International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)

Experimental Investigations on The Flexural Strength of

PET Reinforced Concrete
M. L. Anoop Kumar1, Dr. I. V. Ramana Reddy2, Dr. C. Sasidhar3
1

Lecturer in Civil Engineering, Govt. Polytechnic, Dept. of Technical Education, A.P., India.
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, S.V.University College of Engineering, Tirupati, India.
3
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, JNT University College of Engineering, Anantapuramu, India
2

Plastic waste can also be used to produce new plastic

based products after processing. However it is not an
economical process as the recycled plastic degrades in
quality and necessitates new plastic to make the original
product. Although these alternatives are feasible except for
land-filling, recycling of plastic waste to produce new
materials, such as cement composites, appears as one of the
best solution for disposing of plastic waste, due to its
economic and ecological advantages[2][3].
Work has already been done on the use of plastic waste
such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle, poly vinyl
chloride (PVC) pipe, high density polyethylene (HDPE),
shredded and recycled plastic waste, polyurethane foam,
polypropylene fiber etc. as an aggregate, as filler or as fiber
in the preparation of concrete.
Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) is one of the most
important and extensively used plastics in the world,
especially for manufacturing beverage containers [1]. The
current worldwide production of PET exceeds 6.7 million
tons/year and shows a dramatic increase in the Asian region
due to recent increasing demands in China and India. In
2007 the worlds annual consumption represented 250,000
million PET bottles (10 million tons of waste) with a
growth increase of 15%. In the United States 50,000
million bottles are land filled each year.
However, most PET bottles used as beverage containers
are thrown away after single usage and disposed PET
bottles are managed by landfill and incineration, which are
causing serious environmental problems. Since PET waste
is not biodegradable it can remain in nature for hundreds of
years. Previous investigations already confirmed the
potential of PET waste in replacing aggregates in concrete
which represents a better option than landfill. In order to
recycle PET wastes, additional expenses are required for
reprocessing. Thus, a more effective, less costly solution is
needed for PET bottle wastes. One possible solution is
using recycled PET as fiber reinforcement in structural
concrete. In this connection, the present project work is an
attempt to determine the flexural strength of concrete
reinforced with recycled PET bottle waste used in various
forms.

Abstract Due to the rapid industrialization taking place

globally, the problems generated are acute shortage of
construction material and increasing in productivity of
wastes. The production and consumption of plastic and the
rate at which solid plastic waste (SPW) are created have
increased considerably. Plastics constitute 12.3% of total
waste produced most of which is from discarded water bottles.
The present research studies concentrate on resolving the
above issues in a beneficial way. By the usage of PET bottle
waste at suitable scale as concrete reinforcement for
constructional works, the present research aims at waste
management, by use of PET waste in improvement of
concrete. The non-biodegradable PET bottle waste is used as
reinforcement for concrete and the flexural strength of
hardened concrete at 28days was tested and compared with
conventional concrete and steel reinforced concrete. In this
study, there are four types of concrete beam specimens with
steel reinforcement, without steel reinforcement, with PET
reinforcement and combined steel and PET reinforcement
tested for 28 days flexural strengths and the detailed analysis
of the results are reported.
Keywords Concrete, Flexural Strength, PET waste
concrete, PET Bottle waste

I. INTRODUCTION
Plastic, one of the most significant innovations of 20th
century, is a ubiquitous material. A substantial growth in
the consumption of Plastic is observed all over the world in
recent years, which also increased the production of plastic
related waste. The plastic waste is now a serious
environmental threat to modern civilization. Plastic is
composed of several toxic chemicals, and therefore plastic
pollutes soil, air and water. Since plastic is a nonbiodegradable material, land-filling using plastic would
mean preserving the harmful material forever. Land-filling
of plastic is also dangerous due to its slow degradation rate
and bulky nature and also the waste mass may hinder the
ground water flow and can also block the movement of
plant roots.
Burning of plastics releases a variety of poisonous
chemicals into the air, including dioxins, one of the most
toxic substances.
233

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)

This paper examines the flexural properties of concrete

reinforced with recycled post consumer PET bottles in
various forms such as hollow bars, bunch of long strips and
discrete shorter strips in comparison to non-reinforced
concrete and concrete reinforced with steel reinforcement.

II. ABOUT THE RESEARCH

A. Objective Of The Present Research
To study the flexural behavior of concrete reinforced
with recycled PET bottle in various forms such as bars,
bunch of long strips and shorter strips in comparison to
non-reinforced concrete and concrete reinforced with steel
reinforcement.

D. Methodology
In the present research, experimental investigations were
conducted for assessing the flexural strength of concrete
provided with PET reinforcement in various forms like
hollow bars and strips. Also the recycled PET were
incorporated in the tension zone, providing PET
reinforcement in the form of bars and bunch of strips. In
addition 1% fine aggregate was replacement by PET bottle
material cut in dimensions of 40mm x 4mm x 0.6mm and
flexural strength tests were conducted and the results were
reported.
Totally 7 types of concrete beam specimens of size 50 x
10 x 10 cm were used for the research. Control beams are
those which were made with plain concrete without any
reinforcement are the first type designated as CB. Concrete
beams reinforced with steel bars of 8mm diameter and
48cm long were the second type of specimens designated
as RSB. Concrete beams reinforced with PET hollow bars
of 24mm external diameter, 22.8mm internal diameter and
48cm long with a single bar or with two bars in the tension
zone of the beam were used which are third and fourth
types designated as RP1B and RP2B respectively. Also,
Beams with combination of steel and PET reinforcement in
the tension zone were made which are designated as RSPB
and the beams with steel and PET long strips were made
designated as RSPSB and finally the beams with PET short
strips were made which are prepared by replacing 1% fine
aggregate with PET short strips while mixing concrete,
designated as PC.
Theoretically, in reinforced concrete design, the tensile
stress in tension zone is entirely taken by steel instead of
concrete, so an attempt was made in replacement of
concrete with PET reinforced bars and PET long strips
which are placed along with steel reinforcement in the
tension zone and flexural strength and the load deflection
characteristic were studied and the flexural strengths are
reported.

B. Need Of The Present Study

The enormous production of PET bottle wastes is posing
a threat to the environment. Even though a little portion of
it is recycled, most of it is being land filled and incinerated
which leads to potential imbalance of the eco system
especially in Asian countries like India. The increased rate
of annual production of PET bottle waste, their cost of
recycle and disposal became a global issue creating menace
to the wellbeing of our environment and its components.
To abate the risk and finance involved in recycling and
disposal of these PET bottles alternative techniques are in
progress in using the PET bottles waste as a constituent of
concrete in the construction industry. Though few research
works were taken up for using the recycled PET bottles as a
constituent of concrete, the flexural behavior of concrete
when reinforced with recycled PET hollow bars, PET strips
and comparison with plain concrete and Steel Reinforced
concrete were not widely reported. Hence, the present
study has been taken up to assess the flexural behaviour of
concrete reinforced with recycled PET bottles in the form
of hollow bars and strips.
C. Significance Of Research
DoraFoti reported that addition of a very small amount
of fibers from recycled and shredded PET bottles can have
a large influence on the post-cracking behavior of plain
concrete elements [4]. Ramadevi et al. reported that
Flexural strength increased up to 2% replacement of the
fine aggregate with PET bottle fibers and it gradually
decreased for 4% and remains the same for 6%
replacements[5]. Akcaozoglu et al. determined the ratios
between flexural strength and compressive strength values
of cement mortar and found that average values of flexural
strength similar to those of normal weight mortar.

234

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)
TABLE II
PROPERTIES OF PET MATERIAL

The details of various types of test specimen used are

listed in TABLE I.

Molecular formulae

TABLE I
DETAILS OF BEAMS USED

S.No.

Constituent

1.38 g/cm3 (20 C),

Designation
Density

1.

Control specimens

CB

2.

Concrete beams reinforced with steel

bars

RSB

3.

Concrete beams reinforced with one

PET bar

RP1B

4.

Concrete beams reinforced with two

PET bars

RP2B

5.

Concrete beams reinforced with steel

and PET bars

RSPB

6.

Concrete beams reinforced with steel

and PET long strips

RSPSB

7.

PET concrete( with short strips)

(C10H8O4)n

amorphous: 1.370 g/cm3;

single crystal: 1.455 g/cm3

Melting point

> 250 C,260 C

Boiling point

> 350 C (decomposes)

Solubility in water

practically insoluble

Thermal conductivity

0.15 to 0.24 W m-1 k-1

1. Hollow PET Bars: A hollow PET bar is prepared by

cutting four PET bottles longitudinally, folded and pinned
together to the dimensions of 48cm long hollow bar, with
outer diameter of 24mm and the inner diameter of 22.8mm
so that the effective cross section almost similar to the 8
mm dia. Steel bar. The making of hollow PET bars is
shown in Figures 2&3.
2. PET Long Strips: PET long strips are made of PET
bottle material by cutting and placing plastic layers in the
dimensions of 8cm long, breadth of 0.5cm, 11 such strips
are placed over one another to a thickness of 6.6mm, in
which each strip is 0.6mm.These layers are bound together
by tying with plastic strings that are prepared by cutting the
PET bottle nearly to the size of threads as shown in
Figure.4.
3. PET Short Strips: PET short strips are similar to that of
long strips. They are prepared by cutting the PET bottles
into pieces of 4cm long, width of 0.4cm and thickness of
0.6mm as shown in Figure.6.
Concrete used for the testing programme is of M25 grade
with the proportions given in TABLE III obtained by IS
method of mix design as per IS 10262:1993.

PC

E. Materials Used
The materials used for the present research are:
43-Grade Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
sand confirming Zone II
Coarse Aggregate
Water
Recycled PET
Steel bars of 8mm dia
The properties of PET material used are given in
Table.II.
The following types of PET reinforcement was used for
the purpose of investigation.

235

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)

When a is less than 20.0 cm but greater than 17.0 cm

for 15.0 specimen, or less than 13.3 cm but greater than
11.0 cm for a 10.0 cm specimen
Where
b = measured width in cm of the specimen,
d = measured depth in cm of the specimen at the point of
failure,
l = length in cm of the span on which the specimen was
supported, and
p = maximum load in kg applied to the specimen.
The test setup is shown in Figure.1.

TABLE III
PROPORTION OF M25 GRADE

Material

Content(Kg/m3)

Cement

415.524

Sand
Coarse
Aggregate
Water

639.256
1086.128
203.255

E. Test Programme
The beams were tested for flexural strength after curing
for 28 days in a Digitalized universal testing machine, the
deflection in the beam is noted at regular intervals from the
deflection dial gauge and the load at the point of failure is
noted.
The bearing surfaces of the supporting and loading
rollers are wiped clean, and any loose sand or other
material removed from the surfaces of the specimen where
they are to make contact with the rollers. The specimen is
then placed in the machine in such a manner that the load is
applied to the uppermost surface as cast in the mould, along
two lines spaced 20.0 or 13.3 cm apart. The axis of the
specimen is carefully aligned with the axis of the loading
device. No packing is used between the bearing surfaces of
the specimen and the rollers. The load is applied without
shock and increasing continuously at a rate such that the
extreme fibre stress increases at approximately 0.7 kg/sq
cm/min that is, at a rate of loading of 400 kg/min for the
15.0 cm specimens and at a rate of 180 kg/min for the 10.0
cm specimens. The load is increased until the specimen
fails, and the maximum load applied to the specimen
during the test is recorded. The appearance of the fractured
faces of concrete and any unusual features in the type of
failure is noted.
The flexural strength of the specimen is expressed as the
modulus of rupture fb which if a equals the distance
between the line of fracture and the nearer support,
measured on the centre line of the tensile side of the
specimen, in cm, is calculated to the nearest 0.05 MPa as
follows:

Figure.1 Test Beam placed in UTM

Figure.2 Making of PET Hollow bars

For the beams RP1B and RP2B mentioned in TABLE I,

the PET reinforcement in the form of hollow bars were
placed in the tension zone similar to the placing of steel
reinforcement (8mm dia bars) in RSB. Where as in RSPB
and RSPSB, the hollow PET bars and bunch of PET long
Strips were placed above the steel reinforcement separated
by a layer of concrete in the tension zone, by replacing the
portion of concrete with the above mentioned PET bars and
Strips.

When a is greater than 20.0 cm for 15.0 cm specimen

or greater than 13.3 cm for a 10.0 cm specimen, then

236

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)

Figure.7 Concrete with PET Short strips filled in beam mould

Figure.3 PET Hollow bars as Beam reinforcement

The Flexural strength of each type of beam was obtained

and the load-deflection characteristics of the beam up to the
point of failure are reported in this paper.
F. Test Results and Discussion
The results of the experimental investigations carried out
on all the 7 types of concrete beams with respect to the
flexural strength and load deflection characteristics are
presented in tabular and graphical forms.
1. Comparing CB, RSB, RP1B:

Figure.4 PET Long strips

Figure7.Load Deflection Curves of CB, RSB and RP1B

In the above Figure.7, a comparison between control

beam (CB), beam reinforced with steel (RSB) and beam
reinforced with one PET hollow bar (RP1B) has been
drawn which depicts the deflection of these beams under
their corresponding loading. The load at failure for RSB is
greater than that of CB and RP1B. Also RP1B exhibited
large deformation before failure. Due to improper bonding
between concrete and PET, micro cracks would have
propagated in concrete and the failure has taken place in
earlier stage itself. It may give better results if the bond
between plastic and concrete is increased

Figure.5 PET Long strips as reinforcement along with steel

Figure.6 PET Short strips

237

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)

2. Comparing CB, RSB, RP2B:

In the graph shown in Figure.9 it can be observed that

the load at failure of RSB for the given load is considerably
greater compared to RSPB, which has both steel and PET
reinforcement in the tension zone. The load at failure for
RSB is greater than that of but the post cracking behavior
of the RSPB shows brittle nature contrary to the previous
case. Also, it was observed that the deflection was same up
to some point of load and the deflection was decreasing in
the RSPB when compared to RSB. But finally exhibited
sudden failure. This may be due to the improper bonding
between the PET hollow bars and concrete present in the
tension zone. So, due to improper bonding between
concrete and PET, micro cracks would have propagated in
concrete as a result, even before the stress was transferred
to steel, failure of the beam occurred.

Figure.8 Load Deflection Curves of CB, RSB and RP2B

4. Comparing RSB & RSPSB

In the above Figure.8, a comparison between control

beam(CB), beam reinforced with steel(RSB) and beam
reinforced with only two PET hollow bars (RP2B) is done,
which depicts the deflection of these beams under their
corresponding loading. The deflection of RP2B has similar
variation compared to RSB in exhibiting a large
deformation before failure than the control beam which
exhibited sudden failure. The load at failure for RSB is
greater than that of CB and RP2B. Just before failure, the
RP2B exhibited a little ductile nature like RSB. Due to
improper bonding between concrete and PET, micro cracks
would have propagated in concrete and the failure has
occured in earlier stage itself, but the post cracking
behaviour of RP2B shows the ductile nature of PET in the
beam offering a little resistance even after the failure of
beam preventing sudden failure.

Figure.10 Load Deflection Curves of RSB and RSPSB

From the graph in Figure.10, it is observed that there is

exceptionally large increase of load at failure in RSPSB
than that of RSB. RSB exhibited ductile nature due to
presence of steel in it, and the graph shows continuous
increase of strain with almost marginal increase of stress,
results in maximum deflection. While the load-deflection
curve of RSPSB shows greater increase of load at failure
than that of RSB. And at some point, the deflection of
RSPSB decreases compared to RSB. The post cracking
behavior of RSPSB exhibited greater resistance to sudden
failure which is even better than that of RSB.

3. Comparing RSB& RSPB

5. Comparing RSB & RSPSB

From Figure.11, it can be understood that the load at
failure for CB and the PC, i.e. concrete beam prepared by
replacing 1% of fine aggregate with PET short strips is
marginal but the deflection of PC to its corresponding
loading is slightly more than that of control beam.

Figure.9 Load Deflection Curves of RSB and RSPB

238

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)

But the post cracking behaviour of the PC shows binding

of PET short strips with the hardened concrete offering
resistance even after the failure of the beam preventing
sudden failure.
6. Flexural Strength Test Results:
The variations of flexural strength results of all the 7
different types of concrete beams are given in TABLE IV.
Figure.11 displays a bar chart clearly showing the variation
of strength in flexure for different types of beams.
TABLE IV
FLEXURE STRENGTH TEST RESULTS

S.No.

Constituent

Designation

Flexural
Sterngth

Figure.10 Bar Chart showing Flexural Strength Test Results

From the above bar chart it can be understood that there

is not much difference in flexural strength of control beam
is compared to that of PET concrete beam RP1B and
concrete beam reinforced with two PET bars RP2B,
whereas the flexural strength of concrete beam reinforced
with one PET bar (RP1B) is slightly less than that of the
control beam. The flexural strength of concrete beam
reinforced with steel bars (RSB) is almost similar to that of
concrete beam reinforced with steel and PET bars (RSPB)
and the flexural strength of beams reinforced with both
steel and PET long Strips (RSPSB) exhibited exceptionally
higher strength in flexure and flexural strength of these
beams is far greater than that of control beams(CB), PET
concrete beam (PC), concrete beams reinforced with only
PET bars(RP1B). The maximum flexural strength is
attained by concrete beam reinforced with steel and PET
long strips (RSPSB) above all the beams casted in the
present investigation i.e. nearly 25 N/mm2

(N/mm )

1.

Control specimens

CB

2.

Concrete beams
reinforced

RSB

8.4

18.3

with steel bars

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Concrete beams
reinforced with PET
one bar

RP1B

Concrete beams
reinforced with PET
two bars

RP2B

Concrete beams
reinforced with steel
and PET bars

RSPB

Concrete beams
reinforced with steel
and PET long strips

RSPSB

PET concrete( with

short strips)

PC

6.7

7.5

III. CONCLUSION

18.9

Flexural strength comparison between control beam and

other types of beams casted for the present investigation is
illustrated as follows:
23.96

CB (vs) RSB
The flexural strength of concert beam reinforced with
steel bars (RSB) is far greater than that of control beams
and also the ductility of the concrete beam reinforced with
steel bars is greatly increased due to the tensile force borne
by the steel bars whereas the control beam (CB) exhibited
brittle failure.

7.39

239

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 4, Issue 2, February 2014)

CB (vs) RP1B& RP2B

The flexural strength of control beam (CB) and the
concrete beams reinforced with one and two PET bars i.e.
RP1B, RP2B is almost same, further the ductility property
is enhanced for PET reinforced concrete over control beam.
More over post cracking behavior shows the binding nature
of PET material with hardened concrete offering more
resistance even after the failure preventing sudden failure

IV. FUTURE SCOPE

If proper bonding is present at the interface of concrete
and PET bars, the increase in load causes stress transfer
from concrete to PET bars, preventing early failure of the
beam. Therefore further investigation can be performed to
develop effective techniques to improve the bonding
between concrete and PET bars in the PET reinforced
concrete beams.

CB (vs) RSPSB
The flexural strength of concrete beams reinforced with
steel and PET long strips (RSPSB) is far greater than that
of control beams. The load at failure is also comparatively
more for RSPSB.

REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

CB (vs) PET CONCRETE

The flexural strength and the loads at failure of CB
&PET concrete beams (PC) are almost the same. And the
post cracking behavior of the PET concrete beam shows the
nature of PET fibres with hardened concrete offering little
more resistance even after the failure.
In concrete beam reinforced with steel (RSB), the
increase in load causes transfer of stress from concrete to
steel, which bears the load and resists the failure of beam,
whereas in the case of concrete beams reinforced with PET
bars, with the increase in load micro cracks are developed
in the concrete, causing failure of the hardened concrete
before the stress transfer taking place from concrete to PET
bars. This might be due to improper bonding at the
interface of concrete and PET bars. The concrete beam
reinforced with steel and PET strips (RSPSB) has shown
considerable increase in flexural strength compared to that
of concrete beams reinforced with steel bars (RSB).
In environmental perspective, there is dire need for safe
disposal of PET waste, which otherwise causes pollution.
As there is marginal difference in flexural strength of
control beam (CB) compared to other PET reinforced
concrete beam, the PET reinforced concrete can be used for
less important works by which PET waste can be
effectively mitigated. Thus the present investigation
suggests the scope for safe disposal of PET waste as a
constituent of construction material.

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]

240

Bandodkar.L.R., Gaonkar.A.A, Gaonkar N. D., Gauns Y. P.,

Aldonkar S. S., Savoikar P. P., Pulverised PET Bottles as Partial
Replacement for Sand., International Journal of Earth Sciences and
Engineering., Volume 04, No.06 SPL, October 2011, pp. 1009-1012
Sivaraja.M, Kandasamy.S, Thirumurugan.A, Mechanical strength of
fibrous concrete with waste rural materials., Journal of engineering
and applied science, vol. 69, April,page: 308 312, 2010
Sivaraja.M and Kandasamy.S, Reinforced concrete beams with rural
composites under cyclic loading., Journal of engineering and applied
science 2 (11), page: 1620 -1626, 2007.
Dora Foti, Use of recycled waste PET bottles fibers for the
reinforcement of concrete., Composite Structures 96,pp.396404,
2013
Ramadevi.K, Manju.R., Experimental Investigation on the Properties
of Concrete With Plastic PET (Bottle) Fibres as Fine Aggregates.,
International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering Volume 2, Issue 6, June 2012
Bhogayata, Shah.K.D, vyas.A, Arora.N.K., Performance of concrete
by using Non recyclable plastic wastes as concrete constituents.,
International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT) Vol. 1 Issue 4, June 2012
Batayneh M, Marie I, Asi I., Use of selected waste materials in
concrete mixes., Waste Manage 2007;27(12):18706.
Marzouk OY, Dheilly RM, Queneudec M., Valorization of postconsumer waste plastic in cementitious concrete composites. Waste
Manage 2007;27:3108.
Choi Y-W, Moon D-J, Chung J-S, Cho S-K., Effects of waste PET
bottles aggregate on the properties of concrete. Cem Concr Res
2005;35(4):77681.
Ochi T, Okubo S, Fukui K., Development of recycled PET fiber and
its application as concrete-reinforcing fiber., Cement & Concrete
Composites 35;29:44855., 2007.
Kim SB, Yi NH, Kim HY, Kim JHJ, Song Y-C. Material and
structural performance evaluation of recycled PET fiber reinforced
concrete. Cement & Concrete Composites;32:23240, 2010
IS 456-2000 -Code of practice for plain & reinforced cement
concrete
IS 10262-2009-Recommended guide line for concrete mix design
IS 516-1965-Method of Test for Strength of Concrete.