC
granules could cause a weaker bonding between the PVC particles
and the cement paste, most of the PVC granules in the concrete
matrix did not fail, but were debonded from the cement paste after
reaching their ultimate stress [9]. Fraj et al. reported that the rup-
ture mechanism of concrete containing PUR foam aggregate was
different from that of normal weight control concrete: in the case
of concrete containing PUR foam aggregate, rupture occurred on
the mortar matrix/PUR foam aggregate interfaces as well as in
the middle of the PUR foam aggregate [19]. On the other hand, in
normal weight concrete rupture mainly took place in the ITZ be-
cause of the poor properties of this zone compared to the other
concrete components. From the observation of the splitting behav-
iour of concrete blocks after tensile strength and flexural strength
tests, Saikia and de Brito concluded that flaky PET aggregate can act
as bridge between the two split pieces of concrete specimen after
failure, which was not observed in concrete specimens containing
natural as well as pellet PET aggregate [25].

3.3.7. Abrasion resistance

Table 9
Flexural toughness factors for concrete containing various amounts of PET and PC Compared to other properties, very few information is available
waste aggregates [18]. on the abrasion resistance behaviour of concrete (or mortar con-
taining any type of plastic waste aggregates. Soroushian et al. only
Concrete type Flexural toughness factors
reported the abrasion resistance of concrete containing plastic
rb150 (MPa) rb100 (MPa) rb50 (MPa)
waste fibre [14]. The authors found a reduction of the abrasion
Control 0.44 0.32 0.15 resistance of concrete due to the incorporation of plastic waste fi-
3% PET 0.51 0.39 0.24
bre in concrete. However, the incorporation of the commercial
10% PET 0.60 0.46 0.30
20% PET 0.92 0.73 0.48 plastic aggregate in concrete improved the abrasion resistance of
50% PET 1.66 1.31 0.85 the resulting concrete [29].
3% PC 0.58 0.49 0.37 Recently Saikia and de Brito reported that the incorporation of
10% PC 0.91 0.77 0.57 PET aggregate can improve the abrasion resistance of concrete
20% PC 1.08 0.92 0.74
(Fig. 15A) [25]. The authors found that the abrasion resistance of
50% PC 1.45 1.26 0.95
concrete containing pellet PET aggregate increased with increasing
content. On the other hand, for the mixes containing two types of
aggregates as a replacement of fine natural aggregates [18]. Their
flaky aggregates the best results were obtained for 10% substitu-
results showed an improvement in ductility when the plastic
tion level. From the relationship between compressive strength
aggregates content increased. The authors found an increase in
and depth of wear for concrete containing different types of plastic
the flexural toughness factor for mixes containing PET and PC
aggregates, the authors found a given compressive strength level
aggregates (Table 9). The toughness factor was calculated from
for concrete containing PET aggregate over which the abrasion
the experimental flexural load–deflection curves. The greater
resistance deteriorates (Fig. 15B).
amount of plastic aggregates resulted in a greater toughness for
both PC and PET plastic mixes. This indicated that the incorpora-
tion of plastic aggregate could lead to high energy absorbing 3.4. Durability performance
materials.
Several durability factors are evaluated for concrete or mortar
3.3.6. Failure characteristics containing plastic as aggregate. These include water absorption
After failure during determination of compressive strength, and sorptivity, shrinkage, carbonation resistance, chloride ion per-
specimens containing plastic aggregates do not exhibit the typical meation and resistance against freezing and thawing. However,
brittle type of failure for conventional cement mortar and concrete. compared to the available information on mechanical performance
As the plastic aggregates content increases the failure becomes of concrete containing plastic aggregate, there is less information
more ductile. The specimens containing plastic aggregates can car- on the durability behaviour of concrete of this type of concrete.
ry load for a few minutes after failure without full disintegration,
which was observed by various investigators [6,18,25]. 3.4.1. Permeability behaviour
Albano et al. found various types of failure including normal Generally the permeability of aggressive chemical species
cone type for concrete specimens prepared by replacing 20% of fine through the pores of concrete is the major factor that controls sev-
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401 397

Fig. 14. Types of failures observed in the cylinders after compressive strength testing: (A) longitudinal, (B) cone, (C) border, (D) diagonal [2].

Fig. 15. (A) Depth of wear of concrete with various percentages of replacement of NA by PET aggregates after abrasion resistance test; (B) cubic compressive strength versus
depth of wear [25].

eral durability properties. Tests like water absorption, gas perme-
ability, and chloride permeability measurement can provide infor-
mation on the vulnerability of concrete to the ingress of
deleterious chemical species.
3.4.1.1. Water absorption and water accessible porosity. Albano et al.
reported higher water absorption for concrete containing PET
aggregate than for concrete containing natural aggregate only [2].
The water absorption is further increased with increasing content
of PET aggregate in concrete, increasing size of PET aggregate and
increasing w/c ratio. According to the authors, the difference in size
distribution as well as in shape of plastic aggregate from the fine
natural aggregate was responsible for this behaviour.
Marzouk et al. reported that volumetric substitutions of plastic
aggregate lower than 100% decreased the rate of water adsorption
with respect to the reference mortar that contained no waste [6].
The authors carried out the adsorption of steam water in the differ-
ent cement mortar specimens in a temperature-controlled room
under saturated atmosphere (100% relative humidity and
20 ± 2 °C). They also determined the sorptivity of various cement
mortars at ambient temperature, by placing one surface of the
dried samples in contact with liquid water. The mass increase
per unit area was then plotted against the square root of time,
which gave a straight line. The water absorption coefficient or
the sorptivity was then determined from the slope of line. The
authors found lower sorptivity for cement mortars containing
PET aggregate than for mortars containing no plastic waste
(Fig. 16). The sorptivity further decreased with increasing volume
of substitution up to 50%. Thus their results suggest better durabil-
ity performance of cement mortar containing PET aggregates then
of mortar containing natural aggregate only if it comes into contact
with aggressive solutions.
Choi et al. measured the sorptivity coefficient of 28-days cured
cement mortars prepared by replacing 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% of fine
natural aggregate by sand powdered coated PET aggregate [3].
Their results indicated that the sorptivity of cement mortar con-
taining PET aggregate at 25% replacement level was lower than
the control mortar and for 50% and 75% replacement level it was
higher than the control mortar. According to the authors, at 50%
and 75% replacement level, the change in grading size of the fine
aggregate mixture increased the inside porosity of mortar and thus
increased the sorptivity.
Hannawi et al. measured the water absorption and apparent
porosity values of the different concrete mixes containing various
amounts of PET and polycarbonate (PC) waste aggregates [18].
Their results revealed that replacing 3% (in volume) of sand by
an equal volume of PET or PC waste does not exert influence either
on water absorption or on apparent porosity of the composites in
comparison with the control mortar. However apparent porosity
and water absorption increased with increasing plastic content.
398 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401
Fig. 16. Coefficient of sorptivity of cement mortar containing various volume
percentages of PET aggregate [6].
Akcaozoglu et al. found higher water absorption and porosity
values for a cement mortar containing 100% PET aggregate than a
mortar containing a mixture of equal percentage in volume of
PET aggregate and sand [1]. The authors found a similar trend for
cement mortar containing a mixture of equal weight of blast fur-
nace slag and normal Portland cement (NPC) though the blast fur-
nace slag addition with NPC increases the water absorption and
porosity of the resulting cement mortar. However, according to
the authors, all the values for all types of mortar meet the range
that is generally observed for lightweight concrete.
Fraj et al. recorded a higher value of the water accessible poros-
ity of cement mortar containing polyurethane (PUR) foam aggre-
gate than that of mortar containing no plastic aggregate [23]. The
authors also reported that pre-wetting of PUR foam aggregate fur-
ther increased the porosity. However the addition of a super plas-
ticizer to the cement mortar containing pre-wetted PUR foam
aggregate can decrease its porosity.
3.4.1.2. Gas permeability. Hanawi et al. evaluated the apparent per-
meability of concrete prepared by replacing different percentages
of fine aggregate by PET and PC aggregate using helium gas under
0.2 MPa pressure [18]. The authors found an increase of the perme-
ability coefficient with increasing plastic aggregates content in
concrete, which indicated an increase of the percolated porosity
of concrete due to the incorporation of plastic aggregate. According
to the authors, the increase in porosity due to weak bonding be-
tween the cement paste and plastic aggregate is the cause of the
higher permeability of concrete containing plastic aggregate. They
also reported greater percolated porosity of concrete containing
PET aggregate than that of concrete containing PC aggregate at
the higher replacement level (10%, 20% and 50%).
Fraj et al. reported higher permeability of concrete containing
dry and pre-wetted PUR foam aggregate than of conventional con-
crete [19]. The permeability of concrete containing dry PUR foam
aggregate is 2.2 times higher than that of conventional concrete.
Pre-wetting of PUR foam aggregate can increase the value consid-
erably. Decreasing the w/c value and increasing super plasticizer
content can reduce this value for concrete containing pre-wetted
PUR foam aggregate.
3.4.1.3. Chloride migration. Kou et al. investigated the resistance to
chloride ion penetration of 28 and 91 days hardened concrete pre-
pared by partially replacing fine natural aggregate by PVC waste
granules [9]. The chloride ion penetration resistance of concrete
was represented by the total charge passed in Coulomb during a
test period of 6 h. Their results (presented in Fig. 17) indicated that
the resistance of chloride ion penetrability of concrete increased
with an increase in PVC content as well as with longer curing. They
Fig. 17. Resistance to chloride penetration of concrete prepared by replacing
various amounts of fine natural aggregate by PVC waste granules [9].
found reduction of about 36% in the total charges passed through
the 28-day cured concrete, prepared by replacing 45% of natural
aggregate by PVC granules in comparison with the concrete con-
taining no waste PVC granules and the same curing age. According
to them, the increase in the resistance to chloride ion penetration
of concrete is attributed to the impervious PVC granules blocking
the passage of the chloride ion.
Fraj et al. evaluated the chloride diffusion coefficients of con-
crete containing rigid polyurethane (PUR) foam as partial replace-
ment of coarse natural aggregate [19]. Their results are presented
in Table 10. The authors observed a lower value of chloride diffu-
sion coefficient for concrete containing dry PUR foam aggregate
than that of concrete containing natural aggregates only. However,
the pre-saturation of PUR foam aggregate in water resulted in a
significant increase of the chloride diffusion coefficient, due to an
increase in porosity of concrete, which rises with increasing vol-
ume of PUR foam aggregate in concrete. They also reported that
the reduction in w/c ratio and increase in cement content could
significantly improve the chloride resistance performance of con-
crete containing pre-wetted PUR foam aggregate.
3.4.2. Carbonation
Akcaozoglu et al. measured the carbonation resistance of vari-
ous types of cement mortars by measuring carbonation depth
[1]. The phenolphthalein solution was applied on the broken sur-
faces of the half pieces obtained after flexural–tensile strength test.
The compositions of various mixes along with carbonation depth at
various time periods are presented in Table 11. Irrespective of bin-
der types, the carbonation depth of mortar containing only PET
aggregate at or after 28 days of curing are lower than that of the
mortar containing an aggregate mixture of PET and sand. The
authors also found a higher porosity of mortar containing sand
and PET mixture than the mortar containing PET aggregate only.
According to the authors, PET and sand aggregates used together
did not combine with each other sufficiently and therefore the
resulting mortar becomes porous. On the other hand, the depth
of carbonation for concrete containing slag is significantly higher
than the mortar prepared by using cement as the only binder.
3.4.3. Shrinkage
Frigione measured the drying shrinkage property of one year
cured concrete containing PET aggregate, which replaced 5% in
weight of fine natural aggregate [23]. The author found an increase
in drying shrinkage value due to the incorporation of PET aggregate
in concrete for the different experimental conditions. According to
the author, this behaviour is primarily due to the lower elastic
modulus of concrete containing plastic aggregate than that of con-
ventional concrete. However the range of shrinkage for concrete
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401 399

Table 10
Chloride ion penetration co-efficient of concrete containing PUR foam aggregate, mm [19].

Volume of PUR foam aggregate w/c ratio Cement content (kg/m3) Volume content Amount of superplasticizer (kg/m3) Effective chloride diffusivity
of PUR foam (%) coefficient (1012 m2/s)
Control 0.55 397 0 0 1.87
Dry PUR aggregate 0.55 397 34 0 1.62
Pre-wetted PUR aggregate 0.55 397 34 0 5.30
0.44 415 35 1.405 2.70
0.44 353 45 1.196 5.98

Table 11
Depth of carbonation of various cement mortar specimens [1].

Amount in mortar (%) Depth of carbonation (mm)

Cement Slag PET aggregate Normal aggregate Water 7 days 28 days 90 days 180 days
51.28 0 25.64 0 23.08 0.3 1.2 4.3 5.0
25.64 25.64 25.64 0 23.08 0.3 1.7 5.5 7.6
33.90 0 16.95 33.90 15.25 0.0 1.4 4.8 5.9
16.95 16.95 16.95 33.90 15.25 0.6 2.5 6.8 8.5

containing PET aggregate was acceptable for various uses of struc-
tural concrete.
From his experiments on the use of waste PVC granules as a par-
tial volumetric replacement of natural sand in the preparation of
concrete, Kou et al. reported a decreasing trend of drying shrinkage
with increasing content of plastic aggregates (Fig. 18) [9]. Accord-
ing to the authors, PVC granules were impermeable and did not ab-
sorb water when compared to sand and did not shrink, and hence
were able to reduce the overall shrinkage of concrete.
Fraj et al. found higher drying shrinkage for lightweight con-
crete containing dry and pre-wetted polyurethane foam (PUR
foam) as a part of fine aggregate [19]. The concrete containing
dry PUR foam aggregate has 8.1% more 28-day drying shrinkage
than the control concrete. On the other hand, concrete mixes
containing pre-wetted PUR foam aggregate for 34% and 45% (in
volume) replacement levels exhibited 72.5% and 149.5% higher
28-day drying shrinkage than the control concrete, respectively.
Lowering the w/c ratio or increasing the super plasticizer, sand
and cement contents can decrease the drying shrinkage of concrete
containing pre-wetted PUR foam aggregate. In these conditions,
the 28-day drying shrinkage value of concrete containing pre-
wetted PUR foam aggregate by 35% (in volume) is 49.7% higher
than that of the control concrete. According to the authors, the
lower elastic modulus of PUR foam aggregate and the higher
amount of pre-wetting water in the case of concrete containing
pre-wetted aggregate are the causes of its high drying shrinkage.
Mounanga et al. also reported higher drying shrinkage of con-
crete prepared by replacing various fractions of fine aggregate by
PUR foam aggregate than that of the control concrete [20]. Accord-
ing to the authors, this behaviour was mainly due to the effect of
PUR foam aggregate on the stiffness of concrete. However some
other factors such as the w/c ratio, sand content and thermal dila-
tion during hydration also had a significant effect.
Akcaozoglu et al. observed significantly higher drying shrinkage
values of mortars containing PET aggregate only than that exhib-
ited by a mortar containing equal weight percentage of sand and
PET aggregate at the experimental drying periods [1]. Mixing blast
furnace slag with cement can reduce the shrinkage values for both
type of aggregate (PET only and sand-PET mix) containing mortars.
3.4.4. Freezing and thaw resistance
Kan and Demirboğa reported the freeze and thaw resistance of
concrete containing modified expanded polystyrene foam (MEPS)
as partial or full substitution of fine and coarse natural aggregates
by using standard method, ASTM 666 procedure B [15]. The follow-
ing conclusions were taken from the results: (1) by increasing the
MEPS aggregate ratio in mixes, the concrete is expected to exhibit a
higher frost resistance and have a higher durability; (2) coarse
lightweight MEPS aggregate is more susceptible to the freeze–thaw
cycles when compared to the fine light-weight aggregate.

3.5. Other properties

3.5.1. Fire behaviour

Fig. 18. Drying shrinkage of concrete containing various amount of fine granular
PVC aggregate [9].
Albano et al. determined the fire behaviour of concrete contain-
ing various percentages of shredded PET aggregate as partial
replacement of fine natural aggregate [2]. The authors placed the
cured slabs in a muffle furnace, the temperature inside the furnace
was increased up to a pre-determined temperature, the slabs were
kept at that temperature for 2 h, and then heating was stopped
immediately. The temperatures chosen for this study were 200 °C,
400 °C and 600 °C. After cooling the specimen to room temperature,
the flexural strength was determined. In parallel, unheated speci-
mens were tested. Their results are presented in Fig. 19.
As the temperature increased, the flexural strength decreased
regardless of the level of substitution and the PET particle size.
400 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401
Fig. 19. Flexural strength behaviour of concrete containing PET as a partial
replacement of fine natural aggregate before and after heat treatment [2].
However, the decrease in flexural strength was more significant
when the PET content was 20% due to the presence of more poros-
ity (voids), which act as stress concentration sites. Moreover, the
PET aggregate was more susceptible to temperature than the fine
natural aggregate. The volume change and the degradation of the
PET particles, produce less cohesion between concrete components
and a greater content of voids. The decrease in flexural strength
also increased with increasing w/c ratio. According to the authors,
at high w/c ratio, the thermal stability of PET aggregate decreased
due to the hydrolytic degradation of PET particles. The formation of
carboxyl and hydroxyl end-groups occurred due to the reaction of
one water molecule with one PET molecule, which accelerated its
decomposition. Besides, the water vapour was difficult to be dis-
charged at high temperatures, so the vapour pressure favours crack
formation within concrete.
3.5.2. Thermo-physical properties
Mounanga et al. observed significantly low thermal conductiv-
ity for concrete containing PUR foam aggregate that used to par-
tially replace the fine natural aggregate due to porous nature of
PUR foam aggregate [20]. These pores contain air whose thermal
conductivity is much lower than that of the other concrete compo-
nents. The decrease in thermal conductivity was prominent for
concrete containing dry PUR foam aggregate compared to concrete
containing saturated PUR foam aggregate. Dweik et al. also ob-
served significant improvement of thermal insulation properties
of cement mortar blocks containing melamine formaldehyde solid
waste as sand replacement due to the lower thermal conductivity
and specific gravity of the plastic aggregate [30].
The heat capacity of concrete containing dry PUR foam aggre-
gate is also lower than that of reference concrete as the heat capac-
ity of PUR foam aggregate is lower than that of natural aggregate.
On the other hand, the heat capacity of concrete containing satu-
rated PUR foam aggregate is higher than that of the reference con-
crete due to the higher heat capacity of water present in the pores
of pre-wetted PUR foam aggregate.
4. Practical implications of the results so far and future
developments
The above discussion proves that the incorporation of plastic
waste as aggregate in concrete can improve various properties,
which can solve a part of the problem associated with plastic waste
disposal. Some of these properties are highlighted below:
1. Incorporation of plastic can lower the density of resulting con-
crete. Studies indicate that concrete containing various types of
plastic aggregate meets the various national standards for light-
weight concrete.
2. Use of waste plastic in concrete can improve its toughness
behaviour and therefore this type of concrete can absorb high
amounts of energy, which has several practical implications.
Combining the improvement of concrete toughness with the
lightweight nature of plastic aggregate-based concrete, it can
be envisaged that a lightweight plastic based concrete compos-
ite can be developed for earthquake resistance building
construction.
3. Though very little information is available, it was observed that
the addition of plastic waste as aggregate in concrete up to a
certain level can improve the abrasion resistance of concrete,
which has several practical applications such as concrete paving
blocks and hydraulic structures.
4. Plastic waste aggregate has significantly lower thermal conduc-
tivity than the natural aggregate used in concrete preparation.
Thus the concrete containing plastic aggregate will have better
thermal insulation properties than conventional concrete,
which can be used to control heat loss from building during
winter and heat gain during summer.
However, for practical applications of plastic waste in con-
crete preparation, some other important aspects such as LCA
and LCC analyses of the product and recycling at the end of
the service life need to be evaluated. The life-cycle analyses of
various plastic waste indicated that mechanical recycling (e.g.
melting, grinding) provides a higher net positive environmental
impact than recovery of energy (incineration) or land-filling
[31–33]. The product generated after mechanical recycling can
have diverse applications including cement-based product gener-
ation. In this sense, improvement of properties due to addition
of plastic waste can have immense practical implications and
therefore future studies should be implemented to obtain
durable improved but cost-effective plastic waste-based concrete
products. No report is available on LCA and LCC analyses of
plastic waste-based concrete, to the best of the authors’
knowledge.
The majority of the plastics contain toxic organic and inorganic
chemical constituents such as lead, cadmium, chromium, mercury,
bromine, tin, antimony, bisphenol A, and chloro-ethane monomer,
and therefore the leaching of these toxic constituents from plastic
waste-based concrete is another key aspect to be addressed when
evaluating the possible degree of pollution. Silva et al. [7], for
example, reported that the prolonged curing of PET fibre in simu-
lated cement pore-fluid could initiate the alkaline hydrolysis of
PET, and form some organic compounds. No report is available
on the leaching behaviour of plastic waste-based concrete, to the
best of the authors’ knowledge.
 N. Saikia, J. de Brito / Construction and Building Materials 34 (2012) 385–401
5. Conclusions
Significant work has been done on the use of various types of
plastic waste as aggregate in concrete. The findings from these
studies indicated that plastic waste can be used as a partial
replacement of natural aggregate. From the results obtained from
these studies the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Two parallel views exist on the workability performance of con-
crete containing plastic aggregate. This is mainly due to the size
and shape of plastic aggregate. Flaky as well as porous plastic
aggregate decreases the slump of fresh concrete mix while
spherical shaped plastic aggregate increase it. The incorporation
of plastic aggregate can reduce the density of resulting concrete
and cement mortar and therefore several studies were under-
taken to prepare lightweight concrete by using various types
of plastic aggregates.
2. Irrespective of the type of plastics and amount of substitution,
the incorporation of plastic aggregate lowers the various
strength properties of resulting concrete and mortar specimens.
This is mainly due to the very low binding strength between the
surface of the plastic particles and the cement paste. Compared
to control mixes, up to 72% reductions in compressive strength
were observed for concrete prepared by replacing natural
aggregate at the replacement level of 20%. However, about
16% reductions in compressive strength of mortar prepared by
replacing 50% in volume of sand were also reported. The varia-
tions in the various compressive strength values are due to the
differences in the type of plastic wastes used, their size and
shape and the differences in the workability behaviour of con-
crete mix. The concrete containing partial replacement of plas-
tic aggregate meet the several strength criteria for normal
structural as well as lightweight concrete. Several techniques
are adopted to improve the plastic to be used as an aggregate
in concrete preparation including binding between the plastic
aggregate and cement paste.
3. The reduction in tensile splitting strength and flexural strength
were relatively less prominent than the reduction in compres-
sive strength of concrete due to the incorporation of plastic
aggregate. This incorporation considerably changes the failure
behaviour of the resulting concrete. This concrete is more duc-
tile than conventional concrete and it can arrest the cracks gen-
erated during mechanical failure of concrete.
4. Not much has been reported on the durability performance of
concrete containing plastic aggregates. However, existing data
indicate that the incorporation of various types of plastic aggre-
gate can improve the permeability behaviour of concrete and
therefore concrete containing plastic aggregate will be more
durable in the face of aggressive chemical attack. However, con-
crete shrinkage is considerably increased due to the incorpora-
tion of various types of plastic aggregates.
5. Concrete containing modified EPS aggregate exhibited higher
frost resistance than conventional concrete. Similarly, fire
behaviour of concrete containing PET-aggregate is inferior to
that of conventional concrete. Concrete containing polyure-
thane foam as aggregate also exhibited lower thermal conduc-
tivity than conventional concrete. However, more results are
necessary to have a clear picture of these properties.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the ICIST Re-
search Institute, IST, Technical University of Lisbon and the FCT
(Foundation for Science and Technology).
401
References
[1] Akcaozoglu S, Atis CD, Akcaozoglu K. An investigation on the use of shredded
pet waste bottles as aggregate in lightweight concrete. Waste Manage
2010;32:285–90.
[2] Albano C, Camacho N, Hernandez M, Matheus A, Gutierrez A. Influence of
content and particle size of pet waste bottles on concrete behaviour at
different w/c ratios. Waste Manage (Oxford) 2009;29:2707–16.
[3] Choi YW, Moon DJ, Kim YJ, Lachemi M. Characteristics of mortar and concrete
containing fine aggregate manufactured from recycled waste polyethylene
terephthalate bottles. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:2829–35.
[4] Choi YW, Moon DJ, Chung JS, Cho SK. Effects of pet waste bottles aggregate on
the properties of concrete. Cem Concr Res 2005;35:776–81.
[5] Kim SB, Yi NH, Kim HY, Kim JHJ, Song YC. Material and structural performance
evaluation of recycled PET fibre reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Compos
2010;32:232–40.
[6] Marzouk OY, Dheilly RM, Queneudec M. Valorisation of post-consumer plastic
waste in cementitious concrete composites. Waste Manage 2007;27:310–8.
[7] Silva DA, Betioli AM, Gleize PJP, Roman HR, Gomez LA, Ribeiro JLD. Degradation
of recycled PET fibres in Portland cement-based materials. Cem Concr Res
2005;35:1741–6.
[8] Yesilata B, Isıker Y, Turgut P. Thermal insulation enhancement in concretes by
adding pet waste and rubber pieces. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:1878–82.
[9] Kou SC, Lee G, Poon CS, Lai WL. Properties of lightweight aggregate concrete
prepared with PVC granules derived from scraped PVC pipes. Waste Manage
2009;29:621–8.
[10] Naik TR, Singh SS, Huber CO, Brodersen BS. Use of post-consumer plastic
wastes in cement-based composites. Cem Concr Res 1996;26:1489–92.
[11] Panyakapo P, Panyakapo M. Reuse of thermosetting plastic waste for
lightweight concrete. Waste Manage 2008;28:1581–8.
[12] Al-Manaseer AA, Dalal TR. Concrete containing plastic aggregates. Concr Int
1997;19:47–52.
[13] Ismail ZZ, Al-Hashmi EA. Use of plastic waste in concrete mixture as aggregate
replacement. Waste Manage 2008;28:2041–7.
[14] Soroushian P, Plasencia JS, Ravanbakhsh S. Assessment of reinforcing effects of
recycled plastic and paper in concrete. ACI Mater J 2003;100:203–7.
[15] Kan A, Demirboğa R. A novel material for lightweight concrete production.
Cem Concr Compos 2009;31:489–95.
[16] Kan A, Demirboğa R. A new technique of processing for waste-expanded
polystyrene foams as aggregates. J Mater Process Technol 2009;209:
2994–3000.
[17] Asokan P, Osmani M, Price ADF. Improvement of the mechanical properties of
glass fibre reinforced plastic waste powder filled concrete. Constr Build Mater
2010;24:448–60.
[18] Hannawi K, Kamali-Bernard S, Prince W. Physical and mechanical properties of
mortars containing PET and PC waste aggregates. Waste Manage
2010;30:2312–20.
[19] Fraj AB, Kismi M, Mounanga P. Valorization of coarse rigid polyurethane foam
waste in lightweight aggregate concrete. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1069–77.
[20] Mounanga P, Gbongbon W, Poullain P, Turcry P. Proportioning and
characterization of lightweight concrete mixtures made with rigid
polyurethane foam wastes. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30:806–14.
[21] Bayasi Z, Zeng J. Properties of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete. ACI
Mater J 1993;90:605–10.
[22] Siddique R, Khatib J, Kaur I. Use of recycled plastic in concrete: a review. Waste
Manage 2008;28:1835–52.
[23] Frigione M. Recycling of PET bottles as fine aggregate in concrete. Waste
Manage 2010;30:1101–6.
[24] Batayneh M, Marie I, Ibrahim A. Use of selected waste materials in concrete
mixes. Waste Manage 2007;27:1870–6.
[25] Saikia N, de Brito J. Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of concrete
containing shredded pet waste bottle aggregate as a partial substitution of
natural aggregate. Cem Concr Compos, submitted for publication.
[26] Remadnia A, Dheilly RM, Laidoudi B, Quéneudec M. Use of animal proteins as
foaming agent in cementitious concrete composites manufactured with
recycled PET aggregates. Constr Build Mater 2009;23:3118–23.
[27] Saikia N, de Brito J. Waste polyethylene terephthalate as an aggregate in
concrete. Mag Concr Res, submitted for publication.
[28] Laukaitis A, Zurauskas R, Keriene J. The effect of foam polystyrene granules on
cement composite properties. Cem Concr Compos 2005;27:41–7.
[29] Nasvik J. Plastic aggregate offers colorful alternative to mineral aggregate:
color flexibility is offered in a material made from recycled plastic in some
colors. Publication #J910701a, the Aberdeen, Group; 1991.
[30] Dweik HS, Ziara MM, Hadidoun HS. Enhancing concrete strength and thermal
insulation using thermoset plastic waste. Int J Polym Mater 2008;57:635–56.
[31] Raadal HL, Hanssen OJ. Recycling of plastic in the Drammen region.
Assessment of landfill, energy recovery and recycling of plastic packaging
waste (in Norwegian). Ostfold Research Foundation, OR45.99, Norway; 1999.
[32] Eriksson E, Olund G. Recycling, energy recovery or landfill? Environmental
analysis of producer responsibility for plastic packaging (in
Swedish). Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of Technical Environmental
Planning, Chalmers University of Technology; 1999.
[33] Nyland CA, Modahl IS, Raadal HL, Hanssen OJ. Application of LCA as a decision-
making tool for waste management systems: material flow modelling. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 2003;2003(8):331–6.