Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Review

Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete e a review

Raju Sharma a, *, Prem Pal Bansal b
a
b

Department of Civil Engineering, Chandigarh University, Gharuan, 160055 Mohali, India

Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar University, 147001 Patiala, India

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 7 March 2015
Received in revised form
2 August 2015
Accepted 12 August 2015
Available online 22 August 2015

The consumption of various forms of plastics is a challenging environment protection issue. All forms of
consumed plastic become waste and require large areas of land for storage because several tons of waste
plastics cannot be fully recycled at once. The low biodegradability of plastic and the presence in large
quantities of waste plastic negatively impact the environment. Previously, various studies were performed to identify safe and environmentally friendly methods for disposing of plastics. Recently, various
forms of plastics have been incorporated in concrete to prevent the direct contact of plastics with the
environment because concrete has a longer service life. However, this method is not a dominant method
for disposing of waste plastic. This paper presents an overview of some published research regarding the
use of waste plastic in concrete. The effects of waste plastic addition on the fresh, mechanical and
thermal properties of concrete are also presented in this paper.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Waste PET bottles
Waste polyethylene
Concrete
Shredded plastic ber
Plastic ber reinforced concrete
Solid waste plastic

Contents
1.
2.

3.
4.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
Fresh and mechanical properties of plastic fiber reinforced concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
2.1.
Properties of concrete in the green state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
2.1.1.
Workability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
2.1.2.
Fresh density/dry density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
2.2.
Mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
2.2.1.
Compressive strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
2.2.2.
Split tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
2.2.3.
Flexural strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
2.2.4.
Modulus of elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
2.2.5.
Thermal conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
2.2.6.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test (UPVT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
Various field applications of plastic fiber reinforced concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481

1. Introduction
Currently, various forms of plastics are used around the world.
Large amounts of plastic are used in packing lms, wrapping

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: rajuenter@yahoo.co.in, rajuenter@gmail.com (R. Sharma).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.042
0959-6526/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

materials, shopping and garbage bags, uid containers, toys,

household industrial products and building material. However, the
benets of plastic use are suppressed by its harmful impacts on the
environment. Subramanian (2000) reported that plastics are a
small but signicant component of waste streams. The plastic
wastes accounts for 10.62 5.12% of the total stored wastes in the
old landll, among which, 69.13% is plastic bags (white PE plastic
bags accounted for 11.34%; colored PE plastic bags 29.77%; other

474

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

plastic bags 28.02%), and 30.87% is other plastics (incl. PP, PVC, PS,
etc.) (Zhou et al., 2014). Papong et al. (2014), Badia et al. (2012),
Raghatate (2012), Nampoothiri et al. (2010) and Dullius et al.
(2006) revealed that thousands of years are necessary for the
biodegradation of plastics. This results in the accumulation of
plastic wastes and causes serious environmental problems due to
littering and illegal landlling or incineration. Saikia and Brito
(2012) reported that waste plastics reduce the water permeability
of soils and affect soil fertility, which often results in the blockage of
wastewater drains. In developing countries, the growth rate of most
cities exceeds 4% per annum. The issue at stake is that the 20e40%
of municipal revenues spent in most countries to manage the waste
is not enough to handle the rising trend of the waste generated
(Othman et al., 2013). India generates approximately 56 hundred
thousand tons of plastic waste annually, of which Delhi alone
contributes 689.5 tons each day. Approximately 60 percent of the
total plastic waste in Delhi is collected and recycled every day,
while 40 percent remains uncollected or is discarded as litter.
Plastic solid waste can primarily be treated by re-extrusion, mechanical, chemical and energy recovery schemes and technologies
(Al-Salem et al., 2009). Zhanga et al. (2010) reported that the
quantity of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation has rapidly
increased in China due to growing urbanization, population growth
and industrialization. The total amount of MSW increased from 31.3
million tons in 1980 to 212 million tons in 2006, and the waste
generation rate increased from 0.50 kg/capita/day in 1980 to
0.98 kg/capita/year in 2006. The increasing demand and decreasing
landll space are forcing to researchers for nding the alternative
plastic solid waste disposal (PSW) options.
The only material that is analogous to plastic that is currently
used in India is concrete (Bhogayata and Arora, 2011; Kumar and
Kaushik, 2003; Sivaraja and Kandasamy, 2007). Currently, approximately 370 million cubic meters of concrete are consumed in India
every year, which is expected to reach approximately 580 million
cubic meters by 2022. Although the use of these materials is
increasing daily in their respective elds, the service lives and
properties of the products are different. Concrete structures are
constructed to serve humanity for several years, while the service
life of plastics is much shorter. Because the disposal of plastics after
use increases ecology strain, it is important to nd different

methods for safely disposing of used plastics. Polyester concrete

(PC) products can also be used for the long-term disposal of PET
waste (Rebeiz and Craft, 1995). Previously, various studies were
performed to determine safe and environmentally friendly
methods for disposing of plastics. However, increasing the service
life of plastics by incorporating them into concrete is one possible
environmentally friendly approach for their safe disposal. Araghi
et al. (2015) reported that the concrete containing PET particles,
as an alternative aggregate, has better resistance against sulfuric
acid attack in industrial structures and sewer pipes.
The expected benets of inserting waste plastic in concrete are
presented graphically in Fig. 1. The rst column in Fig. 1 shows that
the usable lifespan of concrete is much greater than its non-usable
life span. In the second column, the lifespan of usable plastics is
much lower than its waste service life on earth. In subsequent
columns, the uses of different waste products in concrete are
shown. From these columns, it can be concluded that the inclusion
of waste products, such as y ash and waste plastics, can be used to
safely dispose of waste products.
A large study was conducted to study the use of various forms of
plastics in concrete, such as waste plastic akes (Rai et al., 2012),
polyethylene terephthalate particles (PET) (Araghi et al., 2015;
Cordoba et al., 2013; Rehmani et al., 2013), high density polyethylene waste (HDPE) (Naik et al., 1996), plastic coarse aggregate
(PCA) (Saikia and Brito, 2013, 2014; Benosman et al., 2013; Mathew
et al., 2013), PET waste (Fraternali et al., 2011), shredded bers of
polythene bags (Bhogayata et al., 2013; Sivaraja et al., 2010), PET
bottle bers (Foti, 2013; Ramadevi and Manju, 2012; Sivaraja et al.,
2010), granulated plastic waste (Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2010), and
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe (Kou et al., 2009), as shown in Fig. 2.
The various forms of plastics used in previous research studies to
replace different constituents of concrete are shown in Table 1.
(PETCORE, 2012) reported using recycled polyethylene terephthalate (RPET) akes in concrete. Based on the consumption of
RPET bers and akes, Ingrao, 2014 reported using RPET ber for
manufacturing panels, which resulted in the consumption of
recycled PET bers without compromising the durability of the end
product. Recently a cradle-to-grave study conducted by Dormer
et al. (2013), on carbon footprints produced by recycled polyethylene terephthalate, It was found that the cradle-to-grave

Fig. 1. Effects of using waste products in concrete.

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

475

Fig. 2. Different forms of waste plastic: (a) Polyethylene (Raghatate, 2012), (b) Sample of waste plastic (Rai et al., 2012), (c) PET-aggregates PC (Saikia and Brito, 2013), (d) PETaggregate PF (Saikia and Brito, 2013), (e) PET aggregate PP (Saikia and Brito, 2013), (f) Short laminar ber (Foti, 2011), (g) Sample of O ber (Foti, 2011), (h) Shredded ber
(Bhogayata et al., 2013), (i) Hand Cut ber (Bhogayata et al., 2012a,b), (j) Granulated Plastic (Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2010), (k) polyethylene terephthalate (Fraternali et al., 2011), and
(l) polyethylene terephthalate (Fraternali et al., 2011).

carbon footprint of 1 kg of recycled polyethylene terephthalate

trays containing 85% recycled content was 1.538 kg CO2e.
This paper focuses on the results obtained by various researchers
after adding various forms of plastic to concrete. Most research
shows that the addition of plastic affects the workability, compressive strength, modulus of elasticity, split tensile strength, thermal
conductivity and slightly enhances the abrasion and exural
strength. In addition, it is recommended that the surface of the
plastic does not react with the matrix. The surface of the plastic must
be treated with a reactive material, such as silica fume, metakaolin,
slag, so that the pozzolanic reaction enhances the strength of the
concrete by reacting with the surface coated material.

2. Fresh and mechanical properties of plastic ber reinforced

concrete
Various researchers have studied the use of various forms of
waste plastic. The effects of replacing or adding plastic on the
properties of concrete in the green state and the mechanical
properties of concrete as studied by various researchers are discussed in this section.

2.1. Properties of concrete in the green state

2.1.1. Workability
Workability is the property of freshly mixed concrete which
determines the ease and homogeneity with which it can be mixed,
placed, consolidated and nished. The controlled concrete can be
workable as per the set requirements, but the addition of other
mineral admixture and waste material affects the workability of
concrete. The addition of waste plastics affects the amount of free
water available in concrete and, consequently, the workability of
the concrete. The effect of the addition/replacement of various
forms of waste plastic on workability is presented in subsequent
subsections.
2.1.1.1. Effect of replacement/addition of PET particles. Rahmani et al.
(2013) reported that the PET particles have more specic surface
area as compared with the natural sand due to their mercenary
shape. Hence, there would be more friction between the particles
leading to less workability in the mixtures. Saikia and Brito (2014)
reported the effect of plastic particle shape on the workability of
concrete. Three different shape plastic particles, shredded fractions
with a ne range (PF), shredded fraction with coarse range (PC) and
heat treated pellet in spherical/cylindrical (PP), were used. The

476

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

Table 1
Use of waste plastic in concrete.
Author

Form of waste plastic used

Use in concrete

Araghi et al., 2015

Grinded PET particles with a maximum size of 7 mm, estimated unit weight
was 464 kg/m3 and specic gravity of PET particles was 1.11 g/cm3
3 distinct types of plastic particles used Shredded ne aky plastic particles
(PF), Shredded coarse aky plastic particles (PC), heat treated pellet- shaped
spherical/cylindrical (PP)
Grinded PET particles with a maximum size of 7 mm, estimated unit weight
was 464 kg/m3 and specic gravity of PET particles was 1.11 g/cm3
Metalized polythene waste bags with an average size of 1 mm
2 mm.

Replaced Natural aggregate with PET particles by 5%, 10%,

and 15%
5%, 10% and 15% replaced natural aggregate with each type
(PF, PF, PC) of plastic particles

Saikia and Brito, 2014

Rahmani et al., 2013

Bhogayata et al., 2013
Ramadevi and
Manju, 2012
Bhogayata et al., 2012
Malagaveli, 2011
Prahallada and
Parkash, 2013
Suganthy et al., 2013
Foti, 2013

PET bottles used as ber

Non recyclable plastic waste used as a macro ber of 60 mm
3 mm and
shredded ber (size considered as very ne random palettes)
HDPE used as ber
Plastic ber obtained from cutting waste plastic pots

Saikia and Brito, 2013

Pulverized plastic used in the form of granules of 1 mm size

Used in three dissimilar forms: PET used in circular ber with a width of
5 mm, as strips with two overlapping half bottles, and as a strip with four
overlapping layers
Recycled PET aggregates
Recycled PET aggregates

Rai et al., 2012

Cordoba et al., 2013

Plastic akes as a ne aggregate

Recycled PET akes

Raghatate, 2012
Fraternali et al., 2011
Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2010

Small pieces of plastic bags

Recycled PET and virgin polypropylene
Granulated plastic waste

Mahdi et al., 2010

Depolymerized through glycolysis to produce the unsaturated polyester

resin used as a binding agent to produced polymer mortar and polymer
concrete
Plastic pallet as a ne aggregate (introduced a distinct method by which
monolament used a raw material for the PET ber and mixed at a ber
content as high as 3%)

Ochi et al., 2007

results indicate that the slump of fresh concrete increases slightly

with the incorporation of PP aggregate and with the inclusion of PF
and PC aggregate slump value decreases sharply and further decreases if the content and size of this type of aggregate increases.
Batayneh et al. (2007) reported that the matrix prepared by
replacing 20% of ne aggregates with waste plastic reduced the
workability by up to 25%.

2.1.1.2. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
plastic
ber.
Bhogayata et al. (2012) reported that the workability of concrete
decreases as the addition of waste plastics in concrete increases by
up to 25%. Nibudey et al. (2013) reported the effects of plastic bers
with aspect ratios (l/d, length divided by diameter of ber) of 35
and 50 on the workability of concrete. The plastic ber was added
to the concrete at 0%e3% of the weight of the cement. The workability decreased when using aspect ratios of 35 and 50. The
maximum slump of the controlled concrete occurred at 67 mm for
the M30 grade of concrete. The slump value decreased to 32 mm for
an aspect ratio of 35 and to 22 mm for an aspect ratio of 50.
Prahallada and Parkash (2013) studied the effects of adding bers at different aspect ratios on the workability of concrete. Waste
plastics with aspect ratios of 30, 50, 70, 90 and 110 were used. The
workability of the concrete increased up to an aspect ratio of 50.
Thereafter, further increases in the aspect ratio resulted in decreases in the workability. The poor workability after including
plastic bers with larger aspect ratios potentially resulted from the
hindrance imposed by plastic bers during the ow of green concrete. Malagaveli (2011) reported that the workability of the matrix

Replaced sand with PET particles by 5%, 10% and 15%

Used as plastic bers in concrete. Added 0.5, 1.0, or 1.5% of
the volume of concrete
Replaced the ne aggregates in the concrete with 1, 2, 4, and
6% of the PET bottle bers
Addition of polyethylene bers at different proportions
(from 0.3%, 0.6%, and 0.9%e1.2% of the volume of concrete)
Added ber from 0 to 6% in the concrete mix
Addition of ber with the 0.5% volume fraction based on
distinct aspect ratios of 30, 50, 70, 90, and 110
Sand replaced with 25, 50, 75, or 100% of plastic granules
Added at 1% of the weight of concrete in all three forms

Replaced natural aggregates with the plastic aggregate at 5,

10, and 15%
Replacement of 0, 5, 10, 15 percent sand
Three different sizes were used, 0.5, 1.5, and 3 mm. For each
size, three different concentrations of PET particles were
considered, 1.0, 2.5, and 5.0% by volume
Addition of plastics from 0 to 1% in the concrete matrix
Addition of ber by volume with 1% for both types
Replaced sand with 5% or 10% Granulated plastics and 0
e50% iron
Four different groups with PET to glycol ratios of (1:1, 2:1).
Each group includes a distinct dibasic acid, initiator and
promoter
Added ber for hand mixing with a volume content of ber
0.76%. The concrete mixer-volumetric ber contents were
0.5, 1.0, and 1.5%

improved when up to 2% of HDPE ber was added and began to

decrease when more than 2% was added.

2.1.1.3. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small

pieces. Ismail and Al-Hashmi (2010) reported the effects of using
mixed iron and plastic granular wastes in concrete. In this case,
plastic granular wastes were added into the sand mixture at 5%
weight. The granular waste plastic used in the concrete had broad
distribution, dimensions with lengths and widths that varied from
0.15 to 12 mm and 0.15e4 mm, respectively. The addition of 5%
plastic waste decreased the workability by 25%, whereas addition of
30% iron lling results in an increase of workability by 50%. Rai et al.
(2012) reported the effects of using waste plastic akes in concrete.
In this study, 5%e15% of the waste plastic akes were replaced with
sand with a neness modulus of 3.2. The results indicated that the
workability decreased by up to 37% as the amount of waste plastic
akes increased. The addition of waste plastic akes to the concrete
mix at 5%e15% without a superplasticizer resulted in a decrease in
the slump value from 55 mm to 35 mm. The same decrement rate
was observed in the workability of the waste plastic mix concrete
with a superplasticizer. The results described in the above literature
correspond with the evidence provided by Soroushian et al. (2003),
who indicated that the addition of any discrete reinforcement results in a slump loss. Choi et al. (2005, 2009) concluded that the
surface texture and shape of the ber are prominent factors for
improving workability. These factors require more attention to
establish a deterministic design approach for preparing reinforced
concrete with plastic ber.

2.1.2. Fresh density/dry density

The results show that the density of concrete is reduces on
direct inclusion of waste plastic in concrete mixes. The effect of
addition of waste plastics in different forms, as reported by various
authors has been presented below.

2.5%

25

5%

0%

0.3%

1%

30

0.05%

0%

35

0.18%

5%

40

477

15%

Compressive Strength N/mm

45

10%

The literature review shows that addition or replacement of

waste plastic in concrete results in loss of workability of concrete.
The ow of green concrete reduces due to the heterogeneous
mixing of plastic. Generally, the amount of waste plastic added in
concrete, in any form adversely affects the workability of concrete,
however, addition of very less amount of plastic in concrete shows
improved workability. Nevertheless, when plastic is added in large
amount, the workability of concrete decreases due to the resistance
offered by the bers to the movement of aggregates. This behavior
also followed by pellets, shredded form and aks.

0%

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

20
15
10
5
0
Saikia and Brito,2014
(Plastic Particles )

Pelisser et al.,2012
(PET Fiber)

Cordoba et al., 2013

(Plastic Flakes)

Fig. 3. Effect of addition/replacement of different forms of plastic on compressive

strength of concrete.

2.1.2.1. Effect of replacement/addition of PET particles. Araghi et al.

(2015) studied the effect of sulfuric acid curing on concrete containing 0%, 5%, 10% and 15% PET particles as an alternative aggregates. It has been observed that the weight loss values for samples
containing 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of PET particles are 13.47%, 10.26%,
8.98%, 6.57%, respectively. So samples with 15% of PET particles
have lower weight losses and better resistance against sulfuric acid
attack. Rahmani et al. (2013) concluded that when an amount of
natural sand in concrete is replaced with PET particles which have
different gradation, more pores in concrete would be formed due to
plate and narrow shape of PET particle. Moreover, the surplus water
in the concrete specimens, which does not participate in water and
cement reaction makes some tiny channels in concrete and results
in more pores after drying. Therefore, addition of PET particles in
concrete and increase in water to cement ratio in concrete containing PET particles results in lower unit weights of concrete.
Saikia and Brito (2014) reported the reduction in the density of
fresh concrete as the content of plastic aggregate increases, because
the particle density of plastic aggregate is very low compared with
natural aggregates.

mixes were prepared, contained 30%, 40% and 50% iron lling waste
with 5% plastic waste (M1, M2, M3). For waste modied-concrete
mixes M1, M2, and M3, the fresh density values were 0.04, 1.22,
and 4.46% higher, respectively, than the fresh density value of the
control mix. Whereby, the dry density for mixes M1, M2, and M3
exceeds that of the plain mix by 3.39, 4.17, and 8.04%, respectively. It
can be noticed that dry density values are slightly greater than fresh
densities values for each mix. This could be due to the pozzolanic
effect of waste iron, which provided a surface around the waste
plastic that could react with the other constituents of the concrete
and produce more dense concrete following 28 days of curing.
Chowdhury et al. (2013) concluded that reductions in bulk
density are directly proportional to plastic aggregate replacement
and can be attributed to the low unit weight of plastic. Hannawi
et al. (2010) observed a concrete dry density of 1643 kg/m3,
which is lower than the minimum dry density of 2000 kg/m3
required for structural lightweight concrete.
Based on the literature review, it was also concluded that only
the insertion of plastic ber in the concrete reduced the wet and
dry density of the concrete as unit weight of waste plastic is less
than the concrete ingredients. Same behavior for both wet and dry
density was observed as density of plastic is not affected by water.
However, the addition of minerals to the concrete reinforced with
plastic ber resulted in a greater dry density (Ismail and Al-Hashmi,
2010). The mineral admixtures react with the matrix, and additional pozzolanic reactions improve the performance of concrete
reinforced with plastic waste ber.

2.1.2.2. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic ber. (Nibudey et al.,

2013) revealed that the dry density decreased from 25.382 to
25.185 kg/m3 when plastic bers were added at intervals of 0e3%.
These authors concluded that the density of concrete decreased
when any form of waste plastic was added.
2.1.2.3. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small
pieces. Rai et al. (2012) reported that increasing the waste plastic
content decreases the fresh and dry densities of concrete. The fresh
density decreased by 5%, 8.7% and 10.75% when 5%, 10% and 15% of
the sand was replaced with waste plastic akes. This result,
potentially occurred because the density of the waste plastic was
70% lower than that of the sand, which reduced the fresh and dry
density. The lowest dry density obtained during the experiments
was 2210 kg/m3, and the lowest fresh density was 2340 kg/m3, as
shown in Table 2. Ismail and Al-Hashmi (2010) observed that
including iron at 0e50% with 5% granular plastic waste moderately
improve the fresh and dry densities of the concrete. Three concrete

2.2. Mechanical properties

2.2.1. Compressive strength
Compressive strength is the most important property on which
the categorization of concrete depends. Before using concrete, it is
important to know the compressive strength of the original and
treated concrete when any other material is used to replace the
concrete ingredients. To understand the effect of addition of waste

Table 2
Dry density and fresh density with respect to the mixture proportions (Rai et al., 2012).
Mix

% Plastic

Cement (kg)

C.A (kg)

F.A (kg)

Waste plastics

w/c ratio

Mix proportion

Fresh density (kg/m3)

Dry density (kg/m3)

M30
M30
M30
M30

0
5
10
15

423
423
423
423

1282
1282
1282
1282

469.00
445.20
421.73
399.00

0.00
08.76
17.50
26.40

0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44

1:3.03.1.110:0.00
1:3.03:1.052:0.021
1:3.03:0.997:0.042
1:3.03:0.943:0.060

2600
2460
2370
2340

2430
2320
2260
2210

C. A e Coarse Aggregate, F. A e Fine Aggregate, W/C ratio e Water Cement Ratio.

478

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

plastic in various forms, on compressive strength of concrete,

several studies carried out by researchers are summarized below
and shown in Fig. 3.
2.2.1.1. Effect of replacement/addition of PET particles. Rahmani
et al. (2013) observed that the 5% replacement of ne aggregates
with PET particles yields better results in compression. On 5%
replacement compressive strength of concrete increases by 8.86%
and 11.97% for a water cement ratio 0.42 and 0.52 respectively.
However, with further increase in PET particles to 10% and 15% the
compressive strength of concrete decreases due to weak cohesion
between the texture and the PET particles. PET particles act as a
barrier and prevent the cement paste from adhering to natural
aggregates. As a result, concrete strength decreases gradually.
Saikia and Brito (2014) studied the effect of the addition of three
different shape plastic particle such as shredded ne shaped (PF),
shredded coarse shaped (PC) and heat treated pellet (PP) on the
compressive strength of concrete. The study revealed the 28 days
compressive strength of concrete with 5%, 10% and 15% PP aggregate is more than 75% of the compressive strength of reference
concrete. The 25% strength loss occurred due to the less interaction
of PET-aggregate with cement paste and therefore weak interfacial
transition zone (ITZ). The strength achievement of PF and PC is less
than the PP aggregate.
2.2.1.2. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
plastic
ber.
Bhogayata et al. (2013) indicated that the targeted mean
compressive strength of the controlled concrete was 42 MPa. The
treated concrete was prepared using ber prepared from metalized
polythene waste bags. The average size of the bers was
1 mm
2 mm, with proportions of 0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%. The
compressive strength of the concrete, prepared with 1.5% metalized
polythene ber was reduced by 56.43%. This reduction in
compressive strength likely resulted from the presence of macro
bers in the concrete, which potentially interrupted the bonding
and complete hydration of the cement paste and aggregates.
Bhogayata et al. (2012a,b) investigated the effects of the addition of
waste plastic in shredded form and manual hand cut bers to
concrete on concrete strength. Overall, the strength of the concrete,
prepared using hand cut manual ber decreased more than that of
the concrete prepared using shredded ber. Replacing more than
0.6% of the concrete volume with bers made from plastic bags
with thicknesses of less than 20 microns reduced the strength by up
to 30% relative to the control. When 1.2% of the concrete volume
was replaced, the strength decreased by up to 50% relative to the
control. These authors suggested that preparing concrete by adding
polyethylene bers with a thickness of less than 20 microns could
be suitable for non structural works in which the strength of the
concrete is not a primary concern.
Ramadevi and Manju (2012) observed that the compressive
strength increased when up to 2% of the ne aggregates were
replaced with PET bottle bers and gradually decreased when 4%
and 6% of the ne aggregates were replaced. The strength of the
concrete with 2% PET bottle ber increased by 19.23% relative to the
control concrete mixture. Thus, the replacement of 2% of the ne
aggregates is reasonable. Malagaveli (2011) showed that the
compressive strength increased at 7 and 28 days when 3.5% HDPE
ber was added. The compressive strength increased by 7.69% after
28 days of curing when 3.5% HDPE ber was added. When more
than 3.5% was added, the strength of the concrete began to
decrease. Bhogayata et al. (2012a,b) indicated that the control
concrete had a compressive strength of 26.65 MPa following
normal curing. The maximum compressive strength of a sample
cured in acid was 25.42 MPa, which was similar to that of the
control sample. Overall, the results showed that sulfate curing of

the concrete for up to 60 days with 0.5% metalized polyethylene

ber resulted in the same strength pattern as that of normal curing.
The addition of bers with combinations of y ash showed relatively good chemical resistance without any signicant losses in
strength. Prahallada and Parkash (2013) observed an increasing
trend of compressive strength up to an aspect ratio 50. The percentage of the compressive strength increase was 11%. Beyond an
aspect ratio of 50, a decrease in the compressive strength was
observed.
2.2.1.3. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small
pieces. Rai et al. (2012) reported the effects of adding superplasticizer on the mechanical properties of waste plastic akes in
concrete. In this case, 15% of the ne aggregates were replaced with
waste plastic akes, and the compressive strength was reduced to
9.52%. The strength decreased due to the lower adhesive property
of the plastic surface relative to the cement paste. However, after
replacing 15% of the sand with waste plastic akes in the concrete
mix, the compressive strength increased by 5%. Cordoba et al.
(2013) reported that the optimal size of PET plastic akes in concrete is 1.5 mm when 2.5% of the ne aggregates are replaced. The
PET plastic ake sizes used in this study were 0.5 mm, 1.5 mm, and
3 mm, and the percentages of replacement were 1%, 2.5%, and 5% by
volume. It was also reported that the compressive strength value of
concrete made with PET depends on (a) the PET akes, (b) the
concentration of PET akes, and (c) the curing time. Scanning
electron microscopy results indicated that the compressive
strength of concrete improves when smaller PET particle sizes are
used at lower concentrations.
Raghatate (2012) concluded that the compressive strength of
concrete is affected by the addition of plastic pieces. For concrete,
prepared with 0.20%, 0.40%, 0.60%, 0.80%, and 1.00% plastic, the
strength decreased as the percentage of plastic increased. The
addition of 1% plastic in concrete resulted in a strength reduction of
approximately 20% after 28 days of curing. Suganthy et al. (2013)
concluded that a gradual decrease in strength occurred when replacements of up to 25% were used, and that the strength rapidly
decreased when replacements of 25%e50% were used. When more
than 50% of sand was replaced with plastic materials, the variations
in the concrete strength were small. The granular pulverized plastic
used in this experiment varied from 1 to 1.7 mm. Mahdi et al. (2010)
concluded that the compressive strength of concrete with a PET to
glycol ratio of 2:1 is more than that of concrete with a ratio of 1:1.
Higher PET to glycol ratios were not investigated because they
would cause the polymer components to become brittle. This
experiment was conducted between three distinct groups. The
groups were divided based on the glycol ratio and the initiator
used. The initiator promoter combinations taken were Methyl ethyl
ketone peroxide (MEKP) and cobalt naphthanate (CoNp) in group I
while Benzoil peroxide (BPO) and N, N-diethyl aniline (NNDA) in
group II and III. The compressive strength of the polymer concrete
in group I is greater than that in group II. In addition, the
compressive strength of the polymer concrete in group III is greater
than that of group IV. This result may be caused by the presence of
phthalic anhydride in groups I and III, which provide better sites for
the formation of cross chains.
The majority of researchers observed that addition of waste
plastic in various forms such as akes, shredded form, pellet,
polyethylene ber, granular pulverized plastic and PET plastic
akes results in reduction in compressive strength of concrete, as
shown in Fig. 3. Frigione (2010) reported that lower adhesive
strength between the plastic surface and the cement paste is the
reason of the reduction of compressive strength. However, few
researchers (Malagaveli, 2011; Ramadevi and Manju, 2012; Pelisser
et al., 2012; Rahmani et al., 2013; Prahallada and Parkash, 2013)

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

observed that addition of PET and HDPE ber in small amount results in an increase in compressive strength but addition of large
amount of PET particles reduce the strength (Saikia and Brito, 2014)
as shown in Fig. 3. The mechanical property of PET and HDPE are
better as compared to polyethylene bers which results in
improvement in the strength of concrete. The aspect ratio of ber
also plays the signicant role in performance of concrete.
2.2.2. Split tensile strength
The split tensile strength of concrete is generally calculated to
understand the behavior of concrete in tension. The direct measurement of tensile strength of concrete is difcult. As, It is almost
impossible to apply truly axial load in direct tension. So, behavior of
concrete in tension is studied by doing indirect testing of concrete
in tension. The split tensile test is a good indirect method of nding
out the tensile strength of concrete. The effect of the addition/
replacement of various types of plastic with on the split tensile
strength of concrete is discussed below.
2.2.2.1. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
PET
particles.
Rahmani et al. (2013) reported the tensile strength decreases due to
the negative effect of smooth surface texture on the bond strength
and increased surface area of PET particles as compared to sand.
Saikia and Brito (2014) revealed that the split tensile strength starts
decreasing as the amount of PET particles increases. The maximum
and minimum reduction were observed in PET aky coarse aggregate (PC) and heat treated PET particles (PP). The worst performance observed for PC is attributed to the high w/c ratios of these
mixes. The splitting tensile strength of concrete is strongly inuenced by the characteristics of the interfacial transition zone (ITZ).
The smooth surface of the plastic particles and the free water at the
surface of plastic aggregate can cause a weaker bonding between
these particles and the cement paste. In case of concrete containing
PP particles, after reaching the ultimate strength, most of the PP in
the concrete matrix do not fail, but they are debonded from the
cement paste, which is additional evidence of the poorer bonding
between the PP and the cement paste.
2.2.2.2. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
plastic
ber.
(Bhogayata et al., 2013) reported that the addition of bers at up to
1.5% reduces the split tensile strength by 43%. Overall, 93 specimens
were cast, including controlled concrete and concrete mixed with
polyethylene bers (1 mm
2 mm), in proportions of 0%e1.5% and
at intervals of 0.5%. Fly ash was also added in different proportions,
varying from 0% to 30%. The maximum tensile strength of the
control concrete was 3.96 MPa, which was reduced to 2.26 MPa
after addition of up to 1.5% plastic bers (by volume). Reductions in
the surface tensile strength were negligible when plastic bers
were added at 0.5%e1%. The surface tensile strength of the
controlled concrete was 1.36 MPa. After adding plastic bers at 1.5%
by volume, the surface tensile strength was reduced to 0.65 MPa.
The addition of plastic bers reduced the surface tensile strength of
the control concrete by 56%. Ramadevi and Manju (2012) concluded
that the split tensile strength of cylinder increases upto 2%
replacement of the ne aggregates with PET bottle bers and then
decreases slightly with further increase in replacement (4% and 6%)
of ne aggregates with PET bottle bers. The replacement of 2% of
ne aggregates is reasonable because it results in a high split tensile
strength relative to other percentages. However, some studies have
shown increment of split tensile strength, but most studies have
indicated lower tensile strength. Malagaveli (2011) conducted an
experiment to evaluate the split tensile strength of concrete at the
ages of 7 and 28 days with HDPE ber contents of 0e6%. Overall, the
split tensile strength increased by 14% when the ber content was

479

3.5% and began to decrease when the HDPE ber content was
increased from 3.5 to 6%.
A study performed by Prahallada and Parkash (2013) indicated
that the split tensile strength increased up to an aspect ratio of 50
and that the tensile strength decreased beyond an aspect ratio of
50. The tensile strength increased by 13%. Nibudey et al. (2013)
observed that the tensile strength increased for aspect ratios of
35 and 50 when bers were added at 1%. The controlled specimen
strength was 3.48 MPa, and strengths of 3.87 MPa and 4.13 MPa
were observed after the addition of ber at aspect ratios of 35 and
50. The waste plastic used with a specied aspect ratio in the
concrete performed better than the concrete that directly included
shredded plastic ber waste.
2.2.2.3. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small
pieces. Raghatate (2012) elucidated the increments of split tensile
strength across increments of different percentages of plastic
pieces. The addition of 0e1% of plastic pieces was conducted successively using 0.2% intervals. The test results were evaluated at 7,
14 and 28 days. The split tensile strength results following 28 days
indicated that the strength increased by 26% when plastic pieces
were added at 0.8% and then decreased when greater amounts of
plastic pieces were added. Albano et al. (2009) reported the split
tensile strength starts decreasing as the different sizes of PET aggregates are added in the concrete mix.
It can be concluded from the literature that the tensile strength
of concrete with encapsulated plastic only increases slightly when
small amounts of plastic are used and then decreases as more
plastic ber is used due to the less effective utilization of plastic for
plastic ber bridging action. Moreover, the strength of the concrete,
largely depends on the amount of plastic added to the concrete, the
size of the plastic, the physical and mechanical properties of the
plastic, the treatment of the plastic by any chemical before inclusion into the concrete and the uniform mixing of the plastic in the
concrete. These parameters require more attention to develop
precise methods for creating effective plastic ber reinforced
concrete.
2.2.3. Flexural strength
The ability of structural member to resist failure in bending is
termed as exural strength. The exural strength of concrete is
evaluated by three point loading or four point loading test. The
affect of addition/replacement of different forms of plastics on
exural strength of concrete is discussed below.
2.2.3.1. Effect of replacement/addition of PET particles. Saikia and
Brito (2014) concluded that the exural strength of concrete decreases as the amount of PET particles increases. In the study ne
aggregates were replaced with 5% 10% and 15% PET particles were
replaced with PET aggregates. It is concluded that as the amount of
any type of PET-aggregate in concrete increases the exural
strength decreases. However, the heat treated PET particles (PP)
performed well as compared to PET aky ne aggregate (PF) and
Pet aky coarse aggregate (PC). The post cracking strength improves on replacement by PC and PF aggregates due to their shape
and sizes. It was also observed during the testing the PC and PF
particles bridged the crack and prevented brittle failure of the
specimen during the test.
2.2.3.2. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic ber. Rai et al.
(2012) reported that the exural strength of concrete decreases
with the addition of plastic ber. When ber is added from 5% to
15%, exural strength decreases from 4 MPa to 3 MPa. In addition, it
was reported that superplasticizers do not signicantly affect
exural strength and that the surfaces of plastic waste bers

480

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

decrease the adhesive strength between the matrix surfaces.

Malagaveli (2011) concluded that the maximum exural strength
was obtained following the addition of HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) ber at 3.5% (by volume). In this case, the addition of
HDPE improved the exural strength of the concrete by 17.47%
relative to the control. The author concluded that a maximum of 2%
ber could be used for strength purposes. Ramadevi and Manju
(2012) concluded that replacing up to 2% of PET ber with ne
aggregates increased the exural strength of the concrete, which
gradually increased up to 4% and remained constant after 6%. The
maximum exural (45.77%) was greater relative to the control
when 4% PET ber was used.
Prahallada and Parkash (2013) reported results from waste
plastic bers prepared with aspect ratios of 30, 50, 70, 90, and 110.
These authors observed that the exural strength generally
increased up to an aspect ratio of 50 and decreased as the aspect
ratio increased beyond 50. The percentage increased in exural
strength was 10%.

2.2.3.3. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small

pieces. Ismail and Al-Hashmi (2010) reported the addition of 5 and
10% plastic granular waste and 0e50% iron improved the exural
strength of the waste modied-concrete specimen. By changing the
iron content, the adhesive property improved because additional
pozzolanic reactions occurred. Batayneh et al. (2007) and Saikia
and Brito (2013) revealed that the exural strength decreased as
the plastic waste aggregate content in the concrete increased.
According to the literature, the exural strength of concrete,
largely depends on the elastic properties of the ber and the concrete bending energy absorption. The maximum bending stress of
concrete occurs at its outer bers. From Fig. 4 it can be observed
that with addition/replacement of plastic particles/pelletes the
exural strength of concrete decreases and it further decreases
with increase in percentage replacement as larger percentage
hinder the matrix reaction and cause of reduction in strength
(Saikia and Brito, 2014; Rai et al., 2012). However, when PET bers
are added in concrete the exural strength of concrete slightly
increases.

2.2.4. Modulus of elasticity

Previously, few studies have assessed the modulus of elasticity
of plastic ber reinforced concrete relative to plastic ber mortar.
The effect of the addition of various forms of plastic on the modulus
of elasticity of concrete is illustrated below.

2.2.4.1. Effect
of
replacement/addition
of
PET
particles.
Rahmani et al. (2013) concluded the reduction in modulus of
elasticity of concrete can be due to small modulus of elasticity of
PET particles and this reduction has an approximate linear relationship with the increase of PET particle content. Saikia and Brito
(2014) reported that the PET aky coarse particles (PC) and PET
aky ne particles (PF) contained concrete have lower modulus of
concrete due to the porous concrete. The reason reported for
porous concrete is the higher W/C ratio and lower modulus of
elasticity of PET particles as compared with natural aggregate.
2.2.4.2. Effect of replacement/addition of plastic akes/pellets/small
pieces. Cordoba et al. (2013) determined the modulus of elasticity
when using plastic particle sizes of 0.5 mm, 1.5 mm, and 3.0 mm
with distinct volume percentages of 1, 2.5 and 5%. The highest
modulus of elasticity was obtained with 1.5 mm PET particles at a
concentration of 2.5% by volume following 28 days of curing. The
minimum modulus of elasticity was obtained for a PET particle size
of 3.0 mm and at a concentration of 5% by volume following 28 days
of curing.
Mathew et al. (2013) observed the modulus of elasticity of the
plastic coarse aggregate decreased by 22.12% relative to the natural
coarse aggregates containing concrete. Hannawi et al. (2010) and
Choi et al. (2009) reported that the modulus of elasticity decreased
as the plastic content changed.
The aggregate in concrete play a substantial roll for quantify the
mechanical properties of concrete. Majority of research shows any
form of plastic decrease the modulus of elasticity of concrete. This
property of concrete is degraded due to less modulus of elasticity of
plastic.
2.2.5. Thermal conductivity
Fraternali et al. (2011) measured the effective thermal conductivities of UNRC (Unreinforced Concrete), RPETFRC/a (Recycled PET
Fiber Reinforced Concrete) and PPFRC (Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Concrete) by using the experimental apparatus described by
Frattolillo et al. (2003). A prismatic specimen with a size of
19.5 cm
19.5 cm
3 cm was inserted into the measurement
chamber and subjected to heat transfer using electrical resistance
at the top of the chamber and a water cooling system at the bottom
of the chamber. The effective thermal conductivity was measured
using the one-dimensional steady state comparative method. The
thermal conductivity of RPETFRC and PPFRC decreased by 20%
relative to UNRC, as shown in Table 3. Dweik et al. (2008) reported
that the thermal insulation properties of cement mortar blocks
improved when sand was replaced with melamine formaldehyde
solid waste.
2.2.6. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test (UPVT)
The Ultrasonic pulse velocity test is carried out to investigate
homogeneity and structure of concrete. Currently, few studies are
available for assessing the UPV (ultrasonic pulse velocity) of concrete containing plastic. The previous studies show that plastic
contained concrete has lower UPV due to development of pores.
Rahmani et al. (2013) observed the reduction in UPV with an
addition and increase in PET particle content in the concrete. The

Table 3
Thermal conductivities of the specimens (Fraternali et al., 2011).

Fig. 4. Effect of addition/replacement of different forms of plastic on exural strength

of concrete.

Mixture

k (W/mK)

95% CI (W/mK)

FRR %

UNRC
RPETFRC/a
PPFRC

0.967
0.793
0.756

0.284
0.251
0.139

0.0
18.0
21.8

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

addition of PET particles makes concrete porous. Therefore, lower

ultrasonic pulse velocity was recorded for concrete containing PET
contents. The waterecement ratio also affects the UPV. The higher
water cement ratio leaves surplus water in the pores of concrete,
which results in formation of empty holes during the dehydration
leading to a reduction in the UPV. Albano et al. (2009) also reported
the reduction in the propagation rate of ultrasonic pulse. Araghi
et al. (2015) assessed the effect of sulfuric acid curing on the ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete with addition of 0%, 5%, 10% and
15% PET particle in concrete, and based on the results, it was
concluded that ultrasonic wave velocity decreased by 32.56%,
22.56%, 32.75% and 20.7% respectively. It has been also concluded
that the 15% PET particle induced concrete has better integrity and
higher density.
Most studies have considered the permeability, carbonation
depth, drying shrinkage and water sorptivity to assess the properties of mortars mixed with plastic ber. Previously, little data was
provided regarding the above property including frost resistant for
assessing the various properties of plastic ber reinforced concrete.
The durability of plastic ber reinforced concrete requires more
attention and substantial research.
3. Various eld applications of plastic ber reinforced
concrete
Although countable practical structures and structural parts
have been constructed of plastic containing concrete, the worldwide use of plastic ber in construction without compromising
strength requires deeper and deterministic research regarding the
utilization of waste material in concrete. Concrete containing
plastics have been used in various projects and countries. Sasaki
(2006) reported that PET ber reinforced concrete was successfully used in the Hishikari mine (Gold Mine) located in Kagoshima,
Japan. Evaluation of surfaces sprayed with PET bers showed that
the surfaces were relatively smooth with no cracking, uplifting or
deviation. A volumetric content of 0.3% and PET bers of 30 mm
were adopted in this application. The benets of using ber were
observed during the addition of PET bers to the matrix. Furthermore, no pipe clogging or ber ball formation was observed during
the application.
Ochi et al. (2007) reported that PET ber reinforced concrete
was applied to a bush road between Hayatogawa and Kanazawa in
the Kanagawa Prefecture in Japan. In this case, 0.75% of the volumetric ber content was used. The PET ber was mixed by an
agitator truck and then applied on the road with a thickness of
13 cm. To assess the matrix, a survey was conducted after 6 months
and after aws was no longer observed in the pavement. The PET
ber reinforced concrete was also used in March 2004 Ehime to
form the slope where steel ber replaces the sea front. In August
2004 and 2005, plastic bers were used in two distinct tunnels, the
Fukuoka and Tottori tunnels. The length of ber was 40 mm in both
applications. In September 2005, plastic bers were used to
construct a bridge pier in Kanagawa and the crack extension substantially decreased. Chowdhury et al. (2013) reported the use of
shredded PET ber as an aggregate for producing concrete building
blocks and observed that blocks with PET bers have greater
weather resistance, less foundation stress due to their lighter
weight, good sound insulation properties, better shock absorption,
and require less labor to make the blocks because the mixture is
lighter. The successful application of PET bottles was demonstrated
in a PET bottle house that was prepared by William F. Peak in 1902
in Tonopha, Nevada. Vargas et al.(2014) reported the full scale
1 m
3 m size slab prepared by recyclable PET bottles, aluminum
cans and Tetra Pak cartons, used as an in ll material. The exure
strength of specimen was 36 kN whereas the reference specimen

481

attained 31 kN. Prototypes with reusable packaging showed a 20%

reduction in density also. Several valuable examples are available
for evaluating the benets of using plastic bers in construction
work. Various environmental issues can be resolved by using
plastic in concrete.
4. Conclusion
1. From the literature review, it can be concluded that the direct
inclusion of plastic in concrete does not effectively improve the
strength of concrete. However, it is useful to treat plastic surfaces with reactive materials, such as iron slag, silica fume, and
metakaolin. In this case, the treated surface will react with the
matrix and produce additional pozzolanic reactions.
2. Workability of concrete containing waste plastic begins to
decrease as the amount of waste plastic increases (Batayneh
et al., 2007, Rai et al., 2012; Pelisser et al., 2012; Rahamani
et al., 2013).
3. Addition of plastics in concrete, compressive strength of the
concrete decreases. However, by using suitable mineral admixtures (Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2008; Choi et al., 2005, 2009) and
chemically treated plastic such as alkaline bleach treatment
(bleach NaOH) (Naik et al., 1996) the performance of plastic
ber reinforced concrete can improved
4. Addition of limited percentages of plastic in concrete has
resulted in small improvements in the tensile strength of concrete (Batayneh et al., 2007). The increments of tensile strength
improvement result from the bridging actions of the bers in
the concrete.
5. The exural strength of concrete improves with the addition of
plastic bers in concrete. The plastic in concrete works like a
crack arrester during the propagation of the crack (Pelisser et al.,
2012). Hence, improvements in ductility are also observed in
concrete that is reinforced with plastic ber relative to conventional concrete.
6. The modulus of elasticity of plastic ber reinforced concrete
decreases as the plastic content increases in any form (Cordoba
et al., 2013; Rahamani et al., 2013 Hannawi et al., 2010; Pelisser
et al., 2012).
7. Durability of plastic ber reinforced concrete is a major concern.
Thus, extensive research of durability parameters is required
because little literature is available regarding these parameters.
8. Mixing bers in concrete is one major problem in the production of ber reinforced concrete. The properties of concrete vary
as the plastic ber content in concrete varies. Thus, future
research should focused on establishing a method for mixing
plastic ber in concrete, the shape of plastic bers, the specied
aspect ratios of plastic bers, and the surface properties of
plastic bers so that the bers adhered to the concrete mix.
9. Plastic ber reinforced concrete can be used for structures that
are not subjected to heavy loads, such as park benches and stone
curb. This can lead to reduce the amount of waste plastic.
References
Albano, C., Camacho, N., Hernandez, M., Matheus, A., Gutierrez, A., 2009. Inuence
of content and particle size of per waste bottles on concrete behaviour at
different w/c ratio. Waste Manag. (Oxford) 29, 2707e2716.
Araghi, H.J., Nikbin, I.M., Reskati, S.R., Rahmani, E., Allahyari, H., 2015. An experimental investigation on the erosion resistance of concrete containing various
PET particles percentages against sulfuric acid attack. Constr. Build. Mater. 77,
461e471.
Al-Salem, M.S., Lettieri, P., Baeyens, J., 2009. Recycling and recovery routes of plastic
solid waste (PSW): a review. Waste Manag. 29, 2625e2643.
mberg, E., Karlssonb, S., Ribes-Greus, A., 2012. The role of crystalline,
Badia, J.D., Stro
mobile amorphous and rigid amorphous fractions in the performance of
recycled poly (ethylene terephthalate) (PET). Polym. Degrad. Stab. 97, 98e107.

482

R. Sharma, P.P. Bansal / Journal of Cleaner Production 112 (2016) 473e482

Batayneh, M., Marie, I., Ibrahim, A., 2007. Use of selected waste material in concrete
mixes. Waste Manag. 27, 1870e1876.
Benosman, A.S., Mouli, M.T., Belbachir, H., Senhadji, M., Bahlouli, Y., Houivet, D.L.,
2013. Studies on chemical resistance of PET-mortar composites: microstructure
and phase composition changes. Sci. Res. 5, 359e378.
Bhogayata, A., Arora, N.K., 2011. Green concrete from the post consumer plastic
wastes: Indian scenario. In: ICTSET Proceedings, ISBN 978-81-906377-9-4,
pp. 437e440.
Bhogayata, A., Shah, K.D., Vyas, B.A., Arora, N.K., 2012a. Feasibility of waste metallised polythene used as concrete constituent. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 1 (5),
204e207.
Bhogayata, A., Shah, K.D., Vyas, B.A., Arora, N.K., 2012b. Performance of concrete by
using non recyclable plastic waste as concrete constituent. Int. J. Eng. Adv.
Technol. 1 (4), 1e3.
Bhogayata, A., Shah, K.D., Arora, N.K., 2013. Strength properties of concrete containing post consumer metalized plastic wastes. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. ISSN:
2278-0181 2 (3).
Choi, Y.W., Moon, D.J., Chung, J.S., Cho, S.K., 2005. Effect of pet waste bottles
aggregate on the property of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 776e781.
Choi, Y.W., Moon, D.J., Kim, Y.J., Lachemi, M., 2009. Characteristics of mortar and
concrete containing ne aggregate manufactured from recycled waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles. Constr. Build. Mater. 23, 2829e2835.
Chowdhury, S., Maniar, A.T., Suganya, O., 2013. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
waste as building solution. Int. J. Chem. Environ. Biol. Sci. (IJCEBS) 1, 2320e4087.
Cordoba, L.A., Berrera, G.M., Diaz, C.B., Nunez, F.U., Yanez, A.L., 2013. Effects on
mechanical properties of recycled PET in cement-based composites. Int. J.
Polym. Sci. 2013, 1e6.
Dormer, A., Finn, D.P., Ward, P., Cullen, J., 2013. Carbon footprint analysis in plastics
manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 51, 133e141.
Dullius, J., Ruecker, C., Oliveira, V., Ligabue, R., Einlof, S., 2006. Chemical recycling of
post-consumer PET: Alkyd resins synthesis. Prog. Org. Coat. 57, 123e127.
Dweik, H.S., Ziara, M.M., Hadidoun, H.S., 2008. Enhancing concrete strength and
thermal insulation using thermoset plastic waste. Int. J. Polym. Material 57,
635e656.
Foti, D., 2011. Preliminary analysis of concrete reinforced with waste bottles PET
bers. Constr. Build. Material 25, 1906e1915.
Foti, D., 2013. Use of recycled waste pet bottles bers for the reinforcement of
concrete. Compos. Struct. 96, 396e404.
Fraternali, F., Ciancia, V., Chechile, R., Rizzano, G., Feo, L., Incarnato, L., 2011.
Experimental study of thermal-mechanical properties of recycled PET berreinforced concrete. Compos. Struct. 93, 2368e2374.
Frattolillo, A., Giovinco, G., Mascolo, M.C., Vitale, A., 2003. Effect of hydrophobic
treatment on the thermophysical properties of lightweight mortar. Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 29, 733e741.
Frigione, M., 2010. Recycling of PET bottles as ne aggregate in concrete. Waste
Manag. 30, 1101e1106.
Hannawi, K., kamal-Bernard, S., Prince, W., 2010. Physical and mechanical properties of mortar containing PET and PC waste aggregate. Waste Manag. 30,
2312e2320.
Ismail, Z.Z., Al- Hashmi, E.A., 2008. Use of plastic waste in concrete mixture as
aggregate replacement. Waste Manag. 28, 2041e2047.
Ismail, Z.Z., Al-Hashmi, E.A., 2010. Validation of using mixed iron and plastic wastes
in concrete. Sustain. Constr. Mater. Technol. 2, 278e283.
Ingrao, C., 2014. Recycled-PET bre based panels for building thermal insulation:
environmental impact and improvement potential assessment for a greener
production. Sci. Total Environ. 493, 914e926.
Kou, S.C., Lee, G., Poon, C.S., Lai, W.L., 2009. Properties of lightweight aggregate
concrete prepared with PVC granules derived from scraped PVC pipes. Waste
Manag. 29, 621e628.
Kumar, P., Kaushik, S.K., 2003. Some trend in the use of concrete: Indian scenario.
Indian Concr. J. 1503e1508.
Mahdi, F., Abbas, H., Khan, A.A., 2010. Strength characteristics of polymer mortar
and concrete using different compositions of resins derived from postconsumer PET bottles. Constr. Build. Material 24, 25e36.
Malagaveli, V., 2011. Strength characteristics of concrete using solid waste an
experimental investigation. Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 4, 937e940.

Mathew, P., Varghese, S., Paul, T., Varghese, E., 2013. Recycled plastic as coarse
aggregate for structural concrete. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2,
687e690.
Naik, T.R., Singh, S.S., Huber, C.O., Brodersen, B.S., 1996. Use of post-consumer waste
plastic in cement-based composites. Cem. Concr. Res. 26, 1489e1492.
Nampoothiri, K.M., Nair, N.R., John, R.P., 2010. An overview of the recent developments in polylactide (PLA) research. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 8493e8501.
Nibudey, R.N., Nagarnaik, P.B., Parbat, D.K., Pande, A.M., 2013. Strengths prediction
of plastic ber reinforced concrete (M30). Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl. (IJERA) 3,
1818e1825.
Ochi, T., Okubo, S., Fukui, K., 2007. Development of recycled PET ber and its
application as concrete-reinforcing ber. Cem. Concr. Compos. 29, 448e455.
Othman, S.N., Noor, Z.Z., Abba, A.H., Yusuf, R.O., Hasan, M.A.B., 2013. Review on life
cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management in some Asian countries. J. Clean. Prod. 41, 251e262.
Papong, S., Malakul, P., Trungkavashirakun, R., Wenunun, P., Chom-in, T.,
Nithitanakul, M., Sarobol, Ed., 2014. Comparative assessment of the environmental prole of PLA and PET drinking water bottles from a life cycle
perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 539e550.
Pelisser, F., Montedo, R.K.O., Gleize, J.P.P., Roman, R.H., 2012. Mechanical properties
of recycled PET bers in concrete. Mater. Res. 15 (4), 679e686.
odore de Cuyper 100,
Petcore. PET Containers recycling europe (Petcore), Rue The
1200 Brussels, Belgium. Available from: www-petcore-europe.org (accessed
21.11.13.).
Prahallada, M.C., Parkash, K.B., 2013. Effect of different aspect ratio of waste plastic
bers on the properties of ber reinforced concrete e an experimental investigation. Int. J. Adv. Res. IT Eng. 2, 1e13.
Raghatate, A.M., 2012. Use of plastic in a concrete to improve its properties. Int. J.
Adv. Eng. Res. Stud. 1, 109e111.
Rahmani, E., Dehestani, M., Beygi, M.H.A., Allahyari, H., Nikbin, I.M., 2013. On the
mechanical properties of concrete containing waste PET particles. Constr. Build.
Mater. 47, 1302e1308.
Rai, B., Rushad, S.T., Bhavesh, K.,R., Duggal, S.K., 2012. Study of waste plastic mix
concrete with plasticizer. Int. Sch. Res. Netw. 2012, 1e5.
Ramadevi, K., Manju, R., 2012. Experimental investigation on the properties of
concrete with plastic PET (bottle) bers as ne aggregate. Int. J. Emerg. Technol.
Adv. Eng. 2, 42e46.
Rebeiz, K.S., Craft, P.A., 1995. Plastic waste management in construction: technological and institutional issues. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 15, 245e257.
Saikia, N., Brito, J.D., 2014. Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of concrete containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial substitution of natural
aggregate. Constr. Build. Material 52, 236e244.
Saikia, N., Brito, J.D., 2012. Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement mortar and
concrete preparation: a review. Constr. Build. Material 34, 385e401.
Saikia, N., Brito, J.D., 2013. Waste polyethylene terephthalate as an aggregate in
concrete. Material Res. 16, 341e350.
Sasaki, M., 2006. Statistical features of vein system in the Hishikari epithermal gold
deposit, Japan. Resour. Geol. 56, 27e36.
Sivaraja, M., Kandasamy, S., 2007. Reinforced concrete beams with rural composites
under cyclic loading. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2 (11), 1620e1626.
Sivaraja, M., Kandasamy, S., Thrimurugan, A., 2010. Mechanical strength of brous
concrete with waste rural materials. J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 69, 308e312.
Soroushian, P., Plasencia, J., Ravanbakhsh, S., 2003. Assessment of reinforcing effects
of recycled plastic and paper in concrete. ACI Mater. J. 100, 203e207.
Subramanian, M.P., 2000. Plastics recycling and waste management in the US.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 28, 253e263.
Suganthy, P., Chandrasekar, K., Sathish, P.K., 2013. Utilization of pulverized plastic in
cement concrete as ne aggregate. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2, 1e5.
Vargas, A., Silva, B.V., Rocha, M.R., Pelisser, F., 2014. Precast slabs using recyclable
packaging as ooring support elements. J. Clean. Prod. 66, 92e100.
Zhanga, D.Q., Tanb, K.S., Gersbergc, R.M., 2010. Municipal solid waste management
in China: status, problems and challenges. J. Environ. Manag. 91, 1623e1633.
Zhou, C., Fang, W., Xu, W., Cao, A., Wang, R., 2014. Characteristics and the recovery
potential of plastic wastes obtained from landll mining. J. Clean. Prod. 80,
80e86.