You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
Materials
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

7 September 2022

Concrete Containing Waste Glass as an Environmentally Friendly Aggregate: A Review on Fresh and Mechanical Characteristics

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Duhok, Duhok 42001, Iraq
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Zakir Husain Engineering College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 202002, India
3
Department of Highways & Airports Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Diyala, Baqubah 32001, Iraq
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya 42000, Turkey
Materials2022, 15(18), 6222;https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15186222
This article belongs to the Special Issue Testing of Materials and Elements in Civil Engineering (2nd Edition)
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The safe disposal of an enormous amount of waste glass (WG) in several countries has become a severe environmental issue. In contrast, concrete production consumes a large amount of natural resources and contributes to environmental greenhouse gas emissions. It is widely known that many kinds of waste may be utilized rather than raw materials in the field of construction materials. However, for the wide use of waste in building construction, it is necessary to ensure that the characteristics of the resulting building materials are appropriate. Recycled glass waste is one of the most attractive waste materials that can be used to create sustainable concrete compounds. Therefore, researchers focus on the production of concrete and cement mortar by utilizing waste glass as an aggregate or as a pozzolanic material. In this article, the literature discussing the use of recycled glass waste in concrete as a partial or complete replacement for aggregates has been reviewed by focusing on the effect of recycled glass waste on the fresh and mechanical properties of concrete.

1. Introduction

Glass is one of the world’s most diverse substances because of its substantial properties, such as chemical inertness, optical clarity, low permeability, and high authentic strength [1,2,3]. The usage of glass items has greatly increased, leading to enormous quantities of WG. Globally, it is estimated that 209 million tons of glass are produced annually [4,5,6]. In the U.S., according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [7,8,9], 12.27 million tons of glass were created in 2018 in municipal solid waste (MSW), as shown in Figure 1, most of which were containers for drinking and food. Furthermore, in 2018, the EU generated 14.5 million tons of glass package wastes [10,11,12]. The quantity of generated WG will increase due to the increasing demand for glass components [13,14,15,16].
Figure 1. Distribution of MSW stream produced in the U.S in 2018. Adapted from [7].
Recycling and reducing waste are key parts of a waste-management system since they contribute to conserving natural resources, reducing requests for waste landfill space, and reducing pollution of water and air [17,18]. According to Meyer [19], by 2030, the EU zero-waste initiative estimates that improvements in resource efficiency throughout the chain could decrease material input requirements by 17% to 24%, satisfying the demand for raw materials between 10% to 40%, and could contribute to reducing emissions by 40% [20,21,22].
In fact, innovative options for recycling WG must be developed. One significant option is to use WG for construction materials [23]. The recycling of WG not only decreases the demand for landfill sites in the building sector but also significantly helps in decreasing the carbon footprint and saving resources [24,25,26]. In 1963, Schmidt and Saia [27] performed the first research on the use of WG for building materials. The authors recycled WG into useful glass particles for wall-panel production. Subsequently, a significant study was conducted in order to use recycled glass for fine or coarse aggregate in mortar and concrete, because of the good hardness of the glass [14,28,29]. This study aims at reviewing the possibilities of utilizing WG in concrete as a partial or full replacement for fine or coarse aggregates in order to give practical and brief guidance on recycling and using WG [30,31,32,33].

2. Research Significance

Besides the above-mentioned dangers of WG and the need to recycle it economically and environmentally, this research explores the source of WG as well as its physical and chemical characteristics. In addition, this study aims to review the literature that discusses the use of recycled WG in concrete as a partial or complete alternative to aggregates by focusing on the effect of this waste on the fresh and mechanical properties of concrete in order to demonstrate the possibilities of using recycled WG in concrete and to provide practical and brief guidance. Furthermore, we are establishing a foundation for future study on this material and describing research insights, existing gaps, and future research goals.

3. Properties of Glass

3.1. Chemical Properties of Glass

Glass exists in various colors and types, with various chemical components. Table 1 and Table 2 show the chemical compositions of different colors and types of typical glass, respectively.
Table 1. Chemical components of glass for various colors.
Table 2. Chemical components of glass for various types. Adapted from [38,39].

3.2. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Glass

The physical and mechanical properties of crushed WG are listed in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.
Table 3. Physical properties of crushed WG.
Table 4. Mechanical properties of crushed WG.

4. Fresh Concrete Properties

4.1. Workability

There are two parallel points of view on the workability of WG-containing concrete. A review of past studies on the impact of WG aggregates on the mixes of workability is summarized in Table 5. It can be noticed that various research investigations have shown that the mixing of WG increases workability. They connected this beneficial impact of WG on the workability to the weaker cohesive between the cement mortar and the smooth surfaces of waste glass [48,49,50,51,52]. The smooth surface and low absorption capacity of WG are also important factors in increasing workability [53,54]. For example, Ali and Al-Tersawy [55] substitute fine aggregate in self-compacting concrete (SCC) mixes with recycled WG at levels of 10% to 50% by volume. Constant content of water–cement ratio and various superplasticizer doses have been used. They stated that slump flow increased by 2%, 5%, 8%, 11%, and 85%, with the incorporating of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of WG, respectively. In addition, Liu, Wei, Zou, Zhou and Jian [56] substitute fine aggregate in ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) mixes with recycled liquid crystal display (CRT) glass at levels of 25% to 100% by volume. Constant content of water–cement ratio and various superplasticizer (SP) doses have been used. Moreover, they stated that flowability increased by 11, 14, 16, and 12 mm, compared to the control sample, incorporating 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% WG, respectively. Enhancing the workability by including WG is a benefit of utilizing this recycled material [57,58,59,60]. There is potential to utilize glass to create HPC in which high workability is necessary. In addition, WG can be used to boost workability rather than employing admixtures such as HRWR or superplasticizers [61,62,63,64].
Contrastingly, some studies have stated that including waste glass into the mixes lowered workability. Nevertheless, such a decrease has been associated with sharp edges, higher glass particle aspect ratio, and angular form, with obstruction of the movement of particles and cement mortar [65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. For example, Wang [72] substitutes fine aggregate in liquid crystal display glass concrete (LCDGC) mixes with recycled LCD at levels of 20% to 80% by volume. Various contents of w/c ratio (0.38–0.55) and various superplasticizer doses have been used. The author stated that slump flow decreased by 4%, 7%, 19%, and 26%, incorporating 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of WG, respectively, for w/c of 0.44. In addition, Arabi, Meftah, Amara, Kebaïli and Berredjem [73] substitute coarse aggregate in SCC mixes with recycled windshield glass at levels of 25% to 10% by volume. Various contents of w/c ratio (0.60–0.69) and various superplasticizer doses have been used. They stated that slump flow decreased by 3%, 8%, 9%, and 11%, incorporating 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of WG, respectively. According to Rashad [61], the optimal content of glass waste to achieve good workability is 20%.
Table
Table 5. Summary of the results of past studies on the workability of waste-glass concrete.
Table 5. Summary of the results of past studies on the workability of waste-glass concrete.
Refs.Type of CompositeSourceType of Sub.WG Sub. Ratio%WG Size (mm)w/c or w/bAddit. or Admix.Outcomes
[74]SCGCLCDF.A10, 20, & 30 (vol.%)11.80.28SPSlump flow increased by 11%, 17%, and 21%, respectively.
[75]HPGCLCDF.A10, 20, & 30 (vol.%)0.149–4.750.25, 0.32, & 0.34SPSlump flow increased, ranged between 7–9%.
[76]Steel slag concreteWGC.A16.5 & 17.5 (vol.%)4.9–10 & 4.9–160.4 & 0.55WRSlump increased by 167%, for substitution 16.5% (w/c of 0.55, and size of 4.9–10 mm).
Slump increased by 8%, for substitution 17.5% (w/c of 0.40, and size of 4.9–16 mm).
[77]Cement concreteWG & PVCF.A5, 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30 (wt.%)0.15–0.60.44, 0.5, & 0.55-Slump value changed by −7%, +33%, +47%, +31, +36, and +40%, respectively, for w/c of 0.5.
[78]Waste glass concreteWGF.A18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24 (vol.%)0.15–0.60.4SPWorkability decreased by increasing the WG ratio.
[79]Waste glass concreteCRTF.A50 & 100 (vol.%)≤50.35, 0.45, & 0.55WR & AESlump increased by 55%, and 115%, respectively, for w/c of 0.45.
[80]Waste glass concreteWGC.A10, 20, & 30 (wt.%)≤200.55-Slump decreased by 3%, 5%, and 9%, respectively.
[73]SCCWindshieldC.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (vol.%)9.5 & 12.7 (mixed)0.6–0.69Marble filler & SPSlump flow decreased by 3%, 8%, 9%, and 11%, respectively.
[81]UHPCWGF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (wt.%)≤0.60.19Steel fiber & HRWRASlump increased by 25%, 111%, 321%, and 532%, respectively.
[56]UHPCCRTF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (vol.%)0.6–1.180.19Steel fiber, SF, & SPFlowability increased by 11, 14, 16, and 12 mm, respectively, compared to control (200 mm).
[82]Waste glass concreteWGF.A15 & 30 (vol.%)≤4.750.5-Slump decreased by 9%, and 39%, respectively.
[83]Waste-based concreteWGF.A100 (vol.%)≤1.90.47SP & GBFSGlass sand showed lower workability compared to Lead smelter slag (LSS).
[84]Waste glass concreteWGF.A5, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–4.750.55-Slump decreased by 19%, 29%, and 35%, respectively.
[55]SCCWGF.A10, 20, 30, 40, & 50 (vol.%)0.075–50.4SF & SPSlump flow increased by 2%, 5%, 8%, 11%, and 85%, respectively.
[85]Cement concreteWGF.A5, 10, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–9.50.56-Slump decreased by 1%, 3%, 4%, and 5%, respectively.
[86]Waste glass concreteWaste E-glassF.A10, 20, 30, 40, & 50 (wt.%)≤4.750.68SF & F.A.Slump decreased by 2%, 1%, 50%, 55, and 54%, respectively.
[87]Waste glass concreteWGF.A10, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–4.750.52-Slump decreased by 24%, 23%, and 33%, respectively.
[88]Waste glass concreteWGF.A15, 20, 30, & 50 (wt.%)≤50.52, 0.57, & 0.67-Slump decreased by 0%, 0%, 13%, and 13%, respectively, for w/c of 0.57.
[89]Waste glass concreteGreen waste glassF.A30, 50, & 70 (wt.%)≤50.5AEWorkability decreased, ranged between 19–44%.
[65]Waste glass concreteSoda-lime glassF.A50 & 100 (vol.%)≤50.38MKSlump decreased by 0%, and 38%, respectively.
[48]Waste glass concreteWGF.A & C.A10, 25, 50, & 100 (vol.%)N.M0.48-Slump value changed by −6%, +6%, +18%, and +6%, respectively.
[72]LCDGCLCDF.A20, 40, 60, & 80 (vol.%)≤4.750.38, 0.44, & 0.55-Slump flow decreased by 4%, 7%, 19%, and 26%, respectively.
[90]Cement concreteLCDF.A20, 40, 60, & 80 (vol.%)≤4.750.48-Slump value changed by 0%, −5%, −5%, and +20%, respectively.
[91]Alkali-activated mortarCulletF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (vol.%)≤2.360.6F.A., GBFS, SH, & SSFlowability increased, ranged between 4–15%.
[92]Waste glass concreteWGF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (wt.%)≤50.5-Slump decreased by 9%, 7%, 15%, and 27%, respectively.
Where: SCGC is self-compacting glass concrete; SCC is self-compacting concrete; HPGC is high performance recycled liquid crystal glasses concrete; UHPC is ultra-high performance concrete; LCDGC is liquid crystal display glass concrete; LCD is liquid crystal display; CRT is cathode ray tube; WG is waste glass; PVC is polyvinyl chloride; SP is superplasticizer; HRWRA is a high-range water-reducing agent; WR is water-reducing; AE is air-entraining; SF is silica fume; F.A. is fly ash; GBFS is granulated blast furnace slag; MK is metakaolin; SH is sodium hydroxide solution; SS is sodium silicate solution; F.A is fine aggregate; C.A is coarse aggregate; vol. is replacing by volume; wt. is replacing by weight.

4.2. Bulk Density

Past studies on the impact of WG aggregates on the bulk density, which are summarized in Figure 2, revealed that the majority of studies showed that incorporating glass waste into mixtures reduces density. This decrease can be ascribed to the lesser density of WG compared to natural aggregate [42,65,93,94], as well as the lower specific gravity [43,66,87,93,95]. For example, Taha and Nounu [65] substitute fine aggregate in waste-glass concrete (WGC) mixes with recycled soda-lime glass at levels of 50% to 100% by volume. They stated that the fresh density of WG concrete mixes reduced by 1% and 2% incorporating 50% and 100% of WG, respectively. This density drop might be realized as one benefit of using this material in concrete for engineering purposes [96,97,98,99].
On the other hand, Liu, Wei, Zou, Zhou and Jian [56] stated that concrete of 10 to 50% WG had a fresh density greater than reference. The authors substitute F.A in UHPC mixes with recycling CRT glass at levels of 25% to 100% by volume. They stated that the fresh density of waste-glass concrete mixtures increased by 1% 2.5%, 3.5%, and 6%, incorporating 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of WG, respectively. The authors attributed the reason to the fact that the density of CRT glass (2916 kg/m3) was larger than that of fine aggregate (2574 kg/m3) [100,101,102,103,104].
Materials 15 06222 g002 550
Figure 2. Bulk density of concrete with various content of WG. Adapted from references [56,65,80,83,84,87,105,106,107].

5. Mechanical Properties

5.1. Compressive Strength

By reviewing past studies on the impact of WG aggregates on the compressive strength of waste-glass concrete, summarized in Table 6, it can be noticed that most studies shown that incorporating glass waste into concrete reduces compressive strength. The researchers ascribed this behavior to (i) the sharp edges and smooth particle surfaces, leading to a poorer bond between cement mortar and glass particles at the interfacial transition zone (ITZ) [14,40,42,43,55,66,87,90,108,109]; (ii) increased water content of the glass aggregate mixes due to the weak ability of WG to absorb water [43,110]; and (iii) the cracks caused by expanding stress formed by the alkali-silica reaction produced from the silica in WG [40]. For example, Park, Lee and Kim [89] substitute fine aggregate in WGC with recycled green WG at levels of 30% to 70% by weight. They stated that the compressive strength of concrete decreased by 3%, 13%, and 18%, incorporating 30%, 50%, and 70% of WG, respectively. In addition, Terro [48] noted that concrete, which contains up to 25% of WG, showed compressive strength values greater than the reference, whereas concrete with a substitution level of over 25% declined in compressive strength.
In order to better understand the impact of glass waste on the properties of the waste-glass concrete [111,112,113,114]. Omoding, Cunningham and Lane-Serff [115] investigated the concrete microstructure via SEM by replacing between 12.5–100% of the coarse aggregate with green waste glass with a size of 10–20 mm. The authors stated (i) that there is a weak connection between the waste glass and the cement matrix. This is because of a reduction in bonding strength between the waste glass and the cement paste because of the high smoothness of waste glass, consequently resulting in cracks and poor adherence between waste glass and cement paste; and (ii) as the content of waste glass increases, the proportion of cracks and voids increases in the concrete’s matrix.
However, some studies have stated that waste glass increases mechanical strength. This increase is primarily realized because of the surface texture and strength of the waste glass particles compared to natural sand [116,117,118] and the pozzolanic reaction of waste glass aggregate [119,120,121]. For example, Jiao, Zhang, Guo, Zhang, Ning and Liu [81] substitute fine aggregate in UHPC with recovered WG at levels of 25% to 100% by weight. They stated that the compressive strength of concrete increased by 2%, 17%, 34%, and 20%, incorporating 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% WG, respectively.
Regarding the influence of WG color on properties, some studies have stated that the color of WG did not produce any noticeable variation in strength [89,122]. On the contrary, Tan and Du [66] claimed that clear waste glass showed less strength.
Table
Table 6. Summary of the results of past studies on the compressive strength of waste-glass concrete.
Table 6. Summary of the results of past studies on the compressive strength of waste-glass concrete.
Refs.Type of CompositeSourceType of Subs.WG Subs. RatioWG Size (mm)w/c or w/bAddit. or Admix.Com. Str. of Control (MPa)Outcomes
[74]SCGCLCDF.A10, 20, & 30 (vol.%)11.80.28SP65Decreased by 2%, 5%, and 3%, respectively.
[75]HPGCLCDF.A10, 20, & 30 (vol.%)0.149–4.750.25, 0.32, & 0.34SP56Decreased by 25%, 32%, and 29%, respectively, for w/c of 0.32.
[123]Autoclaved aerated concreteCRTF.A5 & 10 (vol.%)2.16–3.3N.M-29Decreased by 2%, and 0%, respectively.
[77]Cement concreteWG & PVCF.A5, 10, 15, 20, 25, & 30 (wt.%)0.15–0.60.44, 0.5, & 0.55-34Decreased by 1%, 4%, 4%, 6%, 7%, and 9%, respectively, for w/c of 0.50.
[78]Waste glass concreteWGF.A18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, & 24 (vol.%)0.15–0.60.4SP33Changed by +6%, +9%, +12%, +9%, +3%, −6% and −9%, respectively.
[79]Waste glass concreteCRTF.A50 & 100 (vol.%)≤50.35, 0.45, & 0.55WR & AE28Decreased by 21%, and 32%, respectively, for w/c of 0.45.
[80]Waste glass concreteWGC.A10, 20, & 30 (wt.%)≤200.55-24Decreased by 13%, 15%, and 23%, respectively.
[105]Waste glass concreteWGF.A25, 75, & 100 (wt.%)0.15–50.48–0.66-38Changed by +5%, +8%, +3%, and −8%, respectively.
[124]Waste glass concreteCulletC.A25, 50, & 75 (wt.%)2.36–50.29SF32Decreased by 6%, 3%, 22%, and 25%, respectively.
[73]SCCWindshieldC.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (vol.%)9.5 & 12.70.6–0.69Marble filler & SP33Decreased by 15%, 24%, 24%, and 30%, respectively.
[125]HSPCWGC.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (vol.%)2.36–50.14SF & SP50Decreased by 4%, 20%, 30%, and 36%, respectively.
[81]UHPCWGF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (wt.%)≤0.60.19Steel fiber & HRWRA108Increased by 2%, 17%, 34%, and 20%, respectively.
[56]UHPCCRTF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (vol.%)0.6–1.180.19Steel fiber, SF, & SP180Decreased by 7%, 11%, 16%, and 18%, respectively.
[115]Glass aggregate concretesWGC.A12.5, 25, 50, & 100 (vol.%)10–200.52SP45Decreased by 4%, 16%, 20%, and 27%, respectively.
[82]Waste glass concreteWGF.A15 & 30 (vol.%)≤4.750.5-48Decreased by 6%, and 0%, respectively.
[84]Waste glass concreteWGF.A5, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–4.750.55-33Decreased by 6%, 3%, and 0%, respectively.
[55]SCCWGF.A10, 20, 30, 40, & 50 (vol.%)0.075–50.4SF & SP62Decreased by 5%, 15%, 18%, 23%, and 24%, respectively.
[85]Cement concreteWGF.A5, 10, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–9.50.56-32Increased by 9%, 44%, 25%, and 38%, respectively.
[87]Waste glass concreteWGF.A10, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–4.750.52-44Changed by −9%, −9%, and +5%, respectively.
[88]Waste glass concreteWGF.A15, 20, 30, & 50 (wt.%)≤50.52, 0.57, & 0.67-48Decreased by 2%, 4%, 13%, and 19%, respectively, for w/c of 0.57.
[89]Waste glass concreteGreen waste glassF.A30, 50, & 70 (wt.%)≤50.5AE38Decreased by 3%, 13%, and 18%, respectively.
[48]Waste glass concreteWGF.A & C.A10, 25, 50, & 100 (vol.%)N.M0.48-40Changed by +38%, +3%, −5%, and −50%, respectively.
[72]LCDGCLCDF.A20, 40, 60, & 80 (vol.%)≤4.750.38, 0.44, & 0.55-39Decreased by 3%, 10%, 13%, and 15%, respectively, for w/c of 0.44.
[90]Cement concreteLCDF.A20, 40, 60, & 80 (vol.%)≤4.750.48-36Decreased by 6%, 11%, 22%, and 25%, respectively.
[107]Waste glass concreteCRTF.A20, 40, 60, 80, & 100 (vol.%)4.750.45F.A.38Decreased by 5%, 8%, 8%, 11%, and 13%, respectively.
[126]Resin concretesWGF.A0–100 (wt.%)≤2N.MEpoxy resin95Decreased by 33%, for substitution of 100%.
[127]Concrete blocksWGF.A100 (vol.%)4.75, 2.36, 1.18, & 0.60.23-34Decreased by 18%.
[91]Alkali-activated mortarCulletF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (vol.%)≤2.360.6F.A., GBFS, SH, & SS70Decreased by 3%, 6%, 7%, and 10%, respectively.
[128]Waste glass concreteWGF.A25, 50., 75, & 100 (wt.%)≤50.5-20Changed by +20%, +15%, −10%, and −35%, respectively.
Where: SCGC is self-compacting glass concrete; SCC is self-compacting concrete; HPGC is high performance recycled liquid crystal glasses concrete; HSPC is high-strength pervious concrete; UHPC is ultra-high performance concrete; LCDGC is liquid crystal display glass concrete; LCD is liquid crystal display; CRT is cathode ray tube; WG is waste glass; PVC is polyvinyl chloride; SP is superplasticizer; HRWRA is a high-range water-reducing agent; WR is water-reducing; AE is air-entraining; SF is silica fume; F.A. is fly ash; GBFS is granulated blast furnace slag; MK is metakaolin; SH is sodium hydroxide solution; SS is sodium silicate solution; F.A is fine aggregate; C.A is coarse aggregate; vol. is replacing by volume; wt. is replacing by weight.

5.2. Splitting Tensile Strength

Past studies on the impact of WG aggregates on the splitting tensile strength of waste-glass concrete, which are summarized in Table 7, revealed that incorporating glass waste into concrete reduces tensile strength. Similarly, as in compressive strength, studies have attributed the main reason for this behavior to the poor bond between cement paste and glass particles at the ITZ. For example, Wang [72] substitutes fine aggregate in liquid crystal display glass concrete (LCDGC) with recycled LCD glass at levels of 20% to 80% by volume. The author stated that splitting tensile strength of concrete decreased by 1%, 7%, 8%, and 9%, incorporating 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% of WG, respectively, for w/c of 0.44. Moreover, Ali and Al-Tersawy [55] substitute fine aggregate in self-compacting concrete (SCC) with recycled WG at levels of 10% to 50% by volume. They stated that tensile strength of waste-glass concrete decreased by 9%, 15%, 16%, 24%, and 28% incorporating 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of WG, respectively [129,130,131,132].
In contrast, Jiao, Zhang, Guo, Zhang, Ning and Liu [81] indicated that concrete of 25% to 100% WG had a tensile strength greater than reference. The authors substitute fine aggregate in ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) with recycled WG at levels of 25% to 100% by weight. They stated that the splitting tensile strength of concrete increased by 1%, 3%, 11%, and 7%, incorporating 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of WG, respectively. The author attributed the reason to the effect of using steel fibers.
Table
Table 7. Summary of the results of past studies on the splitting tensile strength of waste-glass concrete.
Table 7. Summary of the results of past studies on the splitting tensile strength of waste-glass concrete.
Refs.Type of CompositeSourceType of Sub.WG Sub. Ratio%WG Size (mm)w/c or w/bAddit. or Admix.Split ten. str. of Control (MPa)Outcomes
[81]UHPCWGF.A25, 50, 75, & 100 (wt.%)≤0.60.19Steel fiber & HRWRA11.7Increased by 1%, 3%, 11%, and 7%, respectively.
[82]Waste glass concreteWGF.A15 & 30 (vol.%)≤4.750.5-4.5Changed by +4%, and −1%, respectively.
[84]Waste glass concreteWGF.A5, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–4.750.55-2.5Increased by 4%, 12%, and 24%, respectively.
[55]SCCWGF.A10, 20, 30, 40, & 50 (vol.%)0.075–50.4SF & SP6.8Decreased by 9%, 15%, 16%, 24%, and 28%, respectively.
[85]Cement concreteWGF.A5, 10, 15, & 20 (vol.%)0.15–9.50.56-3.9Decreased by 0%, 8%, 15%, and 23%, respectively.
[133]Waste glass concreteWGF.A10, 20, 30, & 40 (wt.%)≤4.750.45-2.5Decreased by 2%, 8%, 10%, and 12%, respectively.
[72]LCDGCLCDF.A20, 40, 60, & 80 (vol.%)≤4.750.38, 0.44, & 0.55-2.38Decreased by 1%, 7%, 8%, and 9%, respectively, for w/c of 0.44.
[107]Waste glass concreteCRTF.A20, 40, 60, 80, & 100 (vol.%)4.750.45F.A.4.48Decreased by 6%, 6%, 13%, 15%, and 19%, respectively.
[128]Waste glass concreteWGF.A25, 50., 75, & 100 (wt.%)≤50.5-3.6Decreased by 22%, 39%, 39%, and 44%, respectively.
Where: UHPC is ultra-high-performance concrete; LCDGC is liquid crystal display glass concrete; LCD is liquid crystal display; CRT is cathode ray tube; WG is waste glass; SP is superplasticizer; HRWRA is a high-range water-reducing agent; SF is silica fume; F.A. is fly ash; F.A is fine aggregate; C.A is coarse aggregate; vol. is replacing by volume; wt. is replacing by weight.

5.3. Flexural Strength

The flexural strength of waste-glass concrete shows comparable tendencies to its compressive strength and tensile strength. Most of the research revealed that introducing WG aggregates reduced flexural strength. However, other research showed that flexural strength increased when WG was included [134,135,136]. For instance, Kim, Choi and Yang [79] substitute fine aggregate in WGC with recycled CRT glass at levels of 50% to 100% by volume. They stated that flexural strength of concrete decreased by 9% and 14%, incorporating 50% and 100% of WG, respectively, for w/c of 0.45. On the contrary, Jiao, Zhang, Guo, Zhang, Ning and Liu [81] substitute fine aggregate in UHPC with recovered WG at levels of 25% to 100% by weight. They stated that flexural strength of concrete increased by 2%, 1%, 5%, and 1%, incorporating 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of WG, respectively.
Moreover, it can be concluded that the discrepancy between studies may be related to the type, size, and source of WG used in the mixtures. The mineral composition varies as the type of glass changes. Therefore, changing the mechanisms of interaction with binders in concrete, in turn, affects the properties. Table 8 presents the outcomes of various studies on the flexural strength of waste-glass concrete.
Table 8. Summary of the results of past studies on the flexural strength of waste-glass concrete.

5.4. Modulus of Elasticity (MOE)

The modulus of elasticity of concrete (MOE) depends on the normal and lightweight aggregates elasticity modulus, cement matrix, and their relative ratios in the mixes [39]. In general, the incorporation of WG aggregates into concrete increases the modulus of elasticity [72,84]. For instance, Steyn, Babafemi, Fataar and Combrinck [82] substitute fine aggregate in WGC with recovered WG at levels of 15% to 30% by volume. They stated that MOE of concrete increased by 1%, and 7%, incorporating 15% and 30% of WG, respectively. In addition, Omoding, Cunningham and Lane-Serff [115] substitute coarse aggregate in glass aggregate concretes with recycled WG at levels of 12.5% to 100% by volume. They stated that MOE of concrete increased by 2% to 4% for a replacement rate of 12.5% to 50%, then decreased by 3% to 9% for replacement ratios above 50% [137,138].
However, some studies have stated that including WG decreases the MOE of concrete. For instance, Ali and Al-Tersawy [55] substitute fine aggregate in SCC with recovered WG at levels of 10% to 50% by volume. They stated that MOE of concrete decreases by 2%, 8%, 9%, 12%, and 13%, incorporating 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of WG, respectively. Figure 3 presents the outcomes of various studies on the MOE of WG concrete.
Figure 3. Modulus of elasticity of concrete with various contents of the waste glass. Adapted from references [55,65,72,82,84,88,107,115].

6. Conclusions

The utilization of WG in concrete affects the fresh and mechanical properties of waste-glass concrete, which must be taken into consideration before being used in structures. The overall conclusions of this review are:
  • The workability of waste-glass-containing concrete mixtures for fine or coarse aggregates was less than for natural aggregate-containing mixtures. Nevertheless, despite the poorer workability, some studies found that the mixtures were still workable.
  • Most studies indicated that with the introduction of WG, the density of concrete decreased due to the decreased density and specific gravity of waste glass aggregates.
  • The findings of the literature have been somewhat indecisive regarding the properties of concrete, such as compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural strength, and modulus of elasticity.
  • The findings revealed that the compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and flexural strength of concrete deteriorated by integrating WG. Nevertheless, the findings concerning the elastic modulus of concrete were conflicting. This decrease was essential because of the sharp edges and smooth surface of the waste glass that caused the poorer bond between cement mortar and waste glass particles at the ITZ.
  • Studies also showed that the optimal aggregate substitution level was about 20%. In addition, the glass color does not have a substantial influence on the strength. Although the results are indecisive, WG has the possibility to be an acceptable substitute for fine or coarse concrete aggregates in concrete.
  • Adding waste glass to the concrete mixture may improve certain mechanical characteristics of concrete, reduce concrete dead load, and provide an ecological substitute for normal aggregates.

7. Recommendations

This paper makes the following broad recommendations for future investigations:
  • More investigation is required into the mechanical characteristics of high-performance and high-strength waste-glass concrete.
  • The effects of different glass kinds and colors on concrete mixes should be thoroughly investigated in the future.
  • Test fewer common types of glass as aggregates in concrete because the vast majority of research only covers soda-lime glass.
  • Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the real environmental effects through life-cycle assessment to evaluate the feasibility of using this waste.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Q., H.M.N., S.M.A., Y.O.Ö., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; Methodology, S.Q., H.M.N., S.M.A., Y.O.Ö., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; software, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., S.M.A., Y.O.Ö., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; validation, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; formal analysis, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; investigation, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; resources, S.Q., H.M.N., S.M.A., Y.O.Ö., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; data curation, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; writing—review and editing, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A., A.M. and Y.O.Ö.; visualization, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; super-vision, S.Q., H.M.N., H.A.D., M.A., S.M.A., Y.O.Ö., M.M.S.S., F.A. and A.M.; project administration, M.M.S.S.; funding acquisition, M.M.S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program ‘Priority 2030′ (Agreement 075-15-2021-1333 dated 30 September 2021).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are included in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their thanks to the Ministry of Science and Higher Edu-ca-tion of the Russian Federation for funding this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lu, J.-X.; Zhan, B.-J.; Duan, Z.-H.; Poon, C.S. Using glass powder to improve the durability of architectural mortar prepared with glass aggregates. Mater. Des. 2017, 135, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahmad, J.; Aslam, F.; Martinez-Garcia, R.; de-Prado-Gil, J.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Brahmia, A. Effects of waste glass and waste marble on mechanical and durability performance of concrete. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 21525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.S.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Faraj, R.H.; Sor, N.H.; Mohammed, A.A. Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete composites: A systematic comprehensive review, analysis and modeling. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022, 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. ICG. An Economic Argument for an IYOG 2022; The International Commission on Glass (ICG): Venice, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aslam, F.; Zaid, O.; Althoey, F.; Alyami, S.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; de Prado Gil, J.; Martínez-García, R. Evaluating the influence of fly ash and waste glass on the characteristics of coconut fibers reinforced concrete. Struct. Concr. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Martínez-García, R.; Jagadesh, P.; Zaid, O.; Șerbănoiu, A.A.; Fraile-Fernández, F.J.; de Prado-Gil, J.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Grădinaru, C.M. The Present State of the Use of Waste Wood Ash as an Eco-Efficient Construction Material: A Review. Materials 2022, 15, 5349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. EPA. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Tables and Figures. Environ. Prot. Agency 2021, 1–80. [Google Scholar]
  8. Maglad, A.M.; Zaid, O.; Arbili, M.M.; Ascensão, G.; Șerbănoiu, A.A.; Grădinaru, C.M.; García, R.M.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Althoey, F.; de Prado-Gil, J. A Study on the Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Modified with Nano Graphene Oxide. Buildings 2022, 12, 1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.A.; Rafiq, S.; Mohammed, A.S.; Mosavi, A.; Sor, N.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A. Compressive Strength of Sustainable Geopolymer Concrete Composites: A State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Eurostat. Packaging Waste Statistics; Eurostat: Luxemburg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ahmad, J.; Majdi, A.; Elhag, A.B.; Deifalla, A.F.; Soomro, M.; Isleem, H.F.; Qaidi, S. A Step towards Sustainable Concrete with Substitution of Plastic Waste in Concrete: Overview on Mechanical, Durability and Microstructure Analysis. Crystals 2022, 12, 944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ahmad, J.; Kontoleon, K.J.; Majdi, A.; Naqash, M.T.; Deifalla, A.F.; Kahla, N.B.; Isleem, H.F.; Qaidi, S.M.A. A Comprehensive Review on the Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) in Concrete Production. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rahim, N.L.; Amat, R.C.; Ibrahim, N.M.; Salehuddin, S.; Mohammed, S.A.; Rahim, M.A. Utilization of Recycled Glass Waste as Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregate in Concrete Production. Mater. Sci. Forum 2015, 803, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Topçu, İ.B.; Canbaz, M. Properties of concrete containing waste glass. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zheng, K. 11-Recycled glass concrete. In Eco-Efficient Concrete; Pacheco-Torgal, F., Jalali, S., Labrincha, J., John, V.M., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2013; pp. 241–270. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tayeh, B.A.; Al Saffar, D.M.; Aadi, A.S.; Almeshal, I. Sulphate resistance of cement mortar contains glass powder. J. King Saud Univ. -Eng. Sci. 2020, 32, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ling, T.-C.; Poon, C.-S.; Wong, H.-W. Management and recycling of waste glass in concrete products: Current situations in Hong Kong, Resources. Conserv. Recycl. 2013, 70, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Contrafatto, L.; Gazzo, S.; Purrazzo, A.; Gagliano, A. Thermo-mechanical Characterization of Insulating Bio-plasters Containing Recycled Volcanic Pyroclasts. Open Civ. Eng. J. 2020, 14, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Meyer, B. Macroeconomic modelling of sustainable development and the links between the economy and the environment. In Final Report of the MacMod project (ENV. F. 1/ETU/2010/0033) to the European Commission; Institute of Economic Structures Research: Osnabrück, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  20. Khan, M.; Cao, M.; Ali, M. Experimental and Empirical Study of Basalt Fibber Reinforced Concrete. In Proceedings of the Building Tomorrow’s Society, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 13–16 June 2018. Paper ID–MA39_0610035833. [Google Scholar]
  21. Khan, M.; Lao, J.; Dai, J.-G. Comparative study of advanced computational techniques for estimating the compressive strength of UHPC. J. Asian Concr. Fed. 2022, 8, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Parvez, I.; Shen, J.; Khan, M.; Cheng, C. Modeling and solution techniques used for hydro generation scheduling. Water 2019, 11, 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Afshinnia, K.; Rangaraju, P.R. Influence of fineness of ground recycled glass on mitigation of alkali–silica reaction in mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 81, 257–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Jiang, Y.; Ling, T.-C.; Mo, K.H.; Shi, C. A critical review of waste glass powder–Multiple roles of utilization in cement-based materials and construction products. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 242, 440–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Qaidi, S.M.A.; Tayeh, B.A.; Ahmed, H.U.; Emad, W. A review of the sustainable utilisation of red mud and fly ash for the production of geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 350, 128892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Qaidi, S.M.A.; Atrushi, D.S.; Mohammed, A.S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Najm, H.M. Ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 346, 128495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schmidt, A.; Saia, W. Alkali-aggregate reaction tests on glass used for exposed aggregate wall panel work. ACI Mater. J. 1963, 60, 1235–1236. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kozlova, S.; Millrath, K.; Meyer, C.; Shimanovich, S. A suggested screening test for ASR in cement-bound composites containing glass aggregate based on autoclaving. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2004, 26, 827–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oliveira, R.; de Brito, J.; Veiga, R. Incorporation of fine glass aggregates in renderings. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 44, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khan, M.; Cao, M.; Chu, S.; Ali, M. Properties of hybrid steel-basalt fiber reinforced concrete exposed to different surrounding conditions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 322, 126340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khan, U.A.; Jahanzaib, H.M.; Khan, M.; Ali, M. Improving the tensile energy absorption of high strength natural fiber reinforced concrete with fly-ash for bridge girders. In Key Engineering Materials; Trans Tech Publ.: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 335–342. [Google Scholar]
  32. Arshad, S.; Sharif, M.B.; Irfan-ul-Hassan, M.; Khan, M.; Zhang, J.-L. Efficiency of supplementary cementitious materials and natural fiber on mechanical performance of concrete. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 8577–8589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Khan, M.; Cao, M.; Xie, C.; Ali, M. Hybrid fiber concrete with different basalt fiber length and content. Struct. Concr. 2022, 23, 346–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dyer, T.D.; Dhir, R.K. Chemical Reactions of Glass Cullet Used as Cement Component. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2001, 13, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shayan, A.; Xu, A. Value-added utilisation of waste glass in concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Karamberi, A.; Moutsatsou, A. Participation of coloured glass cullet in cementitious materials. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2005, 27, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sobolev, K.; Türker, P.; Soboleva, S.; Iscioglu, G. Utilization of waste glass in ECO-cement: Strength properties and microstructural observations. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 971–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Shand, E.B. Glass Engineering Handbook; Amazon: Seattle, WA, USA, 1958. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mohajerani, A.; Vajna, J.; Cheung, T.H.H.; Kurmus, H.; Arulrajah, A.; Horpibulsuk, S. Practical recycling applications of crushed waste glass in construction materials: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 156, 443–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Park, S.-B.; Lee, B.-C. Studies on expansion properties in mortar containing waste glass and fibers. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 1145–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lam, C.S.; Poon, C.S.; Chan, D. Enhancing the performance of pre-cast concrete blocks by incorporating waste glass–ASR consideration. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2007, 29, 616–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lee, G.; Poon, C.S.; Wong, Y.L.; Ling, T.C. Effects of recycled fine glass aggregates on the properties of dry–mixed concrete blocks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 638–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. de Castro, S.; de Brito, J. Evaluation of the durability of concrete made with crushed glass aggregates. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 41, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Serpa, J.d.B.D.; Jorge, P. Concrete Made with Recycled Glass Aggregates: Mechanical Performance. ACI Mater. J. 2015, 112, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Disfani, M.M.; Arulrajah, A.; Bo, M.W.; Hankour, R. Recycled crushed glass in road work applications. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 2341–2351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ooi, P.S.K.; Li, M.M.W.; Sagario, M.L.Q.; Song, Y. Shear Strength Characteristics of Recycled Glass. Transp. Res. Rec. 2008, 2059, 52–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ali, M.M.Y.; Arulrajah, A. Potential Use of Recycled Crushed Concrete-Recycled Crushed Glass Blends in Pavement Subbase Applications; GeoCongress: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 3662–3671. [Google Scholar]
  48. Terro, M.J. Properties of concrete made with recycled crushed glass at elevated temperatures. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ling, T.-C.; Poon, C.-S. A comparative study on the feasible use of recycled beverage and CRT funnel glass as fine aggregate in cement mortar. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29–30, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Qaidi, S.M.A.; Mohammed, A.S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Althoey, F.; Zaid, O.; Sor, N.H. Rubberized geopolymer composites: A comprehensive review. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 24234–24259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. He, X.; Yuhua, Z.; Qaidi, S.; Isleem, H.F.; Zaid, O.; Althoey, F.; Ahmad, J. Mine tailings-based geopolymers: A comprehensive review. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 24192–24212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Faraj, R.H.; Ahmed, H.U.; Rafiq, S.; Sor, N.H.; Ibrahim, D.F.; Qaidi, S.M.A. Performance of Self-Compacting mortars modified with Nanoparticles: A systematic review and modeling. Clean. Mater. 2022, 4, 100086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ling, T.-C.; Poon, C.-S.; Kou, S.-C. Feasibility of using recycled glass in architectural cement mortars. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2011, 33, 848–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ling, T.-C.; Poon, C.-S. Effects of particle size of treated CRT funnel glass on properties of cement mortar. Mater. Struct. 2013, 46, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ali, E.E.; Al-Tersawy, S.H. Recycled glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in self compacting concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 785–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, T.; Wei, H.; Zou, D.; Zhou, A.; Jian, H. Utilization of waste cathode ray tube funnel glass for ultra-high performance concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 249, 119333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Khan, M.; Ali, M. Earthquake-Resistant Brick Masonry Housing for Developing Countries: An Easy Approach. Available online: https://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/2017/P2.43_Ali.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2022).
  58. Khan, M.; Cao, M.; Hussain, A.; Chu, S.H. Effect of silica-fume content on performance of CaCO3 whisker and basalt fiber at matrix interface in cement-based composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 300, 124046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhang, N.; Yan, C.; Li, L.; Khan, M. Assessment of fiber factor for the fracture toughness of polyethylene fiber reinforced geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 319, 126130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Khan, M.; Rehman, A.; Ali, M. Efficiency of silica-fume content in plain and natural fiber reinforced concrete for concrete road. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 244, 118382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rashad, A.M. Recycled waste glass as fine aggregate replacement in cementitious materials based on Portland cement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 72, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Emad, W.; Mohammed, A.S.; Bras, A.; Asteris, P.G.; Kurda, R.; Muhammed, Z.; Hassan, A.M.T.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Sihag, P. Metamodel techniques to estimate the compressive strength of UHPFRC using various mix proportions and a high range of curing temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 349, 128737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Almeshal, I.; Al-Tayeb, M.M.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Bakar, B.H.A.; Tayeh, B.A. Mechanical properties of eco-friendly cements-based glass powder in aggressive medium. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 58, 1582–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Al-Tayeb, M.M.; Aisheh, Y.I.A.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Tayeh, B.A. Experimental and simulation study on the impact resistance of concrete to replace high amounts of fine aggregate with plastic waste. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taha, B.; Nounu, G. Properties of concrete contains mixed colour waste recycled glass as sand and cement replacement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tan, K.H.; Du, H. Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part I–Fresh, mechanical and durability properties. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 35, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yildizel, S.A.; Tayeh, B.A.; Calis, G. Experimental and modelling study of mixture design optimisation of glass fibre-reinforced concrete with combined utilisation of Taguchi and Extreme Vertices Design Techniques. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 2093–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Al Saffar, D.M.; Tawfik, T.A.; Tayeh, B.A. Stability of glassy concrete under elevated temperatures. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2020, 26, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Azevedo, A.R.G. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part IV: Durability properties, cost assessment, applications, and challenges. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Azevedo, A.R.G. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part I: Developments, principles, raw materials. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Azevedo, A.R.G. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part II: Hydration and microstructure. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Wang, H.-Y. A study of the effects of LCD glass sand on the properties of concrete. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 335–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Arabi, N.; Meftah, H.; Amara, H.; Kebaïli, O.; Berredjem, L. Valorization of recycled materials in development of self-compacting concrete: Mixing recycled concrete aggregates–Windshield waste glass aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 209, 364–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, H.-Y.; Huang, W.-L. Durability of self-consolidating concrete using waste LCD glass. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 1008–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chen, S.-H.; Chang, C.-S.; Wang, H.-Y.; Huang, W.-L. Mixture design of high performance recycled liquid crystal glasses concrete (HPGC). Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 3886–3892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yu, X.; Tao, Z.; Song, T.-Y.; Pan, Z. Performance of concrete made with steel slag and waste glass. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 114, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Patel, H.G.; Dalal, S.P. An Experimental Investigation on Physical and Mechanical Properties of Concrete with the Replacement of Fine Aggregate by Poly Vinyl Chloride and Glass Waste. Procedia Eng. 2017, 173, 1666–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bisht, K.; Ramana, P.V. Sustainable production of concrete containing discarded beverage glass as fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 177, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kim, I.S.; Choi, S.Y.; Yang, E.I. Evaluation of durability of concrete substituted heavyweight waste glass as fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 184, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Rashid, K.; Hameed, R.; Ahmad, H.A.; Razzaq, A.; Ahmad, M.; Mahmood, A. Analytical framework for value added utilization of glass waste in concrete: Mechanical and environmental performance. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 312–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jiao, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, M.; Zhang, L.; Ning, H.; Liu, S. Mechanical and fracture properties of ultra-high-performance concrete (UHPC) containing waste glass sand as partial replacement material. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 277, 123501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Steyn, Z.C.; Babafemi, A.J.; Fataar, H.; Combrinck, R. Concrete containing waste recycled glass, plastic and rubber as sand replacement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 269, 121242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gholampour, A.; Ozbakkaloglu, T.; Gencel, O.; Ngo, T.D. Concretes containing waste-based materials under active confinement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 270, 121465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Abdallah, S.; Fan, M. Characteristics of concrete with waste glass as fine aggregate replacement. Int. J. Eng. Tech. Res. 2014, 2, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  85. Batayneh, M.; Marie, I.; Asi, I. Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes. Waste Manag. 2007, 27, 1870–1876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Chen, C.H.; Huang, R.; Wu, J.K.; Yang, C.C. Waste E-glass particles used in cementitious mixtures. Cem. Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ismail, Z.Z.; Al-Hashmi, E.A. Recycling of waste glass as a partial replacement for fine aggregate in concrete. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 655–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Limbachiya, M.C. Bulk engineering and durability properties of washed glass sand concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 1078–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Park, S.B.; Lee, B.C.; Kim, J.H. Studies on mechanical properties of concrete containing waste glass aggregate. Cem. Concr. Res. 2004, 34, 2181–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, H.-Y.; Zeng, H.-h.; Wu, J.-Y. A study on the macro and micro properties of concrete with LCD glass. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 50, 664–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Khan, M.N.N.; Sarker, P.K. Effect of waste glass fine aggregate on the strength, durability and high temperature resistance of alkali-activated fly ash and GGBFS blended mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 263, 120177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Naeini, M.; Mohammadinia, A.; Arulrajah, A.; Horpibulsuk, S. Recycled Glass Blends with Recycled Concrete Aggregates in Sustainable Railway Geotechnics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Taha, B.; Nounu, G. Utilizing Waste Recycled Glass as Sand/Cement Replacement in Concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2009, 21, 709–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Tayeh, B.A. Effects of marble, timber, and glass powder as partial replacements for cement. J. Civ. Eng. Constr. 2018, 7, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Borhan, T.M. Properties of glass concrete reinforced with short basalt fibre. Mater. Des. 2012, 42, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Faraj, R.H.; Majeed, S.S.; Mohammed, A.S.; Emad, W.; Tayeh, B.A.; Azevedo, A.R.G. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part V: Mixture design, preparation, mixing, casting, and curing. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Ahmed, H.U.; Emad, W.; Faraj, R.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Tayeh, B.A.; Azevedo, A.R.G. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete. Part III: Fresh and hardened properties. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Aisheh, Y.I.A.; Atrushi, D.S.; Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Tayeh, B.A. Influence of polypropylene and steel fibers on the mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Aisheh, Y.I.A.; Atrushi, D.S.; Akeed, M.H.; Qaidi, S.; Tayeh, B.A. Influence of steel fibers and microsilica on the mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete (UHP-GPC). Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 17, e01245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ahmed, S.N.; Sor, N.H.; Ahmed, M.A.; Qaidi, S.M.A. Thermal conductivity and hardened behavior of eco-friendly concrete incorporating waste polypropylene as fine aggregate. Mater. Today: Proc. 2022, 57, 818–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.S.; Faraj, R.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A.; Mohammed, A.A. Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete modified with nano-silica: Experimental and modeling investigations. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Qaidi, S. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Fresh Properties. Preprints 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Qaidi, S. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Applications. Preprints 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Qaidi, S. Ultra-high-performance fiber-reinforced concrete (UHPFRC): A mini-review of the challenges. Sci. Prepr. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lu, J.-X.; Zhou, Y.; He, P.; Wang, S.; Shen, P.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable reuse of waste glass and incinerated sewage sludge ash in insulating building products: Functional and durability assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 117635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Cota, F.P.; Melo, C.C.D.; Panzera, T.H.; Araújo, A.G.; Borges, P.H.R.; Scarpa, F. Mechanical properties and ASR evaluation of concrete tiles with waste glass aggregate. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2015, 16, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Song, W.; Zou, D.; Liu, T.; Teng, J.; Li, L. Effects of recycled CRT glass fine aggregate size and content on mechanical and damping properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 202, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ling, T.-C.; Poon, C.-S. Properties of architectural mortar prepared with recycled glass with different particle sizes. Mater. Des. 2011, 32, 2675–2684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Ali, M.H.; Dinkha, Y.Z.; Haido, J.H. Mechanical properties and spalling at elevated temperature of high-performance concrete made with reactive and waste inert powders. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Polley, C.; Cramer, S.M.; de la Cruz, R.V. Potential for Using Waste Glass in Portland Cement Concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 1998, 10, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Khan, M.; Ali, M. Improvement in concrete behavior with fly ash, silica-fume and coconut fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 203, 174–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Khan, M.; Ali, M. Optimization of concrete stiffeners for confined brick masonry structures. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Cao, M.; Khan, M. Effectiveness of multiscale hybrid fiber reinforced cementitious composites under single degree of freedom hydraulic shaking table. Struct. Concr. 2021, 22, 535–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Xie, C.; Cao, M.; Guan, J.; Liu, Z.; Khan, M. Improvement of boundary effect model in multi-scale hybrid fibers reinforced cementitious composite and prediction of its structural failure behavior. Compos. Part B Eng. 2021, 224, 109219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Omoding, N.; Cunningham, L.S.; Lane-Serff, G.F. Effect of using recycled waste glass coarse aggregates on the hydrodynamic abrasion resistance of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 268, 121177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Najm, H.M.; Ahmad, S. The Use of Waste Ceramic Optimal Concrete for A Cleaner and Sustainable Environment - A Case Study of Mechanical Properties. Civ. Environ. Eng. Rep. 2022, 32, 85–102. [Google Scholar]
  117. Qaidi, S. Behaviour of Concrete Made of Recycled Waste PET and Confined with CFRP Fabrics; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  118. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Fresh Properties; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  119. Shao, Y.; Lefort, T.; Moras, S.; Rodriguez, D. Studies on concrete containing ground waste glass. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Hydration and Microstructure; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  121. Qaidi, S.M.A. PET-Concrete; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  122. Degirmencia, N.; Yilmazb, A.; Cakirc, O.A. Utilization of waste glass as sand replacement in cement mortar. Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci. 2011, 18, 303–308. [Google Scholar]
  123. Walczak, P.; Małolepszy, J.; Reben, M.; Szymański, P.; Rzepa, K. Utilization of Waste Glass in Autoclaved Aerated Concrete. Procedia Eng. 2015, 122, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Lu, J.-X.; Yan, X.; He, P.; Poon, C.S. Sustainable design of pervious concrete using waste glass and recycled concrete aggregate. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 1102–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Shen, P.; Zheng, H.; Liu, S.; Lu, J.-X.; Poon, C.S. Development of high-strength pervious concrete incorporated with high percentages of waste glass. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 114, 103790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Dębska, B.; Lichołai, L.; Silva, G.J.B. Effects of waste glass as aggregate on the properties of resin composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 119632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Yang, S.; Ling, T.-C.; Cui, H.; Poon, C.S. Influence of particle size of glass aggregates on the high temperature properties of dry-mix concrete blocks. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 209, 522–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Olofinnade, O.M.; Ede, A.N.; Ndambuki, J.M.; Ngene, B.U.; Akinwumi, I.I.; Ofuyatan, O. Strength and microstructure of eco-concrete produced using waste glass as partial and complete replacement for sand. Cogent Eng. 2018, 5, 1483860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Qaidi, S.M.A. PET-Concrete Confinement with CFRP; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  130. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Principles and Raw Materials; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  131. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Applications; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  132. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Challenges; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  133. Malik, M.I.; Bashir, M.; Ahmad, S.; Tariq, T.; Chowdhary, U. Study of concrete involving use of waste glass as partial replacement of fine aggregates. IOSR J. Eng. 2013, 3, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Cost Assessment; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  135. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Durability Properties; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  136. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Mixture Design; University of Duhok: Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  137. Qaidi, S.M.A. Ultra-High-Performance Fiber-Reinforced Concrete: Hardened Properties; University of Duhok (UoD): Duhok, Iraq, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  138. Mansi, A.; Sor, N.H.; Hilal, N.; Qaidi, S.M. The impact of nano clay on normal and high-performance concrete characteristics: A review. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2022; p. 012085. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Additive Manufacturing of Spinal Braces: Evaluation of Production Process and Postural Stability in Patients with Scoliosis
Previous
Comparative Study on the Surface Remelting of Mo-Si-B Alloys with Laser and Electron Beam
Next