Jessica Olsen

Optimal Substitution of Aggregate to Produce an Economically Viable Alternative to

Traditional Concrete Mixtures
Marine Academy of Technology and Environmental Science

Authors Notes
I would like to acknowledge Haidy Oliveira for arranging the use of the environmental
lab and Robert Ropes for his mentorship on operating the test machinery. Also, thank you to Bob
Iovino for providing the plastic materials needed for this research. Special thanks to John Wnek
for his continued research assistance and his guidance in scientific writing. Lastly, thank you to
Eric Olsen for his help in the preparation of materials and his engineering expertise.

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

Abstract
Previous research suggests that concrete with higher percentages of Portland cement than sand
and aggregate is more durable against acidic precipitation and compressively stronger than the
industrial standard. Cement costs 255 USD/ton and accounts for 5% of anthropogenic CO2
emissions. Thus, the experiments were purposed to test more economically feasible and
environmentally friendly concrete mixtures with comparable strength to the standard mix. The
effects of lowering aggregate proportions (26 USD/ton) were analyzed to compensate for the
impacts of the novel ratio by substituting 30% of the aggregate with recycled materials: recycled
concrete aggregate (RCA), conglomerate plastics (HDPE, PS, PA), and consumer glass.
Cylindrical specimens of each mix were cured and tested for compressive strength (psi) in a
hydraulic compression machine at the Naval Air Warfare Center environmental lab. The batch
containing recycled glass yielded the strongest concrete (3007.15 psi). In the second phase of
testing, the substitution of glass was increased in ten-percent increments from the 30% baseline.
The results indicate that the 100%-substitution mixture was strongest, failing at an average of
3572.89 psi. It is inferred that high percentages of glass benefits concrete strength due to
chemical reactions between fine glass particles and cement hydrates and the ideal binding
surface of small glass shards. Overall, utilizing recycled glass as a complete aggregate alternative
would reduce the cost and environmental effect of concrete infrastructure.

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

Introduction
Concrete is a man-made construction material that is frequently used in roadways,
bridges, and airport runways. The major constituents of concrete include Portland cement,
sand, and aggregate rock. These components are combined with water to achieve a desired slurry
consistency that can be poured readily. The cement and water chemically react to form a binding
agent that strongly adheres the sand and aggregate particles (Olsen, personal communication,
2015). The poured mixture is then cured for a standard period of twenty-eight days, at which the
concrete reaches ninety-percent of its maximum compressive strength (Properties of Concrete,
2015). After this duration, the curing strength gains plateau and become minimal over time (See
Figure 1). The typical mixture ratio used in concrete infrastructure is the Part 1, 2, 3 mix,
consisting of one part Portland cement , two parts sand, and three parts clean gravel (The
Basic Mix, 2013). When properly cured, this concrete blend will fail at pressures of at least
3000 psi (Properties of Concrete, 2015).
Previous research has focused on testing the environmental durability and compressive
strength of varying concrete ratios against the simulated effects of acid precipitation. These ratios
were determined by increasing and decreasing the constituent percentage of Portland cement
in each formulated mixture based on the Part 1, 2, 3 standard. The results indicated that higher
percentages of Portland cement yield both more durable and stronger concrete mixes, which is
inferred to be caused by the resilient bonding properties of cement (Olsen, personal
communication, 2015).
Although the modified mixture ratio produces the overall best realistically functioning
concrete, this study assessed the economic and environmental impacts of the increased usage of
Portland cement to determine the mixtures feasibility in real-world construction. Portland
cement is the most expensive component of concrete mixes, costing 255 USD per ton; in
comparison, the approximate price of sand and clean gravel is only 26 USD per ton

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

(Construction Mixes, 2015). In terms of environmental effects, concrete is the second most
used material on Earth, the first being water (Plastic Waste, 2015). In fact, the production of
cement accounts for five-percent of annual anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (Plastic
Waste, 2015). Sand and gravel are substantially less expensive than Portland cement, but their
production also presents large emission rates from the machinery used to extract and transport
the stones from quarries (Olsen, personal communication, 2015)
This study analyzed the use of recycled materials as a partial substitute for a percentage
of aggregate in the pre-determined strongest and most durable mix (25% Portland cement,
20% sand, 55% aggregate). Therefore, to comparatively test the potential compressive strengths
of each recycled material in concrete, specimens were formed in two phases: first, to test each
respective material at a base substitution percentage, and then utilize the best performing
mixture, in terms of highest strength and least expensive material, to create a range of
incremental aggregate substitutions.
The three recycled materials tested include recycled concrete aggregate (RCA), plastic,
and consumer glass. Each material has been studied individually, but comparative analyses have
not been reported. Previous research has utilized milled glass as a partial substitute for twentypercent cement; it is hypothesized that the finely ground glass reacts with hydrates found in the
cement, therefore producing a stronger, more durable concrete that is resistant to water
absorption (Oswald and Boomer, 2012). Other studies have used polypropylene plastic waste in
place of steel rebar, which was shown to give the concrete tensile strength (Plastic Waste,
2015). The results of this study suggest that plastic-reinforced concrete can be safely used in
sidewalks and pre-cast structures, but cannot be used in high pressure areas such as bridges,
where traffic continuously compresses the concrete piers (Plastic Waste, 2015). Finally,
recycled concrete aggregate has been used worldwide for many years; the process involves
breaking, removing, and pulverizing existing concrete structures into a revitalized material,
which can be used in place of fresh aggregate in concrete mixes (Recycled Aggregates, 2015).
The overall purpose of this study was to ultimately determine the ideal recycled material
and percent-substitution combination that would most effectively reduce concrete construction
costs and adverse environmental impacts while preserving the strength benefits of standard
concrete. It is hypothesized that recycled concrete aggregate will have comparable strength to
fresh aggregate and be stronger than glass and plastics in concrete mixes.
Methodology
Material Preparation:

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

On July 25, 2015, (36) 4 by 8 inch (10.16 by 20.32 cm) single-use biodegradable plastic
cylinders were ordered from Gilson Company, Inc. From previous testing, (2) 4 by 8 inch (10.16
by 20.32 cm) diameter unbonded capping steel retainers and (2) 60 durometer neoprene inserts
were in possession. Recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) was collected from Shorelands Water
Company in Hazlet, New Jersey. Several varieties of recycled plastics were obtained from
Metropolitan Plastics in Harrison, New Jersey on August 7, 2015: these plastics include highdensity polyethylene (HDPE), polyamide or nylon (PA), and polystyrene (PS). The plastics were
mixed in even ratios to achieve a single plastic blend (See Figure 2). Recycled glass was
collected independently. Consumer glass, such as bottles, glasses, and jars, were folded into a
heavy cloth tarp and pulverized with a sledgehammer until shards of inch (1.905 cm) or less
were produced. It was ensured that a wide range of glass sizes from inch (1.905 cm) shards to
a finely ground powder were present in the sample (See Figure 3).
Phase 1: Concrete Mixing and Curing
A substitution of 30% aggregate for recycled materials was chosen as a baseline
percentage to compare the additives respective compressive strengths in concrete. The concrete
batches were poured according to predetermined mixture ratios, as seen in Table 1, on August 28,
2015. Each constituent material was measured using cup-scoops into a wheelbarrow, where
water was slowly added and the mixture was churned with a shovel until a thick but fluid
consistency was reached. Four samples of each mixture were poured into the cylinder molds;
each container was representatively labeled for the added recycled material: R = RCA, P =
Plastic, G = Glass 1, 2, 3, 4 (See Figure 4). Each cylinder was filled in approximately
increments in terms of volume, followed by the tapping of the cylinders surface with a trowel to
release trapped air. After filling the molds completely, the tops of the specimens were skimmed
using the trowel to remove excess water and create a flush surface in respect to the molds brim.
In addition to the (12) test samples, (1) test cylinder was poured, of any ratio, to use in
preparation of the hydraulic compression machine. The specimens were stored in a dry, cool
location and left to cure for a minimum of 28 days (Properties of Concrete, 2015; See Figure
1). The samples were cured for a total of 28 days. The specimens were removed from their
cylinders by drilling a small hole into the base of the container with an electronic drill. An air
compressor was then used to apply quick bursts of air into the drilled hole until the container
separated from the concrete.
Phase 1: Static Compression Testing

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

Testing was conducted in the environmental lab of the Naval Air Warfare Center at the
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Base on September 23, 2015. An MTS Systems Corporation
servohydraulic load frame (maximum load weight of 220,000 lbs) was programmed to first apply
500 lbs of force (to secure the specimens) and then proceed testing at a rate of 400 lbs/sec
(approximately 35 psi/sec). Each sample was prepared for testing with the same procedure. Two
60 durometer neoprene pads were inserted into (2) 4 by 8 inch (10.16 by 20.32 cm) diameter
unbonded capping steel retainers. The caps were arranged onto the center of the bases of the
concrete cylinder (See Figure 5). The prepared samples were transferred to the machine and
centered between the platens (See Figure 6). The testing was then initiated, and all researchers
stood behind a protective barrier. The force (lbs) at which each specimen failed was noted. The
machine recorded force measurements (lbs) approximately every 0.05 seconds; these files were
saved for future data analyses.
The strongest mixture was determined by comparing the average failure points (lbs) of
the RCA (Batch R), plastic (Batch P), and glass (Batch G) specimens. In addition to the
compressive strength, the feasibility of the mix was analyzed using the average prices of each
material, when purchased for industrial use, by the ton. The strength and cost of each batch were
then compared to determine the mix to be used in the next phase of testing.
Phase 2: Concrete Mixing and Curing
Once the strongest average mixture (RCA, plastic, or glass) was determined, a secondary
batch of samples was poured with incrementally increasing percent substitution (10%) of
aggregate for the recycled material (See Table 2) from October 3-4, 2015. Each constituent
material was measured using cup-scoops into a wheelbarrow, where water was slowly added and
the mixture was churned with a shovel until a thick but fluid consistency was reached. Four
samples of each mixture were poured into cylinder molds; each container was representatively
labeled for the added recycled material (i.e. glass) and percent substitution: G40, G50, G60 1,
2, 3, 4. Each cylinder was filled in approximately increments, followed by the tapping of the
cylinders surface with a trowel to release trapped air. After filling the molds completely, the tops
of the specimens were skimmed using the trowel to remove excess water and create a flush
surface in respect to the molds brim. In addition to the (28) test samples, (1) test cylinder was
poured, of any ratio, to use in preparation of the hydraulic compression machine. The specimens
were stored in a dry, cool location and left to cure for a minimum of 28 days (Properties of
Concrete, 2015; See Figure 1). The samples were cured for a total of 30 or 31 days, depending

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

on which day it was mixed. The specimens were removed from their cylinders by drilling a small
hole into the base of the container with an electronic drill. An air compressor was then used to
apply quick bursts of air into the drilled hole until the container separated from the concrete.
Phase 2: Static Compression Testing
Testing was conducted in the environmental lab of the Naval Air Warfare Center at the
McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst Base on November 4, 2015. An MTS Systems Corporation
servohydraulic load frame (maximum load weight of 220,000 lbs) was programmed to first apply
500 lbs of force (to secure the specimens) and then proceed testing at a rate of 400 lbs/sec
(approximately 35 psi/sec). Each sample was prepared for testing with the same procedure. Two
60 durometer neoprene pads were inserted into (2) 4 by 8 inch diameter (10.16 by 20.32 cm)
unbonded capping steel retainers. The caps were arranged onto the center of the bases of the
concrete cylinder (See Figure 5). The prepared samples were transferred to the machine and
centered between the platens (See Figure 6). The testing was then initiated, and all researchers
stood behind a protective barrier. The force (lbs) at which each specimen failed was noted. The
machine recorded force measurements (lbs) approximately every 0.05 seconds; these files were
saved for future data analyses.
Statistical Analyses:
An ANOVA test was run on the failure forces (lbs) of each material used in Phase 1 to
determine if the treatments were statistically significant (P < 0.05). A Tukeys Honest Significant
Difference test, known as a Tukey HSD test, was used to compare material composition and
failure force (lbs) (mean difference < 0.05). A regression test was run on the failure forces (lbs)
and percent glass substitution of each batch in Phase 1/Phase 2 and solely Phase 2 to determine if
the values were significantly related (F < 0.05). An R 2 value was calculated to relate the batch
and failure pressure (psi) in Phase 2 and support the results of the regression tests. A Tukey HSD
test (mean difference < 0.05) was used to analyze similarities between batch and failure time in
Phase 2. Overall, an alpha of 0.05 or less was used to determine significance.
Results
Phase 1:
The average failure force of the (4) Batch R (recycled concrete aggregate) specimens was
16827.50 lbs. The average failure force of the (4) Batch P (plastics blend) specimens was
28774.75 lbs. The average failure force of the (4) Batch G (consumer glass) specimens was
37789.00 lbs. Respectively, the average failure pressures were 1339.09 psi (R), 2289.82 psi (P),
and 3007.15 psi (G). On average overall, Batch G yielded at the highest forces whereas Batch R

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

yielded at the lowest forces (See Figure 7). The ANOVA test run on the individual failure forces
suggested that there were no statistical differences among the three materials used (P < 0.001).
The Tukey HSD test run on the material average failure forces indicated significant differences
between batches (P = 1.000) and sorted each material treatment into a different subset.
Phase 2:
The average failure force of Batch G40 was 25646.25 lbs (2040.86 psi). The average
failure force of Batch G50 was 33426.75 lbs (2660.02 psi). The average failure force of Batch
G60 was 29436.25 lbs (2342.46 psi). The average failure force of Batch G70 was 25452.67 lbs
(2025.46 psi). The average failure force of Batch G80 was 16381.00 lbs (1303.56 psi). The
average failure force of Batch G90 was 41100.75 lbs (3270.69 psi). Lastly, the average failure
force of Batch G100 was 44898.25 lbs (3572.89 psi) Overall, the weakest mixture was Batch
G80 while the strongest mixture was Batch G100 (See Figure 8). The regression test run on the
failure forces (lbs) and percent glass substitution of all glass mixes in Phase 1 and Phase 2
revealed a Significance F value of 0.1382, indicating that the batches are not significantly related
(F > 0.05). However, the regression test run solely on Phase 2 values suggested significant
relations amongst the data (F = 0.0065). The Tukey HSD test run on the percent glass
substitution and failure times showed that Batch G90 and G100 are similar, Batch G30 is similar
to Batch G90 and G50, and Batch G30 is similar to Batch G50 and G60 in terms of time.
Discussion
In Phase 1, the failure pressures of the respective batches indicate that Batch R,
containing substituted RCA, formed the weakest concrete (1339.09 psi) whereas Batch G,
containing substituted consumer glass, formed the strongest concrete (3007.15 psi) (See Figure
7). Therefore, the data does not support the original hypothesis that RCA would be the strongest
material tested. It is inferred that Batch R performed poorly because of the residual dust and dirt
particles incorporated with the concrete stones. This extra material provided no structural support
within the specimen, and additionally hindered the binding effects of the Portland cement. In
terms of Batch P, which failed at an average pressure of 2289.82 psi, the small size and smooth
surface of the plastic fragments is assumed to account for the considerably low breaking point;
the individual plastic bits provided surface areas much less than that of a typical inch (1.905
cm) aggregate rock, which in turn reduced the possible binding areas to a larger support. The
high failure force of Batch G is presumably caused by the presence of finely ground glass
particles in the mixture. In previous studies, milled glass used in concrete samples was found to

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

react with cement hydrates to ultimately form a stronger cured product (Oswald and Boomer,
2012). Also, the rigid edges of the glass shards are optimal binding sites.
An ANOVA test run on the individual failure forces of each material mix indicated
statistical significance between the data (P < 0.001). Therefore, the behavior of the forces at
which each specimen failed was not random. A Tukey HSD test run on the average failure forces
of each material batch sorted each value into a different subset, indicating that no similarities
were shared among the failure points; this is further supported by the fact that there was no
significant difference among the means (P = 1.000).
When determining the recycled material to be further analyzed in Phase 2, compressive
strength and cost were taken into account. On average, Batch G failed at the highest forces and
was therefore deemed as the strongest mix (See Figure 7). In addition, recycled glass was found
at one time (December 2015) to cost 10.00 USD per ton, although prices are subject to market
change (The Recyclers Exchange, 2015). In comparison, RCA was purchased for 16 USD per
ton whereas the plastic blend used (HDPE, PA, and PS) would sell for 0.06 USD per pound, or
120 USD per ton (Olsen, personal communication, 2015; Iovino, personal communication, 2015)
(See Figure 9). Therefore, consumer glass was determined to be the ideal recycled material to be
further tested due to its high failure force and comparably low industrial cost. It was
hypothesized that 100% substitution would yield the strongest concrete samples.
The regression test run on the Phase 2 failure forces and percent glass substitution
suggests that the data was significantly related (F = 0.0065). However, the test run on all glass
batches in Phases 1 and 2 indicated that the data was not significantly related (F = 0.1382); this
supports the low R2 value of 0.0498, which also suggests little correlation amongst the data (See
Figure 8). It is inferred that the removal of G30 data was so influential because it was the only
batch included in the regression that was not poured during Phase 2; therefore, the mix contained
variable glass types/sizes, cured under warmer weather conditions (August 18 to September 23,
2015 in Phase 1 versus October 3/4 to November 4, 2015 in Phase 2), and cured for different
periods of time (28 days in Phase 1 versus 30/31 days in Phase 2). This statistical difference was
predicted because the average failure forces increased and decreased substantially rather than
increasing linearly with glass substitution (See Figure 8). However, these significant or
insignificant trends are negligible because the overall objective was to determine the average
strongest batch, not derive an equation to relate each batchs failure points.

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

A Tukey HSD test was then run on all failure forces in conjunction with failure time to
analyze the fluctuations amongst the data. First, the results suggest that G90 and G100 are
similar in terms of time; this represents the two strongest batches, and the third peak of the
graph (See Figure 8). Next, G30 is similar to G90 and G50, representing three of the highest
failure forces. Also, G30 is similar to G50 and G60, which represents the first and second
peaks of the graph (See Figure 8).
It is inferred that G30, also known as Batch G in Phase 1, had a comparably high failure
force because only four specimens needed to be poured at that time. So, more time was available
for ensuring a thorough, clean mix of glass because only a small amount was required. The first
three batches poured (G40-G60) in Phase 2 performed comparatively well because the supply of
glass was larger, hence allowing for a more thorough blend of glass types and sizes. However, as
the demand for glass increased in Batch G70 and G80, some human error was implemented by
allowing glass fragments larger than inch (1.905 cm) to be used in the concrete batches.
Finally, the highest failure forces of Batch G90 and G100 can be validated by the observation
that more finely ground glass particles were used than in other mixes. Because these batches
were mixed last, the glass supply was lower in the container where the fine fragments collected;
in contrast, the larger shards used previously remained on the surface of the pile. Therefore, the
final batches contained more fine glass than shards, which increased the overall compressive
strength of the concrete specimens (Oswald and Boomer, 2012).
Overall, concrete containing substituted recycled glass is stronger than that of recycled
concrete aggregate and recycled plastics (See Figure 7). Additionally, the cost of recycled glass
(10 USD/ton) is lower than both RCA (16 USD/ton) and recycled plastics (120 USD/ton) (See
Figure 9). As a result, Batch G100, containing 100% aggregate substitution for consumer glass,
is the ideal concrete mixture, as hypothesized, because it combines both the highest compressive
strength and lowest cost possible out of all materials and substitution increments tested (See
Figure 9). Not only is glass less expensive than RCA and plastic, but it is 16 USD less per ton
than standard aggregate (26 USD/ton) (Construction Mixes, 2015). This study clearly shows
that this novel ratio can be effectively used in concrete infrastructure of any stature because its
average strength (3572.89 psi) exceeds the strength of typical concrete (3000 psi) (Properties of
Concrete, 2015; Olsen, personal communication, 2015). However, further analysis is needed to
evaluate the practicality and safety of utilizing recycled glass in commercially available concrete
and to find the optimal particle size.

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

10

Conclusion
The results of this study confirm that aggregate can be successfully substituted in
concrete with a mixture of consumer glass, consisting predominantly of finely ground particles.
Specifically, Batch G100 is ideal because it was found to be the strongest and least expensive
concrete ratio. This mixture combines industry-grade compressive strength and the lowest
construction costs possible by utilizing complete aggregate substitution with the most
economical recycled material. In addition, the negative environmental impacts of mining
aggregate rock would be drastically reduced. Further testing is required, but this novel ratio
could mitigate the issues of building with standard concrete.
Future Work
To test the practicality of using recycled glass in concrete mixes, concrete samples
containing 100% aggregate substitution for glass could be placed under a weather simulation
period in an environmental chamber, which can be used at the Naval Air Warfare Centers
environmental lab. Varying humidity, temperature, and salt treatments could be used to mimic
the long term effects of precipitation on concrete structures such as roadways and bridges, which
are subject to concentrated water flow along curb lines. The samples could be assessed over time
to see if any glass fragments were loosened from the concrete, thus creating a safety hazard.
Figures

Figure 1: The typical strength-gain curve representing the increasing

compressive strength of concrete over its curing period. At twenty-eight days,
the concrete sample reaches approximately ninety-percent of its maximum
strength. The strength gains then plateau and become minimal over time.
(Image Source: Properties of Concrete, 2015)

Figure 2: The blend of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), nylon/polyamide (PA), and polystyrene (PS) plastics
used in Batch P in Phase 1. HDPE (red plastic) sells commercially for 0.45 USD per pound, PA (white plastic) for
0.60 USD per pound, and PS (blue plastic) for 0.55 USD per pound. HDPE plastic is commonly used in plastic
bottles and lumber, and emits a waxy smell when burned. Nylon is used in plastic fasteners (which composed the
PA sample used) and cookware. Polystyrene plastics are rigid, commodity resins that are used frequently in display
shelving and toy models (Iovino, personal communication, 2015).

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

Figure 3: Consumer glass, such as bottles, glasses, and jars,

sledgehammer until shards of inch or less were produced.
glass was added in the concrete mixtures.

11

was folded into a heavy cloth tarp and pulverized with a

Figure 4: (4) 4 by 8 inch single-use biodegradable plastic cylinders, labeled
The paper and/or plastic labels were removed before the
respectively for Batch R in Phase 1 of testing on August 18, 2015.

Figure 5: Example of a prepared concrete specimen with

(2) 4 inch diameter neoprene inserts (60 durometer) and
(2) steel retaining caps. The inserts and caps allow for an
even force distribution from the piston of the hydraulic
compression machine and ensure a proper break.

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

12

Figure 6: The MTS load frame (220,000 lbs maximum force

weight, 10 ft maximum specimen height) before testing with a
prepared concrete specimen. The top plate is stationary during
testing whereas the bottom plate is driven by a hydraulic piston to
apply force onto the specimen. However, the top plate could be
moved up or down to adjust for the size of the sample. The
controls are operated through a computer program, which records
force (lbs) and compression (cm) approximately every 0.05
The derived
machinefrom
wasusing
set to
applyof500
lbs cylinders
of force per
to batch (100.53 in 3) with 63%
Table 1: The cup and milliliterseconds.
values were
thefirst
volume
the (4)
3
secure
the
sample,
and
then
continue
at
a
rate
of
400
lbs/sec.
overage (163.86 in ) to ensure that enough mix was made to finish each cylinder properly and that the cup values were easily

measured by cup, cup, cup, cup, and 1 cup tools. Batch R contains recycled concrete aggregateRecycled
(RCA), Batch P
Cement
Sand
Aggregate
Cups PA, and PS), and BatchCups
Material
Cups
containsBatch
a blend of recycled plastics (HDPE,
G contains consumer glass. Cups

Percentage

R
P
G

25.00
25.00
25.00

Percentage

11.35
11.35
11.35

20.00
20.00
20.00

Percentage

9.08
9.08
9.08

38.50
38.50
38.50

Percentage
17.48
17.48
17.48

16.50
16.50
16.50

7.49
7.49
7.49

Table 2: The cup and milliliter values were derived from using the volume of the (4) cylinders per batch (100.53 in 3) with 63%
overage (163.86 in3) to ensure that enough mix was made to finish each cylinder properly and that the cup values were easily
measured by cup, cup, cup, cup, and 1 cup tools. All batches contain recycled consumer glass; the
corresponding
Recycled
Sand
Aggregate
number Batch
represents theCement
percent substitution
for
aggregate.
Cups
Cups
Cups
Material
Cups

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

G40

25.00

11.35

20.00

9.08

33.00

14.98

22.00

9.99

G50

25.00

11.35

20.00

9.08

27.50

12.48

27.50

12.48

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

13

G60

25.00

11.35

20.00

9.08

22.00

9.99

33.00

14.98

G70

25.00

11.35

20.00

9.08

16.50

7.49

38.50

17.48

G80

25.00

11.35

20.00

9.08

11.00

4.99

44.00

19.98

G90

25.00

11.35

20.00

9.08

5.50

2.50

49.50

22.47

G100

25.00

11.35

20.00

9.08

0.00

0.00

55.00

24.97

P = 3.35E-09

Figure 7: A column graph relating the recycled material (RCA, plastic, or glass) and the
average failure pressures (psi) in Phase 1. Batch R failed at the lowest pressure (1339.09 psi)
whereas Batch G was the strongest mixture (3007.15 psi). An ANOVA test was run to compare
material treatment and failure forces; the resulting P-value of 3.35 E-09 indicates that the data
is statistically significant (P < 0.05).

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

14

Figure 8: An x-y scatter-plot graph relating the percentage of aggregate substituted with recycled glass and the average failure pressure of
each batch (psi) in Phase 2. Batch G80 failed at the lowest pressure (1303.56 psi) whereas Batch G100 failed at the highest pressure, and
therefore was the strongest mix tested (3572.89 psi). A linear trend-line showed an R 2 value of 0.0498, indicating a weak correlation
between data. Additionally, a regression test run between the substituted glass percentages and individual failure forces (lbs) revealed a
Significance F value of 0.1382, suggesting that the data is not significantly related (F > 0.05).

Figure 9: An x-y scatter-plot relating substituted recycled material (RCA, plastic, or glass), average failure
pressure (psi), and price per ton (USD) in Phase 1. Batch R failed at the lowest pressure (1339.09 psi), but
RCA is the second least/most expensive material (16 USD/ton). Batch P failed at the second lowest/highest
pressure (2289.82 psi), but recycled plastic is the most expensive material (120 USD/ton). Finally, Batch G
failed at the highest pressure (3007.15 psi), and consumer glass is the least expensive material (10 USD/ton).
Overall, Batch G is both the strongest and least expensive mixture ratio.

OPTIMAL SUBSTIUTION OF AGGREGATE

15

References
Bob Iovino, personal communication, 2015
Construction Mixes. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2015, from
http://www.acmesand.com/construction-mixes/
E. Olsen, P.E., personal communication, 2015
Oswald, T., & Boomer, L. (2012, February 20). Recipe for success: Recycled glass and cement.
Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2012/recipe-for-successrecycled-glass-and-cement/
Plastic Waste To Concrete: Cement Successfully Reinforced With Plastic Can Greatly Reduce
Pollution. (2015, March 11). Retrieved June 3, 2015, from
http://www.inquisitr.com/1915462/plastic-waste-reinforced-concrete-cement/
Properties of Concrete. (2015, January 14). Retrieved February 22, 2015, from
http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/notes/concrete/section_3_properties.html
Recycled Aggregates. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2015, from http://www.cement.org/for-concretebooks-learning/concrete-technology/concrete-design-production/recycled-aggregates
Rubenstein, M. (2012, May 9). Emissions from the Cement Industry. Retrieved November 11,
2015, from http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cementindustry/
The Basic Mix. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2013, from
http://matse1.matse.illinois.edu/concrete/bm.html
The Recycler's Exchange. (2015, December 31). Retrieved December 31, 2015, from
http://www.recycle.net/Glass/glass/xv090100.html