Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Review

Sustainability evaluation of concretes with mixed recycled aggregate

based on holistic approach: Technical, economic and environmental
analysis
Isabel Martínez-Lage a,⇑, Pablo Vázquez-Burgo a, Mirian Velay-Lizancos b
a
Grupo de Construcción, Centro de Innovación Tecnológica en Edificación e Ingeniería Civil (CITEEC), E.T.S. Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos. Universidade da Coruña,
Campus de Elviña, s/n, 15071 A Coruña, Spain
b
Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This research combines technical, economic and environmental analysis of the use of recycled aggregates
Received 2 October 2019 from construction and demolition wastes in concrete production. Firstly, an experimental campaign to
Revised 8 December 2019 evaluate the effect of recycled aggregate on mechanical properties was developed. The mixture designs
Accepted 29 December 2019
studied were: a reference concrete (without recycled aggregate), two concretes with 20% and 100%
replacement of coarse natural aggregate by recycled concrete aggregate; and three concretes with 20,
50 and 100% replacement of coarse natural aggregate by mixed recycled aggregate. To analyze their tech-
Keywords:
nical feasibility, these concretes were made in the laboratory and in a concrete plant. The economic via-
Recycled aggregate
Mechanical properties
bility was also studied indicating the additional costs incurred due to the utilization of recycled aggregate
Sustainable construction in different economic scenarios. Finally, the differences in environmental impacts were analyzed for each
Economic viability concrete. For this purpose, energy consumption, global warming, eutrophication, acidification, photo-
Environmental impact chemical ozone creation, waste generation, and abiotic depletion were accounted. 20% replacement of
recycled concrete aggregates does not cause practically variations in the cost or the environmental loads,
only a reduction of waste generation and abiotic depletion of 8% and 10.6% respectively. In contrast, the
use of 100% replacement by mixed aggregates may increase the global warming indicator an 11% when
double transport distance is assumed. But in exchange, the waste generation decreases 35% and the abi-
otic depletion 50%. Aggregate transport distance is a key factor that will determine the cost, energy con-
sumption, and global warming of the mixed recycled aggregate.
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. Materials and methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1. Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2. Concrete mixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Results and discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1. Technical viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2. Economic viability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3. Environmental assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Appendix A. Supplementary material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: isabel.martinez@udc.es (I. Martínez-Lage).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.044
0956-053X/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
10 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19
1. Introduction
The construction and demolition waste (CDW) represents an
important percentage of the total wastes generated. A good example
to illustrate is the data from the ‘‘Advancing Sustainable Materials
Management: 2015 Fact Sheet” by U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA): In 2015 over 500 million tons of construction and
demolition debris were generated in United States, which repre-
sents twice the total municipal solid waste generated in the same
period of time (EPA, 2015). Sustainable Materials Management
(SMM) is currently promoted by many agencies and countries
and, since the CDW is an important part of the total waste, sustain-
able CDW management is one of the keys to achieve an SMM. One
example of normative towards a more sustainable waste manage-
ment and SMM is the Directive 2008/98/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council on waste (2008), it indicates that
the first objective of any waste policy should be to minimize the
negative effects of the generation and management of waste on
human health and the environment. It also indicates that the Mem-
ber States shall take the necessary measures designed to achieve by
2020 the preparation for re-use, recycling, and other material recov-
ery, including backfilling operations that use waste as a substitute of
other materials, of non-hazardous construction and demolition
waste, shall be increased to a minimum of 70% by weight. EPA also
identifies certain CDW as potential options to replace natural mate-
rials in new building constructions, avoiding mining and processing
of natural materials (EPA, 2019). The use of recycled aggregate from
CDW as partial or total substitution of natural aggregate in concrete
production is an example of a potential application to increase the
sustainability of our construction materials and to achieve the goals
of the Directive 2008/98/EC and EPA.
Recycled aggregate produced from CDW recycling plants can be
classified into two groups (Alaejos Gutiérrez, 2008): Recycled con-
crete aggregates (aggregates from the waste concrete crushing),
and mixed recycled aggregates (aggregates from recycling ceramic
and concrete waste). The production output of mixed recycled
aggregates (MRA) is significantly greater than the production output
of recycled concrete aggregates (RCA) according to GEAR (2012). For
example, 70% of the aggregates obtained from recycling plants in
Spain consist of MRA, and only 30% consist of RCA (GEAR, 2012).
But, on the other hand, the negative effect of recycled aggre-
gates on the mechanical properties of concrete is higher when
using MRA than when using RCA (Pacheco-Torgal et al., 2013.
Replacing 50% of natural aggregate by MRA produces a decrease
in compressive strength between a 7% and 20% according to previ-
ous literature (Rodríguez-Robles et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2011;
Martínez-Lage et al., 2012) whereas 100% MRA replacement pro-
duces a decrease in compressive strength between 10% and 45%
(Chen et al. 2003, Debieb and Kenai, 2008, Martínez-Lage et al.,
2012 y López-Uceda et al., 2016). However, the reduction of com-
pressive strength also depends on the quality of recycled aggregate
and the additives added (Wang et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2018).
As suggested by the majority of researchers, the main problem
found when using MRA is its high absorption. Recycled aggregates
have a much higher absorption than natural coarse aggregates. In
the case of MRA, the absorption is even much higher than the
absorption of RCA. For that reason, obtaining the effective ratio
water/cement, i.e., the total amount of water which reacts with
cement divided by the amount of cement is not trivial. Since the
absorption is very high, the approach of adding the water absorption
to correct the total amount of water could result into an increase of
the total effective water/cement ratio if aggregates do not have
enough time to absorb all theoretical water absorption before this
water starts to react with cement. Some researchers consider suit-
able using a pre-saturation method of the recycled aggregates
before using in concrete production to prevent recycled aggregates
from absorbing more water during mixing (Sánchez de Juan, 2010;
Cabral et al, 2010; Correia et al, 2006; García-González et al, 2014;
González-Corominas and Etxeberría, 2014). Khalaf (2006) sub-
merges aggregate in a bucket of water for a period of 30 min. After
submersion, aggregate was towel-dried to remove any excess water
on the surface of the material to get the aggregate in a saturated-
surface dried condition before mixing. However, these methods of
aggregate preparation are not feasible on an industrial scale.
To simplify the process for possible industrial applications many
authors consider that rather than introducing the aggregate in a
saturated-surface dried condition, it is easier and cheaper to add
the amount of water in the mixer corresponding to the theoretically
absorbed water by recycled aggregates. There is no consensus
regarding the amount of additional water that should be introduced
into the mixer, but most authors decided to assume that the recy-
cled aggregate will absorb water until achieving a total moisture
between 70% and 100% of the water absorption. Some authors
defended that during the mixing process, recycled aggregate will
not have enough time to absorb their total water absorption due
to their very high absorption (in some cases higher than 7%). Based
on that, they just took into account a percentage of the water
absorption to calculate the amount of water that needs to be com-
pensated due to the initial moisture condition of the aggregates.
For example, Martínez-Lage et al. (2012) chooses to introduce
the total amount of water that can absorb recycled aggregates
(adding the 100% of the water absorption) and even with this
approach they observed that the consistency decreases when the
replacing percentage of natural aggregates by recycled aggregates
is increased. Mas and Cladera (2009) carried out water absorption
tests at 10, 20 and 30 min making sure that most of the water was
absorbed during the first 10 min and that the recycled aggregates
were capable of absorbing 85% of its total absorption capacity dur-
ing the mixing process. However, in a later work (Mas et al, 2012)
extra water added was 80% of the absorption capacity, but they
added more plasticizing admixture when increasing the amount
of recycled aggregate. Others decided that the amount of water
added was 90% of the absorption capacity because it was the water
that recycled aggregates absorbed during the first 5 min (Fonseca
et al., 2011; Medina et al., 2014). Alaejos et al. (2011) decided to
use recycled aggregates and introduce the same amount of water
in all the batches, water/cement ratio effective was calculated
assuming that aggregates absorb 70% of the absorption capacity.
Whereas the use of recycled aggregates to produce new con-
crete will reduce the amount of CDW in landfills and it also will
reduce mining (EPA, 2019), many other factors should be taken
into account to evaluate the sustainability of concrete when using
recycled aggregate from CDW. Changes in transportation due to
the geographical distribution of aggregate plants, policies, effect
of recycled aggregates on the performance of concrete that can
may changes in the mixture design to achieve given specifications
are some examples of factors that should not be overlooked. The
economic viability is also a factor that affects the advance of the
concrete production towards a more sustainable industry.
There are some studies about the effect of some of these factors.
For example, Duran et al. (2006) propose a model for assessing the
economic viability of construction and demolition waste recycling,
analyzing the difference in costs when natural aggregates or recy-
cled aggregates are used. (Ghisellini et al., 2018), conduct an envi-
ronmental analysis and an analysis of economic costs and benefits
for CDW recycling based on previous literature. Rodríguez et al.
(2015) analyze the management of the CDW in the Spanish case,
describing the processes and features of 49 plants. In the guide
GEAR (2012), many of the characteristics of the Spanish CDW
plants are also collected.
 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19
Few studies have been found referred to the differences in the
environmental impact when using recycled aggregate instead of
natural aggregate for the production of concrete. The most signifi-
cant are: a multi-criteria analysis to decide the optimum substitu-
tion following environmental and economic criteria applied to
Serbia (Tösic et al., 2015); a study that shows a possible methodol-
ogy but does not provide specific data in any geographical area
(Wijayasundara et al., 2015); and other that studies a region in
Paris (Fraj and Idir, 2017), concluding that the transport parameter
is very important environmentally. Besides, there are some studies
on life cycle assessment of recycled concrete aggregate in which
the production and transport costs, environmental benefits and
CO2 emissions are analyzed (Mah et al, 2018; Arzúa et al., 2019;
Wijayasundara et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2019).
Technical, economic and environmental factors are linked. For
that reason, a holistic approach to evaluate the sustainability and
viability of recycled materials is needed. Based on that, this
research combines technical, economic and environmental analysis
of the use of both MRA and RCA from CDW in concrete production.
In this research paper, the environmental impact of production
of plain concrete versus production of concrete with two different
recycled aggregates (mixed recycled aggregate and concrete recy-
cled aggregates) is studied. For this purpose, energy consumption,
global warming, eutrophication, acidification, photochemical
ozone creation, waste generation, and abiotic depletion indicators
are accounted. Taking into account that recycled aggregates affects
the compressive strength of concrete, which is one of the key
properties of this material, this study considers that this effect
needs to be accounted for on the environmental impact, by com-
paring concretes with the same compressive strength. It means
that changes in the mixture design to produce recycled concrete
(concrete with total or partial replacement of natural aggregate
by recycled aggregate) as strong as plain concrete are taken into
account in the environmental analysis to do a fair comparison.
To determine the potential modifications needed to achieve the
same compressive strength on concretes with recycled aggregate,
an experimental campaign to evaluate the effect of the recycled
aggregates on several properties of concretes was developed before
analyzing the environmental impact of different concretes. This
experimental campaign included laboratory tests and tests in a
ready-mix concrete plant. It also allowed us to analyze the differ-
ences between them to evaluate potential dispersions and techni-
cal viability on the field. The main objective of these experiments is
to evaluate the potential changes in mixture design needed to
obtain the same compressive strength in concrete without and
with recycled aggregates. Based on that, the comparison between
the environmental impact of a concrete with recycled aggregates
vs the plain concrete, for a given compressive strength, is possible.
Besides, the economic viability is also studied indicating the
changes in costs incurred due to the utilization of recycled aggre-
gate in different economic scenarios. Cost is always a factor in pro-
duction, and it should not be overlooked. To increase the
production of cleaner construction materials, research that combi-
nes technical, environmental and cost analysis is much needed. It
also can contribute to have a better understanding of how the envi-
ronmental policies and waste treatment policies can help towards
a cleaner production. And this is the main objective of this
research, which provides a holistic analysis taking into account
technical, environmental, cost analysis and links.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
The materials used in this research are: (i) Ordinary Portland
cement CEM II/A-M(V-L) 42.5, (ii) quartzite fine natural aggregate
11
0/4 mm [FA], (iii) two fractions of granitic natural aggregates: med-
ium 4/12 mm [NA1] and coarse 12/24 mm [NA2], (iv) two fractions
of recycled concrete aggregates: medium 4/12 mm [RCA1] and
coarse 12/24 mm [RCA2], (v) two fractions of mixed recycled
aggregate: medium 4/12 mm [MRA1] and coarse 12/24 mm
[MRA2], (vi) CHRYSOPLAST 795 plasticizer based on hydro-
carboxylic compounds and CHRYSOFLUID OPT.70 superplasticizer
based on polycarboxylates. The particle size distribution of both
natural and recycled aggregates is shown in the supplementary
material (Fig. S.1).
The recycled aggregates used in this study were obtained from a
construction and demolition waste recycling plant named
RECINOR (Spain). There is no information about the wastes used
to produce these recycled aggregates since these plant process
wastes from different sources. The only information on the source
of the wastes is that the RCA1 and RCA2 are from wastes from con-
crete elements while RMA1 and RMA2 are from a mixed source of
different construction materials, including (but not limited to) con-
crete, bricks, and tiles. The classification of the components was
conducted according to European Standard EN 933-11 (2009).
Recycled aggregates RCA1 and RCA2 are of high quality because
Rc (% concrete and mortar) + Ru (% natural aggregate) is higher
than 97%. Indeed, they are concrete recycled aggregates. For
MRA1 and MRA2, the amount of Rc (% concrete and mortar) + Ru
(% natural aggregate) + Rb (% ceramic) is over 97%, therefore the
mixed recycled aggregates have good quality as it contains very
few contaminants. However, the amount of clay masonry units is
sufficiently large to not classify these aggregates as recycled con-
crete aggregates and have to be classified as mixed recycled
aggregates.
The particle densities and water absorption were obtained using
the European Standard EN 1097-6 (2001). Whereas the natural
aggregate showed an absorption lower than 0.6%, the recycled con-
crete aggregates exhibited a 5.98% (RCA1) and 5.03% (RCA2) and the
mixed recycled aggregates showed a very high absorption (8.79% for
MRA1 and 7.59% for MRA2). The oven-dried particle density for NA1
and NA2 was 2620 and 2600 kg/m3 respectively, and their saturated
surface-dried particle density was 2640 kg/m3 in both cases. In the
case of recycled aggregates, their oven-dried particle densities were
lower than natural aggregates with values of 2290 kg/m3 (RCA1),
2340 kg/m3 (RCA2), 2340 kg/m3 (MRA1) and 2120 kg/m3 (MRA2).
The same trend was observed on saturated surface-dried particle
density with values of 2420 kg/m3 (RCA1), 2450 kg/m3 (RCA2),
2460 kg/m3 (MRA1) and 2280 kg/m3 (MRA2).
2.2. Concrete mixtures
The mixture design of reference concrete of this research (C-0)
is a standard mixture design from a concrete plant (Table 1).
According to the nomenclature of Eurocode 2 (EC-2, 2013), this ref-
erence concrete, is a concrete with strength class C30/37 (compres-
sive characteristic strength of 30 MPa tested in cylindrical
samples), consistency class C2 (concrete slump test between 50
and 90 mm) and for a durability class XA1 (low aggressive chemi-
cal environment). Moreover, 5 additional concretes will be made
using recycled aggregate. Two of them (C-20-C and C-100-C) with
20% and 100% replacement, respectively, of NA1 and NA2 by RCA1
and RCA2 and three of them (C-20-M, C-50-M, and C-100-M) with
20%, 50%, and 100% replacement, respectively, of NA1 and NA2 by
MRA1 and MRA2.
Using the materials and the mixture design provided by the
concrete plant, an initial batch mix of conventional concrete was
made in the laboratory. The laboratory tests showed a characteris-
tic compressive strength of 44 MPa and a slump of 7 cm. The w/c
ratio used in the concrete was 0.50. This is the maximum value
allowed by the EC-2 for the exposure class XA1. Concerning the
12 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19

Table 1
Recipes for concrete mixtures (per m3 of concrete).

Component (kg/m3) C-0 C-20-C C-100-C C-20-M C-50-M C-100-M

Cement 347 340 327 338 332 321
FA 933 934 928 922 907 869
NA1 149 118 0 123 82 0
NA2 774 606 0 596 354 0
RCA1 0 29 146 0 0 0
RCA2 0 152 692 0 0 0
MRA1 0 0 0 31 82 182
MRA2 0 0 0 149 354 645
Water 174 180 208 184 200 226
CHRYSOPLAST 795 3.47 3.40 3.27 3.38 3.32 3.21
CHRYSOFLUID OPT.70 3.47 3.40 4.91 3.38 4.32 5.13

amount of mixing water, to obtain the same effective water/
cement ratio as conventional concrete, the mixing water was
adjusted assuming that both natural and recycled aggregates
absorb 100% of the absorption capacity. To do that, the moisture
condition of the aggregates was calculated by taking a sample for
each aggregate and batch to test the actual moisture content of
the aggregates before mixing. Then the mixing water was adjusted
in order to compensate the excess or need of water of the
aggregates.
With respect to consistency, the literature (Debieb and Kenai,
2008; Martínez-Lage et al, 2012; Bravo et al, 2015; Cachim,
2009; Khalaf, 2006; Agrela et al, 2011; Matias et al., 2013) indicates
that, for the same effective water/cement ratio, the slump value
decreased as the quantity of recycled aggregates increased. To
guarantee the required slump value, two options could be
employed: an increase in the water/cement ratio or an increase
in the amount of additive. The first option involved an additional
reduction in the strength and the durability of the concrete so it
was rejected and the second option was adopted. No changes on
the additive content were needed for concretes C-20-C and
C-20-M to obtain the required consistency. However, for C-100-C,
C-50-M, and C-100-M, it was necessary to increase the amount
of superplasticizer.
Therefore, the mixtures were conceived based on conventional
concrete, with different percentage replacements by weight of
natural aggregate by recycled aggregate. Taking into account the
different densities, the mixture designs were adjusted. Table 1 lists
the amounts each material needed to produce 1 m3 of concrete.
2.3. Methods
To characterize the concrete and confirm the necessary require-
ments, the following tests were performed for each concrete: (i)
slump test according to European Standard EN 12350-2 (2009a),
(ii) compressive strength test of cylindrical specimens with dimen-
sions of 150
300 mm at 7 and 28 days according to European
Standard EN 12390-3 (2009b) using an Ibertest compression
machine for concrete with a maximum load 3000 kN , (iii) secant
modulus of elasticity in compression of cylindrical specimens with
dimensions of 150
300 mm at 28 days according to the European
Standard EN 12390-13 (2013) with 3 cycles of loading and unload-
ing in the elastic range using a MTS System Corporation compres-
sion machine with maximum load 5000 kN and extensometers and
gauges to monitor the displacement, and (iv) depth of penetration
of water under pressure into cylindrical specimens with dimen-
sions of 150
300 mm following the European Standard EN
12390-8 (2009c).
The recycled concrete was also fabricated in a ready mixed con-
crete plant. The material was poured in the feed hopper using a
wheel loader and unloaded to the assigned hopper by a conveyor
belt and the mixer using another conveyor belt. The amount of
each material according to the mixture designs was automatically
obtained; the batch mixes yielded a volume of 2 m3. After the con-
crete was mixed, it was unloaded into a conventional concrete
truck (total of 4 batches per truck). Transportation to the site
required 15–20 min. The concrete was placed by direct chute dis-
charge from the truck mixer. Two trucks were checked for each
mixture proportion. The same tests that were previously con-
ducted in the laboratory were performed: slump test, compressive
strength test at 7 and 28 days, secant modulus of elasticity in com-
pression and depth of penetration of water under pressure tests.
For every studied concrete, three cylinder samples were tested at
each testing age and for each of the listed properties. Then, the
average of the three samples was calculated.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Technical viability
Table 2 shows the results of the average compressive strength
test at 7 and 28 days, the average modulus of elasticity test at
28 days, concrete slump test, characteristic compressive strength
and maximum depth of penetration of water under pressure test
of both, concrete produced in the lab and concrete produced in
the plant.
According to Table 2, for concretes made in the laboratory, it
was observed that all concretes have the required consistency;
the characteristic compressive strength of concretes exceed the
strength required by the project (30 MPa); the maximum depth
of the water penetration under pressure of concretes is less than
the allowable value for the exposure class Qa (50 mm). Class Qa
exposure is defined in the EHE-08 (EHE, 2008) as aggressive chem-
ical exposure, low level of chemical attack for concrete elements
placed in environments with a content of chemical substances that
can alter the concrete at low speed. An example of this low level of
chemical attack is the exposure of concrete to water with a PH
between 6.5 and 5.5. The loss of compressive strength is linear
with the substitution percentage, with a loss of 15% for concrete
C-100-C and a loss of 25% for concrete C-100-M, which corrobo-
rates the results of previous studies (Debieb and Kenai, 2008;
Sánchez de Juan, 2010; Martínez-Lage et al, 2012; Bravo et al.,
2015); the ratio compressive strength at 7 days to compressive
strength at 28 days for all concretes is in the range between 0.8
and 0.9, regardless the substitution percentage; the reduction in
the elastic modulus is also linear with respect to the substitution
percentage. For 100% substitution, the loss is 7% when using RCA
and 22% for MRA, which is a slightly smaller value than the value
obtained in other studies (Chen et al, 2003; Sánchez de Juan,
2010; Martínez-Lage et al, 2012; Bravo et al., 2015). The dispersion
in the compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity is rela-
tively small, it is lower than 9% in all cases and it is not correlated
 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19 13

Table 2
Properties of concretes (in average).

Property C-0 C-20-C C-100-C C-20-M C-50-M C-100-M

Laboratory
Compressive strength 7 days (MPa) 43.2 41.0 40.9 41.3 39.5 36.6
Compressive strength 28 days (MPa) 52.0 50.8 45.1 50.0 45.9 41.0
Variation of compressive strength (%) 2.3 13.6 4.4 12.2 24.0
Secant modulus of elasticity (MPa) 26,250 26,000 24,250 25,000 23,250 20,500
Variation of modulus of elasticity (%) 1.0 7.6 4.8 11.4 21.9
Abrams0 slump (mm) 70 50 70 60 70 60
Characteristic compressive strength (MPa) 44 43 37 42 38 33
Maximum depth of penetration of water under pressure (mm) 17 19 19 16 14
Ready mix plant
Compressive strength 7 days (MPa) 38.8 36.8 35.4 37.4 34.5 33.1
Compressive strength 28 days (MPa) 46.8 44.6 42.5 42.0 39.9 37.9
Variation of compressive strength (%) 4.7 9.6 11.3 16.4 22.3
Secant modulus of elasticity (MPa) 25,000 24,750 22,500 24,875 23,750 23,500
Variation of modulus of elasticity (%) 1.0 10.0 0.5 5.0 6.0
Abrams0 slump (mm) 100 100 160 105 95 100
Characteristic compressive strength (MPa) 39 37 35 34 32 30
Maximum depth of penetration of water under pressure (mm) 30 25 30 27 30

with the replacement ratio and regarding the modulus of elasticity,
note that the empirical formula in the guidelines (EC-2, 2013;
Model Code, 2010) provides much higher values than the values
obtained in the tests; thus, the values should be reduced using a
coefficient that is similar to the coefficient indicated for the differ-
ent natural aggregates.
And for concretes made in ready mix plant, it was observed
that the compressive strength of concretes mixed in the plant is
lower than the compressive strength of the same concretes mixed
in the lab. This fact is observed for all concrete mixtures studied.
The variations comparing the results obtained in the plant and
lab are between 7% and 16%. The amount of materials used and
the storage system for aggregates in the laboratory are very differ-
ent from those used in the concrete plant. These differences affect
the homogeneity of the moisture and the accuracy of the measures
of the average aggregate moisture. In the laboratory, aggregates
are stored in closed bags of 20 kg–30 kg under homogeneous
moisture conditions. In the concrete plant, aggregates are stored
in stockpiles. The moisture was measured in both cases using
the same procedure. However, it is clear that in the plant, the
homogeneity of the moisture in the aggregates will not be compa-
rable with the homogeneity of the moisture of the aggregates
stored in bags. This difference may change the effective w/c ratio
in the concrete plants, and it may be the source of the differences
in compressive strength observed on samples made in the con-
crete plant in comparison with the samples made in the labora-
tory. No trend according to type or substitution percentage of
recycled aggregate was found in the variation of these values. In
any case, characteristic strength for all concretes is higher than
the required one.
Also, it was observed that the dispersion in the compressive
strength and the modulus of elasticity is higher in plant than in
the laboratory and it is not correlated with the replacement ratio
or the type of aggregate just like in the laboratory; the secant mod-
ulus of elasticity in compression obtained for the different con-
cretes fabricated in the plant were similar to the modulus
obtained for the concrete fabricated in the laboratory; the penetra-
tion depth of water under pressure for the concrete fabricated in
the plant is greater than the penetration depth of the concrete fab-
ricated in the laboratory but remains lower than the allowable
penetration depth for exposure class Qa (maximum of 50 mm
and average of 30 mm) and the values obtained from the concrete
slump test in the plant are higher than the values obtained in the
laboratory but they continue to fulfill the required class (permissi-
ble tolerance ± 20 mm), except concrete C-100-C, in which less
additive should be added.
3.2. Economic viability
Having examined the technical feasibility of using recycled
aggregates, RCA and MRA, in plain concrete to analyze the eco-
nomic viability is considered to be appropriate because if the use
of these aggregates is not economically viable, their use in place-
ment in situ will be smaller unless there is a regulation requiring
their use. There are studies published in which economic instru-
ments were analyzed to promote friendly construction practices
among contractors (Yuan et al., 2011). In Spain, construction com-
panies believe that the current legal framework is not sufficiently
adapted to companies of all sizes, it represents an extra cost and
is difficult to apply, as they would support a combined system of
bonuses and penalties (Gangolells et al., 2014).
According to Duran et al. (2006), some factors must be studied
to analyze economic feasibility of using recycled aggregates: (1)
Decision of where to dispose of the construction and demolition
waste: recycling center or landfill site, (2) Decision of which aggre-
gate to use: natural o recycled aggregates, (3) Imposition of taxes:
for landfilling and for the usage of raw materials and (4) Use of
subsidies on the use of a recycling center.
Of the four above factors, it is only going to discuss the second
one because the other three depend on the policies on recycling to
adopt each of the countries.
Duran et al. (2006) suggest that to encourage the use of recycled
aggregates instead of natural aggregates should be met:
Q p þ T q > Eru þ RC p þ T ru
where Qp is the price per ton of newly quarried product at quarry
gate; Tq the cost per ton of transport from quarry to site; Eru any
extra costs per ton created by using the recycled product; RCp the
price per ton of recycled product at the recycling center and Tru
the cost per ton of transport from recycling center to site. Also, they
consider Eru is not relevant if recycled aggregates have the same
characteristics as primary aggregates.
The authors of this paper consider Eru is relevant as the charac-
teristics of recycled aggregates are generally not the same as those
of natural aggregates and therefore the properties of the recycled
concrete are not the same that those of conventional concrete.
Thus, to obtain the same compressive strength concretes with
recycled aggregates must contain more cement than conventional
concretes and to achieve the same consistency more additive needs
to be added.
To have a more general economic study, rather than considering
the amount of cement included in Table 1, the cement needed to
14 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19
have the same compressive strength than the reference concrete
will be considered. Using the La Peña dosage method, that relates
the relationship water/cement with the compressive strength,
the quantities to be considered by m3 of concrete are 347, 365,
348, 365 and 385 kg for concretes C-20-C, C-100-C, C-20-M, C-
50-M, and C-100-M, respectively. This means than an increase of
the cement content (by weight) for the same compressive strength
would be 0% for C-20-C, 5.2% for C-100-C, 0.3% for C-20-M, 5.3% for
C-50-M and 11.1% for C-100-M.
It was necessary to increase the amount of additive for C-50-C,
C-50-M, and C-100-M to obtain the same slump. The increase
needed was 18% (by the weigh) for C-50-C, 10% for C-50-M, and
20% for C-100-M.
As for the difference in price per ton of recycled aggregate and
natural aggregate, it certainly depends largely on the area in which
the work settles, as the cost of natural aggregate varies greatly
from one area to another. In some areas, the price of natural aggre-
gates is approximately equal to the price of recycled aggregates,
but normally (at least in Spain) recycled aggregates are cheaper.
For example, in Spain, the cost of a tone of natural aggregate is
between 5€ and 7.5 €. For the same country, the cost of a tone of
recycled concrete aggregate is between 3€ and 6 € while the cost
for recycled mixed aggregate is the range of 2–5 €/ton.
The last parameter to be analyzed is transportation. It is consid-
ered that the cost per ton of transport is the same for both types of
aggregates but instead, the amount of kilometers depends on the
location of the quarry and the recycling center (GEAR, 2012;
Rodríguez et al, 2015; Zhang et al., 2019). In the case that the
aggregate is collected, the distance between the recycling plant
and the site is more than double the distance between the quarry
and the site, but probably in other cases, this extra cost will not be
so large.
Considering that, in other areas, the price of the recycled aggre-
gates or the distance to the recycling plant could be similar to the
natural aggregates, the following scenarios were considered.
Option 1: Considering changes due to the mix composition,
mainly the amount of cement and additive. No difference in the
transport distance for natural and recycled aggregate.
Option 2: Considering changes due to the mix composition and
taking into account the price difference between natural and recy-
cled aggregates.
Option 3: Considering changes due to the mix composition and
the transport differences between natural and recycled aggregates.
Option 4: Considering changes due to the mix composition, the
price difference, and the transport difference.
Option 5: Considering changes due to the mix composition, in
case that the recycled aggregates are produced with a mobile
crusher located in the waste generation point and using a mobile
concrete plant in the same location (transport distance of recycled
aggregates equal to zero).
Option 6: Considering changes due to the mix composition and
price difference of different type of aggregates, in case that the
recycled aggregates are produced with a mobile crusher located
in the waste generation point and using a mobile concrete plant
in the same location (transport distance of recycled aggregates
equal to zero).
Options 5 and 6 are the options that correspond to the most
advantageous case scenario for using recycled aggregate in terms
of economic cost and environmental impact. In these two options,
the transport distance of recycled aggregate is zero, since these
options consider the possibility of having the source of the waste
of demolitions in the same location of the concrete plant and
crusher (for example, using mobile crushers and mobile plants).
For that reason, options 5 and 6 are just applicable for a very speci-
fic case scenario, and options from 1 to 4 are more general and
applicable for the general case of using recycled aggregates in a
ready-mix concrete plant that acquires the aggregates from aggre-
gate producers.
If we consider the fact that cement represents 50% of the con-
crete cost, additive around 10%, coarse aggregates a 7% and their
transport a 5%, it can be concluded that replacing 20% of NA by
RCA or MRA affects the cost less than 1% to obtain a concrete with
the same compressing strength in any of the options. For options 1
and 2, the additional cost of using 100% of recycled concrete aggre-
gate will be lower than 4%. The percentage of additional cost of
using 50% of mixed recycled aggregate is lower than 2%, and for
C-100-M will be lower than 7%. For option 3, the additional cost
will be lower than 9%, 6% and 12% for C-100-C, C-50-M, and C-
100-M, respectively. Finally, for option 4, the additional cost will
be lower than 7%, 4.5% and 9% for C-100-C, C-50-M, and C-100-
M, respectively.
In Table 3, a particular case is included with real data from
Spain. It can be observed that the additional cost for option 4 with
concretes C-20-C and C-20-M is lower than 1%, for concrete C-100-
C is 6.8%, for C-50-M is 4.1% and for C-100-M is 8.3%.
It follows from the above that the use of recycled aggregates
instead of using natural aggregates may represent an increase in
the cost and therefore the government should take the necessary
measures to solve this problem.
3.3. Environmental assessment
The objective of this section is to compare the environmental
impact on the utilization of the 6 concretes studied. According to
the International Standard ISO 14044 and the European EN ISO
14044 (2006) of Environmental Management, one of the tech-
niques to analyze the environmental impact of the manufactured
products is through the analysis of the life cycle. The life cycle of
a concrete element is indicated in Fig. 1.
To perform the life cycle analysis, the following assumptions
and conditions have been adopted. First of all, for all the concretes,
the volume of concrete transported and the construction phases,
service and demolition of the element is the same. Then, they will
not be necessary to be considered to make a comparison. Secondly,
the comparison of the environmental impact and cost of the differ-
ent concretes is made based on one cubic meter of concrete with
the same characteristic compressive strength; the functional unit
of this analysis is defined as one cubic meter of concrete with a
given compressive strength equal to the compressive strength of
reference concrete. Therefore, in function of the effect of recycled
aggregates on the compressive strength of concrete, adjustments
on the cement content are assumed. The main goal in this section
is comparing the effect of different percentages of RCA and RMA on
the environmental impact of concretes. The differences in the addi-
tive content are very small between different studied recipes,
therefore in this analysis, it was assumed that the environmental
impact of the additives will be negligible in comparison to the
effect of RCA or RMA on the environmental impact of studied con-
cretes. Therefore, it is assumed that the small variations on the
additive content between the studied recipes will not change the
trend of the overall effect of the recycled aggregates on the envi-
ronmental impact of the studied concretes. Finally, based on that,
it was assumed that the emissions due to the water and the addi-
tives are negligible compared with cement, aggregates production
and transport, and concrete manufacturing.
The processes required for the production of recycled concrete
aggregates (RCA) are transported to the recycling plant, visual
inspection, screening, crushing, magnetic separation, flotation
separation, and washing. For the production of mixed recycled
aggregates (MRA), in addition to the previous processes, a pre-
separation must be done (separation of voluminous materials)
and triage (manual triage).
 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19 15

Table 3
Total costs and additional costs.

C-0 C-20-C C-100-C C-20-M C-50-M C-100-M

Cement 41.67 41.67 43.81 41.78 43.86 46.26
FA 11.66 11.68 11.60 11.53 11.34 10.86
NA 11.07 8.69 8.62 5.23
NCA Option 1 2.17 10.06
NCA Option 2 1.81 8.38
NCA Option 3 3.25 15.09
NCA Option 4 2.89 13.41
NCA Option 5 1.08 5.03
NCA Option 6 0.72 3.35
MRA Option 1 2.16 5.23 9.92
MRA Option 2 1.71 4.14 7.86
MRA Option 3 3.23 7.85 14.89
MRA Option 4 2.78 6.76 12.82
MRA Option 5 1.08 2.62 4.96
MRA Option 6 0.63 1.53 2.89
Additive and water 7.74 7.59 9.13 7.55 8.53 9.31
Concrete production 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00
Total cost (€)
Option 1 86.14 85.80 88.60 85.64 88.18 90.36
Option 2 86.14 85.44 86.93 85.19 87.10 88.29
Option 3 86.14 86.88 93.63 86.72 90.80 95.32
Option 4 86.14 86.52 91.96 86.27 89.71 93.25
Option 5 86.14 84.71 83.57 84.56 85.57 85.40
Option 6 86.14 84.35 81.90 84.11 84.48 83.33
Additional cost (%)
Option 1 – 2.9 – 2.4 4.9
Option 2 – 0.9 – 1.1 2.5
Option 3 0.9 8.7 0.7 5.4 10.7
Option 4 0.4 6.8 0.1 4.1 8.3
Option 5 – – – – –
Option 6 – – – – –

Fig. 1. Life cycle inventory diagram of concrete element/specimen/structure.

Emissions to air and energy consumption for cement produc-
tion, crushed stone production, recycled concrete aggregates pro-
duction, concrete production and transport in heavy trucks were
taken from (Tösic et al., 2015). For mixed recycled aggregates, pre-
vious values were increased with the emissions and consumption
from the separation of voluminous materials and manual triage.
With the previous data, the values corresponding to the differ-
ent impact categories were calculated for each of the processes
(IHOBE, 2009; Catalana, 2011; Española, 2016; Antón Vallejo,
2004) (see Table 4): energy consumption (MJ), global warming (g
CO2 eq.), eutrophication (g PO3
4 eq.), acidification (g SO2 eq.), pho-
tochemical ozone creation (g C2H4 eq.), waste generation, abiotic
depletion (mineral resource depletion).
Within the six options proposed for the economic viability, in
this case, we only have three different options because the cost
of the aggregate does not influence the environmental impact.
If the values in Table 4 are multiplied by the necessary quanti-
ties to produce a cubic meter of concrete and by the kilometers in
the case of transport, the values for each impact category are
obtained for the fabrication of a cubic meter of each concrete
(Table 5). Fig. 2 shows in an illustrative way the results of the life
cycle analysis of concrete with different percentages of MRA in
comparison to the reference concrete (without recycled aggre-
gates) if scenario of option 4 is assumed. The results of each impact
indicator for concretes with MRA were divided by the correspond-
ing results for the reference concrete (C-0) to normalize the data.
16 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19

Table 4
Environmental impact categories for process.

Process Energy Global Eutrophication Acidification Photochemical Waste Abiotic

consumption warming ozone creation generation depletion
(MJ) (g CO2 eq) (g PO-3
4 eq) (g SO2 eq) (g C2H4 eq) (kg) (kg)
Cement production (per kg) 3.9854 881.987 0.2965 5.584 0.0579
Cement transport 1.5409 114.286 0.1288 1.009 0.1045
(per kmkg)
FA production 0.0219 2.108 0.0030 0.021 0.0005 1
(per kg)
FA transport 1.5409 114.286 0.1288 1.009 0.1045
(per kmkg)
NA production 0.0219 2.108 0.0030 0.021 0.0005 1
(per kg)
NA transport 1.5409 114.286 0.1288 1.009 0.1045
(per kmkg)
RCA production 0.0490 4.036 0.0051 0.038 0.0025 1
(per kg)
RCA transport 1.5409 114.286 0.1288 1.009 0.1045
(per kmkg)
MRA production 0.0518 4.262 0.0054 0.040 0.0027 1
(per kg)
MRA transport 1.5409 114.286 0.1288 1.009 0.1045
(per kmkg)
Concrete production (per m3) 20.0689 6529.676 2.4428 7.479 0.3509 Density

Table 5
Environmental impact categories per m3 of concrete.

Concrete Energy consumption Global warming Eutrophication Acidification Photochemical ozone creation Waste generation Abiotic depletion
(MJ) (kg CO2 eq) (kg PO3
4 eq) (kg SO2 eq) (kg C2H4 eq) (kg) (kg)
Option 1 or 2
C-0 1517.78 322.125 0.1171 2.034 0.0264 2383 1855
C-20-C 1521.86 322.405 0.1174 2.036 0.0267 2193 1659
C-100-C 1607.76 339.148 0.1237 2.144 0.0289 1509 928
C-20-M 1525.22 323.215 0.1176 2.041 0.0267 2179 1641
C-50-M 1600.38 338.896 0.1232 2.141 0.0282 1916 1343
C-100-M 1688.27 357.070 0.1297 2.257 0.0301 1489 869
Option 3 or 4
C-0 1517.78 322.125 0.1171 2.034 0.0264 2383 1855
C-20-C 1526.49 322.613 0.1179 2.038 0.0271 2193 1659
C-100-C 1633.60 341.065 0.1259 2.161 0.0307 1509 928
C-20-M 1530.75 323.626 0.1181 2.045 0.0271 2179 1641
C-50-M 1613.81 339.892 0.1243 2.150 0.0292 1916 1343
C-100-M 1713.76 358.960 0.1318 2.274 0.0318 1489 869
Option 5 or 6
C-0 1517.78 322.125 0.1171 2.034 0.0264 2383 1855
C-20-C 1516.29 321.992 0.1169 2.032 0.0263 2193 1659
C-100-C 1581.92 337.232 0.1216 2.127 0.0272 1509 928
C-20-M 1519.68 322.805 0.1172 2.037 0.0264 2179 1641
C-50-M 1586.94 337.900 0.1221 2.132 0.0273 1916 1343
C-100-M 1662.79 355.180 0.1275 2.241 0.0284 1489 869

Fig. 2. Life cycle results for concretes MRA normalized by the results of reference
concrete assuming double transport distance for MRA.
Fig. 2 shows that by using concrete with MRA the abiotic depletion
and the waste generation will be lower than using concrete with
natural aggregate. However, other impact categories will be nega-
tively affected, but not in a high degree.
Table 6 shows the variations of each environmental indicator
taking as reference the conventional concrete without recycled
aggregates. Note that the increase of the energy consumption, glo-
bal warming, eutrophication, and acidification, for C-20-C and C-
20-M is lower than 1% in either of the two options. For the same
indicators, the variation is between 5% and 6% for C-100-C and C-
50-M if the transport distance is the same, and up to 2% more if
the distance is doubled; for C-100-M between 10.5 and 11.5% for
the same transport distance and up to 2% more if the distance is
doubled.
The increase in the photochemical ozone creation is more sig-
nificant, although not so much for C-20-C and C-20-M which is
higher than the conventional concrete but remains lower than
3%. However, for the other 3 concretes is more important: for C-
 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19 17

Table 6
Variation of the impact indicators due to the use of recycled aggregates taking as reference the conventional concrete (no recycled aggregates).

Concrete Energy consumption Global warming Eutrophication Acidification Photochemical ozone creation Waste generation Abiotic depletion
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Option 1 or 2
C-20-C 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.2 8.0 10.6
C-100-C 5.9 5.3 5.6 5.4 9.6 36.7 50.0
C-20-M 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.3 8.5 11.5
C-50-M 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.3 7.0 19.6 27.6
C-100-M 11.2 10.8 10.7 11.0 14.0 37.5 53.1
Option 3 or 4
C-20-C 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.3 2.6 8.0 10.6
C-100-C 7.6 5.9 7.5 6.3 16.2 36.7 50.0
C-20-M 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.5 2.8 8.5 11.5
C-50-M 6.3 5.5 6.1 5.7 10.5 19.6 27.6
C-100-M 12.9 11.4 12.5 11.8 20.5 37.5 53.1
Option 5 or 6
C-20-C 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 8.0 10.6
C-100-C 4.2 4.7 3.8 4.6 3.0 36.7 50.0
C-20-M 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 8.5 11.5
C-50-M 4.6 4.9 4.2 4.9 3.6 19.6 27.6
C-100-M 9.6 10.3 8.9 10.2 7.4 37.5 53.1

50-M, there is an increase of 7% for the same transport distance
and increases up to 10.5% when the distance is doubled; for C-
100-C is close to 10% for the same distance and a bit more than
16% for the other option; and for C-100-M, the increase is 14%
for the same distance and 20.5% if the distance is doubled.
On the contrary, as expected, the waste generation and the abi-
otic depletion decrease, for the case of C-20-C and C-20-M around
8% and 11%, respectively; for C-50-M a 20% and 27%; and for C-
100-C and C-100-M more than 35% and 50%, respectively.
4. Conclusions
The compressive strength of the concrete with mixed recycled
aggregates produced in the plant is lower than the compressive
strength of the same concrete mixed in the laboratory, with max-
imum variations observed for concretes with MRA equal to 16%,
and 12.2% in concretes with RCA. However, the variations
between ready-mix concrete plant results and laboratory results
do not increase with the percentage of substitution of recycled
aggregates. In fact, concretes with 100% replacement of recycled
aggregates (MRA or RCA) showed less variation between their
results in laboratory and plant than concretes with partial
replacements.
Note that, even using the same concrete recipes and the same
procedure to calculate the moisture of the aggregates, there are
differences between the results in the laboratory and concrete
plant. Several factors can be controlled easily in the laboratory
but not in the concrete plant. Potential factors that may increase
the difference between the laboratory results and the results from
the concrete plant are: (i) Difficulty to determine with good accu-
racy the moisture content of the aggregates in the concrete plant
since the homogeneity of the moisture in the aggregates of a
given batch is not warranted due to two main reasons: aggregate
stored in stockpiles and huge amount of aggregates used in each
batch. (ii) Total amount of material mixed in each batch and the
mixer machine itself. (iii) In the case of concretes with a high per-
centage of both natural and recycled aggregate, the differences
between the concrete plant and the laboratory results are even
higher; recycled and natural aggregates have very different
absorptions and they may have different initial moisture condi-
tions. The non-homogeneous moisture content of the aggregates
stored in the plant may affect in different degree the accuracy
on the measurements of the average moisture in the plant. It
would also affect the w/c ratio and differences on the paste/ag-
gregate ratio. It may lead to important changes in the consistency
of concretes. Besides, the potential non-homogeneous moisture of
the different aggregates stored in the plant may cause variations
on the real percentages of natural and recycled aggregates on
concretes produced in the concrete plant. These can be some rea-
sons why the mixtures that combine a high percentage of recy-
cled aggregate (50%) and a high percentage of natural aggregate
(50%) showed greater differences between laboratory and plant
samples than concretes that contain natural aggregate only or
recycled aggregate only.
These issues can be avoided in the laboratory since with a small
amount of materials it is very easy to have a homogeneous mois-
ture in the aggregates. But in a real scale of concrete production,
they may be a problem.
Nevertheless, it is also important to note that the differences
between the compressive strength of laboratory samples and con-
crete plant samples is lower than 20% (maximum of 16% in con-
cretes with MRA and 12.2% with RCA). Taking into account that,
even the compressive strength of two samples from the same
batch of the same concrete, can have a dispersion of 13%, without
rejecting the concrete batch (EHE-08, Art. 36.3.2), the effect of the
recycled aggregates on the compressive strength of concrete (equal
to 13% for two samples and 20% of dispersion between 3 samples)
could be considered not very high.
Compressive strength decreases linearly with increasing substi-
tution percentage of natural aggregates by mixed recycled aggre-
gates, both for laboratory and plant concretes. It is recommended
to adopt a value of the loss of compressive strength for a 100%
MRA substitution between 15 and 20%. The secant modulus of elas-
ticity for concrete made with recycled aggregates mixed decreases
linearly with increasing substitution percentage of natural aggre-
gates by mixed recycled aggregates. In the studied cases, the loss
modulus for concrete with 100% MRA substitution is between 16
and 22%.
It was observed that the use of recycled aggregates decreases
the concrete compressive strength (as it was also stated in previ-
ous literature). Therefore, to achieve the same compressive
strength, concrete with recycled aggregate would require more
cement per cubic meter of concrete, and/or the use of admixtures,
for example, water reducers. This fact will affect the environmental
and economic analysis.
The differences in cost caused by using recycled aggregates
instead of natural aggregates depends on many factors, and one
of the key factors is the location. It has been estimated for the
specific case of Galicia (Spain). In this case, it may represent an
increase of 11% for a 100% replacement with mixed recycled aggre-
18 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19
gates. One important factor that affects the cost is the low number
of recycling plants and the poor geographical distribution of them,
which increases the transport cost when recycled aggregate is
used.
Based on our experimental campaign, if the negative effect of
recycled aggregates on compressive strength wants to be compen-
sated by increasing the amount of cement, some indicators of envi-
ronmental impact will show that the sustainability of using
recycled aggregate could be compromised in some aspects, even
when same transport distance for natural and recycled aggregate
is assumed:
& The replacement of 100% of coarse natural aggregate by coarse
recycled concrete aggregate implies an increase lower than 6%
for energy consumption, global warming, eutrophication and
acidification and lower than 10% for photochemical ozone cre-
ation. On the other hand, this can save up more than 35% of
waste generation and 50% of abiotic depletion.
& In the case of mixed recycled aggregates, the potential increase
will be around 11% for energy consumption, global warming,
eutrophication and acidification; and 14% for photochemical
ozone creation. However, it will save more than 35% of waste
generation and 50% of abiotic depletion.
& The manufacture of concrete with a 20% replacement of coarse
aggregate by recycled aggregates may imply an insignificant
increase (<1%) of energy consumption, global warming,
eutrophication and acidification, a small increase (<3%) of pho-
tochemical ozone creation and a significant decrease of waste
generation (>8%) and abiotic depletion (10%).
This study shows that even though the substitution of natural
aggregates by recycled aggregates is a technically feasible option
to improve the concrete sustainability in terms of natural depletion
and reduction of waste generation, a deep analysis of the environ-
mental impact is needed before claiming an improvement of sus-
tainability of our concrete production. Factors such as the
distance between the concrete plant and the recycling plant
(changing the transport distance and, therefore the energy con-
sumption) or some approaches to compensate the negative effect
of recycled aggregate on concrete mechanical properties (for
example, increasing the cement content) could reduce the sustain-
ability of using recycled aggregates. These facts should be taken
into account.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.12.044.
References
Agrela, F., Sánchez De Juan, M., Ayuso, J., Geraldes, V.L., Jiménez, J.R., 2011. Limiting
properties in the characterisation of mixed recycled aggregates for use in the
manufacture of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 25, 3950–3955. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.027.
Alaejos Gutiérrez, P., 2008. Informe del CEDEX para el Ministerio de Medio
Ambiente, Madrid.
Alaejos et al., 2011. Estudio prenormativo sobre la utilización de los RCDs en
hormigón reciclado de aplicación estructural (Proyecto RECNHOR) y Reciclado
de los RCDs como áridos de hormigones estructurales (Proyecto CLEAM). Ed.
IECA. Madrid (España).
Antón Vallejo, M.A., 2004. Utilización del Análisis del ciclo de vida en la evaluación
del impacto ambiental del cultivo bajo invernadero mediterráneo. Capítulo 3.
Metodología del análisis del ciclo de vida. Tesis Doctoral. Universidad
Politécnica de Cataluña.
Arzúa, G., González, M., Arroyo, P., Kurama, Y., 2019. Recycled coarse aggregates
from precast plant and building demolitions: environmental and economic
modeling through stochastic simulations. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 1425–1434.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.049.
Bravo, M., de Brito, J., Pontes, J., Evangelista, L., 2015. Mechanical performance of
concrete made with aggregates from construction and demolition waste
recycling plants. J. Clean. Prod. 99, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.03.012.
Cabral, A.E.B., Schalch, V., Molin, D.C.C.D., Ribeiro, J.L.D., 2010. Mechanical
properties modeling of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 24,
421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.10.011.
Cachim, P.B., 2009. Mechanical properties of brick aggregate concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 23, 1292–1297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.07.023.
Correia, J.R., De Brito, J., Pereira, A.S., 2006. Effects on concrete durability of using
recycled ceramic aggregates. Mater. Struct./Mater. Construct. 39, 169–177.
https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9014-7.
Chen, H., Yen, T., Chen, K., 2003. Use of building rubbles as recycled aggregates. Cem.
Concr. Res. 33, 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00938-9.
Debieb, F., Kenai, S., 2008. The use of coarse and fine crushed bricks as aggregate in
concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 886–893.
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19
November 2008 on waste.
Duran, X., Lenihan, H., O’Regan, B., 2006. A model for assessing the economic viability of
construction and demolition waste recycling – the case of Ireland. Resour. Conserv.
Recycling 46, 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.08.003.
EHE-08, Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural, 2008. Ministerio de Fomento.
Gobierno de España.
EN 933-11:2009. Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates. Part 11:
classification test for the constituents of coarse recycled aggregate.
EN 1097-6:2001. Test for mechanical and physical properties of aggregates. Part 6:
determination of particle density and water absorption.
EN 12350-2:2009. Testing fresh concrete. Part 2: Slump-test.
EN 12390-3:2009. Testing hardened concrete. Part 3: Compressive strength of test
specimens.
EN 12390-8:2009. Testing hardened concrete. Part 8: Depth of penetration of water
under pressure.
EN 12390-13:2013. Testing hardened concrete. Part 13: Determination of secant
modulus of elasticity in compression.
EN ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment.
Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006).
EPA, 2019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sustainable Materials Management.
EPA, 2015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015 Facts and Figures Fact Sheet.
Eurocode 2 (EC-2): Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: general rules and rules
for building. European Standard EN 1992-1-1:2013.
Fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010.
Fonseca, N., De Brito, J., Evangelista, L., 2011. The influence of curing conditions on the
mechanical performance of concrete made with recycled concrete waste. Cem.
Concr. Compos. 33, 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.04.002.
Fraj, A.B., Idir, R., 2017. Concrete based on recycled aggregates – recycling and
environmental analysis: a case study of paris’ region. Constr. Build. Mater. 157,
952–954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.059.
Gangolells, M., Casals, M., Forcada, N., Macarulla, M., 2014. Analysis of the
implementation of effective waste management practices in construction
projects and sites. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 93, 99–111. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.10.006.
García-González, J., Rodríguez-Robles, D., Juan-Valdés, A., Pozo, J.M.M., Guerra-
Romero, M.I., 2014. Pre-saturation technique of the recycled aggregates:
solution to the water absorption drawback in the recycled concrete
manufacture. Materials 7, 6224–6236.
Ghisellini, P., Ripa, M., Ulgiati, S., 2018. Exploring environmental and economic
costs and benefits of a circular economy approach to the construction and
demolition sector. A literature review. J. Clean. Prod J. Clean. Prod. 178, 618–
643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.207.
González-Corominas, A., Etxeberría, M., 2014. Properties of high performance
concrete made with recycled fine ceramic and coarse mixed aggregates. Constr.
Build. Mater. 68, 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.016.
Guía española de áridos reciclados procedentes de residuos de construcción y
demolición (RCD) Proyecto GEAR, 2012. GERD, Gremio de Entidades de Reciclaje
de Derribos, Universidad Politécnica de Catalunya, Universidad Politécnica de
Valencia, Universidad de A Coruña, Universidad de Oviedo, AITEMIN,
INTROMAC y AIDICO, Madrid.
Ihobe, Sociedad Pública de Gestión Ambiental Departamento de Medio Ambiente,
Planificación Territorial, Agricultura y Pesca. Gobierno Vasco. 2009. Análisis de
ciclo de vida y huella de carbono.
Khalaf, F.M., 2006. Using crushed clay brick as coarse aggregate in concrete. J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 18, 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2006) 18:4
(518).
López-Uceda, A., Ayuso, J., López, M., Jiménez, J.R., Agrela, F., Sierra, M.J., 2016.
Properties of non-structural concrete made with mixed recycled aggregates and
low cement content. Materials 9, 74.
Mah, C.M., Fujiwara, T., Ho, C.S., 2018. Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing
toward eco-efficiency concrete waste management in Malaysia. J. Clean. Prod.
172, 3416–3427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.200.
Martínez-Lage, I., Martínez-Abella, F., Vázquez-Herrero, C., Pérez-Ordóñez., J.L.,
2012. Properties of plain concrete made with mixed recycled coarse aggregate.
Constr. Build. Mater. 37, 171–176. DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.045.
 I. Martínez-Lage et al. / Waste Management 104 (2020) 9–19
Mas, B., Cladera, A., 2009. Efecto de la incorporación de árido mixto reciclado en las
propiedades de hormigones no estructurales. Hormigón y Acero. 253, 83–93.
Mas, B., Cladera, A., Olmo, T.D., Pitarch, F., 2012. Influence of the amount of mixed
recycled aggregates on the properties of concrete for non-structural use. Constr.
Build. Mater. 27, 612–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.073.
Matias, D., De Brito, J., Rosa, A., Pedro, D., 2013. Mechanical properties of concrete
produced with recycled coarse aggregates - Influence of the use of
superplasticizers. Constr. Build. Mater. 44, 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.03.011.
Medina, C., Zhu, W., Howind, T., Sánchez De Rojas, M.I., Frías, M., 2014. Influence of
mixed recycled aggregate on the physical-mechanical properties of recycled
concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 68, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.002.
Oficina Catalana de Cambio Climático. Gobierno de Cataluña, 2011. Metodología de
inventarios de gases de efecto invernadero (GEI).
Oficina Española de Cambio Climático. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y
Medio Ambiente. Gobierno de España, 2016. Guía para el cálculo de la huella de
carbono y para la elaboración de un plan de mejora de una organización.
Pacheco-Torgal, F., Tam, V.W.Y., Labrincha, J.A., Ding, Y., de Brito, J., 2013. Handbook
of recycled concrete and demolition waste. Woodhead Publ. Ser. Civil Struct.
Eng. 47.
Rodríguez, G., Medina, C., Alegre, F.J., Asensio, E., Sánchez de Rojas, M.I., 2015.
Assessment of construction and demolition waste plant management in Spain:
in pursuit of sustainability and eco-efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 16–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.067.
Rodríguez-Robles, D., García-González, J., Juan-Valdés, A., Morán del Pozo, J.,
Guerra-Romero, M.I., 2015. Effect of mixed recycled aggregates on mechanical
properties of recycled concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 67 (5), 247–256.
Sánchez de Juan, M., 2010. Áridos reciclados para aplicaciones de hormigón no
estructural. Curso de Construcción no sostenible y reciclaje de residuos, Zaragoza.
19
Tösic, N., Marinkovic, S., Dasic, T., Stanic, M., 2015. Multicriteria optimization of
natural and recycled aggregate concrete for structure use. J. Clean. Prod. 87,
766–775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.070.
Wijayasundara, M., Mendis, P., Crawford, R.H., 2015. Methodology for the integrated
assessment on the use of recycled concrete aggregate replacing natural
aggregate in structural concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 766–776. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.001.
Wang, H., Wang, J., Sun, X., Jin, W., 2013. Improving performance of recycled
aggregate concrete with superfine pozzolanic powders. J. Cent. South Univ. 20,
3715–3722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11771-013-1899-7.
Wijayasundara, M., Mendis, P., Crawford, R.H., 2018. Integrated assessment of the
use of recycled concrete aggregate replacing natural aggregate in structural
concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 591–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.10.301.
Xie, J., Huang, L., Guo, Y., Li, Z., Fang, C., Li, L., Wang, J., 2018. Experimental study on
the compressive and flexural behaviour of recycled aggregate concrete modified
with silica fume and fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 178, 612–623. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.136.
Yang, J., Du, Q., Bao, Y., 2011. Concrete with recycled concrete aggregate and
crushed clay bricks. Constr. Build. Mater. 25, 1935–1945. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.063.
Yuan, H.P., Shen, L.Y., Hao, J.J.L., Lu, W.S., 2011. A model for cost-benefit analysis of
construction and demolition waste management throughout the waste chain.
Resour. Conserv. Recycling 55, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2010.06.004.
Zhang, Y., Luo, W., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Xu, Y., Xiao, J., 2019. A review of life cycle
assessment of recycled aggregate concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 209, 115–125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.078.