Available online at www.CivileJournal.

org

Civil Engineering Journal

Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

Compressive Strength and Bulk Density of Concrete Hollow

Blocks (CHB) with Polypropylene (PP) Pellets as Partial
Replacement for Sand
Jonathan David D. Lasco a, Marish S. Madlangbayan b, Marloe B. Sundo b*
a
Center for Water and the Environment, University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA.
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, Philippines.
Received 16 August 2017; Accepted 22 October 2017

Abstract
Plastics are non-biodegradable and the increasing generation of plastics creates a problem of disposal. One promising
approach to address this problem is to find other uses for plastics after they are used. While studies on the incorporation of
waste materials in concrete abound, little attention has been given to the incorporation of plastic wastes in concrete. Also,
these few studies have focused on cylindrical concrete specimens – none in online published articles, to the authors’
knowledge, has focused on concrete hollow blocks. The present study narrowed that gap by shifting the focus of research
from the conventional cylindrical specimen to concrete hollow block. Thus, the main objective of the study was to assess
the potential of concrete hollow blocks with PP pellets as partial replacement for sand. Polypropylene (PP), which is a
subset of these plastics, were pelletized and incorporated in concrete hollow blocks as partial replacement for sand. Five
batches of specimens, each with 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% PP replacement (by volume) were molded and cured for 28
days. The compressive strength and bulk density of the specimens from these batches were determined and compared.
Results showed that, generally, compressive strength and bulk density decrease as percent replacement increases; however,
it was observed that the compressive strength of the specimens from batch with 10% PP replacement were higher compared
to batches with 0% PP replacement.
Keywords: Polypropylene Pellets; Compressive Strength; Bulk Density; Concrete Hollow Block.

1. Introduction
While Republic Act 9003, or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000, has set the basis for managing
solid wastes in the Philippines, it is not yet fully implemented in the country and the problems associated with solid
wastes still persist [1].
Because population increases and the economy expands, solid waste generation has increased rapidly in the
Philippines. For example, the national population increased from 86 million in 2005 to 100 million in 2015. It is reported
by the National Solid Waste Management Commission (NSWMC) that total annual solid waste generation rate of the
country is 30,000 tons/day with 26.6% from Metro Manila mostly from commercial and residential establishments [2].
This is projected to increase by 40% in the next decade. In addition, about 500 to 700 grams of solid waste per day on
the average is generated by each person living in an urban area and 300 grams in rural areas. Furthermore, plastics
account for 17% of the total solid waste generated in the country [3].

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/cej-030917
 This is an open access article under the CC-BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
© Authors retain all copyrights.

821
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

As a consequence, a greater landfill area is required to dispose the wastes generated. Because the problem of solid
waste disposal is exacerbated with higher population density, the problem is especially acute in urban areas [4]. One
solution to this problem is recycling; however, not all solid wastes are recycled. For instance, only 8.4 percent of plastic
waste is recycled in the Philippines [5]. As the quantity of waste generated increases yearly, it is therefore vital to find
ways to recycle these wastes. This study offers a method of recycling plastic waste in the form of sand-substitution
aggregate to masonry structures.
In recent decades, literature on the incorporation of waste materials to concrete and CHBs has been gaining popularity
as waste management became more challenging. For example, a feasibility study was undertaken by Kumar on the
production of fly ash–lime–gypsum (FaL-G) bricks and hollow blocks to solve the problems of housing shortage [6].
His objective was to build low-cost houses by utilizing industrial wastes. It was observed that these bricks and hollow
blocks have sufficient strength for their use in low cost housing development and have potential as a replacement for
conventional hollow burnt clay bricks and concrete hollow blocks. Moreover, FaL-G also reduces the dead weight and
handling cost of materials in multi-storied constructions. The viability of sugar cane bagasse ash (SBA) in the
construction of brick materials has also been studied [7]. It was reported that compressive and density decreases as the
mix proportion of SBA increases. Ceramic waste, marble dust, granite dust, fly ash, rice husk ash, silica fume, born
powder, ground-granulated blast-furnace slag, foundry waste, quarry dust, alkofile, pond ash, glass powder, palm oil
fuel ash, and saw dust can also be used as partial replacement for cement, as summarized in one article [8].
Crumb rubber has also been suggested as aggregate for rubberized long hollow blocks. It was reported that it
automated production of the blocks with crumb rubber is better than factory-manufactured long hollow blocks; however,
one must be wary in using the blocks with crumb rubber as the addition of crumb rubber causes significant deformation
and drastic reduction in compressive strength [9-11]. Another study investigated the use of copper slag and discarded
rubber tire as partial replacement for aggregates where the results showed that the concrete strength and durability
increased due to the presence of copper slag. Furthermore, it was suggested that concrete mix with 40% copper slag and
10% rubber tire may be suitable for construction [12]. While addition of tire rubber can cause reduction in compressive
strength and tensile strength, it can improve abrasion resistance as a recent study shows [13].
There are also studies dedicated to investigating the effect of admixtures on the properties of concrete. One common
admixture to concrete is fly ash. Dodson and Roberts, who patented the use of fly ash as admixture to concrete, claimed
that concretes containing Portland cement, fly ash, and aggregates can attain high compressive strengths with a high
proportion of fly ash compared to cement [14]. These concretes, when formulated to have a high density, may be utilized
for buildings, bridges, dams, and other infrastructures similar to the conventional structural concrete. Furthermore, when
the concretes are formulated to be low in density, they can be used as a lightweight thermally-insulated concrete which
may be specifically suited for use as thermal insulating components of roofs and as protective coatings for a variety of
substrates. In a recent study, however, it was claimed that silica fume is superior to fly ash in terms of reducing lime
content and increasing C-S-H and concrete’s structural compacting [15]. Another study tested another probable
admixture to concrete in the form of waste latex paint [16]. Conducted in New Zealand, where a considerable volume of
waste latex paint exists, it was concluded that waste latex paint was a suitable substitute for common admixtures in
concrete masonry blockfill, resulting in maintained strength and improved workability. In another study, paper waste
was considered as an additive to produce porous and lightweight hollow clay bricks with reduced thermal conductivity
and acceptable compressive strength [17].
Concretes mixed with plastic wastes have become the subject of many studies due to their significance in helping
alleviate solid waste problems and producing lightweight and low-cost concretes. A study of the pulverized PET bottles,
injection molded plastics, and polythene bags as partial replacement for sand was done in the past to prove its viability
[18]. The 28-day compressive strength results revealed that when sand is replaced to the extent of up to 10%, strength
reduction up to 13.5% was observed. Rebeiz and Craft [19] investigated the use of resins based on recycled polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) plastic waste for the production of a high performance composite material, called polyester concrete
(PC). Their results showed that resins using recycled PET offer the possibility of a lower cost of materials for forming
good quality PC. PC products also allow the long-term disposal of PET waste, an important advantage in recycling
applications.
Another study was done to investigate the use of waste plastic (80% polyethylene and 20% polystyrene) as aggregate
replacement in concrete mixtures [20]. The study concluded that the incorporation of waste plastic in concrete arrests
the propagation of micro-cracks ensuring the feasibility of waste plastic as a low-cost substitute for sand aggregates. A
similar study was also conducted to determine the potential of using plastic bottle waste (made of polyethylene
terephthalate) as a partial aggregate substitute to sand [21]. It was concluded that plastic bottles shredded into small
particles may be successfully incorporated into concrete mixes as a sand-substitution aggregate. Moreover, it was pointed
out that these resulting composites would help alleviate some solid waste problems in addition to being low cost. Frigione
[22] studied substituting waste unwashed PET bottles (WPET) to an equal 5% by weight of natural sand as fine

822
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

aggregate. He found that the WPET concretes display similar workability characteristics, slightly lower compressive
strength and splitting tensile strength than that of the reference concrete and a moderately higher ductility.
To a lesser extent, some studies on the incorporation of other types of plastic have been done as well. For a
comprehensive review of the use of different forms of plastic in concrete, the reader is directed to the article by Sharma
and Bansal [23].
While the above literature investigated the feasibility of integrating waste materials in concrete, much still needs to
be studied. First, almost all the studies investigated only one type of waste plastic (PET) [18, 21, 22, 24], and other types
of plastic such as low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
polystyrene (PS), polypropylene (PP), were hardly investigated [23]. Moreover, most studies involving plastic wastes
used cylindrical or prismatic specimens, and none has focused on actual hollow blocks. This study narrowed that gap by
shifting the focus of research from the conventional cylindrical specimen to concrete hollow block, which is the most
commonly used building material.
The study was conducted to answer the following research question: Can PP pellets be incorporated in hollow blocks
to make them lighter without compromising their compressive strength?
The main objective of the study was to assess the potential of concrete hollow blocks with PP pellets as partial
replacement for sand. Specifically, this study aimed to:
1. Determine and analyze the effect of incorporating PP pellets on the compressive strength of concrete hollow blocks,
2. Determine and analyze the effect of incorporating PP pellets on the bulk density of concrete hollow blocks, and
3. Determine the optimum percent replacement of PP pellets.
By directly confronting the challenge of what to do with the millions of tons of plastics that are generated (and wasted)
in the country annually, this study is a basic and preliminary step in solid waste engineering, which is essential in
attaining economic and ecological sustainability in infrastructure, industry, and development.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design
Figure 1. summarizes the methods of the experiment. Two tests were performed before mixing the hollow blocks:
determination of specific gravity test and sieve analyses of aggregates. The specific gravity of each material was
determined and became the basis for mixing. Sieve analysis was performed for the sand and PP pellets to assess the
gradation of these materials. These tests were performed in the Civil Engineering Department laboratory of the
University of the Philippines Los Banos. After performing the preliminary tests, forty (40) specimens of 4”x8”x16”
nominal size CHB were prepared and tested for compressive strength and dry density tests. Eight specimens per batch
were prepared for compressive strength tests and three specimens per batch were prepared for dry density tests. Each
batch was composed of specimens having a specific mix proportion. Five mix proportions (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, and
40%) by volume were designed. Each specimen was cured and air-dried for 28 days, stored in a place where it can be
monitored frequently, and then transported to the laboratory for testing. From the results, discussions focused on the
effect of PP pellets to the compressive strength and dry density of the hollow blocks. Conclusions were stated to assess
whether the objectives are met.

823
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

Procurement of materials

Preparation of materials

Mix Proportioning

Mixing

Curing of Specimens

Testing of Specimens

Discussion of Results

Conclusion

Figure 1. Research Design

2.2. Materials
The main materials used in this study were as follows: water, cement, white sand, and PP pellets. This study uses
apparently clean tap water from the laboratory for mixing and curing. The specific gravity of water was taken to be 1.00.
Type I Portland cement was sourced from a local hardware. Sand as aggregate was used and dried before determining
the specific gravity and before mixing until saturated surface dry (SSD) condition was achieved. The PP pellets that was
derived from waste plastics were sourced from a manufacturing company in Metro Manila. Figure 2 shows the PP pellets
used in this study.

Figure 2. Polypropylene Pellets

Pellets larger than 4.75 𝑚𝑚 were excluded because such large size may affect the strength of the specimen
considerably. The particle size distribution of the pellets (Figure 3) was determined by sieve analysis and the finest
modulus was determined to be 4.86. The specific gravity of the pellets was determined by volume displacement method,
based on Archimedes’ Principle. The density of the object was then obtained by dividing the mass of the fluid with its
volume. The specific gravity was computed by dividing the density (in 𝑔/𝑚𝐿) of the fluid with the density of a standard,
which is water, and since the density of water is just 1 𝑔/𝑚𝐿, the specific gravity of the object is just numerically equal
to its density. The fluid used was alcohol because the pellets float on water. Three trials were performed and the average
was taken as the specific gravity of the pellets. The value obtained was 0.89.

824
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

100

90 Sand PP

80

70
Percent Finer (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)

Figure 3. Gradation curve of aggregates

2.3. Experimental Treatments
In general, the study compared hollow blocks with four different levels of PP added (in place of sand) to that of
conventional hollow blocks. For the control hollow blocks, the water-cement ratio was set at 0.50, and the cement to
sand ratio was set at 1: 5 (by volume). For the experimental hollow blocks, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% by volume of PP
were added as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Masses (in kg) of each material per m3 of mortar corresponding to a mix proportion

Mix proportioning by volume

Material
A (0%) B (10%) C (20%) D (30%) E (40%)

Water 207.9 193.7 178.5 162.1 144.4

Cement 415.8 387.4 356.9 324.1 288.8

Sand 1610.6 1500.5 1382.4 1255.4 1118.4

PP 0.0 60.8 126.1 196.3 272.0

Total 2234.3 2142.5 2043.9 1937.9 1823.5

2.4. Preparation of specimens

After designing the mix proportion of the materials, the materials were mixed in a concrete mixer. The masses of
each material were overestimated to account for spillage during mixing. Forty (40) specimens of 100 × 200 × 400 𝑚𝑚
nominal size hollow blocks were molded and cured for 28 days. Twenty-five (25) of these blocks were tested for
compressive strength and 15 were tested for bulk density. The number of specimens for each test was divided equally
into five batches with different mix proportions according to percent replacement of PP. A sample specimen is shown
in Figure 4.

Figure 4. CHB with 40% PP replacement

825
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

2.5. Test of Specimens

The preliminary tests done before mixing were specific gravity determination, fineness modulus determination, and
sieve analyses. The bulk densities of three specimens per batch were determined according to ASTM C127 (American
Society for Testing and Materials, 2006) [25]. Figure 5. shows the set-up for determining the mass of the specimen in
water: a specimen is suspended in a weighing scale and dipped into a basin filled with water. The representative bulk
density of each batch was taken as the average of the bulk densities of the three specimens in the batch.

Figure 5. Set-up for density measurement

The compressive strengths of five specimens per batch were determined in accordance with ASTM C140 (American
Society for Testing and Materials, 2006) [26]. Shown in Figure 6 is one specimen undergoing testing in a Universal
Testing Machine (UTM).

Figure 6. Set-up for compressive strength test

The representative compressive strength of each batch was taken as the average of the compressive strengths of the
five specimens in the batch. Figure 7. shows the concrete hollow block specimens tested for compressive strength at
failure.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Concrete hollow blocks at failure: (a) 0% replacement, (b) 30% replacement.
To further evaluate data obtained from measuring the bulk density and compressive strength test, statistical analysis
was performed. F Test Using One Way ANOVA technique was used to determine if at least one batch differs from the
control. Pairwise Mean Comparison was also employed to determine which pairs of data are different.

826
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Specific Gravity and Fineness Modulus
Before mixing the different materials used for concrete hollow block making, the specific gravity of water, sand,
cement, and PP pellets were first determined. Likewise, the fineness moduli for sand and PP pellets were also determined
prior to mixing. Table 2 summarizes the result of the specific gravities and fineness moduli of the materials for this
study.
Table 2. Specific gravities and fineness moduli of the materials

Material Specific Gravity Fineness Modulus

Water 1.00

Cement 3.15

Sand 2.44 2.25

PP 0.89 4.86

3.2. Compressive Strength

Compressive strength generally decreases almost linearly as percent replacement of PP increases (Figure 8). The
decrease in strength is expected and can be attributed to the decrease in adhesive strength between the surface of the
waste plastic and the cement paste [20]. Plastic is considered hydrophobic, which restricts the flow of water necessary
for hydration of cement. This restriction makes the curing process less effective. Furthermore, increase in PP pellets also
increases the probability of localized cracking. The trend of decreasing compressive strength has also been observed in
other studies [18, 20, 22, 23]. Nonetheless, the compressive strength increased at 10% PP replacement. This increase
can be attributed to the pellets which also contributed in resisting the compressive load. Moreover, the pellets must have
been distributed evenly so localized failure was not observed.

4
3.58
3.5
Compressive Strength (MPa)

2.5 2.26

2 1.73
1.52
1.5
1.05
1

0.5

0
A B C D E
Batch

Figure 8. Compressive Strength of Hollow Blocks per Batch

3.3. Density
The values indicate the bulk density of the specimens and not the dry density because the specimens were not oven-
dried during testing. However, the bulk densities may approximate the dry densities because the specimens were air-
dried for more than 48 hours before testing.
Results showed that unit weight decreases as percent replacement of PP is increased (Figure 9). The decrease in
weight can be explained by Law of Mixtures. The properties and composites are influenced by a confluence of factors,
one of which is the proportions of the matrix and reinforcement making the composite [27].
When the Law of Mixtures is applied to this study, the addition of the PP, which is the lightest component in the mix,
naturally made the resulting hollow block lighter. This result is also consistent with the findings of previous study [20],
albeit the waste plastic used is PET and not PP.

827
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

2100
2028
2000
1930.67

Unit Weight (kg/m3)

1900 1865

1785.33
1800

1690
1700

1600

1500
A B C D E
Batch
Figure 9. Bulk density of hollow blocks per batch

4. Statistical Analysis
To further evaluate data obtained from measuring the bulk density and compressive strength test, statistical analysis
was performed. F Test Using One Way ANOVA technique was used to determine if at least one batch differs from the
control. Pairwise Mean Comparison using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) was also employed to determine
which pairs of data are different.
Result of the F Test using One Way ANOVA shows that at least one batch is different from the rest with a p-value
of < 0.0001. Likewise the results of the pairwise mean comparison using DMRT are shown in Table 3 and 4. Results
show that for compressive strength, batch B is different from the rest; batches A and E are different (Table 3). For bulk
density, results showed that batch A is different from the rest; batch B is different from D and E; batches C and D are
different from batch E (Table 4).
Table 3. Grouping of batches using DMRT with compressive strength as response variable

Batch Replacement (%) Mean (MPa) DMRT

A 0 2.26 B

B 10 3.58 A

C 20 1.73 BC

D 30 1.52 BC

E 40 1.05 C

Table 4. Grouping of batches using DMRT with bulk density as response variable

Batch Replacement (%) Mean (kg/m3) DMRT

A 0 2028.00 A

B 10 1930.67 B

C 20 1865.00 BC

D 30 1785.33 C

E 40 1690.00 D

5. Selection of the Best Mix

From the results, batch B can be considered as the best mix from the standpoint of compressive strength and batch E
can be considered as the best mix from the standpoint of bulk density.

828
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

To choose which of the two batches B and E is better, batch B should be assessed for bulk density and batch E should
be assessed for compressive strength. Results showed that among the batches, batch E has the lowest compressive
strength. Statistical analysis has also shown that the compressive strength of batch E is different from batch A, and the
compressive strength of A is different from B. The compressive strength of B is therefore different from E on two levels;
thus, its higher compressive strength gives it a large advantage over E. For bulk density, results showed that batch A,
not batch B, is the worst mix. Moreover, statistical analysis has shown that batch B is different from batch A. Therefore,
the 10% replacement of waste plastic made the bulk density of the hollow blocks different from the control. Statistical
analysis has also shown that the bulk densities of batch B and E are different on two levels; however, compressive
strength tests have shown that the compressive strength of batch E is also the weakest and well below the minimum
allowable compressive strength of 3.45 𝑀𝑃𝑎 set by ASTM C140 [26]. Since compressive strength is compromised, the
advantage of batch E being low cost is not enough for it to be considered in structural applications. Therefore the
advantage of batch B having the higher compressive strength than batch E outweighs the advantage of the latter having
the lower bulk density than the former. Thus, batch B can be concluded as the better mix.
It is also necessary to compare batch C with batch B because while batch B has the higher compressive strength than
batch C, batch C has the lower unit weight. Statistical analysis has shown that the compressive strength of batch B is
different from the rest, including batch C. In contrast, the bulk densities of batches B and C are not significantly different.
Therefore, the benefits of batch C being the lighter are marginal, but the benefits of batch B, being the material with
higher compressive strength is significant.
Another consideration in the selection of materials is its environmental implications. Obviously, a higher percent
replacement of PP to the CHB will be more beneficial to the environment. However, it was determined from the tests
that the compressive strength will be significantly compromised when shifting from batch B to C.
From the above discussions, we can conclude that batch B is the best mix because it has the highest compressive
strength. It has even yield a much higher compressive strength (58.4% higher) compared to the control specimen.
Additionally, the bulk density of Batch B is less than that of the control which makes it lighter and more beneficial to
the environment, particularly the problem of waste disposal.

6. Conclusion
The study aimed to investigate on the compressive strength and bulk density of concrete hollow blocks with PP
pellets as partial replacement for sand. From the tests, it can be concluded that waste plastic to the extent of 10% can be
incorporated in hollow blocks to make them lighter and even increase its compressive strength.
The study also concluded that batch B is the best mix because it has the highest compressive strength. It has even
yield a much higher compressive strength (58.4% higher) compared to the control specimen. The study also found out
that the bulk density of Batch B is less than that of the control which makes it lighter and more beneficial to the
environment, particularly the problem of waste disposal.
In general, the study concluded that as the % replacement of sand with PP pellets increases, the compressive strength
and the bulk density of hollow block decreases, thus it would suffice to say, that the % replacement of PP pellets is
inversely proportional to the compressive strength and the bulk density of the concrete hollow block.
Based from the above findings, the authors recommend for further investigation focusing on testing other mechanical
properties of concrete hollow blocks and testing hollow blocks mixed with other waste materials.

7. Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge Reinhart Marketing for providing the polypropylene pellets used in this study
and the Department of Civil Engineering, UPLB for allowing the main author to use the construction laboratory for the
conduct of this study.

8. References
[1] Bernardo, Eileen C. "Solid‐Waste Management Practices of Households in Manila, Philippines." Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences 1140, no. 1 (2008): 420-424.

[2] Aguinaldo, E.C. Country Presentation: Republic of the Philippines. Second Meeting of the Regional 3R Forum in Asia. Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia (2010).

[3] Idris, Azni, Bulent Inanc, and Mohd Nassir Hassan. "Overview of waste disposal and landfills/dumps in Asian countries." Journal
of material cycles and waste management 6, no. 2 (2004): 104-110.

[4] Davis, M.L. and Masten, S.J. Principles of Environmental Engineering and Science. NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (2009).

829
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 3, No. 10, October, 2017

[5] Antonio, L. C., Study on recyclables collection trends and best practices in the Philippines. In Kojima, M. (ed.), 3R Policies for
Southeast and East Asia. ERIA Research Project Report 2009-10, Jakarta: ERIA. (2010): 40-70.

[6] Kumar, Sunil. "A perspective study on fly ash–lime–gypsum bricks and hollow blocks for low cost housing development."
Construction and Building Materials 16, no. 8 (2002): 519-525.

[7] Madurwar, Mangesh V., Sachin A. Mandavgane, and Rahul V. Ralegaonkar. "Use of sugarcane bagasse ash as brick material."
Current Science (00113891) 107, no. 6 (2014).

[8] Patel, Mr Ankit J., Mr Harsh N. Patel, Mr Harsh R. Patel, and Mr Hardik R. Patel. "Review on use of Waste Material in Concrete."
International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering 2 (2014): 307-310.

[9] Sodupe-Ortega, E., E. Fraile-Garcia, J. Ferreiro-Cabello, and A. Sanz-Garcia. "Evaluation of crumb rubber as aggregate for
automated manufacturing of rubberized long hollow blocks and bricks." Construction and Building Materials 106 (2016): 305-316.

[10] Thomas, Blessen Skariah, and Ramesh Chandra Gupta. "Properties of high strength concrete containing scrap tire rubber."
Journal of Cleaner Production 113 (2016): 86-92.

[11] Thomas, Blessen Skariah, and Ramesh Chandra Gupta. "A comprehensive review on the applications of waste tire rubber in
cement concrete." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 54 (2016): 1323-1333.

[12] Thomas, Blessen Skariah, and Ramesh Chandra Gupta. "Mechanical properties and durability characteristics of concrete
containing solid waste materials." Journal of Cleaner Production 48 (2013): 1-6.

[13] Komaki, Mohammad Ebrahim, Amirreza Ghodrati Dolatshamloo, Mahdi Eslami, and Sahar Heydari. "Ameliorating Precast
Concrete Curbs Using Rubber and Nano Material." Civil Engineering Journal 3, no. 2 (2017): 105-110.

[14] Dodson, V. H., & Roberts, L. R., U.S. Patent No. 4,210,457. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 1980.

[15] Momtazi, Ali Sadr, Behzad Tahmouresi, and Reza Kohani Khoshkbijari. "An Investigation on Mechanical Properties and
Durability of Concrete Containing Silica Fume and Fly Ash." Civil Engineering Journal 2, no. 5 (2016): 189-196.

[16] Almesfer, Nasser, Chris Haigh, and Jason Ingham. "Waste paint as an admixture in concrete." Cement and Concrete Composites
34, no. 5 (2012): 627-633.

[17] Sutcu, Mucahit, Juan José del Coz Díaz, Felipe Pedro Álvarez Rabanal, Osman Gencel, and Sedat Akkurt. "Thermal performance
optimization of hollow clay bricks made up of paper waste." Energy and Buildings 75 (2014): 96-108.

[18] Bandodkar, L. R., A. A. Gaonkar, N. D. Gaonkar, Y. P. Gauns, S. S. Aldonkar, and P. P. Savoikar. "Pulverised PET bottles as
partial replacement for sand." International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering 1009 (2011): 1009-1012.

[19] Rebeiz, K. S., and A. P. Craft. "Plastic waste management in construction: technological and institutional issues." Resources,
conservation and recycling 15, no. 3-4 (1995): 245-257.

[20] Ismail, Zainab Z., and Enas A. Al-Hashmi. "Use of waste plastic in concrete mixture as aggregate replacement." Waste
Management 28, no. 11 (2008): 2041-2047.

[21] Marzouk, O. Yazoghli, R. M. Dheilly, and M. Queneudec. "Valorization of post-consumer waste plastic in cementitious concrete
composites." Waste management 27, no. 2 (2007): 310-318.

[22] Frigione, Mariaenrica. "Recycling of PET bottles as fine aggregate in concrete." Waste management 30, no. 6 (2010): 1101-
1106.

[23] Sharma, Raju, and Prem Pal Bansal. "Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete–a review." Journal of Cleaner Production
112 (2016): 473-482.

[24] Choi, Yun-Wang, Dae-Joong Moon, Jee-Seung Chung, and Sun-Kyu Cho. "Effects of waste PET bottles aggregate on the
properties of concrete." Cement and concrete research 35, no. 4 (2005): 776-781.

[25] American Society for Testing and Materials., Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), and
Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, ASTM C127, Annual book of ASTM standards, 2006.

[26] American Society for Testing and Materials., Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and
Related Units, ASTM C140, Annual book of ASTM standards, 2006.

[27] Matthews, Frank L., and Rees D. Rawlings. Composite materials: engineering and science. Elsevier, 1999.

830