Development of composite material based on cement and

polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

Paulo P. O. L. Dyer1a, Silvelene A. S. Dyer2b, Francisco P. Neto3c, Gustavo J. L.
Coppio4d, Roberto W. Lourenço5e, Sandro D. Mancini6f
1
Department of Aeronautics Infrastructure, Technological Institute of Aeronautics, 50 Eduardo Gomes, São
José dos Campos, Brazil
2
Department of Photonics, Institute for Advanced Studies, 01 José Alberto Albano do Amarante, São José dos
Campos Brazil
3
Department of Materials, Technological Institute of Aeronautics, Marshal Eduardo Gomes Square, 50 São
José dos Campos - Brazil
4
Department of Buildings, Federal Technological Institute of Education, Science and Technology, 1561 João
Olímpio de Oliveira, Itapetininga Brazil
5, 6
Department of Environmental Engineering, Paulista State University Julio de Mesquita Filho, 511. Três de
Março, Sorocaba, Brazil

(Received keep as blank , Revised keep as blank , Accepted keep as blank )

Abstract. Aggregates are originated from mining activities like as rock detonation or river beds. However, due
these materials originated from exhaustible resources and widely consumed by civil construction they become
increasingly scarce and costly and the environmental cost becomes more and more meaningful. Therefore, the use of
non-hazardous waste replacing aggregate turn on an opportunity to reduce costs and environmental impacts caused
by construction. Plastic like Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) are an industrial product that have well known
physical property such as physical strength, durability and inertia. These advantages make them very versatile, but
when these plastics are disposed of becoming a problem. The objective of this paper was the study of technical
viability of scraped PET (flakes) as an aggregate in cement mortars. Compressive strength, thermal conductivity and
water absorption tests were performed at mortar containing PET comparing with conventional mortar, showing: an
increase in compressive strength, a reduction by half of the normal air weight, a gain of the order of 8.9 times in
thermal resistance and equivalent values in the water absorption taxes.
Keywords: PET, sustainability, urban solid waste, polymers, composite materials

1. Introduction

The composites are advanced materials consisting of the combination of two or more

a
Dr., E-mail: paulo_dyer@yahoo.com
b
Ph.D., E-mail: lenisoni@uol.com.br
c
Ph.D., E-mail: fpiorino@gmail.com
d
Master, E-mail: gustavocoppio@gmail.com
e
Ph.D., E-mail: robertow@sorocaba.unesp.br
f
Ph.D., E-mail: mancini@sorocaba.unesp.br
components forming a unique material with superior characteristics of these isolated (Shackelford
2014). Portland cement concretes and mortars are composite materials were the cement behaves as
a matrix (binder material) and aggregates as the particles, physically anchored in this matrix. The
better this anchorage the more efficient the mechanical behavior of this concrete or mortar. The use
of polymers as an aggregate, acting like fiber or particle at cement matrix is an alternative to create
a composite material that combine characteristics of polymers, whose have high modulus of
elasticity (superior than mineral aggregates) according Shackelford (2014), and cement. This new
construction material, since the particles (or fibers) well anchored, it is expected to obtain a greater
mechanical efficiency and a sustainable alternative to civil construction.
The concept of sustainable development has been coined since the early 70s motivating a
model of social development not compromise future generations. In this first moment the idea
remained somewhat diffused and subjective since all the progress that humanity has experienced
until then has always been firmly established in man's struggle to dominate nature processing
every natural resource for its own benefit, a way of unique hand (Constanza et al. 2013, Sartori et
al. 2014, Vehmaa et al. 2018).
Already in the early 90's the concept had great repercussions worldwide due to large
conferences such as Eco 92 (Strong 1991) held in the city of Rio de Janeiro and in the early 2000s
with the Rio + 10 conference (Constanza et al. 2013) where protocoled were signed which have
revised objectives by elaborating mechanisms for sustainable development making the level of
consumption more efficient and reducing ecological footprint.
The sustainability at civil construction is a development model that aims to integrate concepts
of socio-environmental education in civil construction projects either in the construction,
occupation and post-construction phase (retrofit and demolition) using new technologies that do
which does not adversely from design characteristics and comfort, meeting the requirements of
users in an efficient way that is avoiding waste and reducing environmental impacts (Kats 2003,
Zuo and Zhao 2014).
According to the World Green Building Council (USGBC 2019) created in 2002, the
construction sector needs to be induced to use more sustainable practices since it is one of the
branches that most employs in world and also one of the largest producers of residues. In this
context it is essential the demand for companies that take some measures to reverse the current
roles of civil construction in the actual environmental scenario. Therefore, sustainable construction
is one that uses bio compatible materials and technologies in order to reduce the environmental
impact of building during the acquisition process, construction and throughout its useful life.
However, the main obstacle to the consolidation of this "sustainable vision" in the civil
construction sector is the difficulty in relation to the costs considered high of certain elements that
allow the framing of the enterprise in this concept (Kats 2003, WORLDGBC:2019).
An alternative to introduce sustainability into construction is by the introduction of alternative
building materials like the use of recycled wastes as aggregate representing a considerable
reduction in the cost per m² and mineral resources use. These wastes may come from the recycling
of inert urban and non-hazardous industrial waste like plastics.
The plastics or polymeric materials consist of short chain organic molecules linked in series to
numerous replicates (monomers) by covalent molecular bonds. These materials had their origin in
1907 with the discovery of Bakelite (Garcia 2016) becoming very popular. An example is the case
of Polyethylene Ethylene Terephthalate (PET) that due to its low cost of production, durability,
inertia and versatility enabled the creation of a wide diversity of consumer goods around the
world.
 The large PET production around the world, nowadays concentrated at China and USA
(D’Ambrieres 2019), resulted in the disposal of large amounts of solid waste in the environment
and landfills. This material then remains in nature for long periods of time (centuries) due to the
same characteristics of durability, inertia and resistance.
However, in the mid-90s the recycling industry began to grow. This initially concentrated on
metals recycling but soon reached the residues of PET which began to reused it mainly in the
market of textile fibers. Even though, remain average 30 million tons/year of PET without
recycling around the world (D’Ambrieres 2019). These residues end up going stop in places that
are not suitable for disposal bringing socio-environmental impacts like pollution of areas, rivers
and oceans generating parasitic epidemics, creating artificial dams and killing marine life or
reducing the lifespan of landfills (Jambeck et al. 2015).
The molecular composition characteristics of PET allow that after a mechanical and thermal
process can be converted into textile fibers for tissue production. This industrial process has
specific steps and equipment, illustrated in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 PET recycling equipment.

During the PET industrial recycling the steps can be summarized in: the bottle waste arrive at
the plant and are transformed into bales, these are shredded to flakes; washed; benefited by a heat
treatment (temperature close to its melting point of 72°C); extruded and cutted in small spherical
grains, this material of greater value in the industry know by the name of "PET recycled grain"
which is acquired by textile industries to produce yarns for fabrics.
This industrial chain is showed in the flowchart of Fig. 2 where can be viewed the three by-
products produced: "PET recycled powder", by-product of shred and wash process; "PET extruded
dreg" colored and white a by-product of the extrusion machine cleaning process, these by-products
are illustrated at Fig. 3.
 Fig. 2 Flowchart of the industrial recycling of PET.

Fig. 3 Scheme of the production of by-products of the industrial recycling of PET.

With the production of different by-products of PET recycling and the current development of
new composite materials for construction industry with characteristics of sustainable building
materials are motivated the research in this area. Actual literature shown studies of fiberglass -
FRC (Barabanshchikov et al. 2015), PET fiber - FRP (Rahman and Ueda 2016, Ispir 2015, Bai and
Teng 2017) and polypropylene fiber in concrete (Kakooei et al. 2012) used as beams or masonry
walls reducing micro fissure in during the curing period and thermal variation of climatic
exposure. The results showed that that the use of fibers considerably reduces micro cracks, as long
as these fibers are efficient anchoring at cement matrix.
 Admixtures according to ASTM C 494 (ASTM 2017a) and the Portland Cement Association
Engineering Bulletin 001 - PCA: EB001 (EB001 2011) are aqueous solutions that improve mortar
work-ability, breaking the surface tension and increasing the plasticity of the paste. For polymeric
fibers such as PET this property is very important as plastics are hydrophobic materials. Improving
the anchoring of fibers in the cement matrix, i.e. increase the pull-out tension (Wang et al. 1987).
This assumption was also identified by Wilinski et al. (2016) for PET fibers. Saikia and Brito
et al. (2013) obtained similar results observing the need to use plasticizing admixtures. In addition
to observing the need for the use of additives, Carneiro (2011) proved that the use of PET fibers
improved the concrete's modulus of elasticity, creating a true composite material.
Among these studies, the research by Iyappan and Pazhani (2018) found that PET fibers with
dimensions: 40mm (length), 1.4mm (width) and 0.6mm (thickness) added at rate of 0-3 percent
(c/c) to concrete type OPC53 grade obtained higher modules of resistance than conventional
concretes (3.4 against 2.8 MPa) 20 percent of resistance gain.
Other works such as the one developed by Safinia and Alkabani (2016) used PET bottles
without any kind of processing. In this study PET bottles were encapsulated in a concrete shell
producing a concrete artifact of dimensions: 200 x 200 x 400 mm and 20 kg. During trials after 28
days of cure showed compressive strength similar to conventional artifacts; The Fig. 4 illustrates
the design of this artifact containing PET bottles.

Fig. 4 Design of concrete block with 8 plastic bottles (500ml), by Safinia and Arkabani (2018).

In these studies, few differences were observed compared to conventional concrete at

compressive strength test. However, the anchorage between the fiber and the cement matrix is a
crucial factor in the performance of these concretes with loss of strength when admixture has not
been used (Canellas 2005, Carneiro 2011). This occurs due to the high hydrophobicity of polymer
with formation of cavitation between PET and cement interfaces. Thus, it is very important the
study of composite material based on cement and PET from the perspective of admixture
performance, making comparisons between the mortars or concretes containing the polymer with
and without admixtures in normal compression tests. Such type of research is not found in the
current literature, being observed only the separate analyzes.
2. Experimental Program

In this present paper a cylindric specimens were made with the volumetric mortar ratio of 1:2:1
water, flakes of PET and cement (c/c) respectively. Another cylindrical specimen was made with
water, conventional sand and cement respectively with the same volumetric proportion. For these
two mixtures were added volumetric fractions 1:10 in relation to water (c/c) of admixture for
concrete type A: water-reducing according to ASTM C494 (2004) and EB001 (2011). The
specimens were molded with 50.8 mm (diameter) and 101.6 mm (length) according to ASTM
C192M (2002). After 28 days these specimens were submitted to tests recommended by ASTM
C140 (2011) compressive strength and water absorption. In parallel another cylindric specimens
were confectioned at analogously form but without admixture for concrete. After 28 days these
specimens where tested to compare the role of admixture at the PET-cement mixture.
To determine the thermal resistance of PET-cement mixtures the assay according to the adapted
procedures from ASTM C518 (2004) and the combustibility of each mixture was determined by
adaptation of ASTM E136 (2004).
For experimental program a total of 80 cylindrical specimens were molded. For each individual
assay triplicates were performed the result being the average of these replicates.

2.1 Materials

In all stages of this study was used: Portland cement type II according ASTM C 150 (2007),
conventional medium sand with grains size passing through the 0.43 mm and retained in 3 mm
sieve, flakes of PET passing through the 2 mm and retained in the 1.2 mm sieve, distilled water
and admixture for concrete type A according to ASTM C494 (2017) and EB001 (2011); the Fig. 5
illustrate the materials used and the Table 1 presents their physical properties.

Table 1 Physical properties of materials employed

Materials of mixtures Standard test
Properties
PET Sand Cement
Bulk density (kg/m³) 580 ± 1 1460 ± 10 - ASTM C29
Real specific gravity (g/cm³) 1.32 ± 0.03 2.57 ± 0.04 2.72 ± 0.05
Apparent specific Gravity (g/cm³) 0.60 ± 0.03 1.86 ± 0.08 -
ASTM C128; ASTM C188
Sutured specific gravity (g/cm³) 0.744 ± 0.02 2.07 ± 0.02 -
Water Absorption (%) 1.04 ± 0,01 1.6 ± 0,01 -
Voids aggregate (%) 75.82 ± 0,01 48.78 ± 0,32 -
Critical humidity (%) 4.00 ± 0,01 4.9 ± 0,5 - ASTM C29
Swelling Coefficient (T-1) 1.05 ± 0.05 1.64 ± 0.05 -
Finer than 75μm (%) 0.01 ± 0.00 1.68 ± 0.01 - ASTM C117
Thermal conductivity (W/m∙K) 0.150 ± 0.03 1.40 ± 0.02 0.29 ± 0.02 ASTM D5930 and D5334
Organic impurities <400 ppm ASTM C40
 Fig. 5 Materials used.

Fig. 6 illustrates microstructural aspects of the aggregate materials that will underlie the
discussions of the results. Fig. 7 show the granulometric and swelling properties (in water) of
material grains.

Fig. 6 Images ten-fold enlarged of aggregate materials used from a Stereoscope. Image by the authors

(a) Granulometric composition (b) Swelling properties

Fig. 7 Size distribution (a) limits ASTM C33; and variation of swelling coefficient of aggregate grains (b).
2.2 Equipment
 For the tests, cylindrical metallic forms were used for molding the specimens, as well,
laboratory equipment and tools. For normal compression, a hydraulic press, for absorption a scale,
thermal conductivity and combustibility tests a heat source (in this case a Bunsen burner and an
electric hot plate), were used. These equipment and tools are illustrated in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8 Equipment and tools used.

2.3 Tests specimens

With these materials, equipment and tools the cylindrical mortar specimens were made
according the procedures determined by ASTM C 192M (2002) as shown in Fig. 10. During the
mixing of Portland type II cement, distilled water with additive (and without ad) and aggregates
(sand and Flake PET) in the determined proportions, it was found that workability improved with
the presence of additive, without many variations of mixtures with PET. and with sand. The
physical characteristics of mortars are presented in Table 2.

Fig. 9 Illustrative photographs of cylindric specimens production.

Table 2 Physical properties of mortars

 Mortar mixtures
Properties Sand-cement with PET-cement with Sand-cement PET-cement Standard test
admixture admixture
Slump (mm) 95 ± 1 98 ± 1 90 ± 2 66 ± 3 ASTM C143a
Density (g/cm³) 1.65 ± 0,03 1.18 ± 0,02 1.97 ± 0,06 1.28 ± 0,04 ASTM C905-1

2.4 Compressive strength test

Destructive tests of normal compression were carried out in the 10 cylindrical specimens for
each 4 mixtures (total of 40 specimens), according the ASTM C39M (2005). This assay it
illustrated in Fig. 10 showing the specimens before and after the test.

Fig. 10 Illustrative of destructive assays.

The destructive assay was well developed. Such a feature is seen in Fig. 11 which shows well-
formed breaking cones.

2.5 Absorption

For this assay 4 cylindrical specimens for each 4 mixtures (16 total) were weighed and after
submersion in water for 24 hours were weighed again, according ASTM C1585 (2004). Thus, the
dry weights of the specimens were compared with sutured getting water absorption rate. As
illustrated in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11 Illustrative photo about water absorption test.

2.6 Thermal resistance and combustibility test
 In thermal resistance test, 3 cylindric specimen for each of the 4 mixtures were analyzed (12
total). The assay was performed according to the procedures determined in an adaptation of the
standard ASTM C 518 (2004). Each specimen was positioned on the hot plate at a controlled
temperature of 60° C and a small basin containing ice was placed on the upper parallel face of the
specimen (maintaining a constant temperature of 0°C). A small hole about 5 mm diameter and 25
mm deep drilled previously in the specimen was introduced the digital thermometer. Two other
thermometers were also coupled to the hot and cold sources. The test was carried out by
periodically measuring of 3 points temperatures at 5-minute intervals for 1 hour obtaining the heat
flow and thermal resistance. Fig. 12 (a) displays the layout of the experiment setup.
The combustion potential of the PET-cement mixtures was analyzed according the methods by
ASTM E 136 (2004) comparing them with the Sand-cement mixtures. The test was adopted from
this standard due to the limitation of laboratory; the vertical tubular furnace was replaced by the
flame of a Bunsen burner with an average temperature of 750°C. The assay was conducted in 3
cylindrical specimens for each of the 4 mixtures (12 total). Initially these specimens were weighed
and then subjected to the flame for 5 minutes, then the center of the specimens to the same period.
Thereafter the specimens were weighed again, and their temperatures measured. The test was
conducted at room temperature of 25°C. Fig. 12 (b) illustrates this procedure.

(a) Schematic drawing about thermal resistance test (b) Illustrative photographs of the combustibility test
Fig. 12 Thermal resistance (a) and combustibility (b) test development.
3. Results and discussions

3.1 Mechanical properties

The compressive strength test produced a graph with the load (MPa) as function to deformation
(Ɛ) the Fig. 13 shows this result and table 3 presents the maximum values obtained according to
the mixture compared to the ASTM D 1621 (2016) and. Was made this parallel in relation to this
standard because its deals with polymeric materials and coating composites.

Table 3 Results of normal compressive strength test

Mortar mixtures Criteria
Max values of Sand-cement with PET-cement Sand-cement PET-cement
ASTM D1621:More than
admixture with admixture
Strength (MPa) 30.63 ± 0.02 9.18 ± 0.01 18.49 ± 0.07 7.80 ± 0.09 2.0
Ɛ (%) 4.44 ± 0.01 3.77 ± 0.08 2.98 ± 0.05 1.08 ± 0.06 -

Fig. 13 Graphic of load vs deformation from compressive strength test.

Compressive strength of PET-containing mortars was higher than conventional mortars. In

addition to meeting the requirements imposed by the criteria of ASTM D1621 (2016) standard.
However, Fig. 13 shows the importance of admixture in improving the strength of PET-cement
mixtures. Considerable improvements are observed only in admixture-containing mixtures. This is
due to the polymer being very hydrophobic. The admixture works in the homogeneity of the
mortar reducing the onset of bubbles, cavitation and disfavoring the pullout of the fibers. Results
also observed by Carneiro (2011) and Canellas (2005) on loss and Yappan & Pazhani (2018) and
Safinia & Alkalbani (2016) on increase of resistance. The minimal strength for pulling out of
fibers from the cement matrix is given by the anchoring of this fiber in the matrix. Particles or
fibers with rougher surfaces are better attached, while polished are less. As noted in Fig. 6 the
Flake microstructure is smooth and glassy facilitating the pull-out; this further strengthens the use
of admixtures.
The water absorption test determined by ASTM C1585 (2004) was performed. Table 4 shows
the water absorption rates (in%), dry and saturated weights of cylindrical specimens, as well as the
absorbed water weights.

Table 4 Results of water absorption test

Mortar Mixtures
Properties Sand-cement with PET-cement with Sand-cement PET-cement
admixture admixture
Dry mass (g) 294.83 ± 0.06 208.65 ± 0.07 363.89 ± 0.08 249.15 ± 0.01
Saturated mass (g) 335.65 ± 0.07 240.40 ± 0.08 317.51 ± 0.05 222.26 ± 0.09
Absorption mass (g) 40.82 ± 0.03 31.75 ± 0.04 45.36 ± 0.07 45.36 ± 0.05

The water absorption rates of mortar mixtures are slightly above the ASTM C33 (2003)
absorption criteria (less than 10%). This aspect occurred due to the type of cement used (Portland
type II cement) however, when comparing mortar mixtures, the fundamental role of admixture
together with the PET-cement mixture is again observed. Since the mixture that does not contain
admixture has an absorption rate almost twice that of the mixture containing admixture.
Reinforcing improvement of homogeneity in mixtures containing polymers. Another observation
that can be made about the results of Table 4 is regarding the weight of cylindrical specimens
containing PET. These weigh almost half of the cylindrical specimens of conventional mortar.
This characteristic brings benefits the building material made of PET-cement by reducing
transportation and storage costs.

3.2 Thermodynamic properties

To understand the thermal behavior of PET-cement mortars the Table 5 presents results,
obtained from the thermal resistance test according to ASTM C 518 (2004), of conductivity, flow
rate, flux and thermal resistance. In this table the cylindrical specimens of PET-cement and Sand-
cement mortars were compared with each other and with the criteria of the standard.

Table 5 Results of thermal properties

Mortars with Criteria
Calculated variables PET-cement with Sand-cement with PET-cement Sand-cement ASTM C518
admixture admixture
Air voids (%) 13.85 ± 0.02 15.22 ± 0.01 16.67 ± 0.03 25.64 ± 0.03 -
Ambient temperature (°C) 23.59 ± 0.04 24.99 ± 0.04 23.98 ± 0.09 25.02 ± 0.02 -
Maximum temperature (°C) 61.23 ± 0.05 62.33 ± 0.07 62.45 ± 0.08 60.29 ± 0.01 -
Minimum temperature (°C) 1.22 ± 0.03 0.59 ± 0.07 0.98 ± 0.03 0.07 ± 0.02 -
Conductivity (W/m.K) 0.16 ± 0.09 1.00 ± 0.08 0.15 ± 0.03 0.88 ± 0.02 -
Heat flow rate (Kw.h) 0.188 ± 0.09 1.19 ± 0.08 0.17 ± 0.04 1.04 ± 0.01 -
Heat flow (W/m²) 0.10 ± 0.03 0.63 ± 0.05 0.09 ± 0.09 0.55 ± 0.03 -
Thermal resistance (K/W) 0.32 ± 0.08 0.050 ± 0.07 0.34 ± 0.04 0.06 ± 0.04 0.72

These results show that mortar containing PET have thermal insulation capabilities. Polymer
thermal conductivity property of 0.15 W/m.K (Table 1) of was inherited by the composite material
that despite being outside ASTM's (ASTM C 518, 2004) criteria for purely polymeric materials
taking the difference with conventional mortar by 8 times. Other thermodynamic properties, like
flow rate, flux and thermal resistance accompanies thermodynamics characteristic of the PET-
cement mixture and once again it is noted the action of the admixture in this mortar; since, due to
the air thermal conductivity of 0.023 W/m.K, lower than PET, mortars without admixtures are
slightly higher thermal insulators.
Fig. 14 illustrates the thermodynamic properties of mortars. Although they have different units,
they are in a single bar chart where in the abscissae axis the scale used is proportional to the
modulus of each variable.

Fig. 14 Bar graph containing all analyzed thermodynamic properties of mortars.

The ability of a material to catch fire is an important thermal property for building materials
analysis. the combustibility test report for combustion potentials of the analyzed mixtures are
presented in Table 5.

Table 1 Caption
Calculated variables Mortars with Criteria
PET-cement Sand-cement PET-cement Sand-cement ASTM E 136
with admixture with admixture
Bunsen burn temperature 750.11 ± 0.01 749.11 ± 0.02 752.11 ± 0.02 753.11 ± 0.06
(°C)
Max temperature surface (°C) 70.09 ± 0.01 728.89 ± 0.04 65.23 ± 0.02 710.56 ± 0.04
Initial weight (g) 208.65 ± 0.01 294.83 ± 0.09 176.91 ± 0.06 272.16 ± 0.04
Final weight (g) 204.12 ± 0.03 272.16 ± 0.07 167.83 ± 0.06 267.62 ± 0.01

The combustibility test showed that although PET is a potentially flammable material, the
composite has met the criteria determined by ASTM E136 (2004). PET-cement mortar still
showed few signs of scorching on its surface, with negligible mass losses. Fig. 15 shows
photographs of cylindrical specimens after the test. In this figure there are few manifestations of
combustion; for example: soot and singeing.

Fig. 15 Illustrative photographs of cylindrical specimens after combustibility test.

4. Conclusions

By critical analysis of the results presented in this paper it is possible to conclude that:

 Flake recycled PET improves the compressive strength of type II Portland cement mortars;
 The polymer increases the thermal insulate capacity when inserted into the cementitious
matrix of the composite material;
 The construction material produced with the PET-cement mixture complies with the
combustibility test determined by ASTM;
 However, further technical studies are still needed to attest to the viability of a building
material made of PET-cement;
 It is important to note the role of admixtures in these PET-containing mortars, since the
polymer is very hydrophobic, disrupting the homogeneity of the mortar.

Observing the recommendations and results, it is determined that it is a simple technique to use
recycled PET as an aggregate in mortars. More thorough future studies are still needed to imbue
more reliable for this new building material. The technique also brings sustainability to the
construction industry, since it reduces the use of natural resources and removes from the
environment a solid urban waste that brings many damages to society because it is difficult to
degrade.
Acknowledgments

The acknowledgments for conducting this study go to the technical team of the materials studies
division of the AMR-DCTA Aerospace Technology Center: São José dos Campos/Sao
Paulo/Brazil, in particular to Dr. Rodolfo Queiros de Padilha for their collaboration and for
allowing the use of the mechanical resistance testing laboratory and to Fábio Rogério de Oliveira
Moraes for the monitoring and assistance in the tests. Special thanks to the Paulista State
University Júlio de Mesquita Filho: Sorocaba/São Paulo/Brazil, for making the cylindrical
specimens. To the Institute of Advanced Studies IEAv: Sao Jose dos Campos/Sao Paulo/Brazil for
the microscopic analysis. Thanks also to AIRDEL Reciclagem LTDA Sao Paulo/Sao Paulo/Brazil
for providing the Flakes.
References

ASTM C 192M (2002), Standard practice for making and curing concrete test specimens in the laboratory,
American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 33M (2003), Standard specification for concrete aggregates, American Society for Testing and
Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM E 136 (2004), Standard test method for assessing combustibility of materials using a vertical tube
furnace at 750, American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 1585 (2004), Standard test method for measurement of rate of absorption of water by hydraulic-
cement concretes, American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 40M (2004), Standard test method for organic impurities in fine aggregates for concrete, American
Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 518 (2004), Standard test method for steady-state thermal transmission properties by means of the
heat flow meter apparatus, American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 39M (2005), Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens,
American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 150M (2007), Standard specification for Portland cement, American Society for Testing and
Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 188 (2009), Standard test method for density of hydraulic cement, American Society for Testing
and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 140M (2011), Standard test methods for sampling and testing concrete masonry units and related
units, American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 140M (2011), Standard test methods for sampling and testing concrete masonry units and related
units, American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 905-01 (2012), Standard test methods for apparent density of chemical-resistant mortars, grouts,
monolithic surfacings, and polymer concretes, American Society for Testing and Materials; West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 128 (2015), Standard test method for relative density (specific gravity) and absorption of fine
aggregate, American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 143Ma (2015), Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete, American Society
for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D 1621 (2016), Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid cellular plastics, American
Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 494M (2017), Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete, American Society for
Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 29M (2017), Standard test method for bulk density (“unit weight”) and voids in aggregate,
American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM C 117 (2017), Standard test method for materials finer than 75-m (no. 200) sieve in mineral
aggregates by washing, American Society for Testing and Materials; West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Bai, Y.L. and Teng, J.G. (2017), “Monotonic stress-strain behavior of steel rebars embedded in FRP-
confined concrete including buckling.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 21(5),
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000823.
Barabanshchikov, Y.G., Belyaeva, S., Avdeeva, A., and Perez, M. (2015). “Fiberglass reinforcement for
concrete.” Applied Mechanics and Materials, 725-726(2015), 475–480.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.725-726.475.
Canellas, S. S. (2005). “Recycling of pet bottles, aiming at substitution of small aggregate in mortar.”
M.S. Thesis, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, RJ.
Carneiro, E. P. (2011). “Mechanical properties of polymer mortar containing pet waste aggregates”. In.:
Proceedings of COBEM 2011 21st Brazilian Congress of Mechanical Engineering. October 24-28, 2011,
Natal, RN, Brazil.
Costanza, R., Alperovitz, G., Daly, H., Farley, J., Franco, C., Jackson, T., Kubiszewski, I., Schor, J., and
Victor, P. (2013). Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature. ANU Press,
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hgz53>.
United States Green Building Council, U. S. G. B. (2019). Green building; USGBC, Washington, D.C.,
EUA. https://new.usgbc.org/ 2019
D’Ambrieres, W. (2019). “Plastics recycling worldwide: current overview and desirable changes.” The
Journal of field actions, 19(2019), 12–21. http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5102.
Garcia, J. (2016). “Catalyst: Design challenges for the future of plastics recycling.” Chem, 1(6), 813-81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chempr.2016.11.003.
Ispir, M. (2015). “Monotonic and cyclic compression tests on concrete confined with PET-FRP.” Journal of
Composites for Construction, 19(1), 04014034. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000490.
Iyappan, M. and Pazhani, K.C. (2018). “Experimental study of demolished building waste and PET bottles
used in concrete.” International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 2(3), 2726 –
2745.
Jambeck, J.R., Geyer, R., Wilcox, C., Siegler, T.R., Perryman, M., Andrady, A., Narayan, R., and Law, K.
L. (2015). “Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean.” Science, 347(6223), 768–771.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352.
Kakooei, S., Akil, H.M., Jamshidi, M., and Rouhi, J. (2012). “The effects of polypropylene fibers on the
properties of reinforced concrete structures.” Construction and Building Materials, 27(1), 73-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.015.
Kats, G.H. (2003). “Green building costs and financial benefits.” Report, Massachusetts Technology
Collaborative, Massachusetts, USA.
Kosmatka, S.H. and Wilson, M.L. (2011). EB001: The guide to applications, methods, and materials.
Portland Cement Association (PCA), Skokie, Illinois.
Rahman, A. and Ueda, T. (2016). “In-plane shear performance of masonry walls after strengthening by two
different FRPS.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 20(5), 04016019.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000661.
Safinia, S. and Al-kalbani, A. (2016). “Use of recycled plastic water bottles in concrete blocks”. Procedia
Engineering, 164(2016), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.11.612.
Saikia, N. and Brito, J. (2013). “Waste polyethylene terephthalate as an aggregate in concrete”. Materials
Research, 16(2), 341 – 350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-14392013005000017.
Sartori, S., Latrônico, F., and Campos, L. (2014). “Sustainability and sustainable development: A taxonomy
in the field of literature”. Ambiente sociedade, 17(1), 1–20.
Shackelford, J.F. (2014). Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers. Pearson, London, United
Kingdom.
Strong, M. F. (1991). “Eco ’92: Critical challenges and global solutions”. Journal of International Affairs,
JSTOR, 44(2), 287–300. www.jstor.org/stable/24357310.
Vehmaa, A., Karvinen, M., and Keskinen, M. (2018). “Building a more sustainable society? A case study
on the role of sustainable development in the education and early career of water and environmental
engineers”. Sustainability, 10(8), 2605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082605.
Wang, Y., Li, V. C., and Backer, S. (1987). “Analysis of synthetic fiber pull-out from a cement matrix”.
MRS Proceedings, 114, 159-166. http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/84740.
Wiliński, D., Łukowski, P., and Rokicki, G. (2016). “Application of fibres from recycled pet bottles for
concrete reinforcement”. Journal of Building Chemistry, 1(2016), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.17461/j.buildchem.2016.101.
Zuo, J. and Zhao, Z. (2014). “Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review”.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021.