Cleaner Materials 5 (2022) 100113

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Materials
journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-materials

Recycling of waste HDPE and PP plastic in preparation of plastic brick and

its mechanical properties
Prathik Kulkarni a, *, Vikas Ravekar a, P. Rama Rao b, Sahil Waigokar a, Sanket Hingankar a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Bajaj Institute of Technology, Wardha, India
b
Research Scholar, Pondicherry Technological University, Puducherry, India

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

Keywords: Brick is a primary building material that is often utilized in the construction of masonry. Conventionally, brick is
Plastic brick made up of dried clay and recently many studies have focused on the use of waste materials as an alternate
Thermoplastic material to a conventional brick. In the present study thermoplastics like High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and
Physical recycling
Polypropylene (PP) are used to manufacture the plastic brick using the physical recycling method. Here, waste
HDPE and PP
Plastic brick wall
plastic from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) is collected, segregated, cleaned, and
melted to manufacture a 190 × 90 × 90 mm modular sized HDPE and PP brick according to IS 1077:1992. In the
first phase of work, standard tests are performed to study the physical, mechanical and thermal properties of the
plastic brick. In the next phase, a 500 × 110 × 500 mm wall is constructed and the results of the plastic brick wall
are compared with a conventional brick wall. The wall was tested using a universal testing machine (UTM) as per
IS 1905:1987. It was interesting to observe that the HDPE and PP brick gave a compressive strength of 11.19 N/
mm2 and 10.02 N/mm2 which were in good agreement with first-class conventional brick which gave a
compressive strength of 10.5 N/mm2. While it is also worth noting that HDPE brick had the highest compressive
strength. The ultimate load for the plastic brick wall was 197.50 KN with a shear failure at a 45◦ , while the
conventional brick wall experienced a vertical failure at 153.95 KN load. A fire-resistance test on a plastic brick
wall and a conventional brick wall was performed to evaluate if the specifications of Nation Building Code
(2005): Part 4: Table 1 were met. It was observed that the plastic brick wall even after 30 min of heating at 4
corners and centre, showed a better temperature difference as compared to the conventional brick wall. The
study initiates a new line of research in sustainable plastic waste management.

1. Introduction mechanical properties have been investigated. In previous research, the

Brick is a vital building material that is widely utilized throughout
the world. It is one of the most demanding masonry units. India, along
with China and Spain, is the leading brick manufacturing country, with
an annual production rate of more than 240 billion bricks (Muheise-
Aralia and Pavia, 2021). India produces about a 3.5 million tons of waste
plastic every year which has almost doubled in the last five years. The
production of waste plastic adversely affects our ecosystem and even it is
linked with air pollution. Due to this high rate of production, it was
brought to investigate and scrutinize the feasibility of using waste plastic
as an alternative for manufacturing the brick. As they will be benefiting
the environment as well as maintaining the requirements of materials
and their standards. As a result, numerous attempts have been made to
incorporate waste into the production of bricks, and their physical and
replacement and addition have been done in the brick with the direct
composition of different raw materials like rice husk or rice husk ash
(Sutas et al., 2012), grapevine twig dust and popular dust(Andiç-Çakır
et al., 2021), slate tailing, fly ash, and OPC(Wang et al., 2021); fly ash
and lime(Çiçek and Çinçin, 2015), cigarettes buds(Kadir and Mohajer­
ani, 2015), crushed glass(Chidiac and Federico, 2007; Demir, 2009),
clay, sawdust, marble(Eliche-Quesada et al., 2012), and sugarcane
bagasse ash(Faria et al., 2012).
In addition to the above-mentioned materials, Plastics are widely
employed in the production of bricks. The use of thermoplastic waste in
the production of bricks is the most effective alternative for reducing
plastic waste, saving raw materials, and enhancing the properties of
bricks. Plastics are preferred over other materials due to their light­
weight, low cost, low density, good stability, and durability, ability to be

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: prathik.kulkarni@bitwardha.ac.in (P. Kulkarni).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clema.2022.100113
Received 29 April 2022; Received in revised form 23 June 2022; Accepted 29 June 2022
Available online 2 July 2022
2772-3976/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
P. Kulkarni et al.
easily molded, good impact resistance, and mechanical properties
(Jahidul Islam and Shahjalal, 2021; Banerjee et al., 2014; Ahmad et al.,
2017) . M.K. Mondal et al.(Mondal et al., 2019) conducted an experi­
mental study on three batches of blocks composed of polycarbonate (RIC
7), polystyrene (RIC 6), and mixed thermoplastics, sand with fly ash, and
OPC. Whereas mixed thermoplastics are 0–10% by weight and sand is
60–70% by weight. The test results suggest that the brick containing
10% waste plastics has a compressive strength of 17 MPa and high
thermal resistance. Although these bricks are lightweight, the density is
significantly lower. Isaac I. Akinwumi et al.(Akinwumi et al., 2019)
manufactured compressed earth brick with the use of stabilized soil and
shredded waste plastic varying in percentages and by the size of particles
(less than 6.3 mm and more than 9.6 mm). The results showed that
compressed earth brick (CEB) incorporating shredded waste plastic (1%
by weight and particle size <6.3 mm) resulted in a 50% rise in erosion
rate (the lowest among them) and a 244.4% increase in compressive
strength compared to brick containing no plastic (0.45 MPa). These
earth bricks can be used in residential and commercial buildings.
In the construction industry Polyethylene (PET) and Polypropylene
(PP) plastics are frequently employed. PET plastic brick in composition
with foundry sand(Aneke and Shabangu, 2021)and recycled glass
granules(Frank Ikechukwu and Shabangu, 2021) respectively had 2.5
and 3 times higher compressive strength, and the temperature required
to manufacture those bricks was approximately 5 times lower than burnt
clay brick. The bricks with a higher percentage of PET i.e., 5% gave
many effective results when compared with conventional fire clay
bricks, but beyond 5% replacement of PET in fire clay bricks, a reduction
in compressive strength was observed (Akinyele et al., 2020a,b).
Many experimental studies have been undertaken on a brick ma­
sonry wall and masonry prisms of varied constituent materials, bonds,
dimensions, and height to thickness (h/t) ratio. The physical and me­
chanical characteristics of brick masonry units, as well as their masonry
with lime mortar joints, are determined(Drougkas et al., 2016; Bompa
and Elghazouli, 2020). Nassif Nazeer Thaickavil et al.(Thaickavil and
Thomas, 2018)proposed a masonry model with two different types of
bricks: cement stabilized pressed earth brick (B1) and local burnt clay
brick (B2). Cement mortar ratios of different proportions were used to
make masonry prisms. They assessed the compressive strength of the
masonry prism and recorded the cracking pattern by performing a lab­
oratory test on 192 masonry prism specimens. The model proposed by
Thaickavil et al.(Thaickavil and Thomas, 2018) accommodates a wide
range of mortar (0.3–52.6 MPa) and masonry unit strength (3.5–127
MPa) in his study. Kumavat et al.(Kumavat, 2016) conducted experi­
mental research on the mechanical properties and compressive strength
of clay brick masonry prisms using mortar composed of fine aggregate
with clay brick waste (in percentage proposition) as a replacement for
sand. In that, the cement mortar of 1:4 and a 20% replacement of clay
brick waste gave higher results in compressive strength. They found that
due to this replacement compressive strength of the masonry prism was
found to be more as compared to standard masonry prism. The
compressive strength of brick and mortar is the primary factor influ­
encing the compressive strength of masonry prism, since the strength of
masonry increases as the strength of brick and mortar increases (Nau­
man Azhar and Ali Qureshi, 2020; Francis et al., 2017; Singh and
Munjal, 2017). Gumaste et al. (2007) conduct experimental research on
strength, elastic properties, and failure pattern of brick masonry prism
and Wallette under axial compression. The masonry prism is constructed
with varying mortar ratios and designed following IS 1905:1987 speci­
fications. Ajith Thamboo and Dhanasekar (2019)compared the behavior
of a prism to a cube and found that the prism provides more strength
than a cube. Aside from constructing brick and analyzing its mechanical
properties, numerical simulation and computerized modeling of brick
masonry are also done using a finite element (FE) program (Srinivas and
Sasmal, 2016; Furtmüller and Adam, 2011). The cracking pattern,
crushing, failure of the wall, deformation by mesh application, and
maximum principal strain are all shown in the FE analysis. The results
2
Cleaner Materials 5 (2022) 100113
Table 1
Physical and mechanical properties of HDPE and PP (Maddah, 2016; Kusuktham
and Teeranachaideekul, 2014).
Property HDPE PP
Melting point (◦ C) 110–140 160–166
Flashpoint (◦ C) greater than 300 greater than 300
Density (g/cm3) 0.90–1.00 0.91–0.94
Specific gravity 0.90–1.00 0.9–1.00
Tensile Strength (MPa) 19–39 22–34
Elongation (%) 180–1000 3–700
Water absorption (%) <0.05 0.01
obtained using FE analysis were compared with the theoretical values
and it was observed that FE analysis gave much accurate results.
Many researchers have partially replaced waste plastic to improve
the mechanical and durability properties of brick, but no study is carried
out on the complete (100%) replacement of HDPE and PP plastic in the
preparation of brick. As HDPE and PP do not emit harmful gases when
melted, so the melting process was carried out to prepare 19 × 9 × 9 cm
modular brick. The physical, durability, and mechanical properties of
plastic brick and first-class (designation-10) red clay brick which is
termed conventional brick are examined. Additionally, an experimental
study and comparison of plastic brick walls with the conventional brick
wall are conducted in accordance with its compressive strength and fire
resistance test. All the tests were performed according to Indian Stan­
dard codes. This research contributes to the use of plastic waste (HDPE
and PP) in the manufacture of bricks, which is the most effective method
for reducing plastic waste, conserving raw materials, and enhancing the
properties of bricks.
2. Materials and methodology
2.1. Materials
The thermoplastics, which include High-Density Polyethylene
(HDPE) and Polypropylene (PP), were used in this research for
manufacturing the plastic bricks. PP plastics are the most often used
thermoplastics as they are lightweight and easily mouldable (Maddah,
2016), whilst HDPE is commonly recyclable but decomposition time is
too long (almost 100 years (Material Safety Data Sheet: High Density
Polyethylene), therefore those plastics were implemented. Furthermore,
according to the Material safety data sheet (Material Safety Data Sheet:
High Density Polyethylene; Material Safety Data Sheet: Polypropylene
(PP) Homopolymer, HDPE and PP have properties such as low toxicity,
non-hazardous, and safe use. The physical, durability, and mechanical
properties of HDPE and PP are tabulated in Table 1.
The reddish-brown local river sand (as fine aggregate) with a particle
size of less than 4.75 mm was collected from the Bajaj Institute of
Technology in Wardha. Sand has a specific gravity of 2.65, a bulk den­
sity of 1595 kg/m3, and a fineness modulus of 2.88. As a binding ma­
terial, ordinary Portland cement (OPC) of 43 grade is used. Normal tap
water with a pH value of 7.0 is used for making masonry mortar.
2.2. Methodology
A physical (mechanical) recycling method is involved while
manufacturing plastic bricks (Leng et al., 2018). Initially, we collected
discarded plastic materials of High-density Polyethylene (HDPE) and
Polypropylene (PP) from Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpo­
ration (MIDC) Wardha, Maharashtra, India. However, to make these
waste plastics appropriate for brick manufacturing, undesired elements
are then removed from the HDPE and PP plastics. The collected plastic
materials are then individually chopped into 10–20 mm size using a
plastic crusher machine, as shown in Fig. 1(a). Now, this chopped plastic
material is placed in a container as shown in Fig. 1(b) and heated to
230 ◦ C (Temperature was measured using an infrared thermometer)
P. Kulkarni et al. Cleaner Materials 5 (2022) 100113

Fig. 1. The manufacturing process of Plastic brick. (a) Chopped plastic, (b) Melting, (c) Designed mold, (d) Plastic brick.

Fig. 2. (a) Soundness Test (b) Hardness test.

Fig. 3. (a) Plastic brick wall (b) Painting on plastic brick wall.

which is above the melting point of HDPE and PP individually. Once the
plastic has been converted into paste form, it is poured into molds of the
standard-modular brick size of dimension 190 × 90 × 90 mm in
accordance with IS 1077:1992, as shown in Fig. 1(c). Then the molten
plastic paste is properly compacted in the mold during filling to avoid
any pores in the brick. After 24 h, the plastic brick is removed from the
mold as shown in Fig. 1(d) and tested afterward.
2.3. Experimental program
In the present study, Physical (Soundness, Efflorescence, Hardness,
Impact, and Structure) and mechanical (Compression strength)
properties were conducted on plastic and conventional bricks, Plastic
and conventional brick wall was constructed according to IS 1905: 1987
to determine the crack pattern and load-carrying capacity of the plastic
brick wall (HDPE) (500 × 110 × 500 mm) with a conventional wall
(500 × 110 × 500 mm) as HDPE brick carries more compressive strength
than PP brick, fire resistance test of plastic brick wall and a conventional
brick wall was carried out according to Table 1 in Part 4 of SP 7: Group 1
(2005): National Building Code. The soundness test and hardness test
are as shown in Fig. 2a and 2b. The plastering was a quite challenging
job on a plastic brick wall, so grooves were made on all the surfaces of
the plastic brick to have a good bond between cement mortar (1:3 (IS
1661 (1972)) and brick as shown in Fig. 3a and b.

3
P. Kulkarni et al. Cleaner Materials 5 (2022) 100113

Table 2 includes certain physical and durability properties of HDPE, PP, and
Properties of HDPE and PP brick. conventional brick.
Parameters HDPE brick PP brick Conventional brick
3.2. Compressive strength test on plastic brick and conventional brick
Weight (kg) 1.330 1.350 2.920
Dry density (kg/m3) 864.197 877.192 1897.335
Specific gravity 0.866 0.879 1.903 HDPE, PP, and conventional brick specimens were tested under the
Water absorption (%) 0.752 0.370 12 universal testing (AIMIL) machine of capacity 1000 kN. The ultimate
Efflorescence Nil Nil Slight load carried by HDPE brick is 191.35 kN at a displacement of 18.40 mm,
whereas PP brick carries 171.35 kN at a displacement of 15.30 mm. In
3. Results and discussion addition, the conventional brick carries an ultimate load of 178.95 kN at
a displacement of 13.50 mm. The Load vs Displacement graph of brick
3.1. Physical properties of plastic brick specimens is obtained through computerized UTM and illustrated in
Fig. 4(a). The failure pattern of plastic brick was observed, with bricks
Plastic brick appears to be greyish-black in color and free of cracks. forming vertical cracks in the tension zone and splitting the edges.
The edges of plastic bricks are not precisely sharp. The weights of HDPE Similarly, conventional brick is crushed completely. However, HDPE
and PP bricks were found to be 1.33 kg and 1.35 kg, respectively. The brick has better compressive strength than PP brick and is significantly
brick’s density is calculated as a ratio of dry weight to volume (Ornam greater than conventional brick (First class) it was used in the prepa­
et al., 2017). ration of plastic brick walls. HDPE brick and PP brick have 11.19 N/mm2
A water absorption test had carried out on HDPE and PP plastic and 10.02 N/mm2 compressive strength respectively. Similarly con­
bricks according to IS 3495 (Part 2): 2019. We observed that the water ventional brick has 10.50 N/mm2 compressive strength as shown in
absorption capacity of plastic brick is drastically lower than that of Fig. 4(b).
conventional brick. After the water absorption test, an efflorescence test
is performed on both types of plastic bricks, to find the salt contents 3.3. Compressive strength test on plastic brick and conventional brick wall
available in the HDPE and PP plastic in accordance with IS 3495 (Part
3): 2019. We investigated the surfaces of brick for two evaporation cy­ A plastic brick wall is tested on a computerized Universal testing
cles and discovered that there are no perceptible changes on the satu­ machine (UTM) with a capability of 1000 kN, and a load is applied to the
rated surface of the brick. The results are tabulated in Table 2, which wall. The results revealed that loading up to 16 kN caused no
displacement on the specimen. However, the plastic brick wall bears an

Fig. 4. (a) Load vs Displacement graph of brick specimens (b) Compressive strength of brick specimens.

Fig. 5. (a) Load vs Displacement graph of brick wall specimens and (b) Cracking pattern on the plastic brick wall.

4
P. Kulkarni et al. Cleaner Materials 5 (2022) 100113

Table 3 masonry is affected by the strength of the brick and mortar used in the
Properties of the brick wall. brickwork (Venkatesh, 2010). Furthermore, the compressive strength of
Parameters Plastic brick Conventional brick masonry (8.5 MPa) is less than the masonry unit strength (10.5
wall brick wall MPa) (Ludovikus Sugeng Wijanto, 2007). The same graph pattern was
Dimensions: b × t × h (mm) 500 × 110 × 500 × 110 × 500 even observed in our study, individual bricks carry higher strength than
500 mm mm the brick masonry.
Weight (kg/m) 47.530 104.353
Density (kg/m3) 1728.363 3794.654
Compressive strength (N/mm2) 3.59 2.79
3.4. Fire resistance test on plastic brick and conventional brick wall
Corrected Compressive strength: after 3.48 2.70
applying a correction factor of 0.97 (N/
mm2) The plastic itself is combustible at high temperatures. In the event of
Masonry efficiency (%) 28.95 25.71 a fire, the cement sand mortar with burnt clay bricks may be able to
resist the temperature that the plastic brick could not. So, in order to
determine the fire resistance of plastic brick and conventional brick
ultimate load of 197.5 kN at a displacement of 27.50 mm on the wall, as
walls, we applied continuous heat to the plastered walls’ faces according
shown in Fig. 5(a). However, according to IS 1905:1987, the correction
to Nation Building Code (2005): Part 4: Table 1.
factor for the height to thickness (h/t) ratio is multiplied by the exper­
The face of the walls has been continuously heated by a torch of gas
imental compressive strength value obtained. The height to thickness
wielding at a temperature of around 1000–1200 ◦ C and the temperature
(h/t) ratio is 4.54, and the correction factor for the brickwork specimen
on both sides of the wall was measured using a digital thermometer (TP-
according to interpolation is 0.97 and the corrected or normalized
101). The test result reveals that after 30 min, the structural integrity of
compressive strength of the wall is then calculated. The normalized
plastic brick increased burning as illustrated in Fig. 6(a). The exact rear
masonry efficiency is also calculated as the ratio of normalized or cor­
unexposed area of the plastic brick wall was at a normal temperature of
rected compressive strength to brick strength (Gumaste et al., 2007).
about 32 ◦ C, which the bare hand could touch, while the edge of this
The plastic brick wall fails due to the crushing of bricks and spalling of
brick wall has a temperature of 78 ◦ C. Cracks form on the face of heat-
mortar cover and de-bonding between the bricks. Shear failure was
affected surfaces as shown in Fig. 6(b).
observed in the wall at 45◦ angle as shown in Fig. 5(b).
The conventional brick wall is tested in the same way as the plastic
The conventional brick wall took a deflection from 21.80 kN, and the
brick wall, with a constant rate of temperature and time as shown in
first crack was observed at 98.25 kN loading. The maximum load carried
Fig. 7(a). After 30 min of constant heating, the structural integrity of the
by the wall is 153.95 kN, as shown in Fig. 5(a). The compressive strength
conventional brick is nearly identical, with a tiny cracks pattern and
of a conventional brick wall was calculated, and the correction factor of
some roughness in the texture of that exposed surface as shown in Fig. 7
0.97 was multiplied by the experimental compressive strength according
(b). In this case, heat transfers well to the rear side of the wall having a
to IS 1905:1987. Hence the experimental compressive strength data for
temperature of 113 ◦ C after 30 min. The temperature at the edges of
the plastic brick wall and the conventional brick wall is given in Table. 3.
conventional brick was 173 ◦ C. As a result, we observed that using a
The wall was deflected by an amount of 18.70 mm with vertical cracks
digital thermometer (TP-101), in the case of a plastic brick wall, bricks
along with their height.
burned while heat did not transmit very well through the wall. However,
Previous research has shown that the compressive strength of brick
in a conventional brick wall, heat is transferred more evenly throughout

Fig. 6. Heat on Plastic brick wall. (a) Burning of brick and (b) Crack on the face of a wall.

Fig. 7. Heat on Red clay brick wall. (a) Applied heat and (b) Crack and Roughness on the face of a wall.

5
P. Kulkarni et al.
the wall, but no bricks are burnt.
4. Conclusion
The research and experimental work attempted to reduce the in­
tensity of plastic and its disposal problem by reusing discarded plastic
waste to make High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and Polypropylene
(PP) plastic bricks. These bricks have several advantages over a con­
ventional brick of standard brick. In our study, plastic brick is entirely
made from discarded plastic waste without using water, HDPE and PP
bricks have a water absorption capacity of 0.75% and 0.37% respec­
tively. Furthermore, because this brick does not absorb water, it can be
used in constructions where water leakage is a major issue. The dead
weight of bricks in the structure can be reduced by 55% when compared
with a conventional brick.
The compressive strength of HDPE plastic brick is 14.6% higher than
conventional brick. The ultimate load carried by HDPE plastic brick wall
is 197.5 kN, while a conventional brick wall of the same dimensions
carries 153.95 kN. As a result, we can use the HDPE plastic brick for
load-bearing structures. The plastic brick wall has poor bond strength
between bricks and mortar, but it can be enhanced by introducing frog
or rough texture to the surfaces of the bricks.
Plastic brick as a masonry wall will be the ideal choice for civil
infrastructure construction or in high-rise buildings since it is light­
weight, has a good load-bearing capacity, and is non-absorbent. As a
result, it can minimize the burden of building construction.
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.
References
Muheise-Aralia, D., Pavia, S., 2021. Properties of unfired, illitic-clay bricks for
sustainable construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 268, 121118. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121118. ISSN 0950–0618.
Sutas, J., Mana, A., Pitak, L., 2012. Effect of rice husk and rice husk ash to properties of
bricks. Procedia Eng. 32, 1061–1067.
Andiç-Çakır, Ö., Son, A.E., Sürmelioğlu, S., Tosun, E., Sarıkanat, M., 2021. Improvement
of traditional clay bricks’ thermal insulation characteristics by using waste materials.
Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15, e00560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00560.
ISSN 2214–5095.
Wang, Weijin, Gan, Yuxiang, Kang, Xin, 2021. Synthesis and characterization of
sustainable eco-friendly unburned bricks from slate tailings. J. Mater. Res. Technol.
14, 1697–1708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.07.071.
Çiçek, Tayfun, Çinçin, Yasin, 2015. Use of fly ash in production of light-weight building
bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 94, 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2015.07.029.
Kadir, A.A., Mohajerani, A., 2015. Effect of heating rate on gas emissions and properties
of fired clay bricks and fired clay bricks incorporated with cigarette butts. Appl. Clay
Sci. 104, 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2014.12.005. ISSN 0169-1317.
Chidiac, S.E., Federico, L.M., 2007. Effects of waste glass additions on the properties and
durability of fired clay brick. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34, 1458–1466. https://doi.org/
10.1139/L07-120.
Demir, I., 2009. Reuse of waste glass in building brick production. Waste Manage. Res.
27, 572–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X08096528.
Eliche-Quesada, D., Corpas-Iglesias, F.A., Pérez-Villarejo, L., Iglesias-Godino, F.J., 2012.
Recycling of sawdust, spent earth from oil filtration, compost and marble residues
for brick manufacturing. Construct. Build. Mater. 34, 275–284. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.079. ISSN 0950-0618.
Faria, K.C.P., Gurgel, R.F., Holanda, J.N.F., 2012. Recycling of sugarcane bagasse ash
waste in the production of clay bricks. J. Environ. Manage 101, 7–12. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.032. ISSN 0301-4797.
Jahidul Islam, M.d., Shahjalal, M.d., 2021. Effect of polypropylene plastic on concrete
properties as a partial replacement of stone and brick aggregate. Case Studies Constr.
Mater. 15, e00627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00627. ISSN 2214–5095.
Banerjee, T., Srivastava, R.K., Hung, Y.T., 2014. Plastic Waste Management in India: An
Integrated Solid Waste Management Approach. World Scientific Publishing Co.,
Singapore.
Ahmad, A.F., Razali, A.R., Razelan, I.S.M., 2017. Utilization of polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) in asphalt pavement: a review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng.
203, 012004 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/203/1/012004.
6
Cleaner Materials 5 (2022) 100113
Mondal, M.K., Bose, B.P., Bansal, P., 2019. Recycling waste thermoplastic for energy
efficient construction materials: an experimental investigation. J. Environ. Manage.
240, 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.03.016.
Akinwumi, I.I., Domo-Spiff, A.H., Salami, A., 2019. Marine plastic pollution and
affordable housing challenge: Shredded waste plastic stabilized soil for producing
compressed earth bricks. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 11, e00241. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00241. ISSN 2214–5095.
Aneke, F.I., Shabangu, C., 2021. Green-efficient masonry bricks produced from scrap
plastic waste and foundry sand. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 14, e00515. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00515. ISSN 2214–5095.
Frank Ikechukwu, A., Shabangu, C., 2021. Strength and durability performance of
masonry bricks produced with crushed glass and melted PET plastics. Case Stud.
Constr. Mater. 14, e00542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00542.
Akinyele, J.O., Igba, U.T., Adigun, B.G., 2020a. Effect of waste PET on the structural
properties of burnt bricks. Sci. Afr. 7, e00301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2020.
e00301. ISSN 2468–2276.
Drougkas, A., Roca, P., Molins, C., 2016. Compressive strength and elasticity of pure lime
mortar masonry. Mater. Struct. 49, 983–999. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-015-
0553-2.
Bompa, D.V., Elghazouli, A.Y., 2020. Compressive behaviour of fired-clay brick and lime
mortar masonry components in dry and wet conditions. Mater. Struct. 53, 60.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-01493-w.
Thaickavil, Nassif Nazeer, Thomas, Job, 2018. Behaviour and strength assessment of
masonry prisms. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 8, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cscm.2017.12.007.
Kumavat, H.R., 2016. An experimental investigation of mechanical properties in clay
brick masonry by partial replacement of fine aggregate with clay brick waste. J. Inst.
Eng. India Ser. A 97, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40030-016-0178-7.
Nauman Azhar, M., Ali Qureshi, L., 2020. Experimental study of structural behaviour of
Chinese bond brick Masonry: a new trend of durable and economical construction in
Pakistan. J. King Saud Univers Eng. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jksues.2020.09.013. ISSN 1018-3639.
A.J. Francis, C.B. Horman, L.E. Jerrems, The effect of joint thickness and other factors on
compressive strength of brickwork, Proceedings of 2nd International Brick Masonry
Conference, Stroke-on-Trent, 2017, 31-37.
Singh, S.B., Munjal, Pankaj, 2017. Bond strength and compressive stress-strain
characteristics of brick masonry. J. Build. Eng. 9, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2016.11.006. ISSN 2352-7102.
Gumaste, K.S., Nanjunda Rao, K.S., Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., Jagadish, K.S., 2007.
Strength and elasticity of brick masonry prisms and wallettes under compression.
Mater. Struct. 40, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-006-9141-9.
Ajith Thamboo, J., Dhanasekar, M., 2019. Correlation between the performance of solid
masonry prisms and wallettes under compression. J. Build. Eng. 22, 429–438.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.01.007.
Srinivas, V., Sasmal, S., 2016. Experimental and numerical studies on ultimate load
behaviour of brick masonry. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 97, 93–104. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40030-016-0152-4.
Furtmüller, T., Adam, C., 2011. Numerical modeling of the in-plane behavior of
historical brick masonry walls. Acta Mech. 221, 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00707-011-0493-z.
Maddah, H.A., 2016. Polypropylene as a promising plastic: a review. Am. J. Polym. Sci. 6
(1), 1–11.
Material Safety Data Sheet, High Density Polyethylene Page 1 to 6 Issue No. 01/03/2016
Rev. No. 00/03/2016 PARC/MSDS.
Material Safety Data Sheet, Polypropylene (PP) Homopolymer Page 1 to 6 Issue No. 01/
03/2016 Rev. No. 00/03/2016 PARC/MSDS.
Kusuktham, B., Teeranachaideekul, P., 2014. Mechanical properties of high density
polyethylene/modified calcium silicate composites. Silicon 6, 179–189. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12633-014-9204-4.
Leng, Z., Padhan, R.K., Sreeram, A., 2018. Production of a sustainable paving material
through chemical recycling of waste PET into crumb rubber modified asphalt.
J. Cleaner Product. 180, 682–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.171.
ISSN 0959-6526.
Akinyele, J.O., Igba, U.T., Ayorinde, T.O., Jimoh, P.O., 2020b. Structural efficiency of
burnt clay bricks containing waste crushed glass and polypropylene granules. Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 13, e00404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00404.
ISSN 2214–5095.
Ornam, K., Kimsan, M., Ngkoimani, La Ode, 2017. Santi, Study on Physical and
Mechanical Properties with Its Environmental Impact in Konawe - Indonesia upon
Utilization of Sago Husk as Filler in Modified Structural Fly Ash - Bricks. Proc.
Comput. Sci. 111, 420–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.043. ISSN
1877-0509.
Venkatesh, S.V., 2010. Strength characteristics of brick masonry wall before and after
encasing with ferrocement. 8th International Masonry Conference 2010 in Dresden.
Ludovikus Sugeng Wijanto, 2007. Seismic Assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Walls.
University of Canterbury Christchurch, New Zealand, Department of Cicil
Engineering https://doi.org/10.26021/2545’.
Further Reading
IS 1905 (1987): Code of Practice for Structural use of. Unreinforced Masonry.
P. Kulkarni et al. Cleaner Materials 5 (2022) 100113

National Building Code of India, 2005. IS 3495, 2019 IS 3495 (2019) Methods of tests of Burnt Clay Building Bricks, Part-2:
IS 1661, 1972 IS 1661 (1972): Code of Practice for Application of Cement and Cement- Determination of Water Absorption, Part-3: Determination of Efflorescence.
Lime Plaster Finishes.