Issuu

Harnessing EPScrete 2024 Curiosity in Design Research Fellowship Report Amy Qu

HUGO

Contents 06

Introduction

Research Methodology

Material Testing & Exploration

Discussion & Future Directions

Literature Review

Material Experimentation

Use Cases & Applications

Preface As the inaugural Curiosity in Design Research Fellowship project, this work represented an opportunity to demonstrate how research can inform and expand the boundaries of design practice. The Curiosity in Design Research Fellowship was created by the Hugo team as an opportunity for young professionals and recent graduates to explore researchdriven design practice and develop an independent proposal related to innovation in architecture and the built environment. Over the course of the year, this project investigated EPScrete, a lightweight concrete in which conventional aggregates are replaced with expanded polystyrene beads. Exploring EPScrete meant stepping outside the comfort zone of conventional material research and exploring one of the most pressing challenges facing the architectural profession and our society: waste. By interrogating this problem, the fellowship aimed to discover opportunity where others saw limitation, and to reimagine EPS not as an environmental burden but as a resource for design innovation. In this way, the fellowship echoed Hugo’s belief that purposeful innovation and design are the most powerful instruments of change.

Amy Qu 2024 Hugo Curiosity in Design Research Fellow

Acknowledgements This fellowship work was made possible through the guidance, encouragement and expertise of the Hugo team, Corgan’s in-house research and innovation team, as well as a body of Advisors from across sectors at Corgan.

Hugo John Higgs Director of Creative Services, Principal Samantha Flores Director, Hugo, Vice President Melissa Hoelting Assistant Director, Hugo, Senior Associate Julia Calabrese Senior Strategist, Hugo, Associate

Project Advisors Irma Reiner Senior Specifier, Associate Jason Mirise Senior Specialist, Acoustical Design, Associate Ginger Gee DiFurio Sector Design Director, Associate Principal Dylan Wells Director, Model Shop, Senior Associate Varun Kohli Director of Sustainability, Principal In addition to the Hugo team and Project Advisors who steered the strategic direction of this project, this work was also made possible by the invaluable contributions of The Shop and Media Lab.

Introduction Why EPScrete, Why Now? The built environment accounts for nearly 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions, making it one of the most significant drivers of climate change4. This impact stems from both operational energy use and the carbon-intensive production of building materials such as cement. Cement manufacturing is one of the world’s most carbon-intensive industries, accounting for nearly 8% of global CO2 emissions3,1. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS), or Styrofoam, is widely used in packaging and insulation, yet recycling infrastructure remains limited. In 2018, the EPA reported 80,000 tons of polystyrene waste was generated in the US, with only about 6% of it being recycled2. EPS is non-biodegradable and gradually breaks down microplastics, which are then released into the environment and leach harmful additives5. These factors underscore the urgent need for alternative end-of-life pathways—such as integration into composite materials like EPScrete. EPScrete offers one such pathway by reusing shredded EPS as an aggregate in concrete. The material is significantly lighter than traditional concrete, with promising thermal and acoustic properties, and diverts persistent waste from landfills7. Beyond its technical potential, EPScrete may also be a promising end-of-life destination for EPS waste, which currently does not exist.

Literature Review Research on EPScrete is still in an early stage, with only a limited number of published studies exploring its performance in comparison to conventional concrete. Existing literature has documented promising benefits, particularly its ultra-lightweight properties and enhanced thermal and acoustic6. However, these studies have also emphasized that EPScrete’s mechanical capacity remains a key limitation; compressive strength is consistently lower than typical concrete mixes, and long-term durability performance is not yet well understood. As a result, while experimental comparisons have been made and application scenarios have been proposed, EPScrete has not yet matured into a widely adopted construction material or a conventional building industry standard. Lightweight Nature One of the most widely recognized properties of EPScrete is its significantly reduced density compared to conventional concrete. By replacing traditional aggregates with EPS beads, researchers report densities ranging from 400–2,000 kg/m³, depending on the mix design and EPS content8,9. This reduced weight offers advantages in handling, transport, and potential applications where lower dead loads are beneficial, such as prefabricated panels or infill walls. Compressive Strength A primary tradeoff of using EPS is decreased mechanical strength. Studies consistently show that as EPS content increases, compressive and flexural strengths drop, with low-density mixes achieving strengths as low as 3–5 MPa (435–725 PSI), while more optimized formulations can reach 20–25 MPa (2900-3625 PSI)8,10. These findings suggest that EPScrete is best suited for non-loadbearing elements or lightweight structural components unless mix design and additives are carefully optimized. Thermal Insulation EPScrete exhibits enhanced thermal performance relative to traditional concrete. The inclusion of EPS beads reduces thermal conductivity, making EPScrete suitable for insulated walls, partitions, or façade panels where energy efficiency is a priority6. Acoustic Properties In addition to thermal insulation, EPScrete demonstrates improved acoustic damping. Laboratory studies indicate that EPS-bearing concrete can absorb and dissipate sound waves more effectively than standard concrete, offering potential advantages for interior partitions, flooring underlays, or acoustic panels9. Mix Optimization and Additives Recent studies also highlight strategies to mitigate strength loss and enhance performance. Heat treatment, optimized water-to-cement ratios, and the use of supplementary cementitious materials or nano-additives can improve compressive strength and durability8, 11. These findings indicate that while EPScrete has inherent limitations, careful formulation can expand its potential applications in architecture.

Research Methodology: Framing the Exploration Approach The research process followed a mixed-methods framework— integrating material science experimentation with design prototyping— with a goal to perform material testing, identify databacked applications, and design early-stage prototypes within a 12 month period.

PROJECT TIMELINE

Literature Review & Market Research

Reviewing precedent, key design issues, and market trends to identify use cases.

Material Exploration & Testing

Material testing using both lab and self-assessment methods.

Use Case Identification

Specification of use cases and material/design requirements for each.

Prototype Development & Testing

Iterative prototyping for identified use cases.

Final Prototypes & Report Generation

Project deliverables: research report, application prototypes, and internal share-outs.

OCT 24

NOV 24

DEC 24

JAN 25

FEB 25

MAR 25

APR 25

JUN 25

JUL 25

AUG 25

SEP 25

OCT 24

Stakeholder Engagement Engagement with a range of stakeholders helped ground the EPScrete investigation in both design priorities and material system realities. This included input from an Advisory Council of eight Corgan leaders, convened specifically to bring together different fields of expertise as part of this innovation effort. The Advisory Council provided multidisciplinary perspectives that guided the project’s direction; including expertise in acoustics, technical design, interior design applications, sustainability and fabrication.

EXPERT INTERVIEWS Manufacturing Plant – EPS Waste Generator

– – –

No data collection on EPS foam waste production No recycling processes in place for EPS foam waste An estimated truckload of EPS foam waste is sent to the landfill each month

EPS Recycling Service Provider

– – –

One of only a few EPS recycling service providers in the Metro Atlanta area Can only accept post-industrial waste, since post-consumer waste typically requires cleaning Emphasis on the sheer volume of EPS waste needed to produce a profitable business model

Additional conversations with recycling service providers and environmental unit managers expanded the scope to include systemic perspectives on EPS waste. In the Atlanta area, one of the few EPS foam recyclers noted that operations are limited to post-industrial EPS waste, typically sourced from construction insulation, medical transport, and manufacturing off-cuts. Postconsumer EPS waste—commonly tied to food service and packaging—was described as inefficient to handle due to contamination and small collection volumes. The recycler emphasized that large, consistent streams are necessary for profitability, underscoring the challenge of scaling solutions without reliable inputs. From the generator side, an environmental unit manager at a Yamaha manufacturing plant described how EPS waste often falls outside of sustainability reporting frameworks. While the plant tracks cardboard, plastic, and metal waste streams, EPS foam is excluded due to limited recycling options. As a result, an estimated truckload of Styrofoam per month is sent directly to landfill. Its lightweight nature was cited as a logistical barrier, making transportation inefficient and costly. Together, these conversations revealed the dual opportunity for EPScrete: internally, as a platform for design innovation across multiple fields of expertise, and externally, as a circular-economy intervention to redirect overlooked waste streams into productive applications. In addition to presenting opportunities, these conversations highlighted challenges: identifying a replicable method to process styrofoam waste into usable EPS particles, and suitable architectural applications that leverage EPScrete’s unique material properties.

EPS Waste Generator

EPS Recycling Provider

Manufactured EPS products

EPS waste (off-cuts, misproductions)

EPS densification and other processing

Consumer

Landfill

Product manufacturer Utilizes densified/ processed EPS in products

Material Experimentation EPS Foam Processing In order to cast Styrofoam particles into EPScrete, the Styrofoam waste must be processed into usable EPS particles. Separating Styrofoam particles into individual, intact EPS beads was crucial to the casting process, as it is the small “pockets” of trapped air inside of EPS particles that give EPScrete its unique material properties: lightweight, acoustic and thermal insulation. Consequently, preserving the bead structure emerged as a key design parameter in the material development process. Early attempts to process EPS using a conventional food processor quickly proved ineffective: the sharp blades fragmented the material unevenly and compromised the integrity of the beads by collapsing their internal air pockets. EPS BEADED STRUCTURE

NON-INTACT EPS BEAD STRUCTURE

A custom shredding mechanism was designed to address this need. The device utilized the blunt ends of flat screws arranged around a PVC pipe, with an acrylic attachment— fabricated on a metal lathe—press-fit into the pipe’s hollow end and secured with screws. The tapered end of the acrylic attachment was coupled to a powered hand drill, which provided rotational motion. When activated, the rotating screws effectively tore the EPS foam apart upon contact, producing intact beads without compromising their air-filled structure.

This mechanism offered an efficient and accessible means of generating consistent EPS beads using readily available tools and materials. Once shredded, unevenly sized EPS particles are sifted out in order to ensure only uniformly-sized beads remain.

Casting Process Once enough EPS beads are generated, they are cast into the EPScrete mixture. Mixture ratios were varied in their composition according to the following: Mixture 1 (37% EPS Beads) – 3 parts cement – 6 parts sand – 5 parts EPS beads

Mixture 2 (53% EPS Beads) – 3 parts cement – 6 parts sand – 10 parts EPS beads

Mixture 3 (Mixed EPS Composition) – – – –

3 parts cement 6 parts sand 4 parts EPS beads 8 parts powdered EPS

3D printed or pre-fabricated molds were lubricated with dish soap to act as a mold release prior to being filled with EPScrete. Once cast into molds, EPScrete samples can be demolded within 2-3 days. Samples may undergo material testing after a period of 4 weeks, after which concrete is typically fully cured.

Casted Samples Two different EPScrete formulations were cast into 1’x1’x2” tiles and demolded after three days. After a four week curing process, samples were weighed in order to determine the relative density of each sample. A mortar slab (concrete and sand with no EPS added) was cast as a control sample. Two samples containing 37% EPS were cast to evaluate potential variations in weight between mixtures of identical composition. The casting and weighing process supports an inverse

Control (0% EPS) Weight 18.17 lbs

Mixture 1 (37% EPS Beads) Weight 13.87 lbs – 3 parts cement – 6 parts sand – 5 parts EPS beads

Mixture 1 (37% EPS Beads) Weight 13.17 lbs – 3 parts cement – 6 parts sand – 5 parts EPS beads

Mixture 2 (53% EPS Beads) Weight 11.27 lbs – 3 parts cement – 6 parts sand – 10 parts EPS beads

Material Testing EPScrete samples underwent 3 forms of testing: compressive strength, impact resistance, and sound impedance. Previous literature suggests that addition of EPS weakens concrete’s compressive strength and impact resistance, while augmenting its insulative properties. Previous research has also demonstrated an inverse relationship between EPS percentage and overall strength. Material testing was utilized to support or falsify these hypotheses, as well as to inform appropriate use cases for the material according to various formulations.

Compressive Strength Testing Compressive strength testing measures the load-bearing capacity and strength of EPScrete. Compressive strength is critical for understanding its structural performance compared to conventional concrete. The standard for conventional concrete for load-bearing applications is approximately 3000 PSI (Pounds per Square Inch). In a laboratory test of 37%, 53%, and mixed composition EPScrete samples, none were found to be appropriate for structural loadbearing applications; confirming existing research that the addition of EPS beads has a detrimental effect on the overall strength of concrete. Future explorations and research on addressing this issue may explore the addition of binders, such as fiberglass, to increase its compressive strength. Compressive strength testing was done according to ASTM C109. The standard procedure for this method involves the downward application of force by a hydraulic press onto a 2-inch cube specimen. Peak force (measured in pounds) refers to the total amount of weight applied to the 2”x2” sample until there was noticeable failure (ie. crumbling, breaking into pieces). PSI was determined by dividing the peak force by the surface area of the sample: Stress (PSI) =

Force (lbs) Area (in2)

Peak net time and distance represent the time in seconds and the distance (respectively) traveled by the hydraulic pressing mechanism before failure occurred.

Sample

37%

Sample

53%

Specimen

Peak Force (lbs)

Peak Net Time (s)

Peak Net Distance (inch)

2406.1

4.16

0.0347

2196.7

5.23

0.0436

3196.7

4.21

0.0351

3230.8

4.34

0.0362

3196.2

4.44

0.0370

Average

2839.9 PSI = 709.98

4.48

0.0373

Specimen

Peak Force (lbs)

Peak Net Time (s)

Peak Net Distance (inch)

738.6

9.53

0.0794

706.5

34.20

0.2851

1015.7

5.73

0.0478

1028.1

4.38

0.0366

1104.7

3.92

0.0327

Average

918.7 PSI = 229.7

5.89

0.0491

*Outliers excluded from averages

Sample

Mixed

Specimen

Peak Force (lbs)

Peak Net Time (s)

Peak Net Distance (inch)

1073.1

6.72

0.0560

1305.3

4.33

0.0361

998.9

8.91

0.0743

1043.1

6.14

0.0512

1187.0

6.53

0.0544

Average

1121.5 PSI = 280.4

6.53

0.0544

Impact Testing Impact resistance testing assesses how EPScrete withstands sudden forces or shocks, providing insight into its durability and suitability for applications like flooring, protective barriers, or exterior use. For impact testing, the Izod impact testing method was used in accordance with ASTM D256. The Izod impact test measures the amount of energy a material absorbs before fracturing under a sudden impact. In this method, a notched specimen is mounted vertically and struck by a swinging pendulum released from a fixed height. The pendulum’s loss of energy upon breaking the sample (measured in foot-pounds or joules) represents the material’s impact resistance. For this study, EPScrete samples were tested using a Tinius Olsen pendulum impact tester with a total swing weight of 1.1 kg (2.5 lb) and a maximum drop height of 0.612 m (2.0 ft), in accordance with ASTM D256 (Izod Impact Test). The test setup quantifies the material’s ability to withstand a sudden load, providing insight into how varying EPS content influences the toughness of EPScrete. The Izod pendulum results support a consistent trend observed in compression testing: increasing EPS content reduces both strength and impact resistance. There is not an established value for concrete according to ASTM D256, thus, the test is used here as a comparative measure of relative toughness among mixtures.

Sample

Avg Impact Energy (J) Avg Impact Energy (FtLb)

Trend

37%

1.70 (±) 0.46

2.30 (±) 0.63

Highest impact resistance

53%

0.78 (±) 0.36

1.06 (±) 0.49

Lowest impact resistance

Mixed

0.91 (±) 0.25

1.24 (±) 0.34

Intermediate

Sound Impedance Testing The sound impedance tube test is used to measure a material’s acoustic properties. Specifically, its Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) and Transmission Loss (TL), by analyzing how it reflects and absorbs sound waves under controlled conditions. In this method, a cylindrical specimen is fitted snugly within a rigid tube, and a loudspeaker generates a plane sound wave toward the sample. Microphones positioned along the tube record the incident and reflected sound pressures, allowing calculation of how much sound energy is absorbed versus reflected at different frequencies. For this study, EPScrete samples were tested using two tube diameters (100 mm and 30 mm), corresponding to sample diameters of 99 mm and 29 mm, respectively. The larger tube measures performance at low to mid frequencies, while the smaller tube captures higher frequency behavior. Together, these tests provide a detailed understanding of each EPScrete mixture’s sound absorption characteristics across a broad frequency range. Based on the impedance tube testing results, EPScrete exhibits moderate sound transmission loss (TL) and notable sound absorption (NRC), particularly at mid-to-high frequencies. The transmission loss data show fluctuating values across frequencies, indicating that EPScrete primarily dissipates and scatters sound energy rather than blocking it entirely. This aligns with its lightweight, porous composition, which promotes internal sound diffusion. Meanwhile, the NRC results reveal increased absorption in the higher frequency range, suggesting strong potential for speech and ambient noise control applications. Collectively, these findings indicate that EPScrete functions more effectively as an acoustic absorptive material, reducing echo and reverberation within interior spaces, than as a standalone sound barrier. Pairing it with a denser substrate such as gypsum or concrete could enhance both sound isolation and broad-spectrum acoustic performance.

Material Testing Synthesis EPScrete Strengths – – –

Lightweight: High air content and low density make EPScrete much lighter than conventional concrete, easing handling and reducing structural and transport loads. Acoustic performance: Strong sound diffusion properties make it suitable for acoustic panels, wall tiles, and interior partitions. Sustainability focus: Offers benefits in energy efficiency and comfort, ideal for applications prioritizing lightness, thermal, and acoustic qualities over structural strength.

EPScrete demonstrated notable advantages in several performance categories, most prominently in weight reduction and sound diffusion. The material’s high air content and low density made it significantly lighter than conventional concrete, facilitating easier handling, reduced structural loads, and potential energy savings in transportation and installation. Its improved sound diffusing capabilities, suggest potential applications in acoustic panels, wall tiles, or non-structural interior partitions. These properties highlight EPScrete’s value as a sustainable alternative for design contexts where lightness, thermal comfort, and acoustic moderation are prioritized over structural strength.

EPScrete Limitations – – – –

Low structural strength: Reduced compressive and load-bearing capacity limits EPScrete’s suitability for structural applications. Material trade-off: EPS beads improve lightness but weaken the cement matrix, lowering overall strength. Manufacturing challenges: Inconsistent bead distribution and bonding affect both appearance and mechanical integrity. Best use: Most appropriate for non-load-bearing or secondary components where its lightness and acoustic benefits can be prioritized safely

Conversely, EPScrete exhibited limitations in mechanical performance, particularly in compressive and load-bearing capacity. The inclusion of EPS beads, while beneficial for weight reduction, disrupted the continuity of the cementitious matrix, resulting in lower overall strength compared to traditional concrete mixes. This restricts EPScrete’s use in structural applications requiring high load resistance. Additionally, achieving consistent bead distribution and surface finish presented challenges, as variations in bead size and bonding affected both aesthetics and mechanical integrity. These findings suggest that EPScrete is best suited for non-load-bearing and secondary building components, where its unique material qualities can be leveraged without compromising safety or performance.

Mixture Comparison – – – – –

Strength vs. EPS content: Higher EPS percentages reduce strength and impact resistance; strength improves as EPS content decreases. Acoustic performance: 37% and mixed compositions provide slightly better noise reduction, especially at higher frequencies. Optimal mix: The 37% EPS mixture offers the best balance of lightness, insulation, and strength, though still below load-bearing standards. Future potential: Adjusting EPS ratios or enhancing the mix could improve structural viability. Application scope: 53% and Mixed EPScrete are best suited as lightweight fill materials with external structural support.

Material tests comparing 37%, 53%, and mixed composition EPScrete showed an inverse relationship between EPS percentage and strength and impact resistance. Sound impedance tube testing demonstrated slight variations in acoustic insulation among mixtures, with 37% EPS and Mixed composition EPScrete having slightly higher noise reduction capabilities, especially at higher frequencies. Overall, the tests show that the 37% EPS mixture performs most effectively. 37% EPS provides increased insulation and reductions in weight, while still enabling enough concrete mass to effectively reduce sound and enhance overall strength. Although the 37% EPS mixture does not meet load-bearing standards for compressive strength, further enhancements or EPS percentage reductions can be made to meet this standard in future mix designs. 53% EPS and mixed composition EPScrete may be able to act as a lightweight fill, provided that there is a more structural/supportive outside layer.

Material Exploration & Discoveries Fire Resistance

When exposed to a butane blowtorch, the cast EPScrete samples exhibited localized surface degradation rather than full structural failure. The exposed EPS particles on the surface ignited and burned away, leaving behind small cavities where the foam had been, while the surrounding cementitious matrix remained intact. Notably, the interior of the samples showed no signs of damage, and EPS particles embedded deeper within the material remained unaffected. This behavior suggests that EPScrete’s fire vulnerability is limited primarily to its exposed surface, and that applying a fireresistant coating or exterior cement finish could significantly enhance its performance and safety in architectural applications.

Casting Challenges

During the casting process, several challenges arose related to the structural integrity of the EPScrete samples. De-molding often led to breakage, particularly in longer or thinner specimens, as well as in areas with fine details or delicate edges. These failures suggest that the material’s relatively low tensile strength makes it susceptible to stress concentrations during removal. To improve casting outcomes, stronger mold release agents and molds designed without overly slender or intricate geometries may be necessary to reduce breakage and preserve sample integrity.

Potential Application: Acoustic Panels

An EPScrete acoustic tile showcases the material’s ability to be cast into simple, repeatable forms that can be applied to wall surfaces, leveraging its natural sound-diffusing properties to enhance acoustic comfort in interior environments.

Ideal for: – Workplace interiors – Classrooms – Cultural venues, and other spaces prioritizing acoustic performance and design expression.

Potential Application: Interlocking Block

An EPScrete interlocking brick demonstrates the material’s versatility in forming complex, constructioninspired geometries, offering a lightweight, easily assembled module that hints at future potential—where enhanced compressive strength could enable more structurally capable, sustainable building systems. Ideal for: – Material research and prototyping – Modular construction studies – Sustainable building explorations

Potential Application: Breeze Block An EPScrete breeze block combines the lightweight, easily constructible qualities of EPScrete with its natural sound-diffusing texture to create privacy barriers that soften acoustics while maintaining an open, breathable spatial character.

Ideal for: – Hospitality – Residential – Outdoor Spaces – Privacy Screens – Acoustic Partitions

Discussion & Future Directions EPScrete highlights how waste can be reframed as a resource, positioning discarded materials not as a burden but as an opportunity for innovation in construction. Beyond EPScrete itself, the broader implications point toward a construction industry increasingly open to alternative material streams, where waste diversion and circularity become integral to design thinking. Scaling such approaches will require new partnerships across waste management, fabrication, and design, as well as continued exploration into how unconventional resources can reshape both the aesthetics and sustainability of the built environment. Future research may focus on the addition of binders, such as fiberglass, in order to improve compressive strength and impact resistance. Additional exploration may also be targeted at surface treatments for EPS which might enhance its flame resistance by preventing EPS beads from burning.

Sustainability Considerations In considering EPScrete’s sustainability as a building material, factors such as the challenges of EPS waste recycling, transportation inefficiencies, and the suitability of different waste streams come into play. EPS is notoriously difficult to recycle because of its lightweight yet bulky nature, which makes transportation fuel-inefficient and costly. Most EPS recycling today focuses on post-industrial waste, where the material can be compacted into dense polystyrene logs later used in other consumer product applications. However, this process removes the trapped air in EPS beads—air that is essential for EPScrete’s performance—meaning traditional recycling pathways are not suitable for EPScrete production. Post-consumer EPS poses an even greater challenge, as it is often contaminated with food, beverages, or debris, making it impractical to process without extensive cleaning. As a result, much of this material ends up in landfills, where it can persist for centuries. EPScrete provides an alternative pathway by capturing and reusing EPS waste in its expanded, airfilled bead form, allowing the material to retain properties such as lightness and insulation potential. This approach creates opportunities for local and regional waste diversion, reducing landfill burden and offering circularity in a sector where viable recycling options are scarce. Still, logistical considerations remain critical to its sustainability: the cost and fuel demands of transporting EPS long distances, the availability of usable post-industrial or post-consumer waste, and the labor needed to process EPS into particle form without densification all affect feasibility. If these hurdles can be addressed, EPScrete offers a promising, low-impact material that transforms a difficult-tomanage waste stream into a resource for sustainable construction.

Sources 1. Andrew, R. M. (2024). Global CO₂ emissions from cement production. Global Carbon Project / CICERO Center for International Climate Research. https://globalcarbonbudget.org 2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025, October 23). Frequent questions regarding EPA’s Facts and Figures about Materials, Waste and Recycling. https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figuresabout-materials-waste-and-recycling/frequent-questions-regarding-epas-facts-and 3. International Energy Agency. (2023). Cement – Analysis. IEA. https://www.iea.org/reports/ cement 4. United Nations Environment Programme (2022). 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi. 5. Atlas Molded Products. (2022). 2022 EPS Recycling Report [Report]. https://static1. squarespace.com/static/62e5bccd5d8f2e718d48d121/t/671a7bdb60c13100966e39f1/172978889 1897/2022+EPS+Recycling+Report.pdf 6. Prasittisopin, L. (2022). Review of concrete with expanded polystyrene (EPS). Journal of Cleaner Production, 358, Article 131852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131852 7. Moutassem, F., & Al Amara, K. (2021). Design and production of sustainable lightweight concrete precast sandwich panels for non‑load bearing partition walls. Cogent Engineering, 8(1), Article 1993565. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2021.1993565 8. He, D., Zheng, W., Chen, Z., Qi, Y., Zhang, D., & Li, H. (2022). Influence of paste strength on the strength of expanded polystyrene (EPS) concrete with different densities. Polymers, 14(13), 2529. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14132529 9. Petrella, A., Di Mundo, R., & Notarnicola, M. (2020). Recycled expanded polystyrene as lightweight aggregate for environmentally sustainable cement conglomerates. Materials, 13(4), 988. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13040988 10. Xu, Y., & Li, Y. (2012). Mechanical properties of expanded polystyrene lightweight aggregate concrete and brick. Construction and Building Materials, 35, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. conbuildmat.2012.02.004 11. Rakhimov, M., Samoilova, T., Rakhimova, G., & Zhangabay, N. (2024). Effect of heat treatment of expanded polystyrene concrete on its compressive strength. Technobius, 4(2), Article 0059. https://doi.org/10.54355/tbus/4.2.2024.0059