Anda di halaman 1dari 7

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy

Waste Management 30 (2010) 285–290

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

An investigation on the use of shredded waste PET bottles as aggregate in


lightweight concrete
Semiha Akçaözoğlu a,*, Cengiz Duran Atisß b, Kubilay Akçaözoğlu c
a
Department of Architecture, Nigde University, Nigde 51100, Turkey
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri 38039, Turkey
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Nigde University, Nigde 51100, Turkey

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

Article history: In this work, the utilization of shredded waste Poly-ethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottle granules as a
Accepted 23 September 2009 lightweight aggregate in mortar was investigated. Investigation was carried out on two groups of mortar
Available online 22 October 2009 samples, one made with only PET aggregates and, second made with PET and sand aggregates together.
Additionally, blast-furnace slag was also used as the replacement of cement on mass basis at the replace-
ment ratio of 50% to reduce the amount of cement used and provide savings. The water–binder (w/b)
ratio and PET–binder (PET/b) ratio used in the mixtures were 0.45 and 0.50, respectively. The size of
shredded PET granules used in the preparation of mortar mixtures were between 0 and 4 mm. The results
of the laboratory study and testing carried out showed that mortar containing only PET aggregate, mortar
containing PET and sand aggregate, and mortars modified with slag as cement replacement can be drop
into structural lightweight concrete category in terms of unit weight and strength properties. Therefore,
it was concluded that there is a potential for the use of shredded waste PET granules as aggregate in the
production of structural lightweight concrete. The use of shredded waste PET granules due to its low unit
weight reduces the unit weight of concrete which results in a reduction in the death weight of a struc-
tural concrete member of a building. Reduction in the death weight of a building will help to reduce
the seismic risk of the building since the earthquake forces linearly dependant on the dead-weight. Fur-
thermore, it was also concluded that the use of industrial wastes such as PET granules and blast-furnace
slag in concrete provides some advantages, i.e., reduction in the use of natural resources, disposal of
wastes, prevention of environmental pollution, and energy saving.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction lightweight concrete has attracted much attention from the


researchers. This method provides both recycling of the plastic
Lightweight aggregate is an important material in reducing the waste and production of a lightweight concrete in an economical
unit weight of concrete to produce earthquake resistant structures way (Koide et al., 2002).
since the earthquake forces are linearly dependant on the mass of Polypropylene (PP), Poly-ethylene (PE), Poly-ethylene Tere-
the structure (Kilic et al., 2003). phthalate (PET) and Polystyrene (PS) are some of the plastic wastes
Lightweight aggregates are generally used to reduce the unit used in lightweight concrete. The PET bottles are ahead of the
weight of concrete by replacing the conventional aggregates. Now- wastes with its high increasing speed of consumption. At the
adays, there are many lightweight concrete applications made with beginning of 1980, PET bottles were begun to produce in Turkey
natural or artificial lightweight aggregates in the literature (Topcu at first time. Initially, the PET bottles were used as water package,
and Uygunoglu, 2007; Babu et al., 2005; Yasar et al., 2003; Demirb- however, later they were commonly used for packing various li-
oga and Gul, 2003; Malloy et al., 2001). However, the cost of arti- quid foods (Pagev, 2008).
ficial lightweight aggregate production is high due to Due to the rapid increase in the use of PET bottles, solid waste
requirement of high incineration temperature or thermal treat- problem is raised. It is known that a long time (more than a hun-
ment (Topcu, 2006). dred years) is needed to degrade the waste PET bottles in the nat-
Therefore, different from the common materials, using waste ure (Silva et al., 2005). Therefore, one of the reasonable methods
plastic granules as lightweight aggregate in the production of for disposal of PET wastes, which causes environmental pollution,
is using these wastes in the other industrial areas. Industry of con-
struction engineering area seems to be appropriate with its high
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 388 225 2298; fax: +90 388 225 0112. consumption capacity. This area can consume a large amount of
E-mail address: sakcaozoglu@nigde.edu.tr (S. Akçaözoğlu). PET wastes.

0956-053X/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2009.09.033
Author's personal copy

286 S. Akçaözoğlu et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 285–290

In the recent years, a lot of experimental studies were carried Table 2


out on using waste PET bottles as resin in polymer concrete (Rebeiz PET aggregate and sand gradations.

et al., 1991; Rebeiz, 1995; Rebeiz and Fowler, 1996; Abdel-Azim, particle size range (mm) PET (%) Sand (%)
1996; Tawfik and Eskander, 2006). Polymer concrete is produced dmax dmin
by replacing polymer with cement binders partially. In comparison
4 2 15 27.3
to cement based materials, the cost of polymer concrete produc- 2 1 67 19
tion is very high because of the high cost of virgin resins. Using 1 0.5 16 17.3
waste PET bottles in the production of polyester resin decreases 0.5 0.25 2 28.4
the cost of resin manufacture when compared to conventional nor- 0.25 0 0 8
100 100
mal resin production (Rebeiz et al., 1991). Unsaturated polyester
resin based on recycled PET can be used to produce a good-quality
polymer concrete (Siddique et al., 2008). However, the cost of pro-
ducing polymer concrete from waste plastics is still high. Table 3
The other method is using waste PET bottles as PET fiber to pro- Sand grading with standard limit.
duce fiber reinforced concrete (Silva et al., 2005; Ochi et al., 2007). Sieve size Passed
However, the volumetric amount of fiber content in the fiber rein- (mm)
TS 706 lower TS 706 medium TS 706 upper Sand
forced concrete is between 0.3% and 1.5%. This way recycles the limit limit limit used
small amount of plastic waste.
4 100 100 100 100
The most economical use of waste PET bottles in concrete is
2 59 75 84 72.7
seemed to be that using shredded waste PET bottles directly as 1 33 57 66 53.7
aggregate in the concrete or mortar production. Thus, the use of 0.5 20 36 47 36.4
PET wastes as aggregate in concrete will provide benefit in the dis- 0.25 8 14 25 8
posal of wastes and reduce the environmental damages due to the
use of natural mineral aggregates resources. ecological advantages apart from the energy savings and contri-
Limited research has been carried out on using waste PET gran- bution to the properties of strength and durability of concrete.
ules as aggregate in concrete or mortar. In these studies, PET and
the other plastic wastes (PE and PP) were used together by par-
tially replacing with mineral aggregates (Shehata et al., 1996; 2. Properties of materials used
Koide et al., 2002; Gavela et al., 2004; Choi et al., 2005). Marzouk
et al. (2007) used only waste PET granules as aggregate in light- The cement used was ASTM Type I Normal Portland Cement (NPC
weight concrete. They concluded that, plastic bottles shredded into 42.5 N/mm2). Initial and final setting times of the cement were 230
small PET particles may be used successfully as sand-substitution and 330 h, respectively. The specific gravity of the cement used
aggregates in cementitious concrete composities. was 3.09 g/cm3 and Blaine specific surface area was 3220 cm2/g.
The main aim of this study is to investigate the influence of GBFS used was obtained from Iskenderun Iron-Steel Factory lo-
the use of shredded waste PET granules on the properties of mor- cated in Southern Turkey. According to ASTM C-989, 1994 hydrau-
tar. This is achieved by examining physical and mechanical prop- lic activity index, the GBFS used was classified as a category 80
erties of mortars containing PET aggregates. Some mortar slag. The specific gravity was 2.81 g/cm3 and Blaine specific surface
mixtures were prepared by using only waste PET granules, and area was 4250 cm2/g. The chemical composition of cement and
some mortar mixtures were prepared with sand and waste PET GBFS are given in Table 1.
granules together. The shredded waste PET bottle granules used as aggregate were
In addition, Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GBFS) was used in supplied from a commercial company SASA PET Bottles Plant, in
large amounts as a replacement of cement in concrete and mortar Adana, in Southern Turkey. It was obtained by picking up waste
for decades. The use of GBFS in concrete exists in the standard of BS PET bottles and washing, then crushing in granules by machines.
EN 15167-1 (2006). It is reported in many investigations that, the Maximum size of PET aggregate was 4 mm, and its specific gravity
use of GBFS in concrete as a cement replacement has positive influ- was 1.27 g/cm3. The grading of the PET aggregate is presented in
ence on the properties of the fresh and hardened concrete. GBFS in- Table 2.
creases workability of fresh concrete and mortars (Tokyay, 2003; Uncrushed, quartzitic, natural sand with maximum size of
Erdogan, 2003). Because of its low heat of hydration and its ther- 4 mm was used in this investigation. The absorption value of the
mal development is going forward slowly, using GBFS in great ra- sand was 0.83% and, the relative density at saturated surface dry
tios decreases the high temperature occurred in casting large block (SSD) condition was 2.66 g/cm3. The grading of sand measured
concretes. In addition, it decreases the risk of thermal cracking and according to TS 706 EN 12620 (2003) is presented in Tables 2
also provides economical benefits (Osborne, 1999). It improves and 3 with the standard specification. It can be seen from these ta-
strength, reduces permeability and porosity, reduces alkali-silica bles that the current sand can be used in mortar production.
expansion of hardened mortars and concretes (Geiseler et al.,
1995; Soroka, 1993; Atis and Bilim, 2007). 3. Mortar mixture proportions, sample preparation and testing
Therefore in this study, GBFS was also employed as a partial methods
cement replacement to obtain savings from the amount of ce-
ment used in the production of lightweight mortar made with The PET–binder (PET/b) ratio used in the mixtures was 0.50; the
lightweight PET aggregates. The use of GBFS in concrete provides water–binder (w/b) ratio was 0.45. Normal Portland Cement (NPC)

Table 1
Chemical composition of Normal Portland Cement (NPC) and Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GBFS).

Oxide (%) SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 K2O Na2O LOI
NPC 20.23 5.78 4.07 61.95 2.94 2.66 0.87 0.11 0.72
GBFS 36.70 14.21 0.98 32.61 10.12 0.99 0.76 0.42 –
Author's personal copy

S. Akçaözoğlu et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 285–290 287

and Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GBFS) were used as the binder. unit weights of M1 and M2 mixtures (containing only PET aggre-
GBFS was used as a partial replacement of cement on mass basis at gate) were 1679 and 1694 kg/m3. The fresh unit weights of M3
the replacement ratio of 50%. Only waste PET granules were used and M4 mixtures (containing PET and sand aggregate together)
as aggregate in the M1 and M2 mixtures. Sand and PET aggregates were 1942 and 1937 kg/m3. The dry unit weights of all specimens
were used together in the M3 and M4 mixtures. In the M3 and M4 decreased in course of time due to the evaporation of free water.
mixtures, PET–sand ratio was 0.50. The proportions of mortar mix- The dry unit weight values of M1 and M2 were between 1533
tures are given in Table 4. The binder of M1 and M3 mixtures was and 1578 kg/m3. The dry unit weights of M3 and M4 mixtures were
only cement. It was cement and slag for M2 and M4 mixtures. between 1781 and 1848 kg/m3. The unit weight of M2 is lower
Prismatic specimens with 40  40  160 mm dimensions were than the unit weight of M1 and, the unit weight of M4 is lower
prepared from fresh mortar mixtures. They were demoulded after than the unit weight of M3 mixture. This is explained in the follow-
a day. Later, they were cured in water at 22 ± 2 °C, until the sam- ing. Since the specific gravity of GBFS was lower than NPC, the dry
ples were tested for compressive and flexural-tensile strength unit weights of the mortars made with GBFS (M2 and M4) were
and water absorption measurements. In addition, the fresh and lower than the mortars containing only NPC as the binder (M1
dry unit weights, carbonation depths and drying shrinkage values and M3).
of the mortar specimens were also measured.
The compressive and flexural-tensile strength values of mortar
specimens were measured by using the test methods according to 4.2. Compressive and flexural-tensile strength
TS EN 1015-11 (2000). The flexural-tensile strength measurements
were performed on the prismatic specimens by three points load- ACI Committee definition states that compressive strength of a
ing test. The compressive strength measurements were carried out structural lightweight concrete at 28 days should be higher than
using the broken pieces of the prism specimens obtained from flex- 15–17 MPa and air dry unit weight of a structural lightweight con-
ural-tensile strength measurement. The strength measurements of crete should be lower than 1850 kg/m3 (ACI Committee 213R,
mortars were performed at 1, 3, 7, 28, 90 and 180 days. The water 1987). The air dry unit weights of the four mixtures presented in
absorption and porosity ratios of mortars were measured at Table 5 were equivalent or lower than 1850 kg/m3; in other words,
28 days using the methods described in TS 3624 (1981). they complied with the above definition in terms of unit weight.
The drying shrinkage values of mortars were determined The compressive strength values of mortars measured in the
according to TS 3453 (1981). For the shrinkage measurements, laboratory are presented in Table 6. Table 6 shows that the com-
the prismatic specimens with 25  25  285 mm dimensions were pressive strength values at 28 days of the mortar specimens were
prepared and demoulded after a day and they were placed into the quite higher than 17 MPa. When the unit weight and compressive
humidity cabinet at 22 ± 2 °C with 65% RH. Initial lengths of shrink- strength values are considered together, M1, M2, M3 and M4 mix-
age specimens were measured before placing them into the tures can be classified as a structural lightweight concrete or
humidity cabinet. The shrinkage measurements were carried out mortar.
at every week until the 90 days, after 90 days they were measured The 28 days compressive strength values of the mixtures con-
at every month until the 180 days. taining only PET aggregates (M1 and M2) were 22.4 and
All testing measurements were obtained from three samples, 26.5 MPa. These values reached 26.8 and 28.8 MPa at 180 days,
and the average of three samples was presented and discussed in respectively. The compressive strengths of M3 and M4 mixtures
the study. (including PET and sand aggregate together) were 27.0 and
28.3 MPa at 28 days. At 180 days, their levels raised to 30.6 and
31.1 MPa, respectively. It was seen from these results that, the
4. Results and discussion compressive strengths of the mixtures containing sand and PET to-
gether were higher than the mixtures containing PET without sand.
4.1. Unit weight This was an expected result. Nevertheless, the compressive
strength values of PET aggregates mixtures (M1 and M2) were
Measured fresh unit weights and dry unit weights of mortar found to be satisfactory.
specimens at 3, 28 and 180 days are presented in Table 5. The fresh The compressive strength values of standard control normal
weight mortar mixture which is prepared for comparison purposes
were 37.3, 46.3 and 48.9 MPa at 7, 28 and 90 days, respectively.
Table 4 The 28-day compressive strengths of modified mortars containing
The proportions of the mortar mixtures by weight (%).
PET were compared with the 28-day compressive strength of con-
Mixture name Binder Aggregate trol mortar. The compressive strength ratio of mortars produced in
NPC GBFS PET Sand Water Total this investigation to compressive strength of control mortar were
48% for M1; 57% for M2, 58% for M3 and 61% for M4 mixtures. From
M1 51.28 – 25.64 – 23.08 100
M2 25.64 25.64 25.64 – 23.08 100 this result, it can be concluded, the lightweight mortars produced
M3 33.90 – 16.95 33.90 15.25 100 using PET aggregate in this investigation developed about 50%
M4 16.95 16.95 16.95 33.90 15.25 100 strength of normal weight mortar.
The flexural-tensile strengths of the mortars are presented in
Table 7. It can be seen from Table 7 that, the flexural-tensile
Table 5
Fresh and dry unit weights (kg/m3) of mortars produced.
Table 6
Mixture name Fresh unit weight Dry unit weight Compressive strength (MPa) of mortars produced.

3 days 28 days 180 days Mixture 1 day 3 days 7 days 28 days 90 days 180 days
M1 1679 1578 1561 1556 M1 12.3 17.9 20.2 22.4 26.0 26.8
M2 1694 1576 1552 1533 M2 6.8 13.8 20.3 26.5 27.8 28.8
M3 1942 1848 1840 1828 M3 14.4 22.5 23.6 27.0 28.8 30.6
M4 1937 1795 1789 1781 M4 8.4 15.4 21.9 28.3 29.6 31.1
Author's personal copy

288 S. Akçaözoğlu et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 285–290

Table 7 Table 8
Flexural-tensile strength (MPa) of mortars produced. Flexural-tensile and compressive strength ratios of mortars produced.

Mixture 1 day 3 days 7 days 28 days 90 days 180 days Mixture 1 day 3 days 7 days 28 days 90 days 180 days Average
M1 2.2 3.9 4.4 4.7 5.8 6.7 M1 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.22
M2 2.0 3.1 3.9 4.8 5.2 6.1 M2 0.30 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.21
M3 2.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.7 6.8 M3 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.20
M4 1.5 3.2 3.7 4.8 5.5 6.0 M4 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.19

strength values of M1 and M2 mixtures were 4.7 and 4.8 MPa at of flexural-tensile and compressive strength ratios were 0.22 and
28 days. The 28 days flexural-tensile strength values of M3 and 0.21 for M1 and M2 mixtures, 0.20 and 0.19 for M3 and M4 mix-
M4 mixtures were 4.8 MPa. It can be observed from that, the flex- tures. These ratios were found to be similar to the normal weight
ural-tensile strength values containing only PET aggregate were mortar.
close to the mortars containing PET and sand aggregate together.
This situation continued until 180 days.
4.3. Water absorption and porosity ratio
The flexural-tensile strength values of control mortars at 7, 28
and 90 days were 9.4, 10.5 and 10.8 MPa, respectively. The ratios
It was stated in the literature that lightweight concrete absorbs
of the 28-day flexural-tensile strengths of M1, M2, M3 and M4
more water than normal concrete and its water absorption ratio is
mortars to control mortar were about 46%.
between 12% and 22% (Topcu, 2006). The water absorption and
The compressive strength values in Table 6 are presented in
porosity ratios of the current mortar specimens at 28 days are gi-
Fig. 1 as a chart. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that, the compressive
ven in Table 9. The water absorption ratios of the specimens con-
strengths of mortars produced in this investigation developed rap-
taining only PET aggregate (M1 and M2) were 13.4% and 14.8%;
idly at an early age up to 28 days, however, after 28 days the speed
it was 11.9% and 12.3% for M3 and M4 mixtures, respectively.
of compressive strength developments slowed down in long term.
These values were found to be within the water absorption limits
This result was found to be similar to the strength development of
of lightweight concrete.
normal weight mortar.
The water absorption and porosity ratios of the mortars modi-
It can be observed from Table 6 that, in general, the compres-
fied with slag were higher than the cement mortars at 28 days. This
sive strength of the mortars modified with slag as cement
is because, also stated in the literature that, the hydration of GBFS
replacement catched up the compressive strength of the cement
with water was slower than the hydration of NPC with water (Bi-
mortars at 7 and 28 days. After that, they passed the compressive
lim, 2006). The water absorption ratios of mortars containing PET
strength of mortars made with only cement as the binder.
and sand aggregate together (M3 and M4) were lower than the
Replacement of cement with GBFS increased the compressive
mortars containing only PET aggregate (M1 and M2). However,
strength of mortar when compared to strength of mortar made
porosity ratios of M3 and M4 mixtures were higher than M1 and
with cement only. This could be seen from Fig. 1 that strengths
M2 mixtures.
development of M2 and M4 were better than the strength devel-
opments of M1 and M3. It was stated in the literature that, the
strength of concrete modified with slag as cement replacement 4.4. Carbonation depth
was lower than the strength of NPC concrete at early ages. How-
ever when it was cured adequately, its strength could be equiva- During the carbonation process, calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)
lent or higher than the control concrete in long term (Fernandez reacts with carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. Carbon-
and Malhotra, 1990; Yeau and Kim, 2005; Bilim, 2006; Yazici, ation can be visualized by using phenolphthalein. For measuring
2006; Oner and Akyuz, 2007). The result observed in this study the carbonation depths of mortars, phenolphthalein solution was
for slag mortars was found to be compatible with the literature. applied on the broken surfaces of the half pieces obtained from
However, the flexural-tensile strengths of slag mortars were flexural-tensile strength test prismatic specimens (40  40
equivalent to the cement mortars.  160 mm) which were cured in dry laboratory condition. Non-
The flexural-tensile strength values were divided by the com- carbonated internal areas turned purple colour while carbonated
pressive strength values of the same mortars, and the ratios are outside areas remained colourless in the 40  40 mm dimen-
given in Table 8. It is seen from Table 8 that, the average values sions area after the solution applied (see Fig. 2). Results of
carbonation depth measurement of mortars are presented in Ta-
ble 10.
Table 10 shows that, carbonation depths of mortars increased
35
depending on increasing CO2 amount penetrated into the samples
31.1
30 30.6 which increased in time. Carbonation depths of M1 and M2 speci-
28.8 mens at 28 days were 1.2 and 1.7 mm. These values reached 5.0
Compressive Strength (MPa)

26.8 and 7.6 mm at 180 days, respectively. Similarly, the carbonation


25
depths of M3 and M4 mortars at 28 days were 1.4 and 2.5 mm.
20 These values increased in time, and they reached 5.9 and 8.5 mm

15
Table 9
M1 M2 M3 M4
10 Water absorption and porosity ratios (%) of mortars produced at 28 days.

Mixture Water absorption Porosity


5
M1 13.4 23.7
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
M2 14.8 25.3
Time (Day) M3 11.9 24.4
M4 12.3 25.7
Fig. 1. Compressive strengths of mortars.
Author's personal copy

S. Akçaözoğlu et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 285–290 289

0,30
M1 M2 M3 M4
0,25 0.25
0.23

Length Change (%)


0,20

0.16
0,15 0.15

0,10

0,05
Fig. 2. Phenolphthalein reaction on carbonated mortars.
0,00
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (Day)
Table 10
Fig. 4. Length change of mortar produced versus time.
Carbonation depths (mm) of mortars.

Mixture 3 days 7 days 28 days 90 days 180 days


M1 0 0.3 1.2 4.3 5.0
M2 0 0.3 1.7 5.5 7.6 that, the porosity ratios of M3 and M4 mixtures were higher than
M3 0 0 1.4 4.8 5.9 M1 and M2 mixtures. It was understood from this result that, PET
M4 0 0.6 2.5 6.8 8.5
and sand aggregates used together did not combine with each
other sufficiently. Thus, M3 and M4 mortars were more porous
than M1 and M2 mortars, therefore more CO2 penetrated in the
M3 and M4 mortars from their pores.

10
M1 M2 M3 M4 4.5. Drying shrinkage
8.5
8 The drying shrinkage values of the mortars measured are pre-
7.6
sented in Table 11 and Fig. 4. The length change values of M1
Carbonation (mm)

6 5.9 and M2 mixtures were 0.17% at 28 days; these values increased


5.0 to 0.25% and 0.23% at 180 days, respectively. The drying shrink-
4 age values of M3 and M4 mixtures 0.12% and 0.11% at 28 days.
These values increased by time and, they were 0.16% and 0.15%
2 at 180 days. These values were higher than that of the concrete
containing only mineral aggregate. This result is mainly due to
the amount of cement dosage used in this study. Secondly, the
0
use of PET results in an increase in the shrinkage. This result
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
was found to be parallel to the published literature (Shehata
Time (Day)
et al., 1996; Koide et al., 2002; Gavela et al., 2004). It can be ob-
Fig. 3. Carbonation depths of mortars. served from Fig. 4 that, the shrinkage values of the mortars con-
taining PET and sand together (M3 and M4) were quite lower
than the mortar containing only PET aggregate (M1 and M2).
at 180 days, respectively. The carbonation values observed in Table This result shows that, the mineral aggregates (sand) used with
10 signified in a graph at Fig. 3. PET aggregates together prevented the shrinkage of cement
It can be observed from Fig. 3 that, carbonation depths of pastes. In addition, the cement dosage in M3 and M4 mixture,
M2 and M4 mortars (modified with slag) were higher than which was also lower than the cement dosage in M1 and M2
M1 and M3 mortars (used only cement as binder). The results mixtures, was the another reason of the lower shrinkage. Neville
published in the literature were found to be in line with the and Brooks (1993) stated that, reducing the cement amount in
current study. Newman and Choo (2003) and Bilim (2006) re- the concrete mixtures reduces the shrinkage.
ported that carbonation depth of concrete or mortar containing The shrinkage values of the slag mortars produced in this inves-
slag was higher than the carbonation of concrete or mortar tigation were lower than the cement mortars regardless of aggre-
made without slag. gate type PET or sand aggregates. It can be concluded from these
The carbonation values of M3 and M4 mortars were higher than results that replacing cement with GBFS in the PET or PET and sand
M1 and M2 mortars at all days. It can also be seen from Table 9 aggregate mortars reduces the shrinkage.

Table 11
Drying shrinkage values (%) of mortars.

Mixture Days
7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 90 120 150 180
M1 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.25
M2 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.23 0.23
M3 0.08 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16
M4 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15
Author's personal copy

290 S. Akçaözoğlu et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 285–290

5. Conclusions Fernandez, L., Malhotra, V.M., 1990. Mechanical properties, abrasion resistance and
chloride permeability of concrete incorporating granulated blast-furnace slag.
Cement, Concrete and Aggregates 12 (2), 87–100.
From this laboratory work, following conclusions were made. Gavela, S., Karakosta, C., Nydriotis, C., Kaselouri-Rigopoulou, V., Kolias, S., Tarantili,
P.A., Magoulas, C., Tassios, D., Andreopoulos, A., 2004. A Study of concretes
containing thermoplastic wastes as aggregates. In: Conference on the Use of
1. Mortar containing only PET aggregate, mortar containing PET
Recycled Materials in Building and Structures, Barcelona, Spain.
and sand aggregate, and mortars modified with slag as cement Geiseler, J., Kollo, H., Lang, E., 1995. Influence of blast-furnace cements on durability
replacement produced in this investigation drop into structural of concrete structures. ACI Material Journal 92 (3), 252–257.
Kilic, A., Atis, C.D., Yasar, E., Ozcan, F., 2003. High strength lightweight concrete
lightweight concrete category.
made with scoria aggregate containing mineral admixtures. Cement and
2. The water absorption values of the mortars produced in this Concrete Research 33 (10), 1595–1599.
investigation were within the limits of the lightweight concrete Koide, H., Tomon, M., Sasaki, T., 2002. Investigation of the use of waste plastic as an
absorption value. aggregate for lightweight concrete. Sustainable Concrete Construction, London,
177–186.
3. The shrinkage values of the mortars containing PET aggregates Malloy, R., Desai, N., Wilson, C., Swan, C., Jansen, D., Kashi, M., 2001. High carbon fly
were higher than the shrinkage values of the mortars contain- ash/mixed thermoplastic aggregate for use in lightweight concrete. In: Society
ing PET and sand aggregates. of Plastics Engineering, Annual Technical Conference, Dallas, TX, vol. 47, 2743–
2751.
4. The use of GBFS reduced the unit weight and shrinkage of the Marzouk, O.Y., Dheilly, R.M., Queneudec, M., 2007. Valorization of post-consumer
specimens. It increased the compressive strength and carbon- waste plastic in cementitious concrete composites. Waste Management 27,
ation depth of the samples. 310–318.
Neville, A.M., Brooks, J.J., 1993. Concrete Technology. Longman Scientific and
5. The unit weight and the compressive and flexural-tensile Technical, USA.
strength values and carbonation depths of the mortars contain- Newman, J., Choo, B.S., 2003. Advanced Concrete Technology: Constituent Materials.
ing PET and sand aggregates together were higher than the Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Ochi, T., Okubo, S., Fukui, K., 2007. Development of recycled PET fiber and its
mortars containing only PET aggregates. The shrinkage values
application as concrete-reinforcing fiber. Cement and Concrete Composities 29,
and water absorption ratios of mortars containing PET and sand 448–455.
together were lower than the mortars containing no sand. Oner, A., Akyuz, S., 2007. An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the
compressive strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites 29, 505–
6. Based on experimental study, the use of shredded waste PET
514.
granules in concrete or mortar has a potential to reduce the Osborne, G.J., 1999. Durability of Portland blast-furnace slag cement concrete.
death weight of concrete, thus, can reduce the earthquake risk Cement and Concrete Composites 21, 11–21.
of a building, and it could be helpful in the design of an earth- Pagev, 2008. Turkey Plastic Industry. Plastic consumption in Turkey and in the
world. <http://www.pagev.org.tr> (in Turkish).
quake resistant building. Rebeiz, K.S., 1995. Time–temperature properties of polymer concrete using recycled
7. The use of shredded waste PET granules and GBFS in mortar PET. Cement and Concrete Composites 17 (2), 119–124.
would be helpful for the environmental concern. Rebeiz, K.S., Fowler, D.W., 1996. Flexural strength of reinforced polymer concrete
made with recycled plastic waste. ACI Structural Journal 93 (5), 524–530.
Rebeiz, K.S., Fowler, D.W., Paul, D.R., 1991. Making polymer concrete with recycled
PET. Plastics Engineering 47 (2), 33–34.
Shehata, I., Shahram, V., Elsawy, A., Fahmy, M., 1996. The use of solid waste
Acknowledgements materials as fine aggregate substitutes in cementitious concrete composites. In:
Semisequicentennial Transportation Conference Proceedings, Iowa State
University, Iowa.
The authors would like thank Cukurova University Scientific Re- Siddique, R., Khatib, J., Kaur, I., 2008. Use of recycled plastic in concrete: a review.
search Projects Directorate that supported the present work (Pro- Waste Management 28, 1835–1852.
Silva, D.A., Betioli, A.M., Gleize, P.J.P., Roman, H.R., Gomez, L.A., Ribeiro, J.L.D., 2005.
ject number: MMF2006D23).
Degradation of recycled PET fibers in Portland cement-based materials. Cement
and Concrete Research 35, 1741–1746.
Soroka, I., 1993. Concrete in Hot Environments. National Building Research
References Institute, Faculty of Civil Eng., Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa.
Tawfik, M.E., Eskander, S.B., 2006. Polymer concrete from marble wastes and
Abdel-Azim, A.-A.A., 1996. Unsaturated polyester resins from poly(ethylene recycled poly(ethylene terephthalate). Journal of Elastomers and Plastics 38,
terephthalate) waste for polymer concrete. Polymer Engineering and Science 65–79.
36 (24), 2973–2977. Tokyay, M., 2003. Slags and cement containing slag, an evaluation report of cement
ACI Committee 213R, 1987. Guide for structural lightweight aggregate concrete. stage and literature review. TCMA, Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish).
Manual of Concrete Practice. Topcu, I.B., 2006. Concrete Technology. Ugur Press, Eskisehir, Turkey (in Turkish).
ASTM C-989, 1994. Standard specification for ground granulated blast furnace slag Topcu, I.B., Uygunoglu, T., 2007. Properties of autoclaved lightweight aggregate
for use in concrete and mortars. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. concrete. Building and Environment 42 (12), 4108–4116.
Atis, C.D., Bilim, C., 2007. Wet and dry cured compressive strength of concrete TS 3453, 1981. Test Method for Determining the Drying Shrinkage of Concrete
containing ground granulated blast-furnace slag. Building and Environment 42, Blocks. Turkish Standard Institution, Ankara (in Turkish).
3060–3065. TS 3624, 1981. Test Method for Determination the Specific Gravity the Absorption
Babu, D.S., Babu, G.K., Wee, T.H., 2005. Properties of lightweight expanded Water and the Void Ratio in Hardened Concrete. Turkish Standard Institution,
polystyrene aggregate concretes containing fly ash. Cement and Concrete Ankara (in Turkish).
Research 35, 1218–1223. TS 706 EN 12620, 2003. Aggregates for Concrete. Turkish Standard Institution,
Bilim, C., 2006. The Use of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag in Cement Based Ankara (in Turkish).
Materials. Ph.D. Thesis. Cukurova University, Institute of Natural and Applied TS EN 1015-11, 2000. Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 11:
Sciences, Adana, Turkey (in Turkish). Determination of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar.
BS EN 15167-1, 2006. Ground granulated blast furnace slag for use in concrete, Turkish Standard Institution, Ankara (in Turkish).
mortar and grout. Definitions, specifications and conformity criteria British- Yasar, E., Atis, C.D., Kilic, A., Gulsen, H., 2003. Strength properties of lightweight
adopted European Standard. concrete made with basaltic pumice and fly ash. Materials Letters 57, 2267–
Choi, Y.-W., Moon, D.-J., Chung, J.-S., Cho, S.-K., 2005. Effects of waste PET bottles 2270.
aggregate on the properties of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 35, Yazici, H., 2006. Investigation sulphate resistance of mortars with ground
776–781. granulated blast furnace slag. Denizli University, Engineering Faculty, Journal
Demirboga, R., Gul, R., 2003. The effects of expanded perlite aggregate, silica fume of Science and Engineering 8 (1), 51–58 (in Turkish).
and fly ash on the thermal conductivity of lightweight concrete. Cement and Yeau, K.Y., Kim, E.K., 2005. An experimental study on corrosion resistance of
Concrete Research 33, 723–727. concrete with ground granulated blast-furnace slag. Cement and Concrete
Erdogan, T.Y., 2003. Concrete. Metu Press, Ankara (in Turkish). Research 35, 1391–1399.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai