**3. Experimental Consequences and Discussions**

#### *3.1. Compressive Strength (CS)*

Figure 2 demonstrates the CS test consequences at a 28-day period formed with 100% reference and numerous proportions of CWG of fine and CA exchanging reference aggregates. As recognized in Figure 2, in the midst of the low CWG proportion, the CSs of concrete mixtures with CWG consumption as a replacement for FA were greater than those of the consistent concrete mixes lacking CWG. As presented in Figure 2, fine and CA for 10%, 20%, 40%, and 50% (FA10%, FA20%, FA40%, FA50%, and CA10%, CA20%, CA40%, and CA50%) were exchanged with CWG; this inclination was reversed while fractional replacement of CA with CWG decreased the CS of concrete. Statistical examination of specimen consequences indicated the important proceeds of CWG (as FA was swapped with CWG) to the CS of concrete. As the evaluation of the FA is swapped with CWG powder, the CS of FA10% (10% FA were swapped with CWG) is 1% greater than that of reference concrete. Similarly, the CS of FA20% (20% FA were swapped with CWG) is 9%

greater than that of FA10%. At the evaluation of CS of FA40% (40% FA were swapped with CWG) is 6.2% larger than that of FA20%. Lastly, at the evaluation of CS of FA50% (50% FA were swapped with CWG) is 5.2% greater than that of FA40%. While compared with reference concrete, the CS of FA50% (50% FA were swapped with CWG) is comparable with that of reference concrete. The evaluation of CS of FA50% (50% FA were swapped with CWG) is 12% greater than that of reference concrete. The increase in the capacity with FA can be explained with the use of glass powder since the glass powder has a binder effect. Alternatively, at the evaluation of CS of CA10%, CA20%, CA40%, and CA50% (CAs were swapped with CWG), the CS test consequences for the great CWG proportion downgraded trends comparable to those for the small CWG proportion. In this case too, the CS of CA10% is 27% larger than the corresponding mix (CA50%). While CA was swapped with CWG, a remarkable downgrade in strength was detected when compared with the reference concrete and FA50%. This decrease in CS can be explained by two reasons. One of the reasons is that glass waste has a smooth surface compared to normal aggregates, which causes a decrease in the bond among the particles and the cement matrix, and the decrease in CS increases as the glass percentage increases. The second reason is that the absorption of CWG is less than normal aggregates, and this causes higher slump values. For this reason, there is an extra amount of free water that evaporates, leaving a little more space, which causes a decrease in CS [45].

**Figure 2.** Consequences of CS.
