Effects of Recycled Expanded Polystyrene Beads on the Mechanical and Physical Properties of Cement-Stabilized Compressed Earth Bricks

Kougoum, Géraldine Gouafo; Tatchum, Ulrich Giresse Defo; Koungang, Bernard Morino Ganou; Ndapeu, Dieunedort; Tchinda, René

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6675227

Advances in Civil Engineering

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Special Issue

Clean and Sustainable Building Retrofitting

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 6675227 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6675227

Effects of Recycled Expanded Polystyrene Beads on the Mechanical and Physical Properties of Cement-Stabilized Compressed Earth Bricks

Géraldine Gouafo Kougoum,^1,2Ulrich Giresse Defo Tatchum,³Bernard Morino Ganou Koungang,³Dieunedort Ndapeu,^1,2,3and René Tchinda^1,2

Academic Editor: Karolos Kontoleon

Received08 Aug 2023

Revised05 Nov 2023

Accepted23 Nov 2023

Published07 Dec 2023

Abstract

Nowadays, research on environmentally friendly materials has become a significant challenge in the field of civil engineering. In this study, stabilized compressed earth bricks (CEBs) incorporating recycled expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads were studied with the aim of enhancing the development of green constructions. The mass contents of recycled EPS in CEB formulated at a compaction pressure of 5 MPa are 0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, and 1% relative to the mass of the soil, while cement type CEM I 32.5, as a stabilizer, constituted 8% by mass. Characterization was carried out by determining densities, dry and wet compressive strength, flexural strength, total water absorption, and capillarity. Sample properties were found to be strongly influenced by the percentage of recycled EPS. Increasing the EPS aggregate content led to a reduction in compressive strength in both wet and dry conditions. Samples with 0.5% EPS and 8% cement offered better physical and mechanical performance. Samples containing EPS had relatively low water absorption, which would contribute to good durability. These CEBs comply with the wall construction requirements for two-story dwellings. This study also demonstrates the potential use of this recycled material in the construction industry.

1. Introduction

Due to the ever-increasing price of raw materials in Cameroon’s construction sector and their environmental impact, earthen construction is currently enjoying renewed interest [1]. Earth has been used in construction since thousands of years because it is abundant and locally available everywhere in the world [1, 2]. Earthen constructions help to reduce potential environmental impact by up to 50% compared to conventional constructions [3, 4]. Unlike cement, concrete, or steel, earth in its natural state can be used as a building material with virtually zero energy expenditure [4]. However, raw earth constructions are feared to be used because of their poor physical performance, lack of durability, and vulnerability to climatic aggressions, particularly rain [5–7]. The stabilizers most commonly used to improve the mechanical, physical, and hygroscopic performance of compressed earth brick (CEB) are cement, lime, and fly ash, with contents generally between 8% and 10% [7–11].

Recent studies have shown that the thermal and hygroscopic properties of bricks can also be improved by incorporating recycled materials such as waste plastics in the form of fibers, aggregates, or melts [12–17]. Indeed, the areas of application of plastics in our daily lives make it difficult to stop using them. One of the plastic wastes incorporated into CEB is polystyrene. Its use is very popular, as it is one of the most widely used materials in the packaging sector, with worldwide waste production of over 15 million metric tons per year [18, 19]. It is known to be a good insulator for residential houses [20]. In the current context, where buildings with good thermal comfort are in demand to reduce energy consumption, their use in building materials could be a good compromise for our planet.

In previous research, the addition of soil, binder, water, and expanded polystyrene (EPS) gave rise to lightened soils, which are used for backfill, retaining walls, underground cavities, and CEB [16, 19, 21–23].

According to several studies, the properties of soils filled with EPS beads are considerably affected by their constituents. A decrease in physical and mechanical properties is noted with increasing EPS aggregate content. In the work of Malahimi et al. [23], polystyrene was incorporated at ratios of 0%–100% depending on a constant volume of raw earth. The results showed decreases in compressive strength (3.24–0.53 MPa). Wang et al. [20] developed a lightweight filler made from Singapore marine clay, ordinary Portland cement, and EPS. The mass ratios of EPS beads to dry clay were 0%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, and 4%, and the mass ratios of cement to dry clay were 10% and 15%. The results show that increasing the cement content and reducing the EPS content increases the compressive strength of the material. Similarly, Jili et al. [19] characterized the strength of the mixture of expanded polystyrene and Shanghai clay soil. EPS beads were incorporated at ratios of 0%, 0.02%, and 0.03% compared with the soil mass. Four EPS particle sizes were used: 0.5, 1, 3, and 7 mm. The tests showed that compressive strength decreases with increasing EPS bead content and EPS bead size. These results were corroborated by the work of Ali et al. [22], who studied lightened soils consisting of silty soils, expanded polystyrene beads (bead sizes 4, 5, and 6 mm in diameter), and cement (10% and 15%). The findings show that the smaller the EPS bead size (4 mm), the higher the composite strength, while increasing the EPS bead size (5–6 mm) reduces strength and improves ductility. His work has shown that the best compressive strengths are obtained with small EPS beads.

In addition, flexural strength also decreases with increasing EPS bead content [23]. Elastic deformation increases with increasing of EPS bead content but decreases with increasing EPS bead size [19, 22].

In general, the density of CEB containing EPS beads or aggregates ranges from 5 to 18 kN/m³ [21] and is lighter than natural soils or CEB due to the addition of superlight EPS to the mix. Increasing the EPS bead content reduces the mass density of soils [21]. This leads to a reduction in building mass and improved resistance to seismic forces [16, 24]. An improvement in the thermal comfort of buildings is noted with the incorporation of polystyrene beads, as the thermal conductivity of BTC is reduced [16].

However, the expansion of this construction technique in sub-Saharan Africa, and more specifically in Cameroon, is hampered by the lack of information in the literature on the use of these bricks in these regions. Yet they offer numerous advantages, both in terms of the environment through the recycling of EPS and in terms of energy infrastructure through the reduction of housing energy bills. Moreover, despite a considerable amount of research into lightweight EPS-filled CEB, very little is known about its resistance to climatic stresses and, in particular, its sensitivity to water. As earthen constructions are very often exposed to weathering due to rainwater, capillary rise, and even immersion in the event of flooding, it is important to understand the mechanical behavior of CEB in a wet state in order to know their minimum characteristics under the most unfavorable conditions. This information is very important in order to improve the use of these bricks worldwide, particularly in Cameroon, where the coastal region has a very humid climate with a relative humidity of 85% [25]. The present work therefore involves predicting the mechanical, physical, and hydrophobic behavior of lightweight bricks filled with EPS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Soil

The soil used (Table 1) comes from Douala city, Cameroon, at latitude 4°05^′ and longitude 9°74^′. It is taken from a depth between 0.5 and 10 m above ground. Once extracted, it is ground and dried in an oven at 105°C for 24 hr. After this time, the mass stabilizes after successive weighing [26]. The basic physical and mechanical properties of the soil are given in Table 1. Its suitability for use in CEB is demonstrated by Ganou et al. [17] (Figure 1).

2.1.2. Recycled EPS

EPS waste is collected from the streets and dumps of Douala (Figure 2). EPS beads are obtained by grinding EPS waste. The granules are spherical in shape and vary in size from 0.5 to 7 mm. They are then sieved to obtain granulometry between 1.6 and 4 mm with a density of 0.20 kN/m³. Aggregates were used in ratios of 0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, and 1% by the mass of the soil.

2.1.3. Cement and Water

The cement used for reinforcement is ordinary Portland cement of the CEM I-32.5 Dangote type, meeting the specifications outlined in the Cameroonian standard on hydraulic binders NC 234 [27]. The water proportion was determined based on the results of the Proctor test [28].

2.2. CEB Sample Preparation

The CEBs were manufactured in the civil engineering laboratory at ENSET Douala. The proportions of the various inputs, including soil, cement, EPS beads, and drinking water, were carefully controlled. Five brick formulations were developed (refer to Table 2). The formulations are denoted by names of the form P_x, where x represents the percentage of EPS beads in the samples.

The mixes are made in pans before being introduced into a mold measuring 220 × 110 × 40 mm³. The soil + cement + PSE + water mixture was compacted with a calibrated M&O hydraulic press at a compaction pressure of 5 MPa. Some BTC production steps are shown in Figure 3. The samples were placed under a cover for 28 days. They were then placed in an oven at 60°C for 24 hr before dry testing started [29].

2.3. CEB Characterization

The tests were carried out using an M&O universal mechanical testing machine with calibrated dynamometric rings (part no. 4429 for the compression test and 4433 for the bending test). The bending test was conducted according to EN 12372 [30], and the compression test followed the protocol of NF EN 196-1 [31]. Both tests were performed at an ambient temperature of ∼25 ± 2°C and a relative humidity of 70% ± 5%. The specific rate of force application was 2 kN/s.

2.3.1. Dry and Wet Compression Tests

The compressive strength test was carried out on specimens measuring 40 × 40 × 40 mm³. The wet compressive strength test is identical to the dry compressive strength test, with the only difference being that the specimens subjected to this test are first immersed in water for 2 hr. The device for measuring compressive strength is shown in Figure 4. Compressive strength is given by Equation (1):

where F_c is the maximum compressive stress (MPa) and S is the specimen cross-sectional area (mm²).

2.3.2. Flexural Strength

These tests were carried out on samples measuring 220 × 110 × 40 mm³. The materials are considered isotropic, in order to have an identical Young’s modulus and bending fracture stress in all directions of the material. The device used to measure the flexural strength is shown in Figure 5. It is determined according to Equation (2):

where is the bending strength (MPa), is the brick breaking load in (KN), L is the distance between the two supports (cm), a is the brick width (cm), and b is the brick height (cm).

2.3.3. Absorption by Capillarity

The purpose of the capillary absorption test is to determine the amount of water absorbed by the capillary action of samples. It was carried out in accordance with standard XP P 13-901 [29]. The mass of the sample before immersion is measured (m₀). After 10 min, it was removed from the water, wiped with a dry cloth, and weighed to obtain the mass after immersion (m₁). This operation was carried out until the mass of the samples tended to stabilize. The capillary absorption coefficient A is determined by Equation (3):where A is the coefficient of resistance to capillary rise (), is the mass of brick after immersion (g), is the mass of brick before immersion (g), and S is the surface area of immersed brick in (cm²).

2.3.4. Water Absorption by Immersion

Water absorption capacity is obtained by completely immersing the sample in water after initially weighing it dry (M₀). After 24 hr of immersion, the sample is removed from the water and reweighed (M₁). The water absorption coefficient W is given by Equation (4):where W is the total absorption coefficient (%), is the mass of brick after immersion (g), and is the mass of brick before immersion (g).

2.3.5. Bulk Density

This is the ratio between the weight and volume of the block. It is determined by using Equation (5):where φ represents the bulk density (), M represents the mass of brick (kg), and V represents the volume of brick (m³).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Compressive and Flexural Strength

The results obtained show a decrease in dry compressive strength with increasing polystyrene bead content compared with the control sample (Figure 6(a)). At contents ranging from 0.25% to 1%, dry compressive strength is reduced by 10.46%–45.06%, respectively, compared with the control. These decreases in mechanical properties have been observed by several authors [16, 23, 32]. Indeed, polystyrene beads create zones of weakness within the blocks, reducing the resistant cross-sectional area of the specimens [23]. In the same figure, we can see that the wet compressive strength of the control sample is lower than that of the samples containing the EPS beads. This suggests that CEB-containing EPS beads is more resistant to water. We observed decreases of the order of 71.5%, 8.9%, 6.3%, 21.6%, and 39.8%, respectively, for 0%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%, and 1% EPS beads between dry and wet compressive strengths. According to the requirements defined by ASTM E2392M-10 (2 MPa for dry compressive strength and 1 MPa for wet compressive strength) [33], bricks containing up to 1% recycled EPS could be used in construction, as they have a dry compressive strength of 2.88 MPa and a wet compressive strength of 1.51 MPa. The higher the EPS bead content, the easier it is to recycle polystyrene for construction projects and also to obtain a less dense, more porous CEB that guarantees better thermal performance.

(a)

(b)

For flexural strength, with the addition of EPS up to 0.5%, there is an 8.2% increase in flexural strength compared to the control BTC. Figure 6(b) shows that the addition of EPS beads above 0.5% leads to a reduction in brick flexural strength. The flexural strength of the mixture with 1% EPS beads is 27.61% lower than the control, dropping from 1.34 to <1 MPa. In fact, the increase in EPS beads favored the formation of voids in the composite, causing a reduction in flexural strength. This effect can be explained by the low density and the voids created by the EPS beads during mixing [23].

3.2. Absorption by Capillarity

Capillary absorption depends on the variation in EPS bead content (Figure 7). Its measurement was used to determine the capillary diffusion coefficient (). Figure 7 shows linear correlations between capillary water uptake and time (1 hr time range) for stabilized CEB loaded with EPS beads and simply stabilized CEB. Between 0% and 0.5%, after 1 hr capillarity drops, respectively, from 8.24% to 5.80%. For EPS bead contents above 0.5%, capillarity increases up to 6.91% with 1% EPS fillers. For EPS bead contents less than 0.5%, the optimum proportions of soil, EPS beads, and cement create a mixture with a minimum of voids, which can explain the decrease in capillarity. For EPS bead contents above 0.5%, the bond between the particles and the matrix is weaker, creating voids in the bricks and increasing the capillarity coefficient. The highest capillary absorption value after 1 hr is 8.24 for control CEB (Figure 7). After 20 min, the formulations tend to stabilize. These values enable us to classify these CEBs as low-capillary bricks with a capillarity coefficient of less than 20% [29].

3.3. Water Absorption

The water absorption capacity of the samples was investigated. In the work of Veiseh and Yousefi [16], water absorption decreased with increasing EPS content in clay bricks. In our work (Figure 8), we observed a decrease in the water absorption rate from 9.86% to 6.96% for 0% and 0.5% EPS, respectively, which could be explained by a good interaction between EPS and earth at low EPS percentages, resulting in a reduction in brick porosity. However, for EPS bead contents above 0.5%, water absorption increases up to 9.23% with 1% fillers. Water is absorbed in stabilized CEB due to the migration of water into the capillary pores of the bricks. In fact, the presence of a high proportion of EPS beads increases the number of pores and voids in the bricks [23], leading to increased water migration into the CEB. Indeed, several studies have shown that the incorporation of plastic aggregates in bricks leads to an increase in the water absorption rate of the bricks [23, 34–37]. This increase would be due to the inclusion of heterogeneities by the plastic, which would probably make the materials more porous. In other words, when EPS aggregate is incorporated into the mix (with a grain size larger than that of the initial composite), it creates an appropriate porosity that is different from that created by the earth, since its shape is spherical and voluminous.

3.4. Apparent Density

The apparent density of the samples is shown in Figure 9. Density values range from 1,836 to 1,977 kg/m³. Sample density decreases as the percentage of EPS increases. These decreases have been observed by several authors [16, 23, 38, 39]. The low density of the EPS beads contributes to the decrease in sample density. The reduction in density is explained by the incorporation of ultralight polystyrene beads acting as voids created inside the bricks [23].

4. Conclusions

In this study, the effects of incorporating EPS beads into stabilized CEB were highlighted.(1)We noted the reduction in compressive strength with increasing levels of EPS beads in the formulations, since EPS beads reduce the resistant surface area of a section. Also, wet compressive strength is better for samples with EPS beads, and the highest value obtained is 4.4 MPa for CEB with 0.25% EPS beads.(2)The bulk densities of CEB decrease with increasing EPS beads. The decrease in the compressive strength of bricks can be explained by the reduction in apparent densities due to the internal structure of the samples.(3)Total water absorption and capillary absorption of the samples are lower than those of the control sample, with the lowest values obtained for samples with 0.5% EPS beads at 6.96% and 5.47%, respectively.(4)The addition of EPS beads at a rate of less than 0.5% to the mix considerably reduces the ability of CEB to absorb water, making it more durable.

This work proposes a method for recycling EPS waste in an ecological and sustainable way. However, physicochemical characterizations integrating thermal comfort and durability still need to be carried out. The reuse performance of the composites obtained will also be highlighted in our future work.

Data Availability

All data used in this article are freely available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Géraldine Gouafo Kougoum and Ulrich Giresse Tatchum Defo. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Géraldine Gouafo Kougoum, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The assistance from the University of Dschang and ENSET of Douala (Cameroon)’s Civil Engineering Laboratory is gratefully acknowledged.

References

L. Laou, L. Ulmet, S. Yotte, S. Ait-ali Said, P. Maillard, and S. Rossignol, “Evaluation des propriétés hydriques des briques en terre crue en fonction de leurs compositions et leurs microstructures,” Academic Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 323–326, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Ribet, S. Bioul, G. Wurtz, S. Devescovi, and M. Chamodot, “Guide de conception et de construction,” CRAterre, vol. 1, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Fernandes, M. Peixoto, R. Mateus, and H. Gervásio, “Life cycle analysis of environmental impacts of earthen materials in the Portuguese context: rammed earth and compressed earth blocks,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 241, Article ID 118286, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. R. Teixeira, G. Machado, P. De Adilson et al., “Mechanical and thermal performance characterisation of compressed earth blocks,” Energies, vol. 13, no. 11, Article ID 2978, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Barbacci, “Earthen architecture—valorisation and underestimation,” International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, vol. 54, pp. 1073–1080, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Ma, “Deterioration of earthen building materials,” The Encyclopedia of Archaeological Sciences, vol. 12, pp. 1–4, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Medvey and G. Dobszay, “Durability of stabilized earthen constructions: a review,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 2403–2425, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. P. Makusa, “Soil stabilization methods and materials in engineering practice,” Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering Division of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering Luleå University of Technology Luleå, Sweden, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
H. Afrin, “A review on different types soil stabilization techniques,” International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 19–24, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Firoozi, C. G. Olgun, A. A. Firoozi, and M. S. Baghini, “Fundamentals of soil stabilization,” International Journal of Geo-Engineering, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. M. Bhatlawande, A. C. Babar, and A. A. Darge, “A review on different methods of soil stabilization,” International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, vol. 9, pp. 21557–21560, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
P. Kulkarni, V. Ravekar, P. R. Rao, S. Waigokar, and S. Hingankar, “Recycling of waste HDPE and PP plastic in preparation of plastic brick and its mechanical properties,” Cleaner Materials, vol. 5, Article ID 100113, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. I. Akinwumi, A. H. Domo-Spiff, and A. Salami, “Marine plastic pollution and affordable housing challenge: shredded waste plastic stabilized soil for producing compressed earth bricks,” Case Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 11, Article ID e00241, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. I. Aneke and C. Shabangu, “Case studies in construction materials green-efficient masonry bricks produced from scrap plastic waste and foundry sand,” Case Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 14, pp. 1–13, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
R. S. Kognole, K. Shipkule, K. S. Survase, M. Patil, L. Patil, and U. Survase, “Utilization of plastic waste for making plastic bricks,” International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, vol. 3, pp. 878–880, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Veiseh and A. A. Yousefi, “The use of polystyrene in lightweight brick production,” Iranian Polymer Journal, vol. 12, pp. 323–329, 2003.
View at: Google Scholar
K. B. M. Ganou, J. O. T. Mbouendeu, D. Ndapeu et al., “Experimental thermophysical dependent mechanical analysis of earth bricks with Canarium schweinfurthii and cocos nucifera bio-aggregates: a case study in Cameroon,” Cogent Engineering, vol. 10, pp. 1–25, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Delavelle and B. De Caevel, “Recyclage chimique des déchets plastiques: situation et perspectives, état de l’art et avis d’experts,” 2015, Record.
View at: Google Scholar
Q. Jili, T. Huan, Q. Weiqing et al., “Modification of mechanical properties of Shanghai clayey soil with expanded polystyrene,” Science and Engineering of Composite Materials, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 37–49, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wang, B. Hu, and J. H. Soon, “Physical and mechanical properties of a bulk lightweight concrete with expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads and soft marine clay,” Materials, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 1–16, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Gao, J. Liu, and H. Liu, “Geotechnical properties of EPS composite soil geotechnical properties of EPS composite soil,” International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 6362, pp. 69–77, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ali, J. Farhad, Y. Feng, H. B. Amjad, S. K. Jam, and B. Riaz, “Effectiveness of EPS bead size and cement proportions on the strength and deformation of light-weighted soil,” Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 9709–9714, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Malahimi, C. A. Toukourou, A. C. Houngan, C. Awanto, and L. Madougou, “Characterization of stabilized earth blocks with incorporation of cement expanded polystyrene for use in buildings,” Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, vol. 10, pp. 64–71, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Soni, “Development of light weight geoblocks for wall building units using EPS beads and fly ash,” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, vol. 6, pp. 1083–1088, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. B. M. Ganou, D. Ndapeu, G. Tchemou, G. Fotso, and E. Njeugna, Comportement hydromécanique des btc avec granulats de canarium schweinfurthii et cocos nucifera: analyse de durabilité résumé, Colloque International, Douala, 2020.
P. NF, “Sols: reconnaissance et essais—Détermination de la teneur en eau pondérale des matériaux—Méthode par étuvage,” 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
NC 234, “Liants hydrauliques ciment: les specifications,” pp. 1–23, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
NF P 94-093, “Détermination des références de compactage d’un matériau—Essai proctor normal et modifié,” 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
XP P 13-901, “Blocs de terre comprimée pour murs et cloisons,” 2001.
View at: Google Scholar
EN 12372, “Natural stone test methods—determination of flexural strength under concentrated load,” 2007.
View at: Google Scholar
NF EN 196-1, “Méthodes d’essais Des Ciments,” 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. S. Muntohar, “Engineering characteristics of the compressed-stabilized earth brick,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 4215–4220, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
ASTM E2392M-10, “Standard guide for design of earthen wall building systems,” ASTM International, vol. 4, pp. 1–10, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. P. Kumar and M. Gomathi, “Production of construction bricks by partial replacement of waste plastics,” IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, vol. 14, pp. 9–12, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Selsiadevi, S. Selescadevi, and V. Varshini, “Earth building blocks reinforced with jute and banana fiber,” International Journal of Engineering and Research Technology, vol. 6, pp. 1–4, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
N. H. Zulkernain, P. Gani, N. Chuck Chuan, and T. Uvarajan, “Utilisation of plastic waste as aggregate in construction materials: a review,” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 296, Article ID 123669, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. T. Azeko, E. K. Arthur, Y. Danyuo, and M. Babagana, “Mechanical and physical properties of laterite bricks reinforced with reprocessed polyethylene waste for building applications,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 1–7, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Wang, Z. Chang, Z. Yuxing, H. Bingjie, and L. Xiaoyi, “Study on strength characteristics of straw (EPS particles)-sparse sludge unburned brick,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 490, pp. 1–6, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. L. Liu, D. An, and C. Jian, “Effect of different mixing ratios of polystyrene pre-puff beads and cement on the mechanical behaviour of lightweight fill,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 331–338, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Géraldine Gouafo Kougoum et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

174

Downloads

191

Citations