SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF CONCRETE

USING
WASTE RECYCLED PLASTIC
AS COARSE AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE

GUIDED BY - DR. RAMAKRISHNA BAG

Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, PATNA

SUBMITTED BY -
 SUBHAM AGARWAL
 SUBHAM SUBHASISH BARAL
 AMAN KUMAR SINGHAL
 KISHOR BISWAS
 K SAI KRISHNA

STUDENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
ROURKELA

1
1 ABSTRACT

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

3 use, either in a direct way or any indirect way. Can we, as a holistic society, afford to become

4 industry giants at the cost of our environment? Production and waste management go hand in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 recycled plastic aggregates) will have huge consequences on the cost factor too. After

15 partially replacing these modified aggregates, tests such as Compressive test, Split Tensile

16 test, Pullout test and the Flexural test was conducted to study the behavior of the material.

17 The last sentence of abstract should summerise the conclusion, what is your findings?

18 1. Introduction

19 Plastic is used for different purposes in our daily life. They are also cheap, light,

20 durable, easy to carry and in many cases, free. According to Central Pollution Control Board

21 [1], approximately 5.6 million tons per annum (TPA) of plastic waste is generated in the

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

23 8,500,000 tons of plastic bags are used in India in the year of 2007[2].

2
24 Recycling and the reuse of natural materials have been traditionally of low priority.

25 This is no longer the case, when a large part of the population became aware of the limits of

26 the earth’s resources and grew concerned about the deteriorating environment and climate

27 change, whether soil, water, or air. These and variously related concerns led to the concept of

28 sustainable development, which was summarized by C. Meyer (2002) [3] as follows:

29  Remedy the aberrations of the past by cleaning up our contaminated water and soil.

30  Barricade the pollution of air, water and soil, including the absolution of greenhouse

31 gases into the atmosphere that is acknowledged to contribute to global warming.

32  Exercise natural resources, whether material or energy, at a rate no greater than at

33 which they can be regenerated.

34  Find a proper balance between economic development and preservation of our

35 environment, i.e. improve the living standard and quality of life without adversely

36 affecting our environment.

37 The construction process also involves some expenditure of energy and produces

38 some waste. There are quite a few important questions related to it like, How much of each

39 manufactured material is used?, Can materials be used that have a less environmental

40 impact?, How much energy is used?, How much waste is produced?, What is the impact of

41 the waste on the environment?, Some of these questions can only be answered for a specific

42 structure. Increasing attention is being given to the construction phase as part of global and

43 regional efforts to make development more sustainable. Before looking into the sustainable

44 development of concrete, we shall have a knowledge about the pollution created by concrete

45 and steel.

46 Leslie Struble and Jonathan Godfrey [4] did a comparison between the environmental

47 impacts of the reinforced concrete beam and a steel beam as shown in table 1. These values

3
48 were taken for one cubic meter of the reinforced concrete beam and a steel beam (I-beam).

49 The energy consumption includes both energies, construction and demolition energy.

50 According to PPCB (Punjab Pollution Control Board)(2010) [5], Solid waste

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

52 urbanization, industrialization and economic growth have resulted in increased municipal

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

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

55 it comes to polymeric materials especially plastic materials. The prominent use of plastics in

56 last fifty years can be correlated with plastics being inexpensive and durable. However,

57 problems arise with a slow rate of degradation of plastics materials, which leads to the certain

58 interruptions in biological functions.

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

60 attempts are being made. The utilization of recycled plastics has been encouraged in recent

61 years. This concept can be taken ahead largely by making its use as a construction material

62 like concrete or mortar. The slow degradation of plastic can be used as a valuable property in

63 concrete. Plastics cannot be recycled number of times as it loses its strength and finally ends

64 up in landfills. So instead, it can be used by replacing some proportion of aggregates with

65 recycled plastics. These plastics are also lighter than stone aggregates and can be used

66 advantageously in concrete.

67 F. Pacheco-Torgal et al. [6] (2011) studied the properties and durability of concrete

68 containing polymeric waste, they concluded that this type of concrete has various

69 applications in earthquake resistance structures. Saesan D.A. Shubbar and Aqeel S. Al-

70 Shadeedi [7] (2016) studied the utilization of waste plastic bottles as fine aggregate in

71 concrete and concluded that employing discarded plastic waste made of polyethylene

72 terephthalate (PET) in concrete is an efficient approach to get rid of such waste. Elzafraney et

4
73 al. [8] (2005) studied the use of recycled plastic to develop an energy efficient building.

74 Zainab Z. Ismail and Enas A. AL-Hashmi [9] (2007) studied the use of waste plastic in the

75 concrete mixture as an aggregate replacement and concluded that compressive strength, as

76 well as the flexural strength of all waste plastic concrete, tend to decrease with the increasing

77 waste plastic ratio in the mixture. Nabajyoti Sakia et al. [10] (2012) studied the influence of

78 curing conditions on the mechanical performance of concrete containing a recycled plastic

79 aggregate. Rahman et al. [11] (2012) used recycled PUF and HDPE to study the compressive

80 strength and density, they show that using PUF decreases the weight of concrete noticeably.

81 Plastic recycling is the process of recovering different types of plastic materials in

82 order to reprocess them into varied other products, unlike their original form. In the recycling

83 process of LDPE, plastic consumer bag is used as the raw material. The whole process is

84 divided into several steps. At first, Plastic is collected from the various sources by waste

85 pickers and then sorted out according to their types and properties. Then it is shredded into

86 tiny pieces or flakes using a plastic cutting machine known as shredder machine to ease the

87 further processes. Then it is cleaned properly in big tanks and then it is removed and kept for

88 drying in the sun. After drying the shredded plastic fixed amount of various types of plastic

89 are mixed and compressed by applying some heat and pressure in a compressor machine and

90 densified to granules. Then these granules are fed into the extrusion machine’s hopper which

91 is then pushed into the screw channel where these granules get heated up and compact as they

92 advance down towards melting stage where it is pushed down towards various sieves or wire

93 meshes such that long and continuous wires of plastic of specified diameter depending on the

94 size of sieve fitted in machine, comes out from the machine but some amount of molten

95 plastic stuck on the other side of sieves and block the openings of sieve, so they must be

96 cleaned after each cycle. This waste plastic produced is very hard and cannot be used in

97 further recycling process. This hard plastic is being crushed into small pieces and is being

5
 98 used as coarse aggregate in our experiment. The plastic wires that came out from extruder

99 machine are passed through a water channel where it hardens and finally, it is chopped by a

100 chopper or cutter machine. This final product is called pellet. A flow diagram with picture

101 explains the whole process of recycling of LDPE in fig 1.

102 According to a report prepared for the World Bank by John Vlachopoulos [12]

103 (2009), recycling of Low-Density Polyethylene saves 56.5 million Btu/ton amount of energy

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

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

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

107 is why recycling of plastic is widely used nowadays. According to C.J. Mitchell [13] (2012),

108 Embodied carbon and embodied energy for sand and gravel extraction is 4.28 kg/CO2/ton

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

110 plastic aggregate used in our experiment is a waste product produced during recycling of

111 LDPE. So the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emission during the production of this

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

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

114 very less amount of greenhouse gas during the production of concrete structures, consuming

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

116 production. Along with that, it is expected to show some very interesting properties, so we

117 cast some concrete blocks, prisms and cylinders and tested the change in properties of

118 concrete compared to normal concrete.

119 We had carried out our experimental work using low-density polyethylene (LDPE)

120 and tried to find out the compressive strength of concrete along with other physical properties

121 like flexural strength, tensile strength etc. Three replacement levels 10 %, 15% and 20 % by

122 volume of coarse aggregates were used for the preparation of the concrete mix using IS-

6
123 10262-2009. [14], as 100% replacement was not possible because of certain properties of

124 plastic aggregates.

125 1. Materials and method

126 2.1. Cement

127 Cement is a fine mineral powder manufactured with very precise processes. This

128 powder transforms into a paste that binds and hardens can bind other materials together when

129 submerged in water. In the mix design, Portland slag cement (PSC) was used. The specific

130 gravity of cement was calculated using Le-Chatelier flask as shown in fig 2.

131 2.2. Fine aggregate

132 Fine aggregates are the particles in concrete, which contribute the maximum to

133 covering up of surface area in concrete, and it reduces the weakness in the concrete structure.

134 Fine aggregates are the particles, which pass through 4.75 mm standard, IS sieve. It generally

135 consists of natural sand or crushed stone. Sand was used as a fine aggregate in our

136 experiment whose specific gravity was found out by using pycnometer as shown in fig 3.

137 2.3. Coarse aggregate

138 Coarse aggregates are particles greater than 4.75 mm in size. Coarse aggregate

139 generally provides strength and volume to a concrete structure. Gravel was used as coarse

140 aggregate. There were two types of coarse aggregates used in our experiment depending on

141 their sizes in the ratio 2:3. For coarse aggregate, the water absorption should not be more than

142 2 percent. The weight of aggregate in water was taken by wire basket arrangement as shown

143 in fig 3.

144 2.4. Recycled plastic

145 Recycled plastic is the plastic obtained after the process of recycling of waste

146 plastic or used polyethylene. Recycled plastic is lighter than water, so the specific gravity of

7
147 recycled plastic was found out using Archimedes principle. As water is heavier than recycled

148 plastic, kerosene is used in place of water to calculate the specific gravity of recycled plastic.

149 LDPE type of plastic was used in the mix design of our experiment.

150 Fixed proportions of various plastics were used to produce these recycled plastic

151 aggregates. However, if it is produced with the random mixture with different plastics of

152 different chemical structures then the aggregate produced each time may have different-

153 different properties based on proportions of various plastics used. It may emit poisonous

154 gases during production.

155 Particle Size Distribution of Coarse Plastic Aggregate used in our Experiment:

156 The Plastic aggregates used for experiment, as coarse aggregate is non-uniform in

157 shape and size and expressed as differently graded. So, The Recycled Plastic was sieved

158 through a set of Standard Sieves using Sieving machine. The values of were shown in table 2.

159 A Gradation Curve was also plotted between % finer and the sieve size, to study the

160 particle size distribution of plastic aggregates. It was found out that it was uniformly graded

161 with 12.5 to 15 mm size coarse plastic aggregates (fig.5.)

162 Table 3 contains the properties of materials used in our experiment.

163 3. Tests performed

164 3.1. Compressive test:

165 The compressive test is the qualitative test of concrete. It measures the compressive

166 force resistance or the crush resistance of a material and ability of the material to regain its

167 original shape after a specified compressive force is applied. Two cubes of dimension 150

168 mm X 150 mm X 150 mm were prepared. After 7 days and 28 days from the day of casting

8
169 these concrete cubes were tested in compressive strength testing machine and the values were

170 noted down as shown in fig 6. IS 516-1959 [15] was used to carry out the test.

171 3.2. Split tensile test:

172 The split tensile test measures the indirect tensile strength of the concrete. This test

173 measures the tensile strength of concrete using a cylinder, which splits across the vertical

174 diameter. For this test, two cylinders of 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were prepared

175 and cured. These cylinders were tested on the 7 th day and 28th day from the day of casting in

176 compressive strength testing machine as shown in fig 7. IS 5816-1999 [16] was used to carry

177 out the test.

178 3.3. Pull out test:

179 Pull out test measures the bonding strength between the reinforcement bar and the

180 concrete. It measures the bond stress of specimen. One specimen was prepared, which was

181 tested after 28 days. In this test, a reinforcement bar of diameter 16 mm was inserted in a

182 cube of dimension 150 mm X 150 mm X 150 mm. The test was conducted on the universal

183 testing machine as shown in fig 8 and fig 9. IS 2770-1-1976 [17] was used to carry out the

184 test.

185 3.4. Flexural strength test:

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

187 strength test measures the direct tensile strength of the unreinforced concrete beams. For

188 testing two specimens of dimension 100 mm X 100 mm X 500 mm was prepared and tested

189 after 7 days and 28 days from the day of casting using third point loading method in flexural

190 strength testing machine as shown in fig 10 and fig 11. IS 516-1959 [15] was followed to

191 conduct the test.

9
192 3.5. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test:

193 UPV test is a nondestructive test to check the quality of the concrete. In this test,

194 the quality of the concrete structure is decided by measuring the velocity of the ultrasonic

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

196 through the structure being tested. Comparatively higher value of velocity is obtained if the

197 structure is uniform in terms of density, consistency and homogeneity while slower velocity

198 indicates cracks and voids in the structure. In our experiment, this test was performed after

199 the 7th and 28th days from the day of the casting of the structure as shown in fig 12 and fig 13.

200 IS 13311-1-1992 [18] was followed to conduct the test.

201 Table 4 explain the tests that we have done in our experiment.
202 4. Result and Discussion
203 The results were studied and compared with respect to that of the conventional concrete.

204  Compressive strength test:

205 Using the results of compressive strength test, a graph was plotted between

206 7 days and 28 days compressive strength vs. percentage of plastic replaced in concrete

207 as shown in fig 10. It was observed that graph for 7 days strength was nearly constant

208 up to 15% replacement of plastics and there was a gradual decrease in strength of

209 concrete with further replacements, whereas the 28 days strength was observed to

210 decrement gradually with increase in the percentage of plastics replaced. It was found

211 that the concrete with the percentage of plastic replacement less than 20% can be used

212 in massive constructions and in areas of small construction where expectancy of the

213 loading on the structure is less, the concrete with plastics replaced by more than 20%

214 can be used safely.

215  Split tensile strength test:

10
216 Using the results of split tensile strength test, a graph was plotted between

217 7 days and 28 days strength vs. % of plastic replaced in concrete as shown in fig 11. It

218 was found that both 7 days and 28 days tensile strength of plastics replaced concrete

219 was higher than the conventional concrete (0% plastic replacement). However, a

220 negligible decrement in strength for 15% and 20% replacement of plastics was

221 observed in 7 days strength and it was more profound in case of 28 days strength of

222 concrete. With this test, the concrete with up to 10 % of plastic replacement can be

223 used in various construction works as usually as ordinary concrete (0% plastic

224 replacement).

225  Flexural strength test:

226 Using the results of flexural strength test, a graph was plotted between 7

227 days and 28 days strength vs. % of plastic replaced in concrete as shown in fig 12. It

228 was observed that both 7 days and 28 days flexural strength of plastics replaced

229 concrete was higher than the conventional concrete. Though there was a decrement in

230 strength for 15% and 20% replacement of plastics, still it was higher than that for

231 conventional concrete(0% plastic replacement).

232  Pull out strength:

233 Using the results of pull out test, a graph was plotted between 28 days

234 bond stress vs. % of plastic replaced in concrete as shown in fig 12. The results

235 obtained from this test were decreasing with increase in % of replacement of plastics

236 and the maximum bond stress was obtained at 10% replacement of plastics in

237 concrete.

238  Ultrasonic pulse velocity test:

239 Using the results of ultrasonic pulse velocity test, a graph was plotted

240 between 7 days and 28 days pulse velocity and % of plastic replaced as shown in fig

11
241 14. The result was decreasing consistently from 0% to 20% replacement of plastic in

242 concrete for both 7 days and 28 days test. However, the pulse velocity was a bit

243 higher for 28 days as compared to 7 days test.

244 Table 5 and table 6 are the observations obtained from above tests of the specimen.

245 6. Conclusion

246 To achieve sustainable development in the concrete industry, we need to

247 understand and appreciate what has happened in the world during our lifetime. There have

248 been, particularly during the last four to five decades, enormous social changes, unpredictable

249 upheavals in the world economy, uncompromising social attitudes, unprecedented population

250 growth, worldwide urbanization, technological revolutions and unacceptable pollution and

251 damage to our natural environment.

252 By replacing coarse aggregates with waste produced during plastic recycling of LDPE

253 type of plastic in concrete, designing for durability as well as undertaking life cycle analyses

254 of construction projects, it is possible to direct the construction industry, and particularly the

255 concrete industry down a more sustainable path.

256 A study was conducted to determine the suitability of coarse aggregate with LDPE type of

257 plastic for the concrete mix. The results of this study conclude that:

258  The compressive strength values of the concrete specimen with waste recycled plastic

259 aggregate tend to decrease compared to the values of the reference concrete

260 (conventional concrete) with the increase in the percentage of plastic replacement.

261 This may be due to the weak bond strength (because of the smooth surface of plastic

262 aggregate) between the surfaces of the plastic aggregates and cement paste.

263  The concrete with 10% replacement of plastic as coarse aggregate gives the best result

264 in compressive strength.

12
265  The tensile strength and flexural strength were also observed to be the highest at 10%

266 plastic replacement in concrete with respect to the conventional design.

267  The bond stress was observed to be the highest at 10% replacement of plastic, which

268 was quite lesser than normal concrete with zero percent replacement of plastic, which

269 makes it less popular for use in fields as reinforced concrete. However, with providing

270 proper development length, it can be used in fields effectively.

271  The modified concrete mix, with the addition of plastic aggregate replacing up to 10%

272 with conventional coarse aggregate was within the permissible limit and can be

273 considered as the sustainable development of concrete because of less energy

274 consumption and less emission of greenhouse gases compared to use of conventional

275 aggregate.

276 7. Reference

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

278 2. [Link] {central pollution

279 control board}

280 3. C. Meyer, Concrete and Sustainable Development, Special publication ACI 206,

281 2002.

282 4. Leslie Struble and Jonathan Godfrey, the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign,

283 USA, How sustainable is concrete? , International workshop on sustainable

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

285 5. PPCB (Punjab Pollution Control Board). 2010 Status report on municipal solid

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

287 See [Link]

288 6. F. Pacheco-Torgal, Yining Ding, Said Jalali (2011), Properties and durability of

289 concrete containing waste plastic, Construction and Building materials.

13
290 7. Saesan D.A. Shubbar and Aqeel S. Al-Shadeedi (2016), Utilization of waste plastic

291 bottles as fine aggregate in concrete, Kufa Journal of Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 2

292 8. Elzafraney M, Soroushian P, Deru M (2005), Development of energy-efficient

293 concrete buildings using recycled plastic aggregates, Journal of Architectural

294 Engineering.

295 9. Zainab Z. Ismail and Enas A. AL-Hashmi (2007), Use of waste plastic in the

296 concrete mixture as an aggregate replacement, Article in Waste Management 28,

297 2041-2047.

298 10. Luís Ferreira, Jorge de Brito, Nabajyoti Saikia (2012), the influence of curing

299 conditions on the mechanical performance of concrete containing recycled plastic

300 aggregate, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 36, 196-204.

301 11. Rahman MA, Islam MA, Ahmed M, Salam MA (2012), Recycled polymer materials

302 as aggregates for concrete and blocks, Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol. ChE.

303 27.

304 12. John Vlachopoulos (2009), An assessment of energy savings derived from

305 mechanical recycling of polyethylene versus new feedstock, a report prepared for

306 The World Bank, version 3.2

307 13. C.J. Mitchell (2012), Aggregate carbon demand: the hunt for low carbon aggregate.

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

309 Industry Geology Conferences Ltd, 194pp.

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

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

312 New Delhi, India.

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

314 Indian Standard, New Delhi, India.

14
315 17. IS 2770-1-1976: Methods of testing bonds in reinforced concrete. Bureau of Indian

316 Standard, New Delhi, India.

317 18. IS 13311-1-1992: Method of nondestructive testing of concrete. Bureau of Indian

318 Standard, New Delhi, India.

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.

List of Figures

Fig 1. The process of recycling.

Fig 2. Le-Chatelier’s flask for the specific gravity of cement.

Fig 3. Pycnometer for the specific gravity of fine aggregate.

Fig 4. Wire basket for the specific gravity of coarse aggregate.

15
Fig 5. Particle size Distribution of Plastic Coarse Aggregate used in our Experiment.

Fig 6. Compressive strength test.

Fig 7. Split tensile strength test.

Fig 8. Ultimate testing machine for Pull out test.

Fig 9. Specimen after curing 28 days Pull out test.

Fig 10. Flexural strength test machine.

Fig 11. Four point load testing on a specimen after curing of 28 days.

Fig 12. Calibration of ultrasonic pulse velocity.

Fig 13. UPV test on a concrete cube.

Fig 14. Testing of compressive strength of Concrete cube containing plastic aggregate.

Fig 15. Compressive Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 16. Crack in a concrete cylinder containing partial plastic aggregates.

Fig 17. Crack in concrete cylinder conventional aggregate only (gravels).

Fig 18. Tensile Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 19. Crack in concrete prism containing partial Plastic aggregates.

Fig 20. Crack in concrete prism conventional aggregate only (gravels).

Fig 21. Flexural Strength vs. % Plastic replaced.

Fig 22. Crack in the specimen during Pull out strength test.

Fig 23. Bond Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 24. Pulse Velocity vs. % Plastic Replaced.

16
319 Table 1:

320 Environmental impact of reinforced concrete and steel beams.

321 __________________________________________________________________________

322 Impact Reinforced Concrete Steel

323 Resource used (kg) 3743.3 2076.67

324 Warming potential (kg equivalent CO2) 763.98 994.44

325 Water pollution index (is there any unit?) 00.34 00.98

326 Air pollution index (is there any unit?) 02.01 02.46

327 Solid waste generated? (kg) 143.235 200

328 Energy used? (GJ) 10.74 25.52

329
330

331 Table 2
332 Particle Size Distribution of Coarse Plastic Aggregate used in the Experiment.
333 ___________________________________________________________________________
334 Sl. No Sieve size Weight Retained % Weight Cumulative of % Finer
335 (In mm) (In gm.) Retained % Weight Retained

336 1 20 20 2 2 98
337 2 15 180 18 20 80

17
338 3 12.5 480 48 68 32
339 4 10 160 16 84 16
340 5 8 60 6 90 10
341 6 4.75 40 4 94 6
342 7 finer 60 6 100 0

343 Weight of aggregate =1000 gm.

344

345

346 Table 3
347 Properties of materials used
348 ___________________________________________________________________________
349 Materials used Specifications Specific gravity

350 Cement Portland slag cement 2.99

351 Fine aggregate Sand is used as fine aggregate 2.68

352 Coarse aggregate Gravel is used as coarse aggregate 2.84

353 Recycled plastic Recycled LDPE 0.95
354 Water Fresh water 1.00

355

356

357 Table 4
358 Tests Performed on concrete
359 ___________________________________________________________________________
360 [Link] Test performed IS Code reference

361 1 Compressive test IS 516-1959

362 2 Tensile splitting test IS 5816-1999
363 3 Pull out test IS 2770-1-1976
364 4 Flexural strength IS 516-1959
365 5 Ultrasonic pulse velocity IS 13311-1-1992

18
366

367 Table 5
368 Compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength and bond strength of the specimen
369

370 Percentage of compressive strength in MPa tensile strength in MPa flexural strength in MPa Bond stress in KN
371 Plastic replaced 7days 28days 7days 28days 7days 28days 28days

372 0% 20.492 24.634 1.11024 1.31841 3.56 3.86 57.45

373 10% 20.274 23.326 1.73475 1.87353 4.02 4.99 40.50
374 15% 20.056 22.672 1.52658 1.80414 3.79 4.16 35.50
375 20% 18.094 16.568 1.11024 1.80414 3.85 4.18 28.10

376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388

19
389
390 Table 6
391 Ultrasonic pulse velocity test
392 ___________________________________________________________________________
393 Percentage of pulse velocity Pulse velocity in
394 Plastic replaced in km/sec (7 days) km/sec (28 days)
395

396 0% 4.576 4.854

397 10% 4.682 4.702
398 15% 4.202 4.335
399 20% 4.205 4.217

400

401

20
402

403

404

405

406
407

408
409

410

411 Fig 1. The process of recycling

412

413

414

21
415

416

417

418

419
420 Fig 2. Le-Chatelier flask for the specific Fig 3. Pycnometer for the specific
421 gravity of cement gravity of fine aggregate
422

423

424
425 Fig 4. Wire basket for the specific

22
426 gravity of coarse aggregate
427

428

429

100

80

60
% Finer

40

20

0
1 10 100

Sieve Size (mm)

430

431 Fig 5. Particle size Distribution of Plastic Coarse Aggregate used in our Experiment
432

433

434

435

436

437

438

23
439

440 Fig 6. Compressive strength test

441
442 Fig 7. Split tensile strength test
443

444
445 Fig 8. Ultimate testing machine for Fig 9. Specimen after curing 28 days
446 Pull out test
447
448

24
449

450 Fig 10. Flexural strength test machine Fig 11. Four point load testing on a
451 Specimen after curing of 28 days
452

453

454
455 Fig 12. Calibration of ultrasonic pulse Fig 13. UPV test on a concrete cube
456 Velocity test.
457
458
459
460

25
461
462 Fig 14. Testing of compressive strength of
463 a concrete cube containing plastic aggregate
464

465
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 (%)

466
467
468 Fig 15. Compressive Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
469
470
471
472

26
473
474 Fig 16. Crack in concrete cylinder Fig 17. Crack in a concrete cylinder
475 containing partial plastic aggregates conventional aggregate only (gravels)
476
477

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

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)

478
479 Fig 18. Tensile Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
480

27
481
482
483 Fig 19. Crack in concrete prism containing partial Plastic aggregates
484
485

486
487
488 Fig 20. Crack in concrete prism conventional aggregate only (gravels)
489
490

28
 6
Tested after 7 days curing
Tested after 28 days curing

4
Flexural Strength (MPa)

0
0 10 15 20
Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)
491
492 Fig 21. Flexural Strength vs. % Plastic replaced
493

494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507 Fig 22. Crack in the specimen during
508 Pull out strength test
509

29
 70

60
Bond Strength (KN)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)

510
511 Fig 23. Bond Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
512
513

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 (%)

514
515 Fig 24. Pulse Velocity vs. % Plastic Replaced

30