Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jestch

Full Length Article

Strengthening rectangular columns using recycled PET bottle strips

Jason Maximino C. Ongpeng a,⇑, John Barra a, Kristin Carampatana a, Christian Sebastian a,
Julienne James Yu a, Kathleen B. Aviso b, Raymond R. Tan b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila, 0922 Metro Manila, Philippines
b
Department of Chemical Engineering, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Malate, Manila, 0922 Metro Manila, Philippines

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

Article history: Consumption of plastic is steadily increasing, making disposal through landfilling, incineration, and
Received 2 April 2020 open-or closed-loop recycling challenging. The majority of these plastic waste is Polyethylene
Revised 29 June 2020 Terephthalate (PET) bottles, widely used for single-use beverage and liquid containers. This study focuses
Accepted 15 July 2020
on using Recycled PET (RPET) bottles as confining material on rectangular concrete columns. This method
Available online 11 August 2020
uses RPET strips that are produced by stripping parts of the RPET bottle which are then wrapped around
externally on concrete columns. It can easily be adapted in rural areas with low skilled workers, unlike
Keywords:
the conventional methods which makes use of expensive materials and require trained workers.
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET)
Recycled
Production of twenty-seven rectangular unreinforced concrete specimens with a size of
Confinement 100 mm
100 mm
300 mm are made. The RPET strips are varied having width of 10 mm and
Concrete 20 mm, and clear spacing between strips of 10 mm and 25 mm by using two available PET bottles in
the industry. A fastening system is proposed, instead of using industrial adhesives, in placing and tying
the RPET strips to the rectangular column. Results show a 19% to 70% increase in ultimate compressive
strength for rectangular columns which are externally reinforced by RPET. A significant increase in axial
strain from the stress-strain diagram is experienced. The proposed method is practical and effective in
strengthening concrete structures. The findings suggest that test for long-term durability should be
implemented. Life cycle analysis as well as further studies on the scalability of this viable PET waste man-
agement solution should be conducted.
Ó 2020 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Global plastic production has immensely increased in the past
years as plastic has become an essential product in our daily lives.
The main types of polymer used for packaging materials include
low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene
(HDPE), polypropylene (PP) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
[1]. Plastic waste management has been addressed either through
landfilling, recycling, or incineration for energy recovery [1]. Plastic
recycling pathways have been classified into primary, secondary,
tertiary, and quaternary [2]. Due to the different approaches to
waste management, each country’s progress on sustainability has
varied. A study by Geyer et al. [3] has stated that in 2014, Europe
and China had the highest plastic recycling rate of 30% and 25%,
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jason.ongpeng@dlsu.edu.ph (J.M.C. Ongpeng).
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University.
while the United States was only at 9%. In the Netherlands, new
plastic profiles or forms contained up to 70% recycled material
and 30% virgin material ensuring enough ultraviolet resistance
[4]. Essentially, the recycling of post-consumer plastics may either
be closed or open loop, converting the waste into a similar or dif-
ferent type of product [1].
In the construction industry, one unique and critical aspect has
been the long-term build-up of material stock with long residence
times in structures [5]. There have been newfound alternative uses
to post-recycled consumer plastic such as incorporating it as a con-
struction material used for non-load bearing applications but
developments have led its integration into more complex construc-
tion infrastructure such as bridges [6]. In addition to this, the intro-
duction of ‘‘Ecobricks” composed of recycled PET bottles and fillers
such as soil, plastic wrapper waste, and others have been used to
build up walls [7]. In 2016, Gu and Ozbakkaloglu provided a critical
review of 84 articles that have all dealt with the use of recycled
plastic in concrete [8]. Researchers have identified that there are
two main applications of recycled plastic in concrete: 1) to
enhance its mechanical, 2) durability properties [9].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2020.07.006
2215-0986/Ó 2020 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
406 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413
The primary interest in this study is the use of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) which is a commodity polymer extensively
used as packaging material. However, at the post-consumer stage,
used PET bottles have added up to the waste management problem
that is often dealt with via incineration or landfilling [10]. There
have been numerous recycling options available for PET, but these
may be hampered by widely varying recovery rates of post-
consumer waste as well as the need for the removal of residual
contaminants [11]. Similar to other types of plastic, options for
the responsible management of waste PET bottles include closed-
loop recycling into new bottles [11], open-loop recycling into fiber
[12], and the use of pyrolysis or incineration to recover useful
energy [13]. In the construction industry, many applications of
recycled PET have been studied as raw material in the manufacture
of fiber, sheeting, alloys, and compounds [14], while the develop-
ment of technology on the use of recycled plastic in construction
materials such as concrete, have focused on improving strength,
durability, impact resistance, and enhancing versatility [8].
PET is commonly used as an alternative to fine aggregates in
concrete in the form of fibers, flakes or pellets. Searching the Sco-
pus database using ‘‘waste,” ‘‘PET” and ‘‘concrete” as keywords
yield 186 published documents, most of which were published in
the past decade. Meng et al. [15] provided a comparative review
on the notable improvement in mechanical properties of concrete
which made use of shredded PET as a substitute to natural aggre-
gates. Analysis of literature trends in another review by Sharma
and Bansal [16] have reported contradicting results, with reduc-
tions in compressive and flexural strength being prevalent when
untreated PET is used. Naik et al. [17] initially reported that the
performance can potentially be improved by chemically treating
shredded plastic aggregates. This chemical treatment improved
adhesion in the cement matrix. Strips of waste PET have also been
seen as a potential substitute to steel bars for reinforcement pur-
poses [18]. All of the work surveyed, except for two articles, have
reported on the use of waste PET as an aggregate or reinforcement
to be blended with the concrete. The two articles that are closely
related to the study is from Dai et al. [19], and Zeng et al. [20]. They
have proven that remanufactured fiber-reinforced composites
made from recycled PET were used to confine concrete. The con-
finement model available significantly overestimated the ultimate
axial strain [19] and produced a low rupture strain that is suitable
for retrofitting columns [20]. No other reported work has been
made available using recycled PET strips that are not remanufac-
tured as confining material in strengthening concrete.
1.2. Waste management
Proper waste management has been driven by the emergence of
the Circular Economy (CE) concept as a framework for efficient
material use in economic systems [21]. In Brussels, Belgium, an
input-output framework for improving the circular economy using
waste flow analysis of urban waste has been implemented [22]. In
general, the preferred waste management solution for plastic is
through recycling. Material flow analysis from three Danish
recycling centers has shown that ‘‘high quality” plastic waste from
different types of polymer was 12–35% higher than ‘‘low quality”
applications [23]. In Finland, mixed municipal solid waste
contained 84% post-consumer plastic waste and 40% of it could
be available for recycling [24]. In Austria, targets set by the
European Union and its state had been reached comfortably,
showing efficient waste-to-energy using high calorific alternative
fuel for the cement industry [25]. In the Nordic region, it was found
that the most important intervention in increasing plastic recycla-
bility is value chain coordination which can result in the lack of
traceability of plastics along the value chain [26]. In Italy, the
accelerating circularity of plastic-based materials has been
achieved using innovative business models showing a positive
relationship between business strategies and the use of non-
virgin plastics [27]. In the United Kingdom, proposed initiatives
in the fast-moving consumer goods industry, such as the removal
of unrecyclable plastics, packaging innovation, in-store retailer
schemes, and label modifications, have improved the circular econ-
omy of plastics [28]. In closing the loop for plastic recycling, the
potential degradation of PET polymers can be reversed in a decon-
tamination process making it well suited for closed-loop and mul-
tiple times recycling [29]. In Italy, microscale analysis from several
types of organizations has revealed that eco-innovation is the dri-
ver for the adoption of a circular economy [30].
The conceptual Circular Economy (CE) framework used in this
research is shown in Fig. 1. The considered material is the recycled
PET bottles from the packaging and consumer sectors. The
common methods of collection are through two methods: Separate
Collection and Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). In an archipelago
like the Philippines, it is important to consider if there are facilities
on the island for recycling or incineration, particularly for
sorting, preparing, and distributing for waste-to-energy and
mechanical/chemical recycling. Most of the time, in rural areas,
no facilities are available and transportation from one island to
another through land or sea is needed to close the loop. It is this
a challenge to identify sustainable solutions for waste manage-
ment. The contribution of this research is to consider recycled
PET bottle strips as strengthening material for single-detached
houses, particularly the columns, in rural areas where no facilities
are locally available to close the loop. In the Philippines, 80.7% of
occupied housing is made up of single-detached houses, with high
occupancy rate in island regions, which totals to 19.5 million single
houses [31]. This has shown that the geographic location, availabil-
ity of facilities for recycling or incineration, and the number of
single-detached houses are factors to be considered in addressing
the open-loop solution seen in this proposed work. If one single
house needs 1000 PET 1.5 L bottles to strengthen columns at the
ground floor level, the total requirement is 19.5 billion PET bottles.
1.3. Confined concrete
Due to the geographic setting of the country in the Pacific Ring
of Fire, the Philippines is left vulnerable to natural disasters such as
earthquakes. There is a need to ensure safety by reinforcing struc-
tures to be able to withstand seismic activities and other environ-
mental impacts. According to the Metro Manila Earthquake Impact
Reduction Study (MMEIRS) [32], a 7.2 magnitude earthquake along
the west valley fault had yielded typical and severe damage to the
region. Despite this report on high populated places like Metropoli-
tan Manila, rural areas with limited resources should consider
using eco-innovation to prevent damages in structures from
earthquakes.
The method for strengthening structures depends on the type
and material of the structure to be reinforced. In reinforced con-
crete columns, confinement is needed to resist lateral expansion
due to compression and to improve the compressive strength
and axial strain of the column. This can be addressed by adding a
sectional area of concrete by fastening steel dowels with lateral
hoops and applying mortar on it to protect the steel from corrosion
[33]. Another method is to wrap a steel jacket around the columns.
These jackets are typically made of metal plates or fiber-reinforced
polymer (FRP) which are bonded with epoxy on the existing con-
crete surfaces [34,35]. The geometric shape of the cross-section
of a column (i.e. circular and rectangular sections) significantly
influences the effectiveness of the strengthening method. Using
520 and 415 sets of data for circular and rectangular columns, it
has been shown that the outer diameter of circular columns and
corner radius of rectangular columns significantly affects the
 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413
Fig. 1. Circular economy of plastics in an archipelago.
increase in compressive strength [36]. Newly developed materials
have now been considered to confine concrete structures such as
basalt [37] and PET FRPs [38]. Recently, Pimanmas and Saleem
[39] modeled the stress-strain behavior of virgin PET FRP confined
concrete. This newly developed material with low elastic modulus
and large strain rupture can efficiently delay premature rupture of
FRP at sharp corners and significantly improve the behavior for
rectangular sections with a cross-sectional area aspect ratio of 2
[39]. In this work, the main difference in the proposed strengthen-
ing method is the use of recycled PET strips from bottles with no
remanufacturing needed, and the use of mechanical fasteners
(without epoxy) which are inexpensive and can be available to
housing units in rural areas.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Concrete
The unreinforced rectangular concrete columns with a size of
100 mm
100 mm
300 mm height were prepared using M10
grade concrete with a cement, sand, and aggregate mix ratio of
1:3:6 in accordance with the Indian Standard IS-10262-2009
[40]. Under ASTM C39, the concrete was designed to achieve a
compressive strength of 10 MPa after a 28-day curing period
[41]. Determining the influence and effectiveness of RPET as con-
fining material can easily be examined using low compressive
strength concrete which is predominant in rural areas where qual-
ity control may not be as strict as those in city centers. From the
study of Fallah et al. 2018, a substantial increase in ultimate con-
fined compressive strength is experienced when the unconfined
strength of concrete is low [42].
407
2.2. Recycled PET bottle strips
The RPET bottles from material recycling centers were col-
lected and properly cleaned with water to remove any presence
of dirt. The uneven and non-uniform portions of the bottle,
including the neck and base of the bottle, were cut and removed.
Only the even portion of the RPET bottles that can maintain uni-
form contact with the concrete surface of the rectangular column
was used. A stripping tool was fabricated from wood with a fixed
blade. This stripper produced uniform strips by rotating the bot-
tles into a blade fixed into the tool as seen in Fig. 2. A stripping
machine can be developed which is not covered in this study.
Recycled PET bottle strips were manufactured into 10 mm and
20 mm width strips from two different brands of water bottles
that are widely available in the local market. The average thick-
ness of bottle brands A and B were 0.16 mm and 0.14 mm,
respectively. Due to the limitation of the shape and structure of
the plastic bottle, only a portion of the RPET bottle can be com-
pletely utilized into RPET bottle strips as seen in Fig. 3. Using
PET bottles that have more consistent body can increase the num-
ber of strips produced from the bottle.
The usable portion of the plastic bottle was determined by
obtaining the recovery rate using the overall weight and usable
portion of the plastic bottle. Table 1 shows that the average
recovery rates obtained from brands A and B are 29.41% and
27.78%. A 20 mm width strip can produce a maximum strip
length of 1200 mm. One of the limitations of this work, is that
the strip width cannot be more than 20 mm since this will not
be able to produce the length needed to fully confine a
300 mm
300 mm square column (i.e. minimum size of concrete
column).
408 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413

Table 2
Design of Experiments with three factors and two Levels.

Name Bottle Clear Width Specimen

Type Spacing (mm) (mm)
Control NA NA NA 3
A 10W-10S A 10 10 3
A 20W-10S A 10 20 3
A 10W-25S A 25 10 3
A 20W-25S A 25 20 3
B 10W-10S B 10 10 3
B 20W-10S B 10 20 3
B 10W-25S B 25 10 3
B 20W-25S B 25 20 3

strips laid out onto the concrete columns with dimensions of

Fig. 2. Stripping tool and process.
100 mm
100 mm
300 mm at 10 mm clear spacings. The differ-
ent variations of the specimens to be tested are shown in Fig. 4.
The mechanical tie method used for confining the concrete
sample using the RPET strips differs from other external reinforce-
ment such as a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) that uses epoxy
resin to bond the FRP to the contact surface that is often expensive
and intricate. The RPET bottle strips were properly laid out on the
concrete column according to the design specifications. It was
pulled and folded together once fully in contact with the bonding
surface. A 0.4 mm thick galvanized iron sheet was then cut into a
10 mm width iron sheet which was inserted at the ends. This acted
as the primary tool for connection as it secured the RPET strip in
place. Fig. 5 shows the process of this unique belting method that
can help empower rural communities in strengthening low
strength concrete.

2.4. Testing

Using a universal testing machine, a uniaxial compression

strength test was conducted on all the 27 column specimens to
determine its ultimate compressive strength. Strain gauge and its
corresponding force were recorded in obtaining the stress and
strain diagram. This was compared with the model developed by
Zeng et al. [20] which used PET FRP as confining material in
concrete.
Fig. 3. Recycled PET strips.

3. Theory/calculations
Table 1
Recovery Rate of Recycled PET Strips from 1.5L PET Bottles. The free body diagram of columns reinforced with RPET is seen
in Fig. 6. The width, spacing, and type of bottle (thickness) of RPET
Brand – Width Total Weight of Weight of usable Recovery
of strips PET bottle (g) portion/recovered (g) Rate (%) strips are the variable parameters in the study. The lateral forces
are produced from the expansion of concrete columns due to uni-
Brand A – 34 10 29.41
20 mm
axial compression along the longitudinal axis.
Brand B – 36 10 27.78 The ultimate confined compressive strength, f0 cc, is the sum of
20 mm the unconfined compressive strength, f0 co, and the additional
strength enhanced from the RPET, fPET, as shown in Eq. (1). The
increase in compressive strength is due to the resistance of the
RPET against the dilation of the concrete core when compressed.
2.3. Preparation of samples
This is theoretically the product of k (effectiveness of lateral pres-
sure), and the quotient of the sum of all tension forces done by the
Twenty-seven rectangular columns were fabricated making 9
RPET (or tensile resistance of the RPET), and the cross-sectional
sample designs of 3 specimens each, including the control sample.
area of the RPET as shown in Eq. (2).
The variables to be tested were the RPET bottle type, width of the
RPET bottle strips, and the spacing between the placement of the f 0cc ¼ f 0co þ f PET ð1Þ
strips on the concrete column. A summary of the design of exper-
iments is shown in detail in Table 2. In reference to the sample f PET ¼ kfl ¼ k ðRT Þ=A ð2Þ
design, the ‘‘Bottle type” refers to the RPET strips produced from
either bottle brand A or B. Moreover, ‘‘W” and ‘‘S” represent the Where
width of the RPET strip and the clear spacings between the strips, f0 cc – Ultimate confined compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
respectively. For example, ‘‘A-10W-10S” refers to the 10 mm RPET f0 co – Unconfined compressive strength of concrete (MPa)
 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413 409

Fig. 4. Strengthening of unreinforced concrete. A) Design for 10W-10S, B) Design for 10W-25S, C) Design for 20W-10S, D) Design for 20W-25S.
410 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413

Fig. 5. Fastening of strips. A.) Overlap and fold the PET strips, B.) Insert metal strip and tighten PET strip, C.) First fold of metal strip, D.) Second fold of metal strip, E.) Third fold
of metal strip, F.) Final fastened strips.

Fig. 6. Strengthening concrete columns using recycled PET strips.

 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413
fPET – Additional compressive strength from Recycled PET strips
(MPa)
k – Constant (Effectiveness of lateral pressure)
fl – Lateral pressure resisted by the recycled PET strips (MPa)
RT – Total tensile resistance of recycled PET strips against bursting
(N)
A – Cross-sectional area of recycled PET strips (mm2)
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Ultimate confined compressive strength
The recorded ultimate confined compressive strength, f0 cc,
obtained from the compression strength test is given a visual rep-
resentation using the boxplot shown in Fig. 7. This is done to show
the distribution of the specimens’ f0 cc. The whiskers that are shown
at the top and bottom end represent maximum and minimum val-
ues, while the boxes containing 3 borders of color from top to bot-
tom show the 3rd quartile, median, and the 1st quartile,
respectively. The overall increase in compressive strength can be
observed with specimens that were strengthened with RPET strips.
All confined specimens regardless of specification design had a
median compressive strength greater than 10 MPa from the med-
ian of the unconfined sample, f0 co. The specimen A-20W-10S was
able to achieve a 70% increase with an average compressive
strength of 20.88 MPa.
In theory, increasing the spacing from 10 mm to 25 mm or
decreasing the RPET strips’ content in a concrete of the same size,
dimensions, and specifications lead to a decrease in the value of
f’cc. The specimen A-20W behaved substantially following the the-
oretical behavior, while the others behaved oppositely. Based on
the boxplot shown in Fig. 7, the 1st and the 3rd quartile had little
difference for A-10W and B-20W, while the range of values of
B-10W experienced wider spread. Additional specimens with
improved fastening methods are recommended for future work
to obtain good statistical results.
Fig. 7. Ultimate confined compressive strength of the 27 specimens.
411
4.2. Stress-strain
The stress-strain diagram from the behavior of three specimens
of varying design mix is shown in Fig. 8. The results displayed that
all confined specimens have greater peak stress compared to the
unconfined control specimen, thus, supporting the theory of con-
finement. It can be observed that the PET bottle strips with the
least spacing resulted in the highest compressive stress. With
regards to the axial strain, the value of the unconfined specimen
appeared to be the lowest at 0.002 mm/mm. This justifies that
the confining material increases the ultimate confined compressive
strength and its axial strain.
From the paper of Zeng et al. [20], the developed typical stress-
strain diagram of the remanufactured PET FRP confined to concrete
comprises of three distinct coordinates. Namely, first peak stress
and its strain (ascending branch), transition point (descending
branch), and final stress point (ascending branch). It is worth not-
ing that the stress-strain diagram from the experiments contained
the three coordinates that are visible in Fig. 8. As an example, iden-
tified in Fig. 8 are the first peak, transition point, and final stress
point of specimen A 20W-10S. The only difference from the model
of Zeng et al. [20] was the behavior of the 2nd point to 3rd point
which was descending rather than ascending. This is due to the
weakening of the fastening system in the confinement which could
not hold the concrete together without experiencing FRP rupture
failure. An improved fastening system can perform better by pro-
viding a higher value of k, the effectiveness of lateral pressure.
4.3. Failure mode
The failure mode was investigated using visual inspection to
determine the failure behavior of concrete. This depends on the
placement of aggregates, interface between aggregates, and inter-
nal and external voids in the concrete. Failure mode is categorized
into two – columnar failure and shear failure as seen in Fig. 9.
Through studying the behavior of the cracks in concrete, the RPET
strip, and the connection method during testing, improvement in
increasing the confinement’s effectiveness can be seen.
412 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413
Fig. 8. Stress-Strain diagram of brand A recycled PET strips.
Fig. 9. Failure mode and untying of metal strips holding the RPET together.
The results showed that specimens with columnar failure can
maximize confinement and resist the specimen’s expansion when
a load is applied compared to shear failure that cannot resist too
much bulging. Another noticeable weakness was the behavior of
the metal strips, splice that acted as the connection between the
RPET strips. These metal strips resist concrete bursting that then
fails and starts untying once the load is applied. This is evident
in the stress-strain diagram which had descending branches after
the transition point. This also contributed to the decrease of the
value of k, the effectiveness of lateral pressure.
According to Zeng et al. [20], the common mode of failure is the
crushing of concrete. In this paper, since the plain concrete
strength is low, 10 MPa, and there was no RPET strip rupture fail-
ure experienced, the common mode of failure was columnar and
shear rather than concrete crushing. As a result of the investiga-
tion, the proposed strengthening method could be improved if
the metal strip connection, splice, could be relatively stronger or
equal to the tensile strength of the PET strips, to be able to maxi-
mize confinement.
5. Conclusions
A sustainable technique for structural reinforcement for con-
crete columns using recycled PET bottles was investigated. Based
on the study, concrete columns confined with RPET bottle strips
as a strengthening material provided a significant increase of 19%
to 70% in the ultimate confined compressive strength on low
strength concrete mix. A significant increase in axial strain was evi-
dent. Results showed that this is a practical and effective way of
improving the axial stress and strain of columns. An improved fas-
tening method can be made to guarantee material failure in the
RPET strips’ rupture, not on the splice, and provide an ascending
increase in compressive strength after the elastic region of the
stress-strain diagram and can improve the effectiveness of lateral
pressure. Additional specimens with improved fastening methods
are recommended for future work to obtain good statistical results.
It is evident that there is a potential pathway for open-loop
recycling of PET bottles as a strengthening material to concrete
that can overall contribute to managing plastic waste. Future
works should focus on extensive testing of this technique, particu-
larly for its robustness and durability in field application, as well as
life cycle assessment, material flow analysis, and logistical opti-
mization if implemented on a larger scale for a more detailed
assessment of its environmental impact.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] K. Ragaert, L. Delva, K. Van Geem, Mechanical and chemical recycling of solid
plastic waste, Waste Manag. 69 (2017) 24–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2017.07.044.
[2] N. Singh, D. Hui, R. Singh, I.P.S. Ahuja, L. Feo, F. Fraternali, Recycling of plastic
solid waste: a state of art review and future applications, Compos. Part B Eng.
115 (2017) 409–422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.013.
[3] R. Geyer, J.R. Jambeck, K.L. Law, Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever
made, Sci. Adv. 3 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700782 e1700782.
[4] C.F. Hendriks, H.S. Pietersen, Sustainable raw materials: construction and
demolition waste-state-of-the-art report of RILEM technical committee 165-
SRM, 2000.
[5] A. Stephan, A. Athanassiadis, Towards a more circular construction sector:
Estimating and spatialising current and future non-structural material
replacement flows to maintain urban building stocks, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 129 (2018) 248–262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.022.
[6] V. Chandra, J.S. Kim, World’s First Recycled Plastic Bridges, ICSDC 2011 Integr.
Sustain. Pract. Constr. Ind. (2012) 585–593.
[7] Ecobrick, Global Ecobrick Alliance, (2018). https://www.ecobricks.org/why/.
 J.M.C. Ongpeng et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 24 (2021) 405–413
[8] L. Gu, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Use of recycled plastics in concrete: a critical review,
Waste Manag. 51 (2016) 19–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2016.03.005.
[9] N.K. Bui, T. Satomi, H. Takahashi, Recycling woven plastic sack waste and PET
bottle waste as fiber in recycled aggregate concrete: an experimental study,
Waste Manag. 78 (2018) 79–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.05.035.
[10] D. Kawecki, P.R.W. Scheeder, B. Nowack, Probabilistic material flow analysis of
seven commodity plastics in Europe, Environ. Sci. Technol. 52 (2018) 9874–
9888, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01513.
[11] F. Welle, Twenty years of PET bottle to bottle recycling—an overview, Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2011) 865–875, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2011.04.009.
[12] L. Shen, E. Worrell, M.K. Patel, Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET
bottle-to-fibre recycling, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2010) 34–52, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.06.014.
[13] S.L. Wong, N. Ngadi, T.A.T. Abdullah, I.M. Inuwa, Current state and future
prospects of plastic waste as source of fuel: a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 50 (2015) 1167–1180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.063.
[14] Y. Li, D.J. White, R. Lee Peyton, Composite material from fly ash and post-
consumer PET, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. (1998) 87–93, https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0921-3449(98)00041-X.
[15] Y. Meng, T.-C. Ling, K.H. Mo, Recycling of wastes for value-added applications
in concrete blocks: an overview, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 138 (2018) 298–312,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.07.029.
[16] R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal, Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete – a
review, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016) 473–482, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.08.042.
[17] T.R. Naik, S.S. Singh, C.O. Huber, B.S. Brodersen, Use of post-consumer
waste plastics in cement-based composites, Cem. Concr. Res. 26 (1996)
1489–1492.
[18] D. Foti, Innovative techniques for concrete reinforcement with polymers,
Constr. Build. Mater. 112 (2016) 202–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2016.02.111.
[19] J.G. Dai, Y.L. Bai, J.G. Teng, Behavior and modeling of concrete confined with
FRP composites of large deformability, J. Compos. Constr. 15 (6) (2011) 963–
973.
[20] J.J. Zeng, Y.Y. Ye, W.Y. Gao, S.T. Smith, Y.C. Guo, Stress-strain behavior of
polyethylene terephthalate fiber-reinforced polymer-confined normal-, high-,
and ultra-high strength concrete, J. Build. Eng. 30 (2020) 101243.
[21] B. Simon, What are the most significant aspects of supporting the circular
economy in the plastic industry?, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 141 (2019) 299–
300, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.044.
[22] V. Zeller, E. Towa, M. Degrez, W.M.J. Achten, Urban waste flows and their
potential for a circular economy model at city-region level, Waste Manag. 83
(2019) 83–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.034.
[23] G. Faraca, T. Astrup, Plastic Waste from recycling centres: characterisation and
evaluation of plastic recyclability, Waste Manag. 95 (2019) 388–398, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.111.
[24] H. Dahlbo, V. Poliakova, V. Mylläri, O. Sahimaa, R. Anderson, Recycling
potential of post-consumer plastic packaging waste in Finland, Waste Manag.
71 (2018) 52–61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.10.033.
[25] E. Van Eygen, D. Laner, J. Fellner, Circular economy of plastic packaging:
current practice and perspectives in Austria, Waste Manag. 72 (2018) 55–64,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.11.040.
413
[26] L. Milios, L. Holm Christensen, D. McKinnon, C. Christensen, M.K. Rasch, M.
Hallstrøm Eriksen, Plastic recycling in the Nordics: a value chain market
analysis, Waste Manag. 76 (2018) 180–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.03.034.
[27] A. Paletta, W. Leal Filho, A.-L. Balogun, E. Foschi, A. Bonoli, Barriers and
challenges to plastics valorisation in the context of a circular economy: case
studies from Italy, J. Clean. Prod. 241 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.118149 118149.
[28] Y. Gong, E. Putnam, W. You, C. Zhao, Investigation into circular economy of
plastics: the case of the UK fast moving consumer goods industry, J. Clean.
Prod. 244 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118941 118941.
[29] M.K. Eriksen, J.D. Christiansen, A.E. Daugaard, T.F. Astrup, Closing the loop for
PET, PE and PP waste from households: influence of material properties and
product design for plastic recycling, Waste Manag. 96 (2019) 75–85, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.07.005.
[30] P. Ghisellini, S. Ulgiati, Circular economy transition in Italy. Achievements,
perspectives and constraints, J. Clean. Prod. 243 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118360 118360.
[31] P.S. Authority, Housing Characteristics in the Philippines, (2018). http://www.
psa.gov.ph/content/housing-characteristics-philippines-results-2015-census-
population.
[32] Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Earthquake Impact Reduction
Study for Metropolitan Manila, Republic of the Philippines, 2004.
[33] J.M.C. Ongpeng, V. Pilien, A. Del Rosario, A. Dizon, K.B. Aviso, R. Tan, Structural
column retrofitting of school building using ferrocement composites in Vigan,
Ilocos Sur, Philippines., in: Proc. 6th Int. Symp. Life-Cycle Civ. Eng. IALCCE,
2019, pp. 2309–2313.
[34] ACI Committee 440, 440.7R-10: Guide for the Design and Construction of
Externally a Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Systems for Strengthening Unreinforced
Masonry Structures, (2010) 46.
[35] A.W.C. Oreta, J.M.C. Ongpeng, Modeling the confined compressive strength of
hybrid circular concrete columns using neural networks, Comput. Concr. 8
(2011) 597–616, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2011.8.5.597.
[36] J. Ongpeng, I.N. Lecciones, J.A. Garduque, D.J. Buera, Ultimate confined
compressive strength of carbon Fiber-reinforced circular and rectangular
concrete, Column in (2020:) 351–362, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-
0058-9_34.
[37] S. Suon, S. Saleem, A. Pimanmas, Compressive behavior of circular concrete
columns confined by basalt fiber reinforced polymer (BFRP), Key Eng. Mater.
765 (2018) 355–360, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/
KEM.765.355.
[38] Y.-L. Bai, Z.-W. Yan, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Q. Han, J.-G. Dai, D.-J. Zhu, Quasi-static
and dynamic tensile properties of large-rupture-strain (LRS) polyethylene
terephthalate fiber bundle, Constr. Build. Mater. 232 (2020), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117241 117241.
[39] A. Pimanmas, S. Saleem, Evaluation of existing stress-strain models and
modeling of PET FRP–confined concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31 (2019), https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002941.
[40] IS 10262, Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design Proportioning, Bureau of Indian
Standards, 2009.
[41] ASTM C39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1520/C0039_C0039M-05.
[42] A. Fallah Pour, T. Ozbakkaloglu, T. Vincent, Simplified design-oriented axial
stress-strain model for FRP-confined normal- and high-strength concrete, Eng.
Struct. (2018) 501–516, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.07.099.