4.7 Article

Field study on concrete footpath with recycled plastic and crushed glass as filler materials

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 243, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118277

Keywords

Concrete footpath; Recycling; Plastic waste; Crushed glass; Schmidt hammer test

Funding

  1. Sustainability Victoria [C-11007]
  2. Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre for Advanced Technologies in Rail Track Infrastructure - Australian Government [IC170100006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Generation of plastics and glass wastes is rapidly increasing world-wide due to the heavy consumerism culture of modern societies. The disposal of single-use packaging products imposes a substantial toll on the environment. A large fraction of this waste ends up in landfills causing pollution in both marine and land environment. Sustainable applications of utilizing such waste material which can reduce the landfill requirement for the glass and plastic wastes acquires global attention. In this study, recycled plastic waste (RPW) and recycled crushed glass (RCG) were mixed in concrete and a field trial was conducted for concrete footpaths in the state of Victoria in Australia. Samples of the concrete mix were collected and the mechanical properties such as unconfined compressive strength, indirect tensile strength and capillary water uptake was tested in laboratory. Non-destructive field test using the Schmidt hammer was carried out to evaluate the compressive strength of various points located on the footpath and the results were compared with the standard set by local authorities. Result of this field study indicated that the concrete design mix containing 10% RPW and 10% RCG (volume percentage) meets the local council standard used in concrete footpath construction. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available