Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Concrete containing waste recycled glass, plastic and rubber as sand

replacement
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar, R. Combrinck ⇑
Civil Engineering Department, Stellenbosch University, South Africa

h i g h l i g h t s

 Fresh, mechanical and durability properties of concrete with waste materials.

 Plastic, rubber and glass used as partial sand replacement in concrete.
 Rheology not adversely affected when incorporating plastic and rubber.
 Glass improves- and low plastic content does not affect compression strength.
 Glass enhances durability while plastic and rubber decrease durability.

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

Article history: Extensive research has been conducted during the past three decades to include waste plastic, rubber and
Received 6 December 2019 glass in concrete. Recent interest to include these materials in concrete can be ascribed to the growing
Received in revised form 20 May 2020 need for innovative waste disposal, as well as to minimise raw material usage. However, this research
Accepted 2 October 2020
domain and application has not yet gained popularity and urgency in countries with an abundance of
Available online xxxx
aggregates, such as South Africa. For these materials to be a viable option to be used as a concrete con-
stituent in these countries, concretes produced using these materials should retain satisfactory proper-
Keywords:
ties. This study investigates various fresh, mechanical and durability properties, utilising waste ground
Sand replacement
Waste materials
Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) plastic, crumb tyre rubber, and crushed clear flat glass as a partial fine
Rubber aggregate replacement, using materials sourced in South Africa. Two replacement contents are investi-
Plastic gated: 15% and 30%, replacing fine aggregate by volume. The results show that plastic, rubber and glass
Glass decrease concrete workability, and increase air content. It also demonstrates that glass improves the
Concrete properties mechanical and durability properties of concrete. Concrete containing low plastic content has promising
mechanical properties but performs poorly in durability. Rubber significantly impacts the mechanical and
durability properties of concrete negatively.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction concrete production [3]. As a result, the utilisation of waste plastic,

Concrete has proven to be the dominant construction material,
largely due to it being (comparatively) cheap, robust and the rela-
tive ease of using it [1]. With the current population growth and
urbanisation rate, it can only be expected that the production rate
of concrete will increase accordingly. Apart from the many advan-
tages of concrete, also come some well-documented disadvan-
tages, with one of those being its excessive aggregate
consumption; up to 80% of the concrete volume is made up of
aggregates [2]. This has led to some countries, such as the Nether-
lands, experiencing increasing difficulty obtaining aggregates for
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rcom@sun.ac.za (R. Combrinck).
rubber, and glass as a natural aggregate replacement in concrete
has become a domain well researched in these countries.
Several developing countries, such as South Africa, is fortunate
to have an abundance of natural aggregates, obtainable from vari-
ous sources. This may well be the reason these countries has not
followed suit in researching and incorporating waste such as plas-
tic, rubber and glass in concrete. However, aggregates can be con-
sidered a finite resource and regarding the future; the current
consumption rate is not sustainable. Another aspect of aggregates
as a concrete constituent that is often overlooked is the adverse
and prolonged ecological damage the acquisition and production
process of aggregates cause [4]. Therefore, to strive for and ensure
more sustainable, eco-friendly concrete, even in countries with an

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121242
0950-0618/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al., Concrete containing waste recycled glass, plastic and rubber as sand replacement, Con-
struction and Building Materials, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121242
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al.
abundance of aggregates, it is worth venturing into seeking alter-
native aggregate sources.
The advantages of incorporating waste plastic, rubber and glass
in concrete are three-fold; it can be incorporated as a natural
aggregate replacement, thereby reducing the amount of natural
aggregates consumed and reduce the ecological damage, while
simultaneously reducing the burden waste places on the environ-
ment [5]. Since aggregates play a substantial role in the fresh,
mechanical and durability properties of concrete the influence of
the mentioned waste aggregates on these concrete properties are
discussed in the following sections as obtained from currently
available literature.
1.1. Fresh properties
Aggregate shape, texture and grading, compaction effort, degree
of hydration and water content profoundly impacts concretes’
fresh properties [6,7].
1.1.1. Plastic aggregate concrete
Babafemi et al. [8] reported that concrete workability is gener-
ally negatively influenced when plastic replaces sand. The angular,
sharp edges and elongated shape of the plastic particles is ascribed
to this reduced slump [2,8,9].
Chen et al. [10] reported an insignificant increase in air content
up to 20% fine plastic content, however, compared to the control
mixture, a 387% higher air content is reported when 100% of the
sand is replaced by plastic.
1.1.2. Rubber aggregate concrete
Generally, it was found that crumb rubber (<4.75 mm), utilised
as a sand replacement, affects the slump negatively [11,12]. These
authors attribute this observation to the formation of an interlock-
ing structure, resulting from the rough, irregular shaped, rubber
particles.
Similar to plastic, Richardson and Dias [13] reported a signifi-
cant increase in air content when sand is replaced with crumb rub-
ber. Babafemi et al. [8] and Siddique and Naik [12] attributes this
observation to the hydrophobic nature of these materials (plastic
and rubber), expelling water and entrapping air to its surface.
1.1.3. Glass aggregate concrete
The results reported in the literature regarding the workability
of glass is, however, inconsistent. For example, Ali and Al-Tersawy
[14] and Terro [15] reported that the smooth surface of the glass
resulted in a more workable mixture. While Abdallah [16] and Lim-
bachiya [17] observed that the high angularity of the glass particles
decreases the concrete workability.
The higher aspect ratio (angularity) of glass, which subse-
quently leads to reduced packing density, together with micro-
cracks in the glass aggregate itself induce higher concrete air con-
tent [18,19].
1.2. Hardened properties
The bond formation at the interface between the aggregate and
the cement paste, known as the interfacial transition zone (ITZ),
significantly affect the mechanical properties of concrete [2,20].
Others, such as water to cement ratio and particle packing density,
also adversely influence concretes’ mechanical properties [6,21].
1.2.1. Plastic aggregate concrete
Including plastic in concrete generally results in reduced com-
pressive strength [8,22]. Saikia and De Brito [2] reported a decrease
in compressive strength regardless of the PET aggregate type,
shape, content or curing age. Plastic is inherently smooth and of
2
Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx
hydrophobic nature, resulting in poor ITZ bond formation and con-
sequently reduced concrete capacity [8,9]. However, Hossain et al.
[23] and Azhdarpour et al. [24] reported that for low plastic con-
tent (<20%), compressive strength increases. This increase is
ascribed to plastics’ high tensile capacity; the embedded elongated
plastic particles partly distribute the induced shear forces into the
matrix [23,24].
There is a reduction in tensile strength for concrete containing
plastic [8,25]. The notion ascribed to this observation is the early
cracking of the concrete matrix, resulting from reduced ITZ bond
formation due to excess water surrounding the smooth particle
[2,25]. The low stiffness of plastic commonly results in a concrete
mixture with a reduced elastic modulus [8,11]. Higher water
absorption is found in concrete containing plastic, resulting from
an increased matrix porosity [8,12,26]. The impervious plastic par-
ticles, form a bridge across micro-cracks in concrete, reducing the
permeability of the mixture [27].
1.2.2. Rubber aggregate concrete
A considerable decrease in concrete compressive strength attri-
butable to rubber inclusion is reported [12,28,29]. Increased void
content, as well as the low stiffness of the rubber, resulting in early
crack formation and non-uniform stress distribution, are ascribed
to the reduced rubber-concrete strength [22,28,30]. A reduced
ITZ bond and increased water content adjacent to the rubber par-
ticle reduce concrete splitting capacity [12,29]. This poor bond,
together with the low stiffness of rubber, is assigned to the reduced
elastic modulus of rubber-concrete [11,28]. The hydrophobic nat-
ure and weak rubber to matrix bond, result in a matrix that has
higher, more interconnected, voids; hence, higher water absorp-
tion and reduced permeability [28,31,32].
1.2.3. Glass aggregate concrete
Various researchers reported that the smooth surface of the
glass results in a reduced ITZ bond and consequently lower con-
crete compressive strength [18,33,34]. However, Paul et al. [33]
and Kong et al. [35] reported that glass may act as a pozzolan, as
its chemical structure comprises of the reactive (amorphous) silica
(SiO2) – resulting in higher compressive strength, especially when
the aggregates are very small (<0.3 mm) [36]. Paul et al. [33] and
Tan and Du [18] reported that incorporating glass either insignifi-
cantly affect, or slightly increase concrete splitting tensile capacity.
Contradictory results are, however, reported regarding the elas-
tic modulus of concrete containing glass. For example, Wright et al.
[37] reported an increase in the elastic modulus with an increase in
glass content, while Paul et al. [33] reported a decrease. Further-
more, incorporating glass in concrete improves the water absorp-
tion and permeability properties of concrete [33,34,37]. Glass
aggregates favours the pozzolanic reaction, densifying the matrix
[37].
1.3. Aim and significance of this study
It is clear that incorporating waste plastic, rubber and glass in
concrete affects concrete properties both positively and negatively.
With this in mind, this study aims to experimentally evaluate var-
ious fresh and hardened concrete properties by incorporating these
aforementioned materials as a partial fine aggregate replacement,
tested in combination with South African materials and conditions.
The significance of this study is to show that these waste mate-
rials can be used as a partial replacement for natural aggregates in
concrete without significantly affecting the fresh and hardened
properties of concrete negatively. The paper itself will be used to
raise awareness and serve as a message to developing countries
with vast natural aggregate resources. The message is that locally
sourced waste aggregates can be successfully used as alternative
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al. Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx

aggregate in concrete to not only minimise the burden on natural
resources but also effectively dispose of waste materials. This aids
in safeguarding natural resources and their environment for future
generations.
2. Materials and experimental methods
2.1. Materials and concrete mixture
This study was performed by partially substituting sand with
fine waste plastic, rubber, and glass at two replacement contents.
Various literature indicated that incorporating excessively high
waste material content into a concrete mixture significantly influ-
ence concrete properties negatively [16,20,22]; therefore, lower
replacement contents, namely 15% and 30% waste material substi-
tuting sand by volume was adopted for this study.
Eight mixtures were prepared, two control mixtures (denoted
Ref 1 and Ref 2) and six containing the waste materials. The con-
crete mixtures containing waste aggregates are donated as follows:
plastic – PAC 15 and PAC 30, rubber – RAC 15 and RAC 30, and glass
– GAC 15 and GAC 30, for the 15% and 30% replacement levels,
respectively.
The Concrete and Cement Institute (C&CI) mix design approach
was adopted for developing all mixtures [38]. The design grade
strength for the reference concrete mixtures was 40 MPa, with a
water/cement ratio of 0.5 adopted for all mixtures. The con-
stituents and mix proportions of each concrete mixture are shown
in Table 1.
All materials used were locally sourced in South Africa. The CEM
III/A 42.5 N cement, with a relative density of 3.05, consists of
between 36% and 65% blast furnace slag. For the fine natural aggre-
gates (NA), locally available quarry sand was used, while for the
coarse aggregate, 9.5 mm Greywacke stone was used, obtained
through mechanical crushing.
Waste plastic particles of the type Low-Density Polyethylene
(LDPE), obtained as a by-product from the mechanical grinding of
waste polyethylene, and sourced from Atlantic Plastic Recycling
located in Cape Town, was used. The rubber aggregates used in this
investigation: crumb rubber from the mechanical milling and
grinding of the waste tyre, was obtained from Mathe Group situ-
ated in KwaZulu Natal. Furthermore, clear flat glass sourced from
and mechanically milled and ground at Ultra Water located in Cape
Town was utilised as glass aggregates. The plastic, rubber and glass
as obtained from the various sources are shown in Fig. 1.
The aggregate characteristics are given in Table 2, and the gra-
dation curves of the various fine aggregates are depicted in Fig. 2.
This figure presents the grading for the individual plastic – (PA),
rubber – (RA), glass – (GA) and natural aggregates (NA), viz. mix-
tures consisting only of the particular aggregate material, as well
as the grading where 30% of the natural aggregates was replaced
with the respective waste materials, denoted PA 30, RA 30 and
GA 30.
2.2. Sample preparations
Two moulds were utilised: 100  100  100 mm cubical
moulds, and 100  200 mm cylindrical moulds to perform the var-
ious experimental tests. The concrete mixtures were prepared
using a rotating pan mixer. The dry constituents were mixed for
1 min, after which water was added and then mixed for a further
2 min. Testing of the fresh properties commenced immediately
after the mixing. Each mixture was then cast into their appropriate
moulds and vibrated for around 35 s. Curing took place in a
climate-controlled room (temperature 23 ± 2 °C and relative
humidity of 65%) for 24 h. Thereafter, the samples were demoulded
and placed in water curing tanks until the day of testing.
2.3. Test for fresh properties
The slump and concrete rheology tests were executed to evalu-
ate the workability of the fresh concrete. The slump test, per-
formed immediately after mixing, was carried out according to
BS EN 12350-2 [39]. Then, utilising the Germann Instrument’s ICAR
rheometer, the concrete rheological properties, namely the mix-
tures’ static and dynamic yield stresses, were evaluated [40]. This
test commenced 10 ± 1 min after mixing. The test comprises of
two phases: firstly, the stress growth test to determine the static
yield stress, followed by the flow curve test to determine the
dynamic yield and plastic viscosity. The stress growth test was car-
ried out on the concrete mixtures from rest, applying a constant
0.025 rev/s to the concrete, until the maximum torque is reached.
The flow curve test is performed on the concrete at steady state.
This involves pre-shearing of the concrete at 0.5 rev/s for 20 s.
Thereafter, the concrete is sheared starting at 0.5 rev/s, decreasing
over 6 data points, until 0.05 rev/s. This data is then fitted on the
Bingham model to determine the dynamic yield and plasticity of
the mixture.
Approximately 20 min after mixing, the air content of the vari-
ous mixtures was evaluated. This was done according to the pres-
sure method set out in BS EN 12350-7 [41].
2.4. Test for mechanical properties
The compressive strength (evaluated on 4, 5, 7, and 28 days)
was conducted in conformity with BS EN 12390-3 [42]. Utilising
the KingTest Contest machine, a constant loading rate of 180 kN/
min was applied to the specimen. The tensile strength (evaluated
at 28 days curing age) of the various mixtures was performed
according to BS EN 12390-6 [43]. This test was executed using
the Zwick Z250 material testing machine, applying a constant
stress of 0.03 ± 0.01 MPa/s until failure. Both tests were performed
on cubical specimens, and loading took place on two parallel faces,
perpendicular to the direction of casting.
The secant modulus of elasticity test was evaluated following
BS EN 12390-13 [44]. The testing apparatus comprises of three Lin-
ear Variable Differential Transducers (LVDTs), a 2 MN load cell,

Table 1
Mix constituents and proportions.

Mix Water (kg/m3) Cement (kg/m3) Coarse aggregates (kg/m3) Natural fine aggregates (kg/m3) Waste fine aggregate (kg/m3)
Ref 1 224 448 937 757 0
Ref 2 217 433 937 788 0
PAC 15 224 448 937 644 36
PAC 30 224 448 937 530 73
RAC 15 224 448 937 644 41
RAC 30 224 448 937 543 81
GAC 15 224 448 937 644 110
GAC 30 224 448 937 530 221

3
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al. Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. Waste materials used in the investigation.

Table 2
Physical properties of the fine aggregates.

Aggregate Natural Plastic Rubber Glass

Relative density 2.57 0.82 0.92 2.50
Shape Irregular Elongated Irregular Angular
Texture Granular Smooth Granular to rough Smooth
Colour Brown White Black Clear
Fineness modulus 1.48 3.51 2.20 1.66

NA PA 30 RA 30 GA 30 23 ± 2 °C and relative humidity of 65%). Prior to testing, all the

specimens were placed in an environmental chamber (tempera-
PA RA GA
ture of 50 ± 2 °C and relative humidity of 80 ± 2%) for three days
Percentage passing by mass (%)

100 to reach an equilibrium moisture content within the specimen.

90
80
3. Results and discussion
70
60
3.1. Fresh properties
50
40 3.1.1. Air content
30 The air content of the various concrete mixtures are presented
20 in Fig. 3 as an average of two samples per mix. From the results,
10 it is evident that the air content increases with increasing sand
0 replacement content, evident for all mixtures containing wastes.
pan 0,075 0,15 0,3 0,6 1,18 2,36 4,75 This increase is the most notable for RAC, showing 123.5% and
Sieve size (mm) 141.2% higher air content relative to Ref 1. From the scanning elec-
tron microscopy (SEM) analysis (Fig. 4) of the RAC, it can be seen
Fig. 2. Sieve analysis of the various fine aggregates.
that a clear gap exists between the rubber aggregate and cement
paste. It is therefore reasoned that air is entrapped close to the rub-
Contest testing rig, and a computer coupled with a Spider8 data ber surface as a result of its hydrophobic nature.
logger. The 100 mm diameter by 200 mm cylindrical specimen
was used. The test specimen was subjected to cyclic loading
between 10% and 33% of its ultimate compressive strength, mea- 4.5
suring the associated displacements. 4.0
3.5
Air content (%)

3.0
2.5. Test for durability properties
2.5
The oxygen permeability index (OPI) of each mixture was deter- 2.0
mined following the procedure described in SANS 3001-CO3-2 1.5
[45]. This experiment entails pressurising specimens, 70 mm in 1.0
diameter by 30 mm thick, with oxygen and measuring the pressure 0.5
drop over a period of 6 h or until the pressure has dropped below 0.0
50 kPa, whichever occurs first. Following the OPI test, the rate of
PAC 15

PAC 30
Ref 1

Ref 2

GAC 15

GAC 30
RAC 15

RAC 30

water absorption (sorptivity) was determined for Ref 1, PAC 30,

RAC 30 and GAC 30, using the same samples as for the OPI test.
Guidelines in ASTM C1585-13 [46] was followed in conducting this
test. Testing took place in a climate-controlled room (temperature Fig. 3. Influence waste aggregate have on concrete air content.

4
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al.
Fig. 4. SEM analysis of RAC 30.
The air content results for PAC display similar results to Chen
et al. [10], illustrating an insignificant increase for the 15% replace-
ment, yet increased significantly for the 30% replacement, with an
increase of 29% and 22% relative to Ref 1 and Ref 2, respectively.
Similar to RAC, it is postulated that the hydrophobic nature of
the plastic leads to air bubbles forming on the plastic surface,
thereby increasing the air content. Furthermore, although having
a good grading and high fines content, GAC still demonstrate
increased air content. At 15% and 30% GAC contents, air contents
increased by 29% and 41% relative to Ref 1, respectively. Neville
[21] documents that aggregate angularity reduces concrete com-
pactness, this, in turn, is synonymous with higher concrete air
content.
Although this observation is expected to influence concrete
mechanical and durability properties negatively, Richardson et al.
[13] reported that this increased air content is especially useful
where high freeze-thaw resistance is desired.
3.1.2. Workability
Fig. 5 depicts the average slump results of two samples for each
of the various mixtures. Fig. 6 compares the slump, static yield
stress and dynamic yield stress of the various mixtures, where
the latter two show results of only one sample per mixture. In
addition to the slump measurements, visual inspection was done,
and all mixtures were cohesive with no segregation or bleeding.
As shown in Fig. 5, all waste material mixtures cause a decrease
in the concrete slump. At 15% replacement, RAs has the biggest
influence on the concrete slump and GA the least. GAC shows a
13% slump reduction, compared to 30% for RAC. However, at 30%
Ref 1 Ref 2 PAC RAC
120
110
100
Slump (mm)
90
80
70
60
50
40
0 5 10 15 20
Waste aggregate replacement (%)
Fig. 5. Influence waste aggregate have on concrete slump.
Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx
Static yield stress Dynamic yield stress Slump
4000 140
3500 120
3000
Yield stress (Pa)
100
Slump (mm)
2500
80
2000
60
1500
1000 40
500 20
0 0
Ref 1 Ref 2 PAC 15 RAC 15 GAC 15
Fig. 6. Comparison between static yield stress, dynamic yield stress and slump.
replacement, PAC and GAC illustrate the same slump, while RAC
still shows the lowest slump. The reduced workability observed
for GAC (lower slump, and higher dynamic yield stress compared
to Ref 1), may be attributed to the glass angularity and higher
aspect ratio, hindering the flow of cement paste. The decrease in
the slump of the RAC has been attributed to the uneven surface
of the aggregate, and hence higher coefficient of friction thereby
increasing flow resistance [47]. It should, however, be mentioned
that some studies have reported an increase in slump with the
use of RA [48]. The authors adjudged the increase in the slump
to the hydrophobic nature of RA. In addition, while the RA is
hydrophobic in nature, the degree of the surface roughness will
significantly influence the slump of concrete. It should be noted
that the degree of the surface roughness is also a function of the
method of preparation of the RA.
It is also important to note that Ref 2 depicts a slump that clo-
sely replicates the average slump of the 15% replacement mixtures.
This mixture was specifically prepared to compare the static and
dynamic yield stresses of the 15% mixtures with a reference mix-
ture having a similar slump. As expected, a correlation exists
between the slump and static yield stress – lower slump relates
to higher static yield stress. What is interesting here, is that
although both PAC and RAC demonstrate higher static yield stres-
ses than Ref 2 (and Ref 1), both display lower dynamic yield stres-
ses. This considerable variation from static to dynamic yield stress
may be ascribed to the low water absorption capabilities of plastic
and rubber. This means that when disturbed, the additional water
present in the matrix increases the followability of the mixture.
The higher air content (especially for RAC) may also contribute to
this finding. Theoretically, this observation is desired, as higher
static yield stresses would reduce formwork pressure and the
probability of segregation, while low dynamic yield stress indicates
easy mixture placement, pumping and compaction [6].
GAC
3.2. Mechanical properties
3.2.1. Compressive strength
The compressive strength results, evaluated on 4, 5, 7 and
28 day curing age, are depicted in Fig. 7. Each of the results is pre-
sented as an average of three samples. As expected, all mixtures
show an increase in compressive strength development. The high-
est strength capacity at 28-days is seen for GAC, and PAC 15 has a
similar 28-day strength to Ref 1. On the contrary, PAC 30 and RAC
illustrate a significant reduction in compressive strength relative to
both control mixtures. It is also noted that GAC 15 has a higher
25 30
capacity than GAC 30, although both still exhibit higher strengths
than the reference mixtures, evident for all curing ages. Some stud-
ies have also shown that when GA is used to replace natural sand,
5
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al. Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx

Ref 1 Ref 2 PAC 15 PAC 30 Compressive strength Air content

RAC 15 RAC 30 GAC 15 GAC 30 60 4.5

Compressive strength (MPa)

50 4.0
50
45 3.5
Compressive strength (MPa)

Air Content (%)

40 40 3.0
35 2.5
30
30 2.0
25 20 1.5
20 1.0
10
15 0.5
10 0 0.0

RAC15

RAC30
Ref 1

Ref 2

PAC15

PAC30

GAC15

GAC30
5
0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Curing age (days) Fig. 9. Relation between air content and compressive strength.

Fig. 7. Compressive strength development of waste aggregate concrete at different

replacement percentages.
the compressive strength decreases as the content of the GA
increases [49,50].
The good performance of the GAC in compression seems to be
resulting from a densified microstructure, where the reactive
(amorphous) form of SiO2, present in glass, reacts with the port-
landite (CaOH2) in the pozzolanic reaction. This notion is validated
by SEM analysis of the GAC, clearly showing a densified boundary
surrounding the GA (Fig. 8). Regarding the observation of PAC,
Babafemi et al. [8] presented similar findings, attributing the good
performance at low content to the stress redistribution of the elon-
gated plastic particles, converting some of the shear stress into ten-
sile stress to delay failure. While at higher replacement contents,
the soft plastic inclusion results in higher stress at the plastic/paste
interface nullifying the stress redistribution effect. The significant
reduction in compressive strength of RAC can firstly be linked to
the high air content observed but may also be ascribed to the
increase in stress in the vicinity of the soft rubber inclusion, induc-
ing earlier failure.
The 28-day compressive strength to air content relationship is
depicted in Fig. 9. These results concur with that realised in con-
ventional concrete; higher air content induces low compressive
strength [6]. Having high air contents, both PAC 30 and RAC con-
form to this convention, exhibiting compressive strengths signifi-
cantly lower than the reference mixtures. On the contrary,
although having slightly higher air contents, GAC has increased
strengths to the reference mixtures. The proposition that the GAC
has a densified matrix as a result of the pozzolanic reaction is
ascribed to this observation.
3.2.2. Splitting tensile strength
The splitting tensile strength of the mixtures as determined at
28-day curing age is depicted in
Fig. 10. The figure presents the average tensile capacity of three
samples as a function of replacement content. Generally, the ten-
sile strength of all mixtures decreases with an increase in the
waste aggregate content, except for the GAC 15 which shows a
slight increase relative to the control. Similar to the compressive
strength results, GAC 15 shows the highest tensile strengths com-
pared to other mixtures; however, GAC 30 has a slightly (1.7%)
lower strength. The enhanced tensile strength for GAC 15 may
again be ascribed to the pozzolanic reaction mentioned earlier. It
is postulated that the slightly lower strength observed for GAC
30 can be linked to an increase in brittleness of the matrix, result-
ing from the more brittle glass – therefore, a brittle rupture failure
that is more evident was observed for the GA, compared to Ref 1.
The smooth surface of the GA could also have been responsible
for the brittle failure [51].
For both PAC and RAC, a progressive reduction in strength is
evident with increasing waste aggregate content; resulting in ten-
sile strengths that is 27% and 35% lower for PAC 30 and RAC 30,
respectively, compared to Ref 1. The tensile splitting capacity is
significantly influenced by the bonding at the ITZ [2,20]. As both
these materials are expected to be chemically unreactive with
the cement paste, both should exhibit a weak bonding, hence the
reduced tensile strength observed in these concretes.
Fig. 11(a) provide additional evidence that a weak bond exists
between the PA and the cement paste, where the PA did not fail

Ref 1 Ref 2 PAC RAC GAC

5.0
Tensile strength (MPa)

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Waste aggregate content (%)
Fig. 8. SEM analysis of GAC depicting the densified boundary surrounding the glass
aggregate. Fig. 10. Tensile strength at 28-day curing age for the various waste contents.

6
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al. Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx

Concrete elastic modulus is often directly related to compres-

sive strength (i.e. high strength constitutes high elastic modulus)
[2]. RAC and GAC conform to this notion, with both indicating
low and high elastic modulus and compressive strength, respec-
tively. However, PAC 15 has a 10.8% lower elastic modulus even
though its compressive strength is similar to Ref 1. This increases
its usefulness as a concrete property in certain applications, as it
provides for a concrete that may deform more before failing.

3.2.4. Oxygen permeability index

Fig. 11. Failure modes: (a) PAC debonding; (b) PAC ductile failure; (c) RAC ductile
failure.
but de-bonded from the matrix. After the failure of the PAC and
RAC, the concrete did not split into two halves. The PAC and RAC
bridged the crack, resulting in a more ductile failure. These intact
specimens after failure are presented in Fig. 11(a) and (b). Mush-
unje et al. [52] documents similar findings, and additionally also
reported that crack width, length and occurrence decrease with
increasing rubber content when replacing sand.
3.2.3. Elastic modulus
The average results (three samples) pertaining to the secant
elastic modulus of the respective mixtures are presented in
Fig. 12. The elastic modulus of a concrete composite is closely
related to that of its aggregates [8]. These results can, therefore,
be expected, with the stiffer glass increasing the elastic modulus
of concrete, and the lesser stiff plastic and rubber resulting in these
mixtures reducing in elastic modulus. The elastic modulus
decreased by 15.4% and 39.8% for PAC 30 and RAC 30, respectively
relative to Ref 1. This reduced elastic modulus confirms the con-
ception mentioned above that PAC and RAC are less stiff. However,
GAC 30 shows an increase of 5.7%. It is reasoned that the densified
matrix of the GAC, mentioned earlier, also contributes to this
observed result.
Ref 1 Ref 2 PAC
41
38
Elastic modulus (GPa)
The results regarding the OPI test of the respective mixtures are
presented in Table 3. Four samples were tested per mixture. The
last row of Table 3 indicates the day testing took place – it should
be noted that the curing age of the various mixtures are different.
However, this is unlikely to influence the results significantly. Each
mixture is classified as either having excellent, good, poor or very
poor permeability properties, as per the index characterisation in
Alexander [53]. Ref 1 and 2, RAC and GAC all present excellent per-
meability properties. However, PAC has good and poor classifica-
tions for PAC 15 and PAC 30, respectively.
The excellent performance of GAC may be twofold: firstly, the
high fines content may act as a filler, restricting the flow of gas,
and secondly, the aforementioned pozzolanic reaction may consti-
tute to a densified matrix. Paul et al. [33] made similar findings.
The poor performance of PAC against permeability is believed to
be related to the slightly larger particle sizes of plastic aggregates
in this study (Fig. 2); the larger particles may form interlinking
pores for gas to permeate.
3.2.5. Sorptivity index
The rate of water absorption (sorptivity) of Ref 1, PAC 30, RAC
30 and GAC 30 are presented in Fig. 13. These results are an aver-
age of two samples. The results show that PAC and RAC have higher
initial sorptivity (0–6 h), but lower secondary sorptivity (6 h to
7 days), compared to Ref 1. The PAC 30 mixture display the highest
initial sorptivity, equal to 11.2 (10 3) mm/s1/2, while Ref 1 have the
lowest initial sorptivity, equal to 5.2 (10 3) mm/s1/2. Conversely,
PAC 30 have the lowest (0.5 (10 3) mm/s1/2), while Ref 1 have
the highest (1.7 (10 3) mm/s1/2) secondary sorptivity. Further-
more, GAC display initial sorptivity that is slightly higher (8.7%),
but a 27.3% lower secondary sorptivity, compared to Ref 1.
This higher initial sorptivity of PAC and RAC may be related to
the higher observed air content of these mixtures – suggesting a
more porous matrix, coupled with the increased permeability
(especially PAC 30). While the lower initial sorptivity of GAC (com-
pared to PAC and RAC) may be due to the reduced permeability
observed for this mixture. It is speculated that the low secondary
sorptivity of PAC and RAC is directly related to these mixtures’ high
initial sorptivity; the matrix pores become saturated rapidly, slow-
RAC GAC ing down the water uptake. The water uptake of Ref 1 and GAC 30
are prolonged – this may be related to the good permeability of
these mixtures, indicating that the matrix pores takes longer to fill.

35
4. Conclusions
32
29 The evaluation of various fresh, mechanical and durability prop-
26 erties of concrete containing waste plastic, rubber and glass as fine
23 aggregates at 15% and 30% replacement contents have been carried
out. The results of the investigation indicate that the addition of
20
these wastes in concrete influences the properties of concrete. Both
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
the inherent material properties, as well as the physical character-
% replacement
istics of these waste aggregates impact concrete properties. From
Fig. 12. Influence of waste aggregates on concrete elastic modulus. the results in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
7
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al.
Table 3
OPI test results.
Ref 1
11
k (10 m/s) 2.25
OPI (Log scale) 10.66
Classification Excellent
Curing age (days) 35
Initial sorptivity Secondary sorptivity
12.0
Sorptivity (10-3) (mm/s1/2)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Ref 1 PAC 30
Fig. 13. Influence of waste aggregate on concrete sorptivity.
1. Slump measurements are lower for concrete containing these
waste aggregates. However, relatively low dynamic yield stres-
ses are observed for plastic and rubber concrete, indicating that
when disturbed, these mixtures have good fluidity.
2. Plastic, rubber and glass aggregates significantly increase the air
content of concrete. Rubber has the most notable influence, and
plastic (at low content), insignificantly influences the concrete
air content.
3. Glass aggregate optimally enhanced the compressive and ten-
sile strength of concrete compared to other wastes. The con-
crete with low plastic content shows similar 28-day
compressive strength to the control mixture but performs
poorly in tension. Rubber performs poorly at both high and
low contents, in both compression and tension.
4. The stiffness of the composite concrete material is directly
related to the stiffness of the respective waste aggregates.
Low plastic and rubber stiffness resulted in lower concrete elas-
tic modulus, and the high stiffness of glass resulted in increased
concrete elastic modulus. Concrete containing rubber and plas-
tic is more ductile.
5. The inclusion of glass in concrete resulted in a concrete with
better durability properties. Rubber containing concrete
demonstrate low permeability against oxygen but tends to
absorb water easily. The concrete containing the plastic per-
forms poorly in durability.
Finally, the study showed that waste aggregates can success-
fully be used to replace sand in concrete using waste materials
sourced within a developing and aggregate rich country, whilst still
achieving acceptable concrete properties for various applications.
The general conclusions regarding the applicability of the respec-
tive waste materials as sand replacement in concrete are as
follows:
1. PAC poses promising prospects if replaced at low percentages,
even if included in structural concrete. Good concrete workabil-
ity and mechanical performance allow for varied applications.
Excess water and subsequent poor bond formation at the ITZ
negatively influence tensile and durability properties of
concrete.
Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx
Ref 2 PAC 15 PAC 30 RAC 15 RAC 30 GAC 15 GAC 30
2.59 0.17 0.38 4.60 3.42 2.18 2.04
10.59 9.81 9.44 10.32 10.47 10.57 10.70
Excellent Good Poor Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent
35 36 36 37 35 38 36
2. RAs’ in concrete engender good workability, while the reduced
mechanical strength and reduced durability properties limit its
application. The low stiffness of the rubber particle and poor
bonding at the ITZ constitute to this reduced mechanical and
durability properties. However, the low elastic modulus and
reduced density, combined with acceptable concrete capacity
at low replacement content, may pose for viable applications;
especially where concrete strength is trivial and low elasticity
and reduced concrete weight is important.
3. GAC presented results related to mechanical and durability
properties that surpass those of a conventional concrete mix-
ture. The high compressive strength, good durability and
increased elastic modulus, mostly ascribed to the pozzolanic
RAC 30 GAC 30
effect, justify GAs’ use as a concrete constituent. The high angu-
larity of glass hinders the flow of cement paste, hence the
reduced workability.
5. Recommendation for future research
This study exclusively aimed at determining the change in con-
crete properties due to the incorporation of plastic, rubber and
glass as partial sand replacement in concrete. However, to con-
clude on the viability of utilizing these materials as a concrete con-
stituent, future study prospects should concern the availability and
the energy consumption in sorting, transporting, and manufactur-
ing of these materials.
Furthermore, considering the current research outcome, the fol-
lowing recommendations for further research are presented:
1. Both PAC and RAC resulted in increased concrete air content
and reduced concrete durability. Future studies should seek
treatment methods, such as incorporating fly ash into the mix-
ture, to improve on these properties.
2. GAC has undesirable workability properties. Various treatment
methods, such as utilising chemical admixtures, are being used
to improve the workability of conventional concrete. A study
needs to be conducted aimed at improving GACs’ workability.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Z.C. Steyn: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Writing - original draft, Visualization, Investigation. A.J.
Babafemi: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing - review & edit-
ing, Supervision. H. Fataar: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing
- review & editing, Supervision. R. Combrinck: Conceptualization,
Validation, Writing - review & editing, Supervision, Project admin-
istration, Funding acquisition.
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.
8
Z.C. Steyn, A.J. Babafemi, H. Fataar et al. Construction and Building Materials xxx (xxxx) xxx

References [27] S.C. Kou, G. Lee, C.S. Poon, W.L. Lai, Properties of lightweight aggregate
concrete prepared with PVC granules derived from scraped PVC pipes, Waste
Manage. 29 (2009) 621–628.
[1] W.P. Boshoff, CONCRETE : FRIEND OR FOE ?, Inaugural Lecture, Stellenbosch
[28] A. Benazzouk, O. Douzane, T. Langlet, K. Mezreb, J.M. Roucoult, M. Quéneudec,
University, 371 Stellenbosch, 2015.
Physico-mechanical properties and water absorption of cement composite
[2] N. Saikia, J. De Brito, Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of concrete
containing shredded rubber wastes, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 732–740.
containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial substitution of natural
[29] Z.K. Khatib, F.M. Bayomy, Rubberized Portland Cement Concrete, 11 (1999)
aggregate, Constr. Build. Mater. 52 (2014) 236–244.
206–213.
[3] M.J. van der Meulen, S.F. van Gessel, J.G. Veldkamp, Aggregate resources in the
[30] M.M. Reda Taha, A.S. El-Dieb, M.A. Abd El-Wahab, M.E. Abdel-Hameed,
Netherlands, Geol. En Mijnbouw/Netherlands J. Geosci. 84 (2005) 379–387.
Mechanical, fracture, and microstructural investigations of rubber concrete,
[4] C. Jacob-Vaillancourt, L. Sorelli, Characterization of concrete composites with
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 20 (2008) 640–649.
recycled plastic aggregates from postconsumer material streams, Constr. Build.
[31] H. Liu, X. Wang, Y. Jiao, T. Sha, Experimental investigation of the mechanical
Mater. 182 (2018) 561–572.
and durability properties of crumb rubber concrete, Materials (Basel). 9 (2016)
[5] M. Gesolu, E. Güneyisi, Permeability properties of self-compacting rubberized
1–12.
concretes, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 3319–3326.
[32] I. Mohammadi, Investigation on the Use of Crumb Rubber Concrete (CRC) for
[6] P. Domone, J. Illston, Construction Materials – Their Nature and Behaviour, 4th
Rigid Pavements, University of Technology Sydney, 2014.
ed., Spon Press, New York, 2010.
[33] S. Paul, B. Šavija, A.J. Babafemi, A comprehensive review on mechanical and
[7] K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials,
durability properties of cement-based materials containing waste recycled
3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Companies, Ottawa, 2006.
glass, J. Clean. Prod. 198 (2018) 891–906.
[8] A.J. Babafemi, B. Šavija, S.C. Paul, V. Anggraini, Engineering properties of
[34] A.M. Rashad, Recycled waste glass as fine aggregate replacement in
concrete with waste recycled plastic: a review, Sustainable 10 (2018) 3875.
cementitious materials based on Portland cement, Constr. Build. Mater. 72
[9] R. Siddique, J. Khatib, I. Kaur, Use of recycled plastic in concrete: a review,
(2014) 340–357.
Waste Manag. 28 (2008) 1835–1852.
[35] Y. Kong, P. Wang, S. Liu, G. Zhao, Y. Peng, SEM analysis of the interfacial
[10] C.-C. Chen, J. Nathan, K. Matt, W. Wesley, P. Albert, Concrete mixture with
transition zone between cement-glass powder paste and aggregate of mortar
plastic as fine aggregate, Int. J. Adv. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2 (2015) 49–53.
under microwave curing, Materials (Basel). 9 (2016).
[11] C. Bing, L. Ning, Experimental research on properties of fresh and hardened
[36] K. Zheng, Pozzolanic reaction of glass powder and its role in controlling alkali-
rubberized concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (2013) 1–8.
silica reaction, Cem. Concr. Compos. 67 (2016) 30–38.
[12] R. Siddique, T.R. Naik, Properties of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber – An
[37] J.R. Wright, C. Cartwright, D. Fura, F. Rajabipour, Fresh and Hardened
overview, Waste Manage. 24 (2004) 563–569.
Properties of Concrete Incorporating Recycled Glass as 100% Sand
[13] A. Richardson, K. Coventry, V. Edmondson, E. Dias, Rubber crumb used in
Replacement, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (2013) 1–11.
concrete to provide freeze-thaw protection (optimum particle size), J. Clean.
[38] B. Addis, J. Goodman, Concrete mix design, Fulton’s Concr. Technol, 9th ed.,.,
Prod. 48 (2014) 599–606.
Cement and Concrete Institute, Midrand, 2009.
[14] E.E. Ali, S. Al-Tersawy, Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine
[39] BS EN 12350-2, Testing fresh concrete. Slump test, British Standards, 2009.
aggregate in structural concrete – Effects on compressive strength, Electron. J.
[40] E. Koehler, D. Fowler, Development of a portable rheometer for fresh Portland
Struct. Eng. 14 (2015) 785–791.
cement concrete, Texas, 2004.
[15] M.J. Terro, Properties of concrete made with recycled crushed glass at elevated
[41] BS EN 12350-7, Testing fresh concrete. Air content. Pressure methods, British
temperatures, Build. Environ. 41 (2006) 633–639.
Standards, 2009.
[16] S. Abdallah, The use of Waste Glass as Fine Aggregate replacement in concrete
[42] BS EN 12390-3, Testing hardened concrete. Compressive strength of
block, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2017.
specimens, British Standards, 2019.
[17] M.C. Limbachiya, Bulk engineering and durability properties of washed glass
[43] BS EN 12390-6, Testing hardened concrete. Tensile splitting strength of test
sand concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 1078–1083.
specimens, British Standards, 2009.
[18] K.H. Tan, H. Du, Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part i – Fresh, mechanical
[44] BS EN 12390-13, Determination of secant modulus of elasticity in
and durability properties, Cem. Concr. Compos. 35 (2013) 109–117.
compression, British Standards, 2013.
[19] G. Kuruppu, R. Chandratilake, Use of recycle glass as a coarse aggregate in
[45] SANS 3001-CO3-2, Concrete durability index testing — Oxygen permeability
concrete, in: World Constr. Conf., Sri Lanka, 2012: pp. 221–228.
test, South African Bureau of Standards, Pretoria, 2015.
[20] Y. Li, S. Zhang, R. Wang, F. Dang, Potential use of waste tire rubber as aggregate
[46] ASTM C1585-13, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Rate of Absorption
in cement concrete–A comprehensive review, Constr. Build. Mater. 225 (2019)
of Water by Hydraulic Cement Concretes, American Society for Testing and
1183–1201.
Materials, America, 2013.
[21] A. Neville, Properties of Concrete, Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, London, 2011.
[47] A. Alsaif, S. Bernal, M. Guadagnini, K. Pilakoutas, Durability of steel fibre
[22] H. Su, J. Yang, T.C. Ling, G.S. Ghataora, S. Dirar, Properties of concrete prepared
reinforced rubberised concrete exposed to chlorides, Constr. Build. Mater. 188
with waste tyre rubber particles of uniform and varying sizes, J. Clean. Prod. 91
(2018) 130–142.
(2015) 288–296.
[48] R. Bharathi Murugan, C. Natarajan, Investigation of the behaviour of concrete
[23] M. Hossain, P. Bhowmik, K. Shaad, Use of waste plastic aggregation in concrete
containing waste tire crumb rubber, Adv. Struct. Eng. (2015) 1795–1802.
as a constituent material, Progress. Agric. 27 (2016) 383–391.
[49] W. Song, D. Zou, T. Liu, J. Teng, J. Li, Effects of recycled CRT glass fine aggregate
[24] A.M. Azhdarpour, M.R. Nikoudel, M. Taheri, The effect of using polyethylene
size and content on mechanical and damping properties of concrete, Constr.
terephthalate particles on physical and strength-related properties of
Build. Mater. 202 (2019) 332–340.
concrete; A laboratory evaluation, Constr. Build. Mater. 109 (2016) 55–62.
[50] J. Lu, X. Yan, P. He, C. Poon, Sustainable design of pervious concrete using waste
[25] E. Rahmani, M. Dehestani, M.H.A. Beygi, H. Allahyari, I.M. Nikbin, On the
glass and recycled concrete aggregate, J. Clean. Prod. 243 (2019) 1102–1112.
mechanical properties of concrete containing waste PET particles, Constr.
[51] A. Mardani-Aghabaglou, M. Tuyan, K. Ramyar, Mechanical and durability
Build. Mater. 47 (2013) 1302–1308.
performance of concrete incorporating fine recycled concrete and glass
[26] A.H. Alani, N.M. Bunnori, A.T. Noaman, T.A. Majid, Durability performance of a
aggregates, Mater. Struct. Constr. 48 (2015) 2629–2640.
novel ultra-high-performance PET green concrete (UHPPGC), Constr. Build.
[52] K. Mushunje, M. Otieno, Y. Ballim, A review of Waste Tyre Rubber as an
Mater. 209 (2019) 395–405.
Alternative Concrete Consituent Material, MATEC Web Conf. (2018).
[53] M. Alexander, Durability Index Testing Procedure Manual, 2017.