See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323998159

Utilization of Waste Low Density Polyethylene in High Strengths Concrete

Pavement Blocks Production

Article · March 2014

CITATIONS READS

8 1,584

4 authors, including:

Eric Ababio Ohemeng John Dadzie

University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa University of Technology Sydney
8 PUBLICATIONS   87 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   68 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Possibility of using recycled aggregates in concrete structures View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Ababio Ohemeng on 25 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

Utilization of Waste Low Density Polyethylene in High Strengths

Concrete Pavement Blocks Production
Eric Ababio Ohemeng1*, Peter Paa-Kofi Yalley1, John Dadzie2 & Susan Dzifa Djokoto2
1. University of Education, Department of Design and Technology, Kumasi - Ghana.
2. Kumasi Polytechnic, Department of Building Technology, Kumasi – Ghana.
* E-mail of the corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
The disposal of waste plastics is causing a great challenge in Ghana and the world as a whole as the usage of
plastics is growing day by day and it takes centuries for waste plastics to decompose. Hence, there is the need to
adopt effective methods to utilize these plastics. The main objective of this research was to investigate the
feasibility of using waste low density polyethylene as partial replacement for sand in the production of concrete
pavement blocks. In this study cement, sand, coarse aggregate, and ground plastic were used. The mix proportion
was 1: 1.5: 3 (cement: sand: coarse aggregate). The plastic was used to replace the sand by volume at 0%, 10%,
20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60%. It was observed that density, compressive strength, flexural strength, and
splitting tensile strength decreased as the plastic content increased. However, the water absorption increased as
the plastic content increased. Compressive strengths level ranging from 14.70N/mm2 – 47.29N/mm2 were
achieved when water cement ratios of 0.30 – 0.45 were used. Although, the strengths of the pavement blocks
decreased as the plastic content increased, compressive strengths of 20N/mm2, 30N/mm2, and 40N/mm2 which
are satisfactory for pedestrians walk ways, light traffic and heavy traffic situations respectively could be
achieved if 10% - 50% plastic contents are used. It is concluded that the modified pavement blocks would
contribute to the disposal of plastics in the world.
Keywords: plastic concrete pavement blocks, water cement ratio, compressive strength, curing age.

1. Introduction
Cement and aggregates, which are the most indispensable constituents used in concrete production are also vitae
materials needed for the construction industry. This has led to a continuous and increasing demand of natural
materials used for their production. Meanwhile, waste materials and by-products are being generated in vast
quantities causing detrimental effect to the environment. It is therefore imperative to utilize these waste materials
and by-products in construction applications. Recently, there have been successful applications of using local
waste materials as a partial replacement for cement or aggregates in manufacturing concrete products in some
parts of the world. Numerous researches on application of waste tyres as fine and coarse aggregates are available
in the literature (Eldin and Senouci, 1993; Topcu, 1995; Toutanji, 1996; Khatib and Bayomy, 1999; Ling, 2011;
Ohemeng and Yalley, 2013), which demonstrated the feasibility of using gargantuan amounts of waste tyre in
concrete products.
Among the waste materials, plastic is one of the most common environmental issues in the contemporary world.
Disposal of these plastics is considered to be a big challenge due to its non-biodegradable nature. Most of these
plastics ended up in landfills and give the worst effect when they are burnt. In order to mitigate these hurdles,
several researchers have made significant efforts to utilize waste plastics in concrete mixes. The density of
plastic concrete is anticipated to be lowered than ordinary concrete due to the low specific gravity of plastics. Al-
Manaseer and Dalal (1997) reported that the bulk density of plastic concrete decreased as the plastic content
increased. The density was reduced by about 2.5%, 6%, and 13% when plastic content of 10%, 30%, and 50%
respectively were used. Choi et al. (2005) investigated the effect of waste PET bottles aggregate on properties of
concrete. The waste plastic could reduce the weight by 2 – 6% of normal weight concrete. Marzouk et al. (2007)
studied the use of consumed plastic bottle as sand replacement and was noticed that the density lowered when
the PET aggregate exceeded 50% by volume of sand. Suganthy et al. (2013) also mentioned a decreased in
weight of concrete as the plastic content increased. It was noticed that there was linear relationship between
decrease in weight and increase in plastic content.
Several authors have also reported on the strengths of plastic concrete. It is observed that increase in plastic
aggregate content reduces the strengths of plastic concrete. Batayneh et al. (2007) mentioned that the
incorporation of ground plastic in concrete had effect on its compressive strength. The compressive strength was
reduced by about 23%, 35%, 50%, and 71% when fine aggregate of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% respectively were
substituted with plastic. Naik et al. (1996) investigated the effect of post-consumer waste plastic in concrete as a

126
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

soft filer. The test results showed lower compressive strength of the mix made with plastic than the reference
mixture without plastic. Choi et al. (2005) also noticed a reduction in both compressive strength and splitting
tensile strength. The compressive strength was lowered by 33% when compared to that of normal concrete. For
the splitting tensile strength, increased in plastic content resulted in its reduction regardless of the water cement
ratio used. Marzouk (2007) further reported a reduction of compressive strength in plastic concrete when the
sand was replaced by plastic. Al-Manasser and Dalal (1997) again studied the effect of plastic on concrete mix.
It was noticed that the splitting tensile strength decreased as the plastic content increased. Batayneh et al. (2007)
also reported that the splitting tensile strength and the flexural strength of concrete mix slumped as the plastic
content went up. The splitting tensile strength was lowered by about 56% when 20% of the aggregate content
was replaced by plastic. The flexural strength was also decreased by about 40% when 15% of the aggregate was
substituted with plastic.
The information presented shows that little attention has been given to the potential use of low density
polyethylene (LDPE) as aggregate in concrete mixes, particularly for concrete pavement blocks. Therefore, the
current research is aimed at investigating the possibility of utilizing LDPE as partial replacement for sand in the
manufacturing of concrete pavement blocks (CPBs). The use of waste LDPE in CPBs will contribute to
providing environmentally friendly solution for the plastic disposal problems in Ghana and the world as a whole.

2. Experimental Studies
2.1 Materials
The materials used to develop the plastic concrete pavement blocks (PCPBs) in this study consist of ordinary
Portland cement (OPC), fine aggregate (sand), coarse aggregate (stones), ground plastic (GP) and water. Figure 1
shows samples of the cement, sand, stones, and ground plastic used.

2.1.1 Cement

Ordinary Portland cement (CEM I 42.5 N) produced by Ghana cement works (Ghacem) that conformed to EN
197-1 and labelled OPC was used. The mean particle size (μm) and specific gravity of the OPC were 4 and 3.14
respectively. Table 1 displays the chemical composition of the OPC.

Table 1: Chemical composition of ordinary Portland cement

Chemical composition Content (%)
Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 19.70
Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) 5.00
Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) 3.16
Calcium oxide (CaO) 63.03
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 1.75
Potassium oxide (K2O) 0.16
Sodium oxide (Na2O) 0.20
Sulphur oxide (SO3) 2.80
Loss on ignition (LOI) 2.58

2.1.2 Sand, Coarse Aggregate, Ground Plastic and Water

Natural river sand from Jacobu in the Ashanti Region of Ghana was used for the PCPBs. The sand was dried in
an opened place to remove the moisture. The sand conformed to zone II as per IS: 383 – 1970. The ground
plastic used conformed to zone I as per IS: 383 – 1970. The coarse aggregate used in this study were 10 mm

127
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

nominal size, and were tested as per IS: 383 – 1970. Table 2 shows the physical properties of the materials used
whilst Figure 2 displays the graph of % passing of various materials used and sieve sizes. Potable water was used
for the preparation and curing of the PCPBs specimens.

Table 2: Physical properties of sand, stones and ground plastic

Material Specific gravity Compacted bulk Fineness Moisture content
density (kg/m3) modulus (%)
Sand 2.60 1695.00 2.50 2.04
Stones 2.63 1723.00 1.97 1.39
Ground plastic 1.10 813.60 3.51 -

100.00

90.00

80.00
PERCENTAGE PASSING %

70.00

60.00
stones
50.00
plastic
40.00
sand
30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Sieve sizes (mm)

Figure 2: Graph of % passing of materials used and sieve sizes (mm)

2.1.3 Preparation of the Ground Plastic

Waste water sachets (type of low density polyethylene) were collected and cleaned. They were cut into pieces.
The plastics were put on fire until they got melted. This caused the plastic’s long chain polymer chains to break
apart. The plastics in the liquid form were poured on roofing sheets and were allowed to solidify. With the aid of
metallic mortar and pestle, the solidified plastics were ground into small particles. Figure 3 demonstrates the
preparation process of the plastic.

Pieces of water sachets Plastics after melting Plastics after grinding

Figure 3: Preparation of the plastic

128
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Proportion of the Mix
The mix proportion was 1: 1.5: 3 (cement: sand: coarse aggregate). The percentage weight of the ground plastic
was 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% by volume of sand. Different water cement ratios (0.30, 0.35,
0.40, and 0.45) were used for the experiment. The plain concrete was used as a control test and denoted as Aj,
where j is the water cement ratio. The rest of the batches with ground plastic were denoted as Bi/j. Where B is
the batch with certain % of plastic, i is the volume percentage of ground plastic and j is the W/C ratio. Table 3
exhibits the mix proportion of the aggregates used for the PCPBs.

Table 3: Mix proportion

Batch Constituents of PCPBs (weight in kg)
Water Cement Coarse Sand Ground plastic
aggregate (GP)
A0.30 0.882 2.940 8.840 4.420 0.000
A0.35 1.029 2.940 8.840 4.420 0.000
A0.40 1.176 2.940 8.840 4.420 0.000
A0.45 1.323 2.940 8.840 4.420 0.000
B10/0.30 0.882 2.940 8.840 3.978 0.212
B10/0.35 1.029 2.940 8.840 3.978 0.212
B10/0.40 1.176 2.940 8.840 3.978 0.212
B10/0.45 1.323 2.940 8.840 3.978 0.212
B20/0.30 0.882 2.940 8.840 3.536 0.424
B20/0.35 1.029 2.940 8.840 3.536 0.424
B20/0.40 1.176 2.940 8.840 3.536 0.424
B20/0.45 1.323 2.940 8.840 3.536 0.424
B30/0.30 0.882 2.940 8.840 3.094 0.636
B30/0.35 1.029 2.940 8.840 3.094 0.636
B30/0.40 1.176 2.940 8.840 3.094 0.636
B30/0.45 1.323 2.940 8.840 3.094 0.636
B40/0.30 0.882 2.940 8.840 2.652 0.848
B40/0.35 1.029 2.940 8.840 2.652 0.848
B40/0.40 1.176 2.940 8.840 2.652 0.848
B40/0.45 1.323 2.940 8.840 2.652 0.848
B50/0.30 0.882 2.940 8.840 2.210 1.060
B50/0.35 1.029 2.940 8.840 2.210 1.060
B50/0.40 1.176 2.940 8.840 2.210 1.060
B50/0.45 1.323 2.940 8.840 2.210 1.060
B60/0.30 0.882 2.940 8.840 1.768 1.272
B60/0.35 1.029 2.940 8.840 1.768 1.272
B60/0.40 1.176 2.940 8.840 1.768 1.272
B60/0.45 1.323 2.940 8.840 1.768 1.272
*Note: Density of sand = 1695.0 Kg/m3 and density of GP = 813.6 Kg/m3. Therefore, weight of GP for an
equivalent volume of sand (conversion factor) = 813.6/1695.0
= 0.48

2.2.2 Preparation and Curing of PCPBs

Mixing of concrete and compaction of the blocks was done mechanically. The prepared PCPBs were packed on
boards for 24 hours before curing started. They were cured under a shed. Water was poured on them twice in
every day. This was done in order to prevent excessive evaporation of water from the PCPBs.

2.2.3 Testing of Specimens

The density of the PCPB was determined in accordance with BS 1881 – Part 114 (1983). The water absorption
was tested in conformity with ASTM C 642 (2006). The compressive strength test was performed in accordance
with BS 6717 – Part 1 (1986). To test the flexural strength, a centre line was marked at the top of the specimen,
using a red marker perpendicular to its length. The PCPBs were tested under the centre line load while simply
supported over supporting span of 150 mm (BSI, 2001). The flexural strength was then calculated from the

129
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

formula; σ = 3/2 (LF / BD2), where σ is the flexural strength (N/mm2), L is the span length (mm), F is the
maximum applied load (N), B is the average width of the specimen (mm), and D is the average thickness (mm).
For the splitting tensile test, line loads were applied to the top and bottom of the PCPB using two steel bars.
Plywood strips were inserted between the bars and the blocks to ensure even load distribution. Upon failure, the
maximum applied load was recorded and the splitting tensile strength was calculated from the formula; T =
(0.868 × K × F) / (L × D). Where T is the splitting tensile strength (N/mm2), F is the load at failure (N), L is the
length of the failure plane (mm), D is the thickness of the specimen at the failure plane (mm), and K is the
correction factor for the thickness, calculated from the equation, K = 1.3 – 30 (0.18 – t/1000)2, t is the thickness
of specimen.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Effect of W/C Ratio and Plastic Content on Strengths of PCPBs
Table 4 displays the results of the strengths of the PCPBs for various W/C ratios and plastic contents. It can be
noticed that the compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and flexural strength increase as the W/C ratio
increases. The compressive strength increased from 38.12 N/mm2 to 47.29 N/mm2, 35.23 N/mm2 to 43.58
N/mm2, 31.14 N/mm2 to 39.83 N/mm2, 26.16 N/mm2 to 31.95 N/mm2, 22.52 N/mm2 to 27.18 N/mm2, 17.55
N/mm2 to 21.89 N/mm2, and 14.70 N/mm2 to 18.81 N/mm2 at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% plastic
content respectively. The splitting tensile strength was moved from 3.98 N/mm2 to 4.96 N/mm2, 3.71 N/mm2 to
4.52 N/mm2, 3.32 N/mm2 to 3.86 N/mm2, 2.95 N/mm2 to 3.54 N/mm2, 2.64N/mm2 to 2.99 N/mm2, 2.16 N/mm2
to 2.68 N/mm2, and 1.81 N/mm2 to 2.28 N/mm2 at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% plastic content
respectively. The flexural strength increased from 4.97 N/mm2 to 5.84 N/mm2, 4.70 N/mm2 to 5.43 N/mm2, 4.31
N/mm2 to 4.98 N/mm2, 3.84 N/mm2 to 4.58 N/mm2, 3.49 N/mm2 to 3.91 N/mm2, 2.89 N/mm2 to 3.53 N/mm2,
and 2.58 N/mm2 to 3.04 N/mm2 at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, and 60% plastic content respectively. These
indicate that the compressive strength, the splitting tensile strength, and the flexural strength were raised by
about 24%, 22%, and 17%, respectively when the W/C ratio moved from 0.30 to 0.45 regardless of the plastic
content used. A possible reason for the increase in strength may be due to the different quantities of water used
for the preparation of the PCPBs. Concrete required certain amount of water for it to achieve its maximum
strength during the hydration reaction of the cement paste. W/C ratio of 0.30 may be insufficient for the
hydration reaction process. However, when the W/C ratio moved from 0.30 to 0.45, it may presuppose that the
cement was getting adequate amount of water needed for the hydration process and consequently it may had a
positive effect on the various strengths.
It can also be observed that the strengths of the PCPBs decreased as the plastic content increased (Table 4). The
decrease pattern of the strengths is similar for the four different W/C ratios. The compressive strength reduced
from 38.12 N/mm2 to 14.70 N/mm2, 41.66 N/mm2 to 16.10 N/mm2, 44.50 N/mm2 to 17.30 N/mm2, and 47.29
N/mm2 to 18.81 N/mm2 at 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45 W/C ratios respectively. The splitting tensile strength
decreased from 3.98N/mm2 to 1.81N/mm2, 4.31N/mm2 to 2.05N/mm2, 4.63N/mm2 to 2.18N/mm2, and
4.96N/mm2 to 2.28N/mm2 at 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45 W/C ratios in order. The flexural strength lowered from
4.97 N/mm2 to 2.58 N/mm2, 5.28 N/mm2 to 2.83 N/mm2, 5.57 N/mm2 to 2.98 N/mm2, and 5.84 N/mm2 to 3.04
N/mm2 at 0.30, 0.35, 0.40, and 0.45 W/C ratios respectively. These suggest that the compressive strength, the
splitting tensile strength, and the flexural strength were reduced by about 61%, 53%, and 46% respectively when
60% of the total sand was substituted with plastic irrespective of the W/C ratio used. The reason for the
reduction in strengths could be attributed to the smooth surface of the plastic particles which might have reduced
the adhesion between the boundaries of the plastic particles and the cement paste. The findings are supported by
Batayneh et al. (2007) who experienced a reduction in compressive strength, flexural strength, and splitting
tensile strength of plastic concrete as the plastic content increased.

130
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

Table 4: 28 day strengths tests results

Water cement Plastic content Compressive Splitting tensile Flexural strength
ratio (%) strength (N/mm2) strength (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
0.30 0 38.12 3.98 4.97
10 35.23 3.71 4.70
20 31.14 3.32 4.31
30 26.16 2.95 3.84
40 22.52 2.64 3.49
50 17.55 2.16 2.89
60 14.70 1.81 2.58
0.35 0 41.66 4.31 5.28
10 37.14 3.91 4.89
20 33.41 3.48 4.46
30 27.86 3.21 4.17
40 24.11 2.67 3.52
50 19.85 2.48 3.32
60 16.10 2.05 2.83
0.40 0 44.50 4.63 5.57
10 41.44 4.31 5.28
20 38.76 3.86 4.85
30 29.30 3.32 4.31
40 25.30 2.79 3.66
50 20.83 2.50 3.33
60 17.30 2.18 2.98
0.45 0 47.29 4.96 5.84
10 43.58 4.52 5.43
20 39.83 3.86 4.98
30 31.95 3.54 4.58
40 27.18 2.99 3.91
50 21.89 2.68 3.53
60 18.81 2.28 3.04
3.2 Impact of Curing Age on Strengths of PCPBs
The impact of curing age on the strengths of PCPBs is exhibited in Figures 4, 5, and 6. It is obvious that the
compressive strength, the splitting tensile strength, and the flexural strength increase as the curing age increases
regardless of the plastic content used. Critical examination of the figures shows that the compressive strength,
the splitting tensile strength, and the flexural strength were increased by about 33%, 34%, and 32% respectively
when the curing age moved from 7 days to 28 days irrespective of the plastic content used. The increase in
strengths may be attributed to the hydration reaction of the cement paste which increases the strengths of
concrete as curing age increases.

50
45
Compressive strength

0%
40
10%
35
20%
(N/mm2)

30
25 30%
20 40%
15
50%
10
5 60%
0
7 14 28
Curing age (days)

Figure 4: Compressive strength of different curing ages for W/C ratio of 0.45

131
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

Splitting tensile strength

5 0%
10%
4
20%

(N/mm 2)
3 30%
40%
2
50%
1 60%

0
7 14 28
Curing age (days)

Figure 5: Splitting tensile strength of different curing ages for W/C ratio of 0.45

6 0%
Flexural strength

5 10%
20%
(N/mm 2)

4
30%
3
40%
2
50%
1 60%
0
7 14 28
Curing age (days)

Figure 6: Flexural strength of different curing ages for W/C ratio of 0.45

3.3 Influence of Plastic Content on Density and Water Absorption

The influence of plastic content on density and water absorption is demonstrated in Table 5. It is observable that
the density decreases as the plastic content increases. The density was lowered by about 10% when 60% of the
total fine aggregate was replaced by plastic. The slump in density may be due to the low specific gravity of
plastic (1.1) as compared to that of sand (2.6). The difference in the specific gravity exhibits that sand is heavier
than plastic. Partially replacing volume of the sand by plastic would certainly reduce the masses of the PCPBs.
Similarly, Al-Manaseer and Dalal (1997), Choi et al. (2005), Marzouk et al. (2007), and Suganthy et al. (2013)
reported that density of plastic concrete decreased as the plastic content increased. It can also be realized that
there was a linear correlation between plastic content and reduction in density (Figure 7). The coefficient of
determination (R2) = 0.9915 means that 99.15% of the variation in reduction in density of PCPBs can be
explained by the plastic content.
It is also noticeable that the water absorption increases as the plastic content increases (Table 5). The water
absorption moved from 1.44% to 1.76%, indicating a rise of about 22% when 60% of the sand was substituted
with plastic. This upsurge may be influenced by the increase of voids in PCPBs as a result of the poor bond
between the plastic particles and the cement paste in the mix. The relationship between plastic content and %
increase in water absorption was found to be linear (Figure 8). The R2 = 0.9966 indicates that 99.66% of the
variation in water absorption can be explained by plastic content.

132
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

Table 5: Effect of plastic content on density and water absorption

Water cement Plastic content Density Reduction in Water % rise in water
ratio (%) (Kg/m3) density (%) absorption (%) absorption
0 2617.50 0.00 1.44 0.00
10 2578.23 1.5 1.50 4.17
20 2531.25 3.29 1.55 7.64
0.45 30 2507.92 4.19 1.59 10.42
40 2467.08 5.75 1.64 13.89
50 2426.25 7.31 1.70 18.06
60 2367.50 9.55 1.76 22.22

12
R2 = 0.9915
Reduction in density (%)

10

Reduction in
8
density (%)
6
Linear
(Reduction in
4
density (%))

0
0 20 40 60 80
Plastic content (%)

Figure 7: Relationship between plastic content and reduction in density (%)

25 R2 = 0.9966

20 % increase in
% increase in water

water
absorption

15 absorption

Linear (%
10 increase in
water
5 absorption)

0
0 50 100
Plastic content (%)

Figure 8: Relationship between plastic content and % increase in water absorption

3.4 Relationship between Density and Compressive Strength

Figure 9 displays the relationship between density and compressive strength of the PCPBs for water cement ratio
of 0.45. It is apparent that there is linear correlation between the density and the compressive strength. The R2
was found to be 0.9646. This suggests that 96.46% of the variation in compressive strength can be explained by
the density of the PCPBs. It is also noticeable that compressive strength (Cs) = – 277.96 + 0.1244d. The –
277.96 is the constant value for determining the compressive strength. The 0.1244 means if density (d) is
increased by one unit compressive strength will on average increase by 0.1244. A Pearson correlation was
conducted to determine whether the correlation is statistically significant. It was realized that r = 0.982 and P <
0.001 (Table 6). Positive value of r indicates that as density increases, compressive strength increases. P < 0.001
shows that the correlation is statistically significant.

133
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

60 Cs = 0.1244d - 277.96

Compressive strength (Cs)

R2 = 0.9646
50 Compressive
strength
40
(N/mm2)

(N/mm 2)
30
Linear
20
(Compressiv
10 e strength
(N/mm2))
0
2300 2400 2500 2600 2700
3
Density (d) (kg/m )

Figure 9: Relationship between density and compressive strength for W/C Ratio of 0.45

Table 6: Pearson correlation showing the statistical significance of the correlation between density
and compressive strength

Compressive
Density strength
Density Pearson Correlation 1 .982**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 7 7
Compressive strength Pearson Correlation
.982** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 7 7
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4. Conclusions
The tests results of this study demonstrate that there is great potential for the utilization of waste low density
polyethylene in concrete pavement block mixes, including 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%. Based on these
results, the following can be concluded:
Both physical and mechanical properties of plastic concrete pavement blocks were affected when plastic was
used as a replacement for sand. Decrease in density, compressive strength, flexural strength, and splitting tensile
strength was observed when part of the sand was substituted with plastic. The rate of reduction in density and
strengths increased as the percentage of plastic increased. However, the water absorption of PCPBs increased as
the plastic content increased.
Although, the strengths of PCPBs decreased as the plastic content increased, compressive strengths of 20N/mm2,
30N/mm2, and 40N/mm2 which are satisfactory for pedestrians walk ways, light traffic and heavy traffic
situations respectively could be achieved if 10% - 50% plastic contents are used. The amount of waste plastic
being accumulated in the world has created a big challenge for their disposal. Utilizing them in concrete
pavement blocks will help to mitigate their effects.

References
Al-Manaseer, A.A. & Dalal, T.R. (1997), “Concrete Containing Plastic Aggregates”, Concrete International
19(8), 47 – 52.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2006), “Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids
in Hardened Concrete”, ASTM C642, Philadelphia.
Batayneh, M., Marie, I. & Asi, I. (2007), “Use of Selected Waste Materials in Concrete Mixes”, Waste
Management 27(12), 1870 – 1876.

134
Civil and Environmental Research www.iiste.org
ISSN 2224-5790 (Paper) ISSN 2225-0514 (Online)
Vol.6, No.5, 2014

British Standard Institution (1983), “Method for Determination of Density of Hardened Concrete”, BS 1881, Part
114, BSI London.
British Standard Institution (1986), “Method for Testing Compressive Strength of Concrete”, BS 6717, Part 1,
BSI London.
British Standard Institution (2001), “Precast Concrete Paving Blocks”, BS 6717, Part 1, BSI London.
Choi, Y.W., Moon, D.J., Chung, J.S. & Cho, S.K. (2005), “Effects of Waste PET Bottles Aggregate on
Properties of Concrete”, Cement and Concrete Research 35(4), 776 – 781.
Edin, N.N. & Senouci, A.B. (1993), “Rubber-Tyre Particles as Concrete Aggregate”, ASCE Journal of Materials
in Civil Engineering 5(4), 478 – 497.
IS: 383-1970, “Specifications for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete”, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Khatib, Z.R. & Bayomy, F.M. (1999), “Rubberized Portland Cement Concrete”, ASCE Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering 11(3), 206 – 213.
Ling, T.C. (2011), “Prediction of Density and Compressive Strength for Rubberized Concrete Block”,
Construction and Building Materials 25, 4303 – 4306.
Marzouk, O.Y., Dheilly, R.M. & Queneudec, M. (2007), “Volarisation of Post-Consumer Waste in Cementitious
Concrete Composites”, Waste Management 27, 310 – 318.
Naik, T.R., Singh, S.S., Huber, C.O. & Brodersen, B.S. (1996), “Use of Post-Consumer Waste Plastics in
Cement-Based Composites”, Cement and Concrete Research 26, 1489 – 1492.
Ohemeng, E.A. & Yalley, P.P.K. (2013), “Models for Predicting the Density and Compressive Strength of
Rubberized Concrete Pavement Blocks”, Construction and Building Materials 47, 656 – 661.
Suganthy, P., Chandrasekar, D. & Kumar, S.P.K. (2013), “Utilization of Pulverized Plastic in Cement Concrete
as Fine Aggregate”, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology 2(6), 1015 – 1019.
Topcu, I.B. (1995), “The Properties of Rubberized Concrete”, Cement and Concrete Research 25(2), 304 – 310.
Toutanji, H.A. (1996), “The Use of Rubber Tyre Particles in Concrete to Replace Mineral Aggregate”, Cement
and Concrete Composites 18(2), 135 – 139.

135
 The IISTE is a pioneer in the Open-Access hosting service and academic event
management. The aim of the firm is Accelerating Global Knowledge Sharing.

More information about the firm can be found on the homepage:

http://www.iiste.org

CALL FOR JOURNAL PAPERS

There are more than 30 peer-reviewed academic journals hosted under the hosting
platform.

Prospective authors of journals can find the submission instruction on the

following page: http://www.iiste.org/journals/ All the journals articles are available
online to the readers all over the world without financial, legal, or technical barriers
other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. Paper version
of the journals is also available upon request of readers and authors.

MORE RESOURCES

Book publication information: http://www.iiste.org/book/

Recent conferences: http://www.iiste.org/conference/

IISTE Knowledge Sharing Partners

EBSCO, Index Copernicus, Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, JournalTOCS, PKP Open

Archives Harvester, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Elektronische
Zeitschriftenbibliothek EZB, Open J-Gate, OCLC WorldCat, Universe Digtial
Library , NewJour, Google Scholar

View publication stats