Accepted Manuscript

Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled

aggregate concrete: A global perspective

Ali Akhtar, Ajit K. Sarmah

PII: S0959-6526(18)30742-X

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085

Reference: JCLP 12343

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 01 October 2017

Revised Date: 24 January 2018

Accepted Date: 07 March 2018

Please cite this article as: Ali Akhtar, Ajit K. Sarmah, Construction and demolition waste generation
and properties of recycled aggregate concrete: A global perspective, Journal of Cleaner Production
(2018), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.085

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form.
Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate

2 concrete: A global perspective

7 Ali Akhtar1, Ajit K Sarmah1*

10

11 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

12 Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland,

13 Private bag 92019, Auckland 1142,

14 New Zealand

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Address for Correspondence:

23 Ajit K Sarmah, PhD
24 Email: a.sarmah@auckland.ac.nz
25

26

27

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table of Contents
2 Abstract ......................................................................................................................................3

3 Key Words..................................................................................................................................3

4 Highlights ..................................................................................................................................4

5 Abbreviations.............................................................................................................................5

6 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................6

7 2. Methodology and approach ...............................................................................................8

8 3. Construction and demolition waste generation ................................................................8

9 3.1 Oceania ..............................................................................................9

10 3.2 North America ....................................................................................10

11 3.3 South America ....................................................................................11

12 3.4 Europe .............................................................................................11

13 3.5 Asia.................................................................................................15

14 3.6 Africa ..............................................................................................17

15 3.7 Critical comments ................................................................................17

16 4. Recycled aggregates from construction and demolition activities .................................18

17 4.1. Recycled glass ....................................................................................21

18 4.2. Metakaolin........................................................................................22

19 4.3. Fly ash.............................................................................................24

20 4.4. Silica fume ........................................................................................25

21 4.5. Blast furnace slag ................................................................................27

22 4.6. Nanomaterials: ...................................................................................28

23 4.7. Fibre reinforcements ............................................................................30

24 5. Concluding remarks: .......................................................................................................32

25 6. Future Recommendations ...............................................................................................33

26 Acknowledgement....................................................................................................................34

27 References................................................................................................................................36

28

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Construction and demolition waste generation and properties of recycled aggregate

2 concrete: A global perspective

3 Abstract
4 Concrete production and construction and demolition waste generation are some of the main
5 contributors of constant carbon dioxide emission into the atmosphere. The main aim of this
6 review is to present the status of construction and demolition waste generation around the
7 world and subsequently provide a critical review of the recent studies conducted to improve
8 the properties of recycled aggregate concrete through different supplementary materials.
9 Information from 40 countries within six continents have been collated, critically analysed
10 with the central focus being on the current construction and demolition waste generation and
11 different policies adopted by the relevant government bodies. The future goals and targets of
12 each country are briefly discussed. The overall construction and demolition waste generation
13 in 40 countries worldwide reached more than 3.0 billion tonnes annually until 2012 and this
14 trend is increasing constantly. The developing countries including India and China need to
15 develop comprehensive system to monitor and utilize their huge C&D waste and government
16 level initiative is required for mass awareness. Recycled aggregates obtained through
17 construction and demolition waste are of inferior quality and use of different pozzolanic
18 materials are recommended by several researchers to enhance its properties. Furthermore, it
19 was also suggested to use the recycled aggregates from 30 to 50% to achieve the strength
20 equivalent to natural aggregate concrete with supplementary cementitious materials. More
21 research is imperative in the area of unconventional supplementary materials in recycled
22 aggregate concrete and full structural analysis on long term scale. The uncertainty of its
23 quality and absence of proper standards hinder its way of common adoption in real-world
24 applications. Therefore, further research is necessary to endorse this waste in the construction
25 industry and develop proper standards for its use in low-risk structural applications.

26 Key Words
27 Construction and demolition waste, waste estimation, recycled aggregates, supplementary
28 cementitious materials, concrete properties

29

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Highlights
2

3  C&D waste generation around the world reached approximately 3 billion tonnes.
4  RA utilization in concrete suggested being around 30-50% with pozzolanic materials.
5  Different supplementary materials helped improve the RAC properties.
6  Future research is required in the field of treatment technologies of RAs.

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Abbreviations
EU European Union

USA United states of America

USD United States dollar

C&D Construction and demolition

RA Recycled aggregates

RAC Recycled aggregate concrete

NAC Natural aggregate concrete

OPC Ordinary Portland cement

SF Silica fume

FA Fly ash

GGBFS Ground granulated blast furnace slag

ITZ Interfacial transition zone

ASR Alkali-silica reaction

C-S-H Calcium silicate hydrate

CO2 Carbon dioxide

MPa Mega Pascal

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FRP Fibre reinforced polymer

GFRP Glass fibre reinforced polymer

CFRP Carbon fibre reinforced polymer

BFRP Basalt fibre reinforced polymer

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 1. Introduction

2 Construction industry contains many elements which yield high carbon footprint including
3 cement and aggregates production, transportation etc. and among all of them, cement has one
4 of the largest shares in generating carbon footprint. Production of cement results in 7 % of
5 world’s total CO2 emission (Oh et al., 2014). China is the biggest producer of cement
6 followed by India with nearly 2350 million metric tonnes (“Cement statistics,” 2016).
7 Concrete usually has different compositions according to its required use, however, cement is
8 an essential component with other major elements including sand, water, and gravels
9 (Stolaroff et al., 2005).

10 Sustainability in the construction industry is inevitable and this not only means that it must
11 reduce carbon footprint and save the environment, but it should also contribute to conserve
12 the natural resources which are crucial for continuous growth. There are developments
13 underway in reducing the depletion of natural resources but averting 100 % from natural
14 resources is practically impossible and therefore it is necessary to consider sustainability
15 while planning different projects.

16 Several researchers have proposed different approaches to reduce the use of natural resources
17 (cement, sand, and gravels, etc.) in the form of supplementary cementitious materials. These
18 include fly ash, silica fumes (Leung et al., 2016) and quicklime (Noor-ul-Amin, 2012) or
19 waste products from different processes such as ceramics (Awoyera et al., 2016), palm oil
20 waste (Ul Islam et al., 2016), tire rubber waste (Thomas et al., 2016) and clay and recycled
21 aggregates (Muñoz-Ruiperez et al., 2016). The incorporation of these materials often changes
22 the properties of concrete on both sides of the scale, however, their addition always helps to
23 cope with waste produced through different materials with an opportunity to reduce the
24 handling cost of waste.

25 Construction of building often results in the production of unnecessary waste which can be
26 due to excessively ordered supplies or mishandling of materials by unskilled labourers. On
27 the other hand, demolition is essential for the development of mega cities where lack of space
28 is the greatest obstacle, either the building has completed its life span or needs to be
29 renovated. In most circumstances, demolition is a desirable option to consider because of the
30 economical point of view and it is less time-consuming. However, C&D waste can also be
31 generated following a natural disaster. These activities result in the waste generation with
32 number of significant problems, e.g., transportation, storing the waste in a suitable place

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 before processing and disposing at the landfill sites. Blengini and Garbarino (2010) gave an
2 example of the city of Turin in Italy on the role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable
3 supply mix. Strategies such as life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used by many authors
4 which may assist the local decision makers in choosing alternative materials for construction
5 purposes be it building or paving material, so that environmental impact can be minimised
6 (Butera et al. 2015; Rosado et al. 2017). These strategies can be viewed as the internalizing
7 the overall scenario within the C&D waste sectors, so that cleaner production is achieved.

8 Waste produced through construction and demolition (C&D) throughout the world considers
9 nuisance where it contains many different types of materials including steel, concrete, glass
10 and some hazardous materials like asbestos, mercury etc. Furthermore, this waste has a lot of
11 variety which is a strenuous job to handle and produce in massive amounts, e.g., countries
12 like New Zealand produce 50 % of the waste through C&D (Inglis, 2007) out of the total
13 waste generated in the country. This waste is estimated to be more than 4 million tonnes
14 which are being sent to landfills and cleanfills/inert landfills. Construction and demolition
15 waste due to its chemical nature contain many other problems where handling is limited to
16 landfills and most of the waste processing techniques cannot be performed which contains
17 aerobic and anaerobic digestion, composting, thermochemical degradation and incineration
18 into boilers. Thus, it is necessary to foresee the problems of shortage of land for landfills and
19 increasing transportation costs.

20 This leads to a compulsory move towards other waste management strategies including
21 minimization, reuse and recycle. There are many studies conducted for the deconstruction of
22 buildings (Saghafi & Teshnizi 2011; Chau et al. 2016; Höglmeier et al. 2015) to assess the
23 reuse of the materials and reported some positive results. Even though reuse has its benefits
24 but the cost and time associated with its systematic operation are one of the main hindrances
25 to adopt this technology. On the other hand, recycling is also a viable option to consider
26 while dealing with this waste stream where all the waste produced goes through processing
27 and separates into different categories including steel, concrete, wood and glass. This
28 collected waste can be recycled and use for other purposes or can be employed with other
29 building materials. Figure 1 explains the schematic flow of the materials during the
30 construction and demolition activities.

31 Concrete is one of the highly diverse material among all of them which can have different
32 mix materials from country to country and even site to site depending on its application.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Therefore, it is important to estimate C&D waste generation around the world and develop
2 guidelines or recommendations for the proper application of these materials. To date, there
3 has not been a single comprehensive review article available discussing the latest C&D
4 production around the world (Arezoumandi et al., 2015). Therefore, the overarching aim of
5 this work is to provide a global perspective on the latest production trends of construction and
6 demolition waste in different countries around the world and how different supplementary
7 materials impact the recycled aggregate concrete properties, obtained from C&D waste. The
8 scope of this article is limited to only C&D waste, concrete derived RA and their utilization
9 with different supplementary cementitious materials to reproduce recycled aggregate
10 concrete(RAC). Through this article, we make an attempt to provide a country perspective
11 on the subject matter and critically analyze the waste volume and disposal methods used in
12 the construction industry.

13 2. Methodology and approach

14 The latest data on construction and demolition waste generation of several countries were
15 collected through websites of different governmental organizations including the European
16 Union, United States Environmental protection agency (USEPA), Statistics Canada,
17 Department of Environment and Resource management Australia and from previously
18 published articles where data were not available through government bodies. It was
19 considered that official statistics published by relevant government bodies are the main
20 indictors of their generation and considered reliable figures. The data were compiled to
21 prepare the graph to present trends of C&D waste generation throughout the world. Properties
22 of RA with different materials are also briefly discussed from the available published studies
23 in the last ten years to realize the full potential for RA in concrete production. The considered
24 search engines in this scenario were Scopus, Science direct and google scholars. Journal
25 articles were given the first priority in this part of the study and later thesis and conference
26 papers were included to fill the gaps where necessary. The application of RA in other areas,
27 for instance, in roads and pavements were not the point of focus of this article.

28 3. Construction and demolition waste generation

29 Countries around the world are trying to reduce their construction and demolition (C&D)
30 waste by introducing different legislations and raising awareness through different means to
31 help save the environment. Following sections discuss the available information on C&D
32 waste generation in each of the continents in relation to the existing legislation, policies

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 around C&D waste disposal and recycling activities. Given the complexity and variability
2 associated with the collection of C&D waste generation data from country to country, our
3 attempt is here to provide some baseline information and summarise them in a separate
4 section to provide a common solution.

5 3.1 Oceania
6 New Zealand has introduced “waste minimization act 2008” to discourage waste disposal at
7 landfill sites and encouraged the reuse and recycle of this waste streams (Farrelly and Tucker,
8 2014). Almost all the waste from C&D either ends at the landfill (20%) or cleanfills/inert
9 landfills (80%). Efforts are being made by the New Zealand government to reduce this
10 immense burden from landfills. A first C&D waste recycling plant facility was recently built
11 in Auckland with the help of obtained landfill tax (Anthony, 2015). Figure 2 explains the
12 composition of construction and demolition waste disposal to landfills containing timber and
13 concrete waste as a major contributor (Ministry for the Environment, 2007). The absence of
14 recent stats for construction and demolition waste in New Zealand demands the reassessment
15 and collection of data to prepare a plan and build the up-to-date capacity for waste handling.

16 Australia produces a significant amount of C&D waste than New Zealand, achieving highest
17 generation rate in the region of New South Wales followed by Queensland and Victoria.
18 Hyder Consulting (2011) reported extensively on the waste production throughout the
19 country and found 55% recovery rate of C&D waste in Australia. Australian Capital
20 Territories with largest recovery rate (81 %) precedes in recovering C&D waste compared to
21 South Australia (77%). The waste management system is handled by states and territories in
22 Australia rather than by central body (Australian Government, 2012).

23 The major share of C&D waste is the masonry product including concrete, bricks, asphalt,
24 etc. which is approximately 72.3%. Among this, 66% of waste is being recycled and the
25 remaining is being sent to landfills. Even though the rate of recycling is significantly high,
26 Australian states are trying to improve recycling rate and committed to reach more than 70 %.
27 Under the “towards zero waste strategy”, Victoria has set the target at 80 % for recovery of
28 materials from C&D and Zero Waste SA act 2004 encourages to reduce waste at landfills by
29 25 % in South Australia (Hyder Consulting Encycle Consulting & Sustainable Resource
30 Solutions, 2011). Like New Zealand, Australia is also promising to adopt reuse and recycle of
31 materials by imposing landfill levy on disposal of waste. Previously, disposal cost rates
32 ranged from $42 to $102 (31 to 76 USD) per tonne, and this has now increased at $10 (7.5
33 USD) per year until 2016 upon the revision of cost increment (Australian Government,

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 2012). The outcome of these recent actions is yet to be visualized in the long-term scenario
2 and to develop further actions accordingly.

3 3.2 North America

4 United States is one of the biggest producers of C&D waste in the world generating more
5 than 500 million tonnes per year. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
6 is the federal government body working on the issues of environment, human, health, and
7 their interactions. Recently, USEPA prepared a comprehensive report on all types of waste
8 generation (USEPA, 2015a). Evaluation by USEPA for C&D debris on many aspects
9 revealed that the highest portion of C&D waste came from Portland cement concrete (67%)
10 ranging from 348 to 352 million tonnes followed by asphalt concrete (18%) in the year 2012-
11 13. Waste produced through construction is very marginal (4.6%), and rest of waste is being
12 produced through demolition activities with roads and bridges sharing the highest amount
13 (45.91%) of total C&D.

14 Although available data on C&D waste in the USA are quite extensive, recycling and reuse
15 strategies have not been so far discussed adequately in the literature. Townsend et al. (2014)
16 stated that more than 70 % waste had been recycled in 2012 while bulk aggregate has highest
17 recycling rate (85%). Energy saved from this recycling is identical to 85 million barrels of oil
18 which showed the compelling potential of C&D waste recycling that can be achieved during
19 its lifetime. This is also significant from the economic point of view as in the USA, C&D
20 waste recycling industry holds 17-billion-dollar face value with the direct output of 7.4
21 billion dollars. Jin and Chen, (2015) have done an extensive survey in construction industry
22 regarding recycling trends in the USA with most participants (77%) stating that recycled
23 concrete is being used in ‘backfill/road base’ whereas only 23% specified utilization in
24 producing new concrete. It is also worthwhile to mention that most participants in the survey
25 conducted by Jin and Chen, (2015) had confidence on recycling of C&D materials.

26 Canada produces on average more than 33 million tonnes of municipal solid waste where the
27 large share is being sent to landfills which are approximately 74.75 % in 2012 and 75.56 % in
28 2010 (Statistics Canada, 2015a; 2015b). Among other sources of waste, C&D waste is being
29 produced roughly more than 9 million tonnes and recovery rate is only 7 % among other
30 materials (Statistics Canada, 2015c). Even though the C&D waste generation in Canada is
31 much lower than the USA, the recycling rate is quite low where most of the material end up
32 in landfills.

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Yeheyis et al. (2013) pointed out that there is no accurate information available regarding the
2 type and composition of this waste being sent to landfills which are not only hazardous to the
3 environment but can also be a potential threat to the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem. Most
4 of the waste generation in construction industry contain hazardous elements, e.g., asbestos,
5 mercury, lead based paint, etc. The presence or inhalation of these materials can cause
6 breathing problems, and continuous exposure can lead to cancer (USEPA, 2000). Even
7 though these hazardous materials are banned due to their association with serious diseases,
8 they do exist in old buildings as well as in the buildings that did not follow regulations at the
9 time of construction. Hence, a proper processing system needs to be developed for
10 continuous monitoring of C&D waste throughout the country.

11 3.3 South America

12 Brazil has divided the C&D waste into different categories and denoted them with the letters
13 A, B, C and D in which A contains the major portion of the waste, (> 90%), including mortar,
14 concrete, remains of bricks and soil excavation. The other reusable and recycled waste
15 contains plastic, rubber, metal and wood etc. lies in the category of B. Class D contains
16 hazardous materials and Class C contains the materials which cannot be recycled and reused
17 through proper technological processing. The major waste producing activities are renovation
18 and demolition representing 60% of the total C&D waste production. The soil excavation is
19 one of the lowest contributing sector in this scenario (Favaretto et al., 2017). The estimated
20 production of C&D waste in Brazil is more than 70 million tonnes per year. Although
21 government has recently implemented new laws and legislations regarding waste recycling,
22 however, the recovery rate is minimal (Contreras et al., 2016) (Paz and Lafayette, 2016).

23 Similar to Brazil, Mexico also have classified the C&D waste into A, B and C categories. A
24 category includes the concrete, mortar and related products and by-products, whereas B
25 includes the excavated material including soil and stones. Category C contains the rest of the
26 materials such as wood, metal, glass and plastic etc. However, they have set the limits for
27 annual reuse and recycle of the materials from each of the category. Category A that contains
28 mortar and concrete material are set to recycle at least 30%, however, percentage of recycling
29 will increase at the rate of 15% per year such that it reaches 100% (García et al., 2012). C&D
30 waste production in Mexico is quite low as compared to Brazil approximately 12 million
31 tonnes annually, equivalent to 0.09 tonnes per year per capita (Aguilar-Penagos et al., 2017).

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 3.4 Europe
2 Among the European nations, Austria has a widespread system of waste management with
3 2358 administrative units (Federal Chancellery Austria, 2009) throughout the country. Waste
4 management being one of the top priorities in Austria, collection and recycling rate is also
5 one of the highest in the Europe. Efficiency is not only the mark in the field of waste
6 management but following a strict policy in waste handling plays an important role. Waste
7 management in Austria contributed to 1235 million euros (1455 million USD) in country’s
8 economy and generated 14779 jobs (Mayr, 2014). Around 35 million tonnes of C&D waste
9 was generated in Austria in 2013, however, most materials (76.4%) were derived from the
10 excavation of soil and stones (Deloitte, 2015a). Austria does not consider excavated material
11 in the category of C&D waste. Similarly, C&D waste is also not being considered as a
12 recovery material for backfill unless it qualifies for quality assurance and use of the material
13 is inevitable (Deloitte, 2015a). In terms of recycling C&D waste, up to 60 % was recycled
14 during 2004-06 (Villoria-Saez et al., 2011), however, it reached to 87 % of total C&D waste
15 generation until 2013 (Deloitte, 2015a). Total hazardous waste generation in 2013 was 1.2
16 million tonnes (Environmental Agency Austria, 2015) while C&D sector holds only 3.5 % of
17 this waste which is being handled separately. Recycled construction materials ordinance has
18 also been passed after several years of work in June 2015 and is active from 1st January 2016
19 (Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, 2016). This regulation states the overall criteria
20 for the demolition of buildings from the preliminary inspection until the handling of all types
21 of waste produced during this process.

22 Croatia is an eastern European country with only 4.5 million population (Matković, 2012),
23 however, total waste generation was recorded at 3.38 million tonnes in 2012 (Eurostat, 2012),
24 with per capita waste generation being approximately 1.33 tonnes. C&D waste generation in
25 Croatia consisted of more than 20 % of total waste generation, however, recovery and
26 recycling rates are substantially lower than any other European countries. The country has
27 very limited data available on recycling or recovering of the materials from construction and
28 demolition activities. Pre-treatment and post-treatment of these materials do not exist
29 generally, and on-site disposal is considered as a norm (Deloitte, 2015b). Landfilling is
30 considered as the main method to handle waste which in most cases is uncontrolled. Even
31 though there are different legislations exist regaridng general waste management with C&D
32 materials including “The Construction Act”, “The Waste Act”, “The waste management
33 strategy” (Bjegović, 2008), insufficient funds and lack of awareness is the main hindrance of

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 embracing systematic waste handling techniques (Marinković et al., 2008). In 2006, first
2 recycling plant was established in Zagreb which was running under capacity, recycled only
3 13000 tonnes of C&D waste in 2011 (Deloitte, 2015b). Croatian government needs to modify
4 their recycling strategy by actively collaborating with public and private sectors. There is a
5 need for mass awareness to realize the potential of C&D waste in their environment and
6 economy, however, enforcement of legislation is equally important in this regard.

7 Cyprus is one of the EU’s small population countries consisting of more than 1.1 million
8 individuals and total waste generation in 2012 was 2.09 million tonnes (Eurostat, 2012). The
9 C&D waste generation was only 6.8% of total waste production in the same year, of which
10 nearly 59 % of waste was recovered and 38% sent to landfills (Deloitte, 2015c). However,
11 this data does not cover 100% of C&D debris generated but shows a trend towards recovery
12 rate and represent the data management limitations. Waste management of C&D in Cyprus is
13 regulated under the “Waste Law” N.185 (I)/2011, where recovery rates are also suggested
14 (Department of Environment, 2016). There has been a declining trend in the C&D waste
15 generation in Cyprus and generated amount is also quite low than a total waste generation.
16 However, the recovery rate seems to be working at a satisfactory level, and there is a
17 probability of increment in recovery rate in the coming years.

18 Czech Republic produces more C&D waste than many of the European Union (EU) countries
19 as shown in Figure 3. Currently, C&D production reaches to approximately 46 % of total
20 waste, and recovery rate touches to the peak of 95 % (Ministry of Environment, 2014). Such
21 a high waste utilization and recovery efficiency can be contributed to the well management
22 chain from the point of production to recycle and reuse again. In the Czech Republic,
23 concrete waste exhibited increasing trend in C&D, but a major percentage of C&D waste
24 consisted of soils and excavated material. Czech recycling of C&D materials started from
25 1996 and soon after that, the whole infrastructure established. Until 2005, the recycling
26 capacity of C&D materials throughout the country exceeded nearly 7.5 million tonnes
27 (Kohoutková and Štemberk, 2007) which were double than required operating capacity.

28 Concrete waste dominates the construction industry in Denmark, contributing to more than 5
29 million tonnes of C&D waste and recycling rate of concrete is also reasonably high.
30 However, the major use of this recycled material happens to be in road construction (Deloitte,
31 2015d). There is an increasing trend in production of C&D waste due to a large amount of
32 soil materials included in this waste stream. The C&D waste production until 2013 in

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Denmark has crossed more than double the number in 1997 (Danish Environmental
2 Protection Agency, 1999). Estonia, on the other hand, produces nearly 2 million tonnes of
3 C&D waste (Rüütelmann, 2015), much less than Denmark, however, their recycling rate is
4 nearly 95 % in the year of 2013. C&D waste consists of a small fraction of total waste (8.8
5 %) showing less growth in the construction industry (Rüütelmann, 2015). Estonia was one of
6 the first five countries in the European Union in 2006 to achieve the target of recycling of
7 C&D waste among Denmark, Germany, Ireland and The Netherlands (Coronado et al., 2011).

8 The production of C&D waste in France reached approxiamtely 246 Million tonnes until
9 2012 which is highest in the EU. (Figure 3). Despite producing an enormous amount of C&D
10 waste, France is less focussed on recycling and their recycling rate until 2011 was nearly 45
11 % (Calvo et al., 2014) which is lower than the European average of 55 % (Merino et al.,
12 2010). Germany, on the other hand, producing a similar amount of waste, however, waste
13 recycling, and recovery rate is better than France. For instance, Germany produced almost
14 200 million tonnes of C&D waste while recovery rate is greater than 80 % (Li et al. 2013;
15 Bravo, et al. 2015). The efficiency in the field of total waste management yields
16 approximately 40 billion euros and almost 200,000 people are employed throughout Germany
17 in the field of waste management industry (Nelles et al., 2016). According to a report, 130
18 million tonnes of non-hazardous waste was produced in Italy during the year 2010 including
19 construction and demolition waste, Industrial waste, and waste through different treatment
20 processes (Themelis and Leonzio, 2014). C&D waste generation trend depicted in Figure 3
21 reveals that the production of C&D waste in Italy was approximately 40 million tonnes with
22 75% recycling rate without 12 million tonnes of soil waste originated through this activity.

23 Hendriks & Pietersen (2000) pointed out that demand for raw materials in Netherlands was
24 around 150 million tonnes/year. According to Eurostat (2012), C&D waste production
25 reached the figure of 81 million tonnes in Netherlands while the data submitted by Deloitte to
26 European Commission was about 25 million tonnes (Deloitte, 2014). This difference was
27 mainly due to most of the waste being in the form of dredging spoils. C&D waste consists of
28 40 % total waste generation in Netherland, maintaining recycling rates at 80 % and 10%
29 utilized in energy recovery through incineration (Mulders, 2013). Ministry of Housing,
30 (2010) in Netherlands reported that recycling of concrete and bricks for their use in different
31 applications have the potential to reduce the environmental impact by 6 %.

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Sweden produces low amount of C&D waste almost 8 million tonnes annually and there is a
2 gradual decrease observed during the earlier years (Deloitte 2015e; Eurostat 2012), with only
3 10 % of C&D waste consists of Hazardous waste (Swedish Environmental Protection
4 Agency, 2012). Even though production is not huge in numbers than other countries,
5 Sweden’s recycling rate is also not high (50%), however, Swedish Environmental protection
6 agency is committed to raise the recycling rates up to 70 % by 2020 (Östlund, 2011).

7 Spain produced C&D waste around 30 million tonnes which is approximately one third of the
8 total solid waste production around the country (Rodríguez et al., 2015). The major
9 component of C&D waste in Spain consits of bricks, tiles and other types of ceramics which
10 is 54% of total C&D waste and then the second largest contributor is concrete (12%).
11 (Rodríguez-Robles et al., 2015). The United Kingdom produced roughly 200 million tonnes
12 of waste in 2012 and a major portion (81%) came from England. Nearly 50 % of this waste
13 consists of C&D waste and 85% of C&D waste generated only in England (DEFRA, 2016).
14 The UK have already achieved the set target of EU, 70% recycling rate of non-hazardous
15 C&D waste by 2020 and exceeded by 86 % in both 2011 and 2012. This is a significant
16 improvement as compared to 2000 and 2008 when recycling rates were only 49% and 62% of
17 53 Mt and 86 Mt C&D waste respectively from England (Defra 2011; Lawson et al. 2001).

18 3.5 Asia
19 As shown in Figure 3, India generated 530 million tonnes of C&D waste making it the
20 second largest producer in the world. The surprising fact in this scenario is that Indian
21 standards do not permit the use of RA in the concrete according to IS 383(Second rev.),
22 (1970) standard where the use of only naturally sourced materials are encouraged (Centre for
23 Science and Environment India, 2014). There is a limited focus in India regarding the
24 estimation of C&D waste throughout the country, ignoring the huge resources which can be
25 used otherwise. IS 456: 2000 standard allows the use of crushed over burnt bricks and slag in
26 plain concrete unless affects the durability and strength performance. However, it does not
27 mention specifically about RA produced from demolition activities. Hence it is imperative
28 that India starts considering its waste management strategies like Europe and other developed
29 world. The government initiative is necessary to encourage the use of RA and prevent the
30 disposal of C&D waste in a landfill.

31 On the other hand, China currently produces the largest amount of C&D waste in the world
32 exceeding 1 billion tonnes in 2012 and up to 1.13 billion tonnes in 2014 (Lu, 2014). A
33 comprehensive estimation of C&D waste in China is difficult due to complex variables and

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 unavailability of systematic data collection, therefore the estimation may contain a certain
2 level of uncertainty (±5%). The rapid growth in infrastructure and financial hub for many
3 fast-growing companies throughout the China has contributed to the production of a huge
4 volume of C&D waste in the country. The large portion of the waste comes in the form of
5 excavated soil and rocks (Lu, 2014), which has the potential for it to be reused but the
6 recycling and reuse data are not available at present. The synchronized and centrally managed
7 form of the system needs to be developed where the complete track of the C&D waste from
8 production to the end use can be monitored in each city and province throughout the country
9 which is geographically diverse.

10 Japan produced approximately 75 million tonnes of waste from C&D activities in 2011
11 (Figure 3), however, exhibited decreasing trend as compared to 1996 and 2001 where
12 production of C&D was 99 and 85 million tonnes respectively (Nakajima and Futaki, 2002).
13 Japan has set the target to achieve recycling rate up to 95% of C&D waste. The recycling
14 rates until 2008 improved remarkably with an average of more than 90% as compared to
15 57% in 1996 (Nakajima and Futaki, 2002) in the category of construction waste, asphalt-
16 concrete blocks. This was more than 80% in the category of wood waste generated during
17 construction activities (Ministry of the Environment, 2014). This noteworthy change occurred
18 due to law enforcement related to construction material recycling in May 2002 to encourage
19 the use of recycled materials in the construction industry (Global Environment Center Osaka
20 Japan, 2012). Materials considered compulsory for recycling in this regulation in Japan
21 includes concrete, iron, wood and asphalt concrete. The introduction of this regulation
22 contributed towards the awareness and importance of recycling in the country as well as
23 lowered the amount of waste directed towards landfill.

24 Despite having low population and area than Japan, neighbouring country South Korea
25 produced approximately 68 million tonnes of C&D waste in 2011 with recycling rate nearly
26 98% and consisted of almost 50% of the total waste (Yang et al., 2015). Concrete and
27 Asphalt are the highest composition of this waste being 65% and 18.9% respectively
28 (Somasundaram et al., 2014). In contrast to Japan, C&D waste in South Korea increased
29 steadily from 10 million tonnes (1996) to 68 million tonnes (2011) with recycling rate
30 increasing from 58 % to 98 % and it is projected that until 2020 this might touch a figure of
31 72 million tonnes per year with similar recycling rate (Yang et al., 2015). Ministry of
32 Environment in South Korea is continuously developing policies regarding the construction
33 waste recycling and use of RA in the construction industry. RA use not only identified the

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 alternative source of the material in the country but also added 2.5 trillion KRW (2.1 billion
2 USD) (Ministry of Environment, 2013) in the economy. These numbers are compelling and
3 provide a rough idea about the impact of this vast source of materials in the country

4 3.6 Africa
5 South Africa generated more than 100 million tonnes of total waste annually and most of the
6 waste (>90%) usually treated by landfilling technique until 2011 (van Wyk, 2014). C&D
7 waste approaches more than 21 million tonnes consisting of significant amount of total waste
8 generated in the country (Figure. 3). The major portion of the waste contains wood and
9 concrete 27% and 23 % respectively. The recycling of the C&D waste material has huge
10 potential in South Africa, For instance, only 30% recycling of the concrete waste in the city
11 of cape town can add approximately 1.4 million Rands (0.1 million USD) in the city’s
12 economy (GreenCape, 2015).
13
14 The recycling rate and capacity, both are quite low and in the process of development which
15 will enhance their utilization potential and reduce the load on the landfilling sites. The
16 legislations are also being developed and currently only uncontaminated C&D waste can be
17 disposed at landfills without engineered plastic liner (GreenCape, 2015). However, this
18 requires further modification and special levy needs to be introduced for C&D waste
19 reduction at landfill sites. This might lead to the higher recycling rates and will contribute
20 towards efficient demolition of the structures. Nigeria produces more than 15 million tonnes
21 of C&D waste and concrete waste is the major contributor in this area which generally
22 requires, separation, crushing and sieving (Otoko, 2014). Nigeria also have insufficient
23 recycling and reuse strategy for the C&D waste which led to dumping of most of the waste at
24 landfills.
25
26 3.7 Critical comments

27 Overall, C&D waste generation exceeds 3 billion tonnes around the world which if managed
28 properly can save the huge amount of energy and can help to improve the economy. The
29 largest contributor in this scenario is China, India, and USA with collective waste output
30 more than 2 billion tonnes. Major portions of C&D waste in many countries consists of
31 concrete waste. For instance, 67% of the total C&D waste consisted of concrete waste in the
32 USA which is around 350 million tonnes. Several countries have a major share in the form of
33 excavated soils like Austria, Czech Republic, and China etc. and some of them do not include

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 them in the category of C&D waste. Recycling rate varies from 7% to more than 90%. Many
2 developed and developing countries have a very low recycling rates such as most of the C&D
3 waste in New Zealand, Croatia and South Africa ends up at the landfill. Two largest
4 producers of C&D waste, China, and India both have limited focus in the area of proper data
5 collection, monitoring and recycling of the waste. Recycling of C&D waste not only helped
6 to improve the energy conservation in the countries but also improved their economy. In the
7 USA, C&D waste contributed more than 7 billion dollars into the economy and 2.5 trillion
8 KRW (2.1 billion USD) in waste management sector of South Korea. Given the benefits and
9 potential resources conservation, it is inevitable to recycle concrete waste in the form of RA
10 and reuse this waste for different applications as a raw material for new concrete and for road
11 base.

12 4. Recycled aggregates from construction and demolition activities

13 As discussed earlier, construction and demolition activities result in a wide range of materials
14 including glass, concrete, wood, metals, as well as some hazardous elements. Segregation of
15 C&D waste becomes a difficult task given the complexity and composition of these materials.
16 Wood, glass, and metal can be recycled directly or in few circumstances can be reused
17 without further processing, whereas, concrete has different characteristics which make
18 concrete waste unique and also difficult to handle. It is inevitable to exploit waste concrete
19 due to huge amount of natural resources being utilized during concrete production. This will
20 lead to significant reduction of the inert waste being sent to landfills and in exchange, the
21 natural resources can be conserved. A major portion of this waste recovered in the form of
22 RA with adhering mortar onto their surface which results in high water absorption, lower
23 strength and increased chloride penetration capacity (Martín-Morales et al., 2011).

24 Shi et al., (2016) have done a comprehensive review on the performance enhancement of RA
25 explaining two major treatment methods including removing and strengthening the adhered
26 mortar. The authors recommended the carbonation treatment method with the use of CO2 to
27 pre-treat the RA which improved the structure of the concrete and its durability properties.
28 Earlier, Peng et al. (2014) treated the RA with the sulphuric acid solution and produced
29 optimum results for durability. Furthermore, lower water to cement ratio was found to be
30 more appropriate for water penetration resistance, chloride ion penetration resistance and
31 freeze-thaw resistance of recycled aggregate concrete. Similarly, Ismail & Ramli (2014) also
32 treated the recycled coarse aggregates, however, with hydrochloric acid (HCl) and

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 impregnated with sodium silicate solution which improved the properties of concrete and
2 achieved the similar results to conventional concrete for compressive strength, flexural
3 strength and drying shrinkage.

4 Zhan et al. (2016) recommended the usage of CO2 curing of concrete blocks with RA due to
5 the improvement of early curing and strength. Increase in pressure of CO2 up to 0.5 bars and
6 post water curing resulted in higher strength. Additionally, CO2 curing also resulted in
7 enhanced fire resistance of concrete blocks. The authors recommended using the pressurized
8 CO2 curing for mass production of concrete blocks. Recently, Al-Mufti and Fried, (2017)
9 found to improve the strength of recycled asphalt aggregate concrete equivalent to NAC
10 through the roughening procedure of recycled asphalt aggregates which otherwise reduced
11 the strength more than 27%. This roughening procedure employed the abrasion phenomena in
12 a general mixer and may also be utilized for the RA before the mixing process which later
13 can be used to produce RAC.

14 Behera et al., (2014) have done an extensive review of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC)
15 and its potential effects on strength and durability properties. Recycled aggregate concrete
16 exhibits considerably complicated structure than natural aggregate concrete (NAC) as it
17 contains dual interfacial transition zones (ITZ) between old mortar and aggregate and new
18 mortar and old mortar which increases the porosity and causes the reduction in strength (Liu
19 et al., 2011). The high-water consumption by RA results in less water availability for
20 hydration of cement particle in concrete and hence low C-S-H phase which yields to low
21 strength. However, Li et al., (2012) recommended using two-stage mixing approach to
22 improve the properties of RAC by achieving denser and homogenous microstructure. Two
23 stage mixing approach was developed by Tam et al., (2005) in which mixing process was
24 divided into two parts. Water addition was split into two intervals during the mixing process
25 to further fill the pores in the RAC.

26 Safiuddin et al. (2011) outlined that 50 % of RA can be replaced by natural aggregates

27 without loss of fresh properties of concrete. Gonzalez-Corominas & Etxeberria (2016)
28 recently reported that lower quality of RA increased drying shrinkage and plastic shrinkage
29 and a decrease of the modulus of elasticity. Whereas, compressive strength of RAC produced
30 through high quality RA showed analogous behaviour to that of NAC and it was
31 recommended to use 100% RA100 (100 MPa strength) and up to 50% of lower quality RA
32 (having strength up to 40 MPa). López Gayarre et al., (2018) pointed out that recycled mixed

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 aggregates from precast manufacturing plants showed better results than aggregates from
2 demolition waste. Even though the strength properties decrease with the increment of
3 recycled aggregates, however, negligible effect was observed under 35% substitution.

4 Various pozzolanic materials, water reducing and air entraining agents are being introduced
5 into the market to improve its properties according to the required use (Tittarelli et al. 2014;
6 Kapoor et al. 2016). Abd Elhakam et al., (2012) showed the strength improvement through
7 self-healing of RA. Self-healing eventually helped to improve the properties of RA in the
8 long run. Detailed results are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 for compressive and splitting
9 tensile strength of recycled aggregate concrete. It can be observed from Tables 1 and 2 that
10 the differences between compressive strength of 25 % and 75 % replacement of RA reduced
11 after the self-healing process at both cement mix ratios. Splitting tensile strength showed
12 different behaviour where 25 % RA at cement mix ratio 250 kg/m3 exhibited comparable
13 strength as of 75 % RA at 400 kg/m3 cement after 56 days interval.

14 Adamson et al., (2015) reported the durability of crushed bricks as a natural aggregate
15 replacement at 25 and 50% and recommended to use the bricks in unreinforced concrete,
16 however, the use of crushed bricks in steel reinforced concrete was not recommended. At
17 another instant, Boukour and Benmalek, (2016) reported the decrease in compressive and
18 flexural strength when rubber waste was added with brick waste as compared to reference
19 samples which contained no waste materials. However, brick waste improved the drawbacks
20 of rubber waste by improving the strength values, water absorption and drying shrinkage. The
21 optimum compressive strength values obtained at 10% brick waste addition with zero rubber
22 waste, exhibiting a decrease than the reference samples. Yang et al., (2011) also reported a
23 decrease in compressive and splitting tensile strength with the addition of crushed clay bricks
24 with RA up to 50% to produce RAC. A significant decrease was observed at 28 days of
25 curing stage. Crushed clay bricks at 20% produced optimum flexural strength, containing
26 values close to Control samples. Aliabdo et al., (2014) have done extensive study on crushed
27 clay bricks use in mortars and concrete and found that crushed clay bricks use as coarse
28 aggregates reduced the strength whereas, crushed clay bricks use as fine aggregate
29 replacement up to 25% produced optimal results with the increment of up to 9.9% in strength.
30 It can be seen that crushed clay bricks use in concrete production might compromise the
31 properties, therefore a more research is required for the optimal usage of crushed bricks in
32 structural applications.

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Çakir, (2014) stated that RA reduced the strength up to 24 % upon introduction of 100% RA
2 and same behaviour was observed in splitting tensile strength. However, De Brito et al.,
3 (2016) reported the positive aspect of RA in structural applications and concluded that steel
4 reinforcement could reduce the drawbacks of RA in structures. The major factors are external
5 conditions and the environment in which application is being considered rather than RA
6 inclusion into the structures. Elsewhere, Liang et al. (2016) concluded that recycled aggregate
7 replacement and size affects the damping property of concrete. The authors showed that RAC
8 improved damping than NAC because of sliding mechanism available between old ITZ and
9 new ITZ to dissipate energy which is absent in NAC. Arezoumandi et al. (2015) found that
10 the flexural strength of beams made with 100% RA exhibited comparable results to the
11 conventional concrete. Following sections discuss the addition of various materials in RAC
12 and influence on the resultant mechanical properties.

13 4.1. Recycled glass

14 Glass is one of the most important waste product from recycling perspective, obtained in
15 Municipal solid waste (MSW). It is usually generalized that most of the glass is being
16 recycled which was generated in the form of waste while statistics present the striking
17 contrast. According to careful approximation, it was found that 14 million tonnes of waste
18 glass was sent to landfill disposal sites in the European Union in 2007 (Vieitez et al., 2011).
19 While recovery of glass in New Zealand is more than 68 % and 66 % in 2011 and 2010
20 respectively (Glass Packaging Forum Inc., 2012), suggesting a consistent supply of glass as
21 waste to landfill sites. Recycling and recovery rates are also not high in the USA,
22 approximately 27.7 % glass recovered while 8.37 million tonnes were dumped in landfills
23 during 2012 (USEPA, 2014). This huge amount of waste can be utilized in other applications
24 e.g., in the construction industry to replace raw materials.

25 Even though waste glass incorporation with RA is reported only in a few studies recently,
26 these studies do indicate an optimistic trend. Letelier et al. (2016) recommended the optimum
27 dosage of 10% replacement of cement content with glass powder containing maximum size
28 of 75 µm and 30% RA. On the other hand, Nassar & Soroushian (2013) reported improved
29 properties of concrete by replacing 20% of cement with milled waste glass in RAC including
30 flexural strength, compressive strength, workability and reduction in drying shrinkage and
31 Alkali-Silica reaction (ASR) expansion. Rahim, et al. (2015) recommended the optimum
32 dosage for waste glass as 10 % replacement of sand which gave the highest compressive
33 strength. In their study, glass size was graded between 150 µm and 4.75 mm and reached to

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 the strength of more than 30 MPa for cube samples. However, there is a decrease in
2 mechanical properties observed by Tan & Du (2013), when glass sand was used to replace
3 natural sand in a mortar. The study carried out with minimum 25% of waste glass addition
4 which is higher than the recommended dosage in other studies. The colour of glass also
5 affected the properties of the RAC (Tan and Du, 2013). Clear glass was found to be
6 inappropriate both in terms of mechanical and durability perspective and also showed lower
7 performance for ASR expansion than brown glass sand.

8 Limantono et al. (2016) have also encouraged the use of glass powder and silica fume stating
9 that the glass powder can help increase the mechanical properties by adding 10-15 % of the
10 weight of cement with silica fume 40-60 % weight of glass powder. Lee et al., (2018)
11 recently reported the use of waste glass powder and sludge to replace 20% of cement content.
12 Waste glass sludge was produced with optimum results in terms of mechanical and durability
13 properties. A similar further investigation is required in the area of RAC for detailed impact
14 analysis of waste glass sludge in concrete. Even though current studies have shown a
15 reasonable comparison of waste glass utilization in concrete, a thorough research is needed to
16 explain the behaviour of waste glass with RA and its impact to cope with durability defects.

17 4.2. Metakaolin
18 The term ‘Kaolin’ originated from the mountain Kaoling in China (Dill, 2016). The kaolinite
19 minerals group contain many forms including kaolinite, dickite, halloysite etc. having the
20 same chemical formula (Grecco et al., 2012).Kaolin formally recognized as a china clay, is
21 being used in various applications from kitchen essentials (chinaware) to paints, from
22 cosmetics to pharmaceuticals and has drawn attention worldwide. Kaolin originating rock
23 contains 31 to 65 % of kaolin (Grecco et al., 2012) while Metakaolin is usually obtained from
24 kaolin through thermal treatment at an elevated temperature from 500 °C to 800 °C. Shafiq et
25 al. (2015) proposed the optimum temperature 800 °C to convert kaolin to metakaolin through
26 thermal treatment for approximately 3 hours. Metakaolin has been found to exhibit steady
27 composition as compared to fly ash and slag which are highly recognized in the concrete
28 world (Zhang et al., 2016a).

29 Several published studies are available where metakaolin has been used in conjunction with
30 RA (Shen et al. 2012; Kapoor et al. 2016; Hassan et al. 2015). For instance, metakaolin has
31 been found to significantly increase concrete strength performance of up to 60% than control
32 specimens with the addition of up to 2% in concrete (Shen et al., 2012). A separate study by
33 Hassan et al., (2015) also reported in increased compressive, splitting tensile and flexural

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 strength in case of self-compacting concrete with 15 % metakaolin and RA. Duan et al.
2 (2013) replaced cement with metakaolin, silica fume, and slag at 10 % and found the
3 maximum compressive strength by metakaolin both at 28 and 180 days. The authors observed
4 a linear correlation between compressive strength and porosity. Metakaolin at 10% addition
5 was found to be of superior properties in self-compacting concrete with 50 % RA than silica
6 fume. There was 3% reduction in strength observed with 100% addition of RA than natural
7 aggregates. Metakaolin was also found to be effective in controlling water penetration depth
8 and capillary suction (Kapoor et al., 2016).

9 Another study presented that replacement of 10% of total binder content with metakaolin
10 found to be effective at 25% replacement of natural aggregates with RA. This resulted in
11 higher compressive strength, higher electrical resistivity, and lower carbonation depth,
12 whereas higher resistivity corresponded to low corrosion risk (Singh and Singh, 2016a). In a
13 separate study by Singh & Singh (2016b) found that combination of low volume and high
14 volume fly ash reduced the overall strength, increased carbonation resistance and lower
15 resistivity. However, the authors observed that upon the addition of metakaolin, at 10% of fly
16 ash content, positive results were achieved and optimal strength was achieved for 50% RA.
17 Metakaolin, on the other hand, showed highest carbonation depth at 10% than fly ash and
18 silica fume at 100% RAC (Figure 6). Kubissa et al. (2016) reported the use of metakaolin at
19 10% replacement of cement with 100 % RA and found the highest compressive strength
20 existed with metakaolin reaching more than 50 MPa at 28 days. This was also higher than
21 natural aggregate concrete with metakaolin. Furthermore, it was observed that metakaolin
22 was very effective with chloride migration coefficient and water penetration depth under
23 pressure. It can be seen that most of the studies showed optimum results with 10% addition of
24 metakaolin in total binder content with significant positive results and improving the
25 durability properties with mechanical strength.

26 It is important to note that in some cases RA did not provide effective results with
27 metakaolin. For instance, Jadhav et al. (2015) studied the use of metakaolin at 20%
28 replacement of cement with RA at different percentages in concrete. The authors reported
29 that until 40% replacement of RA, the specimen gave higher splitting tensile strength but
30 overall compressive strength and flexural strength showed decreasing trend. There can be
31 probability that metakaolin may not be suitable binder at more than 15% replacement of
32 cement content which needs further detailed investigation. Moreover, It was difficult to
33 conclude from Jadhav et al.'s study (2015) about what percentages of coarse aggregates at

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 different sizes of both natural and recycled materials should be used. The authors also did not
2 use any recycled fine aggregates in the preparation of the samples, which may have an
3 influence on the mechanical properties. More research effort is needed to understand the role
4 of RA with varying percentages of metakaolin and their effects on the strength of concrete.
5 Previous studies showed that up to 10% replacement of metakaolin with cement was
6 significantly helpful in achieving the desired concrete properties at 25% replacement of RA.

7 4.3. Fly ash

8 Fly ash is one of the well-known supplementary cementitious materials which is being used
9 from the beginning of last century and currently being produced in millions of tonnes
10 worldwide (Thomas, 2007). Fly ash is the by-product of coal burning in power plants which
11 is carried away with gas through the system. This by-product consists of spherical particles in
12 the form of silica, alumina, magnetite, lime and gypsum supporting the reaction of left over
13 hydroxide in concrete to further produce calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H) (Cao et al., 2008).
14 South Africa has a huge amount of fly ash availability approximately 20 million tonnes which
15 is even double than their national cement clinker production (Kruger and Krueger, 2005).
16 Annual production of fly ash in the USA is more than 52 million tonnes in 2012, while its use
17 in cement replacement exceeded by 2.28 million tonnes (USEPA, 2015b). China’s annual
18 production of fly ash has reached to 500 million tonnes recently (Tang et al., 2013) from 10
19 million tonnes as of 2002 (Cao et al., 2008), while reuse rate is still less than 70%. In Europe,
20 total consumption of fly ash in construction industry accounts for 13.8 million tonnes which
21 is 46% of the total production (Feuerborn, 2011).
22 Due to its pozzolanic properties, which enhance the features of concrete blocks while
23 reducing the amount of cement utilization, fly ash has become a part of concrete throughout
24 the world. The main hindrance while considering fly ash in concrete is its arbitrary properties
25 (low calcium and high calcium) which are mainly dependent on its parent source, coal
26 (Zhang et al., 2016b). Even though few negative effects have been observed for utilization of
27 fly ash but the proper amount for certain mix ratios has given positive results at various
28 scenarios. Extensive research has been conducted in the past decade to utilize this waste
29 material from power generation plant in different applications including concrete. Arulrajah,
30 et al. (2016a) determined the optimum blend for fly ash (15%) to utilize in road applications
31 with RA to improve the strength development for curing at room temperature and at 40 °C.
32 The authors found that the 40 °C temperature to be the optimum for improved geotechnical
33 properties and unconfined compressive strength. Sowmith & Babu (2013) observed that 10%

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 addition of fly ash gave higher compressive strength at all replacement percentages of RA
2 than zero and 20% addition of fly ash. On the other hand, Kou et al., (2007) reported a
3 decrease in compressive strength and splitting tensile strength at 25 and 35% replacement of
4 cement with fly ash. However, high cementitious materials at same replacement percentages
5 produced positive results after 90 days confirming the increase in compressive strength at
6 longer curing time.
7
8 Figures 4 and 5 show the change patterns for compressive and splitting tensile strength at
9 different percentages of fly ash addition with different percentages of recycled aggregates (0-
10 100%) in concrete. Several studies have revealed that fly ash has a positive effect in the long-
11 term curing of recycled aggregate concrete, due to the availability of pozzolanic materials at
12 later stages of development. Moreover, Steam curing showed positive behaviour with
13 approximately 4-15% increase in compressive strength (Gonzalez-Corominas et al., 2016).
14 Earlier, Hassan et al. (2015) suggested the fly ash as a 50% partial replacement of cement in
15 self-compacting concrete (SCC) with RA to have considerable strength and fresh properties
16 required for SCC. Furthermore, it was also realized that fly ash produced high chloride
17 resistant concrete both with and without RA (Hassan et al., 2015). Fly ash addition reflecting
18 a poor performance on tensile strength in comparison to compressive strength. RA addition
19 up to 30% into concrete found to be most appropriate causing a slight decrease in strength.
20 However, fly ash improved chloride penetration resistance in RAC (Kim et al., 2013).

21 Fly ash has been widely considered as a raw material to produce geopolymer concrete or so-
22 called green concrete, where fly ash is also being incorporated into other aluminosilicate
23 materials to obtain concrete. Alkaline activation is required through sodium hydroxide,
24 potassium hydroxide or sodium silicate (Singh et al., 2015). The resultant product has shown
25 comparable strength properties while minimizing the addition of Portland cement. Recently,
26 Posi et al., (2016) studied the RA employability with fly ash in geopolymer concrete and
27 obtained light weight concrete with compressive Strength reaching up to 17 MPa after 28
28 days of curing. Large variation in properties exhibited by fly ash conclude the fact that fly ash
29 must first be characterized and used accordingly in RAC which might also help in
30 standardizing the input concentration. The long-term testing of fly ash in RAC must be
31 investigated where yearlong behaviour can be visualized against other cementitious materials.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 4.4. Silica fume

2 Silica fumes also known as microsilica have a short history but made its place in the concrete
3 world as a key ingredient since its first utilization in concrete in 1944 in the USA through
4 patent where its inclusion was primarily of mortar based (Sharp, 1946). While the early
5 application of silica fume (SF) in concrete was reported in 1952 (Gapinski and Scanlon,
6 2006), it faced early hindrance in research due to lack of availability. SF produces as a by-
7 product in electric arc furnaces reaching the temperature of nearly 2000 °C during smelting
8 process of silicon and ferrosilicon industry (Siddique and Khan, 2011). It is composed of very
9 fine spherical particles where the majority of the particles lie between 0.05 to 0.5 microns as
10 compared to other well-known cementitious materials cement (10 – 100 microns) and fly ash
11 (5-30 microns) (Fidjestol and Dastol, 2008). The main component of SF is non-crystalline
12 SiO2 which is more than 85 % of the total composition. It also exhibits significantly very high
13 surface area than other pozzolanic materials ranging from 15000 to 30000 m2/kg (King,
14 2012) compared to fly ash (450 m2/kg) and blast furnace slag (550 m2/kg).

15 Silica fume takes part in a chemical reaction in the later stages of the development when
16 cement reacts with water to produce calcium hydroxide. SF then reacts with hydroxide to
17 produce a more C-S-H gel which fills the voids of the concrete and enhances its mechanical
18 and durability properties (Siddique and Khan, 2011). Several researchers recommended the
19 use of 10% SF of total binder content to improve the properties of RAC which created denser
20 ITZ and enhanced the microstructure (Huoth et al., 2014; Çakır and Sofyanlı, 2015; Bostanci
21 et al., 2016). Dilbas et al., (2014) recommended the use of 30% RA with SF to obtain best
22 possible results for compressive and splitting tensile strength at both 5% and 10% addition of
23 SF.

24 Çakır & Sofyanlı (2015) reported the usage of 4-12 mm fraction of RA with optimum results
25 whereas 10% addition of SF significantly improved the mechanical properties and it also
26 caused low water absorption than 5% inclusion of SF. SF at 10% of total binder content
27 reached the concrete’s 40 MPa design strength with RA and recycled glass sand at 28 days of
28 curing. However, it showed slightly less strength than required design strength for 50 MPa
29 design mix at 28 days (Bostanci et al., 2016). Similarly, Huoth et al., (2014) also
30 recommended the 10 % addition of SF with RA to get the optimum results which improved
31 the compressive strength and flexural strength by 7 % and by 6 % respectively.
32 Abdollahzadeh et al. (2016) have developed prediction models to estimate the compressive
33 strength of RA with SF and found that SF improved the compressive strength of RA at all

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 curing stages and replacement ratios. However, strength was found to be reducing with
2 increasing RA, which was ultimately greater than NAC containing zero SF.

3 Silica fume at 10% also showed a higher chloride ion penetration than other pozzolanic
4 materials in 100% RAC. However, 50% RAC inclusion at the similar silica fume content
5 showed lower chloride ion penetration than 0% RAC or 100% NAC (Figure 7). The most
6 effective method to reduce drying shrinkage of RAC concluded by Chen et al., (2016), was
7 the addition of SF causing the reduction of drying shrinkage up to 15 %. Assas (2016) studied
8 the effects of SF, Fly ash, and cement kiln dust into RAC with the addition of rubber as a fine
9 aggregate replacement. The authors concluded that tire waste reduced durability properties
10 but the addition of each of the supplementary cementitious constituents at 10 % replacement
11 of cement gave better performance. However, overall strength showed a decreasing trend
12 with and without cementitious materials than natural aggregates. Although SF does give a
13 better option to replace cementitious materials with better properties, the drawback is the
14 reduction in workability and increase in initial setting time. SF is being essential material in
15 megaprojects worldwide due to the increasing requirement of high-performance concrete. Its
16 high surface area, very low particle size and next to nothing special mixing techniques makes
17 it a favourable option to consider as well as a viable source of the cementitious materials for
18 project managers.

19 4.5. Blast furnace slag

20 Blast furnace slag (BFS) is also a by-product like fly ash and silica fume originating from the
21 iron ore during the smelting process and separated from the top of the melted iron at around
22 1500 °C (Ozbakkaloglu et al., 2016). This is divided into 3 different types of products
23 depending on its cooling method. a) air cooled blast furnace slag b) ground granulated blast
24 furnace slag c) expanded slag

25 Granulated BFS usage in the form of cementitious material was first reported in 1774
26 utilizing the slacked lime with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) to prepare
27 mortar (Virgalitte et al., 2003). Its use in Japan was in late 18th century and started its use as a
28 commercial product in early 19th century after the Germany’s mass production of the
29 portlandite blast furnace slag cement (Ueki, 2015). Like Germany and Japan, the USA also
30 has 100 years of long history of GGBFS utilization in concrete. The production of one tonne
31 of GGBFS emits 0.07 t of CO2 which is much lower than cement (0.9 t) and energy required
32 to produce is 1300 MJ. It is also economical as it costs around 80% of cement (Yi et al.,

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 2010). The GGBFS has same major components like cement including silica (SiO2) and lime
2 (CaO) with a varying percentage (Dubey et al., 2012).

3 Etxeberria et al. (2016) studied the properties of blast furnace slag cement with RA and
4 seawater. It was found that this combination produced similar initial and final setting time of
5 concrete to that of Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete with natural aggregates but
6 increased the drying shrinkage. The authors reported that although both compressive and
7 flexural strengths were reduced with the increment of mixed RA, sea water helped to reduce
8 this effect both for RA and natural aggregates concrete (Table 3). Recently, Kathirvel &
9 Kaliyaperumal (2016) reported the use of RA in geopolymer concrete made with GGBFS and
10 used sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solution as an activator. The authors observed
11 that load bearing capacity of reinforced beams increased with the inclusion of RA as
12 compared to Portland cement. Furthermore, the compressive strength increased for all
13 replacement levels and optimum results were achieved with 50% RA content. Arulrajah, et al.
14 (2016b) also found that recycled demolition aggregates gave better performance with 5%
15 GGBFS than fly ash in calcium carbide residue (CCR) based geopolymers.

16 Examples of other studies include the use of a combination of pozzolanic materials (fly ash,
17 blast furnace slag, and silica fume) with RA and positive results were obtained for flexural
18 strength and compressive strength, (Li et al., 2009) which also favoured in terms of denser
19 interfacial transition zones. Wang et al. (2013) also reported that GGBFS not only helped to
20 cope with the retard hydration problem caused by fine phosphorus slag but also improved the
21 resistivity against chloride penetration. This is due to the fact that it helps to build denser
22 ITZs. Moreover, 10 % GGBFS with 10% phosphorus slag in the presence of 25 % RA
23 enhanced the strength up to 25 % (Wang et al., 2013). Similarly, Ganjian et al., (2015)
24 concluded from their studies that GGBFS is more influential to reduce cement content in
25 concrete paving blocks than cement bypass dust, run-of-station ash, basic oxygen slag and
26 plasterboard gypsum while maintaining the minimum required strength of 3.6 MPa. GGBFS
27 has been also found to improve the workability and compressive strength of RAC and design
28 strength of up to 50 MPa has been reported (Sun & Gu 2014). It is clear from the literature
29 that GGBFS showed better performance than fly ash to maintain the properties of RAC while
30 reducing the cement content and replacing the natural aggregates up to 50%.

31 4.6. Nanomaterials
32 Effects of the properties of RA at macro, micro, and the nanoscale level were described by
33 several researchers (Mukharjee & Barai 2014a; Choi et al. 2016; Xiao et al. 2013). Nano-

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 materials improve the physical and chemical properties of concrete and different types of
2 nanomaterials have been tested and recommended by several investigators. Nanoparticle 0D,
3 nanotubes 1D and nanosheet 2D all have been found to enhance strength performance (Li et
4 al. 2016; Yazdanbakhsh & Chu 2009; Pan et al. 2015), however, the major disadvantage is its
5 cost and requirements of the expensive instrument. Although dispersion agents are available
6 in the market to reduce the work required for dispersion of these materials into concrete but
7 these materials do have limitations. Therefore, a careful dispersion and water to binder ratio
8 needs to be assessed before employing the technology.

9 Nano silica was found to enhance the properties of RAC at several occasions where it showed
10 significant potential than their counter part nano materials. Oltulu & Şahin (2013) obtained
11 the best possible results for 1.25 % addition of nano-SiO2, nano-Al2O3, and nano-Fe2O3 which
12 increased the compressive strength of mortar up to 32% and capillary absorption reduction up
13 to 14%. Several studies demonstrated the good potential of nano-silica replacement up to 2-3
14 % of cement content (Li et al., 2016; Chithra et al., 2016; Hosseini et al., 2009). Li et al.,
15 (2016) reported that nano-silica and nano-CaCO3 improved the dynamic and quasi-static
16 compressive strength of RAC and nanoparticle dosage did not alter the dynamic modulus of
17 elasticity. Overall nano-silica produced better strength than nano-CaCO3. In another study Li
18 et al., (2017) compared the nano-silica with nano-limestone in RAC which also produced
19 similar results where nano silica produced optimal results than nano-limestone at 2%
20 replacement of cement content. Nano-silica improved the microstructure as well as
21 compressive strength and reduced the water absorption in RAC.

22 Shaikh et al., (2017) proposed to pre-soak the recycled aggregates in nano-silica solution (2%
23 wt.) which improved the mechanical and durability properties than the direct mixing. This
24 resulted in improved compressive strength, reduced water absorption and chloride ion
25 penetration in RAC. Chithra et al. (2016) recommended the dosage of 2% nano-silica to
26 improve the strength properties of high-performance slag concrete. Further addition
27 surpassed the quantity of free lime in structure. It also reduced the water absorption and
28 sorptivity at 2%. Hosseini et al., (2009) recommended the higher dosage of 3 % of nano silica
29 in 100% RAC to improve the compressive strength equivalent to NAC which is quite lower
30 in the absence of nano-silica. Mukharjee & Barai (2014b) showed that 3% addition of nano-
31 silica precipitated similar strength (compressive, splitting tensile) in RAC to that of reference
32 concrete and also helped to improve non-destructive properties.

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Cwirzen et al. (2008) observed a 50% increase in compressive strength of cement paste with
2 very small addition (0.045-0.15%) of multiwalled carbon nanotubes. The overall strength
3 performance of these nanotubes depends on the dispersion in the matrix of the concrete. For
4 instance, Meng & Khayat (2016) reported that carbon nano fibres in ultra-high performance
5 concrete at 0.3% increased the tensile strength up to 56% and flexural strength up to 46%.
6 However, there was no significant effect observed on compressive strength due to the
7 addition of nano fibres. Pan et al. (2015) studied the properties of graphene oxide (GO) to
8 prepare cement composite and the authors concluded that addition of 0.05 wt. % of GO has
9 the potential to increase the strength up to 33% and the flexural strength up to 59%. Higher
10 surface area leads to higher production of C-S-H gel which ultimately helped to increase the
11 strength. Mohammed et al. (2016) also found the positive results for graphene oxide
12 incorporation as a construction material. GO improved the freeze thaw resistance and
13 compressive strength for all mix ratios as compared to reference mix. Maximum compressive
14 strength was achieved at 0.03% and minimum damage caused by freeze-thaw was at 0.06%
15 GO.

16 Recently, Wang et al. (2016) developed a 3D model explaining the chemical reaction
17 between cement particles and graphene oxide sheets. The authors demonstrated that surface
18 functional groups such as –COOH reacted with calcium hydroxide produced by hydration of
19 cement and joined together to make COO–Ca–OOC. This caused to combine the nanosheets
20 to cement matrix chemically and enhance its properties. Liu et al., (2016) reported that water
21 to binder ratio plays an important role to obtain maximum compressive strength and
22 suggested the use of water to binder ratio of 0.5. Maximum strength was achieved at 0.8%
23 graphene and at 1.6% graphene oxide addition. Moreover, Graphene concentration up to
24 0.2% helped to reduce the chloride penetration and ultimately decreased the risk of corrosion.
25 In summary, Extensive studies have been done on the use of graphene and nanotubes in the
26 concrete and cement pastes/mortars and most studies have shown positive outcome for both
27 mechanical and durability properties, however, there are limited studies in the area of
28 recycled aggregate concrete. This area certainly needs to be explored in the future and make a
29 comprehensive database on its efficiency and feasibility in today’s construction industry.

30 4.7. Fibre reinforcements

31 Fibre reinforcement belongs to a much earlier era where straws were being used in bricks to
32 enhance its structure. In the early 19th century, asbestos was used as a fibre reinforcement
33 (Nepal et al., 2015). Corrosion of steel in reinforcements is known to be a major problem

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 with its cost and handling set aside (Yin et al., 2016). This led to the idea of using fibre
2 reinforcement as the next generation of reinforcement where it not only helps to get rid of
3 major problems caused by steel reinforcement but additionally, it gives better structural
4 integrity with 3D reinforcement throughout the structure. The use of fibre reinforcements in
5 concrete enables the basic strength in concrete to stand the loads uniformly throughout the
6 structure.

7 In a recent study, Dong et al. (2017) introduced the basalt fibre with RA in concrete to
8 improve the properties of RA and reported that microstructure of the concrete improved by
9 filling the voids of old mortars and aggregates. The maximum compressive strength was
10 achieved by basalt fibre at 2% addition with 100% RA which was also higher than 100%
11 NAC at all fibre additions. Flexural strength, on the other hand, decreased with the increment
12 of RA and fibre content, however, 2% fibre content gave the optimum results with 100% RA
13 (Dong et al., 2017). Yazdanbakhsh & Bank (2016) showed that cracking caused by the shear
14 load can be improved in RAC through fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) which leads to a
15 higher load carrying capacity. Polyvinyl alcohol and nylon fibre also proved to be efficient
16 with recycled fine aggregate where they have been found to improve the compressive
17 strength and shrinkage properties (Nam et al., 2016). Elsewhere, Vytlačilová & Vodička
18 (2010) tested the different synthetic fibres with recycled coarse aggregates and masonry
19 aggregates. It was found that PET fibre with masonry aggregates produced concrete with
20 higher compressive and splitting tensile strength than Forta Ferro and Benesteel. A
21 comparative representation of compressive strength for different types of fibre reinforcement
22 at various percentages of recycled aggregates is shown in Figure 8.

23 A study by Yin et al. (2016) reported that recycled polypropylene fibre gave better results at
24 25 MPa design strength than 40 MPa design strength. In their study, the authors found that
25 although tensile strength reduced as compared to elastic modulus, recycled polypropylene
26 fibre gave comparable results to virgin polypropylene fibres. Given, there is potential to
27 decrease the splitting tensile and flexural strength with the addition of recycled aggregate,
28 Akça et al., (2015) recommended the usage of RAC in structural applications where minimal
29 safety is required. Moreover, it was stated that polypropylene fibre reduced the negative
30 effects and improves the properties with 1% addition of total volume. Chen et al., (2014)
31 found interesting results with steel fibres reinforcement in RAC where steel Fibres helped to
32 improve the initial fracture toughness and ultimate fracture toughness. The optimum

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 reinforcement was found to be at 1% of total volume of RAC. However, high temperature

2 reduced its efficiency for toughness and crack resistance.

3 Prasad & Kumar (2007) found a 16% increase in splitting tensile strength and 14% increase
4 in flexural strength with the addition of glass fibre which was mainly affected by the
5 inclusion of RA with glass fibres producing overall better strength than polypropylene Fibres.
6 Mastali & Dalvand (2016) found that glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) inclusion at
7 1.25% produced optimal results for compressive and flexural strength and the corresponding
8 behaviour was observed for first and ultimate crack impact resistance. Bond strength has been
9 demonstrated to be as a function of concrete strength rather than recycled aggregate ratios.
10 Baena et al., (2016) also reported that the bond strength between fibre reinforced polymer bar
11 and RAC exhibited similar behaviour as shown by natural aggregate concrete at all
12 replacement levels. There was an increased compressive strength and axial strain behaviour
13 was found with glass fibre reinforced polymer (GFRP) and carbon fibre reinforced polymer
14 (CFRP) confinement. The highest average ultimate strength capacity exhibited by GFRP
15 stiffness of 4 with 70 % replacement of recycled brick aggregates attaining more than 148
16 MPa strength. Seismic behaviour of RA filled inside of GFRP and steel tubes was studied by
17 Xiao et al. (2014) who observed that both columns improved the bearing capacity and
18 deformation properties. However, steel tube column gave the better performance as compared
19 to GFRP.

20 The decrease in compressive strength in carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) confined
21 concrete with the increment of recycled aggregate has been observed. This behaviour of
22 confinement of CFRP with RAC has been also well documented in the literature with a
23 similar pattern to that of natural aggregate concrete (Chen et al., 2016). However, it was
24 recommended to conduct a more detailed study to further authenticate the findings. Xie &
25 Ozbakkaloglu (2016) tested the CFRP confinement and BFRP confinement in circular sand
26 square cross section. The outcome was in the favour of circular CFRP confinement for RAC
27 than square shape and BFRP. Nevertheless, unconfined concrete showed a decreasing trend
28 for compressive strength with the accession of RA. Similarly, Choudhury et al. (2016) also
29 found the greater strength with circular FRP confinement and this was mainly attributed to
30 the uniform pressure distribution throughout the confinement in circular specimens as
31 compared to rectangular specimens. Moreover, GFRP confinement showed higher strength
32 than CFRP confinement with all types of aggregates and recycled stones showed higher

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 strength than both of the recycled brick aggregate concrete and normal brick aggregate
2 concrete but lower than stone aggregate concrete.

3 5. Concluding remarks
4 From this review, it is clear that the construction and demolition waste consists of a major
5 segment of world production of waste and generation reached approximately 3 billion tonnes
6 in 2012 across 40 countries. Although, it is increasing steadily, this waste stream can be
7 utilized effectively to minimize the consumption of natural resources in the ever-growing
8 construction industry and minimizing the volume of C&D waste being sent to the landfills.
9 The recycling brings prosperity in the economy of the relevant country and produce
10 thousands of jobs which can be referred as circular waste economy. There is a huge potential
11 associated with recycling, which can be exploited by employing proper management
12 strategies and introducing innovative technologies that can allow C&D waste to be recycled
13 according to its quality and use. The review has also shown that there are a number of options
14 to alter the properties of RAC by adding different cementitious materials. However, treating
15 the aggregates and improved mixing approaches will enable to effectively use the materials.
16 It was recommended to replace natural aggregates with RA between 30-50% of the total
17 aggregates while maintaining the similar properties of natural aggregate concrete. The
18 following concluding points can be drawn from the literature presented in the paper.

19  Processing of the aggregates including separation of fine and coarse aggregates,

20 removing the adhered mortar and highly porous nature of recycled aggregates
21 demands high energy requirement.
22  Recycled crushed glass and metakaolin was found to improve the properties by 10%
23 replacement of cement content and producing satisfactory results at 50% RA content.
24  Fly Ash tend to improve chloride penetration resistance in RAC, whereas, strength
25 properties found to be reduced at several occasions.
26  SF has used in different high strength concrete for several projects and is
27 recommended to use approximately 10% of total binder content for optimum results.
28  GGBFS replacement resulted in decrease in slump values, however, comparable
29 strength properties can be achieved at 15% of total binder content and for up to 50%
30 of total fine aggregate replacement.

31 Through this paper, we made an attempt to provide the latest information on the
32 supplementary cementitious material utilization individually in recycled aggregate concrete.

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 C&D waste can indeed make a significant contribution to the economy of a country while
2 reducing the use of natural resources and fulfilling the desired material requirement in
3 different projects.

4 6. Future Recommendations
5 Future research is required in many principal areas of recycled aggregate concrete. At
6 present, there is the limited focus in the area of nanostructure improvement of RA. Following
7 points need serious consideration for future research efforts.

8  Different pozzolanic and waste materials including but not limited to the use of
9 waste glass, waste glass sludge and nanotechnology need to be considered for
10 improvement in the properties.
11  Further research is required in the area of detailed impact analysis
12  Non-destructive techniques needs to be correlated with the destructive strength
13 evaluation.
14  Properties of RA need to be studied according to its source. This will help in
15 generalizing and utilization of recycled aggregates more efficiently.
16  Detailed evaluation needs to be done for RAC structures subjected to natural
17 disasters after their long-term existence in the natural environment.
18  Proper quality standards need to be introduced for its use in potential applications.
19  Efficient and cost-effective treatment methods need to be developed to improve the
20 properties of RAC at the processing stages rather than at the construction phase.

21 Acknowledgement
22 The first author would like to sincerely acknowledge the University of Auckland for the
23 award of Doctoral Research Scholarship.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 References:
2 Abd Elhakam, A., Mohamed, A.E., Awad, E., 2012. Influence of self-healing, mixing method
3 and adding silica fume on mechanical properties of recycled aggregates concrete.
4 Constr. Build. Mater. 35, 421–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.013
5 Abdollahzadeh, G., Jahani, E., Kashir, Z., 2016. Predicting of compressive strength of
6 recycled aggregate concrete by genetic programming. Comput. Concr. 18, 155–163.
7 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/cac.2016.18.2.155
8 Adamson, M., Razmjoo, A., Poursaee, A., 2015. Durability of concrete incorporating crushed
9 brick as coarse aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 94, 426–432.
10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.056
11 Aguilar-Penagos, A., Gómez-Soberón, J., Rojas-Valencia, M., 2017. Physicochemical,
12 Mineralogical and Microscopic Evaluation of Sustainable Bricks Manufactured with
13 Construction Wastes. Appl. Sci. 7, 1012. https://doi.org/10.3390/app710101
14 Akça, K.R., Çakır, Ö., Ipek, M., 2015. Properties of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete
15 using recycled aggregates. Construcit. Build. Mater. 98, 620–630.
16 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.133
17 Al-Mufti, R.L., Fried, A.N., 2017. Improving the strength properties of recycled asphalt
18 aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 149, 45–52.
19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.056
20 Aliabdo, A.A., Abd-Elmoaty, A.E.M., Hassan, H.H., 2014. Utilization of crushed clay brick
21 in concrete industry. Alexandria Eng. J. 53, 151–168.
22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2013.12.003
23 Anthony, J., 2015. Recycling plant will take waste of industry. Waikato Times.
24 Arezoumandi, M., Smith, A., Volz, J.S., Khayat, K.H., 2015. An experimental study on
25 flexural strength of reinforced concrete beams with 100% recycled concrete aggregate.
26 Eng. Struct. 88, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.043
27 Arulrajah, A., Mohammadinia, A., Horpibulsuk, S., Samingthong, W., 2016a. Influence of
28 class F fly ash and curing temperature on strength development of fly ash-recycled
29 concrete aggregate blends. Constr. Build. Mater. 127, 743–750.
30 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.049
31 Arulrajah, A., Mohammadinia, A., Phummiphan, I., Horpibulsuk, S., Samingthong, W.,
32 2016b. Stabilization of Recycled Demolition Aggregates by Geopolymers comprising
33 Calcium Carbide Residue, Fly Ash and Slag precursors. Constr. Build. Mater. 114, 864–
34 873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.150
35 Assas, M.M., 2016. Durability of green concrete with ternary cementitious system containing
36 recycled aggregate concrete and tire rubber wastes. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 11, 899–915.
37 Australian Government, 2012. Construction and Demolition Waste Guide - Recycling and
38 Re-Use Across the Supply Chain [WWW Document]. URL
39 http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b0ac5ce4-4253-4d2b-b001-
40 0becf84b52b8/files/case-studies.pdf
41 Awoyera, P.O., Akinmusuru, J.O., Ndambuki, J.M., 2016. Green concrete production with
42 ceramic wastes and laterite. Constr. Build. Mater. 117, 29–36.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.108
2 Baena, M., Torres, L., Turon, a., Llorens, M., Barris, C., 2016. Bond behaviour between
3 recycled aggregate concrete and glass fibre reinforced polymer bars. Constr. Build.
4 Mater. 106, 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.145
5 Behera, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., Minocha, A.K., Deoliya, R., Maiti, S., 2014. Recycled
6 aggregate from C&D waste & its use in concrete – A breakthrough towards
7 sustainability in construction sector: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 68, 501–516.
8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.003
9 Bjegović, D., 2008. Development of sustainable construction and demolition waste
10 management system for Croatia [WWW Document]. Constr. Demolition Waste Manag.
11 Plan. URL http://www.igh.hr/conwas/wwwe/management_plan.pdf
12 Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E. 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the
13 role of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J of Clean. Prod. 18 (2010),
14 1021-1030.
15 Bostanci, S.C., Limbachiya, M., Kew, H., 2016. Portland-composite and composite cement
16 concretes made with coarse recycled and recycled glass sand aggregates: Engineering
17 and durability properties. Constr. Build. Mater. 128, 324–340.
18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.095
19 Boukour, S., Benmalek, M.L., 2016. Performance evaluation of a resinous cement mortar
20 modified with crushed clay brick and tire rubber aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 120,
21 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.119
22 Bravo, M., de Brito, J., Pontes, J., Evangelista, L., 2015. Mechanical performance of concrete
23 made with aggregates from construction and demolition waste recycling plants. J. Clean.
24 Prod. 99, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.012
25 Butera, S., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F. 2015. Life cycle assessment of construction and
26 demolition waste management. Waste Mang. 44, 196-205. DOI:
27 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.07.011
28 Çakir, O., 2014. Experimental analysis of properties of recycled coarse aggregate (RCA)
29 concrete with mineral additives. Constr. Build. Mater. 68, 17–25.
30 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.032
31 Çakır, Ö., Sofyanlı, Ö.Ö., 2015. Influence of silica fume on mechanical and physical
32 properties of recycled aggregate concrete. HBRC J. 11, 157–166.
33 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2014.06.002
34 Calvo, N., Varela-Candamio, L., Novo-Corti, I., 2014. A dynamic model for construction and
35 demolition (C&D) waste management in Spain: Driving policies based on economic
36 incentives and tax penalties. Sustain. 6, 416–435. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6010416
37 Cao, D., Selic, E., Herbell, J.-D., 2008. Utilization of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in
38 China. J. Zhejiang Univ. A 9, 681–687. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A072163
39 Cement statistics [WWW Document], 2016. . US Geol. Surv. Miner. Commod. Summ. URL
40 http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/mcs-2016-cemen.pdf
41 (accessed 6.1.16).
42 Centre for Science and Environment India, 2014. Construction and Demolition waste [WWW

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Document]. URL http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Construction-and -demolition-

2 waste.pdf
3 Chau, C.K., Xu, J.M., Leung, T.M., Ng, W.Y., 2016. Evaluation of the impacts of end-of-life
4 management strategies for deconstruction of a high-rise concrete framed office building.
5 Appl. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.01.019
6 Chen, G.M., He, Y.H., Jiang, T., Lin, C.J., 2016. Behavior of CFRP-confined recycled
7 aggregate concrete under axial compression. Constr. Build. Mater. 111, 85–97.
8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.054
9 Chen, G.M., He, Y.H., Yang, H., Chen, J.F., Guo, Y.C., 2014. Compressive behavior of steel
10 fiber reinforced recycled aggregate concrete after exposure to elevated temperatures.
11 Constr. Build. Mater. 71, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.012
12 Chen, X., Zheng, J., Wang, G., 2016. Influence of pretreatment methods on shrinkage
13 performance of recycled concrete. Jianzhu Cailiao Xuebao/Journal Build. Mater. 19.
14 https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-9629.2016.05.021
15 Chithra, S., Senthil Kumar, S.R.R., Chinnaraju, K., 2016. The effect of Colloidal Nano-silica
16 on workability, mechanical and durability properties of High Performance Concrete with
17 Copper slag as partial fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 113, 794–804.
18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.119
19 Choi, H., Choi, H., Lim, M., Inoue, M., Kitagaki, R., Noguchi, T., 2016. Evaluation on the
20 Mechanical Performance of Low-Quality Recycled Aggregate Through Interface
21 Enhancement Between Cement Matrix and Coarse Aggregate by Surface Modification
22 Technology. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 10, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-015-
23 0124-5
24 Choudhury, M.S.I., Amin, A.F.M.S., Islam, M.M., Hasnat, A., 2016. Effect of confining
25 pressure distribution on the dilation behavior in FRP-confined plain concrete columns
26 using stone, brick and recycled aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 102, 541–551.
27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.003
28 Contreras, M., Teixeira, S.R., Lucas, M.C., Lima, L.C.N., Cardoso, D.S.L., da Silva, G.A.C.,
29 Gregório, G.C., de Souza, A.E., dos Santos, A., 2016. Recycling of construction and
30 demolition waste for producing new construction material (Brazil case-study). Constr.
31 Build. Mater. 123, 594–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.044
32 Coronado, M., Dosal, E., Coz, A., Viguri, J.R., Andrés, A., 2011. Estimation of Construction
33 and Demolition Waste (C&DW) Generation and Multicriteria Analysis of C&DW
34 Management Alternatives: A Case Study in Spain. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2,
35 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-011-9064-8
36 Cwirzen, a., Habermehl-Cwirzen, K., Penttala, V., 2008. Surface decoration of carbon
37 nanotubes and mechanical properties of cement/carbon nanotube composites. Adv. Cem.
38 Res. 20, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1680/adcr.2008.20.2.65
39 Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Waste in Denmark [WWW Document].
40 URL http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/sofos/Denmark_Waste.pdf
41 De Brito, J., Ferreira, J., Pacheco, J., Soares, D., Guerreiro, M., 2016. Structural, material,
42 mechanical and durability properties and behaviour of recycled aggregates concrete. J.
43 Build. Eng. 6, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.02.003

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Defra, 2011. Waste Data Overview [WWW Document]. URL

2 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/stat
3 istics/files/20110617-waste-data-overview.pdf
4 DEFRA, 2016. UK statistics on waste – 2010 to 2012 [WWW Document]. Gov. Stat. Serv.
5 URL https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/waste-and-recycling-statistics
6 Deloitte, 2015a. Construction and Demolition Waste management in Austria [WWW
7 Document].
8 Deloitte, 2015b. Construction and Demolition Waste management in Croatia [WWW
9 Document]. [WWW Document]. URL
10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_Croatia_Factsheet_Fi
11 nal.pdf
12 Deloitte, 2015c. Construction and Demolition Waste management in Cyprus [WWW
13 Document]. [WWW Document]. URL
14 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_Cyprus_Factsheet_Fin
15 al.pdf
16 Deloitte, 2015d. Construction and Demolition Waste management in Denmark [WWW
17 Document]. URL
18 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_Denmark_Factsheet_
19 Final.pdf
20 Deloitte, 2015e. Construction and Demolition Waste management in Sweden [WWW
21 Document]. URL
22 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_Sweden_Factsheet_Fi
23 nal.pdf
24 Deloitte, 2014. Construction and Demolition Waste management in Netherlands [WWW
25 Document]. URL http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/deliverables/CDW_The
26 Netherlands_Factsheet_Final.pdf
27 Department of Environment, 2016. Management of waste [WWW Document]. Waste Manag.
28 URL
29 http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/environment/environment.nsf/de09_en/de09_en?OpenDoc
30 ument (accessed 9.19.16). [WWW Document]. Waste Manag. URL
31 http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/environment/environment.nsf/de09_en/de09_en?OpenDoc
32 ument (accessed 9.19.16).
33 Dilbas, H., Şimşek, M., Çakır, Ö., 2014. An investigation on mechanical and physical
34 properties of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) with and without silica fume. Constr.
35 Build. Mater. 61, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.057
36 Dill, H.G., 2016. Kaolin: Soil, rock and ore: From the mineral to the magmatic, sedimentary
37 and metamorphic environments. Earth-Science Rev. 161, 16–129.
38 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.07.003
39 Dong, J.F., Wang, Q.Y., Guan, Z.W., 2017. Material properties of basalt fibre reinforced
40 concrete made with recycled earthquake waste. Constr. Build. Mater. 130, 241–251.
41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.118
42 Duan, P., Shui, Z., Chen, W., Shen, C., 2013. Effects of metakaolin, silica fume and slag on
43 pore structure, interfacial transition zone and compressive strength of concrete. Constr.

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Build. Mater. 44, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.075

2 Dubey, A., Chandak, R., Yadav, P.R.K., 2012. Effect of blast furnace slag powder on
3 compressive strength of concrete. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 3, 1–5.
4 Environmental Agency Austria, 2015. Management of Hazardous Waste in Austria [WWW
5 Document]. URL http://hazardouswaste-
6 serbia.info/fileadmin/inhalte/haz_waste/pdf/Fact_sheets/01_Austria_fact_sheet_presenta
7 tion.pdf
8 Etxeberria, M., Gonzalez-Corominas, A., Pardo, P., 2016. Influence of seawater and blast
9 furnace cement employment on recycled aggregate concretes’ properties. Constr. Build.
10 Mater. 115, 496–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.064
11 Eurostat, 2012. Generation of waste [WWW Document]. URL
12 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=env_wasgen&lang=en
13 (accessed 9.14.16).
14 Farrelly, T., Tucker, C., 2014. Action research and residential waste minimisation in
15 Palmerston North, New Zealand. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 91, 11–26.
16 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.07.003
17 Favaretto, P., Hidalgo, G., Sampaio, C., Silva, R., Lermen, R., 2017. Characterization and
18 Use of Construction and Demolition Waste from South of Brazil in the Production of
19 Foamed Concrete Blocks. Appl. Sci. 7, 1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7101090
20 Federal Chancellery Austria, 2009. Administration in Austria.
21 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285182
22 Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, E. and W.M., 2016. Recycled Construction
23 Materials Ordinance [WWW Document]. URL
24 https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/en/greentec/Recycled-Construction-Materials-Ordinance.html
25 (accessed 9.11.16).
26 Feuerborn, H., 2011. Coal Combustion Products in Europe - an update on Production and
27 Utilisation , Standardisation and Regulation -. World Coal Ash Conf. 9–12.
28 Fidjestol, P., Dastol, M., 2008. The History of Silica Fume in Concrete - from Novelty to Key
29 Ingredient in High Performance concrete.
30 Ganjian, E., Jalull, G., Sadeghi-Pouya, H., 2015. Using waste materials and by-products to
31 produce concrete paving blocks. Constr. Build. Mater. 77, 270–275.
32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.048
33 Gapinski, B.G.M., Scanlon, J., 2006. Silica Fume. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-
34 8846(97)00191-9
35 García, F.P., Martínez, Y.R., Sandoval, O.A.A., Martínez, A.J.G., 2012. Recovery of Waste
36 of Construction , Demolition and Mining Tailings. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2, 46–63.
37 Glass Packaging Forum Inc., 2012. ANNUAL REPORT - AUGUST 2011 [WWW
38 Document]. URL http://glassforum.org.nz/downloads/GPF_Annual_Report_2011.pdf
39 Global Environment Center Osaka Japan, 2012. Laws and Support Systems for Promoting
40 Waste Recycling in Japan [WWW Document]. URL
41 http://nett21.gec.jp/Ecotowns/LawSupportSystems.pdf

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Gonzalez-Corominas, A., Etxeberria, M., 2016. Effects of using recycled concrete aggregates
2 on the shrinkage of high performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 115, 32–41.
3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.031
4 Gonzalez-Corominas, A., Etxeberria, M., Poon, C.S., 2016. Influence of steam curing on the
5 pore structures and mechanical properties of fly-ash high performance concrete prepared
6 with recycled aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 71, 77–84.
7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.05.010
8 Grecco, L.E., Marfil, S. a, Maiza, P.J., 2012. Mineralogy and geochemistry of hydrothermal
9 kaolins from the Adelita mine, Patagonia (Argentina); Relation to other mineralization
10 in the area. Clay Miner. 47, 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1180/claymin.2012.047.1.131
11 GreenCape, 2015. Waste Economy: Market Intelligence Report 2016.
12 https://greencape.co.za/assets/GreenCape-Waste-MIR-2016.pdf
13 Hassan, A.A.A., Ismail, M.K., Mayo, J., 2015. Mechanical properties of self-consolidating
14 concrete containing lightweight recycled aggregate in different mixture compositions. J.
15 Build. Eng. 4, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.09.005
16 Hendriks, C.F., Pietersen, H.S., 2000. The Netherlands, in: Sustainable Raw Materials -
17 Construction and Demolition Waste - State-of-the-Art Report of RILEM TC 165-SRM.
18 pp. 122–137.
19 Höglmeier, K., Weber-Blaschke, G., Richter, K., 2015. Potentials for cascading of recovered
20 wood from building deconstruction—A case study for south-east Germany. Resour.
21 Conserv. Recycl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.030
22 Hosseini, P., Booshehrian, A., Delkash, M., Ghavami, S., Zanjani, M.K., 2009. Use of Nano-
23 SiO 2 to Improve Microstructure and Compressive Strength of Recycled. Nanotechnol.
24 Constr. 3 SE - 29 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00980-8_29
25 Huoth, P., Suntharavadivel, T.G., Duan, K., 2014. Effect of silica fume on recycled aggregate
26 concrete, in: 23rd Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and
27 Materials. pp. 249–254.
28 Hyder Consulting Encycle Consulting & Sustainable Resource Solutions, 2011. Construction
29 and demolition waste status report [WWW Document]. Manag. Constr. demolition
30 waste Aust. URL http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/national-waste-
31 policy/publications/construction-and-demolition-waste-status-report
32 Inglis, M., 2007. Construction and Demolition Waste – Best Practice and Cost Saving. SB07
33 New Zeal. Pap. number 057 10–12.
34 IS 383(Second rev.), 1970. Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregate From Natural
35 Sources for Concrete. Bur. Indian Stand. New Delhi,India.
36 Ismail, S., Ramli, M., 2014. Mechanical strength and drying shrinkage properties of concrete
37 containing treated coarse recycled concrete aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 68, 726–
38 739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.06.058
39 Jadhav, R.M., Jadhao, P.D., Pande, S.G., 2015. a Study on Behavior of metakaolin base
40 recycled aggregate concrete. Imtermatiomal J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 4, 475–478.
41 Jin, R., Chen, Q., 2015. Investigation of Concrete Recycling in the U.S. Construction
42 Industry. Procedia Eng. 118, 894–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.528

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Kapoor, K., Singh, S.P., Singh, B., 2016. Durability of self-compacting concrete made with
2 Recycled Concrete Aggregates and mineral admixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 128, 67–
3 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.026
4 Kathirvel, P., Kaliyaperumal, S.R.M., 2016. Influence of recycled concrete aggregates on the
5 flexural properties of reinforced alkali activated slag concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
6 102, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.148
7 Kim, K., Shin, M., Cha, S., 2013. Combined effects of recycled aggregate and fly ash
8 towards concrete sustainability. Constr. Build. Mater. 48, 499–507.
9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.014
10 King, D., 2012. The effect of silica fume on the properties of concrete as defined in concrete
11 society report 74, cementitious materials, in: Our World in Concrete & Structures. pp.
12 1–23.
13 Kohoutková, A., Štemberk, P., 2007. An overview of present recycling techniques for
14 concrete and masonry waste in the Czech Republic. SB07 New Zeal. Pap. number 070
15 1–8.
16 Kou, S.C., Poon, C.S., Chan, D., 2007. Influence of fly ash as a cement replacement on the
17 properties of recycled aggregate concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Engineeirng 19, 709–717.
18 https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9317-y
19 Kruger, R. a, Krueger, J.E., 2005. Historical development of coal ash utilisation in South
20 Africa. World Coal Ash 1–8.
21 Kubissa, W., Jaskulski, R., Brod, M., Brod, M., 2016. Influence of SCM on the Permeability
22 of Concrete with Recycled Aggregate. Procedia Polytech. Civ. Eng. 60, 583–590.
23 https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.3311/PPci.8614
24 Lawson, N., Douglas, I., Garvin, S., McGrath, C., Manning, D., Vetterlein, J., 2001.
25 Recycling construction and demolition wastes – a UK perspective. Environ. Manag.
26 Heal. 12, 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/09566160110389898
27 Laís Peixoto Rosado, Pierluca Vitale, Carmenlucia Santos G. Penteado, Umberto
28 ArenaRosado 2017. Life cycle assessment of natural and mixed recycled aggregate
29 production in Brazil. J. of Clean. Prod. 151 (2017) 634-642.
30 Lee, H., Hanif, A., Usman, M., Sim, J., Oh, H., 2018. Performance evaluation of concrete
31 incorporating glass powder and glass sludge wastes as supplementary cementing
32 material. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 683–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.133
33 Letelier, V., Tarela, E., Osses, R., Cárdenas, J.P., Moriconi, G., 2016. Mechanical properites
34 of concrete with recycled aggregates and waste glass. Struct. Concr.
35 https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201500143
36 Leung, H.Y., Kim, J., Nadeem, A., Jaganathan, J., Anwar, M.P., 2016. Sorptivity of self-
37 compacting concrete containing fly ash and silica fume. Constr. Build. Mater. 113, 369–
38 375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.071
39 Li, J., Xiao, H., Zhou, Y., 2009. Influence of coating recycled aggregate surface with
40 pozzolanic powder on properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater.
41 23, 1287–1291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.07.019
42 Li, M., Kühlen, A., Yang, J., Schultmann, F., 2013. Improvement of the Statutory Framework

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 for Construction and Demolition Waste Management exemplified in Germany and

2 Australia, in: Urban Environment. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 15–25.
3 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7756-9_2
4 Li, W., Long, C., Tam, V.W.Y., Poon, C.-S., Hui Duan, W., 2017. Effects of nano-particles
5 on failure process and microstructural properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr.
6 Build. Mater. 142, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.051
7 Li, W., Luo, Z., Long, C., Wu, C., Duan, W.H., Shah, S.P., 2016. Effects of nanoparticle on
8 the dynamic behaviors of recycled aggregate concrete under impact loading. Mater. Des.
9 112, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.09.045
10 Li, W., Xiao, J., Sun, Z., Kawashima, S., Shah, S.P., 2012. Interfacial transition zones in
11 recycled aggregate concrete with different mixing approaches. Constr. Build. Mater. 35,
12 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.06.022
13 Liang, C., Liu, T., Xiao, J., Zou, D., Yang, Q., 2016. The damping property of recycled
14 aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 102, 834–842.
15 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.026
16 Limantono, H., Ekaputri, J.J., Susanto, T.E., 2016. Effect of Silica Fume and Glass Powder
17 on High-Strength Paste. Key Eng. Mater. 673, 37–46.
18 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.673.37
19 Liu, Q., Xiao, J., Sun, Z., 2011. Experimental study on the failure mechanism of recycled
20 concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 41, 1050–1057.
21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.06.007
22 Liu, Q., Xu, Q., Yu, Q., Gao, R., Tong, T., 2016. Experimental investigation on mechanical
23 and piezoresistive properties of cementitious materials containing graphene and
24 graphene oxide nanoplatelets. Constr. Build. Mater. 127, 565–576.
25 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.024
26 López Gayarre, F., Suárez González, J., Blanco Viñuela, R., López-Colina Pérez, C., Serrano
27 López, M.A., 2018. Use of recycled mixed aggregates in floor blocks manufacturing. J.
28 Clean. Prod. 167, 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.193
29 Lu, W., 2014. Estimating the amount of building-related construction and demolition waste in
30 China. Proc. 18th Int. Symp. Adv. Constr. Manag. Real Estate 3599, 539–548.
31 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-44916-1-52
32 Marinković, N., Vitale, K., Holcer, N.J., Džakula, A., Pavić, T., 2008. Management of
33 hazardous medical waste in Croatia. Waste Manag. 28, 1049–1056.
34 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.01.021
35 Martín-Morales, M., Zamorano, M., Ruiz-Moyano, a., Valverde-Espinosa, I., 2011.
36 Characterization of recycled aggregates construction and demolition waste for concrete
37 production following the Spanish Structural Concrete Code EHE-08. Constr. Build.
38 Mater. 25, 742–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.07.012
39 Mastali, M., Dalvand, a., 2016. The impact resistance and mechanical properties of self-
40 compacting concrete reinforced with recycled CFRP pieces. Compos. Part B Eng. 92,
41 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.01.046
42 Matković, L., 2012. Waste and Water Management in Croatia [WWW Document]. URL
43 www.awex-export.be/files/.../Waste-and-Water-Management-in-Croatia-2015.pdf

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Mayr, J., 2014. Waste management in rural areas in Austria, in: Taking Waste Management
2 into the Future. Brussels.
3 Meng, W., Khayat, K.H., 2016. Mechanical properties of ultra-high-performance concrete
4 enhanced with graphite nanoplatelets and carbon nanofibers. Compos. Part B Eng. 107,
5 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.069
6 Merino, R., Gracia, P.I., Salto, I., Azevedo, W., 2010. Sustainable construction : construction
7 and demolition waste reconsidered. Waste Manag. Res. 28, 118–129.
8 Ministry for the Environment, 2007. Targets in the New Zealand Waste Strategy: 2006
9 Review of Progress [WWW Document]. URL
10 http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/waste-strategy-review-progress-mar07.pdf
11 Ministry of Environment, 2014. Waste Management Plan of the Czech Republic for the
12 period 2015 - 2024 [WWW Document]. URL
13 http://www.mzp.cz/C1257458002F0DC7/cz/plan_odpadoveho_hospodarstvi_aj/$FILE/
14 OODP-WMP_CZ_translation-20151008.pdf
15 Ministry of Environment, 2013. Recycling policy [WWW Document]. URL
16 http://eng.me.go.kr/eng/web/index.do?menuId=143 (accessed 10.30.16).
17 Ministry of Housing Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2010. Getting Ahead with a
18 Successful Chain Approach [WWW Document]. URL
19 http://www.oecd.org/env/waste/46352717.pdf
20 Ministry of the Environment, 2014. History and Current State of Waste Management in Japan
21 [WWW Document]. Minist. Environ. URL
22 https://www.env.go.jp/en/recycle/smcs/attach/hcswm.pdf
23 Mohammed, a, Sanjayan, J.G., Duan, W.H., Nazari, A., 2016. Graphene Oxide Impact on
24 Hardened Cement Expressed in Enhanced Freeze – Thaw Resistance. J. Mater. Civ.
25 Eng. 28, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001586.
26 Mukharjee, B.B., Barai, S. V., 2014a. Influence of incorporation of nano-silica and recycled
27 aggregates on compressive strength and microstructure of concrete. Comput. Chem.
28 Eng. 71, 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.08.040
29 Mukharjee, B.B., Barai, S. V., 2014b. Influence of Nano-Silica on the properties of recycled
30 aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 55, 29–37.
31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.01.003
32 Mulders, L., 2013. High quality recycling of construction and demolition waste in the
33 Netherlands. Utrecht University.
34 Muñoz-Ruiperez, C., Rodríguez, A., Gutiérrez-González, S., Calderón, V., 2016. Lightweight
35 masonry mortars made with expanded clay and recycled aggregates. Constr. Build.
36 Mater. 118, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.065
37 Nakajima, S., Futaki, M., 2002. National R&D project to promote recycle and reuse of timber
38 constructions in japan – the second year’s results, in: CIB/TG39 Deconstruction
39 Meeting. Karlsruhe. Germany. CDROM.
40 Nam, J., Kim, G., Yoo, J., Choe, G., Kim, H., Choi, H., Kim, Y., 2016. Effectiveness of fiber
41 reinforcement on the mechanical properties and shrinkage cracking of recycled fine
42 aggregate concrete. Materials (Basel). 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma9030131

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Nassar, R.-U.-D., Soroushian, P., 2013. Use of milled waste glass in recycled aggregate
2 concrete. Proc. ICE - Constr. Mater. 166, 304–315.
3 https://doi.org/10.1680/coma.11.00059
4 Nelles, M., Grünes, J., Morscheck, G., 2016. Waste Management in Germany – Development
5 to a Sustainable Circular Economy? Procedia Environ. Sci. 35, 6–14.
6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.001
7 Nepal, B., Chin, C.S., Jones, S., 2015. A review on Agricultural Fibre Reinforced Concrete.
8 Sustain. Build. Struct. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Sustain. Build. Struct. (Suzhou, PR China, 29
9 October-1 Novemb. 2015) 125. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19239-22
10 Noor-ul-Amin, 2012. Use of clay as a cement replacement in mortar and its chemical
11 activation to reduce the cost and emission of greenhouse gases. Constr. Build. Mater. 34,
12 381–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.02.022
13 Oh, D.-Y., Noguchi, T., Kitagaki, R., Park, W.-J., 2014. CO2 emission reduction by reuse of
14 building material waste in the Japanese cement industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
15 38, 796–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.036
16 Oltulu, M., Şahin, R., 2013. Effect of nano-SiO2, nano-Al2O3 and nano-Fe2O3 powders on
17 compressive strengths and capillary water absorption of cement mortar containing fly
18 ash: A comparative study. Energy Build. 58, 292–301.
19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.014
20 Östlund, C., 2011. Swedish Waste Management, in: Baltic Sea Waste Management
21 Conference. Tallinn, pp. 1–47.
22 Otoko, G.R., 2014. Review of the use of construction and demolition waste in concrete. Int. J.
23 Eng. Technol. Res. 2, 1–8.
24 Ozbakkaloglu, T., Gu, L., Fallah Pour, A., 2016. Normal- and high-strength concretes
25 incorporating air-cooled blast furnace slag coarse aggregates: Effect of slag size and
26 content on the behavior. Constr. Build. Mater. 126, 138–146.
27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.015
28 Pan, Z., He, L., Qiu, L., Korayem, A.H., Li, G., Zhu, J.W., Collins, F., Li, D., Duan, W.H.,
29 Wang, M.C., 2015. Mechanical properties and microstructure of a graphene oxide-
30 cement composite. Cem. Concr. Compos. 58, 140–147.
31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2015.02.001
32 Paz, D.H., Lafayette, K.P., 2016. Forecasting of construction and demolition waste in Brazil.
33 Waste Manag. Res. 34, 708–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X16644680
34 Peng, G.F., Yang, J., Wang, J.Y., 2014. Influence of Recycled Aggregate Defects on the
35 Durability of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Key Eng. Mater. 629–630, 173–182.
36 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.629-630.173
37 Posi, P., Thongjapo, P., Thamultree, N., Boontee, P., Kasemsiri, P., Chindaprasirt, P., 2016.
38 Pressed lightweight fly ash-OPC geopolymer concrete containing recycled lightweight
39 concrete aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 127, 450–456.
40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.105
41 Prasad, M.L. V, Kumar, P.R., 2007. Mechanical properties of fiber reinforced concretes
42 produced from building demolished waste. J. Environ. Res. Dev. 2, 180–187.

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Rahim.N.L, Che Amat.R, Norlia M.R, S.., 2015. Utilization of Recycled Glass Waste as
2 Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregate in Concrete Production. Mater. Sci. Forum 803,
3 16–20. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.803.16
4 Rodríguez-Robles, D., García-González, J., Juan-Valdés, A., Pozo, J.M.M., Guerra-Romero,
5 M.I., 2015. Overview regarding construction and demolition waste in Spain. Environ.
6 Technol. 36, 3060–3070. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4908-5_3
7 Rodríguez, G., Medina, C., Alegre, F.J., Asensio, E., De Sánchez Rojas, M.I., 2015.
8 Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste plant management in Spain: In
9 pursuit of sustainability and eco-efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 16–24.
10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.067
11 Rüütelmann, M., 2015. C&D waste treatment in Estonia Estonian Recycling Cluster – driving
12 force for recycling.
13 Safiuddin, M., Salam, M.A., Jumaat, M.Z., 2011. Effects of recycled concrete aggregate on
14 the fresh properties of self-consolidating concrete. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 11, 1023–
15 1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60093-4
16 Saghafi, M.D., Teshnizi, Z.A.H., 2011. Building Deconstruction and Material Recovery in
17 Iran: An Analysis of Major Determinants. Procedia Eng. 21, 853–863.
18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2087
19 Shafiq, N., Nuruddin, M.F., Khan, S.U., Ayub, T., 2015. Calcined kaolin as cement replacing
20 material and its use in high strength concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 81, 313–323.
21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.050
22 Shaikh, F., Chavda, V., Minhaj, N., Arel, H.S., 2017. Effect of mixing methods of nano silica
23 on properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Struct. Concr.
24 https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700091
25 Sharp, J.W., 1946. Silica modified cement. US2410954A.
26 Shen, J., Xie, Z., Griggs, D., Shi, Y., 2012. Effects of Kaolin on the Engineering Properties of
27 Portland Cement Concrete. Appl. Mech. Mater. 174–177, 76–81.
28 https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.174-177.76
29 Shi, C., Li, Y., Zhang, J., Li, W., Chong, L., Xie, Z., 2016. Performance enhancement of
30 recycled concrete aggregate - A review. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 466–472.
31 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.057
32 Siddique, R., Khan, M.I., 2011. Supplementary Cementing Materials, Lightweight Aggregate
33 Concrete. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-17866-5
34 Singh, B., Ishwarya, G., Gupta, M., Bhattacharyya, S.K., 2015. Geopolymer concrete: A
35 review of some recent developments. Constr. Build. Mater. 85, 78–90.
36 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.036
37 Singh, N., Singh, S.P., 2016a. Carbonation and electrical resistance of self compacting
38 concrete made with recycled concrete aggregates and metakaolin. Constr. Build. Mater.
39 121, 400–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.009
40 Singh, N., Singh, S.P., 2016b. Carbonation resistance and microstructural analysis of Low
41 and High Volume Fly Ash Self Compacting Concrete containing Recycled Concrete
42 Aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 127, 828–842.

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.10.067
2 Somasundaram, S., Jeon, T.-W., Kang, Y.-Y., Kim, W.-I., Jeong, S.-K., Kim, Y.-J., Yeon, J.-
3 M., Shin, S.K., 2014. Characterization of wastes from construction and demolition
4 sector. Environ. Monit. Assess. 187, 4200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-014-4200-0
5 Sowmith, N., Babu, P.S.S.A., 2013. Influence of fly ash on the performance of recycled
6 aggregate concrete. Int. J. Sci. Res. 5.
7 Statistics Canada, 2015a. Table 153-0041 - Disposal of waste, by source, Canada, provinces
8 and territories, every 2 years (tonnes) [WWW Document]. CANSIM (database). URL
9 http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1530041&pattern=
10 1530041..1530045&tabMode=dataTable&srchLan=-1&p1=-1&p2=-1 (accessed 9.7.16).
11 Statistics Canada, 2015b. Table 153-0042 - Materials diverted, by source, Canada, provinces
12 and territories, every 2 years (tonnes) [WWW Document]. CANSIM (database). URL
13 http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1530042&pattern=
14 1530041..1530045&tabMode=dataTable&srchLan=-1&p1=-1&p2=-1 (accessed 9.7.16).
15 Statistics Canada, 2015c. Table 153-0043 - Materials diverted, by type, Canada, provinces
16 and territories, every 2 years (tonnes) [WWW Document]. CANSIM (database). URL
17 http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1530043&pattern=
18 1530041..1530045&tabMode=dataTable&srchLan=-1&p1=-1&p2=-1 (accessed 9.7.16).
19 Stolaroff, J.K., Lowry, G. V., Keith, D.W., 2005. Using CaO- and MgO-rich industrial waste
20 streams for carbon sequestration. Energy Convers. Manag. 46, 687–699.
21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2004.05.009
22 Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. From waste management to resource
23 efficiency. Sweden’s Waste Plan 2012–2017.
24 Tam, V.W.Y., Gao, X.F., Tam, C.M., 2005. Microstructural analysis of recycled aggregate
25 concrete produced from two-stage mixing approach. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 1195–1203.
26 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.025
27 Tan, K.H., Du, H., 2013. Use of waste glass as sand in mortar: Part i - Fresh, mechanical and
28 durability properties. Cem. Concr. Compos. 35, 118–126.
29 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.08.028
30 Tang, Z., Ma, S., Ding, J., Wang, Y., Zheng, S., 2013. Current Status and Prospect of Fly Ash
31 Utilization in China. 2013 world coal ash Conf. 22–27.
32 Themelis, N.J., Leonzio, G., 2014. Management of municipal solid wastes in Italy 1–3.
33 Thomas, B.S., Kumar, S., Mehra, P., Gupta, R.C., Joseph, M., Csetenyi, L.J., 2016. Abrasion
34 resistance of sustainable green concrete containing waste tire rubber particles,
35 Construction and Building Materials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.110
36 Thomas, M.D. a., 2007. Optimizing the Use of Fly Ash in Concrete. Portl. Cem. Assoc. 24.
37 Tittarelli, F., Carsana, M., Ruello, M.L., 2014. Effect of hydrophobic admixture and recycled
38 aggregate on physical-mechanical properties and durability aspects of no-fines concrete.
39 Constr. Build. Mater. 66, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.043
40 Townsend, T., Wilson, C., Beck, B., 2014. The Benefits of Construction and Demolition
41 Materials Recycling in the United States. CDRA White Pap. 60502.

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Ueki, Y., 2015. History and Utilization of Portland Blast Furnace Slag Cement [WWW
2 Document]. Nippon steel sumitomo Met. Tech. Rep. no. 109. URL
3 http://www.nssmc.com/en/tech/report/nssmc/pdf/109-19.pdf
4 Ul Islam, M.M., Mo, K.H., Alengaram, U.J., Jumaat, M.Z., 2016. Durability properties of
5 sustainable concrete containing high volume palm oil waste materials. J. Clean. Prod.
6 137, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.061
7 USEPA, 2015a. EPA Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013
8 186. https://doi.org/EPA530-R-15-002
9 USEPA, 2015b. Fly Ash [WWW Document]. URL
10 https://www3.epa.gov/warm/pdfs/Fly_Ash.pdf
11 USEPA, 2014. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United
12 States: Facts and Figures for 2012, US Environmental Protection Agency.
13 https://doi.org/EPA-530-F-14-001
14 USEPA, 2000. Asbestos [WWW Document]. Technol. Transf. Netw. - Air Toxics Web Site.
15 URL https://www3.epa.gov/airtoxics/hlthef/asbestos.html (accessed 9.7.16).
16 van Wyk, L., 2014. Towards Net-Zero Construction and Demolition Waste, in: Green
17 Building Handbook, South Africa. pp. 132–141.
18 Vieitez, E.R., Eder, P., Villanueva, A., Saveyn, H., Studies, J.R.C.-I. for P.T., 2011. End-of-
19 waste criteria for glass cullet: Technical proposals, JRC Scientific and Technical
20 Reports. https://doi.org/10.2791/7150
21 Villoria-Saez, P., Merino, M.D.R., Porras-Amores, C., González, A.D.S.A., 2011. European
22 Legislation and Implementation Measures in the Management of Construction and
23 Demolition Waste. Open Constr. Build. Technol. J. 5, 156–161.
24 https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836801105010156
25 Virgalitte, S.J., Luther, M.D., Rose, J.H., Mather, B., Bell, L.W., Call, B.M., 2003. ACI 233 -
26 Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag as a Cementitious Constituent in Concrete.
27 https://doi.org/10.14359/1623
28 Vytlačilová, V., Vodička, J., 2010. Properties of fiber reinforced concrete using recycled
29 aggregates. Adv. Control Chem. Eng. Civ. Engineeirng Mech. Eng.
30 Wang, H.L., Wang, J.J., Sun, X.Y., Jin, W.L., 2013. Improving performance of recycled
31 aggregate concrete with superfine pozzolanic powders. J. Cent. South Univ. 20, 3715–
32 3722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-013-1899-7
33 Wang, M., Wang, R., Yao, H., Farhan, S., Zheng, S., Du, C., 2016. Study on the three
34 dimensional mechanism of graphene oxide nanosheets modified cement. Constr. Build.
35 Mater. 126, 730–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.09.092
36 Xiao, J., Huang, Y., Sun, Z., 2014. Seismic Behavior of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Filled
37 Steel and Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic Tube Columns 17, 693–708.
38 Xiao, J., Li, W., Sun, Z., Lange, D. a., Shah, S.P., 2013. Properties of interfacial transition
39 zones in recycled aggregate concrete tested by nanoindentation. Cem. Concr. Compos.
40 37, 276–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.01.006
41 Xie, T., Ozbakkaloglu, T., 2016. Behavior of recycled aggregate concrete-filled basalt and

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 carbon FRP tubes. Constr. Build. Mater. 105, 132–143.

2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.068
3 Yang, J., Du, Q., Bao, Y., 2011. Concrete with recycled concrete aggregate and crushed clay
4 bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 25, 1935–1945.
5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.063
6 Yang, W.-S., Park, J.-K., Park, S.-W., Seo, Y.-C., 2015. Past, present and future of waste
7 management in Korea. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 17, 207–217.
8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-014-0301-7
9 Yazdanbakhsh, A., Bank, L.C., 2016. The effect of shear strength on load capacity of FRP
10 strengthened beams with recycled concrete aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 102, 133–
11 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.137
12 Yazdanbakhsh, A., Chu, C., 2015. The Effect of Carbon Nanofibers on the Strength of
13 Concrete with Natural and Recycled Aggregates, in: Bittnar, Z., Bartos, P.J.M.,
14 Němeček, J., Šmilauer, V., Zeman, J. (Eds.), Nanotechnology in Construction. Springer
15 International Publishing, Cham, pp. 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17088-
16 6_36
17 Yeheyis, M., Hewage, K., Alam, M.S., Eskicioglu, C., Sadiq, R., 2013. An overview of
18 construction and demolition waste management in Canada: A lifecycle analysis
19 approach to sustainability. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 15, 81–91.
20 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-012-0481-6
21 Yi, Y., Li, C., Liu, S., Asce, M., 2010. Alkali-Activated Ground-Granulated Blast Furnace
22 Slag for Stabilization of Marine Soft Clay. J. Materail Civ. Eng. 11, 246–250.
23 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001100.
24 Yin, S., Tuladhar, R., Riella, J., Chung, D., Collister, T., Combe, M., Sivakugan, N., 2016.
25 Comparative evaluation of virgin and recycled polypropylene fibre reinforced concrete.
26 Constr. Build. Mater. 114, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.03.162
27 Yonitani, H., 2015. Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Japan [WWW
28 Document]. URL http://www.uncrd.or.jp/content/documents/2661Parallel
29 Roundtable(2)-Presentation(4)-Hideko Yonetani.pdf
30 Zhan, B.J., Xuan, D.X., Poon, C.S., Shi, C.J., 2016. Effect of curing parameters on CO2
31 curing of concrete blocks containing recycled aggregates. Cem. Concr. Compos. 71,
32 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.05.002
33 Zhang, Z., Provis, J.L., Zou, J., Reid, A., Wang, H., 2016a. Toward an indexing approach to
34 evaluate fly ashes for geopolymer manufacture. Cem. Concr. Res. 85, 163–173.
35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.04.007
36 Zhang, Z., Zhu, H.J., Zhou, C.H., Wang, H., 2016b. Geopolymer from kaolin in China: An
37 overview. Appl. Clay Sci. 119, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2015.04.023
38
39

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1
2 Table 1. Effect of self-healing on compressive strength of concrete (Abd Elhakam et al.,
3 2012)

Recycled aggregate concrete Recycled aggregate concrete

Cement
Replacement before healing process after healing process
content
ratio (%) Compressive strength (MPa) Compressive strength (MPa)
(kg/m3)
7 days 28 days 56 days 7 days 28 days 56 days

250 25 21 26.7 28.1 22 25.3 32.5

400 75 20 21.5 22.7 18.5 24 31

250 25 32.2 38.3 41.7 31.9 39 45.6

400 75 27.2 34.9 35.4 27.4 38 44

10 Table 2. Effect of self-healing on splitting tensile strength (Abd Elhakam et al., 2012)

Recycled aggregate concrete Recycled aggregate concrete

Cement
Replacement before healing process after healing process
content
ratio (%) Splitting tensile strength (MPa) Splitting tensile strength (MPa)
(kg/m3)
7 days 28 days 56 days 7 days 28 days 56 days

250 25 1.65 2.18 2.35 1.96 2.62 3.12

400 75 0.98 1.41 1.78 1.27 2.12 2.39

250 25 2.98 3.24 3.83 3.43 3.53 4.04

400 75 1.59 2.53 2.82 2.9 2.9 3.06

11

12

13

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Table 3: Effect of Seawater on compressive strength of recycled aggregate concrete with blast
2 furnace slag cement (SW = sea water, FW = fresh water, RAC = Recycled aggregates concrete,
3 NAC = Natural aggregate concrete). (Etxeberria et al., 2016).

Compressive Compressive
Concrete Flexural strength (MPa)
Strength(MPa) Strength(MPa)

7 days 28 days 7 days 28 days 28 days 28 days

Curing time
(FW) (FW) (SW) (SW) (FW) (SW)
NAC 52.39 61.46 52.61 61.46 5.89 5.09
RAC20 44.1 49.49 47.11 50.41 4.27 4.4
RAC50 39.56 48.82 42.5 50.16 6.26 6.53
RAC100 26.48 32.82 28.88 36.69 4.9 5.1
3NAC 45.35 57.51 48.27 64.32 5.7 6.03
3RAC20 38.55 53.55 44.25 61.26 5.13 5.45
3RAC50 35.41 49.5 37.66 53.56 6.55 6.66
3RAC100 29.35 40.53 29.53 40.46 6.01 6.42
4

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Figure legends
2
3 Figure 1. Schematic diagram of construction materials circulation from beginning to end-
4 use/disposal
5
6 Figure 2. Construction and demolition waste distribution of New Zealand in landfills
7 (Ministry for the Environment, 2007)
8
9 Figure 3. C&D waste generation trend around the world (2012) (European Comission, 2015;
10 Statistics Canada, 2015b; Hyder Consulting, 2011) (van Wyk, 2014) (Yonitani, 2015) (Lu,
11 2014) (Yang et al., 2015) (Centre for Science and Environment India, 2014) (Environmental
12 Protection Agency USA, 2015)
13
14 Figure 4. Compressive strength of concrete with fly ash at different percentages of recycled
15 aggregates (a: (Limbachiya et al. 2012b) cement=280 kg/m3, b: (Kou et al. 2007)
16 Cement=300 kg/m3, c: (Kim et al. 2013) cement=258 kg/m3, d:(Sowmith & Babu 2013)
17 cement=331.84 kg/m3 for 20% FA,373.32 kg/m3 for 10%FA e: (Kou & Poon 2013)
18 cement=184.5 kg/m3, f:(Sim & Park 2011)
19
20 Figure 5. Splitting Tensile Strength of concrete with Fly Ash at different percentages of
21 recycled aggregates (a: (Sowmith and Babu, 2013) cement=373.32 for 10%FA and 331.84
22 for 20% FA, b: (Kou et al., 2007) cement=300 kg/m3, c: (Kim et al., 2013) cement=358
23 kg/m3, d: (Kou and Poon, 2013) cement=266.5 kg/m3 for 35% FA and 184.5 kg/m3 for 55%
24 FA, e: (Saravanakumar and Dhinakaran, 2013)
25
26 Figure 6. Trend of Carbonation depth at different percentages of recycled aggregate with
27 pozzolanic materials a: (Singh and Singh, 2016b), b: (Limbachiya et al., 2012a), c: (Sim and
28 Park, 2011), d: (Bravo et al., 2015b), e: (Limbachiya et al., 2012b) (SF= silica fume), f:
29 (Faella et al., 2016)
30
31 Figure 7. Trend of chloride ion penetration in recycled aggregate concrete at different
32 percentages of pozzolanic materials a: (Sim and Park, 2011), b: (Kou et al., 2007), c:
33 (Kapoor et al., 2016), d: (Kou et al., 2011), e: (Faella et al., 2016)
34
35 Figure 8. Fibre reinforcement at different percentage of recycled coarse aggregate a: (Dong et
36 al., 2017) Cement=340 kg/m3, b: (Prasad and Kumar, 2007) Cement=314.5 kg/m3, c:
37 (Senaratne et al., 2016) Cement=630 kg/m3, d: (Heeralal et al., 2009), e: (Rabadiya and
38 Vaniya, 2015) Cement= 383 kg/m3)

51
Figure 1

52
Figure 2

Unspecified, 30%

53
Figure 3

54
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 4

60
Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40

30

20
Fly ash Fly Fly Fly Fly Fly Fly Fly Fly Fly
(10%) Ash Ash Ash Ash Ash Ash Ash Ash Ash
(d) (15%) (20%) (20%) (25%) (30%) (30%) (35%) (35%) (55%)
(f) (d) (a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (a) (e)
RA 0% RA 20% RA 25% RA 30% RA 50% RA 75% RA 100%

55
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5

Splitting Tensile Strength (MPa)

2

0
F ly A s h F ly A s h F ly A s h F ly A s h F ly A s h F ly A s h F ly A s h F ly A s h
( 55 % ) ( 60 % ) ( 50 % ) ( 35 % ) ( 30 % ) ( 25 % ) ( 20 % ) ( 10 % )
(d) ( e) ( e) (d) ( c) (b) ( a) ( a)
RA 0% RA 20% RA 25% RA 30% RA 50% RA 75% RA 100%

56
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 6

30

25
Carbonatioin depth (mm)

20

15

10

0
90 days 56 days 14 days 56 days 84 days
Fly Ash (88%) (f) 0% pozzolanic materials (d) Fly Ash (30%) (c) SF (11%) (e) Fly Ash (20%) (b)

RA 0% RA 10% RA 20% RA 25% RA 30% RA 50% RA 60% RA 100%

57
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 7

4000

3500
Chloride Ion penetration (Coulombs)

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
21 56 21 56 28 90 28 90 56 120 56 120 28 90 28 90 90 365
days days days days days days days daysdays days days days days days days days days days
Fly Fly Fly Fly FA(2 FA(2 SF GGB Fly
Ash Ash Ash Ash 0%) 0%) (10 FS Ash
(15 (30 (25 (35 + SF + %) d (60 (88
%) a %) a %) b %) b (10 MK %) d %) e
%) c (10
%) c

RA 0% RA 20% RA 30% RA 50% RA 60% RA 100%

58
 Figure 8

60

50
Compressive Strength (MPa)

40

30

20

10

0
(0.005%) (0.025%) (2%) Glass fiber (b) (0.3%)
Glass Fiber (e) Glass fiber (e) Basalt Fibre (a) Steel fiber (c)

RA 0% RA 30% RA 50% RA 100%

59