Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Strength evaluation of utilizing recycled plastic waste and recycled

crushed glass in concrete footpaths
Alireza Mohammadinia a,b, Yat Choy Wong c,⇑, Arul Arulrajah d, Suksun Horpibulsuk e,f
a
Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
b
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
c
Dept. of Mechanical and Product Design Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
d
Dept. of Civil and Construction Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
e
School of Civil Engineering and Center of Excellence in Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima
30000, Thailand
f
Swinburne Univ. of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia

h i g h l i g h t s

 RPW and RCG as aggregates in concrete mixture and feasibility as concrete footpath.
 Aggregates were replaced by RPW and RCG in 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%.
 Results showed that RPW and RCG can be a viable solution for concrete footpath.
 Compressive and splitting tensile strength samples with RPW and RCG were acceptable.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The increasing rate of waste generation and the consequent environmental penalties of landfilling waste
Received 23 January 2018 glass and waste plastic need global attention to pursue innovative sustainable industrial applications that
Received in revised form 22 October 2018 can divert these wastes from landfills for useful construction activities. This study entails incorporating
Accepted 23 November 2018
recycled plastic waste (RPW) and recycled crushed glass (RCG) as coarse aggregate replacement in con-
crete mixture and to evaluate its feasibility as concrete footpath construction. The coarse aggregates in
concrete were replaced by RPW and RCG aggregates in proportions of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%
Keywords:
was investigated. The properties of concrete evaluated in this study include uniaxial strength, tensile
Recycled plastic
Recycled crushed glass
strength and capillary water uptake. Results from this investigation showed that incorporation of RPW
Green concrete footpath and RCG in concrete can be a viable solution for the recycling of plastic waste and crushed glass in indus-
Capillary water uptake trial applications. Although, the compressive and splitting tensile strength values of the concrete samples
containing RPW and RCG aggregate were found to be reduced due to low adhesion between the recycled
aggregates and the cement gel matrix as well as low aggregate crushing resistance, coarse aggregate
replacement were found to be still viable up to 20% by volume for RPW and up to 30% by volume for
RCG for use in footpath construction.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The excessive pollution of the marine environment has been
well documented [1]. It is estimated that in 2010, approximately
275 million tons of plastic waste were generated in 192 coastal
⇑ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology,
Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
E-mail addresses: amohammadinia@swin.edu.au (A. Mohammadinia),
ywong@swin.edu.au (Y.C. Wong), aarulrajah@swin.edu.au (A. Arulrajah), suksun@
g.sut.ac.th (S. Horpibulsuk).
countries [2]. About 12.7 million tons of these plastic waste have
been dumped in the ocean causing detrimental effects on the envi-
ronment. According to the Australian recycling sector report in
2012, the output plastic pellets are sold into two main markets,
one for food grade plastics and the other for structural and hard
plastics [3]. The amount of plastics recycled in Australia in 2008–
2009 financial year was 287,600 tons versus 1,789,400 tons of
waste generated. This leads to a 16% recycling rate which is consid-
erably lower than metals (90%), paper and cardboard (62%) and
glass (69%) [3]. The inconsistency in composition, color, trans-
parency or size of plastic aggregates imposes aesthetic limitations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.192
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
490 A. Mohammadinia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496

on the usage of these aggregates. In addition, the high endurance of
the thermosets like polyester and epoxy against high temperatures
inflicts difficulties to break down these materials to recycle them.
Subsequently, alternative innovative applications that do not rely
on the visual aspect of recycled plastic aggregates are required
for sustainable recycling of the waste plastics.
Although use of pre-processed plastic aggregates in concrete
applications has been investigated previously [4], the majority of
the plastic waste such as low to high density polyethylene,
polypropylene and polystyrene which are used in packing, textiles,
stationary and food and beverage containers are neglected. Consid-
ering the variety of the materials and colors in the curb plastic waste,
these wastes are excluded from high quality recycling streams.
Similarly, Australia lags behind in terms of recycling and reus-
ing waste glass when compared with most European countries,
considering the vast lands and resources available in Australia
Shayan and Xu [10] reported using recycled glass as fine powder
to improve the concrete properties. The incorporation of glass pow-
der in concrete as a cement replacement material improves the
workability of the concrete mixtures. Using crushed glass as aggre-
gates has been investigated by several other researchers [6]. The
smooth surface and relatively low water absorption of glass aggre-
gates leads to de-bonding between the cement gel and glass surface
and can provide a favourable failure surface (known as adhesion fail-
ure). However, the chemical stability of glass and plastics aggregates
makes them a suitable in a long-term solution such as concrete.
This research evaluates the feasibility of using crushed glass
aggregates and domestic plastic waste in construction of concrete
Table 2
Chemical composition of Portland cement.

and easy access to virgin materials [5]. The lack of space for land- Composition (wt%) GP cement
filling the waste streams motivates the recycling activities. United Al2O3 4.5
Nations estimates that around 200 million tons of solid waste are SiO2 20.3
disposed every year and around 7% of that are glass [6]. Approxi- CaO 62.9
mately 850,000 tons of glass are used in Australia each year, with Fe2O3 4.6
K2O 0.3
350,000 tons recovered for recycling [7]. Between 2008 and 2009
MgO 1.2
over 186,000 tons of waste recycled crushed glass were recovered Na2O 0.3
in the state of Victoria [8]. SO3 2.6
Glass waste can be produced from various sources including LoI§ 3.3
container glass used for packaging (bottles and jars), flat glass §
Loss on ignition.
derived from windscreens and windows, bulb glass (light globes)
and cathode ray tube glass such as TV screens and monitors [9].
This investigation is focused on recycling aspects of container
glass, and the term ‘‘glass” hereafter refers to this type only. Recy- Table 3
Mix-design for M40 control concrete for 1 m3.
cled glass is produced from glass bottles and glass pieces collected
through municipal and industrial waste streams. Glass is manufac- Material Amount Unit
tured from silica sand (SiO2) and other compounds. Table 1 shows Water 158 kg
the typical chemical properties of crushed glass. Cement 400 kg
Fine aggregates 558 kg
Coarse Gravel aggregates 1172 kg
Table 1 W/C ratio 0.4 –
Chemical properties of crushed glass [10]. Total 2288 kg
Composition Percentage
SiO2 72.61
Al2O3 1.38 Table 4
Fe2O3 0.48 Mechanical properties of aggregates.
CaO 11.70
Material Specific gravity (Gs) Water absorption (%)
MgO 0.56
Na2O 13.12 Natural quartz 2.65 10.2
K2O 0.38 Fine sand 2.46 4.2
SO3 0.09 RCG 2.50 0.002
Loss on Ignition (LOI) 0.22 RPW 1.18 0.001

Fig. 1. a) Recycled plastic waste b) Recycled crushed glass.

 A. Mohammadinia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496 491

footpaths. Results from this research increases the confidence for

use of recycled aggregates in construction activities and encour-
ages the recycling sector to pursue sustainable growth in construc-
tion activities.

2. Materials and methods

Considering the difficulties in processing and separation of different types of

plastics in the recycling plants, the general household plastic waste is normally
directed to landfills in bulk. For this research, the plastic wastes collected from daily
used household waste plastics at Melbourne Australia. The collected recycled plas-
tic waste (RPW) was shredded for use in concrete mixtures (Fig. 1.a). The recycled
waste glass was collected from a local recycling company in Victoria. The chemical
composition of the recycled glass is presented in Table 1. The recycled crushed glass
(RCG) was sourced from domestic kerbside and mainly contained bottle glass and
jar glasses. The glass aggregates used in this research was pulverized to form aggre-
gates with nominally 3–8 mm diameter. The aggregates are mostly platy because

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of the glass aggregates.

Fig. 3. Development of compressive and tensile strength of control specimens over

time.

Fig. 4. Comparison of Volumetric percentages with gravimetric replacement (§RCG: Fig. 5. Development of compressive strength of sample containing a) RPW b) RCG
RPW mixtures was mixed at a 50:50 volumetric ratio). and c) RPW + RCG over time.
492 A. Mohammadinia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496
they are derived from bottles (Fig. 1.b). The coarse aggregate (gravel) and fine
aggregate (sand) and general Portland cement were also sourced locally. The chem-
ical composition of the Portland cement is presented in Table 2.
Particle size distribution of the RCG aggregates were performed in accordance
with AS 1141.11 [11]. Bulk density is defined as the dry weight of aggregates per
unit volume of aggregate. However, specific gravity allows for the ability to compre-
hend compressibility characteristics and shear resistance of the aggregate material
[12]. Correct and accurate material specific gravity determinations are vital to
ensure proper mix design. Water Absorption is a variable indicating aggregate dura-
bility as well as the volume of binder that will be absorbed. The particle density and
water absorption of coarse aggregate were measured using Standards Australia
[13].
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) test was conducted using ASTM C39
[14]. The cylindrical samples were casted in molds with a diameter of
100 ± 1 mm and height of 200 ± 2 mm. The top surface of the concrete samples
Fig. 6. Development of tensile strength of sample containing a) RPW b) RCG and c)
RPW + RCG over time.
were polished after curing to attain a flat surface for UCS tests. Three samples were
used for determination of UCS and the average value was reported. Samples were
loaded under a constant deformation with the rate of 0.25 ± 0.05 MPa/s. The max-
imum stress was recorded for determination of UCS value.
Tensile strength is an important characteristic of cracking potential. If failure
occurs at a high tensile strain, it is indicative that the pavement or the footpath
can tolerate high strains before failing. This results in a pavement composition that
more likely to resist cracking. In-direct tensile (IDT) strength tests were conducted
in conformance to ASTM C496 [15]. A cylindrical sample was loaded across its ver-
tical diametric plane at a specified rate of deformation and test temperature. The
peak load at failure was recorded and used to calculate the IDT strength of the sam-
ple. The samples prepared and cured in accordance to the conditions given within
the ASTM C31 (diameter = 100 mm and height = 200 mm). A vertical compressive
load was applied at a constant rate within the range 0.7 to 1.4 MPa/min splitting
tensile stress until failure of the sample.
The relative water absorption by capillary uptake (wicking) properties over
time of concrete samples was determined utilizing 50  50  50 mm3 cubic sam-
ples. The water absorption capability of the control concrete sample was compared
with other samples with addition of RPW and RCG aggregates. The capillary uptake
of the samples was compared using ASTM C1403 [16] for measuring the rate of
wicking uptake. A typical mix design targeting a control concrete sample of M40
with an estimated 28-day strength of 40 MPa was based on the design recommen-
dation [17]. The mix design details for 1 m3 of control concrete is presented in
Fig. 7. Bonding between cement mortar and a) quartz gravel b) RPW and c) RCG.
 A. Mohammadinia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496
Table 3. The designed M40 concrete samples casted as control sample was used to
compare the variation of the results relative to a laboratory controlled test sample
(Table 4).
3. Results and discussion
The particle size distribution curves for glass aggregates is pre-
sented in Fig. 2. The coefficient of uniformity (Cu) and coefficient of
curvature (Cc) were determined for RCG aggregates to be 14.3 and
2.3 respectively. According to the USCS, the RCG aggregates was
classified as gravel. The extremely light weight of shredded RPW
aggregates and the platy nature of these aggregates were an obsta-
cle in determination of the size distribution. Widely graded RCG,
and uniformly graded RWP shreds have an average diameter of 4
– 5 mm, with nominal size of 19 mm which is close to suggestion
of aggregate range suggested by ASTM C33 [18]. Based on sugges-
tion of ASTM C33 [18], the coarse fraction can be chosen from a
wide variety depending on the wide applications. It is recom-
mended to evaluate the strength of the selected gradation by a
control sample.
The UCS and tensile strength of the control concrete samples
are presented in Fig. 3. The values were the average of three sam-
ples and the standard deviation of errors to the average value is
presented in the graph. It should be noted that the standard devi-
ation of the UCS results is higher for lower curing times. This is due
Fig. 8. Development water uptake of the cubic samples for a) control samples and samples with 10% to 50% RPW.
493
to the underdeveloped gel structure and also low UCS samples at
low curing time which yields higher percentages of error compared
with high UCS samples. The compressive strength of 7 days cured
sample is 50.1 MPa and as expected the strength was marginally
increased when the curing time was increased to 28 days; approx-
imately 15% compared to that of 7 days cured samples. The tensile
strength for 7 days cured sample was just over 3 MPa and
increased 30% when cured to 28 days. The M40 mix design was
used as a basis of comparison for samples with additive RPW and
RCG. It should be noted that a minimum acceptable strength of
20 MPa recommended by local government councils in the state
of Victoria, Australia [19] for concrete footpath was targeted.
Fig. 4 illustrates the comparison between volume replacement
and weight replacement to demonstrate the high consumption
capacity of plastic aggregates due its low density. The development
of compressive strength for concrete samples with replacement of
aggregates in the mixture by 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of volume
with RPW and RCG is presented in Fig. 5.a and.b respectively. The
results of the uniaxial strength test combination of RPW and RCG
are also presented up to a total aggregate replacement of 50% in
Fig. 5.c. The compressive strength results of using RCG as a replace-
ment for aggregates are satisfactory in all curing times. The sample
which has 50% RCG replacing the coarse aggregates, shows a com-
pressive strength of 24.3 MPa which approximately suffers 50%
decrease compared to the control sample at the same age.
494 A. Mohammadinia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496
However, this sample still can be a viable option for footpath con-
struction and offers a relatively high intake of RCG aggregates. On
the contrary, the replacement of aggregates with RPW suffers con-
siderable loss of strength. It should be noted that the lower density
of plastic aggregates compared with RCG and quartz rock results in
a significant increase in the volume of plastic replacement. In addi-
tion, the RPW aggregates are dominantly platy aggregates that can-
not be compacted easily. A simple compaction test on the
aggregates shows that at a constant replacement content, RPW
aggregates approximately occupy twice as much volume compared
with quartz rock and RCG. This can explain the rapid decrease in
the strength by addition of RPW. Despite the rapid decrease in
strength, the RPW samples with 20% (by volume) replacement
after 28 days of curing can be viable for footpath applications. Nat-
urally, combination of the RPW and RCG shows compressive
results in between the higher quality samples of RCG and lower
quality of RPW samples.
The wide gap between the particle density of the average aggre-
gates size of quartz gravel and RPW have imposed difficulties in
terms of mixing the blends. In other words, during the placement
of samples in the mold, the flaky RPW aggregates trapped air bub-
bles which needed more shaking and tamping to be released.
Attempts to reduce the amount of air bubbles resulted in segrega-
tion of the gravel and RWP aggregates. However, the wide grada-
Fig. 9. Development water uptake of the cubic samples for a) control samples and samples with 10% to 50% RCG.
tion of RCG was beneficial in reducing the segregation and
creating more workable and uniform sample. It should be noted
that the aggregate replacement combination up to 40% (20%RPW
+ 20%RCG) can be viable option for construction. The low water
absorption of RPW and RCG obstructs the contact between the
aggregates and mortar and creates preferential planes of weakness.
However, the platy aggregates of RPW creates a bigger slip surface
compared with rough bulky aggregates of RCG. The development
of split tensile strength over time is for the aforementioned sam-
ples are presented in Fig. 6. The split tensile strength shows mini-
mal sensitivity to the replacement of aggregates. The tensile
strength is highly dependent on the quality of the developed
cement gel matrix between the aggregates. Although the adhesion
between the aggregates and the cement gel reduces by replace-
ment of recycled aggregates, the lower average diameter of RCG
and RPW compared to quartz gravel improves the cement gel
matrix and hence the tensile strength decreases marginally.
The flaky aggregates of RPW can significantly compromise the
strength compactibility. Placing samples with RPW inside molds
presented the challenge of releasing the air pockets inside the sam-
ple. Samples with RPW cause air pockets to be trapped and need
more vibration to release the air pockets which ultimately can lead
to segregation of aggregates and mortars. In addition, visual
inspection of clean cut cross section of concrete samples shows
 A. Mohammadinia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496
that the gap between the RPW aggregates and mortar is approxi-
mately twice as big of the gap between the mortar and RCG
(Fig. 7). It should be noted that this gap is almost non-existent
between the gravel quartz aggregates and mortar. The low water
absorption of the RCG and RPW lead to debonding between the
aggregates and cement gel similar to observations of Topcu and
Canbaz [6]. To investigate the impact of water uptake of the con-
crete samples with different contents of RPW and RCG, the capil-
lary uptake test was performed on these samples. The water
uptake with time is presented in Figs. 8–10 for concrete samples
comprising of RPW, RCG and combination of RPW and RCG, respec-
tively. It should be mentioned that the capillary suction is highly
relevant to pore space in the concrete samples and also the average
size of the pores. Generally, increasing the time of contact with
water increases the rise of water in the sample and consequently
increases the moisture absorption of the samples. Additionally,
considering the low water absorption of gravel sized glass particles
leads to a reduction in capillary rise of water mainly due to low
aggregates water absorption of and rather than changes in pore
size in the soil matrix. However, the smaller sized flaky plastic
aggregates with low specific density are prone to trap tiny air bub-
bles that increases the pore size and will increase the water
absorption. The capillary water absorption of control sample with
normal quartz aggregates are presented in Figs. 8.a, 9.a and 10.a.
In almost all the samples, the water uptake of the samples with
3 days of curing and 7 days of curing is similar and moderate incre-
ment is observed when the curing days increase to 14 days. This
Fig. 10. Development water uptake of the cubic samples for a) control samples and samples with 5% + 5% to 25% + 25% RPW and RCG.
495
can be related to development of micro cracks at high aging that
increases the number of capillary pipes in the sample. Further
increase in aging of the sample results in very little change in the
capillary uptake. It should be noted that the water uptake of sam-
ples with RCG aggregates replacement has almost dropped to half
compare with that of the control samples. This is due to insignifi-
cant water absorption of RCG samples. Although water absorption
of RPW is similar to RCG aggregates, the samples with RPW
replaced aggregates show similar water uptake to that of control
samples. This could be due to the presence of large capillary pipes
between the RPW aggregates and mortar, as identified as gap in
Fig. 7.b.
4. Conclusions
This research study indicated that the mechanical properties of
concrete loaded with RPW and RCG as partial replacement for
coarse aggregate are comparable to those of standard concrete.
Based on these findings, the research suggests that incorporating
waste plastic and recycled glass in concrete can be a feasible solu-
tion in promoting sustainable engineering.
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) for the controlled sam-
ple was approximately 58 MPa after 28 days curing whilst for 10%
RPW was 38 MPa and 10% RCG was 55 MPa respectively. The
higher the percentage of mixture of plastics and glass fines in the
samples, the lower the UCS. While for the mixed 5% RPW and 5%
RCG, the UCS was 43 MPa.
496 A. Mohammadinia et al. / Construction and Building Materials 197 (2019) 489–496
Indirect Tensile Strength for the controlled sample was approx-
imately 3.5 MPa after 28 days curing whilst for 10% RPW was
3.1 MPa and 10% RCG was 4.0 MPa respectively. For the mixed 5%
RPW and 5% RCG, the Indirect Tensile Strength was 3.5 MPa.
Although the loss of adhesion between the gel and the aggregates
along with low aggregate crushing values of the added recycled
materials reduced the compressional strength of the sample, the
tensile strength was mainly controlled by the cement gel matrix
of binders and had marginal impact on strength.
The uptake of water by capillary pipes in all the samples tested
showed moderate increment and very little differences among the
control, RPW and RCG samples.
The results from this study show the viability of use of RCG and
RPW in footpath construction up to 50% replacement of aggregates
by volume. This offers a big potential market which can have a
large impact in depletion of plastic and glass landfills. This has a
significant impact in sustainable recycling of plastic waste and
glass aggregates.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sustainability Victoria
(Contract No. C-09433) and Polytrade Recycling Pty Ltd for
providing the funding for this research project. The assistance of
J.P. Panchal, K.H. Mohiyuddeen and A. Nizar is acknowledged.
References
[1] M.J. Doyle, W. Watson, N.M. Bowlin, S.B. Sheavly, Plastic particles in coastal
pelagic ecosystems of the Northeast Pacific ocean, Mar. Environ. Res. 71 (1)
(2011) 41–52.
[2] J.R. Jambeck, R. Geyer, C. Wilcox, T.R. Siegler, M. Perryman, A. Andrady, R.
Narayan, K.L. Law, Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science 347
(6223) (2015) 768–771.
[3] Christophe Brulliard, Rebecca Cain, Daphne Do, Tim Dornom, Katherine Evans,
Brendan Lim, Erica Olesson, Suzi Young, The Australian recycling sector, 2012
report, in: E. Department of Sustainability, Water, Population and
Communities (Ed.) 2012.
[4] R. Siddique, J. Khatib, I. Kaur, Use of recycled plastic in concrete: a review,
Waste Manage. 28 (10) (2008) 1835–1852.
[5] J.M. Bang, Ecovillages: A Practical Guide to Sustainable Communities, Society
Publishers, New, 2005.
[6] I.B. Topcu, M. Canbaz, Properties of concrete containing waste glass, Cem.
Concr. Res. 34 (2) (2004) 267–274.
[7] B. Andrews, J. Rebecchi, Guide to pavement technology: part 4E: recycled
materials, (2009).
[8] S. Clay, D. Gibson, J. Ward, Sustainability Victoria: influencing resource use,
towards zero waste and sustainable production and consumption, J. Cleaner
Prod. 15 (8) (2007) 782–786.
[9] J. Wartman, D.G. Grubb, A. Nasim, Select engineering characteristics of crushed
glass, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 16 (6) (2004) 526–539.
[10] A. Shayan, A. Xu, Value-added utilisation of waste glass in concrete, Cem.
Concr. Res. 34 (1) (2004) 81–89.
[11] Standards Australia, Methods for sampling and testing aggregates, Method
11.1: Particle size distribution-Sieving method, Standards Australia, (2009).
[12] N. Sivakugan, A. Arulrajah, M.W. Bo, Laboratory Testing of Soils, Rocks, and
Aggregates, J. Ross Publishing, 2011.
[13] Standards Australia, Particle Density and Water Absorption of Coarse
Aggregate - Weighing-in-Water Method. Australian Standard 1141.6.1,
Australian Standard, Sydney, Australia, 2000.
[14] ASTM C39, Compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens, (2005).
[15] ASTM C496, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, United States, 2004.
[16] ASTM C1403, Standard Test Method for Rate of Water Absorption of Masonry
Mortars, ASTM International, United States, 2015.
[17] A.M. Neville, J.J. Brooks, Concr. Technol. (1987).
[18] ASTM C33, Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM
International, United States, 2018.
[19] P. White, AUS-Spec #1- section 261 : Developer Specification Series, City of
Greater Dandenong, (2015).