Innovation and uses: concrete using e-waste as a sustainable alternative to coarse aggregate

ABSTRACT

The consequences of partially substituting electronic trash (e-waste) for traditional aggregates in concrete compositions are examined in this study. When compared to conventional mixes, the testing findings show that adding e-waste improves the mechanical qualities and durability of concrete. Specifically, compressive strength peaked at 30.19 MPa for the mix containing 12% e-waste, significantly surpassing the conventional concrete's strength of 25.21 MPa. Improvements were also observed in split tensile and flexural strengths, with maximum values of 2.00 MPa and 2.64 MPa, respectively. The modified concrete showed reduced water absorption and porosity, indicating enhanced durability. Notably, the resistance to sulfuric acid attack improved, with the lowest weight loss (5.52%) and strength loss (6.39%) recorded in the e-waste mix. These findings affirm that utilizing e-waste in concrete not only contributes to superior mechanical performance but also enhances resistance to environmental challenges. This research promotes the sustainable use of e-waste in construction, supporting eco-friendly practices and effective waste management strategies.

Keywords:
E-waste; Waste management; Workability; Mechanical; Durability

1. INTRODUCTION

To lessen its effects on the environment and preserve natural resources, the construction sector is always looking for sustainable substitutes for conventional materials. The use of electronic waste (E-waste) in concrete as a partial substitute for coarse aggregates is one potential strategy. This review synthesizes current research on the use of E-waste in concrete, focusing on its effects on mechanical properties, durability, and environmental benefits.

E-waste, comprising discarded electronic devices, is a growing environmental concern due to its hazardous components and low recycling rates [¹]. Utilizing E-waste in concrete not only addresses waste management issues but also reduces the demand for natural aggregates, thus promoting sustainable construction practices [², ³]. In general, adding e-waste to concrete makes it easier to deal with. This is explained by the fact that e-waste aggregates absorb less water than natural aggregates [⁴]. Nonetheless, some research indicates that a higher e-waste concentration results in decreased workability. The mechanical characteristics of concrete that partially substitutes e-waste for natural coarse aggregates (NCA) [⁵]. Most people agree that although e-waste concrete’s compressive strength tends to drop as replacement levels rise, it still falls within reasonable bounds for structural uses [⁶].

Research indicates a reduction in compressive strength with increasing E-waste content. For instance, a study found that replacing NCA with E-waste plastic aggregate (PCA) at levels of 10-50% resulted in a compressive strength decline of 9.9–52.7% [², ⁷]. Another study observed a maximum reduction of 44% in compressive strength with 60% E-waste replacement [⁸]. However, some studies report that up to 15% replacement can still yield satisfactory compressive strength [⁹]. Tensile and flexural strengths show comparable patterns. For 10–50% replacement levels, the tensile strength of e-waste concrete dropped by 7.8–47.5% [¹⁰] while flexural strength showed a reduction of 11–39.4% [¹¹]. Despite these reductions, the strengths remain adequate for many construction applications. The compressive strength of concrete with E-waste aggregates generally decreases, with reductions ranging from 6.3% to 52.7% depending on the percentage of E-waste used [¹²,¹³,¹⁴]. Similarly, the splitting tensile strength also declines, with reductions between 7.8% and 47.5% [³, ¹²,¹³,¹⁴].

The durability and workability of E-waste concrete are vital factors for its practical application. Studies have shown mixed results, with some improvements in specific durability aspects. E-waste concrete exhibits enhanced durability characteristics in certain aspects. As the amount of E-waste increased, a notable decrease in the sorptivity coefficient, abrasion loss, and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) was noted [¹⁵]. Furthermore, as compared to ordinary concrete, e-waste concrete performed better against alternating wetting and drying cycles [⁷, ¹⁶]. Better performance against alternating wetting and drying cycles, a lower sorptivity coefficient, and less abrasion loss are just a few of the enhanced workability and durability characteristics of concrete containing e-waste particles [¹⁷]. The use of superplasticizers and wet lock sealants can further enhance workability and strength properties [¹, ¹⁸].

The optimal replacement level of E-waste for maintaining acceptable mechanical properties while improving durability is generally up to 20% [⁹, ¹¹, ¹⁹]. Beyond 20%, the mechanical properties, particularly compressive and tensile strengths, tend to decline significantly [⁹, ¹¹, ²⁰]. E-waste concrete can exhibit better structural performance in specific applications, such as increased load-carrying capacity and improved flexural strength in concrete beams, up to a certain replacement level [²¹, ²²]. The incorporation of E-waste reduces the dry density of concrete, which can be advantageous for reducing the self-weight of structural elements and improving deformability before failure [²³].

There are significant financial and environmental advantages to using e-waste in concrete. It lowers the carbon footprint of producing concrete, conserves natural resources, and lessens landfill trash [¹, ²⁴]. By diverting E-waste from landfills and incorporating it into concrete, the environmental burden of waste disposal is significantly reduced. This approach also mitigates the extraction of natural aggregates, preserving natural habitats and reducing energy consumption [⁶, ²⁵]. Utilizing E-waste as a partial replacement for natural aggregates can lead to cost savings in concrete production [⁶, ¹⁸, ²⁶]. The reduced demand for natural aggregates and the potential for lower landfill costs contribute to the economic viability [²⁷].

Notwithstanding the encouraging outcomes, a number of obstacles must be overcome before e-waste concrete may be widely used. These include ensuring consistent quality and performance of E-waste aggregates, addressing potential health and safety concerns, and developing standardized guidelines for their use [²⁸]. The incorporation of E-waste as a partial replacement for coarse aggregates in concrete presents a viable solution for sustainable construction. While there are reductions in mechanical properties, the overall performance remains acceptable for many applications. The environmental and economic benefits further support the adoption of E-waste concrete. Continued research and development are necessary to overcome existing challenges and promote the use of E-waste in the construction industry.

2. MATERIAL AND MIX DESIGNATION

2.1. Cement

Cement is a key construction material known for its binding properties. It has a specific gravity of 3.15, indicating its density relative to water. The standard consistency is 32%, which reflects the water required to achieve a workable paste. Cement’s initial setting time is 35 minutes, allowing sufficient time for mixing, placing, and finishing, while the final setting time is 477 minutes, ensuring adequate curing for strength development. With a compressive strength of 43.5 N/mm², it provides high load-bearing capacity. Soundness at 0.9 mm shows minimal expansion, ensuring structural integrity and resistance to cracking over time.

2.2. Flyash

Fly ash is a fine powder with a rich composition that makes it ideal for enhancing concrete properties. Its high silica content (66.38%) promotes pozzolanic activity, improving strength and durability. Alumina (21.61%) aids in setting time regulation, while iron oxide (6.22%) imparts stability and strength. Calcium oxide (1.21%) provides additional cementitious properties, though in low quantities, making it suitable for applications without excessive heat generation. The magnesium oxide (0.87%) content supports dimensional stability, and trace amounts of sulfur trioxide ensure minimal risk of sulfate attack. With a specific gravity of 2.18 and a fineness modulus of 2.71, this fly ash optimizes workability and cohesiveness in concrete mixes.

2.3. Aggregates

The 2.65 specific gravity and 2.66 fineness modulus of this M-sand make it an ideal choice for making concrete. Coarse aggregate is essential for concrete strength and stability. It has a specific gravity of 2.66, indicating its relative density compared to water, which helps in achieving proper concrete weight and balance. With a fineness modulus of 6.58, it provides suitable gradation, contributing to workability and minimizing voids. Its water absorption of 0.5% shows low porosity, enhancing durability by resisting moisture infiltration. The angular shape promotes good interlocking, improving bond strength within the mix. The aggregate’s crushing value of 27.2% and impact value of 24.73% demonstrate adequate resistance to crushing and impact forces, ensuring durability under load.

2.4. E-plastic particles

Waste E-plastic particles are increasingly used as an alternative aggregate in construction due to their lightweight and durable properties. With a specific gravity of 1.1, they significantly reduce the overall density of concrete, making it suitable for lightweight applications. Their low water absorption (<0.25%) minimizes moisture ingress, enhancing durability. The angular shape of these particles aids in mechanical interlocking within the concrete matrix. The extremely low crushing and impact values (<0.3%) indicate high resistance to fragmentation under stress, which helps maintain the integrity and longevity of the concrete structure when mixed with traditional aggregates. Figure 1 shows the materials used in this research. Table 1 shows the mix designation of various mix.

Figure 1
Shows the materials used in this research.

Table 1
Shows the mix designation.

S.No.	MIX	DESIGNATION
1	T1	Conventional concrete
2	T2	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 97% CA + 3% E-waste + 100% M-sand
3	T3	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 94% CA + 6% E-waste + 100% M-sand
4	T4	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 91% CA + 9% E-waste + 100% M-sand
5	T5	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 88% CA + 12% E-waste + 100% M-sand
6	T6	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 85% CA + 15% E-waste + 100% M-sand
7	T7	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 82% CA + 18% E-waste + 100% M-sand
8	T8	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 79% CA + 21% E-waste + 100% M-sand
9	T9	90% OPC + 10% Flyash + 76% CA + 24% E-waste + 100% M-sand

3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

Using a variety of experiments, this research investigates the workability, mechanical, and durability properties of concrete. The compaction factor test and slump cone test are used to evaluate workability. The slump cone test measures workability by placing fresh concrete in a truncated cone, removing it vertically, and measuring the sinking. The compaction factor test evaluates the compatibility and flow of concrete by dumping it into two hoppers to determine the ratio of partially compacted to fully compacted concrete.

Compressive strength, split tensile strength, and flexural strength are tests used to evaluate mechanical behavior. After curing, standard cube specimens are subjected to a compressive strength test, which gauges their resistance to axial stresses. Applying a diametric load to cylindrical specimens yields the split tensile strength, which indicates the concrete’s resistance to indirect stress. In order to assess the bending resistance and gain knowledge of the load-bearing capacity under flexural stress, flexural strength tests are performed on beam samples.

The durability behavior is assessed through saturated water absorption, permeability, acid resistance, and sorptivity tests. Saturated water absorption evaluates the porosity of concrete by determining the amount of water absorbed after immersion. The permeability test measures the rate of water ingress under pressure, indicating the concrete’s resistance to fluid movement, vital for durability in harsh environments. The acid resistance test involves submerging samples in acid solutions, observing weight loss and strength reduction over time to assess resilience against chemical attacks. Finally, sorptivity tests analyze capillary absorption by measuring the rate of water intake through surface pores, reflecting concrete’s ability to resist moisture penetration.

This investigation provides a comprehensive understanding of the performance of concrete mixes across workability, mechanical, and durability criteria, aiding in selecting appropriate mixes for structural and environmental demands.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Slump cone test

The slump values observed in the mixes indicate the impact of varying E-waste content on the workability of concrete. The control mix (T1) achieved a slump of 118 mm, suggesting moderate workability. As E-waste content increased from 3% (T2) to 24% (T9), slump values rose from 116 mm to 126 mm, reflecting improved workability with higher E-waste percentages. This trend suggests that E-waste particles, due to their low water absorption and smooth surfaces, enhance the flow and consistency of the mix, facilitating easier placement.

However, an increase in slump beyond conventional limits may affect the cohesiveness of the concrete. Therefore, balancing E-waste content is essential to maintain the desired workability without compromising structural integrity. Overall, the study highlights that incorporating E-waste can positively influence workability, though further mechanical and durability assessments are required to ensure its suitability in structural applications. Figure 2 shows the slump value.

Figure 2
Slump cone test.

4.2. Compaction factor test

As the proportion of e-waste in the concrete mixes rises, the compaction factor findings show a progressive decline in workability. With the maximum compaction factor of 0.934, the ordinary concrete (T1) showed the best workability. In contrast, T9, with 24% e-waste, showed the lowest compaction factor of 0.851, reflecting a significant reduction in workability due to the higher volume of less cohesive e-waste material. The decrease in compaction factor from T2 (0.928) to T9 (0.851) suggests that the inclusion of e-waste adversely affects the concrete’s compaction properties. This trend may be attributed to the physical characteristics of e-waste, which could introduce more voids in the mix, thereby hindering proper compaction. Overall, while the blends containing fly ash and e-waste show potential for sustainable concrete solutions, careful consideration must be given to the proportions of e-waste to maintain adequate workability. Figure 3 shows the compaction factor.

Figure 3
Compaction factor test.

4.3. Compression strength test

The compressive strength results for the concrete mixes reveal a positive correlation between the inclusion of e-waste and the early strength development, with most blends outperforming the conventional concrete (T1) at all curing ages. The conventional mix achieved a compressive strength of 25.21 MPa at 28 days, while T5, which contained 12% e-waste, exhibited the highest compressive strength of 30.19 MPa, indicating enhanced performance.

Interestingly, mixes with moderate e-waste content (T2 to T5) consistently showed improved strength at 7, 14, and 28 days, suggesting that the combination of fly ash and controlled amounts of e-waste can effectively contribute to the cementitious properties. However, as the e-waste content increased beyond 12% (as seen in T6 to T9), a slight decline in strength was observed, particularly in T9, which had the lowest compressive strength of 26.25 MPa at 28 days. This indicates that excessive e-waste can compromise the structural integrity of the concrete. Therefore, optimal proportions are vital for maximizing the mechanical properties while promoting sustainability. Figure 4 shows the compressive strength test.

Figure 4
Compressive strength test.

4.4. Split tensile strength

The split tensile strength results demonstrate a marked improvement in tensile performance for the concrete mixes incorporating e-waste compared to the conventional concrete (T1). At 28 days, T1 achieved a split tensile strength of 1.67 MPa, while the mixes with e-waste consistently exhibited higher strengths. T5, with 12% e-waste, recorded the highest split tensile strength of 2.00 MPa, indicating that an optimal proportion of e-waste can enhance tensile performance.

The increase in tensile strength from T2 to T5 suggests that the combination of fly ash and moderate e-waste contributes positively to the concrete’s ability to resist tensile forces. Notably, mixes with higher e-waste content (T6 to T9) displayed a slight decline in tensile strength, with T9 achieving only 1.74 MPa at 28 days, indicating that excessive e-waste may negatively impact the material’s structural integrity. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of balancing e-waste proportions to maximize both compressive and tensile strengths in sustainable concrete applications. Figure 5 shows the split tensile strength test results.

Figure 5
Split tensile strength test.

4.5. Flexural strength test

In comparison to the standard mix (T1), the flexural strength findings show a notable improvement in the bending resistance of concrete mixes including e-waste. At 28 days, T1 achieved a flexural strength of 2.21 MPa, whereas mixes containing e-waste consistently outperformed it. Notably, T5, with 12% e-waste, demonstrated the highest flexural strength of 2.64 MPa, suggesting that an optimal blend of fly ash and e-waste can effectively improve flexural performance.

The progressive increase in flexural strength from T2 to T5 indicates that incorporating e-waste, up to a certain threshold, contributes positively to the concrete’s structural integrity. However, as the percentage of e-waste increased beyond 12% (as seen in T6 to T9), a slight decline in flexural strength was observed, with T9 reaching only 2.30 MPa at 28 days. This decline suggests that excessive e-waste content can adversely affect the material properties. All things considered, these results highlight the possibility of using e-waste in concrete compositions while highlighting the necessity of precise proportioning to attain the best mechanical performance. The results of the flexural strength test are displayed in Figure 6.

Figure 6
Flexural strength test.

4.6. Saturated water absorption test

The findings of saturated water absorption show that adding e-waste to the concrete mixtures significantly reduces water permeability. At 28 days, the absorption rate of the standard concrete (T1) was the greatest at 3.42%; by 90 days, it had dropped to 2.96%. In contrast, the mixes with e-waste consistently demonstrated lower absorption rates, suggesting enhanced impermeability.

Notably, T5, with 12% e-waste, exhibited an absorption rate of only 2.94% at 28 days, further decreasing to 2.55% by 90 days, showcasing its superior performance in reducing water uptake. As the percentage of e-waste increased, particularly in T6 to T9, the absorption rates continued to decline, with T9 showing the lowest absorption rate of 2.62% at 28 days, down to 2.27% at 90 days. These findings suggest that incorporating e-waste, especially up to 12%, not only enhances mechanical properties but also improves the durability of concrete by reducing water absorption, potentially leading to longer-lasting structures. Figure 7 shows the saturated water absorption test results.

Figure 7
Saturated water absorption test.

4.7. Porosity test

The porosity results indicate a significant reduction in the porosity of concrete mixes containing e-waste compared to conventional concrete (T1). At 28 days, T1 recorded a porosity of 3.43%, which decreased to 2.97% at 90 days. In contrast, the inclusion of e-waste led to a consistent decline in porosity across all mixes, highlighting improved density and structural integrity. Mix T5, which contains 12% e-waste, exhibited a porosity of 2.95% at 28 days, decreasing to 2.56% by 90 days, demonstrating enhanced performance in reducing voids within the concrete. The trend continues as the e-waste content increases; for instance, T9, with the highest e-waste content (24%), recorded the lowest porosity of 2.63% at 28 days, further decreasing to 2.28% by 90 days.

These results suggest that integrating e-waste into concrete formulations not only improves mechanical properties but also enhances durability by minimizing porosity. The overall decrease in porosity indicates better resistance to environmental factors and potentially prolongs the lifespan of the structures. Figure 8 shows the porosity test results.

Figure 8
Porosity test.

4.8. Acid resistance test

The results of the sulfuric acid resistance test show a significant reduction in weight loss for concrete mixes containing e-waste compared to conventional concrete (T1). The conventional concrete exhibited a weight loss of 6.87%, indicating a relatively high susceptibility to acid attack. Conversely, the inclusion of e-waste improved the resistance of the concrete to sulfuric acid exposure, with the best-performing mix, T5 (12% e-waste), showing a weight loss of only 5.52%. As the percentage of e-waste increased, the loss of weight generally decreased, suggesting enhanced durability against acid attack. For instance, T4, which contains 9% e-waste, displayed a loss of 5.91%, while T3 (6% e-waste) and T2 (3% e-waste) exhibited losses of 6.13% and 6.52%, respectively.

However, T9, with 24% e-waste, showed an increased weight loss of 6.97%, indicating that excessive e-waste content may compromise the concrete’s acid resistance. Overall, these findings indicate that moderate incorporation of e-waste can significantly enhance the acid resistance of concrete, contributing to its durability in harsh environmental conditions. Balancing e-waste proportions is essential to maximize performance while ensuring structural integrity. Figures 9 and 10 shows the percentage of loss in weight and strength.

Figure 9
Percentage loss of weight.

Figure 10
Percentage loss of strength.

The results of the sulfuric acid resistance test indicate a notable reduction in strength loss for concrete mixes incorporating e-waste compared to conventional concrete (T1). The conventional mix exhibited a strength loss of 7.95%, signifying a significant impact from acid exposure. In contrast, mixes with e-waste demonstrated improved resistance, with T5 (12% e-waste) showing the lowest strength loss of 6.39%. As the proportion of e-waste increased, the loss of strength generally decreased, suggesting that moderate incorporation of e-waste enhances the durability of concrete against acid attack. For example, T4, with 9% e-waste, recorded a strength loss of 6.84%, while T3 (6% e-waste) and T2 (3% e-waste) exhibited losses of 7.09% and 7.54%, respectively.

However, T9, which contained 24% e-waste, displayed the highest loss of strength at 8.06%, indicating that excessive e-waste can negatively affect performance under acidic conditions. Overall, these findings highlight the potential of using e-waste in concrete formulations to enhance acid resistance, while emphasizing the importance of optimizing e-waste proportions to achieve the best structural integrity and durability.

5. CONCLUSION

The test results indicate that the incorporation of e-waste into concrete formulations significantly enhances various performance metrics compared to conventional concrete (T1). The compressive strength tests revealed a gradual improvement, with T5 (12% e-waste) exhibiting the highest compressive strength of 30.19 MPa at 28 days, compared to T1’s 25.21 MPa. Similarly, split tensile and flexural strengths showed positive trends, peaking at 2.00 MPa and 2.64 MPa, respectively, in T5.

Water absorption and porosity values decreased with increasing e-waste content, indicating better durability and lower permeability, which are essential for enhancing the longevity of concrete in adverse environments. For instance, T5 recorded a saturated water absorption of just 2.94%, compared to T1’s 3.42%.

Moreover, the resistance of the concrete to sulfuric acid attack was notably improved in mixes containing e-waste. T5 demonstrated the lowest percentage loss of weight (5.52%) and strength (6.39%) in the sulfuric acid test, underscoring the protective benefits of e-waste incorporation.

The results affirm that utilizing e-waste as a partial replacement for conventional aggregates not only enhances the mechanical properties of concrete but also contributes to improved durability against environmental stressors such as acid exposure. This study advocates for the sustainable practice of recycling e-waste in concrete production, aligning with the goals of eco-friendly construction and waste management.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

• ^[1] LUHAR, S., LUHAR, I., “Potential application of E-wastes in construction industry: a review”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 203, pp. 222–240, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.080.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.080
• ^[2] AHMAD, F., JAMAL, A., MAZHER, K.M., et al, “Performance evaluation of plastic concrete modified with e-waste plastic as a partial replacement of coarse aggregate”, Materials, v. 15, n. 1, pp. 175, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010175.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010175
• ^[3] SABAU, M., VARGAS, J.R., “Use of e-plastic waste in concrete as a partial replacement of coarse mineral aggregate”, Computers and Concrete, v. 21, pp. 377–384, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.12989/CAC.2018.21.4.377.
  » https://doi.org/10.12989/CAC.2018.21.4.377
• ^[4] HAMSAVATHI, K., PRAKASH, K., KAVIMANI, V., “Green high strength concrete containing recycled Cathode Ray Tube Panel Plastics (E-waste) as coarse aggregate in concrete beams for structural applications”, Journal of Building Engineering, v. 30, pp. 101192, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101192.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101192
• ^[5] SUCHITHRA, S., INDU, V.S., “Study on replacement of coarse aggregate by e-waste in concrete”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, v. 3, n. 29, pp. 1–5, 2018.
• ^[6] SANTHANAM, N., RAMESH, B., KHIM POHSNEM, F., “Ramesh and Freddy Khim Pohsnem. “Concrete blend with E-waste plastic for sustainable future”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 22, pp. 959–965, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.204.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.204
• ^[7] SENTHIL KUMAR, K., BASKAR, K., “Recycling of E-plastic waste as a construction material in developing countries”, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, v. 17, n. 4, pp. 718–724, 2015. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0303-5.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0303-5
• ^[8] PARAMASIVAN, S., RAJAGOPAL, T., “Strength studies on concrete using e-plastic waste as coarse aggregate”, Global NEST Journal, v. 27, n. 3, pp. 212–215, 2025. doi: http://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.004799.
  » https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.004799
• ^[9] ULLAH, Z., QURESHI, M.I., AHMAD, A., et al, “An experimental study on the mechanical and durability properties assessment of e-waste concrete”, Journal of Building Engineering, v. 38, pp. 102177, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102177.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102177
• ^[10] MANJUNATH, A., “Partial replacement of E-plastic waste as coarse-aggregate in concrete”, Procedia Environmental Sciences, v. 35, pp. 731–739, 2016. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.079.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.079
• ^[11] BHARANI, S., GULSHANTAJ, M.N.A., RAMESHKUMAR, G., et al, “Mechanical properties of concrete as partial replacement of coarse aggregate by e-waste”, IOP Conference Series. Materials Science and Engineering, v. 1145, n. 1, pp. 012005, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1145/1/012005.
  » https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1145/1/012005
• ^[12] ABBAS, S.N., QURESHI, M.I., ABID, M.M., et al, “An investigation of mechanical properties of concrete by applying sand coating on recycled High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) and electronic-wastes (e-wastes) used as a partial replacement of natural coarse aggregates”, Sustainability, v. 14, n. 7, pp. 4087, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/su14074087.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074087
• ^[13] NAVEEN KUMAR, S., NATARAJAN, M., NAVEEN ARASU, A., “A comprehensive microstructural analysis for enhancing concrete’s longevity and environmental sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology, v. 13, n. 2, pp. 368–376, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2024.06.242584.
  » https://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2024.06.242584
• ^[14] HAMSAVATHI, K., PRAKASH, K., KAVIMANI, V., “Green high strength concrete containing recycled cathode ray tube panel plastics (e-waste) as coarse aggregate in concrete beams for structural applications”, Journal of Building Engineering, v. 30, pp. 101192, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101192.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101192
• ^[15] PRASHANT, S., KUMAR, M., “Effect of partial replacement of coarse aggregates with e-waste on strength properties of concrete”, In: Das, B., Neithalath, N. (eds), Sustainable construction and building materials, Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, v. 25, Singapore, Springer, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_48.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_48
• ^[16] DIXIT, S., ARORA, R., KUMAR, K., et al, “Replacing E-waste with coarse aggregate in architectural engineering and construction industry”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 56, pp. 2353–2358, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.154.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.12.154
• ^[17] NEEDHIDASAN, S., RAMESH, B., JOSHUA RICHARD PRABU, S., “Experimental study on use of E-waste plastics as coarse aggregate in concrete with manufactured sand”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 22, pp. 715–721, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.10.006.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.10.006
• ^[18] ARASU NAVEEN, A., NATARAJAN, M., BALASUNDARAM, N., et al, “Optimization of high performance concrete by using nano materials”, Research on Engineering Structures Materials, v. 3, n. 9, pp. 843–859, 2023.
• ^[19] AHIRWAR, S., MALVIYA, P., PATIDAR, V., et al, “An experimental study on concrete by using E-waste as partial replacement for course aggregate”, International Journal of Science Technology & Engineering, v. 3, n. 4, pp. 7–13, 2016.
• ^[20] DANISH, A., MOSABERPANAH, M.A., OZBAKKALOGLU, T., et al, “A compendious review on the influence of e-waste aggregates on the properties of concrete”, Case Studies in Construction Materials, v. 18, e01740, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01740.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01740
• ^[21] MARY TREASA SHINU, N.M., NEEDHIDASAN, S., “An experimental study of replacing conventional coarse aggregate with E-waste plastic for M40 grade concrete using river sand”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 22, pp. 633–638, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.033.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.09.033
• ^[22] PARTHASAARATHI, R., BALASUNDARAM, N., NAVEEN ARASU, A., “A stiffness analysis of treated and non-treated meshed coir layer fibre reinforced cement concrete”, AIP Conference Proceedings, v. 2861, n. 1, pp. 050002, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158672.
  » https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158672
• ^[23] AHMAD, F., JAMAL, A., MAZHER, K.M., et al, “Performance evaluation of plastic concrete modified with e-waste plastic as a partial replacement of coarse aggregate”, Materials, v. 15, n. 1, pp. 175, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010175. PubMed PMID: 35009322.
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15010175
• ^[24] SHILPA, B., NAGARAJAN, K., NARWADE, R., et al, “E-waste: an alternative to partial replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, v. 8, n. 7, pp. 993–999, 2019.
• ^[25] KRISHNASWAMI, N., VELUSAMY, S., PALANISAMY, C., et al, “Experimental studies on recycled E-waste by using coarse aggregate in concrete”, Materials Today: Proceedings, v. 65, pp. 1996–2002, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.05.328.
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.05.328
• ^[26] RATHORE, V., RAWAT, A., “Effective utilization of electronic waste in concrete mixture as a partial replacement to coarse aggregates”, AIP Conference Proceedings, v. 2158, n. 1, pp. 020037, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127161.
  » https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5127161
• ^[27] SRINIVASAN, S.S., MUTHUSAMY, N., ANBARASU, N.A., “The structural performance of fiber-reinforced concrete beams with nanosilica”, Matéria, v. 29, n. 3, e20240194, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0194.
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0194
• ^[28] PARTHASAARATHI, R., BALASUNDARAM, N., NAVEEN ARASU, A., et al, “Analysing the impact and investigating Coconut Shell Fiber Reinforced Concrete (CSFRC) under varied loading conditions”, Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, v. 35, n. 1, pp. 106–120, 2024.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  17 Feb 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  21 Nov 2024
• Accepted
  18 Dec 2024