CAHPTER -1
1.1 - INTODUCTION
Waste materials
are the products culminating from average household to the industries to the
everyday functioning offices. In a broad
manner the waste materials can be divided into basically two
I > Biodegradable
II > Non
Biodegradable
1.1 BIODEGRADABLE WASTES
Biodegradable
wastes are generally produced in everyday household . they range from peelings
of vegetables to waste food to excreta disposed in the toilets etc . the
biodegradable wastes possesses less threat to the environment due to their easy
degrading nature . some of the easily found biodegradable wastes are -:
Green waste
Food waste
Paper waste
Biodegradable plastics
Food waste
Paper waste
Biodegradable plastics
Human waste
Manure
Sewage
Slaughterhouse waste
Manure
Sewage
Slaughterhouse waste
biodegradable
wastes are generally organic in nature the biodegradable waste being easily
degradable in nature can be disposed off in dumping grounds without much hassle
as they are bound to dissipate into the
ground as due their easy breakdown by bacteria . as they degrade down they
breakdown into basic units of the elements and going back to the ground thus
creating a cycle of reinvestment . as a result we do not expect alluring
pollution effect from the biodegradable units . due to their easy decomposing
nature the biodegradable wastes are usually of less nuisance in spreading
atmospheric pollution .
1.2 NON
BIODEGRADABLE WASTE
1.3 WASTE MATERIALS IN INDIA
This is expected to exceed
8, 00,000 tones by 2012.
1.3.1 E - WASTE IN INDIA
E – WASTE is
generally produced in the major cities in india like Delhi,
Mumbai and Bangalore due their large needs of electronic items to support the
lifestyle & needs of the people and meeting the demands of the industries
in these cities . In these cities a complex e-waste handling
infrastructure has developed mainly based on a long tradition of waste rrecycling Sixty
five cities in India generate more than 60% of the total e-waste generated in
India. Ten states generate70% of the total e-waste generated in India.
Maharashtra ranks first followed by Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal, Delhi, Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab in the list
of e-waste generating states in India, among top ten cities generating e-waste,
Mumbai ranks first followed by Delhi ,Bangalore, Chennai, Kolkata, Ahmadabad,
Hyderabad, Pune , Surat and Nagpur.
1.3.2 E - WASTE DISPOSAL IN INDIA
There are two small WEEE/E-waste dismantling
facilities are functioning in Chennai and Bangalore. There is no large scale
organized e-waste recycling facility in India and the entire recycling exists
in unorganized sector. Ahamed reported
waste glass can be used by grinding it into a fine glass powder (GLP) for
incorporation into concrete as a pozzalanic material. It under goes beneficial
pozzalanic reactions in the concrete and could replace up to 30% cement in some
concrete mixes with satisfactory strength development.P.M.Subramanian described
the need for an integrated waste management approach to be considered involving
efficient use of plastic materials, recycling and disposal mechanisms. The
amount of plastics consumed annually in the growing tends of Indian and US
scenario was discussed. The possibility of a comprehensive investigation of the
technical economic and ecological aspects of recycling was addressed by the
author.Shiet reviewed glass E-waste describes loosely discarded surplus,
obsolete, broken, electrical or electronic devices. Rapid technology change ,low initial cost have resulted in a
fast growing surplus of electronic waste around the globe .Several tonnes of E
waste need to be disposed per year. Traditional landfill or stock pile method
is not an environmental friendly solution and the disposal process is also very
difficult to meet EPA regulations. How
to reuse the non-disposable E-waste becomes an important research topic.
However, technically, electronic waste is only a subset of WEEE (Waste
Electrical and Electronic Equipment).According to the OECD any appliance using
an electronic power supply that has reach edits End –of life would come under
WEEE. E plastic
Waste is one of the fastest growing waste
streams in the world. In developed countries, previously, it was about 1% of
total solid waste generation and currently it grows to 2% by 2010. In
developing countries, it ranges 0.01% to 1% of the total municipal solid waste
generation.
The e-waste inventory based on this obsolescence
rate and installed base in India for the year 2005 has been estimated to be
146180.00 tones
Chemistry, alkali silica reaction
mechanism,expansion of concrete containing glass aggregates and micro structure
of the interfacial transitional zone between cement paste and glass particles. It
has been noticed that the mechanism of expansion of concrete caused by glass
aggregate is different from that by traditional ASR expansion. It was conferred
that theexpansion of concrete containing glass aggregate reacts with alkalis in
the cement to from alkali silicate or NCSH which absorbs water and cause
expansion. The author suggested that it is necessary to control the pH of the
concrete under 12 in order to avoid deleterious expansion and cracking of
concrete containing large glass particles.
1.2 PLASTICS
The word “plastic” means substances which have
plasticity, and accordingly, anythingthat is formed in a soft state and used in
a solid state can be called a plastic. Therefore, the origin of plastic forming
can be traced back to the processing methods of natural high polymers such as
lacquer, shellac, amber, horns, tusks, tortoiseshell, as well as inorganic
substances such as clay, glass, and metals. Because the natural high polymer
materials are not uniform in quality and lack mass productivity in many cases,
from early times it has been demanded in particular to process them easily and
into better quality and to substitute artificial materials for natural high
polymers. Celluloid, synthetic rubber, ebonite, and rayon are these artificial
materials. Presently, it is defined that the plastics are synthesized high
polymers which have plasticity, and consequently substances made of these
natural materials are precluded.
Plastics can be separated into two types. The first
type is thermoplastic, which can be melted for recycling in the plastic
industry. These plastics are polyethylene,Polypropylene, polyamide,
polyoxymethylene, polytetrafluorethylene, andPolyethylene, NE terephthalate.
The second type is thermosetting plastic. This plastic cannot be melted by
heating because the molecular chains are bonded firmly with meshed crosslink.
These plastic types are known as phenolic, melamine, unsaturated polyester,
epoxy resin, silicone, and polyurethane. At present, these plastic wastes are
disposed by either burning or burying. However, these processes are costly. If
the thermosetting plastic waste can be reused, the pollution that is caused by
the burning process as well as the cost of these waste management processes can
be reduced. To achieve this purpose, a study of these thermosetting plastics
for application into construction materials has been conducted, particularly
for the concrete wall in buildings. In Thailand, lightweight concrete is
extensively used for the construction of interior and exterior walls of
buildings for the case where the walls are not designed for lateral loads. This
is due to the special characteristics of lightweight concrete.
1.2.1 PLASTIC WASTE DISPOSAL
The quantity of
solid waste is expanding rapidly. It is estimated that the rate of expansion is
doubled every 10 years. This is due to the rapid growth of the population as
well as the industrial sector. IN a report, the National Council on Public
Works Improvement identified the solid-waste crisis as an area of the infrastructure
with great needs for improvement. The solid-waste crisis is important from an
environmental and economic point of view. As landfill areas are rapidly
depleting, the cost of solid-waste disposal is rapidly increasing. The cost for
solid-waste management was, on an average, $2.7-3.6/t in 1979. The cost is now
more than $18/t and, in many localities; the cost exceeds $90/t
("Our" 1989).Among the solid-waste materials, plastics have received
a lot of attention because they are generally not biodegradable. On a weight
basis, there are about 10 billion kg of plastic wastes in the U.S. per year,
which represents about 7% by weight of the total solid wastes. However, plastic
wastes are very visible, since they constitute about 30% by volume of the total
solid wastes. The various types of plastics in municipal wastes are
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), High density polyethylene (HDPE), Low density
polyethylene (LDPE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS) etc.
The major users
of plastic are the packaging industries, consuming about 41%, 20% in building
and construction, 15% in distribution and large industries, 9% in electrical
and electronic, 7% in automotive, 2% in agriculture and 6% in other uses.
Among the various types of plastics,
the largest component of the plastic waste is low density polyethylene/linear
low density polyethylene (LDPE) at about 23%, followed by17.3% of high density
polyethylene, 18.5% of polypropylene, 12.3% of polystyrene (PS/extended PS),
10.7% polyvinyl chloride, 8.5% polyethylene terephthalate and 9.7% ofother
types.
One of the
environmental issues with the plastics is that in most regions is the large
Number of plastic bottles, ploy thins and other plastic materials are deposited
in domestic wastes and landfills. These plastic materials are not easily
biodegradable even after a long period. Due to this, more landfill space is
needed for disposal every year. However, the plastics have many good
characteristics which include versatility, lightness, hardness, low linear
dilation coefficient and good chemical resistance. These qualities render it
well apt for concrete production or for other uses in building industry. Along
with this, since it is not easily biodegradable, it is thought that plastics
can be utilized as inert matter in cement matrix. In particular, plastic
material particles can be incorporated as aggregates in concrete.
As has already
been mentioned, on an average, 20% of plastics is used in constructionindustry
in various building application. However, in India, this figure is less than 2%
at present.
1.2.2 PLASTIC RECYCLING
Recycling is the
practice of recovering used materials from the waste stream and then
incorporating those same materials into the manufacturing process. Recycling is
one of the prominent issues in this environmentally conscious era. There are
three main arguments for recycling: first, it preserves the precious natural
resources; secondly, it minimizes the transportation and its associated costs;
and thirdly, it avoids the environmental load caused by waster material, i.e.
space requirement. The great strides have been made to increase recycling rates
worldwide in recent years. The major 18 consideration to support recycling all
over the world is the expansion of infrastructure for recycling.
The need to
recycle plastics is clear. Over 22 million tons of plastics are discarded each
year in the trash. While plastics account for only 9.2% (in 2000) of the trash
Americans generate each year, plastic products do not decompose in landfills
and are difficult to reduce in size. There are a few technological and economic
constraints that currently limit the full and efficient recycling of plastic
wastes into useful products.
1.3ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF USING PLASTICS
1.3.1ADVANTAGES OF USING PLASTICS IN CONCRETE
Ø The growth in the use
of plastic is due to its beneficial properties, which include:
Ø Extreme versatility and
ability to be tailored to meet specific technical needs.
Ø Lighter weight than
competing materials reducing fuel consumption during
Ø Transportation.
Ø Durability and
longevity.
Ø Resistance to
chemicals, water and impact.
Ø Excellent thermal and
electrical insulation properties.
Ø Comparatively lesser
production cost.
Ø Unique ability to combine
with other materials like aluminum foil, paper,
Ø Adhesives.
Ø Far superior aesthetic
appeal.
Ø Material of choice –
human life style and plastic are inseparable.
Ø Intelligent features,
smart materials and smart systems.
Ø Reduction of municipal
solid wastes being land filled and
Ø An alternative to
pressure-treated lumber that leaches toxic chemicals into wastes.
1.3.2DISADVANTAGES OF USING
PLASTICS IN CONCRETE
The followings are the main disadvantages of using the plastics in
concrete are as Follows:-
Ø Plastics are having low bonding properties so that
the strength of concrete gets reduced such as compressive, tensile and flexural
strength.
Ø Its melting point is low so that it cannot be used in
furnaces because it gets melted on coming in contact with the heat at high
temperature.
Plastics production also involves the use of potentially harmful
chemicals, which are added as stabilizers or colorants. Many of these have not
undergone an environmental risk assessment and their impact on human health and
the environment is currently uncertain. Such an example is phthalates, which
are used in the manufacture of PVC.
PVC has in the past been used in toys and there has been concern that
phthalates may be released when these toys are sucked (come into contact with
saliva).
Risk assessments of the effects of phthalates on the environment are
currently being
Carriedout. The disposal of plastics products also contributes
significantly to their
Environmental impact. Because most plastics are non-degradable, they
take a long time to break down, possibly up to hundreds of years although
no-one know for certain as plastics have not existed for long enough when they
are landfilled. With more and more plastics products, particularly plastics
packaging, being disposed of soon after their purchase, the landfill space
required by plastics waste is a growing concern.
1.4 RECYCLING OF E-WASTE
The processing of electronic waste in developing countries causes
serious health and pollution problems due to the fact that electronic equipment
contains serious contaminants such as lead, cadmium, Beryllium etc. This paper
deals with the non hazardous and inert components of E-waste generated out of
Obsolete Computers, TV Cabins, Refrigerator, Mobile phones and washing Machine
etc. Postconsumer components of above mentioned appliance have traditionally
been disposed off either in domestic refuse, which ends up in landfill, was
collected in designated collection spots for reuse/ recycling. The major
objective of this task is to reduce as for as possible the accumulation of used
and discarded electronic and electrical equipments and transfer waste into socially
and industrially beneficial raw material using simple, low cost and
environmental friendly technology. Iron and Steel are the most common materials
found in electrical and electronic equipment’s and amounts to nearly half of
the total weight of WEEE. Plastic are the second largest component by weight
representing nearly 21 % of WEEE.
Chen reported the scope for utilization of waste glass in concrete in
several forms including fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. Reind suggested
the applications of glass collets as concrete aggregate, Road construction
aggregate and building applications (Bricks, Tiles, Wall panels etc). The
utilization of waste plastic components of E-waste in construction applications
is the major interest of the work reported here.
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
LITERATURE REVIEW
In this chapter the research work concerning to the various application
and methods used for testing of the concrete made by E- plastics aggregates are
discussed. This Chapter gives a comprehensive review of the work carried out by
various researchers in the field of using E- plastics in concrete as partial
replacement of fine aggregates.
The most important property of concrete in fresh state is its
workability. It is defined as the ease with which concrete can be mixed,
transported, placed and finished easily without segregation. Workability has a
broad range from very low (at slump = 0–25 mm) Applied for vibrated concrete in
roads or other large sections, to high workability (at Slump = 100 –180 mm)
applied for sections with congested reinforcement investigated the effect of
ground plastic on the slump of concrete.
Concrete mixes of up to 20% of plastic particles are proportioned to
partially replace the fine aggregates. Details of mixture proportions and slump
test results are given in. It was observed that there is a decrease in the
slump with the increase in the plastic Particle content. For a 20% replacement,
the slump has decreased to 25% of the original slump value with 0% plastic
particle content. This decrease in the Slump value is due to the shape of
plastic particles, i.e., the plastic particles have sharper edges than the fine
aggregate. Since the slump value at 20% plastic particle content is 58mm, this
value can be considered acceptable and the mix can be considered workable.
Along with plastics, glass and crushed concrete was also used as replacement of
coarse Aggregates and it was observed that use of crushed aggregates leads to
maximum slump Reduction, while using crushed glass has least effect on slump of
resultant concrete.
Workability verses percentage of different wastes in the concrete mixes Al-Manaseer and Dalal (1997) determined
the slump of concrete mixes made with plastic aggregates. They reported that there
was increase in slump when plastic aggregates were incorporated in concrete.
The concrete containing 50% plastic aggregates had a slightly higher cone slump
than the concrete without plastic aggregates. Along with the slump test,
K-slump test was also carried out. K–slump consistency results showed a similar
pattern to that obtained from the cone slump. They concluded that the plastic aggregates
neither absorbed nor added any water to the concrete mix. Due to this non-absorptive
characteristic, concrete mixes containing plastic aggregates will have more
free water. Consequently, the slump increased.
Soroushian et al. (2003) reported reduction in slump with the use of recycled plastic in Saradhi . (2004) shown that the fresh
concrete with expanded plastics mixes showed better flow values compared to the
normal concrete at similar water cement ratio and also no segregation was
observed in any mix even though the concretes were made without the addition of
bonding additives. Also, it was noted that the EPS (expanded plastics)
aggregates are compressed during the mixing operation and the resulting
densities of concrete are generally higher than the designed densities by about
50–100 kg/m3. This effect was noted more in mixtures containing normal coarse
aggregate.
Babu et al. (2004) studied that all the expanded plastic mixes showed better flow and no
segregation was observed in any mix even in these concretes made without the addition
of bonding additives. Raghavan et al
(1998) have reported that mortars incorporating rubber shreds achieved
workability comparable to or better than a control mortar without rubber
particles.
CHAPTER-3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 EXPERIMENTAL DETAIL MATERIAL
The potential applications of industry by products in concrete are to be
partial aggregate replacement or partial cementious materials depending on
their chemical composition and grain size. Recent studies have shown that reuse
of very finely grounded e-wastein concrete has economical and technical
advantages for solving the disposal of large amount of e-waste,reuse in
complete industrymay be the most feasible application. E-waste particles can be
used as coarse aggregate, fineaggregate, fine filler in concrete depending on
its chemical composition and particle size. E- Waste sources in the form of
loosely discarded , surplus, obsolete ,broken, electrical or electronic devices
from commercial informal recyclers have been collected which were crushed and
ground to the particle size.
3.2 MATERIALS:-
Cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, finely grinded e-waste, water
. The specifications and properties of materials are as follows.
3.2.1 CEMENT
Ordinary Portland cement from a single
lot was used for study. The physical properties of cement as obtained from
various tests are listed in table. All the tests are carried out in accordance
with procedure laid down in IS 1489.
3.2.2 FINE AGGREGATE
Locally available sand was used as fine aggregate in the cement mortar
and concrete mix. The physical properties and sieve analysis result of sand are
shown.
3.2.3 COURSE AGGREGATE
Crushed stone aggregate (locally available) of 20mm and 10mm in the
ratio of 1:1 were used throughout the experimental study. The physical
properties and sieve analysis of coarse aggregate are given.
3.2.4 WATER
Fresh and clean water is used for
casting the specimens in the present study. The water is respectively free from
organic matter, silt , oil, sugar, chloride and acidic material as per Indian
standard.
3.2.5 CONCRETE MIX
M20 grade concrete mix is designed asper IS
code design procedure using the properties of materials discussed above. Water
cement ratio used in the design is 0.5 mix proportion of materials comes out to
be 1:1.43:3.02(cement: sand: 20mm coarse aggregate) by weight and compressive
strength materials after 28 days is 27 and 28.11N/mm2 respectively.
3.2.6 COARSE AGGREGATE
The
size of aggregate bigger than 4.75mm is considered as coarse aggregate. The
properties of coarse aggregates were tested as per IS 2386. Some of the
properties are as detailed below.
a)
Sieve analysis or
Gradation.
b)
Specific gravity.
c)
Impact value.
a) Gradation
The coarse aggregate grading limits are given in
IS383 – 1970 - table 2, Clause 4.1 and 4.2 (Refer Annexure I page 57 of
DurocreteMixDesign Manual) for single size aggregate as well as graded
aggregate. The gradingof coarse aggregate is important to get cohesive &
dense concrete. The voids left bylarger coarse aggregate particles are filled
by smaller coarse aggregate particles andso on. This way, the volume of mortar
(cement-sand-water paste) required to fill thefinal voids is minimum. However,
in some cases gap graded aggregate can be usedwhere some intermediate size is
not used. Use of Gap-graded aggregate may nothave adverse effect on strength.By
proper grading of coarse aggregate, the possibility of segregation is minimized,especially
for higher workability. Proper grading of coarse aggregates also improvesthe
compatibility of concrete.
b) Specific Gravity
With the specific
gravity the weight can be converted in to solid
volume and hence the theoretical yield of concrete per unit volume can
be calculated. Specific gravity is also required in calculating the compaction
factor in connection with workability measurements. The test procedure has been
formulated in IS 2386 (part III)-1963. The specific gravity is given by the
formula.
W2 - w1
_____________________
(w2-w1)
- (w3-w4)
Where:-
W1=
Weight of empty bottle
W2
= Weight of bottle + half filled aggregate
W3 = Weight
of aggregate + water up to the hole of the cone
W4
= Weight of bottle + full of water
FIG 3.1 PROPERTIES OF COARSE AGGREGATES
S.NO
|
CHARACTERSTICS
|
VALUE
|
1
|
Type
|
crushed
|
2
|
Specific gravity
|
2.60
|
Total water absorption
|
1.65%
|
|
4
|
Fineness modulus
|
4.09%
|
3.2.7 FINE AGGREGATE
The
size of aggregate smaller then 4.75mm is consider as fine aggregate. The
properties of fine aggregate were determined as per IS 2386 by the following
tests.
a)
Gradation
The
fine aggregate are graded into 44 zone as per IS 383-1970. Where concrete of
high strength and good durability is required, fine aggregate conforming to any
one of the four zones may be used with proper mix design.
As
the fine aggregate grading becomes progressively finer, that is from grading
zone I to IV, the ratio of fine aggregate to coarse aggregate should be
progressively reduced.
The
fine aggregate conforming to zone IV should not be used in reinforced concrete
unless tests have been made to ascertain the suitability of proposed mix proportion.
The
grading of fine aggregate has much effect on workability of concrete then that
of coarse aggregate. Very coarse sand and very fine sand is unsatisfactory for
concrete making.
The
coarse sand result in harshness, bleeding and segregation and the fine sand
requires a comparative greater amount of water to produces necessary fluidity.
A
tolerance of 5% from zone may be allowed but it is not permitted beyond the
coarse limit of zone I or the finer limit of zone IV.
CHAPTER-4
EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.1 PROPERTIES ANAALYSIS
PROPERTIES ANALYSIS OF E-WASTE PLASTIC AND FINE
AGGREGATE
PROPERTIES
|
E-WASTE PARTICLE
|
FINE AGGREGATE
|
Specific gravity
|
1.01
|
2.6
|
Absorption
|
<0.2
|
0.5
|
Colour
|
White
and dark
|
dark
|
Bulk density
|
1.45kg/l
|
2.59kg/l
|
Compacting factor
|
----
|
0.90
|
4.2SIEVE ANALYSIS
This test was
conductedfor 20mm size aggregates. This method is useful for finding the
particle size distribution of aggregates. Three trials were considered as per
IS 2386-part-I and the average of the cumulative percentage passing were
compared with limits of IS 383-1970.
Figure 4.1 Sieve
analysis apparatus
TABLE
SHOWING RESULTS FROM SIEVE ANALYSIS - :
BIS TEST SIEVE
|
% PASSING
|
4.75 mm
|
99.6 %
|
2.36 mm
|
91.5 %
|
1.18 mm
|
72.5 %
|
600 u
|
37.5 %
|
425 u
|
19 %
|
300 u
|
6 %
|
150 u
|
0.5 %
|
75 u
|
2 %
|
PAN
|
0
|
Table
4.2 FINESS MODULUS FOR FINE AGGREGATE AND E-PLASTIC
SIEVE
|
FINE AGGREGATE
|
E-PLASTIC
|
4.75mm
|
0.046
|
0.052
|
2.36mm
|
0.118
|
0.810
|
1.18mm
|
0.340
|
0.104
|
600
|
0.233
|
0.022
|
425
|
0.133
|
0.006
|
300
|
0.079
|
0.004
|
150
|
0.044
|
0.002
|
75
|
0.006
|
|
Pan
|
0.001
|
Table 4.4 PROPERTIES OF
CEMENT
SL.NO
|
CHARACTERISTICS
|
VALUE OBTAINED
EXPERIMENTLY
|
VALUE SPECIFIED BY
IS:1489-1991
|
1
|
Standard consistency
|
30
|
---
|
2
|
Fineness of cement as retained on 90 micron sieve
‘in %’
|
0.5
|
Min 0.1
|
3
|
Setting time
1.initial
2.finial
|
30 mins
550 mins
|
Min 30 mins
Max 600 mins
|
4
|
Specific gravity
|
3.10
|
---
|
5
|
Compress strength(N/mm2)
1.7 days
2.28 days
|
28.00
37.00
|
Min 22
Min 33
|
4.5 WATER ANALYSIS
PH test:
PH valve of the water sample=7.90
Conductance test:
Specific conductance of
water=0.321
Turbidity test:
Turbidity value of water=2.3NTU
Acidity test:
Acidity value of
water=1500mg/lit
Alkalinity test:
Alkalinity value of water=100mg/lit
Table 4.6 BULKING
OF SAND
S.NO
|
%OF WATER
|
BULKING OF SAND
|
1
|
10
|
310
|
2
|
20
|
330
|
3
|
30
|
360
|
4
|
40
|
380
|
5
|
50
|
370
|
SI.NO
|
% OF WATER
|
BULKING OF
E-PLASTIC
|
1
|
10
|
180
|
2
|
20
|
210
|
3
|
30
|
220
|
4
|
40
|
230
|
5
|
50
|
220
|
Table 4.7 BULKING OF E-WASTE PLASTIC
Figure 4.2. SEIVE
ANALYSIS COMPARISON OF E-WASTE PLASTIC AND FINE AGGREGATE
Figure 4.3 BULKING OF
SAND
4.7 MIX PROPORTIONS
4.7.1 GENERAL
Concrete like other
engineering materials needs to be designed for properties like
strength,durability, workability and cohesion. Concrete mix design is the science of decidingrelative proportions
of ingredients of concrete, to achieve the desired properties in the most
economical way.Even the revised IS 456-2000 advocates use of highergrade of
concrete for more severe conditions of exposure, for durability considerations.
4.7.2 MIX DESIGN
Concrete is an
extremely versatile building material because, it can be designed for
strengthranging from M10 (10Mpa) to M100 (100Mpa) and workability ranging from
0 mm slump to 150mm slump. In all these
cases the basic ingredients of concrete are the same, but it is theirrelative proportioning that
makes the difference.
4.7.3 METHODS OF MIX DESIGN
In our industry, many methods are available for mix proportions. Some of
these are:
·
Arbitrary proportion
·
Fineness modulus method
·
Maximum density method
·
Surface area method
·
Indian Road Congress, IRC 44 method
·
Road (Grading Curve method)
·
Indian standard recommended method IS 10262
82.
Out of the above methods, some of them are not very widely used in these
days because of some difficulties or drawbacks in the procedures for arriving
at the satisfactory portion. Indian standard method is used for the concrete
mix design and it is necessary to get acquainted with statistical quality
control methods, which are common to all method of mix design.
4.7.4 ADVANTAGE OF MIX DESIGN
Mix design aims to achieve good quality concrete at site economically.
- Quality concrete means
• Better strength
• Better imperviousness and durability
• Dense and homogeneous concrete
2. Economy
a) Economy in cement consumption:
It is possible to save up to 15% of cement for M20 grade of concrete with
the help of concrete mix design. In fact higher the grade of concrete more are the
savings. Lower cement content also results in lower heat of hydration and hence
reduces shrinkage cracks.
b) Best use of available
materials:
Site conditions often restrict the quality and quantity of ingredient materials.
Concrete mix design offers a lot of flexibility on type of aggregates to be
used in mix design. Mix design can give an economical solution based on the available
materials if they meet the basic IS requirements. This can lead to saving in
transportation costs from longer distances.
c) Other properties:
Mix design can help us to achieve form finishes, high early strengths for
early-shuttering, concrete with better flexural strengths, concrete with pump ability
and concrete with lower densities.
4.8 MIX DESIGN OF M20
GRADE OF CONCRETE
4.8.1 DESIRED DESIGNING
FOR M20 GRADE CONCRETE ( OPC ) SAMPLES
Characteristics compressive strength of
requirement at 28 days
|
20 N/mm
|
Maximum size of aggregate
|
20 mm
|
Degree of workability
|
0.85 ( compaction factor )
|
Degree of quality control
|
GOOD
|
Type of exposure
|
MILD
|
Specific gravity - Coarse aggregate
|
2.60
|
Specific gravity – Fine aggregate
|
2.60
|
Water absorption - Coarse aggregate
|
0.5%
|
Water absorption - Fine
aggregate
|
1.0%
|
Free surface moisture- Coarse aggregate
|
NIL
|
Free surface moisture- fine aggregate
|
2%
|
4.8.2 TARGET MEAN STRENGTH OF CONCRETE - :
F = f + t x s
= 20 + 1.65 x 4.6
= 27.6 N
4.8.3 SELECTION OF SAND
AND WATER CONTENT - :
Amount of water = 186 L/m
% of sand = 35 %
Sand content as % of total aggregate by absolute volume = 35 %
4.8.4 FOR CHANGES IN VALUES IF CEMENT-WATER RATIO , COMPACTION FACTOR
AND SAND BULGING TO ZONE – 3 , THE
FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE
Change in condition
|
Water content
|
% of sand in total
aggregate
|
Decrease in w/c ratio
( 0.6 to 0.5 )
|
0
|
-2 %
|
For increase in compaction factor ( from 0.85 – 0.9 )
|
+1.5 %
|
NIL
|
For sand conforming to zone 3
|
0
|
-1.5%
|
Corrected values ( after adjustments )
|
+1.5%
|
- 3.5 %
|
The required sand content as % of total aggregate by absolute volume = (35%
-3.5%)
% of sand for making M-20 grade concrete with target mean compressive
strength of 27.6 N/mm²
Required % of water content = 186 + (0.015) x
(186)
= 188.79 L/m²
4.8.5 Determination of
cement content
W/C = 0.5
C = W / 0.5 =188.79 / 0.5 = 377.58 kg/m³
4.8.7 DETERMINATION OF
COARSE AND FINE AGGREGATE
4.8.7.1 FOR FINE AGGREGATE
V = ( W + C/S +
1/P x
f / Sfa )
0.98 = ( 188.79
+377.58 / 3.15 + 1 / 0.315 x fa / 2.6 ) x 1/1000
= 0.98 = ( 308.65 + fa / 0.819 ) x 1/1000
= fa = 550.2 kg / m³
4.8.7.2 FOR COARSE
AGGREGATE
V = ( W + C/S + 1/1-Pc x Ca / S Ca
) x 1/10
0.98 = ( 308.65 + 0.56 Ca ) x 1 / 10³
C =
1200 kg / m³
WATER : CEMENT : F.A : C.A
188.79 : 377.58 : 550.22 : 1200
0.5 : 1 : 1.45 : 3.17
The mix is 1 : 1.45 :3.17 ( By mass )
≈ 1 : 3/2 : 3 ( By mass )
4.8.8 PREPARATION OF
CUBES
Volume of 1 cube = 0.15 x 0.15 x 0.15
= 0.003375
m³
Volume of 9 cubes = 1.3 x 9 x 0.003375 m³
4.8.8.1 REQUIRED
QUANTITIES
Water = 188.79 x 0.039
= 7.36 L
Cement = ( 377.5 x 0.039 ) kg
= 14.72 kg
Fine aggregate = ( 0.039 x 550.2
) kg
= 21.45 kg
Coarse aggregate = ( 0.039 x1200 ) kg
=
46.8 kg
A total no of 54 blocks have been made for testing . Total 6 batches of
different composition have been introduced for testing . Each batch consists of
9 blocks The batches are divided into ordinary , 5 % addition , 10 % addition ,
……. 25 % addition . All the batches ( except the ordinary one ) will be having
an equal amount of 15 % of fly ash , only the e – waste have been made to vary
by multiples of 5 % .
4.8.8.2 1st
BATCH QUANTITY REQUREMENTS (E –WASTE 0% , FLY ASH 0%)
COMPONENTS
|
QUANTITY (KG)
|
CEMENT
|
4.93
|
COARSE AGGRIGATES
|
15.2
|
FINE AGGRIGATES
|
7.40
|
WATER
|
2.50 L
|
E-WASTE
|
0
|
FLY ASH
|
0
|
4.8.8.3 2ND
BATCH QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS E-
WASTE(5%) & FLY ASH (15%)
COMPONENTS
|
QUANTITY (KG)
|
CEMENT
|
4.20
|
COARSE AGGRIGATES
|
15.2
|
FINE AGGRIGATES
|
7.03
|
WATER
|
2.40
|
E-WASTE
|
0.34
|
FLY ASH
|
0.72
|
4.8.8.4 3RD
BATCH QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS E-WASTE (10%) , FLY ASH (15%)
COMPONENTS
|
QUANTITY (KG)
|
CEMENT
|
4.20
|
COARSE AGGRIGATES
|
15.2
|
FINE AGGRIGATES
|
6.66
|
WATER
|
2.5 L
|
E-WASTE
|
0.74
|
FLY ASH
|
0.72
|
4.8.8.5 4TH
BATCH QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS E-WASTE (15%) , FLY ASH (15%)
COMPONENTS
|
QUANTITY (KG)
|
CEMENT
|
4.20
|
COARSE AGGRIGATES
|
15.2
|
FINE AGGRIGATES
|
6.3
|
WATER
|
2.5 L
|
E-WASTE
|
1.11
|
FLY ASH
|
0.72
|
4.8.8.6 5TH
BATCH QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS E-WASTE (20%) , FLY ASH (15%)
COMPONENTS
|
QUANTITY (KG)
|
CEMENT
|
4.20
|
COARSE AGGRIGATES
|
15.1
|
FINE AGGRIGATES
|
5.5
|
WATER
|
2.5 L
|
E-WASTE
|
1.5
|
FLY ASH
|
0.72
|
4.8.8.7 6TH
BATCH QUANTITY REQUIREMENTS E-WASTE (20%) , FLY ASH (15%)
COMPONENTS
|
QUANTITY (KG)
|
CEMENT
|
4.20
|
COARSE AGGRIGATES
|
15.1
|
FINE AGGRIGATES
|
5.5
|
WATER
|
2.5 L
|
E-WASTE
|
1.90
|
FLY ASH
|
0.72
|
4.8.9 PROCEDURE
FOR MAKIING THE BATCH OF CONCRETE BLOCKS
Ø At first all the materials are gathered at the place of mixing
Ø The required amounts of the materials are taken and a dry mix is made
by them.
Ø Water was added accordingly to the dry mix.
Ø A block of dimension 15 cm x 15 cm x 15 cm is taken and a layer of oil
paint is added to the inner surface of the block.
Ø Materials have been added in 3 layers in the block.
Ø After filling of each layer a no of total 25 blows is given by tamping
rod.
Ø After finishing all the layers the brim of the block is trimmed of with
a trowel.
Ø The block is kept in room temperature for 24 hrs.
Ø After 24 hrs the casing on the concrete blocks was removed and they are
kept to dry for 3 hrs.
Ø The blocks are then treated to curing for 7 , 14 & 28 days curing
Ø After 7 days 3 blocks from each of the batches were taken to dry them
in the atmosphere. Then the blocks strength was measured by compressive testing
machine.
Ø Testing have been conducted till failure of the concrete block.
CHAPTER-5
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
5.1TESTS ON HARDENED CONCRETE
5.1.1 Compressive Strength
For compressive strength
testing, the bearing
surfaces of the testing machine were wiped clean and the cubes were placed in
the machine in such a manner that the load is applied to opposite sides of the
cubes as cast. The axis of the specimen was carefully aligned with the centre
of thrust of the spherically seated plate. The spherically seated block was
brought to bear on the specimen and the load was applied without shock and
continuously at a rate approximately 140 kg/cm2 / minute until
failure of specimen. Fig. 7.2 Shows Test setup for compressive strength and crack pattern. The maximum load applied to the specimen until
failure was recorded.
5.1.2 Experimental work
The experimental works carried out on hardened concrete are detailed
below. To carry out the experimental works on hardened concrete, the plain
concrete specimens are cast as per the IS mix design.
5.1.3 Moulds
Cube, cylinder and prism specimens are casted
to determine compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural
strength. Steel cubical moulds of size 150 x 105 x 150-mm are used to make
control specimens for finding the compressive strength.
BLOCK TYPE
|
INITIAL CRACK
|
AVERAGE |
FAILURE
|
AVERAGE
|
||||
|
B1
|
B2
|
B3
|
|
B1
|
B2
|
B3
|
|
CONCRETE
with 0% e waste & 15% fly ash
|
550
|
475
|
520
|
515
|
610
|
600
|
600
|
603.3
|
CONCRETE with 5% e waste & 15%
fly ash
|
200
|
220
|
235
|
655
|
300
|
255
|
260
|
271.6
|
CONCRETE with 10%e waste & 15% fly ash
|
295
|
325
|
362
|
327.3
|
395
|
415
|
430
|
413.3
|
CONCRETE with 15% e waste & 15%
fly ash
|
110
|
175
|
245
|
530
|
325
|
305
|
320
|
316.6
|
CONCRETE with 20%e waste & 15% fly ash
|
208
|
295
|
332
|
278.3
|
280
|
330
|
250
|
320
|
CONCRETE with 25%e waste & 15%
fly ash
|
395
|
100
|
100
|
198.3
|
430
|
250
|
270
|
316.6
|
5.1.4 TABLE SHOWING 7 DAYS
STRENGTH
BLOCK TYPE
|
INITIAL CRACK
|
AVERAGE |
FAILURE
|
AVERAGE
|
||||
|
B1
|
B2
|
B3
|
|
B1
|
B2
|
B3
|
|
CONCRETE with 0% e waste & 15% fly
ash
|
550
|
475
|
520
|
515
|
610
|
600
|
600
|
603.3
|
CONCRETE with 5% e waste & 15% fly ash
|
200
|
220
|
235
|
655
|
300
|
255
|
260
|
271.6
|
CONCRETE with 10%e waste
& 15% fly ash
|
295
|
325
|
362
|
327.3
|
395
|
415
|
430
|
413.3
|
CONCRETE with 15% e waste & 15% fly ash
|
110
|
175
|
245
|
530
|
325
|
305
|
320
|
316.6
|
CONCRETE with 20%e waste
& 15% fly ash
|
208
|
295
|
332
|
278.3
|
280
|
330
|
250
|
320
|
CONCRETE with 25%e waste & 15% fly ash
|
395
|
100
|
100
|
198.3
|
430
|
250
|
270
|
316.6
|
5.1.6 TABLE SHOWING 28 DAYS
STRENGTH
BLOCK TYPE
|
INITIAL CRACK
|
AVERAGE |
FAILURE
|
AVERAGE
|
||||
|
B1
|
B2
|
B3
|
|
B1
|
B2
|
B3
|
|
CONCRETE with 0% e waste & 15% fly ash
|
550
|
475
|
520
|
515
|
610
|
600
|
600
|
603.3
|
CONCRETE with
5% e waste & 15% fly ash
|
200
|
220
|
235
|
655
|
300
|
255
|
260
|
271.6
|
CONCRETE with 10%e waste & 15% fly ash
|
295
|
325
|
362
|
327.3
|
395
|
415
|
430
|
413.3
|
CONCRETE with
15% e waste & 15% fly ash
|
110
|
175
|
245
|
530
|
325
|
305
|
320
|
316.6
|
CONCRETE with 20%e waste & 15% fly ash
|
208
|
295
|
332
|
278.3
|
280
|
330
|
250
|
320
|
CONCRETE with
25%e waste & 15% fly ash
|
395
|
100
|
100
|
198.3
|
430
|
250
|
270
|
316.6
|
5.1.5 TABLE SHOWING 14 DAYS
STRENGTH
Discussion
An analysis
was made on the strength characteristics by conducting the tests on E-waste
concrete with e plastic aggregate .The results revealed that up to 25%
replacement E-waste Concrete is giving improvement in compressive strength with
waste plastic content up to 25%, the addition of e plastic aggregate did not
significantly affect the compressive strength. However, an increase in the
content of e-waste plastic aggregate gradually enhanced 7 days, 14days and 28
days compressive. According to the scale of acceptable quality criteria, small
deviations in 7 days and 14 days strength was observed. However28 day’s results
confirmed the quality criteria of e plastic concrete as good.
CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSION AND SCOPE OF FURTHER STUDY
These tests are carried out to prove that e –
waste is not completely harmful for the environment if it’s recycled for other purposes.
These tests helps to determine composition that can be used predict the amount
of e – waste that can be used to create a concrete structure.
1.
It is
identified that E-waste can be disposed by using them as construction
materials.
2.
Plastics can
be used to replace some of the aggregates in a concrete mixture. This
Contributes to reducing the unit weight of the concrete. This is useful in
applications requiring non-bearing lightweight concrete.
3.
The
compressive strength of concrete containing E-waste plastic aggregate is
retained more or less in comparison with controlled concrete specimens. However
strength noticeably decreased when the E-waste plastic content was more than
20%.
4.
Has been
concluded 20% of E-waste plastic aggregate can be incorporated as fine
aggregate Replacement in concrete without any long term detrimental effects and
with acceptable strength development properties
5.
The effect of
water-cement ratio of strength development is not prominent in the case Of
plastic concrete. It is because of the fact that the plastic aggregates reduce
the bond Strength of concrete. Therefore, the failure of concrete occurs due to
failure of bond between the cement paste and plastic aggregates.
6.
Introduction
of plastics in concrete tends to make concrete ductile, hence increasing the ability
of concrete to significantly deform before failure. This characteristic makes
the concrete useful in situations where it will be subjected to harsh weather
such as Expansion and contraction, or freeze and thaw.
7. The inclusion of E-waste plastic aggregates
in the concrete of the buildings under Investigation has been shown to be
advantageous from an energy point of view.
REFERENCES:-
1)
Chechen, Rehang, “Waste E-glassparticles
used in cementious mixtures” Cement andConcrete Research, vol 36 (2006) pp
449456.
2) P.M. Subramanian, “Plastic
recycling and waste Management in the US” Resources,Conservation and Recycling vol (28) pp 253263.
3)
Haiyongkang, “Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S. infrastructureand
technologyoptions, Resources, Conservation and Recycling vol 45 (2005) pp
368400.
4) Al-Manaseer,
A.A., T.R., Dalal, 1997. “Concrete containing plastic aggregates”,Concrete
International, 47– 52.
5)
Ashraf,
M., Ghaly, F., 2004. ASCE,1 and Michael S. Gill, A.M.ASCE2 “Journals
ofmaterials in civil engineering’ © ASCE , 289-296.Hill, Inc., 530 p.
6)
Batayneh,
M., Marie, I., ASI I., 2006. “Use of selected waste materials in
concretemixes”. Waste Management (27) 1870–1876
7)
Bayasi,
Z., Zeng, J., 1993.” Properties of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete”.
ACIMaterials Journal 90 (6), 605–610.
8)
Boutemeur,
R., Taibi, M., Ouhib, N., Bali, A., 2004. “Investigation of the use of
wasteplastic as aggregate for concrete” In: International Conference,
Sustainable Waste
9)
Choi,
Y.W., Moon, D.J., Chung, J.S., Cho, S.K., 2005. “Effects of waste PET
bottlesaggregate on properties of concrete”. Cement and Concrete Research 35,
776–781.
.
10)Concrete”. In: Proceedings of a Special Conference, ASCE, New York,
pp. 111–120.Jain,R. K.,Singh., Rai, Mohan.,1977.,” Recent Trends of Research
in Building
11) B.W., Park, S.K., Park , J.C., 2007.
“Mechanical properties of polymer concrete madewith recycled PET and recycled
concrete aggregates”. Construction and BuildingMaterials
12) Karim, S., Rebeiz, D., Fowler, W., Fellow, and Donald R. P., 1993.
“Recycling plastics inpolymer concrete for construction applications”. Journal
of Materials in Civil
13) Kline, C. (1989). "Plastics recycling take
off in the USA." Chem. & Industry, 4(July), 440-442.
14) Mehta, P.K., Monteria, P.M., 1993. Concrete:
Structure, Properties, and Materials.Prentice Hall, 549
15) Naik, T.R., Singh, S.S., Brodersen, B.S., 1996.
“Use of post-consumer waste plastics incement-based composites”. Cement and
Concrete Research 26, 1489–1492.
16) Marzouk, O. Y., Dheilly R.M., Queneudec, M..,
2007. “Valorization of post-consumerwaste plastic in cementitious concrete
composites”. Waste Management (27) 310–318.
17) Marzouk, Y.O., 2005. “Valorizations of plastic
bottle waste in cementitious concrete”.
Doctoral dissertation, University of Picardie Jules
Verne, Laboratory of Innovative
Technologies, EA 3899, Amiens, France.
18) Panyakapo.P., Panyakapo.M, 2007. “Reuse of
thermosetting plastic waste forlightweightconcrete.”Waste Management.
19) SaradhiBabua,D. T, Ganesh Babub, K. T.H. Wee.,
2005. “Properties of lightweightexpanded polystyrene aggregate concretes
containing fly ash”. Cement and Concrete
Research (35) 1218– 1223.
20) Siddique, R., Naik, T. R.., 2004. “Properties
of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber – anoverview”. Waste Management (24)
563–569.
21) Soroushian, P., Mira, F., Alhozaimy, A., 1995.
“Permeability characteristics ofpolypropylene fiber reinforced concrete”. ACI
Materials Journal 92 (3), 291–295.