Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Review
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 7 March 2015
Received in revised form
2 August 2015
Accepted 12 August 2015
Available online 22 August 2015
The consumption of various forms of plastics is a challenging environment protection issue. All forms of
consumed plastic become waste and require large areas of land for storage because several tons of waste
plastics cannot be fully recycled at once. The low biodegradability of plastic and the presence in large
quantities of waste plastic negatively impact the environment. Previously, various studies were performed to identify safe and environmentally friendly methods for disposing of plastics. Recently, various
forms of plastics have been incorporated in concrete to prevent the direct contact of plastics with the
environment because concrete has a longer service life. However, this method is not a dominant method
for disposing of waste plastic. This paper presents an overview of some published research regarding the
use of waste plastic in concrete. The effects of waste plastic addition on the fresh, mechanical and
thermal properties of concrete are also presented in this paper.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Waste PET bottles
Waste polyethylene
Concrete
Shredded plastic ber
Plastic ber reinforced concrete
Solid waste plastic
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
Fresh and mechanical properties of plastic fiber reinforced concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
2.1.
Properties of concrete in the green state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
2.1.1.
Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
2.1.2.
Fresh density/dry density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
2.2.
Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
2.2.1.
Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
2.2.2.
Split tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
2.2.3.
Flexural strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
2.2.4.
Modulus of elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
2.2.5.
Thermal conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
2.2.6.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test (UPVT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Various field applications of plastic fiber reinforced concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
1. Introduction
Currently, various forms of plastics are used around the world.
Large amounts of plastic are used in packing lms, wrapping
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rajuenter@yahoo.co.in, rajuenter@gmail.com (R. Sharma).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.042
0959-6526/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
474
plastic bags 28.02%), and 30.87% is other plastics (incl. PP, PVC, PS,
etc.) (Zhou et al., 2014). Papong et al. (2014), Badia et al. (2012),
Raghatate (2012), Nampoothiri et al. (2010) and Dullius et al.
(2006) revealed that thousands of years are necessary for the
biodegradation of plastics. This results in the accumulation of
plastic wastes and causes serious environmental problems due to
littering and illegal landlling or incineration. Saikia and Brito
(2012) reported that waste plastics reduce the water permeability
of soils and affect soil fertility, which often results in the blockage of
wastewater drains. In developing countries, the growth rate of most
cities exceeds 4% per annum. The issue at stake is that the 20e40%
of municipal revenues spent in most countries to manage the waste
is not enough to handle the rising trend of the waste generated
(Othman et al., 2013). India generates approximately 56 hundred
thousand tons of plastic waste annually, of which Delhi alone
contributes 689.5 tons each day. Approximately 60 percent of the
total plastic waste in Delhi is collected and recycled every day,
while 40 percent remains uncollected or is discarded as litter.
Plastic solid waste can primarily be treated by re-extrusion, mechanical, chemical and energy recovery schemes and technologies
(Al-Salem et al., 2009). Zhanga et al. (2010) reported that the
quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation has rapidly
increased in China due to growing urbanization, population growth
and industrialization. The total amount of MSW increased from 31.3
million tons in 1980 to 212 million tons in 2006, and the waste
generation rate increased from 0.50 kg/capita/day in 1980 to
0.98 kg/capita/year in 2006. The increasing demand and decreasing
landll space are forcing to researchers for nding the alternative
plastic solid waste disposal (PSW) options.
The only material that is analogous to plastic that is currently
used in India is concrete (Bhogayata and Arora, 2011; Kumar and
Kaushik, 2003; Sivaraja and Kandasamy, 2007). Currently, approximately 370 million cubic meters of concrete are consumed in India
every year, which is expected to reach approximately 580 million
cubic meters by 2022. Although the use of these materials is
increasing daily in their respective elds, the service lives and
properties of the products are different. Concrete structures are
constructed to serve humanity for several years, while the service
life of plastics is much shorter. Because the disposal of plastics after
use increases ecology strain, it is important to nd different
475
Fig. 2. Different forms of waste plastic: (a) Polyethylene (Raghatate, 2012), (b) Sample of waste plastic (Rai et al., 2012), (c) PET-aggregates PC (Saikia and Brito, 2013), (d) PETaggregate PF (Saikia and Brito, 2013), (e) PET aggregate PP (Saikia and Brito, 2013), (f) Short laminar ber (Foti, 2011), (g) Sample of O ber (Foti, 2011), (h) Shredded ber
(Bhogayata et al., 2013), (i) Hand Cut ber (Bhogayata et al., 2012a,b), (j) Granulated Plastic (Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2010), (k) polyethylene terephthalate (Fraternali et al., 2011), and
(l) polyethylene terephthalate (Fraternali et al., 2011).
476
Table 1
Use of waste plastic in concrete.
Author
Use in concrete
Grinded PET particles with a maximum size of 7 mm, estimated unit weight
was 464 kg/m3 and specic gravity of PET particles was 1.11 g/cm3
3 distinct types of plastic particles used Shredded ne aky plastic particles
(PF), Shredded coarse aky plastic particles (PC), heat treated pellet- shaped
spherical/cylindrical (PP)
Grinded PET particles with a maximum size of 7 mm, estimated unit weight
was 464 kg/m3 and specic gravity of PET particles was 1.11 g/cm3
Metalized polythene waste bags with an average size of 1 mm 2 mm.
Raghatate, 2012
Fraternali et al., 2011
Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2010
2.1.1.2. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
plastic
ber.
Bhogayata et al. (2012) reported that the workability of concrete
decreases as the addition of waste plastics in concrete increases by
up to 25%. Nibudey et al. (2013) reported the effects of plastic bers
with aspect ratios (l/d, length divided by diameter of ber) of 35
and 50 on the workability of concrete. The plastic ber was added
to the concrete at 0%e3% of the weight of the cement. The workability decreased when using aspect ratios of 35 and 50. The
maximum slump of the controlled concrete occurred at 67 mm for
the M30 grade of concrete. The slump value decreased to 32 mm for
an aspect ratio of 35 and to 22 mm for an aspect ratio of 50.
Prahallada and Parkash (2013) studied the effects of adding bers at different aspect ratios on the workability of concrete. Waste
plastics with aspect ratios of 30, 50, 70, 90 and 110 were used. The
workability of the concrete increased up to an aspect ratio of 50.
Thereafter, further increases in the aspect ratio resulted in decreases in the workability. The poor workability after including
plastic bers with larger aspect ratios potentially resulted from the
hindrance imposed by plastic bers during the ow of green concrete. Malagaveli (2011) reported that the workability of the matrix
2.5%
25
5%
0%
0.3%
1%
30
0.05%
0%
35
0.18%
5%
40
477
15%
45
10%
0%
20
15
10
5
0
Saikia and Brito,2014
(Plastic Particles )
Pelisser et al.,2012
(PET Fiber)
mixes were prepared, contained 30%, 40% and 50% iron lling waste
with 5% plastic waste (M1, M2, M3). For waste modied-concrete
mixes M1, M2, and M3, the fresh density values were 0.04, 1.22,
and 4.46% higher, respectively, than the fresh density value of the
control mix. Whereby, the dry density for mixes M1, M2, and M3
exceeds that of the plain mix by 3.39, 4.17, and 8.04%, respectively. It
can be noticed that dry density values are slightly greater than fresh
densities values for each mix. This could be due to the pozzolanic
effect of waste iron, which provided a surface around the waste
plastic that could react with the other constituents of the concrete
and produce more dense concrete following 28 days of curing.
Chowdhury et al. (2013) concluded that reductions in bulk
density are directly proportional to plastic aggregate replacement
and can be attributed to the low unit weight of plastic. Hannawi
et al. (2010) observed a concrete dry density of 1643 kg/m3,
which is lower than the minimum dry density of 2000 kg/m3
required for structural lightweight concrete.
Based on the literature review, it was also concluded that only
the insertion of plastic ber in the concrete reduced the wet and
dry density of the concrete as unit weight of waste plastic is less
than the concrete ingredients. Same behavior for both wet and dry
density was observed as density of plastic is not affected by water.
However, the addition of minerals to the concrete reinforced with
plastic ber resulted in a greater dry density (Ismail and Al-Hashmi,
2010). The mineral admixtures react with the matrix, and additional pozzolanic reactions improve the performance of concrete
reinforced with plastic waste ber.
Table 2
Dry density and fresh density with respect to the mixture proportions (Rai et al., 2012).
Mix
% Plastic
Cement (kg)
C.A (kg)
F.A (kg)
Waste plastics
w/c ratio
Mix proportion
M30
M30
M30
M30
0
5
10
15
423
423
423
423
1282
1282
1282
1282
469.00
445.20
421.73
399.00
0.00
08.76
17.50
26.40
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
1:3.03.1.110:0.00
1:3.03:1.052:0.021
1:3.03:0.997:0.042
1:3.03:0.943:0.060
2600
2460
2370
2340
2430
2320
2260
2210
478
observed that addition of PET and HDPE ber in small amount results in an increase in compressive strength but addition of large
amount of PET particles reduce the strength (Saikia and Brito, 2014)
as shown in Fig. 3. The mechanical property of PET and HDPE are
better as compared to polyethylene bers which results in
improvement in the strength of concrete. The aspect ratio of ber
also plays the signicant role in performance of concrete.
2.2.2. Split tensile strength
The split tensile strength of concrete is generally calculated to
understand the behavior of concrete in tension. The direct measurement of tensile strength of concrete is difcult. As, It is almost
impossible to apply truly axial load in direct tension. So, behavior of
concrete in tension is studied by doing indirect testing of concrete
in tension. The split tensile test is a good indirect method of nding
out the tensile strength of concrete. The effect of the addition/
replacement of various types of plastic with on the split tensile
strength of concrete is discussed below.
2.2.2.1. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
PET
particles.
Rahmani et al. (2013) reported the tensile strength decreases due to
the negative effect of smooth surface texture on the bond strength
and increased surface area of PET particles as compared to sand.
Saikia and Brito (2014) revealed that the split tensile strength starts
decreasing as the amount of PET particles increases. The maximum
and minimum reduction were observed in PET aky coarse aggregate (PC) and heat treated PET particles (PP). The worst performance observed for PC is attributed to the high w/c ratios of these
mixes. The splitting tensile strength of concrete is strongly inuenced by the characteristics of the interfacial transition zone (ITZ).
The smooth surface of the plastic particles and the free water at the
surface of plastic aggregate can cause a weaker bonding between
these particles and the cement paste. In case of concrete containing
PP particles, after reaching the ultimate strength, most of the PP in
the concrete matrix do not fail, but they are debonded from the
cement paste, which is additional evidence of the poorer bonding
between the PP and the cement paste.
2.2.2.2. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
plastic
ber.
(Bhogayata et al., 2013) reported that the addition of bers at up to
1.5% reduces the split tensile strength by 43%. Overall, 93 specimens
were cast, including controlled concrete and concrete mixed with
polyethylene bers (1 mm 2 mm), in proportions of 0%e1.5% and
at intervals of 0.5%. Fly ash was also added in different proportions,
varying from 0% to 30%. The maximum tensile strength of the
control concrete was 3.96 MPa, which was reduced to 2.26 MPa
after addition of up to 1.5% plastic bers (by volume). Reductions in
the surface tensile strength were negligible when plastic bers
were added at 0.5%e1%. The surface tensile strength of the
controlled concrete was 1.36 MPa. After adding plastic bers at 1.5%
by volume, the surface tensile strength was reduced to 0.65 MPa.
The addition of plastic bers reduced the surface tensile strength of
the control concrete by 56%. Ramadevi and Manju (2012) concluded
that the split tensile strength of cylinder increases upto 2%
replacement of the ne aggregates with PET bottle bers and then
decreases slightly with further increase in replacement (4% and 6%)
of ne aggregates with PET bottle bers. The replacement of 2% of
ne aggregates is reasonable because it results in a high split tensile
strength relative to other percentages. However, some studies have
shown increment of split tensile strength, but most studies have
indicated lower tensile strength. Malagaveli (2011) conducted an
experiment to evaluate the split tensile strength of concrete at the
ages of 7 and 28 days with HDPE ber contents of 0e6%. Overall, the
split tensile strength increased by 14% when the ber content was
479
3.5% and began to decrease when the HDPE ber content was
increased from 3.5 to 6%.
A study performed by Prahallada and Parkash (2013) indicated
that the split tensile strength increased up to an aspect ratio of 50
and that the tensile strength decreased beyond an aspect ratio of
50. The tensile strength increased by 13%. Nibudey et al. (2013)
observed that the tensile strength increased for aspect ratios of
35 and 50 when bers were added at 1%. The controlled specimen
strength was 3.48 MPa, and strengths of 3.87 MPa and 4.13 MPa
were observed after the addition of ber at aspect ratios of 35 and
50. The waste plastic used with a specied aspect ratio in the
concrete performed better than the concrete that directly included
shredded plastic ber waste.
2.2.2.3. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small
pieces. Raghatate (2012) elucidated the increments of split tensile
strength across increments of different percentages of plastic
pieces. The addition of 0e1% of plastic pieces was conducted successively using 0.2% intervals. The test results were evaluated at 7,
14 and 28 days. The split tensile strength results following 28 days
indicated that the strength increased by 26% when plastic pieces
were added at 0.8% and then decreased when greater amounts of
plastic pieces were added. Albano et al. (2009) reported the split
tensile strength starts decreasing as the different sizes of PET aggregates are added in the concrete mix.
It can be concluded from the literature that the tensile strength
of concrete with encapsulated plastic only increases slightly when
small amounts of plastic are used and then decreases as more
plastic ber is used due to the less effective utilization of plastic for
plastic ber bridging action. Moreover, the strength of the concrete,
largely depends on the amount of plastic added to the concrete, the
size of the plastic, the physical and mechanical properties of the
plastic, the treatment of the plastic by any chemical before inclusion into the concrete and the uniform mixing of the plastic in the
concrete. These parameters require more attention to develop
precise methods for creating effective plastic ber reinforced
concrete.
2.2.3. Flexural strength
The ability of structural member to resist failure in bending is
termed as exural strength. The exural strength of concrete is
evaluated by three point loading or four point loading test. The
affect of addition/replacement of different forms of plastics on
exural strength of concrete is discussed below.
2.2.3.1. Effect of replacement/addition of PET particles. Saikia and
Brito (2014) concluded that the exural strength of concrete decreases as the amount of PET particles increases. In the study ne
aggregates were replaced with 5% 10% and 15% PET particles were
replaced with PET aggregates. It is concluded that as the amount of
any type of PET-aggregate in concrete increases the exural
strength decreases. However, the heat treated PET particles (PP)
performed well as compared to PET aky ne aggregate (PF) and
Pet aky coarse aggregate (PC). The post cracking strength improves on replacement by PC and PF aggregates due to their shape
and sizes. It was also observed during the testing the PC and PF
particles bridged the crack and prevented brittle failure of the
specimen during the test.
2.2.3.2. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic ber. Rai et al.
(2012) reported that the exural strength of concrete decreases
with the addition of plastic ber. When ber is added from 5% to
15%, exural strength decreases from 4 MPa to 3 MPa. In addition, it
was reported that superplasticizers do not signicantly affect
exural strength and that the surfaces of plastic waste bers
480
2.2.4.1. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
PET
particles.
Rahmani et al. (2013) concluded the reduction in modulus of
elasticity of concrete can be due to small modulus of elasticity of
PET particles and this reduction has an approximate linear relationship with the increase of PET particle content. Saikia and Brito
(2014) reported that the PET aky coarse particles (PC) and PET
aky ne particles (PF) contained concrete have lower modulus of
concrete due to the porous concrete. The reason reported for
porous concrete is the higher W/C ratio and lower modulus of
elasticity of PET particles as compared with natural aggregate.
2.2.4.2. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small
pieces. Cordoba et al. (2013) determined the modulus of elasticity
when using plastic particle sizes of 0.5 mm, 1.5 mm, and 3.0 mm
with distinct volume percentages of 1, 2.5 and 5%. The highest
modulus of elasticity was obtained with 1.5 mm PET particles at a
concentration of 2.5% by volume following 28 days of curing. The
minimum modulus of elasticity was obtained for a PET particle size
of 3.0 mm and at a concentration of 5% by volume following 28 days
of curing.
Mathew et al. (2013) observed the modulus of elasticity of the
plastic coarse aggregate decreased by 22.12% relative to the natural
coarse aggregates containing concrete. Hannawi et al. (2010) and
Choi et al. (2009) reported that the modulus of elasticity decreased
as the plastic content changed.
The aggregate in concrete play a substantial roll for quantify the
mechanical properties of concrete. Majority of research shows any
form of plastic decrease the modulus of elasticity of concrete. This
property of concrete is degraded due to less modulus of elasticity of
plastic.
2.2.5. Thermal conductivity
Fraternali et al. (2011) measured the effective thermal conductivities of UNRC (Unreinforced Concrete), RPETFRC/a (Recycled PET
Fiber Reinforced Concrete) and PPFRC (Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete) by using the experimental apparatus described by
Frattolillo et al. (2003). A prismatic specimen with a size of
19.5 cm 19.5 cm 3 cm was inserted into the measurement
chamber and subjected to heat transfer using electrical resistance
at the top of the chamber and a water cooling system at the bottom
of the chamber. The effective thermal conductivity was measured
using the one-dimensional steady state comparative method. The
thermal conductivity of RPETFRC and PPFRC decreased by 20%
relative to UNRC, as shown in Table 3. Dweik et al. (2008) reported
that the thermal insulation properties of cement mortar blocks
improved when sand was replaced with melamine formaldehyde
solid waste.
2.2.6. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test (UPVT)
The Ultrasonic pulse velocity test is carried out to investigate
homogeneity and structure of concrete. Currently, few studies are
available for assessing the UPV (ultrasonic pulse velocity) of concrete containing plastic. The previous studies show that plastic
contained concrete has lower UPV due to development of pores.
Rahmani et al. (2013) observed the reduction in UPV with an
addition and increase in PET particle content in the concrete. The
Table 3
Thermal conductivities of the specimens (Fraternali et al., 2011).
Mixture
k (W/mK)
95% CI (W/mK)
FRR %
UNRC
RPETFRC/a
PPFRC
0.967
0.793
0.756
0.284
0.251
0.139
0.0
18.0
21.8
481
482
Batayneh, M., Marie, I., Ibrahim, A., 2007. Use of selected waste material in concrete
mixes. Waste Manag. 27, 1870e1876.
Benosman, A.S., Mouli, M.T., Belbachir, H., Senhadji, M., Bahlouli, Y., Houivet, D.L.,
2013. Studies on chemical resistance of PET-mortar composites: microstructure
and phase composition changes. Sci. Res. 5, 359e378.
Bhogayata, A., Arora, N.K., 2011. Green concrete from the post consumer plastic
wastes: Indian scenario. In: ICTSET Proceedings, ISBN 978-81-906377-9-4,
pp. 437e440.
Bhogayata, A., Shah, K.D., Vyas, B.A., Arora, N.K., 2012a. Feasibility of waste metallised polythene used as concrete constituent. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 1 (5),
204e207.
Bhogayata, A., Shah, K.D., Vyas, B.A., Arora, N.K., 2012b. Performance of concrete by
using non recyclable plastic waste as concrete constituent. Int. J. Eng. Adv.
Technol. 1 (4), 1e3.
Bhogayata, A., Shah, K.D., Arora, N.K., 2013. Strength properties of concrete containing post consumer metalized plastic wastes. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. ISSN:
2278-0181 2 (3).
Choi, Y.W., Moon, D.J., Chung, J.S., Cho, S.K., 2005. Effect of pet waste bottles
aggregate on the property of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 776e781.
Choi, Y.W., Moon, D.J., Kim, Y.J., Lachemi, M., 2009. Characteristics of mortar and
concrete containing ne aggregate manufactured from recycled waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles. Constr. Build. Mater. 23, 2829e2835.
Chowdhury, S., Maniar, A.T., Suganya, O., 2013. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
waste as building solution. Int. J. Chem. Environ. Biol. Sci. (IJCEBS) 1, 2320e4087.
Cordoba, L.A., Berrera, G.M., Diaz, C.B., Nunez, F.U., Yanez, A.L., 2013. Effects on
mechanical properties of recycled PET in cement-based composites. Int. J.
Polym. Sci. 2013, 1e6.
Dormer, A., Finn, D.P., Ward, P., Cullen, J., 2013. Carbon footprint analysis in plastics
manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 133e141.
Dullius, J., Ruecker, C., Oliveira, V., Ligabue, R., Einlof, S., 2006. Chemical recycling of
post-consumer PET: Alkyd resins synthesis. Prog. Org. Coat. 57, 123e127.
Dweik, H.S., Ziara, M.M., Hadidoun, H.S., 2008. Enhancing concrete strength and
thermal insulation using thermoset plastic waste. Int. J. Polym. Material 57,
635e656.
Foti, D., 2011. Preliminary analysis of concrete reinforced with waste bottles PET
bers. Constr. Build. Material 25, 1906e1915.
Foti, D., 2013. Use of recycled waste pet bottles bers for the reinforcement of
concrete. Compos. Struct. 96, 396e404.
Fraternali, F., Ciancia, V., Chechile, R., Rizzano, G., Feo, L., Incarnato, L., 2011.
Experimental study of thermal-mechanical properties of recycled PET berreinforced concrete. Compos. Struct. 93, 2368e2374.
Frattolillo, A., Giovinco, G., Mascolo, M.C., Vitale, A., 2003. Effect of hydrophobic
treatment on the thermophysical properties of lightweight mortar. Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 29, 733e741.
Frigione, M., 2010. Recycling of PET bottles as ne aggregate in concrete. Waste
Manag. 30, 1101e1106.
Hannawi, K., kamal-Bernard, S., Prince, W., 2010. Physical and mechanical properties of mortar containing PET and PC waste aggregate. Waste Manag. 30,
2312e2320.
Ismail, Z.Z., Al- Hashmi, E.A., 2008. Use of plastic waste in concrete mixture as
aggregate replacement. Waste Manag. 28, 2041e2047.
Ismail, Z.Z., Al-Hashmi, E.A., 2010. Validation of using mixed iron and plastic wastes
in concrete. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. 2, 278e283.
Ingrao, C., 2014. Recycled-PET bre based panels for building thermal insulation:
environmental impact and improvement potential assessment for a greener
production. Sci. Total Environ. 493, 914e926.
Kou, S.C., Lee, G., Poon, C.S., Lai, W.L., 2009. Properties of lightweight aggregate
concrete prepared with PVC granules derived from scraped PVC pipes. Waste
Manag. 29, 621e628.
Kumar, P., Kaushik, S.K., 2003. Some trend in the use of concrete: Indian scenario.
Indian Concr. J. 1503e1508.
Mahdi, F., Abbas, H., Khan, A.A., 2010. Strength characteristics of polymer mortar
and concrete using different compositions of resins derived from postconsumer PET bottles. Constr. Build. Material 24, 25e36.
Malagaveli, V., 2011. Strength characteristics of concrete using solid waste an
experimental investigation. Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 4, 937e940.
Mathew, P., Varghese, S., Paul, T., Varghese, E., 2013. Recycled plastic as coarse
aggregate for structural concrete. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2,
687e690.
Naik, T.R., Singh, S.S., Huber, C.O., Brodersen, B.S., 1996. Use of post-consumer waste
plastic in cement-based composites. Cem. Concr. Res. 26, 1489e1492.
Nampoothiri, K.M., Nair, N.R., John, R.P., 2010. An overview of the recent developments in polylactide (PLA) research. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 8493e8501.
Nibudey, R.N., Nagarnaik, P.B., Parbat, D.K., Pande, A.M., 2013. Strengths prediction
of plastic ber reinforced concrete (M30). Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. (IJERA) 3,
1818e1825.
Ochi, T., Okubo, S., Fukui, K., 2007. Development of recycled PET ber and its
application as concrete-reinforcing ber. Cem. Concr. Compos. 29, 448e455.
Othman, S.N., Noor, Z.Z., Abba, A.H., Yusuf, R.O., Hasan, M.A.B., 2013. Review on life
cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management in some Asian countries. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 251e262.
Papong, S., Malakul, P., Trungkavashirakun, R., Wenunun, P., Chom-in, T.,
Nithitanakul, M., Sarobol, Ed., 2014. Comparative assessment of the environmental prole of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 539e550.
Pelisser, F., Montedo, R.K.O., Gleize, J.P.P., Roman, R.H., 2012. Mechanical properties
of recycled PET bers in concrete. Mater. Res. 15 (4), 679e686.
odore de Cuyper 100,
Petcore. PET Containers recycling europe (Petcore), Rue The
1200 Brussels, Belgium. Available from: www-petcore-europe.org (accessed
21.11.13.).
Prahallada, M.C., Parkash, K.B., 2013. Effect of different aspect ratio of waste plastic
bers on the properties of ber reinforced concrete e an experimental investigation. Int. J. Adv. Res. IT Eng. 2, 1e13.
Raghatate, A.M., 2012. Use of plastic in a concrete to improve its properties. Int. J.
Adv. Eng. Res. Stud. 1, 109e111.
Rahmani, E., Dehestani, M., Beygi, M.H.A., Allahyari, H., Nikbin, I.M., 2013. On the
mechanical properties of concrete containing waste PET particles. Constr. Build.
Mater. 47, 1302e1308.
Rai, B., Rushad, S.T., Bhavesh, K.,R., Duggal, S.K., 2012. Study of waste plastic mix
concrete with plasticizer. Int. Sch. Res. Netw. 2012, 1e5.
Ramadevi, K., Manju, R., 2012. Experimental investigation on the properties of
concrete with plastic PET (bottle) bers as ne aggregate. Int. J. Emerg. Technol.
Adv. Eng. 2, 42e46.
Rebeiz, K.S., Craft, P.A., 1995. Plastic waste management in construction: technological and institutional issues. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 15, 245e257.
Saikia, N., Brito, J.D., 2014. Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of concrete containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial substitution of natural
aggregate. Constr. Build. Material 52, 236e244.
Saikia, N., Brito, J.D., 2012. Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and
concrete preparation: a review. Constr. Build. Material 34, 385e401.
Saikia, N., Brito, J.D., 2013. Waste polyethylene terephthalate as an aggregate in
concrete. Material Res. 16, 341e350.
Sasaki, M., 2006. Statistical features of vein system in the Hishikari epithermal gold
deposit, Japan. Resour. Geol. 56, 27e36.
Sivaraja, M., Kandasamy, S., 2007. Reinforced concrete beams with rural composites
under cyclic loading. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2 (11), 1620e1626.
Sivaraja, M., Kandasamy, S., Thrimurugan, A., 2010. Mechanical strength of brous
concrete with waste rural materials. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 69, 308e312.
Soroushian, P., Plasencia, J., Ravanbakhsh, S., 2003. Assessment of reinforcing effects
of recycled plastic and paper in concrete. ACI Mater. J. 100, 203e207.
Subramanian, M.P., 2000. Plastics recycling and waste management in the US.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 28, 253e263.
Suganthy, P., Chandrasekar, K., Sathish, P.K., 2013. Utilization of pulverized plastic in
cement concrete as ne aggregate. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2, 1e5.
Vargas, A., Silva, B.V., Rocha, M.R., Pelisser, F., 2014. Precast slabs using recyclable
packaging as ooring support elements. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 92e100.
Zhanga, D.Q., Tanb, K.S., Gersbergc, R.M., 2010. Municipal solid waste management
in China: status, problems and challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1623e1633.
Zhou, C., Fang, W., Xu, W., Cao, A., Wang, R., 2014. Characteristics and the recovery
potential of plastic wastes obtained from landll mining. J. Clean. Prod. 80,
80e86.