Submitted:
09 April 2024
Posted:
10 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Experimental Methods
2.1. Fabrication of SSRS Cement Mortar Specimens
2.1.1. Materials
2.1.2. Test Mix Proportions and Variables for SSRS-Substituted Cement Mortar
2.2. Fabrication of PE Cement Mortar Specimens
2.2.1. Materials
2.2.2. Test Mix Proportions and Variables for PE-Substituted Cement Mortar
2.3. Test Methods for the Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Cement Mortar
2.4. Direct Cost Comparison and Cost-Benefit Analysis
| Manufacturer/Provider | Address | Province/County | Remarks | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Rong Iron Works Co., Ltd. | No. 4, Coastal 2nd Road, Xiaogang District, Kaohsiung City | Kaohsiung | SSRS provider | |
| Yelian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. | No. 600, Xinglong Street, Gangshan District, Kaohsiung City | Kaohsiung | SSRS provider | |
| Walsin Lihwa Co., Ltd. | No. 3-10, Neighborhood 12, Xizhouliao 12, Xishuili, Yanshui District, Tainan City | Tainan | SSRS provider | |
| Ronggang Material Technology Co., Ltd. | No. 35, Xinzhong Road, Xinying District, Tainan City | Tainan | SSRS provider | |
| Shin Feng Concrete Co., ltd. | No. 779, Dachang Road, Wandan Township, Pingtung County | Pingtung | Concrete pavement manufacturer | |
| Tianjiu Industrial Co., Ltd. | No. 12-39, Shangjiaji, Houbi District, Tainan City | Tainan | Concrete pavement manufacturer | |
| Tai Fu Cement Products Co., Ltd. | Changhua 1 and 2 plants: No. 52-1, Xinggong Road, Shengang Township, Changhua County (Quanxing Industrial Zone) | Changhua | Concrete pavement manufacturer | |
| Yama Development Co., Ltd. | No. 5 Industrial North 1st Road, Nantou City, Nantou County | Nantou | Concrete pavement manufacturer | |
| Shangmei Industrial Co., Ltd. | 80-15, Adjacent to Dadongkeng 80, Dongpingli, Guanxi Town, Hsinchu County | Hsinchu | Concrete pavement manufacturer | |
| Zhenglong Co., Ltd. | 300 Section 2, Changqing Road, Zhubei, Hsinchu County | Hsinchu | Single-use plastic provider | |
| Aplus Molds & Plastics Co., Ltd. | 63 Lane 350 Chong Jeng Road, Yongkang District, Tainan City | Tainan | Plastic pavement manufacturer |
2.5. Carbon Footprint Emission Calculations
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Mechanical Properties (Fresh & Hardened)
3.1.1. Slump
3.1.2. Flow
3.1.3. Compressive Strength
3.1.4. Flexural Strength
3.1.5. Tensile strength


3.1.6. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV)


3.1.7. Water Absorption
3.2. Direct Cost Comparison and Cost-Benefit Analysis
| Single-use plastic provider | Plastic pavement manufacturer | Distance | Duration of trip | Total transportation cost per day (NTD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhenglong Co., Ltd. | Aplus Molds & Plastics Co., Ltd. | 235 | 2 hr 40 mins | 12000 |
3.3. Carbon footprint emission
4. Conclusions
- With increasing SSRS substitution amount, the overall workability (slump and slump flow) of the cement mortar mixture was enhanced. This can be attributed to the more uniform size and shape distribution of SSRS. On the other hand, increasing the PE substitution amount resulted in reduced overall workability. This can be attributed to the non-uniform size distribution and angular shape of the PE aggregates.
- In terms of the mechanical properties (compressive strength, flexural strength, and tensile strength), a similar trend was observed for both cases. Increasing the substitution amount for both SSRS and PE resulted in lower mechanical strength. Similarly, increasing the w/c ratio also resulted in poor mechanical properties due to enhanced formation of porosity in the cement mortar samples.
- Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) test results showed that increasing the w/c ratio from 0.4 to 0.6 reduced the UPV by up to 6%. Increasing the PE substitution amount from 0% to 4% also reduced the UPV by 5-8%. Similarly, increasing the w/c ratio reduced the UPV of SSRS-cement mortar samples by up to 12%. While increasing the SSRS substitution amount from 0% to 10% reduced the UPV by up to 11%. The decreasing trend in the UPV is attributed to the increased formation of porosity in the test specimen and the increased number of barriers that attenuated the ultrasonic wave.
- The water absorption results showed that for both PE-cement mortar and SSRS-cement mortar samples, increasing the w/c ratio and substitution amount resulted in increased water absorption due to increased formation of porosity in the test body. These findings are in good agreement with the mechanical tests done in this study.
- Comparative analysis of the transportation costs and carbon footprint emission showed that geographical location remains a challenge in the fabrication of cement mortar with PE and SSRS as partial replacements for aggregates. More efforts are needed to make PE and SSRS more accessible to cement mortar manufacturers all over Taiwan to further reduce the cost of fabrication.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Belaïd, F. (2022). How does concrete and cement industry transformation contribute to mitigating climate change challenges? Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 15, 200084.
- Nwankwo, C.O., et al., High volume Portland cement replacement: A review. Construction and Building materials, 2020. 260: p. 120445. [CrossRef]
- Dunuweera, S. P., & Rajapakse, R. M. G. (2018). Cement types, composition, uses and advantages of nanocement, environmental impact on cement production, and possible solutions. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018, 1-11.
- World Energy Outlook 2014. 2014: Paris, France.
- (CSI), C.S.I., Cement Industry Energy and CO2 Performance: Getting the Numbers Right (GNR). 2016.
- Sigvardsen, N.M., et al., Impact of production parameters on physiochemical characteristics of wood ash for possible utilisation in cement-based materials. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019. 145: p. 230-240. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q., D. Wang, and S. Zhuang, The soundness of steel slag with different free CaO and MgO contents. Construction and Building Materials, 2017. 151: p. 138-146. [CrossRef]
- Biskri, Y., et al., Mechanical and durability characteristics of High Performance Concrete containing steel slag and crystalized slag as aggregates. Construction and Building Materials, 2017. 150: p. 167-178. [CrossRef]
- Rosales, J., et al., Alkali-Activated Stainless Steel Slag as a Cementitious Material in the Manufacture of Self-Compacting Concrete. Materials, 2021. 14(14): p. 3945. [CrossRef]
- Miranda, T., et al., Application of alkali-activated industrial wastes for the stabilisation of a full-scale (sub) base layer. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 242: p. 118427. [CrossRef]
- Clavier, K.A., et al., Opportunities and challenges associated with using municipal waste incineration ash as a raw ingredient in cement production–a review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2020. 160: p. 104888. [CrossRef]
- Le, D.-H., Y.-N. Sheen, and Q.-B. Bui, An assessment on volume stabilization of mortar with stainless steel slag sand. Construction and Building Materials, 2017. 155: p. 200-208. [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.-J. Strategies for promoting steelmaking slag resourcezation in Taiwan. in MATEC Web of Conferences. 2018. EDP Sciences. [CrossRef]
- Sheen, Y.-N., D.-H. Le, and M.N.-T. Lam, Performance of self-compacting concrete with stainless steel slag versus fly ash as fillers: A comparative study. Periodica Polytechnica Civil Engineering, 2021. 65(4): p. 1050-1060. [CrossRef]
- Liu, S. and L. Li, Influence of fineness on the cementitious properties of steel slag. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2014. 117(2): p. 629-634. [CrossRef]
- Ducman, V. and A. Mladenovič, The potential use of steel slag in refractory concrete. Materials Characterization, 2011. 62(7): p. 716-723. [CrossRef]
- Monosi, S., M.L. Ruello, and D. Sani, Electric arc furnace slag as natural aggregate replacement in concrete production. Cement and concrete composites, 2016. 66: p. 66-72. [CrossRef]
- Groh, K.J., et al., Overview of known plastic packaging-associated chemicals and their hazards. Science of the total environment, 2019. 651: p. 3253-3268. [CrossRef]
- The New Plastics Economy — Rethinking the future of plastics. 2016.
- Yearbook of Environmental Protection Statistics. 2021: Taipei, Taiwan.
- 2020 sales news for wholesale, retail, and food services. 2020; Available from: https://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/dos/bulletin/Bulletin.aspx?kind=9&html=1&menu_id=18808&bull_id=7217.
- Kulkarni, B.N. and V. Anantharama, Repercussions of COVID-19 pandemic on municipal solid waste management: Challenges and opportunities. Science of the Total Environment, 2020. 743: p. 140693. [CrossRef]
- Yousefi, M., et al., Municipal solid waste management during COVID-19 pandemic: effects and repercussions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2021. 28(25): p. 32200-32209. [CrossRef]
- Sarkodie, S.A. and P.A. Owusu, Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on waste management. Environment, development and sustainability, 2021. 23(5): p. 7951-7960. [CrossRef]
- Geyer, R., J.R. Jambeck, and K.L. Law, Production, use, and fate of all plastics ever made. Science advances, 2017. 3(7): p. e1700782. [CrossRef]
- Raheem, D., Application of plastics and paper as food packaging materials-An overview. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 2013: p. 177-188. [CrossRef]
- Ncube, L.K., et al., An overview of plastic waste generation and management in food packaging industries. Recycling, 2021. 6(1): p. 12. [CrossRef]
- Rumšys, D., et al., Comparison of material properties of lightweight concrete with recycled polyethylene and expanded clay aggregates. Procedia Engineering, 2017. 172: p. 937-944. [CrossRef]
- Al-Osta, M.A., et al., Development of sustainable concrete using recycled high-density polyethylene and crumb tires: Mechanical and thermal properties. Journal of Building Engineering, 2022. 45: p. 103399. [CrossRef]
- Yoo, D.-Y. and M.-J. Kim, High energy absorbent ultra-high-performance concrete with hybrid steel and polyethylene fibers. Construction and Building Materials, 2019. 209: p. 354-363. [CrossRef]
- Dong, Q., et al., Recycling of steel slag aggregate in portland cement concrete: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021. 282: p. 124447. [CrossRef]
- Fisher, L.V. and A.R. Barron, The recycling and reuse of steelmaking slags—A review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019. 146: p. 244-255.
- Jiménez, L. F., Dominguez, J. A., & Vega-Azamar, R. E. (2018). Carbon footprint of recycled aggregate concrete. Advances in civil engineering, 2018. [CrossRef]
- Instituto Nacional de Ecología. (2004). Inventario Nacional de Emisiones de Gases de Efecto Invernadero 1990-2002. Instituto Nacional de Ecología, México.
- Turner, L. K., & Collins, F. G. (2013). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construction and building materials, 43, 125-130. [CrossRef]
- Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (2015). Registro Nacional de Emisiones. Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, México.
- Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía. (2011). Estudio Integral de Sistemas de Bombeo de Agua Potable Municipal. Comisión Nacional para el Uso Eficiente de la Energía, México.
- Al-Hadithi, A.I., A.T. Noaman, and W.K. Mosleh, Mechanical properties and impact behavior of PET fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete (SCC). Composite Structures, 2019. 224: p. 111021. [CrossRef]
- Rahim, N.L., et al. Use of plastic waste (high density polyethylene) in concrete mixture as aggregate replacement. in Advanced Materials Research. 2013. Trans Tech Publ. [CrossRef]
- Sharma, R. and P.P. Bansal, Use of different forms of waste plastic in concrete–a review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016. 112: p. 473-482. [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y., et al., Research Progress on Controlled Low-Strength Materials: Metallurgical Waste Slag as Cementitious Materials. Materials, 2022. 15(3): p. 727. [CrossRef]
- Susanto, A., D.A. Koleva, and K. van Breugel, The effect of water-to-cement ratio and curing on material properties of mortar specimens in stray current conditions. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 2017. 15(10): p. 627-643. [CrossRef]
- Hedjazi, S., Compressive strength of lightweight concrete. Compressive Strength of Concrete, 2019: p. 1-8.
- Kodua, J., et al., Influence of recycled waste high density polyethylene plastic aggregate on the physico-chemical and mechanical properties of concrete. 2018.
- Lee, Z.H., et al., Modification of waste aggregate PET for improving the concrete properties. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019. 2019. [CrossRef]
- Fathy, S., et al., Comparison of hydration properties of cement-carbon steel slag and cement-stainless steel slag blended binder. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018. 2018. [CrossRef]
- Brand, A.S. and J.R. Roesler, Steel furnace slag aggregate expansion and hardened concrete properties. Cement and Concrete Composites, 2015. 60: p. 1-9. [CrossRef]
- Martins, A.C.P., et al., Steel slags in cement-based composites: An ultimate review on characterization, applications and performance. Construction and Building Materials, 2021. 291: p. 123265. [CrossRef]
- Aydın, A.C., et al., Effect of boron active belite cement on the compressive strength of concrete exposed to high temperatures. Journal of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, 2018. 3: p. 47-52. [CrossRef]
- Saint-Pierre, F., et al., Concrete quality designation based on ultrasonic pulse velocity. Construction and Building Materials, 2016. 125: p. 1022-1027. [CrossRef]
- Babafemi, A.J., et al., Engineering properties of concrete with waste recycled plastic: A review. Sustainability, 2018. 10(11): p. 3875. [CrossRef]
- de Mello Soares, C.T., Ek, M., Östmark, E., Gällstedt, M., Karlsson, S., Recycling of multi-material multilayer plastic packaging: Current trends and future scenarios. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, Vol. 176, 2022, pp. 1-8. [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, K., Schmid, M., & Schlummer, M. (2017). Recycling of polymer-based multilayer packaging: A review. Recycling, 3(1), 1. [CrossRef]
- CLC Corporation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.clc.com.tw/en/ (Date Accessed: October 29, 2023).








| w/c | GGBFS | Fly ash | SSRS Substitution amount (%) |
SSRS | Cement | Sand | Water |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 87.20 | 43.60 | 0 | 0 | 437 | 1534.9 | 249.7 |
| 5 | 30.70 | 405.8 | |||||
| 10 | 61.40 | 374.6 | |||||
| 0.5 | 76.50 | 38.27 | 0 | 0 | 383.5 | 1534.9 | 274 |
| 5 | 27 | 356.1 | |||||
| 10 | 53.90 | 328.7 | |||||
| 0.6 | 87.20 | 34.09 | 0 | 0 | 341.72 | 1534.9 | 292.91 |
| 5 | 24.02 | 317.32 | |||||
| 10 | 48.04 | 292.91 |
| w/c | PE Substitution amount (%) | PE | Cement | Sand | Water |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 0 | 0 | 936.40 | 2302.32 | 374.56 |
| 1 | 13.85 | ||||
| 2 | 27.69 | ||||
| 3 | 41.54 | ||||
| 4 | 55.38 | ||||
| 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 821.85 | 2302.32 | 410.92 |
| 1 | 13.85 | ||||
| 2 | 27.69 | ||||
| 3 | 41.54 | ||||
| 4 | 55.38 | ||||
| 0.6 | 0 | 0 | 732.27 | 2302.32 | 439.36 |
| 1 | 13.85 | ||||
| 2 | 27.69 | ||||
| 3 | 41.54 | ||||
| 4 | 55.38 |
| Property | Test Standard/Reference |
|---|---|
| Workability | ASTM C143 |
| Compressive strength | ASTM C109 |
| Flexural strength | ASTM C348 |
| Tensile strength | ASTM C190 |
| Ultrasonic pulse velocity | ASTM C597 |
| Water absorption rate | ASTM C1585 |
| Material | Emission factor (kg CO2-e/kg) | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Cement | 0.745 | [34] |
| Explosives | 0.440 | [35] |
| Diesel | 2.680 | [35] |
| Coarse aggregates | 0.041 | [35] |
| Fine aggregates | 0.014 | [35] |
| Electricity | 0.458 | [36] |
| Water | 0.540 | [37] |
| Concrete | 0.012 | [35] |
| SSRS Provider | Concrete pavement manufacturer | Distance (km) | Duration of trip | Transportation cost per day (NTD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Rong Iron Works Co., Ltd. (Kaohsiung) | Shin Feng Concrete Co., Ltd. (Pingtung) | 19.3 | 30 mins | 3000 |
| Tang Rong Iron Works Co., Ltd. (Kaohsiung) | Tianjiu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | 114 | 1 hr 30 mins | 6000 |
| Yelian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (Kaohsiung) | Shin Feng Concrete Co., Ltd. (Pingtung) | 50.4 | 1 hr | 4500 |
| Yelian Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (Kaohsiung) | Tianjiu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | 81.3 | 1 hr | 4500 |
| Walsin Lihwa Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Tianjiu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | 14.8 | 20 mins | 3000 |
| Walsin Lihwa Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Tai Fu Cement Products Co., Ltd. (Changhua) | 110 | 1 hr 20 mins | 6000 |
| Walsin Lihwa Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Yama Development Co., Ltd. (Nantou) | 106 | 1 hr 15 mins | 6000 |
| Walsin Lihwa Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Shangmei Industrial Co., Ltd. (Hsinchu) | 226 | 2 hr 30 mins | 12000 |
| Ronggang Material Technology Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Tianjiu Industrial Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | 24.3 | 20 mins | 3000 |
| Ronggang Material Technology Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Tai Fu Cement Products Co., Ltd. (Changhua) | 108 | 1 hr 20 mins | 6000 |
| Ronggang Material Technology Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Yama Development Co., Ltd. (Nantou) | 104 | 1 hr 10 mins | 6000 |
| Ronggang Material Technology Co., Ltd. (Tainan) | Shangmei Industrial Co., Ltd. (Hsinchu) | 224 | 2 hr 20 mins | 12000 |
| w/c | SSRS Substitution amount (%) | Cement | Aggregates | Others | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 0 | 325.57 | 23.32 | 485.38 | 834.27 |
| 5 | 302.32 | 24.58 | 567.66 | 894.56 | |
| 10 | 279.08 | 25.84 | 649.93 | 954.85 | |
| 0.5 | 0 | 285.71 | 23.10 | 455.54 | 764.35 |
| 5 | 265.29 | 24.20 | 527.90 | 817.40 | |
| 10 | 244.88 | 25.31 | 600.00 | 870.18 | |
| 0.6 | 0 | 254.58 | 23.19 | 483.23 | 761.00 |
| 5 | 236.40 | 24.17 | 547.60 | 808.18 | |
| 10 | 218.22 | 25.16 | 611.98 | 855.35 |
| w/c | PE Substitution amount (%) | Cement | Aggregates | Others | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.4 | 0 | 697.62 | 32.23 | 0.54 | 762.62 |
| 1 | 697.62 | 32.80 | 0.58 | 763.80 | |
| 2 | 697.62 | 33.37 | 0.61 | 764.97 | |
| 3 | 697.62 | 33.94 | 0.65 | 766.14 | |
| 4 | 697.62 | 34.50 | 0.69 | 767.31 | |
| 0.5 | 0 | 612.28 | 32.23 | 0.54 | 677.28 |
| 1 | 612.28 | 32.80 | 0.58 | 678.46 | |
| 2 | 612.28 | 33.37 | 0.61 | 679.63 | |
| 3 | 612.28 | 33.94 | 0.65 | 680.80 | |
| 4 | 612.28 | 34.50 | 0.69 | 681.97 | |
| 0.6 | 0 | 545.54 | 32.23 | 0.54 | 610.55 |
| 1 | 545.54 | 32.80 | 0.58 | 611.72 | |
| 2 | 545.54 | 33.37 | 0.61 | 612.89 | |
| 3 | 545.54 | 33.94 | 0.65 | 614.06 | |
| 4 | 545.54 | 34.50 | 0.69 | 615.24 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
