Next Article in Journal
Manufacturing Techniques for Mg-Based Metal Matrix Composite with Different Reinforcements
Next Article in Special Issue
Concrete Reinforced with Sisal Fibers (SSF): Overview of Mechanical and Physical Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Thermal Spike Responses and Structure Evolutions in Lithium Niobate on Insulator (LNOI) under Swift Ion Irradiation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Foam Glass Crystalline Granular Material from a Polymineral Raw Mix
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Crystals
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/cryst12070944
crystals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Step towards Sustainable Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste in Concrete: Overview on Mechanical, Durability and Microstructure Analysis

by
Jawad Ahmad
1,
Ali Majdi
2,
Ahmed Babeker Elhag
3,
Ahmed Farouk Deifalla
4,*,
Mahfooz Soomro
5,
Haytham F. Isleem
6,* and
Shaker Qaidi
7
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Military College of Engineering, Risalpur, Sub Campus of National University of Sciences and Technology, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
Department of Building and Construction Technologies and Engineering, Al-Mustaqbal University College, Hillah 51001, Iraq
3
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
4
Structural Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Future University in Egypt, New Cairo 11845, Egypt
5
Centre for Infrastructure Engineering, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
6
Department of Construction Management, Qujing Normal University, Qujing 655011, China
7
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Duhok, Duhok 42001, Iraq
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Crystals 2022, 12(7), 944; https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12070944
Submission received: 25 May 2022 / Revised: 19 June 2022 / Accepted: 29 June 2022 / Published: 5 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research of Construction and Building Materials in Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University in Crystals)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plastics have become an essential part of our daily lives, and global plastic production has increased dramatically in the past 50 years. This has significantly increased the amount of plastic garbage produced. Researchers have recently been interested in using trash and recyclable plastics in concrete as an ecologically acceptable building material. A large number of publications have been published that describe the behavior of concrete, containing waste and recovered plastic com ponents. However, information is scattered, and no one knows how plastic trash behaves as concrete materials. This research examines the use of plastic waste (PW) as aggregate or fiber in cement mortar and concrete manufacturing. The article reviewed the three most significant features of concrete: fresh properties, mechanical strength, and durability. PW and cement connections were also studied using microstructure analysis (scan electronic microscopy). The results showed that PW, as a fiber, enhanced mechanical performance, but PW, as a coarse aggregate, impaired concrete performance owing to poor bonding. The assessment also identified research needs in order to enhance the performance of PW-based concrete in the future.

1. Introduction

Cement, sand, coarse aggregate, water, and admixtures are used to make concrete. After water, concrete is the second most used material in the building construction [1,2,3]. The quality of aggregates, which make up 65–80 percent of the total quantity of concrete, have a significant impact on concrete strength [4]. By the end of 2025, the global materials construction industry expected a 59 percent growth in aggregate demand [5]. Due to the constant manufacture of concrete, natural resources are depleting, resulting in severe environmental consequences [6,7,8,9]. Fast economic growth and the emergence of a throw-away culture, on the other hand, have resulted in challenges in garbage managing and its dumping. To address this difficult issue, scholars have started looking at possible alternatives to replace natural aggregates and binding materials [10,11,12,13,14].
Various research studies have been done recently to substitute natural aggregate with waste by-products from manufacturing businesses, vehicles, and electrical items. Plastic’s widespread usage and manufacturing reached a total of 359 million tons in 2018 [15]. Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a thick plastic composed of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene [4].
China makes more plastic than any other nation, accounting for 15% of the world output. Figure 1 shows the worldwide production of plastics. Plastics, which are already a widespread element of daily life, are becoming more dependent on changes in social attitudes. As new materials are developed, policymakers are faced with new hurdles in controlling their negative impacts. Regulatory tools aimed at reducing the negative impacts of plastics on human health and the ecosystem require adaptations to the manufacturing process, the use of plastics, and the disposal patterns for plastics [16].
As a result of its adaptability, flexibility, and durability, plastic is employed in various parts of life, involving home and manufacturing usages. Due to its being lighter in weight than metal, plastic has gained prominence in electrical gadgets, packaging materials, and cars. However, as the world’s population grows and industrialization accelerates, so does the production of plastic garbage, which presents a huge environmental challenge. To lessen the negative environmental effects of plastic trash, it is critical to recycle and reuse it.
Studies from the 1990s to the current year, have been carried out on the use of plastic fibers to strengthen concrete, which were then followed by studies on the use of polymeric resins and, more recently, plastic aggregates [18]. Recycling garbage into mortar or concrete aggregates provides a number of environmental advantages, although their characteristics are often inferior to those of natural aggregates. This presents the question of determining the best substitution ratio to reduce undesirable substitution effects or enhance mortar properties [18]. Weight and density decline, reduction in absorption, improved toughness, improved ductility and impact resistance, improved acoustic and thermal insulation capacity, and so on, are all benefits of adding polymer waste to concrete in filler or fibers. Along with the foregoing enhancements, and depending on the sort of addition, undesirable consequences, such as those on material compressive strength or durability, might be detected owing to various processes [19,20].
Furthermore, waste plastic’s inherent qualities, such as poor fire resistance, surface roughness, and form, may dramatically affect the properties of concrete. As a consequence, substantial study into the influence of waste plastics in concrete has been conducted over the past three decades, as shown in Figure 2. It is clear that the quantity of papers has roughly grown tenfold over this time. Several concerns, however, remain unresolved.
The review provides a compressive overview of the utilization of PW in concrete. The review concentrates on the main characteristics of concrete, such as fresh properties (slump flow and fresh density), strength properties (compressive strength (CMS), split tensile strength (STS) and flexural strength (FLS)) and durability (water absorption, dry shrinkage and carbonation depth). Microstructure analyses were also considered to study PW and paste bonding. The successful review provides a guideline for researchers to understand the behaviors of PE as a concrete ingredient.

2. Physical Properties

The majority of the published research assessed the qualities of PW to be utilized in concrete. The physical qualities data of PW used by various researchers are organized in Table 1. It should be noted that PW has a near-zero absorption capacity, which will increase concrete flowability. It is also worth noting that the researchers reported varied outcomes. Some of them are rather different. The apparent density, for example, ranges from 350 to 1315 kg/m3. Changes in the source and kinds of PW might explain the disparity in findings.
Bottles, laptops, LCDs, monitors, and printers were among the plastic garbage collected, and the kind of plastic recovered was acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic. The plastic aggregates in this research are made by going through four processing steps. The PW was first washed to remove any dust or clay particles. The E-waste plastic was then crushed in an electric crusher into tiny flakes or shredded particles in the second phase. E-waste flakes were melted in a kiln in the third step. Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene plastic melts at roughly 105 degrees Celsius. Nevertheless, the kiln heat was raised to 200 degrees Celsius to assure optimal melting. Plastic flakes were melted and then chilled in water to make plastic rocks which were crushed to pebbles. Finally, plastic aggregates were created by crushing the plastic rocks. Figure 3 depicts a schematic design of aggregate manufacture. Figure 4 depicts the microstructure of plastic particles, which were non-uniform in shape and size. The non-uniform shape decreased the fluidity of concrete by increasing the friction among concrete constituents.

3. Fresh Properties

Workability

The slump values of different combinations of PW in concrete are shown in Table 2 and Figure 5. Figure 5 shows that, as compared to the control concrete, the slump of concrete mixes decreased as the amount of fine plastic aggregate increased.
The decreased is regardless of type, and these results were comparable with those of previous research [27]. However, plastic waste as fibers reduced the flowability of concrete. The decrease in flowability with fibers was due to a larger surface area which required a larger quantity to cover the surface areas [28,29]. Also, fiber enhanced the friction among concrete components which resulted in decreased flowability. Various researchers claimed that fibers reduce the flowability of concrete [30,31,32,33,34,35]. However, plastic waste as aggregate caused an increase in the flowability of concrete. The uneven angular form of the plastic elements contrasted with the smoothed shape of the sand grains caused this drop, which raised particle friction and lowered the workability of the combination. The circular structure of the particles enhanced flowability in general, but the rough sharp shape of the particles reduced the concrete slump [36]. It should be noted, however, that plastic trash may enhance the flowability of concrete. In comparison to sand, the plastic garbage employed in this research had little weight and a small particle size. Furthermore, as compared to sand, the waste had a smaller specific surface area. This aided in the mass gain of the waste generated by mortars. Also, compared to sand, it takes less water to wet the waste surface, which has a significant impact on the fluidity of the mortar [22]. In contrast to natural aggregates, plastic does not absorb water when mixed, according to Saikia et al. [5]. Their results demonstrated that adding PFA to concrete improves its workability. The lower water absorption capacity of plastic sand compared to natural aggregates, the comparatively smooth surface texture of plastic sand, and the correct gradation of PFA-like natural sand all contribute to the greater workability of concrete [24]. This improvement in flowability with the addition of plastic aggregate to concrete has also been reported in previous investigations when the plastic aggregate had a smooth surface [37]. The amount of water needed depends on the aggregate’s particular area and water absorption. The overall specific surface of the changed aggregates was smaller than predicted if a further substitution was undertaken, and, hence, might not offset the plastic’s non-absorbent qualities, resulting in slight increase in free water and workability [38]. As a result, the assessment suggests that additional research into the flowability qualities of concrete containing plastic trash be conducted.
Table
Table 2. Workability of Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste.
Table 2. Workability of Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste.
Reference Plastic Waste Slump (mm)
[24]0%, 10%, 15% and 20%30, 100, 120 and 160


[39]
Aspect ratio = 2.5
0%, 0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50%
Aspect ratio = 2.5
0%, 0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50%		120, 100, 80 and 60

120, 100, 70 and 55


[40]
Plastic fibers (0.25 mm)
0%, 0.40%, 0.75% and 1.25%
Plastic fibers (0.40 mm)
0%, 0.40%, 0.75% and 1.25%		65, 33, 18 and 13

65, 36, 22 and 17
[41]0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10%132, 126, 102, 80, 52 and 14
[23]Plastic fibers powder content (%)
0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%		70, 80, 90, 105 and 120

4. Mechanical Strength

4.1. Compressive Strength (CMS)

Concrete’s compressive strength (CMS) is one of its most essential and useful qualities. Concrete is used as a building material to withstand compressive forces. The CMS is utilized to determine the needed property at sites where tensile strength or shear strength is of main concern. As a result, CMS of concrete and cement mortar is a key feature that is carefully explored in practically all plastic aggregate research.
The CMS of concrete using PW as aggregate, or fibers, is shown in Figure 6 and Table 3. PW as fiber increased the CMS of concrete, whereas PW as aggregate lowered it.
The 28-day CMS of concrete may be reduced by up to 70% when 20 to 100 percent virgin sand is replaced with plastic aggregate [42]. Plastic fiber enhances CMS significantly. The supplement of 3% fiber improves the CMS of standard concrete specimens by 12.5 percent [26]. In comparison to other contents ranging from 0% to 2%, adding 1.5 percent plastic fibers increased CMS [43]. Hama et al. [44] employed three distinct forms of plastic trash to substitute sand in self-compacting concrete and found that rise in plastic content affects self-compacting concrete’s CMS. The CMS of concrete is reduced as the size of the plastic sand increases. Fine plastic, coarse plastic, and mixed plastic have CMSs of 47, 37 and 42 MPa, respectively, when 12.5 percent of natural sand is replaced with fine plastic. This is because of the poor bonding among mortar and plastic aggregate [42]. The hydrophobic nature of plastic aggregate and the poor interaction of plastic sand with the cement might explain the reduction in CMS. Plastic aggregates absorb very little water according to research [45], causing extra water in the mix. The extra water causes a film to develop around the aggregates, which produces poor interaction among the aggregates and the cement. SEM observations indicated obvious fractures between the cement matrix and plastic aggregates, as well as a water film around the aggregates, according to Pezzi et al. [46]. According to previous study [47], the fundamental cause of loss of strength is a weak interaction between plastic materials and cement. Despite the kind of plastic aggregate used or the curing time, the CMS of PET aggregate reduces as the replacement of plastic aggregate raises. After 28 days, the CMS of PP-containing concrete at all replacement levels, as well as concrete containing 5% PF, was more than 75% that of reference concrete. Although the rate of degradation was generally moderate, the CMS of concrete continued to worsen as the quantity of plastic fragments grew. The introduction of plastic components may have lowered bonding strength [48].
Table
Table 3. Summary of Compressive Strength (CMS).
Table 3. Summary of Compressive Strength (CMS).
Reference Plastic Waste Compression Strength (MPa)

[49]		PF
0%, 10%, 15% and 20%
PC
20% 		7 Days
21.5, 19.6, 18.16 and 16.6
28 Days
30.5, 27.5, 25.3 and 26
[24]0%,10%,15% and 20%28 Days
42, 38, 36 and 32
[25]0%, 5% and 15%WC
61.45, 70.25 and 65.21
OC
54.80, 66.17 and 59.77
[18]0%, 7.5% and 15%7 Days
33, 27 and 25
28 Days
37, 32 and 33
56 Days
45, 40 and 35


[39]
Aspect ratio = 2.5
0%, 0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50%
Aspect ratio = 2.5
0%, 0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50%
16, 15, 14 and 13

16, 14, 13 and 12


[40]
Plastic fibers (0.25 mm)
0%, 0.40%, 0.75% and 1.25%
Plastic fibers (0.40 mm)
0%, 0.40%, 0.75% and 1.25%
23.3, 24.1, 26.6 and 23.5

23.3, 26.2, 24.1,.23.4
[50]0%, 5%, 15% and 25%28 Days
47.31, 20.65, 4.28 and 1.63
[22] 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 50%3 Days
22, 18, 15, 15 and 17
7 Days
26, 22, 20, 18and 16
14 Days
32, 29, 25, 17 and 16
28 Days
60, 58, 52, 42 and 40.
[51]2 mm fibers
0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% and 40%		28 Days
82, 81, 80, 77, 72, 70, 68, 66 and 65
[52]0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%28 Days
27, 24, 20, 18 and 15
[53]PVC
0%, 2.5%, 5%, 10% and 20%		60 Days
32, 27, 20, 14 and 08
120 Days
40, 35, 22, 14 and 09
[41]0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10%7 Days
23.20, 21.2, 19.66, 15.33, 13 and 12.20
28 Days
35.05, 34.86, 32.46, 29.80, 22.73, 22.73 and 17.33
[54]PP plastic in fraction volume (%)
0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5% and 3.0%		7 Days
17, 18, 19, 16, 13, 12 and 11
28 Days
24, 23, 21, 20, 19, 18 and 18
[26]0%,1%,2% and 3%7 Days
34.67, 36.00, 39.11 and 41.78
14 Days
38.36, 40.22, 43.78 and 46.04
28 Days
44.22, 47.02, 48.22 and 49.78
[55]0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10%28 Days
21.26, 13.29, 14.43, 11.50, 6.60 and 5.70

[56]

0%, 5%, 10% and 15%		PP
3.7, 3.5, 3.4 and 3.0
PF
3.7, 3.6, 2.0 and 1.9
[57]0%, 15%, 30%, 45%, 60% and 75%28 Days
35.0, 42.0, 38.0, 32.8, 29.5 and 20.0
[23]0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%28 Days
20, 25, 26, 22 and 21
Oven Curing = OC. Water curing =WC. Plastic fine Aggregate = PF. Plastic Coarse Aggregate = PC. Polyvinylchloride = PVC. Plastic pellets = PP. Plastic flakes = PF.
A study [56] looked at the usage of plastic aggregates in the preparation of mortars. Substitution ratios of 5, 10 and 15% were examined, but only with sand measuring 1–2 mm in size. The CMS and FLS dropped as a result, which may be ascribed to the cementitious matrix weak interaction with the PET particles. It is important to remember that the shape and number of recycled particles used in mortars are significant factors to consider since they may create significant differences in mortar performance [56]. Owing to the inadequate connection among the aggregates and the cement matrix, CMS reduced when waste aggregate plastic was added. The majority of plastic particles in the concrete did not fail after reaching maximum strength. However, alternatively they de-bonded from the cement, demonstrating insufficient binding, as shown in Figure 7.

4.2. Flexural Strength (FLS)

Flexural strength is assessed in terms of stress and is described as a material’s capacity to withstand deformation under FLS load. At the collapse load, it reflects the greatest stress encountered inside the material. The most common test is the transverse bending test, with a three- or four-point FLS test procedure.
The FLS of concrete using PW as aggregate or fibers is shown in Figure 8 and Table 4. PW as fiber enhanced FLS of concrete in the same way as it did for CMS, while PW as aggregate reduced FLS. FLS ranged between 9 and 15 MPa. The FLS differences between PW concrete and conventional concrete were minimal. The plastic trash did not have strong, interlocking connections with the cement, as seen by the surface of the cracked samples [59]. The same rationale applies to the FLS behavior of concrete as it does to the loss of CMS, STS and the decrease of the modulus of elasticity caused by the integration of PET aggregate. After failure, the reference specimen separated into two parts, while the concrete beams combining PET concrete beam and plastic fiber did not. During the test, the PET concrete beam and plastic fiber particles bridged the fracture and saved the specimen from brittle failure [58]. Increased ductility and post-crack flexural toughness of concrete, resulted in almost comparable mechanical qualities (including impact resistance) to equivalent concrete reinforced with polypropylene and high-modulus polyethene fibers [60]. Using plastic cut from scrap plastic containers, concrete specimens containing 0.2–1.0 percent volume fractions of HDPE fibers were tested. The strength tests revealed that using HDPE fibers in a volume of 0.6 percent could boost concrete’s CMS, STS, FLS and impact strengths by up to 15 percent, 23 percent, 22 percent, and 200 percent, respectively, with only minor gains when increasing the fiber volumes to 0.8 percent and 1.0 percent [61]. The findings showed that adding PET fibers to mortars enhanced FLS while also increasing mortar toughness [39]. Various researchers have claimed that fibers improved the FLS of concrete due to crack prevention [62,63,64,65,66].As little as 0.75–1.25 percent of additional HDPE fibers (by volume) may keep concrete’s post-cracking tensile capability at 30–40 percent of its peak FLS capacity [40]. FLS improved with a rise in PF content of up to 1.75 percent by volume, according to research. Due to the uneven distribution of PFs, increasing the PF concentration reduced the strength, although the value was still greater than the control combination [43]. Other studies revealed similar outcomes for the same kinds of PF and contents [67].

4.3. Split Tensile Strength (STS)

As mentioned earlier, one of the most important and practical properties of concrete is its CMS. Concrete is a structural material that can sustain compressive pressures. In places where tensile or shear strength is important, compressive strength is used to estimate the required characteristic. The STS of concrete is usually between 10% and 15% of its compressive strength. The STS of concrete using PW as aggregate, or fibers is shown in Figure 9 and Table 5.
PW as fiber enhanced STS concrete similarly to compressive strength, whereas PW as aggregate lowered STS. Although recycled plastic fibers in the concrete mix do not greatly boost CMS and STS, they are nonetheless effective for limiting fractures, particularly those induced by shrinking and giving the concrete greater ductility. The fibers stitch the surfaces where the fissures appear. In other words, they prevent brittle and rapid fracture of a material that may display continued post-peak deformation depending on the kind and quantity of fibers utilized [52]. STS improved substantially, according to research [39]. Plastic fibers function to improve the bonding of concrete components and operate on a concept similar to reinforcing, acting as a conveyor medium for stresses in the cracking region, which explains the rise in STS [39]. The increase in STS is related to the fact that plastic fibers can stop fractures from spreading quickly [68]. The STS of the control mix was 4.47 MPa, whereas concrete containing 10, 15 and 20% plastic sand in lieu of natural sand had STS of 3.96, 3.5 and 3.19 MPa, respectively. When just fine plastic was used, the STS was reduced by 29% at maximum replacement. As previously noted, decreases in STS may be ascribed to the hydrophobic nature of plastic, increased surface area, and poor connection of plastic sand with cement matrix [24]. At 28 days of curing age, the addition of 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% HIPS granules reduced STS by 5.7 percent, 8.3 percent, 11.5 percent, and 16.6 percent, respectively [69]. The decreased bonding between the plastic and the cement paste, caused the STS to drop [70]. According to one research, as the percentage of sand replaced by PET particles grew, the STS of concrete decreased owing to the increased surface area of the fine plastic. Researchers agreed that, like coarse aggregate, replacement of fine plastic was inversely proportionate to concrete STS [71]. The STS of concrete comprising 10, 15 and 20% substitution of natural sand with plastic sand and cement with silica fume, respectively, were 4.13, 4.3 and 4.42 MPa. The reason for the increase in STS of silica fume-containing concrete mixes was the same as for the increase in compressive strength [37]. Silica fume has been shown to boost the STS of concrete in previous experiments [12,72,73,74,75,76,77].

5. Durability

5.1. Dry Shrinkage

The quick loss of surface bleed water owing to evaporation, as well as the physical and chemical features of additives, determine the shrinkage qualities of concrete. It has been found that having a proper curing technique and avoiding quick curing will help reduce shrinkage [78].
The findings of the shrinkage test with plastic as fibers or aggregate are shown in Figure 10, allowing for the conclusion that the use of recycled plastic aggregates reduced shrinkage. This drop might be linked to a modest reduction in drying capacity. Due to the rise in stiffness with hydration time, and since water evaporation from the capillaries causes shrinkage, slower evaporation caused slower shrinkage, equating to lessened shrinkage.
An effort was made to replace 5% of fine concrete aggregate (natural sand) with an equivalent quantity of PET aggregates generated from unwashed PET bottle trash by weight [79]. Kou et al. found that a little increase in drying shrinkage, ranging from 2.3 percent to 2.8 percent. [80] As the number of PVC particles in the mix grew, the drying shrinkage values decreased. After 112 days since demolding the concrete specimens, reductions of 18.1 percent, 31.6 percent, 48.7%, and 72.2 percent were recorded, with replacement rates of 5%, 15%, 30%, and 45 percent, respectively. According to research [81], the addition of plastic flakes may reduce drying shrinkage cracking. It was explored as to whether shredded waste PET bottle grains might be used as aggregate in mortar mixtures [82]. The scientists discovered that mixtures containing solely PET aggregate shrank more when dried than mixes comprising sand and PET. PET fibers’ influence on free and restricted shrinking was also investigated [83]. Various studies have shown that fibers reduce shrinkage due to crack prevention [84,85,86]. Free drying shrinkage strain was larger for recycled PET fiber reinforced concrete specimens than for specimens without fiber reinforcement. When shrinking was restricted, the fibers increased tensile resistance and delayed macro-crack formation. With a volume of 0.40–1.25% high-density plastic fibers added to concrete, crack widths were decreased by more than 50%, indicating that even a little amount of high-density plastic fibers may significantly minimize early plastic shrinkage cracking [40].

5.2. Water Absorption and Porosity

Figure 11 depicts the progression of porosity and water absorption for all mortars over the course of 28 days. The findings show that the porosity of all combinations diminished as the fraction of sand replaced by plastic trash increased.
A researcher [87] looked at how dry cast concrete blocks with low- and high-density polyethene performed. Water absorption testing revealed that all combinations, including polymer aggregates, had greater results. According to the findings of a study [88] that looked at the physical and mechanical properties of concrete mixes in which different volume fractions of sand were replaced with the same volume of plastic (3 percent, 10%, 20%, and 50%), the water absorption increased as the content of PET aggregates increased. Higher sorptivity coefficient values were reported when natural aggregates were replaced with PET fine aggregates in mortar formulations [37]. A study [89] investigated the impact of various PET aggregate sizes and replacement rates obtained from shredded bottles. When the depth of water penetration was tested, the findings revealed that adding gradually larger sizes and numbers of polymer aggregate fibers decreased the water permeability of concrete by a noteworthy magnitude of 17–42 percent. This demonstrated that HDPE FRC was more durable in use than ordinary concrete. Concrete reinforced with HDPE fibers has less water permeability and plastic shrinkage cracking, which means it will survive longer than plain concrete [40].

5.3. Density

Figure 12 shows the density of concrete made with plastic waste. It can be noted that the density of concrete was reduced with the substitution of plastic waste. Water absorption rose significantly as the quantity of recycled e-plastic components in concrete increased [90]. In comparison to the reference concrete, concrete containing 15% coarse e-plastic absorbed about 100 percent more water. A study [91] found that recycled plastic aggregates may replace natural sand in lightweight foam concrete by 10%, 25%, and 50%, respectively. They found that replacing 10% of the sand with plastic aggregates resulted in roughly the same amount of water absorption. However, this trend did not remain true when the amount of plastic in concrete increased. Plastic aggregates replaced 50 percent of the sand in concrete, increasing water absorption by 117 percent. The increased degree of porosity induced by the plastic particles was responsible for the considerable change in water absorption in concrete [53]. The low density of plastic particles, as well as an increase in porosity, are likely to blame for the drop in concrete density [92]. At 28 days, concrete containing 20% polyethene (PE) and PVC plastic aggregates increased porosity by roughly 200 percent and 140 percent, respectively [53].

5.4. Chloride Penetration

A study [82] investigated the use of PET as a natural aggregate alternative in mortars. Carbonation test findings showed that mortars using solely fine PET aggregates had lower carbonation depths than mixtures including both natural and plastic pebbles. Regarding PVC substituted natural aggregate, Kou et al. [80] observed a rise in chloride diffusion resistance. For concrete mixes with substitution rates of 5%, 15%, 30%, and 45 percent, the total charges passed in coulomb were lowered by 11.9 percent, 19.0 percent, 26.9%, and 36.2 percent, respectively. There is little information available in this area, thus more inquiry is necessary.

6. Scan Electronic Microscopy (SEM)

SEM micrographs of fragmented concrete surfaces with 0:25 mm and 0:40 mm HDPE fibers remaining embedded in 90-day-old concrete are shown in Figure 13. The HDPE fibers’ surfaces show no evidence of chemical breakdown, and the observable damage seems to be the consequence of surface friction when fibers were pulled out of concrete during testing.
Figure 13b illustrates a key flaw with simply extruded HDPE fibers, they do not cling well to concrete and are quickly pulled out when exposed to stress or other deformation when bridging fissures. The binding strength of these recycled HDPE fibers comes only from friction with the surrounding concrete, unlike commercially available PP fibers that have been chemically treated to generate hydrophilic characteristics.
SEM images of plastic aggregate are shown in Figure 14. The interfacial transition zone (ITZ) between plastic aggregate and binder tends to be broader than that between natural aggregate and cement paste. In comparison to the cement matrix and natural aggregates, the SEM study showed a lower adhesion between the cement matrix and PP aggregates. The existence of these pores may cause the compressive strength and unit weight of composite concretes to decrease. According to studies [6,93], poor adhesion between the recycled plastic granulates and the cement matrix causes a loss in the mechanical characteristics of the produced composites. The connection between the cement pastes and the plastic aggregates may be improved by chemically treating the surface of the plastic particles. A study [47] observed that chemical treatment with Calcium hypochlorite (Ca(ClO)2) increased the binding forces between the cementitious matrix and PET aggregates. As a result, the compressive strength increased.

7. Environmental Impacts

Plastics, synthetic fabrics, tires and rubber, as well as the PW employed in this study [92], are all products of the petrochemical industry. This form of garbage greatly adds to greenhouse gas emissions. The principal end product of the oxidation of carbon compounds in an incinerator is carbon dioxide (CO2). As a result, estimating the carbon dioxide emissions from the carbon content of burned garbage is reasonable. In the literature, the mass balance (or material balance) calculation approach is the most often mentioned. This method requires knowledge about the quantity of fossil carbon burned as well as the oxidation rate, which indicates the incineration efficiency.
The greenhouse gas emission variables for various PWs during incineration are summarized in Table 6. According to the research, the combustion of plastic trash emits a significant quantity of carbon dioxide. PE incineration emitted about 813 kg eq C/t, whereas PP incineration emitted approximately 812 kg eq C/t. In comparison to PE and PP, the burning of PVC produced the least quantity of carbon dioxide. Recycling plastic trash in concrete mixes is regarded as one of the most effective ways to reduce pollution caused by energy use, global warming and trash disposal.

8. Conclusions

A comprehensive review of existing research on the performance of recycled waste plastic in concrete was carried out. The effect of recycled waste plastics in the form of aggregate (fine or coarse) and fiber on the fresh, mechanical, and durability aspects of concrete has been studied. The detailed conclusions are provided below:
  • Flowability of concrete decreased with plastics fiber, due to the larger surface area. However, an increase in flowability was observed with plastic waste as aggregates due to less water absorption. Depending on the particle form, size, roughness, water-cement ratio, and volume of cement paste, the flowability of concrete may improve as the amount of fine recycled waste plastic aggregate rises.
  • Mechanical strength, such as compressive, flexural and tensile strength, decreased with plastic aggregate. The decrease in mechanical strength with plastic aggregate is because of a weak bonding between the plastic and the cement paste. Nevertheless, plastic fibers improved mechanical strength, due to crack prevention in a similar way to the other types of fibers.
  • The durability of concrete decreased with plastic aggregate while plastic fibers improved the durability of concrete. However, less information is available on the durability of concrete with plastic waste.
  • SEM results show that the poor bond of cement paste and aggregate adversely affects the durability and mechanical strength.
  • In addition, adding recycled PW into concrete mixes is seen as a viable method for minimizing plastic’s environmental effects in terms of pollution, energy consumption, trash disposal, and global warming.

9. Recommendation

  • The poor bond between cement paste and plastic aggregate can be improved with pozzolanic or filler materials. Therefore, the review recommends a detailed investigation of plastic-based aggregate with pozzolanic or filler materials.
  • Chemical treatment with Calcium hypochlorite (Ca(ClO)2) increased the binding between the cementitious matrix and plastic aggregates, according to Lee et al. [47]. However, there is not a lot of information, and a detailed investigation should be conducted.
  • The thermal properties and long-term durability of plastic-based aggregate concrete should be explored before being used practically.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, J.A.; Conceptualization, J.A., A.M. and M.S.; methodology, J.A.; software, A.B.E.; validation, A.F.D., A.M. and S.Q.; formal analysis, H.F.I.; investigation, M.S.; resources, A.M.; data curation, S.Q. and H.F.I.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.; writing—review and editing, A.F.D. and A.M.; visualization, A.F.D. and H.F.I.; supervision, H.F.I. and A.B.E.; project administration, J.A.; funding acquisition, A.F.D. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is funded by the deanship of King Khalid University under grant number RGP. RGP.2/152/43.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data are available in manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work through Large Groups Project under grant number RGP.2/152/43.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflict interest.

References

  1. Ahmad, J.; Martínez-García, R.; De-Prado-Gil, J.; Irshad, K.; El-Shorbagy, M.A.; Fediuk, R.; Vatin, N.I. Concrete with Partial Substitution of Waste Glass and Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Materials 2022, 15, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Smirnova, O.M.; Menéndez Pidal de Navascués, I.; Mikhailevskii, V.R.; Kolosov, O.I.; Skolota, N.S. Sound-Absorbing Composites with Rubber Crumb from Used Tires. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Oh, D.-Y.; Noguchi, T.; Kitagaki, R.; Park, W.-J. CO2 Emission Reduction by Reuse of Building Material Waste in the Japanese Cement Industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 38, 796–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gasperi, J.; Wright, S.L.; Dris, R.; Collard, F.; Mandin, C.; Guerrouache, M.; Langlois, V.; Kelly, F.J.; Tassin, B. Microplastics in Air: Are We Breathing It In? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal. 2018, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Saikia, N.; De Brito, J. Use of Plastic Waste as Aggregate in Cement Mortar and Concrete Preparation: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 385–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gu, L.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. Use of Recycled Plastics in Concrete: A Critical Review. Waste Manag. 2016, 51, 19–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Huang, S.; Wang, H.; Ahmad, W.; Ahmad, A.; Ivanovich Vatin, N.; Mohamed, A.M.; Deifalla, A.F.; Mehmood, I. Plastic Waste Management Strategies and Their Environmental Aspects: A Scientometric Analysis and Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Handayani, L.; Aprilia, S.; Abdullah, A.; Rahmawati, C.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Aziz, I.H.; Azimi, E.A. Synthesis of Sodium Silicate from Rice Husk Ash as an Activator to Produce Epoxy-Geopolymer Cement. J. Phys. 2021, 1845, 012072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alvee, A.R.; Malinda, R.; Akbar, A.M.; Ashar, R.D.; Rahmawati, C.; Alomayri, T.; Raza, A.; Shaikh, F.U.A. Experimental Study of the Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Geopolymer Paste Containing Nano-Silica from Agricultural Waste and Crystalline Admixtures. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e00792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Linora Metilda, D.; Selvamony, C.; Anandakumar, R.; Seeni, A. Experimental Investigation on Optimum Possibility of Replacing Cement by Redmud. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2015, 10, 4569–4578. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shi, C.; Wu, Y.; Riefler, C.; Wang, H. Characteristics and Pozzolanic Reactivity of Glass Powders. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 987–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Althoey, F.; Farnam, Y. The Effect of Using Supplementary Cementitious Materials on Damage Development Due to the Formation of a Chemical Phase Change in Cementitious Materials Exposed to Sodium Chloride. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 210, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Althoey, F. Compressive Strength Reduction of Cement Pastes Exposed to Sodium Chloride Solutions: Secondary Ettringite Formation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 299, 123965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rashad, A.M. Recycled Waste Glass as Fine Aggregate Replacement in Cementitious Materials Based on Portland Cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 72, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hannawi, K.; Kamali-Bernard, S.; Prince, W. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Mortars Containing PET and PC Waste Aggregates. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 2312–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Thompson, R.C.; Swan, S.H.; Moore, C.J.; Vom Saal, F.S. Our Plastic Age. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 364, 1973–1976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Mudgal, S.; Lyons, L.; Bain, J.; Débora, D.; Thibault, F.; Linda, J. Plastic Waste in the Environment–Revised Final Report for European Commission DG Environment. Bio Intell Serv Downloadable Httpwww Ec Eur Euenvironmentwastestudiespdfplastics Pdf 2011, 11, 2047–2062. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferreira, L.; de Brito, J.; Saikia, N. Influence of Curing Conditions on the Mechanical Performance of Concrete Containing Recycled Plastic Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Akçaözoğlu, S.; Akçaözoğlu, K.; Atiş, C.D. Thermal Conductivity, Compressive Strength and Ultrasonic Wave Velocity of Cementitious Composite Containing Waste PET Lightweight Aggregate (WPLA). Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 45, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dweik, H.S.; Ziara, M.M.; Hadidoun, M.S. Enhancing Concrete Strength and Thermal Insulation Using Thermoset Plastic Waste. Int. J. Polym. Mater. 2008, 57, 635–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Shanker, R.; Khan, D.; Hossain, R.; Islam, M.T.; Locock, K.; Ghose, A.; Sahajwalla, V.; Schandl, H.; Dhodapkar, R. Plastic Waste Recycling: Existing Indian Scenario and Future Opportunities. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Safi, B.; Saidi, M.; Aboutaleb, D.; Maallem, M. The Use of Plastic Waste as Fine Aggregate in the Self-Compacting Mortars: Effect on Physical and Mechanical Properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Guendouz, M.; Debieb, F.; Boukendakdji, O.; Kadri, E.H.; Bentchikou, M.; Soualhi, H. Use of Plastic Waste in Sand Concrete. J. Mater. Environ. Sci 2016, 7, 382–389. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ali, K.; Qureshi, M.I.; Saleem, S.; Khan, S.U. Effect of Waste Electronic Plastic and Silica Fume on Mechanical Properties and Thermal Performance of Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 285, 122952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Asokan, P.; Osmani, M.; Price, A.D.F. Improvement of the Mechanical Properties of Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic Waste Powder Filled Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 448–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Vadivel, T.S.; Doddurani, M. An Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties of Waste Plastic Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Int. J. Emerg. Trends Eng. Dev. 2013, 3, 395–401. [Google Scholar]
  27. Batayneh, M.; Marie, I.; Asi, I. Use of Selected Waste Materials in Concrete Mixes. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1870–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. de Figueiredo, A.D.; Ceccato, M.R. Workability Analysis of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Using Slump and Ve-Be Test. Mater. Res. 2015, 18, 1284–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Hung, C.-C.; Chen, Y.-T.; Yen, C.-H. Workability, Fiber Distribution, and Mechanical Properties of UHPC with Hooked End Steel Macro-Fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 260, 119944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ahmad, J.; Aslam, F.; Martinez-Garcia, R.; El Ouni, M.H.; Khedher, K.M. Performance of Sustainable Self-Compacting Fiber Reinforced Concrete with Substitution of Marble Waste (MW) and Coconut Fibers (CFs). Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 23184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Said, A.; Elsayed, M.; Abd El-Azim, A.; Althoey, F.; Tayeh, B.A. Using Ultra-High Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete In Improvement Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ahmad, J.; Manan, A.; Ali, A.; Khan, M.W.; Asim, M.; Zaid, O. A Study on Mechanical and Durability Aspects of Concrete Modified with Steel Fibers (SFs). Civ. Eng. Archit. 2020, 8, 814–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Das, G.; Biswas, S. Physical, Mechanical and Water Absorption Behaviour of Coir Fiber Reinforced Epoxy Composites Filled With Al2O3 Particulates. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 115, 012012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fediuk, R. High-Strength Fibrous Concrete of Russian Far East Natural Materials. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 116, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Feduik, R. Reducing Permeability of Fiber Concrete Using Composite Binders. Spec. Top. Rev. Porous Media 2018, 9, v–vi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hama, S.M.; Hilal, N.N. Fresh Properties of Concrete Containing Plastic Aggregate. In Use of Recycled Plastics in Eco-Efficient Concrete; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 85–114. [Google Scholar]
  37. Choi, Y.W.; Moon, D.J.; Kim, Y.J.; Lachemi, M. Characteristics of Mortar and Concrete Containing Fine Aggregate Manufactured from Recycled Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2829–2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ghernouti, Y.; Rabehi, B. Strength and Durability of Mortar Made with Plastics Bag Waste (MPBW). Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2012, 6, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Khatab, H.R.; Mohammed, S.J.; Hameed, L.A. Mechanical Properties of Concrete Contain Waste Fibers of Plastic Straps. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 557, p. 12059. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pešić, N.; Živanović, S.; Garcia, R.; Papastergiou, P. Mechanical Properties of Concrete Reinforced with Recycled HDPE Plastic Fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 115, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kumari, B.; Srivastava, V. Effect of Waste Plastic and Fly Ash on Mechanical Properties of Rigid Pavement. Technology 2016, 7, 247–256. [Google Scholar]
  42. Saxena, R.; Siddique, S.; Gupta, T.; Sharma, R.K.; Chaudhary, S. Impact Resistance and Energy Absorption Capacity of Concrete Containing Plastic Waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 176, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Al-Hadithi, A.I.; Hilal, N.N. The Possibility of Enhancing Some Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete by Adding Waste Plastic Fibers. J. Build. Eng. 2016, 8, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hama, S.M.; Hilal, N.N. Fresh Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete with Plastic Waste as Partial Replacement of Sand. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2017, 6, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Islam, M.J.; Meherier, M.S.; Islam, A.K.M.R. Effects of Waste PET as Coarse Aggregate on the Fresh and Harden Properties of Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 946–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pezzi, L.; De Luca, P.A.; Vuono, D.; Chiappetta, F.; Nastro, A. Concrete Products with Waste’s Plastic Material (Bottle, Glass, Plate). In Proceedings of the Materials Science Forum; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Stafa-Zurich, Switzerland, 2006; Volume 514, p. 1753. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lee, Z.H.; Paul, S.C.; Kong, S.Y.; Susilawati, S.; Yang, X. Modification of Waste Aggregate PET for Improving the Concrete Properties. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019, 2019, 6942052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Raghatate Atul, M. Use of Plastic in a Concrete to Improve Its Properties. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Stud. 2012, 1, 109–111. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jaivignesh, B.; Sofi, A. Study on Mechanical Properties of Concrete Using Plastic Waste as an Aggregate. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 80, p. 12016. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bulut, H.A.; Şahin, R. A Study on Mechanical Properties of Polymer Concrete Containing Electronic Plastic Waste. Compos. Struct. 2017, 178, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Faraj, R.H.; Ali, H.F.H.; Sherwani, A.F.H.; Hassan, B.R.; Karim, H. Use of Recycled Plastic in Self-Compacting Concrete: A Comprehensive Review on Fresh and Mechanical Properties. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kamarudin, M.H.; Yaakob, M.Y.; Salit, M.S.; Ian, H.H.; Badarulzaman, N.A.; Sohaimi, R.M. A Review on Different Forms and Types of Waste Plastic Used in Concrete Structure for Improvement of Mechanical Properties. J. Adv. Res. Appl. Mech. 2016, 28, 9–30. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ruiz-Herrero, J.L.; Nieto, D.V.; López-Gil, A.; Arranz, A.; Fernández, A.; Lorenzana, A.; Merino, S.; De Saja, J.A.; Rodríguez-Pérez, M.Á. Mechanical and Thermal Performance of Concrete and Mortar Cellular Materials Containing Plastic Waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 104, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Shah, J.; Chandra, J.; Rastandi, I.; Arijoeni, E. The Effect of Usage of Crushed Polypropylene Plastic Waste in Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 1495–1505. [Google Scholar]
  55. Mulyono, T.; Saefudin, A.; Purnomo, A.; Widiasanti, I. Mechanical Properties of Normal Concrete for Local Road Pavement Using Plastic Waste Substitution as Course Aggregate. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 1098, p. 22039. [Google Scholar]
  56. Da Silva, A.M.; de Brito, J.; Veiga, R. Incorporation of Fine Plastic Aggregates in Rendering Mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 71, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hama, S.M. Evalutions of Strengths, Impact and Energy Capacity of Two-Way Concrete Slabs Incorprating Waste Plastic. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 337–345. [Google Scholar]
  58. Saikia, N.; De Brito, J. Mechanical Properties and Abrasion Behaviour of Concrete Containing Shredded PET Bottle Waste as a Partial Substitution of Natural Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 52, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Al Bakri, A.M.M.; Tamizi, S.M.; Rafiza, A.R.; Zarina, Y.J.J. Investigation of HDPE Plastic Waste Aggregate on the Properties of Concrete. J. Asian Sci. Res. 2011, 1, 340–345. [Google Scholar]
  60. Soroushian, P.; Khan, A.; Hsu, J.-W. Mechanical Properties of Concrete Materials Reinforced with Polypropylene or Polyethylene Fibers. Mater. J. 1992, 89, 535–540. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bhavi, B.I.K.; Reddy, V.V.; Ullagaddi, P.B. Effect of Different Percentages of Waste High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Fibres on the Properties of Fibre Reinforced Concrete. Nat. Environ. Pollut. Technol. 2012, 11, 461. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sharafeddin, F.; Alavi, A.A.; Talei, Z. Flexural Strength of Glass and Polyethylene Fiber Combined with Three Different Composites. J. Dent. 2013, 14, 13. [Google Scholar]
  63. Li, Z.; Wang, L.; Wang, X. Compressive and Flexural Properties of Hemp Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Fibers Polym. 2004, 5, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ahmad, J.; Zaid, O.; Siddique, M.S.; Aslam, F.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Khedher, K.M. Mechanical and Durability Characteristics of Sustainable Coconut Fibers Reinforced Concrete with Incorporation of Marble Powder. Mater. Res. Express 2021, 8, 075505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cosgun, T. An Experimental Study of RC Beams with Varying Concrete Strength Classes Externally Strengthened with CFRP Composites. J. Eng. Fiber. Fabr. 2016, 11, 155892501601100300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Yin, S.; Yu, Y.; Na, M. Flexural Properties of Load-Holding Reinforced Concrete Beams Strengthened with Textile-Reinforced Concrete under a Chloride Dry–Wet Cycle. J. Eng. Fiber. Fabr. 2019, 14, 1558925019845902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Al-Hadithi, A.I.; Frhaan, W. The Effects of Adding Waste Plastic Fibers (WPFs) on Some Properties of Self Compacting Concrete Using Iraqi Local Materials. Iraqi J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 11, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ghernouti, Y.; Rabehi, B.; Bouziani, T.; Ghezraoui, H.; Makhloufi, A. Fresh and Hardened Properties of Self-Compacting Concrete Containing Plastic Bag Waste Fibers (WFSCC). Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 82, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Şahmaran, M.; Christianto, H.A.; Yaman, İ.Ö. The Effect of Chemical Admixtures and Mineral Additives on the Properties of Self-Compacting Mortars. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2006, 28, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yang, S.; Yue, X.; Liu, X.; Tong, Y. Properties of Self-Compacting Lightweight Concrete Containing Recycled Plastic Particles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 84, 444–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rahmani, E.; Dehestani, M.; Beygi, M.H.A.; Allahyari, H.; Nikbin, I.M. On the Mechanical Properties of Concrete Containing Waste PET Particles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1302–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Abdelgader, H.; Fediuk, R.; Kurpińska, M.; Elkhatib, J.; Murali, G.; Baranov, A.V.; Timokhin, R.A. Mechanical Properties of Two-Stage Concrete Modified by Silica Fume. Mag. Civ. Eng. Инженернo-стрoительный журнал Inzhenerno-Stroit. Zhurnal 2019, 89, 26–38. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rajesh, A.; Kannan, K.; Jeevanesan, R. Experimental Study on Replacement of Cement Using Silica Fume and Fine Aggregate Using Glass Powder. Int. J. Res. -Granthaalayah 2020, 7, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jalal, M.; Pouladkhan, A.; Harandi, O.F.; Jafari, D. Comparative Study on Effects of Class F Fly Ash, Nano Silica and Silica Fume on Properties of High Performance Self Compacting Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 94, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Güneyisi, E.; Gesoğlu, M.; Karaoğlu, S.; Mermerdaş, K. Strength, Permeability and Shrinkage Cracking of Silica Fume and Metakaolin Concretes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 34, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ding, J.-T.; Li, Z. Effects of Metakaolin and Silica Fume on Properties of Concrete. Mater. J. 2002, 99, 393–398. [Google Scholar]
  77. Khan, M.; Rehman, A.; Ali, M. Efficiency of Silica-Fume Content in Plain and Natural Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Concrete Road. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 244, 118382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Soroushian, P.; Mirza, F.; Alhozajiny, A. Plastic Shrinkage Cracking of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Mater. J. 1993, 92, 553–560. [Google Scholar]
  79. Frigione, M. Recycling of PET Bottles as Fine Aggregate in Concrete. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Kou, S.C.; Lee, G.; Poon, C.S.; Lai, W.L. Properties of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Prepared with PVC Granules Derived from Scraped PVC Pipes. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Soroushian, P.; Eldarwish, A.I.; Tlili, A.; Ostowari, K. Experimental Investigation of the Optimized Use of Plastic Flakes in Normal-Weight Concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 1999, 51, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Akçaözoğlu, S.; Atiş, C.D.; Akçaözoğlu, K. An Investigation on the Use of Shredded Waste PET Bottles as Aggregate in Lightweight Concrete. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kim, S.B.; Yi, N.H.; Kim, H.Y.; Kim, J.-H.J.; Song, Y.-C. Material and Structural Performance Evaluation of Recycled PET Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2010, 32, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Banthia, N.; Gupta, R. Influence of Polypropylene Fiber Geometry on Plastic Shrinkage Cracking in Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 1263–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Passuello, A.; Moriconi, G.; Shah, S.P. Cracking Behavior of Concrete with Shrinkage Reducing Admixtures and PVA Fibers. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2009, 31, 699–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Islam, G.M.S.; Gupta, S. Das Evaluating Plastic Shrinkage and Permeability of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 2016, 5, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Chidiac, S.E.; Mihaljevic, S.N. Performance of Dry Cast Concrete Blocks Containing Waste Glass Powder or Polyethylene Aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 855–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Choi, Y.-W.; Moon, D.-J.; Chung, J.-S.; Cho, S.-K. Effects of Waste PET Bottles Aggregate on the Properties of Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 776–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Albano, C.; Camacho, N.; Hernández, M.; Matheus, A.; Gutierrez, A. Influence of Content and Particle Size of Waste Pet Bottles on Concrete Behavior at Different w/c Ratios. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 2707–2716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Akram, A.; Sasidhar, C.; Pasha, K.M. E-Waste Management by Utilization of E-Plastics in Concrete Mixture as Coarse Aggregate Replacement. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 4, 5087–5095. [Google Scholar]
  91. Coppola, B.; Courard, L.; Michel, F.; Incarnato, L.; Scarfato, P.; Di Maio, L. Hygro-Thermal and Durability Properties of a Lightweight Mortar Made with Foamed Plastic Waste Aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 170, 200–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Belmokaddem, M.; Mahi, A.; Senhadji, Y.; Pekmezci, B.Y. Mechanical and Physical Properties and Morphology of Concrete Containing Plastic Waste as Aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 257, 119559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Şimşek, B.; Uygunoğlu, T. A Full Factorial-based Desirability Function Approach to Investigate Optimal Mixture Ratio of Polymer Concrete. Polym. Compos. 2018, 39, 3199–3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Crystals 12 00944 g001 550
Figure 1. Global Production of Plastics: Data Source [17].
Figure 1. Global Production of Plastics: Data Source [17].
Crystals 12 00944 g001
Crystals 12 00944 g002 550
Figure 2. No of the Articles published from 2000 to 2021 on Recycling Plastic Waste: Data source [21].
Figure 2. No of the Articles published from 2000 to 2021 on Recycling Plastic Waste: Data source [21].
Crystals 12 00944 g002
Crystals 12 00944 g003 550
Figure 3. Manufacturing Process of Plastic Aggregates: Used as per Elsevier Permission [24].
Figure 3. Manufacturing Process of Plastic Aggregates: Used as per Elsevier Permission [24].
Crystals 12 00944 g003
Crystals 12 00944 g004 550
Figure 4. Scan Electronic Microscopy of Plastic Waste: Used as per Elsevier Permission [25].
Figure 4. Scan Electronic Microscopy of Plastic Waste: Used as per Elsevier Permission [25].
Crystals 12 00944 g004
Crystals 12 00944 g005 550
Figure 5. Slump Flow: Data Source [24,26].
Figure 5. Slump Flow: Data Source [24,26].
Crystals 12 00944 g005
Crystals 12 00944 g006 550
Figure 6. Compressive Strength: Data Source [24,26].
Figure 6. Compressive Strength: Data Source [24,26].
Crystals 12 00944 g006
Crystals 12 00944 g007 550
Figure 7. Poor Bond between Plastic and Cement Paste [58].
Figure 7. Poor Bond between Plastic and Cement Paste [58].
Crystals 12 00944 g007
Crystals 12 00944 g008 550
Figure 8. Flexural Strength (FLS): Data Source [26,49].
Figure 8. Flexural Strength (FLS): Data Source [26,49].
Crystals 12 00944 g008
Crystals 12 00944 g009 550
Figure 9. Tensile Strength (STS): Data Source [24,26].
Figure 9. Tensile Strength (STS): Data Source [24,26].
Crystals 12 00944 g009
Crystals 12 00944 g010 550
Figure 10. Shrinkage: Data Source [56].
Figure 10. Shrinkage: Data Source [56].
Crystals 12 00944 g010
Crystals 12 00944 g011 550
Figure 11. Water Absorption and Porosity: Data Source [22].
Figure 11. Water Absorption and Porosity: Data Source [22].
Crystals 12 00944 g011
Crystals 12 00944 g012 550
Figure 12. Density: Data Source [22].
Figure 12. Density: Data Source [22].
Crystals 12 00944 g012
Crystals 12 00944 g013 550
Figure 13. Scan Electronic Microscopy Plastics Waste Fibers (a) θ = 0.25 mm and (b) θ = 0.40 mm: Used as per Elsevier Permission [40].
Figure 13. Scan Electronic Microscopy Plastics Waste Fibers (a) θ = 0.25 mm and (b) θ = 0.40 mm: Used as per Elsevier Permission [40].
Crystals 12 00944 g013
Crystals 12 00944 g014 550
Figure 14. Scan Electronic Microscopy Plastics Waste Aggregate: Used as per Elsevier Permission [92].
Figure 14. Scan Electronic Microscopy Plastics Waste Aggregate: Used as per Elsevier Permission [92].
Crystals 12 00944 g014
Table
Table 1. Properties of Plastic Waste (PW) Used in concrete.
Table 1. Properties of Plastic Waste (PW) Used in concrete.
Reference[22][23][24][18]
Specific gravity--0.97-
Water Absorption (%)0.01-0%0.13
Fineness Modulus-2.8--
Moisture Content (%)----
Apparent density (kg/m3)560350-1315
Specific surface (m2 /kg)1.67450--
Bulk Density (kg/m3)--620261.4
Plastic TypePolyethylene TerephthalateLow Density PolyethyleneE-WastePolycarbonate
Table
Table 4. Summary of Flexural Strength (FLS).
Table 4. Summary of Flexural Strength (FLS).
Reference Plastic Waste Flexure Strength (MPa)

[49]		PF
0%, 10%, 15% and 20%
PC
20% 		7 Days
2.35, 2.12, 2.17 and 1.72
28 Days
4.05, 3.25, 3.03 and 2.92
[50]0%, 5%, 15% and 25%28 Days
15.45, 8.08, 1.95 and 0.29

[22]		 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%3 Days
6.0, 4.5, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.4
7 Days
6.5, 5.5, 5.0, 4.8 and 4.5
14 Days
7.5, 6.0, 6.0, 58 and 4.7
28 Days
10.5, 8.5, 6.5, 7 and 5.8
[51]2 mm fibers
0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% and 40%		28 Days
10.5, 9.5, 8.5, 7.5, 6.5, 6.4, 6.3, 6.2 and 6.1
[52]0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%28 Days
4.8, 4.5, 4.2, 3.8 and 3.2
[53]PVC
0%, 2.5%, 5%, 10% and 20%		60 Days
7.0, 5.8, 5.3, 5.0 and 2.0
120 Days
7.0, 5.8, 4.1, 5.0, 2.0
[41]0%, 2%, 4% and 6%
10% Fly Ash
0%, 2%, 4% and 6%		28 days
7.0, 7.2, 7.0 and 5.6
7.4, 7.6, 7.2 and 5.2
[54]0%, 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.5%, 0.7 and 1.0%28 Days
4.28, 4.17, 4.24, 4.15, 4.62, 5.02 and 4.84
[26]% of plastic content
0%, 1%, 2% and 3%		7 Days
4.00, 4.24, 4.38 and 4.52
14 Days
4.46, 4.54, 4.69 and 4.72
28 Days
4.68, 4.74, 4.83 and 5.06
[55]0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10%28 Days
3.60, 2.70, 2.90, 2.54, 1.77 and 1.72

[56]

0%, 5%, 10% and 15%		PP
1.35, 1.25, 1.20 and 1.18
PF
13.5, 1.25, 0.8 and 0.75
[57]0%, 15%, 30%, 45%, 60% and 75%28 Days
3.63, 4.28, 4.00, 3.45, 3.10 and 2.08
[23]0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%28 Days
3.5, 4.0, 5.0, 3.7 and 3.9
Table
Table 5. Summary of Split Tensile Strength (STS).
Table 5. Summary of Split Tensile Strength (STS).
Reference Plastic Waste Split Tensile Strength (MPa)

[49]		PF
0%, 10%, 15% and 20%
PC
20% 		7 Days
1.50, 1.46, 1.35 and 1.29
28 Days
2.02, 1.80, 1.73 and 1.69
[24]0%, 10%, 15% and 20%28 Days
4.5, 4.0, 3.5 and 3.2
[25]0%, 5% and 15%WC
3.85, 4.12 and 4.22
OC
3.23, 3.44 and 4.19
[18]0%, 7.5% and 15%28 Days
3.3, 2.7 and 2.5


[39]
Aspect ratio = 2.5
0%, 0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50%
Aspect ratio = 2.5
0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50%
1.4, 1.6, 2.1 and 2.2

1.4, 2.0, 2.3 and 2.4


[40]
Plastic fibers (0.25 mm)
0%, 0.40%, 0.75% and 1.25%
Plastic fibers (0.40 mm)
0%, 0.40%, 0.75% and 1.25%
2.79, 3.03, 3.93 and 2.88

2.79, 3.08, 2.95 and 2.96
[51]2 mm fibers
0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% and 40%		28 Days
6.5, 6.3, 6.2, 5.8, 5.6, 5.5, 5.3, 5.0 and 4.5
[50]0%, 5%, 15% and 25%28 Days
8.19, 4.2, 0.57 and 0.17
[54]PP plastic in fraction volume (%)
0%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, 2.0%, 2.5% and 3.0%		7 Days
2.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.2, 2.2, 2.1 and 2.1
28 Days
3.0, 2.5, 2.5, 2.4, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6
[26]0%, 1%, 2% and 3%7 Days
2.26, 2.38, 2.45 and 2.49
14 Days
2.34, 2.41, 2.49 and 2.55
28 Days
2.39, 2.48, 2.53 and 2.60
[55]0%, 2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10%28 Days
2.85, 1.98, 2.21, 1.86, 1.15 and 1.17
[57]0%, 15%, 30%, 45%, 60% and 75%28 Days
3.29, 3.85, 3.69, 3.08, 2.62 and 1.80
Table
Table 6. Release of Corban Dioxide of Plastic: Used as per Elsevier Permission [92].
Table 6. Release of Corban Dioxide of Plastic: Used as per Elsevier Permission [92].
PlasticsCO2 (%)Fossil CO2 OxidizeCorbon
PE85.6%100%95%813 kg eq C/t
PP85.5%100%95%812 kg eq C/t
PVC40.1%100%95%381 kg eq C/t
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmad, J.; Majdi, A.; Babeker Elhag, A.; Deifalla, A.F.; Soomro, M.; Isleem, H.F.; Qaidi, S. A Step towards Sustainable Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste in Concrete: Overview on Mechanical, Durability and Microstructure Analysis. Crystals 2022, 12, 944. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12070944

AMA Style

Ahmad J, Majdi A, Babeker Elhag A, Deifalla AF, Soomro M, Isleem HF, Qaidi S. A Step towards Sustainable Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste in Concrete: Overview on Mechanical, Durability and Microstructure Analysis. Crystals. 2022; 12(7):944. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12070944

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmad, Jawad, Ali Majdi, Ahmed Babeker Elhag, Ahmed Farouk Deifalla, Mahfooz Soomro, Haytham F. Isleem, and Shaker Qaidi. 2022. "A Step towards Sustainable Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste in Concrete: Overview on Mechanical, Durability and Microstructure Analysis" Crystals 12, no. 7: 944. https://doi.org/10.3390/cryst12070944

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop