Durability of Mortars Made with Recycled

Plastic Aggregates: Resistance to Frost Action, Salt

Crystallization, and Cyclic Thermal–Moisture Variations
Gurbir Kaur 1 and Sara Pavia 2

Abstract: This study aimed to investigate the use of polymeric end-of-waste materials, including polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) and other
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

plastic types that have not been comprehensively studied to date, namely, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), polycarbonate (PC), ABS/PC
blend, and polyoxymethylene (POM), to improve the durability of cement mortars. The evaluation of freeze-thaw and salt-crystallization
resistance and endurance to cyclic changes in moisture and temperature for plastic aggregate (PA) mortars was carried out by measuring mass
loss, compressive strength loss, and macroscopic damage following accelerated weathering testing. The PA mortars were prepared by replacing
natural sand (5%, 15%, and 20% by volume) with PAs. The results show that PA mortars are more susceptible to thermal/moisture variations and
salt crystallization than to frost action, with 4%–7% mass loss and up to a 31% reduction in strength. The damage caused by frost action is
insignificant for plastic aggregate mortars, especially at low replacement levels. The damage to mortars done by salt attacks and moisture/thermal
changes could be due to the dimensional instability of the PAs because their thermal expansion coefficients are well over those of the minerals
with which they are mixed. The compressive strength of the PA mortars, even after weathering, is well above the minimum strength required for
structural lightweight concrete. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0003566. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Introduction 10.8 million tons=year, polycarbonate (PC) 5,100 kilotons=year,

Plastic is lightweight, tough, airtight, inexpensive, and decay resist-
ant, and so it is used in a wide variety of applications. The use of
plastic has grown exponentially since its invention in 1907. Accord-
ing to the World Economic Forum Report (2016), plastic production
has increased from 15 million tons in the 1960s to 311 million tons
in 2014 and is expected to triple by 2050, when plastic production
may account for 20% of global annual oil consumption. Plastic is
nonbiodegradable and may even take thousands of years to break
down, so damage to the environment in terms of land, water, and
air pollution due to unmanageable plastic waste is long lasting.
The widespread use of plastic materials in industrial manufacturing,
food packaging, consumer goods, the automotive industry, and con-
struction, for example, has increased the amount of environmental
waste. Plastics and packaging generate significant negative exter-
nalities: degradation of natural systems as a result of leakage in
the oceans and landfilling, which obstructs the propagation of plant
roots, and harmful gases resulting from production and after-use
incineration (World Economic Forum Report 2016). The burning
of plastics releases toxic gases (e.g., CO, CO2 ) into the atmos-
phere. CO above 35 ppm is toxic to humans (Alfahdawi et al.
2019). Data collected from various industrial sources, as reported
in Plastics Insight (2020), indicate the following global rates of
production of different plastics for the year 2016: polyoxymethylene
(POM) 18.5 million tons/year, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Thapar Institute of
Engineering and Technology, Patiala 147001, India (corresponding author).
Email: gurbir.kaur@thapar.edu
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 3, 2020; approved on
July 20, 2020; published online on November 24, 2020. Discussion period
open until April 24, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
and polyethylene-terephthalate (PET) 30.3 million tons/year. If the
current plastic management trends continue, then the amount of
plastic polluting the environment will be ca. 12 billion tons by 2050
(Wallace 2019; Sullivan 2018). According to European Plastics
Industry Report (2017), there is an urgent need to push for the most
sustainable option of waste management, promoting recycling,
using energy recovery as a complementary option, and imposing
restrictions on disposing of any recoverable plastic waste in landfills.
Available recycling concepts are not cost competitive and
produce polymer materials of lower quality, hampering the devel-
opment of a circular economy. Therefore, the development of ef-
fective recycling processes within a circular economy approach is
of paramount importance, ideally producing not only monomers
for new plastics, but value-added products as well (Beydoun and
Klankermayer 2020). Waste plastic, owing to some of its proper-
ties, can be used to produce construction components like bricks or
aggregates for concrete that work well under mechanical stress
(Luhar and Luhar 2019). For instance, waste electrical and elec-
tronic equipment (WEEE) exhibits good mechanical properties,
such as high tensile and flexural modulus as well as slight impact
strength (Gómez et al. 2020). The most common polymers of
WEEE are ABS (30%–35%), PC (10%), high,impact polystyrene
(HIPS) (20%–25%), and polypropylene (PP) (20%–30%) (Martinho
et al. 2012). Therefore, incorporating these waste plastics into reli-
able construction materials would help in managing plastic in a sus-
tainable way.
Properties of Cementitious Composites Containing
Plastic Aggregates
The materials and methods section should contain sufficient detail
so that all procedures can be repeated. It may be divided into
headed subsections if several methods are described. Many authors
have studied the possibility of using waste plastics as aggregates,
fillers, and fibers in construction materials. Aggregates amount to

© ASCE 04020450-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450

 60%–70% of the total mass of concrete (Alqahtani et al. 2017).
Thus, the use of waste plastic as aggregate in concrete or mortar not
only solves the problem of the disposal of waste plastic but also
reduces the need to extract natural resources like sand and gravel
because stony material banks are scarce, and access to quarries is
becoming more and more complicated (Casanova-del-Angel and
Vázquez-Ruiz 2012). The use of plastic in concrete at 10% sand
replacement by volume could save 820 million tons of natural sand
every year (Thorneycroft et al. 2018).
The use of aggregates produced from end-of-waste or postcon-
sumer materials is particularly interesting, and its use in new ap-
plications represents a challenge for researchers (Coppola et al.
2018). A series of drawbacks associated with the incorporation of
plastic aggregates (PAs) in cementitious composites are listed in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
literature: lower elastic modulus of PAs than that of natural aggre-
gate (Hannawi et al. 2010), lower bond strength between PA and
cement paste (Ferreira et al. 2012; Saikia and Brito 2014), inferior
interfacial transition zone characteristics (Wang and Meyer 2010;
Gu and Ozbakkaloglu 2016), restrained cement hydration reaction
near the surface of PAs resulting from the hydrophobic nature of
PAs (Saikia and Brito 2012) or weak affinity between plastic and
water (Ferreira et al. 2012), and mixing of materials of elastic in-
compatibility (Marzouk et al. 2007; Saikia and Brito 2013). It is
worth mentioning that the morphology of a mix containing PAs
is affected by the substitution level, plastic type, size, texture,
and shape of the PAs, which in turn influence the transition zone
characteristics and overall performance in any mix. While most
references mention reduced strength performance when PAs are in-
corporated into a mix (Ferreira et al. 2012), few studies emphasize
maintaining the structural performance of a mix by minimizing the
reductions in strength to acceptable levels through an appropriate
choice of PA and suitable mix design (Thorneycroft et al. 2018).
Modifying the surface layer of a PA by granulation technology or
foaming technology can also significantly improve overall perfor-
mance (Xuemiao et al. 2020).
Plastic particles made from waste PET bottles have been exten-
sively reviewed in the literature to produce lightweight concrete,
nonstructural concrete, and mortar. According to these studies, con-
cretes with good physical, mechanical, and durability properties can
be produced based on PET aggregate replacements (Senhadji et al.
2019). For instance, concrete containing 10% PET fragments
graded to match replaced sand results in improved compressive and
tensile strength by 1.2% and 25%, respectively, compared with the
control mix (Thorneycroft et al. 2018). Rahmani et al. (2013) re-
ported ca. 9%–12% improvement in compressive strength of con-
crete prepared by 5% substitution of sand with processed PET
aggregates. Recycled PET mortar with continuously graded sand
exhibited higher strength compared with mortar with single-sized
gradation (Ge et al. 2014). Albano et al. (2009), using irregularly
shaped PET particles between 2.6 and 11.4 mm at 10% and 20%
replacements [water-to-cement (w/c) ratios of 0.50 and 0.60], con-
cluded that mixtures with larger particles were substantially weaker
than those that include only fine PET particles. Saikia and Brito
(2012) claimed that a PET mix was less brittle than the control sam-
ple and undergoes a greater deformation while retaining its integrity.
With increases in global pollution, acid rain has become com-
mon, so concrete structures are more exposed to this aggressive
environment (Senhadji et al. 2019). PET has been shown to en-
hance concrete durability (Reskati et al. 2016; Araghi et al. 2015).
Reskati et al. (2016) showed that using PET in concrete caused the
resistance against sulfuric acid to increase after 60 days of exposure
to sulfuric acid. Araghi et al. (2015) found that samples with 15%
PET particles had lower weight losses and maintained a greater
load-bearing capacity under sulfuric acid attack. Ge et al. (2014)
© ASCE 04020450-2
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450
observed that PET mortars had a high sulfate corrosion resistance
probably due to the low water absorption of PET mortars. In con-
trast, Pelisser et al. (2012) observed PET fiber degradation in con-
crete. PET plastic is affected by Ca2þ, Naþ , Kþ , and OH¯ ions in
pore fluid in a highly alkaline concrete environment (Vaillancourt
and Sorelli 2018). However, the durability of PA materials is not
only determined by the durability of PAs but also by the permeabil-
ity of the material, which controls the passage of moisture and so-
lutions, leading to deterioration. Marzouk et al. (2007) reported
lower sorptivity for PET cement mortars (at 50% aggregate substi-
tution by volume) than a control mix. Choi et al. (2009) also re-
ported 25% lower sorptivity for concrete containing granulated
blast furnace slag–coated PET aggregates. According to Hannawi
et al. (2010), sand replacements of up to 3% (PET and PC) do not
affect water absorption or porosity. Vaillancourt and Sorelli (2018)
reported a remarkable reduction of the water adsorption capacity of
concrete containing PAs, in spite of the increased porosity, perhaps
due to their hydrophobic surface and electrostatic forces. The au-
thors proposed new potential, i.e., impermeable concrete, applica-
tions for PA composites where durability is a concern. The size and
morphology of PAs also affect the resultant properties.
Albano et al. (2009) reported higher water absorption for PET
concrete, and Saikia and Brito (2013) reported that coarse and flaky
PET aggregates increased water absorption more than fine and
pellet-sized PET aggregates. Hannawi et al. (2010) found greater
gas permeability for PET mortars than PC mortars due to an in-
creased porosity in PET samples owing to a weak bond at the inter-
face. Fraj et al. (2010) recorded higher gas permeability (as well as
open porosity, chloride diffusion, and shrinkage) for cement mortar
containing polyurethane foam aggregate owing to an increased
porosity. In contrast, Wang and Meyer (2010) stated that the effect
of HIPS on the water vapor permeability of mortar is not significant
because of the high hydrophobicity of plastic (permeance de-
creased by 13.7% as HIPS content increased from 0 to 50%). With
respect to resistance to frost and other decay agents, Kan and
Demirboga (2009) found that concrete containing fine and coarse
aggregates of modified expanded polystyrene foam (MEPS) (as
partial or full substitution) had higher frost resistance than conven-
tional concrete. Conversely, Wang and Meyer (2010) showed that
the use of fine HIPS as a partial sand substitution did not affect a
mortar’s resistance to freezing and thawing.
Unlike PET, less attention has been paid to recycling other plas-
tic wastes as aggregate in concretes, though they also pose envi-
ronmental concerns. Some recent investigations (Makri et al. 2019;
Kaur and Pavia 2020; Liu et al. 2015, 2011, 2012) have demon-
strated that recycled ABS and ABS/PC plastic additions can be suc-
cessfully employed as aggregates in cement and could potentially
prove useful as a downcycling alternative for waste plastics. Makri
et al. (2019) investigated the physical and mechanical properties of
cement mortars, partially replaced (2.5%–12.5% by volume) with
recycled ABS aggregates recovered from WEEE. The test results,
for all replacements (especially those of 7.5% and 10%), exhibited
an increase in the compressive strength of the specimens by 15.4%
and 7.8%, respectively, with the modulus of elasticity decreasing in
both cases by 18.1% and 23.8%, respectively. The specimens, how-
ever, indicated lower ductility than the reference specimen. The ap-
plications of PA-modified cement mortars can be vast: as reported
by Kaur and Pavia (2020), even with 20% plastic content, PA
mortars are strong, with compressive strengths ranging from 37 to
49 MPa and flexural strengths reaching 4–7 MPa, which are supe-
rior to those required by building standards for pointing/bedding,
rendering, or plastering mortars. Liu et al. (2015) examined the
dynamic stress-strain curves and energy absorption of specimens
made using different ABS/PC contents under four different strain
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 rate levels. The results showed that the energy absorption of con-
crete specimens increased with plastic content and strain rates, with
the maximum energy absorption of recycled plastic concrete being
observed as 154.11% that of normal concrete (Liu et al. 2015).
An extensive literature survey revealed that the performance of
a mix containing PAs is largely dependent on the type of PA; lim-
ited data are available on the long-term performance of PA com-
posites, which prevents its mainstream adoption in construction;
less attention has been paid to the recycling of other plastic wastes
(ABS, PC, ABS/PC) in concretes compared to PET. This paper
investigates the durability-related properties, i.e., freeze-thaw and
salt-crystallization resistance and endurance in the face of cyclic
changes in the moisture and temperature of PA materials, that have
received little attention to date, including ABS, PC, and ABS/PC;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
used in the investigation. Sand and PAs were sieved conforming to
EN1015-1:1999 (CEN 1999) to achieve the desired size fraction.
The particle size distribution curves of the sand and all PAs are
shown in Fig. 2.
Mixing and Sample Preparation
The mix volume calculations were done considering the number of
specimens to cast. The control mix consisted of 473 kg=m3 cement,
1,418 kg=m3 sand, and 263 kg=m3 water. The water-to-cement ra-
tio (w=c ¼ 0.5) was kept constant in this study without any correc-
tions for slump. Each plastic was mixed at 5%, 15%, and 20% sand
replacement by volume to prepare 15 mortar mixtures. The control
mortar is prepared using normal river sand only. The mortar com-

the addition of POM in cementitious composites, which has not
yet attracted interest in the open literature, is investigated in this
study. PET waste plastic is also studied. Performance is assessed by
measuring the porosity and vapor permeability of materials as well
as the mass and strength loss following accelerated weathering
cycles in the laboratory.
Experimental Program
Materials
Portland cement (CEM I 42.5R) conforming to EN 197-1:2011
(NSAI 2011) and locally available river sand of specific gravity
2.64 and bulk density 1,570 kg=m3 were used to prepare the ce-
ment mortars. The chemical composition of the cement is given in
Table 1. The recycled plastic granules of different sizes were sup-
plied by plastic recycling plants located in County Cavan, Ireland.
The properties of PAs as provided by the supplier are included in
Table 2. It can be seen from Table 2 that all plastic types display
marginal water absorption, ABS and PC plastics are strongest in
compression, as indicated by the relatively higher compressive
strength values, POM plastic shows increased stiffness versus the
others owing to its higher elastic modulus. Fig. 1 shows all PA types
Table 1. Chemical composition of cement CEM I 42.5 R
Constituent Value (%)
SiO2
Al2 O3
Fe2 O3
CaO
MgO
SO3
Na2 O
K2 O
Cl
Loss on ignition
positions are included in Table 3. For mix preparation, the different
constituents of the mortar were accurately weighed, mixed, and
dry-homogenized. The appropriate amount of water was gradually
added to the dry mixture. The mixing duration of the mortars was
slightly raised with increasing PA content.
The specimens for each test were prepared according to the rel-
evant testing standards. Cube specimens (50 mm) were made to de-
termine the compressive strength and resistance against thermal and
salt-crystallization cycling. Prismatic specimens (40×40×160 mm)
were prepared to evaluate the freeze-thaw resistance, porosity, and
dry density. Circular disc samples 150 mm in diameter and 22 mm
thick were cast for water vapor permeability testing. All specimens
were cured for 28 days in a curing tank where the water temperature
was maintained at 20°C  5°C. All of the mortar’s properties with
substitutions of 5%, 15%, and 20% volumetric percentages of PAs
with sand are compared to the control specimen with 0% PA.
Test Methods
Compressive Strength
The compressive strength was measured before and after accelerated
weathering cycles were performed in the laboratory in accordance
with EN1015-11:1999 using a ZwickRoell 1474 testing machine
(Kennesaw, Georgia) with a 100-kN loading capacity, at a loading
rate of 10 N=s. The results reported are the arithmetic mean of three
tests.
Open Porosity, Water Absorption, and Dry Density
19.66
5.07 The open porosity (volume of pores accessible to water) and dry
2.48 bulk density were measured in accordance with international recom-
63.96 mendations (RILEM 1980). The specimens were dried till constant
1.33 mass (M1 ) and kept in a desiccator at low pressure (2667 Pa) for
2.92 24 h. The samples were then saturated with water under vacuum
0.12 for 24 h. Finally, the samples were weighed under two conditions—
0.79 immersed in water (M 2 ) and at atmospheric pressure (M 3 )—and the
0.08
desired properties were calculated using Eqs. (1) and (2). The water
3.14
absorption by immersion [Eq. (3)] was calculated as the percentage

Table 2. Properties of plastics used as sand replacement (provided by suppliers)

Property PCa POMa ABSa ABS/PCa PETb
Water absorption (%) 0.16–0.35 0.25 0.20–0.26 — 0.098–0.31
Compressive strength (MPa) 86 31 70–85 — 24–77
Young’s modulus (MPa) 2,000–2,400 2,900–3,500 2,300–2,750 — 3,100
Melting point (°C) 230–250 178 No true melting point No true melting point 255
a
Polyfab Plastics, Cootehill, County Cavan, Ireland.
b
Wellman International, Mullagh, Kells, County Cavan, Ireland.

© ASCE 04020450-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. PAs used in investigation: (a) ABS; (b) ABS/PC; (c) PC; (d) POM; and (e) PET.

Table 3. Composition of mortars

110 Plastic
ABS Cement Water Sand aggregates Aggregate-
100
ABS/PC Mix (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) (kg=m3 ) cementratio
90
POM Control 473 236 1,418.3 0 3.00
80 PC5 473 236 1,347.38 54.96 2.96
Sand
70 PC15 473 236 1,205.55 164.88 2.90
PC
PC20 473 236 1,134.64 219.84 2.86
% Passing

60
PET ABS5 473 236 1,347.38 69.14 2.99
50 ABS15 473 236 1,205.55 207.43 2.99
40 ABS20 473 236 1,134.64 276.57 2.98
30 ABS/PC5 473 236 1,347.38 46.54 2.95
ABS/PC15 473 236 1,205.55 139.61 2.84
20
ABS/PC20 473 236 1,134.64 186.15 2.79
10 POM5 473 236 1,347.38 50.97 2.96
0 POM15 473 236 1,205.55 152.91 2.87
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 POM20 473 236 1,134.64 203.88 2.83
Particle size in m PET5 473 236 1,347.38 60.19 2.98
PET15 473 236 1,205.55 180.57 2.93
Fig. 2. Particle size distribution curves of aggregates. PET20 473 236 1,134.64 240.76 2.91

© ASCE 04020450-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450

 of water absorbed in relation to the dry mass according to RILEM
49TFR (RILEM 1984):
ðM 3 − M 1 Þ
Porosity ¼ × 100 ð1Þ
ðM 3 − M 2 Þ
Bulk density ¼ ðM 1 − ðM 1 − M 2 ÞÞ × 103 ð2Þ
ðM3 − M 1 Þ
Water absorption ¼ × 100 ð3Þ
M3
Microstructure
The microstructure of the mortars was assessed using scanning
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
electron microscopy (SEM) and a petrographic microscope after
28 days of curing. The qualitative analyses focused on the cement
matrix–plastic aggregate interface. Specimens approximately 1 cm3
in size were carbon-coated for SEM analysis to obtain observation
surfaces approximately 50 μm deep. SEM micrographs were cap-
tured, at between 5 and 10 KV, using an SE2 detector with a Karl
Zeiss Ultra field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM)
microscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Germany). The SEM
analyses were aided with an energy dispersive X-ray microanalysis
(EDXR) system consisting of an Oxford INCA X Max detector,
which acquired the elemental composition spectra of mineral phases
in the matrix and the interface at 20 KV. The petrographic micro-
scope was also used to qualitatively study the interfacial transition
zone and the general anchoring of the plastic aggregate with the
cement matrix. Thin sections were cut from the representative hand
samples. They were polished to a standard thickness of 20 μm and
examined with a petrographic microscope in both transmitted and
polarized light at high-power objectives of 2×, 10×, 20×, and 40×
magnifications.
Water Vapor Permeability
Water vapor permeability was measured in accordance with EN
12086:2013 (CEN 2013). The mortar discs were sealed using sil-
icone adhesive and duct tape on the open side of a test container.
Potassium chloride solution was used to produce 85% relative hu-
midity at 23°C inside the container. Periodic weighings at fixed in-
tervals of not less than 24 h were taken until constant mass was
attained in order to determine the rate of water vapor transmission
in the steady state. For each test specimen, the change in mass, G1;2 ,
for the chosen time interval was determined using Eq. (4). Other
properties, like transmission rate, g, permeance, W, resistance, Z,
and permeability, δ, were calculated using Eqs. (5)–(8):
m − m1
G1;2 ¼ 2 ð4Þ
t2 − t1
G
g¼ ð5Þ
A
G
W¼ ð6Þ
A × Δp
1
Z¼ ð7Þ
W
δ ¼W×d ð8Þ
where m1 and m2 = mass values of test assembly at times t1 and t2 ,
respectively (mg); t1 and t2 = successive times of weighings (h);
A = exposed area of test specimen (m2 ); Δp = water vapor pressure
difference (Pa); and d = test specimen thickness (m).
© ASCE 04020450-5
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450
Durability Testing
Durability was assessed by measuring the variation in compressive
strength and mass loss and macroscopic damage, resulting by per-
forming accelerated weathering cycles in the laboratory.
Resistance to damage by frost was evaluated in accordance with
EN 15304:2010 (CEN 2010). To perform this test, six specimens
were cast for each mix, of which three were subjected to alternate
frost-thaw cycling and the other three were used as reference test
specimens. To complete one cycle, the specimens were kept in a
freezing chamber at −15°C  2°C for 16 h and then in a thawing
chamber at a temperature of 20°C  5°C and a relative humidity of
>95% for 8 h. The reference test specimens were kept in a storage
room at 20°C  5°C. The mass loss and residual compressive
strength of the test specimens were determined after 15 freeze-thaw
cycles.
The resistance of PA mortars to salt crystallization was mea-
sured in accordance with international recommendations (RILEM
1980). The specimens were immersed in a 14% solution of sodium
sulfate decahydrate (Na2 SO4 · 10H2 O) for 4 h and then dried in an
oven preheated to 105°C for 15 h. The specimens were subjected to
20 cycles of salt crystallization.
The resistance of PA mortars to thermal and moisture changes
was determined according to international recommendations (RILEM
1980). The specimens were immersed in water maintained at a con-
stant temperature of 20°C for 16 h and then dried for 6 h in an oven
preheated to 105°C. The specimens were exposed to 20 dry-wet
cycles.
Results and Discussion
Compressive Strength of Unweathered PA Mortars
As can be seen in Fig. 3, at 5% replacement, the POM, ABS/PC, and
PC mortars are stronger than the control mix, enhancing their com-
pressive strength by 10%, 8%, and 6%, respectively. With reference
to the control mix, PET5 had a quite similar compressive strength
(63.28 MPa), whereas ABS5’s was 3% lower. These results indicate
that strength loss in PA materials, especially at lower substitution
levels, can be lowered with the right choice of plastic, as claimed
by previous researchers (Thorneycroft et al. 2018; Saikia and Brito
2012). The compressive strength results agree with those in the
literature in general, which reported either a small rise or drop in
strength for mixtures containing PAs in small quantities (≤5%) and
PET
PC
POM
28 day compressive strength (MPa)
ABSC
ABS
ABS ABS/PC
POM
PC
PET
Replacement %
Fig. 3. Compressive strength of PA mortars after 28 days.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 a greater strength loss at higher replacement levels. For each plastic
type, with increased additions of Pas, from 5% to 20%, the com-
pressive strength of mortars decreased and the observed drop in
compressive strength did not seem to be proportional to the volume
fraction of sand replaced by PA. At 15% replacement, the strengths
of the PC, ABS, and ABS/PC mortars were slightly lower (3%, 5%,
and 1%, respectively), whereas the POM and PET mortars showed
greater strength losses of 11% and 17%, respectively, with versus
the control. The drop in strength is significant at 20% replacement,
where the PET and PC mortars showed maximum strength losses of
36% and 32%, respectively, while the ABS, POM, and ABS/PC
mortars exhibited 12%, 15%, and 16% strength losses, respectively.
The observed drop in compressive strength values of PET20 and
PC20 is lower than that obtained in Hannawi et al. (2010), which
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
reported 47.1% and 46.1% drops in strength, respectively, for PET
and PC mortars prepared at 20% sand replacement. There are re-
markable differences in the strength variation with increasing con-
tents of PA: while the strength of ABS mortars is stable up to 15%
replacement, slightly dropping only at the highest replacement
(20%), the strength of PC and PET composites varies significantly
as the substitution level increases.
The strength results at low replacement levels (5%–15%) can
also be roughly correlated with the characteristics of plastic par-
ticles. It is well known that rough or scored particles (with a greater
surface available for the binder to attach) enhance the bond at the
interface and that a wide range of particle sizes and a certain pro-
portion of fine aggregates increases the particle packing density,
which results in further increases in mechanical strength. This ap-
plies to the results obtained for compressive strength since the ABS
plastic had the widest range of particle sizes and contained most
abundant fines among all PAs (Fig. 2). The ABS mortars displayed
a high strength (60–61 MPa), similar to that of the control material
(63 MPa) up to 15% replacement, thereafter dropping slightly to
56 MPa at 20% replacement. The good mechanical performance of
PC- and ABS/PC-based materials can also be related to their abun-
dant subrounded particles with rough surfaces (despite ABS/PC
being the coarsest PA). The lower performance of the mortars con-
taining 15% and 20% of PET additions is consistent with their flat,
angular particles of smooth surface. However, a correlation does not
always exist because, despite the smoothness and random shapes
of POM particles, the strength of 5% POM composites is greater
than the strength of the control material (69.50 versus 63 MPa),
only dropping at 15% and 20% replacement to 56 and 54 MPa, re-
spectively. These results are quite interesting since an increased
compressive strength in plastics with smooth surfaces is not a com-
monly observed phenomenon. However, as asserted by Makri et al.
(2019), compressive strength is a multidependent property that is
affected by a variety of parameters, for example, the w/c ratio, type,
grain size and shape of PAs/sand, and curing time. It is worth men-
tioning that POM, ABS, and PC plastics are the stiffest and strongest
in compression compared to other plastic types (Table 2).
Assessment of Microstructure and Interface
Microscopic analyses (Figs. 4 and 5) indicate that the presence of
PAs does not significantly alter the microstructure of a cement paste
or the nature of the phases formed upon hydration. Both petro-
graphic and SEM analyses reveal dense microstructures with scarce
macropores.
Petrographic analysis is qualitative and restricted to specific
areas that are relatively small compared with the volume of a given
material in construction. However, the analysis conducted for this
study showed that, in general, the microstructure of a material is
sound, the plastic is evenly distributed and mixed with natural sand,
© ASCE 04020450-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450
and the bond between plastic and cement matrix is largely continu-
ous [Figs. 4(a–g)]. The petrographic microscope did not provide
enough resolution to study the quality and distribution of the hy-
drates in the cement matrix, which appeared mainly as an opaque
groundmass. Fig. 4(g) shows occasional patches of portlandite and
C–S–H gels that could only be seen at the highest magnification.
The interfacial zone is the main impacted area in PA-based ce-
mentitious composites. Reports in the literature suggest that, owing
to the smooth and hydrophobic surface of plastics, the interfacial
zone between plastic aggregate and cement matrix is consistently
wider than that between cement paste and natural aggregates, which
results in a low bond strength between PA surface and cement paste.
The cracks or flaws present in the plastic–cement matrix interfacial
region become nuclei for further crack growth and propagation dur-
ing loading, thereby affecting the overall performance of cement
composites. Thus, in general, with higher contents of PAs, large
gaps and cracks between cement paste and PAs may appear in ce-
mentitious composites.
The SEM analyses focused on the PA–matrix interface. The quali-
tative nature of the SEM analyses did not allow for defining clear
differences in the microstructure produced by the different plastic
aggregates. However, some trends could be established, and repre-
sentative interfaces are shown in the SEM micrographs in Fig. 5,
which include a summary of the microstructures of the PA mortars
at 20% plastic replacement with sand. The ABS aggregate is consis-
tently well bound to the cement matrix [Fig. 5(a)], indicating a good
bond at the interface. The bond between the ABS/PC and POM ag-
gregates and the cement matrix is occasionally disrupted [Figs. 5(b
and c], so the ABS/PC and POM mortars show intermittently porous
interfaces [also highlighted in Figs. 5(b and c)]. Fig. 5(d) shows a
ruptured interface between PC aggregate and cement matrix, which
can sometimes be linked to microcracks in the cement matrix. The
PET shows disrupted bonding at the interface [Fig. 5(e)], and in the
control mix [Fig. 5(f)], scattered microcracks are present in the ce-
ment matrix, but the interface appears intact, indicating a strong bond.
A loose correlation can be established between the mechanical
property results and the anchoring of the interfaces determined by
SEM analyses because the ABS mortars show superior strength: the
strength of the ABS mortars is consistently high (Fig. 3; Table 5),
while the PET mortars tend to lose more strength at 20% plastic
replacement with natural sand and periodically revealed a loss
of adhesion with occasional porous interfaces with disrupted bond
[Fig. 5(e)].
Dry Density, Open Porosity, Water Absorption, and
Water Vapor Permeability
The dry density of the PA mortars was found to be less than that
of the control mix (Table 4). According to the RILEM LC2:1978
classification (RILEM 1972), the minimum dry density required for
a structural lightweight concrete is under 2,000 kg=m3. Since the
bulk density of PAs is close to or even less than this threshold limit
at low replacement levels, PA is suitable for lightweight con-
crete applications. Previous authors (Gu and Ozbakkaloglu 2016;
Xuemiao et al. 2020, Saikia and Brito 2012) attributed this behav-
ior to the much lower bulk density of PAs than that of typical
natural aggregates.
Also as expected, the porosity of PA mortars correlates well with
their water absorption, and both tend to surpass the control mix
values and increase with the replacement level (Table 4). Porosity
and absorption are low at 5% replacement: the PC, ABS, and ABS/
PC materials are very close to the control mix. Even at 15% replace-
ment, a marginal increase in absorption and porosity is observed for
the PC and ABS materials, while the POM- and PET-based mortars
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Petrographic micrographs of PA mortars: (a) PC and limestone aggregates displaying a good bond with the cement matrix, 2× natural light,
field of view: 7 mm; (b) coarse POM surrounded by fine aggregate well bound to cement matrix, 2× natural light, field of view: 7 mm; (c) general
microstructure of PET mortar showing long PET with rugged ends well attached to matrix, 2× natural light, field of view: 7 mm; (d) general micro-
structure of ABS mortar showing large ABS aggregate surrounded by finer sand and cement matrix, 2× natural light, field of view: 7 mm; (e) detail of
ABS/PC transition zone with incipient hydrates and presentaing a continuous bond, 10× natural light, field of view: 1.42 mm; (f) detail of rugged PET
surface keyed into hydrated cement groundmass, 10× natural light, field of view: 1.42 mm; and (g) detail of portlandite at ABS interface, 20× natural
light, field of view: 0.7 mm.

© ASCE 04020450-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. SEM micrographs of mortars: (a) well-bound interface between ABS and matrix; (b) intermittently porous interface between ABS/PC and
cement matrix; (c) POM aggregate surrounded by cement matrix; (d) interface of PC aggregate and cement matrix; (e) lack of bond at PET–cement
matrix interface; and (f) strong bond between sand and cement paste.

double these values with respect to the control mix even at 5%
replacement (Table 4). Increasing the amount of PAs has been re-
ported to enhance porosity due to the induced entrapped air and the
weak bond at the interface, which in turn increase permeability
(Hannawi et al. 2010; Reskati et al. 2016).
For each plastic type, the vapor permeability results are consis-
tent with the foregoing observations. However, vapor permeability
increases very little with increases in PA content as moisture intake
(porosity, water absorption) escalates further. Under 20% replace-
ment, vapor transport through PA materials and the control mix are
comparable, except for the PC mortars, with values similar to those
of the control material at all replacement levels. This agrees with
Hannawi et al. (2010), who reported a greater increase in vapor
permeability for PET mortars than PC mortars at 10%–50% by vol-
ume replacement of sand. An increase in moisture intake can be
detrimental to durability, while an increase in a material’s vapor
permeability facilitates drying, avoiding internal condensation in
buildings and the associated material damage and health problems.
Durability of PA Materials
Resistance to frost and salt crystallization and the endurance of PA
materials to cyclic changes in moisture and temperature were as-
sessed by measuring mass loss (Fig. 6), compressive strength loss
(Tables 5 and 6; Fig. 7), and macroscopic damage (Fig. 8) follow-
ing accelerated weathering tests. As anticipated, the most damaging

© ASCE 04020450-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450

 Table 4. Properties of PA and control mortars decay agent is salt. Also, in contrast to traditional materials, frost is
Dry Water Water vapor much less damaging than thermal/moisture changes in PA mortars.
density Porosity absorption permeability, The mass loss of samples due to frost action is insignificant
Mix (kg=m3 ) (%) (%) ∂ [mg=ðm.h.PaÞ] (0.02%–0.50%) with no flaking, cracking, or granular disintegra-
Control 2,220 6.03 2.77 6.4 tion, whereas the mass loss due to thermal/moisture cycles and salt
PC5 2,094 7.11 3.20 6.6 crystallization is comparatively higher, i.e., ≤5% and 5%–7%, re-
PC15 2,008 7.32 3.48 6.7 spectively (Fig. 6). The mass loss of PA mortars after accelerated
PC20 1,877 11.59 6.11 6.9 salt and thermal/moisture cycles is very similar to the mass loss of
ABS5 2,136 6.35 2.95 7.5 the control mortars with no plastic: ≤5% versus 4.7% (PA versus
ABS15 1,980 6.77 3.20 7.5 control) after moisture/thermal cycling and 5%–7% versus 6.2%
ABS20 1,863 11.83 5.81 8.3 after salt cycling.
ABS/PC5 2,104 7.27 3.22 7.2
As can be seen in Table 5, PA mortars achieved significant
ABS/PC15 1,949 11.83 6.19 7.8
ABS/PC20 1,891 13.11 6.69 8.2 strength after being subjected to weathering. Therefore, it is evident
POM5 2,085 12.09 6.10 7.0 that PA mortars remain sound after accelerated weathering, exhib-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

POM15 1,951 12.76 6.32 7.3 iting strength values well above the minimum compressive strength
POM20 1,911 14.71 7.49 8.3 required for structural lightweight concrete (17 MPa) as per ACI
PET5 2,086 11.96 5.95 6.7 213R-03 (ACI 2003).
PET15 1,892 12.45 6.20 7.3 The strength loss caused by frost action is slight: several PA
PET20 1,664 13.89 7.04 8.5 mortars lost less or comparable strength compared with the control
mix (Tables 5 and 6). The POM (5%–15% replacement), ABS,
and ABS/PC mortars reported a small drop in strength due to frost
action (<2%, 1%–5%, and 3%–7%, respectively) versus a 4.5%
strength loss of the control mix. The remaining PA mortars lost less
Freeze-thaw cycles Thermal cycling Salt cycling than 10% strength, except for PC15 and PET20, which lost 15%
and 12% strength, respectively. The slight damage caused by frost
in PA materials is attributed to increased porosity induced by PAs.
The pressure caused when waste freezes dissipates through the
pores, which minimizes frost damage. This is supported by the fact
that the porosity of PA mortars and the damage caused by frost are
loosely correlated: POM and PET mortars, together with 20% PC,
ABS, and ABS/PC mortars, with the best endurance under frost
action, show the greatest porosities (12%–14%) (Table 4).
Compared to their corresponding unweathered specimens, the
PA mortars lost more strength than the control mix after thermal/
moisture cycling: 5%–15% ABS and 5% POM mortars are com-
paratively the best performers among the other PA mortars, losing
10%–12% strength (versus 8.5% strength drop of control). How-
ever, under the same testing conditions, POM5 (61.92 MPa) and
ABS/PC5 (59.66 MPa) showed greater strength, with percentage
Fig. 6. Mass loss (%) of control and PA mortars after weathering increases in strength of 7% and 3%, respectively, compared to the
cycles. All freeze-thaw specimens lost less than 0.50% of their mass. control mix (57.93 MPa); the strengths of the PC and ABS mortars

Table 5. Compressive strength (MPa) of PA and control mortars before and after weathering (coefficient of variation in parentheses)
Mix Thermal/moisture cycling Freeze-thaw cycles Salt-crystallization cycles Unweathered specimens
Control 57.93 (3.14) 60.45 (2.12) 59.91 (2.63) 63.28 (2.59)
PC5 54.38 (3.72) 61.81 (3.10) 57.56 (3.45) 67.19 (3.24)
PC15 52.18 (4.13) 52.13 (3.24) 51.32 (3.68) 61.12 (3.37)
PC20 38.58 (4.74) 36.38 (4.93) 37.86 (5.21) 43.31 (5.01)
ABS5 54.75 (2.53) 58.19 (2.36) 59.08 (2.18) 61.44 (2.02)
ABS15 53.15 (2.59) 57.94 (2.59) 53.96 (2.59) 60.06 (3.68)
ABS20 43.36 (3.72) 55.22 (3.56) 45.66 (3.42) 55.72 (3.66)
ABS/PC5 59.66 (3.78) 63.63 (3.63) 61.42 (2.32) 68.09 (2.41)
ABS/PC15 50.78 (3.87) 60.94 (3.62) 51.72 (3.81) 62.81 (3.73)
ABS/PC20 41.48 (5.12) 51.13 (4.64) 41.48 (5.23) 53.03 (4.87)
POM5 61.92 (3.61) 69.16 (2.74) 59.66 (2.36) 69.50 (3.48)
POM15 45.56 (6.01) 55.30 (5.13) 46.98 (6.29) 56.41 (7.13)
POM20 42.84 (6.34) 49.00 (4.22) 40.06 (5.42) 53.69 (5.31)
PET5 50.11 (3.22) 59.83 (1.95) 57.93 (4.36) 63.28 (3.57))
PET15 36.08 (4.33) 48.18 (4.21) 36.30 (3.45) 52.19 (4.16)
PET20 30.40 (8.74) 36.33 (5.63) 33.74 (6.56) 40.38 (8.35)

© ASCE 04020450-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450

 Table 6. Compressive strength loss (%) of control and PA mortars after
weathering with respect to corresponding unweathered counterparts
Thermal/moisture Freeze-thaw Salt-crystallization
Mix cycling cycles cycles
Control 8.45 4.47 5.33
PC5 19.07 8.01 14.33
PC15 14.63 14.71 16.03
PC20 10.94 16.02 12.60
ABS5 10.89 5.29 3.84
ABS15 11.51 3.53 10.16
ABS20 22.18 0.90 18.05
ABS/PC5 12.38 6.55 9.80
ABS/PC15 19.15 2.98 17.66
ABS/PC20 21.78 3.58 21.78
POM5 10.91 0.49 14.16
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

POM15 19.23 1.97 16.72

POM20 20.21 8.74 25.39
PET5 20.81 5.45 8.45
PET15 30.87 7.68 30.45
PET20 24.72 5.08 16.44

PC5
50
PC15
PC20
40
Percent loss in compressive strength

POM5
POM15
30
POM20
ABS5
20
ABS15
ABS20
10
ABS/PC5

0 ABS/PC15
ABS/PC20

-10 PET5
PET15

-20 PET20
Fig. 8. Representative sample of sound specimens after sulfate attack,
showing superficial hair cracks. Top to bottom: PC20, PET20, and
Fig. 7. Compressive strength loss (%) of PA mortars as a result of
control mortar.
different weathering cycles.

at 5%–15% replacement levels are not significantly different from
that of the control mix.
It can be seen in Fig. 7 that, in general, the PA mortars lost con-
siderably more strength than the natural sand (control) specimens.
Except for the PC20 and PET20 mortars, the strength loss by the
PA materials after thermal/moisture and salt cycling was consistent,
i.e., lower strength loss at lower replacement levels. The PET mor-
tars, at 15% and 20% replacement, showed greater strength loss and
mass loss, mainly after the salt-crystallization cycles (Fig. 7). These
results cannot be compared due to the insufficient literature on the
durability performance of the PA materials. However, the durability
of the PET materials in this study is superior to that of others pre-
viously investigated. Ge et al. (2014), after 20 wet-dry cycles where
the specimens were dried for 6 h at 80°C, reported a drop of 36.3%
in compressive strength and suggested modifying the drying method
to eliminate the plastic aging effect.
Fig. 8 shows the appearance of representative specimens (PC20
and PET20) and the control specimens after sulfate attack. Visible
hair cracks were evident in several specimens following exposure
to thermal/moisture and salt-crystallization cycles. However, these
were often less abundant in the PA materials than in the control
specimens.
Correlation between Durability and Dimensional
Stability and Thermal Degradation of PA Mortars
Damage to materials by salt attack and moisture/temperature var-
iations is mostly caused by differential (both thermal and moisture)
expansion due to varying temperature and moisture, which causes
internal stresses and, eventually, cracking and disruption, thereby
reducing strength. Therefore, the most durable PA materials should
be those that include PAs of low moisture expansion and low ther-
mal expansion coefficients, so that they are able to maintain their
dimensions and physical properties under varying environmental
conditions.
Plastics are generally hydrophobic and not hygroscopic. There-
fore, little moisture expansion is expected from the investigated
PAs, so their dimensional stability is safe with changes in humidity.
In contrast, plastics are susceptible to temperature changes. Gen-
erally, plastics have higher coefficients of linear thermal expansion
and much lower melting points than mortar and concrete-forming
minerals. The coefficient of linear thermal expansion for most
thermoplastics lies between 0.6 × 10−4 and 2.3 × 10−4 =°C (EPCI
2019). Table 7 presents the linear thermal expansion coefficients
of different plastics and construction materials. However, reported

© ASCE 04020450-10 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450

 Table 7. Coefficient of linear thermal expansion values of different plastics
and construction materials
Materials Coefficient of thermal expansion
ABS a
6 × 10−5 –15 × 10−5 =°C
PCa 2 × 10−5 –9 × 10−5 =°C
ABS/PCa 4 × 10−5 –5 × 10−5 =°C
PETa 6 × 10−5 –8 × 10−5 =°C
POMa 10 × 10−5 –15 × 10−5 =°C
Limestoneb 0.8 × 10−5 =°C
Quartzb 0.8 × 10−5 –1.4 × 10−5 =°C
Sandstoneb 1.16 × 10−5 =°C
Standard mortarsb 0.73 × 10−5 –0.13 × 10−5 =°C
Concreteb 0.6 × 10−5 –1.4 × 10−5 =°C
a porosity increase caused by the PAs, which dissipates the pres-
EPCI (2019).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
b
Bonnell and Harper (1950).
values differ widely, probably due to the different testing methods
and plastic formulations and processing. A compilation of coeffi-
cient of linear thermal expansion values of PAs reveals much greater
thermal expansion coefficients for ABS, PC, ABS/PC, PET, and
POM than standard mortars, concrete, and minerals and rock frag-
ments (limestone, quartz, and sandstone). Therefore, significant
mass and strength loss after salt attack and moisture/temperature
cycling (where the specimens are subject to 105°C for 15 and 6 h
respectively) can be attributed to damage triggered by differential
thermal expansion.
The cycling temperature of 105°C does not significantly affect
any of the mortar minerals; however, it might degrade PAs. Ge et al.
(2014) proposed a modified drying method to eliminate the aging
effect of plastics. ABS and PC are amorphous, so, under an increas-
ing temperature regime, they gradually soften [at their glass tran-
sition temperature (GTT)] rather than exhibit sharp melting points.
Conflicting results have been obtained with respect to their ther-
mal degradation. Some authors claim that ABS begins to soften at
104.4°C (Balart et al. 2019). However, others place the GTT of
ABS at 110°C or ca. 147°C and its melting temperature at 210°C
(Balart et al. 2019; Chinnadurai and Vendan 2017). The GTT of PC
has been set at 147°C–150°C, so it softens gradually above this
point and flows above approximately 155°C–260°C (Chinnadurai
and Vendan 2017). However, Redjala et al. (2019) observed PC
degradation at 120°C with microcracks and a decrease in Young’s
modulus and microhardness, concluding that exposure to 120°C
breaks (C═O, O─C─O, C─H, and O─H) bonds, leading to the on-
set of degradation, which can cause sudden material failure. PC has
outstanding dimensional stability up to 130°C (Arimes 1994). The
PC provides thermal stability to the ABC/PC, delaying the temper-
ature at which it degrades, and thermogravimetry demonstrated that
degradation begins at 370°C (Jang et al. 2016). POM and PET are
semicrystalline, so it is unlikely that the temperatures in the weath-
ering cycles would affect them. They tend to have better chemical
resistance and sharper melting points. POM has a high resistance to
thermal degradation (melting point at 165°C–175°C) and good di-
mensional stability over a wide temperature range (−40°C to 165°C)
(Cheremisinoff 2001).
Based on the preceding discussion, it is likely that the ABS
(with the lowest GTT) is more affected by cycling temperatures
than the other Pas, thereby damaging the composites the most.
However, this contradicts the durability results because ABS ma-
terials are probably the best performers after cycling, with the low-
est strength loss following salt attack and after moisture/thermal
changes (at 5%–15% replacement) and a mass loss similar to or
below that of the control mix (after both cycles). This suggests that
the softening of the ABS at the cycling temperatures could have
© ASCE 04020450-11
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450
improved the bond at the interface, increasing durability. This would
agree with the idea that the PET and POM materials have the great-
est thermal stability and showing the worst strength loss after salt
and thermal cycles (only POM5 mortar shows good durability after
thermal cycling).
Conclusions
What follows can be considered the novel findings of this study:
• PA mortars suffer very little damage from frost action but are
significantly more sensitive to high temperatures.
• The small amount of damage caused by frost is attributed to the
sure generated when water freezes, thereby minimizing damage.
• The main damage in the PA mortars is due to the differential
thermal expansion between the plastics and the cement matrix,
at 105°C, caused by a lack of dimensional stability of plastics at
high temperatures.
• Low-GTT plastics, such as ABS, gradually soften over time
under rising temperatures, and this can enhance the interface
bond, improving durability.
• In contrast, the crystalline nature of POM and PET plastics en-
hances the differential expansion between plastic and cement
matrix, causing the greatest damage.
The compressive strength of PA mortars, even weathered with
accelerated laboratory cycles, is outstanding, well over the mini-
mum requirement for structural lightweight concrete (17 MPa).
ABS mortars seem to be the most durable, with the lowest strength
loss after cycling (5%–15% plastic content) and mass loss similar
to or below that of the control specimens. Salt crystallization is
the most aggressive durability test in conventional materials, and
thermal/moisture cycling the least. However, PA mortars endure
both cycles similarly, due to the porosity increase caused by PAs,
which releases the crystallization pressure of salts inside pores,
consequently minimizing salt-induced damage.
Data Availability Statement
All data, models, and code generated or used during the study
appear in the published article.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided
by the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala,
which led to the successful completion of this research. The authors
would like to express their sincere thanks to the chief technician
and the technical staff in the Department of Civil Engineering,
Trinity College Dublin, in particular, Mark Gilligan for helping in
the experimental work. The authors would also like to thank N.
Skeffington, Wellman Int. Ltd. and G. McGovern, Polyfab Plastics
Ltd. for providing recycled plastic samples for investigation.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2003. Guide for structural lightweight-
aggregate concrete. ACI 213R-03. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.
Albano, C., N. Camacho, M. Hernandez, A. Matheus, and A. Gutierrez.
2009. “Influence of content and particle size of PET waste bottles
on concrete behaviour at different w/c ratios.” Waste Manage. 29 (10):
2707–2716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.05.007.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Alfahdawi, I. H., S. A. Osman, R. Hamid, and A. I. Al-Hadithi. 2019.
“Influence of PET wastes on the environment and high strength concrete
properties exposed to high temperatures.” Construct. Build. Mater.
225: 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.214.
Alqahtani, F. K., M. I. Khan, G. Ghataora, and S. Dirar. 2017. “Production
of recycled plastic aggregates and its utilization in concrete.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 29 (4): 04016248. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943
-5533.0001765.
Araghi, H. J., I. M. Nikbin, S. R. Reskati, E. Rahmani, and H. Allahyari.
2015. “An experimental investigation on the erosion resistance of con-
crete containing various PET particles percentages against sulfuric acid
attack.” Construct. Build. Mater. 77: 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2014.12.037.
Arimes, T. 1994. HVAC and chemical resistance handbook for the engineer
and architect. Louisville, KY: BCT.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Balart, R., D. Garcia-Sanoguera, L. Quiles-Carrillo, N. Montanes, and
S. Torres-Giner. 2019. “Kinetic analysis of the thermal degrada-
tion of recycled acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene by non-isothermal
thermogravimetry.” Polym. Basel 11 (2): 281. https://doi.org/10.3390
/polym11020281.
Beydoun, K., and J. Klankermayer. 2020. “Efficient plastic waste recycling
to value-added products by integrated biomass processing.” Chem-
SusChem 13 (3): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201902880.
Bonnell, G. R., and F. C. Harper. 1950. “The thermal expansion of con-
crete.” J. Inst. Civ. Eng. 33 (4): 320–330. https://doi.org/10.1680/IJOTI
.1950.12917.
Casanova-del-Angel, F., and J. L. Vazquez-Ruiz. 2012. “Manufacturing
light concrete with PET aggregate.” Int. Scholarly Res. Not. 2012:
287323. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/287323.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1999. Methods of test
for mortar for masonry. Determination of particle size distribution
(by sieve analysis). EN1015-1. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2010. Standard test
methods of determination of the freeze-thaw resistance of autoclaved
aerated concrete. EN15304. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2013. Standard test
method for thermal insulating products for building applications—
Determination of water vapour transmission properties. EN 12086.
Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
Cheremisinoff, N. P. 2001. Condensed encyclopedia of polymer engineer-
ing terms. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Chinnadurai, T., and S. A. Vendan. 2017. “Thermal and structural analysis
of ultrasonic-welded PC/ABS blend for automobile applications.”
J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 127 (3): 1995–2003. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10973-016-5748-4.
Choi, Y. W., D. J. Moon, Y. J. Kim, and M. Lachemi. 2009. “Character-
istics of mortar and concrete containing fine aggregate manufactured
from recycled waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles.” Constr. Build.
Mater. 23 (8): 2829–2835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009
.02.036.
Coppola, B., L. Courard, M. Frédéric, L. Incarnato, P. Scarfato, and L. D.
Maio. 2018. “Hygro-thermal and durability properties of a lightweight
mortar made with foamed plastic waste aggregates.” Constr. Build. Ma-
ter. 170: 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.083.
EPCI (European Passive Components Institute). 2019. “Coefficient of
linear thermal expansion on polymers explained.” Accessed March 1,
2020. https://passive-components.eu/coefficient-of-linear-thermal
-expansion-on-polymers-explained/.
European Plastics Industry Report. 2017. Plastics- the facts 2017: An
analysis of European plastics production, demand and waste manage-
ment, 1–41. Brussels, Belgium: PlasticsEurope.
Ferreira, L., J. Brito, and N. de and Saikia. 2012. “Influence of curing con-
ditions on the mechanical performance of concrete containing recycled
plastic aggregate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 36: 196–204. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.098.
Fraj, A. B., M. Kismi, and P. Mounanga. 2010. “Valorization of coarse rigid
polyurethane foam waste in lightweight aggregate concrete.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 24 (6): 1069–1077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2009.11.010.
© ASCE 04020450-12
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450
Ge, Z., D. Huang, R. Sun, and Z. Gao. 2014. “Properties of plastic mortar
made with recycled polyethylene Terephthalate.” Constr. Build. Mater.
73: 682–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.10.005.
Gómez, M., L. E. Peisino, J. Kreiker, R. Gaggino, A. L. Cappelletti, S. E.
Martin, P. M. Uberman, M. Positieri, and B. B. Raggiotti. 2020.
“Stabilization of hazardous compounds from WEEE plastic: Develop-
ment of a novel core-shell recycled plastic aggregate for use in building
materials.” Constr. Build. Mater. 230: 116977. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.conbuildmat.2019.116977.
Gu, L., and T. Ozbakkaloglu. 2016. “Use of recycled plastics in concrete:
A critical review.” Waste Manage. 51 (May): 19–42. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.wasman.2016.03.005.
Hannawi, K., S. K. Bernard, and W. Prince. 2010. “Physical and mechani-
cal properties of mortars containing PET and PC waste aggregates.”
Waste Manage. 30 (11): 2312–2320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman
.2010.03.028.
Jang, H., J. Ha, J. Yoo, J. Pyo, K. Choi, and C. Lee. 2016. “Synthesis and
characterization of polycarbonate copolymers containing benzoyl
groups on the side chain for scratch resistance.” Int. J Polym. Sci.
2016 (Jan): 1. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2814529.
Kan, A., and R. Demirboga. 2009. “A novel material for lightweight con-
crete production.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 31 (7): 489–495. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.05.002.
Kaur, G., and S. Pavia. 2020. “Physical properties and microstructure
of plastic aggregate mortars made with acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene
(ABS), polycarbonate (PC), polyoxymethylene (POM) and ABS/PC
blend waste.” J. Build. Eng. 31: 101341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe
.2020.101341.
Liu, F., H. B. Huang, X. Z. Xia, L. J. Li, G. Q. Zhong, and Y. C. Guo. 2011.
“Mechanical test on modified concrete with recycled plastic particles
and its numerical simulation.” J. Build. Mater. 14 (2): 173–179.
https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-9629.2011.02.006.
Liu, F., Y. Yan, L. Li, C. Lan, and G. Chen. 2015. “Performance of recycled
plastic-based concrete.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (2): A4014004. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000989.
Liu, F., Y. Yan, and L. J. Li. 2012. “Experimental study on impact per-
formance of recycled plastic reinforced concrete.” In Proc., 1st Int.
Conf. on Performance-Based and Life-Cycle Structural Engineering.
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ.
Luhar, S., and I. Luhar. 2019. “Potential application of E-wastes in con-
struction industry: A review.” Constr. Build. Mater. 203: 222–240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.080.
Makri, J., N. Hahladakis, and E. Gidarako. 2019. “Use and assessment of
e-plastics as recycled aggregates in cement mortar.” J. Hazard. Mater.
379: 120776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120776.
Martinho, G., A. Pires, L. Saraiva, and R. Ribeiro. 2012. “Composition of
plastics from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by di-
rect sampling.” Waste Manage. 32 (6): 1213–1217. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.wasman.2012.02.010.
Marzouk, O. Y., R. M. Dheilly, and M. Queneudec. 2007. “Valorization of
post consumer waste plastic in cementitious concrete composites.”
Waste Manage. 27 (2): 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman
.2006.03.012.
NSAI (National Standards Authority of Ireland). 2011. Cement part 1:
Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements.
EN 197-1:2011. Dublin, Ireland: NSAI.
O’ Sullivan, K. 2018. “Plastic: How much do we generate and how can we
reduce it?” Accessed April 21, 2018. https://www.irishtimes.com/news
/environment/plastic-how-much-do-we-generate-and-how-can-wereduce
-it-1.3469909.
Pelisser, F., O. R. K. Montedo, P. J. P. Gleize, and H. R. Roman.
2012. “Mechanical properties of recycled PET fibers in con-
crete.” Mater. Res. 15 (4): 679–686. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516
-14392012005000088.
Plastics Insight. 2020. “Resin prices.” Accessed February 2, 2020. https://
www.plasticsinsight.com/resin-intelligence/resinprices/.
Rahmani, E., M. Dehestani, M. H. A. Beygi, H. Allahyari, and I. M.
Nikbin. 2013. “On the mechanical properties of concrete containing
waste PET particles.” Constr. Build. Mater. 47 (Oct): 1302–1308.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.06.041.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 Redjala, S., R. Ferhoum, N. A. Hocine, and S. Azem. 2019. “Degradation
of polycarbonate properties under thermal aging.” J. Fail. Anal. Prev.
19 (2): 536–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11668-019-00630-0.
Reskati, S. R., I. Nikbin, H. Allahyari, and T. S. Habibi. 2016. “Sustain-
able approach for recycling waste tire rubber and polyethylene tereph-
thalate (PET) to produce green concrete with resistance against sulfuric
acid attack.” J. Cleaner. Prod. 126: 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.jclepro.2016.03.074.
RILEM. 1972. Functional classification of lightweight concrete. RILEM
LC2:1978. Paris: RILEM.
RILEM. 1980. Recommended tests to measure the deterioration of stone
and to assess the effectiveness of treatment methods Materiaux et
Constructions. RILEM TC 25-PEM. Paris: RILEM.
RILEM. 1984. Testing methods for fibre reinforced cement-based compo-
sites. RILEM 49TFR. Paris: RILEM.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 11/27/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Saikia, N., and J. de Brito. 2012. “Use of plastic waste as aggregate in ce-
ment mortar and concrete preparation: A review.” Constr. Build. Mater.
34: 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.066.
Saikia, N., and J. de Brito. 2014. “Mechanical properties and abrasion
behaviour of concrete containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial
substitution of natural aggregate.” Constr. Build. Mater. 52: 236–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.049.
Saikia, N., and J. de Brito. 2103. “Waste polyethylene terephthalate as an
aggregate in concrete.” Mater. Res. 16 (2): 341–350. https://doi.org/10
.1590/S1516-14392013005000017.
© ASCE 04020450-13
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2021, 33(2): 04020450
Senhadji, Y., H. Siad, G. Escadeillas, K. H. Benosman, R. Chihaoui, M.
Mouli, and M. Lachemi. 2019. “Physical, mechanical and thermal prop-
erties of lightweight composite mortars containing recycled polyvinyl
chloride.” Constr. Build. Mater. 195: 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2018.11.070.
Thorneycroft, J., J. Orr, P. Savoikar, and R. J. Ball. 2018. “Performance of
structural concrete with recycled plastic waste as a partial replacement
for sand.” Construct. Build. Mater. 161: 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.conbuildmat.2017.11.127.
Vaillancourt, C. J., and L. Sorelli. 2018. “Characterization of concrete
composites with recycled plastic aggregates from postconsumer material
streams.” Constr. Build. Mater. 182: 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2018.06.083.
Wallace, T. 2019. “Global plastic waste totals 4.9 billion tonnes.” Accessed
May 7, 2019. https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/global-plastic-waste
-totals-4-9-billion-tonnes.
Wang, R., and C. Meyer. 2010. “Performance of cement mortar made
with recycled high impact polystyrene.” Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (9):
975–981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.06.014.
World Economic Forum Report. 2016. The new plastics economy: Rethink-
ing the future of plastics, 1–34. Isle of Wight, UK: Ellen MacArthur
Foundation.
Xuemiao, L., T. C. Ling, and K. H. Mo. 2020. “Functions and impacts of
plastic/rubber wastes as eco-friendly aggregate in concrete—A review.”
Constr. Build. Mater. 240: 117869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2019.117869.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.