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 

 Human 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.

  E-WASTE in natural form   E-WASTE in grinded form

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
3	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.

1. 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 1^st 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 2^ND 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 3^RD 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 4^TH 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 5^TH 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 6^TH 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.