









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
11

6

American Journal of  Environmental
Economics (AJEE) 

Investigation the Use of  Waste Glass and Waste Paper as an Alternative Construction 
Binding Material: An Approach Towards Sustainable Environment

Mohammad Saifullah1, Mehedi Hasan1, Tarun Debnath1, M. A. Rob1, Azizul Hakim Tusar1, Md. Liton Rabbani1*

Volume 3 Issue 1, Year 2024
ISSN: 2833-7905 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajee.v3i1.3266
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: September 01, 2024

Accepted: September 29, 2024

Published: October 02, 2024

The idea of  repurposing garbage as a resource within the building industry has drawn 
much attention in light of  growing worldwide concerns about sustainable development and 
waste management. This thesis explores the intriguing idea of  using waste materials as a 
practical and ecological replacement for construction materials and also carefully evaluates 
the technical, environmental and financial viability of  incorporating various waste products, 
like household waste paper and waste glass into different construction applications. The 
results of  this research project are incredibly insightful. Regarding waste paper as a cement 
replacement, the experiment demonstrated that substituting 10%, 20% or 30% of  cement 
with waste paper is not a recommended practice. In all instances, the resulting concrete 
blocks exhibited a significant reduction in strength when compared to traditional concrete 
formulations. This outcome underscores the limitations of  waste paper as a viable substitute 
for maintaining concrete strength. Conversely, findings regarding glass waste replacement 
in cement are particularly exciting. At just 7 days of  curing, concrete blocks incorporating 
10% and 20% glass waste replacements displayed higher strength than their conventional 
counterparts, showcasing an early strength advantage. By the 14-day mark, the strength of  
these glass waste-reinforced blocks closely approached that of  standard concrete, highlighting 
their potential for use in sustainable construction practices. Even more impressively, at 21 
days of  curing, when conventional concrete reached its peak strength at 28.33 KN per square 
meter, the blocks with 10%, 20% and 30% glass waste replacement-maintained robustness, 
with strengths of  26.4, 25.26 and 19.44 KN per square meter respectively. This prolonged 
strength retention suggests that glass waste-reinforced concrete can serve as a sustainable 
alternative without compromising structural integrity, even in the long term.

Keywords

Cement, Environment, 
Household Wastes, Mechanical 
Strength, Sustainability, Waste 
Glass, Waste Paper

1 Barishal Engineering College, Bangladesh
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: liton.kce@bec.ac.bd

INTRODUCTION
Waste management has become a crucial issue for society 
due to the increasing amount of  waste produced every 
day. With growing environmental concerns and the need 
for sustainable development, there is a greater need for 
waste reduction and recycling. The construction industry 
is one of  the major contributors to waste generation, 
accounting for about 40% of  the global waste produced. 
However, advances in technology and increasing 
environmental awareness have created new opportunities 
to address this problem. One such opportunity is the 
use of  waste products as an alternative to traditional 
construction materials.
The concept of  using waste products as construction 
materials is not new. For centuries, builders have used 
locally available materials, including waste products, to 
construct buildings. However, with the advent of  modern 
construction techniques and materials, the use of  waste 
products declined, and the focus shifted to using virgin 
materials. But with the growing need for sustainable 
construction, waste products are once again gaining 
attention as a valuable resource.
The benefits of  using waste products as an alternative 
to traditional construction materials are numerous. By 
repurposing waste, we can reduce the amount of  waste 
that ends up in landfills and incinerators. This, in turn, 

reduces the environmental impact of  waste disposal and 
conserves resources. Additionally, using waste products as 
construction materials can reduce the demand for virgin 
materials, thereby reducing the need for resource extraction 
and processing. This reduces the carbon footprint of  
construction and contributes to climate change mitigation. 
Furthermore, using waste products in construction can 
create economic benefits, as waste products are often 
cheaper than virgin materials. There are several types 
of  waste products that can be used as an alternative to 
traditional construction materials. These include:

Industrial By-Products
Many industrial processes generate waste materials that 
can be used as construction materials. For example, coal 
fly ash, a by-product of  coal-fired power plants, can be 
used as a substitute for Portland cement in concrete. This 
not only reduces the amount of  waste sent to landfills but 
also reduces the carbon footprint of  construction.

Municipal Solid Waste
Municipal solid waste, also known as household waste, is 
another potential source of  construction materials. For 
example, crushed glass can be used as a substitute for 
aggregate in concrete, while plastic waste can be used as 
insulation material.



Pa
ge

 
11

7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

Construction and Demolition Waste
Construction and demolition waste, which includes 
concrete, bricks, and other construction materials, can 
be recycled and used as construction materials. This 
reduces the need for virgin materials and reduces the 
environmental impact of  waste disposal.

Agricultural Waste
Agricultural waste, such as rice husks, straw, and 
coconut fibers, can be used as insulation materials or as 
a substitute for wood in construction. Benefits of  using 
waste products as construction materials the use of  waste 
products as an alternative to traditional construction 
materials offers numerous benefits. 

LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter includes a survey of  the academic works 
that provided the theoretical foundation for the study and 
supported its need. The glass waste, on the other hand, are 
the subject of  the second part which covers their principles, 
technical aspects of  their manufacturing process, historical 
usage of  solid wastes in their creation, etc. Finally, a 
comprehensive overview of  the literature review’s two 
sections, the found research gaps, and the necessity of  the 
current study served to wrap up this chapter.
According to Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata 2012 
(Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012), recycling is the third 
most preferred method of  trash disposal in the world. 
Addressing the world’s rising rate of  garbage creation is a 
crucial part of  the 3Rs, which are advised for all nations 
to follow. Contrary to claims made by detractors about the 
environmental benefits of  recycling, a review and analysis 
of  several life cycle assessments (LCA) of  recyclable 
wastes, including paper, cardboard, glass, plastics, 
aluminum, steel, wood, and aggregate, have revealed and 
confirmed that recycling is the most practical method of  
waste disposal (or waste management) that can provide 
environmental benefits and minimize environmental 
impacts when compared to other methods.
In light of  the many aforementioned advantages of  
recycling, its use in construction appears to be an 
ineffective way to solve the issues of  concerns related to 
the activities of  the building sector. 
The forecasted enormous increase in construction activity 
in the near future (Global Construction Perspectives and 
Oxford Economics (GCPOE) forecasts, 2015) and the 
anticipated rise in urban population growth, which may 
increase housing demand in the future, are other indirect 
factors that necessitate the urgent need to implement 
the recycled use of  waste in construction. According to 
a United Nations assessment, 2.5 billion more people 
will live in cities throughout the world by the year 2050, 
with Asia and Africa anticipated to contribute 90% of  
that growth (United Nations, 2015). The problems of  
sustainable development are also anticipated to be on the 
high side as a result of  the ongoing urbanization of  the 
world, particularly in cities found in lower middle-income 
nations (United Nations, 2015).

According to the UNEP GWMO report 2015, (Wilson, 
et al., 2015) Speaking of  waste generation, the increasing 
standard of  living and growth of  civilization have 
prompted remarkable growth in the rate of  waste 
generation over the past years. The World Bank’s review 
of  global solid waste generation and also showed that 
the amount of  waste produced per capita worldwide 
was increasing excessively quickly, outpacing both urban 
population growth and projections for the year 2025 
(Hoornweg et al., 2012). 
The amount of  building is predicted to increase 
dramatically in the near future on a worldwide scale. A 
new estimate titled “Global Construction 2030” projects 
that the global construction production would increase by 
85% to $15.5 trillion by 2030 (Asadi & Satish, 2021). The 
worldwide construction volume was expected to expand 
by over 70% by 2025, which is a 15% increase from the 
prior prediction (Asadi & Satish, 2021). The forecast also 
predicts that developed nations, which are recovering 
from economic instability, and emerging nations, which 
are currently industrializing, will make significant 
contributions to the global construction volume, leading 
to a projected 3.9% growth in construction volume on an 
annual basis up to 2030.
There are, however, just a few significant negative 
aspects of  sustainability. According to the (European 
Commission, 2013), two of  these effects are high 
resource consumption and high waste output. Other 
negative effects include resource depletion, greenhouse 
gas emissions, and energy use. (Hawken et al., 2002)
Environmental deterioration could result from the 
foregoing consequences occurring repeatedly. The 
repercussions of  the building industry are known to pose 
an immediate threat to the environment, including global 
warming, pollution, and the depletion or collapse of  
natural resources (Giljum, 2009), For instance, according 
to (United Nations Environment Programme, 2009), 
buildings are responsible for about 40% of  the world’s 
energy consumption and are thought to contribute to 
around one third of  the entire amount of  greenhouse gas 
emissions. This is mostly due to the usage of  fossil fuels 
throughout the construction process.
(MEHTA , 2002)recommended using less energy, less 
natural resources, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions 
to create concrete that is ecologically friendly. The 
European Union Commission’s Eco Innovative program 
promotes the design of  novel products using recycled 
materials, the use of  novel environmentally friendly 
building materials, and novel manufacturing techniques, 
as well as the use of  construction products and related 
techniques that reduce resource consumption, embodied 
carbon, and by-product waste production (European 
Commission, 2013). (McCaffrey, 2002) recommended 
utilizing less calcined material in cement, using less 
cement in concrete, and reducing the number of  cement-
consuming buildings. The use of  alternate cement types 
in concrete has the potential to reduce the environmental 
effect of  concrete production by up to 39%, according 



Pa
ge

 
11

8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

to research done on the LCA of  concrete and asphalt 
(Blankendaal, 2014).
The implementation of  environmentally friendly 
construction processes (which include reduced resource 
consumption, embodied carbon emissions, and waste 
production from by-products) and environmentally 
friendly construction materials (which include less/non-
cement inclusion and recycled waste use) will significantly 
contribute to the much-anticipated sustainability in the 
construction industry.
Due to population growth, an increase in living standards, 
and urbanization, a significant amount of  solid waste 
(including plastic, metal, textile, wood, glass, paper, and 
concrete) is being produced globally from various human 
activities in both developed and developing countries 
(Oriyomi et al., 2015). 
In the majority of  industrialized and developing nations, 
paper and paper products make up a sizeable portion of  
the municipal solid waste stream. Wastepaper is the second-
largest component of  solid waste globally, and according to 
projections of  future paper consumption, both developed 
and developing nations will continue to produce large 
amounts of  wastepaper (Fallah, Joseph, Isaac, Ademola, & 
James). This might be explained by the rising demand for 
paper and paperboard that often coincides with increases 
in a nation’s GDP (Elizabeth , 2007).
In the United States and Europe, municipal solid trash 
has remained to consist mostly of  waste paper for a 
number of  years. According to the (EPA’s Office of  
Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), 2023), 
between 1960 and 2013, the percentage of  paper and 
paperboard creation in the USA fluctuated between 
30% and over 20% of  the total amount of  solid waste 
created. Waste paper and paperboard were the second-
largest component of  municipal solid waste (MSW) in 
the UK in 2001, accounting for 21% of  all MSW, the 
largest component of  commercial waste, at 41.2%, and 
the largest component of  liter and street sweeping wastes, 
at 31% of  all MSW (Burnley et al., 2007). Paper and 
cardboard trash creation has been on the rise in Europe 
from 2005 through 2013. Paper and cardboard trash 
make up the majority of  the packaging waste produced 
in Europe over the same time period, according to 
Eurostat data for the 28 member states of  the European 
Union (Eurostat Statistics Explained, 2016). As of  2012, 
there were 400 million tons of  paper produced annually 
on a worldwide scale (Pulp and paper capacities annual 
survey, 2021-2026), and per-capita paper consumption 
is increasing every year, with industrialized economies 
consuming more paper than emerging economies 
(Mukete et al., 2016). According to estimates from 2004, 
the per-capita paper usage in the USA was over 317 kg/
person/year, compared to less than 50 kg/person/year in 
China and Asia. The yearly per capita use of  paper was 
also estimated by a recent (Global Waste Management 
Outlook, 2015)article to be 240 kg/capital/year for 
North America, 140 kg/capital/year for Europe, 40 kg/
capital/year for Asia, and 4 kg/capital/year for Africa 

(United Nations Environment Programme, 2009)). As 
a result, taking into account the apparent rising rate of  
per capital wastepaper consumption various forecasts 
indicating a potential increase in global paper production 
from the current 450 million tons per year to 500 million 
tons by 2020 (Source: Estimated by the Author, using 
paper consumption and population information from; 
(The statistics portal, 2014) and (Hoornweg and Bhada-
Tata, 2012) respectively.), and the predicted 60% increase 
in global demand for paper and paperboard from the 368 
million tons recorded in 2005 to 579 million tons by the 
year 2021 (Paper consumption worldwide from 2021 to 
2032 in million metric tons, n.d.). 
For instance, despite a 2012 recycling rate of  71.7% in 
Europe (Confederation of  European Paper Industries 
(CEPI), 2014) and a disposal rate of  48 million tonnes 
in the United States ((Nepal & Aggarwal, 2014; Zavala, 
2013; Yun et al., 2007; Fuller et al., 2006; Decard et al., 
2001)), an estimated 10 million tonnes of  paper and board 
that could have been recycled still end up in landfills and 
incineration. Additionally, contrary to popular belief, 
the use of  paper has increased globally at a rate that is 
higher than the rate of  population growth, as evidenced 
by literature. This is in contrast to the common belief  
that the introduction of  electronics will cause a decline 
in paper consumption. this is supported by estimates of  
a 5.5% rise in worldwide per-capital paper consumption 
and a matching 0.0037% growth in global population 
(Hoornweg et al., 2012).
An upward trend between 1995 and 2015 was also 
predicted by earlier forecasts of  paper production, 
consumption, and usage in Europe. A prediction of  
worldwide paper consumption over the next 15 years, 
broken out by grade (Mukete et al., 2016), also points to a 
continual rise in the use of  various types of  paper in the 
future, which is a sign that waste paper will continue to be 
available for recycling.
According to data in the literature, wastepaper has the 
potential to be used to create a variety of  construction 
materials. Wastepaper-based According to reports, a 
variety of  building materials, such as concrete, infill 
materials, plastering mortar, and green cement, have 
behaviors and qualities that make them suitable for 
use in construction ((Nepal & Aggarwal, 2014; Zavala, 
2013; Yun et al., 2007; Fuller et al., 2006; Decard et al., 
2001)). Therefore, given that the less desirable features 
are improved upon, using wastepaper to create civil 
engineering building materials and other engineering 
goods might be seen as a sustainable solution to the ever-
increasing global wastepaper supply.
Most people use glass every day; it is essentially a 
translucent frozen liquid made of  silica, soda ash, and 
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that liquefies at very high 
temperatures. The liquid is allowed to cool quickly to 
prevent crystallization (Bauchy & Micoulaut, 2015; Butler 
& Hooper, 2019). It is made up. From plentiful basic 
materials and may be utilized right away as a feedstock 
for making glass. a glass. Endlessly recyclable without 



Pa
ge

 
11

9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

sacrificing quality or worth (British Glass Recycling., 
2017). The stream of  solid garbage includes glass. And it 
makes up, according to estimates (Olutaiwo, Akinwale , & 
Ezegbunem, 2018) (Omole, Isiorho, & Ndambuki, 2016), 
8.7% of  the waste stream in Nigeria. within the range 
between 80% and 85% of  the bulk production from the 
whole glass industry.
According to Rabbani & Sarker (2017) The major 
sources that cause pollution to Turag River water are 
various consumer goods industries (soap and detergent), 
garments industries, pharmaceuticals industries, lots of  
tanneries, dyeing industries, aluminum industries, battery 
manufacturing, match industries, ink manufacturing 
industries, textile, paint, iron industries, pulp and paper 
factories, chemical factories, frozen food factories and 
steel workshop etc.
Ashutosh and Satish (2015) conducted multiple studies 
to examine the impact on compressive strength and 
durability of  substituting cement with 5%, 10%, and 15% 
glass powder. Glass powder with a particle size range 
of  600 to 100 microns was used to assess the impact 
of  particle size. The findings demonstrated that the 
pozzolanic behavior was attained with a 10% replacement 
of  the glass powder, which resulted in the greatest gain in 
concrete strength. It combines with the lime at the start 
of  the hydration to create an extra CSHgel, which creates 
a denser cement matrix. (Ashutosh & Ashutosh, 2015)
Tamanna et al. (2013) emphasized the current state of  
affairs and advances in the recycling of  glass waste and 
offered a solution for using glass waste properly in place 
of  cement. The used glass can be successfully utilized 
in concrete as a filler (fine or coarse aggregate) or as a 
cement replacement. When the particle size is smaller 
than 75 microns, the glass is potentially pozzolanic or 
even cemented due to its amorphous nature and relatively 
high silicon and calcium content. (Tamanna et al., 2013)
Vijayakumar et al. (2013) used of  finely ground restorative 
glass as a partial replacement for cement in concrete was 
investigated, and it was compared to regular concrete. 10%, 
20%, 30%, and 40% of  glass powder were substituted, 
and the concrete’s compression, tensile strength, and 
bending strength for up to 60 days were measured and 
compared. The findings indicate that glass powder can be 
used as a substitute for cement with particles smaller than 
75 microns in order to stop the reaction of  alkali silica. 
(Vijayakumar et al., 2013)
According to Malik et al. (2013) the effects of  replacing 
FA to some extent with glass waste at 10%, 20%, 30%, 

and 40% by weight were explored. In order to assess 
the concrete samples’ low weight for various glass 
waste percentages, durability (water absorption), and 
compression, tensile, and compressive strength were 
all examined. It was discovered that a concrete mixture 
containing 20% glass waste in the form of  fine particles 
had the highest compressive strength when the findings 
were compared to those obtained for a typical M-25 
concrete mix. (Malik et al., 2013)
Gautam et al. (2012) shown that the resistance to 
compression during the course of  7 days rises on average 
by 47.75% when the fine aggregates are replaced with 
10% of  glass residues. However, it is clear that at the same 
amount of  replacement, the improvement in compressive 
strength for 28 days is only 3.30%. However, the increase 
in compressive strength is 2.18% after 28 days. A about 
11.32 percent increase in compressive strength is shown 
over the course of  seven days, however a modest decline 
in compressive strength at replacement levels of  30 and 
40 is seen after 28 days. (Gautam et al., 2012)

MATERIALS AND METHODS
A methodical trial-and-error technique is used to create the 
concrete block (CB) technology. The main goal is to develop 
a block-specific mix proportioning technique that is efficient 
and aligned with the research goals (identifying of  key 
variables, ideal mix composition, and engineering features). 
Following current production and testing procedures for 
masonry blocks makes it easier to get acceptance in the 
building sector after creation. As a key factor in structural 
design (Neville, 2011), compressive strength is chosen as the 
mixture composition benchmark parameter.
 
Materials
Wastepaper, sand, and water were employed as study 
materials. 

Waste Paper  
This experimental study not only attempts to generate 
a useful building material but also adds to the larger 
discourse on sustainable construction by including post-
consumer wastepaper as a crucial aggregate filler. The use 
of  such cutting-edge materials in building might open the 
way for resource-saving substitutes, resolving issues with 
waste management and ecological preservation.

Processing of  Waste Paper into Usable Form
The transformation of  waste paper into a functional 

Figure 1: Post-Consumer Wastepaper



Pa
ge

 
12

0

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

binding agent for the production of  concrete blocks is 
currently taking place. This intricately designed multi-step 
process is actively being executed, with the objective of  
empowering the waste paper to play a substantial role 
in enhancing both the structural integrity and attributes 
of  the resulting concrete blocks. The process involves a 
typical sequence of  steps that includes:

Collection and Preparation of  Waste Paper 
The gathering and preparation of  waste paper play a 
crucial part in the process’ first stage. This entails 
collecting post-consumer waste paper from various 
sources, including newspapers and discarded paper 
goods. 
Waste paper is being used as a binder within concrete 
blocks, demonstrating a sustainable building method that 
turns waste resources into useful assets. This ground-
breaking method efficiently fosters the continued 
development of  environmentally friendly building 
techniques by reducing waste while also introducing a 

potential replacement for traditional binder ingredients. 
The building approach corresponds with sustainability 
goals and lessens the environmental effect of  trash 
disposal by using waste paper as a binder. This strategy 
encourages resource-efficient use and represents a 
significant change toward a building industry that is 
environmentally conscious. Repurposed materials 
provide a substantial contribution to the composition of  
crucial structural components. This strategy thus reflects 
a forward-looking viewpoint, establishing a path toward 
sustainable and ethical building methods.

Waste Glass
By utilizing waste glass as a crucial binder element, the 
present experimental investigation actively adds to the 
larger conversation on sustainable construction, going 
beyond the simple development of  a useful building 
material. The possibility for the introduction of  resource-
efficient alternatives is created by combining such 
cutting-edge materials into construction techniques. This 

Figure 2: Schematic of  Procedure for making WPB (waste paper binder)

innovative strategy might help with waste management 
issues and promote ecological preservation, adding 
another dimension to the developing field of  sustainable 
construction techniques.

Processing of  Waste glass into Usable form
Waste glass is meticulously and purposefully transformed 

into a useful binder for the production of  concrete blocks 
in an effort to maximize the use of  these materials as 
binding agents. Waste glass is given the opportunity to 
play a crucial part in strengthening the properties and 
structural integrity of  the final concrete blocks thanks to 
this transforming process. The process’s sequential steps 
are as follows:

Figure 3: Post-Consumer Waste glass

Collection and Sorting
Glass garbage is gathered and sorted from a variety of  sources, 
including post-consumer glass goods, glass containers, and 

industrial waste. The collected glass is carefully sorted to get 
rid of  impurities and non-glass materials.



Pa
ge

 
12

1

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

Cleaning and Preparation
To get rid of  impurities, grime, and any residual residues, 
the collected waste glass goes through a thorough 
cleaning procedure. The removal of  any impurities at this 
stage guarantees that the glass’s quality and performance 
are not jeopardized.

Size Reduction
The cleaned waste glass is crushed or ground into smaller 
pieces using specialized machinery. The glass is reduced 
in size to manageable granules or shards, which makes it 
ideal for use as a binder.

Homogenization
To attain uniform particle sizes and consistent 
characteristics, the crushed glass particles go through 
a homogenization process. This step is essential to 
ensuring the waste glass binder behaves consistently and 
predictably while producing concrete blocks.

Mixture Proportioning
Based on the required properties of  the resulting concrete 
blocks, precise proportions of  waste glass binder, 
aggregates, and other components are painstakingly 
calculated. At this point, factors including strength, 
durability, and workability are carefully taken into account.

Concrete Block Formation 
Skillfully poured or molded into elaborately crafted block 

molds is the slurry containing the waste glass binder. The 
waste glass binder, along with other ingredients, is crucial 
to bringing the mixture together during the molding 
process.

Curing and Quality Control
The freshly created concrete blocks go through a 
thorough curing regimen that allows the waste glass 
binder to solidify and create strong linkages between 
the different parts. The efficacy of  the waste glass 
binder in the concrete blocks is confirmed by stringent 
quality control tests, which also include assessments of  
compressive strength and durability.
Waste glass is being converted into a useful binder for 
concrete blocks as part of  a sustainable strategy to 
reduce the impact of  glass waste on the environment. By 
introducing a revolutionary binder material endowed with 
special qualities, this ground-breaking technology 
not only increases waste reduction but also advances 
environmentally friendly construction methods.

Sand
This topic was concerned with the incorporation of  fine 
aggregates (sand) as an additional aggregate filler during 
the creation of  CWLB (Concrete with Lightweight 
Aggregates). These fine aggregates (sand) were actively 
used to establish a uniform and consistent distribution of  
electrical conductivity among both the smaller and larger 
particles within the resulting mixture of  concrete.

Figure 4: Schematic of  Procedure for making WGB (waste glass binder)

Figure 5: Sand Utilized as Fine Aggregate

Cement
During the experiment, the suitability of  cement with 
various waste products was examined to ascertain how 
well it promoted structural integrity. The purpose of  this 

test was to determine if  cement made from domestic 
garbage could adhere to predetermined requirements for 
building purposes. The environmental effects of  using 
cement, such as energy use and CO2 emissions, were 



Pa
ge

 
12

2

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

probably taken into account when waste materials were 
being used.

Brick Chips
Brick chips become an important resource for varying 

the aggregate composition in the field of  concrete block 
manufacture. By reusing waste materials and adhering 
to ecologically friendly construction methods, these 
remnants, retrieved from abandoned or fractured bricks, 
provide a sustainable option. Brick chips can be used 

Figure 6: Cement Utilized as main binder

Figure 7: Brick chips Utilized as main filler

in place of  standard aggregates like gravel or sand for 
making concrete blocks, offering a variety of  benefits.

Laboratory Experimentation
The main laboratory experimentation may be divided 

into six basic phases, each of  which is essential to the 
development of  WPGCB with different percentages of  
cement replacement:

Phase of  Measuring
At the start of  the procedure, careful measurements of  
the component materials are made. A preset mixing ratio, 
such as the ratio of  cement to sand to aggregate (1: 1.5: 
3), is used to quantify the solid components, including 
aggregates, cement, and sand. For the appropriate mix 
uniformity and performance to be maintained, accurate 
measurement is essential.

Phase of  Mixing
The phase of  mixing follows the measuring phase. To 
guarantee an even dispersion of  particles, the solid 
ingredients are carefully mixed. The correct amount 
of  each component must be mixed in according to the 
ratio, in this example, 1: 1.5: 3. Effective mixing tools are 
used to speed up homogenization, resulting in a cohesive 
combination that serves as the foundation for WPGCB.

Phase of  Applying the Mold
After the mixture has been homogenized, it is carefully 

applied to the molds. These precisely crafted molds 
are used to mold the mixture into the desired WPGCB 
shapes and sizes. In order to prevent air gaps and ensure 
structural integrity, the mixture is properly distributed 

Figure 8: Mixing



Pa
ge

 
12

3

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

and compressed inside the molds while maintaining the 
set mixing percentage.

Phase of  Compacting and Leveling
After putting the mixture within the molds, the phase 
of  compacting and leveling begins. To get rid of  air 
pockets and produce a dense, compacted mixture, 
pressure or mechanical compaction is used. To achieve 

bonding. The final WPGCB product must be properly 
cured in order to acquire the appropriate strength and 
durability while maintaining the right mixing percentage.

Phases of  Testing and Analysis
Following the allotted curing time, the cured WPGCB 
specimens are carefully removed from the molds. These 

Figure 9: Molding

consistent compaction and level surfaces while keeping 
the constancy of  the 1: 1.5: 3 ratios, tools like tampers or 
vibrating machinery are used.

Phase of  Curing
After compacting, the phase of  curing is started. The 
molded specimens are put under strict monitoring during 
this crucial stage in order to promote hydration and 

Figure 10: Curing

samples go through a thorough testing and analysis 
process in order to assess mechanical parameters including 
compressive strength, density, and other pertinent 
features. The test findings reveal useful information about 
how well the combination is proportioned, supporting 
the significance of  the 1: 1.5: 3 ratios in getting desired 
results.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of  the tests that were carried out over a 

Figure 11: Testing

range of  time periods after different percentages (10%, 
20%, and 30%) of  the total cement content had been 
substituted by wastepaper and waste glass. These tests 
used a combination of  cement, sand, and brick chips in 
the proportions of  1:1.5:3.
The findings provide important information about the 
viability and sustainability of  using wastepaper and waste 

glass in construction materials in the same proportion as 
cement, sand, and brick chips (1:1.5:3).

Results Obtained after 7 Days Curing Period for 
Wastepaper
Results Obtained after 14 Days Curing Period for 
wastepaper



Pa
ge

 
12

4

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

Figure 12: Wastepaper concrete block compressive strength after 7 days of  curing

Figure 13: Wastepaper concrete block compressive strength after 14 days of  curing

Figure 14: Wastepaper Paper concrete block compressive strength after 21 days of  curing

Figure 15: Wastepaper glass concrete block compressive strength after 7 days of  curing

Results Obtained after 7 Days Curing Period for Glass Waste

Results Obtained after 14 Days Curing Period for Glass Waste



Pa
ge

 
12

5

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

Results Obtained after 21 Days Curing Period for Glass Waste

Figure 16: Wastepaper glass concrete block compressive strength after 14 days of  curing

Figure 17: Wastepaper glass concrete block compressive strength after 21 days of  curing

Data Analysis A comprehensive series of  compressive strength 

tests was conducted on concrete samples with diverse 
compositions. These tests encompassed varying levels 
of  cement replacement, spanning from 10% to 30%, 
and the incorporation of  waste paper/glass at different 
percentages: 1.81%, 3.62%, and 5.43%. The experiments 
were carried out over various curing durations to capture 
the development of  concrete strength over time. 
The primary objective of  this study was to thoroughly 
investigate how the inclusion of  waste paper, at different 
substitution rates, was affected by the compressive 
strength of  the concrete specimens throughout the 
curing process. Compressive strength, as a fundamental 
property in construction, was assessed for its ability to 
withstand loads and pressures without failure.
To facilitate a clear and in-depth analysis of  the results, 
a graphical representation was created. This graphic 
visually contrasted the compressive strengths of  three 
distinct concrete conditions:

Concrete with 10% Cement Replacement by Waste 
Paper
In this condition, concrete had undergone a 10% cement 
replacement using waste paper. i.e 1.81 percent of  the 
total share, to be exact

Concrete with 20% Cement Replacement by Waste 
Paper 
In this scenario, 20% of  the cement content had been 

replaced with waste paper. i.e 3.62 percent of  the total 
share, to be exact

Concrete with 30% Cement Replacement by Waste 
Paper
The highest substitution rate, 30%, was employed in this 
concrete condition. i.e 5.43 percent of  the total share, to 
be exact.

Comparative Analysis for Waste Paper Replacement
The replacement of  various amounts of  waste paper 
in a particular setting is the topic of  this comparative 
research. By analyzing the effects of  various degrees 
of  trash replacement on factors including performance, 
sustainability, and efficiency, it seeks to give educated 
insights into the best usage of  waste.
The main finding of  the study is that the strength of  the 
product reduces as the amount of  paper substitution 
rises. The visual representation of  this inverse link 
between paper replacement and strength emphasizes 
how stronger structures result from greater paper 
replacement levels. This result highlights the compromise 
between employing waste materials for sustainability 
and preserving the necessary degree of  functionality or 
strength in the setting under study.
A comparative diagram of  obtained strengths is presented 
below



Pa
ge

 
12

6

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

Comparative Analysis for Waste Glass Replacement
This comparative study examines the replacement of  

various quantities of  waste glass in a particular setting 
while taking varied curing durations of  7, 14, and 21 days 

Figure 18: Comparative graphical representation for different percentage waste paper replacement

into consideration. By analyzing the impacts of  various 
levels of  glass replacement on crucial elements including 
performance, sustainability, and efficiency at various 
curing intervals, it seeks to offer educated insights into 
the best usage of  waste glass.
Taking into account the curing period, the main 
conclusion of  this study is that the product’s strength 
decreases as the degree of  glass replacement increases. 
Within the first seven days of  cure, this diminution 
is particularly noticeable. Although the strength does 
improve slightly after 14 and 21 days compared to the 
baseline without glass replacement, it still falls short of  
the baseline. The curing period has a moderating influence 
on this connection, which is seen visually by the inverse 
relationship between strength and glass replacement. 
Stronger constructions may be constructed with lower 
amounts of  glass replacement.

This result emphasizes the trade-off  between using 
recycled glass for sustainability and maintaining the 
required level of  usefulness or strength in the study 
area; while also taking into account the amount of  time 
the material has to cure to attain the needed strength. 
However, the trade-off  continues to be a crucial factor 
in construction and engineering applications. It shows 
that longer curing durations may somewhat reduce the 
initial strength drop associated with greater levels of  glass 
replacement.
A comparative diagram of  obtained strengths is presented 
below.

RESULTS DISCUSSION
Different percentages of  waste paper and waste glass 
(10%, 20%, and 30%) were used as replacements in a 
concrete block mixture with a ratio of  1:1.5:3. The study 

Figure 19: Comparative graphical representation for different percentage waste glass replacement

aimed to investigate how these replacements affected the 
block’s strength at varying curing times (7, 14, and 21 days).
For waste paper replacement, the results exhibited an 
irregular rate of  strength reduction as the percentage of  
waste paper increased:

• At 7 days of  curing: (Figure 12)
• 10% waste paper replacement led to a strength 

decrease from the normal concrete strength of  15.54 to 
9.42 KN/cm2.

• 20% waste paper replacement resulted in a strength 



Pa
ge

 
12

7

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

of  7.93 KN/cm2.
• 30% waste paper replacement had a strength of  6.46 

KN/cm2.
• At 14 days of  curing: (Figure 13)
• 10% waste paper replacement decreased the strength 

from 24.46 to 14.5 KN/cm2.
• 20% waste paper replacement led to a strength of  

9.97 KN/cm2.
• 30% waste paper replacement resulted in a strength 

of  6.42 KN/cm2.
• At 21 days of  curing: (Figure 14)
• 10% waste paper replacement decreased the strength 

28.33to 17.14 KN/cm2.
• 20% waste paper replacement had a strength of  11.22 

KN/cm2.
• 30% waste paper replacement resulted in a strength 

of  7.7 KN/cm2.
On the other hand, for glass waste replacement:
• At 7 days of  curing: (Figure 15)
• 10% glass waste replacement increased the strength 

from the normal concrete strength of  15.54 to 23.16 
KN/cm2.

• 20% glass waste replacement had a strength of  20.29 
KN/cm2.

• 30% glass waste replacement resulted in a strength of  
13.25 KN/cm2.

• At 14 days of  curing: (Figure 16)
• 10% glass waste replacement decreased the strength 

to 22.75 KN/cm2.
• 20% glass waste replacement had a strength of  22.3 

KN/cm2.
• 30% glass waste replacement resulted in a strength of  

15.12 KN/cm2

• At 21 days of  curing: (Figure 17)
• 10% glass waste replacement increased the strength 

to 26.4 KN/cm2.
• 20% glass waste replacement had a strength of  25.26 

KN/cm2.

• 30% glass waste replacement resulted in a strength of  
19.44 KN/cm2.
These findings highlight the varying impact of  waste paper 
and waste glass replacements on concrete strength over 
different curing periods and replacement percentages, 
demonstrating the complex relationship between material 
composition and strength.
More can be seen from the combined graph (Figure 18) 
made for replacement of  cement by waste glass are 

• After 7 days of  curing with 10%, 20%, and 30% 
waste glass replacement of  the total cement content, 
the strength of  the normal concrete increased from 
15.54 to 23.16, 20.29, and 13.25 KN/cm2 respectively. 
This indicates that 10% and 20% replacement improved 
the strength compared to standard concrete, while 30% 
replacement led to a decrease in strength.

• Moving to 14 days of  curing, the standard strength 
of  the concrete block was 24.46 KN/cm2. With 10% 
and 20% replacement, the strength slightly decreased 
to 22.75 and 22.53 KN/cm2, which is still very close to 
the standard value. However, for 30% replacement, the 
strength decreased further to 19.44 KN/cm².

• As we progress to 21 days of  curing, the standard 
strength of  the concrete block increased to 28.33 KN/
cm². With 10% and 20% replacement, the strength slightly 
decreased to 26.4 and 25.26 KN/cm², remaining very close 
to the standard value. However, for 30% replacement, the 
strength decreased further to 19.44 KN/cm².
These findings suggest that at 7 days of  curing, lower 
percentages of  waste glass replacement can enhance the 
strength of  the concrete block, while at 14 days of  curing, 
the strength remains close to the standard value for 10% 
and 20% replacement but decreases significantly at 30% 
replacement.

CONCLUSION 
In conclusion, our in-depth exploration of  waste paper 
and glass waste replacements in concrete has unveiled 

Figure 20: Combined graphical representation for different percentage of  waste glass as a replacement of  cement



Pa
ge

 
12

8

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

critical insights into sustainable construction practices.
Regarding waste paper as a cement replacement, the 
experiment demonstrated that substituting 10%, 20%, or 
30% of  cement with waste paper is not a recommended 
practice. In all instances, the resulting concrete blocks 
exhibited a significant reduction in strength when 
compared to traditional concrete formulations. This 
outcome underscores the limitations of  waste paper as a 
viable substitute for maintaining concrete strength.
Conversely, our findings regarding glass waste 
replacement in cement are particularly exciting. At just 7 
days of  curing, concrete blocks incorporating 10% and 
20% glass waste replacements displayed higher strength 
than their conventional counterparts, showcasing an early 
strength advantage. By the 14-day mark, the strength of  
these glass waste-reinforced blocks closely approached 
that of  standard concrete, highlighting their potential for 
use in sustainable construction practices.
Even more impressively, at 21 days of  curing, when 
conventional concrete reached its peak strength at 28.33 
kilonewtons per square meter, the blocks with 10%, 20%, 
and 30% glass waste replacement-maintained robustness, 
with strengths of  26.4, 25.26, and 19.44 kilonewtons 
per square meter, respectively. This prolonged strength 
retention suggests that glass waste-reinforced concrete can 
serve as a sustainable alternative without compromising 
structural integrity, even in the long term.
Perhaps the most significant revelation from our research 
is the innovative role of  glass waste powder. In cases of  
10-20% cement replacement, this material can effectively 
act as a supplementary binder alongside cement. This 
discovery has the potential to revolutionize sustainable 
construction practices, offering a path to greener, more 
resilient structures that meet both environmental and 
structural demands. 

REFFERENCE
Asadi, S., & Satish, A. (2021). Assessment of  resources using 

analytical hierarchy process for optimum management in 
construction industry. Lulu Publication.

Ashutosh, S., & Ashutosh, S. (2015). Glass powder: A 
partial replacement for cement. International Journal of  
Core Engineering & Management, 1(11).

Bauchy, M., & Micoulaut, M. (2015). Densified network 
glasses and liquids with thermodynamically 
reversible and structurally adaptive behavior. Nature 
Communications, 6, 6398.

Blankendaal, E. (2014). Reducing the environmental 
impact of  concrete and asphalt: A scenario approach. 
Journal of  Cleaner Production, 66, 27-36. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.012

British Glass Recycling. (2017). Recycle it right. https://
www.britglass.org.uk/our-work/recycling/recycle-it-
right

Burnley, S., Ellis, J., Flowerdew, R., Poll, A., & Prosser, H. 
(2007). Assessing the composition of  municipal solid 
waste in Wales. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 
49(3), 264-283.

Butler, J., & Hooper, P. (2019). Glass waste. In Waste (pp. 
307-322). Academic Press.

Confederation of  European Paper Industries (CEPI). 
(2014). CEPI. https://www.cepi.org/

Elizabeth, A. K. (2007). Embodied reflection and 
the epistemology of  reflective practice. Journal of  
Philosophy of  Education, 41(3), 395-409.

EPA’s Office of  Resource Conservation and Recovery 
(ORCR). (2023). Retrieved from United States, Office 
of  Resource Conservation and Recovery : https://
www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epas-office-resource-
conservation-and-recovery-orcr

European Commission. (2013). Retrieved from 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.
do?uri=COM:2013:0499:FIN:en:PDF

Eurostat Statistics Explained. (2016). Retrieved from 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php?title=New_and_updated_articles_2016

Fallah, N., Joseph, F. C., Isaac, A. B., Ademola, K. A., & 
James, S. E. (n.d.). Generation, characterization, and 
management practices of  household solid wastes in 
Cowfield, Paynesville City, Liberia. Vol. 9(4).

Gautam, S., Srivastava, V., & Agarwal, V. (2012, 
November). Use of  glass wastes as fine aggregate 
in concrete. Journal of  Academic and Industrial Research, 
1(6).

Giljum, S. (2009). WRAP 2007; Sustainable aggregate 2009; 
UNEP SBCI 2009. 

Global Construction Perspectives & Oxford Economics 
(GCPOE). (2015). Global construction 2030: A global 
forecast for the construction industry over the next decade. 
http://www.cvf.or.kr/uploads/bestpractice/
GlobalConstruction2030_ExecutiveSummary_
WEB(0).pdf

Global Waste Management Outlook. (2015). United 
Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.
org/resources/report/global-waste-management-
outlook

Hawken, P., Brown, L. R., & Bardi, U. (2002). Confederation 
of  International Contractors’ Associations (CICA). 

Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: 
A global review of  solid waste management. Urban 
development series; knowledge papers no. 15. World 
Bank.

Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., & Perinaz, B. (2012). What 
a waste: A global review of  solid waste management (Urban 
development series; knowledge papers no. 15). World 
Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/17388

Malik, M., Bashir, M., Ahmad, S., & Tabis. (2013, July). 
Study of  concrete involving use of  waste glass as 
partial replacement of  fine aggregates. IOSR Journal 
of  Engineering (IOSRJEN), 3(7), 08–13.

McCaffrey, R. (2002). Literature review. ShodhGangotri. 
h t t p s : / / s h o d h g a n g o t r i . i n f l i b n e t . a c . i n /
bitstream/20.500.14146/6999/3/03_literature%20
review.pdf

Mehta, P. K. (2002). Greening of  the concrete industry for 
sustainable development. EcoSmart Concrete. https://



Pa
ge

 
12

9

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajee

Am. J. Environ Econ. 3(1) 116-129, 2024

ecosmartconcrete.com/docs/trmehta02.pdf
Mukete, B., Sun, Y., Zama, E., & Monono, S. K. (2016). 

Consumption and environmental impact in an 
emerging economy. Journal of  Energy, Environmental 
& Chemical Engineering, 1(1), 13–18. https://doi.
org/10.11648/j.jeece.20160101.12

Mukete, B., Sun, Y., Zama, E., & Monono, S. K. (2016). 
Paper consumption and environmental impact in an 
emerging economy. Journal of  Energy, Environmental 
& Chemical Engineering, 1(1), 13–18. https://doi.
org/10.11648/j.jeece.20160101.12

Neville, A. (2011).
Olutaiwo, A., Akinwale, M. B., & Ezegbunem, I. (2018). 

The use of  waste glass cullet (WGC) and waste tyre 
crumb (WTC) as fine aggregate in concrete for rigid 
pavement. Journal of  Construction and Building Materials, 
8(4), 29–35.

Omole, D., Isiorho, S., & Ndambuki, J. (2016). Waste 
management practices in Nigeria: Impacts. International 
Journal of  Waste Management, 46, 28–34.

Oriyomi, M. O., David, A. O., & Jamal, M. K. (2015). 
A review on recycled use of  solid wastes in building 
materials. International Journal of  Civil and Environmental 
Engineering, 9(12), 234–245.

Rabbani, M. L., & Sarker, S. (2017). Pollution sources 
assessment of  Turag River, Bangladesh. Environmental 
Monitoring and Assessment, 14, 84–91.

Statista. (n.d.). Pulp and paper capacities annual survey 
(2021-2026). Retrieved September 9, 2024, from 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/871733/
production-capacity-paper-and-paperboard-

forecast-worldwide/#:~:text=Projected%20
g l o b a l % 2 0 p r o d u c t i o n % 2 0 c a p a c i t y % 2 0
o f % 2 0 p a p e r % 2 0 a n d % 2 0 p a p e r b o a r d % 2 -
02021%2D2026&text=In%202021%2C%20the%20
total%20paper,around%20257%2

Statista. (n.d.). Paper consumption worldwide from 2021 
to 2032 in million metric tons. Retrieved September 
9, 2024, from https://www.statista.com/
statistics/1089078/demand-paper-globally-until-
2030/#:~:text=The%20global%20consumption%20
o f % 2 0 p a p e r , g l o b a l % 2 0 p a p e r % 2 0 a n d % 2 0
paperboard%20production

Tamanna, N., Mohamed Sutan, N., & D. T. C. L. (2013). 
Utilization of  waste glass in concrete. In Proceedings 
of  the 6th International Engineering Conference: Energy and 
Environment (ENCON). 

United Nations. (2015). World urbanization prospects: The 
2014 revision (ST/ESA/SER.A/366). Department of  
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 
https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/Files/
WUP2014-Report.pdf

United Nations Environment Programme. (2009). 
Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/resource/
docs/2009/smsn/igo/044.pdf

Vijayakumar, D., Vishaliny, M., & Govind, D. (February 
2013). Studies on Glass Powder as Partial Replacement 
ofCement in Concrete Production. International Journal 
of  EmergingTechnology and Advanced Engineering, 3(2).

Wilson, D. C., Rodic, L., & Modak, P. (2015). Global 
Waste Management Outlook. Report. UNEP ISBN 
978-92-807-3479-9.


