Re-using Waste Glass in the Construction Industry

Abstract

The construction industry is one of the significant parts of the economic worldwide. This type is consumed massive amounts of raw materials and generate significant waste. The optimisation of structural material applications not only economise costs but also can significantly subscribe towards sustainable improvement. The idea of recycling the building and demolition rubble is being discussed in this research as a clarification and solution. The concrete recycling, producing from both the demolition works and the construction projects, to be utilised as a reference of aggregate, is being concentrated upon in this investigation.

To limit the use of the burial within the vast interest of waste management is placed on waste reduction and recycling. Every year in the United Kingdom about a production of 2.5 million tonnes of waste glass and nearly half of this waste is not recyclable. Therefore, is need alternative routes can be found for use glass waste one possibility is for use within the concrete as an alternative to cement and aggregate.

The waste glass was used to deliver a fineness modulus related to natural sand for application in concrete. After mix proportioning, the fresh and hardened characteristics of glass create were assessed and matched to natural sand concrete by related compressive strength or equal water-to-cementitious material ratio (w/cm). The purpose was to generate experimental data that would present material engineers and suppliers scheme specifications on the individual methods of relationship glass create compounds. To reduce the deleterious alkali-silica effect occurring from the use waste glass as a fine aggregate.

The concrete mixes in this research were investigated had 0%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 75% and 100% of waste glass which replaced by fine aggregate. In addition to, application of other waste materials as pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), which used by 40% of cement replacement with same percentages of waste glass as sand.

As cement is considered extensively used material in the construction industry. These days wasted materials can be replaced as partial replacement of cement such as pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), PFA is produced from the process of the combustion of the coal-fired from electricity power stations. GGBS is produced of iron manufacturing. Using these materials as partial replacement of cement can be given several advantages such as increasing the workability of concrete, also improved the durability besides long term of the strength. From economic aspect using the waste materials is better than cement. Another advantage is from sustainability side GGBS can reduce the emissions of CO2 compared to Portland cement.

Table of Contents

Click to expand Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Problem statement

Waste glass

Structural of thesis

CHAPTER 2

Introduction

CONCRETE

Concrete with waste glass

Pulverised fuel ash (PFA)

GGBS

CHAPTER 3

Materials

Portland cement

GGPS

PFA

Waste glass

Aggregate

Fine aggregate

Water

Testing programme

Apparatus

Slump equipment

Test procedure

Testing of fresh concrete

Testing of hardened concrete

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

SIEVE ANALYSIS

compressive strength of concrete

Materials

Materials applied in the research

Discussion

Recommendation

Conclusion

References

Appendix

CHAPTER 1 – Introduction

Background

Nowadays, the Portland cement is considered is the important as construction material. Until around 19th century the ordinary cement (OPC) was used widely as a construction material, many researchers with industry have uprooted in the investigation of perform the strong of the concrete addition to extra durable and economical Mindess et al, (2003).  From the environment aspect, the building materials have co2 emission by 10% in the UK, which produced from the construction materials that used in the construction industry Brown, (2005).

The construction industry consumes nearly 3 billion tonnes or 40% of raw materials in global (Roodman et al. 1995), take into consideration. Currently, the climate issue is becoming important, especially in the construction industry field. Consequently, sustainable development is becoming more important when designing the building and during the process of construction.

Since the request in the construction industry has increased daily, the application of fine aggregate (sand) leads to reduced amount of sand in many places in the world. Recent studies had investigated that application of waste glass in concrete has the ability of long term of strength and good at thermal insulation due to the properties of glass, G. Vijayakumar, et al. (2013), Vasudevan1 and Kanapathy, (2013). Another benefit of using waste glass as an aggregate is given a good appearance of the finish surface of the concrete. Glass is a unique indeclinable material which can be recycled several times with any changes in its properties. The main purpose of environmental power is to decrease, as can as much, the elimination of post of glass consumer in the landfill, and transmutation to economically applicable glass output current, Shayan and Xu, (2004).

Furthermore, the increasing quantity of harmful metals in the burial probably raises the threat of groundwater pollution (Our future is glass – the sustainable packaging choice for the 21st-century lifestyle, no date). Besides for environmental concerns, financial circumstances also manage that industry should regard forward to recycling and reuse of waste material as a useful choice to burial and dropping.

Problem statement

Despite the glass is considered as a non-metallic inorganic material which cannot be burned or decomposed and most countries have many wasted of glass, and some of them have started using in the construction industry which has benefited from reducing the amount of waste glass.

In the UK, the amount of waste glass is 19% in 2014 out of 5.8 million tonnes of dry materials of recycling (Anon, 2017). There are many applications which can through it using the waste glass in many aspects of construction industries such what is this research focused on replacing the fine aggregate (sand) by waste glass, and there are many uses of waste glass in construction industry like aggregate in road base, or sub- base of roads, glass is used as aggregate of asphalt, and in architecture decorative as concrete aggregates. All these applications of using waste glass have many advantages of reducing the amount of wasted glass that goes to landfill which is increasing. Also, this will minimise the demand for raw materials.

Waste glass

To improve the performance of sustainability development in the construction industry which can obtain from use waste materials to create concrete, waste glass one of material that can use as a partial replacement of aggregate which will reduce the number of waste materials. Using waste glass in concrete compounds might improve the properties of concrete and thereby improving their value.

Waste glass has many forms of uses, as a coarse aggregate, fine aggregate (sand) and other aspects of the construction industry. When applied a coarse aggregate in concrete, waste glass has negatively impact strength as mentioned by (Johnston, 1974; Phillips, Cahn, & Keller, 1972). Using of waste glass as a coarse aggregate is limited due to the constraint of dimensional. While applying to waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) is further encouraging that that coarse aggregate (de la Cruz, 1998; Panchakarla & Hall, 1996, & Topcu & Canbaz, 2004; Polley, Cramer). Waste glass has many forms of uses, as a coarse aggregate, fine aggregate (sand) and other aspects of the construction industry. When applied a coarse aggregate in concrete, waste glass has negatively impact strength as mentioned by (Johnston, 1974; Phillips, Cahn, & Keller, 1972). Using of waste glass as a coarse aggregate is limited due to the constraint of dimensional. While applying to waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) is further encouraging that that coarse aggregate (de la Cruz, 1998; Panchakarla & Hall, 1996, & Topcu & Canbaz, 2004; Polley, Cramer).

One of the dilemmas resulting from continuous technological, industrial improvement and growing community is the placement of waste materials that are generated. These waste materials include concrete, ceramics, iron, and glass. Request to decrease waste has produced the need to discover a use for waste goods instead of placing of the materials in burial. Many external of the concrete application regards concrete as a suitable manager for waste materials, providing the waste materials weak and solving a pollution dilemma. Use of waste materials in concrete is not only a partial resolution to environmental and biological problems; it has the possible to develop the microstructure and consequently the characteristics of concrete (Haggar, 2010).

Figure 1. Show amount of composition of material dry recycling in the UK, 2014 (Anon 2017)

Research objectives

Three major aims of the dissertation include:

1- Review of using the waste glass as a partial replacement of the concrete components in order to improve the environment climate by applying the recycling glass in the construction industries, concrete has contained some materials, and the fine aggregate (sand) can be replaced by waste glass. In this research 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) will carry out to explore the properties of the fresh and the hardened concrete.

2- There are some other waste materials has been used as partial of the cement replacement of the concrete compound, pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) using these materials with using waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand).

3- investigate the fresh and hardened concrete properties with waste materials.

Research methodology

The following objectives in order to achieve the task of this research:

• Review all past researches to cover the knowledge of using waste glass in the construction industry.
• Using other waste materials with waste glass to explore the new properties of concrete mix.

Outline of thesis

For the sake of the aim of the visibility and a sufficient presentation, this research has organised into four chapters, following by references list and appendixes. Each chapter of this research has sporadic of sections, and each section has sub-sections. The following of overview of each chapter:

CHAPTER 2 - Literature review

2.1 - Introduction

The motivation for this investigation is focused on the demand to obtain the benefits of recycled of glass and use it in the construction industry. The advantages of use waste glass in the construction industry are reduced the amount of waste glass in landfill which industry owners and governments have worried about this issue.

The research has examined the product terms and the structure of concrete beside the mechanical characteristics of concrete which is contained on waste glass also the concrete is contained waste glass with two materials separately which are pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS).

Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and Pulverised fuel ash (PFA), are both considered as a significant industrial waste outcomes that have been exceedingly applied in the construction industry with the concrete components as a partial replacement of Portland cement. Both materials have been acting successfully at effectiveness, adaptability and the durability of the concrete.

The scope of this study is to create three kinds of concrete; the first sample was made with waste glass as a fine aggregate, the second trail was made of waste glass as a fine aggregate with a replacement amount of cement by ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS)identified and the last sample was made of waste glass as a fine aggregate with a replacement amount of cement by pulverised fuel ash (PFA). The aim is discovering the chemical and mechanical properties of mixes were done in this research and identify the perfect application.

Concrete and its properties

The chemical response of concrete components began when water is mixing with cement. These responses result in the production of several mixtures, Tricalcium aluminate (that begins the primary stiffening, however, offer least to the final strength). Tricalcium silicate (is have the impact on concrete strength in advanced ages), Dicalcium silicate (has the principal responsible for cumulative augment in strength). The results of chemical responses in the creation of a compound of crystal and gels from the solvent cement and water, through, by their commitment and physical performance for each other and the present of the aggregate, constantly set and stiffness to create concrete (Murdock et al. 1991).

According to the nature state of concrete can be changed to face situational needs. Therefore, if a function requires for lightweight, high strength, and the ability of concrete weather resistant. The concrete consists of three major components which are cement, water, and aggregate. The hydration process in the fresh concrete requires water to start hydration, after 28 days of curing period to achieve the inherent strength of concrete (Shi and Zheng 2007).

The component of the cement is a combination of calcium aluminates, calcium aluminium- ferrites and calcium silicates. The raw material such as clay, limestone and shale when they heated at 1300-1500°C will produce a combination of cement. The heating process produces H2O and CO2 while the cement complex formation. While summation with water, the complex compose hydrated case. Inclusive (C-S-H) calcium silicate hydrate, and (Ca(OH)2) redundant calcium hydroxide. C-S-H considers the major obligated stage and is thus accountable of the properties of the hardened concrete strength. Kosmatka and Wilson n.d. (2002).

The water ratio is a significant factor for two major sources. The first reason is exceedingly certified the water ratio has the main impact on the properties of the hardened concrete (compressive strength). The weaker concrete which has the highest water ratios (Lewis 2003, Balendran et ai. 1995, and Lydon 1982). The second reason is as mentioned by European and British standards the mix design should set a boundary to achieve the durability of concrete. (Concrete Society Working party, 1999) Has reported that the water ratio has the main impact rather than the cement ratio. This concluded the significance of the water ratio of the strength of concrete.

(Shayan, 2004) And (Zhu et al., 2007), investigated that using wast glass as an aggregate replacement in concrete components. They found the water absorption of waste glass is almost zero which considers important advantage of using glass in the concrete. In addition to, makes glass as an extremely durable material. Besides,  they investigated that glass has good hardness and that leads to increasing of concrete abrasion resistance. Furthermore, (Wang and Huang 2010) they found that using glass as an aggregate replacement in the concrete with other materials as a cement replacement lead to increase the compressive strength up to 40mm2.

(Verdugo 2013), found that using waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement, he investigated that the compressive strength of the concrete admixtures is increasing when applied waste glass in concrete and that guide to use concrete which contains glass can be used in several services inclusive structural usages.

Concrete with waste glass

The construction industry section it can develop sustainable development by use washing materials as a replacement of concrete components. There is some wasted material which has similar properties that Portland cement has, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) both have excellent properties as cement. GGBS and PFA have used as a partial replacement of Portland cement. Waste glass is used as a replacement to reduce the amounts of waste glass in landfills to obtain more of sustainable development; waste glass has used as a fine aggregate (sand). The point to the successful practice of waste materials such as GGBS, PFA and waste glass lies in the description and exploitation of the characteristics inherent in these waste materials that can develop the structure of concrete and whereby improve their class ((Biondini and Frangopol 2008).

There are two main advantages of recycling glass. First of all, the raw material needs more energy than the process of remelting the glass. This process of decreasing will stash a carbon dioxide by 315kg from starting emitted into the atmosphere for each 1000kg of recycling glass (Dl.dropboxusercontent.com, 2014). Another benefit is waste glass which uses as a fine aggregate (sand) will decrease the amount of waste glass instead of sending it to the landfill.

Prof. Ashok R. Mundhada, Vaibhav S. Sangole, (2015). Had found that using crushed soda lime glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement, after 28 days of the compressive strength test of concrete mixes of M-30 and M-25 grade has increased at the beginning, however has decreased when the application of more amount of waste glass. While the highest value of compressive strength was when applied 20% of waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) and obtained around 7% more the control mix in the compressive strength.

De Castro and de Brito (2013), investigate that there is a significant relationship between the concrete workability and the size of waste glass as aggregate. When using waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand), the ratio of water-cement needs to be more than usual to compensate of the wastage of workability. Nevertheless, using a waste glass as a replacement of fine aggregate (sand) with 20% showed that within the border of laboratory errors, an improvement in compressive strength reached to 13.6%.

Slump test

The slump flow test of the concrete is considered most vastly and the oldest test for measuring the concrete workability. From Abram 1918 and it based on BS EN 12350-2 (2009). However, several standards as BS EN 206-1 (2000) is considered about 250mm of slump values is adequate and valid Domone & Illston, (2010). The test procedures are described in the section 4.1.5 The slump test is measured a single index. Furthermore, the slump flow does not measure the consistency of the concrete.

(Park et al. 2004), has found that when replacing fine aggregate (sand) by the waste glass, they discovered that the slump values have reduced with 70% of waste glass instead of fine aggregate, they measured that the results of slump test of 70% of glass and the control mix were 130mm and 80mm respectively. They speculated that the reduction in the results of the slump test because of the angular shape of the waste glass particles. Furthermore, they mentioned that there might have influenced the results of the slump test due to the particles size of the sand was partially smaller than the particles size of the glass which was used in the experiment. Also, they continued in order to deduce that the decrease of the results of the slump test was a non-issue and did not affect the workability of the blend. Moreover, they have proposed that using admixtures can help to overcome any possible issues might happen in the future experiments.

Isler, (2012) has reported that the slump test of concrete compounds which is contained waste glass (WG) had an inverse relationship to the amount of waste glass utilised in the blend. Furthermore, the slump test decreases if the amounts of waste glass increases.

(Ismail and AL-Hashmi, 2009), have investigated that the properties of the concrete mix which has used waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement at 0.53 water-cement ratio. The values of the slump test were decreased at 5.75 and 5.25 of samples created by 10%, 15%, and 20% of waste glass respectively. The values of the slump test present the relationship with decreasing between increasing the amount of the waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) and the decreeing of the results of the slump test.

(Malik, 2013), found that there was risen in the workability of using waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) in the concrete mixture were the size of the glass (1.18-0mm) with percentages 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% of waste glass weight. They reported that the workability of the concrete mixes has increased when the percentage of waste glass as a sand increases. (Ali and Al-Tersawy 2012), using waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) in a concrete mixture were the size of the glass (0.075mm) with percentages 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of waste glass weight. They investigated that increased of the waste glass percentages of the concrete mixtures led to rising of the slump values of the concrete mixtures. Where the amount of the cement was 400kg the results of the slump flow were 1.52%, 4,54%, 7,58%, 10.61%, and 12.12% with waste glass percentages as 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%, respectively. (Sharifi et al. 2013), applications of waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) with size (2.63-0.3mm) at percentages 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%, by weight of the waste glass. They found increasing of slump flow values with increased of waste glass in concrete mixtures. (Borhan 2012), replaced a fine aggregate (sand) by the waste glass with size (3-0.5mm) at percentages 0%, 20%, 40% and 60% of waste glass weighs. The workability of the concrete mixtures has risen with the increase of the waste glass. Terro, 2006. Has replaced sand by the waste glass with size (4.75-0.075mm) at percentages 0%, 10%, 25%, 50% and 100%, by waste glass weight, the mixes which have a waste glass illustrate the risen of the workability more than the control mix. (Penacho et al. 2014), had investigated that the workability of concrete mixtures increases with the increase of the waste glass replacement of fine aggregate (sand), the size of glass (2.38-0.149mm) at percentages of waste glass 20%, 50% and 100%.

The flow table test

As above-mentioned, workability of concrete high-consistence appears to be most remarkable with the difference in the mix flow diameter rather the difference in drop height. Therefore, the flow table test was improved to provide preferable differentiation of concrete consistency. The flow table test is analogous to the slump flow test but with steel container. The test was carried out by dropping the concrete at a number of times in the container, then the vibrato of the table to drop the concrete into the container and measuring the edges of the container. The value from 340mm is considered low consistency concrete and more than 500mm is seen as high consistency concrete. Furthermore, this test is becoming more common due to the simplicity and the easy work in the laboratory and work site. The outcome can be linked to this test and the slump flow test. Whereas, the highest flow value have a higher value of the slump test. This test based on standard BS EN 12350-5 (2009).

Unit weight of admixture

The unit weight of the admixture of concrete which inclusion waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement is tended to be lightly less the concrete admixture, Isler, (2012). Various other research has concurred with this engagement. Ismail and AL-Hashmi, (2009) have examined several concrete admixtures that contain a waste glass as a sand replacement. They tested concrete admixtures inclusion 10%, 15%, and 20% of waste glass replacement, they found a reduced respectively in the unit weight of the admixtures by 1.28%, 1.96% and 2.26%.

(Ismail and Al- Hashmi 2009), found the variation of the unit weight of the concrete admixtures contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement by 14.8% which was less than concrete mixtures contain fine aggregate (sand). while they measured, concrete admixtures contain waste glass, the unit weight was 2190kgm3, and concrete admixtures used fine aggregate (sand) the unit weight was 2570kgm3.

Compressive strength of concrete

Oliveira et al. (2008), has investigated the replacement of fine aggregate (sand) by a waste glass in concrete compounds, in value domain 0% to 100%. To summarise that add the amount of waste glass in blends with 30% of Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) raises the compressive strength by roughly 25%. The fine of waste glass has great functions with can fill and packing all particles whereas its particular major surface engenders a bedstead distribution of concrete. Thence, the mechanical strength of samples rises as the distance of paste among the aggregate particles reduces.

(Topcu and Canbaz 2004), had investigated that replacement of fine aggregate (sand) by the waste glass with percentages 15%, 30%, 45% and 60%. They found the results of the compressive strength have reduced by 8%, 15%, 31%, and 49% respectively at 28 days’ test. (Park et al. 2004), had found that using waste glass (size <5mm) as a fine aggregate (sand) with percentages 30%, 50%, and 70%. They investigated that the results of the compressive strength reduced respectively by 0.6%, 9.8% and 13.6% at the test of 28 days.

Tensile strength of concrete

Topcu and Canbaz, (2004), they investigated that the tensile strength of the concrete has reduced when the increase the percentage of the waste glass in the concrete admixtures. They found that when applying 60% of waste glass as an aggregate replacement, the loss of resulting of the tensile strength is approach 37%.

(Park et al. 2004), investigated that used 30% of waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement, there was a reduced in the tensile strength of concrete by 5%.

Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) with concrete

As declared by (Lohtia and Joshi,1997), Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) is created by of very fine, predominantly orbicular smooth particles assembled in the dust gathering operation from the exhaust fumes of a fossil of the fuel power station. While the coal of power station is burning, this process is producing two sorts of Pulverised fuel ash (PFA). Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) is a finer scrap that goes up when the fuel gases and base ash while the heavier practices that do not goes up, for both ashes. Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) is considered a well suitable for a replacement for cement because of PFA is finer practices and the great reaction of Pozzolanic. Using Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) in the construction industry, either uses it as a replacement of Portland cement or other uses in the construction industry, standards of the UK had since 1965 (McCarthy and Dhir, 1999).

There are some advantages of using pulverised fuel ash (PFA) according to (McCarthy and Dhir, 1999) which are following:

• PFA has the ability of improves the economic and environment parameters of concrete.
• PFA consists of light practice than Portland cement hence it can pad the voids to improve concrete sustained.
• PFA is also can be applied to concrete with further materials to increase concrete sustainable.

There are some disadvantages of using pulverised fuel ash which are following:

• PFA Increases strength more an extended period while compared to Portland cement.
• The availability source of PFA is considered as constant.
• PFA tends to be darker the colour of paving blocks concrete.

It is significant to remark that in the American standard Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) divided into two categories, category C and category F (ASTM, C618). It is broken up into two categories by chemical properties. If the collocation of ferrice oxide, aluminium oxide and silicone dioxide (Pozzolanic compounds) is more than 70% of chemical properties of category F and is between 50% and 70% of grade C. Both categories F and C have different of the amount of lime (CaO), the category C is contained more than 20% which is more than what category F contains. Which is considered that the category C is less expected to request an activator, while category F of Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) responds after cement hydration with excess lime. The British Standard (BS) asserts that Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) applied in the construction industry can just be category F.

Kou and Poon (2013), found that waste glass which is used as a replacement of fine aggregate (sand) with percentages of (10%, 20% and 30%), to create self-compacting concrete components. Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) was applied in the concrete complex to reduce the reaction of alkali-silica. It was investigated that air contents and the slump of concrete mixes improve with rising of an amount of waste glass. The beginning slump test results of each mix were at least 750mm. Besides, the compressive strength, elastic of statics modulus and tensile strength of concrete with waste glass reduce with rising the amount of waste glass in concrete mixes.

The influence of Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) on the compressive strength of concrete depends on the water ration, (Bijen & Van Selst, 1993, and Poon et al., 2000). A study by Lam et al. (2000), found that there was decreased in the concrete compressive strength with 55% of PFA mix as a cement replacement at 28 days and the water ratio was 0.5, the decrease of the strength was 40% compared to the control mix. Furthermore, when using water ratio o.3 the decrease was 30% compared to the control mix. Hence, it can say that the decrease of the water ratio can be increased in the compressive strength of PFA mixes.

Granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) with concrete

Granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), is produced from reduction of iron ore. GGBS commonly composed of calcium magnesium alum inosilicate of glass, around 95% of chemicals application of GGBS has come from aluminium, calcium, magnesium and silicon. The process that used to obtain granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) is by refrigerating liquid iron slag, from blast furnaces in steam or water to create glassy, granular created that then dehydrate and a fine powder is made from the ground. The characteristic and structure of granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) is widely dependent on the materials as raw which is used in the process of industry, Siddique and Khan n.d. (2011).

Yearly in the UK more than 2 million tonnes of ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) are produced. The most majority of this value is consumed in both precast and normal concrete in the construction industry which leads to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and saves 2 million tonnes in the landfill (MPA, 2012), additional to used GGBS as a cement replacement in construction industry (UKCSMA, 2012; Higgins, 2006). The advantages of applying GGBS in the concrete such as reducing the heat of hydration that improves the ability of concrete against thermal cracking and reduced permeability. GGBS also improved the workability of the concrete (UKCSMA, 2012; Osborne, 1999).

The concrete which created with GGBS commonly has lower strength in the early stages than concrete made of Portland cement but in the later stage concrete with GGBS has higher strength more than concrete with Portland cement (UKCSMA, 2012). GGBS has good reaction rate more than Portland cement.

Figure 2. Shows the impact of replacement GGBS on compressive strength (Khatib & Hibbert, 2005)

The figure (..) below is presented the relation between the compressive strength of control mix and mixes with GGBS as 40% and 60% cement replacement. The period of 28 days illustrates the higher rate of control mix and the strength rate of mixes with GGBS was lower. While in the later stage the strength of GGBS mixes was higher than Portland cement mixes. Furthermore, when using GGBS as 80% a cement replacement, the strength was higher in all periods with Portland cement mixes that due to the reality the best replacement of GGBS as cement is between 40-50%.

Guneyisi and Gesoglu (2007), they Investigated that the tensile strength of 50% of GGBS concrete mix as a cement replacement has lower tensile strength compared to control mix at 28 days which the results were (3.93 N/mm2 compared to 4.41 N/mm2).  While at the period of 90 days the tensile strength was (5.2 N/mm2 compared to 5.1 N/mm2).

Concluding Remarks

The literature review presented that many of researches have been done to investigate the impact of applying waste glass as a compound in the concrete composition. In addition to all researches were done according to one of standards of local or international. This dissertation has aimed use glass as a fine aggregate (sand) with 20%, 30%, 50%, 75% and 100% of sand, in addition to replacement amount of cement with 40% Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS).

CHAPTER 3 – Materials

Materials applied in the research

This chapter has presented the materials which used in the study, curing steps of concrete, the casting, and the mixing of concrete to investigate this experiment. All apparatus which utilised in the study are illustrated, the process of measuring the properties of the fresh concrete such as workability and compaction ratio, the properties of hard concrete, for example, density, compressive and tensile strength.

Materials

All materials which used in this experiment, BS EN standards is confirmed for all materials including approved is suitable for the aim of the research.

Portland cement

Cement is considered as an important material of made concrete in the construction industry. Cement can be applied in a component with aggregate (coarse and fine) to create powerful construction materials. Commonly there are two classes of cement applied to concrete (hydraulic or non-hydraulic), each sort is dependent on cures of cement ability with water.

Portland cement is the most common type of cement which used in construction industry. Portland cement belongs to hydraulic cement that is more used that non-hydraulic cement.

Hydraulic type of cement, like Portland cement, is contained within complex structures of oxides and silicates. Moreover, the hydration of hydraulic cement is taking the main action rule of the chemical reaction. Particularly, the pozzolanic reaction is the curing of the Portland cement. The pozzolanic effect is considered as a simple acid response between Silicic acid (H4SiO4) and calcium hydroxide (knows as Portland cement), (Ca(OH)2), The response is illustrated as followed:

h= the height of the compaction ratio shape.

Calculation the control mix

Average of the separations of the shape =

h= the height of the compaction ratio shape.

Compaction factor results of GGBS

Calculation the 20% mix

Average of the separations of the shape =

h= the height of the compaction ratio shape.

Compaction factor results of PFA

Calculation the 20% mix

Average of the separations of the shape =

s1s2s3s44= 25+26+27+284=26.5mm

CI=hh-s=400400-26.5=1.07

Calculation the 30% mix

Average of the separations of the shape =

s1s2s3s44= 38+38+39+404=38.75mm

CI=hh-s=400400-38.75=1.11

Calculation the 50% mix

Average of the separations of the shape =

s1s2s3s44= 40+41+39+394=39.75mm

CI=hh-s=400400-39.75=1.11

Calculation the 75% mix

Average of the separations of the shape =

s1s2s3s44= 50+52+52+544=52mm

CI=hh-s=400400-52=1.2

Calculation the 100% mix

Average of the separations of the shape =

s1s2s3s44= 76+79+81+804=79mm

CI=hh-s=400400-79=1.25

Mix type	Slump test
20%	120mm
30%	110mm
50%	128mm
75%	55mm
100%	20mm

The figure (,,,) below presents the compacting index results test of concrete mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) with 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, and 100, additional to the same mixes contain ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) as 40% of cement replacement another one with Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) as 40% of cement replacement.  As can see the figure presented the compatibility of the mixes under vibration diverse in the extent from 1.07 to 1.35, increased when applied GGBS and PFA respectively. The results show that mix with 50% of waste glass has recorded increased by 4.5% of compaction factor compared to control mix, also mix with 100% of waste glass has increased by 5.3% related to control mix. Moreover, just mix with 20% of waste glass and 40% of GGBS as cement replacement has decreased by 4.8%, mix with 30% waste glass and 40% of GGBS as cement replacement has the same value of control mix. In contrast the mixes 50%, 75%, and 100% and 40% of GGBS as cement replacement has recorded increased by 2.3%, 3.8%, 6.0% in compaction index respectively. On other side, mixes with 20%, 30%, 50%, 75% of waste glass and 40% of PFA as cement replacement has decreed by average 1.5% in compaction factor test, whereas the mix with 100% of waste glass and 40% of PFA as cement replacement has roughly the same value of control mix. According to BS EN 1230-4:2009, limited value of compaction index is between 1.04 and 1.1 for a compressive strength at 28 days with 40 N/mm².

 

Density of concrete

The density of concrete measures for each cube by weighing them in the air and the water and can obtain the density of concrete by following equation:

ρ=ΜaΜa-Μw×ρw

where:

Μw

weight the sample in the water

Μa

weight the sample in the air

The density of the mixes has taken at 7days, 14 days and 28 days, the density of hardened concrete measures after water curing at three periods of time, this process based on standard 12390-7: 2009. The figure … illustrates the values of cube density which obtain after taking them out of water tank. First, the sample submerges in the water fully and measure the weight of the sample in the water by the software on the PC. Secondly, return the sample to the initial position and measure the weight in the air. The last step is automatically by the PC software measure the density of hardened concrete. These steps have done on all samples to measure the density, then using dried fabric to remove the rest of water on the samples to move to the next test which was the compressive and tensile strength of concrete.

Compressive strength of concrete

The compressive strength test of hardened concrete, cubes has prepared based on standards B.S.1881:1952.  Forney machine has used for the compressive strength test. After taking the cube out of water tank the compressive strength test was carried out immediately whereas the cubes still wet. The test was carried out of three periods of time 7 days, 14 days and 28 days and the average has taken of three cubes per each period.

The compressive strength beside durability of concrete is the important properties of concrete, the compressive strength that is the maximum load on the area of the concrete which is carried the load. There is a direct relation between cement paste and the strength of the concrete which can illustrate an overall view of the quality of concrete (Neville, 2010). The compressive strength test carries on the cubes of concrete at 7days, 14days and 28days. The main aim of this test is determined the maximum strength that applied on the cubes. The compressive strength is carried on the face of the cube which is 100mm X 100mm and the maximum load from the machine is 2000kN according to BS EN 12390-3 (BSI,2002).

Compressive strength results

Compressive strength for 7 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand)

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
Control	1.438	2.445	2410	378.223	38.772	37.09
Control	1.492	2.537	2420	347.492	34.749
Control	1.462	2.479	2430	377.343	37.734
20% WG	1.411	2.44	2370	282.469	28.247	28.08
20% WG	1.416	2.44	2380	276.009	27.601
20% WG	1.409	2.429	2380	283.947	28.395
30% WG	1.442	2.481	2380	328.593	32.883	32.48
30% WG	1.426	2.451	2390	321.449	32.144
30% WG	1.422	2.448	2380	324.016	32.402
50% WG	1.452	2.466	2430	370.039	37.004	37.22
50% WG	1.442	2.459	2420	381.059	38.106
50% WG	1.434	2.441	2420	365.479	36.548
75% WG	1.432	2.439	2420	367.801	36.780	36.79
75% WG	1.455	2.469	2430	362.608	36.261
75% WG	1.448	2.459	2430	373.248	37.325
100% WG	1.421	2.430	2400	343.481	34.348	35.04
100% WG	1.429	2.437	2410	360.412	36.041
100% WG	1.418	2.429	2400	347.728	34.728

Compressive strength for 14 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand)

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
Control	1.435	2.449	2410	438.017	43.802	41.12
Control	1.454	2.475	2420	405.801	40.580
Control	1.428	2.436	2410	389.757	38.976
20% WG	1.411	1.435	2.467	2390	333.305	32.63
20% WG	1.416	1.386	2.389	2380	320.343
20% WG	1.409	1.399	2.413	2370	325.156
30% WG	1.444	2.476	2390	364.045	36.404	37.66
30% WG	1.416	2.439	2380	366.534	36.653
30% WG	1.423	2.450	2380	391.119	39.119
50% WG	1.416	2.416	2410	394.570	39.457	40.48
50% WG	1.437	2.440	2430	401.917	40.192
50% WG	1.460	2.447	2430	417.961	41.796
75% WG	1.443	2.456	2420	411.797	41.180	42.06
75% WG	1.443	2.456	2420	411.797	41.180
75% WG	1.443	2.456	2420	411.797	41.180
100% WG	1.414	2.412	2410	398.412	39.841	40.98
100% WG	1.451	2.469	2420	401.790	40.179
100% WG	1.449	2.460	2430	429.235	42.923

Compressive strength for 28 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand)

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
Control	1.447	2.467	2410	488.895	48.890	47.08
Control	1.458	2.489	2410	452.880	45.288
Control	1.461	2.484	2420	470.529	47.053
20% WG	1.452	2.493	2390	373.628	37.363	37.46
20% WG	1.464	2.502	2410	380.468	38.047
20% WG	1.429	2.453	2390	369.701	36.970
30% WG	1.455	2.488	2400	437.722	43.772	44.46
30% WG	1.475	2.529	2390	416.610	46.661
30% WG	1.449	2.487	2390	429.575	42.957
50% WG	1.440	2.450	2420	463.477	46.348	46.64
50% WG	1.440	2.447	2430	467.573	46.757
50% WG	1.432	2.437	2400	468.037	46.804
75% WG	1.474	2.494	2440	503.677	50.368	47.32
75% WG	1.420	2.426	2410	458.284	45.828
75% WG	1.448	2.459	2430	457.777	45.778
100% WG	1.440	2.447	2430	447.897	44.790	44.08
100% WG	1.444	2.454	2420	454.695	45.470
100% WG	1.417	2.424	2400	419.650	41.965

The compressive strength results as shown in the figure (…) illustrated the significance improved of compressive strength results from 7 days to 28 days

Compressive strength for 7 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of GBBS cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.450	2.465	2420	314.221	31.422	31.63
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.436	2.446	2420	310.336	31.034
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.439	2.448	2420	324.270	32.427
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.417	2.424	2400	317.683	31.768	31.72
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.426	2.437	2410	321.736	32.174
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.440	2.458	2410	311.941	31.194
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.420	2.424	2410	354.163	35.416	35.29
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.452	2.468	2420	350.828	35.083
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.432	2.438	2420	353.699	35.370
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.422	2.432	2400	345.592	34.559	35.67
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.441	2.461	2410	367.674	36.767
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.430	2.450	2400	356.781	35.678
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.446	2.477	2400	344.452	34.445	38.03
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.441	2.475	2390	367.801	36.780
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.462	2.503	2400	428.517	42.852

Compressive strength for 14 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of GBBS cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.418	2.428	2400	418.004	41.800	41.05
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.445	2.463	2410	415.681	41.568
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.432	2.445	2410	397.821	39.782
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.454	2.478	2420	416.188	41.619	44.46
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.445	2.463	2410	418.215	41.821
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.457	2.489	2410	449.417	49.942
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.449	2.467	2420	450.304	45.030	44.39
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.435	2.446	2410	430.966	43.097
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.434	2.442	2420	450.473	45.047
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.431	2.451	2400	467.066	46.707	45.77
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.438	2.461	2400	469.811	46.981
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.418	2.429	2400	436.371	43.637
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.392	2.399	2380	436.413	43.641	46.27
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.410	2.449	2350	441.057	44.106
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.447	2.476	2400	510.692	51.069

Compressive strength for 28 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of GBBS cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.426	2.437	2410	484.209	48.421	47.78
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.421	2.429	2400	474.751	47.475
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.428	2.437	2410	474.413	47.441
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.437	2.457	2410	481.929	48.193	50.24
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.450	2.476	2410	517.876	51.788
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.451	2.467	2420	507.354	50.735
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.419	2.428	2400	493.878	49.388	50.30
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.426	2.436	2410	516.186	51.619
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.423	2.430	2410	499.029	49.903
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.401	2.406	2390	489.191	48.919	49.09
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.418	2.432	2390	503.465	50.347
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.421	2.439	2390	480.071	48.007
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.398	2.412	2370	540.190	54..019	54.28
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.429	2.456	2390	527.681	52.768
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.430	2.453	2390	560.560	56.056

Compressive strength for 7 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of PFA cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.421	2.432	2400	173.450	17.345	18.76
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.403	2.406	2390	171.168	17.168
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.427	2.439	2410	179.446	17.945
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.417	2.422	2410	192.748	19.275	18.76
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.420	2.430	2400	185.864	18.586
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.434	2.448	2400	184.091	18.409
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.405	2.418	2380	187.004	18.700	18.52
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.412	2.420	2400	185.484	18.548
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.407	2.410	2400	183.077	18.308
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.401	2.431	2360	198.615	19.862	20.23
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.406	2.436	2360	213.731	21.373
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.407	2.421	2380	194.520	19.452
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.404	2.432	2360	222.302	22.230	22.41
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.404	2.431	2360	218.375	21.838
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.426	2.462	2370	231.675	23.168

Compressive strength for 14 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of PFA cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.421	2.438	2390	234.800	23.480	22.89
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.419	2.433	2390	231.718	23.172
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.417	2.427	2400	220.106	22.011
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.414	2.429	2390	206.131	20.613	22.27
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.401	2.408	2390	238.093	23.809
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.406	2.410	2400	223.911	22.391
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.408	2.429	2370	229.142	22.914	22.43
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.425	2.443	2400	220.444	22.044
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.423	2.433	2400	223.442	22.344
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.411	2.440	2370	274.278	27.428	26.40
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.365	2.377	2350	259.247	25.925
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.412	2.434	2380	258.360	25.837
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.383	2.407	2350	260.260	26.026	27.15
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.390	2.416	2350	268.113	26.811
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.431	2.476	2360	286.143	28.614

Compressive strength for 28 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of PFA cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.418	2.432	2390	299.569	29.957	29.78
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.421	2.435	2400	290.027	29.003
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.411	2.419	2400	303.707	30.371
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.425	2.441	2400	299.907	29.991	30.12
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.443	2.463	2410	302.314	30.231
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.415	2.424	2400	301.343	30.134
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.427	2.451	2390	312.574	31.257	30.30
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.392	2.395	2380	291.463	29.146
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.400	2.406	2390	304.974	30.497
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.393	2.415	2360	293.954	29.395	31.40
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.396	2.409	2370	333.727	33.373
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.381	2.392	2360	314.221	31.422
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.367	2.371	2360	362.439	36.244	35.93
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.414	2.441	2370	364.001	36.400
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.405	2.434	2360	351.588	35.159

Tensile strength

Tensile strength for 28 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand)

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
Control	1.452	2.469	2420	46.994	4.699	5.19
Control	1.475	2.524	2400	57.085	5.708
Control	1.463	2.486	2430	51.512	5.151
20% WG	1.449	2.483	2400	45.009	4.501	4.43
20% WG	1.429	2.524	2390	42.180	4.218
20% WG	1.448	2.481	2400	45.854	4.585
30% WG	1.404	2.413	2390	50.581	5.058	5.04
30% WG	1.440	2.475	2390	50.287	5.029
30% WG	1.439	2.478	2380	50.329	5.033
50% WG	1.428	2.426	2430	60.885	6.088	5.83
50% WG	1.462	2.481	2430	56.968	5.696
50% WG	1.447	2.456	2430	56.958	5.696
75% WG	1.453	2.470	2420	43.912	4.391	5.06
75% WG	1.435	2.449	2410	53.116	5.312
75% WG	1.450	2.468	2420	54.847	5.485
100% WG	1.406	2.407	2400	51.512	5.151	5.56
100% WG	1.428	2.444	2400	58.521	5.853
100% WG	1.449	2.464	2420	56.867	5.687

Tensile strength for 14 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of GBBS cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.427	2.435	2410	63.587	6.359	6.04
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.426	2.439	2400	57.507	5.751
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.426	2.428	2420	60.125	6.012
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.439	2.446	2410	58.141	5.814	5.78
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.455	2.476	2420	56.916	5.692
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.453	2.469	2430	58.225	5.822
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.438	2.454	2410	67.134	6.713	6.26
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.458	2.475	2420	65.107	6.511
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.448	2.468	2410	55.692	5.569
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.430	2.454	2410	70.470	7.047	6.01
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.428	2.446	2390	62.194	6.219
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.419	2.433	2400	47.585	4.758
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.403	2.416	2380	52.398	5.240	5.82
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.424	2.458	2380	58.478	5.848
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.422	2.445	2390	63.883	6.388

Tensile strength for 14 days for mixes contain waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) WITH 40% of GBBS cement replacement

Mix	Mass in water grms	Mass in air grms	Densitykg/m3	Load/kN	Compressive strength/N/mm2	Average
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.414	2.422	2400	45.305	4.530	4.42
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.401	2.401	2400	41.885	4.188
20% WG+40%GGBS	1.416	2.420	2410	45.516	4.552
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.418	2.433	2390	48.936	4.894	4.70
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.435	2.452	2410	46.107	4.611
30% WG+40%GGBS	1.431	2.451	2400	45.980	4.598
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.406	2.413	2390	42.645	4.264	4.62
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.428	2.444	2400	51.132	5.113
50% WG+40%GGBS	1.402	2.408	2390	44.883	4.488
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.415	2.432	2390	48.725	4.872	4.65
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.382	2.387	2370	42.560	4.256
75% WG+40%GGBS	1.414	2.444	2370	48.092	4.809
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.405	2.434	2360	44.038	4.404	4.71
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.416	2.445	2370	48.767	4.877
100% WG+40%GGBS	1.442	2.466	2380	48.472	4.847

Density of hardened concrete

The density The figure … illustrates the values of cube density which obtain after taking them out of water tank and before the compressive strength test, the average density of control mix was 2420kg/m³, while the average density of the mix contains 20% of waste Glass as fine aggregate (sand) was 2376.6kg / m³ which has decreased by 17% compared to the control mix. For mix which has 30% of waste glass the average density of cubes was 2383.3kg / m³ which has increased by 2.8% compared to mix which contains 20% of waste glass as sand, mix which has 50% of waste glass has averaged density 2423.3 Kg/m³ which has risen by 13.6% compared to the control mix. For mix has contained 75% of waste glass the average density was 2426.6kg/m³ the density value for mix control was close similar of other mixes that contain on the waste glass. There is slightly decrease of density value of mixes have more than 20% of glass as a fine aggregate (sand) with 40% of granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) as a cement replacement.

Wang & Huang (2010), Camilleri et al. (2004), Taha & Nounu (2008), Shayan & Xu (2006), they found that reduced of up to 2%, that reduction was within the rate noted in this experiment. Tan and Du (2013), investigated that with 0.485 water ratio and the friction inside the concrete admixture does not allow good compaction of the concrete resulting in reduced of 3% to 4%. Tan and Du (2013), they noted that 5.9% of air content of the concrete which contains glass was nearly double the normal concrete.  Camillari et al. (2004), found that after 7 days of curing under the water, the density of concrete cubes reduced from 2250 kg/m3 to 2180 kg/m3. However, the density of concrete cubes recorded an increase up to 2200 kg/m3 after 28 days of curing under the water. Furthermore, noted that with long periods of curing the concrete cubes obtained increases in the density from 2170 kg/m3 to 2180 kg/m3 which is nearly 0.5%.

Several researchers have found that apply of waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) leads to growing in the density of concrete cubes. Tang et al. (2005),  Lam et al. (2007), and Sangha et al. (2004) have investigated that when using glass as a sand replacement there was an increase. Lam et al. (2007) and Sangha et al. (2004), have found that 0.4% was the maximum increase, addition to there was no obvious connection between the amount of waste glass as a sand replacement and the increase of the concrete density. Tang et al. (2005), have investigated that when using 50% of waste glass as a sand replacement there was an increase of 0.1% with no clear reason for a particular trend.

Figure 5. Shows Density of hardened concrete at 7 days, 14 days, and 28 days kg/m3

Compressive strength of concrete samples

This section of results of compressive strength is illustrated the compressive strength of concrete samples at three periods of time, 7 days, 14 days, and 28 days and for each sample, at each period three cubes have carried out to determine the compressive strength and take average to present the chart.

Finding	Researchers
Compressive strength of concrete reduced as increasing the amount of waste glass	Topcu&Canbaz (2004),Cassar and Camilleri (2012), Park & Lee (2004),Lam et al. (2007), Shayan & Xu (2006),, Shao et al. (2000), Limbachiya (2009), Shayan & Xu (2004), Park et al. (2004), Phillips et al. (1972),  Shao et al. (2000), Ali & Al- Tersawy (2012), Tan & Du (2013), and Shayan & Xu (2004)
Increasing of compressive strength of concrete when increasing the amount of waste glass as investigated in this research	Wang & Huang (2010), Sangha et al. (2004), Camilleri et al. (2004), Zammit et al. (2004), Chen et al. (2006), Tuncan et al. (2004), and Tuncan et al. (2001).

In order to comparison objective of the performance of the using of diverse values of waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement, and other admixtures which contain waste glass as sand replacement beside use Pulverised fuel ash (PFA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) with 40% cement replacement, evolution of the compressive strength of concrete samples at 7 days, 14 days, and 28 days curing in the water. The figure (,,,) below illustrates the development of compressive strength of concrete samples of different categories, samples with waste glass and samples with waste glass as sand and use 40% of GGBS as cement replacement, one more use waste glass as sand as well besides 40% PFA as cement replacement.  The master findings are presented as follows:

The figure (,,,), Proclaimed that the sample accomplished the minimum goal strength category of 40 N/mm2 contains 20% of waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement, regardless of inclusion any material as cement replacement. Whereas, the compressive strength of sample measured is carried out by the average of three cubes were curing in the water for 28 days, where the result of this mix was 37.5 N/mm2.

The figure (,,,) illustrated the results of compressive strength; it can be observed that clearly there is an increasing in values of compressive strength from 7 days to 28 days. Furthermore, the strength of 7 days is approximately 75% of strength at 28 days of curing in the water.

CHAPTER 5 – Conclusion

5.1 Conclusion

5.1.1 Research context

Presented and discussed the outcomes in the previous chapters which brought from the impacts of the experiment on the concrete structure, using waste glass as a fine aggregate (sand) replacement, the particle size distribution of waste glass nearly the same of the particle size distribution of the natural sand. Concrete blends. were created with 20%, 30%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of waste glass as a sand replacement, addition to same concrete mixes with the same amounts of waste glass as sand replacement with 40% of GGBS as cement replacement and other concrete mixes with the same amounts of glass with 40% of PFA as cement replacement. Generally, the experiment task has focussed on the impacts of waste glass as a sand replacement the fresh and hardened properties of concrete.

The particles size distribution of waste glass which has applied in this research and many research were created by crushing them manually in order to obtain the same particles size distribution of the natural sand. However, it is clear that waste glass does not have the same particles size distribution, surface and shape of the natural sand. The test of particles size distribution has carried out of both the natural sand and the waste glass to determine the particles size distribution.

BS EN 12620:2013, the British standard test. For determine the particle size distribution just determines the percentage of particle size within a group of pre-determined field. This test does not distinguish or domination on the particle shape or the particle size distribution of the aggregate. Subsequently, techniques sophisticate was set up that the waste glass particles which crushed has angular edges more than the natural sand which leads to loss of the concrete workability, the slump test and the compaction index, that might suitable usage for the concrete workability in low status, such as using this type may be exemplary in structure, floor slab, blocks works and precast concrete.

References

Ali, E. and Al-Tersawy, S. 2012. Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in self compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials 35, pp. 785-791.

 Anon 2017. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/567502/Digest_waste_resource_2016_rev4.pdf [Accessed: 13 March 2017].

Ali, E. and Al-Tersawy, S. 2012. Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in self compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials 35, pp. 785-791.

ASTM C618. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural Pozzolan for use in concrete. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International, 2003.

Balendran, R. and Pang, H. 1995. Strength development, deformation properties and mix design of pulverized fuel ash concrete. Structural Survey 13(1), pp. 7-11.

Bijen, J. and van Selst, R. 1993. Cement equivalence factors for fly ash. Cement and Concrete Research 23(5), pp. 1029-1039

 Biondini, F. and Frangopol, D. 2008. Life-cycle civil engineering. 1st ed. Boca Raton [Fla.]: CRC Press.

 Borhan, T. 2012. Properties of glass concrete reinforced with short basalt fibre. Materials & Design 42, pp. 265-271.

British standard institute, (2002) Testing hardened concrete, compressive strength of test specimens. BS EN 12390-3, British standard institute. London, the UK.

Brown, C.S. (2005) The sustainable enterprise: Profiting from best practice. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DNHcGEyBiVYC (Accessed: 7 March 2017).

 BS 6110, Pozzolanic-fuel ash cement, 1996, British Standard Institution: London

Camilleri, J., Montesin, F. E. and Sammut, M. (2004) The use of waste glass and pulverized fuel asm in concrete construction, Proceedings of the international conference on sustainable waste management and recycling: glass waste, University of Malta, pp. 83-90.

 Choo, B. and Newman, J. 2003. Advanced concrete technology. 1st ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Concrete Society Working party, 1999. “The influence of cement content on the performance of concrete” CS 125, U.K. Concrete Society publications.

De Castro, S. and de Brito, J. 2013. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Production 41, pp. 7-14.

de Castro, S. and de Brito, J. 2013. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Production 41, pp. 7-14.

Dl.dropboxusercontent.com, (2014). Glass recycling. [online] Available at: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/21130258/resources/InformationSheets/Glass.ht m [Accessed 1 April. 2017].

 Domone, P. and Illston, J. 2010. Their nature and behaviour. 1st ed. London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Dr. G.Vijayakumar1, Ms H. Vishaliny2, Dr. D. Govindarajulu3. (2013) , Studies on Glass Powder as Partial Replacement of Cement in Concrete Production , ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal

Gunalaan Vasudevan1, Seri Ganis Kanapathy pillay2 , Performance of Using Waste Glass Powder In Concrete As Replacement Of Cement , American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) 2013

Güneyisi, E. and Gesoğlu, M. 2007. A study on durability properties of high-performance concretes incorporating high replacement levels of slag. Materials and Structures 41(3), pp. 479-493.

 Haggar, S. (2010). Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management. 1st ed. Elsevier Science.

Higgins, D., 2006. Sustainable concrete: How can additions contribute? London: Institute of Concrete Technology Annual Technical Symposium.

Isler, (2012) Assessment of Concrete Masonry Units Containing Aggregate Replacements of Waste Glass And Rubber Tire Particles.  B.S., University of Colorado Denver, 1984

 Ismail, Z. and AL-Hashmi, E. 2009. Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in concrete. Waste Management 29(2), pp. 655-659.

Jamkar S.S. and Rao C.B.K. 2004. “Index of aggregate particle shape and texture of coarse aggregate as a parameter for concrete mix proportioning.” Cement and Concrete Research. Vol. 34, pp 2021-2027.

Johnston, C. D. (1974). Waste glass as a coarse aggregate for concrete. Journal of Testing and Evaluation.

Joshi, R. C. a. Lothia, R.P. (1997) ‘Introduction’. in Fly Ash in Concrete; Production, Properties and Uses. ed. by Anon Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Overseas Publishers Association

Khatib, J. and Hibbert, J. 2005. Selected engineering properties of concrete incorporating slag and metakaolin. Construction and Building Materials 19(6), pp. 460-472.

Kosmatka, S. H., Kerkhoff, B., Panarese, W. C., MacLeod, N. F., & McGrath, R. J. (2002). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, EB 101, 7th edition. Ottawa: Cement Association of Canada.

Kou, S. and Poon, C. 2009. Properties of self-compacting concrete prepared with recycled glass aggregate. Cement and Concrete Composites 31(2), pp. 107-113.

 Kou, S. and Poon, C. 2013. A novel polymer concrete made with recycled glass aggregates, fly ash and metakaolin. Construction and Building Materials 41, pp. 146-151.

Lam, L., Wong, Y. and Poon, C. 2000. Degree of hydration and gel/space ratio of high-volume fly ash/cement systems. Cement and Concrete Research 30(5), pp. 747-756.

Lewis, L. Sear, L. Wainwright, P. Ryle, R. 2003. “Cementitious additions” in: Newman, J and Choo,B.S. “Advanced concrete technology – Constituent materials” Elsevier, Oxford, U.K. 2003 pp 3/1 – 3/66

Liang, H., Zhu, H., and Byars, E. (2007). Use of Waste Glass as aggregate in Cement. 7th UK CARE Annual General Meeting. UK Chinese Association of Resources and Environment, Greenwich

Limbachiya, M. 2009. Bulk engineering and durability properties of washed glass sand concrete. Construction and Building Materials 23(2), pp. 1078-1083.

Lydon, F.D. 1982. “Concrete mix design” Applied science publishers LTD. England. 2nd Edition

Malik, M. 2013. Study of Concrete Involving Use of Waste Glass as Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregates. IOSR Journal of Engineering 3(7), pp. 08-13.

 McCarthy, M. and Dhir, R. 1999. Towards maximising the use of fly ash as a binder. Fuel78(2), pp. 121-132.

 Mindess, S., Young, F.J. and Darwin, D. (2003) Concrete. Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=38VoQgAACAAJ (Accessed: 6 March 2017).

MPA, 2012. Groung Granulated Blastfurnace Slag. [Online] Available at: http://www.mineralproducts.org/ [Accessed 23 March 2017].

Murdock, L., Brook, K. and Dewar, J. 1991. Concrete materials and practice. 1st ed. London: Edward Arnold.

 Neville, A. 1995. Properties of concrete. 1st ed. Cartermills Publishing

Neville, A. and Brooks, J. (2010). Concrete technology. 1st ed. Essex, Eng.: Pearson Education.

Oliveira, L.A., Castro-Gomes, J.P., Santos, P., 2008. Mechanical and durability properties of concrete with ground waste glass sand. In: 11th International Conference on Durability of Building Materials and Components, Istanbul, Turkey.

Osborne, G. 1999. Durability of Portland blast-furnace slag cement concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites 21(1), pp. 11-21

Oti J. E., Kinuthia J. M., Robinson R., Davies P. (2015) b. The Use of Palm Kernel Shell and Ash for Concrete Production, 9(3), pp.210-217. International Journal of Civil, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering [Online]. Available at:https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonathan_Oti/publication/279919872_The_Use_of_Palm_Kernel_Shell_and_Ash_for_Concrete_Production/links/559e37b408ae04e36509257b.pdf, (Accessed: 26 March 2017).

Our future is glass – the sustainable packaging choice for the 21st century lifestyle (no date) Available at: http://feve.org (Accessed: 6 March 2017).

Panchakarla, V. S., & Hall, M. W. (1996). Glascrete?-disposing of non-recyclable glass. In K. Chong (Ed.), Materials for the New Millennium (pp. 509-518). New York: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Park, S., Lee, B. and Kim, J. 2004. Studies on mechanical properties of concrete containing waste glass aggregate. Cement and Concrete Research 34(12), pp. 2181-2189.

Penacho, P., Brito, J. and Rosário Veiga, M. 2014. Physico-mechanical and performance characterization of mortars incorporating fine glass waste aggregate. Cement and Concrete Composites 50, pp. 47-59.

Phillips, J. C., Cahn, D. S., & Keller, G. W. (1972). Refuse glass aggregate in portland cement concrete. In M. A. Schwartz (Ed.), Proceeding of the Third Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium (pp. 385-390). Chicago: IIT Research Institute.

Polley, C., Cramer, S., & de la Cruz, R. V. (1998). Potential for using waste glass in Portland cement concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 10(4), 210-219.

 Poon, C., Lam, L. and Wong, Y. 2000. A study on high strength concrete prepared with large volumes of low calcium fly ash. Cement and Concrete Research 30(3), pp. 447-455.

Prof. Ashok R. Mundhada, Vaibhav S. Sangole, (2015 , “Addition of crushed waste glass particles as partial replacement of fine aggregate in concrete.

 Roodman, D., Lenssen, N. and Peterson, J. 1995. A building revolution. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute.

 Shao, Y. X., Lefort, T., Moras, S. and Rodriguez, D. (2000) Studies on concrete containing ground waste glass, Cement and Concrete Research, 30(1), pp. 91-100. [Accessed: 23 March 2017].

Sharifi, Y., Houshiar, M. and Aghebati, B. 2013. Recycled glass replacement as fine aggregate in self-compacting concrete. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering 7(4), pp. 419-428.

Shayan, A. and Xu, A. 2004. Value-added utilisation of waste glass in concrete. Cement and Concrete Research 34(1), pp. 81-89.

Shi, C. and Zheng, K. 2007. A review on the use of waste glasses in the production of cement and concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 52(2), pp. 234-247.

Siddique and Khan n.d. (2011).. Supplementary Cementing Materials. 1st ed. Springer Science & Business Media.

Tan, K. and Du, H. (2013) Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part I – Fresh, mechanical and durability properties. Cement and Concrete Composites, 35, pp. 109- 117.

 

Taha, B. and Nounu, G. 2008. Properties of concrete contains mixed colour waste recycled glass as sand and cement replacement. Construction and Building Materials 22(5), pp. 713-720.

 

Terro, M. 2006. Properties of concrete made with recycled crushed glass at elevated temperatures. Building and Environment 41(5), pp. 633-639.

Topçu, İ. and Canbaz, M. 2004. Properties of concrete containing waste glass. Cement and Concrete Research 34(2), pp. 267-274

Topcu, I. B., & Canbaz, M. (2004). Properties of concrete containing waste glass. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(2), 267-274.

UKCSMA, 2012. Uses of ggbs. [Online] Available at: http://www.ukcsma.co.uk/ [Accessed 20 March 2017].

Verdugo, C.D., (2013). The practicality versatility and feasibility of utilizing recycled glass as a concrete aggregate. University of Florida, USA.

Wang, H. and Huang, W. 2010. Durability of self-consolidating concrete using waste LCD glass. Construction and Building Materials 24(6), pp. 1008-1013.

Zammit, L., Montesin, F. E. and Torpiano, A. (2004) The use of crushed glass waste as fines in concrete construction, Proceedings of the international conference on sustainable waste management and recycling: glass waste, University of Malta, pp. 125-131.

Lam, C., Poon, C. and Chan, D. 2007. Enhancing the performance of pre-cast concrete blocks by incorporating waste glass – ASR consideration. Cement and Concrete Composites 29(8), pp. 616-625.

Sangha, C., Alani, A. and Walden, P. 2004. Relative strength of green glass cullet concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research 56(5), pp. 293-297.

Tang, M. C., Wang, L. and Dhir, R. K. (2005) Engineering and durability properties of concrete containing waste glass, Proceedings of the International Conference on Achieving Sustainability in Construction, University of Dundee, pp. 219-228.

Cassar, J. and Camilleri, J. 2012. Utilisation of imploded glass in structural concrete. Construction and Building Materials 29, pp. 299-307.

 Shayan, A. and Xu, A. 2006. Performance of glass powder as a pozzolanic material in concrete: A field trial on concrete slabs. Cement and Concrete Research 36(3), pp. 457-468.

Shao, Y., Lefort, T., Moras, S. and Rodriguez, D. 2000. Studies on concrete containing ground waste glass. Cement and Concrete Research 30(1), pp. 91-100.

 Chen, C., Huang, R., Wu, J. and Yang, C. 2006. Waste E-glass particles used in cementitious mixtures. Cement and Concrete Research 36(3), pp. 449-456.

Tuncan, M., Karasu, B. and Yalcin, M. (2001) The suitability for using glass and fly ash in portland cement concrete, Proceedings of the international offshore and polar engineering conference, Anadolu University, Vol. 4, pp. 146-152.

Tuncan, M., Karasu, B., Yalcin, M. and Tuncan, A. (2004) The effects of filler glasses on mechanical properties of concrete, Department of civil engineering, Ke engineering materials, 264-268(3), Euro Ceramics VIII, Anadolu University, pp 2169- 2172.

Appendix