Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Recycled Non-Biodegradable polyethylene terephthalate waste as fine

aggregate in fly ash geopolymer and cement mortars
Ronnakrit Kunthawatwong a, Lattana Sylisomchanh a, Saengsuree Pangdaeng b, Ampol Wongsa a,
Vanchai Sata a, *, Piti Sukontasukkul c, Prinya Chindaprasirt a, d
a
Sustainable Infrastructure Research and Development Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002,
Thailand
b
Faculty of Engineering, Nakhon Phanom University, Nakhon Phanom 48000, Thailand
c
Construction and Building Materials Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology North Bangkok,
Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand
d
The Academy of Science, The Royal Society of Thailand, Dusit, Bangkok, Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, the use of recycled non-biodegradable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) waste as a fine aggregate in
Waste fly ash geopolymer mortar was examined. PET waste was used to replace 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% by
Recycled aggregate volume of natural fine aggregate for preparing geopolymer mortar. The flow, density, porosity, water absorption,
Mortar
ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), thermal conductivity, and strengths of the mortars were tested and compared
Fly ash
Thermal conductivity
with those of ordinary Portland cement (OPC) mortar. The results showed that the mechanical properties of the
geopolymer mortar deteriorated with an increase in the amount of PET waste. The compressive strength
decreased from 42.7 to 12.8 MPa with increasing PET content from 0 to 40% for geopolymer mortars and
decreased from 49.5 to 22.5 MPa with increasing PET content from 0 to 20% for cement mortars. However, the
ratio of flexural strength to compressive strength of geopolymer and cement mortars containing PET waste
tended to improve. In addition, the density and thermal conductivity were significantly reduced with increasing
PET content; ranging from 1585 to 2020 kg/m3 and 0.6329 to 1.3116 W/m.K, respectively for geopolymer
mortar and from 1763 to 2042 kg/m3 and 1.181 to 2.0030 W/m.K, respectively for cement mortar. The reduction
of density and thermal conductivity in both types of mortar could be used to reduce self-weight and improve
thermal performance.

1. Introduction
Plastics are widely used in everyday life because of their desirable
properties, such as low weight, ease of formation, durability, and low
cost [1]. Many plastics, such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET),
polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene, and polystyrene, are used in
various applications, including packaging, kitchenware, and office ac­
cessories [2,3]. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) re­
ports that the annual production of plastics is up to 400 metric tons per
year [4], generating a large amount of plastic waste. There are three
main plastic waste disposal methods: landfill, incineration, and recy­
cling [5]. Some types of plastics, such as PVC, contribute to toxic
leachate from landfills [6]. In addition, there are gas emissions from
incineration [7]. Therefore, recycling is being considered as the primary
approach for waste disposal. However, the high amount used and low
biodegradability causes a large amount of plastic waste to accumulate in
the environment.
PET is the most commonly used plastic in daily life. It is commonly
used in beverage bottles, which are usually used only once before being
discarded. A report from the National Association for PET Container
Resources (NAPCOR) states that the recycling rate of PET is only 30.8%
[8]. PET waste can be reused in many ways, such as aggregates in
concrete, instead of dumping it into the environment. Research has been
conducted on using PET waste as fiber-reinforced cement concrete and
mortar [7,9–12] and as an aggregate in cement concrete and mortar
[13–15], which indicated that the increase of PET contents resulted in
the decrease in strength of cement mortar and concrete. Almashal et al.
[16] studied the replacement of sand with up to 50% PET waste in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: vancsa@kku.ac.th (V. Sata).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127084
Received 9 December 2021; Received in revised form 28 February 2022; Accepted 4 March 2022
Available online 10 March 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Kunthawatwong et al.
concrete. The result indicated that the strengths of concrete declined
with the increase of PET waste content. Moreover, concrete containing
plastic aggregate displayed lower unit weight. Aocharoen and Chotickai
[17] studied cement mortar containing recycled high density poly­
ethylene aggregates as a partial replacement of sand with various frac­
tions between 0% and 100% by volume. The results showed that
compressive strength and density tended to decrease with the increase of
recycled plastic aggregates. In addition, the scanning electron micro­
scope image illustrated the larger gap between plastic and paste,
compared with natural sand and paste. Hacini et al. [18] reported that
the use of PET waste fine aggregate in the form of the strapping band in
cement mortar caused the reduction in the mechanical strength of
cement mortar. However, the incorporation of PET waste presented
better thermal conductivity. With the replacement rate of 60%, the
thermal conductivity of cement mortar reduced by approximately 47%
compared with the reference mortar.
Although, from previous research, it was noted that there are nega­
tive effects on mechanical strengths of mortar and concrete containing
plastic waste aggregate but the density and thermal conductivity were
improved. It is very promising to manufacture mortar or concrete con­
taining plastic waste aggregate with sufficient mechanical properties
and low density and thermal conductivity.
It is estimated that cement production will rise annually from 4.3
billion metric tons in 2015 to 6.1 billion metric tons in 2051 [19],
resulting in the emission of a massive amount of CO2 (producing 1 ton of
cement emits approximately 1 ton of CO2) [20]. To reduce the use of
cement, alternative materials that are more environmentally friendly
have been investigated. Geopolymers are aluminosilicate compounds
that can be synthesized from materials rich in silica and alumina, such as
fly ash and slag. It is activated with highly alkaline solutions, such as
sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate. It features low CO2 emissions
with high compressive strength, fire resistance, and durability [21–23].
The CO2 emission from a fly ash-based geopolymer is approximately
nine times less than that of Portland cement [24].
Recently, some researchers have studied the use of waste aggregates,
such as recycled concrete aggregates from construction and demolition,
and crumb rubbers from old tires in geopolymers [25,26]. In addition,
plastic waste has also been used in geopolymers [27,28]. However, the
use of plastic waste as an aggregate in geopolymers is not as extensive as
that of cement.
Thus, the main aim of this study was to investigate the mechanical
and physical properties of geopolymer mortars containing PET waste
aggregate so that this waste would be used as construction materials.
The physical and mechanical properties, such as flow, strength, density,
porosity, water absorption, ultrasonic pulse velocity, thermal conduc­
tivity, and sulfuric acid resistance were tested. A scanning electron mi­
croscope was used to analyze the microstructure, especially the bonding
between aggregate and paste. The results were also compared with those
of OPC mortar. The finding should help with reusing this non-
biodegradable waste in the environmentally friendly cementitious
material.
2. Materials and experimental programs
2.1. Materials
Fly ash (FA) from the Mae Moh power plant in northern Thailand,
with a specific gravity of 2.24 and 34.8%, retained on a No. 325 sieve,
was used as an aluminosilicate material. Sodium hydroxide (NH) at 10 M
diluted from sodium hydroxide flakes (98% pure) and sodium silicate
(NS) of 32.39% SiO2, 13.44% Na2O, and 54.17% H2O by weight were
used as alkali activators. The 10 M NH was produced by dissolving 400 g
of 98% pure sodium hydroxide pellets with distilled water while NS was
used without any modification. Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) with a
specific gravity of 3.15 was used as a binder in cement mortar. The
specific gravities of the binders were tested according to ASTM C77
2
Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084
[29]. The chemical components of FA and OPC are listed in Table 1. PET
waste, as shown in Fig. 1, was obtained from a PET recycling factory in
Northeast Thailand. This was the portion left in the PET bottle shredding
machine after mechanical recycling, the industrial shredding process to
obtain PET flakes before being melted into a PET pellet. River sand, with
a maximum size of 4.75 mm, specific gravity of 2.59, and fineness
modulus of 2.74, was immersed in water to prepare the saturated surface
dry (SSD) condition following ASTM C128 [30] before use as the natural
fine aggregate. PET waste was washed and dried in air for use as the
recycled fine aggregate with a maximum size of 4.75 mm, a specific
gravity of 1.34, and a fineness modulus of 3.87. Sieve analysis was
performed following ASTM C136 [31] to determine the particle size
distribution of fine aggregates, including natural sand and PET waste
aggregate. The sieve size and cumulative passing of the fine aggregates
are shown in Table 2. The particle size distributions of the fine aggre­
gates are shown in Fig. 2 with the lower and upper limits specified by
ASTM C33 [32]. The PET waste passed sieve No.8 and retained on sieve
No.16 was more than 80% (1.00–4.75 mm for length and width), and the
thickness was around 0.2 mm, while natural aggregate had better par­
ticle size distributions. This may cause difficulty in compacting when
using PET waste as an aggregate. The specific gravity of PET waste was
similar to that reported by Hannawi et al. [33], and Saikia and De Brito
[34]. The physical properties of the sand and PET waste are listed in
Table 3.
2.2. Mix proportion and specimen preparation
For the geopolymer mortar, a liquid alkali solution to fly ash ratio (L/
A) of 0.70, sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide ratio of 1.00, aggregate
to binder ratio of 2.75, and 10 M NaOH were used. Five mixes PG00,
PG10, PG20, PG30, and PG40, representing 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, and
40% PET waste to sand percentages by volume, respectively, were
prepared. For cement mortar, three mixes PC00, PC10, and PC20, rep­
resenting 0%, 10%, and 20% PET waste to the sand percentage by vol­
ume, respectively, were prepared. The limiting of sand replacement rate
at 20–40% in this study was due to the workability, it is possible to have
a higher sand replacement level with the incorporation of admixture.
The control OPC mortar was designed to have a flow of 105–115%. A
water-to-cement ratio (w/c) of 0.50 and an aggregate-to-binder ratio of
2.75 were used. The geopolymer and cement mortar mix proportions are
listed in Table 4.
The geopolymer mixing procedure was initiated by mixing fly ash
and sodium hydroxide solution for 5 min. The aggregates were then
added and mixed for 5 min. Sodium silicate solution was then added and
mixed for another 5 min. The geopolymer mortar was cast into molds
and vibrated for 10 s to achieve good compaction without risking
segregation. The specimens were then covered with clingfilm to prevent
loss of moisture. Subsequently, the specimens were cured in an oven at
60 ◦ C for 48 h. Finally, the specimens were demolded and left in a 50%
RH and 22 ◦ C control room for 28 d. For the cement mortar, the mixing
procedure followed ASTM C305 [35]. After mixing, the specimen was
vibrated using a process similar to the geopolymer mortar and covered
with clingfilm for 24 h. Finally, the specimens were demolded and cured
in water until testing. Geopolymer and cement specimens are shown in
Table 1
Chemical composition of binders.
Chemical composition (wt %) FA OPC
Al2O3 21.3 4.0
SiO2 41.3 17.2
CaO 15.1 63.1
FeO3 11.9 3.1
MgO 2.5 0.9
K2O 2.4 0.6
SO3 2.5 3.9
LOI 0.7 0.9
R. Kunthawatwong et al. Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

Fig. 1. (a) PET bottles (b) PET waste.

splitting tensile strength (ASTM C496 [39]), water absorption, density

Table 2
and porosity (ASTM C642 [40]), ultrasonic pulse velocity (ASTM C597
Sieve size and cumulative passing of fine aggregates.
[41]), and sulfuric acid resistance (ASTM C267 [42]). The thermal
Sieve size (mm) Cumulative passing (%) conductivity was obtained using ISOMET2114 [43] in accordance with
Sand PET waste ASTM D5930-17 [44]. The measurements ranged from 0.04 to 6.00 W/
4.75 (#4) 97.9 98.9 m∙K. The 50 mm cube specimens were tested for compressive strength
2.36 (#8) 90.1 81.8 and sulfuric acid resistance. A 40 × 40 × 160 mm prism was tested for
1.18 (#16) 76.7 20.8 flexural strength, and a cylinder with a diameter of 100 mm and a height
0.60 (#30) 49.0 6.2 of 200 mm was tested for splitting tensile strength. The 100 mm cube
0.30 (#50) 11.4 3.9
0.15 (#100) 1.4 1.3
specimens were tested for ultrasonic pulse velocity and thermal con­
ductivity. The results are the average values from three specimens in
each mixture. The microstructure and interface of the paste aggregate
Fig. 3 with ash-gray color in geopolymer mortar and gray for cement
mortar.
Table 3
Physical properties of river sand and PET waste.
2.3. Testing Properties Sand PET waste

Specific gravity 2.59 1.34

The flow value of the fresh mortar was determined according to Fineness modulus 2.74 3.87
ASTM C1437-15 [36]. For hardened mortar, the mechanical and phys­ Unit weight (kg/m3) 1,682 552
ical properties of 28-day old specimens were tested for compressive Water absorption (%) 0.63 –
strength (ASTM C109 [37]), flexural strength (ASTM C348 [38]),

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of river sand and PET waste aggregate.

3
R. Kunthawatwong et al. Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

Table 4 were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Mix proportion of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar (kg/m3).
Mix FA OPC NS NH RS PET Water 3. Result and discussion
PG00 453 – 159 159 1246 – –
PG10 453 – 159 159 1121 64 – 3.1. Flow value
PG20 453 – 159 159 997 128 –
PG30 453 – 159 159 873 193 – The flow values of the geopolymer mortar and cement mortar
PG40 453 – 159 159 746 258 – incorporating different amounts of PET waste are shown in Fig. 4. The
PC00 532 1463 266
flow value significantly decreased with an increase in the amount of PET
– – – –
PC10 – 532 – – 1318 75 266
PC20 – 532 – – 1171 152 266 waste. The flow of the geopolymer mortar decreased from 129% to 63%
when the PET waste was increased from 0% to 40%. For Portland
cement mortar, the flow decreased from 116% to 102% when the PET

Fig. 3. Geopolymer and cement mortar specimens.

Fig. 4. Flow value of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar containing PET waste.

4
R. Kunthawatwong et al. Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

waste content was increased from 0% to 20%. The reduction in the flow Table 6
of mortar was due to the flaky particles with high angularity and sharp Reduction in the density of replacing sand with the various types of the 10%
edges. This finding is in good agreement with other research [45]. Saikia plastic waste aggregate in mortar.
and De Brito [46] also reported that the use of a pellet-shaped PET Plastic waste/cementitious material Reduction in density References
aggregate with a spherical and smooth surface texture affected the (mortar) (%)
slump less than the use of flaky-shaped PET aggregates with an angular PET waste/geopolymer 9.01 This study
shape and sharp edge. PET waste/OPC 9.26 This study
Furthermore, Chindaprasirt et al. [47] stated that the optimal flow PET/OPC 3.91 Hannawi et al.
[33]
values of mortar recommended by local masons for use as clay brick
Polyvinyl chloride/OPC 3.84 Shenhadji et al.
plastering mortar and brick joint mortar were 100%-110% and 65%- [50]
75%, respectively. The flow values obtained in this study showed that High impact polystyrene (HIP)/OPC 4.04 Wang and Meyer
replacing sand with 10% and 20% PET waste by volume in both geo­ [51]
polymer mortar and cement mortar had flow values in the range of 99%- Polycarbonate (PC)/OPC 5.25 Hannawi et al.
[33]
112%, which is an acceptable range for plastering work. The replace­ High-density polyethylene/OPC 3.62 Badache et al. [52]
ment of natural fine aggregate with 30%-40% PET waste by volume in
geopolymer mortar was suitable for use in brick joint work.
was a result of the very low bonding between the plastic and matrix,
which led to the emergence of pores in the interfacial transition zone
3.2. Dry density, porosity, water absorption, and ultrasonic pulse velocity [54].
The ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) of the geopolymer mortar and
The results of dry density, porosity, water absorption, and ultrasonic cement mortar listed in Table 5 indicate that the high PET waste content
pulse velocity (UPV) of the mortars are shown in Table 5. The dry in the mixtures decreased the UPV value. The UPV of the control geo­
density of both, geopolymer mortar and cement mortar containing PET polymer mortar was 2499 m/s, which dwindled to 1608 m/s for the mix
waste, decreased with increasing PET waste content. As also reported by with 40% PET waste. The use of PET waste in cement composites caused
other researchers that the low specific gravity of PET waste led to a a reduction in the ultrasonic pulse velocity because PET waste has a
reduction in the dry density of the mortar [16–18,48,49]. Moreover, lower density than natural aggregate, and the presence of PET waste in
replacing sand with PET promoted porosity and reduced density. For the mixtures results in high porosity. In addition, the sheeting nature of
comparison with mortar containing other types of plastic waste, the PET waste may reflect ultrasonic pulses and cause a reduction in the
reduction in density caused by 10% replacement of sand with various UPV [55–57].
types of plastic waste, including the results from this study, is shown in The ultrasonic pulse velocity test is a non-destructive method used to
Table 6. The results indicated that using all types of lightweight plastic detect cracks and voids in concrete and can be used to estimate the
waste aggregates reduced the mortar density. However, the reduction consistency and quality of concrete [41]. The relationship between the
was not significant and was related to the type and density of plastic porosity and ultrasonic pulse velocity of the geopolymer mortar and
waste, along with other factors such as porosity and mix proportion. cement mortar is plotted in Fig. 5. The high correlation coefficient
Comparing the densities of the geopolymer and OPC mortar with the revealed that the decrease in ultrasonic pulse velocity was strongly
same PET waste content, it was found that the density of the geopolymer related to the increase in porosity and could be expressed as follows:.
mortar was slightly lower than that of the cement mortar. The density
values of the geopolymer mortars with 20% and 30% PET waste were p = − 0.0076UPV + 39.207 (1)
relatively low at 1718 and 1641 kg/m3, respectively. The use of geo­
where p is the porosity (%) and UPV is the ultrasonic pulse velocity (m/
polymer mortar containing PET waste can significantly reduce the load-
s).
bearing capacity of the structure.
The porosity of the geopolymer and cement mortar containing PET
In contrast to density, porosity, and water absorption, which
waste can be estimated using the above equation. It can further define
increased with an increase in PET waste content, the flaky shape of PET
the strength of mortar with known porosity.
waste reduced its compacting ability and resulted in higher porosity.
The porosity and water absorption of the geopolymer mortar increased
from 21.5 to 25.75% and 7.9 to 8.4%, respectively. The high water
3.3. Compressive, splitting tensile and flexural strengths
absorption resulted from the increase in the porosity of the mortar,
allowing water to infiltrate into the specimen more easily. This result is
The mechanical properties of the geopolymer mortar and cement
consistent with the research of Akcaozoglu et al. [53], which showed
that the water absorption of cement mortar containing only PET
aggregate was higher than that containing fine normal aggregate.
Moreover, the increase in porosity of the mortar-incorporated PET waste

Table 5
Density, porosity, water absorption, and ultrasonic pulse velocity of geopolymer
mortar and cement mortar.
Mixtures Density (kg/ Porosity (%) Water Ultrasonic pulse
m3) (STD. (STD. dev) absorption (%) velocity (m/s)
dev) (STD. dev) (STD. dev)

PG00 2020 (6.8) 18.3 (0.4) 7.4 (0.0) 2499 (32)

PG10 1838 (18.2) 21.5 (2.0) 7.9 (0.3) 2291 (99)
PG20 1718 (20.7) 24.8 (0.4) 8.1 (0.1) 2150 (78)
PG30 1641 (7.8) 25.7 (0.6) 8.3 (0.2) 1772 (131)
PG40 1585 (1.8) 25.7 (0.6) 8.4 (0.3) 1608 (51)
PC00 2042 (5.4) 11.5 (0.2) 5.6 (0.1) 3603 (67)
PC10 1853 (19.7) 16.5 (0.2) 6.9 (0.3) 3014 (57)
Fig. 5. Relationship between porosity and ultrasonic pulse velocity of mortars
PC20 1763 (32.4) 22.7 (0.7) 7.4 (0.2) 2419 (127)
containing PET waste.

5
R. Kunthawatwong et al. Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

mortar containing PET waste are shown in Fig. 6. The results indicated
that the use of PET waste decreased the strengths of the geopolymer
mortar and cement mortar. The compressive strength of the geopolymer
mortars with 0–40% PET waste was 12.8–22.8 MPa, and that of the
cement mortar was 22.5–49.5 MPa for 0–20% PET waste. This result is
consistent with the previous researches [16–18], which stated that the
replacement of natural sand with plastic waste leads to a decline in the
strengths of mortar or concrete. An increase in the PET waste-to-sand
ratio decreases the compressive strength [58]. The low bond strength
between PET waste and paste is the main factor that negatively affects
the compressive strength of mortar containing PET [59–61]. Because of
PET waste impermeability, excess water is present in the mortar
mixture, which leads to lower bonding between PET waste and paste
[15]. The presence of many pores in the interfacial transition zone
increased the porosity of the geopolymer mortar and cement mortar
containing PET waste, resulting in a reduction in the compressive
strength [53].
From the results of porosity in Table 5 and compressive strength in
Fig. 6, it was confirmed that the reduction in compressive strength of
mortar was related to the increase in porosity. Ryshkewitch [62] and
Zaetang et al. [63] presented an exponential relationship between the
compressive strength and porosity of porous concrete and proposed the
following relation:.
σ = σ 0 e− kp
(2)
suggested that the relationship between the compressive strength and
porosity of Portland cement paste was best fitted with a linear rela­
tionship of Hasselman’s model [70] as follows:
σ = σ0 − cp (5)
where c is the empirical constant.
According to the four basic equations (Eqs. (2)–(5)), the experi­
mental compressive strengths and porosity values in this study were
used to solve the constant of each equation and expressed as follows:.
σ = 139.96e− 8.338p
(6)
σ = 120.89(1 − p)6.7572 (7)
σ = 41.428 ln(0.389/p) (8)
σ = 75.63 − 232.85p (9)
The relationship between the compressive strength and porosity of the
geopolymer mortar and cement mortar from the differential equations is
shown in Fig. 7. To determine the accuracy of these equations, the
experimental compressive strength, predicted compressive strength, and
correlation coefficient are listed in Table 7. The experimental porosity
was in the range of 11.5%− 25.7%, and the predicted compressive
strength values were satisfactory, with R2 values between 0.8085 and

where σ is the compressive strength (MPa), σ0 is the compressive

strength at zero porosity (MPa), k is the empirical constant, and p is the
porosity (%).
Previous researches [64–65] showed that the power function of
Balshin’s model [66] was suitable to describe the compressive strength-
porosity relationship of mortar. The equation is as follows:.

σ = σ 0 (1 − p)b (3)

where b is the empirical constant.

Schiller [67] and Merlo et al. [68] proposed a logarithmic relation­
ship between the compressive strength and porosity of cement mortar
that partially replaced sand with PVC aggregate through the following
equation:.
σ = nln(p0 /p) (4)

where n is the empirical constant and p0 is the porosity at zero Fig. 7. Relationship between compressive strength and porosity of geopolymer
mortar and cement mortar from different equations.
compressive strength (%). Additionally, Robler and Older [69]

Fig. 6. Strengths of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar containing PET waste.

6
R. Kunthawatwong et al. Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

Table 7
Experimental compressive strength and predicted compressive strength of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar from different functional compressive strength-
porosity relationships.
Mixture Experimental data Predicted compressive strength (MPa)

Porosity (%) Compressive strength (MPa) Eq. (6) Eq. (7) Eq. (8) Eq. (9)

PG00 18.3 42.7 30.6 30.9 31.2 33.0

PG10 21.5 24.0 23.5 23.6 24.6 25.6
PG20 24.8 20.9 17.9 17.6 18.7 17.9
PG30 25.7 15.1 16.4 16.1 17.0 15.6
PG40 25.7 12.8 16.4 16.1 17.0 15.6
PC00 11.5 49.5 53.9 53.0 50.5 48.9
PC10 16.5 28.9 35.6 35.7 35.5 37.2
PC20 22.7 22.5 21.3 21.2 22.3 22.8
Correlation coefficient (R2) 0.8085 0.8162 0.8264 0.8437

0.8437. However, the highest correlation coefficient is obtained from
Eq. (9); thus, it was the most suitable linear equation. It could predict
that the compressive strength of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar
containing PET waste at zero porosity was equal to 75.63 MPa. In
contrast, when the porosity was 32.5%, the geopolymer and cement
mortars had zero compressive strength. Compared with the porosity at
zero strength (38.9%) of the logarithmic relationship (Eq. (8)), the
values were nearly the same.
Furthermore, more pores and a low density of PET caused a reduc­
tion in the density of mortar, which also affected the compressive
strength. The linear relationship between the compressive strength and
density of the geopolymer mortar and cement mortar is shown in Fig. 8.
The high correlation coefficient (R2 = 0.9464) revealed that the
compressive strength was strongly related to the density, and is
expressed as follows:
(10)
′
fc = 0.0761D − 110.52
where f’c is the compressive strength (MPa) and D is the density (kg/
m3).
The linear relationship between the compressive strength and den­
sity in this study was consistent with other studies using plastic waste in
mortar and concrete [52,53,71].
According to ASTM C91 [72], the minimum 28-day compressive
strength of masonry mortar for Types N, S, and M are 6.2, 14.5, and 20
MPa, respectively. The compressive strengths of the mixtures with 10%
and 20% PET waste by volume in both geopolymer and cement mortars
were higher than 20 MPa, indicating that these mixtures met the re­
quirements for Type M mortar. Moreover, the compressive strengths of
mixtures PG30 and PG40 were 15.1 and 12.8, respectively, which
satisfied the requirements for Type S and Type N mortar, respectively.
For the structural lightweight requirement, the density should be
1140–1850 kg/m3, and compressive strength should be 17.0–41.0 MPa
following ACI 213R-14 [73]. Thus, the use of 10–20% PET waste in both
mortars is considered structural lightweight concrete.
For the tension response of the geopolymer mortar, the flexural and
splitting tensile strengths also decreased with an increase in PET waste
content. The incorporation of 0–40% PET waste resulted in flexural and
splitting tensile strengths of 2.3–7.0 and 0.7–3.6 MPa, respectively
(Fig. 6). In addition, in cement mortar, PET waste reduced the flexural
and splitting strengths. The reduction in tensile strength was due to the
smooth surface of PET, resulting in a weak bond between PET and the
paste [46,74,75]. However, the reduction in the flexural strength was
not as severe as that in the case of compressive strength. This behavior
can be explained by the flexible properties of PET and the load trans­
mitted from the matrix to the PET before the specimen was broken [33].
The ratios of the splitting tensile strength and flexural strength to the
compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar and cement mortar are
listed in Table 8. The ratio of the flexural strength to the compressive
strength of mortars containing PET waste was greater than that of the
control mixture. The use of PET waste in geopolymer mortar and cement
mortar affected the flexural strength to a lesser extent than the
compressive strength. The mixture PG10 had the highest ratio (25.00%)
of flexural strength to compressive strength.
Figure 9 shows the relationship between the splitting tensile strength
and compressive strength obtained from this experiment and other
studies. The empirical expressions of ACI 363R-10 (for high-strength
concrete) [76], ACI 318R-19 (for conventional concrete) [77], AS-
3600 [78], and research by Gomaa et al. [79] presented the relation­
ship between the splitting tensile strength of alkali-activated Class C fly
ash concrete as follows:.
f ’ st = 0.59f ’ 0.5
c , ACI 363R − 10 [76] (11)
f ’ st = 0.56f ’ 0.5
c , ACI 318R − 19 [77] (12)
f ’ st = 0.40f ’ 0.5
c , AS − 3600 [78] (13)

f ’ st = 0.38f ’ 0.5
c , Gomaa et ​ al. [79] (14)

Table 8
Ratios of splitting tensile strength and flexural strength to compressive strength
of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar containing PET waste for different
mixtures.
Mixtures Splitting tensile to compressive Flexural to compressive
strengths (%) strengths (%)

PG00 8.44 16.40

PG10 6.25 25.00
PG20 5.26 18.66
PG30 5.30 20.52
PG40 5.47 17.97
PC00 6.87 13.54
PC10 6.23 17.30
Fig. 8. Relationship between compressive strength and density of geopolymer
PC20 6.22 16.44
mortar and cement mortar containing PET waste.

7
R. Kunthawatwong et al. Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

Fig. 9. Relationship between the splitting tensile strength and compressive strength of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar containing PET waste.

where f’st is splitting tensile strength (MPa) and f’c is compressive study is shown in Fig. 10. The correlation coefficient was high, with an
strength (MPa). R2 of 0.9756, and the proposed equation from this study is as follows:
The splitting tensile strength and compressive strength of the geo­ ′
f r = 0.947f
′ 0.5
(16)
polymer mortar and cement mortar obtained in this study were plotted
c

in Fig. 9 to determine the relationship. The empirical expression is as where f’r is the flexural strength (MPa) and f’c is the compressive
follows: strength (MPa).
The equations used in this study were compared with Eqs. (17)–(20),
(15)
′ ′ 0.5
f st = 0.378f c
which was proposed by ACI 363R-10 [76], ACI 318R-19 [77], AS-3600
Eq. (15) correlated perfectly with the splitting tensile strength predicted [78], and Gomaa et al. [79] as follows:
by Gomaa’s equation (Eq. 14) [79]. In addition, using the equation f ’ r = 0.94f ’ 0.5 (17)
c , ACI 363R - 10 [76]
predicted from AS-3600 [78], the results reported here could be closely
matched. However, the splitting tensile strengths from Eqs. (11) and f ’ r = 0.62f ’ 0.5 (18)
c , ACI 381R - 19 [77]
(12) by ACI 363R-10 [76] and ACI 318R-19 [77], respectively, were
significantly higher than those predicted in this study. This may be f ’ r = 0.60f ’ 0.5 (19)
c , AS - 3600 [78]
because the ACI 363R-10 [76] used concrete with a compressive
strength ranging from 21 to 83 MPa, unlike the concrete used in this f ’ r = 0.64f ’ 0.5 (20)
c , Gomaa et al. [79]
study, which had a compressive strength of 13 to 43 MPa.
The relationship between the flexural strength and compressive As shown in Fig. 10, most experimental data were above the trend line of
strength of the geopolymer mortar and cement mortar obtained in this

Fig. 10. Relationship between flexural strength and compressive strength of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar containing PET waste.

8
R. Kunthawatwong et al.
the equations proposed by ACI 318R-19 [77], AS-3600 [78], and Gomaa
et al. [79]. In addition, it was shown that the equations used in AS-3600
[78] and Gomaa et al. [79] to predict the splitting tensile strength was
close to that proposed in this study.
3.4. Thermal conductivity
The thermal conductivity values are presented in Fig. 11. The ther­
mal conductivity of the control geopolymer mortar was 1.3116 W/m∙K,
which significantly dropped to the range 1.0144–0.6392 W/m∙K with
10–40% PET waste. This apparent decrease in thermal conductivity is
consistent with the study by Hacini et al. [18], which explored the
possibility of using aggregates of shredded polyethylene terephthalate
strapping bands in mortar and found that the thermal conductivity of
cement mortar reduced with the increase in the amount of plastic waste.
The decrease in the thermal conductivity of mortar containing PET
behaved similarly to that of lightweight concrete [80]. The incorpora­
tion of PET produced more pores in the specimen. The entrapped air
with a very low thermal conductivity (0.024 W/m∙K) compared with
other materials [81] further reduced the thermal conductivity. More­
over, PET acted as an insulator with a lower thermal conductivity than
natural aggregate. At the same PET waste replacement, the thermal
conductivity of the geopolymer mortar was lower than that of the
cement mortar. This was due to the significantly higher porosity and
lower density of the geopolymer mortar than those of cement mortar,
which greatly affected the thermal conductivity. The relationship be­
tween the density and thermal conductivity is shown in Fig. 12. The
exponential equation with a high correlation coefficient of 0.9933 for
geopolymer mortar and 0.9723 for cement mortar indicated that the
density was strongly related to the thermal conductivity. The empirical
expressions of this study are as follows:
k = 0.0525e0.0016D , for geopolymer mortar (21)
k = 0.0336e0.0020D , for cement mortar (22)
where k is the thermal conductivity (W/m∙K) and D is the density (kg/
m3).
In addition, a comparison between the equation obtained from this
study, ACI 213R-14 [73], and research by Asadi et al. [82] is also pre­
sented in Fig. 12. The empirical expressions of ACI 213R-14 [73] and
Asadi et al. [82] are as follows:
k = 0.086e0.00125D , ACI ​ 213R - 14 [73] (23)
k = 0.0625e0.0015D , Asadi et al. [82] (24)
Fig. 11. Thermal conductivities of geopolymer mortar and cement mortar
containing PET waste.
9
Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084
The equations for the geopolymer mortar used in this study and the
equation proposed by Asadi et al. [82] were very similar. This was
because the thermal conductivity from Asadi et al.’s research [82] was in
the range 0.4–1.4 W/m∙K, similar to the geopolymer mortar in this
study. The prediction bands of geopolymer mortar and Asadi et al. [82]
were fitted to the ACI 213R-14 equation [73] when the density was
below 1500 kg/m3. Meanwhile, when the density was above 1500 kg/
m3, the values predicted by the ACI 213R-14 equation [73] were
increasingly different. This may be because the ACI213R-14 equation
[73] is suitable for predicting the thermal conductivity of lightweight
concrete.
The lower thermal conductivity of the geopolymer mortar and
cement mortar containing PET waste enhanced the insulating property,
which allowed less heat transfer to the building. This is useful for energy
conservation. Moreover, mixtures PG30 and PG40 with thermal con­
ductivities of 0.7459 and 0.6392 W/m∙K, respectively, are classified as
insulating materials according to the RILEM LC2-1978 [83] requirement
of less than 0.75 W/m∙K.
3.5. Scanning electron microscope observation
The scanning electron microscope results are shown in Fig. 13. It was
found that the PET waste was inert and non-reactivity with any sub­
stances [14,46]. Fig. 13a-b represent an overview of the microstructure
at x200 magnification. PET waste and sand were relatively well
embedded in the paste. In addition, the geopolymer paste had some
microcracks and pores due to shrinkage and the hollow nature of fly ash.
When the amorphous part of the fly ash is leached away, microcracks
and pores remain [84]. Compared with the geopolymer paste, as shown
in Fig. 13b, the cement paste was denser and more homogeneous than
the geopolymer paste. Fig. 13c-d show the interfacial transition zone
between the paste and natural aggregate, and PET waste aggregate at
x1000 magnification. Large pores and gaps between the paste and PET
waste were observed. The interfacial transition zone between the paste
and PET waste appears to be larger than that of the natural aggregate. It
was confirmed that the larger amount of PET waste incorporated in the
mixture caused an increase in the porosity.
3.6. Sulfuric acid resistance
In this study, geopolymer mortar specimens and cement mortar
specimens were exposed to a 3% sulfuric acid solution for 7, 14, 28, 56,
84, and 120 d. The results shown in Fig. 14 indicate that immersion for
less than 28 d did not affect the sulfuric acid resistance of the geo­
polymer mortar specimens. Subsequently, the resistance to sulfuric acid
attack was slightly reduced with an increase in the amount of PET waste.
The mass loss of PG00 was 29.6%, which increased to 36.1% with the
addition of 40% PET waste. This was due to the low adhesion between
the PET waste and matrix. In addition, the presence of PET waste
increased the porosity of the matrix and thus was more prone to acid
attack.
Moreover, the weight loss of the cement mortar was higher than that
of the geopolymer mortar. After 7 d of immersion, the weight loss of the
cement mortar and geopolymer mortar was relatively close; however,
the accumulated weight loss of the cement mortar was significantly
higher than that of the geopolymer mortar. The weight losses at 120
d for PC00, PC10, and PC20 were 62.9%, 63.8%, and 66.0%, respec­
tively, which were approximately twice that of the geopolymer mortar.
This was due to the presence of calcium hydroxide and other calcium
compounds, which are the products of cement hydration. Calcium
compounds are easily destroyed by acids [85]. When the cement mortar
was exposed to sulfuric acid, C–H and C-S-H reacted with sulfuric acid to
form calcium sulfoaluminate (ettringite) and calcium sulfate (gypsum),
contributing to the expansion, cracking, and weight loss of the specimen.
The geopolymer mortar is an aluminosilicate compound that has shown
R. Kunthawatwong et al. Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084

Fig. 12. Regression line of thermal conductivity and density of mortars in this study compared with other research.

Fig. 13. Microstructure of mortars containing 10% PET waste (a) PG10 with x200 magnification (b) PC10 with x200 magnification (c) PG10 with x1000 magni­
fication (d) PC10 with x1000 magnification.

good resistance to acid attack.
4. Conclusions
The partial replacement of sand with polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) waste impaired the mechanical properties of fly ash geopolymer
mortar. The compressive strength and splitting tensile strength
decreased significantly with an increase in the amount of PET waste. The
PET waste was flaky and angular in morphology, and with flexible
properties, it was able to carry the load transmitted from the matrix
before fracture. This resulted in a higher ratio of flexural strength to
compressive strength of mortar containing PET waste. The mortar
containing PET waste showed higher porosity and water absorption
owing to the wider interfacial transition zone between the PET and
paste. However, the use of PET waste caused a reduction in density,
which could be useful for producing lightweight materials, thereby
reducing the dead load on buildings. In addition, the partial replacement
of PET waste could enhance the thermal performance of the geopolymer
mortar and cement mortar. Using 30% and 40% PET waste by volume of
geopolymer mortar resulted in a low thermal conductivity, making it an
insulating material. This advantage can be applied to masonry mortar
for reducing the thermal conductivity of the building, resulting in low
energy consumption.

10
R. Kunthawatwong et al.
Fig. 14. Accumulated weight loss over time of geopolymer mortar and cement
mortar exposure to 3% sulfuric acid solution.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ronnakrit Kunthawatwong: Investigation, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Writing – original draft. Lattana Sylisomchanh: Investiga­
tion, Writing – original draft. Saengsuree Pangdaeng: Investigation,
Validation. Ampol Wongsa: Validation. Vanchai Sata: Funding
acquisition, Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Piti Sukontasukkul: Validation, Writing – review & editing. Prinya
Chindaprasirt: Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research project was financially supported by the Research Fund
of the Faculty of Engineering, Khon Kaen University, under the Research
Scholarship for Ph.D. Student project under Contract No. Ph.D-002/
2564, Research and Graduate Studies, Khon Kaen University.
References
[1] J.L. Ruiz-Herrero, D.V. Nieto, A. López-Gil, A. Arranz, A. Fernández, A. Lorenzana,
S. Merino, J.A. de Saja, M.A. Rodríguez-Pérez, Mechanical and thermal
performance of concrete and mortar cellular materials containing plastic waste,
Constr. Build. Mater. 104 (2016) 298–310.
[2] R. Siddique, J. Khatib, I. Kaur, Use of recycled plastic in concrete: a review, Waste
Manag. 28 (10) (2008) 1835–1852.
[3] U.B. Khangale, P.A. Ozor, C. Mbohwa, C., A review of recent trends and status of
plastics recycling in industries, Eng. Appl. Sci. Res. 48 (3) (2021) 340–350.
[4] UNEP, Converting Waste Plastics into a Resource. 2009.
[5] J. Gertsakis, H. Lewis. 2003. Sustainability and the waste management hierarchy
(retrieved January 30, 2008).
[6] E.C. DGXI.E.3, The Behaviour of PVC in a Landfill, (2000).
[7] T. Ochi, S. Okubo, K. Fukui, Development of recycled PET fiber and its application
as concrete-reinforcing fiber, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (6) (2007) 448–455.
[8] National Association for PET container resources. Report on postconsumer PET
container recycling activity in 2012; 2013.
[9] D.A. Silva, A.M. Betioli, P.J.P. eize, H.R. Roman, L.A. Gomez, J.L.D. Ribeiro,
Degradation of recycled PET fibers in Portland cement-based materials, Cem.
Concr. Res. 35 (9) (2005) 1741–1746.
[10] S.B. Kim, N.H. Yi, H.Y. Kim, J.H.J. Kim, Y.C. Song, Material and structural
performance evaluation of recycled PET fiber reinforced concrete, Cem. Concr.
Compos. 32 (3) (2010) 232–240.
[11] B. Mobasher, C.Y. Li, Effect of interfacial properties on the crack propagation in
cementitious composites, Adv. Cem. Based Mater. 4 (3–4) (1996) 93–105.
[12] D. Foti, Use of recycled waste pet bottles fibers for the reinforcement of concrete,
Compos. Struct. 96 (2013) 396–404.
[13] A. Sadrmomtazi, S. Dolati-Milehsara, O. Lotfi-Omran, A. Sadeghi-Nik, The
combined effects of waste PET particles and pozzolanic materials on the properties
of self-compacting concrete, J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (4) (2016) 2363–2373.
11
Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084
[14] E. Rahmani, M. Dehestani, M.H.A. Beygi, H. Allahyari, I.M. Nikbin, On the
mechanical properties of concrete containing waste PET particles, Constr. Build.
Mater. 47 (2013) 1302–1308.
[15] M. Frigione, Recycling of PET bottles as fine aggregate in concrete, Waste Manage.
30 (2010) 1101–1106.
[16] I. Almeshal, B.A. Tayeh, R. Alyousef, H. Alabduljabbar, A.M. Mohamed, Eco-
friendly concrete containing recycled plastic as partial replacement for sand,
J. Mater. Res. Technol. 9 (3) (2020) 4631–4643.
[17] Y. Aocharoen, P. Chotickai, Compressive mechanical properties of cement mortar
containing recycled high-density polyethylene aggregates: Stress–strain
relationship, Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15 (2021).
[18] M. Hacini, A.S. Benosman, N.K. Tani, M. Mouli, Y. Senhadji, A. Badache,
N. Latroch, Utilization and assessment of recycled polyethylene terephthalate
strapping bands as lightweight aggregates in Eco-efficient composite mortars,
Constr. Build. Mater. 270 (2021), 121427.
[19] K.L. Scrivener, V.M. John, E.M. Gartner, Eco-efficient cements: potential
economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry,
Cem. Concr. Res. 114 (2018) 2–26.
[20] V.M. Malhotra, introduction: sustainable development and concrete technology,
ACI Concr. Int. 24 (7) (2002) 7–22.
[21] J. Davidovits, Properties of Geopolymer Cements, in: First International
Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes, Scientific Research Institute on
Binders and Materials Kiev State Technical University, Ukraine, 1994,
pp. 131–149.
[22] J. Davidovits, Years of Successes and Failures in Geopolymer Applications. Market
Trends and Potential Breakthroughs, Geopolymer 2002 Conference,.
[23] X. Guo, X. Pan, Mechanical properties and mechanisms of fiber reinforced fly
ash–steel slag based geopolymer mortar, Constr. Build. Mater. 179 (2018)
633–641.
[24] J. Davidovits, Geopolymer: Chemistry and Applications, Morrisvile, Lulu
Enterprises, Inc., USA, 2008.
[25] P. Nuaklong, A. Wongsa, K. Boonserm, C. Ngohpok, P. Jongvivatsakul, V. Sata,
P. Sukontasukul, P. Chindaprasirt, Enhancement of mechanical properties of fly
ash geopolymer containing fine recycled concrete aggregate with micro carbon
fiber, J. Build. Eng. 41 (2021), 102403.
[26] A. Wongsa, V. Sata, B. Nematollahi, J. Sanjayan, P. Chindaprasirt, Mechanical and
thermal properties of lightweight geopolymer mortar incorporating crumb rubber,
J. Clean. Prod. 195 (2018) 1069–1080.
[27] A. Wongkvanklom, P. Posi, S. Homwuttiwong, V. Sata, A. Wongsa,
D. Tanangteerapong, P. Chindaprasirt, Lightweight geopolymer concrete
containing recycled plastic beads, Key Eng. Mater. 801 (2019) 377–384.
[28] A.C. Bhogayata, N.K. Arora, Utilization of metalized plastic waste of food
packaging articles in geopolymer concrete, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 21 (4)
(2019) 1014–1026.
[29] American Society for Testing and Materials. (1940). Test method for specific
gravity of hydraulic cement. ASTM C77-40. Annual Book of ASTM Standard, 4(1).
[30] American Society for Testing and Materials. (2017). Standard test method for
density, relative density (specific gravity), and absorption of fine aggregate. ASTM
C128-17. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4(2).
[31] American Society for Testing and Materials. (2017). Standard test method for sieve
analysis of fine and coarse aggregates. ASTM C136-17. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, 4(2).
[32] American Society for Testing and Materials. (2018). Standard specification for
concrete aggregates. ASTM C33-18. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4(2).
[33] K. Hannawi, S. Kamali-Bernard, W. Prince, Physical and mechanical properties of
mortars containing PET and PC waste aggregates, Waste Manage. 30 (2010)
2312–2320.
[34] N. Saikia, J. De Brito, Waste polyethylene terephthalate as an aggregate in
concrete, Mater. Res. 16 (2) (2013) 341–350.
[35] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Practice for Mechanical
Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency, ASTM
C305-14. Developed by Subcommittee: C01.22, 04.01. Book of Standards.
[36] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Flow of
Hydraulic Cement Mortar. ASTM C1437-15. Book of Standards Volume: 04.01:
Developed by Subcommittee C01.22; 2015.
[37] American Society for Testing and Materials. (2001). Standard test method for
compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars (using 2-in or (50 mm) cube
specimens). ASTM C109/C109M-99. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4(1).
[38] American Society for Testing and Materials. (2001). Standard test method for
flexural strength of hydraulic-cement mortars. ASTM C348-97. Annual Book of
ASTM Standards, 4(1).
[39] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Splitting
Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM C496/C496M-17. Book
of Standards Volume: 04.02: Developed by Subcommittee: C09.61; 2017.
[40] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Density,
Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete. ASTM C642-13. Book of Standards
Volume: 04.02: Developed by Subcommittee: C09.66; 2013.
[41] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Test Method for Pulse
Velocity through Concrete. ASTM C597-16. Book of Standards Volume: 04.02:
Developed by Subcommittee C09.64; 2016.
[42] American Society for Testing and Materials, (2012). Standard Test Methods for
Chemical Resistance of Mortars, Grouts, and Monolithic Surfacings and Polymer
Concretes, ASTM C267 - 01. Developed by Subcommittee: D01.46, 06.02. Book of
Standards.
R. Kunthawatwong et al.
[43] A. Wongkvanklom, P. Posi, P. Kasemsiri, V. Sata, T. Cao, P. Chindaprasirt,
Strength, thermal conductivity and sound absorption of cellular lightweight high
calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete, Eng. Appl. Sci. Res. 48 (4) (2021) 487–496.
[44] American Society for Testing and Materials. (2009). Standard test method for
thermal conductivity of plastic by means of a transient line-source technique.
ASTM D5930-09. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4(1).
[45] M. Batayneh, I. Marie, I. Asi, Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes,
Waste Manage. 27 (12) (2007) 1870–1876.
[46] N. Saikia, J. De Brito, Mechanical properties and abrasion behavior of concrete
containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial substitution of natural aggregate,
Constr. Build. Mater. 52 (2014) 236–244.
[47] P. Chindaprasirt, N. Buapa, H.T. Cao, Mixed cement containing fly ash for masonry
and plastering work, Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (2005) 612–618.
[48] Y.W. Choi, D.J. Moon, Y.J. Kim, M. Lachemi, Characteristics of mortar and
concrete containing fine aggregate manufactured from recycled waste
polyethylene terephthalate bottles, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (2009) 2829–2835.
[49] A.M.D. Silva, J. De Brito, R. Veiga, Incorporation of fine plastic aggregates in
rendering mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 71 (2014) 226–236.
[50] Y. Senhadji, H. Siad, G. Escadeillas, A.S. Benosman, R. Chihaoui, M. Mouli,
M. Lachemi, Physical, mechanical and thermal properties of lightweight composite
mortars containing recycled polyvinyl chloride, Constr. Build. Mater. 195 (2019)
198–207.
[51] R. Wang, C. Meyer, Performance of cement mortar made with recycled high impact
polystyrene, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 975–981.
[52] A. Badache, A.S. Benosman, Y. Senhadji, M. Mouli, Thermo-physical and
mechanical characteristics of sand-based lightweight composite mortars with
recycled high-density polyethylene (HDPE), Constr. Build. Mater. 163 (2018)
40–52.
[53] S. Akçaözoglu, C.D. Atis, K. Akçaözoglu, An investigation on the use of shredded
waste PET bottles as aggregate in lightweight concrete, Waste Manage. 30 (2)
(2010) 285–290.
[54] E.A. Ohemeng, S.O. Ekolu, Strength prediction model for cement mortar made with
waste LDPE plastic as fine aggregate, J. Sustain. Cem.-Based Mater. 8 (2019)
228–243.
[55] C. Albano, N. Camacho, M. Hernández, A. Matheus, A. Gutiérrez, Influence of
content and particle size of waste pet bottles on concrete behavior at different w/c
ratios, Waste Manage. 29 (2009) 2707–2716.
[56] B. Safi, M. Saidi, D. Aboutaleb, M. Maallem, The use of plastic waste as fine
aggregate in the self-compacting mortars: effect on physical and mechanical
properties, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 436–442.
[57] A.M. Azhdarpour, M.R. Nikoudel, M. Taheri, The effect of using polyethylene
terephthalate particles on physical and strength-related properties of concrete; a
laboratory evaluation, Constr. Build. Mater. 109 (2016) 55–62.
[58] Z. Ge, R. Sun, K. Zhang, Z. Gao, P. Li, Physical and mechanical properties of mortar
using waste Polyethylene Terephthalate bottles, Constr. Build. Mater. 44 (2013)
81–86.
[59] C. Jacob-Vaillancourt, L. Sorelli, Characterization of concrete composites with
recycled plastic aggregates from postconsumer material streams, Constr. Build.
Mater. 182 (2018) 561–572.
[60] A.J. Babafemi, B. Šavija, S.C. Paul, V. Anggraini, Engineering properties of
concrete with waste recycled plastic: a review, Sustainability 10 (11) (2018) 3875.
[61] M.d. Jahidul Islam, M.d. Salamah Meherier, A.K.M. Rakinul Islam, Effects of waste
PET as coarse aggregate on the fresh and harden properties of concrete, Constr.
Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 946–951.
[62] E. Ryshkevitch, Compression strength of porous sintered alumina and zirconia,
J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 36 (2) (1953) 65–68.
[63] Y. Zaetang, A. Wongsa, V. Sata, P. Chindaprasirt, Use of lightweight aggregates in
pervious concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 48 (2013) 585–591.
12
Construction and Building Materials 328 (2022) 127084
[64] I. Papayianni, M. Stefanidou, Strength–porosity relationships in lime–pozzolan
mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (2006) 700–705.
[65] Y.X. Li, Y.M. Chen, J.X. Wei, X.Y. He, H.T. Zhang, W.S. Zhang, A study on the
relationship between porosity of the cement paste with mineral additives and
compressive strength of mortar based on this paste, Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (2006)
1740–1743.
[66] M.Y. Balshin, Relation of mechanical properties of powder metals and their
porosity and the ultimate properties of porous-metal ceramic materials, Doklady
Akademii Nauk SSSR 67 (5) (1949) 831–834.
[67] K.K. Schiller, Strength of porous materials, Cem. Concr. Res. 1 (1971) 419–422.
[68] A. Merlo, L. Lavagna, D.S. Reira, M. Pavese, Mechanical properties of mortar
containing waste plastic (PVC) as aggregate partial replacement, Case Stud. Constr.
Mater. 13 (2020).
[69] M. Robler, I. older, Investigations on the relationship between porosity, structure
and strength of hydrated Portland cement pastes I. effect of porosity, Cem. Concr.
Res. 15 (1985) 320–330.
[70] D.P.H. Hasselman, Griffith flaws and the effect of porosity on tensile strength of
brittle ceramics, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 52 (8) (1969) 452–457.
[71] M. Belmokaddem, A. Mahi, Y. Senhadji, B.Y. Pekmezci, Mechanical and physical
properties and morphology of concrete containing plastic waste as aggregate,
Constr. Build. Mater. 257 (2020), 119559.
[72] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard specification for masonry
mortar. ASTM C91-18. Book of Standards Volume: 04.01: Developed by
Subcommittee: C01.11; 2018.
[73] ACI Committee 213. Guild for structural lightweight-aggregate concrete. ACI
213R-14, In: ACI manual of concrete practice Part I; 2014.
[74] Y.W. Choi, D.J. Moonb, J.S. Chungc, S.K. Cho, Effects of waste PET bottles
aggregate on the properties of concrete, cement and concrete research. 35(4)
(2005) 776-781.
[75] O. Yazoghli Marzouk, R.M. Dheilly, M. Queneudec, Valorization of post-consumer
waste plastic in cementitious concrete composites, Waste Manage. 27 (2007)
310–318.
[76] ACI Committee 363. State-of-the-art report on high-strength concrete. ACI 363R-
10, In: ACI manual of concrete practice Part I; 2010.
[77] ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirement for Structural Concrete and
commentary. ACI 318-19, In: ACI manual of concrete practice Part I; 2019.
[78] AS-3600, Concrete Structures. 2009, Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney,
NSW.
[79] E. Gomaa, S. Sargon, A. Gheni, M. ElGawady, Mechanical properties of alkali
activated concrete based class C fly ash, Conference: International Conference on
Bridge Maintenance, Safety, and Management, Australia. (2018).
[80] S. Akçaözoglu, K. Akçaözoglu, C.D. Atis, Thermal conductivity, compressive
strength and ultrasonic wave velocity of cementitious composite containing waste
PET lightweight aggregate (WPLA), Compos.: Part B. 45 (1) (2013) 721–726.
[81] F. Iucolano, B. Liguori, D. Caputo, F. Colangelo, R. Cioff, Recycled plastic aggregate
in mortars composition: effect on physical and mechanical properties, Mater. Des.
52 (2013) 916–922.
[82] I. Asadi, P. Shafigh, Z.F.B.A. Hassan, N.B. Mahyuddin, Thermal conductivity of
concrete–A review, J. Build. Eng. 20 (2018) 81–93.
[83] L. Rilem, Functional classification of lightweight concrete, Mater. Struct. 11 (1978)
281–283.
[84] P. Chindaprasirt, U. Rattanasak, S. Taebuanhuad, Role of microwave radiation in
curing the fly ash geopolymer, Adv. Powder Technol. 24 (2013) 703–707.
[85] P. Chindaprasirt, U. Rattanasak, S. Taebuanhuad, Resistance to acid and sulfate
solutions of microwave-assisted high calcium fly ash geopolymer, Mater. Struct. 46
(2013) 375–381.