Machine Translated by Google

Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

An experimental study on effect of aluminum composite panel waste on

performance of cement concrete
ÿ
Ajmal Paktiawal , Mehtab Alam

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi 110025, India

article info abstract

Article history: In the present experimental work, the efforts have been made to use the aluminum composite panel waste
Received 6 April 2020 collected from a construction site in high strength concrete. This waste of aluminum composite panel contains
Revised 15 May 2020 aluminum coversheets and core of low-density polyethylene. In this investigation, con-crete with aluminum
Accepted 1 July 2020
Available online xxxx
waste with varying percentages of 2, 4, 7, and 12% by weight of cement, and LDPE as an additive mass of
3.5, 7, 12.5, and 21% by weight of cement were studied. The concrete was tested in the fresh and hardened
state. In the fresh state, concrete was tested for workability and expan-sion. In the hardened state, the
Keywords:
concrete was tested for various strength, Non-destructive tests, and dura-bility tests. Based on the results
Waste aluminum composite panel
Low-density polyethylene
showed for 28 days, it can be reported that the use of replaced aluminum waste and LDPE as additive waste
Concrete by weight of cement had a significant decrease in workability as well as strength.
Admixture
Durability 2020 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction 1.2. Literature review on mechanical performance of concrete

1.1. Background
Aluminum is by far the most widely used metal in the world after steel
with an annual consumption of 88 million tons [1].
According to the North American Aluminum Industry Sustainabil-ity Report
published by The Aluminum Association, globally, recy-cling of aluminum
is increasing up to 90% for transportation and construction works, and
around 70% for beverage cans [2]. In the EU, the total consumption of
aluminum was around 120Mt, and the total quantity of old scrap was 2Mt
in 2004. Whereas, the total amount of e-waste on yearly based was
estimated at nearly 4Lac [3]. According to [4] globally, the annual rate of
manufacturing of plastic exceeded 150 million tones as average. This
production of plastic utilized in plastic bags, liquid containers, toys, building
materials, household, and industrial products.
ÿ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ajmal.paktiawal@gmail.com (A. Paktiawal), malam1@jmi.ac.in (M. Alam).
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
containing aluminum waste
Numerous studies have been reported to address the fresh and
hardened properties of concrete containing aluminum waste as a
replacement of cement or sand [5–13].
This paper studied the influence of aluminum byproduct waste in
concrete production. Aluminum byproduct waste replaced with varying
percentages of 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25% by cement weight.
In this research work, the fresh and hardened properties of con-crete
were studied. In fresh state swelling and workability tests were carried out.
Whereas, in the hardened state, compressive and flexural strength were
performed after 7 and 28 days. It was reported that aluminum waste in
concrete had remarkably decreased the workability, compressive strength,
flexural strength, and density of the concrete. This decrease can be
attributed to the released hydrogen gas produced by the chemical reaction
between aluminum and cement alkaline [5]. This paper reported the effect
of recycled aluminum dross suitable for concreting under hot cli-mate
conditions. In this research work, various strength, water absorption, and
acid attack tests were carried out after 7, 14, and 28 days. Aluminum dross
replaced with cement with varying per-centages of 0, 10, 20, and 30%. It
was reported that a 20% replace-ment level imparted better strength to
the concrete mix. It was also found that a 20% replacement level of
aluminum dross caused to delay the initial setting time of concrete. Higher
reduction in

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.024
2090-4479/ 2020 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: A. Paktiawal and M. Alam, An experimental study on effect of aluminum composite panel waste on performance of cement con-
crete, Ain Shams Engineering Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.07.024
Machine Translated by Google
A. Paktiawal, M. Alam
flexural strength recorded for 30% replacement of aluminum dross.
Also, aluminum dross showed 20% to 30% more resistance to acid attack [6]. This
paper reported on the mechanical and corrosion of hardened concrete using aluminum
dross. Aluminum dross in the concrete mix helps to decrease the quantity of raw
materials and utilized as a replacement of cement. In this research work, five different
mixtures of concrete were studied in which aluminum
dross content were used with varied percentage of 0%, 5% 10%, 15% and 30% by
cement weight. Concrete specimens were tested for compressive strength, and water
absorption for 3, 7, and 28 days, respectively. It was concluded that a 15%
replacement of aluminum dross caused to accelerates hardening of concrete. The
addition of aluminum dross content caused entrapped air and resulted in decreasing
compressive strength as well as the perme-ability of concrete. Aluminum dross with a
varied percentage of 0 and 10% caused to decreased hydroxide ion concentration
ratio from 1300 to 787 and resulted in a decline in the corrosion rate [7]. This paper
reported the effect of fine particles of aluminum powder on workability, compressive
strength and water absorp-tion of aerated cement paste and aerated mortar. For
aerated cement paste and mortar, the cement-sand ratio of 1:1 was selected in this
study. w/c ratio for aerated cement paste varied from 0.4 to 0.8. whereas, for cement
mortar w/c ratio varied from 0.3 to 0.6. Aluminum powder with 0.25% and 0.5% by
weight of cement was replaced. Aluminum powder with varying grading of fineness of
50, 75, 85, and 95% of their particles passed through 45 mm sieve. It was reported
that aluminum powder with 50% fine-ness imparted better strength and low water
absorption. Also, for the fixed replaced level of aluminum powder and w/c ratio, the
dry density decreased with an increase in the fineness of the alu-minum powder [8].
This paper reported the effect of aluminum waste on concrete strength. Aluminum
waste sieved through 150 mm sieve and used with varying percentages of 0%, 5%,
10%, 20%, 30% and 40% by weight of cement. A total of 90 specimens were cast for
compressive and flexural strength and tested for 3, 7, 28, 60, and 90 days. The
optimum value for compressive and flexural strength was obtained by a 10%
replacement of aluminum waste. It was also reported that aluminum waste played a
poz-zolanic role which retards the setting time of concrete mix and, therefore it was
recommended for hot-weather concreting [9]. This paper reported waste aluminum to
minimize alkali-silica reaction in concrete. Aluminum particles and the aluminum
powder was utilized in this study. Aluminum particles with 2% and 4% by vol-ume of
mortar were used. Whereas, aluminum powder of average particle size of 65 mm with
0.063, 0.125, 0.25, and 0.5% by volume of mortar were used with a fixed w/c ratio of
0.47. Tests were car-ried out for the expansion and mitigation of ASR. Prism
specimens of size 25 mm 25 mm 285 mm were prepared for the expan-sion test. It
was reported that aluminum particles with 2% and 4%, and aluminum powder with
0.063% by volume had remarkable control on alkali-silica reaction [10]. This paper
studied the effect of aluminum waste powder of an average particle size of 65 mm on
the compressive strength of concrete. Aluminum waste col-lected from aluminum
extrusion plants and replaced with cement by varying percentages of 0, 5, 10, 15,
and 20%. The prediction of the compressive strength of aluminum waste cement
concrete obtained from lab results was comparted with Scheffe’s theory. It was
reported that the compressive strength result obtained from the laboratory was agreed
with Scheffe’s model. It can also be con-cluded that aluminum waste absorbed the
water from the concrete mix and hence decreased the workability [11]. This paper
reported the influence of aluminum waste on concrete strength. Sand was replaced
by aluminum waste as 1,2, and 5% by weight. It was reported that with increasing
aluminum waste content, resulted in decreasing compressive strength [12]. This
paper studied waste aluminum dross as a foaming agent in autoclaved aerated
concrete.
2
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
Three mixes of the dross were designed. Al powder was utilized to prepare control
autoclave aerated concrete mix and compare the result for the generation of gas. It
was reported that 15.6 g of alu-minum dust produced the same gas as 1 g of
aluminum powder. It was also reported that the inclusion of aluminum dust did not
change the volume and density of autoclaved aerated concrete [13].
1.3. Literature review on mechanical performance of concrete containing
low-density polyethylene (LDPE)
This paper reported on the role of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) waste in
cement mortar. The source of HDPE was bottles and food crates. These wastes cut
and grinded into small parts and sieved to obtain fine particles. Cement was replaced
with high-density polyethylene by various percentages of 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50,
60, and 80%. Portland cement mixed with polyethy-lene waste and placed in a mould
and tested for moisture, worka-bility, and strength at 3, 7, and 28 days. It was
reported that the density of cement mortar decreased as compared to the plain
cement mortar. It was also found that the maximum compressive strength imparted
by 25, 30, and 35% replacement level of HDPE, whereas, 25 and 30% gave a better
result in terms of workability [14]. This paper studied the influence of sawdust ash
and low-density polyethylene on some properties of concrete. Cement and fine
aggregate were replaced by sawdust ash and low-density poly-ethylene, respectively.
Sand with various percentages of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20% was substituted with LDPE,
and cement with different percentages of 0, 1, 3, 5%, and 10% were replaced with
sawdust ash.
Various strength tests were carried out for 28 days. It was reported that sawdust ash
and LDPE at 3% and 5% replacement level imparted better results for compressive,
split tensile, and flexural strength. It was also concluded that by increasing the content
of these wastes, decreased workability [15]. This work reported the utilization of waste
plastic in sand concrete. Two types of plastic waste, namely, polyethylene
terephthalate (PET) and LDPE were utilized as fiber and fine sand (powder) in sand
concrete. Sand with a varied percentage of 10, 20, 30, and 40% were replaced with
plas-tic aggregate (LDPE) of length 2 mm and plastic fiber (PET) of length 40 mm
with a varied percentage of 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2% was replaced by volume of sand
concrete mix. Compressive and flexural strength were tested for 28 days. It was
reported that for better strength results, replacement level should be restricted to
1.5% and 20% for plastic fiber and LDPE, respectively. It was also con-cluded that
the workability of concrete decreased by 60% with plastic fiber and increased by 40%
with LDPE [16]. This paper stud-ied plastic bags to assess the impact and abrasion
response of con-crete. Plastic bags with varying percentages of 0, 5, 10, 15, and
20% were replaced by fine sand. It was reported that the workability, various strength,
static and dynamic modulus of elasticity decreased with increasing waste content.
The decrease in strength was interpreted by the presence of void between mortar
and waste plastic bags particles diagnosed by scanning electron microscopic analysis.
But there was a remarkable improvement in impact as well as abrasion resistance
capacity of plastic waste [17]. This paper reported on the utilization of recycled plastic
in concrete.
Linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) was replaced with red sand, fly ash, and
quarry fine at 30 and 50% replacement level by weight. Dry density, compressive,
and flexural strength were stud-ied for 7, 14, and 28 days. It was reported that the
employment of recycled plastic aggregate (RPA) caused to decrease in compressive
strength from 40 to 53% as compared to lightweight aggregate con-crete. Whereas,
RPA caused a negligible decline in flexural strength attributed to the ductile behavior
of LLDPE waste [18]. This work reported the influence of waste plastic rolled up from
plastic con-tainers as a replacement of fine aggregate in concrete. Waste plas-
Machine Translated by Google
A. Paktiawal, M. Alam
tic with varying percentages of 0, 10, 15, and 20% was replaced by
sand. Laboratory tests were conducted for workability, dry density,
and strength for 3, 7, 14, and 28 days. It was reported that the com-
pressive and flexural strength decreased with increasing waste
plastic content. It was also concluded that a 20% replacement level
of waste plastic imparted lower flexural strength at 28 days. The
fresh density of waste plastic concrete decreased by 5%, 7%, and
8.7%for10, 15, and 20% replacement of sand [19].
2. Experimental scheme
2.1. Materials
Materials given in the following tables with their properties
were used to prepare concrete in this work.
2.1.1. Cement
Ordinary Portland Cement of grade 43, fresh lot of wonder
brand confirming to [20] was delivered by the supplier. The
cement has been tested for its physical properties, following BIS
[21–25]. The results are given in Table 1.
2.1.2. Fine aggregate
Natural river sand as fine aggregate has been used in this study.
Sieve analysis of this fine aggregate is shown in Table 2. The fine
aggregate is of zone II as per [26]. Other physical properties of fine
aggregate as shown in Table 3 has been found out following
[27,28].
2.1.3. Coarse aggregate
The crushed natural stone aggregate of particle size of 20 mm
and 10 mm were used as coarse aggregate. Other properties of
the coarse aggregate were found out as shown in Table 4 comply-ing with
[26,28].
2.1.4. Aluminum composite panel waste
This waste of 4 mm thick aluminum composite Aludecor panels
of 3 mm thick LDPE core sandwiched by1mm thick aluminum
sheets has been collected from the construction site. In order to
determine the proportion of aluminum and low-density polyethy-lene, thirty
samples of the waste each of 100 g was randomly taken
and aluminum dross was manually segregated from each sample
Fig. 1. Segregated components of the waste were weighed and
the average percentage for aluminum dross and LDPE were found
to be 36% and 64%, respectively as given in Table 4.
2.1.5. Admixture
In this research work polycarboxylate ether-based superplasti-cizer
(High range water reducer) which is new category and
improved version of plasticizer is used, and permit the large reduc-tion of
water due to their chemical structure [29]. The properties of
this type of admixture is give in Table 5.
Table 1
Physical property of OPC cement.
S/No. Property Results
1 Standard consistency 29.5%
2 Initial setting time 151 min
3 Final setting time 438 min
4 Specific gravity 3.1
5 Fineness 97.5%
6 Compressive strength 3 days
7 days
28 days
3
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
2.2. Mix proportion
Concrete of grade M60 was proportioned complying with
[30,31] and standard cube specimens of size 100mmx100m-mx100mm
and cylinder specimen of size 100 mm diameter and
200 mm length were cast of this control concrete. The observed
average slump of this concrete was 105 mm. This concrete was
used in this study as control concrete. The mix proportion is given
in Table 6. Aluminum composite panel waste consists of aluminum
and LDPE. The cement was replaced by aluminum dross waste with
varying percentages of 2, 4, 7, and 12% by weight, and the respec-tive
LDPE was utilized as an additive with 3.5%, 7%, 12.5%, and 21%
of the weight of cement. The mix so obtained were designated as
R0A0, R2A3.5, R4A7, R7A12.5, and R12A21, given in Table 7.
2.3. Preparation of test specimens
Standard concrete specimens of size 100mmx100mmx100mm
were cast for compressive strength, rebound hammer, ultrasonic
pulse velocity, and acid attack tests. Also, standard cylinder speci-mens
of size 100 mm diameter and 200 mm length complying to
[32] were cast for splitting tensile strength.
2.4. Tests conducted
To assess the plastic properties of control concrete and concrete
with aluminum composite panel waste, tests complying with [33]
were conducted for the slump and expansion. For evaluating
mechanical properties of concrete mix, concrete cube specimens
of size 100 mm 100 mm 100mm and cylinder of size
100 mm diameter and 200 mm length were tested for compressive
and splitting tensile strength [34,35]. Non-destructive tests,
namely, ultrasonic pulse velocity and rebound hammer were car-ried out.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test was performed to check
the hardened concrete for uniformity, cracks, and voids [36].
Whereas, the Rebound hammer test was performed to assess the
correlation between rebound hammer index and compressive
strength [37]. Acid attack test was also carried out for the durabil-ity of
control concrete and the concrete with aluminum composite
panel waste by immersing these specimens in a 5% solution of
H2SO4.
3. Result and discussions
3.1. Workability of concrete
The workability of control concrete and concrete with partial
replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste and LDPE as an
additive was measured by slump test. The slump test results are
shown in Fig. 2. The slump for the control mix was 105 mm.
Whereas, concrete with partial replacement of cement with 2, 4,
7, and 12% by weight, and LDPE as an additive with 3.5, 7, 12.5,
and 21% by weight of cement were observed as 90, 75, 70, and
Requirement as per BIS Code
-
Not less than 30mins
Not more than 600mins
-
Less than 10%
23.5 N/mm2 23 N/mm2
33.6 N/mm2 48 33 N/mm2
N/mm2 43 N/mm2
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2
Sieve analysis of fine aggregate.

IS Sieve size Weight of aggregate retained (gram) %retained Cum % retained %passing

Sample No.

I II III Avg
1 2345 6 7 8

10 0 0 0 0 0 0 100
4.75 143 148 149 146.67 72 14.67 14.67 85.3
2.36 73 72 71 7.2 21.87 78.1
1.18 187 186 195 189.33 18.933 40.803 59.2
600 159 159 177 165 16.5 57.303 42.7
300 176 172 163 170.33 17.033 74.336 25.7
150 208 213 197 206 20.6 94.936 5.06
Pan 54 50 48 50.67 5.07 100 0

Fineness modulus, PCum % retained/100 = 303.92/100 = 3.04 303.92

Table 3
Physical properties of F.A., C.A. and LDPE.

S. No. Property Test result

BUT THAT LDPE

1 Specific gravity 2.64 2.96 –

2 Fineness modulus 3.04 – –

3 Water absorption 1.52% 0.3% 0.03

4 Moisture content 0.42% 0.25% 0

5 Length and width (mm)

– –
11.5 and 5.3
6 Color – –

Space grey

Table 4
Percentage of aluminum and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) waste.

Samples Al(gram) Dec. (gram) Sq. of dev. S.D. WHAT V LDPE (gram) Dec. (gram) Sq. of dev. S.D. WHAT V

1 35 36 1 2.78 7.72 65 64 1 2.78 4.35

2 38 4 62 4

3 41 25 59 25
4 34 4 66 4
5 40 16 60 16
6 37 1 63 1

7 34 4 66 4
8 39 9 61 9

9 33 9 67 9

10 38 4 62 4
11 36 0 64 0

12 39 9 61 9

13 32 16 68 16
14 35 1 65 1

15 39 9 61 9

16 33 9 67 9

17 42 36 58 36
18 34 4 66 4
19 37 63 1

20 39 1 61 9

21 34 9 66 4
22 35 41 65 1

23 33 9 67 9

24 33 9 67 9

25 36 0 64 0

26 38 4 62 4
27 35 65 1

28 31 1 69 25
29 37 25 1 63 1

30 36 0 64 0

Total 1083 Total 225 Total 1917 Total 225

50 mm. The decrease in slump value was obsereved as 14.29,
28.57, 33.33, and 52.38% as compared to control concrete as shown
in Fig. 3. To measure the effect of LDPE waste only as an additive on
the workability of concrete, the second mix with the same propor-tion
was prepared with LDPE as an additive. The workability of
concrete containing LDPE waste as an additive with 3.5, 7, 12.5,
and 21% by weight of cement were observed as 95, 80, 70, and
65 mm. The reduction in the slump, in this case, is 9.52, 23.81,
33.33, and 38.10% as compared to control concrete as shown in
Fig. 3. It is important to note here that the concrete with partial
replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste by weight
together with LDPE waste as an additive, the slump decreased by

4
Machine Translated by Google
A. Paktiawal, M. Alam
(a) Aluminum waste with LDPE
Fig. 1. Aluminum composite panel waste after grinding obtained as aluminum and LDPE waste.
Table 5
Physical and mechanical properties of Admixture.
Appearance Yellowish brown liquid
% Solid residue 38%
pH 5.3–5.4
Specific Gravity 1.09
0, 5.55, 6.67, 0, and 30%, respectively as compared to LDPE waste
concrete only. Aluminum being the most violent ingredient reacts
with unburnt calcium hydroxide available in the cement within
the first 24 h and form additional tricalcium aluminate and
releases hydrogen gas. The reaction of the tricalcium aluminate
with water is comparatively intense and leads to the instant stiff-ening of the paste
is responsible for the higher reduction in the
slump with the increasing aluminum dross waste in concrete
[38]. LDPE crumbs are found forming pockets of mortar lumps
around them thereby resulting in a kind of segregation also
responsible for lowering the slump. For smaller content of LDPE
waste in concrete displays marginally lower value of slump, how-ever, for the
higher content of LDPE waste present in concrete pro-duces balling (lumps) effect
and reduced the slump by much.
3.2. Expansion of concrete
Expansion of control concrete and concrete with partial replace-ment of
cement by aluminum dross waste by weight, and LDPE as
an additive waste was measured after two hours of casting. Expan-sion results
are plotted in Fig. 4. By considering Fig. 4, it can be
observed that the expansion of concrete increased with a higher
replacement level of aluminum waste content. The expansion of
concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross
waste by weight with 0, 2, 4, 7, and 12%, and LDPE as an additive
with 0, 3.5, 7, 12.5, and 21% by weight of cement was reported
as 0, 5, 8, 12, and 20 mm, respectively. The increase in the expan-sion is 2.5, 4,
6, and 10% as compare to control concrete as shown in
Fig. 5. The reason for expansion can be attributed to the aluminum
waste added to the cement paste, resulting in the formation of
Table 6
Mix proportion for control concrete mix.
Cement (kg/m3 ) FA(kg/m3 )
449 777
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
(b) Segregated aluminum particles from LDPE
hydrogen gas, make highly air-entrained or expansive concrete.
The expansion of concrete is shown in Fig. 6.
3.3. Dry density
The dry density of the control concrete was 2440 kg/m3 ,
Whereas, concrete with partial replacement of cement by alu-minum dross waste
with varying percentages of 2, 4, 7, and 12%
by weight, and LDPE as an additive mass of 3.5, 7, 12.5, and 21%
by weight of cement were found as 2354, 2346, 2247 and
2244 kg/m3 as shown in Fig. 7. In this case the dry density of con-crete with partial
replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste
and LDPE as an additive waste decreased with increasing waste
content by 3.52, 3.85, 7.91, and 8.03% as compared to control con-crete as shown
in Fig. 8. In order to measure the effect of LDPE
waste only as an additive on the dry density of concrete, the second
mix with the same proportion was prepared with LDPE as an addi-tive with 0, 3.5,
7, 12.5, and 21% by weight of cement. The dry den-sity of this concrete containing
LDPE waste as an additive was
The reduc-
observed as 2448, 2435, 2428, 2410, and 2396 kg/m3 .
tion in the dry density, in this case, is 0.53, 0.82, 1.55, and 2.12%
as compared to control concrete as shown in Fig. 8. It is important
to note here that the concrete with partial replacement of cement
by aluminum dross waste by weight together with LDPE an addi-tive, the dry
density decreased by 0.37, 3.44, 3.49, 7.25, and
6.77%, respectively as compared to LDPE waste concrete only. This
reduction of dry density can be attributed to the (i) chemical reac-tion that takes
place between aluminum waste and alkali present
in cement concrete. This chemical reaction is releasing the hydro-gen gas and
produce a tiny bubble rising to the top surface of con-crete and start the expansion,
which contributes to the increase
voids, hence decreasing the density of concrete and (ii) LDPE
crumbs are found forming pockets of fine aggregate around them,
causing a bit segregation contributes decreasing the dry density.
(iii) Aluminum dross waste and LDPE being the materials of low
specific gravity (2.7 and 0.93) as compare to cement (3.1) is one
of the reasons of lower dry density of concrete with partial replace-ment of cement
by these wastes.
CA(kg/m3 ) w/c ratio Admixture (%)
1113 0.35 0.43
5
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 7
Mix proportion for aluminum composite panel waste.

Mix designation Cement (kg/m3 ) Replaced Al (%) Al(kg/m3 ) LDPE (%) LDPE as additive mass (kg/m3 )

R0A0 449.00 0 0 0 0

R2A3.5 440.00 2 8.98 3.5 15.72

R4A7 431.00 4 17.96 31.43
R7A12.5 417.57 7 31.43 7 12.5 56.13
R12A21 395.12 12 53.88 21 94.30

110

100

90

80

70

60
Slump
value
(mm)

50

40

30

20

10

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%) Additive waste level (%)

Fig. 2. Slump values of control concrete and concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste by weight together with LDPE waste and LDPE waste only.

60
52.38

50

38.1
40 33.33 33.33

28.57
Decrease
slump
%
in

30 23.81

20 14.29

9.52

10
0 0

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21 A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

Fig. 3. Percentage decrease in slump.

25

20
Expansion
(mm)

15

10

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

Fig. 4. Expansion of concrete containing replaced aluminum dross waste and LDPE as an Additive.

6
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

10

6
expansion
Increase
%
in

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

Fig. 5. Percentage increase in expansion of concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste and LDPE as an additive.

compressive strength of concrete containing replaced aluminum

Fig. 6. Showing expansion of concrete with partial replacement of cement by
aluminum dross waste and LDPE as an additive.
3.4. Compressive strength
Two types of concrete, one with partial replacement of cement
by aluminum dross waste, and LDPE as an additive, and two- hav-ing
LDPE waste only as an additive, were tested for compressive
strength after 7, 28, and 210 days. The compressive strength
results are presented in Table 8, and Fig. 9. The reduction of
dross waste, and LDPE as an additive after 28 days is found to be
26.3, 35, 53.7, and 59.3% as compared to control concrete as shown
in Fig. 10. The result for compressive strength after 210 days for
control concrete is found as 66.8 MPa. Whereas, the reduction after
210 days has been found 25.7, 32.9, 43.7, and 49.1% as compared to
the control concrete as shown in Fig. 10. The comparison of reduc-tions
in compressive strength shows that reduction in strength
decreases with age ranging from 2% to 17%.
The reduction in compressive strength might be attributed to
the (i) tricalcium aluminate reacts with gypsum (CaSO4) to form
calcium sulfoaluminate (3CaO.Al2O3.3CaSO431H2O), resulting to
prevent immediate stiffening of paste and from other side alu-minum
waste react with alkali releasing hydrogen gas, therefore
hydrated aluminum and hydrogen gas formed slows the chemical
reaction between C3A and CaSO4 forming lesser ettringite due to
expansion of paste. The expansion results into weaker bonding
with coarse aggregates particles is responsible for lesser compres-sive
strength of the concrete [38] and (ii) LDPE crumbs also form
weaker bond with cement gel by forming low density pockets of
finer materials around them. The low-density pockets of the fines
join together and take the form of balls with higher quantity of
LDPE waste called balling effect affects the compressive of the con-
crete severely.

2500

2000

1500
density
m3)
(kg/
Dry

1000

500

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%) Additive waste level (%)

Fig. 7. Dry density of control concrete and concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste together with LDPE and LDPE waste only.

7
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

9
8.03
7.91

6
Decrease
density
dry
%
in

3.85
3.52
4

3
2.12

1.55
2

0.82
0.53
1

0 0

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21 A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

Fig. 8. Percentage decrease in dry density of concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste together with LDPE, and LDPE waste only as compare to
control concrete.

Table 8
Compressive strength results.

Mix Age Sample test results (MPa) Average strength Standard deviation Coefficient of variation Strength decrease
designation (days) (MPa) (MPa) (%) (%)
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

R0A0 7 49.0 50.0 48.2 46.3 47.8 48.3 1.40 2.90 0.0
R2A3.5 32.9 34.8 35.1 36.0 33.7 34.5 1.21 3.51 28.6
R4A7 31.5 32.0 31.7 32.6 30.4 31.6 24.0 25.3 25.1 22.9 24.7 0.81 2.56 34.6
R7A12.5 24.4 18.4 21.8 19.2 20.4 20.0 20.0 1.00 4.10 49.5
R12A21 1.28 6.40 58.6

R0A0 28 61.6 64.1 65.8 63.1 60.9 63.1 1.96 3.11 0.0
R2A3.5 45.4 47.6 45.0 46.3 48.2 46.5 42.9 41.9 40.9 44.5 35.2 1.38 2.97 26.3
R4A7 41.1 29.0 28.1 31.5 28.3 29.3 29.2 26.8 27.4 23.9 22.6 3.55 8.64 35.0
R7A12.5 27.8 25.7 1.36 4.66 53.7
R12A21 2.31 8.99 59.3

R0A0 210 68.1 64.7 67.5 – 51.6 49.1 48.2 –

66.8 1.81 2.71 0.0
R2A3.5 – 46.2 42.6 45.5 – 37.1 35.9 –
49.6 1.76 3.55 25.7
R4A7 39.8 – 33.6 36.0 32.2 – –
44.8 1.91 4.26 32.9
R7A12.5 –
37.6 2.00 5.32 43.7
R12A21 –
34.0 1.92 5.65 49.1

A0 7 50.7 48.8 49.6 – 44.8 45.8 47.6 –

49.7 0.95 1.91 0.0
A3.5 – 44.9 42.9 43.9 – 37.7 38.2 –
46.1 1.42 3.10 7.2
A7 38.7 – 34.2 33.2 34.8 – –
43.9 1.00 2.28 11.7
A12.5 –
38.2 0.50 1.31 23.1
A21 –
34.1 0.81 2.37 31.4

A0 28 61.0 58.9 60.3 – 54.1 53.5 55.5 –

60.1 1.10 1.83 0.0
A3.5 – 49.0 49.7 48.4 – 45.6 43.5 –
54.4 1.02 1.88 9.5
A7 44.4 – –
49.0 0.65 1.33 18.5
A12.5 –
44.5 1.05 2.36 26.0
A21 40.0 42.6 42.7 – –
41.8 1.53 3.66 30.4

To measure the effect of LDPE waste only as an additive on the 3.5. Splitting tensile strength
compressive strength of concrete, the second mix with the same
proportion was prepared with LDPE waste as an additive. The com- Both control and concrete with partial replacement of cement
pressive strength of control concrete and concrete containing LDPE by aluminum dross waste together with LDPE as an additive in
waste as an additive with 3.5, 7, 12.5, and 21% by weight of cement concrete were tested for splitting tensile strength at 7 and 28 days,
were observed as 60.1, 54.4, 49, 44.5, and 41.8 MPa after 28 days. respectively, as shown in Fig. 11 and presented in Table 9. From
The reduction in compressive strength is found as 9.5, 18.5, 26, and Fig. 11, it can be concluded that maximum split tensile strength
30.4% as compared to control concrete as shown in Fig. 9. The com- is imparted by control concrete mix and significantly reduced by
pressive strength after 210 days is found increasing by 5.9, 6.7, 9.0, increasing replaced and additive wastes. The percentage decrease
28.8, and 32.3% as compared to 28 days. Densified and hardened in splitting tensile strength is shown in Fig. 12. The reason for
dicalcium silicate, C2S might be responsible for improved compres- the split tensile strength reduction is similar to the crushing
sive strength of concrete of higher age. strength.

8
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

70

60

50

40

30
Compressive
Strength
(MPa)

20

10

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21 A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

7days 28days 210days

Fig. 9. Compressive strength of concrete containing replaced aluminum dross waste and LDPE as additive waste.
58.6

59.3
53.7

60
49.5

49.1
43.7

50
34.6

32.9

40

31.4

30.4
28.6
26.3

25.7

23.1
30
18.5

20
11.7
9.5
compressive
Decrease
strength
%
in

7.2

10
0

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21 A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

7days 28days 210days

Fig. 10. Percentage decrease in compressive strength.

2
strength
tensile
(MPa)
Split

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

7days 28days

Fig. 11. Split tensile strength of concrete containing replaced aluminum dross waste and LDPE as additive waste.

9
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 9
Split tensile strength results.

Mix designation Age (days) Sample test Average strength (MPa) Standard deviation (MPa) Coefficient of variation (%) Strength decrease (%)
results (MPa)

S1 S2 S3

R0A0 7 2.7 2.9 3.1 2.9 0.20 6.9 0.0

R2A3.5 2.5 2.3 2.6 2.5 0.15 6.0 13.8
R4A7 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.8 0.20 11.1 38.0
R7A12.5 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.6 0.15 9.4 44.8
R12A21 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 0.11 7.8 51.7

R0A0 28 3.9 4.2 4.1 4.1 0.15 3.7 0.0

R2A3.5 2.9 3.4 3.0 3.1 0.26 8.4 24.4
R4A7 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 0.15 7.5 51.2
R7A12.5 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 0.10 5.3 53.7
R12A21 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.8 0.15 8.3 56.1

56.1
53.7
60 51.2 51.7

44.8
50
38

40
Decrease
strength
splitting
tensile
%
in

24.4
30

13.8
20

10
0 0

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

7days 28days

Fig. 12. Percentage decrease in splitting tensile strength.

3.6. Ultrasonic pulse velocity tion that took place between aluminum waste and alkali present in
cement. This chemical reaction releasing the hydrogen gas and
The ultrasonic pulse velocity test assesses the quality of con-crete produce a tiny bubble coming to the top surface of concrete and
in terms of homogeneity, presence of cracks, and voids with-out start the expansion, which contributes to the increase voids, hence
destructing the concrete member or structure [30]. The decreasing the UPV as shown in Fig. 15. It is important to note here
specimens were removed from the curing tank and kept at labora-tory that the control concrete and concrete with partial replacement of
room temperature for 24 h, then pulse velocity test has been cement by aluminum dross waste with 2, 4, 7, and 12% by weight,
carried out on side four faces of the cube specimens of size 150m- and LDPE as an additive with 3.5, 7, 12.5, and 21% after 210 days
mx150mmx150mm, and four observations on every two opposite UPV testing are increased by 1.10, 2.59, 2.66, 5.13, and 5.29% as
faces have been taken. For characterizing the quality of concrete compared to 28 days. This shows that the quality of concrete
in terms of pulse velocity, the recommendations [30] are shown improves with age. Improvement of quality of concrete of higher
in Table 10. The UPV results for concrete with wastes of age 28 age of curing is due to the densification of dicalcium silicate, C2S.
and 210 days are discussed below: To measure the effect of LDPE waste only as an additive on the
Ultrasonic pulse velocity results after 28 and 210 days: ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete, the second mix with the same
The results for ultrasonic pulse velocity are presented in proportion was prepared with LDPE waste as an additive. The
Table 11 and plotted in Figs. 13 and 14. Results for UPV after 28 days result of ultrasonic pulse velocity of control concrete and
28 days show that control concrete is of excellent quality. Whereas, concrete with LDPE waste as an additive with 3.5, 7, and 12.5 are
concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross of excellent quality and 21% is marginally less than excellent. The
waste with 2, 4, 7, and 12% by weight, and LDPE as an additive with decline in UPV results can be attributed to the increased dosage
3.5, 7, 12.5, and 21% by weight of cement are of good quality. The of LDPE waste content in the concrete, created holes and pores
reduction in pulse velocity can be attributed to the chemical reac- within the concrete. Therefore, it decreased the UPV results as
shown in Fig. 15. The test procedure is shown in Fig. 16.

Table 10 3.7. Rebound hammer test

Pulse velocity criterion for concrete quality grading.

S. No. Pulse velocity by cross probing (km/s) Concrete quality grading The rebound hammer test is a non-destructive test that is used
1. Above 4.5 Excellent for assessing the likely compressive strength of concrete with the
2. 3.5 to 4.5 Good help of a suitable correlation between rebound index and compres-sive
3. 3.0 to 3.5 Medium strength [31]. In this investigation, rebound hammer tests
4. Bellow 3.0 Doubtful
were carried out on concrete cube specimens of size
10
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 11
Ultrasonic pulse velocity results after 28 and 210 days.

Mix designation Age (days) Ultrasonic pulse velocity Average UPV (km/s) Standard deviation (km/s) Coefficient of variation (%)
(km/s)

S1 S2 S3

R0A0 28 4.68 4.67 4.63 4.66 0.03 0.64

R2A3.5 4.26 4.24 4.23 4.24 0.02 0.47
R4A7 4.14 4.15 4.10 4.13 0.03 0.73
R7A12.5 3.85 3.88 3.95 3.90 0.05 1.28
R12A21 3.77 3.80 3.79 3.78 0.02 0.53

R0A0 210 4.78 4.64 4.71 4.71 0.07 1.50

R2A3.5 4.39 4.29 4.38 4.35 0.06 1.40
R4A7 4.15 4.30 4.27 4.24 0.08 1.89
R7A12.5 4.14 4.16 4.00 4.10 0.09 2.20
R12A21 3.90 3.89 4.15 3.98 0.15 3.77

A0 28 4.85 4.89 4.83 4.86 0.03 0.62

A3.5 4.79 4.77 4.75 4.77 0.02 0.42
A7 4.59 4.78 4.66 4.68 0.10 2.14
A12.5 4.73 4.60 4.59 4.64 0.08 1.72
A21 4.39 4.29 4.25 4.31 0.07 1.62

70 5

63

56 4

49

UPV
(km/
42

s)
3

35
Compressive
strength
(MPa)

28 2

21

14 1

0 0

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

Compressive strength @ 28 days 28 days UPV Compressive strength @ 210 days

210 days UPV

Fig. 13. Indicating correlation between compressive strength and UPV after 28 and 210 days.

70 7

60 6

50 5
UPV
(km/
s)

40 4
Compressive
strength
(MPa)

30 3

20 2

10 1

0 0

A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

LDPE waste replacement level (%)

Compressive strength @ 28 days 28 days UPV

Fig. 14. Indicating correlation between compressive strength and UPV after 28 days.

11
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

18.88
20

16.31

15.49
18

12.95
16

11.37

11.32
14

9.98
12

9.01

7.64
10
Decreased

8
UPV
%
in

4.53
3.7
6

1.85
4

2
0

0
0

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21 A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

28days 210days

Fig. 15. Percentage decreased in ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste together with LDPE, and LDPE waste only as compare to control concrete.

affect the strength improvement of concrete with age. To measure the effect of LDPE
waste only as an additive on the surface hard-ness by rebound hammer, the second
mix with the same propor-tion was prepared with LDPE waste as an additive. The 28
days result of surface hardness of concrete with LDPE waste as an addi-tive with 3.5,
7, 12.5, and 21% are found decreasing by 4.07, 6.49, 11.79, and 28.91% as
compared to control concrete as shown in Fig. 19. The decline in rebound hammer
results can be attributed to the increased dosage of LDPE waste content in the
concrete, cre-ated holes and pores within the concrete. Therefore, decreased the
rebound hammer results. The test procedure is shown in Fig. 20.

3.8. Acid attack on concrete

Fig. 16. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test procedure.
150 mm 150 mm 150 mm for varying replacement of cement by industrial wastes used
in this study and ages. These specimens were marked with a grid of 3x3@37.5 mm c/
c having 9 points on each of the four vertical faces with a marker. The rebound hammer
results for concrete with the waste of age 28 and 210 days are dis-cussed below:
Rebound hammer results after 28 and 210 days
Acid attack test carried out on cube specimen of size 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm
after 28 days of normal curing.
The initial weight was measured before and after immersion in H2SO4 solution. Then
specimens were submerged in acid solution for additional 28 days. After completing
this period, all specimens were removed from the acid solution and dry with clothes.
The percentage of loss of weight and compressive strength were mea-sured as shown
in Fig. 21. And the test results are presented in Table 13. From Fig. 21, it can be
reported that the percentage in loss of weight for 0, 2, 4, 7 and 12% aluminum dross
waste together with LDPE as an additive in concrete are calculated as 3.63, 5.53,
3.42, 2.22 and 4.46%. Similarly, the percentage in loss of compres-sive strength were
reported as 33.44, 43.44, 38.44, 48.63 and 52.92% for 0, 2, 4, 7 and 12% aluminum
waste replacement level.

The results for control concrete and concrete with partial replacement of cement
by aluminum dross waste by weight, and LDPE as an additive by weight of cement The percentage in loss of weight is shown in Fig. 21.
are presented in Table 12 and plotted in Figs. 17 and 18. Results after 28 days for
W1 W2 100
surface hardness of concrete with partial replacement of cement by alu-minum dross Loss in weight ð Þ¼ %
W1
waste with 2, 4, 7, and 12% by weight, and LDPE as an additive with 3.5, 7, 12.5,
and 21% by weight of cement are found decreasing respectively by 28.20, 31.77, r1 r2
Loss in compressive strength ð%Þ ¼ 100
45.60, and 48.18% as compared to control concrete as shown in Fig. 19. It should be
r1
mentioned that concrete with partial replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste
Where:
with 0, 2, 4, 7, and 12% by weight, and LDPE as an additive with 3.5, 7, 12.5, and
21% by weight of cement after 210 days surface hardness found by rebound hammer
testing is found increasing respectively by 5.88, 41.35, 48.20, 60.97, and 43.33% as W1 is the weight of cube before the immersion in acid environment

compared to 28 days. This shows that the presence of replaced aluminum dross waste
and LDPE as an additive does not W2 is the weight of cube after the immersion in acid environment

R1 Is the compressive strength of cube specimen before immer-sion in acid

environment

12
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 12
Results of rebound hammer after 28 and 210 days.

Mix designation Age (days) Rebound Number Average rebound number Standard deviation Coefficient of variation (%)

S1 S2 S3

R0A0 28 51.10 52.20 51.30 51.53 0.59 1.15

R2A3.5 38.30 36.60 36.10 37.00 1.15 3.10
R4A7 35.80 35.50 34.20 35.16 0.85 2.42
R7A12.5 27.80 28.30 28.00 28.03 0.25 0.90
R12A21 25.70 26.30 28.10 26.70 1.25 4.68

R0A0 210 54.72 55.29 53.67 54.56 0.82 1.50

R2A3.5 51.00 54.30 51.60 52.30 1.76 3.37
R4A7 51.97 49.78 54.58 52.11 2.40 4.61
R7A12.5 45.75 42.83 46.78 45.12 2.05 4.54
R12A21 40.86 34.33 39.63 38.27 3.47 9.07

A0 28 55.94 54.56 56.16 55.55 0.87 1.57

A3.5 53.61 53.80 52.47 53.29 0.72 1.35
A7 52.88 52.55 50.39 51.94 1.35 2.60
A12.5 49.34 49.08 48.56 49.00 0.40 0.82
A21 39.69 39.11 39.67 39.49 0.33 0.84

70 70

63 63

56 56

49 49

42 42

Rebound
Number
35 35
Compressive
strength
(MPa)

28 28

21 21

14 14

7 7

0 0

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

Compressive strength @ 28 days 28 days Compressive strength @ 210 days

Rebound hammer 210 days Rebound hammer

Fig. 17. Relationship between rebound hammer and compressive strength for 28 and 210 days.

70 70

60 60

50 50
Rebound
number

40 40
Compressive
strength
(MPa)

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

LDPE waste replacement level (%)

Compressive strength @ 28 days 28 days Rebound hammer

Fig. 18. Relationship between rebound hammer and compressive strength for 28 days.

13
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

48.18
45.6
50

45

31.77

29.86
40

28.91
28.19
35

30

17.3
25

11.79
20

6.5
15

4.49
4.14

4.07
Decreased
Rebound
number
%
in

10
0

0
5

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21 A0 A3.5 A7 A12.5 A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

28days 210days

Fig. 19. Percentage decrease in Rebound number.

The reduction in concrete slump can be attributed to the two resasons as follows:
(1) Aluminum being the
most violent ingredient reacts with unburnt calcium hydroxide available in the
cement within the first 24 h and form additional tricalcium aluminate and
releases hydrogen gas. The reaction of the tricalcium aluminate with water
is comparatively intense and leads to the instant stiffening of the paste is
responsible for the higher reduction in the slump with the increasing alu-
minum dross waste in concrete.

(2) LDPE crumbs are found forming pockets of mortar lumps around them thereby
resulting in a kind of segregation also responsible for lowering the slump.
For smaller content of LDPE waste in concrete displays marginally lower
value of slump, however, for the higher content of LDPE waste pre-sent in
concrete producing balling effect and reduced the slump drastically.

Fig. 20. Rebound hammer test procedure.

The reason for expansion can be attributed to the aluminum waste added to the
cement paste, resulting in the formation of hydrogen gas, make air-entrained or
r2 Is the compressive strength of cube specimen after immer-sion in acid expansive concrete.
environment The reduction of dry density of concrete can be attributed to: (1) chemical
reaction that takes place between aluminum waste and alkali present in cement
concrete. This chemical reaction is releasing the hydrogen gas and form tiny
4. Conclusion bubbles rising to the top surface of concrete start the expansion. The
entrapped hydrogen gas introduce voids in the concrete, decreases the
In this research work, control concrete of grade M60 and con-crete with partial density of the concrete.
replacement of cement by aluminum dross waste and LDPE as an additive by weight
have been prepared and tested. (2) LDPE crumbs are found forming pockets of the fine con-stituents around
Based on the experimental test results the following conclusions can be drawn. them causes segregation makes dry den-sity to decrease.

60

50

40

30

20

10
compressive
strength
Loss
in

R0A0 R2A3.5 R4A7 R7A12.5 R12A21

Replaced and additive waste level (%)

Fig. 21. Percentage loss in compressive strength.

14
Machine Translated by Google
A. Paktiawal, M. Alam
Table 13
Loss in weight and compressive strength of concrete cubes due to 5% solution of H2SO4.
Mix Wt. before immersion @ Wt. after immersion @
designation 28 days (kg) 28 days (kg)
R0A0 2.48 2.39
R2A3.5 2.35 2.22
R4A7 2.34 2.26
R7A12.5 2.25 2.20
R12A21 2.24 2.14
The reduction in compressive and split tensile strengths can be
attributed to the
(1) tricalcium aluminate reacts with gypsum (CaSO4) to form
calcium sulfoaluminate (3CaO.Al2O3.3CaSO431H2O), result-ing to
prevent immediate stiffening of paste and from other
side aluminum waste react with alkali releasing hydrogen
gas, therefore hydrated aluminum and hydrogen gas disturb
the chemical reaction between C3A and CaSO4 and lead to
the formation of delayed ettringite, thus starts expansion
and cracking, resulting in strength reduction development.
(2) LDPE crumbs are found forming poor bond with cement gel
and developing lower density pockets of materials around
them and produces balling effect and affect the strength
by much.
The compressive strength after 210 days is found increasing by
5.9, 6.7, 9.0, 28.8, and 32.3% as compared to 28 days. Densified
and hardened dicalcium silicate, C2S might be responsible for
improved compressive strength of concrete of higher age.
The reduction in pulse velocity can be attributed to the chemi-cal reaction that
took place between aluminum waste and alkali
present in cement. This chemical reaction releasing the
entrapped hydrogen gas and produce a tiny bubble coming to
the top surface of concrete and start the expansion, which con-tributes to the
increase voids, hence decreasing the UPV.
The ultrasonic pulse velocity testing results after 210 days are
increased by 1.10, 2.59, 2.66, 5.13, and 5.29% as compared to
28 days. This shows that the quality of concrete improves with
age. Improvement of quality of concrete of higher age of curing
is due to the densification of dicalcium silicate, C2S.
The concrete with replaced aluminum dross waste with 0, 2, 4,
7, and 12% by weight of cement, and LDPE as an additive with
3.5, 7, 12.5, and 21% by weight of cement after 210 days surface
hardness found by rebound hammer testing is found increasing
respectively by 5.88, 41.35, 48.20, 60.97, and 43.33% as com-pared to 28
days. This shows that the presence of replaced alu-minum waste dross and
LDPE as an additive does not affect the
strength improvement of concrete with age.
The percentage in loss of compressive strength due to 5% solu-tion of H2SO4
were reported as 33.44, 43.44, 38.44, 48.63 and
52.92% for 0, 2, 4, 7 and 12% aluminum waste replacement level.
Acknowledgement
I acknowledge the support and funding extended by Civil Engi-neering
Department, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, Inida for this
research work.
References
[1] Ministry of Mines Government of India, Strategy on resources efficiency in
aluminum sector; 2019. <http://www.eu-rei.com>.
[2] The Aluminum Association, North American Aluminum Industry Sustainability
Report; 2011 <https://www.aluminum.org>.
[3] JRC European Commission, End-of-waste Criteria for Aluminium and
Aluminium Alloy Scrap; 2010.
[4] Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs Government of India, Plastic waste
management issues, solutions & case studies; 2019.
Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
% loss in wt. @ Initial reference Strength Strength (MPa) after % loss in strength. @
28 days (MPa) of concrete immersion 28 days
3.63 63.1 42.00 33.44
5.53 46.5 26.30 43.44
3.42 41.1 25.30 38.44
2.22 29.2 15.00 48.63
4.46 25.7 12.10 52.92
[5] Alzubaidi Radhi. Recycling of aluminum byproduct waste in concrete
production. Jordan J Civ Eng 2017;11:15–29.
[6] Gireesh Mailar, Sujay Raghavendra N, Sreedhara BM, Manu DS, Parameshwar
Hiremath, Jayakesh K. Investigation of concrete produced using recycled
aluminium dross for hot weather concreting conditions. Resource-Efficient
Technol 2016; 1–13.
[7] Ozerkan Nesibe Gozde, Maki Omar Liqaa, Anayeh Momen Wael, Tangen Stian,
Abdullah Aboubakr M. The effect of aluminium dross on mechanical and
corrosion properties of concrete. Int J Innov Res Sci, Eng Technol 2014; 3:
9912–9922.
[8] Muthu Kumar E, Ramamurthy K. Effect of fineness and dosage of aluminium
powder on the properties of moist-cured aerated concrete. Constr Build Mater
2015;95:486–96.
[9] Elinwa Augustine U, Mbadike Elvis. The use of aluminum waste for concrete
production. J Asian Archit Build Eng 2011;10:217–20.
[10] Hay Rotana, Ostertag Claudia P. On utilization and mechanisms of waste
aluminium in mitigating alkali-silica reaction (ASR) in concrete. J Cleaner Prod
2018:1–29.
[11] Arimanwa JI, Onwuka DO, Arimanwa MC, Onwuka US. Prediction of the
compressive strength of aluminum waste-cement concrete using Scheffe’s
Theory. J Mater Civ Eng 2012;24:177–83.
[12] Rahim Nur Liza, Ibrahim Norlia Mohamad, Salahuddin Shamshinar, Amat
Roshazita Che, Mohammed SyakirahAfiza. The utilization of aluminum waste
as sand replacement in concrete. Key Eng Mater 2014; 455–459.
[13] Liu Yiquan, Leong Bo Siang, Zhong-Ting Hu, Yang En-Hua. Autoclaved aerated
concrete incorporating waste aluminum dust as foming agent. Constr Build
Mater 2017;148:140–7.
[14] Jassim Ahmad K. Recycling of polyethylene waste to produce plastic cement.
Procedia Manuf 2017;8:635–42.
[15] Srimanikandan P, Sreenath S. Properties of concrete modified with waste Low
Density Polyethylene and saw dust ash. Earth Environ Sci 2017:1–9.
[16] Guendouz M, Debieb F, Boukendakdji O, Kadri EH, Bentchikou M, Soualhi H.
Use of plastic waste in sand concrete. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2016;7:382–9.
[17] Jain Abhishek, Siddique Salman, Gupta Trilok, Sharma Ravi K, Chaudhary
Sandeep. Utilization of shredded waste plastic bags to improve impact and
abrasion resistance of concrete. Environ Develop Sustain 2018:1–26.
[18] Alqahtani Fahad K, Iqbal Khan M, ASCE M, Ghataora Gurmel, Dirar Samir.
Production of recycled plastic aggregates and its utilization in concrete. J
Mater Civ Eng 2016; 1–12.
[19] Ismail Zainab Z, Al-Hashmi Enas A. Use of waste plastic in concrete mixture as
aggregate replacement. Waste Manage 2018; 28: 2041–2047.
[20] IS 8112. Ordinary Portland Cement. 43 Grade Specification, Bureau of Indian
Standards; 2013.
[21] IS 4031 part 4. Method of physical test for determination of consistency of
standard cement paste, Bureau of Indian Standards; 1995.
[22] IS 4031 part 5. Mehtod of physical test for determination of initial and final
setting times, Bureau of Indian Standards; 2000.
[23] IS 4031 part 15. Method of physical test for determination of fineness by wet
sieving, Bureau of Indian Standards; 1995.
[24] IS 4031 part 6. Method of physical test for determination of compressive
strength of cement, Bureau of Indian Standards; 2000.
[25] IS 650. Standard sand for testing cement specification. Bureau of Indian
Standards; 1999.
[26] IS 383. Specification for coarse and fine aggregate from natural sources for
concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards; 2002.
[27] IS 2386 part 1. Method of teste for aggregate for concrete, particle size and
shape, Bureau of Indian Standards; 2002.
[28] IS 2386 part 3. Method of test for aggregate for concrete, specific gravity,
density, voids, absorption and bulking, Bureau of Indian Standards; 2002.
[29] IS 9103. Specification of concrete admixture, Bureau of Indian Standards;
2004.
[30] IS 10262. Concrete mix proportioning-Guidelines, Bureau of Indian Standards;
2009.
[31] IS 456. Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice, Bureau of Indian
Standards; 2000.
[32] IS 10086. Specification for moulds for use in test of cement and concrete,
Bureau of Indian Standards; 2013.
[33] IS 1199. Method of sampling and analysis of concrete, Bureau of Indian
Standards; 2004.
[34] IS 516. Method of test for strength of concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards;
2018.
[35] IS 5816; Method of test for splitting tensile strength of concrete, Bureau of
Indian Standards; 2013.
15
Machine Translated by Google

A. Paktiawal, M. Alam Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

[36] IS 13311 part 1. Non-destructive testing of concrete, Ultrasonic pulse velocity, Bureau of Indian Mehtab Alam is a professor at the Department of Civil Engineering,
Standards; 2013. Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, India. Dr. Mehtab Alam
[37] IS 13311 part 2. Non-destructive testing of concrete, Rebound hammer, Bureau received his B.Sc. from Aligarh Muslim University, UP, India in 1985.
of Indian Standards; 2004. He received his M. Tech. and Ph.D. degree in Structural Engineering
[38] Neville AM. Properties of concrete, fourth ed., Pearson Education, Inc. and Dorling Kindersley from Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, India in 1990 and 1999.
Publishing Inc.; 2012. 1–844. His main research area includes: Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete,
Structures, Impact Mechanics and Recycling of demolished Con-crete
Waste, Skin Reinforce Concrete, Earthquake Disaster and Crisis

Ajmal Paktiawal is a Ph.D. candidate in Civil Engi-neering Department, management.

University of Jamia Millia Islamia, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, Inida. He
received his master degree in Structural Engineering from Manav
Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies at Faridabad,
India in 2017 and B.Sc. degree in Civil Engi-neering from Shaikh Zayed
University, Khost, Afghani-stan in 2007. His main research area
includes: Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Non-destructive testing,
and seismic design of RCC structures.

16