PERFORMANCE STUDY ON RECYCLED PLASTICS IN CONCRETE

1. 1
PERFORMANCE STUDY ON RECYCLED PLASTICS IN CONCRETE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of plastic
1.2 Need for study
1.3 Scope and Objectives
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Recycled plastic
3. EXPERIMENTAL WORK PHASE
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Work plan
3.3 Scheme of the work
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Test results
4.1.1 Compressive strength
4.1.2Flexural strength
5. CONCLUSION

2. 2
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACK GROUND OF PLASTIC
The changed life style and endlessly increasing population has resulted
in a significant rise in the quantity of plastic waste. The world’s annual
consumption of plastic materials has increased from around 5million tons in the
1950’s to nearly 100 million tons in recent times, resulting in a significant increase
in the amount of plastic waste generation. Out of this waste , a significant part is
recycled but the majority of post - consumer plastic wastes , like shampoo sachets,
carry – bags , nitro packs , milk and water pouches etc., though recyclable,
remains comparatively untouched as they are difficult to separate from household
garbage.
In most of the cases, suchpost – consumer waste either litters all
around or is disposed offby land filling. The disposalof post – consumer plastic
waste in this manner poses significant environmental hazards as it results in
reduction in soil fertility , reduction in water percolation , emission of toxic gases ,
health hazard to animals and birds consuming the wastes , poordrainage due to
land fill , pollution of ground water due to leaching of chemicals from these waste
products etc.Looking to the global issue of environmental pollution by post –
consumer plastic waste , research efforts have been focused on consuming this
waste on massive scale in efficient and environmental friendly manner .
Researchers planned to use plastic waste in form of concrete ingredient
as the concrete is second mostsought material by human beings after water . The
use of post – consumer plastic waste in concrete will not only be its safe disposal

3. 3
method but may also improve the concrete properties like tensile strength ,
chemical resistance , drying shrinkage and creep on short and long term basis.
1.2 NEED FOR STUDY
Nowadays one of the major problems in construction industries is
insufficient and unavailability of construction materials , on the other side the main
environmental problem is the disposalof the waste plastics.
In this experimental study , an attempt has been made to use the
plastics in concrete and studies have been conducted to focus on the behavior of
flexural and compressionmembers under various proportions of plastics.
Types of plastics will be selected and mixed with concrete in various
proportions and the specimens are casted and tested for its compression and
flexural strength respectively.
1.3 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The scopeofthis work is limited to the development of a suitable
mix design and to compare the compressibility and flexural aspectof Natural Poly
Propylene (NPP) mixed concrete and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) mixed
concrete against the plain cement concrete.
The main objective of this project is to enhance the best
environmental alternative for solving the problem of disposal.
The development of new construction materials using recycled
plastics is important to both the constructions and the plastic recycling industries.

4. 4
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 RECYCLED PLASTICS
Plastics are the organic polymer materials having carbonas the
common element in their make up. The polymers consistof combination of carbon
with oxygen , hydrogen , nitrogen and other organic substances. Plastic are
normally stable and not bio – degradable, so , their disposalposes problems.
Research works are going on in make use of plastic wastes
effectively as additives in bitumen mixes for the road pavements (Lakshmipathy
et., al, 2003) , (Vasudevan 2004) , repair and upgradation of reinforced concrete
silos using fiber reinforced plastics (FRP), (Bhedasgaonkaret., al 2004).
A laboratory experimental study carried out to utilize waste
plastics(in the form of strips) obtained from milk pouches in the pavement
constructions (Chandrakaran 2004) , pilot level studies using industrial PVC scrap
to develop PVC board (Agarwal 2004).Re engineered plastics are used for solving
the solid waste management problems to great extent.
This study attempt is to give a contribution to the effective use of
domestic waste plastics in concrete in order to prevent the environmental strains
caused by them, also to limit the consumption of high amount of natural resources.

5. 5
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL WORK PHASE
3.1 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, a work plan is formulated, which outlines the entire
procedure carried out during the experimental investigation.
3.2 WORK PLAN
The experimental investigation was carried out in different phases.
The various phases involved have been explained as follows.
The first phase involved the collection of materials Natural Poly
Propylene (NPP), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).
The second phase involved the calculation of a suitable design mix
for plain cement concrete so that it satisfies the requirements of a high strength
concrete, when coarse aggregate is replaced with suitable recycled plastics.
The third phase included the casting, curing and testing of the
plain cement concrete cubes and beams, recycled plastics cubes and beams.
A general overview of the phases involved is shown in figure 3.1

6. 6
Fig 3.1 phases of the experimental work
Materials collection
(NPP, PET)
Mix Proportion
Casting
Plain
Cement
Concrete
NPP
Mixed
Concrete
PET Mixed
Concrete
Study of Strength properties
1.Flexural Strength
2.CompressionStrength
Analysis Of Results
Conclusion

7. 7
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 TEST RESULTS
4.1.1 Compressive Strength
Most of the desirable characteristics properties of concrete
are qualitatively related to its compressive strength. Therefore it is necessary to
calculate the performance and strength of the concrete. The compressive strength is
calculated from the failure load divided by the cross sectional area resisting the
load and reported in units of Mpa.
4.1.1.1 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF PLAIN CEMENT
CONCRETE (PCC) CUBE
NPP = 0%
PET= 0%
Table 4.1 Compressive strength of plain cement concrete cube
Specimen Identity
Compressive strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PCC 16.70 24.20
PCC 21.00 26.60
PCC 20.70 25.60
Average Value 19.46 25.46

8. 8
4.1.1.2 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR 1% NPP
REPLACEMENT
NPP=1% PET=0%
Table 4.2 Compressive strength of NPP (1%) mixed concrete cube
SpecimenIdentity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
NPP 1% 21.40 31.50
NPP 1% 19.00 30.10
NPP 1% 20.00 32.50
Average Value 20.13 31.36
4.1.1.3 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR 3% NPP
REPLACEMENT
NPP= 3% PET= 0%
Table 4.3 Compressive strength of NPP (3%) mixed concrete cube
SpecimenIdentity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive Strength
28 days(N/mm²)
NPP 3% 21.00 32.50
NPP 3% 20.05 29.20
NPP 3% 21.09 32.50
Average Value 20.71 31.40

9. 9
4.1.1.4 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR 5% NPP
REPLACEMENT
NPP= 5% PET= 0%
Table 4.4 Compressive strength of NPP (5%) mixed concrete cube
SpecimenIdentity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive Strength
28 days(N/mm²)
NPP 5% 10.59 20.28
NPP 5% 9.75 20.55
NPP 5% 10.07 20.64
Average Value 10.13 20.49
Table 4.5 Compressive strength of NPP specimens
Specimen Identity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PCC 19.46 25.46
NPP 1% 20.13 31.36
NPP 3% 20.71 31.40
NPP 5% 10.13 20.49

10. 10
Fig 4.1 Compressive strengthof PCC & NPP
Fig 4.2 ComparisonbetweenCompressive Strength of PCC & NPP
19.46 20.13
20.71
10.13
25.46
31.36
31.40
20.49
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PCC NPP 1 % NPP 3% NPP 5%
CompressivestrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP
28 DAYS
14 DAYS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
14 DAYS 28 DAYS
19.46
25.46
20.13
31.36
20.71
31.4
10.13
20.49
CompressivectrengthN/mm²
PCC
NPP 1%
NPP 3%
NPP 5%

11. 11
4.1.1.5 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR 1% PET
REPLACEMENT
PET= 1% NPP= 0%
Table 4.6 Compressive strength of PET (1%) mixed concrete cube
Specimen Identity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PET 1% 19.60 26.06
PET 1% 19.43 23.45
PET 1% 20.45 27.60
Average Value 19.82 25.70
4.1.1.6 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR 3% PET
REPLACEMENT
PET= 3% NPP= 0%
Table 4.7 Compressive strength of PET (3%) mixed concrete cube
Specimen Identity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PET 3% 21.06 32.20
PET 3% 20.05 30.50
PET 3% 20.08 29.40
Average Value 20.39 30.70

12. 12
4.1.1.7 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH FOR 5% PET
REPLACEMENT
PET= 5% NPP= 0%
Table 4.8 Compressive strength of PET (5%) mixed concrete cube
Specimen Identity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PET 5% 8.70 13.50
PET 5% 8.90 13.90
PET 5% 8.50 13.20
Average Value 8.70 13.53
Table 4.9 Compressive strength of PET specimens
Specimen Identity Compressive Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Compressive Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PCC 19.46 25.46
PET 1% 19.82 25.70
PET 3% 20.39 30.70
PET 5% 8.70 13.53

13. 13
Fig 4.3 Compressive strengthof PCC & PET
Fig 4.4 ComparisonbetweenCompressive Strength of PCC & PET
19.46 19.82 20.39
8.7
25.46 25.70
30.70
13.53
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
PCC PET 1% PET 3% PET 5%
CompressivestrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof PET
28 DAYS
14 DAYS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
14 DAYS 28 DAYS
19.46
25.46
19.82
25.7
20.39
30.7
8.7
13.53
CompressivestrengthN/mm²
PCC
PET 1%
PET3%
PET 5%

14. 14
Table 4.10 ComparisonbetweenCompressive Strengthof PCC, NPP & PET
for 14 days and 28 days
Compressive Strength of PCC for 14 days= 19.46 N/mm²
Compressive Strength of PCC for 28 days= 25.46 N/mm²
Specimen
Identity
% Replacement of Recycled Plastic
1% 3% 5%
14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days
NPP 20.13 31.36 20.71 31.40 10.13 20.49
PET 19.82 25.70 20.39 30.70 8.70 13.53
Fig 4.5 ComparisonbetweenCompressive Strengthof NPP & PET for 14 days
19.46
20.13 20.71
10.13
19.82 20.39
8.70
0
5
10
15
20
25
0% 1% 3% 5%
CompressiveStrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP& PET
PET
NPP

15. 15
Fig 4.6 Comparisonbetween Compressive Strengthof PCC, NPP & PET for
14 days
Fig 4.7 ComparisonbetweenCompressive Strength of NPP & PET for 28 days
0
5
10
15
20
25
0% 1% 3% 5%
19.46
19.46
19.46
19.46
0
20.13 20.71
10.13
0
19.82 20.39
8.7
CompressivestrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP& PET
PCC
NPP
PET
25.46
31.36 31.4
20.49
25.70
30.70
13.53
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0% 1% 3% 5%
CompressivestrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP& PET
PET
NPP

16. 16
Fig 4.8 ComparisonbetweenCompressive Strengthof PCC, NPP & PET for
28 days
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0% 1% 3% 5%
25.46 25.46 25.46 25.46
0
31.36 31.4
20.49
0
25.7
30.7
13.53
CompressivestrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP& PET
PCC
NPP
PET

17. 17
4.1.2 Flexuralstrength
It is the ability of a beam or slab to resist failure in bending. It is
measured by loading un- reinforced concrete beams with a span three times the
depth. Flexural strength is expressed as Mpa.
4.1.2.1 FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF PLAIN CEMENT
CONCRETE (PCC) BEAM
NPP= 0%
PET= 0%
Table 4.11 Flexural strength of plain cement concrete beam
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PCC 0% 2.728 5.437
PCC 0% 2.895 5.800
PCC 0% 2.665 5.357
Average Value 2.762 5.530

18. 18
4.1.2.2 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR 1% NPP REPLACEMENT
NPP= 1% PET= 0%
Table 4.12 Flexural strength of NPP (1%) mixed concrete beam
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
NPP 1% 2.795 5.300
NPP 1% 3.012 6.005
NPP 1% 3.150 6.100
Average Value 2.985 5.801
4.1.2.3 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR 3% NPP REPLACEMENT
NPP= 3% PET= 0%
Table 4.13 Flexural strength of NPP (3%) mixed concrete beam
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
NPP 3% 2.673 5.950
NPP 3% 3.620 5.854
NPP 3% 2.795 5.900
Average Value 3.029 5.901

19. 19
4.1.2.4 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR 5% NPP REPLACEMENT
NPP= 5% PET= 0%
Table 4.14 Flexural strength of NPP (5%) mixed concrete beam
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
NPP 5% 2.360 4.725
NPP 5% 2.421 4.850
NPP 5% 2.364 4.730
Average Value 2.381 4.768
Table 4.15 Flexural strength of NPP specimens
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PCC 2.762 5.530
NPP 1% 2.985 5.801
NPP 3% 3.029 5.901
NPP 5% 2.381 4.768

20. 20
Fig 4.9 Flexural Strength of PCC & NPP
Fig 4.10 ComparisonbetweenFlexuralStrength of PCC & PET
2.762 2.985 3.029 2.381
5.530
5.801 5.901
4.768
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
PCC NPP 1% NPP 3% NPP 5%
FlexuralStrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP
28 DAYS
14 DAYS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
14 DAYS 28 DAYS
2.762
5.53
2.985
5.801
3.029
5.901
2.381
4.417
FlexuralstrengthN/mm²
PCC
NPP 1%
NPP 3%
NPP 5%

21. 21
4.1.2.5 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR 1% PET REPLACEMENT
PET= 1% NPP= 0%
Table 4.16 Flexural strength of PET (1%) mixed concrete beam
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PET 1% 2.695 5.502
PET 1% 2.675 5.525
PET 1% 2.950 5.569
Average Value 2.773 5.532
4.1.2.6 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR 3% PET REPLACEMENT
PET= 3% NPP= 0%
Table 4.17 Flexural strength of PET (3%) mixed concrete beam
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PET 3% 2.669 5.350
PET 3% 2.785 5.937
PET 3% 2.935 5.401
Average Value 2.796 5.562

22. 22
4.1.2.7 FLEXURAL STRENGTH FOR 5% PET REPLACEMENT
PET= 5% NPP= 0%
Table 4.18 Flexural strength of PET (5%) mixed concrete beam
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PET 5% 2.107 4.205
PET 5% 2.440 4.675
PET 5% 2.175 4.373
Average Value 2.240 4.417
Table 4.19 Flexural strength of PET specimens
Specimen Identity Flexural Strength
14 days (N/mm²)
Flexural Strength
28 days (N/mm²)
PCC 2.762 5.530
PET 1% 2.773 5.532
PET 3% 2.796 5.562
PET 5% 2.240 4.417

23. 23
Fig 4.11 FlexuralStrength of PCC & PET
Fig 4.12 ComparisonbetweenFlexuralStrength of PCC & PET
2.762 2.773 2.796
2.24
5.530 5.532 5.562
4.417
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
PCC PET 1% PET 3% PET 5%
FlexuralStrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof PET
28 DAYS
14 DAYS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
14 DAYS 28 DAYS
2.762
5.53
2.773
5.532
2.796
5.562
2.24
4.768
FlexuralStrengthN/mm²
PCC
PET 1%
PET 3%
PET 5%

24. 24
Table 4.20 ComparisonbetweenFlexural Strength of PCC, NPP & PET for
14 days and 28 days
Flexural Strength of PCC for 14 days= 2.762 N/mm²
Flexural Strength of PCC for 28 days= 5.530 N/mm²
Specimen
Identity
% Replacement of Recycled Plastic
1% 3% 5%
14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days
NPP 2.985 5.801 3.029 5.901 2.381 4.768
PET 2.773 5.532 2.796 5.562 2.240 4.417
Fig 4.13 ComparisonbetweenFlexuralStrength of NPP & PET for 14 days
2.762
2.985 3.029
2.3812.773 2.796
2.240
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0% 1% 3% 5%
FlexuralStrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP& PET
PET
NPP

25. 25
Fig 4.14 ComparisonbetweenFlexuralStrength of PCC, NPP & PET for
14 days
Fig 4.15 ComparisonbetweenFlexuralStrength of NPP & PET for 28 days
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0% 1% 3% 5%
2.762 2.762 2.762 2.762
0
2.985 3.029
2.381
0
2.773 2.796
2.24
FlexuralstrengthN/mm²
% Replacement of NPP & PET
PCC
NPP
PET
5.53
5.801 5.901
4.7685.532 5.562
4.417
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0% 1% 3% 5%
FlexuralStrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP& PET
PET
NPP

26. 26
Fig 4.16 ComparisonbetweenFlexural Strength of PCC, NPP & PET for
28 days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0% 1% 3% 5%
5.53 5.53 5.53 5.53
0
5.801 5.901
4.768
0
5.532 5.562
4.417
FlexuralStrengthN/mm²
% Replacementof NPP& PET
PCC
NPP
PET

27. 27
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The project intended to find the effective ways to reutilize the plastic
waste particles as concrete aggregate. Analysis of the strength characteristics of
concrete containing recycled plastic gave the following results.
 It is identified that plastic waste can be disposed byusing them
as construction materials.
 Since the Recycled Plastic is not suitable to replace fine
aggregate it is used to replace the coarseaggregate.
 All these forms have smoothsurface and hence require surface
roughening treatment for better bond characteristics.
 From the results it can be concluded that the compressive
strength gradually increases as the percentage of replacement of
Natural Poly Propylene (NPP) by weight of coarse aggregate
also increase and attains a peak value at 3% replacement of NPP
with 18.91% increase in compressive strength.
 Similarly the flexural strength of the NPP mixed concrete beam
seems to increase as the 3% of NPP replaced in concrete. The
maximum increase in flexural strength was found to be 6.28%.
 Hence to achieve a high compressive strength and flexural
strength it is recommended that coarseaggregate can be
replaced with 3% of NPP by its weight.