Sustainable development of concrete using waste recycled plastic

as coarse aggregate in concrete

Ramakrishna Bag1, Subham Agarwal2, Subham Subhasish Baral2, Aman Kumar

Singhal2, Kishor Biswas2

1
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Patna, India, 801103
Email: rkbag@iitp.ac.in

2
Dept. of Civil Engineering
National Institute of Technology Rourkela, India, 769008

1
1 Contents
2

3 ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................3
4 1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................4
5 1.1. Overview....................................................................................................................................4
6 1.2. Literature review......................................................................................................................5
7 2. Materials and method............................................................................................................7
8 2.1. Cement........................................................................................................................................7
9 2.2. Fine Aggregate...........................................................................................................................7
10 2.3. Coarse aggregate.......................................................................................................................8
11 2.4. Recycled plastic..........................................................................................................................8
12 The Process of plastic waste Recycling...........................................................................................8
13 3. Tests performed...................................................................................................................10
14 3.1. Compressive test.......................................................................................................................10
15 3.2. Split tensile test:........................................................................................................................10
16 3.3. Pull out test:.............................................................................................................................11
17 3.4. Flexural strength test:...............................................................................................................11
18 3.5. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test:...................................................................................................11
19 4. Result and Discussion..............................................................................................................12
20 5. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................14
21 6. Reference.................................................................................................................................15
22 7. List of Tables...........................................................................................................................17
23 8. List of Figures..........................................................................................................................17
24

2
25 ABSTRACT

26 The true mettle of any industry lies in its capability to reduce waste and put them to use,

27 either in a direct way or any indirect way. As a holistic society, we cannot afford to become

28 industry giants at the cost of our environment. Production and waste management go hand in

29 hand. Plastic is one such waste, which has managed to prove itself a huge menace when it

30 comes to waste management. It decays at a very slow rate, thus the option to use landfills to

31 dispose it off, is not very eco-friendly. One unique way to utilize this waste is by using it in

32 the construction industry. Waste plastic or waste recycled plastic can be added in precise

33 amounts to partially or completely replace conventional aggregates. Construction work uses a

34 wide range of raw materials, most of which eventually ends up as landfill. That makes

35 construction industry one of the largest contributors to landfill waste and greenhouse

36 emission like CO2 worldwide, which demonstrates its highly unsustainable impact on the

37 environment. The mere availability of the aggregate (now partially replaced by waste

38 recycled plastic aggregates) will have huge consequences on the cost factor too. Experimental

39 investigations were carried out to determine strength characteristics of concrete by replacing

40 coarse aggregate with 10, 15and 20% processed plastic waste. Tests were conducted on

41 concrete specimens to understand its behavior under tensile, compressive and flexural loading

42 conditions. And the results were quite amusing because the optimum strength was obtained at

43 10% replacement of coarse aggregate by plastic waste. The concrete mix prepared using

44 plastic waste can be used for mass concreting and low load-bearing structures.

45

46 Keywords: sustainable development, solid waste, non- biodegradable

47

48

3
49 1. Introduction

50 1.1. Overview

51 A modern lifestyle, alongside the advancement of technology, has led to an increase in the

52 amount and type of waste being generated, leading to a waste disposal crisis. Polymeric

53 product plastic is one of them. Plastic became a part of our lives as it is used for various

54 purpose in our day-today life. They are cheap, light, durable, easy to carry and in many cases,

55 free. But they are also a non-biodegradable waste. Humankind had generated 6.3 billion

56 metric tons of plastic waste until previous decade. Out of this, only 9% was recycled and 12%

57 incinerated. The vast majority 79% was thrown away. Which is expected to generate four

58 times more plastic waste over the next 30 years. According to Central Pollution Control

59 Board [1], approximately 5.6 million tons per annum (TPA) of plastic waste is generated in

60 the country, which will be a huge threat to the environment in future. According to a survey

61 of CPCB, 8,500,000 tons of plastic bags were used in India in the year of 2007 [1].

62 According to Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) 2010 [2], Solid waste management

63 (SWM) is a major problem for many urban local bodies (ULBs) in India, where urbanization,

64 industrialization and economic growth have resulted in increased municipal solid waste

65 (MSW) generation per person. The Management of solid waste materials and their safe

66 disposal is of major concern in today’s world of the living. The importance is enhanced when

67 it comes to polymeric products especially plastic. The prominent use of plastics and plastic

68 material in last fifty years can be correlated with plastics being inexpensive and durable.

69 However, problems arise with the very slow approximately negligible rate of degradation of

70 plastic, which leads to the certain interruptions in biological functions.

71 Traditionally, reusing and recycling of anything or any product is not much of anyone’s

72 interests and not popular but when people get to know about the limitation of sources of

4
73 mother earth, they grew concerned about the deteriorating environment and climate change,

74 whether soil, water, or air.

75 In order to reduce accumulation of this non-biodegradable plastic material, various attempts

76 are being made. Currently, government is banning the use of plastic bags in urban areas to

77 control its production. Also the utilization of recycled plastics has been encouraged in recent

78 years to control the production of new plastic products. This concept can be taken ahead

79 largely by making its use as a construction material like in concrete or mortar. The slow

80 degradation of plastic can be used as a valuable property in concrete. Plastics cannot be

81 recycled number of times as it loses its strength and finally ends up in landfills. So instead, it

82 can be used by replacing some proportion of aggregates with recycled plastics. These plastics

83 are also lighter than stone aggregates and can be used advantageously in concrete for light

84 weight structures.

85 The construction process also involves energy expenditure and waste production. But our

86 knowledge on the topics about energy consumption, waste production and the environmental

87 impact in construction process is very limited for some specific structures only. Increasing

88 attention is being given to the construction phase as a part of global and regional efforts to

89 make development more sustainable.

90 But before looking into the sustainable development of concrete, we must have a knowledge

91 about the pollution and waste generated by concrete and steel. Struble et. al. [3] did a

92 comparison between the environmental impacts of the reinforced concrete beam and a steel

93 beam (I-beam) for one cubic meter as shown in table 1. The energy consumption includes

94 both energies, construction and demolition energy.

95 1.2. Literature review

96 Torgal et al. [4] (2011) used waste rubber from tyres and PET waste like bottles in concrete

97 to study the properties and durability of concrete containing polymeric waste and concluded

5
 98 that use of rubber in concrete has various applications in earthquake resistance structures and

99 noise reduction barrier while PET waste in concrete can be used in underwater to prevent

100 erosion problems. Shubbar et. al. [5] (2016) studied the utilization of waste plastic bottles as

101 fine aggregate in concrete and concluded that employing discarded plastic waste made of

102 polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in concrete is an efficient approach to get rid of such waste.

103 Elzafraney et al. [6] (2005) studied the use of recycled plastic to develop an energy efficient

104 building. Ismail et. al. [7] (2007) studied the use of waste plastic in the concrete mixture as an

105 aggregate replacement and concluded that compressive strength, as well as the flexural

106 strength of all waste plastic concrete, tend to decrease with the increasing waste plastic ratio

107 in the mixture. Sakia et al. [8] (2012) studied the influence of curing conditions on the

108 mechanical performance of concrete containing a recycled plastic aggregate. Rahman et al.

109 [9] (2012) used recycled PUF and HDPE to study the compressive strength and density, they

110 show that using PUF decreases the weight of concrete noticeably.

111 According to a report prepared by J. Vlachopoulos [10] (2009) for the World Bank, recycling

112 of Low-Density Polyethylene saves approximately 56.5 million Btu/ton amount of energy

113 and 1.98 ton of CO2 equivalent/ton of waste greenhouse gas emission compared to its

114 production from virgin raw materials. Also, virgin polymers are produced in relatively few

115 locations around the world, as a result, overall transportation and energy cost increases. That

116 is why recycling of plastic is widely used nowadays. According to C.J. Mitchell [11] (2012),

117 Embodied carbon and embodied energy for sand and gravel extraction is 4.28 kg/CO 2/ton and

118 8.3 KWh/ton respectively, which is quite very less compared to LDPE. However, recycled

119 plastic aggregate used in the experiment is a waste product produced during recycling of

120 LDPE. So, the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission during the production of

121 this plastic aggregate are considered negligible. Therefore, the use of this plastic aggregate in

122 concrete mix can be termed as sustainable development of concrete because it is emitting

6
123 very less amount of greenhouse gas during the construction of a concrete structures,

124 consuming less amount of energy and most importantly, it uses a non-decomposable waste in

125 its production.

126 This paper presents an optimum content of plastic as a coarse aggregate that can be used in

127 concrete to recycle plastic bags and hence to reduce the environmental solid waste. One

128 series of tests were conducted using sand and coarse aggregates for the concrete mix design

129 of M25. Other tests were conducted by replacing crushed stone with 10, 15 and 20 % of

130 plastic waste by volume. The results were compared with original mix design, i.e., without

131 adding any plastic waste as coarse aggregate.

132 2. Materials and method

133 Three replacement levels 10 %, 15% and 20 % by volume of coarse aggregates were used for

134 the preparation of the concrete mix using IS-10262-2009. [12], as 100% replacement is not

135 possible because of certain properties of plastic aggregate.

136 2.1. Cement

137 Cement is a crystalline compound of calcium silicates and other calcium compounds used as

138 a binder material, a substance which transforms into a paste that sets, hardens and binds other

139 materials together, when allowed to react with water. In the current investigation during mix

140 design, Portland slag cement (PSC) was used. The specific gravity of the cement used for this

141 study was determined using Le Chatelier flask and was found to be 2.99. The specific gravity

142 of the materials used in the concrete mix design is presented in Table 3.

143 2.2. Fine Aggregate

144 Fine aggregates consist of natural sand or crushed stone with the particle sizes lower than

145 4.75 mm. Locally available river bed sand was used as fine primary aggregate in this study.

146 The water absorption of the sand used in this study was found to be 1.2%.

7
147 2.3. Coarse aggregate

148 Coarse aggregates are particles of sizes greater than 4.75 mm and generally provides strength

149 and volume to a concrete structure. For concrete mix design usually 9.5 mm to 37.5mm

150 diameter coarse aggregates are used. Coarse aggregates can be obtained from primary,

151 secondary or recycled sources. In this study, crushed stones of size below 20 mm were used

152 as coarse aggregates. The water absorption test conducted by weighing the aggregates soaked

153 in water for 24 hours was found to be 1.5%. The specific gravity of the coarse aggregate was

154 found out by weighing the certain quantity of coarse aggregate within a wire basket inside

155 and outside the water. The specific gravity of coarse aggregates was found to be 2.84. One

156 series of tests were conducted using 100% crushed stones of size below 20 mm as a coarse

157 aggregate. For all other tests, crushed stone was replaced with plastic waste of 10, 15 and 20

158 % by volume.

159 2.4. Recycled plastic

160 Processed plastic waste bags were used in the concrete mix design. Plastic waste is lighter

161 than water; therefore, the specific gravity of waste plastic was determined using kerosene.

162 The specific gravity of kerosin is 0.82. The specific gravity of plastic waste used in this study

163 was found to be 0.95.

164 Recycled plastic aggregates has a very big advantage over conventional aggregate as plastic

165 is non-biodegradable, So after demolition of structure made up of recycled plastic aggregate,

166 it can still be used in further construction works. Now-a-days recycled concrete aggregate of

167 conventional aggregate is very famous in construction works, but this aggregate is

168 contaminated from various sources while recycling of recycled plastic aggregate remains as it

169 is and gives equal strength and property on multiple use also.

170 The Process of plastic waste Recycling

8
171 This paper focused only on the recycling process of LDPE type of plastic which can be

172 recycled up to 4 times because after that the product becomes toxic. The whole process is

173 divided into several steps. Initially, Plastic was collected from the various sources by waste

174 pickers and then separated according to their types and properties. And these plastics were

175 shredded into tiny pieces or flakes using a plastic cutting machine known as shredder

176 machine to ease the further process. Then these flakes were washed properly in big tanks and

177 kept for drying under the sun. After drying the shredded plastic were compressed by applying

178 heat and pressure in a compressor machine to densify. The densified plastic wastes were

179 formed to granuels. These granules were then fed into the extrusion machine’s hopper where

180 it pushed into the screw channel where these granules get heated up and compact as they

181 advances down towards melting stage where it was pushed down towards various sieves or

182 wire meshes such that long and continuous wires of plastic of specified diameter depending

183 on the size of sieve fitted in machine, comes out from the machine. But some amount of

184 molten plastic stuck on the other side of sieves and block its opening, so they must be cleaned

185 after each cycle. This waste plastic produced was very hard and stiff, and could not be used in

186 further recycling process. This hard plastic was being crushed into small pieces and was

187 being used as coarse aggregate in the current investigation. The plastic wires that came out

188 from extruder machine were passed through a water channel where it was allowed to cool and

189 harden. Then it was chopped by a chopper (cutter machine) to form pellet. A flow diagram

190 with picture explains the whole process of recycling of LDPE in fig 1.

191 The Plastic coarse aggregates used for experiment is non-uniform in shape and size and

192 expressed as differently graded. So, gradation of aggregate is done by sieving through a set of

193 Standard Sieves using Sieving machine. The gradation values and particle size distribution

194 curve of plastic aggregates are shown in table 2 and fig. 2 respectively. From gradation, It is

9
195 found that the aggregate is uniformly graded with 12.5 to 15 mm size coarse plastic

196 aggregates.

197 3. Tests performed

198 Series of tests were conducted to determine compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural

199 strength, bond stress and ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete by replacing 10, 15 and 20 %

200 by volume of fine aggregates by plastic waste. The targeted strength of the concrete mix

201 design was 25 MPa, i.e., M25 grade of concrete. One series of test was conducted without

202 using plastic waste as coarse aggregate. Table 4 presents the list of various tests conducted,

203 size of concrete specimens, curing time and the standard followed to conduct the tests.

204 3.1. Compressive test:

205 The compressive test is a qualitative test which measures the compressive force resistance or

206 the crush resistance of a material and ability of the material to regain its original shape after a

207 specified compressive force is applied. It is measured using compressive strength testing

208 machine. Cube or cylindrical samples are usually tested under a compression testing machine

209 to obtain the compressive strength of concrete. To determine the compressive strength, cubes

210 were cast using a design mix following IS 10262 (2009). For each mix six cubes of

211 dimension 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm were cast. After seven days of curing inside water

212 bath, three cubes were tested to determine compressive strength using universal compression

213 testing machine. Similarly, another three cubes were tested after 28 days to determine its

214 compressive load carrying capacity and the values were noted down as shown in fig 3. IS

215 516-1959 [13] was used to carry out the test.

216 3.2. Split tensile test:

217 Concrete is very weak in tension due to its brittle nature and cannot resist the tension. The

218 tensile strength is one of the important properties of concrete. Tensile splitting test is usually

10
219 carried out on cylindrical concrete specimens. The test was conducted using compressive

220 strength testing machine. For each mix, six cylindrical specimens each of dimension 150 mm

221 diameter and 300 mm long were prepared. After seven days curing under water, three

222 specimens were tested, and the average strength was noted following IS 5816-1999 [14].

223 Remaining specimens were tested after 28 days curing as shown in fig 4.

224 3.3. Pull out test:

225 The force required to pull out the reinforcement bar inserted into the concrete specimen is

226 measured by pull out test. It is a measure of bond strength between the reinforcement bar and

227 the concrete. For each mix, three cubes of 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm were cast for pullout

228 test using 16 mm diameter reinforcement bars. The cubes were cast such a way that the

229 reinforcement bar reached 10 mm from the bottom of the cube. After 28 days of curing

230 underwater tests were conducted on the universal testing machine as shown in fig 5 and fig 6

231 and corresponding bond stress was noted as per IS 2770-1-1976 [15].

232 3.4. Flexural strength test:

233 Flexural strength is also known as modulus of rupture or bend strength. Flexural strength test

234 measures the direct tensile strength of the unreinforced concrete beams. Flexural strength test

235 was conducted on hardened concrete. For each mix, six specimens of dimension 100 mm X

236 100 mm X 500 mm was prepared and tested in flexural strength testing machine as shown in

237 fig 7 and fig 8. after 7 days and 28 days of curing the specimens under water. Flexural

238 strength tests were carried out following IS 516(1959) [13].

239 3.5. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test:

240 UPV test is a non-destructive test to analyze the quality of the concrete. In this test, The

241 strength and quality of concrete are assessed by measuring the velocity of the ultrasonic pulse

242 passing through the structure and by measuring the time taken by the waves to pass through

11
243 the structure being tested. Comparatively higher value of velocity is obtained if the structure

244 is uniform in terms of density, consistency and homogeneity while lower velocity may

245 indicates presence of voids in the structure. In the current investigation, UPV test was

246 performed after the 7 and 28 days of curing as shown in fig 10 following IS 13311-1 (1992)

247 [16].

248 4. Result and Discussion

249 The various tests conducted using plastic waste as a replacement to coarse aggregate was

250 compared with that of the tests conducted without using any plastic waste. The test results are

251 shown in Table 5 and 6.

252 Effect on Compressive strength of the concrete:

253 Fig 11 presents the effect of plastic content on compressive strength of concrete after curing

254 for 7 and 28 days. It was observed that the compressive strength after 7 days of curing was

255 constant up to 15 % replacement of coarse aggregate by plastic aggregate. Beyond 15%

256 replacement of coarse aggregate by plastic aggregate, the compressive strength of the

257 concrete was found to decrease. However, for the tests conducted after 28 days curing, the

258 compressive strength was found to decrease gradually. The plastic waste granules used in this

259 investigation were found to be smoother, slippery and hydrophobic in nature, as a result the

260 Interfacial Transition Zone had lower strength and stiffness and the bonding between

261 granules was weaker as compared to crushed stone aggregates, resulting in lower

262 compressive strength. Therefore, the concrete with lower percentage of plastic as a coarse

263 aggregate can be used in large construction projects. For lighter structures where the total

264 amount of load is less high percentage of waste plastic can be used to replace conventional

265 coarse aggregate.

266 Effect on Tensile strength of the concrete:

12
267 The crack propagation during tensile test on the cylindrical concrete specimen is shown in

268 Fig. 12 and 13. Figure 14 presents the change in tensile strength with various percentages of

269 plastic waste used in concrete after curing for 7 and 28 days. It was noted that after 7 and 28

270 days curing, the tensile splitting strength for concrete with plastic waste increases up to 10%

271 replacement. Beyond 10% replacement the tensile splitting strength of concrete decreases

272 gradually for 7 days cured concrete and remains constant for 28 days cured concrete. The

273 reason for such behavior may be the properties of plastic, adding plastic aggregate in concrete

274 induces softening behavior in concrete but because of difference in shape and stiffness of the

275 plastic aggregate and its hydrophobic nature, adding more plastic than optimal value weaken

276 its tensile strength too. Hence, the concrete with up to 10 % of plastic replacement can be

277 used as optimal value of plastic aggregate in various construction purposes.

278 Effect on Flexural strength of the concrete:

279 Flexural strength is one of the measures of tensile strength of concrete. It is a measured to

280 determine the force required to resist failure of an unreinforced concrete beam or slab by

281 bending. The crack propagation of the specimen after failure is shown in fig 15 and 16. Effect

282 of plastic waste on flexural strength of concrete is shown in Fig 17. It was noted that flexural

283 strength increases for 10% addition of plastic waste as compared to concrete without any

284 plastic waste cured for 7 and 28 day. Beyond 10% replacement of coarse aggregate by plastic

285 waste, the flexural strength decreases by some amount and was found to be constant for

286 further increase in plastic content. The explanation for the loss of tensile strengths of concrete

287 due to the incorporation of waste plastic aggregate applied to the flexural behavior of

288 concrete too.

289 Effect on Bond strength of concrete:

13
290 Figure 18 represents the crack propagation in the specimen during loading and fig 19 presents

291 the bond stresses measured from pull out test with various percentages of plastic waste

292 content in concrete. It was noted that, the pull out strength of the concrete with various

293 replacements of plastic decreases gradually and the maximum bond stress was obtained at

294 10% coarse aggregate replacement by plastic waste in concrete. The plastic waste granules

295 used in this investigation were found to be hydrophobic, having plane and angular shape with

296 smooth characteristics which does not contribute to the strength of the concrete as does the

297 natural coarse aggregates. Therefore, the bonding between granules was weaker as compared

298 to crushed stone aggregates

299 Effect on Ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete:

300 The Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) is a non-destructive test to determine the strength of

301 concrete. Figure 9 presents the UPV test set up. Fig 20 presents the variation of ultrasonic

302 pulse velocity with different percentages of plastic waste used in concrete. The UPV was

303 found to decrease continuously with increase in plastic content in concrete. Therefore, the

304 strength of the concrete tested for the investigation would be decreased with higher

305 percentages of plastic content. The results indicated the rigidity of the material reduces. The

306 explanation for such behavior of concrete was the tiny gapes or pores in the Interfacial

307 Transition Zone because of lack of reaction between the cement paste and waste plastic

308 aggregates.

309 5. Conclusion

310 Series of tests were conducted to determine the suitability of plastic waste bags as coarse

311 aggregate in concrete. Tests were conducted after curing the concrete specimens for 7 and 28

312 days. The compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, bond stress and ultrasonic

313 pulse velocity of concrete were determined by replacing coarse aggregate with 10, 15 and 20

314 % of plastic waste by volume. It was noted that the compressive strength of recycled plastic
14
315 concrete tends to decrease with increasing amount of plastic. Plastic surface being much

316 smoother as compared to sand, the bonding between plastic waste, sand and coarse

317 aggregates is weaker. The tensile and flexural strength were also found to be have the

318 maximum value at 10% plastic replacement in concrete compared to the conventional design.

319 The bond stress decreases gradually with increase in percentage plastic replacement and was

320 observed to be maximum at 10% replacement of coarse aggregate with plastic waste among

321 all replacement group, which is preferable than normal concrete with zero percent plastic.

322 The strength of modified concrete mix, with an addition of plastic as coarse aggregate up to

323 10% with conventional aggregate was within the permissible limit. Therefore, it can be

324 concluded that 10% crushed stones can be replaced by plastic waste in concrete for light

325 structures. Use of plastic waste in concrete would be helpful in reducing environmental solid

326 waste make concrete more sustainable. The concrete with plastic waste would be lighter as

327 well as economically viable.

15
328 6. Reference

329 1. Central Pollution Control Board (2013), Overview of plastic waste management.

330 2. PPCB (Punjab Pollution Control Board). 2010 Status report on municipal solid

331 waste in Punjab, Punjab Pollution Control Board, Patiala.

332 3. Leslie Struble and Jonathan Godfrey, the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign,

333 USA, how sustainable is concrete? International workshop on sustainable

334 development and concrete technology, page- 201-211.

335 4. Torgal, F.P.; Ding, Y.; Jalali, S. (2011), Properties and durability of concrete

336 containing waste plastic, Construction and Building materials.

337 5. Shubbar, S.D.A. & Al-Shadeedi, A.S. (2016), Utilization of waste plastic bottles as

338 fine aggregate in concrete, Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2

339 6. Elzafraney, M; Soroushian, P; Deru, M (2005), Development of energy-efficient

340 concrete buildings using recycled plastic aggregates, Journal of Architectural

341 Engineering.

342 7. Ismail, Z.Z. & AL-Hashmi, E.A. (2007), Use of waste plastic in the concrete mixture

343 as an aggregate replacement, Article in Waste Management 28, 2041-2047.

344 8. Ferreira, L.; Brito, J.D.; Saikia, N. (2012), The influence of curing conditions on the

345 mechanical performance of concrete containing recycled plastic aggregate,

346 Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 36, 196-204.

347 9. Rahman, M.A.; Islam, M.A.; Ahmed, M.; Salam, M.A. (2012), Recycled polymer

348 materials as aggregates for concrete and blocks, Journal of Chemical Engineering,

349 Vol. ChE. 27.

350 10. Vlachopoulos, J. (2009), An assessment of energy savings derived from mechanical

351 recycling of polyethylene versus new feedstock, a report prepared for The World

352 Bank, version 3.2

16
353 11. Mitchell, C.J. (2012), Aggregate carbon demand: the hunt for low carbon aggregate.

354 Pp. 93-99 in Hunger, E. and Walton, G. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 16 th Extractive

355 Industry Geology Conferences Ltd, 194pp.

356 12. IS-10262-2009: Concrete mix design. Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, India.

357 13. IS 516-1959: Method of tests for strength of concrete. Bureau of Indian Standard,

358 New Delhi, India.

359 14. IS 5816-1999: Splitting tensile strength of concrete — Method of the test. Bureau of

360 Indian Standard, New Delhi, India.

361 15. IS 2770-1-1976: Methods of testing bonds in reinforced concrete. Bureau of Indian

362 Standard, New Delhi, India.

363 16. IS 13311-1-1992: Method of nondestructive testing of concrete. Bureau of Indian

364 Standard, New Delhi, India.

17
365 7. List of Tables

Table 1 Environmental impact of reinforced concrete and steel beams.

Table 2 Particle Size Distribution of Coarse Plastic Aggregate used in the Experiment.

Table 3 Properties of materials used.

Table 4 Tests Performed on concrete specimens.

Table 5 Compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength and pullout strength of

concrete specimens.

Table 6 Ultrasonic pulse velocity test.

366 8. List of Figures

Fig 1. The process of recycling.

Fig 2. Particle size Distribution of Plastic Coarse Aggregate used in our Experiment.

Fig 3. Compressive strength test.

Fig 4. Split tensile strength test.

Fig 5. Ultimate testing machine for Pull out test.

Fig 6. Specimen after curing 28 days Pull out test.

Fig 7. Flexural strength test machine.

Fig 8. Four-point load testing on a specimen after curing of 28 days.

Fig 9. UPV test on a concrete cube.

18
 Fig 10. Testing of compressive strength of Concrete cube containing plastic aggregate.

Fig 11. Compressive Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 12. Crack in a concrete cylinder containing partial plastic aggregates.

Fig 13. Crack in concrete cylinder conventional aggregate only (gravels).

Fig 14. Tensile Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 15. Crack in concrete prism containing partial Plastic aggregates.

Fig 16. Crack in concrete prism conventional aggregate only (gravels).

Fig 17. Flexural Strength vs. % Plastic replaced.

Fig 18. Crack in the specimen during Pull out strength test.

Fig 19. Bond Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 20. Pulse Velocity vs. % Plastic Replaced.

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

19
374 Table 1

375 Environmental impact of reinforced concrete and steel beams.

Impact Reinforced Concrete Steel

Resources (kg) 3743.3 2076.67

Warming potential (kg equivalent CO2) 763.98 994.44

Water Pollution Index 0.34 0.98

Air pollution index 2.01 2.46

Solid Waste generated (kg) 143.235 200.0

Energy consumed (GJ) 10.74 25.52

376

377 Table 2

378 Particle Size Distribution of Coarse Plastic Aggregate used in the Experiment.

Sl. Sieve size Weight Retained % Weight Cumulative % %

No. (in mm) (in gm.) retained Weight retained Finer

1 20 20 2 2 98

2 15 180 18 20 80

3 12.5 480 48 68 32

4 10 160 16 84 16

5 8 60 6 90 10

6 4.75 40 4 94 6

7 finer 60 6 100 0

379 Weight of aggregate =1000 gm.

380

20
381 Table 3

382 Properties of materials used

Materials used Specifications Specific gravity

Cement Portland Slag cement 2.99

Fine Aggregate Sand 2.68

Coarse aggregate Gravel 2.84

Recycled Plastic Waste of Recycled LDPE 0.95

Water Tap water 1.00

383

384

385 Table 4

386 Tests Performed on concrete

Sl. Test performed IS Code reference Specimen Size (in Curing

No. mm) Condition

1 Compressive test IS 516-1959 Cube, 150x150x150 7, 28 days

2 Tensile splitting test IS 5816-1999 Cylinder, D=150, 7, 28 days

H=300

3 Pull out test IS 2770-1-1976 Cube, 150x150x150 7, 28 days

4 Flexural strength test IS 516-1959 Prism, 7, 28 days

100x100x500

5 Ultrasonic pulse IS 13311-1-1992 Cube, 150x150x150 28 days

velocity test

21
387
388
389
390
391 Table 5

392 Results Obtained

% plastic used Compressive strength in MPa Tensile strength in MPa Flexural strength in MPa Bond Stress in KN

7-day test 28-day test 7-day test 28-day test 7-day test 28-day test 28-day test

0 20.492 24.634 1.11024 1.31841 3.56 3.86 57.45

10 20.274 23.326 1.73475 1.87353 4.02 4.99 40.50

15 20.056 22.672 1.52658 1.80414 3.79 4.16 35.50

20 18.094 16.568 1.11024 1.80414 3.85 4.18 28.10

393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400

22
401
402 Table 6

403 Ultrasonic pulse velocity test

% plastic replaced Pulse velocity in Km/ sec.

7-day test 28-day test

0 4.576 4.854

10 4.682 4.702

15 4.202 4.335

20 4.205 4.217

404

405

406

23
407

408

409

410

411
412

413

414
415

416 Fig 1. The process of recycling

417

418

419

24
420

100

80

60
% Finer

40

20

0
1 10 100

Sieve Size (mm)

421

422 Fig 2. Particle size Distribution of Plastic Coarse Aggregate used in our Experiment

423

424

425

426

427

428

429 Fig 3. Compressive strength test

430

25
431 432
433 Fig 4. Split tensile strength test 434 Fig 5. Ultimate testing machine for Pull

435 out test

436

437
438 Fig 6. Specimen after curing 28 days
439

440

441
442

26
443

444 Fig 7. Flexural strength test machine 445 Fig 8. Four-point load testing on a

446 Specimen after curing of 28 day

447

448

449 452
450 Fig 9. UPV test on a concrete cube 453 Fig 10. Testing of compressive strength of
451 454 a concrete cube containing plastic

455 aggregate

456

27
457
35
Tested after 7 days curing
30 Tested after 28 days curing
Compressive Strength (MPa)

25

20

15

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)

458
459
460 Fig 11. Compressive Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
461
462
463
464

465
466 Fig 12. Crack in concrete cylinder 468 Fig 13. Crack in a concrete

467 containing partial plastic aggregates 469 cylinder with gravels only

470

28
 3
Tested after 7 days curing
Tested after 28 days curing
2.5
Tensile Strength (MPa)

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)
471
472 Fig 14. Tensile Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
473

474 478

475 Fig 15. Crack in concrete prism 479 Fig 16. Crack in concrete prism

476 containing partial Plastic 480 conventional aggregate only

477 aggregates 481 (gravels)

29
 6
Tested after 7 days curing
Tested after 28 days curing
Flexural Strength (MPa)

0
0 10 15 20
Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)
482
483 Fig 17. Flexural Strength vs. % Plastic replaced
484

485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498 Fig 18. Crack in the specimen during

499 Pull out strength test

500

30
 70

60
Bond Strength (KN)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)

501
502 Fig 19. Bond Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
503
504

4.854 Tested after 7 days of curing

4.682 4.702 Tested after 28 days of curing
4.576
Pulse Velocity (Km/s)

4.335
4.202 4.205 4.217

0 10 15 20

Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)

505
506 Fig 20. Pulse Velocity vs. % Plastic Replaced

31