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

STUDENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
ROURKELA

1
1 Contents
2

3 ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................3
4 1. Introduction..............................................................................................................................4
5 1.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................................4
6 1.2 Literature review.......................................................................................................................5
7 1.3 Recycling process.......................................................................................................................6
8 2. Materials and method................................................................................................................8
9 2.1 Cement.........................................................................................................................................8
10 2.2 Fine Aggregate............................................................................................................................8
11 2.3. Coarse aggregate.......................................................................................................................8
12 2.4. Recycled plastic..........................................................................................................................9
13 3. Tests performed.........................................................................................................................9
14 3.1. Compressive test.........................................................................................................................9
15 3.2. Split tensile test:........................................................................................................................10
16 3.3. Pull out test:.............................................................................................................................10
17 3.4. Flexural strength test:...............................................................................................................10
18 3.5. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test:...................................................................................................10
19 4. Result and Discussion..............................................................................................................11
20 5. Conclusion...............................................................................................................................12
21 6. Reference.................................................................................................................................15
22 7. List of Tables...........................................................................................................................17
23 8. List of Figures..........................................................................................................................17
24 9. List of Tables..........................................................................................................................19
25

2
26 ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

42 And the results were quite amusing because waste plastic can be used in construction industry

43 without compromising the strength of the structures. 10% replacement of coarse aggregate

44 with the recycled plastic aggregate can be followed in industrial level.

45

46

47

48

3
49 1. Introduction

50 1.1 Overview

51 Polymeric product plastic is now a part of our lives as it is used in various fields for various

52 purpose in daily life. They are also cheap, light, durable, easy to carry and in many cases,

53 free. But they are also a non-biodegradable waste. According to Central Pollution Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

61 sustainable development, which was summarized by C. Meyer (2002) [2] as follows:

62  Cleaning the contaminated environment and forgetting the past.

63  Barricading the pollution of air, soil and water, including the absolution of

64 greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that is acknowledged to contribute to global

65 warming.

66  Exercising natural resources in day-today life, whether material or energy, at a rate

67 no greater than at which they can be regenerated or restored.

68  Find a proper balance between economic & social development and preservation of

69 our environment.

70 According to Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) 2010 [3], Solid waste management

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

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

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

4
74 disposal is of major concern in today’s world of the living. The importance is enhanced when

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

88 weight structures.

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

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

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

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

93 make development more sustainable.

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

95 about the pollution and waste generated by concrete and steel. Struble et. al. [4] did a

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

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

98 both energies, construction and demolition energy.

5
 99 1.2 Literature review

100 Torgal et al. [5] (2011) used waste rubber from tyres and PET waste like bottles in concrete

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

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

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

104 erosion problems. Shubbar et. al. [6] (2016) studied the utilization of waste plastic bottles as

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

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

107 Elzafraney et al. [7] (2005) studied the use of recycled plastic to develop an energy efficient

108 building. Ismail et. al. [8] (2007) studied the use of waste plastic in the concrete mixture as an

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

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

111 in the mixture. Sakia et al. [9] (2012) studied the influence of curing conditions on the

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

113 [10] (2012) used recycled PUF and HDPE to study the compressive strength and density,

114 they show that using PUF decreases the weight of concrete noticeably.

115 1.3 Recycling process

116 Plastic recycling is the process of recovering different types of plastic materials in order to

117 reprocess them into varied other products, unlike their original form. This paper focused only

118 on the recycling process of LDPE type of plastic which can be recycled up to 4 times because

119 after that the product becomes toxic.

120 For this plastic consumer bag is used as the raw material. The whole process is divided into

121 several steps. At first, Plastic is collected from the various sources by waste pickers and then

122 sorted out according to their types and properties. And these plastics is shredded into tiny

6
123 pieces or flakes using a plastic cutting machine known as shredder machine to ease the

124 further processes. Then it is washed properly in big tanks and kept for drying under the sun.

125 After drying the shredded plastic fixed proportion of various types of plastic are mixed and

126 compressed by applying heat and pressure in a compressor machine and densified to

127 granules. These granules are then fed into the extrusion machine’s hopper where it pushed

128 into the screw channel where these granules get heated up and compact as they advances

129 down towards melting stage where it is pushed down towards various sieves or wire meshes

130 such that long and continuous wires of plastic of specified diameter depending on the size of

131 sieve fitted in machine, comes out from the machine but some amount of molten plastic stuck

132 on the other side of sieves and block the openings of sieve, so they must be cleaned after each

133 cycle. This waste plastic produced is very hard and stiff, and cannot be used in further

134 recycling process. So, it becomes a waste. This hard plastic is being crushed into small pieces

135 and is being used as coarse aggregate in the experimental part of this paper. The plastic wires

136 that came out from extruder machine are passed through a water channel where it is allowed

137 to cool and harden and finally, it is chopped by a chopper (cutter machine). This final product

138 is called pellet. A flow diagram with picture explains the whole process of recycling of LDPE

139 in fig 1.

140 According to a report prepared by J. Vlachopoulos [11] (2009) for the World Bank, recycling

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

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

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

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

145 is why recycling of plastic is widely used nowadays. According to C.J. Mitchell [12] (2012),

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

147 8.3 KWh/ton respectively, which is quite very less compared to LDPE. However, recycled

7
148 plastic aggregate used in the experiment is a waste product produced during recycling of

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

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

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

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

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

154 its production.

155 2. Materials and method

156 The experimental work for this project is carried out by using recycled low-density

157 polyethylene (LDPE) aggregate to find out the compressive strength of concrete along with

158 other physical properties like flexural strength, tensile strength and bond strength. Three

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

160 preparation of the concrete mix using IS-10262-2009. [13], as 100% replacement is not

161 possible because of certain properties of plastic aggregate.

162 2.1 Cement

163 Cement is the matrix of concrete composite system and used as a binding material because it

164 has a property that it transforms into a paste that binds and hardens, and also can bind other

165 materials together when allowed to react with water. In the mix design, Portland slag cement

166 (PSC) was used. The specific gravity of cement was calculated using Le-Chatelier flask as

167 shown in fig 2.

168 2.2 Fine Aggregate

169 Fine aggregates are the particles in concrete, which contribute the maximum to covering up

170 of surface area in concrete, and it reduces the weakness in the concrete structure by

171 occupying the empty spaces (void) between the coarse aggregates. Fine aggregates are the

8
172 particles, which pass through 4.75 mm standard, IS sieve. It generally consists of natural sand

173 or crushed stone. Sand was used as a fine aggregate in our experiment whose specific gravity

174 was found out by using pycnometer as shown in fig 3.

175 2.3. Coarse aggregate

176 Coarse aggregates are particles greater than 4.75 mm in size and generally provides strength

177 and volume to a concrete structure. There were two types of coarse aggregates used in our

178 experiment depending on their sizes in the ratio 2:3. For coarse aggregate, the water

179 absorption capacity is determined by wire basket arrangement as shown in fig 4.

180 2.4. Recycled plastic

181 Recycled plastic is the plastic obtained after the process of recycling of waste plastic or used

182 polyethylene. Recycled plastic is lighter than water, so the specific gravity of recycled plastic

183 was found out using Archimedes principle. As water is heavier than recycled plastic,

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

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

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

187 Standard Sieves using Sieving machine. The values are shown in table 2. And a Gradation

188 Curve is also plotted between % finer and the sieve size, to study the particle size distribution

189 of plastic aggregates. It is found out that the aggregate is uniformly graded with 12.5 to 15

190 mm size coarse plastic aggregates (fig.5.)

191 Recycled plastic aggregates have a very big advantage because of its non-biodegradable

192 property, i.e. after demolition of structure made up of recycled plastic aggregate, it can still

193 be used in further construction works. Now-a-days recycled concrete aggregate of

194 conventional aggregate is quite famous in construction works, but this aggregate is

9
195 contaminated from various sources while recycling of recycled plastic aggregate remains as it

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

197 Table 3 contains the properties of materials used in the experiment.

198 3. Tests performed

199 3.1. Compressive test:

200 The compressive test is the qualitative test of concrete. It measures the compressive force

201 resistance or the crush resistance of a material and ability of the material to regain its original

202 shape after a specified compressive force is applied. Two cubes of dimension 150 mm X 150

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

204 concrete cubes were tested in compressive strength testing machine and the values were

205 noted down as shown in fig 6. IS 516-1959 [14] was used to carry out the test.

206 3.2. Split tensile test:

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

208 the tensile strength of concrete using a cylinder, which splits across the vertical diameter. For

209 this test, two cylinders of 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were prepared and cured.

210 These cylinders were tested on the 7th day and 28th day from the day of casting in compressive

211 strength testing machine as shown in fig 7. IS 5816-1999 [15] was used to carry out the test.

212 3.3. Pull out test:

213 Pull out test measures the bonding strength between the reinforcement bar and the concrete. It

214 measures the bond stress of specimen. One specimen was prepared, which was tested after 28

215 days. In this test, a reinforcement bar of diameter 16 mm was inserted in a cube of dimension

216 150 mm X 150 mm X 150 mm. The test was conducted on the universal testing machine as

217 shown in fig 8 and fig 9. IS 2770-1-1976 [16] was used to carry out the test.

10
218 3.4. Flexural strength test:

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

220 measures the direct tensile strength of the unreinforced concrete beams. For testing two

221 specimens of dimension 100 mm X 100 mm X 500 mm was prepared and tested after 7 days

222 and 28 days from the day of casting using third point loading method in flexural strength

223 testing machine as shown in fig 10 and fig 11. IS 516-1959 [14] was followed to conduct the

224 test.

225 3.5. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test:

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

227 of the concrete structure is decided by measuring the velocity of the ultrasonic pulse passing

228 through the structure and by measuring the time taken by the waves to pass through the

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

230 uniform in terms of density, consistency and homogeneity while slower velocity indicates

231 cracks and voids in the structure. In our experiment, this test was performed after the 7 th and

232 28th days from the day of the casting of the structure as shown in fig 13. IS 13311-1-1992

233 [17] was followed to conduct the test.

234 Table 4 explain the tests that we have done in our experiment.

235 4. Result and Discussion

236 The results were studied and compared with respect to that of the conventional concrete.

237 4.1 Compressive strength test:

238 Using the results of compressive strength test, a graph was plotted between 7 days and

239 28 days compressive strength vs. percentage of plastic replaced in concrete as shown

240 in fig 14. It was observed that graph for 7 days strength was nearly constant up to 15

241 % replacement of plastics and there was a gradual decrease in strength of concrete

11
242 with further replacements, whereas the 28 days strength was observed to decrement

243 gradually with increase in the percentage of plastics replaced. It was found that the

244 concrete with the percentage of plastic replacement less than 20% can be used in

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

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

247 can be used safely.

248 4.2 Split tensile strength test:

249 Using the results of split tensile strength test, a graph was plotted between 7 days and

250 28 days strength vs. % of plastic replaced in concrete as shown in fig 17. It was found

251 that both 7 days and 28 days tensile strength of plastics replaced concrete was higher

252 than the conventional concrete (0% plastic replacement). However, a negligible

253 decrement in strength for 15% and 20% replacement of plastics was observed in 7

254 days strength and it was more profound in case of 28 days strength of concrete. With

255 this test, the concrete with up to 10 % of plastic replacement can be used in various

256 construction works as usually as ordinary concrete (0% plastic replacement).

257 4.3 Flexural strength test:

258 Using the results of flexural strength test, a graph was plotted between 7 days and 28

259 days strength vs. % of plastic replaced in concrete as shown in fig 20. It was observed

260 that both 7 days and 28 days flexural strength of plastics replaced concrete was higher

261 than the conventional concrete. Though there was a decrement in strength for 15%

262 and 20% replacement of plastics, still it was higher than that for conventional concrete

263 (0% plastic replacement).

264 4.4 Pull out strength:

265 Using the results of pull out test, a graph was plotted between 28 days bond stress vs.

266 % of plastic replaced in concrete as shown in fig 22. The results obtained from this

12
267 test were decreasing with increase in % of replacement of plastics and the maximum

268 bond stress was obtained at 10% replacement of plastics in concrete.

269 4.5 Ultrasonic pulse velocity test:

270 Using the results of ultrasonic pulse velocity test, a graph was plotted between 7 days

271 and 28 days pulse velocity and % of plastic replaced as shown in fig 23. The result

272 was decreasing consistently from 0% to 20% replacement of plastic in concrete for

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

274 as compared to 7 days test.

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

276 5. Conclusion

277 There have been, particularly during the last four to five decades, enormous social changes,

278 unpredictable upheavals in the world economy, uncompromising social attitudes,

279 unprecedented population growth, worldwide urbanization, technological revolutions and

280 unacceptable pollution and damage to our natural environment.

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

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

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

284 concrete industry down a more sustainable path.

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

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

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

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

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

13
290 This may be due to the weak bond strength (because of the smooth surface of plastic

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

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

293 in compressive strength.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

304 aggregate.

14
305 6. Reference

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

307 2. C. Meyer, Concrete and Sustainable Development, Special publication ACI 206,

308 2002.

309 3. PPCB (Punjab Pollution Control Board). 2010 Status report on municipal solid

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

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

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

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

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

315 containing waste plastic, Construction and Building materials.

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

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

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

319 concrete buildings using recycled plastic aggregates, Journal of Architectural

320 Engineering.

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

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

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

324 mechanical performance of concrete containing recycled plastic aggregate,

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

326 10. Rahman, M.A.; Islam, M.A.; Ahmed, M.; Salam, M.A. (2012), Recycled polymer

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

328 Vol. ChE. 27.

15
329 11. Vlachopoulos, J. (2009), An assessment of energy savings derived from mechanical

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

331 Bank, version 3.2

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

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

334 Industry Geology Conferences Ltd, 194pp.

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

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

337 New Delhi, India.

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

339 Indian Standard, New Delhi, India.

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

341 Standard, New Delhi, India.

342 17. IS 13311-1-1992: Method of nondestructive testing of concrete. Bureau of Indian

343 Standard, New Delhi, India.

16
344 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.

345 8. 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.

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.

17
 Fig 10. Flexural strength test machine.

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

Fig 12. UPV test on a concrete cube.

Fig 13. Testing of compressive strength of Concrete cube containing plastic aggregate.

Fig 14. Compressive Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 15. Crack in a concrete cylinder containing partial plastic aggregates.

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

Fig 17. Tensile Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 18. Crack in concrete prism containing partial Plastic aggregates.

Fig 19. Crack in concrete prism conventional aggregate only (gravels).

Fig 20. Flexural Strength vs. % Plastic replaced.

Fig 21. Crack in the specimen during Pull out strength test.

Fig 22. Bond Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced.

Fig 23. Pulse Velocity vs. % Plastic Replaced.

346

347

18
348 9. List of Tables

349 Table 1:

350 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

351

352 Table 2

353 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

354 Weight of aggregate =1000 gm.

19
355 Table 3

356 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

357

358

359 Table 4

360 Tests Performed on concrete

Sl. No. Test performed IS Code reference Specimen Size (in mm)

1 Compressive test IS 516-1959 Cube, 150x150x150

2 Tensile splitting test IS 5816-1999 Cylinder, D=150, H=300

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

4 Flexural strength IS 516-1959 Prism, 100x100x500

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

20
361
362
363
364
365 Table 5

366 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

367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374

21
375
376 Table 6

377 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

378

379

380

22
381

382

383

385
386

387

388
389

390 Fig 1. The process of recycling

391

392

393

23
394

395

396
397 Fig 2. Le-Chatelier flask for the 399 Fig 3. Pycnometer for the specific

398 specific gravity of cement 400 gravity of fine aggregate

401

402

403
404 Fig 4. Wire basket for the specific

405 gravity of coarse aggregate

406

24
407

408

100

80

60
% Finer

40

20

0
1 10 100

Sieve Size (mm)

409

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

411

412

413

414

415

416

417 Fig 6. Compressive strength test

25
418
419 Fig 7. Split tensile strength test
420

421
422 Fig 8. Ultimate testing machine for Pull 424 Fig 9. Specimen after curing 28 days

423 out test

425

426
427

26
428

429 Fig 10. Flexural strength test machine 430 Fig 11. Four-point load testing on a

431 Specimen after curing of 28 days

432

433

434
435 Fig 12. UPV test on a concrete cube
436
437
438
439

27
440
441 Fig 13. Testing of compressive strength of

442 a concrete cube containing plastic aggregate

443

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 (%)

444
446
447 Fig 14. Compressive Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
448
449
450
451

28
452
453 Fig 15. Crack in concrete cylinder 455 Fig 16. Crack in a concrete

454 containing partial plastic aggregates 456 cylinder with gravels only

457

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 (%)

458
459 Fig 17. Tensile Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
460

29
461

462 Fig 18. Crack in concrete prism containing partial Plastic aggregates

463

464

465 Fig 19. Crack in concrete prism conventional aggregate only (gravels)

466
467

30
 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 (%)
468
469 Fig 20. Flexural Strength vs. % Plastic replaced
470

471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484 Fig 21. Crack in the specimen during

485 Pull out strength test

486

31
 70

60
Bond Strength (KN)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Plastic used as coarse aggregate (%)

487
488 Fig 22. Bond Strength vs. % Plastic Replaced
489
490

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 (%)

491
492 Fig 23. Pulse Velocity vs. % Plastic Replaced

32